System reliability analysis of

transmission lines
H.J. Dagher and Q. Lu
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469, USA

Structural system reliability analysis of transmission lines is a useful

tool in designing new lines and in evaluating or uprating existing lines.
This paper describes a practical approach to estimate the system
reliability of existing lines. The problem is divided into t w o components: firstly, obtaining the reliability of typical supporting structures; and secondly obtaining the reliability of the complete line. The
first step may be carried out using standard structural system reliability analysis methods. A number of computer programs are
currently available for structural system reliability analysis; those programs which are specifically designed for the reliability analysis of
transmission structures are briefly described. It is shown that the
reliability of every supporting structure in the line need not be
obtained. Only the reliabilities of typical structures are needed. Once
this is accomplished, the second step is to estimate the reliability of
the entire line. This can be carried out using a simple approximate
relationship between the reliability of a fully-utilized supporting structure and the reliability of the complete line. Two numerical examples
are used to illustrate how the reliability of a complete line may be
estimated.

Keywords: transmission lines, structural reliability

A number of reliability-based design method for

transmission line structures have been proposed in
recent years. Two of these methods have received wide
attention: The American Society of Civil Engineers
method t and the International Electrotechnical Commission method -~. The background for these design procedures can be found elsewhere 3-6. This paper does not
address reliability-based design methods. Instead, it
focuses on how utilities can, in practice, estimate the
structural reliability of existing lines.
Structural reliability analysis can be a useful tool in
evaluating and uprating existing lines. As increasing
restrictions on right-of-way limit the construction of new
lines, uprating or upgrading existing lines is often the
only economical alternative available. When a number
of uprating alternatives are being considered, it is useful
to know how the structural reliability of the line is
affected by each of these alternatives. For example, how
will the line reliability change when the conductor size
is increased? Or, what will happen to the reliability of the
line if the conductor size is increased and at the same
time the structures are strengthened?
In this paper, a methodology for evaluating the structural reliability of an entire line is presented. The
problem is divided into two components: determining
the reliability of typical individual supporting structures,

and estimating the reliability of the complete line.

The first step of the process can be carried out using
existing structural system reliability analysis methods. A
number of computer programs are currently available
for structural system reliability analysis. In this paper,
those programs which are specifically designed for the
reliability analysis of transmission structures are briefly
described. It is also shown that the reliability of every
supporting structure is not needed to estimate the
reliability of the entire line. In most cases, only the
reliabilities of typical fully utilized tangent structures are
needed.
Once the reliabilities of typical individual transmission structures have been obtained, the second step of
the analysis is to obtain the reliability of the complete
line. Because of the large spatial extent of transmission
lines, conventional system reliability analysis methods
cannot be applied directly to solve this problem. In this
paper, a simple approximate relationship between the
reliability of a fully utilized tangent structure in the line
and the reliability of the complete line is given 7"~. The
relationship accounts for the spacing between the structures, the correlation between the structures' strengths,
the spatial extent of the extreme weather events, and the
length of the line. The simplicity of the solution and the
availability of the required data makes the relationship a

0141-0296/93/040251-08
O 1993 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd

Engng. Struct. 1993, Volume 15, Number 4

251

System reliability analysis of transmission lines. H. J. Dagher and Q. Lu

useful practical tool for system reliability analysis and
design of the line. Two practical examples illustrating
the application of the proposed methodology are given.

