ctc “lisbon” accc conductor stress-strain, clamp slip, … · ctc “lisbon” accc conductor...

A Subsidiary of Composite Technology Corporation 2026 McGaw Avenue, Irvine, California 92614 Tel: 949.428.8500 Fax: 949.428.8515

www.ctccable.com

CTC “Lisbon” ACCC Conductor Stress-Strain, Clamp Slip, and Compression Fitting Tensile Tests, Modification 1 – Lamifil Comments

This report, from NEETAC dated October 2009, has been intentionally modified with this new title page and Appendix A, to supplement the additional testing that was done outside of NEETRAC to fully satisfy the Type Registration test requirements on ACCC Lisbon and associated hardware for ELIA, a Belgium utility. The following test report from NEETRAC details testing on the following ACCC components:

1) ACCC Lisbon conductor a. Stress-strain, performed to EN 50182 b. Ultimate tensile strength test to EN50182

2) Fittings Tests a. Dead end to Dead end, to IEC 61284 b. Splice Test to IEC 61284 c. Jumper Pad Test, done according to ELIA Standard GNA-PL/4DO/4038302

Section 10.2 3) Suspension Clamp Slippage Test

a. Performed on PLP AGS 5118 to IEC 61284, Section 11.4.2 and ELIA (Belgium Utility) standard GNA_PL/4DO/4038302 Section 10.6.1.2

b. Did not pass required 33% RTS c. Appendix A,

i. Two slip test results done on a similar PLP AGS unit, AGSR 3810920 (Europe equivalent)

ii. Passed 33% RTS requirement iii. Vertical Damage Load and Failure Load Test IEC 61284 Section 11.4

(Method B)

http://www.ctccable.com/�

CTC “Lisbon” ACCC Conductor Stress-Strain, Clamp Slip,

and Compression Fitting Tensile Tests, Modification 1 – Lamifil Comments

NEETRAC Project Number: 09-008

October, 2009

Requested by: Doug Pilling CTC

Principal Investigator:Paul Springer, PE

Reviewed by: Glenn Barr

National Electric Energy Testing, Research & Applications Center

NEETRAC Project Number 09-008, Final Report Mod 1 – October, 2009 Page 2 of 19

Notice The information contained herein is, to our knowledge, accurate and reliable at the date of publication. Neither GTRC nor The Georgia Institute of Technology nor NEETRAC will be responsible for any injury to or death of persons or damage to or destruction of property or for any other loss, damage or injury of any kind whatsoever resulting from the use of the project results and/or data. GTRC, GIT and NEETRAC disclaim any and all warranties, both express and implied, with respect to analysis or research or results contained in this report. It is the user's responsibility to conduct the necessary assessments in order to satisfy themselves as to the suitability of the products or recommendations for the user's particular purpose. No statement herein shall be construed as an endorsement of any product, process or provider.



CTC “Lisbon” ACCC Conductor Stress-Strain, Clamp Slip, and Compression Fitting Tensile Tests, Modification 1 – Lamifil Comments

NEETRAC Project Number: 09-008

October, 2009

SUMMARY

Stress-strain testing was performed on CTC “Lisbon” ACCC conductor in accordance with BEL Engineering GNA-PL/4DS/4043073/000/00 Ed. 2008-01-29 and instructions provided by Jim Tate of CTC. Compression fittings for the conductor were subject to load profile tests and ultimate tensile tests. A slip test was conducted on two suspension clamp samples. Witnesses from ELIA/Belgium (purchaser), Lamifil (strander), and CTC were present to direct and witness the testing. TEST SAMPLES 1. Reel of CTC “Lisbon” ACCC conductor stranded by Lamifil/Belgium 2. CTC full-tension dead-end terminals 3. CTC full-tension splice joints 4. CTC partial-tension jumper terminals 5. Formed wire suspension fittings.

PROCEDURE

I. Fittings tensile:

Jim Tate of CTC directed the installation procedure using NEETRAC’s 100-ton ACA crimp head. CTC provided the dies. Full-tension fittings were tested using cast-resin lab fittings to hold the conductor. NEETRAC’s procedure for holding the CTC core ensures all conductor components are loaded uniformly to their ultimate capacity. Resin terminations are inspected after each test to ensure the test results are not influenced by the lab fittings. There were no examples of grip failure found. Load holds were directed by CTC, ELIA, and Lamifil representatives as shown in the time-load charts. Also shown is displacement-load, a format that is sensitive to yield or strand break events. Figure 1 shows a typical tensile test.



