This is a modern-English version of Electric Transmission of Water Power, originally written by Adams, Alton D. (Alton Dermont).
It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling,
and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If
you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.
Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.
The cover image has been created for this e-text, and has been placed in the public domain.
Please also see the Transcriber’s Notes at the end of this text.
The cover image has been made for this e-text and is in the public domain.
Please also check the Transcriber’s Notes at the end of this text.
Published by the
McGraw-Hill Book Company
New York
Published by the
McGraw-Hill Education
New York
Successors to the Book Departments of the | |
McGraw Publishing Company | Hill Publishing Company |
Publishers of Books for | |
Electrical World | The Engineering and Mining Journal |
The Engineering Record | Power and The Engineer |
Electric Railway Journal | American Machinist |

Published by the
McGraw-Hill Book Company
New York
Published by the
McGraw-Hill Education
New York
Successors to the Book Departments of the | |
McGraw Publishing Company | Hill Publishing Company |
Publishers of Books for | |
Electrical World | The Engineering and Mining Journal |
The Engineering Record | Power and The Engineer |
Electric Railway Journal | American Machinist |
ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION
OF
WATER POWER
By
ALTON D. ADAMS, A.M.
MEMBER AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS
By
ALTON D. ADAMS, M.A.
MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS
NEW YORK
McGraw-Hill Book Co.
1906
NEW YORK
McGraw-Hill Book Company
1906
Copyrighted, 1906, by the
McGRAW PUBLISHING COMPANY
New York
Copyrighted, 1906, by the
McGRAW PUBLISHING COMPANY
NYC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER | PAGE | |
I. | Hydropower in Electricity Supply | 1 |
II. | Use of Water-Power in Electrical Supply | 10 |
III. | Cost of Conductors for Electric Power Transmission | 19 |
IV. | Benefits of Direct and Alternating Current | 31 |
V. | The Physical Limits of Electric Power Transmission | 44 |
VI. | Development of Water Power for Electric Power Stations | 51 |
VII. | The Location of Electric Water Power Stations | 64 |
VIII. | Electric Water-Power Station Design | 83 |
IX. | Alternators for Power Transmission | 103 |
X. | Transformers in Power Transmission Systems | 122 |
XI. | Switches, fuses, and circuit breakers | 135 |
XII. | Power Transmission Regulation | 155 |
XIII. | Guard Wires and Lightning Arresters | 168 |
XIV. | Electrical Transmission Underground and Underwater | 187 |
XV. | Line Conductor Materials | 200 |
XVI. | Voltage and Losses in Transmission Lines | 215 |
XVII. | Choosing Transmission Circuits | 233 |
XVIII. | Power Transmission Pole Lines | 246 |
XIX. | Entries for Electric Transmission Lines | 261 |
XX. | Insulator Pins | 270 |
XXI. | Insulators for Power Lines | 287 |
XXII. | Designing Insulator Pins for Transmission Lines | 298 |
XXIII. | Steel Towers | 306 |
Index | 327 |
ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION OF WATER-POWER.
Electric Water Power Transmission.
CHAPTER I.
Hydropower in electricity supply.
Electrical supply from transmitted water-power is now distributed in more than fifty cities of North America. These include Mexico City, with a population of 402,000; Buffalo and San Francisco, with 352,387 and 342,782 respectively; Montreal, with 266,826, and Los Angeles, St. Paul, and Minneapolis, with populations that range between 100,000 and 200,000 each. North and south these cities extend from Quebec to Anderson, and from Seattle to Mexico City. East and west the chain of cities includes Portland, Springfield, Albany, Buffalo, Hamilton, Toronto, St. Paul, Butte, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco. To reach these cities the water-power is electrically transmitted, in many cases dozens, in a number of cases scores, and in one case more than two hundred miles. In the East, Canada is the site of the longest transmission, that from Shawinigan Falls to Montreal, a distance of eighty-five miles.
Electrical supply from transmitted water power is now available in over fifty cities across North America. This includes Mexico City, with a population of 402,000; Buffalo and San Francisco, with populations of 352,387 and 342,782 respectively; Montreal, with 266,826; and Los Angeles, St. Paul, and Minneapolis, each with populations ranging between 100,000 and 200,000. These cities stretch from Quebec to Anderson and from Seattle to Mexico City. The chain of cities from east to west includes Portland, Springfield, Albany, Buffalo, Hamilton, Toronto, St. Paul, Butte, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco. To connect these cities, water power is transmitted electrically, sometimes over dozens of miles, and in some cases, over a hundred miles, with one instance exceeding two hundred miles. In the East, Canada boasts the longest transmission line, running from Shawinigan Falls to Montreal, which is eighty-five miles apart.
From Spier Falls to Albany the electric line is forty miles in length. Hamilton is thirty-seven miles from that point on the Niagara escarpment, where its electric power is developed. Between St. Paul and its electric water-power station, on Apple River, the transmission line is twenty-five miles long. The falls of the Missouri River at Cañon Ferry are the source of the electrical energy distributed in Butte, sixty-five miles away. Los Angeles draws electrical energy from a plant eighty-three miles distant on the Santa Ana River. From Colgate power-house, on the Yuba, to San Francisco, by way of Mission San José, the transmission line has a length of 220 miles. Between Electra generating station in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and San Francisco is 154 miles by the electric line.
From Spier Falls to Albany, the electric line is forty miles long. Hamilton is thirty-seven miles from the point on the Niagara escarpment where its electric power is generated. Between St. Paul and its electric water-power station on Apple River, the transmission line is twenty-five miles long. The falls of the Missouri River at Cañon Ferry are the source of the electrical energy distributed in Butte, sixty-five miles away. Los Angeles gets its electrical energy from a plant eighty-three miles away on the Santa Ana River. From the Colgate power-house on the Yuba to San Francisco, via Mission San José, the transmission line stretches for 220 miles. The electric line from the Electra generating station in the Sierra Nevada Mountains to San Francisco covers 154 miles.

Fig. 1.—Spier Falls Transmission Lines.
Fig. 1.—Spier Falls Power Lines.
Larger map (204 kB)
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ (204 kB)
These transmissions involve large powers as well as long distances.
The new plant on the Androscoggin is designed to deliver 10,000 horse-power[2]
[3]
for electrical supply in Lewiston, Me. At Spier Falls, on the
Hudson, whence energy goes to Albany and other cities, the electric generators
will have a capacity of 32,000 horse-power. From the two water-power
stations at Niagara Falls, with their twenty-one electric generators
of 5,000 horse-power each, a total of 105,000, more than 30,000 horse-power
is regularly transmitted to Buffalo alone; the greater part of the
capacity being devoted to local industries. Electrical supply in St. Paul
is drawn from a water-power plant of 4,000 and in Minneapolis
from a like plant of 7,400 horse-power capacity. The Cañon Ferry station,
on the Missouri, that supplies electrical energy in both Helena and
Butte, has a capacity of 10,000 horse-power. Both Seattle and Tacoma
draw electrical supply from the 8,000 horse-power plant at Snoqualmie
Falls. The Colgate power-house, which develops energy for San
Francisco and a number of smaller places, has electric generators of
15,000 horse-power aggregate capacity. At the Electra generating station,
where energy is also transmitted to San Francisco and other cities
on the way, the capacity is 13,330 horse-power. Electrical supply in
Los Angeles is drawn from the generating station of 4,000 horse-power,
on the Santa Ana River, and from two stations, on Mill Creek, with an
aggregate of 4,600, making a total capacity of not less than 8,600 horse-power.
Five water-power stations, scattered within a radius of ten miles
and with 4,200 horse-power total capacity, are the source of electrical
supply in Mexico City.
These power transmissions cover large distances and utilize significant energy. The new facility on the Androscoggin River is set to provide 10,000 horsepower[2]
[3] for electricity in Lewiston, Maine. At Spier Falls on the Hudson River, where energy is sent to Albany and other cities, the electric generators will be capable of producing 32,000 horsepower. From the two hydroelectric stations at Niagara Falls, which have twenty-one generators each producing 5,000 horsepower, a total of 105,000 horsepower is generated, with over 30,000 horsepower regularly transmitted to Buffalo alone; most of this capacity supports local industries. The electrical supply in St. Paul comes from a hydro plant with a 4,000 horsepower capacity, while Minneapolis sources its electricity from a similar facility with a 7,400 horsepower capacity. The Cañon Ferry station on the Missouri River, which provides electrical energy to both Helena and Butte, has a capacity of 10,000 horsepower. Both Seattle and Tacoma receive their electricity from the 8,000 horsepower plant at Snoqualmie Falls. The Colgate power plant, which generates energy for San Francisco and several smaller locations, features electric generators with a total capacity of 15,000 horsepower. At the Electra generating station, which also supplies energy to San Francisco and other cities en route, the capacity is 13,330 horsepower. The electrical supply in Los Angeles comes from a 4,000 horsepower generating station on the Santa Ana River and two stations on Mill Creek, with a combined output of 4,600 horsepower, totaling at least 8,600 horsepower. Five hydroelectric stations located within a ten-mile radius provide a total of 4,200 horsepower for electrical supply in Mexico City.
The foregoing are simply a part of the more striking illustrations of
that development by which falling water is generating hundreds of thousands
of horse-power for electrical supply to millions of population. This
application of great water powers to the industrial wants of distant cities
is hardly more than a decade old. Ten years ago Shawinigan Falls was
an almost unheard-of point in the wilds of Canada. Spier Falls was
merely a place of scenic interest; the Missouri at Cañon Ferry was not
lighting a lamp or displacing a pound of coal; that falling water in the
Sierra Nevada Mountains should light the streets and operate electric cars
in San Francisco seemed impossible, and that diversion of Niagara, which
seems destined to develop more than a million horse-power and leave
dry the precipices over which the waters now plunge, had not yet begun.
In some few instances where water-power was located in towns or cities,
it has been applied to electrical supply since the early days of the industry.
In the main, however, the supply of electrical energy from water-power
has been made possible only by long-distance transmission. The
extending radius of electrical transmission for water-powers has formed[4]
[5]
the greatest incentive to their development. This development in turn
has reacted on the conditions that limit electrical supply and has materially
extended the field of its application. Transmitted water-power has
reduced the rates for electric service. It may not be easy to prove this
reduction by quoting figures for net rates, because these are not generally
published, but there are other means of reaching the conclusion.
The above examples are just a part of the more notable ways that flowing water is generating hundreds of thousands of horsepower for electrical power to millions of people. This use of large water sources for the industrial needs of far-off cities is barely a decade old. Ten years ago, Shawinigan Falls was almost a forgotten spot in the wilderness of Canada. Spier Falls was simply a scenic site; the Missouri at Cañon Ferry wasn’t powering a light bulb or replacing a pound of coal; the idea that falling water in the Sierra Nevada Mountains could light the streets and run electric buses in San Francisco seemed far-fetched, and the plan to redirect Niagara, which looks set to generate over a million horsepower and leave the cliffs dry where the water now cascades, hadn’t even started yet. In a few cases where water power was located in towns or cities, it has been used for electrical supply since the early days of the industry. However, for the most part, the supply of electrical energy from water power has only become feasible through long-distance transmission. The expanding reach of electrical transmission from water power has provided the greatest motivation for its growth. This development has also affected the conditions that restrict electrical supply and significantly broadened its applications. Transmitted water power has lowered electricity service rates. It might not be straightforward to demonstrate this reduction by citing figures for net rates, as they are not typically published, but there are other ways to arrive at this conclusion.

Fig. 2.—Snoqualmie Falls Transmission Lines.
Fig. 2.—Snoqualmie Falls Power Lines.
Larger map (185 kB)
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ (185 kB)
In the field of illumination electricity competes directly with gas, and in the field of motive power with coal. During the past decade it is well known that the price of gas has materially declined and the price of coal, barring the recent strike period, has certainly not increased. In spite of these reductions electrical supply from water-power has displaced both gas and coal in many instances.
In lighting, electricity directly competes with gas, and for power, it competes with coal. Over the last ten years, it's clear that gas prices have dropped significantly, while coal prices, except for the recent strike period, haven't really gone up. Despite these price drops, electrical supply from water power has replaced both gas and coal in many cases.
Moreover, the expansion of electric water-power systems has been decidedly greater, as a rule, than that of electrical supply from steam-driven stations. An example of the fact last stated may be seen in Portland, Me. In the spring of 1899, a company was formed to transmit and distribute electrical energy in that city from a water-power about thirteen miles distant. For some years, prior to and since the date just named, an extensive electric system with steam-power equipment has existed in Portland. In spite of this, the system using water-power, on January 1st, 1903, had a connected load of 352 enclosed arcs and 20,000 incandescent lamps, besides 835 horse-power in motors.
Moreover, the growth of electric water-power systems has generally been much greater than that of electrical supply from steam-driven plants. A clear example of this can be seen in Portland, Maine. In the spring of 1899, a company was established to transmit and distribute electrical energy in that city from a water source about thirteen miles away. For several years, both before and after that date, a large electric system with steam-power equipment had been operating in Portland. Despite this, the water-power system had, as of January 1, 1903, a connected load of 352 enclosed arcs and 20,000 incandescent lamps, in addition to 835 horsepower in motors.
Comparing the expansion of electric water-power systems with those operated by steam, when located in different cities, Hartford and Springfield may be taken on the one hand and Fall River and New Bedford on the other. The use of water-power in electrical supply at Hartford began in November, 1891, and has since continued to an increasing extent. Throughout the same period electrical supply in Fall River has been derived exclusively from steam. In 1890 the population of Hartford was 53,230, and in 1900 it stood at 79,850, an increase of 50 per cent. At the beginning of the decade Fall River had a population of 74,398, and at its close the figures were 104,863, a rise of 40.9 per cent. In 1892 the connected load of the electric supply system at Fall River included 451 arc and 7,800 incandescent lamps, and motors aggregating 140 horse-power. By 1901 this load had increased to 1,111 arcs, 24,254 incandescent lamps, and 600 horse-power in motors. The electric supply system at Hartford in 1892 was serving 800 arcs, 2,000 incandescent lamps, and no motors. After the use of transmitted water-power during nine years the connected load of the Hartford system had come to include 1,679 arcs, 68,725 incandescent lamps, and 3,476 horse-power of motor capacity[6] in 1901. At the beginning of the decade Hartford was far behind Fall River in both incandescent lamps and motors, but at the end Hartford had nearly three times as many incandescent lamps and nearly six times as great a capacity in connected motors. As Fall River had a population in 1900 that was greater by thirty-one per cent. than the population of Hartford, and the percentage of increase during the decade was only 9.1 lower in the former city, water-power seems to have been the most potent factor in the rise of electric loads in the latter. Electric gains at Hartford could not have been due to the absence of competition by gas, for the price of gas there in 1901 was $1 per 1,000 cubic feet, while the price in Fall River was $1.10 for an equal amount.
Comparing the growth of electric water-power systems with steam-powered ones in different cities, we can look at Hartford and Springfield on one side and Fall River and New Bedford on the other. The use of water power for electrical supply in Hartford started in November 1891 and has steadily increased since then. During the same time, Fall River's electrical supply has relied solely on steam. In 1890, Hartford's population was 53,230, and by 1900 it had grown to 79,850, a 50% increase. At the start of the decade, Fall River had a population of 74,398, which grew to 104,863 by the end, a rise of 40.9%. In 1892, the connected load of the electrical supply system in Fall River included 451 arc lamps, 7,800 incandescent lamps, and motors totaling 140 horse-power. By 1901, this load had grown to 1,111 arc lamps, 24,254 incandescent lamps, and 600 horse-power in motors. In Hartford, the electric supply system in 1892 served 800 arc lamps, 2,000 incandescent lamps, and no motors. After using transmitted water-power for nine years, the Hartford system's connected load reached 1,679 arc lamps, 68,725 incandescent lamps, and 3,476 horse-power of motor capacity by 1901. At the start of the decade, Hartford lagged far behind Fall River in both incandescent lamps and motors, but by the end, Hartford had almost three times as many incandescent lamps and nearly six times the motor capacity. Since Fall River's population in 1900 was 31% higher than Hartford's, and its growth rate during the decade was only 9.1% lower, it seems that water power played a significant role in boosting electric loads in Hartford. The increase in electricity in Hartford can't be attributed to a lack of competition from gas, as gas prices there in 1901 were $1 per 1,000 cubic feet, while in Fall River, it was $1.10 for the same amount.[6]
Water-power began to be used in electrical supply at Springfield during the latter half of 1897. In that year the connected load of the Springfield electric system included 1,006 arcs, 24,778 incandescent lamps, and motors with a capacity of 647 horse-power. Five years later, in 1902, this connected load had risen to 1,399 arc lamps, 45,735 incandescent lamps, and a capacity of 1,025 horse-power in electric motors. At New Bedford, in 1897, the electric system was supplying 406 arc and 22,122 incandescent lamps besides motors rated at 298 horse-power. This load, in 1902, had changed to 488 arcs, 18,055 incandescent lamps, and 432 horse-power in capacity of electric motors. From the foregoing figures it appears that while 82 arc lamps were added in New Bedford, 393 such lamps were added in Springfield. While the electric load at New Bedford was increased by 134 horse-power of motors, the like increase at Springfield was 378 horse-power, and while the former city lost 4,067 from its load of incandescent lamps, the latter gained 20,957 of these lamps. During all these changes electrical supply in Springfield has come mostly from water-power, and that in New Bedford has been the product of steam. Population at Springfield numbered 44,179 in 1890 and 62,059 in 1900, an increase of 40.5 per cent. In the earlier of these years New Bedford had a population of 40,733, and in the later 62,442, an increase of 53.3 per cent. In 1902 the average price obtained for gas at Springfield was $1.04 and at New Bedford $1.18 per 1,000 cubic feet.
Water power started being used for electrical supply in Springfield in the latter half of 1897. That year, the connected load of the Springfield electric system included 1,006 arc lamps, 24,778 incandescent lamps, and motors with a capacity of 647 horsepower. Five years later, in 1902, this connected load had grown to 1,399 arc lamps, 45,735 incandescent lamps, and a capacity of 1,025 horsepower in electric motors. In New Bedford, in 1897, the electric system was providing 406 arc lamps and 22,122 incandescent lamps, plus motors rated at 298 horsepower. By 1902, this load had changed to 488 arc lamps, 18,055 incandescent lamps, and 432 horsepower in electric motor capacity. From these figures, it's clear that while New Bedford added 82 arc lamps, Springfield gained 393 of them. The electric load in New Bedford increased by 134 horsepower of motors, while Springfield saw an increase of 378 horsepower. Additionally, while New Bedford lost 4,067 incandescent lamps from its load, Springfield gained 20,957. Throughout these changes, Springfield’s electrical supply has mostly come from water power, whereas New Bedford’s has been produced by steam. The population of Springfield was 44,179 in 1890 and grew to 62,059 in 1900, a 40.5 percent increase. In the earlier year, New Bedford had a population of 40,733, which increased to 62,442 in the later year, marking a 53.3 percent increase. In 1902, the average price of gas in Springfield was $1.04 and in New Bedford it was $1.18 per 1,000 cubic feet.
Springfield contains a prosperous gas system, and the gross income there from the sale of gas was thirty-one per cent greater in 1902 than in 1897. During this same period of five years the gross income from sales of electrical energy, developed in large part by water-power, increased forty-seven per cent. For the five years of general depression, ending in 1897 gross annual income of gas sales in Springfield rose[7] only five per cent, and the like electric income nine per cent. In the five years last named the electrical supply system was operated with coal.
Springfield has a thriving gas system, and the total income from gas sales in 1902 was thirty-one percent higher than in 1897. During the same five-year period, the total income from electrical energy sales, mostly generated by water power, increased by forty-seven percent. During the five years of general economic downturn that ended in 1897, the annual income from gas sales in Springfield only rose by five percent, while electric income went up by nine percent. In the last five years mentioned, the electrical supply system operated on coal.
The application of transmitted water-power in electrical supply has displaced steam as a motive power in many large industrial plants that never would have been operated from steam-driven electric stations. An example of this sort exists at Portland, where one of the motors operated by the electric water-power system, in an industrial plant, has a capacity of 300 horse-power. Every pound of coal burned in Concord, N. H., is hauled by the single steam railway system entering that city, which railway operates large car and repair shops there. Some years ago the railway installed a complete plant of engines, dynamos, and motors for electric-driving throughout these shops. These engines and dynamos now stand idle and the motor equipment, with an aggregate capacity of 590 horse-power, is operated with energy purchased from the local electrical supply system and drawn from water-power.
The use of transmitted water power for electricity has replaced steam as the main power source in many large industrial plants that would never have run on steam-driven electric stations. A good example of this is in Portland, where one of the motors powered by the electric water-power system in an industrial facility has a capacity of 300 horsepower. Every pound of coal burned in Concord, N.H., is transported by the single steam railway system that serves the city, which also operates large car and repair shops. A few years ago, the railway set up a complete system of engines, generators, and motors for electric power throughout these shops. Now, these engines and generators sit unused, while the motor equipment, with a total capacity of 590 horsepower, is powered by energy purchased from the local electrical supply system that uses water power.
Another striking example of the ability of electric water-power systems to make power rates that are attractive to large manufacturers may be seen at Manchester, N. H. One of the largest manufacturing plants in that city purchases energy for the operation of the equivalent of more than 7,000 incandescent lamps, and of motors rated at 976 horse-power, from the electrical supply system there, whose generating stations are driven mainly by water-power. The Manchester electrical supply system also furnishes energy, through a sub-station of 800-horse-power capacity, to operate an electric railway connecting Manchester and Concord. This electric line is owned and operated in common with the only steam railway system of New Hampshire, so that the only inducement to purchase energy from the water-power system seems to be one of price.
Another clear example of how electric water-power systems can offer appealing power rates to large manufacturers is found in Manchester, NH. One of the biggest manufacturing plants in the city buys energy for the equivalent of more than 7,000 incandescent lamps and motors rated at 976 horsepower from the local electrical supply system, which is primarily powered by water. The Manchester electrical supply system also provides energy, through a substation with a capacity of 800 horsepower, to run an electric railway that connects Manchester and Concord. This electric line is jointly owned and operated with New Hampshire's only steam railway system, making the main reason to buy energy from the water-power system purely about cost.
In Buffalo the electric transmission system from Niagara Falls supplies large motors of about 20,000 horse-power capacity in manufacturing and industrial works, and 7,000 horse-power to the street railway system, besides another 4,000 horse-power for general service in lighting and small motors. Few large cities in the United States have cheaper coal than Buffalo, and in Portland, Concord, and Manchester coal prices are moderate. In the Rocky Mountain region, where coal is more expensive, the greater part of the loads of some electric water-power systems is made up of large industrial works. In Salt Lake City the electrical supply system, which draws its energy almost exclusively from water-powers, had a connected load of motors aggregating 2,600 horse-power as far back as 1901, and also furnished energy to operate the local electric railway, and several smelters six miles south of the city, besides[8] all the local lighting service. As good lump coal sells in Salt Lake for $4.50 per ton, slack at less than one-half this figure, and the population there by the late census was only 53,531, the figures for the load of motors are especially notable. At Helena energy from the 10,000 horse-power station at Cañon Ferry operates the local lighting and power systems, two smelting and a mining plant.
In Buffalo, the electric transmission system from Niagara Falls powers large motors with a capacity of about 20,000 horsepower for manufacturing and industrial operations, provides 7,000 horsepower to the street railway system, and another 4,000 horsepower for general services like lighting and smaller motors. Few large cities in the United States have cheaper coal than Buffalo, while coal prices are reasonable in Portland, Concord, and Manchester. In the Rocky Mountain region, where coal is pricier, most of the loads from some electric water-power systems come from large industrial operations. In Salt Lake City, the electrical supply system, which relies almost entirely on hydroelectric power, had a total load of motors reaching 2,600 horsepower as early as 1901. It also supplied power for the local electric railway and several smelters located six miles south of the city, in addition to[8] all local lighting services. Since good lump coal sells in Salt Lake for $4.50 per ton, and slack is priced at less than half of that, along with a population of only 53,531 according to the latest census, the motor load figures are particularly impressive. In Helena, energy from the 10,000 horsepower station at Cañon Ferry powers the local lighting and power systems, two smelting facilities, and a mining plant.
Cities with Electrical Supply from Water-Power.
Cities Powered by Hydropower.
City. | Miles from Water-Power to City. |
Horse-Power of Water-Driven Stations. |
Population. | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Mexico City | 10 to 15 | 4,200 | 402,000 | |
Buffalo | 23 | [A]30,000 | 352,387 | |
Montreal | 85 | — | 266,826 | |
San Francisco | 147 | 13,330 | 342,782 | |
Minneapolis | 10 | 7,400 | 202,718 | |
St. Paul | 25 | 4,000 | 163,065 | |
Los Angeles | 83 | 8,600 | 102,479 | |
Albany | 40 | 32,000 | 94,151 | |
Portland, Ore. | — | — | 90,426 | |
Hartford | 11 | 3,600 | 79,850 | |
Springfield, Mass. | 6 | 3,780 | 62,059 | |
Manchester, N. H. | 13 | .5 | 5,370 | 59,987 |
Salt Lake City | 36 | .5 | 10,000 | 53,531 |
Portland, Me. | 13 | 2,660 | 50,145 | |
Seattle | — | 8,000 | 80,671 | |
Butte | 65 | 10,000 | 30,470 | |
Oakland | 142 | 15,000 | 66,900 | |
Lewiston, Me. | 3 | 3,000 | 23,761 | |
Concord, N. H. | 4 | 1,000 | 19,632 | |
Helena, Mont. | 20 | — | 10,770 | |
Hamilton, Ont. | 35 | 8,000 | ||
Quebec | 7 | 3,000 | ||
Dales, Ore. | 27 | 1,330 | ||
[A] Power received. |
In Butte, energy from the station just named operates the works of five smelting and mining companies, driving motors that range from 1 to 800 horse-power in individual capacity. The capacity of the Butte sub-station is 7,600 horse-power.
In Butte, the energy from the recently named station powers the operations of five smelting and mining companies, running motors that range from 1 to 800 horsepower in individual capacity. The capacity of the Butte sub-station is 7,600 horsepower.
The great electric water power system marked by the Santa Ana station at one end and the city of Los Angeles at the other, eighty-three miles distant, includes more than 160 miles of transmission lines, several hundred miles of distribution circuits, and supplies light and power in twelve cities and towns. Among the customers of this system are an electric railway, a number of irrigation plants, and a cement works. These[9] works contain motors that range from 10 to 200 horse-power each in capacity. Motors of fifty horse-power or less are used at pumping stations in the irrigation systems.
The extensive electric water power system, with the Santa Ana station at one end and the city of Los Angeles eighty-three miles away at the other, covers over 160 miles of transmission lines and several hundred miles of distribution circuits. It provides electricity and power to twelve cities and towns. Among the users of this system are an electric railway, various irrigation plants, and a cement factory. These[9] facilities have motors ranging from 10 to 200 horsepower each. Motors that are fifty horsepower or less are used at pumping stations in the irrigation systems.
Applications of water-power in electrical supply during the past decade have prepared the way for a much greater movement in this direction. Work is now under way for the electric transmission of water-power, either for the first time or in larger amounts, to Albany, Toronto, Chicago, Duluth, Portland, Oregon, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and dozens of other cities that might be named.
Applications of water power for electricity supply over the last ten years have set the stage for a much larger movement in this area. Work is currently underway to transmit water power electrically, either for the first time or in greater quantities, to Albany, Toronto, Chicago, Duluth, Portland, Oregon, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and many other cities that could be mentioned.
Another ten years will see the greater part of electrical supply on the American continent drawn from water-power.
Another ten years will see most of the electrical supply on the American continent coming from water power.
Only the largest city supplied from each water-power is named above. Thus the same transmission system enters Albany, Troy, Schenectady, Saratoga, and a number of smaller places.
Only the largest city served by each water source is mentioned above. Therefore, the same transmission system provides power to Albany, Troy, Schenectady, Saratoga, and several smaller towns.
CHAPTER II.
THE USE OF WATER POWER FOR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
In comparatively few systems is the available water-power sufficient to carry the entire load at all hours of the day, and during all months of the year, so that the question of how much fuel can be saved is an uncertain one for many plants. Again, the development of water-power often involves a large investment, and may bring a burden of fixed charges greater than the value of the fuel saved.
In just a few systems, the available water power is enough to handle the full load all day and throughout the year, making it difficult for many plants to determine how much fuel they can actually save. Additionally, developing water power usually requires a significant investment and can lead to fixed costs that are higher than the savings on fuel.
In spite of these conflicting opinions and factors, the application of water-power in electrical systems is now going on faster than ever before. If a saving of fuel, measured by the available flow of water during those hours when it can be devoted directly to electrical supply, were its only advantage, the number of cases in which this power could be utilized at a profit would be relatively small. If, on the other hand, all of the water that passes down a stream could be made to do electrical work, and if the utilization of this water had other advantages nearly or quite as great as the reduction of expense for coal, then many water-powers would await only development to bring profit to their owners.
Despite these differing opinions and factors, using water power in electrical systems is advancing faster than ever. Even if the only benefit was saving fuel, based on the available water flow during the hours it can be used for electricity, the number of profitable applications would be quite limited. However, if all the water flowing down a stream could be harnessed for electrical work, and if leveraging this water offered additional benefits that were nearly as significant as reducing coal costs, then many water power sites would just need development to become profitable for their owners.
No part of the problem is more uncertain than the first cost and subsequent fixed charges connected with the development of water-power. To bring out the real conditions, the detailed facts as to one or more plants may be of greater value than mere general statements covering a wide range of cases.
No part of the problem is more unclear than the initial costs and ongoing fixed expenses related to developing water power. To highlight the actual conditions, the specific details about one or more plants might be more valuable than just broad statements that cover a wide variety of situations.
On a certain small river the entire water privilege at a point where a fall of fourteen feet could be made available was obtained several years ago. At this point a substantial stone and concrete dam was built, and also a stone and brick power-house with concrete floor and steel truss roof. In this power-house were installed electric generators of 800 kilowatts total capacity, direct-connected to horizontal turbine wheels. The entire cost of the real estate necessary to secure the water-power privilege plus the cost of all the improvements was about $130,000. More than enough water-power to drive the 800-kilowatt generators at full load was estimated to be available, except at times of exceptionally low water. At this plant the investment for the water-power site, development, and[11] complete equipment was thus $162 per kilowatt capacity of generators installed.
On a small river, the rights to a section where a 14-foot waterfall could be utilized were secured several years ago. At this location, a strong stone and concrete dam was constructed, along with a stone and brick powerhouse featuring a concrete floor and a steel truss roof. Inside the powerhouse, electric generators totaling 800 kilowatts of capacity were installed, directly connected to horizontal turbine wheels. The total cost for the land needed to secure the water-power rights, along with all improvements, was around $130,000. It was estimated that more than enough water power to run the 800-kilowatt generators at full capacity was available, except during exceptionally low water periods. At this facility, the investment for the water-power site, development, and[11] complete equipment was therefore $162 per kilowatt of generator capacity installed.
Allowing 65 days of low water, these generators of 800 kilowatts capacity may be operated 300 days per year. If the running time averages ten hours daily at full load, the energy delivered per year is 2,400,000 kilowatt hours. Ten per cent of the total investment should be ample to cover interest and depreciation charges, and this amounts to $13,000 yearly. It follows that the items of interest and depreciation on the original investment represent a charge of 0.54 cent per kilowatt hour on the assumed energy output at this plant. This energy is transmitted a few miles and used in the electrical supply system of a large city.
Allowing for 65 days of low water, these 800-kilowatt generators can operate 300 days a year. If they run for an average of ten hours daily at full capacity, the annual energy output is 2,400,000 kilowatt-hours. Ten percent of the total investment should be enough to cover interest and depreciation costs, which comes to $13,000 each year. This means that the interest and depreciation on the original investment add up to a charge of 0.54 cents per kilowatt-hour based on the expected energy output at this plant. This energy is transmitted a few miles and used in the electrical supply system of a large city.
On another river the entire water privilege was secured about four years ago at a point where a fall of more than 20 feet between ledges of rock could be obtained and more than 2,000 horse-power could be developed. At this point a masonry dam and brick power-house were built, and horizontal turbine wheels were installed, direct-connected to electric generators of 1,500 kilowatts total capacity. The entire cost of real estate, water rights, dam, building, and equipment in this case was about $250,000.
On another river, all the water rights were secured about four years ago at a spot where a drop of over 20 feet between rock ledges could be achieved, allowing for the development of more than 2,000 horsepower. At this location, a masonry dam and brick power station were constructed, and horizontal turbine wheels were installed, directly connected to electric generators with a total capacity of 1,500 kilowatts. The total cost for real estate, water rights, the dam, building, and equipment in this case was around $250,000.
Assuming, as before, that generators may be operated at full capacity for 10 hours per day during 300 days per year, the energy delivered by this plant amounts to 4,500,000 kilowatt hours yearly. The allowance of 10 per cent on the entire investment for interest and depreciation is represented by $25,000 yearly in this case, or 0.56 cent per kilowatt hour of probable output. Energy from this plant is transmitted and used in a large system of electrical supply.
Assuming, as before, that generators can run at full capacity for 10 hours a day, 300 days a year, the energy produced by this plant totals 4,500,000 kilowatt-hours annually. The 10 percent allowance on the entire investment for interest and depreciation amounts to $25,000 each year in this scenario, or 0.56 cents per kilowatt-hour of expected output. Energy from this plant is transmitted and distributed in a broad electrical supply system.
If, through lack of water or inability to store water or energy at times when it is not wanted, generators cannot be operated at full capacity during the average number of hours assumed above, the item of interest and depreciation per unit of delivered energy must be higher than that computed. With the possible figure for this item at less than six-tenths of a cent per kilowatt hour, there is opportunity for some increase before it becomes prohibitive. At the plant last named the entire investment amounted to $166 per kilowatt capacity of connected generators, compared with $162 in the former case, and these figures may be taken as fairly representative for the development of water-power in a first-class manner on small rivers, under favorable conditions. In both of these instances the power-houses are quite close to the dams. If long canals or pipe lines must be built to convey the water, the expense of development may be greatly increased.
If generators can't operate at full capacity due to a lack of water or an inability to store water or energy when it's not needed, the cost and depreciation per unit of delivered energy will be higher than calculated. With the potential cost for this item being less than six-tenths of a cent per kilowatt hour, there’s some room for a price increase before it becomes too high. In the mentioned plant, the total investment was $166 per kilowatt capacity of connected generators, compared to $162 in the previous case, and these numbers can be considered fairly typical for developing water power effectively on small rivers under good conditions. In both cases, the powerhouses are located quite close to the dams. If long canals or pipelines need to be constructed to transport the water, the development costs can rise significantly.
One advantage of water- over steam-power is the smaller cost of the building with the former for a given capacity of plant. The building for direct-connected electric generators, driven by water-wheels, is relatively small and simple. Space for fuel, boilers, economizers, feed-water heaters, condensers, steam piping, and pumps is not required where water-power is used. No chimney or apparatus for mechanical draught is needed.
One benefit of using water power instead of steam power is the lower cost of constructing a facility with the former for the same plant capacity. The building for direct-connected electric generators powered by water wheels is comparatively small and straightforward. There's no need for space for fuel, boilers, economizers, feed-water heaters, condensers, steam piping, and pumps when using water power. No chimney or equipment for mechanical draft is necessary.
The model electric station operated by water-power usually consists of a single room with no basement under it. One such station has floor dimensions 27 by 52 feet, giving an area of 1,404 square feet, and contains generators of 800 kilowatts capacity. This gives 1.75 square feet of floor space per kilowatt of generators. In this station there is ample room for all purposes, including erection or removal of machinery.
The model electric station powered by water typically consists of a single room with no basement underneath. One such station measures 27 by 52 feet, covering an area of 1,404 square feet, and houses generators with an 800-kilowatt capacity. This results in 1.75 square feet of floor space per kilowatt of generators. In this station, there is plenty of room for all activities, including the installation or removal of machinery.
Next to the saving of fuel, the greatest advantage of water-power is due to the relatively small requirements for labor at generating stations where it is used. This is well illustrated by an example from actual practice. In a modern water-power station that contributes to electrical supply in a large city the generator capacity is 1,200 kilowatts. All of the labor connected with the operation of this station during nearly twenty-four hours per day is done by two attendants working alternate shifts.
Next to saving fuel, the biggest benefit of water power is the relatively low amount of labor needed at generating stations where it's used. This is clearly shown by a real-world example. In a modern water-power station that supplies electricity to a large city, the generator capacity is 1,200 kilowatts. All the work related to the operation of this station, nearly twenty-four hours a day, is handled by two operators working alternating shifts.
These attendants live close to the station in a house owned by the electric company, and receive $60 each per month in addition to house rent. Considering the location, $12 per month is probably ample allowance for the rent. This brings the total expense of operation at this station for labor up to $132 per month, or $1,584 per year, a sum corresponding to $1.32 yearly per kilowatt of generator capacity.
These attendants live near the station in a house owned by the electric company and receive $60 each per month, plus their rent. Given the location, $12 a month is likely enough for the rent. This brings the total labor cost for operating this station to $132 per month, or $1,584 per year, which amounts to $1.32 annually per kilowatt of generator capacity.
At steam-power stations of about the above capacity, operating twenty-four hours daily, $6 is an approximate yearly cost of labor per kilowatt of generators in use. It thus appears that water-power plants may be operated at less than one-fourth of the labor expense necessary at steam stations per unit of capacity. On an average, the combined cost of fuel and labor at electric stations driven by steam-power is a little more than 76 per cent of their total cost of operation. Of this total, labor represents about 28, and fuel about 48 per cent. Water-power, by dispensing with fuel and with three-fourths of the labor charge, reduces the expense of operation at electric stations by fully 69 per cent.
At steam power stations with around the capacity described above, operating 24 hours a day, the yearly labor cost is approximately $6 per kilowatt of generators in use. This indicates that water power plants can operate for less than one-fourth of the labor cost required at steam stations for each unit of capacity. On average, the combined cost of fuel and labor at steam-powered electric stations represents just over 76 percent of their total operational cost. Within this total, labor accounts for about 28 percent, and fuel makes up about 48 percent. Water power, by eliminating fuel and reducing labor costs by three-fourths, lowers the operating expenses at electric stations by around 69 percent.
But this great saving in the operating expenses of electric stations can be made only where water entirely displaces coal. If part water-power and part coal are used, the result depends on the proportion of each, and[13] is obviously much affected by the variations of water-power capacity. In such a mixed system the saving effected by water-power must also depend on the extent to which its energy can be absorbed at all hours the day. By far the greater number of electric stations using water-power are obliged also to employ steam during either some months in the year or some hours in the day, or both.
But this significant reduction in the operating costs of electric stations can only happen when water completely replaces coal. If a combination of water and coal is used, the outcome depends on how much of each fuel is used, and[13] is clearly influenced by the fluctuations in water-power availability. In such a mixed system, the savings achieved through water power also depend on how much of its energy can be utilized at all hours of the day. The majority of electric stations that use water power are also required to use steam either during certain months of the year or certain hours of the day, or both.

ENERGY CURVES FROM WATER POWER ELECTRIC STATIONS.
Fig. 3.
ENERGY CURVES FROM WATER POWER ELECTRIC STATIONS.
Fig. 3.
It is highly important, therefore, to determine, as nearly as may be, the answers to three questions:
It is very important, therefore, to figure out, as accurately as possible, the answers to three questions:
First, what variations are to be expected in the capacity of a water-power during the several months of a year?
First, what variations can we expect in the capacity of a water power throughout the different months of the year?
Second, if the daily flow of water is equal in capacity to the daily output of electrical energy, how far can the water-power be devoted to the development of that energy?
Second, if the daily flow of water matches the daily output of electrical energy, how much of that water power can be used to generate that energy?
Third, with a water-power sufficient to carry all electrical loads at times of moderately high water, what percentage of the yearly output of energy in a general supply system can be derived from the water?
Third, with enough water power to handle all electrical demands during times of moderately high water, what percentage of the annual energy output in a general supply system can come from the water?
To the first of these questions experience alone can furnish an answer. Variations in the discharge of rivers during the different months of a year are very great. In a plant laid out with good engineering skill some provision will be made for the storage of water, and the capacity of generating equipment will correspond to some point between the highest and lowest rates of discharge.
To answer the first of these questions, only experience can provide the response. The flow of rivers varies significantly throughout the months of the year. In a facility designed with good engineering practices, there will be measures in place for water storage, and the generating equipment's capacity will be aligned to a level between the peak and minimum discharge rates.
Curve No. 1 in the diagram on the opposite page represents the energy output at an electric station driven entirely by water-power from a small stream during the twelve months of 1901, the entire flow of the stream being utilized. During December, 1901, the output of this station was 527,700 kilowatts, and was greater than that in any other month of the year. Taking this output at 100 per cent, the curve is platted to show the percentage attained by the delivered energy in each of the other months. At the lowest point on the curve, corresponding to the month of February, the output of energy was only slightly over 33 per cent of that in December. During nine other months of the year the proportion of energy output to that in December was over 60 and in three months over 80 per cent. For the twelve months the average delivery of energy per month was 73.7 per cent of that during December.
Curve No. 1 in the diagram on the opposite page shows the energy output at a hydroelectric station powered entirely by a small stream during the year 1901, utilizing the stream's full flow. In December 1901, the station's output was 527,700 kilowatts, the highest for any month that year. Taking this output as 100 percent, the curve is plotted to indicate the percentage of energy delivered in each of the other months. At the lowest point on the curve, which corresponds to February, the energy output was just over 33 percent of December's figures. In nine other months, the energy output compared to December exceeded 60 percent, and in three months, it was over 80 percent. Throughout the year, the average monthly energy delivery was 73.7 percent of December's output.
Percentages of Energy Delivered
in Different Months, 1901.
Percentages of Energy Supplied
in Different Months, 1901.
January | 68.0 |
February | 33.1 |
March | 80.5 |
April | 81.7 |
May | 77.9 |
June | 58.6 |
July | 67.7 |
August | 75.8 |
September | 79.3 |
October | 65.9 |
November | 95.8 |
December | 100.0 |
At a somewhat small water-power station on another river with a watershed less precipitous than that of the stream just considered, the following results were obtained during the twelve months ending June 30th, 1900. For this plant the largest monthly output of energy was in November, and this output is taken at 100 per cent. The smallest delivery of energy was in October, when the percentage was 53.1 of the amount for November. In each of seven other months of the year the output of energy was above 80 per cent of that in November. During[15] March, April, May, and June the water-power yielded all of the energy required in the electrical supply system with which it was connected, and could, no doubt, have done more work if necessary. For the twelve months the average delivery of energy per month was 80.6 per cent of that in November, the month of greatest output.
At a relatively small hydroelectric power station on another river with a watershed that's not as steep as the previous one, the following results were recorded during the twelve months ending June 30, 1900. For this facility, the highest monthly energy output was in November, which is set at 100 percent. The lowest energy delivery occurred in October, when the output was 53.1 percent of November's amount. In seven other months of the year, the energy output exceeded 80 percent of that in November. During [15] March, April, May, and June, the hydroelectric power provided all the energy needed for the electrical supply system it was linked to, and it could surely have produced more if required. Over the twelve months, the average monthly energy delivery was 80.6 percent of that in November, the month with the highest output.
Percentages of Energy Delivered
in Different Months, 1899 and 1900.
Energy Delivered by Percentage
in Various Months, 1899 and 1900.
July | 68.6 |
August | 69.1 |
September | 73.3 |
October | 53.1 |
November | 100.0 |
December | 87.0 |
January | 84.9 |
February | 91.3 |
March | 98.5 |
April | 85.7 |
May | 80.8 |
June | 74.9 |
The gentler slopes and better storage facilities of this second river show their effect in an average monthly delivery of energy 6.9 per cent higher as to the output in a month when it was greatest than the like percentage for the water-power first considered. These two water-power illustrate what can be done with only very moderate storage capacities on the rivers involved. At both stations much water escapes over the dams during several months of each year. With enough storage space to retain all waters of these rivers until wanted the energy outputs could be largely increased.
The gentler slopes and improved storage facilities of this second river result in an average monthly energy delivery that is 6.9 percent higher during its peak output compared to the same percentage for the first river's water power. These two water power sources demonstrate what can be achieved with only modest storage capacities on the respective rivers. At both stations, a significant amount of water spills over the dams during several months each year. With sufficient storage capacity to hold all the water from these rivers until needed, the energy outputs could be greatly increased.
As may be seen by inspection of curve No. 2, the second water-power has smaller fluctuations of capacity, as well as a higher average percentage of the maximum output than the water-power illustrated by curve No. 1.
As you can see from curve No. 2, the second water-power has smaller variations in capacity and a higher average percentage of its maximum output compared to the water-power shown in curve No. 1.
If the discharge of a stream during each twenty-four hours is just sufficient to develop the electrical energy required in a supply system during that time, the water may be made to do all of the electrical work in one of two ways. If the water-power has enough storage capacity behind it to hold the excess of water during some hours of the day, then it is only necessary to install enough water-wheels and electric generators to carry the maximum load. Should the storage capacity for water be lacking, or the equipment of generating apparatus be insufficient to work at the maximum rate demanded by the electrical system, then an electric storage battery must be employed if all of the water is to be utilized and made to do the electrical work.
If the flow of a stream over a twenty-four hour period is just enough to generate the electrical energy needed for a supply system in that time, the water can be used to perform all of the electrical work in one of two ways. If there is adequate storage capacity behind the water to hold the excess during certain hours of the day, then it’s only necessary to set up enough water wheels and electric generators to handle the maximum load. If there isn’t enough water storage available, or if the generating equipment isn’t capable of operating at the maximum rate needed by the electrical system, then an electric storage battery must be used to ensure that all the water is utilized for electrical work.
The greatest fluctuations between maximum and minimum daily loads at electric lighting stations usually occur in December and January. The extent of these fluctuations is illustrated by curve No. 3, which represents the total load on a large electrical supply system during a typical week-day of January, 1901. On this day the maximum load was 2,720 and the minimum load 612 kilowatts, or 22.5 per cent of the highest rate[16] of output. During the day in question the total delivery of energy for the twenty-four hours was 30,249 kilowatt hours, so that the average load per hour was 1,260 kilowatts. This average is 46 per cent of the maximum load.
The biggest changes between the highest and lowest daily loads at electric lighting stations typically happen in December and January. The extent of these changes is shown by curve No. 3, which represents the total load on a large electrical supply system during a typical weekday in January 1901. On this day, the maximum load was 2,720 kilowatts and the minimum load was 612 kilowatts, or 22.5% of the highest output rate[16]. Throughout the day, the total energy delivered over the 24 hours was 30,249 kilowatt hours, meaning the average load per hour was 1,260 kilowatts. This average is 46% of the maximum load.
Computation of the area included by curve No. 3 above the average load line of 1,260 kilowatts shows that about 17.8 per cent of the total output of energy for the day was delivered above the average load, that is, in addition to an output at average load. It further appears by inspection of this load curve that this delivery of energy above the average load line took place during 12.3 hours of the day, so that its average rate of delivery per hour was 438 kilowatts.
Computation of the area included by curve No. 3 above the average load line of 1,260 kilowatts shows that about 17.8% of the total energy output for the day was delivered above the average load, meaning it was in addition to an output at average load. It also appears from examining this load curve that this delivery of energy above the average load line occurred during 12.3 hours of the day, resulting in an average delivery rate of 438 kilowatts per hour.
If a water-power competent to carry a load of 1,260 kilowatts twenty-four hours per day be applied to the system illustrated by curve No. 3, then about 17.8 per cent of the energy of the water for the entire day must be stored during 11.7 hours and liberated in the remaining 12.3 hours. This percentage of the total daily energy of the water amounts to 36 per cent of its energy during the hours that storage takes place.
If a water source can provide 1,260 kilowatts for twenty-four hours a day is used in the system shown in curve No. 3, then about 17.8 percent of the water's energy for the whole day needs to be stored during 11.7 hours and released in the remaining 12.3 hours. This percentage of the total daily energy of the water makes up 36 percent of its energy during the hours of storage.
If all of the storage is done with water, the electric generators must be able to work at the rate of 2,720 kilowatts, the maximum load. If all of the storage is done in electric batteries, the use of water may be uniform throughout the day, and the generator capacity must be enough above 1,260 kilowatts to make up for losses in the batteries. Where batteries are employed the amount of water will be somewhat greater than that necessary to operate the load directly with generators, because of the battery losses.
If all the storage is done with water, the electric generators need to operate at a rate of 2,720 kilowatts, which is the maximum load. If all the storage is done with electric batteries, the use of water can be consistent throughout the day, and the generator capacity must be above 1,260 kilowatts to compensate for losses in the batteries. When batteries are used, the amount of water required will be slightly greater than what’s needed to directly power the load with generators, due to battery losses.
In spite of the large fluctuations of electrical loads throughout each twenty-four hours, it is thus comparatively easy to operate them with water-powers that are little, if any, above the requirements of the average loads.
Despite the significant variations in electrical loads throughout each twenty-four hours, it is relatively easy to manage them with water power that is only slightly above the needs of the average loads.
Perhaps the most important question relating to the use of water-power in electrical supply is what percentage of the yearly output of energy can be derived from water where this power is sufficient to carry the entire load during a part of the year. With storage area for all surplus water in any season, the amount of work that could be done by a stream might be calculated directly from the records of its annual discharge of water. As such storage areas for surplus water have seldom, or never, been made available in connection with electrical systems, the best assurance as to the percentage of yearly output that may be derived from water-power is found in the experience of existing plants.
Perhaps the most important question regarding the use of water power in electricity supply is what percentage of the annual energy output can be generated from water when this power is enough to handle the full demand for part of the year. With storage for all surplus water at any time, the amount of work a stream could do might be calculated directly from its annual water discharge records. Since such storage for excess water has rarely, if ever, been implemented alongside electrical systems, the best way to estimate the percentage of annual output that can come from water power is based on the experiences of existing plants.
The question now to be considered differs materially from that involving[17] merely the variations of water-power in the several months, or even the possible yearly output from water-power. The ratio of output from water-power to the total yearly output of an electrical system includes the result of load fluctuations in every twenty-four hours and the variable demands for electrical energy in different months, as well as changes in the amount of water-power available through the seasons.
The question we need to consider now is quite different from just looking at the variations in water power throughout the months or even the potential yearly output from water power. The ratio of output from water power compared to the total yearly output of an electrical system takes into account load fluctuations every twenty-four hours and the varying demands for electrical energy during different months, as well as the changes in the amount of water power available throughout the seasons.
In order to show the combined result of these three important factors curve No. 4 has been constructed. This indicates the percentages of total semi-yearly outputs of electrical energy derived from water-power in two supply systems. Each half-year extends either from January to June, inclusive, or from July to December, inclusive, and thus covers a wet and dry season. Each half-year also includes a period of maximum and one of minimum demand for electrical energy in lighting. The period of largest water supply usually nearly coincides with that of heaviest lighting load, but this is not always true.
To show the combined result of these three important factors, curve No. 4 has been created. This indicates the percentages of total semi-annual electrical energy outputs generated from water power in two supply systems. Each half-year runs either from January to June, inclusive, or from July to December, inclusive, covering both a wet season and a dry season. Each half-year also includes a time of peak demand and a time of low demand for electrical energy used for lighting. The time of maximum water supply usually aligns closely with the time of highest lighting load, but that’s not always the case.
Electrical systems have purposely been selected in which the water-power in at least one month of each half-year was nearly or quite sufficient to carry the entire electrical load. The percentage of energy from water-power to the total energy delivered by the system is presented for each of five half-years. Three of the half-years each run from July to December, and two extend from January to June, respectively. The half years that show percentages of 66.8, 80.2, and 95.6, respectively, for the relation of energy from water-power to the total electrical output relate to one system, and the half years that show percentages of 81.97 and 94.3 for the energy from water-power relate to another system.
Electrical systems have been intentionally chosen so that the water power in at least one month of each half-year was nearly or completely enough to cover the entire electrical load. The percentage of energy from water power compared to the total energy provided by the system is shown for each of five half-year periods. Three of the half-years run from July to December, while two run from January to June. The half-years that report percentages of 66.8, 80.2, and 95.6 for the share of energy from water power to the total electrical output belong to one system, whereas the half-years that show percentages of 81.97 and 94.3 for energy from water power belong to another system.
For the half-year when 66.8 per cent. of the output of the electrical system was derived from water-power, the total output of the system was 3,966,026 kilowatt hours. During the month of December in this half-year more than 98 per cent of the electrical energy delivered by the system was from water-power, though the average for the six months was only 66.8 per cent from water.
For the six months when 66.8% of the power generated by the electrical system came from water, the total output was 3,966,026 kilowatt-hours. In December of this period, over 98% of the electricity delivered by the system was generated by water, even though the average for the six months was only 66.8% from water.
In the following six months, from January to June, the electrical supply system delivered 4,161,754 kilowatt hours, and of this amount the water-power furnished 80.2 per cent. For the six months just named, one month, May, saw 99 per cent of all the delivered energy derived from water-power.
In the next six months, from January to June, the electrical supply system provided 4,161,754 kilowatt hours, with 80.2 percent coming from water power. During this period, May stood out, with 99 percent of all the energy supplied sourced from water power.
The same system during the next half-year, from July to December, without any addition to its water-power development or equipment, got 95.6 per cent of its entire energy output from water-power, and this output amounted to 4,415,945 kilowatt hours. In one month of the half-year[18] just named only 0.2 per cent of the output was generated with steam-power.
The same system over the next six months, from July to December, produced 95.6 percent of its total energy from water power, without any upgrades to its water-power development or equipment. This output totaled 4,415,945 kilowatt hours. In one month during that period[18], only 0.2 percent of the energy was generated using steam power.
These three successive half years illustrate the fluctuations of the ratio between water-power outputs and the demands for energy on a single system of electrical supply. The percentage of 81.9 for energy derived from water-power during the half-year from July to December represents the ratio of output from water to the total for an electrical supply system where water generated 94 per cent of all the energy delivered in one month.
These three consecutive six-month periods show the ups and downs of the relationship between water-power production and energy demand in a single electrical supply system. The 81.9% for energy from water-power during the six months from July to December reflects the output from water compared to the total for an electrical supply system where water produced 94% of all the energy supplied in one month.
In the same system during the following six months, with exactly the same water-power equipment, the percentage of output from water-power was 94.3 of the total kilowatt-hours delivered by the system. This result was reached in spite of the fact that the total outputs of the system in the two half-years were equal to within less than one per cent.
In the same system over the next six months, using exactly the same water-power equipment, the share of output from water power was 94.3% of the total kilowatt-hours produced by the system. This result was achieved even though the total outputs of the system in the two half-years were equal to within less than one percent.
The lesson from the record of these five half-years is that comparatively large variations are to be expected in the percentage of energy developed by water-power to the total output of electrical supply systems in different half-years. But, in spite of these variations, the portion of electrical loads that may be carried by water-power is sufficient to warrant its rapidly extending application to lighting and power in cities and towns.
The takeaway from the record of these five half-years is that significant variations can be anticipated in the percentage of energy generated by water power compared to the total output of electrical supply systems in different half-year periods. However, despite these fluctuations, the share of electrical demand that can be supported by water power is enough to justify its quick expansion for lighting and power in cities and towns.
CHAPTER III.
COST OF CONDUCTORS FOR ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION.
Electrical transmission of energy involves problems quite distinct from its development. A great water-power, or a location where fuel is cheap, may offer opportunity to generate electrical energy at an exceptionally low cost. This energy may be used so close to the point of its development that the cost of transmission is too small for separate consideration.
Electrical transmission of energy presents issues that are quite different from its generation. A large water power source or a place where fuel is inexpensive can provide a chance to produce electrical energy at a very low cost. This energy can be utilized so close to where it is generated that the transmission costs are too negligible to be considered separately.
An example of conditions where the important problems of transmission are absent exists in the numerous factories grouped about the great water-power plants at Niagara and drawing electrical energy from it. In such a case energy flows directly from the dynamos, driven by water-power, to the lamps, motors, chemical vats, and electric heaters of consumers through the medium, perhaps, of local transformers. Here the costs and losses of transmitting or distributing equipments are minor matters, compared with the development of the energy.
An example of situations where the key issues of transmission are not present can be found in the many factories located near the major hydroelectric plants at Niagara that draw electrical energy from them. In this scenario, energy flows directly from the dynamos powered by water to the lights, motors, chemical tanks, and electric heaters of users, possibly using local transformers. Here, the costs and losses associated with transmission or distribution equipment are relatively insignificant compared to the generation of energy.
If, now, energy from the water-power is to be transmitted over a distance of many miles, a new set of costs is to be met. In the first place, it will be necessary to raise the voltage of the transmitted energy much above the pressure at the dynamos in order to save in the weight and cost of conductors for the transmission line. This increase of voltage requires transformers with capacity equal to the maximum rate at which energy is to be delivered to the line. These transformers will add to the cost of the energy that they deliver in two ways: by the absorption of some energy to form heat, and by the sum of annual interest, maintenance, and depreciation charges on the price paid for them. Other additions to the cost of energy delivered by the transmission line must be made to cover the annual interest, maintenance, and depreciation charges on the amount of the line investment, and to pay for the energy changed to heat in the line.
If energy from water power is going to be transmitted over many miles, new costs will come into play. First, it’s necessary to increase the voltage of the transmitted energy far beyond the output at the generators to reduce the weight and expense of the conductors for the transmission line. This voltage boost requires transformers that can handle the maximum energy output for the line. These transformers will add to the energy cost in two ways: by consuming some energy as heat, and through the total of annual interest, maintenance, and depreciation costs on their purchase price. Additional costs for the energy delivered via the transmission line need to account for the annual interest, maintenance, and depreciation on the investment in the line itself, as well as for the energy lost as heat in the line.
Near the points where the energy is to be used, the transmission line must end in transformers to reduce the voltage to a safe figure for local distribution. This second set of transformers will further add to the cost of the delivered energy in the same ways as the former set.
Near the locations where the energy will be used, the transmission line must end in transformers to lower the voltage to a safe level for local distribution. This second set of transformers will also increase the cost of the delivered energy in the same ways as the first set.
From these facts it is evident that, to warrant an electrical transmission, the value of energy at the point of distribution should at least equal the value at the generating plant plus the cost of the transmission. Knowing the cost of energy at one end of the transmission line and its value at the other, the difference between these two represents the maximum cost at which the transmission will pay.
From these facts, it's clear that to justify an electrical transmission, the value of energy at the distribution point should be at least equal to the value at the generating plant plus the transmission cost. By knowing the energy cost at one end of the transmission line and its value at the other, the difference between these two represents the maximum cost at which the transmission will be profitable.
Three main factors are concerned in the cost of electric power transmission, namely, the transformers, the pole line, and the wire or conductors. These factors enter into the cost of transmitted energy in very different degrees, according to the circumstances of each case. The maximum and average rates of energy transmission, the total voltage, the percentage of line loss, and the length of the line mainly determine the relative importance of the transformers, pole line, and conductors in the total cost of delivered energy.
Three main factors are involved in the cost of transmitting electric power: transformers, pole lines, and wires or conductors. These factors contribute to the cost of transmitted energy in very different ways, depending on the specific situation. The maximum and average rates of energy transmission, total voltage, percentage of line loss, and line length primarily determine how significant each of these components is in the overall cost of delivered energy.
First cost of transformers varies directly with the maximum rate of transmission, and is nearly independent of the voltage, the length of the transmission, and the percentage of line loss. A pole line changes in first cost with the length of the transmission, but is nearly independent of the other factors. Line conductors, for a fixed maximum percentage of loss, vary in first cost directly with the square of the length of the transmission and with the rate of the transmission; but their first cost decreases as the percentage of line loss increases and as the square of the voltage of transmission increases.
First, the cost of transformers directly depends on the maximum transmission rate and is mostly unaffected by voltage, transmission length, and line loss percentage. The cost of a pole line changes with the transmission length but is largely unaffected by the other factors. For line conductors, with a fixed maximum percentage of loss, the initial cost increases directly with the square of the transmission length and the transmission rate; however, their initial cost decreases as the percentage of line loss increases and as the square of the transmission voltage increases.
If a given amount of power is to be transmitted, at a certain percentage of loss in the line and at a fixed voltage, over distances of 50, 100, and 200 miles, respectively, the foregoing principles lead to the following conclusions: The capacity of transformers, being fixed by the rate of transmission, will be the same for either distance, and their cost is therefore constant. Transformer losses, interest, depreciation, and repairs are also constant. The cost of pole line, depending on its length, will be twice as great at 100 and four times as great at 200 as at 50 miles. Interest, depreciation, and repairs will also go up directly with the length of the pole lines.
If a certain amount of power needs to be transmitted with a specific percentage of loss in the line and at a fixed voltage over distances of 50, 100, and 200 miles, the following conclusions can be drawn from these principles: The capacity of transformers, determined by the transmission rate, will remain the same for each distance, and their cost is therefore consistent. Transformer losses, interest, depreciation, and repairs are also consistent. The cost of the pole line will be twice as high at 100 miles and four times as high at 200 miles compared to 50 miles. Interest, depreciation, and repairs will also increase directly with the length of the pole lines.
Line conductors will cost four times as much for the 100- as for the 50-mile transmission, because their weight will be four times as great, and the annual interest and depreciation will go up at the same rate. For the transmission of 200 miles the cost of line conductors and their weight will be sixteen times as great as the cost at 50 miles. It follows that interest, depreciation, and maintenance will be increased sixteen times with the 200-mile transmission over what they were at 50 miles, if voltage and line loss are constant.
Line conductors will cost four times as much for the 100-mile transmission as they do for the 50-mile transmission because their weight will be four times greater, and the annual interest and depreciation will rise at the same rate. For the 200-mile transmission, the cost and weight of line conductors will be sixteen times greater than at 50 miles. This means that interest, depreciation, and maintenance will also increase sixteen times for the 200-mile transmission compared to what they were at 50 miles, assuming voltage and line loss remain constant.
A concrete example of the cost of electric power transmission over a given distance will illustrate the practical application of these principles. Let the problem be to deliver electrical energy in a city distant 100 miles from the generating plant. Transformers with approximately twice the capacity corresponding to the maximum rate of transmission must be provided, because one set is required at the generating and another at the delivery station. The cost of these transformers will be approximately $7.50 per horse-power for any large capacity.
A clear example of the cost of transmitting electric power over a specific distance will show how these principles work in practice. Let's say the goal is to deliver electrical energy to a city that’s 100 miles away from the power plant. We need transformers with about twice the capacity of the maximum transmission rate. This is necessary because one set is needed at the generation site and another at the delivery location. The cost of these transformers will be roughly $7.50 per horsepower for any large capacity.
Reliability is of the utmost importance in a great power transmission, and this requires a pole line of the most substantial construction. Such a line in a locality where wooden poles can be had at a moderate price will cost, with conductors in position, about $700 per mile, exclusive of the cost of the conductors themselves or of the right of way but including the cost of erecting the conductors. The 100 miles of pole line in the present case should, therefore, be set down at a cost of $70,000.
Reliability is extremely important in a major power transmission system, which requires a pole line built with strong materials. In an area where wooden poles are reasonably priced, the total cost for the line, including the installation of the conductors but excluding the cost of the conductors themselves and the right of way, will be about $700 per mile. Therefore, the cost for the 100 miles of pole line in this case should be estimated at $70,000.
A large delivery of power must be made to warrant the construction of so long and expensive a line, and 10,000 horse-power may be taken as the maximum rate of delivery. On the basis of two horse-power of transformer capacity for each horse-power of the maximum delivery rate, transformers with a capacity of 20,000 horse-power are necessary for the present transmission. At $7.50 per horse-power capacity, the first cost of these transformers is $150,000.
A substantial power delivery is necessary to justify building such a long and costly line, and 10,000 horsepower can be considered the maximum delivery rate. Based on a ratio of two horsepower of transformer capacity for each horsepower of the maximum delivery rate, transformers with a capacity of 20,000 horsepower are required for the current transmission. At $7.50 per horsepower capacity, the initial cost of these transformers amounts to $150,000.
Before the weight and cost of line conductors can be determined, the voltage at which the transmission shall be carried out and the percentage of the energy to be lost in the conductors at periods of maximum load must be decided on. The voltage to be used is a matter of engineering judgment, based in large part on experience, and cannot be determined by calculation. In a transmission of 100 miles the cost of conductors is certain to be a very heavy item, and, as this cost decreases as the square of the voltage goes up, it is desirable to push the voltage as high as the requirements for reliable service permit.
Before we can determine the weight and cost of line conductors, we need to decide on the voltage for transmission and the percentage of energy that will be lost in the conductors during peak load periods. The voltage to be used is primarily a matter of engineering judgment, heavily influenced by experience, and it can't be determined just through calculations. In a transmission distance of 100 miles, the cost of conductors will definitely be a significant factor, and since this cost decreases as the square of the voltage increases, it's best to increase the voltage as much as the reliability requirements allow.
A transmission line 142 miles long, from the mountains to Oakland, Cal., has been in constant and successful use for several years with 40,000 volts pressure. This line passes through wet as well as dry climate. It seems safer to conclude, therefore, that 40,000 volts may be used in most places with good results.
A transmission line 142 miles long, from the mountains to Oakland, Cal., has been in continuous and successful operation for several years at 40,000 volts. This line goes through both wet and dry climates. Thus, it seems safer to conclude that 40,000 volts can be used in most areas with positive results.
Having decided on the amount of power and the voltage and length of the transmission, the required weight of conductors will vary inversely as the percentage of energy lost as heat in the line. The best percentage[22] of loss depends on the number of factors, some of which, such as the cost of energy at the generating plant, are peculiar to each case.
Having determined the power level, voltage, and length of the transmission, the needed weight of conductors will decrease as the percentage of energy lost as heat in the line increases. The ideal percentage[22] of loss depends on several factors, some of which, like the energy cost at the generating plant, are specific to each situation.
As a provisional figure, based in part on the practice elsewhere, the loss on the line here considered may be taken at 10 per cent. when transmitting the full load of 10,000 horse-power. If the line is constructed on this basis the percentage of loss will be proportionately less for any smaller load. Thus, when the line is transmitting only 5,000 horse-power, the loss will amount to 5 per cent. During the greater portion of each day the demand for power is certain to be less than the maximum figure, so that a maximum loss of 10 per cent will correspond to an average loss on all the power delivered to the line of probably less than 7 per cent.
As a rough estimate, based partly on practices from other places, the loss on the line we're discussing can be considered to be 10% when transmitting the full load of 10,000 horsepower. If the line is built with this in mind, the loss percentage will be proportionately lower for any smaller load. For example, when the line is transmitting only 5,000 horsepower, the loss will be about 5%. Throughout most of each day, the demand for power is likely to be below the maximum level, so a maximum loss of 10% will likely translate to an average loss of probably less than 7% for all the power delivered to the line.
In order to deliver 10,000 horse-power by the transformers at a receiving station from a generating plant 100 miles distant where the pressure is 40,000 volts, the copper conductors must have a weight of about 1,500,000 pounds, if the loss of energy in them is 10 per cent of the energy delivered to the line. Taking these conductors at a medium price of 15 cents per pound, their cost amounts to $225,000.
To deliver 10,000 horsepower through the transformers at a receiving station located 100 miles away from a generating plant with a pressure of 40,000 volts, the copper conductors need to weigh around 1,500,000 pounds if the energy loss in them is 10 percent of the energy delivered to the line. With these conductors priced at an average of 15 cents per pound, the total cost comes to $225,000.
The combined cost of the transformers, pole line, and line conductors, as now estimated, amounts to $445,000. No account is taken of the right-of-way for the pole line, because in many cases this would cost nothing, the public roads being used for the purpose; in other cases the cost might vary greatly with local conditions.
The total estimated cost for the transformers, pole line, and line conductors is $445,000. This estimate does not include the right-of-way for the pole line because, in many instances, this would be free as public roads are used for it; in other cases, the cost could differ significantly based on local conditions.
The efficiency of the transmission is measured by the ratio of the energy delivered by the transformers at the receiving station for local distribution to the energy delivered by the generating plant to the transformers that supply energy to the line for transmission. If worked at full capacity the large transformers here considered would have an efficiency of nearly 98 per cent; but as they must work, to some extent, on partial loads, the actual efficiency will hardly exceed 96 per cent.
The efficiency of the transmission is measured by the ratio of the energy delivered by the transformers at the receiving station for local distribution to the energy delivered by the power plant to the transformers that supply energy to the line for transmission. If operated at full capacity, the large transformers being discussed would have an efficiency of nearly 98 percent; however, since they often operate under partial loads, the actual efficiency will rarely exceed 96 percent.
The efficiency of the line conductors rises on partial loads, and may be safely taken at 93 per cent for all of the energy transmitted, though it is only 90 per cent on the maximum load. The combined efficiencies of the two sets of transformers and the line give the efficiency of the transmission, which equals the product of 0.96 × 0.93 × 0.96, or almost exactly 85.7 per cent. In other words, the transformers at the water-power station absorb 1.17 times as much energy as the transformers at the receiving station deliver to distribution lines in the place of use.
The efficiency of the line conductors increases at partial loads and can be reliably taken as 93 percent for all the energy transmitted, whereas it is only 90 percent at maximum load. The combined efficiencies of the two sets of transformers and the line determine the transmission efficiency, which equals the product of 0.96 × 0.93 × 0.96, or nearly 85.7 percent. In other words, the transformers at the hydroelectric station consume 1.17 times more energy than the transformers at the receiving station provide to the distribution lines for use.
Interest, maintenance, and depreciation of this complete transmission system are sufficiently provided for by an allowance of 15 per cent[23] yearly on its entire first cost. As the total first cost of the transmission system was found to be $445,000, the annual expense of interest, depreciation, and repairs at 15 per cent of this sum amounts to $66,750.
Interest, maintenance, and depreciation for this entire transmission system are adequately covered by a yearly allowance of 15 percent[23] of its total initial cost. Since the total initial cost of the transmission system was determined to be $445,000, the annual cost for interest, depreciation, and repairs at 15 percent of this amount comes to $66,750.
In order to find the bearings of this annual charge on the cost of power transmission the total amount of energy transmitted annually must be determined. The 10,000 horse-power delivered by the system at the sub-station is simply the maximum rate at which energy may be supplied, and the element of time must be introduced in order to compute the amount of transmitted energy. If the system could be kept at work during twenty-four hours a day at full capacity, the delivered energy would be represented by the product of the numbers which stand for the capacity and for the total number of hours yearly.
To calculate the impact of this annual charge on the cost of power transmission, we first need to determine the total amount of energy transmitted each year. The 10,000 horsepower provided by the system at the substation is just the maximum rate at which energy can be supplied, so we need to factor in time to figure out the total energy transmitted. If the system could operate continuously for twenty-four hours a day at full capacity, the amount of energy delivered would be the product of the capacity and the total number of hours in a year.
Unfortunately, however, the demands for electric light and power vary through a wide range in the course of each twenty-four hours, and the period of maximum demand extends over only a small part of each day. The problem is, therefore, to find what relation the average load that may be had during the twenty-four hours bears to the capacity required to carry this maximum load. As the answer to this question depends on the power requirements of various classes of consumers, it can be obtained only by experience. It has been found that some electric stations, working twenty-four hours daily on mixed loads of lamps and stationary motors, can deliver energy to an amount represented by the necessary maximum capacity during about 3,000 hours per year. Applying this rule to the present case, the transformers at the sub-station, if loaded to their maximum capacity of 10,000 horse-power by the heaviest demands of consumers, may be expected to deliver energy to the amount of 3,000 × 10,000 = 30,000,000 horse-power hours yearly.
Unfortunately, the demand for electric light and power varies significantly throughout each 24 hours, and the peak demand only lasts for a short period each day. The challenge is to determine how the average load across the full day compares to the capacity needed to handle this peak load. The answer to this question relies on the power needs of different types of consumers, and it can only be figured out through experience. It has been observed that some electric stations, operating around the clock on a mix of lamps and stationary motors, can supply energy equal to the necessary maximum capacity for about 3,000 hours per year. Using this guideline in our current situation, the transformers at the sub-station, if pushed to their maximum capacity of 10,000 horsepower due to the highest demands of consumers, can be expected to provide energy amounting to 3,000 × 10,000 = 30,000,000 horsepower hours annually.
The total cost of operation for this transmission system was found above to be $66,750 per annum, exclusive of the cost of energy at the generating plant. This sum, divided by 30,000,000, shows the cost of energy transmission to be 0.222 cent per horse-power hour, exclusive of the first cost of the energy. To obtain the total cost of transmission, the figures just given must be increased by the value of the energy lost in transformers and in the line conductors. In order to find this value, the cost of energy at the generating plant must be known.
The total operating cost for this transmission system was found to be $66,750 per year, not including the energy costs at the generating plant. When you divide this amount by 30,000,000, the cost of energy transmission comes out to 0.222 cents per horsepower hour, not including the initial energy costs. To calculate the total transmission cost, you need to add the value of the energy lost in transformers and in the line conductors to the figures mentioned above. To determine this value, the cost of energy at the generating plant needs to be known.
The cost of electrical energy at the switchboard in a water-power station is subject to wide variations, owing to the different investments necessary in the hydraulic work per unit of power developed. With large powers, such as are here considered, a horse-power hour of electrical energy may be developed for materially less than 0.5 cent in some[24] plants. As the average efficiency of the present transmission has been found to be 85.7 per cent of the energy delivered by the generators, it is evident that 1.17 horse-power hours must be drawn from the generators for every horse-power hour supplied by the transformers at the sub-station for distribution. In other words, 0.17 horse-power hour is wasted for each horse-power hour delivered.
The cost of electrical energy at the switchboard in a hydroelectric plant can vary a lot because of the different investments needed for the hydraulic work per unit of power produced. In larger plants, like the ones being discussed, you can generate a horse-power hour of electrical energy for less than 0.5 cents in some[24] cases. Since the average efficiency of current transmission is about 85.7% of the energy provided by the generators, it’s clear that 1.17 horse-power hours need to be drawn from the generators for each horse-power hour provided by the transformers at the sub-station for distribution. In other words, 0.17 horse-power hour is wasted for every horse-power hour delivered.
The cost of 0.17 of a horse-power hour, or say not more than 0.5 × 0.17 = 0.085 cent, must thus be added to the figures for transmission cost already found, that is, 0.222 cent per horse-power hour, to obtain the total cost of transmission. The sum of these two items of cost amounts to 0.307 cent per horse-power hour, as the entire transmission expense.
The cost of 0.17 of a horsepower hour, or at most 0.5 × 0.17 = 0.085 cents, should be added to the previously calculated transmission cost of 0.222 cents per horsepower hour to get the total transmission cost. Adding these two cost items gives a total of 0.307 cents per horsepower hour for the entire transmission expense.
It may now be asked how the cost of transmission just found will increase if the distance be extended. As an illustration, assume the length of the transmission to be 150 instead of 100 miles. Let the amount of energy delivered by the sub-station, the loss in line conductors, and the energy drawn from the generating plant remain the same as before. Evidently the cost of the pole line will be increased 50 per cent, that is, from $70,000 to $105,000. Transformers, having the same capacity, will not be changed from the previous estimate of $150,000. If the voltage of the transmission remain constant, as well as the line loss at maximum load, the weight and cost of copper conductors must increase with the square of the distances of transmission. For 150 miles the weight of copper will thus be 2.25 times the weight required for the 100-mile transmission.
It can now be questioned how the cost of transmission we just calculated will change if the distance is increased. For example, let’s assume the transmission length is 150 miles instead of 100 miles. We’ll keep the amount of energy delivered by the substation, the line conductor loss, and the energy taken from the generating plant the same as before. Clearly, the cost of the pole line will go up by 50 percent, from $70,000 to $105,000. Transformers, with the same capacity, will remain at the previous estimate of $150,000. If the transmission voltage stays the same, as well as the line loss at maximum load, then the weight and cost of copper conductors will need to increase with the square of the transmission distances. For 150 miles, the weight of the copper will therefore be 2.25 times the weight needed for the 100-mile transmission.
Instead of an increase in the weight of conductors a higher voltage may be adopted. The transformers for the two great transmission systems that extend over a distance of about 150 miles, from the Sierra Nevada Mountains to San Francisco Bay, in California, are designed to deliver energy to the line at either 40,000 or 60,000 volts, as desired. Though the regular operation at first was at the lower pressure, the voltage has been raised to 60,000.
Instead of using heavier conductors, a higher voltage can be used. The transformers for the two major transmission systems that stretch about 150 miles, from the Sierra Nevada Mountains to San Francisco Bay in California, are built to supply energy to the line at either 40,000 or 60,000 volts, depending on what is needed. Although the system originally operated at the lower voltage, it has now been increased to 60,000 volts.
The lower valleys of the Sacramento and the San Joaquin rivers, which are crossed by these California systems, as well as the shores of San Francisco Bay, have as much annual precipitation and as moist an atmosphere as most parts of the United States and Canada. Therefore there seems to be no good reason to prevent the use of 60,000 volts elsewhere.
The lower valleys of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, which are crossed by these California systems, as well as the shores of San Francisco Bay, receive as much annual rainfall and have as humid an atmosphere as most areas in the United States and Canada. So, it seems there's no strong reason to restrict the use of 60,000 volts in other places.
The distance over which energy may be transmitted at a given rate, with a fixed percentage of loss and a constant weight of copper, goes up[25] directly with the voltage employed. This rule follows because, while the weight of conductors to transmit energy at a given rate, with a certain percentage of loss and constant voltage, increases as the square of the distance, the weight of conductors decreases as the square of the voltage when all the other factors are constant.
The distance over which energy can be transmitted at a certain rate, with a fixed percentage of loss and a consistent weight of copper, increases[25] directly with the voltage used. This is because, while the weight of conductors needed to transmit energy at a specific rate, with a certain percentage of loss and constant voltage, increases with the square of the distance, the weight of conductors decreases with the square of the voltage when all other factors remain the same.
Applying these principles to the 150-mile transmission, it is evident that an increase of the voltage to 60,000 will allow the weight of conductors to remain exactly where it was for the transmission of 100 miles, the rate of working and the line loss being equal for the two cases.
Applying these principles to the 150-mile transmission, it’s clear that raising the voltage to 60,000 will let the weight of the conductors stay the same as it was for the 100-mile transmission, with both the operating rate and line loss being equal in both scenarios.
The only additional item of expense in the 150-mile transmission, on the basis of 60,000 volts, is the $35,000 for pole line. Allowing 15 per cent on the $35,000 to cover interest, depreciation, and maintenance, as before, makes a total yearly increase in the costs of transmission of $5,250 over that found for the transmission of 100 miles. This last sum amounts to 0.0175 cent per horse-power hour of the delivered energy.
The only extra expense for the 150-mile transmission at 60,000 volts is the $35,000 for the pole line. Adding 15 percent to the $35,000 to cover interest, depreciation, and maintenance, as before, results in a total yearly increase in transmission costs of $5,250 compared to the 100-mile transmission. This total translates to 0.0175 cents per horsepower-hour of the delivered energy.
The cost of transmission is thus raised to 0.307 + 0.0175 = 0.324 cent per horse-power hour of delivered energy on the 150-mile system with 60,000 volts.
The cost of transmission is now increased to 0.307 + 0.0175 = 0.324 cents per horsepower hour of delivered energy on the 150-mile system with 60,000 volts.
Existing transmission lines not only illustrate the relations of the factors named above to the cost and weight of conductors, but also show marked variations of practice, corresponding to the opinions of different engineers. In order to bring out the facts on these points, the data of a number of transmission lines are here presented. On these lines the distance of transmission varies between 5 and 142 miles, the voltage from 5,000 to 50,000, and the maximum rate of work from a few hundred to some thousands of horse-power. For each transmission the single length and total weight of conductors, the voltage, and the capacity of the generating equipment that supplies the line is recorded. From these data the volts per mile of line, weight and cost of conductors per kilowatt capacity of generating equipment, and the weight of conductors per mile for each kilowatt of capacity in the generating equipment are calculated. In each case the length of line given is the distance from the generating to the receiving station. The capacity given for generating equipment in each case is that of the main dynamos, where their entire output goes to the transmission line in question, but where the dynamos supply energy for other purposes also, the rating of the transformers that feed only the particular transmission line is given as the capacity of generating equipment.
Existing transmission lines not only demonstrate the relationships between the mentioned factors and the cost and weight of conductors, but they also reveal significant differences in practice based on the perspectives of various engineers. To highlight these points, data from several transmission lines are presented here. On these lines, the distance of transmission ranges from 5 to 142 miles, the voltage spans from 5,000 to 50,000, and the maximum work rate varies from a few hundred to several thousand horsepower. For each transmission, the single length and total weight of conductors, the voltage, and the capacity of the generating equipment supplying the line are recorded. From this data, the volts per mile of line, the weight and cost of conductors per kilowatt capacity of generating equipment, and the weight of conductors per mile for each kilowatt of capacity in the generating equipment are calculated. In each case, the reported length of the line is the distance from the generating station to the receiving station. The capacity listed for generating equipment reflects that of the main dynamos, where their entire output is directed to the transmission line in question, but where the dynamos also supply energy for other uses, the rating of the transformers that specifically feed the designated transmission line is provided as the capacity of the generating equipment.
Distance and Voltage of
Electrical Transmission.
Distance and Voltage of
Electrical Transmission.
Distance in Miles. |
Volts. | Volts per Mile. |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Colgate to Oakland, Cal. | 142 | 60,000 | 422 | |||
Cañon Ferry to Butte, Mont. | 65 | 50,000 | 769 | |||
Santa Ana River to Los Angeles | 83 | 33,000 | 397 | |||
Ogden to Salt Lake City, Utah | 36 | .5 | 16,000 | 438 | ||
Madrid to Bland, N. M. | 32 | 20,000 | 625 | |||
Welland Canal to Hamilton, Can. | - | 35 | 22,500 | 643 | ||
37 | ||||||
San Gabriel Cañon to Los Angeles | 23 | 16,000 | 695 | |||
Cañon City to Cripple Creek, Colo. | 23 | .5 | 20,000 | 851 | ||
Apple River to St. Paul, Minn. | 25 | 25,000 | 1,000 | |||
Yadkin River to Salem, N. C. | 14 | .5 | 12,000 | 827 | ||
Into Victor, Colo. | 8 | 12,600 | 1,575 | |||
Montmorency Falls to Quebec | 7 | 5,500 | 785 | |||
Farmington River to Hartford | 11 | 10,000 | 909 | |||
Sewall’s Falls to R.R. shops Concord | 5 | .5 | 10,000 | 1,818 | ||
Wilbraham to Ludlow Mills | 4 | .5 | 11,500 | 2,555 | ||
To Dales, Ore. | 27 | 22,000 | 814 |
The transmission systems here considered have been selected because it was possible to obtain the desired data as to each, and it may be presumed that they fairly illustrate present practice. It may be noted at once that in general the line voltage is increased with the length of the transmission. Thus, the transmission for the Ludlow Mills over a distance of 4.5 miles is carried out at 11,500 volts. On the other hand, the transmission between Cañon Ferry and Butte, a distance of 65 miles, employs 50,000 volts and represents recent practice. The system from Colgate to Oakland, a distance of 142 miles, the longest here considered, now has 60,000 volts on its lines. In spite of the general resort to high pressures with greater distances of transmission, the rise in voltage has not kept pace with the increasing length of line. For the Wilbraham-Ludlow transmission the total pressure amounts to 2,555 volts per mile, while the line from Colgate to Oakland with 31.5 times the length of the former operates at an average of only 422 volts per mile. Of the fifteen transmissions considered, six are over distances of less than 15 miles, and for four of the six the voltage is more than 900 per mile. Eight transmissions range from 23 to 83 miles in length, with voltages that average between 1,000 volts per mile at 25 miles and only 397 per mile on the 83-mile line. The volts per mile are 6 times as great in the Ludlow as in the Oakland transmission.
The transmission systems discussed here were chosen because we could obtain the necessary data for each one, and they likely represent current practices. It's worth noting that, typically, the line voltage increases with the length of the transmission. For example, the transmission for the Ludlow Mills over a distance of 4.5 miles operates at 11,500 volts. In contrast, the transmission between Cañon Ferry and Butte, which spans 65 miles, uses 50,000 volts and reflects more recent practices. The system from Colgate to Oakland, the longest at 142 miles, currently has 60,000 volts on its lines. Despite the overall trend of using higher voltages for longer transmission distances, the increase in voltage hasn’t kept up with the growing line lengths. For the Wilbraham-Ludlow transmission, the total pressure is 2,555 volts per mile, while the line from Colgate to Oakland—31.5 times longer—operates at an average of only 422 volts per mile. Of the fifteen transmissions examined, six are over distances of less than 15 miles, and for four of those six, the voltage exceeds 900 volts per mile. Eight transmissions range from 23 to 83 miles in length, with voltages averaging between 1,000 volts per mile at 25 miles and just 397 volts per mile on the 83-mile line. The voltage per mile in the Ludlow transmission is six times greater than in the Oakland transmission.
Capacity of Generating Stations
and Weight of Conductors.
Power Plant Capacity
and Wire Weight.
Location of Transmission. | Kilowatt Capacity at Generators. |
Total Weight of Conductors. |
Pounds of Conductors per Kilowatt Capacity. |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wilbraham to Ludlow | 4,600 | 17,820 | 3.7 | [A] | ||
Sewall’s Falls to railroad shops | 50 | 6,914 | 15 | |||
Into Victor, Colo. | 1,600 | 15,960 | 10 | |||
To Dales, Ore. | 1,000 | 33,939 | 34 | |||
Apple River to St. Paul | 3,000 | 159,600 | 53 | |||
Farmington River to Hartford | 1,500 | 54,054 | 36 | |||
Cañon City to Cripple Creek | 1,500 | 59,079 | 39 | |||
Yadkin River to Salem | 1,500 | 58,073 | 39 | |||
Montmorency Falls to Quebec | 2,400 | 189,056 | 79 | |||
Cañon Ferry to Butte | 5,700 | 658,320 | 115 | |||
San Gabriel Cañon to Los Angeles | 1,200 | 73,002 | 61 | |||
Welland Canal to Hamilton | 6,000 | 376,494 | 63 | |||
Madrid to Bland, N. M. | 600 | 127,680 | 212 | |||
Ogden to Salt Lake City | 2,250 | 292,365 | 129 | |||
Santa Ana River to Los Angeles | 2,250 | 664,830 | 295 | |||
Colgate to Oakland | 11,250 | - | 906,954 | 81 | ||
446,627 | 40 | [A] | ||||
[A] Aluminum. |
These wide variations in the volts per mile on transmission lines and in length of lines lead to different weights of conductors per kilowatt of generator capacity. All other factors remaining constant, the weight of conductors per kilowatt of generator capacity would be the same whatever the length of the transmission, provided that the volts per mile were uniform for all cases. One important factor, the percentage of loss for which the line conductors are designed at full load, is sure to vary in different cases, and lead to corresponding variations in the weights of conductors per kilowatt of generator capacity. In conductors of equal length one pound of aluminum has nearly the same electrical resistance as two pounds of copper, and this ratio must be allowed for when copper and aluminum lines are compared.
These broad differences in volts per mile on transmission lines and the length of the lines result in varying weights of conductors per kilowatt of generator capacity. If all other factors stay the same, the weight of conductors per kilowatt of generator capacity would be consistent regardless of the transmission length, as long as the volts per mile are uniform in all cases. One crucial factor, the percentage of loss for which the line conductors are designed at full load, is bound to vary in different situations, leading to corresponding changes in the weights of conductors per kilowatt of generator capacity. In conductors of equal length, one pound of aluminum has nearly the same electrical resistance as two pounds of copper, and this ratio must be taken into account when comparing copper and aluminum lines.
From the table it may be seen that the weight of conductors per kilowatt of generator capacity for the transmission from Santa Ana River is 29.5 times as great as the like weight for the line into Victor. But the volts per mile are four times as great on the Victor as they are on the Santa Ana River line. The extreme range of the cases presented is that between the Ludlow plant, with the equivalent of 7.4 pounds, and the Santa Ana River system with 295 pounds of copper conductors per kilowatt of generator capacity. Three transmissions with 1,575 to 2,555[28] volts per mile have the equivalent of 7.4 to 15 pounds of copper each, per kilowatt of generator capacity.
From the table, you can see that the weight of conductors per kilowatt of generator capacity for the transmission from the Santa Ana River is 29.5 times greater than the weight for the line into Victor. However, the voltage per mile is four times higher on the Victor line compared to the Santa Ana River line. The widest range shown is between the Ludlow plant, which has the equivalent of 7.4 pounds, and the Santa Ana River system, which has 295 pounds of copper conductors per kilowatt of generator capacity. Three transmissions with 1,575 to 2,555[28] volts per mile have an equivalent of 7.4 to 15 pounds of copper each, per kilowatt of generator capacity.
Weight and Cost of Conductors.
Weight and Cost of Wires.
Pounds per Kilowatt Mile. |
Dollars per Generator Kilowatt. |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wilbraham to Ludlow | 0 | .86[A] | 1.11 | ||
Sewall’s Falls to railroad shops | 2 | .7 | 2.25 | ||
Into Victor, Colo. | 0 | .9 | 1.50 | ||
To Dales, Ore. | 1 | .2 | 5.10 | ||
Apple River to St. Paul | 2 | .1 | 7.95 | ||
Farmington River to Hartford | 3 | .2 | 10.80 | ||
Cañon City to Cripple Creek | 1 | .6 | 5.85 | ||
Yadkin River to Salem | 2 | .6 | 5.85 | ||
Montmorency Falls to Quebec | 11 | .2 | 11.85 | ||
Cañon Ferry to Butte | 1 | .7 | 17.25 | ||
San Gabriel Cañon to Los Angeles | 2 | .6 | 9.85 | ||
Welland Canal to Hamilton | 1 | .7 | 9.45 | ||
Madrid to Bland, N. M. | 6 | .6 | 31.80 | ||
Ogden to Salt Lake City | 3 | .5 | 19.35 | ||
Santa Ana River to Los Angeles | 3 | .5 | 44.25 | ||
Colgate to Oakland | - | .56 | 24.15 | ||
.27[A] | |||||
[A] Aluminum. |
Of the seven transmissions using between 36 and 79 pounds of copper for each kilowatt of generator capacity, four have voltages ranging from 827 to 1,000 per mile, and on only one is the pressure as low as 643 volts per mile. Five transmission lines vary between 115 and 295 pounds of copper, or its equivalent, per kilowatt of generator capacity, and their voltages per mile are as high as 769 in one case and down to 281 in another. Allowing for some variations in the percentages of loss in transmission lines at full load, the fifteen plants plainly illustrate the advantage of a high voltage per mile, as to the weight of conductors. This advantage is especially clear if the differences due to the lengths of the transmissions are eliminated by dividing the weight of conductors per kilowatt of generator capacity in each case by the length of the transmission in miles. This division gives the weight of conductors per kilowatt of generators for each mile of the line, which may be called the weight per kilowatt mile. For the Ludlow transmission this weight is only 0.86 pound of aluminum, the equivalent of 1.72 pounds of copper, while the like weight for the line into Quebec is 11.2 pounds of copper, or 6.5 times[29] that for the former line. But the voltage per mile on the Ludlow is 3.2 times as great as the like voltage on the Quebec line.
Of the seven transmissions using between 36 and 79 pounds of copper for each kilowatt of generator capacity, four have voltages ranging from 827 to 1,000 volts per mile, and only one has a voltage as low as 643 volts per mile. Five transmission lines use between 115 and 295 pounds of copper, or its equivalent, per kilowatt of generator capacity, with voltages per mile reaching as high as 769 in one case and dropping to 281 in another. Taking into account some variations in the percentage of energy loss in transmission lines at full load, the fifteen plants clearly show the benefits of having a high voltage per mile in relation to the weight of the conductors. This benefit is especially evident when you remove the differences caused by the lengths of the transmissions by dividing the weight of conductors per kilowatt of generator capacity in each case by the length of the transmission in miles. This calculation provides the weight of conductors per kilowatt of generators for each mile of the line, which can be referred to as the weight per kilowatt mile. For the Ludlow transmission, this weight is only 0.86 pounds of aluminum, which equals 1.72 pounds of copper, while the comparable weight for the line into Quebec is 11.2 pounds of copper, or 6.5 times that of the Ludlow line. However, the voltage per mile on the Ludlow line is 3.2 times higher than the voltage on the Quebec line.
The weight of conductor per kilowatt mile in the Victor line is only 0.9 pound, and the like weight for the line between Madrid and Bland is 6.6 pounds, or 7.3 times as great. On the Victor line the voltage per mile is 2.5 times as great as the voltage for each mile of the Bland line.
The weight of conductor per kilowatt mile in the Victor line is just 0.9 pounds, while the corresponding weight for the line between Madrid and Bland is 6.6 pounds, making it 7.3 times heavier. On the Victor line, the voltage per mile is 2.5 times higher than the voltage for each mile of the Bland line.
Comparing systems with nearly equal voltages per mile, it appears in most cases that only such difference exists in their pounds of conductors per kilowatt mile as may readily be accounted for by designs for various percentages of loss at full load. Though the transmission line into Butte is nearly twice as long as the one entering Hamilton, the weight of conductors for each is 1.7 pounds per kilowatt mile. The line from Santa Ana River is more than twice as long as the one entering Salt Lake City, but its voltage per mile is only nine per cent less, and there are 3.5 pounds of copper in each line per kilowatt mile.
Comparing systems with nearly the same voltage per mile, it looks like the only difference in conductor weight per kilowatt mile is due to designs that consider different percentages of loss at full load. Even though the transmission line to Butte is almost twice as long as the one going to Hamilton, the conductor weight for both is 1.7 pounds per kilowatt mile. The line from the Santa Ana River is more than twice as long as the one going into Salt Lake City, but its voltage per mile is only nine percent lower, and each line has 3.5 pounds of copper per kilowatt mile.
The final, practical questions as to conductors in electrical transmission relate to their cost per kilowatt of maximum working capacity, and per kilowatt hour of delivered energy. If the cost of conductors per kilowatt of generator capacity is greater than that of all the remaining equipment, it is doubtful whether the transmission will pay. If fixed charges on the conductors more than offset the difference in the cost of energy per kilowatt hour at the points of development and delivery, it is certain that the generating plant should be located where the power is wanted. The great cost of conductors is often put forward as a most serious impediment to long-distance transmission, and the examples here cited will indicate the weight of this argument. In order to find the approximate cost of conductors per kilowatt of generator capacity for each of the transmission lines here considered, the price of bare copper wire is taken at 15 cents, and the price of bare aluminum wire at 30 cents per pound. In each case the weight of copper or aluminum conductor per kilowatt of generator capacity is used to determine their costs per kilowatt of this capacity at the prices just named. This process when carried out for the 15 transmission lines shows that their cost of conductors per kilowatt of generator capacity varies between $1.11 for the 4.5 mile line into Ludlow and $44.25 for the line of 83 miles from the Santa Ana River. It should be noted that the former of these lines operates at 2,555 and the latter at 397 volts per mile. The line into Madrid shows an investment in conductors of $31.80 per kilowatt of generator capacity with 625 volts per mile. That a long transmission does not necessarily require a large investment in conductors per kilowatt of generator capacity is shown by the line 65 miles long[30] into Butte, for which the cost is $17.25 per kilowatt, with 769 volts per mile. For the transmission to St. Paul, a distance of 25 miles, at 1,000 volts per mile, the cost of conductors is $7.95 per kilowatt of generator capacity. The seven-mile line into Quebec shows an investment of $11.85 per kilowatt of generator capacity.
The final practical questions about conductors in electrical transmission involve their cost per kilowatt of maximum working capacity and per kilowatt hour of delivered energy. If the cost of conductors per kilowatt of generator capacity is higher than all other equipment, it's unlikely that the transmission will be profitable. If the fixed charges on the conductors outweigh the difference in energy cost per kilowatt hour at the development and delivery points, it’s clear that the generating plant should be situated where the power is needed. The high cost of conductors is often cited as a major barrier to long-distance transmission, and the examples mentioned here will illustrate the strength of this argument. To estimate the cost of conductors per kilowatt of generator capacity for each of the transmission lines discussed, the price of bare copper wire is set at 15 cents, and bare aluminum wire at 30 cents per pound. For each case, the weight of the copper or aluminum conductor per kilowatt of generator capacity is used to calculate their costs at these prices. This analysis for the 15 transmission lines indicates that their cost of conductors per kilowatt of generator capacity ranges from $1.11 for the 4.5-mile line to Ludlow to $44.25 for the 83-mile line from the Santa Ana River. It’s important to note that the former operates at 2,555 volts per mile and the latter at 397 volts per mile. The line into Madrid shows a conductor investment of $31.80 per kilowatt of generator capacity with 625 volts per mile. The 65-mile long line into Butte demonstrates that a long transmission doesn’t necessarily require a high investment in conductors per kilowatt of generator capacity, as its cost is $17.25 per kilowatt with 769 volts per mile. For the 25-mile transmission to St. Paul, operating at 1,000 volts per mile, the conductor cost is $7.95 per kilowatt of generator capacity. The seven-mile line into Quebec shows an investment of $11.85 per kilowatt of generator capacity.
CHAPTER IV.
ADVANTAGES OF CONTINUOUS AND ALTERNATING CURRENT.
Electrical transmissions over long distances in America have been mainly carried out with alternating current. In Europe, on the other hand, continuous current is widely used on long transmissions at high voltages. So radical a difference in practice seems to indicate that neither system is lacking in points of superiority.
Electrical transmissions over long distances in America have primarily been done using alternating current. In Europe, however, direct current is commonly used for long transmissions at high voltages. Such a significant difference in practice suggests that both systems have their own advantages.
A fundamental feature of long transmissions is the high voltage necessary for economy in conductors, and this voltage is attained by entirely different methods with continuous and alternating currents. In dynamos of several hundred or more kilowatts capacity the pressure of continuous current has not thus far been pushed above 4,000 volts, because of the danger of sparking and flashing at the commutator. Where 10,000 or more volts are required on a transmission line with continuous current a number of dynamos are connected in series so that the voltage of each is added to that of the others. In this way the voltage of each dynamo may be as low as is thought desirable without limiting the total line voltage. There is no apparent limit to the number of continuous-current dynamos that may be operated in series or to the voltage that may be thus obtained. In the recently completed transmission from St. Maurice to Lausanne, Switzerland, with continuous current, ten dynamos are connected in series to secure the line voltage of 23,000. When occasion requires twenty or thirty or more dynamos to be operated in series, giving 50,000 or 75,000 volts on the line, machines exactly like those in the transmission just named, may be used. No matter how many of these dynamos are operated in series the electric strain on the insulation of the windings of each dynamo remains practically constant, because the iron frame of each dynamo is insulated in a most substantial manner from the ground. The electric strain on the insulation of the windings of each dynamo in the series is thus limited to the voltage generated by that dynamo. There is no practical limit to the thickness or strength of the insulation that may be interposed between the frame of each dynamo and the ground, and hence no limit to line voltage as far as dynamo insulation is concerned.
A key aspect of long-distance power transmission is the high voltage needed to minimize conductor size, and this voltage is achieved through different methods for direct current (DC) and alternating current (AC). In dynamos with a capacity of several hundred kilowatts or more, the direct current voltage has not exceeded 4,000 volts due to the risk of sparking and arcing at the commutator. When a transmission line requires 10,000 volts or more with direct current, multiple dynamos are connected in series, allowing their individual voltages to add up. This means each dynamo can operate at a lower voltage without capping the overall line voltage. There isn't a specific limit to the number of DC dynamos that can be connected in series or to the voltage that can be achieved this way. For example, in the recently completed transmission from St. Maurice to Lausanne, Switzerland, using direct current, ten dynamos are linked in series to provide a line voltage of 23,000 volts. If there is a need to operate twenty, thirty, or more dynamos in series, producing 50,000 or 75,000 volts on the line, the same types of machines used in the aforementioned transmission can be utilized. Regardless of how many dynamos are connected in series, the electrical stress on the insulation of each dynamo's windings stays nearly constant because each dynamo's iron frame is well insulated from the ground. Therefore, the electrical stress on the insulation of the windings in each series dynamo is limited to the voltage produced by that specific dynamo. There is no practical limit to how thick or strong the insulation can be between each dynamo's frame and the ground, meaning there is no limit to the line voltage concerning dynamo insulation.
It is impracticable to operate alternating dynamos in series so as to add their voltages, and the pressure available in transmission with alternating current must be that of a single dynamo or must be obtained by the use of transformers. The voltage of an alternating may be carried much higher than that of a continuous-current dynamo of very large capacity, and in many cases pressures of 13,200 volts are now supplied to transmission lines by alternating dynamos. Just how high the voltage of single alternating dynamos will be carried no one can say, but it seems probable that the practical limit will prove to be much less than the voltages now employed in some transmissions. As the voltage of alternating dynamos is carried higher the thickness of insulation on their armature coils and consequently the size or number of slots in their armature cores and the size of these cores increase rapidly. The dimensions and weight of an alternating dynamo per unit of its capacity thus go up with the voltage, and at some undetermined point the cost of the high-voltage dynamo is greater than that of a low-voltage dynamo of equal capacity with raising transformers. To the voltage that may be supplied by transformers there is no practical limit now in sight. Lines have been in regular operation from one to several years on which transformers supply 40,000 to 50,000 volts; some large transformers have been built for commercial use at 60,000 volts, and other transformers for experimental and testing purposes have been employed in a number of cases for pressures of 100,000 volts and more.
It’s not practical to connect alternating dynamos in series to combine their voltages, so the voltage used for transmitting alternating current has to match the output of a single dynamo or be achieved through transformers. The voltage from an alternating current can be much higher than that from a high-capacity direct current dynamo, and many transmission lines now carry 13,200 volts from alternating dynamos. No one knows how high the voltage from single alternating dynamos can go, but it seems likely that the workable limit will be lower than the voltages currently used in some transmissions. As the voltage of alternating dynamos increases, the insulation on their armature coils gets thicker, which means the size or number of slots in their armature cores and the size of these cores also increase rapidly. This means the size and weight of an alternating dynamo per unit of capacity rise with the voltage, and at some unclear point, the cost of a high-voltage dynamo will surpass that of a low-voltage dynamo with equivalent capacity using transformers. There’s currently no practical limit in sight for the voltage that transformers can supply. There have been operational lines for one to several years utilizing transformers that deliver between 40,000 and 50,000 volts; some large transformers for commercial use have been designed for 60,000 volts, while others used for experimentation and testing have reached pressures of 100,000 volts or more.
Available voltages for continuous- and alternating-current transmissions are thus on a practically equal footing as to their upper limit. The amount of power that may be generated and delivered with either the alternating- or continuous-current system of transmission is practically unlimited. Single alternating dynamos may be had of 5,000 or even 8,000 kilowatts capacity if desired, but it is seldom that these very large units are employed, because the capacity of a generating station should be divided up among a number of machines. It is perhaps impracticable to build single continuous-current dynamos with capacities equal to those of the largest alternators, but as any number of the continuous-current machines may be operated either in series or multiple, the power that may be applied to a transmission circuit is unlimited.
Available voltages for both direct and alternating current transmissions are essentially on the same level when it comes to their upper limits. The amount of power that can be generated and delivered using either the alternating or direct current transmission system is virtually unlimited. Single alternating generators can be found with capacities of 5,000 or even 8,000 kilowatts if needed, but these very large units are rarely used because the capacity of a power station should be spread across multiple machines. While it may not be practical to create single direct current generators with capacities equal to those of the largest alternators, any number of direct current machines can be operated either in series or parallel, resulting in unlimited power that can be applied to a transmission circuit.
At the plant or plants where the power transmitted by continuous current is received, a number of motors must be connected in series to operate at the high-line voltage. These motors may all be located in a single room, may be connected to machinery in different parts of a building, or may be in use at points miles apart. The vital requirement is that[33] the motors must be in series with each other so that the line voltage divides between them. If simply mechanical power is wanted at the places where the motors are located, they complete the transmission system and no further electrical apparatus is required. Where, however, as at Lausanne, the transmitted power is to be used in a system of general electrical supply, the motors that receive the current at the line voltage must drive dynamos that will deliver energy of the required sorts. In the station at Lausanne four of the motors to which the transmission line is connected each drives a 3,000-volt three-phase alternator for the distribution of light and power. The fifth motor at this station drives a 600-volt dynamo which delivers continuous current to a street railway. A sixth motor in the same series drives a cement factory some distance from the station. Neglecting minor changes in capacity due to losses in the line and motors, this continuous-current system must thus include three kilowatts in motors and dynamos for each kilowatt delivered for general electrical distribution at the receiving station. In a case in which only mechanical power is wanted at the receiving station, the dynamos and motors concerned in the transmission must have a combined capacity of two horse-power for each horse-power delivered at the motor shaft. In contrast with these figures, the electrical equipment in a transmission with alternating current for mechanical power alone includes two kilowatts capacity in generators and motors, besides two kilowatts capacity in transformers for each corresponding unit of power delivered at the motor shaft unless generators and motors operate at the full line voltage. If a general electrical supply is to be operated by the alternating system of transmission, either motors and dynamos or rotary converters must be added to transformers where continuous current is required. An alternating transmission may thus include as little as one kilowatt in dynamos and one in transformers, or as much as two kilowatts capacity in dynamos, two in transformers, and one in motors for each kilowatt delivered to distribution lines at the receiving station.
At the plant or plants where the power transmitted by direct current is received, several motors need to be connected in series to work at the high line voltage. These motors can all be in one room, linked to machinery in different parts of a building, or used at locations miles apart. The crucial requirement is that [33] the motors must be in series with each other to ensure the line voltage is divided among them. If only mechanical power is needed at the locations of the motors, they complete the transmission system, and no additional electrical equipment is necessary. However, if, as in Lausanne, the transmitted power is to be utilized in a general electrical supply system, the motors receiving current at line voltage must drive generators to produce the needed types of energy. In the station at Lausanne, four of the motors connected to the transmission line each drive a 3,000-volt three-phase alternator for distributing light and power. The fifth motor at this station drives a 600-volt generator that supplies direct current to a street railway. A sixth motor in the same series operates a cement factory some distance from the station. Ignoring minor capacity changes due to losses in the line and motors, this direct-current system must therefore include three kilowatts in motors and generators for every kilowatt supplied for general electrical distribution at the receiving station. When only mechanical power is required at the receiving station, the generators and motors involved in the transmission must have a combined capacity of two horsepower for each horsepower delivered at the motor shaft. In comparison, the electrical equipment in a transmission with alternating current for mechanical power alone includes two kilowatts capacity in generators and motors, along with two kilowatts capacity in transformers for each corresponding unit of power delivered at the motor shaft unless the generators and motors operate at full line voltage. If a general electrical supply is to be powered by the alternating transmission system, additional motors and generators or rotary converters must be added to transformers where direct current is needed. An alternating transmission can include as little as one kilowatt in generators and one in transformers, or as much as two kilowatts capacity in generators, two in transformers, and one in motors for each kilowatt delivered to distribution lines at the receiving station.
Line construction from the continuous-current transmission is of the most simple character apart from the necessity of high insulation. Only two wires are necessary and they may be of any desired cross-section, strung on a single pole line and need not be transposed. On these wires the maximum voltage for which insulation must be provided is the nominal voltage of the system. It is possible under these conditions to build a single transmission line with two conductors of such size and strength and at such a distance apart that a high degree of reliability is attained[34] against breaks in the wires or arcing between them. In a transmission of power by two- or three-phase alternating current at least three wires are necessary and six or more are often employed. If six or more wires carrying current at the high voltages required by long transmissions are mounted on a single line of poles, it is not practicable to obtain such distances between the wires as are desirable. The repair of one set of wires while the other set is in operation is a dangerous task, and an arc originating between one set of the wires is apt to be communicated to another set. For these reasons two pole lines are frequently provided for a transmission with alternating current, and three or more wires are then erected on each line. Compared with a continuous-current transmission, one with alternating current often requires more poles and is quite certain to require more cross-arms, pins, insulators, and labor of erection. For a given effective voltage of transmission it is harder to insulate an alternating- than a continuous-current line. In the first place the maximum voltage of the alternating line with even a true sine curve of pressure is 1.4 times the nominal effective voltage, but the insulation must withstand the maximum pressure. Then comes the matter of resonance, which may carry the maximum voltage of an alternating circuit up to several times its normal amount, if the period of electrical vibration for that particular circuit should correspond to the frequency of the dynamos that operate it. Even where the vibration period of a transmission circuit and the frequency of its dynamos do not correspond, and good construction should always be planned for this lack of agreement, resonance may and often does increase the normal voltage of an alternating transmission by a large percentage. The alternating system of transmission must work at practically constant voltage whatever the state of its load, so that the normal stress on the insulation is always at its maximum. In a transmission with continuous current on the other hand, if the prevailing practice of a constant current and varying pressure on the line is followed, the insulation is subject to the highest voltage only at times of maximum load on the system. Lightning is a very real and pressing danger to machinery connected to long transmission lines, and this danger is much harder to guard against in an alternating system than in a system with continuous constant current. The large degree of exemption from damage by lightning enjoyed by series arc dynamos is well known, the magnet windings of such machines acting as an inductance that tends to keep lightning out of them. Moreover, with any continuous-current machines lightning arresters having large self-induction may be connected in circuit and form a most effective[35] safeguard against lightning, but this plan is not practicable on alternating lines.
Line construction for continuous current transmission is quite straightforward, aside from the need for high insulation. You only need two wires, which can be any size, placed on a single pole line without needing to be transposed. The highest voltage that requires insulation is the system's nominal voltage. Under these conditions, it's possible to build a single transmission line with two conductors that are sized and spaced apart correctly to achieve a high level of reliability against wire breaks or arcing between them. In power transmission using two or three-phase alternating current, at least three wires are needed, and often six or more are used. If six or more wires carrying high currents for long transmissions are set up on a single line of poles, it’s not practical to maintain the desired spacing between them. Repairing one set of wires while the other is operational is risky, and an arc that occurs in one set can easily spread to another. Because of this, two pole lines are often used for alternating current transmission, with three or more wires on each line. Compared to continuous current transmission, alternating current systems often require more poles and definitely need more cross-arms, pins, insulators, and installation labor. For a given effective transmission voltage, it’s more challenging to insulate an alternating current line than a continuous current line. The maximum voltage of an alternating line, even with a true sine wave, is 1.4 times the nominal effective voltage, and the insulation must withstand this maximum pressure. Additionally, there’s the issue of resonance, which can increase the maximum voltage of an alternating circuit to several times its normal level if the electrical vibration period matches the frequency of the dynamos powering it. Even when the vibration period doesn’t match, and good design should account for this mismatch, resonance can still significantly raise the normal voltage of an alternating transmission. The alternating transmission system needs to operate at nearly constant voltage regardless of load, meaning that the normal stress on the insulation is always at its peak. In contrast, with continuous current transmission, if the common practice of constant current and varying line pressure is followed, the insulation only faces the highest voltage during peak load times. Lightning poses a serious and immediate risk to machinery connected to long transmission lines, and it’s more difficult to protect against this danger in an alternating system compared to a continuous current system. Series arc dynamos are known to be less susceptible to lightning damage, as the magnet windings act as inductance that helps keep lightning away. Furthermore, for continuous current machines, lightning arresters with significant self-induction can be connected in circuit to provide effective protection against lightning, but this isn’t feasible for alternating lines.
In the matter of switches, controlling apparatus, and switchboards, an alternating transmission requires much more equipment than a system using continuous, constant current. The ten dynamos in the generating station at St. Maurice, with a capacity of 3,450 kilowatts at 23,000 volts, are each connected and disconnected with the transmission by a switch in a small circular column of cast-iron that stands hardly breast high. An amperemetre and voltmetre are mounted on each dynamo. The alternating generators in a station of equal capacity and voltage would require a large switchboard fitted with bus-bars, oil switches, and automatic circuit-breakers. Relative efficiencies for the continuous-current and the alternating-transmission systems vary with the kind of service required at receiving stations and with the extent to which transformers are used in the alternating system, other factors being constant. For purposes of comparison the efficiency at full load of both alternating- and continuous-current dynamos and motors, also of rotary converters, may be fairly taken at 92 per cent, and the efficiency of transformers at 96 per cent.
In terms of switches, control equipment, and switchboards, an alternating transmission needs a lot more gear than a system using direct current. The ten generators at the St. Maurice power station, with a capacity of 3,450 kilowatts at 23,000 volts, are each connected and disconnected via a switch in a small cast-iron column that barely reaches waist height. Each generator is equipped with an ammeter and voltmeter. In a similarly sized station using alternating generators, a large switchboard with bus-bars, oil switches, and automatic circuit breakers would be necessary. The relative efficiencies of continuous-current and alternating transmission systems depend on the type of service required at receiving stations, as well as how extensively transformers are used in the alternating system, assuming other factors remain constant. For comparison, the efficiency of both alternating and direct current generators and motors, along with rotary converters, can be considered to be around 92 percent at full load, and the efficiency of transformers is about 96 percent.
For the line an efficiency of 94 per cent may be assumed at full load, this being the actual figure in one of the Swiss transmissions of 2,160 kilowatts at 14,400 volts to a distance of 32 miles. Where the continuous current system must simply deliver mechanical power at the receiving stations, its efficiency under full load amounts to 92 × .94 × .92 = 79.65 per cent from dynamo shaft to motor shaft. An alternating system delivering mechanical power will have an efficiency of 92 × .94 × .96 × .92 = 76.46 per cent between dynamo shaft and motor shaft, if the line voltage is generated in the armature coils of the dynamo and the line loss is 6 per cent. If step-up transformers are employed to secure the line voltage the efficiency of the alternating transmission delivering mechanical power drops to the figure of 92 × .96 × .94 × .96 × .92 = 73.40 per cent. It thus appears that for the simple delivery of mechanical power the continuous current transmission has an advantage over the alternating of three to six per cent in efficiency, depending on whether step-up transformers are employed.
For the line, we can assume an efficiency of 94 percent at full load, which is the actual figure for one of the Swiss transmissions of 2,160 kilowatts at 14,400 volts over a distance of 32 miles. When the direct current system just needs to provide mechanical power at the receiving stations, its efficiency under full load is 92 × .94 × .92 = 79.65 percent from the dynamo shaft to the motor shaft. An alternating system that delivers mechanical power will have an efficiency of 92 × .94 × .96 × .92 = 76.46 percent between the dynamo shaft and motor shaft if the line voltage is generated in the armature coils of the dynamo and the line loss is 6 percent. If step-up transformers are used to achieve the line voltage, the efficiency of the alternating transmission providing mechanical power falls to 92 × .96 × .94 × .96 × .92 = 73.40 percent. Therefore, it turns out that for straightforward delivery of mechanical power, the direct current transmission has an efficiency advantage over alternating current of three to six percent, depending on whether step-up transformers are used.
When the receiving station must deliver a supply of either continuous or alternating current for general distribution, the efficiency of the continuous-current transmission amounts to 92 × .94 × .92 × .92 = 73.27 per cent. The alternating-transmission system in a case in which no step-up transformers are employed will deliver alternating current of the same[36] frequency as that on the transmission line at any desired pressure for general distribution at an efficiency of 92 × .94 × .96 = 83.02 per cent, if step-down transformers are used, but the efficiency drops to 83.02 × .96 = 79.70 per cent. when step-up transformers are introduced. If the alternating transmission uses no step-up transformers and delivers either alternating or continuous current by means of motor generators, its efficiency at full load is 83.02 × .92 × .92 = 70.26 per cent, but with step-up transformers added the efficiency drops to 70.26 × .96 = 67.43 per cent. In a transmission where electrical energy must be delivered for general distribution, the full-load efficiency of an alternating system ranges either higher or lower than that of a continuous-current system depending on whether the current from the transmission line must be converted or not.
When the receiving station needs to provide a supply of either continuous or alternating current for general distribution, the efficiency of continuous current transmission is 92 × .94 × .92 × .92 = 73.27 percent. The alternating current transmission system, in cases where no step-up transformers are used, will deliver alternating current at the same frequency as that on the transmission line at any desired voltage for general distribution with an efficiency of 92 × .94 × .96 = 83.02 percent if step-down transformers are employed, but the efficiency drops to 83.02 × .96 = 79.70 percent when step-up transformers are added. If the alternating transmission does not use step-up transformers and delivers either alternating or continuous current via motor generators, its efficiency at full load is 83.02 × .92 × .92 = 70.26 percent, but when step-up transformers are included, the efficiency falls to 70.26 × .96 = 67.43 percent. In a scenario where electrical energy must be transmitted for general distribution, the full-load efficiency of an alternating system is either greater or less than that of a continuous current system, depending on whether the current from the transmission line needs to be converted or not.
Line loss is the same whatever the load in a constant-current transmission, so that line efficiency falls rather rapidly with the load. On the other hand, at constant pressure the percentage of energy loss on the line varies directly with the load, but the actual rate of energy loss with the square of the load. On partial loads the line efficiency is thus much higher with alternating than with continuous constant current.
Line loss is the same regardless of the load in a constant-current transmission, so line efficiency decreases quickly as the load increases. In contrast, with constant pressure, the percentage of energy loss on the line increases directly with the load, but the actual rate of energy loss increases with the square of the load. Therefore, at partial loads, line efficiency is significantly higher with alternating current than with continuous constant current.
Efficiency of electrical machinery is generally low at partial loads, so that in cases in which the number or capacity of alternating dynamos, transformers, motors, or rotary converters for a transmission would be greater per unit of delivered power than the corresponding number or capacity of machines for a transmission by continuous current, the latter would probably have the advantage in the combined efficiency of machinery at partial loads. In this way the lower-line efficiency of one system might offset the lower efficiency of machinery in the other. Energy is usually very cheap at the generating station of a transmission system. For this reason small differences in the efficiencies of different systems should be given only moderate weight in comparison with the items of first cost, reliability, and expense of operation.
The efficiency of electrical machinery is generally low at partial loads, so when the number or capacity of alternating dynamos, transformers, motors, or rotary converters needed for a transmission is greater per unit of delivered power than the corresponding number or capacity of machines for a continuous current transmission, the latter is likely to have the edge in combined machinery efficiency at partial loads. This means that the lower efficiency of one system could balance out the lower efficiency of machinery in the other. Energy is typically very cheap at the generating station of a transmission system. Because of this, small differences in the efficiencies of different systems should be considered only moderately when compared to factors like initial cost, reliability, and operational expenses.
In the matter of first cost at least the continuous-current system seems to have a distinct advantage over the alternating. Without going into a detailed estimate, it is instructive to consider the figures given by a body of five engineers selected to report on the cost of continuous- and alternating-current equipments for the St. Maurice and Lausanne transmission. According to the report of these engineers, a three-phase transmission system would have cost $140,000 more than the continuous-current system actually installed, all other factors remaining constant. It should be noted that the conditions of this transmission are favorable to three-phase working[37] and unfavorable to continuous-current equipment, because all of the energy except that going to the 400 horse-power motor at the cement mill must be delivered at the receiving station for general distribution. Moreover, four out of the five motors at Lausanne drive three-phase generators, and only one drives a continuous-current dynamo for the electric railway, so that a three-phase transmission would have required only one rotary converter. Had the transmission been concerned merely with the delivery of mechanical power, as at the cement mill, the advantage of the continuous- over the alternating-current system in the matter of first cost would have been much greater than it was.
In terms of initial costs, the direct current system clearly has an advantage over the alternating current system. Without getting into a detailed estimate, it's useful to look at the numbers provided by a group of five engineers chosen to evaluate the costs of continuous and alternating current equipment for the St. Maurice and Lausanne transmission. According to their report, a three-phase transmission system would have been $140,000 more expensive than the continuous current system that was actually installed, assuming all other factors stayed the same. It's important to point out that the conditions for this transmission favor three-phase operation and are not ideal for continuous current equipment, since all the energy, except for what goes to the 400 horsepower motor at the cement mill, needs to be delivered at the receiving station for general distribution. Additionally, four out of the five motors at Lausanne drive three-phase generators, while only one powers a continuous current dynamo for the electric railway, meaning a three-phase transmission would have only needed one rotary converter. If the transmission had been focused solely on delivering mechanical power, like at the cement mill, the cost advantage of the continuous current system over the alternating current system would have been even more significant.
Long-distance transmission with three-phase current began at Frankfort, in 1891, when 58 kilowatts were received over a 25,000-volt line from Lauffen, 109 miles away. Shortly after this historic experiment, three-phase transmission in the United States began on a commercial scale, and plants of this sort have multiplied rapidly here. Meantime very little has been done in America with continuous currents in long transmissions. In Europe, the birthplace of the three-phase system, it has failed to displace continuous current for transmission work. About a score of these continuous-current transmissions are already at work there. If the opinion of European engineers as to the lower cost of the continuous-current system, all other factors being equal, is confirmed by experience, this current will yet find important applications to long transmissions in the United States.
Long-distance transmission using three-phase current started in Frankfort in 1891, when 58 kilowatts were sent over a 25,000-volt line from Lauffen, 109 miles away. Shortly after this groundbreaking experiment, three-phase transmission began on a commercial scale in the United States, and these types of plants have quickly increased in number here. Meanwhile, very little progress has been made in America with continuous currents for long transmissions. In Europe, where the three-phase system originated, it has not replaced continuous current for transmission purposes. There are already about twenty continuous-current transmissions operating there. If European engineers' opinions about the lower cost of the continuous-current system, with all other factors being equal, are validated by experience, this current will likely see significant applications for long transmissions in the United States.
Systems of transmission with continuous-current may operate at constant voltage and variable current, at constant current and variable voltage, or with variations of both volts and amperes to correspond with changes of load. Dynamos of several thousand kilowatts capacity each can readily be had at voltages of 500 to 600, but the attempt to construct dynamos to deliver more than two or three hundred kilowatts each at several thousand volts has encountered serious sparking at the commutator. Thus far, dynamos that yield between 300 and 400 kilowatts each have been made to give satisfactory results at pressures as high as 2,500 volts.
Systems for transmitting continuous current can run at a constant voltage with varying current, at a constant current with varying voltage, or with changes in both voltage and amperage based on load variations. Dynamos with capacities of several thousand kilowatts are easily available at voltages between 500 and 600, but trying to build dynamos that can produce more than two or three hundred kilowatts at several thousand volts has faced significant sparking issues at the commutator. So far, dynamos producing between 300 and 400 kilowatts each have performed well at voltages up to 2,500 volts.
Another one of the Swiss transmissions takes place over a distance of thirty-two miles at 14,400 volts, the capacity being 2,160 kilowatts. To give this voltage and capacity, eight dynamos are connected in series at the generating station, each dynamo having an output of 150 amperes at 1,800 volts, or 216 kilowatts.
Another Swiss transmission occurs over a distance of thirty-two miles at 14,400 volts, with a capacity of 2,160 kilowatts. To achieve this voltage and capacity, eight dynamos are connected in series at the generating station, with each dynamo producing 150 amperes at 1,800 volts, or 216 kilowatts.
Continuous-current motors are, of course, subject to the same limitations as dynamos in the matter of capacity at high voltage, so that a series[38] of motors must be employed to receive the high-pressure energy from the line. The number of these motors may just equal, or may be less or greater than the number of dynamos, but the total working voltage of all the motors in operation at one time must equal the total voltage of the dynamos in operation at that time minus the volts of drop in the line.
Continuous-current motors have the same limitations as dynamos when it comes to capacity at high voltage, so a series[38] of motors needs to be used to receive the high-pressure energy from the line. The number of these motors can be the same as, fewer than, or greater than the number of dynamos. However, the total working voltage of all the motors running at any given time must equal the total voltage of the dynamos in operation at that time minus the voltage drop in the line.
Each constant-current motor may have any desired capacity up to the practicable maximum, but it must be designed for the current of the system. The voltage at the terminals of each motor varies with its load, being greatest when the motor is doing the most work. Constant speed is usually attained at each motor by means of a variable resistance connected across the terminals of the magnet coils. The amount of this resistance is regulated by a centrifugal governor, driven by the motor shaft. This governor also shifts the position of the brushes on the commutator to prevent sparking as the current flowing through the magnet coils is changed.
Each constant-current motor can have any desired capacity up to the maximum that’s feasible, but it must be designed for the system's current. The voltage at each motor's terminals changes with its load, being highest when the motor is under the most strain. Constant speed is typically achieved at each motor using a variable resistor connected across the magnet coil terminals. The level of this resistance is controlled by a centrifugal governor powered by the motor shaft. This governor also adjusts the position of the brushes on the commutator to prevent sparking as the current flowing through the magnet coils changes.
For a constant-current transmission the magnet and armature windings of both dynamos and motors are usually connected in series with each other and the line so that the same current passes through every element of the circuit, except that each motor may have some current shunted out of its magnet coil for the purpose of speed regulation.
For a constant-current transmission, the magnet and armature windings of both dynamos and motors are typically connected in series with each other and the line, allowing the same current to flow through every part of the circuit. However, each motor may redirect some current away from its magnet coil for speed control.
In some cases, however, the magnet coils of the dynamos are connected in multiple with each other and receive their current from a separate dynamo designed for the purpose. With this separate excitation of the magnet coils, the dynamo armatures are still connected in series with each other and the line.
In some cases, though, the magnet coils of the dynamos are connected together in multiple and get their current from a separate dynamo made for that purpose. With this separate supply for the magnet coils, the dynamo armatures are still connected in series with each other and the line.
The total voltage at the generating station and on the line of a constant-current system varies with the rate at which energy is delivered, and has its maximum value only at times of full load. To obtain this variation of voltage, it is the general practice to change the speed of the dynamos by means of an automatic regulator which is actuated by the line current. Any increase of the line current actuates the regulator and reduces the speed of the dynamos, while a decrease of the line current raises the dynamo speed. With a good regulator the variations of the line current are only slight. Under this method of regulation the dynamos in operation have a substantially constant current in both armature and magnet coils at all times, so that there is no reason to shift the position of the brushes on the commutator.
The total voltage at the generating station and on the line of a constant-current system changes with the rate at which energy is delivered and reaches its highest value only when at full load. To manage this voltage variation, it's common to adjust the speed of the dynamos using an automatic regulator that responds to the line current. If the line current increases, the regulator kicks in and decreases the speed of the dynamos, while a decrease in line current results in an increase in dynamo speed. With a good regulator, the variations in line current are minimal. This method of regulation ensures that the dynamos in operation maintain a nearly constant current in both the armature and magnet coils at all times, eliminating the need to adjust the position of the brushes on the commutator.
Generating stations of constant current transmission systems are generally driven by water-power and the speed regulator operates to change the amount of water admitted to each wheel. Each turbine[39] wheel usually drives a pair of dynamos, but one or any number of dynamos might be driven by a single wheel. The two dynamos driven by a single wheel are generally connected in series at all times, and are cut in or out of the main circuit together. When the load on a constant-current generating station is such that the voltage can be developed by less than all the dynamos, one or more dynamos may be stopped and taken out of the circuit.
Generating stations for constant current transmission systems are typically powered by water, and the speed regulator adjusts the amount of water flowing to each turbine wheel. Each turbine wheel usually drives a pair of dynamos, but one or multiple dynamos can also be powered by a single wheel. The two dynamos powered by one wheel are usually connected in series all the time and are switched in or out of the main circuit together. When the load on a constant-current generating station allows for the required voltage to be produced by fewer dynamos, one or more dynamos can be shut down and removed from the circuit.
To do this the dynamo or pair of dynamos to be put out of service may be stopped, their magnet coils having first been short-circuited, and then a switch across the connections of their armatures to the lines closed, after which the connections of the armatures to the line are opened. By a reverse process, any dynamo or pair of dynamos may be cut into the operating circuit.
To do this, the dynamo or pair of dynamos that need to be taken offline can be stopped after short-circuiting their magnet coils. Then, a switch across the connections of their armatures to the lines is closed, after which the connections of the armatures to the line are opened. By reversing this process, any dynamo or pair of dynamos can be added to the operating circuit.
At the terminals of each dynamo in the series, while in operation, the voltage is simply that developed in its armature, so that the insulation between the several windings is subject to only a corresponding stress. The entire voltage of the line, however, tends to force a current from the coils of the dynamo at one end of the series into its frame, thence to any substance on which that frame rests, and so on to the frame and coils of the dynamo at the other end of the series. To protect the insulation of the dynamo coils from the line voltage, thick blocks of porcelain are placed beneath the dynamo frames, and the armature shafts are connected to those of the turbines by insulating couplings.
At the terminals of each dynamo in the series, while it's running, the voltage is just what's generated in its armature, meaning that the insulation between the different windings experiences only a related stress. However, the total voltage of the line tends to push a current from the coils of the dynamo at one end of the series into its frame, then to whatever material the frame sits on, and from there to the frame and coils of the dynamo at the opposite end of the series. To protect the insulation of the dynamo coils from the line voltage, thick blocks of porcelain are placed under the dynamo frames, and the armature shafts are connected to the turbines using insulating couplings.
Besides the switches, already mentioned, a voltmeter and ammeter should be provided for each dynamo and also for the entire series of machines. This completes the switchboard equipment, which is, therefore, very simple. As the line loss of a constant-current system is the same whatever the load that is being operated, this loss may be a large percentage of the total output when the load is light. If, for illustration, five per cent of the maximum voltage of the station is required to force the constant current through the line, the percentage of line loss will rise to ten when the station voltage is one-half the maximum, and to twenty when the station is delivering only one-quarter of its full capacity.
Besides the switches mentioned earlier, a voltmeter and ammeter should be included for each dynamo and also for the entire series of machines. This completes the switchboard setup, which is quite straightforward. Since the line loss in a constant-current system remains the same regardless of the load being used, this loss can represent a significant percentage of the total output when the load is light. For example, if five percent of the maximum voltage of the station is needed to push the constant current through the line, the line loss percentage will increase to ten percent when the station voltage is at half of the maximum, and to twenty percent when the station is only delivering one-quarter of its full capacity.
In view of this property of constant-current working, the line loss should be made quite small in its ratio to the maximum load, as most stations must work on partial loads much of the time. Five per cent of maximum station voltage is a fair general figure for the line loss in a constant-current transmission, but the circumstances of a particular case may dictate a higher or a lower percentage.
Considering this feature of constant-current operation, the line loss should be minimized relative to the maximum load, since most stations often operate under partial loads. A line loss of five percent of the maximum station voltage is a reasonable general estimate for constant-current transmission, but the specifics of a given situation may require a higher or lower percentage.
On the 32-mile transmission, above named, the loss in the line is six per cent of the station output at full load.
On the 32-mile transmission mentioned above, the line loss is six percent of the station's output at full load.
If a transmission with continuous current is to be carried out at constant pressure the limitation as to the capacity and voltage of each dynamo is about the same as with constant current. Probably more energy is now transmitted by continuous current at constant pressure than by any other method, the greater part being devoted to electric railway work at 500 to 600 volts. Dynamos for about these voltages can readily be had in capacities up to several thousand kilowatts each, but the length of transmission that can be economically carried out at this pressure is comparatively small. For each kilowatt delivered to a line at 500 volts and to be transmitted to a distance of five miles at a ten per cent loss in the line, the weight of copper conductors must be 372 pounds, costing $56.80 at 15 cents per pound. This sum is twice to four times the cost of good continuous-current dynamos per kilowatt of capacity. If the distance of transmission is ten miles and the voltage and line loss remain as before, the weight of copper conductor must be increased to 1,488 pounds per kilowatt delivered to the line, costing $227.20.
If you're transmitting continuous current at a constant pressure, the capacity and voltage limitations for each dynamo are roughly the same as with constant current. Right now, more energy is likely being transmitted via continuous current at constant pressure than through any other method, mainly for electric railway work at 500 to 600 volts. Dynamos for these voltage levels can easily be found in capacities up to several thousand kilowatts each, but the distance you can economically transmit at this pressure is pretty limited. For every kilowatt delivered to a line at 500 volts and transmitted five miles with a ten percent loss, the weight of copper conductors needs to be 372 pounds, which costs $56.80 at 15 cents per pound. This amount is two to four times the cost of good continuous-current dynamos per kilowatt of capacity. If the transmission distance increases to ten miles with the same voltage and line loss, the weight of copper conductors has to go up to 1,488 pounds per kilowatt delivered to the line, costing $227.20.
Experience has shown that in sizes of not more than 400 kilowatts, continuous-current dynamos may safely have a voltage of 2,000 each, and any number of such dynamos may be operated in multiple, giving whatever capacity is desired. At 2,000 volts and a loss of 10 per cent in the line the weight of copper conductors per kilowatt would be 93 pounds, costing $13.95, for each kilowatt delivered to the line on a 10-mile transmission. With 2,000 volts on a 20-mile transmission the weight of conductors per kilowatt would be the same as their weight on a 5-mile transmission at 500 volts, the percentage of loss being equal in the two cases. Large continuous-current motors of, say, 50 kilowatts or more can be had for a pressure of 2,000 volts, so that any number of such motors might be operated from a 2,000-volt, constant-pressure line entirely independent of each other. From these figures it is evident that a transmission of 10 miles may be carried out with continuous-current at constant pressure from a single dynamo with good efficiency and a moderate investment in conductors.
Experience has shown that for sizes not exceeding 400 kilowatts, continuous-current dynamos can safely operate at a voltage of 2,000 volts each, and any number of these dynamos can be used together to provide the desired capacity. At 2,000 volts with a 10% loss in the line, the weight of copper conductors would be 93 pounds per kilowatt, costing $13.95 for each kilowatt delivered over a 10-mile transmission. With 2,000 volts over a 20-mile transmission, the weight of conductors per kilowatt would be the same as their weight over a 5-mile transmission at 500 volts, since the percentage of loss is equal in both scenarios. Large continuous-current motors, around 50 kilowatts or more, can be designed for 2,000 volts, allowing any number of such motors to operate from a 2,000-volt, constant-pressure line independently. These figures clearly indicate that a 10-mile transmission can be effectively achieved with continuous-current at a constant pressure from a single dynamo, ensuring good efficiency and a reasonable investment in conductors.
When the distance is such that much more than 2,000 volts are required for the constant-pressure transmission, with continuous current, resort must be had to the connection of dynamos and motors in series. Any number of dynamos may be so connected as in the case of constant-current work. The combined voltages of the series of motors connected to the constant-pressure transmission line must equal the voltage of that[41] line, so that the number of motors in any one series must be constant. If the voltage of transmission is so high that more than two or three motors must be connected in each series, there comes the objection that motors must be operated at light loads during much of the time. Moreover, each series of motors must be mechanically connected to the same work, as that of driving a single dynamo or other machine, because if the loads on the motors of a series vary differently, these motors will not operate at constant speed. Continuous-current transmission at constant pressure with motors in series thus lacks the flexibility of transmission at constant current where any motor may be started and stopped without regard to the others in the series, the line voltage being automatically regulated at the generating station according to the number of motors in use at any time and to the work they are doing.
When the distance is such that more than 2,000 volts are needed for constant-pressure transmission using direct current, we have to connect dynamos and motors in series. Any number of dynamos can be connected this way, similar to constant-current operation. The total voltage of the series of motors linked to the constant-pressure transmission line must match the voltage of that[41] line, meaning the number of motors in any series must stay the same. If the transmission voltage is so high that more than two or three motors need to be connected in each series, a problem arises because the motors will often have to run at light loads. Additionally, each series of motors must be mechanically connected to the same workload, such as powering a single dynamo or machine, since if the loads on the motors in a series vary too much, they won't operate at a constant speed. Continuous-current transmission at constant pressure with motors in series does not provide the flexibility of constant-current transmission, where any motor can be started or stopped without affecting the others in the series, as the line voltage is automatically adjusted at the generating station based on the number of motors in use and their workload at any given time.
In the efficiency of its dynamos, motors and line, a constant-pressure system of transmission is substantially equal to one with constant current at full load. At partial loads the constant-pressure line has the advantage because the loss of energy in it varies with the square of the load. Thus at constant pressure the line loss in energy per hour at half-load is only one-fourth as great as the loss at full load. On the other hand, the energy loss in the constant-current line is the same at all stages of load. Because of these facts it is good practice to allow, say, a ten-per-cent loss in a constant-pressure line and only five per cent in a constant-current line at full load.
In terms of efficiency for its dynamos, motors, and wiring, a constant-pressure transmission system is pretty much equal to a constant-current system at full load. However, at partial loads, the constant-pressure line has an advantage since the energy loss in it changes with the square of the load. This means that at constant pressure, the energy loss per hour at half load is only a quarter of what it is at full load. On the flip side, the energy loss in the constant-current line remains the same regardless of the load level. Because of this, it's standard practice to account for about a ten percent loss in a constant-pressure line and only five percent in a constant-current line at full load.
In a generating station at 2,000 volts or more constant pressure, it is desirable to have the magnet coils of the main dynamos connected in multiple and separately excited by a small dynamo at constant pressure. This plan is especially desirable when the armatures of several dynamos are connected in series to obtain the line voltage. Separately excited magnet coils make it easier to control the operation of the several dynamos, coils of low-voltage are cheaper to make than coils of high voltage, and the low voltage windings are less liable to burn out. If a series of constant-pressure motors is in use at one point, it may be cheaper and safer to excite its magnet coils from a special dynamo than from the line.
In a power station where the voltage is 2,000 volts or more, it’s a good idea to connect the main dynamos’ magnet coils in parallel and power them with a small dynamo that maintains a constant voltage. This setup is particularly useful when connecting multiple dynamos in series to achieve the desired line voltage. Using separately excited magnet coils makes it easier to manage the operation of the different dynamos. Additionally, low-voltage coils are less expensive to produce than high-voltage ones, and they are also less likely to fail. If a group of constant-voltage motors is operating at a certain location, it might be more cost-effective and safer to power their magnet coils from a dedicated dynamo instead of directly from the line.
In a transmission carried out with series-wound dynamos and motors, the speed of the motors may be constant at all loads without any special regulating mechanism. To attain this result it is necessary that all the motors be coupled so as to form a single unit mechanically and that the dynamos be driven at constant speed. A transmission system of this sort may include a single dynamo and a single motor, or two or more dynamos, and two or more motors may be used in series.
In a system using series-wound dynamos and motors, the motors can maintain a constant speed at all loads without needing any special regulation. To achieve this, it’s essential that all the motors are connected to work as one unit mechanically and that the dynamos run at a steady speed. This type of transmission system can consist of either one dynamo and one motor, or multiple dynamos and motors arranged in series.
When the dynamos of such a system are driven at constant speed and a variable load is applied to the single motor, or to the mechanically connected motors, both the voltage of the system and the amperes flowing in all its parts change together so that practically constant speed is maintained at the motors, provided that the design of both the dynamos and motors is suitable for the purpose. With the maximum load on the motors the volts and amperes of the system have their greatest values, and these values both decline with smaller loads. The chief disadvantage of this system lies in the fact that where more than one motor is employed all the motors must be mechanically joined together so as to work on the same load.
When the generators of this system are run at a steady speed and a variable load is applied to a single motor or to the connected motors, both the system's voltage and the current flowing through all its components change together, allowing the motors to maintain a nearly constant speed, as long as the design of both the generators and motors is appropriate for the task. With maximum load on the motors, the voltage and current in the system reach their highest levels, and these values decrease with lighter loads. The main drawback of this system is that when multiple motors are used, all the motors must be mechanically linked together to operate under the same load.
Compared with the constant-current system, this combination of series dynamos with mechanically connected series motors has the distinct advantage that neither the dynamos nor motors require any sort of regulators in order to maintain constant motor speed. It is only necessary that the dynamos be driven at constant speed and that both the dynamos and motors be designed for the transmission. In comparison with a constant-pressure system, the one under consideration has the advantage that neither its dynamos nor motors require magnet coils with a high voltage at their terminals and composed of fine wire or separate excitation by a special dynamo. These features of the system with series dynamos and motors, the latter being joined as a mechanical unit, make it cheaper to install and easier to operate than either of the other two. This system is especially adapted for the delivery of mechanical power in rather large units. The voltage available may be anything desired, but is subject to the practical limitations that all the motors must deliver their power as a mechanical unit, so that unless the power is quite large the number of motors in the series and, therefore, the voltage is limited.
Compared to the constant-current system, this setup of series dynamos coupled with mechanically connected series motors has the clear benefit that neither the dynamos nor the motors need any type of regulators to keep the motor speed consistent. The only requirement is that the dynamos run at a constant speed, and that both the dynamos and motors are designed for the transmission. When comparing it to a constant-pressure system, the one being discussed has the advantage that neither its dynamos nor motors need high-voltage magnet coils made of fine wire or separate excitation from a special dynamo. These characteristics of the system with series dynamos and motors, which are linked as a mechanical unit, make it cheaper to install and easier to operate than the other two options. This system is particularly suited for delivering mechanical power in fairly large units. The voltage can be set as desired but is limited by the practical constraint that all the motors must provide their power as a single mechanical unit. Therefore, unless the power output is quite significant, the number of motors in the series, and consequently the voltage, is restricted.
An interesting illustration of the system of transmission just described exists between a point on the River Suze, near Bienne, Switzerland, and the Biberest paper mills. At the river a 400 horse-power turbine water-wheel drives a pair of series-wound dynamos, each rated at 130 kilowatts and 3,300 volts. These dynamos are connected in series, giving a total capacity of 260 kilowatts and a pressure of 6,600 volts. At the Biberest mills are located two series-wound motors, mechanically coupled and connected in series with each other and with the two-wire transmission line, which extends from the two dynamos at the River Suze. Each of these motors has a capacity and voltage equal to that of either of the dynamos previously mentioned. The coupled motors operate at the constant speed of 200 revolutions per minute at all loads and deliver over[43] 300 horse-power when doing maximum work. Between the generating plant at the river and the Biberest mills the distance is about 19 miles, and the two line wires are each of copper, 275 mils, or a little more than one-fourth inch in diameter. The dynamos and motors of this system are mounted on thick porcelain blocks in order to protect the insulation of their windings from the strain of the full-line voltage.
An interesting example of the transmission system described earlier exists between a point on the River Suze, near Bienne, Switzerland, and the Biberest paper mills. At the river, a 400-horsepower turbine water wheel drives two series-wound dynamos, each rated at 130 kilowatts and 3,300 volts. These dynamos are connected in series, providing a total capacity of 260 kilowatts and a pressure of 6,600 volts. At the Biberest mills, there are two series-wound motors that are mechanically linked and connected in series with each other and with the two-wire transmission line extending from the dynamos at the River Suze. Each of these motors has a capacity and voltage equal to that of either of the dynamos mentioned earlier. The connected motors operate consistently at a speed of 200 revolutions per minute under all loads and deliver over[43]300 horsepower at maximum output. The distance between the generating plant at the river and the Biberest mills is about 19 miles, with each of the two line wires made of copper, 275 mils, or just over one-fourth inch in diameter. The dynamos and motors of this system are mounted on thick porcelain blocks to protect the insulation of their windings from the strain of the full-line voltage.
Either of the three systems of transmission by continuous-current that have been considered requires a smaller total capacity of electrical apparatus for a given rate of mechanical power delivery than any system using alternating current except that where both the dynamos and motors operate at line voltage.
Either of the three continuous current transmission systems we've looked at needs a smaller total capacity of electrical equipment to deliver a specific amount of mechanical power than any alternating current system, except for cases where both the generators and motors run at line voltage.
CHAPTER V.
THE PHYSICAL LIMITS OF ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION.
Electrical energy may be transmitted around the world if the line voltage is unlimited. This follows from the law that a given power may be transmitted to any distance with constant efficiency and a fixed weight of conductors, provided the voltage is increased directly with the distance.
Electrical energy can be transmitted globally if there are no limits on the line voltage. This is based on the principle that a specific amount of power can be transmitted over any distance with consistent efficiency and a set weight of conductors, as long as the voltage is increased proportionally with the distance.
The physical limits of electric-power transmission are thus fixed by the practicable voltage that may be employed. The effects of the voltage of transmission must be met in the apparatus at generating and receiving stations on the one hand, and along the line on the other. In both situations experience is the main guide, and theory has little that is reliable to offer as to the limit beyond which the voltage will prove unworkable.
The physical limits of electric power transmission are determined by the maximum voltage that can be used. The effects of the transmission voltage need to be addressed in the equipment at both generating and receiving stations, as well as along the transmission line. In both cases, experience is the primary guide, and theory provides little reliable insight into the limits beyond which the voltage becomes unmanageable.
Electric generators are the points in a transmission system where the limit of practical voltage is first reached. In almost all high-voltage transmissions of the present day in the United States alternating generators are employed. Very few if any continuous-current dynamos with capacities in the hundreds of kilowatts and voltages above 4,000 have been built in Europe, and probably none in the United States. Where a transmission at high voltage is to be accomplished with continuous current, two or more dynamos are usually joined in series at the generating station, and a similar arrangement with motors is made at the receiving station, so that the desired voltage is available at the line though not present at any one machine.
Electric generators are where a transmission system first hits the practical voltage limit. Nowadays, in almost all high-voltage transmissions in the United States, alternating generators are used. Very few, if any, continuous-current dynamos that can handle hundreds of kilowatts and voltages over 4,000 have been made in Europe, and likely none have been made in the United States. When high voltage transmission needs to be done with continuous current, two or more dynamos are typically connected in series at the generating station, and a similar setup with motors is done at the receiving station, so the desired voltage is available on the line even though it's not present at any individual machine.
Alternating dynamos that deliver current at about 6,000 volts have been in regular use for some years, in capacities of hundreds of kilowatts each, and may readily be had of several thousand kilowatts capacity. But even 6,000 volts is not an economical pressure for transmissions over fifteen to fifty miles, such as are now quite common; consequently in such transmissions it has been the rule to employ alternators that operate at less than 3,000 volts, and to raise this voltage to the desired line pressure by step-up transformers at the generating station. More recently, however, the voltage of alternating generators has been pushed as high as 13,000 in the revolving-magnet type where all the armature[45] windings are stationary. This voltage makes it practicable to dispense with the use of step-up transformers for transmissions up to or even beyond 30 miles in some cases. This voltage of 13,000 in the armature coils is attained only by constructions involving some difficulty because of the relatively large amount of room necessary for the insulating materials on coils that develop this pressure. The tendency of this construction is to give alternators unusually large dimensions per given capacity. It seems probable, moreover, that the pressures developed in the armature coils of alternating generators must reach their higher limits at a point much below the 50,000 and 60,000 volts in actual use on present transmission lines. In the longest transmissions with alternating current there is, therefore, little prospect that step-up transformers at the generating stations and step-down transformers at receiving stations can be dispensed with. The highest voltage that may be received or delivered at these stations is simply the highest that it is practicable to develop by transformers and to transmit by the line.
Alternating dynamos that produce current at around 6,000 volts have been commonly used for several years, with capabilities in the hundreds of kilowatts each, and some available with capacities of several thousand kilowatts. However, even 6,000 volts isn't an economical voltage for transmissions over distances of fifteen to fifty miles, which are quite common now; as a result, it's standard to use alternators that operate at less than 3,000 volts and increase this voltage to the desired line level with step-up transformers at the generating station. More recently, though, the voltage of alternating generators has been pushed up to 13,000 volts in the revolving-magnet type, where all the armature windings are stationary. This voltage allows for the possibility of eliminating step-up transformers for transmissions up to or even beyond 30 miles in some cases. The 13,000-volt level in the armature coils is achieved only through designs that require considerable space for the insulating materials on coils that reach this voltage. This design tends to result in alternators being unusually large for their capacity. Additionally, it’s likely that the voltages generated in the armature coils of alternating generators must hit their higher limits well below the 50,000 and 60,000 volts currently used on existing transmission lines. Therefore, in the longest alternating current transmissions, it's unlikely that we can eliminate step-up transformers at the generating stations and step-down transformers at receiving stations. The highest voltage that can be received or delivered at these stations is simply the highest that can be effectively developed by transformers and transmitted by the line.
A very high degree of insulation is much more easy to attain in transformers than in generator armatures, because the space that can be readily made available for insulating materials is far greater in the transformers, and further because their construction permits the complete immersion of their coils in petroleum. This oil offers a much greater resistance than air to the passage of electric sparks, which tend to set up arcs between coils at very high voltages and thus destroy the insulation. Danger to insulation from the effect known as creeping between coils at widely different pressures is largely avoided by immersion of the coils in oil. For several years groups of transformers have been worked regularly at 40,000 to 60,000 volts, and in no instance is there any indication that the upper limit of practicable voltage has been reached. On the contrary, transformers have repeatedly been worked experimentally up to and above 100,000 volts.
A very high level of insulation is much easier to achieve in transformers than in generator armatures because there's significantly more space available for insulating materials in transformers. Additionally, their design allows for the complete immersion of their coils in oil. This oil provides much greater resistance than air against electric sparks, which can create arcs between coils at very high voltages, damaging the insulation. The risk of insulation failure due to a phenomenon known as creeping between coils at widely different pressures is mostly eliminated by submerging the coils in oil. For several years, groups of transformers have regularly operated at 40,000 to 60,000 volts, and there’s no sign that the upper voltage limit has been reached. In fact, transformers have repeatedly been tested experimentally at and above 100,000 volts.
From all these facts, and others of similar import, it is fair to conclude that the physical limit to the voltages that it is practicable to obtain with transformers is much above the 50,000 or 60,000 volts now in practical use on transmission systems. So far as present practice is concerned, the limit to the use of high voltages must be sought beyond the transformers and outside of generating and receiving stations. As now constructed, the line is that part of the transmission system where a physical limit to the use of higher voltages will first be reached. The factors that tend most directly to this limit are two: temporary arcing between the several wires on a pole, and the less imposing but constant[46] passage of energy from one wire to another. On lines of very high voltage arcing is occasionally set up by one of several causes. At a point where one or more of the insulators on which the wires are mounted become broken or defective, the current is apt to flow from one wire to another along a wet cross-arm, until the wood grows carbonized and an arc is formed that ends by burning up the cross-arm or even the pole. Where lines are exposed to heavy sea fog, the salt is in some cases deposited on the insulators and cross-arms to an extent that starts an arc between the wires, and ends often in the destruction of the cross-arm. In some instances the glass and porcelain insulators supporting wires used with high voltages are punctured by sparks that pass right through the material of the insulator to the pin on which it is mounted, thus burning the pin and ultimately the cross-arm. This trouble is easily met, however, by the adoption of a better grade of porcelain or of an insulator with a greater thickness of glass or porcelain between the wires and the supporting pin. Arcs between lines at high voltages usually start by sparks that jump from the lower edges of insulators, when they are wet or covered with salt deposit, to the cross-arm. As the lower edges of insulators are only a few inches from their cross-arms, the sparks find a path of comparatively low resistance by passing from insulator to cross-arm and thence to the other insulator and wire. The wood of a wet cross-arm is a far better conductor than the air. Where wires are several feet or more apart, sparks probably never jump directly through the air from one to the other. Large birds flying close to such wires, however, have in some instances started momentary arcs between them. The treatment of cross-arms with oil or paraffine reduces the number of arcs that occur on a line of high voltage, but does not do away with them.
From all this information and similar points, it’s reasonable to conclude that the physical limit to the voltages that can be effectively obtained with transformers is well above the 50,000 or 60,000 volts currently used in transmission systems. For now, the limit on using high voltages should be explored beyond transformers and outside of generating and receiving stations. As things stand, the transmission line is where the physical limit for higher voltages will first be reached. The two main factors contributing to this limit are: temporary arcing between the wires on a pole, and the less noticeable but consistent passage of energy from one wire to another. In very high voltage lines, arcing can occur for various reasons. If one or more of the insulators that support the wires becomes broken or defective, current can flow between wires along a wet cross-arm, eventually carbonizing the wood and starting an arc that can burn up the cross-arm or even the pole. In areas with heavy sea fog, salt can accumulate on the insulators and cross-arms enough to create an arc between wires, often leading to the destruction of the cross-arm. Sometimes the glass and porcelain insulators used with high voltages get punctured by sparks that travel right through the insulator material to the supporting pin, damaging the pin and ultimately the cross-arm. This issue can be addressed by using higher quality porcelain or insulators with thicker glass or porcelain separating the wires from the support pin. Arcs between high voltage lines typically begin with sparks jumping from the lower edges of insulators when they are wet or coated with salt to the cross-arm. Since the lower edges of the insulators are only a few inches away from the cross-arms, the sparks find a relatively low-resistance path by moving from the insulator to the cross-arm, then to the other insulator and wire. Wet wood on a cross-arm conducts electricity better than air. When wires are spaced several feet apart, sparks usually don’t jump directly through the air from one to the other. However, large birds flying close to such wires have, in some cases, caused temporary arcs between them. Treating cross-arms with oil or paraffin reduces the number of arcs on high voltage lines, but does not eliminate them.
As the voltages of long transmissions have gone up, the distance through the air between wires and the distances between the lower wet edges of insulators and the cross-arms have been much increased. Most of the earlier transmission lines for high voltages were erected on insulators spaced from one to two feet apart. In contrast with this practice, the three wires of the transmission line in operation at 50,000 volts between Cañon Ferry and Butte are arranged at the corners of a triangle seventy-eight inches apart, one wire at the top of each pole and the other two at opposite ends of the cross-arm. A voltage that would just start an arc along a wet cross-arm between wires eighteen inches apart would be quite powerless to do so over seventy-eight inches of cross-arm, the lower wet edges of insulators being equidistant from cross-arms in the two cases. To reach the cross-arm, the electric current passes down over[47] the wet or dirty outside surface of the insulator to its lower edge. In the older types of insulators the lower wet edge often came within two inches of the cross-arm. For the 50,000-volt line just mentioned the insulators (see illus.) are mounted with their lower wet edges about eight inches above the cross-arms. At its lower edge each insulator has a diameter of nine inches, and a small glass sleeve extends several inches below this edge and close to the wooden pin, to prevent sparking from the lower wet edge of the insulator to the pin. These increased distances between wires in a direct line through the air, and also the greater distances between the lower wet edges of insulators and their pins and cross-arms, are proving fairly effective to prevent serious arcing under good climatic conditions, for the maximum pressures of 50,000 to 60,000 volts now in use. If these voltages are to be greatly exceeded it is practically certain that the distance between wires, and from the lower wet edges of insulators to the wood of poles or cross-arms, must be still further increased to avoid destructive arcing.
As the voltages for long-distance transmissions have increased, the space between wires in the air and the distance from the lower wet edges of insulators to the cross-arms has grown significantly. Most of the earlier high-voltage transmission lines were set up with insulators spaced one to two feet apart. In contrast, the three wires of the transmission line operating at 50,000 volts between Cañon Ferry and Butte are arranged in a triangular formation, seventy-eight inches apart, with one wire at the top of each pole and the other two at opposite ends of the cross-arm. A voltage that would just initiate an arc along a wet cross-arm between wires spaced eighteen inches apart wouldn't be strong enough to do so over seventy-eight inches of cross-arm, as the lower wet edges of the insulators are equidistant from the cross-arms in both scenarios. To reach the cross-arm, the electric current flows down over the wet or dirty outer surface of the insulator to its lower edge. In older types of insulators, the lower wet edge often came within two inches of the cross-arm. For the aforementioned 50,000-volt line, the insulators (see illus.) are positioned with their lower wet edges about eight inches above the cross-arms. Each insulator has a nine-inch diameter at its lower edge, and a small glass sleeve extends several inches below this edge, close to the wooden pin, to prevent sparking from the lower wet edge of the insulator to the pin. The increased distances between wires in a direct line through the air, as well as the larger gaps between the lower wet edges of insulators and their pins and cross-arms, are proving to be reasonably effective in preventing serious arcing under favorable weather conditions, for the maximum voltages of 50,000 to 60,000 volts currently in use. If these voltages are significantly exceeded, it's almost certain that the spacing between wires, and from the lower wet edges of insulators to the wood of poles or cross-arms, will need to be further increased to prevent destructive arcing.
The nearest approach to an absolute physical limit of voltage with present line construction is met in the constant current of energy through the air from wire to wire of a circuit. A paper in vol. XV., Transactions American Institute Electrical Engineers, gives the tests made at Telluride, Col., to determine the rates at which energy is lost by passing through the air from one wire to another of the same circuit. The tests at Telluride were made with two-wire circuits strung on a pole line 11,720 feet in length, at first with iron wires of 0.165 inch diameter and then with copper wires of 0.162 inch diameter. Measurements were made of the energy escaping from wire to wire at different voltages on the line, and also with the two wires at various distances apart. It was found that the loss of energy over the surfaces of insulators was very slight, and that the loss incident to the passage of energy directly through the air is the main one to be considered. This leakage through the air varies with the length of the line, as might be expected. Tests were made with pairs of wires running the entire length of the pole line and at distances of 15, 22, 35, and 52 inches apart respectively. Losses with wires 22 or 35 inches apart were intermediate to the losses when wires were 15 and 52 inches apart respectively. Results given in the original paper for the pair of wires that were 15 inches apart and for the pair that were 52 inches apart are here reduced to approximate watts per mile of two-wire line. At 40,000 volts the loss between the two wires that were 15 inches apart was about 150 watts per mile, and between the two wires that were 52 inches apart the loss was 84 watts per mile. The two[48] wires 15 inches apart showed a leakage of approximately 413 watts per mile when the voltage was up to 44,000, but the wires 52 inches apart were subject to a leakage of only 94 watts per mile at the same voltage. At 47,300 volts, the highest pressure recorded for the two wires 15 inches apart, the leakage between them was about 1,215 watts per mile, while an equal voltage on the two wires 52 inches apart caused a leakage of only 122 watts per mile, or one-tenth of that between the wires that were 15 inches apart. When about 50,000 volts were reached on the two wires 52 inches apart, the leakage between them amounted to 140 watts per mile; but beyond this voltage the loss went up rapidly, and was 225 watts per mile at about 54,600 volts. For higher pressures the loss between these two wires still more rapidly increased, and amounted to 1,368 watts per mile with about 59,300 volts, the highest pressure recorded. With a loss of about 1,215 watts per mile between the two wires 52 inches apart, the voltage on them was 58,800, in contrast with the 47,300 volts producing the same leakage on the two wires 15 inches apart.
The closest thing we have to a hard limit on voltage with current line setups is the continuous flow of energy through the air from one wire to another in a circuit. A paper in vol. XV., Transactions American Institute Electrical Engineers, shares the tests conducted in Telluride, Colorado, to measure the energy lost when passing through the air between two wires in the same circuit. The tests in Telluride were performed using two-wire circuits stretched along a pole line 11,720 feet long, first with iron wires that had a diameter of 0.165 inches and then with copper wires that had a diameter of 0.162 inches. Measurements were taken of the energy escaping from wire to wire at various voltages on the line, as well as with the two wires at different distances apart. It was discovered that energy loss over the surfaces of insulators was minimal, and the main concern was the energy loss occurring directly through the air. This air leakage changes with the length of the line, as expected. Tests were done with pairs of wires along the full length of the pole line, spaced 15, 22, 35, and 52 inches apart, respectively. Losses with wires 22 or 35 inches apart were intermediate between the losses of wires 15 and 52 inches apart. The original paper provided results for the pairs of wires that were 15 inches and 52 inches apart, which have now been converted to approximate watts per mile for a two-wire line. At 40,000 volts, the loss between the two wires that were 15 inches apart was about 150 watts per mile, while the loss for the two wires that were 52 inches apart was 84 watts per mile. The two wires 15 inches apart showed a leakage of around 413 watts per mile when the voltage was increased to 44,000 volts, but the wires 52 inches apart had a leakage of only 94 watts per mile at the same voltage. At 47,300 volts, the highest pressure recorded for the two wires 15 inches apart, the leakage between them was about 1,215 watts per mile, whereas the same voltage across the two wires 52 inches apart caused a leakage of only 122 watts per mile, which is one-tenth of the leakage between the wires 15 inches apart. When the voltage reached about 50,000 volts on the two wires 52 inches apart, the leakage between them was 140 watts per mile; however, past this voltage, the loss increased rapidly, reaching 225 watts per mile at roughly 54,600 volts. For even higher voltages, the loss between these two wires increased even faster, amounting to 1,368 watts per mile at approximately 59,300 volts, the highest pressure recorded. At a loss of about 1,215 watts per mile between the two wires 52 inches apart, the voltage on them was 58,800, which contrasts with the 47,300 volts that produced the same leakage on the two wires 15 inches apart.
Evidently, however, at even 52 inches between line wires the limit of high voltage is not far away. When the voltage on the 52-inch line was raised from 54,600 to 59,300, the leakage loss between the two wires increased about 1,143 watts per mile. If the leakage increases at least in like proportion, as seems probable, for still higher pressures, the loss between the two wires would amount to 6,321 watts per mile with 80,000 volts on the line. On a line 200 miles long this loss by leakage between the two wires would amount to 1,264,200 watts. Any such leakage as this obviously sets an absolute, physical limit to the voltage, and consequently the length of transmission.
Evidently, at 52 inches between line wires, the limit of high voltage is not far off. When the voltage on the 52-inch line was increased from 54,600 to 59,300, the leakage loss between the two wires went up by about 1,143 watts per mile. If the leakage increases at a similar rate, which seems likely, at even higher voltages, the loss between the two wires would reach 6,321 watts per mile with 80,000 volts on the line. Over a 200-mile line, this leakage loss between the two wires would total 1,264,200 watts. Any leakage like this clearly places a strict, physical limit on the voltage, and therefore the length of transmission.
Fortunately for the future delivery of energy at great distances from its source, the means to avoid the limit just discussed are not difficult. Other experiments have shown that with a given voltage and distance between conductors the loss of energy from wire to wire decreases rapidly as their diameters increase. The electrical resistance of air, like that of any other substance, increases with the length of the circuit through it. The leakage described is a flow of electrical energy through the air from one wire to another of the same circuit. To reduce this leakage it is simply necessary to give the path from wire to wire through the air greater electrical resistance by increasing its length, that is, by placing the wires at greater distances apart. The fact demonstrated at Telluride, that with 47,300 volts on each line the leakage per mile between the two wires 15 inches apart was ten times as great as the leakage between the two wires[49] 52 inches apart, is full of meaning. Evidently, leakage through the air may be reduced to any desired extent by suitable increase of distance between the wires of the same circuit. But to carry this increase of distance between wires very far involves radical changes in line construction. Thus far it has been the uniform practice to carry the two or three wires of a transmission circuit on a single line of poles, and in many cases several such circuits are mounted on the same pole line. For the 65 mile transmission into Butte, Mont., only the three wires of a single circuit are mounted on one pole line, and this represents the best present practice. The cross-arms on this line are each 8 feet long, and one is attached to each pole. The poles are not less than 35 feet long and have 8-inch tops. One wire is mounted at the top of each pole, and the other two wires near the ends of the cross-arm, so that the three wires are equidistant and 78 inches apart. By the use of still heavier poles the length of cross-arms may be increased to 12 or 14 feet, for which their section should be not less than 4 by 6 inches. Placing one wire at the pole top, the 12-foot cross-arm would permit the three wires of a circuit to be spaced about 10.5 feet apart. The cost of extra large poles goes up rapidly and there are alternative constructions that seem better suited to the case. Moreover, a few tens of thousands of volts above present practice would bring us again to a point where even 10.5 feet between wires would not prevent a prohibitive leakage. Two poles might be set 20 feet apart, with a cross-piece between them, extending out 5 feet beyond each pole and having a total length of 30 feet. This would permit three wires to be mounted along the cross-piece at points about 14 feet apart.
Fortunately for the future delivery of energy over long distances from its source, the methods to avoid the previously mentioned limitation aren't too hard to grasp. Other experiments have shown that at a certain voltage and distance between conductors, the energy loss from wire to wire decreases significantly as their diameters increase. The electrical resistance of air, like any other substance, rises with the circuit's length. The leakage mentioned is the flow of electrical energy through the air from one wire to another in the same circuit. To minimize this leakage, you simply need to increase the length of the path between the wires through the air, which means placing the wires further apart. The demonstration at Telluride showed that with 47,300 volts on each line, the leakage per mile between two wires 15 inches apart was ten times greater than the leakage between wires that were 52 inches apart. This clearly indicates that air leakage can be reduced to any desired level by adequately increasing the distance between the wires in the same circuit. However, pushing the distance between wires too far requires significant changes in line design. So far, the common practice has been to carry two or three wires of a transmission circuit on a single line of poles, and in many cases, multiple circuits are mounted on the same pole line. For the 65-mile transmission into Butte, Mont., only the three wires of a single circuit are mounted on one pole line, which represents the best current practice. The cross-arms on this line are each 8 feet long, with one attached to each pole. The poles are at least 35 feet tall and have 8-inch tops. One wire is mounted at the top of each pole, while the other two wires are positioned near the ends of the cross-arm, so the three wires are equidistant and 78 inches apart. Using even larger poles could allow for cross-arms of 12 or 14 feet, while needing to be at least 4 by 6 inches in section. With one wire at the top of the pole, a 12-foot cross-arm would let the three circuit wires be spaced about 10.5 feet apart. The cost of these larger poles rises quickly, and there are alternative designs that might be more suitable. Plus, pushing the voltage tens of thousands of volts above the current standard could bring us back to a point where even 10.5 feet between wires wouldn’t be enough to prevent excessive leakage. Two poles might be set 20 feet apart, connected by a crosspiece extending 5 feet beyond each pole, making a total length of 30 feet. This would allow for three wires to be mounted along the crosspiece, spaced about 14 feet apart.
If the present transmission pressures of 50,000 to 60,000 volts are to be greatly exceeded, the line structure may involve the use of a separate pole for each wire of a circuit, each wire to be mounted at the top of its pole. This construction calls for three lines of poles to carry the three wires of a three-phase transmission. Each of these poles may be of only moderate dimensions, say 30 feet long with 6- or 7-inch top. The cost of three of these poles will exceed by only a moderate percentage that of a 35- or 40-foot pole with an 8- to 10-inch top, such as would be necessary with 12-foot cross-arms. The distance between these poles at right angles to the line may be anything desired, so that leakage from wire to wire through the air will be reduced to a trifling matter at any voltage. Extra long pins and insulators at the pole tops will easily give a distance of two feet or more between the lower wet edge of each insulator and the wood of pin or pole. Such line construction would probably safely carry two or three times the maximum voltage of present practice, and[50] might force the physical limit of electrical transmission back to the highest pressure at which transformers could be operated. With not more than 60,000 volts on the line the size of conductors is great enough in many cases to keep the loss of energy between them within moderate limits when they are six feet apart, but with a large increase of voltage the size of conductors must go up or the distances between them must increase.
If the current transmission voltages of 50,000 to 60,000 volts are to be significantly surpassed, the support structure may require a separate pole for each wire in a circuit, with each wire positioned at the top of its respective pole. This setup involves three rows of poles to support the three wires of a three-phase transmission system. Each of these poles could be moderately sized, around 30 feet tall with a top diameter of 6 or 7 inches. The cost of three of these poles will only be slightly higher than that of a 35- or 40-foot pole with an 8- to 10-inch top, which would be necessary for 12-foot crossarms. The spacing between these poles, perpendicular to the line, can be adjusted as needed to minimize any leakage between wires through the air at any voltage level. Extra-long pins and insulators at the top of the poles can easily provide a clearance of two feet or more between the lower wet edge of each insulator and the pole or pin wood. This type of line construction could safely handle two to three times the maximum voltage used today, and[50] might push the physical limits of electrical transmission to the highest voltages at which transformers can operate. With no more than 60,000 volts on the line, the size of the conductors is often sufficient to keep energy loss between them within reasonable limits when they are six feet apart, but as voltage increases significantly, either the size of the conductors must be enlarged or the distances between them must be increased.
CHAPTER VI.
DEVELOPMENT OF WATER POWER FOR ELECTRIC STATIONS.
Electrical transmission has reduced the cost of water-power development. Without transmission the power must be developed at a number of different points in order that there may be room enough for the buildings in which it is to be utilized. This condition necessitates relatively long canals to conduct the water to the several points where power is to be developed, and also a relatively large area of land with canal and river frontage.
Electrical transmission has lowered the costs of developing water power. Without transmission, power has to be generated at several different locations to ensure there's enough space for the necessary buildings. This situation requires relatively long canals to transport water to the various sites where power will be produced, as well as a larger area of land that has both canal and river access.
With electrical transmission the power, however great, may well be developed at a single spot and on a very limited area of land. The canal in this case may be merely a short passageway from one end of a dam to a near-by power-house, or may disappear entirely when the power-house itself forms the dam, as is sometimes the case.
With electrical transmission, the power, no matter how large, can be generated in one location on a small piece of land. In this case, the canal can simply be a short path from one end of a dam to a nearby power plant, or it might not be needed at all if the power plant itself acts as the dam, which sometimes happens.
These differences between the distribution of water for power purposes and the development by water of electrical energy for transmission may be illustrated by many examples.
These differences between how water is distributed for power purposes and how water generates electrical energy for transmission can be illustrated by many examples.
A typical case of the distribution of water to the points where power is wanted may be seen in the hydraulic development of the Amoskeag Manufacturing Company at Manchester, N. H. This development includes a dam across the Merrimac River, and two parallel canals that follow one of its banks for about 3,400 feet down stream. By means of a stone dam and a natural fall a little beyond its toe a water head of about forty-eight feet is obtained at the upper end of the high-level canal. Below this point there is little drop in the bed of the river through that part of its course that is paralleled by the two canals. All of the power might be thus developed within a few rods of one end of the dam, if means were provided for its distribution to the points where it must be used.
A typical example of water distribution to where it's needed can be observed in the hydraulic development of the Amoskeag Manufacturing Company in Manchester, N.H. This setup includes a dam across the Merrimack River and two parallel canals that run along one of its banks for about 3,400 feet downstream. Through a stone dam and a natural drop a little past its base, a water head of about forty-eight feet is created at the upper end of the high-level canal. Below this point, there is little fall in the riverbed along the section of the river that the two canals parallel. All the power could be generated within a few yards of one end of the dam if there were systems in place to distribute it to where it needs to be used.
Years ago, when this water-power was developed, the electrical transmission or distribution of energy was unheard of, and distribution of the water itself had therefore to be adopted. For this purpose the two canals already mentioned were constructed along the high bank of the river at two different levels.
Years ago, when this water power was developed, using electricity to transmit or distribute energy was not a thing, so they had to figure out how to distribute the water itself. To do this, the two canals mentioned earlier were built along the high bank of the river at two different levels.

