8 Recent Developments in the Specification of Wind Loads on Transmission Lines

Journal of Wind & Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1, Jan 2008, pp. 8-18

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SPECIFICATION

OF WIND LOADS ON TRANSMISSION LINES

J.D. Holmes
JDH Consulting, P.O. Box 269, Mentone, Victoria, Australia

ABSTRACT
A review of recent developments in the specification of wind loading of transmission lines and supporting
towers is given, with particular emphasis on the effects of local wind storms or ‘high-intensity winds’ -
specifically severe convective winds and tornados. Drag coefficients for conductors and lattice towers are
discussed, together with span reduction factors in both synoptic winds and downdrafts. Wind risk assessment
for a complete line is also discussed.

Key Words:Convective downdraft, downburst, lattice tower, overhead line, span-reduction factor,
thunderstorm, transmission line, wind loads

INTRODUCTION
The transmission of electrical power is a key infrastructure function in both developed and developing
countries, including India. The vulnerability of high-voltage transmission lines and local distribution lines
to severe natural hazards is a major concern for designers, owners and managers of these facilities. However,
as for other structures, safety and reliability must be balanced against economic cost.
The major natural hazards affecting electrical transmission lines and their supporting towers, are severe
wind storms of various types. However, there are significant differences between the response of high-
voltage transmission lines and towers, and other structures, to wind:
• They are structurally designed with generally lower safety margins against collapse than other
structures
• The overall length of a transmission line system is relevant when considering probability and risk
of receiving strong winds from localized wind storms such as thunderstorm downbursts and
tornadoes.
In recent years, as a result of many observed failures in Australia, Brazil, Canada, South Africa etc., it
has been observed that transmission lines are vulnerable to local ‘high-intensity’ winds (e.g. [1]). These are
severe convective downdrafts and tornados resulting from thunderstorms. New generation design codes
and standards for overhead lines are now reflecting these events.
This paper reviews recent developments concerning the design for wind loads of overhead lines – both
high-voltage transmission lines, and local distribution lines. In particular the characteristics of severe
convective downdrafts and span reduction factors for both large scale synoptic winds and convective
downdrafts are discussed. Risk analyses for long transmission line systems to local storms are also
discussed.
Journal of Wind & Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1, Jan 2008, pp. 8-18 9

TYPES OF SEVERE WINDS

There are several types of windstorm event that can produce wind loads of a level of concern to structural
designers (e.g. [2]). However, two general classifications can be made:
1) Synoptic winds. These are large synoptic-scale events driven by large scale pressure gradients. They
include the winter gales of the temperate latitudes, and also tropical cyclones (hurricanes, typhoons) that
affect certain tropical oceans and adjacent coastlines. Traditionally, transmission line design has been based
on the properties of this group, which generate well-documented boundary layers and turbulence
characteristics near the ground.
2) Local convective downdrafts and tornados produced by thunderstorms. This group is often referred to
in the transmission line industry as ‘high-intensity winds’ [1], [3]. They have been known to cause damage
to transmission lines and towers on many occasions. The term ‘downburst’, originally used by Fujita [4] is
also used for severe thunderstorm downdrafts. An example of a failure due to a severe downdraft is shown
in Figure 1.

Fig. 1: Failure of a transmission line tower in Australia caused by a severe convective downdraft

Design documents are now beginning to require designers to take account of these localized storm events
(e.g. ASCE, [3]; Standards Australia, [5]). Figure 2 shows a proposal for a zoning system for transmission
lines, showing those parts of Australia for which designers need only take account of, either synoptic winds
or convective downdrafts, and the south and eastern coastal regions in which designers should take account
of both types of event.
A number of models of downbursts have been developed for use in wind loading studies; these include
fully empirical (Holmes and Oliver, [6]), numerical and analytical (Chay et al, [7]), and numerical (i.e.
computational fluid dynamics) models (Kim and Hangan, [8]). Full-scale wind speed-time histories from a
‘rear-flank’ downdraft are also available (Gast and Schroeder [9]; Holmes et al, ([10], [11])).
10 Recent Developments in the Specification of Wind Loads on Transmission Lines

