rs module testing & quality assurance overview · 127 mm [5"] see note 4 unassembled...

RS Module Testing & Quality Assurance Overview

INFRASTRUCTURE FOR LIFE ®

A

CE AWARD WINNER

MO

ST CREATIV E APPLICATION

2005

COMPOSITESEXCELLENCE

AWARDS FOR

RS Technologies

[email protected]+1 877 219 8002+1 403 219 8000+1 403 219 8001

EmailToll Free PhoneFax

www.RSpoles.com

233 Mayland Place NE

Calgary, AB T2E 7Z8

1. General Module Information -1.1ModuleDimensions.................................................................................................................................. 3 -1.2ModuleLayoutDrawing........................................................................................................................ 3 -1.3HoleSpacingConventions................................................................................................................... 4

-1.4ModuleMarking........................................................................................................................................ 4

2. Bending Tests -2.1HorizontalBendingTests...................................................................................................................... 7

3. Structural Tests -3.1PoleWallLoadingTests......................................................................................................................... 9 -3.2UVandWeatheringTests.................................................................................................................... 10

4. Electrical Tests -4.160HzVoltageDryFlashoverandWithstandTests.................................................................... 11 -4.260HzVoltageWetFlashoverandWithstandTests.................................................................. 11 -4.3LeakageCurrentMeasurements....................................................................................................... 12 -4.4DielectricTestsBeforeandAfterHumidityExposure.............................................................. 12 -4.560HzVoltagePunctureTests........................................................................................................... 12 -4.6FaultCurrentWithstandTests........................................................................................................... 12 -4.7ContaminationTests.............................................................................................................................. 13

5. Polyurethane Resin Tests -5.1PolyurethaneResinMaterialPropertiesandCharacteristics •5.1.1TensileTest............................................................................................................................ 14 •5.1.2FlexuralTest......................................................................................................................... 14 •5.1.3CompressionTest.............................................................................................................. 14 •5.1.4IzodImpactTest................................................................................................................ 14 •5.1.5UnnotchedImpactTest................................................................................................... 14 •5.1.6WaterAbsorptionTest.................................................................................................... 15 •5.1.7InterlaminarShearTest.................................................................................................... 15 •5.1.8SpecificGravity.................................................................................................................. 15 •5.1.9IgnitionLossTest............................................................................................................... 15 •5.1.10CoefficientofLinearThermalExpansion............................................................... 15 •5.1.11GlassTransitionTemperature...................................................................................... 15 •5.1.12SpecificHeat...................................................................................................................... 15 •5.1.13TensileFatigueTest......................................................................................................... 15 •5.1.14CreepTest........................................................................................................................... 16 -5.2PolyurethaneResinToughnessEvaluation.................................................................................... 16 -5.3PolyurethaneResinImpactProperties........................................................................................... 16

RSPoleModuleTestingandQualityAssuranceOverview

Table of Contents

6. Laminate Tests -6.1LaminatePropertiesandCharacteristics........................................................................................ 17 •6.1.1ShortBeamShearTest..................................................................................................... 17 •6.1.2FlexuralTest.......................................................................................................................... 17 •6.1.3FiberFractionTest............................................................................................................. 17 -6.2LeachingTesting..................................................................................................................................... 18

7. Miscellaneous Tests -7.1PoleStepStaticLoadTest.................................................................................................................... 19 -7.2PoleStepDynamicLoadDropTests............................................................................................... 20 -7.3AbrasionTests.......................................................................................................................................... 23 •7.3.1WindBlownSandTest..................................................................................................... 23 •7.3.2TaberAbrasionTest......................................................................................................... 24 -7.4FireTesting................................................................................................................................................ 24

8. Quality Assurance -8.1QualityManagementSystem............................................................................................................... 28 -8.2MaterialInputs.......................................................................................................................................... 28 -8.3In-ProcessControls................................................................................................................................ 29 -8.4FinalInspections..................................................................................................................................... 29

9. APPENDIX -9.1ListofAppendices................................................................................................................................... 30

Disclaimer................................................................................................................................................................................ 31

RSModuleTestingandQualityAssuranceOverview

Table of Contents (cont.)

3

3'-4 3/4"40.76

OVERALL LENGTH

B

B

C

C

SEE TABLETIP

TIP

SEE TABLEBASE

BASETIP O.D.

F

SECTION B-B

BASE O.D.

SECTION C-C

WALL THICKNESS

DETAIL F

IMPE

RIA

L U

NIT

S

MODULELABEL

LENGTH(FT-IN.)

0.60"

AVERAGEWALL

THICKNESS(IN.)

WEIGHT(LB)

TIP OUTER

DIAMETER(IN.)

BASE OUTER

DIAMETER(IN.)

MODULUS OF ELASTICITY

@ 0 C(PSI)

1L 20' 0" 15/32" 216 7 9/16" 9 25/32" 3,476,7141 15' 2" 15/32" 152 8 3/32" 9 25/32" 3,476,7142 17' 8" 3/8" 190 8 9/32" 12 9/16" 3,095,5403 17' 5" 3/8" 225 11 3/32" 15 5/16" 3,312,7204 18' 11" 3/8" 300 13 11/16" 18 9/32" 2,912,6625 19' 0" 13/32" 360 16 19/32" 21 9/32" 2,599,265

5/6 34' 11" 15/32" 772 16 19/32" 24 27/32" 3,044,2416/7 34' 11" 7/16" 900 19 11/32" 27 29/32" 3,278,8838/9 35' 9" 15/32" 1197 25 13/16" 34 15/32" 3,264,509

10/11 36' 11" 15/32" 1499 31 31/32" 40 3/4" 2,421,115

MET

RIC

UN

ITS

MODULELABEL

LENGTH(m)

15mm

AVERAGEWALL

THICKNESS(cm)

WEIGHT(kg)

TIP OUTER

DIAMETER(cm)

BASE OUTER

DIAMETER(cm)

MODULUS OF ELASTICITY

@ 0 C(MPA )

1L 6.15 1.18 98.0 19.2 24.8 239711 4.62 1.18 69.0 20.5 24.8 239712 5.39 0.97 86.0 21.0 31.9 213433 5.30 0.97 102.0 28.2 38.9 228404 5.77 0.97 136.0 34.8 46.4 200825 5.79 1.03 163.0 42.1 54.1 17921

5/6 10.63 1.18 350.0 42.1 63.1 209896/7 10.63 1.08 408.0 49.1 70.9 226078/9 10.90 1.17 543.0 65.6 87.6 22508

10/11 11.24 1.17 680.0 81.2 103.5 16693

DESCRIPTION

SIZE REV

SCALE SHEET

A RSM-GMD

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES SUMMARY

NTS 1

DATE DRAWN

DRAWN BY

STOCK

STANDARD DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERSDIMENSIONS IN [ ] ARE IN INCHES

REVISION HISTORY

1OF

DATE MADE BY APPROVALLG21JAN2011

DESCRIPTIONREVA INITIAL RELEASE

MATERIAL

MATERIAL SPECIFICATION

WEIGHT [KG]

B

UPDATED TABLES, REMOVED VIEW DETAILS

31JAN2011

LG

MT

DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING

LINEAR DIMS: .X .5 mm; .02" .XX .05 mm; .002" .XXX .005 mm; .0002" SAW: +2.0 mm; +.08", -.0HOLES: +.5 mm; +.02", -.0ANGULAR: 1/4CONCENTRICITY: .010 TIRMACHINE FINISH: 32 RMSMACHINE INTERNAL RADII: .05 mm; .002"BREAK SHARP CORNERS

DEFAULT TOLERANCES

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF RS TECHNOLOGIES, ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR IN WHOLE WITHOUTWRITTEN PERMISSION OF RS TECHNOLOGIES IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED

L.GEORGE

APPROVED BY APPROVAL DATE

PROJECT LEAD INITIALS

DWG NO

28JAN2011

RS PART NORSM-GMD B

MT

M.TENACE 28JAN2011233 Mayland Place NECalgary, AB T2E 7Z8 PH: +1 403 219 8000FAX: +1 403 219 8001 WWW.RSpoles.COM

Approved

RSTANDARD COMPOSITE MODULE

1. General Module Information

1.1 Module Dimensions

1.2 Module Layout Drawing

1.0

Gen

eral

Mod

ule

Info

rmat

ion

171mm [6.75"] +/- 12mm [1/2"]

(Y) +/- 12mm [1/2"]

(X) +/- 12mm [1/2"]

76.2mm [3.0"] 6mm [1/4"]Long

171mm [6.75"] +/- 12mm [1/2"]

B

C

D

A

25.4mm [1"] Jacking Lug Holes

22.2mm [7/8"] Slot

A

D

C

B

X DimensionM1L - N/AM1S - N/A

M2 - 3,785mm [149"]M3 - 3,785mm [149"]M4 - 4,166mm [164"]M5 - 4,267mm [168"]M5/6 - 7,696mm [303]M6/7 - 7,696mm [303"]M8/9 - 7,950mm [313"]

M10/11 - 8,306mm [327"]

Notes:

- Jacking lug holes are drilled on A and C sides only.- No slot on M5/6 or M10/11. Replaced with 22.2mm [7/8"] dia. hole, 171mm [6.75"] from base.

- ALL holes must be positioned within +/- 1 hole diameter of their respective axis.

Standard Drilling of RS Modules

22.2mm [7/8"] Hole

CA

B

D

A

B

C

D

Y DimensionM1L - 1,524mm [60"]M1S - 1,524mm [60"]M2 - 1,524mm [60"]M3 - 1,524mm [60"]M4 - 1,524mm [60"]M5 - 1,524mm [60"]

M5/6 - N/AM6/7 - 2,946mm [116"]M8/9 - 2,946mm [116"]

M10/11 - N/A

Where a custom hole application conflicts with these specifications, please contact RS Engineering to arrive at a workable solution.

G

G

J

J

H

H

K

K

View G-G

View J-J

View H-H

View K-K

- M1S nesting hole as required, baring conflict with existing holes. Butt must not extend more than 393.7mm [15.5"] outside M2.

Refer to revision table on last page.

ALL STANDARD HOLES ARE THRU HOLES

09APR2007

PK

F.VOLK 17SEP2009

DRILLING AND MARKING OF RS POLES

7005-001-001 S

N

DESCRIPTION

SIZE REV

SCALE SHEET

ANTS 1

DATE DRAWN

DRAWN BY

STOCK


REVISION HISTORY

6OF

DATE MADE BY APPROVALDESCRIPTIONREV

MATERIAL


WEIGHT [KG]



DEFAULT TOLERANCES




DWG NO RS PART NO

233 Mayland Place NECalgary, AB T2E 7Z8 PH: +1 403 219 8000FAX: +1 403 219 8001 www.RSpoles.com

4

1.3 Hole Spacing Conventions

1.4 Module Marking

Theoutermodulesurfaceismarkedwith15mm[.59in.]tall/widelettering,usingpermanentink,toshowgeneralnotationssuchasalignmentlines,nominalweight,tipODandmoduleserialnumber.Aluminumplates,withpoleand/ormoduleinformation,arealsoattachedtotheoutsideofthemodules.

127mm [5"]152mm [6"]

NO DRILLING ZONE BELOWTHE QC GAUGE LINE

127 mm [5"]

SEE NOTE 4

UNASSEMBLED MODULE "NO DRILL" ZONE

QC GAUGE LINE, REPRESENTEDAS A SOLID HAND DRAWN LINE

(LOCATION IS MODULE DEPENDANT)

MIN. OVERLAP LINE, REPRESENTED AS A DASHED

PRE-PRINTED LINE(LOCATION IS MODULE DEPENDANT)

D

C

B

A

BASE

C

D

A

B

TIP

76mm [3"]BELOW BASE OFUPPER MODULE

127mm [5"]ABOVE BASE OF UPPER MODULE

SEE NOTE 3

ASSEMBLED MODULE "NO DRILL" ZONE

LOWER MODULE UPPER MODULE

EDGE OF UPPER MODULE

= NO DRILL ZONE

(CENTER TO CENTER)6D

d

D

5D(CENTER TO EDGE)

(CENTER TO CENTER)6D

Dd

NOTES:

1. UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY RS ENGINEERING AND THE CUSTOMER, DRILLING MUST COMPLY TO ALL RELEVANT RS WORK INSTRUCTIONS.

2. ADDITIONAL FASTENERS ARE NOT RECOMMENDED IN SLIP JOINTS, UNLESS APPROVED BY RS ENGINEERING. REFER TO HARDWARE GUIDELINES FOR POLE WALL BEARING INFORMATION.

3. ADDITIONAL FIELD DRILLING OF HOLES IN THE SLIP JOINT AREA MAY BE REQUIRED WHEN THE TIP OF THE LOWER MODULE BLOCKS HOLES THAT WERE PRE-DRILLED IN THE BASE OF THE UPPER MODULE ONCE THE SLIP JOINT HAS BEEN ASSEMBLED.

4. DRILLING HOLES IN THE MODULE TIP IS ACCEPTABLE (SUBJECT TO THE 6D RULE) WHEN A MODULE IS AT THE POLE TIP.

5. CONTACT RS TO RESOLVE HOLE VIOLATIONS.

* MINIMUM CENTER TO CENTER DISTANCE BETWEEN HOLES = 6X DIAMETER OF (LARGEST) HOLE.

* MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM HOLE CENTER TO TOP MODULE TIP EDGE = 5X DIAMETER OF HOLE

* HOLE DIAMETER NOT TO EXCEED 32mm [1.25"]

RULE FOR HOLE SPACING/SIZE REQUIREMENTS

OF

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWINGIS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF RS TECHNOLOGIES,

ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR IN WHOLE WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF

RS TECHNOLOGIES IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED

THIRD ANGLE PROJECTIONDO NOT SCALE DRAWING

R.PAEZ 25JUN2010

C.PATTERSON 26OCT2010

RS PART NO

DESCRIPTION

SHEET SIZE

REV

SCALE

SHEET

A

10018-003

RS MODULE HOLE SPACING CONVENTIONS

NTS

2

DATE DRAWNDRAWN BY

2ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN MM UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED



DWG NO

C

4 25 3 1

B

A

C

45 123

A

B

C

1.0

Gen

eral

Mod

ule

Info

rmat

ion

5

[1"]25mm

305mm[12"]

(W) 305mm

[12"] (V) 305mm[12"]

Y

X Standard Marking of RS Modules

Drilling Instruction (Axis A & C) or Axis Marking

Notes:

- All alignment lines are marked on B side only.- Axis marks required on A, C & D axes only.- Alignment Lines/Text and Axis marks to be 8mm tall / wide.

Text Detail for Axis Marking Axis A,C & D

<<DRILL HERE

- The orientation of the A-C line is assumed to be parallel to the direction of the power lines (during field installation.)

A

D

C

B

D

B

AC

Note: Axis marks to bewithin +/- 5mm [0.2"] of

true.

L

L

View L-LView M-M

M

M

22.2mm [7/8"]x 76.2mm [3"] Slot Note: Axis marks to bewithin +/- 5mm [0.2"] of

true.

Axis marks to be marked on outer surface of module


Refer to revision table on last page. 09APR2007

PK

F.VOLK 17SEP2009


7005-001-001

Axis Marking

----------<<<-----AXIS "X"Text Detail for Drilling Instruction For Axis A & C

Axis Alignment Mark

Text Detail for Axis Alignment Mark Axis A,C & D

-----------------------------

"V" DimensionM1L - 1345mm [53.0"]M1S - 1345mm [53.0"]M2 - 1345mm [53.0"]M3 - 1345mm [53.0"]M4 - 1345mm [53.0"]M5 - 1345mm [53.0"]

M5/6 - 3345mm [131.7"]M6/7 - 3345mm [131.7"]M8/9 - 3345mm [131.7"]

M10/11 - 3345mm [131.7"]

"W" DimensionM1L - 1854mm [73.0"]M1S - 1854mm [73.0"]M2 - 1854mm [73.0"]M3 - 1854mm [73.0"]M4 - 1854mm [73.0"]M5 - 1854mm [73.0"]

M5/6 - 3854mm [151.7"]M6/7 - 3854mm [151.7"]M8/9 - 3854mm [151.7"]

M10/11 - 3854mm [151.7"]

Center of Gravity from BaseM1L - 2284mm [89.9"]

M1S - 2983mm [117.4"]M2 - 2527mm [99.5"]

M3 - 2566mm [101.0"]M4 - 2823mm [111.1"]M5 - 2800mm [110.2"]

M5/6 - 5150mm [202.8"]M6/7 - 5068mm [199.5"]M8/9 - 5319mm [209.4"]

M10/11 - 5530mm [217.7"]

Center of Gravity

P

P

S

"Y" DimensionM1L - 1,524mm [60"]M1S - 1,524mm [60"]M2 - 1,524mm [60"]M3 - 1,524mm [60"]M4 - 1,524mm [60"]M5 - 1,524mm [60"]

M5/6 - N/AM6/7 - 2,946mm [116"]M8/9 - 2,946mm [116"]

M10/11 - N/A

Text Detail for Tip Jacking Lugs on Axis A & C

X DimensionM1L - N/AM1S - N/A

M2 - 3,785mm [149"]M3 - 3,785mm [149"]M4 - 4,166mm [164"]M5 - 4,267mm [168"]M5/6 - 7,696mm [303]M6/7 - 7,696mm [303"]M8/9 - 7,950mm [313"]

M10/11 - 8,306mm [327"]

JACKING LUG --------------------

Text Detail for Base Jacking Lugs on Axis A & C

AXIS "X"-------------------- JACKING LUG

Jacking Lug Mark Jacking Lug Mark

Q

DESCRIPTION

SIZE REV

SCALE SHEET

ANTS 3

DATE DRAWN

DRAWN BY

STOCK


REVISION HISTORY

6OF


MATERIAL


WEIGHT [KG]



DEFAULT TOLERANCES




DWG NO RS PART NO


Adjust line length per module

(X)

[4"]102mm

[18"]457mm

[1"]25mm

(V)

[1"]25mm [1"]

25mm

[4"]102mm

Adjust line length per module

(Z)

(W)

Standard Marking of RS Modules

Alignment Line / BaseText

QC Gauge Line(Location is module dependant.)

Minimum Joint Line

Alignment Line/Tip Text

Notes:


Text Detail for Alignment Lines

RStandard TM MX - NOM WT = _ _ _kg (_ _ _lbs) - Tip OD = _ _ _mm (_ _._")- MADE IN CANADA - S/N = MXXXX-TA-YY-ZZZZZ


A

D

C

BD B

A

C

TIP

BASERStandard TM

MX - NOM WT = _ _ _kg ( _ _ _lbs) - MADE IN CANADA - S/N = MXXXX-TA-YY-ZZZZZNote: No text between 146mm and 197mm [5.75" and 7.75"] from base (to avoid joint hole)


true.

J

J

View J-JView K-K

K

K

"X" DimensionMinimum Joint Line

M1L - N/AM1S - N/A

M2 - 421mm [16.6"]M3 - 580mm [22.8"]M4 - 727mm [28.6"]M5 - 885mm [34.8"]

M5/6 - 885mm [34.8"]M6/7 - 1,042mm [41.0"]M8/9 - 1,397mm [55.0"]

M10/11 - 1,743mm [68.6"]

22.2mm [7/8"] Hole

Detail of Internal Label

MXXXX-TA-YY-ZZZZZ

Note: - Internal Label text to be bold, Black text on white back, 46pt, Arial font. - Label to be located on inside surface of module


true.


(Refer to Table B, this page.)

Tip OD (for Top Cap sizing)M1L - 188mm [7.4"]M1S - 200mm [7.9"]M2 - 210mm [8.3"]M3 - 282mm [11.1"]M4 - 348mm [13.7"]M5 - 421mm [16.6"]

M5/6 - 424mm [16.6"]M6/7 - 491mm [19.3"]M8/9 - 656mm [25.8"]

M10/11 - 812mm [32.0"]

Table B

Table A


Refer to revision table on last page.

XXXX = Module SizeT = Manufacturing Location (Tilbury)A = Production Cell (Cell A)YY = Year of ManufactureZZZZZ = Sequential S/N

Serial Number Legend

Internal Label

"Z" DimensionMaximum Overlap

M1L - N/AM1S - N/A

M2 - 562.5mm [22.2"]M3 - 750mm [29.5"]M4 - 925mm [36.4"]

M5 - 1,112.5mm [43.8"]M5/6 - 1,112.5mm [43.8"]M6/7 - 1,300mm [51.2"]

M8/9 - 1,722.5mm [67.8"]M10/11 - 2135mm [84.1"]

M

M

For QC Only-Do not Mark on module M

09APR2007

PK

F.VOLK 17SEP2009


7005-001-001 S

N

P

DESCRIPTION

SIZE REV

SCALE SHEET

ANTS 2

DATE DRAWN

DRAWN BY

STOCK


REVISION HISTORY

6OF


MATERIAL


WEIGHT [KG]



DEFAULT TOLERANCES




DWG NO RS PART NO


1.0

Gen

eral

Mod

ule

Info

rmat

ion

6

1.0

Gen

eral

Mod

ule

Info

rmat

ion

50mm[2"]

50mm[2"]

50mm[2"]

Standard Marking of RS Modules

Notes:



E

F

G

H

F

H

EG


true.

P

P

View P-PView Q-Q

Q

Q


true.

Axis marks to be marked on outer surface of module Axis marks to be marked on

outer surface of module

Refer to revision table on last page. 09APR2007

PK

F.VOLK 17SEP2009


7005-001-001

Axis Alignment Marking

Text Detail for Axis Alignment Mark Axis E, F, G & H

M"X"-M"X"---

Axis Alignment Marking

Center of Gravity from BaseM1L - 2284mm [89.9"]

M1S - 2983mm [117.4"]M2 - 2527mm [99.5"]

M3 - 2566mm [101.0"]M4 - 2823mm [111.1"]M5 - 2800mm [110.2"]

M5/6 - 5150mm [202.8"]M6/7 - 5068mm [199.5"]M8/9 - 5319mm [209.4"]

M10/11 - 5530mm [217.7"]

Center of Gravity P

P

S

Q

DESCRIPTION

SIZE REV

SCALE SHEET

ANTS 4

DATE DRAWN

DRAWN BY

STOCK


REVISION HISTORY

6OF


MATERIAL


WEIGHT [KG]




DEFAULT TOLERANCES




DWG NO RS PART NO

7

2. Bending Tests

2.1 Horizontal Bending Tests

Overview

ToevaluatethestrengthandbehaviorofRSpolesunderflexuralloading,RSperformsfull-scaledestructivetestingontheentirerangeofpolesizes.ThistestingwasoriginallyperformedbyEDMInternationalInc.(EDM)–arecognizedindustryleaderinthetestingandresearchofutilityproducts.Afterdevelopinganapprovedin-housetestingfacility,whichwasdesignedandconstructedtoEDM’sspecifications,horizontalbendingtestsarenowperformedatourtestfacilityinCalgary,Alberta,Canada(SeeFigure1fortestset-up).ThetestsetupandtestmethodisbasedontheASTMteststandard,ASTMD1036–StandardTestMethodsofStaticTestsofWoodPoles.Basedonthedatafromeachtest,RScandeterminepoleloadinganddeflectionlevelsthroughoutthebendingtest,uptoandincludingthepointoffailureifthetestwastakentodestruction.

Procedure

Apoleissecuredatthebaseandthegroundlinelocation,andahorizontalloadisappliedat61cm[2ft.]fromthepoletopuntilthedesiredloadordeflectionlevelisachieved,oruntilfailure.Eachtestbeginswithassemblingapoleinthetestingyard.Thepoleisassembledmodule-by-moduleusingcome-alongs,andthejointsaredrilledandboltedastheywouldbeinafieldinstallation.

Next,eitherabaseplateorwoodenbraceisinstalledinthebuttofthebasemoduletosimulatetheconstraintofthegroundduringembedment.Usingforklifts,thebaseofthepoleisthenloadedintothehorizontaltestframe.Topreventthepolefromsagging,thetipisstrappedintoawheeledsteelcartplacedtwo-thirdsofthewayupthepolefromthebase.

Figure 1: Horizontal bending test equipment

2.1

Hor

izon

tal B

endi

ng T

ests

8

2.1

Hor

izon

tal B

endi

ng T

ests

Oncethepoleisloadedintothetestframe,itissecuredtotheframewithopposingstraps.Onestrapis

attachedatthebase,andthesecondisattachedtosimulatethegroundlinelocation.Thesestrapssecure

thepoleinthetestframetosimulatedirectembedmentconditions.Afterthepoleisstrappedintothetest

frame,measurementsaretakentodocumentwheretheloadwillbeappliedandwherethedeflectionwillbe

measured.SeeFigure2forpoleset-upprocedures.

Tomeasuredeflectionduringthetest,positiontransducers(deflectionsensors)areattachedatthetip,

groundlinelocationandbaseofthepole.Forthepurposeofthetest,thebaseofthepoleisassumedto

berigid.Thegroundlineandbasepositiontransducersprovidedataonhowmuchthebaseofthepole

shiftsinthetestframe(duetomovementinthetestfixtures,stretchinthestraps,etc).Thisdataallows

thetipdeflectiontobecorrected.

A5,442kg[12,000lb.]capacitywinchisthenconnectedtothepoleattheloadpoint61cm[2ft.]

belowthenominaltip.Aloadcellin-linewiththewinchcablemeasurestheforcebeingappliedtothe

pole.Theloadcellandallthreepositiontransducersareintegratedintoadataacquisitionsystemwhich

recordsreal-timedatafromthesesensors.

Afterasafetycheckandwalk-aroundtoverifypropertestsetup,allbystandersareclearedfromthe

areaexceptfortestingpersonnelresponsibleforoperatingthedataacquisitionequipmentandthe

winchcontrols.Oncethetestingpersonnelarereadytobegin,aflashingstrobelightandsirenare

turnedontoalertpeopleoftesting-in-progress.Thewinchisswitchedonandthepoleistested.After

thetestiscomplete,thepoleisremovedfromthetestcellandtheload-deflectiondataisprocessed.

Figure 2: Setting up the pole

9

3.1 Pole Wall Loading Tests

Overview

AsFRPpolesbehavedifferentlythantheirwood,concreteandsteelcounterparts,guidelineshavebeendevelopedregardinghardwareattachments.RShascompletedanextensiveseriesofteststohelpdeterminethestrengthoftheRSpolewallunderavarietyofdifferentloadingscenarios.ThesetestswereperformedbyIntecinSeattle,WA–acompanythatspecializesintestingadvancedcompositematerialsandstructures.ThedatafromthistestinghasbeenusedtodevelopcomprehensiveguidelinesregardingtheapplicationofhardwareonRSpoles.

Procedure

Thistestingconsistedofsettingupavarietyofboltedhardwareconnectionsandtestingthemtofailure.Thiswasaccomplishedbysecuringpolesectionstoaloadframeandusinghydraulicactuatorstoapplyvariousloadcasestothecompositepolewall.Thistestingyieldedinformationaboutboltsizing,boltspacing,properloadpaths,bearingstrengthofholes,sizingandattachmentofloadspreaderplatesandwaystofield-modifyexistingconnectionstogainextrasafety.Figure11illustratesthetestset-up.

Figure 11: Pole wall loading test set-up

3.0 Structural Tests

3.1

Pole

Wal

l Loa

ding

Tes

ts

10

3.2 UV and Weathering Tests

Overview

Overtime,unprotectedcompositeutilitypolescanbepronetoUVdegradationandweatheringeffects.Aromatic,non-UVstableresinsaretheprimaryresinusedtobindfiberstogetherincompositepoles.Discoloration,fiberbloomingandpotentialstructuraldegradationofthepolecanresultifaromaticresinisleftexposedandunprotected.

Tocombattheseeffects,RScompositeutilitypolesoutermostlayersconsistofaliphaticformulatedpolyurethaneresin.ThisprovidestheexposedlayersofthepolewithsuperiorUV-stabilityandweatherresistantcharacteristics.Unlikeothercompositeutilitypoleswhichutilizeveilsorcoatings,thisouter-layerofaliphaticresinischemicallybonded(i.e.,cross-linked)withtheunderlyingaromaticpolyurethaneresin,anintegralpartofthepolewallandcannotbescratchedorflakedoff.

Todeterminethelong-termdurabilityandperformanceofthisprotectiveouterlayerofaliphaticresin,RShasundertakenalong-termchamberstudytosimulateUVexposure,moistureandhightemperatureeffects.RSsampleshavebeensubjectedto14,000hoursofacceleratedUV/weatheringexposurebyQ-LabWeatheringResearchService(Q-labs)inFlorida,USAinaccordancewithASTMStandardG154Cycle1.ThisexposuresimulatesshortwavelengthUVrays,whichistheformofUVthattypicallycausespolymerdegradationsuchasglossloss,strengthloss,yellowing,cracking,crazingandembrittlement.ThistestingalsoinvolvedauniquecondensationmechanismusedbyQ-Labstoreproducemoistureandsimulateoutdoorconditions.

AftercertainintervalsofacceleratedUVexposure,sampleswerevisuallyinspectedbyQ-LabsandsenttoRSforstructuraltesting.

Procedure

Sampleswerepreparedas0.35mx0.15m[1ft.x0.5ft.]sectionscutfromatypicalRSpolewallcross-section.Thesizeofthesampleswerecalculatedinordertoobtainanaverageoffourtestablespecimensforflexuralstrength,flexuralmodulusandinterlaminarshearstrengthaccordingtotheASTMStandardD790[6]andASTMD2344[7],respectively.Thetestspecimenswerecutfromtheexposedblock2.5cm[1in.]awayfromtheedgesnottohavetheedgeeffectontheresults.

AtQ-Labs,sampleswereexposedtoacceleratedUVlightusingUVA340nmlamps,equivalentto0.77W/m2[v1.0calibration],8hUVlight@60°C[140°F]and4hcondensation@50°C[122°F].TodateQ-Labshasprovidedvisualobservationreportsonsamplesinthefollowinghoursofexposure:500h,1,000h,2,000h,4,000h,6,000h,8,000,10,000h,12,000hand14,000h.

Asthesamplesarrivedaftereachdesignatedexposuretime,mechanicaltestswereperformedontheweatheredandUVexposedsamplesattheRStestlab.TheincludedASTMD2344flexuraltestingandASTMD2344interlaminarsheartesting.

3.2

UV

and

Wea

ther

ing

Test

s

11

4. Electrical Tests

Overview

RShasundertakenavarietyofelectricaltestsonRSpolesthroughKinectrics–anindependenttestlaboratorylocatedinToronto,Ontario,Canadaspecializingintestingproceduresfortheutilityindustry.ThegoalofthesetestswastodeterminethedielectricandinsulatingpropertiesofRSpoles

invariouselectricalexposuresituations.

4.1 60 Hz Voltage Dry Flashover and Withstand TestsThedryflashoverandwithstandtestswereperformedusingclauses4.2and4.4ofANSIC29.1asaguide.Thedrywithstandvoltageofthepolewasinitiallysettobe97%ofthedryflashovervoltagevalueandverifiedthroughtesting.Thedurationofthewithstandtestswasoneminute.Thetestwasrepeatedatalowerleveltoseeifaflashoveroccurredattheprevioustrialvoltage.Thetestindicated

thatunderdryconditions,RSpolesareagoodinsulator(SeeFigure12).

4.2 60 Hz Voltage Wet Flashover and Withstand TestsThewetflashoverandwithstandtestsinvolvedmountingRSpolesectionsinvertical,45degreeandhorizontalorientations.Thesamplesperformedinaccordancewithclauses4.3and4.5ofANSIC29.1witha1mm/minute[2.36in./hour]precipitationrateperclause9.1ofIECstandard60060-1(SeeFigure13).

Figure 12: 60 Hz Voltage Dry Flashover and Withstand Test

Figure 13: 60 Hz Voltage Wet Flashover and Withstand Test

4.0

Ele

ctri

cal T

ests

12

4.3 Leakage Current MeasurementsRSpolesmetandexceededtheleakagecurrentrequirementsofanapproved“hotstick”orinsulatedboom.ThemaximumleakagecurrentonanRSpolesectionwas54uAatavoltageof240kV

(SeeFigure14).

4.4 Dielectric Test Before and After Humidity ExposureBeforehumidityexposure,theRSsampleswereinitiallymeasuredformaximumleakagecurrentof50kVforoneminute.After168hoursofhumidityexposure,thesampleswereretested.Theresultsrevealednoflashovers,puncturesorvisualsignsoftracking(SeeFigure15).

4.5 60 Hz Voltage Puncture TestsThreetestswereconductedtoassessthedielectricpuncturestrengthofRSpolesusingpuncturevoltagelevelsof240kVand250kV.Theresultwasanaveragedielectricpuncturestrengthofapproximately30kV/mm[774kV/in.]ofwallthickness,basedonawallthicknessof8mm[0.32in.](SeeFigure16).

4.6 Fault Current Withstand TestsAseriesoftestswereperformedon#4and#2/0copperwires.Faultcurrentsof3.0kAto27.3kAwereappliedwithfaultdurationsvaryingfrom1/20secondsto4.5seconds.Additionally,conductortemperaturesof1,083°C[1,981°F]wereused.Undertheworstcasesustainedfaultcurrentthepolesurfaceexperiencedlimitedcharring,withnoapparentstructuraldamage(SeeFigure17).

Figure 14: Leakeage Current Measurements Test Figure 15: Dielectric Test

Figure 16: 60 Hz Voltage Puncture Test Figure 17: Fault Current Withstand Test

4.0

Ele

ctri

cal T

ests

13

4.7 Contamination TestsRSwallsamplesweresubjectedtocontaminationlevelsupto240ug/cm2tosimulatecontaminationonaporcelaininsulator.Amixtureofsaltwaterandfineclaywasusedtoasthecontaminationmedia,whichdidnotadherewelltothepolewallduetothepole’sexcellenthydrophobiccharacteristics.Thetestshowedatleastthesameinsulationstrengthasporcelaininsulatorsunderthesameveryheavycontamination(SeeFigure18).

Summary of Key Findings Attained From Electric Tests: • Underthestandard“hotstick”test,RSpolesectionsaregoodorbetterthanahotstick orinsulatedboom;

• RSpoleshaveahighdielectricpuncturestrengthofapproximately30kV/mm[774kV/in.] ofwallthickness;

• Thepolesurfaceisveryhydrophobic,makingitdifficultforcontaminationstostick;and

• Intheeventahighfaultcurrenttravelsdownacoppergroundwire,thepolesurfacewill experiencenoadversestructuraleffects.

Figure 18: Contamination Test Surface and Chamber

4.7

Con

tam

inat

ion

Test

s

14

5. Polyurethane Resin Tests

RSpolesaremanufacturedwithpolyurethaneresindevelopedbyRSTechnologies.Tounderstandthecapabilitiesofthepolyurethaneresin,RShasconductednumerousteststhroughtheAlbertaResearchCouncil,anindependentresearchtestinggroupbasedoutofEdmonton,Alberta,Canada.

5.1 Polyurethane Material Properties and Characteristics

Overview

AvarietyoftestswereperformedontheRSpolyurethaneresintoevaluateitsmaterialpropertiesandcharacteristics.ThesetestshavebeenusedtobetterunderstandthecapabilitiesoftheresinsystemusedinRSpoles.

Procedures

TodeterminethematerialpropertiesandcharacteristicsoftheRSpolyurethaneresin,thefollowingtestswereperformed:

5.1.1 Tensile TestThetensiletestwasconductedinaccordancewithASTMD3039.Thistestreportsthetensilestrengthandmodulus(stiffness)ofacompositematerialwithalignedfibersorientedinonedirection.

5.1.2 Flexural TestTheflexuralorbendingtestwasconductedinaccordancewithASTMD790,wherearectangularbeamofmaterialisendsupportedandloadedatitscenter.

5.1.3 Compression TestThecompressiontestwasconductedinaccordancewithASTMD695andBoeingSpecificationSupportStandardBSS7260.Tabbedtestspecimenswerepreparedforboththelongitudinaland

transversedirections.

5.1.4 Izod Impact TestTheIzodimpacttestwasconductedinaccordancewithASTMD256.Specimenswerepreparedforboththelongitudinalandtransversedirections.Theimpacttestspecimenswerenotched,usinganaircooledmillingmachine.Thenotchingprovidedthespecimenwithadamagesiteforcrackingcausedbyimpact,soitisfeltbysometobeamorerepresentativetestforratingtheimpactpropertiesofarealmaterial.

5.1.5 Un-notched Impact TestTheun-notchedimpacttestwasconductedinaccordancewithASTMD4812.Thisisaclean,polishedspecimenwithnoobviousplaceforanimpact-generatedcracktostart.Specimenswerepreparedforboththelongitudinalandtransversedirections.

5.0

Pol

yure

than

e Re

sin

Test

s

15

5.1.6 Water Absorption Test

ThewaterabsorptiontestwasconductedinaccordancewithASTMD570-98.Six7.6cmx2.5cm[3in.x1in.]testspecimenswereobtainedfromeachsamplematerialandwereevaluatedinaccordancewith:(a)24hourimmersionatambienttemperatures,(b)Long-termimmersionatambienttemperatures,and(c)Immersionat50°C[122°F].

