Sensitivity of Space Trusses to Sudden Member Loss

~
1.0 Non-composite Edge-supported Space
] Trusses
...R 0.8 \
,, The behaviour of the three space trusses included in
,,
0
-5
~
0.6 this group (Tlledn, T15edn and T21edn) is presented
~ in Figures 11 to 14. The figures show how the three
~ 0.4
...~ trusses responded to cases of gradual and sudden loss
of four internal top and bottom members. The strength
0
-5 0.2 _ _ Behaviour of perfect truss

!:""
c - - - Behaviour associated witha suddenmember failure
-'-'-'- Behaviour associated wiih a gradual member failure reductions caused by these losses are also listed in
fIl 0
1.00 Table 3.
Central displacement (o/<>l!e of longspan) It can be seen from the results presented that the
Figure 11. Effect of losing a bottom internal gradual loss of bottom members in the truss central
member on truss T11edn. region led to reductions in overall strength of up to
12%. When the same members were removed
~ 1.0, - : : : : : _ - - - -_ _
suddenly from the truss model, the maximum strength
i 0.8 reduction escalated to 21%. This could be explained

I
'0
0.6
-- --
by the more severe damage that occurred in the area
surrounding the removed member (including more
0.4 widespread buckling of nearby top chord members)
g~

'0 when sudden losses were implemented.

oS 0.2 - _ Behaviour of perfect truss
The results presented also show that losing internal
I - - - Behaviour associated witha suddenmember failure
-'-'- Behaviour associated witha gradual member failure top chord members inflicted almost the same degree
fIl O+---T"----==r==:::::;:===i==~=;===~~
of damage on the truss, with the maximum strength
reductions reaching 13% and 20%, due to gradual and
sudden top member losses, respectively. Again, when
member removal was imposed suddenly and at a high
load level, more damage resulted in the neighbouring
-:'::::-._._._._.__._._.__.-.-.-._.-._.- area and this affected the ultimate strength of the truss
adversely.
i/'
,: ", ;
./ ; , '"
-- - ......... __
No cases involving losses of diagonal members
II were included for this group of trusses (and also that
/./
of composite edge-supported trusses) since their edge
( supports made the internal force distribution in the
r - _ Behaviour of perfecttruss
- - - Behaviour associated with a suddenmemberfailure diagonal members more even than in comer-supported
_.-._.- Behaviour associated with a gradualmemberfailure trusses. This characteristic resulted in a reduced
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 sensitivity of space trusses to diagonal member losses,
Centraldisplacement (%geof long span) and for this reason, no single diagonal member could
Figure 13.Effect of losing a top internal member on be seen as particularly critical to truss integrity.
truss T15edn.
g 1.0.+-_ _ Composite Edge-supported Space
] Trusses
i 0.8 Some of the behaviour comparisons obtained for

1 '0
0.6
trusses Tlledy, T15edy and T21edy, all composite
and with edge supports, are presented in Figures 15
~ 0.4 and 16. The figures show how the trusses responded to
B
'0
_ _ Behaviourof perfect truss
___ Behaviourassociated willi cases of individual gradual and sudden member loss.
a suddenmemberfailure

r
oS 0.2
_._._.- Behaviourassociated with Also, see Table 3 for a list of the strength reductions
f Il
a gradualmemberfailure induced by the member loss cases studied.
0.25 0.50 o. s 1.00 1.25 1.50 The results presented herein show clearly that
Centraldisplacement (o/<>l!C of longspan) gradual losses of internal bottom members caused
Figure 14.Effect of losing a top internal member on only a small strength reduction (up to 6%). Even when
truss T21edn. the loss of bottom members was effected suddenly, the

38 International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 12 No. I 1997

 A./. El-Sheikh

strength reductions did not exceed 11 %, indicating to the dynamic effects associated with sudden member
that composite edge-supported trusses possessed a low losses, and that these in effect release large forces into
sensitivity to both gradual and sudden bottom member a structure that has already been weakened by the loss
losses. of one of its critical members.