Fig. 4.—Hydraulic Development on the Merrimac River.
Fig. 4.—Hydraulic Development on the Merrimac River.
Larger plan (124 kB)
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ (124 kB)
The high-level canal, so called, was designed to take water directly from the basin or forebay a little below one end of the dam, so that between this canal and the river there is a full water head of about forty-eight feet. Over nearly its entire course the nearer side of this high-level canal runs between 450 and 750 feet from the edge of the river wall, and thus includes between it and the river a large area on which factories to be driven by water-wheels may be located. It was thought, however, that this strip of land between the high-level canal and the river was too wide for a single row of mill sites, and the lower level canal was therefore constructed parallel with that on the higher level, but with about twenty-one feet less elevation.
The high-level canal, as it’s called, was designed to take water directly from the basin or forebay just below one end of the dam, creating a water head of about forty-eight feet between the canal and the river. For almost its entire length, the side of this high-level canal is located between 450 and 750 feet from the river wall, leaving a large area between it and the river that can be used for factories powered by water wheels. However, it was believed that the strip of land between the high-level canal and the river was too wide for just one row of mill sites, so a lower-level canal was built parallel to the high-level one, but at an elevation about twenty-one feet lower.
Between these two canals a strip of land about 250 feet wide was left for the location of mills. By this arrangement of canals it is possible to supply wheels located between the high and the low levels with water under a head of about twenty-one feet, and to supply wheels between the lower canal and the river with water under a head of about twenty-nine feet. The entire area of land between the high canal and the river is thus made readily available for factory buildings.
Between these two canals, a strip of land about 250 feet wide was left for the location of mills. This arrangement of canals allows for water to supply wheels located between the high and low levels with a pressure of about twenty-one feet, and to supply wheels between the lower canal and the river with a pressure of about twenty-nine feet. As a result, the entire area of land between the high canal and the river is easily accessible for factory buildings.
Water for the lower canal is drawn mainly from the high canal[53] through the wheels in buildings that are located between the two canals. It is desirable in a case of this sort to have as much water flow through the wheels between the high and low canal as flows through the wheels between the low canal and the river, but this is not always possible. A gate is therefore provided at the forebay where the two canals start, by which water may pass from the forebay directly into the low canal when necessary, but the head of twenty-one feet between the forebay and the low canal is lost as to this water. Between the high and low canal, and between the low canal and the river twenty-three turbine wheels or pairs of wheels have been connected, and these wheels have a combined rating of 9,500 horse-power.
Water for the lower canal primarily comes from the high canal[53] through the wheels in the buildings located between the two canals. Ideally, you want as much water to flow through the wheels between the high and low canals as flows through the wheels between the low canal and the river, but this isn’t always achievable. Therefore, a gate is set up at the forebay where the two canals meet, allowing water to flow from the forebay directly into the low canal when needed, though this results in a loss of twenty-one feet of head between the forebay and the low canal. There are twenty-three turbine wheels or pairs of wheels connected between the high and low canal and between the low canal and the river, and these wheels have a combined rating of 9,500 horsepower.
To carry out this hydraulic development it thus appears that about 1.3 miles of canal have been constructed; one-half this length of river-front has been required, and about one-sixth square mile of territory has been occupied. Contrast with this result what might have been done if electrical transmission of power had been available at the time when this water-power was developed. All but a few rods in length of the existing 1.3 miles of canal might have been omitted, and an electric generating station with wheels to take the entire flow of the river might have been located not far from one end of the dam. Factories utilizing the electric power thus developed might have been located at any convenient points along the river-front or elsewhere, and no space would have been made unavailable because of the necessity of head- and tail-water connections to scattered sets of wheels.
To implement this hydraulic development, it seems that about 1.3 miles of canal have been built; half of this length of riverfront has been needed, and around one-sixth of a square mile of land has been used. Compare this outcome to what could have been achieved if electrical power transmission had been an option when this water power was developed. Almost all of the existing 1.3 miles of canal could have been skipped, and an electric generating station with turbines to harness the full river flow could have been set up near one end of the dam. Factories using the electric power generated could have been placed at any convenient spots along the riverfront or elsewhere, and no area would have been rendered unavailable due to the need for head- and tail-water connections to separate sets of turbines.
Compare with the foregoing hydraulic development that at Cañon Ferry on the Missouri River, in Montana, where 10,000 horse-power is developed under a water-head of 32 feet. At Cañon Ferry the power-house is 225 feet by 50 feet at the floor level inside, contains turbine wheels direct-connected to ten main generators of 7,500 kilowatts, or 10,000 horse-power combined capacity, and is built on the river bank close to one end of the 500-foot dam. The canal which runs along the land side of the power-house, and takes water at the up-stream side of the abutment, is about twice the length of the power-house itself. The saving in the cost of canal construction alone, to say nothing of the saving as to the required area of land, is evidently a large item in favor of the electrical development and transmission. In its small area and short canal the Cañon Ferry plant is not an exception, but is rather typical of a large class of electric water-power plants that operate under moderate heads.
Compare this with the hydraulic development at Cañon Ferry on the Missouri River in Montana, where 10,000 horsepower is generated with a water head of 32 feet. At Cañon Ferry, the power house measures 225 feet by 50 feet at floor level, containing turbine wheels directly connected to ten main generators with a combined capacity of 7,500 kilowatts, or 10,000 horsepower. It is located on the riverbank near one end of the 500-foot dam. The canal that runs along the land side of the power house, taking water from the upstream side of the abutment, is about twice the length of the power house itself. The savings in canal construction alone, not to mention the savings in required land area, clearly make a significant difference in favor of electrical development and transmission. The Cañon Ferry plant, with its compact area and short canal, is not an outlier but rather representative of a large category of electric water-power plants operating under moderate heads.
A like case may be seen in the plant at Red Bridge, on the Chicopee[54] River, in Massachusetts, where a canal 340 feet long, together with penstocks 100 feet long, convey water from one end of the dam and deliver it to wheels in the electric station with a head of 49 feet. This station contains electric generators with a combined capacity of 4,800 kilowatts or 6,400 horse-power, and its floor area is 141 by 57 feet.
A similar situation can be seen at the plant at Red Bridge, on the Chicopee[54] River in Massachusetts, where a 340-foot-long canal, along with 100-foot-long penstocks, directs water from one end of the dam to turbines in the electric station, creating a head of 49 feet. This station has electric generators with a total capacity of 4,800 kilowatts or 6,400 horsepower, and its floor space measures 141 by 57 feet.

Fig. 5.—Canal at Red Bridge on Chicopee River.
Fig. 5.—Canal at Red Bridge on the Chicopee River.
So, again, at Great Falls, on the Presumpscot River, in North Gorham, Me. (see cut), the electric station sets about 40 feet in front of the forebay wall, which adjoins one abutment of the dam, and there is no canal whatever, as short penstocks bring water to the wheels with a head of 35 feet. In ground area this station is 67.5 by 55 feet, and its capacity in main generators is 2,000 kilowatts or 2,700 horse-power.
So, once again, at Great Falls on the Presumpscot River in North Gorham, Me. (see cut), the electric station is positioned about 40 feet in front of the forebay wall, which is next to one of the dam's supports, and there is no canal at all, as short penstocks deliver water to the turbines with a 35-foot head. The station covers an area of 67.5 by 55 feet, and its main generators have a capacity of 2,000 kilowatts or 2,700 horsepower.
A striking illustration of the extent to which electrical transmission reduces the cost of water-power development may be seen at Gregg’s Falls on the Piscataquog River, in New Hampshire, where an electric station of 1,200 kilowatts capacity has been built close to one end of the dam, and receives water for its wheels under a head of 51 feet through a short penstock, 10 feet in diameter, that pierces one of the abutments.
A clear example of how much electrical transmission lowers the cost of water-power development can be seen at Gregg’s Falls on the Piscataquog River in New Hampshire. Here, a 1,200-kilowatt electric station has been built near one end of the dam, which gets water for its turbines from a height of 51 feet through a short penstock that is 10 feet in diameter and goes through one of the abutments.

Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.
Perhaps the greatest electric water-power station anywhere that rests
close to the dam that provides the head for its wheels is that at Spier[55]
[56]
Falls (see cut), on the upper Hudson. One end of this station is formed
by the high wall section of the dam, and from this wall the length of the
station down-stream is 392 feet, while its width is 70 feet 10 inches, both
dimensions being taken inside. The canal or forebay in this case, like
that at Cañon Ferry, lies on the bank side of the power-station, and is
about equal to it in length. From this canal ten short penstocks, each
12 feet in diameter, will convey water under a head of 80 feet to as many
sets of turbine wheels in the station. These wheels will drive ten generators
with an aggregate capacity of 24,000 kilowatts or 32,000 horse-power.
Perhaps the greatest electric hydroelectric power station anywhere, which is located right next to the dam that supplies the water for its turbines, is at Spier[55]
[56] Falls (see cut), on the upper Hudson. One end of this station is formed by the tall wall section of the dam, and from this wall, the length of the station downstream is 392 feet, while its width is 70 feet 10 inches, with both measurements taken from inside. The canal or forebay in this case, similar to that at Cañon Ferry, is situated on the bank side of the power station and is about the same length. From this canal, ten short penstocks, each 12 feet in diameter, will carry water under a pressure of 80 feet to as many sets of turbine wheels in the station. These wheels will power ten generators with a total capacity of 24,000 kilowatts or 32,000 horsepower.
Sometimes the slope in the bed of a river is so gradual or so divided up between the number of small falls, or the volume of water is so small, that no very large power can be developed at any one point without the construction of a long canal. In a case of this sort electrical transmission is again available to reduce the expense of construction that will make it possible to concentrate all the power from a long stretch of the river at a single point. This is done by locating electric generating stations at as many points as may be thought desirable along the river whose energy is to be utilized, and then transmitting power from all of these stations to the single point where it is wanted.
Sometimes the slope of a riverbed is so gentle or so broken up by numerous small waterfalls, or the water volume is so low, that it's not possible to generate significant power at any single point without building a long canal. In such cases, electric transmission can help cut construction costs, allowing for the concentration of all the power from a long stretch of the river at one location. This is achieved by setting up electric generating stations at various points along the river where energy is to be harnessed, and then transmitting power from all these stations to the single point where it’s needed.
A case in point is that of Garvins Falls and Hooksett Falls on the Merrimac River and four miles apart. At the former of these two falls the head of water is twenty-eight feet, and at the latter it is sixteen feet. To unite the power of both these falls in a single water-driven station would obviously require a canal four miles long whose expense might well be prohibitive. Energy from both these falls is made available at a single sub-station in Manchester, N. H., by a generating plant at both points and transmission lines thence to that city.
A clear example is Garvins Falls and Hooksett Falls on the Merrimac River, which are four miles apart. At Garvins Falls, the water head is twenty-eight feet, while at Hooksett Falls, it’s sixteen feet. Combining the power of both falls into a single water-powered station would definitely need a four-mile-long canal, which could be very expensive. Energy from both falls is supplied to a single substation in Manchester, NH, through generating plants at each location and transmission lines leading to the city.
At Hooksett the present capacity of the electric station is 1,000 horse-power, and at Garvins Falls the capacity is 1,700 horse-power. The river is capable of developing larger powers at both of these falls, however, and construction is now under way at Garvins that will raise its station capacity to 5,000 horse-power.
At Hooksett, the current capacity of the electric station is 1,000 horsepower, and at Garvins Falls, it’s 1,700 horsepower. The river has the potential to generate more power at both of these falls, and construction is currently underway at Garvins to increase its station capacity to 5,000 horsepower.
A similar result in the combination of water-powers without the aid of a long canal is reached in the case of Gregg’s Falls and Kelley’s Falls, which are three miles apart on the Piscataquog River. At the former of these two falls the electric generating capacity is 1,600 horse-power, as previously noted, and at the latter fall the capacity is 1,000 horse-power. In each case the station is close to its dam, and no canal is required. Electrical transmission unites these two powers in the same sub-station[57] at Manchester that receives the energy from the two stations above named on the Merrimac River.
A similar outcome in combining water power without needing a long canal occurs with Gregg's Falls and Kelley's Falls, which are three miles apart on the Piscataquog River. At the first fall, the electric generating capacity is 1,600 horsepower, as mentioned earlier, while at the second fall, the capacity is 1,000 horsepower. In both cases, the station is located near its dam, so no canal is necessary. Electrical transmission connects these two power sources at the same substation[57] in Manchester, which also receives energy from the two stations mentioned on the Merrimack River.
Instead of transmitting power from two or more waterfalls to some point distant from each of them, the power developed at one or more falls may be transmitted to the site of another and there used. This is, in fact, done at the extensive Ludlow twine mills on the Chicopee River, in Massachusetts. These mills are located at a point on the river where its fall makes about 2,500 horse-power available, and this fall has been developed to its full capacity. After a capacity of 2,400 horse-power in steam-engines had been added, more water-power was sought, and a new dam was located on the same river at a point about 4.5 miles up-stream from the mills. The entire flow of the river was available at this new dam, and a canal 4.5 miles long might have been employed to carry the water down to wheels at the mills in Ludlow.
Instead of sending power from two or more waterfalls to a distant location, the energy generated at one or more waterfalls can be transferred to another location and used there. This is actually happening at the large Ludlow twine mills on the Chicopee River in Massachusetts. These mills are situated at a spot on the river where the drop provides about 2,500 horsepower, and this potential has been fully utilized. After adding a capacity of 2,400 horsepower with steam engines, they looked for additional water power and found a new dam about 4.5 miles upstream from the mills on the same river. The entire flow of the river could be used at this new dam, and a 4.5-mile-long canal could have been built to channel the water down to the wheels at the Ludlow mills.
Such a canal would have meant a large investment, not only for land and construction, but also, possibly, for damages to estates bordering on the river, if all of its water was diverted. Instead of such a canal, an electric generating station was located close to the new dam with a capacity of 6,400 horse-power, and this power is transmitted to motors in the mills at Ludlow.
Such a canal would have required a significant investment, not just for land and construction, but also, potentially, for damages to properties along the river if all its water was redirected. Instead of building a canal, an electric generating station was set up near the new dam with a capacity of 6,400 horsepower, and this power is sent to motors in the mills at Ludlow.
Even where the power is to be utilized at some point distant from each of several waterfalls, it may be convenient to combine the power of all at one of them before transmitting it to the place of use. This is actually done in the case of two electric stations located respectively at Indian Orchard and Birchem Bend on the Chicopee River, whose energy is delivered to the sub-station of the electrical supply system in Springfield, Mass. At the Indian Orchard station the head of water is 36 feet, and at Birchem Bend it is 14 feet, while the two stations are about 2 miles apart. A canal of this length might have been built to give a head of 50 feet at the site of the Birchem Bend dam, but instead of this an electric station was located near each fall, and a transmission line was built between the two stations. Each generating station was also connected with the sub-station in Springfield by an independent line, and power is now transmitted from one generating plant to the other, as desired, and the power of both may go to the sub-station over either line. In the Indian Orchard station the dynamo capacity is about 2,000 kilowatts, and at Birchem Bend it is 800 kilowatts.
Even when the power needs to be used far from multiple waterfalls, it can be useful to combine the power of all at one location before sending it where it's needed. This is actually done with two electric stations located at Indian Orchard and Birchem Bend on the Chicopee River, which supply energy to the substation of the electrical supply system in Springfield, Mass. The Indian Orchard station has a water head of 36 feet, while Birchem Bend’s is 14 feet, and the two stations are about 2 miles apart. A canal could have been built to create a 50-foot head at the Birchem Bend dam site, but instead, an electric station was set up near each fall, and a transmission line was built between the two stations. Each generating station is also connected to the Springfield substation by its own line, allowing power to be transmitted from one generating plant to the other as needed, and the power from both can go to the substation via either line. The dynamo capacity at the Indian Orchard station is about 2,000 kilowatts, while at Birchem Bend, it is 800 kilowatts.
Another case showing the union of two water-powers by electrical transmission, where the construction of an expensive canal was avoided, is that of the electrical supply system of Hartford, Conn. This system[58] draws a large part of its energy from two electric plants on the Farmington River, at points that are about 3 miles apart in the towns of Windsor and East Granby, respectively. At one of these plants the head of water is 32 feet, and at the other it is 23 feet, so that head of 55 feet might have been obtained by building a canal 3 miles long. Each of these stations is located near its dam, and the generator capacity at one station is 1,200 and at the other 1,500 kilowatts. Transmission lines deliver power from both of these plants to the same sub-station in Hartford.
Another example of combining two water sources through electrical transmission, which avoided the need for an expensive canal, is the electrical supply system in Hartford, Conn. This system[58] sources a significant portion of its energy from two electric plants situated on the Farmington River, about 3 miles apart in Windsor and East Granby. One of these plants has a water head of 32 feet, while the other has a head of 23 feet, meaning a total head of 55 feet could have been achieved by constructing a 3-mile-long canal. Each station is located close to its dam, with a generator capacity of 1,200 kilowatts at one station and 1,500 kilowatts at the other. Transmission lines carry power from both plants to the same substation in Hartford.
Sometimes two or more water-powers on the same river that are to be united are so far apart that any attempt to construct a canal between them would be impracticable. This is illustrated by the Spier and Mechanicsville Falls on the Hudson River, which are 25 miles apart in a direct line and at a greater distance by the course of the stream. At Spier Falls the head is 80 feet, and at Mechanicsville it is 18 feet. Union of the power of these two falls is thus out of the question for physical reasons alone. Electrical transmission, however, brings energy from both of these water-powers to the same sub-stations in Schenectady, Albany, and Troy.
Sometimes, two or more water power sources on the same river that need to be connected are so far apart that trying to build a canal between them is impossible. This is exemplified by Spier and Mechanicsville Falls on the Hudson River, which are 25 miles apart in a straight line and even farther apart by the course of the river. At Spier Falls, the elevation is 80 feet, while at Mechanicsville, it is 18 feet. Because of these physical differences, combining the power of these two falls is simply not feasible. However, electrical transmission allows energy from both of these water power sources to reach the same substations in Schenectady, Albany, and Troy.
In another class of cases electrical transmission does what could not be done by any system of canals, however expensive; that is, unites the water-powers of distinct and distant rivers at any desired point. Thus power from both the Merrimac and the Piscataquog rivers is distributed over the same wires in Manchester; the Yuba and the Mokelumne contribute to electrical supply along the streets of San Francisco; and the Monte Alto and Tlalnepantla yield energy in the City of Mexico.
In another category of cases, electrical transmission accomplishes what no system of canals, no matter how costly, could achieve; it connects the water powers of separate and far-off rivers at any point needed. For example, power from both the Merrimac and the Piscataquog rivers is shared over the same wires in Manchester; the Yuba and the Mokelumne supply electricity throughout the streets of San Francisco; and the Monte Alto and Tlalnepantla provide energy in Mexico City.
It does not follow from the foregoing that it is always more economical to develop two or more smaller water-powers at different points along a river for transmission to some common centre than it is to concentrate the water at a single larger station by more elaborate hydraulic construction, and then deliver all of the energy over a single transmission line. The single larger hydraulic and electric plant will usually have a first cost larger than that of the several smaller ones, because of the required canals or pipe lines. A partial offset to this larger hydraulic investment is the difference in cost between one and several transmission lines, or at least the cost of the lines that would be necessary between the several smaller stations in order to combine their energy output before its transmission over a single line to the point of use.
It doesn't mean that it's always cheaper to build two or more smaller hydro plants at different points along a river for transmission to a common location than it is to focus all the water at one larger facility using more complex hydraulic systems and then send all the energy over a single transmission line. The larger plant will often have a higher initial cost than the smaller ones because of the necessary canals or pipelines. However, this higher investment in the larger plant is somewhat offset by the cost difference between using one transmission line versus several, or at least the expenses of the lines needed to connect the smaller plants in order to combine their energy output before sending it over one line to the usage point.
Against the total excess of cost for the single larger hydraulic and electrical plant there should be set the greater expense of operation at[59] several smaller and separate plants. Even a small water-driven electric station that can be operated by a single attendant at any one time must have two attendants if it is to deliver energy during the greater part or all of every twenty-four hours. But a single attendant can care for a water-power plant of 2,000 horse-power or more capacity, so that two plants of 750 horse-power each will require double the operating force of one plant of 1,500 horse-power. If two such plants are constructed instead of one that has their combined capacity, the monthly wages of the two additional operators will amount to at least one hundred dollars. If money is worth six per cent yearly, it follows that an additional investment of $1,200 ÷ 0.06 = $20,000 might be made in hydraulic work to concentrate the power at one point before the annual interest charge would equal the increase of wages made necessary by two plants.
Compared to the overall cost of a single larger hydraulic and electrical facility, you need to consider the higher operating expenses of several smaller, separate facilities. Even a small water-powered electric station, which can be run by one operator at a time, needs two operators if it’s going to provide energy for most or all of the twenty-four-hour cycle. However, a single operator can manage a power plant with a capacity of 2,000 horsepower or more, meaning that two plants of 750 horsepower each would require twice the workforce of one plant with a capacity of 1,500 horsepower. If two such plants are built instead of one that has their combined capacity, the monthly wages for the two extra operators will be at least one hundred dollars. If money earns six percent per year, then an additional investment of $1,200 ÷ 0.06 = $20,000 could be made in hydraulic infrastructure to consolidate the power at one location before the annual interest cost equals the wage increase from operating two plants.
Reliability of operation is one of the most important requirements in an electric water-power plant, and its construction should be carried out with this in view. Anchor ice is a serious menace to the regular operation of water-wheels in cold climates, because it clogs up the openings in the racks and in the wheel passages. Anchor ice is formed in small particles in the water of shallow and fast-flowing streams, and tends to form into masses on solid substances with which the water comes in contact.
Reliability is one of the most important requirements for an electric water-power plant, so its construction should focus on this aspect. Anchor ice poses a significant threat to the smooth operation of water-wheels in cold climates because it blocks the openings in the racks and the wheel passages. Anchor ice forms as small particles in the water of shallow, fast-flowing streams and tends to clump together on solid surfaces that the water touches.
At the entrance to penstocks or wheel chambers, steel racks with long, narrow openings, say one and one-quarter inches wide, are regularly placed to keep all floating objects away from the wheels. When water bearing fine anchor or frazil ice comes in contact with these racks, it rapidly clogs up the narrow openings between the bars, unless men are kept at work raking off the ice as it forms. At the Niagara Falls electric station, in some instances, when the racks become clogged, they have been lifted, and the anchor ice allowed to pass down through the wheels. This is said to have proved an effective remedy, but it would obviously be of no avail in a case where the ice clogged the passages of the wheels themselves.
At the entrance to penstocks or wheel chambers, steel racks with long, narrow openings, about one and a quarter inches wide, are regularly installed to keep any floating debris away from the wheels. When water carrying fine anchor ice or frazil ice makes contact with these racks, it quickly blocks the narrow openings between the bars unless workers are actively removing the ice as it forms. At the Niagara Falls electric station, there have been instances where the racks became clogged, and they were lifted to allow the anchor ice to pass through the wheels. This is said to have been an effective solution, but it would obviously not help if the ice blocked the openings of the wheels themselves.
The best safeguard against anchor ice is a large, deep forebay next to the racks, where the water, being comparatively quiet, will soon freeze over after cold weather commences. The anchor ice coming down to this forebay and losing most of its forward motion, soon rises to the surface or to the under side of the top coating of solid ice, and the warmer water sinks to the bottom. Good construction puts the entrance ends of penstocks well below the surface of water in the forebay, so that they may receive the warmer water that contains little or no anchor ice.
The best way to protect against anchor ice is to have a large, deep forebay beside the racks. In this area, the water is relatively calm and will freeze over quickly when cold weather starts. As anchor ice flows into the forebay and slows down, it either rises to the surface or settles under the solid ice layer on top, while the warmer water moves to the bottom. Proper construction ensures that the entrance ends of penstocks are well below the surface of the water in the forebay, allowing them to take in the warmer water that has little or no anchor ice.

Fig. 7.—Cross Section of Dike on Chicopee River at Red Bridge.
Fig. 7.—Cross Section of Dike on Chicopee River at Red Bridge.
Illustrations of practice along these lines, as to size, depth of forebay, and location of penstocks may be seen in many well-designed plants. One instance is that at Garvins Falls, on the Merrimac River, where the new hydraulic development for 5,000 horse-power is now under way. Water from the river in this case comes down to the power-station through a canal 500 feet long, and of 68 feet average width midway between the bottom and the normal flow line. In depth up to his flow line the canal is 12 feet at its upper and 13 feet at its lower end, just before it widens into the forebay. In this forebay the depth increases to 17 feet, and the width at the rack is double that of the canal. The steel penstocks, each 12 feet in diameter, terminate in the forebay wall at an average distance of 7 feet behind the rack, and each penstock has its centre 10.6 feet below the water level in the forebay. As there is a large pond created by the dam in this case, and as the flow of water in the canal is deep rather than swift, enough opportunity is probably afforded for any anchor ice to rise to the surface before it reaches the forebay in this case.
Illustrations of practice in terms of size, depth of forebay, and location of penstocks can be found in many well-designed plants. One example is at Garvins Falls, on the Merrimac River, where the new hydraulic development for 5,000 horsepower is currently underway. Water from the river flows to the power station through a canal that is 500 feet long and has an average width of 68 feet, measured midway between the bottom and the normal flow line. The canal is 12 feet deep at the upper end and 13 feet deep at the lower end, just before it widens into the forebay. In this forebay, the depth increases to 17 feet, and the width at the rack is double that of the canal. The steel penstocks, each 12 feet in diameter, end in the forebay wall about 7 feet behind the rack, with each penstock’s center positioned 10.6 feet below the water level in the forebay. Since a large pond is created by the dam in this case, and the water flow in the canal is deep rather than fast, there is likely enough chance for any anchor ice to rise to the surface before reaching the forebay.
Penstocks for the electric station at Great Falls, on the Presumpscot River, whence energy is drawn for lighting and power in Portland, Me., are each 8 feet in diameter, and pierce the forebay wall behind the rack with their centres 15 feet below the normal water level in the forebay. In front of the forebay wall the water stands 27 feet deep, and the pond formed by the dam, of which the forebay wall forms one section, is 1,000 feet wide and very quiet. Though the Maine climate is very cold in winter and the Presumpscot is a turbulent stream above the dam and pond, there has never been any trouble with anchor ice at the Great Falls plant. An excellent illustration is thus presented of the fact that deep, still water in the forebay is a remedy for troubles with ice of this sort.
Penstocks for the power station at Great Falls, on the Presumpscot River, which supplies energy for lighting and power in Portland, Maine, are each 8 feet in diameter and extend through the forebay wall behind the rack, with their centers 15 feet below the normal water level in the forebay. In front of the forebay wall, the water is 27 feet deep, and the pond created by the dam, of which the forebay wall is part, is 1,000 feet wide and very calm. Although the Maine climate is extremely cold in winter and the Presumpscot is a fast-moving stream upstream of the dam and pond, there has never been any issue with anchor ice at the Great Falls plant. This clearly shows that deep, still water in the forebay is an effective solution for problems with this type of ice.
Maximum loads on electrical supply systems are usually from twice to four times as great as the average loads during each twenty-four hours.[61] A pure lighting service tends toward the larger ratio between the average and maximum load, while a larger motor capacity along with the lamps, tends to reduce the ratio. Furthermore, by far the greater part of the energy output of an electrical supply system during each twenty-four hours must be delivered between noon and midnight. For these reasons there must be enough water stored, that can flow to the station as wanted, to carry a large share of the load during each day, unless storage batteries are employed to absorb energy at times of light load, if the entire normal flow of the river is to be utilized.
Maximum loads on electrical supply systems are typically two to four times higher than the average loads over a 24-hour period.[61] Pure lighting services usually have a larger ratio between average and maximum load, whereas a higher motor capacity combined with the lights tends to lower that ratio. Additionally, a significant portion of the energy output from an electrical supply system each day needs to be delivered between noon and midnight. For these reasons, there must be enough water stored that can flow to the station as needed to handle a large part of the load each day, unless storage batteries are used to absorb energy during periods of low demand, if the whole normal flow of the river is to be effectively utilized.
It is usually much cheaper to store water than electrical energy for the daily fluctuations of load, and the only practicable place for this storage is most commonly behind the dam that maintains the head for the power-station. This storage space should be so large that the drain upon it during the hours of heavy load will lower the head of water on the wheels but little, else it may be hard to maintain the standard speed of revolution for the wheels and generators, and consequently the transmission voltage.
It’s usually much cheaper to store water than electrical energy for daily load fluctuations, and the most practical place for this storage is typically behind the dam that creates the water head for the power station. This storage area should be large enough so that the demand during peak hours doesn’t significantly lower the water head on the turbines; otherwise, it can be challenging to maintain the standard speed of the turbines and generators, which affects the transmission voltage.

Fig. 8.—Valley Flooded above Spier Falls on the Hudson River.
Fig. 8.—Valley Flooded above Spier Falls on the Hudson River.
At the Great Falls plant, water storage to provide for the fluctuations of load in different parts of the day takes place back of the dam, and for[62] about one mile up-stream. This dam is 450 feet long in its main part, and a retaining wall increases the total length to about 1,000 feet. For half a mile up-stream from this dike and dam the average width of the pond is 1,000 feet, and its greatest depth is not less than 27 feet. As the station capacity is 2,700 horse-power in main generators, with a head of 35 feet at the wheels the storage capacity is more than ample for all changes of load at different times of day.
At the Great Falls plant, water is stored behind the dam to handle the load fluctuations throughout the day, extending about a mile upstream. This dam is 450 feet long in its main section, and a retaining wall brings the total length to about 1,000 feet. For half a mile upstream from this dike and dam, the pond's average width is 1,000 feet, with a maximum depth of at least 27 feet. With a station capacity of 2,700 horsepower in the main generators and a head of 35 feet at the wheels, the storage capacity is more than sufficient to accommodate all the changes in load at different times of the day.
The dam at Spier Falls, on the Hudson River, is 1,820 feet long between banks, 155 feet high above bedrock in its deepest section, and raises the river 50 feet above its former level. Behind the dam a lake is formed one-third of a mile wide and 5 miles long. Water from this storage reservoir passes down through the turbines with a head of 80 feet, and is to develop 32,000 horse-power. As a little calculation will show, this lake is ample to maintain the head under any fluctuation in the daily load. At Cañon Ferry, where electrical energy for Butte and Helena, Mont., is developed, the dam, which is 480 feet long, crosses the river in a narrow canyon that extends up-stream for about half a mile. Above this canyon the river valley widens out, and the dam, which maintains a head of 30 feet at the power-station, sets back the water in this valley, and thus forms a lake between two and three miles wide and about seven miles long. At the station the generator equipment has a total rating of 10,000 horse-power. From these figures it may be seen that the storage lake would be able to maintain nearly the normal head of water for some hours, when the station was operating under full load, however small the flow of the river above.
The dam at Spier Falls on the Hudson River is 1,820 feet long from one bank to the other, 155 feet tall at its highest point above the bedrock, and raises the river by 50 feet from its previous level. Behind the dam, a lake forms that is one-third of a mile wide and 5 miles long. Water from this reservoir flows down through the turbines with an 80-foot drop, generating 32,000 horsepower. A simple calculation will show that this lake is more than enough to maintain the water level during any daily load fluctuations. At Cañon Ferry, where electricity for Butte and Helena, Montana, is produced, the dam is 480 feet long and spans a narrow canyon that stretches upstream for about half a mile. Above this canyon, the river valley widens, and the dam, which maintains a 30-foot head at the power station, backs up the water in this valley, forming a lake that is between two and three miles wide and about seven miles long. The generator equipment at the station has a total rating of 10,000 horsepower. From these numbers, it’s clear that the storage lake can sustain nearly the normal water level for several hours while the station operates at full capacity, regardless of how low the river flow is above it.

Fig. 9.—Canal at Bulls Bridge on Housatonic River.
Fig. 9.—Canal at Bulls Bridge on the Housatonic River.
CHAPTER VII.
THE LOCATIONS OF ELECTRIC WATER POWER STATIONS.
Cost of water-power development depends, in large measure, on the location of the electric station that is to be operated. The form of such a station, its cost, and the type of generating apparatus to be employed are also much influenced by the site selected for it. This site may be exactly at, or far removed from, the point where water that is to pass through the wheels is diverted from its natural course.
The cost of developing water power is largely determined by the location of the electric station that will be operated. The design of the station, its cost, and the type of generating equipment used are also significantly influenced by the chosen site. This site can be exactly where the water is diverted from its natural flow or located far away from that point.
A unique example of a location of the former kind is to be found near Burlington, Vt., where the electric station is itself a dam, being built entirely across the natural bed of one arm of the Winooski River at a point where an island near its centre divides the stream into two parts. The river at this point has cut its way down through solid rock, leaving perpendicular walls on either side. Up from the ledge that forms the bed of the stream, and into the rocky walls, the power-station, about 110 feet long, is built. The up-stream wall of this station is built after the fashion of a dam, and is reënforced by the down-stream wall, and the water flows directly through the power-station by way of the wheels. A construction of this sort is all that could well be attained in the way of economy, there being neither canal nor long penstocks, and only one wall of a power-house apart from the dam. On the other hand, the location of a station directly across the bed of a river in this way makes it impossible to protect the machinery if the up-stream wall, which acts as the dam, should ever give way. The peculiar natural conditions favorable to the construction just considered are seldom found.
A unique example of a location of the former kind can be found near Burlington, VT, where the power station is actually a dam, built completely across the natural bed of one branch of the Winooski River at a point where an island near the center divides the flow into two sections. The river here has carved its way through solid rock, leaving vertical walls on both sides. The power station, about 110 feet long, is built into the rocky walls, rising from the ledge that forms the riverbed. The upstream wall of this station is designed like a dam and is supported by the downstream wall, allowing water to flow directly through the power station via the turbines. This design is the most economical option available, as it eliminates the need for canals or long penstocks, with only one wall of the power house separate from the dam. However, placing a station directly across the riverbed in this way makes it impossible to secure the machinery if the upstream wall, which serves as the dam, ever fails. The specific natural conditions that make this type of construction possible are rarely found.

Fig. 10.—Power-house on the Winooski River, near Burlington, Vt.
Fig. 10.—Power plant on the Winooski River, close to Burlington, VT.
One of the most common locations for an electric water-power station is at one side of a river, directly in front of one end of the dam and close to the foot of the falls. A location of this kind was adopted for the station at Gregg’s Falls, one of the water-powers included in the electric system of Manchester, N. H., where the spray of the fall rises over the roof of the station. Two short steel penstocks, each ten feet in diameter, convey the water from the forebay section of the dam to wheels in the station with a head of fifty-one feet.
One of the most common places for an electric water-power station is on one side of a river, directly across from one end of the dam and near the foot of the falls. This type of location was chosen for the station at Gregg’s Falls, part of the electric system in Manchester, N.H., where the spray from the falls rises over the roof of the station. Two short steel penstocks, each ten feet in diameter, carry the water from the forebay section of the dam to the turbines in the station with a head of fifty-one feet.

Fig. 11.—Canal and Power-house on St. Joseph River, Buchanan, Mich.
Fig. 11.—Canal and Powerhouse on St. Joseph River, Buchanan, MI.
A similar location was selected for the station at Great Falls, on the[65]
[66]
[67]
Presumpscot River (see cuts), whence electrical energy is delivered in
Portland, Me. Four steel penstocks, a few feet long and each eight feet
in diameter, bring the water in this case from the forebay section of the
dam to the wheel cases in the power-house.
A similar site was chosen for the station at Great Falls, on the[65]
[66]
[67] Presumpscot River (see cuts), where electrical energy is supplied to Portland, ME. Four steel penstocks, each a few feet long and eight feet in diameter, carry the water from the forebay section of the dam to the turbine chambers in the powerhouse.

Fig. 12.—Power-house on Hudson River at Mechanicsville.
Fig. 12.—Power plant on the Hudson River at Mechanicsville.
Where the power-station is located at the foot of the dam, as just described, that part which serves as a forebay wall usually carries a head gate for each penstock. The overfall section of a dam may give way in cases like the two just noted without necessarily destroying the power-station, but in times of freshet or very high water the station may be flooded and its operation stopped. The risk of any such flooding will vary greatly on different rivers, and in particular cases may be very slight. Location of the generating station close to the foot of the dam at one end obviously avoids all expense for a canal and cuts the cost of penstocks down to a very low figure.
Where the power station is situated at the base of the dam, as mentioned earlier, that section acting as a forebay wall typically has a head gate for each penstock. The overflow part of a dam may give way in scenarios like the two just mentioned without necessarily damaging the power station, but during floods or very high water, the station could be submerged, halting operations. The likelihood of such flooding varies significantly across different rivers and, in specific situations, could be minimal. Placing the generating station near the base of the dam on one end obviously eliminates the need for a canal and significantly reduces the cost of penstocks.
Such locations for stations are not limited to falls of any particular height, and the short penstocks usually enter the dam nearer its base than its top and pass to the station at only a slight inclination from the horizontal. At Great Falls, above mentioned, the head of water is thirty-seven feet.
Such locations for stations aren't restricted to waterfalls of any specific height, and the short penstocks typically enter the dam closer to its base than its top, running to the station at only a slight angle from horizontal. At Great Falls, as mentioned earlier, the water head is thirty-seven feet.
A short canal is constructed in some cases from one end of a dam to a little distance down-stream, terminating at a favorable site for the electric station. Construction of this sort was adopted at the Birchem Bend Falls of the Chicopee River, whence energy is supplied to Springfield, Mass. These falls furnish a head of fourteen feet, and the water-wheels are located on the floor of the open canal at its end. The power-station is on the shore side of this canal, and the shafts of the water-wheels extend through bushings in the canal wall, which forms the lower part of one side of the station, to connect with the electric generators inside.
A short canal is sometimes built from one end of a dam to a short distance downstream, ending at a suitable spot for the electric station. This type of construction was used at the Birchem Bend Falls of the Chicopee River, which supplies energy to Springfield, Mass. These falls provide a height of fourteen feet, and the water wheels are positioned on the floor of the open canal at its end. The power station is located on the shore side of this canal, and the shafts of the water wheels extend through bushings in the canal wall, which forms the lower part of one side of the station, to connect with the electric generators inside.
This rather unusual location of water-wheels has at least the obvious advantage that they require no room inside of the station. Furthermore, as the canal is between the station and the river, any break in the canal is not apt to flood the station.
This pretty unusual spot for the water-wheels has at least the clear benefit that they don’t need any space inside the station. Plus, since the canal is between the station and the river, any break in the canal is unlikely to flood the station.

Fig. 13.—York Haven Power-house, on Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania.
Fig. 13.—York Haven Powerhouse, on the Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania.
An illustration of the use of a very short canal to convey water from one end of a dam to a power-station exists in the 10,000 horse-power plant at Cañon Ferry, Mont., where the head of water is thirty feet. In this case the masonry canal is but little longer than the power-house, and this latter sits squarely between the canal and the river, virtually at the foot of the falls. Other examples of the location of generating stations between short canals and the river may be seen at Concord, N. H., where the head of water is sixteen feet; at Lewiston, Me., where the head is thirty-two feet; and at Spier Falls, on the Hudson River, New York, where there is a head of eighty feet.
An example of using a very short canal to direct water from one end of a dam to a power station can be seen in the 10,000 horsepower plant at Cañon Ferry, Montana, where the water head is thirty feet. In this case, the masonry canal is only slightly longer than the powerhouse, which is located directly between the canal and the river, essentially at the base of the falls. Other instances of generating stations situated between short canals and the river can be found in Concord, New Hampshire, with a water head of sixteen feet; Lewiston, Maine, where the head is thirty-two feet; and Spier Falls on the Hudson River, New York, where there is a head of eighty feet.
There is some gain in security in many cases by locating the power-station several hundred feet from the dam and a little to one side of the main river channel. For such cases a canal may be cheaper than steel penstocks when the items of depreciation and repairs are taken into account. Aside from the question of greater security for the station in the event of a break in the dam, it is necessary in many cases to convey the water a large fraction of a mile, or even a number of miles, from the point where it leaves its natural course to that where the power-station should be located. An example in point exists at Springfield, Mass., where one of the electric water-power stations is located about 1,400 feet down-stream from a fall of thirty-six feet in the Chicopee River, because land close to the falls was all occupied at the time the electric station was built.
There’s an advantage in terms of security in many situations by placing the power station a few hundred feet away from the dam and slightly off to the side of the main river channel. In these cases, a canal might be more cost-effective than steel penstocks when you factor in depreciation and repair costs. Beyond the benefits of enhanced security for the station in case of a dam break, it’s often necessary to move the water several thousand feet, or even miles, from where it naturally flows to the ideal location for the power station. A relevant example can be found in Springfield, Mass., where one of the electric water-power stations is situated about 1,400 feet downstream from a thirty-six-foot drop in the Chicopee River, as the land near the falls was fully occupied when the electric station was constructed.

Fig. 14.—Power-house at Cañon Ferry on the Missouri River.
Fig. 14.—Powerhouse at Cañon Ferry on the Missouri River.

Fig. 15.—Shawinigan Falls Power-plant.
Fig. 15.—Shawinigan Falls Power Plant.
The Shawinigan Falls of the St. Maurice River in Canada occur at two points a short distance apart, the fall at one point being about 50 and at the other 100 feet high. A canal 1,000 feet long takes water from the river above the upper of these falls and delivers it near to the electric power-house on the river bank below the lower falls. In this way a head of 125 feet is obtained at the power-house. The canal in this case ends on high ground 130 feet from the power-house, and the water passes down to the wheels through steel penstocks 9 feet in diameter.
The Shawinigan Falls on the St. Maurice River in Canada happen at two locations a short distance apart, with one fall being about 50 feet high and the other around 100 feet high. A 1,000-foot-long canal directs water from the river above the upper fall and delivers it close to the electric power house located on the riverbank below the lower falls. This creates a head of 125 feet at the power house. In this case, the canal ends on high ground 130 feet from the power house, and the water flows down to the turbines through steel penstocks that are 9 feet in diameter.

Fig. 16.—Power-house on White River, Oregon.
Fig. 16.—Power plant on White River, Oregon.
Another interesting example of conditions that require a power-house to be located some distance from the point where water is diverted from its natural course may be seen at the falls on the Apple River, whence energy is transmitted to St. Paul, Minn. By means of a natural fall of 30 feet, a dam 47 feet high some distance up-stream, and some rapids in the river, it was there possible to obtain a total fall of 82 feet. To utilize this entire fall a timber flume, 1,550 feet in length, was built from the dam to a point near the power-house on the river bank and below the falls and rapids. The flume was connected with the wheels, 82 feet below, by a steel penstock 313 feet long and 12 feet in diameter.
Another interesting example of conditions that require a power plant to be located some distance from where water is taken from its natural flow can be seen at the falls on the Apple River, which supplies energy to St. Paul, Minnesota. With a natural drop of 30 feet, a dam 47 feet high situated upstream, and some rapids in the river, it was possible to achieve a total drop of 82 feet. To make use of this entire drop, a timber flume, 1,550 feet long, was constructed from the dam to a point near the power plant on the riverbank, downstream from the falls and rapids. The flume connected to the turbines, 82 feet below, with a steel penstock that is 313 feet long and 12 feet in diameter.
As the St. Mary’s River leaves Lake Superior it passes over a series of rapids about half a mile in length, falling twenty feet in that distance. To make the power of this great volume of water available, a canal 13,000 feet long was excavated from the lake to a point on the river bank below the rapids. Between the end of the canal and the river sits the power-station, acting as a dam, and the water passes down through it and the wheels under a head of twenty feet.
As the St. Mary’s River flows out of Lake Superior, it goes over a series of rapids that are about half a mile long, dropping twenty feet in that distance. To harness the power of this massive volume of water, a canal 13,000 feet long was dug from the lake to a spot on the riverbank below the rapids. Between the end of the canal and the river is the power station, which functions as a dam, and the water flows through it and the turbines with a pressure of twenty feet.

Fig. 17.—Power-house Across Canal at Sault Ste. Marie, Mich.
Fig. 17.—Power plant across the canal at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.
By means of a canal 16,200 feet long from the St. Lawrence River a head of water amounting to fifty feet has been made available at a point on the bank of Grass River near Massena, N. Y. There again the power-station acts as a dam, and the canal water passes down through it to reach the river.
By using a canal that's 16,200 feet long from the St. Lawrence River, a water head of fifty feet has been created at a spot on the bank of Grass River near Massena, N.Y. Here, the power station also functions as a dam, allowing the canal water to flow through it and into the river.

Fig. 18.—Canal and Station on Payette River, Idaho.
Fig. 18.—Canal and Station on the Payette River, Idaho.
From these illustrations it may be seen that in many cases, in comparatively level country, a water-power can be fully developed only by means of canals or pipe lines, and the generating stations cannot be located at the points where the water is diverted.
From these illustrations, it can be seen that in many cases, in relatively flat areas, water power can only be fully utilized through canals or pipelines, and the generating stations can't be placed where the water is diverted.
Thus far the cases considered have been only those with moderate heads and rather large volumes of water. In mountainous country, where rivers are comparatively small and their courses are marked by numerous falls and rapids, it is generally necessary to utilize the fall of a stream through some miles of its length in order to effect a satisfactory development of power. To reach this result, rather long canals, flumes, or pipe lines must be utilized to convey the water to power-stations and deliver it at high pressures.
So far, the cases we've looked at have only involved streams with moderate flow and fairly large volumes of water. In mountainous areas, where rivers tend to be smaller and have many falls and rapids, it's usually essential to make use of the drop in elevation over several miles of the stream to achieve an effective power generation. To accomplish this, we often need to use long canals, flumes, or pipelines to transport the water to power stations and deliver it at high pressures.
In cases of this kind the cost of the canal or pipe line may be the largest item in the power development, and it may be an important question whether this cost should be reduced or avoided by the erection of several[74] small generating plants instead of one large one. California offers numerous examples of electric-power development with water that has been carried several miles through artificial channels. An illustration of this class of work exists at the Electra power-house on the bank of the Mokelumne River, in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Water is supplied to the wheels in this station under a head of 1,450 feet through pipes 3,600 feet long leading to the top of a near-by hill. To reach this hill the water, after its diversion from the Mokelumne River at the dam, flows twenty miles through a canal or ditch and then through 3,000 feet of wooden stave pipe.
In situations like this, the cost of the canal or pipeline can be the biggest expense in power development, and it raises an important question about whether this cost should be lowered or avoided by building several small generating plants instead of one large one. California provides many examples of electric power development using water that has been transported several miles through artificial channels. One such example is the Electra power house located by the Mokelumne River in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Water is delivered to the turbines at this station under a pressure of 1,450 feet through pipes that are 3,600 feet long, leading to the top of a nearby hill. To reach this hill, the water, after being diverted from the Mokelumne River at the dam, flows twenty miles through a canal or ditch and then through 3,000 feet of wooden stave pipe.
Another example of the same sort may be seen in the power-house at Colgate, on the North Yuba River, in the chain of mountains above named. Water taken from this river passes through a wooden flume nearly eight miles long to the side of a hill 700 feet above the power-house, and thence down to the wheels through steel and cast-iron pipes, five in number and thirty inches each in diameter.
Another example of the same kind can be found at the power-house in Colgate, on the North Yuba River, in the mountain range mentioned earlier. Water from this river flows through a wooden flume that's nearly eight miles long to a hill 700 feet above the power-house, and then it rushes down to the turbines through five steel and cast-iron pipes, each thirty inches in diameter.
Even with long flumes, canals, and pipe lines, it may be necessary to locate a number of generating stations along a single river of the class now under consideration in order to utilize its entire power. Thus on the Kern River, which rises in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and empties into Tulare Lake, two electric power-stations are under construction, and surveys are being made for three more. Of these stations, the one at the lowest level will operate under an 872-foot head of water, and this water, after its diversion from the river, will pass through twenty-one tunnels, with an aggregate length of about ten miles, and through six flumes mounted on trestles and having a total length of 1,703 feet.
Even with long flumes, canals, and pipelines, it might be necessary to set up several power stations along the same river to fully harness its energy. For example, on the Kern River, which starts in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and flows into Tulare Lake, two electric power stations are being built, and surveys are underway for three more. The lowest station will work with an 872-foot head of water, which, after being diverted from the river, will go through twenty-one tunnels that total about ten miles in length, plus six flumes on trestles that are 1,703 feet long altogether.
Next up-stream is a station near the point where water is diverted for the plant just named. This second station will work under a head of 317 feet, and water for it will come from a point farther up-stream by canals, tunnels, and flumes, with an aggregate length of eleven and one-half miles. At three points still higher up on this river it is the intention to locate three other power-stations by conducting the water in artificial channels, about twelve and one-half, fifteen, and twenty miles in length respectively.
Next up-stream is a station close to where water is diverted for the previously mentioned plant. This second station will operate with a head of 317 feet, and the water will be sourced from a point further up-stream through canals, tunnels, and flumes, totaling an overall length of eleven and a half miles. At three locations further up the river, there are plans to establish three additional power stations by directing the water through artificial channels, approximately twelve and a half, fifteen, and twenty miles long, respectively.
Farther south in California, on the Santa Ana River and Mill Creek,
extensive power developments on the lines just indicated have been carried
out. On Mill Creek, about six miles from the city of Redlands, is
an electric station operating under a head of 530 feet, with water in part
diverted from the stream a little less than two miles above and brought[75]
[76]
down through a steel pipe 10,250 feet long and thirty inches in diameter.
This pipe line also takes water from the tail race of another generating
plant at its upper end. With some additions and modifications,
the station just described is the famous Redlands plant, built in 1893,
and believed to be the first for three-phase transmission in the United
States.
Farther south in California, on the Santa Ana River and Mill Creek, significant power developments have been implemented as previously mentioned. On Mill Creek, about six miles from the city of Redlands, there’s an electric station that operates with a water head of 530 feet, utilizing water partly diverted from the stream just under two miles upstream and transported[75]
[76] through a steel pipe that’s 10,250 feet long and thirty inches wide. This pipeline also collects water from the tail race of another generating plant at its upper end. With some upgrades and changes, the station described is the well-known Redlands plant, built in 1893, and is believed to be the first in the United States for three-phase transmission.

Fig. 19.—Canal and Power-station on Neversink River, New York.
Fig. 19.—Canal and Power Station on the Neversink River, New York.
Larger map (176 kB)
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ (176 kB)
At the upper end of the pipe line just named the second station operates, in part, with water drawn from Mill Creek through a combination of tunnels, flumes, and cement and steel pipes, with a combined length of about three miles, and delivered to some of the wheels with a head of 627 feet. The other wheels at this plant receive water drawn from the same creek by a pipe line about six miles long. A large part of this line is composed of 31-inch cement pipe, laid in trenches and tunnels. The water in the 8,000 feet of pipe next to the power-house has a fall of 1,960 feet, and this pipe is of steel and 24 and 26 inches in diameter. The head of 1,960 feet, minus friction losses in the steel pipes, is delivered at the wheels.
At the upper end of the pipeline just mentioned, the second station operates partly with water taken from Mill Creek through a mix of tunnels, flumes, and cement and steel pipes that add up to about three miles in total length. This water is delivered to some of the turbines with a height difference of 627 feet. The other turbines at this facility get their water from the same creek via a pipeline that's about six miles long. A large portion of this line consists of 31-inch cement pipes laid in trenches and tunnels. The water in the 8,000 feet of pipe next to the power house drops 1,960 feet, and this pipe is made of steel and has diameters of 24 and 26 inches. The height difference of 1,960 feet, minus friction losses in the steel pipes, is what reaches the turbines.
From the foregoing it appears that in a space of eight miles along Mill Creek there is a fall of more than 2,490 feet. To utilize this fall, water is diverted from the creek at three points within a distance of six miles and delivered in two power-stations under three different heads. As the stream gathers in volume between the upper and the lower intakes, an equal amount of power could have been developed in a single station only by taking the three separate conduits or pipe lines to it and delivering their water there at three heads.
From the above, it seems that over a distance of eight miles along Mill Creek, there’s a drop of more than 2,490 feet. To take advantage of this fall, water is diverted from the creek at three locations within six miles and sent to two power stations under three different pressures. As the stream increases in volume between the upper and lower intakes, the same amount of power could have been generated in a single station only by combining the three separate channels or pipelines and delivering their water there at three different pressures.
Whether the expense of extending conduits and pipe lines to a single generating station will more than offset the advantages to be gained thereby is a question that should be decided on a number of factors varying with each case. In general, it may be said that the smaller the volume of water to be handled and the greater its head, the more advantageous is it to concentrate the generating machinery in the smallest practicable number of stations.
Whether the cost of extending pipes and conduits to a single power station outweighs the benefits is a question that should be evaluated based on several factors that differ in each situation. Generally, it can be said that the smaller the amount of water to be managed and the higher its head, the more beneficial it is to focus the generating equipment in the smallest feasible number of stations.
On the Santa Ana River, into which Mill Creek flows, the Santa Ana plant, whence energy is transmitted to Los Angeles, is located. Water reaches this plant through a conduit of tunnels, flumes, and pipes, with a total length of about three miles from the point where the flow of the river is diverted. The 2,210 feet of this conduit nearest the power-plant are composed of 30-inch steel pipe, with a fall of 728 feet.
On the Santa Ana River, where Mill Creek joins, you'll find the Santa Ana plant, which supplies energy to Los Angeles. Water gets to this plant via a system of tunnels, flumes, and pipes that stretches about three miles from where the river is redirected. The 2,210 feet of this system closest to the power plant is made up of 30-inch steel pipe, with a drop of 728 feet.
Within fifteen miles of Mexico City are five water-power stations that supply energy for its electrical system. Two of these stations are on the[77] Monte Alto and three are on the Tlalnepantla River, the two former stations being about three miles, and the more distant of the three latter stations five miles, apart. At a distance of several miles above the highest station on each river the water is diverted by a canal, and the water of each of these canals, after passing through the wheels of the highest station, goes on to the remaining station, or stations, on the same river by a continuation of the canal.
Within fifteen miles of Mexico City, there are five hydroelectric power stations that provide energy for its electrical system. Two of these stations are on the[77] Monte Alto, and three are on the Tlalnepantla River. The first two stations are about three miles apart, while the farthest of the three latter stations is five miles away. Several miles upstream from the highest station on each river, the water is redirected through a canal. After passing through the turbines of the highest station, the water in each canal continues to the other station or stations on the same river via an extension of the canal.

Fig. 20.—Wood Pipe Line to Pike’s Peak Power-house.
Fig. 20.—Wood Pipe Line to Pike’s Peak Powerhouse.
By placing the stations so short a distance apart the head of water at each station is reduced. On one stream these heads are 492 and 594 feet respectively, and at two of the stations on the other stream they are 547 and 295 feet respectively. This division of the total head of water afforded by each river results in a rather small capacity for each station, the total at the five plants being only 4,225 kilowatts.
By placing the stations so close together, the water pressure at each station is reduced. On one river, the pressures are 492 and 594 feet, respectively, while at two of the stations on the other river, they are 547 and 295 feet, respectively. This split of the total water pressure from each river leads to a relatively small capacity for each station, with the total for the five plants being just 4,225 kilowatts.
In contrast with this figure the already mentioned Electra plant has generators of 10,000, the Santa Ana plant generators of 3,000, and the larger of the two Mill Creek plants generators of 3,500 kilowatts capacity. It should be noted that the cost of operation, as well as that of original construction, will vary materially between one large and several smaller stations of equal total capacity, the advantage as to operative cost being obviously with the one large plant.
In comparison to this figure, the previously mentioned Electra plant has generators that produce 10,000 kilowatts, the Santa Ana plant has generators of 3,000 kilowatts, and the larger of the two Mill Creek plants has generators with a capacity of 3,500 kilowatts. It’s important to note that the costs of operation and original construction will differ significantly between one large plant and several smaller stations with the same total capacity, with the larger plant obviously having the advantage in operational costs.

Fig. 21.—Power-house at Great Falls, Presumpscot River.
Fig. 21.—Powerhouse at Great Falls, Presumpscot River.
Larger plan (153 kB)
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ (153 kB)
All of the power-stations here considered have been equipped with water-wheels and generators operating on horizontal shafts, and this is the general practice. This arrangement brings the generators and the floor of the power-station within a few feet of the level of the tail-water. By the general use of draught tubes with turbine wheels the floors of stations are often kept twenty feet or more above the tail-water level.
All the power stations discussed here are fitted with water wheels and generators that run on horizontal shafts, which is the standard method. This setup places the generators and the power station floor only a few feet above the tail-water level. With the common use of draft tubes and turbine wheels, the floors of these stations are often maintained twenty feet or more above the tail-water level.
Where the total available head of water is quite small, as is often the case with rivers where the volume of water is great, it is generally necessary to bring the level of the station floor down to within a few feet of the tail-water. The Birchem Bend station of the Springfield, Mass., electric system affords a good example of this sort, the floor of this station being only 2.6 feet above the ordinary level of the tail-water. At this station the difference of level between the head- and tail-water is only fourteen feet, and even with the low floor level named the top sides of the horizontal turbine wheels are covered only by 4.5 feet of water.
Where the total available water head is quite small, which is often true for rivers with a large water volume, it's usually necessary to lower the station floor to just a few feet above the tailwater. The Birchem Bend station of the Springfield, Mass., electric system is a good example of this; the floor of this station is only 2.6 feet above the usual level of the tailwater. At this station, the difference in height between the headwater and tailwater is only fourteen feet, and even with the low floor level mentioned, the top sides of the horizontal turbine wheels are only covered by 4.5 feet of water.
At the Garvin’s Falls station of the Manchester, N. H., electric system the level of the floor of the generator room is thirteen feet above the ordinary level of the Merrimac River, on the bank of which this station is located; but in this case the total head of water is about twenty-eight feet. The high water of the Merrimac in 1896, before the Garvin’s Falls station was built, reached a point 5.24 feet above its present floor level, and 18.24 feet above the ordinary level of the river at the point where the station is located.
At the Garvin’s Falls station of the Manchester, N. H., electric system, the floor of the generator room is thirteen feet above the normal level of the Merrimac River, on the bank where this station is situated; however, the total head of water here is about twenty-eight feet. The high water of the Merrimac in 1896, before the Garvin’s Falls station was constructed, reached a height of 5.24 feet above its current floor level and 18.24 feet above the usual level of the river at the station's location.
Under the Red Bridge electric station of the Ludlow Manufacturing Company, on the Chicopee River, in Massachusetts, the tail-water is twenty feet below the level of the floor and twenty-four feet below the centres of the water-wheel and generator shafts. The difference between wheel-shaft and tail-water levels at this station is near the maximum that can be attained with horizontal pressure turbines, because a draught tube much longer than twenty-five feet does not give good results.
Under the Red Bridge electric station of the Ludlow Manufacturing Company, on the Chicopee River in Massachusetts, the tail-water is twenty feet below the floor level and twenty-four feet below the centers of the water-wheel and generator shafts. The difference between the wheel-shaft and tail-water levels at this station is close to the maximum achievable with horizontal pressure turbines, as a draft tube longer than twenty-five feet does not yield good results.
In a pressure turbine the guides and wheel must be completely filled with water, as must also the draught tube, for efficient operation. If draught tubes are much more than twenty-five feet long, it is hard to keep a solid column of water from turbine to tail-water in each, and if this is not done a part of the head of water becomes ineffective. As pressure turbines are employed almost exclusively at electric stations with low heads of water, it is frequently impossible to locate such stations above the possible level of tail-water in times of flood if horizontal wheels direct-connected to generators are employed.
In a pressure turbine, the guides and wheel must be completely filled with water, as must the draft tube, for efficient operation. If draft tubes are much longer than twenty-five feet, it's difficult to maintain a solid column of water from the turbine to the tailwater in each one, and if this isn't achieved, part of the water head becomes ineffective. Since pressure turbines are almost exclusively used at electric stations with low heads of water, it’s often impossible to place such stations above the potential tailwater level during floods when horizontal wheels are directly connected to generators.

Fig. 22.—Power-house at Garvin’s Falls on the Merrimac River.
Fig. 22.—Power plant at Garvin’s Falls on the Merrimac River.
If turbines with vertical shafts are to be used, a power-station may be[81] so located or constructed that all the electrical equipment will be above the highest known water-mark. With vertical shafts, connecting wheels, and generators, the main floor of an electric station may be located above the crest of the falls where the power is developed instead of at or near their base.
If vertical shaft turbines are used, a power station can be[81] designed or built so that all the electrical equipment is higher than the highest known water mark. With vertical shafts, connecting wheels, and generators, the main floor of an electric station can be positioned above the top of the falls where the power is generated, rather than at or near the bottom.

Fig. 23.—Power-house No. 2 at Niagara Falls.
Fig. 23.—Powerhouse No. 2 at Niagara Falls.
By far the most important examples of electric stations laid out on this plan are those at Niagara Falls, where there are four such plants. Two of these generating plants, with an aggregate capacity of 105,000 horse-power, stand a mile above the falls, and are supplied with water through a short canal from Niagara River. Beneath each of these two stations a long, narrow wheel pit has been excavated through rock to a depth of 172 feet below the level of water in the canal. Both wheel pits terminate in a tunnel 7,000 feet long that opens into the river below the falls.
By far the most significant examples of electric stations designed this way are at Niagara Falls, where there are four such plants. Two of these generating plants, with a total capacity of 105,000 horsepower, are located a mile above the falls and receive water through a short canal from the Niagara River. Beneath each of these two stations, a long, narrow wheel pit has been dug through rock to a depth of 172 feet below the water level in the canal. Both wheel pits end in a 7,000-foot-long tunnel that leads into the river below the falls.
In this wheel pit the tail-water level is 161 feet below that of the water in the canal, and 166 feet below the floor of the power-station. Water passes from the canal down the wheel pits to the wheels near the bottom through steel penstocks, each seven feet in diameter, and a vertical shaft extends from each wheel case to a generator in the station above.
In this wheel pit, the tail-water level is 161 feet below the water level in the canal and 166 feet below the floor of the power station. Water flows from the canal down the wheel pits to the wheels at the bottom through steel penstocks, each seven feet in diameter, and a vertical shaft runs from each wheel case to a generator in the station above.
Locations like that at Niagara give great security against high water and washouts, but are seldom adopted because of the large first cost of plant construction. With heads of water from several hundred to 2,000 feet the loss of a few feet of head reduces the available power to only a[82] very slight extent, and impulse wheels are usually employed. Draught tubes are not available to increase the heads at such wheels, and any fall of the water after it leaves the wheels does no useful work.
Locations like Niagara provide strong protection against flooding and washouts, but they're rarely chosen due to the high initial cost of building the facilities. With water heights ranging from a few hundred to 2,000 feet, losing a few feet of height only slightly impacts the available power, which is why impulse wheels are typically used. Draft tubes can't be used to boost the height at these wheels, and any drop in water after it passes through the wheels doesn’t contribute to useful work.

Fig. 24.—Colgate Power-house.
Fig. 24.—Colgate Powerhouse.
Electric stations driven by impulse wheels under great heads, like those at Colgate, Electra, Kern River, Santa Ana River, and Mill Creek, may be located far enough above the beds of their water-courses to avoid dangers from freshets, without serious loss of available power.
Electric stations powered by impulse wheels at high elevations, like those at Colgate, Electra, Kern River, Santa Ana River, and Mill Creek, can be situated high enough above their water courses to prevent risks from flooding, without significantly losing usable power.
CHAPTER VIII.
Design of Electric Hydropower Plants.

Fig. 25.—Cross Section of Columbus, Ga., Power-station.
Fig. 25.—Cross Section of Columbus, GA Power Station.
Larger cross section (251 kB)
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ (251 kB)
Water-wheels must be located at some elevation between that of head- and tail-water. With horizontal shafts and direct-connected wheels and generators the main floor of the station is brought below the level of the wheel centres. This is much the most general type of construction, and was followed in the Massena, Sault Ste. Marie, Cañon Ferry, Colgate, Electra, Santa Ana, and many other well-known water-power stations. If horizontal shafts are employed for wheels and generators with belt or rope connections between them the floor of the generator room may be elevated a number of feet above the wheels. This difference of elevation is usually provided for either by upper and lower parts of the same room, or by separate rooms one above the other and a floor between them. A two-story construction of this latter sort was frequently adopted[84] in the older water-power stations, and good examples of it may be seen in connection with the electrical supply system at Burlington, Vt., and the Indian Orchard station in the Springfield, Mass., system. Vertical wheel shafts make the elevation of the main or generator floor of a station independent of that of the wheels, and thus give the highest degree of security against high water. After the vertical wheel shaft reaches the generator room, it may be geared to a horizontal shaft that has one or more dynamos directly mounted on it, or drives dynamos through belts or ropes. Belt-driving in this way, from horizontal shafts connected by bevel gears with vertical wheel shafts, is not uncommon in the older class of water-power stations. Generators mounted singly or in pairs on horizontal shafts that are driven by gearing on vertical wheel shafts have been adopted at the Lachine Rapids and South Bend plants, and it seems to offer a desirable method of connection in cases where vertical wheels are necessary and the cost of generators must be kept at a low figure. With this method of driving the generators can be designed for any economical speed and step bearings avoided.
Water wheels need to be positioned at a height between the supply water (head water) and the discharge water (tail water). With horizontal shafts and directly connected wheels and generators, the main floor of the station is situated below the level of the wheel centers. This is the most common type of construction and was used in well-known water-power stations like Massena, Sault Ste. Marie, Cañon Ferry, Colgate, Electra, Santa Ana, and many others. If horizontal shafts are used for wheels and generators with belt or rope connections, the generator room floor can be several feet higher than the wheels. This height difference is typically accommodated by having upper and lower sections of the same room or by creating separate rooms, one above the other, with a floor in between. A two-story design like this was often seen in older water-power stations, with good examples found in the electrical supply systems at Burlington, Vt., and the Indian Orchard station in the Springfield, Mass., system. Vertical wheel shafts allow the height of the main or generator floor to be independent of the wheels, providing enhanced protection against high water. After the vertical wheel shaft enters the generator room, it can be connected via gears to a horizontal shaft that has one or more dynamos mounted directly on it or drives dynamos using belts or ropes. This type of belt driving from horizontal shafts linked by bevel gears to vertical wheel shafts is quite common in older water-power stations. Generators mounted individually or in pairs on horizontal shafts, driven by gears from vertical wheel shafts, have been adopted at the Lachine Rapids and South Bend facilities, offering a practical connection method where vertical wheels are needed and keeping generator costs low. With this driving method, generators can be designed for any efficient speed, avoiding the need for step bearings.

Fig. 26.—Cross Section of Combined Steam- and Water-power Station at Richmond, Va.
Fig. 26.—Cross Section of Combined Steam and Water Power Station in Richmond, VA.

Fig. 27.—Cross Section of Wheel House at Buchanan, Mich.
Fig. 27—Cross Section of Wheel House at Buchanan, Michigan.
Larger cross section (140 kB)
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ (140 KB)
The most desirable method of driving generators with vertical wheels, where the expense is not too great, is the direct mounting of each generator[85] on the upper end of a wheel shaft (see cut). This method of connection not only requires a special type of generator, but may put serious limits on its speed. In general, the peripheral speed of a pressure turbine should be about 75 per cent of the theoretical velocity of water issuing under a head equal to that at which the wheel operates, in order to give the best efficiency. The rotative speeds of turbines, operating under any given head, should thus increase as their capacities and diameters decrease. Because of these principles it is the common practice, with horizontal wheels, to mount two or more on each shaft to which a generator is direct-connected in order to obtain a greater speed of rotation than could be obtained with a single wheel of their combined power. Thus, at Sault Ste. Marie the horizontal shaft on which each 400-kilowatt generator is mounted is driven at 180 revolutions per minute by four turbines under a head of about 20 feet. At Massena the head of water is 50 feet, and each 5,000 horse-power generator is driven at 150 revolutions per minute by six turbines on a horizontal shaft. Vertical turbines are sometimes mounted singly on their shafts, as was done in the hydroelectric plant at Oregon City on the Willamette River, and this practice gives speeds that[86] are too low for direct-connected dynamos of moderate cost, unless the head of water is unusually great. At the Oregon City plant the head of water is only 40 feet, and yet a single 42-inch turbine was mounted on the vertical shaft that drives each generator.
The best way to drive generators with vertical wheels, when the cost isn't too high, is to directly mount each generator[85] on the top end of a wheel shaft (see cut). This connection method not only requires a specific type of generator but can also significantly limit its speed. Generally, the peripheral speed of a pressure turbine should be about 75 percent of the theoretical velocity of water flowing under a head equal to that at which the wheel operates to achieve optimal efficiency. As a result of these principles, the rotational speeds of turbines, operating under any given head, should increase as their capacities and diameters decrease. Because of this, it’s common practice with horizontal wheels to mount two or more on each shaft connected directly to a generator to achieve a higher rotation speed than what could be achieved with a single wheel of their combined power. For example, at Sault Ste. Marie, the horizontal shaft that each 400-kilowatt generator is mounted on is driven at 180 revolutions per minute by four turbines under a head of about 20 feet. In Massena, the water head is 50 feet, and each 5,000 horsepower generator is driven at 150 revolutions per minute by six turbines on a horizontal shaft. Vertical turbines are sometimes mounted individually on their shafts, as was done at the hydroelectric plant in Oregon City on the Willamette River. However, this approach results in speeds that[86] are too low for direct-connected dynamos of moderate cost, unless the water head is unusually high. At the Oregon City plant, the head of water is only 40 feet, yet a single 42-inch turbine was mounted on the vertical shaft that drives each generator.

Fig. 28.—Longitudinal Section of Buchanan, Mich., Power-house.
Fig. 28.—Longitudinal Section of Buchanan, Michigan, Powerhouse.
Larger longitudinal section (146 kB)
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ (146 kB)
The most notable examples of direct-connected generators and vertical turbines is that at Niagara Falls, where twenty-one generators of 5,000 horse-power each are mounted at the tops of as many vertical wheel shafts in two of the four stations. Each vertical shaft in the Niagara stations is driven at 250 revolutions per minute by a pair of turbines, one above the other. The maximum head between the water in the Niagara canal and that in the tunnel which forms the tail-race is 161 feet. On ten shafts the centres of the wheel cases are 136 feet below the level of water in the canal, and no draft tubes are used.
The most notable examples of direct-connected generators and vertical turbines are at Niagara Falls, where there are twenty-one generators, each with a power of 5,000 horsepower, installed at the tops of as many vertical wheel shafts across two of the four stations. Each vertical shaft in the Niagara stations is powered at 250 revolutions per minute by a pair of turbines positioned one above the other. The maximum height difference between the water in the Niagara canal and the water in the tunnel that makes up the tail-race is 161 feet. On ten shafts, the centers of the wheel cases are located 136 feet below the water level in the canal, and no draft tubes are used.

Fig. 29.—Section of Power-house No. 2 at Niagara Falls.
Fig. 29.—Cross-section of Power-house No. 2 at Niagara Falls.
Larger section (242 kB)
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ (242 kB)
The eleven pairs of wheels at the second Niagara power-house have
their centre line 128.25 feet below the canal level and a draft tube for each
pair of wheels extends to a point below the tail-water level. It is
entirely practicable to use more than a single pair of turbines on the
same vertical shaft, as is shown at the Hagneck station on the Jura, in[87]
[88]
[89]
Switzerland, where the head of water is about twenty-one feet and four
turbines are mounted on each vertical shaft. The combined capacity
of these four wheels on each shaft is 1,500 horse-power and its speed
is 100 revolutions per minute. At the top of each shaft an 8,000-volt
generator, with external, revolving magnet frame, is mounted. The
use of four wheels per vertical shaft presents no great difficulty and
should be resorted to more frequently in the future.
The eleven pairs of wheels at the second Niagara power house are positioned 128.25 feet below the canal level, and each pair has a draft tube that extends down to below the tail-water level. It's completely doable to use more than one pair of turbines on the same vertical shaft, as demonstrated at the Hagneck station in the Jura, in [87]
[88]
[89] Switzerland, where the water head is about twenty-one feet and four turbines are installed on each vertical shaft. The total capacity of these four wheels per shaft is 1,500 horsepower, and they operate at a speed of 100 revolutions per minute. At the top of each shaft, there's an 8,000-volt generator equipped with an external, revolving magnet frame. Using four wheels per vertical shaft isn't particularly challenging and should be utilized more often in the future.

Fig. 30.—Interior of Power-house, Buchanan, Mich.
Fig. 30.—Inside of the Powerhouse, Buchanan, Mich.
For horizontal, direct-connected turbine wheels and generators the
nearly uniform practice is to locate the generators in a single row from
one end of a station to the other, and this brings the turbines into a parallel
row. On this plan the shaft of each connected generator and its
group of turbines sets at right angles to the longer sides of a station and
approximately parallel with the direction in which water flows to the
wheels. The typical water-power station with direct-connected units is
thus a rather long, narrow building into which water enters on one side
through penstocks and leaves on the other through tail-races. Such stations
usually set with one of the longer sides parallel to the river into
which the tail-water passes and between this river and the canal or pipe
line. At Massena the electric station occupies the position of a dam between
the end of the power canal and the Grass River, being about 150
feet wide and 550 feet long. Canal water entering this station passes
through its wheels to the river under a head of about 50 feet. A similar
construction was followed at Sault Ste. Marie, where the power-station
separates the end of the canal from the St. Mary’s River. This station is
100 feet wide, 1,368 feet long, and is to contain 80 sets of horizontal
wheels, each set being connected to its own generator, and through these
wheels the canal water passes under a head of approximately 20 feet. Ten
generators are placed in line at the Cañon Ferry station which is 225 by 50
feet inside, and each generator is driven by a pair of horizontal wheels
under a head of 30 feet. This station sets between a short canal and the
Missouri River, near one end of the dam. Passing from water-heads of
less than 50 to those of several hundred or even more than 1,000 feet, the
general type of station building remains about the same, but there is an
important change in the arrangement of direct-connected wheels and
generators. With these high heads of water, wheels of the impulse type,
to which the water is supplied in the form of jets from nozzles, are employed.
These jets pass to the wheels in planes at right angles to their
shafts, instead of flowing in lines parallel to these shafts like water to pressure
turbines. The shafts of impulse wheels and their direct-connected
generators are consequently arranged parallel with the longer instead of[90]
the shorter sides of their stations. This plan results in long, narrow stations
with water entering at one and leaving at the other of the longer
sides, just as in the case of direct-connected turbines under moderate
heads. Stations with direct-connected impulse wheels are even longer
for a given number and capacity of units than are stations with pressure
turbines. Colgate power-house, on the North Yuba River, contains
seven generators, each direct-connected to an impulse wheel and shafts
all parallel to its longer sides. This station is 275 feet long by 40 feet
wide, and the water which enters one side by five iron pipes, 30 inches[91]
[92]
each in diameter, under a head of about 700 feet, is discharged from the
other side into the river.
For horizontal, directly connected turbine wheels and generators, the common practice is to arrange the generators in a single row from one end of a station to the other, which places the turbines in a parallel line. In this setup, the shaft of each connected generator and its group of turbines is positioned at right angles to the longer sides of the station and is roughly parallel to the direction of water flowing to the wheels. A typical water-power station with direct-connected units is a long, narrow building where water enters from one side through penstocks and exits on the other through tailraces. These stations usually align one of their longer sides parallel to the river where the tailwater flows and sit between this river and the canal or pipeline. At Massena, the electric station functions as a dam between the power canal and the Grass River, measuring about 150 feet wide and 550 feet long. The canal water entering this station goes through its wheels to the river under a head of about 50 feet. A similar design was used at Sault Ste. Marie, where the power station separates the canal's end from the St. Mary’s River. This station is 100 feet wide, 1,368 feet long, and will house 80 sets of horizontal wheels, each connected to its own generator, with canal water flowing through these wheels under an approximate head of 20 feet. At the Cañon Ferry station, which measures 225 by 50 feet inside, ten generators are lined up, with each generator powered by a pair of horizontal wheels under a 30-foot head. This station is situated between a short canal and the Missouri River, near one end of the dam. As water heads increase from less than 50 feet to several hundred or even over 1,000 feet, the overall type of station building remains similar, but the arrangement of the directly connected wheels and generators changes. With these higher water heads, impulse-type wheels are used, where water is delivered in the form of jets from nozzles. These jets strike the wheels in planes perpendicular to their shafts, rather than flowing in lines parallel to the shafts like water does for pressure turbines. Thus, the shafts of the impulse wheels and their directly connected generators are arranged parallel to the longer sides of their stations instead of the shorter sides. This configuration results in longer, narrower stations, with water entering at one end and exiting at the other along the longer sides, just like direct-connected turbines under moderate heads. Stations with direct-connected impulse wheels are even longer for the same number and capacity of units compared to those with pressure turbines. The Colgate powerhouse on the North Yuba River has seven generators, each directly connected to an impulse wheel, with shafts all aligned parallel to its longer sides. This station is 275 feet long and 40 feet wide, with water entering from one side through five iron pipes, each 30 inches in diameter, under a head of about 700 feet, and is discharged from the other side into the river.

Fig. 31.—Plan of Generating Station near Cedar Lake for City of Seattle, Wash.
Fig. 31.—Layout of the Generating Station near Cedar Lake for the City of Seattle, Washington.
Larger plan (89 kB)
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ (89 kB)

Fig. 32.—Foundation of Power-station at Spier Falls.
Fig. 32.—Foundations for the power plant at Spier Falls.

Fig. 33.—Plan of Power-station at Great Falls.
Fig. 33.—Layout of Power Station at Great Falls.
Larger plan (207 kB)
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ (207 kB)
At Electra station on the Mokelumne River five pairs of impulse wheels are direct-connected to five generators, each unit having its shaft diagonal with the walls of the building, and pipes deliver water to the wheels under a head of 1,450 feet. The ground plan of the generator room at this plant is 40 by 208 feet. The power-station on Santa Ana River, whence energy is transmitted 83 miles to Los Angeles, measures 127 feet long and 36 feet wide inside, and contains four generating units[93] in line, each of which consists of a direct-connected dynamo and impulse wheel, with shafts parallel to the longer sides of the station. Jets driving the wheels in this station are delivered under a head of 728 feet minus the loss by friction in a penstock 2,210 feet long.
At Electra station on the Mokelumne River, five pairs of impulse wheels are directly connected to five generators, with each unit's shaft positioned diagonally within the building. Pipes deliver water to the wheels under a pressure of 1,450 feet. The generator room at this facility measures 40 by 208 feet. The power station on the Santa Ana River, which transmits energy 83 miles to Los Angeles, is 127 feet long and 36 feet wide internally, housing four generating units[93] in a line. Each unit consists of a directly connected dynamo and impulse wheel, with shafts aligned parallel to the longer sides of the station. Jets driving the wheels here are supplied under a pressure of 728 feet, minus the friction loss in a penstock that is 2,210 feet long.

Fig. 34.—Power-house at Red Bridge on Chicopee River.
Fig. 34.—Powerhouse at Red Bridge on Chicopee River.
Both of the first Niagara plants, with vertical wheels far below the stations in the pits, are long and narrow and have their generators in a single row. The later of these two stations has a ground area of approximately 72 by 496 feet outside, and contains eleven generators all in line. From these examples it may be seen that the prevailing type of electric water-power station, whether designed for horizontal or vertical wheels of either the pressure or impulse type, is wide enough for only a single row of generators and wheels, and has sufficient length to accommodate the required number of units.
Both of the initial Niagara plants, featuring vertical wheels located far beneath the stations in the pits, are long and narrow with their generators arranged in a single row. The later of these two stations has an exterior footprint of about 72 by 496 feet and houses eleven generators all in line. From these examples, it's clear that the standard design for electric water-power stations, whether built for horizontal or vertical wheels of either the pressure or impulse type, is wide enough for just one row of generators and wheels, and lengthy enough to fit the necessary number of units.
A few modern stations that depart from this general plan will be found, as that at Great Falls, on the Presumpscot River, whence electrical supply for Portland, Me., is drawn. This station sets about forty feet in front of the forebay end of the dam, and two penstocks enter the rear wall, while the other two enter one each through two of the remaining opposite sides. Of the four generators, with their direct-connected[94] wheels, two are arranged with parallel shafts, while the other two have their shafts in line and at right angles to the lines of the former two. The station containing these generating sets has a floor area of 55 by 67.5 feet.
A few modern stations that deviate from this general design can be found, like the one at Great Falls on the Presumpscot River, which provides electrical power for Portland, Maine. This station is located about forty feet in front of the dam's forebay, with two penstocks entering the rear wall, and the other two entering through opposite sides. Out of the four generators, each with their directly connected wheels, two are set up with parallel shafts, while the other two have their shafts aligned at right angles to the first two. The building housing these generators has a floor area of 55 by 67.5 feet.

