ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No.

111

Reliability-Based
Design of Utility Pole
Structures
Prepared by
Reliability-Based Design Committee of the
Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) of the
American Society of Civil Engineers

Edited by
Habib J. Dagher

Published by the American

Society of Civil Engineers
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Reliability-based design of utility pole structures : prepared by Reliability-Based Design

Committee of the Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) of the American Society of Civil
Engineers / edited by Habib J. Dagher.
p. cm. — (ASCE manuals and reports on engineering practice ; no. 111)
ISBN 0-7844-0845-9
1. Structural engineering—Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Dagher, Habib Joseph. II.
Structural Engineering Institute. Reliability-Based Design Committee. III. Series.

TA635.R45 2006
624.1772—dc22 2005037138

Published by American Society of Civil Engineers

1801 Alexander Bell Drive
Reston, Virginia 20191
www.pubs.asce.org

Any statements expressed in these materials are those of the individual authors and do
not necessarily represent the views of ASCE, which takes no responsibility for any statement
made herein. No reference made in this publication to any specific method, product, process,
or service constitutes or implies an endorsement, recommendation, or warranty thereof by
ASCE. The materials are for general information only and do not represent a standard of
ASCE, nor are they intended as a reference in purchase specifications, contracts, regulations,
statutes, or any other legal document.
ASCE makes no representation or warranty of any kind, whether express or implied,
concerning the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or utility of any information, apparatus,
product, or process discussed in this publication, and assumes no liability therefore. This
information should not be used without first securing competent advice with respect to its
suitability for any general or specific application. Anyone utilizing this information assumes
all liability arising from such use, including but not limited to infringement of any patent or
patents.
ASCE and American Society of Civil Engineers—Registered in U.S. Patent and Trade-
mark Office.
Photocopies and reprints. You can obtain instant permission to photocopy ASCE publica-
tions by using ASCE’s online permission service (www.pubs.asce.org/authors/Rightslink-
WelcomePage.html). Requests for 100 copies or more should be submitted to the Reprints
Department, Publications Division, ASCE (address above); email: [email protected]. A
reprint order form can be found at www.pubs.asce.org/authors/reprints.html

Copyright © 2006 by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

All Rights Reserved.
ISBN 0–7844–0845–9
Manufactured in the United States of America.
 CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Current Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Reliability-Based Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5 Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.6 Relation to National Electrical Safety Code and Other
ASCE Guides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . 9

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 Structural Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 Design of Wire System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4 Types of Load-Producing Events and Return Period . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.1 Weather-Related Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.2 Accidental Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.3 Construction and Maintenance Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5 Limit State Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5.1 Loads and Load Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5.2 Component Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5.3 Load and Resistance Factor Design Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.6 Reliability-Based Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.6.1 Target Reliability Levels and Corresponding Load Factors 17
2.6.2 Selection of Strength Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.7 Moment Magnification Consideration for Flexible Poles . . . . . . . 21
2.8 Coordination of Failure Sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.8.1 Structures versus Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

v
vi CONTENTS

2.8.2 Wire System versus Support System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.8.3 Tangent versus Dead-End Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3 LOADS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1.1 Weather-Related Load Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.1.2 Construction and Maintenance Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.1.3 Failure Containment Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.1.4 Longitudinal Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2 References to Appropriate Load Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2.1 Weather-Related Loads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2.2 Construction and Maintenance Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2.3 Failure Containment Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.3 Regional and Local Weather-Related Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3.1 Extreme Wind Loads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3.2 Combined Ice and Wind Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.4 Effects of Load Factors or Load Return Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4 STRENGTH OF SINGLE-POLE UTILITY STRUCTURES . . . . 35

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.2 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.3 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.4 Characterizing Pole Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.4.1 Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.4.2 Nominal Resistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.5 Proof Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

APPENDIX A: DESIGN EXAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

A.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
A.2 Example Load Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
A.3 Example 1: Wood Transmission Pole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
A.4 Example 2: Wood Distribution Pole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
A.5 Example 3: Steel Transmission Pole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
A.6 Example 4: Steel Distribution Pole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
A.7 Example 5: Spun Concrete Transmission Pole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
A.8 Example 6: Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Distribution Pole . . . . . . . 70
A.9 Example Calculation of P-∆ Effect Using the Gere-Carter
Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
 CONTENTS vii

APPENDIX B: EXAMPLES FOR CHAPTER 4: ASSESSING

NOMINAL VALUE (Rn) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
B.1 Method 1: Empirical Assessment of Rn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
B.1.1 Example 1: Wood Poles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
B.1.2 Example 2: Evaluation of Yield Strength of Steel
Using Material Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
B.2 Method 2: Monte Carlo Simulations with
Mechanics-Based Models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
B.2.1 Example 1: Custom-Designed Steel Poles
(Range of Pole Sizes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
B.2.2 Example 2: Commodity Steel Poles (Single-Size
Round Pole) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

APPENDIX C: REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

APPENDIX D: NOTATION AND SI CONVERSION

FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
D.1 Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
D.2 SI Conversion Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
 Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 CURRENT PRACTICE

There is a need to provide a design methodology for distribution and

transmission poles that yields consistent structural reliabilities across all
material types: wood, steel, concrete, fiberglass, and other new materials.
Whereas this document is currently focused on poles, future editions will
have an expanded scope to cover reliability-based design (RBD) for all
utility structures and components.
Prevailing U.S. practice and most state laws require that transmission
and distribution lines be designed to meet the basic safety requirements of
whichever edition of the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) is adopted
by each state. The current NESC rules (IEEE 2002) for the selection of
design load and strength factors are largely based on successful experi-
ence but they do not have a strong theoretical foundation. Some designers
find the rules too restrictive, whereas others adopt more conservative cri-
teria. In fact, individual utilities often develop their own loading criteria
to supplement the NESC rules.
A desire to achieve more consistent structural reliabilities across mate-
rials was the impetus for the development of the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) Manual 74,“ Guidelines for transmission line structural
loading” (ASCE 1991) and the International Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC), “Design criteria of overhead transmission lines,” IEC 60826 (IEC
2002). Although ASCE Manual 74 offers consistent methods to calculate
loads, there is still a need to provide consistent methods to calculate
strength across pole materials.
The nominal strength (Rn) of a pole is calculated using a variety of
approaches and guides, depending on the pole material type. This
includes, for example, ASCE Manual 72 for steel poles (ASCE 1990), ANSI
O5.1-2002 for wood poles (ANSI 2002), and the Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute (PCI), “Specification guide for prestressed con-
crete poles” (PCI 1999). ASCE Manual 104, “Recommended practice for
fiber-reinforced polymer products for overhead utility line structures,”

1
2 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

has recently been developed for fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) poles

(ASCE 2003).
In addition to these guides, pole manufacturers typically use in-house
models for predicting the nominal strength of prestressed concrete poles
and FRP poles. These strength guides, standards, and in-house methods
have essentially evolved independently so there is little consistency in the
definition of nominal strength across pole materials. For some pole mate-
rials and design methods, the nominal strength value is close to a mean
strength, whereas for other pole materials the nominal strength represents
a more conservative value, such as a 5% or 10% lower exclusion limit
(LEL). As a result, a wide range of possibilities currently exists concern-
ing what the nominal strength of a pole really represents. This results in
inconsistent and unknown reliability levels for different pole materials.
To illustrate the problem, refer to Fig. 1-1. Any strength property of a
pole, such as the lateral strength of a Class 1 wood pole in a cantilever
test, is a random variable (testing 100 identical poles in the same manner
will result in 100 different values of the strength). The many sources of
uncertainty in observed pole strength include inherent material property
variability, geometric variability, manufacturing effects, and variation in
the testing method. The strength of a pole may thus be characterized by a
probability density function (PDF) with a mean value (m) and a coefficient
of variation (COV), as shown in Fig. 1-1. The COV (the standard devia-
tion divided by the mean) varies with the pole material and pole type.
The COV is higher, for example, for wood poles than for steel poles. The
higher COV causes the PDF for wood poles to be wider and flatter than for
steel poles. The procedure used to calculate the nominal or characteristic
strength of the pole (whether per ASCE Manual 72 [ASCE 1990] or ANSI
O5.1-2002 [ANSI 2002] yields a nominal strength Rn that falls somewhere
on the horizontal axis of the PDF in Fig. 1-1.
Figure 1-1 shows three possible positions of the nominal strength:
Rn  R1, R5, and R50, representing a 1%, 5%, and 50% LEL, respectively.
For example, a 5% LEL nominal strength (a 5th percentile) is a value not
achieved by 5% of the poles. For a normal density function, the 5th percen-
tile is 1.645 standard deviations below the mean:

R5  m − 1.645 (m  COV). (Eq. 1-1)

A 50% LEL or 50th percentile nominal strength is a value not reached

by 50% of the poles. For a normal density function, R50 is also the mean
strength. It follows that R50 > R5 > R1 and the distance between these val-
ues grows with increasing COVs. Clearly, unless strength design meth-
ods for different pole materials yield consistent nominal value definitions
(e.g., all materials at the 5% LEL), it will be difficult to achieve consistent
reliability among material types.
 INTRODUCTION 3

Probability
Density Pole Strength PDF: N (R m ,COV)

1.645RmCOV

Strength R

R1 R5 R50 = m
1% Lower 5% Lower Mean or
Exclusion Exclusion 50th
Limit Limit or 5th percentile
? percentile ?
?
ASCE ASCE ANSI
Manual 72 Manual 72 O5.1−2002

FIGURE 1-1. Probability Density Function (PDF) (Normal

Distribution).

1.2 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN

Failure of a component or a structure occurs when the load (Q) exceeds

the resistance (R). If the PDF of the strength and the load are known, then
the probability of failure of a component may be estimated using the over-
lap region under the two curves (Fig. 1-2). Minimizing the overlap between
the two curves is commonly achieved by moving the curves apart by mov-
ing the strength PDF to the right (e.g., by applying safety factors or partial
safety factors to the mean or nominal design values). The distance between
the means of the two curves (MR  MQ), measured in number of standard
deviations of (R  Q), is referred to as the reliability index  (Fig. 1-2).

  (MR  MQ) / (σR2  σQ2)0.5. (Eq. 1-2)

The calculation of reliability index  in Eq. 1-2 and Fig. 1-2 is valid
only when both R and Q are normally distributed and uncorrelated.
4 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

Probability
Density

MR – MQ = β σ 2 + σQ2
R

Strength R

Load Q

Overlap Q or R
Mean MQ Region Mean MR

FIGURE 1-2. Failure Occurs in Overlap Region Where the Load Q

 Strength R.

In this case, the reliability index  and the probability of failure are
related as follows:

Probability of Failure  1  φ (), (Eq. 1-3)

in which  is the cumulative density function (CDF) of the normal distri-

bution. Larger reliability indices  mean more distance between the two
curves in Fig. 1-2 and a smaller probability of failure. Components with
equivalent reliability indices  have relatively equivalent probabilities of
failure.
In RBD, load and strength factors (also called partial safety factors) are
selected so that components have relatively equivalent reliability indi-
ces  (Ellingwood et al. 1980). Target reliability indices for conventional
designs are typically selected by reliability calibration. The RBD meth-
ods for transmission lines are described in “Design criteria of overhead
transmission lines,” IEC 60826 (IEC 2002), “Reliability-based design of
transmission line structures” (Peyrot and Dagher 1984), and “Reliability-
based design of foundations for transmission line structures” (EPRI
1995). These documents provide additional references and details for
 INTRODUCTION 5

conducting structural reliability evaluations, including reliability index

calculations, reliability calibrations of new RBD methods, and load and
resistance factor design (LRFD) methodologies.

1.3 OBJECTIVE

The objective of this manual is to outline a methodology to achieve rela-

tively consistent structural reliability across all pole materials. In future
editions, this document will be expanded to cover RBD for other types of
utility structures, components, and related load considerations.

1.4 SCOPE

The structural reliability of poles designed according to the 2002 NESC

(IEEE 2002) provisions and existing strength design guides such as ASCE
Manual 72 (ASCE 1990) or ANSI O5.1-2002 (ANSI 2002) varies depending on
the material type. Reasons for the discrepancy relate to the historical devel-
opment of the deterministic design approach used in the NESC, as well as
inconsistencies in the nominal strength definitions in the various material-
specific strength design guides.
This manual provides a design methodology for achieving relatively
consistent structural reliability among poles of different materials.
Specifically, this manual provides the following:

1. Target reliability levels for poles of NESC Grades B and C construction,

applicable to all material types.
2. A consistent definition of nominal strength that is applicable to all
pole materials, including the following:
a. Consistent test methods, sample sizes, and data analysis and
selection procedures for establishing the statistical properties of
pole strength.
b. Incentives (reduction in required load/strength factors and pole
cost) for manufacturers to reduce variability and better define
pole statistical properties.
3. Default statistical strength data (COV, % LEL of nominal strength)
for the RBD of poles of all materials.
4. An RBD methodology that includes the following:
a. General LRFD equations.
b. Load factors applicable to all material types and material-dependent
strength reduction factors.
c. Characteristic or design load values obtained using the proce-
dures in ASCE Manual 74 (ASCE 1991).
6 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

d. A set of load and strength factors for the LRFD equations that
achieve reliability levels corresponding to either NESC Grade B or
Grade C construction, including the following:
i. A table to adjust strength factors depending on the LEL of nom-
inal strength and COV of pole strength (see Table 2-2).
ii. A discussion of how to change reliability levels.

1.5 BENEFITS

This manual provides a design methodology for distribution and trans-

mission pole structures that yields relatively consistent reliabilities across
all materials. This manual also addresses the following:

1. Defines minimum reliability levels for both NESC Grades B and

C construction on the basis of reliability analyses of existing NESC
pole designs. Therefore, designers can still produce designs to NESC
Grades B and C with more consistent results.
2. Provides a means for quantifiably adjusting reliability whenever
needed or justified. An essential line should be more reliable than a
less important line.
3. Achieves relatively uniform structural reliability across all pole
materials, thereby allowing utilities to compare the cost of equiva-
lent lines made of different materials.
4. Facilitates innovation by allowing the introduction of new materials
into pole design.
5. Encourages manufacturers to continually improve their products by
providing design incentives for more reliable poles and better data-
bases for pole strength. A manufacturer that develops better statisti-
cal data on pole strength is allowed to adjust the strength factors
accordingly.
6. Provides uniform procedures for defining the nominal strength of
transmission and distribution structures to be used in conjunction
with the available strength guides (such as ASCE Manual 72 [ASCE
1990] and ANSI O5.1-2002 [ANSI 2002]). This manual also suggests
that all future editions of the strength guides provide nominal or
characteristic strength values at or near the 5% LEL. Table 2-2 is pro-
vided to be used with existing strength guides to adjust load and
strength factors depending on the LEL of nominal strength and COV
of pole strength.
7. Complements ASCE Manual 74 (ASCE 1991). This manual does not
provide new methods for calculating loads and load combinations,
instead referring to the ASCE Manual 74 procedures for computing
design loads and load factors that are independent of the materials
 INTRODUCTION 7

of the supporting structures. It is consistent with the ASCE Manual

74 approach that a loading agenda should reflect uncertainties in the
loads and the accepted risk that these loads may be exceeded.
8. Brings pole structural design in line with well-established RBD
codes such as the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) “Standard specifications for
highway bridges” (AASHTO 2002), the American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC) “Load and resistance factor design specification
for structural steel buildings” (AISC 1999), and the American Forest
and Paper Association “Load and resistance factor design (LRFD)
manual for engineered wood construction” (AF&PA 1996).

1.6 RELATION TO NATIONAL ELECTRICAL SAFETY CODE

AND OTHER ASCE GUIDES

The NESC (IEEE 2002) rules contain basic provisions considered nec-
essary for the safety of employees and the public under specified, deter-
ministic load conditions. The NESC rules are not intended to be used as a
design specification. This manual, which provides a design methodology,
should be used in conjunction with any NESC safety requirements.
This manual provides reliability-based loads and strength factors that
may be used with the ASCE Manual 74 (ASCE 1991) load conditions.
 Chapter 2
RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN
METHODOLOGY

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This section describes a reliability-based design (RBD) methodology for

transmission and distribution (T/D) line structures. This RBD approach is
calibrated to yield average reliability levels consistent with years of history
and practice with existing deterministic design approaches. Therefore, on
average, designs will be nearly equivalent to past practice.
This methodology strives to correct the problem of inconsistent reli-
abilities among different material types. Minimum reliability levels are
recommended for different grades of construction. Simply selecting differ-
ent return periods in designing the T/D line quantifiably varies reliability
levels. The method uses one set of load and load factors regardless of the
material type. The strength reduction factors are a function of material
type; the equations are based on initial strength before material degrada-
tion occurs.

2.2 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

A T/D line consists of two separate structural systems: the structural

support system (towers, poles, and foundations) and the wire system
(including insulators and hardware). Each system should be considered
separately, even though it is evident they are closely related to each other.
The structural support system has the task of supporting the weight of
the wire system and accumulated ice and of resisting the winds acting on
both systems. The wire system consists of the conductors and shield wires,
which may be severely tensioned by ice loading or extreme wind load-
ing. The wire system includes all components such as dead-end insulators
and hardware in series with the wires and all major angle and dead-end
structures that are critically affected by the wire tensions. Major loads of a
transmission line are generated on or by the wire system on the structures
themselves, except for high-intensity-type winds such as tornados. Focus
should be on the wire system to understand what happens to transmission

9
10 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

or distribution lines, especially when wires are loaded with ice. Whereas
the support system can support very heavy vertical loads at relatively low
cost, the strongest vertical capacity support system may be overstressed
when unusual or unexpected loads, such as wind-blown or falling debris
(branches), affect the wire system. A simple break in the wire system may
promote a cascading failure that is difficult to control.

2.3 DESIGN OF WIRE SYSTEM

For the reasons discussed in the previous chapter and others, the
components of the wire system should be selected conservatively, with
loadings limited to damage levels and set well below the rated strengths
of the components. The strength levels of the structures and foundations
of the support system can be adjusted relative to each other. Generally,
it is desirable to ensure that the foundations are more reliable than the
supported structures. Some utilities, however, elect to have foundations
for directly embedded structures fail (i.e., deflect excessively) prior to
structure failure (i.e., buckling or rupture), since a foundation’s deflec-
tion can be repaired quite easily compared to replacing a complete
structure. In some cases the deflection can reduce the loads on the struc-
ture. The strength levels of important angle and dead-end structures
can also be adjusted upward from those of tangent structures to make
them more reliable.

2.4 TYPES OF LOAD-PRODUCING EVENTS AND RETURN

PERIOD

When describing loads in a T/D line system, it is convenient to distin-

guish between the events that produce the loads and the resulting loads in
the components of the subsystems. The loads are direct forces on the con-
ductors, ground wires, or structures. The events producing the loads can
be classified as weather-related, accidental, and construction and mainte-
nance (C&M) events.

