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

Transcription

1 CTC Lisbon ACCC Conductor Stress-Strain, Clamp Slip, and Compression Fitting Tensile Tests, Modification 1 Lamifil Comments This report, from NEETAC dated October 2009, has been intentionally modified with this new title page and Appendix A, to supplement the additional testing that was done outside of NEETRAC to fully satisfy the Type Registration test requirements on ACCC Lisbon and associated hardware for ELIA, a Belgium utility. The following test report from NEETRAC details testing on the following ACCC components: 1) ACCC Lisbon conductor a. Stress-strain, performed to EN b. Ultimate tensile strength test to EN ) Fittings Tests a. Dead end to Dead end, to IEC b. Splice Test to IEC c. Jumper Pad Test, done according to ELIA Standard GNA-PL/4DO/ Section ) Suspension Clamp Slippage Test a. Performed on PLP AGS 5118 to IEC 61284, Section and ELIA (Belgium Utility) standard GNA_PL/4DO/ Section b. Did not pass required 33% RTS c. Appendix A, i. Two slip test results done on a similar PLP AGS unit, AGSR (Europe equivalent) ii. Passed 33% RTS requirement iii. Vertical Damage Load and Failure Load Test IEC Section 11.4 (Method B) A Subsidiary of Composite Technology Corporation 2026 McGaw Avenue, Irvine, California Tel: Fax:

2 CTC Lisbon ACCC Conductor Stress-Strain, Clamp Slip, and Compression Fitting Tensile Tests, Modification 1 Lamifil Comments NEETRAC Project Number: October, 2009 Requested by: Doug Pilling CTC Principal Investigator: Paul Springer, PE Reviewed by: Glenn Barr

3 National Electric Energy Testing, Research & Applications Center Notice The information contained herein is, to our knowledge, accurate and reliable at the date of publication. Neither GTRC nor The Georgia Institute of Technology nor NEETRAC will be responsible for any injury to or death of persons or damage to or destruction of property or for any other loss, damage or injury of any kind whatsoever resulting from the use of the project results and/or data. GTRC, GIT and NEETRAC disclaim any and all warranties, both express and implied, with respect to analysis or research or results contained in this report. It is the user's responsibility to conduct the necessary assessments in order to satisfy themselves as to the suitability of the products or recommendations for the user's particular purpose. No statement herein shall be construed as an endorsement of any product, process or provider. NEETRAC Project Number , Final Report Mod 1 October, 2009 Page 2 of 19

4 National Electric Energy Testing, Research & Applications Center CTC Lisbon ACCC Conductor Stress-Strain, Clamp Slip, and Compression Fitting Tensile Tests, Modification 1 Lamifil Comments SUMMARY NEETRAC Project Number: October, 2009 Stress-strain testing was performed on CTC Lisbon ACCC conductor in accordance with BEL Engineering GNA-PL/4DS/ /000/00 Ed and instructions provided by Jim Tate of CTC. Compression fittings for the conductor were subject to load profile tests and ultimate tensile tests. A slip test was conducted on two suspension clamp samples. Witnesses from ELIA/Belgium (purchaser), Lamifil (strander), and CTC were present to direct and witness the testing. TEST SAMPLES 1. Reel of CTC Lisbon ACCC conductor stranded by Lamifil/Belgium 2. CTC full-tension dead-end terminals 3. CTC full-tension splice joints 4. CTC partial-tension jumper terminals 5. Formed wire suspension fittings. PROCEDURE I. Fittings tensile: Jim Tate of CTC directed the installation procedure using NEETRAC s 100-ton ACA crimp head. CTC provided the dies. Full-tension fittings were tested using cast-resin lab fittings to hold the conductor. NEETRAC s procedure for holding the CTC core ensures all conductor components are loaded uniformly to their ultimate capacity. Resin terminations are inspected after each test to ensure the test results are not influenced by the lab fittings. There were no examples of grip failure found. Load holds were directed by CTC, ELIA, and Lamifil representatives as shown in the timeload charts. Also shown is displacement-load, a format that is sensitive to yield or strand break events. Figure 1 shows a typical tensile test. NEETRAC Project Number , Final Report Mod 1 October, 2009 Page 3 of 19

