Analysis and Design of Lattice Steel Towers for

Electrical Energy Transport according with the EC3(EN)

and the EN50341-1

João Rodrigues Dias, nr. 52005

Dissertation in Civil Engineering, Master Degree
Setember 2007

Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture

Instituto Superior Técnico
Technical University of Lisbon

ABSTRACT
The objective of this paper is to perform a comparative study between the application of the new
version of Eurocode 3 and the European Standard EN 50341-1 to analyse steel lattice structure
for supporting overhead electrical lines. The structure analysed is a tower of the GSLF type
(“iced” zone) with 40m of higher. A code in c# language was developed to calculate the action
of the wind on the tower. After the computing the actions (forces) applied to this structure, the
internal forces and moments were calculated by means of code SAP2000. Using these results,
the member safety checking according to both standards was achieved (this part of the work
was completed in an Excel worksheet). This procedure was repeated for two different joint
models: one using fixed connection between bars (rigid nodes) and the other using members
with pinned connections (pinned nodes). From this work, it was possible to conclude that both
standards (EC 3 and EN 50341-1) give similar results, despite being different in nature.
Additionally, it was verified that both models (rigid and pinned) also gave similar results, the
later being more easy to analyse and perform the design and
safety checking.

Keywords: Lattice tower; Steel structures; L- section; Finite

elements; Eurocode 3, EN 50341-1.

1. Introduction
In the last few years several studies have been performed in the
area of analysis and design of metallic towers. These studies
comprised some full scale tests to different configurations of
towers and finite element analyses. These investigations were
able to study the ultimate capacity of the structure and other
structural proprieties, like the vibration and stability behaviour [1].
Other type of studies are related to the choice of best model to
simulate the joints of the tower [2]. Some times the position of
one specific bar implies that the joint behaviour is almost fixed,
other times it is less stiff (pinned joint). Some years ago, there
were studies about the behaviour of similar towers constituted by
cold-formed steel profiles. In the present paper, the finite element
method is used to evaluate the static and dynamic (vibration)
behaviour of lattice towers and the EC3 [3] and EN 50341-1 [4]
are used to assess their safety checking.

Figure 1: Lattice tower

1
 2. Modelling
The structure studied in this work is a tower of 40m high formed of bars with L shaped cross-
section (hot-rolled profiles). The geometry is depicted in figure 1, as well as the type of cross-
section (dimensions) for each bar. With exception of bars with L45x4 and L50x4 cross-section,
which are made of S275JR steel, all the remaining members are made of S355JO steel.
The tower was modelled in two different ways: in the first model the lattice tower is formed by
members with fully rigid joints while in the second model the lattice tower was modelled by
using pinned joints (see figures 2 and 3). These models were made in Autocad 3d [5] and
adjusted inside the SAP 2000 code [6].

(a) (b)

Figure 2 – Lattice tower models: (a) rigid joint model (b) pinned joint model

3. Actions
The main actions in the tower are (i) the self-weight of the structure, (ii) the self-weight of the
cables and the ice loading in the cables and (iii) the wind forces applied on the structure and
also on the cables. All this loading possibilities are combined in 10 different load combinations
that could be seen with more detail in the complete work [7]. Is important to notice that the
combination of wind with ice on the cables could increase in a non-negligible way the loads
applied in the cable supports, a fact that is contemplated in the studied combinations.
To guarantee that the wind action on the tower was realistic simulated in the programme, this
action was modelled applying small forces on the nodes of the tower. The other actions that
have origin on the cables were applied as it was already written on the cable supports of the
tower. In order to achieve this goal, the calculation of the wind forces applied at the structure
nodes, a small programme code was developed, using the rules from the EN 50341-1 [4].

4. Standards specifications
Generally speaking, the EN 50341-1 [4] standard rules are in the majority of cases based on
EC3 [3]. However, there are a number of rules in EN 50341-1 [4] that include changes to the
EC3 [3] specifications. Due to space limitations, the present paper will not include all the
differences existing between the two codes but only the main ones.
The cross-section classification in EC3 prescribes four classes (1, 2, 3 and 4) [3] while the EN
50341-1 standard demands that cross-section must be of class 3 and 4 [4]. Therefore, if one
section is of class 1, 2 or 3 in EC3 classification [3], it will be of the class 3 in the EN 50341-1
standard.
To perform the calculation of the effective properties of a class 4 cross-section it is necessary to
determine the ρ parameter (effective width reduction parameter). This parameter has different
expressions in the two standards. According to EC3 [8], the parameter ρ is calculated by means
of,

