IEEE - 1527 - Recommended Practice For The Design of Flexible Buswork Loca...

WEEE
IEEE Recommended Practice for the

Design of Flexible Buswork Located in
Seismically Active Areas
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
IEEE Power Engineering Society
Sponsored by the
Substations Committee
IEEE
3 Park Avenue IEEE Std 1527'"-2006
New York, NY 10016-5997, USA
1 September 2006
Copyright The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

Provided by IHS under license with IEEE Licensee=Bechtel Corp Loc 1-19/9999056100
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 07/04/2011 15:49:31 MDT
IEEE Std 1527'"-2006

Sponsor
Substations Committee
of the
IEEE Power Engineering Society
Approved 30 March 2006

IEEE-SA Standards Board
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Abstract: The engineering and design of flexible bus connections for bus and equipment in elec-
tric power substations is described. This recommended practice gives guidance to the substation
engineer who is unfamiliar with seismic considerations in the engineering and design of
connections, and provides engineers with the current state of knowledge of the dynamic effects of
high-voltage connections and conductors
Keywords: bus, conductor, conductor slack, connections, earthquakes, electrical equipment,
flexible bus, flexible buswork, interconnected equipment, interconnection, seismic, substations
The Institute of Electricaland Electronics Engineers, Inc.

3 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5997,USA
Copyright O 2006 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
All rights reserved. Published 1 September 2006.Printed in the United States of America.
IEEE is a registered trademark in the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office,owned by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Incorporated.
National Electrical Safety Code and NESC are both re istered trademarks and service marks in the U S . Patent &
Trademark Office, owned by the Institute of Electrical and flectronics Engineers, Incorporated.
Print: ISBN 0-7381-4936-5
SH95522
PDF: ISBN 0-7381-4937-3
SS95522
No pari of this publicationmay be reproducedin any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE Standards documents are developed within the IEEE Societies and the Standards Coordinating
Committees of the IEEE Standards Association (IEEE-SA) Standards Board. The IEEE develops its standards
through a consensus development process, approved by the American National Standards Institute, which brings
together volunteers representing varied viewpoints and interests to achieve the fmal product. Volunteers are not
necessarily members of the Institute and serve without compensation. While the IEEE administers the process
and establishes rules to promote fairness in the consensus development process, the IEEE does not independently
evaluate, test, or verify the accuracy of any of the information contained in its standards.
Use of an IEEE Standard is wholly voluntary. The IEEE disclaims liability for any personal injury, property or
other damage, of any nature whatsoever, whether special, indirect, consequential, or compensatory, directly or
indirectly resulting from the publication, use of, or reliance upon this, or any other IEEE Standard document.
The IEEE does not warrant or represent the accuracy or content of the material contained herein, and expressly
disclaims any express or implied warranty, including any implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a spe-
cific purpose, or that the use of the material contained herein is free from patent in6ingement. IEEE Standards
documents are supplied “AS IS.”
The existence of an IEEE Standard does not imply that there are no other ways to produce, test, measure,
purchase, market, or provide other goods and services related to the scope of the IEEE Standard. Furthermore, the
viewpoint expressed at the time a standard is approved and issued is subject to change brought about through
developments in the state of the art and comments received from users of the standard. Every IEEE Standard is
subjected to review at least every five years for revision or reaffirmation. When a document is more than five
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
years old and has not been reaffirmed, it is reasonable to conclude that its contents, although still of some value,
do not wholly reflect the present state of the art. Users are cautioned to check to determine that they have the
latest edition ofany IEEE Standard.
In publishing and making this document available, the IEEE is not suggesting or rendering professional or other
services for, or on behalf of, any person or entity. Nor is the IEEE undertaking to perform any duty owed by any
other person or entity to another. Any person utilizing this, and any other IEEE Standards document, should rely
upon the advice of a competent professional in determining the exercise of reasonable care in any given
circumstances.
interpretations: Occasionally questions may arise regarding the meaning of portions of standards as they relate to
specific applications. When the need for interpretations is brought to the attention of IEEE, the Institute will initiate
action to prepare appropriate responses. Since IEEE Standards represent a consensus of concerned interests, it is
important to ensure that any interpretation has also received the concurrence of a balance of interests. For this
reason, IEEE and the members of its societies and Standards Coordinating Committees are not able to provide an
instant response to interpretation requests except in those cases where the matter has previously received formal
consideration. At lectures, symposia, seminars, or educational courses, an individual presenting information on
IEEE standards shall make it clear that his or her views should be considered the personal views of that individual
rather than the formal position, explanation, or interpretation of the IEEE.
Comments for revision of IEEE Standards are welcome from any interested party, regardless of membership affil-
iation with IEEE. Suggestions for changes in documents should be in the form of a proposed change of text,
together with appropriate supporting comments. Comments on standards and requests for interpretations should
be addressed to:
Secretary, IEEE-SA Standards Board
445 Hoes Lane
Piscataway, NJ 08854
USA
Authorization to photocopy portions of any individual standard for internal or personal use is granted by the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., provided that the appropriate fee is paid to Copyright
Clearance Center. To arrange for payment of licensing fee, please contact Copyright Clearance Center, Customer
Service, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 USA; +1 978 750 8400. Permission to photocopy portions of
any individual standard for educational classroom use can also be obtained through the Copyright Clearance
Center.

Introduction
This introduction is not part of IEEE Std 1527-2006, IEEE Recommended Practice for the Design of Flexible
Buswork Located in Seismicaily Active Areas.
This introduction provides some background on the rationale used to develop this recommended practice.
This information is meant to aid in the understanding and usage of this recommended practice.
Flexible buswork consisting mainly of bare aluminum or copper conductors with bolted or welded connector
hardware have been used for many years as part of the electrical buswork system in substations. In general,
they are utilized to simplify equipment interconnection with the main bus because they are easy to install
and help ensure that the vertical and horizontal load limits of the equipment terminals are not exceeded.
However, recent earthquakes in many parts of the world demonstrated that more attention must be paid to
these flexible buswork designs for facilities in seismically active areas because flexible buswork can
increase the probability that a facility will still be operational after an earthquake.
During an earthquake, flexible buswork conductors may transfer significant mechanical forces at the
equipment terminals, due to the dynamic effects induced by their motion when adjacent interconnected
equipment push and pull on these connections. Improperly designed flexible buswork may thus result in
exceeding the load limits permitted at the equipment terminals. This can lead to a piece of relatively
inexpensive equipment contributing to the failure of a more expensive one and perhaps, starting a cascade
effect that could result in loss of substantial revenue and expensive equipment.
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
This recommended practice will cover how to design flexible buswork for substation buswork systems or
equipment connections to account for seismic movement. It provides a more detailed discussion of the
material covered in IEEE Std 693" to guide the substation designers with this aspect of seismic design. In
short, this recommended practice covers how to determine the amount of seismically-induced equipment
motion that may occur, how to determine conductor flexibility, how to specify the amount of slack required,
and what other factors must be considered as part of the design of flexible buswork for new and existing
installations. It will also report on the current state of knowledge concerning the dynamic effects of
conductors and flexible high-current buswork interconnections.
Notice to users
Errata
Errata, if any, for this and all other standards can be accessed at the following URL:
standards.ieee.org/reading/ieee/uudates/errat~index.html. Users are encouraged to check this URL for
errata periodically.
Interpretations
Current interpretations can be accessed at the following URL: http://standards.ieee.org/reading/ieee/interp/

index.htm1.
Patents
Attention is called to the possibility that implementation of this standard may require use of subject matter
covered by patent rights. By publication ofthis standard, no position is taken with respect to the existence or
validity of any patent rights in connection therewith. The IEEE shall not be responsible for identifying
patents or patent applications for which a license may be required to implement an IEEE standard or for
conducting inquiries into the legal validity or scope of those patents that are brought to its attention.
iv Copyright O 2006 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Participants
At the time this standard was completed, the working group had the following membership:
Jean-Bernard Dastous, Chair

Robert (Bob) Stewart, Co-Chair
John Randolph, Vice-Chair
Randy Clelland, Secretary
Stephen Allen Lincoln Koga Sam Perkins
Robert (Steve) Brown Donald N. Laird Bill Thompson
Rulon R. Fronk Kenneth Lo Charles F. Todd
John Irvine John Norberg Jim Wardin
Tony Opsetmoen
The following members of the individual balloting Committee voted on this standard. Balloters may have
voted for approval, disapproval, or abstention.
William J. Ackerman David L. Gilmer Gary L.Michel

Steven C. Alexanderson Randall C. Groves Jon Mochizuki
Ali AI Awazi Dennis Honvitz Jeffrey H. Nelson
Saber Azizi-Ghannad Jose A. Jarque Michael S. Newman
Michael P. Baldwin Lars E. Juhlin Robert S. Nowell
Thomas M. Barnes Piotr Karocki John D. Randolph
Michael J. Bio Leon Kempner Jr. Devki N. Sharma
Steven R. Brockschink Kamran Khan Hyeong J. Sim
Steven D. Brown Hermann Koch
Gany M. Simms
Terry Burley Jim Kulchislq
David Singleton
Ted A. Burse L. W. Kurtz Jr.
Randy D. Clelland Donald N. Laird Douglas W.Smith
Tommy P. Cooper Albert Livshitz Brian K. Story
Jean-Bernard Dastous Lisardo Lourido S. Thamilarasan
Dennis F. Decosta William Lumpkins William R.Thompson
Gary R. Engmann G. L. Luri James E. Timperley
Rulon R. Fronk Keith N. Maimedal Charles F. Todd
Eric M. Fujisaki Frank W. Mayle James W. Wilson Jr.
Edgar O. Galyon Peter J. Meyer Roland E. Youngberg
Copyright O 2006 IEEE. All rights reserved. V
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

When the IEEE-SA Standards Board approved this standard on 30 March 2006, it had the following
membership:
Steve M. Mills, Chair
Richard H. Hulett, Vice Chair
Don Wright, Past Chair
Judith Gorman, Secretary
Mark D. Bowman William B. Hopf Greg Ratta

Dennis B. Brophy Joseph L. Koepfinger* Robby Robson
William R. Goldbach David J. Law Anne-Marie Sahazizian
Arnold M. Greenspan Daleep C. Mohla Virginia C. Sulzberger
Robert M. Grow T. W. Olsen
Malcolm V. Thaden
Joanna N. Guenin Glenn Parsons
Ronald C. Petersen Richard L. Townsend
Julian Forster*
Mark S. Halpin Tom A. Prevost Walter Weigei
Kenneth S. Hanus Howard L. Wolfman
*Member Emeritus
Also included are the following nonvoting IEEE-SA Standards Board liaisons:
Satish K. Aggarwal, NRC Representative

Richard DeBlasio, DOE Representative
Alan H. Cookson, NIST Representative
Don Messina
ZEEE Standards Program Manager, Document Development
vi CopyrightO 2006 IEEE. All rights reserved.
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Contents
1. Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 1
1 . 1 Scope............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Purpose......................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Normative references ........................................................................................................................... 2
3. Definitions. abbreviations. and acronyms ............................................................................................ 2
3.1 Definitions ................................................................................................................................... 2

3.2 Abbreviations and acronyms ....................................................................................................... 4
4. Equipment movement .......................................................................................................................... 4
4.1 Calculation methods to evaluate standalone equipment displacement ........................................ 4

4.2 Testing methods to evaluate standalone equipment displacement .............................................. 7
4.3 Site-specific conditions ................................................................................................................ 7
4.4 Minimum conductor slack and necessary conductor length between equipment
interconnected through flexible buswork .................................................................................... 8
5. Other connection possibilities .............................................................................................................. 9
6. High-current connections ..................................................................................................................... 9
7. Type of material to use-copper versus aluminum ........................................................................... 11
8. Conductor mechanical properties ...................................................................................................... 12
8.1 Recommended values of E and I for calculations ...................................................................... 13

8.2 Confirmation by testing ............................................................................................................. 14
8.3 Single- and multi-conductor bundles ......................................................................................... 14
Spacers for bundled conductors .........................................................................................................

--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
9. 14
10. Other considerations .......................................................................................................................... 15
10.1 Electrical clearances .................................................................................................................. 15

10.2 Corona losses ............................................................................................................................. 16
10.3 Current-carrying capacity .......................................................................................................... 17
10.4 Wind and ice effects .................................................................................................................. 17
10.5 Fault conditions .......................................................................................................................... 18
10.6 Loads on terminal pads and seismically-induced dynamic effects of conductors ..................... 18
10.7 Three-dimensional (3-D) effects of earthquakes ....................................................................... 19
11. Conductor configurations .................................................................................................................. 20
1 1 . 1 Recommended configurations ................................................................................................... 20

11.2 Calculation method for veriQing electrical clearances ............................................................. 22
11.3 Methods to establish configuration flexibility and terminal loads ............................................ 22
11.4 Connection hardware ................................................................................................................. 27
Copyright O 2006 IEEE. All rights reserved. vii

Annex A (normative) Normative tables ......................................................................................................... 28
Annex B (informative) Tables ....................................................................................................................... 30
Annex C (normative) Figures supporting this recommended practice .......................................................... 34
Annex D (informative) Informative figures ................................................................................................... 44
Annex E (informative) Summary of research done on dynamic effects of flexible conductors used in
substations ....................................................................................................................................... 49
Annex F (informative) Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 53

--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
...
v111 Copyright O 2006 IEEE . All rights reserved.

