The 2012 World Congress on

Advances in Civil, Environmental, and Materials Research (ACEM’ 12)

Seoul, Korea, August 26-30, 2012

On the influence of wind-conductor interactions in stress analysis

of overhead transmission line towers

*Hooman Keyhan1), Ghyslaine McClure2) and Wagdi G. Habashi3)

1), 2)
Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics McGill University,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
3)
Computational Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
1)
[email protected]

ABSTRACT

A new method to determine wind loading on transmission line conductors is

proposed in this study. The proposed method is based on fluid-structure interaction
(FSI) analysis which yields a more accurate representation of wind loads acting on
moving conductors than provided by the simplified pseudo-static pressure calculation
based on Bernoulli’s equation and widely used in overhead line design practice. A finite
element model of an existing transmission line section is used as a numerical case
study to compare the results from the proposed method against those using the quasi-
static wind load method, using four natural wind records. The quasi-static approach
significantly overestimates wind loads acting on the conductors and transferred to
towers, which leads to overestimation of suspension insulator swings, tower members’
axial forces and tower deflections.

1. INTRODUCTION

Overhead transmission lines are subject to a wide range of climatic loadings

throughout their service life. Wind effects are predominant in the form of gusty synoptic
winds and more localized high intensity windstorms, such as downbursts and tornadoes.
In cold climates, the combined effects of wind and atmospheric icing may lead to
extreme loads and some aeroelastic instability phenomena (such as conductor
galloping) or other modes of vibrations. Therefore accurate prediction of the wind
pressure and the resulting aerodynamic forces on overhead conductors is crucial to
safe and reliable line design. Spatial randomness of wind loads on overhead lines has
been addressed by stochastic analysis methods and is taken into account in design by
so-called span factors. Further gains in accuracy can be obtained by examining the
physics of wind effects on conductors, in both non-iced and iced conditions, via
improved predictions of lift and drag forces determined by fluid-structure interaction
1)
Mr.
2)
Professor
3)
Professor
(FSI) analysis.
In current overhead transmission line design codes (ASCE 2010; Canadian
Standards Association (CSA) 2010), it is prescribed to consider the wind load on
conductors and towers as an equivalent uniform static pressure acting on the projected
surface. In windstorms, however, wind turbulence intensity is significant and such a
simplifying assumption may lead to very inaccurate response predictions. This issue is
of concern as overhead line conductors are relatively flexible and may experience
large motions during wind storms, which in turn implies that wind-conductor
aerodynamic interactions may affect the predicted response (Keyhan et al. 2011a to c).
The goal of the computational study is to provide more insight into the dynamic nature
of the wind loads transferred from conductors to supporting towers, with a view to
assess and improve the accuracy of wind load calculations used in practical design.
The study does not include the effects of tower-wind interactions, as they are deemed
negligible compared to wind-conductor interactions, owing to the relatively large tower
stiffness that limits tower displacements compared to the more flexible conductors.

2. FLUID-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS

The proposed method for wind loading calculation on overhead transmission lines is
based on Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis and FSI analysis to evaluate
wind loads on conductors subjected to turbulent wind. Commercial finite element
software ADINA (ADINA R&D Inc. 2009) is used in the study. FSI analysis is carried out
in two dimensions, where the detailed conductor cross-sectional geometry and
surrounding air flow are modeled, considering a prescribed incident wind
speed.(Keyhan et al. 2011a and b) (See Fig. 1.) The conductor cross section is
assumed to be rigid (i.e. not deformable) and supported on flexible supports to study
the interaction between the conductor motion and the air flow. To determine the
flexibility of the conductor supports, a nonlinear static analysis of a single conductor
span model is conducted and the conductor horizontal and vertical stiffness values are
evaluated along the span: cross sections located closer to the anchor and suspension
points are therefore assigned stiffer support conditions than cross sections further
inside the span.
Fig. 1 T
Two-dimennsional mo odel of stranded co
onductor cross
c section couple
ed to its
surroundin
ng air flow

FSI analysis
a ennables an accurate
a p
prediction of
o the windd pressure distribution
n around
the conductor (Se ee Fig. 2)). The solution of the
t Reynoolds-averagged Navie er-Stokes
equation ns (Eq. 1) in the fluid domain determine es the effeective load
d on the conductor
section which
w is th
hen analyseed in the solid
s domain by solvinng the nonnlinear equations of
motion ofo the condductor (Eq. 2). Cond ductor motiion is subssequently u
used to up pdate the
fluid dommain and the solutionn proceedss in time. The
T analyssis also alloows the ca alculation
of the conductorr’s aerodyynamic da amping fro om the amplitude
a decremen nt of its
oscillatio
ons.

