/Ft.

saa > Pergamon

00457949(94MO476-5

. ,

C,mrpuwr~ & .S/ru~,urr^; Vol. 55. No. 3. Copyright 1995 Elscv~cr Scmce Lid Pnnkd in Great Britain. All rwhts reserved no45-794Y/95-$9.50 + 0.00

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN TOWERS-CASE

H. A. El-Ghazalyt
TDepartment IDepartment of Civil Engineering, of Civil Engineering, Cairo Kuwait

OF GUYED TRANSMISSION STUDY IN KUWAIT

and H. A. Al-Khaiatz
University, University, Fayoum Campus, Cairo, Egypt PO Box 5969, Safat 1993) 13060, Kuwait

(Received

21 December

Abstract-Guyed towers are special nonlinear structures requiring special techniques for analysis and design. The various aspects of geometric nonlinearity are discussed and the energy search method is explained, which is an algorithm believed to be suitable for the analysis of guyed towers. A two-dimensional example tower is investigated which demonstrates the effect of prebuckling displacements on the resulting critical wind load. A three-dimensional 600-m guyed tower case study is also analysed and designed using ANSYS and STAAD-III computer packages. Certain modelling assumption techniques are introduced in order to be able to use the two packages effectively for the analysis and design of guyed towers. The effects of accidental guy rupture and temperature variation have been studied as well.

NOTATION

cross-sectional area and moment of inertia, respectively jth displacement component modulus of elasticity number of elements number of degrees of freedom axial-bending coupling constants initial member length end moment subscripts indicating element terminals deformed chord length displacement components in the .X,JJ directions, respectively strain energy end force normal to chord line external work Eulerian coordinates local coordinates reference global coordinates angle between reference and local axes wind load multiplier strain prestrain potential energy angle of rotation
INTRODUCTION

Guyed towers are special structures that normally exhibit geometrical nonlinear behaviour. Such towers are frequently designed to heights in the range of 2000 feet to transmit and/or receive high frequency signals for various electronic communication systems. More recently, tall towers have been designed and utilized for supporting collectors in solar energy applications
413

and have been proposed for off-shore oil operations. The nonlinear behaviour of a guyed tower may significantly complicate the analysis of this structural system; it is this nonlinear aspect which generates the interest in the problem. The mathematical model for a guyed tower is essentially a flexible beam-column with elastic supports. Guyed towers exhibit most, if not all, of the geometrically nonlinear aspects. The amplification of deflections and bending stresses due to the beamcolumn action is evident. At the same time, the tower may undergo large deformations under severe wind conditions, which may necessitate studying the equilibrium in the deformed configuration. The tower is usually prestressed in the unloaded state due to pretentioning the guys. Finally the change in the structural configuration, due to slackening of some guys on the leeward side, may have to be taken into consideration. In Ref. [I]. Rowe investigated the amplification of stresses and displacements in guyed towers when changes in the geometry are included in the analysis. Analytical charts were included in the same reference which show when refined methods of analysis are necessary in the design and what modifications should be made so that the ordinary methods of structural analysis give adequate results. Dean [2] gave the necessary information to consider the sag of the hanging cable which takes the form of the catenary under its own weight. A stability analysis of guyed towers was presented in Ref. [3] by Hull, who tried to find the most critical moment of inertia that corresponds to specified wind forces. Hull suggested that increasing the stiffness of the guys is the most efficient means of increasing the buckling capacity of the tower up to the limit when the tower starts to buckle into a number of sine waves with nodes at the

414

H. A. El-Ghazaly and H. A. Al-Kharat Goldberg and Gaunt [I21 presented a method for determining the response of guyed towers to increasing lateral wind loads until the conditions of instability are reached. The criterion for buckling was the occurrence of relatively large increase in deformations for small increase in the applied loads. A valuable study was also given to illustrate the influence of certain system parameters on the critical load of the tower. Williamson [7] examined the icing effects on special types of tall guyed communication tower called toploaded towers, where the uppermost level of guys consists of an array of conducting cables which serve as a radiating element for an antenna system. The result of the study is expressed as a critical ice thickness which corresponds to the occurrence of the instability conditions in the tower. More recently. Romstad and Chiesa [I 31 proposed an equivalent one-dimensional beam element to replace the actual truss tower element, which dramatically reduced the number of degrees of freedom included in the analysis. Recently Magued et al. [I41 concluded that the failure rate for guyed towers designed to earlier versions of the Canadian Standards is generally unacceptably high. Many of these collapses were due to excessive environmental loads, which exceeded those values believed to be maxima when the towers were designed. They also concluded that a new ice-only load case appears desirable, as some towers have been reported to collapse under excessive ice loading under conditions of light or no wind. Bruneau et al. [I51 further published guidlines for upgrading existing towers where structural reliability studies were conducted to develop rational guidelines applicable to the current edition of the standard. Three reliability classes were defined with increasing greater probabilities of failure corresponding to reductions in the load factors to be used in the analysis.
ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS

guyed levels. At that stage, increasing the guys stiffness will be ineffective, and the only way to increase the buckling capacity is to increase the moment of inertia of the mast itself. Goldberg and Meyers [4] presented a method of analysis for guyed towers where the nonlinear behaviour was considered and the effect of the wind on the cable stiffness was also investigated. The technique employed was based on transforming the nonlinear algebraic equilibrium equations into a corresponding set of ordinary differential equations which were then integrated numerically. Reference [5] covered the complete analysis and construction aspects of the cylindrical television mast which was built for the Independent Television Authority at Winter Hill, Emley Moor and Belmont in the the structure collapsed a U.K. Unfortunately, few years later and was replaced by a high concrete television tower of 1084 ft. whose description is given in Ref. [6]. The failure of the previously mentioned cylindrical mast was discussed by Williamson [7] in a stability study of guyed towers under ice loads. Miklosfsky and Abegg [8] presented a simplified systematic procedure for the design of guyed towers using interaction diagrams which provide the designer with a graphical visualization of the design range without resorting to a trial and error procedure. In an attempt to analyze guyed towers, Odley [9] presented a method of solution in which some secondary effects, such as the effect of ice loads and insulators located on the guys, shear deformations. initial imperfections in tower shaft etc., were included. Odley started the solution by assuming a set of displacements at each joint to calculate the spring constants of the guys, which were then used to obtain the tower deflections. The procedure was repeated until all assumed and computed values of deflections were in satisfactory agreement. In a study of shear effects in the design of guyed towers [IO], Williamson and Margolin stressed the fact that, in the cases where the secondary moments and deflections, due to the bearncolumn action. significantly affect the final moments and deflections. the shear deformations should be considered to achieve a safe design. They also presented a means for modifying the conventional moment distribution factors when the axial thrust and web flexibility arc considered. Finally a formula was given to find the thickness of the fictious solid web, which has the same shear rigidity as a flexible trussed web. Livesley [I I] attributed the nonlinearity in guyed towers to both the stiffening of the guy cables with increasing tension and to the destablilizing effects of the axial thrust on the mast iself. In the same paper, a procedure was described for calculating the guy tension in the cases where specified detlections arc not to be exceeded under a number of different loading conditions.

For a realistic static analysis of guyed towers. the following considerations should be accounted for: (a) Equilibrium is to be considered in the deformed configuration to account for the additional bending moments resulting from horizontal drift due to wind loads. (b) The reduction in the flexural stiffness as a result of the axial compression in the mast should be considered. The high tension in the supporting cables causes significant compression in the mast and contributes to the instability of the tower. (c) The curved nature of the supporting cables should be accounted for. which necessitates the formulation of a special element stiffness matrix for the cable. This special element is not available in most commercially available finite element codes. (d) Wind loads on the cables could have an effect on the overall behaviour of the shaft. This effect is

Analysis

and design

of guyed

transmission

towers

415

even augmented in the case of accumulation of ice on the cable, thus increasing the cable projected area subjected to wind. Needless to say that in the local environment of Kuwait snow loads are rather rare, but severe sand storms are not unusual. (e) Pretension in the cables and precompression in the tower shaft should be accounted for in order to properly describe the stiffness of the structure under service loads. The energy search method [16] considers the member prestrain and evaluates the member strain energy accordingly. (f) A successful analytical procedure should be capable of accounting, internally, for the changes in the structural stiffness, even in the linear range, due to members going out of service, depending on the state of deformations. In guyed towers, the cables are usually pretensioned and some or all of the cables on the leeward side may go out of service and will have no contribution to the structural stiffness under increasing wind loads. In conventional finite element codes this feature may require either assiging very small stiffness to slackened cables or renumbering the nodes to eliminate the out of service members, thus avoiding singularity of the resulting stiffness matrix. In this paper the energy search method, as detailed in Ref. [16], is used to solve an example of a planar guyed tower. This method needs no special provisions to account for members going out of service, since only active members contribute to the structural strain energy during the search for the proper displacement configuration. This will be explained later and has been throughly illustrated in Ref. [l6]. In the following the formulation of geometric nonlinear analysis planar frame element is presented for incorporation within an energy search approach.

Expressions for the potential energy of the element, as well as its analytic gradient, are obtained since both are required for implementation of the function minimization technique employed in the sequel. A Eulerian local coordinate system attached to the deformed element is used in conjunction with a nonlinear strain-diplacement relationship, which reflects the coupling action between bending and axial stiffnesses. A typical frame element in the undeformed and deformed positions is shown in Fig. 1. The R and p axes represent a reference coordinate system with - displacements in X, Y directions, denoted by U, 5, respectively. The undeformed length of the member is L = [(Fq - Xp) + (F<, - Pp))?]? ,

(1)

where (F,,, F,,) and (X,, yq) define the coordinates of the p and q ends of the member before deformation. The distance between the ends of the element in the deformed state defines the chord length s given by

+ [( y<,+ z;,, - ( yp + t:, )I?} ?,

(2)

comwhere C,,, U, and &,, L;, are the displacement ponents at the ends of the member measured in the R and P reference directions. The local coordinates 2 and p define the direction of the element in the underformed position and displacements in the .C,_Qdirections are denoted by zi,,, z?,,and zZ,~7, at ends p and q, respectively; corresondingly, rotations of the p and q ends, measured anticlockwise with respect to the .? axis, are denoted

Fig. I. Beamxolumn

discrete

element.

416

H. A. El-Ghazaly and H. A. Al-Khaiat 70 kips

by @,,and 6,. The angle or, measured from the ,? axis to the chord line of the deformed element, is given by

and the chord

length may be expressed

as

s = [(L + 27,

l&y + (z;,

I-

+
3600 in-

-3600

in

-I load

Fig. 2. Two-dimensional

guyed tower under reference (; = 1.0).

f (.X..,~)

fp +

td

(6)

where t (x, J) is the strain at any point in the element, tp is the initial centric prestrain due to prestressing, and cd is the strain of deformation, which is given as

The introduction of the non-linear term iri reflects the coupling between the transverse and the axial stiffnesses. The strain energy density of a general prestrained frame element, induced due to the application of external loads. is given as

10

)o 0 200

400

600

600

1000 curves

Ain 1200 1400 tower 1600 1800 2000

Fig. 3. Load-deflection

for the guyed

Analysis and design

of guyed

transmission

towers

417

0.8

-.+Gurj2.4&6

slackmed{b.=0.!3}

-Guys

2 134 slackened {a -~0.3}

Ain 0 20 40 curves 60 80 loo tower within 120 140 160 range.