5 National Electric Energy Testing, Research & Applications Center Figure 1: Dead end splice dead end tensile test II. Clamp Slip: A suspension unit was fitted to a conductor section. Conductor on one side was pulled to simulate a broken conductor load. Figure 2 shows the test arrangement. The load profile requires a one-minute hold at 33% RBS. Figure 2: Clamp slip test III. Stress-strain: The sample was cut into 6.3 meter (20-7 ) long sections. Bolted clamps were installed on both sides of each cut to prevent any component from shifting. Cast-resin terminations were applied to NEETRAC Project Number , Final Report Mod 1 October, 2009 Page 4 of 19

6 National Electric Energy Testing, Research & Applications Center the sample ends using a procedure designed to preserve the conductor manufacturing pre-stress to ensure that test samples behave as similarly as practical to in-service conductor. The process is identical to the procedure used for the tensile tests, except for the extra steps to preserve the manufacturing pre-stress as the conductor is taken from the reel. Two identical conductor samples were prepared. The only difference between the core test and the composite test is the removal of the aluminum layers prior to making measurements on the core sample. The intent is to impute the contribution of the aluminum layers by the difference between data from the composite test and data from the core test. Prior to the composite and core tests, a laser is used to measure the sag, which is reduced to zero using a support at mid-span. Failure to remove the sag will cause errors in the strain measurement as the slack is pulled up during the test. The profile for stress-strain was in accordance with the British Norm provided by CTC. The following steps were used: Composite conductor (RBS kn (23,313 lb)) 1) Apply load of 5.0 kn (1116 lb). Remove sag with a mid-span support 2) Install extensometer, and set to zero 3) Pull to 30% of RBS (31.1 kn), at rate of 26.7 kn/min 4) Hold for 30 minutes 5) Relax load to 5.0 kn at rate of 26.7 kn/min 6) Pull to 50% RBS (51.9 kn) at rate of 26.7 kn/min 7) Hold for one hour 8) Relax load to 5.0 kn at rate of 26.7 kn/min 9) Pull to 70% RBS (75.6 kn) at rate of 26.7 kn/min 10) Hold for one hour 11) Relax load to 5.0 kn at rate of 26.7 kn/min 12) Pull to 85% RBS (88.1 kn) at rate of 26.7 kn/min 13) Hold for one hour 14) Relax load to 5.0 kn, and remove the extensometer (for its own protection) 15) Pull sample to destruction at 26.7 kn/min Core strand (nominal rating is 85.8 kn (19,289 lb) 1) Pull to calculated initial tension (in this case, 1.97 kn). 2) Install extensometer, and set to zero 3) Pull to % strain (same strain as conductor at start of 30% of RBS test) 4) Hold for 30 minutes 5) Relax load to 1.97 kn 6) Pull to % strain (same strain as conductor at start of 50% of RBS test) 7) Hold for one hour 8) Relax load to 1.97 kn 9) Pull to % strain (same strain as conductor at start of 70% of RBS test) 10) Hold for one hour 11) Relax load to 1.97 kn 12) Pull to % strain (same strain as conductor at start of 85% of RBS test) 13) Hold for one hour 14) Relax load to 1.97 kn, and remove the extensometer (for its own protection) 15) Pull sample to destruction at 66.7 kn/min NEETRAC Project Number , Final Report Mod 1 October, 2009 Page 5 of 19

