1

LATTICE TRANSMISSION TOWER ANALYSIS: BEYOND SIMPLE TRUSS

MODEL

L. Kempner Jr.
1
, W. H. Mueller III
2
, S. Kitipornchai
3
, F. Albermani
4
, R. C. de
Menezes
5
, J. BGF da Silva
6



Introduction

The method of analysis for transmission line towers has advanced since the use of
graphically procedures. In the beginning the transmission engineer used graphical
analysis developed to a professional-art for application to three dimensional space
truss towers. With the introduction of the computer, mainframe computer analysis
capabilities using structural matrix algorithms were developed. BPAs Tower
computer program was one of the original programs developed specifically for
transmission line lattice Structures. Now with the analytically powerful of personal
computers, PC, the availability of tower analysis computer programs are numerous,
such as BPAs Tower, PLS Tower, GT Tower, etc.

The standard of practice for analysis of lattice steel transmission line towers is a
three-dimensional truss analysis. The structural computer model is based on the
tension and compression behavior of the individual tower members. These tower
analysis programs are based on linear elastic structural performance, whereby
members are assumed to be axially loaded and to have pinned connections. The
member forces determined from the computer model are compared to the allowable
member capacities. In special cases, a three-dimensional frame model may be
required to provide necessary information on the member forces, including bending
moments.

With the maturity of the transmission tower engineering profession and the advances
in PC analytical solution power the transmission engineer can how push the margin
of analysis beyond the simple truss model. The uses of the simple truss model is still

1
Bonneville Power Administration, Vancouver, WA,
2
Portland State University, Portland, OR,
3
City
University, Hong Kong,
4
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia,
5
Consultant, Port Alegre,
Brazil,
6
Consultant, Quintas & Quintas Group, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

2
the main analysis tool of the transmission engineer, but advanced tools for evaluating
the performance of space truss towers, including effects other then simple truss
action, are now being utilized. This paper presents three advanced transmission tower
analysis computer programs.

AK TOWER PROGRAM

AK TOWER is a finite element computer program that uses geometric and material
nonlinear analysis to simulate the ultimate structural behavior of lattice transmission
towers (Albermani 1992). The program has been calibrated with results from full-
scale tower tests with good accuracy both in terms of failure load and failure mode.
It is capable of accurately predicting tower capacity under static load cases by
progressively detecting buckling and yielding in various parts of the structure until
collapse. The software has been used by electricity utilities in Australia and other
countries to verify new tower design and reduce or eliminate the need for full-scale
tower testing. It has also been used to assess the strength of existing towers, and to
upgrade old and aging towers.

In AK TOWER, the structure is modeled as an assembly of general thin-walled
beam-columns, trusses, and cable nonlinear elements. Linear, geometric, and
deformation stiffness matrices are used to describe the geometric nonlinear behavior
of these elements in an updated Lagrangian framework. This approach greatly
reduces the number of elements that are required to accurately model the non-linear
structural response (Albermani 1990). A lumped plasticity approach, coupled with
the concept of a yield surface in the force space, is adopted to model the material
nonlinearity (Albermani 1990A). The formex algebra approach is used for the
automatic generation of the data that are necessary for the analysis (Albermani 1992).

All of the members in the tower are modeled in the analysis, including secondary
bracing members (redundants) and horizontal plan bracing members. The technique
accounts for both geometric and material nonlinearity. The geometric nonlinearity
accounts for the effects of accumulated stresses on the structural stiffness of the
elements and the effect of the continuing changes in the geometry as the applied load
is increased. The buckling of structural members can be detected during the load
application. The material nonlinearity accounts for the effect of combined stresses on
the plastification of the element cross-section. Stress-resultant yield surfaces and a
lumped plasticity approach are used for this purpose (Albermani 1990A). The
analysis can also incorporate other nonlinear effects due to joint flexibility, bolt
slippage (Kitipornchai 1994), differential support settlement, and varied sequences of
load applications.

The analysis process uses an incremental-iterative predictor-corrector solution
strategy. Loads are applied in small increments. At each load increment several
iterations are performed to satisfy equilibrium and the structural geometry is
constantly updated. The solution method is equipped with numerical strategies that
enable the prediction of any buckling or instability, as well as the tracing of the
nonlinear load-deflection path.
3

The described numerical simulation technique was used to analyze self-supporting
and guyed towers (Albermani 1997) under specified loading conditions. Some of the
towers that were modeled were subsequently tested to failure. The predicted failure
loads and failure modes were in good agreement with those that were obtained from
tests.

