B2

Overhead lines
TECHNICAL
BROCHURE

Transmission line structures with

Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP)
composite
Reference: 818
November 2020
TECH N I CAL BROCH U RE

Transmission line structu res

with Fiber Reinforced
Polymer ( FRP) composite
WG B2.61
Members
A.B. JONASSON, Convenor IS J. TOTH, Secretary CA C.G. BARRIOS ES
J. BARTSCH SE TH. BJARNASON IS D. CHAMBERS UK
J.B. DA SILVA BR V. DALE NO P. DE HORA IE
P.W. DULHUNTY AU M. ERMOSHINA RU G. FECHT CA
M. HUGHES US S. LABOCHA PL S. LANGLOIS CA
F. LIRIOS AU J. LUCEY IE L. NAZIMEK PL
E. PLATENKAMP NL X. POLETTA FR A. RUFFIER BR
B. WAREING UK O. WELGAARD NO

Corresponding Members
A. BANGOR AU F.K. GBEDEY BJ R. GEARY IE
T. GILLESPIE AU C. HUGHES IE D. LOUDON NO
A. MOGILEVSKY CA M. RAMASWAMY IN V. ROULET FR
D. SMAZNOV RU O. SEMENKO UA K. VALIMAA FI

Reviewers
M. ELLENBOGEN IL W. TROPPAUER AT K. VALIMAA FI

Copyright © 2020
“All rights to this Technical Brochure are retained by CIGRE. It is strictly prohibited to reproduce or provide this publication in any
form or by any means to any third party. Only CIGRE Collective Members companies are allowed to store their copy on their
internal intranet or other company network provided access is restricted to their own employees. No part of this publication may be
reproduced or utilized without permission from CIGRE”.

Disclaimer notice
“CIGRE gives no warranty or assurance about the contents of this publication, nor does it accept any responsibility, as to th e
accuracy or exhaustiveness of the information. All implied warranties and conditions are excluded to the maximum extent
permitted by law”.

ISBN : 978-2-85873-5 23-5

The convener of this Working Group, Árni Björn Jónasson, passed away
during the final work on this Technical Brochure. He unfortunately could not
see the publication and fruit of his hard work. His enthusiasm with which he
undertook this task was an example for all. We would like to dedicate this
publication to his memory.

Study Committee B2

3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Traditional materials worked well for a long time for overhead transmission lines (OHTL). However,
the emerging fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) materials show great benefits for the electrical utility
industry addressing many of the challenges utilities currently face. They have considerable durability,
environmental friendliness, timely structure delivery and good quality material availability.
In recent years, FRP components have become more and more common in various industrial
applications in the aerospace, military, shipping, car, civil engineering and sports gear industries. In
many areas FRP products have replaced traditional materials where FRP characteristics provide a
more suitable and cost-effective solution for certain applications. There are manufacturers using glass
fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) composites to create product solutions for transmission line poles,
crossarms, cross bracings and other structural components.
Other fiber reinforcements, for example carbon fiber and aramid (Kevlar) are also being considered.
1. The Cigré working group B2WG61 (WG) prepared a questionnaire to determine the current use of
FRP structures at various voltage levels, conductor and circuit configurations in the transmission line
industry. The questionnaire also asked to identify perceived advantages and disadvantages of FRP
material compared to traditional materials used in transmission lines. Based on the answers the WG
prepared a chapter on FRP in transmission and distribution structure design use, to clarify to what
extent it is in use, service experience and the research and development being in progress.
2. The Working Group (WG) B2.61 has discussed the technological design parameters, specific design
considerations (for example serviceability criteria) and best design practices using FRP materials for
transmission lines.
3. A description and discussion on material suitability and durability, fabrication methods and material
strength properties for FRP to be used in high voltage structures has been provided.
4 The WG has also provided information on the advantages and challenges with FRP high voltage
(HV) supports and structures in their life span, design, manufacturing, construction, operation,
maintenance, decommissioning and disposal. All of these are in the overall life cycle activity and cost
analysis perspective.
5. The WG has collected information on OHTL projects where FRP structures have been utilised.
Working methods are listed and described.
In the Cigré Technical Brochure 169, Advanced Materials, 2000, Mr. Gubanski has provided a
perspective for advanced Materials relative to overhead line matters (Appendix 6). He notes the
property requirements sought for employing non-ceramic insulators (polymers) and compares the
properties of different polymers employed for this application. He also reviews requirements for
composite towers. In TB230 the Assessment of Supports was carried out in 2003 followed by TB384
on Tower Design, TB 399 on Tower testing and the brochure TB 416 and 416a on Innovative
Supports.
The working group has produced a comprehensive Technical Brochure and related report published in
Electra titled State-of-the-art document of FRP for High Voltage Transmission Lines . The brochure has
included a detailed glossary, reference and list of relevant standards providing good knowledge on the
current experience with FRP transmission line structures. A comprehensive picture gallery of FRP HV
structures has been also included throughout the document. A tutorial based on the WG activities will
be prepared, delivered and shared with CIGRE members with the purpose of adaptation of FRP
technology for electrical utilities benefiting their activities.

4
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 4

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1 1

2. HISTORY OF MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 1 2

2.1 OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2

2.2 HISTORY OF UTILITY IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................................................... 1 4

2.3 HISTORY OF FRP PRODUCTION OF UTILITY STRUCTURES .................................................................................... 1 5

3. FRP COMPOSITE MATERIAL ........................................................................................................ 1 6

3.1 FIBER DESCRIPTION AND PRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 6
3.1 .1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 6
3.1 .2 Selection of fiber type ........................................................................................................................................... 1 6
3.1 .3 Glass fibers............................................................................................................................................................... 1 7
3.1 .4 Carbon and graphite fibers ................................................................................................................................. 1 7
3.1 .5 Other fibers .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 8

3.2 RESIN DESCRIPTION AND PRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 8

3.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 8
3.2.2 Polyester.................................................................................................................................................................... 1 8
3.2.3 Epoxy ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 9
3.2.4 Vinylester .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 9
3.2.5 Polyurethane............................................................................................................................................................. 1 9

3.3 MECHANICAL AND THERMAL PROPERTIES ................................................................................................................ 1 9

3.4 ELECTRICAL PROPERTIES ................................................................................................................................................. 22

3.5 ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION DEGRADATION AND PROTECTION ............................................................................ 22

3.5.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................... 22
3.5.2 Surfacing veils .......................................................................................................................................................... 23
3.5.3 UV absorbers ........................................................................................................................................................... 23
3.5.4 UV stabilizers ........................................................................................................................................................... 23
3.5.5 UV screening............................................................................................................................................................. 23

3.6 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION – FIBER REINFORCED CEMENT MATERIAL ................................................................... 24

4. FRP STRUCTURES MANUFACTURING METHODS .................................................................... 26

4.1 MANUFACTURING METHODS FOR FRP SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 26

4.2 FILAMENT WINDING ....................................................................................................................................................... 26

4.3 PULTRUSION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 27

4.4 CENTRIFUGAL CASTING ................................................................................................................................................. 30

4.5 DRILLING AND CUTTING ................................................................................................................................................ 30

4.5.1 Drilling........................................................................................................................................................................ 30
4.5.2 Cutting ........................................................................................................................................................................ 31

4.6 3D PRINTING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 32

5. COMPATIBILITY OF FRP PRODUCTS FOR TRANSMISSION LINE STRUCTURES ................. 33

5.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 33

5.2 ADVANTAGES ................................................................................................................................................................... 33

5.3 DISADVANTAGES ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 4

5
5.4 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 5

6. FRP POLE STRUCTURES ................................................................................................................ 36

6.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 36

6.2 FRP POLE DESIGN ............................................................................................................................................................ 36

6.3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES .................................................................................................................................................... 37

6.4 VALIDATION DESIGN TESTING ..................................................................................................................................... 38

6.5 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND STRENGTH VERIFICATION ....................................................................................... 38

6.6 DEFLECTION CRITERIA ..................................................................................................................................................... 41

7. FRP POLE FOUNDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 43

7.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 43

7.2 FOUNDATIONS FOR FRP POLES .................................................................................................................................. 43

7.3 CALCULATION EXAMPLE ................................................................................................................................................ 44

8. FOUNDATIONS MADE OF FRP ................................................................................................... 47

8.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 47

8.2 PAD AND CHIMNEY FOUNDATION ............................................................................................................................. 47

8.3 FRP ANCHORS .................................................................................................................................................................. 47

8.4 FRP ROCK FOUNDATION ............................................................................................................................................... 48

9. FRP APPLICATION FOR LATTICE STRUCTURES ........................................................................ 50

9.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 50

9.2 FRP COMPOSITE LATTICE TOWERS FROM THE USA ............................................................................................... 50

9.3 FRP COMPOSTITE LATTICE TOWERS FROM CHINA ................................................................................................ 52

9.4 FRP COMPOSITE HYBRID TOWERS ............................................................................................................................. 52

1 0. FRP CONSTRUCTION METHODS ................................................................................................ 57

1 0.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 57

1 0.2 TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE ............................................................................................................................. 57

1 0.3 ASSEMBLING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 57

1 0.4 CROSSARMS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 59

1 0.4.1 Aluminium Crossarm ................................................................................................................................................ 59
1 0.4.2 FRP crossarm ............................................................................................................................................................. 59

1 0.5 CROSS BRACING ............................................................................................................................................................. 60

1 0.6 FOUNDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................. 61

1 0.6.1 Foundations in soil ................................................................................................................................................... 61
1 0.6.2 Foundations in rock .................................................................................................................................................. 61

1 0.7 TOWER INSTALLATION ................................................................................................................................................... 62

1 0.7.1 Pole installation with helicopter ............................................................................................................................ 62
1 0.7.2 Pole installation with a crane ................................................................................................................................ 65
1 0.7.3 Pole installation with an excavator ..................................................................................................................... 65
1 0.7.4 Pole installation on solid rock ............................................................................................................................... 66
1 0.7.5 Pole installation by hand ....................................................................................................................................... 66

1 0.8 LIVE LINE INSTALLATION AND REPLACEMENT .......................................................................................................... 67

1 0.9 ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................................................................. 68

6
 1 0.9.1 Environmental impact .............................................................................................................................................. 68
1 0.9.2 Working Site / Work Environment ...................................................................................................................... 68
1 0.9.3 Cutting and drilling at site. .................................................................................................................................... 68

11. FRP ELECTRICAL DESIGN .............................................................................................................. 70

1 1 .1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 70

1 1 .2 GROUNDING SYSTEM .................................................................................................................................................... 70

1 1 .3 LEAKAGE CURRENT .......................................................................................................................................................... 71

1 1 .4 ELECTRIC FIELD EFFECTS ON FRP STRUCTURE TOWER ........................................................................................... 72

1 1 .4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 72
1 1 .4.2 Long-term induced surface current of small magnitude .................................................................................. 73
1 1 .4.3 Dry-band arcing ...................................................................................................................................................... 74
1 1 .4.4 Corona discharges .................................................................................................................................................. 74

1 2. FRP FITTINGS AND CONNECTIONS .......................................................................................... 75

1 2.1 HARDWARE AND CONNECTION DESIGN. ................................................................................................................ 75

1 2.2 FRP TRANSMISSION LINE HARDWARE........................................................................................................................ 75

1 2.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 75
1 2.2.2 Fasteners for composite poles .............................................................................................................................. 76
1 2.2.3 Pole connections ....................................................................................................................................................... 80
1 2.2.4 Leg connections ........................................................................................................................................................ 83

1 2.3 TOWER CONNECTIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 84

1 2.3.1 Cross-bracing ........................................................................................................................................................ 84
1 2.3.2 Crossarm ................................................................................................................................................................. 85
1 2.3.3 Guy wire attachment ........................................................................................................................................... 86
1 2.3.4 Connection to foundation .................................................................................................................................... 88

1 2.4 ATTACHMENT OF ACCESSORIES .............................................................................................................................. 90

1 2.4.1 Signs ........................................................................................................................................................................ 90
1 2.4.2 Top cap .................................................................................................................................................................. 90
1 2.4.3 Base plate .............................................................................................................................................................. 91

1 2.5 EARTHING CONDUCTOR ............................................................................................................................................ 91

1 2.6 STEP BOLTS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 92

1 2.7 FALL ARREST SYSTEM ................................................................................................................................................... 93

1 2.8 HOLE PLUGS ................................................................................................................................................................... 93

1 3. FRP VANDALISM AND ACCIDENTAL DAMAGE PERFORMAGE ......................................... 94

1 3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 94

1 3.2 CLIMBING ........................................................................................................................................................................ 94

1 3.3 THEFT ................................................................................................................................................................................ 94

1 3.4 OHL CONDUCTORS ..................................................................................................................................................... 95

1 3.5 LIMITED WOODPECKER DAMAGE ............................................................................................................................ 95

1 3.6 VEHICLE COLLISION ..................................................................................................................................................... 96

1 3.7 FIRE RESITANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 96

1 3.8 FIREARM DAMAGE TO FRP ......................................................................................................................................... 99

1 3.9 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1 00

1 4. TESTING OF FRP MATERIAL AND STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS ...................................... 1 01

1 4.1 DEGRADATION MECHANISMS .................................................................................................................................. 1 01

1 4.2 TESTING OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................... 1 02

7
1 4.3 MECHANICAL TESTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 03
1 4.3.1 Scratch test ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 03
1 4.3.2 Abrasion test.......................................................................................................................................................... 1 03
1 4.3.3 Impact test ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 04
1 4.3.4 Tensile test .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 04
1 4.3.5 Compression test ................................................................................................................................................... 1 04
1 4.3.6 Tensile fatigue test ............................................................................................................................................... 1 04
1 4.3.7 Full scale pole break test .................................................................................................................................... 1 05
1 4.3.8 Acoustic emissions test .......................................................................................................................................... 1 06

1 4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL TESTS .............................................................................................................................................. 1 07

1 4.4.1 UV accelerated aging test ................................................................................................................................. 1 07
1 4.4.2 Moisture absorption test ..................................................................................................................................... 1 08
1 4.4.3 Hydrophobicity test.............................................................................................................................................. 1 08
1 4.4.4 Fire test ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 08

1 4.5 ELECTRICAL TESTS ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 09

1 4.5.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 09
1 4.5.2 Inclined plane test ................................................................................................................................................ 1 1 0
1 4.5.3 Corona discharge test ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1 1
1 4.5.4 Electrical puncture/arc flash test ....................................................................................................................... 1 1 1
1 4.5.5 Leakage current and flashover test ................................................................................................................. 1 1 2
1 4.5.6 Electrical conductivity and breakdown voltage of FRP sample ................................................................. 1 1 2

1 5. FRP COSTING AND COST COMPARISON ............................................................................ 113

1 5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1 3

1 5.2 DEVELOPING A BUSINESS CASE ............................................................................................................................... 1 1 3

1 5.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 1 3
1 5.2.2 Constraints and Assumptions .............................................................................................................................. 1 1 3
1 5.2.3 Cost-Benefit Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1 4
1 5.2.4 Life Cycle Assessment .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1 6

1 5.3 RISK ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1 6

1 5.4 KEY COSTS FOR DEVELOPING TRANSMISSION STRUCTURES .......................................................................... 1 1 6

1 5.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 1 6
1 5.4.2 Foundation costs .................................................................................................................................................... 1 1 7
1 5.4.3 Transportation costs ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1 7
1 5.4.4 Framing costs ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 1 9

1 5.5 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1 21

1 6. FRP DURABILITY, INSPECTION AND REPAIR .......................................................................... 1 22

1 6.1 CONDITION ASSESSMENT. ......................................................................................................................................... 1 22

1 6.2 INSPECTION METHODS ............................................................................................................................................... 1 22

1 6.3 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE INSPECTION .............................................................................................................. 1 23

1 6.4 RECOMMENDED ACTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1 25

1 6.5 REPAIR .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 25

1 6.6 NEW ASCE GUIDE ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 26

1 7. TAGS FOR STRUCTURAL MEMBERS ........................................................................................ 1 27

1 7.1 GENERAL INSTALLATION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 27

1 7.2 TAG SPECS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 28

1 8. EXISTING APPLICATIONS ......................................................................................................... 1 29

1 8.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 29

1 8.2 GRANIN-VOSS TRANSMISSION LINE ...................................................................................................................... 1 29

8
1 8.3 BOGNA SNASA-NEDRE FISKUMFOSS TRANSMISSION LINE ............................................................................. 1 3 0

1 8.4 SVARTISEN-HALSE TRANSMISSION LINE ................................................................................................................. 1 3 3

1 8.5 TILREM – SKÅREM TRANSMISSION LINE .................................................................................................................. 1 3 6

1 8.6 WIND FARM PROJ ECT ................................................................................................................................................. 1 3 7

1 8.7 MONT DE MARSANT TRANSMISSSION LINE .......................................................................................................... 1 3 9

1 8.8 BEVERCE-AMEL-BUTGENBACH – TRANSMISSION LINE ....................................................................................... 1 4 1

1 9. FRP SUSTAINABLE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND BENEFITS ............ 1 5 1

1 9.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 5 1

1 9.2 FRP ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS ................................................................................................................................ 1 5 1

1 9.3 END OF SERVICE LIFE ................................................................................................................................................... 1 5 1

1 9.4 CARBON FOOTPRINT ................................................................................................................................................... 1 5 1

20. FRP RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................... 1 52

20.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 52

20.2 FRP POLES ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1 52

20.3 REINFORCED CONCRETE-FILLED FRP POLES ........................................................................................................... 1 55

20.4 FRP PULTRUDED MEMBERS .......................................................................................................................................... 1 56

20.5 FRP TOWERS .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 57

20.6 FUTURE RESEARCH ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 59

21 . SURVEY ON FRP TRANSMISSION LINE STRUCTURES ......................................................... 1 60

21 .1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 60

21 .2 PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS ........................................................................................................................................ 1 60

21 .3 USE AND APPRECIATION OF FRP PRODUCTS ....................................................................................................... 1 62

21 .4 LIFE EXPECTANCY OF TRANSMISSION LINE SUPPORTS ...................................................................................... 1 67

21 .5 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 67

22. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 1 68

APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................................... 1 69

APPENDIX B. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 1 76

APPENDIX C. RELEVANT STANDARDS .................................................................................................. 1 79

C. 1 . FRP STANDARDS ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 79

C.2. RELATED STANDARDS................................................................................................................................................... 1 80

APPENDIX ? . ??? ?? ? ? ? ??? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ??? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ...................................................................... 1 ? 1

9
APPENDIX E. POLE DESI GN EXAMPLE ............................ ....................................... .............................. 1 98
E.1 . INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 98

E.2. DEFINE POLE CONFIGURATION AND LOADING .................................................................................................. 1 98

E.3. PERFORM ANALYSIS OF SINGLE POLE .................................................................................................................... 2 01

E.4. PERFORM ANALYSIS FOR THE TWO CONFIGURATIONS CONSIDERED ......................................................... 2 03

E.5. CONFIGURATION 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 204

E.6. CONFIGURATION 2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 205

E.7. CHECK DEFLECTION LIMITS AGAINST PREDICTED DEFLECTIONS ..................................................................... 2 06

E.8. CHECK STRENGTHS VERSUS INTERNAL FORCES IN POLES ................................................................................ 2 07

E.9. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS FOR THE TWO CONFIGURATIONS CONSIDERED .................................................. 2 1 1

E.1 0. MODELS COMPARISION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................ 2 1 9

APPENDIX F. COST ANALYSI S ................... ................ ...... ....................................... .............................. 2 2 0

F.1 . COST ANALYSIS EXAMPLE .......................................................................................................................................... 2 20

F.2. COST COMPARISON EXAMPLE 2 ............................................................................................................................. 2 2 5

F. 3 . COST COMPARISON EXAMPLE 3 ............................................................................................................................. 2 2 9

APPENDIX G . FI NANCI AL CALUCLATI ONS ............. ............. ...... .......................... .............................. 2 3 6

G. 1 . INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 23 6

G.2. EQUATION 1 .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 3 6

G.3. EQUATION 2 .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 3 6

G.4. EQUATION 3 .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 3 7

G.5. EQUATION 4 .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 3 7

G.6. EQUATION 5 .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 3 7

G.7. EQUATION 6 .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 3 7

G.8. EQUATION 7 .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 3 7

G.9. EQUATION 8 .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 3 8

G.1 0. EQUATION 9 ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 3 8

G.1 1 . EQUATION 1 0 ........................................................................................................................................................... 23 8

G.1 2. EQUATION 1 1 ........................................................................................................................................................... 23 8

G.1 3. EQUATION 1 2 ........................................................................................................................................................... 23 9

G.1 4. EQUATION 1 3 ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 3 9

G.1 5. EQUATION 1 4 ........................................................................................................................................................... 23 9

G.1 6. EQUATION 1 5 ........................................................................................................................................................... 23 9

G.1 7. EQUATION 1 6 ........................................................................................................................................................... 240

10
1 . INTRODUCTION
Since the dawn of time, man has been able to make use of natural resources which are readily
available to create tools that assist him in his day-to-day activities. The earliest man-made structures
were made from wood, dirt and stone.
Structures such as the Great Pyramids, Coliseum, the Roman bridges and roads remain standing until
this day. The sheer size of these ancient structures inspire awe - due to the inherent characteristics of
their building blocks.
As man’s knowledge in manufacturing processes p rogressed, he was able to combine various metals
to forge new tools and build structures with greater strength albeit with less weight comprised of
smaller individual components.
Over time, man’s technological advancement has enabled him to “engineer” mate rials that combine
positive characteristics of various construction materials such as being light-weight, having high
tensile and shear strength, durability against environment degradation (i.e. corrosion, UV rays, etc.),
resistance to rot, fire, lightning and other destructive factors.
One such advancement is the introduction and use of Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composite
materials. A “composite material” is made of two or more constituent materials with different physical
and chemical properties. The composite components remain separate and distinct on a microscopic
level within the finished structure, which is designed to have specific properties.
FRP material was first used at the start of the 20 th Century as a niche application for military use. Fast
forward to the present time and FRP Composite materials are widely used in various industries such
as aerospace, automotive, construction, sport and recreation, marine and energy.
The Energy Industry has embraced this technology and utilises FRP materials to build overhead
transmission line (OHTL) structures as well as use it as base material for insulators and other tools.
The positive characteristics of FRP materials and the advantages it provides over “traditional”
materials such as steel, ceramics and wood justifies its continual expansion of use.
This Technical Brochure provides a holistic discussion of FRP composite structures in the specific
contex of transmission line supports – starting from the manufacturing process, design methodology,
storage, transport, construction, inspection and maintenance, structural modification, until dismantling
and disposal. Detailed analysis of the economic benefits for using FRP products is also presented to
enable engineers to assist business case writers justify projects and programs of works.
Finally, FRP products’ environmental impact is discussed so the reader can fully appreciate the
progress that has been made in its material design which contributes to the planet´s healt for future
generations.

11
2. HISTORY OF MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT
2.1 OVERVIEW
The first mentions of fiber reinforcedpolymer (FRP) composites, as a combination of two or more
materials, were made following the Second World War. In the beginning, it was only niche
applications which emerged from exotic materials.
The most common form of FRP material used for utility structural components is FRP. The material
has been in common use for many years, and for many applications. Although initial development of
FRP technology commenced in the early 20th century, it wasn’t until the 1 930’s and 1940 ’s that
suitable glass filament and resins started to be produced that enabled the material to be considered
for structural components.
Glass fibers were originally created by accident when compressed air was directed at molten glass and
fibers were produced. Owens Corning developed the first glass fibers that could practically be used for
matrix reinforcement in the late 1930 ’s, and the first “modern” resin was a polyester created by
DuPont in 1942.

Figure 2-1 The glass-reinforced plastic (GRP)

Glass-reinforced plastic (GRP) was so lightweight, yet durable, that a single man could lift whole
sections of the car without much effort.
The initial use of FRP was for niche applications such as military and experimental low volume aircraft
production due to the material’s high strength to weight ratio. However, th e high materials cost of
early FRP production resulted in it not being commonly used until the mid-20th century.
Developments in material production as well as improved manufacturing techniques such as pultrusion
and filament winding, a technique that was advanced by its use in the winding of rocket motor
casings, lead to FRP starting to become popular in the aerospace, marine and corrosion resistance
industries, such as for piping and equipment for pulp and paper and chemical processing.

12
The material’s p roperties, coupled with the fact that it required low cost tooling, led to it being used in
1953 in the construction of the Chevrolet Corvette, the first US FRP-bodied sports car. Other fiber
reinforcement materials have been developed that provide superior performance compared to glass,
but the latter has proven to be the most cost effective solution for utility applications.

Figure 2-2 Main gate of the Novartis Campus in Basel

The roof of the main gate of the Novartis Campus in Basel from 2006 made of FRP, see Figure 2-2.
The earliest FRP materials used glass fibers embedded in polymeric resins. Other fiber materials such
as boron, carbon and aramid were commercialized to meet higher performance challenges of space
exploration and air travel in 1960 ’s and 1970 ’s. As many new materials, FRP products were too
expensive to be used generally, and as such they were relegated aerospace and defence industry. In
the late 1960 ’s, carbon-carbon composites were used to replace high temperature metallic alloys in
rocket motor components in order to reduce its weight. In the 1970 ’s work was initiated with the
target to lower the cost of high performance FRP materials. This work helped to make FRP materials
more available for use in other industries. In the 1970 ’s and early 1980 ’s, advancements in pultrusion
technology led to the ability to produce larger pultruded parts capable of serving as structural
members in load-bearing applications. Large-sized pultruded FRP structural shapes having a cross-
sectional envelope greater than 150×150 mm for building and bridge superstructure construction
applications were developed from earlier advances in pultrusion technology, which prior to the 1970 ’s
was primarily focused on developing small-sized commodity products for non-structural building and
electrical applications. In 1985 profile shapes and I-shaped beams were developed and used for
construction applications. In the late 1980 ’s and early 1990 ’s, a customized building system of
pultruded components for the construction of industrial cooling tower structures was developed. From
1985 to 1997 a NASA- lead study known as the “Advanced Composite Technology Program” (ACTP),
which included participants from aircraft companies, composite suppliers and the textiles industry,
was instrumental in the research and development of 3D FRP composites.
Since the 1990 ’s. the worldwide use of FRP materials has increased significantly. Many bridges and
buildings have been designed and built using pultruded profiles. A demonstration of using FRP
composites in building structures was made through the construction of the 15m tall, five-story

13
 (Figure 2-3). In 2006, a lightweight glass fiber
‘‘Eyecatcher’’ at the Swiss Building Fair 1 999 in Basel
reinforced polymer (GFRP) sandwich roof structure was designed and built for the new main gate of
the Novartis Campus in Basel, Switzerland. The building is covered with a 21,6m×18,5m function
integrated GFRP sandwich roof structure that integrates load-carrying, physical and architectural
functions into one single-layer building envelope.

Figure 2-3 Polymer composites in construction

This section presenteda short historical background of FRP materials and a few examples of its
installation which today is used very commonly in many industry starting from aircraft, helicopters and
spacecraft, through to boats, ships and offshore platforms and to automobiles, sports goods, chemical
processing equipment and civil infrastructure such as bridges and building. The question appears:
Why not use FRP material supports for electrical transmission and distribution?
2.2 HISTORY OF UTILITY I MPLEMENTATION
One of the first uses of FRP for poles for lighting applications was in the mid-1950 ’s, when they were
installed in Hawaii as a solution to wood pole degradation and steel pole corrosion occurring due to
the moist salt air environment. Installations of FRP lighting poles to date number in the millions. The
first application of FRP to utility poles (distribution) was also in Hawaii in the mid-1960 ’s, where they
were exposed to high winds, corrosive environment and high ultraviolet light exposure. After
approximately 45 years in service, they were removed from service due to deterioration of their
physical appearance resulting from fiber blooming (exposure of glass fibers caused by degradation of
surface resin).
The first installation of FRP transmission poles was in 1996 in the USA. Since then, thousands of FRP
utility poles in both distribution and transmission applications have been installed across the USA and
are in use in many countries around the world. Modern material science and construction techniques,
particularly surface protection from UV exposure by the use of multiple levels of ultraviolet (UV)
inhibitors (additives, paint, gels, or stacks of surfacing veils), enables the viable life of modern FRP
poles to significantly exceed that of the first poles. Also the development of computerized analytical
techniques such as finite element analysis has enabled the material properties to be utilized more
efficiently, allowing the designer to optimize structure properties by controlling lamination fiber
orientation.

14
The use of FRP materials in crossarms has been growing at a faster rate than its use for poles as FRP
crossarms can be utilized on any pole material type. FRP crossarms were first manufactured in the
1970s and have often become a preferred material for many utilities due to their consistent
properties, low weight, and long life. Many utilities have converted exclusively to FRP crossarms and
are installing them on wood, steel, concrete, and FRP utility poles.
2.3 HISTORY OF FRP PRODUCTI ON OF UTILITY STRUCTURES
Production of FRP poles in North America has increased considerably over the last 20 years, with
some companies expanding their existing product range of FRP components to include utility poles,
while others have facilities that are dedicated solely to the production of FRP poles. Currently there
are five main manufacturers of FRP poles in North America. Four of these are located in the USA, and
one is located in Canada. Although some of these companies are long-established FRP manufacturers
and have many years of experience using the process, several are relatively recently founded. The
company with the longest experience had their first utility pole installed in 1996, however they have
manufactured lighting poles since 1967 using similar materials and processing methods. The company
with the least history had their first pole installed in 2010.
Utilities have prior experience with FRP products such as non-conductive hot sticks, lift truck booms,
ladders, crossarms and other structural components, and some of them are starting to accept FRP for
distribution and transmission line pole applications because they are non-conductive, lighter, stronger
and, in certain environments, more durable than traditional materials. However, many utilities are
reluctant to adopt what they consider to be a relatively new technology and question the longevity of
the material, even though manufacturers claim life expectancies of up to 80 years or even longer
based on accelerated exposure testing. Deployment of the FRP technology has increasingly gained
worldwide acceptance and FRP materials are rapidly being considered for the fabrication of crossarms
and poles throughout the utility industry in many countries.

15
3. FRP COMPOSITE MATERIAL
3.1 FIBER DESCRIPTION AND PRODUCTION
3.1 .1 Introduction
Fibers used in composite materials are produced from many different materials that come in various
styles including continuous, chopped, chopped strand mat and woven rowing. The most commonly
used fibers are made of glass, carbon and aramid. The selection of fibers and their orientation in the
matrix are the main factors affecting the strength and stiffness of the material.
3.1 .2 Selection of fiber type
In the transmission line industry, GFRP is almost exclusively used due to an optimised balance of
economic and engineering considerations. A general comparison of E-glass, Aramid and Carbon fiber
is shown in Table 3-1. Note that the rating is relative to each other and not all materials. While carbon
fiber is lighter than E-glass and has a higher Modulus of Elasticity (stiffness), it is much more
expensive and some of its properties and process characteristics are not well-suited for use in
composite utility pole construction.
Ta bl e 3 - 1 Com pa ri son ch a rt

Glass Aramid Carbon fiber

Cost Excellent Fair Fair
Weight to strength ratio Poor Excellent Excellent
Tensile strength Excellent Excellent Excellent
Compressive strength Good Poor Excellent
Stiffness Fair Good Excellent
Fatigue resistance Good-Excelent Excellent Good
Abrasion resistance Fair Excellent Fair
Sanding/machining Excellent Poor Excellent
Conductivity Poor Poor Excellent
Heat resistance Excellent Fair Excellent
Moisture resistance Good Fair Good
Resin adhesion Excellent Fair Excellent
Chemical resistance Excellent Fair Excellent

Below is a list of the disadvantages of carbon fiber as they relate to utility pole design:
1. Carbon fiber is electrically conductive. Fiberglass (i.e. E-glass) is an excellent insulator.
2. Conductivity accelerates galvanic corrosion of steel connections.
3. Due to its electrical conductivity, a carbon fiber pole may explode (with catastrophic failure to
structure) during a lightning strike.
4. Carbon fiber parts tend to fail catastrophically. Fiberglass parts flex more and ensure that
strength is less of an issue in design. Since designing with a fiberglass utility pole is typically
deflection limited, the pole strength is rarely exceeded.
5. Drilled holes in carbon fiber structures may create higher stress concentrations than holes in
fiberglass due to the brittle nature of carbon fiber composites.
6. There is a lower limit to the wall thickness of a hollow utility pole with respect to connection
attachment. With a thin wall (potentially afforded by carbon fiber), hardware connections will
require multiple bolts to share attachment stresses. This may be a limiting factor with carbon
fiber laminates due to the poor load sharing between drilled holes. Increasing the wall

16
 thickness to the minimum requirement will greatly raise the cost of the carbon fiber reinforced
structure.
7. Poor impact resistance of carbon fiber laminates compared with fiberglass could make carbon
poles more susceptible to damage during shipping and handling.
8. Carbon fiber is more expensive than E-glass and the supply chain is sometimes constrained.
Structures made from carbon fiber will generally cost at least three to four times more than a
structure made from E-glass fiber.
9. The black clolor of the carbon fiber laminate will absorb UV radiation and it may get hot
enough to soften the epoxy resin, which is typically the resin matrix of choice when using
carbon fiber. One manufacturer has stated that after significant research and product testing
polyurethane resin offers many performance advantages over epoxy resin.
10. Since carbon fiber is so stiff and fails catastrophically, inspection of hardware connections for
overloading may be difficult to impossible.
The idea of using lighter and stiffer fibers to design a composite utility pole appears attractive at first,
and it is technically possible to engineer a pole using carbon fiber or other fibers with a higher
modulus than E-glass. However, after extensive investigation into using alternative fibers, it has been
concluded that E-glass provides the best combination of performance and cost available today.
Consideration could include stiffer fibers such as S-glass or basalt if the economics were to improve,
however the disadvantages associated with carbon fiber specifically make it a negative choice for use
in utility poles today.
3.1 .3 Glass fibers
Fiberglass can be produced in the form of continuous fibers and staple fibers. The main ingredient in
fiber glass is silica, this is first dry mixed and melted together in a refractory furnace at around 1260-
1370°C with other materials such as sand, limestone and alumina. Then the molten glass flows into a
fiber-drawing furnace (direct-melt process) or a marble-making machine where it is re-melted and
drawn into fibers (direct-melt process). Continuous fibers are made by feeding molten glass through a
platinum bushing. The fibers are then gathered together and passed through at a water spray and
added a protective and lubricating binder to the individual fibers. The fibers are then gathered
together into a bundle (strand or end) that typically consists of 204 filaments.

Figure 3-1 Glass fiber production

3.1 .4 Carbon and graphite fibers

Carbon fibers are normally made out of one of three precursors: Polyacronitrile (PAN), pitch and
rayon. The process consists of 3 main stages. The first stage is a pretreatment where the material is
stabilized (oxidation) at a temperature at up to 300°C. The next stage is the carbonatization to drive
out non-carbon elements with temperatures at up to 1700°C. The last stage is the graphitization to
improve crystallite structure at temperatures up to 2800°C.

17
3.1 .5 Other fibers

3.1.5.1 Boron fibers

Boron fibers have a very high tensile modulus and good resistance to buckling. The disadvantage is
cost as they are, in many cases, more expensive than carbon fiber and are therefore not well suited
for utility poles or transmission towers.
3.1 .5.2 Aramid fibers
Aramid fibers also known as Kevlar have relatively poor compressive properties and are therefore not
suitable as a material used for production of utility poles/transmission towers.
3.2 RESIN DESCRIPTION AND PRODUCTI ON
3.2.1 Introduction
There are two general types of polymers which are classified as thermoplastics and thermosets. On
the thermoplastic side, these are generally referred to as plastics, which are typically formed in a
pressure based tool when heat is applied to a powder or a pellet based compound. Once formed and
cooled, thermoplastics can be re-shaped with the re-application of heat, are typically brittle in cold
temperatures and are generally not structural in nature. Although the re-shaping ability enables
recycling capabilities, think plastic water bottles, thermoplastics are typically not used in the
production of FRP poles.
All of the structural resin types used in FRP pole production are of the thermoset variety and include
polyester, epoxy, vinylester and polyurethane. Simplified, these thermoset resins are created by
mixing two components together to create an exothermic reaction where, once cured, there is a
permanent cross linking of the two components. As the name implies and unlike thermoplastics, once
thermoset resins have cured, they cannot be reshaped by the application of heat. When combined
with fiber reinforcement, thermoset resins are used in a myriad of FRP applications including poles,
crossarms, bridge decks, boat hulls and in many high-performance sporting good applications like golf
club shafts and bicycle frames, etc.
The four major types of thermoset resins used in FRP pole manufacturing are polyester, vinylester,
epoxy and polyurethane and each resin variety has it own unique set of advantages and
disadvantages.
3.2.2 Polyester
Polyester resin is the most commonly used resin in the composites industry primarily due to its low
cost and forgiving workability. There are many different formulations of polyester resin however the
two most common types are isophthalic and terephthalic. When mixing polyester resin, a very small
ratio of hardener (catalyst) is required, typically 1-3% of resin volume. Methyl Ethyl Keytone Perxide
(MEK-P) is a common catalyst for polyester resin.
Although the least expensive resin option, polyester resins have performance limitations including
susceptibility to UV light, water breakdown and a lower fiber adhesion capability, resulting in a lower
strength laminate when compared to other thermoset resins. The more ester and carbonyl groups in
the crosslinked resin, the lower the moisture and UV resistance.
By using a surface barrier of a different resin, paint or even a thermoplastic, polyester resins can be
protected from UV light and water ingress on the surface. Additional coatings also need to be done on
cut surfaces (i.e. drilled holes, top and bottom pole edge, etc.) to protect against water ingress.
Because the inherent UV resistance ability of polyester resin is poor, UV inhibitors are required to be
added to the resin and an effective UV stabilized outer layer consisting of a veil cloth, paint or both in
combination is required to achieve the full expected service life. Improper UV protection solutions can
result in fiber blooming which, over time and lack of maintenance, can reduce the structural capacity
of the component.
Polyester resin has a high cure shrinkage rate of about 8-10% which can create micro cracks that
increase the moisture permeability on the surface. Because it is unsaturated, the tensile strength of
polyester resin is less than that of epoxy, vinylester and polyurethane resins.

18
3.2.3 Epoxy
Epoxy, or polyepoxide as it is also known, is a high strength, higher cost resin that is compatible with
and bonds well to a host of reinforcing fibers including glass, carbon, aramid and basalt. There are
many varieties of epoxy resin however, unlike polyester resin, the ratio of epoxy resin to hardener is
much higher, typically in the 2: 1 or 1 : 1 range. Because of epoxy resin’s high bonding strength with
fiber, it offers excellent flexural and shear strength. Cured epoxy also resists water ingress well
however, like polyester, epoxy resin has no ability with withstand UV light and, thus, requires
additional secondary manufacturing operations to provide UV protection system. The cure shrinkage
rate for epoxy is about 4-5%. Epoxy resin is the most common resin used in aerospace
manufacturing.
3.2.4 Vinylester
Vinylester resin is a hybrid of epoxy and polyester resin and it is less expensive and stronger than
those resins, respectively. Similar to polyester resin, vinylester resin typically uses MEK-P as a catalyst,
in the same small ratio. The moisture resistance of vinylester is better than polyester because the
weak functional groups are farther apart (less numerous) in the crosslinked resin. Similar to both
polyester and epoxy, vinylester requires a secondary manufacturing operation to add effective UV
protection. Vinylester does have a higher cure shrinkage rate which is about 7-8%. While vinylester
resins absorb less water than polyester resins, they still maintain a degree of water absorption.
3.2.5 Polyurethane
Polyurethane resin is formed by the reaction between a polyisocyanate and a polyol component at a
1:1 mixture ratio. There are many types of polyurethane resin formulation however the two main
classifications are aromatic and aliphatic. These designations are controlled by the type of isocyanate
used because the same polyols can be used in either polyurethane resin type. Performance
characteristics are the same or higher than epoxy and vinylester resins. While the cost is high for
polyurethane resin, it has the ability to embed UV protection into the pole wall which does not require
a secondary manufacturing operation. This provides excellent UV and water resistance performance
with excellent hydrophobic qualities. Although polyurethane resin is reactive to atmospheric conditions
during component manufacturing, in a controlled environment, consistent production can be achieved.
The cure shrinkage rate is the lowest of the aforementioned resins at 0.1 -0.3%.
3.3 MECHANICAL AND THERMAL PROPERTIES
Glass FRP materials are generally characterized by their low-weight, high strength and low
stiffness.Figure 3-2 shows percentage weight comparison to steel. Figures 3-3 to 3-8 presents typical
values for mechanical and thermal properties of glass FRP and a comparison with other common
structural materials. The following information is general and should not be used for detail design.

Figure 3-2 Material weight comparison to steel

19
Figure 3-3 Material density comparison

Figure 3-4 Material strength comparison

Figure 3-5 Material modulus comparison

20
 Figure 3-6 Material thermal conductivity comparison

Table 3-2 Thermal conductivity

FRP(pultruded Steel (A 709 Aluminium (6061- Wood

GFRP) Grade 50) T651 & 6061-T6) (douglas fir)
Thermal conductivity (W/(m*K)) 0,58 46,59 167,30 0,12

Figure 3-7 Material thermal comparison

Figure 3-8 Ultimate tensile and compression strength of material

21
3.4 ELECTRICAL PROPERTIES
Glass FRP composite materials generally have high electrical resistance and high dielectric strength.
Structures made of FRP are electrically non-conductive and non-inductive to such a level that many
FRP materials are qualified and used as live line maintenance tools (hot sticks), temporary support
(temporary bypass supports) and machine components (insulated booms for bucket trucks). From a
electrical conductivity perspective working with FRP structural components is considered safer than
steel. For example in live line work even by accidently touching an energized component with an FRP
structural piece does not cause life threathening injuries.
FRP structural components are used as structural elements and their electrical insulating properties
although high, are only secondary to transmission line design as they are not certified insulators.
Regardless, the electrical insulating properties are being utilized as additional life performance
improvement. For example transmission lines with FRP crossarms have higher Base Insulating Values
(BIL) than lines with other crossarms. This can lead to improved lighting performance and improved
line reliability.
Overall FRP electrical properties are beneficial to the transmission line overall behaviour.
Detailed electrical properties of composite transmission poles are outlined in Chapters 11 and 14.5.
3.5 ULTRAVIOLET RADI ATI ON DEGRADATION AND PROTECTI ON
3.5.1 Overview
Various resins are utilized in the manufacture of FRP components for utility structures. The most
common types are polyester, vinylester and polyurethane. One of the major causes of degradation of
FRP materials is exposure to sunlight, and the majority of the damage is caused by light in the lower
wavelengths of 280 to 400 nanometers (i.e. the ultraviolet (UV) portion of the radiation spectrum).
Through a process called photodegradation, the UV light results in breakage of chemical bonds
between polymer chains, or chain scission. The degree of damage depends on the superficial
absorption properties and the chemical bond energies of the material. Damage may take the form of
discloloration, fading, resin loss, decrease of mechanical strength and reduction of electrical insulation
properties. In addition to damage from UV radiation, the addition of moisture and elevated levels of
heat, combined with oxygen, contribute to increase the rate of degradation. The UV damaged
material is mainly confined to a relatively thin layer at the surface, however this may result in surface
flaws or stress concentrations that could cause the component to fail at a lower load than samples
that had not been impaired. Also the surface degradation may result in resin loss, which continues
until fibers are eventually exposed, a phenomenon known as fiber bloom. This is why an effective UV
solution is so important.
The location (i.e. latitude) of a particular structure plays a critical role in the rate of degradation that
FRP materials will experience, and hence its useful life. Exposure to high levels of heat, humidity and
sunlight will shorten its life, whereas an environment that is cooler, drier and has less sunlight
intensity will result in less degradation, and hence increase its useful life. For example, Florida and
Arizona in the USA are considered to be harsh environments for composites, and are therefore used
to locate outdoor environmental aging test facilities.
Depending on the UV resistance of the polymer utilized, protection can be aided by the addition of
various UV inhibiters, such as absorbers and/or stabilizers and antioxidants in the resin. The
combination of absorbers together with stabilizers and antioxidants has been shown to have
synergistic performance. In practice, a “mixture” of these chemicals is normally used. The substances
used for UV stabilization vary depending on the polymer chemistry, the light wavelength range they
have to protect against, and the end use for the composite structure, and are proprietary for each
manufacturer.
Polyester surfacing veils are used to increase the surface resin thickness. Weather-resistant
polyurethane paints are yet another UV solution and any combination of these two may be used.

