CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 GENERAL
A brief literature review has been performed to understand the transmission line
system, its support structures, the transmission line towers, its design, failures
during testing and at site, uncertain design parameters, their probabilistic models
and stochastic finite element method.

2.2 TRANSMISSION LINE TOWERS TYPES, GEOMETRY

An overview into the various aspects related to analysis, design and testing of
transmission line towers is provided in the book written by S.S. Murthy & A.R.
Santhakumar (1990) titled Transmission Line Structures. Depending on the
requirements of the transmission system, various line configurations have to be
considered ranging from single circuit horizontal to double circuit vertical
structures with single or V strings in all phases, as well as any combination of these.
The factors governing the height of the tower are minimum ground clearance,
maximum sag, vertical spacing between conductors and vertical clearance between
ground wire and top conductor. Towers are classified based on number of circuits as
single, double circuit lines. According to use, they are classified as suspension and
tension towers. The factors of safety adopted during the design have a great effect
on the cost of the structure. They have to be chosen such that the structures are
economic, as well as safe and reliable. The wind load constitutes a major
component of the total loading on the tower. The calculation of wind load requires
determination of wind pressure for the location of the tower. Other loads include
self-weight of the tower, tension due to conductor and ground wire etc. Tension is
due to sagging of cables whose contour resembles that of a catenary. Thermal
stresses and deposit of ice increase this tensile force. On the whole, the loads are
classified as transverse loads, longitudinal load, vertical load, torsional shear, and
self-weight.

Transmission line towers are constructed with prefabricated steel angle sections.
The behaviour of these sections is complicated and accurate prediction of their
strength is difficult. Kuralkar. S. D & Oswal. S. S (2016) presented a paper which
was based on biaxial bending and twisting of steel angle section. It is necessary to
study the loading, restraints and the analysis of elastic behaviour of steel angle
sections to get a better understanding of their behaviour. Firstly, horizontal
restraints of beams with vertical loads acting in the plane of one leg induce
significant horizontal forces which modify the elastic stress distribution. These
horizontal forces and their effects on the stress distribution need to be accounted for
in the elastic analysis of the beam. Secondly, angle section beams are often loaded
eccentrically from the shear centre at the intersection of the legs as in which case
significant torsion actions may result. These torsion actions need to be accounted
for in the analysis. Although rarely considered in practical structures, the end
conditions during testing can have an influence not only on the capacity in flexural
buckling but also on the ultimate load when torsional buckling governs.

According to Jesumi. A et al. (2013), bracing system in a steel lattice tower

provides the necessary lateral load resistance. Their study involved identifying the
most economical bracing system for a transmission line tower. The heights of these
towers vary from 20 to 500 meters, based on the practical requirements. There are
different bracing configurations such as the X-B, single diagonal, X-X, K, and Y
bracings. The bracing is made up of crossed diagonals, when it is designed to resist
only tension. Based on the direction of wind, one diagonal takes all the tension
while the other diagonal is assumed to remain inactive. Tensile bracing is smaller in
cross-section and is usually made up of a back-to back channel or angle sections.
Bracings, when designed to take compression, behave as struts. One of the most
common arrangements is the cross bracing. The most significant dimension of a
tower is its height. It is normally several times larger than the horizontal
dimensions. The area which is occupied at the ground level is considerably limited
and so, slender structures are commonly used. The tapered part of the tower is
advantageous with regard to the bracing, as it reduces the design forces. If the
bracing is weak, the compression member would buckle which leads to failure of
the tower. The study involved modelling of five steel lattice towers with different
bracing configurations (as mentioned above) for a given range of height. Loading,
as per IS codal provisions, was applied on the tower. Analysis was performed with
STAAD.Pro V8i. The study was concluded stated that for a tower height of 50m, Y
bracing is the most economical system based on weight of the tower and joint
displacement.