:;·
8 1.0 40o/ll.. - Non-composite comer-supported trusses
t
....0
0.8
- - - - Composite corner-supported trusses
- - - Non-composite edge-supported trusses
oS .5-
.... 30o/ll..
•••••••••. Composite edge-supported trusses

.f .g
0.6

,W
i
...
0.4
....~0
_ _ Behaviourofperfcct truss
___ Behaviour associated with '!~ 20%- I
I
0.2 a suddenmember failure

-
_._._.- Behaviour associated with

~ ~--1
a gradual member failure
i
<II
0 ]0%..
U')
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1. 5 1.50
Central displacement (%geoflong span)

Figure 15.Effect of losing a bottom internal O%,..J--r---T---T----i--~_

i I, I
.............-
member on truss T11edy. 1:1 1.5:1 2:1 I:] 1.5:] 2:]
ij 1.0 _ Trusses witha critical Trusses with a critical
]8. 1
=:...-----------:-- bottom member removed top member removed

'0
0.8
,-".
,.".- , ------
-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'_._'-'-: :':-~-:':-: '-=-'-
Aspect ratio
f
oS
0.6 .... VI ," ,,"
Figure 17.Maximum strength reductions due to
gradual member losses.
.... r ,
i 0.4 ! ".,
....o
oS 0.2
Y _ _ Behaviour of perfecttruss
___ Behaviour associated with
a suddenmember failure
- Non-composite comer-supported trusses
- - - - Composite comer-supported trusses
I
<II
_._._.- Behaviour associated with
a gradual member failure
- - - Non-composite edge-supported trusses
-••••••••. Composite edge-supported trusses
0t--":T:"----:T:----,.--====r===:;:::==::;=
o 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Centraldisplacement (%geof long span)

Figure 16.Effect of losing a bottom internal

member on truss T15edy.

The response of the three composite space trusses

to cases of top member losses was better. The trusses
showed no noticeable reduction in strength or an
alteration in stiffness even when the top members O%...J-. .- - - ; - - - i - - -__r---io....-4--
1:1 1.5:1 2:1 1:1 1.5:1 2:1
considered were removed from the truss model
Trusses witha critical Trusses with 8 critical
SUddenly. This finding was thought to be reasonable bottom member removed top member removed
due to the high in-plane stiffness of the concrete slabs
Aspect ratio
of composite trusses, and consequently, their ability to
carry almost all the top chord internal forces without Figure 18.Maximum strength reductions due to
sudden member losses.
any significant contribution from the top chord
members.
Another point that featured clearly in the results
6. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS obtained was the effect of composite action in
The results presented in the previous section reveal a substantially reducing truss sensitivity to both gradual
number of important common trends. These are and sudden member loss. While this point was
discussed in detail in this section, with the main demonstrated in a reduced truss sensitivity to bottom
conclusions briefly presented in the next section. member loss, it became particularly evident as the top
In the cases studied, sudden member losses were chord members of composite trusses turned to be
significantly more serious than gradual losses as can largely uncritical. The numerical analyses showed that
be seen from Figures 17 and 18. This can be attributed with the composite action, these members carried only