Figure 1: Dead end – splice – dead end tensile test II. Clamp Slip:

A suspension unit was fitted to a conductor section. Conductor on one side was pulled to simulate a broken conductor load. Figure 2 shows the test arrangement. The load profile requires a one-minute hold at 33% RBS.

Figure 2: Clamp slip test III. Stress-strain:

The sample was cut into 6.3 meter (20’-7”) long sections. Bolted clamps were installed on both sides of each cut to prevent any component from shifting. Cast-resin terminations were applied to



the sample ends using a procedure designed to preserve the conductor manufacturing pre-stress to ensure that test samples behave as similarly as practical to in-service conductor. The process is identical to the procedure used for the tensile tests, except for the extra steps to preserve the manufacturing pre-stress as the conductor is taken from the reel.

Two identical conductor samples were prepared. The only difference between the core test and the composite test is the removal of the aluminum layers prior to making measurements on the core sample. The intent is to impute the contribution of the aluminum layers by the difference between data from the composite test and data from the core test. Prior to the composite and core tests, a laser is used to measure the sag, which is reduced to zero using a support at mid-span. Failure to remove the sag will cause errors in the strain measurement as the slack is pulled up during the test. The profile for stress-strain was in accordance with the British Norm provided by CTC. The following steps were used:

Composite conductor (RBS 103.7 kN (23,313 lb))

1) Apply load of 5.0 kN (1116 lb). Remove sag with a mid-span support 2) Install extensometer, and set to zero 3) Pull to 30% of RBS (31.1 kN), at rate of 26.7 kN/min 4) Hold for 30 minutes 5) Relax load to 5.0 kN at rate of 26.7 kN/min 6) Pull to 50% RBS (51.9 kN) at rate of 26.7 kN/min 7) Hold for one hour 8) Relax load to 5.0 kN at rate of 26.7 kN/min 9) Pull to 70% RBS (75.6 kN) at rate of 26.7 kN/min 10) Hold for one hour 11) Relax load to 5.0 kN at rate of 26.7 kN/min 12) Pull to 85% RBS (88.1 kN) at rate of 26.7 kN/min 13) Hold for one hour 14) Relax load to 5.0 kN, and remove the extensometer (for its own protection) 15) Pull sample to destruction at 26.7 kN/min

Core strand (nominal rating is 85.8 kN (19,289 lb)

1) Pull to calculated initial tension (in this case, 1.97 kN). 2) Install extensometer, and set to zero 3) Pull to 0.3540% strain (same strain as conductor at start of 30% of RBS test) 4) Hold for 30 minutes 5) Relax load to 1.97 kN 6) Pull to 0.8261% strain (same strain as conductor at start of 50% of RBS test) 7) Hold for one hour 8) Relax load to 1.97 kN 9) Pull to 1.2833% strain (same strain as conductor at start of 70% of RBS test) 10) Hold for one hour 11) Relax load to 1.97 kN 12) Pull to 1.6071% strain (same strain as conductor at start of 85% of RBS test) 13) Hold for one hour 14) Relax load to 1.97 kN, and remove the extensometer (for its own protection) 15) Pull sample to destruction at 66.7 kN/min



Residual Strength: Following the stress-strain test, both the composite conductor and the core were pulled to destruction at a loading rate equal to half of the strength rating per minute. Figure 3 shows the equipment during the stress-strain test on the core.

Figure 3: Core stress-strain test RESULTS

I. Fittings tensile:

Table 1 summarizes the tests performed and the test results. Figures 4 and 5 the load profiles used for the full-tension connector tests. Residual strength of the conductor and core used for the stress-strain test was also determined using a tensile test. Charts showing the load versus actuator displacement for each test are in the appendix.


