IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-100, No.

4, April 1981
TRANSMISSION TOWER LIMIT ANALYSIS AND DESIGN BY LINEAR PROGRAMMING Jun W. Lee, Member, IEEE Structural Research, Inc. Madison, Wisconsin
Abstract: A method is presented for the limit analysis of indeterminate space trusses utilizing the static equilibrium equation and linear programming techniques. Special emphasis is given to obtaining collapse loads for self-supporting lattice transmission towers. A piece-wise step-by-step linear solution employing the stiffness matrixhas been the usual way of handling this problem. The static equilibrium equation has several advantages over the stiffness solumatrix equation for limit analysis: a direct tion can be obtained in one step; tension onlymembers can be given zero compression capacities; and spatially unstable joints can be stabilized by assigning zero capacity members to them. A very efficient computer program was written by rewriting the linear programming equality constraints in a condensed form and exploiting its sparsity (zero terms). Example problems with the computer program are discussed to demonstrate the analysis method. Potential application of the general theory to the design problem may have substantial advantages over current methods. INTRODUCTION
In dealing with indeterminate lattice transmission towers, presently in the transmission line industry "Displacement the "Stiffness Method" (also called Method") is generally used for the analysis. The method involves the distribution of joint loads into various members according to their relative individual stiffness, in view of geometric compatibility as well as force equilibrium at various joints. In con-

1999

Bonneville Power Administration Portland, Oregon

version of the stiffness matrix and the complete solution of the structural system. In this paper,a distinct approach is proposed for A linear the limit analysis and design problems. programming formulation based on the basic, limit analysis theorems will be presented. Although the use of linear programming in a structural analysis procedure is not commonly used, the direct applicability of the linear programming algorithm to limit analysis will become obvious in conjunction with the Upper and Lower Bound Theorems which will be presented later in this paper. The linear programming technique used in this paper will be the Simplex Method (11), which is a maximization procedure on an objective function with a number of inequality constraints. In general, a linear programming problem can be represented by Equation (1):
x Max. W = b x + bx + ... b mm 22 1

H. Gordon Jensen, Member, IEEE

Subject To:

c2 a21x1 + a22x2
=

anx n

k->0
2-

C2

211
x mll1

222 +-

2mmn

c m =a

+a

x x + km - 0 > m2 2 + ...amn n ... x

X1

> 0, x2 >

0,

> 0

(1)

junction with this method, the -first yield condition is normally used as the criteria for the determination of the load carrying capacity of the structure. For determinate structures, the first yield condition is the ultimate capacity of the structure. However, for structures with multiple degrees of indeterminacy, the collapse load is normally higher than the load causing the first yield condition. With the recent concern in failure containment as well as upgrading of existing lines to meet higher conductor loads, the ultimate capacity of a transmission tower has become more important in transmission tower design. Limit analysis is such an analytic procedure for obtaining the ultimate load of a structure at collapse. Limit analysis techniques were established by earlier researchers by using the piece-wise linear as well as mathematic programming techniques either individually, or in combination. The techniques involved the replacement of yielded members by a set of equivalent forces and the subsequent revision of structure geometry and its stiffness matrix in a stepwise manner In this procedure, each step involved the in(10).

are Where W is the objective function, and c 1... c The Simplex Method finds the underlying constraints. the solution by going through vertices defined by the c.1= 0, c.2= 0, intersection of the n hyperplanes: ... ...c. =0 and x. =0, x 2j x. =0, where ip m= j =0, when3q W' at its si W is n The soilution is3reached p + q If maximum and none of the constraints are violated. = for xl - 0, x2 2 0, . x = 0 none of the constraints ~~~n. problem is said to be are violated, the progranuning Primal feasible problems can be primal feasible. solved efficiently through the use of well established pivotal techniques (11, 12). In this paper, it will be shown that the limit analysis problem formulated through linearprogrammingis a primalfeasible problem. There are many types of transmission. tower structures currently in. use: lattice structures, pole structures, frame structures, as well as truss-frame type structures. Although the general concept presented herein is applicable to tower structures in general, the scope of this paper is directed towards lattice structures. In considering the limit analysis solution, it is assumed that the members are prismatic, and exhibit an ideal elasto-plastic load-deflection behavior.

