Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 18

Charge et résistance des lignes de transport aériennes

Groupe de Travail 06 (Fiabilité et sécurité des lignes) du Comité dEtudes 22*


(un commentaire sur les documents de la CEI dans la série 826)

1. INTRODUCTION 826-1 (1985) Première partie : Gé


— numération des paragraphes de ce
néralités. commentaire et celle des documents
1.1 Rappel historique
826-2 (1985) — Deuxième partie CEI).
Les ingénieurs des lignes partici Charges dues au vent et à la
pant aux activités internationales de la température. 1.2 Concepts de base
CIGRE ont réalisé, il y a vingt ans ou 826-3 (1986) — Troisième partie
plus, que les Règlements Nationaux La plupart des cahiers de charges
Charges spéciales.
relatifs aux lignes aériennes man pour les lignes aériennes définissent
826-4 (1987) — Quatrième partie
quaient de cohérence. Même entre les charges à appliquer aux compo
Charges dues au givre. sants d’une ligne, ils spécifient des
spécialistes, la compréhension n’était
Néanmoins, avant même que ces coefficients de sécurité et font état de
pas toujours facile. Des discussions
rapports aient été publiés, on avait Normes Nationales en ce qui concerne
approfondies ont montré que des con
entrepris leur révision pour tenir comp les matériaux.
cepts tels que : charges de travail,
te des commentaires variés relatifs à
charges ultimes, coefficients de sécuri La Figure 1 A «approche détermi

leur présentation et à la technique.
té, contrainte de travail, contrainte niste» illustre cette affirmation. Pour

L’effort principal s’est dirigé vers une
admissible, etc. n’évoquaient pas les les calculs, on accepte l’hypothèse
évaluation probabiliste du comporte.’
mêmes grandeurs physiques pour tout que la charge a une valeur unique,
ment des lignes en tenant compte du
le monde. A l’époque, les Comités d’E bien définie, et qu’il en est de même
nombre de composants affectés par un
tudes de la CIGRE traitant des lignes pour le composant soumis à cette
événement, du degré d’utilisation des
aériennes (CE 6 et CE 7) ont donc charge. L’écart entre la charge et la
composants divers, d’une séquence
décidé de former un nouveau Groupe résistance représentait, dans le passé,
prédéterminée d’avarie, etc. le «coefficient de sécurité». Les
de Travail sur les «Coefficients de Sé
curité» (première séance : mars 1961). Bien que les termes de référence membres des Groupes de Travail
du Comité Technique (CT) 11 de la (CIGRE et CEt) sont maintenant
Le Groupe de Travail actuel 22.06
CEI n’aient pas été modifiés, il est d’accord de réserver l’expression «fac
sous le nom de «Fiabilité et Sécurité
maintenant connu sous le nom de teur de sécurité» pour les situations
des Lignes» continue les travaux com
«Charges et résistance des lignes de dans lesquelles des vies humaines
mencés en 1961.
transport aériennes». sont en danger.
Entre temps, la Commission Elec
En fait, les Documents de la CEI En fait, dans la réalité, quand la
trotechnique Internationale (CEI) a
seront publiés comme des «Rapports» ligne est construite et soumise aux
formé le Comité Technique N° 11
pour faciliter les travaux des Orga influences météorologiques, la charge
«Recommandations pour les lignes
nismes nationaux qui sont respon sera représentée par une quantité
aériennes» au sein duquel plusieurs
sables de la rédaction de Cahiers des variable, qu’on pourra exprimer
Groupes de Travail ont été instaurés
Charges et de Règlements. A la séan conventionnellement par une valeur
(1973/1974).
ce du Comité Technique à Fort Worth moyenne (Q ) et par un écart type cr0
Ainsi, pendant plusieurs années, le (Etats-Unis) en 1986, il fut décidé qu’il (ou un coefficient de variation : VQ [VQ
Comité d’Etudes 22 de la CIGRE (qui y aurait quatre parties dans la nouvelle = (a0/Q )J.
a hérité des activités des CE 6 et CE publication.
7, et qui les poursuit) et le CT 11 de la De même, en réalité, la résistance
Lors d’une séance ultérieure du n’aura pas une valeur unique, et elle
CEI ont suivi des voies parallèles. Par
Comité Technique à Buenos Aires, en pourra être décrite par une distribution
bonheur, une forte proportion des
décembre 1987, on a pris la décision de densité de résistance (ou le cas
membres était commune aux Groupes
de les publier en un seul document, échéant, par une distribution cumulati
de Travail de la CIGRE et de la GEl.
qui contiendrait plusieurs chapitres, ve). Ces distributions nécessitent la
De ce fait, les résultats des travaux au
couvrant chacun un aspect particulier. disponibilité de données statistiques.
sein d’une organisation étaient auto
matiquement disponibles à l’autre. On a estimé, au sein du Groupe de La figure 1 B illustre ces affirmations. A
Travail 22.06 de la CIGRE, que la ce stade du raisonnement, la sépara
Au sein de la CEI, on en est arrivé à tion entre la valeur moyenne de la
publication, par la CIGRE, d’explica
l’étape ou des rapports ont été publiés charge et la valeur moyenne de la
tions additionnelles faciliterait l’accep
par le Bureau Central, sous le titre de: résistance est académique.
tation des principes décrits dans les
«Charges appliquées aux supports de documents CEI. (Il y a lieu de remar L’étape suivante du raisonnement
lignes aériennes». quer qu’il n’y a aucune relation entre la requiert la définition d’une relation

* Membres du GT 22.06 (en septembre 1988) G. Orawski (Royaume-Uni), chef de file; G. Henrioul (Belgique), secrétaire; M. Barbarito (Italie); R de Weck
(Suisse); E. Ghannoum (Canada>; J.l. Gidiund (Suède); R Khadri (Algérie); R Kiessling (Rép. Féd. d’Allemagne); J.R Nolasco (Brésil); A.H. Peyrot (Etats-Unis);
D. de la Houssaye (France); K. Schjetne (Norvége); RD. Wells (Australie); A.B. Wood (Royaume-uni); R.J. Zoomer (Pays-Bas).
Load~ng and strength of overhead transmission Nnes

Working Group 06 (Une reliability and security) of Study Committee 22*


(A commentary on IEC documents in the 826 series)

1. INTRODUCTION However, even before they were affected by an event, for the degree of
published, work had begun on their utilisation of various components, for a
1.1 Historical background selected sequence of failure etc.
revision to take into account various
Engineers involved n the internatio comments regarding presentation and Although the terms of reference of
nal activities of CIGRE realised, some techniques. The major effort was direc IEC TCII have not been changed, this
twenty or more years ago, that there ted towards a probabilistic assessment Technical Committee is now referred to
was a Iack of rationalisation in over of the performance of the unes by alto as “Loading and Strength of Overhead
head me regulations. Comprehension wing for the number of components Lines”.
and understanding were not easy even
among specialists. Deeper discussions
showed that concepts such as working
Ioads, ultimate loads, factors of safety, CHARGES ET RESISTANCES
working stress, permissible stress, LOADS AND STRENGTHS FIABILITE : RELIABILI7Y
allowable stress etc. did not necessari FACTORS -~ SECURITE SECURITY
ly convey the same images to aIl. It L SURETE
was decided by the CIGRE Study
Committees (SC6 and SC7) on over LOAO STRENGTH
head mes to form a new Working
Group on Factors of Safety (first mee
ting March 1961). LOAD S
STRENGTH
The present Working Group 22.06
under the name “Line Reliability and
Security” continues the work which Figure 1 A. Approche déterministe.
was started in 1961. Figure lA. Deterministic approach.
In the meantime, the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) for
med a Technical Committee No. 11
“Recommendations for Overhead
Lines within which several Working
CUMULATIVE
Groups were nominated (1973/1974). STRENGTR
Thus for several years now both LOAO DISTRIBUTIONS
CIGRE Study committee 22 (which
inherited the activities of SC6 and DENSITY
SC7) and IEC TCll have followed
parallel paths. Luckily, a large propor
tion of the membership of the CIGRE R LOAOS
and IEC Working Groups was com STRENGTH
mon. Hence the findings within one Figure lB. Données statistiques.
Organisation were automatically avai Figure lB. Statistical data.
labletotheother.
CHARGE LOAD RESISTANCE STRENGTH
Within IEC TCII a stage has now
been reached when IEC Central Office
Reports have been published, under
the heading of:
“Overhead Line Support Loadings”
826-1 (1985) Part 1 General
- -

826-2 (1985) Part 2 Wind and tem


- -

perature Ioadings R
826-3 (1985) Part 3 Special loa
- -

dings Figure 1 C. Approche probabiliste.


826-4 (1987) Part 4 Ice Ioadings
- - Figure 1C. Probabilistic approach.

