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
1.1 Rappel historique
Les ingénieurs des lignes partici
pant aux activités internationales de la
CIGRE ont réalisé, il y a vingt ans ou
plus, que les Règlements Nationaux
relatifs aux lignes aériennes man
quaient de cohérence. Même entre
spécialistes, la compréhension n’était
pas toujours facile. Des discussions
approfondies ont montré que des con
cepts tels que : charges de travail,
charges ultimes, coefficients de sécuri
té, contrainte de travail, contrainte
admissible, etc. n’évoquaient pas les
mêmes grandeurs physiques pour tout
le monde. A l’époque, les Comités d’E
tudes de la CIGRE traitant des lignes
aériennes (CE 6 et CE 7) ont donc
décidé de former un nouveau Groupe
de Travail sur les «Coefficients de Sé
curité» (première séance : mars 1961).
Le Groupe de Travail actuel 22.06
sous le nom de «Fiabilité et Sécurité
des Lignes» continue les travaux com
mencés en 1961.
Entre temps, la Commission Elec
trotechnique Internationale (CEI) a
formé le Comité Technique N° 11
«Recommandations pour les lignes
aériennes» au sein duquel plusieurs
Groupes de Travail ont été instaurés
(1973/1974).
Ainsi, pendant plusieurs années, le
Comité d’Etudes 22 de la CIGRE (qui
a hérité des activités des CE 6 et CE
7, et qui les poursuit) et le CT 11 de la
CEI ont suivi des voies parallèles. Par
bonheur, une forte proportion des
membres était commune aux Groupes
de Travail de la CIGRE et de la GEl.
De ce fait, les résultats des travaux au
sein d’une organisation étaient auto
matiquement disponibles à l’autre.
Au sein de la CEI, on en est arrivé à
l’étape ou des rapports ont été publiés
par le Bureau Central, sous le titre de:
«Charges appliquées aux supports de
lignes aériennes».
* 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).
826-1 (1985) Première partie : Gé
— numération des paragraphes de ce
néralités.
826-2 (1985) — Deuxième partie
Charges dues au vent et à la
température.
826-3 (1986) — Troisième partie
Charges spéciales.
826-4 (1987) — Quatrième partie
Charges dues au givre.
Néanmoins, avant même que ces
rapports aient été publiés, on avait
entrepris leur révision pour tenir comp
te des commentaires variés relatifs à
leur présentation et à la technique.
L’effort principal s’est dirigé vers une
évaluation probabiliste du comporte.’
ment des lignes en tenant compte du
nombre de composants affectés par un
événement, du degré d’utilisation des
composants divers, d’une séquence
prédéterminée d’avarie, etc.
Bien que les termes de référence
du Comité Technique (CT) 11 de la
CEI n’aient pas été modifiés, il est
maintenant connu sous le nom de
«Charges et résistance des lignes de
transport aériennes».
En fait, les Documents de la CEI
seront publiés comme des «Rapports»
pour faciliter les travaux des Orga
nismes nationaux qui sont respon
sables de la rédaction de Cahiers des
Charges et de Règlements. A la séan
ce du Comité Technique à Fort Worth
(Etats-Unis) en 1986, il fut décidé qu’il
y aurait quatre parties dans la nouvelle
publication.
Lors d’une séance ultérieure du
Comité Technique à Buenos Aires, en
décembre 1987, on a pris la décision
de les publier en un seul document,
qui contiendrait plusieurs chapitres,
couvrant chacun un aspect particulier.
On a estimé, au sein du Groupe de
Travail 22.06 de la CIGRE, que la
publication, par la CIGRE, d’explica
tions additionnelles faciliterait l’accep
tation des principes décrits dans les
documents CEI. (Il y a lieu de remar
quer qu’il n’y a aucune relation entre la
commentaire et celle des documents
CEI).
1.2 Concepts de base
La plupart des cahiers de charges
pour les lignes aériennes définissent
les charges à appliquer aux compo
sants d’une ligne, ils spécifient des
coefficients de sécurité et font état de
Normes Nationales en ce qui concerne
les matériaux.
La Figure 1 A «approche détermi
—
niste» illustre cette affirmation. Pour
—
les calculs, on accepte l’hypothèse
que la charge a une valeur unique,
bien définie, et qu’il en est de même
pour le composant soumis à cette
charge. L’écart entre la charge et la
résistance représentait, dans le passé,
le «coefficient de sécurité». Les
membres des Groupes de Travail
(CIGRE et CEt) sont maintenant
d’accord de réserver l’expression «fac
teur de sécurité» pour les situations
dans lesquelles des vies humaines
sont en danger.
En fait, dans la réalité, quand la
ligne est construite et soumise aux
influences météorologiques, la charge
sera représentée par une quantité
variable, qu’on pourra exprimer
conventionnellement par une valeur
moyenne (Q ) et par un écart type cr0
(ou un coefficient de variation : VQ [VQ
= (a0/Q )J.
De même, en réalité, la résistance
n’aura pas une valeur unique, et elle
pourra être décrite par une distribution
de densité de résistance (ou le cas
échéant, par une distribution cumulati
ve). Ces distributions nécessitent la
disponibilité de données statistiques.
La figure 1 B illustre ces affirmations. A
ce stade du raisonnement, la sépara
tion entre la valeur moyenne de la
charge et la valeur moyenne de la
résistance est académique.
L’étape suivante du raisonnement
requiert la définition d’une relation
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
Essentially, the IEC Documents wiIl
be issued as “Reports” to help the
work of those National Bodies which
are responsibie for the preparation of
Specifications and Regulations. At a
Technicai Committee meeting in Fort
Worth (USA) in 1986 it was agreed
that there would be four parts in the
new Publication.
At a subsequent meeting of the
Technical Committee in Buenos Aires
in December 1987, the decision was
made to publish them ail in a single
document, with several chapters, each
covering a particular aspect.
it was felt within CIGRE 22.06 that a
publication, by C1GRE, of additional
explanations would heip in a national
acceptance of the principles outlined in
the documents. it must be noted that
the paragraph numbering in this com
mentary bears no relation to the num
bering in the IEC documents.
1.2 Basic concepts
Most overhead line regulations
define the loads to be applied to the
elements of the une, they specify fac-
tors of safety and refer to National
Standards so far as materials are
concerned.
