Response of Electrical Transmission Line Conductors

RESPONSE OF ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE CONDUCTORS
TO EXTREiÊ WIND USING FIELD DATA

by
RADHAKRISHNA R. KADABA, B.E., M.E.
A DISSERTATION
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved
May, 1988
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my special thanks and sincere
gratitude to the chairman of my committee. Dr. Kishor C.
Mehta, for his guidance, everlasting inspiration, constant
encouragement and patience in teaching me throughout my
graduate study program.
I am also grateful to Drs. Eric L.
Blair, H. Scott Norville, William Pennington Vann, and Y.C.

Das, the members of my advisory committee, for their helpful
review and constructive criticism of this dissertation.
The research was accomplished under the financial
support of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and the
Institute for Disaster Research (IDR) at Texas Tech
University.
Support of these organizations is appreciated.
Special thanks are extended to Mr. Leon Kempner, Jr. for his
assistance in providing the field data details of the BPA
project and encouragement.
Also, I would like to express my
deep appreciation to the Chairman of the Civil Engineering

Department, Dr. Ernst W. Kiesling, for his encouragement and
support during the course of my graduate study.
I shall ever remain indebted to my sister Vijaya
Bhanuprakash, brother Udaya Kumar, sister-in-law Latha
Ananth, and my other family members for their kind blessings
11
and the moral support during my stay away from home.

Special thanks are given for the assistance and friendship
provided by my colleagues Suresh Jonnagadla, Marc Levitan,
Saranga Kidambi and Pankaja Kidambi.
I must acknowledge with deep appreciation and
encouragement of my brother, Sri. Anantharamu, who instilled
in me the value of education and stood by my side giving all
the moral support he could and most of all his kind prayers
and love.
Finally, I would like to express 'Thanks' to my
parents, to whom I dedicate this dissertation.
Ill
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
11
ABSTRACT
vi
LIST OF TABLES
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION
Objectives
' 5
Contents of the Dissertation

II. STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
6
7
Response
Mean Response
Fluctuating Response
Aerodynamic Admittance Function
Mechanical Admittance Function
Peak Factor
Wind Characteristics
Mean Wind Speed
Mean Wind Profile
Turbulence Characteristics
Turbulence Intensity
Gust Spectrum
Davenport Analytical Model
Conductor Damping Ratio
Conductor Fundamental Frequency
III. FIELD DATA
Description of Test Site
Instrumentation
Data Accjuisition
Recording Procedure
Description of Recordings
IV
8
10
12
16
19
20
24
24
25
28
30
31
34
37
38
39
41
43
47
48
50
IV. FIELD DATA ANALYSIS
52
Validity of Wind Data

Power-Law Exponent for Wind Profile
Kaimal's Gust Spectrum Constants
Validity of Conductor Response Data
Effective Conductor Force Coefficient
Response Spectrum
53
60
65
68
74
80
85
V. COMPARISON AND REFINEMENT OF THE ANALYTICAL

MODEL
90
Comparison of Analytically Predicted Mean

Scjuare Response With Field Measured
Values
Field Measured Mean Square Response
Analytical Model Predicted Mean Scjuare
Response
Refinement of the Analytical Model
Background Response
Determining the JAF Coefficients
Resonant Response
Determining the Aerodynamic Damping Ratio
Resonant Response with Suggested
Damping Ratio
Peak Factors
Probabilistic Peak Factors from Field
Data
VI. CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
91
92
94
104
104
108
115
115
123
127
130
134
138
ABSTRACT
Conductors are long, slender, flexible, and wind
sensitive structures.
In most cases of transmission lines,
60-80% of wind loads coming to the support structures are

transferred from conductors.
Thus, assessment of conductor
response due to extreme wind is an important part of the

overall prediction of wind loads on transmission structures,
Extreme winds not only contain high wind speeds but also
randomly fluctuating gusts.
These gusts cause fluctuating
dynamic responses of conductors.
Since the responses
fluctuate randomly, they need to be assessed in

probabilistic terms.
An analytical model for estimating dynamic response of
transmission line structures to wind loads is developed by
Davenport.
The model can be verified using field data to
determine its effectiveness.
Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA) has conducted experimental studies in

the field at the Moro site to collect wind and electric
transmission structure response data.
During 1981-1982 BPA
collected 23 separate 12-minute duration records that

included wind speed, wind direction and conductor response
data.
The conductor response records include load cell.
VI
transverse swing angle, and longitudinal swing angle

recordings.
The BPA data of wind and conductor response are
analyzed in detail to gain as much information as possible.
The analysis of wind data include determination of wind
characteristics of mean wind profile, turbulence
intensities, and gust spectra.
The conductor response in
terms of peak responses, effective force coefficients, peak

factors, and response spectra are obtained.
The response
spectra are further analyzed to obtain contributions of

background response and resonant response.
Comparison of
the analytical model with field data reveals that the model
underestimated background response and overestimated
resonant response.
Results of these data analyses are used to improve the
analytical model to predict conductor response in extreme
wind.
The significant improvement includes determination of
peak factors from upcrossing rates, refinement in the

expression for background response and determination of
conductor aerodynamic damping ratios from field data.
VI1
LIST OF TABLES
1. Typical Values for Gradient Height and Power-Law
Exponent (ANSI, 1982)
28
2. Typical Values for Turbulence Intensity and

Surface Drag Coefficient (Kempner, 1982)
31
3. Field Data Records During 1981-1982
40
4. File Description of Mode 22
49
5. Mean Azimuth and RMS in Degrees of Wind
55
6. Mean Wind Speed in mps
57
7. Power-Law Exponent and Kaimal's Gust Spectrum

Constants
64
8. Turbulence Intensity
66
9. Mean and RMS Values of Conductor Response

(Transverse Load Component)
10. Field Measured Conductor Effective Force
Coefficients
78
82
11. West Conductor Response Spectrum Data Analysis
95
12. East Conductor Response Spectrum Data Analysis
96
13. Central Conductor Response Spectrum Data Analysis
97
14. Fixed and Assumed Parameters Used in the

Analytical Model
99
15. Variable Parameters Used in the Analytical Model
100
16. Background Response of West Conductor
116
17. Background Response of East Conductor
117
18. Background Response of Central Conductor
118
Vlll
19. Estimated Aerodynamic Damping Ratios in

Percentages
122
20. West Conductor Resonant Response With 40% Damping
124
21. East Conductor Resonant Response With 40% Damping
125
22. Central Conductor Resonant Response With 40%

Damping
23. Peak Factors for Conductor Response
126
129
IX'
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Fluctuations of Wind Speed
2. Fluctuations of Conductor Response
3. Conductor Force Coefficients Based on Wind Tunnel

and Full-Scale Tests (Davenport, 1980)
13
4. Elements of Response Spectrum Analysis
15
5. Example of a Random Variable Showing Upcrossings

of a Given Threshold
6. Idealization of Gust Spectrum Plot Over an
22
Extended Range (Davenport, 1972)
26
7. Topography of Site and Orientation of Power Lines
42
8. Schematic of Tower 16/4
44
9. Elevation Along the Test Line (Vertical Scale

Exaggerated)
10. Time History Plot of Wind Speed for Record NOl at
34.7 m on Tower 16/4
11. Mean Wind Speed and Direction Recorded at 34.7 m
on Tower 16/4 of 23 Records
12. Power-Law Plot for Record N15
13. Gust Spectrum Plot for Record NOl Recorded at
14. Time History Plot of West Conductor Response for
Record NOl
15. Response Spectrum Plot for West Conductor
Response for Record NOl
16. West Conductor Response Spectrum Plot for Record
NOl
45
59
61
63
70
76
86
93
17. Analytical Model Background Response Versus Field

Measured Background Response
102
18. Analytical Model Resonant Response Versus Field

Measured Resonant Response
103
19. Frequency Transfer Function of West Conductor

110
20. West Conductor JAF Coefficients Contour Plot for

Record N15
112
21. Joint Acceptance Function Plot

22. Refined Model Background Response Versus Field
Measured Values
23. Analytical Model Resonant Response With 40%
Damping Versus Field Measured Values
24. Cumulative Probability Distribution of
Upcrossings for Conductor Response
XI
114
119
128
133
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Electrical transmission line systems are engineered

structures that traverse over all types of terrain.
Wind
loading is an important factor in the design of these

transmission line systems, consisting of towers, conductors,
and ground wires.
Transmission line conductors are long,
flexible, and wind sensitive structures.
Probably no other
structure has as much of its mass in highly flexible form,

and so continuously exposed to the forces of wind, as do
transmission line conductors.
The loads due to the effect
of wind acting on the conductors, which in turn, transmit

loads to the supporting tower, are more than the loads due
to the wind acting directly on the tower itself.
Wind loads
on conductors with spans of around 300 m account for 60 to

80% of the total wind load effect on the support tower
structure.
Accurate and reliable prediction of wind loads
that are transferred from conductors to the towers are

desirable to produce an economical and safe design of
support tower structures.
Transmission line tower structures are usually designed
for five different types of loads (Kempner, 1985): (1)
extreme wind, (2) wind on ice, (3) National Electric Safety

Code (NESC, 1984), (4) broken conductor, and (5)
construction loading.
Records show that more than 50% of
tower structure failures are due to extreme winds.
Under
these conditions, any improvement in the understanding of

conductor behavior under extreme winds which leads to better
definition of loads and better accompanying design of the
tower structure is desirable.
Extreme winds not only contain high wind speeds but
also randomly fluctuating gusts (see Figure 1 ) . The gusts
cause fluctuating wind loads on transmission line
conductors.
Transmission line conductors respond to random
gust loading in a randomly fluctuating manner (see Figure

2).
Response of conductors due to wind can be considered as
a combination of mean response (static) associated with the

mean wind and fluctuating response (dynamic) associated with
wind gusts.
Fluctuating response is conveniently expressed
as the product of a peak factor, g, and root mean scjuare

(RMS) value of fluctuations about the mean response.
The response fluctuations about the mean response can
be represented in the frecjuency domain by a response
spectrum.
A response spectrum is a plot of spectral density
values versus frecjuency.
The area under the response
spectrum is ecjual to the mean square value of the
Mean + Sigma
a
Mean
a
a>
o
Mean - Sigma
Q.
en
Time (minutes)
Figure 1:
Fluctuations of Wind Speed
c
o
a.
a>
o
t5
a
c
o
O
Time (minutes)
Figure 2:
Fluctuations of Conductor Response
fluctuating response.
Fluctuating response can be viewed as
background response due to low frequency wind turbulence and

resonant response near the natural frecjuencies of conductor
vibration.
The fluctuating response is discussed in detail
in subsecjuent chapters.
The use of a peak factor to
establish an equivalent static design load for conductors

due to wind is convenient.
The peak factor is defined as
the number of standard deviations by which the peak value

exceeds the mean value.
There are a variety of traditional methods for
computing wind loads on transmission line structures that
estimate ecjuivalent static response of the structure to
these loads.
These traditional methods are simple,
empirical, and usually conservative; therefore the resulting

designs are adecjuate in resisting the design wind.
An analytical model for estimating dynamic response of
transmission line structures to wind loads has been
developed by Davenport (1980).
This analytical model
obtains the gust response factor in a single equation using

the frecjuency domain approach.
The model considers all the
major wind characteristics and structural properties to

estimate dynamic response.
Natural frecjuencies of the
towers are generally much higher than natural frecjuencies of

the conductors.
Hence it is assumed that conductor response
is not influenced by the motion of the supporting tower

structure.
With the above assumption, the response due to
wind on the conductor and on the tower structure can be

analyzed separately.
Wind tunnel experiments and full-scale field tests have
been conducted on transmission line structures.
Because of
their slenderness and flexibility full-scale tests are

especially significant to assess dynamic response of these
structures.
Full-scale tests are of great value to compare
and refine the analytical model.
The most comprehensive
source of full-scale data is the experiments conducted on

John Day-Grizzly transmission line 2 located in northern
Oregon.
These field data, collected by the Bonneville Power
Administration, are used in this study.
The data include
simultaneous recordings of wind and transmission line

response during extreme winds.
Analysis of field data of
wind and transmission line conductor response can assist in

substantiating and improving the analytical model.
Objectives
The general objective of this research is to determine
the dynamic response of conductors due to extreme wind using
field data.
The Specific objectives are:
(1) to assess
wind parameters from the field data, (2) to develop
probabilistic peak factors for conductor response using

upcrossing rates, (3) to determine the aerodynamic damping
and the joint acceptance function for conductors from the
field response data, and (4) to compare dynamic response of
conductors measured in the field with a refined analytical
model.
Content of the Dissertation
A brief description of the contents of this
dissertation is given here.
The next chapter contains an
overview of the state of knowledge concerning wind

characteristics, and details of the analytical model to be
used to predict dynamic response of conductors.
description of the measurements, site characteristics, and

instrumentation for the field data is given in Chapter III.
Analyses of wind and conductor response field data are
described in Chapter IV.
Comparisons of field measured
conductor response data with responses calculated using the

analytical model are part of Chapter V.
Determination of
probabilistic peak factors for conductor response using the

upcrossing rate principle, refinement of the background
response expression, and determination of conductor
aerodynamic damping from the field response data are also
presented in this chapter.
Conclusions reached in this
study are presented in Chapter VI.
CHAPTER II
STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
Wind loads on transmission line conductors depend on

wind characteristics and on interaction phenomena of the
wind with conductors.
Wind speed fluctuates randomly; it
can be considered to consist of mean and fluctuating (or

gust) components.
A knowledge of both the mean wind speed
and the random fluctuations are recjuired to evaluate wind

loading.
In addition, structural properties (natural
frecjuencies, damping, size, shape,..etc) play an important

role in prediction of response of the conductors in extreme
winds.
The difficulty of proper simulation of the natural wind
characteristics and scaling of transmission line structures
in wind tunnels leads researchers to depend on full-scale
experiments.
There have been only a few full-scale
experiments for wind loads on transmission line structures.

Field measurement programs have been conducted in the United
States, Canada, Europe, and Japan to monitor the wind
response of transmission line systems.
A review of each of
the field test programs is given in a report by GAI

consultants (1981).
These field tests measured wind and
8
response data for a specific design objective such as
determination of the span factor or the gust response
factor.
Detailed analyses of field data are not reported in
the open literature.
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
has conducted field experiments on transmission line

structures since 1976.
Results of analysis of BPA data are
available in several reports and papers (Kempner and

Laursen, 1977, 1979, 1981; Kempner and Thorkildson, 1982;
Ferraro, 1983; Norville, 1985).
These reports and the
present study indicate that conductor response to extreme

winds is governed by wind turbulence characteristics,
aerodynamic characteristics of wind structure interaction
and structural dynamics of the conductors.
The wind and
conductor response data collected by BPA during 1981-1982

are used in the present study.
The literature on wind,
aerodynamics, and structural dynamics is very extensive.

Only the items that are obtainable through analysis of field
data and are pertinent to this study are discussed in this
section.
Response
The design of a transmission line tower structure is
generally based on the peak transverse load component of the
conductors when subjected to extreme winds.
The transverse
load component transferred to the tower is the direct result

of the transverse response of the conductor.
The the
transverse load component is considered as conductor

response in the present study.
The prediction of this peak
response value, rather than a mean response value, is needed

for design purposes.
Peak response is predicted by the
summation of mean and fluctuating responses.
For a time
period, T, the peak response can be estimated by
ft = R + g aj^
(2.1)
where ft = peak response,

R = mean response,
a = root mean scjuare (RMS) of the fluctuating
response about the mean response, and
g = statistical peak factor.
In ecjuation 2.1, the mean response is based on the mean
wind speed.
The fluctuating response is a product of peak
factor and RMS value of response.
The dimensionless peak
factor, g, is probabilistic because of the random nature of

the fluctuating response.
The peak factor is determined
from the probability of the upcrossing rate or,

ecjuivalently, a specified number of occurrences in a given
interval of time.
The RMS of the fluctuating response
10
depends on wind characteristics such as the turbulence
intensity and structural characteristics such as the
damping, frecjuency, shape,., etc.
Mean Response
The mean response of conductors is obtained from the
mean wind pressure acting at the effective height of the
conductors.
The effective height of the conductor is
considered as the average height of the conductor above the

ground level.
The ecjuation for mean wind pressure is

1
-2
P = y P V C^
(2.2)
where P = mean wind pressure,

p = mass density of air, 1.226 kg m' , at 60
F,
at sea level,
V = mean wind speed at the effective conductor
height, and
C^ = conductor force coefficient.
The mean response of conductors, R, can now be expressed as:

R = P L d
where
L =
effective conductor span, and
d =
conductor diameter.
(2.3)
11
The mean response of a conductor depends on the mean
wind speed and the aerodynamic relationship in terms of
conductor force coefficient.
The force coefficient converts
the stagnation pressure term (-^pV )

transverse force on the conductor.
in ecjuation 2.2 to a
In most cases, the force
coefficient is determined from wind tunnel tests and, in

general, it is a function of Reynolds Number, the angle of
incidence of the wind, and the shape and roughness of the
conductor.
Published results of wind tunnel measurements
show wide variability in force coefficient values, because

of difficulty in simulation of Reynolds Number and varying
tests conditions (Potter, 1981).
The force coefficient of a cylindrical shape is
strongly influenced by the Reynolds Number, Nj^, which is
given as
Np = - B ^
R
where
(2.4)
\x
= wind speed,
d = conductor diameter,
-5
-2
^1 = dynamic viscosity of air, 1.79x10
N-sec m
at 60F, at sea level, and
p = mass density of air.
12
A plot of force coefficient versus Reynolds Number is
shown in Figure 3.
The region of the curve where the force
coefficient decreases sharply with Reynolds Number is called

the critical flow range.
This decrease in force coefficient
is related to the transition from laminar flow to turbulent

flow.
For a typical conductor diameter and design wind
speed, the Reynolds Number is usually above the critical

4
range (N > 5 x 10 ) . A constant value for the conductor
force coefficient is usually given in transmission line
design recommendations (ASCE, 1984).
As indicated in Figure
3, full-scale measurements tend to give lower force

coefficient values than the wind tunnel experiments.
These
discrepancies are not yet resolved in the published

literature.
Additional data on force coefficients from
field measurements are desirable.

Fluctuating Response
Conductor response to fluctuating wind depends upon the
dynamic characteristics of the conductor as well as
turbulence in the wind.
To determine the response of a
conductor subjected to fluctuating wind, frecjuency domain

methods are usually used.
Frecjuency domain methods are
popular for computation because they are cost effective and

efficient.
In frecjuency domain analysis, fluctuations in
13
Conductor diameter (in)
Curve
Source
1
2
3
4
5
Wind Tunnel Tests

Wind Tunnel Tests
Wind Tunnel Tests
Full-Scale Tests
Full-Scale Tests
1.125
0.770
1.695
1.108
1.602
1.2
1
1
>
o
o
o
o
to
(D\
\
w
0.9
o
P
^^-
\^
(1)
0.8
\
\
B
o
/
0.7
\ \
c
o
O
0.6
0.5
Reynolds Number *10^ NR
Figure 3:
Conductor Force Coefficients Based on Wind Tunnel

and Full-Scale Tests (Davenport, 1980)
14
the wind and conductor response are represented by a
spectrum.
A spectrum is a plot of energy at each frequency
versus the frecjuency.
Therefore, it represents a
distribution of energy over the entire frecjuency range.
The
area under the spectrum is ecjual to the mean scjuare value of

the fluctuations.
The frecjuency domain approach to compute
the peak response is briefly described below.

