analysis of latticed
transmission
towers
F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. K i t i p o r n c h a i
Centre for Transmission Line Structures, Department of Civil Engineering, The University
of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, 4072 Australia
Transmission towers are normally classified as selfsupporting (free standing) or guyed structures. This
paper concentrates on the self-supporting transmission
tower which is the more conventional form. A tower
structure can be subjected to a multitude of load combinations. These include the weight of conductors and
tower, ice load, wind load, transverse load resulting
from an angle in the line, longitudinal loads caused by
unbalanced forces in the conductor tensions, loads
imposed during the stringing operation, torsional loads
resulting from broken conductors and dynamic loading
from galloping conductors. All of these loads must be
considered to act in various combinations as specified by
the electricity safety codes, statutory regulation and
industry standards ~2.
Transmission tower structures are widely regarded as
one of the most difficult lattice structures to analyse.
This difficulty stems from the fact that these structures
are generally composed of asymmetric thin-walled angle
section members eccentrically connected. For this
reason proof-loading or full-scale testing of the structure
has traditionally formed an integral part of the development of tower design. Stress calculations in the structure
are normally obtained from a linear elastic analysis
where members are assumed to be axially loaded and,
for the majority of cases, pin-connected. In practice,
such conditions do not exist and members are detailed
minimize bending stresses. Despite this, full-scale
testing of transmission towers shows that bending
stresses in the members are often as significant as axial
stresses 3.
0141-0296/93/040259-11
1993 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd
260
Sources of nonlinearity
In any structural system, many sources of nonlinearity
influence the structural response. Their effect and order
depend on the structural system, the loading and the
boundary conditions. For a latticed transmission tower
structure one can identify three major sources of
nonlinearity:
geometric
nonlinearity,
material
nonlinearity, and joint flexibility and slippage.
Several techniques can be used to account tbr these
nonlinear effects. The geometric nonlinearity can be
accounted for by incorporating the effect of initial
stresses as well as the geometrical variations in the structure during the loading process. Such an approach is
able to predict the transient response of the structure in
the pre- and postcritical ranges ~3. Predicting the full
response is essential in identifying the ability of the
structure to sustain loads at larger displacements. Further, the characteristics of the postcritical response
reveal the sensitivity of the structure to imperfections.
The material nonlinearity can be incorporated by
using a fibre type model ~4"~5 or a lumped plasticity
model ~6. In the former model the element cross-section
is discretized into a number of elementary areas and a
record of the strain history of each elementary area is
kept and updated during the loading process. The effective section properties of the element are obtained and
used to formulate the tangent stiffness of the element. In
the lumped plasticity model, any plastic behaviour is
deemed to be concentrated at the two extremities of an
element. The stress resultants in the cross-section
interact with each other to produce yielding for the section. This interaction is achieved through the concept of
a yield surface in force space.
The structural joint is a medium through which forces
and moments are transmitted from one member to
another, hence the joint behaviour is bound to influence
the global structural response. Due to the complex
nature of joints, their behaviour is usually nonlinear
from the very onset of loading ~7. The effect of joint
flexibility can be incorporated by modifying the tangent
stiffness of the element using an appropriate
moment-rotation (M-Or) relation for the joint t8. Joint
slippage is another aspect of the joint behaviour which
has not so far received much attention. A preliminary
Geometric nonlinearity
Figure 2 shows the deformation of an element in the projected YX and ZX planes of the global X, Y and Z coordinate system. The element deformation may be
described using three different configurations, Co, C~
and C2. These configurations represent, respectively,
the initial undeformed state, the current (known)
(a) YX plane
Basic assumptions
C 2
~'~'\
x,y,z has been chosen such that y and z pass through the
/ I-~--._~_.-~Z2
\ \\~12- ,
_ ~..----~X0
"Xz Co
Lo
/
Zo
(b) ZX plane
py
-C2
*i
Z.
