280 views

Uploaded by Scott Holmes

Document discusses the 2002 update to ANSI O5.1

- Submarine Cable Protection
- Wood Pole Overhead Lines
- ANSI O5 1.2008
- 0863413560-Woodpole Overhead Lines-2008 184
- fiber stress for wood poles
- powersystem protn
- 0114 Transmission Structure
- Transformers
- Testing of Power Transformers
- Transmission
- Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future
- The Library Book
- Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race
- Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It
- Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike
- The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life
- The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America
- Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
- The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer
- This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate

You are on page 1of 5

Nelson G. Bingel, III1

Abstract

The 2002 edition of ANSI O5.1, American National Standard for Wood ProductsSpecifications and Dimensions, was published after several years of test data

evaluation and debate. The effort was catalyzed by the fact that the designated fiber

stress values had been the same since the 1960s and yet a lot of subsequent, full-scale

testing had occurred. The fiber stress values needed to be re-evaluated based on

consideration of the additional test data.

A derivation of fiber stress values based on a combined data set of the ASTM

(distribution) and EPRI (transmission) full-scale pole tests resulted in some changes in

the standard. For the most part, distribution designs should remain the same while

some transmission designs may call for higher class poles.

This paper will provide an overview of the fiber stress derivation that was used to reevaluate the test data. The correlation will be shown between ANSI O5.1 2002

predicted pole strength and the test data.

Fiber Stress Derivation for ANSI O5.1-2002

Combining Test Data

This derivation started with the raw test data from all of the ASTM and EPRI pole tests

in the ANSI database. It did not review all of the assumptions and adjustments

explained in FPL 39 that were used to derive the existing designated fiber stress values

in the 1960s. Rather than determining how the newer EPRI data affects the fiber stress

values in FPL 39, this derivation began with the combined raw test data and made the

following assumptions and adjustments.

1. No adjustment for load sharing

2. No adjustment for variability

3. No test data from small clears

All data combined for this derivation was from full-scale tests of green, untreated poles.

For poles that broke at the groundline, the modulus of rupture at the break point

(MORBP) was equal to the modulus of rupture at the groundline (MORGL).

__________________

1

Accredited Standards Committee O5; 980 Ellicott St., Buffalo, NY 14209; 716-319-3249.

Email: nbingel@osmose.com

For poles that broke above groundline, the MORBP was calculated using the actual

circumference at the break point. Annex A of ANSI O5.1-1992 provides a formula that

should be used to reduce fiber stress values for locations in the pole above the

groundline. This formula was applied in reverse to project the actual MORBP to a

MORGL.

The observed groundline stress is another value that comes into play when a pole

breaks above the groundline during a test. This value is the fiber stress that was

occurring at the groundline when the pole broke at a location above ground.

For poles that break above the groundline, it is important to note the difference between

the theoretical projected fiber stress at the groundline and the observed groundline fiber

stress.

The formula in Annex A was originally developed to account for a reduction in fiber

stress at locations in the pole above ground. This was important for pole installations

where the maximum stress point is likely to occur above ground. Applying the formula

in Annex A in reverse to project a groundline stress from a known stress above ground

is not how the formula was intended to be applied. However, the formula provides a

rational method for estimating a true groundline MOR when only the true MOR at an

above ground failure location is known. Since the Table 1 values in the ANSI standard

are supposed to be true groundline MORs, and since the earlier data on distribution

poles closely represented a true groundline MOR, the transmission data had to be

reported on a similar basis in order for the data to be combined as measurements of the

same material property, the actual groundline MOR. The derivation applied the formula

in reverse in order to provide an estimate of actual groundline MOR, and if the resulting

pole capacity correlated well with the test data, then designers would have a method to

reliably project pole capacity.

The resulting projected fiber stress values at the groundline varied compared to the

observed groundline stress due to actual pole geometry. In some cases, the projected

values were higher than the observed and in other cases lower.

Class Oversize Adjustment

The class oversize is applied to the actual measured MOR calculated from the actual

dimensions. This is the true material property. The average pole is going to be one-half

of a class larger so the actual average strength will be midway between classes. Since

all designs are based on the minimum dimensions, the design fiber stress value is

multiplied by the oversize factor to account for the actual average oversize.

The adjustment factor is calculated by comparing the change in section modulus

between the minimum dimension for a pole and the dimension that is one half of a pole

class larger. The factor varies for species and between different classes. The factors

that adjusted the test values ranged from 1.07 to 1.158.

Conditioning Adjustment

The test poles were not conditioned for treatment. However, utilities use poles that are

conditioned and treated before going into service. Different conditioning methods affect

pole strength to different degrees. Therefore, the test data needed to be adjusted to

account for the effects of conditioning so that expected strength correlates with the test

data.

The following factors adjusted the test data to account for the effects of conditioning

during the treatment process.

Species

Southern Pine

Douglas-fir

Western Red Cedar

Conditioning

Steam Conditioning

Boultonizing

Air seasoning

Factor

.85

.90

1.0

For taller poles, the point of maximum stress is likely to be above the groundline. The

MOR will increase above groundline due to drying to equilibrium conditions as

compared to test results of green poles. The test data for poles taller than 50 feet was

increased by 10% to account for this drying effect.