Figure lA, the so-calied “determi
nistic approach” iliustrates this state
ment. It is assumed, for design pur
poses, that the load has a unique,
defined, value and so has the strength
of the component subjected to this
load. The separation between the load
and the strength was usuaily referred
to, in the past, as “factor of safety”. it
has now been agreed by Working
Group members (CIGRE and IEC) that
the expression “factor of safety” would
only be used when human ives are at
stake.
in real terms, when the une is
constructed and subjected to meteoro
iogical influences, the ioad will be a
variable quantity, conventionaliy
expressed by a mean value (Q) and a
standard deviation YQ (coefficient of
variation VQ)[VQ= (cr0/Q)]
Similariy, the strength in real life will
not have a unique value, but it can be
described by a density (or cumulative)
strength distribution. Both distributions
require a knowledge of statisticai data.
Figure 1 B is an illustration of this state
ment. At this stage, the separation bet
ween the mean values of load and
strength is immaterial.
ELECTRA
The next step in the reasoning pro
cess is the relationship between these
two distributions (Figure 1G). As a
result of many discussions, calcula
tions, reasoning, graph plotting etc. it
has been agreed, for inclusion in IEC
documents, that the loads would be
related to a return period of an event
(50, 150 or 500 years) and that the
strength wouid be accepted as that
which gives 90% probabiiity of being
achieved. Then, the area under the
two overlapping curves is calculable,
and the reliability can be assessed.
This is the probabilistic approach.
However, it must be stated from the
outset, that the designer wili be given a
deterministic value of load which he
will compare with a deterministic value
of strength, but the “specification wri
ter” will have a fair knowledge of the
reliability of the overail design, becau
se he knows the coefficients of varia
tion of the load and of the strength.
This probabilistic approach to de
sign has other inter-linked features:
1. ut s unfortunate that reliability which
is defined as probability of survival
is inseparable from risk (or probabi
lity of failure). The area under the
overlapping portions of the curves s
a measure of the risk (P~~ and the
complement to one is the reliability
= 1—
2. By designing components in such a
way that there is a probability that
some of them are stronger than the
other a co-ordination of strengths
can be achieved, and the reiiability
of the une wili be that of the weakest
component.
in order to avoid confusion, speciai
attention should be given to the iaws
used for the calculation of risk, in order
to differentiate between:
— une failure and component (e.g.
tower) failure
— climatic event causing a iocalised
failure and the extent of the failure
(i.e. number of components affected
by the event)
It may be appropriate at this stage
to recall the three basic definitions
which have been accepted:
Reliability (structurai) is the probability
that a system performs a given task,
under a set of conditions, during a spe
cified time. Reuiabiuity is thus a measu
re of the success of a system in
accomplishing its task.
67
Security (structural) is the ability of a
system to be protected from a major
collapse (cascading effect) if a failure
is triggered in a given component.
Security is a deterministic concept as
opposed to reuiability which is a proba
bilistic concept.
Safety (structural) is the ability of a
system not to cause human injuries or
ioss of lives. in these documents, safe
ty relates mainly to protection of wor
kers during construction and mainte
nance operations. The safety of the
public should be covered by National
Regulations.
The purpose of this paper, together
with the 1EC documents is to acquaint
the reader with the tools which are
available and which can be used to
satisfy specific requirements.
1.3 ParaIlel activities
The need for the publication of
documents explaining the probabilistic
approach to design is best illustrated
by the numerous papers which have
been written on the subject of
load/strength reiationships. Aiso, seve
raI countries have already attempted to
prepare codes of practice incorpora
ting the concepts of reliability and
security.
a) In the United Kingdom
The following documents are alrea
dy available from the
British Standards institution:
1. BS 8100 : Part 1 -1986 : Lattice
towers and masts Part 1 : Code of
-
practice for loading
2. BS 8100 : Part 2 1986 : Lattice
-
towers and masts Part 2 : Guide to
-
the background and use of Part 1
Code of practice for loading”
3. DD 133 : 1986 -Draft for
deveiopment code of practice for
strength assessment of members of
lattice towers and masts
Essentially these documents are
applicable for the design or appraisal
of free standing tower structures of lat
tice construction. They include speciai
chapters on overhead unes. The Work
ing Group members of CIGRE and IEC
have taken cognisance of the British
documents.
b) In the United States
The American Society of Civil Engi
neers (ASCE), through its “Committee
on Eiectrical transmission Structures”
has prepared a document “Guideiines
 N°129
for transmission une structural loading”
which is available as a draft.
Working Group 22.06 has carried
out a comparison of the UK and USA
documents with IEC documents as to
their contents and as to the resuits
obtained by the application.
They have the following aspects in
common:
i) they accept a distribution of loads
(Gumbel type 1),
ii) they accept that the strength can be
represented by a distribution (usual
ly Gaussian),
iii) the resultant risk is calculated in the
same way,
iv) the load applied to a component is
function of the response of that
component,
However, they differ in other
aspects:
i) the averaging times for wind speeds
are different e.g.
IEC : 10 minutes
8S8100:1 hour
ASCE : fastest mile
ii) the reference reliabilities are diffe
rent,
iii) there is another important difference
between the objectives of IEC and
ASCE. IEC proposes to control the
reliability of an entire line, whereas
ASCE limits its goal to the control of
the reliability of structural compo
nents in the line,
iv) etc.
The conclusions of the Working
Group are that any document could be
used since the differences resulting
from their applications are unlikely to
be critical. However the main point to
emphasize is that each document is
coherent in itself and the temptation to
use only parts of each should be resis
ted, unless dealing with general
mathematical principles.
2. RELIABILITY LEVELS
2.1 Background
The IEC documents are based on
the assumption that neither the loads
applied to an overhead transmission
line, nor the strength of its component
have single values, and are best des
cribed by distribution functions. Howe
ver, it is implicitly accepted, that after
statistical analysis of data and applica
ELECTRA
tion of probabilistic techniques, the
design engineer will use discrete
values of loads and strengths.
2.2 Loads (Wind effects)
The knowledge of extreme loads is
connected with the statistical know
ledge of meteorological phenomena
giving rise to these load effects (tem
perature, wind, ice...).
Extreme loads are associated with
“return periods” and the greater the
return period, the higher the loads.
