TL Cascading Failure Risk Assessment PDF

Longitudinal Load and Cascading
Failure Risk Assessment (CASE)

Volume 4: Steel Pole Tests
TR-107087-V4
Final Report, December 1997
Prepared by
J.A. Jones Power Delivery, Inc.
Post Office Box 187
Haslet, Texas 76052
Principal Investigator
Dr. M. Ostendorp, P.E.
Prepared for
Electric Power Research Institute
3412 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94304
EPRI Project Manager

P. Lyons
Overhead Transmission Power Delivery Group
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED
OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF
EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO
THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT,
INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT
INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS REPORT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS REPORT OR ANY
INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS REPORT
J.A. Jones Power Delivery, Inc.
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to the EPRI Distribution Center, 207 Coggins Drive, P.O. Box
23205, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, (510) 934-4212.
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. EPRI.
POWERING PROGRESS is a service mark of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright © 1997 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
REPORT SUMMARY
This report documents the 16 full-scale tests that were performed to verify the CASE
methodology for steel pole type transmission structures. Using the CASE method,
utilities can accurately identify lines or line sections that have a high potential to
cascade and, therefore, a reduced level of reliability.
Background
A trend began in the 1950s in the utility industry to place less emphasis on the effect of
unbalanced longitudinal loads caused by failure of line components such as insulators,
shield wires, and conductors. Better manufacturing methods and improved quality
control for these components had significantly reduced the number of transmission line
failures. As a result, it became commonly accepted that these types of failures were very
rare and that damage caused by these events was negligible. Consequently, an
increasing number of new transmission lines were designed and constructed with a low
level of longitudinal resistance to extreme event loads. Since the early 1960s, there have
been numerous documented cases of multiple transmission structure failures. These
longitudinal and transverse cascade failures caused utilities extremely high-economic
losses because they completely destroyed whole sections of transmission lines,
requiring months of repair work.
Objectives
• To develop a method to quantify unbalanced longitudinal loads acting on structures
not adjacent to the insulator, shield wire, or conductor failure.
• To develop a method to assess cascading potential of a transmission line by
considering energy dissipation at successive spans and supports.
• To develop a method to determine effects of upgrading on the cascading potential of
a transmission line.
• To develop a method that assesses cascading potential of a transmission line that is
flexible enough to evaluate the effectiveness of various mitigation methods
Approach
It is not economical for a utility to design, upgrade, or maintain an existing line system
in a manner that provides sufficient strength to withstand high-dynamic loads at every
structure. A successful, economic line design or upgrade requires that the failure of a
limited number of structures—based on the utility’s design philosophy and targeted
iii
reliability levels—is acceptable if the overall system is protected from cascading. EPRI’s
Cascading FAilure RiSk AssEssment (CASE) project is an investigation into the nature
of extreme loads that occur in cascading failures and the corresponding line response.
The CASE investigation focused on effects of a triggering event on a transmission line’s
integrity rather than the cause for initial failure. Developed from analytical and
experimental studies, the advanced CASE method predicts the magnitude of extreme
event longitudinal loads. This report documents the 16 full-scale tests that were
performed to verify the CASE methodology for steel pole type transmission lines. Tests
were performed on a four-span segment of a steel pole transmission line located at
EPRI’s Power Delivery Center in Haslet, Texas.
Results
Test results show that the CASE assessment method accurately predicts unbalanced
longitudinal loads at the first, second and third structures from an initial failure such as
a broken shield wire or conductor in a steel pole line. Additionally, the CASE method
correctly addresses dissipation of energy along the transmission line in the computation
of unbalanced longitudinal loads. The CASE method can quickly determine loads acting
on a transmission line and identify the cascading potential of a line subjected to
different loading conditions. Verification tests of CASE for wood H-Frame type lines is
documented in Volume III of the report. Volume II documents the CASE methodology
and Volume I describes a simplified CASE method.
EPRI Perspective
Industry emphasis has shifted to minimizing costs and maximizing use of existing
facilities to reduce capital spending on upgrades and new construction. Consequently,
the need to effectively apply reduced budgets to minimize system failures and to
extend the life of existing facilities has increased in importance. The primary advantage
of the CASE method is that containment boundaries can be defined or adjusted based
on the importance of a given transmission line to the utility’s operation. Thus,
longitudinal strength of a specific transmission line can now be calibrated to match a
utility’s target reliability level for a minimum cost. Having identified a line’s current
level of risk allows the utility to target system components of the line that are most
critical to maintaining the system’s primary function: delivery of electric power. As a
result, the utility is able to implement cost-effective solutions to minimize outages while
improving power transfer. The advanced CASE method also effectively addresses the
industry need for a verified, uniform method of defining realistic longitudinal loading
at all structures affected by a failure.
TR-107087-V4
Interest Categories Keywords
Overhead planning, analysis & design Cascade failures
Overhead construction, O&M Transmission line failures
Overhead transmission
Transmission lines
iv
ABSTRACT
In this study, 16 full-scale dynamic tests were performed to determine the magnitude
and dynamic characteristics of the unbalanced longitudinal loads generated in extreme
failure events caused by broken insulators, broken shield wires, and broken conductors.
Tests were performed on a four-span, single circuit, transmission line segment
supported by steel single poles. The tests were part of the Electric Power Research
Institute’s (EPRI) ‘Cascading Failure Risk Assessment’ (CASE) project. The CASE
project constituted an investigation into the nature of the extreme loads that cause
cascading failures and the corresponding line response. The goals of this investigation
were:
• Determine the magnitude and dynamic characteristics of the conductor and shield
wire tensions of each phase in the first, second, and third span from the initial
failure.
• Determine the magnitude and dynamic characteristics of the unbalanced

longitudinal loads acting on each phase of the first, second, and third structure from
the initial failure.
• Develop scale factors to amplify static wire tensions to produce an effect at the first,
second, and third structure from the initial failure that accurately simulates the
dynamic characteristics.
• Develop a method to assess the cascading potential of a transmission line by

considering the energy dissipation at successive spans and supports.
The investigation showed that unbalanced longitudinal load predictions by the CASE
assessment method compare well with measured full-scale test values and values
published by other researchers. It was determined that impact factors and
corresponding unbalanced longitudinal loads are primarily a function of the span-sag
ratio, the span-insulator ratio, and the structural flexibility.
v
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Background.........................................................................................................1-2
1.2 Objectives ...........................................................................................................1-3
1.3 Past Research ....................................................................................................1-3
2 TEST DESCRIPTION................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Test Structure ....................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Line Segment.....................................................................................................2-5
2.3 Conductor and Shield Wire................................................................................2-5
2.4 Test Cases.........................................................................................................2-6
3 INSTRUMENTATION ................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Load Cells ..........................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Data Acquisition .................................................................................................3-1
3.3 Data Reduction ..................................................................................................3-2
4 TEST RESULTS........................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Conductor and Shield Wire Tension ..................................................................4-1
4.2 Unbalanced Longitudinal Loads.........................................................................4-4
4.3 Reactions ...........................................................................................................4-6
4.4 Longitudinal Load Impact Factors......................................................................4-7
5 CASCADING FAILURE RISK ASSESSMENT (CASE) ............................................5-1

5.1 Conductor and Shield Wire Tension ..................................................................5-1
5.2 Unbalanced Longitudinal Loads.........................................................................5-1
5.3 Reactions ...........................................................................................................5-2
vii
5.4 Longitudinal Load Impact Factors......................................................................5-2
6 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED VALUES .................................6-1

6.1 Predicted and Measured Longitudinal Load Impact Factors..............................6-1
6.2 Influence of Span/Sag Ratio, Span/Insulator Ratio, and Structural
Flexibility on Measured and Predicted Impact Factors ......................................6-3
7 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................7-1

7.1 Summary ...........................................................................................................7-1
7.2 Conclusions .......................................................................................................7-1
7.3 Recommendations .............................................................................................7-2
8 REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................8-1
A FULL-SCALE TEST RESULTS - ‘VERTICAL’ CONFIGURATION ......................... A-1
B CASE ASSESSMENT PREDICTIONS - ‘VERTICAL’ CONFIGURATION .............. B-1
C FULL-SCALE TEST RESULTS - ‘DELTA’ CONFIGURATION............................... C-1
D CASE ASSESSMENT PREDICTIONS - ‘DELTA’ CONFIGURATION .................... D-1
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Steel Pole Test Structure - 'Vertical' Phase Configuration ..........................2-3
Figure 2-2 Steel Pole Test Structure - 'Delta' Phase Configuration ..............................2-4
Figure 2-3 View of Second and Third Test Structure....................................................2-5
Figure 3-1 Location of Test Line Load Cells .................................................................3-2
Figure 4-1 Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the First Structure from the
Failure - Test .........................................................................................................4-8
Figure 4-2 Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the Second Structure from the
Failure - Test .........................................................................................................4-8
Figure 4-3 Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the Third Structure from the
Failure - Test .........................................................................................................4-9
Failure - CASE.......................................................................................................5-3
Figure 5-2 Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the Second Structure from the
Failure - CASE.......................................................................................................5-3
Failure - CASE.......................................................................................................5-4
Failure ...................................................................................................................6-1
Figure 6-2 Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the Second Structure from
the Failure .............................................................................................................6-2
Failure ...................................................................................................................6-3
Figure 6-4 Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the First Structure vs. Span/Sag
Ratio ......................................................................................................................6-4
Figure 6-5 Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the Second Structure vs. Span/Sag
Ratio ......................................................................................................................6-4
Figure 6-6 Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the Third Structure vs. Span/Sag
Ratio ......................................................................................................................6-5
ix
Figure 6-7 Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the First Structure vs. Span/Insulator
Ratio ......................................................................................................................6-6
Figure 6-8 Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the Second Structure vs. Span/Insulator
Ratio ......................................................................................................................6-6
Figure 6-9 Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the Third Structure vs. Span/Insulator
Ratio ......................................................................................................................6-7
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Summary of Extreme Event Test Cases ......................................................2-6

Table 4-1 Dynamic Test Summary Table .....................................................................4-1
Table 4-2 Shield Wire, Conductor and Insulator Tension Summary - Test Data..........4-2
Table 4-3 Normalized Shield Wire, Conductor and Insulator Tension Summary - Test
Data.......................................................................................................................4-3
Table 4-4 Unbalanced Longitudinal Load Summary - Test Data..................................4-4
Table 4-5 Normalized Unbalanced Longitudinal Load Summary - Test Data...............4-5
Table 4-6 Unbalanced Reaction Summary - Test Data ................................................4-5
Table 4-7 Normalized Unbalanced Reaction Summary - Test Data .............................4-6
Table 5-1 Normalized Unbalanced Longitudinal Load Summary - CASE ....................5-2
Table A-1 Tension Summary - Broken Ground Wire, Long Insulator, 15% UTS......... A-2
Table A-2 Unbalanced Loads - Broken Ground Wire, Long Insulator, 15% UTS ........ A-2
Table A-3 Normalized Tensions - Broken Ground Wire, Long Insulator, 15%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... A-3
Table A-4 Normalized Loads - Broken Ground Wire, Long Insulator, 15% UTS ......... A-3
Table A-5 Tension Summary - Broken Upper Conductor, Long Insulator, 15%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... A-4
Table A-6 Unbalanced Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Long Insulator, 15%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... A-4
Table A-7 Normalized Tensions - Broken Upper Conductor, Long Insulator, 15%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... A-5
Table A-8 Normalized Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Long Insulator, 15%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... A-5
Table A-9 Tension Summary - Broken Ground Wire, Long Insulator, 25% UTS........ A-6
Table A-10 Unbalanced Loads - Broken Ground Wire, Long Insulator, 25%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... A-6
Table A-11 Normalized Tensions - Broken Ground Wire, Long Insulator, 25%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... A-7
Table A-12 Normalized Loads - Broken Ground Wire, Long Insulator, 25%
xi
UTS ...................................................................................................................... A-7
Table A-13 Tension Summary - Broken Upper Conductor, Long Insulator, 25%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... A-8
Table A-14 Unbalanced Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Long Insulator, 25%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... A-8
Table A-15 Normalized Tensions - Broken Upper Conductor, Long Insulator, 25%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... A-9
Table A-16 Normalized Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Long Insulator, 25%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... A-9
Table A-17 Tension Summary - Broken Ground Wire, Short Insulator, 25%
UTS .................................................................................................................... A-10
Table A-18 Unbalanced Loads - Broken Ground Wire, Short Insulator, 25%
UTS .................................................................................................................... A-10
Table A-19 Normalized Tensions - Broken Ground Wire, Short Insulator, 25%
UTS .................................................................................................................... A-11
Table A-20 Normalized Loads - Broken Ground Wire, Short Insulator, 25%
UTS .................................................................................................................... A-11
Table A-21 Tension Summary - Broken Upper Conductor, Short Insulator, 25%
UTS .................................................................................................................... A-12
Table A-22 Unbalanced Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Short Insulator, 25%
UTS .................................................................................................................... A-12
Table A-23 Normalized Tensions - Broken Upper Conductor, Short Insulator, 25%
UTS .................................................................................................................... A-13
Table A-24 Normalized Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Short Insulator, 25%
UTS .................................................................................................................... A-13
Table A-25 Tension Summary - Broken Ground Wire, Short Insulator, 15%
UTS .................................................................................................................... A-14
Table A-26 Unbalanced Loads - Broken Ground Wire, Short Insulator, 15%
UTS .................................................................................................................... A-14
Table A-27 Normalized Tensions - Broken Ground Wire, Short Insulator, 15%
UTS .................................................................................................................... A-15
Table A-28 Normalized Loads - Broken Ground Wire, Short Insulator, 15%
UTS .................................................................................................................... A-15
xii
Table A-29 Tension Summary - Broken Upper Conductor, Short Insulator, 15%
UTS .................................................................................................................... A-16
Table A-30 Unbalanced Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Short Insulator, 15%
UTS .................................................................................................................... A-16
Table A-31 Normalized Tensions - Broken Upper Conductor, Short Insulator, 15%
UTS .................................................................................................................... A-17
Table A-32 Normalized Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Short Insulator, 15%
UTS .................................................................................................................... A-17
Table B-1 Normalized Tensions - Broken Ground Wire, Long Insulator, 15%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... B-2
Table B-2 Normalized Unbalanced Loads - Broken Ground Wire, Long Insulator,
15% UTS .............................................................................................................. B-2
Table B-3 Normalized Tensions - Broken Upper Conductor, Long Insulator, 15%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... B-3
Table B-4 Normalized Unbalanced Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Long Insulator,
15% UTS .............................................................................................................. B-3
Table B-5 Normalized Tensions - Broken Ground Wire, Long Insulator, 25%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... B-4
Table B-6 Normalized Unbalanced Loads - Broken Ground Wire, Long Insulator,
25% UTS .............................................................................................................. B-4
Table B-7 Normalized Tensions - Broken Upper Conductor, Long Insulator, 25%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... B-5
Table B-8 Normalized Unbalanced Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Long Insulator,
25% UTS .............................................................................................................. B-5
Table B-9 Normalized Tensions - Broken Ground Wire, Short Insulator, 25%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... B-6
Table B-10 Normalized Unbalanced Loads - Broken Ground Wire, Short Insulator,
25% UTS .............................................................................................................. B-6
Table B-11 Normalized Tensions - Broken Upper Conductor, Short Insulator, 25%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... B-7
Table B-12 Normalized Unbalanced Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Short
Insulator, 25% UTS .............................................................................................. B-7
Table B-13 Normalized Tensions - Broken Ground Wire, Short Insulator, 15%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... B-8
xiii
Table B-14 Normalized Unbalanced Loads - Broken Ground Wire, Short Insulator,
15% UTS .............................................................................................................. B-8
Table B-15 Normalized Tensions - Broken Upper Conductor, Short Insulator,
15% UTS .............................................................................................................. B-9
Table B-16 Normalized Unbalanced Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Short
Insulator, 15% UTS .............................................................................................. B-9
Table C-1 Tension Summary - Broken Middle Conductor, Long Insulator, 15%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... C-2
Table C-2 Unbalanced Loads - Broken Middle Conductor, Long Insulator, 15%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... C-2
Table C-3 Normalized Tensions - Broken Middle Conductor, Long Insulator, 15%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... C-3
Table C-4 Normalized Loads - Broken Middle Conductor, Long Insulator, 15%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... C-3
Table C-5 Tension Summary - Broken Upper Conductor, Long Insulator, 15%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... C-4
Table C-6 Unbalanced Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Long Insulator, 15%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... C-4
Table C-7 Normalized Tensions - Broken Upper Conductor, Long Insulator, 15%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... C-5
Table C-8 Normalized Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Long Insulator, 15%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... C-5
UTS ...................................................................................................................... C-6
UTS ...................................................................................................................... C-6
UTS ...................................................................................................................... C-7
UTS ...................................................................................................................... C-7
UTS ...................................................................................................................... C-8
UTS ...................................................................................................................... C-8
xiv
UTS ...................................................................................................................... C-9
UTS ...................................................................................................................... C-9
UTS .................................................................................................................... C-10
UTS .................................................................................................................... C-10
UTS .................................................................................................................... C-11
UTS .................................................................................................................... C-11
UTS .................................................................................................................... C-12
UTS .................................................................................................................... C-12
UTS .................................................................................................................... C-13
UTS .................................................................................................................... C-13
Table C-25 Tension Summary - Broken Outside Insulator, Unguyed, Long Insulator,
25% UTS ............................................................................................................ C-14
Table C-26 Unbalanced Loads - Broken Outside Insulator, Unguyed, Long Insulator,
25% UTS ............................................................................................................ C-14
Table C-27 Normalized Tensions - Broken Outside Insulator, Unguyed, Long
Insulator, 25% UTS ............................................................................................ C-15
Table C-28 Normalized Loads - Broken Outside Insulator, Unguyed, Long Insulator,
25% UTS ............................................................................................................ C-15
Table C-29 Tension Summary - Broken Upper Conductor, Short Insulator, 25%
UTS .................................................................................................................... C-16
Table C-30 Unbalanced Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Short Insulator, 25%
UTS .................................................................................................................... C-16
Table C-31 Normalized Tensions - Broken Upper Conductor, Short Insulator,
25% UTS ............................................................................................................ C-17
xv
Table C-32 Normalized Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Short Insulator, 25%
UTS .................................................................................................................... C-17
Table D-1 Normalized Tensions - Broken Middle Conductor, Long Insulator, 15%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... D-2
Table D-2 Normalized Unbalanced Loads - Broken Middle Conductor, Long
Insulator, 15% UTS .............................................................................................. D-2
Table D-3 Normalized Tensions - Broken Upper Conductor, Long Insulator, 15%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... D-3
Table D-4 Normalized Unbalanced Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Long
Insulator, 15% UTS .............................................................................................. D-3
UTS ...................................................................................................................... D-4
Insulator, 15% UTS .............................................................................................. D-4
UTS ...................................................................................................................... D-5
Insulator, 15% UTS .............................................................................................. D-5
UTS ...................................................................................................................... D-6
Insulator, 25% UTS .............................................................................................. D-6
UTS ...................................................................................................................... D-7
Insulator, 25% UTS .............................................................................................. D-7
Table D-13 Normalized Tensions - Broken Middle Conductor, Short Insulator, 25%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... D-8
Table D-14 Normalized Unbalanced Loads - Broken Middle Conductor, Short
Insulator, 25% UTS .............................................................................................. D-8
Table D-15 Normalized Tensions - Broken Upper Conductor, Short Insulator, 25%
UTS ...................................................................................................................... D-9
Table D-16 Normalized Unbalanced Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Short
Insulator, 25% UTS .............................................................................................. D-9
xvi
1
INTRODUCTION
Deregulation and competition have changed the electric power industry business
environment. The emphasis has shifted to minimizing costs and maximizing the use of
existing facilities to reduce the capital spending on upgrades and new construction.
Consequently, the need to effectively apply reduced budgets to minimize system
failures and to extend the life of existing facilities has increased in importance.
A number of catastrophic transmission line failures occurred in the recent past

