Structural Loading Calculations Of Wood Transmission Structures

Keith Malmedal P.E. Member IEEE
Senior Engineer/Project Manager
NEI Electric Power Engineering
Arvada, Colorado 80001
kmalmedal@neiengineering.com
P.K. Sen, Ph. D, P.E., Senior Member IEEE
Professor of Engineering
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, Colorado 80401
psen@mines.edu

Abstract: The most critical task in the design of II. NESC METHOD
any structure is to determine the loads that the
structure must withstand. In the case of The NESC has traditionally been an ultimate stress
transmission line pole structures, currently there design method where all factors of safety are included
are two available methods commonly utilized to in the loading conditions by applying applicable
calculate the environmental loads: wind and ice. overload factors. Three cases for transverse loading
The first method is suggested by the National are considered.
Electrical Safety Code (NESC). This is an ultimate
stress method where all factors of safety are 1. General loading due to wind on wire and pole
included in the loads. The second option, with ice.
recommended by the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE), calculates the forces that must 2. Extreme wind on all structures without
be resisted by the structure and may be used in an conductors or ice. This provision is new in the
ultimate strength method, where wood is the pole 2002 NESC.
construction material. This later technique may also
be used in a load and resistance factor design 3. Extreme wind on conductor and pole without
(LRFD) with other common materials. This paper ice if the structure exceeds 60 ft in height.
compares the advantages and limitations of the two
methods. Numerical examples will be provided Case 1:
showing how the design may differ depending upon
which method is employed. The NESC defines three general loading areas in the
United States: heavy, medium, and light. Figure 1
defines these loading areas. For each of these loading
I. INTRODUCTION areas general wind and ice loads are also defined as
described in Table 1. Wind load is calculated
There are two available options that may be used to including ice on the conductor but not on the structure.
calculate the design loads for transmissions structures.
The minimum design requirements are provided by the
National Electrical Safety Code. The American
Society of Civil Engineers suggests an alternative
method. Even though, in the 2002 edition of the
NESC, efforts have been made to conform the two
loading methods, differences still exist. The two
methods result in differing design criteria for choosing
structures.

This paper focuses mainly on the transverse loading of

tangent type wood transmission structures due to ice
and wind loads and the numerical results illustrate the
differences between the two methods.

Figure 1: Loading Map [1]

1
 Table 1: Loading Per District [1] Table 3: Gust Response Factor GRF
Heavy Medium Light Hgt. Structure Wire GRF, Span Length (ft)
Radial Thickness 0.5 0.25 0
of ice (inch) (ft) GRF <250 250- 500- 750-
Horiz. Wind 4 4 9 500 750 1000
Pressure (lb/ft2) < 33 1.02 0.93 0.86 0.79 0.75
Temp. 0°F 15°F 30°F 35-50 0.97 0.88 0.82 0.86 0.72
50-80 0.93 0.86 0.80 0.75 0.71
Cases 2 and 3: 80-115 0.89 0.83 0.78 0.73 0.70
115-165 0.86 0.82 0.77 0.72 0.69
Load cases 2 and 3 require the extreme wind pressure 165-250 0.83 0.80 0.71 0.71 0.68
to be calculated. The method for making this
calculation is also new in the 2002 NESC. The
following equation is utilized to calculate the force due
to extreme wind.

Loading in pounds =
0.00256(Vmi/h ) 2 k z G RF I C d A (1)

Where:

Vmi/h = Basic Wind Speed at 33 ft above Ground

kz = Velocity Pressure Coefficient
GRF = Gust Response Factor
I = Importance factor (1.0 for utility structures)
Cd = Shape Factor 1.0 for circle or ellipse
A = Projected wind area in ft2

The basic wind speed Vmi/h is taken from Figures 2 or

3.

The thickness of ice is taken as 0 for extreme wind

loading. The velocity pressure coefficient (kz) is
dependent upon conductor height or pole height and is
found by using Table 2.

Table 2: Velocity Pressure Coefficient (kz) [1]

Figure 2: Basic Wind Speed [1]
Height (ft) Structure Wire
< 33 0.92 1.00
35-50 1.00 1.10 For final loading calculations, two different rules are
described in the NESC. Both rules require multiplying
50-80 1.10 1.20
the loads by an overload factor and multiplying the
80-115 1.20 1.30
ultimate pole strength by a strength factor.
115-165 1.30 1.40
165-250 1.40 1.50 For transverse wind loading and wood construction the
overload factors and strength factors to be used for the
The gust response factor (GRF) is a function of height first rule are shown in Table 4.
and span length. It may be found from Table 3 for
span lengths of 250-1000 ft. Table 5 shows the overload and strength factors if the
second allowed rule is applied.

