21, rue d'Artois, F-75008 Paris

http://www.cigre.org

B2-204

Session 2004
CIGR

CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF OVERHEAD LINES

A. VAN DER WAL*
A.A.H.J. ROSS
KEMA TDC
(The Netherlands)

INTRODUCTION

The environment in which utilities operate has changed drastically in recent years. In the
past investment and maintenance decisions were often determined more by avoiding
technical risks than by budget restrictions. The introduction of regulators and other new
business drivers has changed this situation. Investment and maintenance cost must be wellfounded more and more and utilities have to apply modern asset management methods.
In many countries significant developments of high voltage networks took place in the 1960s
and 1970s. The overhead lines constructed at that time are now approximately 30 to 40
years old. In many places this leads to concerns regarding the present reliability and the
residual life of components of these overhead lines.
Traditionally, maintenance decisions on overhead lines have mainly been based on visual
inspections. The results of visual inspections are normally entered into a maintenance
management system. This way a valuable database is created. However, the basis of these
maintenance methods is mainly qualitative and leaves room for inaccuracies. More
importantly, it is hard to substantiate decisions regarding maintenance or replacement of
components on the basis of a qualitative system. This paper describes how, with a
combination of inspections, testing of samples and analysis, quantitative insight into the
condition of components is obtained. The quantitative nature of the assessment results
enables the asset manager to take intelligent and well-founded decisions regarding
maintenance, refurbishment, upgrading, replacement etc of overhead lines.
2

MAINTENANCE ON OVERHEAD LINES

Each of the four different types of components of overhead lines (line corridor, foundations,
electrical components and tower steel) requires a different maintenance approach.
2.1

Line corridor

The line corridor must be maintained regularly to enable safe operation of the overhead line.
This paper does not deal with maintenance or condition assessment of the line corridor.
1

2.2

Foundations

Any deterioration of concrete foundations is not acceptable. Regular visual inspections

should be carried out to ensure that the condition of the foundation above ground is
acceptable. This inspection should focus on:
Extensive damage
Wide cracks
Damage to concrete cover
Rusting reinforcement
Inspection of the foundation below ground is normally not necessary, unless there are signs
indicating the contrary. Foundation anchors must be kept free from soil, vegetation, etc. If a
concrete foundation is designed and constructed properly, the foundation itself is normally
maintenance-free and will have a very long service life. This paper does not deal further with
maintenance or condition assessment of foundations.
2.3

Electrical components

The electrical components of an overhead line are phase conductors and earth wires,
insulators, clamps and fittings, spacers and dampers. These electrical components generally
do not require maintenance. An exception is, for instance, insulator washing in highly
polluted areas, but this generally serves operational purposes and is not a form of
maintenance to achieve extension of service life. However, electrical components will wear
over time and they will have to be replaced at some stage.
Traditional maintenance methods are generally based on visual inspections. The inspection
results are recorded on inspection forms. The inspections are carried out on the basis of
qualifications. The qualification of the conditions of components typically ranges from no
rust to severely rusted. The main disadvantage of these methods is that no quantitative
insight is obtained into the condition of the components.
The main issue with aged electrical components is to determine the optimum moment for
replacement.
The condition assessment method described in this paper provides
quantitative insight into the actual reliability and residual life of the electrical components.
2.4

Tower steel

Galvanised steel structures that are maintained properly will have a very long service life.
Maintenance means, in this case, applying protective coatings. However, sometimes
structures have not been coated at all, or the coating has taken place too late. In these
cases the structures will start to rust. The integrity of the structure could be compromised if
the rust process continues.
This paper describes a condition assessment method to determine whether the reliability of
the tower is still acceptable. With the assessment results, decisions regarding refurbishment,
upgrades, etc can be justified. This paper deals with the assessment of lattice steel towers.
However, the assessment method can be adjusted for other structure types as well.
3

CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF OVERHEAD LINES

Overhead lines consist of large number of identical components that are often difficult to
access. This makes it difficult to test every individual component of an overhead line.
Further, mechanical failure of an overhead line can lead to significant damage to third
parties, especially if a mechanical failure occurs at a road or rail crossing. A minimum
2

reliability level is therefore essential for an overhead line. The condition assessment method
described in this paper takes these issues into account. The method is based on modern
international probabilistic based design standards for overhead lines such as IEC 60826 [1]
and EN 50341 [2] and on taking samples, carrying out tests and analysis.
The two main factors to address when assessing the condition of overhead lines are the
present reliability and the residual life of all components of the overhead line. The condition
assessment method described in this paper results in quantitative data regarding the present
reliability and residual life of all components of the overhead line.
3.1