whenever a multitude of support structures failed longitudinally or transversely along
the line. These cascading failures (longitudinal or transverse cascades) of transmission
lines caused the affected utilities extremely high economic losses because these failures
have completely destroyed whole sections of transmission lines requiring months of
repair work. During the repair time, the utilities experienced loss of revenue from the
sale of power or increased cost of power delivered.
It is not economical for a utility to design, upgrade, or maintain an existing line system
in a manner that provides sufficient strength to withstand the high dynamic loads at
each structure. A successful and economic line design or upgrade requires that the
failure of a limited number of structures is acceptable if the overall system is protected
from cascading. The acceptable number of structural failures should be determined
based on the utility’s design philosophy and targeted reliability levels.
Consequently, it is important for a utility to assess the cascading risk of a line to

implement a mitigation approach that maximizes reliability while minimizing cost.
Having identified the line’s current level of risk allows the utility to target the system
components of the line that are most critical to maintaining the systems primary
function, the delivery of electric power. As a result, the utility will be able to implement
cost effective solutions to minimize outages while improving power transfer and
quality on their transmission line systems.
In this study, 16 full-scale dynamic tests were performed to determine the magnitude
and characteristics of the unbalanced longitudinal loads generated in extreme failure
events caused by broken insulators, broken shield wires, and broken conductors. Tests
were performed on a four-span, single circuit, transmission line segment supported by
steel poles. The tests were part of the Electric Power Research Institute’s (EPRI)
‘Cascading Failure Risk Assessment’ (CASE) project. The CASE project constituted an
1-1
Introduction
investigation into the nature of the extreme loads caused by cascading failures and the
corresponding line response. The goals of the CASE project were to identify and/or
develop a method to predict extreme event longitudinal load magnitudes and to assess
the cascading potential of a line when subjected to such loads.
1.1 Background
Starting in the 1950’s, a trend began in the utility industry to place less emphasis on the
effect of unbalanced longitudinal loads caused by the failure of line components such as
insulators, shield wires, and conductors. Better manufacturing methods and improved
quality control in the production of these components in the preceding years had
significantly reduced the number of failures observed on transmission lines. As a result
of these improvements, it became commonly accepted that these types of failures were
very rare and that the damage caused by these events was negligible.
Indicative of the general perception at the time, P.P. Bonar (1) stated in 1958 that “...the
incidence of conductor failures on overhead lines is now much reduced because of
improved materials and design and erection techniques...”. Similarly, E. Comellini (2)
indicated in an earlier publication that “...that the failure of these elements should not
be considered in tower design...” while a 1960 AIEE survey (3) conducted concluded
that “...the possibility of a broken conductor in these days of large conductors, lightning
shielding, and fast relaying is so remote that it is uneconomical to design for broken
conductors...”.
Attempting to minimize the cost of line construction, the industry’s focus shifted to
designing transmission line structures to primarily resist transverse and longitudinal
forces caused by wind and ice loading on the conductors and shield wires. The
consensus of the industry centralized on the belief that it was uneconomical to design
transmission structures to withstand extreme event loads. Consequently, an increasing
number of new transmission lines were designed and constructed with negligible
longitudinal resistance to extreme event loads.
Since the early 1960’s there have been numerous documented cases of multiple
transmission structure failures that can be directly related to the lack of nationally
recognized or mandated design provisions for longitudinal strength. Records indicate
at least 28 different cascading failures nationwide over a time period of 35 years
resulted in a loss of more than 3000 transmission structures. At an average cost of only
thirty thousand dollars for each transmission structure, the amount of damage easily
approaches a few hundred million dollars. While it is true that a number of these
cascading failures were triggered by component failures as a result of significant wind
or ice loads, it is apparent that a sizable amount of these cascades occurred under
normal loading conditions. Consequently, it is evident that variations in the design of
1-2
Introduction
transmission lines exist which give rise to systems that may or may not be able to resist
extreme loading events.
1.2 Objectives
A successful and economic line design or upgrade sacrifices a limited number of

structures to protect the overall system from cascading. It is necessary to design the
support structures to resist the unbalanced longitudinal loads acting on the second,
third, or fourth structure, etc. away from the initial failure. Therefore, it is important to
determine the magnitude and dynamic characteristics of these extreme event loads
acting on each of the structures away from the initial failure. The goals of this
investigation were:
• Determine the magnitude and dynamic characteristics of the conductor and shield
wire tensions of each phase in the first, second, and third span from the initial
failure.
• Determine the magnitude and dynamic characteristics of the unbalanced

longitudinal loads acting on each phase of the first, second, and third structure from
the initial failure.
• Develop scale factors to amplify static wire tensions to produce an effect at the first,
second, and third structure from the initial failure that accurately simulates the
dynamic characteristics.
• Develop a method to assess the cascading potential of a transmission line by

considering the energy dissipation at successive spans and supports.
1.3 Past Research
Despite the loss of many miles of transmission lines as a result of cascading failures
limited research has been performed to determine the nature of the unbalanced
longitudinal loads acting on the support structures. Most tests performed consisted of
full-scale tests on existing transmission lines and scale model investigations and focused
on obtaining impact loads on the structure adjacent to the failure. Therefore, limited
information has been published on the loads acting on the subsequent structures in the
line due to the initial failure event.
Haro (4), Govers (5), and Peyrot (6) conducted full-scale tests on existing transmission
lines. Haro’s tests were performed on semi-flexible steel and wood H-Frames with
Copper and ACSR conductors. Parameters varied in Haro’s study included span and
insulator length, initial tensions, and the number of spans. Govers performed tests on
full-scale and scale model transmission lines. Parameters varied included span and
1-3
Introduction
insulator length, type of conductor, type of structure, number of spans, and initial
tensions. Peyrot’s full-scale tests were performed on rigid steel lattice towers with
Copper-Bronze and ACSR conductors. Parameters investigated included the type of
conductor, the length of the insulators, and the initial tension.
Govers (5), Ferry-Borges (7), Mozer (8), and Kempner (9) performed extensive tests on
scale models of transmission lines. Parameters varied by the investigators included the
conductor type, insulator length, tower stiffness, span length, initial tension, and the
number of spans. Based on these tests, it was determined that line parameters affecting
peak unbalanced loads are:
• Initial Tension
• Span Length
• Insulator Length
• Tower Flexibility
• Catenary Constant
• Number of Spans
Govers (5), Ferry-Borges (7), Mozer (8) used the results of their research to develop
design aids and analysis tools capable of predicting the magnitude of the unbalanced
longitudinal loads at the first structure from the initial failure. While the unbalanced
load predictions made by all three researchers compare well with full-scale test results
at the first structure from the initial failure, little or no effort was made to identify or
quantify the reduction in the unbalanced load along the line due to the dissipation of
energy.
Kempner (9) performed extensive tests on scale models to identify both unbalanced
load magnitudes and the reduction in energy along the line thus creating the notion of
containment of a cascading failure by allowing the first structure to fail. Results of the
tests were used to develop design aids capable of predicting the magnitude of the
unbalanced longitudinal load for tangent and dead end structures.
1-4
2
TEST DESCRIPTION
A total of 16 full-scale dynamic tests were performed at the EPRI Power Delivery
Center in Haslet, Texas. Tests were performed on a four-span segment of a steel pole
transmission line. The tests simulated the failure of an insulator, shield wire, or
conductor. Testing started in November 1995 and concluded in January 1996.
2.1 Test Structure
The structure used in the full-scale dynamic tests was a 100-ft. single circuit, twelve
sided, tapered steel pole as shown in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2. Tests were performed
for a ‘Vertical’ and ‘Delta’ phase configuration. The single shield wire was attached
directly to the top of each steel pole supported by standard wire hardware. Conductors
were supported by 10-ft. long, tapered steel cross-arms. The steel cross-arms used in
the tests had rectangular cross-sections and were attached to the steel pole via two
threaded rods.
Insulators used on the test structure were porcelain units. Tests were performed for
two different insulator lengths. The ‘Long Insulator’ configuration consisted of 18
porcelain suspension units while the ‘Short Insulator’ configuration consisted of 9 units.
The length of the long and short insulator configuration was 10 ft. and 5 ft.,
respectively.
Four test structures were less than 5 years old while an additional pole was newly
purchased. A thorough inspection of all test structures revealed that the structures
were in very good condition without any noticeable defects. Steel poles had 3/16 inch
thick walls with a top and ground line diameter of 8.5 inches and 22 inches,
respectively.
Dead end structures were guyed with 3/8 inch diameter EHS steel wire. Both, front
and back guys were used on each dead end and connected to separate guy anchors.
Guy angles ranged from 15° to 30° measured from the longitudinal direction and 45° to
60° measured from the vertical direction. In cases where guys were installed, guys were
tensioned to approximately 2500 pounds.
2-1
Test Description
Test structures were embedded directly into 2-ft. diameter holes drilled to a depth of 10
feet. To accelerate the construction, holes were back-filled with standard polymer based
expansion foam rather than with the displaced soil. Continued inspection of the
foundation ground line after completion of each test indicated that the expansion foam
did not work very well when subjected to torsional loads. Steel poles permanently
rotated within the foundation socket and had to be realigned before each test.
2-2
Test Description
Figure 2-1
Steel Pole Test Structure - 'Vertical' Phase Configuration
2-3
Test Description
Figure 2-2
Steel Pole Test Structure - 'Delta' Phase Configuration
2-4
Test Description
2.2 Line Segment

A four-span line segment was constructed at the Power Delivery Center in Haslet
(PDC) with guyed steel pole dead ends on either end. The average span of the test line
was 1000 ft., resulting in a total length of the line segment of 4000 feet. The ground
profile elevation of the test line was essentially constant with minor elevation changes
of less than plus or minus two feet along the length of the line. The ground cover along
the line segment was mostly short grass. Figure 2-3 shows an overview of the general
layout and the terrain of the line segment used for the dynamic tests. Lattice towers are
located on the left side of the test line while a wood H-Frame line flanks the right side.
Figure 2-3
View of Second and Third Test Structures
The line segment traversed the ground in an east to west orientation. The first dead
end structure (DE_1) was located at the western end of the test line while the second
dead end (DE _2) was located at the eastern end. The first (ST_1), second (ST_2), and
third (ST_3) structure were located at 1000-ft. intervals from DE_1. There were neither
horizontal nor vertical line angles within the line segment.
2.3 Conductor and Shield Wire

Conductors and shield wire used on the test line were 795 kcmil ACSR ‘Drake’ and 3/8
inch EHS, respectively. Conductors were arranged in both the traditional vertical
three-phase and delta configuration typical of steel pole transmission lines topped by a
single shield wire. Conductors were attached to the insulators using armor grip
suspension hardware while the shield wire was connected to the top of the structures
using standard suspension shoes and high strength shackles.
2-5
Test Description
2.4 Test Cases
A total of 16 dynamic tests were performed on the test line. The test cases simulated the
failure of conductors or shield wires. Table 2-1 shows a summary description of all
tests. The ‘Broken Conductor’ load case simulated the failure of the conductor (physical
separation) on any phase of the span. Failure of the conductor resulted in large
unbalanced loads acting on the two adjacent structures. Similarly, the ‘Broken Shield
Wire’ load case simulated the failure of one of the shield wires.
Table 2-1
Summary of Extreme Event Test Cases
Test Phase Insulator % UTS Load Case

Number Configuration Length Tension
1 Vertical Long 15 Broken Ground Wire
2 Vertical Long 15 Broken Upper Conductor
3 Vertical Long 25 Broken Ground Wire
4 Vertical Long 25 Broken Upper Conductor
5 Vertical Short 25 Broken Ground Wire
6 Vertical Short 25 Broken Upper Conductor
7 Vertical Short 15 Broken Ground Wire
8 Vertical Short 15 Broken Upper Conductor
9 Delta Long 15 Broken Middle Conductor
10 Delta Long 15 Broken Upper Conductor
15 Delta Short 25 Broken Middle Conductor
16 Delta Short 25 Broken Upper Conductor
Critical parameters varied in the tests consisted of the structural stiffness, the insulator
length, and the tension in both shield wires and conductors in addition to varying the
location of the initial failure. Previous investigations had shown that the magnitude of
the unbalanced load was significantly influenced by the span/insulator ratio (i.e., span
length divided by insulator length), the span/sag ratio (i.e., span length divided by the
wire sag), and the structural flexibility of the wire supports (i.e., unit deflection divided
by unit load).
2-6
3
INSTRUMENTATION
Load cells were located in each conductor and shield wire phase of the test line
segment. Additionally, load cells were placed in each insulator string. Figure 3-1
shows the location of each load cell in each span. Furthermore, transducers were used
to measure the ambient temperature, relative humidity, and atmospheric pressure.
3.1 Load Cells
Tension load cells were used to monitor the loads in each conductor and shield wire in
each of the 16 dynamic tests. Additionally, load cells were located at each insulator
string of S_1, S_2, and S_3 structures resulting in a total of 25 load cells. The tension
load cells are fully weatherproof and temperature compensated for temperatures
ranging from -20°F to 120°F. Load cells used to measure tensions in the shield wires
had a full-scale load range of 12-kip; load cells used in the conductors had a full-scale
load range of 25-kip; and load cells used in the insulator strings had a full-scale load
range of 50-kip.
Tension load cells in the first span were located 10 ft. to the left of the S_1 structure
while load cells in the second span were located 10 ft. to the right. Load cells in the
third span were located 10 ft. to the right of structure S_2 and load cells in the fourth
span were located 10 ft. to the right of structure S_3. Insulator load cells were located in
the top of each insulator string at structures S_1, S_2, and S_3.
Each load cell was calibrated before and after the tests at the PDC with a hydraulic,
100-kip MTS test machine. The calibration data (i.e., calibration constants and offsets)
were used during the tests to determine the load cell readings. Correlation of the pre-
and post-test calibrations indicated that the load cells used in the tests had errors of less
than 1% of the full-scale load range.
3.2 Data Acquisition
All data acquisition was performed using a 486 personal computer equipped to collect
data on up to 64 channels at frequencies of up to 1000 Hz. Each load cell signal was
amplified at the load cell before being transmitted through shielded co-axial cable to the
data acquisition system. Data was collected at 60 Hz. for 30 seconds on 32 channels (i.e.,
3-1
Instrumentation
29 load cells, temperature, relative humidity, and atmospheric pressure). Data was
acquired analog, passed through an analog to digital converter, and filtered to remove
any high frequency noise above 50 Hz.
Once the data was filtered all measurements were stored in binary format in the data
acquisition system. Upon completion of each test, the data was backed up to removable
storage media and subsequently converted to ASCII format. Converted files were then
stored separately to be reduced and analyzed.
Figure 3-1
Location of Test Line Load Cells
3.3 Data Reduction
ASCII data files were processed to determine statistical parameters such as average
value, median value, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, and maximum and
minimum value. Additionally, the data was processed to determine tensions prior to
and after the failure (i.e., initial and residual tensions). Last, results of the data
reduction were summarized in an ASCII summary file and time history plots of each
channel were stored in a graphics language print file.
3-2
Instrumentation
A second data reduction module was used to produce time histories of the unbalanced
longitudinal loads at each conductor and shield wire phase of each structure.
Additionally, time histories of the unbalanced reactions were extracted at each
structure. Last, results of the secondary data reduction were summarized in a different
ASCII summary file and time history plots of each of the unbalanced longitudinal loads
and reactions were stored in a graphics language print file.
3-3
4
TEST RESULTS
Data obtained in each test included the shield wire, conductor, and insulator tension
time histories. Table 4-1 shows the test summary of a particular configuration. The
summary includes a description of the test configuration, the type of failure simulated,
date and time of the experiment, and the observed outcome of the test. Tables shown in
sections 4.1 through 4.3 are used to illustrate the results of the data reduction for a
single test case. Test information on all 16 dynamic tests can be found in Appendix A of
this report.
Table 4-1
Dynamic Test Summary Table
Configuration 1 1/0/00
25% UTS 0:00:00
Long Insulators
No Pods
Test Broken Ground Wire (D1204A.001)
Outcome Test Successful
4.1 Conductor and Shield Wire Tension
Shield wire, conductor, and insulator tensions were monitored throughout each test.
Table 4-2 shows a statistical summary of all measurements recorded for this particular
configuration. Of special interest to the evaluation of the transient data are the average
values before and after the test (i.e., initial and static residual tensions) and the peak
amplitudes of the transient response.
Table 4-2 shows that tensions in the conductors and shield wire for this particular
configuration were approximately 7900 lb. and 3400 lb. prior to the test. Target tensions
were 7875 lb. and 3850 lb. at 60ºF. However, small differences in the instrumentation
offset and a different ambient temperature typically induced slight differences in the
tensions measured prior to the test. Consequently, measured tensions were normalized
to eliminate these effects. Additionally, in order to facilitate comparisons of the
different test configurations, measured tensions were normalized with respect to the
4-1
Test Results
target tensions. Table 4-3 shows normalized shield wire, conductor, and insulator
tensions for the broken shield wire test described in Table 4-1.
Table 4-2
Shield Wire, Conductor and Insulator Tension Summary - Test Data
Average Average Average Standard Maximum Minimum

