Jones 2002 BPA FinalReportJuly16

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/313072198
Extreme ice thicknesses and concurrent wind speeds for freezing rain in the
Paciﬁc Northwest
Technical Report · July 2002
CITATION READS
1 476
1 author:
Kathleen Ferris Jones

CRREL
54 PUBLICATIONS 1,645 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
2022 revsion of the Atmospheric Icing section of ASCE Standard 7 Minimum design loads for Buildings and other Structures View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Kathleen Ferris Jones on 27 November 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Extreme Ice Thicknesses and Concurrent Wind
Speeds for Freezing Rain in The Pacific Northwest
Kathleen F. Jones
Snow and Ice Branch

Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
July 2002
Funding provided by the Bonneville Power Administration

Contract number 00003145
Extreme ice thicknesses and concurrent wind speeds for freezing rain
in the Pacific Northwest
Kathleen F. Jones
Snow and Ice Branch
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory
1. Introduction
Ice and wind-on-ice loads on electric power transmission lines and communication towers are
the governing loads on these structures in much of the United States. For the 2002 revision of
ASCE Standard 7 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, the Ice Load Task
Committee provided a revised map of equivalent uniform radial ice thicknesses from freezing
rain with concurrent gust speeds for a 50-year mean recurrence interval. This Standard is refer-
enced by other codes, guidelines, and standards, including the National Electrical Safety Code
(NESC 2002), ASCE 74 Guidelines for Electrical Transmission Lines Structural Loading
(ASCE 1991), and EIA/TIA 222 Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna
Supporting Structures (EIA/TIA 1996).
Meteorological Research, Inc. (MRI) mapped extreme ice thickness from all sources for Bon-
neville Power Administration (BPA) in 1977. For the 1998 revision of ASCE Standard 7, Ron
Thorkildson of BPA estimated ice thicknesses from freezing rain for a 50-year return period for
the Pacific Northwest from the MRI maps. For the 2002 revision, shown in Figure 1, he revised
these ice thicknesses based on discussions with George Taylor, the Oregon State Climatologist.
The goal of this cooperative project between BPA and the Cold Regions Research and Engi-
neering Laboratory (CRREL) is to map ice thicknesses and concurrent wind speeds for the Pa-
cific Northwest using the same procedure that was used for the rest of the country. A color relief
map of the region for this study is shown in Figure 2.
2. Background
CRREL has developed software and algorithms for processing historical data from weather
stations with hourly weather data and 6-hourly or daily precipitation data. The Air Force Combat
Climatology Center (AFCCC) provides us with archived weather and precipitation data. The pe-
riod of record of the electronically archived data typically begins in the late 1940s for National
Weather Service(NWS) and Navy stations and in 1973 for Army, Air Force, and Federal Avia-
tion Administration stations.
We first merge the weather and precipitation data and prorate accumulated precipitation to
each hour based on the type and severity of precipitation. We then extract freezing rain storms,
which are assumed to continue as long as freezing rain is falling and, after freezing rain ends, as
long as the air temperature remains below 1oC.
1
Figure 1. Ice map for the Pacific Northwest in ASCE Standard 7-02 (in press).
2
Figure 2. Color relief map of the study region (adapted from
fermi.jhuapl.edu/states/us/big_us_color.gif)
The accretion of ice, expressed as an equivalent radial ice thickness, and wind-on-ice loads are
modeled for each storm. We use both the detailed CRREL ice accretion model (Jones 1996a),
which does a heat-balance analysis to determine how much of the freezing precipitation imping-
ing on a horizontal cylinder freezes, and the sometimes more conservative Simple model (Jones
1996a,b), which simulates the accretion of ice at a hypothetical site where it is cold enough that
all the precipitation freezes.
Model results are checked for ice storms with significant modeled ice thicknesses, using
qualitative damage information from Storm Data (NOAA 1959–present) supplemented by
contemporaneous newspaper reports. The damage reports are used to determine the footprint of
each ice storm where the ice loads and wind-on-ice loads damaged overhead lines, telecommuni-
cation towers, and trees.
To generate a long period of record for the extreme value analysis of ice and wind-on-ice
loads, the weather stations are grouped into superstations. These groupings are based on the fre-
quency of ice storms, the distribution of damaging ice storms, topography, proximity to large
bodies of water, etc. Ice thicknesses and wind-on-ice loads for a 50-year return period are deter-
mined using the peaks-over-threshold method with the generalized Pareto distribution (Hosking
and Wallis 1987). This three-parameter distribution, which allows for a long tail (negative tail
shape parameter k) if the data warrant, fits extreme ice thicknesses better than the widely-used
3
two-parameter Gumbel distribution. The parameters of the distribution are determined using
probability weighted moments (Wang 1991), with a threshold chosen to give an occurrence rate
for the sample of extreme ice thicknesses of up to about 1/year. Wind speeds concurrent with the
50-year ice thicknesses are back calculated using the 50-year wind-on-ice load and the 50-year
ice thickness.
The ice thicknesses and concurrent gust-on-ice speeds for the superstations are mapped for
ASCE Standard 7, using 0.25-in. increments in uniform ice thickness and 10 mph increments in
gust speed.
3. Weather Data and Ice Accretion Models

Weather data are used as input to ice accretion models that determine the amount of accreted
ice using empirical parameters and a physical model of the ice accretion process. The historical
weather data files include documentation of the precipitation type and measurements of the pre-
cipitation amount, wind speed, air temperature, dew point temperature, and air pressure for each
hour. The accuracy of the loads determined by an ice accretion model depends on both the qual-
ity of the weather data and the quality of the model, as well as the decisions made by the user in
applying the model to the data. Because weather instruments may not work well, or at all, in
freezing rain, some of the data that determine the accreted ice thickness may be estimated by the
weather observers both during and after freezing rain. Owing to spatial variations in precipitation
type and intensity, wind speed, and temperature, actual accreted ice thicknesses can vary signifi-
cantly over relatively short distances. Thus, using weather data and an ice accretion model to
determine ice thicknesses on wires and conductors supplies only an estimate of the equivalent
radial ice thickness at any point of a transmission line.
3.1 Weather data

In the United States, historical weather data are archived at the National Climate Data Center
(NCDC) and the Air Force Combat Climatology Center (AFCCC). Weather data are collected by
the National Weather Service (NWS), the Navy, Army, and Air Force, the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration (FAA), and other state and federal agencies. At weather stations in the United
States, temperatures are measured to the nearest 1oF, wind speeds to the nearest knot, and pre-
cipitation amounts to hundredths or tenths of an inch, varying over time and from station to sta-
tion. Temperature is archived in tenths of a degree Celsius, wind speeds in tenths of a meter per
second and precipitation amounts in millimeters (AFCCC) or hundredths of an inch (NCDC).
Before the weather data are archived, they are checked using quality control software to correct
any errors that can be automatically corrected and to flag apparent problems that will require a
manual check of the data. NCDC does a further manual quality control of NWS and Navy
weather records to check and correct data that were flagged and to fill in missing data elements
and records. AFCCC provides the same level of manual quality control for the Army and Air
Force data. Weather data from the FAA and other agencies do not go through this higher level of
quality control. Thus, AFCCC archives high quality-controlled Army and Air Force weather
data, and lower quality-controlled NWS, Navy, and FAA data. NCDC archives high quality-
controlled NWS and Navy weather data and lower quality-controlled Army, Air Force and FAA
data. For this project we obtained data from AFCCC in Datsav3 format or from NCDC in Inte-
grated Surface Hourly (ISH) format. The ISH data files draw from both the AFCCC and NCDC
4
archives and include 6-hourly precipitation data, where they are available. The daily precipitation
data are available in a set of Cooperative Summary of the Day CDs.
The period of record for the computer-archived data begins in the 1940s at many of the NWS
and Navy weather stations. However, for a number of years, typically 1965 through 1972, but
sometimes extending into the 1980s, weather records were archived only every 3 hours, even
though hourly measurements were made. As earlier data (typically pre-1948) are digitized from
paper records in the next few years, they will be merged into the ISH database to extend the
digital period of record (Neal Lott, NCDC, personal communication). As part of this effort, the
electronic records for the years in which data were archived every 3rd hour are also being filled
in.
We obtained weather data sufficient for this application from 51 stations in the region extend-
ing from western Montana through Idaho to Oregon and Washington, and including Abbotsford,
Canada, in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia (provided by Bob Morris of Environment Can-
ada). Data from weather stations in Canada are archived by the Meteorological Service of Can-
ada (one of the Services of Environment Canada) National Archives System and quality con-
trolled by Environment Canada. Units for observations mostly changed in Canada in 1975 from
imperial to metric. Before 1975 temperature was measured in whole degrees Fahrenheit, and is
now measured to tenths of a degree Celsius. Temperatures are archived in tenths of a degree Cel-
sius. Wind speeds were measured at various times in whole mph or whole knots, and the basic
wind speed observation is still knots. Values are archived in whole km/hr.
The stations are listed in Table 1, with their location, elevation, the period of record for the
coop precipitation data, the period of record for the hourly weather data, years with 3-hourly
data, the total number of years with usable weather data, and comments on the data, including
missing years in the precipitation or weather data, years with part-time data, and data errors. Sta-
tions with data provided in ISH format are indicated. The map in Figure 3 shows the station lo-
cations and elevations. Included in these 51 stations are three in crucial locations with only part-
time data. They are Troutdale and The Dalles in the Columbia River Gorge, and Stampede Pass
in the Cascades. The data from these stations were used in the ice accretion models to get esti-
mates of accreted ice thicknesses, but because the stations did not operate at night, these esti-
mates may be either too high or too low, depending on the characteristics and timing of the
storm. Modeled ice thicknesses will be too high in storms in which there was significant snow,
ice pellets, or rain in the missing hours compared to the hours with data. They will be too low in
storms in which there was significant freezing rain in the missing hours compared to the hours
with data. For short storms that spanned only the hours with observations, or storms with pre-
cipitation only in the hours with observations, the modeled ice thickness at these part-time sta-
tions will be accurate. Also listed, and crossed out in Table 1, are an additional 16 stations for
which there are some data, but not enough to model the accretion of ice from freezing rain. This
list includes, in addition to stations that operate only part-time, stations where the occurrence of
precipitation was not recorded, or precipitation amounts were not measured. The periods of re-
cord for the 51 stations used in this study are shown graphically in Table 2.
5
Table 1. Weather stations obtained for analysis of freezing rain in the Pacific Northwest.
Call Elev 3-hrly Coop

Station letters Coop ID Location Lat Lon (m) Fmt POR years POR Comments
726810 BOI 101022 BOISE MUNICIPAL ID 4334N 11613W 874 ISH 48-99 65, 67-72 40-6/00
725867 BYI 101303 BURLEY MUNICIPAL ID 4233N 11346W 1265 73-4/00 8/48-7/00 pt 5/93-end
727833 U15 - CHALLIS ID 4431N 11413W 1546 10/83-10/98 - no data 10/86-1/87; pt 9/86-8/87, 7/89,
7/96; no pcp
725784 P69 102875 ELK CITY ID 4549N 11526W 1249 10/83-4/00 12/50-6/00 no data 10/86-1/87, 10-11/96, 1/00; pt
9/86-7/87; 9-12/96; no ww
725785 IDA 104457 IDAHO FALLS/FANNING ID 4331N 11204W 1445 1/73-4/00 8/48-2/94 no data 1/00; pt 6/93-1/98
727830 LWS 105241 LEWISTON ID 4623N 11701W 438 1/73-4/00 8/48-6/00 pt -10/80, 8/95
24151 MAL 105559 MALAD CITY ID 4210N 11219W 1366 ISH 48-54
726815 MUO - MOUNTAIN HOME AFB ID 4303N 11552W 913 - no pcp until 1973; no pcp 1999-
24154 MUL 106237 MULLAN PASS ID 4727N 11540W 1836 ISH 48-54
725780 PIH 107211 POCATELLO MUNICIPAL ID 4255N 11236W 1365 ISH 48-99 65-72 40-6/00 ok
726865 SMN 108076 SALMON/LEMHI ID 4507N 11353W 1233 3/77-12/98 40-12/67 no data 81-2/92; pt 3/77-12/80, 3-6/92
726797 BZN 240622 BOZEMAN MT 4547N 11109W 1364 73-4/00 41-7/00

726785 BTM 241318 BUTTE MT 4557N 11230W 3/77-4/00 5/40-6/00 pt 6/92-9/95
727796 CTB 242173 CUT BANK MUNICIPAL MT 4836N 11222W 1175 1/73-4/00 1/40-5/00 pt 11/81-6/92
24138 DIL 242404 DILLON MT 4515N 11239W 1598 ISH 48-73
726676 GDV 243581 GLENDIVE/DAWSON MT 4708N 10448W 749 73-81 40-5/00 pt and very sparse
727750 GTF 243751 GREAT FALLS INTL MT 4729N 11122W 1115 48-72, 73-99 65-72 5/48-99 pt 4-6/96
727720 HLN 244055 HELENA REGIONAL MT 4636N 11200W 1188 48-72, 73-99 65-72 40-99 pt 4-6/96
727684 JDN - JORDAN MT 4720N 10656W 811 9/83-4/00 - pt 9/83-7/84, 9/97-5/98; no ww
727790 FCA 244558 KALISPELL MT 4818N 11416N 906 73-99 40-96 coop msg 1-5/49
24150 LIV 245086 LIVINGSTON MT 4540N 11032W 1399 ISH 48-54
727755 GFA - MALMSTROM AFB MT 4730N 11111W 1075 1/45-12/96 - 24-hr pcp begins in 1945
727730 MSO 245745 MISSOULA/BELL FIELD MT 4655N 11405N 972 48-72, 73-81, 65-72 7/48-99
87-99
727687 SDY - SIDNEY-RICHLAND MT 4742N 10412W 605 3/73-4/00 - pt -6/92, 6-7/99; ww only 12/95-1/96
24159 SUP 248043 SUPERIOR MT 4712N 11453W 826 ISH 48-9/53

727910 AST 350328 ASTORIA/CLATSOP OR 4609N 12353W 7 ISH 4/49-99 65-72 2/53-6/00 pt 4/49-1/53
726886 BKE 350412 BAKER MUNICIPAL OR 4450N 11749W 1027 1/73-4/00 7/48-6/00 pt 6/80-2/88
726830 BNO 351175 BURNS MUNI OR 4335N 11857W 1271 73-4/00 5/80-6/00 pt 73-2/91,4-7/96
726945 CVO - CORVALLIS MUNI OR 4430N 12317W 75 10/88-4/00 - pt 10/88-6/92; no pcp; no ww 1991-
6
726930 EUG 352709 EUGENE/MAHLON SWEET OR 4407N 12313W 114 ISH 48-99 65-72 40-6/00 pt 10/54-6/64
725895 LMT 354511 KLAMATH FALLS/KINGS OR 4209N 12144W 1247 9/59-4/00 10/96-5/00 no data 71-72, 1/00
725976 LKV - LAKEVIEW OR 4210N 12024W 1441 2/92-4/00 - no data 1/00; pt 2-6/92, 7/96, 2/99,
2/00; no ww
726885 MEH 355396 MEACHAM OR 4531N 11824W 1236 1/73-4/00 7/48- pt 1/73-11/76, 6-8/84, 9/86-9/87
12/75,
3/99-6/00
725970 MFR 355429 MEDFORD/JACKSON CO. OR 4222N 12252W 405 ISH 48-99 65, 67-72 1/40-12/97
994280 NWPO3 356032 NEWPORT STATE BEACH OR 4437N 12404W 9 5/85-4/00 40-12/97 Using coop data from JNW Newport;
no ww
726917 OTH 356073 NORTH BEND OR 4325N 12415W 4 2/77-4/00 40-6/00 pt 12/90-6/92
24162 ONT 356294 ONTARIO OR 4401N 11701W 668 ISH 48-54
726880 PDT 356546 PENDLETON MUNICIPAL OR 4541N 11851W 456 ISH 45-99 45-47, 65- 40-6/00 pt 6/76, 5-6/77, 6-9/78, 5-9/79
72
726980 PDX 356751 PORTLAND INTL ARPT OR 4536N 12236W 12 48-4/00 11/41-6/00 no data 65-72
726986 HIO - PORTLAND/HILLSBORO OR 4532N 12257W 62 73-4/00 - pt1/73-7/75; 8/95-9/96; no pcp