7 National Electric Energy Testing, Research & Applications Center Residual Strength: Following the stress-strain test, both the composite conductor and the core were pulled to destruction at a loading rate equal to half of the strength rating per minute. Figure 3 shows the equipment during the stress-strain test on the core. Figure 3: Core stress-strain test RESULTS I. Fittings tensile: Table 1 summarizes the tests performed and the test results. Figures 4 and 5 the load profiles used for the full-tension connector tests. Residual strength of the conductor and core used for the stressstrain test was also determined using a tensile test. Charts showing the load versus actuator displacement for each test are in the appendix. NEETRAC Project Number , Final Report Mod 1 October, 2009 Page 6 of 19

8 Sample Table 1, Summary of Tensile Tests on CTC Lisbon Conductor and Fittings Test Profile Failure Load (kn) % RBS Failure Mode Composite Stress-Strain Load to 27 kn/min Gage section break Core Stress-Strain Load to 22 kn/min Gage section break Dead-end to dead-end, sample 1 (2 fittings) Dead-end to dead-end, sample 2 (2 fittings) Dead-end splice dead end Pull to 25% RBS, mark sample. Increase load to 95% RBS, hold 1 min, then to failure (Figure 4) Pull to 25% RBS, mark sample. Increase load to 95% RBS, hold 1 min, then to failure (Figure 4) Pull to 25% RBS, mark sample. Increase load to 95% RBS, hold 1 min, then to failure (Figure 4) Gage section break Gage section break Break inside splice Jumper terminal 1 Load to 25% RBS, hold 1 min, increase to 35% RBS, hold 30 sec Load profile only pass. Terminal pad straightened, weld cracked. Jumper terminal 2 Load to 25% RBS, hold 1 min, increase to 35% RBS, hold 30 sec Load profile only pass. Terminal pad straightened, weld cracked. Jumper terminal 3 Load to 25% RBS, hold 1 min, increase to 35% RBS, hold 30 sec Load profile only pass. Terminal pad straightened, weld cracked. Splice 1 Splice 2 Splice 3 Pull to 25% RBS, mark sample. Increase load to 95% RBS, hold 1 min, then to failure (Figure 4) Pull to 25% RBS, mark sample. Increase load to 95% RBS, hold 1 min, then to failure (Figure 4) Pull to 25% RBS, mark sample. Increase load to 95% RBS, hold 1 min, then to failure (Figure 4) Break inside splice Break inside splice Gage section break NEETRAC Project Number , Final Report Mod 1 October, 2009 Page 7 of 19

9 Splice 4 Splice 5 Splice 6 Sample Table 1, Summary of Tensile Tests on CTC Lisbon Conductor and Fittings Test Profile Pull to 25% RBS, mark sample. Increase load to 90.3% RBS, hold 1 min, then to 95% RBS, hold one minute, the failure (Figure 5) Pull to 25% RBS, mark sample. Increase load to 90.3% RBS, hold 1 min, then to 95% RBS, hold one minute, the failure (Figure 5) Pull to 25% RBS, mark sample. Increase load to 90.3% RBS, hold 1 min, then to 95% RBS, hold one minute, the failure (Figure 5) Failure Load (kn) % RBS Failure Mode Gage section break Conductor failed inside lab fitting* Gage section break * Failure in the lab grip can mean an invalid test. In this case, the fitting held, but it is possible the conductor was damaged during installation. Breaking load similar to other tests where the break is in the gage section suggest this is a valid test. NEETRAC Project Number , Final Report Mod 1 October, 2009 Page 8 of 19

10 National Electric Energy Testing, Research & Applications Center CTC "Lisbon" ACCC, Load Profile for Tensile Tests Load Hold at 95% RBS (slightly exceeded time on this one) 100 Load (kn) _DE1.csv RBS 95% RBS 25% RBS Marked conductor at 25% RBS Time (min) Figure 4: Load profile for fitting tensile tests CTC "Lisbon" ACCC, Load Profile for Tensile Tests Load Hold at 90% RBS Load Hold at 95% RBS Load (kn) Marked conductor at 25% RBS 09008_SP9.csv RBS 95% RBS 25% RBS 90% RBS Time (min) Figure 5: Load profile for later round of fitting tensile tests NEETRAC Project Number , Final Report Mod 1 October, 2009 Page 9 of 19