Value Value Value Deviation Value Value
(Before) (After)
LC_1 7407 7333 7441 135 7997 7016
MC_1 8219 8043 8302 158 8773 7948
UC_1 8056 7663 8239 306 8985 7590
S_1 970 3296 -191 1639 3570 -493
LC_2 7381 7389 7374 113 7851 6898
MC_2 7793 7801 7783 83 8090 7457
UC_2 7483 7456 7486 140 8164 6731
S_2 2550 3521 1368 1537 10130 911
LI_2 1421 1414 1426 42 1615 1233
MI_2 1506 1481 1516 34 1684 1403
UI_2 1574 1450 1627 116 1950 1395
LC_3 7490 7525 7469 70 7744 7123
MC_3 10380 10470 10340 92 10540 10090
UC_3 7126 7228 7075 166 7727 6567
S_3 3266 3440 1580 1897 10330 737
LI_3 1387 1380 1389 23 1520 1289
MI_3 4035 3744 4183 211 4297 2880
UI_3 1290 1260 1298 53 1495 1149
LC_4 6982 7031 6954 141 7496 6378
MC_4 7620 7711 7570 123 7963 7196
UC_4 6841 6941 6790 177 7497 6277
S_4 2930 3866 2441 747 4092 1080
LI_4 1403 1405 1404 27 1489 1298
MI_4 1396 1397 1396 26 1482 1303
UI_4 1369 1367 1372 45 1510 1232
Basic Unit of Measurement (lb.)
Test results were processed to calculate the average tension in the shield wire and
conductors before and after each test for each load cell (i.e., initial and residual wire
tension). Both initial and residual static wire tensions have been used in previous
investigations to define load impact factors. Load impact factors were defined to
produce equivalent static loads for a transmission structure with load and deflection
characteristics comparable to actual dynamic loads observed in tests.
4-2
Test Results
In addition, data was processed to identify maximum and minimum response values in
each load cell time history for each test. Maximum and minimum response values were
used to determine the upper and lower limit of the tension changes in each span for
each wire. Peak to peak data ranges were then correlated to standard deviations.
Similar to the data in Table 4-2, test results were processed to calculate the normalized
average tension in the shield wire and conductors before and after each test for each
load cell (i.e., normalized initial and residual wire tension). Normalized wire tensions
from all tests were correlated and compared to values published by previous
investigators.
Table 4-3
Normalized Shield Wire, Conductor and Insulator Tension Summary - Test Data
Normalized Normalized Normalized Normalized Normalized Normalized

(Before) (After)
LC_1 0.960 0.950 0.964 0.017 1.036 0.909
MC_1 1.065 1.042 1.076 0.020 1.137 1.030
UC_1 1.044 0.993 1.068 0.040 1.164 0.984
S_1 0.275 0.934 -0.054 0.464 1.011 -0.140
LC_2 0.957 0.958 0.956 0.015 1.017 0.894
MC_2 1.010 1.011 1.009 0.011 1.048 0.966
UC_2 0.970 0.966 0.970 0.018 1.058 0.872
S_2 0.722 0.997 0.388 0.435 2.870 0.258
LI_2 0.184 0.183 0.185 0.005 0.209 0.160
MI_2 0.195 0.192 0.196 0.004 0.218 0.182
UI_2 0.204 0.188 0.211 0.015 0.253 0.181
LC_3 0.971 0.975 0.968 0.009 1.004 0.923
MC_3 1.345 1.357 1.340 0.012 1.366 1.308
UC_3 0.924 0.937 0.917 0.022 1.001 0.851
S_3 0.925 0.975 0.448 0.537 2.926 0.209
LI_3 0.180 0.179 0.180 0.003 0.197 0.167
MI_3 0.523 0.485 0.542 0.027 0.557 0.373
UI_3 0.167 0.163 0.168 0.007 0.194 0.149
LC_4 0.905 0.911 0.901 0.018 0.971 0.827
MC_4 0.988 0.999 0.981 0.016 1.032 0.933
UC_4 0.887 0.900 0.880 0.023 0.972 0.814
S_4 0.830 1.095 0.692 0.212 1.159 0.306
LI_4 0.182 0.182 0.182 0.003 0.193 0.168
MI_4 0.181 0.181 0.181 0.003 0.192 0.169
UI_4 0.177 0.177 0.178 0.006 0.196 0.160
4-3
Test Results
Again, data was processed to identify normalized maximum and minimum response
values in each load cell time history for each test. Normalized maximum and minimum
response values were used to determine the upper and lower limit of the tension
changes in each span for each wire. Peak to peak data ranges were then correlated to
normalized standard deviations.
4.2 Unbalanced Longitudinal Loads
Unbalanced longitudinal loads were calculated based on the measured tension time
histories for each particular configuration. Unbalanced loads were calculated at each
structure for each phase and shield wire. Table 4-4 shows a summary of the unbalanced
longitudinal loads acting on the first, second, and third structure for the broken shield
wire test configuration described in Table 4-1.
Table 4-4
Unbalanced Longitudinal Load Summary - Test Data

(Before) (After)
LC_S1 -26.2 56.4 -66.8 71.9 174.7 -286.8
MC_S1 -426.4 -242.1 -519.1 142.4 -170.6 -793.3
UC_S1 -573.6 -206.8 -753.0 283.0 -40.3 -1300.0
S_S1 1581.0 224.6 1560.0 1671.0 10370.0 136.9
LC_S2 108.9 135.5 94.8 135.0 593.3 -441.7
MC_S2 2591.0 2670.0 2555.0 105.3 2959.0 2213.0
UC_S2 -356.5 -228.0 -410.7 139.2 216.5 -862.5
S_S2 715.7 -81.2 212.0 1675.0 10370.0 -8307.0
LC_S3 -507.9 -493.8 -514.8 130.8 75.7 -1037.0
MC_S3 -2764.0 -2759.0 -2767.0 89.1 -2382.0 -3089.0
UC_S3 -285.1 -287.1 -285.2 104.5 343.1 -1111.0
S_S3 -336.3 426.6 861.0 1945.0 2449.0 -7380.0
Unbalanced loads were corrected to eliminate the effect of slight load imbalances prior
to the test. Table 4-5 shows a summary of all unbalanced loads on the first, second, and
third structure for the particular test configuration as a result of the shield wire failure.
Maximum and minimum unbalanced longitudinal loads are shown for each shield wire
and conductor phase. Finally, the table summarizes the net unbalanced shield wire and
conductor loads acting on each structure.
4-4
Test Results
Table 4-5
Normalized Unbalanced Longitudinal Load Summary - Test Data
Average Average Average Standard Maximum Minimum Net

Value Value Value Deviation Value Value Unbalanced
(Before) (After) Load
LC_S1 -82.620 0.000 -123.220 15.470 118.270 -343.230 -343.230
MC_S1 -184.300 0.000 -277.000 384.500 71.500 -551.200 -551.200
UC_S1 -366.800 0.000 -546.200 489.800 166.500 -1093.200 -1093.200
S_S1 1356.400 0.000 1335.400 1446.400 10145.400 -87.700 10145.400
LC_S2 -26.600 0.000 -40.680 -0.500 457.800 -577.200 -577.200
MC_S2 -79.000 0.000 -115.000 -2564.700 289.000 -457.000 -457.000
UC_S2 -128.500 0.000 -182.700 367.200 444.500 -634.500 -634.500
S_S2 796.880 0.000 293.180 1756.180 10451.180 -8225.820 10451.180
LC_S3 -14.100 0.000 -21.000 624.600 569.520 -543.200 569.520
MC_S3 -5.000 0.000 -8.000 2848.140 377.000 -330.000 377.000
UC_S3 2.000 0.000 1.900 391.600 630.200 -823.900 -823.900
S_S3 -762.900 0.000 434.400 1518.400 2022.400 -7806.600 -7806.600
Unbalanced longitudinal loads were processed to identify maximum and minimum

response values in each load cell time history for each test. Maximum and minimum
response values were used to determine the upper and lower limit of the tension
changes in each span for each wire. Peak to peak data ranges were then correlated to
standard deviations.
Table 4-6
Unbalanced Reaction Summary - Test Data

(Before) (After)
M_S1 79690 -5403 58200 140200 895300 -17380
T_S1 -9471 -3813 -12610 4454 686 -20040
V_S1_MAX 555 -168 221 1476 9621 -343
V_S1_MIN 555 -168 221 1476 9621 -343
M_S2 186800 128100 134000 151500 936900 -618200
T_S2 23800 25730 22490 2781 36170 12510
V_S2_MAX 3059 2496 2451 1649 11300 -5754
V_S2_MIN 3059 2496 2451 1649 11300 -5754
M_S3 -222800 -152000 -113100 179500 34500 -853400
T_S3 -35740 -35190 -35240 2223 -28600 -46320
V_S3_MAX -3893 -3114 -2706 1958 -1062 -10980
V_S3_MIN -3893 -3114 -2706 1958 -1062 -10980
Basic Unit of Measurement (lb. or ft.-lb.)
4-5
Test Results
4.3 Reactions
Similar to the unbalanced longitudinal load summary, unbalanced reaction forces were
calculated based on the measured tension time histories for each particular
configuration. Unbalanced reaction forces were calculated at each structure. Table 4-6
shows a summary of the unbalanced reaction forces at the first, second, and third
structure for the broken shield wire test configuration described in Table 4-1.
Unbalanced reaction forces were corrected to eliminate the effect of slight load
imbalances prior to the test. Table 4-7 shows a summary of the unbalanced reactions for
the particular test configuration. Also, maximum and minimum unbalanced reactions
are summarized. Last, based on the peak reactions observed during the test, the table
summarizes the maximum strength demand imposed on the first, second, and third
structure as a result of the shield wire failure. The maximum strength demand is
defined as the ratio of the maximum observed reaction force (i.e., Mmax, Tmax, or Vmax)
divided by ultimate strength of the transmission support structure (i.e., Mu, Tu, or Vu).
Table 4-7
Normalized Unbalanced Reaction Summary - Test Data
Average Average Average Standard Maximum Minimum Maximum

Value Value Value Deviation Value Value Strength
(Before) (After) Demand
M_S1 0.271 0.000 0.202 0.463 2.864 -0.038 2.864
T_S1 -0.009 0.000 -0.014 0.013 0.007 -0.026 0.026
V_S1_MAX 0.005 0.000 0.003 0.011 0.065 -0.001 0.065
V_S1_MIN 0.005 0.000 0.003 0.011 0.065 -0.001 0.065
M_S2 0.187 0.000 0.019 0.074 2.572 -2.373 2.572
T_S2 -0.003 0.000 -0.005 -0.037 0.017 -0.021 0.021
V_S2_MAX 0.004 0.000 0.000 -0.006 0.059 -0.055 0.059
V_S2_MIN 0.004 0.000 0.000 -0.006 0.059 -0.055 0.059
M_S3 -0.225 0.000 0.124 1.054 0.593 -2.230 2.230
T_S3 -0.001 0.000 0.000 0.060 0.011 -0.018 0.018
V_S3_MAX -0.005 0.000 0.003 0.034 0.014 -0.052 0.052
V_S3_MIN -0.005 0.000 0.003 0.034 0.014 -0.052 0.052
The ultimate strength of the transmission structure Mu, Tu, or Vu is determined by

calculating the maximum allowable overturning moment, base torsion, or base shear
that the structure can resist at the ground line without failure. Failure at the ground
line of a transmission structure is defined in this document as the loss of load carrying
capability at the ground line.
4-6
Test Results
4.4 Longitudinal Load Impact Factors
Based on test results, longitudinal load impact factors were determined for the first,
second, and third structure. Longitudinal load impact factors (LLIF) are defined in this
document as the ratio of the peak unbalanced tension (PUT) divided by the initial
tension (IT) of the conductor or shield wire prior to failure (i.e., LLIF = PUT/IT).
Therefore, the peak unbalanced tension can also be expressed as the product of the
longitudinal load impact factor and the initial tension for a particular conductor or
shield wire.
Figure 4-1 shows longitudinal load impact factors for the first structure away from the
initial failure as a function of the normalized weight span of the catenary. Impact
factors at the first structure were calculated for all 16 tests and averaged at each distinct
weight span ratio. Thus, Figure 4-1 shows the average longitudinal load impact factor
for each of the normalized weight spans in all 16 tests. The normalized weight span of
a catenary wire is directly proportional to the span/sag ratio and is defined as the
square root of the weight span divided by the initial tension prior to failure.
Figure 4-2 shows longitudinal load impact factors for the second structure from the
initial failure as a function of the normalized weight span of the catenary. Again,
impact factors for all 16 tests were calculated and averaged at each distinct weight span
ratio. A closer examination of the differences between Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 shows
a significant reduction in the magnitude of the longitudinal load impact factors from
the first structure to the second structure. Based on the data, impact factors at the first
structure vary uniformly and are about 30% higher than impact factors observed at the
second structure at all normalized weight span ratios.
Similarly, Figure 4-3 shows longitudinal load impact factors for the third structure from
the initial failure. As before, impact factors for all 16 tests were calculated and
averaged at each distinct weight span ratio. As expected, an examination of Figure 4-2
and Figure 4-3 also shows a significant reduction in the magnitude of the longitudinal
load impact factors from the second to the third structure. Longitudinal load impact
factors at the second structure also vary uniformly and are about 30% higher than
impact factors observed at the third structure at all normalized weight span ratios.
4-7
Test Results
Figure 4-1
Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the First Structure from the Failure - Test
Figure 4-2
Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the Second Structure from the Failure - Test
4-8
Test Results
Figure 4-3
Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the Third Structure from the Failure - Test
4-9
5
CASCADING FAILURE RISK ASSESSMENT (CASE)
Similar to the tests, data obtained in each CASE assessment included the shield wire,
conductor, and insulator tension time histories. Tables shown illustrate the results of
the cascading failure risk assessment (CASE) method and show predictions made by
the method for the same test configuration discussed in Section 4. CASE predictions for
all 16 test conditions can be found in Appendix B of this report.
5.1 Conductor and Shield Wire Tension
Shield wire, conductor, and insulator tensions were extracted from each CASE
assessment. Results from the CASE analysis were processed to calculate the
normalized average tension in the shield wires and conductors before and after the
initiating failure for each load cell (i.e., normalized initial and residual wire tension).
Normalized wire tensions from all CASE assessments were correlated and compared to
test results published by previous investigators. Axial loads in the insulators were
normalized with respect to the target conductor tensions.
Predictions made by the CASE methodology display similar magnitudes and dynamic
characteristics than values observed in the full-scale test. However, it is quite apparent
that the normalized tensions in any of the other wires vary very little and do not
compare well with predictions made by the CASE assessment methodology. This
apparent discrepancy has been traced to the difference between the calculated stiffness
based on idealized boundary conditions and material properties and the actual stiffness
observed in full-scale tests with real boundary conditions and material properties.
5.2 Unbalanced Longitudinal Loads
Unbalanced longitudinal loads were calculated based on the calculated tension time
histories for each particular configuration. Unbalanced loads were calculated at each
structure for each phase and shield wire. Table 5-1 shows a summary of the
unbalanced longitudinal loads acting on the first, second, and third structure.
5-1
Cascading Failure Risk Assessment (CASE)
5.3 Reactions
Similar to the unbalanced longitudinal load summary, unbalanced reaction forces were
calculated based on the measured tension time histories for each particular
configuration at each structure. Predicted unbalanced reaction forces compared
favorably with measured values.
Table 5-1
Normalized Unbalanced Longitudinal Load Summary - CASE
Net
Maximum Minimum Unbalanced
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S1 0.980 0.000 0.980
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S2 0.680 0.000 0.680
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S3 0.540 0.000 0.540
5.4 Longitudinal Load Impact Factors
Based on the CASE assessment results, longitudinal load impact factors were
determined for all three structures. Figure 5-1 shows longitudinal load impact factors
as a function of the normalized weight span of the catenary.
Figure 5-2 shows longitudinal load impact factors for the second structure as a function
of the normalized weight span. Similarly, Figure 5-3 shows longitudinal load impact
factors predicted by the CASE assessment for the third structure from the initial failure.
5-2
Longitudinal Load Impact Factor