Oyl~py
11"
r 1
+
Figure 1
referenceaxes
Figure 2
planes
261
(1)
IDIeL~leLIdV +
I,
17"bleNtdV
1,
i' IOleL6teNIdV =
16
(3)
(2)
,Iv
Material nonlinearity
Solution procedure
262
4
(p, m,,, m:) = 27 ,3(~ _ 1)
+ J(O + ~)2 + 4,
sign(l, p)
= 0
(4)
0.6
convergence criteria has been adopted using the Euclidean norm measure with a convergence tolerance set to
5%.
When analysing a large-scale structure such as a
transmission tower, the self-weight of the structure has
to be considered. In the present analysis the tower's selfweight is generated automatically and applied incrementally on the tower prior to the incremental application of
external loads.
0.4
Configuration processing
pFz
1.0
my
....
,Compression
p -ve
Tension
D +ve
0.8
0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Practical applications
-1.o1
Figure 3
procedure subjected to some imposed constraint conditions depending on the solution strategy selected.
In the present method, the effect of nonlinearity is
treated as an effective load in conjunction with the
applied loads for general equilibrium. This reduces the
need for continuous updating of the tangent stiffness
matrix and results in a substantial saving in computation
time, especially for large-scale structures. Further, a
more stable algorithm can be achieved when the predictor part of the algorithm (i.e. the tangent stiffness) is
kept as simple as possible while a strict force recovery
procedure is employed.
The solution strategy chosen was the arc-length
method 23. In order to avoid the case where the forcepoint for a certain element jumps from within the yield
surface to a point outside the surface during a loading
cycle, and so as to avoid the case where the force-point
deviates excessively from the curved yield surface, a
simple solution advancement control method has been
used in conjunction with the arc-length method. The
solution advancement control has been achieved using
the arc-distance from the previous cycle and the maximum value of the yield function in the last two cycles
to extrapolate a maximum arc-distance for the present
cycle. This brings the force-point gradually to the yield
surface and guards against excessive deviation from the
surface.
The solution method is a nonlinear incremental
method. Within each loading cycle several iterations are
performed to account for the effect of the variation in
stresses and strains during the cycle. This iteration process is terminated whenever equilibrium, as defined by
a certain convergence criteria, is satisfied and the forcepoint for any element which has entered the plastic stage
returns to the yield surface. An out-of-balance force
The predicted nonlinear response of four different fullscale towers is presented using the developed software,
AK TOWER. Full-scale testing of each of these towers
was performed in Australia by various contractors. For
the first two towers, the nonlinear analysis was performed first and the full-scale test was conducted with
due consideration of the analytical results, while for the
remaining two towers the full-scale test was performed
before the nonlinear analysis. These four towers are
shown in Figure 4. No record of member forces was
taken during any of the full-scale tests. For this reason,
the comparison will be mainly based on the ultimate
load. The load applied on the tower is presented as a
load factor X. The specified design ultimate load corresponds to X = 1.0. The formex formulation has been
used to generate the tower topology, geometry, loading
and boundary condition for all the towers presented in
this section.
263
Ross-Chalumbin
Marulan
Nebo-Ross
KaranaRocklea
0
o
0
(a)
(b)
Figure 4
(d)
3.4
3.4
I0.71 . - ~ . ~ . =
4, ; , 6 L
[
-'~
26.3
2.3
30.4 ~
0.8
1120,
30.4 ~
65.6
~17.6
~1
21
30.7 -
6.4
9.3 -
7.4
'
I /
~-="
~f["~
,,<
2,'-'76!
17.6
{
/'236
~!2, ~._
17.6
8.5 -
1.0,
_ ~L--10.71
21
6.5
7-
(c)
65.6
tO
0.6
o
a~
"o
~ 0 . 4
o
.J
Load
0.2
case
11.4=
l f l j y (L)
I 9"
Load
Figure 5
264
x (T)
case
7/11/11/~
I
100
I
150
Deflection
Loading condition
I
50
I
200
L E R , mm
I
250
I
300
350
Load c a s e 6
;k= 0.97
Figure lO(a).
