0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

8 Ansichten42 SeitenInvestigate what influences the support placement of transmission lines, as well as what consequences non-standard spans can have and how to identify them

Dec 21, 2018

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

Investigate what influences the support placement of transmission lines, as well as what consequences non-standard spans can have and how to identify them

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

8 Ansichten42 SeitenInvestigate what influences the support placement of transmission lines, as well as what consequences non-standard spans can have and how to identify them

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 42

VEHICLE ENGINEERING

AND THE MAIN FIELD OF STUDY

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,

SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS

STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2017

power line engineers

Methodology for design of non-standard

transmission line supports

LINNEA SJÖHOLM

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES

Abstract

The high voltage power network in Sweden consists mainly of overhead power lines, that

is conductors suspended in the air by supports. Ideally when projecting a power line, all

supports should be placed equidistantly and the conductors should be suspended at equal

height. When this is not applied, the support placement may have consequences, such as

uplifting forces in a support, which should be avoided. The objective of this thesis was to

investigate both what inuences the support placement, and what consequences that may

come out of it.

This was investigated using mainly analytical calculations on poles and conductors, but

was also implemented on a specic case. When solving the case, support placement and

FEM software were also used and compared with the analytical calculations.

It was found that the support placement is inuenced by both environmental factors; such

as terrain, obstacles and solidity of the ground, as well as how long spans that are possible

to construct. The span length is the distance between two nearby supports and is limited

by sag, that is the deection of the conductors, and the strength of the supports.

The sag is dependent on the tension in the conductor, which is dependent on wind and

ice loads, temperature and creep; a permanent elongation that for certain materials occur

over time even if the load is constant. Since the sag will increase over time, and especially

at high temperatures, the distance between the conductors and the ground will decrease.

This extra deection must be accounted for when designing the power line and determining

the span length.

When it comes to support designing, both bending and buckling should be accounted for.

The greatest loads the supports are inuenced by are transferred from the conductors,

and therefore are dependent of the span length. An analysis of buckling and bending as

function of span length was therefore conducted on non-guyed timber pole supports. It was

concluded that bending stresses; due to wind loads on the support and especially on the

conductors, are usually the critical aspect when designing standard power line supports.

i

Sammanfattning

Sveriges högspänningskraftledningar består till största delen av luftledning, det vill säga

linor upphängda i stolpar. Vid projektering av en kraftledning är det fördelaktigt att plac-

era alla stolpar med lika avstånd mellan varandra och hänga upp alla linor på samma höjd.

När detta inte kan tillämpas kan stolpplaceringen få konsekvenser, till exempel lyftkrafter

i en stolpe, vilka bör undvikas. Syftet med detta examensarbete var att undersöka vad

som påverkar stolpplaceringen samt vilka konsekvenser den kan ge upphov till.

Detta undersöktes först med analytiska beräkningar på stolpar och linor, och implementer-

ades sedan på ett verkligt exempelfall. Vid implementeringen användes även stolpplacer-

ingsprogram och FEM, vilket jämfördes med de analytiska beräkningarna.

Stolpplaceringen beror till stor del på omgivningen; bland annat terräng, hinder och

markens bärighet, men också på hur långa spann som är möjliga att bygga. Spannlängden

är avståndet mellan två kraftledningsstolpar och är beroende av linans nedhängning samt

stolparnas hållfasthet.

Nedhängningen är beroende av dragkraften i linan, vilken i sin tur är beroende av is- och

vindlast, temperatur och krypning, vilket är en permanent töjning som för vissa material

uppstås under en längre tid trots att lasten inte förändras. Eftersom linans nedhängning

kommer att öka med tiden, speciellt vid högre temperatur, kommer avståndet mellan linan

och marken att minska. Denna minskning av avstånd måste tas hänsyn till vid projektering

av kraftledningar, och speciellt vid bestämning av spannlängd.

Vid dimensionering av stolpar behöver hänsyn tas till både böjning och knäckning. De

största lasterna som verkar på stolparna är lasterna som överförs från linorna, och är

därför beroende av spannlängden. Med anledning av detta gjordes en analys av böjning

och knäckning av ostagade trästolpar som funktion av spannlängd. Den slutsats som

kunde dras från detta var att böjspänningar uppkomna av vindlaster på stolpar och linor

är nästan alltid den kritiska aspekten vid dimensionering av vanliga trästolpar.

ii

Acknowledgements

Nektab, for always asking the right questions and providing helpful feedback. I would also

like to thank Stefan Thiel, my second supervisor at Nektab, for sharing of his technical

expertise and experience with power line projects. My grateful thanks are also extended

to Sören Östlund, my supervisor at KTH, for providing me support and guidance during

this master thesis work.

iii

Contents

Nomenclature vi

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Theoretical background 3

2.1 Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.2 Sag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.2.1 Ruling span . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.2.2 Slack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.3 Height dierence consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.3.1 Uplifting forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.3.2 Insulator swing-out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.4 Strength of timber poles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.4.1 Bending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.4.2 Buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.4.3 Safety factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3 Implementation: Power line crossing the Göta Canal 15

3.2 Support placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.3 Evaluation of support placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.4 Uplift solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.4.1 Solution alternative 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

iv

3.4.2 Solution alternative 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.4.3 Solution alternative 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.5 Support designing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.5.1 Solution alternative 2 - suspension supports with counter weights . . 23

3.5.2 Solution alternative 3 - tension supports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4 Discussion 29

5 Conclusions 31

6 Further work 32

7 References 33

v

Nomenclature

should be kept for all load cases.

Conductors The wires which transfer the current.

Distribution network The local power network.

Guy A wire attached to the ground and the support in order to

strengthen the support.

Insulator An object, usually a chain of plates made of glass, porcelain

or composite, which isolates the conductors from the support

structure.

Overhead lines Power lines in the air, not buried in the ground.

Projection The process in a power line project where computations on

conductors, supports, foundations and magnetic elds are con-

ducted.