2.4.1 Weather-Related Events

Current design procedures, such as those found in the National Electrical
Safety Code (NESC) criteria (IEEE 2002) for extreme wind, incorporate some
probability information about weather-related events. This may be done
intuitively through experience or by direct use of the return period (RP)
concept, whenever data are available. Design nominal values are normally
specified in a code or loading agenda in such a manner that their risk of
 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN METHODOLOGY 11

being exceeded is relatively low. A nominal value often used is that value
of the variable that has the probability 1/RP of being exceeded in one year.
Such a value is said to have an RP-year return period. A nominal value for
a weather-related event or a load with an RP-year return period is indi-
cated herein by the subscript RP. For example, a 50-year RP wind velocity,
V50, has a probability of 0.02 (2%) of being exceeded in any one year.
Since a direct relationship exists between weather-related events and
corresponding load effects, the load effect from a weather-related event
with an RP-year return period also has an RP-year return period. In this
manual, design equations that constitute the reliability requirement use
weather-related events and corresponding loads with a specified RP as
the nominal events and loads.
The probability that an event or load with an RP-year return period
will be exceeded at least once during the planned lifetime of a line (for
example, 50 years) is given in Table 3-1 in Chapter 3. This probability is a
useful indicator but it does not correspond to the probability of failure of
the line or to that of any of its components. More information on the type
of calculations yielding the results of Table 3-1 can be found in the com-
mentary of ASCE Standard 7-02 (ASCE 2002).

2.4.2 Accidental Events

Some of the events that produce loads in a transmission line system
cannot be described statistically because of their nature or lack of data.
Accidental events such as breaks of components from defects, wear,
fatigue, or impact or failures of entire structures from landslides, tor-
nadoes, sabotage, or any other unforeseen phenomena fall in that cat-
egory. Design procedures do not control the occurrence of these events
but attempt to minimize their consequences. Because of this, the designer
must make sure that if a failure is triggered by an accidental or weather-
related event, it will not propagate without control. This security require-
ment can be accomplished by designing for special loadings (longitudinal
or torsional loads) at all or some structures by load-limiting devices such
as mechanical fuses or by inserting stop structures at specified intervals
in the line.

2.4.3 Construction and Maintenance Events

Some line components may be subjected to their critical loading dur-
ing C&M operations. Once the magnitudes of the loads produced by the
operations are established, they should be multiplied by a load factor to
provide an adequate level of safety. Design for these factored loads, in
addition to those specified by national regulations or codes of practice,
constitute the safety requirement.
12 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

2.5 LIMIT STATE DESIGN

A limit state defines acceptable and unacceptable structural behavior

evaluated in design. Limit states can be normally classified into the three
categories of serviceability, damage, and failure (ultimate strength) limit
states. For T/D structures, serviceability limit states include vibration,
clearances, deflections, and alignment. Damage and failure limit states
include any type of partial or complete failure. Designers have always
checked limit states in design by comparing load effects with correspond-
ing limits. Therefore, limit state design does not represent a new design
method but, rather, is a collective term to describe all the limits checked
in design.
In this document, design equations that deal with ice, wind, and tem-
perature are intended to control the probability of occurrence of damage
limit states; the equations are provided to prevent permanent damage of
components from weather-related events. The design equations that deal
with security-related loads address failure limit states; the concern is not
with the damage of one or two structures because the line has already
failed but, rather, with the possibility of cascading-type failures.

2.5.1 Loads and Load Effects

Loads on a T/D line, denoted herein as Q, are forces applied on the
wires or forces applied directly to the supporting structures. Forces, dis-
placements, and stresses caused by the loads in the various components of
the subsystems are called load effects. A load effect herein will be denoted
“Effect of [ ],” where the terms inside the brackets are the loads (Table 2-1).
Loads are further discussed in Chapter 3.

2.5.2 Component Strength

A component is normally selected in such a way that its strength mul-
tiplied by a strength reduction factor exceeds the corresponding design
loads multiplied by load factors. The actual strength of a given compo-
nent is a random variable. In current design applications, the strength of
a component is identified by a unique value called its nominal strength.
The nominal strength of a component, Rn, is normally calculated with
equations described in the appropriate design document (AISC 1999;
ANSI 2002; ASCE 1992; PCI 1999). (ASCE Standard 10-97 [ASCE 2000]
was previously American Society of Civil Engineers [ASCE] Manual 72,
[ASCE 1990].)
The nominal strength may also be provided by a manufacturer in
the form of a minimum or guaranteed strength or as a percentage of an
 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN METHODOLOGY 13

TABLE 2-1. Load Conditions That May Be Considered in Design

Equation Load Case Description

2-1a and 2-1b Extreme wind from any direction
Weather Loads Extreme ice with reduced wind (combined ice
and wind)
Unbalanced ice without wind (where
applicable)
Substantial wind on reduced ice (where
applicable)
2-2 Failure containment criterion or loading (for
Security Loads example, broken conductor load)
2-3 Structure erection loads
Construction and Stringing loads
Maintenance Loads Worker load (250 lb)
2-4 Legislated loads (National Electrical Safety
Legislated Loads Code)

estimated breaking load. For example, the nominal strength in compres-

sion of a given type of steel angle in a lattice tower is given by a com-
pression formula in American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ASCE
Standard 10-90 (ASCE 1992). A nominal value, Re, is said to be the e% exclu-
sion limit of strength if it has an e% probability of not being achieved.
Chapter 1 described where the value Re is located relative to the probabil-
ity density function (PDF) of the strength. Usually, the nominal values are
set in a way that most components tested at loads equal to the nominal
strength would survive the test. The percentage of components not sur-
viving is equal to the exclusion limit.
Unfortunately, the exclusion limits of Rn for different types of compo-
nents are not the same and are often unknown. The exclusion limit for
the design strengths of many metallic components of lattice or tubular
structures are in the range of 1% to 10%, with corresponding coefficients
of variation (COVR) in the range of 5% to 20%. The strength values speci-
fied in ANSI Standard O5.1-2002 (ANSI 2002) for wood poles have exclu-
sion limits that are significantly higher than 5% (Bodig et al. 1986). Design
equations for the strength of foundations may have exclusion limits as
high as 50%. This manual recommends that, in the future, published nom-
inal values for the strengths of all transmission line components be estab-
lished at the lower exclusion limit (LEL) of 5%. In any case, if statistical
data are available on the strength of a particular component, the strength
value’s exclusion limit can be determined as shown in Chapter 4.
14 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

2.5.3 Load and Resistance Factor Design Format

2.5.3.1 Load and Resistance Factor Design Equations. Load and resis-
tance factor design (LRFD) describes one way of assessing behavior at
various limit states. The following set of LRFD design equations is recom-
mended for the design of components in a transmission line:

Weather-Related Loads (Reliability-Based). Equation 2-la (or 2-1b) is the

design equation that controls reliability for weather-related events. The
limit state considered is damage of a component caused by extreme wind
or combinations of ice and wind.

Rn effect of [1.1 DL and Q50]. (Eq. 2-1a)

The 1.1 load factor for self-weight is less than the 1.2 factor used in
ASCE 7 (ASCE 2002b), recognizing that self-weight is more predictable
in utility structures than it is in building structures.
Or,

Rn  effect of [1.1 DL and QRP], (Eq. 2-1b)

where
  strength factor (Table 2-2)
  load factor for wind (Table 3-2 in Chapter 3) or ice thickness fac-
tor for combined ice and wind (Table 3-3 in Chapter 3)
Rn  nominal strength of the component
DL  dead loads (not including weight of ice)
Q50  wind or combined ice and wind loads based on a 50-year RP
QRP  loads similar to Q50, based on RP.
If RP 50 years, the structural reliability is increased. For example, Q100
wind loads are approximately 15% larger than Q50 wind loads. (Refer to
Chapter 3, Section 3.4 for more details.)

Security Loads. Equation 2-2 provides for the security of the line. Ideally,
the limit state considered in Eq. 2-2 should be an ultimate or failure limit
state. The purpose of the equation is not to prevent localized damage but,
rather, to prevent failure propagation. Assume, for simplicity, that damage
and ultimate limit states are identical. With that conservative assumption,
the same Rn can be used in all of the design equations. The conservative
use of a damage limit with respect to security loads may impose a cost
penalty on the utility.

Rn effect of [DL and SL], (Eq. 2-2)

 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN METHODOLOGY 15

TABLE 2-2. Strength Factor a

Strength Factor,  for COVR 

Nominal Strength
Lower Exclusion Limit, e (%) 0.05 0.10 0.20
0.1 1.00 1.16 1.48
1 0.97 1.07 1.27
2 0.95 1.04 1.21
5 0.93 1.00 1.12
10 0.92 0.96 1.04
20 0.90 0.92 0.95
50 0.86 0.85 0.81
Mean 0.86 0.85 0.79
a
Assumes log-normal strength property.

where
  strength factor
Rn  nominal strength of the component
DL  dead loads
SL  security loads.

Construction and Maintenance Loads (Safety). Equation 2-3 considers the

damage limit state of a component from C&M loads.

Rn  effect of [CM (DL and C&M)], (Eq. 2-3)

where
  strength factor
Rn  nominal strength of the component
CM  load factor applied to the C&M load
DL  dead loads
C&M  loads produced by construction and maintenance operations.

Legislated Loads. Equation 2-4 is listed to emphasize that requirements

from governing codes should always be considered.

LLRn  effect of [LL], (Eq. 2-4)

16 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

where
LL  legislated load strength factor
Rn  nominal strength of the component
LL  legislated loads.
The load factor  in Eq. 2-la (or the RP in Eq. 2-1b) allows a designer to
modify the reliability of a line. The absence of load factor in Eq. 2-2 empha-
sizes that the design loads providing the security level of a line cannot be
described statistically. However, simply increasing the nominal loads can
increase the security of a line. Suggested minimum security loads (SLs)
are presented in Chapter 3; also, refer to the National Electrical Safety Code
(IEEE 2002) and the working draft of ASCE Manual 74.
The strength factor  in Eqs. 2-1a through 2-3, obtained from Table 2-2,
accounts for the nonuniformity of the exclusion limits in published informa-
tion and formulas for nominal strength Rn for different materials. This factor
also accounts for differences in strength coefficients of variation, COVR. If
all strength design guides published nominal strength values at a 5% lower
exclusion limit (5% LEL), Table 2-2 could be effectively reduced to one row.
The strength and load factors to use with Eq. 2-la (or strength factor
and RP to use with Eq. 2-1b) could be developed by a number of different
techniques. They could be chosen by consensus to represent current or
projected practice. Preferably, they can be selected to control the reliabil-
ity (or probability of failure) of the components of the line. That selection
process is commonly referred to as reliability-based LRFD. Section 2.6 will
describe a method for implementing RBD for T/D line structures.

2.5.3.2 Load Conditions. Equations 2-1a through 2-3 are generic equa-
tions to satisfy the basic requirements of reliability, security, and safety. Equation
2-4 represents design requirements for legislated loads. In practice, several load
cases are considered in each of the categories of loads covered by the equations.
Table 2-1 describes load cases normally considered in design.
Design loads on supporting structures are generally obtained by applying
the selected load conditions to assumed maximum vertical span, wind span,
and line angle. However, actual spans, line angles, and combinations of loads
less than the maximum loads may be critical in some cases. The designer
should be aware of conditions where the lesser values result in higher stresses
in some components of the structures.

2.6 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN

The variability of loads and strengths can be formally considered in

design through applications of probability theory. A probability-based
design procedure is one that considers the probability of occurrence of
a given limit state over a fixed period of time, usually one year or the
 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN METHODOLOGY 17

planned lifetime of the system. The procedure should address two essen-
tial points: (1) how the probability of occurrence of the limit state is to be
estimated, and (2) how small it should be.
The ultimate goal of RBD is to control the reliability of the line system.
Line reliability is directly affected by the reliability of each component in
each subsystem. Because accurate control of a line system’s reliability is
beyond the current state of the art, the approach adopted in this manual is to
control the relative failure probability (RFP) of different lines or of different
structures within a line. Line RFP is approximately increased or decreased
by a given factor by simply increasing or decreasing the RP of the load used
in designing the line. For example, traditional NESC Grade B or C construc-
tion may be achieved by changing the load factor , as shown in Table 2-3.

2.6.1 Target Reliability Levels and Corresponding Load Factors

Different load factors are used to achieve relative target probabilities of
failure for different types of construction. A larger design load factor results
in a more reliable line. Table 2-3 provides the minimum design load factors
for NESC Grades B and C construction with transverse wind force applied
to the ice-covered conductors, as appropriate. Section 3.4 in Chapter 3 pro-
vides further information on load factors and their effects. The load factor
 is applied to the wind force and to the ice thickness (Table 2-3).
The RBD method for the load factors in Table 2-3 uses nominal climatic
design loads based on a 50-year RP (Q50 in Eq. 2-1a). Historical NESC Grade C

TABLE 2-3. Minimum Load Factors for Transverse Wind Force and Ice
Thickness Corresponding to NESC Grades B and C Construction

Minimum Load Factors, 

Applied to 50-Year Events (Eqs. 2-1a and 2-1b)
NESC Grade of
Construction Extreme Wind Combined Ice and Wind
Grade B Wind Force: 1.0 Wind Force: 1.0
Ice Thickness: 1.0b
Grade C Wind Force: 0.5a Wind Force: 1.0
Ice Thickness: 0.5b
a
If any portion of the structure or its supported facilities exceeds 60 ft above
ground or water level, a load factor of 1.0 should be used.
b
The load factor for the ice thickness is applied to the thickness of ice on the conduc-
tor, structure, or component prior to calculating the associated load (such as weight
or transverse wind force). The wind force load factor is then applied to the calcu-
lated wind load on the ice-covered component. The ice weight load factor, if any, is
applied to the resulting weight of ice, including the ice thickness load factor.
 18 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

construction-factored loads are less than 50-year RP values (i.e., NESC Grade
C construction is designed for less than a 50-year RP load). This results in
RBD load factors less than 1.0 for Grade C construction in Table 2-3.
The load factors in Table 2-3 result from the author’s extensive effort
to calibrate reliability to historic NESC designs. As part of the effort, three
types of tangent poles were designed to full utilization at 40 U.S. locations
for both NESC Grade B and Grade C construction (240 poles). A fully uti-
lized design has a nominal design load effect equivalent to 100% of the
nominal design strength. The reliabilities of these tangent poles designed
according to NESC criteria were evaluated using the best available proba-
bilistic wind and wind-on-ice models at each of these 40 locations. The reli-
ability of NESC designs varied with location and pole height, even within
the same loading district. Since this calibration study was restricted to tan-
gent structures, line tension effects were not considered at this time. Future
editions of this manual will consider angle and dead-end structures.
Using this information, the following target reliability levels for tangent
structures were selected to provide equivalence to NESC construction in
the majority of the United States: reliability index   2.0 for Grade B con-
struction and   1.5 for Grade C construction (see Chapter 1, Section 1.2
for definition of ). These are annual  values obtained through Monte
Carlo simulations of poles designed using NESC at 40 locations in the
United States. The strength was assumed log-normal and the statistical
models for wind and for wind-on-ice were the ones used in developing
ASCE 7 (ASCE 2002b).
The target reliability levels selected here will serve to maintain more
consistent reliability while minimizing changes in current pole design.
Departures from NESC traditional designs will result at locations where
the wind maps or combined ice and wind maps used in ASCE Manual 74
(or ASCE 7) (ASCE 1991; ASCE draft; ASCE 2002) are significantly differ-
ent from the NESC district map (light, medium, and heavy). Departures
from NESC designs will also occur for poles close to but less than 60 ft
high that have not traditionally been designed for extreme wind.
Techniques for calculating the loads Q50, Q RP, SL, and C&M in Eqs. 2-1a
through 2-3 are described in Chapter 3 of this manual as well as in ASCE
Manual 74 (ASCE 1991; ASCE draft). The load factor  in Eq. 2-la (or the RP
in Eq. 2-lb) that corresponds to a given RFP can be obtained from Tables 3-2
and 3-3. The RFP is defined as follows:

Probability of Failure of a Component or Structure

Designed to a Load Return Period RP
RFP = (Eq. 2-5)
Probability of Failure of the Same Component orStructure
Designed Using a 50-Year Return Period Load
 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN METHODOLOGY 19

The factored load Q50 (with  from Table 3-2 or 3-3 in Chapter 3) is an
approximation of the load QRP . This is further discussed in Chapter 3.
The commonly designated “15% rule” for wind loadings indicates that
every time the wind load factor  is increased by increments of 0.15 (e.g.,
0.85, 1.00, 1.15, 1.30, 1.45 in Table 3-2 in Chapter 3), the return period of
the wind load is doubled (e.g., 25, 50, 100, 200, and 400 years). This also
results in approximately reducing the probability of failure against wind
by a factor of 2.
If statistical data on weather-related events are available, the use of Eq.
2-lb (using QRP) is recommended over that of Eq. 2-1a (using Q50). In
addition to meeting the minimum values given in Table 2-3, selection of
an appropriate RFP should be based on the importance of the line and its
location and length. For example, a higher reliability may be selected for a
portion of a line located in an urban area.
The reliability of a long line is less than that of a short one, all design
parameters being the same. The primary reason for the reduced reliability
is that because a long line is exposed to a larger number of severe events,
its likelihood of experiencing some kind of failure is greater. Also, weak
components are more likely to be exposed in a larger population of com-
ponents. The line designer may consider decreasing the RFP for long lines
in order to increase the line’s reliability. Methodology to quantify the reli-
ability of long lines is outside the scope of this manual but is addressed in
Dagher et al. (1993) and IEC 60826 (IEC 2002).
Design for loads with a return period of 50 years (i.e., RFP  1) is consid-
ered the basis for transmission line work. For temporary, noncritical compo-
nents and for Grade C construction, an RFP 1 may be acceptable; that is,
a design with RP 50 years may be used, as shown in Table 2-3, Grade C.

2.6.2 Selection of Strength Factor

The purpose of the strength factor  in Eqs. 2-1a through 2-3 is to
account for the nonuniformity of the exclusion limits that currently exist in
published formulas for nominal strength Rn and for differences in strength
coefficients of variation COVR. The values of the strength factor  can be
obtained from Table 2-2. The factors indicated assume a log-normal dis-
tribution of strength, which is considered more realistic than the normal
distribution.
In the future, the authors recommend that all T/D line strength design
guides publish strength values at the 5% lower exclusion limit (5% LEL),
or the estimate of this value—the 5% lower tolerance limit (5% LTL) with
a minimum confidence of 50%. Chapter 4 discusses methods for obtaining
the 5% LTL as well as the coefficient of variation COVR, including sample
sizes and data reduction techniques.
20 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

Larger strength values of the 5% LTL are obtained if more test data are
available or product variability is reduced. This gives an incentive for manu-
facturers to conduct sufficient testing of their products so they can use higher
design values and maintain product consistency. For large sample sizes or
very small variability (COVR), the 5% LTL approaches the 5% LEL value.
The use of Table 2-2 requires knowledge of the LEL corresponding to
the nominal strength Rn of a component, as well as the COVR of the com-
ponent strength. (The 5% LTL, as determined by the method in Chapter 4,
may be used for Re for e  5%.) Both numbers will vary from one material
type to another (steel versus wood pole) and will depend on the strength
design guide or method used to calculate nominal strength (e.g., ANSI
O5.1-2002 [ANSI 2002] or ASCE Manual 72 [ASCE 1990]).
The strength factors of Table 2-2 are to be applied to the design nomi-
nal strength used for the pole, using the exclusion limit of the nominal
strength and the COV of the pole strength. For example, according to ANSI
O5.1-2002, Douglas fir poles have a designated fiber stress of 8,000 pounds
per square inch (psi) with a COV  0.20. Since this designated fiber stress
value represents the mean groundline fiber strength (i.e., not the 5% LEL
strength), this stress level must be multiplied by a strength factor () of
0.79 (Table 2-2) for design of the pole:

Fb5%LEL  0.79  8,000 psi  6,320 psi.

