Nonlinear finite element

analysis of latticed
transmission towers
F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. K i t i p o r n c h a i

Centre for Transmission Line Structures, Department of Civil Engineering, The University
of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, 4072 Australia

Current design practices for transmission tower structures are based

on 3D linear elastic truss analyses and on full-scale testing
experience. This paper reviews current practices and presents a
nonlinear analytical technique for accurate simulation and prediction
of the ultimate strength and behaviour of transmission towers under
static load conditions. Both geometric and material nonlinearities are
accounted for in the analysis. A formex formulation is used for the
automatic generation of data that is necessary for the analysis. The
behaviour of four different full-scale towers is described and the
predicted results are compared with tests.

Keywords: angle member, elasto-plastic, finite element, formex

algebra, full-scale testing, geometric nonlinearity, nonlinear analysis,
transmission towers, ultimate strength

Transmission towers are normally classified as self-
supporting (free standing) or guyed structures. This
paper concentrates on the self-supporting transmission
tower which is the more conventional form. A tower
structure can be subjected to a multitude of load com-
binations. These include the weight of conductors and
tower, ice load, wind load, transverse load resulting
from an angle in the line, longitudinal loads caused by
unbalanced forces in the conductor tensions, loads
imposed during the stringing operation, torsional loads
resulting from broken conductors and dynamic loading
from galloping conductors. All of these loads must be
considered to act in various combinations as specified by
the electricity safety codes, statutory regulation and
industry standards ~2.
Transmission tower structures are widely regarded as
one of the most difficult lattice structures to analyse.
This difficulty stems from the fact that these structures
are generally composed of asymmetric thin-walled angle
section members eccentrically connected. For this
reason proof-loading or full-scale testing of the structure
has traditionally formed an integral part of the develop-
ment of tower design. Stress calculations in the structure
are normally obtained from a linear elastic analysis
where members are assumed to be axially loaded and,
for the majority of cases, pin-connected. In practice,
such conditions do not exist and members are detailed
minimize bending stresses. Despite this, full-scale
testing of transmission towers shows that bending
stresses in the members are often as significant as axial
stresses 3.
0141-0296/93/040259-11
1993 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd
Design practices for transmission towers are different
from those for other steel structures in that stresses are
permitted to be higher because towers are tested to their
ultimate design strength and designs incorporate
modification based on test results. The two most widely
used design specifications for the design of axially
loaded angle members in self-supporting transmission
towers are the ASCE Manual No. 52: 'Guide for Design
of Steel Transmission Towers '4,5 and the 'ECCS
Recommendations for Angles in Lattice Transmission
Towers '6. The lattice tower structure is considered to
consist of members supported by stress-carrying bracing
and redundant members which are nominally
unstressed. The design manuals specify limiting
slenderness ratios for different member types to account
for partial end restraint and joint eccentricity. In the
ASCE Manuals ~'5, the ultimate maximum stress is
determined using the SSRC 7 basic column curves
(Curves 1 or 4 as appropriate), whereas in the ECCS
Manual 6 the ultimate maximum stress is based on the
ECCS multiple column curves (Curve ao) 8.
A study by the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI) 9 indicated that current design practices have,
for the most part, served the industry well. However,
data from full-scale tests have shown that the behaviour
of transmission towers under complex load situations
cannot be consistently predicted using present techni-
ques. The investigation by EPRI also revealed that out
of the 57 structure load cases conducted, 23%
experienced premature failure. On average, failure
occured at 95.4% of the design load, but at unexpected

