DYNAMIC GUST RESPONSE FACTORS FOR TRANSMISSION LINE STRUCTURES by RAJESH SHIMPI, B.S.E.

A THESIS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING Approved

August, 1996

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author expresses sincere thanks to his advisor and committee chairman, Associate Professor William P. Vann, for his encouragement and guidance throughout the course of this thesis. Special appreciation is also extended to Professor Kishor C. Mehta and Assistant Professor Partha P. Sarkar for their earlier direction of author's work and their interest as other members of the thesis committee. Financial support from the Institute for Disaster Research (IDR), Department of Civil Engineering, Texas Tech University is gratefully acknowledged. The author shall ever remain indebted to his sisters Neeta and Abhilasha, brother-in-law Deepak, and his friend Aditi Samarth for their love and moral support throughout his graduate program. Finally, the author would like to express 'thanks' to his parents, to whom he dedicates this thesis.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ABSTRACT LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES ii vii viii ix

1 . INTRODUCTION 2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

2.1 Objectives and Scope 3. STATE OF KNOWLEDGE 3.1 Wind Engineering 3.1.1 Wind Characteristics 3.1.1.1 Wind Speed 3.1.1.2 Variation of Wind Speed vsdth Height 3.1.1.3 Effect of Averaging Time on Mean Wind Speed 3.1.1.4 Atmospheric Turbulence 3.1.2 3.1.3 Statistical Peak factor (g) Gust Response Factor (GRF) 3.1.2.1 Extreme Value Theory for'g' 3.1.3.1 Parameters Affecting the GRF 3.2 Flexible Structures 3.3 Structural Response 3.3.1 3.3.2 Mean Response of Conductors Fluctuating Response of Conductors

1 3
5 7 7 7 8 8 12 17 21 22 26 26 27 30 31 31 32 39 42 42

3.4 Changes in ASCE 7-88 4. DESIGN OPTIONS FOR DYNAMICALLY SENSITIVE STRUCTURES 5. POLE, CONDUCTOR, AND GROUNDWIRE DESIGN DATA 5.1 Concrete Poles
111

5.1.1 5.1.2

Static-Cast Concrete Poles Spun-Cast Concrete Poles

42 43 47 47 48 50 61 62 64 65 65 67 67 68 70 71 72 73 73 74 74 75 76 76 76 78 86 88 89

6. DAVENPORT'S MODEL (ASCE, 1991) 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Notation 6.3 Equations 6.4 Example Calculations for Spun-Cast Concrete Pole 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3 6.4.4 6.4.5 6.4.6 Sununary of Input Data General Calculated Values Tower Gust Response Factor Conductor Gust Response Factor Groundwire Gust Response Factor Tower Stress

6.4.6.1 Conductor Contribution 6.4.6.2 Groundwire Contribution 6.4.6.3 Tower Contribution 6.4.6.4 Total Stress 6.4.7 Tower Deflection 6.4.7.1 Conductor Contribution 6.4.7.2 Groundwire Contribution 6.4.7.3 Tower Contribution 6.4.7.4 Total Deflection 7. SOLARI AND KAREEM'S MODEL (ASCE 7-95) 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Notation 7.3 Equations 7.4 Example Calculations for Spun-Cast Concrete Pole 7.4.1 7.4.2 Summary of Input Data General Given and Calculated Values
IV

7.4.3 7.4.4 7.4.5 7.4.6

Tower Gust Response Factor Conductor Gust Response Factor Groundv^dre Gust Response Factor Tower Stress

90 91 93 96 97 97 98 101 101 102 102 103 103 104 104 105 106 110 110 112 113 114 114 115 117 118 118 120 120

7.4.6.1 Conductor Contribution 7.4.6.2 Groundwire Contribution 7.4.6.3 Tower Contribution 7.4.6.4 Total Stress 7.4.7 Tower Deflection 7.4.7.1 Conductor Contribution 7.4.7.2 Groundwire Contribution 7.4.7.3 Tower Contribution 7.4.7.4 Total Stress 8. SIMIU'S MODEL (1976, 1980) 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Notation 8.2.1 8.3.1 8.3.2 8.4.1 8.4.2 8.4.3 8.4.4 8.4.5 Relevant Graphs and Tables from Simiu 1976 Gust Response Factor Maximum Alongwind Displacement Summary of Input Data General Given and Calculated Values Tower Gust Response Factor Conductor Gust Response Factor Tower Deflection 8.3 Equations

8.4 Example Calculations for a Spun-Cast Concrete Pole

8.5 Summary of Simiu's Model 9. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY STUDY 9.1. Introduction

9.2. Comparison of Spun-Cast Concrete Pole Results by Davenport's Model and ASCE 7-95 Commentary Method 9.3 Comparison of Spun-Cast and Static-Cast Concrete Pole Results 9.4 Sensitivity Parameters 9.5 Sensitivity Results 10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10.1 10.2 10.3 Summary Conclusions Recommendations

120 125 127 129 139 139 141 143 145

BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A. TABLE OF SENSITIVITY STUDY RESULTS FOR SPUN-CAST AND STATIC-CAST CONCRETE POLES B. SENSITIVITY STUDY GRAPHS FOR STATIC-CAST POLE C. FORTRAN CODE FOR SENSITIVITY STUDY D. INPUT DATA FOR CONCRETE POLES

149 162 168 185

VI

ABSTRACT Transmission line structures are flexible, line-like, wind-sensitive structures used for distribution of electricity. Dynamic wind loads on these structures result from two components: wind loads on the tower and wind loads on the conductors. Various approaches are available for the calculation of the gust response factor. The Gust response factor (GRF) is the static equivalent of the dynamic loads acting on the transmission lines. The ASCE 7-95 Commentary Method (1995) has a procedure to evaluate the GRF based on the new 3-second gust wind speeds adopted in the code. This procedure is for general categories of structures. Davenport's model (1979) is tailored exclusively for transmission lines and is flexible v^th any averaging time. Simiu's model, which again is not developed for transmission line structures, uses graphs for the major part of the GRF calculations. In this study, Davenport's model is used as a reference model for the calculation of GRF and foundations of approaches put forward by ASCE 7-95 and Simiu are studied. All these methods are considered in evaluating the loads on Sensitivity studies are carried out for understanding the representative transmission line systems using Static-Cast and Spun-Cast concrete poles. effects of different parameters in the Davenport and ASCE 7-95 methods and modifications are suggested in the ASCE 7-95 method.

VU

LIST OF TABLES 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 5.1 5.2 6.1 6.2 8.1 Values of Power Law Exponent and Gradient Height based on 3-sec. Averaging Time in ASCE 7-95 Extreme Values Calculated by Davenport (1964) with T = 3600 Frequencies and Spectral Values Selected for Simplified Time History Values of Wind Parameters in ASCE 7-88 and ASCE 7-95 Properties of Static-Cast and Spun-Cast Concrete Poles Results of SPRINT Analysis for Static-Cast and Spun-Cast Concrete Poles Parameters for Use in Davenport's Equations Separation Factor, e, for Different Ratios of B/A ^z ^ Values of and ZA. corresponding to Various vHy Yji Curves 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 A.l A.2 Summary of Results for 84-Foot Spun-Cast Concrete Pole Comparison of Background and Resonance Contributions to the GRF in the Davenport and ASCE Methods Comparison of Results for the 84-Foot Static-Cast, and Spun-Cast Concrete Poles Parameter Values for the Baseline Structures Sensitivity Study Results of Spun-Cast Concrete Pole Sensitivity Study Results of Static-Cast Concrete Pole 126 128 150 156 45 52 59

11 24 24 36 45

109 121 123

VUl

LIST OF FIGURES 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 5.1 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.1 Typical Wind Speed Record Typical Profiles of Mean Wind Speed and associated Gradient Height Idealization of Gust Spectrum Plot over an Extended Range (Davenport, 1972) Influence of Averaging Time on the Mean Wind. Speed (after Durst, 1960, and Krayer and Marshall, 1992) Spectrum of Longitudinal Wind Velocity Fluctuations Representative Components of Spectrum for Frequencies in Table 3.2 Sensitivity of GRF to Damping Ratio Sensitivity of GRF to Fundamental Frequency Sensitivity of GRF to Width of the Building Ratio Sensitivity of GRF to Basic Wind Speed Response Model Elements of Response Spectrum Analysis Basic Design Wind Speed Map Proposed for ASCE 7-95 Using 3-Second Gust Speeds Typical Properties of Concrete Poles Davenport's Background Response Terms as Function of The Size Ratio Davenport's Gust Response Factor for the Tower (Simplified Equation) Davenport's Gust Response Factor for the Conductors (Simplified Equation) Spectra of Wind Speed, Conductor Response, and Tower Response Size Effect Functions in the ASCE 7-95 Commentary Method 35 44 54 55 55 58 80 25 28 28 29 29 30 33 9 13 14 16 20

IX

7.2

Variations in the Fundamental Mode Shape Equation

rzV
(|)(z)= 7.3 7.4 8.1 8.2 8.3 9.1 9.2 9.3 with^ 83 87 87 107 107 108 130 132 134 Variations of Factor K with Wind Profile Exponent, a, and Mode Shape Exponent, ^ Comparison of Equation 8.12 and Equation 8.13 for Factor K and Exposure C Function S (Simiu, 1976) Function J (Simiu, 1976) Function Y^^ (Simiu, 1976) Combined Response Sensitivity to Tower Height and Conductor Span for Spun-Cast Concrete Pole Combined Response Sensitivity to Tower Height and Tower Damping Ratio, ^tower for Spun-Cast Concrete Pole Response Sensitivity to Tower Height and Conductor Span Separated by Load Component for Spun-Cast Concrete Pole Response Sensitivity to Tower Height and Tower Damping Ratio, ^tower, Separated by Load Component for Spun-Cast Concrete Pole Sensitivity of Davenport's Aerodynamic Damping in the Conductor and Groundwire to Span Combined Response Sensitivity to Tower Height and Conductor Span for Static-Cast Concrete Pole Combined Response Sensitivity to Tower Height and Tower Damping Ratio, ^tower for Static-Cast Concrete Pole Response Sensitivity to Tower Height and Conductor Span Separated by Load Component for Static-Cast Concrete Pole Response Sensitivity to Tower Height and Tower Damping Ratio, ^tower, Separated by Load Component for Static-Cast Concrete Pole

9.4

137 138 163 164

9.5 B.l B.2 B.3

166

B.4

167

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION A nation-wide system of electric power supply involves transmission lines as an integral part of the network. The basic function of transmission lines is to transmit electricity fi-om power plants. Therefore, continuous, uninterrupted, and efficient functioning of transmission lines is needed in order to balance demand-supply requirements. For meeting this demand, transmission lines should be structurally reliable. At the same time, the transmission tower and the conductors attached to it should function as a single unit. Therefore, a great deal of effort and a high standard of design must be enforced to avoid structural failure that may result due to a critical loading condition. Transmission line structures are more sensitive to d3Tiamic loads than most type of structures. The most common and important dynamic loads result fi*om wind on the tower, conductors, and ground wire. A typical transmission line consists of a series of towers with conductors and groundwires spanning between each pair of consecutive towers. Conductors are highly flexible line-like structures with uniformly distributed mass along the span (Davenport, 1979). Wind loading on transmission lines consists of three parts. First, some wind loads act directly on the transmission tower itself. Second, the conductors are subjected to wind loads and in turn, these loads are transmitted to the tower. Third, wind loads on a groundwire are transmitted to the tower in the same way. Wind on the conductors is invariably the most critical of the three loadings. However, all three parts are important in ascertaining the overall effects of wind loads on transmission towers. When wind loads act on wires, it is recognized that a wind gust of maximum intensity does not act simultaneously on the entire span between

towers. Due to this spatial effect, net wind forces are reduced. At the same time, wind speeds vary in time, and because of these "gust fluctuations," towers and conductors can be subjected to resonance. opposite effects on the response of transmission line structures. In order to avoid complex calculations in structural dynamics a single 'factor' can be assessed to account for dynamic effects resulting fi-om gust fluctuations. Several analytical models have been developed in the past to calculate this dynamic factor which, when multiplied by the static response, gives the maximum dynamic response of the structure. This dynamic factor is usually referred to as the "Gust Response Factor," and this terminology, with the acronym GRF, is used throughout this manuscript. The subject of this thesis is to study different analytical models for determining the GRF and to recognize the most critical parameters influencing the structural behavior through a sensitivity study. Thus, spatial variations of wind gusts and fluctuating components of the gusts have

CHAPTER 2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Since transmission line structures are unique in being very wind sensitive and having strong loads applied to them through wind on long flexible wires as well as wind on the towers or poles themselves, special methods of analysis are needed for their design. In the past, the method of Davenport (1979, ASCE 1991) has been the most accepted one, and it has been used in conjunction with standard wind maps giving expected fastest mile winds. With the advent of wind maps based on a 3-second gust in ASCE 7-95, the question of adapting the Davenport method to these maps arises. Also, the Commentary to ASCE 7-95 presents a new method for analyzing wind sensitive structures which might be as appropriate as Davenport's method for transmission lines, or more so. In order to evaluate which method is best for transmission line structures, and to understand the assumptions, questions, and complexities involved in each method, a study of these two methods and any other available "rational analysis" methods (ASCE 1995) is needed.

2.1 Methods Considered As mentioned in the first chapter, various analytical approaches are currently in practice for calculation of the gust response factor (GRF). There are three models of "rational analysis" for determining the GRF and thus the design wind pressure for a d3niamically wind sensitive structure. models are as follows: 1. Simiu's Model (1976, 1980), based upon Vellozzi and Cohen's Model (1968). 2. Davenport's Model (1979, EPRI 1987, ASCE 1991); and 3. Solari and Kareem's Model (ASCE 7-95, Commentary). These

The model of Simiu (1976, 1980) was developed for general categories of structures and was an update and modification of the model of Vellozzi and Cohen (1968). Vellozzi and Cohen's approach formed the basis for the ANSI A-58.1 (1982) and ASCE 7-88 (1988) design standards. Vellozzi and Cohen's and Simiu's formulations are distinct fi-om the other two models (Davenport and ASCE 7-95) discussed in this manuscript in that they rely in part on information in graphs and thus are not as adaptable to computer calculations. The model of Davenport (1979) is specialized to transmission line structures. This model grew out of Davenport's (1962) earlier analysis of "line like structures" and has been referenced and adopted in a number of other publications, including ASCE's "Guidelines for Electrical Transmission Line Structural Loading" (1991). The model is based on a 10-minute average wind speed, but adaptations of it to a fastest mile wind have been published (EPRI, 1987; ASCE, 1991). It separates tower, conductor, and groundwire responses, thus giving independent gust response factors for the tower and the wires. Then based on the differences in the natural frequencies of the tower and the wires, a separation coefficient 'e' is used. Furthermore, Davenport's model assumes that even though the ground wires and conductors are located at different heights on the tower, loads on the wires are fully correlated, i.e., all lines experience peak responses at the same time. This assumption probably overestimates the total peak forces that the tower 'receives'fi-omthe conductors and groundwires. The model of Solari (1992a, b) has been modified for presentation in the Commentary to ASCE 7-95 by Kareem. This model is for general structures and has the distinction of dealing directly with 3-second gust wind speeds. Nevertheless, it utilizes mean hourly speeds in portions of its treatment, since it too is based on frequency response concepts and

probabilistic peak factors which cannot be used directly with a 3-second duration. The results one gets for design wind pressures will vary according to which one of these design models is used. Davenport's model and SolariKareem's model are treated in the greatest detail herein, mainly because Davenport's model is so well tailored to transmission lines and has been used so extensively in their design, and because an understanding of the new model of Solari and Kareem is desired for comparison. Also, these two models avoid the problem of using graphs, and so are more amenable to computer usage than the models proposed by Vellozzi and Cohen (1968) and by Simiu (1980). 2.2 Objectives and Scope The general objectives are as follows : 1. To study the three models introduced in the preceding section: a. Simiu's Model (1980); b. Davenport's Model (ASCE 1991); c. Solari-Kareem Model (ASCE 7-95 Commentary Method) with a 3second gust speed. in order to understand the foundations of the equations and to make recommendations about their practicality for transmission line systems. 2. To compare results for the gust response factor (GRF), deflections, and stresses obtained by the Davenport and ASCE 7-95 models for typical transmission line structures. 3. To suggest modifications for the Davenport Model and the ASCE 7-95 Commentary Method with regard to their determination of the gust response factor (GRF), deflections, and stresses in transmission line structures.

4. To carry out sensitivity studies using parameters such as height of the tower, percentage of critical damping in the tower and the conductors, and span of the conductors. 5. Based on the sensitivity study results, to identify basic parameters that are influential in the calculation of the gust response factor (GRF) and which may merit additional attention in the future for more accurate solutions.

CHAPTER 3 STATE OF KNOWLEDGE 3.1 Wind Engineering 3.1.1 Wind Characteristics Although wind loads play a major role in the design of buildings, the nature of wind itself is a subject with which engineers are generally not very familiar. This situation is due partly to the interdisciplinary nature of the subject and partly because of the lack of emphasis usually given to wind engineering in engineering curricula. As a result, design for wind forces has tended to become compartmentalized; the estimation of design wind loads is often delegated to others and divorced from the analysis and design of the building itself. Indeed, to a few engineers, destructive winds are little more than unpredictable acts of God capable of little or no scientific explanation. When designing any building to resist wind forces, one of the chief factors that has to be taken into account, affecting both cost and safety, is the design load that is likely to be imposed on the building by the wind. It is not therefore surprising that as urban areas continue to grow and more sophisticated analyses and designs of buildings are achieved, more attention is given to design wind speed and attendant loads. It should be said at the outset that buildings should not be designed for the "highest recorded speed" at a site, but should be designed to resist wind speeds that are likely to occur with specific probabilities. The movement of air near the surface of the earth is generally described in terms of a wind velocity vector having both magnitude and direction. The scalar quantity used to describe wind speed must be defined with respect to averaging time, ground terrain, and height above ground. Wind speeds can be described in terms of peak wind, mean wind, fastest-mile wind, 3-second gust or annual extreme fastest-mile wind. Each of these

terms has a unique meaning and serves to describe one particular aspect of wind. 3.1.1.1 Wind Speed Movement of air parallel to the ground is generally termed as "wind" for engineering purposes. Typical wind speed record is shown in Figure 3.1. Wind speed varies in space and time. It consists of a mean wind speed and fluctuations about the mean. 1. Mean wind speed is the mean value of a wind speed record taken over some time interval. Wind gusts are fluctuations about the mean value. It is common to refer to a mean wind speed as mean hourly, 10-minute or 1-minute average wind speed. It should be noted that a 10-m standard height 2. above ground (flat terrain) is used in these standard measurements. Ppflk wind speed is the maximiun instantaneous value of the wind speed that is recorded. Most commonly used anemometers have response times of one to three seconds. Hence, a peak wind speed is generally a 3-second gust. 3.1.1.2 Variation of Wind Speed with Height 3.1.1.2.1 Gradient Wind and Gradient Height. Natural and manmade obstructions retard the movement of air close to the ground. At some height above the ground, the movement of air is independent of these ground obstructions. This unobstructed wind speed is termed the "gradient wind speed," and the lowest height at which the air movement is not retarded is termed the "gradient height." The wind speed above the gradient height may be considered to be constant. The variation of wind speed with height below the gradient height is strongly influenced by the terrain roughness (surface obstacles). This

125inpli ^12i*

iO

in

Figure 3.1

Typical Wind Speed Record (Simiu and Scanlan, 1986)

variation or profile can be defined by the Power Law or the Logarithmic Law. For engineering purposes, the wind speed profile is usually used in the Power Law form (Davenport, 1960) where at any height above ground the wind can be represented as
-ll/a

V =V

z z8
J

for

0<=z<=zg

(3.1)

and Vz = Vg where V2 Vg z Zg = = = =

for

z > zg

wind speed at any height, z, mph, gradient wind speed, mph, height above ground, ft, gradient height, fli, power-law coefficient.

1/a =

The values of gradient height, Zg, and power-law exponent 1/a depend on the ground surface roughness. Surface roughness is the cumulative drag effect of all obstructions to the wind. The roughness is characterized by the density, size, and height of buildings, trees, vegetation, rocks, etc., on the ground. Surface roughness will be minimum over water and maximum over a large city. The power law is used in both the American National Standard ASCE 7-95 and in the National Building Code of Canada (NRCC, 1980). Values of gradient height, Zg, and power law exponent, 1/a, from ASCE 7-95 are shown in Table 3.1 for different exposures or types of terrain. Davenport (1960) took wind data from 19 different locations around the world and determined the power-law coefficient, 1/a, at each location. The variation of 1/a at the different locations was attributed solely to the variation in terrain roughness. The values of 1/a varied fi-om 1/10.5 for
10

Table 3.1

Values of Power Law Exponent and Gradient Height based on 3second Averaging Time in ASCE 7-95 PowerLaw Exponent, d 1/5 1/7 1/9.5 1/11.5 Gradient Height Z g (fii) 1500 1200 900 700

Exposure* A B C D

* refers to Exposure Categories in ASCE 7-95 Exposure A: Large city centers with at least 50% of the buildings having a height in excess of 70 feet; Exposure B: Urban and suburban areas, wooded areas, or other terrain with numerous closely spaced obstructions having the size of single-family dwellings or larger; Exposure C: Open terrain with scattered obstructions having heights generally less than 30 feet. This category includes flat open country and grasslands; Exposure D: Flat, unobstructed areas exposed to wind flowing over large bodies of water.

11

coastal waters to 1/1.6 at the center of a large city. He also found that the gradient height, Zg, varied from 885 ft over flat open country to 2020 ft over a large city. Some typical profiles for mean wind speed at and associated

gradient height for the same gradient wind speed of 146 mph are shown in Figure 3.2.

3.1.1.3 Effect of Averaging Time on Mean Wind Speed Different definitions of wind speed have major implications in the determination of wind loading. The same wind record provides different

mean wind speeds depending on the averaging time used. Various national standards around the world use different definitions of wind speed, e.g., the National Building Code of Canada (NRCC, 1990, 1990a) uses a mean hourly wind speed, the American National Standard ASCE 7-95 (1995) uses a 3second gust speed, and the British (BSI, 1972) and Australian (SAA, 1989) Standards utilize a 2-second gust speed. The mean wind speed values are higher for shorter averaging times and vice-versa. The main reason for this is that short gusts of high wind speed last for very short periods of time. A wind record which is to be used for calculation of a mean wind speed and an RMS value of wind speed should be long enough to reflect the effects of low frequency components of mechanical turbulence generated by the terrain roughness and short enough for stationarity. Davenport (1972) has developed a power spectral density plot over an extended time history as shown in Figure 3.3. This plot provides a background for choosing the averaging time interval for mean wind speed. This spectrum has two distinct t57pes of air flow: (a) macrometeorological or climate fluctuations, and (b) micrometeorological fluctuations or gusts. These fluctuations are separated by a stationary time interval which is called the spectral gap which varies between 10 minutes and 1 hour. Based on this spectral gap, mean values averaged over 10 minutes to 1 hour are optimum
12

a. E o'
LU C CO

^ b
^^

Q Z

<i>

!i:
TD 0)
<!->

C O

G
o m C O
< TT C C C T3 (D <D

CO
TD

X X
1

c
.l-M

/^
r" ^

:s
(_

rr a;

X <

p
i.
^ ^ M

o e n o tr c u CM c t.

--*

"^ ^*
-

* ^
Nw*

-*N*/

F03 CO 0) U(
UJ

^"
T
0 ^

13

i
fi J*
.f C
4

a:

u o

a c
tUD

> C O

Q
C

c c
CO Ul

a
-a 4
CO
CO

e-

o
C o
1-4

CO

0 o

CO CO 0)
(M

i:2
...> u '

jr

s.

niTuic^c .<335U3

for stability. In this study by Davenport, the wind speeds were averaged over record length of 12 minutes. Inasmuch as wind speed magnitudes are a function of averaging period, there is an obvious requirement for data on mean wind speeds averaged over various periods of time ranging fi-om one hour down to a few seconds. This requirement has, to some extent, been met by the work of Durst (1960) and Hollister (1970). On the basis of a statistical analysis of wind records from Cardington and, for shorter periods than 5 seconds, from the data of Ann Arbor (Sherlock and Stout, 1937; Sherlock, 1952), Durst obtained the results as shown in Figure 3.4. The most striking change in the wind design provisions fi-om ASCE 788 to ASCE 7-95 is fi-om a basic design wind speed that represents a fastest mile wind to one that represents a 3-second gust. The 3-second gust speed is considerably greater than the corresponding fastest mile wind, having a ratio that varies with the averaging time used in determining the fastest mile wind. This ratio is different in hurricane and non-hurricane regions (Krayer and Marshall, 1992). The effect of averaging time on the measured wind speed is shown in Figure 3.4. There the ratio between the mean wind speed measured over an arbitrary time interval, V^, and the mean hourly wind speed VsgQO ^^ given by the lower curve for a non-hurricane region (Durst, 1960) and that for a hurricane region is given by the upper curve (Krayer and Marshall, 1992). As an example, in a non-hurricane region a 90 mph fastest mile wind would have an averaging time of 40 seconds and a ratio to the mean hourly speed of 1.30, while the three-second speed has a ratio to the mean hourly speed of 1.53, giving a ratio between the three-second gust speed and the fastest mile speed of 1.18. The corresponding ratio for a 90 mph fastest mile wind in a hurricane region is 1.21. For a 120 mph fastest mile wind the ratio of the three-second gust to the fastest mile speed is 1.15 in a non-hurricane region
15

and 1.18 in a hurricane region.

Thus, three-second gust winds are of the

order of 20 percent larger than corresponding fastest mile winds.

1.80 1.'/J 1.701.651.601.55o 1.50o 1.45CD CO 1.40: r 1.35" ^ 1.301.251.201.151.101.051.00-

m
-^j.

I fi.

S
\

X
^

/ Km ye^ 4.

n,iUil

Dursi
> ^

- I 1 I I 11111

- i I I I

1 1 1 1 1

-1

1I

I Mill

I I I T I-

10

100
GUST DURATION. SEC

1000

10000

Figure 3.4

Influence of Averaging Time on the Mean Wind Speed (after Durst, 1960, and Krayer and Marshall, 1992)
16

3.1.1.4 Atmospheric Turbulence Examination of the wind record in Figure 3.1 shows that wind speed at a point in space fluctuates. The fluctuating part of wind is termed as turbulence. The wind speed over a given time interval can be considered as consisting of a mean component and a fluctuating component. The mean wind speed (based on, e.g., a 10-minute record) increases with height, but the amplitude of the fluctuating component remains essentially constant with height. There is, however, a tendency for the amplitude of the fluctuations to be larger near the ground over rough terrain. Turbulence induced by the interaction of the moving air with obstacles is referred to as "mechanical" turbulence. Convective turbulence caused by mesometeorological conditions (e.g., an unstable atmosphere) is called meteorological turbulence. The analysis of atmospheric turbulence is characterized by the following quantities: 1. Turbulence Intensity, 2. Integral Scales of Turbulence, 3. Spectra of Turbulent Velocity Fluctuations. 3.1.1.4.1 Turbulence Intensity. The intensity is expression for turbulence

i(.)=^Bi> U(z)
where U(z) = mean wind speed at elevation z; and 7u^(z) = root mean square of the fluctuations in wind speed; u.

(3.2)

Turbulence intensity is the intensity of turbulence in the wind flow and is denoted as I( z). It indicates the relative amplitude of the fluctuations compared to the mean wind speed. It usually varies with exposure category
17

and height above ground level. Of the four exposures, Exposure A ( ASCE 795) has the highest turbulence intensity at the reference height considered and Exposure D the lowest. The turbulence intensity reduces for a particular structure with height in any exposure category. In statistical terminology, I( z) is referred as a coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by mean). A decrease in turbulence intensity with height is expected because at greater heights, while both the mean and RMS values of wind speed increase, the increase in the RMS value is less because of the reduced effect of the shearing action of the terrain roughness (Jan, 1982). 3.1.1.4.2 Integral Scales of Turbulence. The spatial size of a gust acting on a building or structure is called the Integral Scale of Turbulence. The chances of a small building or a structure being engulfed by a gust is higher than for a tall or massive building or structure. Technically speaking, the integral scale of turbulence is a measure of the average size of the turbulent eddies. The eddy wave length is a measure of eddy size and is defined as A . = U/n, where U = wind speed, n = fundamental natural fi-equency of periodic fluctuations, and k=2K/X is the eddy wave number. In all, there are nine integral scales of turbulence, corresponding to the three dimensions of the eddies associated with the longitudinal, transverse, and vertical components of the fluctuating velocity, u, v, and w. These quantities are defined as: Lux, Luy, Luz; Wx, Wy, Lvzl and Lwx, W y , Lrsvz. If the direction of wind flow is taken along X direction, then the

integral scales in the Y and Z directions associated with the u-component of velocity (along the X direction) are about one-third and one-half the integral scale in X direction, respectively (Simiu and Scanlan, 1986).

18

3.1.1.4.3 Spectra of Turbulent Velocity Fluctuations. fluctuates randomly, its fluctuating

Since the wind speed

properties need to be considered in

statistical terms. A complete representation of the fluctuating component of wind is the gust spectrum, which gives the distribution of the mean square speed over the frequency domain. The gust spectrum is helpful in

determining the dynamic response of a structure. The wind speed spectrum illustrated in Figure 3.5 is obtained from wind measurements in an open field in Lubbock, Texas. Its general shape is t5T)ical of the winds measured at other locations. The graph in Figure 3.5 indicates that the wind speed fluctuates at all frequencies between 0.0005 and 5 cycles per second (Hz)

The corresponding periods of the fluctuations are from 2000 to 0.2 seconds. The graph also illustrates that there is much more energy in the spectrum at a frequency of 0.05 Hz than at a frequency of 0.5 Hz. frequencies larger than 1.0 Hz is negligible. In dynamic analysis of a structure subjected to gust loading, significant dynamic amplification of response can occur at the resonance frequency, i.e., when a natural frequency of vibration of the structure falls in the range of strong wind fluctuation. For example, if a structure has a frequency of The energy at

vibration of 0.1 Hz (a fundamental period of 10 seconds), there can be significant dynamic amplification of the response, because the fluctuating

component of the wind has a fair amount of energy at that frequency, as shown in Figure 3.5. On the other hand, if the natural frequency of vibration of the structure or one of its component is higher than 1 Hz (the fundamental period is less than 1 second) the dynamic amplification of the response will be neghgible because the energy in the wind speed spectrum at these frequencies, as shown in Figure 3.5, is extremely small. This consideration of natural frequencies justifies the apphcation of wind loads as quasi-static loads on most structures and structural elements, rather than as dynamic loads.
19

KKI

lU

<N <

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001 0-0001

0.001

n[Hz]

Figure 3.5

Spectrum of Longitudinal (alongwind) Wind Velocity Fluctuations (Thomas George, 1996)

A structure will not respond fully to the impact of a gust whose size is only a small fraction of the size of the structure. A gust, to be fully effective, must have sufficient spatial extent to envelop both the structure itself and the flow
20

patterns on the windward and leeward sides, which are responsible for the maximum loads on the structure. A correlation function can be defined which accounts for the fact that wind gusts are not likely to act simultaneously over the full extent of a large structure (Vellozzi et al., 1968). The gust correlation function can vary fi-om unity for completely correlated flow to zero for uncorrelated flow. Wind loads on a structure can be derived fi-om the effects of a mean wind speed plus the effects of the associated fluctuating wind speed. The response of the structure depends upon the mean wind speed, the correlation between gust size and structure size, and the correlation between gust fi-equencies and structural frequencies of vibration. 3.1.2 Statistical Peak Factor The equations in which gust factors for wind sensitive structures appear may be written in the form

Y = Y + gG,=Y[l + G]

(3.3)

where Y = the response quantity of interest, a function of time, t; Y m a x = maximum expected or design value of Y; Y Gy g = mean value over some period of time, T, of Y; = the root mean square of the deviations in Y from its mean; = the multiple of c^ needed to produce the maximum or peak value of Y; and G = the gust factor = g^Y

21

In terms of wind, a random variable normally is used to represent the wind velocity, wind pressure, or wind response of a structure, and any of these can be represented by the variable Y in Equation 3.3. Furthermore, the random process is usually considered to be normally distributed and its frequency content is assumed to be represented by a spectrum S(n). The standard deviation of any one of the quantities of interest can be determined fi-om its spectrum. In the past, the time period over which the mean Y and the root mean square Oy have been calculated were of the order of 30 seconds to one hour, but the new ASCE 7-95 standard is cast in terms of a 3-second gust. Thus, gust factors will have to be reduced in order not to have much larger design loads or expected peak quantities than in the past. A key factor in Equation 3.3 is the peak factor, g, which in the past has been given typical values between 3.0 and 4.0, based on extreme value theory for random processes (Davenport, 1964). However, the theory used to compute g contains some assumptions about the process and the time of averaging, T, that make it break down if Y and ay for the process are taken only over a duration of T = 3 seconds. A realistic value of g needs to be smaller than the extreme value theory predicts, an5rway. These aspects of the problem of determining a new g are discussed below. 3.1.2.1 Extreme Value Theory for g The theory of Davenport (1964) results in the following equations for the mean and the mode of the extreme value distributions of the given normally distributed random variable, x(t), which is represented by the reduced variate, h = for the mean
X "x
<^.

: (3.4)

0.5572 h =V21n(nT)-t- , ' ^ V21n(nT)

22

for the mode where n

h = V21n(nT)

(3.5)

m^ or the square root of the ratio of the second to the zeroeth \m /

\ o /

moment of the spectrum, and is the frequency at which most of energy of the spectrum is concentrated; and T = is the period over which the record is taken. Thus, nT is an indication of the number of cycles in the time period, T, of the dominant frequency component. All of the above relationships require the assumption (Rice, 1944-45) that the number of maxima, N, during T:

N = J ^^ T be large.

(3.6)

In applying Equations 3.4 and 3.5 to wind effects, Davenport (1964) took the duration, T, to be 1 hour or 3600 seconds and assumed the range of interest of n to be fi-om approximately 0.03 to 3.0, giving a range of nT fi-om approximately 100 to 10,000. Thus, the means and modes came out as shown in Table 3.2. Taking the values of the mean (or even the mode) in Table 3.2 for the multiplier g shows why g is usually chosen in the range fi-om 3.0 to 4.5 in Equation 3.3 for long duration T such as 3600 seconds. Such a long duration allows time for the peak to occur, with many of the waves in the spectrum reaching a maximum simultaneously. In order to depict the results of this analysis in simplified time history form, four components of a representative wind spectrum, along with the assumed spectrum, are shown added together in Figure 3.6. The four components are taken at the frequencies shown in Table 3.3, where the
23

spectral values are also shown. Two of the frequencies are above the peak of the spectrum, one is at the peak, and the fourth is below the peak. The portion of the time history shown lasts only for 100 seconds, or for one period of the longest-period wave. The figure illustrates how the different waves combine in producing the overall peak of the time history. The comparison between the deviation of the peak firom the overall mean and fi-om the 3second mean is also shown.