* SC22-WGOS Membership (September 1988) G. Orawski (United Kingdom), Convenor; G. Henrioul (Belgium), Secretary; M. Barbarito (Italy); P. de Weck
(Switzerland); E. Ghannoum (Canada); J.!. Gidlund (Sweden); F. Khadri (Algeria); F. Kiessiing (Fed. Rep. cf Germany); J.F. Nolasco (Brazil); A.H. Peyrot (Uni
ted States); F. Pourbaix (France); K. Schjetne (Norway); F.D. WeIls (Australia); A.B. Wood (United Kingdom); R.J. Zoomer (Netherlands).
N°129 ELECTRA 67

Essentially, the IEC Documents wiIl The next step in the reasoning pro Security (structural) is the ability of a
be issued as “Reports” to help the cess is the relationship between these system to be protected from a major
work of those National Bodies which two distributions (Figure 1G). As a collapse (cascading effect) if a failure
are responsibie for the preparation of result of many discussions, calcula is triggered in a given component.
Specifications and Regulations. At a tions, reasoning, graph plotting etc. it Security is a deterministic concept as
Technicai Committee meeting in Fort has been agreed, for inclusion in IEC opposed to reuiability which is a proba
Worth (USA) in 1986 it was agreed documents, that the loads would be bilistic concept.
that there would be four parts in the related to a return period of an event Safety (structural) is the ability of a
new Publication. (50, 150 or 500 years) and that the system not to cause human injuries or
strength wouid be accepted as that ioss of lives. in these documents, safe
At a subsequent meeting of the which gives 90% probabiiity of being
Technical Committee in Buenos Aires ty relates mainly to protection of wor
achieved. Then, the area under the kers during construction and mainte
in December 1987, the decision was two overlapping curves is calculable,
made to publish them ail in a single nance operations. The safety of the
and the reliability can be assessed. public should be covered by National
document, with several chapters, each This is the probabilistic approach.
covering a particular aspect. Regulations.
However, it must be stated from the The purpose of this paper, together
it was felt within CIGRE 22.06 that a
outset, that the designer wili be given a with the 1EC documents is to acquaint
publication, by C1GRE, of additional deterministic value of load which he
explanations would heip in a national the reader with the tools which are
will compare with a deterministic value available and which can be used to
acceptance of the principles outlined in of strength, but the “specification wri
the documents. it must be noted that satisfy specific requirements.
ter” will have a fair knowledge of the
the paragraph numbering in this com reliability of the overail design, becau
mentary bears no relation to the num 1.3 ParaIlel activities
se he knows the coefficients of varia
bering in the IEC documents. The need for the publication of
tion of the load and of the strength.
documents explaining the probabilistic
1.2 Basic concepts This probabilistic approach to de approach to design is best illustrated
sign has other inter-linked features: by the numerous papers which have
Most overhead line regulations been written on the subject of
1. ut s unfortunate that reliability which load/strength reiationships. Aiso, seve
define the loads to be applied to the is defined as probability of survival
elements of the une, they specify fac- raI countries have already attempted to
is inseparable from risk (or probabi
tors of safety and refer to National prepare codes of practice incorpora
lity of failure). The area under the
Standards so far as materials are ting the concepts of reliability and
overlapping portions of the curves s
concerned. security.
a measure of the risk (P~~ and the
Figure lA, the so-calied “determi complement to one is the reliability a) In the United Kingdom
nistic approach” iliustrates this state = 1—
The following documents are alrea
ment. It is assumed, for design pur 2. By designing components in such a dy available from the
poses, that the load has a unique, way that there is a probability that
defined, value and so has the strength British Standards institution:
some of them are stronger than the
of the component subjected to this other a co-ordination of strengths 1. BS 8100 : Part 1 -1986 : Lattice
load. The separation between the load can be achieved, and the reiiability towers and masts Part 1 : Code of
-

and the strength was usuaily referred of the une wili be that of the weakest practice for loading
to, in the past, as “factor of safety”. it component. 2. BS 8100 : Part 2 1986 : Lattice
-

has now been agreed by Working towers and masts Part 2 : Guide to
-

Group members (CIGRE and IEC) that in order to avoid confusion, speciai the background and use of Part 1
the expression “factor of safety” would attention should be given to the iaws Code of practice for loading”
only be used when human ives are at used for the calculation of risk, in order 3. DD 133 : 1986 -Draft for
stake. to differentiate between: deveiopment code of practice for
in real terms, when the une is — une failure and component (e.g. strength assessment of members of
constructed and subjected to meteoro tower) failure lattice towers and masts
iogical influences, the ioad will be a — climatic event causing a iocalised Essentially these documents are
variable quantity, conventionaliy failure and the extent of the failure applicable for the design or appraisal
expressed by a mean value (Q) and a (i.e. number of components affected of free standing tower structures of lat
standard deviation YQ (coefficient of by the event) tice construction. They include speciai
variation VQ)[VQ= (cr0/Q)] chapters on overhead unes. The Work
It may be appropriate at this stage ing Group members of CIGRE and IEC
Similariy, the strength in real life will
to recall the three basic definitions have taken cognisance of the British
not have a unique value, but it can be which have been accepted: documents.
described by a density (or cumulative)
strength distribution. Both distributions Reliability (structurai) is the probability b) In the United States
require a knowledge of statisticai data. that a system performs a given task,
Figure 1 B is an illustration of this state under a set of conditions, during a spe The American Society of Civil Engi
ment. At this stage, the separation bet cified time. Reuiabiuity is thus a measu neers (ASCE), through its “Committee
ween the mean values of load and re of the success of a system in on Eiectrical transmission Structures”
strength is immaterial. accomplishing its task. has prepared a document “Guideiines
N°129 ELECTRA 69

for transmission une structural loading” tion of probabilistic techniques, the or if we represent °T’ the general
which is available as a draft. design engineer will use discrete variable, by x, we can write generally:
Working Group 22.06 has carried values of loads and strengths.
out a comparison of the UK and USA F(x)=[1 —(1/7)) (1)
documents with IEC documents as to 2.2 Loads (Wind effects)
their contents and as to the resuits The knowledge of extreme loads is
obtained by the application. connected with the statistical know Where F(x) is the cumulative distri
They have the following aspects in ledge of meteorological phenomena bution function of Iargest (maximum)
common: giving rise to these load effects (tem extreme values. t is also referred to as
perature, wind, ice...). Fisher Tippet Type 1 (Gumbel) distri

i) they accept a distribution of loads bution and is expressed generally as:
(Gumbel type 1), Extreme loads are associated with
ii) they accept that the strength can be “return periods” and the greater the
represented by a distribution (usual return period, the higher the loads. F(x) = e_e_z exp. [—exp. (—z)] (2)
ly Gaussian), The return period, largely due to
iii) the resultant risk is calculated in the Gumbel, is defined as the time interval Where
same way, between phenomena whose intensity z=(C1/G)[x—.~+cY(C2/C1)]
exceeds a selected level. In fact, the
iv) the load applied to a component is = mean value of distribution
IEC documents accept that loading
function of the response of that o= standard deviation
effects are best described by Gumbel’s
component, C1, C2 = Gumbels law coefficients
first law of extremes (see Figure 2).
However, they differ in other V~ = coefficient of variation of variable x
aspects: It can be proved mathematically that
[Note that the distribution of smal
the probability that a level “X”, of an
i) the averaging times for wind speeds /est (minimum) extreme values is:
event X, will be exceeded in any one
are different e.g. year is given by the relationship F(x) = e~e~ = exp. [— exp. (z)] (3)]
IEC : 10 minutes The IEC documents contain several
8S8100:1 hour P(X>x)—(1 / 7) tables for the calculation of the maxi
ASCE : fastest mile mum value of a loading event as func
ii) the reference reliabilities are diffe where Tis the return period. tion of the average value of observed
rent, Corresponding to this return period data, for various levels of reliability. In
ot an event, there is a level QT of loa practice, the availability of a more
iii) there is another important difference general table of coefficients would be
between the objectives of IEC and ding.
useful.
ASCE. IEC proposes to control the In order to obtain the mathematical
reliability of an entire line, whereas From equations (1) and (2) by trans
laws expressing wind speeds (or wind
ASCE limits its goal to the control of loads, or any other type of weather formation, we obtain:
the reliability of structural compo related phenomenon) statistical tech
nents in the line, niques are used and it should be ~ (4)
iv) etc. remembered that a margin of confiden Ci C1~ L “ Tu
ce is bound to be the best estimate.
The conclusions of the Working
Group are that any document could be
For instance, in Canada, when evalua
ting the 50 year annual maximum wind
If2~=(_1n[—1n(1 _.~)])
used since the differences resulting speed, the range for 95% confidence
from their applications are unlikely to was of the order of 18 to 21%. Conver
be critical. However the main point to sely, for 95% confidence the range of (5)
emphasize is that each document is return periods corresponding to a cho ci
coherent in itself and the temptation to sen maximum annual wind speed was
use only parts of each should be resis also quite large.
ted, unless dealing with general
If a line component was subjected =11 Vx (6)
mathematical principles. cl
to a load Q7~ mentioned earlier, and if
this line component had a s~rength
If we denote by XT the value of x
exactly equal to QT (withstand up to corresponding to a return period 7
2. RELIABILITY LEVELS
~T, failure beyond QT), the annual pro then
bability of failure should be (1 /7).
2.1 Background
The IEC documents are based on Gumbel’s law giving the annual pro
bability that a maximum load QTwillbe v~ (7)
the assumption that neither the loads ci
applied to an overhead transmission exceeded, when the mean load is Q
line, nor the strength of its component and the standard deviation is o~ is C1 and C2 are coefficients whose
have single values, and are best des expressed specifically by: values depend on the number (N) of
cribed by distribution functions. Howe available observations. Typical values
ver, it is implicitly accepted, that after (1 /7)=P[Q>QT]=1 -F(QT) applicable to overhead line design are
statistical analysis of data and applica i.e. F(QT)=[l—(1 /7)1 given in Table I.
N°129 ELECTRA 71

On the far fetched assumption that


an infinite number of data is available,
it will be noted that for N = oo; Cl = ~t I
compared with (10%) R, Le. with a
value of resistance which had a proba
bility of 10% of not being achieved,
Where Pf= f
Jo
f0 (x) FA (x) dx