Fig. 4 Load+teRection

for the guyed

the reference

Under the assumption of linear elastic material behaviour and upon integrating eqn (8) to obtain US,, which is then integrated over the cross-sectional area A, the following strain energy expression results:

governing

differential

equations

for the element:

& (ep + Ll, + ;L+, = 0 I --c A .~,,,-~[(Lp.tU,+iC:)~,l=O. Equation (14a) states the chord (x-direction)

(t4a)

dx. The work done by the element ible as

(9)

(14b)

end forces is express-

that the axial strain along of the element is constant;

U,= Pquq + M/)0, + M<,O,.

(10) 0 kips

Under the assumption of small rotation with respect to the x axis, 0, and 0, may be replaced by u,,, and L,~, respectively; therefore eqn (10) reads W, = Pp, + M,c, + Mq~~,y. (11)

+-.
L

50 kips

Note that P, is the component of force along the chord at end y (Fig. I), while M,,, M, are end moments. The forces P,,, V, and V, do not contribute to eqns (10) and (1 I), since the corresponding displacements (u,,, P,, and cy) are zero with respect to the Eulerian system. The total potential energy of the frame element in Fig. 1 is thus given as 7rp= lJ,Substituting the expressions eqn (12) gives w,. (12)

in eqns (9) and (I 1) into

- {P, u<,+ M, L,,,+ M,, t,,<,1.

( 13)

Application of the variational principle of stationary potential energy (Srrp = 0) results in the following

I--

3600 in. __
mode ignoring prebuckling displacements.

Fig. 5. Buckling

418

H. A. El-Ghazaly and H. A. Al-Khaiat the force component

F directed

therefore, chord is

along the

F=EA(~,+u,+foz)=k*EI,

(15)

where k is the coupling

k =;

constant

given by
(16)

Note that the solution to eqn (17) depends on whether the axial-bending coupling action produces (k < 0) or zero tension (k* > 0), compression (k = 0) axial strain. Using eqn (I 7) the strain energy of the element (9) reduces to +[;k+/;a:,d,+ (19)

(c, + u, + fut).

Substitution

of eqn (16) into eqn (14b) gives I,,,, - kr,,

= 0. (I 7)

Substitution of the solution to eqn (17) into eqn (19) allows the strain energy to be expressed as

The transverse displacement, L,can be expressed in terms of k, s and the rotations of the element ends, 0, and 0,. by solving eqn (17) while applying the following boundary conditions (Fig. 1): End p(x = Oj: c = 0; L:,= eP Endq(.w =s):
ELEV 1968.5 1810 1645 1480 1315 1150 985 620 655 490 325 160 00

(tga) (lgbj

n =0:
(11) --.-_ -------__ --

c,=O,.

Tower

Elevation

Solid

Ie

Cross Fig. 6. General dimensions

Section for the 600 m guyed tower.

Analysis and design of guyed transmission

towers

419 mast properties (E = 30,000 ksi) Moment of inertia (in4) 300,000 300,000 300,000

where the expressions for k,, (i. j = 1,2,3) in eqn (20) are functions of k and s and depend upon the value of k2 being positive, negative or zero. According to the principle of stationary potential energy, the structural analysis may be viewed as an unconstrained minimization problem where the displacement degrees of freedom {D} assume values that minimize the potential energy function 7cpas follows: given find ncp({D 1) ID}, where (21)

Table

I.

Two-dimensional

Span no. I 2 3

Area (in) 60 60 60

Initial prestrain (in/in) - I.16 x lO-4 -0.924 x IO- -0.527 x IO-

such that nP{D) is the minimum n,(P)})

= i %({DJ) - i P,D,, ,=I ,=I

where I is the number of elements contributing to the total strain energy of the structure. If any element goes out of service during the search process, such as a slackened cable, the contribution of that element to the strain energy is simply neglected. J in eqn (21) is the total number of independent displacements. P, and D, are thejth load and the corresponding displacement, respectively. The necessary condition for the occurrence of a local minimum of 7~~at {D} = {D}* is

%(iD)*) =O;
dD:

j=l,2

,....,

J.

(22)

Since 7rPis a highly nonlinear function of the displacement {D}, eqn (22) is a set of J nonlinear equations representing the first derivative of the potential energy function with respect to each of the generalized coordinates {D). The most obvious approach to finding the displacements is to solve eqn (22). Unfortunately, the task of solving a large set of nonlinear equations may be very difficult. The function xP may be so complex, such as that encountered in the present study, that it is virtually impossible to write the equations in closed form. The use of mathematical programming techniques in direct minimization of the potential energy function allows powerful numerical methods of unconstrained minimization to be used. The method of conjugate gradients known as the Fletcher and Reeves method was used in this study because of it modest storage requirement. In addition, the incorporation of a scaling transformation technique effectively improved convergence.

Vertical 1

Loads

+
Uniform

Elements

i Own weight

+ Appurtenances

Horizontal 1
Uniform

Loads

Concentrated

Elements Wind on projecied area of appurtenances Wind on projected area of members Wind on projected area of appurtenances Fig. 7. Loads on tower.

Drag force on cables

420 Table 2. Guy properties

H. A. El-Ghazaly (E = 20,000 ksi) Initial prestrain (in/in) 0.15 x lo- 2 0.13 x 10m? 0.125 x IO-

and H. A. Al-Khaiat

Level no.

Area (in) 1.0 I.5 2.0

I
2 3

TWO-DIMENSIONAL

GUYED TOWER

The nonlinear analysis of a planar three-level guyed tower is presented to demonstrate the response of the tower under increasing wind loads (Fig. 2). The tower is modelled using three beam-column elements, pinned at the base and supported at the three levels by prestressed elastic guys. The mathematical model for a guyed tower is essentially a flexible beamcolumn with elastic supports. The tower shaft is assumed to have infinite shear rigidity to justify

neglecting shear strains. The guys are considered straight elastic cable elements. The dimensions and material propeties of the tower shaft are given in Table 1 for each of the three spans. The structural properties of the guys, as well as the initial pretension in each guy, are given in Table 2. The complete structure under the reference load is shown in Fig. 2, where the constant vertical loads represent the weight of the tower shaft as well as any equipment that may be mounted on the tower. The horizontal loads represent increasing wind loads. A load parameter y is used as a multiplier to relate the wind intensity to the reference wind intensity. The three curves in Fig. 3 represent the load-deflection curves for the three guyed levels. No solution was obtained at 7 = IO and the instability limit is estimated to lie between ;I = 9.75 and IO. The load-deflection curves were also plotted in normal wind the range :, = O-1, which represents

Wind Direction

(b
Fig. 8. Geometry and wind loads on a cable.

Analysis

and design

of guyed

transmission

towers

421

conditions. Figure 4 shows the load&deflection curves in this range. The sudden change in the direction of the loaddeflection curve of level 1 is attributed to the slackening of the leeward guys at the first and second levels, which takes place at y = 0.37; the load-deflection curves of the second and the third levels abruptly change their directions at y = 0.37, due to the slackening of the leeward guys at the first and the second levels and again change their directions at y = 0.5 1 due to the slackening of the leeward guys at the third level. In order to show the effect of certain design assumptions, the same example was solved using conventional linear stability analysis, where the effects of prestressing and prebuckling displacements have been ignored. All guys on the leeward side were assumed inactive. Vertical loads were first applied and the stability of the tower was checked and the tower was found stable. The wind loads were then increased incrementally until instability has been detected mathematically according to the known criterion: det. [KE + KG] = 0, which designates the wind loads corresponding critical intensity. The scaled inverse (23) to the power

method [17] was used to trace the value of the smallest eigenvalue to detect the critical wind load intensity corresponding to vanishing of the smallest eigenvalue. When this technique was applied to the planar guyed tower example, it was found that yCrr 13.2, which is about 32% higher than the critical wind force when nonlinear stability analysis was conducted, and shows that yCr1 10. This example illustrates that, in such slender structures exhibiting large horizontal drift, nonlinear stability analysis accounting for prebuckling displacements and prestressing forces is a must. The buckling mode according to the linear buckling analysis is shown in Fig. 5. 600m GUYED
TOWER-CASE STUDY

A job was assigned to the authors which involved checking the analysis and design of a 600m guyed tower to be constructed at a site in Kuwait. The original design has been prepared by a specialized steel design company. It was also required to ensure the conformity of the design with the EIA standards [18].

ANSYS 4.4 UNIV VERSION OCT 23 1989 15:03:05 PLOT NO. 1 POST1 LINE STRESS STEP = 1 ITER = 40 FXl FX MAX = 0.8398 + 07 ELEM = 1 YV=l DIST = 14112 XF = 10793

y m

,,I669 0.186E + 07

0.466E + 07 m m 0.559E + 07 0.6528 + 07 0.7458 0.8398 + 07 + 07

Tower

project Fig. 9. Axial force distribution. as plotted by ANSYS, linear analysis.

422

H. A. El-Ghazaly and H. A. Al-Khaiat and a ladder for equipment installation and maintenance purposes, The tower is divided into I2 spans between successive guyed levels. Figure 7 summarizes the classification of the vertical and horizontal loads on the elements and nodes. EIA [18] gives the necessary formulation for calculation of wind loads on all tower components and appurtenances.
Linear analysis

The designing company provided analysis and design data for a 12-ft square latticed steel tower with round legs. The tower is anchored at 12 levels and pinned at the base. Radial cables were suggested meeting along the tower axis. Figure 6 shows the overall dimensions of the proposed guyed tower. Two computer packages have been exclusively used in the checking of the analysis and design aspects. ANSYS was primarly used to check the soundness of the linear and nonlinear analysis and to investigate the stability of the tower. STAAD-III (Version 8) on the other hand, was employed to check the design of the tower members.
LOUdS

Loads consist mainly of dead and wind loads. Dead loads represent the weight of members, guy wires and appurtenances. Wind load effects on the projected member areas and guys should be considered. The design wind velocity was taken as 180 km h-. For this tower two wind directions were considered, one perpendicular to the face of the tower (wind direction I) and another along the diagonal of the cross-section of the tower (wind direction 2). Notice that the design of this tower includes the installation of an elevator within the core of the tower

ANSYS (Version 4.4) was used for the analysis of the tower. The tower shaft was modelled as 73 (three-dimensional) prismatic beam elements. The element cross-sectional area and moment of inertia were calculated, conservatively, considering the area of the solid legs only. A compressive prestrain in each beam element was considered due to cable pretension. ANSYS (4.4) does not have a special cable element but has a (three-dimensional) bracing (tension-only) element which has full stiffness when the net strain is tensile and zero stiffness when the net strain is either zero or compressive. This element is, therefore, a bilinear stiffness element and is classified as a nonlinear element even under small strains and deformations. Under gravity loads and wind blowing perpendicular to the tower face (wind direction I), a linear analysis was carried out.

