List of Figures
Figure 1. Cross-sectional view of the expanded conductor
Figure 2. Electric field profile
Figure 3. Audible noise profile
Figure 4. A 230-kV corridor approaching a substation
Figure 5. A 115-kV corridor along urban streets
Figure 6. Sample line location—street easement and joint occupation
Figure 7. A 115-kV alternative solution for clearance comparison
Figure 8. A 230-kV alternative solution for clearance review
Figure 9. Confined substation location
Figure 10. Crew training during a compression connector installation
Figure 11. A 161-kV transmission line that crosses the Arkansas River
Figure 12. Project overview—New Orleans urban area
Figure 13. Conversion from davit arm to braced-post framing
Figure 14. Sag curve comparison
Figure 15. Stringing wire near the Superdome
Figure 16. Urban construction congestion
Figure 17. Lake crossing with a marina underneath
Figure 18. Lake crossing profile
Figure 19. Sag performance at MOT and ice loading
Figure 20. Spreader beam for stringing
Figure 21. Double suspension insulator assembly
Figure 22. Close-up of an ACCC construction
Figure 23. Typical structure type
Figure 24. Aerial splicing
Figure 25. Double-circuit line and existing substation
Figure 26. ACCC/E3X conductor coursing through a bull wheel
Figure 27. River crossing showing flat terrain
Figure 28. Tower erection showing cross-arm geometry
Figure 29. River crossing towers with the conductor being strung
Figure 30. Aerial view of SCE Eisenhower and Thornhill, 115-kV line
Figure 31. Ratings comparison for different sizes and types of conductors studied
Figure 32. Narrow right-of-way construction on a single pole
Figure 33. Rebuild along a residential street
Figure 34. Map of proposed new 69-kV line
Figure 35. PLS-CADD model for the new 69-kV line
Figure 36. Urban area line route
Figure 37. Monopole with low-sag conductors installed
Figure 38. Stevin project overview3
Figure 39. Double-circuit tower section
Figure 40. A 50-km line route for the Malaysia Cogen connection
Figure 41. Conductor selection options table
Figure 42. River crossing—double-circuit, 275-kV line
Figure 43. Mid-river dead-end assembly installation
Figure 44. Mercury Cable HVCRC
Figure 45. Double compression dead-end connectors being installed
Figure 46. Reactive power demand online
Figure 47. Time-stress-temperature run—tensile test hot/cold
Figure 48. Time-stress-temperature run—tensile test hot
Figure 49. Transition point and elasticity modulus for the ZTACIR 341/109 conductor
Figure 50. Conductor elongation under pre-stress
Figure 51. Completed 330-kV tower line
Figure 52. Alubar aluminum conductor fiber reinforced conductor
Figure 53. Details of the dead-end connection provided by the conductor manufacturer
Figure 54. Splice connector compression during an ACFR conductor installation
Figure 55. Installation using the layout method of the bottom phase conductor
Figure 56. A 138-kV circuits diagram between Barreiro and Bonsucesso substations
Figure 57. Details of the dead-end connection installation on the attack place
Figure 58. Details of destranding the conductor and dead-end connection handling
Figure 59. Details of the dead-end connection installation
Figure 60. ACCC conductor with the dead-end fitting already compressed inside the sheave and ACCC conductor damage
List of Tables
Table 1. Overview of the conductor case studies
Table 2. A 115-kV line alternative for conductor solutions
Table 3. A 230-kV line alternative for conductor solutions
Table 4. AEP examples of ACCC installations
Table 5. Alternative conductor comparison
Table 6. Issues associated with upgrade options considered
Table 7. Conductor parameter comparison of ZTACIR and an in-service conductor
Table 8. Conductor options considered
Table 9. Comparison between ACSR Linnet and ACFR T-Linnet
Table 10. Comparison between ACSR Hawk and GZTACSR conductors
Table 11. Comparison between ACSR Linnet and ACCC Linnet conductors