Reliability of individual supporting structures

The reliability of individual transmission structures can
be estimated using well established system reliability
analysis methods ~. A number of special-purpose computer programs are available to estimate the reliabilities
of individual transmission structures and their components. These programs are described below.
DESCAL ~c~can be used to estimate the reliability of
components of individual transmission structures. The
member forces are expressed as a linear function of the
forces at the wire attachment points. The member force
influence coefficients must be developed using a
separate structural analysis program. DESCAL is
limited to structures that have a linear elastic response.
It can run on any IBM PC or compatible microcomputer and it features a user-friendly interactive input
menu.
POLDAR and FRAMER are part of the EPRI
TLWorkstation ~l~e. They can be used for the structural
analysis, design, and reliability analysis of unguided
single pole structures and planar transmission structures,
respectively. The input is facilitated by user-friendly
interactive input screens and numerous help screens.
RELIAB ~, which is being been developed for inclusion in the EPRI TLWorkstation, is a general purpose
program for the system reliability analysis of any type
of supporting structure. RELIAB can handle complex
transmission structures such as large latticed structures,
tension only structures, or structures that exhibit significant material and geometric nonlinearities. The failure
modes of individual components can be in axial tension,
compression, or interaction of axial compression and
bending. RELIAB assumes that an individual supporting
structure can be modelled as a series system which consists of all the primary components of the structure. The
system probability of failure is estimated as the union of
the failure of the individual components.
TRANSREL ~, which has been developed as part of
an EPRI project, estimates the system reliability of latticed towers only. The advantage of TRANSREL over
RELIAB is that it uses a limit analysis concept in the
reliability analysis. TRANSREL properly accounts for
the residual strength of a structure following the failure
of one or more components. Limit analysis may be particularly useful when an older line is being evaluated for
a possible uprate which involves, for example, an
increase in conductor size. In such a situation, proper
accounting for the limit strength of a latticed structure
may make the difference between having to rebuild the
entire line or being able to utilize the existing structures.
TRANSREL utilizes the failure path approach for
system reliability analysis. A failure path or cutset is a
possible sequence of element failures which lead to
structural failure. In a redundant system, a number of
elements can fail in sequence before structural failure is
reached. The probability of system failure is the probability that any such sequence will occur. The basic
idea of the failure-path approach is to identify all significant element failure sequences which can lead to structural failure.

252

Engng. Struct. 1993, Volume 15, Number 4

The basic event in the failure-path approach is the

failure of an individual element. In the reliability
analysis of latticed structures, the element capacities
have been modelled as elastoplastic, brittle, semibrittle
or multilinear 14 17. After an element fails, the structural
stiffness matrix is modified and the failed member
is replaced with a pair of random forces acting at its end
nodes. TRANSREL uses a two-state member capacity
model: (1), when the member is intact, it is linear
elastic; (2), when the member fails in tension, it remains
plastic with a residual strength equal to its original
tension strength; when the member fails in compression,
it remains plastic with a residual strength equal to a
fraction of its original compressive strength. TRANSREL
allows member strengths to be modelled as either
statistically independent or fully correlated.
The basic element failure event occurs if both the
force in the element exceeds the element capacity: and
this element fails before any other intact element in the
damaged structure fails. For a large structural system.
this exact event formulation is very complex and hard to
evaluate. Therefore, the second condition of the basic
element failure event is ignored in TRANSREL.
A cutset is defined as the intersection of the failure
events of all the elements in the sequence. The probability of system failure is the probability of the union
of all the cutsets. Realistic latticed towers can have
thousands of failure sequences or cutsets. Search techniques must therefore be used to identify the most
important failure sequences (e.g. those which have the
largest contribution to the system failure). TRANSREL
uses the branch and bound algorithm '' to identify the
most important failure sequences. Structural failure is
checked using a deformation limit-state.
In TRANSREL, the probability of the union of all
dominant failure sequences is evaluated using both the
equivalent hyperplane method and the Ditlevsen bounds.
The advantage of TRANSREL over RELIAB is that it
does not treat a latticed structure as a series system. The
disadvantage is that it requires considerable computer
time and is currently only suitable tk~r mainframe
applications. It was developed to verify the assumption
made in RELIAB that many latticed towers may be
approximately modelled as series systems.

Reliability of the complete line

Once the reliability of typical individual transmission
structures are obtained using one of the computer programs described earlier, the next step of the analysis is
to determine the reliability of the complete line. In most
situations, estimating the reliability of the complete line
does not require knowledge of the reliabilities of every
transmission structure in the line. As will be shown
later, only the reliabilities of typical fully utilized
tangent structures will normally be needed.

Philosophy of the approach

Even though a transmission line may be viewed as a
structural system, conventional structural system
reliability analysis methods do not apply directly to the
line. The structural system reliability problem for a
complete line is indeed unique. Unlike buildings or
nuclear power plants or single towers which may be considered as point-structures in relation to a weather

System reliability analysis of transmission lines: H. J. Dagher and O. Lu

system, a transmission line may extend hundreds of
miles and may cross more than one weather system.
Therefore, loads on a transmission line are random processes whose magnitudes vary not only with time, but
also with space. This introduces additional difficulties in
the system reliability evaluation of transmission lines
which are not encountered in other types of structural
systems.
In addition to the knowledge of the temporal properties of the various load processes that affect a transmiss i o n line, the 'exact' evaluation of the probability of
failure of the line requires knowledge of the spatial
characteristics of these load processes. Data required
include the spatial properties of the extreme wind, ice,
snow, and temperature events, and the spatial and
temporal correlations within and among these load
processes. Unfortunately such data are not currently
available.
Transmission lines may contain thousands of structural components and may extend hundreds of miles. In
view of this and the lack of data on the spatial properties
and the spatial and temporal correlations and autocorrelations of the various load processes that affect the
line, an exact evaluation of the system reliability of the
line is an illusory goal. Therefore, a simple, practical,
approximate solution to the line reliability problem is
sought.