726835 RDM 357062 REDMOND OR 4415N 12109W 938 1-9/45, 73-4/00 7/48-4/00
726874 P88 357305 ROME OR 4254N 11739W 1162 3/86-3/98 - pt 12/86-1/87, 2-9/94, 2-3/95, 6-9/96,
357310 12/50- 9/97-3/98; probably a lot of missing
11/97 hours otherwise; no ww
726940 SLE 357500 SALEM/MCNARY OR 4455N 12300W 61 48-99 65-72 40-6/00
725975 SXT 357698 SEXTON SUMMIT OR 4237N 12322W 1171 ISH 48-99 58-72 7/48-7/00 pt 9/48-57; 8-12/92
726988 DLS 451968 THE DALLES OR 4537N 12110W 73-4/00 7/48-5/00 pt 4/74-4/00
726985 TDL 358634 TROUTDALE OR 4533N 12225W 9 48-4/00 7/48-12/97 no data 4/53-72; pt 4/51-3/53, 3/76-
6/98; no pcp
727965 S88 - ARLINGTON WA 4810N 12209W 42 7/92-10/94 - pt before ‘92; no ww
727976 BLI 450574 BELLINGHAM INTL WA 4848N 12232W 48 1/48-4/00 12/49-6/00 no data 65-72
727928 PWT - BREMERTON NTNL WA 4730N 12245W 147 12/89-4/00 - pt before ‘89; no pcp; no or sparse ww
1992-1997
727855 SKA - FAIRCHILD AFB WA 4737N 11739W 750 45-4/00 - no pcp until 1971; no pcp 1999-
742070 GRF - FORT LEWIS/GRAY AAF WA 4705N 12235W 92 6/60-4/00 - pt 6/69-11/71; no pcp until 1972; pcp
errors 12/78; no pcp 1999-
727840 HMS - HANFORD WA 4634N 11936W 223 73-4/00 - pt 73-9/85; 2/95-4/00; pcp begins
1985; no pcp 1999-
7
727924 KLS 454135 KELSO-LONGVIEW WA 4607N 12254W 5 2/90-4/00 49-7/53 pt 6-7/96; no ww
742060 TCM - MC CHORD AFB WA 4708N 12229W 98 1/45-4/00 - no data 71-72; no ww before 1973; no
pcp 1999-
24110 MOS - MOSES LAKE WA 4712N 11919W 364 ISH 3/49-3/66 no pcp
727920 OLM 456114 OLYMPIA WA 4658N 12254W 61 ISH 48-99 65-72 6/48-6/00
727970 UIL 456858 QUILLAYUTE STATE WA 4757N 12433W 62 ISH 73-99 6/66-6/00
727935 BFI 457456 SEATTLE/BOEING FLD WA 4732N 12218W 5 48-4/00 no pcp no data 65-72; 24-hr pcp -1964; no
data pcp 1973-
727930 SEA 457473 SEATTLE-TACOMA INTL WA 4727N 12218W 137 48-4/00 6/48-6/00 no data 70-72
727850 GEG 457938 SPOKANE INTL ARPT WA 4738N 11732W 721 45-4/00 65-72 40-6/00 no data 5/67-71, 7-12/72
727856 SFF - SPOKANE/FELTS FIELD WA 4741N 11719W 595 73-4/00 - no pcp
727815 SMP 458009 STAMPEDE PASS WA 4717N 12120W 1209 ISH 48-99 10/66-72 44-7/00 pt -4/94
994300 TTIW1 458332 TATOOSH ISLAND WA 4823N 12444W 31 5/85-4/00 40-7/66 no data 97-98; pt 4/87-2/88, 8-10/90,
8/95-12/96; probably a lot of missing
hours otherwise; no ww
24240 TAT 458332 TATOOSH ISLAND WA 4823N 12444W 31 ISH 6/48-7/66
727846 ALW 458928 WALLA WALLA RGNL WA 4606N 11817W 367 45-4/00 12/49-2/95 no data 3/46-12/47, 66-72; pt 55-65
727825 EAT 459082 WENATCHEE/PANGBORN WA 4724N 12012W 379 73-4/00 11/59-6/00
690230 NUW - WHIDBEY ISLAND NAS WA 4821N 12239W 14 12/89-4/00 - no data 1/00
727810 YKM 459465 YAKIMA AIR TERMINAL WA 4634N 12032W 325 ISH 48-99 65-72 9/46-6/00 pt 4-6/46
8
Table 2. Period of record of weather and precipitation data for stations in the Pacific Northwest
station/year 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 5 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
Astoria OR 2- x x x x x x x x x x x 3 3 3 3 3 3
BAKER OR
Bellingham WA 12- x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Bosie ID x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 3 x 3 3 3 3
Bozeman MT
Burley ID
Burns OR
Butte MT
Cut Bank MT
Dillon MT 7- x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 3 3 3 3 3 3
Eugene OR x x x x x x -9 7- 3 3 3 3 3 3
Fairchild AFB WA
Fort Lewis/Grey AAF WA
Hanford WA
Idaho Falls ID
Klamath Falls OR
Lewiston ID
Livingston MT 7- x x x x x x
Malad City ID 7- x x x x x x
1
Malmstrom AFB MT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
McChord AFB WA
Medford OR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 3 x 3 3 3 3
Mountain Home AFB ID
Mullan Pass ID 7- x x x x x x
North Bend OR
Olympia WA 7- x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 3 3 3 3 3 3
Ontario OR 7- x x x x x x
Pendleton OR 3 3 3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 3 3 3 3 3 3
Pocatello ID x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 3 3 3 3 3 3
Portland Intl OR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Quillayute WA
Redmond OR
Salem OR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 3 3 3 3 3 3
Seattle-Boeing Field WA x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Seattle-Tacoma Intl WA x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Sexton Summit OR 3 3 3 3 3 3
Spokane WA 6- x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 3 3 -5
Stampede Pass WA xo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 3 3 3 3 3
Superior MT x x x x x x
Tatoosh Island WA x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 3 3
The Dalles OR
3
Troutdale WA 7- x x 12- o o
Walla Walla WA 12- x x x x x
Wenatchee WA
Whidbey Island NAS WA
Yakima WA x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 3 3 3 3 3 3
Great Falls MT 6- x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 3 3 3 3 3 3
Helena MT x 6- x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 3 3 3 3 3 3
Kalispell MT
Missoula MT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 3 3 3 3 3 3
45 46 47 48 49 50 51 5 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
Notes: 1 missing October and November Legend: x= have data

2 no pcp 4/89-90; 2,4/91; 3/94-2/98 o=have part-time data
3 through 3/53 3=have 3-hrly data
4 February through November n-=month when data begin
-n=month when data end
9
Table 2(cont.). Period of record of weather and precipitation data for stations in the Pacific
Northwest
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00
3 3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Astoria
x x x x x x x -5 3- x x x x x x x x x x x BAKER
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x -6 3- Bellingham
3 3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Bosie
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Bozeman
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x -4 Burley
3- x x x 3- x x x x -4 Burns
3- x x x x x x x x x x x x x x -5 10- x x x x Butte
x x x x x x x x x 7- x x x x x x x Cut Bank
3 3 -5 Dillon
3 3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Eugene
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Fairchild AFB
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Fort Lewis/Grey AAF
10- x x x x x x x x x -1 Hanford
4
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x -5 x Idaho Falls
3- x x x x x x x x x -1 10- x x x -4 Klamath Falls
11- x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Lewiston
x x x x -8 Livingston
Malad City
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Malmstrom AFB
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x McChord AFB
3 3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Medford
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Mountain Home AFB
Mullan Pass
3- x x x x x x x x x x x x x 7- x x x x x x x North Bend
3 3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Olympia
Ontario
3 3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Pendleton
3 3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Pocatello
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Portland Intl
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Quillayute
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Redmond
3 3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Salem
Seattle-Boeing Field
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Seattle-Tacoma Intl
3 3 x x x x x x x x x x x x 2- x x x x x x -7 3- Sexton Summit
3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Spokane
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ox x x x x x Stampede Pass
Superior
Tatoosh Island
x o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oo o o o o o o o The Dalles
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oo o o o o -1 Troutdale
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x x x Walla Walla
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x Wenatchee
12- x xx x x x x x x x Whidbey Island NAS
3 3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x Yakima
3 3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x -7 x x x x xx x x x x x x x Great Falls
3 3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x Helena
x x x x x x x x x x x x x -3 2- x x x x Kalispell
3 3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Missoula
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00
Notes: 1 missing October and November Legend: x= have data

2 no pcp 4/89-90; 2,4/91; 3/94-2/98 o=have part-time data
3 through 3/53 3=have 3-hrly data
4 February through November n-=month when data begin
-n=month when data end
10
Figure 3. Locations and elevations (m) of weather stations
in the Pacific Northwest
3.2 Ice accretion models

The most important parameters in determining ice thicknesses from weather data are the pre-
cipitation rate and wind speed during the freezing rain storm. Unfortunately, anemometers and
precipitation gauges may be adversely affected by accreted ice, and sometimes freezing rain
storms cause power outages at weather stations. Thus, the expertise and dedication of the
weather observers may have a significant effect on the quality of the recorded wind speed and
precipitation data. We do not know how much the quality of weather measurements has varied
over time or how much it varies from station to station.
The Simple model determines the equivalent uniform radial ice thickness Req from the amount
of freezing rain and the wind speed:
∑ ρ iπ [( Pj ρ o ) 2 + (3.6V jW j ) 2 ]
N
1 1/2
Req = , (1)
j =1
11
where Pj = precipitation amount (mm) in the jth hour, ρo = density of water (1 g/cm3), Vj = wind
speed (m/s) in the jth hour, Wj = liquid water content (g/m3) of the rain-filled air in the jth hour =
0.067Pj0.846 (Best 1949), and N = duration (hr) of freezing rain storm.
Req does not depend on the air temperature because it is assumed that all the available precipi-
tation freezes. Then, because the ice is uniformly thick around the wire, Req does not depend on
the wire diameter. Note that the liquid water content W is expressed in terms of the precipitation
rate P, implicitly incorporating a fall speed for the raindrops. The relationship used in (1) results
in a fall speed VT(m/s) = 4.15P0.154.
The CRREL model is similar to the Simple model, but uses a heat-balance calculation to de-
termine how much of the impinging precipitation freezes directly to the wire and how much of
the runoff water freezes as icicles. If it is cold enough and windy enough, the ice thicknesses de-
termined by the CRREL and Simple models are the same. However, if the air temperature is near
freezing and wind speeds are low, the CRREL model calculates smaller ice thicknesses than the
Simple model. In those conditions much of the impinging precipitation may freeze as icicles and
some may drip off without freezing.
The CRREL and Simple models are discussed and compared in Jones (1996b).
3.3 Data-model interface

To use historical weather data to determine ice thicknesses, a number of decisions must be
made about the data that are separate from the model, but affect the results. These include 1) pro-
rating 6-hourly and 24-hourly precipitation amounts to each hour, 2) deciding how much of the
precipitation accretes as ice when there are other types of precipitation, such as rain, snow or ice
pellets, mixed with or alternating with, freezing rain, 3) correcting the measured wind speed
from the height above ground of the anemometer to the height of the wire, 4) dealing with wire
orientation to the wind and variability in wind direction, 5) interpolating the weather data when
they were archived only every third hour, 6) deciding when a freezing rain storm ends. Each of
these aspects of determining ice thicknesses from weather data is discussed in this section.
3.3.1 Prorating accumulated precipitation

The weighting factors used to prorate 6- and 24-hourly precipitation amounts to each hour are
shown in Table 3. These weights were originally chosen to be the typical precipitation rate in
mm/hr for each type of precipitation. The weight assigned to each hour in the weather record is
determined by the present weather codes for the hour, with the weight set to zero if there is no
precipitation. For example, if the only type of precipitation reported in an hour is light freezing
rain, the weighting factor for that hour is 1.8. If, in the next hour, moderate freezing drizzle is
reported with light snow, the weighting factor is (0.3+0.6)/2=0.45. The fraction of the accumu-
lated precipitation attributed to each hour is the weighting factor for the hour divided by the sum
of weighting factors for the 6 or 24 hours in which precipitation accumulated. This fraction is
then multiplied by the accumulated amount to obtain the estimated hourly precipitation amount.
Table 3 is based on one provided by Tsoi Yip of the Atmospheric Environment Service (AES),
which was originally from an unpublished report by MEP for Environment Canada in August
1984. The main difference between Table 3 and the Canadian version is the larger weighting
factor for moderate freezing rain, equal to that for moderate rain, here.
12
Table 3. Weighting factors for prorating 6- and 24-hourly precipitation amounts.
Precipitation Rain Rain Drizzle Freezing Freezing Snow Snow Ice Snow Snow Hail
Intensity/Type showers rain drizzle grains pellets showers pellets
Light 1.8 1.8 0.1 1.8 0.1 0.6 0 1.8 0.6 0.6 1.8
Moderate 5.1 5.1 0.3 5.1 0.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 5.1
Heavy 13.0 0.8 2.5
3.3.2 Mixed precipitation types