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. /2 No.1 1997 39


small internal forces and were effectively prevented
from buckling.
The only case in which the composite action had
failed to produce a significant positive effect was that
involving the loss of a comer diagonal in comer-
supported trusses. This however, was because the loss
of a comer diagonal resulted in a local failure around
a comer support, leading in effect to the complete loss
of support there. The composite action, which was
primarily a technique to strengthen truss top chord,
could not prevent this local failure (which involved
only diagonal members), and consequently would not
make a difference if such a vital member was lost.
The results presented also show that with high
aspect ratios, space trusses became more sensitive to
the loss of a chord member in the main direction
(which was the long direction in comer-supported
cases, and the short direction in edge-supported
cases), than to the loss of an equivalent member in the
perpendicular direction, see Table 3.
It can also be seen from Table 3 that edge-supported
space trusses were in general less sensitive to both
gradual and sudden member loss than comer-
supported trusses. This can be related to the many
more load paths available in trusses with edge
supports, and also to their higher degree of statical
redundancy.
In general, truss stiffness was not notably affected
by chord member losses. When however, a comer
diagonal was lost, a complete local failure occurred
around the near support, and this was seen to affect
truss stiffness significantly. See for example Figures 8
and 10.
CONCLUSIONS
From the results of the present work, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
I. Although space trusses typically contain a large
number of redundant members, significant
reductions in their strength may result due to the
10;5s of a critical chord or diagonal member.
2. Sudden member losses are generally more
serious than gradual member losses. They result
in large forces being shed into the structure in a
dynamic manner, causing in some cases a
widespread damage.
3. The way space trusses are supported has a major
effect on their sensitivity to both gradual and
40
Sensitivity of Space Trusses to Sudden Member Loss
sudden member losses. For instance, comer-
supported trusses generally suffer more severe
strength reductions due to member losses than
edge-supported trusses.
4. The composite action with top concrete slabs has
a positive effect in reducing .space truss
sensitivity to both gradual and sudden member
losses.
5. The comer diagonal members in corner-
supported space trusses are perhaps the most
critical members to truss integrity. The loss of, or
damage to, any of them can lead to a local failure
around the support to which they are attached,
thereby resulting in substantially reduced truss
strength and stiffness.
REFERENCES
I. Affan, A., Collapse of Double-Layer Space Grid Structures,
PhD thesis, Department of Engineering, Cambridge
University, UK, 1987.
2. Schmidt, L.C., Morgan, P.R. and Clarkson, J.A., Space
Trusses With Brittle-Type Strut Buckling, Journal of
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No.7, 1976, pp. 1479-
1492.
3. Schmidt, L.C., Morgan, P.R., O'Meagher, AJ. and Cogan,
K., Ultimate Load Behaviour of a Full-Scale Space Truss,
Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 69, No.
2,1980, pp. 97-109.
4. Schmidt, L.C., Morgan, P.R. and Hanaor, A., Ultimate Load
Testing of Space Trusses, Journal of Structural Division,
ASCE, Vol. 108, No.6, 1982, pp, 1324-1335.
5. Mezzina, M., Prete, G. and Tosto, A., Automatic and
Experimental Analysis for a Model of Space Grid in Elasto-
Plastic Behaviour, Proceedings of Second International
Conference on Space Structures, Surrey, UK, 1975, pp.
570-588.
6. Hanaor, A. and Ong, A-F., On Structural Redundancy in
Space Trusses, International Journal of Space Structures,
Vol. 3, No.4, 1988, pp. 237-241.
7. El-Sheikh, A.I., Sensitivity of Composite and Non-
Composite Space Trusses to member Loss, International
Journal of Space Structures, Vol. 9, No.2, 1994, pp. 107-
119.
8. Smith, E.M., Alternate Path Analysis of Space Trusses for
Progressive Collapse, Journal of Structural Division,
ASCE, Vol. 114, No.9, 1988, pp. 1978-1999.
9. El-Sheikh, A.I. and McConnel, R.E., Experimental Study of
Behaviour of Composite Space Trusses, Journal of
International Journal ofSpace Structures Vol. J2 No. I 1997
 A.I. EI-Sheikh
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 119, No.3, 1993, pp.
747-766.
10. El-Sheikh, A.I. and McConnel, R.E., Experimental Study of
Non-Composite and Composite Space Trusses, Technical
Report CUED/D Struct!fR 137, Department of Engineering,
Cambridge University, 1991.
International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 12 No. I 1997
II. McConnel, R.E. and El-Sheikh, A.I., A Study of Shear
Interaction Efficiency in Composite Space Truss Systems,
First International Conference on Structural Engineering
and Geotechnical Problems. Alexandria, Egypt, December
1990, pp. 409-419.
41
 Design Verification of Guyed
Transmission Tower Using
Nonlinear Analysis
F. Albermani
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Queensland, Australia 4072

(Received 28th February 1996)

ABSTRACT: This paper describes the nonlinear analysis technique used for the
design verification of a guyed transmission tower. This tower forms part of a new
transmission line which is currently under construction. The nonlinear analysis
technique is briefly described and the findings from the analysis are highlighted
together with the resulting modifications to the original design. The findings from
the nonlinear analysis predict a catastrophic collapse of the transmission tower
based on the original design. This collapse would has resulted even if a full-scale
testing of the tower was used to verify the design adequacy.

