12 - Chapter 4 PDF

70
CHAPTER 4
STEEL LATTICE TOWERS
4.1 TRANSMISSION LINE TOWERS
In the power industry, steel lattice towers are commonly used for
transmission of power through electrical conductors from the place of power
generation to the place of distribution. The transmission line towers support
electrical power conductors and ground-wires at suitable height above ground
to satisfy certain functional requirements. It is reported that transmission line
towers contribute to about 35-45% of the total cost of a transmission line.
Hence optimisation of tower design can therefore result in substantial economy.
Great responsibility thus rests on the design engineer who has to prepare not
only economical, but also safe and reliable design. Structurally the tower should
be adequate to resist loads such as wind load, snow load and self-weight.
4.1.1 Specification of Transmission Line Towers
Transmission line towers are generally specified by voltage, number

of circuits and type. Thus, these parameters become the basic parameters, which
govern structural design of the tower.
71
The voltage classification of transmission line towers is according to

the voltage of the line it carries. The common voltages used in India for power
transmission are 110 kV, 220/230 kV and 440 kV.
The configurations adopted are generally rectangular and square

types. The square type broad based towers are the most commonly used. The
number of circuits the tower can carry is either single, double or multi circuit.
The number of earth wires, right of way, etc. also affect the configuration of the
tower. Along the transmission line route, depending upon the profile along the
centre line of the transmission line, towers are classified into three categories
such as tangent tower, angle tower and dead end tower. Further, transmission
line towers are also classified according to their shape as Barrel, Corset and
Guyed towers.
The Barrel type towers are considered in this study for optimisation as
the generation and geometrical data are modular based. The functional
requirements such as minimum ground clearance, and clearance between
conductor and tower body, are governed by the electrical regulations and they
mainly depend on the voltage carried by the conductor. The number of circuits
decides the number of cross arms on the tower. Parameters such as number of
cross arms, vertical spacing between cross arms, height of ground-wire peak,
minimum ground clearance, maximum sag and other clearances decide the
overall height of the tower. The staging of transmission line tower should be
high enough to provide minimum ground clearance under maximum sag
condition. As transmission line towers have components such as a number of
cross arms and ground-wire peaks, the staging below the bottom cross arm is
more useful for optimisation than the portion above.
72
4.1.2 Transmission Line Tower Configuration
Typical barrel type and corset type transmission line tower

configurations are shown in Figure 4.1. Choosing a preliminary configuration is
pre-requisite for detailed analysis and design of a transmission line tower and
this is to be chosen based on functional and structural requirements. The
geometric parameters of transmission line tower configuration are height of the
tower, base width of the tower, top-hamper width, length and depth of cross-
arm. Some of the parameters governing the geometry of a tower are shown in
Figure 4.2. Approximate structural behaviour of the tower or conventional
practice is taken as the basis for fixing these parameters of the tower. Sag
tension and clearances also play an important role in deciding the configuration.
4.1.3 Tower Configuration Parameters
For optimisation of transmission line towers, it is important to know

various design parameters that control the design of the tower. Some of the
parameters that dictate the configuration of the transmission line towers are
briefly described below:
Tower Height: The height of the tower is determined by parameters

such as number of cross arms, vertical spacing between cross arms, height of
ground-wire peak, minimum ground clearance, maximum sag and other
clearances. The cost of the tower increases with the height of the tower. Hence,
it is desirable to keep the tower height minimum to the extent possible without
sacrificing the structural safety and functional requirement such as ground
clearance and electrical clearance.
73
BARREL TYPE TOWERS
NARROW BASE CORSET TOWER

BARREL TYPE TOWER
Figure 4.1 Typical Barrel and Corset Tower Configurations

74
~n
A -- Ground wire peak E - Staging

B Cross arm height F -- Base width
C ~ Panel height G -- Panel width
D -Vertical spacing between H1, H2 - Cross arm length
conductors I - Top hamper width
Figure 4.2 Geometric Parameters of a Transmission Line Tower

75
Sag: The conductor wires and ground-wires sag due to self-weight.

The size and type of the conductor, wind and climatic conditions of the region
and span length determine the conductors sag and tension. Span length is fixed
from economic considerations. The maximum sag occurs at the maximum
temperature and still wind conditions. Sagging of the conductor cables is
considered in determining the height of the tower. It is essential to have
minimum clearance between the bottom-most conductor and the ground, at the
point where the sag is maximum. Sag tension is the force on the conductor,
which in turn is transferred to the tower. Sag tension is maximum at the time of
maximum temperature and when wind is at maximum. Loads such as self
weight and snow load on the conductors contribute to the sag tension.
Spacing between the towers, ground level difference between tower

locations, the mechanical properties of the conductors and ground-wires decide
the sag distance and sag tension in the cables. The conductors assume catenary
profile and the sag is calculated based on parabolic formulae or procedure given
in codes of practices.
Minimum Ground Clearance: Power conductors along the entire

route of the transmission line should maintain requisite clearance to ground
over open country, national highways, important roads, electrified and
unelectrified railway tracks, navigable and non-navigable rivers,
telecommunication and power lines, etc. as laid down in various national
standards. The maximum sag for the normal span of the conductor should be
added to the minimum ground clearance to get the staging height of the tower,
i.e. the vertical distance from the ground level to the bottom of the lowest cross
arm.
76
Ground-wire peak: Ground-wire peaks are provided to support the

ground-wires, which shield the tower from lightning and provide earthing to the
tower. The height of the ground-wire peak is chosen in such a way that the
cross arm falls within the shield angle. The bottom width of the ground-wire
peak is assumed equal to the top hamper width and is normally 0.75m to lm.
Cross-arm spacing: Cross arms are provided to support the

transmission line power conductors. The number of circuits carried by the tower
determines the number of cross arms. In general three cross arms for single
circuit towers and six cross arms for double circuit towers are required. The
vertical spacing between the cross arms must satisfy the minimum clearance
between circuit lines and other electrical requirements. The minimum
horizontal clearance required between the conductors and the tower steel is
based on the swing conditions, and it determines the length of the cross arm.
The depth of the cross arm is assumed in general such that the angle at the tip of
the arm is in the range of 15 to 20 degrees.
Base Width: The base width of the tower is determined heuristically.

For example, the ratio of base width to total height may vary from one-tenth for
tangent towers to one-fifth for large angle tower. Also, there are formulae for
preliminary determination of economical base width. The widths may be varied
to satisfy other constraints like foundation design and land availability.
Top Hamper Width: Top hamper width is the width of the tower at
lower cross-arm level. The top hamper width is also determined heuristically
and is generally about one third of the base width. Other parameters like
horizontal spacing between conductors and slope of the leg may also be
considered while determining the top hamper width.
77
4.2 MICROWAVE TOWERS
Steel lattice towers are also used in electronic and communication

industries for communication of microwave signals through different types of
antennas. Several antennae are fixed on the tower in different directions at
different heights as per the requirement and usage. The antenna positions decide
the height of the tower. Symmetrical cross sections are preferred for microwave
towers due to reversal of wind direction. Generally steel lattice towers with
square or triangular plan are used for microwave towers. Angle sections and
tubes are commonly used for the fabrication of these towers. Microwave towers
are generally self-supporting steel lattice towers. Guyed towers are also used for
microwave communication, but are least preferred for supporting heavy disc
antennae. Wind load on the tower body and antennae is the major load on the
structure besides the self-weight of the tower. Microwave towers are generally
supported either at ground or at rooftop of some buildings. The tip deflection of
the tower is a governing parameter for the functional requirement. Typical
configuration of a 102-m high microwave tower is shown in Figure 4.3. The
tower is triangular in plan. The two-dimensional and three-dimensional views
of the tower are shown.
4.3 GEOMETRICAL MODELLING OF STEEL LATTICE

TOWERS
The mathematical modelling is an important step in the design of steel

lattice towers. Steel lattice towers are treated as a pin jointed skeletal system.
The influence of dimension in modelling is presented below:
78
Is) N>
<-
N>
3m
3m
3,rff~
JnT
3m
7^
3m
7^
3 ni
7~
3m
3m
~?C
3 it?
3 n?
3 n?
6 in
6m
6m
7^
6m
71~
6m
-7<-
6 mn
"7 ~
6m
7
6m
7
/ ~
6m
7^
6m
16.5 m
* 2-D VIEW 3-D VIEW
Figure 4.3 Typical Configuration of a 102 m Triangular