Table 1, Summary of Tensile Tests on CTC “Lisbon” Conductor and Fittings

Sample Test Profile Failure Load(kN) % RBS Failure Mode

Composite Stress-Strain Load to failure @ 27 kN/min 103.3 100 Gage section break

Core Stress-Strain Load to failure @ 22 kN/min 92.2 107 Gage section break

Dead-end to dead-end, sample 1 (2 fittings)

Pull to 25% RBS, mark sample. Increase load to 95% RBS, hold 1 min, then to failure (Figure 4) 102.6 99 Gage section break

Dead-end to dead-end, sample 2 (2 fittings)

Pull to 25% RBS, mark sample. Increase load to 95% RBS, hold 1 min, then to failure (Figure 4) 108.8 105 Gage section break

Dead-end – splice – dead end Pull to 25% RBS, mark sample. Increase load to 95% RBS, hold 1 min, then to failure (Figure 4) 98.5 95 Break inside splice

Jumper terminal 1 Load to 25% RBS, hold 1 min, increase to 35% RBS, hold 30 sec 36.3 35 Load profile only – pass. Terminal

pad straightened, weld cracked.





Splice 1 Pull to 25% RBS, mark sample. Increase load to 95% RBS, hold 1 min, then to failure (Figure 4) 100.4 97 Break inside splice

Splice 2 Pull to 25% RBS, mark sample. Increase load to 95% RBS, hold 1 min, then to failure (Figure 4) 98.7 97 Break inside splice

Splice 3 Pull to 25% RBS, mark sample. Increase load to 95% RBS, hold 1 min, then to failure (Figure 4) 106.7 103 Gage section break


Table 1, Summary of Tensile Tests on CTC “Lisbon” Conductor and Fittings

Sample Test Profile Failure Load(kN) % RBS Failure Mode

Splice 4 Pull to 25% RBS, mark sample. Increase load to 90.3% RBS, hold 1 min, then to 95% RBS, hold one minute, the failure (Figure 5)

104.6 101 Gage section break


98.7 95 Conductor failed inside lab fitting*


108.5 105 Gage section break

* Failure in the lab grip can mean an invalid test. In this case, the fitting held, but it is possible the conductor was damaged during installation. Breaking load similar to other tests where the break is in the gage section suggest this is a valid test.



CTC "Lisbon" ACCC, Load Profile for Tensile Tests

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Time (min)

Load

(kN

)

09008_DE1.csvRBS95% RBS25% RBS

Marked conductor at 25% RBS

Load Hold at 95% RBS (slightly exceeded time on this one)

Figure 4: Load profile for fitting tensile tests

CTC "Lisbon" ACCC, Load Profile for Tensile Tests

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time (min)

Load

(kN

) 09008_SP9.csv

RBS

95% RBS

25% RBS

90% RBSMarked conductor at 25% RBS

Load Hold at 95% RBS

Load Hold at 90% RBS

Figure 5: Load profile for later round of fitting tensile tests



II. Clamp slip:

Figures 6 and 7 show data for the slip test. Both samples started slipping at 23.3 kN. Neither sample reached the target load value of 33% RBS (34.2 kN).

CTC "Lisbon" ACCC, Clamp Slip TestLoad Profile

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time (min)

Load

(kN

)

09008_SPC1.csv

09008_SPC2.csv

33% RBS

Figure 6: Load vs. time data for clamp slip tests

CTC "Lisbon" ACCC, Clamp Slip TestLoad vs. Displacement

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600

Crosshead Position (mm)

Load

(kN

)

09008_SPC1.csv

09008_SPC2.csv

33% RBS

Figure 7: Load vs. displacement data for clamp slip tests.



III. Stress-strain:

Figure 8 shows the load profile for the composite sample. Figure 9 shows displacement vs. load data, along with the construction of the initial and final modulus curves. Figures 10 and 11 show the same information for the core stress-strain test.

CTC "Lisbon" Composite Stress-strain - Load vs Time

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280

Elapsed Time (minutes)

Load

(kN

)

Tension RBS 85% RBS

70% RBS 50% RBS 30% RBS

Figure 8: Load profile for composite stress-strain test

CTC "Lisbon" ACCC Composite Stress-Strain with Initial and Final Modulus

y = 622.01x - 781.93

y = -38.91x4 + 164.72x3 - 237.37x2 + 258.31x + 14.471

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Strain (%)

Stre

ss (M

Pa)

Stress-strain dataInitial modulus dataFinal modulus dataLinear (Final modulus data)Poly. (Initial modulus data)

Figure 9: Composite stress-strain data from Figure 8 with strain on the x-axis, and initial and final modulus constructed using the data



CTC "Lisbon" Core Stress-strain - Load vs Time

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280

Elapsed Time (minutes)