5.1.7 Interlaminar Shear Test

TheinterlaminarsheartestwasconductedinaccordancewithASTMD2344.Specimenswerepreparedforboththelongitudinalandtransversedirections.Thetestisconductedonaveryshortendsupportedbeamwithabendingforceappliedtoitscenter.Shearbetweenthelaminaofthe

compositedominates,generatinginterlaminarshearstresses.

5.1.8 Specific Gravity

SpecificgravitydeterminationswereperformedinaccordancewithASTMD792–TestMethodA.

Thespecificgravityisamethodofstatingthedensityofthematerial.

5.1.9 Ignition Loss Test

Ignitionlossgeneratestheamountoffiberinacompositesampleonaweightpercentagebasis.TheignitionlosstestswereperformedasperASTMD2584-02.Eachsamplewastestedintriplicate,withtheaverageresultbeingreportedastheignitionloss(glasscontent).

5.1.10 Coefficient of Linear Thermal Expansion

Thecoefficientofthermalexpansionishowmuchamaterialexpandsforadegreeoftemperaturerise.ThemethodusedfordeterminingthecoefficientoflinearthermalexpansionwasASTME831-00.Theexpansioncoefficientwasmeasuredforeachdirection(length,width,andthickness).Theexpansion

coefficientswerecalculatedforthetemperaturerangeof0°C[32°F]to200°C[392°F].Theinstrument

usedforthedeterminationswasaTAInstrumentsTMA2940thermomechanicalanalyzer.Theanalyseswere

performedatasampleheatingrateof5°C/minute[41°F/minute]from-30°Cto205°C[-22°Fto401°F].

5.1.11 Glass Transition Temperature

Theglasstransitiontemperatureisthetemperatureatwhichthematerialundergoesamoleculararrangementchange.Itshowsupasaslightchangeindensity,modulus,andthermalexpansion.GlasstransitiontemperaturedeterminationswereperformedinaccordancewithASTME1640-94.TheinstrumentusedforthedeterminationswasaTAInstrumentsDMA983dynamicmechanicalanalyzer.Sampleswererunfromambienttemperatureto125°C[257°F].

5.1.12 Specific Heat

ThespecificheatistheamountofheatperunitofmassrequiredtoraisethetemperaturebyonedegreeCelsius.ThespecificheatwasmeasuredinaccordancewithASTME1269usingthedifferential

scanningcalorimeter(DSC).Thespecificheatvaluesareusedtocalculatethethermalconductivity.

5.1.13 Tensile Fatigue Test

ThetensilefatiguetestsareperformedinaccordancewithASTMD3479.Thespecimensaresubjectedtotension-tensioncyclicloadingwithupperrangevaryingfrom40-90%andalowerrangeof10%.Thenumberofcyclestofailureisrecorded.Thefrequencyoftheloadingrangesfrom2-4Hzdependingontheloadingrange.

5.0

Pol

yure

than

e Re

sin

Test

s

16

5.1.14 Creep Test

ThecreeptestisaflexuralcreepandwasperformedinaccordancewithASTMD2990.Theflexuralcouponsareendsupportedandloadedinthemiddlewithloadsthatcorrespondtoapercentageofthefailurestress.Therangeofloadshavebeenfrom90%to45%offailurestress.Thetimetofailureisrecorded,ifthespecimendoesnotfailthetestisterminatedafteraminimumof3,600hours.

5.2 Polyurethane Resin Toughness Evaluation

Overview

AvarietyofmechanicaltestshavebeenperformedontheRSpolyurethaneresintodetermineitstoughness.Thistestingwasperformedonthepolyurethaneresinandanalternativeiso-polyesterbasedresintocomparethetoughnessofeachresinsystem.ThiscomparisonisrelevantforanalyzingtheperformanceofRSpoles,whichutilizeapolyurethanesystem,becausepolyester-basedresinsare

commonlyusedinothercompositeutilitypolesonthemarket.

Procedures

Fivemechanicaltestswereusedtoevaluatetoughness:

(a) TensiletestbasedonASTMD638M;

(b) IzodimpacttestbasedonASTMD256;

(c) Fallingweightimpacttestatspeedsof1.5m/sec[4.92ft./sec],3m/sec[9.84ft./sec]and5m/sec[16.4ft./sec],usingInstronDynatup8250H;

(d)ModeIdoublecantileverbeam(DCB)testbasedonASTMD5529-94a;and

(e) ModeIIend-notch-flexure(ENF)testbasedonEuropeanStructuralIntegritySociety(ESIS) protocolspublishedin1993.

TheresultsshowthattheRSpolyurethaneresinistougherthantraditionaliso-polyesterbasedresin,especiallyindelaminationresistanceunderimpactloading.

5.3 Polyurethane Resin Impact Properties

Overview

AvarietyofmechanicaltestshavebeenperformedontheRSpolyurethaneresintodetermineitsimpactproperties.Thistestingwasperformedonthepolyurethaneresin,apolyesterresin,avinyl-esterresinandepoxy.Duetocostlimitations,polyurethaneandpolyesterarethemainresinsystemsusedformanufacturingcompositeutilitypoles.Epoxyresinsarecostprohibitiveforutilitypoles,andaretypicallyreservedforhighperformanceapplications.

Procedures

Thetestsperformedincluded:

(a) Interlaminarshear;

(b) Izodimpactnotched/unnotched;and

(c) Transversetensilestrength.

TheseseriesoftestsindicatedthattheRSpolyurethaneresinhasasignificantimpactperformanceimprovementoverpolyesterresins.Thesetestsalsoindicatedthatimpactperformanceofthepolyurethaneresinisgood,butnotbetter,thanepoxyandvinylesterresins.5.

0 P

olyu

reth

ane

Resi

n Te

sts

17

6. Laminate Tests

RSpolesareassembledfrommodulesmanufacturedwithaproprietarylaminatedesigndevelopedbyRSTechnologies.Tobetterunderstandthecapabilitiesofeachlaminate,RShasconductednumeroustestsoncouponsamplescutfromeachmodulesize.

6.1 Laminate Properties and CharacteristicsAvarietyoftestswereperformedonthemodulelaminatestoevaluatetheirmaterialpropertiesandcharacteristics.ThesetestresultshavebeenusedtobetterunderstandthecapabilitiesofeachmoduleusedinRSpoles.

Toevaluatethelaminatepropertiesandcharacteristicsofeachmodule,thefollowingtestswereperformed:

6.1.1 Short Beam Shear TestUsingaTiniusOlsentestmachine,theshortbeamsheartestwasconductedinaccordancewithASTM

D2344onsamplescutfromthemodulewallinthelongitudinaldirection.

6.1.2 Flexural TestTheflexuraltestswerealsoconductedusingtheTiniusOlsenmachineandperformedinaccordancewithASTMD3039.Thistestreportstheflexuralstrengthandacalculatedflexuralmodulusvalue.

6.1.3 Fiber Fraction TestAburnofftestisusedtodeterminetheweightfractionofglassfiberinsideacompositematerial.Thesampleswereweighed,placedinsideanoventoburnofftheresinandtheremainingglassfiberweighedtoestablishthepercentageofglassascomparedtotheoriginalsampleweight.

6.0

Lam

inat

e Te

sts

18

6.2 Leaching Testing

Background

Utilitycompaniesandthegeneralpublichaveexpressedconcernoverthepossibleleachingofpotentiallyhazardoussubstancesfromwoodutilitypolesthatmaythreatentheenvironment,soil,and/orwatersupplies.ThistechnicalbulletinaddressestheleachingperformanceofRScompositeutilitypoles.

AnalysisTopreventinsectattackanddecay,woodutilitypolesaregenerallytreatedwithvariouschemicalssuchascreosote,chromatedarsenicals,orpentachlorophenol.Itispossiblethatthesechemicalscanleachintothesurroundingsoilandwatersupplysystemsovertime.RSutilitypolescontainnoneoftheabovementionedchemicals,oranyotherpreservativetreatmentsorcoatings.

RSutilitypolesconsistofhighlycross-linkedthermosetpolyurethaneresin,glassfiber,pigmentsandfunctionaladditives.TheresinthatisusedtomanufactureRSutilitypolescontainsnovolatileorganiccompounds(VOC),hazardousairpollutants(HAPs),plasticizersorstyrene.Aftercuring,theresinisasolidmaterialthatisnotwatersoluble.(AsimilarresinisusedinthemanufactureofwatersystemcomponentsandisregulatedundertheAmericanWaterWorksAssociationstandardANSI/AWWAC222.)

TheE-glassfibersusedtomanufactureRSutilitypolesarecoatedwithandembeddedin,thepolyurethaneresin,anddonotposealeachingthreat.Pigments,whicharenotsolubleinwater,arealsothoroughlyembeddedintothepolyurethanematrix.Otheradditivesconstitute0.04%ofthetotalutilitypoleweight,havenegligiblewatersolubility,andareeitherfullyembeddedinorreactedintothepolyurethaneresinmatrix.

Unlikemostwoodpoles,RSutilitypolesdonotrequireanyprotectivecoatingsorpreservativessuchaspaint,sealant,pesticides,orfungicides,whichcouldflakeofforleachintotheenvironment.

TestingToevaluatetheleachingperformanceofRScompositeutilitypoles,testinghasbeenconductedonwatersampleshavingprolongedcontactwithrepresentativeRScompositesamples.TestingwasbasedonASTMC1308-08,StandardTestMethodforAcceleratedLeachTestforDiffusiveReleasesfromSolidifiedWasteandaComputerProgramtoModelDiffusive,FractionalLeachingfromCylindricalWasteForms.QuantitativetestswereconductedtodetectandidentifyanyorganiccompoundsassociatedwithcarbonbasedpolymersandspecificcompoundsrelatedtoadditivesusedintheRSpolyurethaneresinformulation.Inaddition,waterqualitytestingwasconductedtodetectandquantifychemicalsthatareincludedinstandardenvironmentalwaterqualityanalyses.

ResultsInallcases,theabovecompoundsandchemicalswereeithernotdetectedatall,orweremeasuredatlowlevelsverynearthethresholdofdetection.DetectedcompoundsweresignificantlybelowtheestablishedUSAandCanadianwatersafetystandardsfordrinkingandagriculturaluse.

SummaryRScompositeutilitypolesdonotcontainanytoxicpreservatives,pesticides,orfungicidessuchascreosote,chromatedarsenicals,orpentachlorophenol.MultipleleachingtestsindicatethatRSutilitypolesareenvironmentallybenignanddonotleachharmfullevelsofanyknownchemicalsorcompoundsintothesoilorgroundwater.

6.2

Leac

hing

Tes

ting

19

7. Miscellaneous Tests

7.1 Pole Step Static Load Test

Overview

TocertifythestaticloadcapabilitiesoftheSeniorIndustriesSI-0040climbingstep,aclimbingoptionrecommendingbyRS,SeniorIndustrieshasperformedaseriesofstaticloadtestsonanRS compositepolesection.

SeniorIndustriesperformedtwoteststoevaluatethestaticloadcapabilitiesoftheSI-0040climbingstepasusedonanRScompositepole:

(a)Downwardforceof340-499kg[750-1,100lbs.],startingfrom0kg[0lbs.];and

(b)Downwardforceto1,134kg[2,500lbs.],startingfrom0kg[0lbs.]

Procedure

BothtestsinvolvedmountingaSI-0040climbingsteptoatestfixture,whichwasthenassembledontoaTinius-OlsenTensiletester.Thetensiletesterisdesignedtosimulateloadsatarateofnomorethan7.6cm/minute[3in./minute].

Sample1:

TheTinius-OlsenTensiletesterwasappliedtothestep,installedintoanRSpolesection(2.5cm[1in.]installationhole),withadownwardforceto340-499kg[750-1,100lbs.]startingfrom0kg[0lbs.].Achainwasplaced13cm[5in.]fromthepolesection,within2.5cm[1in.]ofthepolestepend.Sample1heldforcewithlessthan2.5cm[1in.]deformationperSeniorIndustriesqualificationstandardonthestependwherethepressurewasapplied,withpermanentdeformationof0.6cm[.25in.]occurringbetween454and499kg[1,000and1,100lbs.].Thepolewalldisplayednosignsofdamageorfatigue.

Sample2:

TheTinius-OlsenTensiletesterwasappliedtothestep,installedintoanRSpolesection(2.5cm[1in.]installationhole)withdownwardforceto1,134kg[2,500lbs.]startingfrom0kg[0lbs.].Achainwasplaced13cm[5in.]fromthepolesection,within2.5cm[1in.]ofthepolestepend.Sample2wasbentdownward5cm[2in.]onthestependwherethepressurewasapplied.Thepolewalldisplayednosignofdamageorfatigue.

Summary

Ineveryvariationofthestaticloadtesting,thecombinationoftheSeniorIndustriesSI-0040climbingstepandtheRSutilitypolewasfoundtoconsistentlyperformwellunderloadsfromtheTinius-OlsenTensiletester.Aftereverytest,thepolesectionwasfoundtobeundamaged.

7.1

Pol

e St

ep S

tati

c Lo

ad T

est

20

7.2

Pol

e St

ep D

ynam

ic L

oad

Dro

p Te

sts

7.2 Pole Step Dynamic Load Drop Tests

Overview

TocertifythefallarrestcapabilitiesoftheSeniorIndustriesSI-0040climbingstep,aclimbingoptionrecommendingbyRS,avarietyofdynamicloaddroptestswereperformedonthepolestepsandRSpoles.ThesetestswereperformedinEdmonton,Alberta,CanadaatthetestfacilityofAltalink–anAlbertabasedutility.Thetestsweredesignedtosimulateasituationwhereautilityworkerfallsfromapolewhileclimbingorworkingonthepoleandtheirbeltorotherfallprotectionequipmentcatchesonaclimbingstep.

Altalinkcarriedoutthreevariationsofthesetests:

(a) A100kg[220lb.]weightdroppedatadistanceof0.7m[2.3ft.]fromthetipofasinglestep underambienttemperatureconditions(repeated3times);

(b)A100kg[220lb.]weightdroppedatadistanceof0.7m[2.3ft.]fromthetipofasinglestep underextremecoldtemperatureconditions(repeated3times);and

(c) A100kg[220lb.]weightdroppedatadistanceof1.42m[4.6ft.].Theweightwasconnected totheattachmentpointsofapoleclimbingstrap,whichhadbeenloopedaroundthepole abovetwoopposing,offsetsteps(performedonce).

Procedure

A1.52m[5ft.]RSpolesectionwasmountedonasteelI-Beamapproximately5m[16.4ft.]abovetheground(SeeFigure19).Thisconfigurationwasusedforalltests.Priortoeachtesttheweightstackwashoistedtoapre-determinedheightusingtheropeandpulleysystemandsecuredinplace.Alloftheambientandcoldtemperaturedroploadtestsusedthesame1.9cm[0.75in.]drillholeforinstallingthesamplesteps.Thisholewaslocated58.4cm[23in.]fromthetopofthepolesectionandwasinspectedfordamagebetweeneachtest.ThetestsetupcanbeseeninFigure20.

Figure 19: Pole section mounting

21

Test Method I – Dropped Load at Ambient Temperature Ambient temperature: 25°C [77°F] Drop Height: 0.7 m [2.3 ft.] Forthedroppedloadtestatambienttemperaturea1.2m[4ft.]steelcablewitheyehooksoneachendwasconnectedfromtheweightsacktothetipoftheinstalledclimbingstep.Theeyehookwassecuredtothestepwithtapetopreventslippage.SeeFigure21forpolestepresultsafterambienttemperaturetest.

Test Method II – Dropped Load at Extreme Cold Temperature Ambient temperature: 25°C [77°F] Drop Height: 0.7 m [2.3 ft.] Time out of cooler: sample 1 = 1 min 05 sec; sample 2 = 1 min 13 sec; sample 3 = 0 min 47sec

Forthisdroppedloadtest,meanttosimulateanextremecoldweathersituation,eachstephadbeenheldinacoolerofdryicefornearlyaweekpriortothetest.Thecoolertemperaturewasmeasuredtobelessthat-50°C[-58°F].Otherwise,theprocedurewasidenticaltothatdescribedinTestMethodI.SeeFigure22forpolestepresultsaftercoldweathertest.

Figure 20: Ambient and cold temperature drop test setup

Figure 21: Ambient drop test results

Figure 22: Cold weather drop test results

7.2

Pol

e St

ep D

ynam

ic L

oad

Dro

p Te

sts

22

7.2

Pol

e St

ep D

ynam

ic L

oad

Dro

p Te

sts

Test Method III – Dropped Load Test With Pole Climbing Strap Ambient temperature: 25°C [77°F] Drop Height: 1.42 m [4.7 ft.]

Thistestwasmeanttosimulatealinespersonworkingoverheadonapolewithclimbingstepsinstalledandusingastandardpoleclimbingstrap.Atypicalworkingscenariowasmeasuredtodeterminetheworst-casedroppingdistanceiftheworkerwastofall.Thestepswereinstalledonopposingsidesofthepole,withtheleftsteplocated76.2cm[30in.]fromthetopofthepolesectionandtherightstepoffset45.7cm[18in.]belowthatinatypicalclimbingconfiguration.Thepolestrapwasloopedaroundthepolesectionabovetheupperstepandconnectedtotheweightstackwiththe0.6m[2ft.]steelcable(SeeFigure23).Afterwitnessingtheresultsofthefirstpolestraptest,itwasdeterminedthatfurthertestswerenotrequired.

Summary

Ineveryvariationofthedroppedloadtest,thecombinationoftheSeniorIndustriesSI-0040climbingstepandtheRSutilitypolewasfoundtoconsistentlyperformwellundersignificantdynamicloads.Notonestepfailedwhenloadsweredroppedatambientorextremecoldtemperatures.Aftereverytestthepolesectionwasfoundtobeundamaged.

Figure 23: Pole strap test setup

23

7.3

Abr

asio

n Te

sts

7.3

.1 W

ind

Blow

n Sa

nd T

ests

7.3 Abrasion Tests

Abrasionresistanceisimportanttoensurealongservicelifeforautilitypoleanditoccursfrommanydifferentsources.TobetterunderstandtheabrasionresistanceofRSpoles,thefollowingabrasiontestswereperformed:

7.3.1 Wind Blown Sand Tests

Overview

Blowingsandisencounteredinallareasoftheworld.Productsneedtobetestedfortheirabilitytowithstandabrasionbyexposuretotheseconditions.SamplesofRSpolesweresubjectedtoblownsandtestingusingequipmentdesignedformilitaryapplicationsinharshclimates.ThistestingwascarriedoutatDaytonTBrown(NY)laboratoriesusingthemilitarytestspecificationMIL-STD-810.

Test Conditions

Air Speed 80 km/h [50 mph]

Temperature 60°C [140°F]

Relative Humidity < 2 %

Sand Concentration 2.15 g/m³ [0.6 oz./yard]

Test duration 90 minutes

Results

Appearance

RSsurfacesexposedtotheblownsandtestingweredulled,butshowednoindicationofabrasionwear.Minuteparticlesofsandwerelodgedinthesurfacecausingslightdiscolorationonthesurface.Lightbuffingofthesurfacerecoveredsomeoftheglossandreturnedthesurfacetoitsoriginalcolour.

Physical and Mechanical Properties ThetestedsamplesofRSpolessamplesshowednodegradationinphysicalpropertieswithinthe

recordedstandarddeviations(seeFigure24).

Summary

RScompositepolesamplesshowednoappreciablewearorpropertiesdegradationwhensubjectedtolimitedwindblownsandtesting.

Figure 24: Physical Properties of RS samples prior to and after testing.

Density [g/cc] Glass Fraction [%] Void [%]

Actual StDev Actual StDev Actual StDev

Before 1.87 0.01 70.80 0.65 3.75 0.45

After 1.88 0.02 71.30 1.18 3.99 0.49

Flexural Strength [MPa]

Flexural Modulus [GPa]

Interlaminar Shear Strength [MPa]


Before 435 43 13.5 0.9 39.9 2.9

After 428 67 14.0 1.5 41.5 1.1

24

7.3

Tab

er A

bras

ion

Test

s 7.

4 Fi

re T

esti

ng

7.3.2 Taber Abrasion Tests

TheTaberabrasiontesterusestwocounterrotatingabrasivediscstoabradethetestmaterial.SamplescutfromRSpoles,aswellascarbonsteelsamples,weresubjectedtothisabrasiontest.

Afterthetestcompletion,theweightlossoftheabradedsampleswascompared.TheresultsofthistestshowedthattheRSpolyurethanelaminatewasmoreabrasionresistantthansteel.

7.4 Fire Testing

Overview

Utilitypolescarrypowerandcommunicationlinesoverawidevarietyofterrainandthrougheveryimaginablekindoflandscape,includingplaceswhereexposuretowildfiresisarealpossibility.Firetestingofutilitypolesisthereforeanimportantconsiderationformanyutilitycompanies.

RSTechnologiesInc.engagedarecognizedindependentexpertinthefiretestingfield,MYACConsultingInc.,tocompletethefollowing:

1.Defineatypicalwildfirethermalprofile.

2.Developarepresentative,repeatablefiretestanddatacollectionapparatus.

3.ConductafireexposuretestonRSmodules,underrealisticwildfireconditions.

ThefireexposedRSmoduleswerethenassembledintocompletepoles,performancetestedusingfullscalebendtesting,andthencomparedtostrengthdataofpolesnotexposedtofire.

Procedure

Currently,therearenowidelyacceptedtestspecificationsforevaluatingtheperformanceofutilitypolesexposedtofire.Thereareonlystandardsavailablefortestingmaterialcouponsorportionsofapolewhichthenonlyevaluatethesuperficialeffectsfromfireexposure.

AtypicalwildfirewasdefinedbyMYACintermsofheatfluxandduration.Thechartinfigure1displaysactualfiredatagatheredfromsensorslocatedinsidea20m[66ft.]diameterclearingduringtheInternationalCrownfiremodelingexperimentinJune,2000.Thetriangularareaunderthecurveisapproximatelyboundedbyaheatfluxvalueof60kW/m2[5.3Btu/ft2-s]andadurationof180seconds.

Figure 1: Typical heat flux and duration from 5 sensors located in a 20m [66ft] clearing during a wild fire

25

7.4

Fir

e Te

stin

g

MYAC’stestapparatususedpropaneburnersanda2.9m[9.5ft.]tallmetalshroudtosimulatearealfireevent,matchingascloselyaspossible,thedatashowninfigure1.Figure2showstheactualfireexposurebeingperformedonamodule6/7andthesurfaceimmediatelyafterremovaloftheshroud.

Thefireexposedmoduleswerethenassembledinto23m[75ft.]polesforbendtesting.Figure3showsthepoleinthetestframewiththedarkcharredareaclosesttothetestframe.

Figure 2: Fire exposure on a module 6/7 (left) and the charred surface (right) at the RS Calgary testing facility

Figure 3: Bend testing of a fire exposed pole with the charred 6/7 module as the base module

26

7.4

Fire

Tes

ting

Results

Thermocouples,mountedonthemodule,andaSchmidt-Boelterheatfluxgauge,mountedontheshroud,wereusedtocapturethefireexposuredata.Theheatfluxdatafromoneofthefireexposuretestsisshowninfigure4below.

Althoughtheprofileshowninfigure4isaclosematchtothepeakheatfluxanddurationdefinedinfigure1forarealwildfire,theactualtestexposureconditionsachievedbyMYACduringthistrialappeartobemoresevere(largerareaunderthecurve)thanthedatashowninfigure1.Figure5belowshowsathermocoupleonthecharredoutersurfaceofthemodule.

RStandard® Module Test 1Sc

hmid

t-Bo

elte

r Hea

t Flu

x (k

W/m

2)

Hea

t Flu

x (B

tu/f

t2-s

)

Time (seconds)

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

Total Heat Flux Schmidt-BoelterRadiant

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Figure 4: Actual heat flux and duration of fire exposure for test 1

Figure 5: Thermocouple on the charred surface of the module after fire exposure

27

7.4

Fir

e Te

stin

g

Thebendtestresultsofthefireexposedpolesareincludedinthedatasummaryshownintable1.

Module SN

Full Scale Test Heat Flux GasTemp

InternalTempMass

lbs.[kg]

Loadlbs. [kN]

Speclbs. [kN]

Stiffnesslbs/in

[kN/m]

Speclbs/in

[kN/m]

AvgBtu/ft2-s [kW/m2]

PeakBtu/ft2-s [kW/m2]

°F [°C]

°F [°C]

M67-TA-09-05853

860 [390]

5,516 [24.5]

5,150 [22.9]

36.3 [6.36]

28.0 [4.9]

3.1 [35]

3.5[40]

1515,1815[825,990]

240[115]

M67-TA-10-01029

886 [402]

7,570 [33.7]

5,150[22.9]

40.0[7.0]

28.0[4.9]

4.8[55]

5.3[60]

1920[1,050]

167[75]

Summary

RSpoleswereexposedtofireconditionsthatmatchactualdocumentedwildfiretemperaturesanddurationsinanapparatusanddatacollectionsystemdesignedbyindependentfiretestconsultant,MYACConsulting,Inc.

Fullscalepoles,assembledfromthefireexposedmodules,werethenbendtestedanddemonstratedcontinuedperformanceabovethepublishedspecifiedstrengthvalues.(table1)

Sincenoevaluationoflongtermperformancehasbeendoneonfireexposedpolesorwheretheouterlayerofresinmayhavebeenburnedaway,itisrecommendedthatapole,whichhasbeenexposedtoawildfire,beinspectedattheearliestopportunity.

References

1.TechnicalBulletin-FireTestingofRSpoles-02Nov-2011

2.ExposureofaCompositeUtilityPoletoSimulatedWildfireConditions,M.Y.Ackerman, P.Eng.,MYACConsultingInc.,October2011

3.ReportNo11006:FullScaleBendTestingofRSCompositeUtilityPolesExposed toFire,GusTernoey,P.Eng.andShawnvanHoek-Patterson,P.Eng.,RSTechnologiesInc.,

October2011.

Table 1: Data Summary

28

8.0

Qua

lity

Ass

uran

ce

8. Quality Assurance

RSmodulesaresubjecttomanyrigorousqualitycontrolsandqualityevaluationstoensurethatthecustomeralwaysreceivesthehighestqualityutilitypole.

AnoverviewoftheapproachtoqualityatRSisdetailedinthefollowingsections.

8.1 Quality Management SystemThequalitymanagementsystematRShasbeencertifiedtotheISOqualitystandardsince2004.

Adherencetothisinternationallyrecognizedqualitystandardensuresaqualitysystemthatiseffectiveforproducingqualityproductsandforprovidingfullmanufacturingtraceability.

RShasbeencontinuouslyISOcertifiedsince2004andmaintainedcertificationbysuccessfullypassinganISO9001:2008auditduring2010.

8.2 Material Inputs

RSmodulesaremanufacturedfromtwomainmaterialinputs:RSpolyurethaneresinandglassfiber.

TheglassfiberusedinRSmoduleshasbeenspecificallyqualifiedtobeusedwithpolyurethaneresinthroughmanyofthetestsalreadymentioned.

Eachbatchornewshipmentofglassfiberisalsocheckedtoensureconsistentquality.Theresultsofthisinspectionarerecordedontheappropriateform.

ThearomaticandaliphaticRSpolyurethaneresinsystemshavebeenspeciallydevelopedforthisapplication.Themanycomponentsthatmakeupthesetworesinsystemsaresubjecttoextensiveindividualqualitychecksaswellasmixedresintests.

Typicaltestsfortheincomingliquidresincomponentsareasfollows:

-Densitytest

-Viscositytest

-Reactivitywithaknownagenttocheckpotlife

-Reactivitywithaknownagenttocheckpeakexothermtemperature

-Moisturelevel

Theresultsofthesetestsarerecordedontheappropriatequalitydocumentforthereceivingandinspectionofthatcomponent.

Beforetheresinisallowedintoproduction,eachtoteofresinmustpassthefollowingtests:

-Cuptest(typicallywithresinfromtheproductionmixingdevice)

-PotLifetest

-Peakexothermtemperatureduringresincure

Theresultsofthesetestsarerecordedontheappropriatequalitydocumentfortheproductionacceptanceofthattoteofresin.

29

8.3 In-Process Controls

ThesimplifiedmanufacturingprocessforthefilamentwindingofRSmodulesinvolvescombiningthe

resinandglassfiber,filamentwindingthiscompositematerialontothemandrel,curingthecomposite

andextractingthefinishedmodulefromthemandrel.

Duringthecombiningofresinandglassfiber,moistureneedstobekepttoalowlevel.Greatcareis

takentoensurethatmoistureispreventedfromcontaminatingtheresinortheglassfiber.

Whenresinisstoredeitheradrynitrogenblanketisappliedoradessicantcartridgeisusedtoprevent

contaminationwithmoistureintheair.

Glassfiberisstoredinatemperatureandhumiditycontrolledstorageroombeforeproductionuse.

Thefilamentwindingmachineiscompletelyenclosedinsideanenvironmentallycontrolledroomthatis

controlledfortemperatureandhumidity.

Beforeeachmoduleismanufactured,alltheinitialconditionsfortheresincomponents,glassfiber

roomandwinderroomarerecordedonthemoduleinspectionrecord(MIR).

TheMIRdocumentaccompaniesthemodulearoundthemanufacturingprocesstocaptureallthe

requiredtraceabilityinformation.Thefollowingin-processqualityassuranceinformationisrecorded

ontheMIRdocument:

-Processparameters(inputtemperatures,humiditylevels,windtime,curetimeetc.)

-Physicalproperties(wallthickness,weight,cutlength,laplength)

-ModuleSerialNumber(includesmodulesize)

-Dateofmanufacture

-ProductionCellIdentification

Thequalitycontrollimits,foreachprocessparameter,areincorporatedontheMIRdocumentforeasy

evaluationofthequalityofeachmodule.

8.4 Final InspectionsThefinalinspectionsfallintotwocategories:moduleinspectionandshippinginspection.

ModuleinspectiondataisalsocapturedontheMIRdocument.Modulesaretypicallyinspectedforthefollowing:

-Visualdefects

-Standardholelocations

-Modulemarkings

Priortoshippingeachpole,additionalinspectionsareperformedandrecordedontheshippinginspectionformasfollows:

-Verificationofmoduleinformation

-Moduleeffectiveheightverification

-Visualinspectionofmarkings

-Verificationofdrilledholes

-VerifypoleIDtags

-Verifytopcap

8.0

Qua

lity

Ass

uran

ce

30

List of Appendices

Appendix Number

Report Details Report Scope

A-1 Bending Strength Tests of RS Technologies’ Composite Poles,EDM, 2007 Pole Bend Testing

A-2 Power Pole Hardware Component Testing, Intec, No. 2787-R01, 2007 Pole Wall Loading Tests

A-3 Power Pole Hardware Component Testing, Intec, No. 2912-R01, 2007 Pole Wall Loading Tests

A-4 Lifecycle Predictions of Filament Wound Polyurethane UtilityPoles, RS Technologies, 2008

Pole Weatheringand UV Resistance

A-5 Selected Electrical Tests on FRP Poles Manufactured ByRS Technologies, Kinectrics, No. K-012416-000-RC-0001-R00, 2005

Electrical Testing

A-6 Selected Electrical Tests on FRP Poles Manufactured ByRS Technologies, Kinectrics, No. K-012574-000-RC-0001-R00, 2006

Electrical Testing

A-7 RSI Urethane Resin Material Property Summary Report, Alberta Research Council (ARC), 2004

Resin Testing

A-8 Final Report, Toughness Evaluation of GFRP based on RSI Polyurethane Resin, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Alberta, Ben Jar, 2002

Resin ToughnessTesting

A-9 Analysis of Impact Properties of RSI Version Resin, Alberta Research Council (ARC), 2004

Resin ToughnessTesting

A-10 X-Brace Tee Load: Tensile and Compression, National TechnicalSystems (NTS), No. 106-1099, 2010

Pole WallLoading Tests

A-11 9067 Pole Step/Ladder Hardware Testing, RS Technolgies, 2010 Pole Step Testing

A-12 Test Report – Dynamic Load Drop Tests, Altalink and RS Technologies (jointly), 2006

Pole Step Testing

A-13 Slacan Pole Step Testing, RS Technologies, 2009 Pole Step Testing

A-14 Test Report Flexural Creep Report, Alberta Research Council (ARC), 2007 Creep Testing

A-15 Test Report Tension-Tension Fatigue, Alberta Research Council (ARC), 2006 Fatigue Testing

A-16 Internal Test Report, Taber Industries, No. C604, 2006 Abrasion Testing

A-17 Wind Blown Sand Testing – US Military Specification 810, RS Technologies Abrasion Testing

A-18 Qualification and Test Data Report, Senior Industries, 2007 Pole Step Testing

A-19 Exposure of an RS Pole to Simulated Wildfire Conditions, 2011 Fire Resistance

A-20 Test Report - Full Scale Bend Testing of RS Composite Utility Poles Exposed to Fire, 2011

Fire Resistance

A-21 ISO 9001:2008 Certificate of Registration, 2004 - 2009 Quality Assurance

A-22 Module Inspection Record, F-5037- Generic (Rev E), 2011 Quality Assurance

A-23 Shipping Inspection Form, F-5013 (Rev G), 2011 Quality Assurance

A-24 10008-Modified Combined Load Pole Bend Testing, RS Technologies 2010. Pole Bend Testing

9.1 List of Appendices

9.1

Lis

t of A

ppen

dice

s

31

DisclaimerTheinformationcontainedhereinisofferedonlyasaguideforRSpolesandhasbeenpreparedingoodfaithbytechnicallyknowledgeablepersonnel.Thisdocumentisprovidedforinformationpurposesonly,andduetoongoingcontinuousimprovementeffortsbyRSTechnologiesissubjecttochangewithoutnotice.PleasecontactyourRSAccountExecutiveforupdates.

Dis

clai

mer

A.1

App

endi

x

Appendix A-1 RStandard® Module Testing and Quality Assurance Overview

Appendix A-1RS Module Testing and Quality Assurance Overview

A-1

App

endi

x

Table of Contents 1.0 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................... 22.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 23.0 TEST PLAN.......................................................................................................... 24.0 TEST SETUP ....................................................................................................... 3

4.1 Test Procedure ..................................................................................................... 44.2 Test Results – Bending Tests............................................................................... 4

5.0 TEST PHOTOGRAPHS ....................................................................................... 6

Table of Tables

Table 4-1 – Results of Pole Bending Tests---------------------------------------------------------- 5

Table of Figures Figure 4-1 – Pole Bending Test Setup---------------------------------------------------------------- 3

1

REPORT ON FULL-SCALE TESTING OF RS TECHNOLOGIES’ COMPOSITE POLES

Prepared for: RS Technologies, Calgary, AB Prepared by: EDM International, Inc., Fort Collins, CO

1.0 BACKGROUND

EDM International, Inc. (EDM) is a recognized leader in providing pole testing servicesto the electric utility industry. RS Technologies began contracting with EDM to test its poles early in its product development stage. Between June 2004 and April 2005,several series of test were performed at EDM’s testing facility in Fort Collins, CO. With each test series, pole sizes increased progressively and finally reached the point that itwas recognized that RS Technologies’ larger poles could not be tested at EDM’s facility.Consequently, RS Technologies elected to install its own test facility at its newCanadian pole production facility in Calgary, Alberta. This would enable it to test its larger poles. EDM was hired to consult on the design, construction and installation ofthis facility. Following completion of construction, RS Technologies has continued tocontract with EDM to witness the testing of its product to ensure that the tests are performed in accordance with generally accepted industry practices.

2.0 INTRODUCTION

The testing reported herein was performed to assess the bending capacity and flexural stiffness of an assortment of pole types and sizes. The results of the testing will be used as validation of the strength and stiffness values that RS Technologies’ will claim for its product. This series of tests was conducted at RS Technologies’ facility inCalgary on October 17-28, 2007.

3.0 TEST PLAN

In total, 25 poles were tested from RS Technologies’ modular design series. All of the poles had round cross sections and were tapered. Tests 1 through 5 were conducted on 45-foot poles assembled using Modules 1, 2 and 3. Tests 6 through 10 were conducted on 45-foot poles assembled using Modules 2, 3 and 4. Tests 11 through 15 were conducted on 60-foot poles assembled using Modules 2, 3, 4 and 5. Tests 16 through 20 were conducted on 60-foot poles assembled using modules, 4, 5 and 6/7. And, tests 21 through 25 were conducted on 75-foot poles assembled using Modules 3,4, 5 and 6/7. All of the poles were assembled into complete poles using bolted overlapping slip joint connections. For test purposes, the poles were oriented such thatthe slip joint bolts were in the 6 and 12 o’clock positions, with the horizontal load appliedat the 3 o’clock position.