Fig. 35.—Plan and Elevation of Red Bridge Station on the Chicopee River.
Fig. 35.—Layout and Front View of Red Bridge Station on the Chicopee River.
Larger plan and elevation (222 kB)
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ (222 MB)
Modern electric stations driven by water-power are usually but one story in height and are clear inside from floor to roof, save for cranes and roof trusses. This construction may be seen in the Niagara, Spier Falls, Cañon Ferry, Colgate, Electra, Santa Ana River and many other notable plants. In spite of this one-story style of construction, the electric stations reach fair elevations because of the necessity for head room to operate cranes in placing and removing generators. At Garvin’s Falls, on the Merrimac River, the electric station contains generators of 650 kilowatts each and the distance from floor to the lower cords of roof trusses is 27 feet. In the station at Red Bridge, on the Chicopee River, where generators are of 1,000 kilowatts capacity each, the distance between floor[95] and the under side of roof beams is 30.66 feet. Between the floor and roof trusses at the Birchem Bend station, on the river last named, the distance is 26.25 feet, but each generator is rated at only 400 kilowatts. In the Cañon Ferry plant, with its generators of 750 kilowatts each, the distance from floor to roof trusses is 28 feet. At the plant on Santa Ana River, the 750-kilowatt generators, being connected to impulse-wheels, operate at 300 revolutions per minute, have relatively small diameters and are mounted over pits in the floor so that their shaft centres are only about two feet above it. By these means the distance from floor to roof trusses was reduced to 18.25 feet. All these examples of elevations between floors and roof supports are for stations with direct-connected generators and horizontal wheels. In the new Niagara station, where generators of 3,750 kilowatts each are mounted on vertical wheel shafts that rise from the floor, the distance between the floor and roof trusses is 39.5 feet.
Modern electric stations powered by water are typically just one story tall and open from floor to ceiling, except for cranes and roof supports. This design can be seen in notable plants like Niagara, Spier Falls, Cañon Ferry, Colgate, Electra, Santa Ana River, and many more. Even though they are constructed with a single story, these electric stations have significant height due to the need for headroom to operate cranes for installing and removing generators. At Garvin’s Falls on the Merrimac River, the electric station houses generators of 650 kilowatts each, and the height from the floor to the lower cords of the roof supports is 27 feet. At the Red Bridge station on the Chicopee River, where the generators are each 1,000 kilowatts, the space between the floor and the underside of the roof beams is 30.66 feet. At the Birchem Bend station on the same river, the distance between the floor and roof trusses is 26.25 feet, but each generator is only rated at 400 kilowatts. In the Cañon Ferry plant, with 750-kilowatt generators, the distance from the floor to the roof trusses is 28 feet. At the Santa Ana River plant, the 750-kilowatt generators, connected to impulse wheels, operate at 300 revolutions per minute, have relatively small diameters, and are positioned over pits in the floor, raising their shaft centers just about two feet above it. This design reduces the height from the floor to the roof trusses to 18.25 feet. All these examples of height between floors and roof supports pertain to stations with direct-connected generators and horizontal wheels. In the new Niagara station, where the generators each have a capacity of 3,750 kilowatts and are mounted on vertical shafts that rise from the floor, the distance between the floor and roof trusses is 39.5 feet.
Electric stations driven by water-power are now constructed almost entirely of materials that will not burn—that is, stone, brick, tile, concrete, cement, iron, and steel. Stone masonry laid with cement mortar or concrete masonry is very generally employed for all those parts of the foundations that come in contact with the tail-water. For sub-foundations bedrock is very desirable, but where this cannot be reached piles are driven closely and their tops covered with several feet of cement concrete as a bedding for the stone foundation. Where stone is plenty or bricks hard to obtain, the entire walls of a water-power station are frequently laid entirely with stone in concrete mortar. If bricks can readily be had they are more commonly used than stone for station walls above the foundations. Concrete formed into a monolithic mass is a favorite type of construction for the foundations, walls and floors of water-power plants in Southern California. Cement and concrete are much used for station floors in all parts of the country, and these floors are supported by masonry arches in cases where the tail-water flows underneath the station after leaving the wheels. Station roofs are usually supported by steel trusses or I-beams, and slate and iron are favorite roof materials. With iron roof-plates an interior lining of wood, asbestos, or some other poor conductor of heat is much used to prevent the condensation of water on the under side of the roof in cold weather. Walls of water-power stations are usually given sufficient thickness of masonry to support all loads that come upon them without the aid of steel columns. In some cases where cranes do not extend entirely across their stations, one end of each crane is supported by one of the station walls and the other end[96] by a row of iron or steel columns rising from the floor. Where the generator-room of a station has its floor level below high-water mark especial care should be taken to make the walls water-proof to an elevation above this mark. As the travelling-crane and the loads which it carries in erecting wheels and generators form a large part of the weight on the station walls, these walls are often reduced as much as one-half in thickness at the level of the crane, thus forming benches on which the ends of the cranes rest.
Electric stations powered by water are now built almost entirely with materials that won't catch fire—like stone, brick, tile, concrete, cement, iron, and steel. Stone masonry with cement mortar or concrete masonry is commonly used for all parts of the foundations that touch the tail-water. For sub-foundations, bedrock is ideal, but where it can't be reached, piles are driven close together, and their tops are covered with several feet of cement concrete to serve as a base for the stone foundation. Where stone is abundant or bricks hard to find, the entire walls of a water-power station are often built entirely with stone in concrete mortar. If bricks are easily available, they're more commonly used than stone for the station walls above the foundations. Solid concrete is a preferred construction type for the foundations, walls, and floors of water-power plants in Southern California. Cement and concrete are widely used for station floors across the country, and these floors are supported by masonry arches when the tail-water flows underneath the station after leaving the wheels. Station roofs are typically supported by steel trusses or I-beams, with slate and iron being popular roofing materials. When using iron roof-plates, an interior lining of wood, asbestos, or another poor heat conductor is often used to prevent water condensation on the underside of the roof during cold weather. The walls of water-power stations are usually thick enough to support all loads without needing steel columns. In some cases, where cranes don't extend completely across their stations, one end of each crane is supported by one of the station walls, while the other end is supported by a row of iron or steel columns rising from the floor. If the generator room's floor is below high-water level, extra care should be taken to make the walls waterproof to a height above this level. Since the traveling crane and the loads it carries when installing wheels and generators contribute significantly to the weight on the station walls, these walls are often reduced in thickness by up to half at the crane level to create benches for the ends of the cranes to rest on.

Fig. 36.—Steel Penstocks at Chamblay Power-house.
Fig. 36.—Steel Penstocks at Chamblay Powerhouse.
The Garvin’s Falls station, on the Merrimac River, rests on arches of stone masonry through which the tail-water passes, and the brick walls are water-proofed to an elevation eight feet above the floor. At twenty feet above the floor the twenty-four-inch brick walls on the two longer sides are reduced to eight inches in thickness, thus forming benches each sixteen inches wide on which the crane travels. Arches of stone masonry support the twenty-four-inch brick walls of the station at Red Bridge, on the Chicopee River, and these walls on the two longer sides decrease in thickness to twelve inches at an elevation of twenty-one feet above the floor, thus forming benches twelve inches wide for the ends of the crane.
The Garvin's Falls station, located on the Merrimac River, is supported by stone masonry arches that allow the tailwaters to flow through. The brick walls are waterproofed up to eight feet above the floor. At twenty feet above the floor, the twenty-four-inch brick walls on the two longer sides thin down to eight inches, creating sixteen-inch wide benches for the crane to move on. At the Red Bridge station on the Chicopee River, stone masonry arches also support the twenty-four-inch brick walls, which reduce in thickness to twelve inches at twenty-one feet above the floor, forming twelve-inch wide benches for the crane's ends.
One concrete wall of the Santa Ana station is 2.5 feet thick to a distance[97] of 13.5 feet above the floor, and then shrinks to a thickness of 1.5 feet, corresponding to that of the opposite wall, thus forming a bench twelve inches wide for one end of the crane. The other end of the crane in this case is supported by an I-beam on a row of iron columns.
One concrete wall of the Santa Ana station is 2.5 feet thick up to a height[97] of 13.5 feet above the floor, and then reduces to a thickness of 1.5 feet, matching that of the opposite wall, creating a twelve-inch wide bench for one end of the crane. The other end of the crane is supported by an I-beam resting on a row of iron columns.
It is not uncommon to locate horizontal turbines in a room separate from that occupied by the generators to which they are direct-connected, in order to protect the latter from water in the event of a break in penstocks or wheel cases. In cases of this sort the shafts connecting wheels and generators pass through the wall between them. The horizontal turbines may be located at the bottom of a canal whose water presses against the wall through which the wheel shafts pass, or they may be contained in iron cases at the ends of penstocks. In this latter case an extension of the station is often provided for a wheel room to contain these cases. Such wheel rooms are long, narrow, low-roofed and parallel to the generator rooms of their stations. The floors of these wheel rooms are at nearly the same levels as the floors of generator rooms, but elevations of their roofs above the floors are much less than like elevations in the main parts of the stations. The Garvin’s Falls, Red Bridge, and Apple River stations have wheel rooms of the type just described. With impulse-wheels to which water passes in planes at right angles to their shafts it is desirable, in order to avoid changes in the direction of water pipes, that direct-connected wheels and generators occupy the same room, and this is the arrangement at the Colgate, Electra, Santa Ana, Mill Creek, and many other power-houses using such equipments. The area of a wheel room may frequently be reduced at stations operating direct-connected horizontal-pressure turbines under low heads by placing the wheels at the bottom of the canal which has one side of the station or generator room for a retaining wall. This plan was adopted at the Birchem Bend plant with a head of fourteen feet, and at the Sault Ste. Marie station where the head of water is about twenty feet. Vertical wheels direct-connected to generators must be directly underneath the main room of their station, and may be in a canal over which the station is built, in a wheel room that forms its lower part, or in a wheel pit and supplied with water through penstocks, as at the Niagara Falls plants.
It’s not unusual to find horizontal turbines in a separate room from the generators they connect to directly, to keep the generators safe from water if there’s a break in the penstocks or wheel cases. In these situations, the shafts that connect the wheels and generators run through the wall between them. The horizontal turbines might be situated at the bottom of a canal where the water presses against the wall with the wheel shafts, or they could be housed in iron cases at the ends of the penstocks. When this is the case, an extension of the station is often designed for a wheel room to hold these cases. These wheel rooms are long, narrow, with low ceilings, and run parallel to the generator rooms of their stations. The floors of these wheel rooms are almost at the same level as the floors of the generator rooms, but the heights of their roofs above the floors are significantly less than those in the main parts of the stations. The Garvin’s Falls, Red Bridge, and Apple River stations have wheel rooms of this kind. For impulse-wheels where water enters at right angles to their shafts, it’s best to have the direct-connected wheels and generators in the same room, which is how it’s arranged at Colgate, Electra, Santa Ana, Mill Creek, and many other powerhouses using such equipment. The area of a wheel room can often be minimized at stations operating direct-connected horizontal-pressure turbines under low heads by placing the wheels at the bottom of a canal that has one side of the station or generator room as a retaining wall. This approach was taken at the Birchem Bend plant with a head of fourteen feet, and at the Sault Ste. Marie station where the water head is about twenty feet. Vertical wheels that connect directly to generators must be directly beneath the main room of their station, and can be located in a canal that the station is built over, in a wheel room that makes up its lower part, or in a wheel pit supplied with water through penstocks, as seen in the Niagara Falls plants.
Step-up transformers developing very high voltages are not an element of safety in a generator room, and the better practice is to locate them in a separate apartment by themselves, if not in a separate building. For the Niagara Falls plant, the transformers that deliver three-phase current at 22,000 volts are located in a building across the canal from the generating plant. At Cañon Ferry the transformers operating at 50,000[98] volts, three-phase, are located in a steel and iron addition to the power-house. Transformers at Electra station, which are intended to work ultimately at 60,000 volts, are located in an extension of the main building and are separated from the generator-room by a wall. At the Santa Ana plant the 33,000-volt transformers are grouped in one corner of the generator room, but no partition separates their space from the remainder of the room. In the Colgate plant the transformers, working at 40,000 volts, are spaced along one of the longer sides of the station opposite to and only a few feet from the row of generators. One end of the main room in the Apple River plant is devoted exclusively to the 25,000-volt transformers, and there is a distance of about twenty-seven feet between them and the nearest generator. The highest degree of safety for transformers at these great voltages seems to require that they be located in a separate room where the floor, walls, and roof are made entirely of incombustible material.
Step-up transformers that generate very high voltages aren't safe in a generator room. It's best to keep them in a separate space, if not in a completely separate building. For the Niagara Falls plant, the transformers that provide three-phase power at 22,000 volts are situated in a building across the canal from the generating plant. At Cañon Ferry, the transformers operating at 50,000[98] volts in three-phase are housed in a steel and iron addition to the powerhouse. The transformers at Electra station, designed to eventually operate at 60,000 volts, are in an extension of the main building, separated from the generator room by a wall. At the Santa Ana plant, the 33,000-volt transformers are grouped in one corner of the generator room, but there’s no partition between their area and the rest of the room. In the Colgate plant, the transformers operating at 40,000 volts are lined up along one of the longer sides of the station, just a few feet away from the generators. One end of the main room in the Apple River plant is dedicated solely to the 25,000-volt transformers, which are about twenty-seven feet away from the nearest generator. The highest level of safety for transformers working at these high voltages seems to require that they be kept in a separate room with a floor, walls, and roof made entirely of non-combustible materials.

Fig. 37.—One of the Turbine Wheels at Spier Falls on the Hudson River.
Fig. 37.—One of the turbine wheels at Spier Falls on the Hudson River.
Water supplied to horizontal turbine wheels under moderate heads usually enters the station by penstocks on one side and leaves it by the tail-race on the other, but this is not true in every case. At the Birchem Bend plant, the canal in which the wheels are located being between the[99] station and the river, water never enters or passes under the station, which has a continuous foundation. So again at the Apple River plant the single supply pipe, twelve feet in diameter and delivering water under a head of eighty-two feet, lies parallel with the greater length of the station and between it and the river. Short penstocks pass from this supply pipe into the wheel section of the power-house, and the water after passing through the wheels flows out to the river between the masonry piers that support the twelve-foot pipe. The generator section of this station has thus no water flowing under it. An interesting distinction may be noted between the conditions as to the tail-water about the foundations of stations working under low and those under great water heads. In cases of the former sort the volumes of water are relatively great and the foundations of stations are usually submerged, and much reduced in area to make room for the tail-races. Thus, the foundations of the station at Red Bridge, where there is 49 feet head, have nearly all of their footings under water, and of a total length of 145 feet at the top of these foundations the six tail-races underneath cut out 92 feet. These tail-races extend underneath both the wheel and generator rooms.
Water supplied to horizontal turbine wheels under moderate pressure usually enters the station through penstocks on one side and exits via the tailrace on the other, but that's not always the case. At the Birchem Bend plant, the canal where the wheels are located is positioned between the[99] station and the river, so water never enters or flows under the station, which has a continuous foundation. Similarly, at the Apple River plant, the single supply pipe, which is twelve feet in diameter and delivers water under a pressure of eighty-two feet, runs parallel to the longer side of the station and sits between it and the river. Short penstocks extend from this supply pipe into the turbine section of the power house, and after passing through the turbines, the water flows out to the river between the masonry piers that support the twelve-foot pipe. As a result, the generator section of this station has no water flowing underneath it. An interesting difference can be noted regarding the tailwater around the foundations of stations operating under low versus high water pressures. In the case of the former, the volumes of water are relatively large, and the foundations are typically submerged, which reduces their area to accommodate the tailraces. For example, at the Red Bridge station, where there is a 49-foot head, nearly all of the footings are underwater, and of a total length of 145 feet at the top of these foundations, the six tailraces below cut out 92 feet. These tailraces extend beneath both the turbine and generator rooms.
Where power is derived from water delivered under great head from pipe nozzles to impulse-wheels, stations are usually well above the water levels of streams into which they discharge, and passages for tail-water underneath the station shrink to small tunnels through their foundations. Seven of these tunnels have a total width of less than 25 feet at the Santa Ana River station, which is 127 feet long, and where the head of water is 728 feet. At the Colgate plant, with its head of 700 feet, the water, at times of light load, instead of flowing out of its passages underneath the station, shoots from the pipe nozzles clear across the North Yuba River on the bank of which the station stands.
Where power comes from water delivered under high pressure from pipe nozzles to impulse wheels, stations are typically situated well above the water levels of the streams they discharge into, and the pathways for tailwater beneath the station narrow down to small tunnels through their foundations. At the Santa Ana River station, seven of these tunnels have a total width of less than 25 feet, while the station itself is 127 feet long, with a water head of 728 feet. At the Colgate plant, which has a head of 700 feet, during times of light load, instead of flowing out through its passages beneath the station, the water shoots across the North Yuba River from the pipe nozzles, right by the bank where the station is located.

Fig. 38.—Power Plant of Ludlow Manufacturing Company.
Fig. 38.—Power Plant of Ludlow Manufacturing Company.
Larger section (173 kB)
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ (173 kB)
In a comparison of floor areas per kilowatt of main generator capacities
in electric stations using water- and those using steam-power, the
matter of space for transformers may be entirely omitted, because the
extent of this space is independent of the type or location of water-wheels,
or the difference of water and steam as motive powers. Where water-wheels
and their connected generators occupy separate rooms, as is often
the case with turbines under low pressures, the wheel room has a little
less length, and is generally narrower than the generator room. Thus,
at the Red Bridge station the generator room is 141 feet long and the
wheel room about 127 feet, while the former is 33.33 feet and the latter
24 feet wide. So again at Apple River Falls the generator room is 140
by 30 feet and the wheel room 106 by 22 feet, the generator room in this[100]
[101]
case containing also transformers. It follows that if wheels can be located
outside of the station, as in a canal, quite a reduction in its total floor
area can be made, which may easily range from 20 to 40 per cent. The
kilowatt capacity per square foot of floor area in both wheel and generator
rooms combined tends to increase with the individual capacity of the
generating units. Generators on vertical shafts seem to require about
as much floor space per unit of capacity as do generators on horizontal
shafts. In the Red Bridge station the total capacity is 4,800 kilowatts
of main generators in six horizontal units, and the area of the generator
room alone is 0.96 square foot per kilowatt of this capacity. The second
station with vertical units at Niagara Falls has a capacity of 41,250 kilowatts
in eleven generators on vertical shafts, and its floor area amounts
to 0.86 square foot per kilowatt; narrow impulse-wheels of large diameter
tend to economy of floor space, as in Electra station, where the room
containing wheels and generators has an area of only 0.83 square foot
per unit of its 10,000 kilowatts capacity. At the Colgate plant, where
the total rating of generators is 11,250 kilowatts, the floor area under
wheels and generators is almost exactly one square foot per kilowatt.
The Santa Ana station, with a total capacity of 3,000 kilowatts, has
1.52 square feet of floor area for each unit of capacity. This last figure
may be compared with the 1.72 square feet per kilowatt of generator[102]
rating for the 4,800-kilowatt station at Red Bridge and the 1.75 square
feet per unit of capacity in the 800-kilowatt plant at Birchem Bend.
In comparing the floor area per kilowatt of main generator capacity in electric stations using water power and those using steam power, we can ignore the space for transformers because this space doesn’t depend on the type or location of water wheels, or the differences between water and steam as energy sources. When water wheels and their connected generators are housed in separate rooms, which is often the case with low-pressure turbines, the wheel room is usually shorter in length and narrower than the generator room. For instance, at the Red Bridge station, the generator room measures 141 feet long, while the wheel room is about 127 feet; the generator room width is 33.33 feet, and the wheel room is 24 feet wide. At Apple River Falls, the generator room is 140 by 30 feet, and the wheel room is 106 by 22 feet, with the generator room in this case also containing transformers. This means that if wheels can be placed outside of the station, like in a canal, the overall floor area can be reduced by 20 to 40 percent. The kilowatt capacity per square foot of combined floor area in both wheel and generator rooms tends to increase with the capacity of individual generating units. Generators on vertical shafts appear to require about the same floor space per unit of capacity as those on horizontal shafts. At the Red Bridge station, the total capacity is 4,800 kilowatts from six horizontal units, and the area of just the generator room is 0.96 square foot per kilowatt of this capacity. The second station with vertical units at Niagara Falls has a capacity of 41,250 kilowatts from eleven generators on vertical shafts, and its floor area is 0.86 square foot per kilowatt; narrow impulse wheels of large diameter help save floor space, as seen in Electra station, where the room for wheels and generators has an area of only 0.83 square foot per unit of its 10,000 kilowatts capacity. At the Colgate plant, where the total generator capacity is 11,250 kilowatts, the floor area for wheels and generators is almost exactly one square foot per kilowatt. The Santa Ana station, with a total capacity of 3,000 kilowatts, has 1.52 square feet of floor area per unit of capacity. This last number can be compared to the 1.72 square feet per kilowatt of generator rating for the 4,800-kilowatt station at Red Bridge and the 1.75 square feet per unit of capacity in the 800-kilowatt plant at Birchem Bend.

Fig. 39.—Power-house on Payette River, Idaho.
Fig. 39.—Power plant on the Payette River, Idaho.
All types of water-power stations with direct-connected wheels and generators have much smaller floor areas per unit capacity than do steam-power stations with direct-connected horizontal units. Thus, the modern steam-driven station at Portsmouth, N. H., has a plan area in engine- and boiler-rooms of 16,871 square feet, and its total capacity in four direct-connected units is 4,400 kilowatts, so that the area amounts to 3.82 square feet per kilowatt rating of its generators. Of this area about 46 per cent is in the boiler-room.
All types of water-powered stations with directly connected wheels and generators have significantly smaller floor spaces per unit capacity compared to steam-powered stations with directly connected horizontal units. For example, the modern steam-driven station in Portsmouth, N.H., has a total area in its engine and boiler rooms of 16,871 square feet, and its total capacity in four direct-connected units is 4,400 kilowatts, meaning the area equals 3.82 square feet per kilowatt rating of its generators. Of this area, about 46 percent is in the boiler room.
Floor Dimensions for Direct-connected, Horizontal
Water-wheels and
Generators at Electric Stations.
Floor Dimensions for Directly Connected Horizontal
Water Wheels and Generators at Power Stations.
Station. | Feet Long. |
Feet Wide. |
Number of Generators. |
Total Kilowatt Capacity. |
|||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[A]Niagara, No. 2 | 496 | 72 | 11 | 41,250 | |||||||||
Sault Ste. Marie | 1,368 | 100 | 80 | 32,000 | |||||||||
Colgate | 275 | 40 | 7 | 11,250 | |||||||||
Electra | 208 | 40 | 5 | 10,000 | |||||||||
Cañon Ferry | 225 | 50 | 10 | 7,500 | |||||||||
Red Bridge | 141 | 57 | 6 | 4,800 | |||||||||
Apple River | - | 140 | 30 | - | 4 | 3,000 | |||||||
106 | 22 | ||||||||||||
Santa Ana River | 127 | 36 | 4 | 3,000 | |||||||||
Great Falls | 67 | .5 | 55 | 4 | 2,000 | ||||||||
Garvin’s Falls | - | 62 | 30 | - | 2 | 1,300 | |||||||
50 | 23 | ||||||||||||
Birchem Bend | 56 | .6 | 26 | .7 | 2 | 800 | |||||||
Portsmouth (steam-driven) | - | 14 | .4 | 119 | .66 | - | 5 | 4,400 | |||||
inside, but minus 360 square feet. |
|||||||||||||
[A] Vertical wheel shafts. Some of these dimensions apply to the inside and some to the outside of stations. Some small projections are not included. |
CHAPTER IX.
Alternators for power transmission.
Dynamos in the generating station of an electric transmission system should be so numerous that if one of them is disabled the others can carry the maximum load. If only two generators are installed, it is thus desirable that each be large enough to supply the entire output, so that the dynamo capacity exceeds the greatest demand on the station by 100 per cent. To avoid so great excess of dynamo capacity it is common practice to install more than two generators.
Dynamos in the generating station of an electric transmission system should be numerous enough that if one fails, the others can handle the maximum load. If only two generators are installed, each should be large enough to supply the entire output, so that the dynamo capacity exceeds the highest demand on the station by 100 percent. To avoid such an excess of dynamo capacity, it’s common practice to install more than two generators.
Other considerations also tend to increase the number of dynamos in the generating station of a transmission system. Thus one transmission line may be devoted exclusively to lighting, another to stationary motors, and a third to electric railway service; and it may be desirable that each line be supplied by an independent dynamo to avoid any effect of fluctuations of railway or motor load on the lighting system.
Other factors also usually lead to having more dynamos in the generating station of a transmission system. For example, one transmission line might be used solely for lighting, another for stationary motors, and a third for electric railway service; it might be preferable for each line to be powered by a separate dynamo to prevent any fluctuations in the railway or motor load from impacting the lighting system.
At the generating station of the transmission system that supplies electric light and power in Portland, Me., the idea of independent units has been carried out with four 500-kilowatt dynamos, each driven by a pair of wheels fed with water through a separate penstock from the dam. Each of these dynamos operates one of the four independent transmission circuits. Where a number of water-power stations feed into a single sub-station the requirement that each generating station have its capacity divided up among quite a number of dynamos may not exist, since one station may be entirely shut down for repairs and the load carried meantime by the other stations. A good illustration of this point may be seen at Manchester, where a single sub-station receives energy transmitted from four water-power plants. At one of these plants the entire capacity of 1,200 kilowatts is in a single generator.
At the generating station of the transmission system that supplies electricity in Portland, Maine, the concept of independent units is implemented with four 500-kilowatt generators, each powered by a pair of turbines that are fed with water through a separate penstock from the dam. Each generator operates one of the four independent transmission circuits. When multiple hydroelectric stations feed into a single substation, the need for each generating station to be equipped with several generators may not be necessary, as one station can be entirely shut down for repairs while the load is handled by the other stations. A good example of this is in Manchester, where a single substation receives energy from four hydroelectric plants. At one of these plants, the entire capacity of 1,200 kilowatts is generated by a single generator.
The foregoing considerations as to the number of dynamos apply
with equal force to both steam- and water-driven stations, but other
factors tend to increase the number of dynamos in water-power plants
where the head of water is comparatively small. This tendency is due
to the fact that the peripheral speeds of pressure turbine water-wheels
should be about twenty-five per cent less than the velocity at which water[104]
[105]
would issue from an opening under the head of water at which these
wheels operate in order to secure high efficiency. This velocity of
water and therefore the peripheral speed of pressure turbine wheels varies
with the square root of the head of water.
The previous points about the number of dynamos apply equally to both steam and water-powered stations, but other factors tend to increase the number of dynamos in hydroelectric plants where the water pressure is relatively low. This happens because the peripheral speeds of pressure turbine water-wheels should be about twenty-five percent lower than the speed at which water[104]
[105]
would flow out from an opening under the water pressure at which these wheels operate to achieve high efficiency. This water speed, and therefore the peripheral speed of pressure turbine wheels, changes based on the square root of the water head.

Fig. 40.—Generators at Sault Ste. Marie Power Plant.
Fig. 40.—Generators at Sault Ste. Marie Power Plant.
Since the peripheral speed of turbines is thus determined by the heads of water under which they operate, and since the diameters of turbines must increase with their capacities, the rate of revolution for pressure turbines under any given head decreases as the power goes up. For this reason it is often desirable to use a larger number of dynamos in a water-power plant than would otherwise be required in order to avoid very low speeds of revolution on the direct-connection to the turbines. A notable illustration of this practice exists in the great water-power plant of the Michigan-Lake Superior Power Company, at Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., where a generating capacity of 32,000 kilowatts is divided up between 80 dynamos of 400 kilowatts each. The head of water available at the pressure turbines in this plant is about 16 feet, and their speed is 180 revolutions per minute. In order to obtain even this moderate speed under the head of 16 feet it was necessary to select turbines of only 140 horse-power each. Four of these turbines are mounted on each shaft that drives a 400-kilowatt dynamo, direct-connected, so that there are 320 wheels in all. Had a smaller number of wheels been employed to yield the total power their speed and that of direct-connected dynamos must have been less than 180 revolutions per minute. As the cost of dynamos increases with very low speeds it is often cheaper to install a larger number of dynamos at a higher speed than a smaller number at a lower speed for a given total capacity.
Since the peripheral speed of turbines is determined by the water heads they operate under, and since the diameters of turbines need to increase with their capacities, the rotation speed of pressure turbines decreases as the power increases for any given head. Because of this, it’s often better to use more dynamos in a hydropower plant than would typically be required to avoid very low rotation speeds directly connected to the turbines. A notable example of this practice is in the large hydropower plant of the Michigan-Lake Superior Power Company in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, where a generating capacity of 32,000 kilowatts is divided among 80 dynamos of 400 kilowatts each. The available water head at the pressure turbines in this plant is about 16 feet, and their speed is 180 revolutions per minute. To achieve even this moderate speed under the 16-foot head, it was necessary to choose turbines with only 140 horsepower each. Four of these turbines are mounted on each shaft that drives a 400-kilowatt dynamo, making a total of 320 wheels. If fewer wheels had been used to yield the total power, their speed and that of the direct-connected dynamos would have had to be less than 180 revolutions per minute. As the cost of dynamos increases with very low speeds, it is often more cost-effective to install a higher number of dynamos at a higher speed than a smaller number at a lower speed for the same total capacity.
The use of a larger number of units than would otherwise be necessary in order to avoid a very low speed is further illustrated by the 7,500-kilowatt plant of the Missouri River Power Company, at Cañon Ferry, Mont. This capacity is made up of ten generators, each rated at 750 kilowatts and direct-connected to a pair of pressure turbine wheels operating at 157 revolutions per minute, under a head of about 32 feet.
The use of more units than needed to prevent a very low speed is further demonstrated by the 7,500-kilowatt plant of the Missouri River Power Company at Cañon Ferry, Mont. This capacity consists of ten generators, each rated at 750 kilowatts, directly connected to a pair of pressure turbine wheels running at 157 revolutions per minute, under a head of about 32 feet.
Under comparatively high heads of water pressure turbines operate at speeds that are ample for direct-connection to even the largest dynamos.
Under relatively high water pressure, turbines run at speeds that are sufficient for a direct connection to even the largest generators.

Fig. 41.—Interior of Power-house No. 2, Niagara Falls.
Fig. 41.—Inside Power-house No. 2, Niagara Falls.
Thus in the Niagara Falls plant, where the head of water is 136 feet,
each pair of turbines drives a direct-connected dynamo of 3,750 kilowatts
at 250 revolutions per minute. In the rare case where the power to be
developed is so great that the number of generators necessary to give
security and reliability to the service leaves each generator with a capacity[106]
[107]
larger than is desirable for structural reasons, the number must be
increased simply to reduce the size of each generator. Such a state of
facts existed at Niagara Falls, where the first station contains ten
dynamos of 3,750 kilowatts each, and the second station contains eleven
units of like capacity.
Thus, in the Niagara Falls plant, where the water head is 136 feet, each pair of turbines powers a directly connected generator that produces 3,750 kilowatts at 250 revolutions per minute. In the unusual case where the power output needed is so high that the number of generators required to ensure security and reliability leaves each generator with a capacity[106]
[107] larger than optimal for structural reasons, the number must be increased simply to keep each generator smaller. This situation was present at Niagara Falls, where the first station has ten generators of 3,750 kilowatts each, and the second station has eleven units of the same capacity.
In the greater number of transmission systems the generators are direct-connected to either steam-engines or water-wheels, and their speeds of rotation are largely determined by the requirements of these prime movers. Steam-engines can be designed with some regard to the desirable speeds for direct-connection to dynamos, but water-wheels are less flexible in this particular. Each type of wheel has its peripheral speed mainly determined by the head of water under which it may be required to operate, and variation from this speed means serious loss of efficiency.
In most transmission systems, the generators are directly connected to either steam engines or water wheels, and their rotation speeds are mainly influenced by the needs of these prime movers. Steam engines can be designed with some consideration for the ideal speeds for direct connection to generators, but water wheels are less adaptable in this respect. Each type of wheel has its peripheral speed primarily determined by the water head under which it operates, and any deviation from this speed results in significant efficiency loss.

Fig. 42.—10,000 H. P. 12,000 Volt Generator in Canadian Power-house at Niagara Falls.
Fig. 42.—10,000 H. P. 12,000 Volt Generator in Canadian Power House at Niagara Falls.
Larger illustration (176 kB)
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ (176 kB)
Under heads of much more than 100 feet pressure turbines operate at rather high speeds in all except very large sizes. It is much the more common to see water-wheels at a lower speed belted to dynamos at a higher speed; but in some instances, as at the lighting plant of Spokane, Wash., wheels of a higher speed are belted to dynamos of a lower speed. Another plan by which moderate dynamo speeds are obtained with water-wheels under rather high heads mounts a dynamo at each end of the shaft of a large turbine or pair of turbines. This plan is followed at the plant of the Royal Aluminum Company, Shawinigan[108] Falls, Quebec, where there are two pairs of horizontal turbine wheels, each pair developing 3,200 horse-power under a head of 125 feet, and driving a dynamo direct-coupled on each end of its shaft. Where vertical wheels are employed it is sometimes more desirable to drive some standard type of dynamo with horizontal shaft by means of bevel gears than to design a special dynamo to mount directly on the vertical shaft. This latter plan is warranted in very large work like that at two of the Niagara Falls generating stations, where the twenty-one 3,750-kilowatt dynamos are direct-connected, each on the vertical shaft of a turbine. This type of connection is not one that will be frequently followed, but at one other point—Portland, Ore.—each dynamo is mounted directly on the shaft of its vertical turbine wheel.
Under heads of over 100 feet, turbines operate at relatively high speeds in all but the largest sizes. It's more common to see water wheels spinning at lower speeds connected to generators running at higher speeds; however, in some cases, like the lighting plant in Spokane, Wash., wheels spinning at higher speeds are connected to generators that run at lower speeds. Another method to achieve moderate generator speeds with water wheels under high heads is to mount a generator at each end of the shaft of a large turbine or a pair of turbines. This approach is used at the Royal Aluminum Company plant in Shawinigan Falls, Quebec, where two pairs of horizontal turbine wheels each produce 3,200 horsepower under a 125-foot head and drive a generator directly connected on each end of its shaft. When vertical wheels are used, it can sometimes be more practical to drive a standard horizontal-shaft generator using bevel gears rather than designing a special generator to attach directly to the vertical shaft. This latter approach is justified in large operations like those at two of the Niagara Falls generating stations, where twenty-one 3,750-kilowatt generators are directly connected, each to the vertical shaft of a turbine. This type of connection isn't common, but at one other location—Portland, Ore.—each generator is mounted directly on the shaft of its vertical turbine wheel.
Where water-wheels must operate under heads of several hundred feet, it is usually necessary to abandon pressure turbines and to adopt one of the types of impulse-wheels. In this class of wheels the peripheral speed of highest efficiency is only one-half the spouting velocity of the water under any particular head. This gives the impulse-wheels about two-thirds the peripheral speed of pressure turbines of equal diameter and consequently about two-thirds as many revolutions per minute. But as the water may be applied at one or more points on the circumference of an impulse-wheel, as desired, such wheels may have much greater diameters than pressure turbines for equal power under a given head.
Where water wheels need to function under heads of several hundred feet, it’s usually necessary to switch from pressure turbines to one of the types of impulse wheels. In this group of wheels, the optimal peripheral speed is only half of the spouting velocity of the water at any specific head. This results in impulse wheels having about two-thirds the peripheral speed of pressure turbines of the same diameter, and therefore about two-thirds the number of revolutions per minute. However, since water can be applied at one or more points around the circumference of an impulse wheel, these wheels can have much larger diameters than pressure turbines for the same power under a given head.

Fig. 43.—Generators in Power-station at Mechanicsville on the Hudson River.
Fig. 43.—Generators in the power station at Mechanicsville on the Hudson River.

Fig. 44.—Generators at Chamblay, Quebec, Power-house.
Fig. 44.—Generators at Chamblay, Quebec, Powerhouse.
These properties of low peripheral speed, as to head and great diameter,
as to power developed, fit impulse-wheels for direct-connection to
dynamos where great heads of water must be employed, and they are
generally used in such cases. This is particularly true for the Pacific
coast, where water-powers depend more on great heads than on large
volumes. In the generating plant of the Bay Counties’ Power Company,
at Colgate, Cal., the dynamos are direct-connected to impulse-wheels
that operate under a head of 700 feet. The three 2,250-kilowatt dynamos
in this plant are each mounted on a wheel shaft operating at 285
revolutions per minute, and each of the four 1,125-kilowatt dynamos is
direct-driven by an impulse-wheel at 400 revolutions per minute.
At the Electra, Cal., plant of the Standard Electric Company the
impulse-wheels operate at 240 revolutions per minute under a head
of 1,450 feet. Each of the five pairs of these wheels drives a 2,000-kilowatt
generator, direct-connected. As the head of water at these
wheels is 1,450 feet, its spouting velocity is about 300 feet per second,
or 18,000 feet per minute. Each wheel is eleven feet in diameter, so[109]
[110]
[111]
that a speed of 240 revolutions per minute gives the periphery a little
less than 9,000 feet per minute, or about one-half of the spouting velocity
of the water. These two great plants are excellent illustrations of the
way in which impulse-wheels, under great heads, may be given speeds
that are suitable for direct-connected dynamos.
These characteristics of low peripheral speed, regarding the head and large diameter, as well as the power produced, make impulse wheels ideal for direct connection to generators when high water heads are needed, and they are commonly used in such situations. This is especially true along the Pacific coast, where water power relies more on high heads than on large water volumes. At the generating facility of the Bay Counties’ Power Company in Colgate, California, the generators are directly connected to impulse wheels that operate under a head of 700 feet. The three 2,250-kilowatt generators in this facility are each mounted on a wheel shaft that operates at 285 revolutions per minute, while each of the four 1,125-kilowatt generators is driven directly by an impulse wheel at 400 revolutions per minute. At the Electra, California plant of the Standard Electric Company, the impulse wheels run at 240 revolutions per minute under a head of 1,450 feet. Each of the five pairs of these wheels powers a 2,000-kilowatt generator that is directly connected. With a water head of 1,450 feet, the spouting speed is about 300 feet per second, or 18,000 feet per minute. Each wheel has an eleven-foot diameter, so that a speed of 240 revolutions per minute results in a peripheral speed of just under 9,000 feet per minute, which is about half of the water's spouting velocity. These two large plants are excellent examples of how impulse wheels, under high heads, can achieve speeds that are suitable for direct connection to generators.

Fig. 51a. Plan and Elevation of Water Wheels and Generators at Power Station on Burrard Inlet, near Vancouver, B. C.
Fig. 51a. Plan and Elevation of Water Wheels and Generators at the Power Station on Burrard Inlet, near Vancouver, B.C.
Larger plan and elevation (155 kB)
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ (155 kB)
Three types of alternators, the revolving armature, the revolving[112] magnet, and the inductor, are used in the generating plants of electric transmission systems.
Three types of alternators are used in the electric transmission systems' generating plants: the revolving armature, the revolving[112] magnet, and the inductor.
Revolving armatures are used in the dynamos of comparatively few transmission systems and hardly at all in those of recent date. The prevailing type of alternator for transmission work is that with internal revolving magnets and external stationary armature. This type is employed in the great water-power plants at Cañon Ferry, Mont.; Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., and for all of the generators installed in the later Niagara Falls plants. For the sixteen earlier vertical generators at Niagara Falls the revolving magnets are external to the stationary armatures, but this construction has the disadvantage of high first cost and inaccessibility of the internal armature, and is not likely to be often adopted elsewhere.
Revolving armatures are used in a small number of transmission systems and hardly at all in modern ones. The most common type of alternator for transmission work today features internal revolving magnets and an external stationary armature. This type is used in major hydroelectric plants at Cañon Ferry, Mont.; Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., and in all of the generators installed at the newer Niagara Falls facilities. For the sixteen earlier vertical generators at Niagara Falls, the revolving magnets are outside the stationary armatures, but this design has the drawback of high initial costs and difficulty in accessing the internal armature, making it unlikely to be widely adopted in the future.

Fig. 46.—Elevations of Water-wheels
and Generators at Power-station on Burrard Inlet,
near Vancouver, B. C.
Fig. 46.—Elevations of Water Wheels and Generators at Power Station on Burrard Inlet, near Vancouver, BC.
Inductor alternators are those in which both the armature and magnet coils are stationary and only a suitable structure of iron revolves; they are employed in a comparatively small number of transmission systems, but this number includes some of the largest plants. The seven alternators in the Colgate, Cal., plant aggregating 11,250 kilowatts capacity, and the five alternators in the plant at Electra in the same State, with a capacity of 10,000 kilowatts, are all of the inductor type. As more commonly constructed the magnet winding of the inductor alternator consists of only one or two very large coils, which are in some cases as much as ten feet in diameter. The repair of these large magnet coils seems to present a more serious problem, in case of accident, than the repair of the small coils used on interval, revolving magnets. As far as satisfactory[113] operating qualities are concerned, inductor alternators and those with revolving magnets seem to be on an equality, but for structural reasons inductor alternators will probably be built less freely in the future than in the past.
Inductor alternators are a type where both the armature and magnetic coils stay stationary while a specific iron structure rotates. They are used in a relatively small number of transmission systems, but this includes some of the largest facilities. For instance, the seven alternators at the Colgate, California plant have a total capacity of 11,250 kilowatts, and the five alternators at the Electra plant in the same state have a capacity of 10,000 kilowatts; all of these are of the inductor type. Typically, the magnet winding in inductor alternators is made up of just one or two very large coils, which can be as large as ten feet in diameter. Repairing these large magnet coils tends to be a more significant challenge in case of damage compared to the smaller coils used in interval, revolving magnets. In terms of satisfactory operating performance, inductor alternators and those with revolving magnets seem to be on par, but due to structural reasons, inductor alternators are likely to be built less frequently in the future than they have been in the past.
Nearly all long transmissions are now carried out with either two- or three-phase current. The most notable two-phase installation is that at Niagara Falls, where the original ten generators, as well as the eleven dynamos later added in two of the large plants, are all of the two-phase type. At Cañon Ferry, Mont., the first four of the 750-kilowatt generators were two-phase, but the six machines of like capacity installed later are three-phase. In the latest plants of large capacity or involving very long transmissions three-phase machines have been generally employed. This is true of the Colgate and Electra plants in California, and of that at Sault Ste. Marie, Mich.
Almost all long-distance power transmissions are now done using either two-phase or three-phase current. The most famous two-phase setup is at Niagara Falls, where the original ten generators and the eleven dynamos added later in two of the large plants are all two-phase. At Cañon Ferry, Montana, the first four 750-kilowatt generators were two-phase, but the six later-installed machines of the same capacity are three-phase. In the newest high-capacity plants or those involving very long transmissions, three-phase machines are usually used. This is the case for the Colgate and Electra plants in California, as well as the one in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.

Fig. 47.—Interior of Power-house at Garvin’s Falls on the Merrimac River.
Fig. 47.—Inside the Power-house at Garvin’s Falls on the Merrimac River.

Fig. 48.—500-Kilowatt Generator in Station at Great Falls on the Presumpscot River.
Fig. 48.—500-Kilowatt Generator in the Station at Great Falls on the Presumpscot River.
As to frequency, existing practice extends all the way from 133 cycles per second on the lines at Marysville, Cal., down to only 15 cycles on the transmission for the Washington & Baltimore Electric Railway.
As for frequency, current practice ranges from 133 cycles per second on the lines in Marysville, California, down to just 15 cycles on the transmission for the Washington & Baltimore Electric Railway.
More common practice ranges between 25 and 60 cycles. Niagara
Falls saw the first great plant installed for 25 cycles, but others of that[114]
[115]
frequency are now engaged in the supply of light and power for general
distribution. For transmission to electric railway lines a frequency of
25 cycles has been and is being widely used, prominent examples of
which may be seen in the New Hampshire traction, the Berkshire, and
the Albany & Hudson systems.
More common practice varies between 25 and 60 cycles. Niagara Falls was the site of the first major plant installed for 25 cycles, but there are now others operating at that frequency supplying light and power for general use. For transmission to electric railway lines, a frequency of 25 cycles has been and continues to be widely used, with notable examples including the New Hampshire traction, the Berkshire, and the Albany & Hudson systems.

Fig. 49.—Columbus, Ga., Water-power Station.
Fig. 49.—Columbus, GA, Hydropower Station.
The strong feature of a system at 25 cycles is that it is well suited to the supply of continuous currents through rotary converters with reasonable numbers of poles, armature slots, and commutator bars.
The key advantage of a system at 25 cycles is that it’s well adapted for delivering continuous currents through rotary converters with a manageable number of poles, armature slots, and commutator bars.

Fig. 50.—1065-Kilowatt, 2300 volt Generator Connected to Motor in Shawinigan Sub-station at Montreal.
Fig. 50.—1065-Kilowatt, 2300 volt Generator Connected to Motor at Shawinigan Substation in Montreal.
On the other hand, the cost of transformers is greater with current at 25 cycles per second than with a higher frequency, and this current is only just bearable for incandescent lighting and quite unsuited for arc lamps, because of the fluctuating character of the light produced. At 15 cycles per second a current can be employed for incandescent lighting with satisfactory results only by means of some special devices, as lamps with very thick filaments, to avoid the flicker. Very low fluctuations cut[117] down undesirable effects in the way of inductance and resonance, but these effects can be avoided to a large degree in other ways.
On the other hand, the cost of transformers is higher at 25 cycles per second compared to a higher frequency, and this current is only just suitable for incandescent lighting and really not good for arc lamps, due to the inconsistent light produced. At 15 cycles per second, a current can be used for incandescent lighting with acceptable results, but only with some special devices, like lamps with very thick filaments, to reduce flicker. Very low fluctuations minimize undesirable effects related to inductance and resonance, but these issues can be largely mitigated in other ways.
Where power is the most important element in the service of an electric water-power and transmission system there is a decided tendency to adopt a rather small number of periods for the system, even at some disadvantage as to lighting facilities. This is illustrated by the transmission from St. Anthony’s Falls, Minn., at 35 cycles, from Cañon City to Cripple Creek, Col., at 30 cycles, by the Sault Ste. Marie plant of 32,000 kilowatts at 30 cycles, as well as by the two Niagara Falls plants of 78,750 kilowatts at 25 cycles.
Where power is the most crucial element in the operation of an electric water-power and transmission system, there's a clear trend to use a limited number of frequencies for the system, even if it affects lighting capabilities. This can be seen in the transmission from St. Anthony’s Falls, Minnesota, at 35 cycles, from Cañon City to Cripple Creek, Colorado, at 30 cycles, by the Sault Ste. Marie plant of 32,000 kilowatts at 30 cycles, and by the two Niagara Falls plants of 78,750 kilowatts at 25 cycles.
Where the main purpose of a transmission system is the supply of light and power for general distribution, sixty periods per second are adopted as the standard in many cases. This number of periods in comparison with a smaller one tends to increase the cost of rotary converters but decreases the cost of transformers, and is suitable for both incandescent and arc lighting.
Where the main goal of a transmission system is to provide light and power for general distribution, sixty cycles per second are commonly used as the standard in many situations. This frequency, compared to a lower one, tends to raise the cost of rotary converters but lowers the cost of transformers, making it suitable for both incandescent and arc lighting.

Fig. 51.—Efficiency Curves for Motor Generators at Montreal Sub-station of the Shawinigan Transmission Line.
Fig. 51.—Efficiency Curves for Motor Generators at the Montreal Substation of the Shawinigan Transmission Line.
Few, if any, transmission systems have recently been installed for frequencies above sixty cycles, and the older plants that worked at higher figures have in most cases been remodelled.
Few, if any, transmission systems have recently been set up for frequencies above sixty cycles, and the older plants that operated at higher levels have mostly been redesigned.
During the past decade the voltages of alternators have been greatly[118] increased, but have not caught up with the demand for high pressures on long-transmission lines. Ten years ago when the first long transmissions were going into operation 2,000 volts was considered high for an alternator. As this voltage is too low for economy of conductors longer than three or four miles, the important early transmissions were all carried out with the aid of step-up transformers at generating stations. The practice then was, and to a large extent still is, to design the alternators for a transmission with a voltage well suited to their economical construction, and then give the step-up transformers any ratio necessary to attain the required line voltage.
Over the last decade, the voltages of alternators have significantly[118]increased, but they still haven't met the demand for high pressures on long transmission lines. Ten years ago, when the first long transmissions were starting up, 2,000 volts was seen as high for an alternator. Since this voltage is too low for the efficient use of conductors over distances longer than three or four miles, the key early transmissions were done with step-up transformers at generating stations. Back then, and to a large extent still today, the approach was to design the alternators for a transmission voltage that was optimal for their cost-efficient construction, and then adjust the step-up transformers to achieve the necessary line voltage.
Alternators in Transmission Systems.
Alternators in Transmission Systems.
Location of System. | Num- ber at Plant. |
Kilo- watts Each. |
Alter- nator Volt- age. |
Phase. | Cycles. | R. P. M. |
Type of Magnet. |
Method of Connec- tions. |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Niagara Falls[A] | 16 | 3,750 | 2,300 | 2 | 25 | 250 | External re- volving |
Direct | ||||
Niagara Falls[A] | 5 | 3,750 | 2,300 | 2 | 25 | 250 | Internal | „ | ||||
Colgate to Oakland | 3 | 2,250 | 2,400 | 3 | 60 | 285 | Inductor | „ | ||||
Colgate to Oakland | 4 | 1,125 | 2,400 | 3 | 60 | 400 | „ | „ | ||||
Electra to S.Francisco | 5 | 2,000 | .... | 3 | 60 | 240 | „ | „ | ||||
Portsmouth to Pelh’m | 1 | 2,000 | 13,200 | 3 | 25 | 83 | .3 | Internal | „ | |||
Portsmouth to Pelh’m | 2 | 1,000 | 13,200 | 3 | 25 | 94 | „ | „ | ||||
Virginia City | 2 | 750 | 500 | 3 | 60 | 400 | External | „ | ||||
Ogden & Salt Lake | 5 | 750 | 2,300 | 3 | 60 | 300 | Internal | „ | ||||
Chaudière Falls | 2 | 750 | 10,500 | 3 | 66 | .6 | 400 | „ | „ | |||
Yadkin River Falls | 2 | 750 | 12,000 | 3 | 66 | 166 | „ | „ | ||||
Lewiston, Me. | 3 | 750 | 10,000 | 3 | 60 | 180 | „ | „ | ||||
Farmington River | - | 2 | 750 | 500 | 3 | 60 | ... | „ | „ | |||
to | ||||||||||||
Hartford, Conn. | 2 | 600 | 500 | 2 | 60 | ... | „ | „ | ||||
Cañon Ferry to Butte | 10 | 750 | 500 | 3 | 60 | 157 | „ | „ | ||||
Apple Riv. to St. Paul | 4 | 750 | 800 | 3 | 60 | 300 | „ | „ | ||||
Edison Co., L. Angeles | 4 | 700 | 750 | 3 | 50 | ... | „ | „ | ||||
Madrid to Bland | 2 | 600 | 605 | 3 | 60 | 90 | „ | „ | ||||
Cañon City to Cripple Creek | 3 | 450 | 500 | 3 | 30 | ... | ..... | „ | ||||
Sault Ste. Marie | 80 | 400 | 2,400 | 3 | 30 | 180 | „ | „ | ||||
St. Hyacinthe, Que. | 3 | 180 | 2,500 | 3 | 60 | 600 | „ | „ | ||||
Great Falls to Portland, Me. | 4 | 500 | 10,000 | 3 | 60 | 225 | „ | „ | ||||
[A] Niagara Falls Power Company. |
Thus in the two water-power plants connected with the electrical supply system of Hartford, Conn., the alternators operate at 500 volts with transformers that put the line voltage up to 10,000. In the station[119] on Apple River that supplies the lighting system of St. Paul, Minn., the alternators operate at 800 volts, and this is raised to 25,000 volts for the line. At Cañon Ferry the alternator voltage of 500 is multiplied by 100 in the transformers giving 50,000 on the line.
Thus, in the two hydroelectric plants connected to the electrical supply system of Hartford, Connecticut, the alternators operate at 500 volts with transformers that increase the line voltage to 10,000. In the station[119] on Apple River that provides power for the lighting system of St. Paul, Minnesota, the alternators operate at 800 volts, which is then increased to 25,000 volts for the line. At Cañon Ferry, the alternator voltage of 500 is raised by 100 in the transformers, resulting in 50,000 volts on the line.

Fig. 52.—Transmission Line of New Hampshire Traction Company.
Fig. 52.—Transmission Line of New Hampshire Traction Company.
Where the generating station of a transmission system is located close to a part of its load the alternators are given a voltage suitable for distribution, say about 2,400, and any desired pressure on the line is then obtained by means of step-up transformers. Two of the Niagara[120] Falls plants are an illustration of this practice, the voltage of all the alternators there being 2,200, which is raised to 22,000 for the transmission of a part of the energy to Buffalo. A similar practice is followed in the water-power plant at Ogden, where the generators furnish current at 2,300 volts for local distribution, and transformers raise the pressure to 26,000 volts for the transmission to Salt Lake City. In the 32,000-kilowatt plant at Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., the alternators operate at 2,400 volts and a large part of their load is local, but this voltage will no doubt be raised by transformers when transmission lines are operated.
Where a power station in a transmission system is located near part of its load, the generators produce a voltage that's suitable for distribution, typically around 2,400 volts. Any needed voltage on the line is then achieved using step-up transformers. Two of the Niagara Falls plants exemplify this method, with all their generators operating at 2,200 volts, which is increased to 22,000 volts to transmit some of the energy to Buffalo. A similar approach is used at the water-power plant in Ogden, where the generators provide current at 2,300 volts for local distribution, and transformers boost the voltage to 26,000 volts for transmission to Salt Lake City. At the 32,000-kilowatt plant in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, the generators function at 2,400 volts, with a significant portion of their load being local, but this voltage will likely be increased by transformers when the transmission lines are in use.
For generating stations that carry little or no local loads the cost of transformers can be saved if the generators develop the voltage required on the transmission lines. This possible saving has led to the development of alternators that generate voltages as high as 15,000 in their armature coils. Such alternators have stationary armatures in all cases and are of either the revolving magnet or inductor type.
For generating stations that have minimal or no local loads, the cost of transformers can be avoided if the generators produce the necessary voltage for the transmission lines. This potential savings has resulted in the creation of alternators that can generate voltages as high as 15,000 in their armature coils. These alternators always have stationary armatures and utilize either the revolving magnet or inductor design.
At the present time many transmission systems in the United States operating at 10,000 or more volts develop these pressures in the armature coils of their alternators, and the number of such systems is rapidly increasing. It is now the rule rather than the exception to dispense with step-up transformers on new work where the line voltage is anything under 15,000. Perhaps the longest transmission line now in regular operation with current from the armature coils of an alternator is that at 13,200 volts between the generating station at Portsmouth and one of the sub-stations of the New Hampshire Traction system at Pelham, a distance of forty-two miles.
Currently, many transmission systems in the United States operating at 10,000 volts or more generate these pressures in the armature coils of their alternators, and the number of such systems is rapidly increasing. It’s now more common than not to skip step-up transformers on new projects where the line voltage is below 15,000. Perhaps the longest transmission line in regular operation using current from the armature coils of an alternator operates at 13,200 volts, connecting the generating station in Portsmouth to one of the sub-stations of the New Hampshire Traction system in Pelham, a distance of forty-two miles.
In at least one transmission system now under construction, that of the Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Electric Railway, the voltage of generators to supply the line without the intervention of step-up transformers will be 15,000.
In at least one transmission system currently being built, the Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Electric Railway, the voltage of the generators that will supply the line without needing step-up transformers will be 15,000.
The company making these alternators is said to be ready to supply others that generate 20,000 volts in the armature coils whenever the demand for them is made. In quite a number of cases alternators of about 13,000 volts have been installed for transmissions along electric railway lines.
The company producing these alternators is reported to be prepared to supply others that generate 20,000 volts in the armature coils whenever there's a demand for them. In many instances, alternators of around 13,000 volts have been set up for transmissions along electric railway lines.
Systems Using High-voltage Alternators. | Alternator Voltages. |
---|---|
Electrical Development Co. of Ontario, Niagara Falls | 12,000 |
Lighting and Street Railway, Manchester, N. H. | 10,000 |
Lighting and Street Railway, Manchester, N. H. | 12,500 |
Lighting and Power, Portland, Me. | 10,000 |
Lighting and Power, North Gorham, Me. | 10,000 |
Mallison Power Co., Westbrook, Me. | 10,000 |
Lighting and Power, Lewiston, Me. | 10,000 |
Electric Railway, Portsmouth, N. H.[121] | 13,200 |
Electric Railway, Pittsfield, Mass. | 12,500 |
Ludlow Mills, Ludlow, Mass. | 13,200 |
Electric Railway, Boston to Worcester, Mass. | 13,200 |
Electric Railway, Albany & Hudson, N. Y. | 12,000 |
Empire State Power Co., Amsterdam, N. Y. | 12,000 |
Lehigh Power Co., Easton, Pa. | 12,000 |
Hudson River Power Co., Mechanicsville, N. Y. | 12,000 |
Light and Power, Anderson, S. C. | 11,000 |
Fries Mfg. Co., Salem, N. C. | 12,000 |
Light and Power, Ouray, Col. | 12,000 |
Washington & Baltimore Electric Railway | 15,000 |
Canadian Niagara Power Co., Niagara Falls | 12,000 |
Ontario Power Co., Niagara Falls | 12,000 |
This list of high-voltage alternators is not intended to be exhaustive, but serves to indicate their wide application. If such alternators can be purchased at a lower price per unit of capacity than alternators of low voltage plus step-up transformers, there is an apparent advantage for transmission systems in the high-voltage machines. This advantage may rest in part on a higher efficiency in the alternators that yield the line voltage than in the combination of low-voltage alternators plus step-up transformers. It is not certain, however, that depreciation and repairs on the generators of high voltage will not be materially greater than the like charges on generators of low voltage, and some advantage in price should be required to cover this contingency.
This list of high-voltage alternators isn’t meant to be comprehensive but shows their broad use. If you can buy these alternators at a lower cost per unit of capacity than low-voltage alternators plus step-up transformers, then high-voltage machines have a clear advantage for transmission systems. This benefit may partly come from the higher efficiency of the alternators that produce line voltage compared to the combination of low-voltage alternators and step-up transformers. However, it’s not certain that depreciation and repair costs for high-voltage generators won’t be significantly higher than those for low-voltage generators, and there should be some price advantage to account for this possibility.
Just how far up the voltage of alternators can be pushed for practical purposes is uncertain, but it seems that the limit must be much below that for transformers where there is ample room for solid insulation and the coils can be immersed in oil. The use of generators at 10,000 volts and above tends to lower the volts per mile on transmission lines, because it seems better in some cases to increase the weight of line conductors rather than to add step-up transformers, as in the 42-mile transmission from Portsmouth to Pelham.
Just how high the voltage of alternators can go for practical use is unclear, but it appears that the limit is much lower than that of transformers, where there is enough space for solid insulation and the coils can be submerged in oil. Using generators at 10,000 volts and above tends to reduce the volts per mile on transmission lines because, in some cases, it's more effective to increase the weight of line conductors rather than to add step-up transformers, like in the 42-mile transmission from Portsmouth to Pelham.
CHAPTER X.
Transformers in power systems.
Transformers are almost always necessary in long electric systems of transmission, because the line voltage is greater than that of generators, or at least that of distribution. As transformers at either generating or receiving stations represent an increase of investment without corresponding increase of working capacity, and also an additional loss in operation, it is desirable to avoid their use as far as is practicable. In short transmissions over distances of less than fifteen miles it is generally better to avoid the use of transformers at generating stations, and in some of these cases, where the transmission is only two or three miles, it is even more economical to omit transformers at the sub-stations.
Transformers are usually necessary in long electric transmission systems because the line voltage is higher than that of generators, or at least that of distribution. Since transformers at generating or receiving stations represent an increase in investment without a corresponding boost in working capacity, as well as adding operational losses, it's best to avoid using them whenever possible. For short transmissions over distances of less than fifteen miles, it's generally better to skip transformers at generating stations. In some cases, where the transmission is only two or three miles, it's even more cost-effective to leave out transformers at the substations.
Thus, where energy is to be transmitted two miles and then applied to large motors in a factory, or distributed at 2,500 volts, the cost of bare copper conductors for the three-phase transmission line will be only about $6 per kilowatt of line capacity at 2,500 volts, with copper at 15 cents per pound, and a loss of 5 per cent at full load. The average loss in such a line will probably be as small as that in one set of transformers and a line of higher voltage. Furthermore, the first cost of the 2,500-volt generators and line without transformers will be less than that of generators and line of higher voltage with step-down transformers at the sub-station.
Thus, when energy needs to be transmitted two miles and then used for large motors in a factory, or distributed at 2,500 volts, the cost of bare copper conductors for the three-phase transmission line will be around $6 per kilowatt of line capacity at 2,500 volts, with copper priced at 15 cents per pound and a loss of 5 percent at full load. The average loss in such a line will likely be as minimal as that in one set of transformers and a higher voltage line. Additionally, the initial cost of the 2,500-volt generators and line without transformers will be lower than the cost of generators and line at a higher voltage that require step-down transformers at the substation.
As generators up to 13,500 volts are now regularly manufactured, it is quite common to omit step-up transformers at the main stations of rather short transmission systems. This practice was followed in the 13,500-volt transmission to Manchester, N. H., the 10,000-volt transmission to Lewiston, Me., and the 12,000-volt transmission to Salem, N. C.
As generators up to 13,500 volts are now commonly produced, it's pretty standard to skip step-up transformers at the main stations of shorter transmission systems. This approach was used in the 13,500-volt transmission to Manchester, N.H., the 10,000-volt transmission to Lewiston, Me., and the 12,000-volt transmission to Salem, N.C.
In most transmission over distances of twenty-five miles or more,
step-up transformers at generating stations as well as step-down transformers
at sub-stations are employed. As yet the highest voltages that
have been put into practical use on transmission lines (that is, 50,000 to
60,000) are much below the pressures that have been yielded by transformers
in experimental work. These latter voltages have in a number
of instances gone above 100,000. The numbers and capacities of transformers[123]
[124]
used at main stations vary much in their relation to the numbers
and individual capacities of generators there. In some cases there are
three times as many transformers as three-phase generators, and the
capacity of each transformer is either equal to or somewhat greater than
one-third of the capacity of each generator.
In most cases, when transmitting over distances of twenty-five miles or more, step-up transformers at power plants and step-down transformers at substations are used. So far, the highest voltages that have been practically used on transmission lines (around 50,000 to 60,000 volts) are still much lower than what transformers have achieved in experimental settings. In many cases, these experimental voltages have exceeded 100,000 volts. The number and capacity of transformers[123]
[124] at main stations vary significantly compared to the number and capacity of the generators there. In some instances, there are three times as many transformers as three-phase generators, and each transformer's capacity is either equal to or slightly greater than one-third of each generator's capacity.

Fig. 53.—Transformers at Central Sub-station, Montreal.
Fig. 53.—Transformers at Central Substation, Montreal.
Thus in the station at Spier Falls on the Hudson, whence power is transmitted to Albany and other cities, the number of step-up transformers will be thirty and their aggregate capacity will be 24,014 kilowatts, while the total number of three-phase generators will be ten, with a combined capacity of 24,000 kilowatts. Another practice is to give each transformer a capacity greater than one-third of that of the three-phase generator with which it is to be connected, and make the total number of transformers less than three times as great as the number of generators. An example of this sort exists in the station on Apple River, whence power is transmitted to St. Paul. This station contains four three-phase generators of 750 kilowatts each, and six transformers of 500 kilowatts each, these latter being connected in two sets of three each. The use of three transformers for each three-phase generator instead of three transformers for each two or three generators, tends to keep transformers fully loaded when in use, and therefore to increase their efficiency. On the other hand, efficiency increases a little with the size of transformers, and the first cost per unit capacity is apt to be less the greater the size of each.
Thus, at the station in Spier Falls on the Hudson, which transmits power to Albany and other cities, there will be thirty step-up transformers with a total capacity of 24,014 kilowatts, while there will be ten three-phase generators with a combined capacity of 24,000 kilowatts. Another practice is to give each transformer a capacity greater than one-third of that of the three-phase generator it connects to, and to ensure the total number of transformers is less than three times the number of generators. An example of this can be seen at the station on Apple River, which transmits power to St. Paul. This station has four three-phase generators, each with 750 kilowatts, and six transformers, each with 500 kilowatts, connected in two sets of three. Using three transformers for each three-phase generator instead of three transformers for every two or three generators helps keep the transformers fully loaded during operation, which in turn increases their efficiency. On the other hand, efficiency tends to increase slightly with the size of transformers, and the initial cost per unit capacity is usually lower with larger transformers.
Another solution of the problem is to provide one transformer for each three-phase generator, each transformer being wound with three sets of coils, so that the entire output of a generator can be sent into it. This practice is followed at the Hochfelden water-power station, whence power is transmitted to Oerlikon, Switzerland, also in the water-power station at Grenoble, France, whence energy at 26,000 volts is transmitted to a number of factories. With three-phase transformers each generator and its transformer may form an independent unit that can be connected with the line at pleasure, thus tending to keep transformers at full load.
Another solution to the problem is to use one transformer for each three-phase generator, with each transformer designed with three sets of coils, allowing the entire output of a generator to be directed into it. This method is implemented at the Hochfelden water power station, from which power is sent to Oerlikon, Switzerland, and also at the water power station in Grenoble, France, where energy at 26,000 volts is delivered to several factories. With three-phase transformers, each generator and its transformer can operate as an independent unit that can be connected to the grid as needed, helping to keep the transformers running at full capacity.
Though three-phase transformers are much used in Europe, they have thus far had little application in the United States. Single-phase transformers may, of course, be limited in number to that of the three-phase generators with which they are used, but such transformers must regularly be connected to the generators and line in groups of two or three. Such an equipment was provided in part at the 7,500-kilowatt station on the Missouri River at Cañon Ferry, which contains ten three-phase generators of 750 kilowatts each. The transformers at this station include[125] twelve of 325 kilowatts each, connected in four groups of three each, also six transformers of 950 kilowatts each which are also connected in groups of three. Three of these larger transformers have a capacity of 2,850 kilowatts, or nearly equal to that of four generators.
Though three-phase transformers are widely used in Europe, they have had limited application in the United States so far. Single-phase transformers may be restricted in number to match the three-phase generators they’re used with, but these transformers must typically be connected to the generators and lines in groups of two or three. This setup was partially implemented at the 7,500-kilowatt station on the Missouri River at Cañon Ferry, which has ten three-phase generators, each rated at 750 kilowatts. The transformers at this station include[125] twelve units of 325 kilowatts each, arranged in four groups of three, and six transformers, each with a capacity of 950 kilowatts, also grouped in threes. Three of these larger transformers have a capacity of 2,850 kilowatts, which is nearly equal to that of four generators.
With two-phase generators single-phase transformers must be connected in pairs, and it is common to provide two transformers for each generator. Thus, in the Rainbow station on the Farmington River, whence energy is transmitted to Hartford, there are two generators of the two-phase type and rated at 600 kilowatts each, also four transformers rated at 300 kilowatts each.
With two-phase generators, single-phase transformers need to be paired, and it's typical to have two transformers for each generator. So, at the Rainbow station on the Farmington River, which sends energy to Hartford, there are two generators of the two-phase type, each rated at 600 kilowatts, along with four transformers rated at 300 kilowatts each.
As the regulation of transformers on overloads is not as good as that of generators, it seems good practice to give each group of transformers a somewhat greater capacity than that of the generator or generators whose energy is to pass through it. This plan was apparently followed at the Cañon Ferry station, where the total generator capacity is 7,500 kilowatts and the total capacity of step-up transformers is 9,600 kilowatts. Each group of the 325-kilowatt transformers there has a capacity of 975 kilowatts, while each generator is only of 750 kilowatts. Usually the number of groups of transformers at a two-phase or three-phase generating station is made greater than the number of transmission circuits supplied by the station, for some of the reasons just considered. When this is not the case it is commonly desirable in any event to have as many groups of step-up transformers as there are transmission circuits, so that each circuit may be operated with transformers that are independent of the other circuits.
As the regulation of transformers under overload isn’t as effective as that of generators, it’s a good practice to give each group of transformers a higher capacity than that of the generator or generators whose energy will pass through it. This approach was evidently used at the Cañon Ferry station, where the total generator capacity is 7,500 kilowatts and the total capacity of step-up transformers is 9,600 kilowatts. Each group of the 325-kilowatt transformers there has a capacity of 975 kilowatts, while each generator is only 750 kilowatts. Usually, the number of transformer groups at a two-phase or three-phase generating station is greater than the number of transmission circuits supplied by the station for some of the reasons mentioned. When that’s not the case, it’s generally desirable to have as many groups of step-up transformers as there are transmission circuits, so that each circuit can operate with transformers that are independent of the other circuits.
At sub-stations it is desirable to have a group of transformers for each transmission circuit, and it may be necessary to subdivide the transformer capacity still further in order to keep transformers in operation at nearly full load, or to provide a group of transformers for each sort of service or for each distribution circuit. All of the transformers at a sub-station should have a total capacity at least equal to that of the generators whose energy they are to receive, minus the losses in step-up transformers and the line. Transformers at sub-stations do not necessarily correspond in number or individual capacity with those at generating stations, and the number of sub-station transformers bears no necessary relation to the number of generators by which they are fed.
At substations, it's ideal to have a group of transformers for each transmission circuit, and it might be necessary to break down the transformer capacity even more to keep them running at nearly full load or to provide a set of transformers for each type of service or distribution circuit. All the transformers at a substation should have a total capacity that's at least equal to that of the generators supplying them, minus the losses in step-up transformers and the line. The number of transformers at substations doesn't have to match the number or capacity of those at generating stations, and the quantity of substation transformers doesn't directly relate to the number of generators supplying them.
Two transmission circuits extend from Cañon Ferry to a sub-station at Butte, and in that sub-station there are six transformers divided into two groups for three-phase operation, each transformer being rated at 950 kilowatts. This sub-station equipment thus corresponds to only the[126] six 950-kilowatt transformers in the generating station, because the four groups of smaller transformers there are used to supply the transmission line to Helena.
Two transmission circuits run from Cañon Ferry to a substation in Butte, where there are six transformers organized into two groups for three-phase operation, with each transformer rated at 950 kilowatts. This substation equipment corresponds only to the[126] six 950-kilowatt transformers in the generating station, because the four groups of smaller transformers there are used to supply the transmission line to Helena.
In the sub-station at St. Paul that receives the entire output of the plant on Apple River, where the six transformers of 500 kilowatts each are located, ten transformers receive energy from two three-phase transmission circuits. Six of these transformers are rated at 300 kilowatts each. The 300-kilowatt transformers are connected in two groups of three each, and the 200-kilowatt in two groups of two each, transforming current from three-phase to two-phase. The aggregate capacity of the sub-station transformers is thus 2,600 kilowatts, while that of transformers at the generating station is 3,000 kilowatts. With four generators at the water-power plant there are ten transformers at the sub-station, where all the energy, minus losses, is delivered.
In the substation at St. Paul that receives all the output from the plant on Apple River, where six 500-kilowatt transformers are located, ten transformers get energy from two three-phase transmission circuits. Six of these transformers are rated at 300 kilowatts each. The 300-kilowatt transformers are organized in two groups of three, while the 200-kilowatt transformers are in two groups of two, converting current from three-phase to two-phase. The total capacity of the substation transformers is 2,600 kilowatts, while the transformers at the generating station have a capacity of 3,000 kilowatts. With four generators at the hydroelectric plant, there are ten transformers at the substation, where all the energy, minus losses, is delivered.
At Watervliet, where one of the several sub-stations of the system with its larger generating plant at Spier Falls is located, the capacity of each transformer is 1,000 kilowatts, though each transformer at Spier Falls has a rating below this figure.
At Watervliet, which has one of the several substations of the system with its larger generating plant at Spier Falls, each transformer has a capacity of 1,000 kilowatts, although each transformer at Spier Falls is rated below this amount.
In the sub-station at Manchester, N. H., that receives nearly all of the energy from four water-power plants, containing eight generators with an aggregate capacity of 4,030 kilowatts, there are located twenty-one step-down transformers that have a total rating of 4,200 kilowatts. These twenty-one transformers are fed by six circuits, of which five are three-phase and one is two-phase. A part of the transformers supply current to motor-generators, developing 500-volt current for a street railway, and the remaining transformers feed circuits that distribute alternating current.
In the substation in Manchester, N.H., which gets almost all of its energy from four hydroelectric power plants, there are eight generators with a combined capacity of 4,030 kilowatts. It also has twenty-one step-down transformers with a total rating of 4,200 kilowatts. These transformers are supplied by six circuits—five are three-phase, and one is two-phase. Some of the transformers provide power to motor-generators that create 500-volt current for a streetcar system, while the others supply circuits that distribute alternating current.
From these examples it may be seen that in practice either one or more groups of transformers are employed in sub-stations for each transmission circuit, that the total number of these transformers may be just equal to or several times that of the generators from which they receive energy, and that the individual capacities of the transformers range from less than one-third to more than that of a single generator. Groups of transformers at a main station must correspond in voltage with that of the generators in the primary and that of the transmission line in the secondary windings. Sub-station transformers receive current at the line voltage and deliver it at any of the pressures desired for local distribution. Where step-up transformers are employed the generator pressure in nearly all cases is at some point between 500 and 2,500 volts.
From these examples, it’s clear that in practice, one or more groups of transformers are used in substations for each transmission circuit. The total number of these transformers can be equal to or several times the number of generators supplying energy to them. The individual capacities of the transformers range from less than one-third to more than the capacity of a single generator. Groups of transformers at a main station must match the voltage of the generators in the primary windings and that of the transmission line in the secondary windings. Substation transformers receive current at line voltage and deliver it at any desired levels for local distribution. When step-up transformers are used, the generator voltage is usually between 500 and 2,500 volts.
At the Cañon Ferry station the voltage of transformers is 550 in[127] in the primary and 50,000 in the secondary windings. In the Colgate power-house, whence energy is transmitted to Oakland, the generator pressure of 2,400 volts is raised to 40,000 volts by transformers. Generator voltage in the power-house on Apple River is 800 and transformers put the pressure up to 25,000 for the line to St. Paul. Transformers at the Niagara Falls station raise the voltage from 2,200 to 22,000 for the transmission to Buffalo.
At the Cañon Ferry station, the voltage of the transformers is 550 in[127] the primary windings and 50,000 in the secondary windings. In the Colgate power plant, where energy is sent to Oakland, the generator voltage of 2,400 volts is increased to 40,000 volts by transformers. The generator voltage in the power plant on Apple River is 800, and transformers boost it to 25,000 for the line to St. Paul. Transformers at the Niagara Falls station increase the voltage from 2,200 to 22,000 for transmission to Buffalo.
As transformers can be wound for any desired ratio of voltages in their primary and secondary coils, a generator pressure that will allow the most economical construction can be selected where step-up transformers are employed. In general it may be said that the greater the capacity of each generator, the higher should be its voltage and that of the primary coils of step-up transformers, for economical construction. At sub-stations the requirements of distribution must obviously fix the secondary voltages of transformers.
As transformers can be designed for any desired voltage ratio in their primary and secondary coils, a generator voltage can be chosen for the most cost-effective construction when using step-up transformers. Generally, the larger the capacity of each generator, the higher its voltage and that of the primary coils of step-up transformers should be for economical building. At substations, the needs of distribution must obviously determine the secondary voltages of transformers.
Weight and cost of transformers depend in part on the frequency of the alternating current employed, transformers being lighter and cheaper the higher the number of cycles completed per second by their current, other factors remaining constant. In spite of this fact the tendency during some years has been toward lower frequencies, because the lower frequencies present marked advantages as to inductive effects in transmission systems, the distribution of power through induction motors, the construction and operation of rotary converters, and the construction of generators. Instead of the 133 cycles per second that were common in alternating systems when long transmissions first became important, sixty cycles per second is now the most general rate of current changes in such transmission systems. But practice is constantly extending to still lower frequencies. The first Niagara Falls plant with its twenty-five cycles per second reached the lower limit for general distribution, because incandescent lighting is barely satisfactory and arc lighting decidedly undesirable at this figure.
The weight and cost of transformers are partly influenced by the frequency of the alternating current used. Transformers are lighter and cheaper when there are more cycles per second in the current, assuming other factors stay the same. However, for several years, there has been a trend towards lower frequencies since these have significant advantages in things like inductive effects in transmission systems, power distribution through induction motors, the construction and operation of rotary converters, and generator design. Instead of the 133 cycles per second that were common when long transmissions first became significant, sixty cycles per second is now the standard rate of current changes in these systems. But practices are continuously moving toward even lower frequencies. The first Niagara Falls plant, operating at twenty-five cycles per second, hit the lower limit for general distribution because incandescent lighting is just about acceptable and arc lighting is definitely not ideal at this frequency.
In contrast with the great transmissions from Cañon Ferry to Butte, Colgate to Oakland, and Electra to San Francisco, which operate at sixty cycles, the system between Cañon City and Cripple Creek, in Colorado, as well as the great plant at Sault Ste. Marie, employs thirty-cycle current, and the lines from Spier Falls to Schenectady, Albany, and Troy are intended for current at forty cycles per second. From these examples it may be seen that the bulk and cost of transformers is not the controlling factor in the selection of current frequency in a transmission system.
In contrast to the major transmissions from Cañon Ferry to Butte, Colgate to Oakland, and Electra to San Francisco, which operate at sixty cycles, the system between Cañon City and Cripple Creek in Colorado, along with the large plant at Sault Ste. Marie, uses thirty-cycle current. Additionally, the lines from Spier Falls to Schenectady, Albany, and Troy are designed for current at forty cycles per second. These examples show that the size and cost of transformers are not the main factors in choosing the current frequency for a transmission system.

Fig. 54.—First Floor of Saratoga Sub-station.
Fig. 54.—First Floor of Saratoga Substation.
Larger plan (73 kB)
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ (73 kB)
Transformers used at either generating or sub-stations are cooled by special means in many cases.
Transformers used at generating stations or substations are often cooled using special methods.
The advantages of so-called artificial cooling are smaller weight and first cost in transformers, and perhaps longer life for the insulation of windings. For these advantages a small increase in the cost of operation must be paid. Station transformers are usually cooled either by forcing air through their cases under pressure, or else by passing water through pipes in the oil with which the transformer cases are filled. If cooling with air-blast is adopted, a blower, with electric motor or some other source of power to operate it, must be provided. Where transformers are oil-insulated and cooled with water there must be some pressure to maintain the circulation. If free water under a suitable head can be had for the cooling of transformers, as in most water-power plants, the cost is very slight. Where water must be purchased and pumped through the transformers its cost will usually be greater than that of cooling with air-blast. One manufacturer gives the following as approximate figures for the rate at which water at the temperature of 15° centigrade must be forced through his transformers to prevent a rise of more than 35° centigrade in their temperature, probably when operating under full loads.
The benefits of so-called artificial cooling include reduced weight and lower initial costs for transformers, and potentially longer life for the insulation of windings. However, a slight increase in operating costs is necessary for these advantages. Station transformers are typically cooled either by forcing air through their casings under pressure or by passing water through pipes within the oil that fills the transformer cases. If air-blast cooling is used, a blower powered by an electric motor or another power source must be provided. When transformers are oil-insulated and cooled with water, some pressure is required to maintain circulation. If free water at an appropriate head is available for cooling transformers, as is often the case in water-power plants, the cost is minimal. When water needs to be purchased and pumped through the transformers, the costs will generally be higher than air-blast cooling. One manufacturer provides the following approximate figures for the rate at which water at 15° Celsius must be pumped through his transformers to prevent a temperature rise of more than 35° Celsius, likely during full-load operation.
Trans- formers— Kilowatts. |
Gallons per minute. |
|
---|---|---|
150 | 0 | .5 |
400 | .75 | |
400 | 1 | .00 |
1,000 | 1 | .5 |
75 | .37 |
An air-blast to cool transformers at main or sub-stations may be provided in either of two ways. One plan is to construct an air-tight compartment, locate the transformers over openings in its top, and maintain a pressure in the compartment by means of blower-fans that draw cool air from outside. Such an arrangement has been carried out at the sub-station in Manchester, N. H. The basement underneath this sub-station is air-tight, and in the concrete floor over it there are twenty-seven rectangular openings, each twenty-five by thirty inches, and intended for the location of a 200-kilowatt transformer. Aggregate transformer capacity over these openings will thus be 5,400 kilowatts. Pressure in this basement is maintained by drawing outside air through a metal duct that terminates in a hood on the outside of the sub-station about nine feet above the ground. In the roof of this sub-station there are ample skylight openings to permit the exit of hot air that has been forced through the transformers. In the air-tight basement are two electric motors of[130] ten horse-power each, connected to the blower that maintains the pressure. It may be noted that in this case there is less than one-horse power of motor capacity for each 200 kilowatts capacity in transformers.
An air-blast system to cool transformers at main or sub-stations can be set up in one of two ways. One option is to build an air-tight compartment, place the transformers over openings in its top, and keep a pressure in the compartment using blower fans that draw in cool air from outside. This setup has been implemented at the sub-station in Manchester, N. H. The basement beneath this sub-station is air-tight, and there are twenty-seven rectangular openings in the concrete floor above it, each measuring twenty-five by thirty inches, designed for a 200-kilowatt transformer. The total transformer capacity over these openings is therefore 5,400 kilowatts. The pressure in this basement is maintained by pulling outside air through a metal duct that ends in a hood outside the sub-station, about nine feet above the ground. The roof of this sub-station has plenty of skylight openings to allow hot air that has passed through the transformers to escape. In the air-tight basement, there are two electric motors of[130] ten horsepower each, connected to the blower that keeps the pressure up. It's worth noting that in this case, there is less than one horsepower of motor capacity for every 200 kilowatts of transformer capacity.
Where there are not more than six or nine transformers to be cooled, it is common practice to provide a separate motor and blower for each group of three transformers, and lead the air directly from each blower to its group of transformers by a metal duct, thus avoiding the necessity for an air-chamber. In such cases a blower giving a three-eighth-ounce air pressure per square inch and a motor of one horse-power capacity are generally provided for each group of three transformers rated at 100 to 150 kilowatts each. Where cooling with air-blast is adopted, oil-insulation cannot be carried out because the air must come into intimate contact with the transformer coils and core. Both oil-insulation with water cooling and dry insulation with cooling by air-blast have been widely used in transmission systems of large capacity and high voltage.
Where there are no more than six or nine transformers needing cooling, it’s common to have a separate motor and blower for each set of three transformers, directing the air straight from each blower to its transformer group using a metal duct, thus eliminating the need for an air chamber. In these situations, a blower that provides a three-eighth-ounce air pressure per square inch and a one-horsepower motor are typically used for each trio of transformers rated at 100 to 150 kilowatts each. When air-blast cooling is used, oil insulation can’t be applied because the air must come into close contact with the transformer coils and core. Both oil insulation with water cooling and dry insulation with air-blast cooling have been extensively utilized in large capacity and high voltage transmission systems.
In the Colgate plant, where the line pressure is 40,000 volts, the 700-kilowatt transformers are oil-insulated and water-cooled, and this is also true of the 950-kilowatt transformers in the 50,000-volt transmission between Cañon Ferry and Butte. On the other hand, the transmission system between Spier Falls, Schenectady, and Albany, carried out at 26,500 volts, includes transformers that range from several hundred to 1,000 kilowatts each in capacity and are all air-cooled. Either a water-cooled transformer or one cooled by air-blast may be safely overloaded to some extent, if the circulation of air or water is so increased that the overload does not cause heating beyond the allowable temperature.
In the Colgate plant, where the line pressure is 40,000 volts, the 700-kilowatt transformers are oil-insulated and water-cooled, and the same goes for the 950-kilowatt transformers in the 50,000-volt transmission between Cañon Ferry and Butte. In contrast, the transmission system between Spier Falls, Schenectady, and Albany operates at 26,500 volts and includes transformers ranging from several hundred to 1,000 kilowatts in capacity, all of which are air-cooled. Both water-cooled transformers and air-blast cooled ones can be safely overloaded to some degree, as long as the flow of air or water is increased enough to prevent overheating beyond the acceptable temperature.
The circulation of air or water through a transformer should never be forced to an extent that cools the transformer below the temperature of the air in the room where it is located, as this will cause the condensation of water on its parts.
The flow of air or water through a transformer should never be pushed to the point that it cools the transformer below the temperature of the room it's in, as this will lead to water condensing on its components.
In some cases it is desirable that means for the regulation of transformer voltages through a range of ten per cent or more each way from the normal be provided. This result is reached by the connection of a number of sections at one end of the transformer winding to a terminal board, where they may be cut in or out of action at will. Regulation is usually desired, if at all, in a secondary winding of comparatively low voltage, and the regulating sections generally form a part of such winding, but these sections may be located in the primary winding.
In some cases, it's important to have a way to adjust transformer voltages by about ten percent or more in either direction from the normal level. This is achieved by connecting several sections at one end of the transformer winding to a terminal board, allowing them to be turned on or off as needed. Regulation is typically needed, if at all, in a secondary winding with relatively low voltage, and the regulating sections usually make up part of that winding, although they can also be positioned in the primary winding.
In order to keep the number of transformers smaller and the capacity of each larger than it would otherwise be, it is practicable to divide the low-voltage secondary winding of each transformer into two or more[131] parts that have no electrical connection with each other. These different parts of the winding may then be connected to distinct distribution lines or other services. An example of this sort exists in the Hooksett sub-station of the Manchester, N. H., transmission system. Three-phase current at about 11,000 volts enters the primary windings of three transformers at this sub-station. Each of these transformers has a single primary, but two distinct secondary windings. Three of these secondaries, one on each transformer, are connected together and feed a rotary converter at about 380 volts, three-phase. The other three secondary windings are connected in like manner to a second rotary converter. Each of these transformers is rated at 250 kilowatts, and each rotary is rated at 300 kilowatts, so that the transformer capacity amounts to 750 kilowatts and that of the converters to 600 kilowatts, giving a desirable margin of transformer capacity for railway service. With the ordinary method of connection and windings, six transformers of 125 kilowatts each would have been required in this sub-station.
To reduce the number of transformers and increase the capacity of each one, it's effective to split the low-voltage secondary winding of each transformer into two or more[131] parts that aren't electrically connected. These separate parts can then connect to different distribution lines or services. An example of this setup can be found at the Hooksett substation in the Manchester, N.H., transmission system. Three-phase current at roughly 11,000 volts enters the primary windings of three transformers at this substation. Each transformer has a single primary but two separate secondary windings. Three of these secondaries, one from each transformer, are connected together to power a rotary converter at about 380 volts, three-phase. The other three secondary windings are connected similarly to a second rotary converter. Each transformer is rated at 250 kilowatts, and each rotary at 300 kilowatts, totaling 750 kilowatts for the transformers and 600 kilowatts for the converters, providing a good margin of transformer capacity for railway service. If the standard method of connection and windings had been used, six transformers rated at 125 kilowatts each would have been necessary for this substation.
High voltage for transmission lines may be obtained by the combination of two or more transformers with their secondary coils in series. This method was followed in some of the early transmissions, as in that at 10,000 volts to San Bernardino and Pomona, begun in 1891, where twenty transformers, giving 500 volts each, were used with their high-voltage coils in series. Some disadvantages of such an arrangement are its high cost per unit of transformer capacity and its low efficiency.
High voltage for transmission lines can be achieved by connecting two or more transformers in series with their secondary coils. This method was used in some of the early transmission systems, such as the one that operated at 10,000 volts to San Bernardino and Pomona, which started in 1891. In that case, twenty transformers, each providing 500 volts, were used with their high-voltage coils linked together. Some drawbacks of this setup are its high cost per unit of transformer capacity and its low efficiency.
In a single-phase system the maximum line pressure must be developed or received in the coils of each transformer, unless two or more are connected in series. This is also true as to either phase of a two-phase system with independent circuits. In three-phase circuits the coils of a transformer connected between either two wires obviously operate at the full line pressure. The same result is reached when the three transformers of a group are joined to the line in mesh or Δ-fashion. If the three transformers of a group are joined in star or Y-fashion, the coils of each transformer are subject to fifty-eight per cent of the voltage between any two wires of the three-phase line on which the group is connected. It is no longer the practice to connect two or more transformers in series either between two wires of a two-phase or between two wires of a three-phase circuit, because it is cheaper and more efficient to use a single transformer in each of these positions. Where very high voltage must be developed or received with a three-phase system, the star or Y-connection of each group of three transformers has the advantage of a lower strain on the insulation of each transformer than that with the mesh or Δ-grouping.[132] Thus if the Δ-grouping is used, the line pressure equals that of each transformer coil, but if the Y-grouping is used the line voltage is 1.73 times that of each transformer coil.
In a single-phase system, the maximum line pressure must be developed or received in the coils of each transformer, unless two or more are connected in series. This also applies to either phase of a two-phase system with independent circuits. In three-phase circuits, the coils of a transformer connected between any two wires operate at full line pressure. The same outcome occurs when the three transformers in a group are connected to the line in a mesh or Δ configuration. If the three transformers in a group are connected in a star or Y configuration, the coils of each transformer experience fifty-eight percent of the voltage between any two wires of the three-phase line to which the group is connected. It is no longer standard practice to connect two or more transformers in series either between two wires of a two-phase circuit or between two wires of a three-phase circuit, because using a single transformer in these placements is cheaper and more efficient. When very high voltage needs to be developed or received with a three-phase system, the star or Y connection of each group of three transformers has the advantage of exerting less stress on the insulation of each transformer compared to the mesh or Δ grouping. Thus, if the Δ grouping is used, the line pressure equals that of each transformer coil, but if the Y grouping is used, the line voltage is 1.73 times that of each transformer coil.[132]
At the Colgate power-house, the 700-kilowatt transformers are designed for a maximum pressure of 60,000 volts on the three-phase line when Y-connected, so that the corresponding voltage is 34,675 in their secondary coils. The primary coils of these same transformers are connected in mesh or Δ-form and each coil operates at 2,300 volts, the generator pressure.
At the Colgate power house, the 700-kilowatt transformers are built to handle a maximum pressure of 60,000 volts on the three-phase line when they're Y-connected, resulting in a corresponding voltage of 34,675 in their secondary coils. The primary coils of these transformers are connected in a mesh or Δ formation, and each coil operates at 2,300 volts, which is the generator pressure.
Transformers are in some cases provided with several sets of connections to their coils so that they may be operated at widely different pressures. Thus, in the Colgate plant, each transformer has taps brought out from its secondary coils so that it can be operated at either 23,175, 28,925, or 34,675, with 2,300 volts at its primary coil. Corresponding to the three voltages named in each secondary coil are voltages of 40,000, 50,000, and 60,000 on a three-phase line connected with three of these transformers in Y-fashion.
Transformers sometimes come with multiple sets of connections to their coils, allowing them to operate at very different pressures. For example, at the Colgate plant, each transformer has taps connected to its secondary coils, enabling it to operate at either 23,175, 28,925, or 34,675 volts, with 2,300 volts at its primary coil. The three voltages mentioned for each secondary coil correspond to voltages of 40,000, 50,000, and 60,000 on a three-phase line connected to three of these transformers in a Y configuration.
The mesh or Δ-connection is used between the coils of transformers on some transmission lines of very high voltage. The 950 kilowatt transformers in the system between Cañon Ferry and Butte illustrate this practice, being connected Δ-fashion to the 50,000-volt line.
The mesh or Δ-connection is used between the coils of transformers on some very high voltage transmission lines. The 950-kilowatt transformers in the system between Cañon Ferry and Butte illustrate this practice, being connected in a Δ fashion to the 50,000-volt line.
When transformers that will operate at the desired line voltage on Δ-connection can be obtained at slight advance over the cost of transformers requiring Y-connections, it is often better practice to select the former, because this will enable an increase of seventy-three per cent in the voltage of transmission to be made at any future time by simply changing to Y-connections. Such an increase of voltage may become desirable because of growing loads or extension of transmission lines.
When transformers that work at the desired line voltage on a Δ-connection can be obtained at a slightly higher cost than transformers requiring Y-connections, it's often better to choose the former. This allows for a 73% increase in transmission voltage in the future simply by switching to Y-connections. Such an increase in voltage might be needed due to growing loads or extensions of transmission lines.
An example of this sort came up some time ago in connection with the transmission between Ogden and Salt Lake City, which was operating at 16,000 volts, three-phase, with the high-pressure coils of transformers connected in Δ-form. By changing to Y-connections the line voltage was raised seventy-three per cent without increasing the strain on transformer insulation.
An example of this kind came up some time ago regarding the transmission between Ogden and Salt Lake City, which was running at 16,000 volts, three-phase, with the high-pressure coils of transformers connected in a Δ-configuration. By switching to Y-connections, the line voltage increased by seventy-three percent without adding stress to the transformer insulation.
In some cases it is desirable to change alternating current from two-phase to three-phase, or vice versa, for purposes of transmission or distribution, and this can readily be done by means of static transformers. One method often employed to effect this result includes the use of two transformers connected to opposite phases of the two-phase circuit. The three-phase coil of one of these transformers should be designed for the[133] desired three-phase voltage, and should have a tap brought out from its central point. The three-phase coil of the other transformer should be designed for 87 per cent of the desired three-phase voltage. One end of the coil designed for 87 per cent of the three-phase voltage should be connected to the centre tap of the three-phase coil in the other transformer. The other end of the 87 per cent coil goes to one wire of the three-phase circuit. The other two wires of this circuit should be connected, respectively, to the outside end of the coil that has the central tap. As a matter of illustration it may be required to transform 500-volt, two-phase current from generators, to 20,000-volt, three-phase current for transmission. Two transformers designed for 500 volts in their primary coils are necessary for this work. One of these transformers should have a secondary coil designed for 20,000 volts, so that the ratio of transformation is 20,000 ÷ 500 or 40 to 1, and a tap should be brought out from the centre of this coil. The other transformer should have a secondary voltage of 0.87 × 20,000 = 17,400, so that its ratio of transformation is 34.8 to 1.
In some cases, it’s necessary to convert alternating current from two-phase to three-phase, or vice versa, for transmission or distribution, and this can easily be done using static transformers. One common method involves using two transformers connected to opposite phases of the two-phase circuit. The three-phase coil of one of these transformers should be designed for the desired three-phase voltage and should have a tap taken from its central point. The three-phase coil of the other transformer should be designed for 87 percent of the desired three-phase voltage. One end of the coil designed for 87 percent of the three-phase voltage should be connected to the center tap of the three-phase coil in the other transformer. The other end of the 87 percent coil connects to one wire of the three-phase circuit. The other two wires of this circuit should connect to the outside end of the coil that has the central tap. For example, it may be necessary to convert 500-volt, two-phase current from generators to 20,000-volt, three-phase current for transmission. Two transformers designed for 500 volts in their primary coils are needed for this. One of these transformers should have a secondary coil designed for 20,000 volts, so the transformation ratio is 20,000 ÷ 500 or 40 to 1, and a tap should be taken from the center of this coil. The other transformer should have a secondary voltage of 0.87 × 20,000 = 17,400, so its transformation ratio is 34.8 to 1.
These two transformers, with the connections above indicated, will change the 500-volt, two-phase current to 20,000 volts, three-phase.
These two transformers, with the connections mentioned above, will convert the 500-volt, two-phase current into 20,000 volts, three-phase.
At one of the water-power stations supplying energy for use in Hartford, four transformers of 300 kilowatts each change 500-volt, two-phase current from the generators to 10,000-volt, three-phase, for the transmission line.
At one of the hydroelectric power stations providing energy for Hartford, four 300-kilowatt transformers convert 500-volt, two-phase current from the generators to 10,000-volt, three-phase current for the transmission line.
In the Niagara water-power station the generators deliver two-phase current at 2,200 volts, and 975-kilowatt transformers are connected in pairs to change the pressure to 22,000 volts, three-phase, for transmission to Buffalo.
In the Niagara power station, the generators produce two-phase current at 2,200 volts, and 975-kilowatt transformers are linked in pairs to convert the voltage to 22,000 volts, three-phase, for transmission to Buffalo.
A transformer is used in some cases to raise the voltage and compensate for the loss in a transmission line. For this purpose the secondary of a transformer giving the number of volts by which the line pressure is to be increased is connected in series with the line. The primary winding of this transformer may be supplied from the line boosted or from another source.
A transformer is sometimes used to increase the voltage and make up for the loss in a transmission line. For this reason, the secondary side of a transformer, which specifies how many volts the line pressure needs to be increased, is connected in series with the line. The primary winding of this transformer can be powered either by the boosted line or from a different source.
Transformers ranging in capacity from 100 to 1,000 kilowatts each, such as are commonly used for transmission work, have efficiencies of 96 to 98 per cent at full loads, when of first-class construction. Efficiency increases slowly with transformer capacity within the limits named, and 98 per cent can be fairly expected in only the larger sizes. In any given transformer the efficiency may be expected to fall a little, say one or two per cent, between full load and half load, and another one per cent between half load and quarter load. These figures for efficiencies at partial[134] loads vary somewhat with the design and make of transformers. In general, it may be said that step-up or step-down transformers will cost approximately $7.50 per kilowatt capacity, or about one-half of the like cost of low-voltage dynamos. If dynamos of voltage sufficiently high for the transmission line can be had at a figure below the combined cost of low-volt dynamos and raising transformers, it will usually pay to avoid the latter and develop the line voltage in the armature coils. This plan avoids the loss in one set of transformers.
Transformers with capacities from 100 to 1,000 kilowatts, which are typically used for transmission work, have efficiencies of 96 to 98 percent at full loads, provided they are well-constructed. Efficiency gradually increases with transformer capacity within the mentioned range, and 98 percent can be reasonably expected only in the larger sizes. For any specific transformer, the efficiency may decrease slightly, by about one or two percent, from full load to half load, and another one percent from half load to quarter load. These efficiency figures at partial loads can vary somewhat based on the design and manufacturer of the transformers. Generally, step-up or step-down transformers will cost around $7.50 per kilowatt capacity, which is about half the cost of similar low-voltage dynamos. If dynamos with a high enough voltage for the transmission line are available at a lower price than the combined cost of low-voltage dynamos and raising transformers, it often makes sense to skip the latter and generate the line voltage directly in the armature coils. This approach eliminates the losses associated with one set of transformers.
Transformers in Transmission Systems.
Transformers in Power Systems.
Transmission System. | Transformers at Power-stations. |
Transformers at Sub-stations. |
Generators at Power-stations. |
|||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. | Kw. Each. |
No. | Kw. Each. |
No. | Kw. Each. |
|||||
Cañon Ferry to Butte | 12 | 325 | [A] | [A] | ... | ... | ||||
6 | 950 | 6 | 950 | 10 | 750 | |||||
Apple River to St. Paul | ... | ... | 6 | 300 | ... | ... | ||||
6 | 500 | 4 | 200 | 4 | 750 | |||||
White River to Dales | 3 | 400 | 3 | 375 | 2 | 500 | ||||
Farmington River to Hartford | 4 | 300 | ... | ... | 2 | 600 | ||||
Ogden to Salt Lake | [B]9 | 250 | ... | ... | 5 | 750 | ||||
Colgate to Oakland | ... | 700 | ... | ... | - | 3 | 1125 | |||
4 | 2250 | |||||||||
Presumpscot River to Portland | ... | ... | - | 6 | 200 | ... | ... | |||
3 | 150 | 4 | 500 | |||||||
Four water-powers to Manchester | ... | ... | 21 | 200 | - | 1 | 180 | |||
3 | 300 | |||||||||
1 | 450 | |||||||||
4 | 650 | |||||||||
1 | 1200 | |||||||||
[A] Other transformers at Helena sub-stations. [B] Part of energy distributed directly from generators. |
CHAPTER XI.
Switches, fuses, and circuit breakers.
Electrical transmission has worked a revolution in the art of switching. As long as the distances to be covered by distribution lines required pressures of only a few hundred volts, the switch contacts for generators and feeders could well be exposed in a row on the surface of vertical marble slabs and separated from each other by distances of only a few inches. These switches were capable of manual operation even at times of heavy overload without danger of personal injury to the operator or of destructive arcing between the parts of a single switch or from one switch to another near-by. On the back of these marble slabs one or more sets of bare bus-bars could be located without much probability that an accidental contact between them would start an arc capable of destroying the entire switchboard structure and shutting down the station.
Electrical transmission has completely transformed the way switching works. As long as the distances that distribution lines needed to cover only required a few hundred volts, the switch contacts for generators and feeders could easily be arranged in a row on the surface of vertical marble slabs, just a few inches apart. These switches could be operated manually even during heavy overloads without risking personal injury to the operator or causing destructive arcing between the parts of a single switch or between nearby switches. On the back of these marble slabs, one or more sets of bare bus-bars could be placed with minimal risk that accidental contact would trigger an arc capable of destroying the entire switchboard structure and shutting down the station.
The rise of electric pressures to thousands and tens of thousands of volts in distribution and transmission systems has vastly increased the difficulty of safe and effective control with open-air switches. The higher the voltage of the circuit to be operated under load the greater must be the distance between the contact parts of each switch and also between adjacent switches. Such switches must also be farther removed from the operators as the voltages of their circuits go up, as a person cannot safely stand very close to an electric arc of several feet or even yards in length. In the West, where long transmissions are most common, long break-stick switches have been much used with high voltages. These switches depend on the length of the break to open the circuit and on the length of the stick that moves the switch-jaw or plug to insure the safety of the operator. Where switches of this sort are used it is highly important to have ample distances between the contact points of each switch and also between the several switches. On circuits of not more than 10,000 volts an arc as much as a yard long will in some cases follow the opening switch blade and hold on for several seconds. On the 33,000-volt transmission line at Los Angeles a peculiar form of switch is used[136] which makes a break between a pair of curved wire horns that are ten inches apart at their nearest points. When the contact between these horns is broken the arc travels up between portions of the horns that curve apart and is thus finally ruptured. Besides the very large space required for open switches on circuits of 5,000 to 10,000 volts or more, there is a further objection that the arcs developed by opening such switches under heavy loads rapidly destroy the contact parts and produce large quantities of metallic vapor that is objectionable in a central station. In some experiments performed at Kalamazoo (A. I. E. E., vol. xviii., p. 407) with open-air switches the voltages ranged from 25,000 to 40,000. The loads on circuits broken by the switches were highly inductive and mounted from 1,200 to 1,300 kilovolt-amperes. At 25,000 volts the arc produced by the open-air switch held on for several seconds. At 40,000 volts the arc following the opening of this switch was over thirty feet long, and being out of doors near the pole line the arc struck the line wires and short-circuited the system. It has been shown that the oscillations of voltage occurring when a circuit under heavy load is opened by an open-air switch may be very dangerous to insulation (A. I. E. E., vol. xviii., p. 383). In the Kalamazoo test the oscillations of this sort were reported to have reached two or three times the normal voltage of the system when the open-air switch was used.
The rise of electric pressures to thousands and tens of thousands of volts in distribution and transmission systems has greatly increased the difficulty of safely and effectively controlling open-air switches. The higher the voltage of the circuit being operated under load, the greater the distance needs to be between the contact parts of each switch and also between adjacent switches. These switches must also be positioned farther away from operators as the voltages increase, since a person cannot safely stand too close to an electric arc that can reach several feet or even yards in length. In the West, where long transmissions are most common, long break-stick switches have been widely used with high voltages. These switches rely on the length of the break to open the circuit and on the length of the stick that moves the switch jaw or plug to ensure the operator's safety. Where such switches are used, it’s crucial to maintain ample distances between the contact points of each switch and among the several switches. In circuits of no more than 10,000 volts, an arc can be as long as a yard in some cases and may linger for several seconds after the switch blade opens. On the 33,000-volt transmission line in Los Angeles, a unique type of switch is used[136] that breaks the circuit between a pair of curved wire horns that are ten inches apart at their closest points. When contact between these horns is broken, the arc travels up between the portions of the horns that curve apart and is eventually disrupted. Besides the significant space required for open switches on circuits of 5,000 to 10,000 volts or more, another drawback is that the arcs produced by opening such switches under heavy loads quickly damage the contact parts and generate large amounts of metallic vapor, which is undesirable in a central station. In some experiments carried out in Kalamazoo (A. I. E. E., vol. xviii., p. 407) with open-air switches, the voltages ranged from 25,000 to 40,000. The loads on the circuits interrupted by the switches were highly inductive, ranging from 1,200 to 1,300 kilovolt-amperes. At 25,000 volts, the arc created by the open-air switch lasted for several seconds. At 40,000 volts, the arc following the opening of this switch exceeded thirty feet in length, and being outdoors near the pole line, the arc struck the line wires and short-circuited the system. It has been demonstrated that the voltage oscillations that occur when a circuit under heavy load is interrupted by an open-air switch can be hazardous to insulation (A. I. E. E., vol. xviii., p. 383). In the Kalamazoo tests, such oscillations were reported to reach two or three times the normal voltage of the system when the open-air switch was employed.

Fig. 55.—Connections between Power-houses 1 and 2 at Niagara Falls.
Fig. 55.—Connections between Powerhouses 1 and 2 at Niagara Falls.
Facts of the nature just outlined have led to the development of oil switches. The general characteristic of oil switches is that the contact parts are immersed in, and the break between these contacts takes place under, oil. Two types of the oil switch are made, one having all of its contact parts in the same bath of oil and the other having a separate oil-bath for each contact. Compared with those of the open-air type, oil switches effect a great saving of space, develop no exposed arcs or metallic vapors, cause little if any oscillation or rise of voltage in an alternating circuit, and can be depended on to open circuits of any voltage and capacity now in use. In the tests above mentioned at Kalamazoo, a three-phase oil switch making two breaks in each phase and with all the six contacts in a single oil-bath was used to open circuits of 25,000 volts and 1,200 to 1,300 kilovolt-arcs with satisfactory results. At 40,000 volts, however, this type of switch spat fire and emitted smoke, indicating that it was working near its ultimate capacity. A three-phase switch with each of its six contacts in a separate cylindrical oil-chamber was used to open the 40,000-volt 1,300 kilovolt-arc circuit at Kalamazoo with perfect success even under conditions of short-circuit and without the appearance of fire or smoke at the switch. The three-phase switch used[137] in the tests at Kalamazoo and having each of its contacts in a separate oil-chamber was similar in construction to the switches used in the Metropolitan and Manhattan railway stations in New York City. In each of these switches the two leads of each phase terminate in two upright brass cylinders. These cylinders have fibre linings to prevent side-jumping of the arcs when the switch is opened, and each cylinder is filled with oil. Into the two brass cylinders of each phase dips a ∩-shaped contact piece through insulating bushings, and the ends of this contact piece fit into terminals at the bottom of the oil pots. A wooden rod joins the centre or upper part of the ∩-contact piece, and the three rods of a three-phase switch pass up through the switch compartment to the operating mechanism outside. The six brass cylinders and their three ∩-contact pieces are usually mounted on a switch cell built entirely of brickwork and stone slabs. For a three-phase switch the brick and stone cell has three entirely separate compartments, and each compartment contains the two brass cylinders that form the terminals of a single phase. On top of and outside the cell the mechanism for moving the wooden switch rods is mounted. In the Metropolitan station, where the voltage is 6,000, the vertical movement of the ∩-shaped contact piece with its rod is twelve inches. At the Manhattan station, where the operating voltage is 12,000, the vertical movement of the ∩-contacts in opening a switch is seventeen inches. The total break in each phase in a switch at the Metropolitan station is thus twenty-four inches, or four inches per 1,000 volts, and the[138] total break per phase in switches at the Manhattan station is thirty-four inches, or 2.66 inches per 1,000 volts total pressure.
Facts of the nature just outlined have led to the development of oil switches. The general characteristic of oil switches is that the contact parts are immersed in oil, and the break between these contacts occurs under oil. There are two types of oil switches: one with all contact parts in the same oil bath and the other with a separate oil bath for each contact. Compared to open-air types, oil switches save a lot of space, don’t create exposed arcs or metallic vapors, cause little to no oscillation or voltage rise in an alternating circuit, and can reliably open circuits of any voltage and capacity currently in use. In the tests mentioned earlier in Kalamazoo, a three-phase oil switch that makes two breaks in each phase, with all six contacts in a single oil bath, was used to open circuits of 25,000 volts and 1,200 to 1,300 kilovolt-arcs with good results. However, at 40,000 volts, this type of switch sputtered fire and emitted smoke, indicating it was nearing its maximum capacity. A three-phase switch with each of its six contacts in separate cylindrical oil chambers successfully opened the 40,000-volt, 1,300 kilovolt-arc circuit in Kalamazoo, even under short-circuit conditions, without any fire or smoke at the switch. The three-phase switch used in the Kalamazoo tests, with each contact in a separate oil chamber, was similar in design to the switches at the Metropolitan and Manhattan railway stations in New York City. Each of these switches has two leads for each phase terminating in two upright brass cylinders. These cylinders have fiber linings to prevent arcs from jumping sideways when the switch is opened, and each cylinder is filled with oil. Each phase has a ∩-shaped contact piece that dips into the two brass cylinders through insulating bushings, and the ends of this contact piece connect to terminals at the bottom of the oil pots. A wooden rod connects to the center or upper part of the ∩-contact piece, and the three rods of a three-phase switch extend up through the switch compartment to the operating mechanism outside. The six brass cylinders and their three ∩-contact pieces are typically mounted on a switch cell made entirely of brick and stone slabs. For a three-phase switch, this cell has three separate compartments, with each compartment containing the two brass cylinders that form the terminals of a single phase. On top of the cell, the mechanism for moving the wooden switch rods is mounted. In the Metropolitan station, where the voltage is 6,000, the vertical movement of the ∩-shaped contact piece with its rod is twelve inches. At the Manhattan station, where the operating voltage is 12,000, the vertical movement of the ∩-contacts when opening a switch is seventeen inches. The total break in each phase of a switch at the Metropolitan station is thus twenty-four inches, or four inches per 1,000 volts, and the total break per phase in switches at the Manhattan station is thirty-four inches, or 2.66 inches per 1,000 volts total pressure.
Oil switches are now very generally employed on alternating circuits that operate at 2,000 volts or more for purposes of general distribution. On circuits of moderate voltage like that just named, and even higher, it is common practice to use oil switches that have only a single reservoir of oil each, the entire six contacts in the case of a three-phase switch being immersed in this single reservoir. Such switches are usually operated directly by hand and are located on the backs of or close to the slate or marble boards on which the handles that actuate the switch mechanism are located. A good example of this sort of work may be seen at the sub-station in Manchester, N. H., where energy from four water-power stations is delivered over seven transmission lines and then distributed by an even larger number of local circuits at 2,000 volts three-phase. At the Garvin’s Falls station, one of the water-power plants that delivers energy to the sub-station in Manchester, the generators operate at 12,000 volts three-phase, and these generators connect directly with the bus-bars through hand-operated oil switches on the back of the marble switchboard. These last-named switches, like those at the Manchester sub-station, have all the contacts of each in a single reservoir of oil.
Oil switches are now widely used on alternating circuits that run at 2,000 volts or more for general distribution. On circuits with moderate voltage, like this one, and even higher, it’s common to use oil switches that have only one oil reservoir each, with all six contacts in a three-phase switch being submerged in this single reservoir. These switches are typically operated by hand and are positioned on or near the slate or marble boards where the handles that activate the switch mechanism are located. A good example of this type of setup can be seen at the sub-station in Manchester, NH, where energy from four hydroelectric stations is delivered over seven transmission lines and then distributed through an even larger number of local circuits at 2,000 volts three-phase. At the Garvin’s Falls station, one of the hydroelectric plants supplying energy to the Manchester sub-station, the generators work at 12,000 volts three-phase, and these generators connect directly to the bus-bars through hand-operated oil switches on the back of the marble switchboard. These switches, like those at the Manchester sub-station, have all their contacts in a single oil reservoir.
With very high voltages, where only a few hundred kilowatts are concerned, and also with powers running into thousands of kilowatts at as low a pressure as 2,000 volts, it is very desirable to remove even oil switches from the switchboard and the vicinity of the bus-bars. Great powers as well as very high voltages not only increase the element of personal danger to an attendant who must stand close to a switch while operating it, but also render the damage to other apparatus that may result from any failure of or short-circuit in a switch much more serious.
With very high voltages, where only a few hundred kilowatts are involved, and also with powers reaching thousands of kilowatts at as low as 2,000 volts, it's really important to keep oil switches away from the switchboard and the area around the bus-bars. High powers and very high voltages not only raise the risk for anyone operating the switch but also make any damage to other equipment from a failure or short-circuit in the switch much more severe.

Fig. 56.—Wire-room Back of Switchboard in Power-station on French Broad River, North Carolina.
Fig. 56.—Wire-room back of the switchboard in a power station on the French Broad River, North Carolina.
Larger illustration (200 kB)
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ (200 kB)
As soon as the switches are removed to a distance from the operating
board the necessity for some method of power control becomes evident,
since the operator at the switchboard should be able to make or break
connections of any part of the apparatus quickly. The necessity for the
removal of switches for very large powers to a distance from the operating
boards and for the application of mechanical power to make and break
connections was met before the development of oil switches. Thus at
the first Niagara (A. I. E. E., vol. xviii., p. 489) power-house, in 1893,
the switches for the 3,750-kilowatt, 2,200-volt generators, though of the
open-air type, were located in a special switch compartment erected in[139]
[140]
the generator room and over a cable subway at some distance from the
operating board. These switches were actuated through compressed-air
cylinders into which air was admitted by the movement of levers near
the switchboard. Evidently a switch of this capacity—1,000 amperes per
pole and 2,200 volts, two-phase—could not well be operated by hand-power
wherever located, because of the large effort required. In the
second generating station at Niagara Falls oil switches similar to those
used at the Manhattan Elevated Railway plant in New York, but two-phase,
were employed. Each of these oil switches at Niagara Falls has
a capacity of 5,000 horse-power, like the previous open-air switches,
and is electrically actuated.
As soon as the switches are moved away from the control panel, it's clear that we need a way to manage power since the operator should quickly be able to connect or disconnect any part of the system. The need to place switches far from the control panels for high power levels and to use mechanical power to control connections was addressed before oil switches were developed. For example, at the first Niagara power station (A. I. E. E., vol. xviii., p. 489) in 1893, the switches for the 3,750-kilowatt, 2,200-volt generators, although open-air types, were installed in a special compartment in the generator room, located over a cable tunnel and away from the control panel. These switches were operated through compressed-air cylinders that were activated by levers near the control panel. Clearly, a switch with a capacity of 1,000 amperes per pole and 2,200 volts, two-phase, couldn't be operated by hand due to the high effort needed. In the second generating station at Niagara Falls, oil switches similar to those used at the Manhattan Elevated Railway plant in New York, but two-phase, were used. Each of these oil switches at Niagara Falls has a capacity of 5,000 horsepower, like the earlier open-air switches, and is electrically operated.

Fig. 57.—Section through Cable Subway under Oil Switches in Niagara Power-house No. 2.
Fig. 57.—Cross-section of the Cable Subway beneath the Oil Switches in Niagara Powerhouse No. 2.
In these electrically operated oil switches a small motor is located on top of the brick cell that contains the contact parts, and this motor releases and compresses springs that open and close the switch. While it is not desirable to employ open-air switches to open circuits of several thousand or even hundreds of kilowatts at voltages of 2,000 or more, it[141] is nevertheless possible to do so. This is shown by the experience of the first Niagara Falls station, where the 2,200-volt two-phase switches are reported to have opened repeatedly currents of more than 600 amperes per phase without injurious sparking. The great rise of voltage that was shown by the experiments at Kalamazoo to follow the opening of a simple open-air switch was avoided at the first Niagara switches by a simple expedient. In these 5,000 horse-power open-air switches a shunt of high resistance was so connected between each pair of contacts that the blades and jaws that carried the main body of the current never completely opened the circuit. When the main jaws of one of these switches were opened the shunt resistance continued in circuit until subsequently broken at auxiliary terminals. That no excessive rise of voltage took place when one of these switches was open was shown by connecting two sharp terminals in parallel with the switch and by adjusting these terminals to a certain distance apart. Had the voltage risen on opening the switch above the predetermined amount there would have been an arc formed by a spark jumping the distance between the pointed terminals.
In these electrically operated oil switches, a small motor sits on top of the brick cell containing the contact components, and this motor releases and compresses springs to open and close the switch. While using open-air switches to disconnect circuits of several thousand or even hundreds of kilowatts at voltages of 2,000 or more isn't ideal, it[141] is indeed feasible. This is demonstrated by the experience of the first Niagara Falls station, where the 2,200-volt two-phase switches reportedly opened currents of over 600 amperes per phase multiple times without harmful sparking. The significant voltage spike that occurred during experiments at Kalamazoo when opening a simple open-air switch was prevented at the first Niagara switches through a straightforward solution. In these 5,000 horsepower open-air switches, a high-resistance shunt was connected between each pair of contacts, ensuring that the blades and jaws carrying the main current never fully opened the circuit. When the main jaws of one of these switches were opened, the shunt resistance remained in the circuit until it was later disconnected at auxiliary terminals. The fact that no excessive voltage spike occurred when one of these switches was opened was demonstrated by connecting two sharp terminals in parallel with the switch and adjusting the distance between them. If the voltage had risen above the predetermined level upon opening the switch, an arc would have formed due to a spark jumping the gap between the pointed terminals.

Fig. 58.—Schenectady Switch-house on Spier Falls Line.
Fig. 58.—Schenectady Switch-house on Spier Falls Line.

Fig. 59.—Second-floor Plan of Saratoga Switch-house on Spier Falls Line.
Fig. 59.—Second-floor plan of the Saratoga Switch-house on the Spier Falls Line.
Safety and reliability of operation at high voltages, say of 5,000 or more, require that each element of the equipment be so isolated as well as insulated from every other element that the failure or even destruction of one element will not seriously endanger the others. With this end in view the cables from each generator to its switch should be laid in a conduit of brick or concrete that contains no other cables. The brick or stone compartment for each phase of each switch should be so substantial that the contacts of that phase may arc to destruction without injury to the contacts of another phase. Bus-bars, like switches, should be removed from the operating switchboard, because an arc between them might destroy other apparatus thereon, and even the board itself. It is not enough to remove bus-bars from the switchboard where very high voltages are to be controlled, but each bar should be located in a separate brick compartment so that an arc cannot be started by accidental contact[143] between two or more of the bars. It is convenient to have the brick and stone compartments for bus-bars built horizontally one above the other. The top and bottom of each compartment may conveniently be formed of stone slabs with brick piers on one side and a continuous brick wall on the other to hold the stone slabs in position. Connections to the bus-bars should pass through the continuous brick wall that forms what may be termed the back of the compartments. To close the openings between the brick piers at the front of the compartments movable slabs of stone may be used. Feeders passing away from the bus-bars, like dynamo cables running to these bars, should not be grouped close together in a single compartment, but each cable or circuit should be laid in a separate fireproof conduit to the point where it passes out of the station.
Ensuring safety and reliability when operating at high voltages, like 5,000 volts or more, demands that every component of the equipment be isolated and insulated from one another so that if one part fails or is destroyed, it doesn't put the others at risk. To achieve this, the cables from each generator to its switch should be installed in a conduit made of brick or concrete that has no other cables inside it. The brick or stone enclosure for each phase of the switch needs to be sturdy enough so that if one phase arcs and gets damaged, it won't affect the contacts of another phase. Bus bars, similar to switches, should be kept away from the operating switchboard, as an arc between them could damage other equipment connected to the board, or even ruin the board itself. It's not only important to keep bus bars away from the switchboard when dealing with very high voltages, but each bar should also be placed in individual brick compartments to prevent accidental contact that could trigger an arc between two or more bars. It’s practical to have the brick and stone compartments for bus bars stacked one above another. The top and bottom of each compartment can be made with stone slabs supported by brick piers on one side and a continuous brick wall on the other to keep the slabs in place. Connections to the bus bars should go through the continuous brick wall, which can be considered the back of the compartments. To close the gaps between the brick piers at the front of the compartments, movable stone slabs can be used. Feeders that extend away from the bus bars, similar to the dynamo cables connecting to these bars, should not be placed too closely together in a single compartment; instead, each cable or circuit should be in its own fireproof conduit leading to where it exits the station.

