Upload
louise-mason
View
212
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ANSI O5.1-2002 ANSI O5.1-2002 – – The Inside The Inside StoryStory
Nelson BingelNelson BingelChairman – Fiber Stress Chairman – Fiber Stress
SubcommitteeSubcommittee
88thth International Conference on Utility Line Structures International Conference on Utility Line StructuresMarch 29-31, 2004 Fort Collins, ColoradoMarch 29-31, 2004 Fort Collins, Colorado
Re-issue Every 5 YearsRe-issue Every 5 Years
1992
1997
1998
Re-issue Every 5 YearsRe-issue Every 5 Years
1992
1997
1998
Annex C
Re-issue Every 5 YearsRe-issue Every 5 Years
1992
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Size EffectSize EffectCalibrateCalibrate
Change: Pole Change: Pole DimensionsDimensions oror
Class LoadsClass Loads
Losing a Competitive AdvantageLosing a Competitive Advantage Perceived as under engineeredPerceived as under engineered
smallersmaller
LARGERLARGER
Implications of Changing Implications of Changing Pole CircumferencesPole Circumferences
Hardware and Standards ProblemsHardware and Standards Problems
How Differentiate Poles in the FieldHow Differentiate Poles in the Field
Some Customers Might Switch, Some Customers Might Switch, Some will Some will
notnot
Dual Inventory for ManufacturersDual Inventory for Manufacturers
Higher Costs for Wood PolesHigher Costs for Wood Poles
Reduction in Reliability for DistributionReduction in Reliability for Distribution
Size EffectSize EffectCalibrateCalibrate
Change: Pole Change: Pole DimensionsDimensions oror
Class LoadsClass Loads
Geometry EffectGeometry EffectReview FPL-39 Review FPL-39
DerivationDerivationCombine Test DataCombine Test Data
Derive New Fiber StressDerive New Fiber Stress
FPL-39 FPL-39 Test DataTest Data
LL
c c
Bending Load = LBending Load = Lc c xx D (ft- D (ft-lb)lb)DD
2 ft2 ft
Class 1 4,500 Class 1 4,500 lblbClass 2 3,700 Class 2 3,700 lblbClass 3 3,000 Class 3 3,000 lblbClass 4 2,400 Class 4 2,400 lblbClass 5 1,900 Class 5 1,900 lblb
ANSI O5.1 Class LoadsANSI O5.1 Class Loads
Compression (psi)Tension (psi)
FPL-39 FPL-39 AssumptionsAssumptions
Moisture 1.16
Strength Variation .93
Conditioning
Air 1.00
Boultonizing .90
Steam .85
AMORGL
Load Sharing
FPL-39 FPL-39 Final ResultsFinal Results
Near
5% Lower Exclusion Limit
Average Bending Strength
Three Pole Groups
FPL-39 FPL-39 AssumptionsAssumptions
Moisture 1.16
Strength Variation .93
Conditioning
Air 1.00
Boultonizing .90
Steam .85
AMORGL
Load Sharing
1.101.10TallerTaller
Small Clear Test Data
CombineCombine ASTM and EPRI Test Data ASTM and EPRI Test Data
Douglas Fir Poles
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85
Groundline Circumference (GC) (in)
MO
RG
L (
psi
) ANSI DatabaseANSI Database
All Full Scale TestsAll Full Scale Tests
Green, Untreated PolesGreen, Untreated Poles
MORBP = MORGLMORBP = MORGL
AMORGLAMORGL
Fiber Stress at BP Fiber Stress at BP
projected toprojected to
Fiber Stress at G\LFiber Stress at G\L
Broke at G/LBroke at G/L
Broke Above G/LBroke Above G/L
DDDD
LLL
MORBP (Fiber Stress)
Observed Fiber Stress @ GL
Projected Fiber Stress @ GL
Annex A EquationAnnex A Equation
H = Height Above G/LH = Height Above G/L
L = Total Length Above G/L L = Total Length Above G/L
HHMAXMAX = L / 2 = L / 2
FFHH = F = FG/LG/L ( 1- 0.5 * H/L) ( 1- 0.5 * H/L)
Annex A EquationAnnex A Equation
FFHH = F = FG/LG/L ( 1- 0.5 * H/L) ( 1- 0.5 * H/L)
FF3535 = 8000psi ( 1- 0.5 * 35/70) = 8000psi ( 1- 0.5 * 35/70)
80 ft Douglas fir; 35 ft above G/L
FF3535 = 6000psi = 6000psi
Annex A EquationAnnex A Equation
FFHH = F = FG/LG/L ( 1- 0.5 * H/L) ( 1- 0.5 * H/L)
