Sales Manual-Flipbook-July 2021

Field Drilling Coated Poles Field drilling a hole in a coated ductile iron pole will create fine iron dust that could settle on the surface of the pole around the hole. If the dust is not removed, it will oxidize after getting wet and leave a stain on the painted surface of the pole. The following are recommendations to prevent and remedy rust stains on the surface of the pole. Rust Prevention Tip: After drilling the pole, wipe down the pole surface around the hole and inside the hole with a wet rag and remove the iron dust generated by drilling. This will prevent iron drilling dust from staining the surface of the pole. Rust Stain Remedy: The pole’s acrylic surface can be touched up with an acrylic paint if the pole is marked during transportation or installation or if rust dust stains the acrylic barrier coating. Prior to field painting, wipe down the surface of the pole to remove loose dirt, oxides, oils, etc. McWane can supply acrylic paint for touch up, or the paint can be purchased directly from its manufacturer. The paint information and manufacturer are listed below: POLE BARRIER COAT Quart kit - #04A8280 Induron Coatings Inc. 3333 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd N Birmingham, Alabama 35234-2303 Phone: 205-324-9584 http://www.induron.com/ Sales Manual • 2021 101

TECHNICAL NOTES Fire Performance Summary Brush fires are not expected to significantly affect the structural properties of ductile iron utility poles. Cosmetic damage could result in coated poles, but this would not affect pole performance or longevity in most instances. Western Fire Lab Testing McWane Poles were testing by Brent Pickett, Ph.D. at West Fire Center, Inc. to Standard test method for fire resistance of wood utility poles (a proposed ASTM standard). “The purpose of the test was to evaluate the effectiveness of the pole by measuring the exposure to radioactive heating, convective flames, and wind effects. Radiant heaters, a convective fire ring, and a fan were used to simulate the effects of wild fire. The pole sample reached 460 degrees over the 10-minute test. No significant damage was observed. Structural Testing Physical properties of the pole sample were tested to obtain a baseline for measuring the impact of the wild fire simulation. McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 102

Pole Capacity McWane poles are classified by pole tip load capacity in pounds or kips (1,000 pounds) applied two feet down from the pole tip. The pole tip load capacities correlate with ANSI O5.1 wood pole class capacities after the NESC Grade B Construction strength reduction factor for wood (.65). There is no NESC strength reduction factor for metal poles. Pole capacities are also given in pole bending moment capacity in pound-feet or kip-feet at the ground line. Ground line bending moment is a function of the load applied on the pole and the distance of the force from the ground. McWane’s stated bending moment capacities are calculated by multiplying the stated tip load capacity by the distance from the ground to a point two feet below the pole tip. Assumed embedment depths are based on ANSI O5.1. Pole owner will determine actual embedment depths. Pole Class Example: Class C1 – 50’ Pole Length = 50 feet Embedment Depth: 7 Tip Load Capacity: 2,925 pounds or 2.93 kips Moment Arm = 50 feet – 2 feet – 7 feet = 41 feet Bending Moment = Force [Tip Load] x Distance [Moment Arm] Bending Moment = 2,925 pounds x 41 feet = 119,925 pound-feet Bending Moment = 119,925 pound-feet x 1 kip / 1,000 pounds = 119.9 kip-feet McWane poles have been designed with PLS Pole modeling software by a Professional Engineer. PLS software utilizes formulas published by the AISC to determine the pole bending moment capacity along the length entire of the pole. The formula for allowable bending moment at a pole cross section is as follows: Bending Moment Capacity Calculation Example: Class 1 – 50’ pole Wall Thickness: .29 inches Pole Diameter at Ground Line: 13.26 inches Pole Radius at Ground Line: 6.63 inches Yield Strength = 42,000 psi Bending Moment Capacity = Yield strength [FY] x Section Modulus [S] S = Moment of Inertia [I] / Radius [C] I = (Pi/64) x (OD^4 – ID^4) I = (3.1416/64) x ((13.26 inches)^4 – (12.68 inches)^4) = 248.66 inches^4 S = 248.66 inches^4 / 6.63 inches = 37.50 inches^3 Bending Moment Capacity = 37.50 inches^3 x 42,000 psi = 1,575,092 pound-inches Bending Moment Capacity = 1,575,092 inch-pounds x 1 foot / 12 inches = 131,257 pound-feet Bending Moment Capacity = 131,257 foot-pounds x 1 kip/1,000 pounds = 131.26 kip-feet PLS also calculates the bending moment capacity at GL of a C1050 is 131.26 foot-kips. Sales Manual • 2021 103

TECHNICAL NOTES Pole Inspection Ductile Iron is a very corrosion resistant material. However, it is a good practice to visually inspect the poles periodically for potential damage or corrosion due to external factors. Above ground, pole surface oxidation is expected and is not a structural concern unless there is significant corrosion or pitting. The following is a recommendation for pole inspection: 1. Visually inspect poles at ground line to insure there is no excessive corrosion or ground line protection damage every 10 years. 2. If excessive corrosion is suspected, the area in question should be measured for material thickness with a non-destructive measurement device, such as an ultrasonic device, or by drilling a hole and measuring the iron cross-section. The chart below lists the current McWane Poles design material thicknesses by class. The pole design version is dated 7-9-2014 and applies to all poles manufactured after that date. Depending where the material measurement is taken on the pole, a lesser wall thickness may be allowed. Pole Class Wall Thickness Pole Class Wall Thickness Class 3 .19” Class H5 Varies. See PLS Class 2 .23” Class H6 Varies. See PLS Class 1 - 8.7” Tip .19” Class H7 Varies. See PLS Class 1 - 6” Tip .29” Class H8 Varies. See PLS Class H1 .23” Class H9 Varies. See PLS Class H2 .29” Class H10 Varies. See PLS Class H3 .33” 12.8 kip Varies. See PLS Class H4 .29” Varies. See PLS 16 kip Varies. See PLS 20 kip If non-destructive testing is performed, the measurement equipment should be calibrated for ductile iron. If an inspection is performed and thickness readings are less than the values above, a McWane Poles representative should be consulted for pole design and measurement verification. McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 104

Testing Procedures McWane Poles pass through a series of quality control procedures between inbound scrap metal and finished and bundled poles. The quality measures are broken into the following departments: 1. Scrap – The coke room operator inspects scrap in the scrap yard (W4.901-111) and complete Raw Material Inspection Form (F4.901-132). 2. Melting (P4.901-120) – Iron is sampled for chemistry in the desulphurization ladle every 15 minutes (W4.901-094) and analyze with a spectrometer (W4.901-109 & 110). Low Sulphur iron then flows to the forehearth where it is again sampled (W4.901-082) every 30 minutes to determine chemical composition. Based on the sample, the Coupala Operator will instruct the forehearth operator how much magnesium and silicon to add to the iron ladle. 3. Casting 4. Post-Anneal Material Properties 5. Additional Material Properties Inspection – Hardness is inspected 6. Wall Thickness – Wall thickness is inspected every one foot with an ultrasonic thickness guage on all sections. 7. Joint Overlap 8. Component an Cosmetic In addition to these procedures, ongoing sampling of finished poles are taken as part of ASCE Manual of Practice 111. Sales Manual • 2021 105

TECHNICAL NOTES Vehicle Impact Vehicle impacts provide a dynamic loading to the pole. This dynamic loading is different than slow (quasistatic) force application. All energy is created by the vehicle and energy will be absorbed by vehicle in the form of crushing or the pole bending or fracturing. Force = Mass x Acceleration (Newton’s Second Law) Acceleration = Velocity1 – Velocity2 / Time Force = Mass x (∆Velocity / Time) Example: Direct Car Impact on C3 30’ pole – Moment Capacity ~ 44,000 ft-lbs Car Weight = 4,200 lb. or 1,905 kg Speed = 40 mph or 17.88 mps Time to Stop = .2 seconds Bumper Height = 21 in or 1.75 ft Force = 1,905 kg x 17.88 mps / .2 sec. = 174,330 N = 38,291 lbs Moment Capacity Required to Stop Car= 38,291 lbs x 1.5 ft = 67,010 ft-lbs The force on the pole is affected by the car crumble speed or the amount of time it takes for the car to get to speed zero. McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 106

Zinc and Acrylic Coating McWane Poles’ standard arc-applied zinc and acrylic coating is expected to cover the ductile iron pole surface for 40-50 years. Unlike galvanized steel, the integrity of ductile iron will not be in jeopardy at the point when iron oxide shows through the coating. Coated finish poles are protected with a two layer coating. The base layer coating is an arc- applied zinc, deposited on the ductile iron pole surface to a minimum coverage equivalent to 0.08 grams per square inch per ISO 8179. The zinc layer is fused to the ductile iron and prevents it from oxidizing. The arc-applied (also known as thermal spray) zinc method offers similar protection as hot-dip galvanizing, and it is the preferred method for protecting ductile iron. An acrylic barrier coat with a minimum of 4 mils thickness is applied on top of the zinc base coat. The acrylic is bonded to the zinc, so it will never peel or flake. The acrylic barrier coat is expected to cover the zinc base layer for at least 25 years. Eventually, the acrylic coating will fade or dissolve, and the similarly colored zinc layer will be exposed. The zinc layer is expected to cover the ductile iron for an additional 25 years. Once the acrylic and zinc coatings are worn from the surface of the ductile iron, the natural or “weathering” ductile iron pole is expected to last 50 to 75 years. McWane Poles offers a bare ductile iron pole for sale, and this pole is expected to last 75 years in normal conditions. Paint Information Prior to field painting, wipe down the surface of the pole to remove loose dirt, oxides, oils, etc. The paint information and manufacturer are listed below: POLE BARRIER COAT - #04A8280 Induron Coatings Inc. 3333 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd N Birmingham, Alabama 35234-2303 Phone: 205-324-9584 http://www.induron.com/ Sales Manual • 2021 107

McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 108

TESTING DOCUMENTS Sales Manual • 2021 109

TESTING DOCUMENTS Hardy Engineering, Inc. Engineering and Consulting P.O. Box 708, 209 Linden Street, Trussville, AL Phone: (205) 655-1427, Fax: (205) 661-9027 Date of Report: September 18, 2017 Manufacturer: McWane Ductile Iron Pole Subject: Full-Scale, Horizontal Bending Test Location: McWane Plant - Coshocton, Ohio Date: September 6th, 2017 Pole Description: 50 I Class 1 Test Setup: See included drawing for pole test layout (Figure 1) Test Result: See included graph (Figure 2) Pole Design: See included PLS Pole design output Testing: Load Cycle Load Load Deflection Deflection Measured Adjusted Measured Adjusted The pole was subjected to 2 load 1 (inches) (inches) cycles. After cycle 1, the load was 1 (kips) (kips) released and residual tip movements 1 0 0 were recorded. Load cycle 2 was 1 0 0 6 5.9 continued until pole failure. The 1 0.52 0.50 15 14.7 load and deflection data from the 1 1.08 1.06 22 21.5 test was adjusted to account for the 1 1.52 1.48 27 26.4 12 degree line angle of the cable 1 2.00 1.96 36 35.2 during testing as shown in Figure 1. 2 2.52 2.46 44 43.0 The measured load, adjusted load 2 3.04 2.98 3 2.9 and adjusted deflection for each 2 10 9.8 cycle is shown in the following table 2 0 0 23 22.5 and the included graph: 2 0.48 0.46 34 33.3 2 1.48 1.44 40 39.1 2 2.20 2.16 45 44.0 2 2.72 2.66 52 50.9 2 3.08 3.02 59 57.7 2 3.48 3.40 70 68.5 2 3.92 3.84 77 75.3 2 4.36 4.26 91 89.0 4.52 4.42 105 102.7 4.80 4.70 Not Recorded Not Recorded 5.04 4.92 5.20 5.10 McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 110

Results: Class 1 Tip Load (2.95 kips) The Class 1 pole design is based on a 2.95 kip load applied 2’ from the tip. The measured tip deflection for cycle 2 is 42.3” (measured at class load) minus 2.9” at the start of cycle 2 equals 39 .4”. This value is greater than the calculated deflection shown in the PLS pole design output of 35 inches. This small difference could be attributed to pole rotation at the supports when compared to a theoretical fixed groundline. Yield Tip Load (3.06 kips) The yield tip load was calculated to be 3.06 kips. This value is the point along the pole where the actual bending stress reaches a calculated bending stress of 42 ksi. The measured tip deflection for cycle 2 is 44.1” (measured at yield load) minus 2.9” at the start of cycle 2 equals 41.2”. This value is slightly greater than the calculated deflection shown in the PLS pole design output of 37 inches. Failure Tip Load (5.04 kips) The 5.04 kip load applied 2’ from the tip resulted in a pole failure at the ground line. The failure was buckling of compression face at the ground line. Conclusion: The 50 class 1 ductile iron pole was subjected to a full-scale, horizontal bending test. The ultimate failure tip load was 5.1 kips which was 165.0 percent of the calculated yield tip load. Sales Manual • 2021 111

TESTING DOCUMENTS Figure 1 Test Set-Up For 50/1 McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 112

Figure 2 Test Results For 50/1 Sales Manual • 2021 113

TESTING DOCUMENTS Date of Report: September 18, 2017 Manufacturer: McWane Ductile Iron Pole Subject: Full-Scale, Horizontal Bending Test Location: McWane Plant - Coshocton, Ohio Date: September 6th, 2017 Pole Description: 70 / H2 Test Setup: See included drawing for pole test layout (Figure 1) Test Result: See included graph (Figure 2) Pole Design: See included PLS Pole design output Testing: Load Cycle Load Load Deflection Deflection Measured Adjusted Measured Adjusted The pole was subjected to 2 load 1 (inches) (inches) cycles. After cycle 1, the load 1 (kips) (kips) was released and residual tip 1 0 5.9 movements were recorded. Load 1 0 0 6 12.9 cycle 2 was continued until pole 1 0.40 0.40 13 22.8 failure. The data from the test is 1 1.00 0.99 23 29.7 shown in the following table and the 1 1.46 1.44 30 37.6 included graph: 1 2.04 2.02 38 44.6 1 2.56 2.53 45 54.5 1 3.00 2.97 54 66.3 2 3.56 3.52 67 6.9 2 4.16 4.12 7 13.9 2 0.00 14 23.8 2 0.44 0 24 28.7 2 1.12 0.44 29 35.6 2 1.52 36 41.6 2 2.04 1.11 42 48.5 2 2.44 1.50 49 54.5 2 3.00 2.02 55 61.4 3.52 2.42 62 69.3 2 4.00 2.97 70 4.48 3.48 88.1 3.96 89 4.80 (failure at 4.44 ground line) 4.75 McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 114

Results: H2 Class Load (4.16 kips) The H2 pole design is based on a 4.16 kip load applied 2' from the tip. The measured tip deflection for cycle 2 is 66.3\" (measured at class load) minus 6.9\" at the start of cycle 2 equals 59.4\". This value is greater than the calculated deflection shown in the PLS pole design output of 49.1 inches. This small difference could be attributed to pole rotation at the supports when compared to a theoretical fixed groundline. Yield Tip Load (4.41 kips) The yield tip load was calculated to be 4.41 kips. This value is the point along the pole where the actual bending stress reaches a calculated bending stress of 42 ksi. The measured tip deflection for cycle 2 is 68.1\" (measured at yield load) minus 6.9\" at the start of cycle 2 equals 61.2\". This value is greater than the calculated deflection shown in the PLS pole design output of 52 inches. Failure Tip Load (4.80 kips) The 4.80 kip load applied 2' from the tip resulted in a pole failure at the groundline. The failure was buckling of compression face at the support point. Conclusion: The 70/H2 ductile iron pole was subjected to a full-scale, horizontal bending test. The ultimate failure tip load was 4.80 kips which was 115.4 percent of the H2 Class load and 108.8 percent of the calculated yield tip load. Sales Manual • 2021 115

TESTING DOCUMENTS Figure 1 Test Set-Up For 70/H2 McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 116

Figure 2 Test Results For 70/H2 Sales Manual • 2021 117

TESTING DOCUMENTS Date of Report: September 18, 2017 Manufacturer: McWane Ductile Iron Pole Subject: Full-Scale, Horizontal Bending Test Location: McWane Plant - Coshocton, Ohio Date: September 6th, 2017 Pole Description: 80 / H4 Test Setup: See included drawing for pole test layout (Figure 1) Test Result: See included graph (Figure 2) Pole Design: See included PLS Pole design output Testing: Load Cycle Load Load Deflection Deflection Measured Adjusted Measured Adjusted The pole was subjected to 2 load 1 (inches) (inches) cycles. After cycle 1, the load was 1 (kips) (kips) released and residual tip movements 1 0 0 were recorded. Load cycle 2 was 1 0 0 5 4.5 continued until pole failure. The 1 0.64 0.63 9 8.9 load and deflection data from the 1 0.96 0.95 18 17.8 test was adjusted to account for the 1 1.42 1.41 24 23.8 8.4 degree line angle of the cable 1 2.00 1.98 29 28.7 during testing as shown in Figure 1. 1 2.48 2.46 38 37.6 The measured load, adjusted load 1 3.04 3.01 51 50.5 and adjusted deflection for each 1 3.96 3.92 59 58.4 cycle is shown in the following table 1 4.48 4.44 67 66.3 and the included graph: 1 4.96 4.91 76 75.2 2 5.48 5.43 85 84.2 2 5.68 5.62 11 10.9 2 22 21.8 2 0 0 28 27.7 2 0.48 0.48 35 34.7 2 0.96 0.95 40 39.6 2 1.48 1.47 48 47.5 2 2.00 1.98 54 53.5 2 2.48 2.46 60 59.4 2 2.96 2.93 66 65.3 2 3.48 3.45 73 72.3 2 4.04 4.00 78 77.2 2 4.52 4.47 86 85.1 2 4.96 4.91 97 96.0 5.52 5.46 112 110.9 2 6.08 6.02 138 136.6 6.48 6.42 6.68 6.61 156 154.4 6.80 (failure at ground line) 6.73 McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 118

Results: H4 Tip Load (5.66 kips) The H4 pole design is based on a 5.66 kip load applied 2' from the tip. The measured tip deflection for cycle 2 is 87 .8\" (measured at class load) minus the 10.9\" at the start of cycle equals 76.9\" This value is greater than the calculated deflection shown in the PLS pole design output of 53.4 inches. This difference could be attributed to pole rotation at the supports when compared to a theoretical fixed groundline. Yield Tip Load (5:96 kips) The yield tip load was calculated to be 5.96 kips. This value is the point along the pole where the actual bending stress reaches a calculated bending stress of 42 ksi. The measured tip deflection for cycle 2 is 94 inches (measured at yield) minus the 11\" at the start of cycle 2 equals 83\". This value is greater than the calculated deflection shown in the PLS pole design output of 56.2 inches. Failure Tip Load (6.73 kips) The 6.73 kip load applied 2' from the tip resulted in a pole failure of the compression face at the groundline. Conclusion: The 80/H4 ductile iron pole was subjected to a full-scale, horizontal bending test. The ultimate failure tip load was 6.73 kips which was 118.9 percent of the H4 class load and 112.9 percent of the calculated yield tip load. Sales Manual • 2021 119

TESTING DOCUMENTS Figure 1 Test Set-Up For 80/H4 McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 120

Figure 2 Test Results For 80/H4 Sales Manual • 2021 121

TESTING DOCUMENTS Date of Report: September 18, 2017 Manufacturer: McWane Ductile Iron Pole Subject: Full-Scale, Horizontal Bending Test Location: McWane Plant - Coshocton, Ohio Date: September 6th, 2017 Pole Description: 95 / H4 Test Setup: See included drawing for pole test layout (Figure 1) Test Result: See included graph (Figure 2) Pole Design: See included PLS Pole design output Results: H4 Tip Load (5.66 kips) The H4 pole design is based on a 5.66 kip load applied 2' from the tip. The measured tip deflection for cycle 2is 92.1\" (measured at class load) minus 7 .8\" at the start of cycle 2 equals 84.3\" This value is greater than the calculated deflection shown in the PLS pole design output of 73\". This difference could be attributed to pole rotation at the supports when compared to a theoretical fixed groundline. Yield Tip Load (5.96 kips) The yield tip load was calculated to be 5.96 kips. This value is the point along the pole where the actual bending stress reaches a calculated bending stress of 42 ksi. The measured tip deflection for cycle 2 is 98.1 inches (measured at yield) minus the 7 .8\" at the start of cycle 2 equals 90.3\". This value is greater than the calculated deflection shown in the PLS pole design output of 77\". Failure Tip Load (9.31 kips) The 9.31 kip load applied 2' from the tip resulted in a pole failure at the 3rd slip joint from the tip and compression at the ground line. Conclusion: The 95/H4 ductile iron pole was subjected to a full-scale, horizontal bending test. The ultimate failure tip load was 9.1 kips which is 164.5% of class load and 156.2% of yield load. McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 122

Testing: Load Cycle Load Load Deflection Deflection Measured Adjusted Measured Adjusted The pole was subjected to 2 load 1 (inches) (inches) cycles. After cycle 1, the load was 1 (kips) (kips) released and residual tip movements 1 0 0 were recorded. Load cycle 2 was 1 0 0 10 9.7 continued until pole failure. The 1 .52 0.50 21 20.4 load and deflection data from the 1 1.00 0.97 33 32.0 test was adjusted to account for the 1 1.68 1.63 39 37.8 14.5 degree line angle of the cable 1 2.00 1.94 49 47.5 during testing as shown in Figure 1. 1 2.64 2.56 57 55.3 The measured load, adjusted load 1 3.08 2.99 64 62.1 and adjusted deflection for each 1 3.48 3.38 72 69.8 cycle is shown in the following table 1 4.04 3.92 83 80.5 and the included graph: 1 4.52 4.38 91 88.3 1 5.04 4.89 98 95.1 2 5.48 5.32 102 98.9 2 5.64 5.48 8 7.8 2 0 15 14.6 2 0.56 0 23 22.3 2 1.00 0.54 30 29.1 2 1.64 0.97 37 35.9 2 1.96 1.59 49 47.5 2 2.64 1.90 55 53.4 2 2.96 2.56 65 63.1 2 3.64 2.87 71 68.9 2 4.08 3.53 78 75.7 2 4.60 3.96 84 81.5 2 5.04 4.46 92 89.2 2 5.56 4.89 99 96.0 2 6.04 5.39 109 105.7 2 6.52 5.86 119 115.4 2 7.12 6.32 127 123.2 2 7.56 6.91 136 131.9 2 8.04 7.33 149 144.5 2 8.48 7.80 162 157.1 8.80 8.23 170 164.9 2 9.00 8.54 192 186.2 9.44 8.73 9.60 (failed 9.16 204 197.9 at 3rd joint from tip and 9.31 compression at ground line) Sales Manual • 2021 123

TESTING DOCUMENTS Figure 1 Test Set-Up For 95/H4 McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 124

Figure 2 Test Results For 95/H4 Sales Manual • 2021 125

McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 126

Sales Manual • 2021 127

TESTING DOCUMENTS Western Fire Center, Inc. 2204 Parrott Way, Kelso, Washington 98626 Phone: 360-423-1400 | Fax: 360-423-5003 Fire Resistance Testing of Ductile Iron Utility Poles Investigative testing conducted following the test methodology similar to that of proposed ASTM standard, Standard test method for fire resistance of wood utility poles. Conducted For: McWane Poles 2266 South Sixth St. Coshocton, OH 43812 WFCi Report #17074 Test Date: September 14, 2017 Report Issued: September 16, 2017 McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 128

Introduction This report documents a pole fire test for McWane Poles following principles contained within the proposed ASTM standard (not yet approved), Standard test method for fire resistance of wood utility poles. Though this proposed standard was developed primarily for wood poles, these tests were adapted for the use of a ductile iron pole. The purpose of this testing was to evaluate the effectiveness of the pole by measuring the exposure to radiative heating, convective flames, and wind effects. This test was for preliminary evaluation of the ductile iron pole, to be used for comparative purposes to other pole types. Summary of Test Method This test method uses a combination of heat sources, namely a set of radiant heaters as well as a convective ring burner. The radiant heaters are designed to produce a uniform heat flux (up to 50 kW/m2) on a 1 m2 vertical sample (Figure 1). The panel material was placed in a movable sample holder, which was wheeled into place before testing, being protected from the radiant heaters by a removable heat shield. The test period began with the removal of the heat shroud. The entire test was carried out under well- ventilated conditions. These particular tests were performed at a heat flux of 50 kW/m2, approximately a 16” distance from radiant heaters to sample face. Figure 1. Pole test setup showing (a) radiant panel and (b) pole with ring burner. After 5 min exposure with the radiant panel, a gas ring burner was ignited to provide an additional convective flame source applied to the pole. The ring burner consisted of 19” diameter metal ring with 26 center-directed holes each 1/a”. The burner was placed concentrically around pole, 2” below the bottom of the radiant panel. The gas supplied to the burner produced a net output of 40 kW. This burner was applied to the pole for an additional 5 min (10 min total), after which the burner was turned off and the heat shield for the radiant panel was put back in place. Sales Manual • 2021 129

TESTING DOCUMENTS Following the fire application the sample was moved away from the radiant panel and within 5 min exposed to a fan with a horizontal wind speed of 2.0 m/s. This fan was applied to the pole sample for either 4 hr or until the sample temperature (measure by infrared) was below 100˚C (maximum temperature). Sample Description One ductile iron pole sample was tested (Figure 2). Each hollow pole was sized to be 7’6” tall with sloping diameter between 11” and 12”, with the thickness between inside and outside diameter being approximately 1/4”. The bottom of the pole was insulated so that edge effects were limited during the fire and wind portions of the test. Test Results Tests were performed on September 14, 2017 by WFCi personnel. Individual observations and sample infrared temperatures are detailed for each test below. Gary Braaten of McWane Poles and Clinton Char of Southern California Edison witnessed the test. McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 130

Test 1 Test Date & Time: 9/14/17, 11:45 AM (23˚C, 43%) Test Apparatus: ICAL panel under hood calorimeter Time (mm:ss) Table 1. Observations from Test 1. 00:00 Event 01:00 02:00 Open shield - start test 03:00 IR 220˚C 04:00 IR 260˚C 05:00 IR 290˚C 05:30 IR 330˚C 06:30 Ring burner turned on 07:30 IR 370˚C 08:30 IR 400˚C 09:30 IR 430˚C 10:00 IR 445˚C 10:45 IR 460˚C 11:00 Shield closed - ring burner turned off - roll back pole for wind 15:00 Fan turned on 18:30 IR 380˚C 23:30 IR 230˚C 28:30 IR 175˚C IR 130˚C IR 95˚C - terminate test No significant damage was observed of the ductile iron poles. The pole was sent back to the client for an enhanced structural analysis of sections of the pole that had been exposed to the fire and wind. Summary A ductile iron pole was tested according to a proposed standard for utility poles by exposing them to radiative heat, convective flames, and wind. No/little damage was observed to the pole following the test. Sales Manual • 2021 131

TESTING DOCUMENTS Signatures Testing performed by, Brent M. Pickett, Ph.D. Technical Director Reviewed and Approved by, Mike White Laboratory Manager WESTERN FIRE CENTER AUTHORIZES THE CLIENT NAMED HEREIN TO REPRODUCE THIS REPORT ONLY IF REPRODUCED IN ITS ENTIRETY The test specimen identification is as provided by the client and WFCi accepts no responsibilities for any inaccuracies therein. WFCi did not select the specimen and has not verified the composition, manufacturing techniques or quality assurance procedures. McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 132

Sales Manual • 2021 133

TESTING DOCUMENTS Ductile Power Pole Electrical Resistance Characteristics McWane Power Ductile Pole Test Data Test Date: December 4, 2008 Temperature: 31˚F Test Engineer: Barnard Bowden/Advance Technical Services 1-205-222-2508 McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 134

Sales Manual • 2021 135

McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 136

Sales Manual • 2021 137

McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 138

Deflection vs Tension Sample 3866C - Senior Step Sales Manual • 2021 139

Deflection vs Tension Sample 3866C - Senior Step McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 140

Deflection vs Tension Sample 3866C - VAF 1002 Sales Manual • 2021 141

Time vs Tension Sample 3866C - VAF 1002 McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 142

Time vs Tension Sample 3866C - VAF 1002 Sales Manual • 2021 143

Time vs Tension Sample 3866C - Senior Step 5” Pull McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 144

Time vs Tension Sample 3866C - Ladder Clip Sales Manual • 2021 145

McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 146

Sales Manual • 2021 147

McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 148

Sales Manual • 2021 149

McWane Poles, A Division of McWane Inc. 150