Relationship between the probability of failure of the

line and that of a fully utilized structure
An approximate relationship between the probability of
failure of the line, P[FL], and that of a fully-utilized
structure, P [FS], is now developed. What is meant by
a fully utilized structure? Transmission structures are
not individually designed. Typically, a few standardized
structures are used in a project or by a utility in a given
area. Because of terrain variations and restrictions of
right-of-way, these structures are placed at spans that
are less than the maximum design span. For any structure in the line, the ratio of the actual span and to the
maximum design span is called the use factor U. Since
U < 1, the reliability of most structures is higher than
that of a fully utilized structure, i.e. a structure for
which U = 1. The statistical properties of the use factors
have been studied by Ghannoum 3.4.
Dagher et al. 7 showed that the evaluation of the
system reliability of the line may be converted from an
event-based to an extreme value analysis problem,
thereby allowing the use of commonly available weather
data in the analysis. A summary of the development
presented by Dagher et al. 7 is given below.
The line is modelled as a series system in which each
structure represents one component. Let P[FL] be the
probability of failure of the line during a performance
period At = {to, to + At}, where At may, for example,
equal 1 year, and to is the point in time at the beginning
of the performance period. Similarly, P[FL~J is the
probability of failure of the line due to storm i. Since FL
is the union of the FL~ during the performance period
At, the probability of failure of the line, P [FL], may be
written using the following event-based formulation:

P[FL] = P [ O

FL,]
i=l

(1)

where 21 is a random variable which represents the

number of times a line is subjected to the maximum
intensity of a storm during the performance period At.
k~ = k~e,. + k,,. + kt,~ + k~tw + kt,o, and the subscripts ec,
tc, ts, lw, and to refer to extratropical cyclones, tropical
cyclones, thunder storms, local winds, and tornadoes,
respectively. The probability of failure of the line due to
storm i, P [FL~], may in turn be expressed as:

(2)
in which NT is the total number of structures in the line,
and Fj~ is the failure of structure j due to storm i.
Let N represent the number of structures that are
simultaneously subjected to the maximum intensity of a
storm. N is a random variable whose probability mass
function PN In ] is related to the type of storm (extratropical cyclone, tropical cyclone, thunderstorm, local
wind or tornado) and the spacing of the structures in the
line. The variable n represents one realization of N.
Considering only the number n of structures that are
simultaneously subjected to the maximum intensity of a
storm, equation (2) may be estimated as:

P[FLi] = ~

FJi N = n pN[n] (3)

j=n~+l

in which nk is a dummy variable indicating that the

maximum intensity of a storm may occur anywhere
along the transmission line. If the data characterizing
the probability mass function pN[n] are not readily
available, it is useful to consider the conditional event
[FLilN = n-]. In this case, (3) becomes:
ttk+n

P [FL~ I N = n ] = P

[,..J Fj,

(4)

j =tq+ I

Similarly, considering the conditional event [FL IN =

n], equation (1) may be written as:

P[FLIN=n]

= P

(_j ( F L i l N = n )

(5)

i=1

Substituting equation (4) into equation (5), we obtain:

P [ F L I N = n] = P

[0 0 ]

Fji

i=1

j =n~+l

i=1

j =nk+l

(6)

in which Rj and Uj are the strength and the use factor of

structure j, respectively. Qi is the load on a fully
utilized structure caused by the maximum intensity of
storm i, i.e. Qi=maxQ~(t), where tE {t~, t i + d t i } ,
dt~ is the duration of storm i, and t~ is the onset of storm
i.