22
Another approach is to use UV stable, clolor pigmented aliphatic polyurethane resin for the exterior
portion of the structure creating a resin rich surface finish. In this case, aromatic polyurethane is used
for the inner (majority) of the composite matrix as it has better mechanical properties than the
aliphatic, but no UV resistance.
The various UV protection methods are described in detail below.
3.5.2 Surfacing veils
A surfacing veil consists of a thin fabric, normally 100% polyester, which is placed on the exterior of
the component during the final layup process to form the basis of a resin rich outer layer. A mode of
degradation of composites is initially resin loss followed by fiber blooming (reinforcing fibers exposed
to the atmosphere). Therefore increasing the resin thickness on the exterior surface of the component
will delay the onset of blooming. Typically a 0,25mm thick veil is used, which can absorb
approximately 8 – 10 times its weight in resin. Moisture is one of the main environmental aging
components for composite materials. Therefore exposing the fibers to the atmosphere will increase
the rate of aging, as moisture will penetrate quicker. Maintaining a resin covering for as long as
possible will mitigate this.
Veils were initially introduced as corrosion protection for industrial pipes and tanks exposed to
corrosive chemicals such as salts and acids, as the glass fiber was attacked by these substances. Their
use as UV protection became apparent and now the majority of composite utility structures
incorporate veils. They also assist in protecting composite materials from the corrosive effects of
industrial contamination and salts.
3.5.3 UV absorbers
As the name suggests, UV absorbers are added to the resin to protect from UV light by absorbing or
blocking the radiation energy, which is then transformed into longer infrared wavelengths that are less
damaging. This is then dissipated into the material, mainly in the form of thermal energy (heat). UV
absorbers depend on the thickness of the material layer to function effectively. Various chemicals may
be used as UV absorbers as each one is most effective over select wavelengths.
3.5.4 UV stabilizers
These additives are not designed to absorb the UV radiation, but rather to protect against it. Polymers
degrade in the UV light, and during this process “free radicals” are formed due to the breaking of the
molecular bonds. Subsequent photo-oxidization occurs whereby the free radicals react with oxygen to
form additional free radicals. Hindered amine light stabilizers (HALS) and other antioxidants protect by
continuously and cyclically removing these free radicals. The radicals generated during photo-
oxidation of the polymer react with the HALS and oxidizes them, thereby protecting the polymer.
Additional reactions occur within the HALS that returns them to their initial form. This cyclic process
regenerates the HALS so they are not consumed during the stabilization process.
3.5.5 UV screening
In addition to the aforementioned methods to protect composite materials against the harmful effects
of UV light, various coatings are sometimes applied to act as a UV screen to impede the radiation from
penetrating through to the underlying polymer. This enables the polymer to be selected based on its
structural properties, rather than a compromise to satisfy adequate UV resistance.
One option is powder coating which is a dry finishing process that uses finely ground particles of
pigment and resin which are applied to the surface and then melted and fused into a uniform coating
in a curing oven. The coating chemically crosslinks, therefore will not soften under subsequent
applications of heat. The process has been used for more than 40 years and is growing in popularity
as the materials and techniques develop. Because the materials contain no solvents, the process emits
negligible volatile organic compounds into the atmosphere, making powder coating a safe and clean
finishing alternative. The material either adheres to the substrate, or is collected and returned for later
processing, therefore waste is minimal. The coating thickness is about 0.08mm or more and can be

23
structured to provide UV resistance to improve long-term appearance of the composite products and
to resist chalking.
A significant market for powder coating is the automotive industry. In the quest for lighter and more
fuel efficient vehicles, the overall composition of automotive products is becoming more and more
polymer based. Due the temperature limitations of the materials involved, new technologies for
powder coating of plastic substrates must be developed which benefits applying the process to
composite materials such as utility poles and crossarms. Low temperature curing has been developed
for powders that enable them to be cured at temperatures of about 120C for regular thermoset
products. Therefore with correct processing, the product may be applied without damaging the FRP
polymer.
Powder coating is particularly suited to pultruded components as the uniform dimensions of the profile
permit the application to be integrated into the continuous pultrusion process prior to the part being
cut to length, and also the residual heat from the pultrusion die can assist with the powder curing.
Another product that may applied to the surface of FRP to screen it from UV light is two-component
acrylic polyurethane paint applied to a wet thickness of about 0,08mm (0,05mm dry). These coatings
give the added benefit of also changing the appearance of the finished product to better suit customer
requirements, and like powder coating, the properties of the paint can resist the effects of fading and
chalking.
3.6 ALTERNATI VE SOLUTION – FIBER REINFORCED CEMENT MATERI AL
One of the early uses of fiber reinforced cement was when a similar material was developed to
manufacture crucibles for molten iron and steel foundries because it is heat resistant. This fiber
reinforced cement material was developed in Spain and the USA. The technology was licensed to be
manufactured in Australia because of the shortages of hardwood timber and the prevalence of
bushfires.
Engineered cement poles (ECP) are made using a combination of Portland cement, Kaolin, acrylic
latex polymer and alkaline resistant glass fiber.
Portland cement is characterized as hydraulic or non-hydraulic. Hydraulic cements (i.e. Portland)
harden due to hydration, a chemical reaction that occurs independently of the mixture's water
content. Such cements can even harden underwater or when constantly exposed to wet weather. The
chemical reaction when anhydrous cement powder is mixed with water produces non water-soluble
hydrates. Cement is used for producing mortar and concrete, bonding natural or artificial aggregates
(gravel and/or sand) to form a strong and durable construction material. Correctly prepared but
without modification, Portland cement produces high compressive and tensile strength concrete.
However unmodified cement products, while well suited for example to mass concrete foundations,
have two attributes that restrict their use in thin layers: Brittleness and poor adhesion.
Polymeric modifiers have been used since the 1960 ’s to increase the durability, flexural strength and
service life of Portland cement concrete, so increasing its potential uses. Such modifiers also improve
adhesion of the cement to the substrate (egg reinforcement).
Several types of polymeric materials are used to improve flexibility and overall strength of concrete
products beyond that of unmodified concrete. Careful design attention is required to match the
modifier to the proposed use. A variety of cement formulations is possible with acrylic lattices
depending on the desired design properties, hence the descriptor “ engineered cement pole ” or ECP.
Some modifiers, for example, can disclolor the cement with ageing, some have poor freeze-thaw
performance and some poor water resistance. Hence the modifier used has to be considered bearing
in mind the end application.
The three generic modifier families are:
• Acrylic latex polymers (as used in Titan ECPs).
• Styrene-butadiene resin (SBR) polymers.
• Ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) polymers.

24
Even after nearly 40 years outdoor testing, acrylic latex polymer modified concrete exhibits the
following improved design properties, relative to unmodified concrete:
• Thin section toughness.
• Adhesion to substrates (i.e. shear bond adhesion, including to reinforcement).
• Enhanced mechanical strength and flexibility (i.e. tensile and compressive strength).
• Enhanced impact and abrasion resistance sustained over time.
• Chemical and corrosion resistance (i.e. minimal weathering evidence).
• Corrosion resistance.
• Liquid water resistance.
• UV stability.

25
4. FRP STRUCTURES MANUFACTURING METHODS
4.1 MANUFACTURING METHODS FOR FRP SUMMARY
Composite poles can be made by filament winding, pultrusion and centrifugal casting (spun
fiberglass).
The two main manufacturing methods used in the production of composite utility poles for
transmission scale applications are filament winding and pultrusion, due to their suitability for
producing long, hollow structures. However, it can be seen that inherent in the two processes are
very different structural properties and design capabilities as shown in a generalised form in Table 4-1
below.
Ta bl e 4- 1 Di fferen ces i n pol es m a d e from fi l a m en t wi n d i n g a n d pu l tru si on

Process Axial profile Laminate design Impact on pole design

Filament Tapered High winding Tapered, filament wound poles enable designs
winding. easy, parallel angles easier. optimised to resist cantilever bending. However
possible but Axial and low laminate performance can be compromised due to
expensive. angles are manufacturing process limitations. Tapered poles
possible. would be favoured in applications that experience
high cantilever bending forces as section size can
be adjusted along the pole length to suit bending
resistance required.
Pultrusion. Constant Predominantly Constant cross section poles are inherently less
cross section axial structurally efficient for cantilever loading
only. orientations. conditions as they carry unnecessary materials
higher up the pole where bending stresses are
lower. However, they can sometimes achieve
material savings against filament wound poles due
to their improved laminate performance along the
length of the pole. Additionally, they could provide
benefits in systems with high crippling loads such
as guyed or H-frame structures.

4.2 FILAMENT WINDING

Filament winding is the open mould manufacturing practice of wrapping resin saturated fibers around
a tapered or cylindrical mandrel. A typical laminate wind schedule consists of opposing circumferential
wraps in which the manufacturer will usually have the ability to adjust the fiber placement angle. The
combination of wind head travel speed and the rotational speed of the mandrel dictate the angle of
the fiber placement. While all filament winding involves circumferential wraps, some manufacturers
have developed winding techniques that also allow for zero degree or near zero degree axial fiber
placement. For those manufacturers that include axial fiber orientation, the wind schedule would
alternate between circumferential and axial fiber placement to build the pole wall laminate. Filament
winding is a highly automated process and manufacturers have the ability to adjust many attributes of
the operation like fiber tension, wind angle, wet out optimization, etc. In most filament winding
operations, the mandrel is fixed and the winding head(s) travel up and down the length of the
mandrel however filament ending can also be completed with fixed heads and a moving mandrel.
Most filament winding operations have a horizontally positioned mandrel however some
manufacturers use a vertically oriented mandrel. Once the wind schedule is complete and the
laminate is cured, the mandrel is removed. Even within the realm of filament winding, the resulting
products from different manufacturers are quite different depending on input materials, wind
schedules, optimization techniques, etc.

26
 Figure 4-1 Schematic illustration of the filament winding process

4.3 PULTRUSION
The pultrusion process is similar in principle to a metal extrusion process. However, rather than
forcing the material through a die under pressure, it involves pulling resin impregnated fibers through
a die which cures the resin under heat to form the final profiled part. A limitation of the pultrusion
process is that like extrusion, it can only manufacture parts of a parallel cross section(Figure 4-2).
Additionally, there are limitations to the amount of non axial fibers that can be included in the
laminate structure or to add extra reinforcement in discrete locations. However, it benefits from being
a continuous manufacturing process and can achieve high levels of component quality and
consistency, with high fiber volume fractions.

Figure 4-2 Schematic illustration of the pultrusion process

Figure 4-3 shows the fiber glass rowings and continuous strand mats going into guide plates forming
the shape of FRP pultruded profile before the resin impregnator saturates the fibers with resin in the
pultrusion process.

27
 Figure 4-3 Forming the shape of the pultrude profile.

In Fig ure 4-4 and Figure 4-5 conventional pultrusion products are shown .

Figure 4-4 Conventional pultrusion profiles

28
Figure 4-5 Names of pultrusion products

29
4.4 CENTRIFUGAL CASTING
Spun fiberglass pole are made of glass-fiber complexes and polyester resin and are produced in a
centrifugal process (Figure 4-6) with chrome-plated steel forms. In general they have smooth,
scratch-resistant surfaces, are non-conductive and fully insulated due to the material properties. The
poles are nominally weather and corrosion resistant. No rust removal or paintwork is required, but
they can be subject to abrasion and UV radiation. The comments here refer to spun fiberglass and not
wound fiberglass which is covered in the next section.

Figure 4-6 Spun fiberglass pole production

This technology has not been used yet for producing transmission line poles but could be used.
Figure 4-7 shows fiber glass composite core then being coated with clolored polyethylene in a
continuous production line

Figure 4-7 Fiber glass coating

4.5 DRILLING AND CUTTING

4.5.1 Drilling
Drilling of FRP components is either done manually or automatically. Figures 4-8 to 4-10 show
drilling holes into FRP crossarms using CNC automated machine.

30
 Figure 4-8 Drilling with template

Figure 4-9 Hand drilling Figure 4-10 Drilling using automatic machine

4.5.2 Cutting
A reciprocating saw with a reciprocating carbide-grit bl ade, otherwise used for stone, bricks, cast iron ,
ceramic tiles or plaster, cou ld be used for cutting FRP composites in the field.

Figure 4-11 Reciprocating saw

31
The preferred method for cutting FRP components is with a circular saw using either a carbide tipped
or diamond style blade.

Figure 4-12 Saw blade

4.6 3D PRINTING
There are many new manufacturing methods emerging in additive manufacturing. One of them is 3D
printing and it has many possible advantages for making FRP composite OHTL structures.
1. It is possible to create a very efficient and optimized fiber arrangement within the FRP matrix.
2. It is possible to make multiple fibers (even combine metal fibers and glass fibers) reinforced
and multiple resin structures with multiple layers of additives. This can help achieving very
adaptive and durable structures.
3. It is possible to create complex structural shapes that suites the needed application for the
transmission line.
4. It is a possible to manufacture individually optimized transmission structure for the specific
location.
5. It is possible to make as many variations of the structure as needed. As an extreme, each
tower could be different on the transmission line with optimized design.
6. It is possible to eliminate mechanical or adhesive connections or even connections at all, as
the entire structure could be made of one piece.
7. The manufacturing, shipping, and lifting of structures could be eliminated as entire structures
could be made on site, even printed at the location where the structure is needed.

32
5. COMPATIBILITY OF FRP PRODUCTS FOR
TRANSMISSION LINE STRUCTURES
5 .1 INTRODUCTION
FRP materials have many advantages, but also some disadvantages when used for the manufacture of
electrical utility structures such as utility poles. Some of these advantages are listed below, however
the perception of these may vary depending on what material it is being compared with. The selection
of one material versus another must depend on the application, as different characteristics may be
important for one and not for another. For example, FRP materials have as long service life when
compared with wood, however concrete may have a greater service life than FRP materials.
Conversely concrete is considerably heavier than components made with FRP which may or may not
be considered a disadvantage.
The following list of advantages and disadvantages focuses only on glass reinforced polymers as
commonly applied to utility structures. Comparisons of other fibers are shown in table 3-1.

5 .2 ADVANTAGES
. Most manufacturer’s estimate a useful service life of around 60 to 80 years or
Lon g servi ce l i fe

more. Although this cannot be corroborated by actual field service life of more than 15 to 20 years,
various accelerated testing techniques are being used to develop a scientific estimation. Refer to
Chapter 17 for information on accelerated UV test methods for FRP components.
Resi sta n ce to corrosi on . Unlike steel, FRP does not rust or corrode which would be beneficial in
coastal or industrial areas. There are various resin systems available to the fabricator which provide
long-term resistance to almost every chemical and temperature environment. Properly designed FRP
composites parts have long service life and minimum maintenance as compared to most typical
materials used for utility structures.
. In comparison with every other material normally used for utility structures, FRP is
Li g h t wei g h t

significantly lighter for the same strength. Transportation and installation costs are reduced as smaller
equipment is required. In addition, it is often possible to manoeuver FRP utility poles by hand into
restricted locations.
. FRP composites can be designed to provide a vast range of mechanical
H i g h speci fi c stren g th

properties, including tensile, flexural, impact and compressive strengths, and can be produced with an
ultimate tensile stress approaching or exceeding low carbon steel. Unlike steel, FRP is anisotropic. This
permits the designer to tailor the structure’s properties to best suit the app lication by arranging the
fiber orientation based on the required loading conditions.
. The insulating properties of FRP may be of interest when considering the
H i g h d i el ectri c stren g th

overall insulation management of an electrical installation. In comparison to wood which can absorb
considerable amounts of moisture which affect its electrical conductivity, FRP absorbs less than 1% so
its electrical properties stay relatively consistent.
Lea ch i n g. FRP products do not require any preservative related chemicals to achieve their expected
service life and are, therefore, non-leaching or inert. In ASTM C1308-08 is the default test to quantify
any leaching. An FRP pole manufacturer shall provide test results confirming that their material is
non-leaching.
. FRP composites maintain their shape and functionality, even under severe
Di m en si on a l Sta bi l i ty

mechanical and environmental stresses.

33
Fire resistance . FRP materials are typically self-extinguishing. Continued exposure to a flame source
will cause the surface to char and, with extended flame exposure, a loss of structural strength could
result.
Environment. Compared wood treated with preservatives, which cannot be recycled and introduces
toxins into the soil, FRP materiels exhibit no leaching of chemicals into the environment. At the end
of their usable service life, FRP poles can be upcycled and used in applications where the initial shape
can be used, like fence posts and culverts. Additionally, FRP materials taken out of service can be
ground up, using suitable equipment, and used as filler in materials like concrete and asphalt.
Resistance to animal damage . FRP products are resistant to boring by insects and/or
woodpeckers.
Engineered product. Unlike wood, the mechanical properties of FRP components are consistent and
reliable, similar to other engineered materials like steel and concrete,
Rot and chemical resistance . FRP material is resistant to rot, as well as chemical attack.
Ductile. Remains ductile even in low temperature (even at -70°C).
Cost. An FRP pole is usually higher in production cost, and therefore material cost, than poles made
from traditional materials. Although it may be counter intuitive to have a higher cost product listed as
an advantage, when applied in applications that leverage the value proposition of FRP materials, FRP
poles will provide significant savings over traditional pole materials.
When used in applications where traditional pole materials are not lasting as long as they should (i.e.
woodpeckers on wood poles, corrosion on steel poles, etc.), the return period on the increased capital
investment in composite poles can be in the one to five year range, depending on the factors affecting
the life of the traditional material poles. Regarding woodpeckers, there are documented instances of
damage to new wood poles within 24 to 48 hours of installation, which subsequently require
immediate replacement. In these cases, the return on investment for FRP poles is essentially
immediate.
When used in applications that have higher installation costs (i.e. swamps, wetlands, backyard,
mountains and other locations far from main roads, etc.), the lightweight of FRP poles combined with
the ability to use smaller, lighter duty equipment will typically result in a lower installed cost, providing
an immediate return on investment.
To better understand the true economical advantage of FRP poles, utilities and contractors are
encouraged to look beyond initial purchase costs and evaluate the true and complete cost of
installation, including past pole replacement frequencies, to create a comprehensive asset
management strategy based on a lifecycle cost analysis. See Chapter 15 for more details on costing.
5 .3 DISADVANTAGES
Limited experience. The use of FRP as a material for the manufacture of utility structures is
relatively recent. While thourougly tested, the lack of a long-term use history may be of concern to
some prospective users.
Increased deflection . FRP materials have a higher specific strength than wood, steel and concrete
however they also have a lower stiffnes ratio. This means that for strength equivalent components,
the FRP component will exhibit higher deflection when loaded to the same levels. To solve this and
avoid appearance issues and right-of-way encroachments, FRP manufacturers will include a deflection
limit in the scope of a structural analysis to ensure serviceability equivalency and homogenous
performance of the overhead line components. However, when deflection limits are the governing
design consideration, the relative price of the FRP component is higher.

34
 . FRP components are vulnerable to damage from impacts (i.e. vehicles colliding
Im pa ct d a m a g e

with structures). This damage may not be readily apparent which may present a safety hazard if not
observed. If a vehicle impact occurs, however FRP poles are lightweight and will typically remain
standing, supported by the conductor, even if they are sheared off.
. The non-homogenous material, coupled with the many
La ck of d esi g n sta n d a rd s a n d cod es

different materials, manufacturing techniques and processes, has resulted in difficulty in generating
design standards however progress continues to be made in the industry as FRP materials are being
increasingly used and better understood.
. FRP components are engineered products made by specific
Ava i l a bi l i ty of prod u cts a n d su ppl i ers

manufacturers. These products are not necessarily interchangeable between manufacturers and the
availability of products in the future for replacement or repair depends on a small number of
manufacturers and suppliers.

5.4 CONCLUSION
The advantages and disadvantages of FRP products for transmission line applications are further
discussed in the various chapters of this brochure. They can also be compared with the perception of
130 distribution and transmission line engineers who answered a short survey presented in Chapter 21.
Overall, the advantages and disadvantages of FRP products as identified by the respondents match
fairly well with the points identified above by the working group members. However, the disparity in
the answers and the fact many respondents do not have all the information needed to evaluate FRP
characteristics shows that there is a crucial need to provide additional engineering information and to
develop standards for these products. This CIGRÉ document aims to provide part of the answers raised
with the results of this survey.

35
6. FRP POLE STRUCTURES
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The aim of this section is to provide an overview of the design attributes that are considered by FRP
pole designers when developing new composite pole products and by line designers when
implementing these products in the design of transmission lines.
The following sections are intended to provide a basic guide into the different design areas of a
composite pole as follows:
• FRP pole design – Design process for FRP pole products.
• Material properties – Summary of the key performance aspects of composite materials.
• Validation design testing – Overview of the importance of validation testing as part of the
composite pole design process.
• Structural analysis and strength checks – Evaluation of internal forces on poles for a given
structural configuration and verification of pole resistance.
• Deflection criteria – Definition of deflection criteria for poles and evaluation of expected
deflections.
6.2 FRP POLE DESI GN
As opposed to their wood counter-parts, utility poles manufactured from FRP materials are engineered
products, and therefore it is the job of the pole designer to balance different product characteristics of
load capacity, deflection and bearing to result in the most functionally efficient product. While this
design flexibility has the benefit of providing considerable potential for product optimisation, it also
results in variability in the properties of different end products.
Figure 6-1 provides a list of the common attributes that combine to form FRP poles. They can be
applied in any combination to produce a functional pole, and the final combination is known as the
laminate, or composite lay-up, that forms the thin wall of the utility pole structure. The wide range of
possible properties encompassed by the term FRP can present difficulties for the end user when trying
to compare products like-for-lik

Figure 6-1 Attributes that form FRP utility poles

36
With the laminate defined, FRP poles are then produced around, or through a mandrel which largely
fixes the final product performance. Hence, the FRP pole producer must design what they consider
the ‘best fit’ suite of products to suit the la rgest range of utility applications. During this design
process, a combined approach of engineering calculations, simulation and small scale laminate testing
is used to develop detailed knowledge of the specific laminate. The mandrel dimensions and laminate
thickness that will determine the performance of the finished pole are then defined and the process
moves to production.

6.3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES

As described in the introduction, unlike wood, the wide range of parameters that combine to form a
given FRP material make summarising any single specific FRP pole material performance impossible
without detailed background information.
Even with knowledge of the specified constituent materials, other factors will influence performance,
including the following:
: There is a significant impact on laminate performance depending on
La m i n a te sta cki n g seq u en ce

the fiber orientation. Longitudinal or axial fibers located furthest away from the neutral axis will have
the biggest influence on laminate strength and stiffness. However, it should be noted that in the case
of tubular composite poles, the impact of stacking sequence will be diminished as the primary forces
act in net tension or compression in-plane with the laminate.
: Varying the angles too dramatically between adjacent layers can have a
Va ryi n g fi ber a n g l es

detrimental effect on the pole performance.

: For a tapered pole, laminate properties change as fiber orientation and thickness vary
Pol e sh a pe

down the length, or in the case of a pultruded pole, with each different diameter size.
Bearing the above aspects in mind,Table 6-1 has been prepared to give an indication of the range of
FRP laminate properties that would be typical of the material combinations used in a utility pole
application. For specific applications, line designers are advised to revert to manufacturer product
datasheets.
Ta bl e 6- 1 Typi ca l com posi te pol e m a teri a l properti es

Property Unit

Manufactured cost (relative 1 to 5 times (relative costs diminishes with

to wood) height)
Flexural strength 0 0 MPa 400 – 600
Flexural strength 90 0 MPa 30 – 100
Tensile strength 0 0 MPa 400 - 600
Tensile strength 90 0 MPa 30 – 100
Compressive strength 0 0 MPa 300 – 500
Interlaminar shear strength MPa 25 – 40

Modulus of Elasticity GPa 25 - 35

Flexural 0 0

The properties in the table above are highly dependent on constituent materials and fiber orientations
within the laminate.

37
6.4 VALIDATION DESIGN TESTING
At this stage, the designer will have a good understanding of how they expect the pole to perform.
However, as opposed to traditional materials such as concrete or wood, FRP composites have
considerably more complex failure criteria resulting from the many design variables. While it is
possible to theoretically calculate finished component performance, variabilities in the manufacturing
process, and should there be a lack of empirical data from testing specific material layups means that,
for some manufacturers of FRP products, design validation testing remain a critical part of the design
and development process. Statistics from the full-scale tests on the poles will be used to perform the
strength verification checks explained in the next section.
In the case of FRP composite poles, failure is typically experienced in the following modes:
1. For filament wound poles: Through buckling of the compressive face just above ground line.
This is very difficult to predict accurately by calculation, due to a lack of historical data on any
specific laminate. Strength and deflection performance validation by full scale testing is
ultimately required if not already completed by the manufacturer.
2. For pultruded poles: Through splitting of the neutral axis, between the tensile and
compressive faces. This is very difficult to predict accurately by calculation due to a lack of
historical data on any specific laminate. Strength and deflection performance validation by full
scale testing is ultimately required if not already completed by the manufacturer.
3. Through bearing failure of bolted connections. These may be utilised either to connect poles
to increase overall height or for the addition of hardware such as sealing end platforms or
step bolts. In the event that the fixings fall outside the recommended scope of a design
guide, empirical testing is performed to validate the use of any given component. As a result,
it’s important to note that it does not follow that a component that is approved for use with
one manufacturer can necessarily be used with another manufacturer’s product, wi thout the
associated re-testing.

Typical tests performed on poles are presented in Chapter 14. Results from these tests are most often
reported as 5% and 10% lower exclusion limits. The way the results are statistically reported is
important to ensure the reliability of pole structures as explained in the next section when discussing
the basis for pole design.
Although FRP composite poles are tested and rated on a strength basis like other poles, due to the
general lower stiffness ratios for composite poles compared to wood, steel and concrete, composite
pole deflection under load is a critical component of the structural analysis. In fact, deflection alone
can commonly be the governing design consideration in composite pole selection, not strength.
Without adhering to pre-determined deflection limits, composite poles selected on a strength only
equivalent basis, can result in right-of-way and minimum ground clearance violations when in service.
Because of these deflection limits, the correct composite pole for a cantilever application will have
more strength than actually required (i.e. strength reserve).

6.5 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND STRENGTH VERI FICATION

Having validated the ultimate performance of a pole, it is then possible for the transmission line
designer to select the most appropriate poles for use in their overhead line. For higher voltage
applications beyond 132kV, it is common practice to assemble the poles within a bolted fabrication to
achieve higher strength coordination requirements. The transmission line designer is responsible to
verify that the poles are adequate to resist to a number anticipated extreme load cases in the context
of the structural configuration selected. An example of an H-frame structure used on a composite
345kV line is shown in Figure 6-2. The modelling (Figure 6-3) for this kind of complex arrangement is
typically performed using commercial structural analysis software. For software specific to
transmission lines, manufacturer specific pole library files are typically provided. This type of model
will allow to evaluate internal forces (axial, shear, bending) at various locations of the poles.

38
As a word of caution, the following considerations should be noted when working with a composite
pole library:
1. To ensure the accuracy of the results, it is critical to maintain the component library files as
they come supplied by the manufacturers, and not to modify geometries, or copy material
properties to suit a bespoke requirement.
2. Following provisional design, manufacturers should be contacted to identify the test sample
size and statistical compensation applied for the modules selected for use.
3. The manufacturers should be contacted to validate that the modules listed in the design
library remain current and have not been modified in any way.
Having validated the poles in the FEA materials library, composite pole lines can then be designed,
evaluated, and optimised in the same way as traditional materials.

Figure 6-2 Typical cross-braced H-frame Figure 6-3 Modelling deflection

As an alternative to the use of a composite pole library, a simple beam model of a pole can be
developed in a general purpose finite element software. However, in that case a verification should be
made that the model is able to adequately reproduce the tip deflection as measured in experimental
tests data normally provided by the manufacturer. In both cases, the numerical model should be used
to determine the internal forces in the poles only and not to calculate directly their resistance. The
capacity of the poles should come from full-scale tests as described in the previous section. Even with
advanced mathematical coding, it is extremely difficult for finite element analysis (FEA) software to
calculate a pole’s sectional performance without in depth info rmation relating to the material
composition and quality of the manufacturing processes, which will vary significantly by supplier. Even
then, without extensive empirical experience with a given laminate, it remains very complicated to

39
derive reliable data on the pole sectional performance. Nevertheless, some authors have developed
advanced numerical models to evaluate failure modes and resistance of composite poles. This type of
model is discussed in detail in Chaper 20. In that case, the orthotropic properties of the material need
to be considered. The elements used for this type of analysis are normally plate or shells elements,
which allow obtaining detailed deformation and stress fields. Further work is needed to be able to
apply this type of models for design applications.
A design example is proposed in Appendix E to detail the analysis and design procedure for selecting
FRP poles for specific transmission line support applications. This example uses a general purpose
finite element software program which does not include a manufacturer pole library. The steps
proposed are the following:
1. Define pole configuration and loading.
2. Perform analysis of single pole.
3. Perform analysis for the structural configuration considered.
4. Check deflection limits against predicted deflections.
5. Check strengths versus internal forces in poles.

This design example illustrates how results from a simple numerical analysis can be used in practice to
proceed with the pole selection for a given line configuration and loading.
An important point to consider when modelling the structural behaviour of a pole configuration is that
due to the relatively low modulus of elasticity of GFRP, the deformed shape (P-delta or P- Δ effects) of
the poles should be considered in the evaluation of the axial, shear and bending moment diagrams.
This can be done with a non linear finite element analysis, with consideration of large displacements.
Alternatively, it can be calculated by evaluating iteratively the horizontal displacement of the pole
structure and its effect of the mechanical loads for the deformed structure.
For conventional materials, the design basis and the strength calculation equations are well
established and are provided in design codes. For FRP materials, due to the variability in the material
properties and manufacturing processes, limited amount of published data, and lack of established
strength calculation procedures, structural engineers need to define carefully the design basis when
making strength verifications. As a reference, this section summarizes the design bases of FRP design
documents, as discussed in Bank (2006).
Bank (2006) proposes two approaches for the design of FRP structural shapes: An Allowable Stress
Design (ASD) approach that uses safety factors, and a Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
approach for which a certain structural reliability level is targeted.
In the ASD approach, the nominal material properties from the manufacturer are used without
knowledge on the statistical data. Nevertheless, this approach is widely used for the design of FRP
material for structural applications. In Bank (2006), safety factors are reported and proposed based
on recommendations from pultruded FRP manufacturers and AASHTO (2001). These factors are
reported in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2 Safety factors proposed for FRP pultruded structural shapes [20-3]

Strength Safety factor

Flexural strength 2,5
Shear strength 3,0
Compressive strength 3,0
Tensile strength 2,0
Bearing strength and other connection stresses (assuming connection 4,0
is dimensioned to fail in bearing)

40
Two important documents for the design of FRP structural shapes are the ASCE Pre-Standard for Load
and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) of Pultruded FRP Structures (ASCE, 2010) and the EUROCOMP
Design Code and Handbook – Structural Design of Polymer Composites (EUROCOMP, 1996). The
ASCE Pre-standard is applicable only to pultruded structural shapes that have symmetric and balanced
glass fiber architecture. It provides design equations and guidelines for the design of new building and
other structures. The EUROCOMP design code is concerned with the resistance, serviceability and
durability of glass FRP structures. A third document, ASCE Manual of Practice (MoP) 104
Recommended Practice for Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Prodcuts for Overhead Utility Line Structures
(2003), provides recommended design practices specific to overhead utility lines. An update to MoP
104 is expected in 2019.
In the ASCE Pre-Standard (2010), which uses the LRFD approach, the reference strength of pultruded
FRP structural members is considered to be the value defined at the 80% confidence interval on the
5th percentile described by a two-parameter Weibull distribution obtained from tests on at least 10
samples. From the reference strength, a nominal resistance Rn is obtained by applying a number of
adjustment factors that depend on moisture content, temperature, and function in a structural
assembly. Then, the factored resistance Ru for design purposes is calculated using Equation 1, where
φ is the resistance factor and λ is the time effect factor.

Equation 1 Ru ≤ λ φ Rn

The time effect factor is equal to 0,4 for design loads that act during the entire lifespan of the
structures and varies between 0,6 and 1,0 for the other load cases depending on the expected time of
application of the load. The resistance factors proposed depends on the type of loading. The design
example presented in Appendix E uses the resistance factors as proposed in the ASCE Pre-Standard.
The EUROCOMP Design Code and Handbook (1996) uses the European version of LRFD approach
called limit state d esign (LSD) approach in which partial material factors γm are used instead of
resistance factors as in Equation 2:
Equation 2 Ru ≤ Rn /γm

EUROCOMP specifies that the characteristic values for material properties should be obtained using
relevant tests and statistical distributions, but do not explicitly specify how to obtain them. However,
the general procedure in European standards is to use the 5th percentile of the test data [20-3].
It should be noted that the compression strength normally reported by manufacturers is for short
column tests. As shown in the design example, for slender poles, the compression capacity should be
reduced to account for global buckling of the pole. This can be done using the Euler equation of
elastic buckling.

6.6 DEFLECTI ON CRI TERIA

The Modulus of Elasticity of glass FRP materials is significantly lower than the one of typical isotropic
materials used in transmission line structures (i.e. steel and concrete). Therefore, designers should
carefully select and verify deflection criteria because they are very likely to govern the design of FRP
structural shapes.
To make full use of the advantages of the FRP materials, deflection criteria should not necessarily try
to match deflection performance of other materials, but should rather be based on actual service limit
states. To establish these service limit states, designers should consider several criteria including:
electrical clearance issues, public acceptance, construction and stringing considerations, etc. However,
in some situations where FRP structures are installed in lines with other types of supports, the criteria
from these other types of supports might need to be followed in order to ensure adequate stiffness
coordination between supports.

41
Standard EN 50341-1 specifies a limit of 8% of the structure height above ground level for the
deflection of transmission line steel poles for both service limit state (SLS) and ultimate limit state
(ULS). This limit applies to European countries unless additional criteria are given by the National
Annex or by the utility. For steel and concrete structures, such deflection limits are easily met,
because their modulus of elasticity is high, which results in limitation of the deflection due to the
allowed stress in the material. However, for FRP structures, deflections of more than 20 % can be
reached without any structural failure. Therefore, applying fixed limits for ULS conditions to FRP poles
might unnecessarily restrict the use of FRP poles for transmission line applications. If needed, a higher
deflection limit (12-20%) under ULS could be defined for FRP based what is acceptable under extreme
climatic events to ensure public safety and security of other line components.
On the other hand, additional deflection criteria might be required for everyday service (EDS) and SLS
conditions as follows:
Tension supports: Large deflection (for example > 4 %) under EDS conditions will have a large
impact on the sag on the conductors and will results in difficulties for stringing
due to high tension forces in conductors and for reaching an upright position.
This is especially true when more than one phases are attached to one pole.
These structures might need to be guyed or designed as braced, mulipole
structures to limit the deflection within an acceptable limit.
Suspension supports: No strict deflection criteria are needed for suspensions structures. However,
electrical clearances (to internal parts of the supports and to ground), should
be checked under SLS conditions. Utilities or national standards should also
define criteria under EDS and/or SLS conditions to consider visual aspects and
public acceptance.
Once deflection criteria are established, verifications should be made against the deflections calculated
using a numerical model as described in the previous section. For typical FRP materials, the ratio of
longitudinal modulus of elasticity to the shear modulus EL/GLT is much larger than for usual isotropic
materials. Consequently, unlike what is normally done for isotropic materials, the shear deformation
should in general be considered when calculating deflection of FRP profiles. However, as shown in the
design example (appendix E), shear deformations have a small effect in the case of poles and could
be neglected. For FRP crossarms and other FRP components, the shear deformation might have a
significant effect. Deflection equations considering shear deformation for typical beam configurations
are given in Section 13.4 in [20-3]. Equation 1 in the Appendix E gives the deflection for a cantilever
beam with a point force at its end. The effect of slip connection, typically encountered for filament
wounded poles, should also be considered when evaluating deflections. In all cases, deflection
calculations should be validated with test results provided by the manufacturer.
When significant sustained loads are applied to FRP profiles, long-term creep deformations should be
considered in the design. To address this issue, ASCE Pre-Standard (2010) and EUROCOMP (2010)
propose a time factor (see previous section) that depends on the duration of the applied loading.
Referencs is “ Pole design example ” in Appendix E.

42
7. FRP POLE FOUNDATIONS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Principally there are two types of foundations for FRP transmission poles. Those that are designed for
shear force and moment at the base and those that are also design for uplift. When calculating for
shear force and moment there are different pressure distributions that have been investigated [7-1].
Those pressure distributions in soil can give different results and some are more correct for friction
soil and others for cohesion soil. For uplift calculations there are also different approaches [7-2].

7.2 FOUNDATIONS FOR FRP POLES

In addition to the standard practice of direct embedment, FRP poles can also be placed in a wider
tube to give better resistance to the surrounding soil. This is referred to as a sleeved embedment.The
space between the FRP pole and the tube, known as the annulus, is filled with expansive mass
orgraded gravel. The tubes or sleeves can be made of high density polyethylene (HDPE), aluminium,
galvanized steel or pre cast concrete

Figure 7-1 HDPE tube Figure 7-2 Galvanized steel tube

Figure 7-3 Graded grave fill Figure 7-4 Expanding pole setting foam

43
Figure 7-5 Firm fastening to rock Figure 7-6 Bottom fastening only for compression force

7.3 CALCULATION EXAMPLE

Forces on foundations are shown on Figure 7-7 and Figure 7-8.

Figure 7-7 Moment foundation Figure 7-8 Upplift foundation

The calculation example in Appendix E gives following factored design loading on base and poles.
Configuration 1 is a single pole: Shear force Q=12,6 kN, moment M=180,5 kNm
Configuration 2 is a cross-braced H-frame: Shear force Q=12,1 kN, moment M=228,0 kNm
Uplift force P=119,2 kN
Following calculation example is for information only.
The soil conditions are investigated without groundwater:
Soil 1: Specific weight 18,5 kN/m3, shear angle=34 degrees, cohesion 5 kN/m2
Soil 2: Specific weight 18,0 kN/m3, shear angle=26 degrees, cohesion 5 kN/m2
Soil 3: Specific weight 17,5 kN/m3, shear angle=17 degrees, cohesion 10 kN/m2

These soil parameters are taken from [7-4]

Models for moment distributions are on Figure 7-9.

44
 Figure 7-9 Single pole acc. ANSI/ASAE to left, Hansen to right

The following results are calculated

Table 7-1 Single pole, depth according to ANSI/ASAE[7-2]
Foundati on Tube di ameter ( m)
depth ( m) 0,6 0,8 1
Soi l 1 3,3 3,0 2,8
Soi l 2 3,7 3,3 3,1
Soi l 3 3,8 3,4 3,2

Table 7-2 Single pole, depth according to Hansen [7-3]

Foundati on Tube di ameter ( m)
depth ( m) 0,6 0,8 1
Soi l 1 2,7 2,5 2,4
Soi l 2 3,3 3,1 2,9
Soi l 3 4,2 3,9 3,7

Table 7-3 H frame, depth according to ANSI/ASEA [7-2]

Foundati on Tube di ameter ( m)
depth ( m) 0,6 0,8 1
Soi l 1 3,6 3,3 3,1
Soi l 2 4,1 3,7 3,4
Soi l 3 4,2 3,8 3,5

Table 7-4 H-frame, depth according to Hansen [7-3]

Foundati on Tube di ameter ( m)
depth ( m) 0,6 0,8 1
Soi l 1 2,9 2,7 2,6
Soi l 2 3,5 3,3 3,1
Soi l 3 4,6 4,2 4,0

ANSI/ASEA EP486.1[2] gives in this case considerably more depth than Hansen method [7-4].

45
Uplift is calculated accordi n g to followi ng formul a

RD = γ (G1 -G2+ 0,5UD 2 tan θ / γθ ) + a UD

where

G1 Volume of the tube (m 3 )

G2 Volume of the FRS pole i n soil (m 3 )

U Circum ference of the outer tube (m)

D Depth of the fou ndation (m )

γ Design value of the specifi c weight of the soil (kN /m 3 )

θ Value of the frictional angle (degrees)

γθ Partial factor on θ equal to 1 . 25

a Soil cohesion (kN/m 2 )

Ta bl e 7- 5 H fram e ca l cu l a ted d epth for u pl i ft

Foundati on Tube di ameter ( m)

depth ( m) 0,6 0,8 1
Soi l 1 3,1 2,6 2,2
Soi l 2 3,6 3,0 2,6
Soi l 3 3,6 2,9 2,3

It can be seen that the moment and shear is ruling the depth for the cross-braced H -frame and not
the upl ift i n this case.

46
8. FOUNDATIONS MADE OF FRP
8.1 INTRODUCTION
FRP composite foundations are under development. In this chapter, there are examples that have
been developed with promising results and one the foundation that is still in the design phase.
8.2 PAD AND CHIMNEY FOUNDATION
Pultruded FRP profiles are very similar to steel milled profiles. This has led to their proposed profile
use in grillage foundations, see Figure 8-1.

Figure 8-1 FRP pad and chimney foundation for guyed pole
Grillage foundation elements are fastened together with either metal (galvanized steel or stainless
steel) or non-metallic polyurethane bolts. Sizing the area of the foundation is completed in the same
manner as steel grillage foundation design. Since the entire foundation is underground and protected
from UV radiation and extreme temperatures, and the FRP components tolerate moisture, this
foundation will last much longer than similar steel grillage foundations.
8.3 FRP ANCHORS
Anchor logs (in some areas they are called slugs, deadman anchors or sleepers) can also be
manfactured using of FRP materials. The anchors are sections of pultruded or filament winded pole
pieces with a through bolt anchor rod attachment.
There are several options
1. Simple pultruded FRP anchor are shown in Figur 8-2.
2. In the middle of an FRP tube, a concrete block could be poured providing local support for the
wall from the forces from the anchor rod. The remaining part of the log could be filled with
expanding foam and then positivie bouyancy in groundwater should be checked.
3. There is an option where an anchor rod is put through the pipe and the entire anchor cavity is
filled with expanding foam. In this case the bouyancy in groundwater should be checked.
4. Further options were provided as the two ends of the anchor is blocked with machined foam
fitting or FRP end cap. The inside of the anchor could be left empty or filled on site with sand
or lean concrete preventing floating up in areas where groundwater could float up to the
anchor to the surface. Yet the anchor shipping to the site is still easily done when it is empty.

47
 5. Other anchor configurations have also been developed using pultruded rectangular profiles
replacing a wood anchor system.

Figure 8-2 Simple pultruded FRP anchor

Figure 8-3 FRP anchor tube filled with foam and/or concrete
The advantage of these FRP anchor logs is that they are light to handle and transport to site, reducing
the risk of onsite injury, durable to withstand the aging effects of the climatic conditions, yet
functional as needed for the specific application.
8.4 FRP ROCK FOUNDATION
An ongoing research and development project in Norway is to develop a rock foundation for steel
lattice towers using FRP pole sections. The idea is to use composite pipes instead of concrete to save
weight, as heavy foundation shipments over long distances and difficult terrain is an issue that needs
to be solved for the utility. Another major advantage is the flexibility you get when cutting the exact
length of the composite pipes at the construction site.

48
The foundation has a steel plate anchored into bedrock with rock anchors. The steel plate is levelled
off with a minimal amount of in situ mixed concrete. On the top of the steel plate, there are two FRP
cylindrical sections that provide the necessary top of foundation elevation for the base plate of the
foundation for the transmission line structure. The base plate is connected through several steel
anchor rods to the steel plate which is anchored to the bedrock. The steel rods are located between
the smaller (inner pipe) and larger (outer pipe) diameter FRP cylinders. The top foundation steel plate
is fastened to the steel tower leg with base plate using steel bolts.

Figure 8-4 Levelled rock with bottom steel Figure 8-5 Inner FRP cylinder and
plate and holes drilled anchor iron installed

Figure 8-6 Outer FRP cylinder and top steel plate Figure 8-7 FRP foundation finished and
installed tower leg attached

49
9. FRP APPLICATION FOR LATTICE STRUCTURES
9.1 INTRODUCTION
There is interest in developing, designing and constructing FRP composite lattice structures. The
following chapters outline examples of FRP composite and combined steel and FRP composite
structures. There were other attempts building FRP lattice transmission line structures around the
world but beside anecdotal evidence there is little known publicly.
9.2 FRP COMPOSITE LATTICE TOWERS FROM THE USA
In the mid 1990 ’s a company from California, USA developed and patented an FRP lattice composite
system with some specialty fit snap type in connections and high capacity production technology that
combined pultrusion with CNC milling technology. There was a 230kV designed tower that was full
scale load and electrical tested and exceeded the specifications of Californian utility.