11 National Electric Energy Testing, Research & Applications Center II. Clamp slip: Figures 6 and 7 show data for the slip test. Both samples started slipping at 23.3 kn. Neither sample reached the target load value of 33% RBS (34.2 kn). 36 CTC "Lisbon" ACCC, Clamp Slip Test Load Profile Load (kn) _SPC1.csv 09008_SPC2.csv 33% RBS Time (min) Figure 6: Load vs. time data for clamp slip tests 36 CTC "Lisbon" ACCC, Clamp Slip Test Load vs. Displacement Load (kn) _SPC1.csv 09008_SPC2.csv 33% RBS Crosshead Position (mm) Figure 7: Load vs. displacement data for clamp slip tests. NEETRAC Project Number , Final Report Mod 1 October, 2009 Page 10 of 19

12 National Electric Energy Testing, Research & Applications Center III. Stress-strain: Figure 8 shows the load profile for the composite sample. Figure 9 shows displacement vs. load data, along with the construction of the initial and final modulus curves. Figures 10 and 11 show the same information for the core stress-strain test. 110 CTC "Lisbon" Composite Stress-strain - Load vs Time 100 Tension RBS 85% RBS 70% RBS 50% RBS 30% RBS Load (kn) Elapsed Time (minutes) Figure 8: Load profile for composite stress-strain test 300 CTC "Lisbon" ACCC Composite Stress-Strain with Initial and Final Modulus 250 y = x x x x Stress (MPa) Stress-strain data Initial modulus data Final modulus data Linear (Final modulus data) Poly. (Initial modulus data) y = x Strain (%) Figure 9: Composite stress-strain data from Figure 8 with strain on the x-axis, and initial and final modulus constructed using the data NEETRAC Project Number , Final Report Mod 1 October, 2009 Page 11 of 19

13 National Electric Energy Testing, Research & Applications Center 100 CTC "Lisbon" Core Stress-strain - Load vs Time Tension Core Rating Load (kn) Elapsed Time (minutes) Figure 10: Plot of core stress-strain data with initial and final modulus CTC "Lisbon" Core Stress-Strain Data with Initial and Final Modulus Stress-strain data Initial modulus data Final modulus data Linear (Final modulus data) Poly. (Initial modulus data) y = x x x x Stress (MPa) y = x Strain (%) Figure 11: Core stress-strain data from Figure 10 with strain on x-axis, and initial and final modulus constructed using the data NEETRAC Project Number , Final Report Mod 1 October, 2009 Page 12 of 19

14 National Electric Energy Testing, Research & Applications Center The stress-strain initial and final modulus data are numerically translated along the strain axis to remove the pre-load required in the physical test. The contribution of the aluminum strands are imputed as the difference between the core equations and the composite equations. The aluminum, core, and composite properties are plotted in Figure 12 to show a model of the room temperature elastic properties of the conductor. Available computer programs adjust the room-temperature data to predict behavior at warmer and colder temperatures. Equations for stress-strain from Figure 12 referenced to actual dimensions are: Direct Test Values (includes strain from 5.0 kn pre-load used to straighten the sample prior to test) Composite Initial Modulus: Stress (MPa) = *(Strain%) *(Strain%) *(Strain%) *(Strain%) Composite Final Modulus: Stress (MPa) = 622.0*(Strain%) Tensile Test, Composite Sample: kn (100% RBS) Core Initial Modulus: Stress (MPa) = -4.50*(Strain%) *(Strain%) *(Strain%) *(Strain%) Core Final Modulus: Stress (MPa) = *(Strain%) 41.7 Tensile Test, Core Sample: 92.2 kn (107% Rating) Equations for data shifted along strain axis to provide correct zero strain reference: Composite Initial Modulus: Stress (MPa) = -38.9*(Strain%) *(Strain%) *(Strain%) *(Strain%) Composite Final Modulus: Stress (MPa) = 622.0*(Strain%) Core Initial Modulus: Stress (MPa) = -4.50*(Strain%) *(Strain%) *(Strain%) *(Strain%) Core Final Modulus: Stress (MPa) = *(Strain%) Aluminum Properties (imputed, direct measurement is not possible): Initial Modulus for Stress Strain Curve: Stress (MPa) = -43.2*(Strain%) *(Strain%) *(Strain%) *(Strain%) Final Modulus for Stress Strain Curve: Stress (MPa) = 552.1*(Strain%) NEETRAC Project Number , Final Report Mod 1 October, 2009 Page 13 of 19