Microwave Tower
79
4.3.1 One-Dimensional Modelling
In one-dimensional modelling, the tower is treated as a cantilever

beam-column with varying inertia along the height. The properties of the beam
are calculated assuming that the legs are the flanges of an equivalent I-beam so
that the moment of inertia and area can be used in calculating the forces due to
bending and axial loads. But the effect of bracing and torsion are very difficult
to include mainly because the contribution of each of these in resisting the load
as a beam can be done only by approximations. Further, as the beam is non-
prismatic and skeletal, the approximations completely neglect the integral
action of the members. This brings in disproportionate distribution of loads on
to the various components resulting in either over-design or under-design.
4.3.2 Two-Dimensional Modelling

*
Even though one dimensional beam model of a square tower gives an

idea of the general behaviour of the tower, the spatial nature of the system calls
for better modelling, reflecting the response more realistically. Here again,
basic engineering knowledge can be extended to visualise in two-dimension so
that axial, lateral and torsional loads are distributed in an appropriate way on to
the four faces of the tower. Typically lateral and axial loads are transferred
equally on to the two faces of the tower. For torsion, the resisting couple for the
torsional moment is assumed to be provided by shear on four faces. Using this
distribution of the loads on the faces, member forces are determined using
method of joints. Here again conservation in stiffness and absence of integrated
action prevent realistic estimation of forces in all members leading to over-
design.
80
4.3.3 Three-Dimensional Modelling
In three-dimensional modelling, the tower is considered as it is, so

that all the loads can be accounted for simultaneously. The member
participation in the response of the tower for axial, bending and torsional effects
is taken into account. But amenability of three-dimensional model to hand
calculation is very difficult. Hence, the tower has to be modelled and analysed
using one of the numerical techniques and computer programming.
The mathematical model of a steel lattice tower is preferably a space

truss for computer analysis. Hence three-dimensional geometric models are
used to represent the mathematical model of the tower. Geometric modelling
and configuration processing are prerequisites for any lattice tower analysis.
Configuration processing refers to the phase in structural analysis where a
mathematical model of a structure is formulated. For example, mesh generation
in finite element analysis is a special case of configuration processing.
Preparation of input data in tower analysis in three-dimension is a tedious and
time-consuming process. Therefore, it is a general practice to write
configuration generator programs to minimise input. The generator, which
reads the input for the tower geometry, generates the data for the analysis
program. The main features of the configuration generator are: ease and
minimisation of input data, automatic generation of joint co-ordinates,
numbering of nodes and members, and members connectivity. Modification can
be done easily and the chances of making errors in input are minimised. These
types of programs are useful to the structural engineers and designers for
configuration optimisation and to evolve various alternatives for analysis and
design. It will considerably reduce the drudgery of data preparation for the
analysis.
81
4.4 MODULAR GENERATION TECHNIQUE
While writing configuration generator, it is preferable to be more

general rather than specific to a particular configuration. For generating tower
configurations, the methods are not generalised and not many attempts have
been made to establish any technique. In an attempt to do so, a knowledge
based modular generation technique has been developed, as this method helps
in the process of optimisation. The tower configuration is decomposed into
various generic modules as shown in Figure. 4.4. Using various combinations
of these modules, it is possible to generate various transmission line tower
configurations and microwave tower configurations. Various modules for
different panels of tower are encoded in the knowledge and can be assembled to
the required configuration of the tower as shown in Figure 4.5.
The modular generator produces the geometry of the tower from

simple input and the function of the generator is shown in the flow chart given
in Figure 4.6. A 220 kV double circuit tangent transmission line tower
generated using this technique is shown in Figure 4.7. The purpose of
considering modules is to simplify the task of generating the tower
configuration. Also, this will enable to generalise the development of
configuration of a similar nature. The modules can be repeatedly used in
different parts to get the desired configuration. The entire height of the
transmission line tower is divided into different segments, such that the leg
members of the tower in that portion have the same slope along the height.
Hence, the width of the tower at any location along its height can be calculated
by linear variation, when the top width and bottom width of the segment are
known. These segments are considered to have one or more panels and each
panel is represented by some module.
82
Figure 4.4 Typical Modules for Tower Modelling

83
EXPLODED VIEW
Figure 4.5 Tower Assembly

84
Figure 4.6. Flow Chart of Modular Generator

85
1500
Figure 4.7 Geometric Model OF A 220 kV Double Circuit

Transmission Line Tower
86
In a way, modules are the representation of any interchangeable

portion or unit of the tower having a particular type of bracing system. Only the
type of module has to be chosen and depending upon the context, appropriate
data for a module are automatically generated. Different modules can be used
for generating different panels, cross arms, and ground-wire peaks. For each
type, varieties of modules may be built in and stored in the knowledge base. By
this way, numerous combinations can be explored to experiment with radically
new structural configurations without much difficulty. This is the major
advantage of decomposing the tower into modules. The system automatically
generates nodes, spatial co-ordinates, member numbers, member groups and
members connectivity for the module locally. They are independent of the full
tower configuration. Then these data are converted to global format for the
required tower configuration. When connecting one module to the other, the
common variables between modules are properly taken into account to
eliminate repetition. Different types of modules with different patterns can be
generated for a particular section and this adds more flexibility to the choice.
4.4.1 Member Grouping
Member grouping has practical significance in tower design as well

as optimisation. Tower members are grouped into different types such as leg
members, diagonal bracing members, tie bracing members and plan bracing
members. Group numbers are assigned to each member to identify the type and
cross section of the member. Freestanding microwave towers and transmission
line towers are subjected to wind load. Reversal in the direction of wind is
always considered, and hence the members are kept identical in each face of the
tower generally. For design purposes, members of similar type at a particular
height or a panel, at a different face of the tower are grouped together with
87
same area of cross section. For example, the leg members in a panel are
considered to be of the same group. Similarly, the diagonal bracing members in
all the faces of a panel are likely to have same section and considered as a
single group entity. The members are designed for the maximum forces in the
group rather than the force in the member. These group numbers are also useful
in identifying the members for applying the design rules such as slenderness
ratio limitations.
4.4.2 Tower Analysis Data
The geometrical data of the tower are generated by assembling the

modules from top to bottom of the tower. While assembling the geometric
model with modules, some parameters like last node, last member, last group
number in each group, are passed internally from module to module for data
continuity. When the generation is done modularly, the input required for
assembling the tower is minimal. The configuration can be changed easily by
changing the modules or the geometric parameters to get a new configuration.
This not only facilitates the analysis and design, but also enables design
revision and optimisation. The top width, number of slopes, bottom width of
each segment, number of the modules, bracing pattern and height of each
module only are specified as input. A 60m high square microwave tower model
having two slopes assembled with modules using this method is shown in
Figure 4.8. The output of the generator contains all the geometrical co-ordinates
of the nodes, member numbers, members connectivity, member group numbers
and restrained nodal data. Bottom-most nodes are assumed to be restrained
against all the degrees of freedom.
88
1250
H
ALL DIMENSIONS IN mm
3-D VIEW
Figure 4.8 Geometric Model of a Square Microwave Communication