1.2825 and C2 = 0.5772 hence a probability of 90% of being


achieved. Pf is related to the overlap of the
two curves as shown in Figure 4.
Le. ~ = 0.5772 = 0.45
Cl 1.2825 24 Loadinq and strength Studies performed by CIGRE and
A direct comparison of Q7~ with IEC have shown that wind, temperatu
(These values are those which are (10%) R constitutes a simplified statis re and ice load variables are best
normally quoted). tical approach which permits the calcu represented by an extreme type 1
lation of the risk of failure, since Qr function (Gumbel) whereas the streng
In IEC documents, the ratio xT/x th of transmission line components is
and (10%) R are really values on the
are quoted for values of N = oo, V~ = best illustrated by normal (Gaussian)
relevant statistical distributions of loa
12, 16 and 20%. or log-normal functions.
dings and strengths, such distributions
Table lA gives a wider range of being represented by suitable mathe A major breakthrough in probability
ratios (xT/.~) calculated by equation matical laws. methods occurred when there was
(7). established a relationship between
Thus in the light of the above reaso
If we further denote as mT, ning it can be stated that the failure of load and strength that allows an
cl the une will depend on two random almost constant probability of failure to
equation (5) becomes: happenings: be calculated. This relation was found
— appearance of a load greater than to be:
x=x÷m-1-o~ (8) QTselected for design QT= (10%)R
— component strength R lower than which can be expressed as follows
(10%) R accepted for design when the load with a return period T s
from which we obtain, if N = equated with a strength having a pro
In other words, the failure rate of the
x158 = O.45~ (mode) bability of being met of 90% (or 10%
.~—
me wiII be determined by the integra
x233 = (mean) exclusion limit), then the probability of
tion of the product of two probability
failure is approximately equal to (1/27).
X25=X+2.O44Œ~=X(l +2.044 V~) distributions, whose relative positions
In fact this probability lies within a
will be defined by one point on its pro
X5o°~X+2.592~7x°~X(1 +2.592 V~) range (1/7) to (1/27) and the results
bability curve [QTor (10% R)].
xi5o=~+3.454o~=.~(1 +3.454 V,) remain valid for Gumbel, lognormal,
x500=ï=4.395ø~=.~(1 ÷4.395 V,~) The similarity of this treatment with Frechet and other distributions of load
that already explained in IEC 71-2 curves Q as well as for the normal and
i.e. relationships between loading (1976), is evident. 10g-normal distribution of strength R.
events with different return periods can
The probability of survival of the line Tables II, III and IV give computer
be evaluated.
(its reliability) can then be expressed calculated areas for a typical coeffi
as the complement to unity of the pro cient of variation of load (0.3) assumed
2.3 Strength
duct of the probabilities integrated to be of the Gumbel type 1, and for a
The strength of overhead line com within proper limits (Figure 4). range of coefficients of variation of
ponents can also be represented by a strength (assumed to be Gaussian),
statistical distribution (Figure 3a). The 2.5 Reliability for an exclusion limit of 10% of the
shape of the distribution can be either resistance. It will be shown later that
The reliability of a line, which is its
normal or 10g-normal. so far as the reliability of the line is
probability of survival is defined as:
The decision has been made in IEC concerned, the CCV of strength in the
documents that the load Q1- would be = 1 — P~ range of 0.05 to 0.125 are of importan

f (R) F (A)

0.5
AREA=0.9
AREA~0. I

0.1

(10%) R L (10%) R

Figure 3A. Figure 3B.


N°129 ELECTRA 73

TABLEAU III. Comparaison d’un vent de 150 ans avec une résistance ayant une ce. it s seen that the failure probability
probabilité de tenue de 90%. in this range is approximateiy equal to
TABLE III. Matching 150 year wind with 90% probabiity of strength being exceeded. (1/27).
in fact similar exercises were car
CDV - cov RAPPORT DES PROBABILITE ried out for different distribution of
CDV CHARGE RESISTANCE VALEURS MOYENNES D’AVARIE
COVLOAD STRENGTH RATIO 0F FA IL URE loads and of strengths and it was
MEAN VALUES PROBABJLI7Y found that the results were comparable
(see Figure 5).
0.300 0.025 2.1036 0.005129
0.300 0.050 2.1757 0.004096 lt is accepted that the combination
0.300 0.075 2.2528 0.003431 of load expressed by Gumbei Law and
0.300 0.100 2.3356 0.003050
0.300 0.125 2.4247 0.002920 of strength expressed as a normal law,
0.300 0.150 2.5208 0.003054 could be considered as the reference
0.300 0.175 2.6250 0.003513 format.
0.300 0.200 2.7381 0.004397
0.300 0.225 2.8613 0.005808 However, good approximations for
0.300 0.250 2.9962 0.007799 the risk of failure can be obtained by
0.300 0.275 3.1445 0.010344 the following methods:
0.300 0.300 3.3082 0.013318
Let Y, ~: mean value of load and
Valeur moyenne de la charge due au vent = 1 CDV = Coefficient de variation
mean value of strength
Meanvalueofwindforce = 1
UQ, o~R: standard deviation of Q and R
TABLEAU IV. Comparaison d’un vent de 500 ans avec une résistance ayant une V0 = (r~j~); VR = (o~/W) : coeff. of
probabilité de tenue de 90%. variation of Q and R
TABLE IV. Matching 500 year wind with 90% probability of strength being exceeded.
a) Format (R-Q)
CDV-COV RAPPORTDES
VALEURS MOYENNES
PROBABILITE
D’AVARIE in order to use standard tables for
CDV CHARGE RESISTANCE RATIO 0F FA IL URE
COVLOAD STRENGTH
probability of failures, the assumption
MEAN VALUES PROBABILITY is made that the distribution of the dif
0.300 0.025 2.3951 0.001489 ference of load and strength is normal.
0.300 0.050 2.4771 0.001168 Then the risk of failure can be evalua
0.300 0.075 2.5649 0.000978 ted from the mean values of strength
0.300 0.100 2.6592 0.000888
0.300 0.125 2.7607 0.000894 R and load Q and the standard
0.300 0.150 2.8702 0.001016 deviation cYR and UQ without establi
0.300 0.175 2.9887 0.001317 shing the distribution in detail. Under
0.300 0.200 3.1175 0.001904 this assumption, differences to the
0.300 0.225 3.2578 0.002906
0.300 0.250 3.4114 0.004428 resuits obtained from the reference for
0.300 0.275 3.5802 0.006497 mat wiil be obtained for certain ranges
0.300 0.300 3.7666 0.009037 of standard deviation data.
Valeur moyenne de la charge due au vent =
Mean value of wind force
= 1
P~=ø(fi)
100 * PROBABILITY ANALYSIS
110 Y=50/ * RETURN PERIOD FOR WINO wherej3=
115 P 1—lIT, Z1=—r,0G(—LOG(p)) / Z FOR PROB~..BILITY~P
*
~Y1 YR2 + UQ2
120 F = 1.2816 / * FACTOR ON COV FOR 90% PROBABILITY
130 ;/;° MATCHING”Y” YEAR WIND WITH 90% 0F STRENGTH
BEING ZXCEEDED’ it was found by comparison with the
140 M0=1 / * MEAN 0F WIND FORCE DISTRIBUTION reference format that this approxima
150 C(1)=.12, C(2)=.2, C(3)=.5, ~ / * COV 0F WIND & NO. 0FF
160 ;/;‘ MEAN VALUE 0F NIND FORCE 1” /; tion was quite acceptable for ail values
170 ;‘ CCV COV MEAN FAILURE” of VQ, but only when
180 ;“ LOAD STRENGTH STRENGTH PROBABILITY”
190 l~.#i~# lI.l~## ~t##.it4# VR> 0.15 or 0.2
200 FOR 1=1 TO K/;/ S1=C(I)*t~O I ~ S1=SD FOR EACH WIND CCV
210 M1MO— .45005*51 / * WIND MODE b) Format In (RIO)
220 X1=Z1&S1/1.28255+M1 / & X FOR PROBABILITY P
230 FOR C~.O25 TO .31 STEP .025 / * COV FOR STRENGTH Here again, in order to use standard
240 M2=X1/(1_F*C), S2÷M2&C / MEAN & SD 0F STRENGTH tables, the assumption is made that
250 A1—1.28225/S]. / * CONSTANT
260 D—82/10 / * INTEGRATION INTERVAL
the distribution of the In (R I Q) is nor
270 X=MAX(O, f,12_10*S2), L=M2+5*S2 / * INTEGRATION LII~ITS mal. Differences to the resuits obtained
280 A—0 I * SET& INTEGRAL TO ZERO
290 * STAR’T INTEGRATION LOOP
300 T—(X—M2)/S2, Z=A1*(X_M1) I * NORMALIZED ORDINATES
310 A_A÷(1_EX2(_EXP(_Z)))*EXP(_T*T/2) Court programme sur ordinateur pour cal
320 x—X+O culer la probabilité d’avarie. Charge = loi
330 IF X<L THEN 290
340 ;USING 19O,C(I),C,M2,A&D/SQR(2*3.1415926)/S2
des valeurs extrêmes (Gumbel). Résistan
350 NEXT C
ce = distribution normale (Gauss).
360 NEXT I Short computer program to calculate fallu
370 ;/;/ END re probability. Load = Gumbel. Strength
>
Gaussian.
N° 129 ELECTRA 75