15 300 CTC "Lisbon" Conductor Combined Stress-Strain Diagram 275 Initial Composite Final Composite Initial Composite Final Composite y = x x x x y = x Initial Core Final Core Initial Aluminum Final Aluminum Initial Core Final Core y = x x x x y = x Stress*area ratio (MPa) Linear (Final Aluminum) Linear (Final Composite) Poly. (Initial Core) Poly. (Initial Composite) Poly. (Initial Aluminum) Linear (Final Core) Ratio Core: Ratio Aluminum: Initial Aluminum Final Aluminum y = x x x x y = x Strain (%) Figure 12: Stress-strain combined model NEETRAC Project Number , Final Report July, 2009 Page 14 of 19

16 DISCUSSION / CONCLUSION: Stress-strain testing provides coefficients for line designs (no acceptance criteria are applicable). Evaluation of the clamp-slip tests and tensile tests will be by agreement between CTC and their customer. EQUIPMENT 1) MTS Servo-hydraulic tensile machine, Control # CQ 0195 (load and crosshead data) 2) Dynamics Research Corporation (DRC)/NEETRAC cable extensometer, Control # CQ 3002 (strain data). 3) Yokogawa DC100 data acquisition system, Control # CN 3022 (temperature data) 4) HBM linear position indicator for crosshead displacement (for reference only) REFERENCES AND STANDARDS LISTING 1) ASTM E4, (Calibration of Load Testing Machines) 2) Aluminum Association Guide for Stress-Strain Testing, ) Lamifil Data Sheet LF ACCC Lisbon, Version 3, dated 21/04/08 (April 21, 2008) 4) BEL Engineering Technical Specification GNA-PL/4DS/ /000/00 dated Jan 28, 2008 NEETRAC Project Number , Final Report Mod 1 October, 2009 Page 15 of 19

17 Appendix Load vs. Displacement Charts and Photographs of Samples following tests 120 CTC "Lisbon" ACCC, Post Stress Strain Tensile Test Load (kn) RBS 95% RBS Core Rating Stress-strain Composite Stress-strain Core Crosshead Position (mm) Figure 13 CTC "Lisbon" ACCC, Load vs. Displacement for Dead End Samples Load (kn) _DE1.csv 09008_DE2.csv RBS 95% RBS Crosshead Position (mm) Figure 14 NEETRAC Project Number , Final Report Mod 1 October, 2009 Page 16 of 19

18 CTC "Lisbon" ACCC, Load vs. Displacement for DE-Splice-DE Test Load (kn) _de2-2.csv RBS 95% RBS Crosshead Position (mm) Figure CTC "Lisbon" ACCC, Load vs. Displacement for Jumper Lugs (Load Hold Only) Load (kn) _JL2.csv 09008_JL1.csv 09008_JL3.csv 25% RBS 35% RBS Crosshead Position (mm) Figure 16 NEETRAC Project Number , Final Report Mod 1 October, 2009 Page 17 of 19

19 120 CTC "Lisbon" ACCC, Load vs. Displacement for Splice Samples 1-3 (early profile, see figure 4) Load (kn) _SP1.csv 09008_SP2.csv 09008_SP3.csv RBS 95% RBS Crosshead Position (mm) Figure 17 Figure 18: Splice 1 failure Figure 19: Splice 2 failure (splice 3 failed in gage section) NEETRAC Project Number , Final Report Mod 1 October, 2009 Page 18 of 19