265
1.2
10.83
6.83 -~
23.86--|45.39
23"86~145.39
23.86 "145.39
10.83
J-11.37
4 5 . 3 9 r 32.32
45.391 " 3 5 " 7 8
45.39~--40.66
20.5
--15.4
--35
--35
1.0
X=0.91
.<
0.8
Hinges_ start at
t,.
0
~
X
0.6
10
0
-- 0.4
Load case 6
Figure 9
Load case
0.2
I
50
100
150
200
250
Vertical deflection, VER (mm)
ld case 6
X=0.91
Figure I0
164
1.0
is6
~'=0-75~
2.2Q - 3 ~
lO2.2/159.1
16.5
101.9J157.4
9.7
3.6
5.3~
6.1Q
9.6Q
10.9Q
102.7 J~ 53,5
-< 0.8 -
. . . . . .
X_= 0 . 9
t _
o 0.6 -
0~
Theory
Nm
"10
~
0.4
Test no.2
Vertical deflection
at X l
0
.._1
0.20
-0.5
0
5.0
10
Deflection, VX 1 (ram)
(a)
Figure 1 1
! case
= 0.75
Conclusions
Accurate structural analysis of transmission towers is
complicated because the structure is three-dimensional
and comprised of asymmetric angle section members
eccentrically connected. The influences of geometric
and material nonlinearities play a very important role in
determining the ultimate behaviour of the structure.
This paper describes a nonlinear analytical method in
which all factors affecting the ultimate behaviour of the
tower structure can be incorporated. These include
geometric and material nonlinearities, joint flexibility
and the effects of large deflection. The developed software, the AK TOWER program, has been used to
predict the ultimate structural behaviour of four different
electric transmission towers tested in Australia. The
nonlinear analysis was performed prior to the full-scale
testing for the first two towers, to check the design adequacy and avoid any possible collapse condition. For the
remaining two towers, the nonlinear analysis was performed after full-scale testing to investigate the unexpected collapse encountered in the test. Predictions of
the ultimate loads and the failure deflected shapes have
generally been very good, considering the complexity of
this type of structure. No comparison of calculated
member forces and actual member forces has been made
because of the lack of such data in the test.
Acknowledgments
Figure 12
268
References
1 American Society of Civil Engineers Committee on Electric
Transmission Structures. 'Loading of electrical transmission structures', J. Struct. Engng, ASCE 1992, 108, (ST5), 1088-1105
2 American Society of Civil Engineers Committee on Electric
Transmission Structures. 'Guidelines for transmission line structural
loading', ASCE, New York, 1984
3 Roy, S., Fang, S. and Rossow, E. 'Secondary stresses on transmission tower structures', J. Energy Engng, ASCE 1984, 110, (2),
157- 172
4 American Society of Civil Engineers. 'Guide for design of steel
transmission towers', Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice,
No. 52, ASCE, New York, 1988
5 American Society of Civil Engineers. 'Guide for design of steel
transmission towers', Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice,
No. 52, ASCE, New York, 1971
6 European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (ECCS).
"Recommendations for angles in lattice transmission towers', January
1985
7 Structural Stability Research Council: SSRC. Guide to stability
criteria for metal structures, (4th edn) (ed. T. V. Galambos), John
Wiley, New York, 1988
8 Eurocode. "Common Unified Code of Practice for Steel Structures',
Eurocode No. 3, 1984, Commission of the European Communities,
Directorate-General, Brussels
9 Electric Power Research Institute. 'Structural development studies at
the EPRI transmission line mechanical research facility', Interim
Report No. 1: EPRI EL-4756, August 1986, Sverdrup Technology,
Inc., Tullahoma, Tennessee, USA
10 International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). "Loading tests on
overhead line towers', Publication No. 652, 1979
11 Bonneville Power Administration. 'Elastic design program',
Portland, Oregon, 1987
12 Lo, D., Morcos, A. and Goel, S. 'Use of computer in transmission
tower design', J. Struct. Div., ASCE 1975, 101, (ST7), 1443- 1453
13 AI-Bermani, F. G. A. and Kitipornchai, S. 'Nonlinear analysis of
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
269