The factors in Table 2-2 are based on a log-normal strength distribu-

tion and have been derived to result in relatively consistent reliability
(i.e., approximately the same probability of failure) when structures are
subjected to extreme winds, independent of the type of pole product and
material (i.e., COVR). As a result, these factors do not directly correspond
to the simple calculation that may otherwise be used to obtain a 5% LEL.
(For example, assuming a normal strength distribution without regard to
the failure rates for different materials, the simple calculation would have
been [1  1.645  COVR] applied to a mean strength.) See Chapter 4 and
Appendix A for additional discussion.
Information on how to calculate the LEL and COV from existing test
data is given in Chapter 4 and the related appendices. Typical values of
the LEL and COVR for different components used in transmission and dis-
tribution line are also given in Chapter 4. If no data are available, the fol-
lowing default information may be used:

1. Steel Components and Prestressed Concrete Poles. For compo-

nents of steel towers and steel or prestressed concrete pole structures
designed according to the ASCE and Precast/Prestressed Concrete
Institute (PCI) publications (ASCE 1990; ASCE 1992; PCI 1997; ASCE
2000; PCI, 1999), assume that Rn (or Re) has an exclusion limit in the
 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN METHODOLOGY 21

range of 5% to 10% and COVR is in the range of 10% to 20%. Therefore,

from Table 2-2,  is in the range of 0.96 to 1.12 or, typically,   1.0.
2. Reinforced Concrete. For reinforced (non-prestressed) concrete com-
ponents designed according to the American Concrete Institute (ACI)
procedures (ACI 2002), the ACI strength reduction factors can be used
in lieu of the  factors given in Table 2-2, since the ACI factors already
contain strength derating effects for the various concrete components.
3. Wood Poles. For wood pole structures, the statistical data in ANSI
O5.1-2002 (ANSI 2002) can be used to determine a value for Rn at the
5% LEL by using Eq. 4-4 in Chapter 4. The corresponding strength
factor can then be obtained from Table 2-2. Alternatively, the COVR
and 5% LTL may be computed from actual data and the correspond-
ing strength factor obtained from Table 2-2, for e  5%.
4. Foundations. Table 2-2 can be used for foundations for which statisti-
cal data are available. For foundations for which statistical data are not
available, nominal strengths and strength factors based on established
practice can be used. In such cases, however, the reliability of the foun-
dation relative to that of the supported structure is unknown.
5. Conductors and Ground Wires. The LRFD format described herein
is also applicable to the mechanical design of conductors or ground
wires. If the nominal strength Rn for a conductor is defined as its
rated ultimate strength Tu (AAI 1982), then a strength factor of 0.6
to 0.7 is recommended. Using a strength factor of 0.60 to 0.70 should
prevent damage to the conductor and virtually eliminate the possi-
bility of its rupture at that level. These suggestions are not reliability-
based but represent current practice.

A summary of the RBD procedure is given in Fig. 2-1.

2.7 MOMENT MAGNIFICATION CONSIDERATION FOR

FLEXIBLE POLES

Slender poles may have significant secondary moments that need to

be considered in the design. These moments are caused by vertical loads
acting through a horizontal displacement near the top of a deflected pole.
These magnified moments may be obtained using an iterative calculation,
using an amplification factor such as the Gere-Carter method (Appendix A,
Example Calculation of P- Effect Using the Gere-Carter Method) or using
a computer program that accounts for geometric nonlinearity.
As a result of the reliability calibrations that included designing typical
poles at 40 locations around the United States (described at the beginning
of this chapter), the recommended load factors in this manual are less than
or equal to 1.0 (Table 2-3). The ASCE Pole RBD Committee recommends
22 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

Obtain Minimum Design Load Return Period

Depending on Type of Line (Table 2-1)

Obtain Load Factor, g, from Tables 3-2 and 3-3

Determine Design Load Effect QD in Each Component
Q D = Effect of [1.1 DL and gQ50] Eq. 2-1a
or QD = Effect of [1.1 DL and QRP] Eq. 2-1b
QD = Effect of [DL and SL] Eq. 2-2
QD = Effect of [γCM (DL and C&M)] Eq. 2-3
QD = Effect of [LL] Eq. 2-4

Obtain Strength Factor, φ, from Table 2-3

Design Component with Nominal Strength, Rn , such that φ Rn > Q

D

FIGURE 2-1. Summary of Reliability-Based LRFD Design

Procedures.

that factored loads should be used in calculating secondary moments

(P- effects). The Gere-Carter method is typically conservative and is illus-
trated in Appendix A. From the reliability calibrations used to evaluate
hundreds of poles, researchers determined that the moment magnifica-
tion factors ranged from 1.0 to over 2.0, depending on the pole geometry,
materials, load configuration, and load magnitude.

2.8 COORDINATION OF FAILURE SEQUENCES

There is a natural and well-founded desire to exercise some control over

the sequence of failure of the different line components when one item
fails. A casual event that cannot be avoided or a weather-related event that
exceeds the selected RP load can, if not controlled, lead to unnecessary
and excessive damage that will prolong the outage.

2.8.1 Structures versus Foundations

The components of the support system do require some attention regard-
ing their relative strengths. In some cases, it may be desirable to design foun-
dations that are generally more reliable than the structures they support.
The rigorous approach to arranging this relative relationship would require
knowledge of the dispersion characteristics PDFs and variability (COVR)
of these two major line components. By using their COVR or using default
 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN METHODOLOGY 23

values such as those suggested here, it is possible to adjust the calculated

strength of the foundations by applying a strength factor based on a LEL of
1% and using a factor based on a LEL of 10% for the structures. The failure
rate of a LEL of 1% is theoretically equal to 1%, which is not significant in
itself. The relative reliabilities of using a LEL of 1% and a LEL of 10% are,
however, meaningful numbers that can be used in design. If the goal is to
design foundations to be more reliable than the structures, then use a LEL of
1% for the foundations with the structures at a LEL of 10% (or a LEL of 0.1%
for foundations and a LEL of 1% for structures). This will provide sufficient
probability that the structure will fail before the foundation.

2.8.2 Wire System versus Support System

Structural failure of a component in the wire systems (wires, insulators,
hardware) puts critical demands on the failure containment properties of
the support system, especially if the threat is from heavy icing and the
wires are highly tensioned. Fortunately, many of the wire system compo-
nents are selected on the basis of their damage limits, usually from 50%
to 70% of their rated strengths, so that the remaining strength margins
(50% to 30% of their nominal strength) should ensure that they will not be
the first to fail. For insulators, load duration effects may reduce the allow-
able design loads to a significantly lower level than their rated strengths,
which should be taken into consideration in the design and selection of
the insulator system. All of these components should not be part of the
critical failure path, since all of the components of the wire systems are
governed by their damage limits.

2.8.3 Tangent versus Dead-End Structures

There should also be a hierarchy of strengths of the different classes of
structures with the tangent structures considered the base units, whereas
heavy-angle and dead-end structures should have an extra margin of
strength. Because this calibration study was restricted to tangent struc-
tures, line tension effects were not considered at this time. This edition
assumes that insulators and hardware are designed so that they are not
the weak links in the line. Future editions of this manual will consider
angle and dead-end structures, as well as insulators and hardware.
The current edition of this manual addresses the reliability of a single
pole subjected to a severe storm. It is outside the scope of this current
edition to consider the reliability of an entire line comprising a group of
poles subjected to a severe storm, including the reliability of the wires,
insulators, hardware, and foundations. The reliability of a line is less than
that of an individual pole, and techniques to evaluate line reliability are
discussed in Dagher et al. (1993) and IEC 60826 (IEC 2002).
 Chapter 3
LOADS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Electrical transmission and distribution (T/D) line structures must be

capable of withstanding loads generated from weather-related events
and construction and maintenance (C&M) events and must provide fail-
ure containment to minimize damage from catastrophic events. The basic
environmental design loads (also called nominal or characteristic design
loads) depend on the structure location, including geography, topography,
and elevation. It is this manual’s intention that nominal design loads be calcu-
lated following the procedures in ASCE Manual 74 (ASCE draft; please note,
the authors are referencing the 2002 draft of the ASCE Manual 74 through-
out this chapter unless otherwise noted). Even so, distribution structures
need not be designed to the same criteria as transmission structures. Using
ASCE Manual 74 (ASCE draft), designers may still select National Electrical
Safety Code (NESC) (IEEE 2002) Grade C construction over Grade B for
distribution structures, and use a correspondingly reduced load factor as
shown in Table 2-3. Grade B construction with the increased load factors
in Table 2-3 is typically selected for high-voltage transmission systems.
These structures are most likely to have longer spans and higher physical
profiles and are more difficult to replace or repair when damaged. They
could have a substantial effect when out of service since they cover a large
area. The stability of the electrical grid could be disturbed by a single,
unplanned failure event of such critical structures.
Structures for lower-voltage distribution systems are typically much
shorter (less than 60 ft) and may be designed to Grade C construction
(refer to Table 2-3 for the corresponding reduced load factors). These struc-
tures usually serve a smaller area and do not need significant manpower
or equipment resources to perform replacement or repair tasks if such is
needed. In addition, electrical system stability is frequently not dependent
upon the availability of one particular structure. Thus, the factored design
loads for distribution structures designed to Grade C construction are
considerably less than those for transmission structures. As may be seen
in Table 2-3, the wind and ice thickness factors  for Grade C construction

25
26 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

are one-half of those used for Grade B construction. In addition, with

some exceptions, distribution structures do not typically consider failure
containment loads.
With lower-profile distribution-type structures, various uncertainties
are difficult to evaluate or quantify. The wind turbulence is more severe
and less predictable at lower elevations. Weight from ice-covered, broken
tree branches, which may fall onto the structure or supported wires, can
be many times higher than ice weight accumulated on the wires alone.
Debris from either wind or ice storms occurs more often and could gener-
ate higher-impact loads on these structures. Thus, the load predictions are
more difficult and the actual structural reliability may depend heavily on
the conditions of the surrounding environment. Historically, regulatory
bodies provide design guidelines mainly on the basis of past performance.
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has established a com-
mittee to study and recommend appropriate, detailed design procedures
for distribution structures.

3.1.1 Weather-Related Load Events

Weather-related events include extreme wind, extreme ice with con-
current wind, and the associated temperature effects. All three variables,
taken separately or jointly, are random variables and, as such, can only be
described by probability distributions. In certain cases, atmospheric pres-
sure and local topography influence the magnitude of weather-related
loads. These influences should be considered when appropriate.
Since extreme values of the variables are considered in design applica-
tions, it is customary to associate these extreme values with some predeter-
mined return period (RP), such as 50-year events. This would predict that,
on average, the level of the extreme event would be reached or exceeded
at least once in that period. Weather-related loads are sometimes referred
to as reliability-based loads (IEC 2002).

3.1.1.1 Extreme Wind Loads. T/D structures and all structural compo-
nents should be designed and constructed to resist extreme wind loads,
which are often the controlling condition. In the United States, the design
requirements are typically based on a 50-year (approximate) RP, 3-s gust
wind event under standard atmosphere (i.e., temperature of 59 oF [15 oC]
and sea level pressure of 29.92 in. of mercury [101.325 kPa]). This wind speed
is measured at 33 ft (10 m) above ground in flat and open terrain (Expo-
sure Category C, ASCE Standard 7-02 [ASCE 2002]). Adjustments should be
made to reflect the unique topographic conditions for specific structures.

3.1.1.2 Combined Ice and Wind Loads. Ice accretion on a transmis-

sion line is often a governing loading criterion in structure design. In
 LOADS 27

addition to imposing substantial vertical loads on the structural sys-

tem, the ice buildup on the conductors presents a greater projected area
exposed to the wind and affects the force coefficient (also called shape
or drag coefficient). The weight of the ice on the wire system may also
cause significantly higher tension than bare wire conditions. Any result-
ing unbalanced tensions would correspondingly increase structure loads
and should be considered in the design.

3.1.1.3 High-Intensity Wind Loads. High intensity winds (tornadoes

and microbursts) are short-lived, randomly occurring, severe storms that
cover small areas. They cause severe damage to houses, mobile homes,
and automobiles, although engineered structures often survive without
damage.
Almost all tornadoes can engulf a house or small structure but very
few have a path width as large as other extreme winds that can load the
full span of a transmission line. Thus, when designing for high-intensity
wind events, special consideration should be included to account for the
horizontal profile variation of the high-intensity winds.

3.1.2 Construction and Maintenance Events

Some line components may be subjected to their most critical load-
ing during C&M operations. Thus, these loads must be considered in
the design of the structure. Unlike weather-related loads, C&M loads
are controllable to a large extent and are directly related to construction
methods.
Workers can be seriously injured as a result of structural overstress;
therefore, personnel safety should be a paramount factor when establish-
ing criteria for C&M loads. These loads are sometimes referred to as safety
loads.

3.1.3 Failure Containment Loads

Some of the events that produce loads in a transmission line system
are difficult to describe statistically because of their nature or the lack
of data. Accidental events such as failure of components from defects,
wear, fatigue, or failures of entire structures from landslides, floods, tor-
nadoes, sabotage, traffic, or any other unforeseen phenomena fall into
this category.
Design procedures do not control the occurrence of these events but
attempt to minimize their consequences so that failure will not propa-
gate without control. This security requirement can be accomplished by
designing some or all structures for special failure containment loads or
by load-limiting devices such as mechanical fuses.
28 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

3.1.4 Longitudinal Loads

Longitudinal loads on an intact system may be caused by unequal wind
or ice on adjacent spans, by unequal wire tension, or from temperature
extremes on different span lengths. These intact system loads usually are
well-defined and generally do not govern the design of a structure, with
the possible exception of longitudinal imbalances resulting from unequal
in-cloud ice deposits on adjacent spans.
Longitudinal loads may also be the result of weather-related events,
unexpected broken wires, or failure of an adjacent structure. Extreme
events caused by breakage of line or structural components can create
severe load imbalances in the wire system, which are capable of causing
partial or complete structural failure of a line section. The cascading failure
risk of a transmission line should be considered to prevent prolonged out-
age, hazard to public safety, and significant economic losses. Longitudinal
loads are sometimes referred to as anticascading or security loads.

3.1.4.1 Other Load Considerations. Although galloping and structure

vibration do not generally produce extreme loads on the structures, loads
produced by galloping wires can cause damage to cross-arms, cross-arm
connections, and hardware. Furthermore, some structure member shapes
are particularly susceptible to wind-induced vibration and have failed
under fatigue. Consequently, the designer must be aware of the potential
problems associated with these phenomena.

3.2 REFERENCES TO APPROPRIATE LOAD DOCUMENTS

This manual recommends the design load criteria as specified by ASCE

Manual 74, “Guidelines for transmission lines structural loading” (ASCE
draft). Appropriate load factors may be selected to account for loads on
distribution structures (see Section 3.4).

3.2.1 Weather-Related Loads

3.2.1.1 Extreme Wind Loads. A basic wind-force formula applicable to
transmission lines is presented in ASCE Manual 74 (ASCE draft). This
formula accounts for wind characteristics such as wind speed, terrain
roughness, and air density, as well as for structure and line characteristics
such as force coefficient, gust response factor, and projected area of the
structure and overhead line components. The wind forces recommended
in ASCE Manual 74 (ASCE draft) are primarily based on the provisions of
ASCE Standard 7-02 (ASCE 2002). Where the values deviate, sources of the
recommended values are indicated in that document.
 LOADS 29

3.2.1.2 Combined Ice and Wind Loads. ASCE Manual 74 (ASCE draft) pro-
vides a map of 50-year RP ice thickness from freezing precipitation with con-
current 3-s gust wind speeds. This ice load map is contained in ASCE Stan-
dard 7-02 (ASCE 2002) and includes extrapolations in the western states using
information from Storm Data (NOAA 1959–1995) to cover the contiguous 48
states. The extrapolation was reviewed by state and regional climatologists
and the map was revised on the basis of their comments. Ice thickness zones
in the eastern half of the country and in the Pacific Northwest have also been
revised, based on Storm Data, reanalyzing weather data for a longer period of
record, and incorporating comments from state climatologists.
The map values in ASCE Manual 74 (ASCE 1991; ASCE draft) do not
include in-cloud icing or wet snow accretions, which are caused by meteo-
rological conditions that can produce significantly different loads. Where
more detailed icing data have been compiled for a service area, those data
should take precedence over the information in ASCE Manual 74 (ASCE
1991; ASCE draft). Electric utilities are urged to develop ice and concur-
rent wind loading criteria established specifically for their service regions
based on historical data.

3.2.1.3 High-Intensity Wind Loads. The probability of a tornado strike at

a given point is very small, even in areas where tornadoes are prevalent.
However, the probability of a transmission line being crossed somewhere
along its length by a tornado is significantly larger (Twisdale 1982). Since
most tornadoes have a very narrow width, this provides an opportunity
for improving transmission line resistance to tornado damage at a reason-
able cost. ASCE Manual 74 (ASCE draft) suggests that, where justified and
required, structures should be designed to withstand an F2 scale tornado
(wind speed of 157 mph or less). Historical data indicate that 86% of cat-
egorized tornadoes have intensity rated at F2 scale or less.

3.2.2 Construction and Maintenance Loads

ASCE Manual 74 (ASCE 1991; ASCE draft) provides guidelines for loads
and load factors related to C&M events. Most of these recommendations
are referenced from other national regulations or codes of practice, such
as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 524
(IEEE 1992) and IEEE Standard 1307 (IEEE 1996).

3.2.3 Failure Containment Loads

Three methods are suggested by ASCE Manual 74 (ASCE 1991; ASCE
draft) to prevent cascading failure. A set of theoretically sound, simpli-
fied equations is also presented to calculate unbalanced longitudinal load
caused by the initial structural failure. In addition, other guidelines and
recommendations are provided to address design issues such as structural
30 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

vibration and galloping. Typically, these security loads are applied directly
with no further adjustments (load factor equal to 1.0).

3.3 REGIONAL AND LOCAL WEATHER-RELATED LOADS

3.3.1 Extreme Wind Loads

Basic wind speed can be determined by using regional wind data for a spe-
cific location. The ASCE Standard 7-02 (ASCE 2002) provisions permit use of
regional weather-related data, provided the following three criteria are met:

1. Proper extreme-value statistical analysis procedures have been

employed in reducing the database.
2. The length of record, sampling error, averaging time, anemometer
height, data quality, and terrain exposure of the anemometer have
been taken into account.
3. If meteorological data are used to justify a wind speed lower than
the 85-mph, 50-year RP, 3-s gust at 33 ft, then an analysis of sampling
error is required to demonstrate that the wind record could not occur
by chance.

In addition, in hurricane-prone regions, wind speeds derived from

simulation techniques based on regional data can only be used when the
following conditions exist:

1. Proper simulation or extreme-value statistical analysis procedures

are used. The use of regional wind speed data obtained from ane-
mometers to define the hurricane wind speed is not permitted for
the U.S. Gulf and Atlantic coasts, the Caribbean, or Hawaii.
2. The design wind speeds resulting from the study shall not be less
than the resulting 500-year RP wind speed divided by 1.5.

Note that the gust response factors and velocity pressure exposure
coefficients in the equations of ASCE Manual 74 (ASCE draft) are intended
for use with the 3-s gust wind speed at 33 ft above ground in open coun-
try terrain. Therefore, it is necessary to make the appropriate adjustments
when using regional climate data based on different parameters. Advice
from a wind engineer or meteorologist may be needed since some of these
adjustments are not always straightforward.
In using local data, sampling errors can lead to large uncertainties in
specification of the 50-year wind speed. Sampling errors are the errors
associated with the limited size of the climatological data samples (years
of record of annual extremes). It is possible to have a 20-mph error in wind
speed at an individual station with a record length of 30 years. Although
 LOADS 31

local records of limited extent often must be used to define wind speeds in
special wind areas, this should be done with care and conservatism.