2.00
Impact Factor - Tower 1
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
1/2
Normalized Weight-Span Ratio [wL/Ti]
CASE
Figure 5-1
Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the First Structure from the Failure - CASE

2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
1/2
CASE
Figure 5-2
Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the Second Structure from the Failure - CASE
5-3

2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Normalized Weight-Span Ratio [wL/Ti]1/2

CASE
Figure 5-3
Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the Third Structure from the Failure - CASE
5-4
6
COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED
VALUES
6.1 Predicted and Measured Longitudinal Load Impact Factors
Measured impact factors and impact factors predicted using the CASE assessment
method were compared to scale model and full-scale test values published by other
researchers. Figure 6-1 shows a comparison of CASE assessment predictions, full-scale
test results, and published information for the first structure from the initial failure as a
function of the normalized weight span.
Conductor Impact Factor

2.00
1.50 FS Tests
CASE
Thomas
Mozer
1.00 Ferry-Borges
Peyrot
Haro
BPA Lattice
BPA St. Pole
0.50
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
1/2
Figure 6-1
Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the First Structure from the Failure
Based on the data shown in Figure 6-1 it can be concluded that the full-scale test results
and the CASE assessment predictions compare very well at the first structure from the
6-1
Comparison of Predicted and Measured Values
initial failure. Depending on the normalized weight span, average impact factors at the
first structure range from 1.0 to a maximum value of 2.0.
Figure 6-2 shows predicted and measured impact factors in comparison with published
values for the second structure from the initial failure. Again, impact factors from the
full-scale tests, impact factors predicted by the CASE assessment method, and
published values compare very well, even though data appears to be more dispersed
than values measured at the first structure. Average impact factors at the second
structure from the initial failure range from 0.6 for a normalized weight span of 0.3 to
1.0 for a normalized weight span of 0.5. Based on the data, impact factors at the second
structure are approximately 50 percent lower than comparable values at the first
structure.

2.00
1.50
FS Tests
CASE
Peyrot
1.00 Haro
BPA Lattice
BPA St. Pole
0.50
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
1/2
Normalized Weight-Span Ratio [wL/Ti ]
Figure 6-2
Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the Second Structure from the Failure
Figure 6-3 shows predicted and measured impact factors in comparison with published
values for the third structure from the initial failure. Similar to Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-
2, impact factors obtained in the full-scale tests, impact factors predicted by the CASE
assessment method correlate well with published values. As observed in Figure 6-2,
the data appears to be more dispersed than values measured at the first structure from
the initial failure. Average impact factors at the third structure from the initial failure
range from 0.5 for a normalized weight span of 0.3 to 0.7 for a normalized weight span
of 0.5. Based on the data, impact factors at the third structure are approximately 25
percent lower than comparable values at the second structure.
6-2

2.00
1.50
FS Tests
1.00 CASE
Haro
0.50
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
1/2
Figure 6-3
Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the Third Structure from the Failure
6.2 Influence of Span/Sag Ratio, Span/Insulator Ratio, and Structural

Flexibility on Measured and Predicted Impact Factors
Figure 6-4, 6-5, and 6-6 show measured and predicted longitudinal load impact factors
as a function of span/sag ratios. Impact factors predicted using the CASE assessment
method and results from Bonneville Power Administration’s scale model study are
compared to impact factors measured in the full-scale tests. Based on the data shown
in Figure 6-4, 6-5, and 6-6, it can be concluded that the magnitude of the longitudinal
load impact factor is primarily a function of the span/sag ratio. As the span/sag ratio
increases, the longitudinal load impact factors at the first, second, and third structure
decrease. On the contrary, as the span/sag ratio decreases, the impact factors at the
first, second, and third structure increase. Impact factors range from 0.7 to 1.9, 0.4 to
1.5, and 0.2 to 1.3 for the first, second, and third structure from the initial failure,
respectively.
6-3

2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Span/Sag
FS Tests BPA Lattice BPA St. Pole CASE
Figure 6-4
Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the First Structure vs. Span/Sag Ratio

2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Span/Sag
FS Tests BPA Lattice BPA St. Pole CASE
Figure 6-5
Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the Second Structure vs. Span/Sag Ratio
6-4

2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Span/Sag
FS Tests CASE
Figure 6-6
Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the Third Structure vs. Span/Sag Ratio
Both, longitudinal load impact factors predicted by the CASE assessment method and
measured values were determined to vary as a function of the span/insulator ratio.
Figures 6-7, 6-8, and 6-9 show longitudinal load impact factors as a function of the
span/insulator ratio. Based on the data, it appears that the average longitudinal load
impact factor increases if the span/insulator ratio decreases and that the impact factor
decreases as the span/insulator ratio increases. Average longitudinal load impact
factors range from 0.9 to 1.2, 0.5 to 0.8, and 0.4 to 0.6 for the first, second, and third
structure, respectively.
Based on the test results and the predictions made by the CASE assessment method,
changes in the span/insulator ratio do not appear to influence the magnitude of the
longitudinal load impact factors as significantly as variations in the span/sag ratio. For
example, the average longitudinal load impact factor at the first structure for a
span/insulator ratio of 100 is approximately 1.1 while the average longitudinal load
impact factor for a span/insulator ratio of 200 equals approximately 1.0. Thus, a
reduction in the length of the insulator by a factor of two decreases the longitudinal
load impact factor by only 10 percent. On the contrary, a reduction in the sag of the
conductor or shield wire by a factor of two decreases the longitudinal load impact
factor by approximately 25 percent. Similar rates of reduction in the average
longitudinal load impact factors have been observed in the data of the first and second
structure at the same span/insulator ratios.
6-5

2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Span/Insulator
FS Tests CASE
Figure 6-7
Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the First Structure vs. Span/Insulator Ratio

2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Span/Insulator
FS Tests CASE
Figure 6-8
Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the Second Structure vs. Span/Insulator Ratio
6-6

2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Span/Insulator
FS Tests CASE
Figure 6-9
Longitudinal Load Impact Factors at the Third Structure vs. Span/Insulator Ratio
6-7
7
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Summary
A total of 16 full-scale dynamic tests were performed on a four-span steel pole line
segment for two different phase configurations. The test line consisted of a traditional
twelve-sided steel pole single circuit configuration with three conductors and 1 shield
wire. Failure modes simulated in the tests included broken shield wire or conductor
failure. Load cells were used in each span at each shield wire and conductor location
and at each insulator.
Data was processed to determine longitudinal load impact factors at the first, second,
and third structure from the initial failure. Impact factors were compared to impact
factors predicted by the advanced CASE assessment method and to scale model and
full-scale test values published by other researchers.
7.2 Conclusions
Unbalanced longitudinal load predictions by the CASE assessment method for the first,
second, and third structure from the initial failure compare well with measured full-
scale test values and values published by other researchers (see also Volume III of the
report). Based on the data, unbalanced longitudinal loads were significantly lower at
the second structure compared to the first structure. Similarly, unbalanced longitudinal
loads were significantly lower at the third structure relative to the second structure and
the first structure.
Longitudinal load impact factors and corresponding unbalanced longitudinal loads at

each structure away from the structure appear to be primarily a function of the
span/sag ratio, the span/insulator ratio, and the structural flexibility (see also Volume
III of the report). As the span/sag ratios increase, the impact factors at the first, second,
and third structure decrease while the initial tensions increase resulting in non-
proportional changes of the unbalanced longitudinal loads. On the contrary, as the
span/sag ratios decrease, the impact factors at the first, second, and third structure
7-1
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
increase while the initial tensions decrease resulting in non-proportional changes of the
unbalanced longitudinal loads.
Impact factors and corresponding unbalanced longitudinal loads at each structure were
determined to vary as a function of the span/insulator ratio. Based on the data,
increases in the span/insulator ratios appear to reduce impact factors and unbalanced
longitudinal loads at each structure while decreasing span/insulator ratios have the
opposite effect (see also Volume III of the report). However, changes in the
span/insulator ratios do not affect the magnitude of the impact factors and
corresponding unbalanced loads as severe as changes in the span/sag ratios.
Finally, it was observed that the flexibility of the structures had an effect on the
magnitudes of the impact factors and corresponding unbalanced longitudinal loads at
each support (see also Volume III of the report). Based on the data, increases in the
structural flexibility cause a reduction of the impact factors and unbalanced
longitudinal loads at each structure while decreases in the structural flexibility cause an
increase in the unbalanced longitudinal loads. However, it was observed that large
changes in the structural flexibility of the support structures cause only relatively small
changes in the impact factors and corresponding unbalanced longitudinal loads at the
first, second, and third structure from the initial failure. Based on the structural
characteristics of most transmission structures, changes in the impact factors and
unbalanced longitudinal loads are less than 10 percent of the value.
Test results show that the CASE assessment method accurately predicts unbalanced
longitudinal loads at the first, second, and third structure from an initial failure such as
a broken shield wire or conductor (also see Volume III). Additionally, the CASE
assessment method correctly predicts the dissipation of energy along the transmission
line in the computation of the unbalanced longitudinal loads. The CASE assessment
method can be used to determine the cascading potential of transmission lines allowing
the engineer to identify the most critical lines within a particular utility’s system.
7.3 Recommendations
While the CASE assessment method allows the engineer to identify the transmission
lines with the highest cascading potential, it does not provide the tools or devices to
mitigate the identified problem. There is a need to develop a variety of cascading
failure mitigation devices such as longitudinal load dampers or load reduction
hardware. Mitigation alternatives need to be developed which can be used to mitigate
the cascading potential on existing line configurations and in limited right-of-way
situations. Naturally, such mitigation alternatives would also facilitate upgrading of
otherwise marginal transmission lines.
Additionally, there is a need to tie the cascading potential of a particular transmission

line to factors that can be used to quantify the economic risk of a particular situation.
7-2
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
Therefore it is necessary to develop probability based longitudinal load magnitudes and

return periods based on the CASE assessment method and utility specific historic data
to more accurately predict the financial risk of a line’s cascading potential. As a result,
system reliability levels relative to wind and ice loading can then be matched with
corresponding values for unbalanced longitudinal loads.
7-3
8
REFERENCES
(1) DYNAMIC TESTING OF LATTICE STEEL MASTS, 1968, International

Conference on Large Electrical Systems, CIGRE Proceedings, 22nd Session, Paris,
Volume 1, Report No. 22-04.
(2) RATIONAL DETERMINATION OF DESIGN LOADING FOR OVERHEAD LINE

TOWERS, E. Comellini and C. Manuzio, CIGRE, International Conference on
Large Electric Systems, 1968, Paris, France, Paper No. 23-08.
(3) BROKEN WIRE ASSUMPTION, AIEE Committee Report, Paper 60, Power
Apparatus and Systems, June 1960.
(4) INVESTIGATIONS ON FORCES ACTING ON A SUPPORT AFTER

CONDUCTOR BREAKAGE, L. Haro, B. Magnusson, and K. Ponni, CIGRE,
International Conference on Large Electrical Systems, Paris, 1956, No. 210.
(5) ON THE IMPACT OF UNI-DIRECTIONAL FORCES ON HIGH VOLTAGE

TOWERS FOLLOWING CONDUCTOR BREAKAGE, A. Govers, CIGRE,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Large High Tension Electric
Systems, 23rd Session, Paris, Volume 1, Paper No. 22-03.
(6) LONGITUDINAL LOADS FROM BROKEN CONDUCTORS AND BROKEN

INSULATORS AND THEIR EFFECT ON TRANSMISSION LINE, A. Peyrot, R.
Kluge, and J. Lee, IEEE Proceedings on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-
99, No. 1, New York, NY, 1980, Paper No. F79 233-8.
(7) EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE STRESSES CREATED BY THE BREAKAGE

OF CONDUCTORS IN HIGH-VOLTAGE LINES, J. Ferry-Borges, Department of
Public Works, National Civil Engineering Laboratory, Lisbon, Portugal, Nov.
1968.
(8) LONGITUDINAL UNBALANCED LOADS ON TRANSMISSION LINE

STRUCTURES, GAI Consultants, Electric Power Research Institute, Report No.
EL-643, 1978.
8-1
References
(9) LONGITUDINAL IMPACT LOADING OF TRANSMISSION TOWERS -

PRELIMINARY RESULTS, L. Kempner, W. Mueller, and T. Do, Proceedings of
Bonneville Power Administration Engineering Conference, 1990.
(10) LONGITUDINAL LOADING & CASCADING FAILURE RISK ASSESSMENT

(CASE) - Volume I: Simplified Approach, M. Ostendorp, Electric Power Research
Institute, Report No. TR-107087, 1996.

(CASE) - Volume II: Advanced Methods, M. Ostendorp, Electric Power Research

(CASE) - Volume III: H-Frame Tests, M. Ostendorp, Electric Power Research
8-2
B
CASE ASSESSMENT PREDICTIONS -
'VERTICAL' CONFIGURATION
B-1
CASE Assessment Predictions - ‘Vertical’ Configuration
Table B-1
Normalized Tensions - Broken Ground Wire, Long Insulator, 15% UTS
Normalized Normalized
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.286 0.286
MI_2 0.286 0.286
UI_2 0.286 0.286
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.286 0.286
MI_3 0.286 0.286
UI_3 0.286 0.286
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.286 0.286
MI_4 0.286 0.286
UI_4 0.286 0.286
Table B-2
Normalized Unbalanced Loads - Broken Ground Wire, Long Insulator, 15% UTS
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S1 0.980 0.000 0.980
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S2 0.680 0.000 0.680
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S3 0.540 0.000 0.540
B-2
Table B-3
Normalized Tensions - Broken Upper Conductor, Long Insulator, 15% UTS
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.298 0.298
MI_2 0.298 0.298
UI_2 0.298 0.298
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.298 0.298
MI_3 0.298 0.298
UI_3 0.298 0.298
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.298 0.298
MI_4 0.298 0.298
UI_4 0.298 0.298
Table B-4
Normalized Unbalanced Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Long Insulator, 15% UTS
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S1 1.290 0.000 1.290
S_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S2 0.900 0.000 0.900
S_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S3 0.700 0.000 0.700
S_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
B-3
Table B-5
Normalized Tensions - Broken Ground Wire, Long Insulator, 25% UTS
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.175 0.175
MI_2 0.175 0.175
UI_2 0.175 0.175
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.175 0.175
MI_3 0.175 0.175
UI_3 0.175 0.175
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.175 0.175
MI_4 0.175 0.175
UI_4 0.175 0.175
Table B-6
Normalized Unbalanced Loads - Broken Ground Wire, Long Insulator, 25% UTS
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S1 0.770 0.000 0.770
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S2 0.540 0.000 0.540
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S3 0.420 0.000 0.420
B-4
Table B-7
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.184 0.184
MI_2 0.184 0.184
UI_2 0.184 0.184
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.184 0.184
MI_3 0.184 0.184
UI_3 0.184 0.184
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.184 0.184
MI_4 0.184 0.184
UI_4 0.184 0.184
Table B-8
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S1 1.010 0.000 1.010
S_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S2 0.710 0.000 0.710
S_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S3 0.550 0.000 0.550
S_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
B-5
Table B-9
Normalized Tensions - Broken Ground Wire, Short Insulator, 25% UTS
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.183 0.183
MI_2 0.183 0.183
UI_2 0.183 0.183
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.183 0.183
MI_3 0.183 0.183
UI_3 0.183 0.183
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.183 0.183
MI_4 0.183 0.183
UI_4 0.183 0.183
Table B-10
Normalized Unbalanced Loads - Broken Ground Wire, Short Insulator, 25% UTS
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S1 0.700 0.000 0.700
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S2 0.490 0.000 0.490
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S3 0.380 0.000 0.380
B-6
Table B-11
Normalized Tensions - Broken Upper Conductor, Short Insulator, 25% UTS
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.198 0.198
MI_2 0.198 0.198
UI_2 0.198 0.198
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.198 0.198
MI_3 0.198 0.198
UI_3 0.198 0.198
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.198 0.198
MI_4 0.198 0.198
UI_4 0.198 0.198
Table B-12
Normalized Unbalanced Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Short Insulator, 25% UTS
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S1 0.860 0.000 0.860
S_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S2 0.600 0.000 0.600
S_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S3 0.470 0.000 0.470
S_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
B-7
Table B-13
Normalized Tensions - Broken Ground Wire, Short Insulator, 15% UTS
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.299 0.299
MI_2 0.299 0.299
UI_2 0.299 0.299
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.299 0.299
MI_3 0.299 0.299
UI_3 0.299 0.299
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.299 0.299
MI_4 0.299 0.299
UI_4 0.299 0.299
Table B-14
Normalized Unbalanced Loads - Broken Ground Wire, Short Insulator, 15% UTS
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S1 0.950 0.000 0.950
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S2 0.660 0.000 0.660
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S3 0.520 0.000 0.520
B-8
Table B-15
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.311 0.311
MI_2 0.311 0.311
UI_2 0.311 0.311
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.311 0.311
MI_3 0.311 0.311
UI_3 0.311 0.311
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.311 0.311
MI_4 0.311 0.311
UI_4 0.311 0.311
Table B-16
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S1 1.250 0.000 1.250
S_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S2 0.870 0.000 0.870
S_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S3 0.680 0.000 0.680
S_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
B-9
C
FULL-SCALE TEST RESULTS -
'DELTA' CONFIGURATION
C-1
Full-Scale Test Results - ‘Delta’ Configuration
Table C-1
Tension Summary - Broken Middle Conductor, Long Insulator, 15% UTS
Average Average Average Median Standard Coefficient Maximum Minimum