In freezing rain storms, the type of precipitation varies from hour to hour, and in any hour there
will often be two or even three types of precipitation. We do not attempt a further subdivision of
the prorated hourly precipitation amounts, but instead assume that all the precipitation in an hour
in which freezing rain falls accretes to the wire as if it were freezing rain. The models are also
allowed to accrete precipitation that was described as rain or drizzle (not freezing) if the air tem-
perature was below freezing. These assumptions are conservative. They allow the modeled ice
thicknesses to represent the possibly more severe conditions in the vicinity of the weather sta-
tion, where perhaps all the precipitation is freezing rain rather than the mixture of precipitation
types observed at the weather station, or where convective and evaporative cooling are slightly
greater than at the weather station. This conservatism also expresses a reluctance to further sub-
divide the precipitation amounts based on weighting factors that at best are correct on average
but cannot represent the mix of varying precipitation types in an hour, of which the observers
provide only a glimpse in their once-per-hour observations of the precipitation type.
In both the CRREL and Simple models, ice loads may be determined for two cases: 1) allow-
ing ice to accrete only in hours in which the precipitation type is reported as freezing rain or a
combination of freezing rain and other types of precipitation, and 2) allowing ice to accrete also
in hours in which the precipitation type is ice pellets. Freezing rain and ice pellets occur in the
precipitation-type transition region of winter storms (Stewart 1992), which typically is bounded
by snow on one side and rain on the other. Freezing rain and ice pellets develop in the same me-
teorological conditions: a layer of warm air over a layer of cold air. Snowflakes, formed in
clouds above the layer of warm air, melt as they fall through the warm air. These water drops
then cool while falling through the layer of cold air below. For the right combinations of cold
and warm layer thicknesses and temperatures, the raindrops may supercool in the cold air layer
but remain liquid and ultimately freeze on impact with a structure. However, there are two sce-
narios in which the precipitation falls as ice pellets rather than freezing rain: 1) if the cold air
layer is thick enough and cold enough, the raindrops freeze partially or entirely, forming ice pel-
lets, and 2) if the warm air layer aloft is relatively thin or cold, the snowflakes may not melt
completely before falling into the cold air layer. In the first case, structures at higher elevations
or high enough above ground may be in freezing rain while ice pellets are observed at weather
stations. The inclusion of ice pellets in modeling ice loads at weather stations is intended to esti-
mate ice loads that may have occurred on structures near to, but higher than, the weather station.
The CRREL ice storm team observed this in a storm in February 1996 in Tennessee, where
freezing rain damaged trees and power lines on Lookout Mountain, a suburb of Chattanooga,
while ice pellets were falling at the Chattanooga airport.
13
3.3.3 Anemometer and wire heights above ground.
Ice thicknesses on wires are often calculated at 10 m above ground, but may be calculated at
any height. Because wind speed increases with height above ground through the earth’s bound-
ary layer, the ice thickness also increases with height, as shown in (1). Thus, it is important to
know how far above ground the wind speed is measured. The anemometer height at any weather
station has typically varied over time, and also varies from station to station. The rate of increase
of wind speed with height depends on the roughness of the terrain and the exposure of the site. In
this study the wind speed was assumed to be proportional to the 1/7 power of the height, follow-
ing ASCE Standard 7-93 (1993) for exposure C, which is appropriate at these airport weather
stations. Thus
1/ 7
h 
VW = V A  W  (2)
 hA 
where VW and VA are the wind speeds at the height above ground of the wire hW and the height
above ground of the anemometer hA, respectively. Equation (2) provides only an estimate of the
actual average wind profile.
In addition to this anemometer height correction, a correction to hours in which the recorded
wind speed is zero is also made. In these hours the wind speed for the previous hour with a non-
zero wind speed is used. This is done in case the zero wind is a result of a frozen anemometer.
Hours that are actually calm are “corrected” erroneously by this procedure, resulting in modeled
ice thicknesses that are too high. On the other hand, if ice accreting on the anemometer has
caused erroneously low but non-zero winds for a number of hours, the modeled ice thicknesses
will be too low.
3.3.4 Wire orientation and wind direction

Both the CRREL model and the Simple model compute the uniform ice thickness on a wire
whose orientation changes as necessary so that it is always perpendicular to the wind to give the
largest effect of wind-blown rain. This assumption is conservative for power lines, particularly
for line routes that are nearly parallel to the prevailing wind direction for freezing rain storms. To
determine the variation in ice thickness with orientation, the ice thickness for wires with fixed
orientations from north ranging from 0o to 150o in 30o increments:
∑ ρ iπ {(Pj ρ o )2 + (3.6V jW j sin[θ − φ ])2 }

N
1 1/ 2
Req = , (3)
j =1
where θ is the wire direction and φ is the wind direction, are also computed in the Simple model.
Unless otherwise stated, the model results presented in this report are for a wire that is always
perpendicular to the wind direction.
3.3.5 Interpolating 3-hourly data

At NWS stations, from about 1965 to about 1972 or later, weather data were archived elec-
tronically only every 3 hours at 0000, 0300, 0600, 0900, 1200, 1500, 1800, and 2100 Universal
Coordinate Time (UTC), even though weather measurements were made every hour. These gaps
in the data are dealt with by assuming that the weather was the same as in the archived hour in
14
the two hours following. For example, the wind speed at 0400 and 0500 is assumed equal to the
archived wind speed at 0300. The sensitivity of the modeled ice loads to this interpolation
scheme was investigated by comparing the ice thicknesses obtained using interpolated weather
data and the original hourly data for one severe freezing rain storm at Springfield, Illinois, in
1978. The hourly and interpolated 3-hourly uniform radial ice thicknesses differed by only 1
mm, or 2% of Req.
The original handwritten hourly data are available at NCDC, so one could use these complete
weather records, if it were considered worthwhile to take the time to manually enter the missing
data. As the data from the missing hours are digitized from paper records in the next few years,
they will be merged into the ISH database (Neal Lott, NCDC, personal communication).
3.3.6 Storm end

An important aspect of pre-processing the weather data before running ice accretion models is
deciding when a freezing rain storm ends. That choice affects both the maximum wind-on-ice
load and the maximum ice thickness for the storm. The maximum wind-on-ice load may occur
following the ice storm, if a cold front accompanied by higher winds moves into the storm area
as freezing rain ends. We end storms at the first hour after freezing rain ends when the air tem-
perature goes above 1oC. This choice sometimes results in ice accreting on top of previously ac-
creted ice that is many days or weeks old. Ideally, one would model the melting and sublimation
of accreted ice; however, that is more difficult than modeling the accretion of ice. Melting by
direct or reflected solar radiation and ice shedding before complete melting may be significant at
many locations.
3.4 Results
Using the methodology outlined in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, we extracted freezing rain storms
from the weather data at the 51 stations in the study region, prorated accumulated daily and 6-
hourly precipitation amounts to each hour, and made any necessary corrections to the data. These
data were then used in the CRREL and Simple ice accretion models to estimate for each storm
the amount of ice, in terms of the equivalent uniform radial ice thickness, that accreted on a 1-
in.-diameter wire, perpendicular to the wind direction, at 10 m above ground. The wind-on-ice
load was calculated throughout each storm, assuming a drag coefficient CD = 1. The CRREL and
Simple model results are compared for Bellingham and Pendleton in Figure 4. For most, but not
all, of these storms it was cold and windy enough that the CRREL model estimate is essentially
the same as the Simple model estimate.
15
Figure 4. Comparison of ice thicknesses from the CRREL and Simple models.
4. Storms
To balance the inherent uncertainties in modeled ice thicknesses and to provide a qualitative
description of historical freezing rain storms to better understand the climatology of these storms
in the region, we also compile information from newspaper accounts of damaging freezing rain
storms, Storm Data (NOAA 1959–present) and its predecessor Climatological Data, National
Summary (NOAA 1950–1958), and other publications. These sources are not expected to supply
quantitative information on ice thicknesses, but they do provide crucial information on the se-
verity and extent of storms.
4.1 Qualitative damage information

We chose storms in the Pacific Northwest based on the modeled ice thicknesses, and obtained
qualitative information on these storms. We use four criteria for choosing these storms: 1) the
accretion of 13 mm or more of ice from freezing rain only by the CRREL model, at one or more
stations, or 2) the accretion of at least 13 mm of ice from freezing rain only by the Simple model
at one or more stations, or 3) the accretion of at least 13 mm of ice from freezing rain or ice pel-
lets by the CRREL model at one or more stations, 4) the accretion of at least 13 mm of ice from
freezing rain or ice pellets by the Simple model at one or more stations. The second criterion is
used to investigate the difference between the CRREL and Simple models. The third and fourth
criteria are used to investigate the justification for allowing ice pellets to accrete as well as
freezing rain, to pick up storms in which there may be a band of freezing rain that is not observed
at the weather stations. In these storms descriptions, we expect to see many reports of downed
trees and outages in the power distribution system, and perhaps in the power transmission sys-
tem, if the actual ice thicknesses were as high as the modeled ice thicknesses. Thus, these are test
storms that may be damaging ice storms.
Because Stampede Pass is a relatively unpopulated area and the conditions there are not ex-
pected to apply generally over that region and may not be noted in the Seattle newspapers, Stam-
16
pede Pass ice storms were investigated separately using outage reports from BPA (see Section
4.2). Eliminating storms that appeared to be significant only at Stampede Pass resulted in 13
storms satisfying the first criterion, none satisfying the second, and 3 storms satisfying the third
or fourth criteria. Because of these low numbers and because many of the storms were chosen
based on ice thicknesses in Portland, we investigated 11 additional storms chosen for the rela-
tively large ice hicknesses at stations outside the Columbia River Gorge. Information on two
damaging freezing rain storms prior to the period of record for this study (1916 and 1942) in
northwestern Oregon is included in Taylor and Hatton (1999).
For these 27 storms in the Pacific Northwest, we mapped the modeled ice thicknesses and de-
termined the footprint of the storm using information from Storm Data and newspaper articles
from cities in the affected region. Storm maps are provided in Appendix B, and short descrip-
tions of the storms are presented in Table 4. This table includes the start and end dates of each
storm, the criterion for choosing the storm as one to investigate, a description of the storm foot-
print and damaged associated with the storm, and the model or models that best matched the
storm description. Based on this compilation, we ultimately used the Simple model results for
freezing rain only in mapping ice thicknesses, as we have done in the rest of the country. The
storm footprints were also compiled to determine regions with similar icing climatologies for
forming superstations for the extreme value analysis (see section 5.1).
17
Table 4. Freezing rain storms investigated in the Pacific Northwest
Good
Zsimple
ZCRREL
ZIPSimple
ZIPCRREL
Start Extent Description models
12/29/1948 x Columbia gorge, Snow in the Dalles; IP between there and Bonneville; ZR west to Portland; All
Portland to Bonneville strong east wind in gorge, power lines sagging
2/20/1949 8 10 (Tatoosh) no footprint Snow, wind, rain storm; no mention of ZR All too high
mm mm
1/11-21/50 x Fraser Valley WA to Damage to power and phone lines from heavy wet snow, high winds and All
Roseburg OR, including freezing rain; blizzard conditions; compared to storms in 1893 and 1916;
Pacific coast, western silver thaw described in coastal WA, Puget Sound area; 4"sleet in Salem;
Cascades and Columbia trees causing outages; silver thaw in Eugene; ice causing shorts near
gorge; also outage Roseburg; main BPA lines between dam and Vancouver down; heaviest wire
between Walla Walla damage in nw OR and sw WA in 20 years; outage will last 6 weeks in some
and Spokane areas; wire across river at Troutdale dropped in water; no water in some
areas; phones out; near disaster in Dallas area; orchards flattened in Clark
Co; buildings collapsed from weight of snow and ice
1/26-2/6/50 x Willamette Valley and 6" ice on wires of line from Eugene to Mapleton; most out in Lane Co; All
just north of gorge in outages near Portland; phone and telegraph wires at Cascade Summit down
WA; Pasco/Benton area from storm; snow further north in WA; outage in Benton-Pasco line from
wind/ice
12/4-9/50 8-9 Walla Walla/ Pendleton Silver thaw loads trees and wires; broken poles All
mm area
2/16-21/55 x Columbia gorge west of 1/4" ice on windshields in Yakima; heavy icing on trees in ne Portland, power All
Cascade Locks to outages; ice lasting longer at higher elevations in Portland; blizzard at
Portland; Willamette Cascade Locks; ZR and winds to 70 mph in narrow part of gorge; ZR in
Valley north of Albany; Willamette Valley, PP+L line down at Albany
1/15/1956 1 7 (Pendleton) outages 30 poles down along highway 11 between Adams and Athena Simple
mm mm between Pendleton and
Walla Walla
2/19-24/57 x Northern Willamette Silver thaw at Cascade Locks requires chains; damage and highway All
Valley mishaps from Portland to Salem; east winds in gorge; police transmitter on
Mt. Scott (just n of Clackamas, 1500 ft) knocked out; damage increased from
ice still on power lines when wind picked up
18
Good
Zsimple
ZCRREL
ZIPSimple
ZIPCRREL
10/24-26/57 5 (Malmstrom AFB) no precip data probably bad (deleted) All
mm footprint
12/6-18/58 x Walla Walla and n Outages in Walla Walla and n Umatilla Co from ice laden trees, phone and All; cannot
Umatilla Co; Fraser power out for many for up to 3 days; 1/2" ice on trees and wires in confirm
Valley from Bellingham Bellingham, outages from weight of ice and from wind blowing ice laden values at
north trees; , greatest damage from silver thaw since 1935; anemometer at Stampede
Bellingham frozen Pass
1/5-6/59 8 (Salem) local Salem areaPP+L had one rural line down at Stayton; no problems for PG+E and Pacific All
mm Telephone
1/29-2/3/63 x coast from Newport to ZR in Astoria extended south along coast beyond Newport; up to 1/2" of ice Simple, Z
Astoria; Willamette plus winds to 50 mph broke trees; Portland in shambles-ice covered trees only
Valley from s of Eugene crashing down; Columbia river highway east of Corbett closed by ice
to Portland and east to covered trees across road; outages in Corvallis, Salem; half of Blackley-
Corbett area Lane EC members wo power from ice on trees and wires w of Junction City;
much of Benton Co out; power out in Eugene; schools have no power; slick
roads in Pendleton area
2/9/1963 4 7 (Malmstrom AFB) no Precip data probably bad (deleted) All

