ASCE Manuals and Reports On Engineering

ASCE Manuals and Reports on
Engineering Practice #74

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

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

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

Transmission Line Structural Loading Guide
Î First edition was published in 1984

“Design Guidelines”
Î Second edition was published in 1991

“Manual and Reports on Engineering
Practice”

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

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

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

Introduction (1.0)
• This manual addresses transmission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Probability Density Function of Load Effect

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

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

Probability Density Function of R

Probability Density Functions of Q & R

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

Why Use Relative Reliability?
• Useful tool to approximately adjust design

reliability.
• Currently very difficult to accurately calculate
probability of failure.
• Powerful mathematical tools are available,
but we don’t have all of the data necessary to
carry out the analysis.
• For example, consider the uncertainty in
predicting the Force Coefficients.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEL and COVR for different components
used in a line.
– Steel components and steel and
prestressed concrete poles.
– Reinforced concrete.
– Wood poles.
– Foundations.
– Conductors and ground wires.
Summary of LRFD Method
I - SELECT RELATIVE RELIABILITY FACTOR (RRF)
OR MINIMUM DESIGN LOAD RETURN PERIOD
DEPENDING OF TYPE OF LINE (TABLE 1.2-1)
II - OBTAIN FACTORS, γ , from Tables 1.2-1 and 1.2-2
QD = EFFECT OF [DL and γ Q50 ]

III - DETERMINE DESIGN LOAD EFFECT QD IN EACH COMPONENT:
Weather
or QD = EFFECT OF [DL and QRP ]
Failure Containment QD = EFFECT OF [ DL & FC ]
Construct & Maint. QD = EFFECT OF [DL and γCM (C&M)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Section 2.1.4)
TABLE 2.1.4-1 Power Law Constants

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

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

of wind pressure (Section 2.1.4.3).

Gust Response Factor (Section 2.1.5)
• Gust Response Factor

• Structural Responses
• Wind Characteristics
• Horizontal Wind Profile

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

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

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

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

Gust Response Vs Gust Factors
• Gust Response Factor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ice Load on Wires due to Freezing Rain (2.3.4)
• Using Historical Ice Data

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

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

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

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

• ASCE 74 Maps (New!)

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

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

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


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


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

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

• Modeling ice accretion from weather data (Appendix I)

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

preparation of Figures 2.3-1 through 2.3-5.

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

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

Octoberice
18, 2006
storms I ce and Wind 62
Extreme value analysis (App. I)
Peaks-over-threshold method with generalized Pareto distribution
⎡ k(x − u) ⎤
F ( x ) = 1 − ⎢1 − k ≠0
1/ k
α ⎥
⎣ ⎦
⎡ −(x - u) ⎤
= 1 − exp ⎢ ⎥ k =0
⎣ α ⎦
Determine parameters using Probability Weighted Moments
4b1 − 3b0 + u
shape parameter k =
b0 − 2b1
scale parameter α = (b0 − u)( 1 + k)
b0 = ∑x
n
1
i =1
(i )
∑
n
i −1
b1 =
n
1
n −1
x( i )
n i =1
Equivalent ice thickness for return period T: xT = u + α ⎡1 − ( λT )− k ⎤

k⎣ ⎦
Ice Load on Wires due to Freezing Rain (2.3.4)
• Combined Wind and Ice Loads

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

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

Ice Buildup on Structural Members (2.3.5)


• Vertical Loads
• Concurrent Wind
• Unbalanced Ice Loading

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

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

National Weather Service Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -
TABLE 2.2.1-2 Tornado Frequencies and F-Scale
Classifications for 1916—1978 in the United
States of America (Tecson et al. 1979)
35
30
25
20
15 Percentage
10
5
0
F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
Downbursts
•Associated with severe thunderstorm cells
•Relatively wide gust fronts
•Elliptical damage pattern

Micro bursts
Micro Burst: A strong localized downdraft from

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

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

APPENDIX K:
Investigation of Transmission Line

Failures

Why investigate failures?
•Increase understanding of line behavior

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

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

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

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

Post Failure Containment
• Longitudinal Cascade
• Transverse Cascade

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

Failure Investigation Procedure
• Photography survey
• Gather evidence from witnesses and

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

THE INVESTIGATION
• The Field Checklist
• The Office Checklist
• Report Preparation