  
   

  !  ́
́ "
    
 
  

  (1)

In Equation
E 1  is the air den
1, nsity,  
 ́
are the mea an and flu uctuating
components of i-th h compone ent of the fluid veloccity,  is th
he mean sstatic press sure,  is
the air viscosity
v nd  is a vector
an v repre
esenting th he mean external
e forrces applie
ed on the
control fluid
f domaiin and ρú ú represe
ents Reyno on 2, u is the
olds stress.. In Equatio t cable
displaceement vector; K, M an nd C are stiffness, mass
m and da amping ma atrices respectively,
and F
∆∆
represennts the fluid
d force appplied on the e conducto or nodes at time t
∆t.(Bathe
∆
2006)

∆u
∆u
∆
 ∆       (2)
Fig. 2 P
Pressure fieeld developed aroun ded conductor for airr flow with incident
nd a strand
ve
elocity of 10
1 m/s

3. TRAN
NSMISSIO
ON LINE AN
ND WIND LOAD MO
ODELS

To illustrate the
e applicatio
on of the proposed
p wind
w load model
m on cconductors s, a case
study off a three-dimensionall finite elem
ment mode el of a 120 kV double e-circuit line
e section
is preseented (See e Fig. 3).The line section model
m com
mprises five e spans and a four
suspenssion lattice supports, and was extracted from f of a detailed
d fin
nite element model
availablee from a previous
p s
structural d
dynamics study
s (Lap
pointe 2003) and following a
methodo ology desccribed in (M
McClure an nd Lapointe 2003). In n the preseent study, the wind
load is applied
a only to one span
s (centtral span of
o length 355
3 m) whiile the othe er spans
are unlooaded. The e conducto or is a 54//7 CONDO OR ACSR (Aluminum m Conductor Steel
Reinforcced) and itts detailed
d propertiess are avaiilable in (KKeyhan et al. 2011b, c). The
insulatorr suspenssion strings, which transfer th he loads from
f the conductors to the
suspenssion towers, are 1.4 m long and a are modeled witth a two-n node isopa arametric
truss ele
ement of high axial rig
gidity.
Fig. 3 Finite element model geometry of a double-circuit 120 kV transmission line
section on lattice towers

As mentioned in section 2, the resultant wind loads obtained from FSI analysis for
different conductor sections along the loaded span are applied are applied to the
conductor nodes of the central span of the 3-D line model, and nonlinear dynamic
analysis is performed to evaluate the transmission line response to gusty wind loads.
The time history of the four wind speed records used in the study and their power
spectral density functions are displayed in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively; the wind records
are based on natural wind measurements.

50

45

40

35
Wind record 1
30
Velocity (m/s)

Wind record 2
25
Wind record 3
20
Wind record 4
15

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s)
Fig. 4 Four incident wind velocity time histories used in the case study
 4
Power spectral density ((m/s)2/Hz)

Wind record 1
2
Wind record 2
Wind record 3
Wind record 4
1

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 5 Power spectral density of wind velocity time histories used in the case study

12
FSI for section
at 4m from
10
support
FSI for section
8 at 10m from
Wind load (N/m)

support
FSI for section
6 at 179m from
support
Bernoulli's
4
equation

2 Quasi static
(CSA 2010)

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s)

Fig. 6 Calculated wind load history on conductor at three different positions along the
span (Wind record 2)
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section compares the results obtained from nonlinear analysis of the overhead
transmission line section using three different approaches to model wind loading. Two
series of results are obtained from dynamic analysis. In the first series the conductor is
loaded according to the proposed FSI analysis procedure summarized in section 2. In
the second series, the time-varying wind pressure is determined using Bernoulli’s
equation and conductor-wind interaction is neglected. Finally, the line section model is
analyzed following the static procedure prescribed in the Canadian overhead
transmission line design code. (Canadian Standards Association (CSA) 2010) A
comparison of the three sets of results provides insight into how and by how much
wind-conductor interactions affect the accuracy of stress calculations in tower members.
The comparison is extended to other line response indicators such as tower and
conductor displacements, suspension insulator swing angle and axial force, and
conductor tension.
For the sake of brevity, only the salient features of the results are displayed in figures
7 to 11 for Wind record 2 and the rest of the results are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of results obtained from different wind load models