mm mm footprint
12/15-27/64 x no footprint Snow in Spokane area followed by ZL and ZR; some ZR in Willamette All too high
Valley; winds along coast knocked out power and phone lines; ice damaged
BPA circuit breaker near Hood River; snow and wind from Troutdale to
Cascade Locks; snow in Portland; snow and rain in Everett and Bellingham
area; some outages from snow-laden trees
12/31/68- 12 (Astoria; 14 mm in Falling trees and power lines in Astoria, Warrenton and Hammond; Z only
1/5/69 mm Abbotsford) Astoria area; communications out to Cape Disappointment; trees and power lines down
Washougal area along Highway 30; rain in Seaside; snow is big story in Seattle; no power or
phones in community north of Washougal; armour coat of ice in Portland
after snow, but few outages; gym in Camas collapsed from snow and ice; 14
mm in Abbotsford too high for Bellingham area
19
Good
Zsimple
ZCRREL
ZIPSimple
ZIPCRREL
12/31/69- 6 (Pendleton) no footprint Icy roads from ZR in Willamette Valley-unusual to cover such a large area; All; too high
1/13/70 mm roads icy from Troutdale to Cascade Locks; cable down from wet snow in in
Bellingham; snow and ZR north of Bellingham caused icy roads; slippery Pendleton
roads near Pendleton from snow and ZR; photo of a little ice on trees in
Pendleton
1/18-20/70 6 (Pendleton) Pendleton- Up to 1.5" ice in Hood River Co caused severe damage to orchards and All
mm Walla Walla area; Fraser utilities' also n of gorge in WA; most damaging ice storm in recent years in
Valley north of this area; silver thaw in Heppner, no power in northern Umatilla Co near
Bellingham; Hood River Milton-Freewater; heavy icing caused scattered failures from weight of ice
area and ice covered trees in Bellingham area
11/22-24/70 x Willamette Valley 1/4 to 1/2" of widespread ice broke trees and wires; 1" of ice in Rex (ne of All
Newberg) area; 30 K out for up to 3 days; 40 mph winds in Portland; more
outages as ice thawed; schools closed from no power; outside crew brought
in; worse in east part of Polk Co and Salem than in Portland; tree fell across
57kV line in Brightwood; 60% of PP+L customers out
12/25/77- x Fraser Valley including Brought in crews to Whatcom Co from Oak Harbor and Skagit Co, 3 All
1/12/78 Lake Whatcom, substations out, schools closed in Bellingham from no power; frost on trees
Portland-Troutdale area; in Walla Walla from nights of freezing mist; rain in Spokane causing black ice
west Snoqualmie Pass and outages (assume cars running into poles); sheet of ice in gorge; PGE
area outages in Portland; 3/4" ice in Portland; outages in Salem area from wind;
severe tree damage in Snoqualmie Pass from ZR
1/8-13/79 x Portland-Troutdale area; Brief outage in Bellingham, no problems from cars hitting poles; 75K out in Z only
Boise outage Portland metropolitan-Gresham area from 1-2" of ice; storm in'37 was as bad
or worse than this one, also bad storms in '50, '55, '68-'69 and '77-'78 ; PP+L
says ice storms in '59 caused many outages (correct year??); crews coming
from Astoria, Eugene, Tacoma, Medford, Bend, Hermiston to help; 2" ice still
in Troutdale while Portland thaws; disaster declaration requested for
Portland and Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington Cos from ice and
destructive winds; 2K out in Boise for 12 min when insulator failed; cost
PP+L and PGE more that $3M
20
Good
Zsimple
ZCRREL
ZIPSimple
ZIPCRREL
1/8-10/80 x Portland metropolitan- Power lines down in Portland, Gresham area; Brightwood, phones out in se All
Troutdale area Portland and Clackamas Co; 30 mph winds at Troutdale; 200k out in
Multnomah Co; outages from ice on wires and from fallen tree limbs; crews
coming from Salem and Eugene; emergency declaration by governor; 2-3
days to restore power
12/13/83- x Portland metropolitan- Widespread power outages from wind in w WA and OR; ice caused outage Z only
1/4/84 Troutdale area; sw Idaho for 2.5K near Parktree substation; 100 mph wind in Enumclaw topples 3
valley towers of 500 kV line; Corbett couple recalls 11" ice in 1921 beginning on
11/21; silver thaw causing outages--not as bad as '79 and '80; Portland
worst; 5 high voltage feeder lines out; numerous outages in sc and sw ID;
Twin Falls out from weight of ice, TV and radio stations off the air for 10 hr
11/28- x Wind storm; no footprint Treachorous driving in Eugene area; sporadic outages in Lincoln Co; along Z only
12/3/85 coast rain and high winds, outages; blizzard in gorge from Troutdale to Hood
River; wires down throughout Portland; ice, snow, winds to 70 mph knocked
out power in ne part of Clark Co; trees blowing onto wires in e Multnomah
Co; high winds cause outages in King Co.
1/8-12/91 x Columbia River Gorge; Snow and ZR in Portland; tree broken from ice in Gresham; power lines and All; except
Pendleton area; c and n trees down in gorge closed Crown Point highway beginning just east of value in
Whatcom Co Portland; just as bad between Hood River and the Dalles; power out in Bellingham
Corbett; outages in downtown Pendleton, maybe from thawing ice; severe too high
silver thaw in c and n Whatcom Co; 10K wo power; main lines and
substations out; orchard trees damaged by 1/4-1/2" ice on trees; birch,
maple, dogwood hard hit; water out
12/9-12/95 7 (Portland) n Willamette Storm cut power to 60K from Portland to Salem and disabled light rail; All
mm Valley and Gorge; OR Corbett out 2 days; PGE called in extra crews; cold air layer <about 1000 ft
coast, s of Astoria thick; ice and wind caused outages along n coast of OR mostly in rural
Clatsop and Tillamook Co; ice laden trees caused outages; warm in Astoria
21
Good
Zsimple
ZCRREL
ZIPSimple
ZIPCRREL
11/19-28/96 12 (Spokane) Spokane area Heavy snow followed by ZR in ID; power out for many days; $6M in damage; All
mm east to Coeur d'Alene, in MT outages in Superior and s and w of Missoula; S and R weighted down
southeast to Missoula trees and broke wires throughout Lincoln and Sanders Co; ZR turning to
and south snow in Gorge disrupted travel; heavy snow caused outages in WA; 1 to 1.5"
ZR knocked out power to 50% in Spokane area, 1" thick coats of ice on
trees; worst ZR in 60 years; 100 K still out 3 days later, some out for 5 days,
some may wait for 2 weeks; water supplies low; 1" frozen rain and ice in
Lower Yakima valley-accidents; $7M in damage in Spokane area; Missoulian
describes sleeve of ice 5 to 6" in diameter; ZR and fog formed ice that tore
down lines in Glacier, Liberty and Hill Cos MT
12/25-31/96 x Puget Sound area to Ice storm paralyzed Portland and Columbia Gorge-4-5" ice in gorge, Z only
Pacific Coast s of Sound; widespread outages-162K; wind; ice as thick as baseball bat on CB radio
w Columbia gorge, the antenna on parked car in Troutdale;2 week outage in Corbutt; n Wasco Co
Dalles area PWD had only a few outages-mostly ice pellets; highway from Portland to
Astoria closed because of ice covered trees across road;ice storm in s Puget
Sound; 269K wo power for < 1 week; worst since 1928, snow also; Tacoma
Narrows bridge closed because of falling icicles; heavy snow in Seattle-
Everett area; snow in passes; blizzard in Whatcom Co and e WA; roofs
collapsed in Bremerton, Bothell, Yakima, Bellingham; only 2K out in
Snohomish Co; ZR knocked out power in Greys Harbor Co-worst ever;
power lines down as far south as nw of Centralia and w of Pe Ell; Tukwila
hardest hit; outages from snow-laden trees in Snohomish Co; icy tree limbs
on Whidbey Island and near Monroe caused outages
22
4.2 Stampede Pass
Data from the weather station at Stampede Pass indicate that both freezing rain and in-cloud
icing occur frequently there. However, ice thicknesses from freezing rain for that site can be only
roughly estimated because the station did not operate at all, or only measured some of the
weather elements, at night for most of the period of record. We have attempted to determine the
icing severity at Stampede Pass using the available weather data and BPA outage reports from
transmission lines going through the pass.
Table 5a is a compilation of outage reports provided by Ron Thorkildson for lines going across
Stampede Pass. The reports were edited to include only those in winter months with a Dispatcher
Cause or Field Cause that did not preclude icing as the root cause of the outage. For each report,
we have added information on the conditions at the Stampede Pass weather station and the
roughly estimated ice thickness for any freezing rain or in-cloud icing (see Section 7.3) storms in
progress at the time of the outage. Comments on the outages, which are included in the BPA da-
tabase from 1990 on, are provided in Appendix C, keyed to the number of the outage report in
Table 5a.
Table 5b is a list of the significant (>13 mm) ice thickness at Stampede Pass from freezing rain.
Again, these are rough estimates because it is a part-time station. For the period that Tables 5a
and b overlap, there is no apparent association between the occurrence of outages and what may
be significant freezing rain storms. This discrepancy may have a number of causes:
• Errors in the model estimates because of the part-time weather data.
• The lines going through Stampede Pass may be designed to withstand ice loads exceed-
ing those that have occurred in freezing rain storms in the past 30 years.
• The modeled ice loads are on wires perpendicular to the wind, while the orientation of the
spans in Stampede Pass are more or less parallel to the direction of the wind accompanying
freezing rain (see section 7.2).
23
Table 5a. BPA outage reports for lines going through Stampede pass.
# Out In Line Name Dispatcher Field Component Weather Temp Fault Location Stampede Pass Req (mm)
Date/Time Date/Time Cause Cause conditions
1 2/13/73 19:58 2/13/73 19:58 OLYMPIA -G Unknown freezing fog 2
COULEE 1
287kV
2 1/30/74 5:12 1/30/74 14:50 OLYMPIA -G Ice snow and 23
COULEE 1 freezing fog
287kV
3 10/4/74 18:50 10/4/74 18:51 OLYMPIA -G Unknown - -
COULEE 1
287kV
4 1/6/75 2:06 1/6/75 3:37 COVINGTN- Ice snow and -
COLUMBIA 3 freezing fog
230kV
5 11/23/75 10:31 11/23/75 14:40 OLYMPIA -G Tree just after end of -
COULEE 1 snow storm
287kV followed by rain
6 12/13/76 12:19 12/13/76 12:20 COVINGTN- Tree - -
COLUMBIA 3
230kV
7 3/13/78 10:21 3/13/78 10:39 OLYMPIA -G Ice snow and 1
287kV
8 12/22/78 13:05 12/22/78 16:37 COVINGTN- Unknown snow and 8-10
230kV
9 11/15/81 14:08 11/15/81 14:31 OLYMPIA -G Weather snow and 6
287kV
10 1/23/82 18:55 1/23/82 19:00 OLYMPIA -G Unknown after snow/ 8-9
287kV ending in rain
11 1/23/82 19:01 1/25/82 12:20 OLYMPIA -G Tree after snow/ 8-9
287kV ending in rain
12 1/8/83 15:44 1/8/83 15:48 COVINGTN- Weather snow, rain and 11
230kV
COULEE 1
287kV
14 12/23/83 18:04 12/24/83 12:44 OLYMPIA -G Weather snow and 4-25 mm
COULEE 1 freezing fog, very
287kV cold
24
15 2/7/84 13:23 2/7/84 14:53 OLYMPIA -G Unknown freezing fog 5
COULEE 1
287kV
COULEE 1
287kV
17 2/17/85 6:34 2/17/85 6:34 VANTAGE- UNKNOWN a little freezing
RAVER 1 fog and snow
(500 kV)
18 11/5/85 9:39 11/5/85 9:43 OLYMPIA-G UNKNOWN - -
COULEE 1
(287 kV)
19 1/13/86 23:28 1/14/86 4:51 G COULEE- UNKNOWN - -
RAVER 2
(500 kV)
COULEE 1
(287 kV)
21 4/15/86 17:42 4/15/86 20:04 OLYMPIA-G WEATHER - -
COULEE 1
(287 kV)
22 12/6/86 11:08 12/6/86 11:08 OLYMPIA-G UNKNOWN end of long 1
COULEE 1 freezing fog and
(287 kV) snow episode
23 12/7/86 17:04 12/8/86 10:13 OLYMPIA-G Line Material 0
COULEE 1 Failure
(287 kV)
24 2/11/87 6:46 2/11/87 6:46 VANTAGE- UNKNOWN - -
RAVER 1
(500 kV)
25 11/25/87 11:21 11/25/87 11:21 OLYMPIA-G UNKNOWN freezing fog 4
COULEE 1
(287 kV)
COULEE 1
(287 kV)
27 1/17/89 1:51 1/17/89 1:53 G COULEE- WEATHER freezing fog and 0
RAVER 2 snow
(500 kV)
RAVER 2 snow
(500 kV)
RAVER 2 snow
(500 kV)
25
30 11/9/89 14:38 11/9/89 14:38 COVINGTN- UNKNOWN - -
COLUMBIA 3
(230 kV)
COULEE
1(287 kV)
32 1/1/90 10:10 1/1/90 10:17 OLYMPIA-G Ice UNKNOWN TRANSMISSION N/A N/A N/A snow and 0
COULEE 1 EQUIPMENT freezing fog
(287 kV)
33 1/1/90 13:00 1/1/90 13:05 OLYMPIA-G Ice UNKNOWN TRANSMISSION N/A N/A N/A snow and 0
(287 kV)
34 1/27/90 15:41 1/28/90 14:17 OLYMPIA-G TREE TREE TRANSMISSION WIND/ RAIN N/A N/A - -
COULEE 1 EQUIPMENT
(287 kV)
35 3/21/90 5:26 3/21/90 5:26 VANTAGE- UNKNOWN UNKNOWN TRANSMISSION CLOUDY/ N/A /16.39 - -
RAVER 1 EQUIPMENT CLEAR
(500 kV)
36 4/18/90 12:23 4/18/90 13:15 SICKLER- UNKNOWN UNKNOWN TRANSMISSION CLOUDY/ N/A - -
RAVER 1 EQUIPMENT CLEAR
(500 kV)
37 11/22/90 0:03 11/22/90 0:03 G COULEE- WEATHER UNKNOWN TRANSMISSION just after 1
RAVER 2 EQUIPMENT snow/freezing fog
(500 kV) episode
(500 kV) episode
(500 kV) episode
40 4/17/91 5:02 4/17/91 5:02 OLYMPIA- G UNKNOWN - -
COULEE 1
(287 kV)
41 5/5/91 4:53 5/5/91 4:53 VANTAGE- UNKNOWN UNKNOWN TRANSMISSION - -
RAVER 1 EQUIPMENT
(500 kV)
42 2/21/92 6:52 2/21/92 6:52 SICKLER- UNKNOWN UNKNOWN TRANSMISSION RAIN/ SNOW N/A snow and 0
RAVER 1 EQUIPMENT freezing fog
(500 kV)
43 3/22/92 7:15 3/22/92 7:18 VANTAGE- UNKNOWN UNKNOWN TRANSMISSION CLEAR N/A - -
RAVER 1 EQUIPMENT
(500 kV)
44 3/29/92 21:59 3/29/92 22:01 VANTAGE- UNKNOWN UNKNOWN TRANSMISSION N/A N/A - -
RAVER 1 EQUIPMENT
(500 kV)
26
45 1/20/93 6:52 1/21/93 4:02 OLYMPIA- G WEATHER Wind Conductor/ WIND STORM N/A N/A snow and 4-6
COULEE 1 Hardware freezing fog
(287 kV)
46 1/20/93 10:28 1/20/93 18:52 COVINGTN- TREE Tree blown TRANSMISSION PARTLY 26 snow and 4-6
COLUMBIA 3 EQUIPMENT CLOUDY freezing fog
(230 kV)
47 12/9/93 13:32 12/10/93 17:16 OLYMPIA- G TREE Tree blown TRANSMISSION RAIN 48 42 snow and 3-4
(287 kV)
48 12/10/93 5:42 12/10/93 10:09 COVINGTN- WEATHER TREE TRANSMISSION N/A/WIND/ RAIN N/A/60 just after 3-4
COLUMBIA 3 EQUIPMENT snow/fog storm
(230 kV)
49 1/4/94 8:36 1/4/94 8:55 OLYMPIA- G UNKNOWN UNKNOWN TRANSMISSION RAIN 50 17.15 rain,snow and 0
(287 kV)
50 5/19/94 4:50 5/19/94 4:50 VANTAGE- UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Conductor/ N/A/STORMY/ N/A - -
RAVER 1 Hardware CLEAR
(500 kV)
51 10/31/94 4:18 10/31/94 14:35 OLYMPIA- G TREE Tree blown Conductor/ WIND/RAIN 46 64.25 just after fog, rain 0
COULEE 1 Hardware and snow
(287 kV)
52 12/12/95 20:41 12/13/95 15:14 COVINGTN- Tree blown Tree blown TRANSMISSION Mild Wind/ HIGH 45/50'S snow and 2-4
COLUMBIA 3 EQUIPMENT WINDS freezing fog
(230 kV)
53 12/30/95 16:14 1/2/96 16:05 OLYMPIA- G TREE Tree blown Conductor windy unknown 50 mile out Oly freezing fog and 2-4
COULEE 1 /Hardware freezing rain
(287 kV)
54 3/10/96 6:03 3/10/96 6:27 OLYMPIA- G UNKNOWN UNKNOWN TRANSMISSION cloudy/rain 50 134.9 - -
COULEE 1 EQUIPMENT
(287 kV)
55 12/2/96 8:47 12/3/96 16:10 OLYMPIA- G Tree blown WEATHER TRANSMISSION Rain 35 50 mile snow and 0
(287 kV)
56 12/27/96 5:06 12/27/96 5:15 COVINGTN- Ice Ice TRANSMISSION Mostly overcast/ Approx. snow and 0
COLUMBIA 3 EQUIPMENT wind freezing 10/30 freezing fog
(230 kV) rain
57 12/27/96 8:52 12/27/96 14:23 OLYMPIA -G TREE Ice TRANSMISSION Snow, Ice 30 48 mile snow and 0
(287 kV)
58 1/1/97 4:08 1/1/97 12:01 OLYMPIA- G Tree blown Tree blown TRANSMISSION Wind 45 34 mile - -
COULEE 1 EQUIPMENT
(287 kV)
o
59 1/17/97 7:24 2/2/97 14:47 SCHULTZ- Ice Ice Conductor/ FREEZING 15/20 F 16/4 snow and 0
RAVER 2 Hardware RAIN/ Mixed freezing fog
(500 kV) snow & rain
27
60 1/17/97 10:59 1/17/97 11:01 SCHULTZ- Ice Ice Conductor/ snow and 0
RAVER 3 Hardware freezing fog
(500 kV)
61 12/26/97 18:29 12/26/97 18:29 SCHULTZ- UNKNOWN UNKNOWN TRANSMISSION 24.5 F 34.55 from RAVR snow and 1
RAVER 2 EQUIPMENT freezing fog
(500 kV)
62 4/3/98 10:15 4/3/98 10:55 OLYMPIA- G UNKNOWN UNKNOWN TRANSMISSION cloudy 50 163 miles freezing fog 0
COULEE 1 EQUIPMENT
(287 kV)
63 10/5/98 22:49 10/5/98 22:56 OLYMPIA- G UNKNOWN UNKNOWN TRANSMISSION clear 45 193 miles from - -
COULEE 1 EQUIPMENT
(287 kV)
64 11/24/98 20:49 11/25/98 13:39 OLYMPIA- G Tree blown Tree blown TRANSMISSION STORM 50 IN THE 51 MILE snow and 0
(287 kV)
65 10/27/99 7:32 10/27/99 20:13 OLYMPIA- G Tree blown Wind Conductor/ windy/ rain 50 54.2 mi from oly snow and 1
COULEE 1 Hardware freezing fog
(287 kV)
66 2/3/00 13:42 2/4/00 14:25 OLYMPIA- G Tree blown Tree blown Conductor/ Clear and Sunny 40 58 mi from olym no data ?
COULEE 1 Hardware
(287 kV)
67 3/27/01 22:06 3/27/01 23:14 OLYMPIA- G UNKNOWN UNKNOWN TRANSMISSION light rain 42 206 mi. no data ?
COULEE 1 EQUIPMENT
(287 kV)
28
Table 5b. Significant modeled ice thick-
nesses from freezing rain at Stampede Pass.
Req (mm) Req (mm)

