ASCE Practice 74 Rev 2006 PDF

ASCE Manuals and Reports on
Engineering Practice #74

Guidelines for Electrical Transmission Lines
Structural Loads
Frank W. Agnew
Terry Burley
Michael D. Miller
John D. Mozer
Mark Ostendorp
Alain Peyrot
C. Jerry Wong
Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

October 18, 2006 Ice and Wind 1
ASCE Manuals and Reports on
Engineering Practice #74
Frank W. Agnew Richard F. Aichinger Carl W. Austin

Jim Andersen Terry Burley Ron J. Carrington
Mike S. Cheung Habib J. Dagher Nicholas J. DeSantis
Harry V. Durden William Y. Ford Bruce Freimark
Jim Hogan Magdi F. Ishac Kathleen Jones
James M. McGuire Kishor C. Mehta Michael D. Miller
John D. Mozer Robert E. Nickerson Wesley J. Oliphant
Mark Ostendorp Alain Peyrot David Tennent
George T. Watson C. Jerry Wong

Transmission Line Structural Loading Guide
First edition was published in 1984

Design Guidelines
Second edition was published in 1991

Manual and Reports on Engineering
Practice

Forward
Section 1 - Introduction to Load Criteria
Section 2 - Weather Related Loads
Section 3 - Additional Load Considerations
Section 4 - Wire System
Section 5 - Examples
Appendices

Appendices
Reference
Definitions, Notations and SI Conversion Factors
Limitations of Reliability Based Design
Numerical Coefficient Q
Conversion of Wind Speed Averaging Time
Supplemental Information on Structure Vibration
Equations for Gust Response Factors
Supplemental Information on Force Coefficients
Supplemental Information on Ice Loading
Supplemental Information on Special Loads
Investigation of Transmission Line Failures

OVERVIEW OF LOAD CRITERIA Section 1
Introduction (1.0)
Principal Systems of a Transmisison Line (1.1)
Loads and Relative Reliability (1.2)
Weather Related Events
Additional Load Considerations
Loads and Load Effects
Wire Systems (1.3)
Limit States (1.4)
Component Strength
Relative Reliability of Components and Failure Containment
Considerations for Special Structures
Load and Resistance Factor Design

Introduction (1.0)
This manual addresses transmission

line structure design issues that must be
considered to provide:
Cost effective structures
Reliable structures

Key Issues Addressed by the Manual
Uniform procedures and definitions across
the industry for calculation of loads.
Structure designs with acceptable minimum
reliability.
Design loads and load factors that are
independent of structure materials.
Adjustments of load criteria to reduce
occurrence of cascading failures.
Incentives for developing better local data for
weather related phenomena.
Inclusion of legislated load.

Principal Systems of a T-Line (1.2)
The Structural Support System.

Towers, poles and foundations.
Primary task of supporting the wire system.
The Wire System.
Conductors, ground wires, insulators and
attachment hardware.
Much of the unusual behavior and most of
the problems in a line start on, or are
generated by, the wire system.
Loads and Relative Reliability (1.2)
Convenient to distinguish between events that
produce loads and the resulting loads in the line
components.
Load events can be classified as:
Weather-Related Loads.
Construction and Maintenance Loads.
Secondary Loads.
Loads causing damage to a line component, due to:
Vehicle or aircraft accidents
Lightning
Ice and/or wind overload
Vandalism
May result in a cascading failure.
Falls within the designation of Failure Containment (FC).

Weather-Related Events (1.2.1)
Extreme wind.
Extreme ice with accompanying wind.
High intensity winds
Microbursts
Tornados
Coincident temperature

Return Period (RPN)
For example, an event with a 50-year return

period (RP50) represents an extreme event
that is reached or exceeded with a probability
of 1/50 or 2% every year.
Because extreme events are not evenly
spaced over time, there will be some 50-year
periods with no RP50 events and other 50-
year periods with 2 or more events equaling
or exceeding RP50 values.

Probability Density Function of Load Effect

Probability of RPN Events in 50 Years
Exceedance Probability of
Load Return Period RP RP Event in 50 Years
(years)
= 1-(1-1/RP)50
25 0.87
50 0.64
100 0.39
200 0.22
500 0.12
Return Period Adjustments (1.2.1.1)
Can adjust the relative reliability of a design by

changing the RP of the design load.
The higher the RP of the design load, the more
reliable (lower probability of failure) the design.
Using a consistent nominal design strength, the
relative probability of failure of two components is
inversely proportional to the design load RP.
Thus, doubling the design load RP reduces the
relative probability of failure by a factor of
approximately 2.