Sag The deection of the conductor.

Span The distance between two transmission line supports.

Strut mount Where the guy wires are attached to the pole.

Supports The structures that the overhead power lines are attached to.

Suspension support A support where the conductor is not xed, only suspended.

Tension support A support where the conductor is xed and pre-tensioned.

Transmission network The high voltage networks; the national grid and the regional

power network.

vi

1 Introduction

Sweden's power line industry has its roots in the 19 century, and has since then developed

th

into a nation wide power network with 555,000 km of power lines with connections abroad.

Most of the transmission supports in use today were built many decades ago and are

approaching their end of service date. Renewing the existing supports and expanding

the power network will cost several billion Swedish kronor the upcoming years, and this

raises a demand for nding a more eective method when designing the supports. An

eective method will save costs both by minimizing the work hours and avoiding oversized

constructions without compromising safety.

The power network can be divided into three dierent levels; the national grid, the regional

network and the local network. The national grid, which is the backbone of the Swedish

power network (Figure 1), is owned by the Swedish state through the company Svenska

Kraftnät. The grid consists of power lines with voltages of 220 kV and 400 kV respectively,

and is used to transport power to the regional network all over Sweden. The regional

network has a voltage of 40-130 kV and is mostly owned by three major power companies;

E.ON Elnät Sverige AB, Vattenfall Eldistribution AB and Ellevio AB. It transports power

to larger industries and local networks, which distributes electricity to smaller industries

and all households in Sweden. The local network has voltages up to 20 kV.

Only the national grid and the regional network will be considered in this thesis since the

projection of those kinds of power lines has more mechanical and less electrical aspects

1

than projection of distribution power lines. Overhead power lines is the alternative mostly

used when dealing with these high voltage alternating current networks. One of the major

reasons why ground cables usually are not used is that substantial phase shifts between

current and voltage quickly arises when the cable is buried in the ground. A consequence

[2]

of this is that great amounts of electricity become useless after short distances. Other

advantages with overhead lines are that they have twice as long life length before they

need to be replaced, they are much easier to troubleshoot and repair in case an error arises

and they are much cheaper to build. [2]

All high voltage power line spans need an individual investigation, but some are more

dicult to nd a solution to than others; these are called non-standard spans. Non-

standard spans usually means that there is some kind of obstacle which makes it necessary

to make the span longer or higher than usual, or that the power line can not go straight

and one or several angle points have to be introduced. For this thesis, the denition of a

non-standard span has been chosen as when a support either has to be modied or replaced

by another support type, as a result of non-standard complications. Even if there are only

a small amount of non-standard spans in a power line project, these spans usually requires

a majority of the projection time since their design is complex.

Nektab is a consulting company in the power line business. Since the projection of these

non-standard spans are complex, Nektab requested a computational handbook in order

to nd a good projection method and speed up the projection process, and this will be

investigated in this master thesis report.

1.1 Objective

The objective of this master thesis is to investigate what inuences the support placement

of transmission lines, as well as what consequences non-standard spans can have and how

to identify them.

2

2 Theoretical background

When projecting a power line, some parameters are specied by the client. This usually

includes the start and end point, the path of the power line and the type of supports and

conductor. A lot of data such as the material properties of the conductor are therefore

already given, what is to be decided is mostly the placement of the supports and support

modications, if needed, due to loads transferred from the conductors.

There are two length dimensions used when calculating the loads on the conductors. The

dimensions are wind span, a , and weight span, a . The wind span, or horizontal loading

length, is the dimension used for horizontal loads such as wind. The wind load on the

h v

the wind span is dened as the mean value of the span length before and after the support,

see Figure 2. [9]

The weight span, or vertically loading length, is the dimension used when calculating

vertical loads such as dead weight of the conductor and ice loads. A support is assumed to

be inuenced by vertical loads acting on the section of adjacent spans which weigh it down,

and therefore is the weight span dened as the distance between the lowest line point in

the span before the support and the lowest line point in the span after the support, see

Figure 3. Since the sag, which is the deection of the conductor, changes for dierent

[9]

3

2.1 Loads

The highest loads acting on the conductors are dead weight, ice load, wind load and

temperature load. The dead weight transferred to the support, G [N], can be calculated

according to

c

G =g g a ,

c e v (1)

where g [m/s ] is the gravitational constant, g [kg/m] is the self weight of the conductor

2

per meter and the weight span a is given in meters. If the conductor is covered in ice, the

e

vertical load will increase. The thickness of the ice layer might vary for dierent regions,

v

but the ice load transferred to the support at normal wind conditions, Q [N], can usually

be calculated as

I

Q =I a ,

I v (2)

where the weight span a is given in meters and the ice load per meter conductor, I [N/m],

is given by

v

[3]

I = 9.2 + 5.1 10 d, −4

(3)

where d [m] is the diameter of the conductor.

The wind load on the conductor transferred to the support, Q [N], can be calculated as wc

Q = q G G C d a cos φ

wc h q c c h

2

(4)

where q [N/m ] is the dynamic wind pressure, d [m] is the diameter of the conductor, a

2

[m] is the wind span and φ is the angle of incidence of the wind. The rest of the parameters

h h

are design factors which, according to the Swedish standard, should be chosen as G = 1.0,

G = 0.5 and C = 1.0 for normal circumstances. When calculating the wind load with

q

[3]

c c

d = d + 0.036.

ice (5)

The dynamic wind pressure is given by where h is the conductor's height above the

[3]

h

2

h

h

2

h

ground. The wind load per meter on timber poles, Q [N/m ], should be calculated

2

as

wpol

[3]

When calculating the total load transferred to the support, E [N], the following equation

should be used

d

E =

d

X

γ G +ΨG

X

K γ Q , Q (7)

nK

where G denotes permanent loads, such as dead weight, and Q denotes variable loads,

such as ice and wind loads. The permanent loads are usually multiplied with a unit factor

K nK

since the dead weight of supports and equipment are assumed not to change. The variable