Zone I - Synoptic winds only

200 km
200 km

Zone II - Convective downdrafts only

o
12 5 20 0 km

Zone III - Synoptic and convective

Zone I - Synoptic winds only

Fig. 2: Proposed zoning system for storm type in Australia

NATURE OF THE RESPONSE

Fortunately, resonant dynamic response to synoptic wind events does not appear to be a major problem
with transmission line systems. Although the suspended lines themselves usually have natural frequencies
less than 1 Hertz, the resonant response is largely damped out because of the very large aerodynamic
damping (e.g. Matheson and Holmes, [12]).
The natural frequencies of supporting towers up to 50 metres in height are normally greater than 1 Hertz,
and hence the resonant response is also negligible. Thus, except for extremely tall supporting towers and
long line spans, we can safely compute the peak response of a transmission line system, neglecting the
resonant dynamic response. Then the peak response is directly related to the instantaneous gusts upwind,
and hence transmission line structures can be designed using gust wind speeds. However, because of the
non-uniform spatial gust structure, assumption of the same peak gust along the full span is conservative;
this leads to the concept of a span reduction factor, (as discussed in a later section).
For those cases where resonant response is significant, i.e. very high supporting towers, and very long
spans, a simplified random response model of the tower-line combination, based on the gust response
factor concept is available (Davenport, [13]).

CALCULATION OF LOADS

Drag Coefficients for conductors

The nominal wind force acting on a single conductor perpendicular to the span can be taken to be:
Fc = qzc . CD. Ac sin2θ . α (1)
1 2
qzc is the free-stream dynamic wind pressure (= ρ a Û zc ) at a suitable mean conductor height, zc,
2
CD is the drag force coefficient for the conductor,
Ac is the reference area, which may be taken as s×b, where s is the wind span, and b is the conductor
diameter,
θ is the horizontal angle of incidence of the wind in relation to the direction of the line,
α is a span reduction factor,
ρa is the air density,
Journal of Wind & Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1, Jan 2008, pp. 8-18 11

Uzc is the design gust wind speed at the mean conductor height, zc.

The ASCE Guidelines ([3], [14]) show experimental data for the drag force coefficient as a function of
Reynolds Number, Re, for several conductor types, based on wind tunnel tests. Some of this data is reproduced
in Figure 3. The Reynolds Number can be calculated by:
U zc b
Re = (2)
15 × 10 −6
where Uzc is in metres per second, and b is in metres.
An average drag force coefficient of 1.0 is normally used in practice.

Loads on lattice towers

Drag coefficients for sections of lattice towers, such as high-voltage transmission line towers, have been
determined through a number of wind-tunnel studies (e.g. Bayar, [15]).
The basic formula for drag force for winds blowing at any angle to a face of a rectangular lattice tower
is:
D = C .A .q (3)
D z z
where D is the drag force on a complete tower panel section (i.e. all four sides of a square section tower)
C is the drag coefficient for the complete tower section - it depends on the solidity of a face, and the
D
wind direction.
Az is the projected area of tower members in one face of the tower
⎛ 1 ⎞
qz ⎜ = ρ a U 2z ⎟ is the dynamic wind pressure at the average height, z, of the panel under consideration.
⎝ 2 ⎠
The overall drag coefficient for a lattice tower depends upon the solidity of the towers. Higher solidity
results in greater mutual interference and shielding, and a reduction in drag coefficient, based on the projected
area of members. Figure 4 shows the values of CD specified in the Australian/New Zealand Standard for
wind actions, AS/NZS1170.2 (Standards Australia, [16]), for square sections with flat-sided members, as a
function of the solidity, compared with experimental values obtained from wind-tunnel tests for wind blowing
1.4
3

1.3
10
13
Drag coefficient, Cd

1.2 14

2 9

1.1 8
1 7 12

5
1.0 11
6

0.9

0.8
4

0.7

104 105
Reynolds Number, Re
Fig. 3: Drag coefficients for various conductors [14]
12 Recent Developments in the Specification of Wind Loads on Transmission Lines

normally to a face. For the range of solidity from 0.1 to 0.5, the following equations are appropriate (from
Bayar, [15]).
CD = 4.2 - 7δ (for δ < 0.2) (4)
The ASCE Guidelines [14] and CSIR Recommendations [17] for transmission line structures give
equations for the wind drag force on a section of a lattice tower for any arbitrary wind direction, θ, with
respect to the face of the tower. The CSIR equation may be written as follows :