Several steps to obtain the mean scjuare value of
conductor response from the wind gust spectrum are shown in
Figure 4.
The first step in the analysis involves the
transformation of the gust spectral density function, S (f),

into the force spectral density function, Sp(f), by
2
multiplying by the aerodynamic admittance function, x (f)The second step involves the determination of the response
spectral density function, S(f), by multiplying the force
spectral density function by the mechanical admittance
2
function, H (f). The aerodynamic admittance function and
the mechanical admittance function are frecjuency response
functions.
The third step is to calculate the mean square
value of the response, CT^, from the area under the response
spectrum.
Once the RMS value of response, cjj^, is obtained,
a peak value of the fluctuating response is determined by
15
Gust Spectrum
-2/3
Aerodynamic Admittance
Force Spectrum
logl
CO
Mechanical Admittance
Response Spectrum
Figure 4:
Elements of Response Spectrum Analysis
16
multiplying the RMS value by a statistical peak factor, g.
The peak response ft, is the addition of the mean response,
R, and the fluctuating response, <3 ^r^, as indicated in
ecjuation 2.1.
Field measurements of wind and conductor response
provide gust and conductor response spectra.
Appropriate
analysis of field data leads to estimation of the frecjuency

response functions, as indicated in Chapter V.
In addition,
tJie field data provide the peak factor in probabilistic

terms using the upcrossing rate principle.
Theoretical
expressions for the aerodynamic admittance function,

mechanical admittance function and peak factor are presented
below.
Aerodynamic Admittance Function
For a given body immersed in a flow, wind fluctuations
can be used to determine the information on resultant forces
by empirical coefficients.
The time-varying transverse
force on a body completely enveloped by wind is given by the

formula
F = [i. p (V + u ) ^ Cî A
where
F = transverse force,
p = mass density of air.
(2.5)
17
V = mean wind speed,
u
= fluctuating component of wind speed,
C^ = force coefficient, and

A
= area of exposure.
The time-varying fluctuating force is divided into two

components, mean force, F, and fluctuating force, F'.
Then
ecjuation 2.5 can be expanded as

F -f F' = ^ p (V +2VU + U'') C^ A.
(2.6)
2
If the term of the order u is neglected, the mean and
fluctuating forces can be separated as
1 p V
-2 C^ A
F = -i.
(2.7)
F' = p V u C^ A.
(2.8)
and
The power spectrum for fluctuating transverse force,

F', is then related to the gust spectrum as follows:
2
Sp(f) = (p V A C^)
S^(f)
(2.9)
or
_2
Sp(f) = ^ S^(f).
V
(2.10)
18
Ecjuation 2.10, is valid over the range of frecjuencies
contained in the gust spectrum provided all effects remain
perfectly correlated.
In practical conditions where gust
effects over the entire length of the conductor may not be

correlated, an adjustment factor or aerodynamic factor is
included in the ecjuation.
This factor is called the
aerodynamic admittance function, x (f)/ and equation 2.10

becomes:
Sp(f) = ^
X^(f) S^(f)-
(2.11)
The aerodynamic admittance function is a frecjuency

transfer function which transfers the gust spectral density
function to a force spectral density function.
It accounts
for the correlation of gusts over the structure.
The
distribution of gusts over the structure depends on the

relative size of the structure and the gusts.
A large gust
totally enveloping the structure will be well correlated

over the structure, while small gusts acting over only a
portion of the structure are uncorrelated.
In general,
low-frecjuency gusts are assumed to be correlated over the

2
structure; that is x (f) is assumed close to unity. The
2
value of X (f) fall below unity at frequencies in the range
19
of interest for the effects of winds on conductors.
This
variation in aerodynamic admittance function as a function

of frecjuency is illustrated in Figure 4.
The aerodynamic
admittance function for a structure is generally obtained

from wind tunnel tests (Blevins, 1977).
In this study
coefficients of this function are obtained from the field

data (see Chapter V)-.
Mechanical Admittance Function
After the force spectral density function, Sp(f), is
obtained by means of ecjuation 2.11, the response spectral
density function, S(f), is obtained by multiplying Sp(f) by
2
the mechanical admittance function, |H(f)| :
Sj^(f) = |H(f)|2 Sp(f).
(2.12)
2
The mechanical admittance function, |H(f)| , is

determined from an analysis using the stiffness, mass, and
damping characteristics of the structure.
For a single
degree of freedom system, the mechanical admittance function

is the scjuare of the structural dynamic amplification
function; it is expressed as (Bendat, 1980):
H(f)|2 = J- ^
k'
^
2
(2.13)
2
f
o
20
where f^ = fundamental frecjuency,
C = damping ratio, and
k = spring constant.
The form of the mechanical admittance function is
illustrated in Figure 4.
The resulting spectrum of the
response, shown in Figure 4, is peaked at the fundamental

frecjuency of the structure.
This peak is the resonant
response of the structure at that frecjuency.
One of the
major unknowns in the mechanical admittance function is the

dcunping ratio, C,. Damping can be due to structural and
material properties, and for wind response, aerodynamic
interaction.
Structural damping can be assessed only from
experiments.
A theoretical expression for aerodynamic
damping is presented in a subsecjuent section of this

chapter.
In this study damping of conductors is determined
from field data; this is presented in Chapter V.
Peak Factor
Another important component in ecjuation 2.1 is the
statistical peak factor, g.
Davenport (1977) has shown that
for a stationary random process, the statistics of the peak

response values may be represented by a Type I extreme-value
probability distribution.
For this case the peak factor
21
corresponding to the peak response occurring in time period,
T, can be approximated as:
0.577
^-^''
g = V2 In yT +
(2.14)
V2 In yT
Where
is the cycling rate of the process; that is, the
number of times the mean response value is crossed per unit

time.
The peak factor has also been determined from the rate
of upcrossing.
Melbourne (1975) used this principle of rate
of upcrossing as developed by Rice (1945) to analyze wind

tunnel aero-elastic model data.
Consider a continuous random process that can be
differentiated at least once.
A sample function of the
random process is shown in Figure 5.
The crossings of the
level x(t)=Ti, with a positive slope (upcrossings) are shown

in the figure.
The number of crossings of the level in the
time interval T is a random variable.
For a long period of
time the expected or mean number of crossings will approach

some fixed value.
Based on this average value, the average
crossing rate can be determined.

Rice (1945) showed that the average crossing rate can
be computed for any stationary random process x(t), if the
joint density distribution is known for x(t) and x(t) (the
sample functions of x(t) being dx(t)/dt).
The average
22
Up-Crossings
time, t
Figure 5:
Example of a Random Variable Showing Upcrossings

of a Given Threshold
number of upcrossings of the value x per unit time is

expressed as:
N (x) = j X p(x,x) dx
(2.15)
where p(x,x) = the joint density of x and x,and

N (x) = the average number of upcrossings.
For a linear single degree of freedom system excited by
a stationary Gaussian load, the joint probability density
can be written as (Nigam, 1983)
23
P^""'^) =
?nn\
.2
exp[-JL--^l
X
(2.16)
2
where a
= mean scjuare of x,
and
2
a = mean scjuare of x.
There is no covariance term a
in the density equation
2.16 because x and x are assumed to be uncorrelated.

Substituting ecjuation 2.16 into ecjuation 2.15 and performing
the indicated integration yields
1 "^x
x^
N (^) = ^ ^ e x p { - ^ l .
2" ^x
2al
(2.17)
For a narrow band random process, the spectral energy

is centered close to the fundamental frecjuency, f , of the
structure.
Thus ecjuation 2.17 can be written as (Reelect,
1969):
N
= f
x^
expl-^l-
(2.18)
2^x
The cumulative probability distribution in terms of
upcrossings can be stated as
-*
P(>x) = EJ2LL
ô
2
= exp{--^l.
2ol
(2.19)
24
The upcrossing rate formulation is for a narrow band
vibration process.
The upcrossing rate technicjue is applied
to the data of conductor response in Chapter V to obtain

probabilistic peak factor, assuming that the conductor
vibrates at its fundamental frecjuency (as indicated by data
in Chapter IV).
Wind Characteristics
Wind fluctuates randomly both in time and space.
Wind
speed over a given time interval can be considered as

consisting of a mean wind speed and a fluctuating component.
Knowledge of both the mean wind speed and the fluctuating
component assists in evaluating wind loads on transmission
line conductors.
The mean wind speed, wind profile,
turbulence intensity, and gust spectra are presented as part

of this chapter.
Mean Wind Speed
Mean wind speed is defined as an average wind speed for
a specified time interval.
The numerical value of the mean
wind speed can have large variations depending on the

interval used for averaging the wind speed.
A shorter
averaging time leads to a higher mean wind speed value,

while a longer averaging time leads to a smaller mean wind
speed value.
This is primarily due to short gusts of high
wind speed that last for short periods of time.
25
The length of the record for which the mean value and
the RMS value of wind speed are determined is somewhat
arbitrary.
The record should be long enough to reflect the
effects of low frecjuency components of mechanical turbulence

generated by the terrain roughness, but short enough so that
a reasonably stationary time history, free of significant
trends is obtained.
Analysis of the power spectral
densities of wind speed provides the background for an

appropriate selection of the averaging time interval for
mean wind speed.
The gust spectrum reveals that wind is
made up of two distinct types of air flow: (a)

macrometeorological or climate fluctuations, and (b)
micrometeorological fluctuations or gusts.
These
fluctuations are separated by a stationary stable interval

(spectral gap) between 10 minutes and 1 hour, as indicated
in Figure 6.
Based on this spectral gap, mean values
averaged over 10 minutes to 1 hour are optimum for stability

(Davenport, 1972).
In this study, the wind speeds are
averaged over record length of 12 minutes.

Mean Wind Profile
An important characteristic of wind is the variation of
wind speed with height.
The surface friction effects of the
ground retard the movement of air close to the ground
26
I*
;!
xtrum
Energy
2S.
1.
1
1
ii
Afui V M Dcr llovcn

- - Spck:uUli JIICI .\ ti. Oacnp<Ml
1 t
1 *
ii
!;
u.
Ivctevh
Ikiun
n
1
to-
lOUUO
1
t
1
11 yt \uHK.I i;yck
ArniM.!
*-fi*r
M;ruiii*irar<tlu|Hal ruifc
r ' . . . t l l . ( m.^ ' llMlVtlMIHI
Figure 6:
surface.
Scnutliufn.!
MkiunwicafolofivJ ruifc
IfKMtl
Idealization of Gust Spectrum Plot Over an

Extended Range (Davenport, 1972)
This retardation causes a reduction in wind speed
near the ground.
At some height above the ground, the
movement of air is independent of the ground obstructions.

This unobstructed wind speed is termed the 'gradient wind
speed,' and the corresponding height at which the air
movement is not retarded is termed the 'gradient height.'
Mean wind profiles near ground level are currently
represented by either power-law or logarithmic-law profiles
The logarithmic law profile is based on the assumption of
physical phenomena and is valid particularly up to 30 m
27
above ground (Simiu, 1984).
The power-law profile is
empirical and is assumed to be valid up to gradient height

(approximately 500 m ) .
The power-law profile is primarily
used in structural analysis and design, because of its

simplicity.
It is essential to determine the wind profile
at a particular site, so that the mean wind speed at

effective height of structure can be determined.
Power-law
is used in this study, and is briefly described below.

The power-law profile was developed by Davenport
(1960).
He modifiecj the exponential profile developed by
Brunt (1952) to obtain a mean wind speed profile.
In
horizontally homogeneous terrain, it is assumed that the

power-law is valid with a constant exponent (a) up to the
gradient height, Z .
Both gradient height and power-law
exponent are functions of the terrain roughness.
The mean
wind profile is expressed as
Iil = (-?-)"
(2.20)
where V(z) = mean wind speed at height, z,

V
= mean wind speed at gradient height, Z , and

a
= power-law exponent.
The power-law is used in both the American National

Standard ANSI A 58.1 (1982) and in the National Building
28
Code of Canada (NRCC, 1980).
Typical values of the gradient
height, Z , and the power-law exponent, a, for different

terrains, as specified by ANSI (1982), are summarized in
Table 1.
TABLE 1
Typical Values for Gradient Height and Power-Law Exponent
(ANSI, 1982)
Terrain
Category
Gradient
He ight(ft)
Z
g
700
Coastal Areas
Power Law
Exponent
a
0.10
900
0.14
Forest/Suburban
1200
0.22
City Centers
1500
0.33
Open Farmland
Turbulence Characteristics
The fluctuating part of wind is termed as the
turbulence.
The turbulence present in the wind flow is due
to the ground roughness characteristics of the terrain over

which it is passing or due to thermally-induced convection
or both.
The turbulence due to ground roughness is known as
mechanical turbulence and that due to heat convection is
29
known as convective turbulence.
Depending on the relative
importance of convective to mechanical turbulence, the

stability conditions of the atmosphere are classified as
stable, neutral, and unstable (Simiu, 1985).
The extreme
winds in which structural engineers are interested are

categorized as neutral stability conditions.
In a neutrally
stable condition, the temperature related buoyancy forces

and resulting vertical air motions are minimum.
For
engineering purposes, it is generally assumed that neutral

atmospheric stability conditions can be assumed for wind
speeds higher than 20 mph.
Details of atmospheric neutral
conditions are discussed in detail by Kancharla (1987).

Analysis of turbulence includes determination of the
turbulence intensity and the gust spectrum.
Of these two,
the turbulence intensity expression is simpler.
It
indicates relative amplitudes of the fluctuations compared

to the mean wind speed.
A complete representation of
fluctuating components of wind is the gust spectrum, which

gives the distribution of the mean scjuare over the frecjuency
domain.
The gust spectrum is useful in assessing dynamic
response of structures.
Both representations of turbulence
characteristics are discussed below.
30
Turbulence intensity is a measure of the gustyness of
the wind.
It is expressed as
T^ = - ^
V
where T
(2.21)
= turbulence intensity,
a^ = RMS of wind speed fluctuations, and

V = mean wind speed.
In statistical terminology this number is often called
the coefficient of variation.
Turbulence intensities are
higher for records which have lower mean wind speeds than
for records that have high wind speeds for the same terrain.
The turbulence intensity is strongly related to the terrain
roughness; a greater turbulence is caused by a rougher
terrain (refer to Table 2 ) .
A decrease in turbulence
intensity with height is also expected; at greater heights

both mean and RMS values of wind speed increase but the RMS
value increases less because the shearing action of the
ground surface is less (Jan, 1982).
Parametric study of the Davenport analytical model
(Twu, 1983; GAI, 1981) shows that the turbulence intensity
is the most influential parameter in predicting the response
of a transmission line structure to extreme wind.
31
TABLE 2
Typical Values for Turbulence Intensity and Surface Drag
Coefficient (Kempner, 1982)
Terrain
Category
Surface Drag
Coefficient
Turbulence
Intensity
Coastal Areas
0. 001
T
L
u
0. 07
Open Farmland
0. 005
0. 12
Forest/Suburban
0. 015
0. 22
City Centers
0. 050
0. 39
Therefore, emphasis is given to the computation of

turbulence intensity in the wind data analysis.
Gust Spectrum
A randomly fluctuating phenomenon such as wind speed
can be conceived of as the superposition of a large number
of harmonic fluctuations with frecjuencies ranging from zero
to infinity.
The spectral representation of turbulence is
related to this concept, and it provides information on the

contributions of fluctuating components (energy) with
various frecjuencies.
The energy of any random process, like
wind, is usually expressed in terms of a cjuantity called the
32
'Power Spectral Density (PSD).' The PSD at any particular
frecjuency, f, may be considered as the average fluctuating
wind power passing a fixed point when the wind as a random
process is filtered by a narrow band filter centered at f.
In the dynamic analysis of structures subjected to gust
loading, significant dynamic amplification of the response
may occur at a resonant frequency, i.e., when the natural
frecjuencies of vibration of the structure and of the wind
match (Simiu, 1985).
Flexible structures like conductors
can have dynamic amplification of the response because the

fluctuating component of wind has a fair amount of power at
frecjuencies of structural vibration.
On the other hand, if
the natural frecjuencies of vibration of the tower structures

are higher than 1 Hz, the dynamic amplification of the
response of the tower will be small because power in the
gust spectrum at those frecjuencies (see Figure 13, page 72)
is very small.
There are more than a dozen specific wind speed
spectrum ecjuations developed for meteorological and
engineering purposes.
Some of these spectral ecjuations are
discussed by Kim (1977).
For neutral atmospheric
conditions, wind turbulence is generated by the surface

shear stress.
It follows that the magnitude of the PSD
should be proportional to the scjuare of the frictional
33
velocity.
The analytical model for the gust spectrum used
in this study was developed by Kaimal (1978).