from the reference format will also be TABLEAUV/TABLEV


obtained for certain ranges of standard
deviation data. NWEAU DE FIABILITE
RELJABILITY LEVEL
Pf= 0 (~
T = récurrence de la charge de calcul (ans) 50 150 500
retum period of design loads (years)
where~= ln(R/Q)
~ VR~+ V02 Ps = fiabilité annuelle 0. 98 0. 993 0. 998
yearly reliability to to to
~~gg fl.g97 0.999
This format is only acceptable when
Pf = probabilité annuelle d’avarie
VQ=0.2et VR<O.l5 yearlyprobability 0ffailure i0~2 iO2 ~ io—~
0.36 0.72 0.90
Thus, caution is necessary when Fiabilité minimale en 50 ans to to to
comparing resuits obtained by different Jtlininzunz reliahilitv in 50 years
0.61 0.86 0.95
formats.
La fiabilité minimale en 50 ans a été calculée selon : [1 — (l/T)t et [1 — (1I27)]~ avec t= 50
Short computer programm to calcu
The minimun reliability in 50 years has been calculated as: [1 — (1/7it and [1 — (1127)]t with t 50
late failure probability:
Load = Gumbel; Strength = Gaussian
As a resuit of such, and similar, TABLEAU VA. Vitesses relatives du vent et charges relatives dues au vent.
investigations, and after many calcula TABLE VA. Relative wind speeds and wind loads.
tions covering a wide range of loading
functions and of resistance distribu
tions, it was concluded that for aIl prac CDV-COV NIVEAU i ii III
tical purposes the probability 0f failure VITESSES DU VENT LE EL
WIND SPEED
varied between (1/7) and (1/27) and T 50 150 500
the reliability P~ varied between [1 —

(1/7)] and [1 (1/27)].



CCV = 0.12 (vT/v50) 1 1.079 1.163
Table V gives the range of the
values calculated by the above rela = ~‘~‘T~”so)2 1 1.164 1.352
tionships.
COV = 0.16 (VT/V50) 1 1.097 1.201
2.6 Wind speeds and wind loads
(VT/V50)2 1 1.204 1.442
For convenience — and quite logi
cally the starting point of load calcu

lations is the wind speed. However, for CCV = 0.2 (VT/VSo) 1 1.114 1.234
reliability assessment, it is the load
due to the wind which must be consi (VT”~50>2 1 1.240 1.523
dered in its interaction with the
strength of the loaded component.
Now, the load due to the wind is tivities in wind speeds and wind pres document for the probabilistic design
proportional to the square of wind velo sures. of overhead lines : “Guidelines for
city. t has been found that the distribu It will be seen that for a COV of transmission me structural loading”.
tion of wind loads does not follow the 16%, the selection of reliability level Il Instead of declaring reliability levels,
same law as the distribution of wind or III instead of I corresponds to the the ASCE document introduces the
speeds. selection of wind speeds greater by 10 concept of relative reliabilities by using
to 20% and pressures 20 to 44% a factor G. The following correspon
However, the reliability has been dence would apply:
calculated by accepting loads to follow greater.
Gumbel law. The errors in so doing are The impact on cost of the choice of IEC Level ASCE Values of G
negligible, since only the area under a different reliability level can therefore 1.0
the tails is of importance. Various be estimated. 3.0
attempts at increasing the mathemati Another way to consider Table V is III 10.0
cal accuracy 0f the models have to compare failure probabilities. Thus
shown that the reference format was level III has a yearly probability of failu 2.8 Une reliability versus compo
quite adequate, and had the advanta re of io—~ whereas level I has a yearly nents reliability
ge of easy hand ling. probability of failure of 10—2. This is The assessment of the reliability of
equivalent to stating that level III is a transmission line with respect to cli
2.7 Relative reliabilities 10—2 / iO—~ = 10 times more reliable matic loadings requires the availability
On the basis of the statements than level I. of suitable statistical models describing
made in the previous paragraphs, In fact, in the United States, the load and strength of the line as a
Table VA can be prepared to give rela ASCE has been working on a new whole.
N°129 ELECTRA 77

If load and strength distribution (calculated reliabiuity less than real remembers the randomness in the
functions are derived for single compo value) such as: quality of steel, in the quauity ot manu
nents then the output reliability applies — Assuming that use factor of compo facture, in the design expertise etc.
to this component (e.g. ASCE model); nents (specially the weakest) is Working Group 8 on Towers has this
while if the same functions are derived 100% point on its agenda.
for a whoie line, the output reliability is
Assuming that extreme wind speed Be it as t may, the opinion of the
a line reliability (IECITCII model). —

is at right angle to the line Working Group 6 of CIGRE SC22 is


It is flot easy to establish relation that the technique is correct and can
ships between component and line Other factors can lead to overesti be applied with confidence. There are
reliabilities without previously having mating the reliability, such as: already many reports that the IEC
laid down correlations between ioad — Neglecting the spatial coverage of Reports are being used by many coun
and strength of components. critical storm events tries. The performance of unes desi
Depending on this degree of — Neglecting the risk of failure of com gned according to these principles,
correlation, the probability of failure of ponents which are not designed as should prove useful in calibrating the
a line comprising (N) towers can vary weakest in the system. theoretical results.
between the probability of failure of a — Neglecting (or not being able to The “Specification writer” should be
single tower to Ntimes this value. detect) localised topographical wea aware of the strength of the technique,
Thus, starting with components ther effects in the une. but he should aiso be conscious of the
reliability, it will be difficult to estimate weakness o! some data.
— Assuming that a weather station
the overall reliability of a une due to the always records the maximum load
fact that a une is a series system intensity in a given space.
where the failure of any major compo 3. SECURITY LEVELS
nent will lead to the loss of current car In cases where loading and strength
rying capabiiity (failure). data are scarce, it is not possible to Security is defined as the ability o! a
calculate precise values of reliability system to be protected from a major
For example let us consider two and the only possible outcome ot cal
unes, 100 km long each, having both collapse (cascading effect) if a failure
culations would be a comparison of is triggered in a given component.
suffered 20 tower failures in the past relative reliabilities between unes desi
10 years. Obviously, both unes show Security is a deterministic concept as
gned for the same conditions. opposed to reliability which is a proba
an equivalent tower failure rate (0.2
tower/year/lOOkm) and the same relia In view of ail these considerations, it bilistic concept.
bility from the point of view of this com is now proposed, in the IEC Docu Possibly, a simple example will help
ponent. However if tower failures of ments, to refer to reliability levels by
to appreciate the differenôe between
the first line ail occurred due to one the return periods of the loads. reliability and security.
storm event while ail failures of the ut is important to be reminded that A case has been cited that in a
second une occurred at different times lack of strength and loading data
and due to different storms, then “power corridor”, there were three unes
equally affects the confidence in deter
obviously the second une is much less in parallel with a separation equivalent
ministic design methods, although this
reliable, in terms of system reliability, to the “falling height” of a tower. The
fact is not openly recognised in these
than the first one. three lines were designed for the same
methods.
normal loading conditions (intact sys
2.9 Absolute and relative reliabilities tem), but the first une was designed for
2.10 Strength data of towers
fairly high longitudinal loads. The
Calculations of the reliability of a There is one aspect on which mem second line was designed for modera
transmission une as a system requires bers of the Working Groups are not un te longitudinal loads, and for the third
input on: animous, and this concerns the coeffi line, longitudinal loads were practically
a) Statistics of climatic variables in the cient of variation of tower strength. ignored. After several years of opera
space covered by the une. ut is clear from the previous para tion, the three unes were affected by a
b) Transfer functions from climatic graphs that the COV of strength plays localised storm. There were no failures
variables to loads on une compo a considerable role in the evaluation of in the first une, the second une lost
nents. the risk of failure. In the IEC docu approximately two towers, but some
c) Statistics of component strengths. ments this value has been accepted as twenty towers were damaged on the
7.5% on the basis of tests performed third une.
The accuracy of the calculated relia
on lattice structures by members of the Those unes had the same reliability,
bility depends on whether aIl signifi
Working Group on Towers of the but different levels of security.
cant variables have been considered
CIGRE Study Committee on Overhead
n the calculations and whether ade The selection of a level of security is
unes. The values were found to lie bet
quate data are available for these a matter of economics.
ween 5 and 10 or 12.5%. A value of
variables.
7.5% s therefore accepted as a refe The analysis of causes and effects
Thus, the reliability values obtained rence in most calculations. of failures may already Iead to a selec
with the methods discussed in this tion of strength co-ordination.
However, the homogeneous popula
document can differ from real values.
tion of tested towers is very small. The Working Group also feels that
Some assumptions may lead to There will always be some uncertainty security loadings should not control the
underestimating the actual reliability in the selected value, especially if one design (or dimensioning) of the com
N° 129 ELECTRA 79

ponents 0f a structure or of a system 4.2 Characteristic strength 5. GENERAL DESIGN EQUATION


otherwise the main objectives of quan
tified reliability could well be altered. It has been agreed to define the
YuQT< ~RRc
Generally, a reasonable equilibrium characteristic strength R0 as the
must be found to satisfy the require value guaranteed in appropriate stan with çb~ = ~c ~N øq 4~S
ments of reliabNity, security and safety. dards. This value is also called the where
Overdesigning to satisfy security crite guaranteed strength, the minimum = use factor coefficient applied to
ria means increased initial costs strength, the minimum failing load or load
applied to the whole une, whereas the nominal strength, and usually cor
responds to an exclusion limit from 2 Or = load corresponding to return per
underdesigning implies increased iod Tor selected by calibration or
maintenance or repair costs in case of to 5%. experience if data is not avai
failure. The decision will tax the expe To permit a real understanding be lable. This is the limit load for
rience of the designer. tween engineers from various parts of design purposes.
the world, it would be useful if the mini = global strength factor

mum guaranteed strength was defined R0 = characteristic or nominal strength


4. DESIGN APPROACH as that corresponding to a specific 4= correction factor referred to the
exclusion percentage from a batch. exclusion limit of material
In the design process, the following strength.
condition must be checked: = factor related to the number N of