GENERAL FORMULATION

ANALYSIS

July 13-18, 1980.Manuscript submitted February 11, 1980; made ayailable for printing May 9, 1980

80 SM 681-7 A paper recommended and approved by the IEEE Transmission & Distribution Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation at the IEEE PES Summer Meeting, Minneapolis, Minnesota,

stated here without proof as follows: For a given frame/ 1. The Upper Bound Theorem: truss subject to a set of loads P, the value P which is found to correspond to any assumed mechanism must be either greater than or equal to the collapse load
P.
u 2. The Lower Bound Theorem: For a given frame/ truss and loading, if there exists any distribution of forces throughout the frame which is both safe and

The approach to limit analysis presented in this paper is based on two classical theorems, namely, the Upper Bound and the Lower Bound Theorems (7). They are

(C) 1981 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: The University of Auckland. Downloaded on August 18,2010 at 11:02:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

2000
statically admissible (satisfying static equilibrium) with a set of loads P, the value of P must be less than or equal to the collapse load P u
where pk = {p}, the load matrix. The force matrix F column and the scaler p are all variables, and the In are known quantities. matrices P, Mt and M general, Equation (7) represents ageneral mathematical programming formulation for limit analysis following the equilibrium approach. Defining the following variables: NF = Number of Forces (members) NP = Number of Degrees of Freedom NI = NF - NP = Degree of Indeterminacy

Assuming a load vector field "P: as shown Figure 1. in Figure 2 and a force vector field "F" representing member forces as shown in Figure 3, we can, from considering equilibrium of members and joints, arrive at the following equilibrium equation:
{P}
=

Consider

truss with joint loadings as shown in

[A]{F}

(2)
3P

lP -v.

then, two points are observed for the above linear programming tableau:

1) The tableau dimension is (2NF+NP+l) X (NF+2). 2) The tableau is always primal feasible. Considering the duality of the above linear programming problem, it can be shown that the dual formulation of Equation (7) represents a formulation derived from the Consequently, the solution Lower Bound Theorem (5). of the linear programming problem as stated in Equation (7) takes into account simultaneously both the Upper Bound and the Lower Bound Theorems. In an indeterminate structure where NP # NF, the static matrix (A) expressed in Equation (2) is a rectangular matrix. It is possible to partition the static matrix such that: [Al = [A*:a] (8)
where A* is a square matrix of size NP X NP and [a] is rectangular matrix of NP X NI. Similarly, we can also partition the force matrix,the tension capacity matrix and the compression capacity matrix as follows: M* F* M* {F} = {...};{M } = {...}.;{M } = {..C..} (9) f m mt C

4P

4P

Figure 1:

Imposed Loads

P, PI=(pi P2 P3 f .. NP ) T {P}=' Figure 2: The Assumed Load Field

Af 5 F4F 10 FF3 ZY F7
1?K F2
{F}
=

F8

F9
(F1, F2, F3, ... FNF)
The Assumed Force Field

It can be shown that a non-singular A* submatrix the exists for all stable structures. Physically, partitioning of the A matrix is merely the selection of a set of redundant members such that the remaining structure is a stable one. One systematic method of selecting the correct redundant members is given in the reordering algorithm of the sparse routine, which will be discussed later. Assuming A* being non-singular, then its inverse exists. Using Equations (8), (9) and (2), F* can be expressed in terms of the redundant member forces f as follows: F*= -A* -F +pA* -af k (10)

Figure 3:

above equation, the primary formulation of the limit analysis problem presented in Equation (8) becomes:
Max. p

Using the

If the tension and compression capacities of the members are (corresponding to the assumed force field) . = )T (3) Mt t ti Mt2 (Mt tNF t2'
""

Subject To: > (i) -A* af + pA* i + M c- 0

+ f + mc > 0

M (M cil ,M c2f...cNF )T

(4)

equilibrium

then the necessary and sufficient conditions for stable or equilibrium at bifurcation are that Equation (2) be satisfied, and that
F<

(ii) +A*- af -pA*

-

1k +M*>O t
-

f + m

> 0

(11)

> F .- -M c

Mt

(5)

(6)

Thus, if we have a load matrix with a common load factor p, we can, following the Upper Bound Theorem, formulate the equilibrium approach as follows:
Max. p

Subject To:

(i)

AF -

pk = 0
< F <

(ii)

-Mc

Mt

(7)

The numberof constraints in Equation'(11) is 2NF, and the number of variables is (NI + 1) where NI is the degree of indeterminacy. Consequently, the size of the linear programming tableau becomes (2NF + 1) X and (NI + 2). Since both Mt.t M c are positive vectors, the tableau remains primal feasible. An efficient computerprogram was developed to automate the execution of the foregoing algorithm with the sparse matrix techniques. An analysis of the ultimate capacity of a single circuit 345 KV tower under wind loading was performed