In general, the spectral energy of gusts is a function
of the wave-length, , of the wind fluctuations and the
height, h, above the ground.
The analytical form suggested
by Kaimal for the horizontal gust spectrum for height to

wave length ratios greater than one-half (
v>
>0.5) is given
V
as:
f S(f)
^
= A f h '^
V
^*
(2.22)
where S (f) = spectral density of gusts at frecjuency f.
u^= friction velocity, (^KV^Q)

K = surface drag coefficient,
(typical values are shown in Table 2)
V..Q= mean wind speed at 10 m height,
V = mean wind speed at height h,
h = height above ground, and
A, n = constants.
Constants A and n represent the amplitude and exponent
values of Kaimal's gust spectrum.
For neutral atmospheric
34
conditions, A=0.3 and n=2/3 are suggested by Kaimal.
Ecjuation 2.22 is useful for describing the gust
spectrum in the high frecjuency range (low wave lengths) and
for heights limited to the first few tens of meters.
Kaimal
also presents other forms of the gust spectrum which are

valid for lower frecjuencies and for unstable atmospheric
conditions.
Davenport Analytical Model
On the basis of Davenport's analytical model (1980),
the peak response, ft, of a conductor due to fluctuating
winds is represented by ecjuation 2.1.
Davenport's model
provides an analytical expression for the RMS, cjp, and

suggests a peak factor value, g, in the range 3.5-4.0.
Validation and refinement of the expression for the RMS are
part of this study.
The mean scjuare fluctuating response of a conductor is
the area under the response spectrum.
The area under the
response spectrum can be considered as the summation of the

background response, B , and the resonant response, R . The
c
background response is caused by gust with various

durations, whereas resonant response is caused by gust
frecjuencies at the natural frecjuencies of the conductor.
The total mean scjuare fluctuating response of the conductor
is given as:
35
(2.23)
^R = ^c ^ ^c
where B = the mean scjuare background response, and
R = the mean scjuare resonant response.
The expressions for background and resonant responses

consider wind properties such as mean wind speed, turbulence
intensity and gust spectrum and structural properties such
as frecjuency of vibration and damping.
Ecjuations for
background and resonant responses of the conductor response

have been developed by Davenport (1980) and are given below.
The ecjuations are:
B_ = e^
c P
E^
2
Rc = 6^
c P
2
E^
where
(2.24)
1 + 0.81(-ii-l
^s
0.323A h. 1 , ô ^,-(n-H)
(2.25)
f7
P = mean wind pressure; pV C^

e
= the influence coefficient which translates

the force to response; for conductor transverse
response is the product of L and d,
= exposure factor at the effective height of
36
the conductor; which is twice the turbulence
intensity,
Lg = transverse scale of turbulence,
C^ = conductor force coefficient,
p
= mass density of air,
= conductor aerodynamic damping as a ratio

to the critical damping,
V = mean wind speed at the effective height

of the conductor,
f^ = fundamental frequency of the conductor
(horizontal sway),
A, n
c
= Kaimal's gust spectrum constants,

= narrow band correlation coefficient of
turbulence, with a typical value of 8,
= effective conductor span,
= conductor diameter, and
= effective conductor height.
The background and resonant terms for conductor

response are calculated using ecjuations 2.24 and 2.25.
The
mean scjuare value of fluctuating response is obtained using

ecjuation 2.23.
Some of the assumptions made by Davenport in
deriving the simplified expressions for conductor response

are discussed by Mehta (Criswell, 1987).
37
Conductor Damping Ratio
The energy gained by the conductors from the
fluctuating wind is dissipated by the conductor damping.
In
general, three sources of damping can be identified for

conductors, which are material damping, structural damping
and aerodynamic damping.
Material damping is due to
internal energy dissipation by the material of the

conductor.
Structural damping is due to friction,
impacting, and rubbing of any two surfaces of the

conductors.
Both material and structural dampings are very
small for conductors as compared to aerodynamic damping.

Aerodynamic damping is due to the retarding force which is
developed from the relative motion between the conductor and
the air.
In the analytical model the value of damping
ratio, C/ which is defined as the ratio of damping

coefficient to the critical damping coefficient, is
determined using a theoretical expression.
This expression
is based on the inertial force principle as conductor

movement displaces an ecjual volume of air (Davenport, 1980).
C = 0.000048 ( ^
o
where
) C^
V = mean wind speed,

f
= fundamental frequency of the conductor.
(2.26)
38
C^ = conductor force coefficient, and
d = diameter of the conductor.
Calculation of the aerodynamic damping ratio using field
response data is evaluated in Chapter V.
Conductor Fundamental Frecjuency

Conductor frecjuencies of vibration are analytically
estimated by modelling conductor as a conductor oscillating
from side to side and using the principles of dynamic
ecjuilibrium (Symon, 1961).
Fundamental transverse frequency
of the conductor, f , in Hz, for a parabolic profile can be

obtained using the following ecjuation:
JG
where
f =
^
o
32 S
= acceleration due to gravity, and
= conductor sag.
Ecjuation 2.27 is used in Chapter IV to calculate the

conductor fundamental frecjuency.
(2.27)
^
'
CHAPTER III
FIELD DATA
Full-scale data used in this study were collected by

the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA).
Since 1976, BPA
has conducted several projects to study wind load response

of transmission line systems by collecting and analyzing
wind and response related data on test lines in the field.
Transmission tower and conductor wind response data were
collected on an energized 500 kV single circuit transmission
line.
An instrumentation system was used to measure wind
speed, wind direction, insulator swing, insulator load, and

tower member stresses.
During the period of December 1981 through May 1982,
BPA collected twenty-three separate recordings of wind and
the transmission line response with twelve-minute duration.
Dates, times, and mean wind speeds and direction of these
twenty-three records are shown in Table 3.
are used in the study presented here.
These recordings
Each record is
numbered by Nxx, where xx is the secjuence number of

occurrence of high winds.
Data utilized in this study are
limited to wind and conductor response data.
The site
characteristics, the instruments and the data accjuisition
39
40
systems used for the collection of wind and conductor
response data are described in this chapter.
TABLE 3
Field Data Records During 1981-1982
Record
Number
Mean Wind
Direction*
(azimuth)
Mean Wind
Speed*
(mps)
Date
Time
NOl
N02
N03
12/02/81
12/05/81
12/15/81
01.31.57
06.42.45
16.11.48
N04
12/16/81
08.30.32
N05
N06
N07
12/16/81
01/14/82
01/16/82
16.10.28
10.57.52
19.04.51
93
260
215
15.8
15.5
22.3
N08
N09
NIC
01/31/82
02/03/82
02/14/82
01.36.32
14.11.35
13.05.30
263
53
228
21.4
9.6
18.5
Nil
N12
N13
02/15/82
02/15/82
02/16/82
23.26.40
10.29.05
00.38.56
227
220
237
21.0
14.0
20.3
N14
03/08/82
16.03.42
N15
N16
N17
03/11/82
03/12/82
04/12/82
14.52.13
15.13.50
01.10.26
259
220
235
15.7
10.0
18.8
N18
N19
N20
04/13/82
04/17/82
04/20/82
15.29.13
17.57.11
22.03.35
246
276
90
21.8
15.8
18.5
N21
N22
N23
04/20/82
04/28/82
05/07/82
11.50.38
12.28.43
14.19.51
274
280
278
18.4
19.3
15.2
* measured at 34.7 m on Tower 16/4
227
209
240
18.8
16.4
14.8
zero wind
zero wind
41
Description of Test Site
The test site is located at Moro, Oregon, 56 kilometers
southeast of Dalles, Oregon (east of the Cascade Mountains).
The general topography in the vicinity of the test lines is
shown in Figure 7.
As observed from the contours in the
figure, the deep Deschutes river canyon is just west of the

site.
The test line is essentially located on the rim of
the canyon.
To the east of the test lines is a flat terrain
which is uncultivated land containing grass with some

shrubs.
The test lines are approximately 1500 m to the east
and 500 m above the elevation of the Deschutes river.

As indicated in Figure 7, the test site includes three
lines running almost north-south and approximately 8 degrees
west of true north (Kempner, 1981).
The first 2 lines east
of the Deschutes river are 500 kV energized lines, called

John-Day Grizzly (JD-G) 1 and 2.
A non-energized mechanical
test line (also referred to as the Moro test line) parallels

the other lines.
JD-G lines 1 and 2 are 45.7 m apart,
whereas the distance between JD-G line 2 and the mechanical

test line is 38.1 m.
Towers at the site (on JD-G line 2)
are numbered from 1 to 5, Tower 1 being the tower at the

northern end of the site.
The instrumented tower is Tower
4, part of the John Day-Grizzly (line 2) system.
It is
referred to as Tower JD-G 16/4 or simply Tower 16/4 because

it is located on mile 16 of JD-G line 2.
42
Figure 7:
Topography of Site and Orientation of Power Lines
43
Tower 16/4 is a delta configuration lattice tower
structure as illustrated in Figure 8.
The 33.4 m tall tower
supports three twin Chukar conductors (west, east, and

central) and two overhead groundwires (west and east).
Each
Chukar conductor has an outer diameter of 40.7 mm and weighs

3.1 kg m~ .
The Chukar conductors have 84 aluminum and 19
steel strands having ciiameter of 3.7 mm and 2.2 mm,

respectively.
In order to reduce subconductor oscillation,
one conductor of each twin conductor is 229 mm lower than

the other.
The conductor span to the north of Tower 16/4 is 252 m
to a similar delta configuration suspension tower.
The span
to the south is 450 m (refer to Figure 9) to a horizontal

configuration suspension tower.
The change in tower
configuration causes both east and west twin conductors to

hang in a non-vertical (outward) position at Tower 16/4.
The west twin conductor is ecjuipped with dampers which make
it heavier than the east twin conductor.
Instrumentation
Three different types of instruments were used to
measure wind speed and wind direction.
A climatronics mark
III model anemometer was located on top of Tower 3.
Two
three-blade propeller-vane anemometers were mounted on Tower
44
Anemomeler (34.7 m)
Load cell and

Swing angle
indicators
41 mm diameter
West conductor
Figure 8:
Schematic of Tower 16/4
45
N -^
effective half span lengths of conductors
Figure 9:
Elevation Along the Test Line (Vertical Scale

Exaggerated)
46
16/4, as shown in Figure 8.
One was located on top of the
tower at a height of 34.7 m.
The second unit was located on
the northwest tower leg at a height of 10 m and it projected

out 2.3 m north of the tower.
Two four-blade propeller-vane
anemometers were installed on top of Towers 4 and 5.
The
three-blade propeller-vane anemometer has a threshold speed

of 1.7 mps and a distance constant of approximately 4.6 m.
The threshold value is the stall speed of the unit.
The
distance constant is the wind passage recjuired for 63%

recovery from a step change in wind speed.
The wind
instruments ecjuipped with internal heaters to allow for

winter operation.
Wind direction is indicated by azimuth
readings in degrees referenced to true north.
The wind
direction is such that a zero degree reading corresponds to

true north and a clockwise rotation represents an increase
in the wind direction reading.
The load cells and swing angle indicators measured the
magnitude and direction of the conductor and overhead ground
wire loads that transfer to the tower structure.
The
instruments were installed in the linkage between the

insulator string and the tower.
All conductors and ground
wires were instrumented with one axial load cell and two
swing angle indicators.
The swing angle indicators measured
longitudinal and transverse swings of the insulators.
47
Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton (BLH) strain gage load cells were
used to measure axial loads.
BLH Type T3P1 load cells,
rated at 5000 pounds, were used for the overhead ground

wires and BLH Type T2P1 load cells, rated at 20,000 pounds,
were used for the conductors.
Humphrey pendulum swing angle
indicators, model CP17-0601-1, were used to measure the

longitudinal (along the line) and transverse (perpendicular
to tihe line) swings of the insulator string.
These units
measure up to 45 degrees of swing from the zero (vertical)

position with a resolution of 0.2 degrees (Kempner, 1977).
Valid data from these units are restricted to 2 Hz or less
because of the unit natural frecjuency of 3.2 Hz, as
suggested by Kempner (1980).
The load cells and swing angle
indicators were calibrated in the laboratory and checked in

the field after installation.
Data Acquisition
Data was collected by the Moro UHV mechanical test
program data accjuisition system (Kempner, 1979).
The data
accjuisition system consisted of a PDP-11/10 mini-computer

with 12 K memory, an ADAC Model 600-11 Data Accjuisition
System, a Digi Data Controller/Formater, a 7-track magnetic
tape unit, and a teletype.
The data accjuisition system was
housed in an instrument trailer located 30 m southwest of
48
the Tower 16/4.
The system was set up to record from 256
channels of instrumentation.
RecordincT Procedure
Several selected channels constituted a recording mode,
which were selected to capture a static or dynamic
phenomenon of interest.
The data used in the present study
were recorded in Mode 22.
Mode 22 was designed for
recording wind and the response of Tower 16/4.

of 38 channels of instrumentation.
It consisted
The instrumentation on
Tower 16/4 included 12 strain gages, 5 load cells, 10 swing

angle indicators, and 2 wind instruments.
The remaining
channels provide readings from the anemometers mounted on or

adjacent to Towers 2, 3, 4, and 5 on the Moro mechanical
test line.
A complete list of the channels with a
description of each is given in Table 4 (Norville, 1985).

The PDP-11/10 computer was used to monitor wind
conditions and to initiate recordings when prescribed
conditions were met.
Prescribed information was entered
into and stored in the computer prior to placing the data

accjuisition system on-line.
This information included
channel identification, date and time of recording, number

of samples, mode number, calibration and offset factors for
each channel (Kempner, 1979).
This information was written
49
TABLE 4
File Description of Mode 22
File
Channel
LCOl
LC02
LC03
LC04
LC05
SAOl
SA02
SA03
SA04
SA05
SAO 6
SA07
SA08
SA09
SAIO
78*
79*
80
81
82
83*
84*
85*
86*
87
88
89
90
91
92
SGOl
SG02
SG03
SG04
SG05
SG06
SG07
SG08
SG09
SGIO
SGll
SG12
66*
67*
68*
69*
70*
71*
72*
73*
74*
. 75*
76*
77*
WDOl
WD02
WD03
WD04
WD05
WSOl
WS02
WS03
WS04
WS05
WS06
159
163
168
179
181
156*
158
161
167
178
180
Instrument, Location, Height

Load Cell 1
Load Cell 2
Load Cell 3
Load Cell 4
Load Cell 5
Swing Angle 1
Swing Angle 2
Swing Angle 3
Swing Angle 4
Swing Angle 5
Swing Angle 6
Swing Angle 7
Swing Angle 8
Swing Angle 9
Swing Angle 10
Strain
Strain
Strain
Strain
Strain
Strain
Strain
Strain
Strain
Strain
Strain
Strain
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Tower
Tower
Tower
Tower
Tower
Tower
Tower
Tower
Tower
Tower
Tower
Tower
Tower
Tower
Tower
16/4
16/4
16/4
16/4
16/4
16/4
16/4
16/4
16/4
16/4
16/4
16/4
16/4
16/4
16/4
Gage 1 Tower 16/4

Gage 2 Tower 16/4
Gage 3 Tower 16/4
Gage 4 Tower 16/4
Gage 5 Tower 16/4
Gage 6 Tower 16/4
Gage 7 Tower 16/4
Gage 8 Tower 16/4
Gage 9 Tower 16/4
Gage 10 Tower 16/4
Gage 11 Tower 16/4
Gage 12 Tower 16/4
East
West
West
East
Cent.
East
East
West
West
West
West
East
East
Cent.
Cent.
NW
NE
NW
SE
SE
SE
NW
SW
NW
NW
NW
NW
1
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
3
OHGW
OHGW
Cond.
Cond.
Cond.
OHGW
OHGW
OHGW
OHGW
Cond.
Cond.
Cond.
Cond.
Cond.
Cond.
Dia.
Main
Main
Dia.
Main
Dia.
Main
Main
Main
Dia.
Main
Dia.
47.4
Tower 3
Direction Anem.
Direction Anem.
Tower 4
41.5
Directi on Anem.
Tower 5
39.3
Direction Anem.
Tower 16/4 34.7
Direction Anem.
Tower 16/4 10.0
Speed Hot Wire Anem. Near Tower 2
Speed E'rop. Anem. Tower 3
47.4
Speed Erop. Anem. Tower 4
41.5
Speed Erop. Anem. Tower 5
39.3
Speed Prop. Anem. Tower 16/4 34.7
Speed Erop. Anem. Tower 16/4 10.0
recordings of channels not used in this study
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
50
as a heading on the magnetic tape preceding a strong wind
recording.
Triggering of this recording mode was automatic when
the wind speed was equal to or greater than 18 mps for one
minute and the temperature was ecjual to or greater than 4
degrees Celsius.
Once triggered, the recording mode sampled
the data for 10 or 12 continuous minutes, depending upon the

sampling rate.
After a recording period, the mode had one
hour waiting period before another trigger was allowed.

Two data sampling rates were used in recording the data
for mode 22.
The sampling and recording rates were limited
by the size of the computer memory and the speed of the

magnetic tape unit.
Sampling rates of 10 samples per second
(sps) and 20 sps were used in collecting data.
Channels 66
through 79 (LCOl, LC02 and SG01-SG12) were monitored at 20

sps; all other channels were sampled at 10 sps.
All the
data utilized in the study presented here had sampling rates

of 10 sps and were collected for 12-minute durations.
Description of Recordings
The recordings that were collected in the field are
summarized in Table 3.
The winds at the test site during
the period of data collection were predominantly from the

west, with only three records of east winds.
Two zero wind
51
records were collected for initializing conductor and tower
response data.
22.3 mps.
Mean wind speed values ranged from 9.6 to
Mean wind directions varied from almost normal
(transverse) to transmission line to 55 degrees from the

normal.
The terrain over which the wind traversed in each
recording segment depended on the wind direction.
These
variations in wind speed, wind direction and terrain caused

inherent variability in the collected data.
Field
experiments depend on the vagaries of nature; they cannot be

duplicated or repeated.
The inherent variability in field
data and the inability to repeat the experiment suggest that

results from the analysis should be based on an ensemble of
data and that some scattering of results is to be expected.
CHAPTER IV
FIELD DATA ANALYSIS
Analysis of field data recjuires that the validity and

accuracy of the wind and conductor response data be checked.
It is expected that results of field data will have a
certain amount of scattering.
This scattering can be due to
an inherent variation in field data as well as a variation

in the data measuring system.
To the extent possible, wind
data and conductor response data are checked for consistency

and accuracy.
The analytical procedure to predict the response of
conductors recjuires knowledge of wind characteristics such
as the mean wind speed, power-law exponent of wind profile,
turbulence intensity, and Kaimal's gust spectrum constants.
These characteristics are determined from the field data and
are subsecjuently used in the analytical procedure.
Field recorded conductor response can be compared with
predicted values in terms of mean response and fluctuating
response.
Effective force coefficients that relate to mean
response are determined for each record of the field data.