Load effect < strength or 4.3 Co-ordination of strengths components subjected to the cri
tical load.
In paragraph 2.5 it was stated that Çbq = factor related to the quality level
‘YLJQT < 4RR0 the GOy of strengths in the range 0.05 of the component during fabrica
to 0.125 were important, because, typi tion and construction.
i.e. load factor x limit load < strength cally this is the range of CCV for = factor related to co-ordination of
factor x characteristic strength towers (a GOy of 0.075 is fairly repre strength.
Thus, in order to quantify reliability sentative). Although it was stated that
levels, consideration must be given to the reliability of a line was [1 (1/27)],

limit values for loads and for strengths. in fact the assumption was already 5.1 Use factor coefficient applied
made, intentionally, that one compo to Ioad
4.1 Limit states for materials nent would be weaker than another. A There has been Iengthy discussions
careful inspection of Figure 5 will show both inside and outside the Working
Until now, most design offices use a that the probability of failure, hence the
single value of strength (or design Groups to decide whether a factor was
reliability, of different components sub needed on the loading side of the
stress) with little awareness 0f the dis jected to the same load is not the
persion of strength 0f the materials. equation.
same. The ambition of a designer is to
Depending on national codes or natio achieve a given reliability for a given Finally the opinion prevailed that,
nal practices, use is made of minimum ength of overhead line. The concept of since aIl towers were not fully and
yield stress, maximum permissible sequential failures achieved by a co equally loaded, it would be more logi
working stresses etc. Generally ordination of strength of the various cal to be able to influence the loading
stresses used for design are ili-defi components attempts to reach this part of the equation.
ned. objective.
The analysis of the performance 0f 5.1.1 Effect of span dispersion on
a line as a system, leads to the accep If it were possible to ensure that the reliability (Beta curves)
tance 0f two limit states for materials probability 0f failure of one component
In most transmission lines, towers
or components is very much less than that 0f another
are not custom designed for each loca
component, the reliability 0f a system
a lower damage limit tion and one or two tangent towers are

would be expressed by the reliability of
used to fit in a large array of weight
a higher failure limit the weakest component. (Table VI)

and wind spans, most of which are
Practically, it would be possible to On the basis 0f many considera shorter than the maximum design
use either limit value provided that tions, the following sequence has been spans.
adequate coefficients are judiciously accepted, starting from the weakest The fact that many towers throu
selected and applied. The suggestion component. ghout a transmission line are not used
in the IEC documents are reasonable at their maximum design spans has
The above strength coordination
and justifiable, but some time may definitely a positive effect on reliability
can be applied to most lines, but there
elapse before the damage and failure which has not been quantified in ear
can be some situations where different
limits are generally used. lier studies.
criteria could be applied and thus lead
In fact this practice has always been to another sequence of failures. The In order to assess the effect of span
introduced in the Standards of some principles in the IEC documents and in variation on reliability, the first step is
countries, where allowable stresses this commentary are sufficiently gene to find a suitable model to this variable
are used under normal Ioading condi raI for application for such different cri and then use statistical techniques
tions and yield stresses are used for teria. In the following paragraphs it previously described in order to calcu
abnormal loading conditions (allowable shall be assumed that the suspension late its influence on probability of failu
stress <yield stress). tower is the component to fail first. re.
N°129 ELECTRA 81

J
Span variation is best modelled by
FONCTION DE DENSITE DE FREQUENCE
using a non dimensional unit U, called DU TAUX D’UTILISATION DE
use factor, which equals the ratio of LA I’ORTEE DE VENT
the actual span to the maximum span. FREQUENCY DENS!TY FUNCTI0W 0F
W!ND SFAN USE FACTOR
When dealing specifically with wind
or weight spans, we can use the wind L) REAL UNE I3ErA FUNCTION
z
use factor equal to: DATA SIMULATION

w p - ~- -

— wind span w
wind —
max. wind span >

or the weight use factor equal to

Uv= weight span


max. weight span

Variable U has an upper bound of I)


Figure 6. Exemple de fonction Beta adaptée à une variation de portées.
1,0 and usually a lower bound of 0.4 to
0.5. Using typical data, it was found Figure 6. Example 0f span variation to fit a Beta function.
that the Beta distribution function is an
appropriate model for span variation
as shown in Figure 6. TABLE VI. Typical coordination of strength starting with weakest component.
The great value of the Beta distribu
MAJOR COORDINATION WITHIN
tion lies in the wide variety of shapes COMPONENTS MAJOR COMPONENTS *
(Figure 7), that it can take simply by
varying the parameters. In our case, To feu first Suspension tower Tower, foundations
shapes 1 and 2 are likely to be more hardware
representative of our requirements.
The other advantage of the Beta func lot to fail first Angle tower Tower, foundations
tion is that it s reasonably easy to ,ith 90% confidence hardware
handle as a distribution whose limits Dead End tower Tower, foundations
are known (1 and “a’) and whose para hardware
meters (r, t) can be easily related to
Conductor Conductor, insulators
the mean value U and standard devia hardware
tion o~ of an available sample, or from
an estimation by analogy. Thus
* Within each major component the underlined component is the weakest with 90% confidence.
t=[(ÙE—a)(1 _)/o.u2]_1;
r=t(~T—a)I(1 —a)
Generally, the Beta function is quite
If the limits of the function are (0,1) versatile.
then ( ( )URBES BETA
The general form of Beta distribu BI)IA (URVES

(r/t)=U;t=[U(1_LT)I~u2]_1 tion is

The function is J shaped (curve 1) if = [(U— a)(r— 1) (1 — (,,~(t— r—1) F(t)]


r<land t> r+lor if r>land t< r+ 1. I [F(r) F(t — r) (1 —
It is unimodal and bell shaped (gene
rally skewed as curve 2) if r >1 and
t> r+ 1.
andRx)= f
Jo
e-Yy~1 dy=(x—1)

For its solution, the Beta function


requires a knowledge of the gamma Use factor variation was found to
function (r,.) which is available either in have predictable patterns and statisti
cal parameters U, u~, could be known Figure 7.
tabular form, or must be calculated by
computer. It is worth noting that if the with sufficient accuracy if the number
Beta function is used in a statistical of tangent tower, tower types, terrain
process such as the Monte Carlo tech and spotting constraints are known.* o~ are given. Note that LT can be
nique, the function U can be tabulated In Tables VII and VIII typical avera derived from the design criteria cf tan
directly. ge values U and standard deviations gent towers if the average span of the

* Fora tuIler treatment 0f the Bela and Gamma functions reference can be made b “Probability, Statistics and Decision for Civil Engineers” by Jack R. Benja
min and C. AIIm Corneil (McGraw Hill Book Company).
N” 129 ELECTRA 83

transmission une is known because of TABLEAU VIII. Paramètres statistiques de la variation de la portée poids.
the following relation: TABLE VIII. Statistical parameters of weight span variation.
Average span = Average wind span =
Average weight span VALEURS DE —

VALUESOF ~
Thus, the average wind use factor
Uwind can be calculated from: Contraintes et terrain Al Bi, A2 Cl, 82 C2
~onstraints and terrain
— Averagowindspan
‘-‘wtnd Nombre de types de
max design wind span pylônes d’alignement
Number of tangent
Average span tower o’pes
max design wind span 1 O.85;0.05 0.75;0.1O O.65;0.15 0.50;0.20

2 O.95;0.03 O.85;O.05 0.75;0.10 0.60;0.15


similarly,
3 1.0 1.0 0.85;0.05 O.70;0.10

Uweight Average weight span


max design weight span
Ai Terrain plat; pas de contrainte Ai Flat terrain; no constraints
Bi Terrain vallonné, pas de contrainte Bi Rolling, hilly terrain; no constraints
Average span A2 Flat terrain; constraints on tower loca
A2 Terrain plat; contraintes sur l’emplace
max design weight span ment des pylônes tions
B2 Terrain valonné; contraintes sur l’empla B2 Rolling, hilly terrain; constraints on
cement des pylônes tower locations
Furthermore, t was found that three Ci Montagnes; pas de contrainte Ci Mountains; no constraints
variables have a large infiuence on the C2 Montagnes; contraintes sur l’emplace C2 Mountains; constraints on tower loca
statistical parameters of U and o~ ment des pylônes tions
(mean value and standard deviation):
1. Number of tangent tower types
2. Terraiti type In order to compute the effect of the If alternatively, the analysis had
use factor on either Ioad reduction or been performed on the basis of Q <
3. Constraints on tower locations strength increase, the statistical para (AlU) the influence of U would have
Based on the analysis of available meters of the new variable Q’ = Q x U been to displace the cumulative curve
data as well as on experience, a set of are established based on variables Q R to the right, (thus obtaining R’ =
statistical parameters of U and o~ are and U. (R/L.~).
proposed. (Tables VII and VIII). The design load corresponding to a
return period T can now be obtained 5.1.2.2 Calculation 0f ~; wind Ioa
5.1.2 Use factor coefficient 2’~, ding case (y~)
from the probability density function of
In order to calculate the reliability of Q’with a yearly probability of (1/7); this
a line, it is necessary to combine the design oad is called ~‘T as shown in a) Procedure
random variables of “Q” (load) and uti Figure 8. — Start with a given function 0f wind
lisation (“U”). Hence, the advantage of speed W (assume Gumbel func
Consequently the dispersion has an
having a mathematical model for the tion), where : V~= 0.12; 0.16; 0.20
effect of shifting the load curve Q to
function “U”. The influence of “U” will (CDV of wind speed).
the left. The ratio (Q’T’QT) quantifies
be allowed for in the fundamental relia
the influence of the factor and is called — Consider different cases of use fac
bility equation by a coefficient u.
~ (use factor coefficient). tor curve (assume Beta function),
5.1.2.1 Definition of Tu where: U =0.9Setuu=O.O5; U =
In practice, the reliability condition
Le. r~ = (Q’l-/QT) 0,85 et Ujj= 0,10; etc.
requires that:
External load applied to towers <tower
strength or Q < R
When a tower is under-used (U <
1), loads applied to attachment points
are reduced by a factor U and the new
reliability condition is: ARLA .