D=q [C A cos2θ + C . A sin2θ ] Kθ (5)

z dn1 n1 dn2 n2

where C , C are drag coefficients for wind normal to adjacent faces, 1 and 2, of the tower,
dn1 dn2
A , A are the total projected areas of faces 1 and 2, respectively,
n1 n2
θ is the angle of incidence of the wind with respect to the normal to face 1 of the tower,
Kθ is a wind incidence factor (derived empirically), given by:

Kθ = 1 + 0.55 .δ. sin2 (2θ) (6)

where δ is the solidity ratio (for 0.2 ≤ δ ≤ 0.5).

4.0

3.5
Drag coefficient CD

AS/NZS1170.2
_

3.0

2.5

2.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Solidity Ratio δ
Fig. 4: Drag coefficients for square-sided towers as a function of solidity

The ASCE Guidelines [14] gave a similar form to Equation (5), with a slightly different equation for Kθ.
The drag of a lattice tower can also be computed by summing the contributions from every member.
However, this is a complex calculation, as the effect of varying pitch and yaw angles on the various members,
must be considered. This method also cannot easily account for interference and shielding effects between
members and faces.
Recent research at the University of Western Ontario, [18], has studied wind drag forces on the cross-
arms of transmission towers, apparently previously neglected in wind-tunnel studies (Figure 5). The effects
of yaw and pitch angles were studied as part of this investigation. The latter arise from small vertical wind
components expected to occur during severe convective downdraft and tornado events. In the UWO study
measurements were also made on a section of a guyed transmission tower.
The UWO study found that inclined flow to the cross arm and tower section produced significantly
increased drag forces, mainly due to the increased projected area exposed to the wind.
Journal of Wind & Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1, Jan 2008, pp. 8-18 13

Fig. 5: Pitched cross arm under wind-tunnel test at the University of Western Ontario [18]

Span Reduction Factors

The purpose of a span reduction factor (SRF) is to allow for the fact that wind gusts, and hence local wind
forces on an overhead line, do not peak simultaneously over a long horizontal distance normal to the mean
wind direction. The term ‘wind gust response factor’ is used by the ASCE [3], [14] for the same factor.
Turbulent eddies in atmospheric strong wind flow have finite sizes and will not ‘envelope’ a complete
transmission line span. This characteristic can be quantified by the correlation coefficient for fluctuating
wind velocities sampled a finite distance apart.
As an example of measurements of the turbulence of the atmospheric boundary layer of synoptic winds,
Figure 6 shows the correlation coefficient for fluctuating wind speeds measured for various separations at
a height of 13.5 metres, [19]. ρ is defined by Equation (7).

u' ( y1 )u' ( y2 )
ρ= (7)
σ u ( y1 ).σ u ( y2 )
where σu (y1) and σu (y2) are the standard deviations of longitudinal velocity fluctuations at y1 and y2
respectively.

Measurements
exp(-y/40)
1
0.9
0.8
Correlation Coefft.

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 50 100 150
Horizontal separation distance (m)
Fig. 6: Lateral correlation of atmospheric turbulence in synoptic (boundary-layer) winds [19]
14 Recent Developments in the Specification of Wind Loads on Transmission Lines

For a homogeneous wind field (i.e. horizontally consistent) the correlation coefficient should be a unique
function of the separation distance between the two points, i.e. y1-y2. The separation distance has been used
as the abscissa in Figure 6. The experimental points have been fitted with a simple exponential function of
the form:

ρ = exp [-|y1 - y2|/ly] (8)

ly is known as the ‘lateral length scale’ of turbulence, and can be regarded as an average width of the
large-scale eddies in the turbulence. In the case of Figure 6, ly is about 40 metres.
Span reduction factors in synoptic boundary-layer winds can be calculated using the principles of stationary
random processes. The following equation can be used:
In Equation (9), Iu is the turbulence intensity at the average height of an overhead line,
g is a peak factor (falling between 3 and 4)
B is a factor equal to the reduction in the effective mean square fluctuating force acting on a support
(insulator) with adjacent line spans equal to Ls. B can be shown (e.g. [2]) to be given by the following
double integral:

F ′2 + LS + LS
B=
f ′2 2
.L
=
∫ ∫
− LS − LS
ρ ( yi − y j ).μ ( yi ).μ ( y j ).dyi dy j (10)

where the double integration is taken over the two adjacent spans, each of length Ls.
ρ( ) is the correlation coefficient for velocity or load fluctuations at pairs of points along a line, as
previously defined.
μ( ) is the influence line for the influence of a local sectional wind force at any point on an adjacent span,
on the force (reaction) on the support point on the tower.
Assuming an exponential decay form for the correlation function ρ(yi-yj), (Figure 6), and taking a linear
influence line μ(y) over each adjacent span, Equation (9), with Equation (10) for B, were evaluated for a
number of cases.
The results of these calculations are shown in Figure 7 for a typical line height of 40 metres. The turbulence
intensity, Iu, was taken as 0.156 for open terrain, and 0.195 for suburban terrain, making use of the Australian
New Zealand Wind Actions Standard, AS/NZS 1170.2: 2002 (Standards Australia, [16]). The lateral length
scale, ly, was taken as one half of the longitudinal length scale. In AS/NZS1170.2, the latter is given as 85
× 40.25 = 120 m, hence giving a value of ly of 60 metres.
A single empirical function, that is an adequate fit to both terrain cases, is as follows.

SRF = 0.59 + 0.41 exp (-Ls/210) (11)

Equation (11) is a possible single function that could be adopted for design for all terrains, in large scale
synoptic wind types, including tropical cyclones. Equation (11) has been curve-fitted to the calculated span
reduction factors up to 1000 metres. If it is used for Ls greater than 1000 m it will be conservative.
Span reduction factors in convective downdrafts are considerably greater than those calculated for synoptic
boundary layer winds. The main reason for this is that there is a large underlying ‘running-mean’ component
which is nearly fully correlated over large separation distances. Figure 8 shows the span reduction factor
calculated directly from the velocity-time histories measured during the rear-flank downdraft recorded near
Lubbock, Texas in 2002 (Holmes et al, [11]). Figure 8 shows that the effective reduction for a span of 400
metres is only about 10%. A typical SRF line for synoptic winds is also shown on Figure 8; this line is
clearly much lower than the line for the downdraft.
The difference in the SRFs for the two types of event show that a similar design wind speed at a point in
a downdraft corresponds to a wind load on a conductor span 40-50% greater than the corresponding load in
a synoptic wind event with the same wind speed at a point. This is probably a major reason why convective
Journal of Wind & Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1, Jan 2008, pp. 8-18 15

Span Reduction Factor

1.0

0.8

0.6
SRF
0.4 open terrain
suburban terrain
0.2
0.59+0.41exp(-Ls/210)
0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Span Ls (m)

Fig. 7: Span reduction factors for synoptic winds from correlation function

downdrafts regularly produce failures of transmission lines in regions where they are prone to occur. In
relation to Equation (9), the higher values of SRF can be explained by the lower effective turbulence
intensity, Iu, and also a lower peak factor, g, corresponding to a shorter period of strong winds.

Span reduction factor

1
R =e-0.000303y
0.8

0.6
SRF

0.4

0.2

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Span (m)

Fig. 8: Span reduction factors derived from a severe downdraft in Texas,

compared with data given for synoptic winds [11]

STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR UNDER WIND LOADING

The structural behaviour of an electrical transmission tower in a wind field of a severe thunderstorm downdraft
is likely to be different to its behaviour in synoptic boundary-layer winds. For example, the differing span
reduction factors as described in the previous section will result in relatively higher loads coming from the
conductors compared to the supporting towers.
Savory et al [20] carried out preliminary studies of the structural response of a typical lattice transmission
tower to the windfields from both a tornado, and a downburst. The responses in both cases were found to be
quasi-static. The tornado impacting directly on the tower produced failure caused by buckling of horizontal
plan bracing members in the lower part of the tower.
Shehata et al [21] and Shehata and El Damatty [22] described a study of the behaviour of a guyed
transmission tower to simulated downburst windfields. The tower is of a type that failed during a downburst
event at Grosse Isle, Manitoba, Canada in 1996, designed for synoptic winds. Simulated downburst wind
fields were produced by a time-varying computational fluid dynamics solution for an impinging jet. The
study showed that the part of the supporting tower below the supporting guys was adequate to resist the
16 Recent Developments in the Specification of Wind Loads on Transmission Lines

downburst loads. However, special consideration for downburst loading should be made when designing
the region of the tower where the guys and cross-arms are located.

