Failure Analysis of Transmission Line Towers

N. Prasad Rao1; G. M. Samuel Knight2; S. Seetharaman3; N. Lakshmanan4; and Nagesh R. Iyer5

Abstract: Transmission line towers, though designed per code provisions, may fail during mandatory testing required in many countries.
Different types of premature failures that were observed during full-scale testing of transmission line towers at Tower Testing
and Research Station, Structural Engineering Research Centre, Chennai (CSIR-SERC) are studied, and the results are discussed in detail.
The failures are modeled using finite-element software, and the analytical results and the test results are compared with various code pro-
visions. The nonlinear finite-element analysis program NE-Nastran was used to model the elastoplastic behavior of towers. Bracing members
with slenderness ratios above 170 become ineffective, even though they have to carry insignificant forces. Importance of design assumptions
and connection detailing in overall performance of towers were studied. Nonlinear finite-element analysis is useful in understanding the
system behavior and for prediction of the failure pattern and ultimate load. Based on the test results, the importance of studying these failures
is highlighted and significant conclusions were drawn. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000161. © 2011 American Society of Civil
Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Electric transmission structures; Electric transmission lines; Nonlinear analysis; Towers; Structural
failures.
Author keywords: Transmission line towers; Nonlinear analysis; Tower testing; Redundants.

Introduction
The design of mass-produced transmission line (TL) towers is
based on minimum weight philosophy. The towers are a lattice
type, consisting of legs, primary, secondary bracings, and cross-
arm members. The structural design of the tower is governed
by wind loads acting on the conductor, tower body, self-weight
of the conductor, tower, and other loads caused by icing, line
deviation, broken wire condition, cascading, erection, maintenance,
etc. The members in TL towers are generally subjected to tension or
compression forces caused by external loads. Generally the tower is
modeled as a pin-jointed space truss. In the analysis, only the leg
and primary bracings are considered, and the redundant members
are not. TL towers are generally analyzed by linear static analysis
methods. The maximum member forces are arrived at by assuming
that all members are only subjected to axial tension and compres-
sion forces after analyzing for significant load cases. The final
member sizes are determined based on the effective lengths for
the compression members and effective area for the tension mem-
bers. The members are designed based on the prevailing codes of
practice. Bearing type bolted connections are used to connect the
1
Ph.D. Scholar, Structural Engineering Research Centre (CSIR-SERC),
Chennai, India (corresponding author). E-mail: nprao@sercm.org
2
Professor, College of Engineering Guindy, Anna Univ., Chennai, India.
E-mail: gmsk@annauniv.edu
3
Former Director Grade Scientist, Structural Engineering Research
Centre (CSIR-SERC), Chennai, India. E-mail: seetha_raman_2000@
yahoo.com
4
Former Director, Structural Engineering Research Centre
(CSIR-SERC), Chennai, India. E-mail: nlaxman@sercm.org
5
Director, Structural Engineering Research Centre (CSIR-SERC),
Chennai, India. E-mail: nriyer@sercm.org
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 4, 2010; approved
on July 27, 2010; published online on July 31, 2010. Discussion period
open until November 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, Vol. 25, No. 3, June 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN
0887-3828/2011/3-231–240/$25.00.
tower members with nominal bolt hole clearance. Steel angle sec-
tions with different grades such as mild, high tensile, and superhigh
tensile steels are generally used in towers. The load-carrying
capacity of the tower not only depends on the individual member
capacity, but also on other aspects like joint detailing, framing
eccentricities, force fitting of members, unequal force distribution
in bolts, and gusset plate connections. Hence, the prototype testing
of TL towers is recommended as essential to verify the design and
detailing. Most of the power transmission tower industries all over
the world have made prototype testing of towers mandatory.
Studies on Tower Failures during Prototype Testing
Although the existing design methodology for TL towers is serving
the industry well, data from full-scale tests revealed that the behavior
of TL towers under complex loading conditions could not be
consistently predicted using present day analytical techniques.
Cross bracing members connected to main legs by one flange of
each bracing member significantly influences the displacement
within the bracing system. As a result, the intersection joint of
tension-compression bracing system, deflects out-of-plane even at
low loads and bending moments are generated (Kemp and Behncke
1998).
A numerical model for simulating ultimate behavior of lattice
steel towers was developed by Lee and McClure (2007). The elastic
plastic large deformation analysis of a steel lattice tower, using
finite-element (FE) analysis, was presented and the numerical
results were compared with the full-scale destruction test conducted
on tower section of 10 m height with 8 panels and one cross arm.
Albermani and Kitipornchai (2009) presented a nonlinear analyti-
cal technique accounting for both material and geometric nonli-
nearity to predict transmission tower failure. This method was
verified with the results from full-scale tower test conducted on
a 275 kV D/C transmission tower. The technique showed a good
accuracy in terms of failure load and failure mode.

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2011 / 231

 structural failures, improper detailing, and connection failures. Leg
members often have slenderness ratios in the range of 40–60. In this
range, the compression capacity is nearly equal to the net tension
capacity of the member. The leg members may fail by inelastic
buckling. No specific guideline on secondary bracing and hip brac-
ing patterns are available in the codes of practice. Many failures of
towers are caused by buckling of a compression member, irrespec-
tive of whether they are leg or bracing members. The redundant
members are usually designed with a slenderness ratio that does
not exceed 250.

Present Study

Fig. 1. Buckling of angle section
Design Practice
The tower members are usually made of steel equal angle sections.
Fig. 1 shows the cross section of an equal angle member and the
main axes. The buckling strength of the member at the weakest axis
is considered in the design i.e., VV (ZZ)—axis. This member is
also restrained by a redundant member connected to a relatively
rigid member at its other end. If a member buckles about its weak-
est axis, the member has to take one of the displaced positions as
shown by dotted lines after buckling. For this, the redundant
member has to undergo axial deformation as well as a lateral move-
ment. Redundants are axially stiff and are connected to a relatively
rigid member at the other end; the displacement component of main
member along the axis of the redundant is prevented. Further, the
redundant has less bending rigidity, so displacement in the lateral
direction cannot be prevented. A redundant in the plane of the brac-
ing connected at an intermediate point, can thus prevent weak axis
buckling of the full member, and increase its buckling strength.
If buckling about the weak axis is prevented using a redundant
member, then the member has to buckle about major axis, i.e.,
XX-axis for the same length. This principle is used in the general
design practice of TL towers.
Failure of Transmission Line Towers
TL towers designed based on code provisions, (for example, see
ASCE 10-97 (ASCE 2000); BS:8100 [British Standards Institution
(BSI) 1999]; IS:802 [Bureau of Indian Standards (IS) 1992]), may
fail during testing for many reasons. The failures that occurred at
the Tower Testing and Research Station, Chennai, are classified as
Over 138 full-scale tower tests have been conducted at the Tower
Testing and Research Station, Structural Engineering Research
Centre (CSIR-SERC), and out of this, 32 towers experienced differ-
ent types of premature failures. For the present study, three towers
are investigated for their failure during testing (CSIR-SERC 2000,
1997, 2004). The member capacities and member forces at the time
of failure obtained from the conventional pinned truss model are
given in Table 1. The member capacities were worked out for indi-
vidual cases following ASCE 10-97 (ASCE 2000) and IS:802
(Part1/Sec 2) (IS 1992) specifications. IS:802 specifications are
similar to ASCE manual 52 specifications. Hence, the capacity
of the member calculated based on IS:802 standard is the same
as that of ASCE 10-97 (ASCE 2000). To study the failure in detail,
nonlinear finite-element analysis using NE-Nastran was carried
out. Member capacities calculated based on the BS:8100 standard
are compared with ASCE 10-97 (ASCE 2000) and the test results
are illustrated in Table 2.
Numerical Method
Nonlinear finite-element (FE) analysis methods are effective for
evaluating the behavior and strength of space frames. NE-Nastran,
a nonlinear FE analysis program, was used in this study to model
the elastoplastic behavior of the towers. Four beam column ele-
ments are used to model each angle member of the tower along
the centroid of the angle section for convergence. Although the
beam column element is a line element, the shape of the section
can be defined. The stresses can be obtained from different points
on the cross section called stress recovery points. The limit load is
reached in the FE analysis when the stress at the maximum stressed
points of the member reaches the yield stress. The nonlinear analy-
sis capability of the software accounting for geometric and material
nonlinearity was used in the analysis to obtain the preultimate
behavior and the limit loads. The elastic and plastic material proper-
ties of steel were represented by an elastoplastic bilinear

Table 1. Comparison of Member Capacities, Analytical and Test Failure Loads

Failure load
in percentage
Linear analysis force Member capacity
Nonlinear at test failure ASCE 10-97/IS:
Type of tower Test analysis load (kN) 802-1995 (kN) Failure
400 kV D/c 30°–60° deviation 90 104.2 203 276 Portal frame bracing in leg extension at 12 m
800 kV S/c 15° dev. 95 110 16 12 Both members of X brace system BR1
(a) Middle conductor broken condition 13 12 Both members of X brace system BR2
(b) Right conductor broken condition 100 109 1,138 1,249 Girder top chord member TC1
220 kV M/c 15° deviation 100 106.7 1,479 1,726 Leg in 4th panel from ground level
107.5 126.3 Cross bracing in 4th panel
94 111.7 Cross bracing in 3rd panel

232 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2011

Table 2. Code Comparison
Capacity of
Nonlinear analysis force
Member details member in (kN)
at FE model
Type of tower Size ISA (mm) L/r F y N=mm2 failure load (kN) ASCE/IS BS Remarks
400 kV D/c 110 × 110 × 8 100 350 230 276 247 Portal frame bracing in leg
extension No. 4
800 kV S/c (a) 65 × 65 × 4 280 255 26 12 13 BR1
(b) 65 × 65 × 4 280 255 13 12 13 BR2
150 × 150 × 20 63 255 1,221 1,249 1,305 Top chord member TC1
220 kV M/c 150 × 150 × 12 Cruciform 26 255 1,592 1,726 1,628 Leg in 4th panel from ground
100 × 100 × 8 177 255 124 126 107 Cross bracing in 4th panel
100 × 100 × 8 193 255 103 112 95 Cross bracing in 3rd panel

model, with a modulus of elasticity of 2E5 MPa up to yield,
and 2,000 MPa above yield stress. The incremental load and
predictor-corrector iteration under each load increment was used in
the nonlinear range. The isotropic hardening model was used in the
postyield range. Load increments were carried out in 25–30 steps,
until the limit point was reached in the load deformation behavior.
The yielding was modeled by the von Mises criterion. Arc-length
method in conjunction with a modified Newton-Raphson method
was used to further accelerate convergence of the numerical solu-
tion. By the arc-length scheme, the iterations are forced to converge
along an arc, thereby often preventing divergence, even when
the slope of the load versus the deflection curve decreases to zero
and negative.
Towers Studied
The towers used for the present study were 400 kV double-circuit,
and 220 kV multicircuit towers of vertical configuration, and
800 kV single-circuit horizontal configuration towers.
400 kV Double-Circuit DE-Type (30–60°) Dead End
Tower
The 400 kV double-circuit tower (CSIR-SERC 2000) is designed
for use in large line deviation and in dead end locations of heavy ice
zone. The tower is of square configuration with 18 m base width,
6.7 m width at waist level, and 63 m height. The tower configu-
ration, cross-arm details, secondary bracing pattern, dimensions,
member sizes, and loads corresponding to the respective failure
load case are shown in Fig. 2. Pointed cross arms (conductor sup-
porting points) on left side and box cross arms on right side are
used. The tower was tested with 9 m body extension and 12 m
leg extension. High strength and mild steel angles sections with
yield stress of 350 and 255 MPa are used.
In testing, the transverse horizontal and vertical loads are com-
bined and applied as resultant load at a resultant angle given by
tan
1 ðV=HÞ where V is the vertical and H is the horizontal loads.
Longitudinal load caused by broken wire conditions is applied as a
separate horizontal load. Typical steel wire rope arrangement
(referred as rigging) for load application on the tower is shown

Fig. 2. Configuration of 400 kV double-circuit DE-type tower and loads

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2011 / 233


Fig. 3. Rigging arrangement for load application on tower
in Fig. 3. Load sensors are connected at cross-arm tips to measure
the loads. Angle sensors are used to measure and control the direc-
tion of application of loads. The loads are applied simultaneously
through centralized servo-controlled hydraulic actuators at all load-
ing points.
Testing was conducted based on IS:802 Part-III (IS 1978) spec-
ifications. The test loads are applied in increments of 25, 50, 75, 90,
95, and 100% of the specified loads. At each load increment, the
loads are maintained for a minimum of 2 min. For the final 100%
level, the loads are maintained for 5 min. At each load level, the
deflections were measured at top of the tower and waist level in the
transverse and in the longitudinal directions using a theodolite.
The tower was designed for 16 different loading cases. On
applying loads corresponding to narrow front wind (transverse)
condition, after reaching 90% load, bracing member (No. 4), at
12 m height in portal frame of body extension part, failed along
with other members as shown in Fig. 4. The failure was attributed
to a group of members, and the joint may have initiated the failure.
Hence, the failed bracing member (No. 4) in portal frame was
strengthened by providing an angle member ISA 130 × 130 ×
10 mm against the existing section ISA 110 × 110 × 8 mm during
prototype testing.
Testing was continued and once the loads reached 75%, a dis-
tress in horizontal belt member in the portal frame at 15 m height
Fig. 4. Failure of bracing in portal frame
234 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2011
Fig. 5. Redundant pattern and detail at joint A: (a) during testing;
(b) modified after testing
(No. 2) and rotation in the bracing-belt joint was observed. The
gusset plate connecting the bracing and the horizontal belt mem-
bers at 15 m height created an eccentricity of 150 mm as shown in
Fig. 5(a) detail A. The horizontal belt member at 15 m height, in
portal frame was ISA 110 × 110 × 8 mm mild steel angle 14 m
long made of three segments (Nos. 1, 2, and 3). In this, the middle
segment (No. 2) was a short member of 1.75 m long. The member
connections between end segments to middle segment (Nos. 1, 2,
and 3, 2) were through single cover butt joint with bolts arranged in
single gauge line. It was presumed that the member rotation might
be attributed to the previous fact. Hence, two rows of bolts were
provided and the redundant pattern was also changed as shown in
Fig. 5(b). After modification, the test was continued and the tower
withstood 100% load without any distress or rotation at joint A.
To study the failure pattern, the entire tower was modeled using
beam column elements in NE-Nastran. The failed compression
bracing (No. 4), middle segment (No. 2), and some portion in
end segments (Nos. 1 and 3) of horizontal belt at 15 m height
and tension bracings were modeled as plate elements. The eccen-
tricity at joint A and the interconnection between middle and end
segments of horizontal belts (Nos. 1, 2 and 3, 2) were incorporated
in FE model. Beam element with bolt properties evaluated in the
numerical study by Rao and Kalyanaraman (2001) in the joint
model representing the bolted connections between angles in
frames are used to model the bolts. The failure load based on
nonlinear analysis was 104% of transverse narrow front wind

Fig. 6. Deformed view of members in portal frame: FE analysis
condition. The nonlinear analysis failure and stress patterns are
shown in Figs. 6 and 7. FE analysis predicts out-of-plane buckling
of bracing member (No. 4) and rotation of middle segment (No. 2)
about joint A similar to the test failure pattern. The stress pattern in
the bracing member (No. 4) shows that the member was not fully
yielded. The FE analysis shows that the failure of bracing member
(No. 4) was caused not only by force in that member, but also by
rotation of the joint as well. Force in the bracing member (No. 4)
predicted from nonlinear analysis is compared with its capacity cal-
culated based on ASCE, IS, and BS codes in Table 2. The capacity
Fig. 7. Stress pattern in failed bracing member: FE analysis
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2011 / 235
of the member based on ASCE and Indian standards are 20%
higher, and based on British standard, the capacity is 7% higher
than the analytical force.
800 kV Single-Circuit Horizontal Configuration
Tower
The 800 kV single-circuit medium line deviation tower (CSIR-
SERC 1997) was 44 m high, square based, and with horizontal con-
figuration. The width of the tower reduces from 17.25 m at ground
level to 11.25 m at waist level. The configuration, dimensions,
member sizes, and loads applied on the tower are shown in Fig. 8.
The girder was 24 m wide with 6.5-m- and 8.85-m-long cross arms
on left and right side, respectively. Mild steel material of yield
stress 255 MPa was used for all the members. The tower was
designed for 30 different loading conditions.
In testing, the transverse horizontal and vertical loads are com-
bined and applied as resultant load at a resultant angle. Longitudi-
nal load owing to broken wire condition is applied as a separate
horizontal load. The test was conducted based on IS: 802 Part-III
(IS 1978) specifications. The deflection measurements were taken
at each load level in the transverse and in the longitudinal directions
at top of the tower. Failure occurred during middle conductor
broken and right conductor broken condition tests. Studies are
conducted on these two failures.
Middle Conductor Broken Condition Test
During middle conductor broken condition test, X-bracing mem-
bers BR1 in inner K- frame in the longitudinal face above hinge
at 25 m level failed at 95%. Both the members of the X-bracing
system shown in View C, Fig. 8, buckled in the out-of-plane mode
over its full length. Further, a group of members in the triangle
portion have also failed. The main member forming the triangular
portion above the waist level TP1 and the transverse face X-bracing
BR2 above this triangular portion at 15 m height have also failed as
shown in Fig. 9. Both X-bracings BR1 and BR2 consist of ISA
65 × 65 × 4 mm section. The main member TP1 in triangular
portion consists of double angle of ISA 150 × 150 × 12 mm
connected back to back. The tower was analyzed with linear
and nonlinear analysis methods.
The entire tower was modeled using beam column elements in
NE-Nastran. The nonlinear analysis predicted the failure load as
110% of the middle conductor broken condition loads. The FE
analysis failure pattern is shown in Fig. 10. The capacity of the
bracing member determined, assuming tension-compression brac-
ing system based on the Indian standard, was 25% higher than the
forces calculated using linear analysis.
Both members of the X-bracing system in BR1 and BR2 are
subjected to compressive forces. Whenever both members of
the X-bracing system are in compression, the ASCE standard sug-
gests, that members shall be designed for full length about its major
axis, since the joint at crossover point may not offer the required Fig. 9. Failure in middle conductor broken condition
restraint to the compression member. Based on this, the slenderness
ratio was increased by 26% and the capacity of the member was
reduced by 38% compared with the capacity based on the tension- caused in-plane buckling of the main member TP1 in the triangular
compression system. The force in the X-bracing member BR2 portion.
predicted by nonlinear analysis is 8% higher than its capacity The theoretical capacity of the main member calculated on the
calculated, based on the assumption that there is no restraint from assumption of major axis buckling is 1.77 times that of the force
the joint at the crossover point against out-of-plane buckling. calculated based on test failure load. Capacity of this member about
The main member of triangular portion above waist level TP1 its weak axis is 5.5% higher than that of the force obtained from test
was designed for out-of-plane buckling about its major axis by failure load. This clearly shows that the redundant member R1 has
providing a redundant member R1 at its midlength in elevation. not offered the required restraint to the main member in changing
One end of the redundant member was connected to member its buckling mode from a weak axis to a major axis.
TP1 at its midlength and the other end to the crossover point of As a remedial measure, members in the X-bracing system BR1
X-bracing system BR2. Since BR2 members failed, the redundant and BR2 are changed to ISA 75x75x5 mm and the tower was tested
member R1 connected at a crossover point also deformed, and to its full capacity.

Fig. 8. Configuration of 800 kV single-circuit tower and loads

236 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2011

 Fig. 10. FE model failure: middle conductor broken condition
Right Conductor Broken Condition Test
When the applied loads corresponded to right conductor broken
condition test, at 100% load, the top chord member of the
girder TC1, near the right cross-arm and girder junction failed,
as shown in Fig. 11. The failed top chord member was ISA
150 × 150 × 20 mm. The forces calculated using linear and non-
linear analysis are the same in this member.
The finite-element model with beam column elements predicted
the failure load as 109% of right conductor broken condition loads.
In the beam column model, the stresses in the failed top chord
member exceeded the yield stress. To check the stress distribution
in the top chord member, both flanges of the member were modeled
with plate shell elements. The failure pattern is same as that of
model with beam column elements and the failure load is predicted
Fig. 11. Top chord failure in right conductor broken condition
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2011 / 237
as 102%. The FE model failure pattern is shown in Fig. 12. The FE
model with plate elements shows that the stress in some portion of
the top chord member has exceeded the yield stress.
The capacity of the member TC1 was assumed as concentrically
loaded, and was 9.7% more than the member analytical force.
In reality, one end of the member is connected to inner leg of
earth wire peak through a gusset plate introducing eccentricity
and the other end is concentrically loaded because it is continuous.
The slenderness ratio of the member with a concentric load on one
end and normal framing eccentricity on the other end increased by
22% and the capacity reduced by 7.3%. This capacity was closer to
the member force obtained from test failure load. As a remedial
measure, the redundant pattern in the top plan of the girder was
modified to reduce the slenderness ratio of the top chord member.
The nonlinear finite-element analysis showed significant varia-
tion in the member forces and was considerably higher than the
conventional linear elastic analysis forces. The nonlinear analysis
forces were 5–13% higher in leg members and 10–20% higher in
bracing members. Leg and bracing members near the hinge portion
were subjected to maximum force. In the girder, the force variation
in the elevation bracings and bottom plan members was 6%. Little
variation was observed in the top and bottom chord members.
220 kV Multicircuit Tower
The 220 kV multicircuit tower (CSIR-SERC 2004) was designed
for carrying 12 conductors, six on each side, and for use in small
line deviation up to 15°. The tower with square base of 12.4 m at
ground level tapered to a width of 2.5 m at 49 m height. From
49–60 m height, the width of 2.5 m is kept constant. A K-braced
pattern was used for the bottom two panels, and X-bracing for all
other panels were provided. Two angles in the form of cruciform
sections were used for leg members from ground to 47 m height.
Tower configuration, cross-arm details, secondary bracing pattern,
dimensions, member sizes, and loads corresponding to failure
loading conditions are shown in Fig. 13. All members were made
of mild steel. The tower was designed for normal loading condition,
earth wire along with one conductor broken condition and simul-
taneous breaking of two conductor conditions.
 Fig. 12. FE model failure and stress pattern: right conductor broken condition

Fig. 13. Configuration of 220 kV multicircuit tower and loads

In testing, transverse horizontal and vertical loads are combined
and applied as resultant load at a resultant angle. Wind loads on the
tower body were combined with the conductor loads at their respec-
tive heights, and the wind on the tower body below waist level was
combined and applied at 6 and 18 m levels. The testing was con-
ducted based on IS:802 Part-III (IS 1978) specifications. In the
earth wire and top conductor broken condition test, the tower
was subjected to transverse and vertical loads at all conductors
and at earth wire point, in addition to longitudinal load at earth wire
and right top conductor point. When the tower was loaded up to
100%, the X-bracing members in the third and fourth panels
and leg member in the fourth panel above 12 m from ground level
buckled as shown in Fig. 14.
The bracing member in the fourth panel buckled at its major
axis. Both members of the cross bracing in third panel deflected
out-of-plane. The X-bracing members in the failed panels are long
members with slenderness ratio above 160. The capacity of the
failed bracing members calculated based on ASCE and Indian stan-
dards are 19.4 and 17.5% higher than the forces predicted from the
conventional linear static analysis using truss elements.

238 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2011


Fig. 14. Failure of leg and braces in panel 3 and panel 4
The nonlinear analysis with all members of the tower modeled
using beam column elements predicts the failure load as 107% of
ground wire and top conductor broken condition. The analysis fail-
ure pattern of the bracing shown in Fig. 15 coincides with the test
failure pattern. To check the stress distribution in the leg and brac-
ing member’s cross section, the failed leg and bracing members
were modeled using plate elements. The failure pattern of the
FE model using plate elements is same as that of the model with
beam column elements and predicts the failure load as 105%. The
FE model shows that the stresses in some portion of the leg cross
section have reached yield stress.
Fig. 16. Comparison of load capacities for leg members
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2011 / 239
Fig. 15. FE model failure: all beam elements: plate and beam elements
Bracing forces in the third and fourth panels obtained from non-
linear analysis are 4–8% more than the forces that were predicted
from linear analysis. Thus, the margin of safety of X-bracings in the
third and fourth panels reduces to 14 and 8%, respectively, calcu-
lated by nonlinear analysis. Once the bracing member in the fourth
panel failed, the leg member in that panel and the bracing member
in third panel also failed. As a remedial measure, the sizes of the
bracing members are increased. The forces predicted from nonlin-
ear analysis are higher—3–10% for bracing members, and 2–4%
for leg members, compared with the forces predicted from the lin-
ear elastic analysis. The experimental deflection was 50% higher
compared with the analytical deflection in the transverse and in
the longitudinal directions. This additional deformation might have
increased the member forces.
Comparison of Tower Capacities
The member capacities calculated based on BS, ASCE, and Indian
standards are given in Table 2. The ASCE and Indian standards
overestimated the load-carrying capacity of single angle bracing
members by 10–20% for all slenderness ratios.
The bracing member capacities calculated based on British stan-
dard is closer to experimental values. Causality may be attributed to
the full width of the angle section instead of the flat width and a
reduction factor accounting for member imperfection used in the
design strength calculations.
 Fig. 17. Comparison of load capacities for bracing members
The capacity of cruciform section made of two angles and
the capacity of a compound member consisting of pair of angles
connected back to back at intervals in the form of a T section
and designed for major axis buckling, calculated based on British
standards, is closer to the test results, compared with the capacity
calculated based on American standard. This may be attributable to
the consideration of possible additional deformation caused by
shear. The capacity of cruciform sections calculated based on
ASCE standards is 16–20% more than the experimental values.
Figs. 16 and 17 show the comparison of failure loads for leg and
bracing members calculated based on different standards, FE analy-
sis, and experiments. It shows that the member capacity predicted
by ASCE standards is always higher than the experimental values
for all the slenderness ratios of the members. Nonlinear FE analysis
results are 7–14% more than the test results.
Conclusions
It is possible to predict the probable load-carrying capacity of a
tower, deficiencies in the design, and instability in the structure us-
ing FE nonlinear analysis. Nonlinear analysis should be carried out
for slender, tall towers, and for horizontal configuration towers with
all redundant members included, since force variation is significant.
Based on the experimental, analytical, and theoretical investigation
carried out on two 220 kV and 400 kV vertical configuration towers
and one 800 kV horizontal configuration tower, the following con-
clusions are drawn for incorporation in future designs of towers:
1. Bracing members with slenderness ratios above 170 become
ineffective, even though they carry only small forces.
2. Nonlinear FE analysis of TL towers leads to increased member
forces. In horizontal configuration towers, the forces in the leg
members increased by 5–8%, and the forces in bracing mem-
bers increased by 10–20% compared with conventional linear
static analysis. In the case of multicircuit tower, the nonlinear
analysis forces in the bracing members have increased by 10%.
3. In the 400 kV dead-end-type tower, the bracing member in the
portal frame of the leg extension failed because of the eccen-
tricity in the horizontal belt and bracing intersection, which
was not accounted in the design. When long belt members
are divided into three or more segments from the view point
of fabrication, it should be proportionate in length and inter-
connected with bolts in multiple gauge lines instead of single
gauge line, to avoid rotation of the joint at belt and bracing
intersection point.
240 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2011
4. In the 800 kV horizontal configuration tower, the cross bracing
in the longitudinal face of inner K-frame above the hinge por-
tion and also the cross bracing above the triangular portion in
the transverse face failed, because both the members of cross
bracing system were subjected to compression, and this was
not accounted for in the design. If both members of cross bra-
cing system are subjected to compression, then there will be no
lateral restraint from crossover point. Out-of-plane buckling
over full length of the member should be considered. The main
member forming the triangular portion above the waist level
that was made of two angles connected back-to-back failed
because of inadequate restraint from the redundant member.
5. All redundant members shall be checked based on British stan-
dard provisions or it shall be designed for 2.5% of the axial
force in the main member as recommended in the Indian
standard.
References
Albermani, F., and Kitipornchai, S. (2009). “Failure analysis of transmis-
sion towers.” Eng. Failure Anal., 16(6), 1922–1928.
ASCE. (2000). “Design of latticed steel transmission structures.”
ASCE 10-97, Reston, VA.
British Standards Institution (BSI). (1999). “Lattice towers and masts:
Part 3 code of practice for strength assessment of members of lattice
towers and masts.” BS:8100-3:1999, London.
Bureau of Indian Standards (IS) (1978). “Code of practice for use of
structural steel in over head transmission line towers—Testing.” IS:802
(Part III), New Delhi, India.
Bureau of Indian Standards (IS) (1992). “Code of practice for use of struc-
tural steel in over head transmission line towers—Permissible stresses.”
IS:802 (Part 1/Sec 2), New Delhi, India.
Kemp, A. R., and Behncke, R. H. (1998). “Behavior of cross bracing in
latticed towers.” J. Struct. Eng., 124(4), 360–367.
Lee, P. S., and McClure, G. (2007). “Elastoplastic large deformation analy-
sis of a lattice steel tower structure and comparison with full scale tests.”
J. Constr. Steel Res., 63, 709–717.
Rao, N. P., and Kalyanaraman, V. (2001). “Nonlinear behavior of lattice
panel of angle tower.” J. Constr. Steel Res., 57, 1337–1357.
Structural Engineering Research Centre (CSIR-SERC). (1997). “800 kV
S/C, ‘B30’ type tower.” Rep. No. 1030 41, Chennai, India.
Structural Engineering Research Centre (CSIR-SERC). (2000). “400 kV
D/C type-DE (30–60°) dead end tower.” Rep. No. 1051 41, Chennai,
India.
Structural Engineering Research Centre (CSIR-SERC). (2004). “220 kV
M/C ‘PC-30’ type tower.” Rep. No. 1098 41, Chennai, India.
Copyright of Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities is the property of American Society of Civil
Engineers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.