Probabilistic based design

At the start of the design process a certain reliability level for the structure or property is
chosen. On the one hand an analysis is carried out of the expected loads, based on longterm recordings of climatic parameters (wind, ice) and all other parameters (lightning,
overvoltages etc). These load parameters are used to establish a safe design load,
considering a certain return period and applying load factors. On the other hand a safe
design strength is established, considering typical distributions of component strengths and
1
applying material factors.
Acting loads

Cumulative probability
distribution of strengths (%)

Probability density of loads

20

An example of distributed loads and strengths

is shown in figure 1, with R as the required
Average strength R
design strength taking material factor and
0.5
Probability =one extreme load in x years
the characteristic element strength Rc at a
certain confidence level into account. This
0.25
confidence level
strength is compared with the design load Q,
Qt = Q
<
R = Rc
which takes into account the ultimate load Qt
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
ever to occur in e.g. 50 years and an additional
Component's property, eg. tensile load (kN)
load factor .
Figure 1: Probabilistic based component design
Component's strength

0.75

15

10

To meet the chosen reliability level, the characteristic strength must be greater than the
design load. The reliability check (Unity Check, UC) is defined as the quotient of Q and R.
With UC < 1 the system is still reliable and consequently with UC 1 refurbishment is
required. The rate of increase of UC with time determines the residual life.
The basis of this probabilistic design method is described in IEC 60826. Modern design
standards such as EN 50341 have adopted this method.
3.2

Probabilistic based condition assessment

The probabilistic based condition assessment establishes the relation between design loads
and actual strengths, and aims to quantify the actual reliability and residual life of the system.
The design load will not have changed with time. However, any deterioration will affect the
strength of the batch.
The present strength Rt follows from the characteristic strength Rct determined with the
distribution of strengths found with tests. The tests are carried out on samples taken from
the overhead line, applying ISO 3951 [3] sampling rules. Sampling and determination of an
acceptable Rct follow ISO 3951 rules:
Rct = Rx s k (1)
with Rx the average strength of the batch, s the standard deviation and the acceptability
constant k depending on batch size and sampling rate [4].
3

Reliability (unity check in %)

175
FAT

test 1

test 2

estimated residual life

150
125
100
75
50
0

10

15

20

25

30

Service life (years)

35

Due to deterioration, the average strength in the

distribution will have decreased and the
standard deviation increased. The reliability
check is to be applied to determine the present
reliability and the need for refurbishment actions.
Figure 2 shows an example of the reliability,
expressed in the unity check versus time. If at
least two, and preferably more, test values for Rt
are available, residual life can be established
through estimating the intersection of the UCcurve with the 100% value for UC.

Figure 2: Decrease of reliability

3.3

Electrical components

The following six steps are taken to determine the present strength and estimate the residual
life of the batches of components:
1.
The relevant components, the properties per component and the deterioration
processes must be identified. Relevant properties of components are, for instance,
mechanical strength, electrical strength and damping characteristics (spacer dampers).
Deterioration processes are, for instance, corrosion, wear, thermal ageing etc, each requiring
specific types of inspections and tests.
2.
Tests to determine the present condition of the property to be tested must be defined.
In the case of corroded insulator pins, tensile strength tests are the relevant test for cap and
pin insulators.
3.
Samples of the components are taken from the overhead line based on the sampling
rules from ISO 3951. The defined tests are carried out on the samples.
4.
The test results are analysed and the characteristic strength is determined.
5.
The reliability factor UC is determined. If this factor UC < 1, the present reliability is
acceptable.
6.
The residual life is estimated by investigating the deterioration of the reliability factor
UC, e.g. applying the characteristic strength of the manufactured batch, actual test results
and past test results, if available.
The process is described in detail for insulators in [4]. Examples of assessments of
insulators, conductor and spacer dampers are given below. Assessments of clamps and
fittings can be carried out similarly.
Cumulative probability

100%
75%
Gauss 2002
Tested 2002

50%

Gauss 1997

25%

Rt=2002 Rt=1997

0%
10

35

60

85

110

Figure 3 shows a repeat assessment of cap and

pin insulators five years after the first
assessment. The present strength Rt (42 kN) is
greater than the load Q (16 kN). The present
reliability is therefore still acceptable.
The
residual life is estimated to be at least 15 years.
This residual life estimate was carried out using
two points that were both determined by tests.

Mechanical strength (kN)

Figure 3: Repeat assessment of tensile strength cap & pin insulators

Figure 4a shows the results of a 30-year-old ACSR conductor. Visual inspection had shown
that the steel had not corroded, while thermal ageing for aluminium is limited. Further, the
loads on the steel are relatively small while the tensile strength of the aluminium deteriorates
with time. Therefore, only the condition of the aluminium is relevant and this was tested on
4

samples. The present strength Rt is 125 kN, which is larger than the load Q (104 kN). The
conductors are therefore still reliable. The residual life is estimated to be at least 15 years.
The damping characteristics are the main concern for aged spacer dampers. Figures 4b
shows the damping energy of a batch of aged spacer dampers. The reliability of the
dampers is still acceptable. The residual life is estimated to be 10 years.