Engng. Struct. 1993, Volume 15, Number 4 259

Nonlinear FE analysis of latticed transmission towers: F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. Kitipornchai
locations. Further, available data showed considerable
discrepancies between member forces computed from
linear elastic truss analyses and those measured from
full-scale tests. The EPRI study concluded that, in the
case of transmission towers, linear elastic truss analysis
should be used with extreme care.
Procedure for full-scale load testing
Full-scale testing of transmission tower structures plays
an important and integral role in the development of the
designs. Guidelines for transmission tower testing are
available 4~. The test is generally set up to simulate the
most critical design conditions. Loads are normally
incremented to 50%, 90%, 95% and 100% of the max-
imum specified loads. Typically, each load increment is
held for one or two minutes. When a premature failure
occurs, corrective measures are taken and all failed
members are replaced. The load case which caused the
failure is repeated until the tower is able to support the
ultimate design load.
Although the ultimate load testing will, to some
extent, verify the adequacy of the tower in withstanding
the specified static design loads, it cannot predict exactly
how the structure will behave in practice under alter-
native load conditions.
Methods of analysis and design
Stress calculations in a transmission tower structure are
generally based on a linear elastic analysis, normally
assuming that members are axially loaded and pin-
connected, with the stiffer main leg members considered
as continuous beams. Forces or stresses in the members
are usually determined using a computer-aided method
of analysis.
Two basic approaches have been used to develop com-
puter programs for analysing transmission towers. The
first approach translates the logic of conventional
methods into routines to carry out the analysis of the
structure. The second approach uses structural analysis
methods such as the stiffness method.
Most of the computer programs available are based on
a linear 3D elastic truss approach using the stiffness
method, for example the BPA TOWER program ~ and
the TRANTOWER program 3'~2. The BPA TOWER
program is a linear elastic truss analysis program
adjusted to handle long, slender, tension-only bracing
members. The analysis requires a certain number of
iterations to determine which bracing members are
loaded beyond their compression capacity and to remove
such members from the model, thus forcing the remain-
ing bracing members to carry the tensile load. The
member response is determined via the use of a member
performance curve obtained from a member perfor-
mance data base gathered from available test results for
single members.
In the TRANTOWER program, members are
assumed to be fully active when in tension and are
capable of sustaining only a certain compression. The
compression members are characterized as having a
bilinear force-displacement relationship where the
member buckling load is obtained through the use of
appropriate design formulae recommended by codes or
design manuals a. Secondary effects are incorporated by
260 Engng. Struct. 1993, Volume 15, Number 4
considering the geometric nonlinearity due to large
tower displacements 3.
When a truss type model is used to analyse a transmis-
sion tower, the structure should be free of planar joints
which cause local instability. Significant effort is
required on the part of the designer to remove planar
joints, a process which requires the addition of stabiliz-
ing members. Identifying and correcting such
instabilities may require a few additional computer runs.
For these reasons, there is a need for a method of
analysis which can predict the ultimate structural
behaviour of transmission towers more accurately than
the linear elastic truss approach. Such a refined techni-
que would provide the designer with a better understan-
ding of tower behaviour, which would undoubtedly lead
to a more economical structural design. Any saving in
the design of one tower is magnified many times over
because large numbers of towers of the same design are
usually constructed.
Sources of nonlinearity
In any structural system, many sources of nonlinearity
influence the structural response. Their effect and order
depend on the structural system, the loading and the
boundary conditions. For a latticed transmission tower
structure one can identify three major sources of
nonlinearity: geometric nonlinearity, material
nonlinearity, and joint flexibility and slippage.
Several techniques can be used to account tbr these
nonlinear effects. The geometric nonlinearity can be
accounted for by incorporating the effect of initial
stresses as well as the geometrical variations in the struc-
ture during the loading process. Such an approach is
able to predict the transient response of the structure in
the pre- and postcritical ranges ~3. Predicting the full
response is essential in identifying the ability of the
structure to sustain loads at larger displacements. Fur-