QU.cR

or, Q < (R / U) (in this case, the tower o


behaves as though it could sustain
more external climatic actions with its Figure 8. Combinaison des densités de probabilités pour les variables Q et U.
reduced spans). Rgure 8. Combination of Q and U density functions.
ELECTRA 85
N°129

— Calculate statistical parameters of 5.1.2.3 Etfect 0f num ber of towers The numerator in the above equa
applied loads Q’ = W2U. This can Ofl lu tion will be disciissed in connection
be done by Monte-carlo simulation with the factor çt~ related to the num
When the maximum intensity of a ber of components affected by the criti
or by numerical integration. For climatic load event covers a large
small values of o~ approximate cal load (chapter 5.2.2). The denomi
number of towers (~, the impact of nator can be obtained by the same
methods can be used. use factor dispersion is now changed: methods, either by simulation or by
— Calculate Q50 from Q = i4~2 (using
If strength dispersion is very low or numerical integration. Table IX outlines
Gumbel tables), this is the load
can be neglected, then the most criti some results obtained by Monte-Carlo
without the effect of use factor.
cally oaded tower amongst the N simulation.
— Calculate Q’SO from new curve Q’ = towers will be the one having the lar
W2U this is the load including the From Table IX we notice that ~ s
gest span (or use factor). In order to almost constant (it increases very
influence of use factor. find Yu (with N towers), we have to slightly) for different values of N. This
— The use factor coefficient y~ is cal consider in previous calculation a new result can be explained by the fact that
culated from the ratio (Q’501Q50). curve : minNU. the tower having the largest span is
b) Numerical example When N is very large and strength not necessarily the one with the lowest
dispersion is assumed negligible, ru strength : strength dispersion and
Input: W~= 1.0; V~= 0.12 (Gumbel) closeto 1.0. spans are two independent random
U =0.85; o~=0.10(Beta) variables.
The physical explanation of Yu
Calculations: increasing up to 1.0 is simple : if the In order to better illustrate the calcu
w50= ItT(1 + 2.592 V~) maximum intensity of a loading event lations of this table, let us try an
(from para 2.2) covers a large space, then it will likely approximate method to derive yj~,
“see” the tower having the longest when:
Q50= Kx W2sc= 1,72 K
(where K= is a constant) span.
Calculate the probability density As indicated, the above conclusions W’=i.o, vR=lo%;U=O,95,
function of Q’= W2U. can be made only if the strength dis
persion of towers is neglected compa cru= 0.05 (Vu” 0.053)
From the new Q’ curve, we obtain red to that of spans. However in well N= 10
Q’50 = K x 1.48 (value obtained by optimized lines, the use factor disper
numerical integration). sion could be Iow and ii is important to
— (10%) minNR = 0.77 (by the method
establish the joint effect of use factor
later explained in 5. 2. 2).
Thus)~,=l.48I<=0.86 and strength dispersion.
1.72 K — In order to calculate (10%)
Two methods have been used for
minN(RIU), we have to calculate the
this purpose and were found to lead to statistical parameters of R’ = (RIU).
(Note This exercise was repeated for similar results : the first one using the
T= 150, 500 years as well as for V~,,= general relation QU < R and the
0.16 and 0.20. AIl resulting values of second Q < (Alu). We shail detail R’ = (AlU) = (1.0 I 0.95) = 1.053
were found to be in the range of hereafter the second method.
0.86 to 0.89). V~=(~R+ V~~)~2
The strength used in design equa = (0.102 + 0.0532)1/2

e) Approximate method : using the tion is (10%)R. With the influence of = 0.113
method of central moments use factor, this value becomes (10%)
Q’=kl’~x IT=1.02x0.85=0.85 (R/U). With N towers subjected to
maximum load intensity, the design With N = 10, the 10% exclusion limit
~f~Q= (2V~ + V2~= 0.0576 + 0.01 38 strength becomes (10%) minN (RIU). corresponds to 2.31 standard devia
VQ’= 0.267 tions (see chapter 5.2.2) therefore:
Thus the influence of use factor can
Q’50 (T = 50 years) = Q’ with a 2% be quantified by: (10%)minNR’= W’(l —2.31 V’R)
probability. It is equal to 2.054 stan 1.053(1 —2.31 x 0.113)
dard deviations from mean value of yu[(10~) minNRI[(10%) minN(RIU)]
0.78
normal curves.
Q’50 = 0.85 (1 ÷ 2.054 x 0.267) = 1.32
Q’50 (T= 50 years) without the effect TABLEAU IX. Valeurs de ~ en fonction de iT et N pour VA = 10%.
of U: TABLE IX. Values of’y~ as a function of (T and N for VA = 10%.
Q=W2
N
Q=1.0; VQ=2x0.l2=O.24 U,~ 1 2 5 10 20 50 100

Q50 = 1.0 (1 ÷ 2.054 x 0.24) = 1.49


0.95, 0.05 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
= (1.32 I 1.49) = 0.88

0.85, 0.10 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94


Note : Approximate calculations do
not give a good estimate of Ioad QT 0.80, 0.15 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.93
but give acceptable results for ru•
N~ 129 ELECTRA 87

= (10%) minNR 077099


U (10%) minNR 0.78

(compared with 0.97 from Table IX)


Note : Since U is a finite function with
specific upper and lower bounds (e.g.
1.0 and 0.4), the approximatemethod
described above may flot always give
satisfactory results.
Generalized resuits for y~,
Values of 2’~ similar to those given in
Table IX were obtained for other VR
values (5%, 7.5%, 10%, 15%, 20%
and 25%). These values were found to
be almost constant, specially when dS Or 00 OOIOI’I?≥ r~ .4

dispersion of use factor is low. Table X


summarizes the resu lts of ru. Figure 9. Densité de probabilité pour N composants en série.
Figure 9. Probability density function for N components in series.
As discussed earlier, span disper
sion can either increase strength by a
factor of (t’Yu) or decrease applied Exclusion probability of Ncomponents =
loads by ru• The values of y~ if taken The average value of strength ~ s
equal to 1.0 during the design of only used as an intermediate stage in 1 — (1 exclusion probability of one

towers, will lead to a higher reliability the calculations: component)N


than expected. Thus (10%)R= W(1 l.28VR), by

or eN=1_(1_e)N
In cases where towers being desi definition and generally if
gned could be used in different trans This equation is used to derive
R0=(e%)R=P,(1 —K0VR)
mission unes where use factors can strength coefficients 0N of Table Xl for
vary, it could be acceptable to use as a andø0 =[(10%)R/R0] different coefficients of variation and
conservative value, the highest 2’u or =[(1 —1,28 VR)I(l —KCVR)] number of components. In this Table
even 2’u = 1.0 which will lead to some 0N is set equal to the ratio
over-design. In the latter case, it is Hence for towers when e = 10; K0 =
advisable to re-check the coordination 1.28, øc = 1.0 and typically: 0N [(10%) minNR/ (10%)RJ
of strength which may now be altered. Conductors, earthwire : K0 = 1.28;
VR = O.03; 1.0 and R is assumed to fit a normal den
For angle towers, dead end towers, sity function.
section towers, i.e. for towers which Insulators, hardware : K0 = 3;
would help in reducing cascading VR=O.OS;.~.oC=l.l For example, let us calculate 0N for
effects (increasing security) it is sug N=l0and VR=2O%.
gested in aIl cases that 2’u 1. 5.2.2 Factors related to number N From tables of normal density func
of components subjected to tions, it can be seen that 10% probabi
5.2 Total strength factor OR the same Ioad : 0N lity corresponds to 1.28 standard
When the maximum intensity of a deviations from the mean, thus
0RC0N0q0S load event ~T affects a large number
of components, failure wiII be triggered (10%) R — ~ (1 — 1.28 x 0.20) = 0.744 ~
5.2.1 Characteristic strength fac by the weakest link (or component).
tor :0~ Assuming that the strength of compo We can find the exclusion limit e
For reliability assessment, the load nents are not correlated, the mathema when N= 10 and eN= 0.10:
is compared with the 10% exclusion tical expression of the strength distri
limit of strength. bution R now becomes minNR where 0.10 = [1 —(1 — e)101
N is the number of components sub
Most National Standards, Codes of thus e = 0.0105
jected to the maximum Ioad intensity.
Practice, manufacturers catalogues, From normal tables, we find that
will quote a value which will be accep Figure 9 shows that both the avera
0.0105 probability corresponds to 2.31
ted as a characteristic strength, but ge strength of the distribution and the
standard deviations from the mean,
which wilI have an exclusion limit diffe standard deviation decrease, when N
thus
rent from 10%. Thus a coefficient ø~ increases.
should be introduced for consistency, The density function of minNR can (10%) minNR = ~ (1 —2.31 x 0.20)
to enable the designer to use the cha be derived by analytical methods of 0.538 R
racteristic strength : R0 (normally quo simulation techniques (Monte-Carlo).
ted by manufacturers) when he needs However since the 10% exclusion limit Consequently
a strength with a (10%) exclusion limit. is of a prime interest in this work it can
be obtained through the following rela 0N = (0.538 Wi 0.742 ~)
(1O%)R = Oc Rc tion: 0.72 (see Table XI)
N°129 ELECTRA 89