2

4.0 TEST SETUP4.0 TEST SETUP

RS Technologies’ test facility is equipped with a pole holding fixture, loading system, electronic load and deflection measuring sensors, and a computerized data acquisition system. Figure 4-1 is a schematic of the test setup.

TestPole

LoadCell

Pole Cart

TEST SETUPPlan View

Winch

DeflectionPoint 1

TestFrame

DeflectionPoint 2

DeflectionPoint 3

TrolleyTrack

WinchTrolley

TestPole

LoadCell

Pole Cart

TEST SETUPPlan View

Winch

DeflectionPoint 1

TestFrame

DeflectionPoint 2

DeflectionPoint 3

TrolleyTrack

WinchTrolley

Figure 4-1 – Pole Bending Test Setup

The test setup was designed to allow the winch to move along the track so as to keep the load perpendicular to the pole’s original axis as the pole’s height shortens due to deflection. However, friction between the winch trolley and its track keeps the winchfrom moving as it needs to, which causes a tension component to be introduced into thepole and its slip joint connections. To overcome this, RST has elected to “fix” the winchat a shortened distance from the groundline as depicted in Figure 4-1. This distance ismeasured and a correction is made to each increment of load that is measured by the load cell to establish its horizontal component, which then is what is reported as the test load.

3

4.1 Test Procedure

All pole bending tests were conducted in accordance with the principles set forth ASTM D1036. Each pole was tested in a horizontal cantilever arrangement with the butt end placed inside a rigid test frame and held in position by a pair of 12 inch wide nylonslings. A rolling cart, which cradles the pole, was positioned at the approximate 1/3point from the tip end to support the weight of the cantilevered portion of the pole. Theload cable was attached approximately two feet from the theoretical pole tip of each pole using a nylon strap. The loading was applied at a constant rate of deformation using an electric winch that was fixed at a specific point along the track to minimize the amount of tension force that is introduced into the pole as it deflects. The test procedure called for loading each pole until one of three criteria was met: 1) failure occurred, 2) the deflection limit of the test setup was reached or 3) the load limit of the test setup was reached. Electronic load and deflection data were recorded through the point of maximum load. The base rotation of each pole was measured and recorded at each increment of load so that the tip deflection measurements could be appropriately adjusted in order that true tip deflections due to pure bending could be established. The incremental loads as measured by the load cell were also corrected to establish the horizontal component for bending moment computations.

4.2 Test Results – Bending Tests

Table 4-1 shows the results for all 25 pole tests. Two deflections are listed for each of the poles tested. The first deflection is the gross tip deflection that was measured at a set load of 2400 lbs (note - this load was selected to be the common denominator forcomparing deflections between the different pole length and module combinations).The second deflection is the deflection at the same load with adjustments made for rotation of the base within the test frame.

4

5.0 TEST PHOTOGRAPHSTe

st S

etup

- W

inch

& T

rolle

y

Test

Set

up -

Win

ch &

Tro

lley

Test

Set

up -

Pole

Car

t

Test

Set

up -

Hol

ding

Fra

me

Test

Set

up -

Hol

ding

Fra

me

Test

Set

up –

Hol

ding

Str

aps

6

Test

Set

up –

Tip

Def

l. Se

nsor

Test

Set

up –

Bas

e D

efl.

Sens

or

Pole

Ben

ding

Tes

t Set

up

Pole

Ben

ding

Tes

t Set

up

Pole

Und

er L

oad

Pole

Und

er L

oad

7

Test

#3

– Po

le F

ailu

re

Test

#3

– Po

le F

ailu

re

Test

#4

– Po

le F

ailu

re

Test

#4

– Se

cond

ary

Failu

re

Test

#5

– Po

le F

ailu

re

Test

#5

– Po

le F

ailu

re

8

Test

#6

– Po

le F

ailu

re

Test

#6

– Po

le F

ailu

re

Test

#7–

Pol

e Fa

ilure

Test

#7

– Po

le F

ailu

re

9

RS Technologies – Power Pole Hardware Component Testing Page 2 of 21Intec Report Number: 2787-R01

Integrated Technologies, 1910 Merrill Creek Parkway, Everett, WA 98203 Phone: (425) 293-0340 FAX: (425) 293-0341 e-mail: [email protected]

1 Background RS Technologies contracted Integrated Technologies (Intec) to perform full-scale component level testing of power pole installation hardware. The purpose of this effort was to analyze the current field use installation hardware and establish baseline strength values of the various hardware configurations tested. All testing was performed per the instruction of RS Technologies engineer Peter Kjellbotn.

2 Fixture Overview Intec designed all restraint and load introduction fixtures for this test program. RS Technologies coordinated the fabrication of the restraint fixtures with an outside vendor. Intec fabricated all load introduction fixtures in-house. See Appendix A for drawings of all fixtures fabricated and used in this project.

3 Testing Intec performed testing of twelve (12) different load cases. The following images detail the various load cases tested. Test specific details, including anomalies, can be found in Appendix B.

Load Case 1 – Overall Setup



Load Case 1 – Load Introduction Hardware

Load Case 1 – Typical Failure



Load Case 4 – Typical Failure (Pole Wall Failure)





Load Case 5 – Typical Failure (Bracket Side)



Load Case 5 – Typical Failure (Nut/Washer Side)




Load Case 7 – Typical Failure (Pole Wall Failure – Bearing)





Load Case 8 – Typical Failure (Pole Wall Failure – Bearing)




Load Case 10 – Typical Failure (Pull Out)



Load Case 11 – Typical Failure (Pull Out)





Load Case 12 – Typical Failure (Push Through)



4 Electronic Data Included with this report is a CD-ROM that contains: this report, raw data files, and supporting photographs (setup, under load, postmortem). Also included with this report is video footage of each test. These video clips have been included in mpeg format on DVD-ROM.



1 Background RS Technologies contracted Integrated Technologies (Intec) to perform full-scale component level testing of power pole installation hardware. The purpose of this effort was to analyze retrofit installation hardware and establish baseline strength values of the various hardware configurations tested. All testing was performed per the instruction of RS Technologies engineer Peter Kjellbotn.

2 Fixture Overview Intec designed all restraint and load introduction fixtures for this test program during Intec job 2787, RS Purchase Orders 3493 and 3593 (see Intec Report 2787-R01 for details).

3 Testing Intec performed testing of eight (8) different load cases. The following images detail the various load cases tested. Test specific details, including anomalies, can be found in Appendix A.

Load Case A – Overall Setup



Load Case A – Load Introduction Hardware

Load Case A – Typical Failure



Load Case B – Overall Setup

Load Case B – Load Introduction Hardware



Load Case B – Typical Failure

Load Case C – Overall Setup



Load Case C – Setup (Channel Side)

Load Case C – Load Introduction Hardware



Load Case C – Typical Failure

Load Case D – Overall Setup



Load Case D – Load Introduction Hardware

Load Case D – Typical Failure



Load Case E – Overall Setup

Load Case E – Setup (Channel Side)



Load Case E – Load Introduction Hardware

Load Case E – Typical Failure (Bracket Side)



Load Case E – Typical Failure (Channel Side)

Load Case F – Overall Setup



Load Case F – Load Introduction Hardware

Load Case F – Typical Failure



Load Case G – Overall Setup

Load Case G –Setup (Washer Side)



Load Case G – Load Introduction Hardware

Load Case G – Typical Failure



Load Case H – Overall Setup

Load Case H –Setup (Washer Side)



Load Case H – Load Introduction Hardware

Load Case H – Typical Failure



4 Electronic Data Included with this report is a CD-ROM that contains: this report, raw data files, and supporting photographs (setup, under load, postmortem). Video footage of each test has been sent under separate cover. These video clips have been included in mpeg format on DVD-ROM.

utility pole produced by RS Technologies (Calgary, Canada), under the RStandard trade name, which serves the electrical transmission and distribution, and communication markets. The pole design is founded on industry-specific, reliability-based concepts, using the statistical distribution of both pole strengths and the loads expected over the structure’s service life (return period) [6]. After introducing this design methodology, the accelerated weathering testing of the composite pole will be described. Models of the resultant changes in mechanical properties are then employed in the development of a prediction of long-term laminate behavior, accounting for the effects of temperature, moisture and UV exposure. Lastly, estimates of the service life of the composite utility pole are generated for four different climactic regions.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Reliability-based Design

In North America, utility pole design is founded on the statistical distribution of both pole strengths and the expected loads over the service life. This is formalized in the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) and Canadian Standards Association (CSA) design standards [6,7], where the reliability of a structure is established, in a given application, using known values of material strength and variability. As shown in Equation 1, the defining relationship requires that the nominal strength (Rn) of a pole, multiplied by a strength factor (φ), exceeds the applied load (Q50) over a specified return period (subscript denotes 50 years), multipled by a load factor (γ) ([8] pp. 9-28).

φRn > γQ50 [1]

The nominal start of service strength of the pole is based on a 5% lower tolerance limit (LTL) value, according to the following equation:

Rmn KRR [2]

where Rm is the mean strength and σR is the standard deviation of strength. The K factor represents the distance from the mean to the target LTL on the probability density function of strength values ([8] pp. 48). Figure 1 illustrates the concept of reliability-based design using probability density functions (PDFs) ([8] pp. 10). Pole strengths, shown in solid black, are distributed about a mean, with a nominal strength defined by Equation 2. These are greater than the expected loads, shown in green, except for the region where the tails of each distribution overlap. This region determines the expected percentage of failures (reliability) for the return period. As a note, design for loads with a 50 year return period is considered the basis for transmission line work ([6], [7]).

Over the course of the service life, the pole strength distribution is expected to shift to a lower mean, with an increasing percentage of poles not satisfying the original relationship (Eq. 1). This is represented by the dashed curve in Figure 1. The decreasing performance also corresponds to the increasingly positive slope of the “risk of failure vs. time” bathtub curves utilized in asset management ([9] pp. 3, [10]), with the majority of expected failures naturally occurring towards the end of the service life.

Figure 1: Probability density functions (PDF for applied load and pole strength. The reliability-based design of utility poles necessitates that Rn (determined from the strength distribution, using Eqn. 2) satisfies Eqn. 1. 2.2 Material Considerations

The composite under consideration consists of a thermosetting polyurethane/E-glass laminate, manufactured in a single wind/cure process. The core of the laminate contains a proprietary aromatic urethane matrix, of high strength and toughness, integral with an outer, aliphatic urethane laminate. As described in Section 2.2.1, the aromatic laminate, alone, would rapidly lose its high strength properties in normal service conditions, predominately a result of ultraviolet (UV) exposure. The incorporation of an integral aliphatic component, however, provides resistance to UV degradation. Moreover, in addition to each polymer component containing pigments to limit UV penetration into the laminate, the primary chain structure relies on ether bonding, with reduced susceptibility to hydrolytic attack in aqueous environments than polyester-based matrices.

2.2.1 Ultraviolet Irradiance Matrix degradation via exposure to solar radiation is one of the primary mechanisms for loss of laminate performance ([11] pp. 1341). For carbon-based polymers, the ultraviolet region of the spectrum, from ~295-400 nm, contains the most damaging wavelengths ([11] pp. 1345, [12]); although shorter wavelengths are more damaging to polymers, natural sunlight has an effective solar cutoff at 295 nm [13]. Under initial exposure, only cosmetic changes are evident, where the polymer surfaces craze, change color, experience fading, yellowing and loss of gloss ([4], [14]).

As exposure continues, however, the bond cleavage degrades the matrix and results in microcracking and microvoidage [4]. For aromatic polyurethanes, the ring structures experience a transition from a shared electron configuration to a sequence of alternating single and double

bonds, which are more susceptible to hydrolytic attack. Free radicals are also produced, which foster additional chemical (oxidative) degradation processes ([15] pp. 356). These processes lead to matrix blistering and fibre blooming ([4], [16]), where fresh (un-weathered) material becomes exposed, allowing further weathering through the laminate cross-section and accelerated access of moisture to the fibres.

2.2 Aqueous Environments There are two stages by which water influences composite materials. The ingress of water (via Fickian diffusion), until the material reaches a level of saturation, is dependent on the surrounding moisture content. This process is typically accelerated by higher void contents and exposure of the edges of laminates, permitting rapid movement of water along the fibre direction [17]. Once within the structure, water begins to hydrolytically attack the matrix, the glass [5] and the interphase region between the two. The water can cause the matrix to swell ([11] pp. 1352), with the increased local pressure accelerating time-dependent processes like creep and stress-corrosion cracking [18]. Moisture plasticizes the matrix ([15] pp. 357); with reduction of the stress transfer mechanism of fibre to matrix, the effective glass transition temperature of the matrix is lowered, permitting local fibre buckling, facilitating fibre pull-out and breakage, and the transition to shear failures ([4], [5], [15]). Increased temperatures tend to increase the rate of both water migration and the kinetics of property degradation ([11], [15], [18]).

3. EXPERIMENTAL

3.1 Base Material Properties The properties of the RStandard pole are determined from full-scale bending testing, according to ASTM standard D-1036 [19], thereby establishing a coefficient of variation (CoV) for pole ultimate strength of less than 10%. Full-scale testing has been completed in conjunction with coupon-scale testing, permitting correlation of material-level properties with pole strengths. Changes in pole performance can therefore be related directly to changes in laminate performance and the following experimental work is limited to laminate analysis.

3.2 Accelerated UV/Condensation Weathering Accelerated UV/condensation weathering of the above laminate was completed according to ASTM G154 (cycle 1) [20], in a Q-LAB UV chamber, using an irradiance setting of 0.89 W/m2. Weathering was conducted at Q-Lab’s Florida test facility to over 14000 hrs of 12 hr cycles; each cycle consisting of 8 hrs of UVA exposure at 60°C (100% relative humidity), followed by 4 hrs of condensation at 50°C.

The Q-UV chamber contains UVA-340 fluorescent bulbs, with the irradiance spectrum shown in Figure 2. The spectrum closely follows that of noon sunlight at the summer solstice, with a spectral cutoff of approximately 295 nm [13]. As detailed in Table 1, the difference in spectral power distribution (SPD) is primarily in the 360-400 nm range, with the irradiance integral for UVA-340 bulbs weighted more heavily on the shorter, more damaging wavelengths of the UVA and UVB [21, 22]. Also significant is that UV wavelengths contribute only 10% of the total solar radiation between 300 and 800 nm, compared with sunlight, at 90%.

Figure 2: Irradiance of Q-Lab UVA-340 fluorescent bulbs compared with natural sunlight (global, noon sunlight, on the summer solstice, at normal incidence). Source: P. Brennan and C. Fedor Technical Bulletin LU-0228: Sunlight, UV, & Accelerated Weathering. The Q-Panel Company, Cleveland, 1994; supplied, with permission, by Q-Lab Corporation [13]. Table 1: Comparison of the irradiance integral (W/m2), from 280-800 nm, of natural sunlight (SmartS2 SPD for Cleveland noon summer sun) to UVA-340 fluorescent bulbs ([23], [24]).

Source Wavelengths of light (nm)

280-320 320-360 360-400 300-400 400-800 Sunlight SPD (W/m2) 3.3 24.4 33.8 61.5 615.7 % from 280-800 nm 0.5% 4.5% 5.5% 10.0% 90.0%

UVA 340 SPD (W/m2) 3.08 24.17 10.51 37.72 3.56 % from 280-800 nm 7.4% 58.5% 25.5% 91.2% 8.6%

Detailed visual inspections of the surfaces of weathered laminates were reported by Q-Lab’s Weathering Research Service at regular intervals. Flexural and short-beam shear tests were conducted on specimens cut from the same weathered samples, according to ASTM D790 [25] and D2344 [26], respectively. Mechanical test samples were taken from the weathered laminates a minimum of 2.5 cm from the edges, to eliminate the edge-effects of weathering that would not be present with tubular laminates. Examples of weathered laminates (500 and 14010 hr) are compared with un-weathered samples (0 hr) in Figure 3. Color change is observed, though there is a noticeable lack of blistering, cracking, blooming or other surface defects. This is reflected in the visual inspections of weathered samples (Table 2), where only moderate check is found after 14000 hrs of UV/condensation weathering.

Table 2 also contains the mechanical test results for these samples. Figure 4 presents the same data in a graph of mechanical property change vs. hours of UV/condensation weathering for interlaminar shear strength (ILSS), and flexural strength and stiffness. Data is normalized with respect to initial (un-weathered) values.

Figure 3: Comparison of UV/condensation weathered laminate samples: LHS: 500 hr (left), with an un-weathered sample, 0 hr (right); RHS: 14010 hr (left), with an un-weathered sample, 0 hr (right). Black line denotes boundary of laminate from which samples for mechanical testing were taken. Table 2: Summary of the weathering of aliphatic top-layered poles and mechanical testing of specimens cut from these poles (Vf =70.1%); minimum sample size of 3 specimens.

QUV Exposure

(hrs)

Mechanical Property Change (%)

Visual Inspection*

ILSS Flexural Modulus

Flexural Strength

Chalk Flake Blister Crack Check

0 - - - 10 10 10 10 10 500 2.7 2.4 -4.0 10 10 10 10 10 1000 0.7 8.4 -8.6 10 10 10 10 10 2000 5.7 -6.6 -15.2 10 10 10 10 10 4088 3.5 13.2 -1.5 10 10 10 10 10 6036 5.7 9.0 -16.9 10 10 10 10 10 8000 -3.7 -6.6 -16.7 10 10 10 10 10 10000 -14.3 13.8 -21.1 10 10 10 10 6Da 12000 0.5 9.0 -21.9 10 10 10 10 5Da 14010 -5.5 6.6 -21.1 10 10 10 10 4Da

*From Q-Lab’s Weathering Research Service – 6Da indicates beginning of check; 5Da and 4Da moderate check

Figure 4: Mechanical property changes for composite samples after UV/condensation accelerated weathering by ASTM G 154 (cycle 1). As seen in Figure 4, the primary effect of UV exposure is an initial rapid decrease in the flexural strength of the laminate, with the rate of degradation moderating over time. Flexural strength and interlaminar shear strength exhibit an initial increase; this is caused by an initial increase in cross-link density, as the incident energy further cures the matrix ([5] pp. 356-7). Long-term weathering results in a gradual decrease in both ILSS and flexural modulus. 3.3 Effects of an Aqueous Environment The influence of moisture on laminate properties was investigated in two studies. In the water immersion study, square 7.5x7.5 cm and 10x10 cm pole wall samples were completely immersed in room-temperature water until saturation, as determined by mass change, followed by mechanical testing according to ASTM D 790. Saturation was found to occur at a moisture level of 0.5-0.6% after 7 weeks (1200 hrs). In the water wicking study, a 90 cm long sample of pole wall was submerged to 1/3rd of its length in room-temperature water and upon saturation, mechanical testing of specimens from each of 3 sections was completed: Section A was below water line (at 30 cm); section B from water line to 60 cm; section C was from 60 to 90 cm. Saturation was found to occur at 14 weeks, with moisture gain for the entire 90 cm pole section of 0.35%. As summarized in Table 3, exposure to an aqueous environment is shown to plasticize the matrix. The flexural and interlaminar shear properties of the laminate, decrease from un-weathered values, at time of moisture saturation.

Table 3: Mechanical property change for pole wall laminates after saturation due to water immersion and water wicking. Results are average changes from initial, un-weathered properties; 5 samples per value. Vf=74.3%

Test Change in Property (%)

ILSS Flexural Strength

Flexural Modulus

Aqueous Immersion - 0.5 -7.6

Water Wicking

A 12.0 -13.7 -12.5 B -5.0 -9.6 -6.6 C -8.2 -12.2 -8.1

4. ANALYSIS 4.1 Property Modeling and Curve Fitting

4.1.1 UV/condensation Weathering The UV/condensation accelerated weathering test data was fit with curves using a weighted, least-squares fitting method and implemented in Matlab (v.7), using the Curve Fitting Toolbox. Choices of curve type were evaluated using the distribution of fitting residuals [27, 28]. The least-squares algorithm and weighting scheme were chosen to provide the best R-squared value (goodness of fit) and minimize the influence of outliers in the experimental data. Table 4 summarizes the fitting employed for modeling of interlaminar shear, and flexural strength and stiffness of UV/condensation weathered samples. Table 4: Curve fitting of mechanical property changes for UV/condensation accelerated weathering of pole laminates. Data points excluded from the analysis were done so on the basis of both confidence intervals and the distribution of residuals from the curve fitting process. Property Excluded

Points Fit Type Algorithm Weighting

Scheme Equation R2

Flexural Strength

4088 hrs Power Levenberg- Marquardt

Robust LAR

f(x) =a*xb+c 0.9745

Flexural Modulus

10000 hrs Quadratic Linear Least Squares

Robust LAR

f(x)=a*x2+b*x+c 0.5074

ILSS

10000 hrs Linear Linear Least Squares

Robust Bi-squared

f(x)=a*x+b 0.6479

Graphs of the fitted curves, with 95% confidence bounds are shown in Figures 5-7. The most accurate fit was obtained for flexural strength, which also shows the greatest influence of UV/condensation weathering.

Figure 5: Flexural modulus change with UV/condensation accelerated weathering, according to ASTM G154 (cycle 1), showing quadratic fit and 95% confidence bounds.

Figure 6: Flexural strength change with UV/condensation accelerated weathering according to ASTM G154 (cycle 1), with power fit and 95% confidence bounds. Error bars denote data range.

Figure 7: ILSS change with UV/condensation accelerated weathering according to ASTM G154 (cycle 1), with power fit and 95% confidence bounds. Error bars denote data range.

The resulting functions for flexural strength and modulus, and interlaminar shear strength are given below in Equations 3-5, employing the accelerated testing time, ta.

3692.0006.43.593 aflex t [3]

95.1610842.10003191.0 28 aaflex ttE [4]

aILSS t 510826.724.41 [5]

4.1.2 Modeling Moisture Effects Changes in mechanical properties resulting from moisture will be modeled (Section 4.2.1) as step decreases at time of saturation.

4.2 Accelerated Time/Service Time Correlation

The estimation of pole lifetime can be made using the above experimental data in three steps. These are: 1) correlating the level of ultraviolet exposure during accelerated testing to a specific period of typical outdoor exposure at a specified location, 2) defining an acceleration factor, which is a material-specific parameter relating accelerated exposure to that experienced under service conditions, and 3) defining the condition at which a pole has passed beyond serviceability. As previously stated, laminate flexural strength and pole flexural strength are closely correlated. In assessing the composite pole lifecycle, it will be assumed that changes in flexural properties at the laminate level reflect corresponding changes in the behavior of the pole structure; consequently, flexural strength of the laminate will be the primary parameter used in the estimation process. 4.2.1 Radiant Exposure Southern Florida will be made the reference for correlating outdoor ultraviolet exposure with that of accelerated weathering. This region is frequently used as a standard location in accelerated testing ([11] pp. 1347, [25]), with an annual total ultraviolet (TUV) irradiant exposure of 275-280 MJ [25] and an irradiance isoline of 660 kJ/cm2/year [29]. The Q-Lab chamber ultraviolet (QUV) irradiance, at the set point of 0.89 W/m2 is 48.4W/m2, providing an exposure of 174.3 kJ/m2/UV hour. As the UV portion of the test cycle is 8 hours of a 12 hour cycle (66.7%), the irradiant energy that test samples are exposed to is 116.2 kJ/m2/test hour. Dividing the TUV of southern Florida by this QUV provides the corresponding exposure period equal to one year of UV weathering (one year of service life). Employing a set point of 0.89 W/m2, this is ~2400 test hrs. Using isoline maps of annual global radiation to assess regional radiant dosage, this process can be repeated for other locations – for quick comparison, the relative TUVs of selected locations are presented below in Table 6, normalized by that of southern Florida. Also given are the equivalent hours for a year of UV weathering in each location, denoted using the factor T.

Table 6: Relative total annual ultraviolet exposure for selected cities, with equivalent hours of UV accelerated weathering for one year of service life. TUVs obtained from isolines of annual irradiance [29].

Location TUV relative to

Florida QUV hours for 1 year

of service life, T Miami, Florida 1 2400 Tucson, Arizona 1.21 2900 Calgary, Alberta 0.68 1600 London, England 0.57 1350 Hilo, Hawaii 0.85 2000 Cairns, Australia 1.06 2500 Toronto, Ontario 0.76 1800

Accelerated weathering represents a more severe form of weathering than typical service conditions. Reasons for this can include: differences in spectral distribution or intensity, higher light intensities than experienced in service conditions, absence of dark periods, abnormally high test temperatures, unrealistically high or low levels of moisture and the absence of biological agents or pollutants, among others ([11], [21], [30]). An acceleration factor, F, defined as the ratio between the degradation rates from accelerated testing and under normal service conditions,

F = ka/ks [6]

accounts for such differences. Typical acceleration factors for polymeric materials range from 2-35 ([22] pp. 15). The service time, ts, can thus be related to the accelerated test time, ta, using:

TtFt a

s

[7]

Calgary, Alberta, is the location used for assessing the base acceleration factor, as RStandard poles have been in service there for over 2.5 years. Such poles have undergone continuous aging in a relatively bright (local irradiance isoline of 450 kJ/cm2/year [30]), dry environment, with air temperatures varying between -40°C and 35°C. A conservative acceleration factor of 16 has been established based on tests of selected poles. An example comparison of natural weathering to accelerated weathering is provided in Figure 8. Surface quality comparisons evidence no indication of laminate degradation beyond minimal colour change ([16] pp. 7-8).

Figure 8: Comparison of naturally weathered pole surface (2.5 years, south aspect: Calgary, AB) to un-weathered (0 hr) laminate, and 3 samples of accelerated UV/condensation weathered laminates (500 hr, 1000 hr and 2000 hr). 4.2.1 Moisture and Temperature Effects Two additional elements affect this correlation: surrounding moisture levels and temperature ([30], [31], [32]). For pole structures, the ground-line bending moment is the strength-defining load case, with failure expected roughly 2 ft. above ground. At this location, the laminate would be exposed to moisture wicking from the surrounding soil, achieving an equilibrium moisture content dependent on both the soil moisture content and relative humidity. In the extreme, this corresponds to fully water-saturated soil; however, this would only occur below the ground-line and concomitant UV exposure would not be possible. For the average pole considered in this investigation, the soil moisture saturation is assumed to be less than 100%. Moreover, as UV/condensation weathering incorporates a 100% relative humidity, some property change from moisture is already accounted for in the previous discussion and modeling. The effect of moisture is modeled as a step decrease in mechanical properties at 2350 hours (ts=14 weeks), using the term H∙Mx, as in Equations 8-10. Here, Mx is the step decrease due to moisture alone and H is a factor accounting for local humidity [30]. From Table 4, the maximum step decrease in ILSS, and flexural strength and modulus is MILSS=6.6%, Mσ=10.9%, and ME=7.4%, respectively. H factors are provided in Table 7, below. Model predictions are normalized by initial values and incorporate both UV and moisture effects.

MHF

tTt

t s

flexsflex

3692.0

0

006.43.593)(

1)( [8]

Ess

flexsflex MH

FtT

FtT

tEtE 95.1610842.10003191.0

)(1)(

28

0 [9]

ILSSs

ILSSsILSS MH

FtT

tt 5

0

10826.724.41)(

1)(

[10]

The last element to consider is the service temperature. As related in the background section, the degradation processes associated with moisture and UV exposure can be accelerated when at higher temperatures ([5] pp. 356-7, [15] pp. 626). This is one reason why an acceleration factor is employed to Q-UV chamber aging times. Consequently, a modification to the acceleration factors for different locations can be made according to their average temperatures. These temperatures and the corresponding acceleration factors are shown in Table 7, with higher average temperatures corresponding to lower acceleration factors. Table 7: Acceleration (F) and humidity (H) factors for selected locations, accounting for variations in average temperature and humidity. † - Sources ([33]-[37])

Location Average

Temperature (°C)† Acceleration

Factor, F Average Relative

Humidity (%)† Humidity Factor, H

Miami, Florida 24.4 11 78 0.5 Cairns, Australia 24.9 11 68 0.4 Hilo, Hawaii 22.8 12 75 0.5 Tuscon, Arizona 20.2 13 25 0.1 London, England 14 14 77 0.5 Toronto, Ontario 7.4 15 75 0.5 Calgary, Alberta 4.3 16 50 0.25

The influence of weathering on the nominal flexural strength of polyurethane/E-glass utility poles, in service time, is shown in Figure 9, for four different climactic regions. Calgary represents cool and dry; Toronto is cool and moist; Tucson is warm and dry; and Miami is warm and moist.

Figure 9: Nominal retained flexural strength versus service time for composite poles in four different climactic regions. Location-specific acceleration factors, F, from Table 7, account for temperature effects; Service time based on the TUV for each location, using the factor T, from Table 6; Moisture effects incorporate region differences using the humidity factor, H (Table 7). 4.3 Lifetime Estimates

The predicted property changes illustrated in Figure 9 lead to the question: At what point in time (ti) is there an unacceptable fraction of the installed poles with nominal strengths less that at installation (t0) – i.e., Rn(ti) < Rn(t0)? Referring to Section 2.1 property change can be considered as a shift in distribution. Assuming a normal distribution, if over the service life the PDF of pole strengths is assumed to remain constant about a decreasing mean value (a constant PDF shape), the original CoV of flexural strengths will also remain constant. Employing the definition of nominal strength from Equation 1, the difference between nominal strength at the beginning and end of service life is therefore equivalent to the difference in strengths at specific points on the original strength distribution. This is described using Equation 11, below, where the mean strength has been normalized for convenience.

CoVKR

tKRtKRR

tRtR

m

RmRfm

m

nfn

))(())(()()( 00

[11]

The nominal start of service flexural strength, based on a 5% LTL, is ~18% below the mean. For the current laminate, with a test sample size of 5, the 5% LTL is calculated using K(t0)=1.78 ([8] pp. 43). At the end of service, K(tf) is defined as being the 88% LTL, meaning the flexural strength of 88% of poles would fall below the original 5% LTL. The distance between these two points would be ~3 standard deviations (K(tf)= -1.2), representing a strength decrease of ~30%. As illustrated in Figure 10, this corresponds to a service life, in Miami, of ~80 years. Figures 11 and 12 present the same relationship for flexural modulus and ILSS, respectively.

For all properties, the warm, moist and high UV environment of Southern Florida is shown to cause the greatest weathering and consequently shortest predicted service life. Flexural strength is also shown to be the limiting mechanical property. The initial decrease in strength in Toronto is a result of higher humidity, though over time, the higher UV and warmer temperatures of Tucson would have a more significant influence. Calgary, with its cool, dry environment, would see the longest pole life.

Figure 10: Nominal retained flexural strength versus service time for composite poles in four different climactic regions, incorporating the reliability-based estimate of service life at ~80 years. The 88% LTL threshold corresponds with a ΔK=2.88. Strength normalized with value at ts=0.

Figure 13: Nominal retained flexural modulus versus service time for composite poles in 4 different climactic regions. Modulus normalized with value at ts=0.

Figure 14: Nominal retained ILSS versus service time for composite poles in 4 different climactic regions. ILSS normalized with value at ts=0.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Employing the results of accelerated environmental testing, the long-term behavior of a polyurethane/E-glass laminate has been modeled. This laminate forms the basis of a composite utility pole, servicing the electrical transmission and distribution, and communication markets. Utilizing the reliability-based design methodology employed in the utility pole industry, the response of the laminate to hygro-thermal and solar environments has been extended to predict the service life of composite utility poles. These models include factors to account for regional variations in temperature, humidity and UV irradiance. The estimates reveal that although pole lifetime is initially closely tied to moisture effects, high UV irradiance has the most significant influence on long-term properties. With the laminate containing an integral aliphatic top-layer, predicted pole service life is approximately 80 years.

6. REFERENCES

1. B.V. Bindrich, Composites Manufacturing, American Composites Manufacturing Association, October, pp. 64 (2007). 2. S. Rush and M. Musselman, Composites Technology, 14 (2), pp. 24-27 (2008). 3. JEC Composites Magazine, 31, pp. 91-92 (2007). 4. A. Barkatt in R. S. Jones, ed., Environmental Effects on Engineered Materials, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2001, pp. 419-458.

5. L.C. Brinson and T.S. Gates in Comprehensive Composite Materials, Vol. 2, Pergamon Press, 2003, pp. 344-368. 6. National Elecrical Safety Code, IEEE, New York, (2006) 7. J. O’Neill, ed., CSA Standard C22.3, 1-06, Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, 2006. 8. Reliability-Based Design of Utility Pole Structures, ASCE/SEI Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 111 (draft), ACSE/SEI, 2005. 9. M. Bengtsson, E. Olsson, P. Funk, M. Jackson, Maintenance and Reliability Conference – Proceedings of the 8th Congress, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 2004. 10. G. Anders, S. Otal and T. Hjartarson, IEEE paper 1-4244-0493-2, IEEE, 2 (2006). 11. L.F.E. Jacques Progress in Polymer Science, 25, 1337 (2000). 12. N. D. Searl in W.D. Ketola and D. Grossman, eds., Accelerated and Outdoor Testing of Organic Materials, ASTM STP 1202, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, (1994). 13. P. Brennan and C. Fedor Technical Bulletin LU-0228: Sunlight, UV, & Accelerated Weathering. The Q-Panel Company, Cleveland (1994). 14. UV Effect on Polyethylene – ExxonMobil Chemical Tip from Technology http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_Files/Polyethylene/Polyethylene/NorthAmerica/Technology_Rotomolding.pdf (2003). 15. T.A. Collings, R.J. Harvey and A. W. Dalzeil, Composites, 24, 625 (1993). 16. N. M. Carlson, L. G. Blackwood, L.L. Torres, J.G. Rodriquez and T.S. Yoder, SPIE 6th International Symposium on Smart Structures and Materials (INEEL/CON-99-00149 preprint), Newport Beach, March 1999. 17. F. Ellyin and R. Maser, Composites Science and Technology, 64 (12), 1863 (2004). 18. Y. Arslanian and P.J. Hogg in C. E. Harris and T. S. Gates, eds., High Temperature and Environmental Effects on Polymeric Composites, ASTM STP 1174, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1993, pp. 7-22. 19. ASTM D1036-99 Standard Test Methods of Static Tests of Wood Poles, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, (1999). 20. ASTM G154-00a Standard Practice for Operating Fluorescent Light Apparatus for UV Exposure of Nonmetallic Materials. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, (2000). 21. ASTM G151-06 Standard Practice for Exposing Nonmetallic Materials in Accelerated Test Devices that Use Laboratory Light Sources. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, (2006). 22. Fedor, G. R., and Brennan, P. J., in Robert J. Herling, ed., Durability Testing of Non-Metallic Materials, ASTM STP 1294, American Society for Testing and Material, Philadelphia, (1996). 23. Irradiance data supplied by Q-Lab Corporation, April 2008. 24. K. P. Scott in Sunspots – Material Testing Product and Technology News, 30 (64) Atlas Material Testing Solutions, (2001). 25. ASTM D790-03 Standard Test Method for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, (2003). 26. ASTM D2344-00e1 Standard Test Method for Short-Beam Strength of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials and Their Laminates. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, (2000). 27. M. Ledvij The Industrial Physicist, April/May 2003, pp. 24-27.

28. Nonlinear Least-Squares Implementation for Matlab, Optimization Toolbox, http://www.mathworks.com/access/helpdesk_r13/help/toolbox/optim/tutor10b.html 29. B. de Jong Net radiation received by a horizontal surface at the earth. Delft University Press, 1973. 30. Technical Bulletin LL-9025: Outdoor Weathering: Basic Exposure Procedures. Q-Lab Corporation, Florida, 2006. 31. J. Boxhammer and K. P. Scott in G. Wypych, ed.,Weathering of Plastics, Society of Plastics Engineers, William Andrews Publishers, 2000, pp. 29-41. 32. T. A. Ceilings, Composites, 17(1) 33 (1986). 33. http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ 34. www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/ 35. www.city-data.com/states/ 36. http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city_guides/ 37. D. Canyon Journal of Insect Physiology, 45(10), 959-964 (1999).