λp − 0.188
ρ sal = if λp > 0.748
λp2 (1)
ρ =1 if λp ≤ 0.748

2
The EN 50341-1 [4] standard expressions for this parameter are given by,

⎧
⎪ρ = 1 if λ p ≤ 0.91
⎪
⎪ λp
⎨ρ = 2 − if 0.91 < λ p ≤ 1.213 (2)
⎪ 0.91
⎪ 0.98
⎪ρ = if λ p > 1.213
⎩ λ p2

This difference influences directly the result of the safety checking because the EC3 is more
restrictive (conservative) as it reduces more significantly the effective proprieties of the class 4
cross-sections than the NNA (National Normative Aspects for Portugal) of EN 50341-1 [9].

Figure 3 – Effective width reduction parameter according to EC3 and NNA (EN 50341-1)

The safety checking in the two standards is in accordance with the expressions,

N Ed M y ,Ed + N Ed eNy M z ,Ed + N Ed eNz

+ k yy + k yz ≤ γ M1 = 1.0 (3)
χ y N Rk χ LT M y ,Rk M z ,Rk
N Ed M y ,Ed + N Ed eNy M + N Ed eNz
+ k zy + k zz z ,Ed ≤ γ M1 = 1 . 0 (4)
χ z N Rk χ LT M y ,Rk M z ,Rk

However, the two code rules lead to different results every time that the cross section of the bar
is not from the class 3. Because the interaction parameters kyy, kyz, kzy and kzz have different
values if the cross-section is of (i) class 1 and 2 or (ii) class 3 and 4. Therefore, if some cross-
section is of class 1 or 2, it will have one parameter value (kyy, kyz, kzy and kzz) from the EC3 [3]
and a different value from the EN 50341-1 standard [4], because EN 50341-1 forces the cross-
section to be at least from class 3. In addition, every time that one section is from the class 4, it
will display a different parameter ρ according with each standard. Thus, the resistant bending or
axial force will be different because of the reduction of the section proprieties.

5. Effective proprieties analysis

The first analysis performed in this work was done after the calculation of the effective
properties of the cross sections. In tables 1 and 2, and considering the section under uniform
compression, it is possible to see the EC3 results of (i) the cross-section classification and (ii)
the calculation of the effective properties (effective area Aeff).

3
 Table 1 – EC3 cross-section classification and effective properties (compression)

Table 2 – EN 50341-1 cross-section classification and effective properties (compression)

From the observation of tables 1 and 2, it is possible to conclude that the cross-sections
L150x12, L60x4 and L70x5 are of class 4. However, only sections L60x4 and L70x5 suffered a
reduction of their gross area. If we compare the results of the effective area according the
EN50341-1 standard and the results according EC3 is possible to see that the EN50341-1
standard reduces less the proprieties of the cross section than the EC3. In other hand, these
two standards, within the context of axial compressive force, have similar classification for each
section.

Before showing the results of the cross-section classification and calculation of the effective
properties for the bending moment action, it is necessary to indicate that, because of the
symmetrical properties of the cross section, is possible to resume the several possibilities of
bending axes combination in two cases. Figure 4 shows these cases and the effective width
reduction of the cross-section.

Figure 4 – Effective width possibilities for the cross-section under bending

Table 3 – EC3 cross-section classification and effective properties (bending case 1)

4
 Table 4 – EN 50341-1 cross-section classification and effective properties (bending case 1)

From the tables 3 and 4, it is seen that none of the class 1 cross-sections are reduced in their
gross properties. However, one can see that all the sections are classified as class 3 in the
EN50341-1 standard (table 4), because this is the lower class demanded from this code. This
difference on the classification of the cross-section will lead to some differences on the safety
checking results: even if it does not reduce the effective section modulus (Weff), it will increase
the kyy, kyz, kzy and kzz parameters appearing in expressions (3) and (4).

Table 5 – EC3 cross-section classification and effective properties (bending case 2)

Table 6 – EN 50341-1 cross-section classification and effective properties (bending case 2)

Tables 5 and 6 present the effective proprieties of the cross-sections for the bending case 2. In
this case, the two standards exhibit similar classification results. Like in the axial compressive
force case, the EN50341-1 standard is less conservative from the section properties point of
view. It is clear that the cross-sections are much more penalized in the case 2 than in the case
1. This evidence results from the fact that one leg of the section is in uniform compression in
case 2, which increases its susceptibility to local buckling phenomena. Conversely, only a half
of the section leg is under compression (linear variation) in the case 1, thus being less prone to
local instability.