The return period, largely due to
Gumbel, is defined as the time interval
between phenomena whose intensity
exceeds a selected level. In fact, the
IEC documents accept that loading
effects are best described by Gumbel’s
first law of extremes (see Figure 2).
It can be proved mathematically that
the probability that a level “X”, of an
event X, will be exceeded in any one
year is given by the relationship
P(X>x)—(1 / 7)
where Tis the return period.
Corresponding to this return period
ot an event, there is a level QT of loa
ding.
In order to obtain the mathematical
laws expressing wind speeds (or wind
loads, or any other type of weather
related phenomenon) statistical tech
niques are used and it should be
remembered that a margin of confiden
ce is bound to be the best estimate.
For instance, in Canada, when evalua
ting the 50 year annual maximum wind
speed, the range for 95% confidence
was of the order of 18 to 21%. Conver
sely, for 95% confidence the range of
return periods corresponding to a cho
sen maximum annual wind speed was
also quite large.
If a line component was subjected
to a load Q7~ mentioned earlier, and if
this line component had a s~rength
exactly equal to QT (withstand up to
~T, failure beyond QT), the annual pro
bability of failure should be (1 /7).
Gumbel’s law giving the annual pro
bability that a maximum load QTwillbe
exceeded, when the mean load is Q
and the standard deviation is o~ is
expressed specifically by:
(1 /7)=P[Q>QT]=1 -F(QT)
i.e. F(QT)=[l—(1 /7)1
69
or if we represent °T’ the general
variable, by x, we can write generally:
F(x)=[1 —(1/7)) (1)
Where F(x) is the cumulative distri
bution function of Iargest (maximum)
extreme values. t is also referred to as
Fisher Tippet Type 1 (Gumbel) distri
—
bution and is expressed generally as:
F(x) = e_e_z exp. [—exp. (—z)] (2)
Where
z=(C1/G)[x—.~+cY(C2/C1)]
= mean value of distribution
o= standard deviation
C1, C2 = Gumbels law coefficients
V~ = coefficient of variation of variable x
[Note that the distribution of smal
/est (minimum) extreme values is:
F(x) = e~e~ = exp. [— exp. (z)] (3)]
The IEC documents contain several
tables for the calculation of the maxi
mum value of a loading event as func
tion of the average value of observed
data, for various levels of reliability. In
practice, the availability of a more
general table of coefficients would be
useful.
From equations (1) and (2) by trans
formation, we obtain:
~ (4)
Ci C1~ L “ Tu
If2~=(_1n[—1n(1 _.~)])
(5)
ci
=11 Vx (6)
cl
If we denote by XT the value of x
corresponding to a return period 7
then
v~ (7)
ci
C1 and C2 are coefficients whose
values depend on the number (N) of
available observations. Typical values
applicable to overhead line design are
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
reliability assessment, it is the load
due to the wind which must be consi
dered in its interaction with the
strength of the loaded component.
Now, the load due to the wind is
proportional to the square of wind velo
city. t has been found that the distribu
tion of wind loads does not follow the
same law as the distribution of wind
speeds.
However, the reliability has been
calculated by accepting loads to follow
Gumbel law. The errors in so doing are
negligible, since only the area under
the tails is of importance. Various
attempts at increasing the mathemati
cal accuracy 0f the models have
shown that the reference format was
quite adequate, and had the advanta
ge of easy hand ling.
2.7 Relative reliabilities
On the basis of the statements
made in the previous paragraphs,
Table VA can be prepared to give rela
CCV = 0.2 (VT/VSo) 1 1.114 1.234
(VT”~50>2 1 1.240 1.523
tivities in wind speeds and wind pres document for the probabilistic design
sures. of overhead lines : “Guidelines for
It will be seen that for a COV of transmission me structural loading”.
16%, the selection of reliability level Il Instead of declaring reliability levels,
or III instead of I corresponds to the the ASCE document introduces the
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
dence would apply:
greater.
The impact on cost of the choice of IEC Level ASCE Values of G
a different reliability level can therefore 1.0
be estimated. 3.0
Another way to consider Table V is III 10.0
to compare failure probabilities. Thus
level III has a yearly probability of failu 2.8 Une reliability versus compo
re of io—~ whereas level I has a yearly nents reliability
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
10—2 / iO—~ = 10 times more reliable matic loadings requires the availability
than level I. of suitable statistical models describing
In fact, in the United States, the load and strength of the line as a
ASCE has been working on a new whole.
 N°129
If load and strength distribution
functions are derived for single compo
nents then the output reliability applies
to this component (e.g. ASCE model);
while if the same functions are derived
for a whoie line, the output reliability is
a line reliability (IECITCII model).
It is flot easy to establish relation
ships between component and line
reliabilities without previously having
laid down correlations between ioad
and strength of components.
Depending on this degree of
correlation, the probability of failure of
a line comprising (N) towers can vary
between the probability of failure of a
single tower to Ntimes this value.
Thus, starting with components
reliability, it will be difficult to estimate
the overall reliability of a une due to the
fact that a une is a series system
where the failure of any major compo
nent will lead to the loss of current car
rying capabiiity (failure).
For example let us consider two
unes, 100 km long each, having both
suffered 20 tower failures in the past
10 years. Obviously, both unes show
an equivalent tower failure rate (0.2
tower/year/lOOkm) and the same relia
bility from the point of view of this com
ponent. However if tower failures of
the first line ail occurred due to one
storm event while ail failures of the
second une occurred at different times
and due to different storms, then
obviously the second une is much less
reliable, in terms of system reliability,
than the first one.
2.9 Absolute and relative reliabilities
Calculations of the reliability of a
transmission une as a system requires
input on:
a) Statistics of climatic variables in the
space covered by the une.
b) Transfer functions from climatic
variables to loads on une compo
nents.
c) Statistics of component strengths.
The accuracy of the calculated relia
bility depends on whether aIl signifi
cant variables have been considered
n the calculations and whether ade
quate data are available for these
variables.
Thus, the reliability values obtained
with the methods discussed in this
document can differ from real values.
Some assumptions may lead to
underestimating the actual reliability
ELECTRA
(calculated reliabiuity less than real
value) such as:
— Assuming that use factor of compo
nents (specially the weakest) is
100%
Assuming that extreme wind speed
—
is at right angle to the line
Other factors can lead to overesti
mating the reliability, such as:
— Neglecting the spatial coverage of
critical storm events
— Neglecting the risk of failure of com
ponents which are not designed as
weakest in the system.