2 K-012416-001-RC-0001-R00

2. TEST SET UP, TEST PROCEDURE AND TEST RESULTS

2.1 60-Hz Voltage Dry Flashover and Withstand Tests Figure 1 shows a photo of the set up for the 60-Hz voltage dry flashover and withstand tests. The pole section was hung by a crane through an insulating stick 15 feet above the lab floor. The electrodes, each made with two turns of soft aluminum tie-wire 5 mm in diameter around the circumference of the pole, were spaced 1 meter apart. The dry flashover and withstand voltage tests were performed using Clauses 4.2 and 4.4 of ANSI C29.1 as a guide. The dry flashover voltage value of the pole sample was the arithmetical mean of five individual flashovers taken consecutively. The dry withstand voltage of the pole was initially set, based on our experience, to be 97% of the dry flashover voltage value and verified through testing. The duration of the withstand tests was one minute. The withstand test was repeated at a lower level if a flashover occurred at the previously trial voltage. Table 1 shows the test results. The flashover voltage of the pole gap is nearly the same as that of a rod-rod air gap with the same spacing. The results indicated that the pole, when it is in new and clean condition, is a good insulator. The atmospheric conditions prevalent at the time of testing were as follows:

• Barometric pressure (mm⋅Hg): 748.0 • Dry bulb temperature (°C): 19.0 • Wet bulb temperature (°C): 11.0

Figure 1: Set up for 60-Hz voltage dry flashover and withstand tests

3 K-012416-001-RC-0001-R00

Table 1: Results of the 60-Hz dry flashover and withstand tests

Flashover Tests (kV)

1 2 3 4 5 Average Withstand Test (kV)

342 340 340 340 339 340 330

2.2 60-Hz Voltage Wet Flashover and Withstand Tests The pole samples were mounted in vertical, 45°, and horizontal orientation for the 60-Hz voltage wet flashover and withstand tests as showed in Figure 3. The electrodes, each made with two turns of soft aluminum tie-wire 5 mm in diameter, were spaced 1 meter apart. The wet flashover and withstand tests were performed in accordance with Clauses 4.3 and 4.5 of ANSI C29.1, with a 1 mm/minute precipitation rate, as per Clause 9.1 of IEC Standard 60060-1. The duration of the withstand tests was 1 minute. Tables 3 to 5 show the test results. As was expected under this simulated rain condition the insulating strength of the pole was reduced to approximately one third of the values of those under dry conditions. From a practical application point of view and allowing some safety margin, the rule of thumb value is 100kV/m. The atmospheric conditions prevalent at the time of testing and the rain conditions were as follows:

• Barometric pressure (mm⋅Hg): 748.0 • Dry bulb temperature (°C): 19.0 • Wet bulb temperature (°C): 11.0 • Rate of rain (horizontal, mm/minute): 1.1 • Rate of rain (vertical, mm/minute): 1.3 • Water temperature (°C): 19.0 • Water Conductivity (µS/cm): 100.0

4 K-012416-001-RC-0001-R00

Figure 3: Set ups for the 60-Hz voltage wet flashover and withstand tests

Table 3: Results of the 60-Hz voltage wet flashover and withstand tests (sample #1)

Flashover Tests (kV) Mounting Orientation 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Withstand Test (kV)

Vertical 175 160 162 150 150 159.4 135.5

45° 170 163 147 150 149 156 135.0

Horizontal 176 163 157 155 156 161 140.5

Top Diameter = 200mm, Bottom Diameter = 212 mm, Electrode Spacing = 1000 mm



Withstand Test (kV)

Vertical 180 163 150 160 155 161.6 120.0

45° 150 137 150 148 145 146.0 127.0

Horizontal 169 172 167 162 157 165.0 144.0


5 K-012416-001-RC-0001-R00



Withstand Test (kV)

Vertical 180 165 156 150 155 161 130.0

45° 167 171 160 168 162 165.5 146.0

Horizontal 162 155 150 140 135 148.5 160.0


2.3 Leakage current measurements Leakage current measurements similar to a typical “hotstick” test were carried out on a pole sample having 200 mm to 210 mm outside diameter. The measurements were done with 60-Hz voltages applied across a 120-cm (4 foot) long pole section as shown in Figure 2. Table 2 shows the test results, which confirm that the pole is a good insulator when it is dry and clean. The typical test for approving “hotsticks” requires, as an industrial benchmark, a maximum leakage current of < 100µA at an applied voltage of 240 kV over a 4-foot length. Certification of insulated boom for vehicle-mounted aerial devices requires that its leakage current <1µA per kV of the applied voltage (Clause 5.4 of CAN/CSA-C225-M88). With a maximum leakage current of only 54 µA, the pole section met the leakage current requirement for an approved “hotstick or insulated boom”.

Figure 2: Set up for leakage current measurements

6 K-012416-001-RC-0001-R00

Table 2: Results of the leakage current measurements

Applied Voltage (kV)

Leakage Current Before Clean (µA)

Leakage Current after Clean (µA)

50 6 6

100 15 15

150 26 27

200 40 40

220 45 46

230 49 49

240 52 54 2.4 Dielectric Tests before and after Exposure to Humidity The dielectric tests before and after exposure to humidity were carried out in accordance with Clause 9.1 of IEC 61235. Figure 4 shows the set up. Eight pieces of pole sections were measured for maximum leakage current 1I at 50 kV before the humidity exposure. The frequency of the applied voltage was 60 Hz and the duration of the voltage applications was 1 minute. The test voltage was then raised to 100 kV and maintained at that level for another minute after the maximum leakage current 1I had been recorded. Table 6 lists the recorded maximum leakage currents 1I for the specimen. There were no flashovers or punctures, no visual sign of tracking or erosion on the surface, and no perceptible temperature rise at the end of the 100-kV 60-Hz voltage test. The test specimen was then placed in a chamber of 93% humidity, 23 °C for 168 hours. At the end of the 168-hour period, the test specimen was lightly wiped inside and outside with a dry, lint-free paper towel before the tests described previously in this section were repeated. The maximum current 2I for each piece was recorded. The values of 2I are also included in Table 6. There were also no flashovers or punctures, no visual sign of tracking or erosion on the surface, and no perceptible temperature rise at the end of the 100-kV 60-Hz voltage test. The pole sample met the requirements specified in the IEC standard if the following in-equality equations are satisfied: IIanddiameterI ≤×< 21 16.0 . Based on this, the test pieces

met the requirements of IEC 61235.

7 K-012416-001-RC-0001-R00

Figure 4: Set up for the dielectric test before and after humidity exposure

Table 6

Maximum Leakage Current at 50 kV (µA) Sample Number

Diameter (mm) Before Humidity Exposure 1I After Humidity Exposure 2I

1 30.0 45.8

2 29.2 36.9

3

205

29.0 38.0

4 34.2 36.7

5 33.2 36.9

6

227

35.3 35.3

7 39.6 36.2

8 282

39.6 43.4 2.5 60-Hz Voltage Puncture Tests Three puncture tests were carried out to assess the pole’s dielectric puncture strength. The tests used two pieces of aluminum foil as electrodes shown in Figure 5. The pole wall under this electrode configuration is considered to be in a quasi-uniform field. The puncture voltages of the three tests were 250 kV, 250 kV and 240 kV. The wall thickness of the poles at the puncture locations was approximately 8.0 mm. The pole manufacturer will cut sections at the puncture points to verify thickness and determine whether material properties have changed. Figure 6 shows a typical puncture hole on the pole wall The designers of power transmission lines could take advantage of this dielectric puncture strength to improve the overall insulation level of the lines by using bracket mounting for the cross-arm instead of through-bolt mounting and by placing the grounding wire inside the pole. However, since this puncture strength depends very much on the electrode configuration the actual value for a given design should be determined through testing. Care should also be taken to co-ordinate the pole’s lightning and switching impulse strengths and stresses for a particular application.

8 K-012416-001-RC-0001-R00

Figure 5: 60-Hz voltage puncture tests

Figure 6: A typical puncture hole

2.6 60-Hz Fault Current Withstand Test Fault current tests were performed on various copper conductors fastened to short sections of the composite pole. For each test the pole section was secured in a vertical position in the test cell as shown in Figure 7. The copper ground wire was fastened to the surface of the pole to provide intimate contact with the pole for the full length of the sample. The conductor was fastened with self-drilling screws and aluminum clips approximately every 30 cm. The purpose of the test was to observe the pole and record the effects of the super heated conductor on the composite fiber pole. Further analysis of the affected areas will also be conducted by the manufacturer. To minimize delays during the test, three conductors were attached to the pole at 90° spacing. Each wire was faulted at a different level to produce a different temperature of the copper conductor. For each test, the pole was rotated as to be in the view of the camera. The test series was first performed using #4 AWG and then repeated using 2/0 AWG bare copper ground wire. Each test was done with a new conductor on a new section of pole. The pole was examined for evidence of charring or other effects after each test. A thermocouple was placed on the copper conductor and the maximum temperature recorded for reference and to help provide a relationship between surface effects and conductor temperature. It was observed that under normal fault current conditions, the visible effects of the conductor on the surface of the pole were negligible or not evident at all. At extreme temperatures where the conductor was taken to 700-800°C (near glowing red), the surface where intimate contact was maintained was charred (brownish). This tended to be near the clips where the conductor is closest to the pole. In one test, the conductor was taken to fusion. In this case, the conductor was blown off the pole and little thermal effects were visible aside from the flash. It was then decided to limit the fault duration to avoid fusing the conductor.

9 K-012416-001-RC-0001-R00

In several other tests, the conductor was taken as near fusion as possible to have the conductor glowing red and remain in contact with the pole. The surface was charred almost black in the local area. On the video, a small match size flame appeared for several seconds then extinguished as the conductor cooled. The test results are given in Table 7. Photographs in Figure 8 show typical effects on the pole after the fault current test.

Figure 7: A pole section mounted for fault current test

Table 7: Test result (#4 AWG wire)

Test Number

Fault Current

Test Duration

Conductor Temp. Test Description & Observation

05-3653 10.5 kA 10 cycles 216°C Conductor slightly discolored. No marks on pole.

05-3654 18.7 kA 6 cycles 670°C Conductor overheated discolored dark and soft. Small spots of surface indents not charred.

05-3655 27.3 kA 3 cycles 729°C Conductor discolored and oxidized. Small areas discolored on pole surface only.

05-3656 6.8 kA 56 cycles >1083° (fusion)

Conductor taken to fusion. Charred sections on the pole where in contact with the conductor.

05-3658 3.0 kA 3.5 sec. 560° Long duration fault causing slower heating. Pole has slight surface marks

05-3659 3.0 kA 4.5 sec. 848°C Longer duration, conductor taken to glowing red. Charred marks where the conductor touches the pole.

10 K-012416-001-RC-0001-R00

Figure 8: Various fault levels with #4 AWG copper conductor

11 K-012416-001-RC-0001-R00

To provide a worst-case scenario, a much larger diameter bare 2/0 AWG copper conductor was used to repeat some of the tests that were done with the #4 AWG wire. The objective of the test was to use a conductor with significantly more mass to see if such a conductor would cause more damage to the surface of the pole. A larger conductor would remain hot for a longer time and provide more heat energy into the pole. Tests at different fault levels were performed and documented.

The larger conductor did provide more residual heat energy that resulted in some charring of the surface. The aluminium clip with the fastener transferred the heat more readily to the pole, which created a local burn spot. This spot, however, appeared to be only superficial. In these tests, the conductor was routed through holes in the pole to simulate conductors running on the inside. There were no detrimental effects on the pole observed. Photographs in Figures 9 show typical marks on the pole after the fault current test. Table 8 gives the test results for the 2/0 AWG wire on the pole. In general, the characteristics of pole surface after testing can be summarized as follows:

- No surface burns or charring was observed at fault current levels where the ground conductor may rise to 200-300°C

- At temperatures of 400-600°C, some charring of the surface will occur at the clips and

where the conductor is in intimate contact with the pole

- At over 700°C, the conductor is glowing red/white and fusing is imminent, charring is more pronounced at the clips and where contact is made. The pole does not support ignition, small after-flame (1-2 cm) was observed at the aluminum clips for 5 to 10 seconds after the fault while the conductor is red hot.

Table 8 Test results 2/0 AWG

Test Number

Fault Current

Test Duration

Conductor Temp. Test Description & Observation

05-3660 7.5 kA 4.5 sec 409°C Conductor discolored, oxidized .Charring of the surface at the clips, no ignition

05-3661 10.5 kA 3.9 sec >1000°C

To fusing

Conductor taken to fusing. Charred sections on the pole and at the clips.

05-3662 10.4 kA 3 sec. 595°C Conductor dark and oxidized, charring at the clips and where the conductor touches the pole

05-3663 10.4 kA 3.5 sec 770° Similar to previous, slightly more charring

12 K-012416-001-RC-0001-R00

Note: temperature was taken at the clips against the pole

Figure 9: Various fault levels with 2/0 AWG copper conductor

13 K-012416-001-RC-0001-R00

2.7 Contamination Tests Contamination tests were performed using IEC60507 as a guide. A desirable amount of slurry for the contamination test was prepared by mixing each liter of tap water with 40 gram of kaolin and a suitable amount of NaCl of commercial purity. It was planned to use a contamination level of between heavy and very heavy contamination environment, an ESDD level of about 200µg/cm2, for testing the pole sections. The conductivity of the slurry was set to give the predetermined contamination level similar to a porcelain insulator surface model, since no information for preparing slurry for use on surfaces made of composite materials is available. The pole surfaces were found to be difficult to contaminate due to their hydrophobic characteristics. To obtain a contamination layer on the pole sections for the test, the pole sections were put outside the laboratory at a sub-zero temperature overnight before the slurry was flooded onto it. Figure 10 shows the photo of a contaminated surface.

Figure 10: Contaminated pole surfaces

The contaminated pole sections were allowed to recover to room temperature and dry before test. The tests were performed in Kinectrics’ environment chamber. Similar to those tests for 60-Hz dry and wet flashover and withstand, the electrodes, each made with two turns of soft aluminum tie-wire 5 mm in diameter around the circumference of the pole, were spaced 1 meter apart. The clean fog used for the tests was generated with ultrasonic nozzles spraying cold water. Visual inspection was made to ensure the pole surface is completely wet before the application of the test voltage. Figure 11 shows the photos taken during tests. The pole is said to withstand the test voltage if no flashover occurred in 15 minutes. Table 9 shows the test results. The withstand voltage for contaminated porcelain surface is relatively well established and can be expressed by the following equation. The withstand voltage values calculated using this equation are also listed in the table for comparison.

14 K-012416-001-RC-0001-R00

Withstand voltage 36.02 )(47.151)( −×= cmperµgESDDleakageofmeterperkV From the test results in Table 9, the pole has the same insulation strength as porcelain insulators under the same contamination conditions. It should be pointed out, however, that if the pole can preserve its hydrophobic surface throughout its life-time, its contamination performance would surpass that of porcelain insulators. Contamination tests on aged pole sections could provide such information.

Wetted surface

A pole under testing

Figure 11: Photos taken during the contamination tests

Table 9: The Results of the Contamination Tests (1 meter leakage distance)

Test Number

ESDD Level (µg/cm2)

Applied Voltage (kV)

Withstand Duration (Min.)

Withstand Voltage for Porcelain Surface

#1 185 24 15 23

#2 240 24 1.5* 21

#3 125 24 15 26

#4 64 31 15 34

* Flashover occurred after 1.5 minute of voltage application.

15 K-012416-001-RC-0001-R00

2. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS

1. The electrical insulation strength of the FRP pole is at least as good as porcelain insulators when it is new. The FRP pole showed similar contamination performance as porcelain insulators if a contamination layer was artificially put onto it and tested. It was found, however, that contaminating a new FRP pole was difficult due to its hydrophobic surface, and the contamination performance of the FRP pole could surpass that of porcelain insulators if the pole can preserves its hydrophobic surface throughout its life-time. Contamination tests on aged pole sections could provide such information.

2. The pole section met standard industrial electrical requirements for an approved

“hotstick or insulated boom” when it is new, dry and clean. 3. The dielectric puncture strength is one of pole’s most valuable properties. The

designers of power transmission lines should take full advantage of this puncture strength to improve the overall insulation strength of the lines or for other applications. However, since this puncture strength is electrode configuration dependent, the actual puncture strength for a given design should be determined through testing. Care should also be taken to co-ordinate the pole’s lightning and switching impulse strengths and stresses for a particular application.

Prepared by: December 21, 2005 ___________________________________________________

Dr. Z. Li Senior Engineer Transmission & Distribution Technologies Business

Approved by: ___________________________________________________

Dr. J. Kuffel General Manager Transmission & Distribution Technologies Business

ZL:JC

DISCLAIMER Kinectrics Inc. has prepared this report in accordance with, and subject to, the terms and conditions of the contract between Kinectrics Inc. and RS Technologies. Kinectrics Inc., 2005

16 K-012416-001-RC-0001-R00

DISTRIBUTION

Mr. B. Lacoursiere (3) RS Technologies 2421 37th Avenue NE Suite 400 Calgary, Albert T2E 6Y7

Dr. Z. Li Kinectrics Inc., KL206 Tel: 416-207-6000 X6489 [email protected]

1 K-012574-001-RC-0001-R00

To: Mr. B. Lacoursiere RS Technologies 2421 37th Avenue NE Suite 400 Calgary, Albert T2E 6Y7

LIGHTNING AND SWITCHING IMPULSE FLASHOVER VOLTAGE TESTS ON FRP POLES

MANUFACTURED BY RS TECHNOLOGIES

Kinectrics Report No.: K-012574-000-RC-0001-R00

April 11, 2006

Z. Li Senior Engineer

Transmission & Distribution Technologies Business 1. INTRODUCTION At the request of RS Technologies, lightning and switching impulse voltage tests, in addition to those tests reported in the Kinectrics Report (No. K-012416-000-RC-0001-R00), were performed on FRP pole samples manufactured by the company. The tests were performed on February 21 to March 4 2006 at Kinectrics’ High Voltage Laboratory. The tests included:

1. Dry and wet critical lightning impulse flashover voltage tests on short pole sections 2. Dry and wet critical lightning and switching impulse flashover voltage tests on a mock

up for a typical 25-kV distribution using a 15-foot pole with an FRP crossarm attached

3. Dry and wet critical lightning and switching impulse flashover voltage tests on a mockup for a typical 69-kV distribution line using a 15-foot pole with an FRP crossarm attached

4. Dry and wet critical lightning and switching impulse flashover voltage tests on a mockup for a typical 115-kV transmission line using a 15-foot pole with a horizontal line post insulator attached.

PRIVATE INFORMATION

Contents of this report shall not be disclosed without authority of the client.

Kinectrics Inc., 800 Kipling Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M8Z 6C4


2 K-012574-001-RC-0001-R00

The lightning impulse voltages used for the tests had a front time of 1.08 s and a tail time of 47.3 s, and the front and tail times of the switching impulse voltages used for the tests were 215 s and 2363 s respectively. The tests were performed in accordance with IEC 60060-1. The tests results are presented in the tables in Section 2 of this report. The tables contain both the measured values obtained under the atmospheric conditions prevalent at the time of carrying out the tests and the most likely values obtained through testing (corrected values) if the tests had been carried out under the standard atmospheric conditions given in the IEC standard. 2. TEST SET UP, TEST PROCEDURE AND TEST RESULTS

2.1 Dry and Wet Critical Lightning Impulse Flashover Voltage Tests on Short Pole

Sections Figure 1 shows photos of the set up for the dry and wet critical lightning impulse flashover voltage tests on the short pole sections. The poles sections were 5 feet 6 inches (167 cm) long. Three short pole sections were used for the dry tests and another three short pole sections were used for the wet test. The pole section under test was hung by a crane through an insulating stick 12 feet (366 cm) above the laboratory floor. The electrodes, each made with two turns of soft aluminum tie-wire 5 mm in diameter around the circumference of the pole, were spaced 49.2 inches (125 cm) apart. As is shown in the figure, the top opening of the pole sections for the wet tests was covered with plastic film to simulate a pole top cap The critical lightning impulse flashover voltage tests were performed using a 2000-kV impulse generator. The critical lightning impulse flashover voltage of the pole section was determined using the “Up and Down” method outlined in IEC 60060-1. The up-and-down test started with an impulse application to the pole section under testing. The peak value of this impulse was set to be equal to the pole section gap’s estimated critical lightning impulse flashover voltage. The voltage level for the next application was increased or decreased by a small amount, approximate 2-3% of the estimated critical impulse flashover voltage value, depending upon the result of the previous application. The voltage level was increased if the test object withstood the previous voltage application otherwise the voltage level was decreased. The up–and-down test continued until at least 20 useful applications as defined in the IEC standard were obtained. The critical lightning impulse flashover voltages for the pole section were then evaluated. Tables 1-4 show the test results. The atmospheric conditions prevalent at the time of carrying out the dry critical lightning impulse flashover voltage tests were

Barometric pressure (mmHg): 742.0 Dry bulb temperature (C): 26.5 Wet bulb temperature (C): 14.5

The atmospheric conditions prevalent at the time of carrying out the wet critical lightning impulse flashover voltage tests and the rain conditions used during the tests were

Barometric pressure (mmHg): 738.5 Dry bulb temperature (C): 23.0 Wet bulb temperature (C): 12.7 Rate of rain (horizontal, mm/minute): 1.3 Rate of rain (vertical, mm/minute): 1.3

3 K-012574-001-RC-0001-R00

Water temperature (C): 14.0 Water Conductivity (µS/cm): 100.0

For the dry tests

For the wet tests

Figure 1: Set up for the Dry and Wet Critical Lightning Impulse Flashover Voltage Tests on the Short Pole Sections

Table 1: The dry positive critical lightning impulse flashover voltages for the short pole sections determined during tests

Section Measured (kV) Corrected (kV)

Critical Impulse Flashover

Standard deviation


Standard deviation

#1 687 11.7 750 12.7 #2 672 12.9 734 14.0 #3 680 12.4 743 13.5

Table 2: The dry negative positive critical lightning impulse flashover voltages for the short pole sections determined during tests



Standard deviation


Standard deviation

#1 762 55.7 822 60.0 #2 775 16.6 834 17.8 #3 758 12.9 818 13.9

4 K-012574-001-RC-0001-R00

Table 3: The wet positive critical lightning impulse flashover voltages for the short pole sections determined during tests



Standard deviation


Standard deviation

#4 621 15.6 645 16.2 #5 644 13.9 669 14.4 #6 617 9.8 641 10.1

Table 4: The wet negative critical lightning impulse flashover voltages for the short pole sections determined during tests



Standard deviation


Standard deviation

#4 534 10.3 553 10.6 #5 418 13.8 425 14.0 #6 459 16.6 469 16.9

2.2 Lightning and Switch Impulse Voltage Tests on a 15-Foot Pole With an FRP

Crossarm Attached to Mock Up a Typical 25-kV Distribution Line 2.2.1 Dry and Wet Critical Lightning Impulse Flashover Voltage Tests Figure 2 shows photos of the set up for the dry and wet critical lightning impulse flashover voltage tests on the mock up for a typical 25-kV distribution line. A 15-foot pole section was used for this set up. As seen from the photos, the pole section was sat on a post insulator of approximate 3 feet high to give a virtual 18-foot pole section. A 10-foot FRP crossarm (PUPI TB2000-120) was attached to the pole 2 feet from the pole top. A tubular aluminum conductor of 0.84 inch diameter representing the phase conductor of the line mockup, was tied to the composite crossarm, using a piece of soft aluminum tie-wire 5 mm in diameter, 3 feet 6 inches from the center of the pole. Another tubular aluminum conductor of the same diameter as the that used for the phase conductor was tied to the pole also using a piece of soft aluminum tie-wire, 2 feet below the crossarm to represent the neutral of the 25-kV distribution line. The “Up and Down” test procedures as described in Section 2.1 were also used to determine the dry and wet critical lightning impulse flashover voltage for this 25-kV line mockup. Tables 5 and 6 give the results. The lightning arc always took the air gap as indicated by the inserted arrow under dry condition, but very often the arcing crept along the surface of the FRP crossarm to some distance before it jumped to the grounded neutral under wet conditions. The atmospheric conditions prevalent at the time of carrying out the dry critical lightning impulse flashover voltage tests on the 25-kV line mockup were

5 K-012574-001-RC-0001-R00



Barometric pressure (mmHg): 741.0 Dry bulb temperature (C): 23.5 Wet bulb temperature (C): 14.5 Rate of rain (horizontal, mm/minute): 1.0 Rate of rain (vertical, mm/minute): 1.3 Water temperature (C): 14.5 Water Conductivity (µS/cm): 103.0

For the dry tests

For the wet tests

Figure 2: A Typical 25-kV Distribution Line Mock up for the Dry and Wet Critical Lightning and Switching Impulse Flashover Voltage Tests

Table 5: The dry critical lightning impulse flashover voltages for the 25-kV distribution line mock up determined during the tests

Polarity Measured (kV) Corrected (kV)


Standard deviation


Standard deviation

Positive 611 15.8 683 17.6 Negative 699 17.5 763 19.1

6 K-012574-001-RC-0001-R00

Table 6: The wet critical lightning impulse flashover voltages for the 25-kV

distribution line mock up determined during the tests



Standard deviation


Standard deviation


2.2.2 Dry and Wet Critical Switching Impulse Flashover Voltage Tests The set up and the test procedures for the dry and wet critical switching impulse flashover voltage tests on the 25-kV line mockup were the same as those for the dry and wet critical lightning impulse flashover voltage tests. Tables 7 and 8 show the test results. Most of the switching impulse flashover took the air gap as indicated by the inserted arrow under dry condition, but most the arcing crept along the surface of the FRP crossarm to some distance before it jumped to the grounded neutral under wet conditions. The atmospheric conditions prevalent at the time of carrying out the dry critical switching impulse flashover voltage tests on the 25-kV line mockup were


The atmospheric conditions prevalent at the time of carrying out the wet critical switching impulse flashover voltage tests and the rain conditions used during the tests were


Table 7: The dry critical switching impulse flashover voltages for the 25-kV distribution line mock up determined During the tests



Standard deviation


Standard deviation


7 K-012574-001-RC-0001-R00

Table 8: The wet critical switching impulse flashover voltages for the 25-kV

distribution line mock up determined during the tests



Standard deviation


Standard deviation


2.3 Lightning and Switch Impulse Voltage Tests on a 15-Foot Pole With an FRP

Crossarm Attached to Mock Up a Typical 69-kV Distribution Line 2.3.1 Dry and Wet Critical Lightning Impulse Flashover Voltage Tests Figure 3 shows photos of the set up for the dry and wet critical lightning impulse flashover voltage tests on the mock up for a typical 69-kV distribution line. A 15-foot pole section was used for this set up. As in the case of the 25-kV line mock up, the pole section was also sat on a post insulator of approximate 3 feet high to give a virtual 18-foot pole section. A 10-foot FRP crossarm (PUPI TB2000-120) was attached to the pole 3.6 feet from the pole top. A tubular aluminum conductor of 0.84-inch diameter representing the phase conductor of the line mock up, was suspended from the FRP crossarm using a conductor clamp, 4 feet 8 inches from the center of the pole. Another tubular aluminum conductor of the same size as the phase conductor was sat on top of the pole to represent the shield wire of the 69-kV distribution line. The ground wire (GW #4 copper wire) for grounding of the shield wire extended out from pole wall with stand-off insulators (KL 46 SNRSIUX) from shield wire location at the pole top to the bottom of the 15-foot pole. The “Up and Down” test procedures as described in Section 2.1 were used to determine the dry and wet critical lightning impulse flashover voltage for the 69-kV line mock up. Tables 9 and 10 give the results. As in the case of 25-kV line mock up, the lightning arcs always took the air gap from the phase conductor to the stand-off ground wire as indicated by the inserted arrow under dry condition and most of the lightning arcs took the same air gap as well under wet conditions. The atmospheric conditions prevalent at the time of carrying out the dry critical lightning impulse flashover voltage tests on the 69-kV line mock up were



Barometric pressure (mmHg): 742.0 Dry bulb temperature (C): 28.0 Wet bulb temperature (C): 16.0 Rate of rain (horizontal, mm/minute): 1.8

8 K-012574-001-RC-0001-R00

Rate of rain (vertical, mm/minute): 1.8 Water temperature (C): 13.0 Water Conductivity (µS/cm): 100.0

For the dry tests

For the wet tests

Figure 3: A Typical 69-kV Distribution Line Set up for the Dry and Wet Critical Lightning and Switching Impulse Flashover Voltage Tests

Table 9: The dry critical lightning impulse flashover voltages for the 69-kV distribution line mock up determined during the tests



Standard deviation


Standard deviation


Table 10: The wet critical lightning impulse flashover voltages for the 69-kV distribution line mock up determined during the tests



Standard deviation


Standard deviation


9 K-012574-001-RC-0001-R00

2.3.2 Dry and Wet Critical Switching Impulse Flashover Voltage Tests The set up and the test procedures for the dry and wet critical switching impulse flashover voltage tests on the 69-kV line mock up were the same as those for the dry and wet critical lightning impulse flashover voltage tests. Tables 11 and 12 show the test results. Almost all the switching impulse flashover took the air gap from the phase conductor to the ground wire as indicated by the inserted arrow under dry condition. Under wet conditions, however, most of the arcing crept along the surface of the FRP crossarm to the pole. The arcing then either took the path to the shield wire or jumped to the ground wire. The atmospheric conditions prevalent at the time of carrying out the dry critical switching impulse flashover voltage tests on the 69-kV line mock up were


The atmospheric conditions prevalent at the time of carrying out the wet critical switching impulse flashover voltage tests and the rain conditions used during the tests were


Table 11: The dry critical switching impulse flashover voltages for the 69-kV distribution line mock up determined during the tests



Standard deviation


Standard deviation


Table 12: The wet critical switching impulse flashover voltages for the 69-kV distribution line mock up determined during the tests



Standard deviation


Standard deviation


10 K-012574-001-RC-0001-R00

2.4 Lightning and Switch Impulse Voltage Tests on a 15-Foot Pole With a Horizontal

Line Post Insulator Attached to Mock Up a Typical 115-kV Transmission Line 2.4.1 Dry and Wet Critical Lightning Impulse Flashover Voltage Tests Figure 4 shows photos of the set up for the dry and wet critical lightning impulse flashover voltage tests on the mock up for a typical 115-kV transmission line. A 15-foot pole section was also used for this set up. As previously described, the pole section was sat on a post insulator of approximate 3 feet high to give a virtual 18-foot pole section. A horizontal line post insulator (KL115 ASHB25) was mounted to the pole 7 feet 6 inches from the pole top. A tubular aluminum conductor of 0.84-inch diameter represented the phase conductor of the line mock up. Another tubular aluminum conductor of the same size was sat on top of the pole to represent the shield wire of the 115-kV transmission line. The ground wire (GW #4 copper wire) for grounding of the shield wire extended out from pole wall with stand-off insulators (KL 46 SNRSIUX) from shield wire location at the pole top to the bottom of the 15 foot pole. The “Up and Down” test procedures as described in Section 2.1 were also used to determine the dry and wet critical lightning impulse flashover voltage for the 115-kV line mock up. Tables 13 and 14 give the results. The lightning arc always took the air gap from the phase conductor to the stand-off ground wire as indicated by the inserted arrow under both dry and wet conditions. The atmospheric conditions prevalent at the time of carrying out the dry critical lightning impulse flashover voltage tests on the 115-kV line mock up were


The atmospheric conditions prevalent at the time of carrying out the wet critical lightning impulse flashover voltage tests and the rain conditions during the tests were


11 K-012574-001-RC-0001-R00

For the dry tests

For the wet tests

Figure 4: A Typical 115-kV Distribution Line Set up for the Dry and Wet Critical Lightning Impulse Flashover Voltage Tests

Table 13: The dry critical lightning impulse flashover voltages for the 115-kV

line mock up determined during the tests



Standard deviation


Standard deviation


Table 14: The wet critical lightning impulse flashover voltages for the 115-kV line mock up determined during the tests



Standard deviation


Standard deviation


2.4.2 Dry and Wet Critical Switching Impulse Flashover Voltage Tests The set up and the test procedures for the dry and wet critical switching impulse flashover voltage tests on the 115-kV line mock up were the same as those for the dry and wet critical lightning impulse flashover voltage tests. Tables 15 and 16 show the test results.

12 K-012574-001-RC-0001-R00

As in the case of under the lightning impulse, switching flashover of this line configuration always took the air gap from the phase conductor to the stand-off ground wire as indicated by the inserted arrow under both dry and wet conditions. The atmospheric conditions prevalent at the time of carrying out the dry critical switching impulse flashover voltage tests on the 115-kV line mock up were


The atmospheric conditions prevalent at the time of carrying out the wet critical switching impulse flashover voltage tests and the rain conditions during the tests were


Table 15: The dry critical switching impulse flashover voltages for the 115-kV line mock up determined during the tests



Standard deviation


Standard deviation


Table 16: The wet critical switching impulse flashover voltages for the 115-kV line mock up determined during the tests



Standard deviation


Standard deviation


13 K-012574-001-RC-0001-R00

3. DISCUSSIONS The configurations of the mock up lines were established based on the assumption that the mounting hardware for the composite crossarm and the composite insulators could be leave un-grounded. This allowed the FRP pole acted as a part of the insulation system, FRP crossarm + FRP pole section, or composite insulators + FRP pole section, to improve the overall dielectric strength of the lines. The test results indicated that the critical lightning impulse flashover voltage for all the mock up lines were higher than the required values of the composite insulators designed for use on the corresponding lines. The critical lightning impulse flashover voltage for a given insulation system is the voltage value under which there is 50% of probability of causing a flashover on the insulation system. One can also say that there is 50% of chance that the insulation system will withstand an impulse application at the critical level. Similar definition applies to the critical switching impulse flashover voltages There is no switching impulse strength requirement for the electrical apparatus designed for use on transmission systems below 345 kV. The switching impulse strength for the mock up lines obtained through this testing program indicated that there are comfortable margins, Table 17, in switching impulse strength if we assume that the switching impulse stresses for the mockup lines is 4.0 times of the peak value of their line to ground voltage. In other word, the occurrence of switching impulse related flashover of the mock up lines is very slim.

Table 17: Comparison of the switching impulse stress and strength of the lines Normal System Voltage

(kV) Maximum Switching Impulse

Stress (kV) * Minimum Switching Impulse

Strength (kV) ** 25 90 309 69 247 425

115 413 658 * 4.0 times of the maximum line to ground voltage of the lines ** Critical Switching Impulse Flashover Voltage (CFO) - 3.5 times of Standard Deviation It should be pointed out that the fact that the impulse arc always took the air path, away from the surfaces of the insulating parts, observed on the 115-kV line mockup make the use of the FRP pole more attractive. The FRP application in this case could prevent the arcs from damaging the insulators. The 115-kV line configuration would be very useful if it can also be proved to have a very good contamination performance under AC voltage.

14 K-012574-001-RC-0001-R00

Prepared by: ___________________________________________________


Approved by: ___________________________________________________


ZL:JC


14 K-012574-001-RC-0001-R00

Prepared by: ___________________________________________________


Approved by: ___________________________________________________


ZL:JC


15 K-012574-001-RC-0001-R00

16 K-012574-001-RC-0001-R00

17 K-012574-001-RC-0001-R00

DISTRIBUTION

Mr. B. Lacoursiere (3) RS Technologies 2421 37th Avenue NE Suite 400 Calgary, Albert T2E 6Y7

Dr. Z. Li Kinectrics Inc., KL206 Tel: 416-207-6000 X6489 [email protected]

RSI Urethane Resin Material Property Summary Report Introduction The ALBERTA RESEARCH COUNCIL (ARC) was retained by Resin Systems Inc. (RSI) to develop an engineering property database for variations of its platform urethane resin technology that target specific end user requirements.

• fast cure for increased production speeds in pultrusion – Version PUL-G • filament winding system – Version FW

The technical team at RSI used its expertise in urethane coatings technology to attack the barriers preventing urethane use in composites. The formulation uses relatively inexpensive raw materials that are readily available in large quantities from the chemical companies that supply the urethane foam and coatings industries. The initial target market for Version PUL-G resin is the pultrusion industry. It has been optimized for this process, and has been formulated as a direct replacement for traditional resins that currently dominate in this market segment. A significant potential market for the use of Version resins is the composite process of filament winding. The largest market in the filament winding composite industry is the manufacture of small diameter pipe and tubing. This tubing is used in a variety of industries, but its primary use is underground pipe where high strength and inherent corrosion resistance are important characteristics. The primary pipe markets are petroleum exploration and production and chemical plant construction. Other filament winding applications include water softeners, water heater tanks, large diameter pipe, electrical components, utility poles and pole extensions. This report summarized the test data obtained by the Alberta Research Council for this resin and for polyester, vinyl ester, and epoxy resins used in similar applications. Test Procedures Specimen Preparation Test specimen preparation began with cutting representative samples from the supplied sample stock using a diamond blade cut-off saw. For the most part, all test specimens were then cut from a representative sample using a water cooled, diamond blade dicing saw. The dicing saw was used to minimize the damage sustained by the test specimens during preparation. Unless otherwise indicated, all test specimen dimensions were established following the requirements listed in the relevant ASTM test specification. Prior to evaluation, the test specimens were allowed to condition for a minimum of 40 hours at a temperature of 23°C and relative humidity of 50%. Tensile The tensile test was conducted in accordance with ASTM D3039. This test reports the tensile strength and modulus (stiffness) of a composite material with unidirectional fibers. The test is usually performed in the fiber direction (longitudinal) or perpendicular to the

1

fiber direction (transverse). Because the stress strain curve for polymer based materials is never really straight, the modulus at various strains is reported. The is done by measuring the slope of the curve from the zero load point to the desired strain point (0, .5%, 1.0% etc.) Flexural The flexural or bending test was conducted in accordance with ASTM D790, where a rectangular beam of material is end supported and loaded at its center. Usually a flexural strength and stiffness of the material is reported. Although this test does not provide highly useful engineering design data, is an inexpensive test that is adequate for material comparison and quality control purposes. Compression The compression test was conducted in accordance with ASTM D695 and Boeing Specification Support Standard BSS 7260. Tabbed test specimens were prepared for both the longitudinal and transverse directions and mechanical properties measured. Izod Impact The Izod impact test was conducted in accordance with ASTM D256. Specimens were prepared for both the longitudinal and transverse directions. The impact test specimens were notched, using an air cooled, milling machine. The notching provides a specimen with a damage site for impact created cracking to start, so is felt by some to be a more representative test for rating the impact properties of a real material. Corrections for windage and friction were subtracted from the indicated breaking energy to calculate the corrected Izod impact strength. Unnotched Impact The unnotched impact test was conducted in accordance with ASTM D4812. This is a clean, polished specimen with no obvious place for an impact-generated crack to start. Specimens were prepared for both the longitudinal and transverse directions. Corrections for windage and friction were subtracted from the indicated breaking energy to calculate the corrected unnotched impact strength. Water Absorption The water absorption test was conducted in accordance with ASTM D570-98. Six 3" x 1" test specimens were obtained from each sample material and were evaluated in accordance with the following procedures:

a) Twenty-four hour immersion at ambient temperatures b) Long-term immersion at ambient temperatures c) Immersion at 50°C

Interlaminar Shear The interlaminar shear test was conducted in accordance with ASTM D2344. Specimens were prepared for both the longitudinal and transverse directions. The test is basically a very short end supported beam with a bending force applied to its center. Shear between the lamina of the composite dominate the stresses so generates interlaminar shear strengths.

