Use of AAAC in a distribution

network a strategy for energy

and cost reduction

Maximisation of power generation exploiting the available potential is the aim

of any developing country nowadays. With demand for power increasing
every year, it is not sufficient to augment power generation alone. Emphasis
should also be given to properly and judiciously transmitting and distributing
the available power to the consumers with the least possible loss in the lines.
In this context, use of all aluminium alloy conductor in the distribution lines,
especially in coastal areas, is a convenient energy-saving tool and an answer to
cost reduction also.

by S. R. Krishnamurthy and I?Selvan

Introduction
The problem of high energy losses in
distribution networks has been engaging the
attention of the power utilities in India and
particularly by Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
which generates, transmits and distributes
electric power in Tamil Nadu, South India.
In the power network of Tamil Nadu Grid,
various types of aluminium conductors [all
aluminium conductor (AAC), aluminium
conductor steel reinforced (ACSR)] are used
for extra high voltage, high voltage and low
voltage lines to transmit and distribute the
electric power. In the distribution network,
supply is extended to widely scattered
industrial, agricultural and domestic
consumers and also caters for the public
lighting requirements, in urban and rural
areas. Because of this, line losses in both
transmission and distribution networks, have
increased considerably. Moreover, damage
to the ACSR conductor caused in coastal and
industrial areas, by galvanic corrosion,
invariably results in their replacement within
a period of two years, forcing a financial
burden and frequent outage of lines resulting
in loss of revenue in the power utility, besides
wastage of man-hours and materials due t o
replacement and likelihood of accident
owing to failure of conductors.
To overcome the corrosion problem and
also t o reduce line losses, Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board carried out a study on the
problem and tried all aluminium alloy
conductor (AAAC) in the distribution
network, especially in coastal area t o combat
the effect of the saline atmosphere and in an
industrial area to encounter the chemical
pollution. It was concluded that AAAC
possesses subtle advantages over the
conventional ACSR and AAC.
What is M A C ?
AAAC is made of aluminium, magnesium
and silicon alloy. It is a heat-treatable
aluminium alloy and, through this treatment,
POWER ENGINEERING JOURNAL JUNE 1995

it attains considerable strength. It has the

following merits:
Excellent corrosion resistance, especially
in coastal (saline) areas and in chemically
polluted industrial area.
High strength/weight ratio. The span
length can be increased by between 2%
and 15%, resulting in saving of
towers/supports and other accessories.
High durability. The life of the conductor
is longer than ACSR and AAC.
High ampacity. It can carry 8% extra
current on the line for an equal
temperature rise of the equivalent size of
ACSR conductor.
Lower power-losses. Due to the lower AC
resistance of M A C , compared to that of
equivalent ACSR, the power loss is less.
Due t o absence of steel core in the
conductor, there are no magnetic losses
due to electromagnetic effects.
Table 1

Electrical properties of AAAC at Marakkanam

exposure
duration

strand
number

average diameter
(mm)

resistance
at 2O"Ukm

average conductivity
WACS

1'12 years
exposed

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

3 40
3 39
3 34
3 38
3 38
3 38
3 38

3 644
3 664
3 816
3 882
3 740
3 682
3 664

51 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

3 39
3 37
3 39
3 37
3 37
3 37
3 38

3 622
3 622
3 600
3 650
3 698
3 650
3 600

52 9

3 390
3 380
3-390
3.385
3.400
3.375
3.400

3 614
3 653
3.682
3-643
3.624
3.624
3.672

2 years
exposed

3 years
exDosed

2
3
4

5
6
7

52.5

133

Table 2

Electrical properties of ACSR a t Marakkanam

exposure
duration

strand
number

average diameter
(mm)

resistance
at 2O"Vkm

1'1: years
exposure

1
2
3
4
5
6

2 16
2 17
2 15
2 16
2 17
2 17

8.998
8 836
9.440
9.440
8 950
9 386

2
2
2
2
2

9 432
9 480
9 612
10 104
9716
broken

2 years
expored

2
3
4
5
6

3 years
exposed

Table 3
exposure
duration

1 /.years
exposed

2 years
exposed

3 years
exposed

1
2
3
4
5
6

exposure
duration

1 'h years
exposed

strand average diameter

number
(mm)

ultimate average ultimate calculated

breaking
tensile
breaking load
load (kN)
strength
as per IS 398
(Nlmm)
(kN)