— Neglecting (or not being able to
detect) localised topographical wea
ther effects in the une.
— Assuming that a weather station
always records the maximum load
intensity in a given space.
In cases where loading and strength
data are scarce, it is not possible to
calculate precise values of reliability
and the only possible outcome ot cal
culations would be a comparison of
relative reliabilities between unes desi
gned for the same conditions.
In view of ail these considerations, it
is now proposed, in the IEC Docu
ments, to refer to reliability levels by
the return periods of the loads.
ut is important to be reminded that
lack of strength and loading data
equally affects the confidence in deter
ministic design methods, although this
fact is not openly recognised in these
methods.
2.10 Strength data of towers
There is one aspect on which mem
bers of the Working Groups are not un
animous, and this concerns the coeffi
cient of variation of tower strength.
ut is clear from the previous para
graphs that the COV of strength plays
a considerable role in the evaluation of
the risk of failure. In the IEC docu
ments this value has been accepted as
7.5% on the basis of tests performed
on lattice structures by members of the
Working Group on Towers of the
CIGRE Study Committee on Overhead
unes. The values were found to lie bet
ween 5 and 10 or 12.5%. A value of
7.5% s therefore accepted as a refe
rence in most calculations.
However, the homogeneous popula
tion of tested towers is very small.
There will always be some uncertainty
in the selected value, especially if one
77
remembers the randomness in the
quality of steel, in the quauity ot manu
facture, in the design expertise etc.
Working Group 8 on Towers has this
point on its agenda.
Be it as t may, the opinion of the
Working Group 6 of CIGRE SC22 is
that the technique is correct and can
be applied with confidence. There are
already many reports that the IEC
Reports are being used by many coun
tries. The performance of unes desi
gned according to these principles,
should prove useful in calibrating the
theoretical results.
The “Specification writer” should be
aware of the strength of the technique,
but he should aiso be conscious of the
weakness o! some data.
3. SECURITY LEVELS
Security is defined as the ability o! a
system to be protected from a major
collapse (cascading effect) if a failure
is triggered in a given component.
Security is a deterministic concept as
opposed to reliability which is a proba
bilistic concept.
Possibly, a simple example will help
to appreciate the differenôe between
reliability and security.
A case has been cited that in a
“power corridor”, there were three unes
in parallel with a separation equivalent
to the “falling height” of a tower. The
three lines were designed for the same
normal loading conditions (intact sys
tem), but the first une was designed for
fairly high longitudinal loads. The
second line was designed for modera
te longitudinal loads, and for the third
line, longitudinal loads were practically
ignored. After several years of opera
tion, the three unes were affected by a
localised storm. There were no failures
in the first une, the second une lost
approximately two towers, but some
twenty towers were damaged on the
third une.
Those unes had the same reliability,
but different levels of security.
The selection of a level of security is
a matter of economics.
The analysis of causes and effects
of failures may already Iead to a selec
tion of strength co-ordination.
The Working Group also feels that
security loadings should not control the
design (or dimensioning) of the com
 N° 129
ponents 0f a structure or of a system
otherwise the main objectives of quan
tified reliability could well be altered.
Generally, a reasonable equilibrium
must be found to satisfy the require
ments of reliabNity, security and safety.
Overdesigning to satisfy security crite
ria means increased initial costs
applied to the whole une, whereas
underdesigning implies increased
maintenance or repair costs in case of
failure. The decision will tax the expe
rience of the designer.
4. DESIGN APPROACH
In the design process, the following
condition must be checked:
Load effect < strength or
‘YLJQT < 4RR0
i.e. load factor x limit load < strength
factor x characteristic strength
Thus, in order to quantify reliability
levels, consideration must be given to
limit values for loads and for strengths.
4.1 Limit states for materials
Until now, most design offices use a
single value of strength (or design
stress) with little awareness 0f the dis
persion of strength 0f the materials.
Depending on national codes or natio
nal practices, use is made of minimum
yield stress, maximum permissible
working stresses etc. Generally
stresses used for design are ili-defi
ned.
The analysis of the performance 0f
a line as a system, leads to the accep
tance 0f two limit states for materials
or components
a lower damage limit
—
a higher failure limit
—
Practically, it would be possible to
use either limit value provided that
adequate coefficients are judiciously
selected and applied. The suggestion
in the IEC documents are reasonable
and justifiable, but some time may
elapse before the damage and failure
limits are generally used.
In fact this practice has always been
introduced in the Standards of some
countries, where allowable stresses
are used under normal Ioading condi
tions and yield stresses are used for
abnormal loading conditions (allowable
stress <yield stress).
ELECTRA
4.2 Characteristic strength
It has been agreed to define the
characteristic strength R0 as the
value guaranteed in appropriate stan
dards. This value is also called the
guaranteed strength, the minimum
strength, the minimum failing load or
the nominal strength, and usually cor
responds to an exclusion limit from 2
to 5%.
To permit a real understanding be
tween engineers from various parts of
the world, it would be useful if the mini
mum guaranteed strength was defined
as that corresponding to a specific
exclusion percentage from a batch.
4.3 Co-ordination of strengths
In paragraph 2.5 it was stated that
the GOy of strengths in the range 0.05
to 0.125 were important, because, typi
cally this is the range of CCV for
towers (a GOy of 0.075 is fairly repre
sentative). Although it was stated that
the reliability of a line was [1 (1/27)],
—
in fact the assumption was already
made, intentionally, that one compo
nent would be weaker than another. A
careful inspection of Figure 5 will show
that the probability of failure, hence the
reliability, of different components sub
jected to the same load is not the
same. The ambition of a designer is to
achieve a given reliability for a given
ength of overhead line. The concept of
sequential failures achieved by a co
ordination of strength of the various
components attempts to reach this
objective.
If it were possible to ensure that the
probability 0f failure of one component
is very much less than that 0f another
component, the reliability 0f a system
would be expressed by the reliability of
the weakest component. (Table VI)
On the basis 0f many considera
tions, the following sequence has been
accepted, starting from the weakest
component.