INTRODUCTION tower. The guy cables are 20 mm in diameter and have

In the transmission towers industry, proof-loading or
fUll-scale testing of the tower has traditionally formed
an integral part of the development of tower design.
This is particularly true when new types of towers are
introduced by the electricity authorities. With
Continuing economic pressures on electricity
authorities, transmission engineers need to develop
innovative designs with a minimum of trial-and-error
testing and in-service experimentation I. For these
reasons, the Queensland Electricity Commission
(QEC) in Australia when faced with designing a new
275 kV single circuit transmission line chose to use
guyed towers. Figure 1 shows the initial design by
QEC of a 275 kV single circuit lattice guyed tower to
be used on this new transmission line. The mast height
is 53.420 m from the ground. The mast is composed of
a 1.8 m high base pyramid which is pinned to the
grOund and a 1.4 x 1.4 m square shaft. Two crossing
guy cables are attached to the bottom cross-arm on
each of the front and the back faces of the tower and
are anchored on the ground. The guy cables are not
joined together at the crossing points. They are
attached to the cross-arm and not to the mast's legs in
order to increase the overall torsional resistance of the
a specified minimum breaking force of .368 leN. A
pretension force of 25 leN is specified in the design for
these guy cables. All the members in the tower are
angle sections of either Grade 250 or 350 steel (MS or
HTS steel).
Instead of performing full-scale tests on this new
tower, which involves shipping the full tower overseas
for testing, QEC decided to use the nonlinear static
analysis technique developed by the author to verify
their design. This paper briefly describes the nonlinear
analysis used, and then highlights the necessary
modifications to the original design which resulted
from the nonlinear modelling of the guyed tower. The
transmission line is now under construction following
the implementations of all the findings of the
nonlinear analysis.
NONLINEAR ANALYSIS METHOD
This section describes briefly the nonlinear analysis
technique used in simulating the tower response under
static load. For a more detailed description, the reader
should consult Refs. 2-4.
The analysis performed is a geometric and material
nonlinear analysis. An updated Lagrangian

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. /2 No. I 1997 43

 Design Verification ofGuyed Transmission Tower Using Nonlinear Analysis

formulation is adopted. The geometric nonlinearity of MODELLING OF THE GUYED TOWER

each structural element is accounted for by
augmenting the element stiffness matrix, kit by
geometric, kg, and deformation, kd, stiffness matrices.
The geometric stiffness matrix introduces the effect of
initial stresses, while the deformation stiffness matrix
introduces the necessary membrane-flexural coupling
and reduces the order of discretisation required for the
nonlinear analysis. The resulting tangent stiffness
matrix, k., of the element is
The guyed tower shown in Figure 1 is modelled using
1300 elements and 926 nodal points. Beam-column
elements are used to model the mast's legs and
horizontal diaphragms, truss elements are used to
model the bracing members, and cable elements are
used to model the guy wires. The mast is supported by
a pin support on the ground.

(1)

The geometric nonlinearity of the tower is accounted

for by continuous updating of the tower geometry
following each loading cycle.
In order to account for the nonlinearity due to the
sag of the guy cables, a modified modulus of elasticity,
Ee, is used for the cable elements!

E
s, = AE(wH)2 (2)
1+----
12 T3

in which E, A and w are the elasticity modulus, cross-

sectional area and weight per unit length of the cable
respectively, T is the cable tension and H is the
projected length of the cable on a plane normal to the
gravity direction.
For large-scale structures such as transmission
towers, modelling of material nonlinearity based on
the assumption of lumped plasticity, coupled with the
concept of a yield surface in force space, provides a
compact and practical method for modelling the
nonlinear global structural responses-.
A predictor-corrector incremental-iterative solution
method is employed. A substantial saving in
computing time and a more stable algorithm is
achieved by keeping the predictor part of the
algorithm (i.e. the tangent stiffness) as simple as
possible while a strict force recovery procedure
(corrector part) is enforced. An out-of-balance force
convergence criteria is adopted using the Euclidean
norm measure with a convergence tolerance set to 5%.
The self-weight of the tower and the pretension
forces in the cables are applied in the first loading
cycle prior to the incremental application of the
extemalloads (wind load and conductors load).
The tower's topology, geometry, loading and
supporting conditions are generated automatically
using a formex formulatione-'. Figure 1.The original tower.