ther, the characteristics of the postcritical response
reveal the sensitivity of the structure to imperfections.
The material nonlinearity can be incorporated by
using a fibre type model ~4"~5 or a lumped plasticity
model ~6. In the former model the element cross-section
is discretized into a number of elementary areas and a
record of the strain history of each elementary area is
kept and updated during the loading process. The effec-
tive section properties of the element are obtained and
used to formulate the tangent stiffness of the element. In
the lumped plasticity model, any plastic behaviour is
deemed to be concentrated at the two extremities of an
element. The stress resultants in the cross-section
interact with each other to produce yielding for the sec-
tion. This interaction is achieved through the concept of
a yield surface in force space.
The structural joint is a medium through which forces
and moments are transmitted from one member to
another, hence the joint behaviour is bound to influence
the global structural response. Due to the complex
nature of joints, their behaviour is usually nonlinear
from the very onset of loading ~7. The effect of joint
flexibility can be incorporated by modifying the tangent
stiffness of the element using an appropriate
moment-rotation (M-Or) relation for the joint t8. Joint
slippage is another aspect of the joint behaviour which
has not so far received much attention. A preliminary
 Nonlinear FE analysis of latticed transmission towers: F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. Kitipornchai
study investigating the effect of joint slippage on the
global structural response has been conducted t9 and
revealed that although slippage may influence joint
deflection, it has negligible effect on the ultimate
response of the structure.
The three sources of nonlinearities discussed in this
section can be viewed in a local sense and in a global
sense. However, since latticed transmission tower struc-
tures are, in general, of a large scale and highly redun-
dant with a multiplicity of load paths, the global effect
of the nonlinearity on the structural response is of most
interest.
Proposed nonlinear analytical technique
General
A nonlinear finite element analytical technique will be
described. In the method, the tower is modelled as an
assembly of general thin-walled beam-column elements.
Since most of the tower connections are multiple-bolted
end connections offering some degree of restraint, it is
assumed that the restraint offered by a connection
relative to the moments induced in the tower members
is large enough to regard the connection as rigid. The
effect of joint flexibility can also be handled provided
information on the joint flexibility is available ~8
Basic assumptions
Figure 1 shows an element of general thin-walled open
section. The right-hand orthogonal coordinate system
x,y,z has been chosen such that y and z pass through the
end cross-section shear centres S and S' of the element
/
*i
r 1
+
Figure 1 Element generalized forces and displacements and
referenceaxes
before deformation, and are parallel to the principal
and ~ axes of the cross-section. A parallel set of coor-
dinates .~,)7,~ passes through the end cross-section cen-
troids C and C' of the element. Neglecting the effect of
warping, there are six possible actions (Fx, F,, F z, Mx,
My and Mz) with corresponding displacement com-
ponents (u, v, w, 0x, 0y and Oz) that can be applied at
each end of the thin-walled element.
The following assumptions have been made: (i) the
element, but not necessarily the member, is prismatic
and straight; (ii) cross-sections are rigid and do not
distort; (iii) shear deformations are negligible; (iv) the
material is homogeneous, isotropic and elastic-perfectly
plastic; (v) strains are small but displacements and rota-
tions can be large; (vi) warping of the cross-section is
negligible and (vii) loads are conservative.
Geometric nonlinearity
Figure 2 shows the deformation of an element in the pro-
jected YX and ZX planes of the global X, Y and Z coor-
dinate system. The element deformation may be
described using three different configurations, Co, C~
and C2. These configurations represent, respectively,
the initial undeformed state, the current (known)
(a) YX plane C 2
~'~'\ / I-~--._~_.-~Z2
\ \\~12- ,
1
t "Xz Co
Lo
_ ~..----~X0
2 X
Zo
(b) ZX plane py -C2
Z. Oyl~py I ~ ~ 11"
Figure 2 Element deformations in projected global YX and ZX
planes
Engng. Struct. 1993, Volume 15, Number 4 261
Nonlinear FE analysis of latticed transmission towers: F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. Kitipornchai
deformed state and a neighbouring (desired) deformed
state. The incremental equation of equilibium can be
stated as
[KT] [ A r l r = {AR} (1)
in which Kr is the tangent stiffness matrix, 2w is the
incremental nodal displacement and ~ is the increment
of the applied load. When solving equation (1), the
objective is to minimize the discretization process
implied in this equation since we are dealing with large-