4

loads are usually multiplied with factors greater than one since they vary with weather

and might be both higher and lower than the values used when calculating wind and ice

loads. The factors Ψ = 1.0, γ = 1.0 and γ = 1.3 should be used for ultimate limit

state calculations. Ultimate limit state is when the overhead power line no longer satises

G Q

the design performance and is usually associated with structural failure due to excessive

deformation, loss of stability, buckling, etcetera. [3]

2.2 Sag

The span length, which is the distance between the supports, is determined by the maxi-

mum allowed sag and the strength of the supports. The vertical deection of a conductor,

y [m], can be estimated according to [7]

T wS w S

(8)

y(z) = − cosh − cosh −z ,

w 2T T 2

where T [N] is the horizontal tension component in the conductor, which is assumed to be

uniform along the conductor. The weight of the conductor per unit length is denoted by

w [N/m], S [m] is the span length and z [m] is the position along the conductor where the

sag is calculated. For highly tensioned wires, which a conductor is assumed to be since it

is pre-tensioned, Equation (8) can be simplied as

w 2

(9)

y(z) ≈ z − zS .

2T

S wS 2

(10)

D=y ≈− .

2 8T

made with a standard conductor for the regional network with span a length of 150 m.

The conductor type was a 593 mm Al59 conductor, that is a aluminum alloy conductor

2

with a cross sectional area of 593 mm . No wind or ice loads where added, only pre-tension

2

at 0 C. The pre-tension, U [N/mm ], was varied between 1-50 N/mm . The deection de-

◦ 2 2

noted by y (continuous line) was calculated using the cosine hyperbolic expression whereas

the deection denoted D (noncontinuous line) was calculated using the parabolic approx-

imation. The pre-tension in the conductor is denoted by U . The dierence between the

two solutions in Figure 4 is plotted in percent in Figure 5.

From the graphs can be concluded that, depending on the accuracy of the calculations,

a 593 mm AL59 conductor pre-tensioned to 10 N/mm or more can be considered to be

2 2

a highly tensioned wire. Since conductors usually are pre-tensioned to 45 N/mm , the 2

approximation is applicable.

5

Figure 4: Vertical deection using Equation (8) versus simple parabolic approximation. A 593 mm2 Al59

conductor with span length 150 m was used, with no loading at 0◦ C only dierent pre-tension.

The length dimension used when calculating sag is ruling span, which is dened as

(11)

sP

S 3

an = P k,

Sk

where S [m] is the span length for span k = 1, 2, 3, .., n. The ruling span does not include

all spans for one power line, but all spans between two tension supports, that is supports

k

with tension insulators. A power line consists mostly of suspension supports, that is

supports with suspension insulators, in which the conductors are not xed only suspended,

see Figure 6 for visual explanation.

2.2.2 Slack

The elongation of the conductor depends on the tension in the conductor, which varies with

wind, ice and temperature loads, as well as creep. Creep is a permanent elongation which,

for certain materials, can arise over time even if the load is constant. When mounting the

power line, sag calculations can be made assuming that the only tension in the conductor

is the pre-tension. This is however not valid otherwise, various loads and permanent

elongation will soon aect the sag. The elongation of the conductor is mainly inuenced

by three strain components; thermal strain, elastic strain and long-time creep strain, as

shown in Figure 7. The thermal strain varies with temperature changes in the air, but it

is also caused by the rise in temperature due to the current in the conductor. The elastic

strain varies with wind and ice loads. The long-time creep strain is a permanent elongation

6

Figure 5: Dierences between the deections plotted in Figure 4.

which will only get larger with time, and occurs due to self weight of the conductor and

ice loads.

This elongation, or the length dierence compared to the original conductor length, is

called slack. Slack does not aect the span length, S [m], only the line length, L [m]. Slack

is dened as

Slack = L − S. (12)

Assuming that all sag components come from slack, the sag calculation can be simplied

as[5]

(13)

s

3S(L − S)

Dslack = .

8

possible. Sometimes however, for example when crossing a railway or river, one support

has to be higher than the others. In some cases, height dierences in the power line comes

from height dierences in the terrain. Regardless of the reason, the height dierence may

cause problems with nearby supports.

7

Figure 6: Example of tension support (strain structure) to the left and suspension suspension (suspension

structure) to the right.[4]

One of the consequences can be uplifting forces. Uplift means that the conductors push

the suspension insulators upwards instead of hanging in the insulator hooks with all forces

acting downwards or horizontally, as they should, see Figure 8.

The uplifting force, L [kg/phase], can be calculated according to

F

[9]

L =q aF , e v−40 (14)

where q [kg/m] is the dead weight of the conductor and a [m] is the weight span at

-40 C. The weight span at minimum temperature is used since that is when the conductor

e v−40

◦

deects the least. The weight span at -40 C can be calculated according to

◦

a =a +

v−40

b

b

h (a − a ),

max

−40

v h (15)

where b [m] is the sag at maximum temperature after nal stage of creep and b [m]

is the sag at -40 C. A negative L means that there are uplifting forces. Whether uplifting

max −40

◦

forces occur or not is decided by the quota . See Figure 9 for uplifting forces for normal

F

av

ruling spans for regional power lines. Negative uplift forces means that uplift occurs. What

ah

can be observed in the graph is that the ratio when uplift occurs is dependent on the ruling

span, but how big the uplift is, is determined by the wind span. From the graph can it be

concluded that uplift can arise when ≤ 0.8. av

ah

Another consequence of height dierences between supports is that the swing-out angle of

the insulators on the low supports may become too large, see Figure 10. This occurs since

8

Figure 7: Elongation of the conductor causing slack.[4]

Figure 8: Normal suspension insulator to the left, suspension insulator subjected to uplift to the right.

the weight of the conductors does not hold them down. The swing-out angle, α [ ], can be ◦

estimated as [6]

α = arctan

qH ah + Qins

2

qV av + Wins

, (16)

where q [N/m] is horizontal loads (wind load) per meter conductor, Q [N] is the wind

load on the insulator set, q [N/m] is vertical loads (dead weight and ice load) per meter

H ins

conductor and W [N] is the weight of the insulator set including counter weights if any.