Table 3.2

Extreme Values Calculated by Davenport (1964) with T = 3600

n = dominant, frequency nT Mean, hmax,(=g) Mode (hmax)

0.0277 Hz 100 3.225 3.035

0.277 Hz 1,000 3.872 3.717

2.77 Hz 10,000 4.426 4.292

Table 3.3

Frequencies and Spectral Values Selected for Simplified Time History Spectral Value (1/Hz) 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.03

Frequency (Hz) 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.5

24

0.8 n 0.60.4 02 0-0.2-0.4 -0.6-0.8 TIme.t sec.

f^ \ \ / C N i W 7 V^ C M \Fa

sin(w1t) sin(w2t) - - sin(w3t) ^ 'A\ TJ ^ V Jr "^ ll Jr

sm^w ti^

Figure 3.6

Representative Components of Spectrum for Frequencies in Table 3.2

It can be seen fi-om Figure 3.6 that the overall peak of the limited record shown occurs when there is an approximate combination of the peaks of the individual curves. Thus all of the frequency components contribute to the peak, although not in exact relation to their individual peak amplitudes. The same happens when many more frequency components are included in a time history. Over a longer period of time, of course, there are more times when the peaks of the individual curves can combine for the absolute largest peak value of the entire record. However, the increase in the peak with an increase in duration is not large. This is why a large increase in nT produces only a small increase in g in the relationships above. For the record shown T is 100 seconds and n can be taken as 0.05 Hz, the frequency of the wave with the largest spectral amplitude, so nT is 5, and Equations 3.4 and 3.5 predict the mean and the mode of the peaks to be 2.12 and 1.79 times the standard deviation, respectively. Now, if the largest 3-second "gust" in Figure 3.6 is considered, it contains the absolute peak of 0.621. It is seen, however, that the number of maxima during this interval is not "large," thus violating the assumption by Rice (1944-45) cited in connection with Equation 3.6.
25

Furthermore,

Equations 3.4 and 3.5 break down for T = 3 seconds, because then nT is less than one, the natural log of nT is negative, and the square roots in these equations do not exist. By the criterion that the natural log of nT should not be negative, or the product of n and T should not be less than one, the extreme value theoryfor g developed by Davenport (1964) cannot be used for a spectrum with dominant frequency of 0.05 Hz for a duration of the averaging time, T, less than 20 seconds. Thus, it is still valid for a fastest mile wind of up to 180 mph, but it is not valid for a 3-second averaging time. 3.1.3 Gust Response Factor (GRF) ASCE 7-95 defines gust response factor as the factor that accounts for the additional loading effects due to wind turbulence over the fastest-mile wind speed. It also includes loading effects due to dynamic amplification for flexible structures, but does not take into account cross-wind deflection, vortex shedding or instability due to flutter or galloping (ASCE, 1995). In short, the GRF can be defined as the static equivalent of the dynamic response of the structure to the fluctuations in the mean wind speed resulting fi-om turbulence. 3.1.3.1 Parameters Affecting the GRF Parameters that affect the gust response factor can be listed as follows: critical damping ratio; fundamental frequency of the structure; height of the structure; width of the structure; basic wind speed; and type of Terrain.

26

Sensitivity of GRF was studied by Mehta and Kancharala (1986) for the following building and wind characteristics: Building Height Building Plan Dimensions Fundamental Frequency of Vibration Critical damping Ratio Basic Wind Speed Type of Terrain = 500 fl;. = 75 x75 ft. = 0.346 Hz. =0.015 = 100 mph (Fastest-mile) = Suburban Exposure B

The results obtained are shovm in Figures 3.7 through 3.10. The points with a star in the figures represent the values for the assumed building and wind characteristics. These figures indicate the sensitivity of the GRF to various parameters.

3.2 Flexible Structures ASCE 7-95 defines flexible structures as those which have a ratio of height to least lateral dimension equal to or more than five or those structures with a natural frequency of less than 1 Hz. The GRF plays an important role in the behavior of flexible structures. Whereas the response of rigid structures can be determined easily compared to flexible structures, the response of flexible structures is quite complex as the djmamic response of these structures can dominate the structural behavior. In case of a rigid structure, due to the high overall stiffness of the structure in the along-wind direction, the dynamic response can be ignored. For a flexible structure on the other hand, in order to account for dynamic amplification of the loads and to design the structures, the design engineer must have knowledge of the GRF.

27

oc o

1.5

h-

< li-

2: O
Q.

en
(f)

1.3 1.2
I

cr
J

Z) O

1.0

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

DAMPING RATIO Figure 3.7 l.6rQ: L5

Sensitivity of GRF to Damping Ratio

2
if)

1.4
1.3 1.2 l.l.0 O J L J 0.2 I L 1 0.3
I L

o
Q(O UJ CC

\(f) ID O

J 0.4

FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY {Hz) Figure 3.8 Sensitivity of GRF to Fundamental Frequency

2S

6r-

^ o
UJ

1 5

S 1 . 4 -

O I3 a. ''-' en Ixl cr
1.2 I.I
CO

Z)

.0 0

1
50 100 150

2(X)

250

300

WIDTH OF BUILDING ACROSS WIND FLOW (ft)

Figure 3.9 l.6r-

Sensitivity of GRF to Width of the Building

S 1.5

2
UJ

1.4-

in

2 1.3
UJ

cr K
Z)

l.2h

.0

J 110

60

70

80

90

100

I 120

BASIC WIND SPEED (mph)

Figure 3.10 Sensitivity of GRF to Basic Wind Speed

3.3 Structural Response When wind forces act on a structure, the reaction of the structure is called its "response." This response in case of a transmission line structure is produced by wind on the tower and wind on the conductors and the groundv^re. The design of a transmission line structure is based on the peak loads of an extreme wind on all three of these components. It is the peak value of the response that is needed for the design. Peak response is the

summation of mean and fluctuating responses as shown in Figure 3.11. For

A _

a time period, T, the peak response can be estimated b y R (3.7) where

A

= R + g o R

R R g CR

= peak response; = mean response; = statistical peak factor; = RMS of the fluctuating response about the mean response.

ESTIMATED

MEAN RESPONSE

TIME,

Figure 3.11

Response Model

30

3.3.1 Mean Response of Conductors Mean response of the conductors is obtained fi-om the mean wind pressure acting at the height of the conductors. The effective height of the conductor is calculated as the height of the attachment to the tower less twothirds of the sag of the conductor. This effective height is at the center of pressure of the conductors. The mean wind pressure on the conductors is the product of kinetic energy of the wind and the force coefficient of the conductor. The equation for mean wind pressiu-e is P = p V C f 2 where P p V Of = mean wind pressure; = mass density of air (0.0024 slugs/fl;^); = mean wind speed; and = conductor force coefficient. (3.8)

The mean response of the conductors, R, can now be expressed as: R = P Ld where L d = conductor span; and = conductor diameter. (3.9)

Inspection of Equation 3.8 shows that the kinetic energy of the wind per unit volvmie is converted into a pressure through the force coefficient, Cr. The force coefficient is a function of the Reynolds Number, the angle of attack, shape of the conductor, and the roughness of the conductor. .S.3.2 Fluctuating Response of Conductors The response of a conductor to fluctuating wind depends on its dynamic characteristics as well as turbulence in the wind. To determine the
31

fluctuating response of a conductor, the frequency domain approach is usually employed. In this method fluctuations in the wind and in the The area under each conductor response are represented by spectra.

spectrum is equal to the mean square of the fluctuations. Several steps involved in this method are summarized in Figure 3.12. These steps are as follows: Step I. Transformation of the gust spectral density function, Su(0, into the force spectral density function, Svif), through the aerodynamic admittance function, x^(0. Step II. Determination of the response spectral density function SR(f) by multiplying the force spectral density function, SF(0, by the mechanical admittance function, H2(f). Step III. Calculation of the mean square value of the response, OR^,fi-omthe area under the response spectrum. Step IV. Calculation of the peak fluctuating response by multiplying the root mean square value of the response or standard deviation, OR. by the statistical peak factor, g. 3.4 Changes in ASCE 7-95 The most striking change in the wind design provisions fi-om ASCE 788 to ASCE 7-95 is fi-om a basic design wind speed that represents a fastest mile wind to one that represents a three-second gust. The three-second gust speed is considerably greater than the corresponding fastest mile wind, having a ratio that varies with the averaging time used in determining the fastest mile wind. This ratio is different in hurricane and non-hurricane regions (Krayer and Marshall, 1992) as shown in Figure 3.4.

32

Gust Spectrum

Aerodynamic Admitlarx

Force Spectrum logt

<o

HAechanical Admittance

Response Spectrum

o o c C O
^"

'""'* /V^W*.^

LA po*^ ^ ' y^

y^xv>:]x::;xi:i:ix;;::i::::::::::-;-:":iX;::T^
> ' > . x - x - : - > > : - : - : - : : : : : : : ;::: i - -

/ifcii^
togf

^'. ':*;*v';*x'x'Xvl\

Figure 3.12 Elements of Response Spectrum Analysis

^^

The map showing three-second design wind speeds proposed for ASCE 7-95 is given in Figure 3.13. The values for hurricane regions such as Florida take into account the different gust patterns for hurricane regions as compared to those for other regions. Note that winds of the order of 140 miles per hour (mph) are shown for much of Florida and the largest values go as high as 150 miles per hoiur. A 3-second gust speed of 130 mph compares to 110 mph for the fastest mile winds of ASCE 7-88. The values of the coefficients used to model the winds at different heights above ground have also been changed in ASCE 7-95. The model used for this "wind profile" is called the "power law" and has the form
Vz = V33 z
-il/d

(3.10)

33

where V^is the three-second wind speed at an arbitrary height, z, V33 is the three-second wind speed at an reference height of 33 feet (the height at which the basic design values in Figure 3.13 are taken), and is the a powerlaw exponent, which depends on the terrain roughness or exposure at the site of interest. The "hats" on V and V signify 3-second gust values in ASCE 7-95. Corresponding mean hourly values have a bar over the quantity. Fastest mile values do not appear in the standard. A related part of the power law is the height above which the wind speed is considered to be constant (no longer slowed down by the terrain), which is called the "gradient height," Zg. This height also depends on the exposure of the site, but its values have not changed fi*om ASCE 7-88 to ASCE 7-95. The values of a for both the old and new standard are presented in Table 3.4, along with several other parameters to be discussed subsequently.

34

CO

c o

r> D D (O o * iS r* i/ lo

_....^^-._^

<u

a
CO

I I
a
O)
0) CL

^
a.
Q. o

F >

9'm >^ o I/) m O CV K CM Cl

1 2 5

slands an Sam

|1
l8

o
C o o a>
CO CO

llo

1 2 E C ^

Rico

o -J

P C Q- O

l5??

X 8 o > ffl
> S- o e >

11
Q. 3 01

i
3

bo C
rH

o-o S-
c c-e C a c4

I?
c a ^ ! =

cn

ID

J O 2 o c e 8 * -S c
.2 .S .c ^ o s c i> n

Ia ~ c .2 _ * oi S &

CO

<

oo O

a
o

a
CO :^ TD 0)

a
CO T3

s
CO

Q
oo C O

OQ
CO
r-H

CO

<V be

^s

Since the basic wind speeds in ASCE 7-95 are greater than in ASCE 788, the recommended values of the gust response factor, GRF, are lower. In fact, the three-second wind speed is not far below the maximum instantaneous wind speed in a record, and if a structure is fairly stiff or "rigid" (that is, its fundamental natural frequency is high relative to the frequency content of the wind), then the maximum response of the structure will basically be a static response to the peak wind pressure associated with this three-second wind speed. Then the gust response factor should be less than 1.0, depending on the size of the structure. This value is lower than the typical value of 1.3 to 1.5 when using a fastest mile wind. Table 3.4 Values of Wind Parameters in ASCE 7-88 and ASCE 7-95 Expo. new
A

old a

b
0.64 0.84 1.00 1.07

a
1/3.0 1/4.0 1/6.5 1/9.0

b
0.30 0.45 0.65 0.80

Kft:) e
180 320 500 650 1/2.0 1/3.0 1/5.0 1/8.0

^min (ft) 60 30 15 7

a
A B C D 1/3 1/4.5 1/7 1/10 1/5 1/7 1/9.5 1/11.5 0.45 0.30 0.20 0.15

There are two provisions in ASCE 7-95 for determining the gust response factor for "rigid" structures. In the first provision, called the "simpUfied method," no detailed calculations are required, and GRF is simply taken as 0.8 for Exposures A and B and 0.85 for Exposures C and D. This option is appropriate for relatively small structures which can be completely engulfed by the size of a 3-second gust. In the second provision, called the "complete analysis," the GRF is calculated taking into account the turbulence intensity and integral scale of the wind and the size of the structure, as follows:
36

GRF = 0.9

(1^7I,Q) (1 + 71,)

(3.11)

where z is the so-called equivalent height of the structure, Ij is the turbulence intensity in the wind at that height:

Iz -=d

^ooa/6 33 Iz)

(3.12)

and Q represents the background root mean square (rms) response of the structure to the wind as affected by the ratio of the structure's size to the integral scale of the wind:

Q^ = 1 + 0.63
V

1 b-t-h
^0.63^

(3.13)

with b and h representing the width and height of the structure, respectively, and Lj representing the integral scale of the wind (a measure of the spatial extent of the gusts): U =t (3.14)

.33>

The values of c in Equation 3.12 and I and e in Equation 3.14 depend on the exposure and are given in Table 3.4. Typically, z is taken as 0.6(h) for a building in ASCE 7-95.

37

Note that the GRF fi-om Equation 3.11 is insensitive to I-, which is generally in the range of 0.15 to 0.25 during strong wind events. If I, is equal to 0.143, for example, then 71- is equal to 1.0, and Q must be at least 1.22 for the GRF to exceed 1.0. Note also that the frequency of the structure is not considered in these equations. In Equation 3.11, the gust response factor is lowered by a reduction in correlation of wind-induced loads which act over larger surfaces, but the dynamic response of the structure is not considered. The factor 0.9 in this equation is used to calibrate its results to those of ASCE 7-88 for rigid structures. When a structure is considered to be dynamically sensitive to the wind, on the other hand, ASCE 7-95 states that any established "rational method" may be used to evaluate GRF. In this case the gust response factor accounts for the dynamic characteristics of the structure as well as the size effect. In principal this statement allows the use of amy old or new method of dynamic wind analysis, but the value of GRF must relate to the three-second wind speed if ASCE 7-95 is being used and Figure 3.4 is employed to determine the basic design wind speed.

38

CHAPTER 4 DESIGN OPTIONS FOR DYNAMICALLY SENSITIVE

STRUCTURES
The gust response factor, GRF, is a factor on the static wind pressure or force to be used in designing a structure. Its role is seen most fundamentally in the equation for the total force on a structure: Force = -pV^' * A * GRF * C^ (4.1)

where p is the mass density of the air, V^ is the wind speed at height z, A is the projected area exposed to the wind, and Cf is the force coefficient. If V2 in Equation 4.1 represents a three-second gust, it will be larger than the corresponding fastest mile wind, ten-minute average wind, or mean hourly wind. Thus, to obtain a design force comparable to that for one of these other reference v^dnd speeds, the gust response factor in Equation 4.1 must be smaller when using a three-second reference wind speed, V2. In particular, to make the total force the same when using a three-second gust, V3.sec, as when using a fastest mile wind, V ^ , with everything else equal, the ratio of the two gust response factors would have to be:

GRF 3-sec G^^fin

\7 V

fin

(4.2)

V 3-sec>/

where the subscript "fin" stands for "fastest mile wind." At the reference height of 33 feet, for example, and for a fastest mile wind of 90 mph in a hurricane zone, the ratio in Equation 4.2 comes out to be (1/1.21)2 = 0.683. Thus, if the GRFfm as determined by the previous standard were a typical value such as 1.4, the value of GRFs.gec would be (0.683)(1.4) = 0.956 to
39

produce the same design force. This result shows in another way that gust response factors associated with the 3-second gust winds of ASCE 7-95 may be as low as 1.0 or less. One option in the design of a dynamically sensitive structure under ASCE 7-95 is to use an established design method based on a different reference wind speed (fastest mile, 10-minute average, or mean hourly) and simply convert the resulting GRF according to Equation 4.2. Such a manipulation was presented in the ASCE Guidelines for Electrical Transmission Line Structural Loading" (ASCE, 1991), where a value of the wind speed correction factor Ky = 1.21 was used to convert fi-om the 10minute average wind utilized in the method of Davenport (1979) to results for a fastest mile wind. A further theoretical consideration in regard to the three-second wind speed is that three seconds is too short a duration for the probability-based peak factors common to all the well-established methods of dynamic analysis to be valid. In other words, one cannot estimate a peak dynamic response as the mean (static) response during the three seconds plus gg = 3.5 or so times the RMS response during that era. All of the design methods currently in use rely on the concepts of frequency response analysis, and the ratio of the peak in the time history to the RMS value of that record as estimated by extreme value statistical techniques presented by Rice (1944) and Davenport (1964). These techniques assiune, however, that the time over which the mean and RMS quantities are calculated is of sufficient duration for a number of peaks to occur so that a probabihty distribution of those peaks can be formulated (Davenport, 1964). In three seconds, these assumptions cannot be satisfied, so some longer time period has to be considered in accounting for the dynamic response of the structure. Then a conversion to the three-second basis can be made.

40

In some national standards and codes a time period of one hour is used. However, this duration is inappropriate in a hurricane region because of the rate of movement of the wind field. Studies of hurricane events (Krayer and Marshall, 1992) indicate that no more than ten minutes should be used as an averaging time. Either a ten-minute (600 seconds) duration or the variable 30 to 40 second duration of a fastest mile wind in the hurricane range (90 to 120 mph) would be appropriate for a dynamic analysis using the frequency response method and a probabilistic peak factor.

41

CHAPTER 5 POLE, CONDUCTOR AND GROUNDWIRE DESIGN DATA

Wood, concrete and steel single poles are commonly used for transmission lines. In this study, only concrete poles are considered since the use of wood poles is less prevalent in the industry because of the cost of the wood and low fiber stresses. Also, most of the wood poles and some steel poles used in practice are guyed and hence require separate analysis. The supports have a range of pole heights and conductor spans as described below. The conductors are generally of the three-phase type, meaning there are three conductors on each line, not bundled. The three conductor locations considered on the tower are 11 ft., 19 ft., and 27 ft. below the tip of the pole. Groundwires are at one-half foot from the tip. The conductors are fi-om 1.0 to 1.5 inches in diameter and weigh fi-om 1.0 to 1.6 pounds per linear foot, depending on the electrical load they must carry, and a have force coefficient of 1.0. The overhead ground wires are typically 3/8-inch in diameter and weigh about 1/4 pound per linear foot and have a force coefficient of 1.2.

5.1 Concrete Poles 5.1.1 Static-Cast Concrete Pole The concrete poles considered are of two types and are approximately 115 feet long and stand 70 to 100 feet above the ground. One type is a "static cast" pole, which has a tapered-square outside shape that includes a solid cross-section in the upper 40 feet and a round hollow opening below that. The tip is 1.0964 ft. square and the outside dimensions taper outward by one inch per 6 feet toward the bottom. This pole has a force coefficient of 1.6 for a 90 degree wind angle of attack.. The hollow portion has a least wall thickness (at the sides) of 4.5 inches (see Figure 5.1). 6,000 psi concrete is commonly used for this static-cast pole.
42

5.1.2 Spun-Cast Concrete Pole The other type of concrete pole is a round "spun cast" pole that is cast by placing 7-wire prestressing strands in a fixture along with wet concrete and then rotating the fixture about the longitudinal axis so that the concrete is thrown by centrifugal force toward the outside, where it solidifies before the prestressing forces are released. The concrete thickness is at least 3 inches, and it can go up to 4 or 6 inches for the most heavily loaded poles. The tip diameter is 1.0567 ft. and tapers 0.216 inches per linear foot outward toward the bottom. This pole has the force coefficient of 0.8. This pole can be as long as 130 feet and stand 85 or more feet above ground. concrete is commonly used for this spun-cast concrete pole. The insulators by which the conductors are considered to be connected to both towers are the same types of porcelain insulators as used throughout the US. Insulators are typically 8 ft long for 230 KV lines and 5 to 6 ft long for 138 KV lines. Sometimes they are braced. Typical spans between supports are 550 to 750 feet for 230 KV lines (with an average of 650 ft), and 350 to 550 feet for 138 KV lines (with an average of 450 ft). Sometimes the poles for a given span are much higher than for other spans because of the clearances required. These poles are "wind sensitive," since their fundamental frequencies are close to or below 1.0 Hertz. According to ASCE 7-95, any structure with a fundamental frequency below 1.0 Hz should be considered to be wind sensitive. Typical pole dimensions of each type analyzed are shown in Figure 5.1. These are considered to be prototype or "baseline" examples of the two poles. Fundamental frequencies and flexibiUty coefficients were calculated for different spans and heights. Flexibility coefficients are helpful in deflection calculations presented in example calculations of the spun-cast concrete pole. The natural frequencies and mode shapes for both the poles
43

8,000 psi

7f

0=

v0^67

>^

n-o(^G/isa^ 7^

o O O
T

-TAPER =

g
.

CP

m
O
Ii
/
^

^''~M

" (MJNJIMUM)
r

I
M UJ

4-5 fMlKIJMUM)

^^

h
X X

8000
150 fc-'6000

Spun-Cast Concrete Pole

Static-Cast Concrete Pole

Figure 5.1. Typical Properties of Concrete Poles

44

were computed using the finite element program CDA/SPRINT, with careful modeling of the tapering of each pole and are shown in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 Properties of Baseline Static-Cast and Spun-Cast Concrete Poles (Units: Ft. and Lb.) Span Sag of Sag of GW 70, 85, 100 550 650 750 4.5 6.25 8.25 Cond. 10.0833 15.5417 19.3750 Damping in Tower 0.01 0.03 0.05 Damping in Cond.* 0.20 0.40 0.60 Damping in GW.* 0.40 0.40 0.40

Height

* Damping values are for the ASCE 7-95 Commentary Method. Damping in Conductors and Ground Wires is calculated in case of Davenport's Model.

45

Table 5.2 Type of Concrete pole I. StaticCast 70 ft. 84 ft. 100 ft. II. SpunCast 70 ft. 84 ft. 100 ft

Results of SPRINT Analysis for Concrete Poles Flex, coeff for Wind on 3Conductors

Natural Frequency in Hz.

Flex, coeff for Wind on Tower

Flex, coeff for Wind on GW.

0.886914 0.688640 0.551696

2.2896e-05* 4.2000e-05* 6.5234e-05*

3.6221e-04** 4.7841e-04** 6.3604e-04**

6.0487e-04*** 8.7893e-04*** 1.2500e-03***

1.144760 0.921003 0.740436

8.1486e-06* 1.3216e-05* 2.2554e-05*

2.6298e-04** 3.2392e-04** 4.3943e-04**

4.2719e-04*** 5.8028e-04*** 8.4330e-04***

* For calculating deflections at the top of tower due to wind on tower, multiply flexibility coefficient by square of the reference wind speed at 33 feet in ft/sec to get the tip deflection in feet. ** , *** For calculating deflections at the top of tower due to wind on ground wire and conductors, multiply flexibility coefficient by force on the groundwire or conductors of the tower to get the tip deflection in feet.

46

CHAPTER 6 DAVENPORT'S MODEL (ASCE, 1991) 6.1 Introduction The load determination model developed by Davenport (1964, 1979) is now well established in the transmission line industry, having been incorporated into ASCE's guidelines for the design of transmission line systems (ASCE, 1991) and discussed in some detail by other references such as EPRI, 1987. Therefore, a detailed development of the underlying theory will not be presented here, but the equations and their assumptions will be given along with an example for comparison with Simiu's model and the ASCE 7-95 Commentary model considered. The key relationships for Davenport's model, as well as for the other two models, are between the spectra of the wind and the dynamic structural response and between the root mean square (RMS) value of the dynamic response and the peak response. The estimate of the area under the response spectnma is used to calculate the RMS response, and a statistical "peak factor" is then used to determine the expected maximum instantaneous value, or design value, of this d5niamic response. The peak dynamic response is then related to the static response (under the mean wind) in developing a gust factor to be applied to the static response. Another key point is that Davenport's model deals expUcitly with the effects of the wind on the conductors or "wires" and wdnd on the supporting tower or pole. Other models must be adapted to account for these distinct effects. Davenport even incorporates a "separation coefficient" related to how the conductor and tower effects combine. In general this coefficient depends on the degree of separation between the fundamental frequencies of the structure and the conductors, but Davenport suggests a fixed value of 0.75, based on typical degrees of this separation. Davenport's model was originally
47

formulated with respect to a 10-minute averaging time for the wind, but it has been adjusted to a fastest mile wind in the ASCE Guidelines (ASCE, 1991) and can be adjusted to other reference winds with proper care. 6.2 Notation (ASCE. 1991) The following symbols are used in the Davenport's Model

Bt, Bw = dimensionless term for the area under the response spectrum due to the quasi-static "background" wind loading on the structure (t for tower), conductors (w for wires); Cf D(z) d E = force coefficient for the conductors; = pole diameter at height, z, feet; = conductor diameter, feet; = exposure factor evaluated at the effective height of the conductors or structure, ZQ; f|., f^ = fundamental frequency of the free-standing structure in the transverse direction, of horizontal sway of the conductors, in Hertz; gg = statistical peak factor dependent on the frequency characteristics of the response (the moments of the response spectrum) and the 10 minute sampling interval of the wind, taken as 3.5 to 4.0 with a suggested "typical value" of 3.6; Gt, Gw = gust response factor for wind on the structure (tower), on the conductors (wires); h Ky = total height of the structure above ground; = ratio of the reference wind speed used (such as fastest mile wind) to the 10-minute average vrind speed in open country (exposure C) at the 33-ft reference height; L = span of the conductors between supporting structures;
48

Lg

= transverse integral scale of the wind turbulence;

Rt, Rw = dimensionless term for the area under the response spectrum due to the partial resonance of the structure, conductors; S = conductor sag at midspan; Sx(z) = pole section modulus at height, z, feet cubed; V VQ = design vnnd speed at the 33-foot reference height, in mph; = 10-min average wind speed at the effective height of the structure and conductors (note that for VQ one effective height is assumed for the system as a whole); X Zg ZQ = along-wind deflection; = gradient height of the atmospheric boundary layer; = effective height above ground of the structure (0.6h) or conductors (2/3 the height of the structure from the ground up to the attachment points of the insulators, if used, minus one-third the sum of the insulator length and the conductor sag) (Note: while different ZQ values are defined for the conductors and the tower, a single value of 0.6 times the tower height has been used in published examples [Davenport, 1979, EPRI, 1987]); a e = power law coefficient; = approximate coefficient for the separation of the conductor and structure response terms in the general gust factor equations, taken as 0.75; K c = surface drag coefficient for determining the exposure factor, E; = tower stress;

^t' ^w = fi*action of critical damping for structure, conductors (due to aerodynamic damping for conductors).

49

6.3 Equations The Davenport equations, using the above symbols, are as follows. For the gust response factors.

G. = ^

_(l-hg,eEVB,-hR,)
^-^irf
K.

(6.1)

_ (l + g^eEVB^Ti:) Gt=^ T V -
K,

(6.2)

In Section 2.5.1 of the ASCE Guidelines, simplified versions of these equations are given. Taking the suggested values of gg = 3.6, e = 0.75, and Ky =1.2 (this last for a single fastest mile wind speed of 70 miles per hour), and assuming that the resonance terms R^ and R^ can be neglected, the equations simplify to:

G, = 0 . 7 - h l . 9 E ^

(6.3)

G, = 0.7-hl.9EVB^.

(6.4)

As mentioned earlier, the separation factor, e, is unique to Davenport's formulation and is taken as 0.75, based on the fact that conductor and structure fundamental frequencies are usually separated by 0.5 to 1.0 Hz. Some judgment could be used in adjusting this factor for a smaller or larger frequency separation. The statistical peak factor, gg, is based on studies by Rice (1946) and Davenport (1964) for stationary records of a given duration, and a value of 3.5 or 3.6 is accepted in all of the methods discussed herein.
50

The exposure factor, E, is related to the type of terrain at the site and the effective height of the structure, as follows:

E = 4.9>/ic"

^33^
\^o y

(6.5)

where k is the surface drag coefficient. Its values for exposures A, B, and C are given in Table 6.1. As indicated above, Ky is the conversion factor fi-om the results for a 10-minute average wind speed to another basic design wind speed. In the ASCE Guidelines, the alternate design wind speed is the fastest mile wind, for which the following empirical equation is used for Ky:

Ky = 0.81V0.09

(6.6)

where V is the fastest mile wind speed. The approximation is satisfactory only for values of V between 20 and 110 mph. This empirical formula or one like it (EPRI, 1987) is needed because the averaging time varies for fastest mile winds. For converting to another basic wind speed such as a 3-second gust, a different value of Ky must be determined from the one of the curves of Figure 3.4. The Ky for converting from Davenport's 10-minute basis to a three-second gust basis in a hurricane zone is a fixed value of 1.546. The remaining terms in Davenport's equations are the dimensionless background and resonance terms for the RMS response. They are made dimensionless essentially by dividing the total response (static due to the mean wind plus dynamic due to fluctuations about the mean) by the static response. Thus in each of the Equations 6.1 and 6.2, the static part is represented by the constant "1.0" in the initial term and the dynamic part is
51

represented by the second term. Making the second term dimensionless is a process that depends on the ratio of the standard deviation of the wind speed to the mean wind speed, called the "turbulence intensity" of the wind. The turbulence intensity could appear in the equations and be given representative values in Table 6.1 for different exposures. Instead, in

Davenport's equations the relationship between the mean wind and the standard deviation is taken care of by the exposure factor, E, and empirical equations for the background contribution, B, and the resonance contribution, R. Table 6.1 Exposure Category B C D Parameters for Use in Davenport's Equations Power Law Coefficient, a 4.5 7.0 10.0

Gradient Height, Zg (ft.) 1200 900 700

Surface Drag Coefficient, k 0.010 0.005 0.003

Turbulence Scale, Lg (ft.) 170 220 250

The empirical equations for the two quasi-static background terms are as follows:

B. =
l-hO.8

rr \
vLsy

(6.7)

B.=

1-1-0.375

r u\
vLsy 52

(6.8)

In each case the value of B depends entirely on the ratio of the length of the slender member (span L for the conductor and height h for the tower) to the turbulence scale, Lg, of the wind. Davenport's values of Lg are given in Table 6.1 for different exposures. Both B terms are unity for a very short span or very short tower, but generally they drop somewhat below unity for typical conductor spans and tower heights, as shown by the plots in Figure 6.1. For example, for an open country exposure C, Lgfi-omTable 6.1 is 220 feet. If the conductor span is 450 feet, then B^ is only 0.379, and if the tower height is 80 feet, then Bt is 0.880. It may be noted that the nondimensional backgroimd terms B ^ and B^ in Davenport's formulation correspond to the term Q 2 in ASCE 7-95. The three expressions have somewhat similar forms, but they do not correlate perfectly because of the existence of other terms in the equations for G where they appear. In particular, the gust response factor, gg = 3.6, the separation factor, e = 0.75, and the exposure factor, E, multiply -^B^ in Davenport's Equation 6.3, whereas 2gg = 7 and the turbulence intensity, Ij multiply VO^in the ASCE 7-95 Equation 6.1. The effects of these different

representations of the "size effect" for transmission line structures are among the differences in method to be examined in this study. For comparison, Q 2 is shown in Figure 6.1 along with B^ and B^.

53

Background Response Terms

I I H I I I I I I I I I I I I I I H I I I I I I I I H I I I I I I I I MM MM
< > ^ C N J c O G q > p ^ C M I ^ c O O ^

oi

CO rj

iri

"d

i<odc>

LAs or h/Ls

Figure 6.1 Davenport's Background Response Terms as Functions of the Size Ratio (Exposure C, L=450', H=80') In Davenport's simplified gust response Equation 6.4, by taking the effective height of the tower, ZQ, as two-thirds times h, both E and Lg are fixed for a given exposure and G^ can be represented in a single plot versus h with family curves for the different exposures B, C, and D. This plot is given below as Figure 6.2. On the other hand, the conductors may have independent values of span, L, effective height, ZQ, (due to tower height variations), and exposure, so curves for G ^ , ^ from the simplified Equation 6.3 must be plotted versus L for different exposures with ZQ as a family parameter. This type of plot is given below as Figure 6.3. The remaining terms in Davenport's detailed gust response Equations 6.1 and 6.2 are the resonance response terms R^ and R^, which are given by:

54

1.70

a o
-

I 60

1 2 I 50
bJ if) Z EXPOSUf \Z ^ 1.40 B-*^ CATEGORY

o Q.
in
UJ

oc 1.30
tn O UJ 1.20
C ^a^

a: u

*~o^ 1.10

t.OO

40

60

eO

100

120

140

160

160

200

TOTAL STRUCTURE HeCKT (FEET)

Figure 6.2 Davenport's Gust Response Factor for the Tower (Simplified Equation)

I 50

XT. 1.20 O

S
z o 0.
UJ I 10 ifi

ifi UJ 1.00

3 O UJ .90

.80

200

400

600

eOO

1000

1200

1400

1600

1600

2000

DESIGN WIND SPAN (FEET)

Figure 6.3. Davenport's Gust Response Factor for the Conductors (Simplified Equation)
^^

0.0113

rr . \-"'r Cz
V

(6.9)

"-k

0.0123

(6.10)

where ^y^ and ^^ ^ ^ ^ e the fi^actions of critical damping in the conductors and the tower, respectively, L is the span of the conductors, f^ and f^ are the fundamental natural frequencies of the conductors and the tower,

respectively, ZQ is the effective height, VQ is the windspeed (10-minute average) at the effective height ZQ:

V = 1.605

r. \
\^g J

I/O

^88^^"^ K. V 60 ouy\^ A,;

(6.11)

gmd the terms f^ZoA^g ^^^ ^t^o^^o ^^ called "reduced fi-equencies" of the conductors and the tower, respectively. The derivations of these equations are given in Davenport (1979), following results by Manuzio and Paris (1964), Castanheta (1970), and Ohtsuki (1967). In Equation 6.11, the first part converts the wind speed fi-om the reference height to the effective height of the structure, ZQ, the middle part converts from miles per hour (mph) to feet per second (fps), and the Ky factor converts fi^om the fastest mile windspeed V to a 10-minute average windspeed. Graphical representations of various spectra are helpful in understanding both the background and resonance response terms B and R. In Figure 6.4 fi-om Davenport (1979), part (a) represents the spectrum of the wind, part (b) represents aerodynamic admittance functions, and part (c)
56

represents the spectrum of the conductor response, and the spectrum of the tower response. The area under the wind spectrum is the mean square of the fluctuating component of the wind speed, and the total area under each shaded curve is the mean square of the respective response. The differences between the dashed lines and the solid lines in part(c), disregarding the narrow superimposed peaks, represent the effects of the aerodynamic admittance functions, which depend primarily on size effects. Each shaded area is composed of two parts, the resonance peak area, E^R, which occurs in the vicinity of the fundamental frequency and is strongly dependent on the damping factor, and the area for the background or quasi-static response, E^B, which differs from the wind spectrum area only as affected by the aerodynamic admittance function. Together these areas constitute the total mean square of the fluctuating response. The peak dynamic response then is taken as ggC times the RMS response, or g^eEVB -i- R . The so-called "separation factor" is defined by the approximation:

( A 2 + B 2 ) 1 / 2 = E (A -I- B )

where A and B are of similar magnitude and e = 0.75. This equation is used to combine the two mean square values into one simpler expression without squares or square roots. In other words, it allows A and B to be added directly even though, as probabilistic quantities, they actually should be combined as the square root of the sum of their squares. expression The above can be written as follows in terms of A, B, and e:

57

Spectra, f SJ^

)/V

S ^ ( f ) = Power Spectral Density at Frequency f

- 2/3

Frequency

(a)

Spectra for Horizontal Wind Velocity (Horizontal Turbulence)

Admittance

Admittance

ODnductor f. c 't Frequency f

Tower
J.

fi c 't Frequency

(b)

Admittance Functions for Conductor and Tower

Conductor

(c)

Response Spectra for Tower and Conductor

Figure 6.4 Spectra of Wind Speed, Conductor Response, and Tower Response (EPRI Report, 1987)
5K

AJI +

m ="

r
A

e=

(6.12)

If we assimie different ratios of B/A, the values of the separation factor , e, shown in Table 6.2 are obtained. Table 6.2 B/A 1.0 1.2 1.5 2.0 3.0 5.0 10.0 50
oo

Separation Factor, e, for Different Ratios of B/A

Separation Factor, e 0.7071 0.7100 0.7210 0.7445 0.7906 0.8500 0.9140 0.9800 1.000

Table 6.2 shows that if the dynamic portions of the GRF values for the tower and conductors have a ratio between 1.0 and 3.0, then his recommended value of e of 0.75 is justified. This ratio is examined in the studies to follow. It may be noted that the resonance peak in part (c) of Figure 6.4 for the conductor spectrum is shown quite a bit farther to the left; than that for the tower spectrum, since the fundamental frequency of the tower is expected
59

to be considerably higher than that of the conductors. The tower frequency should be determined by a detailed structural analysis. Davenport (1979) recommends that the sway frequency of the conductors be calculated from the pendulum formula with the effective length of the pendulum taken as two-thirds the sag:

^ ^ 12^JV2//

(6.13)

Here g is the acceleration of gravity, in feet per second squared, and S is the conductor sag, in feet. This formula is approximately equal to Vl/S (EPRI, 1987). Damping levels are nearly always difficult to estimate in structures. Estimates of the tower damping factor generally range fi-om 2 to 5 percent, although values fi-om 4 to 8 percent are mentioned in the ASCE Guidelines (ASCE, 1991). The structural damping in the conductors should be equally small or smaller, but the aerodynamic damping of the conductors in a strong wind is considerable. Davenport (1979) uses the following equation to estimate the aerodynamic damping of the conductors and neglects the structural damping by comparison.