The above strength coordination
can be applied to most lines, but there
can be some situations where different
criteria could be applied and thus lead
to another sequence of failures. The
principles in the IEC documents and in
this commentary are sufficiently gene
raI for application for such different cri
teria. In the following paragraphs it
shall be assumed that the suspension
tower is the component to fail first.
79
5. GENERAL DESIGN EQUATION
YuQT< ~RRc
with çb~ = ~c ~N øq 4~S
where
= use factor coefficient applied to
load
Or = load corresponding to return per
iod Tor selected by calibration or
experience if data is not avai
lable. This is the limit load for
design purposes.
= global strength factor
R0 = characteristic or nominal strength
4= correction factor referred to the
exclusion limit of material
strength.
= factor related to the number N of
components subjected to the cri
tical load.
Çbq = factor related to the quality level
of the component during fabrica
tion and construction.
= factor related to co-ordination of
strength.
5.1 Use factor coefficient applied
to Ioad
There has been Iengthy discussions
both inside and outside the Working
Groups to decide whether a factor was
needed on the loading side of the
equation.
Finally the opinion prevailed that,
since aIl towers were not fully and
equally loaded, it would be more logi
cal to be able to influence the loading
part of the equation.
5.1.1 Effect of span dispersion on
reliability (Beta curves)
In most transmission lines, towers
are not custom designed for each loca
tion and one or two tangent towers are
used to fit in a large array of weight
and wind spans, most of which are
shorter than the maximum design
spans.
The fact that many towers throu
ghout a transmission line are not used
at their maximum design spans has
definitely a positive effect on reliability
which has not been quantified in ear
lier studies.
In order to assess the effect of span
variation on reliability, the first step is
to find a suitable model to this variable
and then use statistical techniques
previously described in order to calcu
late its influence on probability of failu
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
function (r,.) which is available either in
tabular form, or must be calculated by
computer. It is worth noting that if the
Beta function is used in a statistical
process such as the Monte Carlo tech
nique, the function U can be tabulated
directly.
Use factor variation was found to
have predictable patterns and statisti
cal parameters U, u~, could be known Figure 7.
with sufficient accuracy if the number
of tangent tower, tower types, terrain
and spotting constraints are known.* o~ are given. Note that LT can be
In Tables VII and VIII typical avera derived from the design criteria cf tan
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
Average span
max design weight span
Furthermore, t was found that three
variables have a large infiuence on the
statistical parameters of U and o~
(mean value and standard deviation):
1. Number of tangent tower types
2. Terraiti type
3. Constraints on tower locations
Based on the analysis of available
data as well as on experience, a set of
statistical parameters of U and o~ are
proposed. (Tables VII and VIII).
5.1.2 Use factor coefficient 2’~,
In order to calculate the reliability of
a line, it is necessary to combine the
random variables of “Q” (load) and uti
lisation (“U”). Hence, the advantage of
having a mathematical model for the
function “U”. The influence of “U” will
be allowed for in the fundamental relia
bility equation by a coefficient u.
5.1.2.1 Definition of Tu
In practice, the reliability condition
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:
Ai Terrain plat; pas de contrainte
Bi Terrain vallonné, pas de contrainte
A2 Terrain plat; contraintes sur l’emplace
ment des pylônes
B2 Terrain valonné; contraintes sur l’empla
cement des pylônes
Ci Montagnes; pas de contrainte
C2 Montagnes; contraintes sur l’emplace
ment des pylônes
In order to compute the effect of the
use factor on either Ioad reduction or
strength increase, the statistical para
meters of the new variable Q’ = Q x U
are established based on variables Q
and U.
The design load corresponding to a
return period T can now be obtained
from the probability density function of
Q’with a yearly probability of (1/7); this
design oad is called ~‘T as shown in
Figure 8.
Consequently the dispersion has an
effect of shifting the load curve Q to
the left. The ratio (Q’T’QT) quantifies
the influence of the factor and is called
~ (use factor coefficient).
Le. r~ = (Q’l-/QT)
Ai Flat terrain; no constraints
Bi Rolling, hilly terrain; no constraints
A2 Flat terrain; constraints on tower loca
tions
B2 Rolling, hilly terrain; constraints on
tower locations
Ci Mountains; no constraints
C2 Mountains; constraints on tower loca
tions
If alternatively, the analysis had
been performed on the basis of Q <
(AlU) the influence of U would have
been to displace the cumulative curve
R to the right, (thus obtaining R’ =
(R/L.~).
5.1.2.2 Calculation 0f ~; wind Ioa
ding case (y~)
a) Procedure
— Start with a given function 0f wind
speed W (assume Gumbel func
tion), where : V~= 0.12; 0.16; 0.20
(CDV of wind speed).
— Consider different cases of use fac
tor curve (assume Beta function),
where: U =0.9Setuu=O.O5; U =
0,85 et Ujj= 0,10; etc.
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
applied loads Q’ = W2U. This can
be done by Monte-carlo simulation
or by numerical integration. For
small values of o~ approximate
methods can be used.
— Calculate Q50 from Q = i4~2 (using
Gumbel tables), this is the load
without the effect of use factor.
— Calculate Q’SO from new curve Q’ =
W2U this is the load including the
influence of use factor.
— The use factor coefficient y~ is cal
culated from the ratio (Q’501Q50).
b) Numerical example
Input: W~= 1.0; V~= 0.12 (Gumbel)
U =0.85; o~=0.10(Beta)
Calculations:
w50= ItT(1 + 2.592 V~)
(from para 2.2)
Q50= Kx W2sc= 1,72 K
(where K= is a constant)
Calculate the probability density
function of Q’= W2U.
From the new Q’ curve, we obtain
Q’50 = K x 1.48 (value obtained by
numerical integration).
Thus)~,=l.48I<=0.86
1.72 K
(Note This exercise was repeated for
T= 150, 500 years as well as for V~,,=
0.16 and 0.20. AIl resulting values of
were found to be in the range of
0.86 to 0.89).
5.1.2.3 Etfect 0f num ber of towers
Ofl lu
When the maximum intensity of a
climatic load event covers a large
number of towers (~, the impact of
use factor dispersion is now changed:
If strength dispersion is very low or
can be neglected, then the most criti
cally oaded tower amongst the N
towers will be the one having the lar
gest span (or use factor). In order to
find Yu (with N towers), we have to
consider in previous calculation a new
curve : minNU.