V

Which loads and a that should be used is determined by which load cases to investigate.

ins

The swing-out angle should preferable not be greater than 30 , and denitely not larger

v

◦

than 45 .

◦

9

Figure 9: Uplifting forces as function of the quota av

ah

. Negative uplift forces means that uplift occurs.

The span length depends both on the sag and the strength of the supports. Supports

for the national grid are usually made of steel frameworks, which can be manufactured

to withstand the stresses they are subjected to. Supports for the regional network are

often made of two timber poles and a beam, which makes the supports limited by the

wood properties. Pinewood (Pinus Sylvetris) is the wood used for timber poles in Sweden.

According to Swedish standard, these are the design values of resistance in ultimate limit

state: The modulus of elasticity is the material property which should be used when

[3]

Maximum shearing stress: 2.4 MPa

Maximum compression without risk of buckling

perpendicular to bers: 3.6 MPa

along bers: 13.2 MPa

Modulus of elasticity in bending: 10000 MPa

Modulus of elasticity for Euler-buckling: 4760 MPa

designing timber poles. Which modulus of elasticity that should be used depends on if it

is bending or buckling calculations.

10

Figure 10: Insulator swing-out.

2.4.1 Bending

The most critical stress that the poles are subjected to is bending stress, but also Euler

buckling has to be accounted for. The maximum bending stress, |σ(x)| [Pa], can be

estimated according to

max

|σ(x)| =

|M (x)|

max

W (x)

,

b

(17)

where M (x) [Nm] is the bending moment in the pole and W (x) [m ] is the elastic bending

3

b

(18)

πd(x) 3

W (x) =

b ,

32

where d(x) [m] is the diameter of the pole where the moment is calculated. The greatest

moment forces in the pole occurs at the ground surface for non-guyed structures and at the

strut mount for guyed structures, see marked areas in Figure 11. The bending arise from

Figure 11: Two-legged suspension supports; non-guyed to the left and guyed to the right. The circles

mark where the greatest moment forces occur.

wind loads on the conductors as well as wind loads on the support. The bending moment

11

at the ground surface, M [Nm], for a non-guyed two-legged structure can be estimated as

j

M = Q j

1

2

l

wpol

d +d

4

2 j

γ +Q

t

Q lγ ,

wci c Q (19)

where Q [N/m ] is the wind load on the pole, l [m] is the length of the pole above

2

ground in accordance with Figure 11, d [m] is the pole diameter at the ground surface, d

wpol

[m] is the pole diameter at the top, Q [N] is the wind load on ice coated conductors, l

j t

[m] is the distance between the ground and the beam where the forces from the conductors

wci c

are applied and γ = 1.3 is the design factor for variable loads.

Q

General bending calculations of non-guyed timber pole supports are shown in Figure 12.

The graph shows how bending stress in the poles varies with wind span for dierent pole

thicknesses. The graph also shows maximum allowed bending stress, which makes it possi-

ble to observe maximum span length for dierent pole thicknesses, when using non-guyed

timber supports.

Figure 12: Bending stress in 16 m long timber poles as function of wind span.

From the graph can it be observed that the span length between non-guyed timber pole

supports is limited to 100-180 m, depending on pole thickness, due to high bending stresses.

2.4.2 Buckling

The buckling load, P [N], can be estimated according to Euler's buckling cases, see Figure

13. Euler 1 is used for non-guyed structures and Euler 3 is used for guyed structures. The

k

12

Figure 13: Euler buckling, case 1-3.

Pk,1 =

π 2 EI

4l2

, (20)

where E [Pa] is the wood's elasticity modulus along the bers, I [m ] is the area moment

4

of inertia and l [m] is the length of the pole from the ground to where the load is applied.

The area moment of inertia can be calculated according to

I=

πdt 4

4

, (21)

where d [m] is the diameter at the top of the pole, which is the smallest dimension of the

pole since it is cone shaped. The buckling load for Euler 3 is given by

t

Pk,3 =

2.05π 2 EI

l2

, (22)

where l [m] is the length of the pole from the ground to the strut mount.

General buckling calculations of non-guyed timber pole supports are shown in Figure 14.

The graph shows the maximum vertical loads dierent pole thicknesses can withstand.

The solid line in the graph shows an approximation of the load they would be inuenced

by from conductors and equipment, as function of weight span.

From the graph can it be observed that the span length between non-guyed timber pole

supports is not limited by buckling for span lengths shorter than 240 m, except for the

thinnest poles.

13

Figure 14: Buckling in 16 m long timber poles.

All equations above assumes a perfectly straight pole, but timber usually has an initial

crookedness. According to Swedish standard, this initial crookedness does not have to be

accounted for as long as a straight line can be drawn from the bottom to the top of the

pole and always be inside the pole. As compensation, a safety factor of 1.5 have been

used against bending and a safety factor of 2.1 against buckling. These safety factors were

chosen since 1.5 is the design factor for timber poles according to Swedish standard, and

2.1 is the safety factor against buckling used by Svensk energi in their timber pole design

courses.[3],[9]

14

3 Implementation: Power line crossing the Göta Canal

A 130 kV power line reaching from Gullspång to Käckestad shall be replaced. The power

line crosses the Göta Canal, which makes the crossing span a non-standard span, and

therefore the crossing and nearby spans will be investigated. The following data are given:

Minimum temperature: -40 C ◦

Conductor: 3x593 mm Al592

Support material: Timber (preferred, but only up to 18 m), steel

When designing the new power line there are three xed points; the canal tower, the support

before the section and the support after the section. The last two can be denominated as

point A and point B, see Figure 15. The xed points can be summarized as: Between

Point Distance from point A [m]

Point A 0

Canal tower 613

Point B 1156

Figure 15: Assembled map model displaying the xed points and the path of the power line.

these points a suitable number of supports should be chosen and placed. Loads acting

on the supports and eects from height dierences etcetera should be accounted for. The

15

problem does not include calculations on the canal tower or all line equipment, only the

timber poles. According to the problem description, both steel and composite supports are

possible alternatives. In order to limit this thesis, the support type is delimited to only

timber pole supports, except for the canal tower.