According to Oluwajobi. F et al. (2012), it is very important that conductors are

under safe tension. Sag is the vertical distance between the point where the
transmission line is supported on the tower and the lowest point on the line. If the
conductors are stretched beyond a limit between supports, the stress in the
conductor may reach an unsafe value and in certain cases the conductors may break
due to excessive tension. The conductor sag should be kept to a minimum in order
to reduce the conductor material required and to avoid extra pole height for
sufficient clearance above ground level. It is also desirable that tension in the
conductor should be low to avoid the mechanical failure of conductor and to permit
the use of less strong supports. Also, the sag must fixed in a range such that it caters
for ice loading during winter. If sag is excessive, then this loading will me large
resulting in excessive loading on the tower. Factors that affect sagging of
transmission line are temperature, age, wind, ice, pole movement etc. The distance
between transmission line towers has to be fixed so as to prevent excessive sag.

V. Lakshmi & A. Rajagopala Rao (2012) analysed the performance of 21M high
132kV tower with medium wind intensity. The main objective of the study was to
assess the performance of various members of a transmission line tower when
subjected to routine operation and unforeseen events during operation. Performance
assessment was carried out through parameters such as axial deflection, axial force
and torsional forces in various members of the tower. Through this study, it was
observed that the horizontal members in lower tier members had larger compressive
stresses when compared to the members in top tiers. Also, considerable amount of
torsion moments were observed at vertical members at levels just below the
positions of conductor supports. It has hence concluded that configuration of the
structure of the tower plays a vital role in its performance especially while
considering eccentric loading conditions. The bottom tier members have more role
in performance of the tower in taking axial forces and the members supporting the
cables are likely to have localized role. The vertical members are more prominent in
taking the loads of the tower than the horizontal and diagonal members. The
members supporting the cables at higher elevation are likely to have larger
influence on the behaviour of the tower structure. The effect of twisting moment of
the intact structure is not significant.

2.3 DESIGN, FAILURE ANALYSIS OF TRANSMISSION LINE TOWERS

According to Gopi Sudam Punse (2014), transmission line towers constitute about
28 to 42 percent of the total cost of the transmission lines. Optimum tower design
will bring in substantial savings. The selection of an optimum outline together with
right type of bracing system contributes to a large extent in developing an
economical design of transmission line tower. The height of tower is fixed by the
user and the structural designer has the task of designing the general configuration
and member and joint details. The transmission line tower is a pin-jointed structure
which is light in weight and is flexible and free to vibrate to an extent. Wind
pressure is the chief criterion for the design. Concurrence of earthquake and peak
wind condition is unlikely to take place and further seismic stresses are
considerably diminished by the flexibility and freedom for vibration of the
structure. The goal of every designer is to design the best (optimum) systems. But,
because of the practical restrictions this has been achieved through intuition,
experience and repeated trials, a process that has worked well.

As already mentioned, the design standards used for the design, fabrication and
testing of these towers are IS: 802 (Part 1/Sec 1)-2015 for the tower configuration,
types and design loads and IS: 802 (Part 1/Sec 2)-1992 for design of members and
joints. Sonowal. D.B et al. (2015) carried out design of a 220 kV transmission line
tower based on these codal provisions. Structure was made determinate by
excluding the horizontal members. The main design parameters for included profile,
loads, material properties, conductor tension, and slenderness ratio. The stresses in
members of transmission line towers are determined for different loading conditions
normal operation condition, bolt slip condition, lateral and longitudinal forces due
to Broken Wire Condition (BWC) in each conductor. Among all these cases, the
loading condition inducing maximum amount of stresses on the members is
considered for design. Individual members are design for tension, compression,
torsion etc. depending on their location in the tower. A bracing member, however, is
designed to withstand both tension and compression as stresses can get reversed
when the direction of wind changes. Design of steel member for tension and
compression, connections for members was carried out as per specifications in IS
800: 2007.