Authorized licensed use limited to: The University of Auckland. Downloaded on August 18,2010 at 11:02:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

2001

using the computer program. The tower has an overall height of approximately 105 ft (32m) above ground. The The diageneral configuration is shown in Figure 4. meter of the ground wire and phase conductor are 1.737 inches ( 44.1 mm) and .385 inches (9.8 mm) respectively. Span is 1000 ft (305m) and wind direction is strictly transverse. Only wind forces on the conductors and shield wires are considered. Table I presents the loading on the tower. The ultimate load factor and ultimate loads are tabulated in Table II. The labeled members as shown in Figure 4 are the yielded members.
TABLE I

DISCUSSION

Load Factors Applied' at Joints (Kips)- (448 N)

JOINTS
1

X-ACTION

Y-ACTION
-0.12 -0.12 -0.64 -0.64 -0. 32 -0. 32

Z-ACTION

2
21

22 25 29

0.35 0.35 1.00 1.00

0.50 0.50

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

The linear programming formulation of the limit analysis is based on the Upper Bound and Lower Bound Theorems presented earlier in the paper. It is important to note that the theorems pertain to the correct collapse loads, but not necessarily the correct internal force field. In the case that there is a one to between the collapse load factor one correspondence and the internal force field, the correctness of the member forces is inferred through the uniqueness of the solution. However, there may be situations in which there exists more than one set of internal forces which are statically admissible, and at the same time, give the Physically, there are two same collapse load factor. situations where this could occur: the inclusion of locked-in internal forces in a substructure, and the existence of an indeterminate substructure at collapse. The latter occurs when the failure of a substructure effected the collapse of the load carrying capacity of the structure. In such a case, the forces in the remaining indeterminate substructure can be uniquely determined through elastic considerations taking into account the proper stiffness of each individual member as well as the initial locked-in forces created through misalignment induced during the fabrication and erection process. For the linear programming solution, since the algorithm considers the vertices of the constraints, the member forces will be given such that some of the members are at eithex compression or tension yield. For asubstructure at collapse, the linear programming routine takes into consideration statical'ly admisthe substructure. sible locked-in forces within Therefore, the resulting forces from the linear propre-existing include some gramming solution may forces and consequently, may not compare directly with the results derived fromthe piece-wise elastic method. However, for comparison purposes, it is possible to include a minimization routine to insure that the locked-in forces are removed in all or most of the members (13). Such an algorithm was included in the aforementioned computer program. Following the same logistic development, a similar procedure can be formulated for the limit design problem. GENERAL FORMUIATION
-

DESIGN

For the design problem, it is common that several Deloading conditions may have to be considered. noting the NLC number of loadings as Pl, P2, P3 .

pNLC, and {L},

Figure 4:

345 KV Tower

a matrix expressing the length of each member, the limit design problem can be written as:

TABLE II

Ultimate Load Capacity (Kips)

JOINT

Min. w = {L}T [Mt1/ft Subject To: I. For Loading Condition #1 1 1 (1) p = AF

(2)

-M

< F

< + M t

X-ACTION

Y-ACTION

Z-ACTION

1 2 21 22 25 29

1.815 1.815 5.185 5.185 2.592 2.592

-0.622 -0.622 -3. 318 -3. 318 -1.659 -1.659

=
=

0.00 *0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

II. For Loading Condition #2 2 2 (1) p = AF 2 < < (2) -Mc - F - Mt

N. For

Loading Condition #NLC

(1)

pNLC =AFNLC
-M <F
<M

Ultimate Load Factor

Equivalent Wind Load

5.18 kips (23,040 N) 120 MPH (208 KM/H)

(2)

(1?)

It is interesting to note that the total execution time of this program is 69 seconds on a CDC 6500 computer, with 174 degrees of freedom.

is the tensile allowable stress, F is the where f member force matrix corresponding to the ith loading condition, and Mt, M are the tension and compression
c capacity matrices respectively.