The rst step solving this problem is to identify the limitations; except for the xed points

and the timber poles. The geographical limitations can be identied from Figure 16 where

several areas of interest are marked, see Table 1 for explanations.

The greatest limitation mentioned above is the crossing with the Göta canal, which has

a sail less height of 22 m. According to Swedish standard, a power line with 145 kV as

its highest system voltage has to have a minimum clearance of 1.5 m above the sail less

height. This means that the conductors has to have a minimum clearance of 23.5 m above

the water during maximum sag. [3]

For a power line of this voltage, the clearance between the conductors and the ground

should be at least 7.63 m during maximum sag, according to Swedish standard. [3]

16

Table 1: Areas of interest from the assembled map model shown in Figure 16.

map model

Shoreline ------ Placement of supports within the shoreline should

be avoided.

Underground cable - - - - - - , (K) Supports can not be placed on the crossing cable.

Parallel power line - - - - - - A clearance between two power lines is needed.

Car road The power may cross the road but has to keep

a certain vertical clearance. Supports can not be

placed on top of the road or right next to it.

Crossing with the The power line has to keep certain distance to the

Göta canal water, and since the Göta canal is a fairway the

sail less height has to be accounted for.

River, stream Supports can not be placed in rivers or streams,

and placement close nearby should be avoided

since the ground there may be less rm.

An appropriate distance between the supports should be chosen, the so called span length.

In order to avoid using unnecessary many supports, which are expensive, a long span length

is desirable. However, a long span length means greater loads on the supports and larger

sag.

As starting point for suitable span length, allowed maximum sag was chosen. The following

basic assumptions were made, which concluded in an allowed sag of 3.87 m, see Figure 17

for the calculation principle.

Pole length 17 m

Burial deep 2m

Support top height 0.5 m

Insulator length 2m

Average terrain variance 1 m

Minimum ground clearance 7.63 m

The load case which causes the largest sag is maximum temperature after nal stage of

creep, that is how much the conductor is estimated to be elongated due to creep during

its life length of 50 years before being replaced. The maximum temperature is given as

17

Figure 17: Principle for calculation of allowed sag.

◦ ◦ ◦

from the current in the conductor. A 593 mm Al59 conductor has properties according

2

to Table 2.

[3]

Modulus of elasticity,

Initial (before creep): E = 53 GPa

Final (after creep): E = 60 GPa

iL

p

−3

Using Equation (13), sag based on slack as function of span length, the graph in Figure 18

is obtained.

Using the gure, 150 m was found to be a suitable span length. Using this, supports were

placed with this distance in a pole placement program called ICEtow. ICEtow reads in

[11]

the assembled map model and terrain data for the power line path, and creates a ground

prole. Poles can then be placed at a chosen distance and with a chosen height. ICEtow

then calculates and draws the maximum sag of the conductor, as well as weight span, wind

span and other useful parameters.

After the rst placement, the positions were altered to avoid supports too close to roads

and to take advantage of the height dierences in the terrain. See Figure 19 for the pole

placement after modications. The upper half of the gure shows the terrain prole, the

supports and the conductor. The lower half of the gure shows the areas of interest from

above.

18

Figure 18: Calculated sag for dierent span lengths.

The placement shown in Figure 19 is summarized in Table 3. The span length between

support 5 and point B is 149 m.

Since there is a big height dierence between the canal tower and surrounding supports,

supports 2 and 4 are at risk of being uplifted. Equation (14) was used to calculate the

uplift. The sag for maximum and minimum temperature was calculated in a program called

HoF. HoF is a simple calculation program which uses ruling span and type of conductor

[12]

as input and gives tension and sag for dierent load cases as output. The uplifting force

could then be calculated to +10 kg/phase for support 2 and -150 kg/phase for support

4. This means that there are uplifting forces in support 4 but not in support 2, even if

it is very close to getting uplifted since the uplifting forces is close to 0, that is the limit

between uplift and no uplift.

Another consequence of the height dierence between the supports is that the insulators

on support 2 and 4 may get too big swing-out angles since the conductors do not hold

them down, but before looking into that problem, solutions to the uplift-problem should

be investigated.

19

Figure 19: Preliminary support placement in ICEtow.

There are three dierent alternatives when solving an uplift problem. Alternative 1 is to

move the support or make it higher until the uplift disappears. This is the cheapest and best

alternative, if it is possible to solve the problem this way. Alternative 2 is to add counter

weights at the end of the insulators. This alternative weighs the insulators down but also

introduces vibration-sensitive supports into the power line. Alternative 3 is to change the

suspension insulators to tension insulators. This alternative is an expensive option, but

a too great swing-out angle is no longer an issue since the insulator is pre-tensioned in a

horizontal position.

The problem was approached by trying to use alternative 1, moving or changing the height

of the supports. Since timber poles usually are not made longer than 18 m, moving a

support was the only option. Support 4 was moved in ICEtow, and since it was placed so

close to support 5 that support was removed. The resulting placement is shown in Figure

20. The span between the canal tower and support 4 is around 350 m, which makes the

bending stress in the support too big due to wind loads on the conductors.