2

Specific Gravity Specific gravity determinations were performed in accordance with ASTM D792 – Test Method A. The specific gravity is a way of stating the density of the material. Ignition Loss Ignition loss generates the amount of fiber in a composite sample on a weight percent basis. The ignition loss tests were performed as per ASTM D2584-02. Each sample was tested in triplicate, with the average result being reported as the ignition loss (resin content). The values are reported as a weight percent. Coefficient of Linear Thermal Expansion The coefficient of thermal expansion is how much a material expands for a degree of temperature rise. The method used for determining the coefficient of linear thermal expansion was ASTM E831-00. The expansion coefficient was measured for each direction (length, width, and thickness. The expansion coefficients were calculated for the temperature range of 0°C to 200°C. The instrument used for the determinations was a TA Instruments TMA 2940 thermomechanical analyzer. The analyses were performed at a sample heating rate of 5°C/minute from -30°C to 205°C. For samples with designations 3L3, 3L4, 3L5, R1, and R2, the specimens were put through a heating/ cooling cycle to relieve internal stresses prior to the expansion measurements. This was performed by heating the sample to 120°C at a rate of 10°C/minute, then cooling to the test start temperature at the same rate. Samples designated U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, and U6 were analyzed ‘as received’. Glass Transition Temperature The glass transition temperature is the temperature at which the material undergoes a molecular arrangement change. It shows up as a slight change in density, modulus, and thermal expansion. It is wise not to put a material into service above its glass transition temperature not only because of mechanical loss, but also because degradation occurs faster. Glass transition temperature determinations were performed in accordance with ASTM E1640-94. The instrument used for the determinations was a TA Instruments DMA 983 dynamic mechanical analyzer. Samples were run from ambient temperature to 125°C. Specific Heat The specific heat is the amount of heat per unit mass required to raise the temperature by one degree Celsius. The specific heat was measured in accordance with ASTM E1269 using the differential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The specific heat values are used to calculate the thermal conductivity. Thermal Conductivity The thermal conductivity was determined for samples U1-U10. The thermal conductivity (λ) is the product of the thermal diffusivity (α), specific heat (Cp), and bulk density (d). The determination of the thermal diffusivity was subcontracted to Thermophysical Properties Research Laboratory Inc. They determined the thermal diffusivity using the laser flash diffusivity method (ASTM E1461). The bulk densities were determined based upon sample dimensions and masses. ARC provided the specific heat data.

3

Tensile Fatigue The tensile fatigue tests are performed in accordance with ASTM D3479. The specimens are subjected to tension-tension cyclic loading with upper range varying from 40-90% and a lower range of 10%. The number of cycles to failure is recorded. The frequency of the loading ranges from 2-4 Hz depending on the loading range. The tests are being done on samples U1-U10, with six test specimens for each of the six load ranges. These tests are still in progress. Creep The creep tests are a flexural creep and are being performed in accordance with ASTM D2990. The flexural coupons are end supported and loaded in the middle with loads that correspond to a percentage of the failure stress. The range of loads have been from 90% to 45% of failure stress. The time to failure is recorded, if the specimen does not fail the test is terminated after a minimum of 3600 hours. These tests are still in progress Discussion of Results For the summary of the results only selected results will be presented that best show the comparative performance of the different laminates. Comparison Of Unidirectional Samples Without Filler Samples designate U1 through U6 are unidirectional pultruded materials using PUL-G and commodity polyester, vinyl ester, and epoxy as the matrix (see Appendix A for list of all samples tested and their identifiers). Fiber weight fractions were relatively uniform for all the samples allowing a direct comparison of material properties without adjustment. The following table compares the unfilled (neat resin) unidirectional urethane to polyester samples in the fiber direction. Comparison of Unidirectional Urethane Pultrusion to Other Resins in Fiber Direction * Property Version PUL-G. Polyester Vinyl Ester Epoxy Volume Fraction, % 65.7 62.4 63.8 61.3 Tensile Modulus, GPa 53.4 51.7 49.7 50.8 Flexural Modulus, GPa 54.5 55.7 43.9 44.7 Ultimate Tensile Strength, MPa 1160 1130 1120 922 Stress @ First Break, MPa 1140 953 908 900 Izod Impact, J/m 4310 3960 4840 3330 Unnotched Impact, J/m 6280 4590 6470 4750 Interlaminar Shear Strength, MPa 64.1 35.2 63.5 61.3 Glass Transition Temperature, ºC 51.7 51.2 101.5 89.2 Water Absorption, % 0.81 0.53 0.19 0.20

4

Relative Performance of ResinsLongitudinal Properties

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

Tensil

e Mod

ulus

Flexura

l Mod

ulus

Ultimate

Tensil

e Stre

ngth

Izod I

mpact

Unnotc

hed I

mpact

Interl

amina

r She

ar Stre

ngth

Glass T

ransit

ion Tem

perat

ure

Wate

r Abs

orptio

n

Properties

% o

f Ver

sion

PU

L-G

Version PUL-G. PolyesterVinyl EsterEpoxy

A complete series of tests have been performed comparing the results for Version PUL-G, polyester, vinyl ester, and epoxy, for unfilled unidirectional pultruded samples. The Version PUL-G samples performed significantly better than the polyester for unnotched impacts and interlaminar shear strengths. This would give urethanes an advantage in areas where post manufacture drilling and cutting is required since the tendency to split along the fibers would be greatly reduced. Advantages would also be seen in components that experience rough handling or otherwise be susceptible to impact damage. The Version PUL-G resin performed equivalent to or better than vinyl ester and epoxy for most of the tests. The stiffness in the fiber direction varies little between resins so that advantages in stiffness or deflection limited applications are not as obvious. The interlaminar shear and impact strengths of the urethane pultrusion are better that the polyester pultrusions The following table compares the unfilled unidirectional urethane to polyester samples perpendicular to the fiber direction. Comparison of Unidirectional Urethane Pultrusion to Other Resins Perpendicular to Fiber Direction* Property Version PUL-G Polyester Vinyl Ester Epoxy Tensile Modulus, GPa 14.1 4.2 14.5 14.6 Tensile Strength, MPa 37.3 2.67 20.8 40.8 Strain @ First Break, % 0.30 0.21 0.27 0.39 Interlaminar Shear, MPa 11.1 2.5 9.5 13.4 Unnotched Impact, J/m 110 50 142 177

5

Relative Performance of ResinsTransverse Properties

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

Tensile Modulus Tensile Strength Strain @ FirstBreak

InterlaminarShear

UnnotchedImpact

Property

% o

f Ver

sion

PU

L-G

Version PUL-GPolyesterVinyl EsterEpoxy

For the transverse material properties the urethane pultrusions are significantly superior to polyester; shows an improvement over vinyl ester in terms of strength, elongation, and shear; and is slightly inferior to the epoxy pultrusions. Effect of Fillers on Unidirectional Urethane Pultrusion Properties Besides lowering the cost per unit volume of pultrusion resin, fillers can change the mechanical properties of the urethane pultruded material in the following manner. Comparison of longitudinal properties of Version PUL-G resin with fillers Property Unfilled W/ 15% Calcium

Carbonate W/30% Calcium

Carbonate W/ 30% Clay

Tensile Modulus, GPa 53.4 49.0 48.3 52.6 Ultimate Tensile Stress, MPa 1160 906 821 974 Strain @ First Break, % 2.15 1.94 1.77 1.86 Interlaminar Shear, MPa 64.1 59.0 61.0 64.9 Izod Impact, J/m 4310 3530 3300 3940 Unnotched Impact, J/m 6280 5630 5340 5970 Glass Transition, ºC 51.7 67.9 73.1 62.1 Water Absorption, % 0.81 0.75 0.71 0.64

6

Relative Performance of Resin with FillersLongitudinal Properties

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

Tensil

e Mod

ulus

Ultimate

Tensil

e Stre

ss

Strain

@ Firs

t Brea

k

Interl

amina

r She

ar

Izod I

mpact

Unnotc

hed I

mpact

Glass T

ransit

ion

Wate

r Abs

orptio

n

Property

% o

f Unf

illed

Res

in

UnfilledW/ 15% Calcium CarbonateW/30% Calcium CarbonateW/ 30% Clay

The addition of fillers resulted in slightly lower mechanical properties compared to the unfilled resin. The fillers did result in an improvement in the glass transition temperature, and a slight reduction in water absorption. Comparison of transverse properties of Version PUL-G resin with fillers Property Unfilled W/ 15% Calcium

Carbonate W/30% Calcium

Carbonate W/ 30% Clay

Tensile Modulus, GPa 14.1 11.0 11.4 13.2 Ultimate Tensile Stress, MPa 37.3 27.9 25.1 40.6 Strain @ First Break, % 0.30 0.30 0.26 0.34 Interlaminar Shear, MPa 11.1 10.3 10.5 12.2 Unnotched Impact, J/m 110 120 160 70

7

Relative Performance of Resin with FillersTransverse Properties

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

TensileModulus

UltimateTensileStress

Strain @ FirstBreak

InterlaminarShear

UnnotchedImpact

Property

% o

f Unf

illed

Res

in

UnfilledW/ 15% Calcium CarbonateW/30% Calcium CarbonateW/ 30% Clay

Comparison of Laminates Pultruded with Various Resins Samples designated with an “L” indicate a pultruded laminate- a 3L meaning a three layer laminate and a 5L meaning a 5 layer laminate. The three-layer laminate consisted of two layers of mat and one layer of continuous fibres in the middle. Comparison of 3 Layer Pultruded Urethane Laminates to Other Resins* Property Version PUL-G Polyester Vinyl Ester Epoxy Fibre Volume Fraction, % 60.3 55.2 48.6 53.3 Tensile Strength, MPa 848 801 790 794 Tensile Modulus, GPa 46.2 42.1 35.3 40.2 Compressive Strength, MPa 330 326 227 238 Compressive Modulus, GPa 43.8 42.1 38.1 44.3 Interlaminar Shear, MPa 47.0 29.0 46.6 49.1 Unnotched Impact, J/m 5190 4090 3340 3310

8

Relative Performance of 3 Layer Laminates

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Fibre V

olume F

ractio

n

Tensil

e Stre

ngth

Tensil

e Mod

ulus

Compre

ssive

Streng

th

Compre

ssive

Mod

ulus

Interl

amina

r She

ar

Unnotc

hed I

mpact

Property

% o

f Ver

sion

PU

L-G

Version PUL-GPolyesterVinyl EsterEpoxy

On the basis of standardized test procedures, it is seen that the urethane pultruded laminates are significantly better than polyesters, vinyl ester, and epoxy in laminate compressive properties. However, it should be noted that the fibre volume for the Version PUL-G samples was significantly higher than for the polyester, vinyl ester, and epoxy samples. Since these tests are typically fibre dominated, a higher fibre volume would result in better results. Conclusions of Comparative Testing of RSI Version G Resin Some of the tests were conducted to compare the material properties of RSI Version PUL-G resin with the properties of polyester, vinyl ester, and epoxy resins. For the comparison tests different composite laminates were created. The laminate compositions included: unidirectional glass fiber and neat resin; unidirectional glass fiber and resin with 15% calcium carbonate; three layer laminates with mat on the outer layers; and a 5 layer laminate with alternating mat and unidirectional layers. For the unidirectional fiber composites the tests were conducted in the longitudinal and transverse orientations. As with all composites the properties are a combination of the resin properties, fiber properties, and the properties of their interface. For comparison of the resin performance the unidirectional laminates are more indicative since the off-axis properties are not dominated by the fiber reinforcement. For most of the tests the properties of the neat resin were superior to the resin with filler, so the neat resin composites are used for this comparison.

9

Longitudinal Tests The use of Version PUL-G resin for the unidirectional laminates showed a significant improvement in the longitudinal tensile properties. The Version PUL-G has one of the highest ultimate strengths compared to the other resins. More important is the stress at first break, which indicates the resins load sharing properties; because the Version PUL-G is able to share the load between the fibers better there is little premature fiber failure. A lower stress at first break could lead to more rapid progressive failure at sustained high loads. The stress at first break for the RSI resin was 14% higher than polyester, 22% higher than vinyl ester, and 18% higher than epoxy. For the notched and unnotched impact tests the Version PUL-G performed significantly better than the polyester and epoxy resins. There was a 37% improvement of the Version PUL-G composite over the polyester composite for the unnotched impact tests, and a 32% improvement over the epoxy composite. The interlaminar shear properties are often used as an indicator of how well the resin and fiber bond together. The RSI resin showed a 344% improvement in interlaminar shear strength over the polyester resin.

Relative Performance of ResinsTensile Properties

(adjusted for 60%Vf)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Version PUL-G. Polyester Vinyl Ester Epoxy

Material Property

Rel

ativ

e Pe

rfor

man

ce (%

)

Ultimate Tensile StressStress @ First BreakStrain @ First Break

10

Transverse Tests The transverse tensile strength of the Version PUL-G resin was significantly better than for polyester and vinylester. For the transverse tensile strength the Version PUL-G composite had showed a 1297% improvement over the polyester composite, and a 79% improvement over the vinyl ester composite. The improved tensile strength in the transverse direction could possibly result in less mat reinforcement required for transverse load, particularly when compared to the polyester composite. The short beam shear test was used to determine the shear strength in the transverse direction. The shear strength of the Version PUL-G resin was 344% higher than polyester and 17% higher than vinyl ester. Conclusions Although no one resin performed the best for every test, overall the Version PUL-G resin performed better than polyester, vinyl ester, and epoxy. The Version PUL-G resin performed better than polyester for almost every mechanical property test. Compared to vinyl ester the Version PUL-G resin had better unidirectional and transverse strength and interlaminar shear properties. Compared to epoxy the Version PUL-G resin performed better for longitudinal tensile strength, tensile modulus, and impact strength.

11

Appendix “A” List of Samples Tested

RSI Sample Log In Date: June 02, 2004

Lab Number Designations:C - Clear resin cast 3T - 3 layer laminate, tranverseU - Unidirectional flat plate E - Experimental Filament Wind ResinsT - Transverse flat plate AS - Additional SamplesR - Random fiber flat plate 5L - 5 Layer laminate

3L - 3 layer laminate P - Pole samples (only used with pose sample numbers that have long RSI identification numbers)

Lab Binder RSI Sample Number Received Quantity Status CommentsNumber Location Date

C1 n/a Version PUL-G Neat (00NT-00-000) 16-May-02 2 plates rejected samples not used because of internal voidsC2 n/a Version PUL-G 15 pbw Calcium Carbonate (15CC-07-000) 16-May-02 2 plates rejected samples not used because of internal voidsC3 n/a Version PUL-G 30 pbw Calcium Carbonate (30CC-07-000) 16-May-02 2 plates rejected samples not used because of internal voidsU1 1 Version PUL-G Neat (00NT-00-000) 16-May-02 5 strips completedU2 1 Version PUL-G 15 pbw Calcium Carbonate (15CC-07-000) 16-May-02 5 strips completedU3 1 Version PUL-G 15 pbw Clay (15CL-01-000) 16-May-02 5 strips completedU4 1 Version PUL-G 30 pbw Calcium Carbonate (30CC-07-000) 16-May-02 5 strips completedE1 2 Version FW Exp #1 Resin and ISO 10-Jun-02 4L each completedE2 2 Version FW Exp #2 Resin and ISO 10-Jun-02 4L each completedE3 2 Version FW Exp #3 Resin and ISO 10-Jun-02 4L each completed3L1 n/a Version PUL-G 15CC-07-000 3 Layer Laminate 25-Jun-02 4 strips rejected rejected by RSI3L2 n/a Version PUL-G 15CL-07-000 3 Layer Laminate 25-Jun-02 5 strips rejected rejected by RSIU5 3 Polyester All Roving 25-Jun-02 5 strips completedU6 3 Polyester 15pbw Calcium Carbonate 25-Jun-02 5 strips completed3L3 4 Version 00NT-00-00 (Neat - no filler), 2 mat/roving (laminate) 25-Sep-02 5 strips completed3L4 4 Polyester Neat, 2 mat/rovings (laminate) 25-Sep-02 5 strips completed3L5 4 Poyester 15 pbw CC, 2 mat/rovings (laminate) 25-Sep-02 5 strips completedR1 5 All mat Polyester Resin Neat (no filler) 25-Sep-02 5 strips completedR2 5 All mat Polyester Resin 15 pbw CaCO3 25-Sep-02 5 strips completed

AS1 6 Version Sample #1 3-Mar-03 5 strips completedAS2 6 Version Sample #2 3-Mar-03 5 strips completedAS3 6 Version Sample #3 3-Mar-03 6 strips completedAS4 6 Version Sample #4 3-Mar-03 6 strips completedAS5 6 Version Sample #5 3-Mar-03 3 strips completedAS6 6 Version Sample #6 3-Mar-03 5 strips completedAS7 6 Version Sample #7 3-Mar-03 5 strips completedAS8 6 Version Sample #8 3-Mar-03 5 strips completedAS9 6 Version Sample #9 3-Mar-03 4 strips completed

1 of 4 RSI Sample List.xls


3L1 7 Version 15CC 3 Layer Laminate 7-Apr-03 5 completed replacements for 3L1 submitted 25-Jun-023L2 7 Version 15CL 3 Layer Laminate 7-Apr-03 5 completed replacements for 3L2 submitted 25-Jun-03U7 8 Epoxy Neat Unidirectional 7-Apr-03 5 completedU8 8 Epoxy 15CC Unidirectional 7-Apr-03 5 completedU9 8 Vinyl Ester Neat Unidirectional 7-Apr-03 5 completedU10 8 Vinyl Ester 15CC Unidirectional 7-Apr-03 5 completed3L6 9 Epoxy Neat 3 Layer Laminate 7-Apr-03 5 completed3L7 9 Epoxy 15CC 3 Layer Laminate 7-Apr-03 5 completed3L8 9 Vinyl Ester Neat 3 Layer Laminate 7-Apr-03 5 completed3L9 9 Vinyl Ester 15CC 3 Layer Laminate 7-Apr-03 5 completed5L1 10 Epoxy Neat 5 Layer Laminate 7-Apr-03 5 completed5L2 10 Epoxy 15CC 5 Layer Laminate 7-Apr-03 5 completed5L3 10 Vinyl Ester Neat 5 Layer Laminate 7-Apr-03 5 completed5L4 10 Vinyl Ester 15CC 5 Layer Laminate 7-Apr-03 5 completedC4 11 Version FW STD Feb 27/03 26-May-03 5 plates completedC5 11 Version FW No Sieve Feb 27/03 26-May-03 6 plates completedC6 11 Version VOR FW 26-May-03 5 plates completedC7 11 Version PUL-G May 14/03 26-May-03 5 plates completed

C4A 11 Version FW STD 20-Jun-03 3 plates completedC5A 11 Version FW No Sieve 20-Jun-03 5 plates completedC6A 11 Version VOR FW 20-Jun-03 5 plates completedC7A 11 Version PUL-G Neat 20-Jun-03 3 plates completed62 12 Ring sample from pole 9-Sep-03 1 ring completed interlaminar shear62 -- Powder sample from pole 9-Sep-03 ~20g passed on sample passed on to Cheryl for IR68 12 Ring sample from pole 9-Sep-03 2 rings completed interlaminar shear68 -- Powder sample from pole 9-Sep-03 ~20g passed on sample passed on to Cheryl for IRS7 12 Ring sample from pole 11-Sep-03 1 ring completed interlaminar shear62A 12 Ring sample from pole 12-Sep-03 1 ring completed interlaminar shear68A 12 Ring sample from pole 12-Sep-03 1 ring completed interlaminar shearS7A 12 Ring sample from pole 12-Sep-03 1 ring completed interlaminar shear400 12 Polyol resin sample for dehydration and water analysis 17-Sep-03 1 pint completed sample passsed to Gas Lab68B 12 68 middle, ring sample from pole 17-Sep-03 2 rings completed interlaminar shear68C 12 68 heated 24 hrs, ring sample from pole 17-Sep-03 2 rings completed interlaminar shearSA 12 Sample A Sept. 15/03, ring sample from pole 17-Sep-03 2 rings completed interlaminar shear

UFR 12 Ver PUL-G FR Sept. 12/03 17-Sep-03 1 strip completed flexural, compression and tensile only92A 12 Sample A Test #1 - Propane infrared heated 19-Sep-03 1 ring completed interlaminar shear92B 12 Sample B Test #2 - No heat and no IR 19-Sep-03 1 ring completed interlaminar shear92B2 12 Sample B2 Test #1 - No heat, 2 ft away from electric IR 19-Sep-03 1 ring completed interlaminar shear92B3 12 Sample B3 Test #1 - Electric infrared heat 19-Sep-03 1 ring completed interlaminar shear93C 12 Sample C Test #1 - Propane infrared heat 19-Sep-03 1 ring completed interlaminar shear93D 12 Sample D Test #2 - No IR, regular oil heat after 19-Sep-03 1 ring completed interlaminar shear



BE 12 Sample from north 19-Sep-03 1 ring completed interlaminar shear86 12 Ring sample from pole 8-Oct-03 1 ring completed specific gravity and burn out88 12 Ring sample from pole 8-Oct-03 1 ring completed specific gravity and burn out137 13 Pipe sample from middle of pole #137 20-Oct-03 1 pipe completed145 13 Pipe sample from pole #145 22-Oct-03 1 pipe completed43 13 Pipe sample from pole #43 27-10-03 1 pipe completed

GRS 13 Glass Roving Sample 30-10-03 completed specific gravity and burn outU1-U10 14 Fracture Surface SEM Photographs -- -- completed SEM photographs of transverse tensile,

Izod impact, and unnotched impactA1-C3 15 Pole Samples: A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C1, C2, C3 21-Jan-04 9 pieces completed S.G., fiber content, void content, I. Shear

C8 15 Ver FW Neat Jan 29/04 30-Jan-04 1 disk completed densityC9 15 Ver FW Neat Jan 29/04 30-Jan-04 1 disk completed density

2 - 14 15 Ring Samples: 2,3,5d,6a,7,7b,8f,10,11b,12,13b,14 17-Feb-04 12 Rings completed interlaminar shear, Density45 15 Pole Sample: 45 2-Mar-04 1 piece completed density and void content

15 - 22 15 Ring Samples: 15, 17, 18a, 19, 19b, 22 26-Feb-04 6 rings completed interlaminar shear25 - 26a 15 Ring Samples: 25, 25a, 25b, 25c, 26, 26a 22-Mar-04 6 rings completed interlaminar shear

U1E -- Extra sample for Version Pul-G Neat 23-Mar-04 3 strips -- used for fatigue tensile testingU2E -- Extra sample for Version Pul-G 15CC 23-Mar-04 3 strips -- used for fatigue tensile testingU3E -- Extra sample for Version Pul-G 15CL 23-Mar-04 3 strips -- used for fatigue tensile testingU4E -- Extra sample for Version Pul-G 30CC 23-Mar-04 3 strips -- used for fatigue tensile testing90 15 Pole sample 90 29-Mar-04 3 pieces completed S.G., fiber content, void content, I. Shear

C50 - G120 15 Hockey stick shafts 2-Apr-04 17 shafts completed Fiber contentU11 16 2004/03/23/02 Fire Retardant 7-Apr-04 2 Strips Fire Test (Jim M.), IS, TensileU12 16 Ver.Pull-G. Neat PPG 2004/03 2301 7-Apr-04 4 Strips completed Interlaminar Shear, Tensile-TransverseU13 16 IMRA 7-Apr-04 4 Strips completed Interlaminar Shear, Tensile-TransverseU14 16 Pul-G 37600 Des1 7-Apr-04 2 Strips completed Interlaminar Shear, Tensile-TransverseU15 16 PPG Vaccum PPG r/s 2004 032303 7-Apr-04 4 Strips completed Interlaminar Shear, Tensile-TransverseU16 16 Ver Pull-G Neat IMR:B 7-Apr-04 4 Strips completed Interlaminar Shear, Tensile-Transverse

27-28A 16 Ring Samples: 27, 27A, 28, 28A 15-Apr-04 4 rings completed Interlaminar Shear144 16 Pole Sample 144 21-Apr-04 2 pieces completed Interlaminar Shear, Density, Void Content

29-30A 16 Ring Samples: 29, 29B, 30, 30A 21-Apr-04 4 rings completed Interlaminar shear4224 16 Tensile Samples 21-Apr-04 5 pieces Tensile4223 16 Tensile Samples 21-Apr-04 5 pieces Tensile4028 16 Unidirectional pultruded plate 21-Apr-04 1 piece Interlaminar Shear4166 16 Unidirectional pultruded plate 21-Apr-04 1 piece Interlaminar Shear4186 16 Unidirectional pultruded plate 21-Apr-04 1 piece Interlaminar Shear

133-147 17 Pole Samples: 133, 143, 145-04, 147 26-Apr-04 8 pieces Interlaminar Shear, Density, Void Content29A 17 Ring Sample: 29A 26-Apr-04 1 ring Interlaminar Shear

PUL-G 17 Version PUL-G Neat sample for 2' tunnel test 26-Apr-04 1 piece 2' Tunnel Test4224 17 Cast Resin Samples 26-Apr-04 3 pieces Tg (ASTM E1640) and Heat Deflection Temp4223 17 Cast Resin Samples 26-Apr-04 3 pieces Tg (ASTM E1640) and Heat Deflection Temp



60 17 Pole Sample 60 29-Apr-04 1 ring completed Interlaminar Shear, Density, Void ContentU1 - U10 18 Heat Capacity and Thermal Conductivity -- --

P1 19 Pole RD3-11-0504 18-May-04 2 pieces IS, Flex, Density, Void Content


Appendix “B” Summary of Longitudinal Tests

RSI Test ProgramLongitudinal Summary

6/2/2004

Test Name ASTM U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 3L3 3L4 3L5 R1 R2Fiber Content (Weight Fraction) 78.4 75.8 78.1 77.5 76.6 74.6 75.3 71.8 70.1 39.7 41.5Fiber Content (Volume Fraction) 65.7 62.2 65.3 64.5 62.4 60.2 60.3 55.2 54.4 24.0 25.7Specific Gravity D792 2.135 2.089 2.129 2.120 2.076 2.054 2.040 1.957 1.973 1.536 1.575Tensile D3039 Modulus, CS (GPa) 53.4 49 52.6 48.3 51.7 48 46.2 42.1 42.8 9.32 9.54 Modulus at 0.5% (GPa) 52.7 47.1 50.9 46.1 50.5 47.3 42.1 38.4 37.2 7.14 7.37 Modulus at 1.0% (GPa) 51.3 46.4 49.9 45.2 49.2 47.0 42.0 38.1 36.8 6.11 5.68 Stress at First Break (MPa) 1140 901 936 817 953 873 824 791 628 128 121 Strain at First Break (%) 2.15 1.94 1.86 1.77 1.77 1.88 1.97 2.11 1.62 1.99 1.90 Maximum Stress (MPa) 1160 906 974 821 1130 951 848 801 647 128 121Flexural D790 Modulus (GPa) 54.5 48.8 54.1 48.6 55.7 52.1 31.1 26.9 28.1 9.3 9.6 Strength (MPa) 1290 1150 1260 1100 1250 1220 543 702 729 204 210 Elongation (%) 2.94 2.87 2.88 2.74 2.60 2.69 2.12 3.41 3.26 3.26 3.11Compression D695 Modulus (GPa) 59.1 46.6 52.1 48.3 53.5 49.1 43.8 42.1 39.6 10.4 9.96 Strength (MPa) 586 543 685 574 576 488 330 326 373 154 135 Elongation (%) 1.23 1.34 1.39 1.36 1.02 1.16 0.82 0.71 1.07 1.78 1.72Interlaminar Shear D2344 Strength (MPa) 64.1 59.0 64.9 61.0 35.2 51.2 47.0 29.0 40.9 24.1 24.7Izod Impact (J/m) 4310 3530 3940 3300 3960 4690 3100 2980 3200 960 760Unnotched Impact (J/m) 6280 5630 5970 5340 4590 5670 5190 4090 4190 1330 1070Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (µm/°C) E831 7.1 7.5 9.0 6.4 5.0 5.8 5.7 6.4 6.9 13.0 11.6Glass Transition (°C) D3418 51.7 67.9 62.1 73.1 51.2 51.4 62.5 61.7 57.5 58.0 56.5Water Absorption D570 24 Hour Immersion (%) 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.12 0.07 0.27 0.54 0.54 0.93 0.46 Immersion at 50C (%) 0.23 0.21 0.18 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.82 0.89 0.89 1.11 1.63 Long-Term Immersion (%) 0.81 0.75 0.64 0.71 0.53 0.47 1.72 1.66 1.58 2.05 2.12Thermal Conductivity E1269/E1461Specific Heat Capacity E1269Fatigue FlexuralFatigue Tensile D3479Creep D2990Elevated Flexural D790Fire ResistanceArc Resistance D495Track Resistance D2303

Results provided to RSI in TPRL Report #3128

Can be contracted out to VTEC Laboratories at US$400/sampleCan be contracted out to VTEC Laboratories at US$1200/sample

In progressIn progress

Results provided to RSI in TPRL Report #3128

RSI Testing Results.xls


6/2/2004

Additional SamplesTest Name ASTM AS1 AS2 AS3 AS4 AS5 AS6 AS7 AS8 AS9Fiber Content (Weight Fraction) 77.4 76.9 76.7 79.0 77.7 79.7 79.4 76.5 75.1Fiber Content (Volume Fraction) 62.6 62.0 61.7 64.9 62.6 65.2 66.2 63.2 61.3Flexural D790 Modulus (GPa) 47.7 47.4 45.2 54.2 51.6 53.0 54.9 52.0 51.6 Strength (MPa) 1210 1130 1060 1310 1200 1260 1340 1330 1200 Elongation (%) 3.25 3.00 2.91 3.10 2.80 3.05 3.31 3.75 2.96In-Plane Shear D4255 Modulus (GPa) 4.92 5.11 4.31 5.29 3.03 5.76 5.86 6.47 6.22 Strength (MPa) 36.7 45.7 39.8 41.3 22.4 46.0 46.0 43.6 41.7



6/2/2004

Test Name U7 U8 U9 U10 3L1 3L2 3L6 3L7 3L8 3L9 5L1 5L2 5L3 5L4 UFRFiber Content (Weight Fraction) 78.6 77.4 77.9 78.5 70.4 69.2 69.6 69.9 68.9 70.1 63.1 64.2 61.3 61.1 --Fiber Content (Volume Fraction) 63.8 62.6 61.3 62.7 54.5 54.0 53.3 53.8 48.6 51.2 42.9 44.2 39.4 40.5 --Specific Gravity 2.064 2.058 2.005 2.031 1.97 1.988 1.948 1.961 1.798 1.86 1.729 1.753 1.635 1.689 --Tensile Modulus, CS (GPa) 50.8 48.3 49.7 49.6 36.5 37.6 40.2 36.5 35.3 36.8 26.2 25.8 21.7 22.2 45.5 Modulus at 0.5% (GPa) 49.2 46.8 48.1 47.1 35.5 35.7 38.5 35.8 33.7 34.7 24.3 23.3 20 20.1 44.9 Modulus at 1.0% (GPa) 47.4 45.6 47.2 46.8 34.2 34.6 37.5 34.2 32.5 33.1 22.8 22.5 18.6 18.6 43.7 Stress at First Break (MPa) 900 823 908 939 726 745 787 748 790 734 507 499 410 399 1070 Strain at First Break (%) 1.88 1.79 1.91 2.02 2.18 2.17 2.14 2.22 2.49 2.23 2.23 2.22 2.19 2.11 2.49 Maximum Stress (MPa) 922 887 1120 1010 726 745 794 750 790 755 508 501 410 399 1070Flexural Modulus (GPa) 44.7 43.1 43.9 43.4 21.3 21.8 22.6 24.9 17.4 19.1 17.3 17.8 16.5 15.5 44.9 Strength (MPa) 1080 1040 1210 1140 589 603 654 696 516 554 479 481 472 412 1130 Elongation (%) 2.94 2.91 4.18 3.44 4.19 4.32 4.44 3.97 5.04 4.49 4.08 3.76 4.14 3.96 3.22Compression Modulus (GPa) 50.9 47.2 46.4 49.8 44.6 45 44.3 38.7 38.1 42.3 26.3 24.1 24.5 24.2 48.0 Strength (MPa) 456 424 408 431 257 245 238 271 227 228 214 189 182 167 613 Elongation (%) 1.04 1.32 0.99 0.97 0.87 0.85 0.81 0.8 0.81 0.74 0.8 0.68 0.84 0.82 1.32Interlaminar Shear Strength (MPa) 61.3 59.3 63.5 67.8 44.5 48.4 49.1 46.7 46.6 51.5 39.1 36.9 35.7 38.4 --Izod Impact (J/m) 3330 3360 4840 4120 2260 2380 2440 2490 2400 2660 2310 2030 2310 2140 --Unnotched Impact (J/m) 4750 5000 6470 5600 3340 3690 3310 3080 3340 3330 2850 2830 3940 3390 --Coef. of Thermal Exp. (µm/°C) --Glass Transition (°C) 89.2 85.9 101.5 102.8 61.4 70.8 88.2 88.1 103.2 103.6 87.6 87.6 103.7 107 --Water Absorption 24 Hour Immersion (%) 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.24 0.22 0.11 0.1 0.24 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.23 0.13 -- Immersion at 50C (%) 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.61 0.53 0.18 0.19 0.37 0.24 0.26 0.25 0.37 0.26 -- Long-Term Immersion (%) 0.20 0.22 0.19 0.20 1.33 1.14 0.41 0.38 0.96 0.62 0.54 0.53 1.17 0.57 --Thermal ConductivitySpecific Heat CapacityFatigue FlexuralFatigue TensileCreepElevated FlexuralFire ResistanceArc ResistanceTrack Resistance

In progress

Thermal conductivity not determined for these samplesSpecific heat not determined for these samples

Not started

Can be contracted out to VTEC Laboratories at US$400/sampleCan be contracted out to VTEC Laboratories at US$1200/sample

In progress


Appendix “C” Summary of Transverse Tests

RSI Test ProgramTransverse Summary

6/2/2004

Test Name ASTM U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 3L3 3L4 3L5 R1 R2Fiber Content (Weight Fraction) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Fiber Content (Volume Fraction) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Specific Gravity D792 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Tensile D3039 Modulus, CS (GPa) 14.1 11.0 13.2 11.4 4.2 10.5 8.94 4.73 5.10 10.9 10.9 Modulus at 0.5% (GPa) -- -- -- -- -- -- 3.18 3.53 3.19 9.86 10.2 Modulus at 1.0% (GPa) -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.99 3.21 2.30 8.75 8.82 Stress at First Break (MPa) 37.3 27.9 40.6 25.1 2.67 15.2 56.1 56.0 47.4 182 171 Strain at First Break (%) 0.30 0.30 0.34 0.26 0.21 0.15 1.86 1.71 1.61 2.08 1.84 Maximum Stress (MPa) 37.3 27.9 40.6 25.1 2.67 15.2 56.1 56.0 47.4 182 171Flexural D790 Modulus (GPa) 16.6 12.7 15.6 13.0 9.55 12.5 10.1 9.7 9.8 11.5 11.7 Strength (MPa) 95.8 83.1 73.2 78.8 15.7 33.4 165 176 158 256 260 Elongation (%) 0.69 0.79 0.55 0.81 0.23 0.28 2.27 2.17 1.97 3.07 3.06Compression D695 Modulus (GPa) 14.2 13.3 15.3 13.2 12.7 13.5 7.53 6.21 5.06 11.1 11.2 Strength (MPa) 106 111 112 111 82.8 115 79.2 92.0 85.0 148 133 Elongation (%) 1.22 1.66 1.29 1.59 1.03 1.48 1.39 1.53 1.65 1.55 1.46Interlaminar Shear D2344 Strength (MPa) 11.1 10.3 12.2 10.5 2.5 4.8 19.2 11.5 13.1 27.2 30.3Izod Impact (J/m) 50 50 50 40 40 20 310 380 270 1040 850Unnotched Impact (J/m) 110 120 70 160 50 50 570 490 430 1380 1300