16 52

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

3 39
3-38
3.39
3.37
3.37
3.37
3.38

2-50
2-42
2.22
2.49
2-45
2.41
2-26

267

15.9

1
2
3
4
5
6

3 40
3 38
3 39
3 39
3.40
3-38
3-39

2 29
2 40
2 18
196
2.28
2-23
2.33

248

14.87

Mechanical properties of ACSR

2
3
4
6
7

steel core

134

55.4

277

3
4
5
6
7

steel core

8.334
8.662
8-654
8-430
8.547
broken

(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)

2 48
2 42
2 51
2 50
2 53
2 45
2.50

2 vears
eiposed

3 years
exposed

48 9

3 40
3 39
3 34
3 38
3 38
3 38
3.38

strand average diameter

number
(mm)

2
3
4
5
6
7

ultimate average ultimate

calculated
tensile
breaking load
breaking
load (kN)
strength
as per 15.398
(Nlmm)
(kN)

2.1 6
2-17
2.15
2.16
2.17
2.1 7
2-22

0-46
0.51
0.43
0.42
0.42
0-48
5-50

2.17
2 16
2 18
2 14
2-14
2-15
2.18

0.34
0 26
0 37
0 15
0-23
broken
5.2 1

74

2 15
2 15
2 18
2 16
2 16

0 27
0 15
0 21
0 37
0 15
broken
5 33

63

2 12

6 It is hard to cut and impossible to recycle.

Due to the presence of alloy elements, the
conductor cannot be subjected to melting
and hence is not prone to theft.
7 Surface hardness: twice that of
aluminium strands and hence less prone
to damage and scratches during
stringing.
The technical specification of the AAAC is
given below:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

5
steel core

2-145
2.150
2.175
2-160
2.155

51.8

Mechanical properties of AAAC

7
Table 4

17
16
18
14
14

average conductivity
%IACS

125

7.56

1421

Conductor size
: 7/3.35 mm
Sectional area
: 61.70mm2
Overall diameter
: 10.05 mm
Breaking load
: 1758 kg
: 169 kg/km
Weight
DC resistance at 20C : 0.5335 Q/km

Research study
The Research & Development wing of
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board performed a
research study to find out the suitability of
AAAC in the Tamil Nadu coastal areas where
the impact of the saline atmosphere and
chemically polluted environment is high. The
following two locations on the Tamil Nadu
coast were selected for the study:

(i) Tuticorin coastal region:

(a) Saline atmosphere
(b)Chemically polluted industrial
environment.
(ii) Marakkanam coastal region:
(a) Saline atmosphere only.
During September 1986,30 km of M A C was
erected at Tuticorin coastal region in the
22 kV line. Another 20 km of AAAC was
erected in Marakkanam coastal region in the
low-voltage line.
In order to have a comparative study,
AAAC was used in two phases and ACSR in
one phase of the line. From both the
locations, sample lengths of AAAC and ACSR
were taken (approximately 1 m in length) and
sent to the Regional Research Laboratory,
Bhopal, India, at intervals of six months for
conducting various tests over a three-year
period.
The following investigations were carried
out on the samples:

(i) visual examination

(ii) analysis of corrosion products
(iii) metallography
(iv) electrical properties
(v) mechanical properties.
The test results obtained for the conductors
erected at Tuticorin and Marakkanam areas
are given in Tables 1-4 and Figs. 1-6.

(11Visual exarn/nat/on
1510

5 54

On visual examination (see Figs. 1-4) of the

samples of ACSR conductor, severe corrosion
was noticed throughout the conductor after
three years of exposure. There were breaks in

POWER ENGINEERING JOURNAL JUNE 1995

strands with heavy corrosion products

adhering t o the surface. On a closer
examination, it is revealed that remaining
strands were on the verge of breaking. The
galvanised layer of the steel core strands was
found to be completely eaten away. Strands
had become so brittle that they broke while
collecting the residues caused by corrosion.
In the AAAC sample, strands showed an
appreciable number of white patches of
corrosion after three years of exposure.
However, no residue due to corrosion was
observed in the AAAC.
(ii) Analysis of corrosion residues
The corrosion residue on the ACSR wire
could easily be removed on opening the
strands, since they were not tenaciously
adherent. Corrosion residue was analysed
with the help of X-ray diffraction. The
following phases were detected:

AAAC sample after I'h years exposure at Marakkanam

ACSR samde after l ' h years exposure at Marakkanam

(a) aluminum chloride (AI CI,)

(b)aluminium hydroxide (AI (OH),)

(c) aluminium oxide (A120,)

(d) aluminium hydroxide chloride
(A129 (OH),, CLJ
The chemical estimate of chloride present in
the corrosion products was found to be
1.58% by weight.
Metallography
The samples were carefully polished for
metallographic examination in the
longitudinal and transverse directlons
Extensive corrosion had occurred after one
year and 1 / 2 years exposure of ACSR
conductors An edge profile showed badly
damaged surface due to deep corrosion pits
The steel core strands had also corroded
(//I]

(iv) Electrical properties (Tables I and 21

It was observed that there was no increase
in resistance after an exposure of two years
of AAAC. Only after three years exposure at
Tuticorin was the resistance slightly
increased. The change in resistance was
marginal in the case of A M C . However, for
ACSR the fall in conductivity was very high,
ranging up to 15%, while that for M A C was
only 3.4%. The severe electrical degradation
of ACSR was due to loss of section as a result
of i t s poor corrosion resistance in the coastal
region.
(v) Mechanml properties (Tables 3 and 4)
Tensile strength and percentage
elongation were measured AAAC showed
little or no change in tensile strength ACSR
sample had shown a decrease of up to 24%
in tensile strength The loss in strength of
individual strands was more than half the
minimum value prescribed in the Indian
Standard The calculated value of conductor
breaking load showed that, in a period of
1 'h years, ACSR lost 26 7% of its strength,

POWER ENGINEERING JOURNAL JUNE 1995

AAAC sample after three years exposure at Marakkanam

ACSR sample after three years exposure at Marakkanam

135

from 7.56 kN to 5-54 kN. The loss of strength

in M A C over the same period was only
9.98% from 16.52 kN to 14.87 kN.
All these tests established the superiority of
A M C over ACSR conductor beyond doubt,
especially with regard t o combating
corrosion.

DC resistance at 20 C
Wkm

Discussion of results obtained

The corrosion was severe in ACSR
conductor exposed in the Marakkanam
coastal area. The individual strands of ACSR
conductors had become brittle and were
breaking on bending. The severe degradation
of ACSR is due t o its poor corrosion
resistanceand the degradation is likely t o
cause power loss, safety hazards etc.
Corrosion causes reduction in the effective
cross-sectional area resulting in an increase in
electrical resistance and hence a loss in
current-carrying capacity. When the same
electric power is transmitted through such a
conductor it is overloaded causing localised
heating and hot spots. This may soften the
conductor locally, lowering the mechanical
strength, leading it to failure.
The A M C had shown only a 10% change
in tensile strength. The change in resistivity
was marginal. The surface of AAAC has not
been affected by corrosion even after t w o
years of exposure. Only after three years of
exposure in coastal area were discrete white
corrosion patches seen.

DC resistance at 55 C
Wkm

AC resistance ai 5 5 C
Wkm

weight of conductoi
per kilomeire

cost of conductor
per kilometre,
rate as on 1990

ACSR

1 AAAC

REC recommendations
The Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., a
Government of India organisation, has also
come up with specification for the use of
AAAC for low-voltage and high-voltage lines
in rural areas, especially in coastal areas due
to the added advantages of AAAC. The alloy
conductor cannot be recycled easily for
conversion into utensils and this reduces the
possibility of theft of conductors, especially in
rural areas.

5 Comparative
characteristics of AAAC
and ACSR

ic
c

Conclusion
This study has clearly shown that all
alu mi ni um alloy conductor possesses
superior corrosion resistance in coastal areas
over ACSR conductors. Due to the added
advantages, the use of M A C in coastal areas
gives better maintenance of power supply
without frequent interruption.
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has already
given instructions t o the field engineers to
use AAAC in all low-voltage, high-voltage
and extra-high voltage lines in all coastal
areas. In general M A C is a boon to a
distribution network and also a strategy to
minimise the line loss, resulting in energy
savings.

e
7

s
5
P
z

3
2
1

0 IEE: 1995
conductor

Line loss comparison

136

S R Krishnarnurthy is Superintending Engineer,

Technical Audit, a n d P Selvan is Assistant
Executive Engineer. Research & Development,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Madras, Tamil Nadu.
India

POWER ENGINEERING JOURNAL JUNE 1995