20 Figure 20: Jumper lug 3 following load hold test Figure 21: Detail showing bent tab and weld crack NEETRAC Project Number , Final Report Mod 1 October, 2009 Page 19 of 19

21 Appendix A Type Registration Suspension Clamp Slip Test done on an equivalent AGS Unit made in Europe, AGSR i. Two slip test results done on a similar PLP AGS unit, AGSR (Europe equivalent) ii. Passed 33% RTS requirement iii. Vertical Damage Load and Failure Load Test IEC Section 11.4 (Method B) A Subsidiary of Composite Technology Corporation 2026 McGaw Avenue, Irvine, California Tel: Fax:

22 TEST REPORT TR (GB) No:2292-E Date: 4 March 2009 Subject: Slip Testing of AGSR DB On Lamifil s ACCC Lisbon Conductor Preformed Line Products (Great Britain) Limited East Portway, Andover, Hants, SP10 3LH, England Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) plp@preformed-gb.com

23 Page 2 TR (GB) 2292-E Date: 4 March 2009 TEST REPORT TR (GB) 2292-E DATE 4 th MARCH 2009 PURPOSE: To determine the suitability of Preformed Line Products fittings on Lamifil ACCC Lisbon conductor tested as per IEC and ELIA Specification GNA- PL/4DO/ /000/ FITTINGS TO BE TESTED: AGSR DB CABLES TO BE TESTED: Lamifil ACCC Lisbon (103.7kN RBS) TESTS UNDERTAKEN: Slipping Test to ELIA GNA-PL/4DO/ /000/ TEST PROCEDURES: Slipping Test Approx. 10m of conductor was set up in the tensile machine using helical dead-ends. The conductor was then tensioned to 20% RBS (20.74 kn) and the Armour Grip Suspension Unit was applied. The load was then released, the fitting was then anchored to the tensile machine and the data plotter was then switch on, and the load was applied to 20% RBS. The end of the AGS Rods were then marked to witness any movement. See Graph 1-3. The load was then increased to 33% (32.2kN) and held for a minium of one minute, the ends of the rods were then checked for slippage. The load was then increased until slippage occurred.

24 Page 3 TR (GB) 2292-E Date: 4 March 2009 RESULTS: Slipping Test Rod Length (M) Line Grip Compound used 33% RBS held for one minute Slip Load (kn) Comment Graph Photo 3.0 NO YES 52 PASS NO YES 47 PASS NO YES 45 PASS NOTE: When the fitting is subjected to an unbalanced load of this type, the fitting is tilted over at an angle of approx. 45º. This can cause permananent deformation of the castings and rods and it would therefore be advisable that the fitting be replaced if this situation occurs in service. CONCLUSION: Preformed Line Products Limited s Armour Grip Suspention Units has passed the testing requirements of the above stated specifications and is therefore deemed suitable of use on Lamifil ACCC conductor.

25

26 Page 5 TR (GB) 2292-E Date: 4 March 2009

27 Page 6 TR (GB) 2292-E Date: 4 March 2009

28 Page 7 TR (GB) 2292-E Date: 4 March 2009

29 Page 8 TR (GB) 2292-E Date: 4 March 2009 Photograph 1 - Three lengths of ACC Lisbon cut to 10m lengths

30 Page 9 TR (GB) 2292-E Date: 4 March 2009 Photograph 2 - Test 1 - Tension to 20% RBS Photograph Test 1 3M Rods applied

31 Page 10 TR (GB) 2292-E Date: 4 March 2009 Photograph 4 - Test 1 -AGS attached Photograph 5 - Test 1 Arrangement at 33% RBS

32 Page 11 TR (GB) 2292-E Date: 4 March 2009 Photograph 6 -Test 1 - AGS at 33% RBS Photogra 7 Test 1 - Marking showing no slip at 33% RBS

