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