scale structures. This can be achieved by adopting a ten-
sor definition for the stress and strain that follows the
particle in its movement in the updated Lagrangian
frame of reference. Following this and using the princi-
ple of virtual displacement, one can write
1 I,
IDIeL~leLIdV +
l 1,
17"bleNtdV
+ i' IOleL6teNIdV = tW (2)
,Iv
in which eL and N are the incremental linear and
nonlinear strain components of the Green-Lagrange
incremental strain tensor, ~ denotes the Cartesian com-
ponent of the Cauchy stress tensor, D is the material
matrix, W is the virtual work increment and V is the ele-
ment volume. In equation (2) the left superscript denotes
the configuration in which the quantity occurs while a
left subscript denotes the configuration from which the
quantity is measured, the absence of any superscript
indicates an increment between configurations C~ and
C~.
The linear, geometric and deformation stiffness
matrices, KL, Kc and KD can be determined from the
first, second and the third integrals, respectively, on the
left-hand-side of equation (2). Hence the tangent stiff-
ness obtained takes into account not only the stress state
embedded in Kc but also the deformation state of the
element as reflected in Ko. In this approach the ele-
ment deformations are imposed as an initial imperfec-
tion on the line element, hence preserving the
integration over a straight configuration but at the same
time introducing the necessary coupling between the
membrane and flexural deformations. This greatly
reduces the number of elements needed to accurately
model the tower structure in a nonlinear large displace-
ment analysis. The linear stiffness matrix KL is
available in standard texts 2. The geometric and defor-
mation stiffness matrices, Kc and Ko, for a general
thin-walled beam-column element have been presented
by Kitipornchai and Chan 2~ and by AI-Bermani and
Kitipornchai ~3, respectively.
Material nonlinearity
For large-scale structures such as transmission towers,
modelling of material nonlinearity based on the assump-
tion of lumped plasticity, coupled with the concept of a
yield surface in force space, provide a compact and
practical method for modelling nonlinear global struc-
tural behaviour. The stress resultants in the cross-section
interact to produce yielding for the section. Any plastic
behaviour is deemed to be concentrated at the familiar
262 Engng. Struct. 1993, Volume 15, Number 4
generalized plastic hinges located at the two extremities
of an element. Plastic hinges are assumed to be elastic
prior to the full plastification so that the initial stiffness
of the complete element corresponds to that of the elastic
beam. As the stress resultants at the ends of the element
increase, the hinges yield resulting in a reduction in the
element stiffness. For a steel section the hinges are
assumed to become fully elastic again upon unloading.
The solution to the nonlinear response is obtained as
a sequence of linearized solutions in which either the
load is modified by a residual force to maintain
equilibrium, or the tangent stiffness is modified to
reflect the extent of the development of plastic flow. In
this case the tangent stiffness matrix has to be augmented
by a plastic reduction matrix, Ke. This matrix can be
derived using the associated flow theory of plasticity
16
as
[Kp] = - [KT] [G] [ [G] r [ K r
+ K, ] [G] ] -~ [G] T[Kr] (3)
in which G is the gradient matrix of the yield surface and
Kh is a matrix containing the plastic moduli coefficients
of the material. For elastic perfectly plastic material,
this matrix becomes a null matrix.
A solution method suitable for elasto-plastic nonlinear
analysis of large-scale structures has been presented 16.
Since transmission towers are almost invariably con-
structed of angle sections, a single-equation representing
the stress-resultant yield surface for angle sections under
a combination of axial force and biaxial moments
presented by the authors 22 may be used. Approximate
yield surfaces for angle sections are shown in Figure 3
for varying normalized axial (compressive and tensile)
force values. A single-equation describing the yield sur-
faces can be expressed
4
(p, m,,, m:) = 27 ,3(~ _ 1)
+ ([2 + /x) 3 sign(l, p)
- 3([2 + #) sign(l, p)
+ J(O + ~)2 + 4, = 0 (4)
in which p, my and mz are the normalized axial and
bending moments about the centroidal axes parallel to
the legs, and the coefficients q~, ?, if, #, fL and ~ are
expressed in terms of p, mr and m=22.
Solution procedure
For a given load increment {AR}, the incremental
equilibrium equation (1) is solved for the corresponding
displacement increment [Ar }. Using the nodal
displacements and the incremental constitutive law, the
incremental resisting forces of the structure can be
obtained. These are then compared with the externally
applied forces to obtain the out-of-balance forces,
{AR, }, which must be dissipated through an iterative
 Nonlinear FE analysis of latticed transmission towers." F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. Kitipornchai
Y convergence criteria has been adopted using the Eucli-