Case 1: shorter lines for which NT/n < 50: Assuming

that failures due to different storms are nearly indepen-

Engng. Struct. 1993, Volume 15, Number 4

253

System reliability analysis of transmission lines: H. J. Dagher and Q. Lu

dent, it can be shown that equation (7) can be written
asT:

P[FLIN=n] = ~

NT
II

c~--P[FS] < 1

all
sections

(8)

in which:
P

c~ =

U (Rj <

Ujamaxa,)

) =1

(9)

P [ R j < Qmax,at ]

o~ is a system reliability factor which accounts for the

fact that most structures are used at less than 100% of
their capacity. Values of e for extreme wind loading are
given in Table 2 and are discussed later in this section.
The factor n may be estimated indirectly from failure
data such as the number of structures which have failed
under an extreme wind storm (excluding those structures
that failed from a resulting cascading effect). If enough
data are available to determine the probability mass
function pN[n], the probability of failure of the line
may be estimated as P[FL] = ~P[FLIN = n] pN[n ]
in which the term P[FLIN=n] is calculated using
equation (8). Otherwise, the probability of failure of the
line may be evaluated as P[FL] = P[FLIN=g] in
which it is assumed that PN [g] = 1 and g is the best
available estimate of N.

Case 2: longer lines for which Nr/n > 50: Equation (8)
loses some accuracy for large values of the ratio NT/n.
A more accurate estimate of the reliability for longer
lines may be written as7:
P[FLIN=n] = 1 -

[ 1 - o ~ P [ F S ] ] NT/"

(10)

In some cases, it may be necessary to divide a long

line into a number of sections for the reliability analysis.
This situation will be encountered if different portions of
the line contain different tangent tower designs, or have
different design loads, or have different directions with
respect to the predominant extreme wind. In this case,
equation (10) can be used repeatedly to determine the
probability of failure for each section of the line,
P [Si]. The probability of failure of the line P [FL] can
now be estimated using the probabilities of failure of
each section S~ of the line as follows:

P[FL] = 1 -

I - I (1 - P [ S i ] )

(11)

i-I

in which N~ is the number of sections in the line. In

equation (11) the line is modelled as a series system in
which each section represents one component. In addition, the failures of the individual line sections are
assumed to be independent.

Evaluation of c~: The line system reliability factor, c~,

accounts for the fact that most structures are used at
leass than full capacity. Values of ot for extreme wind

254

Engng. Struct. 1993, Volume 15, Number 4

loading may be obtained using Tables 1 and 2. For other

loading conditions, see Kulendran ~8. The values of a
were calculated using Monte Carlo simulation of equation (9) as described by Kulendran ~8. For each load
type, values of o~ were obtained assuming the strength of
the structures to be either uncorrelated, fully correlated,
or 90% positively correlated. It is worth noting that a is
independent of the coefficient of variation of structure
strength (COVR) when the structure strengths are fully
correlated; otherwise, the factor o~ depends on COVR.
The three values of COVR = 0.05, 0.15, 0.25 shown in
Table 2 may be used for steel lattice towers, concrete
poles, and wood poles, respectively. For other values of
COVR, interpolation may be used.
o~also depends on the structure use factor or indirectly
on the type of terrain and the special constraints on
structure location. Three types of terrain are considered:
F = flat, H = rolling hills, and M = mountainous. In
addition, each terrain type may have two levels of constraint on structure location: 1 = no special constraints
exist; 2 = special constraints affect structure location.
As recommended by Ghannoum 3'4 and in the IEC
document 2 the use factor U was assumed to follow a 3
distribution with the statistical properties shown in Table
1. If the reliability of an existing line is being estimated,
the actual values of mv and au can be calculated then
the appropriate terrain category can be selected from
Table 1. Otherwise, the appropriate terrain category in
Table 2 may be selected based on the type of terrain
where the line will be built and the anticipated restrictions on structure location.
It is worth noting that the magnitude of the factor a
is not needed if one is interested in the relative reliability
of two lines located in the same area.