When N is very large and strength
dispersion is assumed negligible, ru
closeto 1.0.
The physical explanation of Yu
increasing up to 1.0 is simple : if the
maximum intensity of a loading event
covers a large space, then it will likely
“see” the tower having the longest
span.
As indicated, the above conclusions
can be made only if the strength dis
persion of towers is neglected compa
red to that of spans. However in well
optimized lines, the use factor disper
sion could be Iow and ii is important to
establish the joint effect of use factor
and strength dispersion.
Two methods have been used for
this purpose and were found to lead to
similar results : the first one using the
general relation QU < R and the
second Q < (Alu). We shail detail
hereafter the second method.
The strength used in design equa
The numerator in the above equa
tion will be disciissed in connection
with the factor çt~ related to the num
ber of components affected by the criti
cal load (chapter 5.2.2). The denomi
nator can be obtained by the same
methods, either by simulation or by
numerical integration. Table IX outlines
some results obtained by Monte-Carlo
simulation.
From Table IX we notice that ~ s
almost constant (it increases very
slightly) for different values of N. This
result can be explained by the fact that
the tower having the largest span is
not necessarily the one with the lowest
strength : strength dispersion and
spans are two independent random
variables.
In order to better illustrate the calcu
lations of this table, let us try an
approximate method to derive yj~,
when:
W’=i.o, vR=lo%;U=O,95,
cru= 0.05 (Vu” 0.053)
N= 10
— (10%) minNR = 0.77 (by the method
later explained in 5. 2. 2).
— In order to calculate (10%)
minN(RIU), we have to calculate the
statistical parameters of R’ = (RIU).
R’ = (AlU) = (1.0 I 0.95) = 1.053
V~=(~R+ V~~)~2
= (0.102 + 0.0532)1/2

e) Approximate method : using the
method of central moments
Q’=kl’~x IT=1.02x0.85=0.85
~f~Q= (2V~ + V2~= 0.0576 + 0.01 38
VQ’= 0.267
Q’50 (T = 50 years) = Q’ with a 2%
probability. It is equal to 2.054 stan
dard deviations from mean value of
normal curves.
Q’50 = 0.85 (1 ÷ 2.054 x 0.267) = 1.32
Q’50 (T= 50 years) without the effect
of U:
Q=W2
Q=1.0; VQ=2x0.l2=O.24
tion is (10%)R. With the influence of = 0.113
use factor, this value becomes (10%)
(R/U). With N towers subjected to
maximum load intensity, the design With N = 10, the 10% exclusion limit
strength becomes (10%) minN (RIU). corresponds to 2.31 standard devia
tions (see chapter 5.2.2) therefore:
Thus the influence of use factor can
be quantified by: (10%)minNR’= W’(l —2.31 V’R)
1.053(1 —2.31 x 0.113)
yu[(10~) minNRI[(10%) minN(RIU)]
0.78
TABLEAU IX. Valeurs de ~ en fonction de iT et N pour VA = 10%.
TABLE IX. Values of’y~ as a function of (T and N for VA = 10%.
N
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
= (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
dispersion of use factor is low. Table X
summarizes the resu lts of ru.
As discussed earlier, span disper
sion can either increase strength by a
factor of (t’Yu) or decrease applied
loads by ru• The values of y~ if taken
equal to 1.0 during the design of
towers, will lead to a higher reliability
than expected.
In cases where towers being desi
gned could be used in different trans
mission unes where use factors can
vary, it could be acceptable to use as a
conservative value, the highest 2’u or
even 2’u = 1.0 which will lead to some
over-design. In the latter case, it is
advisable to re-check the coordination
of strength which may now be altered.
For angle towers, dead end towers,
section towers, i.e. for towers which
would help in reducing cascading
effects (increasing security) it is sug
gested in aIl cases that 2’u 1.
5.2 Total strength factor OR
0RC0N0q0S
5.2.1 Characteristic strength fac
tor :0~
For reliability assessment, the load
is compared with the 10% exclusion
limit of strength.
Most National Standards, Codes of
Practice, manufacturers catalogues,
will quote a value which will be accep
ted as a characteristic strength, but
which wilI have an exclusion limit diffe
rent from 10%. Thus a coefficient ø~
should be introduced for consistency,
to enable the designer to use the cha
racteristic strength : R0 (normally quo
ted by manufacturers) when he needs
a strength with a (10%) exclusion limit.
(1O%)R = Oc Rc
ELECTRA 87
dS Or 00 OOIOI’I?≥ r~ .4
Figure 9. Densité de probabilité pour N composants en série.
Figure 9. Probability density function for N components in series.
Exclusion probability of Ncomponents =
The average value of strength ~ s
only used as an intermediate stage in 1 — (1 exclusion probability of one
—
the calculations: component)N
Thus (10%)R= W(1 l.28VR), by
—
or eN=1_(1_e)N
definition and generally if
This equation is used to derive
R0=(e%)R=P,(1 —K0VR)
strength coefficients 0N of Table Xl for
andø0 =[(10%)R/R0] different coefficients of variation and
=[(1 —1,28 VR)I(l —KCVR)] number of components. In this Table
0N is set equal to the ratio
Hence for towers when e = 10; K0 =
1.28, øc = 1.0 and typically: 0N [(10%) minNR/ (10%)RJ
Conductors, earthwire : K0 = 1.28;
VR = O.03; 1.0 and R is assumed to fit a normal den
sity function.
Insulators, hardware : K0 = 3;
VR=O.OS;.~.oC=l.l For example, let us calculate 0N for
N=l0and VR=2O%.
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
the same Ioad : 0N lity corresponds to 1.28 standard
When the maximum intensity of a deviations from the mean, thus
load event ~T affects a large number
of components, failure wiII be triggered (10%) R — ~ (1 — 1.28 x 0.20) = 0.744 ~
by the weakest link (or component).
Assuming that the strength of compo We can find the exclusion limit e
nents are not correlated, the mathema when N= 10 and eN= 0.10:
tical expression of the strength distri
bution R now becomes minNR where 0.10 = [1 —(1 — e)101
N is the number of components sub
thus e = 0.0105
jected to the maximum Ioad intensity.
From normal tables, we find that
Figure 9 shows that both the avera
0.0105 probability corresponds to 2.31
ge strength of the distribution and the
standard deviations from the mean,
standard deviation decrease, when N
thus
increases.