Value Value Value Value Deviation of Value Value
(Before) (After) Variation
LC_1 4172 4141 4181 4146 101 10210 4513 3750
MC_1 1127 4562 15 19 1949 3799000 4934 -361
UC_1 4875 4779 4914 4842 147 21620 5361 4493
S_1 2721 2137 2871 2831 427 182400 4009 2085
LC_2 4521 4501 4529 4502 97 9428 4895 4181
MC_2 2754 4492 2180 2312 1089 1186000 4850 -212
UC_2 4629 4593 4649 4598 116 13330 5101 4240
S_2 2156 2156 2136 2156 128 16280 2580 1780
LI_2 1419 1419 1418 1418 34 1173 1541 1314
MI_2 2214 1491 2427 2343 639 407600 4816 337
UI_2 1438 1433 1439 1433 53 2826 1658 1266
LC_3 4307 4303 4312 4304 85 7243 4620 3934
MC_3 3387 4518 3001 3150 871 758400 5556 375
UC_3 4372 4387 4371 4386 109 11930 4682 3899
S_3 2237 2412 2164 2239 183 33330 2691 1703
LI_3 1427 1428 1426 1426 29 850 1545 1293
MI_3 1529 1385 1573 1475 280 78190 2597 364
UI_3 1153 1150 1156 1150 41 1644 1312 986
LC_4 4125 4132 4126 4130 95 9106 4638 3790
MC_4 3729 4661 3397 3567 871 759100 6333 312
UC_4 4112 4153 4101 4148 118 13830 4535 3663
S_4 2227 2421 2156 2243 210 44080 2752 1611
LI_4 1421 1422 1420 1422 34 1141 1573 1305
MI_4 1441 1417 1443 1419 244 59270 2572 370
UI_4 1398 1394 1400 1396 46 2127 1581 1233
Table C-2
Unbalanced Loads - Broken Middle Conductor, Long Insulator, 15% UTS

LC_S1 348.6 359.6 348.0 356.9 57.6 3321.0 555.7 90.5
MC_S1 1627.0 -70.5 2165.0 2081.0 1069.0 1142000.0 4418.0 -122.1
UC_S1 -245.7 -185.4 -264.9 -232.5 87.7 7688.0 83.4 -626.9
S_S1 -564.5 19.1 -735.0 -651.8 442.1 195500.0 32.5 -1952.0
LC_S2 -214.2 -197.3 -216.8 -199.4 83.7 7008.0 156.1 -532.9
MC_S2 632.7 26.3 820.9 701.7 508.7 258800.0 3070.0 -399.7
UC_S2 -256.9 -205.9 -278.4 -233.4 94.9 9006.0 51.3 -622.3
S_S2 80.7 256.0 28.7 74.7 151.5 22940.0 32.5 -629.0
LC_S3 -181.7 -171.0 -186.2 -174.2 85.4 7299.0 184.8 -512.4
MC_S3 342.3 142.8 395.9 306.2 330.1 109000.0 2700.0 -558.3
UC_S3 -259.9 -234.1 -269.1 -238.4 98.2 9640.0 210.7 -698.9
S_S3 -10.3 8.5 -7.7 7.8 67.1 4503.0 191.1 -382.8
C-2
Table C-3
Normalized Tensions - Broken Middle Conductor, Long Insulator, 15% UTS
Normalized Normalized Normalized Normalized Normalized Normalized Normalized Normalized

LC_1 0.941 0.934 0.943 0.935 0.023 2.302 1.018 0.846
MC_1 0.254 1.029 0.003 0.004 0.439 856.595 1.113 -0.081
UC_1 1.099 1.078 1.108 1.092 0.033 4.875 1.209 1.013
S_1 1.192 0.936 1.258 1.241 0.187 79.930 1.757 0.914
LC_2 1.019 1.015 1.021 1.015 0.022 2.126 1.104 0.943
MC_2 0.621 1.013 0.492 0.521 0.246 267.418 1.094 -0.048
UC_2 1.044 1.036 1.048 1.037 0.026 3.006 1.150 0.956
S_2 0.945 0.945 0.936 0.945 0.056 7.134 1.131 0.780
LI_2 0.320 0.320 0.320 0.320 0.008 0.264 0.347 0.296
MI_2 0.499 0.336 0.547 0.528 0.144 91.905 1.086 0.076
UI_2 0.324 0.323 0.324 0.323 0.012 0.637 0.374 0.285
LC_3 0.971 0.970 0.972 0.970 0.019 1.633 1.042 0.887
MC_3 0.764 1.019 0.677 0.710 0.196 171.003 1.253 0.085
UC_3 0.986 0.989 0.986 0.989 0.025 2.690 1.056 0.879
S_3 0.980 1.057 0.948 0.981 0.080 14.606 1.179 0.746
LI_3 0.322 0.322 0.322 0.322 0.007 0.192 0.348 0.292
MI_3 0.345 0.312 0.355 0.333 0.063 17.630 0.586 0.082
UI_3 0.260 0.259 0.261 0.259 0.009 0.371 0.296 0.222
LC_4 0.930 0.932 0.930 0.931 0.022 2.053 1.046 0.855
MC_4 0.841 1.051 0.766 0.804 0.196 171.161 1.428 0.070
UC_4 0.927 0.936 0.925 0.935 0.027 3.118 1.023 0.826
S_4 0.976 1.061 0.945 0.983 0.092 19.316 1.206 0.706
LI_4 0.320 0.321 0.320 0.321 0.008 0.257 0.355 0.294
MI_4 0.325 0.320 0.325 0.320 0.055 13.364 0.580 0.083
UI_4 0.315 0.314 0.316 0.315 0.010 0.480 0.356 0.278
Table C-4
Normalized Loads - Broken Middle Conductor, Long Insulator, 15% UTS
Average Average Average Median Standard Coefficient Maximum Minimum Net

Value Value Value Value Deviation of Value Value Unbalanced
(Before) (After) Variation Load
LC_S1 -11.000 0.000 -11.600 -2.700 -301.970 2961.400 196.100 -269.140 -269.140
MC_S1 1697.460 0.000 2235.460 2151.460 1139.460 1142070.46 4488.460 -51.640 4488.460
UC_S1 -60.300 0.000 -79.500 -47.100 273.080 7873.400 268.810 -441.500 -441.500
S_S1 -583.640 0.000 -754.140 -670.940 422.960 195480.860 13.380 -1971.140 -1971.140
LC_S2 -16.900 0.000 -19.500 -2.100 281.010 7205.300 353.400 -335.600 353.400
MC_S2 606.370 0.000 794.570 675.370 482.370 258773.670 3043.670 -426.030 3043.670
UC_S2 -51.000 0.000 -72.500 -27.500 300.800 9211.900 257.230 -416.400 -416.400
S_S2 -175.300 0.000 -227.300 -181.340 -104.500 22684.000 -223.480 -885.000 -885.000
LC_S3 -10.700 0.000 -15.200 -3.200 256.430 7470.000 355.800 -341.400 355.800
MC_S3 199.500 0.000 253.100 163.400 187.300 108857.200 2557.200 -701.100 2557.200
UC_S3 -25.800 0.000 -35.000 -4.300 332.280 9874.100 444.800 -464.800 -464.800
S_S3 -18.742 0.000 -16.200 -0.643 58.648 4494.548 182.648 -391.252 -391.252
C-3
Table C-5
Tension Summary - Broken Upper Conductor, Long Insulator, 15% UTS

LC_1 4355 4071 4356 4081 677 458900 7861 2930
MC_1 5003 4927 5041 4974 243 59160 5693 4330
UC_1 1195 4753 4 11 2053 4213000 5151 -403
S_1 3409 2122 3760 3445 1026 1053000 6299 2103
LC_2 4628 4551 4607 4551 566 320600 7184 3003
MC_2 4569 4514 4602 4516 207 43000 5133 3971
UC_2 3109 4637 2544 2803 1126 1268000 5861 -26
S_2 2218 2222 2178 2221 415 172200 3776 1182
LI_2 1479 1414 1447 1418 232 53870 2952 1047
MI_2 1515 1512 1515 1511 66 4347 1771 1303
UI_2 2321 1441 2550 2316 899 807700 6027 166
LC_3 4336 4324 4309 4324 531 281800 6697 2648
MC_3 4523 4543 4527 4543 207 42690 5094 3826
UC_3 3402 4442 2996 3294 948 897900 6322 322
S_3 2173 2438 2068 2217 454 206400 3629 997
LI_3 1429 1418 1429 1419 132 17470 2007 979
MI_3 1390 1391 1392 1390 50 2538 1576 1208
UI_3 1197 1140 1208 1144 300 89950 2740 54
LC_4 4184 4201 4157 4200 547 299200 6783 2070
MC_4 4604 4640 4601 4637 220 48450 5225 3693
UC_4 3409 4210 3085 3394 888 789100 6144 387
S_4 2108 2376 2011 2174 468 218800 3639 998
LI_4 1428 1418 1434 1420 123 15210 2042 808
MI_4 1410 1409 1413 1409 56 3113 1597 1169
UI_4 1383 1390 1371 1389 277 76670 2623 360
Table C-6
Unbalanced Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Long Insulator, 15% UTS

LC_S1 272.4 479.8 251.3 315.1 230.4 53100.0 529.6 -887.3
MC_S1 -434.6 -413.4 -439.6 -429.4 115.1 13240.0 -20.9 -833.7
UC_S1 1914.0 -115.5 2540.0 2323.0 1366.0 1867000.0 5844.0 -202.0
S_S1 -1191.0 99.6 -1582.0 -1351.0 985.7 971600.0 104.2 -4282.0
LC_S2 -291.8 -227.0 -297.4 -233.4 205.0 42020.0 501.0 -1579.0
MC_S2 -45.3 29.2 -74.3 -8.6 143.4 20570.0 431.1 -695.8
UC_S2 293.3 -195.1 452.1 311.9 469.5 220400.0 3149.0 -745.6
S_S2 -45.4 215.9 -110.0 -1.5 286.0 81800.0 104.2 -1157.0
LC_S3 -152.0 -123.1 -152.1 -126.4 194.5 37840.0 546.3 -1261.0
MC_S3 80.5 97.4 74.3 95.2 150.3 22590.0 684.7 -811.2
UC_S3 7.0 -232.7 89.5 -33.8 359.7 129400.0 2499.0 -1485.0
S_S3 -64.8 -61.7 -57.4 -51.4 137.6 18930.0 384.9 -613.4
C-4
Table C-7

LC_1 0.971 0.908 0.971 0.910 0.151 102.342 1.753 0.653
MC_1 1.116 1.099 1.124 1.109 0.054 13.194 1.270 0.966
UC_1 0.267 1.060 0.001 0.002 0.458 939.563 1.149 -0.090
S_1 1.489 0.927 1.643 1.505 0.448 460.026 2.752 0.919
LC_2 1.032 1.015 1.027 1.015 0.126 71.499 1.602 0.670
MC_2 1.019 1.007 1.026 1.007 0.046 9.590 1.145 0.886
UC_2 0.693 1.034 0.567 0.625 0.251 282.783 1.307 -0.006
S_2 0.969 0.971 0.952 0.970 0.181 75.229 1.650 0.516
LI_2 0.330 0.315 0.323 0.316 0.052 12.014 0.658 0.233
MI_2 0.338 0.337 0.338 0.337 0.015 0.969 0.395 0.291
UI_2 0.518 0.321 0.569 0.517 0.200 180.129 1.344 0.037
LC_3 0.967 0.964 0.961 0.964 0.118 62.846 1.494 0.591
MC_3 1.009 1.013 1.010 1.013 0.046 9.521 1.136 0.853
UC_3 0.759 0.991 0.668 0.735 0.211 200.245 1.410 0.072
S_3 0.949 1.065 0.903 0.969 0.198 90.170 1.585 0.435
LI_3 0.319 0.316 0.319 0.316 0.029 3.896 0.448 0.218
MI_3 0.310 0.310 0.310 0.310 0.011 0.566 0.351 0.269
UI_3 0.267 0.254 0.269 0.255 0.067 20.060 0.611 0.012
LC_4 0.933 0.937 0.927 0.937 0.122 66.726 1.513 0.462
MC_4 1.027 1.035 1.026 1.034 0.049 10.805 1.165 0.824
UC_4 0.760 0.939 0.688 0.757 0.198 175.981 1.370 0.086
S_4 0.921 1.038 0.879 0.950 0.204 95.588 1.590 0.436
LI_4 0.318 0.316 0.320 0.317 0.027 3.392 0.455 0.180
MI_4 0.314 0.314 0.315 0.314 0.012 0.694 0.356 0.261
UI_4 0.308 0.310 0.306 0.310 0.062 17.099 0.585 0.080
Table C-8
Normalized Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Long Insulator, 15% UTS

LC_S1 -207.400 0.000 -228.500 -164.700 -249.400 52620.200 49.800 -1367.100 -1367.100
MC_S1 -21.200 0.000 -26.200 -16.000 528.500 13653.400 392.500 -420.300 -420.300
UC_S1 2029.500 0.000 2655.500 2438.500 1481.500 1867115.500 5959.500 -86.500 5959.500
S_S1 -1290.600 0.000 -1681.600 -1450.600 886.100 971500.400 4.600 -4381.600 -4381.600
LC_S2 -64.800 0.000 -70.400 -6.400 432.000 42247.000 728.000 -1352.000 -1352.000
MC_S2 -74.450 0.000 -103.540 -37.773 114.200 20540.800 401.900 -725.000 -725.000
UC_S2 488.400 0.000 647.200 507.000 664.600 220595.100 3344.100 -550.500 3344.100
S_S2 -261.250 0.000 -325.900 -217.418 70.100 81584.100 -111.700 -1372.900 -1372.900
LC_S3 -28.900 0.000 -29.000 -3.300 317.600 37963.100 669.400 -1137.900 -1137.900
MC_S3 -16.880 0.000 -23.150 -2.180 52.880 22492.580 587.280 -908.620 -908.620
UC_S3 239.697 0.000 322.170 198.930 592.400 129632.700 2731.700 -1252.300 2731.700
S_S3 -3.060 0.000 4.320 10.280 199.290 18991.690 446.590 -551.710 -551.710
C-5
Table C-9