Figure 9-1 Details of the first patent of FRP lattice structure

Details of the fir snap connection from the patent filed for the transmission line tower are shown on
Figure 9-1.
There were three composite FRP lattice 230kV self-supporting double circuit vertical configuration
towers with composite insulators built in the Ormond Beach California USA (Los Angeles region) in
1997, see Figure 9-2 and Figure 9-3.
The experiences with the towers were excellent. The assembly of the towers was about 5 times faster
than comared to steel lattice towers. The weight of towers are about one third of a similar steel lattice
towers. The initial material cost of the lattice tower components was higher than a comparable steel
tower, however because of the time saved during assembly, the total installation cost of the FRP
towers was on par with steel lattice towers.
FRP tower photos taken in 2014 show that the tower is in excellent condition. Note the grounding in
the middle of the tower as the FRP material is electrically nonconductive and grounding had to be
handled differently than with steel towers.
The FRP lattice towers are still in place and the FRP components are in excellent condition after more
than 22 years of service despite the nearby ocean spray and highly corrosive salty moist ocean air.
Their corrosion performance is far better than galvanized steel structures at the same location.
Although significant effort was spent on marketing FRP lattice towers in the USA, for more than
twenty years there was little interest in using this technology and only recently it has come back to
focus.

50
Figure 9-2 The 230 kV FRP lattice structures with composite insulators

Figure 9-3 Close up of the 230 kV FRP lattice structure

51
9.3 FRP COMPOSTITE LATTICE TOWERS FROM CHINA
FRP lattice structures were designed and built in China, Liaoning Province. The connections are bolted
with gusset plates, similar to steel lattice structure connections, see Figure 9-4.

Figure 9-4 FRP lattice structure from China

9.4 FRP COMPOSITE HYBRI D TOWERS
There was a recent development in Malaysia [9-1] to build steel lattice towers combined with
electrically insulating lattice crossarms. The main goal of these FRP crossarms to provide better
lightning performance, preventing flashovers on the double circuit towers form one circuit to another.
Originally wooden crossarms were used but due to quick rot of wood in the tropical environment the
crossarms were changed to pultruded FRP crossarms. The conductors are still supported by full
insulator strings. Installation of FRP crossarms on 132kV (left) and 275kV (right) towers, see Figure
9-5.

52
 Figure 9-5 Replacing crossarms on transmission towers in Malaysia.
In Chi na there are several towers built that combined steel l attice structures with FRP crossarm s
without in sulating strings.

Figure 9-6 Test setup of dielectric testing of 275kV crossarm

Figure 9-7 Tower with composite Figure 9-8 Lattice tower with
crossarm composite crossarms

53
There is an experimental towerlocated in China comprised of an FRP composite tower head
(crossarm) with a traditional steel sower base. There is very little more known about this structure
beyond a photo, see Figure 9-7.
230kV AC hybrid (steel lattice combined with FRP crossarms) tower in China built in 2015, Xuchang –
Changge, Henan province, China, see Figure 9-8.

Figure 9-9 800kV DC hybrid tower, steel and Figure 9-10 Hybrid tower, steel and
FRP composite FRP composite

Combined with lattice crossarms, Lingzhuou-Shaoxing, Ningxia province, China, built in 2015, see
Figure 9-9.
Several towers were built at the 750kV, 1000kV and 1100kV voltage level.
Hybrid (steel and FRP composite) lattice structure. China, Xinjiang province, 2013, see Figure 9-10.
Advantages：
• Narrower rigth of way by 13m.
• Lower height by 10m.
• Lower steel weight by 10ton/tower.
• Lower foundation concrete volume by 10m 3 /tower.

750kV hybrid (steel and FRP) composite lattice tower. Located in

Inner Mongolia, China, see Figure 9-11.
• In operation since 2017. Total height is 77,4m (253ft).
• Width is 25,4m (83.3ft).
• Total weight is 68,6tonns (151.200lbs).
• Crossarm length: 10,130mm (33.25ft).
• Clearance: 8,850mm (29ft).

Advantages:
• Decreased tower height.
• Narrower right of way.
• Lower material quantity and cost. Figure 9-11 750kV hybrid
• Lower overall life cycle cost. tower, steel and FRP
composite

54
 Figure 9-12 1100kV hybrid tower, steel and FRP composite.
1100kV AC hybrid steel lattice transmission tower with FRP crossarms in China. Note the size of the
tower and linemen sitting on the lower crossarm composite members, see Figure 9-12. The design
provided significant right of way and tower height reduction and as a result cost savings compare to
conventional steel lattice tower design.

Figure 9-13 Zoomed in on 1100kV hybrid structure.

55
 Figure 9-14 Installation of Figure 9-15 Close up of 750kV lattice composite insulating
1100kV AC crossarm in China crossarm

Figure 9-16 Full scale testing of FRP lattice composite crossarm

Figure 9 17 Installation of FRP lattice crossarm structure

56
1 0. FRP CONSTRUCTION METHODS
1 0.1 INTRODUCTION
The following chapter presents transportation, assembly and installation procedures of OHTL single
pole and H-frames structures. The chapter includes examples of helicopter transport.

1 0.2 TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE

Composite poles can be delivered in full lengths or in modules for sectional poles. Tapered sectional
composite poles manufactured using filament winding make it possible to nest the modules in
compact bundles for easy transport and storage. The weight of an FRP composite pole is typically 50-
70% lesser compared to a wood pole. The low weight reduces transportation costs and enables the
use of smaller and lighter vehicles for transportation and installation.

Figure 10-1 Composite poles at the staging area

During transportation, it is important to prevent damage to the poles. This is especially true during the
loading and unloading phase of the poles from the factory or storage facility to the project site or
installation site in the field.
It is likewise important to avoid damaging the UV protection on the outer surface of the pole during
transport and the loading/unloading phase as this will shorten the service life of the pole.
The use proper lifting equipment such as timber cribbing or lifting straps is also necessary as the use
of the wrong or inadequate equipment will damage the pole.
Composite poles can be stored either indoors or outdoors. Compared with wood poles, composite
poles can be stored at the building site without any risk of contamination to the ground in the area,
which is not the case for treated wood poles. The same applies if the poles are stored out in the field.

1 0.3 ASSEMBLING
The modules are jacked together using chain hoists until the slip joint is tight. Once the slip joint is
tight, it is necessary drill a hole in the overlap to mechanically fasten the slip joint. This can be done
using a through bolt or blind nuts. See Chapter 12.2 for more information about pole connections. FRP
poles are easily field drilled, holes for for framing patterns and climbing steps can be drilled at the
factory.

57
It is possible to develop work procedures to make pole assembly easier and more ergonomic for the
installers. For example, the use of workbenches with casters makes the assembly of the pole modules
easier. Such actions can reduced assembly times significantly. Pole modularity provides for simple
circuit height adjustments and future system expansion.

Figure 10-2 Jacking FRP modules together.

After the pole modules have been assembled together, climbing steps, bottom plate and top caps are
mounted on the poles. Then the poles are assembled with crossarms, insulators, casters and ground
wire. Finally, the structure is prepared for helicopter transport using straps at the top. To minimize
pole to pole movement of the unbraced H-frame during air transport, there is a temporary brace
attached.

Figure 10-3 H-frame assembly at the staging area

58
1 0.4 CROSSARMS
1 0.4.1 Aluminium Crossarm

Figure 10-4 Aluminium crossarm connections, one bolt and U-bolt

Various types of crossarm attachment methods to the pole are possible. Two options were tested in
Norway on a project for utility. The first option uses two steel through bolts, see Figure 10-4 left side.
The second option uses a U-bolt (also referred to as a pole band or caliper) and support bracket, see
Figure 10-4 right side. Both options passed the mechanical test, but the chosen solution was the U-
bolt and support bracket method. This solution was preferred because it allowed adjustments to be
made later on and because this method is also used on wood poles.
The ability to adjust the height of the crossarm is especially important when the structure/tower is
assembled on a construction site and later mounted by helicopter on the pole site.
1 0.4.2 FRP crossarm
The FRP crossarms made by pultrusion and of fiber glass core coated with polyethylene are shown on
Figure 10-5 and Figure 10-6.

Figure 10-5 Crossarm made by pultrusion

59
 Figure 10-6 Crossarm of FRP core coated with polyethylene

Figure 10-7 FRP crossarms replacing wood corssarms

Chengal Wood was traditionally used as the crossarms for the suspension towers to withstand the
high lightning density in Malaysia. The wood crossarms are now replaced with FRP composite
crossarms with similar electrical and mechanical properties, see Figure 10-7. Using FRP crossarms
removes the issue of wood rot.

1 0.5 CROSS BRACING

Figure 10-8 FRP cross-braced H-frame

The use of cross braces on multi-pole structures adds structural capacity and rigidity to the structure.
See Chapter 12.3 for more information about tower connections.

60
1 0.6 FOUNDATIONS
1 0.6.1 Foundations in soil

Figure 10-9 HDPE sleeve Figure 10-10 Ready filled foundations

The first and third method (see Chapter 10.7) for tower installation with helicopter requires a
foundation with concrete, steel or HDPE pipe that withstands the pressure from the surrounding soil.
The HDPE pipe is corrugate on the exterior surface and is smooth (plain) on the inside wall.
The inside diameter of the HDPE pipe is adapted to the pole size and base plate diameter. This
solution can be used in compact soil or rock. If the foundation is in rock that can not be anchored to
with rock bolts, it is necessary to blast a hole for the foundation. A sleeved embedment is
recommended in blasted rock hole to guard against rocks which could come up against the pole
surface and create stress concentrations.
Keystones or crushed stones are used to steady or fasten the sleeve to the ground. Similar to
traditional wood poles, the gap between the sleeve and the pole is filled with gravel with particle size
8 to 15mm which can be self-compressed. Pole setting expansive foam can also been used.

Figure 10-11 Positioning pole in the foundation Figure 10-12 Foundation in rock

61
Once the pole is placed in the sleeve, wooden wedges are used to adjust the pole’s verticality before
the helicopter lets go of the pole and leaves the site.
Instead of using HDPE sleeves or steel pipes, stackable pre-cast concrete tubes can also be used.
While the concrete will be heavier it is a good option especially where transportation is easy.
Concrete tubes will also protect the poles against damage, for example, in agricultural areas.
1 0.6.2 Foundations in rock
When installations have low longitudinal and transverse loads, the pole can be installed in rock using
three or four way bracing steel members connected to rock bolts. The rock bolts can also be made
with a flange or wedge with holes for screws or bolts to fasten to the pole.
When installations have medium mechanical loads, the pole can be installed in rock using a wedge
with rock anchors. The wedge is connected to the pole using bolted clamping system with screws
through the pole.
When installations are subjected to heavy loading, the structure is often cross-braced H-frame and the
connection to rock is subjected to heavy uplift. The pole can be installed using wedges with rock
anchors. The wedges are connected to the pole using through bolts.
A hole can be blasted for foundations in rock or a big circular hole bored.
Foundation anchored to rock are shown in Chapter 7 on Figure 7-5 and Figure 7-6.

1 0.7 TOWER INSTALLATION

1 0.7.1 Pole installation with helicopter
1 0.7.1 .1 Introduction
The weight of an FRP composite pole is typically 1/2 to 1/3 the weight of a wood pole. Composite
poles are therefore ideal for use in limited access areas. This is because the light weight of composite
pole enables installation crews to utilize lighter duty machinery to set poles. Modules used for typical
distribution poles can also be carried by hand.
The light weight of the composite poles makes the use of helicopters easier and more cost efficient.
Different methods for pole installation are possible.
1 0.7.1 .2 First method
The poles are assembled at the construction site and prepared to be lifted by the helicopter one at a
time. The pole gets lifted by the helicopter and installed on site. The advantage of this method is that
one can use a smaller helicopter with a load capacity of 600 to 1.000kg.

Figure 10-13 Lifting individual pole

62
 Figure 10-14 The poles have been erected, the crossarm is flown out and attached
After each pole has been erected, the crossarm is flown out and place at the top of the structure.
A strap is attached along the transverse direction so that it can be released from the helicopter
without needing linesmen up on the pole, see Figure 10-14.

Figure 10-15 Lifting attachment of crossarm

1 0.7.1 .3 Second method

The base modules only are installed in the ground and then the rest of the structure, including the
tops of the poles and the crossarm, is assembled and installed in one piece by helicopter. This solution
also allows the use of a small helicopter with a load capacity of 1,000kg, see Figure 10-16.

Figure 10-16 Base modules installed left and H-fram right

63
1 0.7.1 .4 Third method
This method is to assemble the complete structure at the project staging area and carry it to the
installation site by helicopter (Figure 17 and Figure 10-18). This solution requires a helicopter with
higher lifting capacity than the first two options.

Figure 10-17 Assembling at the staging area and lifted

Figure 10-18 Placing a H-frame in sleeved foundations

64
 Figure 10-19 Lifting with a crane Figure 10-20 Protected pole foundation

1 0 . 7. 2 P ol e i n sta l l a ti on wi th a cra n e

The low weight of FRP poles makes it possible to use cranes from a distance to lift the pole into
position where it is not possible to completely access the site. This makes the work easier for the
installers to mount the pole.
1 0 . 7. 3 P ol e i n sta l l a ti on wi th a n exca va tor

The picture below on the left shows a pole mounted in stone mass. The pole is protected against
sharp edges with polyethylene plates or a sleeve. The plates are attached to the pole with self-drilling
screws. The excavator is equipped with a special clamp to hold the pole without damaging the
surface.

Figure 10-21 Erecting with an excavator.

65
 1 0 . 7. 4 P ol e i n sta l l a ti on on sol i d rock

Holes for the rock bolts are bored in the rock and the bolts grouted with non shrinkable cement mixed
with water or a special grouting mixture. A hole can aslo be blasted in the rock.

Figure 10-22 Fastening FRP poles in rock

Instead of boring rock bolts or blasting a hole for the foundation in solid rock, it’s possible to drill a
circular track in the rock and then place a steel or composite foundation. By avoiding blasting the
rock, it is possible to keep the old line in operation while building the new line in the same easement,
see Figure 10-24.

Figure 10-23 Drilling through rock Figure 10-24 Concrete tube

1 0 . 7. 5 P ol e i n sta l l a ti on b y h a n d

Poles are installed manually without the

use of mechanical devices. This method is
used in rough terrain or when access is
limited for a crane.
The light weight of FRP composite poles
makes this work easier for the workers.

Figure 10-25 Pole installation by hand

66
Figure 10-25 and Figure 10-26 show how the light weight of FRP composite poles enables workers to
hand carry poles through constrained access and into people’s backyards. The pole is able to be
maneuvered into place and erected with three men using guy wires.

Figure 10-26 FRP composite poles carried by hand

1 0.8 LIVE LINE INSTALLATI ON AND REPLACEMENT

Figure 10-27 Crossarm replacement Figure 10-28 Crossarm replacement

Figure 10-27 shows a crossarm replacement made from an FRP
composite channel in Canada. The work is done using insulated hot
sticks to lower the conductor on a 287kV H-frame wood pole tower.
The channel crossarm is a good non-conductive and non-inductive safe
working platform for the lineman.
Crossarm replacement of FRP composite channel crossarms in Canada
using insulated crane attachment (LineMaster) on a 230kV line is
shown in Figure 10-28. The channel crossarm is lifted in place with
insulator strings with the hardware already installed. The use of FRP
crossarm is safer than u sing steel because of the FRP’s electrical
insulating and non-inductive properties. Even if the FRP crossarm
accidently touches the conductor, linemen are still safe in working on
the FRP crossarm.
Figure 10-29 shows a live-line tower replacement on a 66kV line in
Norway. The existing H-frame wood structure is replaced with new
composite poles. The poles are installed live line via helicopter with line
alive. Figure 10-29 Pole replacement
For this application, a special safety instruction is completed.

67
1 0.9 ENVIRONMENT
1 0.9.1 Environmental impact
Consideration to environmental impact is becoming more critical with the issues strongly regulated by
governmental authorities.
FRP composite poles are free of toxic preservatives common to treated wooden poles. There is no risk
of leaching into the ground which would then require subsequent soil remediation, a practice common
with treated wood poles.
1 0.9.2 Working Site / Work Environment
The lightweight FRP poles decrease the probability of worker injury, i.e. back, shoulder, hand etc.
Dust particles from drilling and/or cutting must be considered. FRP dust created from drilling and
cutting FRP poles is considered a nuisance dust howeve it is not classified as a carcingen, unlike the
sawdust created from drilling treated wood poles. The use of personal protect equipment such as dust
mask, eye protection, long sleeves and gloves are required.
If drilling poles, it is better for installers to work on the ground compared to working up on the poles.

Figure 10-30 Working with crane

1 0.9.3 Cutting and drilling at site.
FRP material will dull standard high speed steel bits and blades quickly. For this reason, carbide
tipped tools are reocmmended, see Figure 10-31.

Figure 10-31 Drills

68
 Figure 10-32 Drilled holes

Figure 1 0-33 shows the cutting of a fil ament wou nded poles with a diamond blade on a circular saw.
It is recommended that the cut l ine be marked arou nd the circumference of the pole prior to
beginni ng the cutting opera tion. While cutti ng, it is recommended to h ol d the saw in a same position
and rotate the pole/module around to complete the cut.

Figure 10-33 Diamond blade

69
1 1 . FRP ELECTRICAL DESIGN
1 1 .1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter is focused on the electrical design of FRP structures. The tower shall be safe for linemen
at work and also capable to handle fault currents.
An important consideration is that the grounding system shall conduct fault current safely back to
source without damage to the structure. Also shall the tower structure be limited to leakage currents
and able to handle the electrical stresses.

1 1 .2 GROUNDING SYSTEM
The tower material shall not be used as part of the grounding system. Therefore, a separate
grounding path must be created to intercept and safely conduct lightning and short-circuit currents to
earth. The material to be used for the grounding must be specified, as well as the location in and
connections to the tower.
General used are copper wires that are connected to the tower with special designed bolts. Typical
connections are mentioned in Chapter 12.5.
In most cases the ground conductor (ground wire) is placed at the outside of the pole to ease
inspection. It also possible to guide the grounding conductor inside the pole, which is typically for
aesthetics or security (i.e. theft prevention) purposes. However, inspection is more difficult and
possible degradation of the structure is not easily observed when the ground wire run internally.

Figure 11-1 Left, ground wire inside, right ground wire outside
Based on the routing of the grounding conductors as mentioned above, the dimensions, material and
connections will be designed for short-circuit currents by means of calculations. The sizing shall be
based on the maximum temperature that the composite pole and the grounding conductor can
withstand.
All climbing facilities and metal accessories shall be properly grounded. The grounding path shall be
connected to the earth grid in the ground. Step and touch voltage calculation shall be performed for
safe accessibility of the FRP structures.

70
In case the soil has a relative high electric resistance, the resistance can be lowered by having more
grounding path running along the tower and connecting to the earth grid. This ground resistance is
dependent of the soil and must be adequate regardless of the structure is made from wood, steel,
concrete or FRP.
1 1 .3 LEAKAGE CURRENT
OHTL are running through various landscapes and are mechanically, electrically and climatic stressed.
Structure bodies or crossarms that consist of a non-conductive material can be stressed to leakage
current in the event that the insulator design is not appropriate. Highly contaminated climate, like salt,
dust or industrial pollution can create leakage currents over the structure until it will reach a path to
ground. This has resulted in numerous wood pole fires.
The leakage current can form a dry band zone in the vicinity of metallic contacts as a result of voltage
concentration which causes electrical breakdown in wood.

Figure 11-2 Wood pole fire experience in Victoria, Australia [11-1]

Wooden poles structures age due to the influence of coastal salt deposition on the surface of the pole
body. Due to coastal area installation proximity, seawater can be distributed by wind which allows salt
to enter the structure of wood through cracks and fill internal pores. In addition, the accumulation of
salts on the surface of the wood pole, particularly when it is wet, significantly reduces electrical
resistance and deteriorates the leakage current performance of the wood [11-1].
Leakage currents are important aspect to consider especially if the structure body consists of an
insulating material. As mentioned for wood, the dielectric strength can be lower due to contaminated
areas which can age the material and lower the electrical resistance. To examine this phenomenon,
Irish utility has investigated the leakage current [11-1] between oil creosote wood and FRP poles.
The poles are subjected to water and dirt to simulate a contaminated surface. The results show that
the FRP poles have a far better non-conductivity compared to wood poles. The non-conductivity for
FRP poles is a factor of 100 to 1000 better than the wooden poles [11-2].

71
 Figure 11-3 Voltage to be applied across 300mm of the soiled Highland FRP pole
The insulating properties of FRP structures under contaminated conditions is considerably better than
a wooden structure. This was also confirmed by dielectrical tests that were performed in Malaysia.
They performed lightning withstand impulse testing the on a 275kV FRP crossarm and a 275kV
Wooden crossarm. The setup and the results are presented in the figure below.

Di el ectri c Tes t Res ul t for 275 kV Cros s a rms

Mini mum BIL
Tes t i tem Tes t na me requirement Res ul t
Wood LI WV ( Dry) 1050 kV 1186 kV
crossarm LI WV ( Wet) 1050 kV 1156 kV
FRP LI WV ( Dry) 1050 kV 1355 kV
crossarm LI WV ( Wet) 1050 kV 1341 kV

BI L Basi c I n sul ati on Level

LI WV Li ghtni ng I mpul s Wi thstand Vol tage

Figure 11-4 Dielectrical test FRP crossarm 275kV

From the test, excellent performance was observed on the FRP composite crossarm comparing to
wood especially under wet conditions. For both dry and wet conditions, the FRP crossarms recorded
higher withstand values against a lightning impulse. Under dry condition, FRP crossarms recorded
14% higher BIL value compared to wood and 16% higher under wet condition. It was found that the
hydrophobic characteristic of the FRP crossarm material allowed this added advantage [11-3].
1 1 .4 ELECTRIC FIELD EFFECTS ON FRP STRUCTURE TOWER
1 1 .4.1 Introduction
Especially at higher voltage levels the FRP tower bodies are heavily subjected to electrical fields.
These electrical fields can charge up local conductive parts like metal hardware in the event they are
not grounded by power frequency coupling. During wet conditions leakage current can track along
over the surface towards a grounded part. Example of surface tracking are shown in Figure 11-5.

72
 Figure 11-5 Surface tracking towards metallic contacts
Also this type of leakage current can form a dry band zone in the vicinity of metallic contacts as a
result of voltage concentration which can cause deterioration of the FRP material.
The surface of the FRP tower can also be charged by the electrical field of the phase conductor. Due
to the (contaminated) wet surface of the pole, it can act as a field coupling electrode to the
transmission line phase conductor. The resultant charging current of the air coupling capacitance
between the pole and the phase conductors uses the electrical conductance of the wet pole wood as a
path to ground [11-4].

Figure 11-6 Coupling effect between phase conductor and grounded part
Due to the nature of the material and the fact that it will be exposed to an electrical environment, it is
possible that the FRP will deteriorate, resulting in surface discloloration and subsequent erosion of the
material, tracking or even puncture. The following effects should be taken into account [11-5], [11-6].
• Long-term induced surface current of small magnitude.
• Dry-band arcing.
• Corona discharges.
1 1 .4 .2 Lon g - te rm i n d u ce d su rfa ce cu rre n t of sm a l l m a g n i tu d e

Capacitive coupling between the phase conductor and the grounded parts results in a potential
gradian along the FRP structure. The resin material of GRP structures is normally hydrophobic and
nonconductive and has a very high resistance even in wet conditions. Over time, the top layer can
lose its hydrophobicity feature due to natural UV radiation and long -term low surface current. The
FRP material should have proper UV resistance and good tracking resistance behaviour.

73
 1 1 .4.3 Dry-band arcing
During wet conditions, the contamination layer can become (partly) conductive and leakage currents
from adjacent energized conductors can flow over the layers. The intensity of the currents will
increase close to an earth potential like the grounding conductor or grounded climbing accessories
[11-7]. As the contamination dries, narrow dry bands can form, especially close to grounded parts.
These bands can have voltages across them approaching and even exceeding the space potential,
possibly being high enough to cause arcs across the dry-band. If the current that is available to the
arcs is high enough, the arc heating can degrade the resin material.
Dry-band arcs require sufficient voltage for ignition and sufficient current available (current induced in
the contamination layer prior to dry-band formation) to sustain the arc.
More importantly, it is the magnitude of the available current which determines the effect of an arc,
i.e. the rate of aging of the polymer. There has been no evidence that failure can occur at currents
less than 1 mA. Between 1 and 2 mA, some ageing can occur through gradual damage to the surface.
Around 2 mA, arcs will lead to gradual damage of the grounded cable surface, the rate of which
depends on the cable sheath material. At currents in excess of around 3 mA and up to approximately
5 mA, the damage evolves rapidly.
1 1 .4.4 Corona discharges
High voltage FRP transmission tower structures, poles and cross-arms are subjected to electric fields,
whose magnitude is increased as the (grounded) hardware is approached. Any protrusions that are at
zero potential (i.e. grounded climbing steps, metallic fasteners of grounded downleads) could give rise
to high potential gradients at adjacent composite surfaces. Local corona effects can cause
discoloration of the FRP structure, followed by surface erosion. Moreover, the erosion increases with
the field strength. Depending on atmospheric conditions and the shape and roughness of earthed
hardware, it is speculated that corona can initiate between 20 and 30kV/cm [11-8].
Based on Finite Element Modelling software, electrical field calculations can be performed. Hereby the
local electric field around protrusion can be determined. Possibility to lower the electric fields are
adjustments to the shape or more embedded protrusions.
An FRP transmission tower should have a proper electrical design. All metal parts should be grounded
and possible leakage current shall minimize as possible. Proper insulator design, based on the right
contamination level, and good grounding is important. Hereby good tracking and erosion resistance
of the FRP material is a necessity to limit current flowing over the surface, also to safeguard linemen.
At the tower body, where the electrical fields are high, protrusions should be minimized because it can
increase the local electric field.

74
1 2. FRP FITTINGS AND CONNECTIONS
1 2.1 HARDWARE AND CONNECTION DESIGN.
When choosing material for hardware consideration must be given to the conditions at the installation
location of the OHTL. Desired service time in combination with atmosphere conditions determines
necessary corrosion resistance for steel parts. In normal conditions hot dip galvanized steel is widely
used but in salty and polluted environments it can be necessary to use more corrosion resistant
material such as stainless steel or FRP materials.
Site access is another important design consideration when choosing fittings and connections for a
transmission line. To facilitate transportation and construction, the towers can be divided into sections
with appropriate weight and size for available machinery and equipped with fittings adapted for the
intended working methods.
The composite material's great freedom in design allows the properties to differ between pole designs
causing changed conditions for the fittings. Thicker wall thickness can be more robust than thinner
ones and allow different type of fitting, perhaps with less bearing space. Wrap around stay wire
attachment and staples are examples of solutions that may work with some types of FRP poles but
not with others.
The use of holes is a necessary design consideration. Material reduction due to holes results in a
reduction in the pole´ s load capacity in the same region. Stress concentrations, localized buckling and
stress at the remaining material at the section must be verified.
Often the FRP pole manufacturer has performed calculations and mechanical tests and can provide
general design guides for fittings and connections. Typical information is load capacity for different
type of fasteners, maximum hole size, minimum hole to hole distance and minimum hole to edge
distance. By designing connections according the design guides and actual loads, a full analysis of
each connection normally can be avoided.
Hardware with sharp edges in contact with the FRP composite wall shall be avoided. It shall be
designed to spread the load and reduce localized stress on the pole. In many cases it can be achieved
by using washer or bearing plates with same curvature as the attachment point of the pole.
1 2.2 FRP TRANSMISSION LI NE HARDWARE
1 2.2.1 Introduction
Usually new hardware does not have to be designed. Instead ordinary transmission line hardware can
be used or used with small adaptations.

Figure 12-1 Load to be spread over the pole surface

Standard transmission line hardware with bolted connections can have too few bolts for transferring
the vertical load to an FRP pole. In such cases the hardware can be bolted to a steel plate adapter
which in turn is bolted to the pole with required amount of bolts.

75
 Figure 12-2 Guy wire attachment Figure 12-3 Guy wire attachment with three
fitted with two screws screws
On Figure 12- 2 and Figure 12-3 are adapter plates which distributes the load through 2 and 3 screws.
1 2.2.2 Fasteners for composite poles
1 2.2.2.1 All through bolt.
A fully or partial threaded steel rod is mounted through the pole to create a connection point.

Figure 12-4 Treaded rod

When installing through bolts the poles cross section can be deformed because of the clamping force
from tightening the nuts. This can be prevented with use of a spacer sleeve. A spacer sleeve has to
be designed to withstand the clamping force and can be made of steel or FRP composite. The spacer
sleeve is more needed for pultruded poles as filament winding has more hoope strength. It may be
pre-mounted or cut to appropriate length and installed at site.

Figure 12-5 Bolt trough FRP pole

1 2.2.2.2 Blind nut
Blind nut make it possible to install a bolt to a closed profile without having access to the inside. The
nut is inserted through the hole and is held into place, pulled against the inside of the pole wall, with
the wire loop when the bolt is installed, see Figure 12-6.

76
 Figure 12-6 Blind nut

Figure 12-7 Installation of blind nut in a slip-joint

When a blind nut is used in a pole, it must be orianted vertically with the pole center line, otherwise it
can create point loads that can damage the pole.

1 2.2.2.3 FRP Bolts and nuts.

FRP fasteners have the advantage of being corrosion resistance and non conductive. For special
applications, when these properties are wanted they can be an alternative to steel fastener. When
using an FRP fastener, it has to be taken into account that the mechanical parameters is not
standardized. Ultimate loads can differ between products and manufacturers and strength must be
checked when designing a connection. These fasteners are not yet used for OHTL.

Figure 12-8 Fiber reinforced polyurethane bolts and nuts

77
1 2.2 .2 .4 Locki n g of n u ts

Vibration and movement in the structure can cause nuts to loosen. To limit the probability that this
occurs, nuts can be secured. The most common methods for ensuring that for FRP fittings are thread-
locking fluid, nylon lock nut and/or damage the threads.
Thread locking fluids are available for permanent or removable locking. In order to distinguish the two
types, different clolors are usually used. Thread-locking fluid may be applied before or after assembly,
depending on the type, see Figure 12-9.
Nylon lock nuts have a nylon clolor insert integrated in the nut for locking. The insert deforms
elastically and locks the nut by friction. The nylon insert is not damaged and therefore the nut can be
reused, see Figure 12-10.
Damaging the bolt threads is a secure method for permanent locking. After the nut is installed the
protruding threads past the nut are damaged by striking a punch with a hammer

Figure 12-9 Thread locking fluid Figure 12-10 Nylon lock nut

Figure 12-11 Locking by damaging the tread

1 2 . 2 . 2 . 5 P ol e b a n d sty l e fa ste n e r

Strap style pole bands has the advantage that they are adjustable and therefore can be used for a
range of pole diameters. Strap style pole bands are available in a few different sizes, and although
each pole band size has an adjustable pole diameter range, it is important to confirm the correct size

78
of strap style pole band to match the diameter of the pole at the attachment elevation. Note that
tapered poles may require more than one size of strap style pole band, see figure 12-12.
It is important that strap style pole bands b e installed correctly, according to the manufacturer’s
instructions.

Figure 12-12 Pole neck band Figure 12-13 Pole band

This type of fastener normally is made of hot dip galvanized carbon steel. If the condition requires
extra corrosion resistance they can be made of stainless steel
Link style pole bands can be made to fit any diameter pole by adding or removing links as necessary,
see Figure 12-14. Unlike strap style pole bands which can only have attachment points every 90
degrees, a link eyelet can be added anywhere in the link assembly, providing excellent custom
configuration options. Link style pole bands are more expenesive than strap style pole bands. They
will assemble easier and faster and are able to handle higher loads.

Figure 12-14 Link style pole band

1 2.2.2.6 Screws
Suitable screws for use on FRP poles are made of hot dip galvanized carbon steel or stainless steel
and are available with many different head types.

Figure 12-15 Self drilling and tapping screw, self tapping screw and wood screw

79
Self drilling and tapping screws are mounted in just one step with help of a power tool. The tip of the
screw drills the hole for the screw to tighten in and does not require a pre-drilled hole. Care shall be
taken not to over-torque the screw.
Self tapping and wood screws are mounted in two steps. First a hole, with smaller diameter than the
screw has to be drilled. Then the screw can be tighten into place with machine or by hand. It is
adviced to contac the FRP manufacturer if their hole size recommendations according to the bolt
diameter is missing.
1 2.2.2.7 Staples

Figure 12-16 Staple

Staples are widely used to secure guy wires in place and attach earthing wires on wooden poles, see
Figure 12-16. They are made of carbon steel and are hot dip galvanized. The usual dimensions are 3 -
6mm in diameter. On some FRP poles it is possible to use staples for attachment, if approved by the
manufacturer. To mount it on an FRP pole, two holes with a smaller diameter than the staple shall be
drilled. The staple is then hammered into the holes and held to place by friction.
1 2.2.2.8 Blind rivets
Blind rivets, commonly referred to as "pop" rivets (POP is the brand name of the original
manufacturer) can be used to attach small accessories that are not subjected to loads (i.e. signs and
pole number markers), see Figure 12-17. The rivet assembly is inserted into a hole drilled through the
parts to be joined and a specially designed tool is used to draw the mandrel into the rivet. This
expands the blind end of the rivet and then the mandrel snaps off. Blind rivets are available in
aluminium or stainless steel. To enable the use of rivets as an attachment method, the rivet shaft
needs to be at least 3mm longer than the wall thickness of the pole.

Figure 12-17 Blind rivet

1 2.2.3 Pole connections
1 2.2.3.1 Splicing poles
As a general rule, filament wound FRP composite poles are modular and pultruded FRP composite
poles are single piece. However, there are exceptions to these generalizations as single piece filament
wound poles can be available up to 12m in length and pultruded poles can be spliced together to form
longer poles.
Most modular filament wound poles can be nested together for improved shipping efficiencies.
Different, standard-sized module sizes enable composite poles to be custom configured for specific
length and strength applications.
1 2.2.3.2 Slip joint.
Compression slip joints typically use tapered modules of different diameters. Starting at the base
module, successively smaller tapered modules are assembled onto the base module to create the
finished pole. In a given slip joint, the tip of the larger module is inserted into the base of the base of
the smaller module, see Figure 12-18. If the modules are light enough, this operation can be done by
hand. If the modules are larger, a boom is required. Care shall be taken to ensure that no foreign
debris (i.e. dirt, rocks, etc.) is in the overlap area.

80
 Figure 12-18 Slip joint
Once the modules are gently engaged and axially aligned, 1.5-3ton come alongs are used in
combination with jacking lugs (a steel fitting inserted into the FRP composite pole wall that provides a
pull point) or jacking bars (a one piece bar). The modules are then jacked together until the slip joint
is tight, see Figure 12-19. A dead blow mallet can be used during assembly to strike the bottom of the
smaller module in the slip joint to alleviate any uneven tension applied during the use of the come
alongs.
Overlap distances of a compression slip joint will vary for different composite pole manufacturers. An
average overlap distance can be 2-2.5 times the pole diameter at the location of the slip joint.
Typically, this is a larger overlap than the minimum overlap distance steel poles utilize which is
typically 1.5 times the pole diameter.
Once the slip joint is tight, it is mechanically fastened with hardware. This can be a through bolt or
blind nuts. Typically, there will be provisions within the slip joint design to account for post-installation
slip joint settling without module damage in the event that there was not enough initial assembly
force or if, at some point in the future, there is a vertical load that surpasses the initial assembly
force.

Figure 12-19 Slip joint assembly using 3ton come alongs and a dead blow mallet

81
The load needed to jack the sections together combined with the vertical load (F V) causes horizontal
reaction forces (FH ) in the joint, see Figure 12-20.

Figure 12-20 Forces on slip joint

These forces give in turn stresses in the pole wall (σ) which must be taken into consideration when
designing the pole. Note that the stress on the slip joint is much greater during bending than under
initial assembly tension.
1 2.2.3.3 Splicing of pultruded poles
Pultruded poles are typically single section. While it is preferrably to keep poles as a single piece,
longer poles, to ease logistics, and poles in difficult to access areas, may benefit by adding a splice.
Pultruded poles have constant cross section, which can make it easier to place a connection practically
at any location along the length of the pole. The connection is a snug fit, pultruded constant cross
section sleeve that slides over the pole pieces. The pole pieces ends are either directly connected and
touch each other, or there is a separate circular plate in the middle incorporated into the splice
providing bearing transfer and reinforcement for the splice. The pultruded splicing connection
provides confinement for the connecting pole ends.
Several tap bolts hold together the splice and connecting pole pieces. The functions of those bolts
are: Holding the connecting splicing in place, transferring axial tension forces and transferring possible
torque forces acting on the pole. The axial compression forces of the pole gets through mainly
bearing between the connecting pole pieces.
Axial tension forces, as mentioned earlier, gets transferred through the bolts.
Shear forces at the splicing are being transferred by the splice in bearing from the pole ends to the
splice. The possible middle plate in the splice makes the shear load transfer easier on the splice wall
Bending moments are transferred through the splice outer ring surface as the pole pieces are snug fit
into the splice itself.

Figure 12-21 Spliced pultruded Figure 12-22 Before splicing

82
1 2.2 .3 .4 Fi l a m e n t wou n d p ol e wi th a d h e si ve j oi n t/con n e cti on

The idea is to join two straight pipes with the same diameter by using a sleeve and then inject glue in
between. To prevent the glue from "escaping" the system, you have to use a sealing between the
sleeve and the pipes. You also need vent holes to reduce the necessary pressure needed to inject the
glue. These vent holes are also used to make sure that the glue have completely filled the gap.

Figure 12-23 Adhesive filament tobe

1 2.2 .4 Le g con n ecti on s

Two poles can be connected at the top known as A-frame, see Figure 12-24. The connection is made
of hot dip galvanized carbon steel. Two plates, one on each side, connects the poles with all trough
bolts.
On 12-25 is a dead end tower with A-pole design. The vertical pole is supported with a strut to take
care of longitudinal compression force.

Figure 12-24 Pole connector Figure 12-25 Pole dead end

83
1 2.3 TOWER CONNECTIONS
1 2.3.1 Cross-bracing
The use of cross-bracing (X-braces) on H-frame (Figure 12-
26) adds structural capacity and rigidity to the structure,
see Figures 12-27 and 12-28. Two considerations to be
aware of when using cross braces are:
The placement of the cross brace(s) on the
1. structure to ensure that the connections to the pole
are not in high stress areas.
2. The hardware solutions for the vertical loads and
push/pull through loads for the upper and lower
cross brace attachment points are within the
allowable stress limits for the pole wall laminate.

Figure 12-26 Cross-braced H-frame

Figure 12-27 Aluminum cross-brace attached to the pole.

Figure 12-28 FRP composite cross-brace with steel end fittings

84
1 2.3.2 Crossarm
The use of crossarms in OHTL structrures is fairly universal as they are used on both cantilevered
single poles and multi-pole structures, regardless of pole material type, see Figure 12-29.

Figure 12-29 Steel crossarm connected to composite pole

In a different connection interpretation, some crossarms utilise a pole neck band. In this method, the
crossarm attaches to the pole with the neck band and the support bracket attaches either with a neck
bnak or with a through bolt, see Figure 12-30. The support bracket is equipped with an optional guide
plate that during helicopter installations, it is easier to lift the crossarm in place after the poles are
erected. The support bracket also transfer load to the pole and makes the connection stronger.

Figure 12-30 Connection between composite pole and aluminium suspension crossarm

Figure 12-31 Connection of FRP composite pole and aluminium tension crossarm

85
 Figure 12-32 FRP composite crossarm connected to FRP, see also Figure 10-5
Some installations utilise double crossarms, see Figure 12-32. The distance between each of the
crossarm beams depends of the diameter of the pole at the attachment point. By designing the
insulator string attachment bracket to be adjustable one type of bracket can be used for a range of
pole diameters.
1 2.3 .3 G u y wi re a tta ch m e n t

Figure 12-33 Composite pole with guy wires attached to link style pole band
Pole bands without through bolts are hardware intended for steel, wood and concrete poles which can
be used without modification on FRP composite poles, see Figure 12-33. Note, pole bands with
integrated through bolts are not recommended on tapered composite poles because, although there
may be some initial settling of the band, the larger pole diameter, as a result of the taper, will lock the
pole band in place. A pole band with through bolts may not achieve the required load bearing surface
to resist the vertical load as the pole band settles which can result in laminate tearing.
Wrap-around guy wire attachment can be used for some applications however it is recommended to
check with the FRP pole manufacturer to confirm this is an approved guy wire connection method, see
Figure 12-34.

86
 Figure 12-34 Wrap around stay wire attachment with hooks
The guy wire is secured from sliding down by staples. At each staple a washer is placed between the
wire and the pole surface to protect the surface from wear due to wire movements, see Figure 12-35.
Check with the FRP pole manufacturer if staples can be used as an approved connection method.

Figure 12-35 Wrap around with staples

The guy wire is secured from sliding down by staples. At each staple a washer is placed between the
wire and the pole surface to protect the surface from wear due to wire movements see Figure 12-35.

Figure 12-36 Hardware for guy wire and tension string attachment
Figure 12-36 shows a steel plate to attach tension string insulators and guy wires to the FRP
composite angle pole. The plate is attached to the pole with three steel through bolts.

87
 Figure 12-37 Hardware for suspension string and guy wire attachment
Figure 12-37 shows a solution to attach insulator and guy to the FRP composite pole. This solution is
used in small angles.

Figure 12-38 Hardware for suspension string and guy wire attachment
A third solution to attach insulators and guy wires to the composite pole is shown in Figure 12-38. It is
used in towers with angle when you need more distance to the crossarm or to the pole.
1 2.3.4 Connection to foundation
FRP poles are typically either embedded into the ground or anchored to rock. The foundations are
descriped in Chapter 7 and Chapter 10.5.

Figure 12-39 Connection to rock. Not for uplift

88
 Figure 12-40 Wedge to rock Figure 12-41 Bracing to rock

On Figure 12-40 and Figure 12-41 are shown two types of connections to rock. Typically, this type
ofsurface mount foundation will also require the use of guy wires to stabilise the pole.
Wedged rock anchor can be installed with existing industry standard rock mounts for a firm
connection to the pole, see Figure 12-42.

Figure 12-42 Strap style rock anchor

89
1 2.4 ATTACHMENT OF ACCESSORIES
1 2.4.1 Signs
It is a common requirement to attach sinage of all types to a utility pole (i.e. high voltage warning,
pole ID number, etc.). The fastest and most common attachment method is to use self-drilling and
tapping screws, as required, Figure 12-43.

Figure 12-43 Signs attached to composite pole

1 2.4.2 Top cap
If the pole is left open at the top, annoying sounds can be created when it is windy. Additionally,
precipitation and pests of all types (i.e. birds, insects, etc.) can enter the pole. Installing a top cap is a
requirement to seal the pole top, see Figure 12-44. Top caps can be conical or flat in nature, are
made of thermoplastic material and are installed at site. Self-drilling and tapping screws are most
commonly used to attached top caps to the pole.

Figure 12-44 Top caps

90
1 2.4.3 Base plate
Base paltes create a suitable bearing area at the bottom of the pole for the proper distribution of
foundations loads, see Figure 12-45. For soil foundations, it can be designed to take care of uplift
forces by adding area outside the pole diameter.

Figure 12-45 FRP base plate

1 2.5 EARTHING CONDUCTOR
There are various methods to attach the earting wire to FRP pole, see staple attachment in Figure
12-46 and double self-drilling and tapping screw connection Figure 12-47.

Figure 12-46 Staple attachment Figure 12-47 Double screw connection

Hot dip galvanized clamp for earthling conductor attachment can also be used with a self-drilling and
tapping screw or with a wood screw, also known as a lag screw or lag bolt, see Figure 12-48 and
Figure 12-49.

Figure 12-48 Strap connection Figure 12-49 One bolt clamp connection

91
1 2.6 STEP BOLTS
Step bolts can be mounted on poles to make a permanent climbing path for construction and
maintenance without the use of equipment with a boom, see Figure 12-50. Step bolts are available in
many types with different attachment methods. They are mounted to the pole on site in a predrilled
or site drilled hole.

Figure 12-50 Step bolt with a external fastening nut

Step bolts with a single piece shank which utilise an external fastening nut are easily removable and
allows quick inspection of fastening nut while climbing.
Step bolts utilising a blind nut are not removable from the pole and inspection of the blind nut is not
possible, see Figure 12-51.

Figure 12-51 Step bolt attached using a blind nut

Removable steps, bracket is attached with external fastening nut, can be used close to the ground to
prevent unauthorized persons from climbing the pole, see Figure 12-52.

Figure 12-52 Removable step bolt

92
Step bolts are also available in a through bolt style with an external nut, see Figure 12-53.

Figure 12-53 Step bolt attached with all trough bolt

1 2.7 FALL ARREST SYSTEM
Standard fall arrest systems such as a wire or a rail following the climbing path can easily be attached
with fasteners for FRP composite poles. It is very important to take into consideration that the fall
arrest system is conductive. It can affect the electrical performance and act as earthling system if it is
not the correct design.
When step bolts are used they can be equipped with anchor points to be used as fall protection. The
anchor point can be used by linesmen to secure themselves by using hooks attached to their harness.
The loop can either be an integrated part of the step bolt or a separate part, see Figure 12-54.