Fig. 60.—Ground Floor of Saratoga Switch-house.
Fig. 60.—Ground Floor of Saratoga Switch-house.
The folly of grouping a large number of feeders that transmit great powers together in a single combustible compartment was well illustrated by the accident that destroyed the cables that connected the first Niagara power-station with the transformer-house on January 29th,[144] 1903. On the evening of that day lightning short-circuited one of the cables in the short bridge that connects No. 1 station with the transformer-house, and all the cables in this bridge, supplying local consumers as well as railways and lighting in Buffalo, were destroyed. This bridge contained probably more than thirty-six cables, as that number of new cables was put in position within twenty-four hours after the accident, and these cables, covered with inflammable insulation, were close together. The result was not only the loss of the cables, but also the damage to power users. If these cables had been located in separate fire-proof conduits, it is highly probable that only the one directly affected by lightning would have been destroyed.
The mistake of grouping a large number of feeders that carry high power in a single flammable compartment was clearly shown by the accident that took out the cables connecting the first Niagara power station to the transformer house on January 29th,[144] 1903. That evening, lightning caused a short circuit in one of the cables in the short bridge linking No. 1 station to the transformer house, resulting in the destruction of all the cables in this bridge, which provided power to local users as well as railways and street lighting in Buffalo. This bridge likely contained more than thirty-six cables, as that many new cables were installed within twenty-four hours after the accident, and these cables, wrapped in combustible insulation, were packed closely together. The outcome was not just the loss of the cables, but also the damage to power users. Had these cables been placed in separate fireproof conduits, it’s very likely that only the one directly hit by lightning would have been destroyed.
The brick and stone compartments for bus-bars may be located in the basement underneath the switchboard, as at the Portsmouth station of the New Hampshire Traction Company, or at any other place in a station where they are sufficiently removed from the other apparatus. In power-house No. 2 at Niagara Falls a cable subway beneath the floor level runs the entire length, parallel with the row of generators (A. I. E. E., vol. xix., p. 537). In this subway, which is thirteen feet nine and three-quarter inches wide and ten feet six inches high, the two structures for bus-bar compartments are located. Each of these structures measures about 6.6 feet high and 1.8 feet wide, and contains four bus-bar compartments. In each compartment is a single bar, and the four bars form two sets for two-phase working. Above the bus-bar compartments and rising from the floor level are the oil switches. A space over the cable subway midway of its length and between the two groups of oil switches is occupied by the switchboard gallery which is raised to some elevation above the floor and carries eleven generator, twenty-two feeder, two interconnecting, and one exciter panels. In power-house No. 1 the bus-bars are located in a common space above the 5,000 horse-power open-air switches already mentioned, and each bar has an insulation of vulcanized rubber covered with braid and outside of this a wrapping of twine. Of course; an insulation of this sort would amount to nothing if by any accident an arc were started between the bars. Where each bus-bar is located in a separate fireproof compartment, as at Niagara power-house No. 2, the application of insulation directly to each bar is neither necessary nor desirable. Consequently the general practice where each bar has its own fireproof compartment is to construct the bars of bare copper rods.
The brick and stone compartments for bus bars can be found in the basement under the switchboard, like at the Portsmouth station of the New Hampshire Traction Company, or anywhere else in a station where they are far enough away from other equipment. In power-house No. 2 at Niagara Falls, there’s a cable subway running the entire length under the floor, parallel to the row of generators (A. I. E. E., vol. xix., p. 537). This subway is thirteen feet nine and three-quarters inches wide and ten feet six inches high, and it houses the two structures for bus bar compartments. Each of these structures is about 6.6 feet high and 1.8 feet wide, and each contains four bus bar compartments. Each compartment has a single bar, and the four bars create two sets for two-phase operation. Above the bus bar compartments, rising from the floor level, are the oil switches. The space over the cable subway, roughly in the middle, between the two groups of oil switches, holds the switchboard gallery, which is elevated above the floor and has eleven generator panels, twenty-two feeder panels, two interconnecting panels, and one exciter panel. In power-house No. 1, the bus bars are in a shared space above the previously mentioned 5,000 horsepower open-air switches, and each bar is insulated with vulcanized rubber wrapped in braid, and then covered with twine. Obviously, this type of insulation wouldn’t help at all if an arc were accidentally created between the bars. When each bus bar is in its own fireproof compartment, like in Niagara power-house No. 2, applying insulation directly to each bar is unnecessary and not ideal. As a result, the common practice when each bar has its own fireproof compartment is to use bare copper rods for the bars.
With main switches for generators and feeders removed from the operating board and actuated by electric motors or magnets, the small[145] switches at the board with which the operator is directly concerned must of course control these magnets or motors. The small switches at the operating board are called relay switches, and the current in the circuits opened and closed by these switches and used to operate the magnets or motors of the oil switches may be conveniently obtained from a storage battery or from one of the exciting dynamos.
With the main switches for generators and feeders taken off the operating board and controlled by electric motors or magnets, the small[145] switches on the board that the operator directly interacts with must, of course, manage these magnets or motors. The small switches on the operating board are known as relay switches, and the current for the circuits opened and closed by these switches, which operate the magnets or motors of the oil switches, can conveniently be sourced from a storage battery or one of the exciting dynamos.
Probably the best arrangement of the relay switches is in connection with dummy bus-bars on the face of the switchboard, so that the connections on the face of the board constitute at all times a diagram of the actual connections of the generator and feeder circuits. It is also desirable for quick and correct changes in the connections of the main apparatus that all the relay switches and instruments necessary for the control of any one generator or any one feeder be brought together on a single panel of the switchboard. If this plan is followed, the operator at any time will have before him on a single panel all of the switches and instruments involved in the connections then to be made, and the chance for mistakes is thus reduced to a minimum. The plan just outlined was that adopted at the Niagara power plant No. 2, where a separate panel is provided for each of eleven generators and each of twenty-two feeders. On each of the eleven generator panels there are two selector relay switches, one generator relay switch, and one relay generator field switch. On each of the twenty-two feeder panels there are two relay selector switches. The relay switches on the two interconnecting panels serve to make connections between the two groups of five and six generators respectively in power-house No. 2 and the ten generators of power-house No. 1. On each panel there are relay indicators to show whether the oil switches that carry the main current respond to the movements of their relay switches.
The best setup for the relay switches is with dummy bus-bars on the front of the switchboard, ensuring that the connections on the board always represent the actual connections of the generator and feeder circuits. It's also important for quick and accurate changes in the main apparatus connections that all the relay switches and instruments needed for controlling a specific generator or feeder are grouped together on one panel of the switchboard. By doing this, the operator will always have all the relevant switches and instruments in front of them on a single panel for the connections they need to make, significantly minimizing the chance for errors. This approach was implemented at the Niagara power plant No. 2, where each of the eleven generators and each of the twenty-two feeders has its own separate panel. Each of the eleven generator panels includes two selector relay switches, one generator relay switch, and one relay generator field switch. Each of the twenty-two feeder panels has two relay selector switches. The relay switches on the two interconnecting panels connect the two groups of five and six generators from power-house No. 2 to the ten generators of power-house No. 1. Each panel features relay indicators that show whether the oil switches carrying the main current respond to the movements of their relay switches.
Where the electric generators operate at the maximum voltage of the system, as at Garvin’s Falls and in the power-house of the Manhattan Elevated Railway, there may be said to be only one general plan of connections possible. That is, the generators must connect directly with the main bus-bars at the voltage of the system, and the feeders or transmission lines must also connect to these same bars. Of course there may be several sets of bus-bars for different circuits or classes of work, but this does not change the general plan of through connections from generators to lines. So, too, the arrangement of switches is subject to variations, as by placing two switches in series with each other in each dynamo or feeder cable, or by connecting a group of feeders through their several switches to a particular set of bus-bars and then[146] supplying this set of bars from the generator bus-bars through a single switch.
Where the electric generators run at the system's maximum voltage, like at Garvin’s Falls and in the power station of the Manhattan Elevated Railway, there's really only one main way to make connections. That means the generators need to connect directly to the main bus-bars at the system voltage, and the feeders or transmission lines also need to connect to these same bars. Sure, there can be multiple sets of bus-bars for different circuits or types of work, but that doesn't change the overall connection plan from generators to lines. Similarly, the switch arrangement can vary, such as by placing two switches in series with each other for each dynamo or feeder cable, or by connecting a group of feeders through their individual switches to a specific set of bus-bars and then[146] supplying this set of bars from the generator bus-bars via a single switch.

Fig. 61.—Switchboard Wiring, Glens Falls Sub-station on Spier Falls Line.
Fig. 61.—Switchboard Wiring, Glens Falls Substation on Spier Falls Line.
Where the voltage of transmission is obtained by the use of step-up transformers, the connections of these transformers may be such as to require nearly all switching to be done on either the high- or low-tension circuits. The more general practice was formerly to do all switching in the generator circuits and on the low-tension side of transformers, except in the connection and disconnection of transformers and transmission lines[147] with the high-tension bus-bars, when not in operation. Where generators operate at the maximum voltage of the system only two main groups of switches are necessary, one group connecting generators to bus-bars, and the other group connecting bus-bars to the transmission lines. As soon as step-up transformers are introduced the number of switch groups must be increased to four if the usual method of connection is followed, and there must be both a high voltage and a low voltage set of bus-bars. That is, one set of switches must connect generators with low-tension bus-bars, another group must connect low-tension bars with the primary coils of transformers, a third group joins the secondary coils of transformers with the high-tension bars, and the fourth group of switches joins the transmission lines to the high-tension bus-bars. Switches connecting the secondary coils of step-up transformers to the high-tension bus-bars, and also the transmission lines to these same bars, have often been of the simple open-air type with short knife-blade construction. These switches have been used to disconnect the secondary coils of transformers and also the transmission lines from the high-tension bus-bars when no current was flowing, and switches of the simple knife-blade construction with short breaks could of course be used for no other purpose. With switches of this sort on the high-tension side of apparatus the practice is to do all switching of line circuits on the low-tension side.
Where the transmission voltage is increased using step-up transformers, the way these transformers are connected may require most of the switching to be done on either the high-voltage or low-voltage circuits. In the past, the common practice was to perform all switching within the generator circuits and on the low-voltage side of transformers, except when connecting or disconnecting transformers and transmission lines with the high-voltage bus-bars when they weren't in operation. When generators operate at the maximum system voltage, only two main groups of switches are needed: one group connects generators to bus-bars, and the other connects bus-bars to the transmission lines. Once step-up transformers are added, the number of switch groups must increase to four, following the usual connection method, and there must be both a high-voltage and a low-voltage set of bus-bars. Specifically, one set of switches connects generators to low-voltage bus-bars, another group connects low-voltage bars to the primary coils of transformers, a third group connects the secondary coils of transformers to the high-voltage bars, and the fourth group connects the transmission lines to the high-voltage bus-bars. The switches linking the secondary coils of step-up transformers to the high-voltage bus-bars, as well as the transmission lines to these bus-bars, have often been of the simple open-air type with short knife-blade construction. These switches have been used to disconnect the secondary coils of transformers and the transmission lines from the high-voltage bus-bars when no current was flowing, and switches of this simple knife-blade design with short breaks could, of course, only be used for this purpose. With these types of switches on the high-voltage side of equipment, the standard practice is to perform all circuit switching on the low-voltage side.
It is possible to avoid some of this multiplication of switches if each generator with its transformers is treated for switching purposes as a unit and the switching for this unit is done on the secondary or high-voltage side of the step-up transformers. The adoption of this plan, of course, implies the use of switches that are competent to break the secondary circuit of any group of transformers under overload conditions and at the maximum voltage of the system, but oil switches as now made are competent to meet this requirement. When all switching of live circuits is confined to those of high voltage there is also the incidental advantage that heavy contact parts carrying very large currents are avoided in the operating switches. Where each generator is connected directly to its own group of transformers the secondary coils of these transformers will pass through oil switches to high-tension bus-bars, and the use of low-tension bus-bars may be avoided. From these high-tension bus-bars the transmission lines will pass through oil switches, so that on this plan there are only two sets of oil switches, namely, those connecting the secondary coils of transformers to the high-tension bus-bars, and those connecting the transmission lines to the same[148] bars. Each group of two or three transformers, according as two or three are used with each generator, should be connected to its generator through short-break, open-air knife switches for convenience in disconnecting and changing transformers that are not in operation, but these switches are not intended or required to open the circuit of the generators and primary coils when in operation.
It's possible to reduce the number of switches needed if each generator and its transformers are treated as a single unit for switching purposes, and the switching is handled on the secondary or high-voltage side of the step-up transformers. Implementing this plan means using switches that can disconnect the secondary circuit of any group of transformers during overload conditions and at the maximum voltage of the system, but modern oil switches can meet this requirement. When all switching of live circuits is limited to high voltage, there's also the added benefit of avoiding heavy contact parts that carry very large currents in the operating switches. If each generator is directly connected to its own group of transformers, the secondary coils will pass through oil switches to high-tension bus-bars, eliminating the need for low-tension bus-bars. From these high-tension bus-bars, the transmission lines will pass through oil switches, which means there are only two sets of oil switches: those connecting the secondary coils of transformers to the high-tension bus-bars and those connecting the transmission lines to the same bars. Each group of two or three transformers, depending on whether two or three are used with each generator, should connect to its generator through short-break, open-air knife switches for easy disconnection and changing of transformers that are not in use, but these switches are not meant to open the circuit of the generators and primary coils while they're still operating.[148]

Fig. 62.—Distributing Switchboard, Central Sub-station, Montreal.
Fig. 62.—Distributing Switchboard, Central Substation, Montreal.
Larger illustration (184 kB)
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ (184 kB)
A plan similar to that just outlined was followed at the station of the Independent Electric Light and Power Company, San Francisco, where[149] each of the 550-volt generators is ordinarily connected directly to the primary coils of two transformers that change the current from two-phase to three-phase and then deliver it through oil switches to the high-tension bus-bars at 11,000 volts. To these bus-bars the 11,000-volt feeders for five sub-stations are connected through switches. At this station there is a set of 550-volt bus-bars to which any of the generators may be connected, but to which no generator is connected in ordinary operation. The generators alone have switches connecting with these bars. When it is desirable to operate any particular generator on some pair of transformers other than its own, that generator is disconnected from its own transformers and connected to the 550-volt bus-bars. The generator whose transformers are to be operated by the generator before mentioned next has its switch connected to the 550-volt bus-bars, while the brushes of the contact rings of the former generator are raised. As the leads from each generator to its two switches are permanently joined, the switching operations just named connect the transformers of one generator with the other generator that has its switch closed on the 550-volt bars.
A plan similar to the one just described is used at the Independent Electric Light and Power Company station in San Francisco, where[149] each of the 550-volt generators is typically connected directly to the primary coils of two transformers, which convert the current from two-phase to three-phase. This current is then delivered through oil switches to the high-tension bus-bars at 11,000 volts. The 11,000-volt feeders for five sub-stations are connected to these bus-bars through switches. At this station, there is a set of 550-volt bus-bars that any of the generators can connect to, but normally, no generator is attached during regular operation. Only the generators have switches connecting to these bars. If it’s necessary to run a specific generator with a different pair of transformers than its own, that generator is disconnected from its transformers and linked to the 550-volt bus-bars. The generator whose transformers will be powered by the earlier mentioned generator then has its switch connected to the 550-volt bus-bars, while the brushes of the first generator’s contact rings are lifted. Since the leads from each generator to its two switches are permanently joined, the described switching actions connect the transformers of one generator with another generator that has its switch closed on the 550-volt bars.

Fig. 63.—Switchboard at Chambly Power-station.
Fig. 63.—Switchboard at Chambly Power Plant.
Where it is desired that a single reserve transformer may be readily substituted for any one of a number of transformers in regular use, the connections to each of these latter transformers may be provided with[150] double-pole double-throw knife switches on both the primary and secondary sides, so that when these switches are thrown one way at any transformer in regular use the reserve transformer will be connected in its place.
Where it's needed for a single backup transformer to easily replace any of several transformers in regular use, the connections to each of these transformers can be equipped with[150] double-pole double-throw knife switches on both the primary and secondary sides. This way, when these switches are flipped one way at any transformer in use, the backup transformer will be connected instead.
Fuses and automatic circuit-breakers alike are intended to break connections without the intervention of human agency under certain predetermined conditions. In the fuse the heat generated by a certain current is sufficient to melt or vaporize a short length of special conductor. In the circuit-breaker a certain current gives a magnet or motor sufficient strength to overcome the pressure of a spring, and contact pieces through which the current is passing are pulled apart. The primary object of both the fuse and the circuit-breaker is thus to open connections and stop the flow of energy when more than a certain current passes. When any current passes through a circuit in the reverse of its regular direction the circuit-breaker can be arranged to break the connections, though the fuse cannot. A fuse must carry the current at which it is designed to melt during some seconds before enough heat is developed to destroy it, and the exact number of seconds for any particular case is made a little uncertain by the possibility of loose connections at the fuse tips which develop additional heat and also by the heat-conducting power of its connecting terminals. A circuit-breaker may be set so as to open its connections in one or more seconds after a certain current begins to flow. When connections are broken by a fuse the molten or vaporized metal forms a path that an arc may easily follow. A circuit-breaker with its contacts under oil offers a much smaller opportunity than a fuse for the maintenance of an arc. These qualities of fuses and circuit-breakers form the basis of their general availability and comparative advantages in transmission circuits.
Fuses and automatic circuit breakers are designed to disconnect electrical connections automatically under specific conditions, without needing human intervention. In a fuse, the heat generated by a certain current is enough to melt or vaporize a short piece of special conductor. In a circuit breaker, a certain current activates a magnet or motor strong enough to overcome a spring's pressure, pulling apart the contacts through which the current flows. The main purpose of both the fuse and the circuit breaker is to open connections and stop the flow of electricity when the current exceeds a certain level. If any current flows in the reverse direction through the circuit, the circuit breaker can be set to disconnect, while the fuse cannot. A fuse needs to carry the designed current for several seconds before enough heat builds up to melt it, and the exact time can be a bit uncertain due to possible loose connections at the fuse tips, which generate extra heat, as well as the heat-conducting capability of its terminals. A circuit breaker can be adjusted to open its connections one or more seconds after a certain current starts to flow. When a fuse breaks the connection, the melted or vaporized metal can create a path that allows an arc to easily form. A circuit breaker with its contacts submerged in oil provides a much smaller chance for an arc to be maintained compared to a fuse. These characteristics of fuses and circuit breakers underpin their general effectiveness and comparative advantages in transmission circuits.
Much variation exists in practice as to the use of fuses and circuit-breakers on transmission circuits. One view often followed is that fuses and circuit-breakers should be entirely omitted from the generator and transmission lines. The argument in favor of this practice is that temporary short circuits due to birds that fly against the lines or to sticks and loose wires that are thrown onto them will interrupt all or a large part of the transmission service if fuses or circuit-breakers that operate instantly are employed. On the other hand, it may be said that if fuses and circuit-breakers are omitted from the generator and transmission circuits a lasting short circuit will make it necessary to shut down an entire plant in some cases until it can be removed. Electric transmission at high voltages became important before magnetic circuit-breakers competent[151] to open overloaded circuits at such voltages were developed. Consequently the early question was whether a transmission line and the generators that fed it should be provided with fuses or be solidly connected from generators to the distribution circuits of sub-stations. The original tendency was strong to use fuses in accord with the practice at low voltages. The great importance of continuous service from transmission systems and the many interruptions caused by temporary short circuits where fuses were used led to their abandonment in some cases. An example of this sort may be seen at the first Niagara station. In 1893, when this station was equipped, no magnetic circuit-breaker was available for circuits of either 11,000 or 2,200 volts, carrying currents of several thousand horse-power, and fuses were employed in lines at both these pressures (A. I. E. E., vol. xviii., pp. 495, 497). The fuses adopted in this case were the same for both the 2,200 and the 11,000-volt lines and were of the explosive type. Each complete fuse consisted of two lignum-vitæ blocks that were hinged together at one end and were secured when closed at the other. In these blocks three parallel grooves for fuses were cut and in each groove a strip of aluminum was laid and connected to suitable terminals at each end. Vents were provided for the grooves in which the aluminum strips were placed so that the expanding gas when a fuse was blown would escape. When these fuse blocks were new and the blocks of lignum vitæ made tight joints the metallic vapor produced when a fuse was blown was forced out at the vents and the connections of the line were thus broken. After a time, however, when the joints between the blocks were no longer tight because of shrinkage, the expanding gas of the fuse would reach the terminals and an arc would continue after the fuse had blown. These aluminum fuses, which were adopted about 1893, were abandoned at the Niagara plant in 1898. Since this later date the 2,200-volt feeders from the No. 1 power-house to the local consumers have had no fuses at the power-house, nor have circuit-breakers been installed there in the place of the fuses that were removed. At the large manufacturing plants supplied through these local Niagara feeders, the feeders formerly terminated in fuses, but these have since been displaced by circuit-breakers. In the second Niagara power-station, completed in 1902, the local 2,200-volt feeders are provided with circuit-breakers, but no fuses. Between the generators and bus-bars of the first Niagara plant the circuits were provided with neither fuses nor automatic circuit-breakers, and this practice continues there to the present time.
Much variation exists in practice regarding the use of fuses and circuit-breakers in transmission circuits. One common perspective is that fuses and circuit-breakers should be completely removed from the generator and transmission lines. The argument for this approach is that temporary short circuits caused by birds hitting the lines or by sticks and loose wires thrown onto them will disrupt all or most of the transmission service if fuses or circuit-breakers that operate instantly are used. Conversely, it can be argued that if fuses and circuit-breakers are excluded from the generator and transmission circuits, a lasting short circuit may require shutting down an entire plant in some cases until it can be addressed. Electric transmission at high voltages became important before effective magnetic circuit-breakers capable of opening overloaded circuits at those voltages were developed. Thus, the initial question was whether a transmission line and the generators feeding it should be fitted with fuses or be solidly connected from generators to the distribution circuits of substations. There was a strong initial tendency to use fuses in alignment with practices at low voltages. The critical need for continuous service from transmission systems and the frequent interruptions caused by temporary short circuits where fuses were used led to their abandonment in some situations. An example of this can be seen at the first Niagara station. In 1893, when this station was equipped, no magnetic circuit-breaker was available for circuits of either 11,000 or 2,200 volts, carrying several thousand horsepower, and fuses were used in the lines at both voltages (A. I. E. E., vol. xviii., pp. 495, 497). The fuses used in this case were the same for both the 2,200 and 11,000-volt lines and were of the explosive type. Each complete fuse consisted of two lignum-vitæ blocks that were hinged together at one end and secured when closed at the other. In these blocks, three parallel grooves for fuses were cut, and a strip of aluminum was laid in each groove and connected to appropriate terminals at each end. Vents were provided for the grooves where the aluminum strips were placed so that the expanding gas when a fuse blew could escape. When these fuse blocks were new and the lignum-vitæ blocks made tight joints, the metallic vapor produced when a fuse blew was forced out at the vents, breaking the line's connections. Over time, however, when the joints between the blocks were no longer tight due to shrinkage, the expanding gas from the fuse would reach the terminals, causing an arc to continue even after the fuse had blown. These aluminum fuses, adopted around 1893, were phased out at the Niagara plant in 1898. Since that time, the 2,200-volt feeders from the No. 1 powerhouse to local consumers have not had fuses at the powerhouse, nor have circuit-breakers been installed in place of the removed fuses. At the large manufacturing plants supplied through these local Niagara feeders, the feeders that formerly ended in fuses have since been replaced by circuit-breakers. In the second Niagara power station, completed in 1902, the local 2,200-volt feeders are equipped with circuit-breakers, but no fuses. Between the generators and bus-bars of the first Niagara plant, the circuits have been devoid of both fuses and automatic circuit-breakers, a practice that continues to this day.
Besides the aluminum fuses in the 11,000-volt transmission line at the first Niagara station, there were lead fuses in the 2,200-volt primary[152] circuits of the step-up transformers that supplied these lines. At the other end of these lines, in the Buffalo sub-station, another set of aluminum fuses was inserted before connection was made with the step-down transformers. Between the secondary coils of these transformers and the 550-volt converters there were no fuses, but these converters were connected to the railway bus-bars through direct current circuit-breakers. These lead fuses, which contained much more metal than those of aluminum, when blown set up arcs that lasted until power was cut off by opening a switch, and usually destroyed their terminals. An effort was made to so adjust the sizes of the fuses in this transmission system that in case of a short circuit in distribution lines at Buffalo only the fuses in the sub-station would be blown, leaving those at Niagara entire. This plan did not prove effective, however, and a severe overload on the distribution lines in Buffalo would blow out fuses clear back to the generator bus-bars at the Niagara station.
Besides the aluminum fuses in the 11,000-volt transmission line at the first Niagara station, there were lead fuses in the 2,200-volt primary[152] circuits of the step-up transformers supplying these lines. At the other end of these lines, in the Buffalo sub-station, another set of aluminum fuses was added before connecting with the step-down transformers. Between the secondary coils of these transformers and the 550-volt converters, there were no fuses, but the converters were linked to the railway bus-bars through direct current circuit-breakers. These lead fuses, containing much more metal than the aluminum ones, created arcs when blown that lasted until power was cut off by opening a switch, usually destroying their terminals in the process. Efforts were made to adjust the sizes of the fuses in this transmission system so that if there was a short circuit in the distribution lines at Buffalo, only the fuses in the sub-station would blow, leaving those at Niagara intact. However, this plan was not effective, and a severe overload on the distribution lines in Buffalo would blow fuses all the way back to the generator bus-bars at the Niagara station.
In order to accomplish the opening of overloaded circuits with greater certainty, to delay such opening where the overload might be of only a momentary nature, and to confine the open circuit to the lines where the overload existed, automatic circuit-breakers were substituted for the fuses named in the Niagara and Buffalo transmission system. This system was also changed from 11,000 to 22,000 volts on the transmission lines, thus rendering the requirements as to circuit-opening devices more severe. These circuit-breakers were fitted with time-limit attachments so that any breaker could be set to open at the end of any number of seconds after the current flowing through it reached a certain amount. A circuit-breaker with such a time-limit attachment will not open until the time for which it is set, after the amperes flowing through it reach a certain figure, has elapsed, no matter how great the current may be. Moreover, if the overload is removed from a line before the number of seconds for which its time-limit circuit-breaker is set have elapsed, the circuit-breaker resets itself automatically and does not open the connections. If a circuit-breaker is set to open a line after an interval of say three seconds from the time when its current reaches the limit, the line will not be opened by a mere momentary overload such as would blow out a fuse. By setting the time-limit relays of circuit-breakers in transmission lines to actuate the opening mechanism after three seconds from the time that an overload comes on, and then leaving the breakers on distribution lines to operate without a time-limit, it seems that the opening of breakers on the distribution lines should free the system from an overload there before the breakers on the transmission lines have time to act. Such a result[153] is very desirable in order that the entire service of a transmission system may not be interrupted every time there is a fault or short circuit on one of its distribution lines. This plan was followed in the Niagara and Buffalo system. In the 22,000-volt lines at the Niagara station the time relays were set to actuate the breakers after three seconds, at the terminal house in Buffalo, where the transformers step down from 22,000 to 11,000 volts, the circuit-breakers in the 11,000 volt lines to sub-stations had their relays set to open in one second. Finally the circuit-breakers in the distribution lines from the several sub-stations were left to operate without any time limit. By these means it was expected that a short circuit in one of the distribution circuits from a sub-station would not cause the connections of the underground cable between that sub-station and the terminal house to be broken, because of the instant action of the circuit-breaker at the sub-station. Furthermore, it was expected that a short circuit in one of the underground cables between the terminal house and a sub-station would be disconnected from the transmission line at that house and would not cause the circuit-breakers at the Niagara station to operate. It is reported that the foregoing arrangement of circuit-breakers with time relays failed of its object because the breakers did not clear their circuits quick enough and that the time-limit attachments on the 22,000 and 11,000 volt lines are no longer in use (A. I. E. E., vol. xviii., p. 500). As the circuits under consideration convey thousands of horse-power at 11,000 and 22,000 volts it may be that time-limit devices with circuit-breakers would give good results under less exacting conditions. Time-limit relays are perhaps an important aid toward reliable operation of transmission systems, but they are subject to the objection that no matter how great the overload they will not open the circuit until the time for which they are set has run. In the case of a short circuit the time-limit relay may lead to a prolonged drop in voltage throughout the system, which is very undesirable for the lighting service and also allows all synchronous apparatus to fall out of step. With a mere momentary drop in voltage the inertia of the rotating parts of synchronous apparatus will keep them in step. For these reasons it is desirable to have circuit-breakers that will act immediately to open a line on which there is a short circuit or very great overload, but will open the line only after an interval of one or more seconds when the overload is not of a very extreme nature. This action on the part of circuit-breakers at the second Niagara power-station was obtained by the attachment of a dash-pot to the tripping plunger of each circuit-breaker (A. I. E. E., vol. xviii., p. 543). With moderate overloads of a very temporary nature this dash-pot so retards[154] the action of a tripping plunger that the circuit-breaker does not open. When a short circuit or great overload comes onto a line the pull on the tripping plunger or the circuit-breaker on that line is so great that the resistance of the dash-pot to the movement is overcome at once and the line is disconnected from the remainder of the system.
To ensure the opening of overloaded circuits happens more reliably, to delay this action when the overload is just temporary, and to limit the open circuit to the lines affected, automatic circuit-breakers replaced the fuses in the Niagara and Buffalo transmission system. The system's voltage was also increased from 11,000 to 22,000 volts, making the requirements for circuit-opening devices stricter. These circuit-breakers were equipped with time-limit features, allowing them to be set to open after a certain number of seconds once the current reached a specific level. A circuit-breaker with a time-limit feature won’t open until the set time has passed, even if the current increases significantly. Additionally, if the overload on a line is removed before the set time elapses, the circuit-breaker automatically resets and keeps the connections closed. If a circuit-breaker is set to open a line after, for example, three seconds from when the current hits the limit, it won’t open due to a brief overload that would blow a fuse. By programming the time-limit relays of circuit-breakers on transmission lines to act after three seconds of an overload, while allowing the breakers on distribution lines to operate without a time limit, the breakers on the distribution lines should eliminate any overload before the transmission line circuit-breakers can react. This outcome is important to avoid interrupting the entire transmission system whenever there's a fault or short circuit on a distribution line. This approach was implemented in the Niagara and Buffalo system. In the 22,000-volt lines at the Niagara station, time relays were set to trigger the breakers after three seconds. At the Buffalo terminal house, where transformers reduce voltage from 22,000 to 11,000 volts, the circuit-breakers for the 11,000-volt lines to sub-stations had their relays set to open in one second. Finally, the circuit-breakers in the distribution lines from various sub-stations operated without any time limit. This setup was expected to prevent a short circuit in a distribution circuit from causing the underground cable connections between that sub-station and the terminal house to break due to the immediate action of the sub-station's circuit-breaker. Furthermore, it was anticipated that a short circuit in any underground cable between the terminal house and a sub-station would disconnect from the transmission line at that house without triggering the circuit-breakers at Niagara station. Reports indicate that this arrangement of circuit-breakers with time relays did not meet its objectives due to delays in clearing circuits, leading to the discontinuation of time-limit attachments on the 22,000 and 11,000 volt lines (A. I. E. E., vol. xviii., p. 500). Since the circuits in question carry thousands of horsepower at 11,000 and 22,000 volts, time-limit devices with circuit-breakers might perform better under less strict conditions. Time-limit relays could be a valuable tool for reliable operation of transmission systems, but they have the drawback that they won’t open the circuit regardless of how severe the overload is until the set time runs out. In the event of a short circuit, the time-limit relay can lead to a prolonged voltage drop throughout the system, which is undesirable for lighting services and can cause synchronous equipment to fall out of sync. With just a brief voltage drop, the inertia of the rotating parts of synchronous machinery will keep them in step. For these reasons, it’s essential to have circuit-breakers that will immediately open a line during a short circuit or extreme overload, but will wait a second or more to open when the overload isn’t as severe. This functionality at the second Niagara power-station was achieved by attaching a dash-pot to the tripping plunger of each circuit-breaker (A. I. E. E., vol. xviii., p. 543). With moderate and temporary overloads, this dash-pot slows down the tripping plunger's action enough that the circuit-breaker doesn’t open. However, when a short circuit or significant overload occurs on a line, the force on the tripping plunger is so strong that the dash-pot's resistance is instantly overcome, disconnecting the line from the rest of the system.
The fact that a circuit-breaker may be designed to open the line which it connects, whenever the direction from which the flow of energy takes place is reversed, is taken advantage of at some sub-stations to guard against a flow of energy from a sub-station back toward the generating station. By this means a flow of energy from a sub-station to a short circuit in one of the lines or cables connecting it with the generating plant is prevented.
The design of a circuit breaker allows it to open the line it’s connected to whenever the direction of the energy flow is reversed. Some substations use this feature to prevent energy from flowing back towards the generating station. This helps to stop energy from moving from a substation to a short circuit in one of the lines or cables that connect it to the generating plant.
CHAPTER XII.
POWER TRANSMISSION REGULATION.
Regulation of voltage at incandescent lamps is a serious problem in the distribution of electrically transmitted energy. Good regulation should not allow the pressure at incandescent lamps rated at 110 to 120 volts to vary more than one volt above or below the normal.
Regulating voltage at incandescent lamps is a significant issue in the distribution of electrical energy. Proper regulation shouldn't let the voltage at incandescent lamps rated between 110 to 120 volts fluctuate more than one volt above or below the norm.
Electric motor service is much less exacting as to constancy of voltage, and the pressure at motor terminals may sometimes be varied as much as ten per cent without material objection on the part of users. A mixed service to these three classes of apparatus must often be provided where transmitted energy is used, and the limitations as to variations at incandescent lamps are thus the ones that must control the regulation of pressure.
Electric motor service is much less strict about maintaining constant voltage, and the voltage at motor terminals can sometimes fluctuate by as much as ten percent without significant complaints from users. Often, a mixed service for these three types of equipment needs to be established when energy is being transmitted, and the restrictions on variations for incandescent lamps are what ultimately dictate how the voltage is regulated.
Transmission systems may be broadly divided into those that have no sub-stations and must therefore do all regulation at the generating plant, and those that do have one or more sub-stations so that regulation of voltage may be carried out at both ends of the transmission line.
Transmission systems can generally be divided into two types: those without sub-stations that must handle all regulation at the generating plant, and those with one or more sub-stations that allow for voltage regulation at both ends of the transmission line.

Fig. 64.—Arc-lighting Switchboard at Central Sub-station, Montreal.
Fig. 64.—Arc-lighting Switchboard at the Central Substation, Montreal.
As a rule, a sub-station with an operator in attendance is highly
desirable between transmission and distribution lines, and this is the
plan generally followed at important centres of electrical supply, even
though the transmission is a short one. One example of this sort may
be noted at Springfield, Mass., where energy for electrical supply is
transmitted from two water-power plants on the Chicopee River only
about four and a half and six miles, respectively, from the sub-station
in the business centre of the city. The voltage of transmission for two-phase
current in this case is 6,000, and is reduced to about 2,400 volts at
the sub-station for the general distribution of light and power. A similar
instance may be seen at Concord, N. H., where electrical energy at both
2,500 and 10,000 volts is delivered to a sub-station in the business section
from a water-power plant at Sewall’s Falls, on the Merrimac River, four
and one-half miles distant. From this sub-station the current is distributed
at about 2,500 volts for the supply of lamps and motors. A sub-station[156]
[157]
was found desirable at Concord for purposes of regulation before
the voltage of transmission was raised above that of distribution. Subsequently,
when the load increased, the voltage of 10,000 was adopted on
a part of the transmission circuit in order to avoid an increase in the size
of their conductors.
As a general rule, having a substation with an operator present is very important between transmission and distribution lines. This is the typical setup at major electric supply centers, even if the transmission distance is short. One example is Springfield, Mass., where electricity is transmitted from two hydro plants on the Chicopee River, located about four and a half and six miles from the substation in the city's business district. The transmission voltage for the two-phase current is 6,000 volts, which is reduced to approximately 2,400 volts at the substation for general distribution of light and power. A similar situation exists in Concord, N.H., where electrical energy at both 2,500 and 10,000 volts is sent to a substation in the downtown area from a hydro plant at Sewall's Falls on the Merrimack River, about four and a half miles away. From this substation, the current is distributed at around 2,500 volts for lighting and motors. A substation[156]
[157] was deemed necessary in Concord for regulation before the transmission voltage was raised above the distribution voltage. Later, as demand increased, the 10,000-volt option was implemented for part of the transmission circuit to avoid having to upgrade the conductor size.

Fig. 65.—Area of Electrical Distribution at Montreal.
Fig. 65.—Electrical Distribution Area in Montreal.
Larger map (167 kB)
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ (167 kB)

Fig. 66.
Fig. 66.

Fig. 67.
Fig. 67.

Fig. 68.
Fig. 68.
In some instances, however, transmission and distribution lines are joined without the intervention of a sub-station, where regulation of voltage can be accomplished, though this practice has little to recommend it aside from the savings in first cost of installation and subsequent cost of operation. These savings are more apparent than real if fairly constant pressure is to be maintained at the lamps, because what is gained by the omission of sub-stations will be offset, in part at least, by additional outlays on the lines if good regulation is to be maintained. This fact may be illustrated by reference to Figs. 66, 67, and 68, in each[158] of which D represents a generating station and A, B, and C towns or cities where energy from the station is to be distributed. In the case of each figure it is assumed that the distance between the generating station and each of the cities or towns is such that distributing lines with a loss of, say, not more than two per cent in voltage at full load cannot be provided between the generating station and each city or town because of the cost of conductors. This being so, one or more centres of distribution must be located in each town, and the transmission lines must join the distribution lines at these centres either on poles or in sub-stations. If several of these towns are in the same general direction from the generating plant so as to be reached by the same transmission line, as A, B, and C in Fig. 66, this one line will be all that is necessary with a sub-station in each town. Where sub-stations are not employed a separate transmission circuit must be provided between the generating plant and each town for reasons that will appear presently. The percentage of voltage variation in a transmission line under changing loads will be frequently from five to ten, and is thus far beyond the allowable variations at incandescent lamps. To give good lighting service[159] the centre of distribution, where the transmission line joins the distribution circuits, must be maintained at very nearly constant voltage if no sub-station is located there. Regulation at a generating station will compensate for the changing loss of pressure in a line under varying loads so as to maintain a nearly constant voltage at any one point thereon. No plan of station regulation, however, can maintain constant voltages at several points on the same transmission line when there is a varying load at each. The result is that even though the several towns served are in the same general direction from the generating station, as in Fig. 67, yet each town should have its separate transmission line where no sub-stations in the towns are provided. In the case illustrated by Fig. 68, where the towns served are in very different directions from the generating station, there should be a separate transmission line to each, regardless of whether there is a sub-station or only a centre of distribution there.
In some cases, transmission and distribution lines are connected without using a substation, which is where voltage regulation happens. However, this approach has few benefits apart from the initial costs of installation and ongoing operating expenses. These savings may seem significant, but they're often overstated if a consistent voltage is needed at the lights. Any benefits from skipping substations are likely to be counterbalanced by extra expenses on the lines to ensure proper regulation. This can be demonstrated by looking at Figs. 66, 67, and 68, where D stands for a generating station, and A, B, and C represent towns or cities that receive energy from the station. In the diagrams, it’s assumed that the distance between the generating station and each city or town is such that it’s not possible to have distribution lines with a loss of no more than two percent in voltage at full load because of conductor costs. Given this, one or more distribution centers must be set up in each town, connecting the transmission lines to these distribution lines either on poles or in substations. If several of these towns are generally located in the same direction from the generating plant, like A, B, and C in Fig. 66, only one transmission line is needed, along with a substation in each town. If substations are not used, a separate transmission line must be established between the generating plant and each town, for reasons that will become clear shortly. The percentage of voltage variation in a transmission line under changing loads can often range from five to ten percent, which exceeds the acceptable variation for incandescent lamps. To provide effective lighting, the distribution center, where the transmission line meets the distribution circuits, must maintain almost constant voltage if there’s no substation. Regulation at the generating station can adjust for changing pressure losses in the line under varying loads, allowing nearly constant voltage at any single point along it. However, no method of station regulation can keep constant voltages at multiple points on the same transmission line when the loads vary. So, even if the towns served are generally in the same direction from the generating station, as in Fig. 67, each town should have its own transmission line unless substations are available. In the case shown in Fig. 68, where the served towns are in very different directions from the generating station, there should be a separate transmission line to each, regardless of whether there is a substation or just a distribution center.
Even in the case illustrated by Fig. 68, as in each of the others, there is a large saving effected in the cost of distribution lines by the employment of a sub-station at the point where these lines join the transmission circuit, provided that the variation of pressure at lamp terminals is to be kept within one volt either way from the standard. With the variations of loads the loss of pressure in the distribution lines will range from zero to its maximum amount and the connected lamps will be subjected to the change of voltage represented by this total loss, unless the distribution start from a sub-station where the loss in distribution lines can be compensated for by regulation. To give good service the distribution lines should be limited to a loss of one per cent at full load if there is no sub-station where they join transmission lines. With opportunity for regulation at a sub-station the maximum loss in distribution lines may easily be doubled, thus reducing their weight by one-half in comparison with that required where there is no sub-station.
Even in the case illustrated by Fig. 68, just like in the others, there's a significant reduction in the cost of distribution lines by using a sub-station at the point where these lines connect to the transmission circuit, as long as the voltage at lamp terminals stays within one volt above or below the standard. As load variations occur, the voltage drop in the distribution lines will fluctuate from zero to its maximum amount, and the connected lamps will experience voltage changes based on this total drop, unless the distribution begins from a sub-station that can adjust for the loss in distribution lines. To provide good service, the distribution lines should limit their loss to one percent at full load if there isn’t a sub-station where they connect to the transmission lines. With proper regulation at a sub-station, the maximum loss in distribution lines can easily be doubled, which allows for a reduction in material by half compared to situations without a sub-station.
Another advantage of connecting transmission and distribution lines in a sub-station, where regulation of voltage can be had, lies in the fact that it is practically impossible to maintain an absolutely constant pressure miles from a generating plant at the end of a transmission line that is carrying a mixed and varying load. A result is that without the intervention of regulation at a sub-station it is almost impossible to give good lighting service over a long transmission line. Furthermore, the labor of regulation at a generating station is much increased where there are no sub-stations, because it must be much more frequent and accurate. The absence of sub-stations from a transmission system thus implies[160] more transmission circuits, heavier distribution circuits, more labor at the generating plant, and a poor quality of lighting service.
Another benefit of connecting transmission and distribution lines at a substation, where voltage regulation is possible, is that it’s nearly impossible to maintain a perfectly constant pressure miles away from a power plant at the end of a transmission line that's handling a mixed and changing load. As a result, without regulation at a substation, offering reliable lighting service over a long transmission line is almost unfeasible. Additionally, the workload for regulation at a power plant increases significantly in the absence of substations, as it needs to be more frequent and precise. Therefore, not having substations in a transmission system means more transmission circuits, heavier distribution circuits, increased labor at the power plant, and a lower quality of lighting service.[160]
Where stationary motors form the great bulk of the load on a transmission system, and good lighting service is of small importance, it may be well to omit sub-stations at some centres of distribution. This is a condition that sometimes exists in the Rocky Mountain region where the main consumers of power along a transmission line may be mines or works for the reduction of ores. An example of this sort exists in the system of the Telluride Power Transmission Company, in Utah, which extends from Provo Cañon, on the river of the same name, entirely around Utah Lake by way of Mercur, Eureka, and Provo, and back to the power-house in Provo Cañon, a continuous circuit of 105 miles.
Where stationary motors make up the majority of the load on a transmission system, and quality lighting service is not a priority, it might be advisable to skip sub-stations at certain distribution points. This situation sometimes occurs in the Rocky Mountain region, where the main users of power along a transmission line could be mines or facilities for ore processing. One example of this is the system used by the Telluride Power Transmission Company in Utah, which runs from Provo Canyon, along the river of the same name, completely around Utah Lake via Mercur, Eureka, and Provo, and back to the powerhouse in Provo Canyon, forming a continuous circuit of 105 miles.
The transmission voltage on this line is 40,000, and at intervals where there are distributing points the voltage is reduced to about 5,000 by transformers on poles, and without the aid of regulation at sub-stations in some cases. The power thus transmitted is largely used in mines and smelters for the operation of motors, but also for some commercial lighting.
The transmission voltage on this line is 40,000 volts, and at points where the power is distributed, the voltage is lowered to about 5,000 volts using transformers on poles, and sometimes without regulation at substations. The power transmitted is mainly used in mines and smelters for running motors, but it’s also used for some commercial lighting.
Regulation at generating stations of the voltage on transmission lines may be accomplished by the same methods whether there are sub-stations at centres of distribution or not. In any such regulation the aim is to maintain a certain voltage at some particular point on the transmission line, usually its end, where the distribution circuits are connected. If more than one point of distribution exists on the same transmission line, the regulation at the generating plant must be designed to maintain the desired pressure at only one of these points, leaving regulation at the others to be accomplished by local means. One method of regulation consists in the overcompounding of each generator so that the voltage at its terminals will rise at a certain rate as its load increases. If a generator and transmission line are so designed that the rise of voltage at the generator terminals just corresponds with the loss of voltage on the line when the output of that generator alone passes over it to some particular point, then the pressure at that point may be held nearly constant for all loads if no energy is drawn from the line elsewhere. These several conditions necessary to make regulation by the compounding of generators effective can seldom be met in practice. If a varying number of generators must work on the same transmission line, or if varying loads must be supplied at different points along the line, no compound winding of generators will suffice to maintain a constant voltage at any point on the line that is distant from the power-station. For these reasons[161] the compound winding of generators is of minor importance so far as the regulation of voltage on transmission lines is concerned, and on large alternators is not generally attempted. An example may be noted on the 3,750-kilowatt generators at Niagara Falls, where the single magnet winding receives current from the exciters only.
Regulating the voltage on transmission lines at generating stations can be done using the same methods, regardless of whether there are substations at distribution centers. The goal of this regulation is to maintain a specific voltage at a particular point on the transmission line, usually at its end where the distribution circuits connect. If there are multiple distribution points on the same transmission line, the regulation at the generating plant needs to ensure the desired voltage is maintained at only one of these points, with regulation at the others handled locally. One method of regulation involves overcompounding each generator so that the voltage at its terminals increases at a specific rate as its load grows. If a generator and transmission line are designed so that the rise in voltage at the generator terminals matches the voltage drop on the line when the output from that generator alone travels to a specific point, then the voltage at that point can be kept nearly constant for all loads, assuming no energy is drawn from the line elsewhere. However, the several conditions required for effective regulation through generator compounding are rarely met in practice. If a varying number of generators need to operate on the same transmission line, or if loads differ at various points along the line, no compounding of generators will be sufficient to maintain a constant voltage at any point on the line far from the power station. For these reasons[161], the importance of generator compounding for regulating voltage on transmission lines is minimal and is typically not attempted on large alternators. An example is seen in the 3,750-kilowatt generators at Niagara Falls, where the single magnet winding receives current solely from the exciters.
A much more effective and generally adopted method of regulation of voltage at the generating plants of transmission systems is based on the action of an attendant who varies the current in the magnet coils of each generator so as to raise or lower its voltage as desired. The regulation must be for some one point on the transmission line, and the attendant at the generating plant may know the voltage at that point either by means of a pair of pressure wires run back from that point to a voltmeter at the generating plant, by a meter that indicates the voltage at the point in question according to the current on the line, or by telephone connection with a sub-station at the point where the constant voltage is to be maintained. Pressure wires are a reliable means of indicating in the generating station the voltage at a point of distribution on the line, but the erection of these wires is quite an expense in a long transmission, and in such cases they are only occasionally used. Owing to inductive effects and to variable power-factors the amperes indicated on a line carrying alternating current are far from a certain guide as to the drop in voltage between the generating station and the distant point. In long transmissions, telephone communication between the generating plant and the sub-stations is the most general way in which necessary changes to maintain constant voltage at sub-stations are brought to the attention of the attendant in the generating plant. Few, if any, extensive transmission systems now operate without telephone connection between a generating plant and all of its sub-stations, or between a single sub-station and the several generating plants that may feed into it. Thus, the generating plant at Spier Falls, on the Hudson River, will be connected by telephone with sub-stations at Schenectady, Albany, Troy, and some half-dozen smaller places. On the other hand, the single sub-station in Manchester, N. H., that receives the energy from four water-power plants has a direct telephone line to each.
A much more effective and commonly used method for regulating voltage at power plants in transmission systems relies on an operator who adjusts the current in the magnet coils of each generator to raise or lower its voltage as needed. The regulation must focus on a specific point along the transmission line, and the operator at the power plant can determine the voltage at that point through a couple of pressure wires running back from there to a voltmeter at the plant, a meter that shows the voltage based on the current in the line, or by a phone connection with a substation where the voltage is supposed to stay constant. Pressure wires are a reliable way to indicate the voltage at a distribution point on the line from the generating station, but setting up these wires can be quite costly over long distances, so they are only used occasionally in those situations. Due to inductive effects and varying power factors, the amperes shown on a line carrying alternating current are not a reliable indication of the voltage drop between the generating station and the distant point. In long transmissions, telephone communication between the generating plant and the substations is the most common way to inform the operator at the generating plant about necessary adjustments to maintain constant voltage at the substations. Very few, if any, extensive transmission systems operate today without telephone connections between a power plant and all its substations, or between a single substation and the multiple generating plants feeding into it. For example, the generating plant at Spier Falls, on the Hudson River, is connected by phone to substations in Schenectady, Albany, Troy, and several smaller locations. Likewise, the single substation in Manchester, N.H., receiving energy from four hydroelectric plants has a direct phone line to each.
Where two or more transmission lines from the same power-station are operated from the same set of bus-bars the voltage at a distant point on each line cannot be held constant by changes of pressure on these bus-bars. One generator only may be connected to each transmission line and be regulated for the loss on that line, but this loses the advantages of multiple operation. Another plan is to connect a regulator[162] in each transmission line before it goes from the generating plant. One type of regulator for this purpose consists of a transformer with its secondary coil divided into a number of sections and the ends of these sections brought out to a series of contact segments. The primary coil of this transformer may be supplied with current from the bus-bars and the secondary coil is then connected in series with the line to be regulated, so that the secondary voltage is added to or subtracted from that of the main circuit. A movable contact arm on the segments to which the sections of the secondary coil are connected makes it possible to vary the secondary voltage by changing the number of these sections in circuit. In another transformer used for regulating purposes the primary coil is connected to the bus-bars as before and the movable secondary coil is put in series with the line to be regulated. The regulation is accomplished in this case by changing the position of the secondary relative to that of the primary coil and thus raising or lowering the secondary voltage. Both of these regulators require hand adjustment, and the attendant may employ the telephone, pressure wires, or the compensating voltmeter above mentioned, to determine the voltage at the centre of distribution. The voltage indicated by this so-called “compensator” is that at the generating station minus a certain amount which varies with the current flowing in the line to be regulated. The voltmeter coil of the compensator is connected in series with the secondary coils of two transformers, which coils work against each other. One transformer has its secondary coil arranged to indicate the full station voltage, and the other secondary coil is actuated by a primary coil that carries the full current of the regulated line. By a series of contacts the effect of this last-named coil can be varied to correspond with the number of volts that are to be lost at full load between the generating station and the point on the transmission line at which the voltage is to be held constant. If there is no inductive drop on the transmission line, or if this drop is of known and constant amount, the compensator may give the actual voltage at the point for which the regulation is designed.
Where two or more transmission lines from the same power station are powered by the same bus bars, the voltage at a distant point on each line can’t be kept constant by adjusting the pressure on these bus bars. Each transmission line may only connect to one generator, which can be regulated for the loss on that line, but this approach loses the benefits of multiple operation. Another solution is to connect a regulator[162] to each transmission line before it leaves the generating plant. One type of regulator for this involves a transformer with its secondary coil split into multiple sections, with the ends of these sections connected to a series of contact segments. The primary coil of this transformer is powered by the bus bars, and the secondary coil is connected in series with the line being regulated, allowing the secondary voltage to be added to or subtracted from the main circuit voltage. A movable contact arm attached to the segments for the secondary coil sections allows for the adjustment of secondary voltage by changing the number of sections in the circuit. In another transformer used for regulating, the primary coil is connected to the bus bars as before, and the adjustable secondary coil is placed in series with the regulated line. Here, the regulation is achieved by altering the position of the secondary relative to the primary coil, thereby increasing or decreasing the secondary voltage. Both regulators need manual adjustments, and the operator can use a telephone, pressure wires, or the mentioned compensating voltmeter to check the voltage at the distribution center. The voltage shown by this so-called “compensator” is that at the generating station minus a specific amount that changes with the current flowing in the regulated line. The voltmeter coil of the compensator is wired in series with the secondary coils of two transformers, which work against each other. One transformer’s secondary coil displays the full station voltage, while the other secondary coil is driven by a primary coil carrying the full current of the regulated line. Through a series of contacts, the impact of this last coil can be adjusted to match the number of volts lost at full load between the generating station and the point on the transmission line where the voltage is meant to be constant. If there is no inductive drop on the transmission line, or if this drop is known and remains constant, the compensator can indicate the actual voltage at the intended regulation point.
Automatic regulators are used in some generating stations to maintain a constant voltage either at the generating terminals or at some distant distributing point on a line operated by a single generator. These regulators may operate rheostats that are in series with the magnet windings of the generators to be regulated, and raise or lower the generator voltage by varying the exciting current in these windings. These regulators are much more effective to maintain constant voltage at generating stations than at the distributing end of long transmission lines with variable[163] power-factors. In spite of the compound winding of generators, of automatic regulators for the exciting currents in their magnet coils, and of regulating transformers in the transmission circuits, hand-adjustment of rheostats in series with the magnet coils of generators remains the most generally used at the generating stations of long transmission systems. Automatic regulators at the ends of transmission lines in sub-stations are now being introduced, and may prove very desirable.
Automatic regulators are used in some power plants to keep a constant voltage either at the generating terminals or at a remote distribution point on a line powered by a single generator. These regulators can control rheostats that are connected in series with the magnet windings of the generators they regulate, raising or lowering the generator voltage by adjusting the exciting current in these windings. These regulators are much more effective at maintaining a constant voltage at power plants than at the distribution end of long transmission lines with variable power factors. Despite the compound winding of generators, the automatic regulators for the exciting currents in their magnet coils, and the regulating transformers in the transmission circuits, manually adjusting the rheostats in series with the magnet coils of generators is still the most commonly used method at the generating stations of long transmission systems. Automatic regulators are now being introduced at the ends of transmission lines in substations, and they may prove to be very beneficial.

Fig. 69.—Motor-generators in Shawinigan Sub-station at Montreal.
Fig. 69.—Motor-generators at the Shawinigan Substation in Montreal.
The more exacting and final work of regulation in transmission systems is usually done at the sub-stations. After a nearly constant voltage is delivered at the high-pressure coils of step-down transformers in a sub-station, there remains the varying losses in these transformers, in motor-generators or converters, in distribution lines and in service transformers, to be compensated for. In general, three or four sorts of loads must be provided for, namely, arc or incandescent lamps for street lighting on series circuits, usually of 4,000 to 10,000 volts. Arc and incandescent lamps on constant-pressure circuits of 2,000 to 2,500 volts for commercial lighting, direct-current stationary motors on constant-pressure circuits of about 500 volts, and alternating motors which may be served at either 2,500 or 500 volts according to their sizes and locations. To these loads may be added that of street-car motors of 500 volts, direct current. Both the stationary and the street-car motors, but more especially[164] the latter, by their changes of load give rise to large and rapid fluctuations of voltage on the distribution lines to which they are connected. The problem of regulation with combined lamp and motor loads is not, therefore, so much to maintain a nearly constant voltage at the motors as to protect the lamps from the fluctuations of voltage which the motors set up.
The more detailed and final work of regulating transmission systems usually takes place at the substations. After a nearly constant voltage is delivered at the high-voltage coils of step-down transformers in a substation, there are still varying losses in these transformers, in motor-generators or converters, in distribution lines, and in service transformers that need to be addressed. Generally, three or four types of loads must be taken into account, specifically, arc or incandescent lamps for street lighting on series circuits, usually between 4,000 and 10,000 volts. Arc and incandescent lamps on constant-voltage circuits of 2,000 to 2,500 volts for commercial lighting, direct-current stationary motors on constant-voltage circuits of about 500 volts, and alternating motors, which can be served at either 2,500 or 500 volts depending on their sizes and locations. Additionally, there are streetcar motors operating at 500 volts of direct current. Both the stationary and streetcar motors, particularly the latter, cause significant and rapid voltage fluctuations on the distribution lines they are connected to due to their varying loads. Therefore, the challenge of regulation with combined lamp and motor loads is less about keeping a nearly constant voltage at the motors and more about protecting the lamps from the voltage fluctuations created by the motors.

Fig. 70.—One of the 1,065-kilowatt Motor-generators in the Shawinigan Sub-station at Montreal.
Fig. 70.—One of the 1,065-kilowatt motor generators in the Shawinigan Substation in Montreal.
Larger illustration (71 kB)
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ (71 kB)
For street-car motors using direct current at about 500 volts, the sub-station equipment includes either step-down transformers and converters or motor-generators with or without transformers. It is the practice in some cases where both lighting and street-railway service are drawn from the same transmission system to keep these two kinds of service entirely separate, devoting independent generators and transmission lines, as well as independent transformers and converters or motor-generators, to the street-car work. This is done in the transmission system centring at Manchester, N. H., in which each one of the four water-power plants, as well as the sub-station, has a double set of bus-bars on the switchboard; and from each water-power plant to the sub-station there are two transmission circuits. In operation, one set of generators, bus-bars, transmission circuits, and transformers supply converters or motor-generators for the street-car motors; and another set of generators, bus-bars, transmission circuits, and transformers are devoted to lighting and stationary[165] motors in this system. Where street-car motors draw their energy from the same generators and transmission lines that supply commercial incandescent lamps, some means must be adopted to protect the lighting circuits from the fluctuations of voltage set up by the varying street-car loads. One way to accomplish this purpose is to operate the lighting circuits with generators driven by synchronous motors in the sub-stations. These generators may, of course, be of either direct or alternating type and of any desired voltage. The synchronous motors driving these generators take their current from the transmission line either with or without the intervention of step-down transformers. By this use of synchronous motors the lighting circuits escape fluctuations of voltage corresponding to those on the transmission line, because synchronous motors maintain constant speeds independently of the voltage of the circuits to which they are connected. This plan was followed at Buffalo, where the street-car system and the lighting service are operated with energy from the Niagara Falls stations over the same transmission line. In one of the sub-stations at Buffalo, both 2,200-volt, two-phase alternators, and 150-volt continuous-current generators for lighting service, are driven by synchronous motors connected to the Niagara transmission line through transformers. At other sub-stations in Buffalo, the 500-volt continuous current for street-car motors is obtained from the same transmission system through transformers and converters. Another solution of the problem of voltage regulation where street-railway and commercial lighting service are to be drawn from the same transmission line is found in the operation of 500-volt continuous-current generators in the sub-stations by synchronous motors fed from the line either directly or through transformers. This plan has been adopted in the transmission system of the Boston Edison Company, which extends to a number of cities and towns within a radius of twenty-five miles. The sub-stations at Natick and Woburn in this system, where there are street-railway as well as lighting loads, contain 500-volt continuous-current generators driven by synchronous motors connected directly to the three-phase transmission lines. In a case like this the synchronous motors maintain their speed irrespective of the voltage on the line and thus tend to hold that voltage steady in spite of the variable losses due to fluctuating loads.
For streetcar motors using direct current at about 500 volts, the substation equipment includes either step-down transformers and converters or motor-generators, with or without transformers. In some cases, where both lighting and streetcar services are powered by the same transmission system, it is common to keep these two services completely separate. This means using independent generators and transmission lines, as well as independent transformers and converters or motor-generators, for the streetcar operations. This approach is seen in the transmission system centered in Manchester, NH, where each of the four water-power plants, along with the substation, has a double set of bus bars on the switchboard; there are also two transmission circuits from each water-power plant to the substation. In operation, one set of generators, bus bars, transmission circuits, and transformers supplies converters or motor-generators for the streetcar motors, while another set is dedicated to lighting and stationary motors in this system. When streetcar motors draw power from the same generators and transmission lines that supply commercial incandescent lamps, measures must be taken to protect the lighting circuits from voltage fluctuations caused by the varying streetcar loads. One way to achieve this is by running the lighting circuits with generators powered by synchronous motors in the substations. These generators can be of either direct or alternating type and at any desired voltage. The synchronous motors driving these generators pull their current from the transmission line, either directly or through step-down transformers. By using synchronous motors, the lighting circuits avoid voltage fluctuations equivalent to those on the transmission line, because synchronous motors maintain constant speeds regardless of the voltage of the circuits they are connected to. This method was adopted in Buffalo, where the streetcar system and the lighting service are powered by energy from the Niagara Falls stations through the same transmission line. In one of the substations in Buffalo, both 2,200-volt, two-phase alternators and 150-volt continuous-current generators for lighting are powered by synchronous motors linked to the Niagara transmission line through transformers. In other Buffalo substations, the 500-volt continuous current for streetcar motors is obtained from the same transmission system via transformers and converters. Another solution for regulating voltage when streetcar and commercial lighting services are supplied by the same transmission line is to operate 500-volt continuous-current generators in the substations using synchronous motors fed from the line either directly or through transformers. This method has been implemented in the transmission system of the Boston Edison Company, which serves several cities and towns within a 25-mile radius. The substations in Natick and Woburn within this system, which have both streetcar and lighting loads, include 500-volt continuous-current generators driven by synchronous motors connected directly to the three-phase transmission lines. In these instances, the synchronous motors maintain their speed regardless of the line voltage, thereby helping to stabilize that voltage despite the variable losses from fluctuating loads.
Stationary motors should not as a rule be operated from the same distribution lines that supply incandescent lamps, especially in sizes above one horse-power, and this is the better practice. Motor circuits of about 2,400 volts and two- or three-phase, alternating, or 500 volts, alternating or direct current, may be supplied at a sub-station either[166] by transformers alone in the first case or by transformers and converters in the second. In either case no especial provision is usually necessary for the regulation of constant pressure on the motor circuits.
Stationary motors generally shouldn't be powered from the same distribution lines that supply incandescent lamps, particularly for motors larger than one horsepower, as this is considered best practice. Motor circuits around 2,400 volts and two- or three-phase, alternating current, or 500 volts, whether alternating or direct current, can be provided at a sub-station either[166] by transformers alone in the first scenario or by transformers and converters in the second. In both cases, there's typically no special requirement for maintaining a constant pressure on the motor circuits.

Fig. 71.—1,100-kilowatt, 2,300-volt, Three-phase, 30-cycle, Synchronous Motor at Sub-station of Shawinigan Line in Montreal.
Fig. 71.—1,100-kilowatt, 2,300-volt, three-phase, 30-cycle synchronous motor at the Shawinigan Line substation in Montreal.
In some transmission systems the distribution circuits for stationary motors are not fed by the same transmission lines that carry the lighting load, but draw their energy from lines that do no other work. This practice is certainly desirable, as it frees the lighting circuits from all fluctuations of voltage due to line losses with changing motor loads. Examples of this sort may be seen at Springfield, Mass., and Portland[167] and Lewiston, Me., in each of which the load of stationary motors is operated over independent transmission as well as distribution lines.
In some transmission systems, the circuits for stationary motors don't get power from the same transmission lines that supply the lighting load. Instead, they draw energy from lines that have no other job. This approach is definitely beneficial because it keeps the lighting circuits free from voltage fluctuations caused by line losses with varying motor loads. You can see examples of this in Springfield, Massachusetts, and Portland and Lewiston, Maine, where stationary motor loads are supplied through separate transmission as well as distribution lines.
In transmission systems series arc and incandescent lamps for street lighting are commonly operated either by direct-current arc dynamos or by constant-current transformers or constant-pressure transformers with automatic regulators at the sub-stations. The arc dynamos are driven by either induction or synchronous motors supplied directly from the transmission line or through transformers. As the arc dynamos regulate automatically for constant current no further regulation is required. If the series arc and incandescent lamps are to be supplied with alternating current, the constant-current transformer or the constant-current regulator come into use. This type of transformer and regulator alike depend for their regulating effect on the movement of a secondary coil on a transformer core in such a way that the current in this coil, which is in series with the lamps, is held nearly constant. Such constant-current transformers and regulators are usually supplied from the transmission line through regular constant-pressure transformers, and they hold their currents sufficiently constant for the purposes of their use.
In transmission systems, series arc and incandescent lamps for street lighting are typically powered either by direct-current arc dynamos or by constant-current transformers or constant-pressure transformers with automatic regulators at the substations. The arc dynamos are driven by either induction or synchronous motors that are connected directly to the transmission line or through transformers. Since the arc dynamos automatically regulate for constant current, no additional regulation is needed. If the series arc and incandescent lamps are powered with alternating current, the constant-current transformer or the constant-current regulator is used. Both the transformer and the regulator rely on the movement of a secondary coil on a transformer core to ensure that the current flowing through this coil, which is in series with the lamps, remains nearly constant. These constant-current transformers and regulators are usually powered from the transmission line through regular constant-pressure transformers, and they maintain their currents sufficiently stable for their intended use.
The main problem of regulating thus comes back to the 250- or 2,200-volt, constant-pressure circuits for incandescent lighting, supplied from transmission lines through transformers or motor generators or both at the sub-station. For this regulation one of the most reliable instruments is the hand of a skilful attendant, guided by voltmeters connected with pressure wires from minor centres of distribution, and adjusting the regulating transformers above mentioned, or other regulating devices.
The main issue with regulation comes down to the 250- or 2,200-volt, constant-pressure circuits for incandescent lighting, fed from transmission lines through transformers or motor generators, or both, at the substation. For this regulation, one of the most dependable tools is the hand of a skilled operator, guided by voltmeters linked to pressure wires from smaller distribution centers, making adjustments to the regulating transformers mentioned earlier, or other regulating devices.
CHAPTER XIII.
Guard wires and surge protectors.
Lightning in its various forms is the greatest danger to which transmission systems are exposed, and it attacks their most vulnerable point, that is, insulation. The lesser danger as to lightning is that it will puncture the line insulators and shatter or set fire to the poles. The greater danger is that the lightning discharge will pass along the transmission wires to stations and sub-stations and will there break down the insulation of generators, motors, or transformers. Damage by lightning may be prevented in either of two ways, that is, by shielding the transmission line so completely that no form of lightning charge or discharge can reach it, or by providing so easy a path from line conductors to earth that lightning reaching these conductors will follow the intended path instead of any other. In practice the shielding effect is sought by grounded guard wires, and the easy path for discharge takes the form of lightning arresters, but neither of these devices is entirely effective.
Lightning, in its various forms, poses the biggest threat to transmission systems, targeting their weakest spot: insulation. A lesser risk is that it can damage line insulators and break or ignite the poles. The greater risk is that a lightning strike can travel along the transmission wires to stations and substations, damaging the insulation of generators, motors, or transformers. Lightning damage can be prevented in two main ways: by completely shielding the transmission line from lightning charges or discharges, or by creating an easy path from the line conductors to the ground so that any lightning hitting these conductors will follow that path instead of others. In practice, grounding guard wires provide the shielding effect, while lightning arresters create the easy discharge path, but neither solution is completely effective.
Aerial transmission lines are exposed to direct discharges of lightning, to electromagnetic charges due to lightning discharges near by, and to electrostatic charges that are brought about by contact with or induction from electrically charged bodies of air. It is evidently impracticable to provide a shield that will free overhead lines from all these influences. To cut off both electrostatic and electromagnetic induction from a wire and also to free it from a possible direct discharge of lightning, it seems that it would at least be necessary completely to incase the wire with a thick body of conducting material. This condition is approximated when an electric circuit is entirely beneath the surface of the ground, but would be hard to maintain with bare overhead wires. It seems, however, that grounded guard wires near to and parallel with long aerial circuits should tend to discharge any high electrostatic pressures existing in the surrounding air, and materially to reduce the probability that a direct discharge of lightning will choose the highly insulated circuits for its path to earth. Lightning arresters may conduct induced and direct lightning discharges to earth, without damage to transmission lines, so that both arresters and guard wires may logically be used in the same system.
Aerial transmission lines are exposed to direct lightning strikes, electromagnetic charges from nearby lightning, and electrostatic charges caused by contact with or induction from electrically charged air. It’s clearly impractical to create a shield that can protect overhead lines from all these effects. To block both electrostatic and electromagnetic induction from a wire and to protect it from a possible direct lightning strike, it would likely be necessary to completely encase the wire in a thick layer of conducting material. This situation is somewhat achieved when an electric circuit is completely underground, but it's challenging to maintain with bare overhead wires. However, it seems that grounded guard wires placed close to and parallel with long aerial circuits should help discharge any high electrostatic pressures in the surrounding air, significantly reducing the chances of a direct lightning strike hitting the well-insulated circuits on its way to the ground. Lightning arresters can safely conduct both induced and direct lightning strikes to the ground without damaging transmission lines, so using both arresters and guard wires together in the same system makes sense.
Wide differences of opinion exist as to the general desirability of grounded guard wires on transmission lines, both because of their undoubted disadvantages and because the degree of protection that they afford is uncertain. It seems, however, that the defects of guard wires depend in large degree on the kind of wire used for the purpose, and the method of its erection. Galvanized iron wire with barbs every few inches has been more generally used for guard wires along transmission lines than any other sort. Sometimes a single guard wire of this sort has been run on a pole line carrying transmission circuits, and the more common location of this single wire is on the tops of the poles. In other cases two guard wires have been used on the same pole line, one of these wires being located at each end of the highest cross-arm and outside of the power wires. Besides these guard wires at the ends of the top cross-arms of a pole line, a third wire has in some systems been added to the tops of the poles. These guard wires have sometimes been secured to the poles and cross-arms by iron staples driven over the wire and into the wood, and in other cases the guard wires are mounted on small glass insulators. Much variation in practice also exists as to the ground connections of guard wires, such connections being made at every pole in some systems, and much less frequently in some others.
There are significant differences of opinion about the overall value of grounded guard wires on transmission lines, mainly due to their clear drawbacks and the uncertain level of protection they provide. However, it appears that the issues with guard wires largely depend on the type of wire used and how it’s installed. Galvanized iron wire with barbs spaced a few inches apart has been more commonly used for guard wires along transmission lines than any other type. Sometimes, a single guard wire of this kind has been installed on a pole line that carries transmission circuits, and the most typical placement for this single wire is at the top of the poles. In other cases, two guard wires have been used on the same pole line, with one wire positioned at each end of the highest cross-arm and outside of the power wires. Besides these guard wires at the ends of the top cross-arms of a pole line, some systems have added a third wire to the tops of the poles. These guard wires have sometimes been secured to the poles and cross-arms with iron staples driven over the wire and into the wood, while in other instances, the guard wires are mounted on small glass insulators. There is also considerable variation in how ground connections for guard wires are done, with some systems making connections at every pole and others doing so much less frequently.
With all these differences in the practical application of guard wires it is not strange that opinions as to their utility do not agree. Further reason for differences of opinion as to the practical value of guard wires exists in the fact that in some parts of the country the dangers from lightning are largely those of the static and inductive sort, that are most effectively provided for by lightning arresters, while in other parts of the country direct lightning strokes are the greatest menace to transmission systems. At the present time, knowledge of the laws governing the various manifestations of energy that are known under the general head of lightning is imperfect, and the most reliable rules for the use of guard wires along transmission lines are those derived from practical experience.
With all these differences in how guard wires are used, it's not surprising that opinions on their usefulness vary. Another reason for differing views on the practical value of guard wires is that in some areas, the dangers from lightning mainly involve static and inductive issues, which are best managed with lightning arresters. Meanwhile, in other areas, direct lightning strikes pose the biggest threat to transmission systems. Currently, our understanding of the laws governing the various forms of energy collectively known as lightning is limited, and the most dependable guidelines for using guard wires along transmission lines come from practical experience.
A case where a guard wire did not prove effective as a protection against lightning is that of the San Miguel Consolidated Gold Mining Company, of Telluride, Col., whose three transmission lines ran from the water-power plant to points from three to ten miles distant, as described in A. I. E. E., vol. xi., p. 337, and following pages. This transmission operated at 3,000 volts, single-phase, alternating, and the pole lines ran over the mountains at elevations of 8,800 to 12,000 feet above sea-level, passing across bare ridges and tracts of magnetic material. It was stated[170] that the country over which the circuits ran is so dry and rocky that it was practically impossible to secure good ground connections along the line, and no mention was made of the way in which the ground wire was grounded, or of the number of its ground connections. Furthermore, it does not appear that there was more than one guard wire on each pole line. Under these circumstances, and with a certain make of lightning arresters in use at the station, lightning was a frequent cause of damage to the connected apparatus. The insulation of some of the machinery is described as honeycombed with perforations which led to continual leakage, grounds, and short-circuits, which seems to indicate that the damage was being done by static and inductive discharges rather than by direct lightning strokes, one of which would have disabled a machine at once. The type of lightning arrester in use on this system was changed, and thorough ground connections were provided for the new arresters, after which the damage by lightning came to an end. It is not stated, however, that the guard wires were removed. This case has been referred to as one in which guard wires failed to give protection, but, as may be seen from the above facts, such a statement is hardly fair. In the first place, it does not appear that the single guard wire on each pole line was effectively grounded anywhere. Again, a large part of the damage to apparatus appears to have been the result of static or inductive discharges that could not in the nature of things have been prevented by a guard wire. Finally, as the guard wire was not removed after the new lightning arresters were erected, it is possible that this wire prevented some direct discharges over the transmission wires that would have been destructive.
A case where a guard wire wasn't effective in protecting against lightning is that of the San Miguel Consolidated Gold Mining Company in Telluride, Colorado. Their three transmission lines connected the water-power plant to locations between three to ten miles away, as detailed in A. I. E. E., vol. xi., p. 337, and following pages. This transmission operated at 3,000 volts, single-phase, alternating, and the pole lines ran over mountains at elevations of 8,800 to 12,000 feet above sea level, crossing bare ridges and areas of magnetic material. It was noted[170] that the terrain along the circuits was so dry and rocky that it was nearly impossible to establish good ground connections along the line, and there was no information about how the ground wire was connected or how many ground connections there were. Additionally, it seems there was only one guard wire on each pole line. Given these circumstances, and with a specific type of lightning arresters used at the station, lightning frequently caused damage to the connected equipment. The insulation of some machinery was described as being full of holes, leading to constant leakage, grounds, and short-circuits, indicating that the damage was likely caused by static and inductive discharges rather than by direct lightning strikes, which would have instantly incapacitated a machine. The type of lightning arrester used on this system was changed, and proper ground connections were provided for the new arresters, after which the lightning damage stopped. However, it's not mentioned that the guard wires were taken down. This case has been noted as one where guard wires failed to offer protection, but, as seen from the facts above, that statement seems unfair. Firstly, it does not appear that the single guard wire on each pole line was effectively grounded anywhere. Additionally, much of the damage to the equipment seems to have resulted from static or inductive discharges that a guard wire wouldn't have been able to prevent. Finally, since the guard wire was not removed after the new lightning arresters were installed, it’s possible that this wire prevented some direct discharges onto the transmission wires that could have caused destruction.
On page 381 of the volume of A. I. E. E. above cited, it is stated that the frequency and violence of lightning discharges that entered a certain electric station on Staten Island were much less after guard wires had been erected along the connected circuits than they were before the guard wires were put up.
On page 381 of the mentioned volume of A. I. E. E., it states that the frequency and intensity of lightning strikes that hit a specific electric station on Staten Island were significantly reduced after guard wires were installed along the connected circuits compared to before the guard wires were erected.
It is also stated on page 385 of the same volume that examination of statistics of a number of stations in this country and Europe had shown that in every case where an overhead guard wire had been erected over power circuits, or where these circuits ran for their entire distance beneath telegraph wires, lightning had given no trouble on the circuits so protected. Unfortunately, the speaker who made this statement did not tell us where the interesting statistics mentioned could be consulted.
It is also mentioned on page 385 of the same volume that an analysis of statistics from various stations in this country and Europe showed that in every instance where an overhead guard wire was installed over power circuits, or where these circuits ran the entire length under telegraph wires, lightning caused no issues on the protected circuits. Unfortunately, the speaker who made this statement did not indicate where the intriguing statistics could be found.
On the first pole line erected for power transmission from Niagara Falls to Buffalo, two guard wires were strung at opposite ends of the top[171] cross-arm on guard irons there located. This cross-arm also carried parts of two power circuits, and the nearest wires of these circuits were distant about thirteen inches from the guard irons. These guard wires were barbed, and grounded at every fifth pole, according to an account given in A. I. E. E., vol. xviii., at 514 and following pages. The character of the ground connections is not stated. Much trouble in the way of grounds and short circuits on the transmission lines was caused by these guard wires at times when they were broken by the weight of ice coatings and wind pressure. As a result of these troubles the guard wires were removed in 1898. Since that date it appears that the transmission lines between Niagara Falls and Buffalo have been without guard wires. Up to 1901, according to page 537 in the volume just cited, twenty per cent of the interruptions in operation at the Niagara plant were caused by lightning, and it seems probable that this record applies to the period after 1898, when the guard wires were removed. It is also stated that during a single storm the line was struck five times, and that five poles with their cross-arms were destroyed. If these direct lightning strokes occurred while there were no guard wires along the line, as seems to have been the fact, it is a fair question whether such wires well grounded would not have carried off the discharges without damage. In California, the country of long transmissions, the use of guard wires along the pole lines is quite general. Many of these lines run east and west across the State, and a single line may thus have elevations in its different parts all the way from that of tide-water up to several thousand feet above sea-level. Unless guard wires are strung with these lines there is much manifestation of induced or static electricity, according to an account at page 538, in vol. xviii., A. I. E. E., where it is said that in the absence of guard wires a person will be knocked off his feet every time he touches a transmission wire that is entirely disconnected from the source of power. It is also said that this static charge on idle power lines is sufficient, in time, to puncture the insulation of the connected apparatus. On the other hand, where the grounded and barbed guard wires are strung over the entire lengths of these long power lines, these lines may be handled with impunity when they are idle. Ground connections to the guard wire are said to be made at about every fourth pole, and to consist of a wire stapled down the face of the pole and joined to an iron plate beneath its butt. The barbed guard wire itself, of which each pole line appears to have but one, is regularly stapled to the tops of the poles.
On the first power line built to transmit electricity from Niagara Falls to Buffalo, two guard wires were installed at opposite ends of the top cross-arm on the guard irons there. This cross-arm also held parts of two power circuits, and the closest wires of these circuits were about thirteen inches away from the guard irons. These guard wires were barbed and grounded at every fifth pole, according to a report in A. I. E. E., vol. xviii., at pages 514 and onward. The nature of the ground connections isn't specified. There were issues with grounding and short circuits on the transmission lines caused by these guard wires, especially when they were damaged by ice buildup and wind pressure. As a result of these problems, the guard wires were taken down in 1898. Since then, it looks like the transmission lines between Niagara Falls and Buffalo have been operating without guard wires. Up until 1901, as noted on page 537 of the previously mentioned volume, twenty percent of the interruptions at the Niagara plant were due to lightning, and it’s likely that this record includes the period after 1898 when the guard wires were removed. It’s also noted that during one storm, the line was struck five times, destroying five poles and their cross-arms. If these direct lightning strikes occurred when there were no guard wires along the line, which appears to be the case, it raises the question of whether well-grounded guard wires could have diverted the discharges without causing damage. In California, known for long transmission distances, the use of guard wires along pole lines is quite common. Many of these lines run east and west across the state, and a single line can have elevations ranging from sea level to several thousand feet high. If guard wires aren't added to these lines, there’s often significant static or induced electricity, as stated on page 538 in vol. xviii., A. I. E. E., where it's noted that without guard wires, a person can be knocked off their feet whenever they touch a transmission wire that's completely disconnected from the power source. It's also mentioned that this static charge on idle power lines can eventually puncture the insulation of connected devices. Conversely, when grounded and barbed guard wires run the length of these long power lines, it's safe to handle them even when they're not active. Ground connections for the guard wire are reportedly made at about every fourth pole, using a wire that’s stapled down the side of the pole and attached to an iron plate under its base. The barbed guard wire, which each pole line seems to have only one of, is regularly stapled to the tops of the poles.
At the reference just named it is related that on a certain transmission[172] line running east and west across the State for a distance of forty-six miles, and protected by a guard wire, no trouble was experienced during a severe storm that swept north and south over the line. Meantime the damage on other lines in the same neighborhood, and presumably not protected by guard wires, was large.
At the previously mentioned reference, it is reported that on a specific transmission line[172] running east and west across the state for a distance of forty-six miles, and secured by a guard wire, there was no disruption during a severe storm that moved north and south across the line. In contrast, the damage on other lines in the same area, which were likely not protected by guard wires, was significant.

Fig. 72.—Transposition of Wires on Chambly Montreal Line.
Fig. 72.—Switching of Wires on Chambly Montreal Line.
Between the electric plant at Chambly, on the Richelieu River, and Montreal, Quebec, a distance of 16.6 miles, a transmission line of three circuits on two pole lines, with guard wires, was operated from some time in 1898 to December 1st, 1902, or somewhat more than four years. On the date last named the dam that maintained the head of water at the Chambly station gave way, and the plant was shut down during nearly a year for repairs. For as much as three years this line was operated at 12,000 volts, sixty-six cycles per second, two-phase. During the remainder of the period up to the failure of the dam the line was operated at 25,000 volts, sixty-three cycles, three-phase. In each transmission two pole lines were employed with two cross-arms per pole. One two-phase, four-wire circuit was carried on each of three of these cross-arms. At each end of the upper cross-arm on each pole, and at a distance of fifteen inches from the nearest power wire, a guard wire was mounted on a glass insulator. A third guard wire was mounted on a glass insulator at the top of each pole, and this third guard wire was about twenty inches from the nearest power wire. Each of these guard wires was made up of two No. 12 B. W. G. galvanized iron wires twisted together, with a four-point barb every five inches of length. Poles carrying these lines were ninety feet apart, and at each pole all three of the guard wires were connected by soldered joints to a ground wire that was stapled down the side of the pole, passed through an iron pipe eight feet long, and was then twisted several times about the butt of the pole before it was set in the[173] ground. At three points along the line the conductors consisted of single-conductor underground or submarine cables that had an aggregate length of about twenty-five miles. No lightning arresters were employed at the points where the overhead transmission wires joined the underground cables.
Between the electric plant at Chambly, on the Richelieu River, and Montreal, Quebec, a distance of 16.6 miles, a transmission line with three circuits on two pole lines, plus guard wires, was in operation from sometime in 1898 until December 1, 1902, which is just over four years. On the last date mentioned, the dam that kept the water level at the Chambly station collapsed, causing the plant to shut down for almost a year for repairs. For about three years, this line operated at 12,000 volts, sixty-six cycles per second, two-phase. For the remainder of the time leading up to the dam failure, the line operated at 25,000 volts, sixty-three cycles, three-phase. Each transmission used two pole lines with two cross-arms per pole. One two-phase, four-wire circuit was on each of three of these cross-arms. At each end of the upper cross-arm on each pole, a guard wire was mounted on a glass insulator, positioned fifteen inches from the nearest power wire. A third guard wire was mounted on a glass insulator at the top of each pole, about twenty inches from the nearest power wire. Each guard wire consisted of two No. 12 B. W. G. galvanized iron wires twisted together, featuring a four-point barb every five inches. The poles carrying these lines were ninety feet apart, and at each pole, all three guard wires were connected by soldered joints to a ground wire that was secured down the side of the pole, ran through an eight-foot long iron pipe, and was then twisted several times around the butt of the pole before being set in the[173] ground. At three points along the line, the conductors were made up of single-conductor underground or submarine cables with a total length of about twenty-five miles. No lightning arresters were installed where the overhead transmission wires connected to the underground cables.
These two-phase, 12,000-volt circuits were operated from some time in 1898 to some time in 1902, and during that time there was no damage done by lightning either at the Chambly plant, on the overhead line or the underground cable, or at the Montreal sub-station. This record is not due to lack of thunder-storms, for in the territory where the line is located these storms are frequent and severe. One very severe storm during the period in question resulted in serious damage on distribution lines at Chambly and Montreal, where the guard wires were not in use, but the transmission line and its connected apparatus escaped unharmed. The path of this storm was in the direction of the transmission line from Montreal to Chambly, and several trees were struck on the way. At the time of this storm and during an entire summer there were no lightning arresters in the power-house at Chambly.
These two-phase, 12,000-volt circuits were in operation from sometime in 1898 to sometime in 1902, and during that period, there was no lightning damage at the Chambly plant, on the overhead line or the underground cable, or at the Montreal sub-station. This record isn’t due to a lack of thunderstorms, as this area experiences frequent and severe storms. One particularly intense storm during that time caused significant damage to distribution lines in Chambly and Montreal, where guard wires were not used, but the transmission line and its associated equipment remained unharmed. The storm’s path was directed toward the transmission line from Montreal to Chambly, and several trees were struck along the way. At the time of this storm and throughout the entire summer, there were no lightning arresters in the powerhouse at Chambly.
In 1902, when the transmission line just considered was changed from two-phase to three-phase, and its voltage raised from 12,000 to 25,000, the method of protection by grounded, barbed guard wires, as above described, was retained. Two three-phase circuits were arranged on each of the two pole lines, with one wire of each circuit on an upper cross-arm and two wires of each circuit on a lower cross-arm, so that the nearest power wire on the upper cross-arm is thirty-two inches from the guard wire, and the nearest power wire on the lower cross-arm is about thirty inches from the guard wire at each end of the upper cross-arm. The guard wire at the tops of the poles is about thirty-three inches from each of the power wires on the upper cross-arm. In this three-phase line there is about 1,440 feet of three-conductor underground cable, and this cable lies between the end of the overhead line and the sub-station in Montreal. At the juncture of the overhead line and the cables there is a terminal house containing lightning arresters, and there are also arresters at the Chambly plant and the Montreal sub-station. No lightning arresters are connected to this line save those at the generating plant, the terminal house and the sub-station.
In 1902, when the transmission line previously mentioned was switched from two-phase to three-phase and its voltage increased from 12,000 to 25,000, the protection method using grounded, barbed guard wires, as described above, was kept in place. Two three-phase circuits were set up on each of the two pole lines, with one wire from each circuit on an upper cross-arm and two wires from each circuit on a lower cross-arm. This arrangement means that the closest power wire on the upper cross-arm is thirty-two inches away from the guard wire, and the nearest power wire on the lower cross-arm is around thirty inches from the guard wire at both ends of the upper cross-arm. The guard wire at the top of the poles is about thirty-three inches from each of the power wires on the upper cross-arm. This three-phase line includes approximately 1,440 feet of three-conductor underground cable, which runs between the end of the overhead line and the sub-station in Montreal. At the connection point of the overhead line and the cables, there is a terminal house containing lightning arresters. Additional arresters are located at the Chambly plant and the Montreal sub-station. No lightning arresters are connected to this line except for those at the generating plant, the terminal house, and the sub-station.
During that part of the year 1902 in which the new 25,000-volt line was in operation—that is, after the change and up to the time of the failure of the dam—this line and its connected apparatus were not damaged in any way by lightning, and the same is true for the period in which the[174] line was idle pending repairs on the dam. The experience on this Montreal and Chambly transmission is probably among the best evidence to be found anywhere as to the degree of protection from lightning that may be had by the use of guard wires. In spite of cases like that just considered, where guard wires appear to have given a large degree of protection to transmission systems, many important transmissions are operated without them.
During that part of the year 1902 when the new 25,000-volt line was up and running—that is, after the change and until the dam failed—this line and its connected equipment were not damaged by lightning at all, and the same goes for the time when the [174] line was inactive while waiting for repairs on the dam. The experience with the Montreal and Chambly transmission is likely some of the best evidence available regarding the level of lightning protection that guard wires can provide. Despite instances like the one just mentioned, where guard wires seem to have offered significant protection to transmission systems, many key transmissions are operated without them.
An example of this sort may be seen in the transmission line between the 10,000-horse-power plant at Electra, in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, and San Francisco, a distance of 154 miles, where it seems that no guard wires are in use. Another important transmission line that appears to get along without guard wires is that between the 10,000-horse-power plant at Cañon Ferry, on the Missouri River, and Butte, Mont., sixty-five miles away. On the transmission line between the power-station on Apple River, in Wisconsin, and the sub-station at St. Paul, Minn., about twenty-seven miles long, there are no guard wires for lightning protection. Further east, on the large, new transmission system that stretches from Spier Falls and Glens Falls on the north to Albany on the south, a distance in a direct line of forty miles, no guard wires are employed. On its way the transmission system just named touches Saratoga, Schenectady, Mechanicsville, Troy, and a number of smaller places, thus forming a network with several hundred miles of overhead wire. Examples of this sort might be multiplied, but those already named are sufficient to show that it is entirely practicable to operate long transmission systems without guard wires as a protection against lightning.
An example of this type can be seen in the transmission line between the 10,000-horsepower plant at Electra, in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, and San Francisco, which is 154 miles apart, where it seems no guard wires are used. Another significant transmission line that appears to operate without guard wires is between the 10,000-horsepower plant at Cañon Ferry, on the Missouri River, and Butte, Montana, which is sixty-five miles away. On the transmission line between the power station on Apple River in Wisconsin and the substation at St. Paul, Minnesota, which is about twenty-seven miles long, there are no guard wires for lightning protection. Further east, on the large new transmission system that stretches from Spier Falls and Glens Falls in the north to Albany in the south, a distance of forty miles in a direct line, no guard wires are used. Along the way, this transmission system connects Saratoga, Schenectady, Mechanicsville, Troy, and several smaller towns, forming a network with several hundred miles of overhead wire. There are more examples like this, but those already mentioned are enough to demonstrate that it is entirely feasible to operate long transmission systems without guard wires for lightning protection.
With these examples of transmission systems both with and without guard wires, the expediency of their use on any particular line should be determined by weighing their supposed advantages against their known disadvantages, under the existing conditions. It seems fairly certain from all the evidence at hand that if guard wires are to offer any large degree of protection to transmission systems such wires must be frequently and effectively grounded. There is certainly some reason to think that the failures of guard wires to protect transmission systems in some instances may have been due to the lack of numerous and effective ground connections. Such, for example, may have been the case above mentioned, at Telluride, Col. On the other hand, it seems reasonable to believe that the apparently high degree of protection afforded by the guard wires on the Chambly and Montreal line is due to the fact that these wires are connected through soldered joints at every pole with a[175] ground wire that is wound about its base. The nearer the guard wires are located to the power wires on a line the greater is the danger that a guard wire will come into contact with a power wire by breaking or otherwise. It is probable that the protection given by a guard wire does not increase nearly as fast as the distance between it and a power wire is diminished. Even if one guard wire on a line is thought to be desirable, it does not follow that two or more such wires should be used, for the additional protection given by two or three guard wires beyond that given by one wire may be trifling, while the cost of erection and the danger of crosses with the power circuits increase directly with the number of guard wires. At one time it was thought very desirable to have barbs on guard wires, but now the better opinion seems to be that, as barbs tend to weaken the wire, they lead to breaks and cause more trouble than they are worth. The point where the barbs are located seems to rust more quickly than do other parts of the wire. In some cases barbed guard wires that have given trouble by breaking have been taken down and smooth wires put up instead. If a guard wire is well grounded at least as often as every other pole, its size may be determined largely on considerations of mechanical strength and lasting qualities. For ordinary spans a No. 4 B. & S. G. galvanized soft iron wire seems to be about right for guarding purposes. Iron seems to be the most desirable material for guard wires because it gives the required mechanical strength and sufficient conductivity at a less cost than copper, aluminum, or bronze, and is easier to handle and less liable to break than steel. It was formerly the practice to staple guard wires to the tops of poles or to the ends of cross-arms, but it was found that the wire was more apt to rust and break at the staple than elsewhere, and in the better class of work such wires are now mounted on small insulators. This practice, as stated above, was followed on the Montreal and Chambly line. In all cases the connection between the guard wire and each of its ground wires should be soldered, and the ground wire should have a large surface in contact with damp earth, either through a soldered joint with a ground plate, by winding a number of turns about the butt of the pole, or by other means.
With these examples of transmission systems that have and don't have guard wires, the choice to use them on any specific line should be based on comparing their supposed benefits against their known drawbacks, given the current conditions. It's pretty clear from all the evidence that for guard wires to provide significant protection to transmission systems, they need to be frequently and effectively grounded. There's certainly some reason to think that the failures of guard wires to protect transmission systems in certain cases may have been due to the lack of numerous and effective ground connections. For instance, this may have been the case mentioned earlier at Telluride, Col. On the flip side, it seems reasonable to believe that the high level of protection provided by the guard wires on the Chambly and Montreal line is because these wires are connected with soldered joints at every pole to a ground wire that's wrapped around its base. The closer the guard wires are to the power wires on a line, the greater the risk that a guard wire will come into contact with a power wire due to breaking or other issues. It’s likely that the protection from a guard wire doesn't increase nearly as fast as the distance between it and a power wire decreases. Even if having one guard wire on a line seems beneficial, it doesn't mean that using two or more wires is necessary, since the extra protection from two or three guard wires beyond what one provides may be minimal, while the cost of installation and the risk of interference with the power circuits increase directly with the number of guard wires. At one time, having barbs on guard wires was considered very desirable, but nowadays it seems that, since barbs weaken the wire, they lead to breaks and create more problems than they are worth. The spots where the barbs are placed seem to rust more quickly than other parts of the wire. In some cases, barbed guard wires that have caused issues by breaking have been removed and replaced with smooth wires. If a guard wire is well grounded at least every other pole, its size can largely be determined based on mechanical strength and durability. For typical spans, a No. 4 B. & S. G. galvanized soft iron wire seems to work well for guarding purposes. Iron appears to be the best material for guard wires because it offers the necessary mechanical strength and enough conductivity at a lower cost than copper, aluminum, or bronze, and is easier to handle and less likely to break than steel. It used to be common practice to staple guard wires to the tops of poles or the ends of cross-arms, but it was found that the wire was more prone to rust and break at the staple than anywhere else, so now in higher-quality work, such wires are mounted on small insulators. This method, as mentioned before, was used on the Montreal and Chambly line. In all cases, the connection between the guard wire and each of its ground wires should be soldered, and the ground wire should have a large surface in contact with damp earth, either through a soldered joint with a ground plate, by wrapping several turns around the base of the pole, or by other methods.
It is thought by some telegraph engineers that the use of a separate ground wire running to the top of each pole is quite as effective as a protection against lightning as is a guard wire that runs to all of the poles and is frequently connected to the ground.
Some telegraph engineers believe that using a separate ground wire for each pole is just as effective at preventing lightning strikes as having a guard wire that connects all the poles and is often attached to the ground.
This practice is mentioned at page 26 of “Culley’s Handbook of Practical Telegraphy.” Such ground wires are free from most of the[176] objections to the ordinary guard wires. It seems quite certain that a guard wire along an alternating-current line, and grounded at frequent intervals, must act as a secondary circuit of a transformer by reason of its ground connections, and thus absorb some energy from the power circuits. No experimental data are yet available, however, to show how large this loss may be in an ordinary case. It is fairly evident that there must be some electrostatic effects between the working conductors and a guard wire, but here again data are lacking as to the amount of any such effect. On most, if not all, transmission lines the guard wire or wires, if used at all, are placed either above or on a level with the highest power conductors. With one conductor of a three-phase circuit mounted on a pin set in the top of a pole, and the two remaining conductors on a two-pin cross-arm beneath, in the method most frequently adopted for transmission lines of very high voltage, it is obviously impracticable to put guard wires either above or on a level with the power circuits. In the latest transmissions there is a strong tendency to omit guard wires entirely and rely on lightning arresters for protection.
This practice is mentioned on page 26 of "Culley’s Handbook of Practical Telegraphy." These ground wires avoid most of the[176] drawbacks of standard guard wires. It seems pretty clear that a guard wire along an alternating-current line, grounded at frequent intervals, must function as a secondary circuit of a transformer because of its ground connections, which means it could absorb some energy from the power circuits. However, there isn't any experimental data available to show how significant this loss might be in typical cases. It's fairly evident that there must be some electrostatic effects between the working conductors and a guard wire, but again, we lack data on the extent of these effects. On most, if not all, transmission lines, guard wires, if they are used, are placed either above or at the same level as the highest power conductors. With one conductor of a three-phase circuit mounted on a pin at the top of a pole, and the other two conductors on a two-pin cross-arm below, which is the most common method for very high voltage transmission lines, it's clearly impractical to position guard wires either above or level with the power circuits. Recently, there has been a strong trend to skip guard wires altogether and depend on lightning arresters for protection.
Lightning arresters are wrongfully named, for their true purpose is not to arrest or stop lightning, but to offer it so easy a path to the ground that it will not force its way through the insulation of the line or of machinery connected to the system. The requirements of a lightning arrester are in a degree conflicting, because the resistance of the path it offers must be so low as to allow discharges of atmospheric electricity to earth and so high as to prevent any flow of current between the transmission lines. In other words, the insulation of the line conductors must be maintained at a high standard in spite of the connection of lightning arresters between each conductor and the earth; but the resistance to the arrester must not be so high that lightning will pierce the insulation of the line or machinery at some other point. When a lightning discharge takes place through an arrester the resistance which the arrester offers to a flow of current is for the moment greatly reduced by the arcs which the lightning sets up in jumping the air-gaps of the arrester. Each wire of a transmission circuit must be connected alike to arresters, and the paths of low resistance through arcs in these arresters to the earth would obviously short-circuit the connected generators unless some construction were adopted to prevent this result. In some early types of lightning arresters magnetic or mechanical devices were resorted to in order to break arcs formed by the discharge of lightning.
Lightning arresters have an inaccurate name because their real purpose isn't to stop lightning but to provide an easy path for it to reach the ground. This way, it won't push through the insulation of the line or machinery linked to the system. The requirements for a lightning arrester are somewhat contradictory because the resistance of the path it creates must be low enough to let discharges of atmospheric electricity reach the ground and high enough to stop any current flow between the transmission lines. In simple terms, the insulation of the line conductors must remain at a high standard despite the connection of lightning arresters between each conductor and the ground. However, the resistance to the arrester can't be so high that lightning breaks through the insulation of the line or machinery at a different point. When lightning discharges through an arrester, the resistance it offers to current flow is significantly lowered by the arcs created when the lightning jumps across the air gaps of the arrester. Each wire in a transmission circuit must connect to arresters similarly, and the low-resistance paths created by the arcs in these arresters would clearly short-circuit the connected generators unless some design is used to prevent this. In some early versions of lightning arresters, magnetic or mechanical devices were implemented to extinguish the arcs formed by lightning discharges.
The type of lightning arrester now in common use on transmission lines with alternating current includes a row of short, parallel, brass[177] cylinders mounted on a porcelain block and with air-gaps of one-thirty-second to one-sixteenth of an inch between their parallel sides. The cylinder at one end of the row is connected to a line wire and the cylinder at the other end to the earth, when a 2,000 or 2,500-volt circuit is to be protected. For higher voltages a number of these single arresters are connected in series with each other and with the free ends of the series to a line wire and to the earth, respectively. Thus, for a 10,000-volt line, four or, better, five single arresters are connected in series to form a composite arrester for each line conductor. For any given line voltage the number of single arresters going to make up the composite arrester should be so chosen that the regular working voltage will not jump the series of air-gaps between the little brass cylinders, but yet so that any large rise of voltage will be sufficient to force sparks across these gaps. A variation of this practice by one large manufacturing company is to mount the group of single arresters on a marble board in series with each other and with an adjustable air-gap. This gap is intended to be so adjusted that any large increase of voltage on the lines will be relieved by a spark discharge. An arrester made up entirely of the brass cylinders and air-gaps has the disadvantage that an arc once started between all the cylinders by a lightning discharge so lowers the resistance between each line wire and the earth that the generating equipment is short-circuited and the arcs may not cease with the escape of atmospheric electricity. To avoid this difficulty it is the practice to connect a conductor of rather large ohmic resistance such as a rod of carborundum in series with the brass cylinders and air-gaps of lightning arresters. This resistance should be non-inductive so as not to offer a serious obstacle to lightning discharge, and its resistance should be great enough to prevent a flow of current from the generators that will be large enough to maintain the arcs started in the arrester by the lightning discharge. Accurate data are lacking as to the amount of this resistance that should be employed with arresters for any given voltage. As a rough, approximate rule it may be said that in some cases good results will be obtained with a resistance in ohms in series with a group of lightning arresters that represents one per cent of the numerical value of the line voltage. That is, for a 10,000-volt line the group of arresters for each wire may be connected to earth through a resistance of, say, 100 ohms, so that if the generator current follows the arc of a lightning discharge through the arresters it must pass through a fixed resistance of 200 ohms in going from one line wire to another. This rule is given merely as an illustration of the resistance[178] that will work well in some cases, and should not be taken to have a general application. If the resistance connected in series with lightning arresters is high, the tendency is a little greater for lightning to go to earth at some point in the apparatus where the insulation is low. If only a small resistance is employed to connect lightning arresters with the earth, the danger is that arcs formed by lightning discharges will be followed and maintained by the dynamo currents. In one make of lightning arrester the row of little brass cylinders is connected at the ends to carbon rods which form a resistance for the purpose just mentioned. Two of these carbon rods are contained in each arrester for 2,000 or 2,500 volts, and the resistance of each rod may be anywhere from several score to several hundred ohms as desired. This form of arrester may be connected directly from line to earth without the intervention of any outside resistance, since the carbon rods may easily be given all the resistance that is desirable.
The common lightning arrester used on transmission lines with alternating current consists of a series of short, parallel brass cylinders mounted on a porcelain block, with air gaps ranging from one-thirty-second to one-sixteenth of an inch between their sides. One cylinder at the end of the row connects to a line wire, and the cylinder at the opposite end connects to the ground when a 2,000 or 2,500-volt circuit needs protection. For higher voltages, several of these single arresters are linked in series, with the open ends connected to a line wire and the ground, respectively. For a 10,000-volt line, typically four or five single arresters are used in series to form a composite arrester for each line conductor. For any specific line voltage, the number of single arresters in the composite arrester should be chosen so that the normal working voltage won't jump across the air gaps between the brass cylinders, but a significant voltage spike will produce sparks across these gaps. One major manufacturer has a variation of this design, mounting the group of single arresters on a marble board connected in series with each other and featuring an adjustable air gap. This gap is adjusted so that any substantial voltage increase on the lines will cause a spark discharge. An arrester that consists solely of brass cylinders and air gaps has the drawback that if an arc is initiated by a lightning discharge, it significantly reduces the resistance between each line wire and the ground, potentially short-circuiting the generating equipment, and the arcs may persist even after the atmospheric electricity dissipates. To mitigate this problem, it's common practice to include a conductor with considerable ohmic resistance, like a carborundum rod, in series with the brass cylinders and air gaps of the lightning arresters. This resistance should be non-inductive to avoid significantly impeding the lightning discharge, and it needs to be high enough to prevent generator current from flowing in amounts that would sustain the arcs initiated in the arrester by the lightning strike. Specific data regarding the exact resistance needed for arresters at any voltage is limited. A rough guideline suggests that in some cases, effective results might be achieved with a resistance in ohms that is about one percent of the line voltage. For instance, for a 10,000-volt line, the group of arresters for each wire could connect to the ground through a resistance of around 100 ohms. Therefore, if the generator current follows the path of an arc caused by a lightning discharge through the arresters, it must navigate through a fixed resistance of 200 ohms when moving between line wires. This guideline is only an illustration of resistance that may work well in certain cases and should not be seen as universally applicable. If the resistance in series with lightning arresters is high, it slightly increases the likelihood for lightning to reach the ground at some point in the system where the insulation is weak. Conversely, if a low resistance is used to connect lightning arresters to the ground, there’s a risk that arcs created by lightning strikes will be propagated and sustained by the generator currents. In one type of lightning arrester, the row of small brass cylinders connects at the ends to carbon rods that provide the necessary resistance. Each arrester for 2,000 or 2,500 volts contains two of these carbon rods, and the resistance of each rod can range from several dozen to several hundred ohms as needed. This kind of arrester can be connected directly from line to ground without needing additional external resistance, as the carbon rods can provide all the resistance that is required.
One of the most important features in the erection of a lightning arrester is its connection to earth. If this connection is poor it may render the arrester useless so far as protection from lightning is concerned. It need hardly be said that ground connections formed by driving long iron spikes into the walls of buildings or into dry earth are of slight value as far as protection from lightning is concerned. A good ground connection for lightning arresters may be formed with a copper or galvanized iron plate, which need not be over one-sixteenth of an inch thick, but should have an area of, say, ten to twenty square feet. This plate may be conveniently made up into the form of a cylinder and should have a number of half-inch holes punched in a row down one side into which one or more copper wires with an aggregate area equal to that of a No. 4 or No. 2 wire, B. & S. gauge, should be threaded and then soldered. This plate or cylinder should be placed deep enough in the ground to insure that the earth about it will be constantly moist, and the connected copper wire should extend to the lightning arresters. It is a good plan to surround this cylinder with a layer of coke or charcoal.
One of the most important features when setting up a lightning arrester is its connection to the ground. If this connection is weak, it may make the arrester ineffective in protecting against lightning. It goes without saying that ground connections made by driving long iron spikes into the walls of buildings or into dry soil aren't very effective for lightning protection. A reliable ground connection for lightning arresters can be made using a copper or galvanized iron plate, which doesn't need to be more than one-sixteenth of an inch thick but should have an area of about ten to twenty square feet. This plate can be shaped into a cylinder and should have several half-inch holes punched in a row down one side, into which one or more copper wires with a combined area equal to that of a No. 4 or No. 2 wire, B. & S. gauge, should be threaded and then soldered. This plate or cylinder should be buried deep enough in the ground to ensure that the surrounding soil remains consistently moist, and the connected copper wire should run to the lightning arresters. It's also a good idea to surround this cylinder with a layer of coke or charcoal.
A good earth connection for lightning arresters may be made through large water-pipes, but to do this it is not enough simply to wrap the wire from the lightning arresters about the pipe. A suitable contact with such a pipe may be made by tapping one or two large bolts into it and then soldering the wires from lightning arresters into holes drilled in the heads of these bolts. A metal plate laid in the bed of a stream makes a good ground.
A proper ground connection for lightning protectors can be established using large water pipes, but it’s not enough to just wrap the wire from the lightning protectors around the pipe. A reliable contact with the pipe can be made by driving one or two large bolts into it and then soldering the wires from the lightning protectors into holes drilled in the heads of these bolts. A metal plate placed at the bottom of a stream provides a good ground.
With some of the older types of lightning arresters it was the custom[179] to insert a fuse between the line wire and the ground, but this practice defeats the purpose for which the arrester is erected because the fuse melts and leaves the arrester disconnected and the circuit unprotected with the first lightning discharge. The modern arresters for alternating-current circuits are made up of a series of metal cylinders and short air-gaps and are connected solidly without fuse between line and earth.
With some of the older types of lightning arresters, it was common[179] to put a fuse between the line wire and the ground. However, this practice undermines the purpose of the arrester because the fuse melts and disconnects the arrester, leaving the circuit unprotected during the first lightning strike. Modern arresters for alternating-current circuits consist of a series of metal cylinders and short air gaps, and they are connected solidly without a fuse between the line and the ground.

Fig. 73.—Entry of Lines at the Power-house on Neversink River.
Fig. 73.—Entrance of Lines at the Powerhouse on Neversink River.
It was once the practice to locate lightning arresters almost entirely in the stations, but this has been modified by experience and consideration of the fact that as the line acts as a collector of atmospheric electricity, paths for its escape should be provided along the line. Consideration fails to reveal any good reason why lightning that reaches a transmission line some miles from a station should be forced to travel to the station, where it may do great damage before it finds an easy path to earth. It is, therefore, present practice to connect lightning arresters to each wire at intervals along some lines as well as at stations and sub-stations. The main purpose of arresters is to offer so easy a path to earth that lightning discharges along the lines will not flow to points of low insulation[180] in generators, transformers, or even the line itself. Practice is far from uniform as to the distance between lightning arresters on transmission lines, the distances varying from less than one to a large number of miles apart. In general the lines should be provided with lightning arresters at least where they run over hilltops and at any points where lightning strokes are unusually frequent. Where a long overhead line joins an underground cable arresters should always be connected, and the same is true as to transformers located on the transmission line. The multiplication of arresters along pole lines should be avoided as far as is consistent with suitable protection, because every bank of arresters may develop a permanent ground or short-circuit, unless frequently inspected and kept clean and in good condition.
It used to be common to place lightning arresters mainly at stations, but experience has shown that since the line collects atmospheric electricity, there should be paths for it to escape along the line. There's no good reason for lightning hitting a transmission line miles away from a station to have to travel back to the station, where it could cause significant damage before finding an easy route to the ground. So, the current practice is to connect lightning arresters to each wire at intervals along certain lines, as well as at stations and substations. The primary purpose of these arresters is to provide a straightforward path to the ground, so that lightning discharges along the lines don’t flow toward points of low insulation in generators, transformers, or even the line itself. There isn’t a uniform standard for how far apart lightning arresters should be on transmission lines; they can be spaced from less than a mile to several miles apart. Generally, there should be lightning arresters at least where the lines cross hilltops and at any locations where lightning strikes are especially frequent. Whenever a long overhead line connects to an underground cable, arresters should always be installed, and the same goes for transformers on the transmission line. However, it's best to avoid placing too many arresters along pole lines as much as possible while still providing adequate protection, because each group of arresters can create a permanent ground or short circuit unless they are regularly inspected and kept clean and well-maintained.
Arresters, besides those connected along the lines, should be located either in or just outside of stations and sub-stations. If the buildings are of wood, the arresters had better be outside in weather-proof cases, but in brick or stone buildings the arresters may be properly located near an interior wall and well removed from all other station equipment. Transmission lines, on entering a station or sub-station, should pass to the arresters at once and before connecting with any of the operating machinery.
Arresters, in addition to those connected along the lines, should be positioned either inside or just outside of stations and substations. If the buildings are made of wood, it's better to place the arresters outside in weatherproof cases; however, in brick or stone buildings, the arresters can be appropriately located near an interior wall, far from all other station equipment. Transmission lines should go directly to the arresters upon entering a station or substation, before connecting with any operating machinery.
To increase the degree of protection afforded by lightning arresters choke-coils are frequently used with them. A choke-coil for this purpose usually consists of a flat coil of copper wire or strip containing twenty to thirty or more turns and mounted with terminals in a wooden frame. This coil is connected in series with the line wire between the point where the tap for the lightning arrester is made and the station apparatus. Lightning discharges are known to be of a highly oscillatory character, their frequency being much greater than that of the alternating currents developed in transmission systems. The self-induction of a lightning discharge in passing through one of these choke-coils is great, and the consequent tendency is to keep the discharge from passing through the choke-coil and into the station apparatus and thus to force the discharge to pass to earth through the lightning arrester. The alternating current employed in transmission has such a comparatively low frequency that its self-induction in a choke-coil is small. Increased protection against lightning is given by the connection of several groups of lightning arresters one after another on the same line wire at an electric station. This gives any lightning discharge that may come along the wire several paths to earth through the different groups of arresters, and a discharge that passes the first group will probably go to earth over the second or third[181] group. In some cases a choke-coil is connected into a line wire between each two groups of lightning arresters as well as between the station apparatus and the group of arresters nearest thereto.
To enhance the protection provided by lightning arresters, choke coils are often used alongside them. A choke coil for this purpose typically consists of a flat coil of copper wire or strip with twenty to thirty or more turns, mounted with terminals in a wooden frame. This coil is connected in series with the line wire between where the tap for the lightning arrester is made and the station equipment. Lightning discharges are known to be highly oscillatory, with frequencies much higher than those of the alternating currents found in transmission systems. The self-induction of a lightning discharge passing through one of these choke coils is significant, which tends to prevent the discharge from flowing through the choke coil and into the station equipment, thereby directing the discharge to the ground through the lightning arrester. The alternating current used in transmission has a comparatively low frequency, meaning its self-induction in a choke coil is minimal. Connecting several groups of lightning arresters in series on the same line wire at an electric station provides increased protection against lightning. This arrangement gives any lightning discharge traveling along the wire several paths to earth through the different groups of arresters; a discharge that bypasses the first group will likely go to ground through the second or third group. In some cases, a choke coil is connected into a line wire between each pair of groups of lightning arresters and also between the station equipment and the nearest group of arresters.
An electric transmission plant at Telluride, Col., where thunder-storms are very frequent and severe, was equipped with arresters and choke-coils of the type described, and the results were carefully noted (vol. xi., A. I. E. E., p. 346). A small house for arresters and choke-coils was built close to the generating station of this system and they were mounted therein on wooden frames. Four choke-coils were connected in series with each line wire, and between these choke-coils three lightning arresters were connected, while a fourth arrester was connected to the line before it reached any of the choke-coils. These arresters were watched during an entire lightning season to see which bank of arresters on each wire discharged the most lightning to earth. It was found that, beginning on the side that the line came to the series of arresters, the first bank of arresters was traversed by only a few discharges of lightning, the second bank by more discharges than any other, the third bank by quite a large number of discharges, and the fourth bank seldom showed any sign of lightning discharge. Over the second bank of arresters the lightning discharges would often follow each other with great rapidity and loud noise. The obvious conclusion from these observations seems to be that three or four banks of lightning arresters connected in succession on a line at a station together with choke-coils form a much better protection from lightning than a single bank. At the plant in question, that of the San Miguel Consolidated Gold Mining Company, the entire lightning season after the erection of the arresters in question was passed without damage by lightning to any of the equipment. During the two lightning seasons previous to that just named the damage by lightning to the generating machinery at the plant had been frequent and extensive.
An electric transmission plant in Telluride, Colorado, where thunderstorms are very common and severe, was fitted with arresters and choke-coils as described, and the results were carefully recorded (vol. xi., A. I. E. E., p. 346). A small structure for the arresters and choke-coils was built close to the generating station of this system, where they were mounted on wooden frames. Four choke-coils were connected in series with each line wire, and between these choke-coils, three lightning arresters were installed, while a fourth arrester was connected to the line before it reached any of the choke-coils. These arresters were monitored throughout an entire lightning season to determine which set of arresters on each wire discharged the most lightning to ground. It was observed that starting from the side where the line entered the series of arresters, the first bank of arresters experienced only a few lightning discharges, the second bank experienced more discharges than any other, the third bank had quite a few discharges, and the fourth bank rarely showed any signs of discharge. Over the second bank of arresters, the lightning discharges often occurred in quick succession and loud bursts. The clear conclusion from these observations is that three or four banks of lightning arresters connected in series on a line at a station, along with choke-coils, provide much better protection from lightning than a single bank. At the plant in question, owned by the San Miguel Consolidated Gold Mining Company, the entire lightning season following the installation of these arresters passed without any lightning damage to the equipment. In the two lightning seasons prior to that, the generating machinery at the plant had experienced frequent and significant damage from lightning.
A good illustration of the high degree of security against lightning discharges that may be attained with lightning arresters and choke-coils exists at the Niagara Falls plants and the terminal house in Buffalo, where the step-up and step-down transformers have never been damaged by lightning though the transmission line has been struck repeatedly and poles and cross-arms shattered (vol. xviii., A. I. E. E., p. 527). This example bears out the general experience that lightning arresters, though not an absolute protection, afford a high degree of security to the apparatus at electric stations.
A great example of the strong protection against lightning strikes that can be achieved with lightning arresters and choke coils is seen at the Niagara Falls plants and the terminal building in Buffalo, where the step-up and step-down transformers have never been harmed by lightning, even though the transmission line has been hit multiple times and poles and cross-arms have been destroyed (vol. xviii., A. I. E. E., p. 527). This case supports the common understanding that while lightning arresters aren't foolproof, they provide a significant level of security for equipment at electric stations.
Lightning arresters are in some cases connected across high-voltage[182] circuits from wire to wire so that the full line pressure tends to force a current across the air-gaps. The object of this practice is to guard against excessive voltages on the circuit such as might be due to resonance. In such a case, as in that where arresters are connected from line wire to earth as a protection against lightning, the number of air-gaps should be such that the normal line voltage will not force sparks across the air-gaps and thus start arcs between the cylinders.
Lightning arresters are sometimes connected across high-voltage[182] circuits from wire to wire, allowing the full line pressure to push a current across the air gaps. The goal of this setup is to protect against excessive voltages on the circuit that could arise from resonance. In cases like this, as well as when arresters are connected from the line wire to the ground as a safeguard against lightning, the number of air gaps should be such that the normal line voltage doesn't cause sparks to jump across the gaps and create arcs between the cylinders.
The number and total length of air-gaps in a bank of arresters necessary to prevent the formation of arcs by the regular line voltage depends on a number of factors besides the amount of that voltage.
The number and total length of air gaps in a bank of arresters needed to stop arcs from forming due to the regular line voltage depends on several factors besides the voltage itself.
According to the report of the Committee on Standardization of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, the sparking distances in air between opposed sharp needle points for various effective sinusoidal voltages are as follows (vol. xix., A. I. E. E., p. 1091):
According to the report from the Committee on Standardization of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, the sparking distances in air between opposing sharp needle points for different effective sinusoidal voltages are as follows (vol. xix., A. I. E. E., p. 1091):
Kilovolt Square Root of Mean Square. |
Inches Sparking Distance. |
|
---|---|---|
5 | 0 | .225 |
10 | .47 | |
15 | .725 | |
20 | 1 | .0 |
25 | 1 | .3 |
30 | 1 | .625 |
35 | 2 | .0 |
40 | 2 | .45 |
45 | 2 | .95 |
50 | 3 | .55 |
60 | 4 | .65 |
70 | 5 | .85 |
80 | 7 | .1 |
90 | 8 | .35 |
100 | 9 | .6 |
110 | 10 | .75 |
120 | 11 | .85 |
130 | 12 | .95 |
140 | 13 | .95 |
150 | 15 | .0 |
It may be noted at once from this table that the sparking distance between the needle points increases much faster than the voltage between them. Thus, 20,000 volts will jump an air-gap of only an inch between the points, but seven times this pressure, or 140,000 volts, will force a spark across an air-gap of 13.95 inches. Two cylinders or other blunt bodies show smaller sparking distances between them at a given voltage than do two needle points, but when a number of cylinders are placed in a row with short air-gaps between them the aggregate length of these gaps that will just prevent the passage of sparks at a given voltage may be materially greater or less than the sparking distance of that voltage between needle points. It has been found by experiment that the numbers one-thirty-second-inch spark-gaps between cylinders of[183] non-arcing alloy necessary to prevent the passage of sparks with the voltages named and a sine wave of electromotive force are as follows (vol. xix., A. I. E. E., p. 1026):
It can be seen right away from this table that the sparking distance between the needle points increases much more quickly than the voltage across them. For instance, 20,000 volts can jump an air gap of just an inch between the points, while seven times that voltage, or 140,000 volts, can create a spark across an air gap of 13.95 inches. Two cylinders or other blunt objects show shorter sparking distances between them at the same voltage compared to two needle points, but when several cylinders are lined up with short air gaps between them, the total length of these gaps that will just prevent sparks at a given voltage can be significantly greater or less than the sparking distance of that voltage between needle points. Experiments have shown that the one-thirty-second-inch spark gaps between non-arcing alloy cylinders required to prevent sparks at the specified voltages with a sine wave of electromotive force are as follows (vol. xix., A. I. E. E., p. 1026):
Number of 1⁄32-Inch Air-Gaps in Series. |
Normal Voltage Withheld. |
---|---|
5 | 6,800 |
10 | 10,000 |
15 | 12,500 |
20 | 14,500 |
25 | 16,400 |
30 | 18,200 |
35 | 19,300 |
40 | 20,500 |
45 | 21,700 |
50 | 22,600 |
55 | 23,900 |
60 | 25,000 |
65 | 26,000 |
70 | 27,000 |
75 | 28,000 |
80 | 29,000 |
According to these data, only ten air-gaps of one-thirty-second of an inch each and 0.3125 inch combined length are required between cylinders to prevent a discharge at 10,000 volts, though opposed needle points may be 0.47 inch apart when a spark is obtained with this voltage. On the other hand, eighty air-gaps of one-thirty-second of an inch each between cylinders of non-arcing metal, or a total gap of 2.5 inches, are necessary to prevent a discharge at 29,000 volts, though 30,000 volts can force a spark across a single gap of only 1.625 inches between opposed needle points.
According to this data, only ten air gaps of one-thirty-second of an inch each, totaling 0.3125 inches in length, are needed between cylinders to avoid a discharge at 10,000 volts. However, opposed needle points can be 0.47 inches apart when a spark occurs at this voltage. On the flip side, eighty air gaps of one-thirty-second of an inch each between cylinders made of non-arcing metal, or a total gap of 2.5 inches, are necessary to prevent a discharge at 29,000 volts. But 30,000 volts can create a spark across a single gap of just 1.625 inches between opposed needle points.
Under the conditions that existed in the test just recorded the pressure at which the aggregate length of one-thirty-second of an inch air-gaps that just prevents a discharge equals the single sparking distance between needle points seems to be about 18,000 volts.
Under the conditions present in the test just recorded, the pressure at which the total length of one-thirty-second of an inch air gaps that just stops a discharge is equal to the single sparking distance between needle points, appears to be around 18,000 volts.
The object of dividing the total air-gap in a lightning arrester for lines that carry alternating current up into a number of short gaps is to prevent the continuance of an arc by the regular generator or line current after the arc has been started by a lightning discharge. As soon as an electric spark leaps through air from metal to metal, a path of low electrical resistance is formed by the intensely heated air and metallic vapor. If the arc thus formed is, say, two inches long it will cool a certain amount as the passing current grows small and drops to zero. If, however, this total arc of two inches is divided into sixty-four parts by pieces of metal, the process of cooling as the current decreases will go on much more rapidly than with the single arc of two inches because of the great conducting power of the pieces of metal. As an alternating current comes to zero twice in each period, the many short arcs formed in an arrester[184] by a lightning discharge are so far cooled during the small values of the following line current that the resistance quickly rises to a point where the regular line voltage cannot continue to maintain them, if the arrester is properly designed for the system to which it is connected. In this way the many-gap arrester destroys the many small arcs started by lightning discharges that would continue and short-circuit the line if they were combined into a single long arc.
The goal of splitting the total air gap in a lightning arrester for alternating current lines into several short gaps is to prevent an arc from continuing due to the regular generator or line current after it has been initiated by a lightning strike. When an electric spark jumps through the air from one metal to another, it creates a low-resistance path through the heated air and metallic vapor. If the resulting arc is two inches long, it will cool down as the current decreases and eventually drops to zero. However, if that two-inch arc is divided into sixty-four separate gaps by metal pieces, the cooling process will happen much faster as the current decreases, thanks to the high conductivity of the metal parts. Since an alternating current hits zero twice each cycle, the many short arcs created in an arrester[184] during a lightning strike will cool down enough when the line current is low that their resistance quickly increases to a level that the regular line voltage can't sustain, provided the arrester is well-designed for the connected system. This way, the multi-gap arrester extinguishes the numerous small arcs triggered by lightning strikes that would otherwise continue and create a short circuit if they combined into a single long arc.
When an electric arc passes between certain metals like iron and copper a small bead is raised on their surfaces. If these metals were used for the cylinders of arresters the beads on their surface would quickly bridge the short air-gaps. Certain other metals, like zinc, bismuth, and antimony, are pitted by the passage of arcs between their surfaces. By suitable mixture of metals from these two classes, an alloy is obtained for the cylinders of lightning arresters that pits only slightly and is thus but little injured by lightning discharges. After long use and many discharges an arrester of the class here considered gradually loses its power to destroy electric arcs. This may be due to the burning out of the zinc and leaving a surface of copper on the cylinders.
When an electric arc travels between certain metals like iron and copper, a small bead forms on their surfaces. If these metals were used for the cylinders of arresters, the beads would quickly bridge the small air gaps. Other metals, such as zinc, bismuth, and antimony, get pitted by the arcs that pass between their surfaces. By combining metals from these two groups, an alloy is created for the cylinders of lightning arresters that only pits slightly and is therefore minimally affected by lightning discharges. Over time and after many discharges, an arrester of this type gradually loses its ability to extinguish electric arcs. This might happen because the zinc burns out, leaving a copper surface on the cylinders.
Aside from the structure of an arrester and the normal voltage of the circuit to which it is connected, its power to destroy arcs set up by lightning discharges depends on the capacity of the connected generators to deliver current on a short-circuit through the gaps, and upon the inductance of the circuit. The greater the capacity of the generators connected to a system the more trying are the conditions under which arresters must break an arc because the current to be broken is greater. So, too, an increase of inductance in a circuit adds to the work of an arrester in breaking an arc.
Aside from how an arrester is built and the normal voltage of the circuit it’s connected to, its ability to break arcs caused by lightning strikes depends on how much current the connected generators can provide during a short circuit through the gaps, as well as the circuit's inductance. The higher the capacity of the generators in the system, the harder it is for the arresters to break an arc since the current they need to interrupt is higher. Similarly, an increase in the circuit's inductance puts more strain on an arrester when it comes to breaking an arc.
An arc started by lightning discharge at that period of a voltage phase when it is at or near zero is easily destroyed by the arrester, but an arc started at the instant when the regular line voltage has its maximum value is much harder to break because of the greater amount of heat generated by the greater current sent through the arrester. For this reason the arcs at arresters will hold on longer in some cases than in others, according to the portion of the voltage phase in which they are started by the lightning discharge. Lightning discharges, of course, may occur at any phase of the line voltage, and for this reason a number of discharges must take place before it can be certain from observation that a particular arrester will always break the resulting arc. Between twenty-five and sixty cycles per second there is a small difference in favor of the latter in the power of a given arrester to break an arc, due probably to the fact[185] that more heat in the arcs is developed per phase with the lower than with the higher frequency.
An arc created by a lightning strike at a point in the voltage phase when it's at or near zero is easily extinguished by the arrester, but an arc that starts when the line voltage is at its maximum is much harder to break because of the increased heat generated by the higher current passing through the arrester. For this reason, arcs at arresters can persist longer in some situations than others, depending on the point in the voltage phase at which they're triggered by the lightning discharge. Lightning strikes can happen at any phase of the line voltage, which means that multiple discharges need to occur before it can be confirmed through observation that a specific arrester will consistently break the resulting arc. At frequencies between twenty-five and sixty cycles per second, there's a slight advantage for the latter in an arrester's ability to break an arc, likely because more heat is generated in the arcs per phase at lower frequencies compared to higher ones.
It will now be seen that while increase of the regular line voltage requires a lengthening of the aggregate air-gap in lightning arresters to prevent the formation of arcs by this voltage alone, the increase of generating capacity requires more subdivisions of the total air-gap in order that the arcs maintained by the larger currents may be cooled with sufficient rapidity. These two requirements are to some extent conflicting, because the subdivision of the total air-gaps renders it less effective to prevent discharges due to the normal line voltage, as has already been shown. The result is that the more an air-gap is subdivided in order to cool and destroy arcs that have been started by lightning, the longer must be the aggregate air-gap in order to prevent the development of arcs directly by the normal line voltage.
It can now be seen that while increasing the regular line voltage requires a longer overall air-gap in lightning arresters to stop arcs from forming due to this voltage alone, an increase in generating capacity requires more sections of the total air-gap so that the arcs maintained by the larger currents can be cooled quickly enough. These two needs are somewhat at odds because breaking up the total air-gap makes it less effective at preventing discharges caused by the normal line voltage, as has already been shown. The result is that the more an air-gap is divided to cool and eliminate arcs started by lightning, the longer the overall air-gap needs to be to prevent arcs from developing directly from the normal line voltage.
Furthermore, the practical limit of subdivision of the air-gap is soon reached because of the difficulty of keeping very short gaps clean and of nearly constant length. As a resistance in series with an arrester cuts down the generator current that can follow a lightning discharge, such a resistance also decreases the number of air-gaps necessary to give an arrester power to destroy arcs on a particular circuit.
Furthermore, the practical limit to how small the air-gap can be is quickly reached due to the challenges of keeping very short gaps clean and nearly the same length. Just as a resistor in series with an arrester reduces the generator current that can follow a lightning strike, this type of resistance also lowers the number of air-gaps needed to give an arrester the ability to eliminate arcs on a specific circuit.
The increase of resistance in series with a lightning arrester as well as the increase in the aggregate length of its air-gaps subjects the insulation of connected apparatus to greater strains at times of lightning discharge. On systems of large capacity the number and aggregate length of air-gaps in arresters necessary to destroy arcs must be greater than the number or length of these air-gaps necessary to prevent the development of arcs by the normal line voltage, unless a relatively large resistance is connected in series with each arrester. To reduce the strains produced on the insulation of line and connected apparatus under these conditions by lightning discharges, a resistance is connected in shunt with a part of the air-gaps in one make of lightning arrester. The net advantage claimed for this type of arrester is that a lower resistance may be used in series with all the air-gaps than would otherwise be necessary. One-half of the total number of air-gaps in this arrester are shunted by the shunt resistance and the series and shunt resistance are in series with each other. Only the series air-gaps or those that are not shunted must be jumped in the first instance by the lightning discharge, which thus passes to earth through these air-gaps and the shunt and series resistance in series. An arc is next started in the shunted air-gaps, and this arc is in turn destroyed because the shunt weakens the current in these gaps. This throws the[186] entire current of the arc through the series air-gaps and the shunt and series resistance all in series with each other. As the shunt resistance is comparatively large, the current maintaining the arc in the series air-gaps is next so reduced that this arc is broken. Taking the claims of its makers just as they stand, the advantages of the shunted air-gaps are not very clear. The series air-gaps alone must evidently be such that the normal line voltage will not start an arc over them, and these same series gaps must be able to break the arcs of line current flowing through them and the shunt and series resistance all in series. Evidently the greatest strain on the insulation of the line and apparatus occurs at the instant when the lightning discharge takes place through the series gaps and the shunt and series resistances all in series with each other.
The increase in resistance in series with a lightning arrester, along with the longer air-gaps, puts more stress on the insulation of connected equipment during lightning discharges. In large-capacity systems, the number and total length of air-gaps in arresters needed to extinguish arcs must exceed those required to prevent arcs from forming due to normal line voltage, unless a relatively large resistance is added in series with each arrester. To minimize the stress on the insulation of the line and connected equipment from lightning discharges, a resistance is placed in shunt with a portion of the air-gaps in one type of lightning arrester. The claimed benefit of this type of arrester is that a lower resistance can be used in series with all the air-gaps than would normally be needed. Half of the total number of air-gaps in this arrester are bypassed by the shunt resistance, and the series and shunt resistances are connected in series with each other. Only the series air-gaps, or the ones that aren’t bypassed, need to initially conduct the lightning discharge, allowing it to safely pass to ground through these air-gaps and the shunt and series resistances combined. An arc is then initiated in the shunted air-gaps, but this arc is extinguished because the shunt weakens the current in those gaps. This causes the full current of the arc to flow through the series air-gaps and the shunt and series resistances, all connected in series. Since the shunt resistance is relatively large, the current that maintains the arc in the series air-gaps is reduced enough to break the arc. Considering the claims of its manufacturers as they are, the benefits of the shunted air-gaps aren't very clear. The series air-gaps must clearly be designed so that the normal line voltage won't cause an arc across them, and they must also be capable of interrupting the arcs from line current flowing through them while in series with the shunt and series resistance. It is evident that the highest stress on the insulation of the line and equipment occurs at the moment the lightning discharge occurs through the series gaps and the shunt and series resistances, all combined.
Why develop subsequent arcs in the shunted air-gaps? Why not throw the shunted air-gaps away and combine the shunt and series resistances?
Why create additional arcs in the shunted air-gaps? Why not just get rid of the shunted air-gaps and merge the shunt and series resistances?
CHAPTER XIV.
ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION UNDERGROUND AND UNDERWATER.
Energy transmitted over long distances must sometimes pass through conductors that are underground or beneath water. In some other cases it is a question of relative advantages merely, whether portions of a transmission line go under water or overhead. Where the transmitted energy must enter a sub-station in the heart of a large city, it not infrequently must go by way of underground conductors without regard to the voltage employed. In some cities the transmission lines may be carried overhead, provided that their voltage is within some moderate figure, but not otherwise. Here it becomes a question whether transmission lines at high voltage shall be carried underground, or whether transforming stations shall be established outside of the restricted area and then low-pressure lines brought into the business section overhead or underground, as desired. Where a transmission line must cross a steam railway track it may be required to be underground, whether the voltage is reduced or not. The distance across a body of water in the path of a transmission line may be so great that a span is impossible and a cable under the water therefore necessary. Such a cable may work at the regular line voltage, or a transformer station may be established on one side or on each side of the body of water. Even where it is possible to span a body of water with a transmission line, the cost of the span and of its supports may be so great that a submarine cable is more desirable. A moderate increase in the length of a transmission line in order to avoid the use of a submarine cable is almost always advisable, but where rivers are in the path of the line it is generally impossible to avoid crossing them either overhead or underneath. Thus, St. Paul could only be reached with the 25,000-volt line from the falls on Apple River by crossing the St. Croix River, one-half mile wide, on the way. In order to carry out the 40,000-volt transmission between Colgate and Oakland, the Carquinez Straits, which intervened with nearly a mile of clear water, were crossed. Sometimes, as in the former of the two cases just named, an existing bridge may be utilized to support a transmission line, but more frequently the choice lies between an overhead span from bank to bank of a river and a submarine cable between the same points.
Energy transmitted over long distances often needs to go through cables that are underground or underwater. Sometimes it just depends on the advantages of having parts of a transmission line under water or above ground. When the energy needs to enter a substation in a big city, it usually has to use underground cables, regardless of the voltage. In some cities, transmission lines can run overhead if the voltage is within a reasonable limit, but not otherwise. The choice has to be made about whether high-voltage transmission lines should go underground, or if transformer stations should be set up outside of the restricted area, bringing in lower-voltage lines to the business district overhead or underground as needed. If a transmission line crosses a railway track, it may have to go underground, whether the voltage is lowered or not. The distance across a body of water in the path of a transmission line can be so large that spanning it isn’t possible, making an underwater cable necessary. This cable can operate at the standard line voltage, or a transformer station can be placed on one or both sides of the water. Even when it’s possible to span a body of water with a transmission line, the expense of the span and its supports can make a submarine cable a better option. It’s usually a good idea to extend the length of a transmission line slightly to avoid using a submarine cable, but when rivers are in the way, crossing them either above or below is often unavoidable. For example, St. Paul could only be connected with the 25,000-volt line from the falls on Apple River by crossing the St. Croix River, which is half a mile wide. To achieve the 40,000-volt transmission between Colgate and Oakland, the Carquinez Straits, with nearly a mile of clear water, had to be crossed. Sometimes, as in the previous case mentioned, an existing bridge can be used to support a transmission line, but more often, the choice is between an overhead span from one bank of a river to the other and a submarine cable between the same points.
The prime advantage of an overhead line at high voltage is its comparatively small first cost, which is only a fraction of that of an underground or submarine cable in the great majority of instances. At very high voltages, like 40,000 to 50,000 or more, the overhead line must also be given first place on the score of reliability, since the lasting qualities of underground and submarine cables at such pressures is as yet an unknown quantity. On the other hand, at voltages in which cable insulation has been shown by experience to be thoroughly effective, underground or submarine cables may be more reliable than overhead lines because of the greater freedom from mechanical disturbances which these cables enjoy.
The main benefit of using high-voltage overhead lines is their relatively low initial cost, which is usually just a small portion of what you would pay for underground or submarine cables. At very high voltages, like 40,000 to 50,000 or higher, overhead lines should be prioritized for their reliability, as the long-term performance of underground and submarine cables under such high pressures is still not well understood. However, at voltages where we've seen cable insulation work effectively, underground or submarine cables may be more reliable than overhead lines because they are less likely to be affected by mechanical disturbances.
In the business portion of many cities a transmission line must go underground, whether its voltage is high or low. Under these conditions, it may be desired either to transmit energy to a sub-station for distribution within the area where conductors must be underground, or to transmit energy from a generating station there located to outside points. If the transmitted energy is reduced in pressure before reaching such a sub-station, a transforming station must be provided, and this will allow the underground cables to operate at a moderate voltage. For such a case the advantages as to insulation at the lower voltage should be compared with the additional weight of conductors in the cable and the cost of the transforming apparatus and station. If the voltage at which current is delivered from the transforming station does not correspond with the required voltage of distribution at the sub-station, the necessary equipment of step-down transformers is doubled in capacity by lowering the voltage of the transmitted energy where it passes from the overhead line to the underground cables. Conditions of just this sort exist at Buffalo in connection with the delivery of energy from the power-stations at Niagara Falls. This transmission was first carried out at 11,000 volts, and a terminal station was located at the Buffalo city limits where the overhead lines joined underground cables that continued the transmission at the same voltage to several sub-stations in different parts of the city. Later the voltage of the overhead transmission line was raised to 22,000, and it not being thought advisable to subject the insulation of the underground cables to this higher pressure, transformers were installed at the terminal station to lower the line voltage to 11,000 for the underground cables. As the sub-stations in this case also have transformers, there are two kilowatts of capacity in step-down transformers for each kilowatt of delivery capacity at the sub-stations.
In many cities, transmission lines have to go underground, whether the voltage is high or low. In these situations, it might be necessary to either send energy to a substation for distribution within areas where the conductors need to be underground or send energy from a local generating station to external locations. If the energy is reduced in pressure before reaching the substation, a transforming station has to be installed, which allows the underground cables to operate at a moderate voltage. In such cases, the benefits of insulation at a lower voltage should be weighed against the added weight of the conductors in the cable and the cost of the transforming equipment and station. If the voltage from the transforming station doesn’t match the distribution voltage required at the substation, the step-down transformers will need to be increased in capacity by reducing the voltage of the transmitted energy as it transitions from the overhead line to the underground cables. This situation occurs in Buffalo with the energy delivery from the power stations at Niagara Falls. Initially, the transmission was done at 11,000 volts, and a terminal station was set up at the Buffalo city limits where the overhead lines connected with underground cables that continued at the same voltage to several substations throughout the city. Later, the overhead transmission voltage was raised to 22,000 volts, and since it was deemed unwise to subject the insulation of the underground cables to this higher voltage, transformers were added at the terminal station to reduce the line voltage back to 11,000 volts for the underground cables. Since the substations also have transformers, there are two kilowatts of capacity in step-down transformers for every kilowatt of delivery capacity at the substations.