1.0
pFz my
....
,Compression
p -ve
Tension
D +ve
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.o1
Figure 3 Yield surfaces for angle section
procedure subjected to some imposed constraint condi-
tions depending on the solution strategy selected.
In the present method, the effect of nonlinearity is
treated as an effective load in conjunction with the
applied loads for general equilibrium. This reduces the
need for continuous updating of the tangent stiffness
matrix and results in a substantial saving in computation
time, especially for large-scale structures. Further, a
more stable algorithm can be achieved when the predic-
tor part of the algorithm (i.e. the tangent stiffness) is
kept as simple as possible while a strict force recovery
procedure is employed.
The solution strategy chosen was the arc-length
method 23. In order to avoid the case where the force-
point for a certain element jumps from within the yield
surface to a point outside the surface during a loading
cycle, and so as to avoid the case where the force-point
deviates excessively from the curved yield surface, a
simple solution advancement control method has been
used in conjunction with the arc-length method. The
solution advancement control has been achieved using
the arc-distance from the previous cycle and the max-
imum value of the yield function in the last two cycles
to extrapolate a maximum arc-distance for the present
cycle. This brings the force-point gradually to the yield
surface and guards against excessive deviation from the
surface.
The solution method is a nonlinear incremental
method. Within each loading cycle several iterations are
performed to account for the effect of the variation in
stresses and strains during the cycle. This iteration pro-
cess is terminated whenever equilibrium, as defined by
a certain convergence criteria, is satisfied and the force-
point for any element which has entered the plastic stage
returns to the yield surface. An out-of-balance force
dean norm measure with a convergence tolerance set to
5%.
When analysing a large-scale structure such as a
transmission tower, the self-weight of the structure has
to be considered. In the present analysis the tower's self-
weight is generated automatically and applied incremen-
tally on the tower prior to the incremental application of
external loads.
Configuration processing
In this work the formex algebra approach 24 has been
used to generate the necessary data for describing the
topology and geometry of the transmission tower struc-
ture. This approach has been implemented as a
preprocessor for the automatic generation of the tower
topology, geometry, loading and supporting conditions.
A detailed description of the formex formulation of
transmission towers has been given elsewhere 25 and
will not be repeated here.
Practical applications
The predicted nonlinear response of four different full-
scale towers is presented using the developed software,
AK TOWER. Full-scale testing of each of these towers
was performed in Australia by various contractors. For
the first two towers, the nonlinear analysis was per-
formed first and the full-scale test was conducted with
due consideration of the analytical results, while for the
remaining two towers the full-scale test was performed
before the nonlinear analysis. These four towers are
shown in Figure 4. No record of member forces was
taken during any of the full-scale tests. For this reason,
the comparison will be mainly based on the ultimate
load. The load applied on the tower is presented as a
load factor X. The specified design ultimate load cor-
responds to X = 1.0. The formex formulation has been
used to generate the tower topology, geometry, loading
and boundary condition for all the towers presented in
this section.
Karana - Rocklea 2 75 kV double circuit tower
As shown in Figure 4(a), this tower has a height of
36.7 m with a square base of 5.5 m 5.5 m. It was
designed by Queensland Electricity Commission (QEC)
and detailed by Transfield Pty Ltd 26. One special
feature is that it has a rotating crossarm attachment. Six
loading cases were specified by QEC, these are respec-
tively: (i) intact/maximum wind condition; (ii) broken
maintenance on the earthwire peak; (iii) broken ea-r--
thwire condition; (iv) broken bottom phase; (v) broken
middle phase; and (vi) broken upper phase.
The tower was modelled using 992 beam-column
elements and 446 nodes. Due to the rotating nature of
the crossarm attachments, an equilibrium configuration
for the attachments under the specified load case had to
be determined prior to the analysis. The nonlinear
analysis has shown that the tower will sustain 100% (i.e.
load factor X = 1.0) of the design ultimate load for load
cases 1 - 5 with no problem. Under load case 6 (see
Figure 5), the nonlinear analysis predicted an ultimate
load of h = 0.97 with a substantial number of plastic
Engng. Struct. 1993, V o l u m e 15, Number 4 263
Nonfinear FE analysis of latticed transmission towers." F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. Kitipornchai