3.3.2 Combined Ice and Wind Loads

Very little data exists in North America on equivalent uniform ice
thickness from natural ice accretions on overhead transmission lines.
Therefore, ice load studies often rely on mathematical models based on the
physics of the various types of icing and on meteorological data (precipita-
tion amount and type, temperature, and wind speed). Results from an ice
accretion analysis typically give calculated ice thickness for past storms
in which freezing precipitation has occurred. An extreme-value analysis
can then be applied to determine the ice accumulation. Wind speeds dur-
ing and after periods of freezing precipitation can also be extracted from
the meteorological database and analyzed to determine the wind speed to
apply concurrently with the ice thickness.
In lieu of using the recommended values in the ASCE Manual 74 (ASCE
1991; ASCE draft) ice and wind map, the 50-year RP ice thickness and
the concurrent wind speed for a structure may be determined from local
meteorological data, provided the following are considered:

1. The quality of the precipitation, wind, and present weather data

have been taken into account.
2. A robust ice accretion algorithm has been used to estimate uniform
ice thickness and concurrent wind speeds from these data.
3. Proper extreme-value statistical analysis procedures have been used
in analyzing the ice thickness and concurrent wind speed data.
4. Both lengths of record and sampling errors have been taken into
account.

Recommendation: A meteorologist familiar with atmospheric icing

should be consulted in areas with high elevations and complex relief and
in areas where little information on ice loads is available.

3.4 EFFECTS OF LOAD FACTORS OR LOAD RETURN PERIODS

Practical design procedure requires that single values of the magnitude

of the events be used. These nominal design values are normally specified
in a code or loading specification so that their risk of being exceeded is
relatively low. For example, a 50-year RP extreme wind velocity has a 2%
(0.02) probability of being exceeded in any one year.
The probability that an event or load with a given RP will be exceeded
at least once during the planned lifetime (reference period) of a line is
given in Table 3-1. This probability is a useful indicator but it does not
32 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

TABLE 3-1. Probability of Exceeding Design Load during Reference

Period

Reference Period, n (years)

Return Period Annual
(year) Probability 1 5 10 25 50 100
25 0.040 0.04 0.18 0.34 0.64 0.87 0.98
50 0.020 0.02 0.10 0.18 0.40 0.64 0.87
100 0.010 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.22 0.40 0.64
200 0.005 0.005 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.22 0.39

correspond to the probability of failure of the line or to that of any of its

components. More information related to the calculations that yield the
results in Table 3-1 can be found in the commentary of ASCE Standard 7-02
(ASCE 2002).
The methods for estimating loads, especially those for weather-related
events, are mostly based on statistical models. These models, although
scientifically correct, have limitations on the precision of their estimates.
To ensure structural reliability, load factors are introduced to compensate
for this uncertainty.
The load factor allows a designer to modify the reliability of a line.
Selection of an appropriate load factor should be based on the importance
of the line and its location and length. For example, a higher load factor
may be selected for a portion of a line located in an urban area.
All given design parameters being the same, the reliability of a long line is
lower than that of a short line. The primary reason for the reduced reliability
is that a long line is exposed to a larger number of severe weather-related
events and, therefore, its likelihood of experiencing some type of failure is
greater. Also, weak components are more likely to be exposed in a larger
population. Thus, an essential long line may require a higher load factor.
It is possible to convert wind and ice data collected at a point by a suit-
able multiplier to reflect the spatial aspect of a typical line. This aspect of
defining weather-related load criteria was theoretically demonstrated in
Dagher et al. (1993) and used in development of actual line loading crite-
ria by Behncke (1998).
Design for load with an RP less than 50 years may be considered for
distribution or for temporary transmission structures. The designer
should also be aware that electrical grids are distributed systems and
may have multiple redundancies. Multiple looped paths may be provided
from the generation sources to the point of service. The reliability of the
whole system may be generally addressed by means of looping and extra
redundancies. Thus, the stability of the electrical grid typically would not
rely on one individual structure.
 LOADS 33

Multipliers to convert 50-year-event extreme wind loads to 25- to 400-

year RP values are presented in Table 3-2. The factors in Table 3-2 show
that increasing the 50-year RP design wind load by 15% approximately
doubles the relative reliability level, and increasing by 30% approximately
quadruples it.
Multipliers to convert 50-year-event ice thickness and concurrent wind
speeds to 25- to 400-year RP values are presented in Table 3-3. The fac-
tors in Table 3-3 indicate that the uniform ice thickness for a 50-year RP
is increased by 25% to approximately double the relative reliability level,
and by 50% to approximately quadruple it. Using these factors, the con-
current wind load to be applied with the extreme uniform ice thickness
need not be adjusted for RP.

TABLE 3-2. Approximatea Load Factors to

Convert Extreme Wind Loads from a 50-Year
Return Period to Another

Return Period (year) Wind Load Factor

25 0.85
50 1.00
100 1.15
200 1.30
400 1.45
a
ASCE Standard 7-02 (ASCE 2002). Exact conversion
factors depend on wind storm statistics.

TABLE 3-3. Approximate a Load Factors for Combined Ice and

Wind Loads

Concurrent Wind
Return Period (year) Ice Thickness Factor Load Factor
25 0.80 1.00
50 1.00 1.00
100 1.25 1.00
200 1.50 1.00
400 1.85 1.00
a
Applied to 50-year combined ice and wind loads. Exact conversion factors depend
on wind storm statistics, ice storm statistics, and wire diameter.
 Chapter 4
STRENGTH OF SINGLE-POLE UTILITY
STRUCTURES

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Single-pole utility structures are generally loaded as cantilever

beam-columns. Their load capacity varies with geometry, structural mate-
rial, manufacturing process, and support conditions. These parameters,
often characterized with varying degrees of uncertainty, are used with
mechanics-based as well as empirical-based models (that also introduce
some uncertainty) to obtain load capacity or resistance estimates. For
these reasons, the design procedure described in Chapter 2 incorporates
resistance factors ( factors in Eq. 2-1a) to account for the uncertainties
inherent in the estimates of pole capacity.
Pole resistance is a random variable that may be characterized using a
probability density function (PDF). For the typical range of pole resistance
and load coefficients of variation (COVs), a relatively consistent reliability
can be achieved across material types by setting nominal resistance values
that represent a 5% to 10% lower exclusion limit (LEL) equal to the design
load effect corresponding to a predetermined return period (RP) (IEC
2002; Peyrot and Dagher 1984). For example, setting the 5th percentile pole
strength, R5%LEL, equal to the 50-year RP load effect Q50, R5%LEL  Q50, yields
resulting reliabilities that are relatively insensitive to the respective PDFs
and COVs of the load and strength parameters.
In this manual, nominal resistance (Rn) is defined as the strength that
will be exceeded by 95% of poles in the target population (see Fig. 1-1 in
Chapter 1). In statistical terms, this value is often referred to as the 5th per-
centile (5% of the population lies below it) or the lower 5% LEL. Because
it is not practical to require a precise evaluation of the 5% LEL, statistical
methods are commonly used to obtain an estimate that has an associated
level of confidence. Confidence refers to the probability that a randomly
selected sample will have an LEL greater than or equal to the target value.
The lower confidence bound on a LEL is called a lower tolerance limit
(LTL). In this manual, we refer primarily to a 5% LTL having a 50% or 75%
confidence.

35
36 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

4.2 OBJECTIVE

This section presents three basic methods for deriving and document-
ing Rn as an LTL value along with the coefficient of variation (COVR) for
single-pole structures. These include the following:

1. An empirical analysis based primarily on tests of full-sized poles.

2. A theoretical analysis of mechanics-based models used in conjunction
with Monte Carlo simulation.
3. A default assignment of material distribution parameters.

These three approaches are intended to address the range of com-

plexity and experience associated with conventional as well as potential
utility pole structural materials. The empirical approach relies heavily
on test data to verify modeling assumptions. This is especially appli-
cable for wood that is a nonuniform orthotropic material. The variable
nature of wood leaves the designer with the options of using a mini-
mum clear wood strength and designing to the minimum specification
(for example, largest knot, minimum dimension, greatest grain angle),
or referencing full-scale tests of a sample of poles that represent the
quality range expected when ordering to a minimum specification (e.g.,
ANSI O5.1-2002 [ANSI 2002]). If the critical stress in a wood pole occurs
predominantly at the groundline and does not involve knots, strength
can be predicted using distribution parameters published for clear wood
(ASTM 1998). Knots, cross-sectional dimensions, and taper may present
some questions about variability; in such cases a full-scale pole test
database may provide a better estimate of the Rn for full-sized poles.
The uniform, isotropic nature of materials such as steel and concrete
make them more amenable to the use of mechanics-based models. These
models may be coupled with Monte Carlo simulation of material proper-
ties to predict their 5% LTL strength. In other cases, where model param-
eters exhibit little or no covariance the analytical models may be used to
estimate mean behavior, and independent parameter variances may be
summed to provide an estimate of the pole strength variance with no need
for computer simulation.
Default assignment is used when there are insufficient data to char-
acterize the pole strength PDF empirically and when demonstrably reli-
able models have not been developed to provide accurate estimates of
structural performance for a particular pole material or configuration. The
default method provides a conservative approach to assigning parameters
for estimating Rn.
Market forces will likely control the evolution of the reliability-based
design (RBD) approach and ultimately bring all pole configurations to a
 STRENGTH OF SINGLE-POLE UTILITY STRUCTURES 37

relatively uniform level of reliability. It is the responsibility of the pole

suppliers to provide the parameters and supporting documentation for
their poles’ strengths, but it is the responsibility of the design engineer
to select the correct pole for a given load condition. It is the responsibil-
ity of the purchasing agency to review and verify that the poles selected
by the engineer are provided by the pole supplier. If competing suppliers
are unsure of values being used by their competition, it is their responsi-
bility to fully understand the competitive products and their evaluation.
It is this system of checks and balances resulting from competition and
documented system performance that will force evolution of increasing
reliability.

4.3 SCOPE

The following discussion is related to the derivation of resistance PDFs

for single-pole structures subjected to transverse wind and ice loading.
In this application, the primary structural component (the pole) is con-
sidered to behave as a cantilever beam. Its resistance is characterized by
a bending-strength PDF, although the actual failure mechanism may be a
localized buckling or tensile failure.
Procedures outlined in this section rely on the fundamental assumption
that all poles meet or exceed established minimum manufacturing and
process quality standards for poles (AISC 1999; ANSI 2002; ANSI/ASCE
Standard 10-90 [ASCE 1992], which was previously ASCE Manual 72 [ASCE
1990]; PCI 1999]). The organizations that set these standards provide for
acceptable tolerance variations in the manufacturing or processing of
all of the pole types. A pole’s nominal strength shall be determined and
reliability-based strength factors shall be calculated against these accept-
able variations. This document does not address pole strength reliability
associated with initial substandard quality poles or of pole deterioration
because of damage in service or use in hostile environments. Pole dete-
rioration, whether cumulative or due to a single event, is highly variable
and should be handled as part of regular pole inspection and maintenance
schedules.

4.4 CHARACTERIZING POLE STRENGTH

This document does not cover all possible design criteria for single-
pole structures. It illustrates general methods to assign nominal design
properties for common pole configurations. The general procedures out-
lined here can be adapted to less-common designs.
38 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

4.4.1 Loads
As previously noted, loads considered in this characterization of pole
strength are limited to wind and ice. While the magnitude and variability
of these loads are different within and between geographic regions, their
effect is manifested on single-pole structures predominantly as cantilever-
bending moments. Potential failure modes that result from bending vary
with pole material type, geometry, and support conditions. All potential
failure modes must be considered in deriving a PDF to characterize pole
strength. For wood poles, extreme fiber-bending stress generally con-
trols the pole’s bending load capacity. For reinforced concrete poles, the
ultimate strength is often controlled by the compressive strength of the
concrete. For tubular steel and fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) structures,
local buckling and bending are generally the governing factors.

4.4.2 Nominal Resistance

To achieve relatively uniform structural reliability across all material
types, a uniform definition of the characteristic of nominal strength or
resistance Rn is required. Resistance or strength (Rn) defined in terms of
a limiting stress should represent a consistent estimate with regard to the
strength PDFs for all pole materials. To this end, Rn for single-pole structures
is herein defined to represent the 5% LEL with a noted level of confidence
( LTL), regardless of material type. The following discussion describes
three approaches to characterizing pole strength and identifying:

1. The nominal resistance Rn corresponding to a designated LTL.

2. The resistance coefficient of variation (COVR).

Ideally, Rn (defined in terms of a limiting stress) should represent the

same point estimate with regard to strength PDF for all pole materials. To
this end, Rn for single-pole structures is herein defined to represent the 5%
LEL regardless of material type. The strength factors in Table 2-2 can be
used when pole resistance values are stated at other than 5% LEL.

4.4.2.1 Method 1: Empirical Basis. Empirical derivation of pole

strength generally involves some combination of full-sized pole tests and
mechanics-based models. Because it is not economically feasible to test
every possible combination of pole size, processing variable, and load
configuration, standard tests are used to establish a baseline evaluation
of pole capacity. This baseline is then adjusted to account for influences
specific to a given application.
For example, the wood pole industry has traditionally endorsed a con-
servative approach to the selection of wood poles by adopting a standard
 STRENGTH OF SINGLE-POLE UTILITY STRUCTURES 39

test procedure, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

Standard D 1036-99 (ASTM 1999b) that uses either a cantilever or a simply
supported beam test to evaluate a maximum groundline moment capacity
for a green pole (green wood has a moisture content above the fiber satura-
tion point—roughly 35%). At the present time, the best source for informa-
tion on empirically derived wood pole design values is ANSI O5.1-2002,
Annex C (ANSI 2002). This annex includes mean and variance values for
strength and modulus of elasticity for commercial pole species as well as
adjustments for conditioning, height, and size.
This test imposes boundary conditions that are at least as critical as any
imposed on a pole in service. Green values have traditionally been used
in the design of heavy timber because drying during service has coun-
teracting effects: wood shrinkage reduces the effective section property
while fiber strength and stiffness increase. Pole strength has traditionally
been assessed as stress at the maximum moment location (groundline in
the standard test), regardless of the actual failure location. Failure above
the groundline is normally associated with knots or the reduced section
property due to natural taper. A reduction in fiber strength with height
may also be an influence for fast-grown poles. Tests conducted to assess
the effect of variable material quality along the length of the pole (Bodig
et al. 1986) show that when this failure occurred above groundline, the
groundline stress was generally within 10% of the stress at the failure loca-
tion. The pole capacity may therefore still be determined on the basis of
groundline stress. The ASTM Standard D 1036-99 (ASTM 1999b) cantilever
test method provides conservative estimates of pole groundline moment
(GLM) capacity when the groundline circumference is more than 1½ times
the circumference at the centroid of load application.
Similar standard test procedures exist for concrete and FRP poles (e.g.,
ASTM Standard C 1089-97 [ASTM 1997] for spun-cast prestressed concrete
poles, and ASTM Standard D 4923-92 [ASTM 1992] and ANSI Standard C
136.20 [ANSI 1996] for FRP poles). ASCE is planning to publish a standard
test procedure for steel poles.
Methods used to assess nominal resistance should take a conservative
approach in accounting for processing and common service conditions
that might affect pole performance. The design engineer should request
information on the assumptions made in the derivation of the nominal
values and recommendations for modifying them in certain cases: where
a pole will be used under uncommon conditions, such as extremely wet
or arid conditions, salt air, high temperature, or alkali soil, or where
loads or boundary conditions differ from those assumed in deriving Rn.
Adjustments for the derivation of design stress in round timber are pre-
sented in ASTM Standard D 2899-01 (ASTM 2001).
A well-documented database established with strict adherence to stan-
dard test procedures can provide long-term benefits for the development
40 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

and evolution of design standards. Periodic updating provides a record of

changing trends in pole production and pole performance sensitivity to
influencing variables. Over time, this can lead to refined methods for pole
classification, reducing variability, and increasing reliability.
For manufactured poles having uniform strength along their length, it
may be advantageous to develop a simple beam-bending test procedure
in lieu of the full-scale cantilever pole test used for wood. The point of
maximum stress in a uniformly tapered cantilever beam can be derived
theoretically. If engineering models are available to accurately predict
critical stress location but verification data are required to predict effects
of change in geometry with applied stress, the standard test could be con-
ducted to concentrate maximum bending stress at a specific cross section.
A simple beam test having a high enough span-to-depth ratio to mini-
mize the significance of shear effects would be less costly than a full-size
cantilever test and would yield similar results. Alternative test methods
must be universally accepted by users and producers and the appropriate
design code authority.

4.4.2.1.1 Probability Density Functions. A critical part of any empirical

evaluation is ensuring that the referenced database accurately represents
the target population. Test samples must be selected to truly represent
pole production and test results should be classified so values are charac-
terized on the basis of probability of occurrence.
For full-sized pole test data to be statistically valid, the test specimens
must be representative, in terms of size and quality, of the poles to be
used in service applications. This may require samples to be selected
over time and to be selected on the basis of population proportions.
Methods to ensure the statistical validity of the sampling conducted can
be found in ASTM Standard D 2915-99 (ASTM 1999a) and Standard D
5457-93 (ASTM 1993).
Using a test sample to project a statistical probability of occurrence of
pole strength requires the adoption of a PDF. PDFs are generally classified
as either parametric (described by a mathematical function) or nonpara-
metric and are assumed to have a frequency profile rather than a strength
profile representative of the parent population of pole strengths.
The nonparametric approach imposes no assumed shape on the PDF;
it sorts data by order of magnitude. The sequence number correspond-
ing to a particular datum in the ordered set is referred to as its order
statistic; the initial estimate of the probability of getting a value less than
or equal to that datum is the order statistic divided by the number of
data points in the data set. For example, the lowest value in a sample of
20 (1/20  0.05) or the second value in a sample of 40 (2/40  0.05) is
assumed to represent the 5th-percentile order statistic. In other words,
5% of a sample will have values less than or equal to this value. This
 STRENGTH OF SINGLE-POLE UTILITY STRUCTURES 41

value is often referred to as a point estimate of the 5% lower exclusion

limit (LEL) of the parent population.
It is generally accepted practice in the wood industry, as in ASTM
Standard D 2915-99 (ASTM 1999a) to select an order statistic that will pro-
vide a level of confidence in an estimate of the 5% LEL. For an infinite
population, the value at the 5th-percentile order statistic is the 5% LEL.
For small samples, there is roughly a 50% chance that the LEL will exceed
5% of the parent population. Statistical tables are available that provide
nonparametric order statistics associated with confidence bounds on the
estimates of lower exclusion values (FPL 2005). Table 4-1 lists the order
statistics associated with the 5% LEL given the 50% minimal confidence
value as well as 75% confidence. The higher the level of confidence, the
lower the order statistic.