1. Overview
The use of suitably designed and installed flexible buswork connections must be considered when seismi-
cally hardening a substation. Installation of buswork connections to the equipment is a factor that greatly
affects the seismic performance of the installed equipment. If the buswork is not properly designed, equip-
ment that would otherwise survive may fail, resulting in unnecessary financial losses. The use of seismically
designed and installed flexible connections increases the probability that a facility will still be operational
after an earthquake.
This recommended practice will cover the design of flexible buswork connections to account for seismic
movement, as weil as other factors that must be considered as part of this design, as per the general decision
tree diagram shown in Figure C. 1.
This recommended practice also contains five annexes. Annex A and Annex B contain the tables referenced
in the main body of the recommended practice, while Annex C and Annex D contain the figures referenced.
Annex E provides the latest information on dynamic effects of conductors and a Bibliography is presented in
Annex F.
1.1 Scope
The scope of this document is the engineering and design of flexible bus connections for bus and equipment
in electric power substations.
1.2 Purpose
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
This document was prepared to provide guidance to the substation designer on flexible buswork seismic
design and to provide information accounting for the current state of knowledge concerning the dynamic
effects of conductors and high-current connections.
Copyright O 2006 IEEE. All rights reserved. 1

IEEE
Std 1527-2006 IEEE RECOMMENDED PRACTICE FOR THE DESIGN OF
2. Normative references
This recommended practice shall be used in conjunction with the following publications. If the following
publications are superseded by an approved revision, the revision shall apply:
IEEE Std 605m-1998, IEEE Guide for Design of Substation Bus Structures.’,
IEEE Std 693““-2005, IEEE Recommended Practice for the Seismic Design of Substations.
IEEE Std 738’”-1993, IEEE Standard for Calculating the Current-Temperature Relationship of Bare Over-
head Conductors.
3. Definitions, abbreviations, and acronyms
For the purposes of this recommended practice, the following terms and definitions apply. The Authoritative
Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms [B3I3 should be referenced for terms not defined in this clause.
3.1 Definitions
3.1.1 basketing of conductors (also called “bird caging”): The unraveling or untwisting of outer and inner
strands. Basketing can be caused by the following:
a) Minimum bending radius is violated
b) Ends being twisted opposite to direction of twist
3.1.2 bundled conductor: An assembly of two or more conductors used as a single conductor and employ-
ing spacers to maintain a predetermined configuration. The individual conductors of this assembly are called
subconductors.
3.1.3 complete quadratic combination (CQC method): A modal combination method, especially useful
for systems with closely spaced frequencies.
3.1.4 conductor configuration: The generic term for a flexible buswork connection geometry that has been
designed to accommodate a certain amount of movement at its end points, without putting undue strain or
stress on these end points.
3.1.5 critical damping: The least amount of viscous damping that causes a single-degree-of-freedom sys-
tem to return to its original position without oscillation after initial disturbance.
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3.1.6 damping: An energy dissipation mechanism that reduces the response amplification and broadens the
vibratory response over frequency in the region of resonance. Damping is usually expressed as a percentage
of critical damping. See also: critical damping.
3.1.7 drops: The field or construction term for the flexible buswork connections made between a high bus-
work section, either rigid or strain, and a piece of equipment or lower buswork section.
‘IEEE publications are available from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway,
NJ 08855-133 1, USA (http://standards.iee.org/).
’The IEEE standards or products referred to in this clause are trademarks of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
3The numbers in brackets correspond to those of the bibliography in Annex F.
2 Copyright O 2006 IEEE. All rights reserved.

IEEE
FLEXIBLE BUSWORK LOCATED IN SEISMICALLY ACTIVE AREAS Std 1527-2006
3.1.8 flexible buswork or flexible buswork connections: The terms given to the section of buswork that is
usually made up of stranded bare conductors (as opposed to rigid conductors) electrically interconnecting
two pieces of equipment, a piece of equipment and a section of rigid bus or two sections of rigid bus.
3.1.9 g: Acceleration due to gravity, that is 9.81 m/s2.
3.1.10 ground acceleration: The acceleration of the ground resulting from the motion of a given earth-
quake. The maximum or peak ground acceleration is the zero period acceleration (ZPA) of the ground
response spectrum.
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3.1.11 natural frequency: A frequency at which a body or system vibrates due to its own physical charac-
teristics (mass and stiffness) when the body or system is distorted and then released.
3.1.12 pinch effect: The “pinch effect” is caused by the bending of the conductor during the high velocity
movement caused by the short-circuit forces near where a spacer or equipment terminal clamp is attached.
3.1.13 pull-push tests: The name given to the test to determine how flexible a certain conductor configura-
tion is when its end points are pulled apart or pushed together. The results of this test are units of force per
displacement of the conductor from its connection point.
3.1.14 response spectrum: A plot of the maximum response of an array of single-degree-of-freedom

(SDOF) identically damped oscillators with different frequencies, all subjected to the same base excitation.
See also: single-degree-of-freedom system (SDOF system).
3.1.15 seismically decouple: The term to describe how two pieces of equipment or a piece of equipment
and a rigid bus section can be interconnected electrically by a flexible buswork connection, which ideally
allows independent movement, or at least, minimized interaction between the two components.
3.1.16 seismicity: Seismic activity; the occurrence of earthquakes in time and space.
3.1.17 single-degree-of-freedom system (SDOF system): The idealization of a physical system in which
its mass, its elastic properties (flexibility or rigidity), its energy-loss mechanism (damping), and its external
source of excitation (loading), are assumed to be concentrated in a single physical element.
3.1.18 slack (or “conductor slack”): The difference between the conductor length and the straight line dis-
tance between its attachment points; the amount of displacement that a conductor in a given configuration
can be stretched to straighten it up completely.
3.1.19 square root of the sum of squares method (SRSS method): A modal combination method used to
obtain an estimation of the complete response of a system, by summing up the square of each modal
response considered in the analysis (such as displacement, force, etc.) and then taking the square root of the
result. This method assumes that individual maximum modal responses do not occur at the same time, which
is the case when modal frequencies are spaced by more than 20% with each other. See also: complete qua-
dratic combination (CQC method).
3.1.20 standalone equipment displacement: The motion of equipment without conductor(s) attached to it,
that is without interconnection with other equipment.
3.1.21 time history: A record of earthquake ground motion (either natural or artificial), usually in terms of
acceleration, as a function of time.

IEEE
3.2 Abbreviations and acronyms
AAC all aluminium conductor

--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
BIL basic impulse level
CQC complete quadratic combination
MDOF multi-degree-of-freedom
SDOF single-degree-of-freedom
SRSS square root of sum of squares
ZPA zero period acceleration
4. Equipment movement
All equipment can be adversely affected in an earthquake by an adjacent moving or stationary component
connected to it. Therefore, care must be given to the placement of important components so that movement
of adjacent components does not cause damage that would lessen the ability of a facility to operate.
Equipment that is interconnected by flexible conductors must have some provision in the installation (e.g.,
sufficient flexible conductor slack) that allows for any relative displacement between the equipment that will
occur during an earthquake.
As a result of analysis, testing, and earthquake experience, individual items of major equipment and bus-
work supports have been found to move by varying degrees depending on their mass, mounting height, type
and size of support structure, soil type, and seismicity. Adjacent structures that differ in their dynamic
response may experience large relative displacements. All connections between equipment elements must be
sufficiently long and flexible to permit relative axial and lateral movements and torsional motions. This will
avoid impacting forces or the transfer of forces between the individual components when any existing slack
in the buswork is used up. The amount of movement combined with the distance between the connection
points results in the need for specifically configured flexible bus conductors.
The movement of a piece of equipment in the horizontal direction of the conductor (from one equipment to
the other) must first be determined in order to ascertain the relative displacement between items and thereby
choose the appropriate conductor configuration. The calculation and testing methods to determine equip-
ment movement are described in this clause. A qualification levei as well as an appropriate design response
spectrum must first be selected before any calculation or testing method is used (see, for example, IEEE Std
6934).
4.1 Calculation methods to evaluate standalone equipment displacement
Due to the effect of the flexible conductors, it is difficult to calculate with accuracy what will be an equip-
ment displacement in its connected configuration. It is then easier and preferable to obtain the equipment
displacement in its standalone configuration, Le., without conductors connected. On average, the standalone
displacement is a conservative value of the connected equipment displacement (Dastous et al [Bg]), thus
being relevant for design purposes
41nformation on references can be found in Clause 2

IEEE
4.1.1 Recommended method for candlestick and frame type equipment
The use of a design response spectrum along with the generalized single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) method
is recommended to obtain the equipment displacement for design purposes. This method assumes that the
equipment oscillates principally in one vibration mode shape as shown in Figure C.2.
The generalized SDOF method is recommended for equipment that has simple vibration modes such as can-
dlestick and frame type; it is not recommended for equipment that has more complex vibration modes such
as dead tank circuit breakers or bushings on power transformers (see 4.1.2 for such equipment).
The maximum displacement at the attachment point for such a system using the response spectrum method
is given by Equation (1):
is the modal-participation factor
is the effective mass producing the external inertia loading

is the generalized mass
is the spectral displacement from the design response spectrum used
is the spectral acceleration from the design response spectrum used
is the natural frequency of the mode shape
is the damping ratio of the mode shape
is the natural circular frequency given by 2nf
The value of the effective mass L is given by Equation (2):
where
yrb) is the value of the mode shape at pointy along the equipment height (see Figure C.2)
h is the equipment total length (including support if included in analysis)
y is the position along the equipment length from zero at the base
yo is the position at the attachment point
m(y) is the mass distribution by unit length
The generalized mass m* is given by Equation (3):
The modal-participation factor L/m* characterizes the difference between a lumped and a generalized SDOF
system, as U m * is generally different from unity as for the lumped system. This factor can be calculated if
the mass and stiffness distribution of the system (leading to a correct evaluation of the mode shape) are
known with sufficient accuracy.

--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
For equipment for which only the natural frequency and damping of the first mode are known or estimated,
such a method can be used as long as the value of the first modal-participation factor U m * is representative.
Theoretical and calculated values of this factor are given in Dastous et al [B9].
If information about this factor is not available, Equation (4) gives a bound value covering 95% of equip-
ment observed so far (candlestick and frame type only):
where
xm,195%is the displacement bound value covering 95% of candlestick and frame type equipment.
Using IEEE Std 693 required response spectrum for the high level, Table A.l presents estimated values of
displacement using Equation (4)for different first mode natural frequencies. The standalone displacements
presented in Table A.l are bound values for informational purposes. It is recommended that displacement
values determined in qualification be used in design.
Note that in Table A.l, displacement might be very important at low frequencies. In cases where this poses
problems in design, such as for electrical clearances requirement (it is recommended that clearances be
maintained during seismic movement even though that might prove difficult for large displacements), it is
recommended to use site-specific spectra to evaluate more precisely the displacement (see 4.3). For exam-
ple, North American eastern earthquakes tend to have much less energy at low frequencies, which results in
significant decrease of the displacements presented in Table A.l for frequencies below 2 Hz.
4.1.2 Alternative method for other equipment than candlestick and frame type
An alternative method that is valid for any type of equipment is to model the equipment as a multi-degree-
of-freedom (MDOF) system using the finite element method. In case of a linear model (displacements and
deformations assumed small and material properties assumed constant), the displacement at any nodal point
j of the system comprising n-nodal points can be obtained using the principle of modal superposition given
by Equation (5).
where
(x) is the vector of the displacement at the n-nodal points
[a] is the modal matrix composed of each mode shapej
Z(t) is the vector of the generalized displacements
Once the mode shapes have been computed by any standard technique, the solution of Equation (5) using the
response spectrum method can be computed by solving for the generalized displacements, whose governing
equations are identical to Equation (1) for any mode. It is assumed here that each mode is assigned a viscous
damping ratio. Since it is statistically improbable that each mode will reach its maximum value at the same
time during an earthquake, a statistical combination of the maximum modal responses must be used to esti-
mate the maximum displacement. One appropriate statistical combination that can be used is the SRSS
method, which would translate here as in Equation (6).
(6)

--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
where Lj and rnr are given for each modej by Equation (2) and Equation (3) while S4 is the spectral dis-
placement for each modej of frequency4 and damping ratio ci.
The SRSS method will give a good approximation if all modal frequencies are well spaced. In case of
closely spaced frequencies (within 20% usually), the modal responses can be temporarily correlated and it
would therefore be advisable to use a statistical combination that takes this into account. One recommended
combination is the complete quadratic combination method (CQC) (Der Kiureghian [B15], Wilson et al
[B23]). With both methods (SRSS or CQC), it is to be noted that the number of modes required to obtain a
sound estimate of the displacement is actually much lower than the total number of degrees of freedom con-
sidered. For most equipment that is candlestick or frame type, the first vibration mode is usually sufficient
(Dastous et al [SS]) and Equation (6) then results in Equation (I).
4.2 Testing methods to evaluate standalone equipment displacement

--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Shake table testing can be used to determine equipment movement when the equipment falls within the
physical size and load limits of the table. For shake table testing, a choice can be made between random
vibration testing and time history testing. However, time history testing is usually preferred with the equip-
ment being instrumented with accelerometers at the conductor attachment points. Time history data obtained
from an earthquake record from the site (if available) or for a geologically similar site may be scaled up or
down for input to the testing to match the qualification levei selected, but usually more than one is used. A
geoscientist should be consulted on how this is conducted.
The movement of a large piece of equipment such as a series capacitor platform can be obtained by simulat-
ing the seismic loading with a sinusoidal shaker. The platform is excited typically by a variable frequency,
variable load sinusoidal shaker capable of generating up to 445 kN forces, over the 2 Hz to 20 Hz range, in
any horizontal direction. The structure is instrumented with accelerometers and strain gauges to provide data
to allow analysis of the response of the structure. The lever arm length of the rotating masses at the shaker
can be adjusted to give a range of forces at a certain frequency. The shaker can therefore be used for spectral
testing (specified acceleration "g"loads at various frequencies). This method yields the most comprehensive
results of all methods available. A disadvantage is that sufficient space must be available on the platform for
setting up the shaker. If a piece of equipment has to be removed temporarily to provide the space, compensa-
tion must be made for the equipment. The maximum combined modal displacement from the spectral testing
results should be used for determining the equipment movement.
4.3 Site-specific conditions
To determine equipment movement, site-specific conditions must also be taken into consideration and this
includes soil types and seismicity. A seismic qualification level should first be selected (see IEEE Std 693)
using the site-specific soils and seismicity information. The equipment movement can then be determined
by calculation or testing methods on the basis of the qualification level. Experience has shown that it is good
practice to use the same qualification level to determine movement for all equipment in all substations
within a reasonably large geographical area for simplicity in logistics.
Also, for interconnected equipment not on the same foundation, the expected differential motions between
equipment due to foundation motion must be considered. This may be estimated separately and added to the
movement determined above; this would provide a conservative estimate of the total differential motion.
Furthermore, it is recommended that, where practical and economical, interconnected equipment be placed
on a monolithic foundation. This will help minimize the differential movement of the supported equipment.
Rocking of the foundation has been identified as a potential problem (see IEEE Std 693). Foundations must
be designed for the appropriate seismic qualification level to avoid compression, shear and bending moment
failures, and overturning with soil failure.