RISK MODELS FOR TRANSMISSION LINES

Transmission line systems often extend for several hundred kilometres, and, in certain parts of the world,
may be prone to relatively frequent impact, somewhere along a line, by small intense local windstorms,
such as tornadoes and downbursts. Failures from such events are quite common - Figure 1 shows the result
of one.
The risk of failure of any one tower along a line is much greater than that for a single isolated structure.
Design of the supporting structures requires knowledge of the total risk of the complete line to these small
intense windstorms. Knowledge of the risk of failures enables a balance to be made between the cost of
failures, and the cost of replacement towers. This may vary from country to country, as in some cases there
are alternative routes for power transmission.

Tornado Risk Models

Since the width of tornado tracks (usually less than 100 metres) is almost always less than the span length
between towers, the critical factor in line failure is intersection of a tornado with a tower. Thus the rate of
intersection with a tower is required, rather than with the conductors.
Twisdale and Dunn [23] describe several tornado risk models for point and ‘lifeline’ targets. Milford and
Goliger [24] developed a tornado risk model for transmission line design which considered normal
intersection of a tornado with the line direction.
A simplified probabilistic model is discussed in [2], considering both normal and oblique intersections
of tornado tracks with the line target, representing a transmission line.

Downdraft Risk Model

Damage ‘footprints’ produced by severe thunderstorm downdrafts are wider than those produced by
tornadoes. The lengths of the damaged areas produced by downdrafts, are generally shorter than those of
tornadoes, however. The increased width usually results in several transmission line spans being enveloped
by damaging winds, and several adjacent towers often fail as a group. The direct wind load on the conductors
themselves is therefore a significant component of the overall wind load in downburst events. This must be
incorporated into a risk model.
Oliver et al [25] describe a downburst risk model for transmission lines, which allows the prediction of
an event frequency, where an event is the intersection of a region of wind above a given or design wind
speed with a line of some defined length. The probability of such an event is dependent on:
• the overall length of the line;
• the relative angle, between the direction of the downburst path and the line orientation;
• the probability of exceedence of the threshold wind speed of interest at any point in the surrounding
region, derived from the anemometer records, and
• the width of the path of winds above the threshold
An alternative model of downburst risk for transmission line systems has been developed for Argentina
by Schwarzkopf and Rosso [26].

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Recent developments recent developments in the specification of wind loading of transmission lines and
supporting towers have been reviewed in this paper. Some emphasis on the effects of local wind storms or
‘high-intensity winds’, such as severe convective downdrafts (‘downbursts’) and tornados from thunderstorms
Journal of Wind & Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1, Jan 2008, pp. 8-18 17

has been given. Although the risk of severe winds of this type at a point ‘target’ may be relatively small, the
risk of impact somewhere along a line ‘target’ several hundred kilometres long can be much larger. Hence,
these events are known to be a frequent cause of failures of transmission lines, although their characteristics
are only just being incorporated into design guides, codes and standards.
In particular, span reduction factors for the wind loads on conductors are shown in this paper to be up to
50% higher in severe downdrafts compared to synoptic winds with developed boundary layers.
Studies of transmission towers under downburst loading indicate higher member forces in some parts of
the tower, and some member sizes may be inadequate if they have been designed under traditional wind
loading rules based on synoptic winds.
Further research should improve the specification of parameters required for design of transmission
lines and their supporting towers to severe local winds, as well as the better understood larger-scale synoptic
winds.