Start Date End Date CRREL Simple
3/27/1949 3/29/1949 17 17
3/5/1950 3/17/1950 10 14
3/15/1951 3/17/1951 22 23
10/29/1955 10/29/1955 10 18
12/11/1955 12/11/1955 13 20
11/16/1956 11/20/1956 14 16
12/24/1957 1/15/1958 5 16
10/9/1958 10/10/1958 11 15
10/11/1959 10/11/1959 3 17
11/15/1959 11/18/1959 10 12
2/2/1960 2/7/1960 17 18
12/17/1961 12/19/1961 16 19
1/31/1963 2/3/1963 18 19
12/5/1963 12/23/1963 14 14
12/11/1966 12/13/1966 6 14
12/31/1967 1/19/1968 12 19
11/23/1970 11/24/1970 25 25
12/16/1972 12/18/1972 13 13
12/26/1975 12/26/1975 15 21
2/16/1976 2/22/1976 14 14
11/1/1977 11/1/1977 13 19
11/25/1977 11/25/1977 17 31
12/9/1977 12/11/1977 12 13
12/17/1979 12/18/1979 14 19
10/26/1985 10/27/1985 12 15
12/20/1987 1/14/1988 13 14
11/11/1995 11/11/1995 12 14
5. Extreme Ice Thicknesses and Concurrent Wind-on-ice Speeds

We used the modeled ice thicknesses at the weather stations in the Pacific Northwest to deter-
mine ice thicknesses with a 50-year mean recurrence interval. We have found both the peaks-
over-threshold method (Simiu and Heckert 1995, Hosking and Wallis 1987, Walshaw 1994,
Wang 1991, Gross et al. 1994, Abild et al. 1992) and the concept of superstations (Peterka 1992)
to be useful in the extreme value analysis.
5.1 Superstations
The superstation concept is presented in Peterka (1992) for extreme wind speeds. The 50-year
wind map in the 1993 revision of ASCE Standard 7 shows small regions in the Midwest with
high winds. Peterka argued that these small-scale variations in the extreme wind speed were not
real but were attributable to sampling error from determining the parameters of the extreme value
distribution from relatively short data records. He suggested that the records of extreme winds,
from different weather stations with the same wind climate, could be appended to each other to
29
form a superstation with a much longer period of record. The long period of record of a super-
station supplies many more extremes to use in the extreme value analysis and thus produces bet-
ter estimates of the parameters of the extreme value distribution. The limitation on forming the
superstation is the requirement that the maximum annual winds from the different stations in the
superstation should be uncorrelated. If extreme winds at two stations are correlated, then includ-
ing the second station supplies no new information on the extreme wind climate.
If there were 500 years of weather data at each of the stations in the study region, reasonably
accurate estimates for ice thicknesses for a 50-year return period could be made without group-
ing the stations into superstations. However, sampling errors in the estimation of extreme loads
can be significant for the current electronic data records of weather stations in the Pacific North-
west, which range up to about 50 years in duration and average 30 years. At any weather station,
the probability that an ice thickness with a 50-year mean recurrence interval has occurred in-
creases as the period of record increases. However, a high ice thickness with a long mean recur-
rence interval may have occurred at a station with a short period of record, and, conversely, only
short recurrence interval ice thicknesses may have occurred at a station with a longer period of
record.
To obtain the longest possible period of record, as many stations as possible are included in
each superstation, consistent with the available information on the climatology of ice storms in
the region. Superstations for the Pacific Northwest are shown in Figure 5 with the period of re-
cord for each. The superstations were chosen on the basis of a compilation of information from
the 27 storms that were investigated (Fig. 6), the terrain of the region (Fig. 2), and the frequency
of freezing rain storms at each weather station resulting in at least a 1-mm radial ice thickness
(Fig. 7). The superstation groupings are not based on the extreme ice thicknesses at individual
stations.
Figure 5. Period of record (years) for superstations in

the Pacific Northwest.
30
Figure 6. Compiled footprints of damaging freezing rain storms.
Figure 7. Frequency (#/year) of freezing rain storms resulting in at

least 1 mm of ice.
31
5.2 Peaks-over-threshold method
Researchers often use the epochal method to determine the parameters of an extreme value
distribution. They pick the maximum value for each year in the period of record, and then use
these annual maxima to determine the parameters of a type I (Gumbel), II (Frechet) or III (re-
verse Weibull) extreme value distribution. We think that the peaks-over-threshold (POT) ap-
proach is better for dealing with ice thicknesses for the following reasons:
• At a given location freezing rain storms occur infrequently and some winters will have no
measurable freezing rain. In those years the maximum ice thickness is zero, which would
have to be considered part of the extreme population in the epochal method.
• In other years there will be more than one severe ice storm, each of which may generate
larger ice thicknesses than the most severe storms in milder years. The epochal method
would not include these severe but not worst-that-year storms in the estimation of the pa-
rameters of the extreme value distribution.
• Because the calendar year ends in the middle of the freezing rain storm season, one could
argue that it make more sense to choose maximum ice thicknesses for the season rather than
for the calendar year. In one study the parameters of the extreme value distribution depended
on whether the calendar or seasonal year was used (Laflamme 1993).
These problems are avoided using the POT method because loads are chosen as members of
the extreme population if they exceed a specified threshold. The excess of the value over this
threshold is used to determine the two additional parameters of the generalized Pareto distribu-
tion (GPD):
1/ k
 k ( x − u) 
F ( x) = P( X ≤ x x ≥ u ) = 1 − 1 − k≠0
 α 
(4)
 -(x-u) 
= 1 - exp  k =0
 α 
The threshold is u, the shape parameter is k, and α is the scale parameter. The cases k = 0, k < 0,
and k > 0 correspond to the extreme value distribution types I (shortest infinite tail), II (longer
infinite tail), and III (finite tail length, x < α/k). Typically, k ranges between –0.5 and 0.5. If the
data are correctly described by a GPD, then k is not dependent on the value chosen as the thresh-
old, as long as the threshold is chosen high enough.
We used probability weighted moments (Abild et al. 1992, Wang 1991, Hosking and Wallis
1987) to determine the distribution parameters k and α. This method relies less on the high ex-
tremes in the sample in determining the best fit compared to, for example, to the method of mo-
ments. Estimates of the GPD parameters are provided by:
32
4b1 − 3b0 + u
k=
b0 − 2b1
α = (b0 − u)( 1 + k)
where (5)
1 l
b0 = ∑ x (i )
l i =1
1 l i −1
b1 = ∑ x (i )
l i =1l −1
(Wang 1991), where the x(i) are the ordered sample, x(1) ≤ x(2) ≤ ... ≤ x(l) of loads greater than the
threshold u.
A variety of methods can be used to define the threshold u. It should be high enough that only
true extremes are used to estimate the parameters of the GPD, but low enough that there are suf-
ficient data so sampling error is not a problem. Some authors specified the threshold as a percen-
tile of the number of cases. For example, Walshaw (1994) used a threshold at about the 95th per-
centile of his 10 years of hourly maximum wind gusts. Sometimes the threshold is determined on
a physical basis (Abild et al. 1992). For the Pacific Northwest, we used a threshold ice thickness
to give an occurrence rate of the extremes of about 0.4/year, or 1 storm in every 2.5 years on av-
erage. In the eastern portion of the region, where ice storms are more infrequent, a threshold cor-
responding to occurrence rates of about 0.2, or 1 storm in every 5 years, was used.
Once the parameters of the distribution have been determined, the load xT corresponding to a
specified return-period T is calculated from
xT = u +
α
k
[1 − (λT ) ]
−k
(6)
where λ is the occurrence rate (number per year) of values exceeding the threshold.
5.3 Correlation
The correlation of the sample of extreme ice thicknesses for each pair of stations in each super-
station was checked by calculating the Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient Rs (Press et
al. 1987) presented in Table 6. The strength of the correlation is given by the square of the cor-
relation coefficient. For example, (0.82)2 = 67% of the variation in ice thickness at Pocatello is
explained by the variation at Idaho Falls. A high negative correlation for a pair of stations indi-
cates that ice loads at one station typically occur with no ice at the other station in the pair.
Subsets of stations in each superstation were created by excluding one station of each of the
four pairs (in bold in Table 6) for which Rs > 0.5. Thus, there are two subsets of stations in Puget
Sound and Southwest Idaho:
33
Puget Sound:
McChord, Olympia, Ft. Lewis, Boeing
Seattle, Ft. Lewis, Boeing
Southeast Idaho:
Burley, Idaho Falls
Pocatello
Table 6. Correlation between pairs of stations in superstations.
Station 1 Station 2 Threshold Years Spearman rs

Yakima Wenatche 0.119 73–99 –0.11
Hanford 0.119 85–95 –0.95
Wenatche Hanford 0.119 85–95 –0.87
Walla Walla Pendleton 0.249 73–99 –0.15
Helena Cut Bank 0.019 73–99 -
Great Falls 0.019 49–99 –0.10
Malmstrom AFB 0.019 49–99 –0.61
Cut Bank Great Falls 0.019 73–99 -
Malmstrom AFB 0.019 73–99 -
Great Falls Malmstrom AFB 0.019 49–99 0.04
McChord AFB Olympia 0.049 73–98 –0.60
Seattle 0.049 73–98 0.55
Ft. Lewis 0.049 73–98 –0.95
Boeing 0.049 - -
Olympia Seattle 0.049 49–99 0.65
Ft. Lewis 0.049 72–99 –0.18
Boeing 0.049 49–64 -
Seattle Ft. Lewis 0.049 73–99 –0.21
Boeing 0.049 49–64 –0.50
Ft. Lewis Boeing 0.049 - -
Fairchild AFB Spokane 0.329 71–98 0.37
Burley Pocatello 0.039 73–93 0.63
Idaho Falls 0.039 73–93 -
Pocatello Idaho Falls 0.039 73–93 0.82
Boise Montain Home AFB 0.069 79–99 –0.31
Ontario 0.069 48–54 -
Mountain Home
AFB Ontario 0.069 - -
Missoula Superior 0.099 48–53 -
Livingston Dillon 0.009 48–54 -
Butte 0.009 - -
Bozeman 0.009 73–77 -
Dillon Butte 0.009 - -
Bozeman 0.009 - -
Butte Bozeman 0.009 77–99 -
Klamath Falls Redmond 0.149 78–99 -
Burns 0.149 91–95 -
Redmond Burns 0.149 91–99 -
Eugene Salem 0.139 65–99 0.24
34
5.4 Wind-on-ice speeds
The amount of ice that accretes on a wire is affected by the speed of the wind that accompanies
the freezing rain. Wind speeds during freezing rain are typically moderate, ranging between 3
and 8 m/s. However, the ice that accretes on a wire may last for days or even weeks after the
freezing rain ends, as long the weather remains cold. Thus, the ice-laden wires may be exposed
to high winds that occur after the storm. We have determined the wind speeds to use in combi-
nation with extreme ice thicknesses from the modeled wind-on-ice loads at the weather stations
in this region.
The summary information for each freezing rain storm includes the maximum wind-on-ice
load at the maximum uniform ice thickness (a conditional maximum) as well as the maximum
wind-on-ice load that occurred at any time during the storm (the absolute maximum). We use the
peaks-over-threshold method to calculate the parameters of the distribution of extreme wind-on-
ice loads for the superstations. By assuming that the maximum wind-on-ice load in each storm
occurs with the maximum ice thickness, which is somewhat conservative, the concurrent wind-
on-ice speed Vc can be calculated from the N-year wind-on-ice load FN and the N-year ice thick-
ness ReqN:
2WN
Vc = , (7)
ρ a CD (D + 2 ReqN )
where ρa is the density of air, D is the diameter of the bare wire, and CD is the drag coefficient.
Vc is the wind speed that when used in combination with the ice thickness for a N-year mean re-
currence interval gives the wind-on-ice load for a N-year mean recurrence interval. Wind loads
are calculated using a drag coefficient CD = 1 in both models; however, the computation of the
load is done differently in the two models. The Simple model wind load is based on the compact
wire plus ice diameter, equal to D + 2Req. The CRREL model wind load is based on the average
cross-sectional dimension of the ice-covered wire, taking into account the spacing (45 ici-
cles/meter), length Li and diameter Di of the icicles. The cross-sectional area of icicles is 45DiLi in
each meter, so the cross-sectional width used in the wind load calculation is D + 2t + 0.45DiLi,
where t is the uniform thickness of the ice that freezes immediately to the wire. This is larger
than D + 2Req when there are icicles. Thus, for the CRREL model, Vc accounts crudely for the
increase in wind drag on the iced wire because of icicles, while retaining an ice thickness ex-
pressed in terms of the equivalent uniform radial ice thickness.
Vc is an hourly wind speed, rather than a 3-s gust speed or a fastest-mile wind speed. It is ob-
tained from the 1- or 2-minute average wind speeds that are reported each hour at the weather
stations. Gust speeds are recorded at military weather stations in the United States whenever
there is a rapid change in wind speed with at least a 10-knot difference between the high and low
speeds. In a previous study, these gust wind speeds at a number of Army and Air Force weather
stations were used to calculate Gc, the concurrent gust-on-ice speed. The ratio between Gc and Vc
was then calculated:
fgust =Gc /Vc = 1.34. (8)
We use fgust to estimate Gc from Vc for each station and superstation.
35
6. Results
6.1 Extreme value analysis

