Dynamic Load Factors for Transmission Towers

Due to Snapped Conductors

P. Jayachandran1, M.ASCE., James F. Hannigan2, Mark S. Browne2 and Brian M. Reynolds2

1
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, 01609
2
National Grid, Westborough, MA, 01582

Introduction

The ASCE Manual on Electrical Transmission Line Structural Loading No.74 (ASCE,1991),
describes longitudinal loads on structures, due to snapped conductors in its section 3.3. It
essentially specifies that longitudinal loads resulting from unbalanced wind or ice on adjacent
spans should be sufficiently resisted to prevent a failure of the structure. Additionally, it says
longitudinal loading resulting from snapped wires, insulator failure and component failure
should be considered in the structural design to avoid a cascading failure of the transmission
line. The ASCE manual provides residual static load factors (RSL) as a function of the span
length to sag ratio and the span length to insulator length ratio. Wire tension multiplied by the
longitudinal load factors predicts the final residual static tension in the wire after all dynamic
effects from the wire break have vanished. This is a static load factor applied to the design of
towers.

The towers are assumed to have rigid supports, and 10 equal spans between the wire break
and the next dead load. The RSL longitudinal load factors given are the minimum required
static loads to be resisted by the structures to avoid failure, and not dynamic effects. These
RSL values range from 1.0 to 1.5 in practice. These longitudinal loads act on the support
structure in the direction away from the failure of cables and will be added to the effects of all
permanent loads.

In this paper, effects of dynamic loadings due to snapped conductors are examined based on
analytic approaches advanced by Thomas, et al (Thomas and Peyrot, 1972,1981,1982). Often,
it is not economical to design and maintain a transmission line system such that it provides
sufficient strength to withstand large dynamic loads at each tower structure. An economic
design of a line system requires that the failure of a limited number of towers is acceptable, if
the overall system is protected from a cascading type failure. The acceptable number of
structural failures should be assessed based on the utility company’s design philosophy and
required reliability levels.

ASCE Manual 74 gives the Longitudinal Load Factor which may be used to estimate the
unbalanced longitudinal load. It is shown here in Figure 1. The Load Factor is a function of
span length to sag ratio, and it varies from 1.0 to 1.5. Research by EPRI indicates that the
span length to sag ratios vary from 10 to 100 (ASCE,1991). The wire tensions multiplied by
the longitudinal load factors provide approximate design loads that include dynamic effects,
structural stiffness and insulator lengths. The load factors are given for rigid structures such as
guyed or lattice towers. They are also given for flexible structures such as single poles, which
may undergo large elastic displacements. These load factors are based on the assumption that
collapse of one or two structures in each direction from the initiating event is acceptable to
avoid a cascading failure. The dynamic load factors computed in this paper have a mean value
of 1.4.

1
Dynamic Response - Snapped Conductors

Three methods are used for the study of loads due to snapped conductors and also insulators:
1) static analyses to obtain the equilibrium position and residual forces or residual static load
factors; 2) full- scale or small scale experimental programs to determine the loads and
resulting stress values; and 3) a dynamic analysis of cable structural systems due to snapped
conductors and wind loads. ASCE Manual uses RSL derived from these effects in the range
of 1.0-1.5. A time history of dynamic loads, by a forcing function F(t) will provide peak
forces and time of occurrence of peaks and also the energy content of forces.

Some measurements of these forces, F(t), due to snapped conductors have been made by
Peyrot (1972), Lee, Kluge, and Thomas (1978, 1980, 1981, 1982). A time history of F(t)
measured in these tests with typical values encountered in practice, is shown in Figure 4.
Relative magnitudes shown are derived from practice based on similar National Grid towers
in the northeast United States. Dynamic analysis is done for towers with various cable
lengths, ranging from 400 feet to 1000 feet, typical of towers used by National Grid. Typical
towers in Western New York area are shown in Figures 2 and 3.

Dynamic Response - Numerical Integration Techniques

Constant velocity and linear acceleration methods are used to find displacement, velocity, and
acceleration at discrete time intervals. In the constant velocity method, acceleration y” can be
written as follows:

c *  y s   y s  1
F s   k * y s  
y”(s) = dt (1)
c * dt
m
2

Where: y(s) = displacement at time step s;

y(s-1) at step (s-1);
dt = time step, usually T/20
where: T = Period = 2* Pi / w;
k
w=
m
Pi = 3.14159
m = mass,
c = damping coefficient;
k = stiffness;
c = zeta* 2 * sqrt[k*m]
zeta = damping ratio, usually 0.01 for steel and 0.02 for concrete.

Displacement at time t can be written as follows:

y(s+1) = 2 * ys   ys  1  y" s * dt 2 (2)

2
In these equations, s = current time step, s+1 = next time step and dt = time step.
Similar equations are available for the linear acceleration method.