Ross-Chalumbin
Marulan

Nebo-Ross

Karana-
Rocklea

0
o
0
o

l
v

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 4 Towers used in practical applications

3.4 3.4
I0.71 . - ~ . ~ . = _ ~L--10.71
1.0, I ! I / I I ~-="

4, ; , 6 L -'~ /'236
21 26.3
6.5 [ 30.4 ~ 2.3 0.8 I

1120,
8.5 -
17.6

I
~!2, ~._ 30.4 ~ 65.6
2,'-'76!
,,<
t-
O 0.6
o
17.6 ~17.6 a~
~1 21
7- { 30.7 - ~f["~ 65.6 "o
~ 0 . 4
o
6.4 I .J
9.3 - I
0.2 Load case 6
7.4 '
11.4=
l f l j y (L)
I 9" x (T) I I I I I I
" / i / / / / , ' / / , ' / , v - 7/11/11/~
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Load case 6 Deflection L E R , mm

Figure 5 Loading condition and theoretical l o a d - d e f l e c t i o n curve for Karana-Rocklea tower

264 Engng. Struct. 1993, Volume 15, Number 4

 Nonlinear FE analysis of latticed transmission towers: F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. Kitipornchai
hinges spreading in the bracing of the common body of
the tower.
In view of the nonlinear analysis results, it was
decided that the test should go ahead with the design
ultimate load for load case 6 reduced to 95 % of the
originally specified load. The tower performed well
under these six tests confirming the nonlinear analysis
predictions. One minor failure occured at the very
beginning of the first test at the middle crossarm attach-
ment due to a misfabrication which was corrected. The
predicted load deflection curve for load case 6 is shown
in Figure 5. The deflected shape of the tower under this
test with X = 0.97 is shown in Figure 6.
Load c a s e 6
;k= 0.97
Figure 6 Predicted deflected shape of Karana-Rocklea tower
Marulan 500 kV tension tower
This tower, as shown in Figure 4(b), has a height of
57.3 m with a square base of 12.1 m 12.1 m. The
tower was designed and fabricated by Electric Power
Transmission (EPT) Pty Ltd. Seven load cases were
specified for the full-scale test 27. The nonlinear analysis
was performed prior to the full-scale test to ensure the
adequacy of the tower.
The tower was modelled using 1616 elements and 648
nodes. The nonlinear analysis predicted that the tower
was strong enough to withstand the specified seven load
cases. The lowest load factor obtained was X = 1.1 for
load case 7. The design ultimate load and the predicted
load deflection curve for this load case are shown in
Figure 7. The deflected shape of the tower under this
load case with X = 1.1 is shown in Figure 8. The
analysis predicted that plastic hinges would start
developing at ~, = 0.75. However, these hinges remain
confined to the earthwire arm until the ultimate load of
2 = 1.1 is reached. The analysis also revealed that a
plastic hinge develops at the main bracing member of the
leg assembly at an early stage of the loading. This hap-
pened under all load cases. This hinge unloaded at a later
stage of each test. It was recommended that this bracing
member be upgraded, and this recommendation was
implemented. The full-scale test results agreed with the
nonlinear analysis that the tower is strong enough to
withstand the specified load cases.
Ross-Chalumbin 275 kV double circuit heavy
suspension tower
This tower is shown in Figure 4(c). It has a height of
59.6 m with a rectangular base of 7.7 m x 5.7 m. The
tower was designed and detailed by EPT Pty Ltd. Six
loading cases were specified. Details of the test pro-
cedure and results have been reported by EPT 28.
The tower performed adequately under the first five
load cases. However, when tested under the sixth load
case which represented the intact/maximum wind condi-
tion the tower collapsed at 90% of the design ultimate
load shown in Figure 9. The failure was described in the
test report 28 as 'an unusual failure which involved a
general collapse of the compressed face of the tower'.
Figure lO(a) shows a photograph of the failed tower
after the test.
This tower was modelled using 1732 elements and 768
nodes. The nonlinear analysis predicted that, under load
case 6, the first plastic hinge is formed at a load factor
X = 0.7 in the compression leg just below the common
body of the tower. Subsequent plastic hinges spread
rapidly to other parts of the tower below the common
body accompanied by a rapid increase in displacement.
A maximum load factor X = 0.91 was reached followed
by a breakdown of the numerical method indicating col-
lapse of the tower. This compares extremely well with
the 90% failure load reported in the test 28. The load
deflection curve for the tower under this load case is
shown in Figure 9. The deflected shape of the tower at
collapse is shown in Figure lO(b). The shape resembles
closely the actual collapse mode obtained during the test
as depicted by the photograph taken after failure in
Figure lO(a).
Engng. Struct. 1993, Volume 15, Number 4 265
 Nonlinear FE analysis of latticed transmission towers." F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. Kitipornchai