75%
50%
25%

Spacer damper new

Spacer damper aged
Tested aged spacerdampers

100%

Actual (Gauss distr.)

Tested cumulative distribution
Gauss distr. new Al

Cumulative distribution

Cumulative probability

100%

Rt R

75%
50%
25%

Rt

0%

0%
75

100

125

150

175

200

225

Breaking strength (kN/mm)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

125%

Damping (100%=max.damping new spacer)

Figure 4a and 4b: Assessment of tensile strength of aluminium section of ACSR conductor
and assessment of damping characteristics of quad bundle spacer dampers
3.4

Tower steel

The condition assessment of towers aims to establish the actual reliability of the complete
tower structure and of the assembly of towers that forms an overhead line. The additional
problem with tower structures compared to electrical components is that the steel structures
consist of numerous single elements, each affecting reliability to a different extend. Some
members are critical members and for these members only a limited deterioration is
acceptable. Other (non-critical) members may have holes as a result of corrosion, but these
holes do not lead to a reliability failure.
The reliability of a single tower structure is therefore to be investigated taking all the relevant
steel members into account. This is done by means of 3D Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of
the tower structure. The condition assessment of steel towers is done as follows:
Determine the utilisation of single members in the tower design;
Make an inventory of member deterioration;
Determine the reliability and the residual life of single tower structures and all structures in
the overhead line.
3.4.1

Member utilisation in design

The characteristic strength of one type of element is found by establishing the typical
strength distribution for identical steel members. Normally, an exclusion limit of 2.5% is used
for steel members. This means that 97.5% of all identical members are stronger than the
characteristic member strength.
The strength per element is compared with its maximum load in 3D analysis. The reliability
of single elements is then expressed with the unity check (or utilisation factor) UCe3D, being
the ratio of the load Qe of the element and its characteristic strength Rce. When designed
properly, every single element in the tower structure will show UCe3D < 1. When boosting the
loads with an extra load factor s, single elements in the structure will start to fail. As long as
s > 1, the tower structure has some margin for deterioration and a certain residual life.
Consequently, at s < 1 strengthening of members is required. The magnitude of s is a
measure for reliability and the short term need for refurbishment. The rate of decline with
time is a measure for residual life and for the need for maintenance.
5

Figure 5 shows the cumulative UCe distribution of the single members (main members and
diagonals) in a new tower (i.e. without deterioration). The graph 3D calculation represents
the utilisation of members as designed. The maximum member utilisation UCe3D found in 3D
simulations is 0.78.

Cumulative distribution

To facilitate deterioration evaluations, Gauss distribution types are processed, representing

the 3D analysis with the average and standard
1
deviation for a Gauss distribution type. From the
set of utilisation factors in the 3D analysis an
0.75
average UCe3Dx of 0.19 and standard deviation
3D
tower
calculation
UCe3Ds of 0.19 are determined. The reliability of
0.5
3D calc. Gauss distr.
the batch is found by assuming the probability of
3D calc. Gauss distr. +s=1.35
0.25
failure of one member in the total tower
structure, which corresponds in the figure with a
0
probability of 99.9% with UCe3D of 0.76. In this
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
example
the extra load factor s appears to be
UCe3D of main steel members
1.35.
Figure 5: Cumulative distribution of UC in new tower
3.4.2

Inventory of condition

The present condition of towers is assessed through investigating the following aspects:
material properties, shape, dimensions and connections.
Material properties
Laboratory tests on a few samples taken from various members in the tower can be carried
out to establish the present material properties (Yield stress, Youngs modulus, brittleness).
However, in most cases one will find that material properties do not change significantly.
Shape
Shape generally does not change, as long as the design and design standards were
adequate and external damage factors have not taken place. If problems are detected and
the cause can be related to external factors (accidents, etc.), reliability should be restored
through rectifying the problems. Shape is not included in the deterioration evaluations.
Dimensions
The dimensions of steel members and connections change when rust progresses. In fact,
rust is the main factor in reliability deterioration of towers and for the urgency of safety
measures. To investigate the degree of deterioration, two types of inspections are proposed:
visual inspections and measurements.
Visual inspections are carried out for all members in the structure. Deterioration of members
is classified applying three basic classes:
Condition 1: no deterioration. This implies that the design strength has not reduced and the
UC-distribution is not affected;
Condition 2: regular corrosion in progress. A regular dark brown rust layer has become
visible, the process is slow and increase of rust can be estimated with ISO/FDIS 12944 [5];
Condition 3: excessive (pit) corrosion. Flakes are visible and even holes may be found.
This process is relatively fast and produces extensive damage in short time. The residual
strength is limited.
Measurements are carried out on samples in all three deterioration classes. However the
reliability evaluation focuses on condition 3, since conditions 1 and 2 will not show any
6