The significance 0f this resuit is consider the total number of compo The product øc,øq.Rc which is equi
important : when the maximum intensi nents affected by the same loading valent to (10%) R can be obtained
ty of a ioad “sees” 10 components event, since we obtain virtually the directly from a statistical analysis of
each belonging to a normal density same overail probability of failure. the test results as foilows
function with a coefficient of variation From each test the ratio
of 20% the probability of failure is 5.2.3 Quality level factor
much higher than if this load were to 0f ail the factors affecting the cha test load
see only one component. In order to racteristic strengths of the compo theoretical strength
obtain the same probability of failure in nents, the factor related to quality s
both cases, the normal strength in the probably the most subjective. Whilst
case of 10 components has to be is computed and an estimate of m
most manufacturers and contractors (mean value) or 0m (standard devia
derated by 0.72 (or by 0.92 if VR = ensure a high quality for their products,
0.075) tion) can be made.
there are cases, especially when in an
The same principle applies to insu emergency situation, some compo Thus
lator strings : the mechanical rating of nents/activities cannot be obtained
øc~øq~Rc (10%)R= (m— 1,28 clm) X
an insulator string depends on the from reputable manufacturers! contrac
theoretical strength
number of insulators in the string and tors. In such cases, t s felt that a fac
on the strength dispersion, VR, of insu tor reflecting the quality of ‘services”
lator units. Assuming VR = 5%, a string rendered should affect the strength b2. Foundation strength from theo
of 100 insu lators each rated R0 has to side of the equation. For a proper eva retical formulae
be derated by 0.90 while a string of 7 luation of this factor, statistical data Formulae such as the inverted frus
of the same insulators has to be derat referred to the percentage of rejects tum for predicting uplift strength fall
ed by 0.95. If VR = 15% then the dera would be needed, but, because of the into this category. Many of these for
ting factors 0N becomes respectively emotive aspects of such analysis, both mulae were calibrated and validated
0.67 and 0.84 (difference of 25%) thus CIGRE and IEC Working Groups have by extensive testing. However, experi
highlighting the importance of 0N when agreed some typical values. mental conditions for foundation instal
strength dispersion is high. lation may differ significantiy from
a) Quality level factor for towers conditions during une construction
The question often arises as to
whether the components are in series t was found convenient to use Figu (e.g. difference in compaction, backfill,
composition etc.).
or in.parallel. In the above example the re 2.1 of BS 8100 : Part 1: 1986, from
insulator units of a string are in series, which the following factors could be In this case the product 00R0 can be
but in a multi-string insulator set, they deduced. considered equai to the strength given
are in series-parallel. by the theoretical formulae, while
TABLE Xii. Quality ievel factors related to can be taken from Table XIII.
It is suggested, for the purpose of towers.
design, that Table XI be used for the 5.2.4 Factor for strength coordina
total number of components subjected tion ø~
to the same load intensity, indepen Quality level 0q
dently of series or parallel arrange Transmission line components have
ments, for the following reason —verygood 1.0 different strength dispersion and res
—good 0.92 ponse to loading. In order to limit the
Let us consider 7 components each —average 0.85 consequences of a failure it was found
having a probability of failure of 10-4. desirable to design the system in such
In fact it is suggested that these a way that the reliability of one compo
a) Series system nent would define the reliability of the
values be used for ail overhead une
components except foundations. system, i.e. the reliability of aIl the
Pt=~ P11=7x10~
b) Quality level factor for founda
i.e. probability of failure = sum of pro tions TABLE XIII. Quality ievel factor for founda
babilities of failure. When dealing with foundations, two tions designed according to theoretical for
mulae related te construction quality.
cases may be considered,
b) Parallel system
I) when data is obtained by testing
Quality level 0q
2) when no testing is performed and
only theoretical considerations defi —verygood 1.0
Pf=1—t(1 —Pg) ne the strength of the foundations. —good 0.90
1 —(1 — 10—4)7 —average 0.80
bi. Tested foundations
=6.998x 10=7x 10-4
When specific tests are carried out Definifions:
i.e. probability of failure equals the on the line, and if it can be assumed very good compacted backfill and proper control
complement to one of the products of that these tests are representative of of installation
individual reliabilities. the foundations as installed, then the good: compacted backfiii with only casual
control 0f installation
For our purposes we can ignore the effect of 0q can be assumed to be average: compacted backfill but uncontrolled
arrangements of the components and included in the test resuits. installation
N~ 129 ELECTRA 91

TABLEAU XIV. Valeurs de a et de e~ pour que l’avarie du composant R2 ait lieu après the activities (meetings, discussions,
l’avarie du composant R1 avec une probabilité de 90%. papers etc.) of two Working Groups
TABLE XIV. Values of a and ø~ to ensure that component R2 will faf! after component one from CIGRE Study Committee 22
R1 with a 90% probability. and one from IEC Technical Commit-
tee 11. A complete collaboration has
“P~i 0.05 0.10 0.20 been maintained, each Working Group
anaiysing criticaily the proposais of the
~ ~ ~ ,øs
other, and such collaboration was
0.05 1.1 0.91 1.15 0.81 1.26 0.63 extended to the activities of the Amen
can Society of Civil Engineers whose
0.10 1.16 0.92 1.20 0.83 1.30 0.66
input into such work must be recogni
0.20 1.36 0.93 1.37 0.86 1.46 0.69 sed.
0.30 1.63 0.93 1.63 0.87 1.70 0.71 When the work was started it was
anticipated that complex answers, with
compiicated tables would be needed
other components wouid be greater the towers. There must be some com for a rationai application of the ioa
than that of the first component to fail. peliing, economic reasons to alter this dingfstrength concept for overhead une
coordination of strength. This docu design.
Attempts at quantifying this extent
of the difference in reliability have led ment provides ail the necessary tools The documents (CIGRE, IEC, BSI,
to specific recommendations. Appen to enabie the designer to evaluate the ASCE) when read carefully, shouid
dix 1 “Derivation of Strength Factors” reiiabiiity of his une if a speciai scena provide any specification writer with ail
gives the reasoning, the details and rio of performance is accepted. the mathematicai toois needed for the
the methods for defining and quanti There is an interesting feature resui preparation of a document based on
fying ratios of strength to achieve a ting from a critical analysis of Table the probabilistic approach.
seiected probability that some compo XIV and this is the almost “Constant”
nents are stronger than others. value which couid be adopted for ø,~
Table XIV gives the values of ~ as applied to foundations in the typical ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
(ratio of average strengths) and ø~ to range of values. Although this docu
ensure, with a 90% probability of suc ment accepts a 90% probability, there
cess, that component R2 (coefficient of has been a particular, practicai, case Tribute must be paid not oniy to the
variation = V1~) will be stronger than when a probability of 70% was accep members of WG22-06 iisted at the begin
component R1 (COV = VR1). ted. ning, but aiso to the members who have
activeiy contributed, aithough they have
Thus, if in a baianced design it is A further calibration would iead now withdrawn from, or were not officiai
desired that the tangent towers (VR1 aimost inevitabiy to the suggestion that members of the Working Group; L. Paris
usualiy 0.075) shouid be weaker than a single value could be adopted for the (Itaiy), C. Manuzio (ltaly), M. Cojan
the foundations (V1~ say 0.2) the dera foundations, such as ø~ = 0.85 (say) (France), JG. Paradinas (Spain), H.B.
ting factor on foundation strength for ail foundation types. The point at White (Canada), P. Juul (Denmark), J.C.
should be 0.9. There is a 90% probabi issue being that the principle of dera Pohiman (United States), T.J. Pioeg
lity of success in such a design prin ting “Rc~” of the foundations with res (Netheriands), H. Dos Santos (Portugal)
ciple. pect to the towers is much more rele and many others.
(Note : Reference to the appendix and vant than the accuracy in the value of
in addition, tribute is due to members
to the figures in the appendix will show this derating factor as function of an of Working Group 08 of IEC TCii under
that, theoretically, a 100% confidence anticipated value of VR for the founda the abie chairmanship of E. Ghannoum
can neyer be achieved regarding tions. (Canada); K.V. Boos (Germany); D. de la
strength coordination). Houssaye (France); G. Neher (Switzer
land); G. Orawski (United States), P.
5.2.4.1 Strength factor Ø~ for foun 6. CONCLUSIONS Paoii (ltaly); J.C. Pohiman (United King
dations dom); P. Pincemaffie (France); B. Rhe
It is generaliy accepted that the An attempt has been made to sum bergen (Netheriands); K. Schjetne (Nor
foundations shouid be stronger than marize, in a few pages, the resuits of way); A.B. Wood (United Kingdom).
N° 129 ELECTRA 93