Load

(kN

)

Tension

Core Rating

Figure 10: Plot of core stress-strain data with initial and final modulus

CTC "Lisbon" Core Stress-Strain Data with Initial and Final Modulus

y = 1141.4x - 41.739

y = -4.4959x4 + 3.4834x3 + 68.2x2 + 985.19x + 49.296

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Strain (%)

Stre

ss (M

Pa)

Stress-strain dataInitial modulus dataFinal modulus dataLinear (Final modulus data)Poly. (Initial modulus data)

Figure 11: Core stress-strain data from Figure 10 with strain on x-axis, and initial and final modulus constructed using the data



The stress-strain initial and final modulus data are numerically translated along the strain axis to remove the pre-load required in the physical test. The contribution of the aluminum strands are imputed as the difference between the core equations and the composite equations. The aluminum, core, and composite properties are plotted in Figure 12 to show a model of the room temperature elastic properties of the conductor. Available computer programs adjust the room-temperature data to predict behavior at warmer and colder temperatures. Equations for stress-strain from Figure 12 referenced to actual dimensions are:

Direct Test Values (includes strain from 5.0 kN pre-load used to straighten the sample prior to test)

Composite Initial Modulus: Stress (MPa) = -38.91*(Strain%)4 + 164.7*(Strain%)3 – 237.4*(Strain%)2 + 258.3*(Strain%) + 14.5

Composite Final Modulus: Stress (MPa) = 622.0*(Strain%) – 781.9

Tensile Test, Composite Sample: 103.3 kN (100% RBS)

Core Initial Modulus: Stress (MPa) = -4.50*(Strain%)4 +3.48*(Strain%)3 + 68.2*(Strain%)2 + 985.2*(Strain%) + 49.3

Core Final Modulus: Stress (MPa) = 1141.4*(Strain%) – 41.7

Tensile Test, Core Sample: 92.2 kN (107% Rating) Equations for data shifted along strain axis to provide correct zero strain reference:

Composite Initial Modulus: Stress (MPa) = -38.9*(Strain%)4 + 173.0*(Strain%)3 – 264.4*(Strain%)2 + 285.1*(Strain%)

Composite Final Modulus: Stress (MPa) = 622.0*(Strain%) – 815.1

Core Initial Modulus: Stress (MPa) = -4.50*(Strain%)4 +4.39*(Strain%)3 + 67.6*(Strain%)2 + 978.4*(Strain%)

Core Final Modulus: Stress (MPa) = 1141.4*(Strain%) – 99.05

Aluminum Properties (imputed, direct measurement is not possible): Initial Modulus for Stress Strain Curve: Stress (MPa) = -43.2*(Strain%)4 + 194.0*(Strain%)3 – 305.7*(Strain%)2 + 198.7*(Strain%) Final Modulus for Stress Strain Curve: Stress (MPa) = 552.1*(Strain%) – 865.6

NEETRAC Project Number 09-008, Final Report – July, 2009 Page 14 of 19

CTC "Lisbon" ConductorCombined Stress-Strain Diagram

y = 490.91x - 769.07

y = 622.01x - 786.76

y = -0.4981x4 + 0.4862x3 + 7.489x2 + 108.38x

y = -38.909x4 + 173.01x3 - 264.37x2 + 285.05x

y = -38.41x4 + 172.53x3 - 271.86x2 + 176.66x

y = 128.54x - 14.379

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0

Strain (%)

Stre

ss*a

rea

ratio

(MPa

)

Initial CompositeFinal CompositeInitial CoreFinal CoreInitial AluminumFinal AluminumLinear (Final Aluminum)Linear (Final Composite)Poly. (Initial Core)Poly. (Initial Composite)Poly. (Initial Aluminum)Linear (Final Core)

Ratio Core: 0.11078Ratio Aluminum: 0.88922

Initial Composite

Final Aluminum

Final Composite

Final Core

Initial Core

Initial Aluminum

Figure 12: Stress-strain combined model


DISCUSSION / CONCLUSION: Stress-strain testing provides coefficients for line designs (no acceptance criteria are applicable). Evaluation of the clamp-slip tests and tensile tests will be by agreement between CTC and their customer.