33 Page 12 TR (GB) 2292-E Date: 4 March 2009 Photograph 8 - Test 1 - AGS after test Photograph 9 - Test 1 - Marking showing slip after 5.3 Tonnes

34 Page 13 TR (GB) 2292-E Date: 4 March 2009 Photograph 10 - Test 1 - AGS parts showing slight deformation Photograph 11 - Test 2 - Applying rods to tensioned conductor

35 Page 14 TR (GB) 2292-E Date: 4 March 2009 Photograph 12 - Test 2 - Ends marked to show slip Photograph 13 - Test 2 Ends marked to show slip

36 Page 15 TR (GB) 2292-E Date: 4 March 2009 Photograph 14 - Test 2 - Marking showing no slip at 33% RBS Photograph 15 - Test 2 AGS at 33% RBS

37 Page 16 TR (GB) 2292-E Date: 4 March 2009 Photograph 16 - Test 2 - Tensile machine showing 3.6 Tonnes (33% RBS) Photograph 17 - Test 2 - Marking showing slip at 4.8 Tonnes

38 Page 17 TR (GB) 2292-E Date: 4 March 2009 Photograp 18 - Test 2 - AGS after test Photograph 19 - Test 2 - AGS after test

39 Page 18 TR (GB) 2292-E Date: 4 March 2009 Photograph 20 - Test 2 - AGS parts showing slight deformation Photograph 21 - Test 3 - Appling rods to tensioned conductor

40 Page 19 TR (GB) 2292-E Date: 4 March 2009 Photograph 22 - Test 3 - Rods marked to indicate slip Photograph 23 - Test 3 - Tensile machine showing 3.61 Tonnes (33% RBS)

41 Page 20 TR (GB) 2292-E Date: 4 March 2009 Photograph 24 Test 3 shows no slip at 33%RBS Photograph 25 - Test 3 - AGS at 33% RBS

42 Page 21 TR (GB) 2292-E Date: 4 March 2009 Photograph 26 - Test 3 - Marking showing slip at 4.6 Tonnes Photograph 27 - Test 3 - AGS after slip at 4.6 Tonnes

43 TEST REPORT TR (GB) No:2250-E Date: 11 February 2009 Subject: Up-Lift & Slip Testing of AGSR DB On Lamifil s ACCC Lisbon Conductor Preformed Line Products (Great Britain) Limited East Portway, Andover, Hants, SP10 3LH, England Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) plp@preformed-gb.com

44 Page 2 TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009 TEST REPORT TR (GB) 2250-E DATE 11 th February 2009 PURPOSE: To determine the suitability of Preformed Line Products fittings on Lamifil ACCC Lisbon conductor tested as per IEC and ELIA Specification GNA- PL/4DO/ /000/ FITTINGS TO BE TESTED: AGSR DB CABLES TO BE TESTED: Lamifil ACCC Lisbon (103.7kN RBS) TESTS UNDERTAKEN: Slipping Test to ELIA GNA-PL/4DO/ /000/ Vertical damage load and failure load test IEC (Method B) TEST PROCEDURES: Slipping Test Approx. 10m of conductor was set up in the tensile machine using helical dead-ends. The conductor was then tensioned to 20% RBS (20.74 kn) and the Armour Grip Suspension Unit was applied. Test 1 and 3 used Line Grip Compound, this was applied to the conductor before AGS Rods are applied. See Photographs 1 2. The load was then released, the fitting was then anchored to the tensile machine and the data plotter was then switch on, and the load was applied to 20% RBS. The end of the AGS Rods were then marked to witness any movement. See Graph 1-3. The load was then increased to 33% (32.2kN) and held for a minium of one minute, the ends of the rods were then checked for slippage. The load was then increased until slippage occurred.