44 International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 12 No. I 1997

F.G.A. Albermani

Six loading conditions (T I to T6) are identified for
the nonlinear analysis. Figure 2 shows some of these
loading conditions and the locations of the deflection
stations used to monitor the tower response.
The tower weight, which is automatically generated
by the program, is 41.160 kN. Different factored self-
weights of the tower are used for different loading
conditions as shown in Figure 2.
The tower response is described in terms of a load
factor Awhich represents the ratio of the applied load
during the analysis to the design load shown in Figure
2. The following nomenclature is used to describe the
deflection at various points on the tower (Figure 2d);
deflection in the transverse direction is designated as
T, in the longitudinal direction as L and in the vertical
direction as V. For example, a deflection TCR means
deflection at CR in the transverse direction.
RESULTS FROM THE NONLINEAR
ANALYSIS
(a) Original Tower (Figure 1)
Using the original tower design as supplied by the
QEC and loading condition T1 (Figure 2a), the
nonlinear analysis predicted buckling in the lower
diaphragm at the top of the base pyramid at a load
factor of A = 0.43, as shown in Figure 3a and 3b. The
load-deflection curve for LX 1 is shown in Figure 3c.
As seen in Figure lc, excessive longitudinal deflection
started to develop once the load factor reached 0.4.
A closer examination of the results revealed that a
large moment had developed at the lower diaphragm
at this load level (A = 0.43). As shown in Figure 4a.
the slope change of 21 degrees in the leg members had
resulted in a large shear force in the lower diaphragm.
Accordingly, the base pyramid was modified as shown

11.278 16.402
1
6.094
---,.-- 1 11.313

48.543
21.665 1
3200 Pa
148.543 148.543 at~
3200 Pa
21.665 21.665

Deadloadfactor.2

Deadloadfactor.2

(e)
(a) Cl

8.458 12.301
3.047 1 1 5.656 8
---.,r--
27.857
al an
8.192 1
36.4071 ~5-.3-60---1 136.407
Xl
1600 Pa
10.833 10.833

Dead loadfactor .1.5

v~.\
(d)
(b)
Figure 2. Loading Conditions and Nomenclature.

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 12 No.1 1997 45

 Design Verification of Guyed Transmission Tower Using Nonlinear Analysis

The tower geometry and topology were altered

according to this modification. Figure 5 shows the
modified tower. This modified tower is referred to as
Ml.

(b)

Figure 3. The original tower under load condition

T1.
1400mm
./ 1400mm

(c)

2800mm

(a) (b)

Figure 4. The original and modified lower panel.

in Figure 4b. This modification had the effect of

reducing the slope angle from 21 to 14 degrees, which
was within an acceptable limit. Figure 5. The modified tower (M1).

46 International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 12 No. 11997

F.G.A. Albermani

(bJ Modified Tower Ml

A new analysis was performed on the modified tower
MI using Loading Condition T1. The instability
problem experience in the lower diaphragm was
resolved and the tower passed the load factor A. of
0.43. However, soon after this load level, the solution
process diverged at about A. = 0.46. Initial examination
of the results revealed no buckling or yielding
anywhere in the tower. In order to understand the
cause of this divergence in the results, it is necessary
to closely examine the load-deflection curves up to
this load level.
Load-deflection curves for LCR and TCR are
shown in Figures 6a and 6b. Figure 7 shows the right Figure 7. Deflected shape of M1 under Loading
side view of the tower at load factor A. = 0.46. The Condition T1.
Sudden excessive deflection in the longitudinal 4.76KN
direction following A. = 0.4 is seen clearly in Figure 6a,
and as well, twisting of the whole tower is evident in
Figure 7. Figure 8 shows the tension forces in the
cables at A. = 0.46. It is seen from this figure that
tension in these cables was not symmetric, and hence
a twisting moment was induced in the tower which
brought about the tower collapse due to the formation
of a global mechanism.

'\.0.46

3.44KN
Figure 8. Cable tension under Loading Condition T1
at 1..= 0.46.

Another analysis was performed with the initial

pre-tension in the four cables increased from 25 to 50
kN. However, the same collapse mechanism was again
obtained but this time at a slightly higher load factor A.
of 0.54.
In order to avoid such a global mechanism it was
decided to connect together the two guy cables located
on the front and on the back faces of the tower. The
tower with this new modification is refered to as M2.