Fig. 74.—Cable Terminal House for the 25,000-volt Chambly Line at Montreal.
Fig. 74.—Cable Terminal Building for the 25,000-volt Chambly Line in Montreal.
The saving effected in capacity of transformers and in the weight of[189] cables by continuing the full transmission voltage right up to the sub-stations whence distribution takes place furnishes a strong motive to work underground cables at the pressure of the overhead transmission line of which they form a continuation. Thus, at Hartford, the 10,000-volt overhead lines that bring energy from water-power stations to the outskirts of the city connect directly in terminal houses there with underground cables that complete the transmission to the sub-station at the full line voltage. In Springfield, Mass., the overhead transmission lines from water-power stations connect directly with underground cables at[190] a distance of nearly two miles from the sub-station, and these cables are thus subject to the full line pressure of 6,000 volts. The overhead line that brings energy at 25,000 volts from Apple River falls to St. Paul terminates about three miles from the sub-station there, and the transmission is completed by underground cables that carry current at the 25,000-volt pressure.
The savings in transformer capacity and the weight of [189] cables by maintaining the full transmission voltage all the way to the substations, where distribution happens, strongly encourages operating underground cables at the same pressure as the overhead transmission line they continue from. For example, in Hartford, the 10,000-volt overhead lines that deliver energy from hydroelectric stations to the city's outskirts connect directly in terminal houses with underground cables that complete the transmission to the substation at full line voltage. In Springfield, Mass., the overhead transmission lines from hydroelectric stations link directly with underground cables at [190] nearly two miles from the substation, and these cables therefore operate at the full line voltage of 6,000 volts. The overhead line delivering energy at 25,000 volts from Apple River Falls to St. Paul ends about three miles from the substation, and the transmission is completed by underground cables that carry current at the 25,000-volt pressure.
In these and similar cases the relative advantages of underground cables at the full voltage of transmission and of overhead lines at a much lower pressure, in the central portions of cities, must be compared. The overhead lines at moderate voltage will no doubt cost less in almost every case than underground cables of equal length and at the full transmission voltage.
In these and similar situations, we need to compare the benefits of underground cables at full transmission voltage with overhead lines at a much lower voltage in city centers. Overhead lines at moderate voltage will likely be cheaper in almost every instance than underground cables of the same length operating at full transmission voltage.
As an offset to the lower cost of overhead city lines at moderate voltage, where they are permitted by local regulations, comes the increase in weight of conductors due to the low pressure on the overhead lines, and also the cost of additional transformer capacity, unless the lines that complete the transmission operate at the voltage of distribution. The 10,000-volt lines that transmit energy from Great Falls to Portland, Me., terminate in two transformer houses that are distant about 0.5 mile and 2.5 miles, respectively, from the sub-station there. In these transformer houses the voltage is reduced to 2,500, and the transmission is then continued at this pressure to the sub-station whence distribution takes place without further transformation.
As a trade-off for the lower costs of overhead city lines at moderate voltage, where allowed by local rules, comes the added weight of conductors because of the low pressure on the overhead lines, along with the expense of extra transformer capacity, unless the lines that finalize the transmission operate at the distribution voltage. The 10,000-volt lines that carry power from Great Falls to Portland, Me., end in two transformer houses that are about 0.5 mile and 2.5 miles away, respectively, from the sub-station there. In these transformer houses, the voltage is lowered to 2,500, and then the transmission continues at this level to the sub-station, where distribution happens without any further transformation.
Where a river or other body of water must be crossed by a transmission line, either of three plans may be followed. The overhead line may be continued as such across the water, either by a single span or by two or more spans supported by one or more piers built for that purpose in the water. The overhead line may connect directly with a submarine cable, this cable being thus exposed to the full voltage of the transmission. As a third expedient, a submarine cable may be laid and connected with step-down transformers on one bank and with step-up transformers on the other bank of the river or other body of water to be crossed. The overhead lines connecting with these transformers can obviously be operated at any desired voltage, and this is also true of the cable.
When a transmission line needs to cross a river or another body of water, there are three options that can be taken. The overhead line can continue straight across the water, either using a single span or multiple spans supported by one or more piers built specifically for that purpose in the water. The overhead line can also connect directly to a submarine cable, which would then be subject to the full voltage of the transmission. As a third option, a submarine cable can be installed and linked to step-down transformers on one side and step-up transformers on the opposite side of the river or body of water. The overhead lines that connect to these transformers can obviously be operated at any desired voltage, and the same applies to the cable.
Even though the distance across a body of water is not so great that a transmission line can not be carried over it in a single span, the cost of such a span may be large. A case in point is that of the Colgate and Oakland line, where it crosses the Carquinez Straits by a span of 4,427 feet. These straits are about 3,200 feet wide where the transmission line crosses, and overhead lines were required to be not less than[191] 200 feet above high water so as not to impede navigation. In order to gain in ground elevation and thus reduce the necessary height of towers, two points 4,427 feet apart on opposite sides of the straits were selected for their location. Under these circumstances two steel towers, one sixty-five feet and the other 225 feet high, were required to support the four steel cables that act as conductors across the straits. To take the strain of these four cables, each with a clear span nearly three times as great as that of the Brooklyn Bridge, eight anchors with housed strain insulators were constructed, four on the land side of each tower. On each of these anchors the strain is said to be 24,000 pounds. At each end of the cables making this span is a switch-house where either of the two three-phase transmission lines may be connected to any three of the four steel cables, thus leaving one cable free for repairs. It is not possible to state here the relative cost of these steel towers and cables in comparison with that of submarine cables for the same work, but at first glance the question appears to be an open one. The voltage of 40,000, at which this transmission is carried out, is probably higher than that on any submarine cable in use, but it is possible that a suitable cable can be operated at this voltage. Whatever the limitations of voltage as applied to submarine cables, it would, of course, have been practicable to use step-up and step-down transformers at the switch-houses and thus operate a submarine cable at any voltage desired.
Even though the distance across a body of water isn’t so vast that a transmission line can’t be carried over it in a single span, the cost of doing so can be quite high. For example, the Colgate and Oakland line crosses the Carquinez Straits with a span of 4,427 feet. These straits are about 3,200 feet wide where the transmission line crosses, and the overhead lines need to be at least [191] 200 feet above high water to avoid obstructing navigation. To gain elevation and reduce the needed height of the towers, two locations 4,427 feet apart on opposite sides of the straits were chosen. Under these conditions, two steel towers were necessary, one standing sixty-five feet and the other 225 feet high, to support the four steel cables that serve as conductors across the straits. To handle the strain of these four cables, each with a clear span nearly three times that of the Brooklyn Bridge, eight anchors with housed strain insulators were built, four on the land side of each tower. The strain on each of these anchors is reported to be 24,000 pounds. At each end of the cables for this span is a switch-house where either of the two three-phase transmission lines can connect to any three of the four steel cables, leaving one cable available for repairs. It's not possible to compare the costs of these steel towers and cables to that of submarine cables for the same purpose, but at first glance, it seems like a question worth exploring. The 40,000 voltage at which this transmission operates is likely higher than any submarine cable currently in use, but it’s possible that a suitable cable could function at this voltage. Regardless of the voltage limitations regarding submarine cables, it would certainly have been feasible to use step-up and step-down transformers at the switch-houses to operate a submarine cable at any desired voltage.
In another case, on a transmission between Portsmouth and Dover, N. H., it was necessary to cross an arm of the sea on a line 4,811 feet long with a three-phase circuit operating at 13,500 volts. It was decided to avoid the use of either a great span or of raising and lowering transformers at this crossing, and to complete the line through a submarine cable operating at the full voltage of transmission. To this end a brick terminal house six by eight feet inside, and with an elevation of thirteen feet from the concrete floor to the tile roof, was erected on each bank of the bay at the point where the submarine cable came out of the water. The lead-covered cable pierced the foundation of each of these terminal houses at a point four feet below the floor level and rose thence on one wall to an elevation eleven feet above the floor to a point where connection was made with the ends of the overhead lines. From this connection on each of the three conductors a tap was carried to a switch and series of lightning arresters. A single lead-covered cable containing three conductors makes connection between these two terminal houses. At each end of this cable the lead sheath joins a terminal bell one foot long and 2.5 inches in outside diameter, increasing to four inches at the end where[192] the three conductors pass out. This terminal bell is filled nearly to the flaring upper end with an insulating compound.
In another instance, on a transmission line between Portsmouth and Dover, N.H., it was necessary to cross a body of water on a 4,811-foot line with a three-phase circuit running at 13,500 volts. It was decided to avoid using a large span or setting up transformers at this crossing, opting instead to complete the line with a submarine cable operating at full transmission voltage. To achieve this, a brick terminal house measuring six by eight feet inside, with a height of thirteen feet from the concrete floor to the tile roof, was built on each side of the bay where the submarine cable emerged from the water. The lead-covered cable entered the foundation of each terminal house at a point four feet below the floor level and then rose on one wall to an elevation of eleven feet above the floor, where it connected to the ends of the overhead lines. From this connection, each of the three conductors had a tap that led to a switch and a series of lightning arresters. A single lead-covered cable containing three conductors connects these two terminal houses. At each end of this cable, the lead sheath connects to a terminal bell that is one foot long and 2.5 inches in outside diameter, widening to four inches at the end where the three conductors exit. This terminal bell is filled nearly to the flaring upper end with an insulating compound.
In the instance just named it is possible that the cost of the submarine cable was less than would have been the outlay for shore supports and a span nearly a mile long across this body of water.
In the situation just mentioned, it's possible that the cost of the submarine cable was less than what it would have taken to build shore supports and a nearly mile-long span across this body of water.
Underground and submarine cables have been operated at voltages suitable for transmission during periods sufficiently long to demonstrate their general reliability. The Ferranti underground cables between Deptford and London have regularly carried current at 11,000 volts since a date prior to 1890. During about five years cables with an aggregate length of sixteen miles have transmitted power from St. Anthony’s Falls to Minneapolis. At Buffalo, some thirty miles of rubber-insulated cables have been in use for underground work at 11,000 volts since 1897, and eighteen miles of paper-insulated cable since the first part of 1901. These examples are enough to show that transmission through underground cables at 11,000 to 12,000 volts is entirely practicable. At Reading, Pa., an underground cable one mile long has carried three-phase current at 16,000 volts for the Oley Valley Railway since some time in 1902. The cables in the transmission from Apple River to St. Paul, which carry three-phase current at 25,000 volts, have a total length of three miles, and have been in use since 1900. This voltage of 25,000 is probably the highest in regular use on any underground or submarine cable conveying energy for light or power. From the experience thus far gained there is much reason to think that the voltages applied to underground cables may be very materially increased before a prohibitive cost of insulation is reached.
Underground and submarine cables have been used at voltages that are suitable for transmission long enough to prove their general reliability. The Ferranti underground cables between Deptford and London have consistently transmitted power at 11,000 volts since before 1890. For around five years, cables with a total length of sixteen miles have been transmitting power from St. Anthony’s Falls to Minneapolis. In Buffalo, about thirty miles of rubber-insulated cables have been used for underground work at 11,000 volts since 1897, and eighteen miles of paper-insulated cable have been in use since early 1901. These examples clearly show that transmitting power through underground cables at 11,000 to 12,000 volts is entirely feasible. In Reading, Pa., a one-mile-long underground cable has been delivering three-phase current at 16,000 volts for the Oley Valley Railway since sometime in 1902. The cables used for transmission from Apple River to St. Paul carry three-phase current at 25,000 volts and total three miles in length, having been in use since 1900. This 25,000-volt level is likely the highest currently used on any underground or submarine cable for delivering energy for lighting or power. Based on the experience so far, there’s good reason to believe that the voltages used in underground cables can be significantly increased before the cost of insulation becomes prohibitive.
On submarine cables the voltage of 13,000 in the Portsmouth and
Dover transmission, above mentioned, is perhaps as great as any in use.
It does not appear, however, that any material difference exists, as to the
strain on its insulation at a given voltage, between a cable when laid in
an underground conduit and when laid under water. In either case the
entire stress of the voltage employed operates on the insulation between
the several conductors in the cable and between each conductor and the
metallic sheath. Underground conduits have little or no value as insulators
of high voltages, because it is practically impossible to keep them
water-tight and prevent absorption or condensation of moisture therein.
For these reasons a cable that gives good results at 25,000 volts in an
underground conduit should be available for use at an equal voltage under
water. The standard structure of high-voltage cables for either underground
or submarine work includes a continuous metallic sheath outside[193]
[194]
of each conductor or of each group of conductors that goes to make up
a circuit. As most transmissions are now carried out with three-phase
current, the three conductors corresponding to a three-phase circuit are
usually contained in a single cable and covered by a single sheath. The
cables used in transmission systems at Portsmouth, Buffalo, and St. Paul
are of this type. If single-phase or two-phase current is transmitted, each
cable should contain the two conductors that go to make up a circuit.
In work with alternating currents the use of only one conductor per cable
should be avoided because of the loss of energy that results from the currents
induced in the metallic sheath of such a cable.
On submarine cables, the voltage of 13,000 in the Portsmouth and Dover transmission mentioned earlier is probably one of the highest in use. However, it seems there’s no significant difference in the strain on insulation at a given voltage between a cable laid in an underground conduit and one laid underwater. In both cases, the full stress of the voltage applies to the insulation between the various conductors in the cable and between each conductor and the metallic sheath. Underground conduits offer little to no insulation for high voltages because it's nearly impossible to keep them water-tight and prevent moisture from being absorbed or condensed inside. For these reasons, a cable that performs well at 25,000 volts in an underground conduit should work just as effectively at the same voltage underwater. The standard design of high-voltage cables for either underground or submarine use includes a continuous metallic sheath outside of each conductor or each group of conductors that make up a circuit. Since most transmissions are now done with three-phase current, the three conductors for a three-phase circuit are typically housed in a single cable and covered by a single sheath. The cables used in transmission systems in Portsmouth, Buffalo, and St. Paul follow this design. If single-phase or two-phase current is transmitted, each cable should include the two conductors that make up the circuit. In alternating current work, it’s best to avoid using only one conductor per cable due to the energy loss caused by the currents induced in the metallic sheath of that cable.

Fig. 75.—Cable Terminal House at Piscataqua River Crossing.
Fig. 75.—Cable Terminal House at Piscataqua River Crossing.
Where the two, three, or more conductors that form a complete circuit for alternating current are included in a single metallic sheath, the inductive effects of currents in the several conductors tend to neutralize each other and the waste of energy in the sheath is in large part avoided. To neutralize more completely the tendency to local currents in their metal sheath, the several insulated conductors of an alternating circuit are sometimes twisted together, after being separately insulated, before the sheath is put on. Distribution of power at Niagara Falls was at first carried out through single-conductor, lead-covered cables with two-phase current at 2,200 volts. One objection to this plan was the loss of energy by induced currents in the lead coverings of the cables. It was later decided to adopt three-phase distribution at 10,000 volts for points distant more than two miles from the power-station. Each three-phase circuit for this purpose was made up of three conductors separately insulated and then covered with a single lead sheath, so as to avoid losses through induced currents in the latter. Underground and submarine cables for operation at high voltages are generally covered with a continuous lead sheath and sometimes with a spiral layer of galvanized iron wire. For high-voltage work underground the lead covering is generally preferred without iron wire, but in submarine work coverings of both sorts are employed. The lead sheath of a cable being continuous completely protects the insulation from contact with gases or liquids. As ducts of either tile, wood, or iron form a good mechanical protection for a cable, the rather small strength of a lead sheath is not a serious objection in conduit work. Submarine cables, on the other hand, depend on their own outer coverings for mechanical protection, and may be exposed to forces that would rapidly cut through a lead sheath. Cables for operation under water should usually be covered, therefore, with a layer of galvanized iron wires outside of the lead sheath. These wires are laid closely about the cable in spiral[195] form and are usually between 0.12 and 0.25 inch in diameter each, depending on the size of the cable and its location.
Where two, three, or more conductors that create a complete circuit for alternating current are enclosed in a single metal sheath, the inductive effects of the currents in the various conductors tend to cancel each other out, significantly reducing energy waste in the sheath. To further mitigate the tendency for localized currents in the metal sheath, the individual insulated conductors of an alternating circuit are sometimes twisted together after being separately insulated, before the sheath is applied. The initial power distribution at Niagara Falls was done using single-conductor, lead-covered cables with two-phase current at 2,200 volts. One drawback of this setup was the energy loss caused by induced currents in the lead coverings of the cables. It was later determined to switch to three-phase distribution at 10,000 volts for locations more than two miles away from the power station. Each three-phase circuit for this purpose was made up of three individually insulated conductors, which were then enclosed in a single lead sheath to prevent losses from induced currents in it. Underground and submarine cables designed for high-voltage operation usually have a continuous lead sheath and sometimes a spiral layer of galvanized iron wire. For high-voltage applications underground, the lead covering is typically preferred without iron wire, but in submarine applications, both types of coverings are used. The continuous lead sheath of a cable entirely protects the insulation from exposure to gases or liquids. Since ducts made of tile, wood, or iron provide good mechanical protection for a cable, the relatively weak strength of a lead sheath isn't a significant concern in conduit installations. Submarine cables, however, rely on their outer coverings for mechanical protection and may encounter forces that can quickly damage a lead sheath. Therefore, cables intended for underwater use should generally be wrapped with a layer of galvanized iron wires outside the lead sheath. These wires are tightly wound around the cable in a spiral pattern and typically have a diameter between 0.12 and 0.25 inch each, depending on the size of the cable and its environment.
Underground conduits cannot be relied on to exclude moisture and acids of the soil from the cables which they contain, and either of these agents may lead to destructive results. If cables insulated with rubber, but without a protecting covering outside of it, are laid in underground conduits, the rubber is apt to be rapidly destroyed by fluids and gases that find their way into the conduit. If a plain lead-covered cable is employed the acids of the soil attack it, and if stray electric currents from an electric railway find the lead a convenient conductor it is rapidly eaten away where they flow out of it. To avoid both of these results the underground cable should have a lead sheath, and this sheath may be protected by an outside layer of hemp or jute treated with asphaltum.
Underground conduits can’t be trusted to keep moisture and soil acids away from the cables inside them, and either of these could cause serious damage. If you lay rubber-insulated cables in underground conduits without any additional protective covering, the rubber can be quickly ruined by fluids and gases that get into the conduit. If you use a plain lead-covered cable, the soil acids will corrode it, and stray electric currents from an electric railway can use the lead as a conductor, causing it to deteriorate rapidly where the current flows out. To prevent these issues, underground cables should be covered with a lead sheath, and this sheath can be protected by an outer layer of hemp or jute treated with asphalt.
Rubber, paper, and cotton are extensively used as insulation for underground and submarine cables, but the three are not usually employed together. As a rule, the insulation is applied separately to each conductor, and then an additional layer of insulation may be located about the group of conductors that go to make up the cable. Where rubber insulation is employed, a lead sheath may or may not be added, but where insulation depends on cotton or paper the outer covering of lead is absolutely necessary to keep out moisture. The radial thickness of insulation on each conductor and of that about the group of conductors in a cable should vary according to the voltage of operation.
Rubber, paper, and cotton are commonly used as insulation for underground and submarine cables, but these materials are typically not used together. Generally, insulation is applied separately to each conductor, and then there may be an additional layer of insulation around the group of conductors that make up the cable. When rubber insulation is used, a lead sheath may or may not be added, but when insulation relies on cotton or paper, the outer lead covering is essential to prevent moisture from getting in. The thickness of insulation on each conductor and around the group of conductors in a cable should vary based on the operating voltage.
Cables employed between the generating and sub-stations of the Manhattan Elevated Railway, to distribute three-phase current at 11,000 volts, are of the three-conductor type, rubber insulated, lead covered, and laid in tile conduits. Each cable contains three No. 000 stranded conductors, and each conductor has its own insulation of rubber. Jute is laid on to give the group of conductors an outer circular form, and outside of the group a layer of insulation and then a lead sheath is placed. Outside diameter of this cable is nearly three inches, and the weight nine pounds per linear foot.
Cables used between the generating stations and substations of the Manhattan Elevated Railway to distribute three-phase current at 11,000 volts are of the three-conductor type, rubber insulated, lead covered, and installed in tile conduits. Each cable has three No. 000 stranded conductors, with each conductor having its own rubber insulation. Jute is applied to give the group of conductors an outer circular shape, and a layer of insulation is placed outside the group, followed by a lead sheath. The outer diameter of this cable is almost three inches, and it weighs nine pounds per linear foot.
The 11,000-volt, three-phase current from Niagara Falls is distributed from the terminal house to seven sub-stations in Buffalo through about 30 miles of rubber-insulated and 18 miles of paper-insulated, three-conductor, lead-covered cables, all in tile conduits. In each cable the three No. 000 stranded conductors are separately insulated and then twisted into a rope with jute yarn laid in to give an even round surface for the lead sheath to rest on. A part of the rubber-insulated cables have each conductor covered with 9⁄32-inch of 30 per cent pure rubber compound,[196] and the remaining rubber cables have 8⁄32-inch covering on each conductor of 40 per cent pure rubber compound. The paper-insulated cable has 13⁄64-inch of paper around each conductor, and also another 13⁄64-inch of paper covering about the group of three conductors and next to the lead sheath. In outside diameter the rubber-insulated cable is 23⁄8 inches, and of the paper-insulated cable 25⁄8 inches, the radial thickness of the lead sheath being 1⁄8-inch in each case. It is reported that the cables insulated with 9⁄32-inch of the mixture, said to be 30 per cent pure rubber, have proved to be more reliable than the cables insulated with 8⁄32-inch of a mixture said to be 40 per cent pure rubber. Vol. xviii., A. I. E. E., 136, 836.
The 11,000-volt, three-phase current from Niagara Falls is sent from the terminal house to seven substations in Buffalo through about 30 miles of rubber-insulated and 18 miles of paper-insulated, three-conductor, lead-covered cables, all in tile conduits. In each cable, the three No. 000 stranded conductors are individually insulated and then twisted together like a rope with jute yarn to create an even round surface for the lead sheath to fit on. Some of the rubber-insulated cables have each conductor covered with 9⁄32-inch of a 30 percent pure rubber compound,[196] while the remaining rubber cables have 8⁄32-inch covering on each conductor made of a 40 percent pure rubber compound. The paper-insulated cable has 13⁄64-inch of paper around each conductor, along with another 13⁄64-inch of paper covering the group of three conductors next to the lead sheath. The outside diameter of the rubber-insulated cable is 23⁄8 inches, and for the paper-insulated cable, it's 25⁄8 inches, with a radial thickness of the lead sheath being 1⁄8-inch in both cases. Reports indicate that the cables insulated with 9⁄32-inch of the mixture, said to contain 30 percent pure rubber, have proven to be more reliable than the cables insulated with 8⁄32-inch of a mixture reported to be 40 percent pure rubber. Vol. xviii., A. I. E. E., 136, 836.
The six miles of underground cables that carry three-phase, 25,000-volt current in St. Paul are of the three-conductor type, lead covered, and laid in a tile conduit. One of the two three-mile cables is insulated with rubber and the other with paper. In the former cable each conductor is separately insulated with a compound containing about 35 per cent of pure rubber and having a radial thickness of 7⁄32-inch. The three conductors after being insulated are laid up with jute to give a round surface, tape being used to hold them together, and then a rubber cover 5⁄32-inch thick is placed about the group, after which comes the lead sheath over all. In the three miles of paper-insulated cable each conductor is separately covered with paper to a thickness of 9⁄32-inch, then the three conductors are laid together with jute and taped, and next a layer of paper 4⁄32-inch thick is put on over the group. Outside of all comes the lead sheath, which has an outer coating of tin. The paper insulation in these cables was saturated with a secret insulating compound. The lead sheath on both the rubber and paper insulated cables is 1⁄8-inch thick and the sheath of the former contains 3 per cent of tin. Each of the three conductors in each cable consists of 7 copper strands and has an area of 66,000 circular mils. Outside of the lead sheath each of these cables has a diameter of about 21⁄4 inches. By the manufacturer’s contract these cables were tested up to 40,000 volts before shipment, and might be tested up to 30,000 volts in their conduits during any time within five years from their purchase. In first cost the cable with rubber insulation was said to be about 50 per cent more expensive than the cable in which paper was used. Vol. xvii., A. I. E. E., 650.
The six miles of underground cables carrying three-phase, 25,000-volt current in St. Paul are of the three-conductor type, lead-covered, and laid in a tile conduit. One of two three-mile cables is insulated with rubber and the other with paper. In the rubber-insulated cable, each conductor is wrapped in a compound that contains about 35 percent pure rubber and has a radial thickness of 7⁄32-inch. After insulating the three conductors, they are bundled with jute to create a round surface, taped together, and then a rubber cover 5⁄32-inch thick is applied around the group, followed by a lead sheath over everything. In the three miles of paper-insulated cable, each conductor is separately covered with paper to a thickness of 9⁄32-inch, then the three conductors are placed together with jute and taped, with a layer of paper 4⁄32-inch thick added over them. A lead sheath, which has an outer coating of tin, covers all. The paper insulation in these cables was soaked with a proprietary insulating compound. The lead sheath on both rubber and paper insulated cables is 1⁄8-inch thick, with the rubber sheath containing 3 percent tin. Each of the three conductors in each cable is made up of 7 copper strands and has an area of 66,000 circular mils. Outside the lead sheath, each cable has a diameter of about 21⁄4 inches. According to the manufacturer’s contract, these cables were tested up to 40,000 volts before shipment and could be tested up to 30,000 volts in their conduits at any time within five years of purchase. The initial cost of the rubber insulated cable is reported to be about 50 percent more than the paper-insulated cable. Vol. xvii., A. I. E. E., 650.
Underground cables in which the separate conductors are covered with cotton braid treated with an insulating compound, and then the group of conductors going to make up the cable enclosed in a lead sheath, are extensively used in Austria and Germany. For cables that operate[197] at 10,000 to 12,000 volts the radial thickness of cotton insulation on each conductor is said to be within 3⁄16-inch, and these cables are tested up to 25,000 volts by placing all of the cable except its ends in water, and then connecting one end of the 25,000-volt circuit to the water and the other end to the conductors of the cable.
Underground cables with separate conductors covered in cotton braid treated with an insulating compound, and then grouped and encased in a lead sheath, are widely used in Austria and Germany. For cables that operate[197] at 10,000 to 12,000 volts, the radial thickness of cotton insulation on each conductor is about 3⁄16-inch, and these cables are tested up to 25,000 volts by submerging all of the cable except its ends in water and then connecting one end of the 25,000-volt circuit to the water and the other end to the conductors of the cable.
A test on the paper-insulated cable at St. Paul showed its charging current to be 1.1 amperes at 25,000 volts for each mile of its length. For the cable with rubber insulation the charging current per mile of length was found to be about twice as great as the like current for the paper-insulated cable. Each of the two overhead transmission lines connected with these cables consisted of three solid copper wires with an area of 66,000 circular mils each, and all three so mounted on the poles as to form the corners of an equilateral triangle twenty-four inches apart. The charging current of one of these three-wire, overhead circuits was found to be about 0.103 ampere per mile, at 25,000 volts, or a little less than one-tenth of the like current for the paper cable. These tests were made with three-phase current of sixty cycles per second.
A test on the paper-insulated cable at St. Paul indicated that its charging current was 1.1 amperes at 25,000 volts for each mile of its length. For the cable with rubber insulation, the charging current per mile was about twice as much as that of the paper-insulated cable. Each of the two overhead transmission lines connected to these cables was made up of three solid copper wires, each with an area of 66,000 circular mils, and all three were mounted on the poles to form the corners of an equilateral triangle that was twenty-four inches apart. The charging current of one of these three-wire, overhead circuits was around 0.103 ampere per mile at 25,000 volts, which is a little less than one-tenth of the current for the paper cable. These tests were conducted with three-phase current at sixty cycles per second.
Where overhead transmission lines join underground or submarine cables, either with or without the intervention of transformers, lightning arresters should be provided to intercept discharges of this sort that come over the overhead wires. Lightning arresters were provided in the terminal house at Buffalo, where the 22,000-volt overhead lines feed the 11,000-volt cables through transformers, also at the terminal house in St. Paul, where the 25,000-volt overhead lines are electrically connected to the underground cables. If an underground or submarine cable connects two portions of an overhead line, as in the Portsmouth and Dover transmission above mentioned, lightning arresters should be provided at each end of the cable, as was done in that case. One advantage of a high rather than a low voltage on underground cables, where power is to be transmitted at any given rate, lies in the fact that the amperes flowing at a fault in the cable determine the destructive effect there, rather than the voltage of the transmission. It is reported that a fault or short-circuit in one of the 11,000-volt cables at Buffalo usually melts off but little lead at the sheath and does not have enough explosive force to injure the cable or its duct.
Where overhead transmission lines connect to underground or submarine cables, whether or not transformers are involved, lightning arresters should be installed to catch any discharges that come through the overhead wires. Lightning arresters were installed at the terminal house in Buffalo, where the 22,000-volt overhead lines feed into the 11,000-volt cables through transformers, and also at the terminal house in St. Paul, where the 25,000-volt overhead lines are electrically linked to the underground cables. If an underground or submarine cable links two parts of an overhead line, like in the Portsmouth and Dover transmission mentioned above, lightning arresters should be set up at both ends of the cable, just as was done in that instance. One advantage of using high voltage instead of low voltage for underground cables, when power needs to be transmitted at a specific rate, is that the current flowing during a fault in the cable determines the level of damage, not the transmission voltage. It's reported that a fault or short circuit in one of the 11,000-volt cables at Buffalo usually only causes minimal melting of the lead sheath and lacks enough explosive force to damage the cable or its duct.
Ozone seems to destroy the insulating properties of rubber very rapidly, and as it is well known that the silent electric discharge from conductors at high voltages develops ozone, care should be taken to protect rubber insulation from its action. This is especially true at the ends of cables where connections are made with switches or other apparatus, and[198] the rubber insulation is exposed. To protect the rubber at such points it is the practice to solder a brass cable head or terminal bell to the lead sheath near its end, this head having a diameter perhaps twice as great as that of the sheath, and then to fill the space about the cable conductors in this head with an insulating compound. Heads of this sort were used on the 11,000-volt cables at Buffalo as well as on the 13,500-volt cable in the Portsmouth and Dover transmission.
Ozone seems to quickly break down the insulating properties of rubber, and since it’s well known that silent electric discharges from high-voltage conductors create ozone, precautions should be taken to protect rubber insulation from its effects. This is particularly important at the ends of cables where they connect with switches or other equipment, and[198] the rubber insulation is exposed. To safeguard the rubber at these points, it's common practice to solder a brass cable head or terminal bell to the lead sheath near its end. This head has a diameter that is about twice that of the sheath and is then filled with an insulating compound around the cable conductors inside. Similar heads were used on the 11,000-volt cables in Buffalo as well as on the 13,500-volt cable in the Portsmouth and Dover transmission.
As insulating materials, whether rubber, cotton, or paper, may be impaired or destroyed by heat, it is necessary that the temperature of underground cables under full load be kept within safe limits. Rubber insulation can probably be raised to 125° or 150° Fahrenheit without injury, and paper and cotton may go a little higher. For a given size and make of leaded cable the rise of temperature in its conductors above that of the surrounding air, for a given loss in watts per foot of the cable, may be determined by computation or experiment. The next step is to find out how much the temperature of the air in the conduits where the cable is to be used will rise above the temperature of the earth in which the conduits are laid, with the given watt loss per foot of cable. On this point there are but little experimental data. Obviously, the material of which ducts are made, the number of ducts grouped together with cables operating at the same time, and the extent to which ducts are ventilated must have an important bearing on this question. At Niagara Falls some tests were made to show the rise of air temperature in a section of thirty-six-duct conduit lying between two manholes about 140 feet apart. For the purpose of this test twenty-four of the thirty-six ducts in the conduit had one No. 6 drawing-in wire passed through each of them. These twenty-four wires were connected into three groups of eight wires each, so that one group was all in ducts next to the surrounding earth, another group was one-half in ducts next to the earth and the other half in ducts separated from the earth by at least one duct, while the third group of wires was entirely in ducts separated from the earth by at least one duct. It was found that when enough current was sent through these wires to represent a loss of 5.5 watts per foot of ducts in which they were located, the rise of temperature in the air of the ducts next to the earth was about 108° Fahrenheit above that of the earth. For the ducts separated from the earth by at least one other duct the rise in temperature of contained air was 144° Fahrenheit above the earth. If the earth about the ducts reached 70° in hot weather, the temperature of air in the inner ducts, with a loss of 5.5 watts per duct foot, would thus be 214°. This temperature is too high for either rubber, cotton, or paper insulation,[199] to say nothing of the amount by which the temperature of the conductors and insulation of a cable in operation must exceed that of the surrounding air in its duct. The cables actually installed in the ducts just considered were designed for a loss of 2.34 watts per foot. As the No. 6 wire used in the test did not nearly fill each duct as a cable would do, it would be very interesting to know how much ventilation took place while the test was going on. Unfortunately, this point was not reported. Vol. xviii., A. I. E. E., 508.
As insulating materials like rubber, cotton, or paper can be damaged or destroyed by heat, it’s important to keep the temperature of underground cables under full load within safe limits. Rubber insulation can likely handle temperatures up to 125° or 150° Fahrenheit without getting damaged, while paper and cotton can tolerate slightly higher temperatures. For a specific size and type of leaded cable, the temperature increase in its conductors above the surrounding air temperature, given a certain loss in watts per foot of the cable, can be calculated through computation or experiment. The next step is to determine how much the air temperature in the conduits where the cable will be used will rise above the earth temperature where the conduits are installed, considering the specified watt loss per foot of cable. Unfortunately, there isn’t much experimental data on this issue. Clearly, the material that ducts are made of, the number of ducts grouped together with cables running simultaneously, and how well the ducts are ventilated will significantly impact this situation. At Niagara Falls, some tests were conducted to measure the rise in air temperature in a section of thirty-six duct conduit placed between two manholes about 140 feet apart. For this test, twenty-four of the thirty-six ducts had one No. 6 drawing-in wire threaded through each. These twenty-four wires were divided into three groups of eight wires each, where one group was entirely in ducts next to the surrounding earth, another group was half in ducts next to the earth and the other half in ducts separated from the earth by at least one duct, while the third group of wires was completely in ducts separated from the earth by at least one duct. It was discovered that when enough current was sent through these wires to reflect a loss of 5.5 watts per foot in the ducts, the air temperature in the ducts next to the earth rose about 108° Fahrenheit above the earth temperature. For the ducts separated from the earth by at least one other duct, the air temperature increase was 144° Fahrenheit above the earth. If the earth surrounding the ducts reached 70° during hot weather, the air temperature in the inner ducts, with a loss of 5.5 watts per duct foot, would thus be 214°. This temperature is too high for rubber, cotton, or paper insulation, not to mention how much the temperature of the conductors and insulation of a cable in operation must exceed that of the surrounding air in its duct. The cables actually placed in the ducts mentioned were designed for a loss of 2.34 watts per foot. Since the No. 6 wire used in the test didn’t nearly fill each duct the way a cable would, it would be very interesting to know how much ventilation occurred during the test. Unfortunately, this detail was not reported. [199]
CHAPTER XV.
Materials for power lines.
Copper, aluminum, iron, and bronze are all used for conductors in long-distance electric transmissions, but copper is the standard metal for the purpose. An ideal conductor for transmission lines should combine the best electrical conductivity, great tensile strength, a high melting point, low coefficient of expansion, hardness, and great resistance to oxidation. No one of the metals named possesses all of these properties in the highest degree, and the problem is to select the material best suited to each case. Aluminum suffers very slightly by exposure to the weather, copper and bronze suffer a little more, while iron and steel wire are attacked seriously by rust.
Copper, aluminum, iron, and bronze are all used as conductors for long-distance electrical transmission, but copper is the go-to metal for this purpose. An ideal conductor for transmission lines should have excellent electrical conductivity, high tensile strength, a high melting point, low expansion, hardness, and strong resistance to oxidation. None of these metals has all of these properties at the highest level, so the challenge is to choose the material that is best suited for each situation. Aluminum is minimally affected by weather exposure, copper and bronze are affected a bit more, while iron and steel wire are significantly prone to rust.
Iron, copper, and bronze are all so hard that little or no trouble has occurred from wires of these metals cutting or wearing away at the points of attachment to insulators. Aluminum, on the other hand, is so soft that swaying of the wire may, in time, cause material wear at the supports, or it may be cut by tie wires. But lines of aluminum wire have not been in use long enough to determine how much trouble is to be expected from its lack of hardness.
Iron, copper, and bronze are all quite strong, so there have been few issues with wires made from these metals cutting or wearing down at the connection points to insulators. In contrast, aluminum is so soft that movement of the wire might eventually cause wear at the supports, or it could get cut by tie wires. However, aluminum wire hasn't been in use long enough to know how much trouble we can expect from its softness.
A small coefficient of expansion is desirable in transmission wires, because the strain on the wire itself and on its supports varies rapidly with the amount of vertical deflection of each span, becoming greater as the deflection decreases. Taking the expansion of copper as unity, that of aluminum is 1.4; of bronze, 1.1; and of iron and steel, 0.7. From these figures it follows that iron and steel wires show the least variation in the amount of sag between supports, and aluminum wire shows the most.
A small coefficient of expansion is preferable for transmission wires because the strain on the wire and its supports changes quickly with the vertical deflection of each span, increasing as the deflection decreases. If we consider the expansion of copper as 1, aluminum is 1.4, bronze is 1.1, and iron and steel are 0.7. From these numbers, we can see that iron and steel wires have the least variation in sag between supports, while aluminum wire has the most.
Wrought iron melts at about 2,800°, steel at 2,700°, copper at 1,929°, bronze at about the same point as copper, and aluminum at 1,157° Fahrenheit. This low melting point of aluminum may prove a source of trouble by opening a line of that material where some foreign wire falls on it. This, according to a report, was illustrated at a sub-station on a 30,000-volt transmission line where a destructive arc was started at the switchboard. Not being able to extinguish the arc in any other way, a[201] lineman threw an iron wire across the aluminum lines just outside of the sub-station, and these lines were immediately melted through by the iron wire, thus opening the circuit. The trouble may have warranted so desperate a remedy in this case; but, as a rule, it does not pay to cut a transmission line in order to get rid of a short circuit.
Wrought iron melts at about 2,800°F, steel at 2,700°F, copper at 1,929°F, bronze at roughly the same temperature as copper, and aluminum at 1,157°F. This low melting point of aluminum can lead to issues if a foreign wire falls on it. A report illustrated this at a sub-station on a 30,000-volt transmission line where a damaging arc was created at the switchboard. Unable to extinguish the arc by other means, a[201] lineman threw an iron wire across the aluminum lines just outside the sub-station, and the aluminum lines immediately melted through due to the iron wire, thus opening the circuit. While the situation may have justified such a drastic solution this time, cutting a transmission line to eliminate a short circuit typically isn't a good idea.
In the ordinary construction of transmission lines on land the tensile strength of wire is secondary in importance to its electrical conductivity, because supports can be spaced according to the strength of the conductor used. When large bodies of water must be crossed, tensile strength is a prime requirement. Thus a 142-mile line from Colgate to Oakland, in California, crosses the Straits of Carquinez in the form of steel cables, each seven-eighths of an inch in diameter and 4,427 feet long. Steel wire was selected for this long span, probably because it can be given a greater tensile strength than that of any other metal. Annealed iron wire has a tensile strength between 50,000 and 60,000 pounds per square inch. Steel wires vary all the way from 50,000 to more than 350,000 pounds per square inch in strength, but mild steel wire with a strength ranging from 80,000 to 100,000 pounds per square inch is readily obtained.
In typical construction of transmission lines on land, the tensile strength of the wire is less important than its electrical conductivity, since supports can be spaced according to the strength of the conductor used. However, when large bodies of water need to be crossed, tensile strength becomes crucial. For instance, a 142-mile line from Colgate to Oakland in California crosses the Straits of Carquinez using steel cables that are seven-eighths of an inch in diameter and 4,427 feet long. Steel wire was chosen for this long span, likely because it can be made stronger than any other metal. Annealed iron wire has a tensile strength of between 50,000 and 60,000 pounds per square inch. Steel wires can have strengths ranging from 50,000 to more than 350,000 pounds per square inch, but mild steel wire with a strength of 80,000 to 100,000 pounds per square inch is readily available.
Soft copper shows a tensile strength between 32,000 and 36,000 pounds per square inch, and hard-drawn copper between 45,000 and 70,000 pounds, depending on the degree of hardness. Silicon-bronze wires vary in strength from less than 60,000 to more than 100,000 pounds per square inch, and phosphor-bronze has a tensile strength of about 100,000 pounds. Bronze wires, like those of most alloys, show a much wider range of strength than those of iron or copper.
Soft copper has a tensile strength between 32,000 and 36,000 pounds per square inch, while hard-drawn copper ranges from 45,000 to 70,000 pounds, depending on how hard it is. Silicon-bronze wires vary in strength from less than 60,000 to over 100,000 pounds per square inch, and phosphor-bronze has a tensile strength of about 100,000 pounds. Bronze wires, like those of most alloys, show a much broader range of strength compared to iron or copper.
In silicon-bronze wire the electrical conductivity decreases as the tensile strength increases. The tensile strength of aluminum wire is lower than that of any other used in transmission lines, being only about 30,000 pounds per square inch. Solid aluminum wires of large size have given trouble by breaking under strains well within their nominal strength, due probably to imperfections or twists. This trouble is now generally avoided by the use of aluminum cables.
In silicon-bronze wire, the electrical conductivity goes down as the tensile strength goes up. The tensile strength of aluminum wire is lower than that of any other type used in transmission lines, measuring only about 30,000 pounds per square inch. Large solid aluminum wires have had issues breaking under stresses that are well within their stated strength, likely due to imperfections or twists. This problem is now usually avoided by using aluminum cables.
In that most necessary property of a transmission line—conductivity—copper excels all other metals except silver. Taking the conductivity of soft copper wire at 100, the conductivity of hard-drawn copper is 98; that of silicon-bronze ranges from 46 to 98; that of aluminum is 60; of phosphor-bronze, 26; of annealed iron wire, 14; and of steel wire of 100,000 pounds tensile strength per square inch, 11. Copper wire, both soft and hard, as regularly made, does not vary more than one per cent from the standard, and aluminum and annealed iron wires also show[202] high uniformity as to resistance. Silicon-bronze and steel wires, on the other hand, fluctuate much in electrical conductivity. For any particular transmission line the resistance is usually determined by considerations apart from the metal to be used as a conductor, so that a line of given resistance or conductivity must be constructed of that material which best conforms to the requirements as to size of wire, weight, strength, and cost.
In the essential feature of a transmission line—conductivity—copper outperforms all other metals except silver. If we take the conductivity of soft copper wire as 100, then hard-drawn copper has a conductivity of 98; silicon-bronze ranges from 46 to 98; aluminum is at 60; phosphor-bronze is 26; annealed iron wire is 14; and steel wire with a tensile strength of 100,000 pounds per square inch is 11. Both soft and hard copper wire, as typically produced, don’t vary more than one percent from the standard, and aluminum and annealed iron wires also exhibit[202] high consistency in resistance. In contrast, silicon-bronze and steel wires tend to vary significantly in electrical conductivity. For any specific transmission line, resistance is generally determined by factors other than the metal chosen as the conductor, so a line with a specific resistance or conductivity must be made from the material that best meets the requirements regarding wire size, weight, strength, and cost.
Allowing the weight of any definite mass of copper to represent unity, the weight of an equal mass of wrought iron is 0.87; of steel, 0.89; of aluminum, 0.30; while that of bronze is very nearly equal to that of the copper. The smallest line wire that can be used for a given length and resistance is one of pure, soft copper. Next in cross-sectional area come hard-drawn copper and some silicon-bronze, either of which need be only two per cent larger than the soft copper for an equal resistance. Some other silicon-bronze wire of greater tensile strength per square inch would require a sectional area of 2.17 times that of the soft copper.
Allowing the weight of any specific mass of copper to represent unity, the weight of an equal mass of wrought iron is 0.87; steel is 0.89; aluminum is 0.30; and bronze is almost equal to that of copper. The thinnest wire that can be used for a certain length and resistance is made of pure, soft copper. Next in size are hard-drawn copper and some silicon-bronze, which need to be only two percent larger than the soft copper to have the same resistance. Other types of silicon-bronze wire with higher tensile strength per square inch would need a cross-sectional area of 2.17 times that of the soft copper.
Aluminum wire with 60 per cent of the conductivity of copper requires 1.66 of its section for wires of equal resistance. As phosphor-bronze has only 26 per cent of the conductivity of copper, the section of the bronze must be 3.84 times that of the copper wire if their lengths and resistance are to be equal. An annealed iron wire is equal in resistance to a copper wire of the same length when the iron has 7.14 times the section of the copper. Steel, with 11 per cent of the conductivity of copper, must have 9.09 times the copper section in order that wires of the same length may have equal resistances.
Aluminum wire, which has 60 percent of copper's conductivity, needs a cross-sectional area that is 1.66 times larger to have the same resistance. Since phosphor bronze has only 26 percent of copper's conductivity, its cross-section must be 3.84 times that of the copper wire for both to have equal lengths and resistances. An annealed iron wire will match the resistance of a copper wire of the same length if the iron wire's cross-section is 7.14 times larger. Steel, with just 11 percent of copper's conductivity, needs to have a cross-section 9.09 times that of copper to ensure that wires of equal length have the same resistance.
It is not desirable to use a copper wire smaller than No. 4 B. & S. gauge for transmission lines, because of the lack of tensile strength in smaller sizes. When the conductivity of a copper wire smaller than No. 4 is ample, an iron wire will give the required conductivity, with a strength far greater than that of the copper. For a line of given length and conductivity of any other metal the weight compared with that of a copper line is represented by the product of the figures for relative section of the two lines and of the weight of unit mass of the metal in question compared with that of copper.
It is not advisable to use a copper wire smaller than No. 4 B. & S. gauge for transmission lines due to the lack of tensile strength in smaller sizes. Even if the conductivity of a copper wire smaller than No. 4 is sufficient, an iron wire will provide the necessary conductivity while offering much greater strength than copper. For any given length of line and conductivity of a different metal, the weight compared to that of a copper line is determined by the product of the relative cross-sectional areas of the two lines and the weight of a unit mass of the metal being considered compared to that of copper.
Thus, for the same conductivity the weight of a certain length of iron wire is 0.87 × 7.14 = 6.21 times the weight of a copper wire. For the steel wire above named the weight is 0.89 × 9.09 = 8.09 times that of a copper line of equal conductivity. Phosphor-bronze in a line of given length and resistance has 3.84 times the weight of soft copper. Silicon-bronze for a transmission line must weigh from 1.02 to 2.17 times as[203] much as soft copper for a given length and conductivity. Aluminum for a line of fixed length and conductivity will weigh 1.66 × 0.3 = 0.5 times as much as copper. For a line of fixed length and resistance, hard-drawn copper will weigh about two per cent more than soft copper.
Thus, for the same conductivity, the weight of a certain length of iron wire is 0.87 × 7.14 = 6.21 times the weight of a copper wire. For the steel wire mentioned above, the weight is 0.89 × 9.09 = 8.09 times that of a copper wire of equal conductivity. Phosphor-bronze in a line of a given length and resistance has 3.84 times the weight of soft copper. Silicon-bronze for a transmission line must weigh between 1.02 and 2.17 times as much as [203] soft copper for a given length and conductivity. Aluminum for a line of fixed length and conductivity will weigh 1.66 × 0.3 = 0.5 times as much as copper. For a line of fixed length and resistance, hard-drawn copper will weigh about two percent more than soft copper.
Taking the tensile strength of soft copper at 34,000 pounds per square inch, hard-drawn copper at 45,000 to 70,000, silicon-bronze at 60,000 to 100,000, phosphor-bronze at 100,000, iron at 55,000, steel at 100,000, and aluminum at 30,000 pounds, the relative strengths of wires with equal sectional areas compared with the soft copper are, for hard-drawn copper, 1.32 to 2.06; silicon-bronze, 1.76 to 2.94; phosphor-bronze, 2.94; iron, 1.62; steel, 2.94; and for aluminum, 0.88.
Taking the tensile strength of soft copper at 34,000 pounds per square inch, hard-drawn copper at 45,000 to 70,000, silicon-bronze at 60,000 to 100,000, phosphor-bronze at 100,000, iron at 55,000, steel at 100,000, and aluminum at 30,000 pounds, the relative strengths of wires with equal sectional areas compared to soft copper are as follows: for hard-drawn copper, 1.32 to 2.06; for silicon-bronze, 1.76 to 2.94; for phosphor-bronze, 2.94; for iron, 1.62; for steel, 2.94; and for aluminum, 0.88.
Comparing wires on the basis of equal resistances for equal lengths, with soft copper again the standard, the tensile strength of each as to it is as follows: A hard-drawn copper line has 1.02 × 1.32 = 1.34 to 1.02 × 2.06 = 2.10 times the strength of a line of soft copper. With silicon-bronze the strength of line wire would range between 1.02 × 1.76 = 1.79 and 2.17 × 2.94 = 6.38 times that of copper. Iron would give the line a strength as to soft copper represented by 7.14 × 1.62 = 11.56. Steel of 100,000 pounds tensile strength per square inch will give a line 9.09 × 2.94 = 26.70 times as strong as it would be if composed of soft copper. With aluminum the strength of the line would be 1.66 × 0.88 = 1.46 times that of copper. For phosphor-bronze the figures are 3.84 × 2.94 = 11.29.
Comparing wires based on equal resistances for the same lengths, using soft copper as the standard, the tensile strength of each is as follows: A hard-drawn copper wire has 1.02 × 1.32 = 1.34 to 1.02 × 2.06 = 2.10 times the strength of soft copper. With silicon-bronze, the strength of the wire ranges between 1.02 × 1.76 = 1.79 and 2.17 × 2.94 = 6.38 times that of copper. Iron would give the wire a strength compared to soft copper of 7.14 × 1.62 = 11.56. Steel with a tensile strength of 100,000 pounds per square inch will result in a wire that is 9.09 × 2.94 = 26.70 times stronger than if it were made from soft copper. For aluminum, the wire strength would be 1.66 × 0.88 = 1.46 times that of copper. For phosphor-bronze, the strength figures are 3.84 × 2.94 = 11.29.
From the foregoing it may be shown how many times the price of soft copper per pound may be paid for each of the other metals to form a line of given length and resistance at a cost equal to that of a soft copper line. These prices per pound for the several metals relative to that of soft copper are as follows: Taking the price of soft copper as one, the price for hard-drawn copper must be 1 ÷ 1.02 = 0.98. For silicon-bronze the price may be as high as 1 ÷ 1.02 = 0.98, or as low as 1 ÷ 2.17 = 0.46 of the price of soft copper wire. Phosphor-bronze may have a price represented by only 1 ÷ 3.84 = 0.26 that of copper. The price of iron wire should be 1 ÷ 6.21 = 0.16 of that of copper, and for steel wire of the quality stated the price can only be 1 ÷ 8.01 = 0.12. Aluminum wire alone may have a higher price per pound than soft copper for the same resistance and cost of line, the figure for the relative cost of this metal being 1 ÷ 0.5 = 2.
From the above, it can be demonstrated how many times the price of soft copper per pound can be applied to each of the other metals to create a line of a specific length and resistance at a cost equivalent to that of a soft copper line. The prices per pound for the various metals in relation to soft copper are as follows: Assuming the price of soft copper is one, the price for hard-drawn copper must be 1 ÷ 1.02 = 0.98. For silicon-bronze, the price can be as high as 1 ÷ 1.02 = 0.98, or as low as 1 ÷ 2.17 = 0.46 of the price of soft copper wire. Phosphor-bronze can have a price represented as just 1 ÷ 3.84 = 0.26 that of copper. The price of iron wire should be 1 ÷ 6.21 = 0.16 of that of copper, and for steel wire of the specified quality, the price can only be 1 ÷ 8.01 = 0.12. Aluminum wire alone may have a higher price per pound than soft copper for the same resistance and line cost, with the relative cost for this metal being 1 ÷ 0.5 = 2.
From the foregoing it appears that for a line of given cost, length, and resistance, soft copper has the least cross-section and tensile strength;[204] steel, the greatest cross-section, weight, tensile strength, and lowest permissible price per pound; and aluminum, the least weight and highest price per pound.
From the above, it seems that for a line of specific cost, length, and resistance, soft copper has the smallest cross-section and tensile strength; steel has the largest cross-section, weight, tensile strength, and the lowest acceptable price per pound; and aluminum has the least weight and the highest price per pound.[204]
Relative Properties of Wires
Having Equal Lengths and Resistances.
Relative Properties of Wires
That Have the Same Length and Resistance.
Metal in Wire. | Relative Cross Sections. |
Relative Weights. |
Relative Tensile Strengths. |
Relative Prices per Pound for Same Total Cost. |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Soft Copper | 1.00 | 1 | .00 | 1 | . | 1 | .00 |
Hard Copper | 1.02 | 1 | .04 | 1 | .34 | .98 | |
Very Hard Copper | 1.02 | 1 | .02 | 2 | .10 | .98 | |
No. 1 Silicon-Bronze | 1.02 | 1 | .02 | 1 | .79 | .98 | |
No. 2 Silicon-Bronze | 2.17 | 2 | .17 | 6 | .38 | .46 | |
Aluminum | 1.66 | .50 | 1 | .46 | 2 | .00 | |
Phosphor-Bronze | 3.84 | 3 | .84 | 11 | .29 | .26 | |
Annealed Iron | 7.14 | 6 | .21 | 11 | .56 | .16 | |
Mild Steel | 9.09 | 8 | .09 | 26 | .70 | .12 |
The relative cross sections and weights of both iron and steel wires are so great as to prevent their general use because of the labor and cost of their erection.
The relative size and weight of both iron and steel wires are so significant that they hinder their widespread use due to the labor and expense involved in setting them up.
So far as the first cost of the wire alone is concerned, iron may be approximately equal to copper in some metal markets. The only practical place for an iron wire, however, is one where copper would be too small or not strong enough. Steel wire finds a place, in spite of its high resistance, in those exceptional cases where a single span of several thousand feet must be made, requiring high tensile strength. In such cases it is usually better to give the steel span a greater resistance than an equal length of the main portion of the line, so as to avoid excessive size and weight of the span. Even when this is done the resistance of the steel span would be very small compared with that of a long transmission line.
As far as the initial cost of the wire goes, iron can be roughly comparable to copper in some metal markets. However, the only practical use for iron wire is in situations where copper would be too thin or not strong enough. Steel wire is used, despite its high resistance, in those rare cases where a single span of several thousand feet is needed and requires high tensile strength. In these situations, it's usually better to give the steel span greater resistance than the main section of the line to avoid making it excessively large and heavy. Even when this is done, the resistance of the steel span is still very small compared to that of a long transmission line.
Phosphor-bronze finds little use as conductors in transmission systems because of its relatively high electrical resistance. If great tensile strength is wanted, iron or steel will supply it at a fraction of the cost of phosphor-bronze. As a conductor simply, phosphor-bronze is worth only 0.26 as much per pound as soft copper, while its actual market price is greater than that of copper.
Phosphor-bronze is rarely used as a conductor in transmission systems due to its relatively high electrical resistance. If high tensile strength is needed, iron or steel can provide it at a much lower cost than phosphor-bronze. As a conductor, phosphor-bronze is only worth 0.26 times as much per pound as soft copper, even though its actual market price is higher than that of copper.
Silicon-bronze of relatively high resistance, requiring 2.17 times the section and weight of copper for equal conductivity, is entitled to little[205] or no consideration as a transmission line material. This alloy, in order to give equal conductivity at equal cost with copper, must sell at only 0.46 of the price of copper per pound. But the price of silicon-bronze is equal to, or greater than, the price of copper, so that the cost of the high-resistance silicon-bronze for a line of given resistance will be more than twice that of copper. For this more than double cost the bronze gives 6.38 times the tensile strength of a soft copper line of equal conductivity.
Silicon-bronze has relatively high resistance, requiring 2.17 times the cross-section and weight of copper to achieve the same conductivity, and deserves little[205] or no consideration as a material for transmission lines. To offer equal conductivity at the same cost as copper, it would need to be priced at only 0.46 of the price of copper per pound. However, the price of silicon-bronze is equal to or higher than that of copper, meaning that the cost of high-resistance silicon-bronze for a line with a given resistance will be more than twice that of copper. For this cost, which is more than double, the bronze provides 6.38 times the tensile strength of a soft copper line with the same conductivity.
Taking the market price of steel at one-fifth that of copper, which is amply high for the steel, as a rule, a steel wire of equal conductivity with the copper will cost only 1.6 times as much and will have 26.7 times the tensile strength of the copper, or four times the tensile strength of a wire of equal conductivity made from the high-resistance silicon-bronze. From this it is clear that steel offers a cheaper combination of conductivity and strength than does silicon-bronze of high resistance. That grade of silicon-bronze having the lowest resistance may cost 0.98 as much per pound as soft copper, and will have 1.79 times the strength of the copper for equal conductivity. This bronze actually costs more per pound than copper, so that it cannot give equal conductivity at equal cost.
Taking the market price of steel at one-fifth the cost of copper, which is generally a decent price for steel, a steel wire with the same conductivity as copper will only cost about 1.6 times as much and will have 26.7 times the tensile strength of copper, or four times the tensile strength of a wire of equal conductivity made from high-resistance silicon-bronze. This makes it clear that steel provides a more cost-effective mix of conductivity and strength compared to high-resistance silicon-bronze. The type of silicon-bronze with the lowest resistance might cost 0.98 times as much per pound as soft copper and will have 1.79 times the strength of copper for equal conductivity. This bronze actually costs more per pound than copper, so it cannot offer equal conductivity at the same cost.
Very hard-drawn copper has a conductivity equal to that of the best silicon-bronze, and the tensile strength of this copper is seventeen per cent greater than that of the bronze. Silicon-bronze costs more per pound than hard copper, but even with equal prices the hard copper gives equal conductivity and higher strength at the same cost. Furthermore, the conductivity of silicon-bronze is much more liable to serious variations than that of hard copper. Between hard-drawn copper and steel there is very little apparent place for any grade of bronze in electric transmission lines.
Very hard-drawn copper has a conductivity that matches the best silicon-bronze, and the tensile strength of this copper is seventeen percent greater than that of the bronze. Silicon-bronze is more expensive per pound than hard copper, but even if the prices were equal, hard copper provides the same conductivity and higher strength for the same cost. Additionally, the conductivity of silicon-bronze is much more prone to significant variations compared to hard copper. Between hard-drawn copper and steel, there's hardly any obvious role for any grade of bronze in electric transmission lines.
The hardest copper wire is very stiff, and is more liable to crack when twisted or bent than is wire of only medium hardness. Such medium-hard copper has a tensile strength of thirty-four per cent greater than soft copper of equal conductivity, and is much used on long transmission lines. Aluminum is the only metal which, for given conductivity in a transmission line, combines a smaller weight, a greater tensile strength, and a higher permissible price than soft copper for the same total cost. For equal conductivity an aluminum wire has a greater tensile strength than one of medium-hard copper, and costs less than copper of any grade when the price per pound of the aluminum is less than twice that of copper, which is usually the case.
The hardest copper wire is very stiff and tends to crack more easily when twisted or bent compared to medium-hard wire. This medium-hard copper has a tensile strength that is thirty-four percent greater than soft copper with the same conductivity, making it highly suitable for long transmission lines. Aluminum is the only metal that, for the same conductivity in a transmission line, offers a lighter weight, greater tensile strength, and a higher acceptable price than soft copper for the same total cost. For equal conductivity, aluminum wire has a higher tensile strength than medium-hard copper wire and is cheaper than copper of any grade as long as the price per pound of aluminum is less than twice that of copper, which is generally the case.
These properties make aluminum by far the most important competitor of copper in electric transmission and have led to its use in a number of cases, notably for the two longest lines in the world, namely, between Colgate and Oakland and between Electra and San Francisco, in California.
These qualities make aluminum the most significant competitor to copper in electric transmission and have resulted in its use in several instances, especially for the two longest lines in the world: between Colgate and Oakland and between Electra and San Francisco in California.
It has not been found practicable to solder joints in aluminum wires because of the resulting electrolytic action when aluminum is in contact with other metals. Joints of aluminum wires are usually made by slipping the ends past each other in an oval aluminum sleeve and then giving the sleeve and wires two or three complete twists, or by a process of cold welding with a sleeve joint.
It hasn’t been practical to solder connections in aluminum wires due to the electrolytic reactions that occur when aluminum touches other metals. Connections of aluminum wires are typically made by sliding the ends together in an oval aluminum sleeve and then twisting the sleeve and wires two or three times, or by using a cold welding process with a sleeve joint.
Long transmission lines are in nearly all cases run with bare wire supported by poles. Where very high voltages are employed no insulation that can be put on the wire will make it safe to handle, and the cost of such insulation would add materially to that of the entire line. It is, therefore, the practice to run transmission lines above all other wires and to rely entirely on the supports for insulation.
Long transmission lines are usually run with bare wire supported by poles. When very high voltages are used, no insulation that can be applied to the wire will make it safe to handle, and the cost of such insulation would significantly increase the overall cost of the line. For this reason, it is common practice to run transmission lines above all other wires and to rely entirely on the supports for insulation.
The considerations thus far noted apply alike to wires carrying continuous and alternating currents, but there are some other factors that apply solely to alternating lines. Owing to the inductive effects of alternating currents in long, parallel wires, such wires should be transposed between their supports at frequent intervals. The induction between wires increases with the frequency of the current carried, and decreases with the distance between the wires. According to these conditions, wires should be transposed as often as every eighth of a mile in some cases, and at intervals of one mile or more in others.
The considerations mentioned so far apply to both wires carrying direct and alternating currents, but there are additional factors that apply only to alternating currents. Due to the inductive effects of alternating currents in long, parallel wires, these wires should be switched between their supports at regular intervals. The induction between wires increases with the frequency of the current and decreases with the distance between the wires. Based on these factors, wires should be switched as often as every eighth of a mile in some situations, and at intervals of a mile or more in others.
An alternating current when passing along a line tends to concentrate itself in the outer layers of the wire, leaving the centre idle. This unequal current distribution increases with the frequency of the current and with the area of the cross section of the wire. The practical effect of this unequal distribution is to make the resistance of a wire a little higher for alternating than for continuous currents. In existing transmission lines the increase of resistance due to this cause seldom amounts to one per cent.
An alternating current travels through a wire by concentrating in the outer layers, leaving the center unused. This uneven distribution of current grows with the frequency of the current and the size of the wire's cross-section. The practical result of this uneven distribution is that the resistance of a wire is slightly higher for alternating currents compared to direct currents. In current transmission lines, this increase in resistance usually doesn’t exceed one percent.
When an alternating current passes through a circuit, the action termed self-induction sets up an electromotive force in the circuit that opposes the flow of current, as does the resistance of the wire, and this is called the inductance of the circuit. The ratio of this inductance to the resistance of a circuit increases with the number of periods per second of the alternating current used and with the sectional area of the wires[207] composing the circuit. For a circuit of No. 6 B. & S. gauge wire the inductance amounts to only five per cent of the line resistance, but for a circuit of No. 000 wire the inductance consumes as much of the applied voltage as does the resistance, with 60-cycle current.
When an alternating current flows through a circuit, a process called self-induction generates an electromotive force in the circuit that opposes the current flow, similar to how the resistance of the wire does. This is known as the inductance of the circuit. The ratio of this inductance to the circuit's resistance increases with the frequency of the alternating current used and the cross-sectional area of the wires[207] in the circuit. For a circuit using No. 6 B. & S. gauge wire, the inductance is only five percent of the line resistance, but for a circuit using No. 000 wire, the inductance consumes as much of the applied voltage as the resistance does with a 60-cycle current.
Both the unequal distribution of alternating current over the cross-section of a conductor and the inductance of circuits make it desirable to keep the diameters of transmission wires as small as other considerations permit. As soft copper has greater conductivity per unit of area than any of the other available metals, it clearly has an advantage over all of them as to inductance and increase of resistance with alternating current.
Both the uneven distribution of alternating current across a conductor's cross-section and the inductance of circuits mean that it's best to keep the diameters of transmission wires as small as possible, considering other factors. Since soft copper has better conductivity per unit area than any other available metals, it clearly has an edge over them regarding inductance and increased resistance with alternating current.
At very high voltages there is an important leakage of energy between the conductors of a circuit, and this loss varies inversely with the distance between these conductors. Thus it happens that inductance makes it desirable to bring the parallel wires of a circuit close together, while the leakage of energy from wire to wire makes it desirable to carry them far apart.
At very high voltages, there's a significant energy loss between the circuit conductors, and this loss decreases as the distance between the conductors increases. So, inductance makes it beneficial to keep the parallel wires of a circuit close together, while the energy leakage between the wires suggests that they should be kept farther apart.
To provide greater security from interruption, the conductors for important transmissions are in some cases carried on two independent pole lines. Even where all the conductors are on a single line of poles it is frequent practice to divide them up into a number of comparatively small wires, and this decreases inductance.
To ensure better protection against interruptions, the wires for important transmissions are sometimes run on two separate pole lines. Even when all the wires are on a single line of poles, it’s common to split them into several smaller wires, which helps reduce inductance.
Data of a number of transmission lines presented in the appended table illustrate the practice in some of the more recent and important cases as to the materials, size, number, and arrangement of the wires. The plants of which particulars are given include the greatest power capacities, the longest distances, and the highest voltages now involved in electrical transmissions. Each of the lines named is worked with alternating current of two- or three-phase. Each three-phase line must have at least three wires, and each two-phase line usually has four wires.
Data from several transmission lines shown in the attached table illustrate the practices in some of the more recent and significant cases regarding the materials, size, number, and arrangement of the wires. The plants mentioned have the highest power capacities, longest distances, and highest voltages currently used in electrical transmissions. Each of the lines listed operates on alternating current in either two-phase or three-phase systems. Each three-phase line requires at least three wires, while each two-phase line typically has four wires.
On ten of the lines the number of wires is greater than three or four, thus reducing the necessary size of each wire for a given conductivity of the line. The Butte, Oakland, and Hamilton lines are run on two sets of poles for greater security, and a second pole line has been added to the Niagara and Buffalo system to carry additional wires.
On ten of the lines, the number of wires is more than three or four, which lowers the required size of each wire for the same conductivity of the line. The Butte, Oakland, and Hamilton lines operate on two sets of poles for increased safety, and an additional pole line has been added to the Niagara and Buffalo system to support extra wires.
The largest wire used in any of these lines is the aluminum cable of 500,000 circular mils between Niagara Falls and Buffalo. This cable has 1.66 times the area in cross section of a copper cable of equal conductivity.
The largest wire used in any of these lines is the aluminum cable of 500,000 circular mils between Niagara Falls and Buffalo. This cable has 1.66 times the cross-sectional area of a copper cable with the same conductivity.
Sizes and Materials of Wires on Some American Transmission Lines.
Sizes and Materials of Wires on Certain American Transmission Lines.
Location of Transmission. | Line Voltage. |
Num- ber Wires. |
Size of Each Wire B. & S. Gauge. |
Metal in Wire. |
Length of Trans- mission. Miles. |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cañon Ferry to Butte | 50,000 | 6 | 0 | Copper | 65 | |
Colgate to Oakland | 40,000 | 3 | 00 | Copper | 142 | |
3 | 000 | Aluminum | 142 | |||
Electra to San Francisco | 40,000 | 3 | 471,034 C. M. | „ | 147 | |
Santa Ana R. to Los Angeles | 33,000 | 6 | 1 | Copper | 83 | |
Apple River to St. Paul | 25,000 | 6 | 2 | „ | 25 | |
Welland Canal to Hamilton | 22,500 | 3 | 1 | „ | 35 | |
3 | 00 | „ | 37 | |||
Cañon City to Cripple Creek | 20,000 | 3 | 3 | „ | 23 | 1⁄2 |
Madrid to Bland | 20,000 | 6 | 4 | „ | 32 | |
White River to Dales | 22,000 | 3 | 6 | „ | 27 | |
Ogden to Salt Lake City | 16,000 | 6 | 1 | „ | 36 | 1⁄2 |
San Gabriel Cañon to Los Angeles | 16,000 | 6 | 5 | „ | 23 | |
To Victor, Col | 12,600 | 3 | 4 | „ | 8 | |
Niagara Falls to Buffalo | 22,000 | 6 | 350,000 C. M. | „ | 23 | |
Nia„ara Fa„s to Bu„ | 22,000 | 3 | 500,000 C. M. | Aluminum | 20 | |
Yadkin River to Salem | 12,000 | 3 | 1 | Copper | 14 | .5 |
Farmington Riv’r to Hartford | 10,000 | 3 | 336,420 C. M. | Aluminum | 11 | |
Wilbraham to Ludlow Mills | 11,500 | 6 | 135,247 C. M. | „ | 4 | .5 |
Niagara Falls to Toronto | 60,000 | 6 | 190,000 C. M. | Copper | 75 |
Aluminum lines are now employed for the three longest electrical transmissions in North America. In the longest single line, that from Electra power-house to San Francisco, a distance of 147 miles, aluminum is the conductor used. The 142-mile transmission between Colgate and Oakland is carried out with three aluminum and three copper line wires. For the third transmission in point of length, that from Shawinigan Falls to Montreal, a distance of 85 miles, three aluminum conductors are employed.
Aluminum lines are now used for the three longest electrical transmissions in North America. In the longest single line, which runs from the Electra power station to San Francisco, a distance of 147 miles, aluminum is the conductor used. The 142-mile transmission between Colgate and Oakland uses three aluminum and three copper line wires. For the third longest transmission, from Shawinigan Falls to Montreal, spanning 85 miles, three aluminum conductors are employed.
The three transmissions just named have unusually large capacities as well as superlative lengths, the generators in the Electra plant being rated at 10,000, in the Colgate plant at 11,250, and in the Shawinigan plant at 7,500 kilowatts. Weight and cost of such lines are very large. For the three No. 0000 aluminum conductors, 142 miles each in length, between Colgate and Oakland, the total weight must be about 440,067 pounds, costing $132,020 at 30 cents per pound. Between Electra and Mission San José, where the line branches, is 100 miles of the 147-mile transmission from Electra to San Francisco. On the Electra and Mission[209] San José section the aluminum conductors comprise three stranded cables of 471,034 circular mils each in sectional area and with a total weight of about 721,200 pounds. This section alone of the line in question would have cost $216,360 at 30 cents per pound. The 85-mile aluminum line from Shawinigan Falls to Montreal is made up of three-stranded conductors each with a sectional area of 183,708 circular mils. All three conductors have a combined weight of about 225,300 pounds, and at 30 cents per pound would have cost $67,590.
The three mentioned transmissions have exceptionally large capacities and lengths, with the generators at the Electra plant rated at 10,000 kilowatts, at the Colgate plant rated at 11,250 kilowatts, and at the Shawinigan plant rated at 7,500 kilowatts. The weight and cost of these lines are substantial. For the three No. 0000 aluminum conductors, each 142 miles long, running between Colgate and Oakland, the total weight is approximately 440,067 pounds, costing $132,020 at 30 cents per pound. Between Electra and Mission San José, where the line splits, there is 100 miles of the 147-mile transmission from Electra to San Francisco. In the Electra to Mission San José section, the aluminum conductors consist of three stranded cables, each with a sectional area of 471,034 circular mils and a total weight of about 721,200 pounds. This section alone would have cost $216,360 at 30 cents per pound. The 85-mile aluminum line from Shawinigan Falls to Montreal is made up of three-stranded conductors, each with a sectional area of 183,708 circular mils. All three conductors have a combined weight of about 225,300 pounds, and at 30 cents per pound, they would have cost $67,590.
Aluminum lines are not confined to new transmissions, but are also found in additions to those where copper conductors were at first used. Thus, the third transmission circuit between the power-house at Niagara Falls and the terminal house in Buffalo, a distance of 20 miles by the new pole line, was formed of three aluminum cables each with an area of 500,000 circular mils, though the six conductors of the two previous circuits were each 350,000 circular mils copper.
Aluminum lines aren't just used in new transmissions; they can also be found in upgrades to systems that originally used copper conductors. For example, the third transmission circuit between the powerhouse at Niagara Falls and the terminal house in Buffalo, which is 20 miles away along the new pole line, consists of three aluminum cables, each with an area of 500,000 circular mils. In contrast, the six conductors of the two earlier circuits were each made of 350,000 circular mils of copper.
From these examples it may be seen that copper has lost its former place as the only conductor to be seriously considered for transmission circuits. Aluminum has not only disputed this claim for copper, but has actually gained the most conspicuous place in long transmission lines. This victory of aluminum has been won in hard competition. The decisive factor has been that of cost for a circuit of given length and resistance.
From these examples, it’s clear that copper has lost its previous status as the only conductor worth considering for transmission circuits. Aluminum has not only challenged copper's dominance but has also secured a prominent role in long transmission lines. This success for aluminum has been achieved through intense competition. The key factor has been the cost for a circuit of a specific length and resistance.
From the standpoint of cross-sectional area aluminum is inferior to copper as an electrical conductor. Comparing wires of equal sizes and lengths, the aluminum have only sixty per cent of the conductivity of the copper, so that an aluminum wire must have 1.66 times the sectional area of a copper wire of the same length in order to offer an equal electrical resistance. As round wires vary in sectional areas with the squares of their diameters, an aluminum wire must have a diameter 1.28 times that of a copper wire of equal length in order to offer the same conductivity.
From a cross-sectional area perspective, aluminum is not as good as copper when it comes to conducting electricity. When comparing wires of the same size and length, aluminum has only sixty percent of the conductivity of copper, meaning an aluminum wire needs to be 1.66 times larger in cross-sectional area than a copper wire of the same length to provide equal electrical resistance. Since round wires’ cross-sectional areas relate to the squares of their diameters, an aluminum wire must have a diameter 1.28 times greater than that of a copper wire of equal length to offer the same conductivity.
The inferiority of aluminum as an electrical conductor in terms of sectional area is more than offset by its superiority over copper in terms of weight. One pound of aluminum drawn into a wire of any length will have a sectional area 3.33 times as great as one pound of copper in a wire of equal length. This follows from the fact that the weight of copper is 555 pounds while that of aluminum is only 167 pounds per cubic foot, so that for equal weights the bulk of the latter is 3.33 times that of the former metal. As the aluminum wire has equal length with and 3.33 times the sectional area of the copper wire of the same weight,[210] the electrical conductivity of the former is 3.33 ÷ 1.66 = 2 times that of the latter. Hence, for equal resistances, the weight of an aluminum is only one-half as great as that of a copper wire of the same length. From this fact it is evident that when the price per pound of aluminum is anything less than twice the price of copper, the former is the cheaper metal for a transmission line of any required length and electrical resistance.
The downside of aluminum as an electrical conductor regarding cross-sectional area is more than compensated for by its advantages over copper in terms of weight. One pound of aluminum made into a wire of any length will have a cross-sectional area 3.33 times larger than one pound of copper in a wire of the same length. This is due to the fact that copper weighs 555 pounds while aluminum only weighs 167 pounds per cubic foot, meaning that for the same weight, aluminum occupies 3.33 times more volume than copper. Since the aluminum wire is the same length as the copper wire but has 3.33 times the cross-sectional area for the same weight,[210] the electrical conductivity of aluminum is 3.33 ÷ 1.66 = 2 times that of copper. Therefore, for equal resistances, an aluminum wire weighs only half as much as a copper wire of the same length. From this, it’s clear that when aluminum's price per pound is less than double that of copper's, aluminum is the more cost-effective option for any transmission line requiring a specific length and electrical resistance.
The tensile strength of both soft copper and of aluminum wire is about 33,000 pounds per square inch of section. For wires of equal length and resistance the aluminum is therefore sixty-six per cent stronger because its area is sixty-six per cent greater than that of a soft copper wire. Medium hard-drawn copper wire such as is most commonly used for transmission lines has a tensile strength of about 45,000 pounds per square inch, but even compared with this grade of copper the aluminum wire of equal length and resistance has the advantage in tensile strength. While the aluminum line is thus stronger than an equivalent one of copper, the weight of the former is only one-half that of the latter, so that the distance between poles may be increased, or the sizes of poles, cross-arms, and pins decreased with aluminum wires. In one respect the strain on poles that carry aluminum may be greater than that on poles with equivalent copper lines, namely, in that of wind pressure. A wind that blows in a direction other than parallel with a transmission line tends to break the poles at the ground and prostrate the line in a direction at right angles to its course. The total wind pressure in any case is obviously proportional to the extent of the surface on which it acts, and this surface is measured by one-half of the external area of all the poles and wires in a given length of line. As the aluminum wire must have a diameter twenty-eight per cent greater than that of copper wire of equal length, one-half of the total wire surface will also be twenty-eight per cent greater for the former metal. This carries with it an increase of twenty-eight per cent in that portion of the wind pressure due to wire surface. In good practice the number of transmission wires per pole line is often only three, and seldom more than six, so that the surface areas of these wires may be no greater than that of the poles. It follows that the increase of twenty-eight per cent in the surface of wires may correspond to a much smaller percentage of increase for the entire area exposed to wind pressure. Such small difference as exists between the total wind pressures on aluminum and copper lines of equal conductivity is of slight importance in view of the general practice by which some straight as well as the curved portions of transmission lines are[211] now secured by guys or struts at right angles to the direction of the wires.
The tensile strength of both soft copper and aluminum wire is about 33,000 pounds per square inch. For wires of the same length and resistance, aluminum is therefore sixty-six percent stronger because its area is sixty-six percent larger than that of a soft copper wire. Medium hard-drawn copper wire, which is most commonly used for transmission lines, has a tensile strength of about 45,000 pounds per square inch, but even compared to this type of copper, the aluminum wire of equal length and resistance is still stronger. While the aluminum line is stronger than an equivalent copper line, it weighs only half as much, allowing for greater distances between poles or smaller sizes of poles, cross-arms, and pins when using aluminum wires. However, in one aspect, the strain on poles carrying aluminum may be greater than that on poles with equivalent copper lines, specifically regarding wind pressure. Wind blowing in a direction other than parallel to a transmission line tends to break poles at the ground and knock the line over at right angles to its path. The total wind pressure is proportional to the surface area it acts on, which is measured by half of the external area of all the poles and wires along a given length of line. Since the aluminum wire must have a diameter twenty-eight percent larger than that of copper wire of equal length, half of the total wire surface will also be twenty-eight percent larger for aluminum. This leads to a twenty-eight percent increase in the portion of wind pressure exerted on the wire surface. In good practice, the number of transmission wires per pole line is often only three and rarely more than six, so the surface areas of these wires may not exceed that of the poles. Consequently, the twenty-eight percent increase in the surface area of the wires may result in a much smaller percentage increase for the entire area exposed to wind pressure. Any small difference in total wind pressures on aluminum and copper lines of equal conductivity is minor, given the common practice of securing both straight and curved sections of transmission lines with guys or struts at right angles to the direction of the wires.[211]
Vibration of transmission lines and the consequent tendency of cross-arms, pins, insulators, and of the wires to work loose is less with aluminum than with copper conductors as ordinarily strung, because of the greater sag between poles given the former and also probably because of their smaller weight. An illustration of this sort may be seen on the old and new transmission lines between Niagara Falls and Buffalo. The two old copper circuits consist of six cables of 350,000 circular mils section each on one line of poles, and are strung with only a moderate sag. In a strong wind these copper conductors swing and vibrate in such a way that their poles, pins, and cross-arms are thrown into a vibration that tend to work all attachments loose. The new circuit consists of three 500,000 circular mil aluminum conductors on a separate pole line strung with a large sag between poles, and these conductors take positions in planes at large angles with the vertical in a strong wind, but cause little or no vibration of their supports. One reason for the greater sag of the aluminum over that of the copper conductors in this case is the fact that the poles carrying the former are 140 feet apart while the distance between the poles for the latter is only seventy feet, on straight sections of the line.
The vibration of transmission lines and the resulting tendency of cross-arms, pins, insulators, and wires to come loose is less with aluminum than with copper conductors as typically installed. This is due to the greater sag between poles for aluminum and probably also because of its lighter weight. You can see an example of this on the old and new transmission lines between Niagara Falls and Buffalo. The two old copper circuits have six cables with a cross-sectional area of 350,000 circular mils each on one line of poles, strung with only a moderate sag. In strong winds, these copper conductors swing and vibrate in a way that causes their poles, pins, and cross-arms to vibrate, which loosens all attachments. The new circuit consists of three aluminum conductors with a cross-sectional area of 500,000 circular mils each on a separate pole line, strung with a larger sag between the poles. In strong winds, these conductors align at steep angles with the vertical, but they cause little to no vibration of their supports. One reason the aluminum conductors have greater sag than the copper conductors in this case is that the poles for the aluminum are 140 feet apart, while the poles for the copper are only seventy feet apart on straight sections of the line.
The necessity for greater sag in aluminum than in copper conductors, even where the span lengths are equal, arises from the greater coefficient of expansion possessed by the former metal. Between 32° and 212° Fahrenheit aluminum expands about 0.0022, and copper 0.0016 of its length, so that the change in length is 40 per cent greater in the former than in the latter metal. The conductors in any case must have enough sag between poles to provide for contraction in the coldest weather, and it follows that the necessary sag of aluminum wires will be greater than that of copper at ordinary temperature.
The need for more sag in aluminum conductors compared to copper, even when the span lengths are the same, comes from aluminum having a higher coefficient of expansion. Between 32° and 212° Fahrenheit, aluminum expands about 0.0022 of its length, while copper expands about 0.0016. This means the change in length for aluminum is 40 percent greater than for copper. In any situation, the conductors must have enough sag between poles to account for contraction during the coldest weather, which means that the required sag for aluminum wires will be greater than that for copper at normal temperatures.
In pure air aluminum is even more free from oxidation than copper, but where exposed to the fumes of chemical works, to chlorine compounds, or to fatty acids the metal is rapidly attacked. For this reason aluminum conductors should have a water-proof covering where exposed to any of these chemicals. The aluminum line between Niagara Falls and Buffalo is bare for most of its length, but in the vicinity of the large chemical works at the former place the wires are covered with a braid treated with asphaltum. Aluminum alloyed with sodium, its most common impurity, is quickly corroded in moist air, and should be carefully avoided. All of the properties of aluminum here mentioned relate to the[212] pure metal unless otherwise stated, and its alloys should not, as a rule, be considered for transmission lines. As aluminum is electropositive to most other metals the soldering of its joints is quite sure to result in electrolytic corrosion, unless the joints are thoroughly protected from moisture, a result that is hard to attain with bare wires. The regular practice is to avoid the use of solder and rely on mechanical joints. A good joint may be made by slipping the roughened ends of wires to be connected through an aluminum tube of oval section, so that one wire sticks out at each end, then twisting the tube and wires and giving each of the latter a turn about the other. Aluminum may be welded electrically and also by hammering at a certain temperature, but these processes are not convenient for line construction. Especial care is necessary to avoid scarring or cutting into aluminum wires, as may be done when they are tied to their insulators. Aluminum tie wires should be used exclusively. To avoid the greater danger of damage to solid wires and also to obtain greater strength and flexibility, aluminum conductors are most frequently used in the form of cables. The sizes of wires that go to make up these cables commonly range from No. 6 to 9 B. & S. gauge for widely different cable sections. Thus the 183,708 circular mil aluminum cable between Shawinigan Falls and Montreal is made up of seven No. 6 wires, and the 471,034 circular mil cable between Electra and Mission San José contains thirty-seven No. 9 wires. From the Farmington River to Hartford each 336,420 circular mils cable has exceptionally large strands of approximately No. 3 wire. It appears from the description of a 43-mile line in California (vol. xvii., A. I. E. E., p. 345) that a solid aluminum wire of 294 mils diameter, or No. 1 B. & S. gauge, can be used without trouble from breaks. This wire was tested and its properties reported as follows:
In clean air, aluminum is even less prone to oxidation than copper, but when exposed to chemical plant fumes, chlorine compounds, or fatty acids, the metal is quickly compromised. Because of this, aluminum conductors should be covered with a waterproof coating when in contact with any of these substances. The aluminum line between Niagara Falls and Buffalo is mostly bare, but near the large chemical plants at the former location, the wires are protected with a braid treated with asphalt. Aluminum that is mixed with sodium, its most common impurity, corrodes quickly in damp air and should be avoided. All the properties of aluminum mentioned here refer to the[212] pure metal unless stated otherwise, and its alloys shouldn’t typically be used for transmission lines. Since aluminum is more electropositive than most other metals, soldering its joints often leads to electrolytic corrosion unless the joints are fully protected from moisture, which is challenging with bare wires. The standard practice is to refrain from using solder and instead rely on mechanical joints. A solid joint can be achieved by inserting the roughened ends of the wires to be connected through an oval aluminum tube, allowing one wire to extend from each end, then twisting the tube and wires together while wrapping each wire around the other. Aluminum can be welded electrically or by hammering at a specific temperature, but these methods are not practical for line construction. Care must be taken to prevent scarring or cutting into aluminum wires, which can happen when they’re tied to their insulators. Aluminum tie wires should be used exclusively. To minimize the risk of damaging solid wires and to gain more strength and flexibility, aluminum conductors are typically made in the form of cables. The sizes of wires that make up these cables usually range from No. 6 to 9 B. & S. gauge for various cable sections. For example, the 183,708 circular mil aluminum cable between Shawinigan Falls and Montreal consists of seven No. 6 wires, while the 471,034 circular mil cable between Electra and Mission San José contains thirty-seven No. 9 wires. From the Farmington River to Hartford, each 336,420 circular mil cable has exceptionally large strands of roughly No. 3 wire. It seems that a solid aluminum wire with a diameter of 294 mils, or No. 1 B. & S. gauge, can be used without issues from breaks, as described in a 43-mile line in California (vol. xvii., A. I. E. E., p. 345). This wire was tested and its properties were reported as follows:
- Diameter, 293.9 mils.
- Pounds per mile, 419.4.
- Resistance per mil foot, 17.6 ohms at 25° C.
- Resistance per mile at 25° C., 1.00773 ohms.
- Conductivity as to copper of same size, 59.9 per cent.
- Number of twists in six inches for fracture, 17.9.
- Tensile strength per square inch, 32,898 pounds.
This wire also stood the test of wrapping six times about its own diameter and then unwrapping and wrapping again. It was found in tests for tensile strength that the wire in question took a permanent set at very small loads, but that at points between 14,000 and 17,000 pounds per square inch the permanent set began to increase very rapidly. From this it appears that aluminum wires and cables should be given enough[213] sag between poles so that in the coldest weather the strains on them shall not exceed about 15,000 pounds per square inch. This rather low safe working load is a disadvantage that aluminum shares with copper. From the figures just given it is evident that the strains on aluminum conductors during their erection should not exceed one-half of the ultimate strength in any case, lest their sectional areas be reduced.
This wire also passed the test of being wrapped six times around its own diameter and then being unwrapped and wrapped again. Tests for tensile strength revealed that the wire took a permanent set with very light loads, but between 14,000 and 17,000 pounds per square inch, the permanent set started to increase very quickly. This suggests that aluminum wires and cables should have enough [213] sag between poles so that, even in the coldest weather, the strains on them do not exceed about 15,000 pounds per square inch. This relatively low safe working load is a drawback that aluminum has in common with copper. From the figures provided, it's clear that the strains on aluminum conductors during installation should not exceed half of the ultimate strength to avoid reducing their sectional areas.
Aluminum Cables in Transmission Systems.
Aluminum Cables in Power Systems.
Locations. | Number of Cables. |
Miles of Each. |
Circular Mils of Each. |
Strands per Cable. |
Size of Strands. B. & S. G. Approx- imate. |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Niagara Falls to Buffalo | 3 | 20 | 500,000 | .. | .. | |
Shawinigan Falls to Montreal | 3 | 85 | 183,708 | 7 | 6 | |
Electra to Mission San José | 3 | 100 | 471,034 | 37 | 9 | |
Colgate to Oakland | 3 | 144 | 211,000 | 7 | 5-6 | |
Farmington River to Hartford | 3 | 11 | 336,420 | 7 | 3 | |
Lewiston, Me. | 3 | 3 | .5 | 144,688 | 7 | 8 |
Ludlow, Mass. | 6 | 4 | .5 | 135,247 | 7 | 7 |
This table of transmission systems using aluminum conductors is far from exhaustive. Aluminum is also being used to distribute energy to the sub-stations of long electric railways, as on the Aurora and Chicago which connects cities about forty miles apart. The lower cost of aluminum conductors is also leading to their adoption instead of copper in city distribution of light and power. Thus at Manchester, N. H., the local electric lines include about four miles each of 500,000 and 750,000 circular mil aluminum cable with weather-proof insulation. The larger of these cables contains thirty-seven strands of about No. 7 wire.
This table of transmission systems using aluminum conductors is not complete. Aluminum is also being used to distribute energy to the substations of long electric railways, like the one between Aurora and Chicago, which connects cities about forty miles apart. The lower cost of aluminum conductors is also encouraging their use instead of copper for city light and power distribution. For example, in Manchester, N.H., the local electric lines include about four miles each of 500,000 and 750,000 circular mil aluminum cable with weatherproof insulation. The larger of these cables has thirty-seven strands of about No. 7 wire.
As may be seen from the foregoing facts, the choice of copper or aluminum for a transmission line should turn mainly on the cost of conductors of the required length and resistance in each metal. So nearly balanced are the mechanical and electrical properties of the two metals that not more than a very small premium should be paid for the privilege of using copper. As already pointed out, the costs of aluminum and copper conductors of given length and resistance are equal when the price per pound of aluminum wire is twice that of copper. During most of the time for several years the price of aluminum has been well below double the copper figures, and the advantage has been with aluminum conductors. With the two metals at the same price per pound aluminum would[214] cost only one-half as much as equivalent copper conductors. When the price of aluminum is fifty per cent greater per pound than that of copper, the use of the former metal effects a saving of twenty-five per cent. For the new Niagara and Buffalo line, completed early in 1901, aluminum was selected because it effected a saving of about twelve per cent over the cost of copper. All of the aluminum lines here mentioned, except the short one near Hartford, were completed during or since 1900. Most of the facts here stated as to the line between Niagara Falls and Buffalo are drawn from vol. xviii., A. I. E. E., at pages 520 and 521.
As we can see from the facts mentioned above, the decision to use copper or aluminum for a transmission line should mainly depend on the cost of the conductors of the required length and resistance for each metal. The mechanical and electrical properties of both metals are so closely matched that only a very small premium should be paid for the use of copper. As previously noted, the costs of aluminum and copper conductors of equal length and resistance are the same when the price per pound of aluminum wire is twice that of copper. For several years, the price of aluminum has often been well below double that of copper, giving aluminum conductors the advantage. If both metals were priced the same per pound, aluminum would cost only half as much as equivalent copper conductors. When the price of aluminum is 50% higher per pound than that of copper, using aluminum saves 25%. For the new Niagara and Buffalo line, completed in early 1901, aluminum was chosen because it saved about 12% compared to copper. All of the aluminum lines mentioned here, except for the short one near Hartford, were completed during or after 1900. Most of the information provided about the line between Niagara Falls and Buffalo comes from vol. xviii., A. I. E. E., on pages 520 and 521.
The greater diameter of aluminum over equivalent copper conductors has advantages in transmission with alternating current at very high voltages. At high voltages, say of 40,000 or more, the constant silent loss of energy from one conductor to another of the same circuit through the air tends to become large and even prohibitive in amount. This loss is greater, other factors being constant, the smaller the diameter of the conductors in the line. It follows that this loss is more serious the smaller the power to be transmitted, because the smaller the diameter of the line wires. The silent passage of energy from wire to wire increases directly with the length of line and thus operates as a limit to long transmissions.
The larger diameter of aluminum compared to equivalent copper conductors has benefits when transmitting alternating current at very high voltages. At high voltages, like 40,000 or more, the constant silent energy loss from one conductor to another within the same circuit through the air can become significant and even excessive. This loss increases, assuming other factors remain constant, as the diameter of the conductors in the line decreases. This means the loss is more pronounced the lower the power being transmitted, due to the smaller diameter of the line wires. The silent transfer of energy from wire to wire increases directly with the length of the line, which limits long-distance transmissions.
CHAPTER XVI.
VOLTAGE AND LOSSES ON TRANSMISSION LINES.
The voltage on a transmission line may be anything up to at least 60,000, and the weight of conductors varies inversely with the square of the figures selected, the power, length and loss being constant. Whatever the total line pressure, the weight of conductors varies inversely with the percentage of loss therein.
The voltage on a transmission line can reach up to at least 60,000, and the weight of the conductors decreases as the voltage increases, assuming the power, length, and loss stay the same. No matter the total line pressure, the weight of the conductors decreases as the percentage of loss increases.
The case of maximum loss and minimum weight of conductors is that in which all of the transmitted energy is expended in heating the line wires. Such a case would never occur in practice, because the object of power transmission is to perform some useful work.
The situation with the highest loss and lowest weight of conductors is when all the energy transmitted is used for heating the line wires. This situation would never happen in reality because the goal of power transmission is to do some useful work.
Minimum loss is theoretically zero, and the corresponding weight of conductors is infinite, but these conditions obviously cannot be attained in practice. Between these extremes of minimum and of infinite weights of conductors comes every practical transmission with a line loss greater than zero and less than 100 per cent.
Minimum loss is theoretically zero, and the corresponding weight of conductors is infinite, but these conditions clearly can't be achieved in real life. Unlike these extremes of minimum and infinite conductor weights, every practical transmission experiences a line loss that is greater than zero but less than 100 percent.
To determine the weight and allowable cost of conductors, the cost of the energy that will be annually lost in them enters as one of the factors. At this point the distinction between the percentage of power lost at maximum load and the percentage of total energy lost should come into view.
To figure out the weight and allowable cost of conductors, the cost of the energy that will be lost in them each year is one of the considerations. At this stage, it's important to understand the difference between the percentage of power lost at maximum load and the percentage of total energy lost.
Line loss ordinarily refers to the percentage of total power consumed in the conductors at maximum load. This percentage would correspond with that of total energy lost if the line current and voltage were constant during all periods of operation, but this is far from the case.
Line loss usually refers to the percentage of total power used in the conductors at maximum load. This percentage would match the total energy lost if the line current and voltage stayed constant throughout all periods of operation, but that's definitely not the case.
A system of transmission may operate with either constant volts or constant amperes on the line conductors, but in a practical case constancy of both these factors is seldom or never to be had. This is because the product of the line volts and amperes represents accurately in a continuous-current system, and approximately in an alternating-current system, the amount of power transmitted. In an actual transmission system, the load—that is, the demand for power—is subject to more or less variation at different times of the day, and the line volts or amperes, or both, must vary with it.
A transmission system can work with either constant voltage or constant current in the conductors, but in reality, it’s rare to maintain stability in both of these factors. This happens because the product of the line voltage and current accurately represents the amount of power being transmitted in a direct current system, and roughly so in an alternating current system. In an actual transmission system, the load—meaning the power demand—varies at different times throughout the day, which means the line voltage or current, or both, must adjust accordingly.
If the transmission system is devoted to the operation of one or more factories the required power may not vary more than twenty-five per cent during the hours of daily use; but if a system of general electrical supply is to be operated, the maximum load will usually be somewhere between twice and four times as great as the average load for each twenty-four hours. Such fluctuating loads imply corresponding changes in the volts or amperes of the transmission line.
If the power system is used for one or more factories, the needed power typically won't change by more than twenty-five percent during daily operations. However, if it's a general electrical supply system, the maximum load is usually between two and four times the average load over a twenty-four hour period. These fluctuating loads mean that there will be corresponding changes in the volts or amperes on the transmission line.
A number of rather long transmissions is carried out in Europe with continuous, constant current, and in such systems the line voltage varies directly with the load. As the loss of power in an electrical conductor depends entirely on its ohms of resistance, which are constant at any given temperature, and on the amperes of current passing through it, the line loss in a constant-current system does not change during the period of operation, no matter how great may be its changes of load. For this reason the percentage of power loss in the line at maximum load is usually smaller than the percentage of energy loss for an entire day.
A number of fairly long transmissions are done in Europe using continuous, constant current, and in these systems, the line voltage changes directly with the load. Since the power loss in an electrical conductor depends entirely on its ohms of resistance, which stay the same at any given temperature, and on the amperes of current flowing through it, the line loss in a constant-current system doesn’t change during operation, regardless of how much the load fluctuates. Because of this, the percentage of power loss in the line at maximum load is usually lower than the percentage of energy loss over an entire day.
If, for example, the constant-current transmission line is designed to convert into heat 5 per cent of the maximum amount of energy that will be delivered to it per second—that is, to lose 5 per cent of its power at maximum load—then, when the power which the line receives drops to one-half of its maximum, the percentage of loss will rise to 10, because 0.05 ÷ 0.5 = 0.1. So again, when the power sent through the line falls to one-quarter of the full amount, the line loss will rise to 0.05 ÷ 0.25 = 0.2, or 20 per cent.
If, for instance, the constant-current transmission line is set up to convert 5 percent of the maximum energy it receives per second into heat—that is, to lose 5 percent of its power at maximum load—then when the power the line receives drops to half of its maximum, the percentage of loss will increase to 10 percent, because 0.05 ÷ 0.5 = 0.1. Similarly, when the power transmitted through the line decreases to a quarter of the total amount, the line loss will increase to 0.05 ÷ 0.25 = 0.2, or 20 percent.
From these facts it is clear that a fair all-day efficiency for a constant-current transmission line can be obtained only in conjunction with a high efficiency at maximum load, if widely varying loads are to be operated. It does not necessarily follow from these facts as to losses in constant-current lines that such losses should always be small at maximum loads, for if a large loss may be permitted at full load a still greater percentage of loss at partial loads may not imply bad engineering.
From these facts, it's evident that a fair all-day efficiency for a constant-current transmission line can only be achieved alongside high efficiency at maximum load when dealing with widely varying loads. However, it doesn't automatically mean that losses in constant-current lines should always be low at maximum loads. If a large loss is acceptable at full load, a greater percentage of loss at partial loads might not indicate poor engineering.
In a large percentage of electric water-power plants some water goes over the dam during those hours of the day when loads are light, the storage capacity above the dam not being sufficient to hold all of the surplus water during most seasons of the year. If, therefore, the line loss in a constant-current transmission, where all of the daily flow of water cannot be used, is not great enough to reduce the maximum load that would otherwise be carried, then the fact that the percentage of line loss at small loads is still larger is not very important.
In many electric water-power plants, some water flows over the dam during the times when demand is low, as the storage capacity above the dam is usually not enough to hold all the extra water during most seasons. So, if the energy loss in a constant-current transmission—where all the daily water flow can’t be fully used—is not significant enough to lower the peak load that could be handled, then the fact that the percentage of energy loss at smaller loads is still higher isn't a big deal.
Obviously, it makes little difference whether water goes over a dam or through wheels to make up for a loss in the line. In a case where all the water can be stored during small loads and used during heavy loads, it is clearly desirable to keep the loss in a constant-current line down to a rather low figure, say not more than five per cent, at maximum load.
Obviously, it doesn't really matter if water flows over a dam or through wheels to compensate for a loss in the line. In situations where all the water can be stored during light loads and used during heavy loads, it's obviously better to keep the loss in a constant-current line to a relatively low number, ideally no more than five percent at maximum load.
Much the greater number of electrical transmissions are carried out with nearly constant line voltage, mostly alternating, and the line current in such cases varies directly with the power transmitted, except as to certain results of inductance on alternating lines. As line resistance is constant, save for slight variations due to temperature, the rate of energy loss on a constant-pressure line varies with the square of the number of amperes flowing, and the percentage of loss with any load varies directly as the number of amperes.
Most electrical transmissions are done with nearly constant line voltage, mostly alternating, and in these cases, the line current changes directly with the power being transmitted, except for certain effects of inductance on alternating lines. Since line resistance is mostly constant, with only slight changes due to temperature, the rate of energy loss on a constant-pressure line changes with the square of the amperage flowing, and the percentage of loss for any load directly relates to the number of amperes.
These relations between line losses and the amperes carried follow from the law that the power, or rate of work, is represented by the product of the number of volts by the number of amperes, and the law that the power actually lost in the line is represented by the product of the number of ohms of line resistance and the square of the number of amperes flowing in it. In each of these cases the power delivered to the line is, of course, measured in watts, each of which is 1⁄746 of a horse-power.
These relationships between line losses and the current in amperes come from the principle that power, or the rate of doing work, is the result of multiplying the number of volts by the number of amperes. Additionally, the power actually lost in the line is calculated by multiplying the resistance in ohms by the square of the current in amperes. In both cases, the power supplied to the line is measured in watts, with each watt being 1⁄746 of a horsepower.
Applying these laws, it appears that if the loss of a certain constant-pressure transmission line is 10 per cent of the power delivered to it at full load, then, when the power, and consequently the amperes, on the line is reduced one-half, the watts lost in the line as heat will be (1⁄2)2 = 1⁄4 of the watts lost at full load, because the number of amperes flowing has been divided by 2.
Applying these laws, it seems that if the loss of a certain constant-pressure transmission line is 10 percent of the power delivered to it at full load, then, when the power and consequently the amperes on the line are reduced by half, the watts lost in the line as heat will be (1⁄2)2 = 1⁄4 of the watts lost at full load, since the number of amperes flowing has been halved.
But the amount of power delivered to the line at full load having been reduced by 50 per cent, while the power lost on the line dropped to one-fourth of 10 per cent, or to 2.5 per cent of the full line load, it follows that the power lost on the line at half-load is represented by 0.025 ÷ 0.5 = 0.05, or 5 per cent of the power then delivered to it.
But the amount of power supplied to the line at full load decreased by 50 percent, while the power lost on the line fell to one-fourth of 10 percent, which is 2.5 percent of the total line load. This means that the power lost on the line at half-load is 0.025 ÷ 0.5 = 0.05, or 5 percent of the power delivered to it at that time.
This rise in the efficiency of a constant-pressure transmission line as the power delivered to it decreases, together with the fact that maximum loads on such lines continue during hardly more than one to two hours daily, tends to raise the allowable percentage of line loss at maximum loads.
This increase in the efficiency of a constant-pressure transmission line as the power it delivers decreases, along with the fact that maximum loads on these lines last for only about one to two hours each day, tends to raise the acceptable percentage of line loss during peak loads.
This is so because a loss of fifteen per cent at maximum load may easily drop to an average loss of somewhere between five and ten per cent for the entire amount of energy delivered to a line during each day under[218] ordinary conditions in electrical supply. In the practical design of transmission lines, therefore, the sizes of conductors are influenced by the relation of the largest load to be operated to the greatest amount of power available for its operation, and by questions of regulation, as well as by considerations of all-day efficiency.
This is because a loss of fifteen percent at maximum load can easily reduce to an average loss of between five and ten percent for the total amount of energy delivered to a line each day under[218] normal conditions in electrical supply. In the practical design of transmission lines, therefore, the sizes of conductors are affected by the ratio of the largest load to be operated to the maximum amount of power available for its operation, along with issues of regulation and overall efficiency throughout the day.
If the maximum load that must be carried by a transmission system during a single hour per day requires nearly as much power as can be delivered to the line conductors, either because of lack of water storage or of water itself, even if it is stored, it may be desirable to design these conductors for a small loss at maximum load, rather than to install a steam plant.
If the highest load that a transmission system needs to handle for one hour each day demands almost as much power as can be supplied to the line conductors, either due to insufficient water storage or a lack of water altogether, even if water is stored, it might be better to design these conductors for a slight loss at maximum load instead of setting up a steam plant.
So again, as the fluctuation in voltage at the delivery end of a transmission line between no load and full load will amount to the entire drop of volts in the line at full load, if the pressure at the generating end is constant, the requirements of pressure regulation on distribution circuits limit the drop of pressure in the transmission conductors. For good lighting service with incandescent lamps at about 110 volts, the usual pressure, it is necessary that variations be held within one volt either way of the pressure of the lamps—that is, between 109 and 111 volts.
So again, when the voltage at the delivery end of a transmission line fluctuates between no load and full load, it will equal the total voltage drop in the line when it's at full load, assuming the pressure at the generating end remains constant. The need for pressure regulation on distribution circuits restricts the pressure drop in the transmission lines. For effective lighting service with incandescent lamps at around 110 volts, which is the standard pressure, it's essential to keep variations within one volt up or down—that is, between 109 and 111 volts.
Every long-transmission system for general electrical supply necessarily includes one or more sub-stations where the distribution lines join the transmission circuits, and where the voltage for lighting service is regulated. As the limits of voltage variations on lighting circuits are so narrow, it is necessary to keep the changes of pressure on the transmission lines themselves within moderate limits, or such as can be compensated for at sub-stations.
Every long-distance electrical supply system must include one or more substations where the distribution lines connect with the transmission circuits, and where the voltage for lighting service is adjusted. Since the allowable voltage variations on lighting circuits are very small, it’s essential to keep the voltage changes on the transmission lines themselves within reasonable limits, or at levels that can be managed at substations.
This is particularly true in cases where energy transmitted over a single circuit is distributed for both incandescent lamps and large electric motors, because the starting and operation of such motors causes large fluctuations of amperes and terminal voltage on the transmission circuits. To hold such fluctuations within limits which a sub-station can readily compensate for, it is necessary that the loss in the transmission line be moderate, say often within ten per cent of the total voltage delivered to it at maximum load.
This is especially the case when energy sent through a single circuit is used for both incandescent lights and large electric motors, as the starting and running of these motors create significant changes in amps and terminal voltage on the transmission lines. To keep these fluctuations within a range that a substation can easily manage, it's important that the loss in the transmission line remains moderate, typically within ten percent of the total voltage delivered to it at maximum load.
Capacity and cost of equipment at generating stations go up with the percentage of line loss, and thus serve to limit its economical amount. For every horse-power delivered to a transmission line at a water-power station there must be somewhat more than one horse-power of capacity in water-wheels, at least one horse-power in generators, and frequently a further capacity of one horse-power in step-up transformers. Every[219] additional horse-power lost in the line at maximum load, if the generating plant is to be worked up to its full capacity, implies an addition of somewhat more than one horse-power capacity in water-wheels, one horse-power in generators, and one horse-power in transformers.
Capacity and cost of equipment at generating stations increase with the percentage of line loss, which limits its economical amount. For every horsepower delivered to a transmission line at a hydroelectric station, there needs to be just over one horsepower of capacity in water wheels, at least one horsepower in generators, and often an additional one horsepower in step-up transformers. Every[219]extra horsepower lost in the line at maximum load, if the generating plant is to operate at full capacity, means adding just over one horsepower capacity in water wheels, one horsepower in generators, and one horsepower in transformers.
Since the cost of a generating station is thus increased as the maximum line loss is raised, a point may be reached where any further saving in the cost of the line is more than offset by the corresponding addition to the cost of the station and of its operation. Just where this point, as indicated by a percentage of line loss, is to be found depends on the factors of each case, important among which is the length of the transmission line.
Since increasing the maximum line loss raises the cost of a generating station, there comes a point where any further reduction in line costs is outweighed by the increased costs of the station and its operation. The exact point, represented as a percentage of line loss, varies based on the specifics of each situation, with the length of the transmission line being a significant factor.
Much effort has been made to fix some exact relation for maximum economy between the first cost of conductors for a transmission line and the amount of energy annually lost as heat therein. The best-known statement applying to this case is that of Lord Kelvin, made in a paper read before the British Association in 1881. According to the rule there laid down, the most economical size for the conductors of a transmission line is that for which the annual interest on first cost equals the cost of the energy annually wasted in them.
Much effort has gone into determining the best ratio for maximum efficiency between the initial cost of conductors for a transmission line and the annual energy lost as heat. The most well-known statement related to this issue is by Lord Kelvin, presented in a paper to the British Association in 1881. According to his rule, the most economical size for the conductors of a transmission line is when the annual interest on the initial cost matches the cost of the energy wasted in them each year.
If transmission systems were designed for the sole purpose of wasting energy in their line conductors this rule would exactly apply, for it simply shows how the cost of energy wasted, plus the interest on the cost of the conductor in which it is wasted, may be brought to a minimum. As a matter of fact, transmission systems are primarily intended to deliver energy rather than to waste it; but of the proportions of the entire energy to be delivered and wasted (which is exactly what we want to know), the rule of Kelvin takes no account.
If transmission systems were created just to waste energy in their conductors, this rule would perfectly apply, as it demonstrates how to minimize the costs associated with wasted energy and the interest on the conductor's cost. In reality, transmission systems are mainly designed to deliver energy, not waste it; however, the ratio of total energy delivered to wasted energy (which is exactly what we need to understand) is not considered by Kelvin's rule.
According to his rule, the cheaper the cost of power where it is developed, the less should be paid for conductors to bring it to market. The obvious truth is that the less the cost of power development at a particular point, the more may be invested in a line to bring it to market. If power cost nothing whatever at its source it would not be worth while to build any transmission line at all if this rule is correct.
According to his rule, the lower the cost of generating power at its source, the less should be spent on the wires to transport it to market. The clear reality is that the lower the cost of power generation at a specific location, the more can be invested in a line to deliver it to market. If power were completely free at its source, it wouldn’t make sense to build any transmission line at all, if this rule holds true.
A modification of Lord Kelvin’s rule has been proposed by which it is said that the interest on the cost of the conductors and the annual value of the energy lost in them should be equal, value here meaning what the energy can be sold for. This rule would make an investment in line conductors too large.
A revised version of Lord Kelvin’s rule has been suggested, stating that the interest on the cost of the conductors and the yearly value of the energy lost in them should be equal, with value referring to what the energy can be sold for. This rule would make investing in line conductors excessively costly.
The entire cost of production and transmission for the delivered energy should not be greater than the cost of a like amount of energy developed[220] at the point where the delivery is made. In this entire cost of production and transmission, interest on the investment in line conductors is only one item.
The total cost of producing and delivering the energy shouldn't exceed the cost of the same amount of energy generated[220] at the delivery location. Within this total cost of production and transmission, interest on the investment in the power lines is just one component.
It is perhaps impossible to state any exact rule for the most economical relation between the cost of conductors and the loss of energy therein that will apply to every transmission. A maximum limit to the weight of conductors may, however, be set for most cases. This limit should not allow the annual interest and depreciation charges on the investment in line conductors, plus all other costs of development and transmission, to raise the total cost of the transmitted energy above the cost of development for an equal amount of energy at the point where the transmitted energy is delivered.
It might be impossible to define a specific rule for the most cost-effective balance between the expense of conductors and the energy loss within them that applies universally to every transmission. However, a maximum weight limit for conductors can generally be established. This limit should ensure that the yearly interest and depreciation costs on the investment in overhead conductors, along with all other development and transmission expenses, do not make the total cost of the transmitted energy exceed the cost of producing the same amount of energy at the delivery point.
While the maximum investment in transmission conductors may be properly limited in the way just stated, it by no means follows that this maximum limit should be reached in every case. In the varying requirements of actual cases, the problem may be to deliver a fixed amount of power at the least possible cost, or to deliver the largest possible amount of power at a cost per unit under that of development at the point of use. Frequently a transmission system has a possible capacity in excess of present requirements, and a line that would not be too heavy for future business might put an unreasonable burden of interest charges on present earnings.
While the maximum investment in transmission conductors can be properly capped as mentioned, it doesn’t mean that this cap should be hit in every situation. Depending on the unique needs of each case, the challenge might be to deliver a specific amount of power at the lowest cost, or to provide the highest possible amount of power at a lower cost per unit than what it would take to generate it at the point of use. Often, a transmission system has a capacity that exceeds current needs, and a line that is not overly burdensome for future demand might impose an excessive interest charge on current earnings.
The foregoing considerations apply to the design of conductors for a transmission line after the voltage at which it is to operate has been decided on. Quite a different set of facts should influence the selection of this voltage. A transmission that would be entirely impracticable with any percentage of line loss that might be selected, if carried out at some one voltage, might represent a paying business at some higher voltage and any one of several sizes of line conductors. The power that could be delivered by a line of practicable cost, operated at one voltage, might be too small for the purpose in hand, while the available power at a higher voltage might be ample.
The considerations mentioned above relate to designing conductors for a transmission line after deciding on the operating voltage. However, a different set of factors should guide the choice of this voltage. A transmission that would be completely unfeasible with any acceptable line loss at a certain voltage could be profitable at a higher voltage with various sizes of line conductors. The power delivered by a cost-effective line operating at one voltage might be insufficient for the intended purpose, whereas the power available at a higher voltage could be more than enough.
If any given power is to be transmitted with a given percentage of maximum loss in line conductors, the weight of these conductors will increase as the square of their length, and decrease as the square of the full voltage of operation in every case.
If any power is transmitted with a certain percentage of maximum loss in line conductors, the weight of these conductors will increase with the square of their length and decrease with the square of the full operating voltage in every case.
Thus, if the length of this transmission is doubled, the weight of the conductors must be multiplied by four, the voltage remaining the same; but if the voltage is doubled and the line length remains unchanged, the weight of conductors must be divided by four. With the length of line[221] and the voltage of transmission either lowered or raised together, the weight of the conductors remains fixed, for constant power and loss.
Thus, if you double the length of this transmission, the weight of the conductors has to be multiplied by four, keeping the voltage the same; but if you double the voltage and keep the line length unchanged, the weight of the conductors must be divided by four. With the line length[221] and the voltage of transmission either lowered or raised together, the weight of the conductors stays the same, because the power and loss are constant.
An illustration of this last rule may be drawn from the case of lines designed to transmit any given power a distance of ten miles at 10,000 volts, and a distance of fifty miles at 50,000 volts, in which the total weight of conductors would be the same for each line if the percentage of loss was constant.
An example of this last rule can be seen in the case of lines intended to transmit a specific power over a distance of ten miles at 10,000 volts, and over a distance of fifty miles at 50,000 volts. In this scenario, the total weight of the conductors would be the same for each line if the percentage of loss remained constant.
This statement of the rule as to proportionate increase of voltage and distance presents the advantages of high voltages in their most favorable light. Though a uniform ratio between the voltage of operation and the length of line allows a constant weight of conductors to be employed for the transmission of a given power with unchanging efficiency of conductors, yet other considerations soon limit the advantage thus obtained.
This statement about the rule of proportional increases in voltage and distance highlights the benefits of high voltages in the best way possible. While a consistent ratio between operating voltage and line length enables the use of a constant weight of conductors to transmit a certain power with steady efficiency, other factors quickly limit the advantages gained.
Important among these considerations may be mentioned the mechanical strength of line conductors, difficulties of line insulation, losses between conductors through the air, limits of generator voltages, and the cost of transformers.
Important among these considerations are the mechanical strength of line conductors, challenges with line insulation, losses between conductors due to air, limits on generator voltages, and the cost of transformers.
If the ten-mile transmission at 10,000 volts, above mentioned, requires a circuit of two No. 1/0 copper wires, the total weight of these wires will be represented by (5,500 × 10 × 2 × 320) ÷ 1,000 = 35,200 pounds, allowing 5,500 feet of wire per mile of single conductor to provide something for sag between poles, and 320 pounds being the weight of bare No. 1/0 copper wire per 1,000 feet.
If the ten-mile transmission at 10,000 volts mentioned earlier needs a circuit of two No. 1/0 copper wires, the total weight of these wires will be calculated as (5,500 × 10 × 2 × 320) ÷ 1,000 = 35,200 pounds, factoring in 5,500 feet of wire per mile of single conductor to allow for sag between poles, with 320 pounds being the weight of bare No. 1/0 copper wire per 1,000 feet.
When the length of line is raised to 50 miles, the two-wire circuit will contain 5,500 × 50 × 2 = 550,000 feet of single conductor, and since the voltage is raised to 50,000 at the same time, the total weight of conductors will be 35,200 pounds as before. The weight of single conductor per 1,000 feet is therefore only 64 pounds in the 50-mile line.
When the length of the line is increased to 50 miles, the two-wire circuit will have 5,500 × 50 × 2 = 550,000 feet of single conductor. Since the voltage is also increased to 50,000 at the same time, the total weight of the conductors will still be 35,200 pounds as before. Therefore, the weight of a single conductor per 1,000 feet is only 64 pounds in the 50-mile line.
A No. 7 copper wire, B. & S. gauge, has a weight of 63 pounds per 1,000 feet, and is the nearest regular size to that required for the 50-mile line as just found. It would be poor policy to string a wire of this size for a transmission line, because it is so weak mechanically that breaks would probably be frequent in stormy weather. The element of unreliability introduced by the use of this small wire on a 50-mile line would cost far more in the end than a larger conductor.
A No. 7 copper wire, B. & S. gauge, weighs 63 pounds per 1,000 feet and is the closest standard size for the 50-mile line we just calculated. Using a wire of this size for a transmission line is unwise because it’s too weak mechanically, which would likely lead to frequent breaks during storms. The unreliability caused by using this small wire on a 50-mile line would ultimately be much more expensive than using a larger conductor.
As a rule, No. 4 B. & S. gauge wire is the smallest that should be used on a long transmission line in order to give fair mechanical strength, and this size has just twice the weight of a No. 7 wire of equal length.[222] Here, then, is one of the practical limits to the advantages that may be gained by increasing the voltage with the length of line.
As a general guideline, No. 4 B. & S. gauge wire is the smallest that should be used on a long transmission line to ensure adequate mechanical strength, and this size weighs twice as much as a No. 7 wire of the same length.[222] Therefore, this represents one of the practical limits to the benefits that can be achieved by increasing the voltage along the length of the line.
As line voltage goes up, the strain on line insulation increases rapidly, and the insulators for a circuit operated at 50,000 volts must be larger and of a much more expensive character than those for a 10,000-volt circuit. In this way a part of the saving in conductors effected by the use of very high voltages on long lines is offset by the increased cost of insulation.
As line voltage increases, the pressure on line insulation rises quickly, and the insulators for a circuit operating at 50,000 volts have to be larger and much more expensive than those for a 10,000-volt circuit. In this way, some of the savings in conductors achieved by using very high voltages on long lines is balanced out by the higher costs of insulation.
Another disadvantage that attends the operation of transmission lines at very high voltages is the continuous loss of energy by the silent passage of current through the air between wires of a circuit. This loss increases at a rapid rate after a pressure between 40,000 and 50,000 volts is reached with ordinary distances between the wires of each circuit. To keep losses of this sort within moderate limits, and also to lessen the probability of arcs on a circuit at very high voltage, the distance of eighteen inches or two feet between conductors that carry current at 10,000 volts should be increased to six feet or more on circuits that operate at 50,000 volts.
Another downside of running transmission lines at very high voltages is the constant energy loss from the subtle flow of current through the air between the wires of a circuit. This loss increases quickly once the voltage hits between 40,000 and 50,000 volts with typical distances between the wires. To keep these losses in check and reduce the chances of arcs in a high-voltage circuit, the spacing of eighteen inches or two feet between conductors carrying 10,000 volts should be increased to six feet or more for circuits operating at 50,000 volts.
Such an increase in the distance between conductors makes the cost of poles and cross-arms greater, either by requiring them to be larger than would otherwise be necessary or by limiting the number of wires to two or three per pole and thus increasing the number of pole lines. These added expenses form another part of the penalty that must be paid for the use of very high voltages and the attendant saving in the cost of conductors.
Such an increase in the distance between conductors raises the costs of poles and cross-arms, either by requiring them to be larger than necessary or by limiting the number of wires to two or three per pole, which in turn increases the number of pole lines. These added expenses are another part of the price that must be paid for using very high voltages and the resulting savings in the cost of conductors.
Apparatus grows more expensive as the voltage at which it is to operate increases, because of the cost of insulating materials and the room which they take up, thereby adding to the size and weight of the iron parts.
Apparatus becomes more expensive as the operating voltage increases, due to the cost of insulating materials and the space they require, which also adds to the size and weight of the metal components.
Generators for alternating current can be had that develop as much as 13,500 volts, but such generators cost more than others of equal power that operate at between 2,000 and 2,500 volts. These latter voltages are as high as it is usually thought desirable to operate distribution circuits and service transformers in cities and towns, so that if more than 2,500 volts are employed on the transmission line, step-down transformers are required at a sub-station. For a transmission of more than ten miles the saving in line conductors by operation at 10,000 to 12,000 volts will usually more than offset the additional cost of generators designed for this pressure and of step-down transformers. If the voltage of transmission is to exceed that of distribution, it will generally be[223] found desirable to carry the former voltage up to 10,000 or 12,000, at least.
Generators for alternating current can produce up to 13,500 volts, but these generators are more expensive than others with the same power that operate between 2,000 and 2,500 volts. Those voltages are typically considered the highest for operating distribution circuits and service transformers in cities and towns, so if more than 2,500 volts are used on the transmission line, step-down transformers are needed at a substation. For distances over ten miles, the savings in line conductors by operating at 10,000 to 12,000 volts will usually outweigh the extra cost of generators designed for this voltage and step-down transformers. If the transmission voltage is to be higher than the distribution voltage, it’s generally advisable to raise the former voltage to at least 10,000 or 12,000.
As the cost of generators designed for the voltage last named is less than that of lower voltage generators plus transformers, step-up transformers should usually be omitted in systems where these pressures are not exceeded. For alternating pressures above 13,000 to 15,000 volts, step-up transformers must generally be employed. In order that the saving in the weight of line conductors may more than offset the additional cost of transformers when the voltage of transmission is carried above 15,000, this voltage should be pushed on up to as much as 25,000 in most cases.
Since the cost of generators made for the last mentioned voltage is lower than that of lower voltage generators plus transformers, step-up transformers are usually unnecessary in systems where these voltages aren’t exceeded. For alternating voltages above 13,000 to 15,000 volts, step-up transformers are generally required. To ensure that the weight savings of line conductors outweigh the extra cost of transformers when the transmission voltage exceeds 15,000, this voltage should typically be increased to as much as 25,000 in most cases.
Power transmission with continuous current has the advantage that the cost of generators remains nearly the same whatever the line voltage, and that no transformers are required. Such transmissions are common in Europe, but have hardly a footing as yet in the United States. The reason for the uniform cost of continuous-current generators is found in the fact that they are connected in series to give the desired line voltage, and the voltage of each machine is kept under 3,000 or 4,000. As a partial offset to the low cost of the continuous-current generators and to the absence of transformers, there is the necessity for motor-generators in a sub-station when current for lighting as well as power is to be distributed.
Power transmission using direct current has the advantage that the cost of generators stays nearly the same regardless of the line voltage, and no transformers are needed. This type of transmission is common in Europe but hasn't gained much traction in the United States yet. The reason for the consistent cost of direct current generators is that they are connected in series to achieve the desired line voltage, with each machine's voltage kept below 3,000 or 4,000. To partially offset the low cost of the direct current generators and the lack of transformers, there is a need for motor-generators in a substation when distributing current for both lighting and power.
In spite of the various additions to the cost of transmission systems made necessary by the adoption of very high voltages, these additions are much more than offset by the saving in the cost of conductors on lines 30, 50, or 100 miles in length. In fact, it is only by means of voltages ranging from 25,000 to 50,000 that the greatest of these distances, and others up to more than 140 miles, have been successfully covered by transmission lines. Above 60,000 volts there has been but slight practical experience in the operation of transmission lines.
Despite the various additional costs associated with transmission systems due to the use of very high voltages, these costs are far outweighed by the savings in the price of conductors for lines that are 30, 50, or 100 miles long. In fact, it is only with voltages between 25,000 and 50,000 volts that the longest distances, as well as other distances exceeding 140 miles, have been successfully achieved by transmission lines. There has been minimal practical experience operating transmission lines above 60,000 volts.
Calculations to determine the sizes of conductors for electric transmission lines are all based on the fundamental law discovered by Ohm, which is that the electric current flowing in a circuit at any instant equals the electric pressure that causes the current divided by the electric resistance of the circuit itself, or current = pressure ÷ resistance.
Calculating the sizes of conductors for electric transmission lines is based on the basic principle discovered by Ohm, which states that the electric current flowing through a circuit at any moment is equal to the electric pressure that drives the current divided by the circuit's electric resistance, or current = pressure ÷ resistance.
Substituting in this formula the units that have been selected because of their convenient sizes for practical use, it becomes, amperes = volts ÷ ohms, in which the ohm is simply the electrical resistance, taken as unity, of a certain standard copper bar with fixed dimensions.
Substituting in this formula the units that have been chosen for their convenient sizes for practical use, it becomes, amperes = volts ÷ ohms, where the ohm is simply the electrical resistance, considered as one, of a standard copper bar with specific dimensions.
The ampere is the unit flow of current that is maintained with the unit pressure of one volt between the terminals of a one-ohm conductor.[224] When this formula is applied to the computation of transmission lines the volts represent the electrical pressure that is required to force the desired amperes of current through the ohms of resistance in any particular line, and these volts have no necessary or fixed relation to the total voltage at which the line may operate. Thus, if the total voltage of a transmission system is 10,000, it may be desirable to use 500, 1,000, or even 2,000 volts to force current through the line, so that one of these numbers will represent the actual drop or loss of volts in the line conductors when the number of amperes that represent full load is flowing. As it is a law of every electric circuit that the rate of transformation of electric energy to heat or work in each of its several parts is directly proportional to the drop of voltage therein, it follows that a drop of 500 or 1,000 or 2,000 volts in the conductors of a 10,000-volt transmission line at full load would correspond to a power loss of five to ten or twenty per cent respectively. Any other part of 10,000 volts might be selected in this case as the pressure to be lost in the line. Evidently no formula can give the number of volts that should be lost in line conductors at full load for a given power transmission, but this number must be decided on by consideration of the items of line efficiency, regulation, and the ratio of the available power to the required load.
The ampere is the unit of electric current flow that occurs with a pressure of one volt between the terminals of a one-ohm conductor.[224] When this formula is used for calculating transmission lines, the volts represent the electrical pressure needed to push the desired amperes of current through the ohms of resistance in a specific line, and this voltage doesn’t have a constant or fixed relationship to the total voltage at which the line might operate. So, if the total voltage of a transmission system is 10,000 volts, it might make sense to use 500, 1,000, or even 2,000 volts to drive current through the line. One of these numbers will correspond to the actual voltage drop or loss in the line conductors when the full load amperes are flowing. Since it's a rule in every electric circuit that the rate of conversion of electric energy into heat or work in each part is directly proportional to the voltage drop, a drop of 500, 1,000, or 2,000 volts in the conductors of a 10,000-volt transmission line at full load would result in a power loss of five, ten, or twenty percent, respectively. Any other portion of 10,000 volts could be chosen as the pressure to be lost in the line. Clearly, no formula can determine the number of volts that should be lost in line conductors at full load for a certain power transmission; this value must be determined based on factors like line efficiency, regulation, and the ratio of available power to required load.
Having decided on the maximum loss of volts in the line conductors, and knowing the full voltage of operation, the power and consequently the number of amperes delivered to the line at maximum load, the resistance of the conductors may then be calculated by the formula, amperes = volts ÷ ohms. Thus, if the proposition is to deliver 2,000,000 watts or 2,000 kilowatts to a two-wire transmission line with a voltage of 20,000, the amperes in each wire must be represented by 2,000,000 ÷ 20,000 = 100. With a drop of ten per cent or 2,000 volts in the two line conductors, their combined resistance must be found from 100 = 2,000 ÷ ohms, and the ohms are therefore twenty. If the combined length of the two conductors is 200,000 feet, corresponding to a transmission line of a little under twenty miles, the resistance of these conductors must be 20 ÷ 200 = 0.1 ohm per 1,000 feet. From a wire table it may be seen that a No. 1/0 wire of copper, B. & S. gauge, with a diameter of 0.3249 inch, has a resistance of 0.1001 ohm per 1,000 feet at the temperature of 90° Fahrenheit, a little less at lower temperatures, and is thus the required size. Obviously, the resistance of twenty ohms is entirely independent of the length of the line, all the other factors being constant, and wires of various sizes will be required for other distances of transmission.
Having decided on the maximum voltage drop in the line conductors and knowing the full operating voltage, the power, and consequently the number of amperes delivered to the line at maximum load, the resistance of the conductors can be calculated using the formula, amperes = volts ÷ ohms. For instance, if the plan is to deliver 2,000,000 watts or 2,000 kilowatts to a two-wire transmission line with a voltage of 20,000, the current in each wire must be represented by 2,000,000 ÷ 20,000 = 100. With a drop of ten percent or 2,000 volts in the two line conductors, their combined resistance can be derived from 100 = 2,000 ÷ ohms, making the ohms equal to twenty. If the total length of the two conductors is 200,000 feet, which corresponds to a transmission line of just under twenty miles, the resistance of these conductors must be 20 ÷ 200 = 0.1 ohm per 1,000 feet. Consulting a wire table indicates that a No. 1/0 copper wire, B. & S. gauge, with a diameter of 0.3249 inch, has a resistance of 0.1001 ohm per 1,000 feet at 90° Fahrenheit, slightly less at lower temperatures, and thus is the required size. Clearly, the resistance of twenty ohms is completely independent of the line length, given that all other factors are constant, and different sizes of wire will be necessary for various transmission distances.
It is often convenient to find the area of cross section for the desired transmission conductor instead of finding its resistance. This can be done by substituting in the formula, amperes = volts ÷ ohms, the expression for the number of ohms in any conductor, and then solving as before.
It’s often easier to find the cross-sectional area of the desired transmission conductor instead of calculating its resistance. You can do this by plugging in the formula, amperes = volts ÷ ohms, with the expression for the number of ohms in any conductor, and then solving as before.
Electrical resistance in every conductor varies directly with its length, inversely with its area of cross section, and also has a constant factor that depends on the material of which the conductor is composed. This constant factor is always the same for any given material, as pure iron, copper, or aluminum, and is usually taken as the resistance in ohms of a round wire one foot long and 0.001 inch in diameter, of the material to be used for conductors. Such a wire is said to have an area in cross section of one circular mil, because the square of its diameter taken as unity is still unity, that is, 1 × 1 = 1. In like manner, for the convenient designation of wires by their areas of cross-section, each round wire of any size is said to have an area in circular mils equal to the square of its diameter measured in units of 0.001 inch each. Thus, a round wire of 0.1 inch diameter has an area of 100 × 100 = 10,000 circular mils, and a round wire one inch in diameter has an area of 1,000 × 1000 = 1,000,000 circular mils. The circular mils of a wire do not express its area of cross section in terms of square inches, but this is not necessary since the resistance of a wire of one circular mil is taken as unity. Obviously, the areas of all round wires are to each other as are their circular mils.
Electrical resistance in any conductor is directly proportional to its length, inversely proportional to its cross-sectional area, and also has a constant factor that depends on the material the conductor is made of. This constant factor is consistent for any specific material, like pure iron, copper, or aluminum, and is usually defined as the resistance in ohms of a round wire that is one foot long and 0.001 inch in diameter, made from the material being used for conductors. Such a wire is described as having a cross-sectional area of one circular mil, because the square of its diameter, when taken as one, remains one; that is, 1 × 1 = 1. Similarly, for convenience in identifying wires by their cross-sectional areas, each round wire of any size is said to have an area in circular mils equal to the square of its diameter measured in increments of 0.001 inch each. Therefore, a round wire with a diameter of 0.1 inch has an area of 100 × 100 = 10,000 circular mils, and a round wire with a diameter of one inch has an area of 1,000 × 1,000 = 1,000,000 circular mils. The circular mils of a wire do not represent its cross-sectional area in square inches, but this distinction isn’t necessary since the resistance of a wire with one circular mil is considered to be one. Clearly, the areas of all round wires relate to each other in the same way their circular mils do.
From the foregoing it may be seen that the resistance of any round conductor is represented by the formula, ohms = l × s ÷ circular mils, in which l represents the length of the conductor in feet, s is the resistance in ohms of a wire of the same material as the conductor but with an area of one circular mil and a length of one foot, and the circular mils are those of the required conductor. Substituting the quantity, l × s ÷ circular mils, for ohms in the formula, amperes = volts ÷ ohms, the equation, amperes = volts ÷ (l × s ÷ circular mils), is obtained, and this reduces to circular mils = amperes × l × s ÷ volts. For any proposed transmission all of the quantities in this formula are known, except the desired circular mils of the line conductors. The constant quantity s is about 10.8 for copper, but is conveniently used as eleven in calculation, and this allows a trifle for the effects of impurities that may exist in the line wire.
From the above, it can be seen that the resistance of any round conductor is expressed by the formula, ohms = l × s ÷ circular mils, where l is the conductor’s length in feet, s is the resistance in ohms of a wire made from the same material as the conductor but with an area of one circular mil and a length of one foot, and the circular mils are those of the required conductor. By substituting the quantity, l × s ÷ circular mils, for ohms in the formula, amperes = volts ÷ ohms, the equation, amperes = volts ÷ (l × s ÷ circular mils), is derived, which simplifies to circular mils = amperes × l × s ÷ volts. For any proposed transmission, all of the values in this formula are known, except for the desired circular mils of the line conductors. The constant quantity s is about 10.8 for copper, but is conveniently rounded to eleven in calculations, allowing a slight adjustment for any impurities that may be present in the line wire.
The case above mentioned, where 2,000 kilowatts were to be delivered to a transmission line at 20,000 volts, and a loss of 2,000 volts at full load[226] was allowed in the line conductors, may now be solved by the formula for circular mils. Taking the resistance of a round copper wire 0.001 inch in diameter and one foot long as eleven ohms, and substituting the 100 amperes, 2,000 volts, and 200,000 feet of the present case in the formula, gives circular mils = (100 × 200,000 × 11) ÷ 2,000 = 110,000. The square root of this 110,000 will give the diameter of a copper wire that will exactly meet the conditions of the case, or the more practical course of consulting a table of standard sizes of wire will show that a No. 1-0 B. & S. gauge, with a diameter of 0.3249 inch, has a cross section of 105,500 circular mils, or about five per cent less than the calculated number, and is the size nearest to that wanted. As this No. 1-0 wire will give a line loss at full load of about 10.5 per cent, or only one-half of one per cent more than the loss at first selected, it should be adopted for the line in this case.
The previously mentioned case, where 2,000 kilowatts needed to be delivered to a transmission line at 20,000 volts, and a loss of 2,000 volts at full load was acceptable for the line conductors, can now be solved using the formula for circular mils. Considering the resistance of a round copper wire that is 0.001 inch in diameter and one foot long is eleven ohms, and substituting the values of 100 amperes, 2,000 volts, and 200,000 feet from the current case into the formula, we get circular mils = (100 × 200,000 × 11) ÷ 2,000 = 110,000. The square root of this 110,000 will provide the diameter of a copper wire that will precisely meet the requirements of the case, or a more practical method would be to look up a table of standard wire sizes, which will indicate that a No. 1-0 B. & S. gauge, with a diameter of 0.3249 inches, has a cross-section of 105,500 circular mils, roughly five percent less than the calculated figure, and is the closest size needed. Since this No. 1-0 wire will result in a line loss at full load of about 10.5 percent, which is only half a percent more than the originally selected loss, it should be utilized for the line in this situation.
The formula just made use of is perfectly general in its application, and may be applied to the calculation of lines of aluminum or iron or any other metal just as well as to lines of copper. In order to use the formula for any desired metal, it is necessary that the resistance in ohms of a round wire of that metal one foot long and 0.001 inch in diameter be known and substituted for s in the formula. This resistance of a wire one foot long and 0.001 inch in diameter is called the specific resistance of the substance of which the wire is composed. For pure aluminum this specific resistance is about 17.7, for soft iron about sixty, and for hard steel about eighty ohms. The use of these values for s in the formula will therefore give the areas in circular mils for wires of these three substances, respectively, for any proposed transmission line. In the same way the specific resistance of any other metal or alloy, when known, may be applied in the formula.
The formula just used is completely versatile and can be applied to calculate the resistance of aluminum, iron, or any other metal just as easily as for copper. To use the formula for any specific metal, you need to know the resistance in ohms of a round wire of that metal that is one foot long and 0.001 inch in diameter. This resistance for a one-foot length of wire with that diameter is known as the specific resistance of the material the wire is made from. For pure aluminum, this specific resistance is about 17.7 ohms, for soft iron, it’s about sixty ohms, and for hard steel, it’s around eighty ohms. Using these values for s in the formula will give you the areas in circular mils for wires made of these three materials for any proposed transmission line. Similarly, the specific resistance of any other metal or alloy can be applied in the formula when known.
The foregoing calculations apply accurately to all two-wire circuits that carry continuous currents, whether these circuits operate with constant current, constant pressure, or with pressure and current both variable. Where circuits are to carry alternating currents, certain other factors may require consideration. Almost all transmissions with alternating currents are carried out with three-phase three-wire, or two-phase four-wire, or single-phase two-wire circuits. Of the entire number of such transmissions, those with the three-phase three-wire circuits are in the majority, next in point of number come the two-phase transmissions, and lastly a few transmissions are carried out with single-phase currents. The voltage of a continuous-current circuit, by which the power of the transmission is computed and on which the percentage of line loss is[227] based, is the maximum voltage operating there; but this is not true for circuits carrying alternating currents. Both the volts and amperes in an alternating circuit are constantly varying between maximum values in opposite directions along the wires. It follows from this fact that both the volts and amperes drop to zero as often as they rise to a maximum. It is fully demonstrated in books on the theory of alternating currents, that with certain ideal constructions in alternating generators, and certain conditions in the circuits to which they are connected, the equivalent or, as they are called, the virtual values of the constantly changing volts and amperes in these circuits are 0.707 of their respective maximum values. Or, to state the reverse of this proposition, the maximum volts and amperes respectively in these circuits rise to 1.414 times their equivalent or virtual values. These relations between maximum and virtual volts and amperes are subject to some variations with actual circuits and generators, but the virtual values of these factors, as measured by suitable volt- and amperemeters, are important in the design of transmission circuits, rather than their maximum values. When the volts or amperes of an alternating circuit are mentioned, the virtual values of these factors are usually meant unless some other value is specified. Thus, as commonly stated, the voltage of a single-phase circuit is the number of virtual volts between its two conductors, the voltage of a two-phase circuit is the number of virtual volts between each pair of its four conductors, and the voltage of a three-phase circuit is the number of virtual volts between either two of its three conductors.
The calculations above accurately apply to all two-wire circuits that carry continuous currents, regardless of whether these circuits use constant current, constant voltage, or both voltage and current that vary. When it comes to circuits carrying alternating currents, additional factors need to be considered. Almost all transmissions involving alternating currents occur with three-phase three-wire, two-phase four-wire, or single-phase two-wire circuits. Among these, three-phase three-wire circuits are the most common, followed by two-phase transmissions, with single-phase currents being the least common. In a continuous-current circuit, the voltage used to calculate power transmission and the percentage of line loss is the maximum operating voltage; however, this isn’t the case for circuits carrying alternating currents. In an alternating circuit, both volts and amperes constantly fluctuate between maximum values in opposite directions along the wires. As a result, both volts and amperes drop to zero as often as they peak. It is well established in literature on alternating current theory that, with certain ideal setups in alternating generators and specific conditions for connected circuits, the equivalent or "virtual" values of the ever-changing volts and amperes in these circuits are 0.707 of their respective maximum values. Conversely, the maximum volts and amperes in these circuits can reach 1.414 times their equivalent or virtual values. These relationships between maximum and virtual volts and amperes may vary in actual circuits and generators, but the virtual values, as measured by appropriate volt- and amperemeters, are crucial in designing transmission circuits, rather than their maximum values. When alternating circuit volts or amperes are referenced, the virtual values are typically intended unless specified otherwise. Therefore, as is commonly stated, the voltage of a single-phase circuit is the number of virtual volts between its two conductors, the voltage of a two-phase circuit is the number of virtual volts between each pair of its four conductors, and the voltage of a three-phase circuit is the number of virtual volts between any two of its three conductors.
Several factors not present with continuous currents tend to affect the losses in conductors where alternating currents are flowing, and the importance of such effects will be noted later. In spite of such effects, the formula above discussed should be applied to the calculation of transmission lines for alternating currents, and then the proper corrections of the results, if any are necessary, should be made. With this proviso as to corrections, the virtual volts and amperes of circuits carrying alternating currents may be used in the formula in the same way as the actual volts and amperes of continuous current circuits. Thus, reverting to the above example, where 2,000 kilowatts was to be delivered at 20,000 volts to a transmission line in which the loss was to be 2,000 volts, the kilowatts should be taken as the actual rate of work represented by the alternating current, and the volts named as the virtual volts on the line. The virtual amperes will now be 100, as were the actual amperes of continuous current, and the size of line conductor for a single-phase alternating transmission will therefore be 1-0, the same as for the continuous-current line.[228] If the transmission is to be carried out on the two-phase four-wire system, the virtual amperes in each of these wires will be fifty instead of 100, as the power will be divided equally between the two pairs of conductors, and each of these four wires should have a cross-section in circular mils just one-half as great as that of the No. 1-0 wire. The required wire will thus be a No. 3 B. & S. gauge, of 52,630 circular mils, this being the nearest standard size. In weight the two No. 1-0 wires and the four No. 3 wires are almost equal, and they should be exactly equal to give the same loss in the single-phase and the two-phase lines. For a three-phase circuit to make the transmission above considered, each of the three conductors should have an area just one-half as great as that of each of the two conductors for a single phase circuit, the loss remaining as before, and the nearest standard size of wire is again No. 3, as it was for the two-phase line. This is not a self-evident proposition, but the proof can be found in books devoted to the theory of the subject. From the foregoing it is evident that while the single-phase and two-phase lines require equal weights of conductors, all other factors being the same, the weight of conductors in the three-phase line is only seventy-five per cent of that in either of the other two. Neglecting the special factors that tend to raise the size and weight of alternating-current circuits, the single-phase and two-phase lines require the same weight of conductors as does a continuous-current transmission of equal power, voltage, and line loss. It should be noted that in each of these cases the factor l in the formula for circular mils denotes the entire length of the pair of conductors for a continuous-current line, or double the distance of the transmission with either of the alternating-current lines.
Several factors that aren't present with direct current can affect the losses in conductors when alternating currents are flowing, and these effects will be discussed later. Despite these effects, the formula we've talked about should be used to calculate transmission lines for alternating currents, and any necessary corrections to the results should be applied afterward. With this note on corrections, the virtual volts and amperes in circuits carrying alternating currents can be used in the formula just like the actual volts and amperes in direct current circuits. So, going back to the previous example, where 2,000 kilowatts need to be delivered at 20,000 volts to a transmission line with a loss of 2,000 volts, the kilowatts should be seen as the actual work done by the alternating current, and the volts should be taken as the virtual volts on the line. The virtual amperes will now be 100, just like the actual amperes of direct current, and the size of the line conductor for a single-phase alternating transmission will therefore be 1-0, the same as for the direct current line.[228] If the transmission is done on a two-phase four-wire system, the virtual amperes in each wire will be fifty instead of 100, since the power will be evenly split between the two pairs of conductors, and each of these four wires should have a cross-section in circular mils that is just half as large as that of the No. 1-0 wire. The required wire will then be a No. 3 B. & S. gauge, which has 52,630 circular mils, the closest standard size. The weight of the two No. 1-0 wires and the four No. 3 wires are nearly equal, and they should be exactly the same to ensure the loss is consistent in both the single-phase and two-phase lines. For a three-phase circuit to achieve the transmission discussed, each of the three conductors should have an area that is half that of each of the two conductors in a single-phase circuit, maintaining the same loss as before, and the nearest standard size of wire is also No. 3, just like for the two-phase line. This isn't an obvious conclusion, but it can be verified in books focused on the theory of the subject. From the above, it’s clear that while single-phase and two-phase lines require equal weights of conductors, all other factors being equal, the weight of conductors in a three-phase line is only seventy-five percent of that in either of the other two. Ignoring the special factors that can increase the size and weight of alternating-current circuits, the single-phase and two-phase lines need the same weight of conductors as a direct current transmission of the same power, voltage, and line loss. It's important to note that in each of these cases, the factor l in the formula for circular mils represents the total length of the pair of conductors for a direct current line, or double the distance of the transmission for either of the alternating-current lines.
Having found the circular mils of any desired conductor, its weight per 1,000 feet can be found readily in a wire table. In some cases it is desirable to calculate the weight of the conductors for a transmission line without finding the circular mils of each, and this can be done by a modification of the above formula. A copper wire of 1,000,000 circular mils weighs nearly 3.03 pounds per foot of its length, and the weight of any copper wire may therefore be found from the formula, pounds = (circular mils × 3.03 × l) ÷ 1,000,000, in which pounds indicates the total weight of the conductor, l, its total length, and the circular mils are those of its cross-section. This formula reduces to the form, circular mils = (1,000,000 × pounds) ÷ (3.03 × l) and if this value for circular mils is substituted in the formula above given for the cross-section of any wire, the result is (1,000,000 × pounds) ÷ (3.03 × l) = (l × amperes × 11) ÷ volts. Transposition of the factors in this last equation brings it to the[229] form, pounds = (3.03 × l2 × amperes × 11) ÷ (1,000,000 × volts), which is the general formula for the total weight of copper conductors when l, the length of one pair, the total amperes flowing, and the volts lost in the conductors are known for either a continuous-current, a single-phase, or a two-phase four-wire line.
Having determined the circular mils of any desired conductor, you can easily find its weight per 1,000 feet in a wire table. Sometimes, it's useful to calculate the weight of the conductors for a transmission line without first finding the circular mils of each, and this can be done by adjusting the formula mentioned earlier. A copper wire with 1,000,000 circular mils weighs about 3.03 pounds per foot of length. Therefore, the weight of any copper wire can be calculated using the formula: pounds = (circular mils × 3.03 × l) ÷ 1,000,000, where pounds represents the total weight of the conductor, l is its total length, and the circular mils refer to its cross-section. This formula can be rearranged to: circular mils = (1,000,000 × pounds) ÷ (3.03 × l). If you substitute this value for circular mils back into the formula previously given for the cross-section of any wire, you get (1,000,000 × pounds) ÷ (3.03 × l) = (l × amperes × 11) ÷ volts. Rearranging the factors in this last equation results in the form, pounds = (3.03 × l2 × amperes × 11) ÷ (1,000,000 × volts), which is the general formula for the total weight of copper conductors when l, the length of one pair, the total amperes flowing, and the voltage lost in the conductors are known for either a continuous-current, single-phase, or two-phase four-wire line.
If the value of l, 200,000, of amperes, 100, and of volts, 2,000, for the transmission above considered are substituted in the formula for total weight, just found, the result is pounds = (3.03 (200,000)2 × 100 × 11) ÷ (1,000,000 × 2,000), which reduced to pounds = 66,660, the weight of copper wire necessary for the transmission with either continuous, single-phase or two-phase current. With three-phase current the weight of copper in the line for this transmission will be 75 per cent of the 66,660 pounds just found. One or more two-wire circuits may be employed for the continuous current or for the single-phase transmission, and if one such circuit is used the weight for each of the two wires is obviously 33,660 pounds. For a two-phase transmission two or more circuits of two wires each will be used, and in the case of two circuits, if all four of the wires are of equal cross section, as would usually be the case, the total weight of each is 16,830 pounds. If the transmission is made with one three-phase circuit, the weight of each of the three wires is 16,830 pounds, and their combined weight, 50,490 pounds of copper. In each of these transmission lines the length of a single conductor in one direction is 100,000 feet, or one-half of the length of the wires in a single two-wire circuit. For the two-wire line the calculated weight of each conductor amounts to 66,660 ÷ 200 = 333.3 pounds per 1,000 feet. For a two-phase four-wire line and also for a three-phase three-wire line, the weight of each conductor is 16,830 ÷ 100 = 168.3 pounds per 1,000 feet. On inspection of a table of weights for bare copper wires it may be seen that a No. 1-0 B. & S. gauge wire has a weight of 320 pounds per 1,000 feet, and being much the nearest size to the calculated weight of 333 pounds should be selected for the two-wire circuit. It may also be seen that a No. 3 wire, with a weight of 159 pounds per 1,000 feet, is the size that comes nearest to the calculated weight of 168 pounds, and should therefore be employed in the three-wire and the four-wire circuits, for two- and three-phase transmissions. Either a continuous-current, single-phase, two-phase, or three-phase transmission line may of course be split up into as many circuits as desired, and these circuits may or may not be designed to carry equal portions of the entire power. In either case the combined weights of the several circuits should equal those above found, the conditions as to power, loss, and length of line remaining constant.[230] It will be noted that the formulæ for the calculation of the circular mils and for the weight of the conductors in the transmission line lead to the selection of the same sizes of wires, as they obviously should do.
If you plug in the values of l, 200,000, amperes, 100, and volts, 2,000, into the formula for total weight that we just calculated, you'll find that pounds = (3.03 (200,000)2 × 100 × 11) ÷ (1,000,000 × 2,000), which simplifies to pounds = 66,660. This is the weight of copper wire needed for the transmission, whether it's continuous, single-phase, or two-phase current. With three-phase current, the weight of copper in the line for this transmission will be 75 percent of the 66,660 pounds we just calculated. You can use one or more two-wire circuits for continuous current or single-phase transmission, and if just one circuit is used, the weight for each of the two wires is clearly 33,660 pounds. For two-phase transmission, two or more circuits with two wires each will be employed, and if there are two circuits with four wires of equal cross-section, which is the usual case, the total weight of each is 16,830 pounds. If you’re using one three-phase circuit, each of the three wires weighs 16,830 pounds, making their combined weight 50,490 pounds of copper. In all these transmission lines, the length of a single conductor in one direction is 100,000 feet, or half the length of the wires in a single two-wire circuit. For the two-wire line, the calculated weight of each conductor is 66,660 ÷ 200 = 333.3 pounds per 1,000 feet. For a two-phase four-wire line and also for a three-phase three-wire line, the weight of each conductor is 16,830 ÷ 100 = 168.3 pounds per 1,000 feet. If you look at a table of weights for bare copper wires, you'll see that a No. 1-0 B. & S. gauge wire weighs 320 pounds per 1,000 feet, and since that’s the closest size to the calculated weight of 333 pounds, it should be chosen for the two-wire circuit. You’ll also notice that a No. 3 wire, weighing 159 pounds per 1,000 feet, is the size nearest to the calculated weight of 168 pounds, so it should be used in the three-wire and four-wire circuits for two- and three-phase transmissions. Any continuous-current, single-phase, two-phase, or three-phase transmission line can be divided into as many circuits as needed, with these circuits possibly designed to carry equal portions of the total power. In either case, the combined weights of the various circuits should equal what was previously calculated, with the conditions regarding power, loss, and length of line remaining constant.[230] It's also worth noting that the formulas for calculating the circular mils and the weight of the conductors in the transmission line lead to selecting the same sizes of wires, which is how it should be.
Several laws governing the relations of volts lost, length and weight of line conductors, may be readily deduced from the above formulæ. Evidently the circular mils and weight of line conductors vary inversely with the number of volts lost in them when carrying a given current, so that doubling this number of volts reduces the circular mils and weight of conductors by one-half. If the length of the line changes, the circular mils of the required conductors change directly with it, but the weight of these conductors varies as the square of their length. Thus, if the length of the line conductors is doubled, the cross-section in circular mils of each conductor is also doubled, and each conductor is therefore four times as heavy as before for the same current and loss in volts. Should the length of the conductors and also the number of volts lost in them be varied at the same rate, the circular mils of each conductor remain constant, and its weight increases directly with the distance of transmission. Thus, with the same size of line wire, both the number of volts lost and the total weight are twice as great for a 100- as for a fifty-mile transmission. If the total weight of conductors is to be held constant, then the number of volts lost therein must vary as the square of their length, and their circular mils must vary inversely as the length. So that if the length of a transmission line is doubled, the circular mils for conductors of constant weight are divided by two, and the volts lost are four times as great as before. Each of these rules assumes that the watts and percentage of loss in the line are constant.
Several laws governing the relationship between voltage loss, length, and weight of line conductors can be easily inferred from the formulas above. Clearly, the circular mils and weight of line conductors decrease as the number of volts lost increases when carrying a specific current, meaning that if you double the voltage loss, the circular mils and weight of conductors are cut in half. When the length of the line changes, the circular mils of the required conductors change directly with it, but the weight of these conductors increases with the square of their length. So, if the length of the line conductors is doubled, the cross-section in circular mils of each conductor also doubles, making each conductor four times heavier than before for the same current and voltage loss. If both the length of the conductors and the number of volts lost are changed at the same rate, the circular mils for each conductor stay constant, while its weight increases directly with the transmission distance. Therefore, with the same size of line wire, both the volts lost and the total weight are twice as much for a 100-mile transmission compared to a 50-mile one. If the total weight of the conductors is to remain constant, then the number of volts lost must vary as the square of their length, and their circular mils must change inversely with the length. Thus, if the length of a transmission line is doubled, the circular mils for conductors with constant weight are halved, and the volts lost are four times greater than before. Each of these rules assumes that the watts and percentage of loss in the line are constant.
The above principles and formulæ apply to the design of transmission lines for either continuous or alternating currents, but where the alternating current is employed certain additional factors should be considered. One of these factors is inductance, by which is meant the counter-electromotive force that is always present and opposed to the regular voltage in an alternating current circuit. One effect of inductance is to cut down the voltage at that end of the line where the power is delivered to a sub-station, just as is also done by the ohmic resistance of the line conductors. Between the loss of voltage due to line resistance and the loss due to inductance there is the very important difference that the former represents an actual conversion of electrical energy into heat, while the latter is simply the loss of pressure without any material decrease in the amount of energy. While the loss of energy in a transmission line depends directly on its resistance, the loss of pressure due to inductance depends[231] on the diameter of conductors without regard to their resistance, on the length of the circuit, the distance between the conductors, and on the frequency or number of cycles per second through which the current passes. As a result of these facts, it is not desirable or even practicable to use inductance as a factor in the calculation of the resistance or weight of a transmission line. On transmission lines, as ordinarily constructed, the loss of voltage due to inductance generally ranges between 25 and 100 per cent of the number of volts lost at full load because of the resistance of the conductors. This loss through inductance may be lowered by reducing the diameter of individual wires, though the resistance of all the circuits concerned in the transmission remains the same, by bringing the wires nearer together and by adopting smaller frequencies. In practice the volts lost through inductance are compensated for by operating generators or transformers in the power-plant at a voltage that insures the delivery of energy in the receiving-station at the required pressure. Thus, in a certain case, it may be desirable to transmit energy with a maximum loss of ten per cent in the line at full load, due to the resistance of the conductors, when the effective voltage at the generator end of the line is 10,000, so that the pressure at the receiving-station will be 9,000 volts. If it appears that the loss of pressure due to inductance on this line will be 1,000 volts, then the generators should be operated at 11,000 volts, which will provide for the loss of 1,000 volts by inductance, leave an effective voltage of 10,000 on the line, and allow the delivery of energy at the sub-station with a pressure of 9,000 volts, when there is a ten-percent loss of power due to the line resistance.
The principles and formulas mentioned apply to the design of transmission lines for both continuous and alternating currents, but when using alternating current, some additional factors need to be taken into account. One of these factors is inductance, which refers to the counter-electromotive force that is consistently present and opposes the normal voltage in an alternating current circuit. One consequence of inductance is that it reduces the voltage at the end of the line where power is delivered to a substation, similar to the effect of the ohmic resistance of the line conductors. The key difference between the voltage loss from line resistance and that from inductance is that the former represents an actual conversion of electrical energy into heat, while the latter is merely a loss of pressure without a significant decrease in the amount of energy. While the energy loss in a transmission line directly correlates to its resistance, the pressure loss due to inductance depends on the diameter of the conductors, regardless of their resistance, as well as the length of the circuit, the distance between the conductors, and the frequency or number of cycles per second through which the current flows. Due to these facts, it is neither desirable nor practical to use inductance as a factor in calculating the resistance or weight of a transmission line. In typical transmission lines, the voltage loss due to inductance usually ranges from 25 to 100 percent of the voltage lost at full load because of conductor resistance. This inductance loss can be reduced by decreasing the diameter of individual wires, keeping the resistance of all circuits the same, bringing the wires closer together, and using smaller frequencies. In practice, the voltage lost due to inductance is compensated by operating generators or transformers at the power plant at a voltage that ensures energy delivery at the required pressure at the receiving station. For instance, in a specific scenario, it might be necessary to transmit energy with a maximum loss of ten percent in the line at full load due to conductor resistance when the effective voltage at the generator end of the line is 10,000 volts, resulting in a pressure of 9,000 volts at the receiving station. If it turns out that the inductance pressure loss on this line will be 1,000 volts, the generators should be operated at 11,000 volts, which will account for the 1,000 volts lost through inductance, leaving an effective voltage of 10,000 on the line and enabling energy delivery at the substation at a pressure of 9,000 volts, when there is a ten percent loss of power due to line resistance.
Inductance not only sets up a counter-electromotive force in the line, which reduces the voltage delivered to it by generators or transformers, but also causes a larger current to flow in the line than is indicated by the division of the number of watts delivered to it by the virtual voltage of delivery. The amount of current increase depends on both the inductance of the line itself and also on the character of its connected apparatus. In a system with a mixed load of lamps and motors there is quite certain to be some inductance, but it is very hard to predetermine its exact amount. Experience with such systems shows, however, that the increase of line current due to inductance is often not above five and usually less than ten per cent of the current that would flow if there were no inductance. To provide for the flow of this additional current, due to inductance, without an increase of the loss in volts because of ohmic resistance, the cross section of the line conductors must be enlarged by a percentage equal to that of the additional current. This means that in[232] an ordinary case of a transmission with either single, two, or three-phase alternating current, the circular mils of each line wire, as computed with the formulæ above given, should be increased by five to ten per cent. Such increase in the cross section of wires of course carries with it a like rise in the total weight of the conductors for the transmission. If wire of the cross section computed with the formulæ is employed for the alternating current transmission, inductance in an ordinary case will raise the assumed line loss of power by five to ten per cent of what it would be if no inductance existed. Thus, with conductors calculated by the formulæ for a power loss of ten per cent at full load, inductance in an ordinary case would raise this loss to somewhere between 10.5 and eleven per cent. As a rule it may therefore be said that inductance will seldom increase the weight of line conductors, or the loss of power therein, by more than ten per cent.
Inductance not only creates a counter-electromotive force in the line, which lowers the voltage supplied by generators or transformers, but it also causes a higher current to flow in the line than what you'd expect from dividing the number of watts delivered by the effective voltage. The extent of this current increase relies on both the line’s inductance and the type of equipment connected to it. In a system with a mixed load of lamps and motors, there is likely some inductance, but it’s challenging to accurately predict how much. Experience with these systems shows that the increase in line current due to inductance is often no more than five percent, and usually less than ten percent of the current that would flow if there were no inductance. To accommodate this extra current caused by inductance without increasing the voltage loss due to ohmic resistance, the cross-section of the line conductors must be enlarged by a percentage equal to the additional current. This means that in[232] a typical case of transmission with either single, two, or three-phase alternating current, the circular mils of each line wire, calculated using the formulas provided above, should be increased by five to ten percent. Such an increase in the wire’s cross section will also raise the total weight of the conductors for transmission. If the wire of the calculated cross section is used for alternating current transmission, inductance in a typical case will increase the presumed line power loss by five to ten percent compared to if there were no inductance. Thus, using conductors calculated for a ten percent power loss at full load, inductance in a typical case would raise this loss to between 10.5 and eleven percent. Generally, it can be stated that inductance will rarely increase the weight of line conductors or the power loss within them by more than ten percent.
When an alternating current flows along a conductor its density is not uniform in all parts of each cross section, but the current density is least at the centre of the conductor and increases toward the outside surface. This unequal distribution of the alternating current over each cross section of a conductor through which it is passing increases with the diameter or thickness of the conductor and with the frequency of the alternating current. By reason of this action the ohmic resistance of any conductor is somewhat greater for an alternating than for a continuous current, because the full cross section of the conductor cannot be utilized with the former current. Fortunately, the practical importance of this unequal distribution of alternating current over each cross section of its conductor is usually slight, so far as the sizes of wires for transmission lines are concerned, because the usual frequencies of current and diameters of conductors concerned are not great enough to give the effect mentioned a large numerical value. Thus, sixty cycles per second is the highest frequency commonly employed for the current on transmission lines. With a 4-0 wire, and the current frequency named, the increase in the ohmic resistance for alternating over that for continuous current does not reach one-half of one per cent.
When an alternating current flows through a conductor, its density isn’t the same across all parts of each cross-section. The current density is lowest in the center of the conductor and increases toward the outer surface. This uneven distribution of alternating current in each cross-section of a conductor grows with the diameter or thickness of the conductor and the frequency of the alternating current. Because of this, the ohmic resistance of any conductor is slightly higher for alternating current than for direct current since the entire cross-section of the conductor can't be fully utilized by the alternating current. Luckily, this uneven distribution of alternating current in each cross-section is usually not a big deal for the sizes of wires used in transmission lines because the typical frequencies of the current and sizes of conductors aren’t high enough to cause a significant effect. For example, sixty cycles per second is the highest frequency commonly used for current on transmission lines. With a 4-0 wire and the specified current frequency, the increase in ohmic resistance for alternating current compared to direct current is less than half of one percent.
Having calculated the circular mils of weight of a transmission line by the foregoing formulæ, it appears that the only material increase of this weight required by the use of alternating current is that due to inductance. This increase cannot be calculated exactly beforehand because of the uncertain elements in future loads, but experience shows that it is seldom more than ten per cent of the calculated size or weight of conductors.
Having calculated the circular mils of weight of a transmission line using the formulas above, it seems that the only significant increase in this weight from using alternating current is due to inductance. This increase can't be precisely calculated in advance because of the unpredictable elements in future loads, but experience shows that it’s usually no more than ten percent of the calculated size or weight of the conductors.
CHAPTER XVII.
Transmission circuit selection.
Maximum power, voltage, loss, and weight of conductors having been fixed for a transmission line, the number of circuits that shall make up the line, and the relations of these circuits to each other, remain to be determined.
Maximum power, voltage, loss, and weight of conductors for a transmission line have been established; now, the number of circuits that will make up the line and how these circuits relate to one another still need to be determined.
In practice wide differences exist as to the number and relations of circuits on a single transmission line between two points. Cases illustrating this fact are the 147-mile transmission from Electra power-house to San Francisco and the 65-mile transmission between Cañon Ferry, on the Missouri River and Butte, Mont. At the Electra plant the generator capacity is 10,000 kilowatts, and the transmission to San Francisco is carried out over a single pole line that carries one circuit composed of three aluminum conductors, each with an area in cross section of 471,000 circular mils. From the generators at Cañon Ferry, which have an aggregate capacity of 7,500 kilowatts, a part of the energy goes to Helena over a separate line, and the transmission to Butte goes over two pole lines that are 40 feet apart. Each of these two pole lines carries a single circuit composed of three copper conductors, and each conductor has a cross section of 105,600 circular mils. The difference in practice illustrated by these two plants is further brought out by the fact that their voltages are not far apart, as the Cañon Ferry and Butte line operates at 50,000, and the Electra and San Francisco line at 60,000 volts.
In reality, there are significant differences in the number and arrangement of circuits on a single transmission line between two points. Examples of this are the 147-mile transmission from the Electra power plant to San Francisco and the 65-mile transmission between Cañon Ferry on the Missouri River and Butte, Montana. At the Electra facility, the generator capacity is 10,000 kilowatts, and the transmission to San Francisco is done via a single pole line that supports one circuit made up of three aluminum conductors, each with a cross-sectional area of 471,000 circular mils. From the generators at Cañon Ferry, which have a total capacity of 7,500 kilowatts, part of the energy is sent to Helena over a separate line, while the transmission to Butte uses two pole lines that are 40 feet apart. Each of these two pole lines carries a single circuit comprised of three copper conductors, with each conductor having a cross-section of 105,600 circular mils. The difference in practice shown by these two plants is further highlighted by the fact that their voltages are not very far apart, as the Cañon Ferry to Butte line operates at 50,000 volts, while the Electra to San Francisco line operates at 60,000 volts.
Economy in the construction of a transmission line points strongly to the use of a single circuit, because this means only one line of poles, usually but one cross-arm for the power wires per pole, the least possible number of pins and insulators, and the smallest amount of labor for the erection of the conductors. In favor of a single circuit there is also the argument of greatest mechanical strength in each conductor, since the single circuit is to have the same weight as that of all the circuits that may be adopted in its place. Where each conductor of the single circuit would have a cross section of less than 83,690 circular mils, if of copper, corresponding to a No. 1 B. & S. gauge wire, the argument as to mechanical strength is of especial force, since two equal circuits instead of[234] one, in the case where one circuit of No. 1 wires would have the required weight, reduce the size of each conductor to No. 4 wire, of 41,740 circular mils cross section, and this is the smallest wire that it is practicable to use on long lines for mechanical reasons. Opposed to these arguments for a single circuit are those based on the supposed greater reliability of two or more circuits, their greater ease of repair, their more effective means of regulation, and the influence on inductance of a reduction in the size of conductors.
The cost-efficiency of building a transmission line strongly favors using a single circuit. This approach means only one line of poles, typically just one cross-arm for the power wires per pole, the fewest possible number of pins and insulators, and the least amount of labor required to set up the conductors. Another advantage of a single circuit is that each conductor receives the maximum mechanical strength since the single circuit needs to have the same weight as all the circuits that could be used instead. If each conductor in the single circuit has a cross-section of less than 83,690 circular mils, which is equivalent to a No. 1 B. & S. gauge wire, the argument for mechanical strength is particularly compelling. Using two equivalent circuits rather than one would mean that if one circuit with No. 1 wires met the required weight, it would reduce the size of each conductor to No. 4 wire, which has a cross-section of 41,740 circular mils, and this is the smallest wire that can be used for long lines due to mechanical reasons. Opposing this case for a single circuit are arguments suggesting that two or more circuits are supposedly more reliable, easier to repair, provide better regulation, and have an impact on inductance due to a decrease in conductor size.
In spite of the consequent reduction in the size of each conductor, the use of two or more separate circuits for the same transmission is sometimes thought to increase its reliability, because in case of a break or short-circuit on one of the circuits the other will still be available. Breaks in transmission conductors are due either to mechanical strains alone, as wind pressure, the falling of trees, or the accumulation of ice, or else to an arc between the conductors that tends to melt them at some point. As a smaller conductor breaks or melts more readily than a large one, the use of two or more circuits instead of a single circuit tends to increase troubles of this sort. It thus seems that while two or more circuits give a greater chance of continued operation after a break in a conductor actually occurs, the use of a single circuit with larger conductors makes any break less probable.
Despite the reduced size of each conductor, using two or more separate circuits for the same transmission is sometimes seen as a way to boost reliability. This is because if one circuit breaks or shorts out, the other will still be operational. Breaks in transmission conductors happen due to mechanical stress, like wind pressure, falling trees, or ice buildup, or from an arc between the conductors that can melt them at some point. Since smaller conductors break or melt more easily than larger ones, having multiple circuits instead of just one can actually increase these kinds of issues. So, while having two or more circuits provides a better chance of continuing operation after a conductor break occurs, using a single circuit with larger conductors makes a break less likely.
When repairs must be made on a transmission line, as in replacing a broken insulator or setting a pole in the place of one that has burned, it is certainly convenient to have two or more circuits so that one may be out of use while the repairs on it are made. It is practicable, however, to make such repairs on any high-voltage circuit, even when it is in use, provided the conductors are spaced so far apart that there is no chance of making a contact or starting an arc between them. To get such distance between conductors there should be only one circuit per pole, and even then more room should be provided for that circuit than is common in this type of construction. On each of the two pole lines between Cañon Ferry and Butte there is a single circuit of three conductors arranged in triangular form, two at the opposite ends of a cross-arm and one at the top of the pole, and the distance from each conductor of a circuit to either of the other two is 6.5 feet. This distance between conductors is perhaps as great as that on any transmission circuit now in use, but it seems too small to make repairs on the circuit reasonably safe when it is in operation at a pressure of 50,000 volts. There seems to be no good reason why the distance between the conductors of a single circuit to which a pole line is devoted might not be increased to as much[235] as ten feet, at the slightly greater expense of longer cross-arms. With as much as ten feet between conductors, and special tools with long wooden handles to grasp these conductors, there should be no serious danger about the repair of even 60,000-volt lines when in operation. As the 60,000-volt line between Electra and San Francisco consists of only one circuit, it seems that repairs on it must be contemplated during operation.
When repairs need to be done on a transmission line, like replacing a broken insulator or putting in a new pole for one that has burned down, having two or more circuits is definitely useful so that one can be shut down while repairs are happening. However, it's actually possible to do repairs on any high-voltage circuit even while it's in use, as long as the conductors are spaced far enough apart to prevent any contact or arcing. To achieve that distance between conductors, each pole should have only one circuit, and even then there should be more space for that circuit than is typical for this kind of construction. On each of the two pole lines between Cañon Ferry and Butte, there's a single circuit with three conductors arranged in a triangular shape, with two at the ends of a cross-arm and one at the top of the pole, and the distance between each conductor in a circuit and the other two is 6.5 feet. This spacing is probably as wide as any transmission circuit currently in use, but it seems too narrow to ensure safety while making repairs on the circuit when it's operating at 50,000 volts. There's really no good reason why the distance between the conductors of a single circuit on a pole line couldn't be increased to as much[235] as ten feet, which would involve a slightly higher cost for longer cross-arms. With a ten-foot gap between conductors and special tools with long wooden handles to handle these conductors, there should be minimal danger when repairing even 60,000-volt lines while they're in operation. Since the 60,000-volt line between Electra and San Francisco has only one circuit, it looks like repairs on it must be planned during operation.
Another example of a high-voltage transmission carried out with a single circuit is that between Shawinigan Falls and Montreal, a distance of eighty-five miles. In this case the circuit is made up of three aluminum conductors, each of which has an area in cross section of 183,750 circular mils, and these conductors are located five feet apart, one at the top of each pole, and two at the ends of a cross-arm below. This single circuit is in regular operation at 50,000 volts for the supply of light and power in Montreal, and it is hard to see how repairs while there is current on the line are to be avoided.
Another example of a high-voltage transmission done with a single circuit is the one between Shawinigan Falls and Montreal, spanning a distance of eighty-five miles. In this case, the circuit consists of three aluminum conductors, each with a cross-sectional area of 183,750 circular mils. These conductors are positioned five feet apart, with one at the top of each pole and two at the ends of a cross-arm below. This single circuit operates regularly at 50,000 volts to supply light and power in Montreal, and it’s difficult to see how repairs can be made while the line is live.
Inductance varies with the ratio between the diameter of the wires in any circuit and the distance between these wires, but as inductance simply raises the voltage that must be delivered by generators or transformers, and does not represent a loss of energy, it may generally be given but little weight in selecting the number of circuits, the distance between conductors, and the size of each conductor. If two or more circuits with smaller conductors have a combined resistance in multiple equal to that of a single circuit with larger conductors, the loss of voltage due to inductance may be greater on the single circuit than the corresponding loss on the multiple circuits, but the advantages due to the single circuit may more than compensate for the higher pressure at generators or transformers. That such advantages have been thought to exist in actual construction may be seen from the fact that the 147-mile line from Electra power-house to San Francisco, and the 83-mile line from Shawinigan Falls to Montreal, are composed of one circuit each. As inductance increases directly with the length of circuits, these very long lines are especially subject to its influence, yet it was thought that the advantages of a single circuit more than offset its disadvantages in each case.
Inductance changes based on the ratio of the diameter of the wires in any circuit to the distance between these wires. However, since inductance simply increases the voltage that generators or transformers need to deliver, and does not indicate a loss of energy, it is generally not given much importance when deciding on the number of circuits, the spacing between conductors, and the size of each conductor. If two or more circuits with smaller conductors have a combined resistance equal to that of a single circuit with larger conductors, the voltage loss from inductance might be higher in the single circuit than in the multiple circuits. Still, the benefits of the single circuit may more than make up for the increased voltage required by generators or transformers. The belief that such benefits exist in practical applications is supported by the fact that the 147-mile line from the Electra power-house to San Francisco, and the 83-mile line from Shawinigan Falls to Montreal, each consist of a single circuit. Since inductance increases with the length of circuits, these very long lines are particularly affected by it, yet it was believed that the advantages of a single circuit outweighed its drawbacks in both cases.
Where several sub-stations, widely separated, are to be supplied with energy by the same transmission line, another argument exists for the division of the line conductors into more than one circuit, so that there may be an independent circuit to each sub-station. As the pressure for local distribution lines must be regulated at each sub-station, it is quite an advantage to have a separate transmission circuit between each sub-station[236] and the power plant, so that the voltage on each circuit at the power-house may be adjusted as nearly as possible to the requirements of its sub-station. An interesting illustration of this practice may be noted in the design of transmission circuits for the line between Spier Falls on the Hudson River and the cities of Schenectady, Troy, and Albany, located between thirty and forty miles to the south, which passes through Saratoga and Ballston on the way. When this transmission line is completed, four three-phase circuits, one of No. 0 and three of No. 000 copper wire, will run to the Saratoga switch-house from the generating plant at the Falls, a distance of some eight miles.
Where multiple sub-stations, far apart from each other, are powered by the same transmission line, there's a strong case for splitting the line conductors into more than one circuit, ensuring there’s an independent circuit for each sub-station. Since the voltage for local distribution lines needs to be adjusted at each sub-station, having a separate transmission circuit between each sub-station and the power plant is a big advantage. This setup allows the voltage on each circuit at the power plant to be matched as closely as possible to the needs of its corresponding sub-station. A notable example of this approach can be seen in the transmission circuit design for the line connecting Spier Falls on the Hudson River to the cities of Schenectady, Troy, and Albany, which are located about thirty to forty miles to the south and pass through Saratoga and Ballston. Once this transmission line is completed, there will be four three-phase circuits—one using No. 0 copper wire and three using No. 000 copper wire—running to the Saratoga switch-house from the generating plant at the Falls, covering a distance of about eight miles.[236]
From this switch-house two circuits of No. 0 conductors go to the Saratoga sub-station, a little more than one mile away, two circuits of No. 000 wires run to the Watervliet sub-station, across the river from Troy and thirty-five miles from the generating station, and one circuit of No. 0 and one circuit of No. 000 wires are carried to Schenectady, thirty miles from Spier Falls, passing through and supplying the Ballston sub-station on the way. Other circuits connect the sub-station at Watervliet with that at Schenectady and with the water-power station at Mechanicsville. From the Watervliet sub-station secondary lines run to sub-stations that control the local distribution of light and power in Albany and Troy. This network of transmission circuits was made desirable by the conditions of this case, which include the general supply of light and power in three large and several smaller cities, the operation of three large electric railway systems, and the delivery of thousands of horse-power for the motors in a great manufacturing plant.
From this switch-house, two circuits of No. 0 conductors go to the Saratoga sub-station, which is just over a mile away. Two circuits of No. 000 wires run to the Watervliet sub-station, located across the river from Troy and thirty-five miles from the generating station. Additionally, one circuit of No. 0 and one circuit of No. 000 wires are routed to Schenectady, thirty miles from Spier Falls, supplying the Ballston sub-station along the way. Other circuits connect the Watervliet sub-station with Schenectady and the water-power station at Mechanicsville. From the Watervliet sub-station, secondary lines extend to sub-stations that manage the local distribution of light and power in Albany and Troy. This network of transmission circuits was necessary due to the needs of the situation, which involves supplying light and power to three large cities and several smaller ones, operating three major electric railway systems, and providing thousands of horsepower for the motors in a large manufacturing facility.
In not every transmission system with different and widely scattered loads it is thought desirable to provide more than one main circuit. Thus, the single circuit eighty-three miles long that transmits energy from Shawinigan Falls to Montreal is designed to supply power also in some smaller places on the way.
In many transmission systems with varying and widely distributed loads, it isn't considered necessary to have more than one main circuit. For example, the single circuit that is eighty-three miles long, which carries energy from Shawinigan Falls to Montreal, is also designed to supply power to some smaller locations along the route.
So again, the 147-mile circuit from Electra power-house to San Francisco passes through a dozen or more smaller places, including Stockton, and is tapped with side lines that run to Oakland and San José. In cases like this, where very long lines run through large numbers of cities and towns that sooner or later require service, it is obviously impracticable to provide a separate circuit for each centre of local distribution. It may well be in such a case that a single main transmission circuit connected to a long line of sub-stations will represent the best possible solution of the problem. At the power-house end of such a circuit the voltage will naturally be regulated to suit that sub-station where the load is the most[237] important or exacting, and each of the other sub-stations will be left to do all of the regulating for its own load.
So once again, the 147-mile route from the Electra power plant to San Francisco goes through more than a dozen smaller towns, including Stockton, and is connected by side lines to Oakland and San José. In situations like this, where very long lines pass through a lot of cities and towns that eventually need service, it’s clearly impractical to create a separate circuit for each local distribution center. In such cases, a single main transmission circuit linked to a series of substations may be the best possible solution to the problem. At the power plant end of this circuit, the voltage will naturally be adjusted to meet the needs of the substation with the most significant or demanding load, while each of the other substations will handle the voltage regulation for its own load.