Fluctuating response, as indicated in Chapter II, is a
combination of background response and resonant response.
52
53
These responses can be assessed from response spectra of the
field measured values.
The conductor response spectrum of
transverse loads recorded by load cells is discussed in this

chapter.
The discussion relates to background response and
resonant response.
Comparisons of recorded fluctuating
responses with predicted values from the analytical

procedure are presented in the next chapter.
In addition,
an assessments of the peak factor, admittance function and

damping from the recorded data are presented in next
chapter.
Validity of Wind Data

Wind speeds and directions were recorded at five
locations, namely on top of Towers 3, 4, 5, and 16/4, and at
10.0 m on Tower 16/4.
Tower 4 is within 38 m of Tower 16/4,
while Towers 3 and 5 are several hundred meters from the

other two towers (see Figure 9 ) .
The mean azimuth and root mean scjuare (RMS) of wind
direction for each record for these five locations are shown
in Table 5.
Data were recorded at 10 sps for 12 minutes in
each record.
One observation in Table 5 is the consistency
in mean azimuth value for the three instruments located at

the tops of Towers 4, 5, and 16/4.
The differences in mean
values for these three instruments are less than 12 degrees.
54
and in most cases less than 6 degrees.
The two instruments,
one at 34.7 m height on Tower 16/4 and one at 41.5 m on top

of Tower 4, give mean wind directions within 4 degrees for
winds from several different azimuths.
This consistency in
mean azimuth values provides credibility to the wind

direction instruments and the data accjuisition system.
The mean azimuth values for the instrument at 10.0 m
height on Tower 16/4 are erratic when compared with the
values from the other instruments for records NOl through
N13 (see Table 5 ) . The difference in mean azimuth value is
as high as 44 degrees.
Such a large difference in wind
direction between records for instruments on the same tower

located at 10.0 m and at 34.7 m cannot be explained from
physical phenomena.
Ekman's spiral suggests that a
deviation in wind direction occurs close to ground, but the

deviation in a 25 m difference in height should be less than
6 degrees (Simiu, 1985).
This large difference in wind
direction for the instrument at 10.0 m on Tower 16/4 casts

doubt in its wind data for records NOl through N13; these
records are not used in further analysis.
The remaining
records (N15 through N23) for this instrument appear to give

reasonable results.
The wind instrument on top of Tower 3
also gives mean azimuth values higher by 10 to 20 degrees

than the other instruments on a consistent basis.
from Tower 3 are not needed in the analysis.
Wind data
55
TABLE 5
Mean Azimuth and RMS in Degrees of Wind
Instrument WDOl
Location Twr 3
Height
47.4 m
Mean RMS
WD04
WD03
Twr 5
Twr 16/4
39.3 m
34.7 m
Mean RMS Mean RMS
224
205
239
229
207
246
8
12
6
227
209
240
9
12
5
212
199
224
9
12
5
NOl*
N02
N03
197
216
246
N04
Zero Wind record
N05
N06
N07
101
NOB
N09
NIC
276
64
243
Nil
N12
N13
241
234
250
N14
Refe rence Zero Wind Speed Record
N15
N16
N17
274
232
246
5
9
5
260
218
231
7
8
8
267
228
235
8
8
8
N18
N19
N20
259
292
100
5
12
1
244
277
87
5
12
1
256
276
90
N21
N22
N23
285
295
296
13
9
9
273
279
279
10
11
12
283
283
282
22
7
4
WD05
Twr 16/4
10. 0 m
MearL RMS
WD02
Twr 4
41.5 m
Mean RMS
9
12
5
94
259
211
2
7
9
94
266
219
2
8
10
93
260
215
2
7
9
81
300
258
4
7
9
6
9
7
263
54
225
8
7
8
268
56
228
6
8
7
263
53
228
8
8
8
300
97
268
9
9
9
7
9
8
225
218
235
7
9
9
230
222
236
9
12
8
227
220
237
7
10
9
266
258
278
8
10
9
259
220
235
8
9
8
267
230
244
8
9
8
10
15
1
246
276
90
5
12
1
252
283
101
7
11
2
10
13
14
274
280
278
11
10
12
280
286
283
12
10
12
**
**
k-k
*-k
* Record Number
** error in data
56
The mean wind speed value for each record for the five
wind speed instruments is tabulated in Table 6.
One
observation in Table 6 is the consistency in mean wind speed

value for the four instruments located on the tops of Towers
3, 4, 5, and 16/4.
within 15%.
The values among these instruments are
The variation in mean speed values may be due
to a combination of two reasons.
First, the instruments are
at slightly different heights above the ground; wind speed

is expected to be higher as height increases.
The second
reason may be that the distances between the towers are

several hundred meters; so the terrain over which the wind
travels can be different.
This combination of variation in
terrain and height of instrument can account for variations

in mean wind speed values.
The instrument at 41.5 m height
on Tower 4 recorded 4% higher mean wind speed than that at

34.7 m height on Tower 16/4 on an average (see Table 6 ) .
Since Towers 4 and 16/4 are only 38 m apart with no terrain
modulations, it is reasonable to assume that a height
difference accounts for the small difference in mean wind
speed values.
This consistency in mean speed values
provides credibility to the wind speed instruments and the

measurements.
The difference between the mean wind speeds at 10.0 m
and at 34.7 m on Tower 16/4 is very small for records NOl
57
TABLE 6
Mean Wind Speed in mps
Instrument WS02
Location
Twr 3
Height
47.4 m
NOl*
N02
N03
N04
18.7
18.9
15.2
WS03
Twr 4
41.5 m
19.4
16.7
16.0
WS04
WS05
Twr 5
Twr 16/4
39.3 m
34.7 m
WS06
Twr 16/4
10.0 m
19.8
16.4
14.7
18.8
16.4
14.8
18.5?
17.5?
14.8?
15.3
14.9
19.1
15.8
15.5
22.3
15.6?
15.3?
23.3?
Zero Wind record
N05
NO 6
N07
15.0
**
15.3
15.4
21.8
NOB
N09
NIC
21.8
9.6
19.0
21.5
9.8
18.8
22.6
9.7
17.3
21.4
9.6
18.5
20.4?
8.8?
18.3?
Nil
N12
N13
21.2
13.5
20.2
21.4
13.9
20.7
19.5
13.0
21.0
21.0
14.0
20.3
21.0?
14.3?
20.0?
N14
**
Reference Zero Wind Speed Record
N15
N16
N17
16.4
9.0
20.4
15.4
9.9
19.1
15.5
8.6
17.3
15.7
10.0
18.8
12.1
8.0
15.5
N18
N19
N20
22.1
16.1
18.3
22 1
15 5
18 4
17.4
16.2
17.7
21.8
15.8
18.5
18.2
13.0
14.4
N21
N22
N23
16, 0
19, 1
16. 6
18.4
19.4
15.2
18 0
18 0
16 6
18.4
19.3
15.2
15.5
16.5
13.2
* Record Number
** error in data
? these values are cjuestionable along with wind direction;
they are not used in analysis
58
through N13.
In a few records, the instrument at 10.0 m
height shows higher mean wind speed values than that at 34.7
m height.
Wind speed at 34.7 m on Tower 16/4 is more
consistent with the other instruments on top of Towers 3, 4,

and 5.
This casts some doubt on the wind speeds of records
NOl through N13 measured at 10.0 m height on Tower 16/4;

these records are not used for further analysis.
To further validate the field data, time histories are
plotted for all wind speed records.
A typical time history
plot for wind speed recorded at 34.7 m on Tower 16/4 for

record NOl is shown in Figure 10.
Each record has 7200
points, which corresponds to a recording rate of 10 sps for

the duration of 12 minutes.
The time history plot in Figure
10 uses averages of 10 consecutive points; thus the points

are at one second intervals.
Visual observation of time
history plots of wind speed records for any discontinuities,

trends, and noise shows the records to be good.
An additional check of stationarity was performed to
assess consistency of the wind data.
Stationarity checks
are done to verify that the statistical properties are time

invariant.
Stationary tests were accomplished by Levitan
(1987) as part of an earlier BPA contract.
Most of the wind
records were found to be stationary with 95% confidence

limits as checked by the run and trend tests suggested by
59
Time (minutes)
Figure 10:
Time History Plot of Wind Speed for Record NOl

at 34.7 m on Tower 16/4
Bendat and Piersol
(1966).
discussed in this study.
These stationary test are not

Finally, as a part of the
validation of the data, a power spectrum plot for each

record was generated.
These plots would reveal, in the
frecjuency domain, any electrical or other sources of noise

in the data.
Details of these power spectrum plots are
discussed in subsecjuent sections.
In general, most of the
wind speed and wind direction records appear to be valid.
60
The mean wind speed and mean wind direction for each
record at 34.7 m height on Tower 16/4 are shown in Figure
11.
There are eighteen west wind records, three east wind
records and two zero wind records.
Wind directions vary
from almost normal to the transmission line to as high as 55

degrees of yaw angle (see Figure 11). The mean wind speed
values are 10 mps or higher for all records, except for the
zero wind records.
Two zero wind records (N04 and N14) were collected in
near calm or zero wind conditions.
Based on a review of the
data of these two records, N14 is selected as a reference

record to assess conductor response.
Wind speed on top of Tower 16/4 (at 34.7 m height) is
used as the reference wind speed record.
The reference wind
speed record is important to determine the wind speed at the

effective height of the conductor.
The wind speeds at the
effective heights are determined using the reference wind

speed and vertical wind profile.
Power-Law Exponent for Wind Profile
The wind speed profile is assessed using mean wind
speed records of instruments located at 10.0 m and 34.7 m
heights on Tower 16/4 and at 41.5 m height on Tower 4.
Since Towers 16/4 and 4 are only 38 m apart with no terrain
61
Record Number N_
Mean Wind Speed and Direction
Figure 11:
Mean Wind Speed and Direction Recorded at 34.7 m

on Tower 16/4 of 23 Records
62
modulations between the towers, it is reasonable to assume
that the wind environment is the same at both the towers.
The other wind speed instruments are located far away; it
would be inappropriate to use their data to assess the wind
speed profile.
As mentioned earlier, wind speed records NOl
through N13 at 10.0 m height on Tower 16/4 are cjuestionable.

Hence the wind speed profile is assessed using records N15
through N23 only.
The power-law expression given in
ecjuation 2.20 can be written as
V^
Z,
ln(-f.) = a ln(-^)
(4.1)
Vl
where V, = wind speed at height Z^
V2 = wind speed at height Z2
and
a = power-law exponent.
Ratios of wind speeds and ratios of heights for record
N15 are plotted in Figure 12. Three data points in the
figure represent data collected at heights of 10.0 m, 34.7
m, and 41.5 m.
A straight line using the least squares
method is fitted to the three data points.
The slope of the
straight line is the value of the power-law exponent.

Power-law exponent values obtained for records N15
through N23 are given in Table 7.
The flat land on the east
63
CVi
>
ln(Z2/Zi)
Figure 12:
Power-Law Plot for Record N15
and the valley on the west give similar power-law exponent

values for the limited data collected in this phase of the
project.
These values are consistent with results reported
for this site by Kempner (1982).

Calculated power-law exponent values range between 0.11
and 0.18; this wide range corresponds to open farmland and
64
TABLE 7
Power-Law Exponent and Kaimal's Gust Spectrum Constants
Record
Number
NOl
N02
N03
N04
Power 1 aw
exponent
_
-
n**
0.327
0.591
0.269
1.355
1.721
1.571
0.009
0.133
0.254
1.686
1.494
1.463
Zero Wind record
N05
NO 6
NO 7
N08
N09
NIO
Nil
N12
N13
N14
A*
-.
0.151
0.182
0.242
0.209
0.294
0.296
1.579
1.925
1.786
1.200
1.696
1.420
N15
N16
N17
0.18
0.16
0.15
0.209
0.157
0.267
1.516
2.052
1.573
N18
N19
N20
0.14
0.13
0.18
0.151
0.304
0.005
1.383
1.681
1.565
N21
N22
N23
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.152
0.265
0.342
1.375
1.628
1.695
* constant representing amplitude

** constant representing exponent
Note: Kaimal's gust spectrum constants are calculated for
wind speed recorded at 34.7 m on Tower 16/4.
65
suburban terrains (see Table 1 in Chapter II). An average
power-law exponent value of 0.14 is used to determine the
wind speed at the effective height of the conductors (points
of effective pressures).
A small change in exponent value
does not drastically change the mean wind speeds at the

effective heights in the present study.
Turbulence intensity represents the level of turbulence
present in the wind.
It was defined in Chapter II as a
ratio of RMS to mean wind speed.
Values of turbulence
intensity calculated using data from all five instruments,

are shown in Table 8 for all records considered.
The turbulence intensity values among the instruments
for each record are fairly consistent, though there is some
scatter.
The instruments located on top of Towers 4 and
16/4, which are at similar heights and are 38 m apart, give

turbulence intensity values almost the same in most of the
records.
Seventeen records for these two instruments give
turbulence intensity values within 0.02; only four records

show a higher difference.
Turbulence intensity values for
the instrument located at 10.0 m on Tower 16/4 are

consistently higher than those at 34.7 m on Tower 16/4.
Winds near the ground are expected to contain more
66
TABLE 8
Instrument
Location
Height
NOl*
N02
N03
N04
WS06
WS05
Twr
16/4
Twr 16/4
10.0 m
34.7 m
WS02
Twr 3
47.4 m
WS03
Twr 4
41.5 m
WS04
Twr 5
39.3 m
0.14
0.13
0.08
0.16
0.22
0.07
0.15
0.24
0.11
0.18
0.17
0.11
0.03
0.12
0.22
0.03
0.11
0.16
***
***
Zero Wind record
N05
NO 6
N07
0.03
**
0.03
0.11
0.16
NOB
N09
NIO
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.13
0.09
0.15
0.11
0.09
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.17
***
Nil
N12
N13
0.12
0.18
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.13
0.13
0.22
0.14
0.18
0.17
0.15
***
N14
**
***
***
***
***
***
N15
N16
N17
0.10
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.11
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.12
0.14
0.14
0.18
0.14
N18
N19
N20
0.09
0.17
0.02
0.08
0.17
0.02
0.16
0.17
0.02
0.11
0.17
0.02
0.13
0.21
0.04
N21
N22
N23
0.18
0.17
0.18
0.13
0.15
0.21
0.15
0.13
0.16
0.11
0.15
0.21
0.17
0.19
0.23
* Record Number
** error in data
*** cjuestionable d a t a ; see Tables 5 and 6
67
turbulence than the winds at higher elevation.
Therefore,
the fluctuating wind data can be considered valid.

The turbulence intensities of records for the
instrument at 34.7 m on Tower 16/4 (reference wind
instrument) vary between 0.02 and 0.21.
The turbulence
intensities for winds from west and southwest show cjuite a

bit of scatter; they range between 0.11 and 0.21 for the
reference wind instrument.
The west winds traverse over
hills and valleys (see Figure 7) before approaching the

transmission line.
are random.
The variations in turbulence intensity
Little correlation between turbulence intensity
and mean wind speed and direction (for west winds) was
found.
Turbulence intensities of winds from the east, where
the winds traverse flat terrain (see Figure 7), are low.
Two east wind records N05 and N20 show very low turbulence
intensities, 0.03 and 0.02, respectively, compared to the
third east wind record N09 (turbulence intensity of 0.13).
The turbulence intensity can be related to a terrain
classification.
In general, low values of turbulence
intensity are related to flat terrain and high values to

rough terrain.
The west wind records, show a wide variation
in turbulence intensity.
The turbulence intensity values
range from terrain classification of open farmland to

forest/suburban terrain (refer to Table 2).
This suggests
68
that a terrain of canyons and hills is unpredictable for
characterization of wind.
The power-law exponent values for
the profile, as well as turbulence intensity values, vary

from flat to suburban terrain, but there is no trend between
the two.
Turbulence intensity is one of the major parameters in
the analytical procedure to predict response.
The exposure
factor in ecjuations 2.24 and 2.25 is twice the turbulence

intensity.
A parametric study of the analytical procedure
conducted by GAI consultants (1981) and by Twu (1983) showed

that the turbulence intensity is the most significant wind
characteristic in predicting the response.
Turbulence
intensity values recorded at 34.7 m on Tower 16/4 (reference

wind instrument) are used in predicting response of the
conductors in the next chapter.
Kaimal's Gust Spectrum Constants
Gust spectra were plotted for all wind speed records
collected at 34.7 m on Tower 16/4 (reference wind
instrument).
Figure 13.
The gust spectrum for record NOl is shown in

Gust spectra were obtained utilizing the
International Mathematics and Statistical Libraries (IMSL,

1982) program FTFREQ.
The program uses an autocorrelation
function to calculate the spectral density function
69
estimates, S(f). Calculation of spectral density function
involve standard expansions (Jenkins, 1968) not involving
fast Fourier transformation.
The highest frecjuency obtained
is the Nycjuist frecjuency, 5 Hz, which is one half the

sampling rate of 10 sps.
The lowest frecjuency is restricted
by the number of lags selected for correlation.
Here the
lowest frecjuency is 0.0025 Hz because of the selection of

2000 lags (200 seconds) from autocorrelation plot.
program applied the Hamming window for smoothing.
The
The plot
2
in Figure 13 uses (f S(f)/a ) on the ordinate to give a
2
normalized linear scale, where a is the mean scjuare of the
time series, and f is frecjuency in Hz.
The abscissa in
Figure 13 is the log of the frecjuency, f.

The gust spectrum shown in Figure 13 is typical of the
gust spectra of other wind speed records.
Fluctuations in
the spectral density values are partly due to statistical

methods employed in the program.
A general trend of
reduction in ordinate (spectral energy) with increase in

frecjuency is noticeable in the figure.
The ordinate becomes
negligible for frecjuencies greater than 1 Hz.
Calculation
of the area under the gust spectrum (which is ecjual to the

mean scjuare value) indicates that only 1% of the spectral
energy is in the frecjuency range above 1 Hz.
The gust
spectrum in the figure shows a reasonable amount of spectral
70
O
P^
S (f) - spectral density value at f

f
- frequency
SIGSQ - mean square value
CO
in
00
C/1
CO
LJ
3*
U.
u
3
o
en
o
rt
>
^^
C3
^
o
CM
1)
Q.
CO
o
o
o
C.OOl
Frequency (Hertz)
Figure 13:
Gust Spectrum Plot for Record NOl Recorded at

energy in the frequency range of 0.1 to 0.4 Hz; natural

frecjuencies of the conductors are in this range.
The analytical procedure to predict response of the
conductor developed by Davenport (1980) utilizes an
analytical form of the gust spectrum.
The specific
71
analytical form used in the procedure is the one proposed by
Kaimal, as described in Chapter II (ecjuation 2.22).
Gust
spectra obtained from the field data are used to determine

Kaimal's gust spectrum constants A and n.
Constants A and n
represents the amplitude and slope of the analytical gust

spectrum.
The curvilinear regression procedure (Miller, 1977) is
used to obtain suitable values for constants A and n from
the field wind data.
Ecjuation 2.22 is rewritten to separate
dependent and independent variables:
A u^
f h '^.
(4.2)
Ecjuation 4.2 is nonlinear. It is made linear by taking

natural logarithms on both sides.
In S^(f) = ln(A nl)+n
ln(^)-(n+l) ln(f).
(4.3)
Ecjuation 4.3 can be written in the form

Y = C - (n+1) X
where
C = ln(Au2) ^ ^ ln(-^), and
X = ln(f).
(4.4)
72
In e q u a t i o n 4 . 4 , Y i s dependent on X.
To solve for A
and n, normal ecjuations of t h i s ecjuation a r e u t i l i z e d

(Miller,1977).
The normal e q u a t i o n s a r e ,
^Y = N C -
(n+1) j ; x
^X Y = C (X) -
(4.5)
(n+1) p 2
^4 gj
where N = total number of data points.