N. Prasad Rao et al. (2010) studied the different types of premature failures in
Transmission line towers, observed during full-scale testing. Though transmission
line towers are designed as per code, they may fail due to incorrect design
assumptions, improper detailing, material defects, fabrication errors, force fitting
during erection, variation in bolt grade, etc. And hence for this purpose, five towers
two 400 kV, one 275 kV and two 220 kV double circuit towers, were investigated
for its failure during testing. The member capacities had been worked out for
individual cases following ASCE 10-97/ IS: 802 provisions. Generally the
slenderness ratios of leg members lie in the range of 40-60. In this range, the
compression capacity is almost equal to the net tension capacity of the member. The
leg members may fail by inelastic buckling. Failures of towers are mostly caused by
buckling of compression leg or bracing members. Improper design of the redundant
member may lead to failure of leg or main bracing member. The codal provisions
ASCE, British Standards, IS code generally overestimate the capacity of a member.
Whenever, built up sections are used, the redundant members shall be designed for
the forces obtained from the procedure given by the British Standard or it should be
designed for 2.5% of the force carried by the main member to avoid failure. Non-
triangulated hip bracing pattern, insufficient capacity of redundant member are
some of the major causes for failure in a transmission line tower. The member
forces for a truss, obtained through non-linear analysis was greater in magnitude
were compared to that obtained through linear analysis. The authors stated that
through Finite Element Non-Linear analysis, it is possible to predict the load
carrying capacity of the tower, deficiencies in design etc.

The response of a tower, determined with analytical solutions is compared with the
actual response obtained through prototype testing. According to Raghavan
Ramalingam and S. Arul Jayachandran (2015), the deflection estimates obtained
from traditional analysis of transmission line tower structures are lesser than the
actual deflections measured from tests, although it gives a good estimate of the
ultimate strength. Bolt slip and splice plate deformations in towers causes this
discrepancy between actual and analytical deflections. They occur because leg
members are subjected to high axial forces. They are difficult to include in
conventional analysis. Prototype tower testing in test beds, which provides design
strength evaluation and actual deflections, is expensive. The authors devised an
analytical procedure which captured both the ultimate load and associated
deflections as well as the additional deflections because of bolt slip in leg splices. A
Corotated-Updated Lagrangian (CR-UL) formulation used for non-linear analysis
of space trusses was used. The accuracy of Ground Wire deflection was found to be
improved by upto 50% by the addition of deflections obtained from this method.
Improvement in estimates of longitudinal deflections were found to be efficient
only for load cases with broken wires closer to the peak due to bolt slip direction
considered to be based only on the direction of member axial force.

Jacek Szafran & Kazimierz Rykaluk (2015) carried out a full-scale pushover test
of a 40 meter telecommunication tower under breaking load. It is essential that the
failure mechanism with particular regard to leg buckling and capture of diagonal
bracing elements' behaviour be identified. There are codes for every country
containing the specifications for full-scale testing for transmission towers. Local
geometrical imperfections had been measured for selected members of the tower
prior to the vertical installation of the structure. Diagonal bracing members (hot-
rolled L-sections) were produced as independent elements without welded gusset
plates, brackets, etc. In this test, failure occurred due to formation of plastic hinges
at 1/4 and 3/4 of the section's span. The actual buckling capacities were found to be
greater than the ones estimated using codal provisions for every considered member
which may be due to the significant rigidity of the flanges which affects the failure
mechanism and the overall stability of tower legs. The impact of local geometrical
imperfections of structural members was revealed during the analysis of the
experimental results. Curvatures of the legs influence the values of the axial forces
along the elements and their experimental distribution does not coincide with the
theoretical assumptions. The pushover test and the obtained results can serve in
bearing capacity analyses of existing towers of this type.