Fig. 76.—Connections at Watervliet Sub-station on Spier Falls Line.
Fig. 76.—Connections at Watervliet Substation on Spier Falls Line.
The greater the total loss of voltage on a transmission line supplying sub-stations that are scattered along much of its length, the larger will be the fluctuations of voltage that must be compensated for at all of the sub-stations save one, under changing loads, if only one circuit is employed between the power-plant and these sub-stations. Suppose, for example, that a transmission line 100 miles long is composed of a single circuit, and supplies two sub-stations, one located 50 miles and the other 100 miles from the power-plant. Assume at first that there is no load whatever at the intermediate sub-station. If the single transmission circuit operates with 50,000 volts at the power-plant, and 45,000 volts at the sub-station 100 miles away when there is a full load there, corresponding to a loss of ten per cent, then the pressure at the intermediate sub-station will be 47,500 volts. If, now, the load at the sub-station 100 miles from the power-house drops to a point where the entire line loss is only 1,000 volts, and the pressure at the generating plant is lowered to 46,000 volts so as to maintain 45,000 volts at the more distant sub-station, then the pressure at the intermediate sub-station will be 45,500 volts, or 2,000 volts less than it was before. If the loss on the entire line at full load were only five per cent, making the voltage at the sub-station 100 miles away 47,500 when that at the generating station is 50,000,[238] then the pressure at the intermediate sub-station will be 48,750 volts. Upon a reduction of the loss on the entire length of line to one-fifth of its maximum amount, or to 500 volts, the pressure at the generating station must be reduced to 48,000 volts, if that at the more distant sub-station is to be held constant at 47,500. At the intermediate sub-station the pressure will then be 47,750 volts, or 1,000 volts less than it was at full load. From these two examples it may be seen that the extent of pressure variation at the intermediate sub-station will depend directly on the maximum line loss, if the regulation at the generating station is such as to maintain a constant voltage at the sub-station 100 miles away.
The more voltage is lost on a transmission line that supplies sub-stations spread along its length, the greater the voltage fluctuations that need to be compensated at all the sub-stations except one, especially when only one circuit is used between the power plant and these sub-stations. For instance, imagine a 100-mile-long transmission line with a single circuit that provides power to two sub-stations: one is 50 miles away, and the other is 100 miles away from the power plant. Initially, assume there’s no load at the intermediate sub-station. If the transmission circuit operates at 50,000 volts at the power plant and 45,000 volts at the sub-station 100 miles away when it's fully loaded, resulting in a 10% loss, then the voltage at the intermediate sub-station will be 47,500 volts. Now, if the load at the 100-mile sub-station drops such that the total line loss is just 1,000 volts, and the voltage at the power plant is adjusted to 46,000 volts to maintain 45,000 volts at the further sub-station, the voltage at the intermediate sub-station will be 45,500 volts, which is 2,000 volts lower than before. If the line loss at full load is only 5%, making the voltage at the sub-station 100 miles away 47,500 volts when it’s 50,000 volts at the generating station, then the voltage at the intermediate sub-station will be 48,750 volts. When the line loss across its entire length is reduced to one-fifth of its maximum (500 volts), the voltage at the generating station must drop to 48,000 volts to keep the voltage at the more distant sub-station constant at 47,500 volts. In this case, the voltage at the intermediate sub-station will be 47,750 volts, or 1,000 volts lower than it was at full load. These two examples illustrate that the amount of voltage variation at the intermediate sub-station is directly related to the maximum line loss, assuming the generating station adjusts to maintain a constant voltage at the sub-station 100 miles away.

Fig. 77.—Sections of Switch-house on New Hampshire Traction System.
Fig. 77.—Sections of the Switch-house on the New Hampshire Traction System.
All the foregoing has assumed no load to be connected at the intermediate sub-station, and with a load there the fluctuations of pressure will of course depend on its amount as well as on the load at the more distant sub-station.
All of the above assumes that no load is connected at the intermediate sub-station, and with a load present, the pressure fluctuations will, of course, depend on its size as well as on the load at the farther sub-station.
One of the strongest reasons for the use of two or more circuits in the same transmission line arises from the rapid fluctuations of load where large stationary motors or an electric railway system is operated. When a transmission line must carry a load of stationary or railway motors, it is a common practice to divide the line into at least two circuits,[239] and to devote one circuit exclusively to railway or motor work and another to lighting, at any one time. In some cases this division of the transmission system into two parts, one devoted to the lighting and the other to the motor load, is carried out not only as to the sub-station apparatus and the line, but also as to the transformers, generators, water-wheels, and even the penstocks at the power-plant. It is possible even to carry this division of the transmission system still further, and to separate either the motor or the lighting load, or both, into sections, and then to devote a distinct transmission circuit, group of transformers, generator, and water-wheel to the operation of each section. An example of the complete division of generating and transmitting apparatus into independent units may be noted in the case of the system that supplies light and power in Portland, Me., from a generating plant on the Presumpscot River, thirteen miles away. At this station four steel penstocks, each provided with a separate gate at the forebay wall, bring water to as many pairs of wheels, and each pair of wheels drives a direct-connected generator. Four three-phase circuits connect the generating plant with the sub-station at Portland, and each circuit between the generating plant and a transformer-house outside the business section of the city is made up of No. 2 solid soft-drawn copper wires.
One of the main reasons for using two or more circuits in the same transmission line comes from the quick changes in load when large stationary motors or an electric railway system is in operation. When a transmission line has to handle the load of stationary or railway motors, it’s common to split the line into at least two circuits,[239], dedicating one circuit entirely to railway or motor operations and the other to lighting, at any given time. Sometimes this division of the transmission system into two parts, one for lighting and the other for motor load, extends not just to the substation equipment and the line, but also to the transformers, generators, water wheels, and even the penstocks at the power plant. It’s even possible to take this division further, separating either the motor or lighting load, or both, into sections, each with its own distinct transmission circuit, group of transformers, generators, and water wheels for operation. A notable example of completely separating generating and transmitting equipment into independent units is found in the system providing light and power in Portland, Maine, from a generating plant located thirteen miles away on the Presumpscot River. At this station, four steel penstocks, each equipped with a separate gate at the forebay wall, deliver water to as many pairs of wheels, with each pair driving a direct-connected generator. Four three-phase circuits link the generating plant to the substation in Portland, and each circuit between the generating plant and a transformer house outside the city’s business area consists of No. 2 solid soft-drawn copper wires.
Each of these four sets of apparatus, from head-gate to sub-station, is usually operated independently of the others, and supplies either the motor load or a part of the electric lighting. In this way changes in the amount of one section of the load cause no fluctuation of the voltage on the other sections. At Manchester, N. H., the sub-station receives energy from four water-power plants, and is provided with two sets of low-tension, 2,300-volt, three-phase bus-bars, one set of these bus-bars being devoted to the operation of the local electric railway system, and the other set to the supply of lamps and stationary motors. Each set of these bus-bars is divided into a number of sections, and by means of these sections different transmission circuits are devoted to different portions of the lighting and motor loads. As three of the four water-power plants are connected to the sub-station by two circuits each, the division of loads in this case is often carried clear back to the generators, one generator in a power-house being operated, for instance, on railway work and another on a lighting load at the same time. This plan has the obvious advantage that much of the regulation for the several parts of the entire load may be done at the generators, thus reducing the amount of regulation necessary at the sub-station, and that fluctuating[240] motor loads do not affect the lamps. In this case the conductors of the several transmission circuits are all of moderate size, and the division of the lines was evidently adopted for purposes of regulation, rather than to reduce the amount of inductance. Thus the line between Gregg’s Falls and the sub-station, a distance of six miles, is made up of one three-phase circuit of No. 4 and one circuit of No. 6 bare copper wires. The fourteen-mile line between the plant at Garvin’s Falls and the sub-station, the longest of the four transmissions, is made up of two three-phase circuits, each composed of No. 0 bare copper wires. In the case of the Gregg’s Falls plant the subdivision of the line has gone further than that of the generating equipment, for the station there contains only a single generator, the rating being 1,200 kilowatts, while two circuits run thence to the sub-station. Another instance showing extensive subdivision of a line into separate circuits may be noted in the seven-mile transmission from Montmorency Falls to Quebec, Canada, where sixteen conductors, each No. 0 copper wire, make up four two-phase circuits that connect a plant of 2,400 kilowatts capacity with its sub-station.
Each of these four sets of equipment, from the head-gate to the sub-station, usually operates independently from each other, supplying either the motor load or part of the electric lighting. This way, changes in one section of the load don’t cause fluctuations in voltage in the other sections. In Manchester, N.H., the sub-station gets energy from four hydroelectric plants and is equipped with two sets of low-tension, 2,300-volt, three-phase bus bars. One set of these bus bars is dedicated to running the local electric railway system, while the other set supplies lamps and stationary motors. Each set of bus bars is divided into several sections, allowing different transmission circuits to be assigned to different parts of the lighting and motor loads. Since three out of the four hydroelectric plants are connected to the sub-station via two circuits each, the load division can even go back to the generators. For example, one generator in a power house might be serving railway needs while another handles lighting loads simultaneously. This approach has the clear advantage of enabling much of the load regulation to occur at the generators, thereby reducing the regulation needed at the sub-station, and ensuring that varying motor loads do not affect the lamps. In this case, the conductors for the various transmission circuits are all of moderate size, and the line division was clearly made for regulation purposes rather than to decrease inductance. For instance, the line between Gregg’s Falls and the sub-station, spanning six miles, consists of one three-phase circuit made up of No. 4 and one circuit of No. 6 bare copper wires. The fourteen-mile line from the plant at Garvin’s Falls to the sub-station, the longest of the four transmissions, consists of two three-phase circuits, each made of No. 0 bare copper wires. In the case of the Gregg’s Falls plant, the line division extends further than that of the generating equipment, as this station has only a single generator rated at 1,200 kilowatts, while two circuits run from it to the sub-station. Another example highlighting extensive line subdivision into separate circuits can be found in the seven-mile transmission from Montmorency Falls to Quebec, Canada, where sixteen No. 0 copper wire conductors make up four two-phase circuits connecting a 2,400 kilowatt capacity plant with its sub-station.
Such multiplication of transmission circuits has some advantages from the standpoint of regulation, but there are good reasons for limiting it to rather short lines, where it is, in fact, almost exclusively found. On very long lines the use of numerous circuits composed of rather small conductors would obviously increase the constant expense of inspection and repairs and add materially to uncertainty of the service. Very few, if any, transmission lines of as much as twenty-five miles in length are divided into more than two circuits, and in several instances lines of superlative length have only a single circuit each. The greatest single power transmission in the world, that between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, is carried out with two pole lines, one of which is about twenty and the other about twenty-three miles long. The longer pole line, which is also the older, carries two three-phase circuits, each of which is made up of three 350,000 circular mil copper conductors. The shorter pole line carries a single three-phase circuit composed of aluminum conductors, each of which has an area in cross section of 500,000 circular mils. In electrical conductivity the aluminum circuit is intended to be equal to each of the two that are composed of copper. According to the description of the Niagara Falls and Buffalo transmission system in vol. xviii., A. I. E. E., pages 518 to 527, each of these three circuits is designed to transmit about 7,500 kilowatts, and the maximum power transmitted up to August, 1901, was 15,600 kilowatts, or about the calculated capacity of two of the circuits. According to the description just mentioned, the[241] transmission circuits used to supply energy for use at Buffalo are regularly operated in parallel, and this is also true of the generators and the step-down transformers, though the uses to which this energy is applied include lighting, large stationary motors, and the electric railway system. Apparatus in the generating station at Niagara Falls and in the terminal-house near the city limits of Buffalo is so arranged, however, that two of the 3,750 kilowatt generators and eight step-up transformers at the power-house, together with one transmission circuit and three step-down transformers in the terminal-house at Buffalo, may be operated independently of all the other apparatus.
Having multiple transmission circuits has some benefits in terms of regulation, but there are solid reasons to keep it limited to relatively short lines, where it’s primarily found. On very long lines, using many circuits made up of smaller conductors would clearly raise ongoing costs for inspection and repairs and significantly increase service uncertainty. Very few, if any, transmission lines longer than twenty-five miles are divided into more than two circuits, and in several cases, exceptionally long lines only have a single circuit each. The largest single power transmission in the world, between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, is done with two pole lines, one about twenty miles long and the other about twenty-three miles long. The longer pole line, which is also the older one, carries two three-phase circuits, each consisting of three 350,000 circular mil copper conductors. The shorter pole line has a single three-phase circuit made of aluminum conductors, each with a cross-sectional area of 500,000 circular mils. The aluminum circuit is designed to be as conductive as each of the two copper circuits. According to the description of the Niagara Falls and Buffalo transmission system in vol. xviii., A. I. E. E., pages 518 to 527, each of these three circuits is meant to transmit about 7,500 kilowatts, and the maximum power transmitted by August 1901 was 15,600 kilowatts, roughly equivalent to the expected capacity of two circuits. The[241] transmission circuits that supply energy for Buffalo are typically operated in parallel, as are the generators and the step-down transformers, though this energy is used for lighting, large stationary motors, and the electric railway systems. The equipment in the generating station at Niagara Falls and at the terminal house near Buffalo’s city limits is set up so that two of the 3,750 kilowatt generators and eight step-up transformers in the power house, along with one transmission circuit and three step-down transformers in the Buffalo terminal house, can operate independently of the other equipment.
As already pointed out, the use of separate circuits for each sub-station, and for lighting and power loads at each sub-station in very long transmission systems, is often impracticable. Even in comparatively short transmissions the multiplication of circuits and the use of rather small and mechanically weak conductors increased the first cost of installation and the subsequent expense of inspection and repairs. An objection to operation with a single circuit in a transmission line that supplies widely separated sub-stations with lighting, power, and railway loads is the consequent difficulty of pressure regulation on the distribution lines at each sub-station. Such a transmission line necessarily delivers energy at different and fluctuating voltages at the several sub-stations, and these fluctuations are of course reproduced on the secondary side of the step-down transformers. Fortunately, however, the use of synchronous motor generators, either in place of or in connection with static transformers, goes far to solve the problem of pressure regulation for distribution circuits supplied with energy from transmission lines. This is due to the well-known fact that with constant frequency the speed of rotation for a synchronous motor is constant without regard to fluctuations in the applied voltage or changes in its load. With a constant speed at the motor and its connected generator it is of course easy to deliver current at constant voltage to the distribution lines. This constancy of speed makes the synchronous motor generator a favorite in large transmission systems with both power and lighting loads. The satisfactory lighting service in Buffalo, operated with energy transmitted from Niagara Falls, seems to be due in some measure to the use of synchronous motor generators at the sub-station in Buffalo, whence lighting circuits are supplied. As above stated, the three circuits that make up the transmission line between Niagara Falls and Buffalo are operated in multiple, and in the latter place there is a large load of both railway and stationary motors. As the three circuits are operated in multiple, they of course amount to[242] only a single circuit so far as fluctuations of voltage due to changes in these several sorts of loads are concerned. According to vol. xviii., A. I. E. E., pages 125 and following, the load on the transmission system at Buffalo in 1901 was made up of about 7,000 horse-power in railway motors, 4,000 horse-power in induction motors, and 4,000 horse-power divided up between series arc lamps, constant pressure incandescent lamps, and continuous current motors. The railway load is operated through step-down transformers and rotary converters. The induction motors are connected either to the 2,000-volt secondary circuits of the step-down transformers or to service transformers supplied by these circuits. On these railway and stationary motor loads there is of course no necessity for close pressure regulation. Series arc lamps are operated through step-down transformers and synchronous motors direct-connected to constant continuous current dynamos. Continuous current stationary motors draw power from the transmission lines through step-down transformers and rotary converters, like the railway load. For the 2,200 volt circuits that supply service transformers for commercial arc and incandescent lighting the transmitted energy passes through step-down transformers and synchronous motor-generators. These motor-generators raise the frequency from twenty-five to sixty cycles per second. Finally the continuous current three-wire system for incandescent lighting at about 250 volts between outside wires is operated through step-down transformers and synchronous motors direct-connected to continuous current generators. For this last-named service rotary converters were at first tried, but were found to be impracticable because voltage fluctuations on the transmission line (due largely to the railway and motor loads) were reproduced on the continuous-current circuits by the rotary converters. Since the adoption of motor-generators this fluctuation of the service voltage is no longer present.
As already mentioned, using separate circuits for each substation, and for lighting and power loads at each substation in very long transmission systems, is often impractical. Even in comparatively short transmissions, having multiple circuits and using relatively small, mechanically weak conductors increased the initial installation costs and the ongoing expenses for inspection and repairs. One downside to operating with a single circuit in a transmission line that supplies widely spaced substations with lighting, power, and railway loads is the resulting difficulty in pressure regulation on the distribution lines at each substation. Such a transmission line inevitably delivers energy at different and fluctuating voltages at the various substations, and these fluctuations are, of course, reflected on the secondary side of the step-down transformers. Fortunately, using synchronous motor generators, either instead of or in conjunction with static transformers, greatly helps resolve the pressure regulation issue for distribution circuits powered by transmission lines. This is because, with a constant frequency, the rotation speed of a synchronous motor remains constant regardless of fluctuations in the applied voltage or changes in its load. With a consistent speed at the motor and its connected generator, it's easy to deliver current at a constant voltage to the distribution lines. This steady speed makes the synchronous motor generator popular in large transmission systems with both power and lighting loads. The reliable lighting service in Buffalo, powered by energy transmitted from Niagara Falls, seems to be partly due to the use of synchronous motor generators at the Buffalo substation, which supplies the lighting circuits. As mentioned earlier, the three circuits that make up the transmission line between Niagara Falls and Buffalo are operated in parallel, and in Buffalo, there is a significant load of both railway and stationary motors. Since the three circuits are operated in parallel, they effectively function as a single circuit concerning voltage fluctuations caused by changes in these various types of loads. According to vol. xviii., A. I. E. E., pages 125 and onward, the load on the transmission system at Buffalo in 1901 included about 7,000 horsepower in railway motors, 4,000 horsepower in induction motors, and 4,000 horsepower split between series arc lamps, constant pressure incandescent lamps, and continuous current motors. The railway load is managed through step-down transformers and rotary converters. The induction motors are connected either to the 2,000-volt secondary circuits of the step-down transformers or to service transformers supplied by these circuits. For these railway and stationary motor loads, close pressure regulation isn't necessary. Series arc lamps are powered through step-down transformers and synchronous motors directly linked to constant continuous current generators. Continuous current stationary motors receive power from the transmission lines via step-down transformers and rotary converters, similar to the railway load. For the 2,200-volt circuits supplying service transformers for commercial arc and incandescent lighting, the transmitted energy goes through step-down transformers and synchronous motor-generators. These motor-generators increase the frequency from twenty-five to sixty cycles per second. Lastly, the continuous current three-wire system for incandescent lighting at around 250 volts between outside wires operates through step-down transformers and synchronous motors directly linked to continuous current generators. Initially, rotary converters were used for this last-mentioned service, but they proved impractical because voltage fluctuations on the transmission line (largely caused by the railway and motor loads) were replicated on the continuous current circuits by the rotary converters. Since switching to motor-generators, this voltage fluctuation issue has been resolved.
Another case in which synchronous motor-generators deliver power from a transmission line that carries both a lighting and a motor load is that of the Shawinigan sub-station in Montreal. At this sub-station the 85-mile transmission line from the generating plant at Shawinigan Falls terminates. As already pointed out, this line is composed of a single three-phase circuit of aluminum conductors, each of which has a cross section of 183,750 circular mils. In the Montreal sub-station the thirty-cycle, three-phase current from Shawinigan Falls is delivered to transformers that lower the voltage to 2,300. The current then goes to five synchronous motor-generators of 1,200 horse-power capacity each, and is there converted to sixty-three cycles per second, two-phase, at the[243] same voltage. This converted current passes onto the distribution lines of the local electrical supply system in Montreal, which also draws energy from two other water-power plants, and is devoted to lighting, stationary motors, or to the street railway work, as may be required. Though separate local distribution circuits are devoted to these several loads, the fluctuations in the stationary and railway motor work necessarily react on the voltage of the transmission line and transformers at the sub-station. By the use of the synchronous motor-generators the lighting circuits are protected from these pressure variations.
Another situation where synchronous motor-generators provide power from a transmission line that serves both lighting and motor loads is at the Shawinigan sub-station in Montreal. This sub-station is where the 85-mile transmission line from the generating plant at Shawinigan Falls ends. As mentioned before, this line consists of a single three-phase circuit made of aluminum conductors, each with a cross-section of 183,750 circular mils. At the Montreal sub-station, the thirty-cycle, three-phase current from Shawinigan Falls is delivered to transformers that reduce the voltage to 2,300. The current then goes to five synchronous motor-generators, each with a capacity of 1,200 horsepower, where it is converted to sixty-three cycles per second, two-phase, at the same voltage. This converted current flows into the distribution lines of the local electrical supply system in Montreal, which also receives energy from two other hydroelectric plants, and is used for lighting, stationary motors, or street railway operations as needed. Although separate local distribution circuits are designated for these various loads, the fluctuations in the stationary and railway motor operations inevitably affect the voltage of the transmission line and transformers at the sub-station. By using the synchronous motor-generators, the lighting circuits are shielded from these voltage variations.
As the numbers of sub-stations at different points on long transmission lines increase, and stationary motor and railway loads at each become more common, it is to be expected that the use of synchronous motor-generators for lighting service will be much more frequent than at present. With such use there will disappear one of the reasons for the multiplication of transmission circuits.
As the number of substations along long transmission lines increases and stationary motor and railway loads at each become more common, it's expected that synchronous motor-generators for lighting service will be used much more often than they are today. With this usage, one of the reasons for increasing the number of transmission circuits will diminish.

Fig. 78.—Transfer Switches at Saratoga Switch-house on Spier Falls Line.
Fig. 78.—Transfer Switches at the Saratoga Switch House on the Spier Falls Line.
Where several transmission circuits connect a generating plant with a single sub-station, or with several sub-stations in the same general direction, it is desirable to have switches so arranged that two or more circuits may be combined as one, or so that any circuit that ordinarily operates a certain load or sub-station may be devoted to another when occasion requires. For this purpose transfer switches on each circuit[244] are necessary at generating plants, sub-stations, and often at switch-houses. These transfer switches will ordinarily be of the knife type, and intended for manual operation when the circuits to which they are connected are not in use. As such switches are exposed to the full voltage of transmission, the insulation of their conducting parts should be very high. In the extensive transmission system between the power-plants at Spier Falls and Mechanicsville and the sub-stations at Troy, Albany, and Schenectady, N. Y., a transfer switch of highly insulated construction has been much used. The two blades of this switch move independently of each other, but both are mounted between the same metal clips. Each blade is of two by one-quarter inch drawn copper rod, and the clips supporting the two blades are mounted on top of a circular metal cap four and three-quarter inches in outside diameter and two inches high, that is cemented over the top of a large, double petticoat, porcelain line insulator.
Where multiple transmission circuits link a power plant to a single substation or to several substations in the same general direction, it's important to have switches set up so that two or more circuits can be combined as one, or so that any circuit that typically serves a specific load or substation can be redirected when needed. For this purpose, transfer switches on each circuit[244] are essential at power plants, substations, and often at switch-houses. These transfer switches are usually of the knife type and are designed for manual operation when the circuits they are connected to are not in use. Since these switches are exposed to the full voltage of transmission, the insulation of their conducting parts must be very high. In the extensive transmission system between the power plants at Spier Falls and Mechanicsville and the substations at Troy, Albany, and Schenectady, NY, a transfer switch with highly insulated construction has been widely used. The two blades of this switch move independently of each other, but both are mounted between the same metal clips. Each blade is made from a two by one-quarter inch drawn copper rod, and the clips supporting the two blades are mounted on top of a circular metal cap that is four and three-quarter inches in outside diameter and two inches high, which is cemented over the top of a large, double petticoat porcelain line insulator.

Fig. 79.—Cross Section of Schenectady Switch-house on Spier Falls Line.
Fig. 79.—Cross Section of Schenectady Switch-house on Spier Falls Line.
Clips into which these copper blades are swung in closing the switch are also mounted in caps carried by insulators in the way just described. Each of these insulators is mounted on a large wooden pin, and these pins are secured in timbers at the points where the switches are wanted. This construction of switches gives ample insulation for the line voltage[245] of 30,000 in this system. By means of the transfer switches just described, either of the transmission circuits leaving the Spier Falls power-plant may be connected to any one of the ten generators and ten groups of transformers there. At the Saratoga switch-house, any one of the twelve conductors, making up the four three-phase circuits from Spier Falls may be connected to any one of the eighteen conductors making up the six three-phase circuits that go south to Saratoga, Watervliet, and Schenectady sub-stations, in the way indicated by the drawing. So again at the Watervliet sub-station, where energy at 26,500 volts is received from Spier Falls and energy at 10,800 volts from Mechanicsville, any single conductor from either of these water-power plants may be connected, either directly or through a transformer, with either conductor running to the railway and lighting sub-stations about Albany and Troy. Where several transmission circuits are employed, this complete flexibility of connection evidently adds materially to the convenience and reliability of operation.
Clips for these copper blades are also mounted in caps carried by insulators in the way described earlier. Each of these insulators is attached to a large wooden pin, and these pins are secured into the timbers at the points where the switches are needed. This design for switches provides ample insulation for the line voltage[245] of 30,000 in this system. With the transfer switches mentioned, either of the transmission circuits leaving the Spier Falls power plant can be linked to any of the ten generators and ten groups of transformers there. At the Saratoga switch house, any one of the twelve conductors, which make up the four three-phase circuits from Spier Falls, can be connected to any one of the eighteen conductors that form the six three-phase circuits heading south to Saratoga, Watervliet, and Schenectady substations, as shown in the drawing. Similarly, at the Watervliet substation, where energy at 26,500 volts is received from Spier Falls and energy at 10,800 volts from Mechanicsville, any single conductor from either of these hydro power plants can be connected, either directly or through a transformer, to either conductor going to the railway and lighting substations around Albany and Troy. When several transmission circuits are used, this complete flexibility of connection clearly enhances the convenience and reliability of operation.
Circuits in Transmission Lines.
Circuits in Transmission Lines.
Location of Lines. | Length in Miles. |
Number of Circuits. |
Number of Pole Lines. |
Circular Mils per Wire. |
Cycles per Second of Current. |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Electra to San Francisco | 147 | 1 | 1 | [A]471,034 | 60 | |
Colgate to Oakland, Cal. | 142 | 2 | 2 | 133,100 | 60 | |
[A]211,000 | ||||||
Santa Ana River to Los Angeles | 83 | 2 | 1 | 83,690 | 60 | |
Shawinigan Falls to Montreal | 85 | 1 | 1 | [A]183,750 | 30 | |
Cañon Ferry to Butte | 65 | 2 | 2 | 106,500 | 60 | |
Welland Canal to Hamilton | 35 | 1 | 1 | 83,690 | 60 | |
Welland Canal to Hamilton | 37 | 1 | 1 | 133,100 | 60 | |
Spier Falls to Schenectady | 30 | 2 | 1 | 105,600 | 40 | |
167,800 | ||||||
Spier Falls to Watervliet, N. Y. | 35 | 2 | 1 | 167,800 | 40 | |
Ogden to Salt Lake City | 36 | 2 | 1 | 83,690 | 60 | |
Apple River Falls to St. Paul | 27 | 2 | 1 | 66,370 | 60 | |
Niagara Falls to Buffalo | 23 | 2 | 1 | 350,000 | 25 | |
Niagara Falls to Buffalo | 20 | 1 | 1 | [A]500,000 | 25 | |
Farmington River to Hartford | 11 | 1 | 1 | [A]364,420 | 60 | |
Niagara Falls to Toronto | 75 | 2 | 1 | [B] | 190,000 | 25 |
[A] Aluminum conductor. | ||||||
[B] Steel towers. |
CHAPTER XVIII.
Power transmission pole lines.
Long transmission lines should follow the most direct routes between generating and sub-stations as far as practicable. The number of poles, cross-arms, and insulators increases directly with the length of line, and the weight of conductors with the square of that length, other factors remaining equal. Every material deviation from a straight line must therefore be paid for at a rather high rate.
Long transmission lines should take the most direct paths between generating stations and substations whenever possible. The number of poles, cross-arms, and insulators increases directly with the length of the line, while the weight of the conductors increases with the square of that length, assuming other factors stay the same. Any deviation from a straight line has to be compensated for at quite a high cost.
Distribution lines necessarily follow the public streets in order to reach consumers, but the saving of the cost of a private right of way and ease of access are the main considerations which tend to keep transmission lines on streets and highways. Except in very rough or swampy country, the difficulty of access to a pole line on a private right of way is not a serious matter and should be given but little weight. The cost of a private right of way may be more important, and should be compared with the additional cost of the pole line and conductors if erected on the public highway. In this additional cost should be included any items for paving about the poles, extra pins, insulators, and guys made necessary by frequent turns in the highway, and the sums that may be required to secure the necessary franchises. There is also the possible contingency of future legislation as to the voltage that may be maintained on wires located over public streets. These considerations taken together give a strong tendency to the location of long transmission lines on private rights of way, especially where the amount of power involved is great and the voltage very high.
Distribution lines need to run along public streets to reach consumers, but saving money on private right-of-way costs and easier access are the main factors that keep transmission lines on roads and highways. Except in very rough or swampy areas, accessing a pole line on private property isn’t a significant issue and shouldn't be a major concern. The cost of a private right of way may be more crucial and should be compared to the extra costs of setting up the pole line and conductors if they’re placed on public highways. This extra cost should include expenses for paving around the poles, additional pins, insulators, and guys that are required because of frequent bends in the road, as well as any fees needed to secure the necessary franchises. There's also the possibility that future laws may regulate the voltage allowed on wires over public streets. When all these factors are considered, there’s a strong inclination to place long transmission lines on private rights of way, especially where a large amount of power is involved and the voltage is very high.
A transmission line 80.3 miles in length recently erected between Rochester and Pelham, N. H., by way of Portsmouth, where the generating station is located, to feed an electric railway system, operates at 13,200 volts and is mainly located on private rights of way. Deeds conveying the easements for this right of way provide that all trees or branches within one rod on either side of the line may be cut away. The transmission line between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, about twenty-three miles long and operating at 22,000 volts, is largely on a private way thirty feet wide.
A transmission line 80.3 miles long was recently constructed between Rochester and Pelham, N.H., passing through Portsmouth, where the generating station is located, to supply an electric railway system. It operates at 13,200 volts and mainly runs on private rights of way. Deeds granting the easements for this right of way state that all trees or branches within one rod on either side of the line can be cut down. The transmission line between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, approximately twenty-three miles long and operating at 22,000 volts, mostly runs on a private way that is thirty feet wide.

Fig. 80.—Transmission Line of New Hampshire Traction Company over Hampton River Bridge, 4,623 Feet Long.
Fig. 80.—Transmission Line of New Hampshire Traction Company over Hampton River Bridge, 4,623 Feet Long.
For the transmission between Cañon Ferry and Butte the line is mainly located on a private way. Between Colgate and Oakland the transmission line is mostly on private way, and this is also true of the greater part of some other high-pressure lines in California. These private rights of way range from fifty to several hundred feet wide, it being necessary in forests to cut down all trees that are tall enough to fall onto the wires.
For the transmission between Cañon Ferry and Butte, the line is primarily situated on private land. Between Colgate and Oakland, the transmission line is mostly on private land as well, and this is also the case for most of the other high-pressure lines in California. These private rights of way vary from fifty to several hundred feet wide, and in forested areas, it’s necessary to remove all trees that are tall enough to potentially fall onto the wires.
In some cases of transmission at very high voltage two independent pole lines are erected and one or more circuits are then run on each set of poles. This construction has been followed on the transmission line between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, Cañon Ferry and Butte, Welland Canal and Hamilton, and between Colgate and Oakland. Such double pole lines are more usually located on the same right of way, this being true of the Cañon Ferry and Colgate systems, but this is not always the case. In the Hamilton system the two lines of poles, one thirty-five miles and the other thirty-seven miles in length, are located several miles apart. The two sets of poles on a part of the Buffalo line are less than thirty feet, on the Colgate line are twenty-five feet, and on the Cañon Ferry line are forty feet apart.
In some cases of very high voltage transmission, two separate pole lines are built, and one or more circuits are then run on each set of poles. This setup has been used for the transmission line between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, Cañon Ferry and Butte, Welland Canal and Hamilton, and between Colgate and Oakland. These double pole lines are typically found on the same right of way, which is true for the Cañon Ferry and Colgate systems, but this isn't always the case. In the Hamilton system, the two lines of poles—one is thirty-five miles long and the other thirty-seven miles long—are several miles apart. The two sets of poles on a section of the Buffalo line are less than thirty feet apart, on the Colgate line they are twenty-five feet apart, and on the Cañon Ferry line they are forty feet apart.
The main reasons for the use of two pole lines instead of one are the probability that an arc started on one circuit will be communicated to another on the same poles, and the greater ease and safety of repairs when each circuit is on a separate line of poles. On each pole line of the Cañon Ferry transmission, and also on each pole line of the Colgate transmission, there is only one three-wire circuit. On the Cañon Ferry line each wire of the two circuits has a cross-section of only 106,500 circular mils, and on the Colgate line one circuit is of 133,225 circular mils wire and the other circuit is of 211,600 circular mils cable. In contrast with these figures the line of the Standard Electric Company between Electra and Mission San José, a distance of ninety-nine miles, is made up of only three conductors, each being an aluminum cable of 471,034 circular mils section. Inductance increases with the frequency of the current in a conductor, and in each of the three systems just considered the frequency is sixty cycles per second.
The main reasons for using two pole lines instead of one are the likelihood that an arc starting in one circuit will transfer to another on the same poles, and the increased ease and safety of repairs when each circuit is on a separate line of poles. On each pole line of the Cañon Ferry transmission, as well as on each pole line of the Colgate transmission, there is only one three-wire circuit. On the Cañon Ferry line, each wire of the two circuits has a cross-section of just 106,500 circular mils, while on the Colgate line, one circuit has 133,225 circular mils of wire and the other circuit has 211,600 circular mils of cable. In contrast, the line of the Standard Electric Company between Electra and Mission San José, which spans ninety-nine miles, consists of only three conductors, each made of aluminum cable with a section of 471,034 circular mils. Inductance increases with the frequency of the current in a conductor, and in each of the three systems just mentioned, the frequency is sixty cycles per second.
The use of one circuit of larger wire instead of two circuits of smaller wire has the obvious advantage of greater mechanical strength in each conductor, saves the cost of one pole line and of the erection of the second circuit. With voltages above 40,000 to 50,000 on long transmission lines there is a large loss of energy by leakage directly through the air from wire to wire. To keep this loss within desirable limits it may be necessary to[249] give each wire of a circuit a greater distance from the others of the same circuit than can readily be had if all the wires of each circuit are mounted on one line of poles. If there is only one three-wire circuit to be provided for, three lines of poles or two lines with a long crosspiece between them may be set with any desired distance between the lines so that the leakage through the air with one wire on each pole will be reduced to a small quantity. On a line built in this way it would be practically impossible for an arc to start between the wires by any of the usual means.
Using one larger wire circuit instead of two smaller wire circuits has clear benefits, including increased mechanical strength for each conductor and reduced costs for building one pole line instead of two. When voltages exceed 40,000 to 50,000 on long transmission lines, significant energy loss can occur due to leakage through the air between wires. To keep this loss manageable, it might be necessary to[249]space each wire in a circuit further apart than if all wires were mounted on a single line of poles. If there's only one three-wire circuit to install, three lines of poles or two lines with a long crosspiece can be arranged to allow any desired distance between lines, minimizing air leakage with one wire per pole. With this setup, it would be nearly impossible for an arc to form between the wires using standard methods.
Distances from pole to pole in the same line vary somewhat with the number, size, and material of the conductors to be carried. On ordinary construction in a straight line poles are often spaced from 100 to 110 feet apart—that is, about fifty poles per mile. On curves and near corners the spacing of poles should be shorter. Poles for the 80.3 miles, mentioned in New Hampshire, are regularly located 100 feet apart. Of the two pole lines between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, the older was designed to carry twelve copper cables of 350,000 circular mils each, and its poles were spaced only 70 feet apart. The newer line is designed to carry six aluminum cables of 500,000 circular mils each and its poles are 140 feet apart. Poles in each of the lines between Cañon Ferry and Butte are regularly spaced 110 feet apart and each pole carries three copper cables of 106,500 circular mils.
Distances from pole to pole in a straight line vary somewhat based on the number, size, and material of the conductors involved. In normal construction, poles are usually spaced about 100 to 110 feet apart, which is roughly fifty poles per mile. On curves and near corners, the spacing should be shorter. The poles for the 80.3 miles mentioned in New Hampshire are regularly placed 100 feet apart. Of the two pole lines between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, the older one was designed to carry twelve copper cables of 350,000 circular mils each, with the poles spaced only 70 feet apart. The newer line is designed for six aluminum cables of 500,000 circular mils each, and its poles are spaced 140 feet apart. Poles in each of the lines between Cañon Ferry and Butte are regularly spaced 110 feet apart, with each pole carrying three copper cables of 106,500 circular mils.

Fig. 81.—Chambly-Montreal Line Crossing the Chambly Canal.
Fig. 81.—Chambly-Montreal Line Crossing the Chambly Canal.

Fig. 82.—Special Wooden Structures on Line Between Spier Falls and Schenectady.
Fig. 82.—Unique Wooden Structures on the Route Between Spier Falls and Schenectady.
The two 142-mile lines between Colgate and Oakland are each made up of poles 132 feet apart, and one line of poles carries the three copper conductors and the other line of poles the aluminum conductors already named. As aluminum wire has only one-half the weight of copper wire of equal conductivity, the length of span between poles carrying aluminum wire may be greater than that where copper is used. Only a part of the strain on poles is due to the weight of wires carried, however. Where a body of water must be crossed, a very long span, with special supports for the wires at each side, may be necessary. A case of this sort was met where the Colgate and Oakland line crosses the Carquinez Straits at a point where the waterway is 3,200 feet wide. It was necessary to have the lowest part of the cables across these straits at least 200 feet above the surface of the water so that vessels with the tallest masts could pass underneath. To secure the necessary elevation for the cables a steel tower was built on each bank of the straits at such a point that the distance between the points for cable support on the two towers is 4,427 feet apart. As the banks rise rapidly from the water level, one steel tower was given a height of only 65 feet, while the height of the other was made 225 feet. Between these two towers four steel cables were suspended, each cable being made up of nineteen strands of galvanized[251] steel wire, having an outside diameter of seven-eighths inch and weighing 7,080 pounds for the span. The breaking strain of each cable is 98,000 pounds, and it has the electrical conductivity of a No. 2 copper wire. The cables are simply supported on the towers by steel rollers, and the pull of each cable, amounting to twelve tons, is taken by an anchorage some distance behind each tower, where the cable terminates. Each anchorage consists of a large block of cement deeply embedded in the ground, and with anchor bolts running through it. Each cable is secured to its anchorage through a series of strain insulators, and the regular line cables of copper and aluminum are connected with the steel cables just outside of the shelter built over the strain insulators of each anchor. Steel cables were used for the long span across the straits because of the great tensile strength that could be had in that metal. This span is, no doubt, the longest and highest that has ever been erected for electrical transmission at high voltage.
The two 142-mile lines between Colgate and Oakland consist of poles spaced 132 feet apart. One line of poles carries three copper conductors, while the other carries the aluminum conductors mentioned earlier. Since aluminum wire is only half the weight of copper wire with the same conductivity, the distance between poles for aluminum wire can be longer than for copper. However, the weight of the wires is just part of the strain on the poles. When crossing a body of water, a longer span with special supports for the wires on either side may be needed. An example of this is where the Colgate and Oakland line crosses the Carquinez Straits, where the water is 3,200 feet wide. The lowest part of the cables must be at least 200 feet above the water to allow vessels with tall masts to pass underneath. To achieve this height, a steel tower was built on each bank of the straits, positioned so that the distance between the cable support points on the two towers is 4,427 feet apart. Since the banks rise steeply from the water level, one steel tower is 65 feet tall, while the other is 225 feet tall. Four steel cables are suspended between these two towers, with each cable consisting of nineteen strands of galvanized steel wire, which has an outside diameter of seven-eighths inch and weighs 7,080 pounds for the span. Each cable can withstand a breaking strain of 98,000 pounds and has the same electrical conductivity as a No. 2 copper wire. The cables are supported on the towers by steel rollers, and the pull of each cable, which amounts to twelve tons, is managed by an anchorage located some distance behind each tower where the cable ends. Each anchorage consists of a large block of cement deeply embedded in the ground, with anchor bolts running through it. The cable is secured to its anchorage using a series of strain insulators, and the regular copper and aluminum line cables are connected to the steel cables just outside the shelter built over the strain insulators at each anchor. Steel cables were chosen for the long span across the straits because of their high tensile strength. This span is likely the longest and highest ever constructed for high-voltage electrical transmission.

Fig. 83.—Special Structure on Line Between Spier Falls and Schenectady.
Fig. 83.—Unique Structure on the Line Between Spier Falls and Schenectady.
It has been suggested in one instance that steel towers ninety feet high and 1,000 feet apart be substituted for pole lines and the wires strung from tower to tower. Such construction would increase the difficulty of insulation and would cost more at the start than a line of wooden poles. The question is whether a lower maintenance and depreciation rate for the steel towers would offset their disadvantages[252] compared with poles. Pole lines should be staked out with a transit, and the same instrument can be used to give a perpendicular position to each pole and bring it into line. Wooden poles are used in most cases of high-voltage transmission lines. Iron poles would make it unsafe to work on any circuit carried by them when it was transmitting current at high voltage. With iron poles a defective insulator might lead to the destruction of the conductors at that point through continuous arcing on to the iron.
It has been suggested in one instance that steel towers ninety feet high and 1,000 feet apart be used instead of pole lines, with wires strung from tower to tower. This kind of construction would make insulation harder and would initially cost more than a wooden pole line. The question is whether the lower maintenance and depreciation rates for the steel towers would make up for their drawbacks compared to poles. Pole lines should be laid out with a transit, and the same tool can be used to ensure each pole is perfectly positioned and aligned. Wooden poles are typically used for most high-voltage transmission lines. Iron poles would make it unsafe to work on any circuit they carry when transmitting high voltage. With iron poles, a faulty insulator could cause the conductors at that point to be damaged due to continuous arcing onto the iron. [252]

Fig. 84.—Crossing of Delaware and Hudson Railway Tracks
by 30,000-volt Line at
Saratoga, N. Y.
Fig. 84.—Intersection of Delaware and Hudson Railway Tracks
by 30,000-volt Line at Saratoga, NY.
The kinds of wood used for poles vary in different sections of the country. In New England, chestnut poles are a favorite and were used on the 80.3 miles of transmission line mentioned in New Hampshire. Cedar poles are used to some extent in nearly all parts of the country, including Canada. Spruce and pine poles are employed to some extent, especially in lengths of more than fifty feet. In the Rocky Mountain region and in California round cedar poles from the forests of Oregon,[253] Washington, and Idaho are much used. Sawed redwood poles from the trunks of large trees were erected on the 147-mile line between Electra power-house and San Francisco. For the Colgate and Oakland line Oregon cedar poles were selected, and the transmission between Cañon Ferry and Butte was carried out with cedar poles from Idaho. For transmission circuits it is far more important at most points to have poles very strong rather than very long. Where wires or obstructions must be crossed by the high-voltage circuits the poles should be long enough to carry these circuits well above everything else. In the open country, where no obstructions are to be avoided, it does not pay to use poles with a length greater than thirty-five feet.
The types of wood used for poles vary across different regions of the country. In New England, chestnut poles are popular and were used on the 80.3 miles of transmission line mentioned in New Hampshire. Cedar poles are utilized in almost all areas of the country, including Canada. Spruce and pine poles are used to some extent, especially in lengths over fifty feet. In the Rocky Mountain region and California, round cedar poles from the forests of Oregon, [253] Washington, and Idaho are widely used. Sawed redwood poles from large trees were installed on the 147-mile line between Electra power-house and San Francisco. For the Colgate and Oakland line, Oregon cedar poles were chosen, and the transmission between Cañon Ferry and Butte was done with cedar poles from Idaho. For transmission circuits, it is usually much more important at most points to have poles that are very strong rather than very long. Where high-voltage circuits need to cross wires or obstructions, the poles should be tall enough to keep these circuits well above everything else. In open areas, where there are no obstructions to avoid, it doesn't make sense to use poles longer than thirty-five feet.

Fig. 85.—Pole Line from Spier Falls over Mount McGregor.
Fig. 85.—Power Line from Spier Falls over Mount McGregor.
Short poles offer less surface to the wind, the length of the lever through which wind pressure acts to break the pole at the ground decreases with the length of pole, and the shorter the poles the smaller is the strain on struts and guy wires. If poles are only thirty or thirty-five[254] feet long, they may be large in diameter without excessive cost. As a rule, no pole should be used with a top less than seven inches in diameter, and a pole with this top should not be required to carry more than three wires. A pole with seven- or eight-inch top and thirty feet long should measure not less than twelve inches in diameter at the butt. For longer poles the diameters at the butt should increase up to at least eighteen inches for a round pole sixty feet long.
Short poles have less surface area for the wind to push against. As the pole gets shorter, the length of the lever where the wind pressure tries to break the pole at the ground decreases, meaning there’s less strain on the struts and guy wires. If poles are only thirty or thirty-five feet long, they can have a larger diameter without incurring excessive costs. Generally, no pole should have a top diameter of less than seven inches, and a pole with this size top should only need to support three wires at most. A pole with a seven- or eight-inch top that is thirty feet long should have a diameter of at least twelve inches at the base. For longer poles, the base diameter should increase, reaching at least eighteen inches for a round pole that is sixty feet long.
In the New Hampshire transmission above named the standard length of poles is thirty-five feet. On the line between Cañon Ferry and Butte the poles range from thirty-five to ninety feet in length. The round cedar poles used in the Colgate and Oakland line range from twenty-five to sixty feet in length, from eight to twelve inches diameter at the top, and from twelve to eighteen inches diameter at the butt. On the line between Electra and San Francisco the square-sawed redwood poles are reported to have the following dimensions, in a paper read at the annual convention of Edison Illuminating Companies in 1902.
In the New Hampshire transmission mentioned above, the standard pole length is thirty-five feet. On the route between Cañon Ferry and Butte, the pole lengths vary from thirty-five to ninety feet. The round cedar poles used in the Colgate and Oakland line range from twenty-five to sixty feet long, with diameters between eight to twelve inches at the top and twelve to eighteen inches at the base. On the line between Electra and San Francisco, the square-sawed redwood poles are reported to have the following dimensions, as stated in a paper presented at the annual convention of Edison Illuminating Companies in 1902.
Height, Feet. |
Top, Inches. |
Butt, Inches. |
Depth in Ground. |
|||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
35 | 7 | × | 7 | 12 | × | 12 | 5 | .5 | ||
40 | 8 | × | 8 | 13 | 1⁄2 | × | 13 | 1⁄2 | 6 | |
45 | 9 | × | 9 | 15 | × | 15 | 6 | .5 | ||
50 | 10 | × | 10 | 16 | × | 16 | 7 | |||
60 | 11 | × | 11 | 17 | × | 17 | 8 |
The relative dimensions of these poles are of interest because, being sawed from the trunks of large trees, they could have any desired measurements at the tops and butts. These poles, over the greater part of the line, carried the three aluminum cables of 471,034 circular mils each, previously mentioned. Depth to which poles are set in the ground ranges from about five feet for twenty-five- or thirty-foot poles to eight feet for poles sixty feet long. In locations where the soil is very soft or where poles must resist heavy strains the stability of each pole may be much increased by digging the hole two feet or more larger in diameter than the butt of the pole, and then filling in cement concrete—one part, by measure, of Portland cement, three of sand and five of broken stone—all around the butt of the pole after it is in the hole. The butts of poles up to a point one foot or more above the ground line are frequently treated with hot tar, pitch, asphalt, or carbolineum before the poles are erected, and in Salt Lake City salt is said to be used around pole butts after they are in the hole.
The sizes of these poles are important because, being cut from the trunks of large trees, they can be made to any specific measurements at the tops and bottoms. These poles, for most of the line, supported three aluminum cables of 471,034 circular mils each, as previously mentioned. The depth that poles are set into the ground ranges from about five feet for twenty-five- or thirty-foot poles to eight feet for sixty-foot poles. In areas where the soil is very soft or where poles need to withstand heavy stress, the stability of each pole can be greatly enhanced by digging the hole two feet or more wider than the base of the pole, then filling it with concrete—made of one part Portland cement, three parts sand, and five parts crushed stone—around the base of the pole after it’s set in the hole. The bases of poles, up to a foot or more above the ground, are often treated with hot tar, pitch, asphalt, or carbolineum before they’re put up, and in Salt Lake City, salt is reportedly used around pole bases once they’re set in the hole.
In some cases the poles of transmission lines are painted over their entire length. Pole tops should always be pointed or wedge-shaped, to shed water, and paint or tar should be applied to these tops. In some cases poles are filled with crude petroleum or other preservative compound in iron retorts, where moisture is withdrawn from the pole by exhausting the air, and then, after treatment with dry steam, the poles have the compound forced into them by hydraulic pressure.
In some cases, the poles of transmission lines are painted along their entire length. The tops of the poles should always be pointed or wedge-shaped to help shed water, and paint or tar should be applied to these tops. In some cases, poles are filled with crude oil or other preservative substances in iron retorts, where moisture is removed from the pole by exhausting the air. After that, the poles are treated with dry steam, and the preservative is forced into them using hydraulic pressure.
In favorable soils cedar poles may remain fairly sound for twenty years, chestnut poles more than one-half of that time, and spruce and pine about five years. Poles up to forty feet in length may be readily set with pike poles, but when they are much longer than this a derrick will save time and labor. A derrick should have a little more than one-half the length of the poles to be set.
In good soil, cedar poles can stay in decent condition for around twenty years, chestnut poles for a little over ten years, and spruce and pine for about five years. Poles up to forty feet long can easily be handled with pike poles, but if they are significantly longer, using a derrick will be more efficient. A derrick should be slightly more than half the length of the poles being set.

Fig. 86.—Chambly-Montreal Line Crossing the Richelieu River.
Fig. 86.—Chambly-Montreal Line Crossing the Richelieu River.
Poles should be guyed or braced at all points where there are material changes in the direction of the line, and on long straight stretches about every fifth pole should be guyed or braced in both directions to prevent the poles setting back when the line wire is cut or broken at any point. Where there is room for wooden struts, as on a private right of way, they should be used instead of guys because of their more substantial character and the higher security of insulation thus obtained. Ordinary strain insulators cannot be relied on with lines that operate at very high voltages, and where guys must be used a timber four by six inches and[256] ten to twenty feet long may have the guy twisted about each end of it and be used as a strain insulator. A guy or strut should come well up under the lower cross-arm on a pole to avoid breaking of the pole at the point of attachment.
Poles should be supported with guys or braces at all points where there are significant changes in the direction of the line. On long straight sections, about every fifth pole should be guyed or braced in both directions to prevent the poles from leaning back when the line wire is cut or broken at any point. If there’s space for wooden struts, like on a private right of way, they should be used instead of guys because they are more solid and provide better insulation. Regular strain insulators can’t be trusted with lines that operate at very high voltages, and when guys are necessary, a timber measuring four by six inches and ten to twenty feet long may be used with the guy wrapped around each end as a strain insulator. A guy or strut should be positioned well up under the lower cross-arm on a pole to prevent the pole from breaking at the attachment point.
Where poles have heavy circuits and several cross-arms each it is sometimes desirable to attach a guy or strut beneath the lowest arm and also a guy close to the pole top. Galvanized iron or steel wire is the material best suited for guys, and the cable form has greater strength and is more flexible than solid wire.
Where poles have heavy circuits and multiple cross-arms, it's sometimes useful to attach a support cable or strut beneath the lowest arm and also a support cable near the top of the pole. Galvanized iron or steel wire is the best material for these supports, and the cable design offers greater strength and flexibility compared to solid wire.

Fig. 87.—Cross-arms and Insulators on the Line Between the Chambly Plant and Montreal.
Fig. 87.—Cross-arms and Insulators on the Route Between the Chambly Plant and Montreal.
On the transmission line between Electra and San Francisco, which is intended to operate at 60,000 volts, the use of guys has been mostly avoided and struts employed instead. Where a guy had to be used, a[257] strain insulator of wood six by six inches and twenty feet long was inserted in it.
On the transmission line between Electra and San Francisco, designed to operate at 60,000 volts, the use of guy wires has mostly been avoided, with struts being used instead. Where a guy wire was necessary, a [257] six-by-six inch wooden strain insulator, twenty feet long, was installed in it.
The number and spacing of cross-arms on the poles of transmission lines are regulated by the number of circuits that each pole must carry and by the desired distance apart of the wires. Formerly it was common to carry two or more circuits on a single line of poles, but now a frequent practice is to give each pole line only one circuit and each pole only one cross-arm, except that a small cross-arm for a telephone circuit is placed some feet below the power wires. With only one transmission circuit per pole line, one wire is usually placed at the top of the pole and the other two wires at opposite ends of the single cross-arm. The older pole line for the transmission between Niagara Falls and Buffalo carried two cross-arms per pole for the power wires, these cross-arms being two feet apart. Each cross-arm was of yellow pine, twelve feet long, four by six inches in section, and intended to carry four three-wire circuits, but only two circuits have been erected on these two cross-arms. On the later pole line for this same transmission each pole carries two cross-arms, the upper intended for four and the lower cross-arm for two wires, so that one three-wire circuit may be strung on each side of the poles, two wires on the upper and one on the lower arm in the form of an equilateral triangle. The pole lines between Cañon Ferry and Butte, Colgate and Oakland, and Electra and San Francisco all have only one cross-arm for power wires per pole, and the third wire of the circuit in each case is mounted at the top of the pole so that the three conductors are at the corners of an equilateral triangle.
The number and spacing of cross-arms on transmission line poles are determined by the number of circuits each pole needs to support and the desired distance between the wires. In the past, it was common to have two or more circuits on a single line of poles, but now it's more typical to assign just one circuit to each pole line and only one cross-arm per pole, with a small cross-arm for a telephone circuit placed a few feet below the power wires. With only one transmission circuit per pole line, one wire is usually positioned at the top of the pole, while the other two wires are at opposite ends of the single cross-arm. The older pole line for the transmission between Niagara Falls and Buffalo had two cross-arms per pole for the power wires, which were two feet apart. Each cross-arm was made of yellow pine, twelve feet long, four by six inches in section, and designed to support four three-wire circuits, but only two circuits were installed on these two cross-arms. On the newer pole line for this same transmission, each pole carries two cross-arms—the upper one meant for four wires and the lower one for two. This arrangement allows for one three-wire circuit to be run on either side of the poles, with two wires on the upper arm and one on the lower arm, forming an equilateral triangle. The pole lines between Cañon Ferry and Butte, Colgate and Oakland, and Electra and San Francisco all use just one cross-arm for the power wires per pole, with the third wire of the circuit mounted at the top of the pole, so the three conductors form the corners of an equilateral triangle.
This relative position of the conductors makes it easy to transpose them as often as desired. On the line from Cañon Ferry to Butte the cross-arms are each eight feet long with two holes for pins seventy-eight inches apart, and are attached to the pole five feet ten and one-half inches from the top. Gains for cross-arms should be cut from one to two inches deep in poles before they are raised, and one hole for three-quarters or seven-eighths-inch bolt should be bored through the centre of the cross-arm and of the pole at the gain. Each cross-arm should be attached to the pole by a single bolt passing entirely through the pole and cross-arm with a washer about three inches in diameter next to the cross-arm. One large through bolt weakens the pole and arm less than two smaller bolts or lag-screws, and the arm can be more easily replaced if there is only one bolt to remove. Alternate poles in a line should have their cross-arms bolted on opposite sides, and at corners double arms should be used.
This position of the conductors makes it easy to switch them around whenever needed. On the line from Cañon Ferry to Butte, the cross-arms are each eight feet long with two holes for pins that are seventy-eight inches apart, and they're attached to the pole five feet ten and a half inches from the top. Gains for cross-arms should be cut one to two inches deep in poles before they're raised, and a hole for a three-quarter or seven-eighths-inch bolt should be drilled through the center of the cross-arm and the pole at the gain. Each cross-arm should be secured to the pole with a single bolt that goes all the way through both the pole and cross-arm, along with a washer about three inches in diameter next to the cross-arm. One large through bolt weakens the pole and arm less than two smaller bolts or lag screws, and it’s easier to replace the arm if there’s only one bolt to take out. Alternate poles along a line should have their cross-arms bolted on opposite sides, and at corners, double arms should be used.
Yellow pine is a favorite wood for cross-arms, though other varieties are also used. The large, long pins necessary on high voltage lines tend to increase the sectional area of cross-arms, and a section less than five and one-half by four and one-half inches is seldom desirable. On the line between Electra and San Francisco, which carries the three aluminum cables of 471,034 circular mils each, the cross-arms of Oregon pine have a section of six by six inches each. Standard dimensions of some smaller cross-arms are four and three-quarters by three and three-quarters inches, but it may be doubted whether these arms are strong enough for long transmission work. Cross-arms should be surfaced all over and crowned one-quarter to one-half inch on top so as to shed water. After being kiln dried, cross-arms should be boiled in asphaltum or linseed oil to preserve the wood and give it higher insulating properties. Cross-arms longer than five feet should be secured by braces starting at the pole some distance below each arm and extending to points on the arm about half-way between the pole and each end of the arm.
Yellow pine is a popular choice for cross-arms, although other types of wood are also used. The large, long pins needed for high voltage lines often require a larger sectional area for cross-arms, and sections smaller than five and a half by four and a half inches are rarely desirable. On the line between Electra and San Francisco, which supports three aluminum cables of 471,034 circular mils each, the cross-arms made of Oregon pine measure six by six inches each. Standard sizes for some smaller cross-arms are four and three-quarters by three and three-quarters inches, but there are doubts about whether these arms are strong enough for long-distance transmission work. Cross-arms should be fully surfaced and crowned one-quarter to one-half inch on top to allow water to run off. After being kiln dried, cross-arms should be boiled in asphaltum or linseed oil to protect the wood and enhance its insulating properties. Cross-arms longer than five feet should be supported by braces that start at the pole a bit below each arm and extend to points on the arm about halfway between the pole and each end of the arm.