1.2 I I i I
10.83 10.83
6.83 -~ J-11.37
1.0
23.86--|45.39 4 5 . 3 9 r 32.32 X=0.91
23"86~145.39 45.391 " 3 5 " 7 8
23.86 "145.39 45.39~--40.66 .< 0.8
20.5 t,. Hinges_ start at / -
--15.4 0
X
--35 ~ 0.6
--35 10
0
-- 0.4

0.2 Load case

V L

I I I I
Load case 6 50 100 150 200 250
Vertical deflection, VER (mm)

Figure 9 Loading condition and theoretical load-deflection curve for Ross-Chalumbin tower

ld case 6
X=0.91

Figure I0 Photograph of failed Ross-Chalumbin tower and predicted tower deflected shape

Engng. Struct. 1993, Volume 15, Number 4 267

Nonfinear FE analysis of latticed transmission towers. F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. Kitipornchai

164 is6
1.0 . . . . . . X_= 0 . 9
2.2Q - 3 ~
-< 0.8 - ~'=0-75~ t _
16.5
lO2.2/159.1 0
101.9J157.4 o 0.6 -
9.7 0~ Theory
3.6 Nm
102.7 J~ 53,5
5.3~ "10
6.1Q ~ 0.4 -

Test no.2
9.6Q 0
10.9Q .._1 Vertical deflection
0.2- at X l

0 1 1
-0.5 0 5.0 10
Deflection, VX 1 (ram)
(a)
Figure 1 1 Load condition and theoretical l o a d - d e f l e c t i o n curve for N e b o - Ross t o w e r

the tower in order to achieve the specified load level.

When the load increment is applied to a particular point,
however, loads at other locations are relaxed and they in
turn must be re-adjusted to the same percentage level.
The sequence of loading and re-adjustment every time a
certain load increment is applied to the structure cannot
be simulated easily in the analysis. This effect becomes
more significant as the structure begins to yield. Hence,
some discrepencies between the analysis results and the
test can be expected.
! case 2
Conclusions
= 0.75 Accurate structural analysis of transmission towers is
complicated because the structure is three-dimensional
and comprised of asymmetric angle section members
eccentrically connected. The influences of geometric
and material nonlinearities play a very important role in
determining the ultimate behaviour of the structure.
This paper describes a nonlinear analytical method in
which all factors affecting the ultimate behaviour of the
tower structure can be incorporated. These include
geometric and material nonlinearities, joint flexibility
and the effects of large deflection. The developed soft-
ware, the AK TOWER program, has been used to
predict the ultimate structural behaviour of four different
electric transmission towers tested in Australia. The
nonlinear analysis was performed prior to the full-scale
testing for the first two towers, to check the design ade-
quacy and avoid any possible collapse condition. For the
remaining two towers, the nonlinear analysis was per-
formed after full-scale testing to investigate the unex-
pected collapse encountered in the test. Predictions of
the ultimate loads and the failure deflected shapes have
generally been very good, considering the complexity of
this type of structure. No comparison of calculated
member forces and actual member forces has been made
because of the lack of such data in the test.

Acknowledgments
The work in this project has been supported by funds
Figure 12 Predicted deflected shape of N e b o - R o s s to w e r from the Australian Electricity Supply. Industry