LC_1 4214 4194 4214 4195 138 19070 4715 3705
MC_1 1101 4744 64 100 1957 3828000 5165 -493
UC_1 4843 4740 4881 4791 188 35280 5443 4319
S_1 2642 2050 2782 2724 451 203600 4225 1949
LC_2 4496 4467 4502 4470 126 15910 4958 3950
MC_2 2644 4450 2130 2249 1097 1204000 5003 -233
UC_2 4612 4571 4631 4579 140 19520 5010 4211
S_2 2052 2041 2033 2042 140 19490 2463 1580
LI_2 1434 1436 1433 1434 45 2017 1592 1271
MI_2 2201 1507 2400 2253 657 431200 5393 236
UI_2 1456 1445 1460 1448 66 4299 1680 1275
LC_3 4349 4344 4349 4345 98 9654 4647 3976
MC_3 3381 4510 3034 3178 905 818000 5848 425
UC_3 4358 4368 4358 4367 129 16670 4784 3849
S_3 2275 2443 2217 2288 216 46540 2844 1368
LI_3 1419 1417 1419 1418 36 1295 1539 1310
MI_3 1555 1391 1605 1519 327 106800 2594 377
UI_3 1158 1148 1161 1150 54 2877 1382 940
LC_4 4134 4137 4133 4136 127 16230 4651 3550
MC_4 3678 4625 3388 3568 940 882700 6400 280
UC_4 4129 4163 4123 4160 135 18150 4550 3749
S_4 2320 2529 2252 2337 251 63020 2984 1486
LI_4 1421 1424 1420 1422 40 1584 1570 1262
MI_4 1445 1416 1455 1419 272 73710 2608 350
UI_4 1399 1396 1399 1396 49 2402 1620 1197
Table C-10

LC_S1 281.9 273.8 287.8 277.8 54.4 2962.0 466.1 -41.0
MC_S1 1543.0 -293.5 2066.0 1936.0 1119.0 1252000.0 4987.0 -382.8
UC_S1 -230.4 -169.5 -250.2 -213.4 99.0 9795.0 43.9 -531.7
S_S1 -589.9 -8.3 -749.5 -656.4 457.7 209500.0 21.6 -2133.0
LC_S2 -147.2 -123.1 -152.8 -125.3 109.0 11870.0 270.9 -554.2
MC_S2 737.5 59.7 903.7 774.1 566.3 320700.0 3183.0 -500.8
UC_S2 -254.9 -202.5 -272.5 -231.9 98.7 9743.0 55.2 -662.1
S_S2 222.4 401.4 184.2 240.3 181.1 32800.0 21.6 -598.6
LC_S3 -215.2 -207.4 -216.7 -208.7 107.3 11510.0 156.2 -719.1
MC_S3 296.4 114.7 354.2 226.1 360.8 130200.0 2568.0 -927.3
UC_S3 -228.9 -205.0 -235.8 -212.9 96.5 9310.0 142.0 -642.0
S_S3 45.5 86.6 35.1 67.6 83.2 6926.0 364.7 -270.2
C-6
Table C-11

LC_1 0.948 0.944 0.948 0.944 0.031 4.292 1.061 0.834
MC_1 0.248 1.068 0.014 0.022 0.440 861.580 1.163 -0.111
UC_1 1.090 1.067 1.099 1.078 0.042 7.941 1.225 0.972
S_1 1.166 0.905 1.228 1.202 0.199 89.850 1.865 0.860
LC_2 1.012 1.005 1.013 1.006 0.028 3.581 1.116 0.889
MC_2 0.595 1.002 0.479 0.506 0.247 270.988 1.126 -0.052
UC_2 1.038 1.029 1.042 1.031 0.031 4.393 1.128 0.948
S_2 0.906 0.901 0.897 0.901 0.062 8.601 1.087 0.697
LI_2 0.323 0.323 0.323 0.323 0.010 0.454 0.358 0.286
MI_2 0.495 0.339 0.540 0.507 0.148 97.052 1.214 0.053
UI_2 0.328 0.325 0.329 0.326 0.015 0.968 0.378 0.287
LC_3 0.979 0.978 0.979 0.978 0.022 2.173 1.046 0.895
MC_3 0.761 1.015 0.683 0.715 0.204 184.110 1.316 0.096
UC_3 0.981 0.983 0.981 0.983 0.029 3.752 1.077 0.866
S_3 1.004 1.078 0.978 1.010 0.095 20.538 1.255 0.604
LI_3 0.319 0.319 0.319 0.319 0.008 0.291 0.346 0.295
MI_3 0.350 0.313 0.361 0.342 0.074 24.038 0.584 0.085
UI_3 0.261 0.258 0.261 0.259 0.012 0.648 0.311 0.212
LC_4 0.930 0.931 0.930 0.931 0.029 3.653 1.047 0.799
MC_4 0.828 1.041 0.763 0.803 0.211 198.672 1.440 0.063
UC_4 0.929 0.937 0.928 0.936 0.030 4.085 1.024 0.844
S_4 1.024 1.116 0.994 1.031 0.111 27.811 1.317 0.656
LI_4 0.320 0.321 0.320 0.320 0.009 0.357 0.353 0.284
MI_4 0.325 0.319 0.327 0.319 0.061 16.590 0.587 0.079
UI_4 0.315 0.314 0.315 0.314 0.011 0.541 0.365 0.269
Table C-12

LC_S1 8.100 0.000 14.000 4.000 -219.380 2688.200 192.300 -314.790 -314.790
MC_S1 1836.500 0.000 2359.500 2229.500 1412.500 1252293.500 5280.500 -89.300 5280.500
UC_S1 -60.900 0.000 -80.700 -43.900 268.470 9964.500 213.430 -362.200 -362.200
S_S1 -581.575 0.000 -741.175 -648.075 466.025 209508.325 29.945 -2124.675 -2124.675
LC_S2 -24.100 0.000 -29.700 -2.200 232.100 11993.100 394.000 -431.100 -431.100
MC_S2 677.810 0.000 844.010 714.410 506.610 320640.310 3123.310 -560.490 3123.310
UC_S2 -52.400 0.000 -70.000 -29.400 301.200 9945.500 257.730 -459.600 -459.600
S_S2 -179.000 0.000 -217.200 -161.100 -220.300 32398.600 -379.780 -1000.000 -1000.000
LC_S3 -7.800 0.000 -9.300 -1.300 314.700 11717.400 363.600 -511.700 -511.700
MC_S3 181.700 0.000 239.500 111.400 246.100 130085.300 2453.300 -1042.000 2453.300
UC_S3 -23.900 0.000 -30.800 -7.900 301.490 9515.000 347.000 -437.000 -437.000
S_S3 -41.140 0.000 -51.520 -19.010 -3.390 6839.390 278.090 -356.810 -356.810
C-7
Table C-13

LC_1 4015 3788 4027 3890 478 228200 5819 2457
MC_1 4952 4930 4937 4944 227 51310 5598 4149
UC_1 992 4661 57 57 1853 3433000 5078 -392
S_1 2922 2052 3105 3006 570 324800 4838 2028
LC_2 4620 4464 4647 4486 452 204500 6092 3028
MC_2 4487 4408 4497 4448 206 42570 5085 3838
UC_2 1069 4565 87 87 1805 3259000 4907 -60
S_2 2933 2112 3152 3034 565 318600 4099 1627
LI_2 1448 1426 1424 1425 182 33130 2389 809
MI_2 1515 1520 1510 1520 69 4752 1750 1287
UI_2 536 1435 207 225 606 367100 4027 -84
LC_3 4336 4358 4312 4358 420 176000 6488 2738
MC_3 4399 4384 4395 4387 197 38680 5006 3862
UC_3 2754 4382 2271 2438 978 957000 6277 323
S_3 2123 2436 2003 2108 348 120800 3149 990
LI_3 1450 1417 1461 1422 127 16080 1960 1037
MI_3 1398 1393 1398 1394 58 3357 1636 1227
UI_3 1844 1137 2036 1923 590 348200 3569 21
LC_4 4070 4152 4027 4150 453 204900 5953 1921
MC_4 4512 4540 4496 4535 215 46210 5296 3903
UC_4 2960 4162 2592 2740 886 785700 6345 358
S_4 1968 2386 1818 1944 406 165000 3119 793
LI_4 1423 1409 1428 1410 126 15920 1992 786
MI_4 1416 1412 1411 1413 67 4432 1667 1261
UI_4 1407 1392 1420 1393 277 76540 2660 346
Table C-14

LC_S1 605.0 676.9 620.9 659.0 128.7 16570.0 836.7 80.5
MC_S1 -465.3 -521.7 -439.9 -473.1 117.8 13890.0 17.0 -942.6
UC_S1 77.0 -96.4 29.0 28.9 398.9 159100.0 3941.0 -281.6
S_S1 10.8 60.1 46.8 57.3 387.6 150200.0 1614.0 -2933.0
LC_S2 -284.5 -106.4 -335.1 -293.1 230.5 53130.0 748.1 -1436.0
MC_S2 -88.1 -24.3 -102.8 -82.5 164.4 27020.0 649.2 -819.7
UC_S2 1685.0 -183.2 2184.0 2078.0 1096.0 1201000.0 4419.0 -614.1
S_S2 -810.2 323.2 -1148.0 -994.8 719.8 518100.0 1614.0 -2628.0
LC_S3 -266.1 -206.0 -285.1 -248.6 208.8 43580.0 683.3 -1243.0
MC_S3 113.3 156.4 101.1 116.5 154.8 23950.0 746.7 -474.6
UC_S3 205.8 -219.4 321.2 264.4 441.0 194500.0 2638.0 -1580.0
S_S3 -154.9 -49.8 -184.9 -126.1 149.3 22280.0 392.6 -886.5
C-8
Table C-15

LC_1 0.913 0.861 0.915 0.884 0.109 51.864 1.323 0.558
MC_1 1.125 1.120 1.122 1.124 0.051 11.661 1.272 0.943
UC_1 0.225 1.059 0.013 0.013 0.421 780.227 1.154 -0.089
S_1 1.300 0.913 1.382 1.338 0.254 144.548 2.153 0.903
LC_2 1.050 1.015 1.056 1.020 0.103 46.477 1.385 0.688
MC_2 1.020 1.002 1.022 1.011 0.047 9.675 1.156 0.872
UC_2 0.243 1.038 0.020 0.020 0.410 740.682 1.115 -0.014
S_2 1.305 0.940 1.403 1.350 0.251 141.789 1.824 0.724
LI_2 0.329 0.324 0.324 0.324 0.041 7.530 0.543 0.184
MI_2 0.344 0.345 0.343 0.345 0.016 1.080 0.398 0.293
UI_2 0.122 0.326 0.047 0.051 0.138 83.432 0.915 -0.019
LC_3 0.985 0.990 0.980 0.990 0.095 40.000 1.475 0.622
MC_3 1.000 0.996 0.999 0.997 0.045 8.791 1.138 0.878
UC_3 0.626 0.996 0.516 0.554 0.222 217.500 1.427 0.073
S_3 0.945 1.084 0.891 0.938 0.155 53.761 1.401 0.441
LI_3 0.330 0.322 0.332 0.323 0.029 3.655 0.445 0.236
MI_3 0.318 0.317 0.318 0.317 0.013 0.763 0.372 0.279
UI_3 0.419 0.258 0.463 0.437 0.134 79.136 0.811 0.005
LC_4 0.925 0.944 0.915 0.943 0.103 46.568 1.353 0.437
MC_4 1.025 1.032 1.022 1.031 0.049 10.502 1.204 0.887
UC_4 0.673 0.946 0.589 0.623 0.201 178.568 1.442 0.081
S_4 0.876 1.062 0.809 0.865 0.181 73.431 1.388 0.353
LI_4 0.323 0.320 0.325 0.320 0.029 3.618 0.453 0.179
MI_4 0.322 0.321 0.321 0.321 0.015 1.007 0.379 0.287
UI_4 0.320 0.316 0.323 0.317 0.063 17.395 0.605 0.079
Table C-16

LC_S1 -71.900 0.000 -56.000 -17.900 -548.200 15893.100 159.800 -596.380 -596.380
MC_S1 56.400 0.000 81.800 48.600 639.500 14411.700 538.680 -420.900 538.680
UC_S1 173.380 0.000 125.380 125.240 495.260 159196.360 4037.360 -185.240 4037.360
S_S1 -49.360 0.000 -13.370 -2.830 327.460 150139.860 1553.860 -2993.140 -2993.140
LC_S2 -178.100 0.000 -228.700 -186.700 336.900 53236.400 854.500 -1329.600 -1329.600
MC_S2 -63.800 0.000 -78.480 -58.170 188.720 27044.320 673.520 -795.380 -795.380
UC_S2 1868.200 0.000 2367.200 2261.200 1279.200 1201183.20 4602.200 -430.900 4602.200
S_S2 -1133.400 0.000 -1471.200 -1318.000 396.600 517776.800 1290.800 -2951.200 -2951.200
LC_S3 -60.100 0.000 -79.100 -42.600 414.800 43786.000 889.300 -1037.000 -1037.000
MC_S3 -43.100 0.000 -55.300 -39.900 -1.600 23793.600 590.300 -631.000 -631.000
UC_S3 425.200 0.000 540.600 483.800 660.400 194719.400 2857.400 -1360.600 2857.400
S_S3 -105.130 0.000 -135.130 -76.330 199.070 22329.770 442.370 -836.730 -836.730
C-9
Table C-17

LC_1 7821 7777 7814 7793 231 53430 8447 7208
MC_1 1766 8089 13 21 3320 11020000 8799 -661
UC_1 7796 7693 7815 7764 287 82550 8656 7011
S_1 4224 3449 4422 4202 619 383600 6681 3239
LC_2 7515 7452 7523 7458 220 48380 8095 6937
MC_2 3858 7863 2726 2830 2237 5002000 8483 -203
UC_2 7595 7518 7603 7522 257 65830 8299 7028
S_2 3518 3536 3518 3535 261 68310 4158 2675
LI_2 1368 1368 1365 1367 60 3645 1631 1159
MI_2 2620 1467 2906 2721 986 972900 6064 394
UI_2 1452 1441 1449 1446 83 6903 1774 1218
LC_3 7534 7455 7553 7460 223 49610 8223 7007
MC_3 4215 7513 3239 3414 1987 3948000 7987 56
UC_3 7352 7297 7359 7300 231 53480 7916 6773
S_3 5563 6461 5367 5490 689 475200 6862 4072
LI_3 1347 1348 1345 1347 52 2672 1491 1187
MI_3 1675 1465 1732 1631 335 112400 2750 584
UI_3 1122 1117 1119 1118 67 4540 1415 912
LC_4 7303 7222 7323 7231 223 49730 8110 6616
MC_4 5005 8093 4081 4354 1991 3962000 9248 231
UC_4 6971 6950 6971 6957 262 68670 7708 6201
S_4 3495 3791 3420 3513 335 111900 4192 2463
LI_4 1375 1374 1373 1373 49 2403 1540 1248
MI_4 1396 1345 1402 1348 341 115900 2973 251
UI_4 1362 1353 1363 1357 69 4732 1586 1185
Table C-18

LC_S1 -305.5 -324.9 -291.0 -308.7 79.4 6309.0 -64.9 -612.6
MC_S1 2093.0 -225.5 2713.0 2525.0 1435.0 2060000.0 5905.0 -382.7
UC_S1 -201.0 -175.0 -211.6 -203.5 131.9 17400.0 255.2 -603.1
S_S1 -706.0 86.4 -903.8 -758.3 657.9 432800.0 193.0 -3768.0
LC_S2 18.6 2.5 30.6 5.0 141.2 19940.0 596.0 -650.7
MC_S2 356.4 -349.6 512.9 374.4 662.0 438300.0 4524.0 -1117.0
UC_S2 -243.4 -220.4 -244.4 -221.9 182.7 33380.0 395.5 -898.1
S_S2 2045.0 2925.0 1849.0 1912.0 684.7 468900.0 193.0 643.3
LC_S3 -231.1 -233.3 -230.7 -233.0 141.8 20100.0 320.8 -824.2
MC_S3 790.5 579.9 842.2 743.1 502.8 252800.0 4872.0 -1311.0
UC_S3 -381.4 -347.3 -387.9 -353.1 186.5 34760.0 260.7 -1102.0
S_S3 -2068.0 -2670.0 -1947.0 -2037.0 564.6 318800.0 -1006.0 -3263.0
C-10
Table C-19

LC_1 1.655 1.646 1.654 1.649 0.049 11.308 1.788 1.526
MC_1 0.374 1.712 0.003 0.004 0.703 2332.275 1.862 -0.140
UC_1 1.650 1.628 1.654 1.643 0.061 17.471 1.832 1.484
S_1 1.829 1.493 1.914 1.819 0.268 166.061 2.892 1.402
LC_2 1.590 1.577 1.592 1.578 0.047 10.239 1.713 1.468
MC_2 0.817 1.664 0.577 0.599 0.473 1058.624 1.795 -0.043
UC_2 1.607 1.591 1.609 1.592 0.054 13.932 1.756 1.487
S_2 1.523 1.531 1.523 1.530 0.113 29.571 1.800 1.158
LI_2 0.290 0.290 0.289 0.289 0.013 0.771 0.345 0.245
MI_2 0.554 0.310 0.615 0.576 0.209 205.905 1.283 0.083
UI_2 0.307 0.305 0.307 0.306 0.018 1.461 0.375 0.258
LC_3 1.594 1.578 1.599 1.579 0.047 10.499 1.740 1.483
MC_3 0.892 1.590 0.686 0.723 0.421 835.556 1.690 0.012
UC_3 1.556 1.544 1.557 1.545 0.049 11.319 1.675 1.433
S_3 2.408 2.797 2.323 2.377 0.298 205.714 2.971 1.763
LI_3 0.285 0.285 0.285 0.285 0.011 0.566 0.316 0.251
MI_3 0.354 0.310 0.367 0.345 0.071 23.788 0.582 0.124
UI_3 0.237 0.236 0.237 0.237 0.014 0.961 0.299 0.193
LC_4 1.546 1.528 1.550 1.530 0.047 10.525 1.716 1.400
MC_4 1.059 1.713 0.864 0.921 0.421 838.519 1.957 0.049
UC_4 1.475 1.471 1.475 1.472 0.055 14.533 1.631 1.312
S_4 1.513 1.641 1.481 1.521 0.145 48.442 1.815 1.066
LI_4 0.291 0.291 0.291 0.291 0.010 0.509 0.326 0.264
MI_4 0.295 0.285 0.297 0.285 0.072 24.529 0.629 0.053
UI_4 0.288 0.286 0.288 0.287 0.015 1.001 0.336 0.251
Table C-20