Probability Density Function of R

Probability Density Functions of Q & R

Relative Reliability Factor (RRF)
Probability of failure for a RP50 load event

RRF
Probability of failure for a RPN load event

Why Use Relative Reliability?
Useful tool to approximately adjust design

reliability.
Currently very difficult to accurately calculate
probability of failure.
Powerful mathematical tools are available,
but we dont have all of the data necessary to
carry out the analysis.
For example, consider the uncertainty in
predicting the Force Coefficients.

Extreme Wind Load Factors (Table 1.2-1)
Relative Load RP Wind Load

Reliability (years) Factor
Factor (w)
(RRF)
0.5 25 0.85
1 50 1.00
2 100 1.15
4 200 1.30
8 400 1.45
Extreme Ice Factors (Table 1.2-2)
Relative Load RP Ice Concurrent

Reliability (years) Thickness Wind Load
Factor Factor Factor
(RRF) (i) (w)
0.5 25 0.80 1.0
1 50 1.00 1.0
2 100 1.25 1.0
4 200 1.50 1.0
8 400 1.85 1.0
Spatial Influences on Weather-Related
Events (1.2.1.2)
Data for the wind and ice maps were
collected at points.
Appropriate for the design of point structures.
A transmission line is a linear system that is
exposed to a larger number of extreme load
events than a single point structure.
Difficult to select load criteria based on length
of the line.
Result would be structure designs suitable for
a line of given length, but not suitable for
another line of different length.
Additional Load Considerations (1.2.2)
Failure containment
Construction and maintenance loads
Legislated loads

Limit States Design (1.4)
Failure limit state
Condition where component can no longer
sustain the load.
May lead to failure of the line.
Damage limit state
Condition where the component and line
will still function, but permanent damage
has been done.
Serviceability and performance of line may
be compromised.
Load and Resistance Factor Design (1.4.4)
Manual provides suggested load factors and

load combinations for transmission line
design.
Load factors can be based on the selected
Relative Reliability Factor, load combination,
safety requirements and legislated standards.
Strength factors account for the variability of
component strength and are applied to
nominal strength equations for the
components based on strength guides and
standards.
LRFD Format
Rn Effect of [DL + Q ]

Strength Factor to convert to a 5% LEL
with 10% COVR (Table 1.4-2)
LEL, e%, of Strength Factor, , for COVR =

the Nominal 0.05 0.10 0.20
Strength
Value
0.1 1.00 1.16 1.48
1 0.97 1.07 1.27
2 0.95 1.04 1.21
5 0.93 1.00 1.12
10 0.92 0.96 1.04
20 0.90 0.92 0.95
mean 0.86 0.85 0.79
Selection of Strength Factor (1.4.4.4)
Manual provides typical values of the

LEL and COVR for different components
used in a line.
Steel components and steel and
prestressed concrete poles.
Reinforced concrete.
Wood poles.
Foundations.
Conductors and ground wires.
Summary of LRFD Method
I - SELECT RELATIVE RELIABILITY FACTOR (RRF)
OR MINIMUM DESIGN LOAD RETURN PERIOD
DEPENDING OF TYPE OF LINE (TABLE 1.2-1)
II - OBTAIN FACTORS, , from Tables 1.2-1 and 1.2-2
III - DETERMINE DESIGN LOAD EFFECT QD IN EACH COMPONENT:
Weather QD = EFFECT OF [DL and Q50 ]
or QD = EFFECT OF [DL and QRP ]
Failure Containment QD = EFFECT OF [ DL & FC ]
Construct & Maint. QD = EFFECT OF [DL and CM (C&M)]

Legislated Loads QD = EFFECT OF [ LL ]
IV - OBTAIN STRENGTH FACTOR, , FROM TABLE 1.4-2
V - DESIGN COMPONENT for NOMINAL STRENGTH, Rn SUCH THAT:

Rn > QD

Extreme Wind Loads Section 2.1
Based on 2% annual probability, 3-second gust wind

speed
Wind force equation (Section 2.1.1)
Numerical coefficient (Section 2.1.2)
Basic wind speed (Section 2.1.3)
Velocity pressure exposure coefficient (Section 2.1.4)
Gust response factor (Section 2.1.5)
Force coefficient (Section 2.1.6)
Topography effects (Section 2.1.7)
Wind load applications on latticed towers (Section 2.1.8)
3 Second Gust Wind Force (Section 2.1.1)
F = w * Q * kZ * kzt * (V50)2 * G * Cf * A
Where:
F - Wind Force
w - Load Factor.
Q - Numerical Coefficient.
kzt - Topographic Factor.
kZ - Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficient.
V50 - Basic Wind Speed, 3-second gust wind speed, miles per
hour, at 33 ft. above ground, an annual probability of 2%.
G - Gust Response Factor.
Cf - Force (Drag) Coefficient.
A - Projected Surface Area.
Numerical Coefficient (Section 2.1.2)
Converts kinetic energy of moving air into potential energy

of pressure.
Q = 1/2
where = mass density of air.
Appendix D

Basic Wind Speed Map (Section 2.1.3)
3-SECOND GUST SPEED

Database/Analysis
Continental Winds:
485 weather stations, minimum 5 years of data

Data assembled from a number of stations in
state-size areas to reduce sampling errors
Fisher-Tippett Type I extreme value distribution,
annual probability of 2%
Insufficient variation in peak gust wind speeds to
justify contours
33 ft. above ground, Exposure C

Database/Analysis
Hurricane Winds:
Based on simulations and hurricane model

The Atlantic Coastline was divided into discrete
points spaced at 50 nautical miles.
Hurricane contours over the Atlantic are provided
for interpolations and represent values for
Exposure C over land.
Importance factors are accounted for in the map
wind speeds
>1.0 at the coast
1.0 at 100 miles inland.
Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficients
(Section 2.1.4)
Exposure B Urban and suburban

Terrain with numerous closely spaced obstructions
having the size of single-family dwellings or larger
Exposure C Open terrain

Open terrain with scattered obstructions having heights
generally less than 30 ft
Exposure D Coastal
Flat unobstructed areas directly exposed to wind
flowing over open water

(Section 2.1.4)
TABLE 2.1.4-1 Power Law Constants

Exposure category zg (feet)
B 7.0 1200
C 9.5 900
D 11.5 700
(Section 2.1.4)
Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficient, kZ, modifies the

basic wind speed to account for terrain and height effects.
Structure or Wire
kZ = 2.01*( zh / zg ) (2/)
(for 15 ft. h 900 ft.)
Effective Height, zh, the height above ground to the center

of wind pressure (Section 2.1.4.3).

Gust Response Factor (Section 2.1.5)
Gust Response Factor

Structural Responses
Wind Characteristics
Horizontal Wind Profile

Statistical based
Not a significant factor in typical
buildings seldom been studied

Structure / Wire Gust Response Factors
(Section 2.1.5.1)
Gust Response Factor, G, accounts for the dynamic

effects of wind and lack of gust correlation on the
transmission line components.
Appendix G
Structure
GT = (1 + 2.7*E (BT)1/2)/kV2
Wire
GW = (1 +2.7 *E (BW)1/2)/kV2 E = Exposure Factor
B = Dimensionless
E = 4.9 ()1/2*(33/z h) fm
1/
response term
corresponding to the
quasi-static
BT = 1/(1+0.56*zh/Ls)
background wind load
BW = 1/(1+0.8*L/ Ls)
kV = 1.430
Gust Response Factor (Section 2.1.5)
Conversion Factor, kV. (Durst Curve)

Relationship between 3-second gust wind and 10-minute
average wind
Appendix E

Gust Response Vs Gust Factors
Gust Response Factor

Accounts for dynamic effects of gusts on the response of
transmission line components
Gusts may not envelop the entire span between transmission line
structures
Values can be greater than or less than 1.0
Represents the ratio of peak gust load effect to the selected mean
extreme load effect
Gust Factor
The ratio of the gust wind speed at a specified average period, e.g.
2 seconds, to the selected mean speed, e.g. 10 minute
Used as a multiplier of the mean extreme wind speed to obtain the
gust wind speed.
Values greater than 1.0
Gust Response Factor, G
Davenport Equations, Gust Response Factors for