The fit of the GPD to the sample of extremes for a selection of superstations in shown in Fig-
ure 8. The plotting position of the ith thickness in the sample of extremes is
i − 0.4
pi = (9)
n + 0.2
where n is the number of years of record and i = 1,…,n is the rank of the ice thickness from
smallest to largest. This is a compromise plotting position that is nearly unbiased for all distribu-
tions (Cunanne 1978). The widely used Weibull plotting position pi = i/(n+1) is biased to short
return periods, unless the underlying distribution is uniform. The vertical scale is exponential, so
that for k = 0 the best-fit curve is a straight line. Because k < 0 for most of the stations, the best-
fit curve is concave down and the ice thickness increases more rapidly with return period than
the exponential (or Gumbel) distribution allows. Note the very few extremes for the Olympic
Peninsula and the poor fit. The largest modeled ice thickness for that superstation was for a
storm at Tatoosh in February 1949. According to newspaper reports from Aberdeen, this was a
wind and rain storm that was severe enough to cause power outages; however, freezing rain was
not mentioned and ice was not reported as causing the outages.
Figure 8. Generalized Pareto Distribution fitted to partial duration series for a

selection of superstations in the Pacific Northwest.
36
Figure 8 (cont’d). Generalized Pareto Distribution fitted to partial duration
series for a selection of superstations in the Pacific Northwest.
The results of the extreme value analysis are presented in Table 7 for superstations, supersta-
tion subsets, and individual stations. On average, the 100- and 200-year ice thicknesses in Table
7 are factors of 1.3 and 1.8 times the 50-year ice thicknesses. These ratios are significantly
greater than the ratios for the stations in the eastern half of the United States, shown as Table 8.
Table 7. Results of extreme value analysis
Req (mm)
Station N 50-yr 100-yr 200-yr Vc (m/s)
Fraser Valley 89 19.0 23.9 29.6 12.9
Bellingham 40 17.6 25.7 37.5 14.9
Abbotsford 49 17.7 21.3 25.5 10.6
Olympic Peninsula 46 9.1 13.8 20.1 18.1
Tatoosh 19 13.6 18.4 23.5 16.9
Quillayute 27 6.3 10.3 16.2 8.7
Puget Sound 168.5 6.5 9.7 14.3 9.0
subset 1 117.5 5.7 8.8 13.5 9.0
subset 2 94 6.3 9.4 13.5 9.1
Olympia 47.5 6.7 10.4 16.1 7.9
McChord AFB 26 7.1 10.7 15.7 8.7
Ft. Lewis 28 2.7 3.8 5.3 8.7
Seattle 49 8.1 11.2 15.2 9.0
Boeing 17 2.9 5.4 10.0 5.1
E Washington 88.5 5.7 7.3 9.2 11.7
Yakima 52 6.7 8.4 10.4 11.3
37
Req (mm)
Station N 50-yr 100-yr 200-yr Vc (m/s)
Wenatchee 27 3.4 4.5 5.9 12.2
Hanford 9.5 1.8 2.4 3.2 6.3
Spokane SS 75.5 7.8 10.4 14.1 11.8
Spokane 47.5 7.6 10.2 14.0 11.3
Fairchild AFB 28 8.7 11.2 14.1 11.8
E Oregon 69 3.4 4.3 5.5 12.5
Klamath Falls 14 6.0 9.5 14.7 14.8
Redmond 27 2.7 3.1 3.5 9.0
Burns 9 2.8 3.4 4.3 5.9
Baker 19 2.1 3.2 4.8 11.4
Pendleton SS 85 7.3 9.1 11.2 13.9
Walla Walla 30 6.7 8.5 10.9 12.7
Pendleton 55 7.6 9.7 12.3 14.1
SW Idaho 85.5 4.6 6.6 9.3 13.6
Boise 52 4.2 6.3 9.6 11.1
Mt. Home AFB 27 4.8 6.8 9.6 15.4
Ontario 6.5 1.4 1.6 1.9 6.3
SE Idaho 93 3.3 4.7 6.7 17.0
subset 1 41 2.8 4.6 7.3 15.9
Pocatello 52 3.3 4.5 6.3 18.2
Burley 20.5 4.1 6.3 9.6 11.7
Idaho Falls 20.5 1.3 2.2 3.8 15.4
Missoula SS 53 5.4 7.2 9.6 10.4
Missoula 47 4.9 6.3 8.1 10.9
Superior 6 1.4 1.6 1.9 4.1
SW Montana 82.5 0.9 1.4 2.1 15.6
Livingston 11 too few storms
Dillon 25 too few storms
Butte 19.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 8.2
Bozeman 27 1.1 1.7 2.7 11.4
Central Montana 170.5 2.9 4.2 6.1 14.4
Helena 51.5 1.0 1.4 1.8 11.0
Cut Bank 16 0.9 0.9 1.1 15.3
Great Falls 51.5 2.0 3.0 4.4 15.2
Malmstrom AFB 51.5 3.2 4.1 5.2 16.3
Whidbey 10 too few storms
Astoria 47 7.1 10.7 15.7 8.8
Portland 44 28.6 39.0 53.0 10.3
Eugene 42 10.9 12.4 13.7 10.4
Salem 52 14.3 17.4 20.6 12.1
Sexton Summit 27.5 11.2 16.1 23.1 11.5
Medford 52 0.8 1.1 1.6 6.6
North Bend 21 too few storms
Lewiston 19.5 0.8 0.8 1.0 9.1
Mullan Pass 6.5 3.6 5.0 7.8 22.6
Malad City 6.5 too few storms
Kalispell 18.5 3.3 3.8 4.5 15.6
38
Table 8. Return period factor on
ice thickness (ASCE in press)
Return Factor to
period multiply 50-year
(years) ice thickness
25 0.8
50 1.0
100 1.25
200 1.5
400 1.85
Concurrent wind speeds are calculated for each return period using (7). Typically, these speeds
vary slightly with return period, increasing at some stations and decreasing or remaining essen-
tially constant at other stations. The wind speeds provided in Table 7 are the averages of the con-
current wind speeds calculated from the ice thicknesses and wind-on-ice loads for 50-, 100- and
200-year return periods.
Ice thicknesses from freezing rain for a 50-year return period are mapped in Figure 9 for each
of the superstations and for individual stations not included in a superstation. Note that these 50-
year ice thicknesses have been exceeded a total of 38 times in the 1452-year period of record we
analyzed for the full-time stations in this region. Similarly, the 100-year values have been ex-
ceeded 16 times and the 200-year values 4 times in that period.
Figure 9. Equivalent radial ice thicknesses (mm) for a 50-year return

period for superstations in the Pacific Northwest
39
The occurrence of freezing rain in the Cascades is not well-represented by the available data.
The only stations in the Cascades at higher elevations are Stampede Pass (1209 m) in Washing-
ton, and Sexton Summit (1171 m) in southern Oregon. At Sexton Summit the 50-year radial ice
thickness is 11 mm, compared to less than 1 mm at Medford at 405 m in the Rogue Valley.
Freezing rain occurs frequently at Stampede Pass. However, weather observations were only
taken in daytime hours for most of the period of record, so accumulated ice thicknesses for indi-
vidual storms and 50-year extremes cannot be estimated reliably at this mountain location.
Rough estimates of ice thickness range up to about 30 mm on wires perpendicular to the wind, so
50-year ice thicknesses at Stampede Pass are probably significantly higher there than at Sexton
Summit.
6.2 Mapped ice thicknesses and concurrent wind speeds

Ice thicknesses from freezing rain for a 50-year return period with concurrent gust speeds are
mapped in Figures 10a and b. Ice thickness zones are in 0.25-in. increments and gust wind
speeds are in 10-mph increments. Concurrent gust speeds are determined from those listed in
Table 10 by converting from meters per second to miles per hour, and multiplying by the gust
factor fgust=1.34.
In the Cascade and Olympic mountains, which are shaded in Figure 10, ice thicknesses from
freezing rain are expected to vary with latitude, exposure, and elevation. Freezing rain is unlikely
to occur at elevations above 5000 ft (~1500 m) (Ron Thorkildson, personal communication).
Some of the variation in ice thicknesses that can be expected is provided by the analysis of
weather data for this project. In the mountains of southern Oregon, 50-year ice thicknesses range
from 1 mm in a valley at 400 m to 11 mm on a 1200-m summit. Much farther north in the
Washington Cascades, modeled ice thicknesses from part-time weather data at Stampede Pass,
also at about 1200 m, are as high as 30 mm for the last 52 years. There are no weather stations in
the mountains on the Olympic Peninsula. Additional information on extreme ice thicknesses in
the mountains is provided in a paper by Hall (1977). That report discusses ice load measurements
in a 20-year period from 1952 to 1972 on a ½-in.-diameter steel wire at about 20 ft above ground
in a 175-ft-long test span at Stampede Pass. A Gumbel analysis of the annual maxima of the
measured equivalent radial glaze ice thicknesses gave a 50-year ice thickness of 1.7 in. (43 mm).
Based on the low reported densities of these ice accretions, most of the measurements appear to
be from in-cloud icing or snow, rather than freezing rain. The report also compares the Stampede
Pass results with data from nine other test lines in the BPA service area. The extreme equivalent
radial glaze ice thicknesses from the Stampede Pass test span are significantly greater than those
from the other test spans. In this comparison the large difference in the radial ice thicknesses
between two locations 6 miles apart on the Grand Coulee-Snohomish No.2 Line is also noted.
The span in a valley at 2100 ft (640 m) gave an estimated 25-year ice thickness of 0.37 in. (9
mm), while the comparable thickness on a span at 5100 ft (1550 m) near the crest of the Cas-
cades is 0.98 in. (25 mm).
In-cloud icing is discussed in Section 7.3.
40
Note: 50-year ice thicknesses in the foothills and passes of the Cascade, Olympic and Siskiyou Moun-
tains, indicated by the shading, may exceed the mapped values. However, at elevations above 5000 ft,
freezing rain is unlikely to occur.
Figure 10. Ice thicknesses from freezing rain for a 50-yr return period with con-
current gust speeds a) Pacific Northwest, b) Columbia Gorge detail.
41
7. Discussion
7.2. Comparison to MRI mapped ice thicknesses

The ice thicknesses zones for freezing rain in Figure 1 were extracted from the detailed maps
generated by MRI. With the exception of the Columbia River Gorge, those ice thicknesses are
significantly greater than shown in Figures 10a and b.
One possible reason for this difference is a misassignment from the MRI maps. Those maps
show ice thickness contours for a 50-year return period with superposed shading to indicate the
type of icing that is most likely to cause that extreme load. In most of the region, most probable
extreme glaze (freezing rain) loads are coincident with most probable extreme wet snow loads.
Thus, in producing Figure 1, the effects of wet snow and freezing rain had to be separated. If in
fact wet snow caused higher extreme loads than freezing rain everywhere in the Pacific North-
west except the Gorge, the larger ice thicknesses in Figure 1 could be attributed to wet snow.
There are no areas where freezing rain is the only probable extreme load, so a direct comparison
with the MRI results and the results of this analysis cannot be made.
A second possible reason for the difference is the period of record for the weather data. The
MRI study is based on weather data from 1948 to 1964 at most stations in the region. The length
of the period of record for the stations used in this analysis and in the MRI analysis are shown in
Figure 11. The average period of record for the stations in the MRI analysis is 15 years compared
to a 30-year average in the CRREL analysis. At some of the stations, the MRI period of record is
longer than the CRREL period of record. MRI used data from the National Climate Center ar-
chived on magnetic tapes, which apparently are not currently available in the AFCCC/NCDC
archives.
a. CRREL analysis.
Figure 11. Period of record (years) for weather stations in the Pacific
Northwest.
42
b. MRI (1977) analysis.
Figure 11 (cont’d). Period of record (years) for weather stations in the Pacific.
A third possible reason for the difference between the CRREL and MRI results is the different
ice accretion models used. The MRI and Simple models are compared in Jones (1996b). If the
same data–model interface is used for both, the MRI model results in generally smaller ice thick-
nesses than the Simple model because the MRI model does not allow for the formation of icicles,
but instead assumes that any water that does not freeze directly to the wire drips off. This com-
parison used a fall speed for the drops in the MRI model of 4 m/s, a value appropriate for the av-
erage precipitation rate of 1 mm/hr for the data used in that comparison. However, the accreted
ice thickness is very sensitive to the assumed fall speed and, if in the MRI (1977) analysis a very
small fall speed was specified, that could explain at least some of the difference in the modeled
ice thicknesses. The difference in these results and the MRI (1977) results may be a consequence
of different decisions made by MRI in processing the data for input to their model.
A fourth possible reason for the difference is the method of fitting the extremes. MRI used the
approach in Weiss (1955) for fitting the Gumbel distribution to the data, which is similar to the
Gumbel plotting position method (ASCE 1991). Lowery and Nash (1970) show that this method
is biased and results in excessively high values for a specified return period.
While we do not have enough information about the MRI analysis to pin down the reasons for
the difference between Figures 10a and b and Figure 1, an examination of other studies provides
some information. A comparison can be made of ice thicknesses from freezing rain for the St.
Lawrence Valley, as determined by MRI in a 1974 report for Hydro Quebec, and by Jones and
White (in press) using the same approach as was used for this project. MRI reported ice thick-
nesses for a 50-year return period of 2.3 and 2.5 in. (58 and 63 mm) for two stations in the St.
Lawrence Valley. Their extreme value analysis was done fitting a Gumbel distribution to the an-
nual maxima, ignoring the outliers, that is, storms that appeared to be associated with very long
43
return periods. The Jones analysis of the St. Lawrence Valley superstation based on data through
1998 (including the severe January 1998 ice storm) results in a 50-year ice thickness of about 33
mm. Considering only the data that were available through 1973 gave a 50-year ice thickness of
about 30 mm. Thus, the MRI values are about twice the CRREL values. The modeled ice thick-
nesses that result in this difference in extremes cannot be compared directly, but we can compare
the MRI and CRREL annual maxima from 1953 to 1974. The 19 plotted annual maxima of the
radial glaze ice thicknesses for Montreal in MRI (1974) are on average 3.1 times the 19 largest
CRREL annual maxima for that period. The only direct comparison is provided by the outlier
storm in February 1961, which MRI omitted from the extreme value analysis. The ice thickness
they determined for that storm is 3.75 in. (95 mm), which is 2.3 times the 41 mm we calculated.
Mahaffy (1961) reports that wires were loaded with 1 to 2 in. (25 to 51 mm) of ice in this storm,
which is consistent with Hydro Quebec’s estimate of a 1.25 in. (32 mm) maximum radial ice
thickness based on a survey of damage to their system (Brian White, personal communication).
These independent estimates are between 1/3 to 1/2 of the MRI value.
In a recent study for the Canadian Electricity Association, CRREL and Environment Canada
compared their methods for determining extreme ice thicknesses from freezing rain. The map of
ice thicknesses for a 50-year return period for Canada is published in CSA Standard CAN/CSA-
C22.3 No.1-01 Overhead Systems (CSA 2001). The study region for this joint project extended
from Michigan and Ohio, across Ontario and into western New York. In contrast to the CRREL
approach, EC applies the weighting factors in Table 2 individually for each precipitation type to
prorate the daily precipitation amounts, uses the Chaîné ice accretion model (Chaîné and
Castonguay 1974), and determines extreme ice thicknesses assuming a Gumbel distribution, us-
ing the method of moments to determine the parameters of the distribution from the series of an-
nual extremes. In spite of all these differences, the estimated ice thicknesses for a 50-year return
period differed by 4 mm or less at most of the stations in the study region. CRREL and EC ice
thicknesses for 50- and 200-year return periods are compared in Figure 12.
Figure 12. Comparison of CRREL and EC extreme ice thicknesses from freezing rain.
MRI also relied on outage reports from utilities in the area in determining the ice thickness
contours. This information is not included in their 1977 report and the compiled outage reports
44
were discarded when MRI was bought out (Rich Richmond, personal communication to Ron
Thorkildson, May 2002). While we cannot evaluate the contribution of this information to the
MRI mapped ice thicknesses, based on the comparisons we have been able to make, it appears
that the outage information is not the source of the difference between the MRI and the CRREL
mapped values. MRI ice thickness estimates are high compared to those determined by other ap-
proaches. This is most likely from decisions MRI makes in the data–model interface, and may
also be affected by the user-specified fall speed of the rain drops in the MRI model. Their
method of determining extremes would tend to bias the results to high ice thicknesses; however,
this effect would be ameliorated if they routinely omitted outliers in the analysis.
7.1 Site-specific effects: freezing rain