Effect of wind direction

As argued by White jg, the effect of wind direction on
the reliability of the line can be significant. Depending
on the location and the topography, the extreme wind
may be equally likely to come from any direction or it
may be more likely to come from one or more preferred
directions. Peyrot and Dagher 5 demonstrated that the
probability of failure of a structure assuming the
extreme wind is equally likely to come from any direction is about 1/4 the probability of failure assuming the
wind is always perpendicular to the line.
For structures whose member sizes are largely controlled by transverse winds, the probability of failure
due to longitudinal winds can be very small. Figure 1
shows how the probability of failure of a structure can
decrease as the extreme wind incidence angle H,
measured from the direction perpendicular to the line,
increases. It gives the ratio Pyo/Pio of the probability of
failure of a structure given the wind always comes with
an incidence angle O to the probability of failure when
the wind is perpendicular to the line.
It should be emphasized that the results in Figure 1
cannot be applied to all possible types of transmission
structures 7. Figure 1 serves to illustrate a general relationship between the extreme wind direction and the
probability of failure for a large class of structures
whose member sizes are controlled by transverse wind.

System reliability analysis of transmission lines: H. J. Dagher and O. Lu

Table I

Statistical properties of use factor U

Extreme wind

Extreme ice

Terrain category
(1)

mU

aU

mU

aU

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Range
(6)

F-1
F-2, H-1
H-2, M-1
M-2

0.95
0.85
0.75
0.55

0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20

0.85
0.75
0.65
0.50

0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20

0.40.40.4 0.4-

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

F = flat, H = hilly, M = mountainous

1 = No special restrictions on structure location
2 = Special restrictions on structure location exist

Table 2 Factor (x in equation (8) and (11): extreme wind loading*

Terrain category
F-1
CO V R

n
(1)

0.05
(2)

0.15
(3)

0.25
(4)

0.05
(5)

F-2, H-1

H-2, M-1

M-2

CO V R

CO V R

CO V R

0.15
(6)

0.25
(7)

0.05
(8)

0.15
(9)

0.25
(10)

0.05
(11)

0.15
(12)

0.25
(13)

0.3
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.6

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.9

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.9
1.1

0.2
0.5
0.7
1.1
1.3

0.3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.9

0.2
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.9

0.2
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.9

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.8

(a) Correlation between structures strengths = 0

1
3
5
10
15

0.5
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0

0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.4

0.5
1.0
1.3
1.8
2.1

0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8

0.4
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.1

0.4
0.8
0.9
1.3
1.6

0.3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8

0.3
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.1

(b) Correlation between structure strengths = 0.9

1
3
5
10
15

0.5
~.7
0.8
0.9
0.9

0.4
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0

0.5
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.1

0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7

0.3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8

0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9

0.3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8

0.3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8

(c) Correlation between structure strengths = 1.0

1
3
5
10
15

0.5
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.9

0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8

0.3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.8

*Coefficient of variation of wind velocity = 0 . 3 5

n = number of structures simultaneously subjected to extreme wind event; C O V R = coefficient of variation of structure strength

Numerical examples
Example 1: Reliability of a steel pole transmission
line
It is desired to estimate the probability of failure of the
steel pole transmission line shown in Figure 2, due to
extreme wind. The steel pole dimensions are given in
Figure 3. The line has two segments: segment AB which
contains 100 poles, and segment BC which contains 200
poles and forms an angle of 25 with respect to segment
AB. It is assumed that the predominant extreme wind
direction is perpendicular to segment AB and that the

coefficient of variation of the extreme wind direction is

very small. Using RELIAB, the annual probability of
failure of a fully utilized (U = 1) tangent pole for wind
perpendicular to the line is estimated to be 0.011. The
corresponding probability of failure of the angle and
dead-end poles is estimated to be 0.001, or about 1/10th
that of the tangent poles. The probability of failure of the
pole foundation is 0.0005. The terrain is hilly and there
are no special constraints on pole location. From past
experience, it is known that the number of poles that
have failed in extreme wind storms (excluding cascading
effects) is about 10.
The probabilities of failure of the two dead-end poles

Engng. Struct. 1993, Volume 15, Number 4

255

System reliability analysis of transmission lines. H. J. Dagher and Q. L u

1.0

=~X~
~X~'~i'

0.8"
07-

\ \\

o0.6
-

Using equation (11):

Strength- Iognormal
Velocity- Gumbel(EXI)
DesignequationR5 = 050

O,8"

\\\

ocove :o2o, covv,o ,5

1-(1

coy.: o.o5,cow: o. 35

0.22

.cov. :0o5

~ ~ ~

P[FL] = 1 - ( 1

- P[&])(1

- P[S2])

- 0.08)(1 - 0.015)

vo25

oCOVR :0.20,COVv = 0.25

04
0,3

which is very close to the result obtained earlier using

equation (8).