2
 The overload and strength factors may be combined
into a single overload-multiplying factor that will used
to multiply the load. Since the strength factors in rule
2 are all 1.0, the multiplying factor for rule 2 is the
same as the overload factors in Table 5. However, the
overload and strength factors from rule 1 may be
combined into the single set multipliers shown in Table
6.

Table 6
Rule 1 Overload Multipliers
Construction
Grade
B C
Wind 3.85 2.59
Extreme Wind 1.33 1.33

The overload multipliers thus produced are comparable

to the rule 2 multipliers.

III. ASCE METHOD

The ASCE calculation technique is applied to an

ultimate stress method of design. It also lends itself to
Figure 3: Basic Wind Speed [1] a load and resistance factor design. But for
comparison purposes the ultimate stress application is
Table 4 only examined. For transverse loading due to wind
Rule 1 Overload and Strength Factors and ice, two loading calculations must be examined.
(Transverse Loads)
Construction 1. Calculated design wind on wire and structure
with no ice.
Grade
B C
2. 40% of calculated design wind on structure
Wind 2.5 2.2 and wire with ice.
Extreme Wind 1.0 1.0
Strength Factor (wind) 0.65 0.85 The following equation is suggested for calculation of
Strength Factor (extreme wind) 0.75 0.75 force due to wind loading [2].

Table 5 F = 0.00256(Z v V) 2 GC f A (2)

Rule 2 Overload and Strength Factors
(Transverse Loads)
Construction Where:
Grade
F = Force in lbs
B C
Zv = Terrain Factor
Wind (at crossings) 4.0 2.67 V = Fastest mile wind speed (from map) in mph
(elsewhere) 4.0 2.0 G = Gust Response
Extreme Wind 1.33 1.33 Cf = Force Coefficients (1.0 is recommended [2])
Strength Factor (wind) 1.00 1.00 A = Area exposed normal to the wind direction in ft2
Strength Factor (extreme wind) 1.00 1.00

3
The fastest mile wind speed may be obtained from the There are two gust response factors, one for the
map in Figure 4. conductor and one for the structure. For exposure C
the gust response factor (Gw) for conductors is shown
in Figure 5.

Figure 4: Fastest Mile Wind Speed [2]

The terrain factor Zv is dependent upon the type of Figure 5:Conductor Gust Response Factor Gw [2]
terrain, which is divided into three exposure types.
Exposure B is urban, suburban, or wooded areas,
The gust response factor (Gt) for structures is shown in
exposure C is flat open country, and exposure D is
Figure 6.
country directly exposed to wind flowing over large
bodies of water. The NESC assumes exposure C for
all of its calculations. The value for Zv may be taken
from Table 7.

Table 7: Terrain Factor Zv [2]

Height Exposure Exposure Exposure
above B C D
Ground
(ft)
0-33 0.72 1.00 1.18
40 0.75 1.03 1.21
50 0.79 1.06 1.23
60 0.82 1.09 1.26
70 0.85 1.11 1.28
80 0.88 1.14 1.29
90 0.91 1.16 1.31 Figure 6: Gust Response Factor for Structures Gw[2]
100 0.93 1.17 1.32
120 0.96 1.20 1.35 The ice loading calculations used in design can be
140 0.99 1.23 1.37 found using the maximum 50-year ice load shown in
160 1.02 1.26 1.39 Figure 7.
180 1.05 1.28 1.40
200 1.08 1.30 1.42
Note: Interpolation is acceptable