The stiffness, k, is obtained by applying a lateral force P and computing the lateral
P
displacement of tower yst; then, k = . This analysis can be done using software such as
y st
Mastan2, SAPIV or PLS-CADD. This study is mainly for lattice type of transmission line
structures; wood pole structures are not included herein.

Dynamic Load Factors

Once displacements have been determined, the dynamic load factor (DLF) can be computed.

y max
DLF = (3)
y st

Here, ymax is the maximum dynamic displacement of the tower by constant velocity method as
in Eq.2. Design loads for the tower simply follow by multiplying the lateral loads by the
dynamic load factor or impact factor. This factor is in the range of 1 to 1.5. In the analysis of
the towers computed here, DLF is about 1.08 to 1.63 with a mean value of 1.4. The constant
velocity and linear acceleration techniques were both used. The advantage of using dynamic
analysis is that it allows a computer simulation of forces and consequent response parameters
such as displacement, velocity and acceleration, which will be used in the design of towers.
Shear and overturning moments are computed, to be used in the design of foundations of
towers.

Response of Towers - Methodology

Impact factors were determined by experimental studies by Govers, Mozer, Ferry-Borges and
Peyrot (1972). The impact factors were determined by conducting tests in which the
conductors and insulators were allowed to snap and impact loadings measured from their
dynamic effects. The impact factor depended on span length of cable, initial tension, insulator
length and flexibility and tower stiffness itself. Peyrot (1972) developed a semi-analytical
formula for the impact factor, based on the recoil of the conductor away from the break in the
cable and the dropping of the conductor. The time history of the F(t) measured had two peaks
and a decaying period, lasting a few seconds after the break. The widths of the peaks and the
area under the peaks have a significant effect on the response of the tower. The period of the
cable determines the time duration of the peaks. Figure 4 shows a typical forcing function
F(t).

Thomas and Peyrot (1972) have developed a dynamic analysis model with cable elements and
lumped masses and damping to compute the tower response by numerical integration.
Flexible tower and a rigid tower were connected by two cables, with an intermediate flexible
tower in between. Damping was used in the analysis. Linear acceleration technique was used,
3
with 20 elements per cable. Time increments of 0.002 seconds were used. This is included in
the program Cable7 (16). Experiments conducted by Peyrot (1972), Lee and Kluge at
Wisconsin Power and Light Company (1980, 1981), also developed forcing functions with
cable tensions and tower forces. These forcing functions have two peaks with an initial period
equal to the cable frequency itself, and the second period about half of the initial period.

The typical forcing function shown in Figure 4 has two major peaks, followed by smaller
ones, decreasing until the equilibrium is achieved in the cable system after the cable-snapping
energy is dissipated. At the instant of cable rupture, when t = 0 second, the conductor tension
begins to drop. It remains about 5-10% of the initial tension, Ti for a period of time called the
slack time, and begins to rise to form the first peak. Peyrot (1972) has determined that this
first peak occurs when the insulator swings towards the horizontal due to the recoil of the
attached conductor away from the break.

The second peak occurs, when sufficient time has elapsed after the break for the conductor to
fall freely and bottom down (Thomas and Peyrot [1972]). Either the first or second peak,
which occur within about 0.5 seconds of the break, and can overlap under certain conditions,
is the critical peak for the maximum tension Tmax, in the conductor. The peak values used in
this paper come from experience in cable forces estimated in similar cases in National Grid.
Figure 5 shows the typical curve used in this study, with maximum values determined from
cable frequencies of National Grid towers summarized in Table 1.

Careful observations of the insulator displacement following the breaking of conductors show
that the peak tension occurs when the insulator is nearly horizontal. Consequently, the force
on the tower is essentially a horizontal force, instead of a vertical load, as is the case for the
static equilibrium position just prior to the break itself (Thomas and Peyrot [1972]).

Response of Towers - Analysis and Design

The dynamic analysis of towers was accomplished by using constant velocity and linear
acceleration methods (19, 20). Damping was specified. The time interval for numerical
integration was 0.002 seconds. The natural frequency of the modeled structure was 1.8 Hertz.
Typical time history values of forces and displacements are shown in Figures 4 and 5.
Maximum values of displacements are summarized in Table 1.

The response was computed for cable lengths in the range of 400 ft to 1000 ft. The DLF was
also computed as the ratio between ymax and yst values. These are shown in Table 1. These
values have a range of 1.08 to 1.6265. The mean value is 1.4. The forcing function F(t) was
determined from maximum values based on measurements in previous research and also from
past design experience in National Grid towers in the northeast United States. This is mainly
used to verify design values of displacements and lateral shear and moments at the
foundation.