EQUIPMENT

1) MTS Servo-hydraulic tensile machine, Control # CQ 0195 (load and crosshead data) 2) Dynamics Research Corporation (DRC)/NEETRAC cable extensometer, Control # CQ 3002

(strain data). 3) Yokogawa DC100 data acquisition system, Control # CN 3022 (temperature data) 4) HBM linear position indicator for crosshead displacement (for reference only)

REFERENCES AND STANDARDS LISTING

1) ASTM E4, (Calibration of Load Testing Machines) 2) Aluminum Association Guide for Stress-Strain Testing, 1999 3) Lamifil Data Sheet LF ACCC Lisbon, Version 3, dated 21/04/08 (April 21, 2008) 4) BEL Engineering Technical Specification GNA-PL/4DS/4043073/000/00 dated Jan 28,

2008


Appendix – Load vs. Displacement Charts and Photographs of Samples following tests

CTC "Lisbon" ACCC, Post Stress Strain Tensile Test

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120


Load

(kN

)

RBS

95% RBS

Core Rating

Stress-strain Composite

Stress-strain Core

Figure 13

CTC "Lisbon" ACCC, Load vs. Displacement for Dead End Samples

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120


Load

(kN

)

09008_DE1.csv

09008_DE2.csv

RBS

95% RBS

Figure 14


CTC "Lisbon" ACCC, Load vs. Displacement for DE-Splice-DE Test

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


Load

(kN

)

09008_de2-2.csv

RBS

95% RBS

Figure 15

CTC "Lisbon" ACCC, Load vs. Displacement for Jumper Lugs (Load Hold Only)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120


Load

(kN

)

09008_JL2.csv09008_JL1.csv09008_JL3.csv25% RBS35% RBS

Figure 16


CTC "Lisbon" ACCC, Load vs. Displacement for Splice Samples 1-3 (early profile, see figure 4)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120


Load

(kN

)

09008_SP1.csv

09008_SP2.csv

09008_SP3.csv

RBS

95% RBS

Figure 17

Figure 18: Splice 1 failure

Figure 19: Splice 2 failure (splice 3 failed in gage section)


Figure 20: Jumper lug 3 following load hold test

Figure 21: Detail showing bent tab and weld crack

A Subsidiary of Composite Technology Corporation 2026 McGaw Avenue, Irvine, California 92614 Tel: 949.428.8500 Fax: 949.428.8515

www.ctccable.com

Appendix A Type Registration Suspension Clamp Slip Test done on an equivalent AGS Unit made in Europe, AGSR 381092.

i. Two slip test results done on a similar PLP AGS unit, AGSR 3810920 (Europe equivalent)

ii. Passed 33% RTS requirement iii. Vertical Damage Load and Failure Load Test IEC 61284 Section 11.4 (Method B)

http://www.ctccable.com/�

TEST REPORT

TR (GB) No:2292-E Date: 4 March 2009

Subject:

Slip Testing of AGSR 3810920DB

On Lamifil’s ACCC Lisbon Conductor

Preformed Line Products (Great Britain) Limited East Portway, Andover, Hants, SP10 3LH, England Tel: +44 (0)1264 366234 Fax: +44 (0)1264 356714 www.preformed-gb.com [email protected]

TR (GB) 2292-E Date: 4 March 2009

TEST REPORT TR (GB) 2292-E DATE 4th MARCH 2009

PURPOSE: To determine the suitability of Preformed Line Products’ fittings on Lamifil ACCC Lisbon conductor tested as per IEC 61284 11.4 and ELIA Specification GNA-PL/4DO/4038302/000/00 10.6.1.2. FITTINGS TO BE TESTED: AGSR 3810920DB CABLES TO BE TESTED: Lamifil ACCC Lisbon (103.7kN RBS) TESTS UNDERTAKEN: Slipping Test to ELIA GNA-PL/4DO/4038302/000/00 10.6.1.2. TEST PROCEDURES: Slipping Test Approx. 10m of conductor was set up in the tensile machine using helical dead-ends. The conductor was then tensioned to 20% RBS (20.74 kN) and the Armour Grip Suspension® Unit was applied. The load was then released, the fitting was then anchored to the tensile machine and the data plotter was then switch on, and the load was applied to 20% RBS. The end of the AGS® Rods were then marked to witness any movement. See Graph 1 - 3. The load was then increased to 33% (32.2kN) and held for a minium of one minute, the ends of the rods were then checked for slippage. The load was then increased until slippage occurred.