This derivation was found to result in a design methodology that has a good correlation

with the test data (see examples in Figures 1-3). There is still some disagreement on

the committee about some aspects of the derivation. However, consensus agreement

was reached for the standard because the resulting designs are conservative in the vast

majority of pole sizes.

Using the guidelines in ANSI O5.1 - 2002, one simply needs to assume minimum

dimensions, apply the load tree and determine the point of maximum stress. If the

maximum stress point is at the groundline, the pole capacity is based on the Table 1

fiber stress and minimum pole dimensions. If the maximum stress point is above

ground, adjust the fiber stress per the height adjustment equation and use the minimum

dimension at that height.

These calculated pole capacities show a good correlation with the test data. Therefore,

a designer can calculate pole capacity safely and without pole actual dimensions.

One other result of this exercise was the confirmation that pole capacity on taller poles

changes depending on the height of the applied loads. An applied load two feet from

the tip of a taller pole will cause the maximum stress point to occur above groundline.

As the load point is applied at lower heights, the maximum stress point moves lower on

the pole. The fiber stress is greater and the circumference is larger at the lower points

on the pole so the ultimate pole capacity increases.

A Working Group has been formed within the Fiber Stress Subcommittee to determine if

there is strong evidence for changes that might result in less conservative or more

precise designs. The results of this work will be published in future documents.

CONSIDERING THE HEIGHT EFFECT, AND THE ACTUAL BREAKING LOADS IN THE EPRI

TEST

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

CLASS LOAD

2500

2000

PREDICTED

1500

EPRI DATA

1000

500

0

50/2

65/3

65/2

75/2

Figure 1

65/1

SYP COMPARISON OF ANSI CLASS LOAD, ACTUAL EPRI BREAK TEST VALUES AND

PREDICTED STRENGTH BASED ON ANSI TABLE 1 VALUES AND THE HEIGHT EFFECT

5000

4000

3500

3000

CLASS LOAD

2500

PREDICTED

2000

1500

1000

500

0

50/2

65/1

65/2

65/3

75/2

Figure 2

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

10000

BREAKING LOAD WITH LOAD APPLIED 2 FEET FROM TIP

LBS.

4500

9000

8000

7000

6000

CLASS LOAD

5000

EXPECTED

4000

EPRI TEST DATA

3000

2000

1000

0

65/3

65/2

50/1

65/1

75/1

Figure 3

- Submarine Cable ProtectionUploaded byusama
- Wood Pole Overhead LinesUploaded bybarrowboy
- ANSI O5 1.2008Uploaded byJose Cierto
- 0863413560-Woodpole Overhead Lines-2008 184Uploaded byask1400
- fiber stress for wood polesUploaded bybcbian
- powersystem protnUploaded byelectworld
- 0114 Transmission StructureUploaded byAhmed Taha
- TransformersUploaded byPhani Kumar
- Testing of Power TransformersUploaded byYurika RS
- TransmissionUploaded byTaulant R. Aliu

- IRJET-EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON STRENGTH AND DURABILITY PROPERTIES OF HYBRID FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETEUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Weibull-1960Book-8Uploaded byShane Taylor
- hw c1Uploaded byamnajam
- FatigaUploaded byJulio Carrero
- ASME SA-265 SPECIFICATION FOR NICKEL AND NICKEL-BASE ALLOY-CLAD STEEL PLATEUploaded bylucecita1902
- Bolt FormulationUploaded byerentcdd
- Example Bolt Gerber AL 2014bUploaded byjohnyboy
- Tata SteelUploaded bygetnihal
- 2015 Wtc2015 Full JuhaszUploaded byPeter Karoly Juhasz
- IRJET-Optimization and Impact Analysis of a Roll Cage ModelUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Concrete Mix Design_ Art and Science – Statistical Overdesign by ACI (Part 1) - Command Alkon ConnectUploaded byPuneet Kaura
- AISI S200-07 Cold-Formed Steel Framing – General Provisions, Standard and CommentaryUploaded bytoxicdog
- Geopolymer Concrete - A New Eco-friendly Material of ConstructionUploaded byElango Paulchamy
- mae 152 finalUploaded byapi-410061405
- Construction of Road Foundation on Soft SoilUploaded byAnuragBajpai
- Cold-Formed Steel MembersUploaded byLiviu Ion
- The Wall of IserlohnUploaded byAtasiei Monica Gabriela
- reinforced concreteUploaded bySushitaBethSenobago
- DESIGN OF ROPE DRUM AND CHAIN HOISTSUploaded bysuresh_501
- DME QuestionsUploaded byjerin
- d 0357041412Uploaded byKerry Williams
- IJERTV4IS080096Uploaded byVenkata Dinesh
- 1-s2.0-S2452321616302347-main.pdfUploaded byCarolina Monteiro
- fact about yarn faultsUploaded bySabeeh Ul Hassan
- 2009-TPC-333Uploaded byRamona Le
- Shell Thickness PDFUploaded byMonu Sharma
- TrussesUploaded byNath Boyapati
- Factors Affecting ShaftUploaded byVincent Valentine
- SMS Design Standards 2002Uploaded byPintilie Cornel
- FINAL.docxUploaded byJade-Angelo Bartonado