2.4 PROBABILISTIC DESIGN OF TRANSMISSION LINE TOWERS

According to William. M. Bulleit (2008), Structural engineering design is replete

with uncertainties, some of which are obvious and some of which many engineers
may never have considered. The paper threw light on some of the uncertainties that
are faced by structural engineers and the ways that engineers have developed to
handle those uncertainties. Uncertainty can be separated into two categories: the
first one related to luck or chance, and epistemic, related to knowledge. This
breakdown has an impact on how we handle the various types of uncertainty.
Uncertainty has a range of sources; we consider five broad sources: time, statistical
limits, model limits, randomness, and human error. These five sources were
examined using examples from structural engineering, particularly with respect to
the allowable stress design and LRFD code formats. Some uncertainties are
explicitly dealt with in design codes, some are dealt with through quality control
measures, and some are dealt with in implicit ways that we often do not think much
about, e.g., heuristics. Design codes can deal with uncertainties caused by
randomness, statistical limits, some aspects of time, and modelling. Other
uncertainties such as human error must be dealt with using quality control methods,
such as peer reviews and construction inspection.

The study by Jun Zhang & Bruce Ellingwood (1995) states that most structural
parameters, such as material properties, geometric parameters, and loads, are
random in nature. Recent advances are making it possible to analyse the behaviour
of structures in which such parameters are modelled as spatially varying random
processes or fields rather than as random variables. The stability of columns and
frames within the preceding context has received limited attention. Many
investigations of the role of structural uncertainties on instability have addressed the
effects of random initial geometric imperfections.

A reliability-based design is one where the probability of failure of a structure and

hence the safety of the structure is predicted. Gordon A. Fenton & Nancy
Sutherland (2011), in their paper, presented a reliability-based methodology for the
design of an electrical power transmission system consisting of conductors and
transmission towers spanning between a generating plant and a destination group of
customers. They stated that environmental loads, (e.g., wind and ice, acting on
power transmission lines), structural strengths of the towers supporting the lines are
highly uncertain. The design of such systems must take uncertainty into account in
order to achieve acceptable reliability at a reasonable cost. The paper. The important
aspect in a reliability-based design is that it considers both the probability of
occurrence of an adverse event and the consequence of that event, when it occurs,
to determine an optimal design decision. It needs to identify the random quantities
on both the load and resistance side, and to gather enough data to allow the
distributions of these random quantities to be estimated. Also, the loads and
strengths are both time varying. It is known that maintenance and failure costs
increase with time. Hence, the system lifetime needs to be carefully considered. In
other words, a traditional design typically needs only mean (or characteristic) load
and resistance parameters, along with suitable safety factors. Reliability-based
approach on the other hand, also needs to know about - construction, maintenance,
and failure costs. The complete distribution of all random load and resistance
parameters needs to be known and also how all of these parameters vary with time
must be known.

M.J. Alam and A.R. Santhakumar (1996) stated that current design methods
cannot accurately predict the capacity of transmission tower. Tower testing is a
necessity because the analytical methods cannot accurately predict behaviour of
transmission tower and its members. The tower is treated as a space truss problem
and the stability analysis is considered for individual compression member level.
The load and resistance factor design (LRFD) format had been recommended as the
Reliability-based design (RBD) format for the design of transmission tower
components in ASCE Manual 74 (1991). The Manual defines a 5% (5-10%) for the
exclusion limit for tower components with a 15% (10-20%) coefficient of variation
strength for a reliable component design with a minimum reliability index of about
3. Reliability analysis for a 200 kV medium angle transmission tower was
performed using COMRELIA, a computer program (to calculate component
reliability). On the experimental side, a typical leg member of 150 x 150 x 12 mm,
which was under compressive load, was selected from the tower. The co-efficient of
variation of strength was found to be varying between 10 and 20%. The coefficient
of variation of wind load was found to be varying between 20 and 30%. During
tower testing, it was observed that there was good agreement between results from
COMRELIA and the actual test results. The authors stated that the effect of the
buckling of leg members and cross-arm bottom members plays a significant role on
the component-level RBD methodology. They suggested limiting values of
slenderness ratio for leg and cross-arm bottom members as 110 and 115
respectively.