REFERENCES
1. Hawes, H. and Dempsey, D. (1993). “Review of recent Australian transmission line failures due to high intensity
winds”, Report to Task Force on High Intensity Winds on Transmission Lines, Buenos Aires, 19-23 April 1993.
2. Holmes, J.D. (2007). “Wind loading of structures”, 2nd Edition. Taylor and Francis, U.K. 2007.
3. American Society of Civil Engineers (2006). “Guidelines for Transmission Line Structural Loading”, ASCE Manual
and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 74. Peer Review Draft, July 14, 2006, A.S.C.E., New York.
4. Fujita, T.T. (1985). “The Downburst”, University of Chicago, Chicago Illinois.
5. Standards Australia/ Energy Networks Australia (2006). “Guidelines for design and maintenance of overhead
distribution and transmission lines”, ENA C(b)1—2006.
6. Holmes, J.D. and Oliver, S.E., (2000). “An empirical model of a downburst”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 22, pp
1167-1172.
7. Chay, M.T., Albermani, F. and Wilson, R. (2006). “Numerical and analytical simulation of downburst wind loads”,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 28, pp 240-254.
8. Kim, J. and Hangan, H. (2007). “Numerical simulations of impinging jets with application to downbursts”, Journal
of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 95, pp 279-298.
9. Gast, K.D. and Schroeder, J.L. (2003). “Supercell rear-flank downdraft as sampled in the 2002 thunderstorm
outflow experiment”, 11th International Conference on Wind Engineering, Lubbock, Texas, June 2-5, 2003.
10. Holmes, J.D., Hangan, H.M., Schroeder, J.L., Letchford, C.W. and Orwig, K.D. (2007). “A forensic study of the
Lubbock-Reese downdraft of 2002. I. Storm characteristics”, 12th International Conference on Wind Engineering,
Cairns, Australia, July 1-6, 2007.
11. Holmes, J.D., Hangan, H.M., Schroeder, J.L., and Letchford, C.W. (2007). “A forensic study of the Lubbock-
Reese downdraft of 2002. II. Running-mean wind speeds and turbulence”, 12th International Conference on Wind
Engineering, Cairns, Australia, July 1-6, 2007.
12. Matheson, M.J. and Holmes, J.D. (1981). “Simulation of the dynamic response of trans mission lines in strong
winds”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 3, 105-10.
13. Davenport, A.G. (1979). “Gust response factors for transmission line loading”, Proceedings, 5th International
Conference on Wind Engineering, Fort Collins, Colorado, 899-909, Pergamon Press.
14. American Society of Civil Engineers (1991). “Guidelines for Transmission Line Structural Loading”, ASCE Manual
and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 74. ASCE, New York.
15. Bayar, D.C. (1986) “Drag coefficients of latticed towers”, Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) , Vol. 112,
417-30.
16. Standards Australia, (2002). “Australian/New Zealand Standard. Structural design actions. Part 2: Wind actions”,
AS/NZS 1170.2:2002.
17. CSIR (1990). “Transmission Line Loading. Part I: Recommendations and Commentary. Part II: Appendices”,
Engineering Structures Programme, CSIR Building Technology, South Africa.
18. Mara, T. (2007). “The effects of multi-directional winds on lattice sections”, M.Eng.Sc. Thesis, University of
Western Ontario.
19. Holmes, J.D. (1973). “Wind pressure fluctuations on a large building”, Ph.D. thesis, Monash University, Australia.
20. Savory, E., Parke, G.A.R., Zeinoddini, M., Toy, N. and Disney, P. (2001). “Modelling of tornado and microburst-
induced wind loading and failure of a lattice transmission tower”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 23, 365-375.
18 Recent Developments in the Specification of Wind Loads on Transmission Lines

21. Shehata, A.Y., El Damatty, A.A. and Savory, E. (2005). “Finite element modeling of transmission lines under
downburst loading”, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, Vol. 42, 71-89.
22. Shehata, A.Y., and El Damatty, A.A. (2007). “Behaviour of guyed transmission line structures under downburst
wind loading”, Wind and Structures, Vol. 10, 249-268.
23. Twisdale, L.A. and Dunn, W.L. (1983). “Probabilistic analysis of tornado wind risks”, Journal of Structural
Engineering (ASCE), Vol. 109, 468-88.
24. Milford, R.V. and Goliger, A.M. (1997). “Tornado risk model for transmission line design”, Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 72, 469-78.
25. Oliver, S.E., Moriarty, W.W. and Holmes, J.D. (2000). “A risk model for design of transmission line systems
against thunderstorm downburst winds”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 22, 1173-9.
26. de Schwarzkopf, M.L.A. and Rosso, L.C. (2001). “A method to evaluate downdraft risk”, University of Buenos
Aires, Argentina.