LC_S1 19.400 0.000 33.900 16.200 404.330 6633.900 260.010 -287.700 -287.700
MC_S1 2318.500 0.000 2938.500 2750.500 1660.500 2060225.500 6130.500 -157.200 6130.500
UC_S1 -26.000 0.000 -36.600 -28.500 306.900 17575.000 430.200 -428.100 430.200
S_S1 -792.390 0.000 -990.190 -844.690 571.510 432713.610 106.610 -3854.390 -3854.390
LC_S2 16.092 0.000 28.012 2.495 138.652 19937.452 593.452 -653.248 -653.248
MC_S2 706.000 0.000 862.500 724.000 1011.600 438649.600 4873.600 -767.400 4873.600
UC_S2 -23.000 0.000 -24.000 -1.500 403.100 33600.400 615.900 -677.700 -677.700
S_S2 -880.000 0.000 -1076.000 -1013.000 -2240.300 465975.000 -2732.000 -2281.700 -2732.000
LC_S3 2.200 0.000 2.600 0.300 375.100 20333.300 554.100 -590.900 -590.900
MC_S3 210.600 0.000 262.300 163.200 -77.100 252220.100 4292.100 -1890.900 4292.100
UC_S3 -34.100 0.000 -40.600 -5.800 533.800 35107.300 608.000 -754.700 -754.700
S_S3 602.000 0.000 723.000 633.000 3234.600 321470.000 1664.000 -593.000 1664.000
C-11
Table C-21

LC_1 8743 8400 8832 8707 295 87240 9506 8216
MC_1 9018 8960 9013 8999 192 36780 9813 8410
UC_1 1694 8123 -73 -67 3359 11290000 8795 -680
S_1 5203 3683 5561 5469 1011 1022000 8592 3643
LC_2 7673 7896 7869 7890 910 828400 10570 3686
MC_2 8657 8467 8698 8642 203 41250 9403 8185
UC_2 4105 8057 2985 3097 2195 4817000 8705 -200
S_2 3543 3672 3457 3560 344 118100 4916 2279
LI_2 1392 1343 1404 1361 127 16010 2076 903
MI_2 1495 1518 1483 1507 62 3782 1716 1267
UI_2 2710 1448 3013 2874 1016 1032000 7012 314
LC_3 7895 7972 7856 7951 209 43680 8476 7229
MC_3 7965 7886 7971 7916 205 41970 8888 7122
UC_3 4485 7885 3501 3672 2000 4002000 8420 120
S_3 5204 7400 4466 4580 1281 1641000 7460 2851
LI_3 1319 1314 1322 1312 50 2500 1496 1137
MI_3 1513 1509 1508 1512 53 2830 1747 1313
UI_3 1213 1118 1227 1162 331 109500 3217 81
LC_4 7624 7738 7575 7695 223 49530 8089 6885
MC_4 8482 8431 8481 8448 187 34810 9275 7775
UC_4 4518 7541 3621 3804 1878 3528000 8988 202
S_4 3376 3894 3245 3302 450 202500 4397 2133
LI_4 1364 1354 1368 1358 49 2446 1533 1207
MI_4 1350 1351 1347 1349 51 2613 1529 1165
UI_4 1357 1350 1361 1353 278 77080 2581 235
Table C-22

LC_S1 -1070.0 -503.7 -962.8 -948.5 950.1 902600.0 1325.0 -5415.0
MC_S1 -361.7 -493.0 -314.4 -344.2 118.5 14050.0 119.0 -830.4
UC_S1 2411.0 -65.7 3058.0 2905.0 1495.0 2236000.0 6832.0 -191.8
S_S1 -1661.0 -11.2 -2104.0 -1948.0 1132.0 1282000.0 6.8 -6239.0
LC_S2 222.1 75.9 -13.7 50.3 902.3 814100.0 4513.0 -2334.0
MC_S2 -691.7 -580.9 -727.1 -662.1 207.3 42970.0 487.6 -1499.0
UC_S2 379.6 -172.4 516.2 445.5 612.3 374900.0 4933.0 -1229.0
S_S2 1662.0 3728.0 1009.0 1121.0 1196.0 1431000.0 6.8 -972.0
LC_S3 -270.7 -233.6 -281.2 -245.0 141.7 20090.0 402.1 -723.5
MC_S3 516.9 545.0 509.9 538.1 206.6 42670.0 1390.0 -436.7
UC_S3 33.5 -343.5 119.3 65.9 472.2 222900.0 4278.0 -2565.0
S_S3 -1828.0 -3506.0 -1221.0 -1336.0 985.7 971600.0 -1.6 -3583.0
C-12
Table C-23

LC_1 1.850 1.778 1.869 1.843 0.063 18.463 2.012 1.739
MC_1 1.909 1.896 1.908 1.905 0.041 7.784 2.077 1.780
UC_1 0.359 1.719 -0.015 -0.014 0.711 2389.418 1.861 -0.144
S_1 2.252 1.594 2.407 2.368 0.438 442.424 3.719 1.577
LC_2 1.624 1.671 1.665 1.670 0.193 175.323 2.237 0.780
MC_2 1.832 1.792 1.841 1.829 0.043 8.730 1.990 1.732
UC_2 0.869 1.705 0.632 0.655 0.465 1019.471 1.842 -0.042
S_2 1.534 1.590 1.497 1.541 0.149 51.126 2.128 0.987
LI_2 0.295 0.284 0.297 0.288 0.027 3.388 0.439 0.191
MI_2 0.316 0.321 0.314 0.319 0.013 0.800 0.363 0.268
UI_2 0.574 0.306 0.638 0.608 0.215 218.413 1.484 0.066
LC_3 1.671 1.687 1.663 1.683 0.044 9.244 1.794 1.530
MC_3 1.686 1.669 1.687 1.675 0.043 8.883 1.881 1.507
UC_3 0.949 1.669 0.741 0.777 0.423 846.984 1.782 0.025
S_3 2.253 3.203 1.933 1.983 0.555 710.390 3.229 1.234
LI_3 0.279 0.278 0.280 0.278 0.011 0.529 0.317 0.241
MI_3 0.320 0.319 0.319 0.320 0.011 0.599 0.370 0.278
UI_3 0.257 0.237 0.260 0.246 0.070 23.175 0.681 0.017
LC_4 1.614 1.638 1.603 1.629 0.047 10.483 1.712 1.457
MC_4 1.795 1.784 1.795 1.788 0.039 7.367 1.963 1.646
UC_4 0.956 1.596 0.766 0.805 0.397 746.667 1.902 0.043
S_4 1.461 1.686 1.405 1.429 0.195 87.662 1.903 0.923
LI_4 0.289 0.287 0.290 0.287 0.010 0.518 0.324 0.255
MI_4 0.286 0.286 0.285 0.286 0.011 0.553 0.324 0.247
UI_4 0.287 0.286 0.288 0.286 0.059 16.313 0.546 0.050
Table C-24

LC_S1 -566.300 0.000 -459.100 -444.800 1453.800 903103.700 1828.700 -4911.300 -4911.300
MC_S1 131.300 0.000 178.600 148.800 611.500 14543.000 612.000 -337.400 612.000
UC_S1 2476.710 0.000 3123.710 2970.710 1560.710 2236065.71 6897.710 -126.090 6897.710
S_S1 -1649.820 0.000 -2092.820 -1936.820 1143.180 1282011.18 17.942 -6227.820 -6227.820
LC_S2 146.180 0.000 -89.580 -25.640 826.380 814024.080 4437.080 -2409.920 4437.080
MC_S2 -110.800 0.000 -146.200 -81.200 788.200 43550.900 1068.500 -918.100 1068.500
UC_S2 552.000 0.000 688.600 617.900 784.700 375072.400 5105.400 -1056.600 5105.400
S_S2 -2066.000 0.000 -2719.000 -2607.000 -2532.000 1427272.00 -3721.238 -4700.000 -4700.000
LC_S3 -37.100 0.000 -47.600 -11.400 375.300 20323.600 635.700 -489.900 635.700
MC_S3 -28.100 0.000 -35.100 -6.900 -338.400 42125.000 845.000 -981.700 -981.700
UC_S3 377.020 0.000 462.800 409.420 815.700 223243.500 4621.500 -2221.500 4621.500
S_S3 1678.000 0.000 2285.000 2170.000 4491.700 975106.000 3504.383 -77.000 3504.383
C-13
Table C-25
Tension Summary - Broken Outside Insulator, Unguyed, Long Insulator, 25% UTS

LC_1 9027 9116 8963 9098 243 59130 9733 8427
MC_1 2279 9054 9 23 3912 15310000 9794 -741
UC_1 8796 8768 8781 8771 300 90020 10030 7892
S_1 4322 3503 4591 4438 640 409900 6777 3424
LC_2 8224 8071 8270 8126 230 53020 8793 7721
MC_2 4474 8809 3025 3216 2622 6872000 9441 -428
UC_2 8423 8277 8462 8315 282 79390 9098 7855
S_2 3580 3619 3559 3617 223 49930 4087 2757
LI_2 1280 1297 1270 1291 71 4973 1518 1058
MI_2 2672 1403 3083 2774 1079 1164000 5982 135
UI_2 1438 1469 1413 1464 113 12790 1892 1047
LC_3 8235 8133 8263 8159 221 49040 8812 7719
MC_3 4822 8183 3659 3944 2191 4802000 8760 -290
UC_3 8032 7942 8052 7981 261 68320 8707 7400
S_3 3421 3719 3317 3492 315 99500 3968 1963
LI_3 1210 1203 1209 1204 54 2901 1410 1037
MI_3 -3148 1433 1902 1647 22710 515900000 27980 -145900
UI_3 1061 1032 1066 1037 86 7404 1405 783
LC_4 7832 7749 7858 7751 221 48850 8685 7348
MC_4 5759 8832 4687 5036 2135 4560000 9870 339
UC_4 7527 7521 7537 7519 269 72110 8201 6783
S_4 3515 3880 3387 3563 360 129400 4101 2122
LI_4 1309 1306 1308 1305 47 2227 1470 1187
MI_4 1335 1263 1358 1267 318 101300 2947 128
UI_4 1328 1311 1333 1314 66 4302 1533 1154
Table C-26
Unbalanced Loads - Broken Outside Insulator, Unguyed, Long Insulator, 25% UTS

LC_S1 -803.3 -1046.0 -693.0 -723.5 175.1 30650.0 -441.9 -1454.0
MC_S1 2195.0 -244.7 3016.0 2695.0 1617.0 2615000.0 5931.0 -386.9
UC_S1 -373.3 -491.6 -319.0 -360.2 148.4 22030.0 192.9 -1186.0
S_S1 -741.3 116.4 -1032.0 -851.1 677.3 458700.0 143.8 -3573.0
LC_S2 11.5 62.4 -7.9 23.4 140.8 19830.0 784.6 -813.4
MC_S2 348.2 -626.1 634.3 466.6 777.3 604200.0 4880.0 -1474.0
UC_S2 -391.0 -334.6 -409.7 -360.4 175.6 30840.0 420.8 -1178.0
S_S2 -159.0 100.0 -242.3 -130.8 288.4 83150.0 143.8 -1732.0
LC_S3 -403.3 -384.2 -404.1 -395.3 127.1 16170.0 288.2 -1142.0
MC_S3 936.9 648.9 1028.0 905.7 497.0 247000.0 5372.0 -1546.0
UC_S3 -504.9 -420.7 -514.9 -479.5 132.0 17420.0 70.1 -1092.0
S_S3 93.9 161.3 69.7 108.9 116.4 13550.0 654.4 -673.0
C-14
Table C-27
Normalized Tensions - Broken Outside Insulator, Unguyed, Long Insulator, 25% UTS

LC_1 1.910 1.929 1.897 1.926 0.051 12.514 2.060 1.783
MC_1 0.482 1.916 0.002 0.005 0.828 3240.212 2.073 -0.157
UC_1 1.862 1.856 1.858 1.856 0.063 19.052 2.123 1.670
S_1 1.871 1.516 1.987 1.921 0.277 177.446 2.934 1.482
LC_2 1.741 1.708 1.750 1.720 0.049 11.221 1.861 1.634
MC_2 0.947 1.864 0.640 0.681 0.555 1454.392 1.998 -0.091
UC_2 1.783 1.752 1.791 1.760 0.060 16.802 1.926 1.662
S_2 1.550 1.567 1.541 1.566 0.097 21.615 1.769 1.194
LI_2 0.271 0.274 0.269 0.273 0.015 1.052 0.321 0.224
MI_2 0.566 0.297 0.652 0.587 0.228 246.349 1.266 0.029
UI_2 0.304 0.311 0.299 0.310 0.024 2.707 0.400 0.222
LC_3 1.743 1.721 1.749 1.727 0.047 10.379 1.865 1.634
MC_3 1.021 1.732 0.774 0.835 0.464 1016.296 1.854 -0.061
UC_3 1.700 1.681 1.704 1.689 0.055 14.459 1.843 1.566
S_3 1.481 1.610 1.436 1.512 0.137 43.074 1.718 0.850
LI_3 0.256 0.255 0.256 0.255 0.011 0.614 0.298 0.219
MI_3 -0.666 0.303 0.403 0.349 4.806 109185.185 5.922 -30.878
UI_3 0.225 0.218 0.226 0.219 0.018 1.567 0.297 0.166
LC_4 1.658 1.640 1.663 1.640 0.047 10.339 1.838 1.555
MC_4 1.219 1.869 0.992 1.066 0.452 965.079 2.089 0.072
UC_4 1.593 1.592 1.595 1.591 0.057 15.261 1.736 1.436
S_4 1.522 1.680 1.466 1.542 0.156 56.017 1.775 0.919
LI_4 0.277 0.276 0.277 0.276 0.010 0.471 0.311 0.251
MI_4 0.283 0.267 0.287 0.268 0.067 21.439 0.624 0.027
UI_4 0.281 0.277 0.282 0.278 0.014 0.910 0.324 0.244
Table C-28
Normalized Loads - Broken Outside Insulator, Unguyed, Long Insulator, 25% UTS

LC_S1 242.700 0.000 353.000 322.500 1221.100 31696.000 604.100 -408.000 604.100
MC_S1 2439.700 0.000 3260.700 2939.700 1861.700 2615244.70 6175.700 -142.200 6175.700
UC_S1 118.300 0.000 172.600 131.400 640.000 22521.600 684.500 -694.400 -694.400
S_S1 -857.700 0.000 -1148.400 -967.500 560.900 458583.600 27.400 -3689.400 -3689.400
LC_S2 -50.910 0.000 -70.261 -38.950 78.440 19767.640 722.240 -875.760 -875.760
MC_S2 974.300 0.000 1260.400 1092.700 1403.400 604826.100 5506.100 -847.900 5506.100
UC_S2 -56.400 0.000 -75.100 -25.800 510.200 31174.600 755.400 -843.400 -843.400
S_S2 -259.000 0.000 -342.300 -230.800 188.400 83050.000 43.800 -1832.000 -1832.000
LC_S3 -19.100 0.000 -19.900 -11.100 511.300 16554.200 672.400 -757.800 -757.800
MC_S3 288.000 0.000 379.100 256.800 -151.900 246351.100 4723.100 -2194.900 4723.100
UC_S3 -84.200 0.000 -94.200 -58.800 552.700 17840.700 490.780 -671.300 -671.300
S_S3 -67.410 0.000 -91.570 -52.400 -44.900 13388.700 493.100 -834.300 -834.300
C-15
Table C-29
Tension Summary - Broken Upper Conductor, Short Insulator, 25% UTS