Industrial structures such as transmission line towers involve large costs for
construction. Hence designers are under constant pressure to optimize these
structures to the maximum possible extent. The way to do so is to taken into
account the randomness and uncertainty, the system is always subjected to. This
requires probabilistic tools for computation of such large data. Stefan Reh et al.
(2006), in their study, described the problems that can be addressed, the underlying
algorithms implemented and methodologies of these methods in two tools
ANSYS Probabilistic Design System (PDS) and ANSYS DesignXplorer. ANSYS
PDS is based on the ANSYS Parametric Design Language (APDL). In this, users
can parametrically build a finite element model, solve it, and extract specific results
from it. ANSYS DesignXplorer on the other hand, is built on the new ANSYS
Workbench environment. The interface is user-friendly. PDS offers two
probabilistic methods namely Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) and Response
surface method (RSM). DesignXplorer offers only Response Surface Method. MCS
method does not make any simplify or assume any values in the model. The only
drawback is that the number of samples are limited to a finite value in order to
quantify the randomness of the result parameters. But the error associated with this
assumption can be easily quantified. RSM avoid the disadvantages of MCS
methods by replacing the true inputoutput relationship by an approximation
function. The authors solved numerical examples and compared the output with that
obtained through conventional methods. It was concluded that there was good
agreement between the sets of results.

As already mentioned earlier, the main objective of this project work is to compare
the response of a tower obtained using Stochastic Finite Element method with that
obtained using ANSYS Probabilistic Design System (PDS). A study on the accuracy
of ANSYS PDS was carried out by Chunxue Song et al. (2014). There are two
methods for performing probabilistic analysis in ANSYS PDS Monte Carlo
simulation (MCS) and Response surface method (RSM). The authors considered a
computational model of a cantilever beam in ANSYS PDS to obtain the results of
the selected random outputs. They compared the accuracy of MCS with that of
RSM. They observed that in MCS, the computational cost and time is very high due
to a large number of FE executions, but the solution is accurate if the number of
samples is high. In RSM, the function (stress, displacement, force etc.) is
approximated by using a polynomial function. Few points are sufficient to fit the
approximated function. Hence number of loops required are much lesser when
compared with MCS. The analysis of cantilever beam subjected to point load at free
end was used in both MCS and RSM. Reliability index was calculated from the
results. The exact value of reliability index was calculated using importance
sampling technique. The results from MCS and RSM were in good agreement with
that obtained from importance sampling. RSM might have taken significantly lesser
computational time. But for complex problems involving non-linearity, MCS is
more accurate.

ANSYS is a software basically developed to perform deterministic finite element

analysis, although there is a provision to perform probabilistic analysis. To cater to
specific needs, algorithms in external programs can be developed and linked with
ANSYS. Andre T. Beck and Edison da Rosa (2006) developed an algorithm to
perform reliability analysis of structures and linked it with ANSYS. The data for the
structural model is exported from ANSYS into the program to calculate structural
reliability. The idea is that, for every failure mode excessive deflection, yielding,
instability, etc., a limit state function is defined in terms of load effects s(x) and a
critical value xc g(s(x),xc)=0. The probability of failure is obtained by dividing
the number of instances where the finite element model failed as per that limit state
function, by the total number of samples. The authors also developed algorithms for
solving the reliability problem using FORM and SORM (first and second order
reliability methods respectively). The algorithm was tested on a few numerical
examples cantilever beam subjected to point load at free end, 13-bar truss, built-
up column and an eye-bar suspension bridge. The results showed that the module
developed by the authors was efficient and accurate for solving structural reliability
problems.

2.5 STOCHASTIC FINITE ELEMENT METHOD (SFEM)

George Stefanou (2008) carried out a state-of-the-art review of past and recent
developments in the SFEM area and indicated future directions. The first step in the
analysis of uncertain systems (in the framework of SFEM) is the representation of
the input of the system. This input usually consists of the mechanical and geometric
properties as well as of the loading of the system. Despite the fact that most of the
uncertain quantities appearing in engineering systems are non-Gaussian in nature
(e.g. material, geometric properties, wind, seismic loads), the Gaussian assumption
is often used due to its simplicity and the lack of relevant experimental data. The
second step in the analysis of uncertain systems is the propagation of uncertainty
through the system and the assessment of its stochastic response. SFEM is an
extension of the classical deterministic approach for the solution of stochastic
(static and dynamic) problems and has received considerable attention especially in
the last two decades, due to the technological advances in the available
computational power. There are two main variants of SFEM - the perturbation
approach, which is based on a Taylor series expansion of the response vector and,
the spectral stochastic finite element method SSFEM, The efficient application of
SFEM to nonlinear and inverse problems with stochastic data as well as to cases
with time-dependence remains a challenge.