TABLE 4-1. A 5% LTL with 50% or 75% Confidence for a Nonparametric

Estimate and for a Normal Distributiona

Sample Size Nonparametric Normal

N I50 I75 K50 K75
5 NA NA 1.78 2.464
15 NA NA 1.68 1.99
20 1 — 1.67 1.93
28 — 1 1.66 1.88
40 2 — 1.66 1.83
53 — 2 1.65 1.81
60 3 — 1.65 1.79
70 — — 1.65 1.78
78 — 3 1.65 1.77
80 4 — 1.65 1.77
90 — — 1.65 1.76
102 5.1 4 1.65 1.76
125 6.25 5 1.65 1.75
200 10 9 1.65 1.72
 15 13 1.65 1.71
a
For a nonparametric distribution, the order statistic (I  order of magnitude,
or rank in an ordered list) is used to identify the 5% LEL (I50) and the 5% LTL
(I75  75% confidence). For a normal distribution, the 5% LTL is derived with 50%
(K50) or 75% (K75) confidence standard deviations below the mean.
42 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

As specified in ASTM Standard D 2915-99 (ASTM 1999a), the non-

parametric distribution is preferred for structural wood design value
derivations when using a small sample (100) basis. Unlike parametric
distributions, this approach requires a minimum sample of 21 to estimate
a 5% LEL. Small samples may provide a reasonable estimate of mean
trend but they do not provide sufficient information to accurately assess
variability or point estimates at low probability levels.
Parametric PDFs are defined by closed-form equations, which can be
used to generate an entire population of values that fit a designated dis-
tribution shape. Parametric PDFs therefore provide a means of extrapolat-
ing beyond the bounds of a given data set to estimate values with a low
probability of occurrence. It is generally considered risky to extrapolate
too far beyond the range of the available test data. Sample size (N) should
therefore be selected to provide a prescribed level of assurance ( ) that
100  % of a population will be included between the largest and small-
est values. Wilkes (1944) derived a function to characterize the relation-
ship (Eq. 4-1) between N, , and :

NN  1  (N  1)N  1  . (Eq. 4-1)

This function indicates that a sample size of N  93 is required to

encompass 95% of a population with 95% assurance, and a sample size
of N  472 to encompass 99% of a population with that same level of
assurance.
Many forms of parametric PDFs have been formulated. The three that
are most commonly referenced to model strength are the normal, log-normal,
and Weibull distributions. These PDFs demonstrate a range of control of
shape and range of predicted values and imply varying degrees of knowl-
edge about the population being represented.
The normal PDF has the following mathematical form:

1
1 � [( x�m )/σ ]2
f X ( x) = e 2 (Eq. 4-2)
σ 2π

where
m  the mean value of x or first moment of the area under the PDF
curve, where   x  
σ  the standard deviation. It is the square root of the second moment
of the area under the PDF about the mean (variance) σ2   (x 
m)2 fx(x) dx. For a discrete data set, this relationship yields:
 STRENGTH OF SINGLE-POLE UTILITY STRUCTURES 43

0.5
 N 2 2
 ∑ x i − Nm 
σ =  i = 1 
(Eq. 4-3)
N−1 

in which N is the sample size.

If there are sufficient data to warrant its use, the normal PDF will gener-
ally provide conservative estimates of low tail values. Using the normal
distribution, Rn may be determined by

Rn  Rm  K · σR (Eq. 4-4)

where
Rm  the mean strength
σR  standard deviation of strength
K  the distance from the mean to the point on the PDF that corre-
sponds to the target lower tolerance limit.
The K values given in Table 4-1 were derived using a noncentral
t-distribution inverse approach discussed by Guttman (1970). These
values are derived to consider either a 50% or 75% confidence in the
5th percentile of a normal distribution for sample sizes ranging from
5 to 300.
The normal distribution has historically been used for characterizing
the strength of wood. It is easy to use, is widely recognized, and gen-
erally provides conservative estimates of low tail values that are refer-
enced when deriving design values. When the available data show that
strengths are not distributed symmetrically about the mean, other PDFs
are referenced to provide a more accurate characterization. A weakness
often cited for the normal PDF is that it presents the possibility of hav-
ing strength values less than zero. This is not a problem when the stan-
dard deviation is less than 30% of the mean and the PDF is used only to
provide an estimate of a value having greater than a 1% probability of
occurrence.
If the PDF is known to be right-skewed (i.e., having values much
farther above than below the mean), the normal distribution may be
considered to be overly conservative in estimating LTL values. Wood
utility poles are often selected from a truncated normal distribu-
tion, where the lower tail represents poles that do not meet the ANSI
O5.1-2002 (ANSI 2002) minimum specifications. An alternative to the
normal PDF that addresses the issue of right-skewness (and nega-
tive values) is the log-normal PDF. This PDF is derived assuming that
44 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

the logarithms of the test data are normally distributed. In general, how-
ever, when the standard deviation is in the range of 20% of the mean,
the log-normal distribution will give a 5th percentile point estimate
only slightly larger than that obtained assuming a normal PDF. The log-
normal PDF is defined as follows.
The log-normal PDF is applicable if the natural logarithms of strength
data (x) are normally distributed with a mean  and standard deviation
µ. In this case, the PDF is of the same form as Eq. 4-2, substituting y  1n
(x) for x,  for m, and µ for .

2
1  y −λ 
1 − 
2  µ 
fy ( y) = e (Eq. 4-5)
µ 2π

where  is the first moment of the area under the PDF or the mean of the
1n, (x) and µ2 is the second moment or variance of the 1n, (x).
Because there are closed-form transformation equations to relate nor-
mal and log-normal PDF parameters, there is little need to actually work
with the logarithms of data in order to make point estimates using the
log-normal distribution. The mean strength and standard deviation con-
version from normal to logarithm have the following form:

Log-normal variance  µ2  1n (2 + 1). (Eq. 4-6)

Log-normal mean  µ2
λ = 1n(R m) − (Eq. 4-6)
2
where
1n ( )  natural logarithm (base e)
  COVR  coefficient of variation of the strength test data (σR/Rm)
Rm  mean of the strength test data
σR  standard deviation of the strength test data.
Equations 4-8 and 4-9 provide a point estimate of the LTL nominal
strength Rn for a log-normal distribution using the mean Rm and coeffi-
cient of variation  of the test data.

Rn  kNxRm. (Eq. 4-8)

1
kN = (Eq. 4-9)
2
exp( 11n( Ω + 1) + K N 1n( Ω + 1))
2
2
 STRENGTH OF SINGLE-POLE UTILITY STRUCTURES 45

Note that KN and kN are different variables. The multiplier kN in Eq. 4-8
converts the mean test data strength to a LTL with a confidence value
dependent on KN. The KN is the normal distribution tolerance adjustment
corresponding to sample size N as listed in Table 4-1.
The Weibull PDF is a versatile alternative that can also be used to rep-
resent a distribution of all-positive values. It can be made to fit a wide
range of distribution shapes. The Weibull distribution may be character-
ized using either two or three parameters. The three-parameter function
has the following form:
ω −1
ω  x − x0  x − x0 ω
(Eq. 4-10)
f x (x) =   exp( −( ) ) x ≥ x 0 ω ,θ > 0
θ  θ  θ
where
  slope or shape parameter that reflects the relative scatter in the
data; the larger the shape parameter, the lower the spread. A shape
parameter of 3.5 is symmetric while a value 3.5 gives a negative
or left-skewness, and a value 3.5 provides a positive skewness.
θ  scale parameter. As the scale parameter increases, the mode (loca-
tion) where most events occur moves toward the upper end of the
distribution.
x0  location parameter. If the location parameter is set equal to zero,
Eq. 4-10 reduces to a two-parameter Weibull PDF.
The added versatility of the Weibull PDF also allows a greater chance
for misrepresentation. For poles that have a COV in the range of 20%,
the two-parameter Weibull distribution is likely to give more conserva-
tive estimates of a lower fractile than will a normal distribution. When
the COV of a data set has a value less than 30%, a two-parameter Weibull
PDF will generally have a shape parameter greater than 3.5, resulting in a
negative skewness. Including the third (location) parameter will shift the
distribution, reduce the shape parameter, and change the skewness.
The point estimate for the 5% LEL of a Weibull distribution can be cal-
culated using Eq. 4-11.

5%LRLWeibull  θ · (1n(0.95))1/  x0
(Eq. 4-11)
or 5%LRLWeibull  θ · (0.0513)1/  x0.

4.4.2.1.2 Selecting a Probability Density Function. When selecting a PDF, it

is important to consider how representative the data are of the population
being modeled and how conclusions to be drawn from the data are to be
used. Small data sets are generally assumed to be representative of mean
trend but have a low probability of accurately representing variability in
a parent population. When the PDF is being used only to select a lower
tolerance value and not to characterize the shape of the low tail of the
46 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

resistance distribution, there is limited value in attaining a precise fit. In

such cases a normal PDF is the easiest of the established parametric func-
tions to work with. For products subject to some level of quality control or
quality assurance, there is generally some justification for assuming that
the parent PDF will be skewed to the high side. Normal and log-normal
PDFs give similar results with COVs under 20%. In this case, the normal
PDF will give slightly more conservative 5% LTL values.
Documentation of the derivation of Rn should include discussion of the
PDF and the process used for its selection. ASTM Standard D 2915-99, Section
4.5.7 (ASTM 1999a) suggests comparing a histogram or empirical
cumulative distribution function to one or more overlaid paramet-
ric distribution functions as a means of justifying the PDF selection.
Anderson (1952) discusses goodness-of-fit models and how they vary
with distribution type.
Individual pole producers who maintain their own database on pole
strength may select any PDF that can be supported by their data as a means
of estimating a 5% LTL. The nonparametric PDF assumption is the most
conservative and is best used with limited samples. If the sample size is
large and pole strengths are supported by simple, conservative models
that recognize basic material properties (from small clear tests, coupon
tests, and cylinder tests) and permissible defects, the normal or log-normal
assumptions are likely to give reasonably conservative estimates of a lower
fractile of the PDF, as well.
Any organization interested in using a strictly empirical basis for the
derivation of nominal resistance should maintain an up-to-date database
for poles representative of those being used. Increasing the size of the data-
base leads to greater confidence in the nominal resistance value. Increasing
the sample size over time provides a basis for judging trends in materials
and manufacturing that might affect the strength PDF. Larger samples
also provide the opportunity for adopting a more rigorous approach to
assessing the reliability of a utility line.

4.4.2.1.3 Empirical Analysis. Test data generally require some degree of

interpretation. For example, ANSI wood pole dimensions are typically used
in design, rather than the measured dimensions of the pole. If empirical
strength values are derived using measured pole dimensions and applied
using the ANSI size-class minimum dimensions, predicted GLM capacity
will be less than the measured value. For this reason, values referred to by
ANSI O5.1-2002 (ANSI 2002), Annex C as “adjusted groundline modulus of
rupture” are derived as the average failure moment at groundline, divided
by the pole-class minimum groundline section modulus. Here the ground-
line section modulus was derived using the ANSI 6-ft-from-the-butt value
adjusted to groundline using the ANSI-tabulated minimum dimensions to
estimate taper. Pole modulus of elasticity estimates are also based on the
 STRENGTH OF SINGLE-POLE UTILITY STRUCTURES 47

class minimum dimensions at the butt and tip, assuming a linear taper and
constant modulus of elasticity (MOE) value over the length of the pole.
These values are therefore intended only for use with the ANSI-tabulated
minimum dimensions

4.4.2.1.4 Confidence. A number of factors affect the confidence or assur-

ance that an estimate based on a test sample provides a conservative
representation of the target point of the parent distribution. The greater
the sample size, the greater the probability that the sample mean and
variance will closely approximate the parent population values. For a
nonparametric distribution, confidence is characterized in terms of order
statistics or the order of magnitude. The smallest value in a sample of 20
is the 5th percentile for that sample but only a 50% probability exists that
it will be a conservative estimate of the parent population 5th percentile.
The first-order statistic in a sample of 28, on the other hand, has a 75%
probability of lying at or below the parent population 5th percentile. For
a normal distribution, confidence/tolerance adjustment factors represent
the distance from the mean of a sample to the point estimate in terms of
the number of standard deviations. Basically, the confidence bound is set to
provide some level of assurance that values derived on the basis of a small
sample will encompass or provide a conservative estimate of the value for
the parent population.
Table 4-1 provides a listing of order statistics used to estimate a lower
5% tolerance limit with a nonparametric distribution and adjustment fac-
tors representing the number of standard deviations from the mean to the
5% LTL of a normal PDF.
It is apparent from this discussion that an empirically derived value
for Rn will vary, depending on the PDF assumed to represent the data. It
is imperative for the pole supplier to provide documentation to support
the assumptions made in the selection of a PDF and the derivation of the
nominal resistance.
In Appendix B, the Method 1 section provides examples of the applica-
tion of the empirical method to obtain the 5% LTL Rn.

4.4.2.2 Method 2: Mechanics-Based Models Used in Conjunction with

Monte Carlo Simulation. Maintaining a database of full-sized pole tests
can be prohibitively expensive. As an alternative, basic material proper-
ties can be used in conjunction with mechanics-based models to estimate
mean pole strength. Strength variability, however, is a more complex
issue. If there is no covariance between any of the independent variables,
variance of a strictly linear model can be estimated as the sum of vari-
ances of the individual input parameters, eliminating the need for simu-
lation. When using a nonlinear model with no covariance, variance may
be influenced by parameter effects on any nonlinear function. Simulation
48 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

provides a tool for characterizing this effect. However, models that rely
on covariant input parameters are more complex because, for example,
wood fiber strength and stiffness both vary with density, age, and mois-
ture content, and the variability in weld strength may be larger with
thicker steel plate. Application of Monte Carlo simulation in these cases
requires establishment of an accurate covariance matrix and interaction
equations to ensure realistic combinations of input parameters. Any in-
fluence that one input parameter has on another should be recognized in
the development of the virtual structures being evaluated.
Computer simulation routines are designed to randomly generate phys-
ical and mechanical properties from defined PDFs assumed to represent
the properties found in service, and are parameters of theoretical models
used to predict performance. The advantage of Monte Carlo simulation
is that statistical strength data are obtained using relatively inexpensive
material coupon tests (small, clear samples for wood; cylinder tests for
concrete) rather than testing a large population of full-size poles. Basically,
the simulation routine compiles a large sample of computer-generated
pole strength estimates. The resulting samples are then treated similarly
to the empirical data, with the added adjustments for modeling error.
A few pitfalls to simulation must be considered. The most obvious is
the question of mechanics-model accuracy. It is difficult to develop and
verify a model that accounts for all variables that may influence strength
and variability of the full-scale structure. When a model is used to predict
performance of a complex system, it should be verified over the full range
of input parameters for which it will be used.
Although the model being used may be accurate at predicting perfor-
mance for any known combination of parameters, it may not accurately
represent expected behavior in the tails of a distribution. For this reason,
verification tests should be conducted to assess the prediction accuracy
at the extremes of the influencing variables. A verification test should
include accurate measurement of raw material mechanical properties as
well as physical properties of the test poles. The more variable the mate-
rial and the wider the range of structural configurations to be modeled,
the larger the verification database should be. The model verification
database should be well-documented and included along with simulation
results as support for nominal resistance values to be used.
Nonlinear mechanics-based models employ iterative techniques to pre-
dict failure. These models account for change in material as well as geomet-
ric properties with increased strain levels. Verification tests are conducted
to assess the prediction accuracy at the extremes of the influencing vari-
ables. Confidence in simulated data varies with the accuracy of the models
as well as the input data. Model accuracy should be verified by comparing
model predictions to full-scale pole test data using the actual material and
geometric properties of the corresponding test specimen. The data used to
 STRENGTH OF SINGLE-POLE UTILITY STRUCTURES 49

establish input PDFs for mechanics-based models should be subject to the

same assessment of confidence as the full-scale pole test data.
The number of simulations required to get a satisfactory confidence
on estimates of distribution parameters will vary with the complexity of
parameter interactions and symmetry of their assumed distribution func-
tions. These topics are discussed in greater detail by Law and Kelton (2000),
Hammersley and Handscomb (1964), and Balci and Sargenti (1984). It is
often preferable to run a number of trials, each consisting of 200 to 500 simu-
lations, to generate a distribution of point estimates rather than one run
of 10,000 simulations. This provides a better indication of variability and
confidence bounds. The number of simulations conducted needs to be large
enough, however, to provide stable predictions of the 5th percentile.
The PDFs used to characterize the raw data input for simulation mod-
els should be based on large enough sample sizes to ensure a standard
error (SE) no greater than 10% of the estimated 5th percentile. If normality
is assumed, the tolerance limit is estimated using Eq. 4-4 (Natrella 1963).
The SE of this statistic varies with sample size (N) and sample standard
deviation(s) of the sample. It can be approximated using the equation:
2
SE � s 1 k (Eq. 4-12)
�
N 2( N�1)

where
K  confidence level factor (Table 4-1).
In Appendix B, the Method 2 section provides examples on the appli-
cation of Monte Carlo simulation along with mechanics-based models to
obtain the 5% LTL Rn.

4.4.2.3 Method 3: Default Basis. The default basis is used if there are
insufficient data to characterize the pole strength PDF empirically or if
demonstrably reliable models have not been developed to provide ac-
curate estimates of pole strength. The default method provides a conser-
vative approach to assigning parameters for estimating Rn. The National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, formerly the National Bu-
reau of Standards) proposed guidelines (Ellingwood 1980) for estimating
strength variability as a function of so-called professional, material, and
fabrication influences.
A simple approach is to obtain a best estimate of mean with some
degree of confidence and establish a conservative estimate of variability
until more data become available. Pole strength variability, expressed here
as COV, is influenced by a number of factors that should be considered.
These include inherent material variability (COVM2 ), which can be evalu-
ated using standard material property tests. The geometric variability
50 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

includes inherent or fabrication-related dimensional and thickness toler-

2
ances. Fabrication-induced variability (COVFA ) for steel, concrete, and FRP
poles include manufacturing process effects on geometry and on material
strength properties. Finally, the accuracy of the predictive model of pole
strength is referred to as the professional factor or model accuracy (COVP2).
In estimating the strength of a full-sized pole on the basis of raw mate-
rial test data, confidence in the result is dependent on the accuracy of the
model being used.
Finally, consider so-called other effects (COVO2 ) such as deterioration,
design error, and environmental risk. Poles may be damaged due to mis-
handling during installation or they may experience deterioration from
environmental exposure such as high temperatures, grass fires, ultraviolet
radiation, decay, corrosion, cracking, and spalling. These effects are not
generally included in a design model and they do not have the same effect
on all poles in a line. Poles removed from a line after 30 years of service are
likely to have neither the same strength nor the same strength variability
they had when they were installed.
Combining these individual effects can provide an estimate of the pole
strength COVR:

2 2 2 2 2
COVR � COVM � COVFA� COVO � COVP (Eq. 4-13)

Further information is given in the American Iron and Steel Institute’s

(AISI) “Specification for the design of cold-formed steel structural mem-
bers” (AISI 1996) and “Development of a probability-based load crite-
rion for American National Standard A 58” by Ellingwood et al. (1980).
These and other publications support overall default values for COVR
of steel and concrete poles of 0.15, and 0.20 for wood poles. A number
of variables with fairly broad ranges affect the strength of FRP poles;
therefore, useful default values cannot be established for these poles at
this time.