Wind Wind Wind Wind
Two- minute average wind
record 1 record 2 record 3 record 4
speed (m/s)
16.8 17.2 36.5 39.8
Turbulence intensity (%) 8.7 37.2 19.3 23.2
FSI 20.0 21.1 38.8 45.0
Maximum Bernoulli 20.4 21.5 44.1 71.0
conductor CSA 20.7 21.6 40.8 50.3
tension (kN) Ratio
0.98 0.98 0.94 0.63
FSI/Bernoulli
Ratio FSI/CSA 0.97 0.98 0.95 0.89
FSI 38.9 60.7 355.5 462.0
Maximum tower Bernoulli 75.1 81.6 621.0 1160.0
leg axial force CSA 60.5 83.8 444.9 678.7
(kN) Ratio
0.52 0.74 0.57 0.40
FSI/Bernoulli
Ratio FSI/CSA 0.64 0.72 0.80 0.68
FSI 19.4 25.3 124.4 144.9
Maximum tower Bernoulli 27.2 32.2 140.7 152.2
deflection at tip CSA 26.4 33.8 125.1 180.3
of bottom cross Ratio
arm (mm) 0.71 0.78 0.88 0.95
FSI/Bernoulli
Ratio FSI/CSA 0.73 0.74 0.99 0.80
Maximum FSI 14.2 19.2 60.0 64.0
insulator swing Bernoulli 19.7 25.1 69.8 84.0
 (degree) CSA 19.7 24.2 59.6 64.4
Ratio
0.72 0.76 0.86 0.76
FSI/Bernoulli
Ratio FSI/CSA 0.72 0.79 1.01 0.99
FSI 6.0 7.8 20.5 22.1
Maximum Bernoulli 8.1 10.1 21.4 24.5
conductor
CSA 8.2 9.92 20.6 22.3
horizontal
displacement at Ratio
0.74 0.77 0.96 0.90
mid span (m) FSI/Bernoulli
Ratio FSI/CSA 0.73 0.78 0.99 0.99
FSI 5.2 5.5 9.7 11.5
Bernoulli 5.3 5.7 12.2 28.9
Maximum
CSA 5.3 5.5 10.4 14.4
insulator axial
force (kN) Ratio
0.98 0.96 0.80 0.40
FSI/Bernoulli
Ratio FSI/CSA 0.98 1.0 0.93 0.80

These results indicate that the conductor peak tensions predicted by all three
methods are fairly close in the case of wind records 1, 2 and 3 but differences are
significant for wind record 4 with high velocity and turbulence intensity. Overestimation
of the conductor tensions can have a large impact on the design of straining towers that
directly resist these forces. Looking at the influence of wind velocity and turbulence
intensity level shows two trends: at lower wind speeds (Records 1 and 2) the
differences between conductor displacements (represented by mid-span displacement
and suspension string’s swinging angle) predicted by the different methods are
considerable while the conductor tensions are almost the same, but the trend is
reversed at higher wind speeds where conductors experience larger displacements, i.e.
there is better agreement in the displacement predictions while differences in conductor
tension are large for Wind record 4.
 22

21

Static (CSA)
20
Tension (kN)

Dynamic
(Bernoulli)
19
Dynamic (FSI)

18

17
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s)

Fig. 7 Mid-span conductor tension in the loaded span (Wind record 2)

As mentioned previously, lattice towers are relatively stiff structures and their wind-
induced deflections are usually small. The horizontal deflections of the tip of the bottom
cross-arm are compared for different wind load models in Table 1 and Fig. 9. The
results for tower leg axial force (Fig. 8) show that the static method used in
transmission line design codes (CSA method) significantly overestimates the FSI-based
value.
 100

80

60
Leg Axial Force (kN)

40 Static
(CSA)
20 Dynamic
(Bernoulli)
Dynamic
0 (FSI)

-20

-40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s)