Jos David Arregui-Mena et al. (2014), in their paper presented a brief overview
into stochastic finite element method (SFEM) and its application in structural
analysis. SFEM is an extension of FEM that considers the uncertainty in a system
that arises through variations in initial conditions, material or geometric properties.
The three most commonly used methods for stochastic finite element method
include Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS), perturbation technique, and spectral
stochastic finite element method (SSFEM). Each method adopts a different
approach to represent, solve and study the randomness of a system. All three
variants of SFEM require random fields to describe the inherent randomness of a
system. Random fields are characterized by the main statistical information on the
required variable such as mean, variance, probability distribution etc. The authors
also presented an overview into software for stochastic finite element method.
Software packages such as ANSYS offer procedures such as Monte Carlo
simulation and response surface method to perform analysis based on SFEM. Other
software packages include FERUM, CalREL, COSSAN, SFESTA and SFEDYN,
SFEQ8 etc. Through detailed study on various engineering problems, the authors
concluded MCS is the most general and a simple approach of the SFEM. It is
suitable for a wide range of applications and can be used for nonlinear problems.
The Perturbation Method is an efficient method to calculate the mean, variance and
correlation coefficients of a stochastic model. Furthermore, the computational cost
of estimating these quantities is quite low in comparison to the MCS. The
Perturbation Method is suitable for linear, nonlinear and eigenvalue problems.
SSFEM is well suited for linear analysis. Although it can also perform non-linear
analysis, it is considered to be impractical.
Michael Kleiber and Tran Duong Hien (1992), in their book, explained the
concept behind the perturbation technique for Stochastic Finite Element Analysis of
structures. The concept was illustrated with analysis of a bar element. The process
involves generation of finite element model of the structure and formulation of the
three stochastic finite element equations for the zeroth, first and second order. This
technique can give the statistical properties of the response upto second order, i.e.,
mean and variance. The authors also explained formulation of stochastic finite
element equations for various types of structural problems static and dynamic,
time-invariant and time-variant. Two computer programs SFESTA and SFEDYN
were also written for static and dynamic problems respectively for 3D Truss
systems.

G. Falsone and N. Impollonia (2002) proposed a method for evaluating the static
response of uncertain finite element modelled structures using a modified approach
for stochastic finite element analysis. This method is comparable with the
perturbation approach from computation point of view. Monte Carlo simulation is
the most used technique among the stochastic analysis of structures. In this method,
a defined number of samples are generated for the uncertain parameters and each
random value is applied as in a deterministic problem and the response is obtained.
With this, the randomness in response can be studied. However, as the number of
degrees of freedom and the number of uncertain parameters increase, this method
becomes very heavy from a computational point of view. For this purpose,
alternative techniques such as perturbation technique have been developed. This
technique has good accuracy for systems with low uncertainties and for instances
where second order statistical moment is sufficient for study. The response is
modelled as a Gaussian field. In this technique the stiffness matrix, displacement
vector and load vector are expanded either in linear or quadratic form depending on
whether first or second order perturbation is required. The authors proposed a new
method that provides more accuracy compared to the perturbation approach. This
method assumes an ad hoc expansion of the displacement vector with respect to the
input random variable. For upto second order statistical moment, the difference in
results is minor.

