Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

International Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology Research (IJSETR)

Volume 1, Issue 1, July 2012

Evaluation of Steel Lattice Transmission Tower

with different Wind Loads
May Chaw Su Kyi, Dr. Kyaw Lin Htat

cost, costs of maintenance and depreciation but also give

AbstractThis paper presents the evaluation of steel lattice due to losses from interruptions to service. In flat terrain,
transmission tower with different wind loads. In present tower can be located along the planned line at economical
study, a typical 230 KV self-supporting, double circuit, spacing. The structural designer is designed the general
suspension and lattice type transmission tower is considered. configuration, and member and joint details. Tower is
The effects of temperature changes in wires are evaluated. designed as a pin joint space truss. All loads are assumed to
Transmission tower members (bracing system) are designed act only at joints. Only the angle members are considered in
by AISC-LRFD specification. Wire conditions are normally
tower member design.
considered as two types (normal condition and broken wire
condition). Selected transmission tower is evaluated wind
speed 80 mph and 100 mph. Wind loadings are considered
based on ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice II.CASE STUDY
No.74. The proposed transmission tower is situated in seismic
zone 4. In analyzing the tower, 21 loading conditions are used A. Proposed Transmission Tower
for all steel members. The tower is modeled and analyzed by Proposed transmission tower is the self supporting lattice
using STAAD.Pro software. Then, the design of bolted type double circuit configuration. The lattice tower may
connections are calculated by manual. Bearing type
connections with A 394 type 0 bolts are used.
usually contain four main panels called leg extensions
(panel 1), body extension (panel 2), superstructure (panel 3)
Index TermsTransmission tower, self-supporting, and tip portion (panel 4) as shown in Figure 1. Each panel
suspension and lattice type, STAAD.Pro software, will have a particular bracing arrangement on each face.
The superstructure called cross arm portion will have
almost upright legs and will be fitted to carry the conductor
I. INTRODUCTION loads at a safe distance from the tower body. Above the
superstructure, there may be a tip portion, which carries the
Myanmar has a large population residing and the electricity ground (Lightning Shield) wire. The compression caring
supply need of this population creates requirement of a capacity of these members secondary bracing members are
large transmission and distribution system. Transmission provided which reduce the effective length. These
towers play an important role in the operation of a reliable secondary bracing do not carry significant loads and will be
electrical power system that is considered as a lifeline of nominal size.
system. An overhead transmission line are generally
efficient, dependable and economical transmission of
electric power and has simulated interest in the conveyance Panel 4 Cross arm
of electrical energy with the continued increase in
population and in energy demands. Nowadays four legged
lattice towers are most commonly used as transmission line
towers. The Transmission line tower is highly
indeterminate structure. Overhead lines can be designed Panel 3
and installed to withstand the action of any of the natural
forces. The supports of Extra High Voltage (EHV)
transmission lines are normally steel lattice towers. The Bracing
cost of towers constitutes about 28 to 42 percent of the cost
of transmission line and hence optimum tower design will
bring in substantial savings . Generally, a steel tower is not
only sustaining gravity load but also should be capable to
Panel 2 Main member
resist horizontal load to ensure the stability of the structure.
The proposed tower behaves like a double cantilever freely
self supporting lattice type steel structure fixed at its base.
Although a narrow-based tower may save steel, it entails Redundant
greater cost of foundation and a balance is struck to obtain
the most economical width of base. Choice of the type of
construction to be adopted for a transmission line should be Panel 1
based on results of studies which not only consider first

Manuscript received Oct 15, 2011.

May Chaw Su Kyi, Department of Civil Engineering, Mandalay Figure 1. Proposed transmission tower
Technological University, (e-mail: maychawsukyi@gamil.com). Mandalay,
Myanmar, +95 9 428002694, Kyaw Lin Htat, Department of Civil
Engineering, Mandalay Technological University, Mandalay, Myanmar,
+95 9 43161370, (e-mail: kyawlinhtat@gmail.com).