Authorized licensed use limited to: The University of Auckland. Downloaded on August 18,2010 at 11:02:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

2002
It should be noted that in the design problem, the matrices p' and A are known values, while the matrices McI Mt, F1 are all variables to be determined from the optimization. It is possible to perform thebasic transformation on the design optimization as presented earlier in the analysis problem. Following notations used in the previous section.
Let: A = [A*:a]
M
c

Since the force variables Fj could become negative, which violates an automatic implication of the tableau, the force variables Fi were first reduced out of the tableau before the istandard optimization procedures were used. It should be noted also that the initial tab-leau from the above design formulation will always be dual feasible.

m'c

F={----} Mt = f t
-M* < -A* c-m

{-m--}
+ A*

(13)
i becorne: Limit design solution to the example problem:

Then, the constraints for loading condition

af

< +M*

c-

i < f <

+m t

(14)

1-0.8 -1
[-1]33

r 0.6

-0.6 -0.8

-0.8

-0.6J

Changing the minimization problem to an optimization problem, the general formulation becomes:
Max. S.T.
-w = -{L} {M }/f t t

-1]

[A*1a] =

[-1.6

1.667]

I. Loading Condition #1

-[ [A* P] =
<

8.3331 10 -0.6671
0

-M* < -A* 1af + A*- p c-m < fi- < m t c-

M*

II. Loading Condition #2 -M* < -A*- 1af2 '+ A* lp2 < M* ,.c 2t < < -m - f - m t c
N. Loading Condition #NLC

-M* < -A* c -nt

af + A* NLC < < f m

PN

< M* -t

(15)

Initial Tableau:

This 4-bar truss example problem is taken Example: directly from Reference (10), basically for comparison of the limit design optimization and the con-ventional elastic design optimization. Unlike the limit design, the elastic optimization procedure is an iterative procedure, with each iteration involving the solution of a linear programming problem. In the design problem presented by Wang, after one iteration, the objective value becomes 4.837 in2-ft (951 mm2-m). The geometric configuration and loading conditions of the 4-bar truss is shown in Figure 5. L.
3.6'
3.6'
V

-F1 3
cl1
1 c12

-F 4

-F2 3

-F

-M

tl

-M t2
-.75

t3

t4

-1.0 -1.3 1.6

-1.0 1.7

-.75

10.0
-.75

I. a

2.8

L.
;

1.0 1.3 1 c22 -1.6 -1. 7

c23 2 11 c24

cl1 c1 c2 cl1 1 c21

-1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0

-.75

-10.0

(1'=0. 305m)

c~~~~~~~~ I
113,

1.0

~ ~

NLC

1.0 -1. 0 -1.3 -.75 1.6

-1.0

-1.0

c2 c1
cl2 4
2

8. 33 -.75
-.75 -.667

P 2 1_10
Figure 5: ,It
is

T-6

1.7

Example Problem
to

c2 c3
cl4

In this example problem, the notation clj represents the compressive constraint of the jth member for the ith loading condition. Consequently, they can be written as:
f.
c

note that the objective interesting function as given in the optimal tableau is 3.720 in2ft (732' mm2_m) as compared to 4.837 in2-ft (951 mm2_M) given by Wang in using the elastic concept..

-1. 0
1.0 1.3 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
1.0
0.3 .24
0.3

-.75 -8.33
0.667

-2 c1
2 c23

c22

-1.6 -1.7
1.0

F.
=

+
+

> 0
cj -

22 c4
-w

-1.0
0.4

f
tj

Mt;

> 0

(16)

Authorized licensed use limited to: The University of Auckland. Downloaded on August 18,2010 at 11:02:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

2003
Intermediate Tableau: c2 3
c11
c2 4

c223 c22 c24

Mtl Mt2 Mt3

-.75 -.75
-1.0 1.6

t4
-1.3 1.7 10.0

1.0

1.3

cl11 cl1

-1.6 -1.7

1.0
1.0

-1.8
-1.8

cl1 4c1
c21
c22 2 1.6

-1.0 -1.3

-1.0

1.0

1.3

1.7
1.0
1.3

-1.0 -.75 -.75

-1.6
-1.0

-1.7 -10.0
-1.3

c1

8.33

2 c12
2

-1.6 -1.7
1.0 1.0
-1.0 -1.3

1.6
-1.8

1.7 -.667

c13
c14 2 c21
c22
-w

-1.8

-1.0
-1.0 0.3

1.0
-1.6

1.3 -8.33 -1.7

0.4 .667

1.6

1.7

To limit the scope of this preliminary study, steel angle shapes listed in the AISC Steel Manual were considered. A-36 steel with ayield strength of 36 ksi was assumed and both ecual leg angles as well as unequal leg angles were included. There were two studies done: The first involved the computation of the capacities of all the angle sections for a given effective length. The resulting capacities were then plotted against their respective area for each of the lengths considered. The second study involved the selection of the two most economical angle sections for a given length and incremental load. The designed load and the resulting areas of the selected members were plotted in a graph. Again, A-36 steel was assumed with a yield strength of 36 ksi and both equal leg and unequal leg members were considered in this study. Figure 6 is a typical computer plot from the first study. They represent the available capacities of all the equal and unequal members as listed in the AISC Manual (1973 edition). In computing the member capacities, the AISC formulae were used with the factor of safety terms ommitted to reflectthe ultimate conditions. In this typical plot, it is important to note the linearirty of the upper envelope since the envelope represents approximately the economical selections for a given loading.