Wind-blown rain may contribute significantly to the ice load on a structure. The wind flux term
in (1) is comparable to the falling rain term at a wind speed of about 5 m/s. Structures at sites
that are typically windier than the airport weather stations may accrete more ice than structures at
the airport. Furthermore, since wind speed typically increases with height above ground, more
ice is expected to accrete on ground wires than on the conductors of the same line and on the
highest conductor in a vertical configuration than on the lower conductors. These effects are
taken into account in ASCE Standard 7 with a height factor and a topographic factor applied to
the ice thickness. The height factor is
0.10
 z 
fz =   (10)
 33 
where z is the height above ground in feet. The topographic factor is Kzt 0.35, where Kzt is deter-
mined from Section 6 of ASCE Standard 7 (ASCE in press) for isolated hills, ridges, and es-
carpments. In complex terrain, anemometers installed along the transmission line route may be
required to determine the wind regime during the icing season. If the wind direction is parallel to
the spans, the accreted ice thickness will be less than the model estimates and no increase in ice
thickness with height above ground is expected. Wind roses for hours with freezing rain for se-
lected weather stations are shown in Figure 13a. The wind roses that do not fit on this map are
provided in Figure 13b. Note that at many stations the wind direction is very consistent in hours
with freezing rain and is correlated with the local terrain. The effect of wire orientation relative
to the prevailing wind is shown graphically in Figure 14 for two stations.
The air temperature may vary at any location during a freezing rain storm and across the region
affected by the storm. For near-freezing temperatures, even small variations in temperature can
have a significant effect on the fraction of the impinging precipitation that freezes to a structure
and on the rate of freezing, which controls the shape of the accretion. At relatively high tem-
peratures, icicles may account for a significant portion of the accreted ice. At lower tempera-
tures, on the other hand, the impinging precipitation may freeze where it hits, accumulating in an
eccentric accretion that would tend to rotate torsionally flexible ground wires and single con-
ductors, with the ice eventually forming a cylindrical sleeve around the wire. At intermediate
temperatures the impinging water will flow before freezing, resulting in thicker ice on the sides
or bottom of the wire than on the top. Following an ice storm, the temperature may remain below
freezing longer at higher elevations than at the airport weather stations. Where it remains cold,
structures may see higher wind-on-ice loads than the hypothetical structure at the airport.
45
Joule heating from the current in conductors may have a significant effect on the amount of ice
that accretes. For the impinging precipitation to freeze to a conductor, the heat of fusion (40
cal/gram) must be removed, typically by convective and evaporative cooling. If sufficient heat is
generated in the conductor, it will remain ice-free. More realistically, the amount of heat gener-
ated in the conductor may be enough to decrease the initial rate of freezing and make more water
available for icicle formation. This larger volume of dripping water affects the aspect ratio of the
icicles, with long thin icicles occurring with lower freezing rates and short fat icicles with high
freezing rates. The shape of the accretion affects both the further accretion of ice and also the
rate of ice shedding when the storm ends and the weather warms. Ice accretions on ground wires
may tend to be more compact than those on conductors because of the absence of Joule heating
in ground wires.
These effects should be considered when determining design ice thicknesses from freezing rain
for transmission lines. In-cloud icing (Section 7.3) and accreted snow may also be significant
loads in some locations.
Figure 13a. Wind roses for hours with freezing rain (base map adapted from
fermi.jhuapl.edu/states/us/big_us_color.gif).
46
Figure 13b. Wind roses for hours with freezing rain.
47
Figure 13b (continued). Wind roses for hours with freezing rain.
48
Figure 13b (continued). Wind roses for hours with freezing rain
49
Figure 13b (continued). Wind roses for hours with freezing rain.
50
Figure 14. Comparison of ice thicknesses on wires parallel and perpendicular to the wind
direction.
7.1 In-cloud icing

We attempted to model in-cloud icing at the weather stations using visibility data and an as-
sumed droplet diameter to estimate the liquid water content of the fog when the air temperature
was below freezing. For a given droplet diameter, liquid water content is inversely proportional
to visibility. Using the assumed droplet diameter, the estimated liquid water content, and the
measured wind speed, we modeled the accretion of ice on a 1-in. diameter cylinder, recalculating
the collision efficiency in each hour.
We found significant in-cloud icing loads at Mullan Pass and Stampede Pass, with equivalent
glaze ice thicknesses exceeding 160 mm (6 in.) in the only 6 years of data at Mullan Pass and 90
mm (3.5 in.) from the part-time data at Stampede Pass. We attempted to compare the estimated
in-cloud icing loads at Stampede Pass with outage reports from lines going through the pass.
This kind of comparison was not possible at Mullan Pass because the 6 years of data at that sta-
tion ended in 1954, while BPA outage reports are available beginning in 1973.
In examining the Stampede Pass results, we noticed that most of the significant modeled in-
cloud icing loads occurred prior to 1974 (Fig. 15). Further investigation revealed a significant
drop in the reported visibilities when the method of measuring visibility or the protocol for ar-
chiving measured visibilities changed. At most stations the most significant changes occurred in
the 1990s, when the stations were commissioned as ASOS (Automated Surface Observing Sys-
tem) stations. Prior to that, the visibility may have been determined by observers looking at tar-
gets at known distances, and visibilities were archived with values as low as 0 m, with the next
increment at 1/16 of a mile (100 m). Because liquid water content is infinite for zero visibility,
when the reported visibility was zero, we used 50 m in estimating liquid water content. ASOS
stations have a forward-scattering instrument to determine visibility and the lowest visibility that
is reported is “less than 1/4 mile” (http://205.156.54.206/asos/aum-toc.pdf), which is archived as
300 m. Thus, the change over to ASOS stations has resulted in an artificial 84% decrease in the
51
estimated maximum possible liquid water content. Histograms of liquid water content at Pen-
dleton for the years prior to ASOS compared to the years with ASOS are shown in Figure 16.
Figure 15. Modeled equivalent radial glaze ice thicknesses from in-cloud icing at Stampede
Pass
Figure 16. Distribution

of archived visibilities
at Pendleton prior to
and after ASOS.
52
The situation at Stampede Pass is more complex because the station became an AMOS station
at the beginning of 1974, before being commissioned as an ASOS station in 1994. Zero visibili-
ties were still reported between 1974 and 1994, but relatively less frequently than they had been
prior to 1974. This may be from a change in instrumentation, a change in archiving protocol, a
change in the location of the station, or a combination of these. Even as an ASOS station, zero
visibilities were archived until 1996.
It appears that the archived visibilities are not accurate enough to estimate liquid water content
of supercooled fog for modeling the accretion of ice. Another approach to estimating in-cloud
icing loads is described in Harstveit (2002). However, investigating this approach is beyond the
scope of this project.
7.4 Spatial loads
The concept of spatial loads applies to both design wind speeds and design ice thicknesses for
transmission lines. The wind and ice maps in ASCE Standard 7 are used in the design of both
communication towers and power lines. They show 50-year return period values at a point.
However, power lines have large horizontal extents compared to point structures, such as com-
munication towers, thereby increasing the risk of exceeding the 50-year return period point loads
somewhere along the line. For example, in Portland there is a 64% probability that the ice thick-
ness will exceed the 50-year return period value at least once in any 50-year period. However,
ice storms that occur anywhere between Portland and Astoria affect transmission lines extending
between the two cities. Thus, designing a single microwave tower and a transmission line that
extends tens or hundreds of miles for the same ice thickness results in a greater risk of failure for
the transmission line than for the tower. The risk of exceeding the 50-year return period point ice
thicknesses in Figure 10 anywhere along a transmission line route increases with the length of
the line. Similarly, the risk of exceeding the 50-year return period point ice thickness anywhere
in a utility’s service area increases with the extent of the service area. Spatial effects are dis-
cussed in Gringorten (1973) for general weather systems, in Golikova et al. (1983) for ice
storms, for tornadoes in Twisdale (1982), and for hurricanes in Vickery and Twisdale (1995),
among others.
This spatial load concept is different from the superstation concept. Extreme spatial ice thick-
nesses could be estimated for the Pacific Northwest by using the largest ice thickness for each
storm in the region in an extreme value analysis.
8. References
Abild, J., E.Y. Andersen and L. Rosbjerg (1992) The climate of extreme winds at the Great Belt,
Denmark, J. of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 41–44, pp 521–532.
ASCE (1991) Guidelines for Electrical Transmission Line Structural Loading, ASCE Manual
74, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
ASCE (1993) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE Standard 7-93,
New York, 134 pages.
ASCE (in press) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE Standard 7-
02, Reston, Virginia.
Best, A.C. (1949) The size distribution of raindrops. Q. J. Royal Met. Soc., 75, pp 16–36.
Chaîné, P.M., and G. Castonguay (1974) New approach to radial ice thickness concept applied to
bundle-like conductors. Industrial Meteorology-Study IV, Environment Canada, Toronto.
53
CSA (2001) CSA Standard CAN/CSA-C22.3 No.1-01 Overhead Systems. Canadian Standards
Association, Toronto, Ontario.
Cunanne, C. (1978) Unbiased plotting positions–A review. J. of Hydrology, 37, 205–222.
EIA/TIA (1996) Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Struc-
tures EIA/TIA-222-F, Arlington, Virginia.
Golikova, T.N., B.F. Golikov and D.S. Savvaitov (1983) Methods of calculating ice loads on
overhead lines as spatial constructions, Proceedings of the First International Workshop
on Atmospheric Icing of Structures, CRREL Special Report 83-17, pp 341–346.
Gringorten, I.I. (1973) Stochastic modeling of the areal extent of weather conditions, AD-775 986, Air
Force Cambridge Research Laboratories, Bedford, Massachusetts, 50 pages.
Gross, J., A. Heckert, J. Lechner and E. Simiu (1994) Novel extreme value estimation proce-
dures: Application to extreme wind data, Extreme Value Theory and Applications, J.
Galambos et al. (eds.), pp 139–158, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.
Hall, E.K. (1977) Ice and wind loading analysis of Bonneville Power Administration’s transmis-
sion lines and test spans, IEEE PES Summer Meeting, Mexico City, Mexico, July 17–22,
1977.
Harstveit, K. (2002) Using routine meteorological data from airfield to produce a map of ice risk
zones in Norway, Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Atmospheric Icing
of Structures, Brno, Czech Republic, June 2002.
Hosking, J.R.M., and J.R Wallis (1987) Parameter and quantile estimation for the generalized
Pareto distribution, Technometrics, 29, no. 3, pp 339–349.
Jones, K.F. (1996a) Ice accretion in freezing rain, CRREL Report 96-2, Cold Regions Research
and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Jones, K.F. (1996b) A simple model for freezing rain ice loads, Proceedings of the 7th Interna-
tional Workshop on Atmospheric Icing of Structures, Chicoutimi, Canada, pp 412–416.
Jones, K.F. and H.B. White (in press) The estimation and application of extremes, Proceedings
of the ASCE Conference on Electrical Transmission in a New Age, to be held in Omaha,
Nebraska, September 9–12, 2002.
Laflamme, J. (1993) Spatial variation of extreme values in the case of freezing rain icing, Pro-
ceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Atmospheric Icing of Structures, Buda-
pest, Hungarian Electrotechnical Association, pp 19–24.
Lowery, M.D., and J.E. Nash (1970) A comparison of methods of fitting the double exponential
distribution. J. of Hydrology, 10 (3), 259–275.NOAA (1959–1999) Storm Data, National
Climate Data Center, Asheville, NC.
Mahaffy, F.J. (1961) The ice storm of 25-26 February 1961 at Montreal, Weatherwise, pp 241-
244.
MRI (1974) Phase III of the meteorological study of the proposed UHV transmission route from
James Bay to Montreal, MRI FR-1270, October 1974.
MRI (1977) Pacific Northwest icing study, MRI FR-1515, September 1977.
NOAA (1950–1958) Climatological Data, National Summary, National Climate Data Center,
Asheville, NC.
NOAA (1959–present) Storm Data, National Climate Data Center, Asheville, NC.
Peterka, J.A. (1992) Improved extreme wind prediction for the United States, J. of Wind Engi-
neering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 41–44, pp 533–541.
Press, W.H., B.P. Flannery, S.A. Teukolsky and W.T. Vetterling (1987) Numerical Recipes,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
54
Simiu, E. and N.A. Heckert (1995) Extreme wind distribution tails: A “Peaks over Threshold”
Approach, National Institute of Standards and Technology Building Science Series 174,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., 72 pages.
Stewart, R.E. (1992) Precipitation types in the transition region of winter storms, Bulletin Ameri-
can Meteorological Society, 73, no. 3, pp 287–296.
Taylor, G. and R. Hatton (1999) The Oregon weather book: A state of extremes, Oregon State
University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.
Twisdale, L.A. (1982) Wind-loading underestimate in transmission line design, Transmission
and Distribution, December 1982, pp 40–45.
Vickery, P.J. and L.A. Twisdale (1995) Prediction of hurricane wind speeds in the United States,
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, November 1995.
Walshaw, D. (1994) Getting the most from your extreme wind data: A step by step guide, J. of
Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 99, pp 399–411.
Wang, Q.J. (1991) The POT model described by the generalized Pareto distribution with Poisson
arrival rate, J. of Hydrology, 129, pp 263–280.
Weiss, L.L. (1955) A nomogram based on the theory of extreme values for determining values
for various return periods MWR, 83, pp 69–71.
Newspapers (various dates)