Fig. 88.—Tail Race and Pole Line at Chambly, Quebec Power-station.
Fig. 88.—Tail Race and Power Line at the Chambly Power Station, Quebec.
Each brace may be of flat bar iron about one and one-half by one-quarter inch in section, or the brace for both ends of an arm may be made[259] of a single piece of angle-iron bent into the proper shape. For high-voltage lines it is undesirable to employ iron braces of any sort, since these braces form a path of low resistance that comes much too close to the pins on which the insulators and wires are mounted. Braces formed of hard wood are much better as to insulation, and such braces of maple are in use on the line between Butte and Cañon Ferry where the voltage is 50,000. Each brace on that line is thirty-six inches long and three inches wide, with one end bolted to the centre of its pole and the other end to the cross-arm twenty-three inches from the pole centre.
Each brace can be made of flat bar iron that's about one and a half by a quarter inch in size, or the brace for both ends of an arm can be a single piece of angle-iron shaped correctly. For high-voltage lines, using iron braces isn't ideal, since they create a low-resistance path that gets too close to the pins where the insulators and wires are mounted. Braces made from hardwood are much better for insulation, and maple braces are used on the line between Butte and Cañon Ferry, which operates at 50,000 volts. Each brace on that line is thirty-six inches long and three inches wide, with one end bolted to the middle of its pole and the other end secured to the cross-arm twenty-three inches from the pole center.
The line from Electra has hard-wood braces secured with wood pins.
The line from Electra has hardwood braces fastened with wooden pins.
Wood is the most common material for pins on which to mount the insulators of high-voltage transmission circuits. Iron has been used for pins to some extent, and its use is on the increase. Oak and locust pins are generally used, the latter being stronger and more lasting. In California, pins of eucalyptus wood are much used and are said to be stronger than locust. All wooden pins should be boiled several hours in linseed oil after being well dried. This increases the insulating and lasting properties of the pins.
Wood is the most common material for pins used to mount the insulators on high-voltage transmission lines. There’s been some use of iron pins, and this is becoming more common. Oak and locust are typically used, with locust being the stronger and more durable option. In California, eucalyptus wood pins are quite popular and are said to be stronger than locust. All wooden pins should be boiled for several hours in linseed oil after they’ve been properly dried. This enhances their insulating and durability properties.
High-voltage lines require long pins to hold the lower edges of insulators well above the cross-arms, and these pins must be much stronger than those used on ordinary lines, because of the increased leverage of each wire.
High-voltage lines need long pins to keep the lower edges of insulators safely above the cross-arms, and these pins need to be much stronger than those used on regular lines because of the added leverage from each wire.
A pin twelve inches long over all and having a diameter of one and one-half inches in the part that enters the cross-arm has been much used for transmission circuits, but is much too short and weak for high voltages. On the 50,000-volt line between Cañon Ferry and Butte the pins are seasoned oak boiled in paraffin. Each of these pins is seventeen and one-half inches long, two and one-half inches in diameter for a length of four and one-half inches in the middle part, two inches in diameter for a length of five and one-half inches that fits into the cross-arm or pole top, and one and one-half inches in diameter at the top of the thread inside of the insulator. These pins hold the outside edges of the insulators nine inches above the tops of cross-arms. Each of these pins is held in its socket by a three-eighths-inch bolt that passes entirely through the pin and the cross-arm or pole top.
A pin that is twelve inches long overall and has a diameter of one and a half inches at the part that goes into the cross-arm has commonly been used for transmission circuits, but it is too short and weak for high voltages. On the 50,000-volt line between Cañon Ferry and Butte, the pins are made from seasoned oak boiled in paraffin. Each of these pins is seventeen and a half inches long, with a diameter of two and a half inches for four and a half inches in the middle section, two inches in diameter for five and a half inches that fits into the cross-arm or pole top, and one and a half inches in diameter at the top of the thread inside the insulator. These pins lift the outer edges of the insulators nine inches above the tops of the cross-arms. Each pin is secured in its socket by a three-eighths-inch bolt that goes all the way through the pin and the cross-arm or pole top.
On the line between Electra and San Francisco the pins are each sixteen and seven-eighths inches long, two and three-quarters inches in diameter at the largest central part, and two and one-quarter inches in diameter in the lower part, five inches long, that fits into the cross-arm or pole top. One of these pins broke at the shoulder with a pull of 2,200[260] pounds at the threaded part. Carriage bolts one-half inch in diameter pass through the cross-arm and pin two inches from the top of the arm, and one bolt three inches from the pin on each side. Without these bolts the arms split on test with a pull of 1,200 pounds on the pin, but with the bolts the pin broke as above.
On the line between Electra and San Francisco, the pins are each sixteen and seven-eighths inches long, with a diameter of two and three-quarters inches at the widest central part, and a diameter of two and one-quarter inches at the lower part, which is five inches long and fits into the cross-arm or pole top. One of these pins snapped at the shoulder under a pull of 2,200[260] pounds at the threaded section. Half-inch diameter carriage bolts go through the cross-arm and pin, two inches from the top of the arm, with one bolt three inches from the pin on each side. Without these bolts, the arms split during testing with a pull of 1,200 pounds on the pin, but with the bolts, the pin broke as previously mentioned.
CHAPTER XIX.
Entries for power lines.
The entrance of transmission lines into generating plants and sub-stations presents special problems in construction and insulation. One of these problems has to do with the mechanical security of each conductor at the point where it passes through the side or roof of the station. Conductors are sometimes attached to the station so that the strain of the line is borne by the side wall where they enter and tends to pull it out of line.
The entry of transmission lines into power plants and substations poses unique challenges in construction and insulation. One of these challenges involves the mechanical stability of each conductor at the point where it passes through the side or roof of the station. Conductors are sometimes secured to the station in a way that the tension from the line is transferred to the side wall where they enter, which can cause it to become misaligned.
This practice has but little to commend it, aside from convenience, for unless the conductors are rather small, or the wall of the station is unusually heavy, the pull of the former is apt to bulge the latter in the course of time. For any heavy line the end strain is ultimately most suitably taken by an anchor securely fixed. As special insulators must be used where a conductor is secured directly to such an anchor, it is usually more convenient to set one or more heavy poles with double cross-arms at the end of a line, and then to make these poles secure by large struts, or by guys attached to anchors. Extra heavy cross-arms on these end poles should be provided with iron pins for the line insulators; two or more of the insulators mounted in this way within a few feet of each other, for each wire, will stand up against the end strain on almost any line.
This practice has little to recommend it apart from convenience, because unless the conductors are relatively small, or the station wall is exceptionally strong, the pull from the conductors is likely to cause the wall to bulge over time. For any heavy line, the end strain is best handled by an anchor that is securely fixed. Since special insulators need to be used when a conductor is directly attached to an anchor, it's generally easier to install one or more heavy poles with double cross-arms at the end of a line, securing these poles with large struts or by using guys attached to anchors. The extra heavy cross-arms on these end poles should be fitted with iron pins for the line insulators; having two or more insulators mounted in this way a few feet apart for each wire will withstand the end strain on nearly any line.
Insulators that are to take the end strain of a line in this way should allow attachment of the wire at the side, so that the force exerted by each conductor tends to press the insulator against the side of its pin, rather than to pull off the top of the insulator. The end strain of the line having been taken on poles close to the station, the conductors may be attached to insulators on the wall, the latter thus being subjected to very little mechanical strain.
Insulators designed to handle the end strain of a line in this manner should allow the wire to be attached from the side, so that the force from each conductor pushes the insulator against the side of its pin, instead of pulling it off the top. With the end strain of the line taken on poles close to the station, the conductors can be connected to insulators on the wall, which means those insulators experience very little mechanical strain.
Overhead lines usually enter a station through one of its side walls, but an entry may be made in the roof. It is desirable to have a side entry on the gable end of a building rather than on a side below the eaves where there will be much dripping of water. If an entry must be made below the eaves, a shelter should be provided above the entry, and the[262] roof of this shelter should have a gutter that will carry water away from the wires.
Overhead lines usually come into a station through one of the side walls, but they can also enter from the roof. It's better to have a side entry at the gable end of a building instead of on a side below the eaves where water tends to drip a lot. If an entry has to be made below the eaves, a shelter should be placed above the entry, and the [262] roof of this shelter should have a gutter to direct water away from the wires.
Entrance of each conductor into a station must be effected in such a way that ample insulation of the circuit will be maintained, and in some cases so that rain, snow, and wind will be excluded. The line voltage and the climate where the station is located thus have an important bearing on the form of entry that is suitable in any particular case.
Entrance of each conductor into a station must be done in a way that keeps the circuit well-insulated, and in some cases, ensures that rain, snow, and wind are kept out. The line voltage and the climate of the station’s location play a significant role in determining the most suitable type of entry for each specific situation.
The simplest form of entry for a high-voltage line is a clear opening, usually circular in form, through the wall of the station for each wire. Insulators for each wire should be provided both inside and outside of the wall to hold the wire at the centre of this opening. Such insulators are usually most conveniently supported by fixtures attached to both sides of the wall, and insulators on the outside should of course be kept in an upright position, unless completely protected from rain and snow.
The easiest way to enter a high-voltage line is by having a clear opening, usually circular, in the station wall for each wire. Insulators for each wire should be installed both inside and outside the wall to keep the wire centered in this opening. These insulators are typically best supported by fixtures attached to both sides of the wall, and the outside insulators should definitely remain upright unless they are fully protected from rain and snow.
The diameter of the openings through the wall should be great enough to prevent any visible discharge of current between the wire and wall under the worst conditions of snow, rain, fog, or dust. Such an opening must, therefore, increase in diameter with the voltage of the line. The larger these openings for the line wires, the greater is the opportunity for rain, snow, dust, and cold air to enter the station through them.
The diameter of the openings in the wall should be large enough to stop any visible electrical discharge between the wire and the wall, even in the worst conditions of snow, rain, fog, or dust. Therefore, these openings need to be larger as the voltage of the line increases. The bigger the openings for the line wires, the more likely rain, snow, dust, and cold air can get into the station through them.
Openings may be so protected as to keep out snow and rain by means of shelters on the outside of the wall on which they are placed, but such shelters cannot keep out the cold air. If the openings for the entrance of wires are located in the wall of a room that contains air-blast transformers, the area of openings for circuits of very high voltage may be no greater than is necessary to allow the escape of heated air from the transformers.
Openings can be covered to keep out snow and rain with shelters mounted on the outside of the wall, but these shelters won't block the cold air. If the openings for wires are in the wall of a room with air-blast transformers, the size of the openings for very high voltage circuits should only be as large as needed to let the hot air from the transformers escape.
The milder the climate, other factors being the same, the higher the voltage of circuits which may enter a station through openings that are free for the movement of air. With circuits of only moderate voltage, say less than 15,000, it is quite practicable to admit wires to a station through perfectly free openings, in the coldest parts of the United States. With voltages of 20,000 to 60,000 it is often necessary, in the colder parts of the country, to close the opening in the wall through which each wire enters with a disc of insulating material.
The milder the climate, assuming other factors are the same, the higher the voltage of circuits that can enter a station through openings that allow for airflow. With circuits of moderate voltage, say less than 15,000, it's quite feasible to bring wires into a station through completely open openings, even in the coldest regions of the United States. When dealing with voltages between 20,000 and 60,000, it's often necessary, in the colder areas of the country, to seal the openings in the wall where each wire enters with a disc of insulating material.
In order to keep the current leakage over these discs within proper limits, the diameters of the discs must increase with the voltage of the circuit. This increase of disc diameter obviously lengthens the path of leakage current over the disc surface. Where the openings in a wall for the entrance of high-voltage circuits are closed by insulating discs about[263] the wires, these discs may make actual contact with bare wires, or the wire at each entry may have some special insulation.
To keep the current leakage over these discs within acceptable limits, the diameters of the discs need to increase with the circuit voltage. This increase in disc diameter clearly lengthens the path that leakage current travels across the disc surface. When the openings in a wall for high-voltage circuits are sealed with insulating discs around the wires, these discs might actually touch the bare wires, or the wires at each entry may be specially insulated.
In the side wall of the sub-station at Manchester, N. H., the entrance of transmission lines from four water-power plants is provided for by circular openings in slate slabs that are built into the brickwork. The transmission circuits from three of the water-power plants operate at 10,000 to 12,000 volts, and the circuit from the fourth plant at about 6,000 volts. Circular openings in the slate slabs are each five inches in diameter, and they are spaced twelve to fifteen inches between centres. A single wire enters through each of these openings and is held at the centre by insulators both inside and outside of the wall. Each wire is bare where it passes through the slate slab, and the circular openings are not closed in any way. The largest wires passing through these five-inch circular openings in the slate slabs are of solid copper, No. 0, of 0.325-inch diameter each.
In the side wall of the substation in Manchester, NH, there are circular openings in slate slabs built into the brickwork for the entry of transmission lines from four hydroelectric plants. The transmission circuits from three of these plants operate at voltages between 10,000 and 12,000 volts, while the circuit from the fourth plant runs at about 6,000 volts. Each circular opening in the slate slabs is five inches in diameter, spaced twelve to fifteen inches apart from center to center. A single wire passes through each of these openings, secured at the center by insulators on both the inside and outside of the wall. Each wire is bare where it goes through the slate slab, and the circular openings are left open. The largest wires that go through these five-inch circular openings in the slate slabs are solid copper, size No. 0, with a diameter of 0.325 inches each.
Before passing through the opening in the slate slabs the wires of these transmission circuits are tied to regular line insulators supported by cross-arms secured to the outside of the brick wall by iron brackets. The point of attachment of each wire to its insulator is about nine inches below the centre of the circular hole by which it enters the sub-station.
Before passing through the opening in the slate slabs, the wires of these transmission circuits are connected to standard line insulators held up by cross-arms fastened to the outside of the brick wall with iron brackets. The point where each wire attaches to its insulator is about nine inches below the center of the circular hole through which it enters the sub-station.
This Manchester sub-station is equipped with air-blast transformers from which the hot air is discharged into the same room that the transmission lines enter. Along one side of the sub-station there are twenty-seven of these five-inch circular openings in the slate slabs for entrance of the high-voltage lines, and on another side of the sub-station there are a greater number of smaller openings for the distribution circuits. Were it not for the air-blast transformers, all of these openings would probably admit more air than would be desirable in a climate as cold as that at Manchester.
This Manchester substation has air-blast transformers that release hot air into the same room where the transmission lines come in. On one side of the substation, there are twenty-seven five-inch round openings in the slate slabs for high-voltage line entry, and on another side, there are even more smaller openings for the distribution circuits. Without the air-blast transformers, all these openings would likely let in more air than would be ideal in a climate as cold as Manchester's.
Another example of openings in the walls of a station for the entrance of transmission circuits, where there is free movement of the air between the inside and outside of the building, is that of the 33,000-volt line between Santa Ana River and Los Angeles, Cal. In this case a sewer pipe twelve inches in diameter is built into the wall of the station for each wire of the line, so that there is a free opening of this size from inside to outside.
Another example of openings in the walls of a station for the entry of transmission circuits, where air can flow freely between the inside and outside of the building, is the 33,000-volt line between the Santa Ana River and Los Angeles, California. In this case, a sewer pipe with a twelve-inch diameter is installed into the station wall for each wire of the line, creating a free opening of that size from inside to outside.
Each wire of the 33,000-volt circuit enters the station through the centre of one of these twelve-inch pipes, and is thus surrounded by six inches of air on every side. As the temperature near Los Angeles seldom or never goes down to zero, these large openings do not admit[264] enough air to be objectionable. Besides this mild climate, air-blast transformers add to the favorable features in the stations having the twelve-inch openings.
Each wire of the 33,000-volt circuit comes into the station through the middle of one of these twelve-inch pipes, surrounded by six inches of air on all sides. Since the temperature near Los Angeles rarely, if ever, drops to zero, these large openings do not let in enough air to be a problem. In addition to this mild climate, air-blast transformers enhance the advantages in the stations with the twelve-inch openings.
In another case, however, where the openings for the entrance of wires of very high voltage allow free movement of air between the inside and outside of the station, the climate is cold and the winter temperatures go down to 30° or more below zero. This condition exists on the 25,000-volt line between Apple River Falls and St. Paul, where six No. 2 wires enter the generating station through plain circular openings in the brick side wall of a small extension where the lightning arresters are located. Air-blast transformers are located in the end of the station next to this lightning-arrester house, but it is not certain that the hot air from them escapes through the openings for the wires.
In another instance, though, when the openings for high-voltage wires let air flow freely between the inside and outside of the station, the climate is cold, and winter temperatures can drop to 30° or more below zero. This situation occurs on the 25,000-volt line between Apple River Falls and St. Paul, where six No. 2 wires pass into the generating station through simple circular openings in the brick side wall of a small extension that houses the lightning arresters. Air-blast transformers are located at the end of the station next to this lightning-arrester building, but it's uncertain whether the hot air from them escapes through the wire openings.
In another case where the climate is about as cold as that just named, a gallery is built along one side of the exterior of the station at some distance above the ground, and two openings are provided for each wire of the high-tension line. One of these two openings is in the horizontal floor of the gallery and allows the entrance of the wire from the outside, and the other opening is in the side wall of the station against which the gallery is built. The two openings for each wire being thus at right angles to each other, and the opening to the outside air being protected from the wind by its horizontal position, no more than a permissible amount of cold air, it is said, finds its way into the station.
In another situation where the climate is just as cold as mentioned, a gallery is constructed along one side of the outside of the station, elevated above the ground. Two openings are created for each high-voltage wire. One opening is in the horizontal floor of the gallery, allowing the wire to enter from outside, while the other opening is in the side wall of the station that the gallery is attached to. With the two openings for each wire positioned at right angles to each other, and the outside opening shielded from the wind by its horizontal design, it's said that only a minimal amount of cold air gets into the station.
In some cases with lines of moderate voltage, say 10,000 to 15,000, and in probably the majority of cases with lines of 25,000 volts or more, the entry for the high-tension wires is entirely closed. An example of this practice may be seen at the various sub-stations of the New Hampshire Traction Company, which are located along their 12,000-volt line between Portsmouth and Pelham, in that State.
In some cases with moderate voltage lines, around 10,000 to 15,000 volts, and likely in most cases with lines of 25,000 volts or more, the entry point for the high-tension wires is completely sealed off. An example of this can be found at the different substations of the New Hampshire Traction Company, which are situated along their 12,000-volt line between Portsmouth and Pelham in that state.
For the entry of each wire on these lines a sixteen-inch square opening is made in the brick wall of the sub-station. On the outside of this wall a box is built about a group of three or more of these openings located side by side. The top or roof of this box is formed by a slab of bluestone three inches thick, which is set into the wall and extends twenty-six inches from the face of the wall, with a slight slope from the horizontal.
For each wire entering these lines, a sixteen-inch square hole is created in the brick wall of the substation. On the outside of this wall, a box is constructed around a group of three or more of these openings positioned side by side. The top of this box is made from a three-inch thick bluestone slab, which is embedded in the wall and extends twenty-six inches from the wall's surface, sloping slightly downward.
The ends, the bottom, and the outer side of this box are formed by slabs of slate one inch thick, so that the enclosed space has an area in vertical cross section at right angles to this building 15.5 inches high and twenty-two inches wide.
The ends, the bottom, and the outer side of this box are made of one-inch-thick slate slabs, creating an enclosed space that has a vertical cross section measuring 15.5 inches high and 22 inches wide when viewed at a right angle to this building.

Fig. 89.—Cable Entering Building.
Fig. 89.—Cable Going into Building.
In the bottom of this box there is a circular opening for each wire, and into this opening fits a heavy glass or porcelain bushing through which the wire passes. After reaching the inside of the box the wire turns at right angles and passes through the sixteen-inch square opening into the sub-station. Beneath the box a special insulator is secured by an iron bracket to the outside of the brick wall for each line wire, and this insulator takes the strain of the wire before it is carried up through the bushing in the bottom of the box. This form of entry is permissible where the desire is to exclude cold air from the station, and where the voltage is not high enough to cause serious leakage over the surface of the bushing and the slate forming the bottom of the box. In all of the cases above mentioned the wires used to enter the stations were the regular line conductors and were bare.
At the bottom of this box, there’s a circular opening for each wire, and a heavy glass or porcelain bushing fits into this opening through which the wire passes. Once inside the box, the wire bends at a right angle and goes through the sixteen-inch square opening into the sub-station. Below the box, a special insulator is secured to the outside of the brick wall by an iron bracket for each line wire, and this insulator takes the strain of the wire before it goes up through the bushing at the bottom of the box. This method of entry is allowed when the goal is to keep cold air out of the station and when the voltage isn’t high enough to create serious leakage over the bushing and the slate at the bottom of the box. In all the cases mentioned above, the wires used to enter the stations were regular line conductors and were bare.
Another type of entry in sub-stations is that employed on the extensive transmission system between Spier Falls, Schenectady, and Albany, N. Y. The maximum voltage on this system is 30,000, and the lines usually enter each sub-station through the brick wall at one of its gable ends. Outside of and about the entry of each circuit or group of circuits a wooden shelter is built on the brick wall of the sub-station. Each shelter has a slanting roof that starts from the brick wall at some distance above the openings for the entrance of the line, and terminates in a gutter. The front of each shelter is carried down three feet below the centre of the openings in the brick wall, and the ends go still lower. The front of each shelter is four feet in height, is four feet from the face of the brick wall, and has a circular opening of 10-inch diameter for each wire of the transmission line.
Another type of entry in substations is used on the extensive transmission system between Spier Falls, Schenectady, and Albany, NY. The maximum voltage on this system is 30,000, and the lines usually enter each substation through the brick wall at one of its gable ends. Outside the entry point of each circuit or group of circuits, a wooden shelter is built on the brick wall of the substation. Each shelter has a slanted roof that starts from the brick wall at a distance above the line entrance openings and ends in a gutter. The front of each shelter extends three feet below the center of the openings in the brick wall, and the ends go even lower. The front of each shelter is four feet high, four feet away from the face of the brick wall, and has a circular opening with a 10-inch diameter for each wire of the transmission line.
In line with each circular opening in the wooden shield there is an opening of 15-inch diameter in the brick wall of the sub-station, and into this opening in the brickwork fits a ring of wood with 15-inch outside and 11-inch inside diameter. To this wooden ring a 15-inch disc of hard fibre 1⁄8-inch thick is secured, and a porcelain tube 24 inches long and of 2-inch inside diameter passes through a hole in the centre of this disc. Within the wooden shield and in line with each circular opening in it and with the corresponding porcelain tube through the fibre disc a line insulator is secured. Within the sub-station and in line with each tube there is also an insulator, and the two insulators near opposite ends of each tube hold the line wire that passes through it in position.
In line with each circular opening in the wooden shield, there’s a 15-inch diameter opening in the brick wall of the substation. Fitting into this opening is a wooden ring with a 15-inch outside diameter and an 11-inch inside diameter. A 15-inch disc made of hard fiber and 1/8-inch thick is attached to this wooden ring, and a 24-inch long porcelain tube with a 2-inch inside diameter passes through a hole in the center of this disc. Inside the wooden shield, aligned with each circular opening and the corresponding porcelain tube through the fiber disc, a line insulator is secured. Inside the substation, aligned with each tube, there's also an insulator, and the two insulators near the opposite ends of each tube hold the line wire that runs through it in place.
Each wire of the transmission lines, of which the largest is No. 000 solid of 0.410-inch diameter, terminates at one of the insulators within the wooden shield, and is there connected to a special insulated wire that[267] passes through one of the porcelain tubes into the sub-station. A copper trolley sleeve 12 inches long is used to make the soldered connection between the bare line wire and the insulated conductor that passes through the porcelain tube. Each of these entry cables, whatever its size, is insulated first with a layer of rubber 9⁄32-inch thick, then with varnished cambric wound on to a thickness of 9⁄32-inch, and lastly with two layers of weather-proof braid outside of the cambric. This form of closed entry for the transmission lines obviously excludes snow, rain, cold air, and dust from the station. Whether the fibre discs and wooden rings, together with the insulation on the entry cables, are as desirable as a glass disc at the entry is another question.
Each wire of the transmission lines, with the largest being No. 000 solid at 0.410-inch diameter, ends at one of the insulators within the wooden shield, where it connects to a special insulated wire that[267] passes through one of the porcelain tubes into the substation. A copper trolley sleeve, 12 inches long, is used to create the soldered connection between the bare line wire and the insulated conductor that goes through the porcelain tube. Each of these entry cables, regardless of size, is first insulated with a layer of rubber 9⁄32-inch thick, then with varnished cambric wound to a thickness of 9⁄32-inch, and finally with two layers of weather-proof braid outside of the cambric. This kind of sealed entry for the transmission lines clearly keeps out snow, rain, cold air, and dust from the station. Whether the fiber discs and wooden rings, along with the insulation on the entry cables, are as effective as a glass disc at the entry is another issue.
Another instance where the entry for a high-tension line is closed with the aid of combustible material is that of the 25,000-volt transmission between the water-power plant at Chambly, on the Richelieu River, and the sub-station in Montreal. The four three-phase circuits of this line are made up of No. 00 wires of 0.365-inch diameter each, which enter the power-station at Chambly and the terminal-house in Montreal bare, as they are outside.
Another example of sealing off a high-voltage line using flammable materials is the 25,000-volt transmission between the hydroelectric plant at Chambly, located on the Richelieu River, and the substation in Montreal. The four three-phase circuits of this line consist of No. 00 wires, each with a diameter of 0.365 inches, which enter the power station in Chambly and the terminal building in Montreal exposed, as they are on the outside.
At each end of the line the wires are secured to insulators on a horizontal arm with their centres twenty-two inches outside of an end wall of the station or terminal building. The insulators are mounted with their centres thirty inches apart, and a few inches above the tops of these insulators a corresponding row of wooden bushings pass through the wall with an outward slant.
At each end of the line, the wires are attached to insulators on a horizontal arm that is twenty-two inches from the outer wall of the station or terminal building. The insulators are spaced thirty inches apart, and a few inches above the tops of these insulators, a matching row of wooden bushings goes through the wall at an outward angle.
At the Chambly end of the line each of these bushings is of oak, boiled in stearin, four inches in diameter and twelve inches long. At the Montreal end the wall bushings are of boxwood, and each is four inches square and twelve inches long. Each of the wooden bushings carries a glass tube, and is itself held in position by the concrete of the wall in which it is located. Entrance to the station by each of the bare No. 00 wires is gained through one of these glass tubes, and cold air is excluded.
At the Chambly end of the line, each of these bushings is made of oak, treated with stearin, four inches in diameter and twelve inches long. At the Montreal end, the wall bushings are made of boxwood, and each measures four inches square and twelve inches long. Each wooden bushing holds a glass tube and is secured in place by the concrete of the wall it’s set in. Access to the station through each of the bare No. 00 wires is provided via one of these glass tubes, which keeps cold air out.
Quite a different type of closed entry for the wires of a transmission line is in use on that between Shawinigan Falls and Montreal, which operates at 50,000 volts. For the entry of each of the three aluminum cables that make up this line, each cable being composed of seven No. 6 B. & S. gauge wires, a tile pipe of twenty-four-inches diameter was set into the station wall. The end of each tile pipe is closed by a glass plate, with a small hole at its centre, through which the cable passes.
A different kind of entry for the wires of a transmission line is used on the line between Shawinigan Falls and Montreal, which operates at 50,000 volts. For the entry of each of the three aluminum cables that make up this line, each cable made up of seven No. 6 B. & S. gauge wires, a 24-inch diameter tile pipe was installed in the station wall. The end of each tile pipe is covered by a glass plate with a small hole in the center, through which the cable passes.
As the cable is thus held twelve inches from the terra cotta pipe all[268] the way around, any leakage of current must pass over this length of glass surface at each cable or through the air.
As the cable is held twelve inches away from the terra cotta pipe all[268] the way around, any current leakage has to travel over this section of glass surface at each cable or through the air.
A heavy coating of frost sometimes collects on these plates, and this increases the amount of current leakage over them. Surface leakage in a case of this sort, of course, varies with the size of the glass plate, and if a tile pipe is used the limit of size is soon reached.
A thick layer of frost can build up on these plates, which boosts the amount of current leaking across them. In this scenario, surface leakage naturally depends on the size of the glass plate, and if a tile pipe is used, the maximum size is quickly hit.
There seems to be no good reason, however, why a glass plate of any desired dimensions should not be set directly into the brick wall of a station for each line wire and the tile pipes entirely omitted. This plan is followed on the system of the Utah Light & Power Company, which extends to Salt Lake City, Ogden, Provo, and a number of other points in that State.
There doesn’t seem to be any valid reason why a glass plate of any size shouldn’t be installed directly into the brick wall of a station for each line wire, completely eliminating the need for tile pipes. This method is used by the Utah Light & Power Company, which serves Salt Lake City, Ogden, Provo, and several other locations in that state.
On the 40,000-volt line of that system an entry for each wire is provided by setting two plates of glass into the brick wall, one plate being flush with the inner surface and the other with the outer surface of the wall.
On the 40,000-volt line of that system, there's an entry for each wire created by installing two glass plates into the brick wall, with one plate even with the inner surface and the other even with the outer surface of the wall.
In the centre of each plate there is a hole of about 2.5-inch diameter, into which a glass or porcelain tube fits. The line wire enters the station through this tube, and it does not appear that any shelter for the glass plates is located outside of the building. An entry of this type for the 40,000-volt line with glass plates in a brick wall at a gable end of the Murphy mill is said to have given satisfactory results during four years, though that wall faces the southwest, from which direction most of the storms come. At this entry each glass plate is not more than eighteen inches in diameter, and the wires are about four feet apart. On a 16,000-volt line of the same company, a glass plate twelve inches square with a three-quarter-inch hole at its centre, and the bare wire passing through without a tube, has given results that were entirely satisfactory.
In the center of each plate, there's a hole about 2.5 inches in diameter, where a glass or porcelain tube fits. The line wire comes into the station through this tube, and it seems there’s no shelter for the glass plates outside the building. This type of entry for the 40,000-volt line with glass plates in a brick wall at the gable end of the Murphy mill reportedly worked well for four years, even though that wall faces southwest, which is where most storms come from. At this entry, each glass plate is no more than eighteen inches in diameter, and the wires are about four feet apart. On a 16,000-volt line of the same company, a glass plate that's twelve inches square with a three-quarter-inch hole at its center, allowing the bare wire to pass through without a tube, has provided entirely satisfactory results.
Two quite different types of entry to stations are used on the 50,000-volt line between Cañon Ferry and Butte, Mont. One type, employed at the side wall of a corrugated iron building, consists of a thick bushing of paraffined wood carrying a glass tube two inches in diameter, four feet long, with a side wall of five-eighths to three-quarter-inch, through which the line conductor passes.
Two very different types of entry to stations are used on the 50,000-volt line between Cañon Ferry and Butte, Mont. One type, used at the side wall of a corrugated iron building, consists of a thick bushing made of paraffined wood that holds a glass tube two inches in diameter and four feet long, with a wall thickness of five-eighths to three-quarters of an inch, through which the line conductor passes.
On the roof of the power-station at Cañon Ferry a vertical entry is made with the 50,000-volt circuit. For this purpose each line wire is brought to a dead end on three insulators carried by a timber fixture on the roof. A vertical tap drops from each line wire and passes through the roof and into the station. This roof is of wood, covered with tin outside and lined with asbestos inside. Each tap is an insulated wire,[269] and elaborate methods are adopted in the way of further insulation, and to prevent water from following the wire down through the roof.
On the roof of the power station at Cañon Ferry, a vertical entry is created for the 50,000-volt circuit. For this, each line wire is terminated on three insulators mounted on a wooden fixture on the roof. A vertical tap hangs from each line wire and goes through the roof into the station. This roof is wooden, covered with tin on the outside and lined with asbestos on the inside. Each tap is an insulated wire,[269] and advanced methods are used for additional insulation and to stop water from following the wire down through the roof.
Over the point of entrance sits a large block of paraffined wood with a central hole, and down through this hole passes a long cylinder of paper that extends some distance above the block. Into the top end of this cylinder fits a wood bushing, and a length of the tap wire that has been served with a thick layer of rubber is tightly enclosed by this bushing. The rubber-covered portion of the tap wire also extends above the bushing, and has taped to it a paper cone that comes down over the top of the paper cylinder to keep out the water. On the outside of this paper cylinder, at a lower point, a still larger paper cone is attached to prevent water from following the cylinder down through the wooden block. At the lower end of the paper cylinder, within the station, there is another bushing of wood, and between this and the wooden bushing at the top of the cylinder and inside of the paper cylinder there is a long glass tube. Down through this tube and into the station the insulated tap wire passes.
Over the entrance, there’s a large block of waxed wood with a central hole, and a long paper cylinder passes down through this hole, extending some distance above the block. At the top of this cylinder, there’s a wooden bushing, and a length of tap wire, which is covered in a thick layer of rubber, is tightly enclosed by this bushing. The rubber-covered part of the tap wire also extends above the bushing and has a paper cone taped to it that covers the top of the paper cylinder to keep out water. On the outside of this paper cylinder, lower down, a larger paper cone is attached to prevent water from running down through the wooden block. At the lower end of the paper cylinder, inside the station, there’s another wooden bushing, and between this and the wooden bushing at the top of the cylinder, there’s a long glass tube inside the paper cylinder. The insulated tap wire runs down through this tube and into the station.
From the experience thus far gained with high-voltage lines, it seems that their entrance into stations should always be at a side wall, unless there is some imperative reason for coming down through the roof. If climatic conditions permit, no form of entry can be more reliable than a plain, ample opening through the wall with a large air-space about each wire. If the opening must be closed, it had better be done with one or more large plates of thick glass set directly into the brickwork of the wall. Some additional insulation is obtained by placing a long glass or porcelain tube over each wire where it passes through the central hole in the glass plates. Each conductor should be bare at the entry, as it is on the line. Some of the above examples of existing practice in entries for transmission lines are taken from Vol. xxii., A. I. E. E.
From the experience gained so far with high-voltage lines, it seems that their entry into stations should always be through a side wall, unless there's a compelling reason to come down through the roof. If weather conditions allow, no type of entry is more reliable than a simple, wide opening in the wall with plenty of air space around each wire. If the opening needs to be sealed, it’s better to use one or more large plates of thick glass set directly into the wall’s brickwork. Some extra insulation can be achieved by placing a long glass or porcelain tube over each wire as it passes through the central hole in the glass plates. Each conductor should be bare at the entry, just like it is along the line. Some of the examples of current practices for transmission line entries are taken from Vol. xxii., A. I. E. E.
CHAPTER XX.
Insulator pins.
Wooden insulator pins are among the weakest elements in electric transmission systems. As line voltages have gone up it has been necessary to increase the distances between the outside petticoats of insulators and their cross-arms and to lengthen the insulators themselves in order to keep the leakage of current between the conductors within permissible limits. To reduce the leakage, the wires on most lines are located at the tops instead of in the old position at the sides of their insulators.
Wooden insulator pins are some of the most fragile parts of electric transmission systems. As line voltages have increased, it's become necessary to extend the distances between the outer skirts of insulators and their cross-arms, as well as to lengthen the insulators themselves, to keep the leakage of current between the conductors within acceptable limits. To minimize leakage, the wires on most lines are now placed at the tops instead of the old position on the sides of the insulators.
All this has tended to a large increase of the mechanical strains that operate to break insulator pins at the point where they enter the cross-arm, because the strain on each line wire acts with a longer leverage. Again, it is sometimes necessary that transmission lines make long spans across rivers or elsewhere, and a very unusual strain may be put on the insulator pins at these places.
All of this has led to a significant increase in the mechanical stress that causes insulator pins to break where they connect to the cross-arm, because the tension on each line wire applies greater leverage. Additionally, it’s sometimes necessary for transmission lines to span long distances over rivers or other areas, which can put an unusual amount of stress on the insulator pins in those locations.
As long as each electric system was confined to a single city or town a broken insulator pin could be quickly replaced, and any material interruption of service from such a cause was improbable. Where the light and power supply of a city, however, depends on a long transmission line, as is now the case in many instances, and where the line voltage is so great that contact between a wire and a cross-arm will result in the speedy destruction of the latter by burning, a broken pin may easily lead to a serious interruption of the service.
As long as each electric system was limited to one city or town, a broken insulator pin could be replaced quickly, and it was unlikely that service would be interrupted due to that issue. However, in cases where a city's light and power supply relies on a long transmission line—like many situations today—and where the line voltage is so high that contact between a wire and a cross-arm can cause the latter to burn up quickly, a broken pin can easily cause a serious service interruption.
Besides the increase of mechanical strains on insulator pins, there is the danger of destruction of wooden pins by charring, burning, and other forms of disintegration due to leakage of current over the insulators. This danger was entirely absent in the great majority of cases so long as lines were local and operated at only moderate voltages. These several factors combined are bringing about marked changes in design.
Besides the increased mechanical stress on insulator pins, there’s a risk of wooden pins getting damaged by charring, burning, and other forms of breakdown due to current leaking over the insulators. This risk was mostly nonexistent in the vast majority of cases as long as the lines were local and operated at only moderate voltages. These various factors combined are leading to significant changes in design.
On straight portions of a transmission line the insulator pins are subject to strains of two principal kinds. One of these is due directly to the weight of the insulators and line wire, and acts vertically to crush the pins by forcing them down onto the cross-arm. The other is due to the horizontal[271] pull of the line wire, which is often much increased by coatings of ice and by wind pressure, tending to break the pins by bending—most frequently at the point where they enter the cross-arm. A strain of minor importance on pins is that encountered where a short pole has been set between two higher ones, and the line at the short pole tends to lift each insulator from its pin, and each pin from the cross-arm.
On straight sections of a transmission line, the insulator pins experience two main types of strain. One type comes directly from the weight of the insulators and the line wire, pushing down on the pins and compressing them onto the cross-arm. The other type is caused by the horizontal pull of the line wire, which can be significantly increased by ice buildup and wind pressure, leading to the pins bending and often breaking at the point where they connect to the cross-arm. A less significant strain on the pins occurs when a shorter pole is placed between two taller ones, causing the line at the shorter pole to try to lift each insulator off its pin and each pin off the cross-arm.
Where the line changes its direction, as on curves and at corners, the side strain on pins is greatly increased, and such places give by far the largest amount of trouble through the breaking of pins. The latter seldom fail by crushing through the weight of the lines they support, because the size of pin necessary to withstand the bending strain has a large factor of safety as to crushing strength. Insulators are sometimes lifted from wooden pins, and the threads of these pins stripped where a short pole is used, as already noted; but failure of this kind is not common.
Where the line changes direction, like on curves and at corners, the side strain on pins increases significantly, and these spots cause the most trouble due to pin breakage. Pins rarely fail from crushing under the weight of the lines they hold up, because the size of the pin needed to handle the bending strain has a large safety margin for crushing strength. Insulators can sometimes be pulled off wooden pins, and the threads of these pins can be stripped when a short pole is used, as previously mentioned; however, this type of failure is not common.
Iron pins are either screwed or cemented into their insulators, but the cemented joint is much more desirable, because where a screw joint is made the unequal expansion of the iron and the glass or porcelain is apt to result in breakage of the insulator. Where cement is used, both the pins and insulators should be threaded or provided with shoulders of some sort, so that, although the shoulders of threads do not come into contact with each other, they will, nevertheless, help to secure a better hold. Pure Portland cement, mixed with water to a thick liquid, has been used with success, the insulator being placed upside down and the pin held in a central position in the hole of the insulator while the cement is poured in. Another cement that has been used for the same purpose is a mixture of litharge and glycerin. Melted sulphur is also available.
Iron pins are either screwed or cemented into their insulators, but the cemented joint is much better because with a screw joint, the unequal expansion of the iron and the glass or porcelain can lead to the insulator breaking. When cement is used, both the pins and insulators should be threaded or have some kind of shoulders, so that even though the shoulders of the threads don’t touch each other, they still help secure a better hold. Pure Portland cement, mixed with water to a thick liquid, has been used successfully, with the insulator placed upside down and the pin held in the center of the hole while the cement is poured in. Another cement that has been used for the same purpose is a mixture of litharge and glycerin. Melted sulfur is also an option.
The same forces that tend to lift an insulator from its pin tend also to pull the pin from its socket in the cross-arm or pole top. With wooden pins the time-honored custom has been to drive a nail into the side of the cross-arm so that it enters the shank of the pin in its socket. This plan is good enough so far as immediate mechanical strength is concerned, but is not desirable, because it is hard to remove a nail when a pin is to be removed, and also because the rust of the nail rots the wood. A better plan is to have a small hole entirely through each cross-arm and insulator pin at right angles to the shank of that pin in its socket, and then to drive a small wooden pin entirely through from side to side.
The same forces that tend to lift an insulator off its pin also tend to pull the pin out of its socket in the cross-arm or pole top. With wooden pins, the traditional practice has been to drive a nail into the side of the cross-arm so that it goes into the pin's shank in its socket. This method is sufficient in terms of immediate mechanical strength, but it’s not ideal, as removing a nail when taking out a pin is challenging, and the rust from the nail can damage the wood. A better option is to have a small hole drilled completely through each cross-arm and insulator pin at a right angle to the pin's shank in its socket, then drive a small wooden pin all the way through from one side to the other.
Some of the important factors affecting the strains on insulator pins vary much on different transmission lines, as may be seen from the following table of lines on which wooden pins are used. On the[272] older line between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, the regular length of span is 70 feet, and each copper conductor of 350,000 circular mils is attached to its insulator 7.5 inches above the cross-arm. On the new line the length of span is 140 feet, and each aluminum conductor of 500,000 circular mils is attached to its insulator 10 inches above the cross-arm.
Some key factors influencing the stress on insulator pins vary significantly across different transmission lines, as shown in the table below for lines using wooden pins. On the[272]older line between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, the standard span length is 70 feet, and each copper conductor, measuring 350,000 circular mils, is connected to its insulator 7.5 inches above the cross-arm. On the new line, the span length is 140 feet, and each aluminum conductor, measuring 500,000 circular mils, is connected to its insulator 10 inches above the cross-arm.
Table I.—Data of Lines on Wooden Pins.
Table I.—Data on Lines for Wooden Pins.
Location of the Lines. | Circular Mils of Each Conductor. |
Feet Length of Span Between Poles. |
Inches from Wire to Shank of Pin. |
|
---|---|---|---|---|
Colgate to Oakland | [B]133,100 | ... | 13 | |
Electra to San Francisco | [A]471,034 | 130 | 15 | |
Cañon Ferry to Butte | [B]105,600 | 110 | 13 | 1⁄2 |
Shawinigan Falls to Montreal | [A]183,750 | 100 | 16 | 1⁄4 |
Niagara Falls to Buffalo | [B]350,000 | 70 | 7 | 1⁄2 |
Niagara Falls to Buffalo | [A]500,000 | 140 | 10 | |
Chambly to Montreal | [B]133,100 | 90 | 8 | 1⁄2 |
Colgate to Oakland | [A]211,600 | ... | 13 | |
[A] Aluminum conductors. | ||||
[B] Copper conductors. |
Table II.—Dimensions of Wooden Pins in Inches.
Table II.—Dimensions of Wooden Pins in inches.
Location of Lines. | Length of Stem. |
Length of Shank. |
Diameter of Shank. |
Diameter of Shoulder. |
Diameter of Threaded End. |
Length of Threaded Part. |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Colgate to Oakland | 10 | 3⁄8 | 5 | 3⁄8 | 2 | 1⁄8 | 2 | 1⁄2 | 1 | 3⁄8 | 2 | |
Electra to San Francisco | 12 | 4 | 7⁄8 | 2 | 1⁄4 | 2 | 3⁄4 | 1 | 3⁄8 | 2 | ||
Cañon Ferry to Butte | 12 | 1⁄2 | 5 | 1⁄8 | 2 | 2 | 1⁄2 | 1 | 1⁄8 | 3 | ||
Shawinigan Falls to Montreal | 13 | 1⁄2 | 5 | 2 | 3⁄4 | 3 | 1 | .. | ||||
Niagara Falls to Buffalo[A] | 5 | 1⁄4 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 3⁄4 | 7⁄8 | 1 | 1⁄2 | |||
Niagara Falls to Buffalo[B] | 7 | 3⁄4 | 6 | 2 | 1⁄4 | 2 | 3⁄4 | 1 | 1⁄2 | 2 | 1⁄2 | |
Chambly to Montreal[C] | 7 | 5 | 1 | 1⁄2 | 1 | 7⁄8 | .. | .. | ||||
Cañon Ferry to Butte[D] | 12 | 3⁄8 | 7 | 7⁄8 | 2 | 1⁄8 | 2 | 1⁄2 | 1 | 1⁄8 | 3 | |
[A] Pins on old line. | ||||||||||||
[B] Pins on new line. | ||||||||||||
[C] Approximate dimensions. | ||||||||||||
[D] Pole top pins. |
To compensate for the greater strains introduced by doubling the length of span and using pins of longer stem, the diameter of the shank of the new pins was increased to two inches. One line between Colgate[273] and Oakland is of copper, and the other is of aluminum conductors, but the same pins appear to be used for each. On the line between Cañon Ferry and Butte, Mont., the pin used in pole tops has a shank 23⁄4 inches longer and 1⁄8-inch greater in diameter than the pin used in cross-arms. The weakest pin included in the table seems to be that in use on the line between Chambly and Montreal, which is of hickory wood, about 11⁄2 inches in diameter at the shank, and carries its No. 00 copper wire 81⁄2 inches above the cross-arm.
To handle the increased stress from doubling the span length and using longer stem pins, the diameter of the new pins was increased to two inches. One line between Colgate[273] and Oakland uses copper, while the other uses aluminum conductors, but the same pins seem to be used for both. On the line between Cañon Ferry and Butte, Mont., the pin at the top of the poles is 23⁄4 inches longer and 1⁄8-inch wider in diameter than the pin used in the cross-arms. The weakest pin listed in the table appears to be the one in use on the line between Chambly and Montreal, which is made of hickory wood, about 11⁄2 inches in diameter at the shank, and supports its No. 00 copper wire 81⁄2 inches above the cross-arm.
The following dimensions for standard wooden insulator pins to be used on all transmission lines are proposed in vol. xxi., page 235, of the Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers. These pins are designed to resist a uniform pull at the smaller end and at right angles to the axis in each case. The length of each pin, in inches between the shoulder and the threaded end, is represented by L, and the diameter of each pin at its shank by D.
The following dimensions for standard wooden insulator pins to be used on all transmission lines are proposed in vol. xxi., page 235, of the Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers. These pins are designed to withstand a uniform pull at the smaller end and at a right angle to the axis in each case. The length of each pin, in inches, between the shoulder and the threaded end, is represented by L, and the diameter of each pin at its shank by D.
L. | D. |
---|---|
1 | 0.87 |
2 | 1.10 |
3 | 1.26 |
4 | 1.39 |
5 | 1.50 |
6 | 1.59 |
7 | 1.67 |
8 | 1.75 |
9 | 1.82 |
10 | 1.88 |
11 | 1.95 |
13 | 2.06 |
15 | 2.17 |
17 | 2.25 |
19 | 2.34 |
21 | 2.42 |
The two strongest pins in Table II. appear to be those in use on the line between Shawinigan Falls and Montreal and on the line from Niagara Falls to Buffalo. The former have a diameter of 23⁄4 inches at the shank, and the wire is carried 161⁄4 inches above the shoulder of the pin. On the new Niagara line the shank diameter of each pin is only 21⁄4 inches, but the line wire is only 10 inches above the shoulder. It was found by tests that a strain of 2,100 pounds at the top of the insulator and at right angles to the axis of this Niagara pin was necessary to break it at the shank. This strain is about six times as great as the calculated maximum strain that will occur in service on the line.
The two strongest pins in Table II. seem to be the ones used on the line between Shawinigan Falls and Montreal and the one from Niagara Falls to Buffalo. The former has a shank diameter of 23⁄4 inches, with the wire positioned 161⁄4 inches above the pin's shoulder. In contrast, the new Niagara line features pins with a shank diameter of only 21⁄4 inches, but the line wire is just 10 inches above the shoulder. Tests showed that a strain of 2,100 pounds applied at the top of the insulator and perpendicular to the axis of this Niagara pin was needed to break it at the shank. This strain is approximately six times greater than the maximum strain expected during service on the line.
Some of the pins here noted are much stronger than those proposed in the above specifications for standard pins. The pins on the old Niagara line have a shank diameter of 2 inches, with a stem only 51⁄4 inches long, while the proposed pin of 2 inches diameter at the shank has a stem 11 inches long. On the Colgate and Oakland line a shank diameter of 21⁄8 inches goes with a length of 103⁄8 inches in the stem, but the proposed pin with this size of shank has a stem 13 inches long. For a shank[274] of 21⁄4 inches diameter the proposed pin has a stem 15 inches long, but the pins with this diameter of shank on the Electra line are only 12 inches long in the stem.
Some of the pins mentioned here are much stronger than those suggested in the standard specifications. The pins on the old Niagara line have a shank diameter of 2 inches, with a stem just 51⁄4 inches long, while the proposed pin with a 2-inch diameter at the shank has a stem that is 11 inches long. On the Colgate and Oakland line, a shank diameter of 21⁄8 inches is paired with a stem length of 103⁄8 inches, but the proposed pin with that shank size has a stem that measures 13 inches. For a shank diameter of 21⁄4 inches, the proposed pin features a 15-inch long stem, while the pins with this shank diameter on the Electra line only have a 12-inch long stem.
The 21⁄4-inch diameter of shank in the pins on the new Niagara line goes with a length of only 73⁄4 inches in the stem. The new Niagara pin is thus almost exactly twice as strong as the proposed pin, since the strength of a pin where the shank joins the stem varies inversely as the length of the stem, all other factors being the same.
The 21⁄4-inch diameter of the shank on the pins in the new Niagara line is matched with a length of only 73⁄4 inches in the stem. This means the new Niagara pin is nearly twice as strong as the proposed pin since the strength of a pin where the shank connects to the stem decreases as the length of the stem increases, assuming all other factors are equal.
Pins on the Shawinigan Falls line have a shank 23⁄4 inches in diameter, with a length of 131⁄2 inches in the stem; but the largest of the proposed pins, that with a stem 19 inches long, has a diameter of only 21⁄2 inches in the shank.
Pins on the Shawinigan Falls line have a shank that is 2¾ inches in diameter, with a stem length of 13½ inches; however, the largest proposed pin, which has a stem length of 19 inches, has a diameter of just 2½ inches in the shank.
It is hardly too much to say in the interest of good engineering that the wooden pin of about 5 inches length of stem and 11⁄2 inches diameter of shank, as well as all longer pins of no greater strength, should be discarded for long transmission lines of high voltage. These pins have done good service on telegraph and telephone lines, and on local lighting circuits of No. 6 B. & S. gauge wire or smaller, and they may well be left for such work.
It’s fair to say that for the sake of good engineering, wooden pins that are about 5 inches long and 1½ inches in diameter, as well as any longer pins that aren't stronger, should be eliminated for high-voltage long transmission lines. These pins have served well on telegraph and telephone lines, as well as on local lighting circuits using No. 6 B. & S. gauge wire or smaller, and they can certainly be used for that kind of work.
To meet the conditions of transmission work a change in both the shape and size of pins is necessary. In the first place, the shoulder on pins where the shank and stem meet, that relic of telegraph practice, should be entirely discarded. This change will save considerable lumber on pins of a given diameter at the shank, and will increase the strength of the pin by avoiding the sharp corner at the junction of the shank and stem.
To meet the requirements for transmission work, we need to change both the shape and size of the pins. First, the shoulder on the pins where the shank and stem connect, a leftover from telegraph practice, should be completely removed. This change will save a lot of wood on pins of a certain diameter at the shank and will strengthen the pin by eliminating the sharp corner where the shank and stem meet.
Another change of design should leave an excess of strength in the stem of the pin, to provide for deterioration of the wood, and particularly for charring by current breakage. This increase of diameter and strength near the top of the pin will cost nothing in lumber, for the wood is necessarily there unless it is turned off. The shank of each pin should be proportionately shorter than in the older type, and the pin hole should be bored only part way through the cross-arm. A saving in lumber for pins and for cross-arms will thus be made, since the size of the cross-arm may be less for a given resistance to splitting.
Another design change should ensure there’s extra strength in the stem of the pin to account for wood deterioration and especially for damage from breakage. This increase in diameter and strength near the top of the pin won’t cost any extra in lumber since the wood is already there unless it’s removed. The shank of each pin should be shorter compared to the older type, and the pin hole should only be drilled partway through the cross-arm. This will save lumber for both pins and cross-arms, as the cross-arm can be smaller while still resisting splitting effectively.
With these changes in general design the pin is a simple cylinder in the shank, with a gentle taper from the shank to form the stem. An example of this design, which might well serve as a basis for a line of standard pins, would be a pin 2 inches in diameter and 31⁄2 inches long in the shank, and tapering for a length of 5 inches from the shank to form[275] the stem, with a diameter of 11⁄2 inches at the top. The hole in a cross-arm for this pin should be 31⁄2 inches deep, and this, in an arm 43⁄4 inches deep, would leave 11⁄4 inches of wood below the pin. From the lower end of the pin hole, a hole 1⁄4-inch in diameter should run to the bottom of the cross-arm to drain off water. A line of longer pins designed to resist the same line pull as this short one would be strong enough for small conductors, say up to No. 1 B. & S. gauge wire.
With these changes in overall design, the pin is simply a cylinder in the shank, with a slight taper from the shank to form the stem. An example of this design, which could serve as a foundation for a standard line of pins, would be a pin 2 inches in diameter and 3½ inches long in the shank, tapering for 5 inches from the shank to form[275] the stem, with a diameter of 1½ inches at the top. The hole in a cross-arm for this pin should be 3½ inches deep, and this, in an arm 4¾ inches deep, would leave 1¼ inches of wood below the pin. From the lower end of the pin hole, a hole ¼-inch in diameter should extend to the bottom of the cross-arm to drain off water. A line of longer pins designed to handle the same pull as this short one would be strong enough for small conductors, say up to No. 1 B. & S. gauge wire.
For larger wires, long spans and sharp angles in a line, a pin 21⁄4 inches in diameter and 41⁄2 inches long in the shank, tapering for 5 inches to a diameter of 13⁄4 inches at the top, or longer pins of equal strength, should be used.
For bigger wires, long stretches, and sharp angles in a line, use a pin that's 21⁄4 inches in diameter and 41⁄2 inches long in the shaft, tapering for 5 inches down to a diameter of 13⁄4 inches at the top, or longer pins that are equally strong.
Where the pin holes do not extend through the cross-arm there is no need of a shoulder on the pin to sustain the weight of the line wire. In the cross-arm on the new Niagara Falls line each pin hole is bored to a depth of 5 inches, leaving 1 inch of wood below the hole. On the line from Electra to San Francisco the depth of each pin hole is again 5 inches, and the depth of the cross-arm 6 inches.
Where the pin holes don't go all the way through the cross-arm, there's no need for a shoulder on the pin to support the weight of the line wire. In the cross-arm on the new Niagara Falls line, each pin hole is drilled to a depth of 5 inches, leaving 1 inch of wood below the hole. On the line from Electra to San Francisco, the depth of each pin hole is also 5 inches, and the depth of the cross-arm is 6 inches.
The pins for use on the Electra line were kept for several hours in a vat of linseed oil at a temperature of 210° F. The pins for the Shawinigan line were boiled in stearic acid. All wooden pins should be treated chemically, but the object of this treatment should be to prevent decay rather than to give them any particular insulating value.
The pins used for the Electra line were stored for several hours in a vat of linseed oil at 210° F. The pins for the Shawinigan line were boiled in stearic acid. All wooden pins should undergo chemical treatment, but the goal of this treatment should be to prevent decay rather than to provide any specific insulating value.
The lack of strength in wooden pins and their destruction in some cases by current leakage are leading to the use of iron and steel pins. Such a pin, in use on the lines of the Washington Power Company, of Spokane, Wash., is made up of a mild steel bar 171⁄2 inches long and 11⁄8 inches in diameter, cast into a shank at one end, so that the total length is 18 inches. The cast-iron shank has a diameter of 21⁄16 inches, with a shoulder of 21⁄2 inches diameter at its upper end. To prevent the pin from lifting out of its hole a small screw enters the top of the cross-arm and bears on the top end of the shank. Above the cast-iron shank the length of the steel rod is 12 inches, and starting 3⁄4 inch down from its top a portion of the rod 3⁄4 inch long is turned to a diameter of one inch.
The weakness of wooden pins and their occasional failure due to electrical leakage are prompting the switch to iron and steel pins. One type of pin used by the Washington Power Company in Spokane, Wash., is made from a mild steel bar that is 17½ inches long and 1⅛ inches in diameter, with one end cast into a shank, bringing the total length to 18 inches. The cast-iron shank has a diameter of 2⅛ inches and features a shoulder that is 2½ inches in diameter at the top. To keep the pin securely in place, a small screw goes into the top of the cross-arm and presses against the top end of the shank. Above the cast-iron shank, the steel rod extends 12 inches, and starting ¾ inch down from the top, there is a section of the rod that is ¾ inch long and has been turned down to a diameter of one inch.
It is said that this pin begins to bend with a pull of 1,000 pounds at its top, but that it will support the insulator safely even when badly bent.
It’s said that this pin starts to bend with a pull of 1,000 pounds at its top, but it will still safely support the insulator even when it’s badly bent.
Insulators may resist puncture and prevent surface arcing from wire to pin, but still allow a large though silent flow of energy over the pins and cross-arms between the conductors of a transmission circuit. The rate at which current flows from one wire of a transmission circuit to[276] another in this way depends on the total resistance of each path over insulator surfaces and through air to the pins and cross-arm, and then over these parts.
Insulators can prevent punctures and stop surface arcing between the wire and the pin, but they still permit a significant, though quiet, flow of energy over the pins and cross-arms connecting the conductors in a transmission circuit. The amount of current that flows from one wire to another in this manner depends on the total resistance of each pathway across the insulator surfaces and through the air to the pins and cross-arm, and then over these components.
If the pins and cross-arm are entirely of iron, the total resistance of the path through them from wire to wire is practically that of the insulator surfaces. If the pins and cross-arm are of wood which is dry, they may offer an appreciable part of the total resistance of the path through them between the wires of a circuit; but if the wood be wet, its resistance is very much reduced.
If the pins and cross-arm are completely made of iron, the total resistance of the path from wire to wire is basically just that of the insulator surfaces. If the pins and cross-arm are made of dry wood, they can contribute significantly to the total resistance of the path between the wires in a circuit; however, if the wood is wet, its resistance drops considerably.
The resistance of wooden pins and cross-arm may be so small compared with that of the air and insulator surfaces that complete the path through them from wire to wire of a circuit, that the effect of these wooden parts in checking the flow of current between conductors is relatively unimportant, and yet the resistances of these pins and the cross-arm may affect their lasting qualities.
The resistance of wooden pins and the cross-arm might be minor compared to that of the air and the insulator surfaces that connect the wires in a circuit, making their impact on current flow between conductors relatively insignificant. However, the resistances of these pins and the cross-arm could still influence their durability.
The current that flows over the pins and cross-arms from one wire to another of a high-tension circuit may be so small as not to injure these wooden parts when evenly distributed over them, and yet this same current may char or burn the wood if confined to a narrow path. Such a leakage current will naturally cease to be evenly distributed over pins and their cross-arms when certain portions of their surfaces are of much lower resistance than others, because an electric current divides and follows several possible paths in the inverse ratio of their resistances.
The current that travels over the pins and cross-arms from one wire to another in a high-voltage circuit can be so minimal that it doesn't damage these wooden parts when spread out evenly. However, the same current can scorch or burn the wood if it’s confined to a narrow path. This leakage current will stop being evenly distributed over the pins and their cross-arms when some areas of their surfaces have much lower resistance than others because an electric current divides and takes multiple paths based on their resistances.
These narrow paths of relatively low resistance along wooden pins and cross-arms are heated and charred by the very current that they attract, so that the conductivity of the path and the heat developed therein react mutually to increase each other, and tend toward the destruction of the wood.
These narrow paths of low resistance along wooden pins and cross-arms get heated and burned by the very current they draw in, causing the conductivity of the path and the heat produced to amplify each other, which leads to the deterioration of the wood.
Among causes that tend to make some parts of pins and cross-arms better conductors than others, there may be mentioned cracks in the wood, where dirt and moisture collect, dust, with a mixture of salt deposited on the wood by the winds at certain places, and sea fogs that are often blown only against one side of the pins and arms and deposit salt.
Among the reasons why some parts of pins and cross-arms are better conductors than others, we can mention cracks in the wood where dirt and moisture gather, dust, along with a mix of salt that the wind deposits on the wood in certain areas, and sea fogs that often only blow against one side of the pins and arms and leave salt behind.
To make matters worse, the same cause that creates a path of relatively good conductivity along wooden pins and cross-arms often materially lowers the resistance offered to the leakage of current by the insulator surfaces. Thus an increase of the rate at which energy passes from wire to wire of a circuit, and the concentration of this energy in certain parts of the wooden path, are sometimes brought about at the same time. Where the line insulators employed are so designed that the resistance[277] of the dry wooden pins and cross-arms forms a material part of the total resistance between the wires of a circuit, a rain or heavy fog may cause a very large increase in the rate at which energy passes over these wooden parts between the conductors.
To make matters worse, the same reason that creates a relatively good flow of electricity along wooden pins and cross-arms often significantly reduces the resistance that the insulator surfaces provide against current leakage. So, an increase in how quickly energy transfers from one wire to another in a circuit, along with the buildup of this energy in specific areas of the wooden path, can sometimes happen simultaneously. When the line insulators used are designed in such a way that the resistance of the dry wooden pins and cross-arms is a significant part of the total resistance between the circuit wires, rain or heavy fog can cause a big jump in the amount of energy that travels over these wooden sections between the conductors.
As long as only moderate voltages were carried on line conductors, the charring and burning of their pins and cross-arms was a very unusual matter; but with the application of very high pressures on long circuits the destruction of these wooden parts by the heat of leakage currents has become a serious menace to transmission systems. Even with low voltages there may be charring and burning of pins and cross-arms if the line insulators are very poor or if the conditions as to weather and flying dust are sufficiently severe.
As long as only moderate voltages were used on line conductors, it was quite rare for their pins and cross-arms to get charred or burned. However, with the use of very high voltages on long circuits, the damage to these wooden components from the heat of leakage currents has become a major threat to transmission systems. Even at low voltages, there can be charring and burning of pins and cross-arms if the line insulators are of poor quality or if the weather conditions and airborne dust are particularly harsh.
In vol. xx. of the Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, pages 435 to 442 and 471 to 479, an account of the charring and burning of pins on several transmission lines is given, from which some of the following examples are taken.
In vol. xx. of the Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, pages 435 to 442 and 471 to 479, there’s a report on the charring and burning of pins on various transmission lines, from which some of the following examples are taken.
In one case a line that ran near a certain chemical factory was said to be much troubled by the burning of its pins, though the voltage employed was only 440, and the insulators were designed for circuits of 10,000 volts. In rainy weather, when insulators, pins, and cross-arms were washed clear of the chemical deposits, there was no pin burning. Similar trouble has been met with on sections of the 40,000-volt Provo line, in Utah, where dust, mixed with salt, is deposited on the insulators, pins, and cross-arms. On page 708 a 2,000-volt line is mentioned on which fog, dust, and rain caused much burning of pins.
In one instance, a line running close to a certain chemical factory reportedly had a lot of issues with its pins burning out, even though it was only using 440 volts and the insulators were rated for circuits of 10,000 volts. However, during rainy weather, when the insulators, pins, and cross-arms were cleaned of the chemical buildup, there was no pin burning. A similar issue has been encountered on sections of the 40,000-volt Provo line in Utah, where dust mixed with salt accumulates on the insulators, pins, and cross-arms. On page 708, a 2,000-volt line is mentioned where fog, dust, and rain also caused significant pin burning.
When circuits are operated at voltages of 40,000 to 60,000, no very severe climatic conditions are necessary to develop serious trouble in the wooden pins by leakage currents, even where the transmission lines are supported in insulators of the largest and best types yet developed. Striking examples along this line may be seen in the transmission systems between Colgate and Oakland, Cal., and between Electra and San Francisco. Both of these systems were designed to transmit energy at 60,000 volts, but the actual pressure of operation seems to have been limited to about 40,000 volts during much of their period of service.
When circuits run at voltages between 40,000 and 60,000, it's not necessary to have very extreme weather conditions for serious issues to arise in the wooden pins due to leakage currents, even when the transmission lines are supported by the largest and best insulators developed. Clear examples of this can be seen in the transmission systems between Colgate and Oakland, California, and between Electra and San Francisco. Both systems were designed to transmit energy at 60,000 volts, but the actual operating pressure appears to have been limited to around 40,000 volts for a significant part of their service life.
Insulators of a single type and size are used on both of these transmission lines, and are among the largest ever put into service on long circuits. Each of these insulators is 11 inches in diameter, and 111⁄4 inches high from the lower edge to the top, the line wire being carried in a central top groove. The wooden pins used on the two lines vary a little in size, so that on the Electra line each pin stands 111⁄2 inches above its[278] cross-arm, while on the Colgate line the corresponding distance is 12 inches. As the insulators are of the same size in each case, the length of the pin between the lower edge of each insulator and the top of the cross-arm is 4 inches on the Colgate line and 31⁄2 inches on the Electra line.
Insulators of one type and size are used on both of these transmission lines, and they are among the largest ever used on long circuits. Each insulator has a diameter of 11 inches and is 111⁄4 inches tall from the bottom edge to the top, with the line wire being held in a central top groove. The wooden pins used on the two lines vary slightly in size, so on the Electra line, each pin stands 111⁄2 inches above its[278] cross-arm, while on the Colgate line, the corresponding height is 12 inches. Since the insulators are the same size in both cases, the length of the pin from the lower edge of each insulator to the top of the cross-arm is 4 inches on the Colgate line and 31⁄2 inches on the Electra line.
On the latter line a porcelain sleeve, entirely separate from and making no contact with the insulator, covers each pin from the top of its cross-arm to a point above the lower edge of the insulator. On the Colgate line each insulator makes contact with its pin for a length of 21⁄2 inches down from the top of its thread, and on the Electra line the contact of each insulator with its pin runs down 31⁄2 inches below the top of the thread. This leaves 9 inches in the length of the pin between the insulator contact and the top of each cross-arm on the Colgate line, and a corresponding length of pin amounting to 81⁄2 inches on the Electra line. Of this 81⁄2 inches of pin surface, about 6 inches is covered by the porcelain insulating sleeve used on each pin of the Electra line, so that only about 21⁄2 inches of the length of each pin on that line is exposed to the leakage of current from the insulator directly through the air. Both the sizes of pins just mentioned were made of eucalyptus wood, boiled in linseed oil.
On the latter line, a porcelain sleeve, completely separate from and not touching the insulator, covers each pin from the top of its cross-arm to a point above the bottom edge of the insulator. On the Colgate line, each insulator connects with its pin for a length of 2½ inches down from the top of its thread, and on the Electra line, the contact of each insulator with its pin extends down 3½ inches below the top of the thread. This leaves 9 inches of pin length between the insulator contact and the top of each cross-arm on the Colgate line, and a corresponding length of pin of 8½ inches on the Electra line. Of this 8½ inches of pin surface, about 6 inches is covered by the porcelain insulating sleeve used on each pin of the Electra line, meaning only about 2½ inches of the length of each pin on that line is exposed to the leakage of current from the insulator directly through the air. Both sizes of pins just mentioned were made of eucalyptus wood, boiled in linseed oil.
Each one of three pins taken from a pole, between North Tomer and Cordelia, on the Colgate line, was badly charred and burned on its side that faced the damp ocean winds. This charring extended all the way down each pin from the point where the insulator made contact with it, a little under the threads, to the top of the cross-arm nine inches below. Two of these pins were located at the opposite ends of a cross-arm, and the third was fixed in the top of the pole. This cross-arm was charred or burnt, as well as the pin, but no defects could be detected in the insulators that the pins supported.
Each of the three pins taken from a pole between North Tomer and Cordelia, on the Colgate line, was badly burned on the side facing the damp ocean winds. The charring ran all the way down each pin from the point where the insulator made contact, just below the threads, to the top of the cross-arm, nine inches below. Two of these pins were at opposite ends of a cross-arm, and the third was attached to the top of the pole. This cross-arm was also charred, just like the pin, but no defects were found in the insulators that the pins supported.
As to these three pins, the most reasonable explanation seems to be that enough current leaked over both the outside and inside surfaces of each insulator and through the air to char the pin and cross-arm. In flowing down each pin, the current was naturally concentrated on the side exposed to the damp winds of the ocean, because the deposit of moisture by these winds lowered the resistance on that side. When these winds were not blowing, and before a pin became charred on one side, its resistance was probably about the same all the way around, and the leakage current, being distributed over the pin, was not sufficient to char it. The damp wind would, of course, lower the surface resistance of each insulator, and this, with the deposit of moisture on the pins and cross-arm, many have made a very material reduction in the total resistance from wire to wire.
As for these three pins, the most logical explanation is that enough current leaked over both the outside and inside surfaces of each insulator and through the air to burn the pin and cross-arm. As the current flowed down each pin, it was naturally concentrated on the side facing the damp winds from the ocean, since the moisture from these winds lowered the resistance on that side. When these winds weren’t blowing, and before a pin got scorched on one side, its resistance was likely about the same all around, meaning the leakage current was spread over the pin and wasn’t strong enough to burn it. The damp winds would, of course, lower the surface resistance of each insulator, and with the moisture buildup on the pins and cross-arm, it likely caused a significant reduction in the total resistance from wire to wire.
The insulators used on these pins each had two petticoats, an upper one, 11 inches in diameter, and a lower one, 61⁄2 inches in diameter, the lower edge of the smaller petticoat being 71⁄2 inches beneath the lower outside edge of the larger petticoat. As the inner surface of the larger petticoat was much nearer to a horizontal plane than the inner surface of the smaller petticoat, moisture would have been more readily retained on it, and the greater part of the surface resistance of the insulator during wet weather must therefore have been on the inside of the smaller petticoat. At its lower edge the smaller petticoat was distant radially about 13⁄4 inches from the pin, and the distance between the pin and the inside surface of the smaller petticoat gradually decreased to actual contact at a point 51⁄2 inches above this lower edge.
The insulators on these pins each had two petticoats: an upper one, 11 inches wide, and a lower one, 61⁄2 inches wide. The lower edge of the smaller petticoat was 71⁄2 inches below the lower outside edge of the larger petticoat. Since the inner surface of the larger petticoat was much closer to being horizontal than the inner surface of the smaller petticoat, moisture would have been more easily held on it. Thus, most of the surface resistance of the insulator during wet weather must have occurred on the inside of the smaller petticoat. At its lower edge, the smaller petticoat was about 13⁄4 inches away from the pin, and the distance between the pin and the inside surface of the smaller petticoat gradually decreased to touch at a point 51⁄2 inches above this lower edge.
The path of the current from the line wire to the pin in this case seems to have been first over the entire insulator surface to the lower edge of the smaller petticoat and then partly up over the inner surface of this petticoat and partly from that surface through the air. On each of these three pins the charring was quite as bad just below the thread as it was further down, so that a large part of the leakage current seems to have gone up over the interior surface of the smaller petticoat. The charred portion of these pins extended but little, if at all, into the threads near the tops or into the part of the pin fitting into the cross-arm. The preservation of the part of each pin that entered the cross-arm seems to have been due to the increase of surface and decrease of resistance of the cross-arm in comparison with the pin. Preservation of the threaded part of each pin seems to have been due to its protection from moisture and its high resistance, so that little or no current passed over it.
The current flowed from the line wire to the pin, initially moving across the entire surface of the insulator to the lower edge of the smaller petticoat, and then partly up along the inner surface of this petticoat and partly through the air from that surface. On all three pins, the damage was just as severe right below the thread as it was further down, indicating that a significant portion of the leakage current traveled up the inner surface of the smaller petticoat. The charred areas of these pins didn't extend much, if at all, into the threads near the tops or into the part of the pin that fits into the cross-arm. The section of each pin that went into the cross-arm seemed to remain intact because of the increased surface area and reduced resistance of the cross-arm compared to the pin. The preservation of the threaded part of each pin appeared to result from being protected from moisture and its high resistance, meaning little to no current flowed over it.
Another pin taken from the same line as the three just considered was badly burned at a point about 1.75 inches below the threads, but on sawing it completely across at two points below the charred spot the entire section was found to be perfectly sound and free from any sign of burning. The explanation of the condition of this pin is, perhaps, that the resistance of the burned part, owing to its additional protection and dryness, was high compared with that of the lower part of the pin, and thus developed most of the heat on the passage of current. It is not clear, however, why this pin should burn only just below the thread, while other pins of the same kind on the same line were charred all the way down from the thread to the cross-arm.
Another pin taken from the same line as the three just mentioned was badly burned about 1.75 inches below the threads, but when it was sawed completely across at two points below the charred area, the entire section was found to be perfectly sound and showed no signs of burning. The reason for the condition of this pin may be that the burned part, due to its extra protection and dryness, had a higher resistance compared to the lower part of the pin, which caused most of the heat to develop during the current's passage. However, it is still unclear why this pin burned only right below the thread, while other pins of the same type on the same line were charred all the way down from the thread to the cross-arm.
Another curious result noticed in some pins on this same line is the softening of the threads so that they can be rubbed off with the fingers.
Another interesting observation seen in some pins along this line is that the threads have softened to the point where they can be rubbed off with your fingers.
Relation of Pins and Insulators.
Relationship of Pins and Insulators.
Location of Line. | Voltage of Line. |
Diameter of Insulator. |
Height of Insulator. |
Length of Pin Covered by Insulator. |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Inches. | Inches. | Inches. | |||||
Electra to San Francisco | 60,000 | 11 | 11 | 1⁄4 | 12 | ||
Colgate to Oakland | 60,000 | 11 | 11 | 1⁄4 | 8 | ||
Cañon Ferry to Butte | 50,000 | 9 | 12 | 10 | 1⁄2 | ||
Shawinigan Falls to Montreal | 50,000 | 10 | 13 | 10 | 1⁄4 | ||
Santa Ana River to Los Angeles | 33,000 | 6 | 3⁄4 | 4 | 7⁄8 | 2 | 1⁄2 |
Provo around Utah Lake | 40,000 | 7 | 5 | 3⁄4 | 4 | 3⁄4 | |
Spier Falls to Schenectady | 30,000 | 8 | 1⁄2 | 6 | 3⁄4 | 5 | 1⁄4 |
Niagara Falls to Buffalo | 22,000 | 7 | 1⁄2 | 7 | 5 |
The softened wood of the threads is not charred, but is said to have a sour taste and to resemble digested wood pulp. While the threads of a wooden pin are destroyed in this way the remainder of the pin may still remain perfect and show no charring.
The softened wood of the threads isn’t burnt, but it’s said to have a sour taste and looks like digested wood pulp. While the threads of a wooden pin are damaged this way, the rest of the pin can still be intact and show no signs of burning.
Relations of Pins and Insulators.
Pin and Insulator Relationships.
Location of Line. | Length of Pin Between Insulator and Cross-arm. |
Distance from Outer Petticoat to Pin Through Air. |
Distance from Lowest Petticoat to Pin Through Air. |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Inches. | Inches. | Inches. | ||||
Electra to San Francisco | 0 | 10 | 1⁄2 | 3 | 1⁄2 | |
Colgate to Oakland | 3 | 1⁄2 | 10 | 2 | 1⁄2 | |
Cañon Ferry to Butte | 1 | 1⁄2 | 0 | 1 | 1⁄2 | |
Shawinigan Falls to Montreal | 3 | 1⁄4 | 9 | 1⁄2 | 1 | |
Santa Ana River to Los Angeles | 3 | 1⁄2 | 2 | 3⁄4 | .. | |
Provo around Utah Lake | 3 | 1⁄2 | 2 | 1⁄2 | .. | |
Spier Falls to Schenectady | 4 | 4 | 5⁄8 | |||
Niagara Falls to Buffalo | 3 | 4 | 1⁄2 | 2 |
In explanation of this disintegration of the threads of wooden pins it was stated that a number of these pins, the tops of which were reduced to a white powder, had been taken from the line between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, on which the voltage is 22,000, and that this powder proved on analysis to be a nitrate salt. This salt was thought to be the result of the action of nitric acid on the wood, it being supposed that the acid was formed by a static discharge acting on the oxygen and nitrogen of[281] the air between the threads of the insulator and pin. In support of this view it was stated that an experimental line of galvanized-iron wire at Niagara Falls, which was operated at 75,000 volts continuously during nearly four months, turned black over its entire length of about two miles. This surface disintegration was not due to the normal action of the air, for similar wire at the same place remained bright when not used as an electrical conductor.
To explain the breakdown of the wooden pin threads, it was noted that several of these pins, whose tops had turned into a white powder, were taken from the line between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, where the voltage is 22,000. Analysis revealed that this powder was a nitrate salt. This salt was thought to be caused by nitric acid reacting with the wood, with the idea that the acid was generated by a static discharge affecting the oxygen and nitrogen in the air between the threads of the insulator and the pin. Supporting this idea, it was reported that an experimental galvanized-iron wire line at Niagara Falls, which operated at 75,000 volts continuously for nearly four months, turned black along its entire two-mile length. This surface degradation was not due to regular air exposure, as a similar wire in the same location remained shiny when not used as an electrical conductor.
These facts seemed to indicate that the brush discharge from the wires carrying the 75,000-volt current developed nitric acid from the oxygen and nitrogen of the air, and that this acid attacked the wire.
These facts suggested that the brush discharge from the wires carrying the 75,000-volt current produced nitric acid from the oxygen and nitrogen in the air, and that this acid corroded the wire.
One of the above-mentioned pins used on the Electra line was much charred and burned away at a point a little below the threads. The charred path of the current could also be traced down the side of the pin to the cross-arm, but this path was not as badly burned as the spot near the top of the pin.
One of the pins mentioned earlier from the Electra line was significantly charred and burned at a point just below the threads. The burned path of the current could also be seen along the side of the pin down to the cross-arm, but this area wasn't as damaged as the spot near the top of the pin.
A composite pin from a 33,000-volt line, probably a part of the transmission system between the Santa Ana River and Los Angeles, was burned through its wooden threads to the central iron bolt, along a narrow strip at one side. Every pin burned on this line was said to show the effects of the current in the way just described, but no cross-arms were burned and very few insulators punctured.
A composite pin from a 33,000-volt line, likely part of the transmission system between the Santa Ana River and Los Angeles, was burned through its wooden threads to the central iron bolt along a narrow strip on one side. It was noted that every pin burned on this line showed the effects of the current in this way, but no cross-arms were burned and very few insulators were punctured.
The composite pin was made up of a central iron bolt 105⁄8 inches long, 1⁄2-inch in diameter, and with a thin head above the wooden threads, a sleeve of wood 25⁄8 inches long and 1 inch in diameter in its threaded portion, and a sleeve of porcelain 31⁄8 inches long and 11⁄4 inches in diameter at its upper and 211⁄16 inches at its lower end. The sleeves of wood and porcelain were slipped over the central iron bolt so that the portions of the pin above the cross-arm measured 57⁄8 inches. In this case the path of the leakage current seems to have been over both the exterior and interior surface of the insulator and then through the wooden sleeve to the central bolt and the cross-arm.
The composite pin consisted of a central iron bolt 105⁄8 inches long, with a diameter of 1⁄2 inch and a slim head above the wooden threads. It had a wooden sleeve that was 25⁄8 inches long and 1 inch in diameter in its threaded section, and a porcelain sleeve that was 31⁄8 inches long, measuring 11⁄4 inches in diameter at the top and 211⁄16 inches at the bottom. The wooden and porcelain sleeves were fitted over the central iron bolt, making the part of the pin above the cross-arm measure 57⁄8 inches. In this scenario, the route of the leakage current appeared to travel along both the outer and inner surfaces of the insulator, then through the wooden sleeve to the central bolt and the cross-arm.
The facts just outlined certainly indicate a serious menace to the permanence and reliability of long, high-voltage transmission lines supported by insulators on wooden pins. If such results have been encountered on the lines above named, where some of the largest and best designs of insulators are employed, it is only fair to assume that similar destructive effects of leakage currents are taking place on many other lines that operate at high voltages.
The facts just outlined definitely show a serious threat to the durability and reliability of long, high-voltage transmission lines supported by insulators on wooden pins. If these results have been found on the lines mentioned, where some of the largest and best-designed insulators are used, it's reasonable to assume that similar damaging effects from leakage currents are occurring on many other lines that operate at high voltages.
It seems at least doubtful whether any enlargement or improvement of the insulators themselves will entirely avoid the destruction of their[282] wooden pins in one of the ways mentioned. It is probable, but not certain, that further extension of distances through air and over insulator surfaces, both exterior and interior, between line wires and wooden pins, will prevent charring and burning of the latter by leakage currents. Much has already been done in the way of covering most of the pin above its cross-arm with the insulator parts, but even those portions of the pin that are best protected in this way are not free from burning.
It’s uncertain whether any upgrades or improvements to the insulators will completely prevent the damage to their[282]wooden pins as previously mentioned. It’s likely, but not guaranteed, that increasing the distances through air and across the insulator surfaces, both outside and inside, between the line wires and wooden pins will help stop charring and burning of the pins due to leakage currents. Much effort has already been made to cover most of the pin above its cross-arm with the insulator components, but even the parts of the pin that are best protected this way are still susceptible to burning.
Thus, on the Colgate line, eight inches of each pin is protected by the interior surface of its insulator, but these pins were charred quite as badly where best protected, up close to the thread, as they were down near the cross-arm. The same is true of the Electra line, where a porcelain sleeve runs up about the pin from the cross-arm to a point above the inner petticoat of each insulator, so that the entire length of the pin above the cross-arm is protected. On the Cañon Ferry line, a glass sleeve that virtually forms a part of each insulator, though mechanically separate from it, protects the pin from its threaded portion to within 1.5 inches of the cross-arm.
Thus, on the Colgate line, eight inches of each pin is shielded by the inside surface of its insulator, but these pins were burned just as badly where they were best protected, right up near the thread, as they were down near the cross-arm. The same goes for the Electra line, where a porcelain sleeve extends up the pin from the cross-arm to a point above the inner petticoat of each insulator, so the entire length of the pin above the cross-arm is protected. On the Cañon Ferry line, a glass sleeve that essentially becomes part of each insulator, even though it is mechanically separate, protects the pin from its threaded section to within 1.5 inches of the cross-arm.
Insulators on the line from Shawinigan Falls to Montreal are each 13 inches long and extend down over the pin to within 1.5 inches of the cross-arm. The burned portion of each pin from the Santa Ana line was that carrying the threads, and thus in actual contact with that part of the insulator which was separated by the greatest surface distance from the line wire.
Insulators on the line from Shawinigan Falls to Montreal are each 13 inches long and extend down over the pin to within 1.5 inches of the cross-arm. The burned part of each pin from the Santa Ana line was the one carrying the threads, which was in actual contact with the part of the insulator that was farthest away from the line wire.
Aside from the burning of pins is the destruction of their threaded parts by some chemical agency that is developed inside of the tops of the insulators, as shown in the cases of the Colgate and Niagara lines. It does not appear that any improvement of insulators will necessarily prevent chemical action.
Aside from the melting of pins, there is the damage to their threaded parts caused by some chemical agent that forms inside the tops of the insulators, as evidenced in the cases of the Colgate and Niagara lines. It seems that improving insulators won't necessarily stop chemical reactions.
Though it may not be practicable to so increase the surface resistance of each insulator that the burning of wooden pins by leakage current will be prevented, the substitution of a conducting for an insulating pin may remedy the trouble. As the insulators, pins, and cross-arm form a path for the leakage current from wire to wire, the wooden pins by their resistance, especially when dry, must develop heat. In pins of steel or iron this heat would be trifling and would do no damage. With pins of good conducting material, like iron, the amount of leakage from wire to wire, with a given design of insulator, would, no doubt, be somewhat greater than the leakage with wooden pins.
Though it might not be practical to significantly increase the surface resistance of each insulator to prevent wooden pins from burning due to leakage current, replacing an insulating pin with a conducting one could solve the issue. Since the insulators, pins, and cross-arm create a path for leakage current between wires, the wooden pins must generate heat due to their resistance, especially when they’re dry. Steel or iron pins would generate only a small amount of heat and wouldn’t cause any damage. With good conducting materials like iron, the amount of leakage current between wires would likely be somewhat higher than with wooden pins, given the same insulator design.
It will be cheaper, however, to increase the resistance of new insulators[283] up to the combined resistance of present insulators and their wooden pins than it will be to replace these pins when they are burned.
It will be cheaper, however, to raise the resistance of new insulators[283] to match the total resistance of current insulators and their wooden pins than to replace these pins when they get burned.
From all the evidence at hand, it seems that insulators which reduce the leakage of current over their surfaces to permissible limits as far as mere loss of energy is concerned, even with iron pins, will not prevent the charring and destruction of wooden pins.
From all the evidence available, it appears that insulators that limit current leakage across their surfaces to acceptable levels in terms of energy loss, even when using iron pins, will not stop the burning and damage of wooden pins.

Fig. 90.—Glass Insulator and Sleeve on 50,000-volt Line
Between Cañon Ferry
and Butte, Mont.
Fig. 90.—Glass Insulator and Sleeve on 50,000-volt Line
Between Canyon Ferry and Butte, Montana.
When any suitable insulator is dry and clean it offers all necessary resistance to the leakage of current over its surface, and any resistance in the pin that carries the insulator is of small importance. If the resistance of an insulator needs to be reinforced by that of its pin in any case, it is when the surface of the insulator is wet or dirty. Unfortunately, however, the same weather conditions that deposit dirt or moisture on an insulator make similar deposits on its pin, and the resistance of the pin is lowered much more than that of the insulator by such deposits. The increase of current leakage over the surface of an insulator during rains and fogs usually does no damage to the insulator itself, but such leakage over the wet pin soon develops a surface layer of carbon that continues to act as a good conductor after the moisture that temporarily[284] lowered the resistance has gone. Reasons like these have led some engineers to prefer iron pins with insulators that offer all of the resistance necessary for the voltage employed on the line.
When any suitable insulator is dry and clean, it provides enough resistance to prevent current leakage over its surface, and any resistance in the pin that holds the insulator is not very significant. The only time the resistance of an insulator really needs support from its pin is when the insulator's surface is wet or dirty. Unfortunately, the same weather conditions that cause dirt or moisture to accumulate on an insulator also affect its pin, and the pin's resistance decreases a lot more than the insulator's due to these deposits. The increase in current leakage over an insulator's surface during rain or fog typically doesn't damage the insulator itself, but leakage over the wet pin quickly forms a layer of carbon on the surface, which continues to be a good conductor even after the moisture that briefly lowered the resistance has dried up. For these reasons, some engineers prefer using iron pins with insulators that provide all the necessary resistance for the voltage used on the line.
It may be suggested that the use of iron pins will transfer the charring and burning to the wooden cross-arms, but this does not seem to be a necessary result. The comparative freedom of cross-arms from charring and burning where wooden pins are used seems to be due to the larger surface and lower resistance of the cross-arms. With iron pins having a shank of small diameter, so that the area of contact surface between the pin and the wooden cross-arm is relatively small, there may be some charring of the wood at this contact surface. Should it be thought desirable to guard against any trouble of this sort, the surface of the iron pin in contact with the cross-arm may be made ample by the use of large washers, or by giving each pin a greater diameter at the shank than elsewhere.
It could be argued that using iron pins will cause charring and burning to transfer to the wooden cross-arms, but this doesn’t seem to have to happen. The relatively low incidence of charring and burning on cross-arms that use wooden pins seems to be linked to the larger surface area and lower resistance of the cross-arms. With iron pins that have a small diameter shank, the area of contact between the pin and the wooden cross-arm is relatively small, which may result in some charring of the wood at that contact point. If it's considered necessary to prevent any issues like this, the surface of the iron pin that contacts the cross-arm can be made larger by using large washers or by increasing the diameter of the shank of each pin compared to the rest.
It may be noted that the pins with a central iron bolt only half an inch in diameter, that were used on the 33,000-volt Santa Ana line, were said to have caused no burning of their cross-arms in those cases in which the wooden threads about the top of the central bolt were burned through.
It’s worth mentioning that the pins with a central iron bolt just half an inch in diameter, which were used on the 33,000-volt Santa Ana line, reportedly didn’t cause any burning of their cross-arms in the instances where the wooden threads around the top of the central bolt were burned through.
Another possible trouble with iron pins is that they, by their greater rate of expansion than glass or porcelain, will break their insulators. Such results can readily be avoided by cementing each iron pin into its insulator, instead of screwing the insulator onto the pin. Iron pins will, no doubt, cost somewhat more than those of wood, but this cost will in any event be only a small percentage of the total investment in a transmission line. Considering the cost of the renewals of wooden pins, there seems little doubt that on a line where the voltage and other conditions are such as to result in frequent burning, iron pins would be cheaper in the end.
Another potential issue with iron pins is that they expand at a faster rate than glass or porcelain, which can cause them to break their insulators. This problem can easily be avoided by securing each iron pin in its insulator with cement, rather than screwing the insulator onto the pin. Iron pins will likely be more expensive than wooden ones, but this added cost will only be a small fraction of the total investment in a transmission line. Given the expenses associated with replacing wooden pins, it seems clear that on a line where the voltage and other conditions lead to frequent failures, iron pins would ultimately be more cost-effective.
Iron pins have already been adopted on a number of high-voltage lines. Not only iron pins, but even iron cross-arms and iron poles are in use on a number of transmission lines. On a long line now under construction in Mexico, iron towers, placed as much as 400 feet apart, are used instead of wooden poles, and both the pins and cross-arms are also of iron. The 75-mile line from Niagara Falls to Toronto is carried entirely on steel towers.
Iron pins are already being used on several high-voltage lines. Not just iron pins, but also iron cross-arms and iron poles are utilized on many transmission lines. On a long line currently being built in Mexico, iron towers, spaced up to 400 feet apart, are replacing wooden poles, with both the pins and cross-arms made of iron. The 75-mile line from Niagara Falls to Toronto is fully supported by steel towers.
The Vancouver Power Company, Vancouver, British Columbia, use a pin that consists of a steel bolt about 12 inches long fitted with a sleeve of cast iron 41⁄2 inches long to enter the cross-arm, and a lead thread to screw into the insulator. On the 111-mile line of the Washington Power[285] Company, of Spokane, which was designed to operate at 60,000 volts and runs to the Standard and Hecla mines, a pin consisting of a steel bar 11⁄8 inches in diameter, with a cast-iron shank 21⁄16 inches in diameter to enter the cross-arm, and with the lead threads for the insulator, is used.
The Vancouver Power Company in Vancouver, British Columbia, uses a pin made of a steel bolt about 12 inches long, fitted with a 4.5-inch long cast iron sleeve to enter the cross-arm, and a lead thread to screw into the insulator. On the 111-mile line of the Washington Power Company in Spokane, designed to operate at 60,000 volts and extending to the Standard and Hecla mines, they use a pin consisting of a steel bar 1.125 inches in diameter, with a 2.0625-inch diameter cast-iron shank to enter the cross-arm, and the lead threads for the insulator.

Fig. 92.—Iron Pins on Spier Falls Line.
Fig. 92.—Iron Pins on Spier Falls Line.
On the network of transmission lines between Spier Falls, Schenectady, Albany, and Troy, in the State of New York, the insulators are supported on iron pins of two types. One of these pins, used at corners and where the strain on the wire line is exceptionally heavy, is made up of a wrought-iron bolt 3⁄4-inch in diameter and 161⁄2 inches long over the head, and of a malleable iron casting 83⁄4 inches long. This casting has a flange of 5 by 33⁄4 inches at its lower end that rests on the top of the cross-arm, and the bolt passes from the top of the casting down through it and the cross-arm. Threads are cut on the lower end of the bolt, and a nut and washer secure it in the cross-arm. The total height of this pin above the cross-arm is 91⁄4 inches.
On the network of transmission lines between Spier Falls, Schenectady, Albany, and Troy in New York, the insulators are mounted on two types of iron pins. One type of pin, used at corners and where the wire line is under significant strain, consists of a ¾-inch diameter wrought iron bolt that is 16½ inches long over the head, and a malleable iron casting that is 8¾ inches long. This casting has a flange measuring 5 by 3¾ inches at its lower end, which rests on top of the cross-arm. The bolt goes through the top of the casting and down through the cross-arm. The lower end of the bolt has threads cut into it, and a nut and washer secure it in the cross-arm. The total height of this pin above the cross-arm is 9¼ inches.
For straight work on this line a pin with stem entirely of malleable iron, and a bolt that comes up through the cross-arm and enters the base of the casting, is used. The cast top of this pin has four vertical webs,[286] and its rectangular base, which rests on the top of the cross-arm, is 31⁄2 by 4 inches. The bolt that comes up through the cross-arm and taps into the base of the casting is 3⁄4-inch in diameter. The cast part of this pin has such a length that the top of its insulator is carried 103⁄4 inches above the cross-arm. For the casting the length is 91⁄4 inches.
For direct work on this line, a pin made entirely of malleable iron is used, along with a bolt that goes through the cross-arm and connects to the base of the casting. The cast top of this pin features four vertical webs,[286] and its rectangular base, which sits on top of the cross-arm, measures 31⁄2 by 4 inches. The bolt that goes up through the cross-arm and screws into the base of the casting is 3⁄4 inch in diameter. The cast part of this pin is long enough that the top of its insulator is lifted 103⁄4 inches above the cross-arm, while the casting itself is 91⁄4 inches long.
Both of the types of iron pins in use on the Spier Falls lines are secured to their insulators with Portland cement poured into the pin hole while liquid when the insulator is upside down and the pin is held centrally in its hole. The top of each casting is smaller in diameter than the hole in the insulator, and is grooved so as to hold the cement.
Both types of iron pins used on the Spier Falls lines are secured to their insulators with Portland cement poured into the pin hole while it’s liquid. This is done with the insulator upside down and the pin held in the center of its hole. The top of each casting is smaller in diameter than the hole in the insulator and has grooves to hold the cement.

Fig. 93.—Standard Pin, Toronto and Niagara Line.
Fig. 93.—Standard Pin, Toronto and Niagara Line.
On a long line designed for 60,000 volts, and recently completed in California, wooden pins are used with porcelain insulators, each 14 inches in diameter and 121⁄2 inches high. Each of these pins is entirely covered with sheet zinc from the cross-arm to the threaded end, and it is expected that this metal covering will protect the wood of the pin from injury by the leakage current.
On a long line designed for 60,000 volts, recently completed in California, wooden pins are used with porcelain insulators, each measuring 14 inches in diameter and 121⁄2 inches high. Each pin is fully covered with sheet zinc, from the cross-arm to the threaded end, and it is expected that this metal covering will protect the wood of the pin from damage caused by leakage current.
CHAPTER XXI.
Insulators for power lines.
Line insulators, pins, and cross-arms all go to make up paths of more or less conductivity between the wires of a transmission circuit. The amount of current flowing along these paths from one conductor to another in any case will depend on the combined resistance of the insulators, pins, and cross-arm at each pole.
Line insulators, pins, and cross-arms all work together to create paths of varying conductivity between the wires of a transmission circuit. The amount of current flowing along these paths from one conductor to another will depend on the total resistance of the insulators, pins, and cross-arm at each pole.
As a general rule, the wires of high-voltage transmission circuits are used bare because continuous coverings would add materially to the cost with only a trifling increase in effective insulation against high voltages. In some instances the wires of high-pressure transmission lines have individual coverings for short distances where they enter cities, but often this is not the case. At Manchester, N. H., bare conductors from water-power plants enter the sub-station, well within the city limits, at 12,000 volts. From the water-power at Chambly the bare 25,000-volt circuits, after crossing the St. Lawrence River over the great Victoria bridge, pass overhead to a terminal-house near the water-front in Montreal. In order to reach the General Electric Works, the 30,000-volt circuits from Spier Falls enter the city limits of Schenectady, N. Y., with bare overhead conductors.
As a general rule, high-voltage transmission wires are used without insulation because adding continuous coverings would significantly increase costs for only a minimal improvement in insulation against high voltages. Sometimes, high-pressure transmission lines have individual coverings for short distances where they enter urban areas, but this isn't always the case. In Manchester, NH, bare conductors from hydroelectric plants enter the sub-station well within the city limits at 12,000 volts. From the hydroelectric facility at Chambly, the bare 25,000-volt circuits cross the St. Lawrence River over the Victoria Bridge and then run overhead to a terminal house near the waterfront in Montreal. To reach the General Electric Works, the 30,000-volt circuits from Spier Falls enter the city limits of Schenectady, NY, using bare overhead conductors.
Where transmission lines pass over a territory exposed to corrosive gases, it is sometimes desirable to give each wire a weather-proof covering. An instance of this sort occurs near Niagara Falls where the aluminum conductors forming one of the circuits to Buffalo are covered with a braid that is saturated with asphaltum for some distance.
Where transmission lines cross areas exposed to corrosive gases, it's often important to give each wire a weatherproof covering. One example of this is near Niagara Falls, where the aluminum conductors for one of the circuits to Buffalo are covered with a braid that's soaked in asphalt for a certain distance.
Each path, formed by the surface of the insulators of a line and the pins and cross-arm by which they are supported, not only wastes the energy represented by the leakage current passing over it, but may lead to the charring and burning of the pins and cross-arm by this current. To prevent such burning, the main reliance is to be placed in the surface resistance of the insulators rather than that of pins and cross-arms. These insulators should be made of glass or porcelain, and should be used dry—that is, without oil. In some of the early transmission lines, insulators were used on which the lower edges were[288] turned inward and upward so that a circular trough was formed beneath the body of the insulator, and this trough was filled with heavy petroleum. It was found, however, that this trough of oil served to collect dirt and thus tended to lower the insulation between wire and cross-arm, so that the practice was soon abandoned. Glass and porcelain insulators are rivals for use on high-tension lines, and each has advantages of its own. Porcelain insulators are much stronger mechanically than are those of glass, and are not liable to crack because of unequal internal expansion, a result sometimes met with where glass insulators are exposed to a hot morning sun. In favor of glass insulators it may be said that their insulating properties are quite uniform, and that, unlike porcelain, their internal defects are often apparent on inspection. In order to avoid internal defects in large porcelain insulators, it has been found necessary to manufacture some designs in several parts and then cement the parts of each insulator together.
Each path, made by the surface of the insulators on a line and the pins and cross-arm supporting them, not only wastes energy from the leakage current passing through it but can also cause the pins and cross-arm to char and burn from this current. To prevent such burning, we need to rely more on the surface resistance of the insulators rather than that of the pins and cross-arms. These insulators should be made of glass or porcelain and should be kept dry—meaning without oil. In some early transmission lines, insulators had lower edges that were turned inward and upward, creating a circular trough underneath the insulator, which was filled with heavy petroleum. However, it was discovered that this oil trough accumulated dirt, lowering the insulation between the wire and cross-arm, so this practice was quickly phased out. Glass and porcelain insulators compete for use on high-tension lines, each having its own strengths. Porcelain insulators are mechanically stronger and less likely to crack due to uneven internal expansion, which can happen with glass insulators when exposed to the hot morning sun. On the other hand, glass insulators have much more consistent insulating properties, and their internal defects are often visible upon inspection. To minimize internal defects in large porcelain insulators, some designs need to be manufactured in multiple parts and then cemented together.
Defective insulators may be divided into two classes—those that the line voltage will puncture and break and those that permit an excessive amount of current to pass over their surfaces to the pins and cross-arms. Where an insulator is punctured and broken, the pin, cross-arm, and pole to which it is attached are liable to be burned up. If the leakage of current over the surface of an insulator is large, not only may the loss of energy on the line where the insulator is used be serious, but this energy follows the pins and cross-arm in its path from wire to wire, and gradually chars the former, or both, so that they are ultimately set on fire or break through lack of mechanical strength. The discharge over the surface of an insulator may be so large in amount as to have a disruptive character, and thus to be readily visible. More frequently this surface leakage of current over insulators is of the invisible and silent sort that nevertheless may be sufficient in amount to char, weaken, and even ultimately set fire to pins and cross-arms.
Defective insulators can be divided into two categories—those that the line voltage can puncture and break, and those that allow too much current to flow over their surfaces to the pins and cross-arms. When an insulator is punctured and broken, the pin, cross-arm, and pole it’s attached to are at risk of being burned. If there’s a lot of current leaking over the surface of an insulator, not only can the loss of energy on the line where the insulator is used be significant, but this energy travels along the pins and cross-arm from wire to wire, gradually damaging them and potentially causing a fire or breaking due to loss of mechanical strength. The discharge over the surface of an insulator can be so significant that it becomes disruptive and easily visible. More often, this surface leakage of current over insulators is invisible and silent but can still be enough to char, weaken, and eventually ignite the pins and cross-arms.
All insulators, whether made of glass or porcelain, should be tested electrically to determine their ability to resist puncture, and to hold back the surface leakage of current, before they are put into practical use on high-tension lines. Experience has shown that inspection alone cannot be depended on to detect defective glass insulators. Electrical testing of insulators serves well to determine the voltage to which they may be subjected in practical service with little danger of puncture by the disruptive passage of current through their substance. It is also possible to determine the voltage that will cause a disruptive discharge of current over the surface of an insulator, when the outer part of this surface is either wet or dry.[289] This is as far as electrical tests are usually carried, but it seems desirable that such tests should also determine the amount of silent, invisible leakage over the surface of insulators both when they are wet and when they are dry, at the voltage which their circuits are intended to carry. Such a test of silent leakage is important because this sort of leakage chars and weakens insulator pins, and sets fire to them and cross-arms, besides representing a waste of energy.
All insulators, whether made of glass or porcelain, should be electrically tested to check their ability to resist puncture and prevent surface current leakage before they are used on high-voltage lines. Experience has shown that inspection alone cannot reliably identify defective glass insulators. Electrical testing helps to determine the voltage they can handle in practical applications with minimal risk of puncture from the disruptive flow of current through them. It also allows for measuring the voltage that will cause disruptive current discharge over the surface of an insulator when that surface is either wet or dry.[289] Typically, electrical tests are conducted up to this point, but it would be beneficial for these tests to also measure the amount of silent, invisible leakage on the surfaces of insulators, both when wet and dry, at the voltage the circuits are designed to carry. This testing for silent leakage is crucial because such leakage can char and weaken insulator pins, ignite them and cross-arms, and represent a waste of energy.
The voltage employed to test insulators should vary in amount according to the purpose for which any particular test is made. Glass and porcelain, like many other solid insulators, will withstand a voltage during a few minutes that will cause a puncture if continued indefinitely. In this respect these insulators are unlike air, which allows a disruptive discharge at once when the voltage to which it is exposed reaches an amount that the air cannot permanently withstand. Because of this property of glass and porcelain insulators, it is necessary in making a puncture test to employ a voltage much higher than that to which they are to be permanently exposed. In good practice it is thought desirable to test insulators for puncture with at least twice the voltage of the circuits which they will be required to permanently support on transmission lines.
The voltage used to test insulators should vary depending on the specific purpose of each test. Glass and porcelain, like many other solid insulators, can tolerate a high voltage for a short period that would cause a puncture if applied for too long. In this way, these insulators differ from air, which allows a disruptive discharge immediately once the voltage exceeds a level that air can’t continuously handle. Due to this characteristic of glass and porcelain insulators, it's essential to use a voltage much higher than what they will normally experience during operation for puncture tests. In good practice, it’s recommended to test insulators for puncture with at least twice the voltage of the circuits they will have to consistently support on transmission lines.
For the first transmission line from Niagara Falls to Buffalo, which was designed to operate at 11,000 volts, the porcelain insulators were tested for puncture with a voltage of 40,000, or nearly four times that of the circuits they were to support.
For the first transmission line from Niagara Falls to Buffalo, which was meant to operate at 11,000 volts, the porcelain insulators were tested for puncture with a voltage of 40,000, or almost four times what the circuits they were supposed to support required.
Porcelain insulators for the second line between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, after the voltage of transmission had been raised to 22,000, were given a puncture test at 60,000 volts. Of these insulators tested at 60,000 volts only about three per cent proved to be defective. These puncture tests were carried out by placing each insulator upside down in an open pan containing salt water to a depth of two inches, partly filling the pin hole of the insulator with salt water, and then connecting one terminal of the testing circuit with a rod of metal in the pin hole, and the other terminal with the pan. Alternating current was employed in these tests, as is usually the case (Volume xviii., Transactions A. I. E. E., pp. 514 to 520). For the transmission lines between Spier Falls, Schenectady, Albany, and Troy, where the voltage is 30,000, the insulators were required to withstand a puncturing test with 75,000 volts for a period of five minutes after they had been soaked in water for twenty-four hours.
Porcelain insulators for the second line between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, after the transmission voltage was raised to 22,000 volts, underwent a puncture test at 60,000 volts. Of the insulators tested at 60,000 volts, only about three percent were found to be defective. These puncture tests were done by placing each insulator upside down in an open pan filled with two inches of salt water, partially filling the pinhole of the insulator with salt water, and then connecting one terminal of the testing circuit to a metal rod in the pinhole and the other terminal to the pan. Alternating current was used in these tests, as is usually the case (Volume xviii., Transactions A. I. E. E., pp. 514 to 520). For the transmission lines between Spier Falls, Schenectady, Albany, and Troy, where the voltage is 30,000, the insulators needed to pass a puncture test with 75,000 volts for five minutes after being soaked in water for twenty-four hours.
There is some difference of opinion as to the proper duration of a[290] puncturing test, the practice in some cases being to continue the test for only one minute on each insulator, while in other cases the time runs up to five minutes or more. As a rule, the higher the testing voltage compared with that under which the insulators will be regularly used, the shorter should be the period of test. Instead of being tested in salt water as above described, an insulator may be screwed onto an iron pin of a size that fits its threads, and then one side of the testing circuit put in contact with the pin and the other side connected with the wire groove of the insulator. Care should be taken where an iron pin is used either in testing or for regular line work, that the pin is not screwed hard up against the top of the insulator, as this tends to crack off the top, especially when the pin and insulator are raised in temperature. Iron expands at a much higher rate than glass or porcelain, and it is desirable to cement iron pins into insulators rather than to screw them in. There seems to be some reason to think that an insulator will puncture more readily when it is exposed to severe mechanical stress by the expansion of the iron pin on which it is mounted.
There are varying opinions on the ideal duration of a[290] puncturing test. In some instances, the test lasts just one minute per insulator, while in others, it can go on for five minutes or longer. Generally, the higher the testing voltage compared to the voltage under which the insulators will typically be used, the shorter the test duration should be. Instead of testing in saltwater as previously mentioned, an insulator can be attached to an iron pin that fits its threads, with one side of the testing circuit connected to the pin and the other to the wire groove of the insulator. Caution is advised when using an iron pin, either for testing or regular line work, to ensure the pin isn't screwed tightly against the top of the insulator, as this can cause the top to crack, particularly when the pin and insulator are heated. Iron expands at a much faster rate than glass or porcelain, so it's better to cement iron pins into insulators rather than screw them in. There is some suggestion that an insulator might puncture more easily when subjected to significant mechanical stress from the expansion of the iron pin it’s mounted on.
Tests of insulators are usually made with alternating current, and the form of the voltage curve is important, especially where the test is made to determine what voltage will arc over the surface of the insulator from the line wire to the pin. The square root of the mean square for two curves of alternating voltage or mean effective voltage, as read by a voltmeter, may be the same though the maximum voltages of the two curves differ widely. In tests for the puncture of insulators, the average alternating voltage applied is more important than the maximum voltage shown by the highest points of the pressure curve, because of the influence of the time element with glass and porcelain. On the other hand, when the test is to determine the voltage at which current will arc over the insulator surface from the line wire to the pin, the maximum value of the pressure curve should be taken into consideration because air has no time element, but permits a disruptive discharge under a merely instantaneous voltage.
Insulator tests are typically done using alternating current, and the shape of the voltage curve is crucial, especially when testing to see what voltage will cause an arc to jump from the line wire to the pin on the insulator. The square root of the mean square for two alternating voltage curves, or the mean effective voltage as measured by a voltmeter, can be the same even if the maximum voltages for both curves are very different. In tests for insulator puncture, the average alternating voltage applied is more significant than the maximum voltage indicated by the peak points of the pressure curve, due to the time factor involved with glass and porcelain. Conversely, when testing to find the voltage at which current arcs over the surface of the insulator from the line wire to the pin, the maximum value of the pressure curve needs to be considered, because air doesn't have a time factor and allows a disruptive discharge at just an instantaneous voltage.
Alternators used in transmission systems usually conform approximately to a sine curve in the instantaneous values of the pressures they develop, and it is therefore desirable that tests on line insulators be made with voltages whose values follow the sine curve. Either a single transformer or several transformers in series may be employed to step up to the required voltage, but a single transformer will usually give better regulation and greater accuracy. An air-gap between needle points is not a very satisfactory means by which to determine the average voltage[291] on a testing circuit, because, as already pointed out, the sparking distance between the needle points depends mainly on the maximum instantaneous values of the voltage, which may vary with the load on the generator, and the saturation of its magnets. For accurate results a step-down voltmeter transformer should be used on the testing circuit.
Alternators used in transmission systems generally produce outputs that align closely with a sine curve in the instantaneous values of the voltages they generate. Therefore, it is important that tests on line insulators are conducted using voltages that follow this sine curve pattern. You can use either a single transformer or multiple transformers in series to increase the voltage to the required level, but a single transformer typically offers better regulation and accuracy. Using an air gap between needle points isn’t a reliable way to measure the average voltage[291] on a testing circuit since, as mentioned earlier, the sparking distance between the needle points primarily depends on the maximum instantaneous voltage values, which may fluctuate based on the load on the generator and the saturation of its magnets. For precise results, a step-down voltmeter transformer should be used on the testing circuit.
An insulator that resists a puncture test may fail badly when subjected to a test as to the voltage that will arc over its surface from line wire to pin. This arc-over test should be made with the outer surface of the insulator both wet and dry. For the purpose of this test the insulator should be screwed onto an iron pin, or onto a wooden pin that has been covered with tinfoil. One wire of the testing circuit should then be secured in the groove of the insulator, and the other wire should be connected to the iron or tin foil of the pin. The voltage that will arc over the surface of an insulator from the line wire to the pin depends on the conditions of that surface and of the air. In light air, such as is found at great elevations, an arc will jump a greater distance than in dry air near the sea-level. A fog increases the distance that a given voltage will jump between a line wire and its insulator pin, and a heavy rain lengthens the distance still further. The heavier the downpour of rain the greater is the distance over the outside surface of an insulator that a given voltage will arc over. The angle at which the falling water strikes the insulator surface also has an influence on the voltage required to arc over that surface, a deviation from a downpour perpendicular to the plane of the lower edge of the petticoat of the insulator seeming to increase the arcing distance for a given voltage.
An insulator that passes a puncture test might perform poorly when tested for the voltage that will jump across its surface from the line wire to the pin. This arc-over test should be done with the outer surface of the insulator both wet and dry. For this test, the insulator should be attached to an iron pin or a wooden pin covered with tinfoil. One wire from the testing circuit should be secured in the groove of the insulator, and the other wire should connect to the iron or tinfoil of the pin. The voltage that causes an arc to jump across an insulator's surface from the line wire to the pin depends on the condition of that surface and the surrounding air. In thinner air, like that found at high elevations, an arc can leap further than in dry air at sea level. Fog increases the distance that a certain voltage will jump between a line wire and its insulator pin, and heavy rain extends that distance even more. The stronger the rain, the further a voltage can arc over the outer surface of an insulator. The angle at which falling water hits the insulator surface also affects the voltage needed to create an arc, with any deviation from a direct downpour to the lower edge of the insulator seeming to increase the arcing distance for a given voltage.
An insulator should be given an arc-over test under conditions that are approximately the most severe to be met in practice. These conditions can perhaps be fairly represented by a downpour of water that amounts to a depth of one inch in five minutes for each square inch of the plane included by the edge of the largest petticoat of the insulator, when the direction of the falling water makes an angle of forty-five degrees with that plane. A precipitation of one inch in depth on a horizontal plane during five minutes seems to be a little greater than any recorded by the United States Weather Bureau. Under the severe conditions just named, the voltage required to arc over the insulator surface from line wire to pin should be somewhat greater at least than the normal voltage of the circuit where the insulator is to be used. For the transmission line between Spier Falls and Schenectady, on which the maximum voltage is 30,000, the insulators were required to stand a test of[292] 42,000 volts when wet, without arcing over from line wire to pin. In these wet tests the water should be sprayed evenly onto the insulator surface like rain, and the quantity of water that strikes the insulator in a given time should be measured.
An insulator should go through an arc-over test under conditions that simulate the most extreme situations it will face in real life. These conditions can be fairly represented by a heavy rain that delivers one inch of water in five minutes for each square inch of the area covered by the edge of the largest part of the insulator, with the water hitting that area at a 45-degree angle. A one-inch rainfall on a flat surface in five minutes appears to exceed any amount recorded by the United States Weather Bureau. Under these harsh conditions, the voltage needed to create an arc over the insulator surface from the line wire to the pin should be noticeably higher than the normal voltage of the circuit in which the insulator will be used. For the transmission line between Spier Falls and Schenectady, where the maximum voltage is 30,000, the insulators were required to withstand a test of[292] 42,000 volts when wet, without arcing over from the line wire to the pin. During these wet tests, water should be sprayed evenly on the insulator surface like rain, and the amount of water hitting the insulator in a specific time should be measured.
When the outside of an insulator is wet with rain, it is evident that most of the resistance between the line wire and the insulator pin must be offered by the inside surface of the petticoat of the insulator. For this reason an insulator that is to withstand a very high voltage so that no arc will be formed over its wet outside surface must have a wide, dry surface under its petticoat. In some tests of line insulators reported in Volume xxi., Transactions A. I. E. E., p. 314, the results show that the voltage required to arc over from line wire to pin depends on the shortest distance between them, rather than on the distance over the insulator surface. Three insulators, numbered 4, 5, and 7 in the trial, were in each case tested by a gradual increase of voltage until a discharge took place between the wire and pin. The pins were coated with tinfoil, and the testing voltage was applied to the tie wire on each insulator and to the tinfoil of its pin. Insulators 4, 5, and 7 permitted arcs from wire to pin when exposed to 73,800, 74,700, and 74,700 volts respectively, the surfaces of all being dry and clean. The shortest distances between wires and pins over insulator surface and through air were 65⁄8, 61⁄4, and 77⁄8 inches respectively for the three insulators, so that the arcing voltages amounted to 11,140, 11,952, and 9,479 per inch of these distances. Measured along their surfaces, the distances between wires and pins on these three insulators were 8, 111⁄4, and 151⁄2 inches respectively, so that the three arcing voltages, which were nearly equal, amounted to 9,225, 6,640, and 4,819 per inch of these distances. These figures make it plain that the arcing voltage for each insulator depends on the shortest distance over its surface and through the air, from wire to pin. It might be expected that the voltage in any case would arc equal distances over clean, dry insulator surface or through the air, and the experiments just named indicate that this view is approximately correct. The sparking distance through air between needle points, which is greater than that between smooth surfaces, is 5.85 inches with 70,000 volts, and 7.1 inches with 80,000 volts according to the report in Volume xix., A. I. E. E., p. 721. Comparing these distances with the shortest distances between wires and pins in the tests of insulators numbered 4, 5, and 7, which broke down at 73,800 to 74,700 volts when dry, it seems that a given voltage will arc somewhat further over clean, dry insulator surface than it will through air. This view finds support from the fact that only[293] a part of each of the shortest distances between wire and pin was over insulator surface, the remainder being through air alone.
When the outside of an insulator is wet from rain, it’s clear that most of the resistance between the line wire and the insulator pin comes from the inside surface of the petticoat of the insulator. Therefore, an insulator designed to handle very high voltages, preventing arcs from forming over its wet outer surface, needs to have a wide, dry surface beneath its petticoat. In some tests of line insulators mentioned in Volume xxi., Transactions A. I. E. E., p. 314, the results indicate that the voltage necessary to cause an arc from the line wire to the pin relies more on the shortest distance between them than on the distance across the insulator surface. Three insulators, numbered 4, 5, and 7 in the trial, were tested by gradually increasing the voltage until a discharge occurred between the wire and pin. The pins were coated with tinfoil, and the testing voltage was applied to the tie wire on each insulator and to the tinfoil on its pin. Insulators 4, 5, and 7 allowed arcs from the wire to pin at 73,800, 74,700, and 74,700 volts respectively, with all surfaces being dry and clean. The shortest distances between the wires and pins over the insulator surface and through the air were 65⁄8, 61⁄4, and 77⁄8 inches respectively for the three insulators, which means the arcing voltages were 11,140, 11,952, and 9,479 per inch of these distances. Measured along their surfaces, the distances between wires and pins on these three insulators were 8, 111⁄4, and 151⁄2 inches respectively, leading to the arcing voltages of 9,225, 6,640, and 4,819 per inch of these distances. These figures show that the arcing voltage for each insulator is influenced by the shortest distance over its surface and through the air, from wire to pin. It could be expected that the voltage would arcing equal distances over clean, dry insulator surfaces or through the air, and the aforementioned experiments suggest that this idea is mostly accurate. The sparking distance through air between needle points, which is greater than that between smooth surfaces, is 5.85 inches with 70,000 volts and 7.1 inches with 80,000 volts, according to the report in Volume xix., A. I. E. E., p. 721. Comparing these distances with the shortest distances between wires and pins in the tests of insulators numbered 4, 5, and 7, which broke down at 73,800 to 74,700 volts when dry, it appears that a given voltage will arc slightly further over clean, dry insulator surfaces than through air. This perspective is supported by the fact that only[293] part of each of the shortest distances between wire and pin was over the insulator surface, with the remainder being through air alone.
The fact that the dry part of the surface of an insulator and the air between its lower wet edge and the pin or cross-arm offer most of the resistance between the line wire and the pin and cross-arm is plainly brought out by the results of the tests above mentioned, in the cases of insulators numbered 4 and 7. While 73,800 volts were required to arc from line-wire to pin when the entire insulator was dry and clean, the arc was formed at only 53,400 volts during a moderate rain-storm, in the case of No. 4 insulator. With insulator No. 7 the arcing voltage was 74,700 when the entire surface was clean and dry, but the arc from wire to pin was started at 52,800 volts during a moderate rain. No. 5 insulator seems to present an erratic result, for when dry and clean the arc jumped from wire to pin at 74,700 volts, and yet during a moderate rain no arc was formed until a voltage of 70,400 was reached. For each of the seven insulators on which tests are reported as above, the voltage required to arc from line wire to pin was nearly or quite as great during a dry snow-storm as when the insulator surface was clean and dry. When the insulators were covered with wet snow their surface insulation broke down at voltages that were within ten per cent above or below the arcing voltages during a moderate rain in five cases. With two insulators the arcing voltages, when they were covered with wet snow, were only about sixty per cent of the voltages necessary to break down the surface insulation between wire and pin during a moderate rain.
The fact that the dry part of an insulator's surface and the air between its lower wet edge and the pin or cross-arm provide most of the resistance between the line wire and the pin and cross-arm is clearly shown by the results of the tests mentioned earlier, particularly with insulators numbered 4 and 7. While 73,800 volts were needed to create an arc from the line wire to the pin when the entire insulator was dry and clean, the arc occurred at just 53,400 volts during a moderate rain for insulator No. 4. For insulator No. 7, the arcing voltage was 74,700 when the surface was clean and dry, but the arc from the wire to the pin started at 52,800 volts during a moderate rain. Insulator No. 5 showed inconsistent results; when dry and clean, the arc jumped from the wire to the pin at 74,700 volts, yet during a moderate rain, no arc was formed until reaching 70,400 volts. For each of the seven insulators tested, the voltage required to create an arc from the line wire to the pin was nearly the same or even greater during a dry snowstorm as when the surface was clean and dry. When the insulators were covered with wet snow, their surface insulation failed at voltages that were within ten percent above or below the arcing voltages observed during moderate rain in five cases. For two insulators, the arcing voltages when covered with wet snow were only about sixty percent of the voltages needed to break down the surface insulation between the wire and the pin during a moderate rain.
When the outside surface of an insulator is wet, as during a moderate rain, it seems that the under surface of the insulator, and the distance through air from the lower wet edge of the insulator to the pin or cross-arm, make up most of the insulation that prevents arcing over from the wire to the pin or cross-arm. It further appears that it is useless to extend the distance across the dry under surface of the insulator indefinitely without a corresponding increase of the direct distance through air from the lower wet edge of the insulator to the wood of cross-arm or pin. Insulator No. 7 in the tests under consideration had a diameter at the lower edge of its outer petticoat of seven inches, and was mounted on a standard wooden pin. The diameter of this pin in the plane of the lower edge of the insulator was probably about 11⁄4 inches, so that the radial distance through air from this edge to the pin must have been 27⁄8 inches approximately. During a moderate rain the surface insulation of this insulator broke down and an arc was formed from wire to pin with 52,800 volts. The sparking distance between needle points at 50,000 volts is[294] 3.55 inches, according to Volume xix., A. I. E. E., p. 721, and must be shorter between smooth surfaces, such as the wire and pin in question, so that nearly all of the 52,800 volts in this case must have been required to jump the 27⁄8 inches of air, leaving very little to overcome the slight resistance of the wet outside surface of the insulator. On this insulator the surface distance from wire to pin was 15-1⁄2 inches, while the shortest breaking distance was only 77⁄8 inches, so that the distance across the dry under surface of the insulator must have been 151⁄2 - (77⁄8 - 27⁄8) = 101⁄2 inches approximately. It is evidently futile to put a path 101⁄2 inches long across dry insulator surface in parallel with a path only 27⁄8 inches long in air, as an arc will certainly jump this shorter path long before one will be formed over the longer. The same line of reasoning applies to No. 3 insulator in this test, which had a diameter of 63⁄4 inches, a surface distance from wire to pin of 13 inches, and a minimum distance of 71⁄4 inches, and whose surface insulation broke down at 48,600 volts during a moderate rain. The necessity of increasing the distance between the lower wet edges of insulators and the pins and cross-arm, as well as the distance across the dry under surfaces of insulators, led to the adoption of the so-called umbrella type for some high-voltage lines. In this type of insulator the main or outer petticoat is given a relatively great diameter, and instead of being bell-shaped is only moderately concave on its under side. With an insulator of this type mounted on a large, long pin, the lower edge of the umbrella-like petticoat may be far removed from the pin and cross-arm. Beneath the large petticoat of such insulators for high voltages there are usually one or more smaller petticoats or[295] sleeves that run down the pin, and increase the distance between it and the lower edge of the largest petticoat.
When the outside of an insulator gets wet, like during a moderate rain, it seems that the underside of the insulator and the air gap from the lower wet edge of the insulator to the pin or cross-arm are primarily responsible for preventing electrical arcing from the wire to the pin or cross-arm. It appears that simply increasing the distance across the dry underside of the insulator without also extending the air gap from the lower wet edge to the wood of the cross-arm or pin doesn’t help much. Insulator No. 7 in this study had a diameter of seven inches at the lower edge of its outer petticoat and was mounted on a standard wooden pin. The diameter of this pin at the level of the insulator's lower edge was probably about 11⁄4 inches, so the radial distance through the air from this edge to the pin was about 27⁄8 inches. During moderate rain, the surface insulation of this insulator failed, creating an arc from the wire to the pin with 52,800 volts. The sparking distance between needle points at 50,000 volts is[294] 3.55 inches, according to Volume xix., A. I. E. E., p. 721, and it must be shorter between smooth surfaces, like the wire and pin in this case, meaning that nearly all of the 52,800 volts were needed to jump the 27⁄8 inches of air, leaving very little to overcome the slight resistance of the wet outer surface of the insulator. On this insulator, the distance from wire to pin was 15-1⁄2 inches, while the shortest breaking distance was only 77⁄8 inches, so the distance across the dry underside of the insulator must have been 151⁄2 - (77⁄8 - 27⁄8) = 101⁄2 inches approximately. It is clearly pointless to have a path that is 101⁄2 inches long across the dry insulator surface in parallel with a 27⁄8 inch path in air, as an arc will certainly bridge the shorter path long before one can form over the longer. The same reasoning applies to No. 3 insulator in this test, which had a diameter of 63⁄4 inches, a surface distance from wire to pin of 13 inches, and a minimum distance of 71⁄4 inches, and whose surface insulation broke down at 48,600 volts during moderate rain. The need to increase the distance between the lower wet edges of insulators and the pins and cross-arm, as well as the distance across the dry undersides of insulators, led to the development of the so-called umbrella type for some high-voltage lines. In this type of insulator, the main or outer petticoat has a relatively large diameter and is only moderately concave underneath rather than bell-shaped. With an insulator of this design mounted on a large, long pin, the lower edge of the umbrella-like petticoat may be situated far from the pin and cross-arm. Beneath the large petticoat of such high-voltage insulators, there are usually one or more smaller petticoats or[295] sleeves that extend down the pin, increasing the distance between it and the lower edge of the largest petticoat.
Insulators on Transmission Lines.
Insulators for Power Lines.
Location of Line. | Voltage of Line. |
Material of Insulator. |
Inches Diameter of Insulator. |
Inches Height of Insulator. |
||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Electra to San Francisco | 60,000 | Porcelain | 11 | 11 | 1⁄4 | |
Colgate to Oakland | 60,000 | Porcelain | 11 | 11 | 1⁄4 | |
Cañon Ferry to Butte | 50,000 | Glass | 9 | 12 | ||
Shawinigan Falls to Montreal | 50,000 | Porcelain | 10 | 13 | 1⁄2 | |
Provo around Utah Lake | 40,000 | Glass | 7 | 5 | 3⁄4 | |
Santa Ana River to Los Angeles | 33,000 | Porcelain | 6 | 3⁄4 | 4 | 7⁄8 |
Spier Falls to Schenectady | 30,000 | Porcelain | 8 | 1⁄2 | 6 | 3⁄4 |
Apple River Falls to St Paul | 25,000 | Glass | 7 | 5 | 3⁄4 | |
Chambly to Montreal | 25,000 | Porcelain | 5 | 1⁄2 | 6 | 1⁄2 |
Niagara Falls to Buffalo | 22,000 | Porcelain | 7 | 1⁄2 | 7 | |
Portsmouth to Pelham, N. H. | 13,000 | Porcelain | 5 | 1⁄4 | 3 | 3⁄4 |
Garvins Falls to Manchester, N. H. | 12,000 | Glass | 5 | 4 | 3⁄4 |
The inner petticoat or sleeve that runs down over the pin and sometimes reaches nearly to the cross-arm, of course becomes wet on its outside surface and at its lower edge during a rain; but between this lower wet part of the inner petticoat, or sleeve, and the lower wet edge of the larger outside petticoat, there is a wide, dry strip of insulator surface. A result is that an arc over the surface of the outside petticoat can reach the wet edge of the sleeve only by crossing the strip of dry under surface or jumping through the air.
The inner petticoat or sleeve that hangs down over the pin and sometimes nearly touches the cross-arm gets wet on its outer surface and along its lower edge during rain. However, between this lower wet part of the inner petticoat or sleeve and the lower wet edge of the larger outer petticoat, there’s a wide, dry stripe of insulating surface. As a result, an arc over the surface of the outer petticoat can only reach the wet edge of the sleeve by crossing the dry under surface or jumping through the air.
The same type of insulator is used on the 60,000-volt lines between Electra and San Francisco and between Colgate and Oakland, each insulator having an outer petticoat 11 inches in diameter and one inner petticoat or sleeve 61⁄2 inches in diameter. This inner petticoat runs down the pin for a distance of 71⁄2 inches below the outer petticoat. Slightly different pins are used for mounting the insulators on the two transmission lines just named, so that on the former the distance through air from the lower edge of the outer petticoat to the cross-arm is 11 inches, and on the latter the corresponding distance is 111⁄2 inches. On the Electra line the lower edge of the inner petticoat of each insulator is about 31⁄2 inches, and on the Colgate line about 4 inches above the cross-arm.
The same type of insulator is used on the 60,000-volt lines between Electra and San Francisco and between Colgate and Oakland. Each insulator has an outer petticoat that's 11 inches in diameter and one inner petticoat or sleeve that's 61⁄2 inches in diameter. This inner petticoat extends down the pin for a distance of 71⁄2 inches below the outer petticoat. Slightly different pins are used to mount the insulators on the two transmission lines mentioned, so for the Electra line, the distance through air from the lower edge of the outer petticoat to the cross-arm is 11 inches, while for the Colgate line, that distance is 111⁄2 inches. On the Electra line, the lower edge of the inner petticoat of each insulator is about 31⁄2 inches above the cross-arm, and on the Colgate line, it's about 4 inches above the cross-arm.
Insulators on Transmission Lines.
Insulators on Power Lines.
Location of Line. | Inches from Top of Insulator to Cross-arm. |
Inches from Outside Petticoat to Cross-arm. |
Inches from Lowest Petticoat to Cross-arm. |
Inches from Edge of Outside to Edge of Lowest Petticoat. |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Electra to San Francisco | 14 | 1⁄2 | 11 | 3 | 1⁄2 | 7 | 1⁄2 | |
Colgate to Oakland | 15 | 11 | 1⁄2 | 4 | 7 | 1⁄2 | ||
Cañon Ferry to Butte | 13 | 1⁄2 | 7 | 3⁄4 | 1 | 1⁄2 | 6 | 1⁄4 |
Shawinigan Falls to Montreal | 16 | 1⁄4 | 11 | 3⁄4 | 3 | 1⁄4 | 8 | 1⁄2 |
Santa Ana River to Los Angeles | 8 | 5⁄8 | 3 | 3⁄4 | 3 | 3⁄4 | 0 | |
Spier Falls to Schenectady | 10 | 3⁄4 | 7 | 3⁄8 | 4 | 1⁄4 | 3 | 3⁄8 |
Niagara Falls to Buffalo | 10 | 5 | 1⁄2 | 3 | 2 | 1⁄2 | ||
Chambly to Montreal | 8 | 1⁄2 | 4 | 1⁄2 | 2 | 2 | 1⁄2 | |
On each of the lines named in this table the wires are strung on the tops of their insulators. |
The Cañon Ferry line is carried on insulators each of which has three short petticoats and a long separate sleeve that runs down over the pin to within 11⁄2 inches of the cross-arm. This sleeve makes contact with its insulator near the pin hole. The outside petticoat of each insulator[296] on this line is 73⁄4 inches above the cross-arm and 61⁄4 inches above the lower end of the sleeve. Both the main insulator and the sleeve, in this case, are of glass.
The Cañon Ferry line is supported by insulators, each having three short petticoats and a long separate sleeve that extends down over the pin to within 11⁄2 inches of the cross-arm. This sleeve connects with its insulator near the pin hole. The outer petticoat of each insulator[296] on this line is 73⁄4 inches above the cross-arm and 61⁄4 inches above the lower end of the sleeve. In this case, both the main insulator and the sleeve are made of glass.
White porcelain insulators are used to support the 50,000-volt Shawinigan line, and are of a recent design. Each of these insulators has three petticoats ranged about a central stem so that their lower edges are 41⁄2 inches, 9 inches, and 13 inches respectively, below the top. The highest petticoat is 10 inches, the intermediate 93⁄4 inches, and the lowest 41⁄4 inches in diameter. The height of this insulator is 13 inches, compared with 111⁄4 inches for those used on the Electra and Colgate lines and 12 inches for the combined insulator and sleeve used on the Cañon Ferry line. When mounted on its pin, this insulator on the Shawinigan line holds its wire 161⁄4 inches above the cross-arm, compared with a corresponding distance of 141⁄2 inches on the Electra, 15 inches on the Colgate, and 131⁄2 inches on the Cañon Ferry line. The two upper petticoats on each of these insulators are much less concave than the lowest one, and the edges of all three stand respectively 113⁄4, 71⁄4, and 31⁄4 inches above the cross-arm. From the edge of the top to the edge of the bottom petticoat the direct distance is 81⁄2 inches.
White porcelain insulators are used to support the 50,000-volt Shawinigan line and feature a modern design. Each insulator has three petticoats arranged around a central stem, with their lower edges positioned at 4½ inches, 9 inches, and 13 inches below the top, respectively. The highest petticoat measures 10 inches, the middle one is 9¾ inches, and the lowest is 4¼ inches in diameter. The total height of this insulator is 13 inches, compared to 11¼ inches for those used on the Electra and Colgate lines and 12 inches for the combined insulator and sleeve used on the Cañon Ferry line. When mounted on its pin, this Shawinigan insulator holds its wire 16¼ inches above the cross-arm, while the corresponding distances are 14½ inches on the Electra, 15 inches on the Colgate, and 13½ inches on the Cañon Ferry line. The two upper petticoats on each insulator are much less concave than the lowest one, and the edges of all three petticoats stand 11¾ inches, 7¼ inches, and 3¼ inches above the cross-arm. The direct distance from the edge of the top petticoat to the edge of the bottom petticoat is 8½ inches.
Of the three transmission lines above named that operate at 50,000 to 60,000 volts, that between Shawinigan Falls and Montreal leads as to distances between the line wire and insulator petticoats and the cross-arm. On the Santa Ana line, where the voltage is 33,000, the insulator is of a more ordinary type, being of porcelain, 63⁄4 inches in diameter, 47⁄8 inches high, and having the lower edges of its three petticoats in the same plane. Each of these insulators holds its wire 85⁄8 inches above the cross-arm, and has all of its petticoats 31⁄2 inches above the cross-arm. Unlike the three insulators just described, which are mounted on wooden pins, this Santa Ana insulator has a pin with an iron core, wooden threads, and porcelain base. This base extends up from the cross-arm a distance of 31⁄8 inches, and the wooden sleeve, in which the threads for the insulator are cut, runs down over the central bolt of the pin to the top of the porcelain base, which is 5⁄8-inch below the petticoats.
Of the three transmission lines mentioned that operate at 50,000 to 60,000 volts, the one between Shawinigan Falls and Montreal has the greatest distance between the line wire and the insulator petticoats as well as the cross-arm. On the Santa Ana line, which runs at 33,000 volts, the insulator is a more standard type, made of porcelain, measuring 63⁄4 inches in diameter, 47⁄8 inches high, with the lower edges of its three petticoats aligned on the same plane. Each of these insulators keeps its wire 85⁄8 inches above the cross-arm and has all of its petticoats 31⁄2 inches above the cross-arm. Unlike the three insulators just described, which are mounted on wooden pins, the Santa Ana insulator has a pin with an iron core, wooden threads, and a porcelain base. This base extends 31⁄8 inches up from the cross-arm, and the wooden sleeve, which has the threads for the insulator cut into it, extends down over the central bolt of the pin to the top of the porcelain base, which is 5⁄8 inch below the petticoats.
The 30,000-volt lines from Spier Falls are carried 103⁄4 inches above their cross-arms by triple petticoat porcelain insulators. Each of these insulators is 81⁄2 inches in diameter, 63⁄4 inches high, and is built up of three parts cemented together. A malleable-iron pin cemented into each insulator with pure Portland cement carries the outside petticoat 71⁄2 inches and its lowest petticoat 41⁄4 inches above the cross-arm. When[297] the voltage on the Spier Falls lines was raised from about 13,000 to 30,000, the circuits being carried in part by one-piece porcelain insulators, a number of these insulators were punctured at the higher pressures, and some cross-arms and poles were burned as a result. No failures resulted on those parts of these lines where the three-part insulators were in use. The second pole line between Niagara Falls and Buffalo was designed to carry circuits at 22,000 volts, or twice that for which the first line was built. Porcelain insulators were employed on both of these lines, but while the 11,000-volt line was carried on three-petticoat insulators, each with a diameter of 7 inches and a height of 51⁄2 inches, the 22,000-volt line was mounted on insulators each 71⁄2 inches in diameter and 7 inches high, with only two petticoats. The older insulator has its petticoats 2 inches above the cross-arm, and the lower petticoat of the new insulator is 3 inches above the arm. These two insulators illustrate the tendency to lengthen out along the insulator axis as the voltage of the circuits to be carried increases.
The 30,000-volt lines from Spier Falls are held 103⁄4 inches above their cross-arms by triple petticoat porcelain insulators. Each of these insulators has a diameter of 81⁄2 inches and a height of 63⁄4 inches, and is made up of three parts that are cemented together. A malleable-iron pin, cemented into each insulator with pure Portland cement, supports the outer petticoat 71⁄2 inches above the cross-arm and the lowest petticoat 41⁄4 inches above it. When[297] the voltage on the Spier Falls lines was increased from about 13,000 to 30,000, many of the one-piece porcelain insulators punctured due to the higher pressures, causing some cross-arms and poles to catch fire. Fortunately, there were no failures in sections of the lines where the three-part insulators were used. The second pole line between Niagara Falls and Buffalo was designed to handle circuits at 22,000 volts, which is double the capacity of the first line. Porcelain insulators were used on both lines, but while the 11,000-volt line employed three-petticoat insulators each measuring 7 inches in diameter and 51⁄2 inches high, the 22,000-volt line used insulators that are 71⁄2 inches in diameter and 7 inches high, with only two petticoats. The older insulator has its petticoats 2 inches above the cross-arm, while the lower petticoat of the new insulator sits 3 inches above the arm. These two types of insulators show a trend towards greater length along the insulator axis as the voltage of the circuits increases.