268 Engng. Struct. 1993, Volume 15, Number 4

 Nonlinear FE analysis of latticed transmission towers. F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. Kitipornchai
Research Board (AESIRB). The authors wish to thank
the Queensland Electricity Commission (QEC) for mak-
ing the full-scale test data of tested towers available. In
particular, the authors wish to thank Mr Henry Hawes
of the QEC for his continued advice and technical sup-
port.
References
1 American Society of Civil Engineers Committee on Electric
Transmission Structures. 'Loading of electrical transmission struc-
tures', J. Struct. Engng, ASCE 1992, 108, (ST5), 1088-1105
2 American Society of Civil Engineers Committee on Electric
Transmission Structures. 'Guidelines for transmission line structural
loading', ASCE, New York, 1984
3 Roy, S., Fang, S. and Rossow, E. 'Secondary stresses on transmis-
sion tower structures', J. Energy Engng, ASCE 1984, 110, (2),
157- 172
4 American Society of Civil Engineers. 'Guide for design of steel
transmission towers', Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice,
No. 52, ASCE, New York, 1988
5 American Society of Civil Engineers. 'Guide for design of steel
transmission towers', Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice,
No. 52, ASCE, New York, 1971
6 European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (ECCS).
"Recommendations for angles in lattice transmission towers', January
1985
7 Structural Stability Research Council: SSRC. Guide to stability
criteria for metal structures, (4th edn) (ed. T. V. Galambos), John
Wiley, New York, 1988
8 Eurocode. "Common Unified Code of Practice for Steel Structures',
Eurocode No. 3, 1984, Commission of the European Communities,
Directorate-General, Brussels
9 Electric Power Research Institute. 'Structural development studies at
the EPRI transmission line mechanical research facility', Interim
Report No. 1: EPRI EL-4756, August 1986, Sverdrup Technology,
Inc., Tullahoma, Tennessee, USA
10 International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). "Loading tests on
overhead line towers', Publication No. 652, 1979
11 Bonneville Power Administration. 'Elastic design program',
Portland, Oregon, 1987
12 Lo, D., Morcos, A. and Goel, S. 'Use of computer in transmission
tower design', J. Struct. Div., ASCE 1975, 101, (ST7), 1443- 1453
13 AI-Bermani, F. G. A. and Kitipornchai, S. 'Nonlinear analysis of
thin-walled structures using least element/member', J. Struct. Engng,
ASCE 1990, 116, (1), 215-234
14 Chan, S. L. and Kitipornchai, S. 'Inelastic post-buckling behaviour
of tubular struts', J. Struct. Engng, ASCE 1988, 114, (5),
1091 - 1105
15 Kitipornchai, S., Al-Bermani, F. and Chan, S. L. 'Geometric and
material nonlinear analysis of structures comprising rectangular
hollow sections', Engng Struct. 1988, 10, (1), 13-23
16 AI-Bermani, F. G. A. and Kitipornchai, S. 'Elasto-plastic large
deformation analysis of thin-walled structures" Engng Struct. 1990,
12, (I), 2 8 - 3 6
17 Jones, S. W., Kirby, P. A. and Nethercot, D. A. 'The analysis of
frames with semi-rigid connections - a state of the art report', J.
Const. Steel Res. 1983, 3, 2 - 1 3
18 Al-Bermani, F. and Kitipornchai, S. 'Elasto-plastic nonlinear
analysis of flexibly-jointed space frames', J. Struct. Engng, ASCE
1992, 118, (1), 108-127
19 Kitipornchai, S., AI-Bermani, F. and Peyrot, A. H. 'Effect of bolt
slippage on the ultimate behaviour of lattice structures' (to be
published)
20 Przemieniecki, J. S. Theory of matrix structural analysis, McGraw-
Hill, New York, 1968
21 Kitipornchai, S. and Chan, S. L. "Nonlinear finite element analysis
of angle and tee beam-columns', J. Struct. Engng, ASCE 1987, 113,
(4), 721-739
22 Kitipornchai, S., Zhu, K., Xiang, Y. and AI-Bermani, F. G. A.
'Single-equation yield surfaces for monosymmetric and asymmetric
sections', Engng Struct. 1991, 13, (4), 366-370
23 Crisfield, M. A. 'A fast incremental/iterative solution procedure that
handles snap-through', Camp. Struct. 1981, 13, (1), 5-62
24 Nooshin, H. Formex configuration processing in structural engineer-
ing, Elsevier Applied Science, London, 1984
25 AI-Bermani, F. G. A., Kitipornchai, S. and Chan, S. L. 'Formex for-
mulation of transmission towers', Int. J. Space Struct. 1992, 7, (1),
1--10
26 Transfield Pty Ltd, Test Report: 275 kV D.C. T/L structure type
D2S15F, Sydney, Australia, February 1992
27 Uniquest, Marulan 500 kV Double Circuit Tension Tower Type
VSD, Report 320213, March 1991, Queensland, Australia
28 Electric Power Transmission (EPT) Pry Ltd, Test Report No. 497.
'275 kV T/L Ross-Chalumbin D.C. heavy suspension tower
D2S2D', Test Report No. 497, February 1988, NSW, Australia
29 Transfield Pty Ltd, 'Test Report, The Queensland Electricity
Generating Board, Northern Region, NEBO-ROSS Transmission
Line, Tower D2T15 + 12M Queensland, Australia', November,
1983
Engng. Struct. 1993, Volume 15, Number 4 269