All Rights Reserved 2012 IJSETR
International Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology Research (IJSETR)
Volume 1, Issue 1, July 2012

B. Design Parameters Yield Strength, fy - 36 ksi

The basic data available was the normal span and line Modulus of Elasticity - 29000 ksi
deviation between the towers to find out the design Poissons ratio - 0.3
parameters such as design wind pressure on conductor and Density - 490 lb/ft3
ground wire in Table I. Coefficient of linear expansion,
TABLE I - 6.5 10-6 /F

Input data
(1) Overall height of tower 30 m D.Loading Consideration
(2) Width at base of tower 4.5 m Tower loading is most important part of tower design.
(3) Width of cross arm 6.3 m The transmission line tower is a pin jointed light structure
(4) Projection of cross arm 2.4 m for which the maximum wind pressure is the chief criterion
(5) Top clearance 3.8 m for design.
(6) Vertical clearance 4.0 m
The loadings which are considered during the project are
(7) Bottom clearance 18.5 m
as follows:
Basic data (1) Dead Load
(1) Angle of line deviation 0 to 2 degree (2) Wind load
(2) Terrain type Plain (3) Earthquake load
(3) Design wind span 400 m
(4) Design weight span 600 m (1) Dead Load
(5) Wind speed 80 mph, 100 mph Dead loads acting on the tower are vertical loads such as
(6) Exposure category C self weight of tower members, ground wire, conductor,
(7) Seismic zone 4 insulator, line man, equipments used during construction
(8) Soil profile type SD and maintenance.
Conductor Dead load of conductor acting on tower cross arm Wc,
(2) Diameter 0.02862 m Wc Lwe .c
(3) Area 4.845 cm2 (1)
(4) Unit weight 1.621 kg/m where,
(5) Ultimate tensile strength 13289 kg
c = Weight of conductor per meter length
(6) Coefficient of linear 1.93x10-5 / deg C
expansion Lwe = Designed weight span
(7) Modulus of elasticity 7.04x105 kg/cm2 Dead load of earth wire acting on top of tower peak We,

Ground wire We Lwi .e

(1) Type E-wire (2) where,
(2) Diameter 0.01098 m e = the weight of earth wire per meter length
(3) Area 0.7365 cm2 Lwi = Designed wind span
(4) Unit weight 0.583 kg/m
(5) Ultimate tensile strength 6972 kg
(6) Coefficient of linear 1.15x10-5 / deg C
expansion (2) Wind Load
(7) Modulus of elasticity 1.94x106 kg/cm2 Wind load on tower exposed members, ground wire,
conductor and insulator strings.
(1) Type I string P 0.00256( ZV ) 2 GC f D
(2) Length of insulator string 2.34 m (3)
(3) Diameter 0.255 m where,
Temperature P = wind load (lb/ft)
(1) Max. temperature Z = terrain factor
(i) Conductor 75C V = design wind speed (mph)
(ii) ground wire 53C G = gust response factor for conductors, ground wires and
(2) Everyday temperature
(i) Conductor 32C
(ii) ground wire 32C Cf = force coefficient
(2) Min. temperature
(i) Conductor 0C (i) Terrain Factor
(ii) Ground wire 0C The terrain factor ( Z ) modifies the basic wind speed to
account for terrain and height effects. It is recognized that
wind speed varies with height because of ground friction
C.Material Properties and that the amount of friction varies with ground
The following boundary conditions are used for the roughness.
proposed transmission tower.
For structural steel, (ii) Gust Response Factor
In American Steel Table, ASTM A 36 steel, The wire gust response factor (G w) is used for
Tensile Strength, fu - 58 ksi computing the peak dynamic wind loads acting on
conductors and overhead ground wire. The wire (conductor

All Rights Reserved 2012 IJSETR
International Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology Research (IJSETR)
Volume 1, Issue 1, July 2012

and ground wire) may be determined from the following E. Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Equation
equations. Load and resistance factor design describes one way of
Gw 0.7 1.9 E Bw assessing behavior at various limit states. The following of
LRFD design equation is recommended for the design of
(4) components in a transmission line.
E 4.9 (33 / zo )1 /
(5) (i)Reliability condition
1 QD = effect of (DL and Q50) or
Bw QD = effect of (DL and QRP)
1 0.8 L / Ls (ii)Security condition
(6) QD = effect of (DL and SL)
where, (iii)Safety condition (construction and maintenance)
zo = effective height (ft) QD = effect of {CM (DL and C&M)}
L = design wind span of the wires (ft) where,
h = total structure height (ft) DL = dead loads
, , Ls= wind parameters = load factor applied to the load effect Q50under
The structure gust response factor (G t) is used for consideration
computing the wind load acting on transmission structures. Q50 = loads that have a 50-year return period
The structure gust response factor (G t) may be determined QRP = loads that have a RP-year return period
from the following equations. SL = security loads
Gt 0.7 1.9 E Bt CM = load factor applied to all the loads
F. Nature of Loads
E 4.9 (33 / zo )1 /
Nature of Loads as given by Transmission Line Manual
(8) is as follows:
1 (i)Transverse loads:
1 0.375h / Ls This type of load covers
(9) Wind load on tower structure, conductor, ground
where, wire
zo = effective height (ft) and insulator strings.
L = design wind span of the wires (ft) Component of mechanical tension of conductor
h = total structure height (ft) and
, , Ls= wind parameters ground wire.

(iii)Force Coefficient (ii)Vertical loads:

This guide recommends that force coefficient for square- This type of load covers
section latticed truss structures are determined from ASCE Loads due to weight of each conductor, ground
Standard 7-88 (1990b). Many designers currently use a wire
force coefficient of 1.0 for conductors and ground wires. based on appropriate weight span, weight of
Until more definitive field data based on wind force insulator
measurements on overhead lines in service are available, a strings and fittings.
constant force coefficient value of Cf = 1.0 is recommended Self weight of the structure.
for single and bundle conductors and ground wires. Loads during construction and maintenance.

(iii)Longitudinal loads:
(3)Earthquake Load This type of load covers
An earthquake consists of horizontal and vertical ground Unbalanced horizontal loads in longitudinal
motions, with vertical motion usually having much the direction
smaller in magnitude. The horizontal motions of the ground due to mechanical tension of conductor and/or
cause the most significant effect. It is that effect which is ground
usually thought of as earthquake load. When the ground wire during broken wire condition.
under structure having certain mass suddenly moves; the
inertia of the mass tends to resist the movement. A shear
force is developed between the ground and the mass. G.Loading Combination
Earthquake load data are as follow; Loading Combinations given by the IS 802: Part 1: Sec:
Seismic zone IV 1:1995 are as follows:
Zone factor, Z 0.4 (i) Reliability Condition (Normal Condition):
Soil type 4 Transverse loads
Importance factor, I 1.25 Vertical loads
Near source factor, Na 1.0 Longitudinal loads

Near source factor, Nv 1.0

(ii)Security Condition (Failure Containment):
Analysis types Static Analysis Normal Condition:
Transverse loads

All Rights Reserved 2012 IJSETR
International Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology Research (IJSETR)
Volume 1, Issue 1, July 2012

Vertical loads different wind loads. In general, maximum axial forces and
Longitudinal loads angle sections are increased in main members.
Broken Wire Condition:
Transverse loads
Vertical loads
Longitudinal loads Sr. Design sections
Panel Member
no 80 mph 100 mph
(iii) Safety Condition (Construction and Maintenance):
Normal Condition: 1. Panel 1 Main member L30308 L35358
Transverse loads Bracing L30306 L35354
Vertical loads Redundant L25253 L25254
Longitudinal loads 2. Panel 2 Main member L30308 L35358
Broken Wire Condition: Bracing L30304 L35354
Transverse loads Redundant L25253 L25254
Vertical loads 3. Panel 3 Main member L30308 L30308
Longitudinal loads Bracing L25254 L25254
Redundant L20202 L20202
III. MODELING APPROACH 4. Panel 4 Main member L20202 L20202

The general package STAAD.Pro software has been TABLE III

used for the analyses and design. A lattice tower is analyzed COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM AXIAL FORCES RESULTS
as a space truss. Transmission tower structure is modeled as
a three dimensional space. In this study, the tower is Maximum axial forces
Sr. (kip)
suspension type, overall height 30 m, width at base of tower Panel Member
4.5 m and wind loads are 80 mph and 100mph. The loading 80 mph 100 mph
calculations on tower due to conductor and ground wire are 1. Panel 1 Main member 50.0 73.6
considered. Bracing 6.0 8.5
Redundant 1.0 1.0
2. Panel 2 Main member 43.5 62.3
Bracing 14.4 21.0
Redundant 1.5 2.2
3. Panel 3 Main member 24.6 34.3
Bracing 4.9 8.0
Redundant 1.0 1.0
4. Panel 4 Main member 4.2 4.2

Figure 2. 3D view of proposed transmission tower Figure 3. Comparison of maximum axial forces results

Transmission towers typically use bearing type bolted
Members for main legs, bracings and redundant should connections. In nominal thread diameters of 5/8", 3/4", and
be selected for meeting the required ultimate stress for both 7/8" for use in the construction of transmission towers.
compression and tension. The tower is analyzed different Load carrying capacity of the bolted connections depends
wind loads in STAAD.Pro software and the following on shear strength of the bolt and bearing strength of the
design sections and maximum force results are obtained. connected plate. The bolts for proposed transmission tower
Table II & III show that the steel angle sections and are A 394, Type 0 bolt with an allowable shear stress of 55.2
maximum axial forces for each panel with different ksi across the threaded part. Table IV, V and VI are no. of
members (main members, bracings and redundant) in bolts, shear capacity and bearing capacity of wind speed 80
mph and 100 mph.

All Rights Reserved 2012 IJSETR
International Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology Research (IJSETR)
Volume 1, Issue 1, July 2012

TABLE IV Redundant 16.3 16.3

4. Panel 4 Main member 16.3 16.3
Sr. No. of bolts
Panel Member
no 80 mph 100 mph
1. Panel 1 Main member 6 8
Bracing 2 2
Redundant 2 2
2. Panel 2 Main member 6 8
Bracing 2 4
Redundant 2 2
3. Panel 3 Main member 4 4
Bracing 2 2
Redundant 2 2
4. Panel 4 Main member 2 2

Figure 5. Comparison of bearing capacity results
Sr. Shear capacity (kip)
Panel Member
no 80 mph 100 mph
1. Panel 1 Main member 99.9 133.2 VI. CONCLUSIONS
Bracing 33.3 33.3
In this paper, double circuit suspension type
Redundant 33.3 33.3 transmission tower is evaluated with different wind loads.
2. Panel 2 Main member 99.9 133.2 Tower is analyzed and designed by using STAAD.Pro
Bracing 33.3 66.6 software. The design of tower is considered wind speed 80
Redundant 33.3 33.3 mph and 100 mph. Connection designs are used 3/4 "
3. Panel 3 Main member 66.6 66.6 diameter, A 394 Type 0 bolts and A 36 steel. Due to 21
loading conditions; each member subjected to maximum
Bracing 33.3 33.3
stress under any of these loading conditions is assigned an
Redundant 33.3 33.3 angle size related to quality. The vertical loads of safety
4. Panel 4 Main member 33.3 33.3 condition are more than that of security condition because
safety condition is considered load factor and worker load.
But transverse loads of both conditions are the same. The
highest value of maximum axial force is 73.6 kips which
occur in main member (panel 1). The axial forces are
increased by 47.2% in 100 mph wind speed as compared
with 80 mph wind speed. In this study, bolted connections
are mainly used for joint design. Shear capacity and bearing
capacity are greater than maximum axial forces in each
panel. In addition, shear capacity and bearing capacity of
bolts are the same, 33.3% resulted when using 100 mph
wind speed as compared to 80 mph wind speed. Generally,
design section, maximum axial forces, no. of bolts and nuts,
shear capacity and bearing capacity results are the same in
panel 3 & 4 sections.

Figure 4. Comparison of shear capacity results ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to extend grateful thanks to her
supervisor, Dr. Kyaw Lin Htat, Associate Professor,
Sr. Bearing capacity Department of Civil Engineering, Mandalay Technological
Panel Member University, for her supervision, critical reading of
no 80 mph 100 mph
manuscript, and tolerance helped in all the time of this
1. Panel 1 Main member 195.75 261.0 research work. The author specially thanks to all her
Bracing 32.63 32.63 teachers from Department of Civil Engineering, Mandalay
Redundant 24.5 24.5 Technological University and her family for their supports
2. Panel 2 Main member 195.75 261.0 and encouragement and also thanks to all her friends.
Bracing 32.625 65.3
Redundant 24.5 24.5 REFERENCES
[1] American Society of Civil Engineers (1991), "Guidelines for
3. Panel 3 Main member 130.5 130.5 Electrical Transmission Line Structural Loading," ASCE Manuals
Bracing 24.5 24.5 and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 74

All Rights Reserved 2012 IJSETR
International Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology Research (IJSETR)
Volume 1, Issue 1, July 2012

[2] Uniform Building Code (UBC 1997), Volume 2. Structural

Engineering Design Provision, 8th Edition.
[3] IS 802 ( Part l/Sec 1 ) :1995, use of structural steel in overhead
transmission line towers - code of practice
[4] Manual for design of transmission line, K.NAKAJIMA, Nippon Koei
Co., Ltd.
[5] Bulletin 1724e-200, design manual for high voltage transmission
lines, US department of agriculture rural utilities service division.
[6] Mr. T. RAGHAVENDRA, Computer Aided Analysis and Structural
Optimization of Transmission Line Tower, International Journal of
Advanced Engineering Technology
[7] ASCE 10-97 (1997), Design of lattice steel transmission tower,
American National Standard Institute and American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York.

All Rights Reserved 2012 IJSETR