6720 psi = F6720 psi = FG/LG/L ( 1- 0.5 * 20 / 70) ( 1- 0.5 * 20 / 70)
MORBP = 6720 psi @ 20 ftMORBP = 6720 psi @ 20 ft
FFG/LG/L = 7841 psi = 7841 psi
Class Oversize Adjustment Class Oversize Adjustment
1.07 to 1.1581.07 to 1.158
Conditioning Adjustment Conditioning Adjustment
Southern Pine Southern Pine .85 .85 (steam conditioning)(steam conditioning)
Douglas-fir Douglas-fir .90 .90 (Boultonizing)(Boultonizing)
Western Red Cedar 1.00Western Red Cedar 1.00 (air seasoning)(air seasoning)
Drying Factor for Taller Poles Drying Factor for Taller Poles
Poles 50 feet and TallerPoles 50 feet and TallerIncrease Test Data by 10%Increase Test Data by 10%
FPL-39 Increase All Poles 16%
Summary of DerivationSummary of Derivation
ClassClassOversizeOversize
AMORGLAMORGL
DryingDrying
TestTestDataData
MORBPMORBP
ConditioningConditioning
Results:Results:
No Change
in Fiber Stress Values
Is Warranted
Results:Results:
Distribution – No Change
Transmission – Maybe Higher Class
2002 ANSI O5.1 2002 ANSI O5.1
Standard Approved Because Standard Approved Because Generally ConservativeGenerally Conservative
Some Members Still UnclearSome Members Still Unclear
2002 ANSI O5.1 2002 ANSI O5.1
Design MethodologyDesign Methodology
To Use in the OfficeTo Use in the Office
Correlates With the Test DataCorrelates With the Test Data
SOUTHERN PINE COMPARISON OF ANSI CLASS LOAD, PREDICTED STRENGTH CONSIDERING THE HEIGHT EFFECT, AND THE ACTUAL BREAKING LOADS IN THE EPRI
TEST
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
50/2 65/3 65/2 75/2 65/1
POLE SIZE BY INCREASING 6 FOOT FROM THE BUTT DIAMETER
BR
EA
KIN
G L
OA
D W
ITH
LO
AD
AP
PL
IED
2 F
EE
T F
RO
M T
IP
CLASS LOAD
PREDICTED
EPRI DATA
SYP COMPARISON OF ANSI CLASS LOAD, ACTUAL EPRI BREAK TEST VALUES AND PREDICTED STRENGTH BASED ON ANSI TABLE 1 VALUES AND THE HEIGHT EFFECT
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
50/2 65/1 65/2 65/3 75/2
POLE SIZE BY INCREASING LENGTH
BR
EA
KIN
G L
OA
D 2
FE
ET
FR
OM
TIP
- L
BS
CLASS LOAD
PREDICTED
EPRI TEST DATA
DOUGLAS FIR COMPARISON OF CLASS LOAD, PREDICTED STRENGTH USING ANSI 2002 INCLUDING THE HEIGHT EFFECT, AND THE ACTUAL EPRI BREAKING LOADS WITH LOADS
APPLIED 2 FEET FROM THE TIP
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
65/3 65/2 50/1 65/1 75/1 50/H1 65/H1 75/H1 50/H2 65/H2 50/H3 65/H3 65/H4
POLE SIZE BY INCREASING POLE CLASS
BR
EA
KIN
G L
OA
D W
ITH
LO
AD
AP
PL
IED
2 F
EE
T F
RO
M T
IP
LB
S. CLASS LOAD
EXPECTED
EPRI TEST DATA
WESTERN RED CEDAR COMPARISON OF CLASS LOAD, PREDICTED STRENGTH USING ANSI TABLE 1 VALUES AND THE HEIGTH EFFECT, AND THE ACTUAL BREAK TEST DATA
FROM THE EPRI STUDY
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
50/H2 50/H1 50/1 60/H4 60/H3 60/H2 60/H1 60/1 60/2 60/3 70/H4 70/H2 70/H1 70/1
POLE CLASS AND LENGTH
BR
EA
KIN
G L
OA
D W
ITH
LO
AD
AP
PL
IED
2 F
EE
T F
RO
M T
HE
T
IP
CLASS LOAD
PREDICTED
EPRI TEST
2002 ANSI O5.1 2002 ANSI O5.1
Provides a Design MethodologyProvides a Design Methodology
To Use in the OfficeTo Use in the Office
That Correlates With the Test That Correlates With the Test DataData
2002 ANSI O5.1 2002 ANSI O5.1
Provides a Design MethodologyProvides a Design Methodology
To Use in the OfficeTo Use in the Office
That Correlates With the Test That Correlates With the Test DataData
ANSI O5.1-2002 ANSI O5.1-2002 – The Inside Story– The Inside Story
Nelson BingelNelson Bingel
Chairman – Fiber Stress SubcommitteeChairman – Fiber Stress Subcommittee
88thth International Conference on Utility Line Structures International Conference on Utility Line StructuresMarch 29-31, 2004 Fort Collins, ColoradoMarch 29-31, 2004 Fort Collins, Colorado