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

Construction & Maintenance Loads (3.1)
General
• Construction Loads are directly related to construction methods
• Personnel Safety is the paramount factor
Construction Loads
• Loads acting on the structure due to the assembly and erection and
the installation of ground wires, insulators, conductors & hardware
• Lifting of Structures
– Tilting of ground assembled structure to vertical alignment
– Pick up of structural section by helicopter
– Worker Loading (Point Loading on Lattice Members, Etc)
• Ground Wire & Conductor Installation
– Recognizes IEEE Std. 524-03 as leading standard
– Addresses common stringing load scenarios
– Provides recommended minimum installation loads and load factors for
ground wires and conductors (3 psf, no ice on wires and structures)
– Load Factor for transverse wind loading (1.5)
– Load Factor for vertical loads from dead end condition (1.5)
– Load
October 18, 2006 Factor for vertical loads from
I ce and Windintact condition (2.0) 88
Construction & Maintenance Loads (3.1)
Maintenance Loads
• Weight of Workers on structure, structural elements and wires
• Load effects resulting from temporary modifications
– Member replacements
– Guying
• Load effects resulting from adjustment or replacement of ground
wires, conductors, insulators and hardware
• Each maintenance operation is recommended to be analyzed in
sequence by engineer
• Load factors not provided

Fall Protection Loads (3.2)
• Dynamic load effects that are created as the result of the fall of a
worker from an elevated position
• Dynamic load effects act on the worker anchorage point
• Anchorage points are points that provide a secure attachment for a
fall protection system
• Fall protection systems assumed to meet all applicable OSHA and
Government requirements
• Recognizes IEEE Std. 1307-04 as Governing Standard
– IEEE Std. provides guidance regarding loads and criteria for
anchorages and step bolts
• Anchorage locations and climbing devices recommended to be
coordinated with operation and maintenance personnel
– Number of anchorages
– Location of anchorages
– Maximum number of attachments at each anchorage
– Maximum expected arresting force
– Type of climbing devices
– Number of climbing
Reviseddevices
ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -
Longitudinal Loads (3.3)
• Structures may be required to resist longitudinal loads
– Loads resulting from inequalities of wind and/or ice on adjacent
spans
– Loads resulting from ground wire, conductor, insulator, or structural
and component failure
– Inability to resist longitudinal loads may result in a cascading failure
of a transmission line
• Types of Longitudinal Loading
– Longitudinal Loads on Intact Systems
• Differential loadings on adjacent spans resulting from different wind and
ice loading and temperature extremes
• Unequal wire tensions
• Wind driven debris and materials
– Longitudinal Loads and Failure Containment
• Severe load imbalances caused by breakage of ground wires,
conductors, insulators, hardware and structural components
• Addresses designing all structures for longitudinal loads
• Addresses installation of stop structures at specified intervals
• Addresses installation of release mechanisms
Longitudinal Loads (3.3)
• Structures may be required to resist longitudinal loads
– Loads resulting from inequalities of wind and/or ice on adjacent
spans
– Loads resulting from ground wire, conductor, insulator, or structural
and component failure
– Inability to resist longitudinal loads may result in a cascading failure
of a transmission line
• Types of Longitudinal Loading
– Longitudinal Loads on Intact Systems
• Differential loadings on adjacent spans resulting from different wind and
ice loading and temperature extremes
• Unequal wire tensions
• Wind driven debris and materials
– Longitudinal Loads and Failure Containment
• Severe load imbalances caused by breakage of ground wires,
conductors, insulators, hardware and structural components
• Addresses designing all structures for longitudinal loads
• Addresses installation of stop structures at specified intervals
• Addresses installation of release mechanisms
Design all Structures (3.3.2.1)

Design all Structures (3.3.2.1)

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

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

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

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

Cable condition “After Load”

Wire Tension Limits of Use (4.3)

The Ruling Span Approximation (4.4)

Wire Tension Loads (4.5)

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


ASCE Manuals and Reports On Engineering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASCE Manuals and Reports On Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASCE Manuals and Reports on

Engineering Practice #74

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

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

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Î First edition was published in 1984

Î Second edition was published in 1991

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Î Definitions, Notations and SI Conversion Factors

Î Limitations of Reliability Based Design

Î Conversion of Wind Speed Averaging Time

Î Supplemental Information on Structure Vibration

Î Equations for Gust Response Factors

Î Supplemental Information on Force Coefficients

Î Supplemental Information on Ice Loading

Î Supplemental Information on Special Loads

Î Investigation of Transmission Line Failures

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

• This manual addresses transmission

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

• The Structural Support System.

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

• For example, an event with a 50-year return

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

• Can adjust the relative reliability of a design by

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

• Useful tool to approximately adjust design

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

Relative Load RP Wind Load

Relative Load RP Ice Concurrent

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

• Manual provides suggested load factors and

φRn ≥ Effect of [DL + γQ ]

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

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

• Manual provides typical values of the

QD = EFFECT OF [DL and γ Q50 ]

Failure Containment QD = EFFECT OF [ DL & FC ]

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

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

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

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

• Converts kinetic energy of moving air into potential energy

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

3-SECOND GUST SPEED

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

• Î 485 weather stations, minimum 5 years of data

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

• Î Based on simulations and hurricane model

Exposure B Urban and suburban

Exposure C Open terrain

Revised ASCE Manual No. 74 - Section 2 -

TABLE 2.1.4-1 Power Law Constants

Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficient, kZ, modifies the

(for 15 ft. ≤ h ≤ 900 ft.)