0.24

0.3

At Optimal:
Mem.

f1 t

fl c

f2 t

f2 c

F1

F2

420.82 +
1+ 374.12
M

1
2

3
4

5.481 4.111 1.672 7.920 q -A4 0 9 592 3-Rn 3.095 2.929 0 6.834 0 6.822 3.905 3.905 3.809 2.857 0 6.666 6.666 0 3.809 -2.857
0

P R

0 X * + *

Over 5 5 4 3 2 1

pt

pts pts pts pts pts

*

* *

E S

327.42 +

**
* *
*

Member Force:

S
N

Loading Condition #1

280.71

+
~~~~~~*

F,
F3
F

3.809
3.809

F2 F4
F

=
=

3.905

+
* *

234.01 +
+
+

**
*
*

Loading Condition #2
=

5.481

F3
Mt

~ ~ ~2

=3905

T
187.31

* *

-2.857

F4=0

*
4.

Member Capacity:
=
= =

*~~~~*

5.481
3.905
3.809

M
M

4.111

140.60
+ 9390

**
+

Mt2 Mt3 Mt4

c2 M
M c4

2.929

t2

2.857

+++
*
*

X+

93.90

= 0

4.** +
+

+
+

ANGLE MEMBER PROPERTIES

*O*
47.20

4.4X*

*X++

One of the more difficult questions in the limit design problem is in the appropriate methods with which the compression members are designed. In the previous example problem,an arbitrary allowable stress value is used. In reality, the allowable or ultimate compressive stress is a function of the radius of gyration of the available sections, as well as the effective length of the members. Yet another variable is the fact that only a finite number of angles are available for a tower designer to select from. Consequently, it was felt that a study of the capacities of the currently available steel angle shapes is appropriate at this point for the design program.

*#*4.
+0M#'4

0.50

#-#

C.0

+-

+-+----+-

3.34

6.68

+----+----4_--10.02

AREA

Figure 6:

Angle Section Capacity (KL = 6')

Authorized licensed use limited to: The University of Auckland. Downloaded on August 18,2010 at 11:02:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

2004
Figure 7 is a typical plot of angle members selected for a given load on the most economical basis in terms of weight. This plot formed a basis for the relationship of a given ultimate design load and the available member area. Noting that all of the data points can be approximated by straight lines, linear regression analyses were performed on all the available graphs. Both the resulting slope, B1, and the intercepts, Bo, are summarized in Table 3.
TABLE III Intercept and Slope Values from Regression Analysis of Load-Area Relationships of Angles Effective Angle Intercept Slope Correlation Length B Factor B1
The intercept and slope values summarized in Table III can be approximated with the fQllowing empirical equations, expressing the quantities in terms of the member effective length L:

Bo

-0.8591

34.9145 Sin

- 39)1.2 (L 31.128

(17)
(18)

B1 = 32.1990 - 0.0773 (L -

3.00)2

where the angle expressed within the sine function of Equation (17) is in radians and the length L is expressed in feet.

(ft)
4 6
8

- 0.267

-10.458 -19.527 -27.471

32.182 31.577 30.209

28.224
25.943 23.032

0.994
0. 994

The relationsship bewteen the design ultimate load and the available angle area can then be approximated by the following equation:
M
c

=B

A 1

(19)

0.992 0.988 0.983 0.976

10
12

14

16

-34.735 -36.695 -30.334

19.066

0.965

Equation (19) expresses continuously, the available angle area with respect to a given ultimate design comIn reality, only a finite number of pressive load. angles are available in a discrete fashion. The computed area A from a given load through the use of Equation (19) is therefore termed the 'Theoretical Design Area".
area

For tension capacity, the 85% rule for net section is used. Denoting Fy as the yield stress, the tension capacity Mt can be written in terms of angle area A:

420. 82
C 0

+
+

374.12

Over 5 pts 5 pts

Mt
Mt

= 0.85 F

(20)

which for A-36 steel:

= 30.6 A

M R

+ +

X
#
+

3 pts 2 pts

4 pts
* * *

(21)

I 0

E S S

327.42 +
+ +

1pt
+ *

+
4.

**

**

Substituting A into Equation (19) yields the relationship between M c and M: t

M
c

=B

280.71 +
234.01 +
+ + +
+

C
p
A

* *$
+
** +

BiMt 30.6
Mtt

(22)
given in

Using Equation (22}1 the general formulation Eqcuation (15) becomes;

Max. S.T.
-w

C I

**
+

**

T - L

/30.6

I. Loading Condition #1 -[B +

< M

187.31

+
+ + + + 4.
+ +

~**

**

**

140.60
93.90
47.20

+
+

** + +

** +

**

**

**

**

30.6

lmt

] <

-A*- af1
+

+ A

p
< m

-t'

[B

~30.6

1 t ]< f

II. Loading Condition #2 BM * -[B0+ lt] < -A* 30.6

-

-l af 2

+
< f

-12 A*- p
2 < m
t

+ +

+ + +

+
**

+ 4.

** +

<M* t

[B

30.6 ]

i1 t

N. Loading Condition #NLC

C.C

3.34

6.68
ARE A

10.02

-[B0
A*

BM 1 t]

30.6

< -A*

-l1

af

NLC

B1m -l NLC < M ;[B + i P t 0 306

fNLC
<
-

Figure 7:

Available Economical Angle Sections

<

(23)

(KL

6 ft)

Example: The plane tower shown in Figure .4 was designed using both the elastic concept as well as the

Authorized licensed use limited to: The University of Auckland. Downloaded on August 18,2010 at 11:02:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

2005
limit design concept with the aid of the computer. In both cases, the "Theoretical Design Area" was used for The plane tower is assumed to comparison purposes. have symmetry about its vertical axis. The result of the elastic design is shown in Table IV where the total weight function is 461 in2-ft (90,676 The result of the limit design is shown in mm2-m). Table V, where the total weight function is 420 in2-ft (82,612 mm2-m). It is interesting to observe that a "theoretical" weight savings of 9.8% is effected through the use of the limit design concept.
LOADING CONDITIONS TABLE IV

MEMBER NUMBER
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Plane Tower, Elastic Design Results MEMBER FORCE CAPACITY AREA LC#2
TEN COMP

LC#1

p1
p2

0.5

16

-55
0.5 -55

-2
16

P3

P4

-2

4.66 142.60 91.80 3.00 91.80 3.00 21.42 0.70 62.12 2.03 41.31 1.35 41.31 1.35 18.97 0.62 48.96 1.60 45.90 1.50 48.96 1.60 39.17 1.28 53.24 1.74 36.11 1.18 53.24 1.74 64.87 2.12 78.03 2.55 63.04 2.06 78.03 2.55 63.04 2.06 36.11 1.18 45.90 1.50 62.12 2.03 4.66 142.60
w
=

70.20 23.72 23.72 6.40 54.42 16.47 16.47 10.18 41.05 23.45 41.05 30.97 45.46 13.89 45.46 57.43 54.82 55.54

-41.01 -14.70 -13.60 10.90 -51.65 -3.87 -2.88 11.89

461

ft-in

13.89 23.45 54.42 70.20 2

54.82 55.54

-39.84 -21.44 -40.84 -30.78 -45.44 -13.52 -45.44 64.56 77.78 -55.50 77.78 -54.50 -13.52 -20.03 -54.33 -45.30

67.04 -18.04 17.01 0.40 40.95 -15.98 15.73 0.43 14.53 -23.38 -17.46 -1.12 -1.65 -0.49 -1.65 2.35 2.83 -18.00 2.83 14.00 -0.49 21.87 -44.81 -70.18

(90,676

mm

~~~2 -im)

TABLE V

Plane Tower, Limit Design Results -MEMBER NUMBER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
AA

CAPACITY
TEN

MEMBER FORCE

COMP

LC#l

LC#2

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24

5.59 1.35 1.35 1.23 2.03 0.92 0.92 0.86 1.82 1.10 1.82 2.04 2.28 0.35 2.28 1.55 2.54 2.06 2.54 2.06 0.35 1.10 2.03 5.59
w
=

171.00 41.40 41.40 37.60 62.20 28.00 28.00 26.40

91.10

0.00 0.00 22.70 54.50

-53.53

-51.82
-

0.00 1.09 1.71

51.53

35.00 -18.83
-

0.00

33.70 55.60 62.50 69.90 10.80 69.90 47.40 77.80 63.00 77.80 63.00 10.80 33.70 62.20 171.00 420

55.60

3.68 17.90 47.80 11.50 47.80 55.00 62.60 0.00 62.60 39.40 54.60 55.50 54.60 55.50 0.00 11.50 54.50 91.10

3.68

3.52 2.53 4.58 -46.80 -11.50

-54.83 -62.47 10.65 -62.47 47.40 77.69 -55.43 77.69 -54.43 10.-65 -10.09 -54.50 -57.81
mm

-47.80

32.60 3.68 28.00 -17.86 6.13 -11.50 -25.83 - 9.84 - 1.99 0.00 - 1.99 2.00 2.82 -17.98 2.82
33.70

13.98 0.00

-53.05

-85.51

ft-in2 (82,612
CONCLUSIONS

-2M)

8o

10'

Fig'ure 8.

Plane Tower Example

A general formulation for both the limit analysis and design problems were developed in this paper. Although this paper represents only a fraction of the effort in realizing the full potential of the linear programming techniques in limit analysis and design, it was felt that the feasibility of the above techniques has been demonstrated.

Authorized licensed use limited to: The University of Auckland. Downloaded on August 18,2010 at 11:02:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

2006
Additional research is required to enhance the future use of limit design for the transmission structures,especially in the retrofitting of existing transmission for higher electrical loads as well as in the design of new transmission towers.

10)
11)
12)

ACKNOWLEDGE!MENT
This paper is a result of a research project supported by Bonneville Power Administration. The authors gratefully acknowledge the consideration and support provided by Bonneville Power Administration. The authors further acknowledge the contributions of Mr. John Osteraas and Mr. Bowen Shih who helped develop and de-bug the computer program.
REFERENCES

13)

Wang, C. K., Computer Methods in Advanced Structural Analysis. Intext Educational Publishers, New York, New York, 1973. Zukhovitskiy, S. I. and Avdeyeva, L. I., Linear and Convex Programming. W. B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia and London, 1966. Hadley, G., Linear Programming. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1963. Lee, J. W. and Jensen, H. G.,"Limit Truss Analysis by Linear Programming Techniques", Paper pre14, 1980. Wang, C. K. Matrix Methods of Structural Analysis Second Edition, International Textbook Company,
1970.
BIOGRAPHY
sented in ASCE Convention in Portland, OR,

April

14)

1)

2)

3)

4) 5)

6)

7)
8)

9)

Cohn, M. Z., Franchi, A. "Structural Plasticity Computer System: STRUPL", ASCE Journal Structural Div., April, 1979. Jensen, H. G., "Designing Self-Supporting Transmission Towers With the Digital Computer", IEEE Power Industry Computer Applications Conf. Rec., May, 1967, pp. 303-319. Jensen, H. G., "Efficient Matrix Techniques Applied to Transmission Tower Design", Proceedings, IEEE, Vol. 55, No. 11, November, 1967, pp. 1997-2000. Jensen, H. G., and Parks, G. A., "Efficient Solutions for Linear Matrix Equations", ASCE Journal, Structural Deivision, January, 1970. Lee, J. W., "Limit Analysis by Linear Programming Method", Independent Study Report, University of Wisconsin, CEE Department-, 1970. Marjerrison, M. M., "Electric Transmission Tower Design", Journal of the Power Division, ASCE, 94, No. P01, Proc. Paper 5932, May, 1968, pp. 123. Neal, B. G., The Plastic Methods of Structural Analysis. Chapman & Hall, 1963. Tinney, W. G. and Walker, J. W., "Direct Solutions of Sparse Network Equations by Optimally Ordered Triangular Factorization", Power Industry Computer Applications Conf. Rec., Sponsored by IEEE Power Group, February, 1967; revised August 9, 1967. Turner, A. E. and Wood, D. L., "Computer Designs

Dr. Lee has executed numerous projects in the area of Structural Engineering. His experience includes structural design of various structures, static and dynamic analysis of structures, experimental and theoretical research in Structural and Materials Engineering as well as field insturmentations and full-scale structural testing. In addition, Dr. Lee has presented and published numerous papers and reports in the area of Structural and Materials Engineering. Dr. Lee is a Member of IEEE as well as an Associate Member of ASCE. He is also a member of the Honor Societies Sigma Xi, Tau Beta Pi, Chi Epsilon and Pi Tau Sigma. He is presently registered as a Professional Engineer in the State of Wisconsin.

Jun W. Lee obtained his Ph.D. Degree in Structural Engineering at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He was with EngineeringlResearch Consultants, Inc. until 1978. Presently, he is President of Structural Research, Inc. of Madison, Wisconsin.

April 13, 1931. He received the B.S. Degree in Civil Engineering from Oregon State University, Corvallis, in
1955.

H. Gordon Jensen

was born in Portland, Oregon on

Transmission Towers", 22, 1962, pp. 32-34.

Electrical World,

January

Since 1962 he has been with the U. S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Port land, Oregon, hwere he has been responsible for transmission computer applications and design of transmission lines. He is currently Senior Structural Engineering Advisor for Bonneville Power Administration. Mr. Jensen is a Registered Civil Engineer in the State of California.

Authorized licensed use limited to: The University of Auckland. Downloaded on August 18,2010 at 11:02:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

2007
Discussion Hong-To Lam, (South Carolina Public Service Authority, Moncks Corner, SC): I would like to congratulate the authors who introduced the limit concept to analyze the latticed transmission line structures. As we all know by assuming pin-connected members, we only consider axial loads in a latticed transmission tower, i.e. tension or compression, (in reality, because of the joint detailing, gusset plate arrangement and stress introduced during erection, the shear center will not usually coincide with the center of gravity of the loads), thus, the size of stiffness matrix can be reduced considerably. If we look into the tension or compression failure moods, we will find that the member fails in tension if its fiber stress reaches yield stress. There are many members in a latticed transmission line structure. Certain members' fiber stress reaches yield point while other members' fiber stress is probably well under the yield stress of the material. By applying limit approach to find collapse load under which all members' fiber stress reaches yield point of the material, as long as the members are made from ductile steel. On the other hand, failure in compression, as the classical Euler's formula n2EI/P for pin-connected member indicates that it is independent of yield stress of the material. For a short member, i2EI/P may reach or exceed the yield while a long member may buckle before its fiber stress reaches the yield. In short, compression failure is a stability problem. Based on the preceeding, I would like the authors to comment on the following: (1) What is the validity and applicability of the limit approach to analyze a tension compression system structure? (2) Is this method also applicable to the other structure material such as aluminum, etc., whose characteristics are not the same as steel which is ductile?
Manuscript received August 4, 1980.

the proposed method would still be conservative if the assumed membe: capacities do not exceed the actual member capacity through the necessary displacement. To study the buckling phenomena in angle members, the Bonneville Power Administration is currently sponsoring a research project at Portland State University which involves the experimental determination of load-deflection characteristics. One such preliminary curve is shown in Figure 1. Assuming that the required displacement to effect redistribution of axial forces is 0.2" (5.08 mm), then the elasto-plastic curve for this particular column can be idealized as shown, having an ultimate capacity of 9.7 instead of the actual 9.8 kips.

12

10

6
o

681-7a
Jun W. Lee and Gordon Jensen: The discussion for this paper focus mostly on the applicability of the limit analysis concept to transmission tower analysis and design. The concerns arose from the recognition of such factors as joint eccentricity, member continuity, etc. Another concern is the behavior of members under compression. There are two separate tasks involved in determining the capacity of a transmission line (regardless of the analysis concept or failure definition). The capacities of the individual members must be determined, which is then used with the overall analysis of the tower in determining the tower capacity. The limit analysis procedure presented in the paper deals only with the overall tower analysis. No attempt was made in rec'ommending a procedure for member capacity computation. The presence of joint eccentricity, etc., represents the need for refinement of member capacity computation techniques in conjunction with overall analysis techniques, which should be a future topic of research in advancing the understanding and predicting of transmission tower
4

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

AXIAL DISPLACEMENT

(IN) (25.4 MM)

FIGURE 1

behavior. The basic assumption of the limit analysis procedure presented in the paper is that the ideal elasto-plastic behavior exists in both tension and compression members. Elasto-plastic behavior is well known in tension members made of ductile materials. For compression members, failure normally occurs in buckling. Therefore, the load-deflection behavior of compression members undergoing the buckling process must be investigated. It should be noted that even for cases where the load-deflection curves are not ideally elasto-plastic, the calculated tower capacity using

In summary, both the limit analytic and design procedure presented in this paper represent the theoretical bases for the application of such techniques. Practical implementation will be realized with additional research into the basic member behaviors, especially pertaining to compression members. Some of this research is currently under consideration.

Manuscript received September 15, 1980.

Authorized licensed use limited to: The University of Auckland. Downloaded on August 18,2010 at 11:02:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.