Values of n and C are found by solving ecjuations 4.5
and 4.6.
Substitution of n and C in ecjuation 4.3 gives the
value for A for each record.
Table 7 shows the calculated A
and n values considering gust spectrum values between the

frecjuencies of (
'-
) and 1 Hz. As indicated in Chapter

h
II,
ecjuation 2.22 i s v a l i d for f g r e a t e r than (
f^ ^ ) . The
h
gust spectrum values for frecjuencies greater than 1 Hz are

neglected because spectral energy (the ordinate of the gust
spectrum) is very small.
The value of cionstant A is least
affected by the selection of maximum frecjuency range,

specially beyond 1 Hz. Values of constant A range between
0.005 and 0.591 (refer to Table 7).
The gust spectrum (see
Figure 13) shows that the slope of the spectrum curve

decreases between 0.1 and 1 Hz, and remains almost constant
beyond 1 Hz. Hence, n values are sensitive to the maximum
73
frequency range selected.
Values of n range between 1.200
and 2.052.
The suggested range of values for A and n are 0.15-0.60
and 0.33-0.67, respectively (GAI, 1981).
Field measured
values of A are generally within the suggested range.

However, field measured n values are much higher than the
suggested range.
The parametric study of the Davenport
model for gust response factor of transmission line

structures conducted by (Twu, 1983) showed that the response
is not sensitive to the value of n.
Kaimal's analytical form of the gust spectrum (ecjuation
2.22) is valid for values of f greater than (-^LLL_Y.).
For
h
the field measured data obtained at 34.7 m, this low end of
frecjuency f would be 0.3 Hz, if the mean wind speed were 20
mps.
Since the conductor natural frecjuencies are in the
range of 0.1 to 0.4 Hz, near or below the low end of this
frecjuency range, Kaimal's gust spectrum constants obtained
from the field data are not appropriate for use in obtaining
response.
For this reason, values of A and n of 0.3 and
0.67, respectively, as suggested by Davenport, are used to

predict the response utilizing the analytical procedure in
the next chapter.
74
Validity of Conductor Response Data
The conductor response data comprise measurements from
the transverse and longitudinal swing angle indicators and
load cell transducers.
These instruments were placed at the
attachment of the insulator to the Tower 16/4 (see Figure

8).
The conductors are suspended at the bottoms of the
insulators.
The load cells measure axial load in the
insulator and the swing angle indicators measure swing of

the insulator from the vertical.
Appropriate combinations
of values of load cells and swing angle indicators provide

vertical, longitudinal and transverse components of loads
applied on the insulators by the conductors.
Interest in
this study is restricted to transverse load components since

the primary influence of wind is in the transverse
direction.
The transverse load component at any instant is
calculated by the following ecjuation:

F = P cos (p sin G
where
(4.7)
P = axial load measured by the load cell,

(p = longitudinal swing angle, and
9 = transverse swing angle.
Twenty-one records of response for each west, east, and
central twin conductor are available.
Record N14 is used as
a reference zero wind speed record to initialize all
75
records.
Static loads are transferred from the conductors
to the tower structure even before being subjected to wind

loads.
These initial static loads are due to the self
weight of the conductors and the inclined orientation of the

insulators.
The inclined orientation of the insulators is
caused by the differences in elevation of the supporting

tower structures and by the different configuration of the
tower (refer to Chapter III). Load cell and swing angle
readings of record N14 give the weight of the conductors and
initial transverse loads.
These initial transverse loads
are subtracted from the transverse loads obtained in each

record.
Initialization with the zero wind speed record is
necessary to obtain conductor response due to wind only.

A time history plot of the response of the west
conductor for record NOl is shown in Figure 14.
Similar to
wind records, each response record has 7200 points, which

corresponds to data collection at the rate of 10 sps for a
time duration of 12 minutes.
The time history plot in
Figure 14 uses averages of 10 consecutive points; thus the

points are at one second intervals.
Mean, standard
deviation and one second interval peak values are shown on

the time history plot.
The purpose of these plots is to
provide a graphical display of conductor response versus

time, thereby illustrating the overall quality and trends in
the data.
76
- Imer\-al Peak - 4.61
-, Mean+Sigma 3.43
Mean - 2.97
Mean-Sigma = 2.51
Time (minutes)
Figure 14:
Time History Plot of West Conductor Response for

Record NOl
Similar to the wind data, stationarity checks are done

for the load cell and conductor swing angle data.
Most of
the conductor response data (load cell and swing angle data)
are found to be stationary with 95% confidence limits as
checked by the run and trend tests (Bendat, 1966).
The
response spectra are plotted (in subsecjuent section) to

check for noise in the data.
In general, the conductor
response data are valid and can be used for analysis.
77
The mean and RMS values of response for the three
conductors (west, east, and central) are shown in Table 9.
The negative values in Table 9 indicate wind from the east.
The choice of sign for conductor response is arbitrary.
The
values in the table show that response recorded at the

central conductor is higher than that for the west and east
conductors.
This is expected since the central conductor is
suspended at 26.7 m above ground level, which is 8.4 m above

the west and east conductors at Tower 16/4 (see Figure 8).
The response of the west conductor is slightly higher
than that of the east conductor in many records, even though
they are suspended at the same height above ground.
The
range of the difference in values is from -0.08 to 0.33 kN;

less than 10% of the recorded values.
There could be one of
several reasons or a combination of reasons for this

difference.
These reasons and observations based on the
data are given below.

One set of twin conductors (west or east) could shield
or intensify wind load effect on the other set of twin
conductors.
This is not likely because the west and east
conductors are 13.4 m apart at Tower 16/4.
In addition,
data do not show a specific trend in response for winds

coming from east or west.
78
TABLE 9
Mean and RMS Values of Conductor Response (Transverse Load
Component)
Record
Number
West Conductor
Mean
RMS
(kN)
East Conductor
Mean
RMS
(kN)
NOl
N02
N03
2.97
1.36
2.48
N04
Zero Wind reco rd
0.46
0.43
0.21
2.82
1.34
2.43
Central Conductor
Mean
RMS
(kN)
0.41
0.40
0.19
3.13
1.34
2.56
0.53
0.43
0.20
N05
NO 6
N07
-2.84*
2.25
2.82
0.13
0.20
0.89
-2.62
2.19
2.80
0.09
0.18
0.82
-2.77
2.32
2.94
0.10
0.22
1.00
NOB
N09
NIO
5.14
-1.10
2.81
0.76
0.10
0.52
4.83
-1.13
2.76
0.76
0.11
0.46
5.47
-1.16
2.91
0.79
0.14
0.54
Nil
N12
N13
3.35
1.27
3.70
0.61
0.41
0.66
3.28
1.34
3.51
0.56
0.41
0.59
3.53
1.35
3.85
0.66
0.39
0.69
N14
Reference Zero Wind Speed Recc>rd
N15
N16
N17
2.61
0.72
3.32
0.31
0.12
0.61
2.47
0.80
3.10
0.28
0.14
0.57
2.68
0.81
3.34
0.34
0.12
0.67
N18
N19
N20
4.67
2.48
-2.74
0.78
0.52
0.12
4.27
2.33
-2.78
0.72
0.17
0.02
4.94
2.58
-3.00
0.80
0.55
0.14
N21
N22
N23
2.99
3.09
2.39
0.51
0.60
0.50
2.79
2.90
2.20
0.44
0.53
0.43
3.12
3.22
2.44
0.57
0.65
0.52
* negative sign indicates swinging to the west
79
Measurement of weight of the conductor during reference
zero wind condition can cause discrepancy in calculation of
transverse loads.
The west conductor weight is recorded
higher than the east conductor by 2.4 kN (a difference of

9%).
The information obtained from the field indicates that
detuner dampers are added to the west conductors.
These
dampers account for approximately 0.9 kN of extra weight.

Discrepancy in dead weight of 1.5 kN in west conductor is
not reconciled.
This extra dead weight could be a reason
for higher response of west conductor compared to east

conductor in most of the records (see Table 9).
Accuracy in swing angle measurements is important for
estimation of the transverse load component.
The swing
angle indicators have a resolution of 0.2 degrees.

Discrepancy in swing angle reading of 0.2 degree could cause
error in response by 2-4% for the range of readings obtained
in these data.
Accuracy of the swing angle indicator can be
one of the factors causing a difference in recorded

response.
Notwithstanding the differences in recorded
responses of conductors mentioned above, the data for the

three conductors are fairly consistent.
Some variations and
scattering in the field data are inherent; they cannot be

avoided.
In general, conductor response data are considered
valid for use in analysis.
80
Effective Conductor Force
Coefficient
As discussed in Chapter II, the mean response of the
conductor is related to a nondimensional force coefficient.
To calculate the force coefficient based on field measured
data, it is necessary to use measured values of the mean
wind speed, V, and the mean transverse load component, F.
The field measured effective conductor drag coefficient is
obtained by ecjuating the measured mean transverse load
component to the 'stagnation pressure' load.
4 pV
2
L d
where C^ = conductor effective force coefficient,

F
= mean transverse load measured in kN,
= mass density of air in kN m
-3
( = 12.02x10"^ kN m"^)
V = mean wind speed at conductor effective
height in mps,
L = effective conductor span in meters, and
d = conductor diameter in meters
(= 2 times the diameter; for present study)
81
The diameter is multiplied by 2 because of twin
conductors in each conductor bundle.
The effective span of
the conductor depends on the attachment heights, and the

conductor span.
In addition, temperature, and conductor
tension have some effect on the effective span.
As
indicated in Figure 9, effective spans are determined to be

376 m for west and east conductors, and 402 m for the
central conductor.
For determination of effective spans,
the horizontal tension in the conductor is taken to be 45 kN

at 60 F, based on data obtained from the BPA.
The conductor effective force coefficient is a function
of wind direction (Potter, 1981).
Computing the transverse
wind speed component from the wind speed and yaw angle to
relate to the transverse load component, the C^ values are
believed to be realistic.
Wind tunnel tests show that the
force coefficient essentially remains the same for a yaw

angle up to 22 degrees (Potter, 1981).
Therefore the
effective force coefficients computed from the data are

limited to records with yaw angles of 22 degrees or less.
Calculated effective conductor force coefficient values for
eleven records are shown in Table 10.
The effective force coefficient values are scattered
between 0.47 and 0.74.
The values for the west conductor
are higher than those for the east conductor because the
82
TABLE 10
Field Measured Conductor Effective Force Coefficients
Record
Number
Yaw
Angle
(degrees)
NOl
N02
N03
35
53
22
N04
West
Conductor
0.74
Central
Conductor
0.72
0.63
0.68
0.60
0.60
0.53
Zero Wind record
N05
NO 6
N07
11
2
47
0 .74
0 .61
NOB
N09
NIO
1
29
34
0 .73
Nil
N12
N13
35
42
25
N14
East
Conductor
0.68
0.64
N15
N16
N17
3
42
27
0.69
-
0.65
0.59
N18
N19
N20
16
14
8
0.64
0.65
0.52
0.58
0.61
0.53
0.57
0.56
0.48
N21
N22
N23
12
18
16
0.57
0.54
0.68
0.53
0.51
0.63
0.50
0.47
0.58
83
mean response of the west conductor is larger than that for
the
east conductor as discussed in the previous section (see
Table 9 ) .
There are three possible reasons for the scatter in the
values of effective force coefficient.
The first reason may
be the accuracy with which transverse loads are measured.

Field measured transverse load components could vary by
about 10%, (see the previous section on validity of
conductor response data).
The second reason may be the
modification of the wind speed for different heights above

the ground.
In calculating the effective height of each
conductor, the conductor shape is assumed to be parabolic

and the site topography is taken into account.
More
specifically, each effective height is calculated as the

average of the vertical distances between the ground and the
conductor at all points along the half spans on both sides.
The resulting values are 15.7 m for the east and west
conductors, and 23.8 m for the central conductor.
The wind
profile is taken as having the same properties with respect

to the ground no matter how the ground elevation varies.
This raises some uncertainties, especially with regard to
the valley shown between Towers 16/4 and 16/5 in Figure 9.
Wind speeds are modified from the 34.7 m height to the 23.8
m effective height for the central conductor and to 15.7 m
84
effective height for west and east conductors using a wind
profile exponent value of a = 0.14.
The modification in
wind speed is smaller for the central conductor than for the
west and east conductors.
This could be the reason for the
force coefficients for the central conductor being smaller

than
for the west and east conductors (refer to Table 10).
The third reason may be the wind characteristics of

turbulence and fluctuations in wind direction.
As shown in
Table 5, many records show RMS of wind direction

fluctuations to be in the neighborhood of ten degrees.
These data in Table 5 suggest that the wind direction may
have fluctuated as much as 40 degrees within a record.
In
addition, the turbulence intensity values shown in Table 8

are different between the records.
Wind characteristics may
have significant effects on effective force coefficients.

The values of effective force coefficient obtained from
the field data are fairly consistent with the values shown
in Figure 3.
The Reynolds Number for the field data is in

4
the range of 3x10 to 6x10 . For this range of Reynolds

Number, Figure 3 suggest effective force coefficients in the
neighborhood of 0.6.
85
Response Spectrum
The conductor response spectrum represents the
fluctuating response about the mean response in the
frecjuency domain.
Response spectra of west, east, and
central conductors for all records were obtained.
A typical
response spectrum for the west conductor for record NOl is

shown in Figure 15.
The response spectra were obtained
using the same procedure as for the gust spectra discussed

earlier.
Similar to the gust spectra, the lower and upper
limits of the frecjuency range in spectral calculation are

0.0025 and 5 Hz, respectively.
The response spectrum in
Figure 15 shows fluctuations in frecjuencies below 1 Hz, but

does not show a spike at a specific frecjuency.
The range of
frecjuencies of interest for the present study is based on

natural frecjuencies of conductor vibration.
The conductor's
natural frecjuencies are in the range of 0.1-0.4 Hz,

depending on its configuration.
At frecjuencies between 2
and 4 Hz, the spectrum shows several very high peaks.
These
peaks in the figure are somewhat misleading because the

spectral density function in the plot is multiplied by the
frecjuency.
Generally, the spectral density function is
multiplied by frecjuency to get enhanced results in the

higher frecjuency ranges.
86
f - Frequency (in Hertz)

S(f) - Spectral Density at f
SIGSQ - Mean Sqaure Value
3*
n
CO
a
O
teiH
CD
CO
"^
>,'
CO
VM
1
Zone
Zone
Zone III
CM
O
3
3
>
CO
ii
CU
.1
f
a
o
^^Vr-n..
l.O
O.l
G.OOL
Frequenc:y, f (Hertz)
Figure 15:
Response Spectrum Plot for West Conductor

As noted in Chapter II, the area under the response

spectrum gives the mean scjuare of response.
The response
spectrum is viewed in terms of area representing extent of

response.
Peaks in the spectrum represent response at
specific frecjuencies.
In order to discuss background and
resonant response, the spectrum is divided into three zones

for determination of relative response:
(1) frequencies
87
less than 0.1 Hz, (2) frequencies between 0.1 Hz and 1.0 Hz,
and (3) frequencies greater than 1 Hz.
Each zone of the
spectrum is reviewed in light of the conductor response to

wind.
The spectral area in the zone of frecjuencies less than
0.1 Hz is in the neighborhood of 75% for all records.
This
response is primarily due to the background turbulence where

wind has significant turbulent energy (see Figure 13). The
peaks in the spectra in this zone do not represent dynamic
amplification of the response.
The spectral area in the zone between frecjuencies of
0.1 and 1.0 Hz is close to 15% for all records.
Fundamental
transverse frecjuency of the conductor, f , in Hz for a

parabolic profile can be obtained using ecjuation 2.27.
The
conductor sag depends on conductor span, horizontal tension

and temperature.
The conductor span on the south side of
the Tower 16/4 is 450 m and toward the north it is 252 m

(see Figure 9).
The sags, calculated using conductor
horizontal tension of 45 kN at 60F, are 6.3 m and 21.0 m

corresponding to the 252 m and 450 m spans, respectively (a
parabolic profile is assumed).
Using ecjuation 2.27 with
estimated sags, the calculated natural frecjuencies in the

transverse direction are 0.12 Hz and 0.22 Hz.
The spectrum
in Figure 15 shows small but distinguishable peaks in the
88
neighborhood of these frequencies.
The two unequal spans
are expected to respond in the transverse direction

independent of each other due to the low stiffness of the
conductor.
The two peaks are judged to be due to resonant
response at natural transverse frecjuencies of the conductor.

At frecjuencies close to the conductor natural
frecjuencies the gust spectrum in Figure 13 shows that wind
has a fair amount of energy.
Presence of gust energy at
natural frecjuencies of the conductor can cause significant

resonant amplification of the conductor response.
The spectral areas in the zone of frecjuencies greater
than 1 Hz are less than 15% in most of the records.
High
spectral peaks (Figure 15) in the 2-4 Hz frecjuency range are

believed to be due to vibration of the tower and the
frecjuency of the swing angle indicators.
These frecjuencies
of the tower and instruments enter into the conductor

response records since the conductor is connected to the
tower through load cells and swing angle indicators.
Natural frequencies of Tower 16/4 are determined using
MSC/NASTRAN version 63 software.
The tower structure is
modelled as a space frame, without conductors and overhead

ground wires.
Natural frecjuencies of the tower are 2.88,
3.01 and 4.92 Hz, corresponding to longitudinal, transverse,

and torsional modes of vibration, respectively.
In
89
addition, the frequency of vibration of the swing angle
indicator is 3.2 Hz (Kempner, 1980).
the
These frecjuencies of
tower and the swing angle indicator are believed to
cause high peaks in the response spectrum in the frecjuency

range of 2 to 4 Hz.
Even though spectral peaks are high in
the frecjuency range above 1 Hz, the amount of energy is

relatively low.
Since the amount of gust spectral energy above 1 Hz in
Figure 13 is very small and since peaks in the response
spectra can be justified as above, it is believed that the
response spectral energy in the frecjuency range above 1 Hz
is not due to response of the conductor to wind.
This
spectral energy is neglected in further consideration of the

response of the conductors.
The background and resonant
responses assessed from the response spectra are compared

with the analytical procedure in the next chapter.
CHAPTER V
COMPARISON AND REFINEMENT OF THE
ANALYTICAL MODEL
The goal of the present study is to compare and to

refine the analytical model using the results of field data.
The analytical model proposed by Davenport (1980) to
determine peak response of transmission line structures was
presented in Chapter II. The key elements in determining
the fluctuating response of conductors in the model are the
background response and the resonant response (see ecjuation
2.23).
In addition, the model recjuires establishment a
value for the peak factor to determine peak response (see

ecjuation 2.1).
The field data analysis yields the peak response as
well as the fluctuating response.
Background and resonant
responses are determined from response spectra of field data

utilizing the procedure indicated in Chapter IV.
Peak
factors are obtained from the field peak responses utilizing

the upcrossing rate procedure.
Background and resonant responses assessed from the
field data are compared with values calculated using the
analytical model.
Joint acceptance function coefficients
90
91
are obtained from the field data to refine the background
response of the analytical model.
Also, aerodynamic damping
ratios are recovered from the field data to improve the

resonant response of the analytical model.
Since the
fluctuating response depends on many parameters, total

fluctuating responses from field data are not compared with
total fluctuating response predicted using the Davenport
model (1980).
Comparison of Analytically Predicted

Mean Square Response With Field
Measured Values
One of the two parts of the fluctuating response
component in ecjuation 2.1 is the mean scjuare value.
In the
frecjuency domain analysis, the mean scjuare value of response

is computed as the area under the response spectrum.
The
mean scjuare value can be considered as a summation of

background response, B , and resonant response, R
2.23).
(ecjuation
Background response is due to the wind turbulence at
low frecjuencies, and can be considered as quasi-static

response.
Resonant response is due to coincidence of
conductor natural frecjuencies with gust frecjuencies.
This
resonant response is the area under the response spectrum at

frecjuencies close to conductor natural frecjuencies.
92
Field Measured Mean Scjuare Response
The gust spectrum of Figure 13 shows that the wind
turbulence has energy up to 1 Hz, and energy beyond 1 Hz is
negligible.
Conductor natural frecjuencies are in the range
of 0.1 to 0.4 Hz, hence the resonant peaks should dominate

above the background response in this frecjuency range.
It
is difficult to separate background and resonant responses

in the field data.
In Figure 16, which is the same response
spectrum as Figure 15, there are peaks at the natural

frecjuencies of the conductors:
these peaks are diffused.
0.12 and 0.22 Hz. However,
As discussed in Chapter IV, the
spectral areas between the frecjuencies of 0.1 and 1.0 Hz for

most records were less than 15% of the total area under the
response spectrum (total mean scjuare value).
At the risk of
being on the high side, the total spectral areas between

frecjuencies of 0.1 and 1.0 Hz are assumed to be resonant
response.
The error introduced by this assumption is small
because the response in this frecjuency range is a small

portion of the total fluctuating response.
response is indicated by R
This resonant
in Figure 16.
It is reasonable to assume that the area under the

response spectrum below 0.1 Hz is the background response.
This area is close to 75% of the total area (total mean
scjuare value) in most of the
records as discussed in Chapter
93
f - Frequency (in Hertz)

S(f) - Spectral Density at f
SIGSQ - Mean Sqaure Value
a
3*
CJ
a
CO
o
en
CO
CO
M
CM
>
1
CO
Q.OOL
0.1
10.0
Frequency, f (Hertz)
Figure 16:
IV.
West Conductor Response Spectrum Plot for Record

NOl
The area designating background response is shown as B
in Figure 16.
The area under the response spectrum for frecjuencies
above 1 Hz is not considered to be response due to extreme
wind effects.
IV
This was discussed in some detail in Chapter
94
Delineation of background and resonant responses in the
field response spectra permits assessment of responses in
each of the three conductors, west, east, and central
conductors, for all twenty-one field records.
Field
measured values for background and resonant responses for

west, east, and central conductors are tabulated in Tables
11 through 13, along with mean scjuare values, for each
conductor.
These values are compared with values predicted
by the analytical model as described in the next section.