Figure 12-54 Two examples of step bolts with anchor point

1 2.8 HOLE PLUGS
In some cases,when not all of the holes drilled in a pole will be used (i.e. fitted with hardware). The
hole can act as an entrance for insects and the hole edges are not normally UV protected. Hole plugs
are an easy way to seal the holes and prevent insects from building nests in the pole and to protect
the material from UV light. Plastic hole plugs are available in sizes suitable for all hole dimensions and
can be easily removed in the future in the event that the hole is required to be used for hardware.

Figure 12-55 Plastic hole plug seals an unused hole

93
1 3. FRP VANDALISM AND ACCIDENTAL DAMAGE
PERFORMAGE
1 3.1 INTRODUCTION
Every year thousands of homes and businesses lose electricity supply because of vandalism to the
electricity network, putting innocent members of the public at risk. When vandalism and electricity
equipment are mixed, the result can be death.
1 3.2 CLIMBING
Structures for distribution and transmission lines are made from wood, steel lattice, steel tubes,
concrete and FRP. The first concern is ease of climbing these structures. Steel lattice and tube
structures are relatively easy to climb as they are commonly fitted with steps (e.g. extended bolts on
lattice towers and step bolts on poles) for lineman access. The common protection is simply to have
the steps starting at a minimum of 3m above ground level and sometimes also implementing a barbed
wire guard to further deter climbing. However, should a barbed wire guard be used, it is apparently
fairly easy to remove using wire cutters or simple spanners. The object here is mainly to mark that
access has been made to the structure by leaving an indication that a vandal has climbed it due to the
removal of the barbed wire.
Wood poles are more difficult to climb but commonly, there is no need for a vandal to climb as the
wood itself is of no value except for burning. The same can be said for FRP poles but even more so as
these poles, due to their smooth surface, are more difficult to climb than wood.
Generally, concrete poles have not proven to be a target for vandalism.
1 3.3 THEFT
Theft of lattice steel struts is, common in some countries and this can lead to dangerously unsafe
structures. Angle nuts, stay earth wires and galvanised angle bars from steel lattice towers are being
cut and stolen by vandals creating safety problems and causing power blackouts. It can also delay
commissioning of the power transmission lines and increase the project costs. On January 28, 2017, a
tower along the new Tororo-Opuyo-Lira 132kV power transmission line in Uganda was vandalized at
Nyirikit village between Tororo and Mbale district causing a power blackout in the eastern parts of the
country. The vandalised tower on the new steel tower line being constructed collapsed on the old
Tororo-Opuyo-Lira wooden 132kV line that runs parallel affecting three wooden pole structures. This
is evidence that vandalism of steel tower structures compromises the strength of the towers, putting
the transmission line at risk of collapsing. Around 466 pieces of angle bar were stolen from 26 towers
in the four months leading up to January 2017. This has, as a result, weakened up to 660km of the
lattice tower transmission line.
Earthwire downleads are commonly of copper and occasionally aluminium. Steel lattice structures do
not require earth downleads for normal operation but do if equipment such as telecom hardware is
attached to the structure. The earthwire (commonly 75mm² copper) is normally laid within a steel
angle and painted over so that it is not obvious, but can be removed by levering, sawing or by axe
blows. Although this will affect the equipment operation, it will not normally be a safety hazard for
electricity supply operation.
Wood structures are solid and hence any downleads must be fixed to the surface. As such they are
commonly a subject of vandalism as two quick strikes with a sharp axe can severe the copper
downlead in a matter of seconds.Removal of the earthing wire definitely creates a safety hazard.
Hollow structures such as steel, spun concrete and FRP poles offer the option of putting the earth
downlead within the pole with a simple external connection just above, or even below ground level.
As long as the pole cannot be climbed easily, the earthwire is relatively safe from theft. This will
improve safety aspects from removing climbing aids from the external surface of the poles but also
reduce the requirement and maintenance on the use of cable guards.
Theft of earth rods is still possible with hollow poles as the rods need to be available for periodic
inspection and so may not be totally buried. One possible solution here is to install the rods using the
staywire principle but using the 'duckbill' type anchor which cannot be removed by force.

94
1 3.4 OHL CONDUCTORS
Although most OHL conductors are aluminium, several countries use copper for distribution (and some
transmission) lines near the coast due to its resistance to corrosion. Thefts of copper wire from
utilities occur primarily at substation transformers, from utility poles, or from service trucks. The thefts
have several adverse consequences, including the obvious economic impact, service disruptions, and
possibly personal injury or death for persons involved in the theft or subsequent recovery efforts. If
only overhead earth wires are stolen and no phase conductor are cut, electricity may continue to be
provided. When distribution or transmission lines are removed, however, these facilities often fail to
operate. Such failure reduces the reliability and redundancy of the electric grid, even if power outages
do not ensue from the damage. Unexpected loss of this infrastructure will usually cause at least a
minor disruption in the delivery of electricity to customers.
One common methode to remove the OHL conductor with the intent to sell the conductor for scrap is
to cause an outage (commonly by throwing a metal chain over the bare conductors), then climb the
pole and cut down the conductor. A second method is simply to cut down the wood pole with a
chainsaw and bring the whole line down. This is quite popular as it only takes a matter of seconds to
cut through an old wood pole. Steel and concrete poles cannot be brought down in this manner and
vandals need to be able to climb the pole. With FRP poles, the fiberglass will blunt the chainsaw very
quickly and even jam up the mechanism with the fibers. Sawing down an FRP pole is therefore more
awkward and time consuming and so likely to be unpopular with vandals who would prefer a quick in-
and-away job.
One solution would be to use covered conductor combined with a composite pole as this would make
both vandalism techniques far less attractive.
1 3.5 LIMITED WOODPECKER DAMAGE
Although not a human vandal, the woodpecker can seriously weaken wood poles, whether they be
new or old and this can be a major worry in areas where woodpeckers live. This also can reduce the
overall strength of a wood pole and it is very hard to take mitigating steps to avoid this issue as filling
the hole with an expanding solution simple forces the bird to attack another part of the pole.

Many utilties use FRP poles to effectively mitigate against woodpecker damage. There is, however,
currently one FRP pole manufacturer that uses a thermoplastic outer layer on the pole. Athough this
softer external coating is used to enable the use of European style climbing equiment on the FRP pole,
the downside of using a soft thermoplastic coating on the exterior of the otherwise thermoset FRP
pole is that woodpeckers can gain purchase on the thermoplastic material and continue to peck at it,
as they otherwise would normally do on a wood pole, resulting in damage to the thermoplastic layer
which also acts as a UV protectant for the underlying thermoset structural core of that particular pole,
see Figure 13-1.

Figure 13-1 Damage to a composite pole caused by a woodpecker

95
1 3.6 VEHICLE COLLISION
Any OHTL structure installed in close proximity to a roadway runs the risk of being involved in a
collision with a vehicle that leaves the roadway, see Figure 13-2. FRP poles have two advantages
regarding collisions with vehicles. First, hollow FRP poles absorb the energy of the impact such that
collisions with an FRP pole have a lower probability to injure the persons in the vehicle than a
vehicular collision involving steel, concrete and wood poles. Second, there is a considerable possibility
that the structure itself will not collapse due to its light weight and the ability of the conductors to
support the pole following the collision.

Figure 13-2 Guelp Hydro impact

1 3.7 FIRE RESITANCE
Fire performance of FRP composites is defined by their fire reaction and fire resistance properties.
Understanding fire behaviour requires some terms that need to be defined. Fire reaction has two
major components, flammability and combustion. These properties of FRP that affect the early stages
of fire, generally from ignition to flashover. Fire reaction also describes the smoke toxicity of a
combustible material. Important fire reaction properties that affect fire growth are the heat release
rate, time-to-ignition, flame spread rate and oxygen index. Heat release rate is considered the single
most important fire reaction property because it is the best indicator of the fire hazard of a
combustible material. The heat release rate value of a FRP composite material is not constant but
varies with exposure time to the fire as a material is progressively consumed. Therefore, the heat
release rate is often described by two parameters: average heat release rate and peak heat release
rate. Average heat release rate is the averaged value over a certain period of time (usually three or
five minutes). The peak heat release rate is the maximum amount of heat liberated by a material
during the combustion process, and it often occurs over a very short period of time (less than a few
seconds). The peak heat release rate is considered a critical property controlling the maximum
temperature and flame spread rate. FRP composite materials that have low values for peak and
average release rates are often suitable in high fire risk applications to minimise the growth and
spread of fire.
Time-to-ignition is the period that a combustible material can withstand exposure to a constant
radiant heat flux before igniting and undergoing sustained flaming combustion. The ignition time can
be used as a crude or approximate measure of the flammability resistance of a material.
Flame spread rate, as the term implies, describes the speed at which the flame front will travel over
the surface of a combustible material. The flame spread rate is an experimentally measured value,
and various experimental techniques with important differences in test configuration are used. Some
tests are used to measure the rate of flame spread in a downward direction while other techniques
measure it in a vertical or inclined direction. Consequently, the value for flame spread rate is test-
dependent. Oxygen index is defined as the minimum oxygen content in the fire environment required
to sustain flaming combustion of a material.
There are many references that are detailed the fire performance of FRP Composite material [13-1]
and [13-2]. Entire books are dedicated to the details. The majority of the references are dealing with
material behaviour in fire and response to exposure to high temperatures.

96
Evaluating and comparing the fire performance of various FRP materials in laboratory environment
gives detailed information on what happens to them but has only some value for transmission line
engineers. When FRP composites are exposed to high temperatures (typically above 300-400 C) the
organic matrix decomposes and there is a release of heat, smoke, soot and toxic volatiles. Although
many polymer composites are flammable, their resistance to pyrolysis can be improved using fire
retardant additives. Moreover, FRP composites possess some potentially useful properties in fire that
are not inherent with metals, for example excellent thermal insulation properties and slow burn-
through. The rate of heat conduction through composites is much slower than metals, and this is a
significant benefit is slowing the spread of fire.
For FRP transmission line structures E-glass is used. E-glass has good heat and fire resistance and it
helps the overall fire performance of FRP composites. While GFRP does not burn the resin system
could support combustion. Different resin systems have different fire behaviour. As all
manufacturers
use different resins, fibers and internal material structures not two products are alike. Even the FRP
made with fire retardant additives will burn when fire is supported by an outside source. The key is
the outside source. When the outside flame source removed most FRP materials will stop burning.
Poles and cross arms burn differently as horizontal and vertical surfaces have different fire
characteristics. Moreover, the majority of FRP transmission line structures are made with thermoset
resin systems, which at higher temperature do not melt but char and the surface char limits the
spread and damage of flames and heat to the inner layers of the structural member.
FRP composites can provide an effective protective barrier against flame, heat, smoke and toxic
fumes, For these reasons, FRP composites are the material of choice in heat shields for re-entry
spacecraft and rocket nozzle liners. Also FRP composites are being developed for heat protection in
high fire risk applications such as offshore oil platforms. Taking advantage of these properties for
transmission lines some FRP pole manufacturers developed fire protective barriers protecting wood
poles from fires and improving line reliability in case of forest fires. While not fireproof, FRP is
extremely fire resistant when used in the construction of utility poles. When applied directly to the
poles surface, a flame can cause it to smoulder. However, as soon as the flame is removed, the
composite material ceases to smoulder or combust. This behaviour called self-extinguishing.
When FRP composite cross arms and cross bracings were tested using gas flames, it was observed
that the surface was usually got some fire damage. When the flame was removed the self-
extinguishing behaviour was observed clearly.
Transmission Channel cross arm fire testing with open flame fire burner.

Figure 13-3 Picture with cross arm and flame

97
 Figure 13-4 Full scale fire testing of FRP Pole
Forest fires usually ha ve hi gh temperature (800 - 1 ,200°C) and a short duration (l ess than 2 mi nutes
only rarel y l ast at the line l ocation over 90 seconds).

Table 13-1 Wildfire intensity characteristic

Wildfire intensity Exposure du ration Gas temperature

M oderate 30 to ≤ 90 seconds 800-1 . 200°C (1 ,472-2,1 92°F)

Severe 91 to 1 20 seconds 800-1 . 200°C (1 ,472-2,1 92°F)

Extreme 121 to ≤ 180 seconds 800-1 . 200°C (1 ,472-2,1 92°F)

Ref: “Overview of the International Crown Fire Modelling Experiment (ICFME)”, B. J. Stocks, M. E.
Alexander, and R. A. Lanovil le, 2004, N RC Canada

Short fire exposure to FRP material is resul ting usuall y in charring on the surface and protects the
inner layers from further damage.

Overal l FRP structures beha ve and perform better than wood in fire from the resili ency point of view.
FRP may incur some fire da mage but will not burn after the forest fire has subsided and hold up the
cond uctors well without catastrophic failure.

98
There are several national and international standards that are dealing with testing materials,
structures in fire. Nothing specific to FRP transmission line structures. Fire test results can be
evaluated and the results could be good bases for assessing fire performance of the transmission line.

1 3.8 FIREARM DAMAGE TO FRP

Figure 13-5 Rifle bullet for ballistic testing

0.338 rifle bullet that was used for ballistic testing 0.338 in rifle bullet for large game hunting. It can
penetrate better-than-standard military body armour at ranges up to 1.000 metres (1,090 yd) and has
a maximum effective range of about 1.750 metres (1,910 yd). Muzzle velocity is dependent on barrel
length, seating depth and powder charge, and varies from 880 to 915 m/s (2,890 to 3,000 ft/s) for
commercial loads with 16,2-gram (250 gr) bullets, which corresponds to about 6.525 J (4.813 ft lbf) of
⋅

muzzle energy.

Figure 13-6 Surface damage of FRP profile after firearm projectile impact
Ballistic (firearm) withstand testing of composite crossarm with 0.338 rifle bullet Profile web, web to
flange damage from bullet hits from projectile entry side. Note the localized surface damage of the
FRP profile in the web as the cracks did not propagate. At the edge there are significant damages but
even then they are just local damages not influencing significantly the overall integrity of the profile.

99
The firearm ressistance of FRP composite structures are so good that the same resin fiber system is
being used for making vehicles bullet proof by some militaries.

Figure 13-7 Firearm damage Figure 13-8 Firearm damage

Firearm damage of FRP channel crossarm showing the strong localized damage and leaving the large
cross section relatively intact. See Figure 13-7.
Firearm damage of FRP Channel crossarm web showing the exit side of the bullet hole. Note the
localized damage only as fiber mitigates crack and damage propagation. See Figure 13-8.
Also surface charring from gas torch fire is noticeable at the lower portion of the channel profile.
Even with heavy firearm bullet damage FRP structural components can sustain most of their load
capacity and will not fail catastrophically.

1 3.9 SUMMARY
Vandalism and theft of transmission lines are becoming increasingly common by planned organized
groups, some people enjoying the spectacle damaging lines and opportunistic theft by some others.
There are many ways to prevent vandalism to lines, the use of composite transmission line structures
is a very good one.

1 00
1 4. TESTING OF FRP MATERIAL AND STRUCTURAL
COMPONENTS
1 4.1 DEGRADATI ON MECHANISMS
Degradation mechanisms of FRP composites are highly dependent on the type of polymer used, the
type of glass fiber reinforcement (E-glass or AR-glass, for example), and type of UV protection utilised
including surfacing veils, coatings such as polyurethane resin or paint, and quantity of UV inhibitors
or stabilizers.
Each manufacturer of composite poles and crossarms utilize their own “recipe” of materials and
construction architecture. Therefore the modes of degradation vary and resistance to the various
stresses must be verified by standardized testing. This information can then be used to assist in the
selection and procurement of the appropriate pole type for specific installations and/or applications.
The stresses applied to FRP composite structures can be broken down into three types of exposure
source groupes: Mechanical, environmental and electrical.
Mechanical : This group includes damage resulting from improper transportation or handling or
improper installation techniques. Stresses resulting from attachments such as crossarms, bracing and
guy strains must be considered. To evaluate susceptibility to damage caused by handling, abrasion,
scratch and impact tests can be performed. Also direct testing of attachments should be performed
based on their expected loading.
Environment: This group includes damage resulting from exposure to heat, humidity and ultraviolet
(UV) light. Comparerd to wood poles, FRP poles are generally accepted to have superior resistance to
damage from wild fires than wood, but this characteristic must be verified. UV light in the 300-400
nanometer wavelength is responsible for almost all of the degradation to polymers exposed outdoors.
Light generated by UVA-340 lamps delivers a close simulation of the aging effects of sunlight and
commercial UV testing is frequently performed using this lamp type. Another light source used for
environmental testing is Xenon, which more closely follows the spectrum of sunlight. However it has
been found that there are negligible differences on polymers of the aging effects between UV and
Xenon, apart from pigmentation loss. Also Xenon testing involves more complex equipment and hence
is more costly. Figure 14-1 shows the differences between the light spectrums of UVA-340, Xenon and
sunlight.

Filtered Xenon Light & UVA 340 vs Sunlight

0.800

0.700

0.600 Xenon light

Irradiance (W/m2/nm)

0.500
UVA-340
0.400 light
0.300 Sunlight
0.200

0.1 00

0.000
280 290 300 31 0 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400

Wavelength (nm)

Figure 14-1 Light spectrum differences between UVA-340 and Xenon arc lamps

1 01
 : The proximity of FRP composite materials to high voltage components can result in
E l ectri ca l

damage or degradation. The method of grounding a pole (via internal or external ground wires) can
be relevant when considering the effects of lightning damage and subsequent power frequency
surges. The dielectric properties may also be of interest, and resistance to leakage current and
tracking can be tested.
1 4.2 TESTING OVERVIEW
Appropriate tests m that evaluate material performance must be specified. The basic requirements
that these tests should meet in order to successfully qualify products are that they must be
representative of service conditions, reproducible by any laboratory, and provide repeatable
conditions. In general, small scale testing methods are preferred using samples from the structures
being evaluated as they can be subjected to controlled and repeatable stresses in order to compare
their properties.
Testing can be used to determine the comparative performances of various manufacturer’s products,
whether properties have altered following changes in manufacturing materials or processes, or to
determine suitability for a proposed application based on defined acceptance criteria.
Table 14-1 identifies a list of suggested tests and indicates if standards are available. Small scale tests
are defined as those in which samples are removed from a pole or crossarm and subjected to testing.
Full scale tests are defined as those in which complete poles or crossarms are subjected to tests.

Ta bl e 1 4- 1 Sel ecti on of com posi te m a teri a l tests a n d a ssoci a ted speci fi ca ti on s

Test name Test type Standards Category

Scratch test Small scale ASTM D5178 Mechanical
Abrasion test Small scale ASTM D4060 Mechanical
Impact test Small scale ASTM D2794 Mechanical
Tensile test Small scale ASTM D3039 Mechanical
Compression test Small scale ASTM D695 Mechanical
Tensile fatigue test Small scale ASTM D3479 Mechanical
UV accelerated aging test Small scale ASTM G154 Environment
Moisture absorption test Small scale ASTM D570 Environment
Fire test Small scale ASTM D635-14 and UL94 Environment
Fire test Full scale Independent third party Environment
Hydrophobicity testing Full scale STRI Guide 9211 Environment
Inclined plane test Small scale ASTM D2303, IEC 60587 Electrical
Corona test Small scale Custom Electrical
Electrical puncture test Small scale IEC 62217 Electrical
Leakage current and Small scale ASTM F1701 adapted to Electrical
flashover test composite materials
Conductivity and breakdown Small scale ISO 14309, IEC 60243-1 Electrical
voltage test
Pole break Full scale ASTM D1036 Mechanical

While most FRP pole manufacturers utilize coupon testing of the pole wall laminate as an efficient and
economical method to validate laminate properties like interlaminar shear strength (ILSS), it has been
observed that when comparing coupon level test results to full scale test results, there is little to no
correlation. Although this maybe particularly true of filament wound poles, where metrics like the

1 02
laminate schedule, section diameter and even wall thickness can vary over the length of the
component, because of the near zero correlation it is widely recognized that the most reliable method
of performance characterization is achieved through full scale testing.
1 4.3 MECHANICAL TESTS
1 4.3.1 Scratch test
The susceptibility of the surface of the material to scratching, marring and similar physical damage
due to handling is evaluated with the Taber Multi-Finger Scratch/Mar Tester according to ASTM D5178
Standard Test Method for Mar Resistance of Organic Coatings, see Figure 14-2.
The test device consists of a pneumatically operated platform on which the test samples are mounted.
Vertical fingers rest on the coupon sample and these are independently weighted down per the
standard. The tips of the fingers are configured with small radiuses to apply a contact stress to the
sample. Both the tip radius as well as the individual weights can be varied.

Figure 14-2 Taber Multi-Finger Scratch Tester

1 4.3.2 Abrasion test
Devices such as those developed by Taber Industries can be used to perform accelerated wear testing
per standard ASTM D4060 Standard Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Organic Coatings by the
Taber Abraser, see Figure 14-3. They consist of a rotating or reciprocating platform on which the
sample is mounted, and abrading contacts are applied to the sample with known weights. Rotating
platforms can be used for flat coupon samples such as those obtained from crossarms, and the
reciprocating platforms can be used for curved coupon samples, such as those obtained from poles.

Figure 14-3 Taber Abrading Tester

1 03
1 4.3.3 Impact test
The resistance of a material to damage from impacts can be tested
according to ASTM D2794 Standard Test Method for Resistance of
Organic Coatings to the Effects of Rapid Deformation (Impact) using a
device such as the Universal Impact Tester by Gardco, see Figure 14-4.
The test is performed by dropping a known weight onto an “indenter”,
which has a radiused conical point, and which rests on the surface of
the material sample. The height of the weight drop or the radius of the
indenter can be varied to provide the desired stress level.
The test criteria is the degree of indentation or cracking of the material
surface.
1 4.3.4 Tensile test
Tensile tests are performed according to ASTM D3039 Standard Test
Method for Tensile Properties os Polymer Matrix Composite Materials
using coupons placed in a universal testing machine. A tensile load is
slowly and uniformly applied to the sample until it fails. An
extensometer may be located on the test area to measure the extension
as the load is applied. The load magnitude and extension are recorded.
Values for tensile strength, tensile modulus and Poisson’s ratio can be
obtained with this test. The test can be performed on new and aged
samples to determine any changes in property.

Figure 14-4 Gardco Universal

Impact Tester

Figure 14-5 Tensile test installation

showing Jaws and Extensometer

1 4.3.5 Compression test

Compression tests are performed according to ASTM D695 Standard Test Method for Compressive
Properties of Rigig Plastics to evaluate the behaviour of the material when it is subjected to a
compressive load. Samples are placed between two parallel platens in a universal testing machine and
then slowly compressed at a low and uniform rate. The maximum load is recorded as well as
stress/strain data. The material compressive modulus can be obtained using this test.
1 4.3.6 Tensile fatigue test
A variation of the tensile test is that specified by ASTM D3479 Standard Test Method for Tension-
Tension Fatigue of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials which determines the fatigue behaviour of the
samples when subjected to tensile cyclic loading. The test load value is selected based on a

1 04
percentage of the ultimate stress of the material, and the frequency of the load applications is
selected so as not to skew the results.
1 4.3 .7 Fu l l sca l e p ol e b re a k te st

ASTM D1036 Standard Test Method for Static Tests of Wood Poles describes a standardized full scale
breaking test for wooden utility poles, see Figure 14-6. The butt end of the pole is mounted
horizontally in a test frame and then a horizontal load is applied to the tip at an angle of 90 degrees
to the pole mount. The load and deflection at the tip are recorded (Deflection Point 1). The test
installation can be adapted to suit composite utility poles by locating the butt end of the pole between
two wooden saddles that have been profiled to match the test pole in order not to deform the tube
profile. Another method of reacting the forces is by using two high strength straps, one at the ground
line and one at the butt end. In either case it is recommended that measurement instrumentation be
placed to monitor movement of the pole within the test frame so that any motion (deflection points 2
and 3) may be compensated from the overall deflection of the pole.
The choice of profiled wooden saddles or straps to react the forces may be based on the quantity to
be tested and design variation of the poles. Straps can accommodate many sizes, but each pole
profile may require a specific wooden saddle assembly to be fabricated for the test. The choice
between the two methods is therefore cost related, but it can be argued that wooden saddles provide
the most accurate method of location as it simulates the constraint of the soil, and it reduces any
tendency for the pole to bend between the ground line and the butt end, which would result in an
increase of the tip deflection.

Figure 14-6 Full scale pole break test configuration

Testing poles horizontally does not take into account the eccentric self-loading that adds to the
stresses on the pole as it deflects sideways, known the “P- delta” effect. Therefore a variant of this
testing approach is to have the pole mounted vertically so that it is also subjected to the P-delta
forces. This method would provide more realistic results, however for practical purposes applying a
load to a vertical pole at 90 degrees to the mount is more challenging and usually an angled load
must be accepted. This of course results in an axial load component which again adds to the
compressive stresses on the pole material.

1 05
 Figure 14-7 FRP composite pole bend test
1 4.3.8 Acoustic emissions test
A method of evaluating internal damage in structures under load that has potential for use with FRP
materials is to monitor for audible noises, or acoustic emissions (AE). AE is the generation of an
elastic wave by the rapid change in the stress state of some region in the material. FRP materials may
suffer various structural defects, which can occur either during manufacturing or in service-life, such
as delamination or fiber fractures. Due to the non-homogenous nature of its construction, elements of
an FRP material may be loaded unequally and incrementally fail as the load increases. This is
amplified by anisotropic forces, such as loads that result in a bending moment instead of carrying load
perfectly down the central axis i.e. the fiber reinforcement has a higher modulus and will therefore
deform less elastically under load than the polymer matrix, resulting in the fibers supporting a higher
percentage of the load. The AE non-destructive test (NDT) technique can be used to detect the rapid
release of energy from a breaking fiber. Failure of the individual fibers can provide an indication that
the component is suffering permanent damage. It is useful to the engineer to identify the stress at
which permanent damage is initiated as this should normally be well above that which the component
experiences in the application.
The location of a particular AE source can be determined by use of two sensors and suitable analysis
software. As the acoustic wave travels through the medium, it is attenuated, i.e., its amplitude
decreases. Should the rate of attenuation and velocity of sound be known, the use of two sensors
attached to the sample a fixed distance apart can be used to provide a location for the AE source.
Many acoustic signals which have nothing to do with the test can be present and detected. Acoustic
isolation of the test object is highly desirable. Most acoustic emission testing filters out acoustic
signals at frequencies below 20kHz, thus ignoring background noise and verbal communication in the
test area. A frequency response range from 100 – 300Hz is most commonly utilized. At higher
frequencies attenuation is more pronounced and it would be unlikely for a fiber break to be detectable
beyond 0,5 to 1,0 from its source depending on the particular composite.
A commonly used and simple method to simulate an AE source, which is subsequently used to
calculate the attenuation rate and velocity, is the breaking of a 0,5mm pencil lead pressed against the
surface of the material. As the lead breaks, the local deformation is suddenly relieved, which

1 06
generates a reasonably consistent and reproducible stress wave which simulates an emission source
such as a crack.
Software tools are able to identify specific noise events to determine the time of arrival at each
sensor. During actual testing, unlike in calibration, there are many noise sources emitting at once. The
amplitude, energy, and rise time of the traveling waves are used to ensure the AE source received by
one sensor matches the signature of the wave received by the second. As the attenuation rates are
higher in composites than metals it would take a significant number of sensors to fully instrument a
pole. It is therefore logical to focus measurements on stress concentration points, such as at the
ground line, crossarm mounts, cross brace mounts, or slip-joints of modular poles.
A standardized test method utilizing AE for the examination of insulated aerial personnel devices (for
example utility boom trucks) is described in ASTM F914. This covers testing of booms manufactured
from FRP materials This method, or variations thereof, can be considered for monitoring of internal
damage in FRP composite utility poles, or for testing and developing of load limits. Other standards
covering the application of AE to FRP damage assessment are ASTM E2478 (Standard Practice for
Determining Damage-Based Design Stress for Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic Materials Using Acoustic
Emission), and ASTM E1067 Standard Practice for Acoustic Emission Examination of Fiberglass
reinforced Plastic Resin Tanks/Vessels.
A useful resource for additional information on the application of AE to NDT evaluation of structures is
Sandia Report SAND2013-7779 Acoustic Emission Non-Destructive Testing of Structures using Source
Location Techniques.

1 4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL TESTS

1 4.4.1 UV accelerated aging test
Of all the environmental and atmospheric conditions that affect FRP pole service life, exposure to
ultraviolet (UV) light is the largest determinant. For this reason, the UV light protection solution
employed by the FRP pole manufacturer is paramount to ensuring that an FRP pole reaches its full
expected service life.
Poles manufactured with different resin systems require different UV protection systems. Some resins
require the use of a veil cloth and/or paint on the exterior surface, while other resins can have
inherent UV resistance built in. It is critical that the UV protection system utilized by a manufacturer
be studied to confirm that it is robust enough for a given application. The standard test method for
determining an FRP pole’s resistance to U V degradation is specified by ASTM G154 Standard Practice
for Operating Fluorescent Ultraviolet (UV) Lamp Apparatus for Exposure of Nonmetallic Materials
which exposes coupon samples to accelerated weathering with QUV light and which includes a
moisture component to simulate humidity. ASTM G154 can be used to test both poles with a veil cloth
and/or painted surface as well as poles with integral UV protection in the pole wall. The test protocol
includes the testing of coupon samples at intervals throughout the exposure period to quantify any
strength loss or the initiation of any fiber bloom, surface cracking, crazing or embrittlement of the test
samples when compared to the control sample.
To simulate outdoor weathering, commercial accelerated aging cabinets that utilize UV fluorescent
lamps are used to perform testing as specified by ASTM G154, see Figure 14-8. These devices expose
material samples to alternating cycles of UV light and moisture at controlled, elevated temperatures,
and simulate dew and rain with condensing humidity and/or water spray. They can be used to
compare degradation rates of different manufacturer’s products, or to compare the performance
changes resulting from modifications to materials or processes.
The acceleration factor for these testing devices can be determined by comparing changes in physical
appearance with those of samples subjected to long-term exposure under natural conditions. It is
generally accepted that an acceleration factor of 10 or more may be used.
The assumed acceleration factor depends on the material being tested. It should be determined by
comparing samples tested in a chamber to those of similar degradation that have spent time in real
world conditions. For reference, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) assumes a 10x factor
based on their experience with accelerated aging. Because ASTM G154 does not have a minimum
exposure duration, it is critical that the exposure duration that the FRP manufacturer has tested to is

1 07
correlated to their product‘s servic e
life claims. Obviously, the longer the QUV light exposure duration,
the higher the confidence in the component achieving its stated service life. A minimum exposure
duration of 10,000 is recommended to support service life claims of 60 years.

Figure 14-8 Accelerated aging cabinets – UV light, heat and humidity exposure
1 4.4.2 Moisture absorption test
A standardized test for determining moisture uptake is specified by ASTM D570 Standard Test Method
for Water Absorption of Plastics in which samples are immersed in distilled water. An alternative to
this test would be to expose samples to air with 100% humidity in a custom chamber. The former
approach will provide insight on if the material is suitable for direct embed installation in areas of
standing water or that have a high groud water table. The latter approach results in a more realistic
environment for above ground moisture exposuree (i.e. areas of the structure that may be of interest
should dielectric properties be of consideration).
During both tests, it is recommended that the samples are removed from exposure at regular
intervals, wiped down and weighed to monitor the rate of moisture uptake so that the test may be
continued until weight increase levels off. The weighing device should have a resolution of 0.1mg or
better.
Acceptance criteria for these tests are to be specified by the user and may be defined as changes in
dielectric properties and/or percentage weight gain.
1 4.4.3 Hydrophobicity test
The STRI 92/1 Hydrophobicity Classification Guide is used to establish an initial hydrophobic rating.
for new, control laminate samples. Additional STRI 92/1 testing of coupon samples exposed to
accelerated testing per ASTM G154 will quantify any change in the samples from the initial rating of
the control sample. The ability of the exterior surface of the pole wall to resist any change to its initial
hydrophobic surface characteristics is important for the retention of the pole‘s original dielectric
strength rating. If water no longer beads on the surface, a conductive path to ground can be created
when the pole is wet. A change in the hydrophobicity of the pole wall can also indicate future
structural changes and signal service life limitations. Fiber bloom, cracking and crazing, which can
develop with continued UV light exposure, can create catchment areas for contamination which will
may create conductive pathways on the pole surface and also signal areas where structural capacity
may be compromised, which is exacerbated in areas with freeze and thaw cycles.
1 4.4.4 Fire test
While typically self-extinguishing, exposure to a flame source will char the surface of FRP poles.
Prolonged exposure can result in extensive charring with a reduction in pole wall thickness and loss of
structural capacity.
Fire testing can be completed on either a full scale or coupon level capacity. Full scale fire testing
allows for post fire exposure full scale bend testing to quantify any loss in strength. At this time, there

1 08
is no official test protocol for full scale fire testing. Instead, manufacturers have relied on test
methods developed by independent third party fire experts. These tests are designed to simulate a
moderate to severe to extreme forest fire moving through a utility line right-of-way. The severity of
the classification of any given full scale fire test depends on the exposure duration and the heat
profile. A severe to extreme fire test will typically result in some loss of mean ultimate strength
however the breaking strength may still be higher than the published strength for a given pole.
Coupon level tests generally test for material flammability however, due to the lack of correlation of
coupon level strength to full scale pole strength, post fire exposure strength testing of coupons shall
not be assumed to representative of residual pole strength. The two coupon level tests utilized are
UL94 Standard for Tests for Flammability of Plastic Materials for Parts in Devices and Appliances and
ASTM D635-14 Standard Test Method for Rate of Burning and/or Extent and Time of Burning Plastics
in a Horizontal Position.
1 4.5 ELECTRICAL TESTS
1 4.5.1 Overview
The electrical properties of composite transmission poles vary between the manufacturers, and
amongst any manufacturer across their different pole designs. A significant challenge is the limited
amount of comparative test data available. The amount of field installs and manufacturer data is ever
increasing, however, not all manufacturers tests are alike. In addition, some vendors continue to
refine and improve their designs over time based on internal testing and field experience. It is prudent
to perform electrical testing on a specific design. There are several small-scale tests that can be
performed to assist in evaluating FRP composite pole performance.
While not inherently an electrical test, both scratch/mar and adhesion tests may be appropriate for
most composite materials. The nature in which water and contamination shed from the surface, or are
absorbed into the surface, play a key role in electrical performance. A hydrophobic surface which has
a long scratch across it may allow a continuous wet conducting band to form for example, reducing
the effective insulating length and dielectric strength of the pole. If such conductive bands do form, or
there exists a surface potential between bonded and floating hardware, electrical tracking can occur.
Particularly in the case of poles in high humidity environments, a surface potential can occur even
without hardware present. The susceptibility of the surface to damage inducing tracking can be
determined from inclined plane tests as described in IEC60587 Test Methods for Evaluating Resistance
to Tracking and Erosion. During these tests a conductive solution is pumped between two energized
electrodes sufficient to carry small but damaging amounts of current. While the inclined plane test
determines susceptibility to damage it does not indicate the susceptibility to the tracking itself. If a
pole is easily damaged by tracking but is designed in such a way to prevent it from occurring then
field performance would likely be acceptable.
A leakage current test is an appropriate way to determine the expected amount of current to flow
across a pole surface in both dry and wet conditions. There is significant debate on the best manner
in which to perform this testing. Electrical stresses have been used varying from 100kV per foot
(3mm/kV) to a much lower 25mm/kV. Actual test segments vary in length from a centimeter to over a
meter. For meaningful comparative testing to be performed, a consensus is needed on the intended
purpose of the poles semi-conductive nature. Is the pole intended to respond like a hotline tool, a
work truck boom, a string of insulators, or an equivalent class wood pole?
Short and long term aging studies have shown that some composites are hydrophilic while others are
hydrophobic. A hydrophobic surface beads water while hydrophilic surfaces sheet water. Particularly in
terms of voltage withstand capability a hydrophobic surface is more ideal, though hydrophilic surfaces
tend to have better self-cleaning properties. This can be important for both voltage withstand
capability and for leakage currents. It has been observed in dry and wet testing that pole performance
varies significantly in response to electrical stress and to contamination. Leakage current test followed
by washing using typical field techniques (pressure wash with hot water) indicated that samples that
passed when contaminated my fail after attempted washing, the washing removes most of the
surface contaminant but more evenly distributes the remainder. This non-standard type of testing
may indicate performance that would be observed during rain on contaminated poles.

1 09
The corona and UV resistance of surface coatings is also key for certain designs. Testing at high
electrical stresses has indicated for some poles the weakest dielectric component is within the surface
coatings and not within the pole itself.
Power frequency and impulse puncture testing have shown there is a significant formative time
element. Much like in air there is a treeing effect of voltage leader propagation. A lightning-like
puncture will go straight through the material but require a high voltage. The event happens so fast,
the path of electricity does not have time to branch out. Preliminary testing has shown poles are at
least twice as resilient to impulsive events as longer withstands. When poles were directly exposed to
power frequency the voltage leader in some cases goes straight through the pole, in others the exit
point of the flashover may be nearly 90 degrees of rotation away from the insertion point. The
composite material is not homogenous and the weakest point may not be well represented with small
scale testing. Given minutes of formative time, punctures have been observed with as little as 30kV
(RMS). Given longer formative times punctures may be observed with even lower voltages.
Testing should also be performed to account for less frequent events. Punctures due to switching
surges for example can be highly damaging to a composite pole depending on the duration of the
event. The typically small through-hole created by the puncture may not be easily observed from the
ground can create stress concentrations and, together with potential delamination damage around the
hole created by the event, weaken the laminate in critical areas. Another less frequent event would be
the occurrence of an ungrounded screw going into corona. In wood poles corona on staples has
occasionally led to pole fires. Composite materials are self-extinguishing, however, the corona could
simply continue to re-ignite an area. Internal discharges within the pole due to voids in the filler
material could have a similar effect. A potential difference can be observed across a cavitation
allowing a nearly continuous arcing to occur.
A similar test involves the performance of ground leads. A ground lead carrying significant fault
current can have a brief rise in temperature to a level hot enough to create superficial damage to a
pole. Subsequent mechanical testing could be performed to determine if this localized heating creates
a reduction in strength or susceptibility to UV degradation in the damaged area.
1 4.5 .2 I n cl in ed pl a ne te st

The purpose of this test is to determine the performance of the sample surface when subjected to
leakage currents inducing dry band discharges while wet and contaminated.
The tracking and erosion performance of a material surface when energized is evaluated with the
inclined plane test as described in ASTM D2303 Standard Test Methods for Liquid-Containment,
Inclined-Plane Tracking and Erosion of Insulating Materials and IEC 60587 Test Methods for
Evaluating Resistance to Tracking and Erosion, seee Figure 14-9. In this test he samples are mounted
at a 45° angle with an electrode at the top and bottom, 50 mm apart. A solution of water with a
defined contaminant is trickled down the surface at a constant rate of 0,075mL/min. The electrodes
are initially energized at 1kV, and then raised by 0,25kV every 60 minutes. Any tracking and/or
damage to the surface is recorded to determine how the surface performs under the test conditions.
The acceptance criteria is the measurement of the time taken for tracking or erosion to extend across
half the sample length.

110
 Figure 14-9 Inclined plane test configuration (illustration from IEC 60587)
1 4.5.3 Corona discharge test
FRP composite pole and crossarm constructions for the support of high voltage conductors provide an
environment where electrically floating hardware can be subject to corona discharge which may cause
local damage to the structure material. The manner in which composite materials react to corona and
electric fields is therefore fundamental to understanding their long term performance. It is
recommended that analysis be performed to determine the maximum electric field that may be
present in the intended installation, and then construct a test that directs corona discharge onto the
composite samples. The electric field for the test should be increased by a suitable factor to produce a
conservative result.
1 4.5.4 Electrical puncture/arc flash test
The resistance of a material to being punctured in the event of a high electrical stress event can assist
the user in understanding the degree to which its insulation properties can be relied upon if, for
example, the ground wire is run internally. A potential event leading to a puncture would be a
lightning strike or switching surge, etc. Puncture tests may be performed according to specification
IEC 62217. Polymeric HV Insulators for Indoor and Outdoor Use – General Definitions, Test Methods
and Acceptance Criteria. A typical test is shown in Figure 14-10.

Figure 14-10 Arc flash fest being performed on composite pole sample

111
1 4.5.5 Leakage current and flashover test
The dielectric properties of a pole or crossarm sample can be evaluated using a leakage current and
subsequent flashover test as specified by ASTM F
1701 Standard Specification for Unused Rope with Special Electical Properties (adapted to composite
materials). It is recommended that this test is performed on aged, or artificially aged samples to
produce worst case results. Both dry and wet surfaces can be tested, and salt spray contamination
can also be considered should the intended installation be near coastal or industrial areas.
1 4.5.6 Electrical conductivity and breakdown voltage of FRP sample
On FRP samples the conductivity of the material and the breakdown voltage can be determined.

Figure 14-11 Conductivity measurement and breakdown voltage measurement

The conductivity of the material can be determined by a calibrated measuring device. This can be
done in every direction. Hereby will the effect of fibers on the electrical resistance also considered. For
this test, ISO 14309 Determination of Volume and/or Surface Resistivity can be applied.
The breakdown voltage can be determined according to IEC 60243-1 Electric Strength of Insulating
Materials – Test Methods – Part 1: Tests at Power Frequencies. The purpose of this test is to
determine the electrical breakdown voltage of the composite material. The breakdown voltage of FRP
structures will be normally above 20mm/kV.
Both tests can be executed for samples in wet conditions. Hereby the effect of wet conditions can be
examined.

112
1 5. FRP COSTING AND COST COMPARISON
1 5.1 INTRODUCTION
As with the development of any new technology, overcoming the inertia of the status quo can be
difficult. For an utility to be convinced and potentially use a new method in their processes a
compelling business case would need to be presented and approval sought based on the merits of the
presented business case. It is the intention of this chapter to outline methods to allow for a fair
comparison with regard to product costs and to present a method for compiling a convincing business
case for the use of FRP composite materials for utility structures. In Appendix F there are three
examples of cost comparsion of FRP structures and structures made of other material as wood, steel
and concrete. In Appendix G, financial calculations are described.
1 5.2 DEVELOPING A BUSINESS CASE
1 5.2.1 Introduction
A business case captures the reasoning for initiating a project task. The logic of the business case is
that, whenever resources such as money or effort are consumed, they should be in support of a
specific business need. In the case of a composite structures project the case may be that the project
will result in project cost reductions, improved aesthetics, improved environmental performance,
reduced installation times etc.
A compelling business case adequately captures both the quantifiable and non-quantifiable
characteristics of a proposed project.
When compiling a business case for the project, key items which should be reviewed include:
• Scope /Constraints.
• Assumptions.
• Cost benefit bnalysis (CBA).
o Cash flow ttatement, net present value (NPV).
o Cost.
o Benefits.
o Risk.
• Life cycle assessment (LCA) and cost effectiveness analysis (CEA).
1 5.2.2 Constraints and Assumptions
When designing a product, a clear definition of the project scope/constraints is a vital component to
the development of suitable solutions. To allow for a fair and unbiased decision, the initial project
assumptions and constraints should be clearly identified before a costing exercise is undertaken. A
calculated optimum solution may be sensitive to a minor change of constraint and in this regard a
sensitivity study should always be undertaken, particularly where the cost difference between the
calculated optimum cost solution and the alternative design options is relatively close.
Ultimately cost is likely to be the governing factor when selecting an FRP composite solution over an
existing structural support solution. A comparison of costs between a new structure types can be
difficult to compare at first viewing as each project has specific constraints. The project definition and
scope will have the most significant influence on the chosen design solution. As an example, three
possible project constraints are:
1. Designing a new line of composite construction.
2. Uprating an existing line.
3. Replacing an existing line of identical voltage.
To achieve an optimum cost solution for each of these, different approaches may need to be taken.
For a new line, the designer would have to provide the required clearances and optimise costs
primarily on topographical restraints, i.e. slopes, rivers, existing infrastructure etc.
For the uprating of an existing line, it is likely the optimum position of the structural supports will be
at the existing support locations due to wayleave/easement and access costs being a minimum if the
existing support positions are maintained.

113
If the proposed project is the replacement of an existing line, the optimum cost solution may be less
clear than for a line uprate project. The optimum cost solution may be to use the existing structural
support positions with the existing material (likely to be the optimum solution for the existing material
and support type) or an alternative material type with a modification to the proposed support
structure positions. In contrast to an uprating project, replacing existing lines may be outside the
limiting spans of a structure and therefore the comparison may need to be between replacing existing
steel lattice towers at the existing spans with a composite support solution at reduced spans.
Wayleave and access costs are region/jurisdiction dependent and in this context it is important to
understand that a minor change to this design parameter can have significant consequences when
choosing the most optimum cost solution for a proposed project. The designer should satisfy
themselves that critical assumptions are considered when developing a business case for the use of
an alternative design solution.
In addition to the three project constraints given above, certain constraints may change with time. For
example, the use of creosote as a treatment method on wood poles may be prohibited in the future
(due to health and safety concerns), therefore removing this from the list of possible solutions.
Examples of additional constraints and assumptions which should be reviewed during the
development of a business case for a project include:
• Environmental constraints.
• Health and safety constraints.
• Constructability and maintenance.
• Aesthetic limitations.
• Limitations on structural form.
Traditionally, typical materials used for utility structures were wood, steel lattice towers, steel poles
and concrete poles. Therefore, comparing the cost of a proposed composite utility structure to the
traditional materials outlined offers a benchmark to compare alternative proposed solutions against.
1 5.2.3 Cost-Benefit Analysis
1 5.2.3.1 Introduction
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a systematic approach to estimating the strengths and weaknesses of
project alternatives. CBA is used to determine options that provide the best approach to achieving
benefits while preserving savings. In CBA, benefits and costs are expressed in monetary terms, and
are adjusted for the time value of money, so that all flows of benefits and flows of project costs over
time are expressed on a common basis in terms of their Net Present Value (NPV).
CBA is often used by organisations to assess the desirability of a given policy. CBA gives an analysis of
the expected balance of benefits and costs. While CBA can offer a well educated estimate of the best
alternative, perfect appraisal of all present and future costs and benefits is difficult.
The following illustrates an example of the process involved in undertaking a CBA:
• Develop a list of the possible alternative options.
• Measure all cost/benefit elements.
• Select relevant time period over which the CBA will be carried out.
• Convert all costs and benefits into a common currency.
• Apply discount rate.
• Calculate NPV.
• Undertake a sensitivity analysis
CBA typically attempts to place all relevant costs and benefits at a common datum level using time
value of money calculations. The choice of discount rate is subjective. A smaller rate will value future
generations more equally with the current generation.
The value of a cost-benefit analysis is heavily dependent on the accuracy of the individual cost and
benefit estimates. Possible causes of inaccuracy include:
• Overreliance on data from past projects.
• Use of subjective impressions in assessment.
• Bias among project supporters i.e. looking for reasons for a project to proceed.

114
It should be noted with regard to environmental cost, it may be more effective to replace a CBA with
a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Using CEA is less time consuming as it does not involve the
monetisation of outcomes, which can be difficult in some cases. For example, CEA has been applied to
energy efficiency investments in buildings to calculate the value of energy saved in €/kWh. The
energy in such a calculation is virtual in the sense that it was never consumed but rather saved due to
some energy efficiency investment being made. Similarly, for an assessment of the environmental
impact of using composite structures in place of more established structural solutions (e.g. wood,
steel, concrete), the CEA could be applied as a saving in embodied energy or a saving in embodied
carbon.
1 5.2.3.2 Time value of money and design life
The time value of money (TVM) is the idea that money available at the present time is worth more
than the same amount in the future due to its potential earning capacity. This core principle of finance
holds that, provided money can earn interest, any amount of money is worth more the sooner it is
received. TVM is also referred to as present discounted value.
Figure 15-1 illustrates the present value (PV) of one unit (of currency) at a time (t) in the future, for
discount rates of 2%, 3%, 5% and 7%. It is clear from 15-1 that from a small increase in the discount
rate time can have a significant effect on the TVM.

Figure 15-1 Present value of 1 unit at time t in the future

The concept of TVM is relevant when comparing different design solutions which may possess
different service lives.
1 5.2.3.3 The Net Present Value
The Net Present Value (NPV) is a measure of the profitability of a project calculated by subtracting the
present value (PV) of cash outflows (including initial cost) from the present values of cash inflows
over a period of time. In this regard the concept of TVM is an important concept to understand.
The NPV is determined by calculating the cost (negative cashflows) and benefits (positive cash flows)
for each period of an investment. After the cash flow for the period is calculated, the present value
(PV) of each one is achieved by discounting its future value at a periodic rate of return. NPV is the
sum of all the discounted future cash flows. NPV is a useful tool to determine whether a project or
investment will result in a net profit or a loss. A positive NPV results in profit, while a negative NPV
results in loss. NPV is a central tool in discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis and is a standard method

115
for using the TVM to assess long-term projects, especially where proposed solutions have differing
service lives.
1 5.2.3.4 Cost Effectivenss Analysis
With regard to environmental cost, it may be more effective to replace a CBA with a cost effectiveness
analysis (CEA). CEA is a form of economic analysis that compares the relative costs and outcomes
(effects) of different courses of action. CEA is distinct from CBA, which assigns a monetary value to
the measure of effect. When assessing the environmental cost of proposed structural solutions in a
CEA, a life cycle assessment (LCA) will form a significant proportion of the analysis.
1 5.2.4 Life Cycle Assessment
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a technique to assess environmental impacts associated with all the
stages of a product’s life from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture,
distribution, use, repair and maintenance and disposal or recycling.
The goal of LCA is to compare the full range of environmental effects assignable to products and
services by quantifying all inputs and outputs of material flow and assessing how these material flows
affect the environment. The procedures of LCA are part of the ISO 14000 [15-1] environmental
management standards: ISO 14040:2006 [15-2] and 14044: 2006 [15-3].
With the current focus on climate change, the impact of a new product would need to be more
stringently reviewed than previously may have been the case. By undertaking a LCA of the various
structural solutions a better understanding of the environmental impact can be obtained.
It should be noted that the data used for the completion of a LCA is accurate and current. When
comparing different LCA’s, it is crucial that equivalent data is available for both products and
processes in question. Due to the rapid pace of research and development, new materials and
manufacturing methods are continually being introduced to the market. This can often make it difficult
to use up to date information when performing an LCA.
1 5.3 RISK
As with all projects the risk associated with the project outcome is an important consideration when
comparing alternative proposals. Risk associated with a project outcome is usually incorporated into a
project using probability theory. This can be factored into the discount rate (resulting in an increased
uncertainty over time) but is usually considered separately to the discount rate. It is inevitable that a
certain quantity of risk will be present within a project. However, it is important that when different
solutions are being compared to select an optimum solution the different levels of risk between each
proposed solution is controlled and accounted for in the comparison.
1 5.4 KEY COSTS FOR DEVELOPING TRANSMISSI ON STRUCTURES
1 5.4.1 Introduction
When reviewing the cost options for a proposed structure it is useful to develop the total costs under
a number of key cost items. The key cost items can then be scrutinised individually to identify when
the burden of cost lies in the proposed solution and if further refinement and optimisation can be
achieved. The following cost items are included in the sample cost analyses undertaken herein are:
1. Structural material costs.
2. Setting out costs.
3. Foundation costs.
4. Transportation costs.
5. Unloading and assembly costs.
6. Framing costs.
7. Inspection, maintenance and retirement costs.
Minimising material cost by ensuring minimal amounts of material are used to satisfy the design
specification is quite often the focus of the designers attention. However, substantial differences in
installed structure cost can be achieved when a root-and-branch review of the foundation,
transportation, assembly and framing methods is undertaken.

116
 1 5.4.2 Foundation costs
With regard to foundation cost the use of FRP composite poles in lieu of a different pole material will
likely offer marginal savings based on the reduced handling and plant requirements required to
construct the foundations.
Foundation costs will depend on the solution selected. The degree to which direct embedment FRP
composite pole solutions offer viable alternatives will typically be dependent on the height of the
structure, the loads applied to the structure and the soil properties.
For taller, more highly loaded composite pole structures or structures in poor soil, concrete
foundations may also be required.

Figure 15-2 Sample foundation options for composite pole structures

1 5.4.3 Transportation costs
With regard to transportation cost, it is often the case that transmission lines run through difficult
inhospitable terrain. Innovative solutions are often required to get the required materials to the site .
FRP composite materials have a high strength to weight ratio and the modular characteristics afford
the design more scope to develop different transport methodologies and ensure an optimum cost
solution is developed based on the site specific constraints. An example of this is illustrated in an
article by Oliveira & Carvalho [15-4].
The article describes a study for a distribution line in the Amazon region, with 28km of single-phase
network and 22km of three-phase network, at a voltage of 34.5kV. Due to the inaccessibility of the
site the poles were delivered by boat to a suitable location where they were then lifted by hand to the
required site, see Figure 15-3 and Figure 15-4.

117
 Figure 15-3 River transport of poles

Figure 15-4 Transport to site

A comparison study, including transportation costs, was undertaken in Oliveira & Carvalho [15-4]
between installing composite poles and concrete poles, see Table 15-1 and Table 15-2.

Table 15-1 Time comparison of work undertaken

Item Concrete poles Composite poles Variation
Execution of the work 258 days 84 days -67,44%
Transportation and logistics 56 days 12 days -78,57%
Total 314 days 96 days -69,43%

118
 Table 15-2 Cost comparison of work undertaken
Item Concrete poles Composite poles Variation
Transport €18 .891 €12 .594 -33,33%
Logistics €43 .922 €706 -98,39%

While it is an extreme example which involves the use of boats, the above comparison illustrates
substantial savings may be realised when comparison transport requirements for different material.
The comparison illustrates cost savings available due to the difference in material weight and also the
advantage of modularisation of composite poles. The comparison uses similar methodologies for
transporting the material. It should be noted that cost savings may be more substantial in situations
where different methods of transportation are available for composite material when compared to a
different pole material.
The reduced self-weight and modularisation of composite structure also offers the ability to install
structures using helicopter, see Figure 15-5. Although the procurement of a helicopter for structural
installation may not be cost effective in moderate terrain, in extreme terrai which is inaccessible tp
typical construction equipment, helicopter installation may be justifiable. The lower self-weight of a
composite structure can reduce the overall lifting requirements (compared to steel) and subsequently
reduce the helicopter size required for installation and the lift number per structure.
Additionally, ground conditions play a major factor. If right-of-way roads need to be constructed or
extensive swamp mats need to be deployed to get construction equipment to the installation site, the
use of helicopters to install a lightweight FRP structure can result in a faster installation at a lower
cost.

Figure 15-5 Helicopter installation of a H-frame structure

1 5 .4 .4 Fra m i n g costs

With regard to a comparison between the framing costs of different pole types, typically composite
poles will result in smaller plant requirements on site compared to other materials (wood, steel and
concrete), see Figure 15-6. This is due to both the reduced self-weight and modularisation of the pole
offered through the use of the composite material.

119
 Figure 15-6 Installation of composite poles.
Figure 1 5-6 sh ows example of the i nstal lation of composite poles with lig ht duty equipment.

Figure 15-7 Schematic figure of 220kV towers

Figure 1 5-7 sh ows a 220kV towers of di fferent types.

1 20
1 5.5 SUMMARY
Using pole life cycle costs (throughout the entire life cycle of a utility pole) illustrates that a long
service life, maintenance free composite pole can result in the lowest cost solution for utility
structures. This has previously been illustrated in the analysis undertaken by Holloway [15-5].
It should be noted that the initial pole purchase price does not provide an adequate measure of
comparison between utility pole types.
Further reductions to composite pole acquisition cost due to transportation and installation savings will
substantially add to the present value savings.
It is worth pointing out that as the existing structure types (wood, steel and concrete poles and steel
lattice towers) are well established. Design and manufacturing efficiencies are currently in place and
are unlikely to improve significantly. With the advent of the use of composite material (i.e. FRP
composite poles) it is noted that additional efficiencies will likely be developed as the use of the
product is taken up. As the scale of production increases and increased completion is formed in the
market with more frequent use of the product, the net price of the product is likely to reduce.
A number of key conclusions may be drawn when comparing composite pole structures to existing
structural options (wood pole, steel pole, concrete pole and steel lattice tower). The key conclusions
are:
• Project constraints often have the most significant influence in the cost of a project. Therefore
project scope should always be outlined in as much detail as possible, in particular any
constraints and assumptions should clearly be defined at the project inception stage.
• Pole purchase price does not provide a complete measure of comparison between utility pole
structures where time dependant costs are present in the comparison.
• Real cost savings can be shown to exist when the superior service life of a composite pole is
accounted for in the costing exercise. Accounting for service life costs of a structure in a NPV
allows for a more realistic cost comparison between structural support options.
• Long service life, maintenance free FRP composite poles offers a cost effective solution for
utility structures.
• For the comparison of a composite pole structure to a steel lattice tower support significant
savings may be realised in foundation and erection costs.
• For installations in remote areas access for material can be a significant constraint. In such
instances, the light weight nature of composite construction can facilitate the use of
helicopters for structure installation. The use of helicopter combined with the light weight
properties of composite structures can dramatically reduce line outage times were existing
transmission lines are being refurbished.
• Further reductions to composite pole structural acquisition costs as a result of transportation
and installation savings will continue to significantly increase savings.
• Composite pole solutions allow maximum installation flexibility due to the reduced structural
weight (compared to wood, steel and concrete) and significant time a labour savings may be
obtained if additional installation methods are considered, for example installation by
helicopter.
• The use of FRP composite poles in areas where traditional OHTL materials fall short of their
expected service life (i.e. wood poles in woodpecker areas, steel poles installed near the sea,
etc.) will result in significant NPV savings for the asset owner while providing increased grid
resiliency.

1 21
1 6. FRP DURABILITY, INSPECTION AND REPAIR
1 6.1 CONDITION ASSESSMENT.
Discussions in Chapters 5.2 and 14.4 showed that although the actual field service life of FRP
structures is today mostly limited to 15-20 years, very long service life are expected for FRP
structures. This chapter discusses best practices for the inspection and maintenance of transmission
line FRP structures.
Every FRP pole manufacturer will have their own inspection and maintenance protocol. Inspection
techniques largely focus on the surface condition of the FRP pole and will be mainly visual, including a
review of hardware connections. Obviously, any indication of a deteriorating surface will signal a
potential change in the service life limiting structural capacity of an FRP pole. Characteristics including
fiber bloom, cracking, crazing and paint and/or veil cloth wear (should the FRP pole have a painted
and/or veil cloth on the surface), shall all be mitigated with maintenance procedures as advised by the
manufacturer.
For hardware connections, the following conditions shall be identified as requiring immediate
remediation:
• Any laminate tearing at a through bolted connection.
• Any surface damage at banded connections.
• Any damage at or near the ground line (which may signal an impact).
• If a section FRP pole is being inspected, any damage an the joint area (i.e. laminate damage,
bolt tearing, slip joint settling, etc.).
• Push through damage.
• Pull through damage.
• Missing top cap.

While many FRP pole manufacturers require no schedule maintenance over the course of the service
life, save and except for damaged poles, other manufactures require repainting at scheduled intervals
to achieve the full service life. It is important to confirm with the FRP manufacturer what their
maintenance requirements are, if any, as part of the initial purchase decision making matrix
1 6.2 INSPECTION METHODS
The FRP structure can be investigated by:
• Steps bolts, climb shoes, or ladder system with a fall arrest system.
• Lifting system.
• Binocular or drone (unmanned aerial vehicle or UAV)

Figure 16-1 Climbing shoes without pikes

Regarding the integrity of the pole wall, some manufacturers are working on ultrasonic techniques to
identify any areas of delamination not visible on the laminate surface. The simplest, and arguably an
equally effective method, for determining the integrity of the pole wall is to complete a tap test. A tap
test involves taking a small metal object (i.e. a coin or the backside of a pocket knife blade) and

1 22
lightly tapping the pole wall. The light tap will result in a high pitched resonating ping. It may take a
few taps to calibrate the pitch of the ping. Once calibrated, tapping shall continue around the
circumference of the pole and in areas with any visible surface damage. Any change to the resonance
of the tap, particularly a dull thud, will indicate areas of delamination in the laminate the remediation
of which shall be advised by the manufacturer. A tap test is a simple yet effective method of
determining if there is any damage to the pole wall laminate that may or may not be visible.

Figure 16-2 Half moon climbers with steel pikes

Figures of the step bolts are in Chapter 12.6 and the fall arresting system in Chapter 12.7.

Figure 16-3 Temporary climbing system

1 6.3 PREVENTI VE MAINTENANCE INSPECTION
For the most part FRP structures require very little regular inspection after installation. The objective
of preventive maintenance inspection is to reduce maintenance costs and to decrease the risk of
unexpected line failure. When properly conducted inspection in the field results in cost-effective and
reliable decisions about the repair or replacement of FRP elements. It should be noted as stated
before that some manufacturers require repainting at scheduled intervals to achieve the full service
life.
It is best practice to visually inspect FRP structural elements as part of the routine, scheduled
transmission line inspection and hazard review as per each utility’s specifications, if such inspection is
regularly scheduled every three years or less. If routine inspections happen less frequently, then FRP
structure should be visually inspected every three years or less under normal circumstances. If a
transmission line was exposed to extreme environmental conditions, such as fire, ice or a wind storm
it is recommended that the FRP structure be thoroughly inspected.
Visual Inspection Guidelines:
The comprehensive guidelines for visual inspection are found in ASTM D4385-10 Standard Practice for
Classifying Visual Defects in Thermosetting Reinforced Plastic Pultruded Products. This standard

1 23
inclu des guideli nes for inspection at manu facturing an d in the field. Visual i nspection in the field
should look for the fol lowing:

• Loose con nections.

• Loose hardware components.
• Discl oloration (streak or pattern on the surface that is different i n cl olor tha n the rest of the
surface).
• Blooming (exposure of reinforcing fibers), see Figure 1 6-4.
• Burn (discloloration, distortion, or destruction of the surface as a result of heat exposure) .
• Crack (visible separation that penetrates down from th e surface to the equi valent of one fu ll
pl y or more rei nforcement (0,5 mm (, 02 in. ))).
• Delamination (separation of two or more layers or plies of rein forcing material with in a n FRP
element causing a local ized thickness change exceedin g 0,1 3 mm (0,005 i n. ).
• Exposed rovi ngs (reinforcin g fibers n o longer covered by resin coating or the und erlying layer
of roving not covered by su rface material due to some damage) .
• Fracture (cra cks, crazing , d elamination or a combination thereof resulting from physical
damage to the FRP element. ) .
• Lightni ng stri ke signs (most often a darkened discl olora tion).
• Other mechani cal damage (i. e. bullet marks).
• M issing top caps.
A more detailed photo guid e for vi sual in spection of FRP defects is presented in Appendix D

Figure 16-4 Example of FRP blooming

Figure 16-5 Example of FRP delamination

1 24
1 6.4 RECOMMENDED ACTI ON
The condition of a structure (damaged or not damaged) should be recorded in the asset management
or geographical information system. If damage is noticed, the next step is to decide whether to
continue using the structure while monitoring it, repair or it replace it.
When the damage is sufficient to influence the functionality of the FRP structural element then either
a repair or replacement should be initiated. In either case, is it important to contact the manufacturer
to report the damage and to request instructions for the correct procedure for repair or replacement.
If there is minor damage that will not have an impact on the performance of the structure, then just a
record is sufficient. Keeping track of minor damage will allow assessment of the rate at which the
structure’s condition may deteriorate and estimate point at which repair or replacement is necessary.
When it is unclear what the impact of the damage will be, then detailed documentation including
photos and description of the damage) should be taken and provided to the manufacturer for
feedback.
The use of FRP structure is relatively new in the utility industry. Laboratory and field tests as well as
experience suggest high performance and long service time for these structures. It is recommended
that utilities work together with manufacturers to monitor the condition and performance of structures
that have been in the field for an extended period of time. A jointly run program will provide useful
data for further development of improvement of this technology.
1 6.5 REPAIR
Prior to attemtpting any repair, the FRP manufacturer must be contacted provide a damage
assessment and mitigation plan, if any.
There are generally two types of damage to a pole: Structural and non-structural. If a pole can or
needs to be repaired, the will generally fall into two types:
• An aesthetic repair that will not reinstate and structural strength (Figure 16-8).
• A structural repair that will prevent any propagation of the initial damage and may reinstate
some of the lost structural strength (Figure 16-9).
An aesthetic repair will simply prevent any future potential UV damage as well as ensuring there are
no sharp edges or exposed fibers on which the public can harm themselves on. Aesthetic repairs will
typically involve sanding the area to be repaired, may include an epoxy putty filler, and finally painting
with a clolor-matched spray paint.

Figure 16-6 Example of a clolor matched aesthetic repair on an FRP pole

1 25
Structural repairs should be completed hand i n ha nd wi th the FRP manu facturers i nvol vement.
Structural repairs will in clud e the review and consideration of stru cture loadi ng and resulting utilisation
to make a determination on the extent of the repair or if replacement is necessary. Structural repairs
can in cl ude the use of patches securing with bolts and /or adhsive, steel bracing a nd other solutions.

Figure 16-7 Example of a structural repair patch on an FRP pole

1 6.6 NEW ASCE GUIDE

M anual of Practice (M oP) 1 04 Recommended Practice for Fiber-Reinforces Pol ymer Products for
Overhead Utility Li ne Stru ctures was first publ ished in 2003. M oP 1 04 i s cu rrently being updated and
is expected to be released i n 201 8.

1 26
1 7. TAGS FOR STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
1 7.1 GENERAL INSTALLATI ON
FRP pole identification (ID) tags are typically embossed aluminium which are secured to the pole with
self-tapping and drilling screws. Similar to other poles, FRP pole ID tags can contain a host of
information including:
• Pole height.
• Pole strength/class.
• Pole weight.
• Pole ID tag attachment elevation.
• Date of manufacture and/or shipment.
• Utility Name.
• Utility specific details (i.e. circuit name, voltage, structure type, etc.).
• Manufacturer details and contact info.
• Manufacturer part code number.
• Pole and/or module serial number.

Some manufacturers include all these details on their pole ID tags and some include fewer details.
Pole ID tags are attached to the pole at a specific distance from the base of the pole. Table 17-1
below details typical attachment heights.
Table 17-1 Canadian Standard Association (CSA) recommendation on tag location on poles
Pole height ID tag distance from pole ase
0 ft. [0m] - 50 ft. [15m] 10 ft. [3,0m]
50.1 ft. [15m] – 90 ft. [27,5m] 14 ft. [4,3m]
90.1 ft. [27,5m] – 120 ft. [36,5m] 18 ft. [5,5m]
120.1 ft. [36,6m] or greater Determined on a case-by- case basis.

The location of the tags can also be as requested by the asset owner. Here are some examples
specified by utilities:
• End cap of boxed crossarm.
• On the side of crossarm at a specific distance from crossarm length.
• On the pole at location specified by the utility.

Figure 17-1 Location of tag on a beam

1 27
1 7.2 TAG SPECS

Figure 17-2 Sample ID tag size

Figure 17-3 Sample ID tag size

Figure 17-4 Tag with punched in letters

1 28
1 8. EXISTING APPLICATIONS
1 8.1 INTRODUCTION
In the following chapters various FRP transmission line projects are outlined.
1 8.2 GRANIN-VOSS TRANSMISSION LINE
Granvin-Voss 132kV line is located in Hørdaland in the west of Norway and is owned by BKK Nett AS.
The line is 20,9km long and is composed mostly of FRP pole structures. It was installed in 2014-2015.
FRP poles were selected instead of wood poles due to lower life cycle costs, less maintenance and
longer service life. Other advantages were that helicopter costs were lower and the FRP poles induced
no soil contamination on site. Following pictures are from the line.

Figure 18-1 H-frame FRP suspension structure

Figure 18-2 Type 3H FRP structure

1 29
 Figure 18-3 Workers before the helicopter installation of the FRP structure

1 8.3 BOGNA SNASA-NEDRE FI SKUMFOSS TRANSMISSION LINE

The Bogna Snasa-Nedre Fiskumfoss 132kV line is located in Trøndelag in mid Norway and is owned by
NTE AS. The line was built in 2011 and 2012 and is 50km in length. This line is the first 132kV line
completely built with composite poles in Norway. The problem with woodpeckers and rotting on wood
poles was the main reason for choosing FRP composite poles. Predictable strength through the whole
lifetime, increased service life and consideration of the environment were also important factors in the
decision making process.
The poles used are modular and have dark brown clolor. The crossarm is anodized aluminium, with
dark brown clolor. The conductor is alloyed aluminium, cross-section 444mm 2 , and diameter is
27,4mm. The insulators are composite grey.
The line is designed according to NEK 445-2009 (EN 50341). Wind gust is 32-34m/s with 500 year
return peiod. Ice load is 40-50N/m with 150 year return period. Every day stress (EDS) in conductor is
50N/mm 2 . Maximum conductor temperature is 80°C.

Figure 18-4 H-frame blending in with the autumn clolors

1 30
Figure 18-5 H-frame suspension structure

Figure 18-6 H-frame tension structure

1 31
 Figure 18-7 Angle tension structure

Figure 18-8 Angular tension structure

1 32
1 8.4 SVARTISEN-HALSE TRANSMISSION LI NE
The Svartisen-Halsan 132kV transmission line is located in Nordland in Norway and is owned by
Nordlandsnett AS. The line is approximately 15km long and was built between 2015 and 2017. The
line has an average span length of 219m between structures.
The line utilized mainly FRP poles with anodized aluminium as crossarms: However large angle
structures, and terminal dead end structures are of steel A-frames with hollowed profiles. The
conductor is FeAl 240-30/19 (381-AL1/87-ST1A), with a diameter of 28,10mm and a total area of
467,4mm².
The line is designed according to NEK 445-2009 (EN 50341). Wind gust is 35-42m/s with 500 year
return peiod. Ice load is 40-150N/m with 150 year return period. Every day stress (EDS) in conductor
is 55N/mm 2 . Maximum conductor temperature is 80°C.

Figure 18-9 Cross-brace H-frame tension Figure 18-10 Flying in H-frame

structure

1 33
Figure 18-11 Cross-braced H-frames ready for helicopter lift

Figure 18-12 FRP omposite A frame with steel reinforcements

1 34
Figure 18-13 Stringing through a tension structure.

Figure 18-14 Stringing operation during the winter

1 35
1 8.5 TILREM – SKÅREM TRANSMISSION LINE
The line is a 132kV and runs from Tilrem to Skåren in Helgeland in mid Norway. The owner is
Helgeland Kraft Nett AS. The line is 4km long and was built inn the year 2014. Conductors type is FeAl
240 26/7 with EDS is 50N/mm 2 . Earth wire to the substation is Fe 70mm 2 with EDS 120N/mm 2 . The
average span length is 200m. Composite poles are combined with self-suppoting steel poles in angle
tension locations. FRP composite pole with horizontal V post insulators for lesser narrower right-of-
way requirements, see Figure 18-15.

Figure 18-15 FRP composite pole with horizontal V insulators

Figure 18-16 Angular tension steel poles

1 36
1 8.6 WIND FARM PROJ ECT
Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks (SSEN) are using FRP pole structures installed with a
helicopter to connect the Dorenell wind farm, near Dufftown, to a substation near Keith. This project
was featured in the BBC news. Helicopter is flying in a structure comprised of FRP poles and steel
crossarms and cross braces, see Figure 18-17.

Figure 18-17 Helicopter flying in structure

The air crane lifts the fiberglass/reinforced polymer poles to crews who guide them into foundations.
The FRP pole structures have been selected over wooden poles for longevity and visual impact.
The composite poles are taller than wooden poles which means the structures can support longer
spans as well as having a longer life expectancy (than wooden poles) of more than 80 years.
SSEN lead project manager Paul Higginbotham said the air crane was being used for the first time in
the UK to fly in the pole structures.

Figure 18-18 Air crane helicopter

1 37
 Figure 18-19 Structures ready for transport
The FRP pole structures fully assembled on the ground and ready to be transported to the site, see
Figure 18-19.

Figure 18-20 Aircrane transporting

Air crane helicopter transporting an FRP structure to the installation location, see Figure 18-20.

Figure 18-21 Placing the structure

Lowering the structure into place with the assitance of the ground crew, see Figure 18-21.

1 38
1 8.7 MONT DE MARSANT TRANSMISSSION LINE
In addition to helicopter installation, the use of classical and cheaper methods can be considered
especially when the access is easy. These classical installation methods mainly use crane for
structures erection.
The following example shows a 63kV single pole configuration installed in France in 2013. The aim
was to replace an existing concrete pole in dilapidated conditions by a composite monopole structure
considering more or less same limit of use (wind span: 135m, wind pressure on conductors: 570Pa,
ice coat thickness: 2cm). The line is single circuit, equipped with ACSR conductors (1 cond/phase,
section: 228mm 2 ).
The installation method consists in preparing the a foundation made of concrete block (a concrete
“monoblock” foundation without any rebars cage) with a steel sleeve inside (thickness 10mm) and
then proceeding with the assembled pole installation using a crane, see Figure 18-24. The sleeve will
have a diameter which adapted to the diameter of the base module of the FRP pole. No grounding
system will be installed.
A sketch of the foundation is shown in Figure 18-22.
Verticality of the steel sleeve shall be properly controlled. Concrete is poured outside the steel sleeve
in layers of 40cm, see Figure 18-23. Pouring is stopped at a depth of 80cm from the ground (natural
ground) level. The top of the steel sleeve is 30cm above the ground. A special surface coating is
applied on the sleeve for anti-corrosion, as well as to introduce waterproofing properties.

Figure 18-22 Steel tube foundation surrounded by concrete

The complete FRP pole is assembled on the ground with all the equipment. Holes for all-through bolts
are drilled on site. The FRP structure is then lifted by a crane and slowly posiitoned onto the sleeve
(Figure 18-24, Figure 18-25, Figure 18-26). Verticality of the pole is ensured with adjustable wedges
(using small wooden plank).
Finally, the gap between the base module of the FRP pole and the steel sleeve is filled with concrete
with a concrete pump.

1 39
Figure 18-23 Coating and concreting the steel sleeve in place

Figure 18-24 Lifting by crane

1 40
 Figure 18-25 Lifting the pole

Figure 18-26 Putting the pole in the steel sleeve

1 8.8 BEVERCE-AMEL-BUTGENBACH – TRANSMISSI ON LINE
This line is a double circuit 110kV in Belgium including a section of three FRP composite towers placed
between two concrete H-frame structures.
An H-frame configuration has been considered for these new designs with composite poles, V
composite insulators strings (horizontal position) and connections cross-bracing in steel for ensuring
suitable lateral stiffness. Global height is 21m above ground level, height under the lowest composite
insulator is 13,5m and the distance between poles about 3,5m.
The length of the line section is about 450m, with an average and wind span of about 115m. The
conductors used are a single bundled AAAC 346 AMS-2Z (EDS is 70 N/mm 2 , nominal cross sectional
area 351mm 2 ) and two earthwire (including one OPGW). The design criteria are normal wind
(equivalent wind pressure on conductors is 544Pa, safety factor of 1,5), ice loading with reduced wind
(ice coat thickness is 2cm, specific weight 600kg/m 3 ).
Construction method is composed by successive stage from casting concrete foundations in place,
assembling composites poles on ground with all the equipment preinstalled and erection of poles and
last adjustment operations before conductors stringing procedure.
1st stage: Foundations casted in place
First a slab is poured with a cylindrical concrete sleeve. Then re-barss are positioned at the position of
the pole’s base. An earthing system is installed by shaping loops with a copper wire around the
foundation base slab and will be connected to the a copper wire installed inside the composite poles in
a second stage.

1 41
 Figure 18-27 Concrete foundation, side view

Figure 18-28 Concrete foundation, top view

Figure 18-29 Concrete foundation

2nd stage: i nstallation of the first modules inside the foundations.

A ground -wire is routed insi de the base (first) modu le to enable the connection of the structure to the
earthing system , see Fig ure 1 8-30.

1 42
 Figure 18-30 Earthing
The base module of FRP composite pole is then positioned vertically into the sleeve with a crane, see
Figure 18-31. After the base module is set and plumbed, the top modules in the pole will be added.

Figure 18-31 Installing the base module

1 43
The grounding wire is then connected to the earthing system of the foundation.

Figure 18-32 Ground wire connection

At that stage, adjustable wedges can be used for enhancing the suitable verticality of the module.
Extra stay wire are also needed to maintain the module in vertical position, see Figure 18-33. Nylon
ropes can be used to stabilise the base module.

Figure 18-33 Holding the pole in vertical position

Concrete is then poured in the annulus between the base module and the sleeve edge and also
insidethe base module up to 3m above the ground level using a concrete pump (Figure 18-34). This
solution has been considered for limiting the deflections of the pole by increasing the stiffness for the
installation. The deflection limit is 2,5% of the global height of pole.

1 44
 Figure 18-34 Pumping the concrete inside the base module

3rd stage: Poles preassembling and erection process

While these acti vities are being done, the two poles composing the cross-braced g antries are
assembled on the ground separately with all their equi pment and without their ba se modul e (whi ch is
already positioned in the foundation’s concrete sleeve) . Con nection plates for com posite insulators,
crossarms, with all -through holes are dril led on site, connections for cross-brace, connections for
climbing ladders, etc.

Figure 18-35 Drilling and connecting on site

Special attention shall be paid to the grou nd wire which is routed on the inside of the poles.

1 45
 Figure 18-36 Ground wire connection
The complete assembly of the top of the pole is then lifted by a crane onto the base module, see
Figure 18-37. This stage is repeated for every pole composing the gantry.

Figure 18-37 Lifting and placing the pole

1 46
 Figure 18-38 Placing the pole in a vertical position
Connection of the base module of the top portion of the pole is performed by linesmen positioned in a
bucket truck who tighten the slip joint connection and connect the groundwire systems, see Figure
18-38.
4th Stage: Final connection of the cross-brace.
Last step for assembly-erection is the connection of the cross-brace elements: The lower connection is
completed after drilling on site with the pole installed in final configuration, in order to obtain the
suitable position of the cross-brace (that compensates the difference of tolerance between the two
poles composing the H Frame structure).
Last step for assembly-erection is the connection of the cross-brace elements. Although the top cross
brace holes are pre-drilled during the initial horizontal assembly, the lower cross brace connection
holes are drilled with the pole installed in the final vertical orientation. This is done , in order to
determine the suitable position of the cross-brace and compensates for the difference of tolerance
between the two poles composing the structure.
5th Stage: Stringing operations
For conductor stringing the same kind of operation as for OHTL composed of wooden gantries is
considered.
In this particular case, the crossarms are made of composite insulators which have two-parts
(horisontal v) are used. They are fixed on an axis allowing rotation for certain load cases (i.e. broken
wire condition).
A special system has been achieved for locking the arms in the perpendicular position to the line axis
during stringing (extra stay wires can be fixed to ensure this suitable position). After the conductors
are strung, this system is then unlocked as required by the normal conditions in the service state.
• During the stringing a tensioner is placed on one side of the section (in the example next to a
strain tower placed at the limit of the section) and a puller is installed at the other end. This
equipment shall be positioned at a suitable distance from the H-frame structures of at least
twice the height of the towers in order to limit the maximum vertical loads occurring during
stringing operations, see Figure 18-39.
The pilot wire is strung at the ground level by mean of a tractor and then at each tower/gantry
thepilot wire is lifted up and passed through the pulley which was installed beforehand by means of
ropes, see Figure 18-40, and Figure 18-42.
• The pilot wire is connected to the conductor drum by means of a special sleeve or guy grip
stockings and swivel joint, see Figure 18-41.
• The conductors are then strung through the pulleys after tensioning operation, see Figure 18-
43.
• After the conductors are strung and tensioned, the sleeve of the pilot wire is then removed.
This operation is repeated for each and every phase conductor and earthwire.
Final tension and sag is not set up at that stage, the tension in the conductors and earth wires
is lower than in every day stress conditions.

1 47
• Sagging is performed with the tensioner, a pull lift and a wire pulling grip system (UPK type)
is installed at the tension gantry for load compensation and conductor is then cut, see Figure
18-48. Final sagging with final catenary value is done with the compression joint finally
installed.
• The last operation concerns the clamping on the suspension composite gantries and the
installation of the jumpers.

Figure 18-39 Controlling vertical force on structure when stringing

Figure 18-40 Pilot wire

Figure 18-41 Connection of pilot wire to the conductor

Figure 18-42 Tower with conductor and earth wire wheels

1 48
 Figure 18-43 Pilot wire prepared

Figure 18-44 Conductor tensioning

Figure 18-45 Clamping in

Figure 18-46 Tension profile selection

1 49
Figure 18-47 Tower view

1 50
1 9. FRP SUSTAINABLE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS AND BENEFITS
1 9.1 INTRODUCTION
Demand from businesses and consumers for environmentally conscious products is high. Moreover,
some regulations require using materials with minimal environmental impact. Many companies and
individuals are choosing to reduce their environmental footprint by electing to use products that offer
a long service life and a low cradle to grave carbon footprint and other negative environmental
influences.
1 9.2 FRP ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFI TS
FRP materials are beneficial for the environment in the following ways:
1. FRP materials are inert and do not require preservatives to achieve their service life.
Therefore, they do not leach harmful chemicals into the environment. As a result, FRP
materials are preferred over treated wood structures in areas where drinking water wells are
located and in other environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands. To confirm the inert
characteristics of a given FRP material, ASTM C1308-08 Standard Test Method for Accelerated
Leach Test for Diffusive Releases from Solidified Waste and a Computer Program to Model
Diffusive, Fractional Leaching from Cylindrical Waste Forms can be used.
2. FRP materials are lightweight and therefore require smaller equipment for installation than
structures made from traditional materials, ensuring minimal environmental disturbance from
vehicle traffic and from a carbon generation perspective.
3. FRP materials have a long service life which means fewer structure replacements are required
over time and, as a result, less equipment mobilization is required.

1 9.3 END OF SERVICE LIFE

Currently, unlike thermoplastics which can be recycled, limited recycling options exist for thermoset
resins which are used for FRP materials used for poles, crossarms and braces. Instead, at the end of
their service life, FRP materials have the following disposal options: Landfill, used as fillers and
upcycling.
Because FRP materials are inert, they can be disposed of in landfill sites for standard tipping fees.
This is typically the easiest disposal option. Alternatively, and again because FRP materials are inert,
they can be ground up and used as a filler in concrete or asphalt.
Additionally, after they are removed from service and if they are in a suitable condition, FRP materials
can be upcycled. As an example, poles can be used as anchors, culverts or fence posts.
1 9.4 CARBON FOOTPRINT
Five key stages of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are:
Raw material extraction; Manufacturing; Installation; Maintenance; End of life and transportation in all
of the life stages.
Evaluating the overall environmental impact of FRP transmission line structures and comparing it to
traditional materials such as wood, steel and concrete requires a very detailed evaluation, analysis and
beyond the current scope of this brochure. The WG B2.61 recommendation is that another working
group could write a brochure that would details the FRP transmission line structures environmental
impact, pros and cons of using FRP from the environmental point of view.

1 51
20. FRP RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
20.1 INTRODUCTION
The objective of this section is to present a review of technical and scientific studies concerning the
use of FRP materials for transmission line structures. Many of these studies present experimental tests
and numerical models on FRP composite poles and tower members. Other studies concern the
conceptual application of FRP members for transmission line supports.
This review presents the following order:
• Technical literature on FRP pole structures.
• Literature on FRP members as possible constituents for transmission line supports.
• Research and development studies on FRP lattice towers.
• Points to be considered for future research.
Research and development on alternative resin and fiber material have already been presented in
other chapters.
20.2 FRP POLES
All pole manufacturers have performed numerous full-scale tests on their products. However, these
test results are rarely available in the literature. The next paragraphs present some studies where pole
structures were tested, design recommendations were proposed and/or finite element models were
developed.
Castiglioni and Imbimbo (1999) studied the effect of manufacturing processes on the mechanical
properties of the pole. Physical parameters such a glass percentage and thickness, longitudinal
modulus and tensile strength are considered in the study. The investigation concerned a total of 20
poles produced by 4 different manufacturers. The objective was to analyse the distribution of the
geometrical properties, tensile mechanical properties and the influence of the manufacturing process
on the predictability of the geometrical and mechanical properties. Some properties such as tensile
strength of composite material calculated from the mixture law formula shows a considerable
deviation of the experimental measured value, meanwhile other properties such as longitudinal
modulus (E) are consistent with this formula. [20-4]
Ibrahim (2000) evaluated the performance of tapered GFRP poles and developed design guidelines for
the use of such poles by electric utilities. The aim of this research program was to develop an
analytical model capable of predicting the performance and the strength of GFRP poles. A total of
twelve 2.5 m and twelve 6. 1m GFRP poles were tested to failure under lateral loading. He also studied
the effect of different fiber orientations on GFRP poles. Failure due to local buckling under flexural
load was the most dominant failure mode of the specimens tested. A finite element model was also
developed using the ANSYS software to study the behaviour of GFRP poles [20-11].
Kumar et al (2015) studied the full-scale flexural behaviour of FRP tapered poles manufactured by the
filament winding process, in order to optimize the design and to propose improvements to the
manufacturing process. Static loading tests were performed in order to obtain the load-deflection
characteristic of the pole. The authors also developed a finite element model that was analysed under
dynamic loading. The use of three-dimensional finite element method (FEM) analysis can successfully
predict the behaviour of tapered hollow GFRP poles. Fiber direction of the FRP tapered pole was
considered and it was found that a 58 degree orientation of GFRP pole yielded minimum static strains
and maximum natural frequency [20-13].
Ibrahim and Polyzois (1999) studied the ovalisation process of poles under loads. The study was
carried out on 6m tapered FRP pole. The relatively small thickness-to-radius ratio and the high
stresses developed near the ground, could result in cross sectional distortion of the poles and a drastic
reduction in strength. Finite element analysis was used to investigate the non-linear behaviour of FRP
poles and to conduct a parametric study to investigate the effect of different fiber orientations and the
radius-to-thickness ratio on critical ovalisation load. Based on the results, it was concluded that the
fiber orientation has a significant effect on the critical ovalisation load. Incorporating circumferential
layers with angle plies tends to increase this critical load [20-12]. See Figure 20-1.

1 52
 Figure 20-1 Pole cross section before and after ovalisation
Raftoyiannis and Polyzois (2007) dealt with the dynamic behaviour of tapered composite poles with
circular hollow cross-section and flexible connections. The pole consisted of two tapered cylindrical
parts jointed together with resin applied on a reasonable joint length, forming a semi-rigid connection.
The presence of an elastic connection may affect the dynamic behaviour of the pole. In order to
investigate that fact, it was decided to produce and test scaled specimens of 6m long. It was
presented a simple finite element formulation for the dynamic analysis of tapered composite poles
with hollow circular cross-section. A flexible joint model was incorporated into the finite element
model. The joint stiffness is affected by the properties of the applied resin, its thickness, as well as the
pole diameter at the joint position and the length of the joint. The joint flexibility affects the dynamic
behaviour of the pole mainly in the cases of weak connections, while for sufficiently strong
connections this effect becomes insignificant [20-23]. See Figure 20-2.

Figure 20-2 Pole joint

Metiche and Masmoudi (2012) studied the relationship between the failure of FRP poles and the
relative location of an opening from the base of the pole. Most of the design guidelines ignore such
effects and accounts for the effect of these holes by considering their influence of the reduction in the
cross-sectional area of the poles. These guidelines do not pay attention to the impact of the opening
on the generated stress concentration in their vicinity. Local buckling at a nearby area of the opening
generally dominates the mode of failure of the poles. The experimental program was performed by
mechanical bending tests under lateral loads on 22 full-scale prototypes of FRP poles with length from
5 to 12 m. All the poles have an opening that was cut at the manufacturer’s site, after the poles were
fabricated, see Figure 20-3. Experimental results show that cracking and early failure of FRP poles are
normally controlled by the location of the opening [20-16]. See Figure 20-3.

Figure 20-3 FRP pole with openings

Fam et al. (2010) studied the behaviour of cantilevered glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) thin
walled tubular poles subjected to combined lateral and axial loads. A 3D finite element analysis model
(ANSYS) was developed and validated using experimental results. Axial and lateral loads were applied

1 53
at top of the poles until the poles failed by material failure or stability failure (buckling). A parametric
study was carried out on poles with various angle-ply (± 휃 ) and cross-ply (0/90º) laminates as well as
different diameter-thickness (D/t) and length-diameter (L/D) ratios. The study showed the GFRP
laminates tend to have an increased strength and stiffness when the fraction of fibers in the
longitudinal direction increases in cross-ply laminates or when the fibers angles relative to longitudinal
axis decreases in angle-ply laminates. The reduction in axial strength is produced when L/D ratio
increases, and becomes more severe when the D/t ratio becomes smaller [20-7]. See Figure 20-4.

Figure 20-4 Multilayered FRP composite laminate.

Godat et al. (2013b) presented a cost estimation of a electricity transmission line with 69kV and a
distance of 10 km. The study considered various spans between 100 and 400m in increment of 50m.
For these spans, the design was carried out with the following FRP members: Circular section,
rectangular section and I-section, see Figure 20-5. The cost estimation was provided for each of these
members in order to determine the most economical solution. It was determined that the FRP
pultruded circular section with 200m spans can be considered the optimum solution to replace the
steel or wood transmission poles or towers. The I-section does not seem appropriate even for short
spans [20-10].

Figure 20-5 Cross section comparison for FRP OHTLs

Li et al. (2010) compared the behaviour in a humid air with high salinity environment of three glass
fiber reinforced polyurethane composite poles: Full composite single pole, full composite double pole,
semi-composite single pole. The project tried to find out a solution for pollution flashover and
lightning trip-out. Different methods to connect the ground wire to the ground along the towerswas
analysed. Along the external surface or isolated from the tower body. The grounding method along
the external surface of tower can cause the surface of the tower to carbonization during a short circuit
[20-14]. See see Figure 20-6.

1 54
 Figure 20-6 Composite tower with different grounding down models
Alshurafa (2012) simulated the static and dynamic behaviour of the 81m meteorological FRP guyed
tower under wind and ice loading. Various non-linear finite element models were developed to study
some design parameters such as different laminate orientations, various thicknesses, different guy
diameters and appropriate guy wire spacing levels. The effect of fiber volume fraction on the design
of the FRP tower was also examined. The study provided a comparative (deflection, cost and weight)
between the FRP towers having two different fiber volume fractions with a steel tower. [20-2] See
Figure 20-7.

Figure 20-7 8m meteorological FRP guyed tower

20.3 REINFORCED CONCRETE-FILLED FRP POLES
Mohamed and Masmoudi (2010, 2011, 2015) investigated experimentally and theoretically the
behaviour of reinforced concrete-filled fiber-reinforced polymer tube (RCFFT) beams. Some beams
were reinforced with glass FRP bars and the rest were reinforced with conventional steel bars. Yield
and ultimate strengths, failure modes and ductility were tested. The objective is to evaluate the FRP
tube contribution to the flexural strength of concrete beams reinforced with steel or FRP bars. The
results indicated that beams confined by FRP tubes experiment lower deflection, higher cracking load
level, higher ductility, higher stiffness and superior strength that the beams reinforced with spiral
steel. The study also compared the behaviour of fully and partially reinforced concrete-filled
rectangular FRP-tube beams [20-17], [20-18], [20-19]. See Figure 20-8 and Figure 20-9.

Figure 20-8 Steel and glass FRP cages for reinforced concrete beams

1 55
 Figure 20-9 FRP tubes for cages for RCFFT beams
Amir Fam and Je-Kuk Son (2008) investigated via finite element analysis the theoretical increases in
moment carrying capacity and reductions in deflection of an FRP tube as a result of partially filling
with concrete. The objective was to optimize the length of partial concrete fill at the base. They
pointed out that FRP tubes generally fail under moment loading due to local bucking following
excessive ovalization, and concrete filling the critical areas prevented this. The effects of different wall
thickness as well as different laminate structures were considered. A parametric study was provided
showing degrees of strengthening for different lengths of concrete fill. The optimum length is
associated with simultaneous failure of the tube in the concrete filled section and in the unfilled
section. A side effect of optimizing the length of partial concrete filling is reduction is deflection. A
simple method was developed and proposed to establish the optimum concrete fill length [20-8].
20.4 FRP PULTRUDED MEMBERS
This section presents a few experimental studies performed on pultruded members that could be part
of FRP pole or lattice tower transmission structures.
Godat et al. (2013a) tested a total of 15 FRP specimens made of E-glass and either polyester or
vinylester matrix manufactured and supplied by manufacturer Strongwell. Experimental results on
angle-section, square-section and rectangular-section specimens are subjected to axial compression
and I-section and W-section specimens tested under bending were compared to different design
approaches. The experimental results were in terms of critical buckling load, load-displacement
relationships and failure modes for each tested section. The authors reported that the various design
equations predict the loading capacity with acceptable accuracy [20-9]. See Figure 20-10.

Figure 20-10 Different FRP cross section analyzed

Zureick and Steffen (2000) performed an experimental study to evaluate the behaviour of
concentrically loaded FRP pultruded angle struts. In the study, 7 E-glass/polyester and 18 E
glass/vinylester angle specimens having slenderness ratios ranging from 30 to 105 and leg width-to-
thickness ratios of 8, 10.7, 12, 16 and 24 were tested. Tests have shown that under compression
loading, pultruded angles reinforced with E-glass roving and nonwoven E-glass strand mats buckle in
either flexural or flexural-torsional modes. These experimentally observed buckling modes were also
predicted analytically, based on derived mathematical models that describe the buckling behaviour of
an orthotropic, centrally loaded, equal-leg angle section [20-27]. See Figure 20-11.

Figure 20-11 FRP pultruded angle test

1 56
20.5 FRP TOWERS
FRP material have rarely been used for lattice structure applications. The main challenges for the use
of FRP for this application are to design efficient connections between members and to get adequate
resistance against buckling failure for slender members. This section presents research and
development works that were performed to develop the application of FRP lattice towers.

Figure 20-12 FRP lattice tower

Polyzois et al. (2013) studied the structural behaviour of a composite filament wound latticed tower
under static and dynamic load conditions. The tower sections were fabricated without the use of
fasteners, thus eliminating the labour-intensive and fatigue-prone bolted connections used in steel
towers. The tower was designed according to the current CSA-S37 Standard and the EIA-222F
specifications. The experimental results correlate well with the findings from FEM analyses. The
dynamic properties of tower segment were also verified with a single-degree-of-freedom
mathematical model. They concluded that the construction and full function of a prototype full -scale
tower is possible using the filament winding technique [20-22]. See Figur 20-13.

Figure 20-13 Test set-up of FRP tower segment

Selvaraj et al. (2012a, 2012b) carried out experimental analysis on cross-braced panels of
transmission line tower made from FRP pultruded sections, see Figur 20-14. They also performed
finite element analyses to evaluate the buckling behaviour of the FRP members [20-24], [20-25].
(Selvaraj et al, 2014) performed an experimental analysis of a full-scale 66kV FRP tower under
mechanical loading ( Figure 10-15). The FRP tower consists of leg members, bracing and crossarm
members having different cross sections. They were assembled with suitable structural connection
with steel plate and end clamps [20-26].

1 57
 Figure 20-14 Test on FRP cross-braced panel Figure 20-15 Test on full-scale FRP tower
Ochonski (2009) research program was to develop the technology needed for the design and
fabrication of filament wound lattice tower segments which can easily be transported and assembled
on site. The author fabricated an 8.53 m FRP guyed latticed tower and tested it under static and
dynamic loading. The ANSYS 8.1 finite element program was also used to simulate the behaviour of
the tested tower and good agreement between numerical findings and test data was observed. A full
scale FRP and steel towers with 45 m height were also simulated under the same loading conditions
[20-20].
Chul-Ho Yang (1996) studied the feasibility of building a transmission tower from a composite material
comprised of E-glass and vinylester. Instead of using the conventional fastener method to join the
cross members to the leg members, the design team utilized a slip joint that was developed by
Goldsworthy Engineering. This mechanism is a self-locking device which distributes its tensile load into
shear load. The authors reported that the assembly time was reduced drastically due to its simpl e
locking mechanism. The lamina of the leg member and the cross bracing were tested and compared
with two analytical failure criteria. In addition, full-scale tower tests were performed at China Electrical
and Power Research Institute. The composite tower was found to meet all of the loading conditions
[20-5].
Corona and Vazquez (2015) presented an alternative to avoid the theft of redundant members of the
transmission towers that can result in the collapse of the tower. To avoid this problem, it is proposed
to replace the steel redundant members in the bottom panel of the tower by polymeric composite
members. The resistance of polymeric members was checked using COMSOL Multiphysics software.
The analysis consisted in 3 case studies: Tower with steel redundant members, without redundant
members and with polymeric composite redundant members. Based on the results, composite
materials may be a viable option for replacing steel in redundant and diagonal members in the bottom
panel of the tower for avoiding vandalism [20-6]. See Figure 20-16.

Figure 20-16 Tower without redundant members

1 58
20.6 FUTURE RESEARCH
FRP materials have been commonly used and tested for tubular and tapered FRP poles and not so
commonly for lattice structure applications. The main goals for future applications and researche could
be focused on:
• Effect of creep on FRP structures, in particular for semi-permanent loadings such as ice and
snow loading.
• Tests on full-scale FRP poles and lattice towers for various material and geometric
configurations.
• Development and improvement of manufacturing methods and material properties in order to
have a better quantification of mechanical properties based on the composition of FRP
materials. Development of analytical and computational models for predicting the mechanical
properties, instead of making tests on the material.
• Evaluation of structural strength of FRP components based on material properties obtained
from coupon tests.
• Recycling of FRP materials. Reduction of energy consumption and greenhouse effects in life
span.
• Design of efficient joints and connections between lattice FRP members and pole sections.
Development of computational models to analyse composite power poles and joints.
• Improvement of the resistance against buckling failure for slender members.
• Design of FRP towers for higher voltage level applications, increasing the structural strength
of the material. Most applications are currently made for tension below 220kV.
• The effect of the aging of the material based on installed FRP poles.

1 59
21 . SURVEY ON FRP TRANSMISSION LINE STRUCTURES
21 .1 INTRODUCTION
In the context of CIGRE Working Group B2.61, there was an interest to gain a better understanding of
how FRP material is currently used and perceived within the transmission line industry. To do so, a short
electronic survey was sent to CIGRE representatives and to other contacts of the Working Group
members working in the field of transmission and distribution line structures. It should be noted that
answers obtained here are not necessarily based on evidence and that the opinion of respondents does
not always match the opinion of the members of the CIGRE working group. However, these answers
are useful to evaluate the general perception of engineers in the power industry regarding FRP products.
The survey contained five questions. The first two questions aimed to know the role of the respondents
in the power industry and their level of knowledge regarding FRP structures for transmission line
applications. The third question listed a number of transmission line structure components and asked
whether FRP was considered or implemented for these components. The fourth question listed many
product characteristics and asked whether they were perceived as advantages or disadvantages
compared to other materials. The last question asked to give an opinion on the average life expectancy
of various transmission line structure types.

Number of survey responses by country

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

Figure 21-1 Number of survey responses by country

A total of 130 responses were obtained. Some of the responses were incomplete. In that case, the
questions answered were included in the analysis only if at least one of the two main questions
(questions 3 and 4) were completed. Most regions of the world were represented, see Figure 21-1.
There is a large number of respondents from Russia because the survey was translated to Russian and
sent to a large number of potential respondents in that country.
21 .2 PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS
Approximately half of the respondents answered that they work for a transmission system operator
(TSO), see Figure 21-2. Because the definition of transmission and distribution varies between countries,
it is likely that a portion of the respondents identified as TSO could be considered as distribution system
operated (DSO).
In the second question, respondents evaluated their own level of knowledge concerning FRP products
for transmission lines. A large majority of respondents evaluated their knowledge as fair or good , see
Figure 21-3. On one hand, the small number of respondents having an excellent knowledge of FRP
products can be explained by the fact that these products are relatively new in this industry. On the
other hand, the small number of respondents having a poor knowledge of FRP products can probably

1 60
be explained by the fact that respondents that have al ready some interest for FRP structures were more
l ikely to an swer the survey than other transm ission lin e engineers.

Q1 . Wh at i s th e ro l e o f yo u r co m p any wi thi n the

p o we r i n d u s try

Tran s m is s i o n s ys te m o p e rato r D i s tri b u ti o n s ys te m o p e rato r

C o n s ul tan t C o n trac to r

Re s e arch an d d e ve l o p m en t O the r (p l e as e s p e ci fy)

Figure 21-2 Role of respondents within the power industry

Q2 . What i s yo u r l e ve l o f kn o wl e d ge co n ce rn i n g

fi b e r re i n fo rce d p o lym e r (FRP ) p ro d u cts fo r

tran s m i s s i o n l i n e ap p l i cati o n s ?

E xce l l e n t Go o d F ai r Po o r

Figure 21-3 Respondents level of knowledge on FRP products for OHTLs

1 61
 21 .3 USE AND APPRECIATI ON OF FRP PRODUCTS
The results of question 3 on the use of FRP products in transmission line projects is split in three parts.
The first part concerns FRP poles, see Figure 21-4. In this graph, it is shown that FRP is mostly
considered for projects below 300kV. For line voltages between 69kV and 199kV, FRP was at least
considered by 48% of respondents. For the same voltage range, 7% of respondents answered that FRP
poles were implemented in at least one project. This shows that FRP poles are regularly part of the
options considered for projects at medium voltage levels. FRP poles have rarely been considered for
high and ultra-high voltage applications where rigid steel lattice tower and steel poles and most often
used.
In some cases, question 3 was answered in an incomplete manner. For example, a respondent could
have left blank rows for some of the applications. In that case, the answer was converted to the answer
“never considered”.

Figure 21-4 Use of FRP poles in transmission line projects

1 62
In Figure 21-5, the use of FRP materials as transmission line crossarms is shown. The results show
that FRP crossarms were considered or implemented by 27% and 34% of respondents for projects
below 69kV and between 69 and 199kV respectively. This percentage then decrea ses gradually with
increasing voltage as expected. FRP crossarms were implemented in one or more project according to
15% of respondents for voltage below 69kV and 69-199kV. Therefore FRP materials are considered
for transmission line crossarms, but not as frequently as for poles.

Figure 21-5 Use of FRP crossarms in transmission line projects

1 63
The last part of question 3, shown in Figure 21-6, concerned the use of other components such as
cross-braces, fittings, lattice structures and foundations. FRP cross-braces are sometimes considered,
but rarely implemented in transmission and distribution line projects. The question did not specify, but
the cross-braces considered here were likely to be used in an H-frame configuration in combination with
FRP poles and crossarms. Four respondents answered that they implemented FRP for lattice towers.
However, the details about these structures could not be found and the only documented occurrence
of FRP lattice tower is for the line section built in California in 1997 (see Chapter 9.2). Four respondents
answered that they implemented FRP for foundations. Again, these projects could not be documented,
and it is possible that the question was interpreted by some respondents to include embedded pole
foundation. FRP grillage foundations and other types of FRP foundations exist as detailed in Chapter 8.

Q3. In your past or present transmission line

projects, for which line component and voltage
level was the use of FRP material products
considered or implemented?
100,0%
90,0%
80,0%
70,0%
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
10,0%
0,0%
Cross braces <69 Cross braces 69- Fittings Lattice structure Foundation
kV 199 kV

Never considered Considered but never implemented

Implemented in one project Implemented in more than one project

Figure 21-6 Use of other FRP components for transmission line projects

The full text of question 4 was as follows:

FRP can be used as an alternative to traditional materials such as wood, steel and concrete, which are
commonly used for overhead lines structures. Based on your experience of overhead line assets, and
their constituent materials, please mark the following FRP product characteristics on a scale of major
disadvantage to major advantage. If necessary, use the comment box below to specify which material
and which application are considered as a reference when marking the FRP product characteristics.
In this question, 19 characteristics of FRP products were evaluated and compared to material
traditionally used for transmission line structures. The results were split into three graphs (Figure 21-7
to Figure 21-9). In some cases, question 4 was answered in an incomplete manner. For example, a
respondent could have left blank rows for some of the characteristics. In that case, the answer was
converted to the answer “Don’t know”. This could in some cases overestimate the number o f “Don’t
know”.

The first bar of each characteristic shows how many respondents did not know enough about this
characteristic of FRP to evaluate it. The other bars grade the characteristic on a scale going from major
disadvantage to major advantage. In Figure 21-7, it is observed that FRP weight is perceived as a major
advantage with approximately 65% rating this characteristic in the last (green) bar. Another
characteristic perceived as a significant advantage is the electrical properties of FRP (reference to
Chapter 11). On the other hand, the lack of standard design documents is in general perceived as a

1 64
major disadvantage. This justifies current efforts in the transmission line engineering community to
standardize the design of FRP components. Figure 21-7 also shows that deflection, past experience with
the material and engineering efforts required are generally perceived as disadvantages. On a lesser
scale, structural strength and design flexibility are perceived as advantages.

Q4-PART 1
70,0%

60,0%

50,0%

40,0%

30,0%

20,0%

10,0%

0,0%
Structural Deflection Weight Past Electrical Engineering Existence of Design
strength experience properties efforts standard flexibility
with the required design
material documents

Don't know Major disadvantage Minor disadvantage

Neutral Minor advantage Major advantage

Figure 21-7 Advantages and disadvantages of FRP characteristics – Part 1

In Figure 21-8, characteristics related to economical considerations are evaluated. Availability of

products, of suppliers and purchase cost are generally perceived as important disadvantages. On the
other hand, installation cost is perceived as an advantage. Life-cycle cost is also perceived as an
advantage. However, a large portion of the respondents answered that they are not able to evaluate
this characteristic. This highlights the importance of providing guidance for evaluating life-cycle costs
of FRP products (see Chapter 15).

1 65
 Q4-PART 2
45,0%

40,0%

35,0%

30,0%

25,0%

20,0%

15,0%

10,0%

5,0%

0,0%
Availability of Availability of Purchase cost Installation cost Life-cycle cost
products suppliers

Don't know Major disadvantage Minor disadvantage

Neutral Minor advantage Major advantage

Figure 21-8 Advantages and disadvantages of FRP characteristics – Part 2

Q4-PART3
60,0%

50,0%

40,0%

30,0%

20,0%

10,0%

0,0%
Live working Ease of Service life Impact on the Resistance to Resistance to
considerations inspection and expectancy environment damage caused damage caused
maintenance by animals by corrosion

Don't know Major disadvantage Minor disadvantage

Neutral Minor advantage Major advantage

Figure 21-9 Advantages and disadvantages of FRP characteristics – Part 2

In the l ast part of questi on 4, characteristics related to practical and fu nctional con siderations were
evaluated. Many respondents answered “don’t know” for the first five characteristics in th is graph.
N onetheless, these characteristics are general ly perceived as advantages. Furthermore, resistance to
damage against corrosion is perceived as a major advantage. As discussed before the corrosion
resistance is one of the maj or reason for usi ng FRP products i n certain projects.

1 66
 21 .4 LIFE EXPECTANCY OF TRANSMISSION LINE SUPPORTS
In the last question, respondents were asked to evaluate average life expectancy of five types of
supports including FRP poles. Figure 21-10 shows that steel poles, steel lattice towers and FRP poles
are perceived as the most durable structures. FRP poles are also perceived to have similar life
expectancy as lattice towers. However, 42% of resp ondents answered that they don’t know the life
expectancy for FRP poles. This is not surprizing because FRP poles are relatively new in the power
industry. It also highlights the importance of performing adequate accelerated aging tests on these
structures as detailed in Chapter 14.

Q5. In your opinion, what is the average life

expectancy of the following types of transmission
line supports?
50,0%
45,0%
40,0%
35,0%
30,0%
25,0%
20,0%
15,0%
10,0%
5,0%
0,0%
Wood pole Steel pole Concrete pole Steel lattice tower FRP pole

Don't know Less than 20 years 20-39 years

40-59 years 60-79 years More than 80 years

Figure 21-10 Life expectancy of line supports

21 .5 CONCLUSIONS
Overall, this survey confirms that the FRP products are now part of the solutions considered for
distribution and transmission lines structures. The advantages and disadvantages of FRP products as
identified by the respondents match fairly well the ones identified by the working group members in
Chapter 5. However, the disparity in the answers and the fact many respondents do not have all the
information needed to evaluate FRP characteristics shows that there is a crucial need to provide
additional engineering information and to develop standards for these products. This CIGRÉ document
aims to provide part of the answers raised with the results of this survey.

1 67
22. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
This brochure gives a detailed review of FRP composite structures for transmission lines including the
material production, manufacturing, properties, design, field installation, maintainance, inspection,
recycling, financial and environmental benefit evaluation.
FRP composite structures are great alternatives to the traditional construction made of wood, steel,
aluminum and concrete. FRP has many advantages over other materials such as light weight,
durabilty and long life. The up front higher cost is offset by the installation and overall life cycle cost
benefits.
The key benefits of FRP tranmission line structures includes:
• Long service life.
• Corrosion resistance.
• Light weight.
• High specific strength.
• Ductility even in cold temperature.
• High dielectric strength (very low conductivity).
• Environmentally innert ( no leaching to the environment).
• Dimensional stability.
• Fire resistance.
• Resistance to vandalism and damage from animals.

The Working Group view is that this is an emerging and rapidly developing and promising field and
the brochure will require future revisions as the technology advances.
The increased use of FRP transmission line structures leads to enabling the goal of designing, building
and operating reliable and cost effective transmission lines.

1 68
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY
Abrasion Resistance: Capability of material to withstand mechanical forces, such as scraping,
rubbing, or erosion, that removes material from the surface.
Absorption: Penetration of one substance into the mass of another, such as moisture or water
absorption of plastics.
Acoustic Emissions (AE): Generation of an elastic wave by the rapid change in the stress state of
some region in the material.
Acrylic Latex Polymers: A group of polymers which could be referred to generally as plastics. They
are usually transparent, resisting breakage well and elastic until high stress level. They are also
referred commonly as acrylics or polyacrylates and mostly used as nail polish in cosmetics or
adhesives in other applications.
Additive: Substance added to the materials, usually to improve their properties. Prime examples are
plasticizers, flame retardants, and fillers added to plastic resins.
Aging: Change in properties of a material with time under specific conditions.
Aliphatic: Nonaromatic hydrocarbon compounds in which the constituent carbon atoms can
bestraight-chain, branched chain, or cyclic, as in alicyclic compounds, saturated, as in the paraffins,
ornunsaturated, as in the olefins and alkynes.
Angle-ply: Describes fiber angle in each layer of material, where the angle is measured relative to
the longitudinal axis of the pole. Cross-ply referred to 0º/90º angle and angle-ply referred to ± ∅ º
laminate structure.
AR-Glass: Compositions resistant to corrosion by alkali.
Aramid: Generic name for highly oriented organic materials derived from the polyamide but
incorporating an atomic ring structure.
Autoclave: Closed vessel for conducting a chemical reaction or other operation under pressure and
heat.
Bearing Strength: The maximum stress load that the unit can hold before the structure fails.
Bloom: A visible exudation or efflorescence on the surface of a material.
Boron Fibers: High modulus fibers produced by vapour deposition of elemental boron onto tungsten
or carbon cores. Supplied as single strands or tapes.
Breakdown Voltage: The potential difference in volts that when applied across a layer of electricall y
insulating substance is just sufficient to initiate a disruptive discharge.
Breaking Strength: The greatest stress especially in tension that a material is capable of
withstanding without rupture.
Buckling Failure: A mode of failure generally characterized by an unstable lateral material deflection
due to compressive action on the structural element involved.
Burn: Discloloration, distortion, or destruction of the surface as a result of heat exposure.
Cable: An assembly of one or more insulated electrical or optical conductors, or a combination
thereof, in a compact form, enclosed in a covering consisting of a combination of metal, plastic, or
other materials used to provide mechanical and electrical protection.
Cantilever Bending: Bending of a beam (a pole) due to applied force
Capacitance: That property of a system of conductors and dielectrics that permits the storage of
electricity when potential difference exists between the conductors. Its value is expressed as the ratio
of the quantity of electricity to a potential difference and the value is always positive.

1 69
Carbon Fibers: Fibers produced by carbonizing precursor fibers based on PAN (polyacrylonitrile),
rayon or pitch. The term is often used interchangeably with graphite. However, carbon fibers and
graphite fibers are produced and heat treated at different temperatures and have different carbon
contents.
Cast: To embed a component or assembly in a liquid resin, using molds that separate from the part
for reuse after the resin is cured. Curing or polymerization takes place without external pressure.
Cavitation: The formation of partial vacuums in a liquid by a swiftly moving solid body (such as a
propeller) or by high-intensity sound waves.
Centrifugal Casting: Fabrication process in which the catalyzed resin is introduced into a rapidly
rotating mold where it forms a layer on the mold surface.
Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA): A chemical combination of chromium, copper, and arsenic
used to protect wood against insects and decay.
Circuit: A conductor or system of conductors through which electrical current or optical energy flows.
Clearance: The distance, under specific design conditions, between the nearest points of two objects
at points where at least one object is movable.
Coat: To cover with a finishing, protecting, or enclosing layer of any compound (such as paint or
varnish).
Cohesion: State in which the particles of a single substance are held together by primary or
secondary valence forces.
Composite: Homogeneous material created by the synthetic assembly of two or more materials (a
selected filler or reinforcing elements and compatible matrix binder) to obtain specific characteristics
and properties.
Compound: Some combination of elements in a stable molecular arrangement.
Compression Moulding: Technique of thermoset moulding in which the moulding compound
(generally preheated) is placed in the heated open mould cavity, and the mould is closed under
pressure (usually in a hydraulic press), causing the material to flow and completely fill the cavity, with
pressure being held until the material has cured.
Compressive Modulus: Ratio of the compressive stress applied to a material compared to the
resulting compression.
Compressive Strength: Maximum compressive stress a material is capable of sustaining. In the
case where materials do not fail by fracture, the value is arbitrary, depending on the distortion
allowed.
Conductivity: Reciprocal of Volume Resistivity.
Conductor: A material used for the transmission of electrical, electromagnetic, or optical energy.
Corona Resistance: Resistance of insulating materials, especially plastics, to failure under the high
voltage state known as partial discharge. Failure can be erosion of the plastic material, decomposition
of the polymer, thermal degradation, or any combination of these three failure mechanisms.
Crack: Visible separation that penetrates down from the surface to the equivalent of one full ply or
more reinforcement (0.5 mm).
Creep: Time-dependent part of strain resulting from stress.
Creosote: A brownish oily liquid consisting chiefly of aromatic hydrocarbons obtained by distillation of
coal tar and used especially as a wood preservative.
Crippling Load (Buckling Load): The axial load at which a perfectly straight column or structural
member starts to Bend.
Cross-braces (X-Braces): X shaped crusifix put in a H-frame to increase the transversal stability.
Crossarm: Structural elements or a beam to support insulators and conductors. In some case the
crossarm can be made of insulating material to support directly the conductor.

1 70
Cure: To change the physical properties of a material (usually from a liquid to a solid) by chemical
reaction, by the action of heat and catalysts, alone or in combination, with or without pressure.
Delamination: Separation of layers of the material in a laminate, either locally or in a larger area.
De‐laminations can occur during cure or later during the component’s operational life.

Design Load: The limit load or factored working load or the load derived with respect to a specific
return period of a climatical event, for which the structure has been designed.
Dielectric PF: Cosine of the dielectric phase angle (also the sine of the dielectric loss angle .. ).. .
dielectric phase angle is not defined
Dielectric Strength: Voltage that an insulating material can withstand before breakdown occurs,
usually expressed as a voltage gradient (such as volts per mil).
Discloloration: Streak or pattern on the surface that is different in clolor than the rest of the
surface.
Distribution Line: An electrical supply line that is primarily used for supplying electrical energy to
local are circuits and services.
Dry: To change the physical state of an adhesive or an adherend through the loss of solvent
constituents by evaporation or absorption.
Ductility: Ability of a material to deform plastically before fracturing.
E‐Glass: Family of glasses with low alkali content that are most suitable for use in electrical grade
laminates and glasses. Electrical properties remain more stable with these glasses due to the low
alkali content. Also referred to as electrical grade glasses.
Elastic Buckling: An abrupt increase in the lateral deflection of a column at a critical load while the
stresses acting on the column are wholly elastic.
Elasticity: Property of a material by a virtue of which it tends to recover its original size and shape
after deformation. If the strain is proportional to the applied stress, the material is said to be ideally
elastic.
Embed: To encase completely a component or assembly in some material.
E modulus: See Modulus of Elasticity.
Epoxy: Thermosetting polymers containing the oxirane group, mostly made by reacting
epichlorohydrin with a polyol such as bisphenol A. Resins may be either liquid or solid.
Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA) Polymers: EVA polymers are the copolymer of ethylene and vinyl
acetate with 4% to 30% vinyl acetate in the resin. It is a thermoplastic elastomer material with similar
properties as rubber, tough and have good low temperature properties. EVA smells like vinegar and
could be used in electrical applications instead of rubber and vinyl polymer.
Exposed Rovings: Reinforcing fibers no longer covered by resin coating.
Extrusion: A manufacturing process wherein an object of constant cross-section is created by
pushing the raw material through a die.
Fabric: Planar structure produced by interlacing yarns, fibres, or filaments.
Fatigue: The failure or decay of mechanical properties after repeated applications of stess.
Fiber Blooming: Exposure of glass fibers caused by degradation of surface resin.
Fiberglass: Individual filament made by attenuating molten glass. A continuous filament is a glass
fiber of great or indefinite length, a staple fiber is a glass fibre of relatively short length.
Filament Winding: Process for fabricating a composite structure in which continuous reinforcements
(filament, wire, yarn, tape, or other), either previously impregnated with a matrix material or
impregnated during the winding, are placed over a rotating and removable form or mandrel.
Generally, the shape is a surface of revolution and may or may not include end closures.
Filler: Material, usually inert, that is added to plastics to reduce the cost or modify physical
properties.

1 71
Finish: Mixture of materials for treating glass or other fibres to reduce damage during processing or
to promote adhesion to matrix resins.
Flashover: An abnormal electrical discharge (as through the air to the ground from a high potential
source or between two conducting portions of a structure).
Flexural Modulus: The ratio, within the elastic limit, of the applied stress on a test specimen in
flexure to the corresponding strain in the outermost fibers of the specimen.
Flexural Strength: Strength of a material in bending expressed as the tensile stress of the
outermost fibre of a bent test sample at the instant of failure.
Gel: Soft, rubbery mass that is formed as a thermosetting resin goes from a fluid to and infusible
solid. It is an intermediate state in a curing reation and a stage in which the resin is mechanically very
weak.
Graphite fibers: High strength, high modulus fibres made by controlled carbonization and
graphitization of organic fibres, usually rayon, acrylonitrile, or pitch.
Grounding: A permanent and continuous conductive path to the earth that has sufficient ampacity to
carry any fault current liable to be imposed on it, has sufficiently low impedance to limit the voltage
rise above ground potential, and that facilitates the operation of protective devices in the circuit.
Grounding System: An interconnected system of grounding electrodes, grounding conductors, and
bonding conductors that is designed to provide an acceptable connection between an electrical system
or component and earth.
Guy: A wire that spans the distance between two structures or a wire that has been installed for the
purpose of providing lateral support of a structure under normal working loads.
Hardener: Chemical added to thermosetting resins for the purpose of causing curing or hardening.
Hindered Amine Light Stabilizers (HALS): Chemical compounds containing an amine functional
group that are used as stabilizers in plastics and polymers.
Hydrophilic: The property/characteristic of a material or an object to mix with, dissolve in, or be
wetted by water. The opposite (antonym) of a hydrophobic material or object.
Hydrophobic: Materials having a tendency to repel water, usually materials exhibiting a low surface
energy, measured by the wetting angle.
Impregnate: To force resin into every interstice of a part. Cloths are impregnated for laminating and
tightly wound coils are impregnated in liquid resin using air pressure or vacuum as the impregnating
force.
Injection Mouding: Modling procedure whereby a heat softened plastic material is forced from a
cylinder into a cavity that gives the article the desired shape. Used with all thermoplastic and some
thermosetting materials.
Insulation: Electrical insulation is the protection against electrical failure in an electrical product,
insulation resistance is the ratio of applied voltage to total current between two electrodes in contact
with a specified insulator.
Insulator: Material that provides electrical insulation in an electrical product.
Interlaminar Shear Strength (ILSS): The maximum shear stress that the layers of a laminated
material can resist.
Jacking Lug: A steel fitting inserted into the composite pole wall that provides a pull point.
Kevlar: Aromatic polymides that are frequently used as fibres in reinforced plastics and composites.
Major characteristics are low thermal expansion, light weight, and good electrical properties, coupled
with stiffness in laminated form.
Laminate: To unite sheets of material by a bonding material, usually with pressure and heat
(normally used in reference to flat sheets).
Lattice Structures: Structures made of member elements.

1 72
Lay Up: As used in reinforced plastics, the reinforcing material placed in a position in the mold, resin
impregnated reinforcement, process of placing the reinforcing material in position in the mold.
Leaching: Process in which materials are washed in water to remove water-soluble substances.
Leaching is used to improve clarity, prevent blooming of hydrophilic materials, and reduce water
absorption in the finished articles.
Leakage Current: The gradual loss of energy from a charged capacitor to ground. Insulators are
subjected to leakage current, where a small current flows over the insulator surface from conductor to
ground.
Life cycle assessment (LCA): A methodology to assess the environmental impacts of products or
services throughout their life cycle.
Load Factor: A characteristic factor by which a load is multiplied to estimate the expected effect on a
structure or component. A load factor allows to account for uncertainties in loading conditions.
Longitudinal Modulus: See Young´s Modulus.
Mandrel: Form around which resin impregnated fibres are wound to make pipes, tubes, or vessels by
the filament winding process.
Matrix: Essentially homogeneous material in which the fibre system of a composite resides.
Mechanical Properties: Material properties associated with the elastic and inelastic reactions to an
applied force.
Modulus: Ratio of unidirectional stress to the corresponding strain in the linear stress‐strain region
below the proportional limit.
Modulus of Elasticity: Ratio of normal stress to corresponding strain for tensile or compressive
stresses at less than the proportional limit of the material.
Moisture Absorption: Amount of water pickup by a material when that material is exposed ot water
vapour. Expressed as a percentage of original weight of dry material.
Moisture Resistance: Ability of a material to resist absorbing moisture, either from the air or when
immersed in water.
Mould: Medium or tool designed to form desired shapes and sizes, to process a plastic material using
a mould.
Moment of Inertia: A measure of the resistance of a body to angular acceleration about a given
axis that is equal to the sum of the products of each element of mass in the body and the square of
the element's distance from the axis.
Nylon: Generic name for all synthetic polyamides. These are thermoplastic polymers with a wide
range of properties.
Organic: Composed of matter originating in plant or animal life, or composed of chemicals of
hydrocarbon origin, either natural or synthetic.
Permeability: Ability of a material to allow liquid or gaseous molecules to pass through a film.
Photodegradation: Breakage of chemical bonds between polymer chains due to UV light.
Plastic: Material containing an organic substance of large molecular weight that is solid in its final
condition and that, at some earlier time, was shaped by flow.
Poisson’s Ratio: Absolute value of the ratio of transverse strain to axial strain resulting from a
uniformly applied axial stress below the proportional limit of the material.
Polyacronitrile (PAN): A polymer which when spun into fiber is used as a precursor material in the
manufacture of certain carbon fibers.
Polyesters: Thermosetting resins produced by reacting unsaturated, generally linear, alkyd resins
with a vinyl type active monomer such as styrene, methyl styrene, or diallyl phthalate. Cure is effected
through vinyl polymerization using peroxide catalysts and promoters or heat to accelerate the
reaction. The resins are usually furnished in liquid form.

1 73
Pol ym er: Compound formed by the reaction of simple molecules having functional groups that
permit their combination to proceed to higher molecular weights under suitable conditions. Polymers
can be formed by polymerization or polycondensation.
Polymer prepared by the reaction of an organic diisocyanate with compounds
Pol yu reth a n e:

containing hydroxyl groups.

Prepreg : Ready to mold sheet that can be cloth, mat, or paper impregnated with resin and stored for
use. The resin is partially cured and supplied to the manufacturer of the composite component who
lays up the finished shape and completes the cure with heat and pressure.
Greatest stress a material can sustain without deviating from the linear
Proporti on a l Li m i t:

proportionality of stress to strain.

Reversed extrusion of resin impregnated roving in the manufacture of rods, tubes, and
Pu l tru si on :

structural shapes of a permanent cross section. The roving, after passing through the resin dip tank,
is drawn through a die to form the desired cross section.
Ra d i u s of G yra ti on : The square root of the quotient of the moment of inertia of the body divided by
its mass.
Plastic with strength properties greatly superior to those of the base resin,
Rei n forced Pl a sti c:

resulting from the presence of reinforcements in the composition.

High molecular weight organic material with no sharp melting point. Generally, the term resin,
Resi n :

polymer, and plastic can be used interchangeably.

Resi sti vi ty: Ability of a material to resist passage of electric current, either through its bulk or on a
surface.
S‐Glass: Glass fabric made with very high tensile strength fibres for high performance strength
requirements.
A material that will burn in the presence of a flame but will extinguish
Sel f- E xti n g u i sh i n g M a teri a l :

itself within a specified time after the flame is removed.

Set:To convert an adhesive into a fixed or hardened state by chemical or physical action, such as
condensation, polymerization, oxidation, vulcanization, gelation, hydration, or evaporation of volatile
compounds.
The ratio of shearing stress to shearing strain within the range of elastic behaviour
Sh ea r M od u l u s:

of a material.
Shear Strength Maximum shear stress a material is capable of sustaining. In tests, shear stresses are
either caused by a shear or torsion load and is based on the original specimen dimensions.
Deformation resulting from stress, measured by the ratio of the change to the total value of
Stra i n :

the dimension in which the change occurred, unit change, due to force, in the size or shape of a body
referred to its original size or shape.
Stress: Unit force or component of force at a point in a body acting on a plane through the point.
The main supporting unit for an overhead power line, substation equipment, and
Stru ctu re:

communication cables. A structure can be constructed from wood, concrete, steel, and fibre reinforced
composite materials.
SBRs are thermoplastic elastomer resin made from
Styren e- Bu ta d i en e Resi n (SBR) Pol ym ers:

styrene-butadiene block copolymer derived from styrene and butadiene . Styrene-butadiene is a

family of synthetic rubbers derived from styrene and butadiene. SBR materials have good
abrasion resistance and good aging stability when protected by appropriate additives.
Ta ck: Property of an adhesive that enables it to form a bond of measurable strength immediately
after adhesive and adherence are brought into contact under low pressure.
Ten si l e M od u l u s: See Moduls of Elsticity.
Maximum tensile stress a material is capable of sustaining. Tensile strength is
Ten si l e Stren g th :

calculated from the maximum load during a tension test carried to rupture and the original cross
sectional area of the specimen.

1 74
 Ability of a material to conduct heat, physical constant for the quantity of
Th erm a l Con d u cti vi ty:

heat that passes through a unit cube of a material in a unit of time when the difference in
temperature of the two faces is one degree Celsius.
Plastics capable of being repeatedly softened or melted by increases in temperature
Th erm opl a sti c:

and hardened by decreases in temperature. These changes are physical rather than chemical.
Th erm oset: Material that will undergo, or has undergone, a chemical reaction by the action of heat,
catalysts, ultraviolet light, and the like, leading to a relatively infusible state that will not melt after
setting.
Tou ch Vol ta g e:Also known as Touch Potential, it is the difference in voltage (aka potential
difference) between the energised object and the feet of a person in contact with the object. It is
equal to the voltage difference between an energised object and a point some distance away.
Tra cki n g : Conductive carbon path formed on the surface of a plastic during electrical arcing.
An electrical supply line used to transmit bulk power electrical energy between
Tra n sm i ssi on Li n e:

power stations, switching stations, or substations.

U l ti m a te Stren g th : See Breaking Strength.
Shorter wave lengths of invisible radiation that are more damaging than visible
U l tra vi ol et (U V) :

light to most plastics.

U pra ti n g : Increasing the voltage level of a transmission line.
U V Resi sta n ce: The material ability to resist UV radiation.
A class of thermosetting resins containing esters of acrylic and/or methacrylic acids,
Vi n yl esters:

many of which have been made from epoxy resin. Cure is accomplished as with unsaturated
polyesters by copolymerization with other vinyl monomers, such as styrene.
Vi scosi ty: Measure of the resistance of a fluid flow (usually through a specific orifice).
Vol u m e Resi sti vi ty: Electrical resistance between opposite faces of a cube mesured in Ohm-cm.
Wa ter Absorpti on : Ratio of the weight of water absorbed by a material to the weight of the dry
material.
A continuous probability distribution named after Swedish mathematician
Wei bu l l Di stri bu ti on :

Waloddi Weibull. He originally proposed the distribution as a model for material breaking strength.
Today, it’s commonly used to assess product reliability, analyze life data and model failure times.
Worki n g Loa d : The maximum load likely to be experienced by the support under normal working
conditions, during the life of the line, with no overload factors included.
Yi el d Stren g th : The stress at which a piece under strain is deformed some definite amount.
You n g ’s M od u l u s: See Modulus of Elasticity.

1 75
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES

[3-1] Analysis and Performance of Fiber Composites, 3 rd Edition, Bhagwan D. Agarwal, Lawrence J.
Broutman, K. Chandrashekhara, 2006.
[3-2] Fiber-Reinforced Composites, Materials, Manufacturing and Design, 3 rd Edition, P. K. Mallick,
2007.
[7-1] Laterally Loaded Piles, Models and Measurements, J.A.T. Ruigrok, TU Delft, 2010.
[7-2] Shallow Post Foundation Design, ANSI/ASAE EP486.1 DEC1999 (R2005).
[7-3] A General Formula for Bearing Capacity, The Danish Geotechnical Institut, J. Brinch Hansen
1961.
[7-4] Statnett. Geoteknisk Dimensjoneringsgrunnlag for Mastefundamenter (in Norwegian). SINTEF
Report 1996.
[9-1] Wood and fiberglass crossarm performance against lightning strikes on transmission towers”
by I. Mohamed Rawi, M. S. A. Rahman, M. Z. A. Ab. Kadir, M. Izadi, IPST - International
Conference on Power Systems Transients, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2017.
[11-1] Leakage Current in Wooden Structures Used for Power Distribution, Sachin Pathak, B.Tech.
RMIT University, March 2011.
[11-2] Conductivity of Pressure Treated Creosote wood poles and FRP poles, ESB Ireland
[11-3] Wood and fiberglass crossarm performance against lightning strikes on transmission towers, I.
Mohamed Rawi, M. S. A. Rahman, M.Z.A. Ab. Kadir, M. Izadi, 2017.
[11-4] G. Z Lusk and S.T. Mak, “EHV Wood Pole Fires: Their Cause and Potential Cures”, IEEE
Transactions on power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-95, no. 2, March/April 1976.
[11-5] G. G. Karady, G. Besztercey and M. W. Tuominen, "Corona caused deterioration of ADSS fiber-
optic cables on high voltage lines," IEEE Power Engineering Society. 1999 Winter Meeting
(Cat. No.99CH36233), New York, NY, USA, 1999, pp. 1220 vol.2.
[11-6] S. M. Rowland, X. Zhang and K. Kopsidas, "Ageing of an ADSS Cable Sheath on a 132kV
Overhead Transmission Line," 2008 Annual Report Conference on Electrical Insulation and
Dielectric Phenomena, Quebec, QC, 2008, pp. 192-195.
[11-7] S. M. Rowland and I. V. Nichols, "Effects of dry-band arc current on ageing of self-supporting
dielectric cables in high fields," in IEE Proceedings - Science, Measurement and Technology,
vol. 143, no. 1, pp. 10-14, Jan 1996.
[13-1] Fire Properties of Polymer Composite Materials, by A.P. MOURITZ and A.G. GIBSON Springer
2006
[13-2] High Temperature Performance of Polymer Composites by Yu Bai and Thomas Keller, 2014.
[15-1] ISO 14001. Environmental management systems - Requirements with guidance for use
[15-2] ISO 14040: 2006. Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment -- Principles and
framework
[15-3] ISO 14044: 2006. Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment -- Requirements and
guidelines
[15-4] Oliveira, A.M. & Carvalho, F.J. X. (2012) Composite Poles – Advantages. [in Portuguese -
available in: http://ibcomposites.com.br/Arquivos/Literatura/2-
POSTES_COMPOSITOS_COMPARA.pdf]
[15-5] Holloway S. R (2009) Long Service Life, Maintenance‐free Composite Poles Provide the
Lowest Cost Solution for Utility Structures, Revision C3, 2009

1 76
[19-1] Bell, Alexis T. (editor). 2018 “Characterization and engineering of a pl astic-degrading aromatic
polyesterase”. National Academy of Sciences, 17 April. Link:
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718804115.
[19-2] Bombelli, Paolo, Christopher J. Howe and Federica Bertocchini. 2017. “Polyethylene bio -
degradation by caterpillars of the wax moth Galleria mellonella”. Current Biologi Magazine, 27:
292-293.
[19-3] Carrington, Damien. 2018. “Scientists accidentally create mutant enzyme that eats plastic
bottles”. The Guardian, 16 April.
[19-4] Strobel, Scott A.. et al.. 2011. “Biodegradation of Polyester Polyurethane by Endophytic
Fungi”. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Sept. 2011: 6076 -6084.
[19-5] American Chemistry Counsil. 2018, February. Link: [19-1]
https://polyurethane.americanchemistry.com/Polyurethane-Recycling/
[19-6] The Economist. 2018. “Auf wiedersehen PET”. The Economist, 21April.
[20-1] Abouzied A., Masmoudi R.(2015). “Structural performance of new fully and partially concrete -
filled rectangular FRP- tube beams” Construction and Building Materials, 101, 652 -660.
[20-2] Alshurafa S.A. (2012) “Development of meteorological tower using advanced composite
materials” PH.D thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Manitoba, ISBN:
978-0-499-22484-2
[20-3] Bank, L.C. 2006. Composite for construction structural design with FRP materials. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey.
[20-4] Castiglioni C., and Imbimbo M. (1999 ) " Experimental results on centrifugated GFRP poles for
electric lifelines". Journal of Composites for Construction , Vol. 3, No. 3.
[20-5] Chul- Ho Yang S. (1996) “Building of a Composite Transmission Tower”, Master thesis,
Department of Mechanical Engineering California State University, Long Beach. UMI number
1383058.
[20-6] Corona H. R., and Vázquez R.I. (2015) "Structural Performance of Polymeric Composite
Members in a Transmission Line Tower",
[20-7] Fam A., Kim Y.J., Son J. (2010) “A numerical investigation into the response of free end
tubular composite poles subjected to axial and lateral loads”, Thin -Walled Structures, 48, 650-
659.
[20-8] Fam A., Kim Y.J., Son J.(2008) Finite element modeling of hollow and concrete-filled fiber
composite tubes in flexure: Optimization of partial filling and a design method for poles.
Engineering Structures, April 2008.
[20-9] Godat A., Légeron F, Gagné V., Marmion B., (2013a) "Use of FRP pultruded members for
electricity transmission towers". Composite Structures 105 408 –421.
[20-10] Godat A., Legeron F., Gagné V. (2013b), “Design Example of Use of FRP Pultruded Members
for Electricity Transmissio n Towers” FRPRCS11 Joaquim Barros & José Sena -Cruz (Eds) UM,
Guimarães.
[20-11] Ibrahim, S., (2000), “Performance Evaluation of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Poles for
Transmission Lines”, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
[20-12] Ibrahim S., Polyzois D., (1999) “Overlization analysis of fiber reinforced plastic poles”,
Composite Structures 45, 7-12
[20-13] Kumar N.G, Krishna V.S. and Kumar M. V. (2015). "Dynamic analysis on electric pole using
GFRP material" International Journal of Science Technology & Management, Volume No.04,
Special Issue No.01, February 2015ISSN (Print) 2394-1529, (Online) 2394-1537
[20-14] Li Hm, Deng Sc., Wei Qh., Wu Yn. (2010) “Research on Composite Material Towers Used In
110kV Overhead Transmission Lines” IE EE, 978-1-4244-8286-3/10/$26.00

1 77
[20-15] Masmoudi R., and Mohamed H.,(2011). “Axial behaviour of slender - concrete-filled frp tube
columns reinforced with steel and carbon- FRP bars”, 10th International Symposium on Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Tampa, Florida, April 201 1 , ACI-
SP-275.
[20-16] Metiche S. and Masmoudi R. (2012) “Analysis and design procedures for the flexural
behaviour of glass fiber- reinforced polymer composite poles”, Journal of Composite Materials,
47(2) 207-229
[20-17] Mohamed H., Masmoudi R., (2010a). “Flexural strength and behaviour of steel and
FRPreinforced concrete- filled FRP tube beams”, Engeneering. Structures. 32, 3789–3800.
[20-18] Mohamed H, Masmoudi R. (2010b). “Axial load capacity of reinforced concrete -filled FRP tubes
columns: experimental versus theoretical prediction”. Journal of Composites for Construction,
14(2):1 –13
[20-19] Mohamed, H., Abdel Baky, H., and Masmoudi, R. (2010) “Nonlinear stability analysis of
concrete filled FRP-tubes columns: experimental and theoretical inves tigation,” ACI Structural
Journal , 107 –S69
[20-20] Ochonski A. (2009), “Development of latticed towers using advanced composite materials”,
PH.D thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Manitoba, ISBN: 978-0-494-53006-
1.
[20-21] Polyzois D., Raftoyiannis G.I. (1998) “Finite elements method for the dynamic analysis of
tapered composite poles”, Composite Structures 43, 25 -34
[20-22] Polyzois D.J., Raftoyiannis I.G., Ochonski A. (2013), "Experimental and analytical study of
latticed structures made from FRP composite materials" Composite Structures 97 pp165 –175.
[20-23] Raftoyiannis G.I. and Polyzois D.J. (2007) "The effect of semi-rigid connections on the
dynamic behaviour of tapered composite GFRP poles", Composite Structures 81, 70 –79.
[20-24] Selvaraj M., Kulkarni S.M, Ramesh B.R.(2012a), “Structural evaluation of FRP Pultruded
Sections in overhead transmission line Towers” International journal of civil and structural
engineering volume 2,No.3.
[20-25] Selvaraj, M., Kulkarni,S.M., Ramesh B.R (2012b), “Behavioural Analysis of built up
transmission line tower from FRP pultruded sections” International Journal of Emerging
Technology and Advanced Engineering, (ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 9, september
2012).
[20-26] Selvaraj.M, Kulkarni.S.M, Ramesh B.R. (2014) "Performance Analysis of Overhead Power
Transmission Line Tower Using Polymer Composite Material" Procedia Materials Science 5,
1340-1348.
[20-27] Zureick A. and Steffen R. (2000) Behaviour and Design of Concentrically Loaded Pultruded
Angle Struts, Journal of Structural Engineering / March 2000, 126(3): 406-416

1 78
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT STANDARDS
C.1 . FRP STANDARDS
Ca n a d i a n Sta n d a rd s Associ a ti on s

C22.2 No. 0.17-00 (R2013) Evaluation of properties of polymeric materials

ASCE (Am eri ca n Soci ety of Ci vi l E n g i n eers)

Manual of Practice 104 Guide for the Use of Fiber Reinforced Products for Utility Overhead Lines

ASM In tern a ti on a l (Am eri ca n Soci ety for M eta l s)

ASM Metals Handbook, Volume 21: Composites (2001)

ASTM In tern a ti on a l (Am eri ca n Soci ety for Testi n g a n d M a teri a l s)

D578-05 Standard Specification for Glass Fiber Strands

D635-14 Standard Test Method for Rate of Burning and/or Extent and Time of Burning of Plastics in a
Horizontal Position
D638-14 Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics
D695-15 Standard Test Method for Compressive Properties of Rigid Plastics
D790-10 Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and
Electrical Insulating Materials
D3171-15 Standard Test Methods for Constituent Content of Composite Materials
D3801-10 Standard Test Method for Measuring the Comparative Burning Characteristics of Solid
Plastics in a Vertical Position
D5961/D5961M-13 Standard Test Method for Bearing Response of Polymer Matrix Composite
Laminates
D7028-07Standard Test Method for Glass Transition Temperature (DMA Tg) of Polymer Matrix Composites by
Dynamic Mechanical Analysis (DMA)
D7332/D7332M-13 Standard Test Method for Measuring the Fastener Pull-Through Resistance of a
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composite
D8019-15 Standard Test Methods for Determining the Full Section Flexural Modulus and Bending
Strength of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Crossarms Assembled with Center Mount Brackets
E1623-14 Standard Test Method for Determination of Fire and Thermal Parameters of Materials, Products, and
Systems Using an Intermediate Scale Calorimeter (ICAL)
G154-12a Standard Practice for Operating Fluorescent Ultraviolet (UV) Lamp Light Apparatus for
Exposure of Nonmetallic Materials
C1308-08 Standard Test Method for Accelerated Leach Test for Diffusive Releases from Solidified
Waste and a Computer Program to Model Diffusive, Fractional Leaching from Cylindrical Waste Forms

IE EE (In sti tu te of El ectri ca l a n d E l ectron i cs En g i n eers)

IEEE 4-2013 High-Voltage Testing Techniques

1 79
IE C (I n tern a ti on a l E l ectrotech n i ca l Com m i ssi on )

600628-2-5:2010 Environmental testing — Part 2-5: Tests — Test Sa: Simulated solar radiation at
ground level and guidance for solar radiation testing
60695-11-10: 2013 Fire hazard testing — Part 11-10: Test flames — 50 W horizontal and vertical flame
test methods
60721-2-4: 1987 Classification of environmental conditions — Part 2-4: Environmental conditions
appearing in nature — Solar radiation and temperature

U L (U n d erwri ters La bora tori es)

94-13 Standard for Tests for Flammability of Plastic Materials for Parts in Devices and Appliances
ASTM D4762-16 Standard Guide for Testing Polymer Matrix Composite Materials
ASTM D3878-16 Standard Terminology for Composite Materials
ASTM D3518/D3518M-13 Standard Test Method for In-Plane Shear Response of Polymer Matrix
Composite Materials by Tensile Test of a ±45° Laminate
ASTM D7028-07(2015) Standard Test Method for Glass Transition Temperature (DMA Tg) of Polymer
Matrix Composites by Dynamic Mechanical Analysis (DMA)
ASTM D7136/D7136M-15 Standard Test Method for Measuring the Damage Resistance of a Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composite to a Drop-Weight Impact Event
CAN/ULC-S101-07, Standard methods of fire endurance tests of building construction and materials,
Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada, Scarborough, 2007

ASTM E119-08a, Standard Methods of Fire Test of Building Construction and Materials, American
Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2008
ASTM E84 - 18a Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials

C.2. RELATED STANDARDS

ASCE Manual No. 74-2009 Guidelines for Electrical Transmission Line Structural Loading.
EN 50341-1 (2012): Overhead electrical lines exceeding AC 45 kV – Part 1: General requirements –
Common specifications.
EN 1997-1-1 (2004) Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 1: General rules.
ANSI/ASAE EP486.1 DEC1999 (R2005).
DNV-OS-C501 – Composite components – Rules and standards, 2013.
ISO 14001. Environmental management systems - Requirements with guidance for use.
ISO 14040: 2006. Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment -- Principles and framework.
ISO 14044: 2006. Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment -- Requirements and
guidelines.

1 80
APPENDIX D. VISUAL GUIDE FOR SURFACE DEFECTS
Standard Structural Minimum Visual Requirements based on ASTM D4385-2010 Level 3.
Internationally Recognized ASTM D4385 – 10 Standard Practice for Classifying Visual Defects in
Thermosetting Reinforced Plastic Pultruded Products
Black smudges: On the surface of the pultruded product that cannot be removed by cleaning,
scrubbing, or wiping with solvent
Permitted if not over 1 ” (25mm) wide or 7 . 875” (20cm) long or more than 4 marks per 9’- 1 0” (3m) of
length.,

Figure D-1 Black smudges

Blister: A rounded elevation of the pultruded surface with boundaries that may be more or less
sharply defined.
Permitted if formed between the surfacing layer and balance of laminate, width is no greater than
40% of surface width (but 2. 75” (7cm max) and length is not over 7 . 87” (20cm)). No more than 2 per
9’- 10” (3m) of length. Blisters less than 0. 75” (19mm) in diameter are permitted on interior surfaces
that are bonded. A popcorn blister, less than 0. 06” (1 ,5mm) in diameter and 0. 009” ( 0,25mm) high, is
permitted.

Figure D-2 Bilster

1 81
Blooming, Under cure: A dull and bleached surface clolor that is evident i n pultruded material not
exposed to the weather.

N ot Permitted

Figure D-3 Blooming, undercured

Burn: N ot Permitted .

Figure D-4 Burnt

1 82
Chips (Gouges): M i nor da mage to the pultruded surface that removes material but does n ot cause a
crac or crazecrack or craze.

Permitted N ot over 0. 40” (10mm) wide or long or 0. 025” (0 ,64mm) d eep. N ot more than 5 per 9 ’-10”
(3m) of length. Repair if li mits exceeded.

Figure D-5 Chips

Crack: A visual separation that penetrates down from the pultruded surfa ce to th e equivalent of one
ful l pl y or more rei nforcem ent 0. 020” (0 ,5mm). See in ternal shrin kage cracks.
N ot Permitted

Figure D-6 Crack

1 83
Crater: A small, shallow pultrusion surface imperfection. Not over 0. 040” (1mm) in diameter.
Acceptable if it does not reduce the part thickness below the minimum specification.

Figure D-7 Crater

Craze: Multiple fine separation cracks at the pultruded surface not penetrating into the reinforcement
nor to the equivalent depth of one ply of reinforcement.
This condition is usually due to resin shrinkage during cure in resin rich areas.
Permitted over the entire length of the part, if the craze is not over 0. 354” (9mm) long or 0. 016”
(0,4mm) wide.

Figure D-8 Craze

1 84
Delamination: The separation of two or more layers or plies of reinforcing material within a
pultrusion causing a localized thickness change exceeding 0. 005” (0 ,13mm)
Not Permitted

Figure D-9 Delamination

Die Parting Line: A lengthwise flash or depression on the surface of a pultruded plastic part.
The die parting line is not part of the dimensional tolerance.
Acceptance:
The line projection caused by the die parting line shall not extend past the product’s surface by more
than 0. 012” (0 ,30mm). It shall not create a sharp feeling or have loose fibers. Repair if limits are
exceeded.

Figure D-10 Die parting line

1 85
Discloloration: A streak of other pattern on the surface that causes a noticeable change of clolor
from the rest of the pultruded surface.
Spots of any clolor not over 0. 75” (19mm) in diameter or 8 per 9’- 10” (3m) of length are permitted.
Streaks or longitudinal stains permitted if not over 0. 75” (19mm) wide, 9 . 84” (25cm) long, or more
than 6 per 9’- 10” (3m) of length. Continuous dis clolorations caused by a veil overlap are permitted.
Mat disclolorations are not cause for rejection.

Figure D-11 Discloloration

Dry Fiber (Lack of Resin Fill out): A condition in which fibers are not fully encapsulated by resin
during pultrusion.
This does not include surfacing veil.
If internal, permitted if product meets test requirements. If on the surface, see blooming, fiber.

Figure D-12 Dry fiber caused by lack of resin fill out

1 86
Dullness: A lack of normal pultruded surface gloss or shine.
This condition can be caused by insufficient cure locally or in large areas, resulting in the dull band
created on a pultruded part within the die when the pultrusion process is interrupted briefly (see stop
mark).
Permitted unless caused by insufficient cure.

Figure D-13 Dullness

Expose Under Layer: The underlying layer of roving or mat not covered by the surface material.
Permitted if surfacing material covers all but 0. 43” (11mm) from each free edge, but not to exceed
40% of the width of the surface being inspected or 30% of the perimeter of a round product. Carrier
roving can be used on the surface of a tube without rejection. Connection areas can have exposed
roving.

Figure D-14 Exposed under layer

1 87
Fiber Bridging
Reinforcing fiber material that is found bridging across on an inside radius of a pultruded shape.
This condition is caused by shrinkage stresses around such a radius during cure.
Permitted if reinforcing fibers are encapsulated by resin, no corner cracks exist, and there is no
evidence of delamination.

Figure D-15 Fiber bridging

Fiber Prominence
A visible and measurable pattern of the reinforcing material on the surface of a pultruded plastic part.
Permitted if reinforcing material is encapsulated by resin.

Figure D-16 Fiber prominence

1 88
Folded Reinforcement: An uni ntentional or u nspeci fied misalignment of mat or fabric rein forcing
material in relation to the contour of a pul truded section.

Such fol ds may or may n ot affect the surface appearance of the pul tru sion a nd are visibl e in a cut
cross section of the produ ct.

Permitted if test requirements are met. Other visual requirements ca used by mat folds m ust satisfy
the specifi cation.

Figure D-17 Folded reinforcement

Fracture: Cracks, crazi ng, or delamination, or a combi nation thereof, resulting from physi cal damage
to the pultru sion .

N ot Permitted

Figure D-18 Fracture

1 89
Grooving: Long narrow grooves or depressions in a surface of a pultrusion parallel to its length.
Permitted if material thickness reduction is not over 10% and the groove width is 1/8” (3 mm) or less.
May be continuous in length. Grooves on opposing surfaces are not permitted. Must satisfy
dimensional and mechanical requirements.

Figure D-19 Grooving

Inclusion: Thermal wire inclusion
Any foreign matter or particles that are either encapsulated or imbedded in the pultrusion.
Permitted if product meets test requirements. None in excess of 0. 47” (1 2mm) in diameter or no more
than 6 per 9’- 10” (3m) of length. No inclusion should create a surface blemish above the resin

Figure D-20 Inculsion

1 90
Insufficient Cure: A pultrusion abnormally created by lack of, or incomplete, cross linking of the
resin.
This condition can usually be detected by dull surface appearance, low Barcol hardness, and low
physical properties. Thick sections, cured from the outside in, can reveal insufficient cure in the center
of the section even though completely cured on the surface. This condition can be caused by
insufficient die temperature, improper catalyst, or pulling too fast for the die temperature.
Acceptance: Repair by post cure if test requirements can be met and surface appearance is
acceptable.

Figure D-21 Insuficent cure

Internal Shrinkage Cracks: Longitudinal cracks in the pultrusion that are found within areas of
roving reinforcement and terminate in the off axis reinforcement.
This condition is caused by shrinkage strains during cure that appear in the roving portion of the
pultrusion where transverse strength is low.
Permitted without numerical limit if the crack does not reach the surface of the product and the
product meets test requirements.

Figure D-22 Internal shrikage cracks

1 91
Porosity, Internal (Void): The presence of numerous pits or pinholes beneath the pultruded
surface, usually observable only in a cut cross section.
For material thicknesses below 0. 35” (9mm), no more than 20 pits or pinholes per 10 in 2 (64,5cm 2 ) of
cross section. For materials 0. 35” (9mm) and over in thickness, no more than 60 pits or pinholes per
10 in 2 (64,5cm 2 ) of cross section. Sum of pinhole porosity area and void area shall be no more than 8
% of cross sectional area. Shapes exceeding the limits can be accepted if the properties, including
water absorption, are satisfied.

Figure D-23 Porosity, interval (void)

Porosity, Surface (Void): The presence of numerous visible pits or pinholes at or near the
pultruded surface.
Permitted if pits are less than 0. 03” (0 ,8mm) in diameter and 0. 02” (0 ,51mm) deep. Maximum of 10
pits per 10 in 2 (64,5cm 2 ) of area and no more than 4 % of cross sectional area per 12” (0 ,3m) of
product. Surface porosity is permitted if the customer specifies that no surfacing veil is to be used.

Figure D-24 Porisity, surface (void)

1 92
Reinforcement Distortion: Knotted, tangled, widely spaced, or otherwise abnormal but local
irregularities in reinforcement distribution throughout the pultruded cross section.
This condition usually causes noticeable changes in the local reinforcement content with crushing of
the reinforcement or resin-richness in isolated areas
Permitted if product meets test requirements.

Figure D-25 Reinforcement distortion

Resin-Rich Area: An area of the pultrusion that lacks sufficient reinforcement.
The fiber pattern may not be visible.
Permitted if product meets test requirements.

Figure D-26 Resin rich area

1 93
Roving Knot: A knotted or entangled section of rovi n g fou nd in a pultrusi on.

Such a knot may cause hig h fiber con centration l ocall y and may or may not be vi sible as a white or
l ight spot on the surface of the section .

Permitted if encapsu lated with resin and produ ct meets test requ irements and dim ensional toleran ces.

Figure D-27 Roving knot

Saw Burn: Blackeni ng or carbonization of a cut surface of a pultru ded section.

Permitted if produ ct meets test requirem ents.

Figure D-28 Saw burn

1 94
Scale: A condition wherein resin plates or particles are on the surface of a pultrusion.
Scales can often be readily removed, sometimes leaving surface voids or depressions.
Permitted if removal does not expose dry fibers and dimensional tolerances are met. Repair of
exposed fiber permitted if dimensional tolerances are met.

Figure D-29 Scale

Scuffing: Long white scrape marks on the surface of the pultrusion.
This condition usually results from mechanical scraping or scratching of the pultrusion in the machine
or in handling it afterwards.
Permitted if not over 0. 75” (19mm) wide or 12” (30 , 5cm) long and not over 5 such marks per 9’- 10”
(3m) of length. On inside radius, permitted if not over 0. 12” (3mm) wide or 6” (1 5cm) long even if
they appear intermittently along each length. Repair if limits exceeded.

Figure D-30 Scuffing

1 95
Sluffing: A condition wherein scales peel off or become loose, either partially or entirely, from the
pultrusion.
Permitted if sharp feeling is not created and dimensional tolerances are met.
Repair permitted if dimensional tolerances are met.

Figure D-31 Sluffing

Stop Mark: A band, either dull or glossy, on the surface, approximately 0. 47” to 3 . 93” (12 to
100mm) long and extending around the periphery of a pultruded shape.
This condition is the result of an interruption in the normal continuous pulling operation.
Permitted unless un-repairable defects result. Repair all other resulting defects.

Figure D-32 Stop mark

1 96
Wire Brush Surface: A roughness due to fibers protruding above the surface of the pultruded part.
Permitted if protruding fibers are encapsulated with resin. They shall not create a sharp feeling. If so,
repair.

Figure D-33 Wire brush surface

Wrinkle Depression: An undulation or series of undulations or waves on the surface of the
pultruded part.
This condition can occur in either the lengthwise or crosswise direction of the pultrusion and is caused
by reinforcement shifting and crowding (see folded reinforcement). Wrinkles affect the flatness of the
surface.
Depressions are permitted if less than 15 % of shape thickness, 0. 35” (9mm) in width and frequency
of occurrence per 9’- 1 0” (3m) of pultruded length not over 6 continuous or 1 0 intermittent
depressions. Wave-like wrinkles on flange tips shall be 0. 1 8” (4,5mm) or less

Figure D-34 Wrinkle depression

1 97
APPENDIX E. POLE DESIGN EXAMPLE
E.1 . INTRODUCTION
This first version of this document was written by Alexis G. Hamel, Université de Sherbrooke, Canada.
Postdoctoral fellow Thérèse Tajeuna, and intern Étienne St-Pierre also contributed to the calculation
and the document.
This document presents a design example for the application of FRP poles in the context of two
distinct configurations of transmission line supports. The objective of this exercise is to provide
structural engineers with guidelines on how to calculate adequately the internal loading, the deflection
and the strength of FRP poles. This example is a simplified procedure which should not be used
blindly by transmission lines engineers. In practice, the loads applied should be calculated according
to the environmental and operation constraints and the resistance of all components making the
support should be checked. The following steps are proposed for this design example:
1. Define pole configuration and loading.
2. Perform analysis of single pole.
3. Perform analysis for the two configurations considered.
4. Check deflection limits against predicted deflections.
5. Check strengths versus internal forces in poles.

E.2. DEFINE POLE CONFIGURATION AND LOADI NG

The dimensions used in this example for the configurations 1 and 2 are shown in Table E-1. Figures E-
1 and E-2 illustrates these configurations. Configuration 1 was selected to represent a low voltage
transmission line (for example 69kV) with a simple single pole arrangement with no earthwire. Post
insulators are considered for this configuration and will be added to the model to apply the load. The
second configuration represents a typical H-frame support for a higher voltage (for example 132 or
230kV). Two earthwires and suspension insulators are considered.
The section and material properties used are shown in Tables E-2 and E-3. For this example, round
pultruded poles with constant diameter were selected for both configurations. This choice simplifies
the analysis of the poles and avoid the difficulties related to the modelling of joints used for example
in filament wounded poles. An analog procedure would need to be developed for other types of FRP
poles. The strength properties that will be used in Chapter E.5 were obtained directly from the
manufacturer’s brochure based on tests on the global pole structures. However, due to discrepancies
observed between the published material properties and the tested tip deflections published by the
manufacturer, the material properties presented in Table E-3 were determined such that the
numerical analysis results match the published tip deflections. The method to obtain those values is
explained in Chapter E.2.
It was proposed to use FRP products for both crossarms and cross-braces. However, the strength and
deflection of these components where not assessed in this example. Crossarms were modelled by
using a double channel made of FRP, post insulator by a full circular section made of steel and cross-
bracing by a hollow rectangular section made of FRP.
Four different load cases were defined for each configuration: Ultimate limit state loading 1 (ULS1),
ultimate limit state loading 2 (ULS2), service limit state loading (SLS) and everyday state loading
(EDS). These loads cases are presented in Table E-4. The load cases ULS1 and ULS2 represent
respectively ice + wind and unbalanced ice loading scenarios. SLS and EDS load cases are light wind
conditions. The load cases proposed are simplified for the purpose of this example. They would differ
from any specific use cases determined by a utility according to the applicable standards. These forces
are assumed to be factored loads. Therefore, only resistance factors will need to be applied below
when making the check for strength.

1 98
 Figure E-1 Configuration single pole Figure E-2 Configuration Cross-braced H-frame

Table E-1 Geometry of configurations 1 and 2

Configuration 1 (m) (ft)
Total height, H 15,24 50
Embedded length 2,7432 9
Distance from pole top to crossarm, e 0,570 1.870
Crossarm width, c 1,295 4.003
Distance between insulator and crossarm end 0,075 0.246
Left and right post insulator length 0,636 2.087
Top post insulator length 0,605 1.985
Configuration 2
Total height, H : 21,336 70
Embedded length 3.353 11
Distance from pole top to crossarm, e 2 6.562
Crossarm width, c 2,44 8.005
Distance between loading point and crossarm end 0,305 1
Distance between poles, b 4,27 14
Distance between crossarm and top of x-bracing, d 2,5 8.20
Cross-bracing height, a 4,27 14

1 99
 Ta bl e E - 2 Secti on properti es

Configuration 1 (m) (in)

Pole: Hollow circular
Diameter 0,3048 12
Thickness 0,0127 0.5
Crossarm: Double channel
Height 0,3556 14
Width 0,1524 6
Thickness 0,0127 0.5
Back to back distance 0.3048 12
Insulator: Full circular
Diameter 0,0508 2
Configuration 2
Pole: Hollow circular
Diameter: 0,4064 16
Thickness: 0,0127 0.5
Crossarm: Double channel
Height 0,3556 14
Width 0,1524 6
Thickness 0,0127 0.5
Back to back distance 0.4064 16
Cross-Brac: Hollow rectangular
Height 0,1524 6
Width 0,1016 4
Thickness 0,00635 0.25

Ta bl e E- 3 M a teri a l properties

E1 E2 E3 G 12 G 13 G 23 ν1 ν2 ν3

Config. 1: (Gpa) (Gpa) (Gpa) (Gpa) (Gpa) (Gpa)

Pole 35,301 11,824 11,824 4,970 4,970 1,665 0,35 0,35 0,15
Crossarm 29,647 13,79 13,79 3,447 3,447 1,603 0,35 0,35 0,15
Insulator 199,9 N/A N/A 76,9 N/A N/A 0,3 0,3 N/A
Config. 2
Pole 34,924 11,698 11,698 4,917 4,917 1,647 0,35 0,35 0,15
Crossarm 29,647 13,789 13,789 3,447 3,447 1,603 0,35 0,35 0,15
Cross-Brace 34,924 11,698 11,698 4,917 4,917 1,647 0,35 0,35 0,15

200
 Table E-4 Load cases
Load case Direction Factored load (kN)
Configuration 1 Phase Earthwire
ULS1 Vertical 5,9 N/A
Transversal 3,5 N/A
Longitudinal 0 N/A
ULS2 Vertical 2,9 N/A
Transversal 0 N/A
Longitudinal 4,2 N/A
SLS Vertical 2,2 N/A
Transversal 2,3 N/A
Longitudinal 0 N/A
EDS Vertical 2,2 N/A
Transversal 0,37 N/A
Longitudinal 0 N/A
Configuration 2
ULS1 Vertical 11,9 5,6
Transversal 7,4 5,3
Longitudinal 0 0
ULS2 Vertical 5,8 1,8
Transversal 0 0
Longitudinal 5,4 4,0
SLS Vertical 4,5 1,2
Transversal 4,9 1,6
Longitudinal 0 0
EDS Vertical 4,5 1,2
Transversal 0,78 0,25
Longitudinal 0 0

E.3. PERFORM ANALYSIS OF SINGLE POLE

First, an analysis of a single pole was performed to validate its deflections with those given in the
manufacturer’s brochure (δTab. in Table E-5). The objective of this section is simply to validate that
the numerical model that will be used in Chapter E.3 is able to correctly calculate the deflections of
the poles. By doing so, we make sure that the deflections and internal forces calculated for the
support configuration in Chapter E.3 are not affected by an inadequate use of the numerical analysis
software. In this example, a general purpose structural analysis software was used. However, specific
transmission line design software should be able to reproduce similar results. A linear and a large
displacements analysis were performed on the pole (δLin. and δLDisp. in Table E-5).

Eq. E- 1 was also used to evaluate the deflections (δEq. in Table E-5).
푮(푴) ퟒ 휷 푮푴
휹풊 = ퟒ 푭푰
+ 푯푨
Eq. E-1

201
With F the tip load, L the pole length, E the modulus of elasticity, I the moment of inertia, β = 2 –
the factor relating to the circular cross section geometry, G the shear modulus and A the cross-section
area. It should be noted that Eq. E-1 takes into account both the flexural deflection (first term of the
equation) and the shear deflection (second term of the equation). Unlike what is often done in
structural analysis, shear deformations were considered in the calculation because they cannot be
neglected in general for glass FRP material. It should be noted also that this equation does not
consider the fact that FRP material has orthotropic characteristics.
As mentioned earlier, the material properties in table E-3 were evaluated such that the deflections
calculated with both the analytical equation and the numerical analysis could match the tip deflections
published by the manufacturer. For the purpose of the computational model, it was decided to use an
orthotropic material to try to better match the actual behaviour of FRP material. However, as will be
discussed below, it was found that in the case of the pole configuration studied, the use of an
isotropic material would have yielded very similar results. A ratio G12/E1, G13/E1 and G23/E3 of
0.1408 was used in this process, which is a realistic value for glass FRP material. Similarly, the values
of E2 and E3 were obtained by using a ratio E2/E1 and E3/E1 of 0,335.
With those material properties, the deflections caused by a horizontal tip load obtained with the linear
analysis fit the experimental data and the analytical equation (see Table E-5). A slight difference was
observed with the large displacements analysis (+/- 0.3%). The results of a parametric study also
showed that a segment length of 0.8 m was sufficient for this type of numerical analysis. Table E-5
also shows deflections obtained with the linear and large displacement analysis when applying
simultaneously a horizontal and vertical load. The results show that this induces a difference of
approximately 5% between the two analyses due to P-delta effect. Considering that the tip loading
applied here is relatively small, large displacement analysis should be used in practice to avoid
underestimating pole deflections.
Ta bl e E -5 Si n g l e pol e defl ecti on s

Load Length δTab. δEq. δLin. δLDisp.

Configuration 1 : (N) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)

Horizontal load
Pole 12x0,5 4449,74 12,4968 0,6604 0,6604 0.6604 0.6585
Δ%* 0,00 0.00 -0.29
Horizontal + vertical load
Pole 12x0,5 4449,74 12,4968 N/A N/A 0.6604 0.7028
Vertical load effect (%)** 6,3
Configuration 2
Horizontal load
Pole 16x0,5 4449,74 17,9832 0,8128 0,8128 0.8128 0.8111
Δ%* 0,00 0.00 -0.21
Horizontal + vertical load
Pole 16x0,5 4449,74 17,9832 N/A N/A 0.8128 0.8574
Vertical load effect (%)** 5,4
* Difference with the deflections given in tables (%)
** Variation of the deflections obtained with horizontal + vertical load analysis (%)
An analysis of a single pole was also performed with an isotropic material to evaluate the differences
on deflections. The results are not shown here, but a difference of 0,2% or less with the orthotropic
material was obtained. Therefore, the use of an isotropic material where only the elastic modulus and
shear modulus are needed would have been adequate for this design example.

202
Similarly, the effect of shear deformation in the deflection was evaluated. To do so, Eq.1, a linear
analysis and an analysis in large displacements were used. In the software, the material was set with
a shear area of zero, which gave the deflections caused by flexure only. The results were similar for
each case (+/-0.3% caused by shear deformations). This analysis shows that although FRP is
sensitive to shear deformations due to a relatively low shear modulus, shear deformations in poles
account for a very small portion of the total deflection and therefore could be ignored. However, shear
deformations could be important for example for crossarms which have a relatively higher section
inertia and shorter lengths.
Ta bl e E -6 Im porta n ce of shea r d eform a ti on

Tip load V. load Length δGEq. * δGLin. * δGLDisp. *

Configuration 1 (N) (N) (m) (%) (%) (%)

Pole 12x0,5 4449,74 0 12,4968 0,29 0,29 0,29
Pole 12x0,5 4449,74 -4449,74 12,4968 N/A 0,29 0,31
Configuration 2 : (N) (N) (m) (%) (%) (%)
Pole 16x0,5 4449,74 0 17,9832 0,25 0,25 0,25
Pole 16x0,5 4449,74 -4449,74 17,9832 N/A 0,25 0,27
* Percent of the total deflections calculated with each hypotheses
The reactions were also extracted at the base of a single pole for a horizontal + a vertical load of
4449,74 N at the top (see Table E-7). In Table E-7, F1 refers to the reaction in the transverse (x)
direction, F3 refers to the reaction in the vertical (z) direction, and M2 refers to the moment reaction
around the longitudinal (y) axis. The difference for the bending moment between a linear and a large
displacements analysis was approximately 5%. The other reactions were all the same and fitted the
predicted values.
Ta bl e E- 7 Si n g l e pol e rea cti on s wi th a verti cal l oa d a dd ed

Tip load V. load Length F1 F3 M2

Configuration 1 (N) (N) (m) (N) (N) (N*m)
Pole 12x0.5 Lin. 4449,74 4449,74 12,4968 -4449,74 4449,74 -55607,5
Pole 12x0.5 LDisp. 4449,74 4449,74 12,4968 -4449,74 4449,74 -58629,2
Configuration 2 (N) (N) (N) (N) (N) (N)
Pole 16x0.5 Lin. 4449,74 4449,74 17,9832 -4449,74 4449,74 -80020,5
Pole16x0.5 LDisp. 4449,74 4449,74 17,9832 -4449,74 4449,74 -83726,6

Overall, this section validated that the numerical model developed allows to correctly determine the
deflections and reactions in a single pole. This exercise was necessary to give enough confidence to
use the same type of numerical model for the determination of deflections, reactions and global
internal forces (bending moment, shear and axial forces) for more complex pole configurations and
loading patterns.
E.4. PERFORM ANALYSIS FOR THE TWO CONFIGURATI ONS CONSIDERED
In this section, numerical models were developed to represent the geometric and loading
configurations proposed in section 1. Both linear and large displacement analyses were performed,
but only the results of the large displacement will be presented in detail. The objective is to obtain the
deflections and internal forces in the poles such that the deflection and strength can be checked in
Chapters E.4 and E.5 respectively. It should be noted that the numerical models are not used to
evaluate strength capacity. Internal loads will be compared in Chapter E.5 to the resistance published
by a manufacturer based on tests on pole specimens.

203
 E.5. CONFIGURATI ON 1
For the model of configuration 1 , the base was considered fixed and a rigid con nection was u sed
between the crossarm and the pole. Fig ure E-3 a nd Fi gure E-4 below show axial forces, shear and
bending moment diagrams as well as deformed shapes for load cases ULS1 and ULS2.

Figure E-3 Pole ULS1 diagrams: a, b, c, d and e

Figure 22-37, pole ULS diag rams: a) load assign, b) a xi al forces (N ), c) shear 2-2 forces (N ), d)
moment 3-3 (N cm), e) deformed shape.

Figure E-4 Pole ULS2 diagrams a, b, c, d, and e

Figure 22-38, pole ULS2 dia grams: a) load assign, b) a xial forces (N ), c) shear 3 -3 forces (N), d)
moment 2-2 (N cm), e) deformed shape.

204
 E.6. CONFIGURATI ON 2
Results of configuration 2 are presented in Figures E-5 and E-6 for ULS1 and ULS2 respectively. These
results include axial forces, shear and bending moment diagrams as well as post processing deformed
shapes. For this configuration, the analyses were performed with fixed conditions at the base of each
pole. The connections between the crossarm and the poles were rigid. For the cross-brace in
configuration 2, moment releases were introduced in the model to simulate a pin connection. M2 and
M3 were released at each green dot shown in figure E-5. The moments of the frame in compression
were only released to the connections with the pole. For the analysis with (ULS2), torsion was also
released at 3 points of connection with the poles and the braces. Depending on the details of the
connections used in practice, these assumptions might need to be revised.

Figure E-5 Cross-braced H-frame USL1 diagrams a, b, c, d, e

Figure E-5, cross-braced H-frame USL1 diagrams: a) load assign, b) axial forces (N), c) shear 2-2
forces (N), d) moment 3-3 (Ncm), e) deformed shape.

205
 Figure E-6 Cross-braced H-frame USL2 diagrams.
Figure E-6, cross-brace H-frame USL2 diagrams: a) load assign, b) axial force (N), c) shear 2-2 force
(N), d) shear 3-3 force (N), e) moment 3-3 (Ncm), f) moment 2-2 (Ncm), g) deformed shape.

E.7. CHECK DEFLECTION LI MITS AGAINST PREDICTED DEFLECTIONS

This section presents the deflections obtained in the numerical analysis and comments on the
acceptability criteria of these deflections in the context of a transmission line. The deflections obtained
at the top of the pole for each configuration are shown in Table E-8. For configuration 2, the
maximum displacements (right or left pole) were selected. Values were extracted with a large
displacements analysis. In configuration 1, the deflections are 17% of the length of the poles, which is
high compared to steel and concrete poles but in the range with wood poles deflection performance
and would have to be reviewed by the utility based on their specific acceptance criteria. For
configuration 2, the transverse deflections are about 1% of the length of the pole for ULS1. The
deflections are higher with a longitudinal load applied (ULS2) with 13% of the length of the pole. For

206
SLS conditions, the deflections are relatively high (10%) but acceptable in configuration 1. They are
small (0.5%) in configuration 2. Deflections under EDS conditions are relatively small. The following
checks should be made in the context of a real transmission line:
• Under ULS conditions, the deflections do not induce conductor sag variations such that
vertical clearances are infringed.
• Under SLS conditions, all internal and external electrical clearances should be respected.
• Under EDS conditions, the deflection should be limited such that the public is not concerned
with the state of the line.
Ta bl e E -8 Ti p d efl ecti on s

Configuration 1 Configuration 2*
Load case
(m) (%) (m) (%)
ULS1 2,1798 17,44 0,1803 1,00
ULS2 2,1797 17,44 2,2554 12,54
SLS 1,1931 9,54 0,0951 0,51
EDS 0,1938 1,55 0,0162 0,09
* The maximum deflections (right or left pole) were used in configuration 2.

E.8. CHECK STRENGTHS VERSUS INTERNAL FORCES I N POLES

The resistance of the poles was taken from the pole manufacturer’s brochure. These values were
obtained from tests and are reported as 5% Lower Exclusion Limit (LEL). Resistance factors need to
be applied to obtain an adequate level of reliability. In this example, the resistance factors proposed
in the ASCE prestandard (2010) were adopted. These factors were developed for pultruded sections
and do not necessarily apply for other types of manufacturing processes. Resistance values are shown
in Table 9. For the compression capacity, a calculation needs to be made to account for global
buckling of the pole. The manufacturer from which the pole properties were extracted proposes two
equation to account for the length of the poles. In the case studied, the unbraced length of the poles
are large and the Euler equation of elastic buckling controls the resistance:
2
퐺푑푟 = (휋퐿푀퐸) 2 Eq. E-2
푟

Where Fcr is the critical compression stress, E is the modulus of elasticity, K is the effective length
factor, L is the unbraced length of the pole, and r is the radius of gyration. For configuration 1, the
unbraced length considered is 11,9 m, which corresponds to the distance between the crossarm and
the groundline. A factor K of 2,0 is considered in this case because both rotation and translation are
free at the top of the pole. For the second configuration, the unbraced length considered is 9,2 m,
which corresponds to the distance between the lower brace and the groundline. The mode considered
here is the in-plane buckling. A K factor of 1,0 is considered in this case because the cross-brace
prevents the free translation of the compressed pole. Another possible check for configuration 2
concerns the out-of-place buckling over a length of 16,0 m (between the crossarm and the
groundline). In that case, a factor K of 1,5 might need to be used because the translation at the top
of the pole is partially restrained by the H-frame structure. However, this scenario was ignored in the
strength calculations, because the compressive force is not constant over this buckling length for the
loading scenario considered. Furthermore, the loading case ULS1, which induces compression in the
pole, does not induce a bending moment in the out-of-plane direction. The out-of-plane buckling is
therefore very unlikely to occur. It should be noted, that although the reduction in compression
strength to account for global buckling is very important, it is unlikely to govern the design, because
compression forces are typically small compared to bending moments for transmission line pole
supports. This is particularly true for single pole configurations. This proposed approach provides a
conservative evaluation of the compression strength because the effective length factor are in reality
lower due to the restraints provided by the other members of the structural configuration. A less
conservative alternative to check global buckling would be to perform a linear buckling analysis under
the ULS loadings. This type of analysis can be performed in most general finite element analysis

207
software. It would provide with a critical load factor which indicates the value by which the nominal
loading needs to be multiplied to reach a global instability.
Ta bl e E- 9 Pol e stren g th

Configuration 1: Pole 12x0.5 Resistance Factor[*] R*F

Compression short column (kN) 4.731,6 0,8 3.785,3
Compression long column (kN) 178,5 0,8 142,8
Moment (kN*m) 331,0 0,8 264,8
Shear (kN) 384,0 0,65 249,6
Torsion (kN*m) 112,1 0,7 78,5
Configuration 2: Pole 16x0.5 Resistance Factor[*] R*F
Compression (kN) 5.513,5 0,8 3.528,6
Compression long column (kN) 285,9 0,8 228,8
Moment (kN*m) 526,0 0,8 420,8
Shear (kN) 637,0 0,65 414,0
Torsion (kN*m) 251,3 0,7 175,9
* ASCE prestandard (2010)
Ta bl e E -1 0: Rea cti on s a t ba se

F1 (x) F2 (y) F3 (z) M1 (x) M2 (y) M3 (z)

Configuration 1 (N) (N) (N) (N*m) (N*m) (N*m)
ULS1
Base Lin. -10.500 0 21.655 0 -133.796 0
Base large disp. -10.500 0 21.653 0 -175.685 0
ULS2
Base Lin. 0 -12.600 12.655 160.555 0 0
Base large disp. 0 -12.600 12.655 180.494 0 0
Configuration 2 (N) (N) (N) (Nm) (Nm) (Nm)
ULS1:
Left base Lin. -15.914 0 -56.612 0 -84.419 0
Left base large disp. -17.437 0 -57.712 0 -87.945 0
Right base Lin. -16.886 0 118.137 0 -87.942 0
Right base large disp. -15.363 0 119.238 0 -89.390 0
ULS2:
Left base Lin. 251 -12.100 17.813 201.397 910 117
Left base large disp. 222 -12.095 17.812 227.978 838 148
Right base Lin. -251 -12.100 17.813 201.397 -910 -117
Right base large disp. -222 -12.105 17.813 227.997 -837 -127
Table E-10: Reactions at base shows the reactions at the base for each configuration with a linear and
a large displacements analysis for load cases ULS1 and ULS2. The principal difference between those
two analyses were the values of the bending moment reactions. This table highlights the importance
of considering large displacements in the analysis of these pole configurations.

208
Next, the internal forces at a few critical locations along the pole were extracted. These forces need to
be combined such that an overall strength capacity check can be made. To do so, the equations
proposed in the ACSE prestandard will be used. In particular Eq. E-3 below is proposed by the ASCE
pre-standard to combine flexure and axial stresses:
푷풖
+
풖
푵 풚
+
푵풖풛 ≤ ퟐ. ퟏ Eq. E-3
푷풄 푵풄풚 푵풄풛
In order to evaluate the torsional strength capacity of the pole, Eq. E-4 can be used which combines
flexure, axial and torsion stresses:
푷풖 + 푵풖 + (푻풖) ퟑ ≤ ퟐ. ퟏ Eq. E-4
푷풄 푵풄 푻풄
The results from the above torsional check have not been included here because there was
only torsion in the poles of configuration 2 with ULS2 and the values are very small in comparison to
the torsion material resistance. Shear stresses were compared separately.
For configuration 1, the critical location is at the base of the pole. For configuration 2, three
locations will be verified on the right pole, the base, the point below the first cross-brace (9,2132 m)
and the point below the upper cross-brace (13,4832 m). Load cases ULS1 and ULS2 were considered.
Table E-11 shows the internal forces at critical points and Table E-12 shows the ratio of force over
factored strength and the sums obtained with Eq. E-3. which are smaller than 1 in all cases. The
shear forces are also much smaller than the shear strengths material in all cases. Forces were
extracted with a large displacements analysis only. These results show that the strength of the
selected poles are adequate for this application.