Clark, et.al. (2006), have measured dynamic loads in the 4 chord members due to snapped
conductor loads at Southampton. The characteristic load response following the conductor
release was evident in all their tests, with an initial peak load associated with the impulse
nature of applied loading, followed by a residual load change. The release load is offset from
4
the vertical axis of the tower (i.e., there is a transverse lever arm component due to cross-arm
geometry,) which causes a torsional response in addition to longitudinal sway response. This
is evidenced by the difference in tensile load recorded in legs A and B respectively and the
compressive loads recorded in legs C and D respectively. The global longitudinal response,
with a frequency of about 3 Hz, dominates over the torsional response (there are 17 peaks
between 10 and 15 second marks in the load-time curve.) The magnitudes of the tensile loads
are about 75 to 150 kN (legs A and B,) and the compressive loads are about 20 to 60 kN (legs
C and D). The Southampton tests also measured the loads on the footings of the 4 legs of the
main chord members.

Dynamic Response - Analysis

Displacements and forces are shown in Figure 5 for one tower with a typical cable length.
This shows the response of a tower which follows the force. The dynamic load factors are
determined based on the ratio of ymax and ystatic. The forcing function essentially follows the
snapped cable peaks 1 and 2 and a subsequent smaller peak, which diminishes after a few
seconds. The response, y(t), which is displacement, follows the forcing functions for different
cable lengths, ranging from 400 feet to 1000 feet. The displacements and accelerations were
calculated using constant velocity and linear acceleration methods, Biggs (1965), Irvine
(1972). The time increment delta used was 0.0.002 seconds. Element forces can be then
calculated using element stiffness matrices. The element forces vector {F} can be written as
follows :

{F} = [S] * [A]T * {y} (4)

Where displacements {x} in element axes are {x} = [A]T * {y}. Damping ratios in the range
of 0.01 to 0.02 were used. In Eq. 4, [S] is the Element Stiffness matrix and [A] is the Statics
Matrix of the structure. See McGuire and Gallagher (2000) and Wang (1972) for matrices
[A], [S] and {F}.

Results and Conclusions

Computer simulation of dynamic load factors for transmission line structures due to snapped
conductors is illustrated in this paper. The forcing functions F(t) due to snapped conductors
used here are based on experiments conducted at Wisconsin Power and Light Company by
Peyrot (1972), Lee, Kluge, and Ferry-Borges. Mathematical modeling developed by Thomas
and Peyrot (1972) was used to assess dynamic load factors on transmission line towers. This
is more realistic than procedures suggested in ASCE Manual on Transmission Line Structures
Loading, (1991), which uses residual static loads, RSL, for longitudinal loads on these towers
due to broken conductors.

ASCE philosophy is based on accepting the collapse of some towers, based on broken
conductors, so that a cascading type of failure is avoided. The dynamic load factor approach
used in this paper had load factors in the range of 1.08 to 1.6265, yielding a mean value of 1.4
for cable lengths in the range of 400 feet to 1000 feet. The dynamic load factor approach
permits computer simulation of response for different classes of towers, with relative ease
based on numerical integration of equations of motion, with damping specified.
5
Consulting firms in the design of transmission towers could now use a load factor of 1.4 for
dynamic loads due to snapped conductors. The other loading conditions will be due to dead,
live, snow, ice and extreme winds. Load factors are used based on ASCE, Canadian and
NESC standards are used for suitable combinations. Gust effect factors are also used from
Canadian and ASCE standards. This is also outlined in the ASCE Manual on Transmission
Line Structural Loadings - (1991).

Dynamic Load Factor computed herein for the longitudinal loads due to snapped conductors
are used in the design of lattice type transmission towers. They form part of a rational method
of analysis of such towers, in the design. The snapped conductors essentially introduce a
dynamic load factor, in the design.

The design of tower elements-chord, diagonals and strut elements are carried out now, due to
loading combinations of dead and live loads, amplified by the dynamic load factors. Methods
introduced in this paper offer an alternate way of amplification factor for dynamic loads due
to snapped conductors. The ASCE Manual-27 offers a static load factor approach.