Tower
89
4.5 LOADS
Transmission line towers are subjected to loads acting in all the three
mutually perpendicular directions namely vertical, normal to the direction of
line, and parallel to the direction of line.
4.5.1 Transverse Loads
The load perpendicular to the direction of the line is known as

transverse load. It acts at the points of conductor, i.e. at the tip of the cross arms
and ground-wire support. In addition to that, a load distributed over the
transverse face of the tower due to wind also acts on the tower. Wind load is
applied horizontally, acting in the direction normal to the transmission line.
Angle towers are used where the line makes a horizontal angle greater than 2.
They must resist a transverse load from components of line tension induced by
this angle in addition to the usual wind, ice and broken conductor loads. They
are located such that the axis of the cross-arms bisects the angle formed by the
conductors. The governing wind direction on conductors for the angle condition
is assumed to be parallel to the cross-arms. Wind load over the wind span on
bare or ice-covered conductors, ground-wire and wind load on insulator strings
contribute transverse load on transmission line tower. The two half spans
adjacent to the tower under consideration is known as wind span.
4.5.2 Longitudinal Loads
Longitudinal load on transmission line tower is due to the unbalanced

conductor tensions. It acts on the tower in a direction parallel to the line. The
unbalanced conductor tension may be due to broken wire condition, unequal
90
adjacent spans of the tower, dead-ending of the tower, etc. The unbalanced pull
due to a broken conductor or ground-wire in the case of tension strings is
assumed equal to the component of the maximum working tension of the
conductor or the ground-wire, as the case may be, in the longitudinal direction
along with its component in the transverse direction.
4.5.3 Vertical Loads
Vertical load on transmission line tower is due to the weight of bare or

ice-covered conductor over the governing weight span, weight of insulator,
hardware, etc., covered with ice, if applicable, and a load equal to the weight of
a line man with tools. This vertical load is applied at the ends of the cross-arms
and on the ground-wire peak. The self-weight of the tower acts vertically and is
calculated approximately as this is unknown until the actual design is complete.
This may be revised, if required, before the final design.
4.6 WIND LOAD CALCULATIONS
Wind load is the major load on all freestanding lattice towers. Wind
load on transmission line tower body has to be calculated and transferred to all
panel points to get more realistic effect. As this involves a number of laborious
and complex calculations, it is the general practice to consider the equivalent
loads. These loads are applied on the conductor and ground wire supports
which are already subjected to certain other transverse, longitudinal and vertical
loads.
The projected area is an unknown quantity, but is required for the

wind load calculation. This can be calculated exactly only after the design
91
process is over and actual sections are known. Therefore, it is necessary to

assume certain area to arrive at the wind load on the structure. Depending on
the spread and size of the structure, 15 to 25% of the gross area is generally
taken as the net area. Gross area is the area bounded by the outside perimeter of
single face of the tower. For accounting the wind force on the leeward side, a
factor of 1.5 is used. The wind load on the tower is assumed to act at selected
nodes, generally at the tip of the cross-arms. Some methods suggested by
Murthy (1990) to determine the magnitude of wind load are given below,
In one method, the wind loads on various parts of the tower or the
members are calculated first. Then the moments about the tower base for all
these loads are added and an equivalent load at selected points for that moment
is calculated. The loads applied on the bottom cross-arms are increased with
corresponding reduction in the loads applied on the upper cross-arms in another
method.
The second method is to divide the tower into a number of parts

corresponding to the ground-wire and conductor support points. Based on
solidity ratio, the wind load on each point is then calculated and the moment
due to this wind load about the base is divided by the corresponding height,
which gives the wind load on two points of support.
In another method, the equivalent loads are applied at a number of

points such as ground-wire peak, cross-arm points and waist level. An
approximate solidity ratio is assumed and wind load on different parts of the
tower are determined. An equivalent load, which can produce the same amount
of moment at the base, is transferred to the upper loading point and the
92
remaining part to the base. This process is repeated for various parts of the
tower.
Even though the design wind load based on the last method is more
logical than the others, it is reported that these loads are lower than the actual.
In microwave towers, which are square in plan, the wind load acting
in the diagonal direction of the tower is generally considered to be critical.
Similarly, face wind is critical in microwave towers that are triangular in plan.
In some cases the wind load on antennae may decide the critical wind direction.
An assumed configuration and bracing pattern are used in the preliminary
design. Based on the preliminary design, approximate member sizes are arrived
at for calculating wind load on towers. Recalculation of wind load, if required,
is done before arriving at the final designs. A realistic approach is to apply the
wind load at each node of the tower and this method is possible with computer
programs. A generic load generator based on the modular approach is
developed to calculate the wind load on the tower. The details are given below:
4.7 SELF-WEIGHT AND WIND LOAD GENERATOR
In the calculation of wind load, the projected area is an unknown

quantity and. in the calculation of self-weight, the section weights are unknown.
Hence, the actual quantities of loads can be calculated only after the design
process is complete. But for design, the analysis needs to be completed based
on the load. Hence, it becomes necessary to do an approximate calculation of
load and revise the load after final design in an iterative manner. Generally,
preliminary design calculations are carried out to find the force in members
approximately and the sections are decided based on the experience. Once the
93
sections are assumed, the wind loads as per codal provisions are calculated.
This process is laborious if it is done manually. A computer based method is
necessary to do the process as it may be required to perform calculations
repeatedly whenever there is a change.
The modular generation technique used for tower geometry is also

found suitable for this process. The load generator program is generic and
isolated from other programs so that it can work independently to give wind
load and self-weight on each panel. The basic tower geometry has to be same as
the analytical model. But the modules developed by this program need not be
same as the analytical model. This may include additional members or bracing
patterns. The secondary bracing can also be included in this program for the
purpose of calculating loads. The tower can have the same input as in the case
of geometric model. In addition to that, the input should include the member
sizes for each group of members. The tower is divided into modules. Each
module may represent a panel. The geometric data of the panel is generated
first. The wind load on each panel and self-weight can be calculated from the
geometry of the tower. The wind loads are calculated according to IS:875
(Part 3) - 1987, Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design Loads (other than
Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures and are incorporated in the program.
The panel wise wind load generated by this program for a tower shown in
Figure 4.9 is given in Table 4.1. The self-weight of the panels are calculated
using the length of the members and weight per unit length obtained from the
database. This self-weight is assumed to act at all bottom nodes connecting the
panel to the next panel and distributed equally.
94
Table 4.1 Typical output of load generator
Basic Wind Speed Vb: 50 m/s
Design Life in Years : 100
Terrain Category: 2 Class C
kl Factor : 1.08
k3 Factor : 1.00
Force Coeff. for Square Tower with Angles considered
Wind Pressure Pz = 0.6Vz**2 = 0.6{Vb.kl.k2.k3)**2
Design Wind Pressure 0. 6(Vb.kl k3.)**2(k2**2) - 178.26(k2**2) Kg/m2
Pan . Ht k2 PZ SR Cf Pz .Cf Exp.Ar. T.D.L. T.W.L. DL si .2

W.L
Ho. . cm. Kg/m2 Kg/m2 cm2 Kg Kg YSall Sail
1 5875.0 1.1122 220.52 .1380 3.6102 796.14 7652.01 182.71 609.21 .00 77.54
2 5600.0 1.1084 219.00 .1206 3.6970 809.64 8972.50 212.87 726.45 54.81 170.00
3 5300.0 1.1042 217.34 .1194 3.7030 804.82 9903.74 245.75 797.08 63.86 193.91
4 5000.0 1.1000 215.69 .1359 3.6207 780.96 12430.59 310.61 970.78 73.72 225.01
5 4700.0 1.0910 212.18 .1284 3.6582 776.18 12842.88 354.35 996.84 93.18 250.44
6 4400.0 1.0820 208.69 .1277 3.6616 764.13 13867.07 382.77 1059.63 106.30 261.75
7 4100.0 1.0730 205.23 .1272 3.6640 751.98 14900.43 411.47 1120.49 114.83 277.48
8 3800.0 1.0640 201.80 .1220 3.6898 744.62 15340.42 463.26 1142.28 123.44 288.00
9 3525.0 1.0558 198.69 .1377 3.6117 717.60 15319.53 463.48 1099.32 138.98 285.31
10 3250.0 1.0475 195.59 .1356 3.6220 708.44 19170.38 627.03 1358.11 139.04 312.78
11 2850.0 1.0340 190.59 .1135 3.7325 711.36 28900.64 877.80 2055.87 188.11 434.53
12 2350.0 1.0140 183.28 .1068 3.7660 690.25 29728.63 993.10 2052.03 263.34 522.85
13 1850.0 .9910 175.06 .1012 3.7940 664.19 30576.87 1189.19 2030.87 297.93
519.67
14 1350.0 .9580 163.60 .1060 3.7701 616.78 34536.06 1570.83 2130.13 356.76
529.61
15 550.00 .9300 154.18 .1043 3.7786 582.56 83484.92 4373.11 4863.50 471.25
890.14
Total Weight : 12658.33 Kg.
APPLIED LOAD FACTOR 1.00

95
Figure 4.9 Details of a 60 m Tower for Wind Load

Calculations
96
A general database of all angle sections given in IS:808 - 1989

Dimensions for Hot Rolled Steel Beam, Column, Channel and Angle
Sections, and tubular sections from IS: 1161 - 1979 Specification for Steel
Tubes for Structural purposes are linked to the program. This database
contains the designation, the size, mass, sectional area, moment of Inertia and
the radius of gyration, which are often used in the design.
The variation of k2 factor and design wind pressure along the height
of the tower is given in Figure 4.10. The variation of wind load and dead load
for panels from top to bottom of the tower is shown in Figure 4.11 Since the
height of the bottom most panel is much greater than the rest of the panels the
self weight drastically increases. Also since heavier sections are provided in the
bottom-most panel, it attracts more wind pressure and hence, there is a drastic
increase in the wind pressure in that panel.
4.8 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE
Steel lattice towers are highly indeterminate space frames with semi
rigid joints and assumptions are made to simplify the complexities involved in
the analysis of the actual tower. It is reported in literature that the comparison
of space frame analysis with space truss analysis showed insignificant
difference (less than 10%) and also different analyses (plane/space/truss/frame)
with and without secondary bracings ultimately gave same member forces.
Hence, the members are considered as three dimensional truss elements for
modelling of the tower. Secondary members are not considered in the analytical
modelling, as these members are assumed to carry less than 2.5% of the main
leg / bracing members.
97
k2 Factor Design Wind Pressure in

kN/Sq.m
Height Vs k2 Height Vs Pz
Figure 4.10 Variation of k2 Factor and Design Wind Pressure

98
Panel Number
Panel Number
Height Vs Dead load Height Vs Wind load
Figure 4.11 Comparison of Dead Load and Wind Load on Panels

99
Self-supporting towers act basically as a-cantilever structure and the

bending moments at different heights of the tower are useful in the preliminary
calculation of width of the tower for the given load.
Matrix method of structural analysis has been used, as large structural

systems like lattice towers can be analysed using matrix method with high
speed computers. Stiffness method, which is also known as Displacement
method or Equilibrium method, which is commonly employed in the analysis of
lattice towers, is adopted in the analysis program. The equations of equilibrium
is given by
[K] [8] = [P] (4.7)
where
[K] = Global stiffness matrix
[8] = Displacement vector
[P] = Force vector
The analysis program solves the set of linear algebraic equations

formed by the above equation using Choleskeys Decomposition method.
4.9 DESIGN PROCEDURE
Members of lattice towers are designed for either compression or

tension as axial force is the only force in the members. Reversal of loads may
induce alternate nature of force and hence, these members are designed for both
compression and tension. The calculated tensile or compressive stress in
various members shall not exceed the permissible stress limit as prescribed in
the code. For the design of transmission line tower members IS:802 - 1992 -
100
(part 1 / Section 2) - Use of Structural Steel in Overhead Transmission Line

Towers - Material, Loads and Permissible Stresses is used. For the design of
microwave towers, IS:800 - 1984 Indian Standard Code of Practice for
General Construction in Steel is adopted.
4.10 SENSITIVITY STUDIES WITH RESPECT TO DESIGN

PARAMETERS IN TOWER DESIGN
In engineering design optimisation problems, most of the proposed

methodologies call for assessment of response for any change in design and
configuration variables. For optimal design problems, the direction and the step
length in the complex design space of different tower configurations are
required in some methods. The influence of design variables on selected
performance requirement can identify the most efficient way of modifying a
design concept to obtain the desired structural performance. Studying the
influence of a selected design parameter on the performance of a group, enables
to determine (a) which performance characteristics will benefit most and (b)
which performance characteristics will be most adversely affected. Structural
optimisation codes require the designer to identify all important constraints, the
constraint bounds and the objective function.
Design variables that are most critical to performance and the

performance requirements that are most critically affected by a particular design
variable are valuable information in optimisation. This can help in selecting the
most critical parameters as design variables in optimisation using genetic
algorithm. Hence, sensitivity studies were carried out to estimate the response
for various design parameter changes.
101
In the design of transmission line towers, optimisation possibilities

are more between waist and ground portion and hence, the change in
performance of the design parameters for panels below the waist height alone
are taken. Sensitivity methods for design changes were developed for member
design parameters. Sensitivity studies are needed for the evaluation of response
of transmission line systems when design parameters are varied. So these
studies were carried out for leg and bracing members at different levels below
the waist level to find out the response in terms of stress. The cross sectional
areas of leg and bracing members are taken as design parameter in this study.
They are varied independently keeping the other variables constant. Necessary
relations are derived for evaluating the response.
4.10.1 Sensitivity of Deflection for Leg Members
A typical elevation of a 132 kV tower with numbering scheme and

member groups is shown in Figure 4.12. A three-dimensional truss model is
considered for analysis. Three typical load cases viz., Load case 1- Normal
condition, Load case 2 - Ground wire broken and Load case - 3 Top conductor
broken condition, are considered in the analysis and these load cases are shown
in Figure.4.13 (a), (b) and (c). The leg members in the panel are grouped from
top to bottom with code numbers 1006 to 1009. The code numbers above 1000
and below 2000 are used to identify leg member group in the generation.
Cantilever moment (M) at the bottom of the tower for normal load case - 1 is
calculated and the initial area of bottom leg member group is assumed based on
this moment.
102
Figure 4.12 Typical Elevation of a 132 kv Single Circuit Tower

103
3.766
Figure 4.13. (a) Load case -1

(Normal Load Condition)
2.893
Figure 4.13. (b) Load Case -2

(Ground-wire Broken Condition)
104
3.766
Figure 4.13 (c) Load Case -3

(Top Conductor Broken Condition)
The approximate area is calculated using the equation given below:
M*FOS
Area required (4.8)
W * 0.67 * Fy
Where
Yield Stress of Steel
FOS Factor of Safety
W Width at the top of the bottom panel
The nearest area of the equal angle section, from IS Handbook is
chosen as the initial area for all the leg members. The ratio of actual stress to
allowable stress is known as the criticality ratio. The criticality ratio is high in
Load Case - 2 and this may govern the design for the given set of load
105
conditions and initial sections chosen. Hence, the Load Case - 2 is considered
for the deflection sensitivity study.
The changes in deflection due to the change in area of leg members at

different panels are tabulated. The variations of areas and deflections are given
as ratios to the initial section and initial deflections in order to have non-
dimensional quantities for comparison. The change in area of the leg members
at the bottom panel, which is grouped as 1009 and the corresponding change in
maximum deflection of the tower is given in Table 4.2. The deflection vs. the
area behaviour for leg member group 1009 is shown in Figure 4.14.
Table 4.2 Deflection Variation for Leg member group 1009
Area Deflection (8z)

x = A/Ao a = 8/5o
(mm2) (mm)
116.7 151.50 0.1 2.5250
583.5 70.55 0.5 1.1760
1167.0 60.00 1.0 1.0000
2334.0 54.69 2.0 0.9115
11670.0 50.42 10.0 0.8400
The leg members at the panel immediately above the bottom are
grouped as 1008 and same initial area is chosen. The change in area of the leg
members in this group and the corresponding change in maximum deflection is
given in Table 4.3.
106
Deflection Variation
Figure 4.14 Variation of Deflection Vs Area for Leg Members
Table 4.3 Deflection Variation for Leg member group 1008

x = A/A0 a = 8/6o
(mm2) (mm)
116.7 140.50 0.1 2.3417
583.5 69.75 0.5 1.1625
1167.0 60.00 1.0 1.0000
2334.0 55.04 2.0 0.9173
11670.0 51.03 10.0 0.8505
107
Similarly the change in area and corresponding change in deflection

for the leg members at the bottom panel, which is grouped as 1007, is given in
Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Deflection Variation for Leg Member Group 1007

x = A/A0 a = S/5o
(mm2) (mm)
I 116.7 148.1 0.1 2.4683
583.5 72.58 0.5 1.2097
1167.0 60.00 1.0 1.0000
1 2334.0
53.35 2.0 0.8892
11670.0 47.85 10.0 0.7975
Leg members in fourth panel from the bottom are grouped as 1006
and the change in area and corresponding change in deflection for these leg
members are given in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 Deflection Variation for Leg Member Group 1006
Area Deflection (8z) 1

x = AJA0 a = 5/5o
(mm2) (mm)
116.7 93.03 0.1 1.5505
583.5 68.53 0.5 1.1422
1167.0 60.00 1.0 1.0000
2334.0 54.32 2.0 0.9053
11670.0 48.79 10.0 0.8132

108
4.10.2 Sensitivity Curves for Deflection
The behaviour is asymptotic and can be divided into three regions.