4

Figure 7: Maximum 50-Year Ice [2]
IV. COMPARISON OF NESC AND ASCE
LOADING
The first thing that becomes evident when comparing
the two methods is the difference in ice loading
calculations. The maximum design ice load for NESC
is 0.5 inch for heavy loading. Whereas, Figure 7,
adopted by ASCE, shows that most of the United
States is subject to ice loads between 1.0 to 2.2 inches
in radial thickness.
The differences can be better illustrated by using
numerical examples. Consider a transmission line in
the central U.S. in the NESC heavy loading area where
the ASCE requires a design ice thickness of 1.0 inch.
Lets consider a line constructed with 55 ft. class 1
poles (average diameter 12 in.) and 250 ft. spans of
Hawk conductor (diameter 0.838 in.).
General NESC loading (Table 1) would be 4 psf on the
pole and the thickness of radial ice will be 0.5 in.
Extreme wind loading pressure is calculated from
equation (1) where V=90 mph, kz = 1.1 for the pole
and 1.2 for the conductor, and GRF = 0.93 for the pole
and 0.8 for the conductor.
Using these values design pressures are calculated
yielding 21.2 psf for the pole and 19.9 psf for the
conductor. For this height of pole only extreme wind
on the pole (without conductors) need be considered.
For this example a 250 ft. span of 3 hawk conductors
with 0.5 in. of radial ice results in an area of 114.87 ft2.
and the pole will have an area of 55 ft2. Assuming
grade C construction with an overload factor of 2.0, the
force due to wind on the conductors is:
5
2.0 (4)(114.87) = 918.96 pounds.
The corresponding force on the pole is:
2.0 (4)(55) = 440 pounds.
Assuming that the force on the pole is centered at a
distance 2/3 from the pole’s base [2], and all three
conductors are mounted 55 ft above ground, the pole is
required to resist a ground line moment of:
2
918.96 (55) + 440  (55) = 66.7 ft - kips
3
The second loading case for this example is for
extreme wind on the pole only. Using an overload
factor of 1.33 (from Table 5) for extreme wind loading
this produces a ground line moment of:
2
1.33(21.2)(55)  (55) = 56.9 ft - kips
3
Load case 1 controls the design and according to the
NESC this pole would have to be designed to
withstand a ground line moment of 66.7 ft-kips.
Using the ASCE method and equation (2) where
exposure C and grade C construction is assumed and
V= 90 mph, Zv = 1.075, Gw = 1.16 and Gt = 1.33, the
calculated pressure on the pole is 31.87 psf. The
pressure on the conductor is calculated to be 27.38 psf.
The area of 250 ft of Hawk conductor without ice is
17.45 ft2. The force acting on the three conductors is:
27.38 (3)(17.45) = 1433.34 pounds.
The force acting on the pole is:
31.87(55) = 1752.85 pounds.
The ground line moment needed for this load case is:
2
1433.34 (55) + 1752.85  (55) = 143.1 ft - kips
3
For ASCE load case number two, 40% of the design
wind velocity (36 mph) is applied to both conductor
and ice. This results in a pressure of 4.4 psf for wind
on wire and ice and 5.1 psf for wind on the pole. For 1
inch of radial ice the area of the each conductor
becomes 59.1 ft2 which gives a total ground line Pressure of Wind on Pole (Ice Considered)
moment for this load case of: 9

2
4.4(3) (59.1) (55) + 5.1(55)  (55) = 53.2 ft - kips
8

Pressure on Pole (psf)

3
7

6
Load case one controls and according to the ASCE 5
method a design ground line moment of 143.1 ft-kips 4
is required. The required ground line moment as 3
calculated by the ASCE method is more than twice that 2
calculated by the NESC method. According to the 1
NESC a class 6 pole would be sufficient for this 0
example but the ASCE method would require a class 3 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
NESC
pole. Pole Height (ft) ASCE
Figure 10: Comparison Between NESC and ASCE, Wind
Figures 8 through 11 show a comparison between Pressure on Pole (Ice Considered)
pressures calculated by the NESC and ASCE methods
on poles and wire for various pole heights, 250 ft. span
of Hawk conductor, 90 mph wind, and grade C Pressure of Wind on Wire (Ice Considered)
construction. 9

Pressure on Wire (psf)

8

Pressure of Wind on Wire (No Ice Extreme Wind) 6

45 4
Pressure on Wire (psf)

3
40
2
35
1
30
0
25
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
20 NESC
15 Pole Height (ft) ASCE
10

5
Figure 11: Comparison Between NESC and ASCE, Wind
0
Pressure on Wire (Ice Considered)
10

30

50

70

90

0
11

13

15

17

19

Pole Height (ft) NESC It is seen from these figures that in load cases where
ASCE ice is not considered the ASCE values of pressure
Figure 8: Comparison Between NESC and ASCE, Wind always exceed the NESC values. However, when ice
Pressure on Wire (No Ice) is included in the load case the pressures calculated by
the NESC are greater then those calculated by the
Pressure of Wind on Pole (No Ice extreme wind)
ASCE method. It must be remembered that the NESC
45 ice loading is often half or less of the ice loading
recommended by the ASCE and the higher values of
Pressure on Pole (psf)