Transmission Line Loading, Proceeding, 5th
International Conference on Wind Engineering, 1979
ASCE 74, Guidelines for Electrical Transmission Line
Structural Loading, 1991
ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures, 2002
IEC 60826, Loading and Strength of Transmission
Lines, 2002

Force Coefficient (Section 2.1.6)
Appendix H
Shape and Size
Aspect Ratio
Yawed Wind
Solidity
Shielding
Not a precise science

Topography Effects (Section 2.1.7)
Funneling of Winds
Mountains
Wind Speed-up

Extreme Wind Loads Section 2.1
Wind is a Random Event
Equations are not exact

Equations are not intended to cover all
potential conditions
Load factor is generally applied to cover
uncertainty
With todays technology, these equations
are more scientific than most people think
ICE and WIND LOADING Section 2.3

ICE and WIND LOADING Section 2.3
Introduction (2.3.1)
Categories of Icing (2.3.2)
Design Assumptions for Ice Loading (2.3.3
Ice Load on Wires due to Freezing Rain (2.3.4)
Using Historical Ice Data
Using Ice Map
Combined Wind and Ice Loads
Ice Buildup on Structural Members (2.3.5)
Vertical Loads
Concurrent Wind Loads
Unbalanced Ice Loading
Introduction (2.3.1)
Ice accretion is often a governing

loading criterion
Larger Vertical Loads
Larger Exposed Wind Area on Wires
Larger Tensions
Loading Imbalances

Categories of Icing (2.3.2)
Freezing Rain (Glaze)
In-Cloud (Rime or Glaze)
Wet Snow
Hoarfrost

Design Assumptions for Ice Loading (2.3.3)
Equivalent uniform
radial thickness
Radial Ice

Design Assumptions for Ice Loading (2.3.3)
Equivalent uniform
radial thickness
Radial Ice

Using Historical Ice Data

(Modeling your own Service Area (App. I.3)) new!
Using Ice Map new!
Combined Wind and Ice Loads new!

Using Ice Map (2.3.4.2)
ASCE 74 91 Version
50-year return interval ice based on 9 years of data collected by Bennett.

Data collected from 1928-1936, and did not differentiate between glaze,
rime and accreted snow. Also, did not report the equivalent radial ice
thickness.
Added a wind-on-ice requirement as a percentage of the 50 year basic wind

speed intended to represent the extreme wind which could be expected
over a 7 day period

ASCE 74 Maps (New!)

Based on work of Kathy Jones from U.S. Armys Cold
Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL),
funded by EPRI, CRREL, FEMA, CEA and a number of
individual utilities
Same map as presented in ASCE 7-2005
Maps present 50-year values for icing from freezing rain only
with concurrent gust speed

ASCE 74 New Maps
Figure 2.3-1.
Extreme Radial Glaze Ice thickness (in.),
Western United States 50-year return period
with concurrent 3-sec wind speeds

ASCE 74 New Maps
Figure 2.3-2.
Extreme Radial Glaze Ice thickness
(in.), Eastern United States, 50-year
return period with concurrent 3-sec.
wind speed.

ASCE 74 New Maps

Figure 2.3-3. Extreme Radial
Glaze Ice thickness (in.), Lake
Superior Detail, 50-year return
period with concurrent 3-sec.
wind speeds.
Figure 2.3-4.
Extreme Radial Glaze
Ice thickness (in.),
Fraser Valley Detail,
50-year return period
with concurrent 3-
sec. wind speed.

ASCE 74 New Maps

Figure 2.3-5. Extreme Radial Glaze Ice
thickness (in.), Columbia River Gorge
Detail, 50-year return period with
concurrent 3-sec. wind speed.
Figure 2.3-6. Extreme Radial Glaze Ice thickness

(in.), Alaska, 50-year return period with
concurrent 3-sec. wind speed.

Modeling ice accretion from weather data (Appendix I)

Very little data on ice accretions on overhead lines are
available; mathematical modeling from weather data is
required
Figure I4-1. Locations of weather stations used in

preparation of Figures 2.3-1 through 2.3-5.