6. Safety level analyses

With the objective of investigating more specifically the results and to do a more insightful
comparison between these two standards, a few qualitative parameters were adopted, which
can be seen in the next expressions,

µ1 = number of bars that are unsafety (5)

E Ed
β2 = ∑ (6)
E Rd

⎛ E Ed ⎞⎟
α 2 = average⎜
⎜ ∑ E Rd ⎟
(7)
⎝ ⎠

5
 ⎛E ⎞
β3 = ∑ ⎜⎜ E Ed × Lbarra × Asec ção ⎟⎟ (8)
⎝ Rd ⎠

⎛ ⎛ E Ed ⎞⎞
⎜ ∑ ⎜⎝ E
γ 3 = average ⎜ ⎜ × Lbarra × Asec ção ⎟⎟ ⎟ (9)
⎝ Rd ⎠ ⎟⎠

⎛E ⎞
∑ ⎜⎜ E Ed
× Lbarra × Asec ção ⎟⎟
(10)
⎝ Rd ⎠
α3 =
(
∑ Lbarra × Asec ção )

In these expressions, (i) EEd is action internal force or moment value, (ii) ERd is the
corresponding resistant value, (iii) Lbar is the length of the member and (iv) Asection is the gross
section area. A special attention must be paid to the µ1 parameter because it comprises not only
the number of bars which are not safe but also considers the number of load combinations that
this bar fails and also the stations where the internal forces are higher than the resistant ones
(notice that all the members have 3 stations – one in the mid-span and the other two in the
supports).
Table 7 – Parameter values used to characterize the safety level of the structure for each model
(rigid and pinned) and for EC3 and EN50341-1

From the observation of the table 7 it is possible to mention that, according the EN50341-1
Standard, the number of cases with unsafe bars (µ1 parameter) is slightly superior to the one
according with EC3. Despite this fact, the EN50341-1 Standard has a more safe level than the
EC3 because EN50341-1 Standard exhibits lower level of β2 parameter. This means that the
bars according this standard are, in general, more far from the collapse than using the EC3.
This fact also occurs for the β3 parameter, meaning that the safety level of the bars obtained
from the EN50341-1 Standard is superior and that it could be optimised for economical reasons
(less steel material).
However, the differences between the two codes are not so important if one observes table 8.
From that, it is noticed that the combinations leading to failure in bars are similar for the two
codes, and precisely in the same bars for each standard. Therefore, the differences visible on
table 7 were more a question of the internal force diagram in the bar than a problem of the bar
itself. This is due to the fact that the only reason behind the differences found in the value of the
µ1 parameter could be the distinct internal force values in the different stations of the bar.

6
 Table 8 – Unsafe bars and corresponding combinations according to the EC3 and EN50341-
1

In the table 8 it is possible to see that the rigid joint model leads to a less favourable design due
to the fact that this model is associated with a greater number of unsafe bars than the pinned
joint model. From the pinned model point of view, it is possible to see that the second-order
analysis is more favourable than the first-order one. This information could be completed with
table 9, where it is presented the average of the axial force on the bars.

Table 9 – Axial force average values for each model and analysis

Figure 5 – Structural model with the representation of the bars with problems according the
standards

7
Figure 5 shows the localization of the bars which do not satisfy the safety checking. As it is
seen, all the unsafe bars are those located on the top of the lattice tower.
After performing the safety checking of the structure, it was necessary to present some
possibilities to replace these unsafe bars. Therefore, two possibilities are proposed. The first
one is to increase the cross section of the unsafe bars (see table 10) and the second one is to
incorporate a few bars (eight) on the zone of structure with unsafe bars (see figure 6). The
additional bars used in this second alternative are of the L45x4 type.
Table 10 – Possibilities to reach safety in all bars of the lattice tower

Figure 6 – Detail of the additional bars incorporated in the structure

7. Buckling analysis
According with the EC3 rules, if the αcr parameter (critical load parameter) is greater than 10, it
is possible to perform a first order analysis of the structure without restrictions [3]. If this
parameter is less that 10 but upper than 3, an approximated second order analysis could be
performed if the “sway” internal forces are multiplied by an amplification factor, which is
dependent on αcr. In any case, second-order analyses are always possible to perform.
Therefore, it was necessary to calculate the αcr parameter in order to know which type of
analyse could be valid. Thus, this was accomplished directly with the programme SAP2000 by
performing buckling analyses to find the parameter αcr [6].