APPENDIX 1
COORDINATION 0F STRENGTHS — DERIVATION 0F STRENGTH FACTORS

INTRODUCTION ‘Yu 0T< 0R R~where 2. SYSTEM DESIGN PRINCIPLES

A transmission une is an assembly 0R = 0q oc and In a system design approach, it can


0f many components in series that be shown that the probability of failure
have variable strength characteristics Yu = use factor coefficient off the ~ system can be equated to
and response to loading. the probabiiity of failure off the weakest
QT= ioad corresponding to a return component Pf1, provided that ail other
The risk of failure of the system can period T
be equated to the risk of failure off the components have a greater reiiability
= factor reiated to strength coordi
weakest component. The failure of one (i.e. smailer probability of faiiure) e.g.
nation
of the components does not cause
= factor related to number N of ~fs = ~f1
equal damage. In order to contain the
components subjected to the cri
effects of a failure, efforts are made to Thus coordination of strengths of
ticai load
establish a predetermined sequence of the various components becomes a
failure. oc = factor related to the probability of necessity if we wish to achieve a rea
exceeding the characteristic
In the IEC document “Loading and sonable une performance.
strength ~ = 1.0 when this pro
strength of overhead transmission babiIity is equai to 90%) Different reliabilities for different
unes” the following strength coordina components in series can be achieved
tion is suggested as a possible solu = factor reiated to the quality level
by appiying calcuiated strength factors
tion, starting with the weakest compo off the component during fabrica
for each component. For convenience,
nent. (see Table) tion and construction
and as an exampie, in this paper,
Other coordinations can be chosen, = global strength factor, product of consideration wiii be given to the
but the principles for deriving strength series tower/foundations when it is
factors would remain unchanged. Ac = characteristic or nominal strength desired to have foundations stronger
In the general (IEC) design equation In the foilowing part of the paper a than the towers.
a factor ø~ is introduced, related 10 the method is considered to derive the fac
preferred sequence of failure. tor o~.
3. TECHNIQUES 0F CALCULATION
0F STRENGTH FACTORS

In order to develop strength factors


Sub-system Components
o~ that will lead to the target sequence
off failure, two methods were conside
suspension tower tower foundation hardware
- -
red.
angle tower tower foundation hardware
- -
a. For the first component to fail, use
dead end tower tower foundation hardware
- - design loads in conjunction with
conductor system conductor insulator hardware
- -
10% exclusion limit. Next compo
nent to fail wiil be designed with a

t)

bld O

O~ =ç~O%)R1 (1O%)R2
(arh. scabe)

échelle arbilrairc a,b. secte


Figure Al.
N°129 ELECTRA 95

lower exclusion limit, say 2%, cor


responding to the same design
loads. 2

b. Establish strength factors in such a


way that the target sequence of fai 2~
lure will be reached with a high level
of confidence (say 90 to 95%).
1•
Method a (see Fig. Ai)
If Ri and R2 are respectively the
1•
first and second component to fail of a
system, the corresponding strength of
component Ri shall be (10%)R1.
Concerning component R2 t will be
designed for the same load but with a
‘higher” strength (or an exclusion limit 1:
of 2%). Note that if the design compo
nent R2 is not designed with coordina
tion of strength, its strength would
have been (iO%)R2.
The tactor ø~ = (2%)R2 / (1 0%)R2
is the tactor related to the sequence of S 10 20 304050607080 9095 9699 99899-9 99.99 °/~

failure.
Figure A4.
This means ø~ = (1 2.054. V(R2)

1(1 1.28. V(R2)). lt s assumed that


the strength follows a normal distribu


tion.
V(R2) coefficient of variation of
= / VL
the strength of component 2.
In this method o5 only depends on
V(R2) and not on V(Ri).
/
Because of that this method is not
always consistent. The probability of
R2> Ri is not consistent.
i~~ 4)t7~ ‘~\ .~ ~ /VLO015

For example:
If V(R2)
But
= 0.10; o~ = 0.91
EE1~ELZ7~%2 ~E° c~ - ~ j // / /_ ~ V~ oO05

(R 21R 1) = a ~ -16V~ / —
= (i—i .28V(Ri)I(i-2.054V(R2)) 12— -~

For V(Ri)= 0.10; P[R2 >R1] = 0.75


V[ S—
S ~
~ .isi~;BABI ITY F
ST~ ‘NGE TH N
OMPON NT L)BEiNG
OMPON IT I L- I
(from eq. 3 or Figure 5) le——-

For V(Ri) = 0.20; P[R2 >R1J = 0.39


(from eq. 3 or Figure 6) —t—
10—20 - 30- 40-54)-64) - 70 —80 —90 — 95 98 99 99-8-999 9999 0/

Therefore CIGRE WG(06) has


recommended method b, which has Figure A5.
not this disadvantage.
achieving the right sequence of failure. Using statistical methods the factor
Method b (see Fig. A2) can be derived for various combina
The following method can be used to
Because components of overhead derive ø~ ratios. tions of V(Ri) and V(R2).
lines have random strengths, it is V(R1), V(R2) coefficient variation of
impossible to guarantee with 100% — Establish the target probability that —

the strength of component 2 ex the strength


confidence that components will fail in
a preferred sequence. We have to ceeds the strength of component 1. The factor ø~ is related to the 10%
accept a Iower probability level that the e.g. probability of R2> Ri = 0.90 or exclusion limit of the strength
strength of one component will exceed F[(A°2 Ri) > 0] = 0.90 = P(sof)

(10%)Ri I(10%)R2
the strength of another one.
Ri, R2 — strength of components
The strength coordination factor ø~ In this method the strength Ri is
depends on the target probability of sof — sequence of failure located with respect to the Ioad curve.
N~ 129 ELECTRA 97

The strength R2 with respect to Ri J3sof = 1.28 or Plsof] = 0.90 as a too small probability (20%, see
etc. Fig.A6)that3failafter2.
The ø~ ratios are calculated (see
Assume that the density function of Table I) Because ø~(3.1) > ø~(2.i) x ø~(3.2)
the strength follows a normal distribu
tion. From mathematical tables the o~(2.i) = 0.86 a(2.i) = 1.37 ø~(3.i) = 0.86 x 0.63 0.54 (This is

reliability index for the preferred o~(3.1)=0.81 a(3.i)=i.15 the value to use n the calculations to
sequence of failure (f3sof) can be deri o~(3.2) = 0.63 0(3.2) = 1.26 achieve 90% probabilities in the coor
ved. o~(2. 1) = ø~ between components 2 and 1 dination of strength).
Let ø5(a, b) as coordination of strength NB: Because components have diffe
I3sof = ~ [P(sof)j rent response Ioadings, care has to be
factor between elements a and b.
e.g. for P[sof] = 0.90 : J3sof = 1.28 taken by comparing the actual strength
We see that a(3.1), by combination ot ot components. For example the dead
P(sof) = 0.98; 13(sof) = 2.054, etc.
coordinations (2.1) is equal to 1.37 x weight has a positive effect on the
1.26 = 1.73 > 1.15 which is the value resistance (strength) of a foundation
R1-R2
f3sof= (1) of direct coordination (3.2). We cannot with uplift piles but not on the strength
accept this value because in this case, of a tower. Thus care and attention
we’ll obtain: must be paid when applying the
o(R1) = V(R1)~Ri a(3.2)= cx(3,1)/a(2.1)= 1.15/1.37=0.84 strength factors.
o(R2) = V(R2)~R2
~1, ~2 = average component
strengths TABLEAU I / TABLE!
Say a= ~2/ Ri (2)
“\~vR1 0 05 0 10 0 20
a-i
~a2t’(R2)2+~4Ri)2 (3) V(R2N~\ O~

Figures A3, A4, A5 show o values


as tunction of PIsofj, preferred for 0.05 1.10 0.91 1.15 0.81 1.26 0.63
selected values of o, V(R2) and V(Ri). 0.10 1.16 0.92 1.20 0.83 1.30 0.66
Furthermore
0.20 1.36 0.93 J.37 0.86 1.46 0.69
(10%) Ri = (Wi) (1— 1.28 V(Ri))
.

0.30 1.63 0.93 1.63 0.87 1.70 0.71


(10%) R2 = (R2) (1 . — 1.28 V(R2))

Dans es figures A3, A4, A5, A6 et A7: In Figures A3, A4, A5, A6, and A7
=(1 0%)R1 = Ri (1. — 1.28 ~4Ai)) RI corresponds ta S1 — 1
~ (i0%)R2 k2 .(i — 1.28 ~4A2)) S~_~> correspond à Ri
S correspond à A2 R2 corresponds toS~
V1 correspond à V~2 v~ corresponds ta V(R2)
V~j_i> correspond à VAl V~ corresponds to V(R 1)
_~ (11.28 ~4Ri)) (4) P[S1> Spi] correspond à PIR2> Ail P)S~ > S~ — ~] corresponds f0 PIR2> RI]
~a (1—1.28 ~‘(R2))

The ø~ ratio can be determined from


(4) after o has been calculated.
In Figures A3, A4, A5, A6 and A7
we have

a9~=(1 /ø~)=[(10%) R2/(10%) Ri]


(ø~)-i

In Table I values of o and ø~ are


given that ensure that component R2
wilI fail after component Ri with 90%
probability.

4. EXAMPLE

Preferred sequence of failure 1 (10%)R1 (10%)R2 (1 0%)R3


tower, 2 foundations, 3 insulators (see ~Carb.scaIe)
Figure A8). échelle arbitraire arb. scale

V(Ri)= 0.10; V(R2)=0.20; V(R3)=0.05; Figure A8.