ANSYS 4.4 UNIV VERSION OCT 23 1989 15:03:16 PLOT NO. 2 POST1 LINE STRESS
STEP = 1 ITER = 40 FZll FZ MAX = 161966 ELEM = I YV = 1 DIST = 14112 XF = 10793

Tower

project Fig. IO. Shear force distribution. as plotted by ANSYS. linear analysis.

Analysis

and design

of guyed

transmission

towers

423

Cables were initially modelled as tension-only members directed along the chord line of the actual cable. Linear analysis using the previous model for cables yielded a stiffer structure where the deflection at the tower top was found to be 6.9 ft. A geometric nonlinear analysis was also tried using ANSYS, increasing the deflection to 7.02 ft. These values are still much smaller than the value obtained by the design company, which was 14.92 ft. The prime reason for the discrepancy is in directing the cable tension along the chord line. The following approximate analysis indicates that the direction of the cable reaction at the point of attachment with the tower differs significantly from the direction of the chord line. Referring to Fig. 8a,

(25)

where

a, =
and

{sinh-[ 2h(zLh r,]> -y

y=- qA 2h -h az = cash a,.

(26)

(27)

4 It can be easily shown that

(28)

let h = r, cos yav, conservatively representing the horizontal component of the force in the cable, and let GJ=;, (24)

y, = tan-[sinh(2r

+ a,)].

(29)

When the previous analysis is applied to any of the cables at the top level, it was found that yav= 51.48, while y, = 58.18.
ANSYS 4.4 JNIV VERSION )CT 23 1989 5:03:31 LOT NO. 3 POST1 LINE STRESS STEP = 1 ITER = 40 MYI MY MAX = 0.852E + 08 3LEM = 6 1 YV = 1 3IST = 14112 <F = 10793

where W is the cable weight and L, is the unstressed length. It can be shown that the catenary equation of the cable takes the form

-0.393E + 08 -0.254E -0.116E + 08 + 08

0.221E + 07 0.160E + 07 0.299E + 08 0.4378 0.57% + 08 + 08

0.713E + 08 0.8528 + 08

Tower project Fig. 11. Bending moment distribution, as plotted by ANSYS, linear analysis.

424

H.

A. El-Ghazaly and H. A. Al-Khaiat accounted for in an approximately iterative manner as follows: (a) Firstly, these moments were ignored and ANSYS was allowed to run in order to yield the solution including final cable forces. (b) Secondary moments due to cable eccentricity were calculated and added to the external load vector and a final solution by ANSYS was then obtained. If a more accurate solution is sought the procedure should be repeated for a few cycles. Figures 9-12 represent the axial, shear, bending moment and deflection diagrams, respectively. As a result of the foregoing assumptions the deflection at the tower top has increased to about I1 ft. It must be realized that wind loads on the cable were calculated and lumped at the top-bottom anchor points. Under wind loads the actual active cable will sag more, thus increasing the angle y,(Fig. 8a), which in turn increases the tower deflections. It may be concluded that the analysis results are rather sensitive to the magnitude of the angle y, Wind loads on a cable cause, typically, drag and lift forces Fn and FL, respectively, in the directions shown in Fig. 8b. Notice that, because of the orientation of the supporting cables, the horizontal component of the lift force on all cables

When modelling the structure with ANSYS, the tension only elements, representing the supporting cables, were directed along the new direction defined by the angle y, , rather than along the original chord line. This modification necessitated relocating the ground anchor point for each cable such that the member radiating from each anchor point on the tower is directed along the line defined by ;I,, while maintaining the original chord length L unchanged. This, eventually, serves the purpose of keeping the axial stiffness of the simulated cable (tension only member) 154/L unchanged, but directing the reaction at the tower anchor point along the same direction of the actual cable. This, of course, is a suggested approximate means of representing catenary cables as tension-only truss members. The small price for this approximation was more ground anchor points (48 nodes) instead of the original points (I 2 nodes). This is why in Figs 9-l 7, generated by ANSYS, cables which in reality meet at the same ground anchor point, Fig. 6, intersect at various points. Direct loading on the cables due to own weight and wind is evaluated and divided between top and bottom anchor points, assuming a straight cable. Secondary moments due to cable eccentricity were

ANSYS 4.4 UNIV VERSION OCT 23 1989 15:03:39 PLOT NO. 4 POST1 DISPL. STEP = 1 ITER = 40 DMX = 131.992

DSCA = 10.691 YV = 1 DIST = 14112 XF = 10793

Tower project Fig. 12. Deflection distribution, as plotted by ANSYS, linear analysis

Analysis

and

design

of gu lyed

transmission towers

425

will always vanish. exists.

Only the axial component

of FL

EfSect of accidental guy rupture The effect of accidental rupture of active guys was considered in the present study. Figure 13 shows the bending moments if an active guy at the upper end of the sixth span is ruptured. It is noticed that the positive moment has increased substantially in the sixth and seventh span. The maximum moment increased by about 11% from the comparison between Figs 11 and 13. The deflection at the top, however, remained practically unchanged. Figures 14 and 15 show the tower bending moments and deflections if one of the active top guys is ruptured. The deflection at the top experienced a substantial increase and reached about 22 ft. The maximum moment, on the other hand, increased by about 180%. Remarkably, the tension in the remaining active cable at the top level increased by only 4%. It may, therefore, be concluded that if guy rupture happens to one of the top guys, it will have a detrimental effect on the static performance of the tower. This conclusion may warrant adopting a higher safety factor for top guys than for lower guys. Table 3 gives information about the supporting cables as given by the designing company. Wind
1

direction 2, along the tower diagonal, gives more force in the cables than direction 1, perpendicular to tower force. The safety factor for the supporting cables ranges between 2.47 and 3.74, with a safety factor of 2.51 for cables in the top level. Geometric no&near analysis As indicated earlier, guyed towers exhibit almost all sources of geometric nonlinearity, such as: (1) Large deflection under wind loads, which equilibrium based on the deformed requires configuration. (2) Axial-bending stiffness coupling which eventually leads to bifurcation by buckling. (3) Configuration-dependent behaviour for cables which are active only in tension. (4) Nonlinearity of the supporting cables. ANSYS nonlinear options were activated in order to obtain the internal forces for the tower under gravity and wind loads. Figure 16 shows the bending moment due to nonlinear analysis, to be compared with Fig. 11 for the results of the linear analysis. Geometric nonlinear analysis caused a 6.6% increase in the maximum bending moment in the tower. The top deflection according to the nonlinear analysis was found to be about 11.3 ft.
ANSYS 4.4 UNIV VERSION OCT 24 1989 145258 PLOT NO. 3 POST1 LINE STRESS STEP = 1 ITER = 50 MY1 MY MAX = 0.948E + 08 ELEM=61 YV=l DIST = 14112 XF = 10793

m -0.99E +OS
E3
1

-0.712E +O8
-;.E 0 118E+08 + 07

E
m m

::,::, :,:
0.3258 0.533E 0.740E 0.9488 + 09 + 09 + 09 + 09

Tower project
Fig. 13. Bending moment distribution when one active guy at level 6 is ruptured

426

H. A. El-Chazaly Table 3. 600 m guyed

and H. A. Al-Khaiat tower--cable properties Cable maximum force for wind direction I 387.94 389.78 414.35 412.57 346.45 380.12 422.85 470.08 435.26 505.32 586.62 393.07 FS = breakage force. cable maximum force 2.55 2.53 2.59 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.54 2.48 2.47 2.47 3.74 2.51

Level
IlO.

Cable diameter (in.) 2; 2, 3 3 2! 2, J 3 3, 3 3; 3.5 2;

Initial tension (bs) 170 93 86 88 104 102 105 II5 130 145 165 104

Breakage force (bs) 988 988 1076 IO76 904 988 1076 1168 1076 1250 I448 988

Breakage force initial tension 5.8 10.6 12.5 12.2 8.7 9.7 10.2 10.15 8.3 X.6 8.77 9.5

Cable maximum force for wind direction I 317.35 295.5 I 312.70 3 16.65 283.04 306.2 I 340.10 382.4 374.00 435.66 51 1.26 360.40

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO I1 12

The design company used its own in-house specialized programs for the analysis of the guyed tower. Using ANSYS should, however, involve certain approximations as a result of the following: (1) Neglecting the effect of direct wind load on the sag of the supporting cables. (2) Approximation in calculating the additional moment at guyed levels due to cable eccentricity. (3) Replacing the nonlinear cable support by a linear tension-only member. (4) Neglecting shear deformations.

All of the aforementioned approximations are accounted for by the in-house program of the designing company. The most pronounced approximation is believed to be involved in the means of modelling of the supporting cables.

e&t

of temperuture

variation

Two cases were considered where and design wind loads perpendicular were assumed to occur concurrently ture variation of + IOOF. It was

the gravity loads to the tower face with a temperanoted that, for

ANSYS 4.4 UNIV VERSION

OCT 24 1989 14:29:37 PLOT NO. 3 POST1 LINE STRESS STEP = 1

ITER = 50 MYI MY MAX = 0.244E + 09

ELEM = 67 YV = 1 DIST = 14112 XF = 10793

Tower

project Fig. 14. Bending moment distribution when one active guy at top level is ruptured.

Analysis and design of gulyed transmission towers deflection at the tower top increased by about 16%, while the maximum moment decreased by about 4%. On the other hand, if the tower experiences a temperature drop of AT = - lOOF, the maximum deflection decreased by about 14%, and the maximum moment increased by about 4%.

421

AT = + lOOF, the lateral

Stability analysis
For the design of the tower shaft, a buckling parameter K is needed in order to calculate the effective length of each span (KI). To evaluate K a linear buckling analysis (usually referred to as eigenvalue stability analysis) was carried out. Loading on the tower generally consists of (1) prestressing loads due to cable pretension; (2) gravity vertical loads due to members and appurtenances own weight; (3) horizontal wind load on the structure. The first two types of loading cause direct compressive stresses in the tower shaft. These loads are predetermined and are usually well below the buckling load of the tower shaft. Wind load, on the other hand, will cause the tower to deflect laterally, thus exerting more tension on the windward side cables while causing the leeward side cables to slacken. For

equilibrium, the added tension in the cables must be balanced by exerting more compressive stresses in the tower shaft. As wind loads are increased, compressive stresses in the tower shaft increase too, leading to either: (a) rupture of the over stressed cables; (b) buckling of the tower shaft due to increased compressive stresses. The model for tower buckling analysis is a beam-column over yielding supports (active cables). The stiffer the supports, the larger will be the tower buckling capacity. Therefore, even if some of the cables at certain levels ruptured under high wind loads, the support stiffness drops drastically at those levels leading to buckling of the tower. It can be concluded from the previous discussion that bifurcation by buckling is a potential failure mode for such towers and deserves special attention both in analysis and design. ANSYS (Version 4.4) was used for the linear stability analysis. Gravity and prestressing loads were added together and the precompression in each element due to those loads was calculated and used as precompressive strain in the mast elements. Only active cables on the windward side were included in the stiffness of the structure, since the structure is

ANSYS 4.4 UNIV VERSION OCT 24 1989 14:29:39 PLOT NO. 4 POST1 DISPL. STEP = 1 ITER = 50 DMX = 295.241

DSCA = 4.78 YV=l DIST = 141 I2 XF = 10793

Tower project
Fig. 15.

Deflection distribution

when one active guy at top level is ruptured.

428

H. A. El-Ghazaly and H. A. Al-Khaiat search section, the linear stability analysis overestimated the buckling load by about 32% when compared with the prediction of the geometric nonlinear analysis, as obtained by the energy search method. In order to quantify the reduction in the critical load due to consideration of the pre-buckling displacements, a multi-stage geometric nonlinear analysis was carried out. Up to wind loads of 2.5 times the design load (y = 1.O) the solution was stable and was found by ANSYS after 17 iterations. When the wind loads were doubled to become 5 times the design wind load (y = 5.0), no solution was found due to numerical instability and convergence problems. The true buckling load is therefore bounded by 2.5 and 5.0 times the design wind load. For an accurate determination of the buckling load, the structural analyst must increment and decrement the load until a good estimate is obtained for the buckling load. In order to obtain the buckling coefficient (K) for each span, we must first calculate the total compressive force (PC,) in each span corresponding to the buckling load. The well known Euler equation below may, then, be used to determine the (K) factor for each span:
ll2EI PC, = ~ (KI)

perturbed about an equilibrium position when usually all cables on the leeward side have slackened near the buckling load. The stability criterion is thus

where [Ka] is the elastic structural stiffness matrix, [PC,;] is the geometric stiffness matrix for the known axial and prestressing part of forces, [KF] is the geometric stiffness matrix for a reference wind loads intensity, {6W} is the vector of perturbed displacements, and y is the unknown wind load multiplier. Equation (30) can be solved by eigenvalue analysis to yield the unknown wind load multiplier 7, corresponding to the vanishing of the determinant of the matrix on the left-hand side of eqn (30). According to ANSYS the load factor was found to equal 5.6, which means that under wind load equal to 5.6 times the design wind loads, buckling is expected and the buckling mode will be as shown in Fig. 17. It must be realized that pre-buckling deformations (P-delta effects) are ignored in linear buckling analysis and, therefore, buckling is expected to occur practically at a load multiplier y less than 5.6. It may be reiterated that, in the two-dimensional guyed tower example discussed at the end of the energy

(31)

ANSYS 4.4 UNIV VERSION OCT 23 1989 14:33:59 PLOT NO. 3 POST1 LINE STRESS STEP = 1 ITER = 50 MY1 MY MAX = 0.918E + 08 ELEMz61 YV = 1 DIST = 14112 XF = 10793

m E

-0.460E IO:3O7E

+ 08 + 08

0 154E + 08

0.918E

+ 08

Tower project
Fig. 16. Bending moment distribution-geometric nonlinear analysis.

Analysis and design of guyed transmission towers where E, I and i refer to properties span. Design by STAAD-III STAAD-III was used by the design company and by the authors in order to design the members of the tower shaft, although different versions of the program were used in each case. A substructuring technique was used where the tower was approximated by a series of beam-column spans (12 in this case), connected at the guyed levels. Each span was then re-analysed using STAAD-III under loads directly acting on it and also the end forces and moments, as obtained from the geometric nonlinear analysis explained earlier. The actual truss member properties, and not the equivalent properties, were used when analysing and designing each span by STAAD-III. Following the analysis stage, design parameters were activated to allow member selection by STAAD-III. Figure 18 summarizes the modelling stages of the tower for design using STAAD-III. The figure also shows the displacement boundary condition used when analysing and designing each span. The weight of steel involved in the tower construction was found to be slightly more of the designated

429

than 2100 kips. This weight includes the legs, diagonals and struts. It does not include the gusset plate or any special hardware fittings. The weight of the supporting cables was found to be slightly larger than 1400 kips.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(I) A comprehensive review is presented to the sources of nonlinearity in the static analysis of guyed towers. (2) The energy search method renders itself as a suitable algorithm for the geometric nonlinear analysis of guyed towers, mainly because of its ability to exclude elements that no longer contribute to the structural stiffness under certain displacement patterns. (3) The two-dimensional example presented reveals clearly that the stability limit of a guyed tower and similar slender structures subject to high axial forces should be predicted using geometric nonlinear analysis rather than the conventional eigenvalue analysis, because of the pronounced effects of the prebuckling displacements on the buckling capacity.

ANSYS 4.4 UNIV VERSION OCT 24 1989 15:08:04 PLOT NO. I POST1 DISPL. STEP = 1 ITER = 1 FACT = 5.601 DMX = I

DSCA = 1411 YV = 1 DIST = 14112 XF = 10793 ZF = -59.43

Tower

proiect Fig. 17. Buckling mode at critical wind velocity.

430
Actual

H. A. El-Ghazaly
Tower

and H. A. Al-Khaiat
Equivalent Beam-Column

Nonlinear

Analysis

Approximatmn ______)

Substructuring

(12spans)

/
Span stress Resultants

~~~~

\ \

I
Span

All other Spans span 12

Including

1
STAAD 111 Analysis Members 8, Design of

Fig. 18. Modelling

approximation

for analysis

and design.

(4) The case study presented is a full-size 600 m guyed tower that is to be constructed on a site in Kuwait. An approximate analysis and design was conducted using a combination of ANSYS and STAAD-III computer packages after invoking certain simplifying assumptions to suit the limitations of the

two packages. The approximate procedure seems adequate for the general static analysis of such towers in the absence of a more specialized package for the analysis and design of guyed towers. It must, however, be reiterated that the analysis result is rather sensitive to the direction of the cable reaction at the tower.

Cables flexure

l-8 are torsion cables

Fig. 19. Proposed

guy arrangement

for torsion

resistance

Analysis (5) Although

and design

of guyed

transmission

towers REFERENCES

431

the EIA [18] standards do not, explicitly, require consideration of thermal loading on the structure, it is rather imperative for guyed towers constructed in Kuwait to include the extra loading on the tower and cables due to temperature variations simultaneously with maximum wind and gravity loadings. (6) The gust response factor in the EIA specifications may be taken as 1.25 rather than 1 .OO as a safety measure against severe sand storms which occur occasionally in Kuwait. (7) The EIA standards clearly specify that antennas are also subjected to twisting moments due to wind; therefore any valid analysis should consider torsional loads on the structure. This would necessitate the inclusion of certain torsional springs at the guyed levels to counter-balance the torsional loads. Obviously, when the guys are arranged to meet along the tower axis, there will be no torsional resistance to these cables as far as linear analysis is concerned. It is advisable to revert occasionally to the cable arrangement shown in Fig. I9 to induce linear torsional springs at some levels. This new arrangement is as effective in resisting flexural loads as the radial arrangement (Fig. 6), but has significantly more torsional stiffness. Obviously, at the levels with torsional cables, each radial cable (Fig. 6) is to be replaced by two cables, each with half the area, arranged as shown in Fig. 19, thus causing no additional loading or expense. (8) Whether the possibility of cable rupture should be considered in the design or not is a debatable subject. The EIA standard does not explicitly mention this possibility. Analysis, on the other hand, clearly shows that, if cable rupture occurs while wind speed is at its maximum, the consequences could be catastropic, expecially if rupture occurs to one of the cables at the top levels. If, however, rupture occurs during construction the effect will be less detrimental, since construction will, normally, stop during strong windy periods. It is also believed that a higher safety factor should be assigned to cables at top levels as compared to cables at lower levels.

R. S. Rowe, Amplification of stress and displacement in guyed towers. J. Struct. Dir. ASCE ST6, 1821-l--182120 (1958). 2. D. L. Dean. Static and dynamic analysis of guy cables. J. Struct. Div. ASCE STi, I-21 (1961). - analysis of multi-level guved 3. F. H. Hull. Stability towers. J. Struct. Die: ASCk ST2, 61-80 (1962).- . and V. J. Meyers, A study of 4. J. E. Goldberg guyed towers. J. Struct. Dir. ASCE ST4, 57-76 (1965). T. F. Mears and W. R. Charman, The design and construction of cylindrical television masts in Great Britain. Struct. Engr 44, 5-15 (1966). 6. A. J. J. Bartak and M. Shears, The new tower for the Independent Television Authority at Emley Moor, Yorkshire. Struct. Engr 50, 67-80 (1972). R. A. Williamson, Stability study of guyed towers under ice loads. J. Struct. Dir. ASCE ST12,2391-2408 (1973). 8. H. A. Miklofsky and M. G. Abegg, Design of guyed towers by interaction diagrams. J. Struct. Dir. ASCE STl, 245-266 (1966). 9. E. G. Odley, Analysis of high guyed towers. J. Struct. Dit>. ASCE STI, 169-190 (1966). 10. R. A. Williamson and M. N. Margolin, Shear effects in design of guyed towers. J. Struct. Die. ASCE STS, 213-235 (1966). Il. R. K. Livesley, Automatic design of guyed masts subject to deflection constraints. ht. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2, 33-43 (1970). 12. J. E. Goldberg and T. J. Gaunt, Stability of guyed towers. J. Struct. Dir. ASCE ST4, 741L756 (1973). 13. K. M. Romstad and M. Chiesa, Approximate analysis of tall guyed towers. ASCE Fall Convention and E.uhihit, San Francisco, CA (1977). 14. M. H. Magued, M. Bruneau and R. B. Dryburgh. Evolution of design standards and recorded failures of guyed towers in Canada. Can. J. Civil Engng 16, 725-732 (I 989). M. H. Magued and R. B. Dryburgh 15. M. Bruneau, Recommended guidelines for upgrading existing towers. Can. J. Civil Engnng 16, 733-742 (1989). and G. R. Monforton. Analysis of 16. H. A. El-Ghazaly flexible plane frames by energy search. Comput. Strut/. 32, 75-86 (1989). Deformation 17. H. A. El-Ghazaly and A. N. Sherbourne. theory for elastic--plastic buckling analysis of plates under non-proportional planar loading. Conrpur. Struct. 22, 131-149 (1986). 18. ELA Standard ELA-222-D. Structural standards for steel antenna towers and antenna supporting structures. Electric Industries Association, Engineering Department (1986).