4.5 PROOF LOADING

Proof loading to a design value provides some degree of quality

assurance but, in the absence of pole failure, this procedure provides
little useful information on the strength distribution. Even when the
proof loading does result in occasional failures, such results can only
provide a basis for assigning some level of confidence about the relative
proximity of the proof load and some fractile of the strength distribu-
tion. The drawback of proof loading to a level that results in occasional
failure is that it provides some risk of causing undetected damage to
the pole.
 STRENGTH OF SINGLE-POLE UTILITY STRUCTURES 51

If backed by research to correlate nondestructive evaluation (NDE)

parameters to strength, proof loading methods might be developed to
enable estimates of LELs of strength. In general, however, NDE param-
eters are not used to define strength since NDE parameters are poorly
correlated with strength.
 FIGURES

1-1 Probability density function (PDF) (normal distribution) . . . . . 3

1-2 Failure occurs in overlap region where the
Load Q > Strength R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2-1 Summary of reliability-based LRFD design procedures . . . . . . 22

A-1 Transmission pole design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

A-2 Distribution pole example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
A-3 Calculation of P- effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

B-1 Comparison of normal, log-normal, and three-parameter

Weibull PDF fit to test data for Southern pine distribution
pole bending strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

TABLES

2-1 Load Conditions That May Be Considered in Design . . . . . . . . 13

2-2 Strength Factor  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2-3 Minimum Load Factors for Transverse Wind Force and Ice
Thickness Corresponding to NESC Grades B and C
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3-1 Probability of Exceeding Design Load during Reference Period 32

3-2 Approximate Load Factors to Convert Extreme Wind Loads
from a 50-Year Return Period to Another . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3-3 Approximate Load Factors for Combined Ice and Wind Loads 33

4-1 A 5% LTL with 50% or 75% Confidence for a Nonparametric

Estimate and for a Normal Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

A-1 Loads for Transmission Pole Design Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

A-2 Groundline Moment (GLM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

xi
 FIGURES

1-1 Probability density function (PDF) (normal distribution) . . . . . 3

1-2 Failure occurs in overlap region where the
Load Q > Strength R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2-1 Summary of reliability-based LRFD design procedures . . . . . . 22

A-1 Transmission pole design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

A-2 Distribution pole example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
A-3 Calculation of P- effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

B-1 Comparison of normal, log-normal, and three-parameter

Weibull PDF fit to test data for Southern pine distribution
pole bending strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

TABLES

2-1 Load Conditions That May Be Considered in Design . . . . . . . . 13

2-2 Strength Factor  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2-3 Minimum Load Factors for Transverse Wind Force and Ice
Thickness Corresponding to NESC Grades B and C
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3-1 Probability of Exceeding Design Load during Reference Period 32

3-2 Approximate Load Factors to Convert Extreme Wind Loads
from a 50-Year Return Period to Another . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3-3 Approximate Load Factors for Combined Ice and Wind Loads 33

4-1 A 5% LTL with 50% or 75% Confidence for a Nonparametric

Estimate and for a Normal Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

A-1 Loads for Transmission Pole Design Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

A-2 Groundline Moment (GLM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

xi
xii FIGURES AND TABLES

A-3 Loads for Distribution Pole Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

A-4 Groundline Moments for Distribution Pole Example . . . . . . . . . 61

B-1 Southern Pine Test Pole Evaluation from ASTM Wood

Pole Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
B-2 Comparison of Nonparametric and Parametric Distribution
Estimates of the 5% LEL Strength (psi) at 75% Confidence
for a Sample of 110 Southern Pine Poles Tested Following
the ASTM Standard D 1036-99 Test Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
B-3 Sample of 15 Steel Coupon Tests Used to Characterize
the Strength in a Population of Steel Poles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
B-4 Comparison of Nonparametric and Parametric
Distribution Estimates of the Yield Strength (psi)
of 15 Steel Poles at a 5% LTL with 75% Confidence . . . . . . . . . . 79
B-5 Professional Factor P Extracted from Five
Full-Scale Custom Pole Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
B-6 Nominal and Actual Data for Material and
Geometric Properties of Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
B-7 Ratios of Actual-to-Nominal Geometric Property Values . . . . . 82
B-8 Values Generated from Monte Carlo Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
B-9 Resulting Nominal and Actual Tube Strengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
B-10 Professional Factor P Extracted from Five
Full-Scale Commodity Pole Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
B-11 Geometric Tolerance Data Collected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
B-12 Material Tolerance Data (Fy) Collected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
B-13 Simulations for a Round Pole with the Following
Nominal Properties: Fy-nom  65 ksi, Dnom  17.50 in.,
and tnom  0.170 in. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
 Appendix A

DESIGN EXAMPLES

A.1 INTRODUCTION

The following examples are for unguyed tangent transmission and

distribution (T/D) poles. They have been included to illustrate some of
the concepts presented in this manual. The examples use force coefficients
(drag coefficients, shape factors) that are based on the minimum recom-
mendations of the 1991 edition of American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE) Manual 74 (ASCE 1991). For wind on poles, the force coefficient
values were selected using ASCE Manual 74, Table 2-3 (ASCE draft). For
wire loads, force coefficients of 1.0 are used for all wires, with or without
ice. In the calculation of wind forces on both wires and poles, the selection
of appropriate force coefficients is very important. Supplemental infor-
mation on force coefficients can be found in Appendix H of ASCE Manual
74 (ASCE draft) as well as in other specifications such as in Appendix B
of ASCE 7-02 (ASCE 2002) and International Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC) Standard IEC 60826 (IEC 2002). Information in ASCE Manual 74
(ASCE draft), Appendix H, for example, suggests that force coefficients
greater than 1.0 may be appropriate for small-diameter (˜ ½-in.) wire,
and IEC 60826 recommends force coefficients between 1.0 and 1.4 for
ice-covered wires.
The design parameters used for these examples do not represent all
possible load conditions, structure types, or components but do provide
insight into how to properly apply the reliability-based design (RBD)
methodology discussed herein. These examples demonstrate how the
loading requirements prescribed in the working draft of ASCE Manual 74
can be used to determine the size of various pole types for different grades
of construction. Examples are given for wood, steel, concrete, and fiber-
reinforced polymer (FRP) poles based on pole bending (strength being
the only design criterion). These examples do not consider other design
criteria such as electrical clearances or seismic effects. In each example the
pole size is initially established based on a calculated groundline moment
(GLM), and then the pole strength is verified at other locations along the

53
54 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

pole. As implemented, this GLM accounts for the deflected shape (P-∆)
effect.
The poles in each of the examples are sized for National Electrical Safety
Code (NESC) (IEEE 2002) Grades B and C construction using the load fac-
tors given in Table 2-3 in Chapter 2 of this manual. As illustrated in the
examples, weather-related loads on poles are independent of material
type. Wind loading on the pole structure depends on the geometry of the
pole (including the projected wind area of the pole above groundline), the
height of the vertical centroid of the applied wind pressure, and the pole
force coefficient (round, polygonal).

A.2 EXAMPLE LOAD REQUIREMENTS

In the following examples, two different pole configurations will be

considered, each assumed to be governed by different loading condi-
tions. A transmission pole will be designed for an extreme wind loading
and a distribution pole will be designed for a combined ice and wind
loading, both in accordance with the criteria set forth in the working
draft of ASCE Manual 74 (ASCE draft). (In practical applications, the
controlling condition will often correspond to that of extreme wind
loading, for both transmission and distribution poles.) For all exam-
ples, both pole configurations assume weight spans that are equal to
the wind spans, although this is not often the case in actual practice.
Note that the wind force formula used in the working draft of ASCE
Manual 74 (ASCE draft), Eq. 2.1-1, is the same as formula specified in
the National Electric Safety Code (IEEE 2002) for extreme wind loading.
This design process is an iterative one. Most methods require that an
assumption be made regarding pole size. This pole size is then ana-
lyzed for the forces it must support. Based on this analysis, if a different
pole size is required the analysis should be repeated to verify the ade-
quacy of the pole.

Transmission Pole Design (Las Vegas, Nevada)

Consider a 75-ft-long pole (65.5-ft height above ground), of the configu-
ration indicated, and subject to the following conditions and parameters
(Fig. A-1):

• ASCE Extreme Wind: 90 mph, Exposure C

• Design for two grades of construction: NESC (IEEE 2002) Grade B
and Grade C
• Wire Parameters:
• Conductor: 795 aluminum conductor steel-reinforced (ACSR) (26/7)
Dia.  1.108 in., Wt  1.091 lb/ft
 Appendix A: Design Examples 55

1’
(1) 3/8” OHGW

5’
(3) Phase Conductors:
795 (26/7) ACSR
5’
5’

5’6” from Pole CL

14’

(1) Communication Wire:

2” Diameter
Pole Length = 75 ft

35.5’

Groundline
9.5’

FIGURE A-1. Transmission Pole Design.

• Shield Wire: 3/8-in. high-speed steel (HSS)

Dia.  0.36 in., Wt  0.273 lb/ft
• Communication Wire:
Dia.  2.0 in., Wt  2.25 lb/ft
• Span Parameters:
• Wind and Weight Spans  500 ft
56 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

In accordance with Eq. 2.1-1 of the working draft of ASCE Manual 74

(ASCE draft), the wind force, F, in pounds is calculated:

F  Q  Kz  (V)2  G  Cf  A

where
Q  air density factor, 0.00256
Kz  velocity pressure exposure coefficient, given by 2.01 (H/900)(2/9.5),
where H = effective height (ft), which yields the following values
for Kz
1.114 for conductors,
1.154 for shield wire,
1.018 for communication wire, and
1.063 for pole.
V  3-s gust wind velocity, 90 mph
G  gust response factor, given by (1  2.7  E · B0.5) / kv2, as described
in the working draft of ASCE Manual 74 (ASCE draft) or the
National Electric Safety Code (IEEE 2002) for wires and structures,
where
E  exposure factor,
B  response term, and
kv  1.43,
which, based upon the respective heights and span lengths, yields
the following values for G
0.743 for conductors,
0.737 for shield wire,
0.759 for communication wire, and
0.906 for pole.
Cf  shape factor (force, or drag, coefficient):
1.0 for wires; for poles, see ASCE Manual 74, Table 2.6-3 (ASCE
1991).
A  projected wind area (ft2).
The corresponding loads are provided in Table A-1
These forces must be adjusted by the appropriate load factors (γ) to
meet the requirements for the desired grade of construction. For NESC
Grade B, (IEEE 2002), the corresponding load factors are γwind  1.0 and
γdl  1.1, and for Grade C the corresponding load factors are γwind  0.5
for poles that do not extend more than 60 ft above ground; for those that
do, γwind  1.0 and γdl = 1.1. The GLM for each pole design is calculated by
multiplying each of these forces by their respective load factors and their
corresponding distances from the groundline. In addition, the eccentricity
of the conductor arrangement is accounted for by multiplying the weight
of one conductor (616 lb) times its offset from the centerline of the pole
(~5.5 ft). The calculations for the wire-related GLMs follow. Since for all
 Appendix A: Design Examples 57

TABLE A-1. Loads for Transmission Pole Design Example

Wind Pressure Wind Area Wind Force

Line Component (psf) (ft2) (lb)
Wind on Conductors 17.16 46.17 792
(ea)
Wind on Shield Wire 17.64 15.00 265

Wind on 16.01 83.33 1,334

Communication
Wire
Wind on Pole 19.97  Cf Varies with pole geometry

transmission pole examples the pole extends 65.5 ft above ground and
extreme wind is the applied load case, the load factors (γwind  1.0 and
γdl  1.1) and the wire-related loading are the same for both Grade B and
Grade C construction. The moment due to wind on the pole is specific to
pole geometry and will be calculated for each specific design example. The
net result is that for each transmission example, the same-sized poles are
required for Grade B and Grade C construction to meet the extreme wind
load case (Table A-2).

Distribution Pole Design (Portland, Oregon)

Consider a 45-ft long pole (38.5 ft height above ground), of the con-
figuration indicated (Fig. A-2) and subject to the following conditions and
parameters:

• ASCE Combined Ice and Wind: 50-mph wind plus 1¼-in. ice
• Design for two grades of construction: Grade B and Grade C
• Wire Parameters:
• Conductor: 336.4 ACSR (26/7)
Dia.  0.72 in., Wt  0.462 lb/ft
• Neutral Wire: 3/0 all-aluminum conductor (AAC)
Dia.  0.464 in., Wt  0.156 lb/ft
• Communication Cable (+ Messenger):
Dia.  1.5 in., Wt  1.12 lb/ft
• Span Parameters:
• Wind and Weight Spans  275 ft.

In accordance with Eq. 2.1-1 of the working draft of ASCE Manual 74

(ASCE draft), the wind force, F, in pounds is calculated:
58 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

TABLE A-2. Groundline Moment (GLM)

Grade B Grade C
Line Force Distance GLM GLM
Component (lb) (ft) γ (ft-lb) γ (ft-lb)
Wind on Top 792 59.5 1.0 47,124 1.0 47,124
Conductor
Wind on Middle 792 54.5 1.0 43,164 1.0 43,164
Conductor
Wind on Bottom 792 49.5 1.0 39,204 1.0 39,204
Conductor
Wind on Shield 265 64.5 1.0 17,093 1.0 17,093
Wire
Wind on 1334 35.5 1.0 47,357 1.0 47,357
Communication
Wire
Conductor 546 5.5 1.1 3,300 1.1 3,300
Eccentricity
Subtotal 197,242 197,242
(without
pole wind force)

F  Q  Kz (V)2 G Cf A
where
Q  air density factor = 0.00256
Kz  velocity pressure exposure coefficient, given by 2.01  (H/900)(2/9.5),
where H  effective height (ft), which yields the following values
for Kz
1.029 for conductors,
1.005 for neutral wire,
0.975 for communication wire, and
0.951 for pole.
V  3-s gust wind velocity  50 mph
G  gust response factor, given by (1  2.7  E · B0.5) / kv2, as
described in the working draft of ASCE Manual 74 (ASCE draft)
or the National Electric Safety Code (IEEE 2002) for wires and
structures, where
E  exposure factor,
 Appendix A: Design Examples 59

2’ 2’ 2’
1’

(3) Phase Conductors:

4’

336.4 (26/7) ACSR

(1) Neutral Wire:

3/0 AAC
4.5’

(1) Communication
Cable: 1.5’ Diameter
Pole Length = 45 ft

29’

Groundline
6.5’

Span = 275 ft

FIGURE A-2. Distribution Pole Example.

60 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

B  response term, and

kv  1.43,
which, based upon the respective heights and span lengths, yields
the following values for G
0.807 for conductors,
0.812 for shield wire,
0.819 for communication wire, and
0.948 for pole.
Cf  shape factor (force, or drag, coefficient):
1.0 for wires, and
for poles, see ASCE Manual 74 (1991), Table 2.6-3.
A  projected wind area (ft2).
The corresponding loads are given in Table A-3.
These forces are adjusted by the appropriate load factors (γ) for trans-
verse wind to meet the requirements for the desired grade of construc-
tion. In this case, the difference in wind loading between Grade B and
Grade C construction is due to the factor applied to the ice thickness for
calculating wind area. For Grade B, γice  1.0 and for Grade C, γice  0.50,
and is reflected in the wind area indicated in Table A-3. The ice weight
(eccentricity) is indicated in Table A-4. The GLM for each pole design is
calculated by multiplying each of the forces by their respective transverse
wind load factors and their corresponding distances from the groundline.

TABLE A-3. Loads for Distribution Pole Example

Grade B Grade C
Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind
Line Pressure Area Force Area Force
Component (psf) (ft2) (lb) (ft2) (lb)
Wind on 5.31 73.79 392 45.15 240
Conductors (ea)
Wind on Neutral 5.22 67.93 355 39.28 205
Wire
Wind on 5.11 91.67 468 63.02 322
Communication
Wire
Wind on 5.31 0.36 2 0.36 2
Cross-arm
Wind on Pole 5.77  Cf Varies with pole geometry
 Appendix A: Design Examples 61

In addition, the eccentricity of the conductor arrangement is accounted for

by multiplying the weight of one conductor and insulator (137 lb) times
its offset from the centerline of the pole (~4.3 ft). The calculations for the
groundline moments are shown in Table A-4. The moment due to wind
on the pole is specific to the pole geometry and will be calculated for each
specific design example.

A.3 EXAMPLE 1: WOOD TRANSMISSION POLE

In this example, solid, round Douglas fir wood poles will be sized

to support the loads on the transmission pole described in Section A.2,
for construction Grade B and Grade C. The following wood examples
use the strength values indicated in Table 1 of ANSI O5.1-2002, (ANSI
2002), including the recommended height adjustment factors and criti-
cal section analyses. Pole circumferences have been calculated using
the minimum pole class dimensions in Table 8 of ANSI O5.1-2002 and

TABLE A-4. Groundline Moments for Distribution Pole Example

Grade B Grade C
Line γ Distance Force GLM Force GLM
Component (ft) (lb) (ft-lb) (lb) (ft-lb)
Wind on Three 1.0 37.5 1,176 44,100 720 27,000
Conductors
Wind on Neutral 1.0 33.5 355 11,892 205 6,868
Wire
Wind on 1.0 29 468 13,572 322 9,338
Communication
Wire
Eccentricity: 1.1 4.3 137 648 137 648
Conductor/
Insulator
Eccentricity: Ice 1.0 4.3 842 3,621 287 1,234
on Conductor
Wind on 1.0 37.0 2 74 2 74
Cross-arm
Subtotal 73,097 45,162
(without pole
wind force)
62 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

assume a linear taper in between. Thus, Douglas fir poles have a desig-

nated fiber stress of 8,000 psi with a coefficient of variance (COV) of 0.20.
Since this designated fiber stress value represents the mean groundline
fiber strength (i.e., not the 5% lower exclusion limit [LEL] strength), this
stress level must be multiplied by a strength factor (φ) of 0.79 (Table 2-2)
for design of the pole:

Fb 5% LEL  0.79  8,000 psi  6,320 psi.

Grade B Construction or Grade C Construction. A Class H2 Douglas fir pole

is initially assumed to be sufficient (ANSI 2002). This pole has the follow-
ing properties:

Pole length: 75 ft (65.5 ft above ground)

Tip diameter: 9.87 in. (circumference  31.0 in.)
6 ft from butt diameter: 18.78 in. (circumference  59.0 in.)
Groundline diameter: 18.33 in. (circumference  57.58 in.)
Pole wind area: 76.95 sq ft
Distance to centroid: 29.47 ft
Pole shape coefficient: 0.9 (Table 2.6-3 in ASCE Manual 74
[ASCE 1991])
Wind pressure on pole: 19.97 psf  pole shape coefficient.

The moment at the groundline due to applied wire loads equals

197,242 ft-lb, and that due to wind on the pole is calculated as:

1.0 (load factor γ)  76.95 sq ft (wind area)  19.97 psf (wind pressure)
 0.9 (Cf)  29.47 ft (distance to centroid)
 40,758 ft-lb (GLM),

yielding a total GLM of 238,000 ft-lb. However, since this example uses
a linear analysis technique, the deflected unbalance (P-∆ effect) must be
added before the pole can be properly sized. In this example, an amplifica-
tion factor of 1.112 is calculated using the Gere-Carter method to account
for the P-∆ effect. (The Gere-Carter method, described in Section A.9, tends
to be conservative—that is, it yields higher amplification factors—in com-
parison to that of more sophisticated computer-model values. The result-
ing design moment is 264, 656 ft-lb.)
The section modulus, S, required to support the calculated GLM is
determined by dividing the GLM by the design stress value:

S  264,656 ft-lb  (12 in./ft) / 6,320 psi  502.5 in.3.

This corresponds to a pole with a groundline circumference of 54.14 in.