A case study will now demonstrate the capabilities of AK TOWER in predicting the
ultimate structural response. A 330 kV double circuit suspension tower was designed
and tested to failure in Australia. The AK TOWER analysis was used to verify the
design and plan the test sequence prior to the full-scale testing. The tower had a
square base of 41.6 ft x 41.6 ft (12.68 m x 12.68 m), and a height of 175.2 ft (53.4 m).
The self-weight of the tower was 29.7 kips (132 kN). Eight loading conditions were
specified, and the tower response was described in terms of a load factor, the ratio of
the applied load to the specified design load for the particular load case.

The tower was modeled using 1557 elements and 790 nodal points. This gave a total
of 4740 degrees-of-freedom to model the tower response. The ultimate load factor
that was obtained for the eight loading conditions varied from 1.10 to 1.78, which
indicated that the tower would have no difficulty in passing the full-scale test. The
results of the nonlinear analysis, assuming nominal yield stresses, indicated that the
failure modes of the tower were due to the spread of plasticity under the load
conditions. The tower was full-scale tested to 100% ultimate design load using the
test sequence that was recommended by the nonlinear analysis and, as expected,
passed the test under all load conditions.


Figure 1: Predicted failure and test failure of 330 kV DC suspension tower

4
One load case (Load Case 8A: microburst wind on full tower, loads maintained at
100% of design loads while transverse conductor and earth wire loads are
incremented to failure) was chosen as the loading condition to test the tower to
failure. The predicted ultimate load factor for this condition was 1.20, with failure
due to the spread of plastic hinges.

Tensile tests were conducted on various members of the tower, and the actual yield
stresses were at least 10% higher than the assumed nominal yield stresses. The tower
was then re-analyzed under Load Case 8A, assuming higher yield stresses. The
nonlinear analysis predicted that the tower would fail by buckling in the compression
legs (see Figure 1(a)) at load factor 1.307. The tower was tested to failure, and failed
at load factor 1.30 by the buckling of the compression face of the tower (see Figure
1(b)), which was virtually identical to the prediction. This demonstrated that the non-
linear analysis was capable of accurately predicting both the failure load and the
failure mode of the tower.

MORENA, Program

MORENA MOdular REliability aNAlysis is a computer program that can be
used to study the variability of the strength of transmission line towers. The programs
main modules are:

Statistical analysis of data: perform standard statistical analysis including
distribution fitting and correlation evaluation;
Random samples generation: generate sets of random samples following
established distribution, including correlated variables;
Probability of failure calculations: estimate probability of failure for explicit or
implicit limit state functions using advanced Monte Carlo Simulation procedures;
Finite Element Analysis: in case of an implicit limit state function such as the
response of a structure, perform classical finite element analysis (FEM) including
standard linear or full nonlinear analysis (geometric and material nonlinearities) up to
failure.

MORENA manages information which is stored in arrays and allows the user to call
modules for specific purposes by means of commands written in the input file. The
user has special commands to perform loops, jumps and tests. It can be deduce,
that within this concept, the FEM analysis is just a step to get a response for a limit
state function in a reliability analysis. Therefore, the complexity of such a step is up
to the user and, within a modular concept it can be improved as much as possible and
desired.

Laboratory testing of individual tower members (Menezes 1990), full-scale
experimental tests of strength capacity of transmission line towers under lateral loads
(Menezes 1988, Riera et al. 1990) and an extensive survey of the field performance of
transmission lines in Southern and Central Brazil (Menezes 1988) provides data for
strength variation evaluation of transmission line towers. This type of information
permits: (a) Evaluation of the capacity of numerical procedures for nonlinear
5
structural analysis to predict the carrying capacity of steel towers under lateral
loading; (b) Evaluation of the capacity of reliability models to determine the failure
probability of transmission lines towers and (c) comparison of the calculated
probability of failure with field experience.

