Loadability of 400 kV Four-Bundled
Overhead Transmission Lines
D. Lauria*, and S. Quaia**
*Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Napoli, (Italy)
**Department of Engineering and Architecture, University of Trieste, Via Valerio 10, 34127 Trieste, (Italy)
Abstract—The transmission capacity of high voltage
overhead power transmission lines (OHLs) can be increased
in different ways. One of these is to increase the number of
standard ACSR (Aluminium Conductor Steel Reinforced)
conductors forming the bundles of OHLs. This paper
analyzes the performance of 400 kV, four-conductor
bundled (4B) OHLs in terms of loadability, i.e. the
maximum power that can be transmitted as a function of
the length of the line. First, we calculate the loadability
curve of 4B OHLs and then we compare it with that of
three-conductor bundled (3B) OHLs, the common solution
adopted in Italy and in other countries for the 400 kV
voltage level. We calculate the loadability curves up to a
length of 500 km, assuming the same standard conductor
for both 3B and 4B lines, and keeping into account the
conductor thermal limit, maximum voltage drop, maximum
power losses, and steady-state stability limit.
Index Terms—Line loadability, Overhead transmission
lines, Power transmission, Transmission lines.
I. INTRODUCTION
To improve the transmission capacity of high voltage
overhead power transmission lines (OHLs) is an
important goal in many western countries, where
authorizations and local oppositions obstacle the
expansion of power systems. This objective can be
reached through different approaches. One of these is to
increase the number of the standard ACSR (Aluminium
Conductor Steel Reinforced) conductors used in the
bundles of OHLs.
This paper analyzes the performance of 400 kV, four-
conductor bundled (4B) OHLs in terms of loadability,
which is the maximum power that can be transported by a
line as a function of its length L [1, 2]. We first calculate
the loadability curve of 4B OHLs, assuming that the four
conductors per phase are disposed on the vertexes of a
square with 400 mm side. Then we compare the 4B
loadability curve with the loadability curve of the
traditional three-conductor bundled (3B) solution adopted
in Italy for 400 kV OHLs, with the three conductors
placed at the distance of 400 mm to form an equilateral
triangle.
The loadability characteristics are calculated up to a
maximum line length of 500 km, keeping into account:
- the conductor thermal limit, IMAX;
This work was financially supported by the Università degli Studi di
Trieste – Finanziamento di Ateneo per progetti di ricerca scientifica –
FRA 2014.
978-1-4799-8704-7/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE
- the maximum voltage drop allowed across the line,
ǻVMAX;
- the maximum power losses allowed, ǻPMAX;
- the steady-state stability limit.
Each of these items limits the current (power)
transported. The thermal limit depends on the conductor
and is independent on the length of the line. Conversely,
all the other items limit the current (power) under a
maximum value that is a function of the line length. In
general, for short lines, the line loadability corresponds to
the thermal limit. For intermediate lengths, the limiting
factor is the voltage drop limit, whereas the steady-state
stability limit affects the line loadability only in case of
very long lines [1-4]. Power losses can affect the
loadability of HVDC lines, but usually does not prevail
on the voltage drop limit in HVAC lines [3-4]. Thus, we
devote a special attention to the voltage drop limit (that is
treated in Section 3) whereas, for the goal of this paper,
the power losses limit (treated in Section 4) and the
stability limits (treated in Section 5) are less important.
It is worth of noting that the emphasis of this paper is
on the increase of OHLs transmission capacity. But there
are also environmental benefits that can derive from the
adoption of 4B lines. One of these concerns CO2
emissions: with the same power transported, 4B lines
have lower losses than 3B lines, and this results in lower
CO2 emissions. A second benefit concerns the audible
noise: as known, e greater number of bundled conductors
reduces the electric field in the bundle proximity and,
thus, the “corona effect” and the related audible noise,
which may be significant in case of adverse weather
conditions.
II. LINE PARAMETERS AND THERMAL LIMIT
We assume the usual ACSR standard conductor with
S=585 mm2 cross section for both 3B and 4B lines. The
relevant per unit length line parameters are reported in
Table 1.
TABLE I
3B AND 4B LINE PARAMETERS
Resistance Reactance Conductance Susceptance
x3B=0.271 b =4.10˜10-6
3B r3B=0.021 :/km g3B=4˜10-9 S/km 3B
:/km S/km
x4B=0.247 b4B=4.50˜10-6
4B r4B=0.75r3B g4B=4˜10-9 S/km
:/km S/km
These values yield:
160
 - surge impedance: Z03B=257.4 :, Z04B=234.3 :;
- surge impedance level: SIL3B=622 MW, SIL4B=683
MW.
According to the Italian Standard CEI 11-60 [5], the
thermal limit of the 3B conductor, IMAX3B, ranges between
2038 A and 2952 A, depending on the season and
geographical location. In this paper we take the lowest,
most conservative value (IMAX3B = 2038 A). This choice
can be justified reminding that operative network
constraints (security margins) impose line operation with
suitable margins under the thermal limits. In addition,
line terminating equipment and substation design
sometimes have a more restrictive thermal limit than the
line itself. However, as these aspects are system-
dependent and are not imposed by the line itself, they are
not considered here.
Assuming the nominal voltage at the receiving end of
the line (V2=1 p.u.), the corresponding apparent power is
AMAX3B=1412 MVA and the maximum (real) power
capability of the line, in steady-state operation, is
PMAX3B=AMAX3BcosM2, being cosM2 the power factor at the
receiving end of the line.
For the 4B line, all these values can be simply
multiplied by 4/3.
III. VOLTAGE DROP LIMIT
In the classical works on the loadability of OHLs, the
voltage drop limit, ǻVMAX, is treated as a constant
parameter whose values are typically assumed around 5%
[1, 3, 4]. However, as the length of the line increases, this
limit becomes more and more stringent and strongly
reduces the OHL transport capacity [3, 4].
Figure 1 illustrates this remarkable reduction, in the
case ǻVMAX=5% and cosM2=1.
2000
1500
Active power (MW)
1000
500
0 this phenomenon is not visible in the traditional
0 100 200 300
Length (km)
Fig. 1. Loadability curves for 3B and 4B 400 kV OHLs, with:
cosij2=1 and ǻVMAX=5%.
Figure 1 shows that, for a traditional 3B line 200 km
long, the limit power is about 2/3 the value corresponding
to the (lowest) thermal limit, whereas for a 400 km long
line, the limit power is less than 1/2 the value
corresponding to the thermal limit. For 4B lines, the
loadability reduction is even greater.
In real cases, this situation further worsens because of
less-than-one values of load power factor. Notice that, in
milestone works – see for example [1] –, the loadability
of OHLs is computed assuming the limit (or ideal) power
factor value cosM2=1. However, in 230÷400 kV OHLs,
real power factor values usually range approximately
between 0.95 and 1 and, consequently, the voltage drop
across the line can be much greater than in the limit case
cosM2=1. Figure 2 illustrates the effect of a lower power
factor (cosM2=0.95) in the same case considered in the
previous Figure 1.
2000
4B
3B
1500
Active Power (MW)
1000
500
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Length (km)
Fig. 2. Loadability curves for 3B and 4B 400 kV OHLs, with:
cosij2=0.95 and ǻVMAX=5%.
It is worth of noting that the loadability curves
illustrated in Figure 2 have a minimum value at about 370
km, and increase for longer lines. This non-intuitive
behavior is due to the reactive parameters of the line, and
is somehow similar to the well-known Ferranti effect. As
4B already noticed and commented in [3], for a given set of
3B line parameters (r, x, g, b), a given load power factor and
a given maximum voltage drop 'VMAX, a length value
exists, L*, for which the line current (power) has a
minimum value Imin (Pmin). Hereafter, increasing L, the
line current (power) that causes the same voltage drop
'VMAX slightly increases. This “voltage drop inversion”
length, L*, increases with cosM2 and with 'VMAX. For
cosM2=1, L* is very high and exceeds by far the range of
lengths here considered, as well as those considered in
previous milestone works [1, 2]. This is the reason why
400 500 loadability curves.
Comparing the curves of Figure 1 and Figure 2 one
can see that:
1) the loadability of both 3B and 4B lines remarkably
reduce with cosM2;
2) the same happens for the breakeven length between the
thermal limit and the voltage drop limit.
All this considered, for calculation of 3B lines and 4B
lines loadability curves we assume:
1- power factor values at the receiving end of the line
included in the range: cosM2=0.95÷1;
161
2- two different models for the maximum voltage drop
allowed, ǻVMAX. The first model considers a constant 0.12
value (we assume the classical value ǻVMAX=5%),
whereas in the second model ǻVMAX is an increasing 0.1
function of L [km]. More precisely, we assume ǻVMAX

