How ACCC Compares

ACCC conductor operates cooler, improves efficiency

In the past, T&D designers had few choices. All aluminum conductors such as AAC and steel reinforced conductors such as ACSR. In the 1970’s and 1980’s new conductors were introduced that could be operated at higher temperatures (to carry more current) such as ACSS. Additionally, Gap type conductor and Invar steel conductors were also introduced. While Gap conductor is a bit difficult to install and Invar conductors exhibit very high magnetic hysterisis losses, new composite core conductors were subsequently introduced in the early 2000’s. These included 3M’s ACCR conductor which replaced the conventional steel core strands with ceramic fiber reinforced aluminum strands and the CTC Global ACCC conductor which uses a single carbon and glass fiber (hybrid) core embedded in a high-temperature thermoset resin matrix to optimize performance and improve efficiency.

To assess the differences between different conductor types, Ontario Hydro in Canada performed a test at Kinectrics Lab. The test subjected the different conductors (Drake size equivalents) to 1,600 amps on a 65 meter (215 foot) test span. While the primary objective of the test was to compare conductor sag, the temperatures that each conductor reached under the 1,600 amp load also provided great insight in terms of each conductor’s efficiency. Notice in the graph below the differences in sag. Notice also how much cooler the ACCC conductor operated under the same load condition. Cooler operating temperatures (from 60 to 80 degrees C) reflect a substantial improvement in efficiency. While many other manufacturers are beginning to recognize the advantages of ACCC® and its hybrid carbon fiber core, CTC Global’s expertise in composites and substantial field experience are unrivaled. If you are considering a high-performance economic solution, look no further. CTC Global offers performance and price advantages others can’t touch.

 

ACCC comparison

Translate »
Loading...
Please wait... generating PDF