A 75-ft Class H2 Douglas fir pole, which has a calculated minimum
 Appendix A: Design Examples 63

groundline circumference of 57.58 in., satisfies the groundline require-

ment. A Class H1 pole with a groundline circumference of 54.16 in. also
meets this requirement. However, a recalculation of the P-∆ effect for a
Class H1 pole results in a larger amplification factor, which increases the
GLM to more than what a Class H1 pole can theoretically resist. In addi-
tion, because the point of peak stress on tall poles is not necessarily at the
groundline, and Section 9 of ANSI O5.1-2002 (ANSI 2002) specifies that
a reduction in stress because of height effect should be applied, these
tall poles need to be checked at various points above the groundline to
verify that they are not overstressed at these locations. An analysis of
stresses at points above the groundline indicates that the Class H2 pole is
sufficient.

A.4 EXAMPLE 2: WOOD DISTRIBUTION POLE

In this example, Southern pine wood poles will be sized to support the
loads on the distribution pole described in Section A.2 for construction
Grade B and Grade C. Note that for relatively short poles, such as used
for typical distribution applications, the critical stress point is commonly
at the groundline, and therefore a GLM check is generally sufficient. Per
ANSI O5.1-2002 (ANSI 2002), Table 1, Southern pine poles have a desig-
nated fiber stress of 8,000 psi and a COV of 20%. Since this designated fiber
stress value represents the mean groundline fiber strength, this stress level
must be multiplied by a strength factor (φ) of 0.79 (Table 2-2 In Chapter 2)
for design of the pole:

Fb5%LEL  0.79  8,000 psi  6,320 psi.

Grade B Construction. A Class 2 Southern pine pole is initially assumed to

be sufficient. This pole has the following properties:

Pole length: 45 ft (38.5 ft above ground)

Tip diameter: 7.96 in. (circumference  25.0 in.)
6 ft from butt diameter: 12.89 in. (circumference  40.5 in.)
Groundline diameter: 12.83 in. (circumference  40.31 in.)
Pole wind area: 33.35 sq ft
Distance to centroid: 17.75 ft
Pole shape coefficient: 0.9 (Table 2.6-3 in ASCE Manual 74
[ASCE 1991])
Wind pressure on pole: 5.77 psf  pole shape coefficient.
64 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

The moment at the groundline due to applied wire loads equals 73,907
ft-lb, and that due to wind on the pole is calculated as:

1.0 (load factor γ)  33.35 sq ft (wind area)  5.77 psf (wind pressure)
 0.9 (Cf)  17.75 ft (distance to centroid)
 3,074 ft-lb (GLM),

yielding a total GLM of 76,981 ft-lb. However, since this example uses a lin-
ear analysis technique, the deflected unbalance (P-∆ effect) must be added
before the pole can be properly sized. In this example, an amplification fac-
tor of 1.312 is calculated using the Gere-Carter method to account for the
P-∆ effect (this method is described in detail at the end of this Appendix).
The resulting design moment is 100,999 ft-lb.
The section modulus, S, required to support the required GLM is then
calculated:
S  100,999 ft-lb  12 in./ft / 6,320 psi  191.8 in.3.
This corresponds to a groundline circumference of 39.27 in. Thus, a 45-ft
Class 2 pole, which has a calculated minimum groundline circumference of
40.30 in., is acceptable.

Grade C Construction. A Class 4 Southern pine pole is initially assumed to

be sufficient. This pole has the following properties:

Pole length: 45 ft (38.5 ft above ground)

Tip diameter: 6.68 in. (circumference  21.0 in.)
6 ft from butt diameter: 11.14 in. (circumference  35.0 in.)
Groundline diameter: 11.08 in. (circumference  34.82 in.)
Pole wind area: 28.49 sq ft
Distance to centroid: 17.66 ft
Pole shape coefficient: 0.9 (Table 2.6-3 in ASCE Manual 74
[ASCE 1991])
Wind pressure on pole: 5.77 psf  pole shape coefficient.

The moment at the groundline due to applied wire loads equals 45,162
ft-lb, and that due to wind on the pole is calculated as:
1.0 (load factor γ)  28.49 sq ft (wind area)  5.77 psf (wind pressure)
 0.9 (Cf)  17.66 ft (distance to centroid)
 2,613 ft-lb (GLM).
The addition of the previously calculated GLM (subtotal) due to wind
on wires of 45,162 ft-lb yields a total GLM of 47,775 ft-lb. However, since
this example uses a linear analysis technique, the deflected unbalance (P-∆
effect) must be added before the pole can be properly sized. In this example,
an amplification factor of 1.271 is calculated using the Gere-Carter method
to account for the P-∆ effect. The resulting design moment is 60,722 ft-lb.
 Appendix A: Design Examples 65

The section modulus, S, required to support the required GLM is then

calculated:
S  60,722 ft-lb  12 in./ft / 6,320 psi  115.3 in.3.
This corresponds to a groundline circumference of 33.15 in. Thus, a 45-ft
Class 4 pole, which has a calculated minimum groundline circumference of
34.83 in., is acceptable.

A.5 EXAMPLE 3: STEEL TRANSMISSION POLE

In this example, a 12-sided steel pole will be sized to support the loads
on the transmission pole described in Section A.2, for construction Grades
B and C.

Grade B Construction or Grade C Construction. A 12-sided, 75-ft steel pole of

the following dimensions and characteristics is considered:
Pole length: 75 ft (65.5 ft above ground)
Tip diameter: 8.0 in.
Butt diameter: 20.32 in.
Groundline diameter: 18.76 in.
Wall thickness: 0.1875 in.
Effective steel yield strength: 65 ksi
Taper: 0.164 in./ft
Pole wind area: 73.03 sq ft
Distance to centroid: 28.33 ft
Pole shape coefficient: 1.0 (Table 2.6-3 in ASCE Manual
740 [ASCE 1991])
Wind pressure on pole: 19.97 psf  pole shape coefficient
Pole bare weight: 2,249 lb
Specified ultimate moment
capacity of pole at
groundline: 284,000 ft-lb
Lower exclusion limit
(% LEL) of specified strength: 5%
COV of pole strength: 0.10
Strength factor, φ: 1.00 (Table 2-2, for 5% LEL value
and COVR  0.10).
The moment at the groundline due to applied wire loads equals
197,242 ft-lb, and that due to wind on the pole is calculated as:

1.0 (load factor γ)  73.03 sq ft (wind area)  19.97 psf (wind pressure)
 1.0 (Cf)  28.33 ft (distance to centroid)
 41,317 ft-lb (GLM),
66 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

yielding a total GLM of 238,559 ft-lb. Using a finite element analysis (FEA)
modeling program to evaluate the nonlinear P-∆ effect, the resulting
deflected unbalance is then determined to be 11,490 ft-lb. Thus, the final
required moment capacity at the groundline equals 250,049 ft-lb.
Because the specified moment capacity, or strength, represents the 5th
percentile, a strength factor (φ) of 1.00 (Table 2-2) is applicable for design
of the pole:

M5%LEL  1.00  284,000 ft-lb  284,000 ft-lb.

Since the corresponding capacity of the pole exceeds the required capac-
ity of 250,049 ft-lb, the pole design appears to be sufficient. Note that other
points along the length are also checked to verify the local pole strength
exceeds the corresponding local moment. The selected 12-sided steel pole is
determined to be acceptable.

A.6 EXAMPLE 4: STEEL DISTRIBUTION POLE

In this example, a round steel pole will be selected to support the loads
on the distribution pole described in Section A.2 for construction Grades B
and C. To demonstrate the use of the material strength factor to adjust for
a strength value expressed as an LEL less than 5%, this steel distribution
pole example assumes a specified strength corresponding to a 1% LEL and
a COV = 0.10. It is important to note that the inclusion of this hypotheti-
cal example by the ASCE RBD Committee does not suggest an opinion
regarding the validity of the 1% LEL value at the specified strength for
this type of pole.

Grade B Construction. A round, 45-ft steel pole of the following dimensions

and characteristics is considered:

Pole length: 45 ft (38.5 ft above ground)

Tip diameter: 6.0 in.
Butt diameter: 14.33 in.
Groundline diameter: 13.13 in.
Wall thickness: 0.133 in.
Effective steel yield strength: 65 ksi
Taper: 0.185 in./ft
Pole wind area: 30.69 sq ft
Distance to centroid: 16.86 ft
Pole shape coefficient: 0.9 (Table 2.6-3 in ASCE Manual
74 [ASCE 1991])
Wind pressure on pole: 5.77 psf  pole shape
coefficient
Pole bare weight: 667 lb
 Appendix A: Design Examples 67

Specified ultimate moment

capacity of pole at
groundline: 92,740 ft-1b
Lower exclusion limit
(% LEL) of specified strength: 1%
COV of pole strength: 0.10
Strength factor, φ: 1.07 (Table 2-2, for 1% LEL value
and COVR  0.10).

The moment at the groundline due to applied wire loads equals 73,907
ft-lb, and that due to wind on the pole is calculated as:

1.0 (load factor γ)  30.69 sq ft (wind area)  5.77 psf (wind pressure)
 0.9 (Cf)  16.86 ft (distance to centroid)
 2,687 ft-lb,

yielding a total GLM of 76,594 ft-lb. Using a computer modeling program

to evaluate the nonlinear P-∆ effect, the resulting deflected unbalance is
then determined to be 14,770 ft-lb. Thus, the final required moment capacity
at the groundline equals 91,364 ft-lb.
Because the specified moment capacity, or strength, represents the 1st
percentile, a strength factor (φ) of 1.07 (Table 2-2) is applicable for design
of the pole:

M5%LEL  1.07  92,740 ft-lb  99,232 ft-lb.

Since the corresponding capacity of the pole exceeds the required capacity
of 91,364 ft-lb, the pole design appears to be sufficient. Note, however, that
the above discussion ignores the combined effect of axial load and bending
stresses. While axial stresses in poles such as this one are normally small (<1%
to 2%), they can sometimes be sufficient to cause slight overstressing. For
this reason, the use of a computer program that checks this combined effect
over the entire length of the pole (instead of only checking the moment at its
base) is the preferred method of analysis. Such a procedure was used for this
example and it was determined that the selected round steel pole is acceptable.

Grade C Construction. A round, 45-ft steel pole of the following dimen-

sions and characteristics is considered:

Pole length: 45 ft (38.5 ft above ground)

Tip diameter: 4.5 in.
Butt diameter: 11.89 in.
Groundline diameter: 10.82 in.
Wall thickness: 0.120 in.
Effective steel yield strength: 65 ksi
68 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

Taper: 0.164 in./ft

Pole wind area: 24.58 sq ft
Distance to centroid: 16.60 ft
Pole shape coefficient: 0.9 (Table 2.6-3 in ASCE Manual 74
[ASCE 1991])
Wind pressure on pole: 5.77 psf  pole shape coefficient
Pole bare weight: 486 lb
Specified ultimate moment
capacity of pole at groundline: 57,830 ft-lb
Lower exclusion limit
(% LEL) of specified strength: 1%
COV of pole strength: 0.10
Strength factor, φ: 1.07 (Table 2-2, for 1% LEL value and
COVR  0.10).
The moment at groundline due to applied wire loads equals 45,162 ft-lb,
and that due to wind on pole is calculated as:

1.0 (load factor γ)  24.58 sq ft (wind area)  5.77 psf (wind pressure)
 0.9 (Cf)  16.60 ft (distance to centroid)
 2,119 ft-lb,

yielding a total GLM of 47,281 ft-lb. Using a numerical modeling program

to evaluate the nonlinear P-∆ effect, the resulting deflected unbalance is
then determined to be 8,420 ft-lb. Thus, final required moment at ground-
line equals 55,701 ft-lb.
Because the specified moment capacity, or strength, represents the 1st
percentile, a strength factor (φ) of 1.07 (Table 2-2) is applicable for design
of the pole:

M5%LEL  1.07  57,830 ft-lb  61,878 ft-lb.

Since the corresponding capacity of the pole exceeds the required capac-
ity of 55,701 ft-lb, the pole design appears to be sufficient. Other points along
the length are also checked to verify the local pole strength exceeds the cor-
responding local moment. The selected round steel pole is considered acceptable.

A.7 EXAMPLE 5: SPUN CONCRETE TRANSMISSION POLE

In this example, a spun concrete transmission pole will be selected to

support the loads on the transmission pole described in Section A.2, for
construction Grades B and C. Note that the modulus of elasticity for a
cracked concrete section is different from the modulus of elasticity for an
uncracked section. This characteristic makes the analysis of a prestressed
concrete pole somewhat complex because the entire length of the pole does
 Appendix A: Design Examples 69

not necessarily become a cracked section when it is subjected to bending

loads. Because the modulus of elasticity of a concrete pole is not uniform
for its entire length (i.e., it varies depending on the strain at a particular
cross section—cracked or uncracked), a computer program that accounts
for this nonlinearity in modulus of elasticity was used to calculate the P-∆
effects for the poles in this example.

Grade B Construction or Grade C Construction. A spun concrete pole of the

following dimensions and characteristics is considered:

Pole length: 75 ft (65.5 ft above ground)

Tip diameter: 7.75 in.
Tip wall thickness: 2.5 in.
Butt diameter: 21.25 in.
Butt wall thickness: 2.5 in.
Taper: 0.18 in./ft
Groundline diameter: 19.54 in.
Pole projected area: 74.48 sq ft
Distance to centroid: 28.03 ft
Pole shape coefficient: 0.9
Wind pressure on pole: 19.97 psf  shape coefficient
Primary reinforcement: (12) ½-in., 270-ksi prestressing
strands
Pole weight: 8,484 lb
Specified ultimate moment
capacity of pole at groundline: 267,500 ft-lb
Lower exclusion limit
(% LEL) of specified strength: 5%
COV of pole strength: 0.10
Strength factor, φ: 1.0 (Table 2-2 for 5% LEL value
and COVR  0.10).

The moment at groundline due to applied wire loads equals 197,242

ft-lb, and that due to wind on pole is calculated as:

1.0 (load factor γ )  74.48 sq ft (wind area)  19.97 psf (wind pressure)
 0.9 (Cf)  28.03 ft (distance to centroid)
 37,522 ft-lb,

yielding a total GLM of 234,764 ft-lb. Using a numerical modeling program

to evaluate the nonlinear P-∆ effect, the resulting deflected unbalance is
then determined to be 19,711 ft-lb. Thus, the final required moment at
groundline equals 254,475 ft-lb.
70 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

Because the specified moment capacity, or strength, represents the 5th

percentile, a strength factor (φ) of 1.00 (Table 2-2) is applicable for design of
the pole:
M5%LEL  1.00  267,500 ft-lb  267,500 ft-lb.
Since the corresponding capacity of the pole exceeds the required capacity
of 254,475 ft-lb, the pole design appears to be sufficient. Other points along
the length are also checked to verify the local pole strength exceeds the cor-
responding local moment. The selected concrete pole is considered acceptable.

A.8 EXAMPLE 6: FIBER-REINFORCED POLYMER

DISTRIBUTION POLE

In this example, a fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) distribution pole

will be selected to support the loads on the distribution pole described in
Section A.2, for construction Grades B and C.

Grade B Construction. An FRP pole of the following dimensions and char-

acteristics is considered:
Pole length: 45 ft (38.5 ft above ground)
Tip diameter: 10.8 in.
Tip wall thickness: 0.38 in.
Butt diameter: 17.1 in.
Butt wall thickness: 0.34 in.
Taper: 0.14 in./ft
Groundline diameter: 16.2 in.
Pole projected area: 43.31 sq ft
Distance to centroid: 17.97 ft
Pole shape coefficient: 0.9
Wind pressure on pole: 5.77 psf  shape coefficient
Pole weight: 425 lb
Specified ultimate
moment capacity of
pole at groundline: 109,500 ft-lb
Lower exclusion limit
(% LEL) of specified strength: 5%
COV of pole strength: 0.10
Strength factor, φ: 1.0 (Table 2-2 for 5% LEL value
and COVR  0.10).
The moment at groundline due to applied wire loads equals 73,907 ft-lb,
and that due to wind on pole is calculated as:
1.0 (load factor γ)  43.31 sq ft (wind area)  5.77 psf (wind pressure)
 0.9 (Cf)  17.97 ft (distance to centroid)  4,042 ft-lb,
 Appendix A: Design Examples 71

yielding a total GLM of 77,949 ft-lb. By modeling the structure to evaluate

the nonlinear P-∆ effect, the resulting deflected unbalance is determined
to be 24,127 ft-lb. Thus, the final required moment at groundline equals
102,076 ft-lb.
Since the specified moment capacity, or strength, represents the 5th per-
centile, a strength factor (φ) of 1.00 (Table 2-2) is applicable for design of
the pole:

M5%LEL  1.00  109,500 ft-lb  109,500 ft-lb.

Since the corresponding capacity of the pole exceeds the required

capacity of 102,076 ft-lb, the pole design appears to be sufficient. Other
points along the length are also checked to verify the local pole strength
exceeds the corresponding local moment. The selected FRP pole is considered
acceptable.

Grade C Construction. An FRP pole of the following dimensions and

characteristics is considered:

Pole length: 45 ft (38.5 ft above ground)

Tip diameter: 10.7 in.
Tip wall thickness: 0.33 in.
Butt diameter: 17.0 in.
Butt wall thickness: 0.29 in.
Taper: 0.14 in./ft
Groundline diameter: 16.09 in.
Pole projected area: 42.98 sq ft
Distance to centroid: 17.96 ft
Pole shape coefficient: 0.9
Wind pressure on pole: 5.77 psf  shape coefficient
Pole weight: 395 lb
Specified ultimate moment
capacity of pole at groundline: 87,600 ft-lb
Lower exclusion limit (% LEL)
of specified strength: 5%
COV of pole strength: 0.10
Strength factor, φ: 1.0 (Table 2-2 for 5% LEL value
and COVR  0.10).

The moment at groundline due to applied wire loads equals 45,162 ft-lb,
and that due to wind on pole is calculated as:

1.0 (load factor γ)  42.98 sq ft (wind area)  5.77 psf (wind pressure)
 0.9 (Cf)  17.96 ft (distance to centroid)
 4,009 ft-lb,
72 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

yielding a total GLM of 49,171 ft-lb. By modeling the structure to evaluate

the nonlinear P-∆ effect, the resulting deflected unbalance is determined
to be 8,884 ft-lb. Thus, the final required moment at groundline equals
58,055 ft-lb.
Since the specified moment capacity, or strength, represents the 5th per-
centile, a strength factor (φ) of 1.00 (Table 2-2) is applicable for design of
the pole:

M5%LEL  1.00  87,600 ft-lb  87,600 ft-lb.

Since the corresponding capacity of the pole exceeds the required

capacity of 58,055 ft-lb, the pole design appears to be sufficient. Other
points along the length are also checked to verify the local pole strength
exceeds the corresponding local moment. The selected FRP pole is consid-
ered acceptable.