IEEE
4.4 Minimum conductor slack and necessary conductor length between equipment
interconnected through flexible buswork
As stated, the conductor in a flexible buswork arrangement should possess as a minimum enough slack to
accommodate the horizontal relative displacement that can occur between the moving equipment. This rela-
tive displacement, Drei, can be evaluated5 using the expected maximum standalone equipment displacement
(4.1 and 4.2) and the SRSS method as shown in Equation (7).
D,, = 1.25 x -/, (7)
where
Drei is the maximum horizontal relative displacement between equipment 1 and 2
xmql is the maximum standalone displacement of equipment 1 in the conductor direction
xmW2 is the maximum standalone displacement of equipment 2 in the conductor direction
The 1.25 factor in Equation (7) takes into account the statistical dispersion of the SRSS method. If
Equation (7) would be used with a factor of 1.O instead, it would provide only an average value of the rela-
tive displacement (see Dastous and Pierre pl i] for more details). Equation (7) gives the minimum amount
of slack required in any configuration such as those recommended in Clause 11.
The necessary conductor length between interconnected components can be estimated using Equation (8).
where
LO is the necessary conductor length between interconnected components
LI is the straight line distance between attachment points
L2 is an additional provision for the conductor configuration under consideration, as to not transfer
unnecessary additional loads to the equipment when fully stretched
To understand the necessity of using the additional length L2, it is necessary to recognize the following two
points:
a) The conductors may be pre-bent to the configuration used, such that the conductor does not add load
to the equipment except the dead weight of the conductor.
b) All configurations have rigid moment connections between the conductor and equipment at both
ends of conductors, which might add unnecessary moments to the equipment terminal due to the
bending stiffness of the conductor itself, which cannot be neglected. The user must test (or calculate)
and take into consideration the conductor shape, number of bundled conductors, the distance
between the ends of conductors, and the conductor stiffness in determining how much additional
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
conductor length L2 is required.
It is to be emphasized, as an additional design rule that all mirs of interconnected equipment with flexi-
ble buswork should be able to accommodate their relative displacements. Otherwise, impacts might be
transferred between pairs of equipment, from pairs where not enough slack would have been provided, due
to the effect of multi-connected equipment.
Note that in IEEE Std 693 the relative displacement is given by the sum ofthe maximum displacementsof individual equipment mul-
tiplied by a l .5 factor: Orel= l .5 x (x,, l + xmm, *). Flexible connections designed with this previous method are still valid as the
IEEE 693 method is at all times a conservative estimate of Equation (7). The SRSS method used here with the 1.25 factor instead is
simply a more refined estimate that might be especially useful for equipment with large displacements at low frequencies, for which
substantial saving in slack can be obtained using Equation (7), thus in some cases permitting to respect more easily electrical clearances
requirements. This note also applies to the methods presented in IEEE Std 693.

--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
IEEE
For equipment with closely spaced frequencies (less than 20% difference) and where the expected relative
displacement is large enough to pose problems in the design, the SRSS method used in Equation (7) may be
replaced with an adaptation of the CQC method (Der Kiureghian et ai [B14]). However, this method
requires a precise knowledge of the fundamental frequencies and the associated damping to be of relevant
use. In all cases, the CQC method is conservatively covered by the SRSS method; this is why the latter is
preferred due to its simplicity of use.
An example of the use of Equation (7) and Equation (8) follows:
For the installation of an adjacent circuit breaker and disconnect switch where L I equals 3000 mm and
L2 has been selected as 800 mm, the maximum standalone displacement of the circuit breaker is 55 mm
and the corresponding maximum for the disconnect switch is 75 mm. The relative displacement is
given, using Equation (7), by:
D,, = 1.25,/= = 116 mrn
so that the necessary conductor length is given, using Equation (S), by:
Lo = 3000 mm + 116 mm + 800 mm = 3916 rnm = 3.92 m
5. Other connection possibilities
Due to the reduced height of the buswork, the greater inherent stiffness and relatively smaller mass of the
components, most equipment at the 12 kV, 25 kV, and 69 kV voltage levels is able to withstand greater
seismic forces and will be subject to far less differential movement. While rigid buswork design is generally
acceptable, areas of concern are connections to major equipment bushings. Transformer, circuit breaker and
voltage regulator bushings, in addition to being vulnerable, will require considerable lead times to replace
should damage occur and therefore, must be subject to a high level of protection if service is to be readily
restored subsequent to a seismic event.
The flexible buswork from rigid buswork to equipment bushings is ideally accomplished by using stranded
bare conductor, braided conductor, or expansion terminal connectors. The latter two will limit flexibility
sufficiently to avoid compromising the phase-to-phase clearances under short-circuit loading and the voltage
gradient across the insulators, particularly for 12 kV and 25 kV equipment.
6. High-current connections
For the purpose of this document, high-current flexible buswork connections are defined as those being
capable of carrying 3000 A or more, and should utilize the conductor configurations discussed in Clause 11.
They can have either bolted or welded connection joints and normally utilize two or more bare stranded con-
ductors or plates connected in parallel. These conductors or plates can be either copper or aluminum,
although aluminum is more widely used. As with the lower current flexible buswork connection, the basic
design factors must be considered and satisfied. However, unlike the lower current flexible buswork
connection designs, stricter attention must be paid to the connection method, the current density capacity,
the contact surface area, the surface preparation, and the contact pressure or “clamping” to ensure that the
high-current flexible buswork connection functions properly in-service.
For connections with current-carrying capacities of up to and including 5000 A, bolted joints can be used as
part of the flexible buswork connection provided that they are properly designed and installed. For

IEEE
connections with current-carrying capacities of greater than 5000 A, welded connection hardware should be
considered.
For bolted aluminum connections, experience has shown that good joint performance occurs if the current
density limit assumed for the contact surfaces is approximately 0.15 A/mm2, but making this assumption is
restrictive and requires large connection surfaces assuming total area overlap. Therefore, for practical pur-
poses, a current density of between 0.23 A/mm2 to 0.27 A/mm2 can be assumed based on total area overlap
if proper surface preparation is done prior to installation.
NEMA CC 1-2002 @320] describes the size and hole configuration for the manufacturing of a variety of
bolted terminal pads for connectors and equipment based on this higher-current density. The terminal pad
size that this practice recommends for the 3000 A to 5000 A current range is given in Table A.2.
Furthermore, when two surfaces are brought together under mechanical pressure, contact is made where the
highest peaks or “asperities” meet, at which point, due to the applied pressure, plastic deformation of the
metal surfaces occurs; however, if the mated surfaces are relatively smooth, then the number of low peaks
involved in this plastic deformation is small. The current flowing across the interface of these two surfaces is
restricted to a small area of contact, which causes heating. Thus, if the two surfaces are rougher, Le., there is
a greater variation in peak heights, fewer high peak contact points will be made, but more peaks will be
deformed and enmeshed so that better metal-to-metal connection will be achieved. To obtain this greater
variation in peaks, the contact surface must be abraded. This can be achieved using the appropriate sandpa-
per or brush (depending on the conductor material), while ensuring all debris is removed with a soft brush,
an approved oxide inhibitor is applied, and the connector bolted immediately. Tools such as drills, files and
sandpaper used on aluminum connectors shall not previously have been used on copper conductors because
traces of copper salts on an aluminum contact surface should be avoided.
This metal-to-metal contact created as a result of the applied mechanical load in a bolted connection after
proper surface preparation is only maintained if the bolt connection design does not allow the mechanical
load to decrease below critical values. With this in mind, a practical design range for low- to intermediate-
strength alloy conductors is 5500 kPa to 8300 P a , but for high-strength alloy conductors a clamping
pressure of 8300 kPa should be used. Therefore, using Equation (9) and the pad sizes from Table A.2, the
required bolt load can be determined to be approximately 21 kN for high-strength alloy conductors.
where
Fb is the required bolt load (N)
pi is the joint pressure (Pa)
Ap is the pad area (m2)

nb is the number of bolts
In general, it is desirable to use bolts that have a known elastic-proof load, and for high-current connections,
non-magnetic bolts should be used to avoid overheating due to hysteresis losses in locations where
extremely high magnetic fields are present. The bolts should have similar thermal expansion coefficient as
the material the pads are made of, and they should have sufficient tensile strength for the clamping pressure
required. See Clause 7 for more details.
If the tensile strength of the materials used is not known or is less than 145 MPa, conical spring washers
could be used to ensure the required clamping pressure is maintained. Usually, only one such washer is all
that is required, plus a flat washer larger in diameter than the spring washer to stop it from digging into the
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
material of the bolted connection. A second flat washer should also be used under the head of the bolt to help
distribute the clamping force over a larger area.
Although unique connection designs for high-current flexible connections can be made, it is normally more
advantageous to utilize an adapter to make the transition from standard terminal pads (the pads generally
present on apparatus) to the high-current design because it permits the use of stock or standard conductors
and connectors. Consequently, to be successful, the adapter design must interface properly with all standard
terminal pads in use, Le., be able to accept back-to-back four-hole NEMA connectors. Furthermore, each
connection surface must be machined; have a minimum current-carrying capacity of 2500 A; be made from
high-strength electrical grade alloy (such as ASTM 6101 or 1350) with a minimum conductivity of 55%; be
able to withstand the required joint pressure and bolt torque requirements; not be plated; have square edges;
and have a minimum tensile strength of 145 MPa.
For aluminum bolted connections for the current range from 3000 A up to and including 5000 A, the sim-
plest and most economical adapter design is to use an aluminum bar with a width to conform to the pad sizes
in Table A.2, for a joint pressure of 8300 kPa and a bolt load of 21 kN, as per Figure C.3. Figure C.4 shows
a typical multiple conductor terminal arrangement.
7. Type of material to use-copper versus aluminum
The use of copper as a material for the flexible buswork connection should be seriously considered because
of its structural strength and current-carrying capability. Copper conductor can also be easily formed to
desired contours because of its ductility. This allows the formation of shapes, which allows sufficient move-
ment of connected equipment. This is important during a seismic event, when conductors must be flexible
enough for continuous flexing. Aluminum conductor does not have the same level of ductility that copper
does and its size will have to be increased at least 40% to be comparable to a similar size of copper
conductor from a current capacity point of view. See Table B.l and Table B.2 for the properties of copper
and aluminum, respectively.
The terminal pads of electrical equipment can be aluminum or copper. The dissimilarity of metals at the
terminal pads should be considered in flexible buswork connection selection and selection of connection
hardware. Stainless steel bolting material is recommended for fastening dissimilar metals together. The con-
tamination of aluminum due to copper salts and the galvanic action of aluminum connected to copper can
also be addressed in this design. For example, bimetallic sheets of copper and aluminum can be used
between the two mating surfaces. Furthermore, where resistance to corrosion is a major design factor in
industrial or salty environments, stainless steel hardware with conical washers can also be used to bolt the
connectors to the equipment’s terminal pads. An assembly of one stainless conical washer with two stainless
flat washers with a stainless bolt and nut should be used. To avoid galling wear and to improve load perfor-
mance of the connection, the stainless steel nut can be replaced with a bronze one and lubricant used, such as
an approved contact oxide inhibitor.
A sufficient number of electrical conductors are manufactured in copper. Next to silver, copper has the high-
est electrical conductivity of any metal and, because of its great ductility, it can be readily drawn to wire or
tube, or rolled in the form of flat bar and special shapes.
Besides having good conductivity, copper can be soldered and brazed, and with some difficulty, it can be
welded. It does not oxidize easily, withstands ordinary corrosion, and has good mechanical strength,
although in some instances, it is necessary to increase the mechanical strength by alloying. It should be
noted that the addition of small amounts of alloying elements to increase the strength of copper does
decrease its electrical conductivity.
Cold working copper does increase its strength in a very marked manner, but this working method does have
a tendency to slightly decrease its conductivity. Soft drawn or annealed solid copper conductor has a tensile
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
strength of 220 MPa to 280 MPa, and a conductivity of 100% IACS to 101%IACS. Hard drawn solid cop-
per conductor has a tensile strength of 340 MPa to 460 MPa, and a conductivity of 97% IACS to 98% IACS.
Conductors of aluminum are widely used for outdoor transmission and distribution lines, for high-current
buswork and in most flexible buswork connections. The density of aluminum is so low that a conductor of
this material has almost exactly half the weight of a copper conductor of equivalent current-carrying capac-
ity. The tensile strength is lower than that of copper, but the larger cross-sectional area of metal required for
any given conductivity reduces the difference to some extent, so that an aluminum conductor has about 70%
of the ultimate strength of the copper conductor equivalent. The increased diameter necessary in aluminum
conductors also tends to reduce skin effect and corona. On the other hand, this increased diameter, combined
with the light weight of aluminum, makes the conductor more subject to vibration, and may necessitate the
use of special suspension clamps, dampers, or armor rods to minimize trouble from this source when long
unsupported spans are used.
Aluminum is very ductile and malleable, and may be readily drawn, forged, and bent. It is highly resistant to
atmospheric corrosion, but the fact that a thin, highly adherent, highly resistant oxide forms very rapidly on
its surface sometimes causes trouble at the contact surfaces of electrical joints if not properly prepared or
accounted for. Aluminum may be readily welded, but care must be taken when it is soldered.
As most common metals are electro-negative to aluminum, unprotected contacts between such metals and
aluminum should not be exposed to moist air, which often acts as an electrolyte, and causes galvanic action.
This is especially true of copper; when there is contact between copper and aluminum in saline or industrial
atmospheres, corrosion of the aluminum takes place fairly rapidly depending on ambient conditions.
One major advantage of using aluminum over copper is cost. Copper material can be 3 to 5 times more
expensive than equivalent aluminum items.
From the previous discussion on which material should be used for the flexible buswork connection, it is
evident the choice of material is not straightforward and depends on:
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
- The current-carrying capacity required
- The ductility, strength and flexibility required
- The material utilized in the equipment terminai pads
- The corrosiveness of the ambient atmosphere
- The unsupported length the connection must span
Furthermore, the choice of which material to use also depends on:

- What material the remainder of the buswork is made of
- The cost difference between each material
- The availability of each material
- If corona or skin effects are a problem
- If conductor weight is a problem
All the above parameters will vary from case to case so it is the responsibility of the substation designer to
identi& and prioritize the design criteria for the site or sites in question.
8. Conductor mechanical properties
To avoid damage to major equipment that may result from activity created by a seismic event, it is necessary
to incorporate adequate flexibility into the buswork. This will permit relative axial or longitudinal
12 CopyrightO 2006 IEEE. All rights reserved.

IEEE
movement between major equipment assemblies, and the rigid buswork, avoiding the transfer of forces
between the individual components.
Ideally, all connections to major equipment for ail voltage classes shall be made with flexible conductor, ¡.e.,
bare conductor, braided conductor, or expansion connectors, to permit differential movement between ter-
mination points.
To perform flexibility analysis on a bare stranded conductor, values of moment of inertia (denoted by I ) and
Young’s modulus of elasticity (denoted by E) for the conductors are needed. Due to the stranded construc-
tion of a cable, the value of I might vary considerably depending on whether the different conductor layers
are slipping over each other. The slipping conditions are determined by the conductor curvature and its
mechanical tension (which both vary during motion). When all layers are slipping (full slipping), the value
of I is minimum and is calculated by assuming that each wire is bending independently. Conversely, when
all layers are stuck together (no slipping), the value of I is maximum and it is calculated by assuming that all
wires act uniformly as a rigid section. These two extreme behaviors lead to very different values of 1.For
example, the ratio of the maximum to the minimum value for an AAC 1796 kcmil conductor is approxi-
mately 80.
Methods to determine conductor properties such as 1and E values are dealt with in this clause. However,
methods for performing flexibility analysis (to ascertain the “push-pull” required to produce a deflection) for
configured flexible buswork will be dealt with in Clause 11.
8.1 Recommended values of E and I for calculations
E is the Young’s modulus value of the material used. Typically for aluminium, a value is 65 GPa and for
steel is 200 GPa.
Through testing (see 8.2), the value of I has been found to be between:
where
Imin is the minimum value of moment of inertia, calculated by considering that all wires in the conduc-
tor act separately
rn is the number of layers in the conductor
The product of E and I, as EI, is termed the bending stiffness of the conductor. The recommended value of
EI to use in static calculations to verify electrical clearance requirements is the minimum value, given by
Equation (1 1):
m
di4
EZmin= n,E,-cosß,
64
i= 1
where
ni is the number of wires in layer i
Ei is the Young’s modulus of material in layer i
6; is the wire diameter in layer i
ßi is the lay angle of layer i obtained from manufacturer data
The use of this value will give the maximum flexibility and is thus conservative to veri@ clearances. For cal-
culating end forces during static or dynamic displacement, more complex models are available such as

--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
described in Dastous [BS] and Hong [B19]. However, when enough slack is provided to accommodate the
expected relative displacement, Equation (1 1) will give representative results (Dastous ßS], [Bio]). Com-
plex models require sophisticated nonlinear analysis methods and will seldom be required, unless both very
high tension and substantial curvature changes are expected in the analysis of a given configuration.
8.2 Confirmation by testing
Bending tests of steel guy wire and “pull-push” tests of AAC in various configurations have been carried out
by BC Hydro in the early 1990s (BC Hydro Internal Report [B4]), to check against the above calculation
methods used in the industry (Alcan Design Manual [B2]). These tests yielded excellent confirmation of the
validity of the above E value and Equation (10). The only exception is that the hysteresis effect due to the
stranded construction of the conductor has not been accounted for in the calculation methods. Also, another
independent study conducted recently confirmed the validity of Equation (10) and the recommended use of
Equation (1 1) for significant ranges of variation of mechanical tension and variation of curvature (Filiatrault
and Steams [816]).
8.3 Single- and multi-conductor bundles
It is apparent that the rigidity of a multi-conductor bundle can generally be accounted for by multiplying the
rigidity of a single conductor by the number of conductors in the bundle. This method is valid since the part
of the conductor held stiff in the spacer grip is small compared to the total length of the flexible conductor
link and the effect of inhibited individual cable strand movement is negligible for the amount of conductor
movement.
9. Spacers for bundled conductors
Electric currents in bundled conductors cause magnetic forces to be exerted on the conductors. These
magnetic forces are resisted by the mechanical static and dynamic characteristic of the conductors and con-
nection hardware. The forces due to a three-phase short circuit are caused first and most significantly by the
magnetic attraction between the bundled conductors followed by the phase-to-phase repulsion of adjacent
phases. Short-circuit currents on long strain bus cause magnetic forces of sufficient magnitude to accelerate
and displace bundled conductors.
For short spans of 1 m to 2 m such forces are relatively low, and therefore present little or no threat of dam-
age to the flexible buswork connection or its connection hardware. However, for other than very short flexi-
ble bus connections of 1 m to 2 m, depending on the conductor size, it is necessary to install conductor
connections or conductor “spacers” to create uniform conductor movement. This enables the flexible bus-
work to withstand electrical short-circuit forces, together with wind and ice loading, to maintain a uniform
shape and minimize possible entanglement within the bundle.
However, the installation of too many “spacers” can increase the possibility of conductor damage due to the
“pinch effect” around the spacers during short circuits. This “pinch effect” is caused by the bending of the
conductor during the high velocity movement caused by the short-circuit forces near where the spacer is
attached. Consequently, based on testing, Figure C.5 shows the recommended number of “spacers” required
for straight line lengths of typical AAC no matter how this conductor is to be configured.
The installation of “spacers” should be such that safety grounds can be connected to the vertical portion of
the flexible bus connection during maintenance activities if required. This may necessitate leaving the high
or low point of the vertical section of the flexible buswork connection without a “spacer”.
14 Copyright@2006 IEEE. All rights reserved.

--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
10. Other considerations
In addition to the seismic requirements (e.g., slack, flexibility), a properly designed flexible buswork con-
nection must also be adequate in the following areas:
Electrical clearances (in air)
Corona losses
Current-carrying capacity (to avoid drooping conductor due to overheating)
Wind and ice loading
Fault conditions (Currents and forces)
Allowable loads on terminal pads
Three-dimensional effects of earthquakes
These requirements are addressed in 10.1 through 10.7. These subclauses do not necessarily cover all
pertaining aspects of these requirements. The designer should refer to the references in Clause 2 for further
guidance or consult a specialist in a given field if doubts arise regarding one or more aspects.
10.1 Electrical clearances
As with any air-insulated buswork, it is important that a flexible buswork connection maintains the mini-
mum electrical clearances as specified in such documents as the National Electrical Safety Code@(NESC@)
[Bl] to ensure the proper operation and integrity of the facility and the safety of human beings. The flexible
buswork design must also assure that the minimum phase-to-phase and phase-to-ground clearances will be
maintained during and after a seismic event. Subclause 11.2 should also be reviewed for guidance on how to
undertake the analysis required.
The electrical buswork connections between major electrical equipment usually have a system of flexible
conductors between them. In fact, the main flexible buswork connections are usually between buswork, dis-
connect switches, circuit breakers, transformers, load interrupters, potheads, current transformers, etc. These
installations have to be designed to maintain electrical clearances in all conditions of normal operation and
abnormal conditions, such as system faults or a seismic event. Transformers and breakers are usually
designed by the manufacturers with lower phase-to-phase and phase-to-ground clearances than the normal
standards set by the utilities for disconnect switches and bus; therefore, these differences should be taken in
consideration when designing connections.
The flexible buswork connections are provided with extra lengths to allow for expansion from heat and
motion between equipment during a seismic event. Thus, this extra length should be designed so the
conductors are installed with this extra length formed upward if possible, especially for circuit breakers and
transformers where the bushings are usually lower than the other equipment and the phase spacing is
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
smaller.
For new installations, the space between equipment and between the equipment’s phases should be
increased to provide an additional safety margin to ensure the electrical clearances can be maintained. When
retrofitting flexible buswork as part of a seismic upgrade at a station, if relocating equipment and its associ-
ated buswork is not a cost-effective option, the space above the original buswork plane could be utilized to
provide the electrical clearance required for the new flexible buswork connection.
The required electrical clearances of a given configuration in its plane are illustrated in Figure C.6. These
clearances are the phase-to-ground and the minimum safety clearances.
The phase-to-ground clearance appears from the base of the insulator as a radius that is equal to or shorter to
its length. For proper clearance of this type, no part of the flexible connection should fall within the shaded

IEEE
area indicated in Figure C.6. The minimum safety clearance appears as a vertical distance from the ground
under which the conductor should not fall. This translates for a given configuration into a maximum value of
sag that should not be exceeded.
When adding the required slack to accommodate the relative displacements between adjacent equipment,
care must be taken so that the final configuration will still meet the electrical insulation clearances discussed
above. For configurations with conductors formed upwards, such as configuration 1 of Figure C.7, these
clearances are automatically met. However, there is a maximum span outside which such a configuration is
no longer possible (see, for example, Dastous and Paquin [BlO]). Also, configuration 2 and 3 of Figure C.7
might not necessarily meet the electrical clearances discussed, especially for larger spans or the necessity to
accommodate large displacements or both of these items.
In the light of these considerations, there is a need to establish the ability of a given configuration to meet
such distances prior to installation. Also, in determining the desired configuration, allowance must be made
for the additional slackness of the maximum movements of the adjacent equipment relative to each other.
This can be done by calculation using the nonlinear finite element method presented in Clause 11. For
purposes of illustration, examples of configurations that meet and do not meet such distances are shown in
Figure D.l and Figure D.2. The illustrated configurations on these figures have been established with the
nonlinear finite element method, for a given installation with specific relative displacement needs and fixed
electrical clearances.
10.2 Corona losses
Corona losses in the substation environment are usually very small as compared to long transmission lines,
but it is not the corona losses themselves that are the main concern. Rather, the main concern is the Radio
Interference Voltage (RIV), which results from corona and causes radio and television reception interfer-
ence. This interference can be generated from very short lengths of conductor and therefore it is necessary to
ensure it is considered as part of the flexible buswork design process.
Corona generation is directly related to the diameter of the conductor, ¡.e., the smaller the diameter, the
lower the voltage at which corona begins. Site-specific humidity and the elevation of the facility will also
affect the corona inception voltage. The more humid a site is, the lower the corona inception voltage. The
higher the elevation, the lower the corona inception voltage. For example, an increase of 1000 m in elevation
will reduce the voltage at which corona starts by approximately 10%.
Another major factor effecting the amount of corona generated is the conductor surface. The more irregular
the conductor surface the lower the corona inception voltage. Therefore, the conductor, connector, and any
spacer or connector hardware must be kept clean and free of abrasion to minimize corona.
For single conductors, it has been determined experimentally that a minimum diameter of 25 mm is neces-
sary to avoid excessive corona generation for a line voltage of 220 kV, and a minimum of 30 mm is required
when the line voltage is 287 kV. However, when connections are to be installed on a site where high humid-
ity is common or the elevation is greater than 1000 m, the diameter of the conductor to be used as part of the
flexible buswork connection may have to be increased to ensure corona losses and therefore RIV is
minimized. For typical installations the corona curves presented in Figure C.8 can be used to find the
approximate conductor size for a given voltage assuming a flat conductor arrangement that will minimize
the corona losses and RiV generation (Electrical Transmissionand Distribution Reference Book [B2 i]).
Corona at sharp comers of high-voltage electrical equipment is usually not a problem at 161 kV and below,
but at 345 kV and higher voltages it must be considered. Therefore, flexible buswork connection between
major pieces of electrical equipment at 345 kV and above should be smooth with generous bends and corona
shields installed at terminals of equipment connections. The conductors used for “drops” may be required to
be larger than those for normal current-carrying capacity because the smaller diameter may develop excess
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
corona. The use of more than one conductor for “drops” on each phase at 345 kV and above will also require
the use of parallel connectors; these connectors should be selected and mounted with appropriate corona
suppression hardware considerations.
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
10.3 Current-carrying capacity
To ensure that overheating does not cause the flexible buswork connections to droop and thereby increase
the risk of flashover; it is necessary to ensure that the steady state current does not cause the conductor
material to reach its annealing temperature. To ensure this does not occur, it is normal practice to set the
maximum temperature limit for the conductor material approximately 10% to 20% below its annealing tem-
perature. For instance, for an aluminum conductor the maximum temperature is set at 70 OC. If the combined
effect of the ambient air temperature and solar radiation results in a temperature rise of 40 “C in the conduc-
tor, the allowable temperature rise associated with the current-carrying capacity of this conductor is only
30 “C and the conductor must be sized with this constraint in mind. Table B.3 and Table B.4 show current-
carrying capacity of conductors based on this rationale. For conductor sizes not covered on Table B.3 and
Table B.4, it is recommended that IEEE Std 738 or IEEE Std 605 be utilized.
Flexible buswork conductors should not only have ample current-carrying capacity, but also should be suffi-
ciently stiff so there will be no conductor sag due to high temperature or the weight of the conductors and
spacer connectors. Overheating of conductors can also cause under-designed flexible buswork to sag and as
a result cause the phase-to-ground clearances to be below the minimum required. For example, a
2000 ampere flexible buswork may require only two 250 mm2 (500 kcmil) copper conductors per phase, but
due to sagging caused by heating, and the len hs of conductors and spacers connectors required, a flexible
L!
buswork design using conductors of 380 mm to 510 mm2 (750 kcmil to 1000 kcmil) may be necessary.
Stiffness can be increased by adding more “spacer” connectors at intervals along the conductors in the ratio
of total spacer-grip length to total remaining flexible conductor length. However, a flexible link totally held
by spacers will lose all flexibility.
The overheating can also anneal conductors causing them to become soft and not able to keep their shape
over time. If the conductors loose their rigidity, they also can deform during such events as fault conditions
or seismic events and reduce the basic impulse level (BIL) rating of the system.
When more than one conductor is used, a “proximity effect” must be taken into account. This “proximity
effect” is caused by the magnetic field of each individual conductor inducing currents in the others of the
same bundle, which causes additional heating o f the conductors. This “proximity effect” is a function of the
flexible connection size and shape, and the conductor spacing. Its approximate derating effect on the cur-
rent-carrying capacity of the flexible buswork design can be determined using the graph given in Figure C.9.
10.4 Wind and ice effects
The effects of wind and ice loading should be considered on flexible buswork connections and especially for
the conductor type. The ice thickness and wind velocity standards used by the utility for transmission line
design should be used as the criteria for the loading on the flexible buswork connections or IEEE Std 605
can be utilized. The weight of ice used in the analysis will depend on the standard set by the user; it could be
from 6.4 mm to 12.7 mm or higher depending on the winter conditions or the location of the installation, for
it cannot always be assumed that ice will not accumulate even with a conductor temperature above O “C. The
only exceptions to this general rule of thumb are regions where the ambient temperature does not fall below
O O C and regions that are too dry to prevent ice from forming. To verify electrical clearance requirements, a
flexible conductor configuration should be analyzed using the additional expected ice weight in regions
where it applies (see Clause 1I).
The wind-loading should be considered as a horizontal load on the flexible buswork connections and applied
to connection at right angle to the conductors. The loading to be used should be the maximum per unit
Copyright O 2006 IEEE. All rights resewed. 17

IEEE
values applied to transmission lines. Maximum wind and ice loading will be during storm conditions and
high electrical loading, therefore the cooling effect will help maintain the shape of energized, heavily loaded
conductors.
When a flexible buswork connection utilizing stranded conductor is installed between two connection
points, wind-induced vibration must also be considered using standard transmission line design methods, for
vibration activity is directly proportional to the tension-to-mass ratio of the conductor even for installation
with sufficient slack for seismic activity. Vibration passed on from the rigid buswork must also be consid-
ered for it may cause the flexible buswork connection to fail over time due to fatigue.
The loading on tubular buswork-type connections with flexible buswork interconnectors on the ends will be
affected by the horizontal wind loading along the length of the tube and will put horizontal forces on these
connectors. The forces can be calculated with respect to the tubular bus diameter, length, and wind velocity
(see IEEE Std 605). This deflection should also be considered on phase-to-phase clearances and forces on
equipment.
10.5 Fault conditions
During fault conditions, the magnitude of the fault current flowing in a flexible buswork connection can be
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
10 to 20 times greater than the normal current-carrying capacity of the buswork, and the lateral forces acting
on it can be 100 to 400 times greater than during normal operation. Therefore, the designer must ensure the
flexible buswork is designed for these extreme conditions until the system protection operates by ensuring
the conductor’s temperature does not reach the conductor material’s annealing temperature during a fault
and by ensuring the flexible buswork connection has the lateral stiffness required to “maintain” safe electri-
cal clearances.
IEEE Std 738 or IEEE Std 605 can be used to determine temperature rise based on the magnitude of the fault
current until the system protection operates, while the lateral stiffness of flexible buswork connection design
can be determined only by testing once the forces are known.
It should be noted that bundled conductors on the same phase during fault conditions will experience forces
pulling them together at ali times, while the forces between phases will vary with the phase relationship of
the magnetic fields, at times they will be attracted to each other and at other times they will repel each other.
The calculated forces should be determined at the asymmetrical fault level because that will produce the
maximum fault level and forces on the electrical components. Short-circuit forces calculations are detailed
in IEEE Std 605.
Alternatively, if a flexible buswork connection does fail during fault conditions it can be quite easily and
cheaply replaced since most flexible buswork connection designs use material commonly in use and readily
available. However, safety and reliability issues should be considered and satisfied.
10.6 Loads on terminal pads and seismically-induced dynamic effects of

conductors
The forces on equipment terminai pads will be determined by the various elements acting on the flexible bus
connection. These elements are the weight of the flexible bus connection system, the forces due to wind and
ice loading, an electrical fault condition, a seismic event, and normal operating forces. Several of these
forces can occur at the same time thereby having a cumulative effect on the equipment terminal pads. Dur-
ing a seismic event some of these elements could be present together. In the case of a high-voltage circuit
breaker called on to open for a fault condition during a seismic event during a cold, icy, windy winter month,
the combination of these forces can be estimated by considering each element individually. It should be
noted that the probability of each of these elements occurring at the same time must be reviewed together on

IEEE
a site-by-site basis. Short-circuit loads have not been shown to be a significant cause of failure during past
earthquakes (IEEE Std 693).
The external forces in the above scenario will also be applied to flexible bus connectors and these connectors
should be capable of maintaining an electrical connection while these relatively short-term and long-term
forces are applied. Some of these forces can achieve a high level in milliseconds with multiple peaks. The
end connectors of the flexible bus connection should have sufficient clamping capability to maintain the
conductors when forces are applied from a fault condition. The forces will be applied in a lateral direction
and will be in one direction during part of the electrical cycle and in the opposite direction during another
part of the cycle.
Terminal and bus connectors can be bolted, crimped or welded types, and should have the minimum number
of terminal pad bolt holes required as per NEMA CC 1-2002 [B20] to ensure sufficient current capacity and
torque resistance. Manufacturer test results should be consulted for connectors under consideration. The use
of spacer connectors on a multiple conductor per phase design will help maintain the position of the conduc-
tor with respect to each other and with respect to the other phase conductors.
There will also be seismically-induced dynamic effects causing additional forces on the terminal pads. Even
when adequately designed, a configuration made of flexible conductor will transmit dynamic forces that
might be significant to the interconnected equipment. It is now well established through analytical and
experimental work that those forces might be an order of magnitude higher than the static forces transmitted
only through the dead weight of the conductor and the static application of the expected equipment relative
displacement. Therefore, the dynamic forces cannot be neglected in the design process.
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Based on the results of several different researchers who performed experimental and analytical work on the
subject @SI, [B9], @310], [Bll], ß121, ß16], @317], [BlS], @319], l322]), Table A.3 presents design
forces that must be taken into account in the equipment design process (as well as the connectors design as
discussed above), for voltage levels of 115 kV and higher (see Annex E for more details on how these design
forces were determined). If a configuration is not adequately designed to account for the expected relative
displacement (4.4), it should be recognized that actual forces presented might be exceeded several times;
see, for example, Dastous and Pierre [B12].
Since the equipment seismic qualification is done on a standalone basis, the effect of those forces (stresses)
must be included in the design in direct combination (that is additional) to the maximum stresses either mea-
sured or calculated in the seismic qualification process. In most cases, the maximum effect of those forces is
to add an additional bending stress at the base of the insulator(s) of the equipment, due to the cantilever
effect of those forces applied near the top of the equipment. It is to be also recognized that the forces in
Table A.3 might be especially significant for lower voltage and lighter equipment (230 kV and below).
However, even for higher voltage, they cannot be neglected in most cases.
As an example, suppose that equipment qualified for the moderate level in IEEE Std 693 will be intercon-
nected by a bundle of two conductors. In such case, additional vertical and horizontal forces of 2000 N (2 x
1000 N per conductor) must be included as additional loads in the seismic design.
10.7 Three-dimensional (3-D)effects of earthquakes
The design rule to establish the required conductor length (4.4), along with the requirement that the
equipment and connectors need to be qualified to account for the seismically-induced dynamic effects of
conductors presented in 10.6 and Table A.3, will generally cover 3-D effects that might lead to vibration in
planes other than the vertical plane in which the conductor configuration is resting under its own weight in
normal operating conditions (Dastous and Pierre [Bl i]). Note that in some few cases, 3-D effects might
amplify the resultant forces transmitted as compared to those obtained through testing or analysis with exci-
tation in only the conductor’s horizontal direction (Dastous and Pierre [Bl i]). In cases where the design

IEEE
forces presented in Table A.3 cause the maximum stresses in the equipment to reach values close to design
limits, it is recommended that further studies be undertaken to include 3-D effects.
1 I . Conductor configurations
The configuration of the flexible bus connections is very important for the amount of movement provided
and forces exerted on terminals, as well as the need for meeting the required electrical insulation clearances.
11.1 Recommended configurations
In addition to establishing the required amounts of differential equipment movement (4.4), it is necessary to
choose a practical conductor configuration that will provide the necessaq limited flexibility. Although
seismically-induced equipment movement will initially be in the same direction, the movements may shortly
oppose each other. This direction change is dependent on the natural frequency and damping of each piece
of equipment. In addition to establishing the required amount of differential movement, it is therefore neces-
sary to choose a practical conductor configuration that will provide the necessary flexibility, both in the
“pushing” and “pulling” direction. The flexible buswork should also be configured so as to avoid compro-
mising voltage gradients across buswork and equipment insulators, while maintaining the established phase-
to-phase and phase-to-ground air insulation clearances.
As a result of analysis and actual physical tests with AAC conductors aimed at establishing the flexibility
characteristics, four basic configurations, and slight variations of each, were found to be most suitable.
These basic configurations are shown in Figure C.7, and are intended to provide the necessary Conductor
‘‘stretch” and permit “compression” without applying excessive force to the bus and equipment termina-
tions. The dimensions of a configuration adequate for an application are determined according to voltage
(clearances), conductor size (bending radius), equipment differential movement, and vertical and horizontal
separation of the terminal points.
All configurations presented will maintain their assumed shape within a specified span interval outside of
which the shape becomes unstable (see, for example, Dastous and Paquin [BlO]). It is the responsibility of
each user to determine the maximum span at which the configured shape will collapse. Climatic conditions
such as ice and wind may also affect the stability of each configuration for a given span. Also for each con-
figuration type, a minimum span exists below which they become increasingly more rigid and therefore lack
the necessary flexibility to accommodate the expected relative displacement. It is also the responsibility of
each user to establish those minimum spans.
Configuration 1 of Figure C.7 is easy to apply and is especially suitable where large relative displacements
are expected. However, it is limited to a maximum span outside of which it may fall back to a configuration
close to Configuration 4 or even sideways due to its weight, wind, or ice effects. This limit varies with the
conductor properties and should be established according to the possible loads. However, using two conduc-
tors with spacers greatly enhances the lateral rigidity and stability of such configuration and may permit its
use on longer spans.
Configuration 2 is suitable where there is an absolute necessity to attach one end at a horizontal angle. It is
not limited in span but may lead to large sag for long spans. The attachment at the other end may be at an
angle of 45” or O” (vertical). Such configurations may need to be pre-shaped into the proposed configuration
by hand on the ground before installation, especially for smaller spans. To minimize the chances of “bird
caging,” it is recommended that the conductor be cut to the approximate length required, which gives the
individual strands freedom to reposition themselves. It is also recommended that all conductor strands be
held together with a flexible spiral spring or “hose clamps” at the smallest bending radius location, which
will force repositioning of the conductor strands.
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
Some variations of Configuration 3 must be used with caution since the amount of slack permitted while
meeting electrical clearances is limited. It also has the disadvantage that due to nonlinear effects, the slack
may quickly be used and large tensions may develop abruptly. Of the four configurations, Configuration 3
provides the least amount of slack for given sag and electrical clearances to be met. It should therefore be
reserved to situations where the relative expected displacements are small andor where it can be used with
relatively large sag. However, one advantage of Configuration 3 is its simplicity and the fact that it does not
require any modification to the attachment system, since it is a configuration with well-established use.
Configuration 4 is suitable for taking away the conductor from the phase-to-ground radius clearance as
shown in Figure D.2, and provides the possibility of more slack than Configuration 3 for the same sag. It is
especially suitable for large spans where Configuration 1 cannot be used. It has been found that for this con-
figuration, attachment at angles of 45’ is more appropriate than vertical and prevents the “bird caging”
effects. Such a configuration may also need to be pre-shaped into the proposed configuration by hand on the
ground before installation, especially for smaller spans. Note that it might not be recommended to use on
small spans due to the fact that it becomes relatively more rigid as the span decreases, especially for heavier
conductors. For example, using a 4000 kcmil conductor, it has been found to be limited to a minimum of 3.5
m span (Dastous and Paquin lo]).
Results of actual static tests on Configurations 1,2, and 3 are shown in Figure D.3. Regarding the flexibility,
Figure D.3 illustrates for the examples given that Configuration 1 is about 10 times more flexible than the
“S” and 3 configurations, and about 2.5 better then Configuration 2. This qualitatively outlines the advan-
tages of Configuration 1 over the others with respect to flexibility. It should be noted that Configuration “S”
of Figure D.3 is assumed to be a variation of the Configuration 3 shown in Figure C.7. It was shown inde-
pendently in Figure D.3 to show how similar it is to Configuration 3. Thus, the conductor configuration
together with the seismic movement of the equipment and bus determines the forces the solid terminations
will experience. As discussed in 10.6, it is to be noted that seismically-induced dynamic forces are usually
much higher than the static forces generated for the same elongation.
In general, for a given installation or a group of installations in a seismic area where one level of accelera-
tion is used for them all, each user should establish the expected displacements at the attachment points of
equipment as per Clause4 and then, compute the corresponding amount of slack required according to
Equation (7) and Equation (8). See Figure C. 1 for a more detailed breakdown of the design process. Next, it
should be established which of the configurations presented in this document is most suitable for the given
situation according to the span and the other requirements described above. It is then a good practice to
establish a working table describing which configurations could be used according to the span, to cover
expected displacements at the site(s) being considered. As an example, Figure D.4 illustrates flexible config-
uration relationships that were established for one utility for two types of conductors and for the expected
displacements at their sites. Those tables are issued from actual physical trials aimed at establishing the flex-
ibility characteristics of 1170 mm2 (2300 kcmil) AAC, similar to what was done for the 645 mm2
(1272 kcmil) AAC. See Dastous and Paquin @310]for other examples where configurations were further-
more established according to their dynamic behavior.
Figure D.4 shows that the appropriate configuration to use is determined by the intersection of the applicable
horizontal and vertical separation indicated on these figures. A separation without a designation is not possi-
ble due to interference of phase-to-ground clearance from the buswork or equipment insulator support steel.
For connections that are not far enough apart to accommodate the minimum bending radius of the standard
bare conductor, it would be appropriate to install braided conductor with adequate shielding as required.
Another option for applications where space is limited is to use a “rope lay” stranded conductor (referenced
as Class B or C conductor). This style conductor is manufactured using the same alloys and finished diame-
ter, yet utilizes a smaller strand diameter with more strand layers. This results in a more flexible conductor,
and is useful for nominal lengths less than the following: 2.0 m for 715 kcmil, 2.5 m for 1113 kcmil, and
3.0 m for 2300 kcmil AAC. Several manufacturers offer this type of cable pre-assembled to length require-
ments with typical termination fittings.
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
Std 1527-2006 IEEE RECOMMENDEDPRACTICE FOR THE DESIGN OF
While the conductor configurations obtained (as shown for example in Figure D.4) should provide adequate
flexibility for the criteria according to which they were designed, it is essential that the flexible bus not dis-
play excessive flexibility and cause other problems such as electrical clearance violations prior to seismic
event. Therefore, with the broad range of differential movement possible for equipment in various seismic
zones, a final check for flexibility should be made during installation of the conductor to ensure the electri-
cal clearances are not violated. This is normally done by connecting only one end of the conductor to the
rigid bus or equipment and then pushing the other end of the conductor towards the connected end for a dis-
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
tance equal to 50% of the slack the flexible connection was designed for. The connection passes if no “bird
caging” occurs and if the electrical clearances to phase-to-ground and phase-to-phase are maintained. Verifi-
cation of clearances can also be done analytically as described in 11.2.
11.2 Calculation method for verifying electrical clearances
To facilitate the design of adequate configurations for AAC, there is a requirement to develop techniques
aimed at predicting the geometry of a given configuration-to verify beforehand that the electrical insula-
tion clearances will be respected upon installation.
Under its own weight, a conductor will generally fall in a configuration determined by its attachment angles,
its span, its length, and the mechanical properties discussed in Clause 8 (E and i).In the case of small con-
ductors (below 1200 mm’) for short spans (below 3 m), there is usually a need to preshape them before use
and it is generally observed that such configurations retain their shapes upon installation. This is especially
true for configurations such as 1 of Figure C.7 (inverse parabola), which will naturally retain its own shape
under its own weight. For such configurations, practical experience in the field is indeed sufficient to veri@
that it will retain its own shape and thus, should meet all electrical clearances for which it was designed upon
installation.
For longer spans and heavier conductors, however it is difficult to predict what the end result will be. Also,
even inverse parabolas are not expected to retain their own shape past a certain span. Consequently there is a
need to use a calculation method that will predict the static geometry and hence help verify that the required
electrical clearances are indeed met.
A suitable method to establish the geometry of a configuration under its own weight (and possibly under
other loads such as wind and ice) is the nonlinear finite element method. Dastous ß8], Hong ß191, and Der
Kiureghian et a1 [B13] describe various application examples and recommendations on the use of this
method. This method can be utilized with a finite element program that has nonlinear capabilities. In this
method, the conductor is divided in a number of small beam elements and the final configuration is calcu-
lated by incremental steps, starting from a weightless straight conductor that has a length equal to the span
added to the required slack Equation (S)]. The method converges gradually towards the final configuration,
with the incremental imposition of the weight as well as the end displacements and rotations (if required), to
arrive at the horizontal and vertical separations required. It has been confirmed experimentally that this
method is relatively precise (Dastous PSI, Hong p19], Dastous and Paquin PlO]) as displayed by the
example presented in Figure D.5. However, this method is reserved to experienced users well acquainted
with nonlinear analysis, and often requires trial and error regarding the way the incremental displacements,
rotations and weight are combined, to arrive at a convergent and a sound solution. Nevertheless, once it is
mastered, it provides quick calculations of the geometry of a given configuration and can also be used to
establish the forces on the terminations as discussed in 11.3.
11.3 Methods to establish configuration flexibility and terminal loads
When relative displacement is applied to the ends of a configuration due to the motion of the interconnected
equipment, there will be a corresponding increase in the forces applied to the terminations. Another impor-
tant design aspect of adequate configuration for AAC (or other types) is therefore the requirement to predict
the forces exerted at the terminations, to veri6 that they respect the capabilities of the equipment attached to

IEEE
the configuration being investigated. Also, it might be useful to the designer to investigate the flexibility of
the different available configurations for given span and height difference between equipment, in order to
choose the most appropriate one for a given application. In general, it is best to choose the most flexible
configuration whenever possible, as this minimizes coupling between equipment as well as the forces
transmitted by the conductor.
To investigate these two aspects, static calculation or testing methods can be used at first to obtain an esti-
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
mate of the transmitted forces, as well as to assess the flexibility of a given configuration. However, static
analysis or testing only provides a lower bound estimate of the actual forces applied in practice, since
dynamic effects will magniQ those forces as discussed in 10.6.
Subclauses 11.3.1 through 11.3.4 describe the various calculation and testing methods available for both
static and dynamic analyses.
11.3.1 Static calculation methods
The static force increase when a configuration is stretched due to equipment movement can be calculated
with linear as well as nonlinear analysis. Linear analysis is suitable where the applied displacement is rela-
tively small and no significant change of geometry will occur with the applied displacement. Nonlinear anal-
ysis is more suitable when the opposite is more likely. However, due to the difficulties of nonlinear analysis
as discussed in 11.2, linear analysis can still provide a first estimate even when large displacements are
applied, provided that the configuration is not stretched too close to its physical limitations. This can be
qualitatively observed in Figure D.5 (in the upper subfigure) where it is seen that the behavior of the conduc-
tor under the applied displacement is indeed quasi-linear over a good range, up to a span of 5.2 m in this
example, as separated qualitatively by the vertical line. Figure D.5 also shows the significant departure from
linear behavior when the conductor is stretched past this limit (from 5.2 m span).
For linear analysis, two methods can be used as described in 11.3.1.1 and 11.3.1.2. These two methods
assume that the initial configuration shape or geometry can be estimated accurately, since such an estimate
is required in the first place to undertake the calculation. In the cases where it is not possible to determine
such an estimate, nonlinear analysis is then the only remaining alternative as described in 11.3.1.3.
11.3.1.1 Castigliano’s Theorem
One available static analysis method is provided by Castigliano’s Theorem for the determination of deflec-
tions of complex structures. It states that when forces operate on elastic systems, the displacement corre-
sponding to any force may be found by obtaining the partial derivative of the strain energy with respect to
that force. The following is an example of applying this theorem to the flexibility analysis of a AAC bundle
configuration of two 645 mm2 (1272 kcmil) conductors, where the initial geometry is given in Figure C.10.
Using Castigliano’s Theorem and neglecting deflection due to direct shear, the deflection in the x-axis of
this configuration is shown in Equation (12).
where
6, is the deflection in the x-axis,
U is the strain energy,
Fd is the force due to displacement,
and

IEEE
- X (2.548 X h2 X r - 1.271 X h X r2 -I
6, = Fd 0.5532 X ï 3 )= 0.1836 X 1Ö3X F d
EI
If the combined movement of the two adjacent pieces of equipment is 150 mm, the force (Fd) required to
produce this deflection is equal to approximately 820 N from the above analysis.
11.3.1.2 Linear finite element method
This method can be used with any linear finite element software to perform a static analysis of a configured
conductor, where a two-dimensional beam element may be .used to model the conductor. An adequate num-
ber of nodes and elements are required to closely model the geometry of the configuration being analyzed.
Values for the moment of inertia and Young’s modulus of elasticity as discussed in Clause 8 should be used
in this analysis. One end of the conductor can be considered fixed with constraints imposed while load is
applied at the free end. Since the analysis is a small deflection linear static analysis, only one load step is
required for one particular configuration with the output displacements being proportional to forces applied.
11.3.1.3 Nonlinear finite element method
The nonlinear analysis method has been described in 11.2. Once the initial configuration has been obtained
as described, the relative displacement can then be applied incrementally in a given number of load steps, to
obtain the deformed configuration and the corresponding forces exerted on the terminations. It is to be noted
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
that this method, as well as the linear methods described earlier, is very sensitive to the values of E and I
used in the calculations in regards to the computed forces. For example, the correct value of EI to use has
been found to be closer to the one provided by Equation (1 1) for most cases where enough slack is provided
so that the configuration remains relatively flexible over the range of applied displacement. For example, the
nonlinear finite element results reported on Figure D.5 have been obtained using Equation (11) for EI. In
case of uncertainty, it is recommended that a minimum number of experiments be undertaken to establish
more precisely the values of properties to be used, since the forces provided by any kind of calculation meth-
ods are entirely dependent on such properties.
11.3.2 Testing methods
In addition to the analytical methods proposed in 11.3.1, the static flexibility of any configuration can be
established through testing. Such tests consist in applying a displacement at one or both ends of the connec-
tion, while measuring the corresponding applied forces. For small displacements for which the behavior of
the connection can be assumed linear, this will provide a value of the spring constant “K”. This spring con-
stant “K” is the relationship between the force required to bend this conductor and the displacements of the
conductor this force causes, assuming no permanent deformations occur. One simple test methodology is
shown in Figure C.11 and described in the next paragraphs.
From Figure C. 11 it can be seen that the simple Test Rig consists of installing the configured conductor in
the horizontal plane with its weight supported to minimize any possible contact with the test bench during
the test and not to minimize the influence of graviîy because for spans below 3 m, gravity’s influence is
already minor. One end of the conductor should be fixed, while the other end should be a pivot point
installed on a cart, which can only move back and forth in the x-axis. A pivot point connection is used to
help facilitate smooth movement of the cart and so the conductor-under-test is not damaged or permanently
deformed during testing. However, this pivot point must be lockable so the Test Rig can be used to simulate
the true connection. One should also be able to attach a spring scale to either end of this moveable cart so

IEEE
any applied forces in the “push” or ‘‘pull” direction can be applied to the conductor-under-test through this
scale. A measuring tape should be installed parallel to the path of the cart so that the deflection of the con-
ductor can be measured when the forces are applied. Alternatively, the spring scale and the measuring tape
can be replaced by a load cell and a displacement transducer.
To simulate the effect of parallel conductor connectors or conductor “spacers” used on multiple conductor
flexible buswork designs, hose clamps can be installed at various locations on a single conductor-under-test
in the Test Rig to determine how this restraint impacts the overall flexibility of this conductor.
If the point of deformation is not well known for the stranded conductor-under-test, then one way to explore
when deformation occurs and minimize the risk of damaging the conductor is to undertake an average of 8
to 10 measurements over the possible conductor bending range using the Test Rig with the pivot point
unlocked for any configured conductor-under-test. This testing should be stopped before permanent conduc-
tor deformation reaches 10% of the total displacement of the conductor-under-test. However, for at least the
final two measurements of each test, the pivot point must be in the locked position. This must be done to
determine the additional effect two rigidly clamped terminals have on the measured data, for this situation
more closely models reality. However, if it is feit that the point of deformation of the conductor-under-test is
well known then testing to determine when conductor deformation will occur is not required. Furthermore,
the described Test Rig can also be used to confirm the validity of Young’s modulus of elasticity (E) and the
moment of inertia (Z) used in flexibility calculations for the stranded conductor in question.
The only parameter that cannot be measured utilizing the Test Rig shown in Figure C.11 is any torque at the
ends of the conductor-under-test created by the force applied to it. The value of this torque is assumed to be
minimum. Alternatively, a load cell that can simultaneously measure the push-pull force and the torque can
be used.
The testing of the lateral stiffness of a configured conductor provides the designer with an understanding of
how flexible the buswork is in the lateral directions. To determine the lateral stiffness of a configured con-
ductor to be used in a flexible buswork design, it is recommended that it be set-up on test bench as it would
be actually installed. Both ends of the conductor should be fixed and then a spring scale should be attached
to the highest point on the configured conductor in such a way that it can be used to pull the conductor in a
lateral direction. A small plumb-line should also be hung from the attachment point on the conductor over a
measuring tape laid perpendicular to the configured conductor so the deflection of the conductor from its
original apex can be determined when the lateral force is applied through the spring scale. It is important that
the lateral forces applied to each side of the configured conductor-under-test be equal and applied for an
equivalent time, and that the conductor return to within 10% or less of its overall deflection to its original
apex to ensure no permanent deformation of the conductor has occurred. However, this test does not guaran-
tee that the conductor will return to its original position, so short-circuit tests may be required.
It is also important that the final measurements of the testing method described above, for the static feasibil-
ity of a configured conductor, be undertaken with both ends being rigidly clamped. Depending on the con-
nection initial shape as well as on the displacement itself, this may create differences that might be
significant. In the case of configuration such as 1 (Figure C.7 - inverse parabola), such differences might not
be that important since such connections are already very flexible by themselves. However, for configura-
tions such as 2, 3, or 4, the differences may be more significant, particularly if the displacements imposed
are rather large and the span is greater than 3 m. This may lead to permanent deformations, but will
nevertheless provide a more reliable estimate of the constant “K”, as well as the forces produced by the
deflection of the connection.
In the case where the span is greater than 3 meters or the effect of the weight of the connection or both is
assumed to play a determinant role in its initiai configuration, it is preferable to test the connection in its ver-
tical plane, as installed with both ends clamped. A testing methodology that could be used towards this end
is the one presented in Dastous and Pierre [B12] to study the dynamic behavior of flexible connections. This
methodology consists of applying the displacement at one or both ends while measuring the corresponding

--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
applied forces with a load cell; it can be applied at low frequency to study the quasi-static behavior.
Although more costly than the previous method, this method should provide more accurate results for spans
greater than 3 m or where the effect of the weight of the conductor has more influence. A further advantage
of such a setup is that the dynamic reactions can also be investigated if the stretching is applied at the proper
frequency. Of course, any similar methodology that stretches the conductor can be used.
Full-scale dynamic testing of either real or dummy interconnected equipment with a given configuration is
also possible using a shake table. Examples of such tests are presented in Filiatrault and Stearns [B16]and
Gualifabian et al P l S I . However, such tests are limited in many ways, most notably:
a) The amplitude of motion available, related to the table capacity versus the mass of equipment tested.
b) The number of interconnected equipment that can be tested at a time; usually only one pair due to
table size limitations, which prevents the study of multi-connected equipment.
c) The possibility of breaking costly equipment if used.
d) The difficulty for a dummy equipment to adequately reproduce the properties of real equipment.
e) Time and cost constraints with use of shake tables.
11.3.3 Nonlinear dynamic analysis with the finite element method
Ultimately, nonlinear dynamic analysis with the finite element method is the most precise and flexible anal-
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
ysis approach. However, the nonlinear static analysis requires that the user be well acquainted and experi-
enced with this method and, preferably, that experimental validations of the conductor model used has been
done beforehand to ensure consistent results (see Dastous ßS] for example). This method allows modeling
not only the conductor, but also a series of interconnected equipment subjected to a given earthquake load,
represented by a time history of the ground acceleration. Therefore, this approach allows the study of the
time variation of the loads applied to the equipment and the study of 3-D effects, as well as the effect of
multi-connected components, which would be impracticable to reproduce experimentally on a shake table as
discussed. Examples of successful studies with this approach are presented in Dastous and Pierre P1i].
11.3.4 Discussion on the available methods
Results from analysis and testing on various conductor configurations agree reasonably well, provided that
the value of inertia (i) used in the calculation has been previously well estimated and confirmed by
measurement. One exception is that the hysteresis effect, a characteristic of the stranded construction as
shown in tests, cannot be simulated in analysis without elaborate modeling (such as in Dastous ß S ] and
Hong p191); see Figure D.5 as an example of such an effect.
While testing methods are most suitable to establish configuration flexibility, they are inherently costly as
opposed to analysis methods. Testing methods can also be used to study end forces exerted on terminals,
although dynamic testing (the most realistic approach) is limited as discussed, especially for time history
simulations on shake table.
For static flexibility analysis, the finite element method (whether linear or nonlinear) is a time-saving
technique as compared to the analytical approach using Castigliano’s Theorem. The former method should
generally be used unless finite element application software is not readily available or the number of config-
urations being analyzed is minimal. Nonlinear finite element analysis is recommended to predict the config-
uration final geometry and veri& electrical insulation clearances. Nonlinear analysis is the preferred method
when large displacements are applied that will change significantly the initial configuration geometry. It
however requires as discussed a more in depth experience with the finite element method. Limited valida-
tion with experimental results is also recommended to establish the user’s confidence in any calculation
methods, as well as to study the inherent limitations in any method.

IEEE
For dynamic analysis, testing methods are limited as well as costly. Nonlinear finite element analysis is
therefore recommended although its successful use is limited to experienced users with a model that has
been preferably validated with experimental results beforehand.
11.4 Connection hardware
Flexible bus connections are usually designed utilizing standard bolted or weldable connection hardware or
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
a combination of both, which is usually readily available and more economical than specialty items. There-
fore, for these reasons it is recommended that standard ?off-the-shelf? connection hardware be used
whenever possible.
The material of which the connection hardware should be made depends on what material the stranded con-
ductor is made and this topic is discussed in Clause 7 of this document. Consequently, the choice of which
material should be used for the connection hardware is lefi up to the designer based on the parameters cov-
ered in Clause 7.
When standard bolted straight terminai connectors are used as the end points of the stranded conductor of
the flexible buswork design, special terminai pad adapters similar to those shown in Figure C.12 may be
required so that the stranded conductor can be shaped into the desired configurations.
The bolts used for the bolted connections are usually stainless steel with two flat washers, a nut and a spring
or lock washer. The second flat washer is used under the bolt head to help distribute the clamping force over
a larger area. A bronze nut can also be used to avoid galling wear and to improve load performance. See
Clause 7 for more details.
When a flexible buswork design with a current-canying capacity of 3000 A or more is required, Clause 6 of
this document should be consulted for the connection hardware and fastener requirements.
CopyrightO 2006 IEEE. All rights reserved. 27

IEEE
Annex A
(normative)
Normative tables
Table A.l-Bound values for the maximum expected displacement for 2% damping using
the IEEE 693 response spectrum for l g (high level)
Table A.2-Recommended terminai pad size and hole configuration
I I
NEMA Configuration
Recommended current range Area per boit
(AlB mm2
Number of holes Pad size mm
I 5400 to 6300 I 9b I 152x 152 I 2600 I

aBased on 0.23 Nmm2 to 0.27 Nmm2 of total area overlap.
bBased on NEMA but not defined in NEMA standard.