40

35
pressure may be offset by the lighter ice loading used
30
for NESC calculations.
25

20

15
For comparison purposes, Figure 12 shows the
10
controlling ground line moment as calculated for
5 various pole heights by both methods. This is
0 calculated for a 250 ft. span of Hawk conductor on
Grade C construction, assuming an average pole
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
NESC
Pole Height (ft) ASCE diameter of 12 inches and a wind speed of 90 mph.
Figure 9: Comparison Between NESC and ASCE, Wind
Pressure on Pole (No Ice)

6
 Groundline Moments constructed using NESC loading would be expected to
1600 suffer more structure failures than a transmission line
1400 constructed using ASCE criteria. This must be weighed
Groundline Moment (ft-

1200
against the additional cost of construction if the line
1000
were built to withstand loads as calculated by ASCE
recommendations.
kips)

800

600
If minimizing structure failure is the primary design
400
criteria, caution should be exercised when using the
200
NESC methodology. Rather than relying on the values
0
of wind and ice loading recommended by the NESC a
more reliable design will be produced by using local
10

30

50

70

90

0
11

13

15

17

19
NESC
Pole Height (ft) ASCE ice and wind records or by using the ASCE
Figure 12: Required Ground Line Moments as calculated recommendations in determining design loading.
by NESC Compared with ASCE Methods

Ice is calculated for NESC heavy loading and as REFERENCES

required by the ASCE. All loading cases are
considered and Figure 12 displays the controlling [1] National Electrical Safety Code, IEEE Std. C2-
design case. 2002, Piscataway, New Jersey.

V. CONCLUSION [2] Guidelines for Electrical Transmission Line

Structural Loading, ASCE Manual of Practice
It is seen from this comparison that the ASCE method No. 74, ASCE 1991, New York, New York.
of loading calculation results in more conservative
design, more wind and ice load, compared to the NESC [3] Mechanical Design Manual for Overhead
method. This is true even though NESC loads contain Distribution Lines, REA Bulletin 160-2, US
overload factors presumably to include some factor of Department of Agriculture, 1982, Washington
safety. DC.

The ASCE calculated loads do not contain any factor [4] Design Manual for High Voltage Transmission
of safety and exceed the NESC loads. If a pole were Lines, REA Bulletin 1724E-200, US Department
chosen so that the ultimate breaking moment of the of Agriculture, 1992, Washington DC.
pole just equaled the loads calculated by this method it
is expected that some pole failures may result due to [5] Reliability of Poles in NESC Grade C
variations in pole strengths if the design conditions Construction, H.J. Dagher, Proceedings of the
were ever actually applied to the transmission line. To 2001 IEEE Rural Electric Power Conference,
prevent pole failures under the design condition some IEEE Catalog No. 01CH37214, Little Rock,
factor of safety should be applied. If load and Arkansas, May 2001.
resistance factor design methodology were applied to
the design, the loads would be multiplied by some load [6] Methods of Transmission Line Structure Design,
factor and the resistance of the pole would be Keith Malmedal, Masters Report, University of
multiplied by a resistance factor to produce a design Colorado at Denver, Denver, Colorado, May
that would prevent pole failures if the design 2002.
conditions were ever actually applied to the
transmission line. [7] American National Standard for Wood Poles-
Specification and Dimensions, ANSI 05.1-1992,
The considerable disagreement between loads New York, New York, 1991.
calculated using NESC and ASCE data and
recommendations must be resolved by each designer.
Under design conditions a transmission line

7
Keith Malmedal received his BSEET degree from
Metropolitan State College of Denver in 1995, a MSEE
degree (Power Option) from the University of
Colorado at Denver in 1998, and a MSCE degree
(structural option) from the University of Colorado at
Denver in 2002. He has over ten years experience in
electrical power design and is presently a senior design
engineer and project manager at NEI Electric Power
Engineering, Arvada, Colorado, specializing in all
aspects of power system design. Mr. Malmedal is a
Registered Professional Engineer several states.

Pankaj K. Sen received his B.S.E.E degree (with

honors) from Jadavpur University, Calcutta, India, and
the M.Eng. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering
from the Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax,
NS, Canada. He is currently a Professor of
Engineering at Colorado School of Mines in Golden,
Colorado. His research interests include application
problems in electric machines, power systems, and
power engineering education. He has published more
than 55 articles in various archival journals and
conference proceedings. Dr. Sen is a Registered
Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado.