DESIGN OF TOWER

STRUCTURE
BY

D.CHOWDHURY
GM(ENGG)
POWERGRID
NEW DELHI

PRESENT DESIGN PRACTICE

Transmission Line Towers are Design As Per IS:802:1995 and Wind Are As Per IS:802:1987

SALIENT DESIGN CONDITIONS

THE OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINES ARE SUBJECTED TO
VARIOUS LOADS DURING THEIR LIFE SPAN WHICH ARE
CLASIFIED INTO THREE DISTINCT CATEGORIES:RELIABILITY REQUIREMENTS
SECURITY REQUIREMENTS
SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

CLIMATIC LOADS UNDER

NORMAL CONDITION.
FAILURE CONTAINMENT
LOADS UNDER BROKEN
WIRE CONDITION.
LOADS DURING CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
LOAD.

ALL LOADS CAN BE RELIABLY ESTIMATED EXCEPT TRANSVERSE LOADS, WHICH ARE
MAINLY DUE TO WIND AND IT SOLELY DEPENDS ON THE CORRECTNESS OF
METEOROLOGICAL INPUTS.

 THE RELIABILITY OF TRANSMISSION LINE

TOWERS DEPENDS ON THE APPROPRIATE
SELECTION OF DESIGN CRITERIA/PARAMETERS.
CLIMATIC CONDITIONS PLAY AN IMPORTANT
ROLE IN DETERMINING THE RELIABILITY OF
TRANSMISSION LINE TOWER.
A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF TRANSMISSION LINE
FAILURES CAN BE THE RESULT OF WIND SPEED
EXCEEDING DESIGN LIMITS DUE TO
DEFICIENCIES IN SELECTION OF DESIGN
PARAMETERS/CRITERIA.

ENGG-TL
TOWER DESIGN
1. TOWER TYPES
2. CLASSIFICATION OF TOWER
3. TOWER CONFIGURATION
4. LOADING OF TOWER
5. ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

1.0 TYPE OF TOWER

a). Tangent towers
with suspension
string (0 to 2 )
b). Small angle
towers with tension
strings (2 to 15 )
c). Medium angle
towers with tension
strings (15 to 30 )
d). Large angle (30
to 60 ) and dead end
towers with tension

To be used on
straight runs and up
to 2 line deviation)
To be used for line
deviation from 2 to
15 )
To be used for line
deviation from 15 to
30 ).
To be used for line
deviation from 30 to
60 and for dead

2.0 CLASSIFICATION OF TOWERS:

ACCORDING TO CONSTRUCTIONAL FEATURE:

Self Supporting Towers.
Conventional Guyed Towers.
Chainette Guyed Towers.
ACCORDING TO NO OF CIRCUITS THEY CARRY:
Single Circuit Towers.
Double Circuit Towers.
Multi Circuit Towers.
ACCORDING TO TOWER SHAPES:Horizontal Towers.
Vertical towers.

ENGG-TL
2. TOWER
CONFIGURATION
A).

TOWER HEIGHT
i).
GROUND CLEARANCE.
ii).
PHASE TO PHASE CLEARANCE
iii).
HEIGHT AND LOCATION OF
GW.
B).
LENGTH OF CROSS ARM & PHASE TO
PHASE SPACING.
C).
TOWER WIDTH AT
i). BASE
ii). TOP HAMPER
D).
TYPE OF BRACING PATTERN.

A TOWER IS
CONSTITUTED OF
FOLLOWING:
PEAK
CROSS ARM
BOOM
CAGE
TOWER BODY
BODY EXTENSION
LEG EXTENSION
STUB/ANCHOR BOLT
& BASE PLATE
ASSEMBLY.

SAG TENSION CALCULATION

IS CARRIED OUT TO FIND OUT
a)Max Tension of Conductor and Earthwire
b)Sag of Conductor and Earthwire
In following conditions
Everyday temp Full Wind
Max temp. No Wind
Everyday temp no wind
Min Temp. 36 Wind
Min. Temp No Wind.

3. TOWER LOADING

Wind Effects:i). Basic wind speed

Wind Zone:
1
2
3
4
5
Vb(m/sec):
33
39
44
47
50
ii). Reference wind speed (Vr=Vb/k0)
iii). Design wind speed
Vd = Vr.K1.K2
Where K1 = risk coefficient factor
k2 = terrain coefficient factor
iv). Design Wind Pressure
0.6 vd. vd.

6
55

MAIN PARAMETES CONSIDERED IN THE

CODES ARE
i).

INDIA HAS BEEN DIVIDED IN SIX WIND ZONES HAVING WIND SPEED 33,39,44,47,50 & 55M/SEC
APPLICABLE AT 10M ABOVE MEAN GROUND LEVEL.

ii). BASIC WIND SPEED IS BASED ON PEAK GUST VELOCITY AVERAGED OVER A SHORT TIME INTERVAL OF
ABOUT 3 SECONDS, CORRESPONDS TO MEAN HEIGHTS ABOVE GROUND LEVEL IN AN OPEN TERRAIN
AND HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT FOR 50 YEARS RETURN PERIOD.
iii). FOLLOWING THREE RELIABILITY LEVELS ARE SUGGESTED FOR TRANS LINES IN THE CODE
RELIABILITY
LEVEL

RETURN
PERIOD

SUGGESTED FOR

50

150

500

FOR EHV TRANS LINES UPTO 400KV

CLASS
FOR TRANS LINES ABOVE 400KV CLASS
AND TRIPLE & QUAD CIRCUIT TRANS LINE
UPTO 400KV.
FOR TALL RIVER CROSSING TOWERS AND
SPECIAL TOWERS.

DESIGN WIND PRESSURE ALSO INCLUDES RISK COEFFICIENT (K1) TERRAIN ROUGHNESS COEFF (K2)

Wind Zones and Basic Wind

Speeds
Wind
Zone
1
2
3
4
5
6

Basic Wind Speed

(Vb) m/sec
33
39
44
47
50
55

LOADS DUE TO CONDUCTOR &

EARTHWIRE
i). Transverse Load
a). Due to Conductor & Earthwire.
Pd . Cdc. L . Gc. d
b). Due to insulator string. Where,
Cdi. Pd. Ai . Gi
Pd = Design wind pressure
c). Deviation loads
Cdc, Cdi = Drag co-officients
2T. Sin(D/2)
L = Wind span
Gc, Gi = Gust response factors

ii).

Vertical Load

d = Dia of cable
T = Design tension

iii). Longitudinal Load

D = Deviation angle

Wind Pressure On Tower For

Wind Zone-3 (44 m/sec)
As Per Due to Narrow
IS:802:1995
Front Wind
250 Kmph
a. BASIC WIND SPEED (Vb) 44m/sec 250/3.6 = 69.44
m/sec
Vb is a peak gust speed averaged
over a short interval of about 3
sec. corresponds to 10 M mean
height above the ground level.
b. METEOROLOGICAL REFERENCE
44/1.375=32
Since narrow
WIND SPEED (VR)
front wind speeds
VR = Vb/Ko
are gust wind
speeds, the gust
Ko is a factor to convert3 sec peak gust into response factor and
average speed to wind during 10 minutes
terrain factor can be
period at a level of 10m above the ground.
neglected.

Wind Pressure On Tower

For Wind Zone-3 (44
m/sec)
As per
IS:802:1995
250 Kmph.

Due to Narrow
Front Wind

c. Design Wind Speed Vd

32x1x1=32

Vd=Vr X K1 X K2
K1- Risk Co-efficient
K2-Terrain roughness Co-efficient
d. Design Wind Pressure (Pd) 0.6(32)2 0.6(69.44)2
=2893.14 N/m2 =62.6 Kg/m2
=295/m2
Pd = 0.6 (Vd)2 N/m2

=614.4 N/m2

e. WIND LOAD ON TOWER(Fwt)

62.6x2.2xPaxCd
Fwt= Pd x Cd x Pa x Gt
= 138 x Pa X Cd
295xP2xCd
Cd Drag Co-efficient.
Pa Projected Area, Gt-Gust Response factor for tower.

LOADS DUE TO TOWER ITSELF

i).Transverse Load
Pd. Cdt. Ae. Gt
ii). Self Weight
Load Combinations.
Relaibility Conditions
Security Conditions
Safety Conditions

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

ANALYSIS
i). GRAPHICAL METHOD
ii). ANALYTICAL METHOD
iii). COMPUTER AIDED ANALYSIS
(K) (A) = (P)
DESIGN AS COMPRESSION AND TENSION MEMBERS.
CODAL PROVOSION FOR LIMITING SLENDERNESS
RATIO FOR COMPRESSION MEMBER DESIGN
i). LEG MEMBERS
- 120
ii). BRACINGS
- 200
iii). REDUNDANTS
- 250
iv). TENSION MEMBERS
- 400

ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS OF THESE TOWERS IS CARRIED OUT TO KNOW THE INTERNAL STRESSES

DEVELOPED IN ALL MEMBERS DUE TO EXTERNAL LOADS MENTIONED ABOVE.
INTIALLY ANALYSIS WAS DONE MANUALLY AND WE USED TO GET CONSERVATIVE RESULTS.
THESE METHODS WERE:
ANALYTICAL METHOD
GRAPHICAL METHOD
NOW WITH THE ADVENT OF COMPUTER, ANALYSIS OF THESE TOWERS IS GENERALLY DONE
BY STIFFNESS MATRIX METHOD WHICH GIVES BETTER INSIGHT REGARDING THE STRESS
DISTRIBUTION IN VARIOUS MEMBERS.
TRANSMISSION TOWER IS AN INDETERMINATE STRUCTURE AND MODELS DEVELOPED BY
COMPUTER DOES NOT CLOSELY REPRESENT THE ACTUAL TOWER BECAUSE OF
FOLLOWING REASONS:
-JOINTS ARE NOT PERFECT HINGE.
-LEG MEMBERS AR CONTINUOUS ON JOINT.
-VARIOUS ECCENTRICITIES GET DEVELOPED WHILE PREPARING STRUCTURAL DRGS.
TOWER DESIGNED ON BASIS OF COMPUTER ANALYSIS DO SOMETIMES SUFFER FAILURE
DURING TESTING AND THEORETICAL DEFLECTIONS INVARIABLY DOES NOT MATCH WITH
ACTUAL DEFLECTION.
THIS MAKES US FEEL THAT SOMETHING STILL CAN BE DONE IN ANALYSIS OF TOWER TO
MATCH THEORETICAL RESULTS WITH THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOUR.

DESIGN
ALL MEMBERS OF TRANSMISSION LINE TOWERS ARE DESIGNED AS COMPRESSION
AND TENSION MEMBERS.
FOUNDATION OF THESE TOWERS IS RULING MOSTLY FOR UPLIFT OR DOWNTHRUST
FORCES THOUGH IT IS CHECKED FOR VARIOUS OTHER FORCES AS WELL.
IN CASE OF TRANSMISSION LINE TOWER WE FIND THAT THE HEIGHT OF TOWER
AND LENGTH OF CROSS ARMS ARE DECIDED ON BASIS OF VARIOUS
ELECTRICAL/GROUND CLEARANCES.
HOWEVER SELECTION OF BASE WIDTH, HAMPER WIDTH, PANEL HEIGHT AND
BRACING PATTERNS ARE LEFT TO DESIGNER.
BASE WIDTH PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN ARRIVING AT FOUNDATION FORCES
ALSO.

OPTIMIZATION

THEREFORE OPTIMISATION OF TRANSMISSION LINE TOWER HAS TO BE ATTEMPTED

WITH DUE CONSIDERATION TOWARDS SELECTION OF :
BASE WIDTH
HAMPER WIDTH
PANEL HEIGHTS AND BRACING PATTERNS
TO GIVE MINIMUM COST OF THE TOWER ALONG WITH ITS FOUNDATIONS
COMBINED TOGETHER.