^j r^

^^ = 0.000048

vc,

vUci/12),

(6.14)

where d is the diameter of the conductor in inches. It may be worth noting that in analyzing field data fi-om the Moro Test Site in Oregon, Kadaba (1988) found conductor aerodjmamic damping factors ranging from 0.2 to more than 0.6, whereas Equation 6.14 generally gives values in the range fi-om 0.2 to 0.4. Equation 6.9 shows that R^ is strongly
60

dependent on ^, so this estimate is important. If Equation 6.14 is used to see what the aerodynamic damping of a single pole tower is, a value of the order of 0.01 is obtained.

6.4 Example Calculations for a Spun-Cast Concrete Pole Sample calculations by Davenport's model (ASCE, 1991) are presented in this subsection for the 84-foot tapered spun-cast concrete pole of Figure 5.1. Its material properties and fundamental natural frequency are given in that figiu-e. The outside diameter at the top is 1.0567 feet, and it tapers outward at the rate of 0.018 feet per foot of length. The mean thickness the wall is 0.25 feet. The wind drag coefficient is assumed to be 0.8. The damping factor for the tower is assumed to be 0.03 (0.02 fi-om structiu-al damping and 0.01 fi-om aerodynamic damping). The three conductors are attached at distances of 11, 19, and 27 feet, respectively, fi-om the top. The groundwire is attached at a distance of 0.5 feet from the top. It may be noted that the fundamental frequency of the pole is calculated without the conductors and groundwire attached and with an assumption of perfect fixity at the base. Some realistic flexibility of the foundation would make the frequency less. The pole is assumed to be in open country (Exposure C) in a part of Florida where the design 3-second gust speed is 140 mph fi-om Figure 3.13. The span of each conductor is 650 ft;, its diameter is 0.11892 feet, and its sag is 13.5417 ft;. The span of the groundwire is 650 ft, its diameter is 0.0313 feet, and its sag is 6.25 ft;. The force coefficients for the conductors and groimdwire are taken as 1.0 and 1.2, respectively. The calculations for the gust effect factor, maximum tower deflection, and maximum tower stress are easily performed with these data, either by hand, by a spreadsheet, or by a computer program. All three methods have been used for checking purposes.

61

The first calculations by Davenport's method (ASCE, 1991) are used to determine the gust effect factors for wind on the pole, wind on the conductors, and wind on the groundwire. Then the calculations are extended to determine the associated maximum fiber stresses and tip deflections under the design wind. Fiber stress is assumed to be the normal design criterion for the poles; tip deflection is added to help provide understanding of the associated calculation steps and the overall structural behavior. In some of the methods considered in this study, deflections are readily determined and stresses take a certain amount of extra work and insight. In Davenport's model stresses are readily determined and deflections require the extra work. Deflections are calculated using uncracked concrete section properties. Accurate accounting of cracked section properties would require a separate analysis at each level of the tapered pole as well as more detailed information about the pre-stressing strands and their tensions than is currently available. Also, how cracked section properties would combine with uncracked section properties would depend on the moments at different levels of the pole and would thus vary from case to case. Finally, during dynamic response the pole would be oscillating between cracked and uncracked stages, and the effects of these changes would vary with the amplitude of the motion, making the frequency and mode shape analysis non-linear (amplitude dependent) as well as complicating the frequency domain analysis 6.4.1 Summary of Input Data The following data are basically the same for all methods, but change slightly according to the parameters required by the method. The spun-cast pole considered is the "baseline" or reference case for the sensitivity studies of Chapter IX, where variations in tower height, conductor span, and tower damping are examined.
62

Pole:

Height, h Diameter, D Mean thickness of the wall Fundamental frequency, ft

84 ft, 1.0567 ft at the top 0.25 ft 0.9210 Hz.

Taper of diameter out from top 0.018 ft/linear ft

Fraction of Critical Damping, Ct0.03 Force Coefficient, Cf Weight density of material, p 0.80 150 Ib/ft^ 7.8083 x 10^ psf

Modulus of elasticity of material, Et Flexibility coefficient:

(tip deflection = 1.3216 x lO'^ ft per ft/sec due to 1 ft/s wind on tower) Conductors: Span length, L Diameter, d Sag, S Force Coefficient, Cf Flexibility coefficient: (tip deflection = 5.8028 x lO'^ ft per lb due to 1 lb force at conductor level) Groundv^rire: Span length, L Diameter, d Sag, S Force Coefficient, Cf FlexibiUty coefficient: (tip deflection = 3.2392 x lO'^ft;per lb
63

650 ft 0.11892 ft 13.542 ft; 1.0

650 ft 0.0313 ft 6.25 ft; 1.2

due to 1 lb force at groundwire level)

Wind Field: 3-Second gust speed, V,^f Wind speed conversion factor, Ky Mass density of air, p^ij. Site Exposure Category (see Table 6.1 for Lg, K, a, and Zg)

140 mph 1.546 0.0024 slugs/ft^ C (open country)

6.4.2 General Calculated Values The following values are applicable for the tower, the conductors, and the groundwire : For Tower: Average outside diameter: Average hollow core diam. Circular natural frequency = 1.0567 -- 0.018 x 84/20 = 1.8127 ft r^^h-r = 1.8127 - 2 x 0.25 = 1.3127 ft = 27cft = 27r(0.9210) = 5.787 rad/s Equivalent height of the tower, ZQ = 0.65 x h = 0.65x84 ft =54.60 ft

For Wind:
A

10-minute average wind speed (mph) = Vj-ef/Ky = 140/1.546 = 90.56 mph Exposure Factor, E, for height
ZQ

= 4.7

VK~(33/ZO)1/

= 4.7 VOOOB (33/54.60)1/7 = 0.3093

64

Reference 10-minute windspeed, VQ, = 1.605(zo/zg)l/a (88/60)(^ref^v) in ft^s = 1.605(54.6/900)l/7(88/60)(90.56) = 142.84 ftys 6.4.3 Tower Gust Response Factor Tower gust response factor is calculated as follows: Background term, Bt = l/[l-h0.375(h/Lg)] = 1/[1 + 0.375(84/220)] = 0.8748 Resonance term, Rt = (1/Ct) [0.0123 (ft ZoA^o)-^^^] = (1/0.03) [0.0123 X (0.9210(54.6)/142.84)-5/3] = 2.3358

Tower Gust Response factor, Gt = (1 + gg e E V Bt + Rt )/Kv2 = [1 -I- (3.6)(0.75)(0.3093) xVO.8748 + 2.3358 ]/(1.546)2 1.0445 6.4.4 Conductor Gust Response Factor Calculations for the conductor gust response factor follows: Background term, B ^ = 1/[1 + 0.8(L/Lg)] = 1/[1-I-0.8(650/220)] = 0.2973 Frequency, f^, (simplified formula) = Vl/S = V 1/13.5417 = 0.2717
65

Damping factor, C^

= 0.000048 VoCf'(fw(d/12)) = 0.000048 (142.84) (1.0) /(0.2717(0.11892) = 0.2122

Conductor term, R^

= (1/Cw) [0.0113 (f^ zJWQy^l^^zJL)] = (1/0.2122) [(0.0113)x(0.2717x 54.6/142.84)-5/3(54.6/650)] = 0.1949

Conductor Gust Response Factor, G^ = (1 + gg e E V B ^ + R^ )fKy'^ = [1 H (3.6)(0.75)(0.3093)x V0.2973 +0.1949 ]/(1.546)2 = 0.6635 Note: For this example the gust response factor for the tower, which is dominated by the resonance term, is much larger than that for the conductors, where the resonance term is greatly reduced by the large aerodynamic damping. A check of the separation factor for this case shows that the dynamic part of the GRF for the tower is B = VBt + Rt = 1792 and that for the conductors is A = VB^,^ + R^ = 0.702 in this example. Thus, the ratio of B/A in Table 6.2 is 2.55, and the corresponding value of e from Equation 6.12 is 0.77. The conclusion is that even though the frequencies of the conductors and the tower are separated from 0.2717 to 0.9210 (for a ratio of 3.39), Davenport's value of 0.75 for the separation factor has acceptable accuracy. Alternatively, for even greater accuracy, the value of B/A could be calculated and the value of e evaluated fi-om Equation 6.12.

66

6.4.5 Groundwire Gust Response Factor On the similar lines as for the conductor, the groundwire gust response factor is calulated as follows: Backgroimd term, Bg^ = 1/[1 -i- 0.8(L/Ls)] = 1/[1-H 0.8(650/220)] = 0.2973 Frequency, fgw, (simplified formula) = Vl/S = V 1/6.25 = 0.400 Damping factor, Cgw = 0.000048 VoCf^(fgw(d/12)) = 0.000048 (142.84) (1.2) /(0.400(0.0313) = 0.6572 Resonance term, Rg^ = (1/Cw) [0.0113 (fg^ ZQ^^oY^'^^Zofh)] = (1/0.6572) [(0.0113)x(0.400x 54.6/142.84)-5/3(54.6/650)] = 0.0330 Groundwire Gust Response factor, Gg^ = (1 + gg e E V Bgw Rgw) /Kv2 = [1 + (3.6)(0.75X0.3093)x VO.2973 + 0.0330 ]/(1.546)2 = 0.6192

6.4.6 Tower Stress In order to calculate a particular response quantity due to the 3-second gust design wind by Davenport's method, the influence coefficients for that quantity for wind on the tower, wind on the conductors, and wind on the groundwire, 6t, O w > Og^, respectively, must be used in the general equation:
67

Maximum response = Ot Pt Gt + 0^ Pw Gw + Ogw Pgw Ggw

(6.15)

where pt, p ^ and pg^ are the static wind forces on the tower, the conductors, and the groundwire, respectively, associated vrith the 140 mph windspeed. In other words, if the 10-minute average VQ of Davenport's method is used in computing pt, Pw, and pg^, then the corresponding gust factors Gt, G^ and Ggyf must be the Davenport gust factors vrithout dividing by Ky2. On the other hand, if the gust factors computed in the previous section with the Kv2 factors are used, then the value of VQ used in computing the forces must be factored back up to the corresponding 3-second gust level by multiplying by Ky. Each influence coefficient is the effect on the response of a unit value of the static force considered. 6.4.6.1 Conductor Contribution For a conductor at height z, the static force imposed on the tower by the conductor is

Pw = (Paii^2) ^z2 Cf L d

(6.16)

A where the V^. ^^ ^^ three-second gust wind speed at height z for use with the gust effect factor calculated above. The three conductors at different heights have slightly different values of V2, and thus of p^, but these value are very close for a separation height of only 8 feet (see Figure 5.1). Accordingly, for simplicity the value of p ^ at the level of the middle conductor is used for all three conductors. Since the middle conductor is 19 feet below the top of the tower, the value of V2 for exposure C in feet per second is, by the power law,
68

Vz = [z/33]l/a(88/60)Vref = [(84-19)/33] 1/^(88/60) 140 = 226.21 ft^s

and the corresponding value of three times p ^ is, from Equation (6.16),

3pw =3(pair/2)Vz2CfLd = 3(0.0024/2)(226.21)2(1.0)(650)(0.11892) = 14,2401b. Next, the influence coefficient for the bending moment at any level below the middle conductor due to the three conductor forces is the moment at the level considered due to a one-pound force at the middle conductor. This moment is one pound times the distance from the middle conductor down to that level,

Omoment(z) = (1 lb) [(h-19

ft)-z].

(6.17)

The associated maximum bending stress is

Ostress(z) = Omoment^^VSxCz)

(6.18)

where Sx(z) is the section modulus of the pole's hollow circular cross section at the level z. This quantity varies with height because of the taper of the pole. For the spun-cast concrete pole, the influence coefficient for maximum bending stress due to wind on the conductors is almost constant along the lower one-third of the height and is close to the value at the base, which is

Ostress(z=0) = (1 lb) [(84-19)-0 ft]/(0.9640 ft^) = 67.43 psf^b = 0.4682 psi/lb.

69

Finally, the maximum stress at the base of the tower due to the wind on the three conductors is Maximum base stress, a^ = 6^ p ^ G^ = (0.4682 psi/ lb)(14,240 lb)(0.6635) = 4,424 psi 6.4.6.2 Groundwire Contribution In every concrete pole considered, the groundvrire is attached at 0.5 feet below the top of the pole. Using the same procedure as for the conductors, except that the height, wire diameter, and force coefficient are different, the force on the groundwire is found from Equation (6.16).

Vz = [(84-0.5)/33]l/'7(88/60)140 = 234.45 ft/s

and the corresponding value of pg^ is

Pgw = (Pair/2) Vz2CfLd = (0.0024/2X234.45)2(1.2X650)(0.03125) = 1,611 lb. Next, the influence coefficient for the bending moment at any level below the groundwire due to the force pg^ is the moment at the level considered due to a one-pound force at the groundwire level,

Omoment(z) = d lb) [(h-0.5 ft)-z]

(6.19)

and the associate maximum bending stress is again given by equation (6.18). As for the conductors, the influence coefficient for maximum bending stress

70

due to wind on the groundwire is almost constant along the lower one-third of the pole's height and is close to the value at the base:

Ostress(z=0) = (1 lb) [(84-0.5)-0 ft]/(0.9640 ft^) = 86.62 psf/lb = 0.6015 psi/lb. Finally, the maximum stress at the base of the tower due to the groundwire is Maximum base stress, Og^ = 6g^ pg^ Gg^ = (0.6015 psi/ lbXl,611 lb)(0.6192) = 600 psi. Even though the groundwire has a greater moment arm than the conductors, it produces much less stress than the three conductors because it has a smaller diameter and there is only one. 6.4.6.3 Tower Contribution Wind forces act all along the height of the tower, and their combined effect on the bending stress may be calculated by taking a number of individual segments along the height, determining the force on each segment, and then computing the moment and stress at any section in a manner similar to the calculation for the conductor forces. This procedure has been carried out for the spun-cast concrete pole by means of a computer program, using 20 segments. As shown above, the 10-minute average wind speed, in ft^s, at the mid-height of each segment, z, is calculated by the wind profile as follows:

Vz = (z/33)l/a(VrefX88/60).

(6.20)

71

The force on the segment at each height is also influenced by the outside diameter, D(z), and the force coefficient, Cf. The force on the element at height z is

P(z) = (paiiy2)Vz2Cf(h/20)D(z).

Adding up the moments of all of these elemental forces above the level of interest, the moment at that level is found. For the present example the bending moment and resulting stress are largest at the base and come out to:

Mt(z=0) = 258,550 Ib-ft; and ot(z=0) = Mt(0)/Sx(0) = 258,550/0.9640 = 1,863 psi where the gust response factor is included. 6.4.6.4 Total Stress Finally, the total maximum stress is the sum of the tower, conductor, and groundwire effects, or

atotal(z=0) = at(z=0) -i- aw(z=0) + agw(z=0) = 1,863- 4,424 + 600 = 6,887 psi. Obviously, wind on the three conductors contributes much more than wind on the tower or on the groundwire in this case.

72

6.4.7 Tower Deflection Calculation of tower deflections by Davenport's method requires a computer model of the tower's stiffness properties similar to the one used herein to determine the natural frequencies and mode shapes. analysis still is sufficient, however. A static Three unit loads are applied to the

model at distances down fi-om the top of the tower of 11, 19, and 27 feet, respectively, and the resulting deflection at the tip is the influence coefficient for wind on the conductors. Then, distributed loads determined from the wind profile are applied to the model for the effect of wind on the tower. These loads are distributed such that the wind velocity at the reference height is unity, and other velocities are scaled to it by the power law (using the new ASCE 7-95 coefficients). The resulting deflection at the tip is then an influence coefficient for wind on the tower that must be multiplied by Vo2. The different forces on the tower at different elevations depend on the tower diameters as well as the vnnd profile, but these forces can all be represented in terms of the reference velocity, VQ.

6.4.7.1 Conductor Contribution For the contribution of the three conductors, the influence coefficient fi-om the finite element computer model of the spun-cast concrete pole is

Odefl. = 5.8028 X 10-4 ftyib.

(6.21)

Multiplying this coefficient by the conductor force, by the gust response factor, and by three for the three conductors, the maximum tip deflection due to wind on the conductors is,

^max = Odefl. Pw ^w
73

= 3(5.8028x10-4 ftyibX14,2401bX0.6635) = 5.483 ft. 6.4.7.2 Groundwire Contribution For the groundwire contribution, the influence coefficient fi-om the finite element computer model of the spun-cast concrete pole is

Odefl. = 3.2392 x lO'^ ftlb.

(6.22)

Multiplying this coefficient by the groundwire force and by the groundwire gust effect factor, the maximum tip deflection due to wind on the groundwire is,

^max = 0(jefl. Pgw ^gw = (3.2392 X 10-4 ftabXl,6111b)(0.6192) = 0.323 ft. 6.4.7.3 Tower Contribution For the contribution of wind on the tower, the influence coefficient fi-om the finite element computer model of the spun-cast concrete pole is
A

Odefl. = 1.3216 X 10-5

ftA^ref^-

(6.23)

This coefficient is multiplied by the square of the 3-second gust windspeed at the reference height of 33 feet::
A

Vref = (140mph)(88/60) = 205.3 ft/sec.

Thus, the maximum tip deflection due to wind on the tower is, multiplied by the tower gust response factor:
74

A Xmax = Odefl. (Vref)^ Gt = (1.3216x10-5X205.3)2(1.0445) = 0.582 ft.

6.4.7.4 Total Deflection Finally, the total maximum tip deflection including wind on the tower, wind on the three conductors, and wind on the groundwire, is

^max = (^max^t " " (^max^w " * " (^max^gw = 0.582 + 5.483 0.323 ft = 6.388 ft. Once again, wind on the three conductors contributes much more to the total result than wind on the tower or groundwire.

75

CHAPTER 7 SOLARI-KAREEM'S DESIGN MODEL (ASCE 7-95 COMMENTARY) 7.1 Introduction The rational model for designing wind sensitive structures presented in the commentary to ASCE 7-95 is based on the work of Solari (1992a, b) with modifications by Ashan Kareem. The model is designed for general structures and requires interpretation, insight, and additional information for useful application to transmission line structures.

7.2 Notation Some of the ASCE 7-95 notation is the same as presented previously, including the symbols GRF for gust response factor, b for building width, h for building height, and a and Zg for the wind profile parameters. The new symbols for wind-sensitive structures are defined below. b, b = multipliers in converting fi-om a 3-second gust speed to a mean hourly wind speed; Cfx d E g I(z) IK = drag coefficient; = horizontal width of the structure (perpendicular to the wind direction); = modulus of elasticity of the tower material; = peak factor, taken as 3.5 [corresponding to gg in Davenport]; = moment of inertia of the single pole tower at height z; = turbulence intensity factor at the equivalent height, z; = combined wind profile and mode shape factor in the deflection response expression;
76

GRF = gust response factor;

Lj

= integral length or scale of turbulence at the equivalent height, z [corresponding approximately to Lg in Davenport];

/ mi Ni n^

= multiplier in the equation for I-; = modal mass for the first mode in the response expression for Xj^axJ = reduced frequency associated with n^, L- , and V^; = fundamental natural frequency of the structure, in Hz

[corresponding to ft in Davenport]; Q R R/ = RMS background response factor [corresponding approximately to B in Davenport]; = RMS resonant response factor [corresponding approximately to R in Davenport]; = resonant response contribution for the wind spectrum when the subscript Z = n and for the size factor in a particular direction when / = b, h, or d; Sx(z) = section modulus of the single pole tower at height z; X(z) 'z = lateral tower deflection at height z; = equivalent height of the structure, normally taken as 0.6h for a building [corresponding to ZQ in Davenport]; d,a p = wind profile exponents for 3-second gust and mean hourly winds; = fraction of critical damping of the structure [corresponding to ^ in Davenport]; e <))(z) r| ^(z) ^ = exponent in the equation for I^; = fundamental mode shape of the structure; = nondimensional variable in the size effect equations for R; = mass per unit length of the structure; = exponent for the approximate first mode shape in the final response equations.
77

7.3 Equations The gust response factor in the ASCE 7-95 Conmientary has been modified as following for a wind sensitive structure:

GRF = iMl>!Z
1 + 71^

(7.1)

where the turbulence intensity, I^, and the background response term, Q, are given by the same equations as for a rigid structure (see section 3.2), the peak factor, g, is normally taken as 3.5, modification in the form of separation factor,e, (as in case of the Davenport model) with the value of 0.75, and the resonance response term, R, is a combination of several factors, as follows:

R = iRR,R,(0.53 + R,)

(7.2)

In Equation 7.2, p is the fraction of critical damping and the spectrum term Rji is given by:

R=_L165N,_
" (l + 10.302N,f'

(7.3)

where N, = ^ ! ^ V. (7.4)

78

is the reduced frequency of the structure.

Equation 7.2 corresponds

approximately to Equation 6.10 in Davenport's method. The other three terms R^, Rb, and Rd in Equation 7.2 account for the size effects in the three directions of the structure. Each Rj follows the form originally proposed by Vellozzi and Cohen (1968):

Ri =

-(^](l-e"^) forTi>0
1 for r| = 0

(7.5)

where for the vertical direction, or when i = h. 4.6nih

Tl = = J

for the lateral direction, when i = b. 4.6nib

^

T[=

and for the longitudinal direction, when i = d. 15.4n,d r|=

The numerical factors 4.6 and 15.4 in the last three expressions have been modified by Kareem from those in Vellozzi and Cohen (1968) and even those in Solari (1992a, b) to take into account recent data and the averaging time of the wind. The wind velocity V^ in these equations is the mean hourly

79

wind speed at the equivalent height, z, which is found from the 3-second reference wind speed at 33 feet (fi-om the map of Figure 3.13), Vj-ef, by

V, = bf

v33y

ref

(7.6)

where all symbols with bars over them pertain to mean hourly values. Values of, a, b and other parameters in the equations of the modified ASCE 7-95 Commentary are given in Table 3.4. The three size effect or correlation functions given by Equation 7.5 are plotted in Figure 7.1. When the different functions are multiplied to produce the overall resonance term, R, in Equation 7.3, it is found that R becomes small for structures with any dimension large in comparison to the integral length scale, L^.

-c>-Rb=Rh -x-Rd -A-(.53+.47RcD

n1(h, b, or cD^z

Figure 7.1

Size Effect Functions in the ASCE 7-95 Commentary Method

80

The gust response factor determined by Equation 7.1 is geared to take into account the fact that the 3-second gust speed with which it is used is likely to be close to the maximum wind speed. This is done by including the second term in the denominator. Thus, if the radical in the numerator is equal to unity, as in the case in which Q 2 = 1.0 and R 2 = 0, then G = 1.0. These values of Q and R are for no dynamic response and a small structure (one completely engulfed by the average gust). Anytime there is no dynamiic response (R = 0), Equation 7.1 simply reduces to the "complete analysis" equation for a rigid structure. Equation 3.11, unreduced by the factor 0.9. Besides the equations for the gust effect factor, the Commentary of ASCE 7-95 presents expressions for evaluating the maximimi along wind displacement and the RMS and peak accelerations of a wind sensitive structure. Of these, only the displacement expression is considered here, since accelerations are normally of concern only in regard to the comfort of occupants of a structure or equipment in a structure, and thus would not apply for a power pole. The maximum along wind displacement is given as

- |p,,,V/KbhC^

X _ ( z ) = ^(z)

[mi(27mi)']

GRF

(7.7)

In the form shown (re-ordered from the form in the ASCE 7-95 Conmientary), this expression is seen to be a standard modal response equation with only one term, that is, the term representing the contribution of the fundamental mode. The response consists of three basic elements: the fundamental mode shape,<})(z), the term in brackets { }, which is usually called the "participation factor" for the first mode, and the "dynamic amplification factor," GRF.

81

In the ASCE 7-95 Commentary, a simplified form of the first mode shape is suggested:

<Kz) =

^z^^

(7.8)

Vny where the exponent ^ can be varied to make the first mode for a vertical cantilever either convex or concave, as shovm in Figure 7.2. This simplification is reasonable for tall slender buildings, the structures for which the Commentary is primarily intended. If a building behaves like a "shear building," then the mode shape of the type on the right in Figure 7.2 is appropriate, and ^ vnll be less than 1.0. A shear building is one in which the floors are very rigid in comparison to the columns framing into them and rigid connections make the columns have vertical tangents at the floor levels. If, at the other extreme, the building acts like a bending beam, then the mode shape on the left in Figure 7.2 is correct, and ^ will be greater than 1.0. Real buildings fall in between these extremes, so that a value of ^ = 1.0 is not unreasonable, a value that produces a straight line first mode. For a uniform bending beam the modal coefficient should be ^ = 2.4. For both the tapered poles of Figure 5.1, a trial and error fit between Equation 7.8 and the first mode shape determined by the finite element analysis showed that the closest fit was with the value ^ = 1.8. The middle term in Equation 7.7, called the participation factor, is often written as the modal force divided by the modal mass and the square of the circular natural frequency for the mode considered:

82

T 1

(2/H)

(2^)^^

Figure 7.2 Variations in the Fundamental Mode Equation 0(z) = (z/h)^ with c

cS3

f .. \

1st Mode Participation Factor =

\^^ J m,

(7.9)

where 0)1 = 2 7 U fi (= n^) is the fundamental circular natural fi-equency (in radians per second); Fi = J F(z) (j)(z)2 dz is the first term in a series expansion of the forcing function, F(z), in terms of the (orthogonal) natural modes of the structure; and mi = j m(z) (j)(z)2dz is the first term in a series expansion of the mass distribution, m(z), in terms of the natural modes. With the 3-second gust form of the wind profile: V(z) V(z) = b Vzy
' z^

(7.10)

the force per unit length on the vertical structure at height z is given by
-|2

F(z) = -p.V(z)^bC^=-p

,-., ,2.

b3

vz;

33

bC,

(7.11)

For Exposure C,b

= 1.0.

Then if b is constant along the height, the

simplified form of Equation 7.8 for the first mode shape makes F^ become:
1 )Pai.V/bC^ j Z^-Z^^d2 (z^h^^)

F,=JF(z)(l)(z)'dz =

84

-Jp^,V,^bC^
therefore F,=

[[2(d + ^)+l]

and with z = 0.6 h, this simplifies to:

Fi = JF(z)<t)(z)Mz =

'-1 P.i.V/bC^ .2> J[(0.6r[2(d + ^)^1]

fl^ pV/bhC, K
\^j

where K=

[(0.6r(2[d^^]^l)]

(7.12)

It turns out that with the values of d for the different exposures in Table 3.4, this function is almost independent of d and decreases rapidly with ^. Also, to a good approximation the factor "2" can be dropped wherever it appears, resulting in the expression for K in the ASCE 7-95 Commentary:

(d+^+i)

(7.13)

85

Figure 7.3 shows how K in Equation 7.12 varies with d and ^ for the four exposures and Figure 7.3 shows how closely the values of K are when using the different Equations 7.12 and 7.13 for Exposure C. The parameter K as given by Equation 8.13 is included in Equation 7.7 for the maximum displacement of a structure. 7.4 Example Calculations for the Spun-Cast Concrete Pole In this section the spun-cast concrete pole considered as an example of Davenports method is analyzed by the method of the modified ASCE 7-95 Commentary. The input data are the same except for the following changes. First, the ASCE 7-95 Commentary method does not give an equation for aerodynamic damping of the conductors. A value of P = 0.4 is assumed below for the conductors. Second, the effective height of the structure is taken as 0.6h instead of 0.65h as in the Davenport method. Finally, the quantity Ky is not needed, the turbulence intensity I- is used in place of the exposure factor E, and the vrind field parameters are taken from Table 3.4. Once again, calculations are carried out separately for wind on the tower, wind on the conductors, and wind on the groundwire, and some terms such as the equivalent height, z, the wind parameters at that height (turbulence intensity, I-, integral scale, L-, and ten-minute average, V-) are calculated separately for the tower and the conductors. As before, the maximum tower stresses and deflections are determined in addition to the gust response factors. In the ASCE method for wind on the tower, the tower deflections are determined directly from given equations but the analyst must develop his or her own method to find the stresses.

86

K Factors
1 -1

n,8 0.60.40.2 0.20.6s

^

B C - - D
1 1 1

Modd Exponent

Figure 7.3

Variation of Factor K with Wind Profile Exponent, a, and Mode Shape Exponent, ^

Eq.(8.13)

1IIIIIh-

oo O

CM ^

O ^

CM CM

OO CM

Modd Exponent

Figure 7.4

Comparison of Equations 8.12 and 8.13 for Factor K, and Exposure C

87

2.6-

U^

2.2-

n-

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1 CO

1 1

1 1 CO

7.4.1 Summary of input data Data for spun-cast concrete pole is same as that for Davenport's model, however parameters for wind-field are different for modified ASCE 7-95 Commentary method. Tower: Height, h Diameter, D Taper of diameter out from the top Mean thickness of the
WEJI

84 ft 1.0567 ft at the top 0.018 ft/linear ft 0.25 ft 0.9210 Hz. 0.03 0.80 150 Ib/ft^ 7.8083 x 10^ psf

Fundamental frequency, n^ Fraction of Critical Damping, P^ Force Coefficient, Cf^ Weight density of material, pt Modulus of elasticity of material, Et

Conductors: Span length, L Diameter, d Sag, S Fraction of Critical Damping, Pc Weight per linear foot Force Coefficient, Cf Flexibility coefficient:

650 ft 0.11892 ft 13.542 ft 0.40 1.63 lb/ft 1.0

(tip deflection = 5.8028 x 10"^ ft per lb due to 1 lb force at conductor level)

Groundwire: Span length, L Diameter, d Sag, S

88

650 ft 0.0313 ft 6.25 ft

Fraction of Critical Damping, pw Weight per hnear foot Force Coefficient, Cf Flexibility coefficient:

0.40 0.273 lb/ft 1.20

(tip deflection = 3.2392 x lO'^ ft per lb due to 1 lb force at groundwire level)

A

Wind Field: 3-Second reference gust speed, Vj.gf = 140 mph = 205.3 ft/sec Mass density of air, p^ij. Exposure Category (see Table 3.4 for b,b,c,l,d,a,e) 7.4.2 General Calculated Values The follov^ng values are applicable for the tower, the conductors, and the groundwire : For Tower: Average outside diameter (at 42 ft): Avg. hollow core diam. (at 42 ft): = 1.0567 -i- 0.018 x 84/20 = 1.8127 ft = 1.8137-2x0.25 = 1.3127 ft Avg. mass per unit length = 150 7c/4(1.81272-1.31272)/32.2 = 5.717 Ib-ft/sec Circular natural frequency = 2nni= 2p(0.9210) 0.0024 slugs/ft^ C (open country)

= 5.787 rad/sec Equivalent height of the tower, z = 0 . 6 x h = 0.6x84 ft = 50.40 ft

89

For Wind: Turbulence Intensity, IT = c(33/z)l/6 = 0.2(33/50.4)1/6 = 0.1863 Integral scale of the wind, L^ = l/(z/33)e = 500(50.4/33)1/5 = 544.2 ft Mean hourly wind at eff. ht. z, V? = b(z/33)a Vref = 0.65 (50.4/33)1/6-5 205.3 = 142.4 ft/sec Reduced frequency for tower, N^ = niLz/V^ = 0.9210(544.2)/142.4 = 3.519 7.4.3 Tower Gust Response Factor Calculations for tower gust response factor follows: Background term, Q 2 = 1/(1 +0.63 [(b-Hh)/Lz](^-63) = 1/(1+0.63 [(1.813-I84)/544.2]0-63) = 0.8356 Spectral response term, R^ = 7.465 N i / ( I + 10.302 Ni)5/3 = 7.465 (3.519)/(1 + 10.302(3.519)5/3 = 0.06322 Vertical size effect term, R^: Tih = 4.6nih/Vz = 4.6(0.9210)(84)/142.4 = 2.498 Lateral size effect term, R^:
90

= (l/Tih)-(l/i1h2)(l-e-2T1h) = 1/2.498 - (0.5/[2.498]2) ( 1 . e2(2.498)) = 0.3207

= (l/Tib)-(l/Tib2)(l-e-2Tlb)

Tib

= 4.6 nib/Vz

= 1/0.05392 - (0.5/[0.05392]2)x ( 1 . e2(0.05392)) = 0.9650

= (l/Tid)-(l/Tid2)(l-e-2T1d)

= 4.6(0.9210)(1.813)/142.4 = 0.05392 Longitudinal size effect term, Rj: Tid = 15.4nidA^z = 15.4(0.9210)(1.813)/142.4 = 0.1805 Resonance term, R 2

= 1/0.1805-(0.5/[0.1805]2)x (l.e-2(0.1805)) = 0.8897 = (l/Pt)RnRhRb[(^-53 + 0.47 R^] = (l/0.03)(0.06322)(0.3207)x (0.09650)[0.53 + 0.47(.8897)] = 0.6184

Tower Gust Response Factor, Gt = [1 + 2g l^ e V Q 2

+ R2]/(I

+ 7 l^)

= [1 + 2(3.5)(0.1864)(0.75) x V0.8355 + 0.6184]/(l + 7 (0.1864)) = 0.9458 7.4.4 Conductor Gust Response Factor The conductor gust response fcator is calculated as follows: Equivalent height of the conductor, " z = h^ - (2/3)(S) = 63-(2/3)(13.542) = 55.97 ft Fundamental frequency, n j = Vl/S = V 1/13.542 = 0.2717 Hz. Turbulence Intensity, If = c(33/z)l/6 = 0.2(33/55.97)1/6 =0.1831 Integral scale of the wind, L^
91

= l/(z/33) = 500(55.97/33)1/5

= 555.7 ft Mean hourly wind at z, Vf = b(z/33)a Vref = 0.65 (55.97/33)1/6.5 205.3 = 145.0 ft/sec Background term, Q 2 = 1/(1 +0.63 [(b + h)/Lz]0-63) = 1/(1+0.63 [(650 + 0.1198)/555.7](^-63) = 0.5898 Reduced frequency, N j = niLz/Vf = 0.2717 (555.7)/145.0 = 1.0415 Spectral response term, R^ = 7.465 Ni /(I + 10.302 Ni)5/3 = 7.465 (1.0415)/(l+10.302(1.0415)5/3 = 0.1460 Vertical size effect term, Rj^: Tih = 4.6 nihA^z = 4.6(0.2717)(0.11892)/145.0 = 0.001027 Lateral size effect term, Rb: Tib = 4.6 nib/Vz = 4.6 (0.2717)(650)/145.0 = 5.613 Longitudinal size effect term, R^j: Tid = 15.4nidA^z
= (l/Tih)-(l/Tih2)(l-e-2Tlh)

= 1/0.001027 - (0.5/[0.001027]2) (l.e-2(0.001027)) = 0.9888

= (l/Tib)-(l/Tib2)(l-e-2Tlb)

= 1/5.613 - (0.5/[5.613]2)x ( 1 . e-2(5.613)) =0.1623

= (l/Tid)-(l/Tid2)(l-e-2Tld)

= 1/0.002785 (0.5/[0.002785]2)x

92

= 15.4(0.2717)(0.11892)/145.0 = 0.003438 Resonance term, R 2

( i . e-2(0.002785)) = 0.9969 = (l/Pc)RnRhRbt(^-53 + 0.47 RdJ = (l/0.40)(0.1460)(0.9888)x (0.1623)[0.53 + 0.47(.9969)] = 0.05860

Conductor Gust Response Factor, G^

= [1 + 2g Iz e V Q 2 + R 2 ] / ( I + 7 I^)

= [l + 2(3.5)(0.1831)(0.75)x V0.5898 + 0.0586]/(l + 7(0.1831)) = 0.7775 7.4.5 Groundwire Gust Response Factor On the similar lines as for conductors, the groundwire gust response factor is calculated as follows: Equivalent height of the groundwire, z = h^ - (2/3)(S) = 83.5 - (2/3)(6.25) = 79.33 ft Fundamental frequency, n^ = Vl/S = Vl76::25 = 0.4000 Hz. Turbulence Intensity, I7 = c(33/z)l/6 = 0.2 (33/79.33)1/6 = 0.1730 Integral scale of the wind, L^ = l/(z/33) = 500 (79.33/33)1/5 = 595.9 ft Mean hourly wind at z, Vg-A

= b(z/33)aVref

93

= 0.65 (79.33/33)1/6-5 205.3 = 152.7 ft/sec Background term, Q 2 = 1/(1 + 0.63 [(b + h)/Lz]0-63) = 1/(1+0.63 [(650 + 0.0312)/595.9](^-63) = 0.6004 Reduced frequency, N^ = n i Lz/Vj = 0.4000 (595.9)/152.7 = 1.560 Spectral response term, R^ = 7.465 N i /(I + 10.302 Ni)5/3 = 7.465 (1.560)/(l+10.302(1.560)5/3 = 0.1127 Vertical size effect term, Rb: Tib = 4.6 nih/Vz = (l/Tih)-(l/Tlh2)(l-e-2r|h) = 1/0.0003765 (0.5/[0.0003765]2) x ( 1 . e-2(0.0003765)) = 1.057 = (l/Tib)-(l/Tlb2)(l-e-2Tlb) = 1/7.831-(0.5/[7.831]2)x (l.e-2(7.831)) = 0.1196 = (l/Tid)-(l/Tld2)(l-e-2Tld)

= 4.6(0.4000)(0.13125)/152.7 = 0.0003765 Lateral size effect term, Rb: Tib = 4.6nib/Vf = 4.6 (0.4000)(650)/152.7 = 7.831 Longitudinal size effect term, Rd: rid = 15.4nid/Vz

= 1/0.001260 - (0.5/[0.001260]2)x ( i . e-2(0.001260)) = 1.0035 = (l/pg^)RnRhRb[0.53 + 0.47 Rd] 94

= 15.4(0.4000)(0.13125)/152.7 = 0.001260 Resonance term, R 2

= (l/0.40)(0.1127)(1.057)x (0.1196)[0.53 +0.47(1.0 35)1 = 0.03566 Groundvnre Gust Response. Factor, Gg^ = [1 + 2g Iz eVQ2 + R2y(i + 7 I^) = [l + 2(3.5)(0.1728)(0.75)x V0.6004 + 0.03566]/(l + 7(0.1728)) = 0.7799 Note: By this method the gust effect factor for the tower is not dominated by the resonance term and it is not as much larger than the factors for the conductors and groundwire, as in the Davenport method, even though the resonance terms for the conductors and groundwire are so small as to be negligible. It should also be noted that in applying the ASCE method to determine tower deflections and stresses, the combined mode shape and wind profile coefficient, K, is needed. From Equation 7.13, K for the tower is found with d = 1/9.5 and ^= 1.8 (the closest value for the tapered spim-cast concrete pole), and K for the conductors is taken as 1.0.

Tower:

Kt

= (1.65)a/(a +^+1) = (1.65)1/9-5/(1/9.5+ 1.8 + 1) = 0.3628

Conductors and Groundwire:

K^ = Kg^ =1.0

95

7.4.6 Tower Stress Once again the total tower stress is calculated as the sum of contributions from wind on the conductors, wind on the groundwire, and wind on the tower. The contributions from wind on the conductors and on the groundwire are taken as the same as in Davenport's method. The influence coefficients at any height of interest, z, are applied and are used with the peak value of the wind force, p^G^K^ or Pgw^gw^^gw, ^o determine the stress at that height. There is the question, however, of what value to take for K^ for the conductors and groundwire. Since K is designed to account for the combined vertical variations of wind speed and first mode deflection, whereas the conductors and groundwdre are considered to be single-degree-of-freedom pendulums at a single elevation, it would appear that K^ is not needed. Therefore, in the following K^ and Kg^ are taken as 1.0. A less direct way of determining the contribution to the stress from wind on the tower must be employed, since the ASCE method gives the deflected shape rather than the wind pressure as a function of height. In principle, the bending stiffness, EI, times the second derivative of the deflected shape could be used to find the moment, and from it the stress. However, in the ASCE method, the deflected shape is taken to have the form of the first mode, which is simplified to the expression shown in Equation 8.8, and the second derivative of this expression is uniquely zero. Thus, either a different form of the deflected shape must be used in this second derivative approach or some other approach must be developed. In what follows, the second derivative approach is used and the chosen deflected shape is that of the first mode of a uniform-section (prismatic) cantilever beam.

96

7.4.6.1 Conductor Contribution Considering all three conductors to act at the height of the middle one, the peak force applied to the tower is

3pwGwKw

= 3[(pair/2) %^ Cf L dJO^Kw = 3[(0.0024/2)(217.07)2(1.0)(650)(0.11892)](0.7775)(1.0) = 10,195 Ih

The influence coefficient for the conductor force on the maximum bending stress at the base (z = 0) is the same as in the Davenport method:

Qstress(z=(^) = 0.4682 psi/lb.

Finally, the maximum stress at the base of the tower due to the conductors is Maximum base stress, <5yf{z = 0) = 6w[3pwG^Kw] = (0.4682 psi/lb)( 10,195 lb) = 4,775 psi. 7.4.6.2 Groundv^dre Contribution The peak conductor force applied to the tower is

PwGwKw = [(Pair/2)Vz2CfLd]GwKw = [(0.0024/2)(225.19)2(1.2)(650)(0.0313)](0.7799)(1.0) = 1,1581b. The influence coefficient for the groundwire force on the maximum bending stress at the base (z = 0) is the same as in the Davenport model:

Qstress(z=(^) = 0.6015 psi/lb.

97

Finally, the maximum stress at the base of the tower due to the groundwire is

Maximum stress, Cg^^iz = 0)

= OgwCPgw^^gw^gw^ = (0.6015 psi/lb)(l,158 lb) = 696.4 psi.

7.4.6.3 Tower Contribution Instead of computing wind forces at all heights along the tower and adding their effects on the moment at a given height, as in the Davenport method above, in the ASCE method the moment at any height z is found from the product of the bending stiffness at that height, EI, and the second derivative of an approximation of the deflected shape. response in the ASCE 7-95 Commentary method is The deflection

Xt(z) = ({)i(z) {[(l/2)pairVz2 b h Cfi, ]/[mi (27rni)2]} Gt Kt

(7.14)

where the first mode shape, (|>i(z), is represented by (z/h)s, which is normalized to unity at the top of the tower. Finding the corresponding

second derivative always gives a zero result with this expression for (|)i(z), no matter what the value of the coefficient ^. Thus, an alternative expression for <|)i(z) is introduced, also normalized to unity at the top of the tower. The approximation is the first mode shape of a uniform cantilever: (j)l(z) = {sin(aiz/h) - sinh(aiz/h) + [sin(ai) + sinh(ai)]/[cos(ai) + cosh(ai)] x [cosh(aiz/h) - cos(aiz/h)]}/2.725 (7.15)

98

where a j = 1.875 radians and the factor 2.725 is used to make (|)i(z=h) equal to 1.0. Differentiating the expression in Equation 8.15 twice gives

<t)l"(z) = (ai/h)2 {-sin(aiz/h) - sinh(aiz/h) +1.362[cosh(aiz/h) + cos(aiz/h)]}/2.725. (7.16)

Then the moment at any height z is given by:

Mt(z) = <t)i"(z)EI(z){[(l/2)pairV22 b h Cf^ ]/[mi (27cni)2]}GtKt

(7.17)

and the stress at any height z is simply determined from this moment and the section modulus of the tower: Maximum stress at height z = at(z) = Mt(z)/Sx(z). (7.18)

For the present example, the maximum stress due to wind on the tower generally occurs in the lower part of the pole but not right at the base. The quantities in Equations 7.17 and 7.18 at the base are as follows. (t)i"(z=0) = second derivative of first mode shape at the base (Equation (7.16)) = 0.0004982 E = modulus of elasticity = 7.808 x 10^ lb/ft2 Do = outside diameter at the base = 1.0567 + 0.018(84) = 2.569 ft

99

Dj = inside diameter at the base

= 2.569 - 2(0.25) = 2.069 ft

l(z=0) = cross-section moment of inertia at the base = (7c/4)(Do4-Di4) = 1.2381 ft4 Vz = 3-second gust speed at the reference height, z, of 50.4 ft = 214.7 ft/sec mi = modal mass = pi(z)<l)2(z)dz = ^i(z)(z/h)2^dz = JIQ /h2^ z2^dz

= ^io/h25[h2^+1/(2^+1)] = ^oh/(2^+l) = 5.717(84)/[(2 x 1.8) + 1] = 104.4 Ib-s2/ft2 G = gust response factor = 0.9458

K = mode/profile shape factor = 1.65^/(a + ^ + 1) = 1.651/9-5/(1/9.5+ 1.8+1) = 0.3628 Sx(z=0) = cross section modulus at the base = I(z=0)/(D(z=0)/2) = 0.9640 ft3-

Equation 7.17 thus gives: Mt(z=0) = (0.0004982)(7.808x 108)(1.2381){[(l/2)(0.0024)(214.7)2x (1.8127)(84)(0.8)]/[104.4(5.787)2]}(0.9458)(0.3628) = 318,500 Ib-ft and from Equation 7.18 for the maximum stress at the base, at(z=0) = Mt(z=0)/Sx(z=0) = (318,400/0.9640)/144 = 2,294 psi
100

7.4.6.4 Total Stress Finally, the total maximum stress is the sum of the conductor, groundv^re, and tower effects, and assuming that the base value is the maximum value,

^total(z=0) = Ow(z=0) + Ogw(z=0) + Ot(z=0) = 4,775 + 696 + 2,294 = 7,765 psi. Once again, wind on the three conductors contributes much more than vrind on the tower and wind on the groundv^dre. Another observation is that the total stress computed here with the ASCE 7-95 Commentary method is 1.5 percent smaller than that obtained earher v^dth Davenport's method. This close agreement is surprising in light of the assumptions about the base curvature and other effects made in applying the ASCE method. components do not match, however. 7.4.7 Tower Deflection Calculation of tower deflections by the ASCE method again uses the influence coefficient approach for the effects of wind on the conductors and wind on the groundvdre. The same computer-calculated influence coefficients as used in the Davenport method are employed again for the contributions of the conductor and groundwire forces to the tower deflection . For the effect of vrind on the tower, the ASCE method directly utilizes Equation 7.7, where the simplified formula for the first mode shape ^(z) given by Equation 7.8 with ^ = 1.8 may be used this time. The same values of Gt and Kt as introduced above are carried over. The

101

7.4.7.1 Conductor Contribution For three conductors, the peak force applied to the tower is again 10,195 lb and the influence coefficient for the conductor force on the deflection at the top is the same as in the Davenport method:

edefl.(z=h) = 5.803 x 10-4 ftlb.

Thus, the maximum deflection at the top of the tower due to the three conductors is Maximum tip deflection, X^(z = h) = 6^[p^G^K^] = (5.803x10-4 ft/lb)( 10,195 lb) = 5.916 ft. 7.4.7.2 Groundwire Contribution For the groundwire, the peak force applied to the tower is again 1,158 lb and the influence coefficient for the conductor force on the deflection at the top is the same as in the Davenport method:

edefl.(z=h) = 3.239 x 10*4 ft/lb.

Thus, the maximum deflection at the top of the tower due to the groundwire is Maximum tip deflection, Xgw(z = h) = Og^tp g w ^ ^ gw^ g w ^ = (3.2392x10-4 ft/ lb)(l,158 lb) = 0.375 ft.

102

7.4.7.3 Tower Contribution From Equation 7.7, the maximum tip deflection of the tower due to wind on the tower is

Xt(z=h) = (l)i(z=84) {[(l/2)pairVz2 b h Cf ]/[mi (27tni)2]} Gt Kt = (84/84)l-8{[(l/2)(0.0024)(214.7)2x(1.8127)(84)(0.8)]/ [104.4(5.787)2}(0.9458)(0.3628) = 0.661ft. 7.4.7.4 Total Deflection Finally, the total deflection at the top of the tower due to conductor, groundwire, and tower contributions as determined by the ASCE method is Total tip deflection = X^(z=h) + Xgvv(z=h) + Xt(z=h) = 5.916 + 0.375 + 0.661 = 6.952 ft. This result is 7.8 percent larger than that found with the Davenport method in Chapter VI. The various results obtained by the ASCE method in this chapter and those obtained by the Davenport method in Chapter VI are sunmiarized and discussed further in Chapter IX.

103

CHAPTER 8 SIMILTS MODEL (1976, 1980) 8.1 Introduction The model of Vellozzi and Cohen (1968) was later modified by Simiu (1976, 1980) in a way that was incorporated into the design standard ASCE 7-88 (ASCE, 1988). The model utilizes graphs for the determination of various parameters and is formulated in terms of mean hourly winds and the metric (SI) system of units. Like the new ASCE 7-95 Commentary method, it is designed for traditional buildings and related structures and does not always work directly for slender structures like single power poles. In particular, the parameters needed to look up quantities may be off the scales of the graphs. Also, adaptation of the model to conductors is not practical. In the development of this model, it is assumed that for the large number of buildings or structures of practical interest, the fundamental mode shape is linear and the response is dominated by the fundamental mode. Hence, Simiu's model may be applied to typical tall structures for which the ratios of higher frequencies to fundamental frequencies are not unusually low, i.e., nil m > 2, where n is the fundamental frequency in the nth mode (Simiu, 1976). The two papers published in 1976 and 1980 by Simiu are closely related but do not have exactly the same notation or content. For example, no gust response factor is introduced in the 1980 paper, although there is one in the 1976 paper, and some of the quantities change. The development herein follows the 1976 paper most closely, with some simplifications in the notation.

104

8.2 Notation. Relatively few of the symbols in the papers by Simiu (1976, 1980) are the same as those presented previously. The symbols needed for the pole example are defined below. Symbols such as ^ , J , and Y^^ require

reference of graphs shown in Figure 8.1 through Figure 8.3 and Table 8.1. 'a(z) = along-wind deflection at height, z, meters; B = width (diameter) of the structure perpendicular to the wind direction, meters; S (E CD C^ CL D f^ g = background response term [roughly analogous to Q 2 in Davenport]; = background response quantity shown graphically in Figure 8.1; = mean drag coefficient of the structure; = windward pressure coefficient, taken as 0.6 for a cylinder; = leeward pressure coefficient, taken as 0.4 for a cylinder; = depth (diameter) of the structure in the along-wind direction, meters; = reduced fundamental frequency in the vertical direction, (niH)/u*; = peak factor calculated from Eq. 8.11, but taken as 3.5 in Simiu (1980) [corresponds to gg in Davenport and g in ASCE 7-95]; GF H J J m Ni = gust response factor; = height of the structure, meters; = function depending on ZQ/H, zd/H, and H in Eq. 8.12; = function for part of J depending on ZQ/H and z^fH. in Figure 8.2; = mass per unit length of the tower, assumed to be constant, kilograms/meter; = along-wdnd size effect or correlation factor [corresponding to Rd in ASCE 7-95]

105

ni

= fundamental natural frequency of the structure, Hz [corresponding to ft in Davenport];

= wind speed retardation factor from Simiu (1980), given as 1.0 for Exposure C;

(2

= resonance response term [roughly analogous to R2 in Davenport];

Uo(10)= mean hourly wind speed at the standard height of 10 meters, meters/second; u* Ti Ax Yji zd ZQ 5 V T) = finction velocity, meters/second; = wind speed related to u* by Eq 8.8; = four times the along-wind dimension of the structure, D, meters; = parameter depending on B/H, ZQ/H, zd/H, and f^ in Figure 8.3 ; = zero plane displacement, taken as zero for Exposure C; = roughness length from Table 8.1, given as 0.07 for Exposure C; = fraction of critical damping of the structure; = frequency at which most of the energy of the spectrum is concentrated, used in calculating the statistical peak factor, g; = reduced frequency for the along-wind size effect or correlation parameter, N i

8.2.1 Relevant Graphs and Tables from Simiu, 1976 The follov^dng graphs and tables are reproduced here and will be used for the calculations of the gust response factor by Simiu's method.

106

 flllMlllliiiiiirinac.'iiiiuccrknfMnM Hill riiiur.*: - B l t w C . r ' . ^ M i M I M H Itiitirti:!-:: r< t.* Nr frr Tr.r/mggmn inRmiioKir9frPM.-T9>inMiih.-*iiaim.^x.ii mpnr r t mmniDPie^* vBurfe-f .Baniiiiiii:ianrt.-<..viiiiu cr iiiiHui fr-^5^|iBin:r?fcBiiif
IIIIIIIIP:I] .

nmBSiri(wrraniiiiiuniniiifni'fi>-Minir v i - a n i twgwggt)R3erMiiiiniimniiinircyCTiBniryt.-Btll ___"J?r!'iBr-cMniiiiiimiiramtPHiiiiiiiiiiieBti

_..^-._._.._..,..

amB5'sr^l!iilitr.tPBiinillirimilinBtjrBpn:irftrrritniIllllllllllWiP.riiiwr.iitKr!?ni^^ nn..,.-.^ n,,-:.,. MmMii,ii,imirnH.-.-Miiiir-.-.^- iiiiiMrrmiDfTrr^-nn " - K M I I I H m "r=r*SsS"5:

10

10

W-2

V"

Figure 8.1

Function

Figure 8.2

Function J
107

2S

\0

ss

40

U
ii:ui&ifiAElfijUiEiiiUESSS^iia&iiiiiUsisiii^isilliiillillSll
>^fli,*CK;ftaCK*B^><Mjit:;*WaB>BB<.tlSi4BeI.SB:3^#CBVaKB*9BMK*Vi a r ; T _ 1 -' I U J l 2 T H -

p|5i.

-J"

- J

? ^ ^ H ^ y ' ='4= 4 :

4 T

rssgS5s5
10

iij

3i

fli'
* ^-*-*h W ^
M-r. r-i-

"

lUIIIIII

UUIIIII UIMIIII IHUllll

muuii

Imi
' ; J '

-1

f \ \

y \ J v l > , yv., X t j V ^

'V_l t t

1 1 f-

- 4 ? * j * ^ * '-1

Tl''iu,^'ii

r5rn^aBrs'a?Sc*lxr.c>.iciissa.a^

10'
.*'..< .<jk> iW >-. - ! . .

^ 10 -5

BrBaBiiakBBaBRekB^iri.xnBk^BBb^eirBHK>ecBK&>>:*BisBeBr'.rBSf-Bk'.?*r: BesRrseesir?EaKsc6ipEa^-s^.;asi;rs>>2r<:*?a?ss>k5eseeA^s>B^TaiK5c^:-

H4:i^Ma|s|:T|ia|^j|^m:m?|^^amj^saj^^
i3^ f^^fHH.^ -__ . l - j - ^ ! -'10 IX

|J.J'

i^i

I14 j I : . ^ - i - : - i J- -I . } ' 4-. ; I I

a=

Figure 8.3

Function Y 11

los

Table 8.1 Values Zo/H, Zd/H Corresponding to Various Y u Curves

Curve A B C D E F G H I

Zo/H 1.3 X 10-5 3.4 X 10-5 8.3 X 10-5 1.1 X 10-4 1.9x10-4 4.7 X 10-4 1.0 X 10-3 1.6x10-3 2.2 X 10-3 2.2 X 10-3 3.4 X 10-3 3.4 X 10-3 5.4 X 10-3 5.4 X 10-3 8.0 X 10-3 8.0 X 10-3 1.3 X 10-2 1.3 X 10-2 1.8 X 10-2 1.8 X 10-2 2.7 X 10-2 2.7 X 10-2

Zd/H

0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.06 0. 0.04 0. 0.15 0. 0.10 0. 0.20 0. 0.45 0. 0.30

r
J J' K K' L L' M M' N N' 0 0'

Note: Zd/H is of the order of 0.1 or less and Zo/H < IO-2, in determining Yji may be assumed zd/H = 0.

109

8.3 Equations 8.3.1 Gust Response Factor The gust response factor in Simiu's model (1976) is given by

G F = l + g 1.23V + which is a combination of the following two equations;

(8.1)

.1/2

= 1.23 a(z)

^fsT^

(8.2)

a'(z) 1/2 GF = l + g. a(z)

(8.3)

The quantities on the right-hand side of Equation 8.1 are determined as follows. First, the background response term, (E, is found from the ratio of the zero plane displacement to the building height, zj/H, and the parameter in Figure 8.1.

= (i-^)af H
number of steps: r nil 7 \ 11

(8.4)

Next, the resonant response term, ^, is found with a considerably greater

(C^W+2CWCLNI-HC^L)

(8.5)

(Cw-fCL)2

In this expression C^ and C L are the windward and leeward pressure coefficients, respectively, N i is the correlation coefficient between the two
110

faces, fj^ is the reduced fundamental frequency with regard to the vertical direction, (niH)/u*, n i is the fundamental frequency in Hz, ^ is the fraction of critical damping in the first mode, and Y^^ is a function depending on B/H, ZQ/H, and f^ that is graphed in Figure 8.3. The along-wind correlation coefficient, Ni, in Equation 8.5 is the counterpart of R^ in the ASCE 7-95 Commentary method and depends on the along-wind reduced frequency, T), by the same type of formula as Rj depends on its corresponding reduced frequency, r|. N i = along-wind size effect or correlation factor 1 1 = l-l(l-e-2^
n Tl n V Tl

(8.6)

where r|=(3.85niAx)ii (8.7)

and
11 = 2.5u, In
^H^
v^oy

-1

(8.8)

In Equation 8.8, the fi:iction velocity, u*, is related to the reference wind speed, Uo(lO), through the retardation factor, p (depending on the exposure), by: u* = 0.0806 p Uo(lO). (8.9)

Next, the peak factor, g, can either be taken as 3.5 or 3.6, as in the Davenport and ASCE 7-95 Commentary methods, respectively, or calculated
111

as follows. For the calculation, determine v, the frequency at which most of the energy of the spectrum is concentrated:

V =

4i
(fl-h^)

n,.

(8.10)

Then the statistical peak factor is determined from the well-known formula for an averaging time of one hour = 3600 seconds (Davenport, 1964):

g = V2 ln3,600v->- , ^'^'^'^ V2 ln3,600v

(8.11)

Finally, the quantity J in the expression for GF in Equation 8.1, is found from the following equation:

j^j^(100^30z,^30z-d) H'

^3^2)

where zd = zero plane displacement; Zo= roughness length; and H = height of the structure. The first term on the right is found from Figure 8.2, entering with values of ZQ/H and zj/H. 8.3.2 Maximum Along-Wind Displacement Mean and maximum along-wind deflections are determined in Simiu's two papers by different methods. For the purpose of this report, the maximum value is found simply as the gust response factor times the mean value. Simiu (1976) computes the mean value at height z as:

112

a(z) = 0.3CD

u.

JB(z/H)

(8.13)

where Cj) is the mean drag coefficient, m is the mass of the building per unit height, u*, ni, h, J, and H are as defined above, B is the width of the structure, and the shape of the deflection is taken as linear over the height of the structure. Then the maximum displacements are found from: amax(z) = (GF) a(z). (8.14)

Since the shape of the maximum deformation is linear, there is no curvature in the tower and no stresses can be evaluated without assuming some alternative shape, as was done for the ASCE 7-95 Commentary method. 8.4 Example Calculations for the Spun-Cast Concrete Pole In this section the Spun-Cast pole is considered as an example of Simiu's method. The input data is explained below. First, a conversion is needed from the given 3-second gust reference wind speed to the corresponding mean hourly wind speed. This is similar to employing the quantity Ky in the Davenport method. Second, calculations are carried out only for wind on the tower, since Simiu's method is not amenable to determining the response of the conductors (what value of H would be meaningful, for instance?). Third, only the maximum tower deflections, not the maximum tower stresses, are determined since the deformed shape is linear and has no curvature.

113

8.4.1 Summary of input data Following parameters for the tower and the wind field are same as those used in the previous methods. Tower: Height, H 84 ft ft = 25.60 m = 0.5525 m = 0.9210 Hz. = 0.03 =0.8 = 1 5 0 lb/ft3

Average diameter, D = B = 1.8127 Fundamental frequency, f^ Fraction of critical damping, ^ Force coefiicient, Cf

Weight density of the tower material Mass per unit length, m

= (150 X 1.8127^2 X 7c/4)lb/ft = (387.11)lb/ft = (387.11x3.281x0.4536) = 576.11 kg/m Modulus of elasticity of material, E^ = 7.81 x lO^psf

Conductors: (not considered)

Wind Field: 3-Second gust speed, V ^ ^ f Wind speed conversion factor, Ky (from 3-sec to mean hourly) Exposure Category 8.4.2 General Given or Calculated Values:

140 mph 1.657 C (open country)

The following calculated values are particular to Simiu's model. Meanhourly wind speed, Uo( 10) = Vj-ef^Ky = 140 mph/1.657

= 84.49 mph = 37.47 m/s

114

Roughness length, ZQ (Exposure C or II in Table 1 of Simiu [1980]) = 0.07 m Retardation factor, p (Exposure C or II in Table 1 of Simiu [1980]) = 1.00 Ratio of roughness length to tower height, ZQ/H = 0.07/25.60
= 0.002734

8.4.3 Tower Gust Response Factor The tower gust response factor is calculated as follows: Background term, (E = (1 - z^/H) S = (1 - 0) 7.6 = 7.6 so, S from Fig. 8.1 (ZQ/H = 0.002734 and B/H s 0) is 7.6 Also, Z(i = 0 for Exposure C

Resonance term, ^ C^ = windward coeff. C L = leeward coeff. u, = friction velocity = 0.6 = 0.4 = 0.0806 p Uo( 10) = 0.0806(1X37.47) = 3.020 m/s u = 2.5 u. [In (H/zo) - 1]; = 2.5 (3.020) [ln(25.60/0.07) - 1] = 37.01 m/s Ax J] = eff. long. dim. = 4 D = 4 (0.5525) = 2.21 m = alongwind reduced frequency = (3.85 n i Ax)/ Ti; = (3.85 X 0.9210 x2.21)/37.01 = 0.2217 Ni = along-wind corr. factor =
(1/TI)

- {l/2T]^)il - e'^Tl)

= (1/0.2217)-(l/(2x0.22172))(l-e-2x0.2217) = 0.8672

115

fj^

= reduced fundamental frequency with respect to vertical direction = niH/ u* = 0.9210x25.6/3.020 = 7.8072

Y^i

= parameter from Simiu's Fig. 8.3 with B/H = 0, ?! = 7.81, and ZQ/H = 0.002734 (curve J ) = 0.0025

= [(Cw2 + 2CWCL

NI

+ CL2)/(CW + CL)2](7U fi/4^) Y ^

= [(0.62 + 2(0.6)(0.4)(0.8672) + (0.42)/(0.6 + 0.4)2](7c x 7.8072)/(4x0.03)](0.0025) = 0.4784 Statistical peak factor, g = V2 ln(3600 n) + 0.577/ V2 ln(3600 n) = V2 ln(3600 X 0.08562) + 0.577/ V2 ln(3600 x 0.08562 = 4.152 where n = [ TF/iS + ) ] ni

= [V 0.4787/(6.6-1-0.4784)] (0.9210) = 0.08562

Quantity J = J -i- (100 + 30 z^ + 30 z^^)/R^ = 16 + 100/(25.60)2 = 13.15 where z^ = 0 and J = parameter from Simiu's Fig. 8.2 with

Zd/H = 0 and ZQ/H = 0.002734 is 16

Tower Gust Response Factor, GF

= 1 + g[1.23>/(B -i- R )/J]

= 1 + 4.152 [1.23 >/(7.6 + 0.4784)/13.15] = 2.10

116

8.4.4 Conductor Gust Response Factor It is shown in this subsection that Simiu's method does not provide useful design approach to wind on the conductor and groundwire. First of all, value for the parameters H and B must be selected. This parameter H is the height of the structure, which is normally assumed to be a building and the parameter B is the width of the structure perpendicular to the wind. If the vertical size of the conductor, that is, diameter d, is used for H, and the horizontal extent of the conductor, that is, the span L, is used for B, then the ratio B/H needed to enter the graphs for (E and Y-^^ are for greater than the largest value of B/A = 3.0 considered in these graphs. Thus, it is impossible in this case to complete the calculations. Incidentally, Simiu's graphs are not generated by equations, and it would be dangerous to attempt to extrapolate them beyond the ranges presented. The only other logical choice for the parameter H might be the height at which a conductor or groundwire is attached to a pole or the center of wind pressure. This choice would avoid the problem of B/H falling outside the range considered in the graphs. However, it presents a risk in using the graphs, since H is intended to be the height of a vertically oriented structure and how this assumption affects the curves cannot be assessed. It is likely that curves are based on an analysis that considers wind on the structure from the ground up to the height H, not just at the height H. In light of this difiiculty in utilizing the graphs for wind on the conductor and groundwire, Simiu's model is considered not to be applicable to these components. The determination of a gust response factor is needed in determining deflections and stresses, so the contributions of wind on the conductors and groundwire to these response quantities cannot be evaluated with confidence.

117

8.4.5 Tower Deflection With Simiu's method (1976), tower deflections are determined as a function of nondimensional height, (z/Ho). The mean deflection is given by the following equation:
/ 2 \

a(z) = 0.3CD

u,

JB(z / H) a(z)

= 0.3 (0.8) (3.0202/(576.11 x 0.92102)) (13.15) (0.5525 ) (z/H) = 0.03254 (z/H). and the mean tip deflection due to wind on the tower (at z = H) is 0.03254 m. Finally, the peak value of the tip deflection is this number times the gust response factor: amax(z = H) = (GF) a(z) =2.10(0.03254) = 0.06834 meters
= 0.2242 ft.

8.5 Summary of Simiu's Model Simiu's method (1976, 1980) is designed for hourly mean wind speed. However, the model can be applied to any averaging time using Durst (1960) or Krayer and Marshall's graphs (1992). Simiu's model assumes linear first fundamental mode shape and uses graphs for most part of the calculations for the gust response factor. It should be noted that the method of Simiu does not provide a useful design approach for transmission line structures because the graphs incorporated into the method are not adaptable to wind on the conductors. The graphs are set up in terms of the tower height, H, a parameter that refers to the size of a vertically oriented structure (assumed to be like a building). Use of conductor diameter, d, for H would place the ratio B/H well beyond the range considered in the graphs, and use of the attachment height of the horizontally oriented conductor would likely be a

118

misuse of the graphs. Assessing this use is not feasible since Simiu does not present the basis for the graphs.

119

CHAPTER 9 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY STUDY 9.1 Introduction In this chapter the results obtained by Davenport's model and the modified ASCE 7-95 Commentary method in Chapters VII and VIII, respectively, for the prototype spun-cast concrete pole are evaluated and corresponding results are given for the static-cast concrete pole. By following the detailed equations and numerical calculations presented in the earlier chapters, the reader can see what is involved in attempting to use each method for a pole design. When that understanding is combined with a comparison of the results obtained, a rational choice can be made.

9.2

Comparison of Spun-Cast Concrete Pole Results By Davenport and modified ASCE 7-95 Method

Table 9.1 summarizes the results of the two methods considered for the baseline spun-cast concrete pole of Figure 5.1. The following observations may be made from Table 9.1. 1. All of the response results appear to be rather large for the 84-foot high spun-cast concrete pole. A maximum stress of the order of 7,000 psi. is 83 percent of the ultimate design stress, f^', of 8,000 psi. and thus is large for a working stress design, but it is perhaps acceptable for the extreme wind considered. A tip deflection of more than 6 feet is also large for an 84-foot pole. 2. The results from the Davenport and modified ASCE 7-95 Commentary methods are fairly comparable, lending confidence to the validity of both methods. The modified ASCE results are slightly larger. Either method can be utilized.
120

3. Wind on the three conductors considered (650 feet long and 1.43 inches in diameter) clearly dominates over wind on the tower and wind on the groundwire in producing both stress and deflection. Table. 9.1 Summary of Results for the 84-Foot Spun-Cast Concrete Pole

Calculated Quantity

Davenport Model

Modified ASCE 95 Method

Percent 7- Difference

Gust Response Factor - for Tower - for Conductors - for Groundwires Maximum Stress, psi. - from Wind on Tower - from Wind on Conductors - from Wind on Groundwire Total Maximum Deflection, ft. - from Wind on Tower - from Wind on Conductors - from Wind on Groundwire Total 0.58 5.48 0.32 6.39 0.66 5.92 0.38 6.95 +13.6 -H7.9 -f-16.1 + 8.8 1,860 4,420 600 6,890 2,295* 4,775 790 7,765 -t-23.1 -1-7.9 -I-31.1 -t-12.8 1.045 0.664 0.619 0.946 0.778 0.780 -9.5 -1-17.2 -1-26.0

Note:

* Second derivative of first mode shape of uniform cross section pole used.

121

4. All of the gust response factors are less than or close to 1.0, as expected for the 3-second gust wind speeds with which they are used. 5. The gust response factors determined by the modified ASCE 7-95 method are smaller than those determined by the Davenport model for the tower, but are larger for the conductors and groundwire. The approximately 10 percent difference in the tower gust response factors is due to a much larger resonance term in Davenport's model than in the modified ASCE method. For the wires the resonance terms are much less important than the background for the tower in both methods (and, in fact, are negligible in the ASCE method), so the larger gust response factors in the modified ASCE method are inherent in the methodology for the background response. Table 9.2 shows that the background terms for the tower by the two methods are very close, but there is a 61% difference in the terms for the conductors. This difference for the conductors is related to the general forms of Equation 6.6 in the Davenport model and Equation 3.13 in the ASCE method. The forms are similar in that they both employ a ratio of conductor length to integral scale in the denominator, but the multiplying coefficients and exponents on this term are different and the value of the integral scale are quite different. As a result of using an integral scale of only 220 feet (see Table 6.1), the R* in the Davenport method is much smaller than the Q2 in the ASCE method, which uses a calculated integral scale of 555.7 feet. Table 9.2 also shows that the resonance terms for both the tower and conductors by ASCE method are of the order of 70% smaller than those by the Davenport method. For these calculations. Equation 6.9 and 6.10 are used in the Davenport method and Equation 7.2 is used in the ASCE method. Both depend in part on a reduced frequency, but the reduced frequency is defined differently in each case, and the values differ by a factor of 10. By the ASCE method, the reduced frequency for the conductors is niLz/Vz, which
122

Table 9.2

Comparison of Background and Resonance Contributions to the GRF in the Davenport and ASCE Methods Davenport Method ASCE Method (Q2) 0.8356 0.5898 (R2) 0.6184 0.0586 -73.5 -69.9 -4.5 -1-60.6 7-95
%

Difference

Background Term -for tower -for conductors Resonance Term -for tower -for conductors

(B*) 0.8748 0.2973

(R*) 2.336 0.1946

gives 1.042 for the case considered, whereas in the Davenport method the reduced frequency for the conductors is fwZo/Vo, which is 0.1039. These differences are due to Davenport's use of Zo, the effective height, in defining the reduced frequency, while the ASCE method defines it in terms of the integral scale, Lz, which is much larger. These differences are adjusted somewhat in the equations for R* and R2, but other factors also play a part, including how the reduced frequency enters the equations, the damping factor, and whether or not a size effect factor is used. In the ASCE method, size effect factors in all three directions are incorporated into R2 and it would be much larger than R* from the Davenport method if the same damping were used but the size factors were omitted. However, the size factors are so small (a multiplier of 0.1623 comes from Rb) as to make the final value of R2 much smaller than R*. Then the higher damping assumed in the ASCE method makes R2 still smaller. The lesson from this discussion is that the details of the two methods considered reveal significant differences in many places.
123

In the case

considered, in spite of the fairly close agreement in the overall GRF values, they do not agree in the different contributions. In this case the resonance contribution to the GRF is much larger in Davenport's method for both the tower and conductors, but it is only large enough in comparison to the background contribution to make Davenport's GRF larger for the tower. As noted earlier, a "separation factor," e, of 0.75 is included in the ASCE method calculations in the same way as proposed by Davenport in his method. The total stress results of the modified ASCE 7-95 Commentary method would differ from those of the Davenport method by an additional 15 percent, approximately, if the separation factor had been omitted in applying the ASCE method. The deflection results shown in Table 9.1 do not include the effects of cracked section behavior in the prestressed concrete member. Such an analysis would be extremely difficult to carry out. More detailed information about the reinforcement would be needed, including its area, spacing, and pretensioning stress, and the dynamic properties of the member would change due to cracking. In fact, there would be a nonlinear type of d)mamic response, with the section properties var3dng from those of a cracked to those of an uncracked section in different portions of each cycle of motion and in different degrees at different positions over the height of the tower. It can be said, however, that cracking in the concrete would increase the calculated deflections.

124

9.3 Comparison of Static-Cast and Spun-Cast Concrete Pole Results In Table 9.3 results of the type presented in Table 9.1 for the spun-cast concrete pole are included for the 84-foot static-cast concrete pole of Figure 5.1 as well as for the spun-cast pole. Data and results are again shown for both design methods considered. The purpose of considering the static-cast pole is to see if significant differences in the results might have occurred if a different realistic set of pole properties had been adopted as an example structure. It can be seen in Table 9.3 that both types of poles follow the same general pattern of results by the Davenport and the modified ASCE 7-95 Commentary methods. The cross section properties of the two tj^jes of poles are different and hence the stresses and deflections are different. It is interesting that under the same wind, the maximum stress is smaller in the static-cast pole but the tip deflections is larger. For example, wind on the conductors again dominates the total stresses and deflections. However, by either method, there are differences in the results for static-cast and spuncast poles. These differences are caused by a combination of factors, that is, differences in fundamental frequency, cross-section at various heights, drag coefficient, and modulus of elasticity. The larger section modulus of the static-cast pole at the base seems to help make its maximum stress smaller, whereas the lower strength concrete makes its modulus of elasticity and thus its deflections larger.

125

Table 9.3

Comparison of Results for the 84-Foot Static-Cast and SpunCast Concrete Poles Davenport Model Modified SpunCast 1.045 0.664 0.619 1,860 4,425 600 6,890 0.58 5.50 0.32 6.39 StaticCast 1.173 0.664 0.619 2265 2520 385 6600 2.08 8.30 0.48 10.9 SpunCast 0.946 0.778 0.780 2295* 4770 790 7765 0.66 5.92 0.38 6.95 ASCE StaticCast 0.999 0.778 0.780 3510* 2180 445 5100 1.33 8.96 0.55 10.8

Calculated Quantity

7-95 Method Gust Response Factor - for Tower - for Conductors - for Groundwires Maximum Stress, psi. - from Wind on Tower - from Wind on Conductors - from Wind on Groundwire Total Maximum Deflection, ft. - from Wind on Tower - from Wind on Conductors - from Wind on Groundwire Total

Note:

* Second derivative of first mode of uniform cross section pole used

126

9.4 Sensitivity Parameters In this section, several parameters that affect the behavior of the power line system considered but which have been kept constant in the results so far are varied in order to determine the type and degree of their effects. In the case of each varied parameter one value above and one below the value for the prototype pole are included, always within a realistic range. The parameters specified as fixed and as variables in the sensitivity study are sununarized in Table 9.4. The values shown there represent the middlevalued "baseline" structures. Only parameters whose influences on the response are not obvious are varied in the sensitivity study. These include: the tower height, h; the conductor span, L; the tower damping factor, ^^, the conductor damping factor ^cond, and groundwire damping factor, ^ . The conductor damping factor,

^cond. 2^^ ^^ groundwire damping factor, ^g^ are not varied in the case of Davenport's model because they are calculated from the wind speed and the wire diameter. For other parameters which might vary in the real world, the effects are more obvious. For example, if the pressure coefficients for the tower, Cft, or the conductor, Ccond., increase, the corresponding forces increase in direct proportion; therefore these parameters are not varied below. The same wind field and terrain factors are also adopted for all cases. They are those for the examples above, that is, a 3-second speed of 140 miles per hour and a site with exposure C.

127

Table 9.4 Parameter Values for the Baseline Structures Parameter Spun Cast Concrete Pole Varied Parameters Height, h, ft.* Conductor Span, L, ft Tower Damping Factor, ^i* Conductor damping factor, ^ cond.* Groundwire damping factor, ^ g^ Fixed Parameters Mean Tower Diameter/Side, ft Fund. Tower Freq., fi, Hz No. of Conductors Conductor Diameter, d, ft. Groundwire Diameter, d, ft. Force coefficient, Cr 1.8127 0.9210 3 0.11892 0.03125 0.80 1.679 0.6886 3 0.11892 0.03125 1.60 84 650 0.03 0.4 0.4 84 650 0.03 0.4 0.4 Static Cast Concrete Pole

* Varied in the modified ASCE method only (calculated as a single values according to conductor size and wind speed in the Davenport method).

128

9.5 Sensitivity Results All of the results obtained in the sensitivity study of both the poles considered, first by the Davenport model and then by the modified ASCE 795 Conunentary method, are shown in Appendix A. As noted at the bottom of the table the maximum combined stress may not be the base stress or at the same height as any individual maximum stress from wind on the tower, the conductors or the groundwire. The maximum stress occurring at each height of the tower may or may not occur at the same height as individual maximum stresses. The computer program calculated the maximum combined stress at each level considered and took the largest of all the maximum. The results of the sensitivity studies are presented in graphical form for the spun-cast pole in this subsection. presented in Appendix B for the static-cast pole. Figure 9.1 shows the effects of tower height, h, and conductor span, L, on the combined tip deflection and the combined stress due to wind on the tower, the conductors, and the groundwire. Both Davenport and modified ASCE 7-95 Conunentary results are included. The tower height is varied from 70 to 100 feet, and the conductor span is varied from 550 to 750 feet while the tower damping factor is maintained at the baseline value of 0.03 and the conductor and groundwire damping factors for the modified ASCE 795 Commentary Method are maintained at the baseline value of 0.4. As expected, for both the models, an increase in height of tower or span of conductors increases both the total tip deflection and the stress. For the tallest tower and longest span the maximum tip deflection is of the order of 12 feet and the maximum base stress in the concrete is of the order of 8,000 psi. It is also seen that the tower height has more effect on the tip deflection than on the base stress. The graphs for deflections by the modified ASCE and the Davenports model appear to lie on top of each other because the results are very close. However, the two methods give distinct stresses.
129

Corresponding graphs are

Effect of Tower Height and Span of Conductors on Total Deflections due to Wind on Tower, Conductors, and Groundwire
Span=550ft. ASCE O Span=550ft. Daven. -A Span=650ft. ASCE

1
o
84 Tower Height, ft. 100

-X Span=650fl. Daven. X - Span=750ft. ASCE O - Span=750ft. Daven.

Effect of Tower Height and Span of Conductors on Total Stresees due to Wind on Tower, Conductors, and Groundwire
10000 -r
Span=550ft. ASCE 0 Span=550ft. Daven. -A Span=650ft. ASCE
M Q.

-X Span=650ft. Daven. X - Span=750tt. ASCE O - Span=750ft. Daven.

to

is

70

84 Tower Height, ft.

100

Figure 9.1

Combined Response Sensitivity to Tower Height and Conductor Span for Spun-Cast Concrete Pole (Exposure C, Vref=140 mph, 5tower=0.03, ASCE Method; ^cond = 0.4, ^ = 0.4)
130

The effect of tower height on the maximum stress is seen from the second figure to be essentially linear. The maximum stress for the 100 ft. pole is approximately 25 percent greater than for the 70 ft. pole, indicating that in spite of the increase in the wind velocity with height, the rate of increase in stresses is lower than the rate of increase in height, 100/70 = 1.43. This result may be attributed to the larger cross section at the base of the pole when it is used for a greater height. Nevertheless, the fairly simple linear variation in stress shows that an expected trend occurs in spite of the complexities of the calculations. A similar conclusion can be made from the maximum deflection results in first part of Figure 9.1, where a set of smooth lines with upward curvature appear. Here, the expected result from a simple model of a concentrated conductor force on a cantilever beam would be an increase in deflection in proportion to the height cubed. The graphs do show this type of increase but at a slower rate, as the ratio of tip deflection for the 100 ft. pole to that for the 70 ft. pole is approximately 2.2, whereas the length ratio cubed is (100/70)^ = 2.92. Although these curves look smooth and fairly simple, one would have to look carefully into the details of each computational method to understand them completely. Figure 9.2 shows the effects of tower height, h, and tower damping factor, ^t> ^^ ^h tip deflection and the stress. The tower height is again varied from 70 to 100 feet, and the tower damping factor is varied from 0.01 to 0.05 while the conductor span is maintained at the standard value of 650 ft. ^ For the modified ASCE 7-95 Commentary method the conductor and _0 4 As expected, an increase in the tower damping decreases both the groundwire damping factors are fixed at the baseline values of ^cond = 0.4,

tip deflection and the base stress, but not by very much. In fact, the decrease is hardly detectable for the total tip deflection and is only about 12 percent
131

Effect of Tower Height and Tower Damping on Total Deflections due to Wind on Tower, Conductors, and Groundwire
Ht.=70fL ASCE 11 X 1069 -8 6 5 -X Ht=70fl Daven. -A Ht.=84ft. ASCE -X HL=84fL Daven A X X - Ht.=100ft. ASCE O - Ht=100ft Daven.

-o

c o
-.0

4+

=5=
0.03 Damping in Tower

:^

0.01

0.05

Effect of Tower Height and Tower Damping on Total Stresses due to Wind on Tower, Conductors, and Groundwire
Ht=70ft ASCE Ht.=70fl Daven. -A Ht.=84ft. ASCE a.
<n <n

-X Ht.=84ft DAven X - Ht.=100ft. ASCE O - Ht.=100ft Daven.

Figure 9.2

Combined Response Sensitivity to Tower Height and Tower Damping Ratio, ^towerfor Spun-Cast Concrete Pole(Exposure C, Vre(=140 mph. Span = 650 ft, ASCE Method; ^cond = 0.4, ^ = 0.4)

132

over the range of damping factors considered. These relatively small effects of a large percentage change in the tower damping factor are caused by the fact that forces from wind on the conductors dominate each response, and these forces are sensitive to the conductor damping, not the tower damping. In the three vertically arranged segments of Figure 9.3, the effects of tower height, h, and conductor span, L, are broken down according to the three types of v^dnd loading considered: wind load on the tower in part (a), wind load on the conductors in part (b), and wind load on the groundwire in part (c). How the variations in h and L affect the individual gust response factors (the top curves) as well as the contributions to tip deflection and base stress are shown. The trends for deflection and stress due to wind on the three components are all basically the same as for their combined effects as seen in Figure 9.1. The new features of Figure 9.3 are the gust response factors for the individual components at the top of these segments. First of all, it should be noted that the vertical scales for the gust response factors have narrow ranges, showing that the physical dimensions h and L do not have much effect on these quantities. Secondly, it is seen that while the GRF increases slightly with tower height for all three components in the modified ASCE method, the GRF decreases slightly with tower height for the conductor and groundwire in the Davenport model. The decrease with height in the Davenport model is due to a decrease with height in Davenport's exposure factor, E, according to Equation 6.5, which appears in the numerator of Equation 6.1. In the modified ASCE method, there is a similar decrease with height in the turbulence intensity, Ij, according to Equation 3.12, but I^ appears in both the numerator and the denominator of modified ASCE expression for the GRF, Equation 8.1. Thus there is a slight increase with

133

ECbct ofTower Height and Span of Conductor on<GRK)t

Effect of Tower Height and Spaa of Coaduotor OB(QRF)C

I 1 106
1

- O S p i n = r i ! j ft A S C E O fipan=5.^0 ft Davn i 0 76

IOBpansftSOft

ASCE

' - A - ' Sp>n=>i60ft A S C E ] ' - X - Sp>n6fi0 ft Daven i

ir-.

-rrrr-n-rrr-^

'

Spans660 ft Davan Span'660ft ASCE |

I---A" ;

- X - S p a n 0 ft Davan ' 'Spn760ft ASCE

OM 0.9 0.85 08
70 l o w e r Heighl i\ I

X-

S p a r , - ' ' f . j ft A S C E

I - -X-

O - -l>pan=7&0ft Davan > 0 46

I - o - S p a n 7 6 0 ft Davan

-.:-.8::;_
84

Towar Haighl ft

(!) Tower Gust Response Factor, (GRF)t

Effect of Tower Height and Span of Conductor on Deflectiona due to ^A^d on Tower only
- O S|)iin=,S5U n -^Span=550ft ASCE Davan

(1) Conductor Gust Response Factor, (GRF)c

Effect of Tower Height and Span of Coadoetor on De0ection due to ^ b d on Condaotors oaly
-OSpan660ft -^6pn8SCft -A' ' Spana690ft X XBpan^60ft -SpansTOOn ASCE Davan ' ASCE Davan ASCE

A - ' i i p a n ^ U ) ft A S C E X ' S p a n ^ e O ft D a v a n X - -Span=750ft ASCE

O - -Span^TSO ft. D a v a n

- O S p a n = 7 6 0 ft DB%an

84 Tower Haight It

(2) Tip Deflection

(2) Tip Deflection

Effect ofTower Height and Span of Conductor on Streacei doe to NVind on Tower only
0 ^ & D r i = 5 3 ' ft A-X-

Effect ofTower Height and Spaa of Cooduotor oa Daflaotlona due to Wind on Condnotore oaly
ASCt
-OSpans660n -^Spon650 ft ASCE Davan ASCE Uavan ASCE

^ b p a r . ^ j b ' ' f". ^ avpii

SipnifibO r>. AsCE

Spsn-TS.'. f: ASCE ' a^an

A- ' 6 p a n ' 6 6 0 n -X- Spans660ft X--Span^TMft

- X - S p h r s D i : ft :. avar

- O bpan-TaO f^

O - S p a n s 7 6 0 ft Davan

84 Towar Helfhl ft

Tower n''i,fn;

ft

(3) Stress (a) Wind Loads on Tower Figure 9.3

(3) Stress (b) Wind Loads on Conductors

Response Sensitivity to Tower Height and Conductor Span Separated by Load Component for Spun-Cast Concrete Pole (Exposure C, Vror = 140 mph, Ciowe,=0.03, ASCE Method; ^amd = 0.4)
134

Effect of Tower Height and Span of Groundwire OD (GRF)fw

"
\f. ATS"
. _ . _ $ . . -

. : _ : .- _ . J!

-S,-p=f550n ASCK -Spn&5<.<0 L)*^'!! A - - S p a n i i j ^ n ASCt: X Spon^iSO ft Devon 1

^ ^
J 0.65 i Oti

X - S p a n s 7 r r i ASCE ' Devn |

- o - Sfiens'SOn

I:::: -v:-v.-.::_:::r;5:;;_;;,,,,. : : - : : _ ; X
84 Tow- Haifhi. fi )(M

r0

(1) Groundwire Gust Response Factor, (GRF)KW

Effect of Tower Hei|^ht and Span of Groundwire on Deflectiona due to ^Mnd on Groundwire onlv
O6pn*50n O 6pn=.S50 n ASCt Om-m,

- A - - 6piin60n ASCE - X - Rrna60 '.1 I>iv*i> - -XSpw.sK*; ft .VS-.T 'iav^n - -O - S M M I T W n

(2) Tip Defllection

Effect ofTower Heiiri^t nd Span of Groaadwire on Streaa** due to Wind on Groundwire onK
60

-X-

-Spana6Mft.ASCE - 8 p a n 6 M I t Oavva. . - A - Span-60 i t ASCR Spana6Mfl Oatn ASCE

ivso
' 660 660 460 70 S4 TowTT Height, ft

,^^

a - -x- Span*7K>ft -o
X

-o-

S|Mia'7m ft. Daven

100

(3) Stress <c) Wind L o a d s o n t h e G r o u n d w i r e Figure 9.3 (contd.) Response Sensitivity to Tower Height and Groundwire Span Separated by Load Component for Spun-Cast Concrete Pole (Exposure C, Vrei=140 mph, ^i.,uvv=0.03, ASCE Method; ^c.md = 0.4)

height in the GRF in the modified ASCE method but a sHght decrease in the Davenport model. In Figure 9.4, the effects of tower height, h, and tower damping factor, ^t, on the gust response factor, the tip deflection, and the base stress are isolated for wind on the tower only. Here the damping factor has a stronger effect in reducing each response than in Figure 9.2. This result is because each response to tower loads is directly affected by the tower damping, but these effects were overwhelmed by conductor loads in Figure 9.2. Finally, in Figure 9.5, plots of the sensitivity of the aerodynamic damping factors ^g^ and ^ond. to the conductor span, L, are shown. Different sags also come into play for the different spans because the sag affects the frequency of the wire and thus the damping by Davenport's formula. It can be seen that as the span increases each damping factor increases fairly significantly. All of the values for the groundwire are considerably greater

than for the conductors because of the large difference in diameter.

.Vi

Effect of Tower H e i g h t a n d T o w e r D a m p i n g o n ( G E H . - Ml .70(1 ASCE - M I - 7 0 B Oewi A - - HI . e 4 1 Asce - X - H | . 4 I 0*>n x - -Hl.100 ASCE - - o - HI-1001LO*vwi

001

003 OampiiiK in Tower

0.09

(1) Tower Gust Response Factor, (GRF).

Effect of Tower Height and Tower Damping on Deflection* due to Wind on Tower only

- H i = 7 0 f t ,\SCE 1 - H i =70 ft Dnvn -A

- X -

Hi =.04ft\ S ( T . H I <44 fi <)*\'n ASCE

-x- Ht=100ft

- - o - Hi X100 ft Uax'wi

(2) Tip Deflection

Effect of Tower Heif^t and Twer Damping on Stresses due to ^Mnd on Tower only

4000 3600

4 3000 -.

I A jawo
3000 l&OO 1000

oHt.7o (I <\sci: O ..^-XHl.s70 n. Dawn Hl.4ft ASCE vsrE Davn

- . X - Hi.4 ft. Dvi " i_.x--Hiioor. - . - . j . . . - . . ^ . . , . . . ; ^ i-.O-.Ht=100ft

001

0.03 Dcmpinf in Towr

006

(3) Stress Wind Loads on the Tower Figure 9.4 Response Sensitivity to Tower Height and Tower Damping Ratio, ^lowc, Separated by Load Component for Spun-Cast Concrete Pole (Exposure C, VrH-140 mph, Span = 650 ft, ASCE Method; ^...nd = 0.4)
137

Davenport Aerodynamic Damping for Conductors

028 026 adynamic Damping 0.24 0.22 0.2 0 18 0 16

0 14

O 70 n Pole A 84 fl Pote X 100 ft Pote

t

a) <

0 12 01
^
^ 4

550

650 Span in Ft

750

Davenport Aerodynamic Damping for GroundWire

- 70 n Pote -84 n Pote X - -icon Pote

0 4 i 650 Span in FI 750

550

Figure 9.5

Sensitivity of Davenport's Aerodynamic Damping in Conductor and Groundwire to Span i.^s

CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 Summary

The main objective of this study was to evaluate carefully the available methods for designing transmission line structures as "wind sensitive structures" in conjunction with the new 3-second gust wind speeds of ASCE 7-95 (ASCE, 1995). The key term in such a design is the gust response factor, or GRF, which depends on the characteristics of the vidnd field and the dynamic properties of the structure. The GRF must then be appropriately combined with other design calculations to produce design deflections and stresses. These quantities are important for the structural survivability and serviceability of transmission line systems. The methods or models considered included one published by Davenport (1979, 1991), one by Simiu (1976, 1980), and one in the Appendix to the design standard ASCE 7-95. The Davenport model, which was exclusively developed for transmission line structures, was adapted herein to the 3-second gust reference wind speed and then used as a guideline model to compare the results from the other two approaches. Both of the other two methods were originally developed for the calculation of gust response factors for general types of slender or flexible structures and required some adaptation for application to transmission line structures. Simiu's model resorts extensively to graphs in the calculation of gust response factors. It was found that the validity of adapting the model to transmission line structures, particularly in accounting for wind on the conductors and ground wires, is highly questionable because of the parameters chosen by Simiu and ranges of those parameters in the graphs. Since these wires contribute more to the total stresses and deflections than wind on the tower, and since the method cannot
139

be coded into a computer program, the method was used only in a limited way to determine deflections due to wind on the tower. Extensive calculations were carried out using both the Davenport method and a modified version of the ASCE Commentary method to determine gust response factors, tip deflections, and maximum stresses in a typical concrete transmission pole supporting three conductors and a groundwire. Calculations due to wind on the pole, the conductors and the groundwire were included. These calculations were presented so that reader can understand the intricacies involved in the use of the different models. The SPRINT finite element program was used to model the example pole with beam elements, taking into account the taper of the pole. The pole's natural frequencies, natural modes of vibration, and flexibility coefficients for wind on the tower, wind on the conductors, and wind on the groundwire were determined with this program. The flexibility coefficients were then used in the calculations by the different design methods. The detailed step-by-step calculations clearly revealed the various assumptions made in appl3dng the Davenport and ASCE methods to transmission line systems. In the Davenport method, for example, a separation factor is incorporated to account for the differences in frequency between the tower, the conductors, and the groundwire, and an empirical equation is used to arrive at a value of the aerodynamic damping in the conductors and groundwires. Not so clear is the assumption in this method as well as in the ASCE method that the peaks of the forces exerted on the tower by the three conductors occur simultaneously. A key assumption in the ASCE method is that the first mode shape of the pole can be modeled by a simplified equation, but a different form of the mode shape must be used to determine stresses due to wind on the pole. In developing the equations for each method considered, various terms were examined carefully. In Davenport's model, the separation factor, e, was
140

studied and his value of 0.75 was accepted since this value appears to be close to what will occur in practice. In a similar way, in the ASCE method the factor K that accounts for the relationship between the wind profile and the first mode shape of the structure was examined and its expression in the code was compared to the exact expression. Also, adaptation of this factor for conductors and groundwires was considered. Another benefit of the detailed calculations is that the results show the effects of various parameters and of different aspects of each formulation. Direct comparisons between the results from the Davenport and modified ASCE models were presented for gust response factors, tip deflections, and maximum stresses, broken down by contributions from wind on the tower, wind on the conductors, and wind on the groundwire. Results were given not only for the example problems for which detailed computations were shown, but also for a second representative concrete pole with different properties and for ranges of several properties of each pole, such as tower height, conductor span, and tower damping. These results were presented in a sensitivity study by means of tables and graphs. 10.2 Conclusions In the basis of this work, the following conclusions are drawn. 1. Either the Davenport method as presented in ASCE's "Guidelines for Electrical Transmission Line Structural Loading" (ASCE, 1991) or the modified Solari-Kareem method as presented in the Commentary of ASCE 7-95 (ASCE, 1995) can be effectively used in the design of single pole transmission line supports in conjunction with 3-second gust wind speed maps. The modified ASCE method incorporates a "separation factor" as proposed by Davenport.

141

2.

The Simiu method (1976,1980) is not safe to apply to the design of transmission line structures unless a means can be proven to utilize Simiu's graphs for wind on the conductors and ground wires.

3. All three methods considered can be adapted to a wind speed averaged over any time up to one hour with the help of either the Durst curve for non-hurricane regions or the Krayer and Marshall curve for hurricane regions. This is particularly important in that it means the Davenport method can be used with 3-second gust wind speed maps. 4. For the example pole considered the gust response factors (GRFs) determined by the Davenport and modified ASCE methods agree fairly closely. They are generally less than or close to 1.0. The GRF values as determined by the Davenport method are slightly higher than those determined by the modified ASCE method for the tower, but slightly lower for the conductors and groundwire. 5. Although the final GRF values determined by the Davenport and modified ASCE methods are fairly close, the contributions from individual background and resonance components do not agree closely. between the two methods. The resonance terms for the conductors differ by as much as 70 percent A thorough understanding of the various rather complex equations and the differences in specified parameter values is needed in order see where such differences between the two methods come from. 6. The sensitivity studies show that changes in GRF, deflection, and stress with tower height and conductor span generally follow expected patterns, but that damping in the tower has a very small effect on the response. One unexpected trend is that an increase in tower height slightly increases the conductor GRF by the ASCE method but it slightly decreases the GRF by the Davenport method.

142

7. The parameter K in the ASCE method is given by an approximate formula in the standard, and it is insensitive to the power law exponent, d . However, it is very sensitive to the first mode shape exponent, ^, which was found to be approximately 1.8 for the poles considered.

10.3 Recommendations The following recommendations are made, based on the results above. 1. The Davenport method should be used for transmission line design because it has been specifically geared for 'line-like structures," it has been accepted in the transmission line industry over time, and it does not require the assumption of a first mode shape in calculating stresses. 2. A separation factor, e, between the contributions of wind on the tower and wind on the conductors and groundwire should be used with any method and should be evaluated more thoroughly in the future, either through analytic studies or experimentation. 3. Since aerodynamic damping in the conductors and groundwire is very important to the survival of a transmission line system, a more exact way of estimating this quantity than Davenport's equation should be explored, either theoretically or experimentally. 4. An expression for the second derivative of the first mode shape other than the simplified one used in the standard is needed to calculate stresses in the ASCE method. Also, a better approximation than the one adopted herein appears to be needed. 5. For the conductors the ASCE method term for the background response, Q2, needs further study. Davenport gives different equations for the background terms for the tower and for the conductors, but in the ASCE method a separate expression is not given since the method was not designed for slender horizontally oriented structiu'es.

143

6.

A new model for determining gust response factors for transmission structures should be attempted using aerodynamic admittance functions and ARMA (auto-regressive moving average) models to generate appropriate wind loading time histories. Then these time histories should be coupled with a finite element d3mamic analysis program from which gust response factors can be extracted.

144

BIBLIOGRAPHY American National Standards Institute, (1992), ANSI 05.1-1992: American National Standard for Wood Poles - Specifications and Dimensions, 26 pp. American Society of Civil Engineers, (1990), "Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures," 2nd Ed., ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 72, 103 pp. American Society of Civil Engineers, (1991), "Guidehnes for Electrical Transmission Line Structural Loading," ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 74, 139 pp. American Society of Civil Engineers, (1988), "ASCE 7-88: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Section 6, Wind Loads." American Society of Civil Engineers, (1995), "ASCE 7-95: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Section 6, Wind Loads." American Society of Civil Engineers, (1995), "Commentary for ASCE 7-95: Section 6, Wind Loads," pp. 6-30 to 6-58 ANSI A58.1, (1988), "Guide to the Use of The Wind Load Provisions of ANSI A58.1." Cartwright, D.E. and Longuet-Higgins, M.S. (1956), "Statistical Distribution of the Maxima of a Random Function," Proceedings of the Royal Society, A, Vol. 237, pp. 212-232. Davenport, A.G. (1961), "The Application of Statistical Concepts to the Wind Loading of Structures,' Paper No. 6480, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Vol. 22, pp. 449-472. Davenport, A.G. (1962), "The Response of Slender, Line-Like Structures to a Gusty Wind," Paper No. 6610, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Vol. 23, pp. 389-408. Davenport, A.G. (1964), "Note on the Distribution of the Largest Value of a Random Function vrith Apphcation to Gust Loading," Paper No. 6739, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Vol. 28, pp. 187-196.

145

Davenport, A.G., (1964b), "The Buffeting of Large Superficial Structures by Atmospheric Turbulence," Annals, New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 116, pp. 135-159. Davenport, A.G. (1965), "The buffeting of Structures by Gusts," Proceedings of the 1963 International Symposium on the Effects of Winds on Structures. Her Maiestv's Stationery Office. London, England, pp. 358391. Davenport, A.G. (1967), "Gust Loading Factors," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. ST3, pp. 11-33. Davenport, A.G. (1979), "Gust Response Factors for Transmission Line Loading," Proceedings. 5th International Conference on Wind Engineering, J. E. Cermak, Ed., Ft. Collins, CO: Permagon Press, pp. 899909. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), (1987), "ReHability-Based Design of Transmission Line Structures: Final Report," EPRI Report EL-4793; Volume I: Methods and Volume II: Appendixes, by M.E. Criswell and M. D. Vanderbilt. Greenway, M.E., (1979), "An Analytical Approach to Wind Velocity Gust Factors," Journal of Industrial Aerodynamics. Vol. 5, pp. 61-91. Greenway, M.E., (1980), "The Effects of Finite Observation Time and Finite Averaging Time on the r.m.s. and Extreme Wind Velocity," Journal of Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 6, pp. 175-179. Gurley, K, and Kareem, A., (1993), "Gust Loading Factors for Tension Leg Platforms," AppUed Ocean Research. Vol. 15, pp. 137-154. Holmes, J.D., (1993), "Dynamic Along-Wind Response of Free-Standing Lattice Towers," Wind Engineering. Thomas Telford, Ed, London. International Electrotechnical Commission, (1991), "Loading and Strength of Overhead Transmission Lines," Technical Report ICE 826. Jan, Con-Lin, 1982, "Analysis of Data for the Response of Full-Scale Transmission Tower Systems Real Winds," Master's Thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

146

Kadaba, R.R., (1988), "Response of Electrical Transmission Line Conductors to Extreme Wind Using Field Data," PhD. Dissertation submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering, Texas Tech University, 142 pp. Kareem, A. (1985), "Lateral-Torsional Motion of Tall Buildings to Wind Loads," Journal of the Structural Division. ASCE, Vol. I l l , No. 11, pp. 2479-2496. Kareem, A. and Smith, C.E. (1992), "Performance of Offshore Platforms in Hurricane Andrew," Hurricanes of 1992, ASCE, pp. 577-586. Krayer, W.R. and Marshall, R.D. (1992), "Gust Factors Apphed to Hurricane Winds," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 73, pp. 623627. Liew, S.H, (1988), "Statistical Analysis of Wind Loadings and Responses of a Transmission Tower Structure," PhD. Dissertation submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering, Texas Tech University, 413 pp. Rice, S.O. (1944-45), "Mathematical Analysis of Random Noise," Bell Tech.. Vol. 18, 1944, p. 282, and Vol. 19, 1945, p. 46. Shan, L., Jenke, M., and Cannon, D.D., Jr., (1992), "Field Determination of Conductor Drag Coefficients," Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 41-44, pp. 835-846. Simiu, E., (1973), "Gust Factors and Alongwind Pressure Correlations," Journal of Structural Engineering. ASCE, Vol. 99, No. ST4, pp. 773-783. Simiu, E., (1976), "Equivalent Static Wind Loads for Buildings," Journal of Structural Engineering. ASCE, Vol. 102, No. ST4, pp. 719-737. Simiu, E., (1980), "Revised Procedure for Estimating Alongwind Response," Journal of Structural Engineering. ASCE, Vol. 106, No. STl, pp. 1-10. Simiu, E. and Scanlan, R.H., (1986), Wind Effects on Structures. Second Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York. Simiu, E. and Lozier, D.W., (1979), "The Buffeting of Structures by Strong Winds - Wind Load Program," NTIS Accession No. PB 294757/AS Computer Program for Estimating Alongwind Response, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.

147

Singer, I.A., (1964), "Wind Gust Spectra," Annals. New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 116, pp. 116-134. Solari, G., (1988), "Equivalent Wind Spectrum Technique: Theory and Applications," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 6, pp. 1303-1323. Solari, G., (1993), "Gust Buffeting. I: Peak Wind Velocity and Equivalent Pressure," Journal of Structural Engineering. ASCE, Vol. 119, No. 2, pp. 365-382. Solari, G., (1993), "Gust Buffeting. II: Dynamic Alongwind Response," Journal of Structural Engineering. ASCE, Vol. 119, No. 2, pp. 383-397. Thomas, George, (1996), "Identification of Transfer Functions for Wind Induced Pressures on Prismatic Buildings," PhD Dissertaion, Department of Civil Engineering, Texas Tech University Vellozzi, J.W. and Cohen, E., (1968), "Gust Response Factors," Journal of Structural Engineering. ASCE, Vol. 94, No. ST6, pp. 1295-1313. Vickery, P.J., Twisdale, L.A., and Wilson, S. (1995), "Optimized Design of Transmission Lines in Hurricane Regions," Proceedings of the Engineering Mechanics Conference. ASCE, pp. 147-150. Wood, C.J., (1983), "A Simplified Calculation Method for Gust Factors," Journal of Industrial Aerodynamics. Vol. 9, pp. 385-387.

148

APPEND D CA TABLE OF SENSITIVITY STUDY RESULTS FOR SPUN-CAST AND STATIC-CAST POLES In the following table, results for the gust response factor, tip deflection, and maximum stress for all of the cases considered are presented. The first page for each combination of parameters give these quantities for wind on the tower and wind on the conductors as well as the totals for these components plus wind on the groundwire. The separate results for wind on the groundwire are shown on the second page for each combination of parameters. The first table is for the spun-cast pole and the second is for the static-cast pole.

149

6091

> eo w Q ^
.%i

CO CO in

CM in

CO
in CO

X
CD CM CO

t-

CO CD

JS Cd E U
D

a a

CM CO Oi CD

X Oi
CO

^ ^

3
>

^ -

1 1 Qa C^
'*m

CO in CM 00 f.^ o r o o CM Oi -c r .c r -o Oi t^ ^r CO Oi r ' * ' ^ ~ 00 o r - CD r ^ 0-. a> CM CM . in in CO CM < CO CO CM O 05 Oi CO CO CO CO CO C O CO CO CD CD CD C O 00 in 00 TP 00 ^ ^ CO rr CO

^ ^ ^

CM . V X Oi CM t^ r O - m O O r in CO Oi CO 1-H r in !P o ^ CO f- CO in O i X- o Oi X in in rCD CO X -H CO X Oi c> in in

cs

E cS

C x ] C U ^J Q C0)

^
xf 00 CO ^ < < CO CM _ CO CO CM CM C v l 1 -H CM -^ '' Oi 00 X Tf ^ TP TT TT - ^ Tji TT ^ TT V <J> Oi C J i t ft
^

c
V Qi

T*

S
U O

X T
t^ X

CD CO CM Tp (N c^ r* CO CO X X ^ r ^r ^ 00 r ^r - r CO CO ^ CO CM CO CM CM 'T ^ ^ ^T in in in in in in in in in
^

TJ

>' o ^ - to a Q a CO
X (0

r ^
X
V

o CO
CO

o CO
00

w
^

r^

Oi CD

Oi CD

Oi CO

in

r^ ^

r*

CO
U
V

E o

t- o CO t^ O CO t^ o CO O Oi CO . O) CO CO o Oi 00 00 00 00 00 00 < / ) CO c 00 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO < o. o >

^

CD ^ CO CD ^ CO CD p CD CO o ^ CM o ^ CM o ^ CM O CM CO O CM CO OJ o o C J i ~ o < ? i Oi - o V 00 in TT rr in ^ o in r V o r Oi Oi o r* Oi o Oi o r Oi C J i Tp Tp in CO Tf ^ ^ XT TP r ^ in TP in ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^

c 'Jo

c CO o Q c: u Cd 0) c: U 0 Q ^ d

CO CO

CO CO

CO CO

CO

X CO

00 CO CO CO

^
^

TP

T
TP

E
o U t a c c

t*

f1 Oi r* f ( Oi r~ . > CJi ^ CO CO in in in in 1 . 0 o o CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO rp

>T

-* CO CO CD in (N CO in CM CO in CM

TT
^

o o
^

o o

CD in in CO in in CO in in TP Tp

5
ft

. >
l3L,

at t^ 00 CO

^^ Tf < 3 i I I 00 C^
00 CO

^_
T< C 3 i
f(

'5. E rt
Q

d
00
kM (w1

a r'\
\J

t^ t > t^ CO ^ "m r - in c o " r* t> CD CD co CO CO r r II II CO CO o CO II o CO CD CD C M CO (N CM CO CO Q d d d o _ d d Q CSl d Q CM d Q CM d Q d d Q d d Q d d d d 00 00 I I

TT *' 00 in

r c o o
.1

in

Ii

u c
V

E CO

00

00 r 1

S
10
Q}

X C O

1-H TP t^ f-H CM o t^ CM in o in in o in in o in 1-H P r ^ p c o t^ CM - X O i t^ t^ 00 C^ o Oi c^ CO X c^ CD X r CD X CO in CO in X CO in i_ o > r r r r > > r t~t^ r^ r CO - c^ t^ c^ r ^ t^ t^ t^ r ^r -r - r ^ t^ r ^ t^ r -c > - c^ t^ r - t^ c^ t^ < o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o < Tj< 00 s o 00 T o X V o > ' in t^ TP in in . . _ ^ c^ r / I C J 5 CO C J i rr CO C J i CO CO ( 11 t-H 1-H 1-H 1-H Q a 3 It C i 3 r CO CO CO in in in CO CO CO in in in "T CO CO CO in in in
*<
^ ^

-^ CD CO

CD CO

?-H

CD CO

ft

1-H

C J i

1-H

Oi X

1-H

Oi

tI

f1

1t

Cu S

^ _ c CO . t f l D < a

CO CO CO T-H
1(

^ ^
-H

>!

(N CJ CM 00
^

TT " TT CD C O CD CD CD CD Tf 1( .t r^ 00 00 00 c ^ t^ r X X - CM C S l CM ( 11 tt 11 t1 11

->

CD CD CD CO CO CO 1-H 1-H 1-H X r ^r - t^ CM CM CM

r - t^
CO CO

CO CO CO t-

u
_tt3

< r rt d d d d d d d d c Q d d o U o L, Cd 1-H -H 00 00 00 f-H t-H .-H Oi Oi Oi 00 00 .1 I-H CJ) r C J i C J i Oi ^ c: O . (73 X X X 1-H r r TT CO c CO CO TP CO CO CO 0) CO , "^ xp p "^ "^ "^ ^ CO CO CO * <r 2 c r t id d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d Q < c

a u
C

>

CO CO

CO CO

00

CD CO

CO CO

X Tf

CO CO

o o. c w
>

-Cast

CO

f1

>*

-o o
( A

01

CO
(0
(0

t * i

o 9

e 0

* * >'
C O U-

CM 00 CO
1t

00 C 3 i CO

CO in
Tj<

Q
* Cd

o
1t
^

C J i

(M X CO

Oi CO

CO in Oi

d
CO 00 00 00 CO 00 00 00

o .-;
*

(N X CO
1-H

X
O

< 3 i CO
11

CO in
^

^ k.
O

Oi

d
Tp

d
CO CO CO X X X X X X X X X

"3 ^ CD

o. c >
CO

cS
3 CO
> . * J >
)ISU
, TJ

u
^

11 t1 , T J < _ ! * J i t^ - r Oi C7) C ^ CM CM 00 00 00 CM r o o o Oi C7i Oi -H r-H 1-H

O o o o
TT

CO . t . t l-H ^ 00 Oi Oi C 7 i c CM r 00 00 00 X CM 00 o o O Oi < 7 i o t1 11 rt o O

T P CO CO CO 1-H 1-H 1-H TP TP X X X Oi C 3 i Oi c^ t^ CM X X X X X X r* CM r CM CM Oi X X X o O o C3i Oi Oi O o o o 1-H f-H -' o o O

Q *
*
O X. -^ 0)

o o o

o U a

(N

"j;

CD CM

CO CM Tf CO CM

TT

CD CM

<a"

CD CM

CO CM

CO CM

"^ CO CM Tp CO
in

d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
CO in CO in CO

E
o H
*i-r

s
Cd O CO <

in CJi

CO

o d o

o d

o d o
CD

o d

o d

o d o in c^ o

o d

o d

r ^

a. J

<

ab1(

Oi

x
c

d d

in in

01

o
t1

o o
CM CO
^

7i

CM

CO

<j>

in CO

in CO r~ 00 <ji

r* X

Oi

-H

CM CO

in CD

r -

0 2
CO

CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM

150

Cfl

Ci

< -a
> rt Q
rt Cd
w CM
CO in

;rete

c Cu

CO CM in

CO CM in

t^

o CD
O in

c-

o CD o

c^ o

o Oi
CD

CD

O Oi CD

Oi CD

0;

o "rt
CO CO CD CM CM CO rp
CD

o O
-<-3

^
)
k C

O ^

a
rt

in in CM

O in

r^
in X Oi CM

CD CM CM

t^ in X Oi CM

t^ in X Oi CM

rt

>

CM CM

in CM

in CM

U
C 3

"0

2Q
^ Cd

d d

d
in
CM

d
in
CM

d
in
CM

d
Oi
CM

d
Oi
CM

d
Oi
CM

d
CO CO

d
CO CO

d
CO CO

a c
w

CO V-

re C

d
1-H

d
CM
Tp

d
CM
^

d
CM CD Tp in CO
t-H

d
CD in
CM CD

d
CO
t-H

d
CO II
1-H

d
X CD
CO

d
X CD
CO

ult

a; -o c
X
!! CO

in 0)

1-H

>'

r~
CO CD

II

D
3
CL.

rt

d
CM
t-H

Tp CO II -* CD CD CD CD in i n CD Q d Q d CD Q Q Q Q Q d __. o d d d d d d d d d d d d d Tp

c^

in

CO CD

II

r-

II T P CM US' CD CD

II

CD in
CM CD

X in

II

X in

1-H

II

X in

c a c

CO

> >

DS * O Cd

CM
11

CM
1-H

in
Tt

in
TP

in
Tp

m >

t^

r^

isit

d
TJ
C

d
CD CM
Tp

d
CD CM
Tp

d
CD CM
Tp

d
CD CM r P CD

d
CM
tp

d
CD CM
Tp

d
CD CM T P CD

d
CM r p U3
O -C <D

CO

o
k.

CM T P

d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
1-H CD

CO

in

Table A 1 (cont

-d

g 0
c a.
k

d
o

o d

I1

CO

in
CD

1-H

CO

in

in
CJi

d
o
o o
1-H

o d

d
o
in

q d

o d

Cd U
CO

d d

in in

in

CD

< -a

E d Z

o
ro ^

o
CM CO
^

"5. o E
1-H CM CO -* CM CM CM CM CSl

in

CD

c^

Oi

t-H

(M

in

CD

05

i n CD c~ CM CM CM

rt Q

1.^1

>' w ;7 $ Q a

p CM X CO

CJi

CD in "^ -^ r~^
t-H C^J -^ r^

o
CO Oi in Oi CD CO in id t ^ CM X CD X X CD CD

m
T p C^J - H O -^ X X C^J ' - I X X X Ci

CD X X

/-^
CM X
^o
-r^

rf^

, ro

X in

a.
r.
rt-

a max ASCE

5 ^
Ct;

t-t-H in t^^

7070 G998 6973

c- m
in X t^ CD (t--

X X

CD ttr v
ry-

-r CD r-

rj

CD \n ^ C^J

r^

r^

_ c ic S

~ S

;;: c^ Q cr i n
CJi CM CM

,^
rr^
r_^

?. X ^ . ^ ^
rr^

X X X

X Ci X
O".

t~r^

m
rv

r^ X CC

CD CD X

m
C^J rr X

...^

o
id r^ r-i CD

uo
w

'^ CD rc CM X X
CD'

r-^
^ r^ Tp X CM r~

', r--^
X X X tX

o Cd
i CO CD t ^ r-< CD CD CM X CO
tx^ O t-H TP ^ X O TP
1 1 X 1 1 Tp

-c
Tp O CO t-H CD CM
1-H

Tp o

1-H O

TP

Q < >

<:;

CD CM X CO
^ X 1 1 rp

CD

C Mq
t~-^ t ^

o q
r-'

cr.
CD

VX

CO CD

CD CD

r^ in CM Tp TP

r~^ CD

<S 1
X
rv]

X CO X O ^ Tp Tp X o Tp
1 1 X ^ Tp

in CSl

in C^J

o Tp o
in
, v

rcr. r^ cr r-^ r^ f - c-^ r-' c (/. ,.^ o Tp o a:

in

"= CO O <

23
> rt

-^ D.

X O r-H 1^

Tp X O Tp

CD Tp CD t ^ X r^ TP -T in

CO Tp r~
TP

CD CD X TP in id

Tp rr^ -r

'vT*"

,^
CD X Tp in id
t-^ r^ TP

TP

~ O O in CM

X X X in

rT in

cr. O in in

X X X in

r^ Ld

0. Ci O m in CM CD X X X in t^
TP

X in

.5
c

t^

r^
^

CM CD

Tp

id

Jg
k
"o^ CO

& B
c
-:^
X I-H in Oi o in CD O in X I-H in Oi O id CD O id X in
CJi CD

c Q

<

- ^ <D cr>
id in

CO CM O CJi CD id

X X id

CM

o
CD

cr.
td

X X cO

CM

o
CD

c.
in

X X
i-d

X X

X CD

CM CD CD

X X

X CD

OI CD

X X

X CD

CM CD

"5. P
u

CD CD

CD CD

CD CD

9
c 0

CD

1-H

i
a

CD in

^ CO

CD in

,.

^ CO

in

CM

in
" M

S Q * d d
X rTp CJi X f~ t ^ CO Oi t^ c~-

CM CM CM

"^ . r =^ ^ Q ^ o _ o o
X C^ (ji Tp X CO Oi r~ X r^ Tp CJi X C->; t -

in CO

,,

CM CM CM

"5

1 1

CD 'U

X X in CM

m
in

,,
II

o o
X Oi t^ t^ Tp i n CM r Oi t ^

o
X CM t^

Cl)

o CU

0 C Ctf ii " O Cd c: o ^ ^ '^ * ' m W c U D < a

d in
<*' i n CM C^ Oi rt~- t ^

d
X CM

_
X CM

d o d
,1

X X in CM

m
in

,,
II

X X

j3

m
CM

d ^^
CD C^

o __.
T p 1-H O i CM X t^ rt>

d
,_
X CD c-4>

r- r^ t ^

r^ r~ c^
CD C^. TP CM

r^ d

t-^

r^ r^ r^ c-~ r- r~ r^
t^ CD CJi Tp CM

Tp i n CM C^ Oi t ^

Tp 1-H CJi CM X C^

TP

1-H

X CD

r* c~-

CJi CM X t^

< -o _
3 _u rt
r ^

(6 d> <6 d
CD
<ji

d d

<6 <6 d>o d d

c~X CD

d d
X CD X
1-H

d d d d d d d d
cc

d d d
r~
X

ere

-2
c c

CO CD X
11

CM

X X X
1-H

U
. t j

(/)

CO CO CO ^ -rp Tp t ^ r^ r~ CM CM CM X

in in in Oi Oi Oi CM CM CM CM CM CM X in

in in in X X X
1-H 1-H ,1

X
TP

X "^

CC ^

CM CM CM X in

r^ r- rCM CM CM
X

in in cr. O i CM O J CM CM X in

in CJi Cvl CM

in X
t-H

in X
.1

in X
f<

CM CM X in

CM

X X TT T p t^ r^ CM CM X

X
Tp

r-

CM

m in CJi O i CM CM CM CM X in

in CJi CM CM

in X
I-H

in X
I-H

in X
(>j

(A C^^
I-

CM CM X in

C Q.

pun-

rt

S
>

J Q Ci
k

d
Oi t~~ Oi c^ Oi r^

d
CO CD CD CD CD CD

d
X X X CD CD CD

d
Oi r^ Oi t^ Oi t^

d
CD CD CD CD CD CD O

d
X X CD CD X CD

d
o o

d
X X X X

d
X X CD CD X CD
"o;

co c
(/3

^ ^
L*'

S Cd

c u <U CO

)(

[^ Q <

<:i o
CO CJi CJi CO
t-H

o o
Tp Tp

o
in in
Tp

o o
X Oi CJi CO

2
Vi

d d
'T T O
I-H

o
in in Tp CJi

O i O i cr. CD r^ r^ r- - O o o o o X Oi Oi CO

-^
C
X

o o

o
in in
Tp

c o

c
0
a
'tm

> rt

Tp Tp

(Ji

13 3 CO

C D
* w <
CO CO CD O CO

d
Oi in ^ Oi O Oi in
TP

d
Oi t-C
T-H

q
1-H

CJi

d
CJi in
TP

"-^- c c

>
CD CD CD O X X

CO CO CO
11 ,.

>
^

Oi in Tp <7i O

CO CD CD O O O X X X Oi Oi Oi
t-H rc I-H 1-H 1-H I-H

^^ uO
.-.

cr.
L.O
^

cc
C' X
t'

Oi O

cr. CJi

CJi

CJi

cr.

C-.

<

1-H

cr. O i n in Tp Tp C i CJi

cc

CJi

CJi CJi

CJi

.'

1-H

.-H

o o

o o

r^

*
-'

lens

o o

~6
Q CM O -r O CD O CM O -r O CD O CM O Tp O CD O CM
-n" CD

c
CM O
^

crj

CD

CM

-r

CD O

CM

TT

CD

CM O

TT O

CD O

CM

TP

O U'
Q O b.

o
1-H

o
in

o
I-H

o o

o
in

cc o o

s
in Ci

0)

^
'3

41

o E-" a<

^ o

CO <Z>

in

1 (con

E
(3

d
o

q d

d
o
in CD

d
LD

q CD

r^ Cd U
CO <

J
nH

d
....J

in in

<
0) _D rt

in X X Oi o CM CM CO
t-H CO

in X CM CO CO CO T p i n CD X X X

in X
CJi X

cz
^ 0;

d Z

t^ X X X

Tp

Tp

CM
TT

X TT

Tp Tp

in
TP

CD TP

r-TP

X
TP

Gi Tp

O in

i_,

in

CM in

X in

Tp

\n

i:
c/:


-a c
i-

<
_a)
c Ou

,
> .^ _
rt
X
1-H

-3
X
1-H

X
I-H

ast Concre

i^

(n

Oi Oi

Oi (Ji

in

in

in

in

(Ji Oi

in

in

X X

._

I-H

^-1

X X

X X

3
CJ

a max ASCE

c-~
X t>

"cn t ^

c^ X
X CM

r^ X
X CM

tX

t^

X CJi

X
Oi

X
Oi

rt

c
CM CO

c^
CM X

X
t^ CO

U1 c
3

a
CO

"Q ^ Q o g '-CS 3 ^ Cd k
0) CO

> a

X CM

CM CO

r^
CO

c
t^
CO

d
CM
CO

d
(N X

d
CM X

d
X X

d
X X

d
X X

d
X
Tp

d
X
TP

d
Q
X
Tp

c
tfl
1^

Q <^ * * > Q
Ci.

d d

d
at in X in in

d
II
LZ.
in X in in
Tp '^ II

d
Q
LZ,
in X in in CM

d
CM ( N X < ^ i n t-H X
11

d
II

d
II

d
II CM X in
X CJi

d
II CM X in
X CJi

-3 C
CM
II <^

3 Q en C
Oi

^
^

Oi
">: 3 3
4^ CO

o
CM

^ d O
CM

^ d o
CM

CM CM CJi X i n 1-H X X

CM X CJi X in o X
X

o
X

o
X

d o t_, d o !_, d d
X X X t^

d d
CM Tp t-~

d d
CM Tp

d o
CM Tp t^

c a c

O Cd

>
rt

Oi

lensit

>; -^ >

u
-d
c o

in X

in X

r^

r-

in X t^

d
TP

d
X
CM Tp

r^

r-

t^

d
Tp

d
Tp

d
X

r^ c^ d
X

t-

Q
O -C

d
X

CM

Tp

CM

CM

CM

UJ

O
OS

o
X

o o

o
in

o o

o o o o o o
I-H

CM TP o O

CM Tp O o

CM Tp

CM Tp

..^
Oi

o o o o o
X

k
-^

k. Oi

1-H

1(coni

-o

s 0

4) o 4) E-i

iW

q d
o i^
in in

q d

q d

q d
in X in X

q d

in

1-H

q d

q d
o
in

q d

in

in CJi

q d

Cd U
CO

a,

0 J

<
-3 -3 o
O-

<
a>

E d Z

abl

in X
X Oi o CM CM X
t-H

in X
X X
Oi O Tp
I-H TP

E
rt

CM

X X

Tp X

in X X X

tX

CM
Tp

X
*

TP

in
Tp

X
Tp

r^
Tp

X
Tp

"*

CJi Tt

o
in

I-H

in

CM X in in

TP

in

\5^

jli
a max ASCE psi

Tp in

o X X
CD O

o o
in X
X X t^ t^

in
CM X

o
Tp Tp

CJi

o
X X

o CM
TP
.-^

in
X

^
(Ji
Oi (A
r.*

t-H

1^
ct;

t ^ (?i r-Tp X X X X X Oi 00 in ^ i>- X CJi O i in

X in Oi

X X X r^
CJi

t> X t^ r-

CJi CO

r^
in

r^ o
X X

X r - Tp CJi CJi X
CM 1-1 O i CJi CM
t-H

Oi

X X X

X X m m X X

o o
X

^ o
X

X o
X X.

rin

TT

'~^

O in
Tp

"^ o4 X
C^ CM

Oi

O in O i CD CM ^ CJi Ci

CM
1-H

eflec tion SCE Dav ft.

in 00
t-H

CJi Tp X
t^ CO

d
CM
I-H rt

c-

c~.
Ci

1t

^
X
CM CM X

q d
CM

> c
CJi
"

c ^ C3 < -ii >' Q

in X X O i (Ji O i in

i n CM Tp CO o i CJi CJi (T. in

cr. X r- c. r- X o o o o o o
CT) X in
Tp
r--

in

CM CM

CM CM

CM

o i CM
r*^
r-H

if.

Ci in
TT

TT

o
Oi X c^ <- i n X X X
X Tp CM CM TP Tp

o
Oi
X

o
Oi X

rr-

in
TT

1-H

t-H

in

in

in

co -c

o max ASCE psi

c
t ^ t-H i n X X X X CM CM Tp Tp T p r - t-H X X X CM Tp T P

in
X CM

TP

t-H

O in

Tp Tp

I-H

Tp TT

1-H

t-H

in

CM

I-H

Tp

X O in
Tp 00

X X O i CJi Tp Tp

CM

CD X X O Oi CJi
Tp

X O
in

X X CJi O i
Tp

i n CM X r^ X in in in in in (ji

i n CM X rX in in in in in cji

1-H i n oa i n CM X t^ X lO in in in

-D

E o CJ
* *
iX
Q.

>

rt

CM

CM

CM

Tp

SQ Ci ^ Cd
k

TP 00

00 CM Tp X CO t-H o Oi Oi Oi

in (Ji Tp
X

c a

Q^ d

ciH

Oi Oi

in X

c^ c^ c^

CJi i n CJi X X c^ t ^ c^

CJi i n CJi X

CM Tp X t-H
CJi (Ji

o
(Ji

CM
X

-^
1-^

CD

TT

Tp

CO

o
CJi

(Ji CJi

o
CM

o o
OJ

Q c
"3
C

0.1877]

0.6647

l#Dq=

r^ Tp X ,1

^ Q -t o _ o o
CM CM Tp Tp o in O CJi X

t ^ r~ r^ X X

rII X
1-H

CJi
<^ II

in

CJi

in

CJi
"^ II

in

CM

_ d
Tp

'ole

tfl

c a O Cd k ^

S JJ, ^ i n ' L CM ^ JJr ^ Jr CD "-'^ ^ Q CM ^ Q o _ d o o o Q _ d o _ d

CM
I-H

O X CM

5 o

II

X CM

II

o
X CM

_ d

>.

rt C

CM CM Tp TP o in O Oi X X r- t ^

CM CM

Oi
X

CM

T-* CJi

S d
1-H

I-JH

S d d d> d
X CM X CM X CJi
CM

esq c^ c^

Tp O i n O (Ji X X t^

Oi TP CJi X

d d

d
11

i X r^ Oi r- O c^ t ^ r^ d d o d d d
X CM X

Oi

CM 1-H CJi Tp

CM (^ X CN O J Oi (^ X X Ci Oi X Ci (Ji pn CJi CJi X X r- CD r~- r^ Ci r-~ r~ CJi r^ r^ < TJ d d d d d d d d d d d 01

(J-.

CM

rt

k.

1^ Oi
X

>
ir
M

TP
1-H

,_
TT X

tfl

one

Q
fV]

^ I-H

X CM
Tp Tp CM CM CM CM CM CM (Ji O i CJi CM CM CM

cn o CM
CM CM X X

X CM X CM

X CJi

CJ

o CM
CM CM CJi CM
OJ

a
f.

a ma ASC psi

u
IT

Tp

"^

"^

rt

in in in in in in X X X in X
1-H

CM CM oq CM CM CM Oi Oi Oi
CM CM CM

CM CM X X

CM X

Tp

r^ r- r^ CM CM C M
CJi

in in X in X
I-H

in in in in X X

CM Tp TP T f X in in in r^ t ^ t ^ i n i n i n CM CM CM X X X in X

CM CM cn CM

og
CD CM

r^

CM CM X X

t^

CM CM

O c
3

a
CO

> c iS .2 Q ^ S Cd

Oi
O

Oi
t-H

. ^ ^ o r^ o. CM c 0) >
OJ CO

1-H

o
t^ r^

^
X

^
1-H

%
"a!
TJ

ult.

1-H

1-H

I-H

r^

E3
u_ fv
(

o o
X

o o
CM CJi
Tp

o o

r- t^ r- rl I-H o o o o o o
X X in
CM

r1

11

^
X

t^

r^

o
X X in

r^ 1-H 1t o o o o o
CM CJi
TP

c
(fl

tfl 0)

^ ' D

rv,

Tp

CO
.h^

s0 Q
* Cd

> rt

CM

X in

Tp
CM

(Ji
Tp

Tp
CM

> c
fl

Tp
1-H

o
1-H

CJi

Tp
1-H

o
CM CM 1^
TP 1-H

o
X X

Oi

TP
1-H

o
rX X

o
I-H

CJi

o
CM

c
0) Tp Tp
. 1

>-

X X

X X

X X

CM

itiv

U ^
' 3

r~ I - H r1-H c^ I-H
I-H I1 I-H

c^ c^ r^
X X X CJi ( ? i O i

Tp Tp
11

Tp

Tp
1-H

X X

X X

CM CM CM

r^
X

t^ Oi

Tp Tp
1-H

TT Tp
1-H

Tp Tp
1-H

t^
1-H t-H

tIt t-H

CJi

(Ji

(Ji

r^ T-H
1-H

X X t^
1-H I-H

X X r~t-H I-H

X X

CM CM

t^
X Oi

rX CJi

Oi Oi

CJi CJi

CJi

o o
CM Tp

o o
X

o o
X

o o
CM TT

o o
CD CM

o o
Tp
X

r._ o
X

rX
CJi

Tp Tp
1-H

Tp
Tp

> rt Q

'3* C
H->

Oi

O i CTi

o o
TP
X

o
CM

o
-r

t/}

c
01 CO

c U
*i k k.

CM Tp
lO^
O O

X
O

CM T P
O O

CM

TT

X O

CM O

TP O

CM

Oi

o o
X

o
I-H

o o
X

o o
in

o o

o
X

o o

o
in

o o

s
in Oi

5 c

Oi
1-H

in

I-H

<
Oi

E c e a.

E-i i O '

o c o
in in

o o

o o

o o
in X

o o

o o

o o o
in

o o

o o

r^
Cd O
CO

(con

HJ

=:i

<
-3

S
d Z

o o
1-H

Oi

abl

in in

X in

t-~ in

X in

CJi in

o X

1-H CM CD CD

Tp

in

CD

CD CD

X CD

r- X CD X

(Ji X

r~

t^

CM

r^

X t^

Tp t^

IP

r^ ^- r^ c-

CD

C^

CJi r^

o X

'S.

154

c
-3 C
(fl k. Q.

<

-3
0/

c
Cli

r:

S Oi
k<J

o max ASCE Dav

.^^
tfl

Tp

Tp

Tp

a. .^
tfl

o in
CM t^
CJi

o in
CM O t^
CJi

o in
CM t^
CJi

X in

X in

X in

X X X

X X X

X X X

3
r^

c U
* j

(fl
1-H t-H 1-H

; o f S pun- Cas

% >
k
*i*

ex
,-*--

CM X

CM X

OJ X

rr

Oi CM

Tp Oi CM

k.

Tp

cn

c o.

tion Dav

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

CM

Oi

0.4

>

rt

0 ^ Cd k

in
Tp

in
Tp

in
Tp

(fl

3
(fl

c
"Q C ^

a; C O Q <
)(

X in

X in

X in

t-H

1-H

t-H

Q ^ c
"3

d 5
CO

d II
X
CM

d
11 > P

d
X
CM

d
X
11 'p

d
X
11 'p

d
,
X
II 'p

d
,
TP

d
,
Tp

^
tn
' ^

X
^ c^

o: >
TJ

o
3

X CM

X
<^ '-'

X
<^ -'

X
^ ^

> Q
Cl.

rt

CO
* ^

>

cr: ^ f O Cd

Tp Oi

Tp Oi

TT CJi

Sens iti

>

o CO
<; TJ c o O .a>

c^

X t>

X t~~

CM X X

CM X X

CM X X

X
CJi

X CJi

X CJi

r-

r-

r-

c~I>

c^ t^

c^ r^

a
*

CM

TP

CM

TP

CM T}<

CM

Tp

CM

Tt

CM

Tp

CM

Tp

o
t-H

o o

o
X

o o

o
in

o o

o
1-H

o o

o
X

o o

o
in

o o

o
t-H

o o

CM Tp O o
X

CM TP O O in

S
in
(Ji

C O

ower

TJ
-J

E
0

E-"

il-T

q d

q d

q d

q d

q d

(con

k J

I-H

Oi

X 6 Z

i n X r^ in in i n

(Ji

in in X

1-H CM

Tp

in

X X

X X

t^ X

X (Ji X X

o CM r- r- r^

TP

t^

r^

in t^

X r^ X r~ r~ r-

Ci t:^

o
X X

155

* Mod Damp

<

a.

o o <:i t - H

o o 1-H

o o 1-H

0) KZ

dAS
tiD C

abl

550

650

750

hod,
%
t-^

Cd

lavei

* _ d

D in

r~-

S Q o _

r~ in

^ JJr r^ in
^ Q _ d

Tp t^

Tp

d o

^ Q o _ d

r~
X

Tp C^

^ Q o _ d

^Q

o !_. d

^ Q c^ o !_. d d
X

" *

X in 11 Ip t ^

X in 1 1 t^

X in

c^

O X

II

c~
t^

i-

o.
c=

d d

*
CJ

^ Q * X Cd

o > rt . X
tfl

in Tp
I-H

I-H

tCM in
X
-p

O-

Tp

Tp

in CJi X

X CM in
TP
r/-

X CM X
Tp

X X

m m
Ci
r>

CM O Ci
Tp

r^ o
t^
Tp

O
X
r-r^

rt

E
C
H->

CO u

D -^
C 3 "T3 ***

X CM X tfl X r^ Q. i n i n

r^

in t^ t-

OJ X
Tp

o
Oi
.1

CM CM in in in
X

in X CJi i n

Tp
Tp

o o o in in
X Oi

CM

(Ji
1-H

r^ t-H
CD'

LD

in

CD in
X X CD

o X m

(Ji X in in

Ci

c^ L-i n TT n m
CD

CM
iD

C ^ J in CD i n CD

Tp

OI X in CD

in

t^
Tp

c^ C^

<3 CJi CJi CD i n \n

X X t^

X X X

m
CD in t^

X OJ X in

"X.

X 1.0

^ s.

c Q
Oi

>
't:

1-H

in X
X X X
Tp

o
CO
^ , X
I-H

id
t^
Tp

CO t^ Oi
X

r^
CD CM X ^ X X CD
X X X
T ^

T '

c
X X in

00
CJi

flee

Cd
^
-*j>

CM X
t-H

in

CM CM X X

o
X

o
X

o
X

CM t^ t^ X X CM
CJi t^ in CM

CM

r^
X t--

o o r^ r-

o
t^

r^ r^
X X CM
r

X X
1-H

c^ X r^ r~ r^
X
rt

CM CD

"3 0) 01
(fl X

r-

r r^

r~

t-^ tX
t-H

r~

>

D
X

CO

.^.
tfl

tin

c^
in

c^
in

r^

a.

o CM
t-H

o CM
X o CM X t^ CM t - H 1 - H CM CM CM X X
Tp
rl

o CM
X o CM X t^ CM I - H .1 CM CM C^i X X
Tp
11

X X CM

r^ c^
11 1I

CM

tr~ CM

r^ CM
i n rr^ o X . Oi X X CM CM oo
I-H

"? 2
r^

rt c b

Cd

X o t^ .^. CM X tfl CM 1 - H 1 - H Q- CM CM CM X CD

C i 11 CM 1 - H in in CM CM

C) cn 1 - H t ^ CM 1 t LO i n m CM CM CM
X
Tp

ASC

t^
iD'

OI
X
Tp

OJ in in CM CM

^^ uO X
^^ X
O)

rr^

OJ

X OJ

in X o X I-H X X cn CM CM CM
I-H

^^ ^

>

X
Tp

X
I-H

c rt c Q

iductor

u (U

d
,-<-s

TP

id
X X CJi CJi
<*

id
in
t-H

id
in fin
I-H

CD in T X

X .' CD

Cd

^~ ^
in
Tj<

Oi CO

in

o
in
CJi

X X CJi O i
TP TP

in

o
in Oi

X X CJi CJi
Tp
TP

in

o
in Oi

Q <
> ro Q
CL.

Tp TP

X X in
Tp

rin

r^
in t^

X X

m
Tp

C^ in t^

X X in
Tp

in t^ in

I-H

in
Tp

t^ in

X X

'D
X

X X

Tp

Tp

X
X

X X

Tp

X X t-~

Q u

0.2 0.6

0.6

0.6

d
TP

Q
1-H

c 0
0

d
TP

d
Tp

a
X

0.2 0.6

0.6

t-H

0.2 0.6

0.6

0.2 0.6

0.2 0.6

*1 f

t-H

r-H

S
(fl

O w
<

u CO
> rt
r-

o t > CM o cn c~- c^ CJi c- t:~- t ^ c^ o O o o

in t^
Tp
t1

r^ r^ r~ o

CM f[--

o t ^ CM i n o i n i n cn r~ t ^ X t ^ X X t ^ c- C^ c^ r- c^ c~o o o o o o o
X Oi in

o rro

in X t^

X in X

1-H

X
1-H

I-H

X X in
I-H

,_
Tp

o i n 1-H T p X t^ X X X in c^ r- c^ r^ t ^ ro o o o o o
X Ci in

TP

r- c-- c^ r^ c^ o o o o o o
Ci

X in t~-

in

1-H

in

Pol

Oi

(fi

CJi tI-H

r~Tp
CM
1-H

Oi t^

r^ Tp
CM
11 11

Q
X

a.

CM
X X X CM X

'
X t^
t-H t-H

'-^
X X CM X X X X X r- rCM X X X CM CM X t^ X CM

-'
1-H

r^
I-H

CJi in
I-H

Oi Oi

E o? etior
^ rt

rt

Cd

X X tfl CM CM D. X X

. X

c^

X t> X X X CM CM CM
1-H 11

X X X in in in CM CM CM
(Ji Oi

X X CM X X in
1-H

X X X in m in CM CM CM

X X CM X X in
1

X X CM X

X X CM X

X X t-~ r^ X X OJ CM
1
'

X t^

I-H

I-H

I-H

CM

X X X in in in CM CM CM

u t/3
C O

X in

,
1-H t-H

cn
CJi

u
1

k
j

Q
Cd O

1-H

,;
TP Tp

d
C^ C^
X X X

d
rt^
X X X

^
Tp

.... ci

d
t~ C^
X X X

itat Tow

0)

CO
V

?d

0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 U.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
in X in

0)

Tp

c^

TS<

Tp

TP

t^

Tp

Tp

t^

1-H 1-H

,_^
Tp
TP

q I1
X X

1-H

I-H

I-H
I-H

1-H

-H

q
I-H

-3 3
4^

c c >

* Cd

Tp

u CO
<

o
X
1-H

o
X
1-H I-H

o
I-H 1-H

r- r^ r^
X X X X CJi O i

in in
I-H

in in
I-H

in in
1-H

Tp

Tp

TP

o
rl

O X
I-H

o
X
1-H

CO
H->

cn o o
X

CJi (Ji

CJi

o
Tp

o
X

. -^

'-'

t ^ r- rX X X X X X CJi CJi CJi o O o

in in
t-H

in in
1t

m m f-~*
Ci

Tp

Tp

Tp

r^ t ^
X X

r^
X

O X
I-H

O X

CJi

cr. o o
X

^ '-^ '-' ^

I-H

cr. o o

X X Ci

in in
I"

in in
1-H

in in
1-H

Oi O

cn o o
CM O

Oi

Ci

o
X

TJ

>

c c
tW

ensi

U
k.

CM TP O o
I-H

CM T p

o
X

CM O in

CM
O

Tp

CM Tp O o
X

CM TP

o
in

CM O

Tp

CM Tp O o
X

Tp

ers Towe

^ H

I-H

in

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

CO

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

tW

^M*

o
CM

o
X

0 J k

d d

i n in

in

o
r^ o
1-H

in

<

abl(

a. a:
c

o o
CM
X
Tp

Daven
-

* * c 0 (fl 0 > .k^ U - rt 3 I?* C i Q (fl ^ C D Oi

X
Tp

CM CM

in X in

X
Tp -;

CM CM

in X in

X
Tp

CM CM

0.2 Aer ody

^
ij

r^
X

II

Tp X t^

Tp

r^
X

II

X t^

r^
X

in

II c^ c^ t-H

II o Q

in

r-

II

in

c^
II
X

t^ X X

r^
X
X

r*
X X

II

r^ Tp

II

r^

-*

1 1 TT

CJ
tfl

v c
> ^

'3 C
tfl

Stn
ti

CZ

c^

Q. C
01

01

k.

c a.

c
r"

Oi

in CJi 1

Cd
< -c
w

-5

in

CM X

Tp

in

c-

CJi

r^

(Ji

I-H

OJ

CM

Tp CM X CM CM CM

i n CD r^ CM CM CM

CO

156

be

<

iQ.

"3
Oi

CJ

Pol

tfl Oi

tfl

4->

Oi k-

C C

CJ

> .^^ rt tfl Q OX Cd

4)
Ml

X
I-H

X
I-H

X
I-H

cn
X X

c a. c Oi >
<Ji X X

k.

Oi

X X

CM
Tp

O CM
Tp

O CM
Tp

rt

O
.4.)

Q *: 0)
t^ X Tp

tfl

rt U1
CJ

CO

tfl

Its

> C H-> a CO Q 0 o k CJ Cd 0) O C O rt
3
Oi CO
tfl

2 -a e

D <

o.

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

r~

t^ CM CM T t Tp

t> OJ Tp

t^ t^ CM CM Tp TP

f~

CM
TP

r^

t^ CM CM TP Tp

r- c^ r- c~- r^ r- rCM X
Tp

t^

X
Tp

c^
X
Tj*

-3 C

Tp

Tp

'^

Tp

Tp

Tp

(fl CJi X CJi CO

CO
Cil

CO

in X

in CO

in CO

en
X

k.

d
Tp Tp Tp

d
Tp Tp Tp

d
Tp TP Tp

d
X X
Tp

d
"^ Tp Tp o o o
X
^

d
TT Tp
Tp

d
X
TP Tp

d
X
Tp

d
X
Tp

c a. c 0)
X
Tp

X
Tp

X
TP

X
Tp

X
Tp

X
Tp

0)

a <d
X-

o
CM
Tp Tp

o
t^

o
II
l l y

o
CM TP
Tp

o c^
X
CO

o
CM
Tp Tp

o
X
CM CD

o
X
t-H

o
X
CM X

O X
t-H

o
X
I-H

o
X X X

o
X
I-H

o
X X X

o
X
1-H

o
X X X

> ro

cc:
>
-3 3

CO

^ ^

g
ClH

c:

* > rt Q

c^ JjjX
X

in

X X

d
t-H I-H

d d
11 1-H

in

II

II
llj'

1-H

X
CM X

d d
t-H I-H

in

d d
t-H

Q
in Tp

Tp X

II T t

II

Q
in Tp t^

Q
in
Tp t^

Tp

II

Q
Oi CJi Oi CJi

II

d d
in
Tp t> in Tp

d d
in Tp

d d
in
Tp Oi Oi

d d

II

TS

d d
Oi (Ji
(Ji CJi

Q
Oi Oi

1^

d
Oi Oi

0)

> ".S
in C OJ CO

Pi * r HI O uu U
CO

S
k.

CM CM CM CM CM CM
1-H

CM CM CM
I-H

in Tp

in
TP

X
t^

X
t^

X t>

< c o
a>
O P

o
X

c^ o o

X t^

X t~-

C^ C^

o
X

r~ r- c- r- t~~ o o o o o
CM Tp O o in
X

rr- rr- X X X r- r^ r- r~ r^ r~ t - - r- c^ t ^ o o o o o o o o o o
X

CJi O i CJi CJi X X

>>
rt

X
t^

X
t^

X
t^

r ~ - c^ o o o
CM Tp O o
X X

c^ o
X

c
0)

c
CM T p
O

CM T t

CM Tp

CM Tp

CM O

Tj<

o
X

o
t-H

o
X

CM TP O o
1-H

CM T t O o in

E
c
in (Ji

1-H

in

.-^
-3
4.J

9)
d

c k H a^ ^
N

d
o
Cl

q d

q d

q d
o
in X

q
c o
in t^

q d

Cd U
CO

G
CJ

CM

<

0 J k 0

in in

<
TJ
01

abl

Oi

C a, D
c

, * j

o o
Oi
1-H

o
CM X
Tp

"3

in

r-

Oi

11

^1

1-H

CM X

Tp

in

r^

CM CM

Tp OJ X CM CM CM

in X c^ CM CM CM

157

>

X
t*

* *
5

c^

^H

Q
Cd
CO

tfl

a. Cfl ^O-

X in in t~~ t^

TP

X in Tp Tp

Oi

1
; t-H
in
*

TP

o
X

o ,
X X Ci

cc
TT X X in X ^D
'V^

o ,^
CD X CD

TT X

o o

CM in

in in

D <

Eo

T}<

o
CM O

X
1-H

CM C^
t-H

X in
t-H

o [>

r-

CM X

o cr. n Ci cn in in
Tp

o
CM in

X X
Tp

CD

m
Tp

X in

X X CD

o
Tp

X t^ X t^

r^ ,_^
r^

r^ c~r~

t^

'^
Ci

X
n-

CD

CD

CD

Ci t^

X t-

^ '^ r^

d o

in X C". CD

n
in X CD

'D X t^ CD

X O oX

ined

> o rt
u a; Cd

in

d
c^
Ci Tp 00 Oi

Tp CD
CJi

Ci CM CM

00

q d
in
CJi

d
X X X t^
1

0 "oJ CO U Q < ct >

rt

^
t^ in
t-H

cji

r^
CJi

in X

X Tp
CJi

X in

ci r~
in CM

d d d ""* ' ' '"'

r^
in
11

X Tp

X CO

CO

CM

,^
OJ CM

I-H

X CM

X CM CM CM

CM CM CM

' '
^ >
CM CM

' d d
o
Ol

o
CM in CM

Q
X

.^tfl
D-

CM
1-H

CM

n
OJ
CJi
I-H

'D X X OJ O O t CM

CD
w

X OJ X X in
TP

X X X OJ in
Tp

C O

rt

Cd
.^tfl
O.

o ^ c

Eo
>
'X,

X X CM X
t-H

o TP
X CM

X CM X CM

t-H

X X CM X
]

o Tj*
X CM

X CM X CM

1-H

X X
CM

Tp X CM

X CM X CM

1-H

(Ji
I-H

r^ tCM

t~CM

t^ CM

o o

I-H

r-

t^ CM

t^ OJ

o o

t^ CM

. cn c^ r t^
CM CJ

c^
X
rt

-.->

r^ X r^ X .> o
X X

t^ X

o
X

X
I-H

-D
X 00 X
Cio

z
TP

X X X

uo TP

o X

4:

CO 00

'P Ci
TP

Tp

_o Q
a; Cd U k C 0) CO 0 Q <
CJ

, ' r-'
c~' r^ c-~ r^
X in II in X
1-H

t^

f-

d
, X t-H X ,-^ d rv^ . . d ^ o o o o ^^
^ 1 ^ H

d
Tp

X X

in X t^ X in

1-H

t^

X X

in X

11

>nduct

r^ r^ o
X II X 11 J" 1-H

rr- r^ r~
X in

X X

X
ti

X (Ji X

cn
X CM OJ

1t

X Ci X

X
(Ji

^
1-'^

X Oi X

X Ci X CM CM O

t-H I*

CO o

cn
in X X X

Ci in X X

X CM CM II
1-H

o
X CO
^

o
X X
t-H

o
II X X

<9
Ci,

, > rt

r-r^ w

c^ Q X

r^ X

r^ X

AI_P

II

1-H

II
i'T

,t

in in

CM O

Q 0
Ifl

o
X

o
Tp

o
X

o
<*"

o
X

o
CM Oi C^ t^

o
Tp CM CJi in t^ t>

o
Tp

Q
in

CM O

CM O

1 i f

X X in
CM

in

m o
Tp

I'T

'

X X in
CM

in in

,
'p

ro

o
TP

o
Tp Oi X t^

o
,_
CM t^ C^
t-H

o
1-H t-H

o
Tp

E2
1-H I-H

rete Pol

Oi

d ^

Cd U

r^ CJi
t^

3
.^_ rt tfl Q a

o
(Ji X
1-H

r~ o o

CM CJi tt^

r^ Oi X r~- r^ o o
in X CM CM

CM CJi t~t^

r^ ^ CJi X
t~tr-

X OJ

in

X
(Tvl

o
in

r^ r^ c^ t ^ o o o cn
X
I-H

r- CM Ovl c^ c^ r^ (Ji cr^ t ^ c- r^ t > o o o o o

CM Oi in X CM OJ in

t^ t^ O

X X

o
Oi X
I-H

r^ o

CJi X t^

CM Ot^ O

X X t^

CJi X t^

CM t^

X CO

o
in X CM CM

o
in

r^ o

ro

(fl

rt

X rt D

ASCE

c U

CJ C

>

o o CM
CM
1-H

o o CM
CM
rt

o o CM
CM
1-H

in

u
rt
.>

, tfl ^ ^ c^ X
a
TP

in t^ X
Tp

in

CM
1-H

CM
1 '

o
Ci CM X

o
Ci CM X

o
CJi CM X

in X
Tp

in X
Tp

in

CM
I-H

CM
1-H

o
<Ji CM
ry-

o
Oi CM C*^

c^
X
Tp

in X X

in X

in X

r~ r-

r^
X
Tp

in X X CM

in X

in X

O Oi CM X

in t^ X TP

in

r^
X
Tp

in t^ X
^

CM
1-H

CM
1-H

m
X X

in X

in X

O CJi CM X

cr. CM C"

Ci OJ c^

CJ 1

ofS

>"
rt
<Ji
' ^

Tp

1-H

TH

1-H

Tp

o
CM in X in X

X
1-H

CJi

CM in X

CM Tp CM in X in X in X

X
1-H

(Ji

o
CM

CM
Tp

tfl

on Toi

k 4; 9

<->
3 0)

"oI u C5 ^

o Cd 0)

'"'
X X X X TP CM Tp CM Tp CM

X X

X X

X X

Tp

Tp

CM

CM

X X

X X

X X

<r CM

<?'

CM

CM

LO X

in X

X X

* *
>' Ua Ci Q
Tp X
1-H

>; Xl
3 CO
* i*

c^ 1-H
t-H

(Ji X

I-H

Tp

X t^
-H

Ci
n-.

I-H

o ,_;
I-H

^
X in X X in X Oi Tp Tp Tp CM
I-H

Ii

d
^
Ci Ci
11

1<

>
.p

, i
X in X Oi X in X Ci
Tp Tp Tp Tp Tp Tp Tp Tp Tp

r^ '' ^
I-H

Oi X O

c
Cro

i
I-H
I-H

>
t^i

* Cd <

u C O
c c

Tp TP Tp

Tp Tp Tp

rP
Tp Tp

I-H

,_
CJi CJi

CM
I-H

CM
1-H

CM
1-H

Oi CJi (Ji O

CJi CJi CJi

cn o

X in X

Tp Tp Tp

TP Tp Tp

ft

X Ci

X Ci

X Ci

Oi Oi

tfl

o
Tp

cn cn o o o
CM
Tp

CM
t-H

CM
t-H

cn o

cn '"^ o
Tp

Oi CJi CJi

m X
Ci O

cr. Ci
Ci

Ci tJi

CM
- H

CM
- H

CM
1-H

o
TP

o
X

o
OJ

cr^-^ c
Tp

Ci Ci Ci

m m m X X X

Sen

^
CM O

o
Tp

c -c c
X

CM
U"

CM O

CM O

TP O

CM O

,^

CM O

CM O

Tp

u
a;
^-^
-3 k 4)

o
in

'^ o

I-O

o m
Ci r^ Cd CO

I-H

1-H

in

t-H

in

H J

c
ii-T

q d
o ~ .
in in

q d

d
o
in X

q d

q d

^;

^ o
in

c c o
N^--

"5
K

CM

c
0

r^

<
-3
t^
Tp

<
0ct

a. n:
d
Z

Cl^

X X X OJ Oi OJ

in X

m
X X X Oi X

o
X

1-H

CM X

X X

<p

in X

X X

t^ X

o
Tp

I-H

Tp

CM Tp

nr\

c c
^

in
Tp

X
Tp

Ci
Tp

TT

O in

in

CM in

TP

m m *

'S.

5X

a
E
ro Q

<;
-3

s
_rt 3
CJ

ire max ASCE Dav.

ro
1

(fl

X (fl X D- X
,-H

X X X

X X X

X X X
1-H
^

X X X

X X X

X X X
I-H

X X X

X X X

X
Tp Tp

X
Tp Tp

X
TP
Tp

X
Tp Tp

X
Tp Tp

X
Tp ^

X
TP TP

X
Tp Tp

X
TP
Tp

in
Tp

in

in

in
TP

in

in

in
T P

in

in

CJ
.1^

;tion

rt 0

^
0 k

(fl 4->

>
rt

X
Tp

X
TP

X
Tp

CO

:i

Tp

Tp

in

in

in

c
tfl

c: d d
Cd U
CO
Tp Tp Tp

d
t^
Tp

d
Tt

d
t^
Tp

d
in in in in in in in in in in

d
in in in in in in

d
X X X X X X

d
X X X X

d
o
X CD O X X X X X X

Ol

nd on 1

"3
tfl

05 c 0) -*^
OJ

c- r- r~ r~- c^
TP

ro

Tp

r^
Tp

in in

Q <
*
x-

o
t-H

o
in

o
1-H

o
in X

o
in X

o
CJi

o
CM X

o
CJi

o
CM X

o
Oi

o
CM X

o
CM X in

.^o o
t-H CO

Q
TJ

Oi
TS 3
.<L>

Dav

X X

X X

CO

> P " .^J

C s ^ Oi *

d d

II i n in

II i n in

t-H CO

II i n

II
X

d d

d d
X

CO

d d
X X t^

in X

t-H

in X

t-H

II
ii-T

II
X

II

d d
X t^ X t^ X

d d Q d d
Tp Tt Tt Tp Tp

d d
Tp Tp

Q
Tp

d
TP

>
<-

O w

tfl

CM CM CM in in in X X X r- r~ t ^

CM CM CM X in in X X X r^ f ^ r^

CM CM CM in in in X X X

CM CM CM CM CM CM
X X

CM CM CM

o
CM

o
Tp

o
X

o
CM

o
Tp

o
X

r- r- r~- r- r~ ro o o o o o
CM
Tp

o
CM O

r^ o o
Tp

o
CM O in

r~ o o
Tp

X t^

C^ t^

r~ r~ o o
X

C^ t^

rro o
CM

C^ t^

C^ C--

o
X

c^ r- t ^ r~ r^ r^ o o o
Ol
Tp

ond.

CO

CM

Tp

u
^
o
>i

!/'

o
1-H

o
X

o
in

o
I-H

CM T p O O
1-H

Tp

o
X

o
in

k-

q
X

t^

(cont ens ivit

T3

H
J

l U '

q d
o
in

q d
o
X

q d
o
rin X

Cd

u CO
<
TJ Oi

in

CM

d
, * j

in in X

in

<

Oi

CO

abl

a:
c

in X
t-H

C
-3 t^
TP

^1

X CJi o CM CM X

CM X X X

TP

in X

X X

c^
X

X X

Oi X

o
Tp

t-H Tp

CM
Tp

X
TP

Tp TP

in
TP

X
TP

X
Tp

CJi
Tp

o
in

,_
in

CM X in in

Tp

in

S'}

5 Com
c

c 0)

Meth(
rt

II X in Q in

I1 X CO

CM X in

CM X in

Mode
k-

c c

CM X D. X
tfl

CM X X

CM X X

in X X

in X X

in X X

X X
Tp

X X
Tp

X X
Tp

"

Davenport's
DC 01

erete Poles

>

rt

Oi

>' ^ ^
}

in

rt

(fl '- c^ X
Q. X

X X
CM

1-H

o (Ji
Tp

t^
X
Tp

CM X

CM O
X

cr.

in
CJi T P O i t ^ i n T p CM X CM CM I - H o OO X C^ t ^

X m
X

'^
t"^

CM

in
X OC' 11 m m
t^ [^

q
X
I-H

q
in

0/
(fl

X Cd rt

CJ

D ^
Ct3

tfl

X Q- X

o o

CM CJi t ^ CM r^ X o r^ r- X X
1-H

r^
X

X rX

t^ X

X X X X

X X in t^

X X in CM o OJ CM O l i ^ C^ t ^

^..^

CM
(Ji

Ci

r^ Ci in O 1 OJ m X r~^ 1 O --/ ( J i C". X t ^ r^

_ , ^

CM L ' i r-~ X
t-~ t--

^ _ ^

X CM X c~

0/

\Comb ined tion ASCE Dav.

15.9

14.1

14.5

16.3

17.7

,<->

15.9

17.7

19.5

18.1

CJ Oi

*j

CM id in

q
TT

X
Tp

Tp Tp

Tp Tp

in
Tj

CO CM CO Tp Tp t > r^

c^ CD

in

T;

cd

X X

CM CO ^. O i X

00 X

r^ oci

_i

TJ a.' CO oc
X CN 00 00
t-H

oc

>
X rt

1-H

t-H

t-H

Q
Cd

rt

.^tfl

1,

X
t-H

X
1-H

CL CM

CM

CM

in X X (N

in X X CM

in X X CM

Tp

Tp

Tp

X X CM X
t^ OJ X
I-H

X X CM
Oi

X X CM X
,1

-c
X
I-H

E
b

o CO
<
>

X CM t-- X CM t ^ X CM r^ r - t - H CM r^ I - H T p (Ji c-~ Tp C i CM X X CM X X CM X X tfl i n T p T p i n T p T p i n T p T p cn X X CJi X Q. CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM

CM r I1 CM O i t^ C i C^ Tp X Ci X X X OJ O I CM OJ X

in CM X

^ ricd
T

[^ in CM CM X X

(Ji Tf ri-

.3 -D

in CM CM X X

r~

B c U
ii . ^. a. Q
CJ

r,.j

r^

r-;

Tp

,
^

1 -p ,1
)~-l

>nductor Defl ion ASCE

.!-:> CJ
Oi

rt Q

d t-H
Tt

d
X X X in

I-H

d t-H
X X X in
Tp

CM
t-H

CM
11

oi
I-H

Tp I1

Tp

in

in

..->

r^
Tp

II
i i r

0.6

0.6

O
tfl

o
Tp

Q o

1-H

0.2 0.6

I-H

'/'

0.2 0.6

iy

ii-T

rete Pol

0)

0 0

CM CM
^
kkl

Tp

CO <

ASCE Dav.

in

CJ

4-> tfl

rt
1

CJ

E o
c

X
tfl

. ^. i n i n

in in

in in

X in in in

Tp

TP

X X
Tp

X X
Tp

TP X X
Tp

in

in

in

r^ c^ t ^ o o o Tp Tp Tp
X CM

X in in in

X in in in

X in in in

Tp

Tp

Tp

in

in

in

X X
Tp

X X
Tp

X X
Tp

c^ r^ r^ o o o Tp Tp Tp
00 CM

X in in in

X in in in

X in in in

Tp

Tp

Tp

in

in

in

X X
Tj

X X
Tp

X X
Tp

r^ r~ r^ o o o Tp TP T p
0C3 CM

ro
4 ^

>'
rt

' Result ofS on Tow ectic

CM CD

CD Cd

Tp

t-~ CM CO
I-H 1-H

CM X
Tp

r-

CM CO

CM X
Tp

t^ CM CO
1-H I-H

tfl

2.7 2.7 2.7

2.7 2.7 :2.7

OJ

^
cc;

"3 3
. 4 ^

^,

tj
Ll_

CJi t^
CO
1-H

CJi

Oi

Ci
(Ji I-H 1-H

Oi
t-H 1(

TP

C O ^ > .^ >
'Zl
"til

Q
* Cd CJ C O <

q
t-H

cX
1-H

n-

Ci t^

Oi
Ci 1-H
I-H

Tp

o
11

X
1-H

q
1-H

X
t-H

X
I-H

X
t-H

X
Tp

X
11

X
1-H

X
1-H

X
t~- C~- t ^ CM CM CM O O O
Tp

X
TP

X
Tp

X
I-H

X
r-~l

X
1-H

X
Tp

X
Tp

o
X

Tp Tp C^ r^ t CM CM CM i n i n o o O CJi ( J i

in

o
CM O
TP

o
Tp

cn o
X

o
X

o
X

o
X

in

in

cn cn o o o
CM
O
Tp

in (Ji

o
X

o
X

r^ r^ rCM CM CM

Tp LO

> d * -c* c

in
CJi

m
Ci

Ci

o
CM T P O O
X

o
TP

c
X

Sen

ond.

CM

Tp

u
ers owei
,,
T3
4 ^

iW

o
X

X O

CM O in

OJ

Tp

o
I-H

CM O

Tp

CM

Tp

CM

o
X

o
in

t-H

in

,_

O
iU"

E-H

(cor

* ^

d
o

q d

d
o
in X

q d

q d

q d
o
in

q d

q d

100

CM

0
k

-a

in in

<
Oi

a. K

enport's

3d

t-H

t-H

I-H

I-H

I-H

2.7 2.7 2.7

I-H

X
CM

X
CM

X
CM

(Ji CJi cn Oi (Ji CJi

I-H 1-H 1-H

1-H

t-H

t-H

X
CM

X
CM

X
1-H

cn cn cn CJi
CJi
t-H

11

X
t-H

X
t-H

X
t-H

Oi

(Ji O i CJi (Ji

I-H t-H

Oi
CJi
t-H

CM

1-H

1-H

CM

CM

CM

Dav( iport
ni
^

o O

.^_ tfl

1-H

(Ji

Q. X

0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 I c u l ate
in orCM in in
Tp Tp
I-H

Oi

in X

CM CM T p Tp O in o Oi X

CM ( N Tp O o Oi

Tt

in X

CM 1 - H CJi T p CJi X

CJi X t^

CM I - H Oi TP Oi X

(Ji

r~

CM 11 CJi CJi T p X Oi X c^

X CM CM X X Oi X X O i t ^ c- O i

CM CM X CM CM cn X X O i X t ^ t ^ CJi t ^ r^

CM

cn X

in tc^ CM

in

in
X

Tp Tp

I-H

(Ji

CM

in t^ r~ CM

in

Tp Tp

CM

0.2 dyr
k.

0.6

0.2 0.6

0.2 0.6 IDc 0.2 0.6

0.6

> ro

c^ r^ X

t^
Tp

II Q o

rtX

rTp

II
i l f

t^ c^ X

en
CM in

13.8 13.5 13.4 13.8 13.5 13.4 13.8 13.5 13,4 15.7 15.3 15.2 15.7 15.3 15.2 15.7 15.3 15.2
II
in c^
1-H

X X

X in

r~l

in

CD

t-H

in

1-H

in

CD

Tp

Tp

Tp

Oi

CM in

in t> 1!
t-H

CJi

CM in

in t^ II
1-H

X
TP Tp

II

CM X Tp O Tp X

II

CM X Tp O Tp X

CM II
X

<
T:

*"'"!

^ Ui

2
in Oi c^
1

Cd

U
CO

TJ
Oi "3
[fl

in in

X in

r^
in

X in

CJi o in X

t-H

CM X X X

Tp

in X

X X

r^
X

X X

Ci

CD

o ^ CM X r^ r^ r^ r-

TT

in

t^

r-

r^ r^ rX

X t^

Oi

o
X

,_
X

TJ C

Stre!
Ct

not 1
(fl If)

Oi

-r;

<

!/. o

r-

CO

160

ro >. c
k.

<
T:
O)

CJ

cc:
tfl

-Si c
H->

cu
01 kCJ

c
D-

tfl

rt
1

D C o

X rt c

ASCE

c c U

> " .^ X Q D.
(fl

X
Tp

X
Tp

X
Tp

X o o o o o o

X o o o o o o

X o o o o o o

o o

Tp

o o

Tp

o o

X
in TT

Tp

X in

TP

in

> ro

Tp

CL

Tp

Tp

Tp

Tp

Tp

Tp

Tp

Tp

Tp

r - c- r X X X
Tp
Tp Tp

c^ r X X
Tp

Tp

c^ X

TP

r^ r^ r X X X
Tp

Tp

Tp

i n L': i n X X X in in in in t^

in lO X X L'i m in r-

in X in

m in X r^ i n In
in c^

in X in

TJ C

Oi

4->

o n

CO
Vb-

>' rt Q CJ k *^ Oi Cd U Ci c: 0)

c s 0

.*j

t in

d
X X o

t^ in

c~in

d
X X o

X X

X X

X X

;
X X o X X o

3
tfl

Oi

sQ < 0
* * > rt O

CO

X X o

X X o

X X o

X X o

X X o

X X o

X X o

r - r~ r t - c~- r o o o

r - t t ^ t ^ r r^ c^ r~ r~ t ^ o o o o o

C^ X t- X o o

X X o

X X o

X X o
Tp

X X o
Tp

X X o

X X o

> ro C

Its

cc c >; TJ
3
HJ> CO

Tp

CM X

CD II CM TP CM Q C^ in X

> ^ >
^

Cx. Oi * O UJ

d ^ d d * d d :*: d d
Tp Tp Tp
Tp

X II CM Tp C^ CM Q in X
llj"

X II CM X I-H Q C^ in X

X TT X II C~X X

X Tp X II C^ I - H X C D

X
Tp
^

1 rX

o C D

X in II t ^ t^

d d
CM X X c^ o CM X X r~o CM X X c^ o C M X X c^ o

d d
CM X X t^ o CM X X t^ o C M X X t^ o

d d
C M X X ro

d
X Oi t^ t^ o X
Ci

o X d

X in II t ^ i f r^

o X

X LO II c^ f r^

TJ C

d d
X X Ci t ^ rt ^ ro o X X

d
X

Tp

Tp

Tp

Tp

Tp

u CO
<
TJ c o U

tfl

cn X t^ o

Oi X t^ o

CJi C i X X r~- r^ o o

Oi X I> o

CJi X r~o

CJi X r^ o

(Ji ( J i X X r^ r o o

CM X X r~ o

X CJi r^ to

X (Ji r~- t ^ t ^ r~o o

o- r^ r^ t ^ r~ r~ o C D o

ro
0/

Sen

c
iW

(N T p X O o o
t-H

CM T p X O o o

CM Tp X O o o in

(N Tp X o o o
11

CM Tp X O o o
'~r^

CM T p O o
L'^

X o

Oi Tp X o o o

CM Tp X O o o

CM Tp X O o o in o

c U
LO

;ontd.

^.^

>; H ^
*M*

o
lO"

d
"^
Di^

q d

q d

q d
o in X o o

d o

,_ q d
o in ro o

q d

d
CO

% / . CM >^-^

o in
LO

<
T3 Oi

<

abl(

CL

^ CO

^.FH

o o
t-H

I-H

.-' Z

in X in in

rin

X
in

cr. o
in

< - r-

C M X X X

Tp

in X

X X

c^ X X X

(Ji X

o , _ l CM X Tp i n r^ r^ t ^ r-^ r - r^

X rr^ r^

X
t^ t^

.
X

c
,_

APPENDIX B SENSITIVITY STUDY GRAPHS FOR THE STATIC-CAST POLE The following graphs present results for the gust response factor, tip deflection, and maximum stress for the static-cast concrete pole considered. These curve are the counterpart of Figures 9.1 to 9.4 for the spun-cast pole. Basically the same trends may be observed.

162

Effect of Tower Height and Conductor Span on Total Deflections due to Wind on Tower, Conductors, and Groundwire
-6pan=650 a. ASCE -Span=660 ft.. Daven Span=50 ft. ASCE Span=660 fl. Daven -Span=7B0ft. ASCE Span=760 ft. Daven

...A - -X--X- . 0 -

T'^v.er Heiffht, f^

Effect of Tower Hei^^t and Conductor Span <m Total Stresses due to Wind on Tower, Conductors, and Groxindwire
8000 T

Span=660 ft. ASCE 8pan=660 ft Daven. Span^GO fl. ASCE Span^:660 ft. Daven 6pan=7B0 ft. ASCE Spens^60 ft. Daven 84 Towpr He);^t. ft 100

4000 70

Figure B.l

Combined Response Sensitivity to Tower Height and Conductor Span for Static-Cast Concrete Pole (Exposure C, Vre.(-140 mph, 6we.,=0.03, ASCE Method; t-umi = 0.4, c,w = 0.4)
163

Effect ofTower Height and Tower Damping on Total Deflections due to \ ^ n d on Tower, Conductors, and Groundwire
c'o c: o>

15

10 T
5 4-

"'X

x -0
0.05

ht=70 ft. ASCE Ht=70 ft. Daven Ht=84 ft. ASCE Ht=84 ft Daven Ht=100ft ASCE ht=100 ft Daven

0.01

0.03 Damping in Tower

Effect of Tower Height and Tower Damping on Total Stresses due to V^^d on Tower, Conductors, and Groundwire
a Ht=:70 ft. ASCE
n*/i\j It. L / w c n .

- - -A- - Ht=84 ft. ASCE - - X - Ht?*4 ft. Daven - X - -Ht=100ft. ASCE - - 0 - -Ht=100ft. Daven

0.03 Damping m Tower

0.06

F i g u r e B.2

Combined Response Sensitivity to Tower Height a n d Tower D a m p i n g Ratio, qi.,wci for Static-Cast Concrete Pole(Exposure C, VrH-140 m p h , S p a n = 650 ft, ASCE Method; ^c.nd = 0.4, ^^w = 0.4)
164

Effect of Tower Hcllit u d 8pB of Condnetor on (ORDt

Effect of Tower Height end Spen of Condnctor on (ORDc

O ; - = " " ' A8CE

1 513 . i 1 I 0OT 06 -^ -A-X rSpans650 ft Sc-=>=E.: ft Sp-=;s^ r. 5tf-=760(l Dsvvn i ASCE D>f ASCX

0-

-g

6 -i.c-^*".: n ASCE X Spni0 *. Ow>an X - Spa-'^'Wft ASCE O - S-a- = *'-Oft >''

o - -So- ="!.: n. o-

0<36

-"

:r

u
Toww HeiftiL ft

- c . r Ha>M

(1) Tower Gust Response Factor, (GRF)t

(1) Conductor Gust Response Factor, (GRF)c

Effect of Tower Height and Span of Conductor on Deflection, due to Wind on Conductor! onlr
'.6 O Srii-=6C ". ASCE Sr9.'>=^5-- * I;avar

Effect ofTower Helcht and Spaa of Condnetor on Deflection! dne to ^ ^ d on Tower only
Spa i 6 6 0 f t ASCE -Spp A
-X-

=55c n Davan

S a p n ^ e O a ASCE Bpa i = 6 0 f t Daver

e n -

= '' i. . ff *

- :' ' - :

-A- S.-.n=60 "- ASCE - X - Spa-s*"^- ". D a v . ' X 5-.-=--: f V=^CE

- X - Span=760 !>. ASCE Sr = - 3 ^ .

Za-er

_.-

?=^

- .= .^^__^^-i=s^^^^^

0 - Spii.- = "5C ft ! -

70

84 Towar H a i f h t ft

Towar Haiffht ft

(2) Tip Deflection

(2) Tip Deflection

Effect ofTower Height end Spnn of Condnotor on Streeee* dne to Wind on Tower only
0 ^ 6 o - = " " "- ASCE 0 SpBr=''6? fl Ijivan |. 'A- - Sapn=6fiO ft A.SCE - X Spu'^'i')' ! V Davan _ .X- Spii-^s'Vft ASCE - - C - Spana7>0ft Davan

Effect of Tower Helht and Span of Condnctor on Streeaae dne to ^Mad on Conduoture only
O^S<Mn360ft 360C a 3000 4 i ; 2600 X : 0 ASCE 8 p a ^ ^ : f. Dan

:2 0 0 0 ^

. = :- = '-.-.:.-f"-" "
A^
84 T m n r Haic^O- ^

..,..-Q
Q

-X 9pr"S*C (>. Davar XS p - ' ^ " ". ASCE

- 0 8par*"r~3 1 D a m 100

(3) Stress (a) Wind Loads on Tower Figure B.3

(3) Stress (b) Wind Loads on Conductors

Response Sensitivity to Tower Height and Conductor Span Separated by Load Component for Static-Cast Concrete Pole (Exposure C, Vrcr = 140 mph, ^t.,uvr=0.03, ASCE Method; Ccnd = 0.4)
16^

EfTeoi of Tower Height and Span of Groundwire on (ORRff*

- S p a n c u o n ASCE 1 76 ^ * * - Spacvs6fi0 ft. Deven
-A
x-

k 50.66
07

Sapn=SOft ASCE Spana660 ft Daven

06 06i

^r^rr:^-^-^,-^:^^:^^::^^
84 Tower Ha^iht. fl

^
100

Span^SOft^ ASCE _ - o - 6f>an=760ft Dawn

- X -

(1) Groundwire Gust Response Factor, (GRF)^v

Effect of T o e r Helgrfat and Span of Oroundwlre on DeQection* due to Wind oa Oroundwlre only
-Spn=S60ft ASCE -Span=550ft Daven --A-XSapnxieOft ASCE S<>an<60 ft. Daven

- X - -Span=7MA ASCE - - 0 - -Span=7S0ft Daven 100

(2) Tip Deflection

Effect o f Tower H e i ^ t a n d 8 p a o f Q r o o a d w l r e o a Stre d u e t o > ^ ^ d o n G r o n n d w l r c only
SpaaaSeOft ASCE SpanaCeOft Davan Sapoi<60 ft. ASCE SpanaSO ft Davfn Spen7Kin ASTE Spen=<M>n Dvii 100

(3) Stress (c) Wind Loads on the Groundwire Figure B.3 (contd.) Response Sensitivity to Tower Height and Groundwire Span Separated by Load Component for Static-Cast Concrete Pole (Exposure C, Vrof^ 140 mph, q,.o,=0.03, ASCE Method; ^cmd = 0.4)
166

Effect o f T o w e r Hl|rbt a n d Tower D a m p i n g on <ORF)t

l - a - -Hi=70f
I---A--

ASCE

1*~

- Ht='0 f\ Drnvrn Hl=ft4 ft ASCE

|..-x-- Hl=4 ft Dvvn ;- -x- Ht=100ft ASCE I - - 0 - Hl = l<X)ft Devn

001 0 03 Dampuif in Tower
006

(1) Tower Gust Response Factor, (GRF)t

Effect o f T o w e r Height and Tower Damping on Deflectiona due to Wind on Tower only
- H t = 7 0 f t ASCE - H o T O ft. Davan .--AH t i < f t . ASCE Hta4 ft. Davan HlslOO ft Davan

-x-^001

- - X - - H t z i o o f t ASCE

0 03 Dampin( in Tower

0 06

(2) Tip Deflection

Effect o f T o w e r H e i g h t a n d Tower D a m p i n g on Streaaea due to >Mnd on Tower oniv
- H i 7 0 f t ASCE - H t z 7 0 f t Dav> A -x H i : 4 n ASCE Ht=84 ft Davan Deven

X - Ht=100ft ASCE

- o- -HtslOOn
0 01

0 00 Damptng in Tower

0 05

(3) Stress Wind L o a d s o n t h e T o w e r Fj;rure B.4 Response Sensitivity to Tower Height and Tower Damping Ratio, flower, Separated by Load Component for Static-Cast Concrete Pole (Exposure C, Vn.i=140 mph. Span = 650 ft, ASCE Method; qcnd = 0.4)
167

APPENDIX C FORTRAN CODE FOR SENSITIVITY STUDY

(1) Spun-Cast Concrete Pole By Davenport's Model C C c C C PROGRAM TO CALCULATE (I)GUST RESPONSE FACTOR FOR SPUN-CAST CONCRETE POLE BY THE PROCEDURE GIVEN BY DAVENPORT (ID-DEFLECTIONS & STRESSES CHARACTER* 12 INP,OUT,EXPOSE STRUCTURE PROPERTIES DIMENSION ADT(100),DIAI(100),AI(100) DIMENSION AHT(10,1),NSPC(10,1)ASCC(10,1),ASCW(10,1) DIMENSION AZTT(10,1),FREQT(10,1) DEFLECTION PARAMETERS DIMENSION Z(100),PHIZ(100),FCC(10,1),FCT(10,1),FCW(10,1) BENDING MOMENT PARAMETERS DIMENSION AMT( 100) AMC(100),AMW(100),TM(100) DIMENSION SUM(100),PZ(100),VZ(100) STRESSES DIMENSION STRT(100),STRC(100),STRW(100),TSTR(100) ON-SCREEN INPUT WRITE(*,*)'INPUT FILE ' READ(*,444)INP WRITE(*,*)OUTPUT 2 FILERE AD(*,444)OUT F0RMAT(A12) 0PEN(5,FILE =INP,STATUS = OLD) 0PEN(6,FILE = OUT.STATUS = NEW) WRITE(6,*)'INP FILE....=',INP WRITE(*,*)EXPOSURECATEGORY....=',EXPOSE READ(*,444)EXPOSE WRITE(6,*)EXPOSURECATEGORY....=',EXPOSE C READING INPUT DATA WRITE(6,*)' UNITS : FT,LB (UNLESS MENTIONED OTHERWISE*'

C C C C

444

READ(5,*)NH,NSP,NSC,NSW,NZT,NFT,NFC,NFW,NFREQ WRITE(6,1)NH,NSP,NSC,NSW,NZT,NFT,NFC,NFW,NFREQ F0RMAT(1X,9I3) WRITE(6,*)'NH=# OF HEIGHTS OF TOWER WRITE(6,*)' ' WRITE(6,*)' # HEIGHT(FT)' DO 121I=1,NH READ(5,*)N,AHT(N,1) 168

121

WRITE(6,*)N,AHT(N,1) CONTINUE WRITE(6,*)NSP=# OF SPANS OF CONDUCTOR" WRITE(6,*)* WRITE(6,*)' # "SPAN(FT)' D0 122I=1,NSP READ(5,*)N,NSPC(N,1) WRITE(6,*)N,NSPC(N,1) CONTINUE WRITE(6,*)'NSC=# OF SAGS OF CONDUCTOR' WRITE(6,*)' ' WRITE(6,*)' # SAG(FT)' DO 140 I=1,NSC READ(5,*)N,ASCC(N,1) WRITE(6,*)N,ASCC(N, 1) CONTINUE WRITE(6,*)'NSW=# OF SAGS OF GROUND WIRE' WRITE(6,*)' WRITE(6,*)' # SAG(FT)' DO 141 I=1,NSW READ(5,*)N,ASCW(N, 1) WRITE(6,*)N ASCW(N, 1) CONTINUE WRITE(6,*)'NH=# OF DAMPING CASES IN TOWER' WRITE(6,*)' WRITE(6,*)' # %0F CRITICAL' D0 123I=1,NZT READ(5,*)N,AZTT(N,1) WRITE(6,*)N,AZTT(N,1) CONTINUE WRITE(6,*)NH=# OF FLEX.COEFF. FOR WIND ON TOWER.' WRITE(6,*)' ' WRITE(6,*)' # FLEX. COEFF' DO 139I=1,NFT READ(5,*)N,FCT(N,1) WRITE(6,*)N,FCT(N,1) CONTINUE WRITE(6,*)'NFC=# OF FLEX.COEFF. FOR WIND ON COND.' WRITE(6,*)' ' WRITE(6,*)' # FLEX. COEFF' DO 138 I=1,NFC READ(5,*)N,FCC(N,1) WRITE(6,*)N,FCC(N,1) CONTINUE WRITE(6,*)'NFW=# OF FLEX.COEFF. FOR WIND ON GW WRITE(6,*)' 169

122

140

141

123

139

138

142

WRITE(6,*)' # FLEX. COEFF" D0 142I=1,NFW READ(5,*)N,FCW(N,1) WRITE(6,*)N,FCW(N, 1) CONTINUE WRITE(6,*)NFREQ=# OF FREQUENCIES OF TOWER FOR DIFFERENT HEIGHTS' WRITE(6,*)' WRITE(6,*)' # FREQ.INHz' DO 143 I=1,NFREQ READ(5,*)N,FREQT(N,1) WRITE(6,*)N,FREQT(N,1) CONTINUE DT,TAPT,WTH,AET,RHOT,DC,DGW,CFT,CFC,CFWSTRUCTURE PARAMETERS VREFALPHA,ZG,AK,ALZ,EPSI,RHOAIR,AKV,G-DAVENPORT"S PARAMETERS JDIV = NO. OF DIVISIONS DESIRED FOR BM. AND STRESS CALCS. READ(5,*)DT,TAPT,WTH,AET,RH0T,DC,DGW,CFT,CFC,CFW,JDIV READ(5,*)VREF,ALPHA,ZG,AKALZ,EPSI,RH0AIR,AKV,G START CALCULATIONS LL=0.0 D0 2222L=1,NH DO 223 M=1,NSP DO 224 N=1,NZT LL=LL+1.0 WRITE(6,*)'CASE NO
t

143 C C C C C

=",LL =',AHT(L,1)

WRITE(6,*)"HEIGHT OF THE TOWER

WRITE(6,*)'SPAN OF CONDUCTOR =',NSPC(M,1) WRITE(6,*)'DAMPING IN TOWER =',AZTT(N,1) WRITE(6,*)'FLEXI. COEFF.FOR WIND ON T0WER...=',FCT(L,1) WRITE(6,*)'FLEXI. COEFF.FOR WIND COND =",FCC(L,1) WRITE(6,*)'FLEXI. COEFF.FOR WIND GW =',FCW(L,1) WRITE(6,*)'FREQUENCY OF TOWER IN Hz....=',FREQT(L,l) WRITE(6,*)'SAG OF CONDUCTOR IN FT ='ASCC(M,1) WRITE(6,*)'SAG OF GROUND-WIRE IN FT =',ASCW(M,1)
C

WRITE(6,*)'I-CALCULATION OF TOWER C/S PROPERTIES'

C

DB =DT+(TAPT*AHT(L,1)) DIB=DB-(2*WTH) 170

1200 1222

AIB=:((DB**4)-(DIB**4))*3.14159/64 DMMM=0.0 WRITE(6,*)' WRITE(6,*)'....Z DIA HOLLW ...MOMENT WRITE(6,*)Z=0@BOTTOM OUTSIDE DIA OF INERTIA' WRITE(6,*)' FT. FT. FT. FT^4' WRITE(6,*)' WRITE(6,1200)DMMM,DB,DIB,AIB Z=0 @ BOTTOM DO 1222 K=l,JDIV DIV=AHT(L,1)/JDIV Z(K) =DIV*K PHIZ(K) =Z(K)/AHT(L,1) ADT(K) =DB - (TAPT*Z(K)) DIAI(K)=ADT(K)-(2*WTH) AI(K)=((ADT(K)**4)-(DIAI(K)**4.0))*3.14159/64 WRITE(6,1200)Z(K),ADT(K),DIAI(K),AI(K) FORMAT(lX,F9.3,2X,F9.4,2X,F9.4,2X,F9.4) CONTINUE WRITE(6,*)'II-CALCULATI0NS FOR GUST RESPONSE FACTORS'

EQUIVALENT HT OF THE TOWER = 0.65H EQHT=0.65*AHT(L,1) E=4.7*(AK**0.5)*((33.0/EQHT)**(1.0/ALPHA)) BC=1.0/(1.0+(0.8*NSPC(M,1)/ALZ)) BT=1.0/(1.0--(0.375*AHT(L,l)/ALZ)) VBAR= 1.605 *((EQHT/ZG)**(1.0/ALPHA))*88.0/60.0*VREF/AKV FOR CONDUCTORS FREQC= SQRT(1.0/ASCC(M,1)) ZHIC =0.000048*VBAR/(FREQC*DC)*CFC AAC= 0.0113*EQHT/(ZHIC*NSPC(M,1)) ABC=(FREQC*EQHTA^AR)**(-1.66666667) RC= AAC*ABC FOR GROUND WIRE FREQW= SQRT(1.0/ASCW(M,1)) ZHIW =0.000048*VBAR/(FREQW*DGW)*CFW AAW= 0.0113*EQHT/(ZHIW*NSPC(M,1)) ABW= (FREQW*EQHTArBAR)**(-1.66666667) RW= AAW*ABW FOR TOWER BB =0.0123/AZTT(N,1) BA=(FREQT(L,1)*EQHTA^AR)**(-1.66666667) RT= BB*BA GEFC= (1+(G*EPSI*E*SQRT(BC+RC)))/(AKV**2) GEFW= (1+(G*EPSI*E*SQRT(BC+RW)))/(AKV**2) GEFT= (1+(G*EPSI*E*SQRT(BT+RT)))/(AKV**2) 171

c
WRITE(6,*)'in-CALCULTIONS FOR BMS. AND STRESSES" C WRITE(6,*)' FOR WIND ON TOWER VZ F MOMENT FT/S LB LB.FT. ' STRESS' PSI.' WRITE(6,*)' WRITE(6,*)'...Z WRITE(6,*)' FT WRITE(6,*)' C C Z=0 @ BOTTOM CALCULATION OF WIND SPEED @ HT.'Z' ON TOWER USING POWER LAW D0 1211K=1,JDIV AA=((Z(K)-(DIV/2))/33.0)**(1.0/ALPHA) BB=VREF*88.0/60.0 VZ(K)=AA*BB WIND FORCE ACTING ON ONE DIVISION @ HT'Z' ON TOWER IF(KNE.1)THEN PZ(K)=0.5*RHOAIR*(VZ(K)**2.)*CFT*((ADT(K)+ADT(K-1))/2)*DIV ELSE PZ(K)=0.5*RHOAIR*(VZ(K)**2.)*CFT*((ADT(K)+DB)/2.)*DIV ENDIF CONTINUE SUMMING UP MOMENTS @ BASE SUM1=0.0 D0 556J=JDIV,1,-1 SUM1=SUM1+(PZ(J)*((J-0.5)*DIV)) CONTINUE AMTO=SUMl*GEFT STRO=AMTO*DB/(2* 144*AIB) WRITE(6,110)DMMM,DMMM,DMMM,AMTO,STRO SUMMING UP MOMENTS @ HT Z' DO 555 K=1,JDIV SUM(K) =0.0 D0 1233J=JDIV,K,-1 IF(J.GT.K)THEN SUM(K) =SUM(K) + (PZ(J)*((J-(K+l)-t-0.5)*DIV)) ELSE SUM(K) =SUM(K) + (PZ(J)*((J-K+0.5)*DIV)) ENDIF CONTINUE AMT(K) =SUM(K)*GEFT STRT(K)=AMT(K)* ADT(K)/(2* 144* AI(K)) WRITE(6,110)Z(K),VZ(K),PZ(K),AMT(K),STRT(K) FORMAT(1X,F9.2,1X,F7.2,1X,F7.2,1X,F10.3,1X,F8.3) CONTINUE WRITE(6,*)' FOR WIND ON CONDUCTORS ' VBARC=(((AHT(L,l)-19.0)/33.0)**(l/ALPHA))*VREF*88.0/60.0 172

1211 C

556

1233

110 555

FC=0.5*RHOAIR*(VBARC**2)*DC*NSPC(M,1)*GEFC*CFC*3.0 AMCO=FC*(AHT(L,1)-19.0) SIGMA0=AMC0*DB/(2*AIB* 144.0) DMMM=0.0 WRITE(6,*)'^ WRITE(6,*)'...Z AMC STRESS" WRITE(6,*)'_FT. FT.LB. PSI. WRITE(6,357)DMMM,AMCO,SIGMAO

'

357 124

LDIV=((AHT(L,1)-19.0)/DIV)+1.0 WRITE(6,*)'LDIV =',LDIV DO 124 K =l,LDIV-2 AMC(K) =FC*(AHT(L,1)-19.0-Z(K)) STRC(K) =AMC(K)*ADT(K)/(2*AI(K)* 144.0) WRITE(6,357)Z(K),AMC(K),STRC(K) FORMAT(1X,F9.2,2X,F10.3,2X,F10.3) CONTINUE AMC(LDIV-1)=FC*(AHT(L,1)-19.0-Z(LDIV-1)) STRC(LDIV-1)=AMC(LDIV-1)*ADT(LDIV-1)/(2*144*AI(LDIV-1)) WRITE(6,357)Z(LDIV-1),AMC(LDIV-1),STRC(LDIV-1) FOR WIND ON GROUND WIRES VBARG=(((AHT(L,l)-0.50)/33)**(l/ALPHA))*VREF*88.0/60.0 FGW=0.5*RHOAIR*(VBARG**2.0)*DGW*NSPC(M,1)*GEFW*CFW WRITE(6,*)F0RCE AT THE TOP OF TOWER =',FGW WRITE(6,*)'DUR TO WIND ON GW.' AMGO=FGW*(AHT(L, l)-0.5) SIGMA0W=AMG0*DB/(2*AIB* 144.0) DMMM=0.0 WRITE(6,*)' WRITE(6,*)'...Z AMGW STRESS" WRITE(6,*)"_FT LB.FT PSI " WRITE(6,357)DMMMAMGO,SIGMAOW DO 1244K=1,JDIV P = JDIV-K AMW(JDIV)=0.0 AMW(K) =FGW*(Z(P)-0.5) STRW(K) =AMW(K)*ADT(K)/(2*AI(K)* 144.0) WRITE(6,357)Z(K),AMW(K),STRW(K) CONTINUE

1244

ADDING MOMENTS AND STRESSES TMO=AMCO+AMTO+AMGO TS=TM0*DB/(2*AIB* 144.0) WRITE(6,*)' WRITE(6,*)'...Z WRITE(6,*)" WRITE(6,*)' ' GW TOTAL..STRESS " MOMENTS PSI.'

TOWER CONDUCTOR MOMENTS MOMENTS . 173

WRITE(6,112)DMMM,AMTO,AMCO,AMGO,TMO,TS WRITE(6,*) AMT(JDIV)=0.0 DO 125K=1,JDIV TM(K) =AMT(K) +AMC(K)+AMW(K) TSTR(K) =TM(K)*ADT(K)/(2*144*AI(K)) 112 125
C

WRITE(6,112)Z(K),AMT(K),AMC(K)AMW(K),TM(K),TSTR(K) FORMAT(1X,F9.4,1X,F10.3,1X,F10.3,1X,F10.3,1X,F14.3,1X,F10.3) WRITE(6,*) CONTINUE III-DEFLECTION CALCULATIONS VREFD=VREF*88.0/60.0 DEFT=(VREFD**2)*FCT(L, 1)*GEFT DEFC=FC*FCC(L,1) DEFW=FGW*FCW(L,1) TOTAL=DEFT+DEFC+DEFW WRITE(6,*)'DEFLECTI0N AT TOP DUE TO WIND ON TOWER=",DEFT WRITE(6,*)'DEFLECTI0N AT TOP DUE TO WIND ON CONDUCTOR='J)EFC WRITE(6,*)'DEFLECTI0N AT TOP DUE TO WIND ON GW WRITE(6,*)'T0TAL DEFLECTION OF THE TOWER =",DEFW

C C

=',TOTAL

224 223 2222

CONTINUE CONTINUE CONTINUE END

174

(2) Spun-Cast Concrete Pole By ASCE 7-95 Commentary Method

C C C C

PROOGRAM TO CALCULATE (I)GUST RESPONSE FACTOR FOR SPUN CAST CONCRETE POLE BY THE PROCEDURE GIVEN IN ASCE 7-95 AND (II)-DEFLECTIONS & STRESSES CHARACTER* 12 INP,OUT,EXPOSE

STRUCTURE PROPERTIES DIMENSION ADT(100),DIAI(100),AI(100)AHT(10,1),NSPC(10,1) DIMENSION ASCC(10,1),ASCW(10,1)^TT(10,1),AZCC(10,1)AZCW(10,1) DIMENSION FREQTdO.l) DEFLECTION PARAMETERS DIMENSION Z(100),PHIZ(100),PHI2Z(100),FCC(10,1),FCW(10,1) BENDING MOMENT PARAMETERS DIMENSION AMT(100),AMC(100),AMW(100),TM(100) STRESSES DIMENSION STRT(100),STRC(100),STRW(100),TSTR(100) ON-SCREEN INPUT WRITE(*,*)'INPUT FILE' READ(*,444)INP WRITE(*,*)'OUTPUT 2 FILE' READ(*,444)OUT F0RMAT(A12) 0PEN(5,FILE=INP,STATUS ='OLD') 0PEN(6,FILE=0UT,STATUS ='NEW) WRITE(6,*)'INPUT FILE =',INP WRITE(*,*)'EXPOSURECATEGORY...=',EXPOSE READ(*,444)EXPOSE WRITE(6,*)'EXP0SURE CATEGORY =',EXPOSE WRITE(6,*) WRITE(6,*) WRITE(6,*)'UNITS : FT,LB WRITE(6,*)' WRITE(6,*) READ(5,*)NH,NSP,NSC,NSW,NZT,NZC,NZW,NFC,NFW,NFREQ WRITE(6,*)NH,NSP,NSC,NSW,NZT,NZC,NZW,NFC,NFW,NFREQ WRITE(6,*)'NH= # OF HEIGHTS OF TOWER' WRITE(6,*)' ' WRITE(6,*)'# HEIGHT(FT)' D0 121I=1,NH READ(5,*)N,AHT(N,1) WRITE(6,*)N,AHT(N,1) CONTINUE 175

C C C C

444

121

122

WRITE(6,*)'NSP= # OF SPANS OF THE CONDUCTOR' WRITE(6,*)' ' WRITE(6,*)"# SPAN(FT)' DO 122 1=1,NSP READ(5,*)N,NSPC(N,1) WRITE(6,*)N,NSPC(N,1) CONTINUE

WRITE(6,*)'NSC= # OF SAGS OF THE CONDUCTOR' WRITE(6,*)' WRITE(6,*)'# SAG(FT)' DO 138 I=1,NSC READ(5,*)N,ASCC(N,1) WRITE(6,*)N^CC(N, 1)
138 CONTINUE WRITE(6,*)NSW= # OF SAGS OF THE GROUND WIRE' WRITE(6,*)' ' WRITE(6,*)'# SAG(FT)' DO 139 I=1,NSW READ(5,*)NASCW(N,1) WRITE(6,*)N,ASCW(N,1) CONTINUE WRITE(6,*)'NZT= # OF DAMPING CASES IN TOWER' WRITE(6,*)' ' WRITE(6,*)'# %0F CRITICAL DAMPINGDO 123 I=1,NZT READ(5,*)N,AZTT(N,1) WRITE(6,*)N,AZTT(N,1) CONTINUE WRITE(6,*)'NZC= # OF DAMPING CASES IN CONDUCTOR' WRITE(6,*)' ' WRITE(6,*)'# %0F CRITICAL DAMPING* D 0 124I=1,NZC READ(5,*)NAZCC(N,1) WRITE(6,*)N,AZCC(N,1) CONTINUE WRITE(6,*)NZW= # OF DAMPING CASES IN GROUND WIRE" WRITE(6,*)' ' WRITE(6,*)'# %0F CRITICAL DAMPING' DO 140I=1,NZW READ(5,*)N,AZCW(N,1) WRITE(6,*)N,AZCW(N,1) CONTINUE WRITE(6,*)'NFC= # 0 F FLEXIBILITY COEFF.FOR' WRITE(6,*)' WIND ON COND.' WRITE(6,*)' WRITE(6,*)'# FLEXIBIUTY COEFF' 176

139

123

124

140

137

DO 137I=1,NFC READ(5,*)N,FCC(N,1) WRITE(6,*)N,FCC(N,1) CONTINUE WRITE(6,*)'NFW= #0F FLEXIBILITY COEFF.FOR' WRITE(6,*)' WIND ON GW.' WRITE(6,*)' ' WRITE(6,*)'# FLEXIBIUTY COEFF' DO 141 I=1,NFW READ(5,*)N,FCW(N.l) WRITE(6,*)N,FCW(N,1) CONTINUE WRITE(6,*)'NFREQ= #0F FREQUECIES OF TOWER * WRITEre,*)" FOR DIFFERENT HEIGHTS WRITE(6,*)" ' WRITE(6,*)'# FREQUECY IN Hz' DO 142 I=1,NFREQ READ(5,*)N,FREQT(N,1) WRITE(6,*)N,FREQT(N,1) CONTINUE VREF,BBARABAR,G,AHAT,BHAT,CTAL,EPSI,ZMIN,CCAL,RHOAIR ACSE 7-95 PARAMETERS DC,CFT,CFC,FCCAET,RHOT,RHOAIR,TAPT,OMEGATSTRUCTURE DT,AMODEXPO,WTH PARAMETERS JDIV = NO. OF DIVISIONS DESIRED FOR BM. AND STRESS CALS. READ(5,*)DT,TAPT,WTH,AET,RH0TAM0DEXP,DC,DGW,CFT,CFC,CFW,JDIV READ(5,*)VREF,BBAR,ABAR,BHAT,AHAT,G,EPSI,ZMIN,CC,AL,RH0AIR

141

142 C C C C C

START CALCULATIONS LL=0 D0 2222L=1,NH DO 223 M=1,NSP DO 224 N=1,NZT DO 225 J=1,NZC DO 226 ND=1,NZW LL=LL-hl WRITE(6,*)1 WRITE(6,*)' WRITE(6,*)"CASE # WRITE(6,*)'

' =",LL =',AHT(L,1) =',NSPC(M,1) FT.=',ASCC(M,1)

WRITE(6,*)'HEIGHT OF THE TOWER WRITE(6,*)'SPAN OF THE CONDUCTOR WRITE(6,*)'SAG OF CONDUCTOR 177

WRITE(6,*)'SAG OF GW FT.=",ASCW(M,1) WRITE(6,*)"% OF CRITICAL DAMPING IN TOWER =',AZTT(N,1) WRITE(6,*)'% OF CRITICAL DAMPING IN CONDUCTOR..=',AZCC(J,l) WRITE(6,*)'% OF CRITICAL DAMPING IN GW =',AZCW(ND,1) WRITE(6,*)'FLEXIBIUTY COEFF. FOR WIND ON COND =',FCC(L,1) WRITE(6,*)'FLEXIBIUTY COEFF. FOR WIND ON GW.. =",FCW(L,1) WRITE(6,*)'FREQUENCY OF TOWER Hz =',FREQT(L,1)

WRITE(6,*)' WRITE(6,*)'I-CALCULATION OF TOWER CROSS SECTION PROPERTIES" WRITE(6,*)" ' AVGDT= DT+(TAPT*AHT(L,l)/2.0) DMH =AVGDT -(2.0*WTH) AVGAT=3.14159*((AVGDT**2)-(DMH**2))/4.0 OMEGAT= FREQT(L,1)*2*3.14159 ADB= DT+(TAPT*AHT(L,1)) DIB=ADB-(2.0*WTH) AIB=3.14159*((ADB**4)-(DIB**4))/64.0 DMMM=0.0 WRITE(6,*)' ' WRITE(6,*)' Z DIA HOLLOW MOMENT OF' WRITE(6,*)'Z=0@BOTTOM OUTSIDE DIA. INERTIA " WRITE(6,*)" FT. FT. FT. FT'^4 " WRITE(6,*)' ' WRITE(6,1200) DMMM,ADB,DIB,AIB K=l@ BOTTOM D0 11K=1,JDIV DIV=AHT(L,1)/JDIV PHIZ(K) = K*DIV/AHT(L,1) Z(K) = K*DIV ADT(K)= ADB-(TAPT*Z(K)) DIAI(K)=ADT(K)-(2.0*WTH) AI(K)=((ADT(K)**4)-(DIAI(K)**4))*3.14159/64.0 1200 11 WRITE(6,1200)Z(K),ADT(K),DIAI(K),AI(K) FORMAT(lX,F7.2,3X,F7.4,3X,F7.4,3X,F7.4) CONTINUE

C C C C C

II-CALCULATIONS FOR GUST RESPONSE FACTORS -GEF FOR TOWER EQUIVALENT HT OF THE TOWER = 0.6H EQH = 0.6*AHT(L,1) IF(EQH.LT.ZMIN)THEN 178

EQH=ZMIN ELSE EQH=0.6*AHT(L,1) ENDIF TIRBULENCE INTENSITY AIZ =CC*((33.0/EQH)**(1.0/6.0)) INTEGRAL SCALE OF TURBULENCE ALZ =AL*((EQH/33.0)**EPSI) BACKGROUND TURBULENCE QSQ =1.0/(1.0+(0.63*(((AVGDT + AHT(L,1))/ALZ)**0.63)))

VREFFTPS = VREF*88.0/60.0 VREFZBAR = BBAR*((EQH/33.0)**ABAR)*VREFFTPS REDUCED FREQUENCY ANl =FREQT(L,1)*ALZ/VREFZBAR RESONANCE AT REDUCED FREQUENCY AA =7.465 * ANl BB =(1.0+(10.302*AN1))**1.6667 RN=AA/BB ETAH =4.6*FREQT(L,1)*AHT(L,1)ATIEFZBAR ETAB =4.6*FREQT(L,1)*AVGDTATIEFZBAR ETAD =15.4*FREQT(L,l)*AVGDTAaiEFZBAR RH =(1/ETAH) - (1/(2*(ETAH**2))*(1-(EXP(-2*ETAH)))) RB =(1/ETAB) - (1/(2*(ETAB**2))*(1-(EXP(-2*ETAB)))) RD =(1/ETAD) - (1/(2*(ETAD**2))*(1-(EXP(-2*ETAD))))

RSQ=RN*RH*RB*(0.53+(0.47*RD))/AZTT(N,1) GEF=(1.0--((2.0*G*AIZ*0.75)*SQRT(RSQ+QSQ)))/(1.0+(7.0*AIZ)) WRITE(6,*)' ' WRITE(6,*)'GUST EFFECT FACTOR.FOR TOWER WRITE(6,*)' ' =',GEF

c c

GEF FOR CONDUCTORS FREQC =SQRT(1.0/ASCC(M,1)) * 19 FT. IS DEDUCTED FOR THE MIDDLE CONDUCTOR @ 19FT FROM TIP OF THE TOWER EQHC=AHT(L,1)-(0.66667*ASCC(M,1))-19.0 179

AIZC =CC*((33.0/EQHC)**(1.0/6.0)) ALZC =AL*((EQHC/33.0)**EPSI) BACKGROUND TURBULENCE QSQC =1.0/(1.0 + (0.63*(((DC -- NSPC(M,1))/ALZC)**0.63))) VREFZBARC = BBAR*((EQHC/33.0)**ABAR)*VREFFTPS REDUCED FREQUENCY ANIC =FREQC*ALZC/VREFZBARC RESONANCE AT REDUCED FREQUENCY RNC =7.465 * AN1C/(1+((10.302*AN1C)**1.6666667)) ETAHC =4.6*FREQC*DC/VREFZBARC ETABC =4.6*FREQC*NSPC(M,1)/VREFZBARC ETADC =15.4*FREQC*DC/VREFZBARC RHC =(1/ETAHC) - (1/(2*(ETAHC**2))*(1-EXP(-2*ETAHC))) RBC =(1/ETABC) - (y(2*(ETABC**2))*(l-EXP(-2*ETABC))) RDC =(iyETADC) - (1/(2*(ETADC**2))*(1-EXP(-2*ETADC))) RSQC=RNC*RHC*RBC*(0.53+(0.47*RDC))/AZCC(J,1) GEFC =(1.0 -h((2.0*G*AIZC*0.75)*SQRT(RSQC+QSQC))) /(1.0+(7.0*AIZC)) WRITE(6,*)' WRITE(6,*)'GUST EFFECT FACTOR.FOR CONDUCTORS....=',GEFC WRITE(6,*)' --GEF FOR GROUND WIRE FREQW =SQRT(1.0/ASCW(M,1)) * 0.5 FT. IS DEDUCTED FOR THE GW. @ 0.5FT. FROM TIP OF THE TOWER EQHW=AHT(L,l)-(0.66667*ASCW(M,l))-0.5 AIZW =CC*((33.0/EQHW)**(1.0/6.0)) ALZW =AL*((EQHW/33.0)**EPSI) BACKGROUND TURBULENCE QSQW =1.0/(1.0 + (0.63*(((DGW + NSPC(M,1))/ALZW)**0.63))) REF. WIND SPEED AT EQ.HT. OF STRUCTURE VREFZBARW = BBAR*((EQHW/33.0)**ABAR)*VREFFTPS WRITE(6,*)'MEAN HOURLY WIND SPEED AT REDUCED FREQUENCY 180

&

C C C

ANIW =FREQW*ALZW/VREFZBARW RESONANCE AT REDUCED FREQUENCY RNW =7.465 * AN1W/(1+((10.302*AN1W)**1.6666667)) ETAHW =4.6*FREQW*DGW/VREFZBARW ETABW =4.6*FREQW*NSPC(M,1)/VREFZBARW ETADW =15.4*FREQW*DGW/VREFZBARW RHW =(1/ETAHW) - (1/(2*(ETAHW**2))*(1-EXP(-2*ETAHW))) RBW =(1/ETABW) - (1/(2*(ETABW**2))*(1-EXP(-2*ETABW))) RDW =(1/ETADW) - (1/(2*(ETADW**2))*(1.EXP(-2*ETADW))) RSQW=RNW*RHW*RBW*(0.53+(0.47*RDW))/AZCW(ND,1) GEFW =(1.0 +((2.0*G*AIZW*0.75)*SQRT(RSQW+QSQW)))/(1.0--(7.0*AIZW)) WRITE(6,*)' ' WRITE(6,*)'GUST EFFECT FACTOR.FOR GW =',GEFW WRITE(6,*)' WRITE(6,*)'' WRITE(6,*) IV-BENDING MOMENT AND STRESSES CALCULATIONS" WRITE(6,*)" ' WRITE(6,*)"FOR WIND ON TOWER " VHAT =BHAT*((EQH/33.0)**AHAT)*VREFFTPS AK =(1.65**AHAT)/(AHAT+AMODEXP+1.0) AMODMASS=fRHOT/32.197)*AVGAT*AHT(L,l)/((2.0*AMODEXP)+1.0)

(AT Z=0 Z ^ = 0 ) P=((1.875/AHT(L,l))**2)/2.7245 PHI2Z0=P*( 1.3622*2.0) 1 C0NSTANT=(RH0AIR*AVGDT*AHT(L,1)*CFT*(VHAT**2)*AK*GEF)/ (2*AMODMASS*(OMEGAT**2)) STRESSES @ BASE AMTO=PHI2ZO*AET*AIB*CONSTANT STRO=(AMTO*ADB)/(2*AIB*144.0) WRITE(6,*)' ' WRITE(6,*)'.Z MOMENT STRESS" WRITE(6,*)" Z=0 @ BOT. LB.FT PSI." WRITE(6,*)" ' WRITE(6,1300)DMMM,AMTO,STRO DO 1 1 2 K = 1,JDIV Q=SIN(1.875*PHIZ(K)) R=COS(1.875*PHIZ(K)) S=SINH(1.875*PHIZ(K)) T=COSH(1.875*PHIZ(K)) 181

1300 112

PHI2Z(K)=P*(-Q-S+(1.3622*(T+R))) AMT(K)=PHI2Z(K)*AET*AI(K)*C0NSTANT STRT(K)=(AMT(K)*ADT(K))/(2*AI(K)* 144.0) WRITE(6,1300)Z(K)AMT(K),STRT(K) FORMAT(1X,F9.2,2X,F10.2,2X,F9.2) CONTINUE

WRITE(6,*)'FOR WIND ON CONDUCTORS ' AKC=1 WRITE(6,*)'K =',AKC VHATC=BHAT*((EQHC/33)**AHAT)*VREFFTPS FC=0.5*RHOAIR*(VHATC**2.0)*NSPC(M,1)*DC*AKC*GEFC*CFC*3.0 MULTIPUED BY 3 FOR THREE CONDUCTORS

AMCO= FC*(AHT(L,1)-19.0) SIGMAZ =(AMCO*ADB)/(2.0*AIB* 144.0) WRITE(6,*)' WRITE(6,*)'Z MOMENT STRESS' WRITE(6,*)'Z=0 @ BOT. LB.FT. PSI. ' WRITE(6,*)' " WRITE(6,1300)DMMM,AMCO,SIGMAZ LOCATING THE DIVISION WHERE CONDUCTOR IS ATTACHED LDIV=JDIV-(19.0/DIV) D 0 222K=1,LDIV-1 P =JDIV-K AMC(K) =FC*(Z(P)-19.0) STRC(K)=AMC(K)*ADT(K)/(2*AI(K)*144.0) WRITE(6,1300)Z(K),AMC(K),STRC(K) CONTINUE WRITE(6,*)'-FOR WIND ON GROUND WIRES AKW=1 '

222

VHATW=BHAT*((EQHW/33)**AHAT)*VREFFTPS FW=0.5*RHOAIR*(VHATW**2.0)*NSPC(M,1)*DGW*AKW*GEFW*CFW WRITE(6,*)'F0RCE ACTING AT THE TOP OF TOWER DUE TO ' WRITE(6,*)'GW. WIND LOADING IN LB =",FW AMGO= FW*(AHT(L,l)-0.5) SIGMAZW =(AMGO*ADB)/(2.0*AIB*144.0) WRITE(6,*)" WRITE(6,*)'Z MOMENT STRESS' WRITE(6,*)'Z=0 @ BOT. LB.FT. PSL' WRITE(6,*)' WRITE(6,1300)DMMM,AMGO,SIGMAZW 182

2223 C

DO 2223 K=l,JDIV P =JDIV-K AMW(K) =FW*(Z(P)-0.5) STRW(K) =AMW(K)*ADT(K)/(2*AI(K)*144.0) WRITE(6,1300)Z(K)AMW(K),STRW(K) CONTINUE ADDING STRESSES DUE TO WIND ON TOWER,CONDUCTORS,AND GROUND WIRE TMO=AMTO+AMCO+AMGO SIGMAZO=TMO* ADB/(2*AIB* 144.0) WRITE(6,*)' * WRITE(6,*)'Z TOTAL MOMENT STRESS' WRITE(6,*)'Z=0 @ BOTTOM LB.FT. PSI.' WRITE(6,*)' ' WRITE(6,1400)DMMM,TMO,SIGMAZO D0 555K= 1,JDIV TM(K)=AMT(K) +AMC(K)-i-AMW(K) TSTR(K)=TM(K)*ADT(K)/(2*AI(K)*144.0)

1400 555

WRITE(6,1400)Z(K),TM(K),TSTR(K) F0RMAT(1X,F7.2,3X,F13.2,3X,F11.2) CONTINUE

WRITE(6,*)' WRITE(6,*)'IIICALCULATION OF MAXIMUM DEFLECTIONS' WRITE(6,*)' ' WRITE(6,*)'-WIND ON TOWER XMAX=0 WRITE(6,*)' WRITE(6,*)'.Z XMAXZ' WRITE(6,*)' Z=0 @ BOTTOM" WRITE(6,*)' ' WRITE(6,1500)MMM,XMAX FORMAT(1X,I3,3X,F10.3) D0 111K=1,JDIV '

1500

111

XMAXZ =CONSTANT*(PHIZ(K)**AMODEXP) P=((1.875/AHT(L,l))**2)/2.7245 WRITE(6,*)Z(K),XMAXZ CONTINUE XMAXZ=CONSTANT*(PHIZ(JDIV)**AMODEXP) WRITE(6,*)'DEFL. DUE TO WIND ON TOWER =',XMAXZ

WRITE(6,*)'FOR WIND ON CONDUCTORS & GROUNDWIRE-183

DEFC=FC*FCC(L,1) WRITE(6,*)'DEFLECTI0N AT TOP DUE TO WIND ON COND....=',DEFC DEFW=FW*FCW(L,1) WRITE(6,*)'DEFLECTION AT TOP DUE TO WIND ON GW =",DEFW TOTAL=DEFC+DEFW+XMAXZ WRITE(6,*)T0TAL DEFLECTION 226 225 224 223 2222 CONTINUE CONTINUE CONTINUE CONTINUE CONTINUE END =',TOTAL

184

APPENDDC D INPUT DATA FOR CONCRETE POLES

(1) I n p u t D a t a for Spun -Cast Concrete Pole by Davenport's Model

NH (Ht.) 3 # 1 2 3 # 1 2 3 # 1 2 3 # 1 2 3 # 1 2 3 # 1 2 3 # 1 2 3

NSP Spans 3 Ht 70.0 84.0 100.0 Spans 550.0 650.0 750.0 Sag-Cond Avg.values 10.0833 13.5417 19.3750 Sag-GW Avg values 4.500 6.250 8.25 Damping Tower 0.01 0.03 0.05 3

NSC (Sag)c. 3

NSW (Sag)g 3

NZT (Damp) t 3

NFT (Flex)t 3

NFC (Flex)c 3

NFW (Flex)g 3

NFRE Q (Freq)t

in

Flex.Coeff. wind on Tower. 8.1486E-06 1.3216E-05 2.2554E-05 Flex.Coeff. wind on Cond. 4.2719E-04 5.8028E-04 8.4330E-03 185

1 2 3
#

Flex.Coeff. wind on GW. 2.6298E-04 3.2392E-04 4.3943E-04 Natural Freq. of Tower Hz. 1.144760 0.921003 0.740436 TAPT 0.018 WTH 0.25 AET 7.808 3E08 AK 0.005 RHOT 150.0 DC 0.118 92 EPSI 0.75 DGW 0.031 25 pAIR 0.002 4 CFT 0.8 CFC 1.0 CFW 1.2

1 2 3 ST 1.056 7

FOR EXPOSURE "C" VREF ALP Zg HA 140 7.0 900.0

ALZ 220

AKV 1.546

G 3.6

186

(2) Input Data for Spun -Cast Concrete Pole by ASCE 7-95 Commentary Method

NH

NSP

NSC

NSW

NZT

NZC

NZW

NFC

NFW

NFRE Q

# 1 2 3 # 1 2 3 # 1 2 3 # 1 2 3 # 1 2 3 # 1 2 3 # 1 2 3 # 1

Ht 70.0 84.0 100.0 Spans 550.0 650.0 750.0 Sag-Cond Avg.values 10.0833 13.5417 19.3750 Sag-GW Avg values 4.500 6.250 8.25 Damping in Tower 0.01 0.03 0.05 Damping in Conductor 0.20 0.40 0.60 Damping in GW 0.20 0.40 0.60 Flex.Coeff. wind on Cond. 4.2719E-04 187

2 3
#

5.8028E-04 8.4330E-04 Flex.Coeff. wind on GW. 2.6298E-04 3.2392E-04 4.3943E-04 Natural Freq. of Tower Hz. 1.144760 0.921003 0.740436 TAPT 0.018 WTH 0.250 AET 7.808 3E08 BHA T 1.0 RHO T 150.0 AMO DEX P 1.8 DC 0.118 92 EPSI 0.20 DGW 0.031 25 ZMIN 15 CFT 0.80 CFC 1.0 CFW 1.2

1 2 3

1 2 3 DT 1.056 7

FOR EXPOSURE "C" VREF BBA ABA R R 140 0.65 0.153 846

AHA T 0.105 263

G 3.5

CC 0.20

AL 500.0

pAIR 0.002 4

188

PERMISSION TO COPY

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master's degree at Texas Tech University or Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, I agree that the Library and my major department shall make it freely available for research purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Director of the Library or my major professor. It is understood that any copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my further written permission and that any user may be liable for copyright infringement.

Agree (Permission is granted.)

o^hl^a^
Student's SigrTature Date Disagree (Permission is not granted.)

Student's Signature

Date