Steel angle material properties can be obtained from testing specimens of steel angles
used for fabricating towers. Ferreira da Silva et al. (1988) provided raw data of two
steel types (ASTM A36 and ASTM A572) that were statistically analyzed in a
previous work (Menezes 1990). The data set contains test results, following standard
processes of manufacturing, that were surveyed randomly at the inventory of Mendes
Junior Industrial Company, Brazil. From this data the yield stress, ultimate tensile
stress and ultimate elongation are obtained. The correlation coefficient between the
yield stress and ultimate tensile stress for ASTM A36 and ASTM A572 steel were
0.53 and 0.74, respectively. Table1 summarizes the statistical properties for these two
steel types.

Table 1 - Statistics of Material Properties
ASTM A36 ASTM A572
Property Mean Mean
Ksi MPa C.O.V. Ksi MPa C.O.V.
Yield Stress 51.6 355.6 0.11 63.4 437.1 0.09
Ultimate Stress 72.7 501.5 0.08 81.2 560.1 0.07
Ultimate Elongation (%) 29.6 29.6 0.11 26.3 26.3 0.11

A statistical analysis of the steel data using eight distribution models (Normal, Log-
normal, Gumbel, Frechet, Weibull, Gamma, Exponential and Uniform) resulted in the
following conclusions:
Yield Sstress, different type of steel must be modeled using different distribution
types: Frechet for the ASTM A36 and Log-normal for the ASTM A572;
Ultimate Tensile Stress, the distribution types Gamma, Frechet and Gumbel are
acceptable models;
None of the models were suitable for the property of elongation; and
There is a trend of decreasing mean value of the material properties with
increase thickness.

Results from full-scale testing of towers are available (CIRGE 1990, Pachen 1988).
There are two types of test procedures, production non-destructive and destructive
tests. In non-destructive tests, if failure does not occur, the design is considered
satisfactory. Otherwise, the prototype is modified and the reinforced tower is tested
again up to 100% of the ultimate design load. In the latter, after this stage, the load is
further increased up to failure.

There is a general agreement from the tests reported that steel transmission line
towers under severe loads present a brittle type behavior. Their transition from safe to
failure state is rather sudden, with large displacements but with relatively little visual
6
or easily detectable evidences of pre-collapse damage. The most frequently observed
failure mode is buckling.

Random properties of a typical tower must be considered in the mechanical model in
order to reproduce, in a probabilistic sense, the observed failure load of prototype
tests. From this point of view, the target response of the tower in terms of failure load
should be the observed distribution for the failure load of prototype tests. Riera et al.
(1990) reported a study to characterize the tower strength based on the result of 111
tower tests. It was concluded that the tower strength is adequately described by a
Log-normal distribution with mean of 105% and standard deviation of 8.5%, both
referred to the design (ultimate) wind pressure. The probability distribution, which
comes from the data described above, was fitted to the ratio of real failure load /
predicted failure load, where the prediction was made by a standard deterministic
analysis, using standard FEM analysis, and it is shown by the solid line in Figure 2.


Figure 2: Modeled Failure Load and Prototype Tests

Buckling failure mode was predominant in towers under consideration. Additionally,
displacement readings during prototype tests for design loadings show considerable
absolute values, e.g., around 1.97 ft (0.6 m) for towers of 131 ft (40 m) tall.
Considering the information presented above, a case study will be used to
demonstrate an application of MORENA for the evaluation of a single circuit 230 KV
transmission tower. The dimensions of the tower are shown in Figure 3. The 230 kV
single circuit tower is modeled using 3-D beam elements for large displacement
analysis. The use of such an element is justified by the possibility of capturing global
buckling modes. The failure load is evaluated by using an incremental-iterative
formulation and the failure load is defined as the load level that causes the first point
of singularity.
7

The FE formulation of large displacement under elastic assumptions, as is previously
mentioned, naturally does not account for inelastic buckling, which can occur when
angles have low slenderness ratios. Inelastic buckling of angles is usually modeled
by empirical laws which are a function of the yield stress and the Young's modulus.
Inelastic buckling can be incorporated into an incremental-iterative nonlinear
solution by updating the tangent stiffness matrix and the vector of restoring forces.
Despite its simplicity, the procedure is, as reported by Wagner and Mueller (1985),
efficient in modeling the behavior of steel angles in view of real data. It should be
noted that the previous elastic formulation is kept unchanged and, in addition, the
constitutive law can be improved to account for yield failure.