A.9 CALCULATION OF P-∆ EFFECT USING

THE GERE-CARTER METHOD

When using a first-order linear analysis to calculate a GLM for establish-

ing the required size of pole, the deflected unbalance (P-∆ effect) should
be taken into account. One method for doing this is to use the principles
set forth in the paper “Critical buckling loads for tapered columns” (Gere
and Carter 1962). This method, commonly referred to as the Gere-Carter
method, has been widely used throughout this industry for determining
the critical buckling (Euler column) loads for tapered columns and estimat-
ing the P-∆ effect for various types of tapered poles. The results using this
method, however, tend to be more conservative than those obtained using
more sophisticated FEA modeling methods. One of the reasons for the
degree of conservatism of the Gere-Carter method is the assumption that
all vertical loads are concentrated at the top of a fictitious pole, the height of
which is somewhat arbitrary. Another limitation of the Gere-Carter method
is that it is applicable only to poles of solid cross sections or hollow poles
of constant thickness.
As illustrated in Fig. A-3 for a solid, round (i.e., wood) pole, the prin-
ciples established therein can be used to develop an amplification factor
that can be applied to a first-order linear moment to calculate a GLM that
accounts for the deflected unbalance. This amplification factor is given by
the following formula:
1
 VL 
Amplification Factor  1�  ,
 PCR 
 Appendix A: Design Examples 73

Pcr

Dtop = Diameter at Topa

L = Buckling Length

Dbottom = Diameter at Groundline

FIGURE A-3. Calculation of P-∆ Effect.

where

VL  total vertical load

Pcr  buckling load, as calculated below.

Pcr = Pcr '*P*,

where,
π 2 * MOE * I top
Pcr ' =
[2 * L] * 144
2

and
2.7
D 
P* =  bottom  .
 D top 
Note: The 2.7 exponent in the above equation is applicable only for
solid, round cross sections.
74 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF UTILITY POLE STRUCTURES

As an example, in the Wood Transmission Pole (Grade B construction)

example in Section A.3, the amplification factor of 1.112 was calculated as:

VL  factored weight of pole (above ground)  cross-arms  wires

 (3,551  0  3,111)  1.10
 7,328 lb
L  distance from groundline to centroid of horizontal loads
 43.80 ft
Dtop  12.67 in.
Dbottom  18.33 in.
MOE  mean modulus of elasticity for kiln-dried Douglas fir pole
 2,376 ksi
Itop  moment of inertia for Dφtop of 12.64 in.
 π  Dφtop4 / 64
 1,265 in.4

Thus,

Pcr’  26,845 lb
P*  2.71
Pcr  72,750 lb, which yields an amplification factor = 1.112.

Note: This example uses the conservative approach of applying the full
weight of the pole above ground (3,551 lb) in the calculation of the con-
centrated load that is applied to the top of the pole, VL. Since a large por-
tion of this load is in the lower portion of the pole and thus has a lesser
influence on P-∆, a less-conservative approach would be to use only a por-
tion of the pole weight to calculate the value, VL. In this case, using only
one-third of the pole’s weight would result in an amplification factor of
1.069 rather than 1.112, effecting a total GLM that is approximately the
same as that obtained using nonlinear analysis techniques. Should such a
reduction factor be used, it must be carefully selected to avoid producing
nonconservative results.
INDEX

Index Terms Links

(e), equation; (f), figure; (t), table

A
AASHTO (American Association
of State Highway and
Transportation Officials) 7
accidental events 11 27
accidental loads. See failure
containment loads
ACI (American Concrete
Institute) 21
AF&PA (American Forest and
Paper Association) 7
AISC (American Institute of Steel
Construction) 7 12 37
AISI (American Iron and Steel
Institute) 50
amplification factors 21 62 63 72
angle structures 9 10 18 23
ANSI (American National
Standards Institute): Class H2

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

ANSI (American National

Standards Institute) (Cont.)
Douglas fir pole properties 62
FRP pole selection, test
procedures for 39
minimum pole class dimensions 61
rupture, adjusted groundline
modulus for 46
Southern pine poles, fiber stress of 63
strength design guide 5 39 43 61
75
strength height relationship 63 78
wood pole design values 39
ASCE (American Society of Civil
Engineers): bending stresses
methods for establishing 79 85
design committee for
distribution structures 26
force coefficients 30 53
ice load map 29
manufacturing/processing, quality
standards for 37
minimum security loads 16
nominal design loads,
calculation of 25
Pole RBD

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

ASCE (American Society of Civil

Engineers):(Cont.)
Committee 21 66
reference period, design probability of
exceeding 11 32
self-weight load factors for 14
strength
design guide 1 2 5 6
12 13 20
wind force calculation 54 56
wind maps 18 31
wind speed measurement 26 28
ASTM (American Society for
Testing and Materials):
cantilever test method 39
Committee on Wood 75
FRP pole selection, test procedures for 39
order statistics selection of 41 42 46
round timber stress, adjustments for
derivation in 39
sampling validity, methods to ensure 40
Southern pine poles, bending
test results for 75 76(f) 76(t)
spun-cast prestressed concrete
pole selection, test
procedures for 39
atmospheric pressure 26

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

B
bending: cantilever-bending
moments 38
failure modes
that result from 38
simple beam-bending test 40
Southern pine poles in ASTM research
test results for 75 76(f) 76(t)
steel poles, calculation of
bending strength properties 79 81
strength, PDF 37
strengths, simulations of 82 82
stresses, ASCE
methods for establishing 79 79(e) 85

C
cantilever beam-columns 35 37
cantilever beam test 2 39 40
cantilever-bending moments 38
cascading failure 10 28 29
coefficient of variation (COV):
default values for 50
defined 2
fabrication-induced
variability for 50
inherent material variability 49

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

coefficient of variation (COV): (Cont.)

load coefficients of variation 35
normal/log-normal PDFs 46
resistance coefficient of variation 38
strength coefficients of variation 16 19
Weibull PDFs 45
component strength 12
concrete poles: prestressed 1 20 30 36
50
reinforced 21 38
transmission, spun 68 69(e)
conductors 21
confidence: defined 35
5% LEL estimate 41 41(t)
in mechanics-based models 48 49
minimum 19
construction and maintenance
(C&M) loads 13(t) 27 29
LRFD design 15(e)
construction events 11 25
coupon tests 48
of steel 78 78(t) 79(t)
COV. See coefficient of variation
(COV)
covariance matrix 47 48
cumulative density function
(CDF) 4

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

D
databases: aid in evolution
of design standards 39
empirical analysis 46
model-verification 48
of theoretical tube sizes and
strengths 82
dead-end structures 9 10 18 23
default assignment 36 49
deflected shape effect 54
deflected unbalance, calculations:
FRP poles 70
Gere-Carter 72
spun concrete transmission pole 69
steel distribution pole 67 68
steel transmission pole 65
wood distribution pole 64
wood transmission pole 62
design examples 53
of distribution pole (Portland
Oregon) 57 57(e) 59(f) 60(t)
61(t)
of fiber-reinforced
polymer distribution pole 70 70
of P-Δ effect
calculations using Gere-Carter
method 72 72(e) 73(f)
of spun concrete transmission pole 68 69(e)
This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation
Index Terms Links

design examples (Cont.)

of steel distribution pole 66 67(e) 68(e)
of steel transmission pole 65 65(e) 66(e)
of transmission pole (Las Vegas,
Nevada) 54 55(t) 57(t)
unguyed T/D line structures 53
of wood distribution pole 63 63(e) 64(e)
of wood transmission pole 61 61(t) 62(e)
design parameters 19 32 53
design requirements: legislated loads 15
reliability 11 14 16
safety 11 15 16
security 11 14 16
deterioration, pole 37 50
distribution parameters 36 49

E
electrical grids 25 32
elevation 25
empirical analysis: databases 46
GLM 46
nominal resistance 38
PDF 38 46
wood poles 36 75 76(f) 76(t)
77(t) 78(t)
empirical-based models 35

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

EPRI (Electrical Power Research

Institute) 4
exclusion limits 13 16 19 20
extreme value analysis 31

F
fabrication-induced variability 50
failure, probability of. See
probability of failure
failure containment loads 26 27 29
failure sequences, coordination
of: structures vs. foundations 22
tangent vs. dead-end structures 23
wire system vs.
support system 23
FEA (Financial Engineering
Associates) 72
fiber-reinforced polymer poles
(FRP): coefficient of strength
variation default values for 50
design example 70
fabrication-induced variability for 50
failure modes, potential 38
nominal strength: calculation
guides for 1
in-house models for predicting 2
selection of, test
procedures for 39

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

fiber strength 39 63
force coefficients 53
Forest Products Laboratory 77
foundations: deflection of 10
exclusion limits of 13
strength factor selection 21
vs. structures 22
FRP poles. See fiber-reinforced
polymer poles (FRP)
full-sized poles 36 38 40 47
48 50

G
galloping wires 28 30
geography 25
Gere-Carter method 62 64
calculation of magnified moments 21 22
deflected unbalance calculation 72 73(f)
P-Δ effect, calculations using 72 72(e) 73(f)
GLM. See groundline moment
(GLM)
goodness-of-fit models 46
grade B construction distribution
pole design (Portland, Oregon) 57 58(t)
distribution structures, selection of 25
FRP distribution pole design
example 70
minimum

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

grade B construction distribution (Cont.)

load factors for 17 17(t)
spun concrete transmission
pole design example 68
steel distribution pole
design example 66
steel transmission pole design
example 65
target reliability levels for 18
transmission pole design
(Las Vegas, Nevada) 54
wind and ice thickness factors 25
wood distribution pole
design example 63
wood
transmission pole design
example 61
grade C construction: distribution
pole design (Portland, Oregon) 57 58
distribution structures selection of 25
FRP distribution pole design
example 70 71
minimum load factors for 17 17(t)
return period 19
spun concrete transmission pole
design example 68
steel distribution pole design
example 66 67

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

grade C construction: distribution (Cont.)

steel transmission pole design
example 65
target reliability levels for 18
transmission pole design (Las
Vegas, Nevada) 54
wind and ice thickness factors 25
wood distribution pole design
example 63 64
wood transmission pole design
example 61
green values 39
groundline circumference 62
groundline moment (GLM): defined 39
empirical analysis 46
FRP 70
green poles 39
P-Δ effect 72 74
spun concrete transmission poles 69
steel distribution poles 67
steel transmission poles 65
wire-related 56 58(t) 60 61(t)
wood distribution poles 63 75
wood transmission poles 61 61(t)
groundline stress 39
ground wires 21

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

H
high-voltage transmission
systems 25

I
ice: load map 29
thickness 17(t) 29 31 33(t)
wind loads and 26 29 31 33(t)
IEC (International Electrotechnical
Commission): force coefficients 53
overhead transmission lines
design criteria 4
reliability evaluation techniques 23
strength design guide 1 19
IEEE (Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers) 29
independent parameter
variances 36
inherent material variability 49
insulators 23
International System of Units (SI)
See SI conversion factors

L
lateral strength 2
legislated loads 13(t) 15(e) 16(e)
LEL. See lower exclusion limit
(LEL)

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

limit state design 12

categories of 12
damage 12 14 15 23
defined 12
failure (ultimate strength) 12 14
serviceability 12
line loading criteria 32
load and resistance factor design
(LRFD): construction and
maintenance loads 15(e)
legislated loads 15
reference guides for conducting 4
reliability-based 16 22(f)
security loads 14 14(e) 15(t)
weather-related loads
(reliability-based) 14(e)
load conditions 14 16
load factors: defined 32
design 1 5 11 17(t)
28 32(t)
recommended 21
selection of 1 4 32
self-weight 14
load producing events:
accidental 11
construction and maintenance 11
weather-related 10

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

load(s): anticascading 28
calculation of 1 18
considerations, special 28
construction and maintenance
(C&M) 13(t) 27 29
defined 10 12
design probability of
exceeding reference period 11 31 32(t)
documents references to 28
effects defined 12
environmental
design (nominal) 25
estimating, methods for 32
failure containment 26 27 29
legislated 13(t) 15(e)
limiting devices 11 27
longitudinal 11 13(t) 28 29
security 14 14(e) 15(e)
torsional 11
vertical 10 21 27 72
See also design examples
load and resistance factor
design (LRFD); weather
related loads; wind loads
log-normal distribution PDF 15(t) 19 20 43
46 75 76 82

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

lower exclusion limit (LEL):50% 2 3(f) 2 3(f)

5% 13 16 19 20
35 38 41 41(t)
42 45 66 77
82 88
1% 2 3(f) 23 66
10% 2 23 35
lower tolerance limit (LTL):
defined 35
5% 19 20 21 36
41 46 47 75
79(t)
nominal resistance 38
right-skewed PDF 43
low-voltage distribution
systems 25
LRFD. See load and resistance
factor design (LRFD)
LTL. See lower tolerance limit
(LTL)

M
maintenance events 11 25
market forces 36
material types 1
mean strength 2 44 47
mechanics-based models, used in
conjunction with Monte Carlo

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

mechanics-based models, used in (Cont.)

simulations 18 35 36 38
47 79
accuracy 48
bending strengths simulations of 82 82(t)
bending stress, allowable 79(e)
data collection, on geometric
tolerances and material
strength variability 81 81(t)
nominal resistance
determination 47
nonlinear 48
professional factor P 80 80(t) 81 85
85(t)
SE approximation 49(e)
verification tests 48
microbursts 27
model accuracy 48 50
modulus of elasticity (MOL) 46 68
moment magnification 21
Monte Carlo simulations. See
mechanics-based models, used
in conjunction with Monte
Carlo simulations

N
National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) 49

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) 29
NESC (National Electrical Safety
Code) 7
district map 18
gust response factor 58
minimum security loads 16
2002 provisions 5 10 25
selection of design load and strength
factors 1 17(t) 18
nominal design values defined 31
nominal resistance: baseline
evaluation of 38
default assignment 49
defined 35 38
empirical analysis 38
normal distribution 43
theoretical analysis of
mechanics-based models with
Monte Carlo simulation 47
values 35
See also nominal strength
nominal strength 3(f)
calculation 1 12 37
of concrete prestressed poles 1
of conductors 21
defined 39

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

nominal strength (Cont.)

definition inconsistencies 2 5
exclusion limits of 13
uncertainty in, sources of 2
See also nominal resistance
nondestructive evaluation (NDE)
parameters 50
normal density function 2
normal distribution PDF 3(f) 19 20 41(t)
42 46 47 75
76 82
notation guide 93

O
order of magnitude 47
order statistics 40 41 41(t) 47
79(t)

P
parametric PDFs 40 42 46 77(t)
79(t)
defined 42(e)
log-normal distribution 15(t) 19 20 43
44(e) 46 75 76
82
nonparametric 40 41(t) 46 47
77(t) 79
normal

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

parametric PDFs (Cont.)

distribution 3(f) 19 20 41(t)
42 46 47 75
76 82
three-parameter function 45(e)
Weibull distribution 45 45(e) 75 76
partial safety factors 1 4
P-Δ effect 72 72(e) 73(f)
PDF. See probability density
function (PDF)
point estimate 40 42 44 45
75 76
pole resistance 35
Precast/Prestressed Concrete
Institute (PCI) 1 12 20
probability-based design
procedure 16
probability density function
(PDF) 22 36 48 49
bending-strength 37
empirical analysis 38 46
nominal strength 2 3(f)
nonparametric 40 41(t) 46 47
77(t) 79
overlap failure in 4(f)
pole resistance 35
probability of failure 3
right-skewed 43

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

probability density function (Cont.)

selection of 45
See also parametric PDFs
probability of failure 11 16 20 32
calculation of 3
15% rule for wind loading 19
relative target 17 18(e)
reliability
index 4 4(e)
professional factor P 80 80(t) 81 85
85(t)
proof loading 50

R
RBD. See reliability-based design
(RBD)
reference period, probability of
exceeding design load during 11 31 32(t)
references 89
relative failure probability (RFP) 17 18 18(e)
reliability-based design (RBD):
documents for transmission
lines 4
goal of 17
LRFD
design procedures, summary of 22(f)
market force control of 36

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

reliability-based loads. See

weather-related loads
reliability calibration 4 18 21 22
reliability evaluations 4
reliability index: calculation of 3 3(e) 4(f)
probability of failure 4 4(e)
target reliability
levels 4 17
reliability index, calculation of 3 4(f)
reliability levels: average 9
combined ice and wind loads 33
databases, improvement
through use of 39
extreme wind 33
inconsistent 2 9
of long line vs. short line 19 32
market forces role in improving 36
minimum 9
pole resistance 35
return
period 9
See also target
reliability levels
resistance factors 35
return period (RP) 32 35
for nontemporary components 19
pole resistance 35
reference period 31 32(t)

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

return period (RP) (Cont.)

relative failure probability 17 18
reliability levels 9
RP-year
return period 11
temporary components 19
weather-related event probability 10 26
wind loads 33 33(t)
RFP. See relative failure
probability (RFP)
right-skewed PDF 43
RP. See return period (RP)

S
safety loads. See construction and
maintenance (C&M) loads
sampling errors, defined 30
secondary moments 21
security loads 14 14(e) 15(e)
self-weight 14
SI conversion factors 97
simple beam-bending test 40
single-pole utility structures: load
capacity 35
nominal resistance
determination 36 38
spatial aspect 32

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

standard deviation 2 3 41 42
43 47 49
standard error (SE) 49 49(e) 80
Standard Specificationsfor Highway
Bridges (AASHTO) 7
steel poles: commodity, calculation
of bending strength properties 84 85(t) 86(t) 87(t)
coupon tests 78 78(t) 79(t)
distribution design example 66
fabrication-induced
variability for 50
failure
modes, potential 38
mechanics-based models 36
nominal strength, calculation
guides for 1
strength factor
selection 20
transmission
design example 65
tubular
example in bending 79 80(t) 81(t) 82(t)
83(t) 84(t)
See also grade B construction
grade C construction;
groundline moment (GLM )
strength. See nominal strength

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

strength factors 15(t)

reduction 21
selection 1 4 19
strength guides 1 5
structures: tangent vs. dead-end 23
vs. foundations 22
support system 9
components
of 9
vs. wire system 23

T
tangent structures 10
reliability
calibration study 18 21
target
reliability levels 18
vs. dead
end structures 23
taper 46 61
target reliability levels 17
minimum design load factors
for NESC Grades B and C
construction 17(t)
probability of failure of a
component or
structure 18(e)
reliability index and 4 17

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

target reliability levels (Cont.)

See also reliability levels
temperature 12 28
temporary transmission
structures 32
theoretical analysis 47
tolerance: limits 49
variations 37
topography 25 26
tornados 9 11 27 29
transmission and distribution
(T/D) line structures 53
design requirements 1 25
RBD methodology for 9
structural systems of 9
wind force formula 28
See also design examples

V
variability 47 49
verification tests 48
vertical loads 10 21 27 72
vibration 28 30

W
weather-related events 10 25

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

weather-related loads: combined

ice and wind 26 29 31 33
33(t)
extreme wind 26 28 30 33
33(t)
high-intensity
wind 27 29
LRFD design 14(e) 19(e)
magnitude of influences on 26
reliability
design 14(e) 19(e)
Weibull distribution PDF 45 75 76
weight span 54
wind: force formula/calculation 28 53 56 57
span 16 54
speed determination 30
transverse 17 17(t)
turbulence 26
See also wind loads
wind loads: combined ice and 26 29 31 33(t)
extreme 26 28 30 33
33(t)
15% rule 19
high-intensity 27 29
wire system: components of 9
design of 10
force coefficients 53
vs. support system 23

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation

Index Terms Links

wood poles: coefficient of strength

variation default values
for 50
distribution design
example 63
Douglasfir 20 61
empirical analysis of 36 75 76
empirically
derived design values for 39
exclusion limits of 13
failure modes, potential 38
nominal strength, calculation guides
for 1
normal distribution 43
order statistic selection 41
selection of, test procedures for 38
Southern pine 63 75 76(t) 76(f)
strength factor
selection 21
transmission
design example 61
See also grade B
construction; grade
C construction; groundline
moment (GLM)

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation