[panel panel-style="panel" title="%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8BPlease%20Read%20Before%20Downloading%20NEETRAC%20Reports"]
NEETRAC reports are proprietary and confidential to its members for internal use only except as provided in NEETRAC's Publication Policy. NRECA is making the reports and other NEETRAC information available to NRECA's members through permission by NEETRAC via our membership agreement.
By accessing (downloading/viewing) any NEETRAC report, the reader agrees to abide by the restrictions as to the use and sharing of information contained in said report. The reader acknowledges that the applicable restrictions are stipulated in the NEETRAC Bylaws along with the various Application Procedures as promulgated by the NEETRAC Management Board on a regular basis. These Bylaws and Applicable Procedures are posted on the member-restricted segment of the NEETRAC website. See
neetrac.org and contact NEETRAC for more information.
[/panel]
Funding: Joint
NEETRAC PROJECT #: 13-169
Date Closed: 8/1/2016
Accurate ratings for overhead and underground lines require an accurate knowledge of the conductor ac resistance. Unfortunately, the ac resistance is difficult to measure. A longstanding pragmatic approach is to calculate the parameters that impact ac resistance - skin effect and the proximity effect. Concerns with this approach include lack of agreement with experimental data and the use of experimental data that is not directly applicable for today's conductors. This includes very large (1600 mm2 +) sizes for underground cables and twisted pair, insulated strands and composite cores for overhead conductors. Overhead conductors have geometries that are difficult to calculate and there are additional computational difficulties with new composite core materials. Additionally, experimental measurement procedures are not straightforward. In this project, NEETR.AC reviewed existing approaches to measuring the ac resistance of conductors and performed limited tests in the laboratory to determine the most practical approach. The tests established a proof of concept for a thermal and an electrical method. It was found that thermal method appears to be an appropriate and practical approach because it yields values that match expectations and it allows for comparisons between standard designs and different novel designs. The electrical measurement methods yielded results that were not in agreement with accepted values.