The mean scjuare values of the three conductors are
fairly consistent, but have scatter for a given record.
This is not surprising, since there was variation (by about
10%) in the mean response of the three conductors (refer to
Table 9).
It is reasonable to expect larger variation in
fluctuating response between the conductors.
The variation
in the field data suggests that results will have scatter,

and that it is important to use an ensemble of data for
appropriate interpretation of the results.
Analytical Model Predicted Mean
Scjuare Value
The analytical model used to predict the background and
resonant response contains a number of wind and conductor
related parameters (see ecjuations 2.24 and 2.25).
These
parameters can be separated into fixed and variable
95
TABLE 11
West Conductor Response Spectrum Data Analysis
Background Response
Record
Number
NOl
N02
N03
0.211
0.184
0.043
Analytical
Field Analytical Field
Model*
Measured
Measured
Model*
0.141
0.132
0.028
0.201
0.038
0.052
0.033
0.024
0.009
0.254
0.043
0.056
Zero Wind Record

0.017
0.039
0.790
0.003
0.028
0.609
0.005
0.043
0.143
0.008
0.006
0.087
0.006
0.048
0.203
0.582
0.009
0.270
0.447
0.007
0.199
0.365
0.014
0.161
0.057
0.001
0.037
0.502
0.012
0.200
Nil
N12
N13
0.366
0.165
0.441
0.269
0.151
0.300
0.256
0.033
0.217
0.043
0.010
0.077
0.348
0.034
0.288
22 2
N05
NO 6
N07
MOO
O vD 00
N04
Mean
Scjuare
Resonant. Response

0.098
0.013
0.377
0.077
0.011
0.309
0.069
0.005
0.152
0.015
0.002
0.041
0.077
0.004
0.192
N18
N19
N20
0.606
0.273
0.014
0.486
0.236
0.005
0.186
0.125
0.002
0.066
0.024
0.002
0.259
0.140
0.003
0.258
0.361
0.250
0.190
0.243
0.194
0.076
0.151
0.177
0.042
0.060
0.036
0.095
0.194
0.194
2 2 2
N15
N16
N17
to to to
CA) to M
N14
* Davenport, 1980
96
TABLE 12
East Conductor Response Spectrum Data Analysis
Background Response
Record
Number
Mean
Scjuare
rH CM CO
2 2 2
ooo
0.168
0.162
0.037
N04
Resonant Response
Analytical
Measured
Model*
Model*
Measured
0.115
0.128
0.023
0.181
0.037
0.050
0.034
0.024
0.011
0.229
0.042
0.054
N05
NO 6
N07
0.009
0.033
0.677
0.002
0.021
0.541
0.004
0.041
0.141
0.002
0.006
0.080
0.005
0.045
0.200
22 2
MOO
O vD 00
Zero Wind Record
0.572
0.013
0.207
0.450
0.009
0.157
0.322
0.015
0.155
0.061
0.001
0.034
0.443
0.012
0.193
Nil
N12
N13
0.310
0.165
0.348
0.231
0.153
0.248
0.245
0.037
0.195
0.047
0.011
0.062
0.333
0.038
0.259

0.078
0.020
0.321
0.059
0.017
0.268
0.062
0.007
0.133
0.016
0.003
0.041
0.069
0.005
0.167
to M M
O VD 00
0.512
0.205
0.008
0.420
0.178
0.002
0.155
0.110
0.002
0.067
0.023
0.002
0.216
0.124
0.003
2 2 2
to to to
N14
0.193
0.276
0.187
0.147
0.199
0.153
0.066
0.133
0.150
0.036
0.055
0.027
0.082
0.171
0.164
CA)
to M
22 2
N15
N16
N17
* Davenport, 1980
97
TABLE 13
Central Conductor Response Spectrum Data Analysis
Background Response
Record
Number
NOl
N02
N03
NO 4
Mean
Scjuare
0.284
0.183
0.040
Resonant Response

Analytical
Measured
Model*
Measured
Model*
0.175
0.119
0.026
0.211
0.035
0.053
0.038
0.021
0.008
0.207
0.031
0.044
Zero Wind Record
NO 5
NO 6
N07
0.011
0.047
1.004
0.004
0.036
0.714
0.005
0.043
0.147
0.005
0.007
0.085
0.004
0.037
0.162
NOB
NO 9
NIO
0.618
0.020
0.287
0.467
0.009
0.206
0.391
0.015
0.163
0.046
0.010
0.035
0.417
0.009
0.158
Nil
N12
N13
0.432
0.148
0.471
0.294
0.136
0.308
0.269
0.035
0.222
0.038
0.009
0.065
0.283
0.028
0.228
N14
N15
N16
N17
0.117
0.014
0.443
0.094
0.012
0.365
0.069
0.006
0.146
0.016
0.001
0.038
0.060
0.004
0.142
N18
N19
N20
0.638
0.300
0.019
0.524
0.261
0.005
0.197
0.128
0.002
0.054
0.024
0.013
0.212
0.111
0.002
N21
N22
N23
0.320
0.420
0.269
0.236
0.271
0.210
0.078
0.155
0.175
0.049
0.061
0.032
0.076
0.155
0.148
* Davenport, 1980
98
parameters.
Some of the parameters depend on the geometry
and physical characteristics of the conductors.
These
parameters such as conductor sag, diameter of the conductor,

effective height, etc. are fixed parameters.
On the other
hand, other parameters such as mean wind speed, turbulence

intensity and aerodynamic damping ratio vary with each wind
record; these parameters are considered as variable
parameters.
The fixed and assumed parameters used in the analytical
model to calculate background and resonant responses are
tabulated in Table 14. Each conductor bundle consists of
two Chukar conductors, hence the effective diameter used in
the model is twice the diameter of the individual conductor.
The mean wind speed at the effective conductor height is
determined using the recorded mean wind speed at 34.7 m and
the power-law exponent, a = 0.14.
Table 15 shows the mean wind speeds calculated for the
west, east, and central conductors at their effective
heights.
The exposure factor, E, in ecjuations 2.24 and 2.25
is twice the turbulence intensity.
The exposure factor
values in Table 15 are obtained from the turbulence

intensity recorded at 34.7 m on Tower 16/4 (refer to Table
7).
The exposure factors used in the model at the effective
heights of the conductors are assumed to be the same as at
99
TABLE 14
Fixed and Assumed Parameters Used in the Analytical Model
Parameters
Typical Values Used
Values based on physical characteristics

(1) Conductor diameter (d)
0.08 m
(2) Effective span (L)

east and west conductors
central conductor
376 m
402 m
(3) Effective height (h)

east and west conductors
central conductor
15.7 m
23.8 m
(4) Conductor fundamental frecjuency (f ) 0.12 Hz

Assumed values*
(5) Conductor force coefficient (C^)
1.0
(6) Coherence exponent (c)
(7)
Scale of turbulence (L s)
^ '
(8) Kaimal's gust spectrum constant (A)
65 m
(9) Kaimal's gust spectrum constant (n)
0.67
0.28
*assumed values are recommended by Davenport (1980)
34.7 m on Tower 16/4. The conductor aerodynamic damping

ratio is calculated using ecjuation 2.26.
Since the
aerodynamic damping ratio depends on the mean wind speed, it

is different for each record.
100
TABLE 15
Variable Parameters Used in the Analytical Model
Mean Wind Speed (mps)

Record
Number
NOl
N02
N03
@ 15.7 m*
0.36
0.34
0.22
@ 23.8 m**
16.9
14.7
13.3
17.9
15.5
14.1
Ze ro Wind Rec<ord
0.06
0.22
0.32
14.2
13.9
20.1
15.0
14.7
21.2
0.28
0.26
0.34
19.3
8.6
16.6
20.4
9.1
17.5
Nil
N12
N13
0.36
0.34
0.30
18.9
12.6
18.2
19.9
13.2
19.2
222
N05
NO 6
NO 7
MOO
O vD 00
N04
Exposure
Factor

0.24
0.24
0.28
14.1
9.0
16.9
14.9
9.5
17.8
0.22
0.34
0.04
19.6
14.2
16.6
20.7
15.0
17.5
0.22
0.30
0.42
16.6
17.3
13.6
17.5
18.3
14.4
CO to M
2 2 2
to to to
to M M
O VD 00
N15
N16
N17
22 2
N14
* effective height for west and east conductors

** effective height for central conductor
101
Instead of calculating the mean wind pressure, P, and
the influence coefficient, 0^ (which translates the pressure
to response), the field measured mean transverse load
components are used for each record (refer to Table 9 ) .
Calculated background and resonant responses using the
analytical model are shown for the three conductors in
Tables 11 through 13.
The values are obtained using
ecjuations 2.24 and 2.25.
The majority of the records show
that the background response calculated from the analytical

model is smaller than the background response measured in
the field.
Field measured values versus analytical model
values of background response of the three conductors are

plotted in Figure 17.
The figure shows that the background
response predicted by the model is an underestimation of the

measured value.
Since the background response accounts for
75% of the mean scjuare response value, refinement of the

analytical model of this part is desirable.
The analytical model predicts higher resonant responses
than the field measured values (refer to Tables 11 to 13).
Field measured values versus analytical model values of
resonant response of the three conductors are plotted in
Figure 18.
The figure clearly shows that the predicted
values are very much higher than the field measured values.
One of the significant variables in the analytical model is
102
0.8
o
West Cond.
East Cond.
Central Cond
0.6U
a
>
0.4-
a
a
0.4
0.6
0.8
Field Measured Values
Figure 17:
Analytical Model Background Response Versus

Field Measured Background Response
the aerodynamic damping ratio.
If the damping ratio is
higher than predicted by equation 2.26, the calculated

resonant response will be smaller.
Field measured data are
used to assess a possible damping ratio for each record.
103
Even though a large scatter in evaluation of the damping
ratio is expected, it can lead to a better prediction of
resonant response.
0.60
(/)
3
" /
0.45-
>
0.30-
y/
Q n
c
<
- s" v y v
0.15-
y^
Q / y y^
a ^9
/yy
West Cond.
East Cond.
Central Cond.
0.00 \
0.00
0.15
0.30
0.45
0.60
Figure 18: Analytical Model Resonant Response Versus Field

Measured Resonant Response
104
Refinement of the Analytical Model
As noted in previous sections, the analytical model
underestimates the background response and overestimates the
resonant response.
Refinement of the analytical background
expression using the field measured data is attempted.
The
resonant response prediction is improved by recovering a

damping ratio for the conductor from the field data.
Background Response
The mean scjuare value of fluctuating response can be
calculated as the area under the response spectrum,
al
= J Sj^(f) df
0
(5.1)
2
where a = mean scjuare value of response,
So(f) = spectral density value of response, and
f
= frecjuency.
Utilizing ecjuations 2.10 and 2.11, equation 5.1 can be

expressed as
_2
2 = iL- J y^^(f)
0
V
|H(f)|2 S^(f) df
where S (f) = gust spectral density,

F
= mean transverse force,
= mean wind speed.
(5.2)
105
2
Z (f) = aerodynamic admittance function, and
2
|H(f)| = mechanical admittance function.
The area under the response spectrum is a summation of
background and resonant responses.
Ecjuation 5.2 can be
written in a simple form as:

2
_2
4F
^R =
T B
^ Aj,|
(5.3)
V
where Ag accounts for background response, and A accounts
for resonant response.
Davenport (1977) developed ecjuations
for Ag and Ap as
Ag = j x^(4r) S^(f) ^^
0
(5.4)
and
f L
AR = X ^ ( - ^ ) S (f ) J |H(f)|^ df
V
0
where f
(5.5)
is the fundamental frecjuency of the structure and
other terms are defined above.
The background response due
to wind turbulence can be obtained using ecjuations 5.3 and

5.4, if the gust spectrum is defined by some appropriate
analytical function.
The aerodynamic admittance function is a relationship
between the gust spectral density function and the force
106
spectral density function in the frequency domain.
measure of the
It is a
effect that the wind turbulence has on the
transverse forces.
The shape of the conductor and the sizes
of gusts relative to the size of the conductor influence

this function.
A large gust, totally enveloping the
structure, is well correlated, while a small gust, acting on

a portion of the conductor, is uncorrelated.
The aerodynamic admittance function is usually
2 fL
expressed in a nondimensional form as x (-^-^)/ where L is
V
the conductor span, and the ratio -F ^^ designated as the
scale of turbulence (L ). The aerodynamic admittance
function is termed as a 'joint acceptance function (JAF),'
if it is modified to account for the mode shape.
In other
words, the important link between the gust fluctuations,

(described by the gust spectrum) and the modal force
fluctuations is provided by the the JAF.
This function
depends on the mode shape and the velocity field, which

varies widely from structure to structure.
Davenport (1977)
reduced the JAF to a simple form as below:

|JAF|2 = -^^
(5.6)
'
'
1 + m (p
where m is a constant to account for the mode shape and
107
<p = cfL/V.
The quantities c, f, L, and V represent the
coherence exponent, frequency, conductor span and mean wind

speed, respectively.
The theory described for computing conductor response
in Chapter II is based on the conventional assumption of a
constant force coefficient.
For conductors with a
cylindrical shape the force coefficient, C^, depends on the

Reynolds Number (refer to Figure 3).
This change in force
coefficient affects the fluctuating component of response.

The analytical model of fluctuating response should account
for changes in the force coefficient at Reynolds Numbers
corresponding to the mean wind speed (Davenport, 1980).
To
account for this effect the numerator of ecjuation 5.6 is

replaced with an unknown constant Q.
The resluting
ecjuation, which is a product of JAF and Q is simply termed

as JAF in this study, as shown below:
|JAF|2 =
2_^_.
1 + M(-^)
V
(5.7)
In addition to introduction of coefficient Q in ecjuation

5.7, the coefficient M is used to account for mode shape and
the coherence exponent, c (transverse correlation of
turbulence).
The available data are not able to provide
separate coefficients for the mode shape and correlation of
108
turbulence.
Equation 5.7 is in the same form as equation
2.24 given in the analytical model developed by Davenport

(1980).
In 1:he model, Davenport uses approximate values of
1 and 0.81 for the coefficients Q and M, respectively.
Here
the field response data are used to evaluate these two JAF
coefficients.
Determinincr the JAF Coefficients

The frecjuency transfer function (FTF) is a transfer
function between the spectral densities of fluctuating wind
turbulence and conductor response.
The FTF can be
considered as the product of the aerodynamic admittance

function and mechanical admittance function.
The FTF can be
written as
^SR(f)
5:
_2
v^
2
1-^- = 4 |H(f)r
fS
(f)
I V
/I
2
IJAFr.
(5.8)
F
The FTF can be obtained by plotting the ratios of the
nondimensionalized response spectral values to the
nondimensionalized gust spectral values (refer to equation
5.8).
As explained in Chapter IV, the IMSL program FTFREQ
is used to compute the spectral density values of wind

turbulence and conductor response fluctuations.
FTF plots
for all 21 records of west, east, and central conductors
109
were obtained.
A typical FTF plot for the west conductor
for record NOl is shown in Figure 19.
The spectral density
values of wind turbulence above 1 Hz are very small (refer

to Figure 13), and use of very small values in the
denominator of the FTF would be inappropriate.
FTF values are plotted up to 1 Hz only.
Hence, the
It was noted in
Chapter IV that wind gust and response spectra show cjuite a

bit of fluctuation because of the computational procedures
used in obtaining the spectral densities.
The FTF plot in
Figure 19 is obtained from the ratios of two spectra, so

large fluctuations in ordinates are not surprising.
The mechanical admittance function, also known as the
dynamic amplification factor, depends on the structural
dynamic properties such as frecjuencies and damping ratios.
This factor amplifies the response spectrum (resonant
response) at the natural frecjuencies of the conductor.
The
JAF related to background response can be obtained by

removing the resonant peaks at the natural frecjuencies of
the conductor from the FTF plot.
Equation 5.7 was fitted to
the field measured JAF plot by regression analysis to obtain

values of the coefficients Q and M.
Equation 5.7 is a
nonlinear ecjuation, hence nonlinear regression needed to be

applied.
The SAS procedure NLIN (SAS, 1982) was used to fit
the nonlinear equation to the computed JAF field response
110
28.0 -,
I I1 1 1 1 '
10.0
0.001
Frequency (Hertz)
Figure 19:
data.
Frecjuency Transfer Function of West Conductor