The first region where the area variation revision is above 10% and below 50%
the deflection can be linearly interpolated. The second region is the centre
portion close to the initial section area, i.e. where the variation of area is
between 50 % and 200% and can be fitted with a curve. A quadratic equation
fitting the curve can be arrived by solving a set of equations satisfying the three
points. The third region where the area revision is above 2.0 times and below 10
times can also be linearly interpolated. For area revisions above 10 times and
below 0.1 time (10%), this fitting is not suitable and it is suggested that the
initial section itself is revised. The quadratic equation for curve fitting is arrived
for values in Table 4.2.
ax2+ bx + c =a (4.9)
0.25a + 0.5 b + c =1.176 (4.10)
a + b + c =1.0 (4.11)
4a + 2 b + c =0.9115 (4.12)
Solving the above equations, the curve fitting equation is

0.17567 x2-0.61550 x+ 1.43983 =a (4.13)
Where
x = A/A0
a = S/80
8 = Revised Deflection
80 = Initial Deflection
A = Revised Area
A0 = Initial Area
109
Similar equations for other leg member groups in subsequent panels

from bottom to top are also arrived. The quadratic equations for the curves
fitted for the centre three points for all the leg member groups are given in
Table 4.6.
Table 4.6 Equations for Deflection Estimation
Leg
Member Equation
Group
1009 0.17567 x2 - 0.61550 x + 1.43983
1008 0.16153 x2 - 0.56730 x + 1.40577
1007 0.20573 x2 - 0.72800 x + 1.52227
1006 0.12647 x2 - 0.47410 x + 1.34763
4.10.3 Validation of Sensitivity Equations
The validation of the above study can be carried out by finding the
deflection of the tower for an area revision using the above formulation and
compared with the actual deflection by complete analysis with revised area. For
example, the maximum criticality ratio is 1.65 for the bottom panel leg
members. If the area is revised as per this stress ratio, (i.e.) 1.65 times the initial
area, the deflection due to the change in area is calculated without doing a
reanalysis. The new area for this leg member shall be revised as
1.65* A0 = 1.65 * 1167 = 1926 mm2
The deflection using the curve fitted with equation (4.12) is
0.17567 (1.65)2-0.61550 (1.65)+ 1.43983 = a = 8/60 = 0.90251
8 = 0.90251 * 60 = 54.15045 mm
no
The actual deflection calculated by a separate analysis is 55.82 noun.
The sensitivity equation underestimated the actual value of deflection by 3 %.
The estimated value and actual value of deflection for revision of leg
member areas as per stress ratio or criticality ratio are tabulated in Table 4.7. In
all cases the sensitivity equation underestimated the actual value of deflection.
Table 4.7 Comparison of Estimated and Actual Deflection
Leg Area Estimated Actual 1

Difference
Member Revision Deflection Deflection
%
Group A/A0 (mm) (mm)
1009 1.65 54.15 55.82 3.00
1008 1.56 54.83 56.44 2.85
1007 1.73 52.71 54.40 3.11
1006 1.42 55.77 56.79 1.80
4.10.4 Sensitivity of Deflection for Bracing Members
The bracing members in the panels are grouped from top to bottom
with code numbers. An initial area of 52.7 mm2 is chosen for the member
groups. The analysis is carried out for three typical load cases, viz. Normal
condition, Ground wire broken and Top conductor broken condition. The
criticality ratio is high in the top conductor broken for the given set of load
conditions and the initial sections chosen. Hence this load case is considered
throughout for sensitivity on bracing. Table 4.8 gives the change in deflection
for corresponding change in area of the bottom panel bracing member group.
The deflection and area values are tabulated with variation ratios, which are
normalised with initial section.
Ill
Table 4.8 Deflection Variation for Bottom Bracing Member Group
Area 1 Deflection (5z) 1 x = A/A0 | a = 8/8o

(mm2) 8 (mm)
5.27 64.16 0.1 1.00250
26.40 64.03 0.5 1.00047
52.70 64.00 1.0 1.00000
105.40 63.99 2.0 0.99980
527.00 63.98 10.0 0.99970
From the above values, the variation of deflection to the variation of

area is not significant and hence, it can be observed that the sensitivity of
deflection for area change in bracing member is insignificant.
4.10.5 Design Sensitivity
The factors controlling the design of compression members are the

force coming on the member and the allowable stress for the member. But, the
allowable stress depends on the 1/r ratio of the member. The force in the leg
member also changes when the area of the member is changed. Hence, when
the area of the member is revised, both the allowable stress and actual stress on
the member are changed. In order to optimise the design of members, the actual
stress shall be equated to the allowable stress. The allowable stress (aali) is
calculated from the Euler bucking load as below:
crall = n2 El (Ur)2 (4.14)

112
Where
E - Youngs modulus
1 - Length of the member
r - Minimum radius of gyration
The radius of gyration can be approximately defined with a simple

relationship
r = 0.197 h (4.15)
Where
h - size of the angle leg in mm
For equal angle mild steel sections, the approximate area of the angle
(A) is given by
A = 2 t h (4.16)
h = A / 2t (4.17)
where
A - Area of the angle section in mm2
t - thickness of the angle in mm
For equal angle sections of thickness 5 mm,
h = 0.1A
and hence,
r = 0.0197 A (4.18)
aall = 7T2 E/ (1/r)2 = tc2E/( 1/0.0197A)2 (4.19)
113
Substituting E 2.0 x 105 N/mm2
Gall 766.059*A2 /12 (4.20)
Gact = F/A (4.21)
Equating actual stress to the allowable stress

F/A = 766.059 * A2 /12 (4.22)
(4.23)
V 766.059
Where
aac, - Actual stress in N/mm2
A - Area of the member in mm2
F - Force on the member in N

1 - Length of the member in mm
The forces obtained in the analysis with assumed initial areas can be
used in this expression to arrive at a set of minimum theoretical values of areas.
Using the relationship in equation (4.23), the area required for all the leg
member groups are calculated and given in Table 4.9.
Table 4.9 Estimated Minimum Areas for Leg Members
Leg
Force in Member Area
Member
(kN) (mm2)
Group
1009 102.70 1245
1008 97.42 1223
1007 107.60 1265
1006 884.50 1185
114
For bottom bracing member group, the maximum force in the

member is 14760 N. Using the relationship in equation (4.23) the area required
for bracing member group is calculated as below:
Using these areas as the revised area of the member groups,

reanalysis is carried out and it gives a criticality ratio of 0.98, which is very
close to 1. This means the members have attained 98% of their load capacity,
which can lead to optimality. The equation (4.23) is useful for obtaining the
minimum theoretical area required for the members of tower, which in turn
helps in fixing the variable bound for area of cross section of members in the
optimisation process. This can form the knowledge base required for
optimisation.
4,10.6 Sensitivity for Base Width
The forces in the leg members are mostly governed by the base width
as it resists the moment due to load. Hence, the variations of forces in the leg
members are studied by varying the base width. The same tower configuration
and loadings are assumed. The base width is increased by 10% and then by
20%. Similarly the base width is reduced by 10% and then by 20%. The
comparison of maximum force in compression and tension on top leg member
group for different load cases are tabulated in Table 4.10. (a) and (b)
respectively. Similarly for other leg member groups, the values are tabulated in
Tables 4.11. to 4.13.
115
Table 4.10 (a) Comparison of Forces (Compression) in Leg Member

Group 1006
Load Case -1 Load Case - 2 Load Case - 3

SI. Base
Force Variation Force Variation Force Variation
No. Width
1
1 Initial
(kN) (%) (kN) (%) (kN)
(%) 1
0 28.78 0.00 71.94 0.00 62.70 0.00
Width
1 + 10% 27.64 -3.95 69.19 -3.83 54.74 -12.7

2 + 20% 26.69 -7.26 66.89 -7.02 47.95 -23.52
3 - 10% 30.15 +4.74 75.26 +4.61 71.84 +14.58
4 -20% 31.82 +10.56 79.32 +10.25 82.10 +30.94
Table 4.10 (b) Comparison of Forces (Tension) in Leg Member

Group 1006

SI. Base
No. Width
(kN) (%) (kN) (%) (kN) (%)
Initial
0 19.72 0.00 63.11 0.00 72.85 0.00
Width
1 + 10% 18.82 -4.57 60.57 -4.02 75.10 +3.08

2 + 20% 18.06 -8.40 58.43 -7.41 77.08 +5.80
3 - 10 % 20.79 +5.42 66.17 +4.85 70.60 -3.09
4 -20% 22.10 +12.08 69.89 +10.75 68.72 -5.68
116

Group 1007
Load case -1 Load Case - 2 Load Case - 3

SI Base
No. Width
(%) (kN) (%)
(kN) (%) (kN)
.............
Initial
0 49.76 0.00 111.89 0.00 90.66 0.00
Width
1 + 10% 47.33 -4.89 105.72 -5.52 84.34 -6.98

2 + 20% 45.18 -9.20 100.32 -10.34 83.03 -8.42
3 -10% I 52.52 +5.56 118.76 +6.13 101.30 +11.74
-20% I 55.67
4 +11.88 126.70 +13.23 114.05 +25.80
Table 4.11 (b) Comparison of Forces (Tension) in Leg Member

Group 1007
Load Case -1 Load Case - 2 Load Case - 3 |

1 SLNo.
Base
Width
(kN) (%) (kN) (%) (kN) (%)
Initial
0 31.04 0.00 93.50 0.00 137.10 0.00
Width
1 + 10% 28.66 -7.65 87.44 -6.48 132.29 -3.51

2 + 20% 26.57 -14.41 82.08 -12.21 127.39 -7.08
3 - 10% 33.74 +8.72 100.42 +7.41 141.90 +3.51
4 -20% 36.85 +18.74 108.27 +15.80 146.81 +7.08
117

Group 1008

SI. Base
N. Width
(kN) (%) (kN) (%) (kN) (%)
0
Initial
43.19 0.00 91.98 0.00 1 88.50 0.00
Width
1 + 10% 40.54 -6.13 85.67 -6.86 85.57 -3.30
2 + 20% 38.31 -11.29 80.34 -12.66 82.33 -6.97
3 -10% 46.38 +7.38 99.54 +8.22 91.11 +2.96
4 -20% 50.27 +16.39 108.76 +18.24 93.54 +5.70
Table 4.12. (b) Comparison of Forces (Tension) in Leg Member

Group 1008
|S1. Load Case -1 Load Case - 2 Load Case - 3 j

Base
No. Width
(kN) (%) (kN) (%) (kN) (%)
Initial
0 29.00 0.00 77.97 0.00 138.57 0.00
Width
1 + 10% 26.20 -9.64 71.52 -8.28 130.72 -5.66
2 + 20% 23.83 -17.82 66.05 -15.29 123.27 -11.04
3 -10% 32.34 +11.53 85.70 +9.91 147.10 +6.16
I1 4 -20% 36.40 +25.53 95.11 +21.98 156.61 +13.02

118
Group 1009

SI. Base
Force Variation 1 Force Variation Force Variation
No. Width (%) 1
(kN) (%) (kN) (%)
(m
Initial
0 48.96 0.00 102.97 0.00 100.81 0.00
Width
1 + 10% 45.46 -7.15 94.81 -7.92 95.61 -5.16
2 + 20% 42.55 -13.10 88.00 -14.53 90.49 -10.24
3 -10% 53.21 +8.67 112.87 +9.62 106.01 +5.16
4 -20% 58.47 +19.41 125.13 +21.52 111.50 +10.60
Table 4.13 (b) Comparison of Forces (Tension) in Leg Member Group 1009

SI. Base
No. Width
(kN) (%) (kN) (%) (kN) (%)
Initial
0 32.12 0.00 86.33 0.00 156.22 0.00
Width
1 + 10% 28.66 -10.75 78.24 -9.37 144.94 -7.22
2 + 20% 25.78 -19.73 71.47 -17.21 134.74 -13.75
3 - 10% 36.29 +13.01 96.16 +11.39 168.87 +8.10
4 -20% 41.47 +29.13 108.27 +25.41 183.48 +17.45
119
The comparison of maximum force in compression and tension on

top bracing members group for different load cases are tabulated in
Tables 4.14 (a) and (b) respectively. Similarly for other bracing member
groups, the values are tabulated in Tables 4.15 to 4.17.
Table 4.14 (a) Comparison of Forces (Compression) in Bracing Member

Group 2008

SI. Base
No. Width
(kN) (%) (kN) (%) (kN) (%)
Initial
0 10.87 0.00 23.37 0.00 81.39 0.00
Width
1 + 10% 11.13 +2.44 22.97 -1.72 79.24 -2.64
2 + 20% 11.33 +4.24 22.53 -3.61 76.98 -5.41
3 - 10% 10.48 -3.52 23.67 +1.30 83.31 +2.36
4 -20% 9.94 -8.48 23.83 +1.97 84.91 +4.33
Table 4.14 (b) Comparison of Forces (Tension) in Bracing Member

Group 2008

SI. Base
No. Width
(kN) (%) (kN) (%) (kN) (%)
Initial
0 8.02 0.00 19.05 0.00 82.87 0.00
Width
1 + 10% 8.19 +2.12 18.45 -3.19 78.84 -4.86
2 + 20% 8.30 +3.47 17.82 -6.48 74.86 -9.66
3 - 10% 7.76 -3.20 19.60 +2.88 86.89 +4.85
4 -20% 7.38 -8.00 20.04 +5.20 90.83 +9.61
120

Group 2009
Load Case -1 | Load Case - 2 Load Case - 3

SI. Base
Force Variation 1 Force Variation Force Variation
No. Width (%) 1
(kN) (kN) (%) (kN) (%) 1
0
Initial
Width
3.73 0.00 8.86 0.00 38.52 0.00 I
1 + 10% 3.58 -4.10 8.05 -9.07 34.42 -10.64
2 + 20% 3.42 -8.21 7.35 -17.05 30.87 -19.86
3 -10% 3.87 +3.73 9.77 +10.26 43.29 +12.37
4 -20% 3.97 +6.50 10.79 +21.80 48.88 +26.88
Table 4.15. (b) Comparison of Forces (Tension) in Bracing Member

Group 2009

SI. Base
No. Width
(kN) (%) j (kN)) (%) (kN) (%)
Initial
0 5.05 0.00 10.87 0.00 37.83 0.00
Width
1 + 10% 4.86 -3.71 10.03 -7.67 34.60 -8.55
2 + 20% 4.67 -7.46 9.29 -14.52 31.74 -16.10
3 -10% 5.22 +3.40 11.80 +8.66 41.51 +9.72
4 -20% 5.35 +5.94 12.83 +18.05 45.69 +20.76
====
121

Group 2010
SI. 1 Base Load Case -1 Load Case - 2 Load Case - 3

No. Width
(kN) (%) (kN) (%) (kN) (%)
Initial
0 3.07 0.00 6.61 0.00 23.04 0.00
Width
1 + 10% 2.90 -5.58 5.99 -9.47 20.65 -10.34
2 + 20% 2.75 -10.65 5.46 -17.45 18.66 -18.99
3 -10% 3.26 +6.03 7.37 +11.36 25.92 +12.52
4 -20% 3.45 +12.22 8.27 +25.06 29.47 +27.93

Group 2010

SI. Base
No. Width
(kN) (%) (kN) (%) (kN) (%)
Initial
0 2.27 0.00 5.39 0.00 23.46 0.00
Width
1 + 10% 2.13 -5.96 4.81 -10.84 20.55 -12.37
2 + 20% 2.01 -11.36 4.32 -19.91 18.15 -22.62
3 -10% 2.42 +6.39 6.10 +13.08 27.03 +15.22
4 -20% 2.56 +12.79 6.95 +28.97 31.52 +34.36

122

Group 2011

1 SL
No.
Base
Width
(kN) (%) (kN) (%) (kN) (%)
Initial
0 1.59 0.00 3.78 0.00 16.44 0.00
Width
1 + 10% 1.49 -6.53 3.35 -11.36 14.32 -12.89

2 + 20% 1.40 -12.26 3.00 -20.68 12.60 -23.33
3 -10% 1.71 +7.33 4.31 +14.14 19.12 +16.35
4 -20% 1.84 +15.47 4.99 +32.02 22.61 +37.59

Group 2011
sssssss=sss=sass=ssss=s=ssss==a

SI. Base
Force Variatio Force Variatio Force Variatio
No. Width
(kN) n (%) (kN) n (%) (kN) n (%)
Initial
0 2.15 0.00 i 4.64 0.00 16.14 0.00
Width
1 + 10% 2.02 -6.14 4.17 -10.03 14.39 -10.87

2 + 20% 1.91 -11.47 | 3.79 -18.25 12.95 -19.74
3 - 10% 2.31 +7.06 5.21 +12.37 18.34 +13.61
4 -20% 2.48 +14.88 5.93 +27.98 21.14 +30.98
123
The percentage variation of maximum force in compression and

tension with respect to percentage variation in base width in different leg
member groups for Load Case 1 is plotted in Figures 4.15 (a) and (b).
LOAD CASE -1
Compression in Leg Members
Base Variation in %
2
0)
<
s ill
&<2 <2
I
~sl
00
(O
Figure 4.15 (a) Variation of Maximum Compression in Leg

Members for Load Case -1
LOAD CASE - 1
Tension in Leg Members
Base Variation in %
Figure 4.15 (b) Variation of Maximum Tension in Leg

124
Similarly, the variation of maximum force in compression and
tension in different bracing member groups for Load Case 1 is shown in
Figures 4. 16 (a) and (b).
LOAD CASE -1
Compression in Bracing Members
Base Variation in %
Figure 4.16 (a) Variation of Maximum Compression m Bracing

O
LOAD CASE - 1
Tension in Bracing Members
Base Variation in %
Figure 4.16 (b) Variation of Maximum Tension in Bracing

Members for Load Case * 1
125
Similarly for load case 2 and load case3 the variation of maximum
forces in different member groups are given in Figures 4.17 to 4.20.
LOAD CASE - 2
Base Width Variation in %

H-------------------- 1
Force Variation in %
------- 2P
-fx
O
Figure 4.17 (a) Variation of Maximum Compression m Leg Members

for Load Case -2
LOAD CASE - 2
Figure 4.17 (b) Variation of Maximum Tension in Leg Members

for Load Case - 2
126
LOAD CASE - 2

h.

Bracing 2008
&
-- - Bracing 2009
- - Bracing 2010
o
* Bracing 2011

4
Figure 4.18 (a) Variation of Maximum Compression m Bracing

Members for Load Case - 2
LOAD CASE - 2

CM
o
Bracing 2008
CM
o
Bracing 2009
* Bracing 2010
CO
O
*Bracing 2011
O

127
LOAD CASE - 3
Figure 4.19 (a) Variation of Maximum Compression in Leg Members

for Load Case - 3
40 T
30 LOAD CASE - 3
20
Figure 4.19. (b) Variation of Maximum Tension in Leg

128
LOAD CASE - 3
_ i _____ _____ i_____ L
I

oCM
CM
o
Bracing 2008
- - Bracing 2009
oCO
* Bracing 2010
* Bracing 2011
o
Figure 4.20 (a) Variation of Maximum Compression in Bracing

LOAD CASE - 3

in %
Force Variation
Bracing 2008
Bracing 2009
- Bracing 2010
CO
O
* Bracing 2011
O

129
4.10.7 Sensitivity for Bracing Patterns
The same tower configuration is considered for sensitivity of member

forces in leg members and bracing members for different bracing patterns.
Three dimensional truss analysis was carried out for all the load cases with
different bracing patterns. The bracing pattern of the tower below waist level
alone is considered. There are four panels below the waist level. Two bracing
patterns, viz. X - bracing and K - bracing for these panels are considered in this
study. A schematic diagram of five different combinations of bracing patterns is
shown in Figure 4.21.
The comparison of maximum force in compression and tension on

top leg member group for different load cases due to the change in bracing
pattern are tabulated in Table 4.18. Similarly for other leg member groups, the
values are tabulated in Tables 4.19 to 4.21. Similar comparison tables of
maximum force in compression and tension on bracing member groups for
different load cases due to the change in bracing pattern are tabulated in
Tables 4.22 to 4.25.
It is observed that there is a considerable amount of change in

member forces due to bracing pattern, but the changes are not having any
decisive pattern. During this process, sensitivity of deflection to bracing pattern
is also found. The maximum deflection values and ratios of the deflections to
the maximum deflection of the X X X X pattern as datum are given in
Table 4.26. For normal load case, the maximum deflection occurs in
X-direction and in broken ground wire and top conductor broken condition, the
maximum deflection occurs in Z-direction. Also, it is observed that the change
in deflection due to change in bracing pattern is not significant.
130
Figure 4.21 Bracing Patterns for Sensitivity

131
Table 4.18 Comparison of Forces in Leg Member Group 1006 for

Different Bracing Patterns
Compression Tension
SI.
Pattern
No. L.C.-1 L.C.-2 L.C.-3 L.C. -1 L.C.-2 L.C.-3
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
1 xxxx 35.02 86.74 74.10 23.09 75.10 88.36
2 XXXK 33.23 83.13 70.82 22.20 72.37 84.05
3 XXKK 35.36 87.37 77.24 23.37 75.69 87.02
4 XKKK 28.64 72.78 58.06 20.21 64.57 78.36
5 KKKK 38.56 101.60 80.57 22.75 86.17 89.11

Compression Tension
SI.
Pattern
No. L.C. -1 L.C. - 2 L.C. 3 L.C. -1 L.C. - 2 L.C. -
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) 3 (kN)
1 XXXX 47.07 105.52 83.86 29.59 88.32 133.66
2 XXXK 47.84 107.09 84.77 29.97 89.50 135.23
3 XXKK 46.92 105.23 87.22 29.47 88.06 136.80
4 XKKK 43.44 99.83 83.93 27.63 84.31 130.13
5 KKKK 43.43 99.73 102.58 27.63 84.40 97.41

132

Compression Tension
SI.
Pattern
No. L.C.-1 L.C.-2 L.C.-3 L.C. -1 L.C. - 2 L.C.-3
1 xxxx 44.69 95.54 91.00 29.81 80.86 142.39
2 XXXK 44.27 94.67 91.13 29.60 80.20 142.10
3 XXKK 45.54 99.15 93.68 29.73 83.51 144.45
4 XKKK 45.54 99.05 96.89 29.73 83.58 116.21
5 KKKK 45.54 99.05 111.89 29.73 83.62 101.20

Compression Tension
SI.
Pattern
No. L.C. -1 L.C. - 2 L.C.-3 L.C. -1 L.C. - 2 L.C.-3
1 XXXX 48.00 100.71 100.22 31.60 84.49 154.85
2 XXXK 46.72 98.65 97.37 30.90 83.07 150.73
3 XXKK 46.72 98.65 89.52 30.90 83.13 130.23
4 XKKK 46.72 98.56 107.48 30.90 83.17 112.87
5 KKKK 46.72 98.56 116.40 30.90 83.19 103.95

133
Table 4.22 Comparison of Forces in Bracing Member Group 2008 for

Compression Tension
Pattern
No. L.C. -1 L.C.-2 L.C.-3 L.C. -1 L.C. - 2 L.C.-3
1 xxxx 4.97 13.08 70.01 3.66 10.26 72.95
2 XXXK 6.62 15.37 73.43 4.85 12.05 75.88
3 XXKK 4.54 12.83 71.55 3.41 9.87 74.36