Table E-11 Forces and moments at critical locations

Height Pu νu 2 νu 3 Mu 2 Mu 3 Tu
Configuration 1 (m) (N) (N) (N) (N*m) (N*m) (N*m)
ULS1
Base 0 -21.483 10.845 0 0 175.685 0
ULS2
Base 0 -12.445 0 12.807 180.494 0 0
Configuration 2 (m) (N) (N) (N) (Nm) (Nm) (Nm)
ULS1
Base 0 -119.183 15.779 0 0 89.390 0
Lower brace 9,2132 -116.224 16738 0 0 -70184 0
Upper brace 13,4832 -75.385 -24.150 0 0 32.518 0
ULS2
Base 0 -17.710 223 12.255 227.997 839 127
Lower brace 9,2132 -13.126 226 14.103 104.894 -1201 127
Upper brace 13,4832 -10.378 -663 14.237 44.171 1650 128

209
 Table E-12: Forces and moments combination
Height Pu/Pc Vu2/Vc Vu3/Vc Mu2/M c M u3/M c Sum Eq. E-3

Config uration 1 (m) (< 1 )

ULS1 :

Base 0 0,1 50 0,0435 0 0 0,663 0,86

ULS2 :

Base 0 0,087 0 0,051 0,682 0 0,82

Config uration 2 (m) (< 1 )

ULS1 :

Base 0 0,521 0,038 0 0 0,21 2 0,77

Lower brace 9,21 32 0,508 0,040 0 0 0,1 67 0,72

Upper brace 1 3,4832 0,330 0,058 0 0 0,077 0,46

ULS2 :

Base 0 0,077 0,001 0,030 0,542 0,002 0,65

Lower brace 9,21 32 0,057 0,001 0,034 0,249 0,003 0,34

Upper brace 1 3,4832 0,045 0,002 0,034 0,1 05 0,004 0,1 9

21 0
 E.9. ALTERNATI VE ANALYSIS FOR THE TWO CONFIGURATI ONS CONSIDERED
In this section, numerical models for the same loading and configurations were developed with
another commercial software to validate the approach presented in the previous sections. Geometry,
cross sections of the elements and boundary condition (loads and supports) were the same as in the
models shown in Chapters E.5 and E.6. Results are shown on Figures E-7 to E-10 and Table E-13.

Figure E-7 Pole ULS1 diagrams a, b, c, d and e

Figure E-7, pole ULS1 diagrams: a) load assign (kN), b) axial forces (kN), c) shear 2-2 forces (kN), d)
bending moment 3-3 (kNm), e) deformed shape.

Figure E-8 Pole ULS2 diagrams: a, b, c, d and e

Figure 8, pole ULS2 diagrams: a) load assign (kN), b) axial forces (kN), c) shear 3-3 forces (kN), d)
bending moment 2-2 (kNm), e) deformed shape.

21 1
 Figure E-9 Cross-braced H-frame USL1 diagrams a, b, c, d, e, g

Figure E-9, cross-braced H-frame USL1 diagrams: a) load assign (kN), b) axial forces (kN ), c) shear 2-
2 forces (kN ), d) bending moment 3-3 (kN m), e) deformed shape (mm).

21 2
 Figure E-10 Cross-braced H-frame USL2 diagrams a, b, c, d, e, g

Figure 1 0, cross-braced H -frame USL2 diagrams: a) load assign (kN), b) a xial force (kN). c) shear 2-2
force (kN), d) shear 3 -3 force (kN ), e) bending m omen t 3-3 (kN m), f) bendi ng moment 2-2 (kNm), g)
deformed shape.

21 3
 Table E-13: Forces and moments at critical locations (comparison in %)
Height Pu νu 2 νu 3 Mu 2 Mu 3 Tu
Configuration 1 (m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm)
ULS1
Base -21,57 10,50 175,69
0 0 0 0
(+0,4%) (-3,1%) (0%)
ULS2
Base -12,57 12,60 181,89
0 0 0 0
(+1,0%) (-1,6%) (+0,8%)
Configuration 2 (m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm)
ULS1
Base -119,14 15,46 89,72
0 0 0 0
(0%) (-2,0%) (+0,4%)
Lower brace -116,17 16,50 -70,70
9.2132 0 0 0
(0%) (-1,4%) (+0,7%)
Upper brace -74,88 -24,38 33,48
13.4832 0 0 0
(-0,7%) (+0,6%) (+3,0%)
ULS2
Base 0 -17,73 0,26 12,11 227,82 0,97 0,27
(+0,1%) (+16,6%) (-1,2%) (-0,1%) (+15,6%) (+112%)
Lower brace 9.2132 -13,00 0,26 14,14 104,77 -1,37 0,27
(-0,9%) (+15%) (+0,3%) (-0,1%) (+14%) (+112%)
Upper brace 13.4832 -10,38 -0,78 14,23 44,12 1,96 0,15
(0%) (+17%) (0%) (-0,1%) (+18%) (+17%)

Due to more complicated geometry, additional resistance checks were performed for configuration 2.
To obtain more accurate buckling length of the column linear buckling analysis was performed.
Results are shown in Figure E-11. Using the calculated critical factor, buckling strength of the column
was checked. In Figures E-12 to E-14, the Mathcad worksheet used for theses resistance calculation is
presented.

21 4
 Figure E-11 Buckling
Figure E-1 1 , cross-braced H -frame, bu ckli ng 1 st mode: a) ULS1 criti cal factor 2,30, b) ULS2 critical
factor 8,26.

21 5
Figure E-12 Cross-braced H-frame, cross section check, worksheet no. 1

21 6
Figure E-13 Cross-braced H-frame, cross section check, corksheet no. 2

21 7
Figure E-14 Cross-braced H-frame, cross section check, worksheet no. 3

21 8
 E.1 0. MODELS COMPARISION AND CONCLUSIONS
Results from analysis using two different FEM software were almost identical. Differences between
inner forces and moments are in general smaller than 2%. For some inner forces which are less
important (for example bending moment 3-3 under loading USL2) larger discrepancies are obtained.
The check of buckling capacity of the poles for configuration 2 shows that the evaluation of buckling
length induces some difference in the predicted resistance of the structure. This shows that more
accurate analysis should be performed when resistance governs the design of this type of structure.

21 9
APPENDIX F. COST ANALYSIS
F.1 . COST ANALYSIS EXAMPLE
For illustration purposes, the following example highlights the importance of calculating the NPV. The
example gives a comparison between a composite pole structure and a number of alternative
structures. Costing examples are presented for the following structure types:
• FRP composite pole structure.
• Wood pole structure.
• Steel pole structure.
• Concrete pole structure.
It should be noted that all costs values given in the example are notional and are provided to illustrate
the methodologies involved, not to be a definitive guide on the cost of the materials. As with any
product the final service life costs associated with the product can vary significantly for a number of
reasons, for example:
• Intended supplier.
• Location of production.
• Location for intended use.
• Raw materials available in the country of intended use.
• Labour rates in intended country of use.
Therefore, the reader should obtain the costs specific to their chosen solution before applying the
methodologies outlined herein.

Table F-1 Example purchase costs of poles

Purchase Composite pole Wood pole Steel pole Concrete pole
Pole unit cost € 3.500 1.200 2.400 1.600
Miscellaneous structure costs € 1.750 1.750 1.750 1.750
Total pole cost € 5.250 2.950 4.150 3.350

Table F-2 Example site preparation costs for poles

Setting out Composite pole Wood pole Steel pole Concrete pole
Job hours 1,5 2,0 2,0 4,0
Crew size 4,0 4,0 5,0 5,0
Man hours 6,0 8,0 10,0 20,0
Labour rate(€/hour) 100 100 100 100
Labour charges € 600 800 1.000 2.000
Total setting cost € 600 800 1.000 2.000

Foundations Composite pole Wood pole Steel pole Concrete pole

Job hours 3,5 3,5 3,5 3,5
Crew size 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,
Man hours 7,0 7,0 7,0 7,0
Labour rate(€/hour) 100 100 100 10
Labour charges € 700 700 700 700
Equipment rate (€/hour) 100 100 100 100
Equipment charges € 700 700 700 700
Miscellaneous installation cost € 200 200 200 200
Total foundation cost € 1.600 1.600 1.600 1.600

220
 Table F-3 Example installation costs of poles
Transportation Composite pole Wood pole Steel pole Concrete pole
Poles per truck 53 16 27 6
Freight charges € 1.000 600 600 600
Total delivery cost € 1.000 60 600 600
Total delivery cost per pole € 18,87 37,50 22,22 100,00
Unloading Composite pole Wood pole Steel pole Concrete pole
Job hours 0,1 0,1 0,25 0,5
Crew size 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0
Man hours 0,2 0,2 0,5 1,0
Labour rate(€/our) 100 100 100 100
Labour charges 20 20 50 100
Total unloading cost 20 20 50 100
Assembly Composite pole Wood pole Steel pole Concrete pole
Job hours 0,4 1,0
Crew size 4,0 4,0
Man hours 1,6 4,0
Labour rate(€/hour) 100 100 100 100
Labour charges € 160 400
Total assembly cost € 60 400
Framing Composite pole Wood pole Steel pole Concrete pole
Job hours 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5
Crew size 4,0 4,0 4,0 4,0
Man hours 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0
Labour rate(€/hour) 100 100 100 100
Labour charges € 200 200 20 200
Equipment rate (€/hour) 75 75 75 75
Equipment charges € 150 150 150 150
Total framing cost € 350 350 350 350

Table F-4 Example total pole acquisition costs

Composite pole Wood pole Steel pole Concrete pole
Total acquisition cost per pole € 7.998,87 5.757,50 7.572,22 7.500,00
Number of Poles in line 100 100 100 100
Total structural acquisition cost of
799.887 575.750 757.222 750.000
line per km, €/km

221
 Table F-5 Example maintenance cost of poles

Inspection costs Composite pole Wood pole Steel pole Concrete pole
Frequency (years) 10 10 10 10
Unit cost of inspection € 50 100 50 50
Annual inspection cost € 5 10 5 5

Retreatment costs Composite pole Wood pole Steel pole Concrete pole
Frequency (years) 15
Unit cost of retreatment € 125 160 125 125
Annual retreatment cost € 10,67

Hardware repair costs Composite pole Wood pole Steel pole Concrete pole
Frequency (years) 40 10 40 40
Unit cost of hardware repairs € 150 440 150 150
Annual hardware repair cost € 3,75 44 3,75 3,75
Total maintenace cost per pole € 8,75 64,67 8,75 8,75
Number of poles per km 10 10 10 10
Total maintenace cost of line per 87,50 646,67 87,50 87,50
km €/km

Table F-6 Example removal and disposal costs of poles

Removal cost Composite pole Wood pole Steel pole Concrete pole
Unit cost of removal 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Total removal cost 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Disposal Composite pole Wood pole Steel pole Concrete pole
Unit cost of disposal € 160 500 200 300
Total removal cost € 160 500 200 300
Total removal/disposal cost per 1.160 1.500 800 1.300
pole €
Number of poles per km 10 10 10 10
Total maintenace cost of line per 11.600 15.000 8.000 13.000
km €/km

222
 A number of assumptions were made when developing the cost example in Table F-1 to Table F-5
and these include:
• The support structure is a suspension/tangent structure.
• The total pole lengths are approximately 17 m.
• It is assumed that the spans between structures are the same.
• Direct embedment of each solution is acceptable.
• All clearance requirements are in accordance with the minimum specified values.
Applying a NPV calculation to the above data, a summary of the results obtained are given in Table F-
7.
Table F-7 Example NPV calculation
Total ownership cost summary
Composite pole Wood pole Steel Pole Concrete pole

Expected service life (years) 80 30 80 80

Number of poles per km 10 10 10 10
NPV analysis
Projected life of proposed line
100
(years)
Assumed annual inflation rate
2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0%
(average)
Assumed annual discount rate
9,0% 9,0% 9,0% 9,0%
(average)
Tax rate (average) 15,0% 15,0% 15,0% 15,0%
Maximum depreciation period
10
(years)
Service life
Actual depreciation period (years) 10 10 10
adjustment
Cost summary per pole
Acquisition aost € 6.100,00 6.031,67 6.689,00 6.966,67
Annual maintenance cost € 8,75 64,67 8,75 8,75
Removal cost € 1.160,00 1.500,00 800,00 1.300,00
Total ownership cost (present value)
Initial acquisition cost € 6.100,00 6.031,67 6.689,00 6.966,67
Maintenance costs € 126,87 937,63 126,87 126,87
Replacement costs € 232,74
Depreciation tax penalty/cost € 5,5 45,23 66,55
Number of replacements 1,00 2,67 1,00 1,00
Total ownership cost pole (preen 6.226,87 7.207,56 6.770,64 7.026,99
value) €
Total ownership cost per km 62.268,70 72.075,56 67.706,42 70.269,88
(present value) €/km

The PV of total ownership cost for each structural solution is outlined in Table F-7.

223
 Figure F-1 Example cost breakdown comparison of poles

Figure F-1 illustrates the need to perform a NPV calculation to understand the importance of service
life of a proposed structural support. If the decision on the preferred support option was based on the
acquisition cost alone, the wood pole option may have been chosen at the preferred (optimum cost)
solution. Including a NPV calculation suggests, when maintenance and removal costs are accounted
for over the service life of each structural type, the composite pole structure would likely be chosen as
the preferred (optimum cost) solution.
As stated previously, a number of assumptions have been made to develop the values given in Table
F-1, values stated are to illustrate a sample comparison methodology. It is advised that the design of
each structural solution should be developed on a project specific basis, allowing for site specific
constraints and parameter sensitivity to enable the development of a true unbiased comparison of
costs.

224
 F.2. COST COMPARISON EXAMPLE 2
This section presents a cost comparison example based on a study made in Norway regarding cost of
transmission line per km for four types of 132kV suspension towers in a flat terrain compared to
standard inside guyed Statnett tower. Five types of towers and 3 mechanical load areas were
investigated. Calculations were completed in accordance with EN 50341-1 and the associated NNA for
Norway plus special Statnett design rules.
It should be noted that this cost example is simplified and does not consider the Net Present Value
and Cost Effectiveness Analysis concepts explained previously. However, it gives a good idea of initial
installation related costs as calculated for a realistic transmission line application. Another fictitious
cost example is presented in Appendix G to illustrate the application of the Net Present Value concept.
Towers are assumed to be placed in soil and guyed towers have steel foundations and steel anchor
plates.
The transport to the line is done by helicopter with 1.000 kg lift. Flight time back and forth is 3,5
minutes.
The five towers investigated are on Figure F-2 were:
1. Cross-braced H-frame wood poles on top left.
2. Cross-braced H-frame composite poles on top middle.
3. Inside guyed steel tower on middle right (Statnett tower).
4. Outside guyed steel tube M-tower on bottom left.
5. Outside guyed composite tube M-tower on bottom middle.

•
Figure F-2 The five towers investigated
The following load cases were calculated. The ice load has a 150 year return period with load factor
1.0 and the wind load is 50 year gust multiplied by load factor 1.4 to correspond to 500 year return
period.

225
Three mechanical load areas according to climatic conditions were considered, see following tables.
Table F-8 Load area 1
Ice (wet) 6 kg/m
50 years 3 sec gust wind 36 m/s
Table 22-14 Load area 2
Ice (wet) 6 kg/m
50 years 3 sec gust wind 46 m/s
Table 22-15 Load area 3
Ice (wet) 9 kg/m
50 years 3 sec gust wind 52 m/s
The conductor is Grackle and the earth wire is Groll. The properties are shown in the following tables.
Table F-9 Phase conductor Grackle
Grackle
Areal 682.88 mm 2
Diameter 34.03 mm
Weight 22.37 N/m
UTS 186.978 N
Table F-10 Earthwire Goll
Goll
Areal 182.37 mm 2
Diameter 17.54 mm
Weight 9.27 N/m
UTS 153.526 N

All curves are drawn according to cost calculated points. In load area 2 there is a jump in the curve
for thee composite cross-braced H-frame because there is missing an exact module and two modules
with one inside the other have to be used.
The following observations should be taken into account:
• There is no maintenance cost included which is unfavourable for composite.
• Land owner costs for guyed towers are not included.
• The tower spotting is in flat terrain.
• Anchor towers are not included and will increase the cost by 10% to 20%.
• The Grackle conductor has big diameter for 132kV lines and is not completely representative.
• All towers are in friction soil and rock foundations are omitted.
• Missing internal cost from Statnett (design, environmental assessment etc.).
• The calculation for towers and foundation are very detailed.
• List of material is very detailed.
• Cost model is partly from existing 132kV projects in Norway.

A provisional 10% was added to the total price due to unforeseen costs.

226
Figure F-3 Cost for load area 1

Figure F-4 Cost for load area 2

227
Figure F-5 Cost for load area 3

228
 F.3. COST COMPARISON EXAMPLE 3
In addition to the example comparison on single pole structures given in Table F-11 an example
comparison follows which compares the costs of:
• A 110kV single circuit non-shieldwire composite pole structure.
• A 110kV single circuit non-shieldwire steel lattice tower structure.
Again, it should be noted that all costs values given in the example are notional and are provided to
illustrate the methodologies involved, not to be a definitive guide on the cost of the materials. As with
any product the final service life costs associated with the product can vary significantly for a number
of reasons, for example:
• Cost of land access.
• Intended supplier.
• Location of production.
• Location for intended use.
• Raw materials available in the country of intended use.
• Labour rates in intended country of use.

Therefore, the reader should obtain the costs specific to their chosen solution before applying the
methodologies outlined herein.

Table F-11 Design assumptions

Item Assumed Value

Height from ground to centre of crossarm (m) 10 -26
Phase to phase spacing (m) 5,25
Shieldwire or no shieldwire No shieldwire
Conductor Lion
Insulator length (m) 1,415
Minimum ground clearance @ 80°C (m) 7
Design standard EN50341-1: 2012
Reliability level 2
Theoretical return period of climatic cctions 50 years
Site basic wind speed (m/s) 27
Extreme ice radial (cm) 2,5
Initial erection tension catenary constant @ 15°C (m) 1.915

229
 Figure F-6 Outline of 20 m structures

Table F-12 110kV lattice tower weights and costs

Assumed cost Assumed cost Total estimated

Approx. height Estimated tower per ton for per ton for cost (including
to crossarm Weight steelwork galvanising delivery)
(m) (kg) ( €/kg) ( €/kg) ( €)
10 1.800,00 1,60 0,20 3.240,00
11 1.860,00 1,60 0,20 3.348,00
12 1.920,00 1,60 0,20 3.456,00
13 1.979,82 1,60 0,20 3.563,67
14 2.039,88 1,60 0,20 3.671,78
15 2.099,94 1,60 0,20 3.779,89
16 2.160,00 1,60 0,20 3.888,00
17 2.220,06 1,60 0,20 3.996,11
18 2.280,00 1,60 0,20 4.104,00
19 2.340,06 1,60 0,20 4.212,11
20 2.400,00 1,60 0,20 4.320,00
21 2.580,00 1,60 0,20 4.644,00
22 2.760,00 1,60 0,20 4.968,00
23 3.020,00 1,60 0,20 5.436,00
24 3.200,00 1,60 0,20 5.760,00
25 3.540,00 1,60 0,20 6.372,00
26 4.125,00 1,60 0,20 7.425,00

230
 Table F-13 110kV composite pole costs

Total estimated
cost of composite
Approx. height Assumed total
pole H-frame
to crossarm pole length
(including
delivery)
(m) (m) (€ )
10 13 8.242,00
11 14 8.242,00
12 15 11.686,00
13 16 11.686,00
14 17 11.686,00
15 18 11.686,00
16 19 14.638,00
17 20 18.451,00
18 21 18.451,00
19 22 18.451,00
20 23 26.126,20
21 24 26.126,20
22 25 28.832,20
23 26 28.832,20
24 27 28.832,20
25 28 28.832,20
26 29 28.832,20

Table F-14 Steel lattice tower superstructure installation cost estimates ( €)

Estimated Estimated Additional
minimum time maximum Minimum cost varying
(hr) or time (hr) or estimated with Maximum
Rate material material (fixed) structure estimated
Item ( €/hr ) quantity quantity cost height cost
Hiab
truck + 165 4 4 660 660
driver
Teleport
er + 140 16 26 2.240 1.400 3.640
driver
Crane 75 8 8 1.400 1.400
Labour 100 60 72 6.000 1.200 7.200
Total 10.300 2.600 12.900

231
 Table F-15 Composite pole superstructure installation cost estimates (€)
Estim ated Estima ted Ad di ti onal
m inim um m aximu m M inim um cost varyi ng
tim e (h r) or time (hr) or estim ated with M aximu m
Rate m ateria l m aterial (fixed ) stru cture estim ated
Item ( €/hr ) q uantity q uantity cost heig ht cost

H ia b truck m ed
1 65 2 2 330 330
driver

Tel eporter with

1 40 8 10 1 . 1 20 280 1 . 400
driver

La bour 1 00 18 20 1 . 800 200 2. 000

Tota l 3. 250 480 3. 730

Table F-16 Steel lattice tower foundation installation cost estimates (€)
2
Soil with a m inim um a l l owa bl e bearin g pressure of 200 kN /m assum ed

Esti mated Estim ated Ad d itional

mi ni mum maximum M i nimum cost va ryi ng
ti me (hr) or tim e (h r) or estimated wi th M axi mum
Ra te m ateri al ma teria l (fi xed) structure esti mated
Item ( €/hr ) q ua ntity quantity cost heig ht cost

3
Concrete (m ) 75 7 9 525 1 50 675

1 3t track mach.
1 65 12 16 1 . 980 660 2. 640
with d river

4 wheel d umper
1 25 6 8 750 250 1 . 000, 0
with d river

Labour 1 00 72 96 7. 200 2. 400 9. 600

Tota l 1 0. 455 3. 460 1 3. 91 5

Table F-17 Composite pole foundation installation cost estimates (€)

2
Al l owabl e soi l bearin g pressure of 200 kN /m

Ad d itional
M i ni mum M axi mum M inim um cost varying
tim e (h r) or tim e (h r) or esti mated wi th M a ximum
Rate ma teria l m ateria l (fixed ) structure estima ted
Item ( €/hr ) quantity q uantity cost heig ht cost

Backfil l m a teria l
10 3,50 4,50 35 10 45
(ton)

Sl eeve (no. ) 1 00 2 2 200 200

1 3t tra ck ma ch .
1 65 4 8 660 660 1 . 320
with driver

4 wheel du mper
1 25 6 8 750 250 1 . 000
with driver

Labour 1 00 12 18 1 . 200 600 1 . 800

Tota l 2. 845 1 . 520 4. 365

232
 Table F-18 Steel lattice tower cost estimates

Min imum Estim ated Estim ated Estima ted

stru cture h ei ght Estim ated Estim ated su perstru cture Estim ated su perstru cture h ardware an d Estim ated cost /km
to crossa rm Assum ed l attice su perstru cture costs su perstru cture i nstal l ati on costs fou nda ti on costs i nstal l a ti on costs i nstal l ation costs Estima ted total (i ncl u ding addi ti on al
Span Sag requ i red tower height (in cl u din g del i very) instal l ation costs (Fi xed) (Varia bl e) (fixed) (vari abl e) (vari abl e) Cost Estim ated cost/km 1 0% conti ngen cy)

(m) (m) (m) (m) ( €) ( €) (€) ( €) (€) (€) (€) (€) (€)

1 70 3,1 1 1 1 ,525 12 3. 456,00 1 0. 300,00 1 . 200,00 1 0. 455,00 1 . 596,92 1 . 750,00 28. 757,92 1 69. 1 64,25 1 86. 080,68

1 80 3,49 1 1 ,905 12 3. 456,00 1 0. 300,00 1 . 200,00 1 0. 455,00 1 . 596,92 1 . 750,00 28. 757,92 1 59. 766,24 1 75. 742,86

1 90 3,89 1 2,305 13 3. 563,67 1 0. 300,00 1 . 300,00 1 0. 455,00 1 . 730,00 1 . 750,00 29. 098,67 1 53. 1 50,89 1 68. 465,98

200 4,3 1 2,71 5 13 3. 563,67 1 0. 300,00 1 . 300,00 1 0. 455,00 1 . 730,00 1 . 750,00 29. 098,67 1 45. 493,35 1 60. 042,68

21 0 4,75 1 3,1 65 14 3. 671 ,78 1 0. 300,00 1 . 400,00 1 0. 455,00 1 . 863,08 1 . 750,00 29. 439,86 1 40. 1 89,79 1 54. 208,77

220 5,21 1 3,625 14 3. 671 ,78 1 0. 300,00 1 . 400,00 1 0. 455,00 1 . 863,08 1 . 750,00 29. 439,86 1 33. 81 7,53 1 47. 1 99,28

230 5,69 1 4,1 05 15 3. 779,89 1 0. 300,00 1 . 500,00 1 0. 455,00 1 . 996,1 5 1 . 750,00 29. 781 ,04 1 29. 482,80 1 42. 431 ,08

240 6,2 1 4,61 5 15 3. 779,89 1 0. 300,00 1 . 500,00 1 0. 455,00 1 . 996,1 5 1 . 750,00 29. 781 ,04 1 24. 087,68 1 36. 496,45

250 6,73 1 5,1 45 16 3. 888,00 1 0. 300,00 1 . 600,00 1 0. 455,00 2. 1 29,23 1 . 750,00 30. 1 22,23 1 20. 488,92 1 32. 537,82

260 7,28 1 5,695 16 3. 888,00 1 0. 300,00 1 . 600,00 1 0. 455,00 2. 1 29,23 1 . 750,00 30. 1 22,23 1 1 5. 854,73 1 27. 440,21

270 7,85 1 6,265 17 3. 996,1 1 1 0. 300,00 1 . 700,00 1 0. 455,00 2. 262,31 1 . 750,00 30. 463,42 1 1 2. 827,47 1 24. 1 1 0,22

280 8,44 1 6,855 17 3. 996,1 1 1 0. 300,00 1 . 700,00 1 0. 455,00 2. 262,31 1 . 750,00 30. 463,42 1 08. 797,92 1 1 9. 677,71

290 9,06 1 7,475 18 4. 1 04,00 1 0. 300,00 1 . 800,00 1 0. 455,00 2. 395,38 1 . 750,00 30. 804,38 1 06. 222,02 1 1 6. 844,22

300 9,69 1 8,1 05 19 4. 21 2,1 1 1 0. 300,00 1 . 900,00 1 0. 455,00 2. 528,46 1 . 750,00 31 . 1 45,57 1 03. 81 8,57 1 1 4. 200,43

31 0 1 0,4 1 8,765 19 4. 21 2,1 1 1 0. 300,00 1 . 900,00 1 0. 455,00 2. 528,46 1 . 750,00 31 . 1 45,57 1 00. 469,59 1 1 0. 51 6,54

320 1 1 ,0 1 9,445 20 4. 320,00 1 0. 300,00 2. 000,00 1 0. 455,00 2. 661 ,54 1 . 750,00 31 . 486,54 98. 395,43 1 08. 234,98

330 1 1 ,7 20,1 45 21 4. 644,00 1 0. 300,00 2. 1 00,00 1 0. 455,00 2. 794,62 1 . 750,00 32. 043,62 97. 1 01 ,86 1 06. 81 2,05

340 1 2,5 20,865 21 4. 644,00 1 0. 300,00 2. 1 00,00 1 0. 455,00 2. 794,62 1 . 750,00 32. 043,62 94. 245,93 1 03. 670,52

350 1 3,2 21 ,61 5 22 4. 968,00 1 0. 300,00 2. 200,00 1 0. 455,00 2. 927,69 1 . 750,00 32. 600,69 93. 1 44,84 1 02. 459,32

360 1 3,9 22,375 23 5. 436,00 1 0. 300,00 2. 300,00 1 0. 455,00 3. 060,77 1 . 750,00 33. 301 ,77 92. 504,91 1 01 . 755,41

370 1 4,8 23,1 65 24 5. 760,00 1 0. 300,00 2. 400,00 1 0. 455,00 3. 1 93,85 1 . 750,00 33. 858,85 91 . 51 0,40 1 00. 661 ,43

380 1 5,6 23,975 24 5. 760,00 1 0. 300,00 2. 400,00 1 0. 455,00 3. 1 93,85 1 . 750,00 33. 858,85 89. 1 02,23 98. 01 2,45

390 1 6,4 24,805 25 6. 372,00 1 0. 300,00 2. 500,00 1 0. 455,00 3. 326,92 1 . 750,00 34. 703,92 88. 984,42 97. 882,86

400 1 7,3 25,665 26 7. 425,00 1 0. 300,00 2. 600,00 1 0. 455,00 3. 460,00 1 . 750,00 35. 990,00 89. 975,00 98. 972,50

233
 Table F-19 Composite tower cost estimates

Assum ed com posi te

pol e l ength
Mi nim um Estim ated Estim ated Estim ated
stru cture h ei ght Estimated Estim ated su perstru cture Estim ated Su perstru cture h ardware and Estim ated cost /km
to crossarm su perstru cture costs su perstru cture i nstal l a ti on costs fou n dati on costs i nstal l ati on costs i nstal l a ti on iosts Estim ated total (i ncl u ding additi on al
Span Sag requ i red (i ncl uding del i very) instal l ation costs (fixed) (vari abl e) (fixed) (vari abl e) (varia bl e) cost Estim ated cost/km 1 0% con ti n gen cy)

(m ) (m ) (m ) (m ) ( €) ( €) ( €) ( €) ( €) ( €) ( €) ( €) ( €)

1 40 2,1 1 1 0,525 14 8. 242,00 3. 250,00 231 ,72 2. 845,00 733,79 1 . 500,00 1 6. 802,52 1 20. 01 7,98 1 32. 01 9,78

1 50 2,42 1 0,835 14 8. 242,00 3. 250,00 231 ,72 2. 845,00 733,79 1 . 500,00 1 6. 802,52 1 1 2. 01 6,78 1 23. 21 8,46

1 60 2,75 1 1 ,1 65 15 1 1 . 686,00 3. 250,00 248,28 2. 845,00 786,21 1 . 500,00 20. 31 5,48 1 26. 971 ,77 1 39. 668,94

1 70 3,1 1 1 1 ,525 15 1 1 . 686,00 3. 250,00 248,28 2. 845,00 786,21 1 . 500,00 20. 31 5,48 1 1 9. 502,84 1 31 . 453,1 2

1 80 3,49 1 1 ,905 15 1 1 . 686,00 3. 250,00 248,28 2. 845,00 786,21 1 . 500,00 20. 31 5,48 1 1 2. 863,79 1 24. 1 50,1 7

1 90 3,89 1 2,305 16 1 1 . 686,00 3. 250,00 264,83 2. 845,00 838,62 1 . 500,00 20. 384,45 1 07. 286,57 1 1 8. 01 5,23

200 4,3 1 2,71 5 16 1 1 . 686,00 3. 250,00 264,83 2. 845,00 838,62 1 . 500,00 20. 384,45 1 01 . 922,24 1 1 2. 1 1 4,47

21 0 4,75 1 3,1 65 17 1 1 . 686,00 3. 250,00 281 ,38 2. 845,00 891 ,03 1 . 500,00 20. 453,41 97. 397,21 1 07. 1 36,93

220 5,21 1 3,625 17 1 1 . 686,00 3. 250,00 281 ,38 2. 845,00 891 ,03 1 . 500,00 20. 453,41 92. 970,06 1 02. 267,07

230 5,69 1 4,1 05 18 1 1 . 686,00 3. 250,00 297,93 2. 845,00 943,45 1 . 500,00 20. 522,38 89. 227,74 98. 1 50,51

240 6,2 1 4,61 5 18 1 1 . 686,00 3. 250,00 297,93 2. 845,00 943,45 1 . 500,00 20. 522,38 85. 509,91 94. 060,91

250 6,73 1 5,1 45 19 1 4. 638,00 3. 250,00 31 4,48 2. 845,00 995,86 1 . 500,00 23. 543,34 94. 1 73,38 1 03. 590,72

260 7,28 1 5,695 19 1 4. 638,00 3. 250,00 31 4,48 2. 845,00 995,86 1 . 500,00 23. 543,34 90. 551 ,33 99. 606,46

270 7,85 1 6,265 20 1 8. 451 ,00 3. 250,00 331 ,03 2. 845,00 1 . 048,28 1 . 500,00 27. 425,31 1 01 . 575,22 1 1 1 . 732,75

280 8,44 1 6,855 20 1 8. 451 ,00 3. 250,00 331 ,03 2. 845,00 1 . 048,28 1 . 500,00 27. 425,31 97. 947,54 1 07. 742,29

290 9,06 1 7,475 21 1 8. 451 ,00 3. 250,00 347,59 2. 845,00 1 . 1 00,69 1 . 500,00 27. 494,28 94. 807,85 1 04. 288,63

300 9,69 1 8,1 05 22 1 8. 451 ,00 3. 250,00 364,1 4 2. 845,00 1 . 1 53,1 0 1 . 500,00 27. 563,24 91 . 877,47 1 01 . 065,22

31 0 1 0,4 1 8,765 22 1 8. 451 ,00 3. 250,00 364,1 4 2. 845,00 1 . 1 53,1 0 1 . 500,00 27. 563,24 88. 91 3,68 97. 805,05

320 1 1 ,0 1 9,445 23 26. 1 26,20 3. 250,00 380,69 2. 845,00 1 . 205,52 1 . 500,00 35. 307,41 1 1 0. 335,65 1 21 . 369,21

330 1 1 ,7 20,1 45 24 26. 1 26,20 3. 250,00 397,24 2. 845,00 1 . 257,93 1 . 500,00 35. 376,37 1 07. 201 ,1 3 1 1 7. 921 ,24

340 1 2,5 20,865 24 26. 1 26,20 3. 250,00 397,24 2. 845,00 1 . 257,93 1 . 500,00 35. 376,37 1 04. 048,1 5 1 1 4. 452,97

350 1 3,2 21 ,61 5 25 28. 832,20 3. 250,00 41 3,79 2. 845,00 1 . 31 0,34 1 . 500,00 38. 1 51 ,34 1 09. 003,82 1 1 9. 904,20

234
 Figure F-7 Comparison of estimated structure costs (per km)

Figu re F-7, compa ri son of estim ated stru cture costs (per km) for 1 1 0kV si ng l e circuit non-shiel dwire
steel l attice tower a nd 1 1 0kV singl e circuit n on-shiel dwi re composite pol e H -fra me

The above exam pl e has been devel oped for a su spensi on/tangent structure. It is l ikel y a t stra in
structure l oca tion s the cost d ifferen ce between a com posi te pol e sol ution and a steel l attice tower
sol ution wil l na rrow as the composite sol uti on wil l l ikel y need gu ys or the stru ctural form wil l need to
cha ng e to a three pol e or four pol e structures. In su ch insta nces the d ifferen ce in fou nd ation cost wil l
i n al l l ikel i h ood red uce sig ni fica ntl y a nd i nstal l ati on tim e a nd the fram ing ti me wil l become m ore
critical in the cost comparison.

235
APPENDIX G. FINANCIAL CALCULATIONS
G.1 . INTRODUCTION
The tim e val ue of m oney d escribes the greater benefi t of recei ving m oney now ra ther tha n l ater. The
principl e a l l ows for the val u ati on of a l i kel y strea m of i ncome i n the future, i n such a wa y that ann ual
i ncom es are di scou nted a n d then ad ded together. The future val ue sum FV to be recei ved in one
year i s d iscounted at the ra te of interest to g i ve the present val ue PV :

퐺푊
푃푊 =
(1 + 푟)

G.2. EQUATION 1
Where

• PV is the current worth of a future sum of m oney or stream of cash fl ow, g iven a specifi c
ra te of return .

• FV is the val ue of an asset or ca sh at a specifi c da te in the future, based on the val ue of

the asset i n the present.

• r –
is the free cash fl ow (i. e. ca sh in fl ow cash outfl ow) for year n .

The cumul ati ve present val ue of future cash fl ows can be cal cul ated by su m mi ng the contributions of
FVt, the val ue of cash fl ow a t tim e t:

푛
퐺푊푡
푃푊 = ∑
(1 + 푖) 푡
푡=1

G.3. EQUATION 2
• PV - the val ue at time= 0 (present val ue) .

• FVt - the val ue at time= n (future val ue) .

• N - the num ber of peri od s (not necessaril y an i nteg er) .

• I - the interest ra te at which the amou nt com pou nd s each period .

Di scounted cash fl ow (DCF) a na l ysis is a m eth od of val ui ng a project, com pan y, or asset using the
con cepts of the ti me val ue of m oney. Al l future cash fl ows are estim a ted a nd d iscounted by usi ng cost
of capital to gi ve their present val ues (PVs). The sum of al l future cash fl ows, both incomin g a nd
outgoing , is the net present va l ue (N PV).

Usi ng DCF anal ysis to com pute the N PV takes i npu t cash fl ows a nd a d iscou nt rate and gi ves a n
outpu t a present val ue. The d iscounted cash fl ow form ul a is d erived from the futu re val ue form ul a for
ca l cul ating the time val ue of m oney and compoundi ng return s.

퐷퐺1 퐷퐺2 퐷퐺푛

퐸퐷푊 = + +⋯+
(1 + 푟 ) (1 + 푟 )
1 2 (1 + 푟 ) 푛

236
 G.4. EQUATION 3

퐺푊 = 퐸 퐷퐺 (1 + 푟 ) 푛

G.5. EQUATION 4
퐺푊
퐸푃푊 =
(1 + 푟) 푛

G.6. EQUATION 5
Where:

• DPV - is the d iscounted present val ue of the future cash fl ow ( FV).

• FV - is the nomi nal val ue of a cash fl ow am ount i n a fu ture period .

• R - is the i nterest ra te or di scou nt ra te, which refl ects the cost of tyi ng u p capi ta l and m ay
al so al l ow for the ri sk that the pa yment m ay not be received in ful l .

• N - is the ti me in years before the future cash fl ow occurs.

Where mul tipl e cash fl ows i n m ul ti pl e tim e period s a re d iscou nted, it is necessary to sum them as
fol l ows:

푁
퐺푊푡
퐸푃 푊 = ∑
푡= 0
(1 + 푟) 푡

G.7. EQUATION 6
Ca l cul ati ng the N PV

N PV is typi cal l y an i nd icator of h ow m uch val ue an in vestm ent or project add s to a firm . Appropriatel y
risked projects wi th a positi ve N PV a re accepted. Genera l l y, an i nvestm ent with a positi ve N PV wil l be
a profitabl e one a nd one wi th a neg ati ve N PV wil l resul t in a net l oss. This concept is the ba sis for the
N et Present Val ue Rul e, whi ch di ctates tha t the onl y i nvestm ents that shoul d be m ad e a re those wi th
positive NPV’s. The N PV m ethod is compl icated sl ig htl y when used with util i ty pol es as they are
g enera l l y centra l l y fund ed , form pa rt of a big g er system and are not profit genera tors. This is al so the
case for a l l other types of n etwork assets a nd therefore, in these cases, the N PV tool is best u sed as a
com paritor to a ssess the l owest cost sol ution out of th e avai l abl e options.

Each cash i nfl ow/outfl ow is d iscounted ba ck to i ts present val ue (PV). Then they a re summ ed .
Therefore, N PV is the sum of al l term s:

Given the (period , cash fl ow) pa irs (t, Rt) where N is the tota l number of period s, the N PV is gi ven by:

푡
푂
푂푃 푊 = ∑ (1 + 푛푑) 푛
푛= 0

G.8. EQUATION 7
Where:

• n is the yea r of a na l ysi s.

• t is the l ength of the a nal ysis (total years) .

• Nn is the free cash fl ow (i. e. ca sh infl ow – cash outfl ow) for year n .

237
 • d is the averag e discount rate for al l yea rs, i . e. the return that co ul d be ea rn ed per unit
of ti me on a n in vestment with simi l ar ri sk.

Any cash fl ow wi thin the first 1 2 m onths wil l not be d iscou nted for N PV purposes, neverthel ess the
usual in itial investments d u ring th e fi rst year R0 are su mm ed up to a neg ative cash fl ow.

M any computer-ba sed spreadsheet prog ram s have buil t-in form ul ae for cal cul ati ng PV and N PV. An
[ i]
exam pl e of the appl ication of the N PV of a uti l ity grid i s given i n H ol l oway . The above equ ati on can
be expand ed to account for the present val ue of i ncrem enta l redu ction in pol e-l ife cycl e costs a nd the
present val ue of in cremental ta x savi ng s from depreci a ted capita l (i. e. th e structu re). With referen ce
[i]
to H ol l oway , the fol l owing is noted :

푂푛 = 퐼푛 − 퐹푛
G.9. EQUATION 8
Where:

• In is the i n come for year n.

• En is the expense for year n.

Whil e an el ectri ca l power g rid g enera tes incom e for th e util ity, it is general l y n ot di rectl y attribu ted to
the util ity structures, therefore:

퐼푛 = 0
ϕ
The present val ue of the pol e l i fe-cycl e cost ( ) wil l be d efi ned a s:

휙 = − 푂푃 푊
G.1 0. EQUATION 9
Therefore the expressi on for the present val ue of the pol e l ife-cycl e cost as a fun ction of pol e
expenses and d iscount ra te can be taken as fol l ows:

푡
퐹푛
휙 = ∑ (1
푛= 0
+ 푑)푛

G.1 1 . EQUATION 1 0
The pol e l ife-cycl e cost can be expressed a s:

∑ 퐹푛 = 퐴 0 + ∑(푁푛 + 푌푛 )(1 + 푖 ) 푛

G.1 2. EQUATION 1 1
Where:

• A0 is the initi al cost.

• M n i s the ann ua l m aintenan ce cost.

• Xn is the pol e repl acem ent cost.

• i is the averag e rate of in fl ati on for al l yea rs.

The acqu isiti on cost (A0 ) in cl udes the i nitial pol e purch ase pri ce pl us storag e, tran sportati on and
insta l l a tion costs. The pol e repl acement cost ( Xn ) is the tota l cost of rem ovi ng the ol d pol e and the
acqu isi tion cost for the new pol e g iven by the fol l owi ng equ ati on:

푌푛 = 퐴̇ 푛 (푛, 푙) + 푅̇ 푛 (푛, 푙 )

238
 G.1 3. EQUATION 1 2
Where:

• 퐴̇ 푛 is the pol e acq uisiti on cost at time n.

• 푅̇ 푛 i s the pol e removal cost a t ti me n.

• l is the l ife of the pol e.

Both the acq uisition cost a n d the removal cost sh oul d be ad justed for future years by the a verag e rate
of in fl a tion .

∑ 퐹푛 = ∑[퐴̇ 푛 (푛, 푙 ) + 푅̇ 푛 (푛, 푙 ) + 푁푛 ](1 + 푖 ) 푛

G.1 4. EQUATION 1 3
Therefore assumi ng a 1 00 year l ine l ife:

푡= 99
[퐴̇ 푛 (푛 , 푙 ) + 푅̇ 푛 (푛, 푙 ) + 푁푛 ](1 + 푖 ) 푛
휙 =∑ (1 + 푑 ) 푛
0

G.1 5. EQUATION 1 4
As noted i n H ol l owa y [1 5-5] from the above expression it is clear there a re six key pa ram eters:

• L – the pol e servi ce l ife.

• D – the a vera ge d iscount rate.

• I – the avera ge rate of i nfl a tion .

• A0 – the i ni tial pol e acq ui siti on cost.

• R0 – the initial pol e rem ova l cost.

• M n – the pol e m aintenan ce cost a t time n.

• M 0 – the initial pol e m aintena nce cost.

• Thus, as a tool for d esig ners to ju stify the use of composite stru ctures an exam pl e
ca lcul ation ba sed on the a bove d eri vation ( ϕ ) for the N PV is g iven i n Chapter 1 5.

Cal cul ati ng the Wei g hted Avera ge Cost of Capital (WACC)

The weig hted avera ge cost of capital (WACC) is the rate that a com pa ny is expected to pa y on
a verag e to al l its security h ol d ers to fi nance its assets. The WACC is comm onl y referred to as the
firm’s cost of ca pital . It is n oted there are m any pl ausi bl e val ues for each el em ent. As a resul t, a fai rl y
wide ra ng e of val ues for th e WACC for a gi ven firm in a given year, may appear d efensibl e

In general , th e WACC can be cal cul ated with the fol l owing Form ul a:

∑ 푁
푟 푁 푊푖
푋퐴 퐷퐷 = ∑푖 =1 푖
푖 =1 푁 푊푖
푁

G.1 6. EQUATION 1 5
where:

• N – the num ber of sources of capital .

• ri – the req uired ra te of return for security.

• M Vi – the m arket val ue of al l outsta nd i ng securities.

239
In the case where the com pany i s finan ced with onl y eq uity and debt, the avera g e cost of capital ,
i ncl u din g tax effects can be computed as fol l ows:

푋퐴 퐷퐷 = 푁푊푒푁+푊푓푁푊푓 푅 + 푁푊푁+푊푒푁푊 푅 (1 − 푡)
푓
푒 푓
푒

G.1 7. EQUATION 1 6
Where:

• M Ve – the total m arket val u e of one type of shares.

• Re – the cost of eq uity.

• M Vd – the total m arket val u e of one type of bond s.

• Rd – the cost of d ebt.

• T – Corpora te Tax Rate.

240
CIGRE
21, rue d'Artois
75008 Paris - FRANCE

© CIGRE
I SBN : 978- 2 - 85873- 523- 5