The procedure NLIN is used to fit ecjuation 5.7 to the
field data of all 21 records of west, east, and central

conductors.
Procedure NLIN implements iterative methods that
attempt to find least squares estimates for the nonlinear
equations.
Parameter names and starting values, expressions
for the model, and expressions for derivatives of the model
Ill
with respect to the parameters need to be specified.
Based
on expectations, the specified ranges for the coefficients Q

and M were 0.4-1.0 and 0.1-0.4, respectively.
The NLIN
procedure first examined the starting value specifications

of the parameters in the specified search grid.
The NLIN
procedure then evaluated the residual sum of scjuares at each

combination of values to determine the best values to start
the iterative algorithm.
A modified Gauss-Newton iterative
method (SAS, 1982) was used, which involved regressing the

residuals on the partial derivatives of the model with
respect to the parameters until the iterations converged.
Some variation in data was expected, since the data were
measured in the field.
To find the best coefficient values, which in general
satisfied most of the records, a contour of lowest residual
sum of scjuares was plotted in the specified search grid.
Any combination of coefficients Q and M within the lowest
residual sum of squares contour is acceptable.
A typical
contour plot for west conductor response for record NOl is

shown in Figure 20.
Combining all plots of three conductors
(west, east, and central), there are 63 contour plots of

residual sum of scjuares.
The sixty three contour plots show
some degree of dispersion of lowest residual sum of scjuare

contours over the search grid.
The contour plots were
112
e
(J
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Coefficient, M
Figure 20:
West Conductor JAF Coefficients Contour Plot for

Record N15
113
overlapped to find the best values of the coefficients Q and
M, which were 0.45 and 0.2, respectively.
These values are
significantly lower than the values of 1.0 and 0.81 used in

tihe Davenport model (equation 2.24).
For better
visualization the JAF with Davenport model values and

refined values are plotted on the same graph as shown in
Figure 21.
The low value of coefficient M obtained from the field
data may be because of a low value of coherence exponent, c,
due to the
long span of the conductors.
Also, when
-=- >> 1, the joint acceptance function is independent of

^s
the mode shape and is proportional to the ratio of the
correlation length to the conductor span.
These comments
are based on the results of wind tunnel experiments

conducted on a rod (Blevins, 1977).
The expression for background response of the
conductor, ecjuation 2.24, with the new coefficients is
^2 2
0.45
B^ = P Ol E^ 1 + 0.2(-^)
^s
(5.9)
The parameters in ecjuation 5.9 are defined below equation

2.24.
The background response calculated using the refined
analytical model for all 21 records of west, east, and

central conductors are tabulated in Tables 16 through 18.
114
o
1 - Davenport Model
2 - Refined Model
CM
O
O
o
CJ
o
c
o
LT)
oo
in
o
CJ
<
c
'o
o
o
o
-r
0.001
1II
0.0]
-I
1Irill
-I
1II I I
0.
"T
1.0
1II I I I
10.c
Reduced Frequency - fLA^
Figure 21:
Joint Acceptance Function Plot
These tables also show the ratios of the refined analytical

model values to the field measured values and the ratios of
the analytical model values to the field measured values.
In general, these nondimensional ratios show a comparison
between the analytical model and the field response values.
For better visualization the field measured values versus
115
the refined analytical model values are plotted in Figure
22.
The refined analytical model gave slightly better
predicted than the analytical model when Figures 22 and 17

are compared.
In Tables 16 through 18, means and
coefficient of variations (COV) of the ensemble of the

ratios are shown.
In each table, the mean of the ratio is
closer to 1 for the refined analytical model.

COV for each conductor did not change.
However, the
This improvement in
mean value of the ensemble and insignificant change in COV

value are due to inherent scatter in the field data.
Resonant Response
As noted earlier the analytical model overestimates the
resonant response.
One of the reasons may be the use of low
damping ratio values as determined by ecjuation 2.26.
Here
field measured resonant response data are used to estimate

damping ratios for the conductors.
Determining the Aerodynamic Damping
Ratio
As noted in Chapter II, three types of damping are
noted for conductor response, namely, material, structural,
and aerodynamic damping.
For conductors aerodynamic damping
is very much higher than material or structural damping.

Therefore, both material and structural dampings are
116
TABLE 16
Background Response of West Conductor
Record
Number
Mean
Scjuare
rH CM CO
O O O
Ratio
(1)*
0.239
0.037
0.062
1.695
0.280
2.214
1.426
0.288
1.857
Ratio
(2)*
N05
NO 6
NO 7
0.017
0.039
0.790
0.003
0.028
0.609
0.006
0.051
0.170
2.000
1.821
0.279
1.667
1.536
0.235
0.582
0.009
0.270
0.447
0.007
0.199
0.432
0.017
0.191
0.966
2.429
0.960
0.817
2.000
0.809
Nil
N12
N13
0.366
0.165
0.441
0.269
0.151
0.300
0.304
0.039
,0.257
1.130
0.258
0.857
0.952
0.219
0.723
N14
Reference Zero Wind Speed Rec ord
N15
N16
N17
0.098
0.013
0.377
0.077
0.011
0.309
0.082
0.006
0.180
1.065
0.546
0.583
0.896
0.455
0.492
0.606
0.273
0.014
0.486
0.236
0.005
0.220
0.148
0.003
0.453
0.627
0.600
0.383
0.530
0.400
0.258
0.361
0.250
0.190
0.243
0.194
0.090
0.179
0.210
0.474
0.739
1.083
0.400
0.621
0.912
1.003
65.5%
0.839
65.3%
to M M
O VD 00
Zero Wind Record
222
N04
MOO
O vD 00
0.141
0.132
0.028
Refined
Model
222
22 2
0.211
0.184
0.043
Field
Measured
2 2 2
rH CM CO
CM CM CM
mean value
coefficient of variation
(1)* ratio of refined model value to the measured value

(2)* ratio of analytical model value to the measured value
117
TABLE 17
Background Response of East Conductor
Record
Number
Mean
Scjuare
Field
Measured
Refined
Model
Ratio
0.215
0.043
0.060
1.870
0.336
2.609
1.574
0.289
2.174
(D*
Ratio
(2)*
NOl
N02
N03
0.168
0.162
0.037
N04
Zero Wind Record
N05
NO 6
NO 7
0.009
0.033
0.677
0.002
0.021
0.541
0.005
0.022
0.168
2.500
1.048
0.311
2.000
1.952
0.261
N08
N09
NIC
0.572
0.013
0.207
0.450
0.009
0.157
0.382
0.018
0.184
0.849
2.000
1.172
0.716
1.667
0.987
Nil
N12
N13
0.310
0.165
0.348
0.231
0.153
0.248
0.291
0.043
0.231
1.260
0.281
0.932
1.061
0.242
0.786
N14
N15
N16
N17
0.078
0.020
0.321
0.059
0.017
0.268
0.073
0.008
0.157
1.237
0.471
0.586
1.051
0.412
0.496
N18
N19
N20
0.512
0.205
0.008
0.420
0.178
0.002
0.184
0.131
0.003
0.438
0.736
1.500
0.369
0.618
1.000
N21
N22
N23
0.193
0.276
0.187
0.147
0.199
0.153
0.079
0.158
0.178
0.537
0.794
1.163
0.449
0.668
0.980
1.078
63.8%
0.940
64.3%
0.115
0.128
0.023
mean value

118
TABLE 18
Background Response of Central Conductor
Record
Number
Mean
Scjuare
NOl
N02
N03
0.284
0.183
0.040
N04
Zero Wind Record
NO 5
NO 6
NO 7
0.011
0.047
1.004
NOB
N09
NIO
Field
Measured
Refined
Model
Ratio
0.256
0.042
0.064
1.463
0.356
2.462
1.206
0.294
2.039
0.004
0.036
0.714
0.006
0.052
0.178
1.500
1.444
0.249
1.250
1.194
0.206
0.618
0.020
0.287
0.467
0.009
0.206
0.472
0.018
0.197
1.011
2.000
0.956
0.837
1.667
0.791
Nil
N12
N13
0.432
0.148
0.471
0.294
0.136
0.308
0.325
0.042
0.269
1.105
0.309
0.873
0.915
0.257
0.721
N14
N15
N16
N17
0.117
0.014
0.443
0.094
0.012
0.365
0.083
0.008
0.176
0.883
0.667
0.482
0.734
0.500
0.400
N18
N19
N20
0.638
0.300
0.019
0.524
0.261
0.005
0.238
0.155
0.003
0.454
0.594
0.600
0.376
0.490
0.400
N21
N22
N23
0.320
0.420
0.269
0.236
0.271
0.210
0.095
0.188
0.211
0.403
0.694
1.005
0.331
0.572
0.833
0.929
62.0%
0.763
63.4%
0.175
0.119
0.026
mean value
(D*
Ratio
(2)*

119
0.8
"
D
West Cond.
East Cond.
Central Cond
0.6_3
>
0.4s
c
0.2-
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.

Figure 22:
Refined Model Background Response Versus Field

Measured Values
neglected in this study, and the computed total damping is

assumed to be aerodynamic damping.
The response of the conductor at its natural frequency
of vibration is a function of excitation force and damping.
120
The magnification factor method is used here to estimate the
aerodynamic damping ratio.
For a single degree of freedom
system subjected to wind turbulence, the resonant peak is

amplified at a fundamental frecjuency of the conductor.
The
height of this peak is controlled by the damping for the

conductor.
The frecjuency transfer function (Figure 19) described
in the previous section is used to establish damping.
noted earlier, the
As
FTF is a combination of aerodynamic
admittance function and the mechanical admittance function.

The mechanical admittance function amplifies the response at
the natural frecjuency of vibration of the conductor.
The
expression for the mechanical admittance function is defined

in ecjuation 2.13.
At the fundamental frecjuency of the
conductor, the ecjuation for the mechanical admittance

function simplifies as follows:
|H(f^)|^ = - V
(^-^^^
4 C
where C
f
= aerodynamic damping ratio, and

= fundamental frecjuency of conductor.
The damping ratios of the conductors are determined

using the heights of the resonant peaks in the FTF plots.
As noted in Chapter III, the conductor spans on two sides of
Tower 16/4 are different.
The natural frecjuencies of
121
vibration of the conductors are 0.12 Hz and 0.22 Hz,
corresponding to spans of 450 m and 252 m, respectively.
The aerodynamic damping ratios estimated to be related to
these two natural frecjuencies of the west, east, and central
conductors from the FFT are tabulated in Table 19.
Conductor aerodynamic damping ratios for east wind records
(N05, N09 and N20) are not calculated because the peaks in
the FTF plots for these records are highly erratic.
The
east wind records give poor results for the FTF because of
low turbulence intensities in tihe records.
The estimated
aerodynamic damping ratios in Table 19 vary between 18 and

91%.
This large scatter in establishing damping ratios is
expected because computational technicjues used to obtain the

spectra cause large fluctuations in FTF.
In addition only
two specific peak values, closest to the frecjuencies of 0.12

and 0.22 Hz, are used in each FTF plot.
The peak values in
the FTF plots are not expected to be highly accurate.
Most
of the estimated damping values in Table 19 fall between 30%

and 60%.
The aerodynamic damping values predicted by ecjuation
2.26 are between 5% and 11% based on the mean winds recorded
in the field.
These values used in the analytical model are
significantly smaller than the ones estimated from the field

data.
In recognition of this discrepancy, a conservative
122
TABLE 19
Estimated Aerodynamic Damping Ratios in Percentages
Record
Number
NOl
N02
N03
N04
N05
NO 6
NO 7
West
Conductor
(1)*
(2)*
45
66
43
43
66
91
East
Conductor
(1)*
(2)*
43
32
38
41
34
67
Central
Conductor
(1)*
(2)*
46
27
62
44
34
66
Zero Wind Record

_
50
18
30
33
41
18
32
33
65
47
37
22
52
35
50
35
55
35
NOB
N09
NIO
34
38
27
45
30
41
Nil
N12
N13
32
50
39
58
52
67
32
22
44
58
54
60
38
28
47
50
50
63
N14
N15
N16
N17
50
88
47
41
75
69
45
29
44
40
28
75
50
50
54
37
50
52
N18
N19
N20
33
42
35
46
30
45
41
42
37
54
51
42
N21
N22
N23
45
58
58
29
33
29
45
60
60
29
32
34
41
56
67
(1)* corresponding to resonant peak at 0.12 Hz

(2)* corresponding to resonant peak at 0.22 Hz
27
33
56
123
ensemble average value of 40% aerodynamic damping ratio is
suggested for conductors.
Resonant responses are calculated
with this suggested aerodynamic damping for comparison

purposes.
Resonant Response with Suggested Damping Ratio
Resonant response values for all three (west, east, and
central) conductors are calculated using an aerodynamic
damping ratio of 40% in the analytical model.
are tabulated in Tables 20 through 22.
The values
The tables also show
the field measured resonant response and the total mean

scjuare value for each record.
In addition, ratios of resonant responses obtained from
the analytical model with 40% damping to field measured
values and from the analytical model with damping from
ecjuation 2.26 to field measured values are shown in the
tables.
Use of 40% damping improves the prediction of
resonant response significantly.
Mean values of the ratios
for 40% damping are close to unity.
The COV of the ratios
in the tables are not effected significantly, though this is

misleading.
The mean values of the ratios of responses from
the analytical model with damping from ecjuation 2.26 are a

little more than 4; hence associated COV values of 45%
reflect a large variation.
124
TABLE 20
West Conductor Resonant Response With 40% Damping
Record
Number
NOl
N02
N03
NO 4
Mean
Scjuare
0.211
0.184
0.043
Field
Analytical
Measured
Model
0.033
0.024
0.009
0.053
0.008
0.009
Ratio
(1)*
Ratio
(2)*
1.606
0.333
1.000
7.697
1.792
6.222
0.008
0.051
1.333
0.586
8.000
2.333
8.807
Zero Wind Record
NO 5
N06
NO 7
0.017
0.039
0.790
0.008
0.006
0.087
NOB
N09
NIO
0.582
0.009
0.270
0.057
0.001
0.037
0.119
2.088
0.041
1.108
5.405
Nil
N12
N13
0.366
0.165
0.441
0.043
0.010
0.077
0.081
0.006
0.064
1.884
0.600
0.831
8.093
3.400
3.740
N14
Reference Zero Wind Speed Reco rd
N15
N16
N17
0.098
0.013
0.377
0.015
0.002
0.041
0.014
0.001
0.039
0.933
0.500
0.950
5.133
2.000
4.683
N18
N19
N20
0.606
0.273
0.014
0.066
0.024
0.002
0.062
0.025
0.939
1.042
3.924
5.833
N21
N22
N23
0.258
0.361
0.250
0.042
0.060
0.036
0.019
0.042
0.033
0.452
0.700
0.917
2.262
3.233
5.389
0.989
48.5%
4.886
45.8%
mean value
(1)* ratio of analytical model values with 40%

damping ratio to the field measured values
(2)* ratio of analytical model values with damping ratio
from ecjuation 2.26 to the field measured values
125
TABLE 21
East Conductor Resonant Response With 40% Damping
Record
Number
NOl
N02
N03
N04
Mean
Scjuare
0.168
0.162
0.037
Field
Analytical
Measured
Model
0.034
0.024
0.011
Ratio
(1)*
Ratio
(2)*
0.047
0.008
0.009
1.382
0.333
0.818
0.008
0.050
1.333
0.625
7.500
2.500
7.262
6.735
1.750
4.909
Zero Wind Record
N05
NO 6
N07
0.009
0.033
0.677
0.002
0.006
0.080
NOB
N09
NIC
0.572
0.013
0.207
0.061
0.001
0.034
0.105
1.721
0.039
1.147
5.676
Nil
N12
N13
0.310
0.165
0.348
0.047
0.011
0.062
0.078
0.006
0.057
1.660
0.550
0.919
7.085
3.455
4.177
N14
N15
N16
N17
0.078
0.020
0.321
0.016
0.003
0.041
0.012
0.001
0.035
0.750
0.333
0.854
4.313.
1.667
4.073
N18
N19
N20
0.512
0.205
0.008
0.067
0.023
0.002
0.052
0.022
0.776
0.957
3.224
5.391
N21
N22
N23
0.193
0.276
0.187
0.036
0.055
0.027
0.017
0.036
0.027
mean value
0.472
0.665
1.000
2.278
3.109
6.074
0.905
45.4%
4.510
42.6%

from ecjuation 2.26 to the field measured values
126
TABLE 22
Central Conductor Resonant Response With 40% Damping
Record
Number
Mean
Scjuare
0.038
0.021
0.008
Ratio
(D*
Ratio
(2)*
0.045
0.006
0.008
1.184
0.286
1.000
5.447
1.476
5.500
0.007
0.043
1.000
0.506
5.286
1.906
Zero Wind Record
N05
NO 6
NO 7
0.011
0.047
1.004
0.005
0.007
0.085
0.618
0.020
0.287
0.046
0.010
0.035
0.105
2.283
9.065
0.034
0.971
4.514
Nil
N12
N13
0.432
0.148
0.471
0.038
0,009
0.065
0.070
0.005
0.054
1.842
0.556
0.831
7.447
3.111
3.508
N14
Reference Zero Wind Speed Rec ord
N15
N16
N17
0.117
0.014
0.443
0.016
0.001
0.038
0.011
0.001
0.032
0.688
1.000
0.842
3.750
4.000
3.737
0.638
0.300
0.019
0.054
0.024
0.013
0.054
0.020
1.000
0.833
3.926
4.625
0.320
0.420
0.269
0.049
0.061
0.032
0.017
0.035
0.026
0.347
0.574
0.813
1.551
2.541
4.625
0.920
53.0%
4.223
45.8%
22 2
to M M
O VD 00
MOO
O vD 00
N04
22 2
rH CM CO
O O O
22 2
0.284
0.183
0.040
Field
Analytical
Measured
Model
rH CM CO
CM CM CM
2 2 2
mean value

from equation 2.26 to the field measured values
127
For better visualization, a plot of the resonant
response predicted by the analytical model with 40% damping
versus the field measured resonant values is shown in Figure
23.
This figure, when compared with Figure 18, shows that
the analytical model predicted better resonant values with

40% aerodynamic damping ratio.
Figure 23 also illustrates
the inherent scatter in the field data.