Voltage drop (p.u.)

equal to 5% for L up to 100 km, and then ǻV MAX 0.08
increasing linearly with L, so as to reach a maximum
value of 10% for the maximum line length L=500 km 0.06
(that is, for very long lines):
0.04 ' VMAX variable, cos I 2=1
ǻVMAX = 5% for L”100 km;
ǻVMAX = 3.75% + 0.0125%L for L>100 km (1) ' VMAX variable, cos I 2=0.99
0.02
' VMAX variable, cos I 2=0.95
We point out that the second model may be regarded
0
not acceptable for voltage control purpose in case of long 0 100 200 300 400 500
lines. Nevertheless, we choose to adopt it – in addition to Length (km)
the model ǻVMAX = constant = 5% – for loadability Fig. 4. Voltage drop at the loadability limit for 4B 400 kV OHLs.
calculations because it allows to “relax” the voltage drop
limit, carrying much current (power) in case of relatively
long lines. This way, the strong impact on the loadability IV. POWER LOSSES LIMIT
curves of the voltage drop limit is prudentially reduced. As to the maximum power losses along the line, we set
This reduction is illustrated in Figure 3, which compares ǻPMAX%=ǻVMAX%. In this case power losses do not
the maximum transmissible power calculated with the affect the loadability curves of 3B and 4B lines. For
two different models for 4B lines. example, Figure 5 - which refers to the model (1) - shows
Anyway, as pointed out in the Section VI below, the that power losses do not reach the limit ǻP MAX since the
results show that the comparison between the loadability current (power) is limited by the voltage drop limit
curves of 4B lines and 3B lines is not significantly ǻVMAX. In other words, the voltage drop limit prevails
affected by the specific maximum voltage drop model over the power losses limit. This result is in agreement
assumed. with that obtained in [3, 4], where ǻVMAX was set equal
to 5% (constant).
2000
4B ' VMAX variable 0.05
4B cos I 2=1
4B ' VMAX=5%
1500 4B cos I 2=0.95
0.04
Active power (MW)

3B cos I 2=1
Power losses (p.u)

3B cos I 2=0.95
1000 0.03

0.02
500

0.01

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Length (km) 0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Fig. 3. 4B 400 kV OHLs loadability, for the two different voltage drop Length (km)
limits (case: cosij2=1). Fig. 5. Power losses in 3B and 4B 400 kV OHLs.

For 4B lines, adopting the second model expressed by V. STABILITY LIMIT

(1) we get the voltage drop at the loadability limit shown
in Figure 4. In agreement with the previous Figures 1 and Classical works on line loadability refer to the steady-
2, Figure 4 clearly shows that the voltage drop becomes state stability and calculate the stability limit by imposing
the limiting factor for lines longer than 96 km in the ideal a proper stability margin Pmax. In agreement with [1-4],
case cosM2=1 but, in case of lower power factors, for where the reader can find further details, here we derive
the stability limit using the well-known equation:
much shorter lines. For example, in the case cosM2=0.95,
the voltage drop becomes the limiting factor for lines
longer than 42 km only.

162
 Equation (2) refers to the line in series with the
Thévenin equivalent of the network at one line end. 1.35
Therefore, X=Xnet+XL is the total system reactance, XL 'VMAX variable, cos I 2=1
the line reactance, Xnet=V2/Asc the network equivalent 1.3
cos I 2=0.99
reactance, Asc the short-circuit power at one line end, ES
1.25 cos I 2=0.95
and E2 the phase-to-ground voltages at either end of X.

Active power ratio

We assume ES#1.05 p.u., E2=1 p.u., Asc=20y30 GVA
1.2
(which are typical values in the Italian 400 kV
transmission network) and a maximum value of the total
1.15
system angular displacement Gmax=40°, which
corresponds to a36% stability margin. 1.1
Using these values, steady-state stability affects the
loadability of the considered 3B and 4B lines only for 1.05
lines longer than 500 km, as Figure 6 shows. Actually,
the curves reported in Figure 6 depend on several 1
variables (for instance Gmax and Asc) but they do not 0 100 200 300 400 500
Length (km)
change by much, unless the stability margin is
considerably increased. Fig. 7. Ratio 4B/3B lines loadability curves for different values of
Thus, we can assume that the steady-state stability power factor.
limit prevails over the other limits only for very long
lines (L>500 km), and in what follows we will neglect Figure 7 clearly shows that this reduction is not
stability considerations1. gradual but is very sharp, and starts at L values (which
are called “useful” lengths in what follows) that depend
40
mainly on the actual power factor. Notice that, for a given
line, the situation can be different in different operating
35 4B conditions. Consider, for example, the case of an 80 km
3B long OHL: the maximum power with 4B exceeds by 33%
30 the power relevant to the 3B arrangement only in case of
Power angle (degree)