Miguel A. Gutierrez and Steen Krenk (2004) presented the method to determine
reliability of a structure using stochastic finite element method. Geometric
reliability method was illustrated using a bar element with axial load at its free end.
Reliability is characterized by a limit state function, which, in this case is taken to
be gg=u0 . In structural reliability the limit state function often takes the form of a
failure criterion. A given limit state can be expressed in several ways by limit state
functions, and it is an important property of a reliability method to be independent
of the particular form of the limit state function. Here, is a stochastic variable,
following the relation k = q where k is the stochastic stiffness matrix. The axial
stiffness k was assumed to follow a normal distribution with expectation k and
coefficient of variation Vk. A linear approximation of gg(z) where z is the random
variable was expressed. In the context of reliability analysis, is referred to as the
reliability index. The value of was calculated using a computer algorithm. From
this value, the probability of failure and hence the reliability of the structure can be
determined.

2.6 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW

1. There are various configurations of transmission line towers - ranging from

single circuit horizontal to double circuit vertical structures with single or V
strings in all phases, as well as any combination of these.
2. According to use, transmission line towers are classified as suspension and
tension towers.
3. The wind load constitutes a major component of the total loading on the tower.
4. The loads acting on a transmission line tower are classified as transverse loads,
longitudinal load, vertical load, torsional shear, and self-weight.
5. Behaviour of steel angle sections, which are open sections, is complex in nature.
They are used in the fabrication of transmission line towers. The loading is
 always eccentric with respect to the shear centre. This causes significant
torsional stresses.
6. In the tower structure, the bottom tier members take axial forces and the
members supporting the cables are likely to have localized role. The vertical
members take the loads of the tower. The members supporting the cables at
higher elevation have influence on the behaviour of the tower structure.
7. Bracing system in a steel lattice tower provides the necessary lateral load
resistance. There are different bracing configurations such as the X-B, single
diagonal, X-X, K, and Y bracings.
8. Sag is the vertical distance between the point where the transmission line is
supported on the tower and the lowest point on the line. This sag induces tensile
force on the tower structure. It is essential that towers are safe under sag tension.
Loading on cables due to ice formation increases sag formation. This is must be
taken into account during design.
9. Transmission line towers constitute about 28 to 42 percent of the total cost of
the transmission lines. An economical system required an optimum outline for
the tower combined the right type of bracing.
10. The stresses in members of transmission line towers are determined for different
loading conditions (mentioned earlier). Among all these cases, the loading
condition inducing maximum amount of stresses on the members is considered
for design.
11. Transmission line towers, though designed as per code, can still fail due to
various reasons. Codal provisions generally overestimate the capacity of a
member.
12. For a steel lattice tower, it is essential that the failure mechanism with particular
regard to leg buckling and capture of diagonal bracing elements' behaviour be
identified.
13. Due to increase in computational power, various algorithms are being developed
to optimize the design of towers as much as possible.
14. Design parameters such as environmental loads, material properties are
uncertain in nature. Reliability-based design considers both the probability of
occurrence of an adverse event and the consequence of that event, when it
occurs, to determine an optimal design decision.
15. In probability and statistics, a stochastic variable is a variable quantity whose
possible values depend, in some clearly-defined way, on a set of random events.
16. The three most commonly used methods for stochastic finite element method
include Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS), perturbation technique, and spectral
stochastic finite element method (SSFEM).
17. ANSYS provides two tools Probabilistic Design System (PDS) and
DesignXplorer to perform probabilistic analysis of structures. Two methods
Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) and Response Surface (RSM) is included in
PDS while only RSM is included in DesignXplorer.
18. FERUM, CalREL, COSSAN, SFESTA and SFEDYN, and SFEQ8 are some of
the other software packages dedicated to performing stochastic finite element
analysis.
19. ANSYS can be made to interact with other programs to obtain required response
of a structure. This is particularly helpful for stochastic finite element analysis as
specific code pertaining to transmission line tower is required and is not
available as it is.
20. The perturbation approach of SFEM is based on a Taylor series expansion of the
response vector. This technique will be used in this project work to calculate
response of tower.
21. Using SFEM, the reliability of a structure can also be determined by adopting a
suitable limit state function. This function represents the failure criteria of the
structure.