Aberdeen Daily World
Bellingham Herald
Capital Journal
Centralia Chronicle
Daily Astorian
East Oregonian
Eugene Register-Guard
Everett Herald
Idaho Statesman
Missoulian
Oregon Journal
Oregon Statesman
Oregonian
Seattle Times
Spokesman Review
The Dalles Daily Chronicle
Walla Walla Union Bulletin
Yakima Daily Republic
Yakima Herald
55
Appendix A. Symbols and Acronyms
b0,b1 average and weighted average of sample of extremes
CD drag coefficient of ice-covered wire
D diameter of wire
Di diameter of icicles
fgust Gc/Vc
F(x) cumulative distribution of x
Fn N-yr return period wind-on-ice load on a 1-in. wire
Gc gust speed equivalent to Vc
hA height of anemometer above ground
hW height of wire above ground
k shape parameter for generalized Pareto distribution
Li length of icicles
N number of hours
pi plotting position of ith value in sample of extremes
P precipitation rate
Req eqivalent uniform radial ice thickness
ReqN N-yr return period equivalent uniform radial ice thickness
rs Spearman rank order correlation coefficient
t thickness of ice frozen directly to the wire in the CRREL model
T return period
u threshold for generalized Pareto distribution
V wind speed
VA wind speed at height of anemometer
VT terminal velocity of raindrops
VW wind speed at height of wire
VC 1-min hourly wind speed associated with Req50 and W50
x(i) ith extreme value
xT T-year return-period value
W liquid water content
Z height above ground
α scale parameter for generalized Pareto distribution
λ occurrence rate of extreme loads
π 3.14159
ρa density of air
ρi density of glaze ice
ρo density of water
θ wind direction
ϕ wire direction
AES Atmospheric Environment Service

AFCCC Air Force Combat Climatology Center
ASCE American Society for Civil Engineering
ASOS Automated Surface Observing System
BPA Bonneville Power Administration
56
CRREL Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory
EIA Electronic Industry Association
EC Environment Canada
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
ISH Integrated Surface Hourly format
MRI Meteorological Research, Inc.
NCDC National Climatic Data Center
NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
NWS National Weather Service
POT Peaks-over-threshold
TIA Telecommunications Industry Association
UTC Universal Coordinate Time
57
APPENDIX B. Storm maps
Each of the 27 storm maps shows the start and end date of the storm (UTC) and the criterion
that was used to choose this storm as a potentially severe storm, if any. The 21 storms in which
freezing rain damaged trees and overhead lines are presented in chronological order, followed by
the 6 storms in which there was no damage to trees and overhead lines.
Each storm is labeled with the start and end dates. The start date is when freezing rain was first
observed. The end date is when the temperature had risen to above freezing at all stations in the
pilot study region. The criterion for choosing this storm to examine in detail is given below the
storm dates. The criteria are:
ZCRREL: at least 13 mm of ice from the CRREL model, accreting freezing rain only, at one
or more stations
ZSimple: at least 13 mm of ice from the Simple model, accreting freezing rain only, at one
or more stations
ZIPCRREL: at least 13 mm of ice from the CRREL model, accreting both ice pellets and
freezing rain, at one or more stations
ZIPSimple: at least 13 mm of ice from the Simple model, accreting both ice pellets and
freezing rain, at one or more stations
The second criterion helps to determine if the sometimes-more-conservative Simple model is
appropriate to use rather than the CRREL model. The third and fourth criteria help to determine
if freezing rain typically occurs in the region while ice pellets are observed at the airport sites.
Eleven of the 27 storms were chosen for geographical diversity in spite of not satisfying any of
these criteria.
The format of the modeled ice thicknesses reported for each station is
ZCRREL/ZSimple
ZIPCRREL/ZIPSimple
If all the results at one station are within 1 mm of each other, only a single number is shown. If
ZCRREL is within 1 mm of ZSimple, only one number is shown on the first line. If ZIPCRREL is
within 1 mm of ZIPSimple, only one number is shown on the second line. Stations that were not
active at the time of the storm are overwritten with an x. If there was no freezing rain at a station,
no ice thickness is reported. If a zero is shown, freezing rain was reported, but there was less
than 1 mm of ice.
Sometimes there are multiple events at one station during a storm in the study region, with
temperatures rising to above freezing between the events. When this occurs, the individual storm
totals are preceded by superscript 1, 2 etc., indicating the different events. See, for example, the
storm beginning 12/6/58.
The footprint of each storm, delineating the region where there was tree and overhead line
damage, determined from the storm descriptions, is shown. Newspapers from which information
on these storms was obtained are listed in the References.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Storms with no damage to trees and overhead lines from freezing rain
70
71
72
Appendix C. Comments with the BPA outage reports in Table 5a
# Comment
35 [SPC_(COVI)941231]: FLAR = 16.39 miles from Vantage. [SPC_(SCLR)941231]: Fault location 16.3 miles fron
Vantage.
36 [SPC_(COVI)941231]: Location from FLAR.
37 [SPC_(COVI)941231]: FLAR places fault at 77.49 miles from G. Coulee.
38 [SPC_(COVI)941231]: FLAR places fault at 77.4 miles from G. Coulee.
39 [Disp941231]: 0028: G. COULEE TESTED LINE FROM COULEE. TESTED OK, 3-PHASE AMP METERS ALL
BALANCED, THEN LINE RLY'D TO L/O. THEIR OPER. RPT'S TARGETSON DIR GRND AND PERM OVERREACH.
FLAR INDICATES FAULT AT O.87 MILES FROM RAVER. LINE TO BE LEFT O/S UNT
40
41 [SPC_(COVI)941231]: Flar places fault at 15.38 miles from Vantage.
42 [Disp950101]: FLAR INDICATES FAULT 8 1/2 TO 9 MILES FROM SICKLER. [SPC_(SCLR)950101]: Oscillograms
show fault occured in Naneum - Sickler section of the Raver#1/Naneum/Sickler line.
43 [Disp950101]: FLAR INDICATES 16.29 MILES FROM NANEUM ON VANTAGE-NANEUM SECTION.
[SPC_(SCLR)950101]: PCB - 4036 didn't reclose. SER printout PCB - 4036 minimum reclosing pressure alarmed at
07:15:34.885. suspect bad pressure switch, will be checked next week.
44 [Disp950101]: LINE RELAYED TO L/O, DITTMER FLAR LOGGER INDICATES FAULT 8.57 MI. FROM NANEUM ON
THE VANTAGE-NANEUM SECTION. [SPC_(SCLR)950101]: PCB - 4036 still is not reclosing. Will try to get it out of
service next week ( 4-9-92 ) to locate the trouble.
45
46
47 [Disp950103]: OLYMPIA TARGETS: ZONE 1 'B' PHASE TO GROUND. FAULT DETECTER INDICATES FAULT 31.85
MILES FROM OLYMPIA. MWTT- DTR. G COULEE TARGET: GROUND OVERCURRENT ZONE 1. 1355: LINE
RELAYED ON TEST FROM OLYMPIA. DELAY IN TESTING AT REQUEST OF G COULEE SO THEY COULD CHECK
THEIR TRANSFORMER BANK. OLYMPIA TARGETS ON TEST AT 1355: SEL 'B' PHASE TO GROUND. FAULT
DETECTER INDICATES FAULT 30.98 MILES FROM OLYMPIA. MWTT- DTR AND PRT. NOTIFIED COVINGTOKN
TLM. PROCEEDING TO CLEAR LINE. NORGAARD HAS PATROLLED FROM THE 28 TO 57 MI AND FOUND
NOTHING, DUE TO HI WIND, RAIN, AND DARKNESS THEY WILL DISCONTINUE PATROL NOW AND RESUME IN
THE MORNING. [SPC_(OLYM)950103]: On 12-10-93 at 10:26 a 2nd line test was indicated and line relayed out. Line
crew found tree in line at 42 mile. 230 KV instead of 287 KV to get a better Fault location.
48
49 [Disp950105]: TARGETS: COULEE= 'I' GRD. ZONE 1 AND MWTT. OLY= ZONE 1 GRD. SEL= 'A' PHASE TO GRD
FAULT AT ABOUT 17 MILES FROM OLY. COULEE ADVISED OF POSSIBLE OVER REACH ON THEIR ZONE 1.
50 [Disp950105]: FLAR= 7.96 MILES FROM VANTAGE.
51 [Disp950105]: 0420 TESTED BAD FROM OLYMPIA. GCL REPORTS ZONE 1 TARGET. OLYMPIA TARGETS: SEL-
121G SET 3 ZONE 1 A & C PHASE. APPROX 65 MILES FROM OLYMPIA. 0810 MR. JIM LAP OF CHAMPION MILLS
REPORT VIA COVINGTON OPERATOR A TREE IN A BPA LINE EAST OF THE TOWN OF BUCKELY NEAR RYAN
ROAD. COVINGTON TLM WAS PUT IN TOUCH WITH MR. LAP TO GET A POSITIVE LOCATION OF THE TREE.
52
53 [SOps(OLYM)951231]: Trees in line found by helicopter patrol 1-2-96 DTT bebee failed to operate Line tested by
SCADA at 16:38 on 12-30-95
54 [Disp960311]: B-PHASE TO GRD. TGT. AT COULEE. [SOps(OLYM)960311]: CAUSE OF OUTAGE UNKNOWN.
RECLOSING NORMALLY C/O AT 287 KV OPERATION. SEL FAULT LOCATORS, ALL THREE SETS, SHOWED B
PHASE TO GROUND. SPC ADVISED THAT SET 3, 287 KV, WAS MOST RELIABLE FOR FAULT LOCATION. SET 3
FAULT LOCATOR SHOWED FAULT AT 134.9 MILES FROM OLYMPIA AT 786 AMPS. SPC, DISPATCHER
PENROD, AND ELLINSBURG TLM NOTIFIED
73
# Comment
55 [Disp961203]: 0851 TESTED LINE AT OLYMPIA VIA PCB A-206, TEST BAD. OLYMPIA TARGETS: 121G SET 1,2 & 3
(I), MWTT T1T=1, T2T=24, T1R=1, T2R=2. DFR INDICATES THE FAULT TO BE 40 MILES FROM OLYMPIA.
G.COULEE TARGET: ZONE NO.1 PHASE TO GRD, 0938 G.COULEE CSY TIE OPEN TO TEST LINE FROM
G.COULEE. 0939 G.COULEE PCB 6886 CLOSED FOR TEST, OLYMPIA XFMR NO.3 LOCKOUT RELAY TRIPPED
DUE TO TERITARY OC GRD RELAY TRIP FROM HARMONICS. PCB 6886 TRIPPED AFTER 7 SECONDS; TARGET
51G Z-2, 25 Z-1. 0944 CSY INSERVICE. 1017 G.COULEE OPENED MOD 6981, OLYMPIA PCB A-206 CLOSED FOR
TEST, TEST BAD. 1053 OLYMPIA TERMINAL SWITCHED FOR 230KV OPERATION, CLOSED PCB A-206 FOR
TEST, NO GOOD. SPC GETTING FAULT LOCATION DATA. OLYMPIA TARGETS: SAME AS ABOVE & ''C'' PHASE
TO GRD ON DFR. 1256 OLY SPC BEST GUESS ON FAULT LOCATION IS 15 MILES FROM GCL G. COULEE TLM
SIGMAN ADVISED AND WILL SEND CREW OUT TO PATROL STARTING 8 MILES FROM G.COULEE. (LOG NOTE
CONTINUED) [SOps(OLYM)961203]: SPC reports relay data from the SEL121Gs was difficult to interpret. The line
was tested 5 times and sectionalized at 197 mile before trees were located in the 50 mile. The line was back in service
at 1610 hr. on 12-3-96.
56
57 [Disp961228]: TARGETS:G COULEE Z1 & GRD OC. OLY:SEL Z1 C PHASE TO GND AT 48 MI. 0903: TESTED BAD
FROM OLY, C PHASE PEGGED. SAME TARGETS AS ABOVE. NOTIFIED: COVINGTON TLM HOXWORTH,
ELLENSBERG TLM BARNES, & PSP&L. 0935: COULEE OPENED CSY TIE 230KV PCB 6582 PRIOR TO TEST.
0936: LINE TESTED BAD FROM COULEE. SAME AS PREVIOUS TEST FROM OLY LINE STAYED HOT UNTIL
LOAD PICKED UP FROM OTHER END. 1004: SEE LOG FOR CLEARANCE TO REMOVE TREE IN 50 MI.
[SOps(OLYM)961228]: ICE COVERED TREES IN THE LINE.
58 [Disp970101]: TESTED BAD FROM OLYMPIA AT 0415 SEL RELAYS SET 1, 2, &3 AT OLYMPIA INDICATE B PHASE
TO GROUND Z1, FAULT LOCATORS ALL PRINTED OUT FAULT AT 26 MILES FROM OLYMPIA. NORGAARD
REQUESTS HELICOPTER TO FLY ASAP IN MORNING. . 0925: CHOPPER REPORTS FIR TREE IN LINE AT 34
MILE, CONDUCTOR IS SAGGING IN PROXIMITY TO A HIGHWAY, NORGAARD ENROUTE... . TELENET SENT...
[SOps(OLYM)970101]: Trees found inthe 34 mile from Olympia substation. Additional targets: SEAL IN TRIP TO A-206
74
75
View publication stats

Jones 2002 BPA FinalReportJuly16

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jones 2002 BPA FinalReportJuly16

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Technical Report · July 2002

Kathleen Ferris Jones

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Snow and Ice Branch

Funding provided by the Bonneville Power Administration

3. Weather Data and Ice Accretion Models

3.1 Weather data

Call Elev 3-hrly Coop

726797 BZN 240622 BOZEMAN MT 4547N 11109W 1364 73-4/00 41-7/00

24159 SUP 248043 SUPERIOR MT 4712N 11453W 826 ISH 48-9/53

726986 HIO - PORTLAND/HILLSBORO OR 4532N 12257W 62 73-4/00 - pt1/73-7/75; 8/95-9/96; no pcp

727825 EAT 459082 WENATCHEE/PANGBORN WA 4724N 12012W 379 73-4/00 11/59-6/00

Notes: 1 missing October and November Legend: x= have data

Notes: 1 missing October and November Legend: x= have data

3.2 Ice accretion models

3.3 Data-model interface

3.3.1 Prorating accumulated precipitation

3.3.2 Mixed precipitation types

3.3.4 Wire orientation and wind direction

∑ ρ iπ {(Pj ρ o )2 + (3.6V jW j sin[θ − φ ])2 }

3.3.5 Interpolating 3-hourly data

3.3.6 Storm end

4.1 Qualitative damage information

2/9/1963 4 7 (Malmstrom AFB) no Precip data probably bad (deleted) All

Req (mm) Req (mm)

5. Extreme Ice Thicknesses and Concurrent Wind-on-ice Speeds

Figure 5. Period of record (years) for superstations in

Figure 7. Frequency (#/year) of freezing rain storms resulting in at

Table 6. Correlation between pairs of stations in superstations.

Station 1 Station 2 Threshold Years Spearman rs

6.1 Extreme value analysis

Figure 8. Generalized Pareto Distribution fitted to partial duration series for a

Figure 9. Equivalent radial ice thicknesses (mm) for a 50-year return

6.2 Mapped ice thicknesses and concurrent wind speeds

7.2. Comparison to MRI mapped ice thicknesses

7.1 Site-specific effects: freezing rain

7.1 In-cloud icing

Figure 16. Distribution

Newspapers (various dates)

AES Atmospheric Environment Service

View publication stats

You might also like