ISSN 2319-8885

Vol.03,Issue.08,
May-2014,
Pages:1563-1568
www.semargroup.org,
www.ijsetr.com

Evaluation of Steel Lattice Transmission Tower with Different Wind Loads

MAY CHAW SU KYI1, DR. KYAW LIN HTAT2
1
Dept of Civil Engineering, Mandalay Technological University, Mandalay, Myanmar, Email: maychawsukyi@gmail.com.
2
Dept of Civil Engineering, Mandalay Technological University, Mandalay, Myanmar, Email: kyawlinhtat@gmail.com.

Abstract: This paper presents the evaluation of steel lattice transmission tower with different wind loads. In present study, a
typical 230 KV self-supporting, double circuit, suspension and lattice type transmission tower is considered. The effects of
temperature changes in wires are evaluated. Transmission tower members (bracing system) are designed by AISC-LRFD
specification. Wire conditions are normally considered as two types (normal condition and broken wire condition). Selected
transmission tower is evaluated wind speed 80 mph and 100 mph. Wind loadings are considered based on ASCE Manuals and
Reports on Engineering Practice No.74. The proposed transmission tower is situated in seismic zone 4. In analyzing the tower,
21 loading conditions are used for all steel members. The tower is modeled and analyzed by using STAAD.Pro software. Then,
the design of bolted connections is calculated by manual. Bearing type connections with A 394 type 0 bolts are used.

Keywords: Transmission Tower, Self-Supporting, Suspension and Lattice Type, STAAD.Pro Software.

I. INTRODUCTION line at economical spacing. The structural designer is

Myanmar has a large population residing and the
electricity supply need of this population creates requirement
of a large transmission and distribution system. Transmission
towers play an important role in the operation of a reliable
electrical power system that is considered as a lifeline
system. An overhead transmission line are generally efficient,
dependable and economical transmission of electric power
and has simulated interest in the conveyance of electrical
energy with the continued increase in population and in
energy demands. Nowadays four legged lattice towers are
most commonly used as transmission line towers. The
Transmission line tower is highly indeterminate structure.
Overhead lines can be designed and installed to withstand the
action of any of the natural forces. The supports of Extra
High Voltage (EHV) transmission lines are normally steel
lattice towers. The cost of towers constitutes about 28 to 42
percent of the cost of transmission line and hence optimum
tower design will bring in substantial savings.
Generally, a steel tower is not only sustaining gravity load
but also should be capable to resist horizontal load to ensure
the stability of the structure. The proposed tower behaves like
a double cantilever freely self-supporting lattice type steel
structure fixed at its base. Although a narrow-based tower
may save steel, it entails greater cost of foundation and a
balance is struck to obtain the most economical width of
base. Choice of the type of construction to be adopted for a
transmission line should be based on results of studies which
not only consider first cost, costs of maintenance and
depreciation but also give due to losses from interruptions to
service. In flat terrain, tower can be located along the planned
designed the general configuration, and member and joint
details. Tower is designed as a pin joint space truss. All loads
are assumed to act only at joints. Only the angle members are
considered in tower member design.
II. CASE STUDY
A. Proposed Transmission Tower
Proposed transmission tower is the self-supporting lattice
type double circuit configuration. The lattice tower may
usually contain four main panels called leg extensions (panel
1), body extension (panel 2), superstructure (panel 3) and tip
portion (panel 4) as shown in Figure 1. Each panel will have
a particular bracing arrangement on each face. The
superstructure called cross arm portion will have almost
upright legs and will be fitted to carry the conductor loads at
a safe distance from the tower body. Above the
superstructure, there may be a tip portion, which carries the
ground (Lightning Shield) wire. The compression caring
capacity of these members secondary bracing members are
provided which reduce the effective length. These secondary
bracing do not carry significant loads and will be of nominal
size.
B. Design Parameters
The basic data available was the normal span and line
deviation between the towers to find out the design
parameters such as design wind pressure on conductor and
ground wire in Table I.
C. Material Properties
The following boundary conditions are used for the
proposed transmission tower.

Copyright @ 2014 SEMAR GROUPS TECHNICAL SOCIETY. All rights reserved.

 MAY CHAW SU KYI, DR. KYAW LIN HTAT

For structural steel,

In American Steel Table, ASTM A 36 steel,
Tensile Strength, fu - 58 ksi
Yield Strength, fy - 36 ksi
Modulus of Elasticity - 29000 ksi
Poisson’s ratio - 0.3
Density - 490 lb/ft3
Coefficient of linear expansion, α - 6.5 × 10-6 /˚F
TABLE I: DESIGN PARAMETERS

Figure1. Proposed transmission tower.

D. Loading Consideration
Tower loading is most important part of tower design. The
transmission line tower is a pin jointed light structure for
which the maximum wind pressure is the chief criterion for
design. The loadings which are considered during the project
are as follows:
 Dead Load
 Wind load
 Earthquake load
1. Dead Load
Dead loads acting on the tower are vertical loads such as
self-weight of tower members, ground wire, conductor,
insulator, line man, equipments used during construction and
maintenance. Dead load of conductor acting on tower cross
arm Wc,
Wc  Lwe.c (1)
Where,
ωc = Weight of conductor per meter length
Lwe = Designed weight span

Dead load of earth wire acting on top of tower peak We,

We  Lwi .e (2)
Where,
ωe = the weight of earth wire per meter length
Lwi = Designed wind span

2. Wind Load
Wind load on tower exposed members, ground wire,
conductor and insulator strings.
P  0.00256( ZV )2 GC f D (3)
Where,
P = wind load (lb/ft)

International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Technology Research

Volume.03, IssueNo.08, May-2014, Pages: 1563-1568
 Evaluation Of Steel Lattice Transmission Tower With Different Wind Loads
Z = terrain factor cause the most significant effect. It is that effect which is
V = design wind speed (mph) usually thought of as earthquake load. When the ground
G = gust response factor for conductors, ground wires under structure having certain mass suddenly moves; the
and structures inertia of the mass tends to resist the movement. A shear
Cf = force coefficient force is developed between the ground and the mass.
Earthquake load data are as follow;
Terrain Factor: The terrain factor ( Z ) modifies the basic
Seismic zone IV
wind speed to account for terrain and height effects. It is
Zone factor, Z 0.4
recognized that wind speed varies with height because of
ground friction and that the amount of friction varies with Soil type 4
ground roughness. Importance factor, I 1.25
Gust Response Factor: The wire gust response factor (Gw) Near source factor, Na 1.0
is used for computing the peak dynamic wind loads acting on
conductors and overhead ground wire. The wire (conductor Near source factor, Nv 1.0
and ground wire) may be determined from the following Analysis types Static Analysis
equations.
Gw  0.7  1.9 E Bw (4) E. Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Equation
Load and resistance factor design describes one way of
E  4.9  (33 / zo )1/  (5) assessing behavior at various limit states. The following of
1 LRFD design equation is recommended for the design of
Bw  (6)
components in a transmission line.
1  0.8L / Ls
Where, 1. Reliability condition
zo = effective height (ft) QD = effect of (DL and γQ50) or
L = design wind span of the wires (ft) QD = effect of (DL and QRP)
h = total structure height (ft)
α, κ, Ls= wind parameters 2. Security condition
QD = effect of (DL and SL)
The structure gust response factor (Gt) is used for computing
the wind load acting on transmission structures. The structure 3. Safety condition (construction and maintenance)
gust response factor (Gt) may be determined from the QD = effect of {γCM (DL and C&M)}
following equations.
Where,
Gt  0.7  1.9E Bt (7)
DL = dead loads
E  4.9  (33 / zo )1/  (8) γ = load factor applied to the load effect Q 50under
consideration
Bt 
1 (9) Q50 = loads that have a 50-year return period
1  0.375h / Ls QRP = loads that have a RP-year return period
Where, SL = security loads
zo = effective height (ft) γCM = load factor applied to all the loads
L = design wind span of the wires (ft)
h = total structure height (ft) F. Nature of Loads
α, κ, Ls= wind parameters Nature of Loads as given by “Transmission Line Manual”
is as follows:
Force Coefficient: This guide recommends that force 1. Transverse loads
coefficient for square-section latticed truss structures are This type of load covers
determined from ASCE Standard 7-88 (1990b). Many  Wind load on tower structure, conductor, ground
designers currently use a force coefficient of 1.0 for wire and insulator strings.
conductors and ground wires. Until more definitive field data  Component of mechanical tension of conductor and
based on wind force measurements on overhead lines in ground wire.
service are available, a constant force coefficient value of Cf 2. Vertical loads
= 1.0 is recommended for single and bundle conductors and This type of load covers
ground wires.  Loads due to weight of each conductor, ground wire
based on appropriate weight span, weight of
3. Earthquake Load
insulator strings and fittings.
An earthquake consists of horizontal and vertical ground
 Self weight of the structure.
motions, with vertical motion usually having much the
smaller in magnitude. The horizontal motions of the ground  Loads during construction and maintenance.

International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Technology Research

Volume.03, IssueNo.08, May-2014, Pages: 1563-1568
 MAY CHAW SU KYI, DR. KYAW LIN HTAT

3. Longitudinal loads 4.5 m and wind loads are 80 mph and 100mph. The loading
This type of load covers calculations on tower due to conductor and ground wire are
 Unbalanced horizontal loads in longitudinal direction considered.
due to mechanical tension of conductor and/or
ground wire during broken wire condition. IV. MAXIMUM FORCE AND DESIGN SECTION
RESULTS
G. Loading Combination Members for main legs, bracings and redundant should be
Loading Combinations given by the IS 802: Part 1: Sec: selected for meeting the required ultimate stress for both
1:1995 are as follows: compression and tension. The tower is analyzed different
Reliability Condition (Normal Condition): wind loads in STAAD.Pro software and the following design
 Transverse loads sections and maximum force results are obtained. Table II &
 Vertical loads III show that the steel angle sections and maximum axial
 Longitudinal loads forces for each panel with different members (main members,
Security Condition (Failure Containment): bracings and redundant) in different wind loads. In general,
Normal Condition: maximum axial forces and angle sections are increased in
 Transverse loads main members. The following figure 3 shows the comparison
 Vertical loads of maximum axial forces results.
 Longitudinal loads
TABLE II: COMPARISON OF DESIGN SECTION RESULTS
Broken Wire Condition: Sr. Design sections
Panel Member
 Transverse loads no 80 mph 100 mph
 Vertical loads 1. Panel 1
Main
L30308 L35358
 Longitudinal loads member
Safety Condition (Construction and Maintenance): Bracing L30306 L35354
Normal Condition: Redundant L25253 L25254
 Transverse loads Main
 Vertical loads 2. Panel 2 L30308 L35358
member
 Longitudinal loads Bracing L30304 L35354
Redundant L25253 L25254
Broken Wire Condition:
Main
 Transverse loads 3. Panel 3
member
L30308 L30308
 Vertical loads Bracing L25254 L25254
 Longitudinal loads
Redundant L20202 L20202
III. MODELING APPROACH Main
4. Panel 4 L20202 L20202
member

TABLE III: COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM AXIAL FORCES

RESULTS
Maximum axial forces
Sr. (kip)
Panel Member
no
80 mph 100 mph
Main
1. Panel 1 50.0 73.6
member
Bracing 6.0 8.5
Redundant 1.0 1.0
Main
2. Panel 2 43.5 62.3
member
Bracing 14.4 21.0
Redundant 1.5 2.2
Figure 2. 3D view of proposed transmission tower.
Main
3. Panel 3 24.6 34.3
The general package STAAD.Pro software has been used member
for the analyses and design. A lattice tower is analyzed as a Bracing 4.9 8.0
space truss. Transmission tower structure is modeled as a Redundant 1.0 1.0
three dimensional space. In this study (see fig 2), the tower is Main
4. Panel 4 4.2 4.2
suspension type, overall height 30 m, width at base of tower member
International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Technology Research
Volume.03, IssueNo.08, May-2014, Pages: 1563-1568
 Evaluation Of Steel Lattice Transmission Tower With Different Wind Loads

Figure 3. Comparison of maximum axial forces results. Figure4. Comparison of shear capacity results.