8
 Table 11 – Parameter αcr obtained from all the load combinations (rigid and pinned models)

From the observation of table 11, it was possible to conclude that the correct analysis for this
structure would be the second-order analysis for the pinned joint model (in 7 out of 10
combinations, the parameter was lower than 10).

8. Vibration analysis
To complete the analysis to the different models in this study, a vibration analysis of the
structure was done. In table 12, the vibration frequencies are presented for the first 12 vibration
modes. As it was expected, the rigid joint model leads to eigen frequencies higher than the ones
obtained for the pinned model. This is due to the fact that all the first 12 vibration modes are
local vibration modes (each bar vibrates independently of the others, due to the pinned joints).
The first global vibration mode of the entire structure was the 142 mode (a bending mode) and
its frequency was 2.35.

Table 12 – Vibration frequencies (in Hz) for the first 12 modes (rigid and pinned models)

9. Conclusions
The difference between the two Standards in order of design and safety verify is minimal.
Because of this, the results obtained are the same in number of fails and in safety level is
almost the same too for this kind of structures.
In the analysis of the tower was seen that the tower have structural problems according with the
two standards however with a small change in the cross section used in the bars with problems
or increasing the number of bars in 8 is possible to solve the problem.
In the case of the several analyses produced to compare the two structural models is
conclusible that the pinned jointed model is less rigid than the other model. It was observed that
the pinned model has an upper axial force level but it conducts to a small number of bars which
didn’t verify the safety. This proves that, even the axial force is higher the miss presence of the
other types of stress compensate that fact. So, and if the level of results are so similar to the
two models the pinned jointed model could be better because the verify of safety is easier than
the verify of the other model for the reason that the expression are simplified in consequence of
the bars in this model have just axial force.
After the buckling analysis is possible two conclude that the more counsel analysis for this type
of tower is the second order one. Result that is contradictory with the specified in the EC3 Part
3.1, because in this part is advised to do a first order analysis for this specific type of structures

9
The realization of the vibration of analyses permitted to conclude that this structure has a
characteristic frequency of 2.5 Hz for the beading mode and 11Hz for the torsion mode. Is to
note that this structure has a small mass, so it is not very susceptible to seismic problems, and it
could be in the same way not susceptible to the dynamic action of the wind. However this
affirmation needs better studies in the relationship between the fluid and the structure, in
particular in the relation involving the gust frequency and the wind velocity.

10 References

[1] Battista, Ronaldo C.; Rodrigues, Rosângela S. et Pfeil, Michèle S. (2003); Dynamic
behavior and stability of transmission line towers under wind forces; Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 91 (2003) 1051–1067

[2] Rao, N. Prasad et Kalyanaraman, V. (2001); Non-linear behaviour of lattice panel of angle
towers; Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 1337–1357

[3] CEN-Comité Européen De Normalisation (2005); Eurocode 3:Design of steel structures –

Part 1-1:General rules and rules for buildings; Bruxelas

[4] CENELEC-Comité Européen De Normalisation Electrotechnique (2001); EN 50341-1

Overhead electrical lines exceeding AC45kV; Part 1: General requirements – Common
specifications; Bruxelas

[5] Santos, João (2005); Autocad 2006; FCA – Editora de Informatica; Lisboa

[6] Computers and Structures, Inc. (2000); SAP2000 – Integrated Finite Element Analysis and
Design of Structures - STEEL DESIGN MANUAL; Computers and Structures, Inc.; Berkeley,
California, USA

[7] Dias, João R.(2007); Análise e Dimensionamento de Estruturas Metálicas Treliçadas de

Transporte de Energia Eléctrica de Acordo com o EC3(EN) e a EN50341-1;Departamento de
Engenharia Civil; Instituto Superior Técnico; Lisboa

[8] CEN-Comité Européen De Normalisation (2004); Eurocode 3:Design of steel structures –

Part 1-5: Plated structural elements; Bruxelas

[9] CENELEC-Comité Européen De Normalisation Electrotechnique (2001); National Normative

Aspects (NNA) for PORTUGAL ; Bruxelas

10