20

Table 3: Preliminary support table.

av Notes

span length (m) (m) (m) (m) deep (m)

1 198 16 175 171 2.1

2 151 17 208 134 2.1

3 264 36 + top 256 438 Canal tower

4 248 16 199 93 2.0

5 149 16 149 144 2.0

The second alternative, counterweights, was investigated. Support 2 was not subjected to

uplift, but since the quota was small that it was found appropriate to move the support

av

further away from the canal tower, see Figure 21. The new placement altered the weight

ah

and wind spans, which resulted in uplifting forces of 180 kg/phase for support 4. A counter

weight of 200 kg/phase was added to support 4. When investigating the swing-out angles

of the insulators with counter weights, the swing-out angle at minimum temperature and

wind was 43 for support 4. When using counter weights, it is important that the swing-

◦

out angle never exceeds 45 . Since the safety factor in this case is almost non-existent, a

◦

but it is usually not recommended to use counter weights heavier than 200 kg/phase due

to the vibration sensitivity they introduce into the system. [10]

The third solution alternative, tension supports, was investigated. Two options were pos-

sible; either to change both support 2 and 4 to tension supports or to only change support

4. If only support 4 is changed to a tension support, support 2 has to be moved in order

to avoid too big swing-out angles.

The supports have to be designed with respect to both buckling and bending. Using

Equations (20) and (21), the minimum top diameter, with respect to buckling, of the poles

on a non-guyed structure can be estimated as

1

(23)

!

16 P l 2 4

k,1

d = t 3

.

π E

21

Figure 20: Support placement in ICEtow when trying to solve the uplift-problem by moving support 4.

The minimum top diameter was calculated for all supports. The buckling load, P [N],

was calculated including dead weight of and ice load on conductors, weight of beam and

k,1

insulators, one third of the weight of the timber pole, counter weights if any and the weight

of a lines man with a weight of 1000 N. The lines man is accounted for in case the support

should need maintenance by a person climbing the support. A safety factor of 2.1 against

buckling was used, but even so the minimum top diameter never exceeded 17 cm. The top

diameter of a 17 m high pole is usually greater than 18 cm, which means that the buckling

load is not the critical load when designing the supports.

The minimum pole diameter at the ground surface, d [m], can be calculated by transposing

Equation (19) according to

j

[9]

(24)

1

32 M

J 3

d =j ,

f πmd

where f = 27.3 MPa is the maximum bending resistance and M [Nm] is the bending

moment calculated as

md J

M =lH + H ,

J F

l

2

V (25)

where l [m] is the pole length above ground, H [N] is the wind load transferred from the

conductors and H [N] is the wind load on the pole. The loads can be calculated according

F

to

V

[9]

H = 1.5 Q

F γ

wci Q (26)

22

Figure 21: Support placement in ICEtow when trying to solve the uplift-problem by moving support 2

and adding counter weights on support 4.

and

HV = Qwpol l γQ , (27)

where Q [N] is the wind load on ice covered conductors, Q [N/m] is the wind load

on the pole per meter pole and γ = 1.3 is the design factor for variable loads.

wci wpol

Q

The minimum pole diameter at the ground surface was calculated according to Equation

(24) with a safety factor of 1.5, see Table 4.

Table 4: Minimum allowed pole diameter at the ground surface, safety factor 1.5.

Support 1 2 4 5

Minimum d [cm] 33.6 35.9 34.2 32.4

j

Based on this calculation, poles of type S were assumed, that is 36 cm as pole diameter at

the ground surface and 23 cm as top diameter for 17 m long poles and 35 cm respectively

23

22.5 cm diameter for 16 m long poles. The strength of the supports where investigated.

A simple analytical calculation was made, where only wind loads on conductors and poles

were considered. A pole was assumed to be inuenced by the loads from 1.5 conductors

and the wind load on the pole was assumed to be an evenly distributed pressure on a at

surface as wide as the pole. No consideration to the eect of an assembled structure was

made, that is the support was simplied to be two individual poles with no link in-between

them.

The analytical solution was then compared with a FEM analysis using the program Ansys

Workbench. The analysis was conducted in the Static Structural module with a simple

[13]

FEM model; two poles with pinewood properties and a beam with three idealized insulators

between them. The beam was mounted to the poles with a bounded connection. The wind

pressure on the poles and the forces applied at the bottom of the insulators were calculated

according to Chapter 2.1. The poles were xed supported at the bottom, which corresponds

to the burial deep of the support. The setup with boundary conditions is shown in Figure

22.

Figure 22: FEM model and boundary conditions used in Ansys Workbench.

All loads were calculated according to Chapter 2.1. Assuming non-guyed supports and

ice coated conductors, the bending stress in the supports at the ground surface where

calculated according to Table 5. The maximum calculated bending stress in the poles is

specied both in MPa and percentage of maximum allowed bending stress in the table. The

percentage is calculated with a safety factor of 1.5 with respect to the maximum allowed

bending stress of 27.3 MPa.

The stress distribution in the support is shown in Figure 23. The largest stresses in the

24

Table 5: Maximum bending stress in the poles, calculated with a rst order analytical solution and with

FEM.

Support 1 2 4 5

Analytical Bending stress (MPa) 18.5 23.2 21.8 16.3

solution Bending stress (%) 102 128 120 90

FEM Bending stress (MPa) 17.7 21.4 21.3 15.6

solution Bending stress (%) 97 118 117 86

Dierence in solutions (%) 4 8 2 4

poles occur where the beam is attached to the poles. Since the beam is connected with a

bonded contact, unrealistic high shear, normal and bending stresses occurs in the contact

region due to how the support is modeled and where the forces are applied. The contact

regions between the beam and the poles are small since not that many elements on the

curved surfaces (the poles) are in contact with the at surface (the beam). This causes

large normal stresses since they are dependent on the force in relation to the area where

the force is applied. How the force is transferred to the poles are not realistic either; in

reality the forces will be applied on all sides of the poles and not just on one side of the

poles, which also makes the stresses too large in the contact area.

This local stress maximum can be neglected when investigating the stresses in the pole,

and therefore only a relevant section of the pole has been selected for the stress analysis,

see the subgure to the right in Figure 23.

Figure 23: FEM model with equivalent von Mises stress distribution to the left and maximum principal

stress in relevant section of pole to the right.