--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
Qualification level
Design forcea
Moderate (0.5 g) High (1.0 g)
Horizontal 1O00 N by subconductor 2000 N by subconductor

(at terminal pad in line direction)
Vertical 1000 N by subconductor 2000 N by subconductor

(at terminal pad)
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
Annex B
(informative)
Tables
Table 6.1-Properties of copper as used for stranded electrical conductors (EC)

-~
Electrical conductivity -1 l o i % i c s a a t 2 0 0:
Electrical resistivity I 1.71~ ohms-mm2/m at 20°C
Density I 8910kg/m3
Melting point 1083 "C
Thermal conductivity 401 W/(m O K ) at 20 "C
Linear coefficient of thermal 17.6 x lo4 / "C (average from 20 "C

expansion to 300 O C )
Tensile strength
-Hard 380 MPa
-Soft 220 Mpa
Yield strengthb
-Hard 345 MPa
-Soft 69 MPa
12% in 100 mm
Elongation 108% in 100 mm
Modulus of elasticity 117 GPa
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
Table B.2-Properties of aluminuma as used for stranded electrical conductors (EC)
t
I
Electrical conductivity
Electrical resistivity
Density
61% IACSb at 20 "C
2.82~
27 1 O kp/m3
ohms-mm2/rnat 20°C
I Melting point 658 "C
Thermal conductivity 237 W/(m OK) at 20 "C
Linear coefficient of thermal 23.6 x IO4 / "C (average from 20 "C

expansion to 100 OC)
Tensile strength
-Hard 186 MPa
-Soft 83 Mpa
Yield strength'
-Hard 165 MF'a
- Soft 27 MPa
Elongation
-Hard 0.59% in 100 mm
- Soft 0.91% in 100 mm
Modulus of elasticiîy 69 GPa
a99.45% minimum aluminum purity.

bBy IACS is meant the International Annealed Copper Standard, which is the in-
ternationally accepted value for the resistivity of annealed copper of 100%
conductivity. This value is 58 MS/m (megasiemien /meter), which corre-
sponds to a resistivity of 1/58 W m for a wire of 1 mm 3 cross section.
'Yield strength is assumed to be stress that causes 0.2% extension.

--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
Table B.3-Recommended aluminum conductor currentcarrying capacity based on 70 "C

maximum
Flexible conductor bus

~~
Standard Temperature Current ratinga

Voltage Conductor (s)
current ratings rise @ 70 "C
(kV) mm2 (kcmii)
(A) ("Cl (30 "C rise)
~
12 600 403 (795) 27 675

1200 1167 (2300) 29 1260
2000 2 x 1167 (2 x 2300) 24 2520
1:
3000 4 x 645 (4 x 1272) 25 3660
4000 4 x 1167 (4 x 2300) 24 5040
5000 4 x 1167 (4 x 2300) 30 5040
25 600 (795) 675

1200 (2300) 1260
2000 2 X 1167 (2 x 2300) 2520
2500 2520
69 1200 (2300) 1260

1600 2 x 645 (2 x 1272) 1830
2000 2 x 1167 (2 x 2300) 24 2520
138 1600 2 X 645 ( 2 x 1272) 26 1830

2000 2 x 1167 (2x2300) 24 2520
3000 4 x 470 (4 x 927) 30 3040
230 2000 2 x 1167 (2x2300) 24 2520

3000 4 x 645 ( 4 x 1272) 25 3660
4000 4 x 1167 (4x2300) 24 5040
500 3000 3 x 1167 (3x2300) 24 I 3780

aCurrent-canying capacity from NEMA CC 1-2002 [B20] and assumes equal current sharing among
conductors.

--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
Table B.4-Current-carrying capacity of bare copper
Ampere capacitya>
Conductor size I indoor I Outdoor
Solid wire
110 AWG I 170 I 240
210 AWG I 200 l 280

410 AWG I 275 I 380
110 AWG 175 245

210 AWG 205 285
410 AWG I 280 I 385
127 mm2 (250 kcmil) I 320 I 435
203 mm2 (400 kcmil) I 435 I 580
253 mm2 (500 kcmil) I 510 I 670

304 mrn2 (600 kcrnil) 590 755
380 mm2 (750 kcrnil) 675 865
507 mm2 (1000 kcmil) 815 1035
760 mm2 (1500 kcmil) 1 1025 I 1280
1014 mm2 (2000 kcmil) 1225 1500
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
Annex C
(informative)
Figures supporting this recommended practice
C.l Introduction
The figures presented in this annex are in direct relationship with the practices recommended in the text of
this standard and often need to be used in conjunction with them. Some detail an aspect of design, while
others support concepts or calculation methods presented in this standard.
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
C.2 Figures
I Slart Design Process

I
I For a pair of iniemnnected equipment: determine individual standalone equipment displacement(Equations (1) to (6)
or from seismic qualificationreports) and calculate minimumrequired slack (Equation (7)) as per dause 4. I
I Determine Voltage dass and current rating of the buswork I
Yes
the buswrk > 3000 A ?
1
See Clause 6
I
Determine conductor size. number of Conductors and material required. See clause 7 and Tables 6.38 6.4 for
4 guidance if your organization does not have a standard regardingcwiductors to use as per current rating. Sea clause
9 if bundled conductors required.
I ûetemine eiectricai ciearances requirement I

--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
9 Determinea preliminary conductor Confguration(see clauses 5.5 11and Figure C.7) to meet clearancesand other requirements and
to acccinmodate minimum required slack determined above. Estimate final conductor length required (Equation(8)). I
1
I Determine mechanicalproperties of conductors (clause 8). determine Configuration
geometry as w u l d be installed (dause Il)
and evaluate flexibility [clause 11). I
1
No / Arevouabletomeet \
clearánces with enough
Design process completel
Figure C.l-General decision tree for flexible buswork design
Copyright O 2006 IEEE. All rights reserved 35

IEEE
Figure C.2-Generalized single-degree-of-freedomsystem equivalence

--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
r DIMENSION MAY VARY
Adapter
for 3000 A & 4000 A
applications
r DIMENSION MAY VARY
Adapter
for 5000 A
applications
current rating (A) Minunurn adapter

thickness (mm)
3000
-... 29.4
~.
..
4000 39.2
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
5000 49.0
Based on 1 A h m 2 assuming aluminum. Thickness

wiii be less if copper is used.
Figure C.3-Recommended aluminum adapters for 3000,4000, and 5000 A applications

IEEE
r TWIN CONDUCTOR
4 HOLE (MAX. 2500A)
EOUIPMENT PAD
ALUMINUM
ADAPTER
7 i
SIDE VIEW
TOP V I E W
Figure C.4-5000 A rated multiple conductor termination arrangement
t -
A
2
I rSPACER
-A
DETAIL 1
DETAIL 2 DETAIL 3

--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
phase to ground
clearance 1
insulator
lenght 1:
bus bar height
T
pedestal minimumsafety
clearance
length.
I
Figure C.6Cchematic view of electrical insulation distance requirements
Conf igurot ion 1 Configuration 2

i inverse parabol a) i double c u r v a t u r e )
-\
*' '..
v
t H J t H 1
Configuration 3 Configuration 4
1 catenary) i t r i p l e curvature)
Figure C.7-Basic configurations recommended
Copyright O 2006 IEEE. All rights reserved 39
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
Figure C.8-Conductor sizes to minimize corona loss

(kW losses per three-phase km-Derived from Electrical Transmission and Distribution Reference Book [B21])
D D
O 0 O 0
1
O 0
u e-cl L.7
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3 4 5 6
Ratio of DMI
Figure C.9-Conductor capacity derating factor due to “Proximity Effects”

(Derived from Alcan Design Manual [B2])

IEEE
Figure C.lO-Static analysis of “twinned” 644.5 mm2 (1272 kcmil) conductor configuration
Castigliano’s Theorem

--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
EL E VAT I ON
PL AN
Figure C.1 I-Recommended test rig for configured stranded conductor

IEEE
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
HOLES
-
19
16 D I A
I 152
I c 203
DETAIL 1 DETAIL 2
1710 6mm 0-1 ITW 6mn BARS1
I2 HOLES
16 DIA-.
-12 HOLES
16 D I A
t 213 1 1 6 9 1
DETAIL 3 DETAIL 4
IWE 6- 8ARI ITW b m n BARS)
NOTES
1. Al I dlmenslons are In mll Ilmetres.
2. Slngie 12mm Bors can be used.
3. Detolls w e o f f - s e t to occomt for
d l f f e r e n c e In equipment termlnal pads.
.._.._ . . ".. ..., ~ ,.... ~ ~ ~. _ _ . . . . _ . . _ . - ~ _ - _ ~ . _ . . I I . . - _ _ ^ _ _ _ I .....
Figure C.12-Typical copper or aluminum terminal pad adapters

IEEE
Annex D
(informative)
Informative fig u res
D.l Introduction
The figures presented in this annex are for information purposes only and illustrate some concepts or appli-
cations of the methods presented in this standard. They often pertain to applications done in some utility and
are therefore usually not necessarily applicable elsewhere.
D.2 Figures
Trial of conficwation 3 for 145 kV at HvdmQuebec

(conductor910 mm2, 1796 kcm)
Requirements:
Total expected relative displacement:450 mm foc 0.23 g
Phase to ground clearance: 1200 mm (minimum value d 1124 mm accepted)
Insulator length: 1200 mm
Maximum sag: 800 mm
--- Radius:minimum value for 145 kV oi 1124
Radius: usual value fa 145 W of 1200 mm
sag (4 span: 2 m span: 3 m span: 4 m

0.W
4.10
4.20
4.33
4.40
4.50
-0.60
4.70
Maximum saq for 145 k V 800 mm
4.80 \
4.90 - \ :
-1.00 \ \
-1.10
-1.20 , I
1 ;
I I
I l I
0.W 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
soan hi
Figure D.1-Example of configurations not able to meet the electrical insulation distance
requirements (reprinted with permission of Hydro-Quebec, 2005)
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
Trial of confiauration 4 for 145 kV at Hvdrc-Quebec

(conductor 910 mm2,1796 kcm)
Requirements:
Toial expected relativedisplacement: 450 mm for 0.23 g
Phase to ground clearance: 1200 mm (minimum value of 1124 mm accepted)
Insulator length: 12M) mm
Maximum sag: 800 mm
Radius minimum value for 145 kV d 1124 mm

--- Radius: usual value kf 145 kV of 1200 mm
Madmumszg fw i45 kv: Bw mi

-0.80 5
-1.00 - \;
-1.20-- I I I ('O, I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I l I I I 1 8 I
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.W 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50
soan Im)
Figure D.2-Example of configurations able to meet the electrical insulation distance

requirements (reprinted with permission of Hydro-Quebec, 2005)
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
r--r--i
-200 -150 -100 -50 O 50 100 150 200 250
PULL 4- -b PUSH
FORCE í NI
1.37
NOTE--Vertical separation of terminals was zero for the above configurations
Figure D.3-Results of flexibility testing at BC Hydro on different configurations with the

pivot point locked (reprinted with permission of BC Hydro, 2005)
46 Copyright O 2006 IEEE. All rights resewed.
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
VARIATIONS 8bSIC CONFICURATION
--_--.’
CONF I GURAT I ON 1 CONFIGURATION 2 CONFIGURATION 3
---------_. .....................
138kV S 230kV 23DkV b 5M)kV
SINüLE 644.5 d l 1 2 7 2 kcmlltAAC SINGLE 1167.2 mdf2303.5 kcmiltAAC
HOA I ZONTAL SEPARAT ION HORIZONTAL SEPARATION
H i KTERS H KTERS
Figure D.4-Flexible bus configurations used in BC Hydro

(reprinted with permission of BC Hydro, 2005)
NOTE-The above configurations were designed for relative displacements of 10 mm to 150 m m 6
6Notes in text, tables, and figures are given for information only and do not contain requirements needed to implement the standard,
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
- Slow application of a cyclic displacement at one end of the - Conductor type: 1796 kcmil
conductor with the other end fixed - Cross section area: 910 mm2
- The horizontal force applied at the fixed end is measured, along - Length: 5.52 m
with the sag at mid-span - Both ends clamped horizontally
- Initial span: 4.9 m

- A p p l i e d displacement: k 60 c m
----- Measured
, + - non-linear finite element method
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Quasi-linear behavior
4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6

Span during the applied cyclic displacement (m)
1.6
I.4 e d displacement: f 40 c m
h
f
c
m 1.2
a
I
-
0
E 1.0
m
U
5
ln
0.8
m
Etn 0.6 ----- Measured
m Non-linear finite element method
0
0.4
0.2
4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Span during the applied cyclic displacement (m)
Figure D.5-Comparison of experimental results with the nonlinear finite element method
for push-pull tests at Hydro-Quebec (reprinted with permission of Hydro-Quebec, 2005)

IEEE
Annex E
(informative)
Summary of research done on dynamic effects of flexible

conductors used in substations
As any physical system possessing mass, rigidity and damping, flexible buswork connections are by nature
dynamic systems. During an earthquake, they will be dynamically excited at their ends by the motion of the
interconnected equipment. It can then be hypothesized that the connection might generate at its ends, not
only a static force due to its elongation, but also dynamic forces due to its response to the excitation. The
first mention of such hypothesis was made in a general guideline for seismic design of substation (Clarenne
@36]),in which it is stated that the dynamic reactions of connections might generate additional forces on
equipment. It was then pointed out that connections must therefore be designed not only to permit relative
displacement between equipment, but also to avoid dynamic interaction by ensuring they have natural fre-
quencies different from those of the interconnected equipment, thus avoiding possible resonances between
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
the two. Since then, a fair amount of research has been devoted to study the dynamic effects of flexible con-
ductors used between substation equipment, particularly in the last seven years (1998-2004) where different
researchers have investigated this topic.
The first study investigating directly the dynamic effects of flexible conductors is described in Dastous and
Pierre [B121. This experimental study demonstrated that indeed, flexible connections are dynamic rather
than static systems and that the forces generated dynamically are significantly higher than the ones
generated statically for the same elongation using a quasi-static process (push-pull tests applied very
slowly). Specifically, this study identified two main behaviors that a flexible connection might take under ’
dynamic excitation: stability and dynamic instability or resonance. Under stability, a connection oscillates
without any sudden change of amplitude or transmitted force, although the levei of forces is still much
higher than the one that would be obtained under quasi-static excitation. For example of such behavior, for a
dynamic application of a 2 cm out-of-phase excitation applied at both ends of a 4000 kcmil conductor at a
frequency of 5 Hz, a dynamic force of 1600 N was measured as opposed to a force of 125 N for the same
static clongation. Under rcsonance, a conncction was observed to oscillate erratically at sometimes large
amplitudes, thus generating larger forces at its end. For example, a maximum dynamic force of 4000 N was
measured under such behavior. It is noteworthy that these tests were done for amplitudes that were statically
allowed by the connections, thus providing insight into their dynamic behavior when sufficient slack is pro-
vided. In summary, this study demonstrated for the first time that in addition to providing sufficient slack,
the design of connection must also take account of its possible dynamic response.
In a further study by the same investigators, new flexible connection designs such as those proposed in this
recommended practice were dynamically tested using the same methodology of dynamic out-of-phase exci-
tation on conductors only (without equipment) (Dastous and Paquin [BlO]). It was found that many such
designs were dynamically stable over a wide range of amplitude and frequencies, while respecting all
required insulation clearances, as weil as respecting an allowable specified level of force at the terminals. Of
particular interest is the inverse parabola shape which behavior was found to be very stable, with the imme-
diate advantage of respecting at all times the required electrical clearances. The main result of this study was
a set of tables specieing for a number of spans for different voltage classes, the conductor length required
for different shapes to obtain dynamically stable configurations, respecting all required criteria.
In 1998-1999, analytical studies were undertaken by another research group to study the interaction effects
between interconnected equipment of different frequencies by a conductor (Der Kiureghian et al @314],Der
Kiureghian et ai ß131). In the first study, it was observed that adverse interaction effects could be obtained
if the required slack to cover the expected standalone relative displacements between the two connected
equipment was not provided. In such cases, it was found that the dynamic response of the higher frequency