Coefficient of Thermal Expansion E831 Width (µm/°C) 78.4 97.5 108.4 99.6 58.8 81.2 39.9 22.8 28.7 12.0 12.3 Thickness (µm/°C) 82.7 86.0 133.3 113.0 60.8 77.4 132.8 85.9 92.7 243.9 222.2Glass Transition (°C) D3418 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Water Absorption D570 24 Hour Immersion (%) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Immersion at 50C (%) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Long-Term Immersion (%) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Thermal Conductivity E1269/E1461Specific Heat Capacity E1269Fatigue FlexuralFatigue Tensile D3479Creep D2990Elevated Flexural D790Fire ResistanceArc Resistance D495Track Resistance D2303

Thermal conductivity not determined for this glass orientation


Specific heat capacity not determined for this glass orientation

Can be contracted out to VTEC Laboratories at US$400/sampleCan be contracted out to VTEC Laboratories at US$1200/sampleRSI Testing Results.xls

RSI Test ProgramTransverse Summary

6/2/2004

Test Name U7 U8 U9 U10 3L1 3L2 3L6 3L7 3L8 3L9 5L1 5L2 5L3 5L4Fiber Content (Weight Fraction) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Fiber Content (Volume Fraction) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Specific Gravity -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Tensile Modulus, CS (GPa) 14.6 13.2 14.5 13.8 10.0 14.2 12 13.7 6.57 10.5 10.6 11.1 9.93 11.0 Modulus at 0.5% (GPa) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7.08 6.68 7.11 8.53 Modulus at 1.0% (GPa) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4.54 4.85 4.7 4.32 Stress at First Break (MPa) 40.8 49.7 20.8 33.9 58.8 53.2 44.4 45.3 39.5 35.8 100 90.9 99.3 102 Strain at First Break (%) 0.39 0.71 0.14 0.27 1.46 0.99 0.49 0.45 0.81 0.43 1.62 1.3 1.66 1.48 Maximum Stress (MPa) 40.8 49.7 20.8 33.9 62.2 59.3 49 54.8 51.7 55.5 100 90.9 99.3 103Flexural Modulus (GPa) 11.3 10.9 13.1 13 10.7 11.4 10.3 11 9.41 10.4 9.31 10.1 9.75 10.1 Strength (MPa) 99 89.6 50.9 73.3 180 174 158 149 152 154 182 186 176 183 Elongation (%) 1.25 1.05 0.4 0.61 2.19 2.26 1.91 1.76 2.01 1.82 2.64 2.43 2.31 2.45Compression Modulus (GPa) 13 12.9 13.9 14.7 11.8 12.9 12.2 12.3 6.9 8.39 10.4 11.5 10.3 11.7 Strength (MPa) 94.2 96.3 113 111 117 103 112 111 83.9 89 121 96.9 110 111 Elongation (%) 1.07 1.03 1.24 1.36 1.59 1.2 1.58 1.41 1.3 1.48 1.41 1.53 1.16 1.15Interlaminar Shear Strength (MPa) 13.4 11.4 9.5 11.3 22.1 21.7 20.0 20.7 15.3 17.4 24.0 22.2 28.6 24.0Izod Impact (J/m) 82.8 100 71.8 82.4 255 258 290 254 355 276 447 427 521 478Unnotched Impact (J/m) 177 174 142 238 413 434 460 420 502 493 761 766 979 862

Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Width (µm/°C) Thickness (µm/°C)Glass Transition (°C) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Water Absorption 24 Hour Immersion (%) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Immersion at 50C (%) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Long-Term Immersion (%) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Thermal ConductivitySpecific Heat CapacityFatigue FlexuralFatigue TensileCreepElevated FlexuralFire ResistanceArc ResistanceTrack Resistance

Not startedNot started

Thermal conductivity not determined for these samples


Specific heat not determined for these samples

Can be contracted out to VTEC Laboratories at US$400/sampleCan be contracted out to VTEC Laboratories at US$1200/sample RSI Testing Results.xls

Test Report No. 106-1099

2

TABLE 1

TEST ITEM DESCRIPTION

P/N M0809-TA-10-00123, NTS Assigned S/N NTS-1







11

EQUIPMENT LIST

Description Apparatus Calibration

Perma-Cal Pressure Gauge 6 months Model 0 to 4,000 PSI, S/N 051683-1 Due 3-3-10 Accuracy: ±0.4% Range: 0 to 4,000 PSI NTS Control No. FL 3653

Celesco Position Transducer Not Required Model PT 101-0030-111-6110 S/N B1000313 Accuracy: 0-30" Range: External Monitor NTS Control No. FL 1613

HP Compaq Laptop Computer Not Required Model 6910P, S/N CND9102C0Q Range: 2.5GHz Processor Speed Accuracy: N/A NTS Control No. FL 5213

National Instruments 24 months Multifunction I/O Board Due 11-18-11 Model USB-6259 S/N 1481388 Range: N/A Accuracy: N/A NTS Control No. FL 5516

Taber Instr. 5,000 psi 12 months Pressure Transducer Due 6-22-10 Model 2105, S/N 821219 S/N 821219 Range: 0 to 5,000 psi Accuracy: 1% FS NTS Control No. FL 5327


12

Tension Load Setup NTS-1

Tensile Load Setup NTS-1


13




14

Support Equipment Pump

Data Acquisition System


15

Tensile Load - NTS-1 Post Test



16


Tensile Load Setup - NTS-2 and NTS-5 (Typical)


17

Tensile Load Setup - NTS-2 and NTS-5 (Typical)



18


Tensile Load - NTS-5 Post Test with Modified Hardware


19




20




21

Compression Load Setup - NTS-3, NTS-4 and NTS-6 (Typical)

Compression Load Setup - NTS-3, NTS-4 and NTS-6 (Typical)


22

Compression Load - NTS-3 Post Test



23

Compression Load- NTS-3 Post Test



24




25

Compression Load - NTS-6 Post Test with Modified Hardware



26




27


Test Report Document v 1.0

Page 2 of 8

1. Introduction and Objectives

The objective of the testing is to evaluate the required hole sizes and to quantify the anchor loading capacity of different pole step(s) and ladder clip(s) under static loading on RStandard poles. Most utility and communication design codes define appropriate requirements for pole steps and ladder devices. It is important to carry out physical testing of different types of pole steps and ladder systems to evaluate the compatibility and functionality with RStandard poles, additionally evaluating the device against the requirements of each design code. The ultimate goal of the testing project is to ”approve” a number of common pole steps and ladder devices for use on RStandard poles under specific design codes.

2. Scope

Testing will investigate the compatibility and functionality of different pole steps and ladder systems on RStandard poles. No spike head pole step will be investigated due to their incompatibility with RStandard poles and the nature of composite material.

The testing will evaluate/determine: • Appropriate hole size required for installation of pole steps in both single and double wall thickness

sections (based on pole step design). • The anchor strength of the step or ladder system installed on an RStandard pole, determined through

static test loads as defined by the appropriate design codes. • Confirming the manufacture’s specified load certification for each step or ladder clip in accordance to the

appropriate design code(s).

3. Test Strategy

Testing was conducted on June 7 and June 8, 2010 at RS’ 6th St. full scale testing (FST) facility by RS Engineering with assistance from the field technicians.

Hole evaluation for different pole steps was the initial step for this testing and it was conducted on May 21, 2010 at 6th St. plant, it is later revised on June 7, 2010. Based on hole evaluation result, different holes were drilled on RStandard module. Hole sizes were evaluated on three different section of module: thinnest wall section (module 2 base), thickest wall section (module 1011 tip) and slip joint section (module 0809 and module 1011). A ~2 feet ring sample was cut from the following modules:

Module 2 Base: M0002-TB-10-02015 Module 1011 Tip: M1011-TA-10-00014 Slip Joint Section: M1011-TA-09-06013 + M0809-TA-09-05861

All pole step(s) and ladder clip(s) were tested on module 2 as it would give more conservative result due to the thinnest wall thickness. A 6 foot section of module 2 (M0002-TA-08-03346) was cut from base. The winch track at RS’ 6th St. FST facility was used as a testing frame. The module was bolted (4 bolts were used) on the concrete ground with nuts to prevent any lifting and it was set on the track in such a way that the base of the module was towards the track and the butt of the module was against the end of track. This was done for 2 reasons: to have the static load vertical direction which is more realistic and to prevent any slippage of the module on the track due to loading. The pole step was installed on the pole wall with appropriate hole sizes. The 3 ton come along was used to apply load on the pole step. Efforts were made to apply the load near the pole wall. The 3 ton come along was attached with the load cell and PoleTestRST v2 data acquisition program was used to read the applied load. The load was gradually taken to more than 5000 lbs. and was held for ~90 sec. Then load was released and both the step and hole were examined. For any case where the pole step could not resist 5000 lbs.,


Page 3 of 8

a lower load was applied in the following test to determine the appropriate load rating for that specific pole step and/or ladder hardware.

Figure 1: (Left) Set up of module on concrete floor; (Right) Base of the module against the end of winch track.

Figure 2: (Left) Module is attached to the ground with threaded rods and nuts; (Right) Module is attached to the ground with threaded rods.


Page 4 of 8

4. Assumptions/Constraints

• Only TIA/EIA-222-G was applied for this testing as this is the only standard that defines anchor load requirements.

• Only a PASS/FAIL criteria based on load was used to evaluate each anchor point. • Only “off the shelf” hardware items were used to conduct the testing.

5. Equipment Used

• M0002-TA-08-03346 – 6 feet section • M0002-TB-10-02015 – ring sample • M1011-TA-10-00014 – ring sample • M1011-TA-09-06013 + M0809-TA-09-05861 – ring sample • Senior Pole Step 0040 – Qty 3 and Senior Pole Step 0041 – Qty 3 • Slacan Pole Step 7237 – Qty 3 and Slacan Pole Step 7236 with 7234 Plate– Qty 3 • Australian Armor Pole Step – Qty 7 • Bail Ladder Clip – Qty 3 • Progressive Pole Step H-PS-PR – Qty 3 • Buckingham Pole Step 3075 – Qty 3 and 3058 – Qty 3 • FST Kits • Anchor attachment part made by RS • 3 ton come along • Load cell • InstaCal and PoleTestRST v2 software • 1/2” X 1.5” Hex Lag Screw, HDG (RS Part # H-LS-150-50-GD) – Qty 6 • Ratchet Wrench w/ ¾” hex socket • Screw, Self-Tapping, 1/4" X 3" LG (RS Part # RSX-30) – Qty 15 • 1/2” Hex Head Driver Bit • 1” and 3/4” Wrench • Tap and Die Sets-NC 3/4”-10 and NC 5/8”-11 • Digital Camera – Kodak (5 mega-pixel)


Page 5 of 8

6. Test Results and Observations

Table 1: Summary of results

While evaluating the hole size, emphasis was given on the hole size when the hook of the pole step fits properly against the pole wall. The hole sizes were determined in such a way so that the pole wall does not interfere with the step as thickness of the wall varies. For all pole steps, efforts were made to take the load to more than 5000


Page 6 of 8

lbs. and then analyze the step and pole wall. For some cases, the applied load could not be taken up to 5000 lbs. due to pole step deformation. But for all cases, pole wall did not show any damage.

Figure 3: (Left) Pole step mounted on module; (Right) 3 ton come along is attached with the pole step.

Figure 4: Pole Steps under static loading.


Page 7 of 8

7. Results Analysis and Discussion

Test data from RS Project # 9062-Characteristic Hardware Testing shows that one lag screw fails at ~5000 lbs. and one self tapping screw fails at ~2000 lbs. In both cases, failure occurs with fastener shear on RStandard pole. As anchoring attachment to the pole wall, 4 self tapping screws were used with Slacan 7126, 3 self tapping screws were used with Slacan 7236/7234 plate and 2 lag screws were used with Bail Ladder Clip. Based on the data from #9062, 4 self tapping screws theoretically can support up to ~8000 lbs. and 3 self tapping screws ~6000 lbs., and 2 lag screws theoretically can support up to ~10,000 lbs. As the applied load near the pole wall or at the anchor point distributed equally on all fasteners, all the above mentioned fasteners were expected to hold more than 5000 lbs. All these anchoring attachments sustained, successfully, >5000 lbs. as anticipated by the test data from #9062.

Except for two pole steps (Slacan 7236/7234 plate and Australian Armor), all other pole steps successfully held more than 5000 lbs. for at least 90 sec. which meets the standard TIA/EIA 222 G. In all cases, the RStandard pole wall did not show any damage as expected.

The first test with Slacan detachable pole step (Slacan 7236/7234 plate), the step was deformed when the load reached to 4000 lbs. The post test examination showed that the step was deformed under yield at ~4000 lbs. A lower load (3000 lbs) was applied during second test, but with the same result. Then 2500 lbs load was applied during third test and the pole step did not show any permanent deformation. The fourth test was conducted with a target to reach up to 5000 lbs. to evaluate the anchoring strength of the plate overlooking the fact of the pole step deformation. Sample # 3 was used to run this test. However, the applied load could not be taken more than 4000 lbs as the step popped off of the anchor plate. For all 4 tests, only one anchor plate was used which showed no signs of failure after all tests and there were no signs of damage or deformation to the RStandard pole wall.

Six tests were conducted with Australian Armor step, three of these at ~4000 lbs. and remaining three at ~5000lbs. The first test was conducted at 5000 lbs. The post test investigation showed that the anchoring hook of the step deformed ~30°. The next 3 tests were conducted at ~4000 lbs. and ~15° deformation was observed. Two additional tests were conducted at ~5000 lbs. to confirm the deformation results.

While testing Slacan 7237 and Progressive pole steps, the rim underneath the washer made an impression on the outer surface of the hole (pole wall). Post test investigation of the hole confirmed the pole wall did not show any damage due to the loading.

Both Buckingham 3075 and Buckingham 3058 step bolt require blind nuts to be installed on RStandard pole. To avoid delay in testing, standard 3/4” and 5/8” blind nuts from the 6th st. inventory were used. To fit these parts properly, tap and die sets were used for brushing the threads of Buckingham steps. For wide scale adoption of the Buckingham steps, a custom blind nut thread will be required which is 0.021” [0.5334mm] over cut. The threaded shank diameter of the step was reduced slightly however the modifications made to the Buckingham steps for the purposes of this testing did not have any impact on the result.


Page 8 of 8

8. Conclusions/Recommendations Pole steps are an integral part of RStandard pole. The intention of this testing was to confirm/approve anchor loading of pole steps available in the market. All the tests were conducted “off the shelf” items and no modifications to the steps were required for use on RStandard poles, with the exception of the Buckingham step for which a blind nut can be developed to remove the need for this modification.

Only TIA/EIA 222 G standard mentions the required anchor loading for pole steps which is 4950 lbs. The RStandard pole wall did not show any kind of damage during any test. Additionally, the test data from RS Project # 9062-Characteristic Hardware Testing verifies these results across all RStandard modules.

Except for the Slacan 7236/7234 plate and the Australian Armor pole steps, all other pole steps “pass” the landmark of 5000 lbs. and meet the requirements of TIA/EIA 222 G standards for pole step anchor points to be used on RStandard Pole without any modification.

The Slacan 7236/7234 plate is capable of holding only 2500 lbs. without any deformation. The Australian Armor step only supported 4000 lbs. with 15° of deformation of the anchor hook. Both of these steps do not meet the requirements of TIA/EIA 222 G.

Custom blind nuts are required for both Buckingham 3075 and Buckingham 3058 step bolts to be installed on RStandard pole, without modification to the Buckingham steps. Once the custom blind nut threads are available, this step will be compatible with the RStandard pole.

The following recommendations are proposed as a result of these tests;

1. Tip load verification reports, data, or letters of certification be obtained by the manufacturers for all steps that lack this information in table 1.

2. A custom blind nut for both Buckingham steps be developed with Buckingham and/or RS’ approved blind nut suppliers.

3. A technical bulletin be issued stating the approved steps and ladder clips for use on RStandard poles indicating all codes under which the item meets the requirements and the recommended hole size(s) for both single and double wall thicknesses.

4. The information contained in the technical bulletin be included in the RS Hardware Catalogue currently in development by RS Field Services.

9. Appendices/References

1. Test Data:

\\Technical\Engineering\Technical Projects\2010\Engineering Internal\9067 Pole Step-Ladder Hardware Testing\Data

2. Summary of Test Results

\\Technical\Engineering\Technical Projects\2010\Engineering Internal\9067 Pole Step-Ladder Hardware Testing\Data\Results summary 20100906.xlsx

3. Test Data From RS Project # 9062-Characteristic Hardware Testing

\\Technical\Engineering\Technical Projects\2010\Engineering Internal\9062 Characteristic Hardware Testing\Data

Test Report Document

Page 2 of 8

1. Introduction and Objectives The objective of this testing was to validate the compatibility and functionality of the proposed Slacan removable pole step for use on RStandard poles.

2. Scope The testing included:

• An installation test on RStandard poles to determine/confirm the appropriate hole size required for installation in both single and double wall thickness sections.

• A static load test to conform to the most conservative of the North American utility and communications codes with respect to pole step strength requirements.

3. Test Strategy Testing was performed at the RS 6th St. plant using existing equipment and resources.

Installation EvaluationFor evaluating the installation requirements of the pole step, 1” holes were drilled in both single and double wall sections of RStandard modules. The step was then installed, if installation was not acceptable the hole was widened incrementally by (1/8”) until the step could be successfully installed.

Strength EvaluationThe test was conducted on steps installed in a single wall section of RStandard module. A passed module 1 section was used as the test module. The module was secured in place and the step installed. In series, a load cell and come-along was connected to the pole step and to a fixed point on the module. This involved an RStandard jacking lug as the anchor in the test module. The load cell was connected to the jacking lug by a pair of 1” shackles. An appropriately sized come-along was connected between the load cell and the installed step. The initial position of the step was recorded photographically. The step was then loaded and held for approximately 1 min. the loaded step was also photographed. The step was then unloaded and a final image is taken to show any deformed geometry. The process is then repeated.

For reference a 1” x 1” grid was used as a back drop of all images. The grid was placed in the same reference position for all images.

Two different load scenarios were used: 1. 750 lbs. applied to the step tip (or as close as reasonably possible).

a. This load case is related to the working load of the step and connection. 2. 4950 lbs. applied to the step nearest the pole wall.

a. This load case represents the load required for the anchor point of any step.

Load case #1 was defined from ASCE Manual No. 104: “Recommended Practices for Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Products for Overhead Utility Line Structures”. Load case #2 was defined from EIA/TIA-222-G.


Page 3 of 8

Figure 1 – Test setup for pole step load testing.

4. Assumptions/Constraints • Come-along loads the pole step at a low frequency, no ‘impact’ type loading is considered to exist. • Module flexure had no effect on measured results. • For load case #1, an acceptable limit of elastic deformation was defined as 0.5” (measured at the step

tip) this included rotation and flexure of the step once it was installed. The codes only note that “no significant elastic deformation” is acceptable.

• Accuracy of loading when using the load cell in combination with standard come-alongs.

5. Equipment Used • RStandard Module 1 • 20 kip. Load Cell • RStandard Jacking Lug (1) and safety straps. • 1.5t and 3t come-along winches and additional chain section. • Digital Camera • 1” Shackles (3) • Electrical Tape • Slacan Pole Step Prototype #24349B (2) • 4” Load Strap • Crescent Wrench

6. Test Results Installation Evaluation

Single Wall Section Installation: • 1” installation hole allowed for easy installation and removal of pole step. • When the step was installed with the nut only hand tight, the step easily rotated towards the pole tip

approximately 30°. Tightening of the nut to 25 lb.ft. or less than one complete turn eliminated the rotation.

Load Cell Jacking Lug

Pole Step

Come-along


Page 4 of 8

Figure 2 – Single wall installation (left) and rotation observed with hand tight nut (right).

Double Wall Section Installation: • 1” installation hole did not allow for installation. • 1-1/8” installation hole allowed for easy installation and removal of pole step. • When the step was installed (with and without the collar) with the nut tightened by hand, there was some

rotation of the step towards the pole tip. Tightening the nut to 25 lb.ft. or less than one complete turn eliminated the rotation in each case.

• The collar did not have a significant impact on the functionality of the design; rotation was very similar when the collar was removed. Additionally, the step was initially installed incorrectly with the collar between the washer and nut (in a single wall section).

Figure 4 – Double wall installation (left) and rotation observed with hand tight nut (right).

General Installation Observations (both single and double wall): • When the step is installed and nut is tightened by hand, there were no signs that the step was capable of

rotation axially. • During removal of the pole step, if the washer was not moved away from the pole surface, the step could

bind on the pole wall and washer. This was likely a result of the horizontal setup; in a vertical setup the washer would likely slide away from the pole wall as the step rotated. The binding was not permanent and was reversible by hand.

Strength Evaluation

Both step samples were tested in the single wall installation. For all tests the nut was tightened with a crescent wrench less than one complete turn from hand tight.

Load Case #1 – 750 lbs. Static Load

Pole Step #1


Page 5 of 8

The first pole step was tested with the hook from the 1.5t come-along taped to the step tip. The step was loaded to a maximum load of 813 lbs. and held for 92 seconds at an average load of 727 lbs. The total loaded deformation of the step was 3 in. with permanent deformation measured post test at 2.5 in.

The majority of the deformation was observed at the radius in the step near the threads to create a flat top step surface. There was also some deformation in the thread section on the step side of the nut.

Figure 5 – Step #1 Load Case #1: initial (left), loaded (middle), and unloaded (right).

Figure 6 – Comparison of initial step shape (top) and final deformed shape from Step #1 Load Case #1 (bottom).

Pole Step #2

The second pole step was tested with a 4 in. wide strap to spread the load from the 1.5t come-along, similarly to a workers boot during climbing, again taped to the step tip. The step was loaded to a maximum load of 960 lbs. and held for 74 seconds at an average load of 807 lbs. The total loaded deformation of the step was 1 in. with permanent deformation measured post test at 0.5 in.

The deformation was observed more gradually in the thread (on the step side of the nut) and step section.


Page 6 of 8

Figure 7 – Step #2 Load Case #1: initial (left), loaded (middle), and unloaded (right).

Figure 8 – Comparison of initial step shape (top) and final deformed shape from Step #1 Load Case #1 (bottom).

Load Case #2 – 4950 lbs. Static Load

Pole Step #1 and #2

Both pole steps were tested with the hook from the 3t come-along winch at the base of the pole step as shown in figure 9. The collar (between the nut and the washer) was used to allow for hook stability on the step shaft and to prevent damage to the threads from the load. The steps were loaded to maximum loads of 6075 lbs. (#1) and 5957 lbs. (#2) and held for 60* and 32 seconds at average loads of 5274* lbs. and 5714 lbs. respectively.

* Estimated values as load cell breaker tripped during hold which did not allow for data acquisition after trip.


Page 7 of 8

Figure 9 – Test setup for anchor point strength test.

The same hole was used for all step tests. As seen in figure 10, there was no observed damage, deflection or permanent deformation of the pole wall section or hole.

Figure 10 – Before (left) and after (right) of the hole used for all testing.

7. Conclusions/Recommendations The Slacan prototype pole step was compatible for installation on RStandard poles.

The manufacturer recommended 1 in. installation hole is acceptable for single wall module sections and for double wall sections a 1-1/8 in. hole is also acceptable to install the pole step. The pole step once installed, performed functionally as expected with no axial rotation. The existence of the collar proved to have no impact on step functionality.

The pole steps tip strength was found not to meet the requirements for a pole step as defined in this test plan. The amount of permanent deformation was also not acceptable for the factored working load case.

The pole step interface with the RStandard pole performed acceptably and met the requirements of the codes. There was no damage or permanent deformation to the pole wall, hole, or step due to the anchor strength tests.


Page 8 of 8

The following are recommendations for further prototype development by Slacan: • The collar did not seem to have any impact on step functionality in double wall scenario and could be

eliminated from the design. • Reduce or eliminate grinding/removal of threading towards the pole end of the step to allow for full nut

contact with thread in single wall installation. • Increase the length of the thread towards the pole end of the step by ¼ in. to allow for nut tightening on

the thinnest possible RStandard wall section without the need for collar. The thread contacting the hole surface is not a major concern.

• Investigate higher yield and stiffer material (steel, aluminum) for step design. • Investigate increasing step dimensions, specifically diameters from the thread section towards the step

tip. This may require additional material elsewhere and potentially a larger installation hole. The maximum hole size for RStandard poles is 1-¼ in.

• Investigate a more gradual transition from the thread section to the flattened step section to reduce stress concentrations.

• Reduce unsupported length of step by 1 in.

8. Appendices/References Test Photos: \\Technical\Engineering\Testing\RS Testing\Pole Step Testing\Slacan Step\Photos 20090818Test Data: \\Technical\Engineering\Testing\RS Testing\Pole Step Testing\Slacan Step\Data 20090818Slacan Step Drawings/Mark-ups: \\Technical\Engineering\Testing\RS Testing\Pole Step Testing\Slacan Step\CAD

NOTICES FOR REPORTS

1. This Report was prepared as an account of work conducted at the Alberta Research Council Inc. (“ARC”) on behalf of RS Technologies Inc. All reasonable efforts were made to ensure that the work conforms to accepted scientific, engineering and environmental practices, but ARC makes no other representation and gives no other warranty with respect to the reliability, accuracy, validity or fitness of the information, analysis and conclusions contained in this Report. Any and all implied or statutory warranties of merchantability or fitness for any purpose are expressly excluded. RS Technologies Inc. acknowledges that any use or interpretation of the information, analysis or conclusions contained in this Report is at its own risk. Reference herein to any specified commercial product, process or service by trade-name, trademark, manufacturer or otherwise does not constitute or imply an endorsement or recommendation by ARC.

2. Any authorized copy of this Report distributed to a third party shall include an acknowledgement that the Report was prepared by ARC and shall give appropriate credit to ARC and the authors of the Report.

3. Copyright ARC 2007. All rights reserved.

1

Flexural Creep Test

Introduction.

Flexural creep tests were performed on eight different samples of material, given in Table 1. The specimens were loaded in a three point bend configuration with a constant load.An LVDT was placed at mid-span of the specimen to measure the deflection and to detect failure. The nominal cross section dimensions of the specimens were 12.7mm (w) x 3.2 mm (h) and the support span was 48 mm.

Table 1. List of Sample Materials Sample # Sample Description

U1 Version PUL-G Neat (00NT-00-000) U2 Version PUL-G 15 pbw Calcium Carbonate (15CC-07-000) U3 Version PUL-G 15 pbw Clay (15CL-01-000) U4 Version PUL-G 30 pbw Calcium Carbonate (30CC-07-000) U5 Polyester All Roving U7 Epoxy Neat Unidirectional U8 Epoxy 15CC Unidirectional U9 Vinyl Ester Neat Unidirectional

The creep tests were performed under constant stress conditions. The stress levels were different for many of the samples. However, an attempt was made to cover the range from 700 MPa to 850 MPa. Only one specimen from each sample was tested at each stress value.

Results.

Figure 1 shows the plots of the stress versus the time to failure for the samples. Tests in excess of 3000 hours were stopped in most cases prior to failure. Samples U1 to U5 followed the typical pattern of longer times to failure at lower stress levels. Samples U7 to U9 had more scattered results with no linear pattern between stress level and times to failure. However, only one specimen was tested at each stress level, when normally a minimum of 5 specimens should be tested at each stress level due to the variation in creep test results. Therefore, the lack of the expected pattern for U7 to U9 may be due to the scatter in the creep results. A complete list of the test results is given in Table 2.

Due to the relatively small sample size caution should be used when drawing conclusions from these test results.

2

Flexural Creep Test

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 10000.00

Time (hours)

Stre

ss (M

Pa)

U1U2U3U4U5U7U8U9

Figure 1. Creep plots, Stress vs Time to Failure

3

Table 2. Test Results Specimen % of Failure Load Stress Duration Status Number Stress (kg) (MPa) (Hours)

U1 - Ult 206 1290 0 U1.1 87.7 185 1132 0.01 complete U1.2 71.9 154 927 1.0 complete U1.3 69.0 144 890 2.0 complete U1.4 64.2 134 829 3.7 complete U1.5 59.2 123 764 24.4 complete

U1-700 54.3 117.6 700 48 complete

U2 - Ult 183.2 1150 U2-850 73.9 143.5 850 48 complete U2-775 67.4 130.6 775 98 complete

U2.1 64.2 119.1 738 384 complete U2.2 59.0 109.9 678 5256 stopped U2.3 53.7 100.8 618 5256 stopped U2.4 49.0 91.6 563 5256 stopped U2.5 43.7 82.4 502 4680 stopped

U3 - Ult 200.8 1260 0 U3.5 74.8 150.6 943 24 complete U3.3 68.3 140.6 861 329 complete U3.1 57.9 120.5 729 4680 stopped U3.2 53.3 110.4 672 4680 stopped

U4 – Ult 175 1100 0 U4.5 96.8 149 1065 0.9 complete U4.3 81.0 140 891 8.0 complete

U4-850 74% 142 818 24.0 complete U4-775 70% 131 775 45.0 complete U4-700 64% 117 700 213.0 complete U5 - Ult 199 1250 0

U5-4 72.6 130 907 0.05 complete U5-3 65.6 120 820 1.0 complete U5-5 60.9 110 761 191 complete

U5-700 56 117 700 2.0 complete U6 - Ult 194.4 1220 0

U6-5 82.6 146 1008 1.0 complete U6-1 76.6 136 935 15.0 complete U6-2 73.6 126 898 70.2 complete

U7 - Ult 172.1 1080 U7-3 84.8 146 916 24.0 complete U7-4 82.7 155 893 24.0 complete

U7-775 72% 138 775 167.0 complete U7-850 71% 140 767.82 18 complete U7-700 65% 122.9 700 108 complete

U8 - Ult 165.7 1040 U8-850 78% 133 809 120 complete U8-775 75% 125 775 24.0 complete U8-700 67% 123 700 181.0 complete U9 - Ult 192.8 1210 U9-850 70% 142 850 194 complete U9-775 64% 125 775 149.0 complete U9-700 58% 112 700 181.0 complete

NOTICES FOR REPORTS

1. This Report was prepared as an account of work conducted at the Alberta Research

Council Inc. (“ARC”) on behalf of Resin Systems Inc. All reasonable efforts were

made to ensure that the work conforms to accepted scientific, engineering and

environmental practices, but ARC makes no other representation and gives no other

warranty with respect to the reliability, accuracy, validity or fitness of the information,

analysis and conclusions contained in this Report. Any and all implied or statutory

warranties of merchantability or fitness for any purpose are expressly excluded.

Resin Systems Inc. acknowledges that any use or interpretation of the information,

analysis or conclusions contained in this Report is at its own risk. Reference herein to

any specified commercial product, process or service by trade-name, trademark,

manufacturer or otherwise does not constitute or imply an endorsement or

recommendation by ARC.

2. Any authorized copy of this Report distributed to a third party shall include an

acknowledgement that the Report was prepared by ARC and shall give appropriate

credit to ARC and the authors of the Report.

3. Copyright ARC 2006. All rights reserved.

Tension-Tension Fatigue 1

Introduction

A series of Tension-Tension Fatigue tests were conducted on pultruded samples, for eight

different resin formulations and three stress ranges.

Test Method

ASTM D3479-96 “Standard Test Method for Tension-Tension Fatigue of Polymer

Matrix Composite Materials”

Test Apparatus

Instron 8500 Universal Test Frame

Mechanical wedge grips for fatigue testing

4 Aluminum tabs (63 mm x 25mm x 6.35mm)

Test Setup

Tensile coupon aligned vertically in grips.

Aluminum tabs used between grip face and specimen

Test frame set to cycle sinusoidal between maximum and minimum load

Rate of cycles varied from 2 to 4 Hz depending on load range

254 mm tensile coupon with 127mm gauge length between grips.

Test Procedure

1. Samples dimensions measured and recorded

2. Sample aligned vertically within grips

3. Aluminum tabs used between grip face and specimens (tabs occasionally grit

blasted or replaced to improve gripping)

4. Grips pre-tightened

5. Small pre-load applied and the grips re-tightened

6. Test frame set to cycle sinusoidally from maximum to minimum load

7. Test started

8. Test terminated when sample failed and the number of cycles recorded


Samples:

The specimens were prepared from pultruded samples and cut into nominal 12.5 mm x 3

mm with a sample length of 254 mm. All samples were prepared with the reinforcing

fibres oriented in the longitudinal direction.

Table 1: List of samples

Sample # Sample Description

U1 Version PUL-G Neat (00NT-00-000)

U2 Version PUL-G 15 pbw Calcium Carbonate (15CC-07-000)

U3 Version PUL-G 15 pbw Clay (15CL-01-000)

U4 Version PUL-G 30 pbw Calcium Carbonate (30CC-07-000)

U5 Polyester All Roving

U7 Epoxy Neat Unidirectional

U8 Epoxy 15CC Unidirectional

U9 Vinyl Ester Neat Unidirectional

Results

When this series Tension-Tension Fatigue testing was begun the stress ranges were

specified based upon a percentage of ultimate tensile stress (%UTS). These tests were

conducted for stress ranges from 90%UTS to 40 %UTS in 10% UTS increments.

However the ultimate tensile stress varied from sample to sample, so the stress ranges

were different for each sample group. It was later decided that instead of basing the

stress ranges on %UTS that three stress ranges would be specified that would be used for

all of the sample groups. The three stress ranges were maximum stress of 750, 600, 450

MPa and minimum stress 80 MPa. Therefore, the three Stress Amplitudes (∆σ/2) were:

335, 260, and 185 MPa.

Instead of scrapping the data that has already been collected, the data was used to

interpolate the cycles to failure at the three stress ranges. To do this the six data points

from 90 %UTS to 40%UTS were plotted with respect to Stress Amplitude and Cycles to

Failure. The data was curve fit and the equation of the curve used to calculate the Cycles

to Failure for the three Stress Amplitudes. The data points that were interpolated are

indicated in the following tables with an asterisk. The graphs used to interpolate the data

are shown as well.