Model for the accretion of ice in freezing rain (App. I)
N 1/2
1 2
t = (Pj o ) + (3.6VjWj ) ,
2
i j =1
where
t = equivalent radial ice thickness (mm)
Pj = precipitation amount (mm) in jth hour
Vj = wind speed (m/s) in jth hour
Wj = liquid water content (g/m3) of the rain-
filled air in jth hour = 0.067Pj0.846
o = density of water (1 g/cm3)
i = density of ice (0.9 g/cm3)
N = duration of the freezing rain storm (hr)

Superstations for extreme value analysis
(App. I)
pattern of
damaging ice storms
terrain
proximity to water
latitude
frequency of Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Octoberice
18, 2006
storms Ice and Wind 62
Extreme value analysis (App. I)
Peaks-over-threshold method with generalized Pareto distribution
1/ k
k(x u)
F ( x ) = 1 1 k 0

(x - u)
= 1 exp k =0

Determine parameters using Probability Weighted Moments
4b1 3b0 + u
shape parameter k =
b0 2b1
scale parameter = (b0 u)( 1 + k)
n
x
1
b0 = (i )
n i =1
n
i 1

1
b1 = x( i )
n i =1 n 1
Equivalent ice thickness for return period T: xT = u + 1 ( T ) k

k
Combined Wind and Ice Loads

Ice Load
WI = 1.24(d + Iz)Iz (2.3-3)
Where:
WI = weight of glaze ice (pound per foot)
d = bare diameter of wire (inches)
IZ = design ice thickness (inches)
Wind on Ice Covered Wires

Projected Area, force coefficients
3 sec. gust wind from maps



Vertical Loads
Concurrent Wind
Unbalanced Ice Loading

Whats the big deal?
Why are High Intensity Winds different?
What are the characteristics of High Intensity Winds?
Narrow front winds
Wind speeds are greater than extreme wind loads
Affected by local topography

Tornados
Scale Tornado Wind Speed Path Length Path Width
F P P
(mph) (miles) (feet)
0 72 <1.0 50
1 73-112 1.0-3.1 51-170
2 113-157 3.2-9.9 171-530
3 158-206 10-31 531-1670
4 207-260 32-99 1671-4750
5 261-318 100-315 4751-6,000
TABLE 2.2.1-1. Ranges of Tornado Wind Speed, Path Length, and Path Width for FPP Scale

National Weather Service Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -
TABLE 2.2.1-2 Tornado Frequencies and F-Scale
Classifications for 19161978 in the United
States of America (Tecson et al. 1979)
35
30
25
20
15 Percentage
10
5
0
F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
Downbursts
Associated with severe thunderstorm cells
Relatively wide gust fronts
Elliptical damage pattern

Micro bursts
Micro Burst: A strong localized downdraft from

a thunderstorm with peak gusts lasting 2 to 5
minutes. National Weather Service, Missoula, Mt.
Intensity levels up to F2 Tornado strength
Gust width 330 660
Elliptical and strip damage patterns

SoWhat should I do now?
Tornado F2 wind speeds (157 mph)
result in little additional tower structure
weights. Tower designs may require
additional shear capacity due to
lowering of resultant wind loads.
Tornado F2 wind speeds (157 mph)
may have no effect on pole type
transmission class structures.

APPENDIX K:
Investigation of Transmission Line

Failures

Why investigate failures?
Increase understanding of line behavior

Affirmation of existing design and maintenance
criteria
Improvement of design criteria and
maintenance practices
Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 -

October 18, 2006 Section 2 - Ice and Wind 76
Why address failure investigations in a
Loading Manual?
Most likely, a utility focuses on restoring
power rather than investigating a
structural failure.
High Load explanation may not be
acceptable.
A loading case, previously not
considered, may be the limiting design
condition.
Information presented is seldom
addressed in other publications.
FAILURE INVESTIGATIONS
Our Goal is to improve future designs, if

necessary, or validate existing design
based on accurate failure analysis.