Fig. 8 Axial force in the suspension tower leg subject to wind load (Wind record 2)

35

30

25
Horizontal deflection (mm)

Static (CSA)

20
Dynamic
15 (Bernoulli)

Dynamic (FSI)
10

-5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Time (s)

Fig. 9 Tower horizontal deflection at the tip of the bottom cross-arm

 Finally the insulator suspension string’s maximum angle of swing and axial force are
compared in Table 1 and Figs. 10 and 11. Like the other response parameters
compared above, these two parameters are overestimated by the static method, and
even more so by the Bernoulli method. In the case of wind records 1 and 2 the
differences in maximum swing angles reflect the differences between the wind loading
predicted by FSI analysis and Bernoulli’s equation. In the case of wind records 3 and 4,
where insulators are experiencing large swing angles, the differences are mainly
reflected in the predicted insulator tensions. Increases in both swing angle and insulator
tension increase the lateral load transferred from conductors to tower and hence
increase the tower internal response, represented here by the leg force and cross-arm
tip displacement.

25

20
Swing angle (degree)

15

Static (CSA)
10
Dynamic
(Bernoulli)
5
Dynamic (FSI)

-5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s)
Fig. 10 Suspension insulator swing angle at the tower adjacent to the loaded span
(Wind record 2)
 5.9

5.7

5.5
Static (CSA)
Axial Foce (kN)

5.3
Dynamic
(Bernoulli)
5.1
Dynamic (FSI)

4.9

4.7

4.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s)

Fig. 11 Insulator string tension at tower adjacent to the loaded span (Wind record 2)

5. CONCLUSIONS

In the present study a new method is proposed to determine wind loading on

transmission line conductors. The method is based on FSI analysis which provides a
more accurate representation of the wind pressure acting on moving line conductors
than provided by the simplified wind load models used in design practice. In the
pseudo-static wind loading method wind pressure calculation is based on Bernoulli’s
equation, which neglects any fluid-structure interaction. Results from the case study
show that neglecting wind-cable interactions leads to over prediction of several line
response parameters such as conductor displacements and internal forces in tower
members.
At this stage, the proposed method is not suggested to be used for design purposes
because of its complexity and high computational demands. This advanced
computational method is rather suggested to be used in a research and development
context to evaluate and possibly improve current wind analysis methods. Another very
interesting application of this method relates to optimization of cross-sectional design of
conductors, in terms of geometry and surface roughness. (Keyhan et al. 2011a)
Detailed FSI analysis also enables the evaluation of aerodynamic damping of various
cable geometries.
As many electric power utilities around the world are reassessing the reliability
levels of their transmission infrastructure and making difficult investment decisions, a
more realistic wind loading model could be of high value.
REFERENCES

ADINA R&D Inc. (2009), “Automatic dynamic incremental nonlinear analysis (ADINA)”,
Theory and Modeling Guide, Report ARD 00-7, Watertown, MA.
ASCE (2010), “Guidelines for elecrical transmission line structural loading”, ASCE
Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 74, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive,
Reston, Virginia 20191.
Bathe, K.J. (2006), “Finite element procedures”, Prentice Hall, Pearson Education Inc.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA) (2010), CSA-C22.3 No. 60826-10, “Design
criteria of overhead transmission lines”, Canadian Standards Association: 350p.
Keyhan, H., McClure, G. and Habashi, W.G. (2011a), “Computational study of surface
roughness and ice accumulation effects on wind loading of overhead line
conductors”, International Review of Civil Engineering, 2(2), 207-214.
Keyhan, H., McClure, G. and Habashi, W.G. (2011b), “A fluid structure interaction-
based wind load model for dynamic analysis of overhead transmission lines”, 9th
International Symposium on Cable Dynamics, Shanghai, China.
Keyhan, H., McClure, G. and Habashi, W.G. (2011c), “On computational modeling of
interactive wind and icing effects on overhead line conductors”, International
Workshop on Atmospheric Icing of Structures (IWAIS), Chongqing, China.
Lapointe, M. (2003), “Dynamic analysis of a power line subjected to longitudinal loads”,
Master’s Thesis, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.
McClure, G. and Lapointe, M. (2003), “Modeling the structural dynamic response of
overhead transmission lines”, Computers & Structures, 81(8-11), 825-834.