86.26 1
4 XKKK 10.71 22.60 85.38 7.79 17.66
5 KKKK 4.99 7.12 119.64 4.99 7.12 119.64

Compression Tension
SI.
Pattern
No. L.C. -1 L.C. - 2 L.C. - 3 L.C. -1 L.C. - 2 L.C. - 3
1 XXXX 1.70 4.77 33.91 2.31 6.08 32.55
2 XXXK 2.26 5.60 35.27 3.08 7.14 34.14
3 XXKK 1.59 4.59 34.57 2.11 5.96 33.26
4 XKKK 2.21 3.17 62.12 2.21 3.17 62.12
5 KKKK 2.21 3.15 52.80 2.21 3.15 52.80

134
Table 4.24 Comparison of Forces in Bracing Member Group 2010

for Different Bracing Patterns
Compression Tension
SI.
Pattern
No. L.C. -1 L.C. - 2 L.C. - 3 L.C. -1 L.C. - 2 L.C. - 3
1 xxxx 1.41 3.70 19.82 1.03 2.90 20.65
2 XXXK 1.87 4.35 20.79 1.37 3.41 21.48
3 XXKK 1.27 1.84 39.27 1.27 1.84 39.27
4 XKKK 1.27 1.82 33.34 1.27 1.82 33.34
5 KKKK 1.27 1.81 30.06 1.27 1.81 30.06

Compression Tension
SI.
Pattern
No. L.C. -1 L.C. - 2 L.C.-3 L.C. -1 L.C. - 2 L.C.-3
1 XXXX 0.73 2.03 14.47 0.98 2.60 13.89
2 XXXK 0.84 1.20 19.46 0.84 1.20 19.46
3 XXKK 0.84 1.20 19.82 0.84 1.20 19.82
4 XKKK 0.84 1.20 19.67 0.84 1.20 19.67
5 KKKK 0.84 1.20 19.58 0.84 1.20 19.58

135
Table 4.26 Comparison of Maximum Deflection for

Load Case -1 Load Case - 2 Load Case - 3 8

SI. X Deflections Z Deflections Z Deflections
Pattern
No.
(mm) Ratio (mm) Ratio (mm) Ratio
1 xxxx 35.33 1.0000 60.00 1.0000 64.00 1.0000
2 XXXK 34.97 0.9898 59.63 0.9938 63.31 0.9892
3 XXKK 35.42 1.0025 60.74 1.0123 64.19 1.0029
4 XKKK 33.96 0.9612 58.92 0.9820 61.36 0.9588
5 KKKK 35.48 1.0042 64.30 1.0717 64.31 1.0048
The weight of the towers due to the change in bracing patterns is also
compared in Table 4.27. It is observed that there is 18.9% increase in weight of
the tower if X- bracings are completely replaced by K-bracings. Figure 4.22
shows the comparison of the weight of the tower with different bracing
patterns.
Table 4.27 Weight of the Tower for Different Bracing Patterns
WEIGHT
SI. No. PATTERN % Change
(kN)
1 XXXX 18.29306 100.0
2 XXXK 19.54017 106.8
3 XXKK 20.49228 112.0
4 XKKK 21.29292 116.4

5 | KKKK 21.76466 118.9
136
The sensitivity studies carried out on a sample tower show the

behaviour and response of the tower to various design parameters. The
observations are useful in optimisation for selecting the variable as well as
fixing the upper bound and lower bound values of the variables.
Bracing pattern
Figure 4.22 Comparison of weight for different bracing patterns
4.10.8 Knowledge Obtained from Sensitivity Studies
The following observations are obtained from the sensitivity studies

carried out on the tower.
> The deflection behaviour of the tower is asymptotic and the

variation in the cross sectional area of leg members in the range
of 10% to 50% of preliminary area calculated by cantilever
moments are more sensitive. Hence, it is useful to vary the area
in this range to control the deflection.
137
> The expected deflection for a change in area of the leg members
can be estimated using equations formulated, without
performing analysis.
> The deflection is less sensitive to bracing members cross

sectional area and hence the control of deflection is difficult to
achieve by varying the area of bracing members.
> Design sensitivity equations are useful in fixing the required

area of a member from the force. This can help in fixing the
range in which the area of the member has to be selected.
> The forces in bottom leg members are more sensitive than the
top leg members to the base width of tower. Similar trend is for
observed in the bracing members also.
> Bracing pattern affects the member forces but no decisive trend
could be obtained.
Sensitivity studies give knowledge about the behaviour of the tower,

which is useful in optimisation in many ways. Based on the knowledge
obtained from the above observation the upper and lower bound values for the
optimisation are fixed. The values of variables for sensitive parameters are
allowed to select from a wider range of data than for less sensitive parameters.
Thus the knowledge gained in this study is used in the optimisation.

12 - Chapter 4 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

12 - Chapter 4 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

70

STEEL LATTICE TOWERS

4.1 TRANSMISSION LINE TOWERS

4.1.1 Specification of Transmission Line Towers

Transmission line towers are generally specified by voltage, number

The voltage classification of transmission line towers is according to

The configurations adopted are generally rectangular and square

4.1.2 Transmission Line Tower Configuration

Typical barrel type and corset type transmission line tower

4.1.3 Tower Configuration Parameters

For optimisation of transmission line towers, it is important to know

Tower Height: The height of the tower is determined by parameters

BARREL TYPE TOWERS

NARROW BASE CORSET TOWER

Figure 4.1 Typical Barrel and Corset Tower Configurations

A -- Ground wire peak E - Staging

Figure 4.2 Geometric Parameters of a Transmission Line Tower

Sag: The conductor wires and ground-wires sag due to self-weight.

Spacing between the towers, ground level difference between tower

Minimum Ground Clearance: Power conductors along the entire

Ground-wire peak: Ground-wire peaks are provided to support the

Cross-arm spacing: Cross arms are provided to support the

Base Width: The base width of the tower is determined heuristically.

4.2 MICROWAVE TOWERS

Steel lattice towers are also used in electronic and communication

4.3 GEOMETRICAL MODELLING OF STEEL LATTICE

The mathematical modelling is an important step in the design of steel

Figure 4.3 Typical Configuration of a 102 m Triangular

4.3.1 One-Dimensional Modelling

In one-dimensional modelling, the tower is treated as a cantilever

4.3.2 Two-Dimensional Modelling

Even though one dimensional beam model of a square tower gives an

4.3.3 Three-Dimensional Modelling

In three-dimensional modelling, the tower is considered as it is, so

The mathematical model of a steel lattice tower is preferably a space

4.4 MODULAR GENERATION TECHNIQUE

While writing configuration generator, it is preferable to be more

The modular generator produces the geometry of the tower from

Figure 4.4 Typical Modules for Tower Modelling

Figure 4.5 Tower Assembly

Figure 4.6. Flow Chart of Modular Generator

Figure 4.7 Geometric Model OF A 220 kV Double Circuit

In a way, modules are the representation of any interchangeable

4.4.1 Member Grouping

Member grouping has practical significance in tower design as well

4.4.2 Tower Analysis Data

The geometrical data of the tower are generated by assembling the

Figure 4.8 Geometric Model of a Square Microwave Communication

4.5.1 Transverse Loads

The load perpendicular to the direction of the line is known as

4.5.2 Longitudinal Loads

Longitudinal load on transmission line tower is due to the unbalanced

4.5.3 Vertical Loads

Vertical load on transmission line tower is due to the weight of bare or

4.6 WIND LOAD CALCULATIONS

The projected area is an unknown quantity, but is required for the

process is over and actual sections are known. Therefore, it is necessary to

The second method is to divide the tower into a number of parts

In another method, the equivalent loads are applied at a number of

4.7 SELF-WEIGHT AND WIND LOAD GENERATOR

In the calculation of wind load, the projected area is an unknown

The modular generation technique used for tower geometry is also

Table 4.1 Typical output of load generator

Wind Pressure Pz = 0.6Vz2 = 0.6{Vb.kl.k2.k3)2

Design Wind Pressure 0. 6(Vb.kl k3.)2(k22) - 178.26(k2**2) Kg/m2