Test Results
Reference Document Title
Document 9 Analytical Comparison of Tension vs. Twist to Control Galloping
Document 8 AR MOD-II SPACER DAMPER Corona & RIV Test Results ( 06/2004 )
Document 7 AR SPACER TWISTER Insulator Rods Test Results
Document 6 AR MOD-II SPACER DAMPER High-Frequency & Mechanical Load Test Results ( 11/1995 )
Document 5 AR MOD III DAMPER High-Frequency Test Results ( 08/2002 )
Document 4 Comparison of High-Frequency Damper Performance
Document 3 AR MOD Quad-Bundled SPACER DAMPER Corona & RIV Test Results ( 04/1992 )
Document 2 AR TWISTER / AR DAMPER Corona & RIV Test Results ( 01/1991 )
Document 1 Impact vs. Elastomer High Frequency Spacer Damper Test Results ( 09/1995 )
Five videos are included in this group of demonstrations |
|
|---|---|
A seminar is presented by Albert S. Richardson on the basic principles of gallop control. The principle of aerodynamic control by twisting is explained. Film of the galloping motion during the Tacoma Narrows Bridge Disaster is related to these principles. Footage of galloping motion of transmission line conductors is used to illustrate the similarity to the bridge motion. Certain types of aerodynamic control devices are explained, such as the WINDAMPER® device, T-2 conductor, Russian T-Foil Drag Damper, PLP air flow spoiler, etc. Another video, taken in Sandusky, Ohio, shows tests on a 69kV line. The tests demonstrate how galloping motion is used to create twisting of the conductor. In another video wind tunnel tests at MIT are used to demonstrate the stability of AR WINDAMPER® devices in a high wind speed up to 60MPH. The tests were made in 1968. Contrary to what is claimed in the EPRI orange book the results prove no instability exists up to 60 MPH wind speed, and the aerodynamic stiffness actually increases as wind speed goes higher. The motion of conductors and tower structures is recorded during a galloping episode in England. The transmission line is a quad bundle. The video shows severe damage to insulators, spacers, and gusset plates in the tower. Other video records demonstrate comparative performance of WINDAMPER devices and EPRI detuner devices on a low voltage line. |
|