FAILURE INVESTIGATIONS
Our Plan is to establish and separate
the failure mechanisms for the various
failed structure pieces.
Determine the initial failure regardless
of cause (ice, narrow or broad front
wind, missing structure members or
connections, etc.).
Determine secondary failures caused by
load shift from the initial failure.
Causes of Failure
Natural load conditions that exceed the
design criteria
Manmade causes
Structure deficiencies
Wire system deficiencies
Construction causes

Post Failure Containment
Longitudinal Cascade
Transverse Cascade

Failure Investigation Preparation
Equipment (a.k.a. bug-out bag)
A Plan for priorities
Technical preparation

Failure Investigation Procedure
Photography survey
Gather evidence from witnesses and

those arriving earlier.
Develop image of sequence of events
Safety first

THE INVESTIGATION
The Field Checklist
The Office Checklist
Report Preparation

Additional Load Considerations Section 3
Introduction
Construction & Maintenance Loads (3.1)
General (3.1.1)
Construction Loads (3.1.2)
Structure Erection (3.1.2.1)
Ground Wire & Conductor Installation (3.1.2.2)
Recommended Minimum Loads for Wire Installation (3.1.2.3)
Maintenance Loads (3.1.3)
Fall Protection (3.2)
Longitudinal Loads (3.3)
Longitudinal Loads on Intact Systems (3.3.1)
Longitudinal Loads & Failure Containment (3.3.2)
Design all Structures for Longitudinal Loads (3.3.2.1)
Install Stop Structures at Specified Intervals (3.3.2.2)
Install Release Mechanism (3.3.2.3)
Structure Vibration (3.4)
Conductor Galloping (3.5)
Earthquake LoadRevised
(3.6)ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -
Introduction (3.0)
Section 3 does not address:
Landslides
Ice Flows
Frost Heave
Flooding
Other Special Loading Scenarios

General
Construction Loads are directly related to construction methods
Personnel Safety is the paramount factor
Construction Loads
Loads acting on the structure due to the assembly and erection and
the installation of ground wires, insulators, conductors & hardware
Lifting of Structures
Tilting of ground assembled structure to vertical alignment
Pick up of structural section by helicopter
Worker Loading (Point Loading on Lattice Members, Etc)
Ground Wire & Conductor Installation
Recognizes IEEE Std. 524-03 as leading standard
Addresses common stringing load scenarios
Provides recommended minimum installation loads and load factors for
ground wires and conductors (3 psf, no ice on wires and structures)
Load Factor for transverse wind loading (1.5)
Load Factor for vertical loads from dead end condition (1.5)
Load
October 18, 2006 Factor for vertical loads from
Ice and Windintact condition (2.0) 88
Maintenance Loads
Weight of Workers on structure, structural elements and wires
Load effects resulting from temporary modifications
Member replacements
Guying
Load effects resulting from adjustment or replacement of ground
wires, conductors, insulators and hardware
Each maintenance operation is recommended to be analyzed in
sequence by engineer
Load factors not provided

Fall Protection Loads (3.2)
Dynamic load effects that are created as the result of the fall of a
worker from an elevated position
Dynamic load effects act on the worker anchorage point
Anchorage points are points that provide a secure attachment for a
fall protection system
Fall protection systems assumed to meet all applicable OSHA and
Government requirements
Recognizes IEEE Std. 1307-04 as Governing Standard
IEEE Std. provides guidance regarding loads and criteria for
anchorages and step bolts
Anchorage locations and climbing devices recommended to be
coordinated with operation and maintenance personnel
Number of anchorages
Location of anchorages
Maximum number of attachments at each anchorage
Maximum expected arresting force
Type of climbing devices
Reviseddevices
Number of climbing ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -
Structures may be required to resist longitudinal loads
Loads resulting from inequalities of wind and/or ice on adjacent
spans
Loads resulting from ground wire, conductor, insulator, or structural
and component failure
Inability to resist longitudinal loads may result in a cascading failure
of a transmission line
Types of Longitudinal Loading
Longitudinal Loads on Intact Systems
Differential loadings on adjacent spans resulting from different wind and
ice loading and temperature extremes
Unequal wire tensions
Wind driven debris and materials
Longitudinal Loads and Failure Containment
Severe load imbalances caused by breakage of ground wires,
conductors, insulators, hardware and structural components
Addresses designing all structures for longitudinal loads
Addresses installation of stop structures at specified intervals
Addresses installation of release mechanisms
Structures may be required to resist longitudinal loads
Loads resulting from inequalities of wind and/or ice on adjacent
spans
Loads resulting from ground wire, conductor, insulator, or structural
and component failure
Inability to resist longitudinal loads may result in a cascading failure
of a transmission line
Types of Longitudinal Loading
Longitudinal Loads on Intact Systems
Differential loadings on adjacent spans resulting from different wind and
ice loading and temperature extremes
Unequal wire tensions
Wind driven debris and materials
Longitudinal Loads and Failure Containment
Severe load imbalances caused by breakage of ground wires,
conductors, insulators, hardware and structural components
Addresses designing all structures for longitudinal loads
Addresses installation of stop structures at specified intervals
Addresses installation of release mechanisms
Design all Structures (3.3.2.1)

Design all Structures (3.3.2.1)

Structure Vibration (3.4)
Dynamic forces such as wind, conductor motion and earthquakes
may in isolated cases cause structure vibrations
Majority of problems associated with wind induced vibration of
individual structural elements (tubular and structural shapes)
In isolated cases wind induced vibration can cause:
Fatigue failures of the member or connection bolts
Loosening of bolted connection
Vibration of members can be eliminated using recommended design
and detailing practices
Tubular arms likely to be susceptible to vibration prior to the stringing
of the ground wire and/or conductor
Use temporary weights on tubular arms to eliminate vibration at or near
the resonant frequency

Conductor Galloping (3.5)
Galloping (the large amplitude motion) of ground wires and
conductors may occur with moderate winds blowing across ice
coated wires
Galloping of wires is a dynamic event that is random in nature and
is capable of producing significant wire tension increases
Galloping causes mainly vertical large amplitude motions with
amplitudes that may reach values approaching the sag of the wires
Galloping may cause electrical, structural and mechanical problems
including:
Flashovers among wires leading to temporary outages
Clashing of wires leading to damaged conductors
Permanent increases in ground wire and conductor sag
Excessive wear, fatiguing and failure of ground wires, conductors,
insulators and hardware (particularly at dead end assemblies)
Collapse of structural systems and components
Mitigation alternatives include the use of:
Detuning pendulums and inter-phase spacers
Airflow spoilersRevised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -
October 18,
2006
Modification of conductor Ice and Wind
designs 96
Earthquake Load (3.6)
Transmission structures need not be designed for ground induced
vibrations caused by earthquake motion because:
Historically, transmission structures have performed well in earthquake
events (only isolated instances of failures have been recorded)
Structural loads caused by wind and/or ice loading combinations and
longitudinal loads exceed earthquake loads
Experience has shown that infrequent failures of transmission
structures are generally related to soil liquefaction and/or earth
fractures

Structure Vibration Appendix F
Introduction (F.1)
Caused by Environmental and Geographic Exposure
Potential for Occurrence Higher than for Typical Civil Engineering Structures
Structure Vibrations (F.2)
Causes of Structural Vibrations
Aeolian Vibration
Sub-Conductor Oscillation
Galloping
Induced Ground Motion (Earthquakes)
Natural Frequencies (Conductor & Wires)
3 to 150Hz (Aeolian Vibration)
0.15 to 10Hz (Sub-Conductor Oscillation)
0.08 to 3Hz (Galloping)
Mitigation Alternatives (Conductor & Wires)
Dampers & Spacer Dampers
Air Foils & Spoilers
Sag & Tension Adjustments
Specialized Conductor Designs
Mitigation Alternatives (Structure & Members)
KL/r Ratio (<200 for Double Angle Members)
Identifying Critical Vortex Induced Wind Speed
Identifying Natural Frequencies (Structure & Cross Arms)
Change Mass, Stiffness or Damping (Structure & Cross Arms)
Ballasting Tubular Members (Cross Arms)
Special Loads Appendix J
Introduction (J.1)
Caused by Load Inequalities Resulting from the Disturbance or Disruption of the Wire System
Affects the Magnitude of the Unbalanced Loads at each Support Structure
Weather Related Longitudinal Loads (J.2)
Suspension Supports (J.2.1)
Unequal Wind and/or Ice Loads Cause Differential Tensions
Conductor Temperature Variation in Unequal Spans Cause Differential Tensions
Unbalanced Loads Generally do not Exceed 10 to 20 Percent of Bare Wire Tension
In Cloud Icing can Produce Unbalanced Loads in Excess of 20 Percent of Bare Wire Tension
Strain Supports (J.2.2)
Must Resist Differential Tensions of Adjacent Spans
Ground Wire Differential Tensions may be Higher than Comparable Conductor Values
Mitigation Alternatives Include Ground Wire Suspension Links, Slip and Release Clamps, Removing the Ground Wire and Designing
Ground Wire Supports to Collapse at a Defined Load to Act as a Fuse
Failure Related Longitudinal Loads (J.3)
Residual Static Load (J.3.1)
Design each Structure for Bare, Broken Wire Residual Static Load (RSL)
RSL Values Approximately Approach 60 to 70% of Everyday Wire Tension
RSL Applied to 1/3 of Conductor Support Points or to 1 or All Ground Wire Support Points
EPRI Method (J.3.2)
Provides Unbalanced Loads as a Function of Horizontal Wire Tension for each Design Load Case, Span/Sag Ratio, Span/Insulator Ratio,
and Support Flexibility
Provides Unbalanced Loads at each Structure Away from Failure
Provides Unbalanced Loads in Relation to Risk of Failure
Failure Containment (BPA Method) (J.3.3)
Assumes Breakage of a Single Wire or Phase at any one Time
Suspension Conductor (67% of EDT for Light, 133% of EDT for Standard & Heavy Suspension Structures, Everyday Loading, No Ice or
Wind)
Strain Deadend Conductor (Transverse Wind Load (40mph), No Ice, LTV Overload Factor of 1.5, 125% of EDT)
Percent of Everyday Wire Tension (J.3.4)
Broken Wire Load (70% of EDT
Failure Containment Requirements (J.4)
General Rules (J.4.1) Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -
Basic Assumption (J.4.2)
October 18,
2006
Special Resistance Structures (J.4.3) Ice and Wind 99
Failure Containment for Icing Events (J.4.4)
THE WIRE SYSTEM Section 4
Identify Tension Sections (4.1)
Wire conditions (4.2)
Initial, After Creep and After Heavy Load
Wire limits of use (4.3)
Tension limits
The Ruling Span approximation (4.4)
Wire tension loads (4.5)
At horizontal line angles
At vertical line angles
Identify Tension Section (4.1)