The density function of minNR can (10%) minNR = ~ (1 —2.31 x 0.20)
be derived by analytical methods of 0.538 R
simulation techniques (Monte-Carlo).
However since the 10% exclusion limit Consequently
is of a prime interest in this work it can
be obtained through the following rela 0N = (0.538 Wi 0.742 ~)
tion: 0.72 (see Table XI)
N°129
The significance 0f this resuit is
important : when the maximum intensi
ty of a ioad “sees” 10 components
each belonging to a normal density
function with a coefficient of variation
of 20% the probability of failure is
much higher than if this load were to
see only one component. In order to
obtain the same probability of failure in
both cases, the normal strength in the
case of 10 components has to be
derated by 0.72 (or by 0.92 if VR =
0.075)
The same principle applies to insu
lator strings : the mechanical rating of
an insulator string depends on the
number of insulators in the string and
on the strength dispersion, VR, of insu
lator units. Assuming VR = 5%, a string
of 100 insu lators each rated R0 has to
be derated by 0.90 while a string of 7
of the same insulators has to be derat
ed by 0.95. If VR = 15% then the dera
ting factors 0N becomes respectively
0.67 and 0.84 (difference of 25%) thus
highlighting the importance of 0N when
strength dispersion is high.
The question often arises as to
whether the components are in series
or in.parallel. In the above example the
insulator units of a string are in series,
but in a multi-string insulator set, they
are in series-parallel.
It is suggested, for the purpose of
design, that Table XI be used for the
total number of components subjected
to the same load intensity, indepen
dently of series or parallel arrange
ments, for the following reason
Let us consider 7 components each
having a probability of failure of 10-4.
a) Series system
Pt=~ P11=7x10~
i.e. probability of failure = sum of pro
babilities of failure.
b) Parallel system
Pf=1—t(1 —Pg)
1 —(1 — 10—4)7
=6.998x 10=7x 10-4
i.e. probability of failure equals the
complement to one of the products of
individual reliabilities.
For our purposes we can ignore the
arrangements of the components and
ELECTRA
consider the total number of compo
nents affected by the same loading
event, since we obtain virtually the
same overail probability of failure.
5.2.3 Quality level factor
0f ail the factors affecting the cha
racteristic strengths of the compo
nents, the factor related to quality s
probably the most subjective. Whilst
most manufacturers and contractors
ensure a high quality for their products,
there are cases, especially when in an
emergency situation, some compo
nents/activities cannot be obtained
from reputable manufacturers! contrac
tors. In such cases, t s felt that a fac
tor reflecting the quality of ‘services”
rendered should affect the strength
side of the equation. For a proper eva
luation of this factor, statistical data
referred to the percentage of rejects
would be needed, but, because of the
emotive aspects of such analysis, both
CIGRE and IEC Working Groups have
agreed some typical values.
a) Quality level factor for towers
t was found convenient to use Figu
re 2.1 of BS 8100 : Part 1: 1986, from
which the following factors could be
deduced.
TABLE Xii. Quality ievel factors related
towers.
Quality level 0q
—verygood 1.0
—good 0.92
—average 0.85
In fact it is suggested that these
values be used for ail overhead une
components except foundations.
b) Quality level factor for founda
tions
When dealing with foundations, two
cases may be considered,
I) when data is obtained by testing
2) when no testing is performed and
only theoretical considerations defi
ne the strength of the foundations.
bi. Tested foundations
When specific tests are carried out
on the line, and if it can be assumed
that these tests are representative of
the foundations as installed, then the
effect of 0q can be assumed to be
included in the test resuits.
89
The product øc,øq.Rc which is equi
valent to (10%) R can be obtained
directly from a statistical analysis of
the test results as foilows
From each test the ratio
test load
theoretical strength
is computed and an estimate of m
(mean value) or 0m (standard devia
tion) can be made.
Thus
øc~øq~Rc (10%)R= (m— 1,28 clm) X
theoretical strength
b2. Foundation strength from theo
retical formulae
Formulae such as the inverted frus
tum for predicting uplift strength fall
into this category. Many of these for
mulae were calibrated and validated
by extensive testing. However, experi
mental conditions for foundation instal
lation may differ significantiy from
conditions during une construction
(e.g. difference in compaction, backfill,
composition etc.).
In this case the product 00R0 can be
considered equai to the strength given
by the theoretical formulae, while
to can be taken from Table XIII.
5.2.4 Factor for strength coordina
tion ø~
Transmission line components have
different strength dispersion and res
ponse to loading. In order to limit the
consequences of a failure it was found
desirable to design the system in such
a way that the reliability of one compo
nent would define the reliability of the
system, i.e. the reliability of aIl the
TABLE XIII. Quality ievel factor for founda
tions designed according to theoretical for
mulae related te construction quality.
Quality level 0q
—verygood 1.0
—good 0.90
—average 0.80
Definifions:
very good compacted backfill and proper control
of installation
good: compacted backfiii with only casual
control 0f installation
average: compacted backfill but uncontrolled
installation
N~ 129
TABLEAU XIV. Valeurs de a et de e~ pour que l’avarie du composant R2
l’avarie du composant R1 avec une probabilité de 90%.
TABLE XIV. Values of a and ø~ to ensure that component R2 will faf! after component
R1 with a 90% probability.
“P~i 0.05
~ ~
0.05 1.1 0.91
0.10 1.16 0.92
0.20 1.36 0.93
0.30 1.63 0.93
other components wouid be greater
than that of the first component to fail.
Attempts at quantifying this extent
of the difference in reliability have led
to specific recommendations. Appen
dix 1 “Derivation of Strength Factors”
gives the reasoning, the details and
the methods for defining and quanti
fying ratios of strength to achieve a
seiected probability that some compo
nents are stronger than others.
Table XIV gives the values of ~
(ratio of average strengths) and ø~ to
ensure, with a 90% probability of suc
cess, that component R2 (coefficient of
variation = V1~) will be stronger than
component R1 (COV = VR1).
Thus, if in a baianced design it is
desired that the tangent towers (VR1
usualiy 0.075) shouid be weaker than
the foundations (V1~ say 0.2) the dera
ting factor on foundation strength
should be 0.9. There is a 90% probabi
lity of success in such a design prin
ciple.