TR (GB) 2292-E Date: 4 March 2009 RESULTS: Slipping Test

Rod Length

(M)

Line Grip Compound

used

33% RBS held for

one minute

Slip Load

(kN)

Comment

Graph Photo

3.0 NO YES 52 PASS 1 2 - 10

3.0 NO YES 47 PASS 2 11 - 20

3.0 NO YES 45 PASS 3 21 - 27

NOTE: When the fitting is subjected to an ‘unbalanced load’ of this type, the

fitting is tilted over at an angle of approx. 45º. This can cause permananent deformation of the castings and rods and it would therefore be advisable that the fitting be replaced if this situation occurs in service.

CONCLUSION: Preformed Line Products Limited’s Armour Grip Suspention® Units has passed the testing requirements of the above stated specifications and is therefore deemed suitable of use on Lamifil ACCC conductor.

TR (GB) 2292-EDate: 4 March 2009


Photograph 1 - Three lengths of ACC Lisbon cut to 10m lengths


Photograph 2 - Test 1 - Tension to 20% RBS

Photograph 3 - - Test 1 – 3M Rods applied


Photograph 4 - Test 1 -AGS® attached

Photograph 5 - Test 1 – Arrangement at 33% RBS


Photograph 6 -Test 1 - AGS® at 33% RBS

Photogra 7 – Test 1 - Marking showing no slip at 33% RBS


Photograph 8 - Test 1 - AGS® after test

Photograph 9 - Test 1 - Marking showing slip after 5.3 Tonnes


Photograph 10 - Test 1 - AGS® parts showing slight deformation

Photograph 11 - Test 2 - Applying rods to tensioned conductor


Photograph 12 - Test 2 - Ends marked to show slip

Photograph 13 - Test 2 Ends marked to show slip


Photograph 14 - Test 2 - Marking showing no slip at 33% RBS

Photograph 15 - Test 2 AGS® at 33% RBS


Photograph 16 - Test 2 - Tensile machine showing 3.6 Tonnes (33% RBS)

Photograph 17 - Test 2 - Marking showing slip at 4.8 Tonnes


Photograp 18 - Test 2 - AGS® after test

Photograph 19 - Test 2 - AGS® after test


Photograph 20 - Test 2 - AGS® parts showing slight deformation

Photograph 21 - Test 3 - Appling rods to tensioned conductor


Photograph 22 - Test 3 - Rods marked to indicate slip

Photograph 23 - Test 3 - Tensile machine showing 3.61 Tonnes (33% RBS)


Photograph 24 Test 3 shows no slip at 33%RBS

Photograph 25 - Test 3 - AGS® at 33% RBS


Photograph 26 - Test 3 - Marking showing slip at 4.6 Tonnes

Photograph 27 - Test 3 - AGS® after slip at 4.6 Tonnes

TEST REPORT TR (GB) No:2250-E Date: 11 February 2009

Subject:

Up-Lift & Slip Testing of AGSR 3810820DB

On Lamifil’s ACCC Lisbon Conductor

Preformed Line Products (Great Britain) Limited East Portway, Andover, Hants, SP10 3LH, England Tel: +44 (0)1264 366234 Fax: +44 (0)1264 356714 www.preformed-gb.com [email protected]

TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009

TEST REPORT TR (GB) 2250-E DATE 11th February 2009

PURPOSE: To determine the suitability of Preformed Line Products’ fittings on Lamifil ACCC Lisbon conductor tested as per IEC 61284 11.4 and ELIA Specification GNA-PL/4DO/4038302/000/00 10.6.1.2. FITTINGS TO BE TESTED: AGSR 3810820DB CABLES TO BE TESTED: Lamifil ACCC Lisbon (103.7kN RBS) TESTS UNDERTAKEN: Slipping Test to ELIA GNA-PL/4DO/4038302/000/00 10.6.1.2. Vertical damage load and failure load test IEC 61284 11.4 (Method B) TEST PROCEDURES: Slipping Test Approx. 10m of conductor was set up in the tensile machine using helical dead-ends. The conductor was then tensioned to 20% RBS (20.74 kN) and the Armour Grip Suspension® Unit was applied. Test 1 and 3 used Line Grip Compound, this was applied to the conductor before AGS® Rods are applied. See Photographs 1 – 2. The load was then released, the fitting was then anchored to the tensile machine and the data plotter was then switch on, and the load was applied to 20% RBS. The end of the AGS® Rods were then marked to witness any movement. See Graph 1 - 3. The load was then increased to 33% (32.2kN) and held for a minium of one minute, the ends of the rods were then checked for slippage. The load was then increased until slippage occurred.

TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009 Vertical damage load and failure load test First Step The AGS® fitting was applied to a suitable diameter steel wire rope and assembled in the tensile machine set up with a 16.5° angle either side of the suspension clamp. A ten tonnes load cell was used to monitor the vertical load. The horizontal load was then steadily increased to a point where a minimum load of 10.04 tonnes (95% RBS) was seen on the vertical load cell. The load should then be held for one minute, then increased to 1.3 x RBS or until failure occurs. Second Step The suspension casting was assembled around a steel bar in a back-to-back arrangement . The load was applied steadily until 95% RBS was achieved and held for a minimum of one minute. The load was then increased until failure occurred. See photographs 23 – 27. RESULTS: Slipping Test

Rod Length

(M)

Line Grip Compound

used

33% RBS held for

one minute

Slip Load

(kN)

Comment

Graph Photo

3.0 YES YES 57.8 PASS 1 3

3.0 NO YES 47 PASS 2 4 - 12

2.0 YES YES 54 PASS 3 13 - 16

NOTE: When the fitting is subjected to an ‘unbalanced load’ of this type, the

fitting is tilted over at an angle of approx. 45º. This can cause permananent deformation of the castings and rods and it would therefore be advisable that the fitting be replaced if this situation occurs in service.


Vertical Damage Load and Failure Test Full Assembly Test (First Step)

Set-Up 95% RBS held for one minute

Comment Graph Photo

22mm Steel Wire Rope with 2m

Rods

NO

(See Note)

95% achieved

momentarily

4 17 - 21

NOTE: The standard housing has been used in this test and although it

achieved 95% RBS it was unable to sustain the load for one minute, as per the stated specification. For future applications where this requirement is specified it is recommended the heat treated castings are used, which would offer a 15% - 20% increase in tensile strength, subsequent to testing.

Mechanical failure load test (Second Step)

Test 95% RBS held for one minute

Failure Load Comment Photo

Test 1 YES 147.9 kN PASS 22 - 24

Test 2 YES 146.2 kN PASS 25

Test 3 YES 143.3 kN PASS 26

CONCLUSION: Preformed Line Products Limited’s Armour Grip Suspention® Units has passed the testing requirements of the above stated specifications and is therefore deemed suitable of use on Lamifil ACCC conductor.

TR (GB) 2250-E11 February 2209

TR (GB) 2250-EDate: 11 February 2009

TR (GB) 2250-E

Date: 11 February 2009


Photograph 1 - Application of Insert – Test 2


Photograph 2 - Application of Rods – Test 2


Photograph 3 - - Rod end marked

Photograph 4 - AGS® Unit anchored to tensile test machine


Photograph 5 - Rod end marked

Photograph 6 - 33% RBS load applied


Photogra 7 – load held at 3.61 Tonnes (35.4 kN) 33% RBS for one minute

Photograph 8 - Showing no slip at 33% RBS


Photograph 9 - Casting at 33% RBS

Photograph 10 - Casting after slip occurred at 47 kN


Photograph 11 - Rods after slip occurred at 47 kN

Photograph 12 - Conductor after slip occurred at 47 kN


Photograph 13 - Rod applied to conductor with line grip compound

Photograph 14 - Gritting rod holding at 33% RBS


Photograph 15 - gritted rods slipped at 57.8 kN

Photograph 16 - Damage to casting after slip at 57.8 kN


Photograph 17 - Angle meter showing approx 16.5º


Photograp 18 - Vertical Load Test Arrangement


Photograph 19 - Vertical load test arrangement with safety cage


Photograph 20 - Displays showing max horizontal load and max vertical load (tonnes)


Photograph 21 - AGS® after failure occurred at 10.2 tonnes


Photograph 22 - Mechanical failure test arrangements

Photograph 23 - Test 1 after failure


Photograph 24 Test

Photograph 25 - Test 2


Photograph 26 - Test 3

ctc “lisbon” accc conductor stress-strain, clamp slip, … · ctc “lisbon” accc conductor...

Documents