6
References

[1] A. Angelos and S. Cluts (1977), “Unbalanced Forces on Tangent Transmission

Structures,” Paper A 77 220-7, IEEE PES Winter Meeting, New York, Jan.
[2] D. B. Campbell (1970), “Unbalanced Tensions in Transmission Lines,” Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, ST 10, Oct.
[3] J. Ferry-Borges (1968), “Experimental Study of the Stresses Created by the Breakage
of Conductors in High-Voltage Lines,” Department of Public Works, National Civil
Engineering Laboratory, Lisbon, Portugal, November.
[4] A. Govers (1970), “On the Impact of Uni-Directional Forces on High-Voltage Towers
Following Conductor Breakage,” Paper No. 22-03 International Conference on Large
Electric Systems (CIGRE), Paris.
[5] L. Haro, B. Magnusson and K. Ponni (1956), “Investigations on Forces Acting on a
Support After Conductor Breakage,” Paper No. 210, International Conference on
Large Electric Systems (CIGRE), Paris.
[6] J. Lummis and K. E. Lindsey (1974), “Computer-Aided Design of Longitudinal Loads
on Flexibility Supported Transmission Lines,” Paper C74 388-5, IEEE PES Summer
Meeting, Anaheim, California, July.
[7] J. Lummis and J. C. Pohlman (1974), “Flexible Transmission Structures Operate to
Suppress Cascading Failures,” Paper C74 055-0, IEE PES Winter Meeting, New York,
N.Y., Jan.
[8] J. D. Mozer, et al (1978), “Longitudinal Unbalanced Loads on Transmission Line
Structures,” Final Report Project 561, EPRI, August.
[9] J. D. Mozer, J. C. Polhman, and J. F. Fleming (1977), “Longitudinal Load Analysis of
Transmission Line Systems,” Paper F 77 221-5, IEEE PES Winter Meeting, New
York, Jan.
[10] A. H. Peyrot, et al (1978), “Longitudinal Loading Tests on A Transmission Line,”
Final Report Project 1096-1, EPRI, September.
[11] A. H. Peyrot, and A. M. Goulois (1978), “Analysis of Flexible Transmission Lines,”
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 105, ST 5, May.
[12] A. H. Peyrot (1980), “Marine Cable Structures,” Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, Vol. 106, No. ST 12, December.
[13] A. H. Peyrot, R. O. Kluge, and J. W. Lee (1980), “Longitudinal Loads From Broken
Conductors and Broken Insulators and Their Effects on Transmission Lines,” IEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-99, No. 1, Jan.-Feb.
[14] A. H. Peyrot, J. W. Lee, H. G. Jensen, and J. D. Osteraas (1981), “Application of
Cable Element Concept to a Transmission Line with Cross Rope Suspension
Structures,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-100, No.
7, July.
[15] M. B. Thomas (1981), “Broken Conductor Loads on Transmission Line Structures,”
Ph.D. Thesis, the University of Wisconsin, Madison, June.
[16] M. B. Thomas and A. H. Peyrot (1981), “Cable7 – A Broken Conductor Analysis
Program – User’s Manual,” EPRI Project RP-1096-3, July.
[17] M. B. Thomas and A .H. Peyrot (1982), “Dynamic Response of Ruptured Conductors
in Transmission Lines”, Proceedings, IEEE – PES Winter Meeting, New York, NY,
Feb. 2, 82-WM-038-8, pp.1-6.
[18] Biggs, J. M. (1965), Structural Dynamics, McGraw Hill.
[19] Irvine, M.(1972), Structural Dynamics, Allyn and Bacon.
7
[20] McGuire, W., Gallagher, R.H. and Ziemien, R. (2000), Matrix Structural Analysis,
John Wiley and Sons.
[21] Clark, M., Richards, D.J. and Clutterbuck (2006), “Measured Dynamic Performance
of Electricity Transmission Towers Following Controlled Broken Wire Events “,
CIGRE Paper, Paris, paper B2-313, pp.1-8.
[22] Wang, C.K. (1972), Computer Methods of Matrix Structural Analysis, International
Text Book Co.
[23] Guidelines for Electrical Transmission Line Structural Loading (1991), ASCE Manual
and Reports on Engineering Practice No.74, ISBN 0-87262-825-6.

8
Figure 1

9
Figure 2

10
Figure 3

11
Figure 4

12
 Deflection v. Time

3.5

3.0

2.5
Displacement (in)

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80
Time (s) Displacement Force (Transposed)

Figure 5

13
 Dynamic Load Factors for Towers

Te
Lc We fe Ymax Ymax
(Sec) DLF
(Length) (rad/s) (Hertz) (Const. vel) (Lin. Accl)

2 k 1 y max
Te = We = fe = DLF =
We m Te y st

400’ 0.1413 44.47 7.08 4.072 4.071 1.4995

500’ 0.177 35.55 5.65 3.878 3.877 1.4280
600’ 0.212 29.622 4.72 3.162 3.161 1.1644
700’ 0.247 25.44 4.04 2.929 2.929 1.0786
800’ 0.279 22.563 3.59 3.539 3.540 1.3032
900’ 0.3314 18.963 3.02 4.405 4.405 1.6221
1000’ 0.365 17.24 2.743 4.417 4.417 1.6265

P
yst = = 2.7156 in.
k

Table 1

14