Fig. 93A.—The Old and New Insulators on the Niagara Falls-Buffalo Line.
Fig. 93A.—The Old and New Insulators on the Niagara Falls-Buffalo Line.
For future work at still higher voltages, the advantage as to both first cost and insulating qualities seems to lie with insulators that are very long in an axial direction, and which have their petticoats arranged one below the other and all of about the same diameter, rather than with insulators of the umbrella type, like those on the Electra and Colgate lines.
For future projects that involve even higher voltages, it looks like the best option for both initial cost and insulation properties is to use insulators that are very long vertically, with their skirts stacked one below the other and all roughly the same diameter, instead of using umbrella-type insulators like those found on the Electra and Colgate lines.
CHAPTER XXII.
DESIGN OF INSULATOR PINS FOR POWER LINES.
Bending strains due to the weights, degree of tension, and the directions of line wires, plus those resulting from wind-pressure, are the chief causes that lead to the mechanical failure of insulator pins.
Bending strains caused by weights, tension levels, and the directions of line wires, along with those caused by wind pressure, are the main reasons that lead to the mechanical failure of insulator pins.
Considering the unbalanced component of these forces at right angles to the axis of the pin, which alone produce bending, each pin may be considered as a beam of circular cross section secured at one end and loaded at the other.
Considering the unbalanced part of these forces at right angles to the pin's axis, which solely causes bending, each pin can be viewed as a beam with a circular cross section that is fixed at one end and loaded at the other.
For this purpose the secured end of the beam is to be taken as the point where the pin enters its cross-arm, and the loaded end of the beam is the point where the line wire is attached to the insulator. The distance between these two points is the length of the beam. The maximum strain in the outside fibres of a pin measured in pounds per square inch of its cross section, represented by S, may be found from the formula,
For this purpose, the secured end of the beam will be considered the point where the pin connects to its cross-arm, and the loaded end of the beam is the point where the wire is attached to the insulator. The distance between these two points is the length of the beam. The maximum strain in the outer fibers of a pin, measured in pounds per square inch of its cross-section and represented by S, can be found using the formula,
S = P X .0982 D3
S = P X .0982 D3
where P is the pull of the wire in pounds, D is the diameter of the pin at any point, and X is the distance in inches of that point from the wire. Inspection of this formula shows that S, the maximum strain at any point in the fibres of a pin, when the pull of the line-wire, P, is constant, increases directly with the distance, X, from the wire to the point where the strain, S, takes place. This strain, S, with a constant pull of the line wire, decreases as the cube of the diameter, D, at the point on the pin where S occurs increases. That cross section of a pin just at the top of its hole in the cross-arm is thus subject to the greatest strain, if the pin is of uniform diameter, because this cross section is more distant from the line wire than any other that is exposed to the bending strain. For this reason it is not necessary to give a pin a uniform diameter above its cross-arm, and in practice it is always tapered toward its top. Notwithstanding this taper, the weakest point in pins as usually made is just at the top of the cross-arm, and it is at this cross section where pins usually break. This break comes just below the shoulder that is[299] turned on each pin to prevent its slipping down through the hole in its cross-arm. If the shoulder on a pin made a tight fit all around down onto the cross-arm, the strength of the pin to resist bending would be thereby increased, but it is hard to be sure of making such fits, and they should not be relied on to increase the strength of pins. By giving a pin a suitable taper from its shoulder at the cross-arm to its top, the strain per square inch, S, in the outside fibres of the pin may be made constant for every cross section throughout its length above the cross-arm, whatever that length may be. The formula above given may be used to determine the diameters of a pin at various cross sections that will make the maximum stress, S, at each of these cross sections constant. By transposition the formula becomes
where P is the pull of the wire in pounds, D is the diameter of the pin at any point, and X is the distance in inches of that point from the wire. Looking at this formula, we see that S, the maximum strain at any point in the fibers of a pin, increases directly with the distance, X, from the wire to the point where the strain, S, occurs, as long as the pull of the line wire, P, remains constant. This strain, S, decreases as the cube of the diameter, D, at the point on the pin where S happens increases. The cross section of a pin just at the top of its hole in the cross-arm therefore experiences the greatest strain, assuming the pin has a uniform diameter, because this cross section is farther from the line wire than any other that faces the bending strain. For this reason, it's not necessary to maintain a uniform diameter above its cross-arm, and in practice, pins are always tapered toward the top. Despite this taper, the weakest point in pins as commonly made is right at the top of the cross-arm, and it's at this cross section where pins tend to break. This break occurs just below the shoulder that is[299] formed on each pin to prevent it from slipping down through the hole in its cross-arm. If the shoulder on a pin fit tightly all around down onto the cross-arm, the pin's ability to resist bending would be strengthened, but making such fits consistently is challenging, and they shouldn’t be relied upon to enhance the strength of pins. By tapering a pin appropriately from its shoulder at the cross-arm to its top, the strain per square inch, S, in the outer fibers of the pin can be kept constant for every cross section along its length above the cross-arm, regardless of that length. The formula provided can be used to determine the diameters of a pin at different cross sections that will keep the maximum stress, S, consistent at each of these cross sections. Rearranging the formula gives
D3 = P .0982 S X.
D3 = P .0982 S X.
Where the pin is tapered so that S is constant for all cross sections, then for any pull, P, of the line wire on the pin the quantity (P.0982 S) must be constant at every diameter, D, distant any number of inches, X, from the point where the wire is attached. If the constant, (P.0982 S) is found for any one cross section of a pin, therefore, the diameter at each other cross section with the same maximum stress, S, may be readily found by substituting the value of this constant in the formula. The so-called “standard” wooden pin that has been very generally used for ordinary distribution lines, and to some extent even on high-voltage transmission lines, has a diameter of nearly 1.5 inches just below the shoulder. The distance of the line wire above this shoulder varies between about 4.5 and 6 inches, according to the type of insulator used, and to whether the wire is tied at the side or top of the insulator. If the line wire is tied to the insulator 5 inches above the shoulder of one of the standard pins, then X becomes 5, and D becomes 1.5 in the formula last given. From that formula by transposition and substitution
Where the pin is tapered so that S is constant for all cross sections, then for any pull, P, of the line wire on the pin, the value of (P.0982 S) must remain constant at every diameter, D, regardless of the distance in inches, X, from the point where the wire is attached. If the constant value, (P.0982 S), is determined for any one cross section of a pin, then the diameter at each other cross section with the same maximum stress, S, can easily be calculated by substituting this constant value into the formula. The common “standard” wooden pin that is widely used for regular distribution lines and, to some extent, for high-voltage transmission lines has a diameter of nearly 1.5 inches just below the shoulder. The distance of the line wire above this shoulder ranges from about 4.5 to 6 inches, depending on the type of insulator used and whether the wire is attached at the side or top of the insulator. If the line wire is connected to the insulator 5 inches above the shoulder of one of the standard pins, then X becomes 5, and D becomes 1.5 in the previously mentioned formula. From that formula, by reorganizing and substituting,
P.0982 S = D3X = (1.5)35 = 0.675.
P.0982 S = D3X = (1.5)35 = 0.675.
Substituting 0.675 for the quantity P0.0982 S in the formula D3 = P0.0982 S X gives the formula D3 = 0.675 X, from which the diameters at all cross sections of a tapered pin above its shoulder, that will[300] give it a strength just equal to that of a section of 1.5 inches diameter and 5 inches from the line wire, may be found. To use the formula for this purpose it is only necessary to substitute any desired values of X therein and then solve in each case for the corresponding values of D. Let it be required, for instance, to determine what diameter a pin should have at a cross section one inch below the line wire in order that the maximum strain at that cross section may equal the corresponding strain at a cross section five inches below the line wire and of 1.5 inch diameter. Substituting one as the value of X, the last-named formula becomes D3 = 0.675, and from this, D = 0.877, which shows that the diameter of the pin one inch below the line wire should be 0.877-inch. A similar calculation will show that if a pin is long enough so that a cross section above the cross-arm is 12 inches below the line wire, the diameter of this cross section should be equal to the cube root of 0.675 × 12 = 8.1, which is 2.008, or practically two inches. It should be observed that the calculations just made have nothing to do with the ability of a pin to resist any particular pull of its line wire. These calculations simply show what diameters a pin should have at different distances below its line wire in order that the maximum stress at each of its cross sections may equal that at a cross section 5 inches below the wire where the diameter is 1.5 inches. In Vol. xx., A. I. E. E., pp. 415 to 419, specifications are proposed for standard insulator pins based on calculations like those just made. As a result of such calculations, the following table for the corresponding values of X and D, as used in the above formula, are there presented, each expressed in inches.
Substituting 0.675 for the quantity P0.0982 S in the formula D3 = P0.0982 S X gives us D3 = 0.675 X. From this, we can find the diameters at all cross sections of a tapered pin above its shoulder that will[300] give it a strength equal to that of a section with a diameter of 1.5 inches and located 5 inches from the line wire. To use the formula for this purpose, we just need to substitute any desired values of X and then solve for the corresponding values of D. For instance, if we want to determine the diameter a pin should have at a cross section one inch below the line wire so that the maximum strain at that section equals the strain at a section five inches below the line wire with a diameter of 1.5 inches, we substitute one for X, and the formula becomes D3 = 0.675, leading to D = 0.877. This means the diameter of the pin one inch below the line wire should be 0.877 inches. A similar calculation shows that if a pin is long enough for a cross section to be 12 inches below the line wire, the diameter of this section should equal the cube root of 0.675 × 12 = 8.1, which is 2.008, or nearly two inches. It's important to note that these calculations don't relate to a pin's ability to withstand any specific pull from its line wire. They simply indicate what diameters a pin should have at various distances below its line wire so that the maximum stress at each section matches that at a section 5 inches below the wire where the diameter is 1.5 inches. In Vol. xx., A. I. E. E., pp. 415 to 419, specifications for standard insulator pins based on similar calculations are proposed. As a result of these calculations, the following table presents the corresponding values of X and D, as used in the above formula, with each value expressed in inches.
X | D | |
---|---|---|
1 | 0 | .877 |
2 | 1 | .106 |
3 | 1 | .263 |
4 | 1 | .395 |
5 | 1 | .500 |
6 | 1 | .592 |
7 | 1 | .678 |
8 | 1 | .754 |
9 | 1 | .825 |
10 | 1 | .888 |
11 | 1 | .95 |
13 | 2 | .06 |
15 | 2 | .17 |
17 | 2 | .25 |
19 | 2 | .34 |
21 | 2 | .42 |
A pin twenty-one inches long between the line wire and the cross-arm will have a uniform strength to resist the pull of the wire if it has the diameter given in this table at the corresponding distances below the line wire. From this it follows that a pin of any length between wire and cross-arm corresponding to X in the table will be equally strong to resist a pull of the line wire as a standard 1.5-inch diameter pin with its wire five inches above the cross-arm. In other words, if a pin that is twenty-one inches long between the line wire and the cross-arm[301] has the diameters given in the table at the corresponding distances below the wire, then a pin of equal strength to resist bending, and of any shorter length, would correspond in the part above the cross-arm to an equal length cut from the top end of the longer pin. Designating that part of a pin that is above the cross-arm as the “stem,” and that part in the cross-arm as the “shank,” each pin in the specifications under consideration is named by the length of its stem, as a 5-, 7- or 11-inch pin. It is proposed that each pin of whatever length be threaded for a distance of 2.5 inches at the top of its stem with four threads per inch, the sides of each thread being at an angle of ninety degrees with each other. Each thread is to cut into the pin about 3⁄32 inch, come to a sharp angle at the bottom, and be about 1⁄16 inch wide on top. At the end of the pin the proposed diameter over the thread is one inch in all cases, and at the lower end of the threaded portion the outside diameter is 1.25 inches. Near the end of the pin the diameter at the bottom of the thread is thus only 13⁄16 inch, and the corresponding diameter at the lower end of the threaded portion is about 11⁄16 inches on all pins. Each pin is to have a square shoulder to rest on the cross-arm, and the diameter of this shoulder is to be 3⁄8 inch greater than the nominal diameter of the shank of the pin. The proposed length of this shoulder on all pins is 1⁄4 inch before the taper begins. The actual diameter of the shank of each pin just below its shoulder is to be 1⁄32 inch less than the nominal diameter, and the actual diameter of the lower end of each shank is to be 1⁄16 inch less than the nominal diameter. With these explanations the proposed sizes of pins have dimensions as follows in inches:
A pin that is twenty-one inches long between the line wire and the cross-arm will have a consistent strength to resist the pull of the wire if it has the diameter listed in this table at the respective distances below the line wire. This means that a pin of any length between the wire and cross-arm corresponding to X in the table will be just as strong in resisting the pull of the line wire as a standard 1.5-inch diameter pin with its wire five inches above the cross-arm. In other words, if a pin that is twenty-one inches long between the line wire and the cross-arm[301] has the diameters specified in the table at the corresponding distances below the wire, then a pin of equal strength to resist bending, and of any shorter length, would match in the part above the cross-arm to an equal length cut from the top end of the longer pin. The part of a pin that is above the cross-arm is referred to as the "stem," and that part in the cross-arm as the "shank." Each pin in the specifications being considered is named by the length of its stem, such as a 5-, 7-, or 11-inch pin. It is suggested that each pin, regardless of length, be threaded for 2.5 inches at the top of its stem with four threads per inch, with the sides of each thread at a ninety-degree angle to each other. Each thread is to cut into the pin about 3⁄32 inch, come to a sharp point at the bottom, and be about 1⁄16 inch wide on top. At the end of the pin, the proposed diameter over the thread is one inch in all cases, and at the lower end of the threaded portion, the outside diameter is 1.25 inches. Near the end of the pin, the diameter at the bottom of the thread is 13⁄16 inch, and the corresponding diameter at the lower end of the threaded section is about 11⁄16 inches on all pins. Each pin will have a square shoulder to rest on the cross-arm, and the diameter of this shoulder will be 3⁄8 inch larger than the nominal diameter of the shank of the pin. The proposed length of this shoulder on all pins is 1⁄4 inch before the taper begins. The actual diameter of the shank of each pin just below its shoulder will be 1⁄32 inch less than the nominal diameter, and the actual diameter at the lower end of each shank will be 1⁄16 inch less than the nominal diameter. With these details, the proposed sizes of pins have dimensions as follows in inches:
Length of Stem. |
Length of Shank. |
Nominal Diameter of Shank. |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
5 | 4 | 1⁄4 | 1 | 1⁄2 |
7 | 4 | 1⁄4 | 1 | 3⁄4 |
9 | 4 | 1⁄4 | 1 | 7⁄8 |
11 | 4 | 3⁄4 | 2 | |
13 | 4 | 3⁄4 | 2 | 1⁄8 |
15 | 4 | 3⁄4 | 2 | 1⁄4 |
17 | 5 | 3⁄4 | 2 | 3⁄8 |
19 | 5 | 3⁄4 | 2 | 1⁄2 |
In order rightly to appreciate the utility of this table of proposed standard pins, it is necessary to have in mind the fact that all the dimensions are based on the assumption that a wooden pin with a shank of one and one-half inches diameter, and with its line wire attached five inches above the cross-arm, is strong enough for general use on transmission lines. Such an assumption covers a wide range of practice, but its truth may well be doubted for many cases. That this assumption[302] does form the basis of the entire table is clearly shown by the fact that the calculated diameter at the shank of each pin is made to depend on a uniform pull, P, of the line wire, giving a uniform maximum stress, S, in the outer fibres of the wood just where the shank joins the stem. In other words, every pin in the table is designed to break with a uniform pull of the line wire, provided that the point on the insulator where the wire is attached is just on a level with the top of its pin in each case. It will at once occur to practical men that while a five-inch pin with one and one-half inch shank, or a larger pin of equal ability to resist the pull of a line wire, may be strong enough for the conductors of some transmission lines, this same pin may be entirely too weak for the longer spans, sharper angles, and heavier conductors of other lines.
To fully understand the usefulness of this table of proposed standard pins, it’s important to keep in mind that all dimensions are based on the idea that a wooden pin with a shank diameter of one and a half inches, and with its line wire attached five inches above the cross-arm, is strong enough for general use on transmission lines. While this assumption applies to a broad range of applications, it may not hold true for many situations. The fact that this assumption[302]underpins the entire table is evident since the calculated diameter at the shank of each pin relies on a consistent pull, P, of the line wire, leading to a uniform maximum stress, S, in the outer fibers of the wood where the shank meets the stem. In simple terms, every pin in the table is designed to break under a consistent pull of the line wire, as long as the point on the insulator where the wire is attached is level with the top of its pin in each instance. It’s immediately obvious to practical professionals that while a five-inch pin with a one and a half-inch shank, or a larger pin with similar strength to withstand line wire pull, might be adequate for the conductors of some transmission lines, this same pin could be far too weak for the longer spans, sharper angles, and heavier conductors of other lines.
Thus, on the sixty-five-mile line between Cañon Ferry and Butte, Mont., each conductor is of copper and has a cross section of 106,500 cm., while on the older line between Niagara Falls and Buffalo each copper conductor has a cross section of 350,000 cm. Evidently with equal conditions as to length of span, amount of sag, and sharpness of angles on these two lines, pins ample in strength for the smaller wire might be much too weak for the larger wire.
Thus, on the sixty-five-mile line between Cañon Ferry and Butte, Mont., each conductor is made of copper and has a cross section of 106,500 cm², while on the older line between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, each copper conductor has a cross section of 350,000 cm². Clearly, with similar conditions regarding the length of the span, amount of sag, and sharpness of angles on these two lines, pins that are strong enough for the smaller wire might be much too weak for the larger wire.
A little consideration will show that it is neither rational nor desirable to adopt pins of uniform strength for all transmission lines, but that several degrees of strength are necessary to correspond with the range in sizes of conductors in regular use. The size of pins for use on any transmission line, when the maximum bending strain exerted by the conductors has been determined, should be found by calculation and experiment, or by experiment alone. According to Trautwine, the average compressive strength of yellow locust is 9,800 pounds, of hickory 8,000 pounds, and of white oak 7,000 pounds per square inch in the direction of the grain. These compressive strengths are less than the tensile strengths of the same woods, and should therefore be employed in calculation, since the fibres on one side of a bending pin are compressed while the fibres on the other side are elongated. Substituting 1,000 for the value of S in the formula, S = P X.0982 D3, and also 5 for the value of X, and 11⁄2 for the value of D, the resulting value of P is found to be 736.5 pounds. This result shows that with a locust pin of 11⁄2 inches diameter at the shank, and with its line wire attached five inches above the shoulder, the unbalanced side pull of the wire that will break the pin by bending is 736 pounds, provided that the wood of the pin has a strength of 1,000 pounds per square inch in compression. As all of the[303] proposed standard pins in the above table are designed for uniform strength to resist the same pull of a line wire attached on a level with the top of the pin in each case, it follows that the pull of 736 pounds by the wire will break any one of these pins under the conditions stated.
A little thought will show that it’s neither practical nor ideal to use pins of the same strength for all transmission lines; various strength levels are necessary to match the different sizes of conductors commonly in use. The size of pins needed for any transmission line should be determined through calculation and testing, or testing alone, once the maximum bending strain from the conductors is known. According to Trautwine, the average compressive strength of yellow locust is 9,800 pounds, hickory 8,000 pounds, and white oak 7,000 pounds per square inch along the grain. These compressive strengths are lower than the tensile strengths of the same woods and should be used in calculations, since the fibers on one side of a bending pin are compressed while the fibers on the other side are stretched. By substituting 1,000 for S in the formula, S = P X.0982 D3, and using 5 for X and 11⁄2 for D, the calculated value of P is 736.5 pounds. This indicates that with a locust pin that has a diameter of 11⁄2 inches at the shank, and with the line wire attached five inches above the shoulder, the unbalanced side pull from the wire that would break the pin due to bending is 736 pounds, assuming the wood of the pin can withstand 1,000 pounds per square inch in compression. Since all the proposed standard pins listed in the table above are designed for uniform strength to resist the same pull from a line wire attached level with the top of the pin, it follows that a pull of 736 pounds from the wire will break any of these pins under the stated conditions.
The calculation just made takes no account of the fact that the actual diameter of the shank of each pin just below the shoulder is 1⁄32 inch less than the nominal diameter, but this of course reduces the strength somewhat. Trautwine states that the figures above given for the compressive strengths of wood are only averages and are subject to much variation. Of course no pin should be knowingly loaded in regular practice to the breaking point, and to provide against variations in the strength of wood, and for unexpected strains, a liberal factor of safety, say four, should be adopted in fixing the maximum strains on insulator pins. Applying this factor to the calculations just made, it appears that the maximum pull of the line wire at the top of any one of the above proposed standard pins should not exceed 736 ÷ 4 = 184 pounds in regular work. A little calculation will readily show that the side pull of some of the larger conductors now in use on transmission lines will greatly exceed 184 pounds under conditions, as to sag, angles and wind pressure, that are frequently met in practice.
The calculation just made doesn't consider that the actual diameter of the shank of each pin just below the shoulder is 1⁄32 inch smaller than the nominal diameter, which does reduce the strength a bit. Trautwine mentions that the numbers provided for the compressive strengths of wood are just averages and can vary significantly. Naturally, no pin should be purposefully loaded to the breaking point in regular practice, and to account for variations in wood strength and unexpected strains, a generous safety factor, say four, should be used when determining the maximum loads on insulator pins. When applying this factor to the previous calculations, it turns out that the maximum load of the line wire at the top of any of the proposed standard pins shouldn’t exceed 736 ÷ 4 = 184 pounds during normal operations. A bit of calculation will quickly reveal that the side pull from some of the larger conductors currently used on transmission lines will often exceed 184 pounds, depending on sag, angles, and wind pressure, which are commonly encountered in practice.
On page 448, Vol. xx., A. I. E. E., some tests are reported on six locust wood pins with shank diameters of 17⁄16 to 11⁄2 inches. Each of these pins was tested by inserting its shank in a hole of 11⁄2 inches diameter in a block of hard wood, and then applying a strain at about right angles to the pin and about 41⁄2 inches from the block by means of a Seller’s machine. The pull on each pin was applied gradually, and in most of the pins the fibres of the wood began to part when the side pull reached 700 to 750 pounds, though the maximum loads sustained were about ten per cent above these figures. The average calculated value of S, the compressive strength of the wood in these pins, was 11,130 pounds per square inch on the basis of the loads at which the fibres of the wood began to break, and 13,623 pounds per square inch for the loads at which the pins gave way. On pages 650 to 653 of the volume last cited, results are reported of tests on twenty-two pins of eucalyptus wood, which is generally used for this purpose in California. Twelve of these pins were of a size much used in California on lines where the voltage is not above 30,000. Each of the twelve pins was 67⁄8 inches long in the stem, 45⁄8 inches long in the shank, 11⁄2 inches in diameter at the shank, 2 inches in diameter at the square shoulder where the shank joins the stem, and 13⁄8 inches in diameter at the top of the thread. The[304] pins were tested by mounting each of them in a cross-arm, securing the cross-arm in a testing machine so that the pin was horizontal, placing an insulator on the pin, and exerting the strain on a cable wrapped around the side groove of the insulator. This cable varied a little from right angles to the axis of each pin, but the component of the strain at right angles to this axis was calculated and the breaking load here mentioned is that component. Nearly all of these twelve pins broke square off at the cross-arm.
On page 448 of Vol. xx., A. I. E. E., some tests are described regarding six locust wood pins with shank diameters ranging from 17⁄16 to 11⁄2 inches. Each pin was tested by inserting its shank into a hole measuring 11⁄2 inches in diameter in a block of hard wood. A strain was then applied about 41⁄2 inches from the block using a Seller’s machine, at a right angle to the pin. The pull was applied gradually, and the wood fibers in most of the pins started to separate when the side pull reached between 700 and 750 pounds, although the maximum loads sustained were roughly ten percent higher. The average calculated value of S, the compressive strength of the wood in these pins, was 11,130 pounds per square inch based on the loads at which the wood fibers began to break, and 13,623 pounds per square inch for the loads at which the pins failed. On pages 650 to 653 of the same volume, results are presented from tests on twenty-two pins made from eucalyptus wood, which is commonly used for this purpose in California. Twelve of these pins were of a standard size used in California for lines with voltages not exceeding 30,000. Each of these twelve pins measured 67⁄8 inches in stem length, 45⁄8 inches in shank length, had a shank diameter of 11⁄2 inches, a diameter of 2 inches at the square shoulder where the shank connects with the stem, and a diameter of 13⁄8 inches at the top of the thread. The pins were tested by mounting each in a cross-arm, securing the cross-arm in a testing machine to ensure the pin was horizontal, placing an insulator on the pin, and applying strain through a cable wrapped around the lateral groove of the insulator. This cable was slightly off at right angles to the axis of each pin, but the strain component measured at a right angle to this axis was calculated, and the breaking load mentioned here refers to that component. Nearly all of these twelve pins broke off squarely at the cross-arm.
For a single pin, the lowest breaking strain was 705 pounds, the largest 1,360 pounds, and the average for the twelve pins was 1,085 pounds. Unfortunately, the exact distance of the cable from the cross-arm is not stated, but as the cable was wound about the side groove of the insulator it was probably either in line with or a little below the top of the pin. It seems probable also that the diameter of these pins at the shoulder—that is, two inches—may have increased the breaking strain somewhat by giving the shoulder a good bearing on the cross-arm. The ten other pins were of the size in use on the 60,000-volt line between Colgate power-house and Oakland, Cal. Each of these pins had a length of 53⁄8 inches and a maximum diameter of 21⁄8 inches in the shank, and a length of 103⁄8 inches in the stem, with a diameter of 21⁄2 inches at the shoulder. This shoulder was not square, but its surface formed an angle of forty-five degrees with the axis of the pin, and this bevel shoulder took up 1⁄4 inch of the length just given for the stem of the pin. At 21⁄2 inches from its threaded end the stem of the pin had a diameter of 115⁄16 inches, and the diameter slopes to 13⁄8 inches at two inches from the end. The two inches of length at the top of the stem has the uniform diameter of 13⁄8 inches, and is threaded with four threads per inch for the insulator. Each of these ten pins was tested, as already described, until it broke, but the break in this case started as a split at the lower end of the threaded portion and ran down the stem to the shoulder in a line nearly parallel with the axis of the pin. The pull on the cable at right angles to the axis of each pin had a maximum value of 1,475 pounds in one case, and a corresponding value of 3,190 pounds in another, while the average breaking strain for the ten pins was 2,310 pounds. Unfortunately, the report of this test above named does not distinctly state just how far the testing cable was attached above the shank of each of these large pins; but it seems probable that the same insulator was used with the larger as with the smaller pins, and if this was so the testing cable was attached near the end of each pin, as this cable was wound about the side groove of the insulator used on the smaller pins. With the types of insulator[305] in actual use on the Colgate and Oakland line the wire is carried at the top groove and its centre is about two and a half inches above the top of the pin. It is therefore probable that these pins would not withstand as great strains on the lines as they did in these tests. The bevel shoulder on each of these larger pins no doubt increases its ability to resist a bending strain, because the bevel surface fits tightly down into a counterbore in the cross-arm. Where the pin has a shoulder at right angles with the axis, as is more usually the case, and the top of the cross-arm is a little rounding, the square shoulder does not have a firm seat and is of slight importance as far as the strength of the pin to resist a bending strain is concerned. Evidently the weakest point in the ten larger pins of this test was at the lower end of the threaded portion, since in each case the break was in the form of a long split starting where the thread ended. There seems to be no sufficient reason for the reduction of the diameter of a pin intended for a heavy line wire to a diameter as small as one inch at the threaded end, or for limiting the length of the threaded portion to 2.5 inches, as proposed in the specifications for standard pins. It is certain that the cost of the pin would be no more if its diameter at the threaded end were 11⁄4 or 13⁄8 inches with a uniform taper from the end of the pin down to the shoulder and with the thread cut down the stem for three or four inches. Furthermore, any increase in the cost of insulators for these larger threaded ends of pins would no doubt be a small matter. Some excess of strength in the stem of a pin over that of its shank is to be desired, for the stem is more exposed to the weather and to charring by leakage currents over the surface of the insulator. On high-voltage lines, this charring is usually worse at that part of each pin just below its thread, and the commonest breaks of pins on these lines leave the insulators with the threaded portions of their pins hanging on the wire, while the remainder of each pin remains on the cross-arm. From the tests just noted it is evidently poor design to give the threaded portion of a pin a short length of uniform diameter, and then to increase the diameter at once by a shoulder, as was done with the pins on the Colgate and Oakland line. This design evidently leads to failure of pins by splitting from the lower end of the threads. The better design is the more common one which gives the stem of the pin a uniform taper from the shoulder to the top. Where the line wire is secured to the top of its insulator, anywhere from one to three inches above the top of the pin, there is a strong tendency for the insulator to tip on its pin, and this tendency is more effectively met the longer the joint between the pin and insulator.
For a single pin, the lowest breaking strain was 705 pounds, the highest was 1,360 pounds, and the average for the twelve pins was 1,085 pounds. Unfortunately, the exact distance of the cable from the cross-arm is not provided, but since the cable wrapped around the side groove of the insulator, it was likely in line with or slightly below the top of the pin. It also seems likely that the diameter of these pins at the shoulder—two inches—may have slightly increased the breaking strain by providing a solid bearing on the cross-arm. The ten other pins were the same size as those used on the 60,000-volt line between Colgate power-house and Oakland, California. Each of these pins measured 53⁄8 inches in length and had a maximum diameter of 21⁄8 inches in the shank, and a length of 103⁄8 inches in the stem, with a diameter of 21⁄2 inches at the shoulder. This shoulder wasn’t square; instead, its surface angled at forty-five degrees with the axis of the pin, and this beveled shoulder took up 1⁄4 inch of the length given for the stem of the pin. At 21⁄2 inches from the threaded end, the stem of the pin had a diameter of 115⁄16 inches, tapering to 13⁄8 inches at two inches from the end. The top two inches of the stem consistently measured 13⁄8 inches in diameter and were threaded with four threads per inch for the insulator. Each of these ten pins was tested, as previously described, until it broke. The break started as a split at the lower end of the threaded portion and extended down the stem to the shoulder in a line almost parallel to the pin's axis. The pull on the cable, at a right angle to the axis of each pin, reached a maximum of 1,475 pounds in one instance and 3,190 pounds in another, with an average breaking strain for the ten pins being 2,310 pounds. Unfortunately, the test report does not clearly state how far the testing cable was attached above each of these large pins' shank; however, it's likely that the same insulator was used for both the larger and smaller pins. If this is the case, the testing cable was probably attached near each pin's end, as it wrapped around the side groove of the insulator used on the smaller pins. With the types of insulators[305] currently used on the Colgate and Oakland line, the wire is supported at the top groove, about two and a half inches above the pin's top. Therefore, it seems likely that these pins wouldn't withstand as much strain on the lines as they did during testing. The beveled shoulder on each of these larger pins likely enhances its ability to resist bending strain since the bevel surface fits securely into a counterbore in the cross-arm. When a pin has a shoulder that’s perpendicular to the axis, which is more common, and the cross-arm's top is slightly rounded, the square shoulder doesn't have a solid seat and is of limited importance in terms of the pin's strength against bending strain. Clearly, the weakest point in the ten larger pins tested was at the lower end of the threaded portion, as the breaks in each case started as long splits where the thread ended. There seems to be no good reason to reduce the diameter of a pin meant for a heavy line wire to just one inch at the threaded end, or to limit the length of the threaded portion to 2.5 inches, as specified for standard pins. It's certain that the cost of the pin would remain the same if its diameter at the threaded end were 11⁄4 or 13⁄8 inches, with a consistent taper from the pin's end down to the shoulder and the thread cut down the stem for three or four inches. Furthermore, any extra cost for insulators to fit these larger threaded ends of pins would likely be minimal. Some additional strength in the stem of a pin over that of its shank is desirable since the stem is more exposed to weather and charring from leakage currents over the insulator's surface. On high-voltage lines, this charring typically occurs just below the threaded part of each pin, and the most common pin breaks on these lines leave the insulators with the threaded pin portions still hanging on the wire while the rest remains on the cross-arm. From the tests discussed, it's clear that it's poor design to make the threaded section of a pin with a short length of uniform diameter, then immediately increase the diameter at the shoulder, as was done with the pins on the Colgate and Oakland line. This design definitely leads to pin failures by splitting from the lower end of the threads. A better design, which is more common, gives the pin's stem a consistent taper from shoulder to top. When the line wire is secured to the top of its insulator, anywhere from one to three inches above the top of the pin, there's a strong tendency for the insulator to tip on its pin, and this tendency is more effectively addressed the longer the joint between the pin and insulator.
CHAPTER XXIII.
Steel Towers.
Steel towers are rapidly coming into use for the support of electric transmission lines that deliver large units of energy at high voltages to long distances from water-powers.
Steel towers are quickly being adopted to support electric transmission lines that carry large amounts of energy at high voltages over long distances from hydropower sources.
One case of this sort is the seventy-five-mile transmission of 24,000 horse-power at 60,000 volts from Niagara Falls to Toronto. Another example may be seen in the seventy-five-mile line of steel towers which carries transmission circuits of 60,000 volts to Winnipeg. Guanajuato, Mexico, which is said to have produced more silver than any other city in the world, receives some 3,300 electric horse-power over a 60,000-volt transmission line one hundred miles long on steel towers. Between Niagara Falls and Lockport the electric circuits now being erected are supported on steel towers. On a transmission line eighty miles long in northern New York, for which plans are now being made, steel towers are to support electric conductors that carry current at 60,000 volts.
One example of this is the seventy-five-mile transmission of 24,000 horsepower at 60,000 volts from Niagara Falls to Toronto. Another instance can be seen in the seventy-five-mile line of steel towers that carries 60,000 volts to Winnipeg. Guanajuato, Mexico, known for producing more silver than any other city in the world, receives about 3,300 electric horsepower via a 60,000-volt transmission line that is one hundred miles long, supported by steel towers. Between Niagara Falls and Lockport, the electric circuits currently being installed are supported on steel towers. For a transmission line eighty miles long in northern New York, for which plans are underway, steel towers will support electric conductors carrying current at 60,000 volts.
For the elevations above ground at which it is common to support the conductors of transmission lines—that is, from twenty-five to fifty feet—a steel tower will cost from five to twenty times as much as a wooden pole in various parts of the United States and Canada. It follows at once from this fact that there must be cogent reasons, apart from the matter of first cost, if the general substitution of steel towers for wooden poles on transmission lines is to be justified on economic grounds. During fifteen years the electric transmission of energy from distant water-powers to important centres of population has grown from the most humble beginnings to the delivery of hundreds of thousands of horse-power in the service of millions of people, and the lines for this work are supported, with very few exceptions, on wooden poles. Among the transmissions of large powers over long distances at very high voltages that have been in successful operation during at least several years with wooden pole lines are the following: the 60,000-volt circuit that transmits some 13,000 horse-power from Electra station across the State of California to San Francisco, a distance of 147 miles, is supported by[307] wooden poles. In the same State, the transmission line 142 miles long between Colgate power-house and Oakland, at 60,000 volts, and with a capacity of about 15,000 horse-power, hangs on wooden poles, save at the span nearly a mile long over the Straits of Carquinez. Wood is used to carry the two 55,000-volt circuits that run sixty-five miles from the 10,000-horse-power station at Cañon Ferry on the Missouri River to Butte. Between Shawinigan Falls and Montreal, a distance of eighty-three miles, the conductors that operate at about 50,000 volts are carried on wooden poles. Electrical supply in Buffalo to the amount of 30,000 horse-power depends entirely on circuits from Niagara Falls that operate at 22,000 volts and are supported on lines of wooden poles.
For the heights above ground where it's common to support transmission line conductors—specifically, between twenty-five and fifty feet—a steel tower can cost five to twenty times more than a wooden pole in different regions of the United States and Canada. This means there need to be strong reasons, beyond just the initial cost, to justify the overall switch from wooden poles to steel towers for transmission lines on economic grounds. Over the past fifteen years, the electric transmission of energy from remote water sources to major population centers has evolved from humble beginnings to delivering hundreds of thousands of horsepower to millions of people, and the lines for this purpose are mostly supported by wooden poles, with very few exceptions. Some successful long-distance, high-voltage transmissions using wooden pole lines include the 60,000-volt circuit that transmits about 13,000 horsepower from the Electra station across California to San Francisco, a distance of 147 miles, supported by wooden poles. In the same state, there's a 142-mile long transmission line between the Colgate power house and Oakland, also at 60,000 volts and with a capacity of around 15,000 horsepower, that’s primarily held up by wooden poles, except for the nearly mile-long span over the Straits of Carquinez. Wood is used to support the two 55,000-volt circuits running sixty-five miles from the 10,000-horsepower station at Cañon Ferry on the Missouri River to Butte. Between Shawinigan Falls and Montreal, covering a distance of eighty-three miles, the conductors operating at about 50,000 volts are also carried on wooden poles. In Buffalo, the electrical supply of 30,000 horsepower entirely relies on circuits from Niagara Falls operating at 22,000 volts, which are supported on wooden pole lines.
In the operation of these and many other high-voltage transmissions during various parts of the past decade some difficulties have been met with, but they have not been so serious as to prevent satisfactory service. Nevertheless, it is now being urged that certain impediments that are met in the operation of transmission systems would be much reduced by the substitution of steel towers for wooden poles, and it is even suggested that perhaps the first cost, and probably the last cost, of a transmission line would be less with steel than with wood for supports. The argument for steel in the matter of costs is that while a tower requires a larger investment than a pole, yet the smaller number of towers as compared with that of poles may reduce the entire outlay for the former to about that for the latter. More than this, it is said that the lower depreciation and maintenance charges on steel supports will make their final cost no greater than that of wooden poles.
In the operation of these and many other high-voltage transmissions over the past decade, some challenges have arisen, but they haven't been serious enough to stop satisfactory service. However, there is now a call to address certain obstacles in the operation of transmission systems by replacing wooden poles with steel towers. It's suggested that the initial cost, and likely the overall cost, of a transmission line could be lower with steel than with wood for supports. The case for steel in terms of costs is that while a tower costs more upfront than a pole, the smaller number of towers compared to poles could equalize the total expenditure for the former to approximately that for the latter. Additionally, it's claimed that the lower depreciation and maintenance costs of steel supports will make their final expense no greater than that of wooden poles.
In the present state of the market, steel towers can be had at from three to three and one-half cents per pound, and the cost of a steel tower or pole will vary nearly as its weight. During the first half of 1904 the quotations on tubular steel poles to the Southside Suburban Railway Company, of Chicago, were between the limits just stated. That company ordered some poles built up of steel sections about that time at a trifle less than three cents per pound. Each of these poles was thirty feet long and weighed 616 pounds, so that its cost was about eighteen dollars (xxi, A. I. E. E., 754). For a forty-five-foot steel pole to carry a pair of 11,000-volt, three-phase circuits along the New York Central electric road the estimated cost was eighty dollars in the year last named (xxi, A. I. E. E., 753). On the 100-mile line to Guanajuato, Mexico, above mentioned, the steel towers were built up of 3″ × 3″ × 3⁄16″ angles for legs, and were stayed with smaller angle sections and rods. Each of these towers has four legs that come together near the top, is forty feet[308] high, weighs about 1,500 pounds, and carries a single circuit composed of three No. 1 B. & S. gauge hard-drawn copper cables. The weight of each of these cables is 1,340 pounds per mile, and the forty-foot towers are spaced 440 feet apart, or twelve per mile, over nearly the entire length of line. At three cents per pound, the lowest figure at which these towers could probably be secured for use in the United States, the approximate cost of each would be forty-five dollars. Between Niagara Falls and Lockport each of the steel towers that is to carry a single three-phase transmission circuit has three legs built up of tubing that tapers from two and one-half inches to smaller sizes and is braced at frequent intervals. The height of these towers is forty-nine feet, and the weight of each is 2,800 pounds. At three cents per pound the cost of each tower amounts to eighty-four dollars. For a long transmission line in northern New York bids were recently had on towers forty-five feet high to carry six wires, and the resulting prices were $100 to $125 each for a tower weighing about 3,000 pounds. On the line between Niagara Falls and Toronto the standard tower holds the lowest cables 40 feet above ground at the insulators, has a weight of 2,360 pounds, and would cost $70.80 at 3 cents per pound.
In today's market, steel towers can be purchased for around three to three and a half cents per pound, and the cost of a steel tower or pole will largely depend on its weight. During the first half of 1904, the prices for tubular steel poles for the Southside Suburban Railway Company in Chicago fell within these limits. That company ordered some poles made of steel sections at just under three cents per pound. Each of these poles was thirty feet long and weighed 616 pounds, making the cost roughly eighteen dollars (xxi, A. I. E. E., 754). For a forty-five-foot steel pole intended to support a pair of 11,000-volt, three-phase circuits along the New York Central electric line, the estimated cost was eighty dollars in that same year (xxi, A. I. E. E., 753). On the 100-mile line to Guanajuato, Mexico, mentioned earlier, the steel towers were constructed using 3″ × 3″ × 3⁄16″ angles for the legs, supported by smaller angle sections and rods. Each tower has four legs that converge near the top, stands forty feet high, weighs about 1,500 pounds, and carries a single circuit made up of three No. 1 B. & S. gauge hard-drawn copper cables. Each of these cables weighs 1,340 pounds per mile, and the forty-foot towers are spaced 440 feet apart, which is twelve per mile along almost the entire line. At three cents per pound, the lowest possible price for these towers in the United States, the estimated cost for each would be about forty-five dollars. Between Niagara Falls and Lockport, each steel tower designed to carry a single three-phase transmission circuit has three legs made of tubing that tapers from two and a half inches down to smaller sizes, and is reinforced at regular intervals. These towers are forty-nine feet tall, and each weighs 2,800 pounds. At three cents per pound, the cost for each of these towers comes to eighty-four dollars. Recently, for a long transmission line in northern New York, bids were taken for towers forty-five feet high to support six wires, with prices ranging from $100 to $125 each for towers weighing around 3,000 pounds. On the line between Niagara Falls and Toronto, the standard tower keeps the lowest cables 40 feet above the ground at the insulators, weighs 2,360 pounds, and would cost $70.80 at three cents per pound.
In January, 1902, four steel towers were purchased to support transmission circuits for two spans of 132 feet each over the Chambly Canal, near Chambly Canton, Quebec. Each pair of these towers was required to support eleven No. 2-0 B. & S. gauge bare copper wires with the span of 132 feet between them. The vertical height of each of these four towers is 144 feet above the foundation, and they were designed for a maximum stress in any member of not more than one-fourth of its ultimate strength, with wires coated to a diameter of one inch with ice and under wind pressure. For these four steel towers erected on foundations supplied by the purchasers the price was $4,670, and the contract called for a weight in the four towers of not less than 121,000 pounds. On the basis of this weight the cost of the towers erected on foundations was 3.86 cents per pound.
In January 1902, four steel towers were bought to support transmission circuits for two spans of 132 feet each over the Chambly Canal, near Chambly Canton, Quebec. Each pair of these towers needed to support eleven No. 2-0 B. & S. gauge bare copper wires with a 132-foot span between them. The vertical height of each tower is 144 feet above the foundation, and they were designed to handle a maximum stress in any member of no more than one-fourth of its ultimate strength, with wires covered to a diameter of one inch with ice and under wind pressure. For these four steel towers built on foundations provided by the purchasers, the price was $4,670, and the contract specified a weight of at least 121,000 pounds for the four towers. Based on this weight, the cost of the towers on foundations was 3.86 cents per pound.
With these examples of the cost of steel towers a fair idea may be gotten of the relative cost of wooden poles. For poles of cedar or other desirable wood thirty-five feet long and with eight-inch tops fitted with either one or two cross-arms an estimated cost of five dollars each is ample to cover delivery at railway points over a great part of the United States and Canada. This size of pole has been much used on the long, high-voltage transmission systems that involve large power units and use heavy conductors. Examples of lines where such poles are used may[309] be seen between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, between Colgate power-house and Oakland, and between Cañon Ferry and Butte. Of course some longer poles were used in special locations, like the crossing of steam railways, but it is also true that on the lines supported by steel towers such locations make exceptionally high towers necessary. The thirty-five-foot poles will hold the electric lines about as high above the ground level as the forty-nine-foot towers on the Niagara Falls and Toronto transmission, because the former will be set so much closer together. On the line just named the regular minimum distance of the electric cables above the ground level at the centres of spans is twenty-five feet. The standard towers on this line carry the lower electric cables forty feet above the ground at the insulators, and it was thought desirable to allow a sag of fifteen feet at the centres of the regular spans of four hundred feet each. On these towers the conductors that form each three-phase circuit are six feet apart, and lines drawn between the three cables form the sides of an equilateral triangle. With a pin fourteen and three-fourths inches long like that used on these steel towers, and one conductor at the top of a thirty-five-foot pole, where the other two are supported by a cross-arm five feet three inches below, giving six feet between cables, the lower cables are held by their insulators twenty-six feet above the ground, when the poles are set five feet deep. Between thirty-five-foot poles one hundred feet is a very moderate span, and one that is exceeded in a number of instances. Thus on the 142-mile line from Colgate power-house to Oakland the thirty-five-foot poles are 132 feet apart, and one line of these poles carries three conductors of 133,000-circular-mil copper, while the other pole line has three aluminum cables of 168,000 circular mils. On the later transmission line from Niagara Falls to Buffalo, which was designed for three-phase circuits of 500,000-circular-mil cable, the regular distance between the thirty-five-foot poles is 140 feet.
With these examples of the cost of steel towers, we can get a good idea of the relative cost of wooden poles. For cedar or other preferred wood poles that are thirty-five feet long with eight-inch tops and fitted with one or two cross-arms, an estimated cost of five dollars each is sufficient to cover delivery to railway points across most of the United States and Canada. This size of pole has been widely used in long, high-voltage transmission systems that require large power units and heavy conductors. Examples of lines that utilize such poles can[309] be seen between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, between Colgate power-house and Oakland, and between Cañon Ferry and Butte. Some longer poles have been used in special situations, like crossing steam railways, but it's also true that in lines supported by steel towers, such locations require exceptionally tall towers. The thirty-five-foot poles will support the electric lines about as high above the ground as the forty-nine-foot towers on the Niagara Falls and Toronto transmission because the former are set much closer together. On the mentioned line, the regular minimum distance of the electric cables above ground at the centers of spans is twenty-five feet. The standard towers on this line carry the lower electric cables forty feet above the ground at the insulators, and it was deemed necessary to allow for a sag of fifteen feet at the centers of the regular spans of four hundred feet each. On these towers, the conductors that make up each three-phase circuit are six feet apart, and the lines drawn between the three cables form the sides of an equilateral triangle. Using a pin fourteen and three-fourths inches long like those used on these steel towers, and with one conductor at the top of a thirty-five-foot pole, where the other two are supported by a cross-arm five feet three inches below, which gives six feet between cables, the lower cables are held by their insulators at twenty-six feet above ground when the poles are set five feet deep. Between thirty-five-foot poles, one hundred feet is a very typical span, and it’s been exceeded in several cases. For example, on the 142-mile line from Colgate power-house to Oakland, the thirty-five-foot poles are 132 feet apart, and one line of these poles carries three conductors of 133,000-circular-mil copper, while the other pole line has three aluminum cables of 168,000 circular mils. On the later transmission line from Niagara Falls to Buffalo, designed for three-phase circuits of 500,000-circular-mil cable, the regular distance between the thirty-five-foot poles is 140 feet.
A maximum sag of twenty-four inches between poles 100 feet apart under the conditions named above brings the lowest points of the wire twenty-four feet above the ground. The steel towers on the line to Guanajuato being only forty feet in length, and spaced 440 feet apart, it seems that the distance of conductors from the ground at the centres of spans is probably no greater than that just named. Particular attention is called to this point because it has been suggested that the use of steel towers would carry cables so high that wires and sticks could not be thrown onto them. It thus appears that thirty-five-foot wooden poles set one hundred feet apart will allow as much distance between conductors,[310] and still keep their lowest points as far above the ground, as will forty- to forty-nine-foot towers placed four hundred feet or more apart. The two lines that have their conductors further apart perhaps than any others in the world are the one from Cañon Ferry to Butte, on thirty-five-foot wooden poles, and the one to Guanajuato, on steel towers. In each of these cases the cables are seventy-eight inches apart at the corners of an equilateral triangle. With steel towers four hundred feet or wooden poles one hundred feet apart, four of the latter must be used to one of the former. At $5 per pole this requires an investment of $20 in poles as compared with at least $45 for a tower like those on the Guanajuato line, $84 for a tower like those on the line from Niagara Falls to Lockport, or $70 for one of the towers on the Niagara and Toronto line. Each of the towers on the line to Toronto carries two three-phase circuits, and the least distance between cables is six feet. To reach the same result as to the distance between conductors with the two circuits on poles, it would be desirable to have two pole lines, so that $40 would represent the investment in the poles to displace one tower for two circuits. The older pole line between Niagara Falls and Buffalo carries two three-phase circuits on two cross-arms, and the 350,000-circular-mil copper cables of each circuit are at the angles of an equilateral triangle whose sides are each three feet long. In this case, however, the electric pressure is only 22,000 volts.
A maximum sag of twenty-four inches between poles 100 feet apart under the conditions mentioned above places the lowest points of the wire twenty-four feet above the ground. The steel towers on the line to Guanajuato are only forty feet tall and spaced 440 feet apart, so the height of the conductors from the ground in the middle of the spans is likely not much greater than what was just described. It’s important to highlight this because it has been suggested that using steel towers would position cables so high that wires and sticks couldn’t be thrown onto them. It seems that thirty-five-foot wooden poles set one hundred feet apart can maintain as much distance between conductors, [310] while keeping their lowest points well above the ground, as forty- to forty-nine-foot towers spaced four hundred feet or more apart. The two lines that have their conductors the furthest apart, perhaps more than any others in the world, are the one from Cañon Ferry to Butte, using thirty-five-foot wooden poles, and the one to Guanajuato with steel towers. In both cases, the cables are seventy-eight inches apart at the corners of an equilateral triangle. With steel towers spaced four hundred feet apart or wooden poles one hundred feet apart, you'd need four wooden poles for every steel tower. At $5 per pole, this means an investment of $20 for poles compared to at least $45 for a tower like those on the Guanajuato line, $84 for a tower from Niagara Falls to Lockport, or $70 for a tower on the line from Niagara to Toronto. Each tower on the line to Toronto supports two three-phase circuits, and the least distance between cables is six feet. To achieve the same spacing between conductors with two circuits on poles, it would be necessary to set up two pole lines, making $40 the cost of the poles needed to replace one tower for two circuits. The older pole line between Niagara Falls and Buffalo carries two three-phase circuits on two cross-arms, and the 350,000-circular-mil copper cables of each circuit are at the corners of an equilateral triangle with each side measuring three feet. However, in this case, the electrical pressure is only 22,000 volts.
The costs above named for poles and towers include nothing for erection. Each tower has at least three legs and more commonly four, and owing to the heights of towers and to the long spans they support it is the usual practice to give each leg a footing of cement concrete. It thus seems that the number of holes to be dug for a line of towers is nearly or quite as great as that for a line of poles, and considering the concrete footings the cost of erecting the towers is probably greater than that for the poles. With wooden poles about four times as many pins and insulators are required as with steel towers, or say twelve pins and insulators on poles instead of three on a tower. For circuits of 50,000 to 60,000 volts the approximate cost of each insulator with a steel pin may be taken at $1.50, so that the saving per tower reaches not more than $13.50 in this respect. In the labor of erecting circuits there may be a small advantage in favor of the towers, but the weight of the long spans probably offsets to a large extent any grain of time due to fewer points of support.
The costs mentioned for poles and towers do not include erection. Each tower typically has at least three legs, and more often four. Because of the height of the towers and the long spans they support, it's standard practice to provide each leg with a cement concrete footing. Therefore, it seems that the number of holes that need to be dug for a line of towers is nearly or just as high as for a line of poles, and considering the concrete footings, the cost of putting up the towers is likely higher than that for poles. With wooden poles, about four times as many pins and insulators are needed compared to steel towers—around twelve pins and insulators on poles versus three on a tower. For circuits that handle 50,000 to 60,000 volts, each insulator with a steel pin is roughly $1.50, which means the savings per tower is not more than $13.50 in this area. There may be a slight labor advantage when erecting circuits for the towers, but the weight of the long spans likely offsets any time saved due to fewer support points.
An approximate conclusion from the above facts seems to be that a line of steel towers will probably cost from 1.5 to twice as much as a line[311] or lines of wooden poles to support the same number of conductors the same distance apart, even when the saving of pins and insulators is credited to the towers. This conclusion applies to construction over a large part of the United States and Canada. It is known that wooden poles of good quality retain enough strength to make them reliable as supports during ten or fifteen years, and it is doubtful whether steel towers will show enough longer life to more than offset their greater first cost. It may be noted here that any saving in the cost of insulators or other advantage that there may be in spans four hundred feet or more long can be as readily secured with wooden as with steel supports. With these long spans the requirements are greater height and strength in the line supports, and these can readily be obtained in structures each of which is formed of three or four poles with cross-braces. Such wooden structures have long been in use at certain points on transmission lines where special long spans were necessary or where there were large angular changes of direction. In those special cases where structures 75 to 150 or more feet in height are necessary to carry a span across a waterway, as at the Chambly Canal above mentioned, steel is generally more desirable than wood because poles of such lengths are not readily obtainable. Neither present proposals nor practice, however, contemplates the use of steel towers having a length of more than forty to fifty feet on regular spans.
Based on the information above, it looks like a line of steel towers will likely cost about 1.5 to twice as much as a line or lines of wooden poles to support the same number of conductors at the same distance apart, even when factoring in the savings from pins and insulators attributed to the towers. This conclusion applies to construction across much of the United States and Canada. Good quality wooden poles are known to maintain enough strength to serve as reliable supports for ten to fifteen years, and it's uncertain whether steel towers will last long enough to outweigh their higher initial cost. It's worth mentioning that any savings in the cost of insulators or other benefits that might come with spans of four hundred feet or longer can be easily achieved with wooden supports as well as with steel ones. For these long spans, the requirements for greater height and strength in the line supports can easily be met with structures made of three or four poles with cross-braces. Such wooden structures have been used for some time at specific points on transmission lines where longer spans were necessary or where there were significant changes in direction. In special circumstances, where structures 75 to 150 feet tall or more are needed to carry a span across a waterway, like at the Chambly Canal mentioned earlier, steel is generally preferred over wood because poles of such lengths are not easily available. However, current proposals and practices do not envision using steel towers longer than forty to fifty feet for standard spans.
Much the strongest argument in favor of steel towers for transmission lines is that these towers give a greater reliability of operation than do wooden poles. It is said that towers will act as lightning-rods and thus protect line conductors and station apparatus. As to static and inductive influences from lightning, it is evident that steel towers can give no protection. If each tower has an especial ground connection it will probably protect the line to some extent against direct lightning strokes, but there is no reason to think that this protection will be any greater than that given by well-grounded guard wires, or even by a wire run from a ground plate to the top of each pole or wooden tower. If a direct lightning stroke passes from the line conductors to a wooden support it frequently breaks the insulator on that support, and the pole is often shattered or burned. Such a result does not necessarily interrupt the transmission service, however, as the near-by poles can usually carry the additional strain of the line until a new pole can be set. Quite a different result might be reached if lightning or some other cause broke an insulator on a steel tower, and thus allowed one of the electric cables to come into contact with the metal structure, as the conductor would then[312] probably be burned in two. To repair a heavy cable thus severed where the spans were as much as 400 feet long would certainly require some little time. Where a conductor in circuits operating at 20,000 to 35,000 volts has in many cases dropped onto a wooden cross-arm, it has often remained there without damage until discovered by the line inspector, but no such result could be expected with steel towers and cross-arms (xxi, A. I. E. E., 760). Where steel towers are employed it would seem to be safer to use wooden cross-arms, for the reasons just stated. This is, in fact, the practice on the steel towers before named that support 25,000-volt circuits over the Chambly Canal, and also on the steel towers that carry the 60,000-volt circuits from Colgate power-house over the mile-wide Straits of Carquinez.
The strongest argument for using steel towers for transmission lines is that they provide more reliable operation than wooden poles. It's said that towers act like lightning rods, protecting the line conductors and station equipment. However, when it comes to static and inductive effects from lightning, steel towers offer no protection. If each tower has a specific ground connection, it might protect the line to some extent from direct lightning strikes, but this protection is likely no better than that provided by well-grounded guard wires or even a wire connected from a ground plate to the top of each wooden pole or tower. If lightning strikes directly and travels from the line conductors to a wooden support, it often breaks the insulator on that support, frequently shattering or burning the pole. Despite this, the transmission service doesn’t necessarily get interrupted, as nearby poles can usually handle the extra load until a new pole is installed. However, if an insulator on a steel tower is broken by lightning or another cause, allowing one of the electric cables to touch the metal structure, the conductor could end up burning in half. Repairing a heavy cable that has been severed where spans are as long as 400 feet would definitely take some time. In many cases, when a conductor operating at 20,000 to 35,000 volts drops onto a wooden cross-arm, it often remains undamaged until the line inspector notices it, but such an outcome wouldn’t be expected with steel towers and cross-arms (xxi, A. I. E. E., 760). When using steel towers, it seems safer to use wooden cross-arms for the reasons mentioned. In fact, this is the approach used on the steel towers that support 25,000-volt circuits over the Chambly Canal and on the steel towers that carry 60,000-volt circuits from the Colgate power-house over the mile-wide Straits of Carquinez.
On the 40,000-volt transmission line between Gromo and Nembro, Italy, where timber is scarce and steel is cheap, both the poles and cross-arms are of wood. It is thought that the comparatively small number of insulators used where a line is supported at points about four hundred feet apart should contribute to reliability in operation, but insulators now give no more trouble than other parts of the line, and the leakage of energy over their surfaces is very small in amount, as was shown in the Telluride tests. Whatever benefits are to be had from long spans are as available with wooden as with steel supports, and at less cost.
On the 40,000-volt transmission line between Gromo and Nembro, Italy, where wood is hard to come by and steel is inexpensive, both the poles and cross-arms are made of wood. It's believed that having fewer insulators where the line is supported at points about four hundred feet apart should enhance reliability, but insulators now cause no more issues than other parts of the line, and the energy loss over their surfaces is quite minimal, as demonstrated in the Telluride tests. Any advantages of long spans can be achieved with wooden supports just as effectively as with steel ones, and at a lower cost.
One advantage of steel towers over wooden poles or structures is that the former will not burn and are probably not subject to destruction by lightning. Where a long line passes over a territory where there is much brush, timber or long grass, the fact that steel towers will not burn may make their choice desirable. In tropical countries where insects rapidly destroy wooden poles the use of steel towers may be highly desirable even at much greater cost, and such a case was perhaps presented on the line to Guanajuato, Mexico.
One benefit of steel towers compared to wooden poles or structures is that steel won't catch fire and is less likely to be damaged by lightning. In areas where a long line runs through brush, timber, or tall grass, the fire-resistant nature of steel towers could make them a better choice. In tropical countries where insects quickly degrade wooden poles, using steel towers may be very advantageous, even if they are more expensive. This situation was likely seen in the line to Guanajuato, Mexico.
Mechanical failures of wooden insulator pins have been far more common than those of poles, both as a direct result of the line strains and because such pins are often charred and weakened by the leakage of energy from the conductors. For these reasons the general use of iron or steel pins for the insulators of long lines operating at high voltages seems desirable. Such pins are now used to support the insulators on a number of lines with wooden poles and cross-arms, among which may be mentioned the forty-mile, 30,000-volt transmission between Spier Falls and Albany and the forty-five-mile 28,000-volt line from Bear River to Ogden, Utah. Iron or steel pins add very little to the cost of a line, and materially increase its reliability. One of the cheapest and[313] best forms of steel pins is that swaged from a steel pipe and having a straight shank and tapering stem with no shoulder. A pin of this sort for the 400-foot spans of 190,000-circular-mil copper cable on the line from Niagara Falls to Toronto measures three and one-quarter inches long in the shank, eleven and one-half inches in the taper, and has diameters of two and three-eighths inches at the larger and one and one-eighth inches at the smaller end. On spans under 150 feet between wooden poles pins of this type but with a much smaller diameter could be used to advantage.
Mechanical failures of wooden insulator pins happen more often than those of poles, mainly due to the strain on the lines and because these pins are frequently charred and weakened by energy leakage from the conductors. For this reason, using iron or steel pins for the insulators of long lines that operate at high voltages seems like a good idea. These pins are now being used to support the insulators on various lines with wooden poles and cross-arms, including the forty-mile, 30,000-volt transmission line between Spier Falls and Albany and the forty-five-mile, 28,000-volt line from Bear River to Ogden, Utah. Iron or steel pins don't add much cost to the line but significantly enhance its reliability. One of the most affordable and effective types of steel pins is made from a steel pipe, featuring a straight shank and a tapering stem without a shoulder. A pin of this design for the 400-foot spans of 190,000-circular-mil copper cable on the line from Niagara Falls to Toronto measures three and a quarter inches long on the shank, eleven and a half inches on the taper, with diameters of two and three-eighths inches at the larger end and one and one-eighth inches at the smaller end. For spans under 150 feet between wooden poles, smaller diameter pins of this type could be beneficial.
On long transmission lines where the amount of power involved is very large the additional reliability to be had with steel towers is probably great enough to justify their use. For the great majority of power transmissions, however, it seems probable that wooden poles or structures will long continue to be much the cheaper and more practicable form of support.
On long transmission lines where the power involved is very high, the extra reliability offered by steel towers is likely significant enough to justify their use. However, for most power transmissions, it seems that wooden poles or structures will continue to be the cheaper and more practical option for support for a long time.
The line of steel towers on a private right of way seventy-five miles long, carrying two circuits for the transmission of 24,000 horse-power at 60,000 volts from Niagara Falls to Toronto, is one of the most prominent examples of this type of construction.
The row of steel towers on a private right-of-way that stretches seventy-five miles, supporting two circuits for transmitting 24,000 horsepower at 60,000 volts from Niagara Falls to Toronto, is one of the standout examples of this kind of construction.
Eventually there will be two rows of steel towers along the entire length of the line.
Eventually, there will be two rows of steel towers along the entire length of the line.
On the straight portions of the line the steel towers are regularly erected 400 feet apart, but on curves the distances are less between towers, so that their total number is about 1,400 for each line. Standard curving along the line requires towers placed 50 feet apart, and a change in the direction of not more than ten degrees at each tower, except at the beginning and end of the curve, where the change in direction is three degrees. When the change in the direction of the line is not more than six degrees, the corresponding spans allowed with each change are as follows:
On the straight sections of the line, the steel towers are typically placed 400 feet apart, but on curves, the distance between towers is shorter, resulting in a total of about 1,400 towers for each line. Standard curving along the line requires towers to be set 50 feet apart, with a maximum direction change of ten degrees at each tower, except at the start and end of the curve, where the change is three degrees. When the change in direction of the line is no more than six degrees, the allowed spans for each change are as follows:
Degrees change. |
Feet of span. |
|
---|---|---|
1⁄2 | 300 | |
1 | 286 | |
1 | 1⁄2 | 273 |
2 | 259 | |
2 | 1⁄2 | 246 |
3 | 232 | |
3 | 1⁄2 | 219 |
4 | 205 | |
4 | 1⁄2 | 192 |
5 | 178 | |
5 | 1⁄2 | 165 |
6 | 151 |
At some points along the line conditions require a span between towers of more than 400 feet, the regular distance for straight work. One example of this sort occurs at Twelve-Mile Creek, where the stream[314] has cut a wide, deep gorge in the Erie plateau. At this point the lines make a span of 625 feet between towers.
At certain points along the line, conditions need a span between towers that exceeds 400 feet, which is the standard distance for straight work. One such instance occurs at Twelve-Mile Creek, where the stream[314] has carved out a wide, deep gorge in the Erie plateau. Here, the lines create a span of 625 feet between the towers.

Fig. 94.—Transposition Tower (Second Tower).
Fig. 94.—Transposition Tower (Second Tower).

Fig. 95.—Elevations and Plan of Tower.
Fig. 95.—Elevations and Plan of Tower.
Larger elevations and plan (70 kB)
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ (70 kB)
The regular steel tower used in this transmission measures 46 feet in vertical height from its foot to the tops of the lower insulators, and 51 feet 3 inches to the tops of the higher insulators. The lower six feet of this tower are embedded in the ground, so that the tops of the insulators measure about 40 feet and 45 feet 3 inches respectively above the earth. At the ground the tower measures 14 feet at right angles to the transmission line and 12 feet parallel with it. The width of each tower at the top is 12 feet at right angles to the line, and the two sides having this width come together at points about 40 feet above the ground. Between the two L bars thus brought nearly together, at each side of a tower a piece of extra heavy 3-inch steel pipe is bolted so as to stand in a vertical position. Each piece of this pipe is about 31⁄2 feet long and carries a steel insulator pin at its upper end. The two pieces of pipe thus fixed on opposite sides of the top of a tower carry the two highest insulators. For the other four insulators of each tower, pins are fixed on a piece of standard 4-inch pipe that serves as a cross-arm, and is[315] bolted in a horizontal position between the two nearly rectangular sides of each tower, at a point two feet below the bolts that hold the vertical 3-inch pipes, already named, in position. Save for the two short vertical and one horizontal pipe, and the pins they support, each tower is made up of L-shaped angle-bars bolted together. Each of the two nearly rectangular sides of a tower consists of two L bars at its two edges, three L bars for cross-braces at right angles to the edges, and four diagonal braces also formed of L bars. The lower halves of the L bars at the edges of each side of a tower have sections of 3″ × 3″ × 1⁄4″, and the upper halves have sections of 3″ × 3″ × 3⁄16″. This last-named cross-brace and the other two cross-braces have a common section of 2″ × 11⁄2″ × 1⁄8″. For the lower set of diagonal braces the common section is 21⁄2″ × 2″ × 1⁄8″, and the upper set has a section of 2″ × 11⁄2″ × 1⁄8″ in each member.[316] At the level of the lowest cross-braces the two rectangular sides of a tower are tied together by one member of 2″ × 11⁄2″ × 1⁄8″ of L section and at right angles to the sides, and by two diagonal braces of 5⁄8″ round rod between the corners of the tower. On each of its two triangular sides a tower has four horizontal braces and three sets of diagonal braces. The two upper horizontal braces are of 2″ × 11⁄2″ × 1⁄8″ L section, and the lowest is the same, but the remaining horizontal brace has a section of 21⁄2″ × 2″ × 1⁄8″. Bars of 2″ × 11⁄2″ × 1⁄8″ L section are used for the two upper sets of diagonal braces, and bars of 21⁄2″ × 2″ × 1⁄8″ for the lower set. In addition to the cross-braces named, each triangular side of a tower near the top of the corner bars has two short cross-pieces with the common L section of 31⁄2″ × 31⁄2″ × 5⁄8″, one just above and the other just below the cross-arm of 4-inch pipe to hold it in place. At the bottom of each of the four corner bars of a tower a foot is formed[317] by riveting a piece of 3″ × 1⁄4″ L section and 15 inches long at right angles to the corner bar. On one corner bar of each tower there are two rows of steel studs for steps, one row being located in each flange of the L section. On the same flange these steps are two feet apart, but taking both flanges they are only one foot apart. Every part of each steel tower is heavily galvanized.
The regular steel tower used in this transmission stands 46 feet tall from its base to the top of the lower insulators, and 51 feet 3 inches to the top of the higher insulators. The bottom six feet of this tower is buried in the ground, so the tops of the insulators are approximately 40 feet and 45 feet 3 inches above the ground. At the base, the tower is 14 feet wide perpendicular to the transmission line and 12 feet wide parallel to it. At the top, each tower is 12 feet wide perpendicular to the line, and the two sides taper together at a point about 40 feet above the ground. Between the two L-shaped bars that are nearly touching on each side of the tower, a 3-inch heavy steel pipe is bolted in an upright position. Each piece of this pipe is about 3½ feet long and holds a steel insulator pin at its top. The two pipes fixed on opposite sides of the top of the tower support the two highest insulators. For the other four insulators on each tower, pins are attached to a standard 4-inch pipe that functions as a cross-arm, bolted horizontally between the two nearly rectangular sides of each tower, about two feet below the bolts holding the vertical 3-inch pipes in place. Aside from the two short vertical and one horizontal pipe, and the pins they hold, each tower is constructed of L-shaped angle bars bolted together. Each of the two nearly rectangular sides of a tower consists of two L bars along its edges, three L bars for cross-bracing at right angles to the edges, and four diagonal braces also made from L bars. The lower sections of the L bars on each side have dimensions of 3″ × 3″ × ¼″, while the upper sections have dimensions of 3″ × 3″ × ³/₁₆″. This last cross-brace and the other two cross-braces share a common section of 2″ × 1½″ × ⅛″. For the lower set of diagonal braces, the common dimension is 2½″ × 2″ × ⅛″, and the upper set has a dimension of 2″ × 1½″ × ⅛″ for each member. At the level of the lowest cross-braces, the two rectangular sides of a tower are connected by one member of 2″ × 1½″ × ⅛″ L section at right angles to the sides, and by two diagonal braces of ⅝″ round rod between the corners of the tower. Each triangular side of a tower has four horizontal braces and three sets of diagonal braces. The two upper horizontal braces are made of 2″ × 1½″ × ⅛″ L section, and the lowest one is the same, but the remaining horizontal brace has a dimension of 2½″ × 2″ × ⅛″. Bars of 2″ × 1½″ × ⅛″ L section are used for the two upper sets of diagonal braces, while bars of 2½″ × 2″ × ⅛″ are used for the lower set. In addition to the named cross-braces, each triangular side of a tower near the top of the corner bars has two short crosspieces with a common L section of 3½″ × 3½″ × ⅝″, one just above and the other just below the 4-inch pipe cross-arm to secure it. At the bottom of each of the four corner bars of a tower, a foot is created by riveting a piece of 3″ × ¼″ L section, 15 inches long, at a right angle to the corner bar. On one corner bar of each tower, there are two rows of steel studs for steps, with one row located in each flange of the L section. On the same flange, these steps are two feet apart, but when considering both flanges, they are only one foot apart. Every part of each steel tower is heavily galvanized.



Figs. 96, 97, 98.—Raising Towers on Niagara Transmission Line.
Figs. 96, 97, 98.—Building Towers on the Niagara Transmission Line.

Fig. 99.—One of the Towers in Position.
Fig. 99.—One of the Towers in Place.
The labor of erecting these steel towers was reduced to a low figure by the method employed, as shown in the accompanying illustration. Each tower was brought to the place where it was to stand with its[318] parts unassembled. For erecting the towers a four-wheel wagon with a timber body about thirty feet long was used. When it was desired to raise a tower, two of the wheels, with their axle, were detached from the timber body of the wagon, and this body was then stood on end to serve as a sort of derrick. This derrick was guyed at its top on the side away from the tower, and a set of blocks and tackle was then connected to the top of the derrick and to the tower at a point about one-fourth of the distance from its top. A rope from this set of blocks ran through a single block fixed to the base of the derrick and then to a team of horses. On driving these horses away from the derrick the steel tower was gradually raised on the two legs of one of its rectangular sides until it came to a vertical position. The next operation was to bring the legs of the tower into contact with the extension pieces that were fixed in the earth and then bolt them together.
The work of building these steel towers was made easier by the method used, as shown in the accompanying illustration. Each tower was brought to the location where it would stand with its parts unassembled. To erect the towers, a four-wheeled wagon with a timber body about thirty feet long was used. When it was time to raise a tower, two of the wheels, along with their axle, were removed from the wagon's timber body, and this body was then stood on end to act as a kind of derrick. This derrick was stabilized at the top on the side opposite the tower, and a set of pulleys and ropes was connected to the top of the derrick and to the tower about a quarter of the way down from its top. A rope from this pulley system ran through a single block fixed to the base of the derrick and then was attached to a team of horses. By driving the horses away from the derrick, the steel tower was gradually raised on the two legs of one of its rectangular sides until it stood upright. The next step was to bring the tower's legs into contact with the extension pieces that were secured in the ground and then bolt them together.

Fig. 100.—Steel Tower for Transmission Line.
Fig. 100.—Steel Tower for Power Line.
The tops of the three pins that carry the insulators for each three-phase circuit are at the corners of an equilateral triangle (Fig. 100), each of whose sides measures six feet. The six steel insulator pins used on each tower are exactly alike, and each is swaged from extra heavy pipe. Each finished pin is 23⁄8 inches in diameter for a length of 31⁄4 inches, and then tapers uniformly to a diameter of 11⁄8 inch at the top through a length of 111⁄2 inches. This gives the pin a total length of 143⁄4 inches. In the larger part there are two 9⁄16-inch holes from side to side, and within two inches of the top there are three circular grooves each 3⁄16 inch wide and 1⁄16 inch deep. Forged steel sockets of two types are employed to attach the steel pins with the pipes. Each socket is made in halves, and these halves are secured to both the pipe and the pin by through bolts. Like all other parts of the towers, these steel pins and[319] sockets are heavily galvanized. On each of the four corner bars of a tower the lower six feet of its length is secured to the upper part by bolts or rivets. This lower six feet of each corner bar is embedded in the earth, and the construction just named makes it easy to replace the bars in the earth when corrosion makes it necessary.
The tops of the three pins that hold the insulators for each three-phase circuit are at the corners of an equilateral triangle (Fig. 100), with each side measuring six feet. The six steel insulator pins used on each tower are identical, and each is made from extra heavy pipe. Each finished pin is 23⁄8 inches in diameter and 31⁄4 inches long, tapering uniformly to a diameter of 11⁄8 inches at the top over a length of 111⁄2 inches. This gives the pin a total length of 143⁄4 inches. In the wider part, there are two 9⁄16-inch holes from side to side, and about two inches from the top, there are three circular grooves, each 3⁄16 inch wide and 1⁄16 inch deep. Two types of forged steel sockets are used to attach the steel pins to the pipes. Each socket is made in two halves, which are secured to both the pipe and the pin using through bolts. Like all other parts of the towers, these steel pins and[319] sockets are heavily galvanized. On each of the four corner bars of a tower, the lower six feet of its length is secured to the upper part by bolts or rivets. This lower six feet of each corner bar is embedded in the ground, and this construction makes it easy to replace the bars in the ground when corrosion makes it necessary.
Footings for each tower are provided by digging four nearly square holes with their sides at approximately 45 degrees with the direction of the transmission line, and the shortest side of each hole at least two feet long. Centres of these holes are 14 feet 3 inches apart in a direction at right angles to the line, and 13 feet 9 inches apart parallel with the line. In hard-pan each one of the holes was filled to within 2 feet 6 inches of the top with stones, after the leg of the tower was in position, and then the remainder of the hole was filled with cement grouting mixed four to one.
Footings for each tower are created by digging four almost square holes with their sides at about 45 degrees to the direction of the transmission line, with the shortest side of each hole at least two feet long. The centers of these holes are 14 feet 3 inches apart perpendicular to the line and 13 feet 9 inches apart parallel to the line. In hard pan, each hole was filled to within 2 feet 6 inches from the top with stones, after the tower leg was in place, and then the rest of the hole was filled with cement grouting mixed four to one.
At the bottom of each hole in marsh land a wooden footing 3 feet × 6 inches × 24 inches was laid flat beneath the leg of the tower, and then the hole was filled to within 21⁄2 feet of the surface with the excavated material. Next above this filling comes a galvanized iron gutter-pipe, four inches in diameter, and filled with cement about the leg of the tower for a length of two feet. Outside of this pipe the hole is made rounding full of cement grouting.
At the bottom of each hole in the marshland, a wooden footing measuring 3 feet by 6 inches by 24 inches was laid flat under the leg of the tower, and then the hole was filled to within 21⁄2 feet of the surface with the excavated material. After this filling, a galvanized iron gutter pipe, four inches in diameter, was placed and filled with cement around the leg of the tower for a length of two feet. Outside of this pipe, the hole was filled completely with cement grout.

Fig. 101.—Transmission Line at Welland Canal.
Fig. 101.—Transmission Line at Welland Canal.
At some points along the transmission line exceptionally high towers are necessary, a notable instance being found at the crossing over the Welland Canal, where the lowest part of each span must not be less than 150 feet above the water. For this crossing two towers 135 feet high above ground are used, as seen in Fig. 101. Each of these towers is designed to carry all four of the three-phase power circuits that are eventually to be erected between Niagara Falls and Toronto. For this purpose there was used a special design of tower with a width of about 48 feet at right angles to the direction of the line below the top truss, and a width of about 68.5 feet at that truss where the two lower conductors of each circuit are attached.
At various points along the transmission line, very tall towers are needed, a key example being at the crossing over the Welland Canal, where the lowest part of each span has to be at least 150 feet above the water. For this crossing, two towers that are 135 feet high above the ground are used, as shown in Fig. 101. Each of these towers is designed to support all four of the three-phase power circuits that will eventually be set up between Niagara Falls and Toronto. For this, a special tower design was used, with a width of about 48 feet at right angles to the line just below the top truss, and a width of about 68.5 feet at that truss where the two lower conductors of each circuit are attached.
With all spans longer than 400 feet, a tower of heavier construction than the standard type is used, and this tower provides three insulators for the support of each conductor. A tower of this type that supports the lowest conductors about 40 feet above the ground level has its corner bars made up of 4″ × 4″ × 3⁄8″ and 4″ × 4″ × 5⁄16″ L sections, has three cross-arms of extra heavy 4-inch pipe, and a 6-inch vertical standard pipe to support each group of three insulators for the highest conductor of each circuit. Each of the lower conductors of a circuit on this tower is supported by an insulator on each of the three parallel cross-arms. On some of these towers, for long spans, the two outside insulators for the support of each conductor are set a little lower than the insulator between them.
With all spans longer than 400 feet, a stronger type of tower is used, providing three insulators to support each conductor. A tower of this kind that holds the lowest conductors about 40 feet above ground has corner bars made of 4″ × 4″ × 3⁄8″ and 4″ × 4″ × 5⁄16″ L sections, features three heavy-duty cross-arms made from 4-inch pipe, and uses a 6-inch vertical standard pipe to support each group of three insulators for the highest conductor of each circuit. Each of the lower conductors on this tower is held up by an insulator on each of the three parallel cross-arms. On some of these towers, especially for long spans, the two outside insulators that support each conductor are positioned slightly lower than the insulator in between them.

Fig. 102.—Heavy Tower at Credit River.
Fig. 102.—Sturdy Tower at Credit River.

Fig. 103.—Angle Tower Near Bronte.
Fig. 103.—Angle Tower by Bronte.
Angle towers, used where the line makes a large change in direction
at a single point, have three legs on each rectangular side, a width of
20 feet on each of these sides for some distance above the ground, and a
width of 27 feet 2 inches at the top. In these towers the two legs on[321]
[322]
the triangular side that is in compression are each made up of four
3″ × 3″ × 1⁄4″ L
sections joined by 11⁄2″ × 1⁄4″ lattices and rivets. Towers
of this sort are used near the Toronto terminal-station, where the line
changes 35 degrees at a single point, and near the crossing of Twelve-Mile
Creek, where the angular change of the line on a tower is 45 degrees.
Close to each terminal-station and division-house the transmission
line is supported by terminal towers. These towers differ
from the others in that each carries insulators for only three conductors,
and these insulators are all at the same level. Each terminal tower has
nine insulators, arranged in three parallel rows of three each for the conductors
of a single circuit, and each conductor thus has its strain distributed
between three pins. All three wires of a circuit are held 40 feet
above the ground by a terminal tower, and pass to their entries in the
wall of a station at the same level. As these terminal towers must resist
the end strain of the line, they are made extra heavy, the four legs each
being made up of 4″ × 4″ × 5⁄16″
and 4″ × 4″ × 3⁄8″ L sections. For the
three cross-arms on one of these towers three pieces of 4-inch pipe, each
15 feet 9 inches long, are secured at its top with their parallel centre
lines 30 inches apart in the same plane. Each of these pipes carries
three insulator pins with their centres 7 feet 41⁄2 inches apart. On the
bottom of each leg of a terminal tower there is a foot, formed by riveting
on bent plates, that measure 15 and 18 inches, respectively, on the two
longer sides. Each foot of this tower is set in a block of concrete 5 feet
square that extends from 3.5 feet to 7.5 feet below the ground level.
Angle towers, used where the line makes a significant change in direction at a single point, feature three legs on each rectangular side, measuring 20 feet in width on each side for some distance above the ground, and 27 feet 2 inches in width at the top. In these towers, the two legs on the triangular side under compression consist of four 3″ × 3″ × 1/4″ L sections connected by 1 1/2″ × 1/4″ lattices and rivets. Towers like this are found near the Toronto terminal station, where the line changes by 35 degrees at one point, and near the Twelve-Mile Creek crossing, where the line change at a tower is 45 degrees. Close to each terminal station and division house, the transmission line is supported by terminal towers. These towers differ from the others as each one carries insulators for only three conductors, all at the same level. Each terminal tower has nine insulators arranged in three parallel rows of three for the conductors of a single circuit, distributing the strain across three pins for each conductor. All three wires of a circuit are kept 40 feet above the ground by a terminal tower, leading to their entries in the station wall at the same level. Since these terminal towers must withstand the end strain of the line, they are constructed to be extra heavy, with each of the four legs made of 4″ × 4″ × 5/16″ and 4″ × 4″ × 3/8″ L sections. For the three cross-arms on one of these towers, three pieces of 4-inch pipe, each 15 feet 9 inches long, are secured at the top with their parallel centerlines 30 inches apart in the same plane. Each of these pipes holds three insulator pins with centers 7 feet 4 1/2 inches apart. At the bottom of each leg of a terminal tower, there is a foot formed by riveting bent plates, measuring 15 and 18 inches on the two longer sides. Each foot of this tower is set in a 5-foot square concrete block that extends from 3.5 feet to 7.5 feet below ground level.
Insulators for the transmission line, which are illustrated in Fig. 104, are of brown, glazed porcelain, made in three parts, and cemented together. The three parts consist of three petticoats or thimbles, each of which slips over or into one of the others, so that there are three outside surfaces and three interior or protected surfaces between the top of an insulator and its pin.
Insulators for the transmission line, which are shown in Fig. 104, are made of brown, glazed porcelain and consist of three interconnected parts. These parts include three petticoats or thimbles, with each one fitting over or into the other, creating three outer surfaces and three inner or protected surfaces between the top of the insulator and its pin.
From top to bottom the height of each insulator is 14 inches, and this is also the diameter of the highest and largest petticoat. The next or middle petticoat has a maximum diameter of 10 inches and the lowest petticoat one of 8 inches. Cement holds the lowest petticoat of the insulator on one of the steel pins previously described, and in this position the edge of the lowest petticoat is about 21⁄2 inches from the steel support. At the top of each insulator the transmission conductor is secured, and the shortest distance from this conductor to any of the steel parts through the air is about 17 inches.
From top to bottom, each insulator stands 14 inches tall, which is also the diameter of the largest and highest petticoat. The middle petticoat has a maximum diameter of 10 inches, while the lowest petticoat has a diameter of 8 inches. Cement secures the lowest petticoat of the insulator onto one of the steel pins mentioned earlier, and in this position, the edge of the lowest petticoat is about 21⁄2 inches away from the steel support. At the top of each insulator, the transmission conductor is attached, and the shortest distance from this conductor to any of the steel parts through the air is approximately 17 inches.
From the step-up transformer house at Niagara Falls to the terminal-station[323] at Toronto, a distance of seventy-five miles, each three-phase, 60,000-volt, 25-cycle circuit on the steel towers is made up of three hard-drawn copper cables with a cross section of 190,000 circular mils each, and is designed to deliver 12,000 electric horse-power with a loss of ten per cent, on a basis of 100 per cent power factor. Six equal strands of copper make up each cable, and this wire has been specially drawn with an elastic limit of more than 35,000 pounds and a tensile strength of over 55,000 pounds per square inch. This cable is made in uniform lengths of 3,000 feet, and these lengths are joined by twisting their ends together in copper sleeves, and no solder is used. No insulation is used on these cables.
From the step-up transformer station at Niagara Falls to the terminal station[323] in Toronto, a distance of seventy-five miles, each three-phase, 60,000-volt, 25-cycle circuit on the steel towers is composed of three hard-drawn copper cables, each with a cross-section of 190,000 circular mils, and is designed to deliver 12,000 electric horsepower with a 10 percent loss, based on a 100 percent power factor. Each cable consists of six equal strands of copper, specially drawn with an elastic limit of over 35,000 pounds and a tensile strength of over 55,000 pounds per square inch. These cables are made in uniform lengths of 3,000 feet, which are joined by twisting their ends together in copper sleeves, with no solder used. There is no insulation on these cables.

Fig. 104.—Insulators.
Fig. 104.—Insulators.
Instead of a tie-wire, a novel clamp is employed to secure the[324] copper cable on each insulator. This complete clamp is made up of two separate clamps that grasp the cable at opposite sides of each insulator and of two half-circles of hard-drawn copper wire of 0.187 inch diameter. Each half-circle of this wire joins one-half of each of the opposite clamps, and fits about the neck of the insulator just below its head. Two bronze castings, one of which has a bolt extension that passes through the other, and a nut, make up each separate clamp. When the combined clamp is to be applied, the sides are separated by removing the nut that holds them together, the half-circles are brought around the neck of the insulator, and each of the side clamps is then tightened on to the cable by turning the nut that draws its halves together. This complete clamp can be applied as quickly as a tie-wire, is very strong, and does not cut into the cable.
Instead of using a tie-wire, a new clamp is used to secure the[324] copper cable on each insulator. This clamp consists of two separate clamps that hold the cable on opposite sides of each insulator, along with two half-circles made of hard-drawn copper wire with a diameter of 0.187 inches. Each half-circle connects to one half of the opposite clamps and fits around the neck of the insulator just below its head. Each separate clamp is made of two bronze castings, one of which has a bolt extension that goes through the other, and a nut. To apply the combined clamp, the sides are separated by removing the nut that holds them together. The half-circles are wrapped around the neck of the insulator, and each side clamp is tightened onto the cable by turning the nut that pulls its halves together. This complete clamp can be applied as quickly as a tie-wire, is very strong, and doesn’t damage the cable.
Each of the regular steel towers is designed to withstand safely a side strain of 10,000 pounds at the insulators, or an average of 1,666 pounds per cable. With the 190,000-mil cable coated to a depth of 1⁄2 inch with ice and exposed to a wind blowing 100 miles per hour, the estimated strains on each steel pin for different spans and angular changes in the direction of the line are given in the accompanying table:
Each of the regular steel towers is designed to safely handle a side load of 10,000 pounds at the insulators, which averages out to 1,666 pounds per cable. With the 190,000-mil cable covered with ice to a depth of 1⁄2 inch and subjected to winds of 100 miles per hour, the expected strains on each steel pin for various spans and changes in the direction of the line are shown in the table below:
Pounds Strain on Pins, 1⁄2-inch Sleet, 100 Miles Wind.
Pounds of pressure on pins, ½-inch sleet, 100-mile-per-hour wind.
Span, feet. |
Degrees and Minutes. | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0.30 | 1 | 1.30 | 2 | 2.30 | 3 | 3.30 | 4 | 4.30 | 5 | 5.30 | 6 | |
0 | 0 | 35 | 69 | 104 | 138 | 173 | 207 | 242 | 276 | 311 | 345 | 380 | 414 |
100 | 256 | 291 | 325 | 360 | 394 | 429 | 463 | 498 | 532 | 567 | 601 | 636 | 670 |
200 | 512 | 547 | 581 | 616 | 650 | 685 | 719 | 754 | 788 | 823 | 857 | 892 | 926 |
300 | 768 | 803 | 837 | 872 | 906 | 941 | 975 | 1,010 | 1,044 | 1,079 | 1,113 | 1,148 | 1,182 |
400 | 1,024 | 1,059 | 1,093 | 1,128 | 1,162 | 1,197 | 1,231 | 1,266 | 1,300 | 1,335 | 1,369 | 1,404 | 1,438 |
500 | 1,280 | 1,315 | 1,349 | 1,384 | 1,418 | 1,453 | 1,487 | 1,522 | 1,556 | 1,591 | 1,625 | 1,660 | 1,694 |
600 | 1,536 | 1,571 | 1,605 | 1,640 | 1,674 | 1,709 | 1,743 | 1,778 | 1,812 | 1,847 | 1,881 | 1,916 | 1,950 |
700 | 1,792 | 1,827 | 1,861 | 1,896 | 1,930 | 1,965 | 1,999 | 2,034 | 2,068 | 2,103 | 2,137 | 2,172 | 2,206 |
800 | 2,048 | 2,083 | 2,117 | 2,152 | 2,186 | 2,221 | 2,255 | 2,290 | 2,324 | 2,359 | 2,393 | 2,428 | 2,462 |
900 | 2,304 | 2,339 | 2,373 | 2,408 | 2,442 | 2,477 | 2,511 | 2,546 | 2,580 | 2,615 | 2,649 | 2,684 | 2,718 |
1,000 | 2,560 | 2,595 | 2,629 | 2,664 | 2,698 | 2,733 | 2,767 | 2,802 | 2,836 | 2,871 | 2,905 | 2,940 | 2,974 |
The copper cables were so strung as to have a minimum distance from the ground of 25 feet at the lowest points of the spans. In order to do this the standard steel towers that hold the lower cables 40 feet above the ground level at the insulators are spaced at varying distances apart, according to the nature of the ground between them. At each tower the upper cable of each circuit is 5 feet 3 inches higher than the two lower cables, and this distance between the elevations of the upper and the lower cables is maintained whatever the[325] amount of sag at the centre of each span. If there is a depression between two standard towers on a straight portion of the line, the sag in the centre of a span 400 feet long may be as much as 18 feet. Where a rise and fall in the ground between towers make it necessary to limit the sag to 14 feet in order to keep the lowest cables 25 feet above the highest point of earth, the length of span is limited to 350 feet. If the rise and fall of ground level between towers allow a sag of only 11 feet with the lowest cable 25 feet above the earth, the length of span with 40-foot towers is reduced to 300 feet; and if for a like reason the sag is limited to 8 feet, the span may only be 250 feet.
The copper cables were arranged to maintain a minimum height of 25 feet above the ground at the lowest points of the spans. To achieve this, standard steel towers that support the lower cables 40 feet above ground level at the insulators are spaced at varying distances, depending on the terrain between them. At each tower, the upper cable of each circuit is 5 feet 3 inches higher than the two lower cables, and this height difference is kept consistent regardless of the[325] amount of sag in the middle of each span. If there’s a dip between two standard towers on a straight line, the sag in a 400-foot span can be as much as 18 feet. Where the ground rises and falls between towers requires limiting the sag to 14 feet to keep the lowest cables 25 feet above the highest point on the ground, the span length is restricted to 350 feet. If the changes in ground level only allow for a sag of 11 feet while keeping the lowest cable 25 feet above the ground, the span with 40-foot towers is reduced to 300 feet; and if the sag is limited to 8 feet for the same reason, the span can only be 250 feet.

Fig. 105.—Take-up Arrangement on Terminal Tower.
Fig. 105.—Take-up Setup on Terminal Tower.
At each terminal tower, where the cables are secured before they pass into a terminal-station, the three insulators for each cable are in a straight line with their centres, 30 inches apart. When a line cable reaches the first insulator of the three to which it is to be attached on one of these towers, it is passed around the neck of this insulator and then secured on itself by means of two clamps that are tightened with bolts and nuts. See Fig. 105. The cable thus secured turns up and back over the tops of the three insulators and goes to the terminal-station. Around the neck of the insulator to which the line cable has been secured in the way just outlined a short detached length of the regular copper cable with the parts of a turnbuckle at each end is passed, and this same piece of cable also passes around the neck of the next insulator in the series of three. By joining the ends of the turnbuckle and tightening it, a part of the strain of the line cable in question is transferred from the first to the second insulator of the series. In the same way a part of the strain of this same line cable is transferred from the second insulator of the series to the third, or one nearest to the terminal-station.
At each terminal tower, where the cables are anchored before going into a terminal station, the three insulators for each cable are aligned in a straight line with their centers 30 inches apart. When a line cable reaches the first insulator of the three to which it will be attached on one of these towers, it is wrapped around the neck of this insulator and then fastened to itself using two clamps that are tightened with bolts and nuts. See Fig. 105. The secured cable then turns up and back over the tops of the three insulators and heads to the terminal station. Around the neck of the insulator where the line cable has been secured, a short detached piece of the regular copper cable with turnbuckle parts on each end is looped, and this same piece of cable also wraps around the neck of the next insulator in the series of three. By connecting the ends of the turnbuckle and tightening it, part of the strain from the line cable is transferred from the first to the second insulator in the series. Similarly, part of the strain from this line cable is transferred from the second insulator to the third, which is closest to the terminal station.
INDEX.
- Air-blast cooled transformers, 129
- Air-gap data, 183
- Air gaps, number in series to stand given voltage, 183
- Albany-Hudson Ry. Plant, 121
- Alternating currents, 227
- Alternator voltage, 118
- Alternators, 103
- data, 118
- for high voltage, 120
- inductor, 112
- types of, 111
- Aluminum as a conductor, 200, 209
- cables in use, 213
- conductor joints, 206
- conductors, 27, 28
- corrosion of, 211
- properties of, 212
- soldered joints, 206
- vs. copper, 209
- wire, cost of, 29
- Amoskeag Mfg. Co. plant, 51, 52
- Amsterdam (N. Y.) plant, 121
- Anchor ice, 59
- Anderson (S. C.) plant, 121
- Apple River (Minn.) plant, 1, 26, 27, 28, 71, 97, 98, 99, 102, 118, 119, 124, 126, 127, 134, 174, 187, 190, 192, 208, 245, 264, 294
- Arc lighting, 167
- Arcing, 46
- Automatic regulators, 162
- Barbed wire, 169, 175
- Belt drive, 83, 107
- Bienne plant (Switzerland), 42
- Birchem Bend, 57, 67, 79, 95, 97, 98, 102
- Blower capacity necessary to cool transformers, 130
- Boosters, 133
- Boston-Worcester Ry. plants, 121
- Braces for cross-arms, 259
- Bronze conductors, 200
- Brush discharge, 281
- Buchanan (Mich.) plant, 88
- Building materials, 95
- Bulls Bridge plant, 63
- Burrard Inlet (B. C.) plant, 111, 112
- Bus-bars, 142, 147
- dummy, 145
- Cable insulation, 195
- sheaths, 194
- ways, 140
- Cables, aluminum, 212
- aluminum, in use, 213
- charging current, 197
- cost of, 188, 196
- for alternating current, 194
- high-voltage, 191
- paper insulated, 196
- protection against electrolysis, 195
- rubber-covered, 195
- submarine, 192
- temperature of, 198
- voltage in, 190, 196
- Canadian-Niagara Falls Power Co., 121
- Canals, 51, 53
- long, 68
- Cañon City plant, 26, 27, 28, 117, 118, 127, 208
- Cañon Ferry plant, 1, 3, 26, 27, 28, 46, 49, 53, 62, 68, 69, 83, 89, 94, 95, 97, 102, 105, 112, 113, 118, 119, 124, 125, 126, 127, 130, 132, 134, 174, 208, 233, 234, 245, 246, 249, 254, 257, 259, 268, 272, 280, 282, 294, 295, 302
- Cedar Lake plant, 90
- Chambly plant, 96, 110, 149, 156, 172, 189, 249, 255, 256, 257, 267, 272, 287, 294, 295, 311, 312
- Charging current for cable[328], 197
- Charring of pins, 276, 278
- Chaudière Falls plant, 118
- Choke-coil used with lightning arresters, 180
- Circuit breakers, 135, 150
- breakers, time limit, 152
- Circuits, selection of, 233
- Coal, price of, in Salt Lake City, 8
- Colgate plant, 1, 3, 26, 27, 28, 74, 82, 83, 90, 94, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 108, 112, 113, 118, 127, 130, 132, 134, 187, 190, 201, 206, 208, 213, 245, 246, 250, 254, 257, 272, 277, 280, 282, 294, 295, 304, 309
- Columbus (Ga.) plant, 83, 115
- Compounding, 160
- Compressive strength of woods, 302
- Conductivity of the conductor metals, 201
- Conductors, 200
- aluminum, 27, 28, 206
- aluminum, properties of, 212
- coefficients of expansion, 200
- corrosion of, 211
- cost of, 22, 29, 203, 204, 205
- cost of aluminum, 29
- cost of per k. w., 28
- cost of copper, 29
- data, 204
- data from representative transmission plants, 208
- expansion of aluminum and copper, 211
- melting points, 200
- minimum size for transmission line, 202
- properties of ideal, 200
- relative conductivity, 201
- relative cost of, 20
- relative properties for equal lengths and resistances, 204
- relative strengths for given area, 203
- relative weight for given conductivity, 202
- relative weight of, 202
- relative weights of three-phase, two-phase, and single-phase lines, 220
- resistance of, 225
- skin effect, 206, 233
- weight per k. w., 27
- Conduits, 195
- radiation loss in, 198
- temperature rise in, 198
- Constant current regulator, 167
- transformer, 167
- Control equipment for d. c. and a. c. plants, 35
- Copper conductors, 200
- cost of, 22
- vs. aluminum, 209
- wire, cost of, 29
- Corrosion of conductors, 211
- Cross-arm braces, 258
- iron, 284
- location of, 257
- material, 258
- Cross-arms, 49, 256
- Crossings, 187
- Dales plant (White River), 26, 27, 28, 71, 134, 208
- Dams, 62
- Delta connection, 131
- Depreciation, 11
- Design of power-plant, 83
- Dike, 60
- Direct connection, 84
- Discharge, static, 170
- Distribution system, 158
- Draught tubes, 79
- Dummy bus-bars, 145
- Easton (Pa.) plant, 121
- Edison Co. (Los Angeles) plant, 118
- Efficiency constant-current transmission, 216
- curves, motor-generator set, 117
- of constant-voltage transmission, 217
- of transformers, 133
- relative, of a. c. and d. c. transmission, 35
- Electra plant[329], 1, 3, 74, 82, 83, 92, 94, 97, 98, 101, 102, 108, 112, 113, 118, 127, 174, 206, 208, 212, 213, 233, 235, 236, 245, 248, 253, 254, 256, 259, 272, 275, 277, 280, 281, 282, 294, 295
- Electric power, market for, 7
- Electrical Development Co., Niagara plant, 120
- Electricity vs. gas, 6
- Electrolysis, 195
- Energy curves of hydro-electric stations, 13
- electrical, cost of at switchboard, 23
- Entrance end strain, 261, 325
- insulating discs, 262
- into buildings, 179
- of lines, 179, 261, 265
- through roof, 269
- wall openings, 262
- Entries for transmission lines, 261
- Expansion, coefficient of, for copper and aluminum, 211
- coefficients of, for various conductor metals, 200
- Farmington River (Conn.) plant, 26, 27, 28, 58, 118, 125, 134, 208, 212, 213, 245
- Feeders, 143
- Ferranti cables, 192
- Fire-proofing, 95
- Floor, distance from roof to, 95
- location of, 79
- space, 12, 101, 102
- space per k. w. of generators, 12
- Floors, 95
- Fog, 46, 277
- Fore-bay, 59, 60
- Foundations, 95
- Frequency, 113, 127
- effect on transformer cost, 116
- Fuel, price of, in Salt Lake City, 8
- Fuses, 135, 150
- Garvins Falls plant, 56, 60, 79, 80, 94, 96, 97, 102, 113, 145, 240, 294
- Gas vs. electricity, 6
- Gears, 84, 108
- Generators (a. c.), 103
- d. c. vs. a. c., 31
- Generators, belt-driven, 107
- capacity of, 32
- compounding of, 160
- cost of, 40
- (a. c.) cost, 32
- (a. c.) data, 118
- direct-connected to horizontal turbines, 89
- to impulse wheels, 90
- connection to vertical shafts, 84
- (d. c.) field excitation of, 41
- floor space, 101
- per k. w., 12
- gear-driven, 108
- (a. c.) high-voltage, 120
- (d. c.) in series, 31
- (d. c.) installation of, 41
- insulation of, 39, 45
- lightning protection, 34
- limiting voltage of, 44
- (a. c.) limiting voltage of, 32
- (d. c.) limiting voltage of, 31
- overload capacity, 103
- relation between voltage and capacity, 127
- revolving armatures, 112
- fields, 112
- series-wound, 41
- speed regulation, 38
- Glass vs. porcelain insulators, 288
- Great Falls plant, 54, 60, 61, 64, 67, 78, 92, 93, 102, 114, 118
- Greggs Falls plant, 54, 56, 64, 240
- Ground connections, 178
- for guard wires, 171, 172
- Grounded guard wires, 168
- Guard wires, 168
- installation of, 175
- Guying of poles, 255
- Hagneck (Switzerland) plant, 86
- Hooksett Falls plant, 56, 131
- Hydro-electric plants, 1
- built at the dam, 64-67
- canals, long, 68-73
- long and short, 58
- short[330], 53-56
- capacity and weight of conductors per k. w. for various plants, 27
- (800 k. w.) cost of, 10
- (1500 k. w.) cost of, 11
- cost of labor, 12
- cost of operation, 12, 77
- design of, 83
- floor, 79
- space per k. w., 101
- interest and depreciation, 11
- linked together, 56-58
- load factors, 14, 15
- location of, 64
- model design, 12
- operation, 59
- vs. steam plant, 5, 12
- with pipe-lines, 73-77
- with steam auxiliary, 84
- Ice, 59
- Impulse wheel speed, 108
- wheels, 82, 90
- location of, 99
- Indian Orchard plant, 57, 84
- Inductance, 206, 230
- Induction, electro-magnetic, electrostatic, 168
- on lines, 206
- regulator, 162
- Inductor alternators, 112
- Insulation, as affected by ozone, 197
- cost of paper vs. rubber, 196
- of a. c. and d. c. lines, 34
- of apparatus, 142
- of cables, 195
- of electrical machines, 45
- of generators, 39
- protection against ozone, 198
- Insulator arc-over test, 291
- -pins, 270 (see Pins)
- Insulators, 277, 282, 287, 322
- and pins, data from various plants, 280
- defective, 288
- glass vs. porcelain, 288
- in snow, 293
- method of fastening to iron pins, 271
- novel clamp, 323
- on various transmission lines, 294
- petticoats, 294
- testing of, 288
- tests, 290
- test voltage, 289
- with oil, 287
- Iron conductors, 200
- Kelley’s Falls plant, 56
- Kelvin’s law, 219
- Labor, cost of, 12
- in hydro-electric stations, 12
- Leakage, 275, 287
- line, 207, 214
- Lewiston (Me.) plant, 118, 120, 122, 167, 213
- Lighting, incandescent, minimum frequency, 116
- series distribution, 167
- Lightning arrester, effect of series resistance, 185
- arresters, 168, 176
- ground connection, 178
- multiple air-gap, 176, 183
- non-arcing metals in, 184
- series connection of, 180
- shunted air-gaps, 185
- with choke coil, 180
- protection, 34
- Line calculations, 221-232
- charging current, 197
- conductors, 200
- conductors, cost of, 22
- weight of, 21
- construction, 222
- cost, 310
- cross-arms, 49
- spacing of wires, 46
- (a. c.) transmission, 34
- (d. c.) transmission, 33
- end strain, 325
- leakage, 47
- loss, 39
- losses due to grounded guard wires, 176
- Lines, sag[331], 309
- transposition of, 314
- Line voltages, 45
- Load factors, 14, 15
- lighting, 61
- maximum, 60
- motor, 160
- railway, 164
- Loss in conduits, 198
- relation to weight of conductors, 215
- Losses due to grounded guard wire, 176
- on transmission lines, 215
- Ludlow Mills plant, 26, 27, 28, 57, 79, 100, 121, 208, 213
- Madrid (N. M.) plant, 26, 27, 28, 118, 208
- Manchester (N. H.) plants, 120
- Market for electric power, 7
- Materials, building, 95
- for line-conductors, 200
- Mechanicsville plant, 58, 67, 109, 121, 174
- Melting points of conductor metals, 200
- Montmorency Falls plant, 26, 27, 28, 240
- Motor load, 160
- Motor-generator set efficiency curve, 117
- Motors, series-wound, 41
- (d. c.) speed regulation, 38
- synchronous, 241
- Multiple air-gap arrester, 176
- Needle-point spark-gap for measuring pressure, 290
- Neversink River plant, 75, 179
- Niagara Falls Power Co., 3, 59, 81, 86, 87, 93, 94, 95, 97, 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 112, 113, 117, 118, 119, 127, 133, 137, 140, 143, 145, 151, 153, 161, 165, 170, 181, 188, 194, 195, 208, 211, 240, 245, 246, 257, 272, 273, 275, 280, 287, 289, 294, 295, 297
- Nitric acid from air, 281
- Non-arcing metals, 184
- North Gorham (Me.) plant, 120
- Ogden (Utah) plant, 26, 27, 28, 118, 120, 132, 134, 208, 245
- Ohm’s law, 223
- Oil switches, 136
- Ontario Power Co., 121
- Operating expenses, 59
- Operation, cost of, 12, 77
- Operations, reliability of, 311
- Ouray (Col.) plant, 121
- Overhead line connection to underground, 197
- Overload capacity of generators, 103
- Ozone, 197
- Painting of poles, 255
- Paper insulated cables, 196
- vs. rubber insulation, 196
- Payette River (Idaho) plant, 73, 101
- Penstocks, 59, 98
- Phase, 113
- Pike’s Peak plant, 77
- Pilot wires, 161
- Pins, 259, 270
- and insulators, data from various plants, 280
- burning of, 270, 276, 278
- charring of, 276, 278
- composite, 281
- compressive strength of woods, 302
- design of, 298
- dimensions of, 301
- formula for diameter of, 299
- iron, 275, 285, 286
- expansion of, 290
- method of fastening insulators, 271
- method of fastening to cross-arms, 271
- metal, 271, 275, 282, 285, 286
- of uniform strength, 300, 302
- proportions, 301
- relative cost of metal and wooden, 284
- shank, 274
- shoulder, 275, 299, 305
- softening of threads, 280
- steel, 275, 312
- strain with 1⁄2-inch sleet and 100-mile wind for different spans, 324
- strains on[332], 270, 298
- strength of, 303
- table of standard, 301
- treatment of, 259, 275
- weakest point, 298
- wooden, data from various plants, 272
- dimensions of, 272
- dimensions of standard, 273
- Pipe-lines, 73
- Pittsfield (Mass.) plant, 121
- Pole line, cost of, 21
- lightning arresters, 179
- relative cost of, 20
- lines, 246
- Poles, cost, 310
- depth in ground, 254
- diameter of, 254
- dimensions of, 254
- guying of, 255
- iron, 284
- length of, 253, 309
- life of, 255
- setting of, 252
- spacing of, 249
- steel, cost of, 307
- treatment of, 255
- woods for, 252
- Porcelain vs. glass insulators, 288
- Portland (Me.) plant, 120, 166, 239
- Portsmouth, N. H. plant (steam), 102, 118, 119, 120, 121, 144, 194, 264, 294
- Power plant, relative cost of a. c. and d. c., 36
- transmitted, total cost of, 24
- Radiation loss in conduits, 198
- Railway crossing, 187, 252
- service, 164
- Red Bridge plant, 53, 60, 79, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 101, 102
- Regulation, 155, 239
- as effected by synchronous motors, 165
- at receiving end, 162
- hand, 161
- Regulator, automatic, 162
- constant-current, 167
- induction, 162
- Relay-switches, 145
- Resistance, 225
- in series with lightning arrester, 185
- Revolving armature alternators, 112
- field alternator, 112
- River crossings, 187, 190, 249
- Roof, distance from floor, 95
- Roofs, 95
- Rope-drive, 83
- Rotaries, cost of, 117
- suitable frequency for, 115
- Rubber-covered cables, 195
- maximum temperature, 198
- protection against ozone, 198
- Sag in lines, 309
- St. Hyacinthe (Que.) plant, 118
- St. Joseph plant, 66
- St. Maurice plant (Switzerland), 31
- Salem (N. C.) plant, 121, 122
- San Gabriel Cañon plant, 26, 27, 28, 208
- Santa Ana plant, 1, 26, 27, 28, 74, 76, 82, 83, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 208, 245, 263, 280, 281, 294, 295, 296
- Sault Ste. Marie plant, 72, 83, 85, 89, 97, 102, 104, 105, 112, 113, 117, 118, 120, 127
- Scott system, 132
- Series distribution, 167
- machines, 41
- Sewall’s Falls plant, 26, 27, 28, 155
- Shawinigan Falls plant, 1, 70, 71, 107, 116, 117, 163, 164, 166, 209, 212, 213, 235, 236, 242, 245, 267, 272, 273, 280, 282, 294, 295, 296
- Sheaths for cables, 194
- Shunted air-gaps, 185
- Skin effect, 206, 232
- Snoqualmie Falls plant, 3, 4
- map of transmission lines, 4
- Snow, 293
- Soldered joints, 206
- Spacing of poles, 249
- of wire, 234
- Spans, long, 190, 250
- strains for different lengths, 324
- Sparking distances, 182
- voltages[333], 182
- Speed, peripheral, of impulse wheels, 108
- peripheral of turbines, 85, 103
- regulation, 38, 42
- d. c. motors, 38
- Spier Falls plant, 1, 2, 3, 54, 58, 61, 62, 68, 91, 94, 98, 124, 126, 127, 130, 141, 142, 146, 161, 174, 236, 237, 243, 244, 245, 250, 253, 266, 280, 285, 287, 289, 291, 294, 295, 296, 312
- Star connection, 131
- Static discharges, 170
- Steam and water-power station combined, 84
- electric plant, cost of labor, 12
- cost of operation, 12
- floor area per k. w., 102
- vs. water-power, 5
- Steel towers, 306
- Storage capacity, 15
- Strains on insulation as affected by resistance in series with arrester, 185
- Stray currents, protection against, 195
- Submarine cables, 187, 192, 194
- Sub-station, arrangement of apparatus, 128
- Sub-stations, 157, 237
- Surges, 136
- Switchboard, 156
- wiring, 146, 148, 149
- Switches, 135, 244
- arcing of, 135
- electrically operated, 140
- long break, 135
- oil, 136
- open-air, 136
- pneumatically operated, 140
- power operated, 138
- relay, 145
- Switch-houses, 141, 142, 238, 244
- Switching, 146
- high-tension, 147
- Synchronous converters, 115
- cost, 117
- motors, 165, 241
- Tail-race, 96
- Telephone, 161
- Telluride plant, 47, 160, 169, 181
- Temperature of cables, 198
- rise in conduits, 198
- Tensile strength of conductor metals, 201
- Time-limit circuit-breaker, 152
- Time relays, 152, 153
- Towers, 250, 306
- angle, 320
- cost, 310
- dimensions, 314
- erection of, 316-319
- heavy, 320
- reliability of operation, 311
- spans, 313
- steel, cost, 307, 308
- steel pins, 312
- strain on, 324
- Transformers, 122
- air-blast vs. water-cooled, 129
- artificially cooled, 129
- at sub-stations, 125
- blower capacity necessary to cool, 130
- constant-current, 167
- cooling, quantity of water necessary, 129
- cost, 21, 116, 124, 134
- cost of operation, 129
- cost of, relative, 20
- delta and star connections, 131
- efficiency, 133
- frequency, effect of, 116
- insulation, 45
- in transmission systems, 134
- limiting voltage for, 32
- location of, 97
- polyphase, 124
- regulation, 125
- reserve, 149
- secondary, in series, 131
- single-phase, 124
- two- to three-phase, 132
- used to compensate drop, 133
- used to regulate voltage, 162
- voltages, 45
- when to use, 122
- Transmission, constant-current, 38, 216
- constant-voltage[334], 40, 217
- continuous-current, 31, 32
- control equipment, 35
- cost of, 19, 40, 222
- (d. c.) cost of, 40
- efficiency, 35, 41
- first long line, 37
- frequency, 113
- generator end, 103
- lightning protection, 34
- limiting voltage, 44
- lines, arcing, 46
- calculation of, 221-232
- charging current, 197
- construction, 222
- cost, 310
- cross-arms, 49, 256
- crossings, 187, 190
- data from various plants, 245
- effect of length on cost, 20
- effect of length on cost of power, 24
- efficiency, 22, 24
- end strain at entries, 325
- entrance to buildings, 179, 261
- inductance, 206
- induction, 168
- insulation, 34
- insulators (see Insulators), 287
- insulator-pins (see Pins), 270
- interest, maintenance and depreciation, 22
- leakage, 47, 207, 214
- length of, capacity of, population supplied, 8
- lightning arresters (see Lightning Arresters), 179
- lightning protection, 118
- long spans, 190
- loss, 22, 39
- losses, 215
- maximum investment in, 220
- method of fastening conductors to insulators, 323
- operation, 311
- pole spacing, 249
- regulation with synchronous motors, 241
- relative weights of three-phase, two-phase, and single-phase, 228
- right-of-way, 246
- sag in, 309
- spacing of wire, 234
- steel towers (see Towers), 306
- switch-houses, 238
- switches, fuses, and circuit-breakers, 135
- take up, arrangement for, 325
- total cost of, 22
- total cost of operation, 23
- transposition of wires, 206, 314
- voltage, 21, 215
- in cables, 190
- regulation, 130
- wind pressure, 210
- long line, 221
- minimum-sized wire, 202
- physical limits of, 44
- a. c. pole line construction, 34
- d. c. pole line construction, 33
- pole lines, 246
- problems, 19
- regulation, 155, 239
- selection of circuits, 233
- single vs. parallel circuits, 241
- spacing of conductors, 46
- submarine, 187
- three-phase, 113
- three-phase and two-phase, 228
- two-phase, 113
- underground, 187
- without step-up transformers, 120
- Transposition of wires, 206
- Turbines, high-speed, 107
- horizontal, 79, 83, 89, 97
- impulse, 82, 90, 99
- speed of, 108
- low-head good speed, 105
- peripheral, speed of, 85, 103
- pressure, 79
- several on same shaft, 85, 105
- vertical[335], 79, 84, 85, 86, 97
- Underground cable connected to overhead line, 197
- cables, 187
- Victor (Colo.) plant, 26, 27, 28, 208
- Virginia City plant, 118
- Voltage drop compensation, 133
- fluctuations, 218
- high, alternators, 120
- measurements, 290
- in cables, 190, 196
- limiting, 44
- for a. c. machines, 32
- for d. c. machines, 31
- of transmission lines, 21, 215
- regulation, 130, 155
- sparking, 182
- test for insulators, 289
- Volts per mile, 26
- Wages paid attendants, 12
- Walls, 95
- Washington & Baltimore Ry., 121
- Washouts, 81
- Water-cooled transformers, 129
- Water-power, development of, 51
- high head, 74-77
- low head, 51-74
- per cent. of energy available, 16
- pure hydraulic development, 51
- stations (see Hydro-electric Stations)
- storage capacity, 15, 61
- utilization of, 10
- vs. steam, 5
- Water, storage of, 15, 61
- Weight of the conductor metals, 202
- Welland Canal plant, 1, 26, 27, 28, 208, 245, 248
- Westbrook (Me.) plant, 120
- White River to Dales plant, 26, 27, 28, 71, 134
- Wind, 324
- pressure on lines, 210
- Winooski River plant, 64
- Wire room, 139
- Wood, compressive strength of, 302
- Woods for poles, 252
- Yadkin River (N. C.) plant, 26, 27, 28, 118, 208
Transcriber’s Notes
This transcription uses the text of the original work. Inconsistencies (e.g., per cent. and per cent; Chambly and Chamblay; Garvin’s and Garvins Falls; 1-0 and 1/0 B. & S. gauge; hyphenation; capitalisation; use of italics, etc.) have been retained, except as mentioned below. Some of the calculations in the book give different results to the ones provided; these have not been corrected.
This transcription uses the text from the original work. Inconsistencies (e.g., per cent. and per cent; Chambly and Chamblay; Garvin’s and Garvins Falls; 1-0 and 1/0 B. & S. gauge; hyphenation; capitalization; use of italics, etc.) have been kept, except as mentioned below. Some calculations in the book yield different results than those provided; these have not been corrected.
The symbol ∩ has been used to represent an upside-down U.
The symbol ∩ has been used to represent an inverted U.
In this book, “cm.” stands for circular mils, not for centimeters.
In this book, “cm.” means circular mils, not centimeters.
Where the illustrations do not provide sufficient detail, links to larger images have been provided (not available in all formats).
Where the illustrations lack enough detail, links to larger images are included (not available in all formats).
Page 76, Fig. 16: the text in the centre of the illustration probably reads 1200 feet Pipe Line.
Page 76, Fig. 16: the text in the center of the illustration probably reads 1200 feet Pipe Line.
Page 111: between figures 44 and 46 the original book has figure 51a; the numbering has not been changed.
Page 111: between figures 44 and 46, the original book has figure 51a; the numbering has not changed.
Changes made:
Changes made:
Obvious minor typographical and punctuation errors have been corrected silently.
Obvious minor typos and punctuation errors have been corrected quietly.
Fractions have been standardised to x⁄y; all occurrences of vs. have been italicised.
Fractions have been standardized to x⁄y; all instances of vs. have been italicized.
Table of Contents: the Index has been added.
Table of Contents: the Index has been added.
page 15: table header changed to small caps as others
page 15: table header changed to small caps like the others
page 31: Electrical transmission changed to Electrical transmissions
page 31: Electrical transmissions changed to Electrical transmissions
page 56: Canon changed to Cañon
page 56: Canon changed to Cañon
page 77: Tlaluepantla changed to Tlalnepantla
page 77: Tlaluepantla changed to Tlalnepantla
page 312: Teluride changed to Telluride
page 312: Teluride changed to Telluride
page 332: Canon changed to Cañon.
page 332: Canon changed to Cañon.
Download ePUB
If you like this ebook, consider a donation!