IEEE
equipment could be magnified several times, as compared to its standalone response for which it was
designed. This first study was based on a nonlinear dynamic finite element analysis for a conductor without
flexural rigidity or inertia, which differs significantly in some cases from short span conductors. Neverthe-
less, it did exemplifi the importance of providing enough slack, as it demonstrated qualitatively that the
interaction effects were minimized when provided. In the second study, the same analytical model was
extended to include flexural rigidity and inertia. Comparisons of this model with some experiments
described in Dastous and Pierre [B12] also demonstrated that under harmonic excitation, the forces at the
attachment point could be magnified by dynamic effects, including important compression forces.
In the 1999-2002 period, two different groups of researchers performed experimental investigation on
generic (dummy) substation equipment interconnected by flexible conductors, using earthquake input
records on a shake table (Filiatrault and Steams [B 161, Gualifabian et al [BIS]). The tests reported were lim-
ited to only one pair of equipment at a time, interconnected by flexible conductor assemblies of different
flexibilities and available slack.
The first group (Filiatrault and Steams [B16]) investigated the effects of three different values of slackness
on five different pairs of generic equipment. They found out that when sufficient slack was allowed to per-
mit easily the expected relative displacement between equipment (so that no nonlinear interaction effects
occurred), that:
The fundamental frequencies of equipment were not affected significantly by the presence of the
flexible conductor assemblies.
The presence of the conductor assemblies increased significantly the damping ratios of intercon-
nected equipment.
The dynamic forces transmitted to the equipment were indeed much higher than the static forces for
the same elongation.
On average, the modal-participation factor of interconnected equipment was lower than the standal-
one one (see also, Dastous et al [Bg]).
The second group (Gualifabian et al [BlS]) performed shake table tests using among others, synthetic earth-
quakes input records compatible to an IEEE 693 response spectrum, on selected pairs of interconnected
generic equipment interconnected by regular conductor configurations used in BC Hydro substations. Their
conclusions were similar to the study of the first group: negligible effect of connections on fundamental fre-
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
quencies of standalone equipment, dynamic forces higher than static forces and so on. By comparing the
effect of the dynamic forces generated on the overturning moment at the base of interconnected equipment,
as oppose to their standalone configuration, they concluded that the dynamic forces generated by conductors
are indeed non-negligible and needs to be considered in the seismic design and evaluation of the equipment.
Also in the 1999-2002 period, two groups developed refined finite element models of conductors (Dastous
@38], Hong [B19]), as an aim to provide valuable tools that could be used to replace costly experiments, as
well as to extent the type of studies that can be performed on shake tables, as these are limited in many ways
as discussed in 11.3.2. The model presented in Dastous [B8] was validated quite extensively with experi-
mental results and shown to reproduce experiments with enough fair agreement to be used with confidence
in practical studies. It was then used extensively to perform numerical simulations of multi-connected equip-
ment for typical substations (Dastous and Pierre [B 1i]), to refine further the flexible connection design that
was done previously for a given utility (Dastous and Paquin [BIO]). The other group also used its model to
arrive at a design rule for flexible connections, through an intensive parametric study (Hong [B19]).
To summarize, it can be seen that a fair amount of research has now been spent on flexible connections and
that all studies share many common results. A summary of the different research groups and the studies per-
formed is presented in Table E.l. The common denominator of all those studies is certainly that dynamic
effects of conductors are not negligible and that for a given dynamic elongation, the dynamics forces
obtained are much higher than the static ones for the equivalent static elongation. Therefore, dynamic

IEEE
forces generated by conductors cannot be neglected in the seismic design of substations as well as
equipmen t.
In an aim to provide basic design forces to account for dynamic effects of conductors, maximum traction
forces measured during dynamic experiments for a ground acceleration of approximately 0.5g were col-
lected from the different experiments and are summarized in Table E.2. From this table, a design value of
1000 N per conductor (or subconductor) was identified as a realistic value to be used in design; this is the
basis of the design forces presented in this standard in Table A.3. Values for a ground acceleration of lg
were extrapolated from this value, since to our knowledge no testing has been done yet at such amplitude.
Table E.l-Groups and research done on dynamic effects of flexible conductors
Type of experiments andlor analytical work References

Sine sweep at constant amplitude with out of phase har-
monic motions on conductors alone (no equipment)
3 cycle sine beats at constant amplitude with out of phase
I
harmonic motions on conductors alone (no equipment).
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
UC San Diego Shake table tests on 5 pairs of dummy equipment with dif-
ferent conductors at different slackness value with histori-
I
cal earthquake inputs
UC Berkeley Computer simulations with SDOF dummy equipment
interconnected. Hundred of simulations to determine ade-
quate slack with a variation of significant parameters. Only
one pair of equipment modeled at the time. Use of histori-
cal earthquake inputs.
BC Hydro / Powertech Shake table tests on one pair of equipment with different
historical and synthetic earthquake inputs
Hydro-Quebec I IREQ Computer simulations on multi-connected equipment using
synthetic and historical earthquakes.
Four voltage levels were studied with fmite element model
of real equipment.
- 735 kV: 4 pairs of interconnected equipment
- 230 kV:6 pairs of interconnected equipment
The conductor model used was validated experimentally
with previous results and led to good agreement. Various
types of conductor configurations were studied over a few
hundred simulations. 3-D aspects were also investigated.

IEEE
Table E.2-Maximum forces measured during experimentsa

~ -
~ -
Equivalent maximum
Type of test I Maximum
Group - -
configuration span type of
input acceleration to
IEEE Std 693
horizontal
conductor forceb
k)
Hydro-Quebec / IREQ Harmonic out of phase t 0.48 750 N
catenary - 5 m -1 796 kcmil
Harmonic out of phase t 0.48 1590 N

catenary - 5 m - 4000 kcmil
Harmonic out of phase / 0.48 1114N

catenary - 3 m - 1796 kcmil
Hydro-Quebec t IREQ 3 cycles sine wave I 0.48 1040 N

parabola - 3 m - 1796 kcmil
3 cycles sine wave t 0.48 1140N

parabola - 4 m - 4000 kcmil
3 cycles sine wave I 0.48 720 N

double curvature - 5 m - 4000 kcmil
--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3 cycles sine wave t 0.48 620 N
triple curvature - 5 m - 4000 kcmil
UC San Diego Shake table test / 0.5 I060 N

catenary - 4.6 m - 2300 kcmil
Shake table test t 0.5 810 N

catenary - 4.6 m - Lupine
Shake table test I 0.5 1330 N

Shake table test / 0.5 1430 N

catenary - 4.6 m - Lupine
~
BC Hydro / Powertech Shake table test / 0.5 693 N

Shake table test / 0.5 730 N

Shake table test / 0.5‘ 948 N

aResults reported in this table were for flexible connections with enough slack to permit easily differential displace-
ment applied at the conductor’s ends. No cases of resonances or strong interaction due to lack of slack were re-
ported in this table.
bForce by sub conductor when multi conductors were used.
‘Actual experiment at 0.38 g. Traction reported in this table is extrapolated linearly at 0.5 g from traction measured.

IEEE
Annex F
(informative)
Bibliography
[B 11 Accredited Standards Committee C2-2002, National Electrical Safety Code@(NESC@)?,
[B2] Alcan Design Manual, 1958.
p 3 ] The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms, Seventh Edition, New York.
[B4] BC Hydro Internal Report, “Aluminum Stranded Bus Connection-Flexibility Investigation,” Febru-
ary 1998.
[B5] Bhuyan, G., Zhai, E. & alter, “Seismic Behavior of Flexible Conductors Connecting Substation Equip-
ment-Part I: Static and Dynamic Properties of Individual Components,” IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 1673-1679, October 2004.
[B6] Clarenne, P., “Seismic Adaptation of Substations,” Report 23-13, CIGRE 1984 Session, AugusVSep-
tember 1984.
[B7] CSA C22.1-02, Canadian Electrical Code.
ß S ] Dastous, J.-B., “Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Stranded Conductors with Variable Bending
Stiffness Using the Tangent Stiffness Method,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 20, No.1,
pp.328-338. January 2005.
[B9] Dastous, J.-B., Filiatrault, A., Pierre, J.-R., “Estimation of Displacement at Interconnection Points of
Substation Equipment Subjected to Earthquakes,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 19, No. 2,
pp. 618-628, April 2004.
[B 101 Dastous, J.-B., Paquin, J.-Y., “Testing and Development of Alternative Flexible-Bus Geometries for
Interconnected Substation Equipment Subjected to Earthquakes,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,
Vol. 18, No.3, pp. 772-780. July 2003.
[Bl 11 Dastous, J.-B., Pierre, J.-R., “Design methodology for flexible buswork between substation equip-
ment subjected to earthquakes,” submitted for publication in 2005 in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery.
[B121Dastous, J.-B., Pierre, J.-R., “Experimental investigation on the dynamic behavior of flexible conduc-
tors between substation equipment during and earthquake,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 11,
No. 2, pp. 801-807, April 1996.
[B13] Der Kiureghian, A., Hong, K.-J., Sackman, J.L., “Further studies on seismic interaction in intercon-
nected electrical substation equipment,” Report no. PEER 2000/01, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, November 1999.
7National Electrical Safety Code and NESC are both registered trademarks and service marks of the Institute of Electrical and Electron-
ics Engineers, Inc.
*The NESC is available from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ
08855-1331, USA (hbp://standards.ieee.org/).

--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

IEEE
141 Der Kiureghian, A., Sackman, J.L., Hong, K.-J., “Interaction in interconnected electrical substation
equipment subjected to earthquake ground motions,” Report no. PEER 1999101, Pacific Earthquake Engi-
neering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, February 1999, p.18.
ß151 Der Kiureghian, A., “Structural Response to Stationary Excitation,” Journal of the Engineering
Mechanics Division, ASCE, 106, pp. 1195-1213, 1980.
ß161 Filiatrault, A., Steams, C., “Electrical Substation Equipment Interaction - Experimental Flexible Con-
ductor Studies,” Report no. SSRP-2002/09, University of California at San Diego, Department of Structural
Engineering, Structural Systems Research Project, September 2002.
ß171 Filiatrault, A., Steams, C., “Seismic response of electrical substation equipment interconnected by
flexible conductors,” Paper submitted for possible publication in the ASCE Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, January 2003.
p181 Gualifabian, H., Bhuyan, G. & alter, “Seismic behavior of flexible conductors connecting substation
equipment. Part 2: Shake table tests,”IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 1680-1687,
October 2004.
p 1 9 ] Hong, K. J., “Dynamic Interaction in Cable-Connected Equipment,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of

California at Berkeley, 2003.
[B20] NEMA Standards Publication CC 1-2002, Electric Power Connection for Substations.
p 2 1 ] The Westinghouse Central Station Engineers, Electrical Transmission and Distribution Reference
Book, 4th Edition, Lakeside Press, 1964, pp. 42.
p 2 2J Schiff, A., “Summary of meeting on conductor dynamics,” summary of a meeting at the TCLEE 2003
conference in August 2003, distributed to the IEEE 693 working group F1 of the West Coast Substations
Subcommittee.
p 2 3 ] Wilson, E. L., Der Kiureghian, A., Bayo, A. P., “A replacement for the SRSS method in seismic anal-
ysis,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 9, pp. 187-194, 1981.

--``,,,,`,`,,```,```````,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---


IEEE - 1527 - Recommended Practice For The Design of Flexible Buswork Loca...

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

IEEE - 1527 - Recommended Practice For The Design of Flexible Buswork Loca...

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

WEEE

IEEE Recommended Practice for the

Copyright The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

IEEE Recommended Practice for the

Approved 30 March 2006

Copyright The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

The Institute of Electricaland Electronics Engineers, Inc.

Copyright The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

Copyright The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

Current interpretations can be accessed at the following URL: http://standards.ieee.org/reading/ieee/interp/

iv Copyright O 2006 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Copyright The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

Jean-Bernard Dastous, Chair

William J. Ackerman David L. Gilmer Gary L.Michel

Copyright O 2006 IEEE. All rights reserved. V

Copyright The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

Mark D. Bowman William B. Hopf Greg Ratta

Satish K. Aggarwal, NRC Representative

vi CopyrightO 2006 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Copyright The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

2. Normative references ........................................................................................................................... 2

3. Definitions. abbreviations. and acronyms ............................................................................................ 2

3.1 Definitions ................................................................................................................................... 2

4. Equipment movement .......................................................................................................................... 4

4.1 Calculation methods to evaluate standalone equipment displacement ........................................ 4

5. Other connection possibilities .............................................................................................................. 9

6. High-current connections ..................................................................................................................... 9

7. Type of material to use-copper versus aluminum ........................................................................... 11

8. Conductor mechanical properties ...................................................................................................... 12

8.1 Recommended values of E and I for calculations ...................................................................... 13

Spacers for bundled conductors .........................................................................................................

10. Other considerations .......................................................................................................................... 15

10.1 Electrical clearances .................................................................................................................. 15

11. Conductor configurations .................................................................................................................. 20

1 1 . 1 Recommended configurations ................................................................................................... 20

Copyright O 2006 IEEE. All rights reserved. vii

Copyright The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

Annex B (informative) Tables ....................................................................................................................... 30

Annex C (normative) Figures supporting this recommended practice .......................................................... 34

Annex D (informative) Informative figures ................................................................................................... 44

Annex F (informative) Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 53

Copyright The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

Copyright O 2006 IEEE. All rights reserved. 1

Copyright The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

3. Definitions, abbreviations, and acronyms

2 Copyright O 2006 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Copyright The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

3.1.9 g: Acceleration due to gravity, that is 9.81 m/s2.

3.1.14 response spectrum: A plot of the maximum response of an array of single-degree-of-freedom

Copyright O 2006 IEEE. All rights reserved. 3

Copyright The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

3.2 Abbreviations and acronyms

AAC all aluminium conductor

BIL basic impulse level

CQC complete quadratic combination

SRSS square root of sum of squares

ZPA zero period acceleration

4.1 Calculation methods to evaluate standalone equipment displacement

41nformation on references can be found in Clause 2

4 Copyright O 2006 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Copyright The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

4.1.1 Recommended method for candlestick and frame type equipment

is the modal-participation factor