25

Since support 1, 2 and 4 exceeds 95% of the maximum bending resistance, these supports

should be strengthened with guy wires, that is if this solution alternative should be chosen.

Suspension supports are usually guyed according to Figure 24 with 30 ≤ α ≤ 45 and◦ ◦

◦ [10]

Figure 24: Drawing of guyed suspension support, top view to the left and front view to the right. The

support has three guy wires per pole; two guys on the outside of the support, directed with an angle α

from the beam, and one guy wire directed almost straight towards the other pole.

For guyed structures, the bending moment at the guy mount is usually the most critical.

Since the bending moment becomes greater the further away from the beam that the guy

wires are mounted it is desirable to mount the guy wires as close to the beam as possible,

but it is also important that the conductors can not touch the guy wires at any load case.

According to Swedish standard, a 145 kV conductor has to have a clearance of at least

0.6 m to an earthed guy wire. Calculating maximum swing-out of the insulators, the

[3]

The minimum diameter at the stay mount can then be calculated according to [9]

(28)

1

32 MS

3

ds = ,

fmd π

S

HV

(29)

MS = y HF + ,

2

with H and H according to Equations (26) and (27). Using these equations, guyed

suspension supports of type S were found to be sucient for support 1, 2 and 4.

F V

Tension supports need to be able to withstand loading from both sides of the support as

well as one-sided line loads, since the conductors are mounted and pre-tensioned on one

side at a time. Tension supports are usually constructed according to Figure 26.

26

Figure 25: Calculated maximum insulator swing-out with and without safety distance to guy wires.

The minimum thickness of the poles are calculated similarly to the poles in the guyed

suspension support in Chapter 3.5.1, but in this case the design loads are not the wind

loads but the maximum tensile loads from the conductors. In addition to being able to

withstand tensile loads from both one side and both sides of the support, the support

should also be able to withstand a reduction of conductor tension of 60% in one of the

conductors. The minimum diameter at the stay mount can be calculated according to

Equation (28), where the bending moment at distance s, M [Nm], is calculated according

to

S

[3],[9]

M =y H .

S F (30)

The horizontal force, H [N], can be calculated according to

F

H = R (T γ + (T − T ) γ ),

F A 0 G ice 0 Q (31)

where R = 1.8 is a factor to account for the reduction in conductor tension of 60%, T

[N] is the initial tension in the conductor at 0 C, T [N] is the tension at 0 C, ice load

A 0

◦ ◦

and no wind, γ = 1.0 is the design factor for permanent loads and γ = 1.3 is the design

ice

factor for variable loads. Using these equations, the minimum diameter at the stay mount,

G Q

d , was calculated to be 16-23 cm depending on the distance between the guy wires and

the beam, which was assumed to be 0.1-0.3 m. Using poles of type S with a top diameter

s

The supports also needs to be designed against buckling. Euler 3 is used for guyed struc-

tures, wherefore the pole diameter is given by

1

(32)

!

2P s 2 4

k,3

d =

s 3

.

π E

27

Figure 26: Drawing of tension support, top view to the left and front view to the right.

k,3

[9]

Pk,3 = 0.5 RT γG + MT γQ +

QT

3

(33)

γG + LT + VS ,

where R [N] is the weight of the beam, M = 1000 N is the weight of a linesman working

on the support, Q [N] is the weight of one pole, L [N] is the load from the conductors

T T

and V [N] is the vertical tension load from the guy wires. The load from the conductors

T T

is given by

S

L = R a (q γ + q γ ),

T A v e G io Q (34)

where R = 1.8 is a factor to account for the conductor tension reduction of 60%, a [m]

is the weight span, q [N/m] is the dead weight of the conductor per meter and q [N/m]

A v

is the ice load at no wind per meter conductor. The vertical tension load from the guy

e io

wires is given by

V =

H

S

cos α tan γ

,

S

(35)

where the angles α [ ] and γ [ ] are in accordance with Figure 26 and the horizontal tension

◦ ◦

S

H =

s+y

s

H .

S F (36)

The lengths s [m] and y [m] are given in Figure 26 and the horizontal tension force H [N]

is according to Equation (31).

F

Using a safety factor of 2.1 against buckling, a minimum top diameter of 24 cm should be

chosen to avoid buckling. This is possible by choosing poles of type S+2.

28

4 Discussion

When comparing the two graphs with general calculations of bending versus buckling for

non-guyed suspension supports, Figures 12 and 14, it can be observed that buckling usually

do not occur for these type of supports. If buckling occurs, the maximum bending stress

was always reached for a shorter span length than in the buckling case. The conclusion

that can be drawn from this is that bending due to wind loads is the critical load when

designing non-guyed timber pole supports. That is, if the weight span is not extremely

long in comparison with the wind span.

There was no similar general bending-buckling comparison conducted on guyed suspension

supports in this thesis. The reason was that the moment forces, and so too the tension

in the guy wires, are dependent on the position of the strut mount, which is dependent

on insulator swing outs and internal clearances at the support. No general conclusion can

therefore be drawn about these type of supports, but from the calculations made in the

Göta canal case, the conclusion can be drawn, that the moment forces at the strut mount

are usually the most critical aspect when designing guyed timber pole suspension supports.

It seems very likely that this would be the critical aspect as well, since a greater distance

between the strut mount and the beam causes higher bending stresses, but this distance

can not be too small since the guy wires may not be too close to the conductors.

There was no general bending-buckling comparison conducted of tension supports either,

only the calculations made in the Göta canal case. A dierence between guyed suspension

supports and tension supports, regarding the guy wires, is that the strut mount can be

a lot closer to the top in a tension support since the insulators are horizontal instead of

vertical, and especially since the conductors are not close to the poles. The guy wires are

designed to counteract the moment forces at the ground surface, so bending stresses in that

area is not very likely to be critical. Since the distance between the beam with insulators

and the strut mount usually is very short, it is not very likely that bending stresses at

the strut mount would be critical. Buckling on the other hand seems more likely to be

the crucial factor when designing tension supports. Since the guy wires are designed to

counteract not just wind loads, but the pre-tension to keep the entire line in tension, until

the next tension support, the tension in the guy wires are a lot greater than in the ones

used in suspension supports. This adds an extra vertical load which can be critical with

respect to buckling.