25 extremely high power factor values (cosM2~1). Otherwise,

if the power factor equals 0.99 or less, the advantage of
20 the four-conductor solution drastically reduces to
12÷13%.
15
The curves reported in Figure 7 are derived assuming
10 the model (1) for the voltage drop limit. However, they
keep practically unchanged if the constant voltage drop
5 limit ǻVMAX=5% is used.
By setting higher voltage drop limits (for example,
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 ǻVMAX=7%, which might be still acceptable for voltage
Length [km] control purpose), the curves change, and the main
Fig. 6. Angle G for 3B and 4B lines operated at the loadability limit
difference is a moderate increase of the “useful” lengths.
(worst case: cosij2=1 and using the model (1)). In addition, the curves reported in Figure 7 depend on the
thermal limit: the higher the thermal limit, the lower the
“useful” lengths.
VI. DISCUSSION Overall, this analysis leads to the conclusion that, with
Figure 7 shows the ratio between the loadability of 4B respect to the traditional 3B lines, 4B lines can provide a
and 3B lines. remarkable advantage in terms of transmission capacity
The ratio is equal to the intuitive value 4/3 only for in case of limited line length. Conversely, for relatively
relatively short lines, i.e. for lengths under 42 km (for long lines this advantage significantly reduces.
cosM2=0.95), 63 km (for cosM2=0.99) or 96 km (for 4B lines, therefore, can be especially useful in highly
cosM2=1). For longer lines, the ratio and, thus, the meshed power systems. An example is the Italian 400 kV
advantage – in terms of line loadability – of 4B lines, network, in which the average OHLs length is around 50
quickly reduces in the range 10÷13%, according to line km and only a small percentage of OHLs exceeds L=100
length and power factor. km.
The main parameter affecting the “useful” line length
is the load power factor, and the relationship between
these two parameters is highly not linear. Figure 7 clearly
1
In some specific cases, the stability limit can be calculated referring to shows that the “useful” length quickly reduces as the
transient stability, instead of steady-state stability. This approach leads power factor passes from 1 to 0.99, whereas further
to a dramatic reduction of the line loadability, as discussed in [3-4] for power factor reductions cause much lower reductions of
3B lines. However, we defer the investigation of this aspect to a future
work. the “useful” length.

163
 VII. CONCLUSIONS
The analysis performed in this paper, relevant to the
400 kV voltage level, allows to quantify the improvement
of transmission capacity that would be allowed passing
from the 3B OHLs, which is the most frequent
arrangement in Italy and in other countries, to the 4B
OHLs.
The analysis is based on the calculation and
comparison of the loadability curves of 3B and 4B lines.
The loadability curves are computed accounting for the
conductor thermal limit, the voltage drop limit, the power
losses limit, and the steady-state stability limit. However,
for line lengths up to 500 km, only the first two items
affect the loadability curves of the considered OHLs.
The methodological approach used in this paper is
theoretical, and does not considers the security margins
imposed in power systems for frequency control needs
and N-1 security criterium but, on the other hand, it has
the advantage to provide general results, since the results
are not affected by the local features of any individual
real OHL and the network around it.
As the maximum voltage drop ǻVMAX has a strong
impact on the loadability curves of OHLs, we performed
calculations using different voltage drop limit models.
The results demonstrate that the power ratio between 4B
and 3B lines changes just a little with the specific model
assumed.
The main result of this work is that the advantage
provided by 4B lines strongly depends on the line length
and on the load power factor. Concerning this, notice
that, for any individual line, the length is a fixed and
known parameter, whereas the power factor changes with
time.
164
The advantage of 4B lines in terms of loadability is
equal to the expected value 33% only up to a limited line
length, which we call “useful length”, roughly in the
range between 40 and 100 km, and hereafter it decreases
sharply and then settles at a much lower value, in the
range between 10% and 13%, depending on the length of
the line. The useful length depends mainly on the power
factor, and decreases with it.
As a final remark, these results show that the 4B
solution can be fully exploited to increase power
transmission in case of short lines and, thus, could find
useful applications especially in highly meshed power
systems.
REFERENCES
[1] R. D. Dunlop, R. Gutman, and P. P. Marchenko,
“Analytical development of loadability characteristics for
EHV and UHV transmission lines”, IEEE Transactions
Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-98, no. 2, pp.
606–613, Mar./Apr. 1979.
[2] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control. McGraw-
Hill, the EPRI Power System Engineering Series, 1994, pp.
228-230.
[3] D. Lauria, G. Mazzanti, and S. Quaia, “The Loadability of
Overhead Transmission Lines. Part I: Analysis of Single-
Circuits”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 29,
no. 1, February 2014, pp. 29-37.
[4] D. Lauria, G. Mazzanti, and S. Quaia, “The Loadability of
Overhead Transmission Lines. Part II: Analysis of Double-
Circuits and Overall Comparison”, IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivery, vol. 29, no. 2, April 2014, pp. 518-524.
[5] “Portata al Limite Termico Delle Linee Elettriche Aeree
Esterne con Tensione Maggiore di 100 kV” (in Italian),
Italian Standard CEI 11-60, June 2002, 2nd Ed.