SAMPLE U1

Tensile-Tensile Fatigue y = 1514.4x-0.2346

y = 1790.3x-0.2728

y = 1476.3x-0.2409

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

100 1000 10000 100000

Cycles to Failure (N)

Str

es

s A

mp

litu

de

(∆

σ∆

σ∆

σ∆

σ/2

)

Series1

Series2

Series3

Power (Series1)

Power (Series2)

Power (Series3)

Figure 1: Data series for 90%UTS- 40% UTS

Table 2: Cycles to failure for U1

Stress Amplitude ∆σ/2

Sample 335 260 185

1 621* 1828* 7799*

2 466* 1179* 4106*

3 472* 1351* 5550*

4 420 854 3014

5 479 1853 13546

6 482 1641 24676

Mean 490 1451 9782

*interpolated data points


SAMPLE U2

Tensile-Tensile Fatigue

y = 1057.3x-0.1995

y = 1439.9x-0.2464

y = 987.77x-0.1906

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

100 1000 10000 100000


Str

ess A

mp

litu

de (

∆σ

∆σ

∆σ

∆σ/

2)

Series1

Series2

Series3

Power (Series1)

Power (Series2)

Power (Series3)




Sample 335 260 185

1 318* 1132* 6232*

2 372* 1040* 4137*

3 291* 1100* 6559*

4 242 1284 8776

5 290 1594 8105

6 215 1827 7728

Mean 288 1329 6923



SAMPLE U3


y = 1025.1x-0.1789

y = 1148.3x-0.2074

y = 912.47x-0.1678

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

100 1000 10000 100000


Str

ess A

mp

litu

de (

∆σ

∆σ

∆σ

∆σ/

2)

Series1

Series2

Series3

Power (Series1)

Power (Series2)

Power (Series3)




Sample 335 260 185

1 519* 2140* 14338*

2 380* 1289* 6652*

3 392* 1776* 13496*

4 571 2788 13809

5 1157 3706 6698

6 614 2528 9617

Mean 605 2371 10768



SAMPLE U4


y = 930.83x-0.1806

y = 876.86x-0.1844

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

100 1000 10000 100000


Str

ess A

mp

litu

de (

∆σ

∆σ

∆σ

∆σ/

2)

Series1

Series2

Power (Series1)

Power (Series2)




Sample 335 260 185

1 287* 1167* 7680*

2 185* 730* 4620*

3 192 1821 4971

4 284 1880 2879

5 293 1836 2076

6 333 2443 3953

Mean 262 1646 4363



SAMPLE U5


y = 1214.6x-0.2485

y = 1250.7x-0.242

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

100 1000 10000


Str

ess A

mp

litu

de (

∆σ

∆σ

∆σ

∆σ/

2)

Series1

Series2

Power (Series1)

Power (Series2)




Sample 335 260 185

1 178* 494* 1944*

2 231* 659* 2690*

3 230 1438 8671

4 224 1199 7427

5 249 1264 6830

6 220 1239 6946

Mean 222 1049 5751



SAMPLE U7


y = 872.98x-0.1361

y = 621.66x-0.0995

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000


Str

ess A

mp

litu

de (

∆σ

∆σ

∆σ

∆σ/

2)

Series1

Series2

Power (Series1)

Power (Series2)




Sample 335 260 185

1 1138* 7329* 89333*

2 500* 6380* 195103*

3 748 23934 67105

4 710 12209 560064

5 693 26698 40956

6 792 10989 219043

Mean 763 14590 195267



SAMPLE U8


y = 813.36x-0.1351

y = 776.52x-0.1416

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

100 1000 10000 100000 1000000


Str

ess A

mp

litu

de (

∆σ

∆σ

∆σ

∆σ/

2)

Series1

Series2

Power (Series1)

Power (Series2)




Sample 335 260 185

1 710* 4637* 57578*

2 379* 2269* 25095*

3 527 1448 44367

4 465 13618 23209

5 347 7099 36906

6 528 7305 66388

Mean 493 6063 42257



SAMPLE U9


y = 1321.1x-0.2081

y = 1366.1x-0.228

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

100 1000 10000 100000


Str

ess A

mp

litu

de (

∆σ

∆σ

∆σ

∆σ/

2)

Series1

Series2

Power (Series1)

Power (Series2)




Sample 335 260 185

1 730* 2468* 12667*

2 476* 1446* 6433*

3 307 2953 52318

4 316 3147 17999

5 373 2165 32653

6 350 4135 13822

Mean 425 2719 22649



Tensile- Tensile Fatigue

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

100 1000 10000 100000 1000000


Str

ess A

mp

litu

de (

∆σ∆σ ∆σ∆σ/2

)

U1

U2

U3

U4

U5

U7

U8

U9

Power (U7)

Power (U8)

Power (U9)

Power (U3)

Power (U1)

Power (U2)

Power (U4)

Power (U5)

Figure 9: S-N Fatigue Curves


Discussion

A minimum of six specimens were tested for each load level and material type. This

number of specimens is suitable for preliminary and exploratory materials development.

For design allowable data or reliability data the minimum number of samples is 24.

The S-N Fatigue curves are shown in Figure 9. The epoxy samples, U7, had the best

fatigue resistance. The epoxy with 15 wt% Calcium Carbonate (U8) had slightly lower

fatigue resistance. The addition of Calcium Carbonate to the Version Resin reduced its

fatigue resistance, but the addition of 15 wt% of clay resulted in slight improvement. The

Polyester resin (U5) had the lowest fatigue resistance.

Conclusions

Tension-Tension Fatigue tests were performed on pultruded fibreglass reinforced plastic

material. A minimum of six specimens were tested for eight different resin formulations

at three stress ranges. The Epoxy resin had the best fatigue resistance and the Polyester

the lowest. The addition of Calcium Carbonate to the Version resin resulted in lower

fatigue resistance, but the addition of clay resulted in slightly improved fatigue

performance.

INTERNAL TEST REQUEST Date: July 6, 2006

ITR#: C604______ Initiated By: John Pepke

I. Test Description: The Taber Industries Rotary Abraser can be used to test virtually any flat specimen. Its’ field of application has included tests of: painted, lacquered, powder coated, and anodized surfaces; leather; laminates; plastics; textile fabrics ranging from sheer silks to heavy upholstery and carpeting; paper and cardboard; rubber; glass; linoleum; metals; stone and ceramics; plus many others.

Abrasion occurs via the specimen being subjected to the rub-wear action of two abrasive wheels that are driven by the rotation of the test specimen. The wheels create a pattern of crossed arcs in a circular ring approximately 30 square centimeters in area. This mechanism generates abrasion resistance at all angles relative to the wear or grain of material.

II. Equipment: Model 5135 Rotary Abraser, CS-17 Calibrase Wheels, S-16 Steel Plates, S-11 Refacing Discs, and S-12 Brush.

III. Procedure: Equipment setup was in accordance with the Operating Instructions for Taber Model 5135 & 5155 Digital Abrasers with LED Readouts.

a) Samples were conditioned for 48 hrs in the test environment (70F and 47% RH).

b) Test the samples according to the following setup on the Model 5135 abraser: i) CS-17 Calibrase Wheels (Lot BL11E1) ii) 1000g load per wheel iii) Vacuum Nozzle Height of 3.0-mm iv) Fiberglass/Resin Composite or Steel v) Vacuum Level 100% vi) Temperature 70oF; Humidity 47% vii) Refacing (cleaning): before each new test and at 1000 cycle intervals during test using S-11

Refacing Discs to remove debris from wheels. Refacing done for 25 cycles. A new S-11 disc is used for each refacing operation and then discarded.

viii) Samples were weighed prior to and after testing to determine weight loss.



IV. Discussion and Results: Three samples of fiberglass/resin composite and three samples of steel were received in good condition. Because of balance limitations the three steel samples submitted were not used as they were too heavy to be read accurately. Instead, three C1018 steel plates (S-16 Steel Plates) were utilized to perform the test. The steel samples were cleaned prior to testing using a rag soaked in IPA to remove the protective oil film. This prevents the oil from forming a barrier on the substrate which would interfere with the abrasion of the substrate surface leading to potential variation in the results. All samples were conditioned for a period of 48-hours prior to testing.

The samples were tested in accordance with section III of this report. Testing was done in 1000 cycle increments for a total of 4000 cycles on each sample. Refacing was conducted each 1000 cycles during the test as there was debris buildup noted which occurred for both the fiberglass/resin composite and the steel samples. An optimal refacing procedure was not established during this test however it is recommended that this be done to ensure the most accurate results are obtained. Optimal refacing frequency can be determined by breaking the test into smaller increments (i.e. 100 cycles) and plotting the weight loss results. Ideally the weight loss per increment should remain consistent for the duration of the test to ensure that the function remains linear. If at a point during the test a sharp drop off in weight loss is seen the increment preceding the change should be utilized as the refacing frequency. Use of this methodology will force the abrasion function to remain linear during the course of the evaluation.

All samples were cleaned after testing by brushing off of debris using the S-12 Brush and cleaning using IPA then re-weighed to determine weight loss of the materials. The results of the testing are shown below.

As seen the fiberglass/resin composite materials (F1, F2, and F3) appear to have higher resistance to abrasion than do the C1018 steel samples (S1, S2, and S3) when tested in



accordance with section three of this report. Standard deviations for these materials are similar and acceptable ranges for the materials based on 3σ would be 0.0931-0.1291 for the fiberglass/resin composites and 0.1098 to 0.1440 for the C1018 steel.

It should be noted that the testing parameters utilized above might not be the optimum testing parameters for these materials. Prior to making any conclusive statements, at least 5 samples from the same production run should be evaluated for each specimen type. This will allow you to average the test results and consider variations that might be present. Additional time and specimens would be required to establish optimal abrasion procedures.

V. Summary: We believe that the Taber Rotary Abraser would be a useful tool to qualify & quantify the materials you submitted. It would also allow you to determine the relative wear resistance of one material against another, or allow you to develop a correlation between lab and field results based on the performance of your material.

If you have any questions concerning the testing please call me and I will be happy to discuss them. I will return the samples to you for evaluation

Sincerely,John Pepke John Pepke Taber Industries 455 Bryant Street North Tonawanda, NY 14120 716-694-4000 x118

of 2

RS assumes no obligation, liability or responsibility for any technical information or technical advice furnished by RS with reference to the use ofthe results obtained herein. Such information or advice related to the test results have been provided gratuitously without the assumption ofliability or responsibility therefore. All information and advice furnished by RS have been provided and are accepted at your risk.

Physical and Mechanical PropertiesThe tested samples of RStandard poles samples showed no degradation in physical properties within therecorded standard deviations (see Table 1).

Density (g/cc) Glass Percent Void Percent


Before 1.87 0.01 70.80% 0.65% 3.75% 0.45%

After 1.88 0.02 71.30% 1.18% 3.99% 0.49%

Flexural Strength(MPa)

Flexural Modulus(GPa)

Interlaminar ShearStrength (MPa)


Before 435 43 13.5 0.9 39.9 2.9

After 428 67 14.0 1.5 41.5 1.1

Table 1: Physical Properties of RStandard samples prior to and after testing.

Conclusion

RStandard composite pole samples showed no appreciable wear or properties degradation when subjectedto limited wind blown sand testing.

Appendix A-19Exposure of an RS Composite Utility Pole to

Simulated Wildfire Conditions, 2011

Executive Summary Structures such as utility poles can be at risk in wildfires. Wildfires are highly variable and can produce extreme conditions in terms of energy transfer via thermal radiation from flame fronts and exposures to hot combustion products. Conditions vary in both duration and magnitude depending on the type of fuel (grass, shrubs, mature conifer trees), the condition of the fuel (moisture content and quantity) and whether the asset is located within a clearing or directly in the fuels.

Fast moving grass fires can produce heat fluxes of 80 kW/m2 (7 Btu/ft2-s) or more but the exposure duration is very short, rarely exceeding 20 seconds. Flame fronts in grassy fuels are relatively shallow (a few meters) and the flame heights are typically 2-4 m (6-12 ft).

Mature stands of conifer are at the other end of the spectrum, producing peak heat fluxes of 150 kW/m2

(13.2 Btu/ft2-s) or higher. Fire event durations can exceed two minutes. Flame fronts can be 20-30 meters (65-100 ft) thick and flame heights easily reach twice the height of the trees.

If an asset is located in a sufficiently large fuel break (utility right of way or clearing) the energy transfer to it can be reduced significantly, and the mode of energy transfer becomes largely thermal radiation from the flame front. A clearing or right of way that is not sufficient in size to modify the fire behavior does little to reduce the exposure.

Two RS Technologies Inc. RStandard® composite modules were exposed to conditions to mimic a wildfire. The modules were embedded in a 3 m (9.8 ft) deep hole at RS Technologies Inc.’s yard in Calgary, Canada, enclosed in a sheet metal surround, and exposed to propane diffusion flames for a two minute duration. The two tests were undertaken to evaluate the degree of damage that would occur if the composite poles were exposed to a moderate to severe wildfire event.

Exposure conditions for the two tests varied in both energy transfer to the module and gas temperature as indicated in the table below. Temperature and heat flux were set by limiting the amount of air available for combustion of the propane fuel used. Temperatures were measured on the exterior of the module at three heights above the burial line; 0.6 m (2 ft) , 1.2 m (4 ft) , and 1.8 m (6 ft), as well as at two locations on the module interior surface.

Module Serial #

Heat Flux kW/m2 (Btu/ft2-s) Gas Temperature

oC (oF) (measured at two locations)

Maximum Module Internal Surface

Temperature During Exposure,

oC (oF) Average Peak

M67-TA-09-05853 35 (3.1) 40 (3.5) 825, 990 (1515, 1815) 115 (240)

M67-TA-10-01029 55 (4.8) 60 (5.3) 1050 (1920) 75 (167)

Examination of the modules after exposure revealed that the outer layer of resin had been burned away to a depth of 0.5 to 1.0 mm (0.02-0.04 in), exposing the glass fibers. Strength in bending, after exposure, was evaluated by RS Technologies Inc. and is the subject of RS Report No. 11006, “Full Scale Bend Testing of RStandard® Composite Utility Poles Exposed to Fire”.

ii

About the Author Mark Ackerman P.Eng., is a registered Professional Engineer in Alberta, Canada. He recently retired from the University of Alberta after being involved in research for 32 years. Over his career he taught courses in Engineering Measurements, Thermal Systems Design, Mechanical Design and Analysis of Systems. He is now an Adjunct Professor in Mechanical Engineering and teaches courses in Thermal Systems Design and Building Science.

For the past 20 years, Mark has been involved in research related to protection of people from hazards associated with flash fires, forest fires and other industrial accidents involving steam and hot fluids. He designed and built Canada’s only Fire Resistant Clothing Evaluation System which allows evaluation of the protection afforded by fire resistant clothing (industrial) and structural fire fighters turnout gear. As a result of this project he was asked to design and build a similar system for a University in South Korea. This system was installed and commissioned in 2010.

Mark has been involved in wildland fire research for nearly 15 years. His interest is in energy transfer from high intensity fast moving fire fronts and how wildland fire workers can be protected in the event of an entrapment (wild fire burnover event). He has made measurements of energy transfer in forest and grass fires for more than 10 years and has developed specialized equipment for the measurement of energy transfer and fire spread rates. As a result of this work he was asked to sit on NFPA 1977 (National Fire Protection Association standard committee dealing with wildland fire) and was the lead on the development of a new Fire Shelter for the US Forest Service. The development of the fire shelter required the design and construction of new test equipment and procedures to simulate wildfire conditions in the laboratory. He holds patents in several countries on the resulting design and the fire shelter is now carried by 200,000 fire fighters in the United States.

ii

iii

Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... i

About the Author .......................................................................................................................................... ii

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. iii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... iv

Background .............................................................................................................................................. - 1 -

Experimental Design ................................................................................................................................ - 7 -

Test Results – Trial 1 ............................................................................................................................. - 13 -

Exposure Trial 1 ................................................................................................................................. - 13 -

Exposure Trial 2 ................................................................................................................................. - 17 -

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ - 20 -

References .............................................................................................................................................. - 21 -

List of Figures Figure 1 Cured Grass Fuels (FBP type O-1b) ............................................................................. - 2 - Figure 2 Crown Fire in Mixed Spruce and Pine (FBP fuel type C2) .......................................... - 2 - Figure 3 Energy Transfer from Flames to a Body Immersed in the Flames (Body temperature assumed to be 300K) ................................................................................................................... - 4 - Figure 4 Energy Transfer to a Sensor Package Located in a 20m (66ft) Diameter Clearing, June 16, 2000, International Crown Fire Modeling Experiment ......................................................... - 5 - Figure 5 Energy Transfer to a Second Sensor Package Located in a 20m (66 ft) Diameter Clearing, June 16, 2000, International Crown Fire Modeling Experiment ................................ - 6 - Figure 6 Fire Emerging from the Downwind Edge of a Test Plot – International Crown Fire Modelling Experiment (courtesy Missoula Technology and Development Center) .................. - 7 - Figure 7 Thermocouple on Exterior Surface of 6/7 Module ...................................................... - 9 - Figure 8 Module Prior to Testing............................................................................................... - 9 - Figure 9 6/7 Module with Shroud Installed Prior to Testing ................................................... - 10 - Figure 10 6/7 Module During Exposure .................................................................................. - 11 - Figure 11 6/7 Module After Exposure (Shroud removed) ....................................................... - 12 - Figure 12 Exposed Fibers After Exposure ............................................................................... - 13 - Figure 13 Heat Flux Measured During Module Exposure Test 1 ............................................ - 14 - Figure 14 Temperatures Measured During Module Test 1 ...................................................... - 15 - Figure 15 Heat Flux to Module Based on Module Surface Temperature, Test 1 .................... - 16 - Figure 16 Surface of 6/7 Module Following Exposure ........................................................... - 16 - Figure 17 Heat Flux Measured During Module, Test 2 ........................................................... - 17 - Figure 18 Temperatures Measured During Module, Test 2 ..................................................... - 18 - Figure 19 Heat Flux to Module Surface Based on Module Surface Temperature, Test 2 ....... - 19 - Figure 20 Surface Condition of Module after 120 Second Exposure ...................................... - 19 -

iii

iv

List of Tables Table 1 Summary of Test Results for Flame Exposure to 6/7 Module .................................... - 20 -

iv

Background Wildland fire is highly variable in intensity, speed and its effects on assets such as utility poles and power lines. The intensity of a wildfire depends on a number of factors such as fuel type (species and size), fuel density, foliar moisture content, wind speed and whether the area is level or on a slope. The frontal velocity of a fire depends primarily on driving wind and slope and affects the residence time or time that an asset could be exposed to flames or thermal radiation.

The combustion process for woody fuels is the same regardless of the woody or grass species being consumed. Woody fuels burn at a rate limited by oxygen availability and the rate at which the solid phase of the fuel is vaporized by the energy transport from the flames back to the fuel surface. If the fuels are fine (grassy or needle), the consumption rate is relatively high and if coarser (twigs, branches, stems), the time required for the combustion process to complete increases. It is rare that the boles (trunks) of trees are consumed during the main front as the combustion process is not usually self sustaining after the main front passes. Since coarser fuels require a longer time for consumption, the active burning zone increases in depth.

Grassy fuels, with a small size range and typically low moisture, content burn out very quickly and as such the flame front depth will not vary as much as larger fuel complexes. With coarser fuel types, or mixed fuel types, the frontal velocity will increase with wind speed (and slope). The larger components require a greater amount of time for consumption and as a result the flame depth (thickness perpendicular to the front) increases as the frontal velocity increases.

Energy release rates [1] are typically measured in kW/m of frontal width and range from less than 10 kW/m to more than 10,000 kW/m, depending on fuel type, fuel loading and fuel condition. Flame heights depend on the fuel type and fuel loading (tonnes/ha). Since the burning of woody fuels is a diffusion process, and the flame zones are oxygen depleted, the luminescent flames rise and the combustion process completes above the fuel canopy. This diffusion process takes time, and can be enhanced by turbulent mixing above the canopy, but generally the sustained flame zone in a high intensity fire can be two or more times as high as the canopy. Figures 1 and 2 show flames in two extreme fuel types; grassy and mixed spruce-pine. In the grassy cured fuels (FBP type O-1b) the flame front is typically a few meters thick, the flames are about 2-4 m (6-12 ft) tall, and the residence time is usually less than 30 seconds due to relatively low fuel loading (~3 ton/ha) and high spread rates of upwards of 180 m/min (10 ft/s). Energy release rates are moderate to high (4000-10,000 kW/m) because the fuel is relatively homogeneous and fine; the result is that it is consumed very rapidly. Contrast that with Figure 2 (mixed spruce and pine, 13 m tall crown height, FBP fuel type C-2) where the flame front 20-30 m (65-100 ft) thick and the flame heights may reach 30 m (100 ft).

- 2 -

Figure 1 Cured Grass Fuels (FBP type O-1b)

Figure 2 Crown Fire in Mixed Spruce and Pine (FBP fuel type C2)

Discontinuities in the fuels (clearings, roads, seismic lines, utility right of ways) can have several effects on a fire front depending on the fuel type, whether the terrain is flat or sloped, the condition of the fuels and the wind speed. At one end of the fire spectrum (low intensity ground fire) relatively small breaks in the fuels can be an effective measure for limiting fire spread. At the other end, high intensity fast moving crown fires, fuel breaks must be substantial; much greater than two times the fuel height to be effective. If small, the discontinuity will have little or no effect on the fire front. If the fuel break is larger the modifications to gas flows within the

- 3 -

discontinuity can have the effect of creating structures such as fire whirls, which have high velocity, and can transfer energy to assets at a much higher rate than if the discontinuity were not present. (Angular momentum is conserved so the combination of a buoyant plume and a change in crown height creates rapidly moving vortex like structures) Limited experimental work has been done on fuel breaks in coniferous forests. The International Crown Fire Modeling Experiment [2], which took place in the Northwest Territories (NWT), Canada in 1997-2000, brought together many experimental studies of wildland fire behaviour. As part of the studies the author made measurements of heat flux within seismic lines and clearings to attempt to determine what effects fuel breaks played and whether they would be suitable “safety zones” for wildland fire fighters. The work was intended to identify the size of a fuel break needed to provide refuge for a wildland fire fighter in the event of an entrapment. The studies found that linear breaks (such as seismic lines, small roads) or clearings (12-20 m, 39-66 ft, diameter) were ineffective in reducing the energy transfer to a point in space to a sufficiently low level.

The energy transfer to an object within, or in close proximity to, a fire front takes the form of thermal radiation (if the object is not in contact with hot combustion products) or a combination of thermal radiation and convection. The exposure magnitude and time depends on the location of the object and the intensity of the fire. As the object receives energy from the flames, either via thermal radiation or hot gas contact, its surface temperature rises and the rate of heat transfer to the surface will decline. The magnitude of the temperature rise at the surface depends on the material and its ability to conduct energy from the surface to the interior. A highly conductive material will experience a lower temperature rise at the surface but will be more uniform in temperature throughout. A highly insulating material will see the outer surface rise to combustion product temperature almost immediately and there will be a strong temperature gradient towards the interior (temperatures at some depth below the surface will remain low for a longer time period because the material impedes the flow of energy from the surface). The surface temperature rise leads to a reduction in rates of energy transfer even if the source temperature is constant.

Wildland fires are rate limited by oxygen availability and the conversion of solid fuel into a combustible gaseous fuel. As such the flames are highly soot producing and are usually considered to be optically thick, meaning that they radiate as a black body emitter. This means that the radiation emitted by the flames is a function of temperature alone, and the energy received by a surface “seeing” the flames, depends on the size of the flames as well as the distance between the emitter and receiver. Gas velocities within a fire can be very high but the combustion products are viscous and as a result convection coefficients are relatively low [3].Temperatures within the combustion zone of a wildland fire can range from 700-800oC (1290-1470oF) to over 1300oC (2370oF) depending on the degree of mixing (air and vaporized solid fuel). In most cases cited in the literature, measured combustion product temperatures are less than 1000oC (1830oF). The resulting energy transfer to an object within a forest fire is a result of convection, from the hot combustion products, and thermal radiation from the luminescent

- 4 -

flames and soot particles. Figure 3 shows the range of heat fluxes that can reasonably be expected for an asset placed within the fuel complex so that it receives both thermal radiation from the flames and hot gas contact with the combustion products. At 700oC (1290oF) gas temperatures the energy transfer varies between about 50 kW/m2 (4.4 Btu/ft2-s) to perhaps 80 kW/m2 (7.0 Btu/ft2-s). As the combustion product temperature increases the energy transfer rates increase to much higher values (150-200 kW/m2, 13.2-17.6 Btu/ft2-s). At lower temperatures, the energy transfer is a mix of convection and radiation and as the temperature of the combustion products increases the energy transfer is dominated by thermal radiation.

Figure 3 Energy Transfer from Flames to a Body Immersed in the Flames (Body temperature assumed to be 300K)

The energy transfer to an object becomes more complex if the object is not immersed in the combustion products; such as the edge of a cut block or in a wide clearing. In this case, the convection portion of the heat transfer is no longer present and the exposure to the body is purely via thermal radiation. The exposure then depends on the size of the flames (width and height) and the distance separating the flames and the object. The usual method of estimating this is to assume the flames behave as a planar black body emitter with an emissive power of 100 kW/m2

to 150 kW/m2 (8.8-13.2 Btu/ft2-s), and to calculate a view factor based on the spatial relationship between the object and the flames. The view factor is essentially the fraction of the energy leaving the flame front that reaches the object of interest. The energy transfer to an object ahead

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

Q, T

otal

Hea

t Flu

x (k

W/m

2 )

Combustion Product Temperature (oC)

Qrad

h = 10 W/m2-K

h = 15 W/m2-K

h = 25 W/m2-K

h = 50 W/m2-K

- 5 -

of the flames increases with flame width and height. Since the flames radiate equally in all directions, the incident energy falls off rapidly with separation distance between the object and flame front.

Figures 4 and 5 are traces of heat flux obtained in a 20m (66 ft) diameter clearing during the International Crown Fire Modeling Experiment in the NWT, Canada. The fuels in this case were a complex of 12-13m (39-42 ft) tall pine with a spruce understory. The measurements were made using heat flux sensors that approximate the response of human skin (skin simulants) and were intended to be used to define the size of opening that entrapped wildland fire fighters could take refuge in.

The sensor package consisted of 5 heat flux sensors mounted in the faces of a metal cube (four cardinal directions and facing upwards). In both cases, the peak heat flux was well in excess of 100 kW/m2 (8.8 Btu/ft2-s) and the event duration was on the order of two minutes. Subsequent measurements in multiple locations (seismic lines, edge of a fuel block, smaller clearings) all showed that peak heat fluxes could reach well above 100 kW/m2 (8.8 Btu/ft2-s) and durations of the events were typically 120 seconds or more.

The duration of the event can be defined in a number of ways, but the usual method is to decide on a threshold heat flux and determine the time the fire event produces exposures above the threshold. As seen in Figure 4, there may be a single peak which dies off fairly rapidly or, as indicated in Figure 5, a large peak with a number of smaller events that occur as debris that was not consumed in the initial fire burns.

Figure 4 Energy Transfer to a Sensor Package Located in a 20m (66ft) Diameter Clearing, June 16, 2000, International Crown Fire Modeling Experiment

0.0

1.8

3.5

5.3

7.0

8.8

10.6

12.3

14.1

15.8

17.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00

Hea

t Flu

x (B

tu/ft

2 -s)

Hea

t Flu

x (k

W/m

2 )

Time (seconds)

Sensor 1Sensor 2Sensor 3Sensor 4Sensor 5

- 6 -

Figure 5 Energy Transfer to a Second Sensor Package Located in a 20m (66 ft) Diameter Clearing, June 16, 2000, International Crown Fire Modeling Experiment

If the clearing is sufficiently large, or the assets are sufficiently far away from the fuels, the energy transfer mechanism is largely thermal radiation from the flame front with an additional component from any ground fuels that catch fire as a result of heating from radiation, spotting or ground fire. Within a large clearing, the exposures would be significantly lower (other than the short duration event when ground fuels or fine fuels burned around the asset) and dependent on separation distance from the flame front. Figure 6 shows a flame front reaching the edge of a fuel block during one of the plot burns in the International Crown Fire Modelling Experiment. If there is a build-up of woody debris from a clearing operation, or a lot of dead and downed material, the event duration can be significantly longer; potentially stretching to ½ hour or more as the coarser fuels require more time to burn.

When deciding on the exposure conditions for evaluating RS Technologies Inc. RStandard® composite utility pole, it was assumed that no build up of debris would exist within the utility right of way and, as a result, the event would not last beyond two minutes. While this would not be the most extreme test one could imagine, it would be severe and representative of conditions frequently encountered in a wildfire event.

0.0

1.8

3.5

5.3

7.0

8.8

10.6

12.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Hea

t Flu

x (B

tu/ft

2 -s)

Hea

t Flu

x (k

W/m

2 )

Time (seconds)

Sensor 1Sensor 2Sensor 3Sensor 4Sensor 5

- 7 -

Experimental Design To evaluate the resistance of RStandard® composite utility structure to a wildfire event it was decided that a moderate heat flux exposure, hot gas contact, and an event duration of two minutes would be appropriate. These conditions are reasonable for a structure located within a utility corridor and would represent a moderate to severe test.

A shroud was constructed using a nominal 0.91 m (3 ft) diameter, 20 gauge spiral duct, 2.9 m (9.5 ft) long. The shroud was split in two and angle flanges were added so it could be assembled around a standing module. Each half of the shroud was fitted with two elongated openings near the base to accommodate modified propane torches. Mixing elements and flow controls for the torches were removed and replaced with a single 3.4 mm (0.135 in) diameter critical flow orifice to regulate fuel flow rate. Critical flow orifices choke the flow (velocity in the throat remains sonic) so that flow rates are set by varying the upstream density (using regulator pressure). The flow remains choked as long as the ratio of upstream to downstream absolute pressure remains

Figure 6 Fire Emerging from the Downwind Edge of a Test Plot – International Crown Fire Modelling Experiment (courtesy Missoula Technology and Development Center)

- 8 -

above the critical pressure ratio, PCR. For propane, PCR is ~0.56 so as long as the ratio of absolute upstream pressure to downstream pressure remains above this value the flow remains choked.

Fuel was routed from four 9 kg (20 lb) propane bottles (one for each torch) to electric solenoid valves and to the critical flow orifices. Since the mixing elements in the torches were removed, pure propane was expelled from the orifices making the fuel/air mixture within the shroud very fuel rich. This was done to ensure the combustion product temperatures were kept reasonably low. Allowing too much air into the combustion zone would raise the temperature above what is considered reasonable for a forest fire). Fuel was delivered through holes in the base of the shroud and ignited. The combustion products flowed through the annual space between the module and the shroud and exited the top.

The shroud was placed on square tubing supports at the base with the spacing between the base and shroud (and the air allowed into the system) controlled by the spacing. Figure 7 shows a 6/7 module embedded in a 3 m (9.8 ft) deep hole drilled in RS Technologies Inc.’s yard in Calgary, Alberta. Figure 8 shows the module with the shroud and burners in place. Ignition of the fuel was done using an electronic ignition and the event duration was timed so the exposure was limited to two minutes.

A 6/7 module was prepared by installing type-K thermocouples at six locations on the exterior of the module; 0.6 m (2 ft), 1.2 m (4 ft) and 1.8 m (6 ft) above grade and two on the interior at the 1.2 m (4 ft) level on two sides. The thermocouples were prepared by welding the junction and then flattening them to approximately 0.25 mm (0.010 in) thick. The flattened junctions were held in close proximity to the outer surface using a tie wire around the module as indicated in Figure 7. The interior thermocouples were held in place using high temperature adhesive tape. Thermocouple leads were routed from the outer surface to the interior and to an opening near the 3 m (9.8 ft) level (grade level after pole installed in drilled hole) where they could be routed under the shroud to two data loggers.

A data logging system, a Fourier Systems DaqPro Logger, was set to approximately 1 point per second per channel for all channels. The data logger used was a 16 bit unit with internal compensation for thermocouples.

A water cooled heat flux sensor was installed in the shroud to measure the exposure conditions during the tests. The heat flux sensor used was a Medtherm Corporation, Model 64, dual element Schmidt-Boelter gauge with both total and radiant flux sensing elements. The window over the radiation element was calcium fluoride which responds to radiation over a 0.3-11.5 micrometer range and provides a flat response in the 0.7-9 micrometer range of wavelengths.

The modules were installed in a 3 m (9.8 ft) deep drilled hole, the shrouds installed and the exposure initiated by starting the propane fuel flow and lighting the fuel. Air flow to the combustion zone was not dynamically controlled but was set by the spacing between the bottom

- 9 -

of the shroud and the ground level around the module. Fuel supply pressure was set to 207 kPa (30 psi) gauge in both tests.

Figure 7 Thermocouple on Exterior Surface of 6/7 Module

Figure 8 Module Prior to Testing

- 10 -

Figure 9 6/7 Module with Shroud Installed Prior to Testing

- 11 -

Figure 10 6/7 Module During Exposure

- 12 -

Figure 11 6/7 Module After Exposure (Shroud removed)

- 13 -

Test Results – Trial 1

Exposure Trial 1 As was indicated previously a 6/7 module was embedded in a 3 m (9.8 ft) deep hole on site at the RS Technologies yard to control the exposure location on the module. After exposure the shroud was allowed to cool for a few minutes so it could be handled and it was removed. Examination of the module after exposure revealed that the outer layer of aliphatic polyurethane resin had burned off leaving the outer glass fibers exposed as indicated in Figure 12.

Figure 12 Exposed Fibers After Exposure

Figure 13 shows the output of the total and radiant heat flux transducer during the 120 second exposure. Note that this is the maximum exposure that an object in the flames would receive before any change in temperature. The Schmidt-Boelter gauge is a water cooled device and so during the exposure its temperature remains constant. An object (such as the module) in the combustion products increases in temperature during the exposure and as the temperature at the outer surface rises toward flame temperature, the driving potential for energy transfer (temperature difference) decreases. What this means is that the object will initially see the exposure indicated by the Schmidt-Boelter gauge but as its surface temperature increases the energy transfer to the surface will decrease. During this test the peak total heat flux indicated by the Schmidt-Boelter gauge was more than 90 kW/m2 (7.9 Btu/ft2-s) and the peak radiant flux was about 48 kW/m2 (4.2 Btu/ft2-s).

- 14 -

Figure 13 Heat Flux Measured During Module Exposure Test 1

The thermocouple indicated temperatures for selected locations are shown in Figure 14. The true surface temperature of the composite pole is difficult to measure during the exposure because as the outer surface temperature increases, the resins ultimately vaporize and become part of the fuel within the enclosure. When this happens, the thermocouples are no longer in contact with the surface and indicate a temperature that is somewhere between surface temperature and gas temperature.

Indicated surface temperatures were used along with output from the Schmidt-Boelter gauge to calculate the surface flux to the module. This calculation was based on an effective gas temperature from the radiation element of the Schmidt-Boelter gauge and a convective heat transfer coefficient determined from the difference between total heat flux and radiant heat flux (this is essentially the convective portion). This result, shown in Figure 15, indicates the maximum heat flux to the module during the test was approximately 60 kW/m2 (5.3 Btu/ft2-s)while the average flux during the exposure was between 50 and 55 kW/m2 (4.4 - 4.8 Btu/ft2-s). The exposure time was controlled by fuel gas flow and the test was terminated after 120 seconds.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Hea

t Flux (Btu/ft2‐s)

Schm

idt‐Bo

elter H

eat Flux

(kW/m

2)

Time (seconds)

RStandard® Module Test 1

Total Heat Flux Schmidt‐BoelterRadiant

- 15 -

Figure 14 Temperatures Measured During Module Test 1

Interior surface temperatures, measured at the 1.2 m (4 ft) level, were similar at both locations, gradually rising over the exposure period to a maximum of 70oC (158 oF). Examination of the module after exposure indicated that a significant amount of resin had been removed during the exposure.

That the resin contributed to the fuel load was evident when the burners were turned off and smoke continued to evolve from the enclosure. Small flames were seen at the top of the enclosure immediately following the exposure but the burning resin self extinguished within 30 seconds of removal of the propane flames. Burning after the propane fuel supply was shut off was likely extended by the presence of the enclosure which would prevent the outer surface of the composite pole from cooling as quickly as it would in open air. A composite pole situated within a utility right of way would likely cool more quickly and the burning resin would self-extinguish as soon as the flame source was gone.

Figure 16 shows the surface of the module after exposure. Note that the outer covering of resin has completely burned away and while the thermocouple junction is intact, (center of picture) it is no longer in intimate contact with the surface.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

0.0

200.0

400.0

600.0

800.0

1000.0

1200.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Tempe

rature (oF)

Tempe

rature (oC)

Time (seconds)

RStandard® Module Test 10.6 m

1.2 m

1.8 m

Interior Surface

Gas Temperature

0.6 m

1.2 m

1.8 m

Interior Surface

- 16 -

Figure 15 Heat Flux to Module Based on Module Surface Temperature, Test 1

Figure 16 Surface of 6/7 Module Following Exposure

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Hea


Hea

t Flux (kW/m

2)

Time (seconds)

RStandard® Module ‐ Test 1

Flux to Module

Total Heat Flux Schmidt‐Boelter

- 17 -

Exposure Trial 2 The first exposure was felt to be overly severe given the magnitude of a potential exposure from a wild fire. To reduce the exposure level the amount of air available for combustion was reduced and the test repeated on a second module. The exposure time was again set at 120 seconds and the metal enclosure was allowed to cool for a few minutes before it was removed.

As in the first trial, a significant amount of resin was removed from the surface during the exposure period and the composite module continued to burn within the enclosure for 15-30 seconds after the burners were turned off. It is felt that the burning during the post exposure period would be reduced in a wild fire exposure as the metal enclosure tends to contain the high temperature gases and prevents the module surface from cooling. In an open air situation it is expected that the afterflame period would be very short (less than 30 seconds) and the material would self-extinguish very quickly after the flames were removed.

Figure 17 indicates that limiting the air supply was effective in reducing the magnitude of the heat flux measured using the Schmidt-Boelter gauge. The total heat flux measurement peaked at approximately 60 kW/m2 (5.3 Btu/ft2-s) during test 2, compared to more than 90 kW/m2 (7.9 Btu/ft2-s) in test 1.

Thermocouples were again positioned next to the surface to get an indication of surface temperature. Data traces for thermocouples next to the outer surface as well as two attached to the inner surface are shown in Figure 18. Combustion product temperatures were lower in the second trial (as would be expected with reduced combustion air), averaging about 800oC-850oC(1470-1560 oF) for the duration of the exposure.

Figure 17 Heat Flux Measured During Module, Test 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Hea


Schm

idt‐Bo

elter G

auge

(kW/m

2 )

Time (seconds)

RStandard® Module Test 2Total Heat Flux Schmidt‐BoelterRadiant

- 18 -

Figure 18 Temperatures Measured During Module, Test 2

Convective heat flux to the module surface was again estimated using the total flux and radiative flux from the Schmidt-Boelter gauge. Based on this energy measure, the convective heat transfer coefficient was determined and then used with gas and module surface temperature to calculate the convective flux to the surface of the module.

The radiative energy transfer to the module was determined by calculating an effective gas temperature and then using this gas temperature and module surface temperature to estimate radiative heat flux to the module surface.

This procedure was necessary because, unlike the Schmidt-Boelter gauge, the surface temperature of the composite module changes significantly during the exposure. Based on these calculations, Figure 19 was plotted. This figure shows that the peak heat flux to the module was ~40 kW/m2 (3.5 Btu/ft2-s) and the average flux during the exposure was ~35 kW/m2 (3.1 Btu-ft2-s).

As in the first trial the outer layer of resin was removed during the exposure and the short time period after the exposure before the enclosure was removed. The damage to the module did not appear as severe as the first trial. Figure 20 shows remnants of resin that were not consumed during the exposure indicating that the depth of damage was not as great during the second trial. It should be emphasized that in a wild fire exposure, it is likely that the period of continued burning of resin could be shorter as the outer surface would cool quite rapidly after the passage of the main fire front.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0.0

200.0

400.0

600.0

800.0

1000.0

1200.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Tempe

rature (oF)

Tempe

rature (oC)

Time (Seconds)

RStandard® Module Test 20.6 m1.2 m1.8 mInterior SurfaceCombustion Gas0.6 m1.2 m1.8 mInterior SurfaceCombustion Gases

- 19 -

Interior temperatures were again measured at two locations and are plotted in Figure 18. While the heat flux to the surface of the module was lower the surface temperature rise was a little higher, peaking at ~115oC (240 oF) after the two minute exposure.

Figure 19 Heat Flux to Module Surface Based on Module Surface Temperature, Test 2

Figure 20 Surface Condition of Module after 120 Second Exposure

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Hea


Hea

t Flux (kW/m

2 )

Time (seconds)

Total Heat Flux to Module ‐ Run 2Flux to ModuleTotal Heat Flux Schmidt‐Boelter

- 20 -

Table 1 contains a summary of the results obtained during fire exposure of two RS Technologies RStandard® composite modules. The modules were exposed to diffusion flames generated using propane as a fuel while heat flux (radiant and total) was measured using a single Schmidt-Boelter water cooled sensor. The sensor was located in the enclosure at a height of 1.8 m (6 ft) above grade. Exterior temperatures were measured at three heights above grade, 0.6 m (2 ft), 1.2 m (4 ft) and 1.8 m (6 ft), in two lines on opposite sides of the module.

Table 1 Summary of Test Results for Flame Exposure to 6/7 Module

Module Serial #

Heat Flux kW/m2 (Btu/ft2-s) Gas Temperature

oC (oF) (measured at two locations)

Maximum Module Internal Surface

Temperature During Exposure,

oC (oF) Average Peak

M67-TA-09-05853 35 (3.1) 40 (3.5) 825, 990 (1515, 1815) 115 (240)

M67-TA-10-01029 55 (4.8) 60 (5.3) 1050 (1920) 75 (167)

ConclusionsTwo composite modules were exposed to propane diffusion flames simulating exposure to a moderate to severe intensity wildfire. Each composite module was exposed for 120 seconds and both heat flux and near surface temperatures were measured. The modules were examined after exposure for damage and subsequently tested by RS Technologies to determine bending strength. The bending strength test results are available in RS Report No. 11006, “Full Scale Bend Testing of RStandard® Composite Utility Poles Exposed to Fire”.

Based on measurements made during the exposure and examination of the modules following the exposure the following conclusions can be drawn.

The exposure was sufficient to remove the outer resin layer to an estimated depth of 0.5-1 mm (0.02 -0.04 in) and expose the glass fiber reinforcing. At locations where there were holes in the module, the outer layer of resin impregnated fiber separated from the main module (this depth appeared to be about 1 mm, 0.04 in, Figure 12).

The composite pole continued to burn for less than 30 seconds after the propane fuel was turned off and then self extinguished. The afterflame period was likely sustained due to the presence of the enclosure, which prevented the outer surface of the pole from cooling. It is expected that in a wild fire the composite pole would self extinguish within a few seconds of the passage of the flame front.

Measured interior surface temperatures were less than 120oC (250 oF) in both tests during the exposure. It is not known what temperature the outer glass fibers reached during the exposure but in both tests temperatures measured near the surface exceeded 600oC (1100 oF).

The exposure produced with the propane burners can be considered to be moderate in heat flux magnitude and severe in duration. Heat flux measured in forest fires typically peak at higher

- 21 -

values (100-150 kW/m2, 8.8-13.2 Btu/ft2-s) but are not sustained at those levels for more than 30 seconds. After that time, the heat flux usually drops off to more moderate levels until the remaining fuels are consumed.

In the flame contact tests documented in this report the heat flux to the module surface was sustained for the 120 second duration of the exposure. These test exposures can be considered moderate to severe for a structure located within a utility right of way and exposed to a wild fire.

References 1. Taylor S.W., Pike R.G., Alexander M.E., “Field Guide to the Canadian Forest Fire Behaviour Prediction System”, Canadian Forest Service, 1996, ISBN 0-662-24104-5

2. Alexander M.E., Lanoville R.A., Wotton M.B., Stocks B.J., “Introduction to the International Crown Fire Modelling Experiment”, International Wildland Fire Safety Summit, 2000, Edmonton, Alberta.

3. Rouson D., Tieszen S. R., Evans G., “Modeling Convection Heat Transfer and Turbulence with Fire Applications: A High Temperature Vertical Plate and a Methane Flame”, Center for Turbulence Research, Stanford University, Proceedings of the Summer Program 2002

4. Butler B., Cohen J., “Firefighter Safety Zones: A theoretical Model Based on Radiative Heating”, International Journal of Wildland Fire 8(2), 1998.

Report No. 11006: Full Scale Bend Testing of RStandard® Composite Utility Poles Exposed to Fire Fire Exposed Pole Testing An analysis of the full scale test results for product exposed to simulated wildfire conditions. Gus Ternoey, P. Eng. and Shawn van Hoek-Patterson, P. Eng. 11/2/2011

Appendix A-20Test Report - Full Scale Bend Testing of RS

Composite Utility Poles Exposed to Fire, 2011

of 10

Scope This report presents analysis based on full scale pole testing results for two 75’ [22.9 m] 0307 module combinations after exposure to simulated wildfire conditions.

Each module 6/7 was embedded in the ground to a depth of approximately 9’-6” [2.9 m] and the remaining above ground portion was exposed to the simulated wildfire conditions as shown in figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Showing flame height extending above the 9’-6” [2.9m] high shroud

Each fire exposed module 6/7 was then used to assemble a 75’ [22.9 m] pole which was then horizontally bend tested.

This report discusses the analysis of horizontal full scale bend testing of these modules compared to the test results of 75’ [22.9 m] 0307 poles which were not exposed to fire and reports on the physical changes to the exposed modules.

of 10

Data Source The baseline pole data includes full scale testing results conducted on 75’ [22.9 m] M3-M4-M5-M6/7 (0307) pole assemblies for PLS data collection, plus process validation and manufacturing specification extremities testing. This data set covers the full range of product characteristics. Full details on the exposure conditions are available in the report “Exposure of a Composite Utility Pole to Simulated Wildfire Conditions” by M.Y. Ackerman, P.Eng. October 2011.

Test Results The following table provides a summary of the exposure level for each module tested: Table 1: Summary data

Full Scale Test Heat Flux Gas Internal

Mass Load Spec Stiffness Spec Avg Peak Temp Temp

Module SN lbs [kg]

lbs [kN]

lbs [kN]

lbs/in [kN/m]

lbs/in [kN/m]

Btu/ft2-s [kW/m2]

Btu/ft2-s [kW/m2]

°F [°C]

°F [°C]

M67-TA-09-05853

860 [390]

5,516 [24.5]

5,150 [22.9]

36.3 [6.36]

28.0 [4.9]

3.1 [35]

3.5 [40]

1515,1815[825, 990]

240 [115]

M67-TA-10-01029

886 [402]

7,570 [33.7]

5,150 [22.9]

40.0 [7.0]

28.0 [4.9]

4.8 [55]

5.3 [60]

1920 [1,050]

167 [75]

Figure 2 shows the charred surface, typical of each of the tested modules, immediately after the fire exposure test and the shrouds were removed. The close up picture on the right side of figure 2 shows the glass fiber falling away from the cut edge of a hole after the resin has been burned away.

Figure 2: Charred surface of the pole on the left with a close up of charred glass fibers falling from the cut edge of a hole on the right hand side.

of 10

The full scale test failure mode of the fire exposed modules was typical of previously tested modules and resulted in local buckling on the compressive side of the pole near the ground line. The depth of heat penetration into the laminate was investigated under a microscope from samples cut from the poles. Figure 3 below shows a sample of the laminate taken 154“ [3.9 m] from the base. The darker outer charred layers are on the right hand side of the picture with the vertical red line showing the extent of visible yellowing of the matrix resin. The depth of colour change due to the fire exposure was measured at 0.037” [0.95 mm] on a sample that was 0.375” [9.5 mm] thick overall.

Figure 3: Depth of visible heat affected zone into the laminate with outer surface on the right Figure 4 shows a microscope image of the laminate taken 216” [5.5 m] from the base. The darker outer charred layers are on the right hand side of the picture with the vertical red line showing the extent of visible yellowing of the matrix resin. Due to the greater distance from the ground line, the depth of colour change due to the fire exposure was less for this sample and measured 0.030” [0.75 mm] deep on a sample that was 0.452” [11.5 mm] thick overall.

of 10

Figure 4: Depth of visible heat affected zone into the laminate with outer surface on the right

Data Analysis

Methodology Both fire exposed modules were assembled into 75’ [22.9 m] M3-M4-M5-M6/7 (0307) pole assemblies and tested at the RS Calgary full scale test facility. Each pole was loaded until catastrophic failure occurred. Load and deflection data were collected from each test. Please see figure 5 for a diagram of the test set up and resulting points of failure for each module.

Minitab statistical software was used to analyze the data and compare it to baseline full scale test data from eight, non fire exposed, previously tested poles. [Five RS original performance specification tests plus three process validation tests]

The RS published pole strength rating, as stated on the data sheets, is based on a statistical lower exclusion limit (LEL) of 5%. This has been taken to mean that the rated load is not to exceed the predicted failure load for the weakest 5% of the product population.

Besides the 5% LEL value, the RS published pole strength ratings include additional safety factors to further increase the performance margin of RStandard® poles.

of 10

Figure 5: Diagram of test set up and resulting break points for each module

of 10

Since only two tests were conducted on fire exposed modules, the 95% confidence interval surrounding this data will be much larger than the baseline data. Comparisons to RS published performance specifications should therefore be drawn in a general manner instead of an absolute one.

Baseline Data The full scale test data set used to establish pole performance includes the full range of the manufacturing specification limits and is collectively referred to as the “baseline” in this report. The baseline data set, shown in figure 6, forms the standard to which the test results from the fire exposed module were compared.

Figure 6: Probability plot of baseline data

From the straight probability line, plotted in figure 6, we can determine the 5% LEL value. Drawing from the data shown in the above graph, table 2 highlights the key points:

Table 2: Key points from the plot shown in figure 5

Pole Set 3-4-5-6/7

Mean Failure Load

5% Max Load Most Likely

95% Confidence Interval @ 5%

Data Sheet Max Load

Baseline data 40.7 kN

[9,152 Lbs] 33.3 kN

[7,488 lbs] +/- 5.0 kN [1,250 lbs]

22.9 kN [5,150 lbs]

of 10

The fact that all the data points in the probability plot lie in close proximity to the central straight line indicates that the baseline data is normally distributed.

The “5% Max Load Most Likely” is the value expected to best represent the 5% LEL and is the horizontal axis value of the intersection of the 5 percent value from the vertical axis with the center line of the probability plot.

Within the probability plot, the outer curved lines indicate the 95% confidence interval [range on the horizontal axis] at a given percentage of population. The confidence interval for the baseline data set is +/- 5.0 kN [1,250 lbs] at the lowest 5% of the population.

The baseline data indicates that this pole assembly over performs in comparison to the data sheet specification by 45% (33.3 kN vs 22.9 kN). See the vertical green line in figure 5 that shows the RS published strength value for a baseline 75’ [22.9 m] 0307 pole. Simulated Wildfire Exposure Data The full scale test results for the two poles exposed to the simulated wildfire conditions are shown in a combined probability plot with the baseline data in figure 7. Comparing the means of the two data sets (40.7 kN baseline and 29.1 kN fire exposed) shown in figure 7 and table 3, the simulated wildfire exposure reduced the pole strength by 11.6 kN or slightly less than a 30% reduction compared to the baseline data. Comparing the 5% LEL values of the two data sets (33.3 kN baseline and 18.5 kN fire exposed), shown in figure 7 and in table 3, the estimated 5% LEL for the simulated wildfire exposure modules is 14.8 kN less. This corresponds to an estimated 45% rated strength reduction compared to the baseline test data. When comparing the 5% LEL for the fire exposed poles to the published pole strength (22.9 kN specification and 18.5 kN for fire exposed), the performance reduction was only 4.4 kN or about 20%. This smaller reduction in the pole strength rating can be attributed to the high level of performance margin above the stated specification for this pole assembly.

of 10

Figure 7: Probability plot showing exposed pole test results with baseline data

Table 3: Key points from the plot shown in figure 6

Pole Set 3-4-5-6/7

Mean Failure Load

5% Max Load Most Likely

95% Confidence Interval @ 5%

Data Sheet Max Load

Baseline data 40.7 kN

[9,152 Lbs] 33.3 kN

[7,488 lbs] +/- 5.0 kN [1,250 lbs]

22.9 kN [5,150 lbs]

Fire Test data 29.1 kN

[6,543 lbs] 18.5 kN

[4,160 lbs] +/- 15.5 kN [3,485 lbs]

n/a

As previously stated, the number of fire tested poles was low and results in an extremely wide confidence interval: +/- 15.5 kN [3,485 lbs] at 5%. Therefore, an absolute comparison, between the 5% LEL values, is unreliable and only general conclusions can be drawn.

Since the slope of the probability line is similar in both the baseline data set and for the fire exposed test data, it is reasonable to expect that the performance reduction for fire exposed poles is repeatable. Both of the simulated wildfire exposed modules had a failure point above the datasheet value for the pole assembly.

To estimate the impact of wildfire exposure on the other pole sizes, table 4 indicates the full scale test performance relative to the data sheet values. The performance margin of 45% for the 75’ [22.9 m] M3-M4-M5-M6/7 pole relative to the data sheet value is similar to the margin for the other module combinations. As a result, the effect of wildfire is expected to be similar across the entire product line.

of 10

Table 4: Pole performance comparisons to published data sheet strength values

Pole Set [Tested Length]

5% Max Load

Most likely

5% Max Load min prediction

Performance Margin on load

% Performance Margin

Data Sheet Strength

1-2 9.1m [30’]

32.1 [7,210]

28.7 [6,450]

12.2 [2,740]

55% 20.7 [4,650]

1-2-3 13.7m [45’]

32.7 [7,350]

31.1 [6,990]

11.5 [2,580]

49% 22.0 [4,950]

2-3-4 13.7m [45’]

38.1 [8,560]

35.4 [7,960]

17.7 [3,980]

66% 22.9 [5,150]

2-3-4-5 18.3m [60’]

31.2 [7,010]

26.2 [5,890]

10.1 [2,270]

36% 23.0 [5,175]

2-3-4-5/6 22.9m [75’]

25.8 [5,800]

15.8 [3,550]

11.4 [2,560

61% 16.0 [3,600]

3-4-5/6 18.3m [60’]

38.7 [8,700]

35.7 [8,020]

18.2 [4,090]

69% 22.9 [5,150]

3-4-5-6/7 22.9m [75’]

33.3 [7,488]

30.0 [6,740]

13.2 [2,970]

45% 22.9 [5,150]

3-4-5-6/7-8/9 32.0m [105’]

36.4 [8,180]

36.2 [8,130]

15.0 [3,370]

56% 23.4 [5,275]

4-5-6/7-8/9-10/11 36.6m [120’]

43.6 [9,800]

43.1 [9,690]

16.0 [3,600]

42% 30.7 [6,900]

Load in kN [lbs] (Chart adapted from “Operations Analysis – Full Scale Pole Testing rev 2” 6/17/2011)

Conclusions Exposure of RStandard® poles to wildfire conditions reduces the ultimate strength of the pole.

The datasheet specification for pole strength is significantly conservative and based on this test result, it is reasonable to expect an RStandard® pole to survive a moderate to severe wildfire event with adequate strength to continue to support a power line at normal load levels.

As this study did not assess the long term performance of the pole and given that the outer UV protective resin may have been burned away, it is recommended that a pole which has been exposed to a wildfire be inspected at the earliest opportunity.


Appendix A-20RStandard® Module Testing and Quality Assurance Overview



Utility ABC

Test Report Document v1.0

Page 2 of 18

1. Introduction and Objectives

RStandard poles are used in applications where both vertical and horizontal loads from equipment, wires, and weather elements are applied simultaneously to the pole or structure. This type of loading is commonly referred to as “combined load”. Software products such as PLS-Pole are capable of analyzing structures under these loading scenarios. PLS-Pole is also the only software developed specifically for analysis of RStandard poles.

Significant full scale pole test results are available for RStandard poles however industry standard pole bend test methods rely on largely or entirely horizontal load applied near the pole’s tip to determine pole strength and behaviour. The data from the horizontal load tests were integral in the development of the PLS-Pole FRP element and the RStandard pole library files for use with PLS software. Full scale testing with a vertical load component provides an opportunity to confirm the ability of PLS-Pole to accurately predict RStandard pole performance and behaviour under combined load scenarios.

The objective of this test project is to perform combined load type full scale pole bend tests and correlate the captured data with the predictive analysis of PLS-Pole.

There are no known industry standard test methods available which consider application of both external horizontal and vertical loads for determining pole strength and behaviour. This requires that a custom test method be developed based on the characteristics of realistic combined load cases. Additionally, a means of capturing all relevant data regarding the pole’s deformed geometry is needed; the industry standard test methods only capture the resultant pole tip deflection and not horizontal and vertical components of deflection.

2. Scope

This project evaluates five (5) full scale RStandard pole tests performed at RS’ Calgary-6th St. facility. The poles were tested under combined loading. Data captured from each test includes applied load (magnitude and angle relative to ground line) and horizontal/vertical deflections for seven (7) above ground points along the pole.

In addition to RS’ standard data acquisition (DAQ) systems and in order to capture data from multiple points along the pole, Olympus iSpeed Control Pro software and a high-definition video camera were used to film the tests and process the video footage. As part of the use of the Control Pro software, accuracy studies were conducted by comparing the data obtained through the video footage to data measured through RS’ standard DAQ systems.

The data from these tests was used to develop structure models and load cases as inputs to PLS-Pole to obtain the predicted performance of the test pole for comparison to the full scale test data using the current RStandard pole library file available on the PLS website, www.powerlinesystems.com.

3. Test Strategy

The tests were conducted to a modified ASTM D1036-90 procedure that incorporates a portion of vertical and horizontal load as described herein. Fixturing of the pole and DAQ equipment set up was conducted in the manner common to typical RS’ horizontal pole-bend testing.

The modification to RS’ standard pole bend test was the location of the winch in relation to the pole tip. Typically, the winch is located such that at failure the winch cable is approximately parallel with the simulated ground-line of the test. In order to produce a component vertical load at/near failure, the winch was positioned as close to the simulated ground line for the test as safely possible. This induced a vertical component load on the pole throughout the test and at the failure point.


Page 3 of 18

Typically, for true combined loading scenarios the vertical load remains constant regardless of the horizontal load being applied to the pole. Using the winch position to achieve the vertical load component was the only feasible option for the test facility which resulted in the vertical load varying throughout the test. As such, this report has identified the type of testing as “Modified” combined load testing.

The aim for the vertical load at failure was a 1:2 ratio with the horizontal component; this is typical of a standard wind and ice load case under North American utility codes. Based on this ratio, the corresponding angle with the simulated ground-line was targeted for ~30°.

Four (4) RStandard pole RSP-0750-F-0307-C (RSP-0229-M-0307-C) with RS’ typical structure/load case configuration and one (1) RSP-0750-F-0206-C (RSP-0229-M-0206-C) with a customer defined structure/load case were used for this study. These poles are representative of a typical monopole light duty transmission application where combined loads have a significant effect. Selection of these poles provided reasonable confidence within the test facility that the estimated failure loads were well within the working range of the winch. To resist the vertical component of applied load at the test fixture, a strap was initially positioned below the base of the pole and tensioned to provide support for the vertical load component however after the initial test it was shown that this strap was not necessary and was not used in further testing.

In order to measure the angle of load application as well as the overall deformed geometry of the pole, RS’ standard DAQ equipment was supplemented with detailed measurements of the test setup and HD video footage that was used for additional data capture. The data captured from the video footage allowed for determination of the vertical and horizontal components of deflection and applied load throughout the test.

The following sketch (Figure 1) illustrates the additional data captured pre-test for use in obtaining data from the video footage.


Page 4 of 18

Figure 1 – Dimension sheet used for test geometry recording, pre-test.


Page 5 of 18

3.1. Test and Data Analysis Procedure(s)

1) Poles were assembled per the RStandard Assembly and Installation Guide v2.2c. 2) Poles were fixtured based on standard 5 ft. [1.52 m] increment length poles, with embedment length of 10%

of pole length plus 2 ft. [0.61 m]. * 3) All standard DAQ equipment was setup per RS modified ASTM D1036-90 test method. 4) Video targets were approximately equally spaced along the pole length with targets located at all DAQ

measurement points. 5) The video camera was positioned approximately 30 ft. [9.14 m] from pole base and 25 ft. [7.62 m] vertical to

observe the test. The field of view captured the entire pole length and the test area towards the winch location. This ensures the entire pole was observed throughout the test.

6) Winch position was determined in relation to the pole’s location in the fixture to obtain the desired loading angle near failure. PLS-Pole was used to predict pole performance based on the desired load ratio and thus assist with winch positioning. a) It is important to note that due to the limitation of a fixed winch position, variation in the applied load angle

was expected to vary throughout the test. As such, it was critical to capture the load angle throughout each test.

7) All measurements were taken immediately prior to the test as outlined in the RS Test Record sheet and as defined in the test sketch in Figure 1.

8) The tests were conducted per RS’ modified ASTM D1036-90 procedures. Video footage captured the entire test duration including failure.

9) Following the test, photos and measurements of failures were recorded. 10) The physically measured data was processed per RS’ standard practice and the video footage was reviewed. 11) Using Control Pro software the video targets were analyzed throughout the test and additional positional data

populated as a result. Both deformed geometry and load angle were then calculated throughout the test. 12) The corrected load vs. deflection curve obtained from the video footage was plotted along with the curve

measured from the physical DAQ system to illustrate the accuracy of the data obtained through video. 13) An empirical accuracy calculation was executed based on the tip deflection potentiometer data, initial test

geometry, and the gross horizontal and vertical deflection data obtained through video for the tip point. 14) From the load angle data, components of vertical and horizontal load were calculated at approximately 25%

increments throughout the tests

The deformed geometry at incremental points throughout the test will be compared to the PLS-Pole predictions by using the load profile obtained in #13. This comparison will be the basis for conclusions and recommendations for RStandard pole behavior under combined loads.

* RSP-0750-F-0206-C (RSP-0229-M-0206-C) was fixtured with ~13 ft. [4.00 m] simulated embedment length and load applied at ~59 ft. [18.00m] above simulated ground-line per a specific customer’s request.

4. Equipment Used

• RS Full-scale Pole Test Facility (RS Plant: 6th St. – Calgary, AB), Equipment and DAQ System. • 4 x RSP-0750-F-0307-C (RSP-0229-M-0307-C) • 1 x RSP-0750-F-0206-C (RSP-0229-M-0206-C) • JVC Everio HD Hard-disk Video Camera • Olympus NDT iSpeed Control Pro Suite software • AVS Video Converting/Editing software


Page 6 of 18

5. Test Results and Observations

All tests were conducted to pole failure. The individual test reports are included in the Appendix. Table 1 provides a summary of the results of each test.

Table 1 – Summary results from full scale pole tests.

Anglelbs. kN ° in. mm

m0506‐tb‐09‐2346 8605 38.28 35.34 301.30 7653 Localized Buckling

m0607‐ta‐08‐1431 9590 42.66 46.09 271.07 6885 Localized Bucklingm0607‐ta‐09‐4086 8898 39.58 31.23 256.44 6514 Localized Bucklingm0607‐tb‐09‐105 8365 37.21 37.86 262.51 6668 Slip‐joint Hoop Stressm0607‐ta‐09‐5910† 9092 40.44 37.90 249.10 6327 Localized Buckling

Mean* 8986 40 38 260 6598St. Dev.* 506 2 6 9 237COV [%]* 15.9%

† Deflection information based only on video analysis due to DAQ equipment malfunction.* Statistics are calculated only for 4 x "m0607…" tests.

5.6% 3.6%

Test ID #Basic Failure Point Information

Failure ModeLoad Resultant Deflection

An example of the load vs. deflection plot for each test is provided in Chart 1. This graph shows only the physically measured data from RS’ standard DAQ system. An important note for test m0607-ta-09-5910 is that during the test, the string which connects the tip deflection point on the pole to the position transducer broke. Because of this, the tip deflection measurement for this test is limited to the data obtained from the video footage.

Chart 1 – Load v. Deflection curve from m0607-ta-09-4086.


Page 7 of 18

The video footage provided a good observation perspective to review each test. Figure 2 illustrates a typical snapshot of the footage captured from the video camera during the test.

Figure 2 – m0607-ta-08-1431 test just prior to failure.

All but one test pole exhibited the most common failure mode for RStandard poles of a localized compressive shell buckling failure near the simulated ground-line. In m0607-tb-09-105, the pole failure occurred by a hoop stress failure of the 5-67 slip-joint. Although this failure mode is less common, it is not an unexpected failure mode for RStandard poles when the slip-joints are put under significant localized stress as a combined load test does. Figure 3 illustrates the two failure modes observed.

Figure 3 – Localized compressive shell buckling (left) and slip-joint hoop stress (right) failure examples.


Page 8 of 18

6. Data Analysis and Discussion

Olympus NDT’s iSpeed Control Pro Suite software was used to obtain deflection profiles from each test pole. The software provides control of a number of parameters and settings for obtaining data from the video footage. The footage from each test was initially processed from the native format to an MPEG-4/MP3 .avi file at 1080p and later reduced to 1 frame per second (fps) for effective use in the Control Pro Suite.

Once the video was open in the Control Pro Suite, there were a number of steps taken to obtain the deflection profile data:

1. The video was bookmarked and frame zero was set to the frame just before failure. 2. The video image was processed to reveal the best contrast between the video targets and the

surrounding image. Figure 4 shows one example of the processing options and the resultant image.

Figure 4 – Video image processing window.

3. The camera lens has inherent radial image distortion that the Control Pro Suite can correct for. This was done by taking an image of a checkerboard pattern with the camera and using the “Lens Distortion Correction” function to correct the captured video. This is important as otherwise the data obtained from the video would not account for this image distortion. Figure 5 illustrates the effect of the lens correction process; note the “curve” effect near the edges of the image on the left.


Page 9 of 18

Figure 5 – Native image (left), Corrected image (right).

4. The corrected image was then calibrated using the positions of known points from the pre-test measurements. The “Perspective Mode” was used because the camera’s field of view is not normal to the plane of interest for the test. This mode applies a variable distance per pixel based on the coordinate points and the location of the pixel in the image. Figure 6 illustrates an example of the image calibration process.

Figure 6 – Image Calibration window.

5. Finally, the points of interest were selected in the “Analysis” tab. The location of each point was automatically populated based on the coordinates defined in the calibration window. With the points of interest selected, the video is played and the automatic tracking feature records the position of each point for each video frame. If a point is lost or the target becomes unrecognizable to the software, the video can be paused and the target manually reselected although this was typically not necessary. Figure 7 shows the analysis window and the coloured lines on the image represent the points in each frame that were tracked.


Page 10 of 18

Figure 7 – Video Analysis window and data captured from each pole test.

An important observation in Figure 7 is that some of the data capture does not appear as smooth as expected or observed during the test. These imperfections have a number of causes including vibration of the pole, movement of the camera, and others. The imperfections due to any movement of the camera were corrected for by also recording data for a point which is known to be stationary throughout the test and correcting all other points based on the movement of that point.

Once the positional data was captured from each test, the load vs. corrected resultant deflection was plotted with the data captured from the physical DAQ system. This was done to illustrate whether or not the video data represented similar pole behaviour as measured with the DAQ system. Charts 2 show the final load vs. deflection plots for each test.


Page 11 of 18

Chart 2 – Left to Right/Top to Bottom; m0607-ta-08-1431, m0607-ta-09-4086, m0607-tb-09-105, m0607-ta-09-5910, m0506-tb-09-2346.


Page 12 of 18

For all “m0607…” tests which both DAQ and video data were available, there appears to be good correlation between the two separate deflection data sets.

The unique curves of m0607-ta-09-5910 (middle-right of Chart 2) illustrate the effect of the DAQ equipment malfunction noted in the Test Results section of this report.

The m0506-tb-09-2346 (bottom of Chart 2) test shows a video deflection curve that is marginally less conservative than the DAQ deflection curve. Investigation of the video data showed that this was primarily due to a difference in the correction parameters between the video and DAQ systems. The DAQ data indicated a pole axis rotation of approximately 4° while the video data indicated approximately 7° rotation had occurred. Further review of the video for this test suggests that initial rotation of the pole’s axis may not have been captured because of physical limitations of the DAQ system, especially in the initial stages of the test where the difference between curves is the greatest.

In addition to the comparative load vs. deflection plots, additional accuracy calculations were done for the tip point and for the correction parameter of the pole’s axis. These calculations indicate an overall accuracy of the tip point measurement to be within 7% for all tests. The axis rotation parameter was within 0.7° for all but two tests. One of these tests being m0506-tb-09-2346 described above and the other m0607-ta-09-4086 which was only marginally outside the typical accuracy.

An important note for the comparison of these test results with the predictions from PLS-Pole is that the modulus of elasticity calculation used in development of the RStandard pole library files is based on stiffness ratio in the working range of the pole and not simply maximum deflection and maximum load. This places significantly more importance on the slope of the load vs. deflection curves in Chart 2 rather than the curve positions in relation to each other. In all cases, the video curve’s slope is either very similar or more conservative (i.e. lower slope) than the DAQ curve.

For each test; at 25, 50, 75, and 100% of the ultimate load, the position of the tip point and fixed winch location were used to calculate the angle at which the load was being applied in relation to the pole’s normal axis. The loads and angles at these points, as well as the initial test setup geometries, were used as inputs for PLS-Pole models and load files to specifically describe each test. The maximum pole utilization and deflection data for each of the points/targets on the test pole were recorded. Chart 3 includes comparison plots of the test data compared with the PLS-Pole predictions of pole deformed geometry.

The curves in Chart 3 have been colour coded based on the percent load being applied to the pole with the circular data points representing the physical test data and the square points representing the PLS-Pole predictions. Where the test data is to the left of the PLS data, this indicates that the PLS prediction is conservative. When the opposite is true, PLS is under predicting horizontal deflection.

A number of observations can be made from Chart 3 is that, in general the PLS prediction and the test data show very good correlation, especially in the working range of the pole (i.e. the 25 and 50% curves). Generally, PLS is shown to be a slightly conservative in the working range.

There appears to be an initial vertical deflection in the test data which is not represented in the PLS prediction. Further video review suggested that this is predominately caused by out of plane movement of the test pole during the initial stages of loading. The effect of this becomes less pronounced and is effectively eliminated by the 75 and 100% curves in most cases. Another potential cause for this vertical deflection may be caused by the initial vertical load applied to the pole which in a couple tests there were indications that the pole “bowed” in the initial loading stages. This effect is best demonstrated in m0607-ta-08-1431 where the initial negative horizontal deflection was captured near the ground-line of the pole by the video data. This bowing effect is not predicted by PLS and did not appear present in all tests; potential causes may be the initial contribution of vertical load on the pole, the cantilevered three-point bend configuration of the test setup, or initial noise in the pole axis correction parameter data.


Page 13 of 18

A final observation from Chart 3 occurs in only some plots where there appears to be an inflection point or “jog” in the deformed geometry plot from the test data. This jog is almost exclusively located around the third and fourth point from the tip point of each curve. There are a few potential causes of this jog including potential effects from the pole support cart, location of the video target about the pole’s circumference, axial rotation of the pole, and others; however it was not possible to confirm or exclude any of the potential causes.


Page 14 of 18


Page 15 of 18

Chart 3 – Left to Right/Top to Bottom; m0607-ta-08-1431, m0607-ta-09-4086, m0607-tb-09-105, m0607-ta-09-5910, m0506-tb-09-2346.

There is inherent variability in RStandard pole test data which has been proven to be less than 10%. To better illustrate the results from these tests and the comparison to the PLS predictions, the plots from all “m0607…” tests have been superimposed on each other in Figure 8. This image shows that the full scale test performance and the PLS predictions for each load level form a fairly tight band, especially in the working range of the pole. At the 75 and 100% load levels, there are some indications of a separation of the PLS prediction and test pole performance. This separation may be evidence of non-linear material effects such as strain hardening and others which are inherent to fibre-reinforced polymer materials.

Finally, the pole utilization predicted by PLS under all load scenarios for all tests was up to 20% higher than reality. The PLS predictive analysis output reports are included in the Appendix.


Page 16 of 18

Figure 8 – Superimposed results image.


Page 17 of 18

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the five tests performed for this report there appears to be very good correlation between the PLS-Pole predictive behaviour of RStandard poles under combined loading scenarios. PLS-Pole was shown through this correlation to be conservative throughout the working range of the pole and at all load levels PLS over-predicted pole utilization by up to 20%. Further combined load test evaluation across a more complete range of RStandard poles would be necessary to confirm this same correlation for all RStandard poles.

The Olympus Control Pro software demonstrated that it was effective in capturing positional information for many points along the test pole throughout the test. This resulted in the ability to generate actual test pole deformed geometry for comparison against the PLS-Pole predictions. As this video analysis software is reasonably new to RS; standard practices, procedures and templates were not in place which could increase the accuracy and reliability of the video measurements provided some development time. However, even without these norms the accuracy of the data obtained through the video analysis was sufficient for the purposes of this report.

For the purposes of further use of the Control Pro software for video analysis, the following recommendations would help improve the reliability and accuracy of the data obtained;

• Experimentation with different target profiles, colours, etc. to determine the most appropriate and effective target type for the automatic tracking feature of the software.

• Permanent positioning of the 4 calibration points necessary for calibrating the video image. This would fix the calibration points across all tests and implement a fixed coordinate system across all tests.

• Reduce or eliminate all known sources that cause out of plane motion of the pole throughout the test. • Develop standard templates, practices, etc. through additional use of the systems and software for

consistent test execution, data collection and analysis.


Page 18 of 18

8. Appendices and References

Individual Test Reports:

\\Technical\Engineering\Technical Projects\2010\Engineering Internal\10008 Modified CLT Pole Test\Testing\m0607-ta-08-1431_test1_20100420 Report v2-video-pls.pdf



\\Technical\Engineering\Technical Projects\2010\Engineering Internal\10008 Modified CLT Pole Test\Testing\m0607-tb-09-105_test1_20100420 Report v2-video-pls.pdf

\\Technical\Engineering\Technical Projects\2010\Engineering Internal\10008 Modified CLT Pole Test\Testing\m0506-tb-09-2346_test1_20100527 Report v2-video-pls.pdf

PLS-Pole Predictive Analyses:

\\Technical\Engineering\Technical Projects\2010\Engineering Internal\10008 Modified CLT Pole Test\Analysis\m0607-ta-08-1431_test1_20100420 PLS Prediction Final.pdf



\\Technical\Engineering\Technical Projects\2010\Engineering Internal\10008 Modified CLT Pole Test\Analysis\m0607-tb-09-105_test1_20100420 PLS Prediction Final.pdf

\\Technical\Engineering\Technical Projects\2010\Engineering Internal\10008 Modified CLT Pole Test\Analysis\m0506-tb-09-2346_test1_20100527 PLS Prediction Final.pdf

“Infrastructure For Life” is a registered trademark of RS Technologies Inc.*Disclaimer - The information contained herein is offered only as a guide for RS poles and has been prepared in good faith by technically knowledgeable personnel. This sheet is for information only and could be modified without notice. Printed in Canada.

For more information on this product contact:

MTQAO V1.2

RS Technologies

[email protected]+1 877 219 8002+1 403 219 8000+1 403 219 8001

EmailToll Free PhoneFax

233 Mayland Place NECalgary, AB T2E 7Z8

www.RSpoles.com

rs module testing & quality assurance overview · 127 mm [5"] see note 4 unassembled...

Documents