Example 2: Reliability of latticed transmission line

0.2

It is desired to estimate the probability of failure of the

transmission line shown in Figure 4, due to extreme

0.1

.
I0

-~ . 30 T40

.
20

,=
70

50
60
IncidenceangleO (0)

I'
80

90

,657"

Figure 1 Effect of wind direction

- -

I00 Poles

_3_
$

Wind direction

Figure 2

Geometry of steel pole transmission line in example 1

(A and C), the angle pole (B) and the foundations may
be neglected since they are an order of magnitude
smaller than the probability of failure of the tangent
towers. The effect of wind direction on segment BC is
obtained using Figure 1 with 0 = 25 , CO VR = 0.05
and COVv = 0.35, which give Pso/Pjo = 0.55. Assuming that the structure strengths are fully correlated and
using equation (8) twice for segment AB and then for
segment BC:

P [FL] = P [failure of segment AB]

A
Typicol
section
A-A

+ P [failure of segment BC]

= (0.8)(98/10)(0.011)

+ (0.9)(298/10)(0.55)(0.011)
= 0.09 + 0.16
= 0.25

The numerical example is reworked below to illustrate

the application of equations (10) and (11). Using equation (10) twice:
P [S~ ] = probability of failure of line section AB
1 - (1 - 0.8 0.011) 98/t
= 0.08

P [$2 ] = probability of failure of line section BC

= 1 - (1 - 0.9 0.55 0.011) 298n0

=0.15

256

E n g n g . S t r u c t . 1 9 9 3 , V o l u m e 15, N u m b e r 4

Figure 3

Steel pole used in example 1

-~

57. 13"

System reliability analysis of transmission lines: H. J. Dagher and O. Lu

wind. The tangent latticed tower used is illustrated in

Figure 5. The line has one straight segment which contains 100 towers. It is assumed that the predominant
extreme wind direction is perpendicular to the line.
Using TRANSREL, the annual probability of failure of
a fully utilized (U = 1) tangent tower for wind perpendicular to the line is estimated to be 0.009 (It is interesting
to note that the corresponding probability of failure
calculated using RELIAB is 0.012, which is only
slightly higher than the TRANSREL result since
RELIAB does not account for the redundancy of the
structure). The probability of failure of the angle and
dead-end towers is estimated to be 0.001 and the probability of failure of the tower foundation is about
0.001. The terrain is fiat and there are no special constraints on tower location. From past experience, it is
known that the number of towers that have failed in
extreme wind storms (excluding cascading effects) is
about five.
The probabilities of failure of the two dead-end towers
and the foundations may be neglected for the same
reason as stated in Example 1. Assuming that the correlation of structure strengths are 0.9 and using equation
(8):

P [FL] = (0.8)(98/5)(0.009)
=0.14
The numerical example is reworked below to illustrate
the application of equation (10):

P[FL] = 1 - (1 - 0.8 0.009) 98/5

=0.13
which is very close to the result obtained earlier using
equation (8).

Conclusions
A practical method to estimate the structural system
reliability of existing lines has been illustrated. It consists of two parts: determining the reliability of a few
typical structures in the line; and calculating the reliability of the entire line. The first step can be
accomplished using available software for the reliability
analysis of individual transmission structures. The
second part can be carried out using an approximate
relationship between the structural system reliability of
a transmission line and that of a fully utilized structure

I00 Latticed towers

Wind direction
Figure 4

Geometry of latticed transmission line in example 2

Figure 5

Latticed tower used in example 2

within the line. This relationship (equation (8)) shows

that the probability of failure of the line is approximately
proprotional to the probability of failure of a fully
utilized tangent structure in the line, the total number of
structures in the line, and a factor which accounts for
structure utilization.
The fact that the probability of failure of the line is
approximately proportional to the length of the line
raises new questions regarding how lines should be
designed. If the same reliability of power transmission
between two points is required, perhaps structures in a
longer line should have a larger strength than those in a
shorter line.

Engng. Struct. 1993, Volume 15, Number 4

257

System reliability analysis of transmission lines." H. J. Dagher and Q. Lu

E x t r e m e w i n d s are not a l w a y s p e r p e n d i c u l a r to the
line and s t r u c t u r e s a r e not a l w a y s u t i l i z e d at t h e i r full
c a p a c i t i e s . T h e r e f o r e , p r o p e r a c c o u n t i n g f o r the e f f e c t s
of w i n d d i r e c t i o n a n d s t r u c t u r e use f a c t o r s c a n l e a d to
cost s a v i n g s in the d e s i g n of t h e line.