The safety factors used in this thesis may seem unnecessary high, especially since it can

be assumed that some kind of safety margin already is included in the design values. But,

timber poles are in reality not completely straight, they have twigs and other imperfections.

Assuming that the material would behave as perfect as a man-made material is a major

simplication, which makes it necessary to have a high safety factor when calculating the

timber pole supports.

When comparing the rst order analytical and the FEM solution of bending stress in the

poles, the analytical solution always gave a somewhat larger value. This can be due to that

the beam connecting the two poles, which makes the support stier, was not accounted

for in the analytical solution. Because of this, the analytical solution can be assumed to

be conservative, that is, it will always give a worse result than reality. The dierence

29

between the two solutions were not that big though, only 2-8%, which indicates that the

analytical solution is not that far from reality, which is good since too over-sized structures

are not desirable. The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that rst order analytical

calculations is sucient for timber pole calculations. This is very useful since Nektab

presently does not use any FEM computation software for computations on poles, they

only have software for computations on conductors.

Regarding the Göta canal case, both uplift solution alternative 2 and 3 are feasible solu-

tions, but solution 3 are in several aspects the best solution. Firstly, the counterweights

introduce vibration sensitive supports into the system. Secondly, support 2 and 4 can re-

sult in very big insulator swing outs if not very heavy counter weights are chosen. And last,

but not least, choosing tension supports allows that part of the power line to be mounted

separately. When it comes to construction with crossings, this can be vary favorable since

the rest of the power line are not depending on when it is possible to build the crossing

span. In this case for instance, it would be preferable to build the crossing span during

winter when Göta canal is not in use. If suspension supports was used, the rest of the

power line, until the next tension support, would have to be constructed at the same time,

but with tension supports this is not a requirement.

30

5 Conclusions

When projecting a power line, one should always aim to place all supports at equal distances

and suspend all conductors at equal height. Signicant dierences in height or length

between spans and supports causes problems.

The risk of uplifting forces arises when the quota ≤ 0.8. Uplifting forces occur for

av

smaller quotas for longer spans and for larger quotas for shorter spans, that is the risk of

ah

Bending stress is usually the critical factor when designing suspension supports. Non-

guyed timber pole supports are usually limited to span lengths of 100-180 m, depending

on pole thickness. Buckling is usually not an issue for these type of supports.

For tension supports on the other hand, buckling is more critical. The supports are built

to withstand the bending loads, but this increases the vertical loads which causes buckling.

Regarding the Göta canal case, the best solution to the problem is to change the supports

closest to the canal tower to tension supports. This solution eliminates both the uplift and

the swing-out problem, as well as simplifying the construction process.

31

6 Further work

This master thesis mostly looked into the strength and limitations of non-guyed timber

pole supports. It would also be interesting to do a similar analysis of guyed timber pole

suspension supports as well as tension supports. The question is how long span lengths

that are possible as function of weight span, wind span and insulator type. That is since

the bending stress at the strut mount is dependent of the distance between the strut mount

and the beam, which is dependent of the insulator swing-out.

It would also be interesting to do comparisons of dierent supports, both support types

and materials. Today a lot of dierent alternatives are available, but when it comes to the

regional network almost all supports that are built in Sweden are made of timber. Timber

is the cheapest pole material, and is therefore dominating the regional support market.

Due to this, it would be interesting to investigate the supports also from an economical

aspect, with mechanical aspects as the starting point. Timber is assumed to always be the

cheapest material, but the more guy wires, guy wire foundations, counter weights and so

on that are added to the support, the more expensive it becomes. The question is, when

would it be less expensive, or equally expensive, to change to another support type or

material, for example composite poles made of berglass reinforced polyester.

Another aspect is the strength of other support types and materials. How long span

lengths would be possible to have, and how much could the number of supports therefore

be decreased? Since poles made of manufactured materials can be longer than naturally

grown timber, the sag will not limit the span length as much as for timber supports. This

is another aspect which inuences how cheap timber poles are compared to other support

types. What can be added then are transportation, construction and maintenance costs,

in order to look at the full life time perspective.

32

7 References

http://prod.svk.se/drift-av-stamnatet/stamnatskarta/ (Accessed 2017-03-09)

2. Svenska kraftnät. Technology. 2016.

http://www.svk.se/en/grid-development/the-construction-process/technology/ (Ac-

cessed 2017-03-09)

3. SEK Svensk Elstandard. 2 edition.

nd

Overhead electrical lines exceeding AC 45 kV.

Power point presentation. 2013.

Sag-tension Calculations - A CIGRE Tutorial

Based on Technical Brochure 324.

08-23)

5. Douglass, D.A and Thrash, Ridley. 2006.

https://www.slideshare.net/iqbal_haqi/sag-andtensionofconductor (Accessed 2017-

Sag and Tension of Conductor.

05-11)

6. Kiessling, F., Nefzger, P., Nolasco, J. F. and Kaintzyk, U.

Springer. 2014.

Overhead Power Lines:

USA. 2004.

Stretched Wire Mechanics.

8. Necks electric. Product catalog. Bollnäs: Bok & Tryck AB, 2014.

9. Svensk energi AB. Course compendium. Stockholm.

2006.

EBR Mekanisk dimensionering.

10. Thiel, Stefan; Projector at Nektab. Interviews April 4, 21 and June 2, 2017.

11. EFLA. ICEtow, Version V8i. Computer software. Reykjavik, Iceland. 2008.

12. Ingenjörsrman Leif Andersson.

Computer software. Bålsta, Sweden. 2014.

Dataprogram för beräkning av hängkablar och friled-

USA. 2017.

ANSYS Workbench, Release 17.0.

33

www.kth.se