V. BOLT AND NUT CONNECTIONS TABLE VI: COMPARISON OF BEARING CAPACITY

Transmission towers typically use bearing type bolted RESULTS
connections. In nominal thread diameters of 5/8", 3/4", and Sr. Bearing capacity
Panel Member
7/8" for use in the construction of transmission towers. Load no 80 mph 100 mph
carrying capacity of the bolted connections depends on shear 1. Panel 1 Main member 195.75 261.0
strength of the bolt and bearing strength of the connected
plate. The bolts for proposed transmission tower are A 394, Bracing 32.63 32.63
Type 0 bolt with an allowable shear stress of 55.2 ksi across Redundant 24.5 24.5
the threaded part. Table IV, V and VI are no. of bolts, shear 2. Panel 2 Main member 195.75 261.0
capacity and bearing capacity of wind speed 80 mph and 100 Bracing 32.625 65.3
mph (see fig4 and 5). Redundant 24.5 24.5
TABLE IV: BOLT AND NUT CONNECTIONS 3. Panel 3 Main member 130.5 130.5
Sr. No. of bolts
Panel Member Bracing 24.5 24.5
no 80 mph 100 mph
Redundant 16.3 16.3
1. Panel 1 Main member 6 8
4. Panel 4 Main member 16.3 16.3
Bracing 2 2
Redundant 2 2
2. Panel 2 Main member 6 8
Bracing 2 4
Redundant 2 2
3. Panel 3 Main member 4 4
Bracing 2 2
Redundant 2 2
4. Panel 4 Main member 2 2
TABLE V: COMPARISON OF SHEAR CAPACITY RESULTS
Sr. Shear capacity (kip)
Panel Member
no 80 mph 100 mph
1. Panel 1 Main member 99.9 133.2
Bracing 33.3 33.3
Redundant 33.3 33.3 Figure5. Comparison of bearing capacity results.
2. Panel 2 Main member 99.9 133.2
Bracing 33.3 66.6 VI. CONCLUSIONS
Redundant 33.3 33.3 In this paper, double circuit suspension type transmission
tower is evaluated with different wind loads. Tower is
3. Panel 3 Main member 66.6 66.6
analyzed and designed by using STAAD.Pro software. The
Bracing 33.3 33.3 design of tower is considered wind speed 80 mph and 100
Redundant 33.3 33.3 mph. Connection designs are used 3/4" diameter, A 394 Type
4. Panel 4 Main member 33.3 33.3 0 bolts and A 36 steel. Due to 21 loading conditions; each

International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Technology Research

Volume.03, IssueNo.08, May-2014, Pages: 1563-1568
 MAY CHAW SU KYI, DR. KYAW LIN HTAT

member subjected to maximum stress under any of these

loading conditions is assigned an angle size related to quality.
The vertical loads of safety condition are more than that of
security condition because safety condition is considered load
factor and worker load. But transverse loads of both
conditions are the same. The highest value of maximum axial
force is 73.6 kips which occur in main member (panel 1). The
axial forces are increased by 47.2% in 100 mph wind speed
as compared with 80 mph wind speed. In this study, bolted
connections are mainly used for joint design. Shear capacity
and bearing capacity are greater than maximum axial forces
in each panel. In addition, shear capacity and bearing
capacity of bolts are the same, 33.3% resulted when using
100 mph wind speed as compared to 80 mph wind speed.
Generally, design section, maximum axial forces, no. of bolts
and nuts, shear capacity and bearing capacity results are the
same in panel 3 & 4 sections.

VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to extend grateful thanks to her
supervisor, Dr. Kyaw Lin Htat, Associate Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering, Mandalay Technological
University, for her supervision, critical reading of
manuscript, and tolerance helped in all the time of this
research work. The author specially thanks to all her teachers
from Department of Civil Engineering, Mandalay
Technological University and her family for their supports
and encouragement and also thanks to all her friends.

VIII. REFERENCES
[1] American Society of Civil Engineers (1991), "Guidelines
for Electrical Transmission Line Structural Loading," ASCE
Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 74

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

Structural Engineering Design Provision, 8 th Edition.

[3] IS 802 ( Part l/Sec 1 ) :1995, use of structural steel in

overhead transmission line towers - code of practice

[4] Manual for design of transmission line, K.NAKAJIMA,

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd.

[5] Bulletin 1724e-200, design manual for high voltage

transmission lines, US department of agriculture rural
utilities service division.

[6] Mr. T. RAGHAVENDRA, Computer Aided Analysis and

Structural Optimization of Transmission Line Tower,
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology

International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Technology Research

Volume.03, IssueNo.08, May-2014, Pages: 1563-1568