Acknowledgments
T h i s study was c o s p o n s o r e d by the N a t i o n a l S c i e n c e
Foundation,
grant
MSM-8821079
(Dr.
Kenneth
C h o n g ) , and by the E l e c t r i c P o w e r R e s e a r c h Institute,
p r o j e c t R P 1 3 5 2 - 1 1 ( M r . R i c h a r d K e n n o n and M r . Paul
L y o n s ) . S p e c i a l t h a n k s are d u e to the E P R I a d v i s o r y
c o m m i t t e e for this p r o j e c t .

References
1 American Society of Civil Engineers Guidelines for electrical
transmission line structural loading ASCE Manuals and Reports
on Engineering Practice No. 74, 1981
2 International Electrotechnical Commission 'Loading and strength
of overhead transmission lines'. WG08 of IEC/TC11, 1988
3 Ghannoum, E. Probabilistic design of transmission lines, part I:
probability calculations and structural reliability, paper presented
at the IEEE-PES Winter Meeting, New York, NY, 1983
4 Ghannoum, E. Probabilistic design of transmission lines, part II:
design criteria corresponding to a target reliability, paper presented at the IEEE-PES Winter Meeting, New York, NY, 1983
5 Peyrot, A. H. and Dagher, H. J. 'Reliability-based design of
transmission line structures' J. Struct. Engng, ASCE. 1984, 110,
(11) 2758 2777
6 Dagher, H. J. Reliability-based analysis and design of transmission
line structures. PhD Dissertation, University of Wisconsin. Madison.
1985

258

Engng. Struct. 1993, Volume 15, Number 4

7 Dagher, H. J., Kulendran, S., Peyrot, A. H., Maamouri, M. and Lu.

Q. 'System reliability concepts in the design of transmission lines'.
Struct. En#ng ASCE 1993, 119 (1), 323 340
8 Dagher, H. J., Lu., Q. and Peyrot, A. H. Redundancy of latticed
transmission structures, Proceedings, ASCE Structures Congress
92, San Antonio, Texas, 1992
9 Karamchandani, A. Structural system reliability analysis methods.
Rep. RMS-2, Department of Civil Engineering, Standford Univcrsity, 1987
10 Peyrot, A. H., Dagher, H. J. and McDonald. B. Theoretical and
user's manual for DESCAL- reliability analysis and design of transmission line components, Res. Rep.. Department of Civil Engineer
ing University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA, 1987
11 Goodman, J. R., Vanderbilt, M. D., Criswell, M. E. and Bodig, J.
POLDAR User's Manual. TLWorkstation Code, Version 2.2, EL6420, Volume 21. Electric Power Research Institute. Project 1352-2,
1991
12 Goodman. J. R.. Vanderbilt. M. D., Criswell, M. E. and Bodig, J.
'FRAMER User's Manual, TLWorkstation Code, Version 2.3, EI6420, Volume 22, Electric Power Research Institute. Project 1352-2,
1991
13 Dagher, H. J., Peyrot, A. H., and Lu, Q. RELIAB a computer
program for system reliability analysis of transmission structures.
Draft report, EPRI project 1352-11, Civil Engineering Department, University of Maine, Orono, USA, 1991
14 Murotsu, Y., Okada, H., Niwa, K. and Miwa, S. 'Reliability
analysis of truss structures using matrix methods'. J. Mech. Des.
1980. 102, 749 756
15 Guenard, Y. F. Application of system reliability analysis to offshore structures. Report I, Reliability of Marine Structures Program, Stanford University, CA, 1984
16 Karamchandani, A. and Cornell, C. A. 'An event-to-event strategy
for nonlinear analysis of truss structures I', J. Struct. Engng, ASCE,
1992 118, (4) 895-909
17 Karamchandani, A. and Cornell, C. A. 'Reliability analysis of truss
structuress with multistate elements: II' J. Struct. Engng, ASCE,
1992, !18, (4), 909 925
18 Kulendran, S. System-reliability-based design of transmission line
structures, PhD Dissertation, University of Maine, Orono, 1990
19 White, H. B. "A practical approach to probability-based design,
paper presented at the IEEE-PES Winter Meeting, New York,
NY. 1985