45 Page 3 TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009 Vertical damage load and failure load test First Step The AGS fitting was applied to a suitable diameter steel wire rope and assembled in the tensile machine set up with a 16.5 angle either side of the suspension clamp. A ten tonnes load cell was used to monitor the vertical load. The horizontal load was then steadily increased to a point where a minimum load of tonnes (95% RBS) was seen on the vertical load cell. The load should then be held for one minute, then increased to 1.3 x RBS or until failure occurs. Second Step The suspension casting was assembled around a steel bar in a back-to-back arrangement. The load was applied steadily until 95% RBS was achieved and held for a minimum of one minute. The load was then increased until failure occurred. See photographs RESULTS: Slipping Test Rod Length (M) Line Grip Compound used 33% RBS held for one minute Slip Load (kn) Comment Graph Photo 3.0 YES YES 57.8 PASS NO YES 47 PASS YES YES 54 PASS NOTE: When the fitting is subjected to an unbalanced load of this type, the fitting is tilted over at an angle of approx. 45º. This can cause permananent deformation of the castings and rods and it would therefore be advisable that the fitting be replaced if this situation occurs in service.

46 Page 4 TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009 Vertical Damage Load and Failure Test Full Assembly Test (First Step) Set-Up 95% RBS held for one minute Comment Graph Photo 22mm Steel Wire Rope with 2m Rods NO (See Note) 95% achieved momentarily NOTE: The standard housing has been used in this test and although it achieved 95% RBS it was unable to sustain the load for one minute, as per the stated specification. For future applications where this requirement is specified it is recommended the heat treated castings are used, which would offer a 15% - 20% increase in tensile strength, subsequent to testing. Mechanical failure load test (Second Step) Test 95% RBS held for one minute Failure Load Comment Photo Test 1 YES kn PASS Test 2 YES kn PASS 25 Test 3 YES kn PASS 26 CONCLUSION: Preformed Line Products Limited s Armour Grip Suspention Units has passed the testing requirements of the above stated specifications and is therefore deemed suitable of use on Lamifil ACCC conductor.

47

48 Page 6 TR (GB) 2250-E 11 February 2209

49 Page 7 TR (GB) 2250-E 11 February 2209

50 Page 8 TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009

51 Page 9 TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009

52 Page 10 TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009 Photograph 1 - Application of Insert Test 2

53 Page 11 TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009 Photograph 2 - Application of Rods Test 2

54 Page 12 TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009 Photograph Rod end marked Photograph 4 - AGS Unit anchored to tensile test machine

55 Page 13 TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009 Photograph 5 - Rod end marked Photograph 6-33% RBS load applied

56 Page 14 TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009 Photogra 7 load held at 3.61 Tonnes (35.4 kn) 33% RBS for one minute Photograph 8 - Showing no slip at 33% RBS

57 Page 15 TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009 Photograph 9 - Casting at 33% RBS Photograph 10 - Casting after slip occurred at 47 kn

58 Page 16 TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009 Photograph 11 - Rods after slip occurred at 47 kn Photograph 12 - Conductor after slip occurred at 47 kn

59 Page 17 TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009 Photograph 13 - Rod applied to conductor with line grip compound Photograph 14 - Gritting rod holding at 33% RBS

60 Page 18 TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009 Photograph 15 - gritted rods slipped at 57.8 kn Photograph 16 - Damage to casting after slip at 57.8 kn

61 Page 19 TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009 Photograph 17 - Angle meter showing approx 16.5º

62 Page 20 TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009 Photograp 18 - Vertical Load Test Arrangement

63 Page 21 TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009 Photograph 19 - Vertical load test arrangement with safety cage

64 Page 22 TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009 Photograph 20 - Displays showing max horizontal load and max vertical load (tonnes)

65 Page 23 TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009 Photograph 21 - AGS after failure occurred at 10.2 tonnes

66 Page 24 TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009 Photograph 22 - Mechanical failure test arrangements Photograph 23 - Test 1 after failure

67 Page 25 TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009 Photograph 24 Test Photograph 25 - Test 2

68 Page 26 TR (GB) 2250-E Date: 11 February 2009 Photograph 26 - Test 3