Figure 3 230kV Single Circuit

The variability of material properties (Menezes 1992, Ghannoum 1983) should be
accounted for when determining a tower failure load. Young's modulus and yield
stresses clearly show variability and therefore this characteristic must be
incorporated. The probabilistic description for the yield stress is taken from the data
described above for ASTM A36 and A572 steel. In addition, Young's modulus is
considered to be normally distributed with a mean value of 30.5 x 10
6
psi (2.1 x 10
11

N/m
2
) and a coefficient of variation of 6% as suggested by Galambos and Ravindra
(1978).

To model the real failure load observed in prototype tests, the correlation model of
the basic random variables, i.e., the Young's modulus and the yield stress, should be
based on the manufacturing process. A simple correlation model is herein adopted for
the random variable describing Young's modulus and yield stress respectively.
8
Angles of the same cross-sectional area are considered to be fully correlated. This
means that not only the angles from the same group, but also the angles with identical
cross-sections, are assumed to have identical material properties. The properties of
angles of different cross-section are considered to be independent. The tower under
consideration has 16 random variables describing the Young's modulus and 16 others
describing the yield stress. No correlation is considered between the Young's
modulus and yield stress.

The analysis steps of the 230 kV tower, using MORENA, may be summarized as
follows:
1. Statistical analysis of data of material properties:
Yield Stress; Ultimate Stress; Ultimate Elongation, - results: probabilistic model
for each material property in terms of the best fitted probability density function.
2. Statistical analysis of data of prototype tests:
ratio of observed ultimate loading in prototype test / design loading- results:
probabilistic model for the prototype results in terms of the best fitted probability
density function.
3. Random samples generation:
A number of samples, equal to the number of desired simulations, for material
properties the yield stress and Young's modulus are randomly generated
according a given distribution following the information obtained in the above
steps. In addition, the random samples have to follow the set correlation model.
4. Finite Element Analysis:
for each sample of material properties the tower is analyzed through an iterative
and incremental nonlinear FEM analysis up to tower failure. The resulting loads
at failure are then stored as a numerical simulation of the tower failure in terms of
the ratio modeled failure load / design load. This step is carried out n times,
where n is the number of desired simulations.
5. Statistical analysis of numerically simulated tower failures:
A statistical analysis of the n values of the numerically simulated tower failures
in terms of the ratio modeled failure load / design load is performed. - results:
probabilistic model for the numerically simulated tower failure results in terms of
the best fitted probability density function.
To evaluate the tower strength, 256 simulations, i.e., 256 full nonlinear FE analyses
computing the failure load, were performed using MORENA. The results, shown as
dashed line in Figure 2, may be summarized and compared to the prototype results,
in terms of the fitted distributions. A comparison of both distributions show some
discrepancies which indicate that the model is not yet perfect. It is expected that with
continued research and evaluation of statistical data the probabilistic analysis
capabilities of programs like MORENA will improve and be of benefit to the
transmission line design engineer. MORENA has been used only for research and
academic purposes and is not commercially available.




9
LIMIT Program

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and Portland State University (PSU)
developed a computer program called LIMIT. LIMIT was performs a first-order non-
linear analysis accounting for individual member post-buckling performance of
lattice steel transmission towers. A direct iteration, Secant Method (Kempner 1990),
procedure is used to account for non-linear member behavior. The analysis results
can be used to determine the failure collapse load mechanism, and the member load
flow at failure.

The LIMIT analysis uses individual member post-buckling performance curves to
track the member load after it reaches and exceeds its calculated compression
capacity. Two options are used to model the post-buckling member performance:
bilinear and normalized (empirical) curves. Normalized member performance curves
were developed from actual tests of angle steel members (Bathon 1990, Huntley
1991). The LIMIT program has 29 normalized curves that can be used to represent
the post-buckling member performance of steel angles (equal, unequal, and double
angles). Both the bilinear and normalized curves assume linear behavior to the
member compression capacity, Figure 4.

L
O
A
D
AXIAL DEFLECTION
BILINEAR
NORMALIZED
NORMALIZED
ACTUAL


Figure 4. Member Performance Curves

The LIMIT program provides three post-buckling analysis methods: Deterministic,
Probabilistic, and Capacity Variations analysis. The deterministic analysis, referred to
as LIMIT, provides a collapse load capacity based on individual member capacities
determined from minimum yield strength, actual member yield strength, and/or
observed member behavior. Probability based analysis can provide a design tool that
accounts for variation in parameters which can affect member capacities, such as
yield strength, connection eccentricity, engineer judgment, etc. A probabilistic
analysis generates a set of randomly distributed member capacity. LIMIT provides to
simplified probabilistic analysis options: LIMIT/PBA and LIMIT/CVA. The
LIMIT/PBA, Probability-Based-Analysis, option varies member capacities based on
selected yield strength distributions. The LIMIT/CVA, Capacity-Variation-Analysis,
10
option varies member capacities based on user selected +/- percentage variation about
a calculated base member capacity.

Both PBA and CVA use the Monte Carlo technique to randomly vary member
capacities. The first order non-linear post-buckling analysis is repeated using the
random member capacity variation to obtain the tower collapse load distribution. Two
examples are presented: the analysis of a 230 kV single circuit transmission tower
(Kempner 1990) and the other a microwave tower (Do 1993), Figure 5. Both these
towers were full-scale tested.

(a) 230 kV Tower (b) Microwave Tower
Figure 5. Example Towers

The 230 kV tower is 75.1 ft (22.9m) tall, the distance between the footing supports is
17.1 ft (5.2m), and the tower bridge spans 78.1 ft (23.8m). The test load was a simple
transverse load cross the lower chord of the tower bridge. The failure load was 25.4
kips (113 kN) with a transverse deflection of 6 in.(15.24 cm). The failure occurred in
the upper tower body above the waist. An elastic analysis using minimum yield
strengths and ASCE Manual 52 (1971) member capacities resulted in a failure load of
16.31 kips (72.5 kN) and a deflection of 2.14 in. (5.44 cm). A LIMIT analysis using
the same capacities, but post-buckling performance gave a failure load of 18.0 kips
(80.1 kN) and 2.53 in. (6.43 cm).

Member capacities were adjusted based on actual member yield strengths obtained
from coupon tests. Both an elastic and LIMIT analysis were performed with the new
capacities. The elastic analysis failure load increased to 20.6 kips (91.6 kN) and 2.7
in. (6.86 cm), and the LIMIT results increased to 24.3 kips (108.1 kN) and 4.22 in.
(10.72 cm). This LIMIT analysis predicted the actual tower test failure mechanism. A
more refined LIMIT analysis was performed were the failed member capacities were
adjusted based on strain gage test data. This analysis gave a failure load of 25.2 kips
11
(112.1 kN) and 4.22 in. (10.72 cm). The failure mechanism remained the same as the
actual test tower.

The microwave tower is 102.16 ft (31.14m) tall with a base width of 19.48 ft (5.84m).
A tower failure load distribution from CVA analysis of 250 post-buckling analysis
solutions using randomly selected member capacities gave failure load factors (failure
load/first yield load) ranging from 1.26 to 1.39. The full-scale tower test failure load
factor was 1.54. The deterministic LIMIT analysis predicted a failure load factor of
1.31, and the PBA predicted a failure load factor of 1.38.

These two examples demonstrate the application of a post-buckling performance and
capacity variation for better defining the failure limits beyond first yield of lattice
steel towers. This advanced tool was developed to help design engineers with the
structural evaluation of transmission towers during full-scale testing, evaluation of
existing designs using graphical analysis, and for investigation of transmission line
failures.

Conclusion

Advances in transmission line analysis tools allow the designer the ability to better
define structural performance of transmission line towers. These advanced tools can
be used to determine a transmission tower failure mechanism and member loads.
These computer programs attempt to model non-linear behavior, post-buckling
performance, and capacity variation of the transmission tower structural system. The
capabilities presented in this paper can be used for both production and research
applications. These advanced programs have been used to investigate tower failures,
evaluate discrepancies between graphical solutions and elastic analyses, perform
probabilistic studies of design parameters, and as an alternative option to full-scale
testing.

References

References: AK TOWER
Albermani, F.G.A., Kitipornchai, S., 1992, Non-linear Analysis of Transmission
Towers, Eng. Struct., 14, 3, 139-151.
Albermani, F.G.A., Kitipornchai, S., 1990, Non-linear Analysis of Thin-Walled
Structures Using Least Element/Member, J. Struct. Engng, ASCE, 116, 1, 215-234.
Albermani, F.G.A., Kitipornchai, S., 1990A, Elasto-Plastic Large Deformation
Analysis of Thin-Walled Structures, Eng. Struct., 12, 1, 28-36.
Albermani, F.G.A., Kitipornchai, S., Chan, S.L., 1992, Formex Formulation of
Transmission Tower Structures, Int. J. Space Struct., 7, 1, 1-10.
Albermani, F.G.A.,1997, Design Verification of Guyed Transmission Tower
Using Non-linear Analysis, Int. J. Space Struct., 12, 1, 43-50.
Kitipornchai, S., Albermani, F.G.A., Peyrot, A.H., 1994, Effect of Bolt Slippage
on the Ultimate Strength of Latticed Structures, J. Struct. Engng, ASCE, 120, 8,
2281-2287.

12
Reference: MORENA
CIRGE Committee Report 22-90, Working Group 08, 1990, An experiment to
measure the variation in lattice tower design, International Conference on Large
High Voltage Electric Systems.
Ferreira da Silva, J.B.G., Xavier, R.A., Silva, A.G., 1988, Mechanical
properties of steel used in Brazilian angles, Mendes Junior Industrial Company,
Special Report, CIGRE/Brazil, 22-08(WG08)25, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Galambos, T.V., Ravindra, M.K., 1978, Properties of Steel for Use in LRFD,
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, Number T9, pp. 1459-1468.
Ghannoum, E.,1983, Probabilistic Design of Transmission Lines, Part I:
Probability Calculations and Structural Reliability, IEEE-PES Winter Meeting, New
York, N.Y., paper 83, pp. 152-156.
Pachen, R., Pezard, J., Zago, P., 1988, Probabilistic Evaluation on Test Results
of Transmission Line Towers, CIGRE - International Conference on Large High
Voltage Electric Systems, Paris, Report 22-13.
Ramos de Menezes, R.C., 1988, Reliability Studies of Transmission Lines
Subjected to Wind Action, M.Sc. Thesis, University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil,
(in Portuguese).
Ramos de Menezes, R.C., 1990,Statistical Data of Tests in Brazilian Steel
Angles for Transmission Lines Towers, Vol. III of the series Statistical Analysis for
Observed Material and Structural Data, Institut fr Mechanik, Universitt Innsbruck.
Ramos de Menezes, R.C.,1992, Failure-Data-Based Reliability Assessment
Considering Mechanical Model Uncertainties, Ph.D. Thesis, Institut fr Mechanik,
Universitt Innsbruck.
Riera, J.D., Ramos de Menezes, R.C., Silva, V.R., Ferreira da Silva, J.B.G.,
1990, Evaluation of the Probability Distribution of the Strength of Transmission
Line Steel Towers Based on Tower Test Results, CIGRE - International Conference
on Large High Voltage Electrical Systems, Paris, Report 22-13.
Wagner, A.L.,, Mueller, W.H. III, 1985, Plastic Behavior of Steel Columns,
Portland State University Research Report.

References LI MI T
Bathon, L.A., Mueller, W.H., Kempner, L. Jr., 1990, Post-Buckling Behavior of
Single Steel Angles, Portland State University Research Report.
Do, T.T., Miller, M.D., Kempner, L. Jr., Wendelin H. Mueller, III, 1993,
Collapse Load Calculated by Probability Based Analysis Compared to Full Scale
Tower Test Results, First Joint ASCE-EMD, ASCE-AMD, SES Conference,
Charlottesville, Virginia, June.
Huntley, K., Mueller, W.H. III, Kempner, L., Jr., 1991, Post-Buckling Behavior
of Double Angles, Lapp and Butt Joints and Cross Braced Members, Portland State
University Research Report.
Kempner, L. Jr., Klinger, M., Mueller, W.H. III, 1990, Tower Strength Using
Post-Buckling Member Behavior Corelated to Full Scale Tower Tests, CIGRE Paper
22-03.
Manual 52, 1971, Guide for Design of Steel Transmission Towers, ASCE
Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice, Reston, Virginia.