LC_1 9257 8559 9352 9172 757 572700 12690 7434
MC_1 9413 9501 9346 9496 379 143400 10670 8669
UC_1 1630 8198 -53 -49 3320 11020000 8831 -742
S_1 5192 3475 5615 5364 1118 1251000 8461 3441
LC_2 8072 8020 8015 8025 545 297200 10500 6476
MC_2 8826 8587 8866 8715 363 131900 9612 8149
UC_2 4353 8189 3371 3438 2109 4447000 8824 -218
S_2 3480 3617 3391 3494 319 101500 4303 2337
LI_2 1455 1291 1471 1401 249 62000 2974 926
MI_2 1531 1682 1477 1529 156 24250 2262 1102
UI_2 2952 1385 3344 3127 1166 1361000 6829 216
LC_3 7995 8104 7897 8087 516 266100 10060 6469
MC_3 7941 7813 7961 7842 330 108500 8754 7266
UC_3 4755 7982 3899 4057 1896 3594000 8497 -21
S_3 3238 3686 3089 3159 406 164500 4109 1818
LI_3 1237 1212 1235 1212 137 18680 1857 884
MI_3 1439 1426 1436 1430 91 8357 1736 1178
UI_3 1132 1012 1152 1074 314 98680 2577 -115
LC_4 7546 7732 7433 7640 505 254600 9397 5984
MC_4 8473 8415 8475 8417 337 113500 9248 7772
UC_4 4762 7534 4008 4199 1734 3008000 8567 251
S_4 3244 3825 3072 3118 467 217900 4332 1860
LI_4 1326 1304 1328 1307 114 13030 1750 1017
MI_4 1270 1265 1264 1268 75 5554 1577 1065
UI_4 1284 1305 1278 1301 286 81890 2665 187
Basic Unit of measurement (lb.)
Table C-30
Unbalanced Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Short Insulator, 25% UTS

LC_S1 -1185.0 -539.9 -1338.0 -1258.0 395.4 156300.0 -515.8 -2617.0
MC_S1 -587.4 -914.6 -479.9 -504.3 223.5 49940.0 -188.6 -1716.0
UC_S1 2723.0 -9.5 3424.0 3201.0 1615.0 2607000.0 6865.0 -88.3
S_S1 -1712.0 142.6 -2224.0 -2021.0 1183.0 1399000.0 155.1 -6038.0
LC_S2 -77.0 84.5 -117.7 -81.6 188.5 35530.0 857.7 -1522.0
MC_S2 -884.6 -773.6 -905.3 -870.9 161.4 26040.0 -324.8 -1612.0
UC_S2 401.7 -206.7 527.3 430.3 570.7 325700.0 5039.0 -1251.0
S_S2 -241.4 68.4 -302.4 -236.8 295.1 87110.0 155.1 -1813.0
LC_S3 -449.6 -371.8 -464.2 -435.5 165.9 27520.0 646.1 -1518.0
MC_S3 531.4 601.9 514.5 548.4 143.5 20600.0 1305.0 -175.4
UC_S3 7.4 -448.5 109.1 69.8 440.1 193700.0 4194.0 -1537.0
S_S3 5.4 139.3 -16.6 20.8 176.6 31200.0 643.0 -648.9
Basic Unit of measurement (lb.)
C-16
Table C-31

LC_1 1.959 1.811 1.979 1.941 0.160 121.206 2.686 1.573
MC_1 1.992 2.011 1.978 2.010 0.080 30.349 2.258 1.835
UC_1 0.345 1.735 -0.011 -0.010 0.703 2332.275 1.869 -0.157
S_1 2.248 1.504 2.431 2.322 0.484 541.558 3.663 1.490
LC_2 1.708 1.697 1.696 1.698 0.115 62.899 2.222 1.371
MC_2 1.868 1.817 1.876 1.844 0.077 27.915 2.034 1.725
UC_2 0.921 1.733 0.713 0.728 0.446 941.164 1.868 -0.046
S_2 1.506 1.566 1.468 1.513 0.138 43.939 1.863 1.012
LI_2 0.308 0.273 0.311 0.297 0.053 13.122 0.629 0.196
MI_2 0.324 0.356 0.313 0.324 0.033 5.132 0.479 0.233
UI_2 0.625 0.293 0.708 0.662 0.247 288.042 1.445 0.046
LC_3 1.692 1.715 1.671 1.712 0.109 56.317 2.129 1.369
MC_3 1.681 1.654 1.685 1.660 0.070 22.963 1.853 1.538
UC_3 1.006 1.689 0.825 0.859 0.401 760.635 1.798 -0.005
S_3 1.402 1.596 1.337 1.368 0.176 71.212 1.779 0.787
LI_3 0.262 0.257 0.261 0.257 0.029 3.953 0.393 0.187
MI_3 0.305 0.302 0.304 0.303 0.019 1.769 0.367 0.249
UI_3 0.240 0.214 0.244 0.227 0.066 20.885 0.545 -0.024
LC_4 1.597 1.636 1.573 1.617 0.107 53.884 1.989 1.266
MC_4 1.793 1.781 1.794 1.781 0.071 24.021 1.957 1.645
UC_4 1.008 1.594 0.848 0.889 0.367 636.614 1.813 0.053
S_4 1.404 1.656 1.330 1.350 0.202 94.329 1.875 0.805
LI_4 0.281 0.276 0.281 0.277 0.024 2.758 0.370 0.215
MI_4 0.269 0.268 0.268 0.268 0.016 1.175 0.334 0.225
UI_4 0.272 0.276 0.270 0.275 0.061 17.331 0.564 0.040
Table C-32
Normalized Loads - Broken Upper Conductor, Short Insulator, 25% UTS

LC_S1 -645.100 0.000 -798.100 -718.100 935.300 156839.900 24.100 -2077.100 -2077.100
MC_S1 327.200 0.000 434.700 410.300 1138.100 50854.600 726.000 -801.400 -801.400
UC_S1 2732.481 0.000 3433.481 3210.481 1624.481 2607009.48 6874.481 -78.839 6874.481
S_S1 -1854.600 0.000 -2366.600 -2163.600 1040.400 1398857.40 12.500 -6180.600 -6180.600
LC_S2 -161.470 0.000 -202.160 -166.030 104.040 35445.540 773.240 -1606.460 -1606.460
MC_S2 -111.000 0.000 -131.700 -97.300 935.000 26813.600 448.800 -838.400 -838.400
UC_S2 608.400 0.000 734.000 637.000 777.400 325906.700 5245.700 -1044.300 5245.700
S_S2 -309.800 0.000 -370.800 -305.200 226.700 87041.600 86.700 -1881.400 -1881.400
LC_S3 -77.800 0.000 -92.400 -63.700 537.700 27891.800 1017.900 -1146.200 -1146.200
MC_S3 -70.500 0.000 -87.400 -53.500 -458.400 19998.100 703.100 -777.300 -777.300
UC_S3 455.908 0.000 557.600 518.270 888.600 194148.500 4642.500 -1088.500 4642.500
S_S3 -133.895 0.000 -155.870 -118.520 37.300 31060.700 503.700 -788.200 -788.200
C-17
D
D-1
CASE Assessment Predictions - ‘Delta’ Configuration
Table D-1
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.304 0.304
MI_2 0.304 0.304
UI_2 0.304 0.304
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.304 0.304
MI_3 0.304 0.304
UI_3 0.304 0.304
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.304 0.304
MI_4 0.304 0.304
UI_4 0.304 0.304
Table D-2
Normalized Unbalanced Loads - Broken Middle Conductor, Long Insulator, 15% UTS
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 1.300 0.000 1.300
UC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.910 0.000 0.910
UC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.710 0.000 0.710
UC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
D-2
Table D-3
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.301 0.301
MI_2 0.301 0.301
UI_2 0.301 0.301
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.301 0.301
MI_3 0.301 0.301
UI_3 0.301 0.301
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.301 0.301
MI_4 0.301 0.301
UI_4 0.301 0.301
Table D-4
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S1 1.290 0.000 1.290
S_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S2 0.900 0.000 0.900
S_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S3 0.710 0.000 0.710
S_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
D-3
Table D-5
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.304 0.304
MI_2 0.304 0.304
UI_2 0.304 0.304
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.304 0.304
MI_3 0.304 0.304
UI_3 0.304 0.304
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.304 0.304
MI_4 0.304 0.304
UI_4 0.304 0.304
Table D-6
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 1.300 0.000 1.300
UC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.910 0.000 0.910
UC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.710 0.000 0.710
UC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
D-4
Table D-7
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.307 0.307
MI_2 0.307 0.307
UI_2 0.307 0.307
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.307 0.307
MI_3 0.307 0.307
UI_3 0.307 0.307
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.307 0.307
MI_4 0.307 0.307
UI_4 0.307 0.307
Table D-8
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S1 1.310 0.000 1.310
S_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S2 0.910 0.000 0.910
S_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S3 0.720 0.000 0.720
S_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
D-5
Table D-9
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.286 0.286
MI_2 0.286 0.286
UI_2 0.286 0.286
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.286 0.286
MI_3 0.286 0.286
UI_3 0.286 0.286
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.286 0.286
MI_4 0.286 0.286
UI_4 0.286 0.286
Table D-10
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 1.000 0.000 1.000
UC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.700 0.000 0.700
UC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.550 0.000 0.550
UC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
D-6
Table D-11
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.286 0.286
MI_2 0.286 0.286
UI_2 0.286 0.286
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.286 0.286
MI_3 0.286 0.286
UI_3 0.286 0.286
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.286 0.286
MI_4 0.286 0.286
UI_4 0.286 0.286
Table D-12
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S1 0.960 0.000 0.960
S_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S2 0.670 0.000 0.670
S_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S3 0.530 0.000 0.530
S_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
D-7
Table D-13
Normalized Tensions - Broken Middle Conductor, Short Insulator, 25% UTS
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.286 0.286
MI_2 0.286 0.286
UI_2 0.286 0.286
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.286 0.286
MI_3 0.286 0.286
UI_3 0.286 0.286
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.286 0.286
MI_4 0.286 0.286
UI_4 0.286 0.286
Table D-14
Normalized Unbalanced Loads - Broken Middle Conductor, Short Insulator, 25% UTS
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 0.900 0.000 0.900
UC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.630 0.000 0.630
UC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.490 0.000 0.490
UC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
D-8
Table D-15
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.286 0.286
MI_2 0.286 0.286
UI_2 0.286 0.286
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.286 0.286
MI_3 0.286 0.286
UI_3 0.286 0.286
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.286 0.286
MI_4 0.286 0.286
UI_4 0.286 0.286
Table D-16
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S1 0.910 0.000 0.910
S_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S2 0.630 0.000 0.630
S_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S3 0.500 0.000 0.500
S_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
D-9
D
D-1
Table D-1
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.304 0.304
MI_2 0.304 0.304
UI_2 0.304 0.304
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.304 0.304
MI_3 0.304 0.304
UI_3 0.304 0.304
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.304 0.304
MI_4 0.304 0.304
UI_4 0.304 0.304
Table D-2
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 1.300 0.000 1.300
UC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.910 0.000 0.910
UC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.710 0.000 0.710
UC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
D-2
Table D-3
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.301 0.301
MI_2 0.301 0.301
UI_2 0.301 0.301
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.301 0.301
MI_3 0.301 0.301
UI_3 0.301 0.301
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.301 0.301
MI_4 0.301 0.301
UI_4 0.301 0.301
Table D-4
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S1 1.290 0.000 1.290
S_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S2 0.900 0.000 0.900
S_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S3 0.710 0.000 0.710
S_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
D-3
Table D-5
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.304 0.304
MI_2 0.304 0.304
UI_2 0.304 0.304
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.304 0.304
MI_3 0.304 0.304
UI_3 0.304 0.304
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.304 0.304
MI_4 0.304 0.304
UI_4 0.304 0.304
Table D-6
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 1.300 0.000 1.300
UC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.910 0.000 0.910
UC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.710 0.000 0.710
UC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
D-4
Table D-7
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.307 0.307
MI_2 0.307 0.307
UI_2 0.307 0.307
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.307 0.307
MI_3 0.307 0.307
UI_3 0.307 0.307
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.307 0.307
MI_4 0.307 0.307
UI_4 0.307 0.307
Table D-8
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S1 1.310 0.000 1.310
S_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S2 0.910 0.000 0.910
S_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S3 0.720 0.000 0.720
S_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
D-5
Table D-9
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.286 0.286
MI_2 0.286 0.286
UI_2 0.286 0.286
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.286 0.286
MI_3 0.286 0.286
UI_3 0.286 0.286
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.286 0.286
MI_4 0.286 0.286
UI_4 0.286 0.286
Table D-10
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 1.000 0.000 1.000
UC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.700 0.000 0.700
UC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.550 0.000 0.550
UC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
D-6
Table D-11
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.286 0.286
MI_2 0.286 0.286
UI_2 0.286 0.286
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.286 0.286
MI_3 0.286 0.286
UI_3 0.286 0.286
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.286 0.286
MI_4 0.286 0.286
UI_4 0.286 0.286
Table D-12
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S1 0.960 0.000 0.960
S_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S2 0.670 0.000 0.670
S_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S3 0.530 0.000 0.530
S_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
D-7
Table D-13
Normalized Tensions - Broken Middle Conductor, Short Insulator, 25% UTS
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.286 0.286
MI_2 0.286 0.286
UI_2 0.286 0.286
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.286 0.286
MI_3 0.286 0.286
UI_3 0.286 0.286
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.286 0.286
MI_4 0.286 0.286
UI_4 0.286 0.286
Table D-14
Normalized Unbalanced Loads - Broken Middle Conductor, Short Insulator, 25% UTS
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 0.900 0.000 0.900
UC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.630 0.000 0.630
UC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.490 0.000 0.490
UC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
S_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
D-8
Table D-15
Maximum Minimum
Value Value
LC_1 1.000 1.000
MC_1 1.000 1.000
UC_1 1.000 1.000
S_1 1.000 1.000
LC_2 1.000 1.000
MC_2 1.000 1.000
UC_2 1.000 1.000
S_2 1.000 1.000
LI_2 0.286 0.286
MI_2 0.286 0.286
UI_2 0.286 0.286
LC_3 1.000 1.000
MC_3 1.000 1.000
UC_3 1.000 1.000
S_3 1.000 1.000
LI_3 0.286 0.286
MI_3 0.286 0.286
UI_3 0.286 0.286
LC_4 1.000 1.000
MC_4 1.000 1.000
UC_4 1.000 1.000
S_4 1.000 1.000
LI_4 0.286 0.286
MI_4 0.286 0.286
UI_4 0.286 0.286
Table D-16
Net
Value Value Load
LC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S1 0.910 0.000 0.910
S_S1 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S2 0.630 0.000 0.630
S_S2 0.000 0.000 0.000
LC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
MC_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
UC_S3 0.500 0.000 0.500
S_S3 0.000 0.000 0.000
D-9

TL Cascading Failure Risk Assessment PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

TL Cascading Failure Risk Assessment PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Longitudinal Load and Cascading

Failure Risk Assessment (CASE)

Final Report, December 1997

EPRI Project Manager

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS REPORT

J.A. Jones Power Delivery, Inc.

• Determine the magnitude and dynamic characteristics of the unbalanced

• Develop a method to assess the cascading potential of a transmission line by

5 CASCADING FAILURE RISK ASSESSMENT (CASE) ............................................5-1

6 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED VALUES .................................6-1

7 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................7-1

A FULL-SCALE TEST RESULTS - ‘VERTICAL’ CONFIGURATION ......................... A-1

B CASE ASSESSMENT PREDICTIONS - ‘VERTICAL’ CONFIGURATION .............. B-1

C FULL-SCALE TEST RESULTS - ‘DELTA’ CONFIGURATION............................... C-1

D CASE ASSESSMENT PREDICTIONS - ‘DELTA’ CONFIGURATION .................... D-1

Table 2-1 Summary of Extreme Event Test Cases ......................................................2-6

A number of catastrophic transmission line failures occurred in the recent past

Consequently, it is important for a utility to assess the cascading risk of a line to

A successful and economic line design or upgrade sacrifices a limited number of

• Determine the magnitude and dynamic characteristics of the unbalanced

• Develop a method to assess the cascading potential of a transmission line by

1.3 Past Research

2.1 Test Structure

2.2 Line Segment

2.3 Conductor and Shield Wire

2.4 Test Cases

Test Phase Insulator % UTS Load Case

3.1 Load Cells

3.2 Data Acquisition

3.3 Data Reduction

Outcome Test Successful

4.1 Conductor and Shield Wire Tension

Average Average Average Standard Maximum Minimum

Normalized Normalized Normalized Normalized Normalized Normalized

4.2 Unbalanced Longitudinal Loads

Average Average Average Standard Maximum Minimum

Average Average Average Standard Maximum Minimum Net

Unbalanced longitudinal loads were processed to identify maximum and minimum

Average Average Average Standard Maximum Minimum

Average Average Average Standard Maximum Minimum Maximum

The ultimate strength of the transmission structure Mu, Tu, or Vu is determined by

4.4 Longitudinal Load Impact Factors

5.1 Conductor and Shield Wire Tension

5.2 Unbalanced Longitudinal Loads

5.4 Longitudinal Load Impact Factors

Longitudinal Load Impact Factor

Impact Factor - Tower 1

Longitudinal Load Impact Factor

Longitudinal Load Impact Factor

Normalized Weight-Span Ratio [wL/Ti]1/2

6.1 Predicted and Measured Longitudinal Load Impact Factors

Conductor Impact Factor

Conductor Impact Factor

Conductor Impact Factor

Impact Factor - Tower 3

6.2 Influence of Span/Sag Ratio, Span/Insulator Ratio, and Structural

Longitudinal Load Impact Factor

Impact Factor - Tower 1

Longitudinal Load Impact Factor

Longitudinal Load Impact Factor

Impact Factor - Tower 3

Longitudinal Load Impact Factor

Impact Factor - Tower 1