Peak Factors
Another important component of the analytical model for
fluctuating response is the peak factor, g.
It is used to
predict the peak response value that can occur in a time

segment.
The peak factor is defined as the number of root
mean scjuare values by which the peak value exceeds the mean
value.
The peak factor for field measured response data is
calculated using the ecjuation
g =
(5.11)
JLJL_R
^R
where ft = peak response value,
R = mean response value, and
<Tp = root mean scjuare of response.
The peak factor values vary depending on the averaging
time interval; the smaller the peak averaging time interval
the higher the peak factor value.
The peak factors from the
128
0.12
West Cond.
East Cond.
Central Cond
0.09u
3
a
>
"8
:z
0.06-
"a
u
c
c
<
0.03-
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.12

Figure 23:
Analytical Model Resonant Response With 40%

Damping Versus Field Measured Values
field data for response of the three conductors (west, east,

and central) are calculated and tabulated in Table 23.
The values computed are based on 0.1 and 1 second time
averaged peak values.
As expected, peak factors calculated
129
TABLE 23
Peak Factors for Conductor Response
Record
Number
NOl
N02
N03
NO 4
West
Conductor
5.62*
3.97
4.54
4.00**
3.03
3.94
East
Conductor
Central
Conductor
6.60
3.99
5.12
4.54
3.16
4.32
6.91
5.37
5.53
3.26
2.69
4.54
Zero Wind Record
N05
NO 6
NO 7
4.77
4.07
5.14
2.07
3.30
3.20
4.18
4.02
3.74
2.31
3.00
3.12
3.71
4.75
6.40
2.80
4.28
3.04
NOB
N09
NIC
3.48
3.28
4.29
2.74
2.88
3.34
3.42
3.30
4.33
2.72
2.73
3.38
3.59
3.52
4.32
2.52
3.07
3.43
Nil
N12
N13
6.67
3.76
5.45
4.52
3.60
4.20
6.78
3.37
7.09
5.11
3.15
4.69
6.06
3.95
4.45
4.02
3.58
3.36
N14
N15
N16
N17
4.15
3.88
5.68
3.75
3.69
4.61
4.65
3.69
5.71
3.85
3.34
4.90
4.76
4.12
4.67
3.81
3.68
3.86
NIB
N19
N20
3.89
4.01
3.75
3.18
3.52
2.01
4.19
4.63
4.37
3.05
3.88
2.15
3.94
4.41
4.02
3.13
3.51
3.04
N21
N22
N23
4.02
5.62
3.32
3.29
4.43
2.42
4.83
5.99
3.16
3.85
5.01
2.51
4.01
4.10
4.09
3.27
3.34
2.47
* based on 0.1 second peak values (instant peaks)

** based on 1 second average peak values
130
for 0.1 second peaks are higher than those calculated for 1
second time average.
The peak factors for 0.1 second time
averages range between 3.16 and 6.78, and for 1 second time
averages they range between 2.01 and 5.11.
The suggested
range for peak factors in the analytical model is 3.5 to 4.0

(Davenport, 1980).
Many records show that the peak factors
measured in the field are higher than 4.0.
This is not
surprising in view of the fact that wind speed fluctuations

tend to be Gaussian, while the response fluctuations
associated with flow separation are often highly
intermittent, thus giving rise to large peak factors.
The
peak factors vary from record to record and their

distribution functions are recjuired in order to establish
peak values with a specified probability of being exceeded.
Peak factors as function of the probability distribution of
upcrossings, or ecjuivalently, a specified number of
occurrences in a given interval of time, are obtained from
the field data.
Probabilistic Peak Factors from

Field Data
For a stationary Gaussian process the cumulative
probability distribution in terms of upcrossings can be
stated as (refer to ecjuation 2.21).
131
2
P(>x) = exp - { - ^ 1
(5.12)
2 G^
X
where
P(>x) = probability of upcrossing.

X
- threshold level specified (=gCT ), and
CT
- root mean scjuare.
The Rayleigh distribution function in ecjuation 5.12 can

be expressed in Weibull distribution form as
k
P(>x) = exp -(-2.)
where
and
g
c, k
(5.13)
X
/
= constants.
Ecjuation 5 . 1 3 can be expanded a s

I n ( - I n P(>x)
) = k ln(g) - k ln(c).
(5.14)
A graph of P(>x) versus x on an appropriate log scale

will yield k as the slope of the straight line and c as the
zero intercept.
Upcrossing rates were calculated for different
threshold values (multiples of RMS) of response of all three
conductors for each record.
The field data used were the
0.1 second time interval responses.
A linear regression
line was fitted for each record to assess trends with
132
respect to wind speed, wind direction, and turbulence
intensity.
The conductor response data did not indicate any
specific trend for wind speed, wind direction or turbulence

intensity (terrain roughness).
The upcrossing rates for
eighteen west wind records are plotted on the same graph, as

shown in Figure 24.
Even though values have scatter, there
is a specific trend.
A linear regression line is fitted to
the ensemble of data, as shown in Figure 24.

line has a correlation coefficient of 0.93.
The regression
This
correlation coefficient lends credence to the use of data as

an ensemble.
Values for k and c in ecjuation 5.14 are 0.580
and 0.136, respectively.

For the Rayleigh distribution, values of k and c are 2
and 1.414, respectively.
A line representing a Rayleigh
distribution is shown in Figure 24.
The regression line
fitted to the field data is quite different from the

Rayleigh distribution line, indicating that the conductor
response data has a non-Gaussian distribution.
It is
observed in Figure 24, that a Rayleigh distribution

underestimates upcrossing rate as compared to the field
data.
The upcrossing rate plot can be used to determine the
peak factor for a desirable probability of upcrossings.
The
peak factors obtained from the plot are based on 0.1 second
peak values.
133
0.000000001 T
0.000005
o
JO
0.0006
CO
CO
9
D
"o
!
0.0111 r
(0
0.066"
0.2
0.4
1.7
Figure 24:
2.7
Peak Factor, g
4.5
Cumulative P r o b a b i l i t y D i s t r i b u t i o n of
U p c r o s s i n g s f o r Conductor Response
7.4
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study was to compare and refine the

analytical model to predict dynamic responses of electrical
transmission line conductors to extreme winds using field
data.
Wind and conductor response field data were obtained
from a full-scale field experiment.
The field data were
collected by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) from

an instrumented single circuit 500 kV lattice tower on the
John Day-Grizzly line 2, which is located at the Moro site
in northern Oregon.
The conductor spans 252 m and 450 m on
two sides of the instrumented tower.
A total of
twenty-three twelve-minute duration records were utilized in

thi s study.
Based on the analysis of field data and the refinement
of the analytical model originally developed by Davenport
(1980), the following conclusions are made:
(1)
The field measured wind and conductor response data

were found to be valid.
The mean -responses of three
conductors were within 10% of each other for all

records.
Fluctuating responses of the conductors
showed a significant amount of scatter.

134
135
(2)
Winds traversing over the valley showed a wide

variation in profile and turbulence.
Winds coming from
similar terrains of valleys and hills have a power-law

exponent range from 0.11 to 0.18 and a turbulence
intensity range from 0.11 to 0.21.
(3)
The wind spectra showed 99% of spectral energy in the

frecjuency range below 1 Hz.
The amplitude constant A
for Kaimal's gust spectrum was found to be within the

suggested range of 0.15 to 0.60; however, the exponent
constant n from the field data was much higher than the
suggested range of 0.33 to 0.67.
(4)
The field measured effective conductor force

coefficient was found to vary between 0.48 and 0.75.
(5)
Noticeable resonant peaks occurred in the frecjuency

range from 0.1 to 0.4 Hz. in the conductor response
spectra.
Two of these peaks close to 0.12 and 0.22 Hz
were identified as corresponding to natural transverse

frecjuencies of the conductors associated with the two
unecjual spans.
The resonant response energy level was
found to be low, less than 15% of the total energy in

most records.
(6)
The majority of the records showed that the field

measured background turbulence response of the
conductors accounted for 75% of the fluctuating
response.
136
(7)
The analytical model for background response was

refined by determining the joint acceptance function
(JAF) coefficients from the field measured data.
The
best values for the coefficients (ecjuation 5.7) are

judged to be Q=0.45 and M=0.20.
(8)
Damping of the conductors, found from the field

measured data, was much higher than the theoretical
aerodynamic damping ratio.
A damping value of 40% is
suggested for the conductors.

(9)
The refinement of JAF coefficients and use of

aerodynamic damping factor of 40% in the analytical
model gave a significant improvement in prediction of
background and resonant responses when results were
compared with the field measured data.
However, ratios
of refined analytical model values to field measured

values showed a large scatter.
(10)
Many records showed response peak factors (for 0.1

second response) to be higher than the range of 3.5-4.0
suggested in the analytical model.
The upcrossing rate
principle was used to determine the peak factors on a

probabilistic basis.
The Weibull distribution
satisfactorily describes the probability distribution

of the upcrossings rate.
137
It is recommended that additional field data be
obtained, particularly at reasonably predictable sites, to
further verify and refine the analytical model. The
computational procedures presented here are general and are
applicable to additional field data.
REFERENCES
ANSI, 1982: "Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other
Structures, ANSI 58.1-1982," American National
Standards Institute, Inc., ANSI, New York, NY.
ASCE, 1984: "Guidelines for Transmission Line Structural
Loading," American Society of Civil Engineers, New
York, NY.
Bendat, J.S., and Piersol, A.G., 1966: "Measurements and
Analysis of Random Data," John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York, NY.
Bendat, J.S., and Piersol, A.G., 1980: "Engineering
Applications of Correlation and Spectral Analysis,"
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Blevins, R.D., 1977: "Flow-Induced Vibration," Von Nostrand
Reinhold Company, New York, NY.
Brunt,. S.D., 1952: "Physical and Dynamical Meteorology,"
Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, England.
Chatfield, C , 1975: "The Analysis of Time Series: Theory
and Practice," Chapman and Hall, London.
Criswell, M.E., and Vanderbilt, M.D., 1987:
"Reliability-Based Design of Transmission Line
Structures: Final Report," EPRI EL-4793, Project
1352-2, Vol. I, EPRI, Palo Alto, California, March.
Davenport, A.G., 1960: "Wind Loads on Structures,"
Technical paper No. 88 of the Division of Building
Research, National Research Council of Canada, March.
Davenport, A.G., 1961: "The Application of Statistical
Concepts to the Wind Loading of Structures,"
Proceedings of Institute of Civil Engineers, Vol. 19,
pp. 449-471, August.
Davenport, A.G., 1967: "Gust Loading Factors," Journal of
the Structural Division, Vol. 93, ST3, ASCE, New York,
NY, pp. 11-34, June.
138
139
Davenport, A.G., 1972: "Approaches to the Design of Tall
Buildings Against Wind," Theme Report, Proceedings of
the ASCE-IABSE International Conference on Planning and
Design of Tall Buildings, Lehigh University, pp. 1-22,
August.
Davenport, A.G., 1977: "The Prediction of the Response of
Structures to Gusty Wind," Proceedings of International
Research Seminar, Safety of Structures Under Dynamic
Loading, Vol. I, Norwegian Institute of Technology,
Trondheim, Norway, pp. 257-284, June.
Davenport, A.G., 1980: "Gust Response Factors for
Transmission Line Loading." Wind Engineering, Proc. of
the Fifth International Conference on Wind Engineering,
J.E. Cermak, Ed. (Fort Collins, CO; July 1979),
Pergamon Press, New York, NY.
Ferraro, V., 1983: "Transverse Response of Transmission
Lines to Turbulent Winds." Masters Thesis, The
University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada,
July.
GAI Consultants, Inc., 1981: "Transmission Line Wind
Loading Research," EPRI Interim Report, RP 1277, EPRI,
Palo Alto, California, April.
Ghiocel, D., and Lungu, D., 1975: "Wind Snow and
Temperature Effects on Structures based on
Probability," Abacus Press, Kent, England.
Gould, P.L., and Abu-Sitta, S.H., 1980: "Dynamic Response
of Structures to Wind and Earthcjuake Loading, " John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
IMSL, 1982: International Mathematical and Statistical
Libraries, Inc., Vol. 2.
Jan, Con-Lin, 1982: "Analysis of Data for the Response of
Full-Scale Transmission Tower Systems Real Winds,"
Masters thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas,
December.
Jenkins, G.M, and Watts, D.G., 1968: "Spectral Analysis and
its Applications," Holden-Day, San Fransisco,
California.
Kaimal, J . C , 1978: "Horizontal Velocity Spectra in an
Unstable Surface Layer," Journal of the Atmospheric
Sciences, Vol. 35, pp. 18-24.
140
Kancharla, V.S., 1987: "Analysis of Wind Characteristics
from Field Wind Data," Masters thesis, Texas Tech
University, Lubbock, Texas, May.
Kempner, L., Jr., 1979: "Wind Loading on a Latticed
Transmission Tower," Report No. ETKA-79-1, Bonneville
Power Administration, U.S. Dept. of Energy, November.
Kempner, L., Jr., and Laursen, H.I., 1977: "Response of a
Latticed Transmission Tower," Report No. ETB-77-1,
Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Dept. of Energy,
November.
Kempner, L., Jr., and Laursen, H.I., 1981: "Measured
Dynamic Response of a Latticed Transmission Tower and
Conductors to Wind Loading," Report No. ME-81-2,
July.
Kempner, L., Jr., and Thorkildson, R.M., 1982: "Moro Test
Site Wind Parameter Study." Report No. ME-82-3,
December.
Kempner, L., Jr., Volpe, H.W., and Thorkildson, R.M., 1985:
"Wind Loading Research on Transmission Line,"
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on
Wind Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock,
Texas, November.
Kim, Soo-Il, 1977: "Wind Loads on Flat Roof Area Through
Full-Scale Experiment," Doctoral Dissertation, Texas
Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.
Lawson, T.V., 1980: "Wind Effects on Buildings: Vol. 1,
Design Applications," Applied Science Publishers, Ltd.,
London, England.
Levitan, M., 1987: Unpublished Data, Civil Engineering
Department, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.
Mehta, K.C., Norville, H.S., and Kempner, L., Jr., 1986:
"Electric Transmission Structure Response to Wind,"
Proc. International Symposium on Probabilistic Methods
Applied to Electric Power Systems, Samy Krishnasamy,
Ed., (Ontario Hydro, Toronto, Canada; July 1986),
Pergamon Press, New York, NY.
141
Melbourne, W.H., 1975: "Peak Factors for Structures
Oscillating Under Wind Action." P r o c , Fourth
International Conference on Wind Effects on Buildings
and Structures, Cambridge University Press, London,
England.
Miller, I., and Freund, J.E., 1977: "Probability and
Statistics for Engineers," Second ed., Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
NESC, 1984: "National Electric Safety Code," ANSI C2,
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
Inc., Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY.
Nigam, N.C., 1983: "Introduction to Random Vibrations," The
MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England.
Norville, H. S., K.C. Mehta, andA.F. Farwagi, 1985: "500
kV Transmission Tower/Conductor Wind Response: phase
I," Institute for Disaster Research, Texas Tech
University, Lubbock, Texas, May.
NRCC, 1980: "National Building Code of Canada," NRCC No.
17724, Associate Committee on the National Building
Code, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa,
Canada.
Potter, J.L., and Boylan, D.E. 1981: "Aerodynamic Force
Coefficients for the Prediction of Wind Loads on
Electrical Transmission Lines," Sverdrup Corporation,
Report submitted to EPRI, Palo Alto, California.
Pries, R.A., 1981: "Moro 1200 kV Structural/Mechanical Test
Program," Report No. ME-81-1, Bonneville Power
Administration, U.S. Dept. of Energy, March.
Racicot, R.L., 1969: "Random Vibration Analysis-Application
to Wind Loaded Structures," Report No. 30, School of
Engineering, Case Western Reserve University,
Cleveland, Ohio, February.
Rice, S.O., 1945: "Mathematical Analysis of Random Noise,"
Bell System Technical Journal, Vol. 24, pp. 46-156.
Sachs, P., 1978: "Wind Forces in Engineering," Second
Edition, Pergamon Press, New York.
Simiu, E., and Scanlan, R.H., 1985: "Wind Effects on
Structures: An Introduction to Wind Engineering," John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
142
Statistical Analysis System (SAS), 1985: "SAS User Guide:
Statistics," SAS Institute, Inc., Gary, North Carolina.
Symon, R.K., 1961: "Mechanics," Second Ed., Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co., Inc., Reading, MA, May.
Twu, S.R., 1983: "Gust Response Factor for Transmission
Line Structures," Masters Thesis, Texas Tech
University, Lubbock, Texas, August.

Response of Electrical Transmission Line Conductors

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Response of Electrical Transmission Line Conductors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RESPONSE OF ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE CONDUCTORS

TO EXTREi^E WIND USING FIELD DATA

I am also grateful to Drs. Eric L.

Blair, H. Scott Norville, William Pennington Vann, and Y.C.

Support of these organizations is appreciated.

Also, I would like to express my

deep appreciation to the Chairman of the Civil Engineering

and the moral support during my stay away from home.

Contents of the Dissertation

IV. FIELD DATA ANALYSIS

Validity of Wind Data

V. COMPARISON AND REFINEMENT OF THE ANALYTICAL

Comparison of Analytically Predicted Mean

In most cases of transmission lines,

60-80% of wind loads coming to the support structures are

Thus, assessment of conductor

response due to extreme wind is an important part of the

These gusts cause fluctuating

dynamic responses of conductors.

Since the responses

fluctuate randomly, they need to be assessed in

The model can be verified using field data to

determine its effectiveness.

Administration (BPA) has conducted experimental studies in

During 1981-1982 BPA

collected 23 separate 12-minute duration records that

The conductor response records include load cell.

transverse swing angle, and longitudinal swing angle

The conductor response in

terms of peak responses, effective force coefficients, peak

spectra are further analyzed to obtain contributions of

The significant improvement includes determination of

peak factors from upcrossing rates, refinement in the

2. Typical Values for Turbulence Intensity and

3. Field Data Records During 1981-1982

4. File Description of Mode 22

5. Mean Azimuth and RMS in Degrees of Wind

6. Mean Wind Speed in mps

7. Power-Law Exponent and Kaimal's Gust Spectrum

9. Mean and RMS Values of Conductor Response

11. West Conductor Response Spectrum Data Analysis

12. East Conductor Response Spectrum Data Analysis

13. Central Conductor Response Spectrum Data Analysis

14. Fixed and Assumed Parameters Used in the

15. Variable Parameters Used in the Analytical Model

16. Background Response of West Conductor

17. Background Response of East Conductor

18. Background Response of Central Conductor

19. Estimated Aerodynamic Damping Ratios in

20. West Conductor Resonant Response With 40% Damping

21. East Conductor Resonant Response With 40% Damping

22. Central Conductor Resonant Response With 40%

2. Fluctuations of Conductor Response

3. Conductor Force Coefficients Based on Wind Tunnel

4. Elements of Response Spectrum Analysis

5. Example of a Random Variable Showing Upcrossings

Extended Range (Davenport, 1972)

7. Topography of Site and Orientation of Power Lines

8. Schematic of Tower 16/4

9. Elevation Along the Test Line (Vertical Scale

17. Analytical Model Background Response Versus Field

18. Analytical Model Resonant Response Versus Field

19. Frequency Transfer Function of West Conductor

20. West Conductor JAF Coefficients Contour Plot for