(Note : Reference to the appendix and
to the figures in the appendix will show
that, theoretically, a 100% confidence
can neyer be achieved regarding
strength coordination).
5.2.4.1 Strength factor Ø~ for foun
dations
It is generaliy accepted that the
foundations shouid be stronger than
ELECTRA
ait lieu après
0.10 0.20
~ ,øs
1.15 0.81 1.26 0.63
1.20 0.83 1.30 0.66
1.37 0.86 1.46 0.69
1.63 0.87 1.70 0.71
the towers. There must be some com
peliing, economic reasons to alter this
coordination of strength. This docu
ment provides ail the necessary tools
to enabie the designer to evaluate the
reiiabiiity of his une if a speciai scena
rio of performance is accepted.
There is an interesting feature resui
ting from a critical analysis of Table
XIV and this is the almost “Constant”
value which couid be adopted for ø,~
as applied to foundations in the typical
range of values. Although this docu
ment accepts a 90% probability, there
has been a particular, practicai, case
when a probability of 70% was accep
ted.
A further calibration would iead
aimost inevitabiy to the suggestion that
a single value could be adopted for the
foundations, such as ø~ = 0.85 (say)
for ail foundation types. The point at
issue being that the principle of dera
ting “Rc~” of the foundations with res
pect to the towers is much more rele
vant than the accuracy in the value of
this derating factor as function of an
anticipated value of VR for the founda
tions.
6. CONCLUSIONS
An attempt has been made to sum
marize, in a few pages, the resuits of
91
the activities (meetings, discussions,
papers etc.) of two Working Groups
one from CIGRE Study Committee 22
and one from IEC Technical Commit-
tee 11. A complete collaboration has
been maintained, each Working Group
anaiysing criticaily the proposais of the
other, and such collaboration was
extended to the activities of the Amen
can Society of Civil Engineers whose
input into such work must be recogni
sed.
When the work was started it was
anticipated that complex answers, with
compiicated tables would be needed
for a rationai application of the ioa
dingfstrength concept for overhead une
design.
The documents (CIGRE, IEC, BSI,
ASCE) when read carefully, shouid
provide any specification writer with ail
the mathematicai toois needed for the
preparation of a document based on
the probabilistic approach.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Tribute must be paid not oniy to the
members of WG22-06 iisted at the begin
ning, but aiso to the members who have
activeiy contributed, aithough they have
now withdrawn from, or were not officiai
members of the Working Group; L. Paris
(Itaiy), C. Manuzio (ltaly), M. Cojan
(France), JG. Paradinas (Spain), H.B.
White (Canada), P. Juul (Denmark), J.C.
Pohiman (United States), T.J. Pioeg
(Netheriands), H. Dos Santos (Portugal)
and many others.
in addition, tribute is due to members
of Working Group 08 of IEC TCii under
the abie chairmanship of E. Ghannoum
(Canada); K.V. Boos (Germany); D. de la
Houssaye (France); G. Neher (Switzer
land); G. Orawski (United States), P.
Paoii (ltaly); J.C. Pohiman (United King
dom); P. Pincemaffie (France); B. Rhe
bergen (Netheriands); K. Schjetne (Nor
way); A.B. Wood (United Kingdom).
N° 129
COORDINATION 0F STRENGTHS
INTRODUCTION
A transmission une is an assembly
0f many components in series that
have variable strength characteristics
and response to loading.
The risk of failure of the system can
be equated to the risk of failure off the
weakest component. The failure of one
of the components does not cause
equal damage. In order to contain the
effects of a failure, efforts are made to
establish a predetermined sequence of
failure.
In the IEC document “Loading and
strength of overhead transmission
unes” the following strength coordina
tion is suggested as a possible solu
tion, starting with the weakest compo
nent. (see Table)
Other coordinations can be chosen,
but the principles for deriving strength
factors would remain unchanged.
In the general (IEC) design equation
a factor ø~ is introduced, related 10 the
preferred sequence of failure.
Sub-system
suspension tower
angle tower
dead end tower
conductor system
t)
bld O
échelle arbilrairc a,b. secte
Figure Al.
ELECTRA 93
APPENDIX 1
— DERIVATION 0F STRENGTH FACTORS
‘Yu 0T< 0R R~where 2. SYSTEM DESIGN PRINCIPLES
0R = 0q oc and In a system design approach, it can
be shown that the probability of failure
Yu = use factor coefficient off the ~ system can be equated to
the probabiiity of failure off the weakest
QT= ioad corresponding to a return component Pf1, provided that ail other
period T
components have a greater reiiability
= factor reiated to strength coordi
(i.e. smailer probability of faiiure) e.g.
nation
= factor related to number N of ~fs = ~f1
components subjected to the cri
Thus coordination of strengths of
ticai load
the various components becomes a
oc = factor related to the probability of necessity if we wish to achieve a rea
exceeding the characteristic
sonable une performance.
strength ~ = 1.0 when this pro
babiIity is equai to 90%) Different reliabilities for different
components in series can be achieved
= factor reiated to the quality level
by appiying calcuiated strength factors
off the component during fabrica
for each component. For convenience,
tion and construction
and as an exampie, in this paper,
= global strength factor, product of consideration wiii be given to the
series tower/foundations when it is
Ac = characteristic or nominal strength desired to have foundations stronger
In the foilowing part of the paper a than the towers.
method is considered to derive the fac
tor o~.
3. TECHNIQUES 0F CALCULATION
0F STRENGTH FACTORS
In order to develop strength factors
Components
o~ that will lead to the target sequence
off failure, two methods were conside
tower foundation hardware
- -
red.
tower foundation hardware
- -
a. For the first component to fail, use
tower foundation hardware
- - design loads in conjunction with
conductor insulator hardware
- -
10% exclusion limit. Next compo
nent to fail wiil be designed with a
O~ =ç~O%)R1 (1O%)R2
(arh. scabe)
 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
not this disadvantage.
Method b (see Fig. A2)
Because components of overhead
lines have random strengths, it is
impossible to guarantee with 100%
Figure A5.
achieving the right sequence of failure.
The following method can be used to
derive ø~ ratios.
— Establish the target probability that
Using statistical methods the factor
can be derived for various combina
tions of V(Ri) and V(R2).
V(R1), V(R2) coefficient variation of
—

the strength of component 2 ex the strength

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