significant differences with the design properties. Sampling of tested members follows ISO
3951. Any deterioration found during inspections is expressed with the distribution
characters average and standard deviation. It is assumed that the member utilisation of
angle members is affected inversely proportional.
As an example, the following deterioration was measured in one particular overhead line with
angle members:
Condition 1: 87% of all members with an average dimension of 98% of the typical nominal
dimension and a standard deviation of 3%;
Condition 2: 10% of all members with an average dimension of 92% of the typical nominal
dimension and a standard deviation of 6%;
Condition 3: 3% of all members with an average dimension of 68% of the typical nominal
dimension and a standard deviation of 35%.
The dimension deterioration of all members in the tower then can be characterised with an
average deterioration Dtx of 96% and a standard deviation Dts of 3%.
3.4.3

Reliability of towers

The present reliability of towers results from the design and the deterioration found during
inspections. It is represented with the average and standard deviation of the UC-distribution
of single main elements.
Average:

UCe x =

UCe3 Dx
Dtx

(2)

with UCe3Dx as the average UC derived from 3D simulations and Dtx as the average
deterioration derived from the tests and expressed with the ratio of measured dimension and
typical dimension.
Standard deviation:

UCe s = (UCe3 Ds + Dts ) (3)

2

with standard deviation UCe3Ds derived from the 3D-calculations and standard deviation Dts
derived from the measurements.
Due to corrosion s deteriorates from the initial value 1.35 (figure 5) to 1.3. While significant
corrosion is ongoing, reliability is only slightly affected. This is the result of processing all
tower elements into one dataset. When defining subsets, a more accurate reliability result
can be achieved. Subsets, for instance, may contain single towers instead of the complete
overhead lines, or element types such as critical and non-critical elements.
3.4.4

Residual life

Residual life is estimated applying [5] for deterioration of condition 2 members and an
average Rt = 0 for condition 3 members. The rate of deterioration is related to environmental
classes, such as and maritime areas. For angle members the present utilisation is:
D
UCet = UCe3 D new (4)
Dt
with Dnew as the typical nominal dimension of new members and the present dimension Dt is
Dt = Dnew 2 (5)

with as the corrosion rates according to the environmental class, with rates between 0-150
m per year for steel and 0-10 m per year for zinc. For the three conditions the following
applies:
Condition 1: depending on the present status of the painting and zinc layers, a certain
delay period must be taken into account before the corrosion process commences;
Condition 2: the corrosion process is in accordance with the environmental class;
Condition 3: corrosion is uncontrollable, a minimum residual strength may be assumed.

Cumulative distribution

1
0.75
3D tower calculation
present situation: (s=1.31)
after 5 yrs: (s=1.24)
after 10 yrs: (s=1.14)
after 15 yrs: (s=0.94)

0.5
0.25

Figure 6 shows an example taking the present

situation as starting point (s = 1.31) and a very
fast deterioration (100 m/year) with a time
delay of 10 years for the propagation of
condition 1 to 2. The residual life of the
structure in this example is estimated to be 15
years.

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

UCe of main steel members

Figure 6: Cumulative distribution of UC assuming fast deterioration

Note on the examples: The method for the determination of reliability and residual life makes
use of Gauss distribution types to enable simple batch manipulations. Hence the
deterioration of strength is expressed by a decrease of the average strength and an increase
of the standard deviation. The analysed batches can be described more accurately with
other distribution types like the Weibull, where utilisation less than zero will not occur and
deterioration will not result in strength increase of a few samples in the batch.
4

BENEFITS OF THE METHOD

When regular inspections show that components of an overhead line are in such a condition
that there is a concern regarding their reliability, the condition assessment described in this
paper can be used to make intelligent and well-founded decisions regarding the
maintenance, refurbishment, replacement, upgrade, etc of the overhead line.
The
assessment method is based on international standards [1, 2, 3].
Quantitative information regarding the present reliability of all components is obtained with
the described method. This enables just-in-time replacement of electrical components and
just-in-time maintenance, refurbishment etc of tower steel.
An optimum decision for the overhead line can be taken after comparing different
(refurbishment) scenarios and making net present value calculations for each scenario. This
way an acceptable reliability of the overhead line will be achieved at lowest cost.
REFERENCES
[1] IEC 60826, Loading and strength of overhead transmission lines, 1991.
[2] EN 50341, Overhead electrical lines exceeding AC 45 kV, 2001.
[3] ISO 3951, Sampling procedures and charts for inspection by variables for percent
nonconforming, 1989.
[4] A.A.H.J. Ross et al, Probabilistic based condition assessment of overhead transmission
lines (Cigr session 2000, 22-103).
[5] ISO/FDIS 12944, part 2, Classification of environments, 1997.