Wire Conditions (4.2)
Initial (at sagging time)
Final After Creep (after several years
under ordinary mechanical tension)
Wire will see something close to this
condition most of its life unless stretched
by an unlikely heavy load
Final After Heavy Load (after severe
loading causing very high tension)
Wire may never see this condition
Cable condition After Creep

Cable condition After Load

Wire Tension Limits of Use (4.3)

The Ruling Span Approximation (4.4)

Wire Tension Loads (4.5)

Need for alternate to Ruling Span (4.6)
(also discuss uneven wind on spans of section)


ASCE Practice 74 Rev 2006 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASCE Practice 74 Rev 2006 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASCE Manuals and Reports on

Engineering Practice #74

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Frank W. Agnew Richard F. Aichinger Carl W. Austin

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

First edition was published in 1984

Second edition was published in 1991

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Definitions, Notations and SI Conversion Factors

Limitations of Reliability Based Design

Conversion of Wind Speed Averaging Time

Supplemental Information on Structure Vibration

Equations for Gust Response Factors

Supplemental Information on Force Coefficients

Supplemental Information on Ice Loading

Supplemental Information on Special Loads

Investigation of Transmission Line Failures

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

This manual addresses transmission

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

The Structural Support System.

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

For example, an event with a 50-year return

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Can adjust the relative reliability of a design by

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Probability of failure for a RP50 load event

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Useful tool to approximately adjust design

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Relative Load RP Wind Load

Relative Load RP Ice Concurrent

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Manual provides suggested load factors and

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

LEL, e%, of Strength Factor, , for COVR =

Manual provides typical values of the

Failure Containment QD = EFFECT OF [ DL & FC ]

Construct & Maint. QD = EFFECT OF [DL and CM (C&M)]

IV - OBTAIN STRENGTH FACTOR, , FROM TABLE 1.4-2

V - DESIGN COMPONENT for NOMINAL STRENGTH, Rn SUCH THAT:

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Based on 2% annual probability, 3-second gust wind

Converts kinetic energy of moving air into potential energy

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

3-SECOND GUST SPEED

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

485 weather stations, minimum 5 years of data

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Based on simulations and hurricane model

Exposure B Urban and suburban

Exposure C Open terrain

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

TABLE 2.1.4-1 Power Law Constants

Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficient, kZ, modifies the

(for 15 ft. h 900 ft.)