(c) Modified Tower with Connecting Guys

M2
A new trial analysis was performed using load
condition TI and an initial cable pre-tension of 25 kN.
A load factor A. = 1.145 was obtained from this
analysis. Hence joining the cables together has a very
Figure 6. Load-deflection curves under load significant influences on the tower stability.
condition T1. The load-deflection curves at TCR and LCR are

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 12 No. I 1997 47

 Design Verification ofGuyed Transmission Tower Using Nonlinear Analysis

shown in Figures 9a and 9b, respectively. It is clear

from these figures that the longitudinal deflection was
very small.
1.2

-:
... 0.8
o V
-: V

] 0.6 /" TCR

"8 V
-J 0.4 /
/'
V
0.2

o
o
V 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Deflection (nvn)
(a)

1.2

~
\ I
Lca

0.2

o
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 o
DefleetJon (mm)
(b)
Figure 9. Load-deflection curves for tower M2
under Load Condition 11.

This was in complete contrast to the situation when

the cables were not connected.
The results show that plastic hinges formed in the
facial diagonal members of the bottom right arm at A
= 1.05 and spread but were confined only to this arm.
The deflected shape of the tower at the ultimate load
is shown in Figures IDa to IOc. The tension in the
cables at load factor A= 1.145 is depicted in Figure 11.
It is concluded that connecting the cables on the
same faces had a profound effect on the tower
response. This is seen by comparing the side views of
the tower shown in Figures 7 and IOc. Moreover,
when the cables were connected, negligible
Figure 10.Deflected shape of M2 under Loading
longitudinal deflection was obtained.
Loading condition T3 (Figure 2b) has a
=
Condition 11 at A. 1.145.
longitudinal load component applied in addition to the
Figure 12 shows the load-deflection curves at LB.
vertical and transverse components used in T1.
Several plastic hinges started at A:::::: 1.0 in the top
A nonlinear analysis was performed using this
chord of the top arm, followed by other hinges in the
loading condition and the tower response was found to
facial diagonal members of the bottom right arm.
be satisfactory. A load factor A:::::: 1.4 was obtained.
Figures 13a and 13b show the deflected shapes of the

48 InternationalJournal 0/ Space Structures Vol. 12 No. I 1997

F.GA Albermani

1.6

1.2
r-,
- - --"'- _.- r---- -
~iJ=&
~ 1
g
... 0.8
"8
.3 0.6
<,
_. I I LB
<;
0."
<,
0.2 r-...
o I I '\
-1800-1600-1400-1200-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200
o.rllclion (mm)
Figure 12. Load-deflection curve at LB, tower M2
under Loading Condition T3.

Figure 11. Cable tension under Loading Condition 11

(a)

Figure 14. Cable tension under Loading Condition

(b) T3 at A. 1.4. =
1
0.9
/
0.8
0.7
V
./
20.6
~ 0.5
./
V
! 0." /'
0.3
/
0.2
0.1
I
II
o
-100 o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
o.rllclion (mm)

Figure 15. Load-deflection curve at LaL, tower M2

under Load Condition T6

Figure 13. Deflected shape of M2 under Loading
Condition T3 at A. =1.4.
tower at load factor A. == 1.4. Figure 14 shows the guy
cables tension at the ultimate load.
Loading condition T6 (Figure 2c) represents a 3200
Pa wind at 45°. The nonlinear analysis revealed that
the tower reaches a load factor of A. = 0.77 under this
condition with several plastic hinges spread along the
mast's leg members. Accordingly, these leg members
were upgraded from HTS angle 90 x 90 x 6 mm to 90
x 90 x 8 mm. With this modification, the tower

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 12 No. I 1997 49

 Design Verification ofGuyed Transmission Tower Using Nonlinear Analysis
Figure 16. Deflected shape of tower M2 under Load
=
Condition 16 at A. 0.95.
Figure 17.Cable tension under Loading Condition
=
16 at A. 0.95.
reached a load factor of A. =0.95 with 27 plastic hinges
developing in the leg members just below the
upgraded members. The load-deflection curve for LaL
is shown in Figure 15, and the tower deflected shape
is shown in Figure 16a. An enlarged view of part of
the m~t where plastic hinges have developed is
depicted in Figure 16b. The cable tension at the
ultimate load factor A. = 0.95 is shown in Figure 17.
The ultimate load factor of A. = 0.95 rather than 1 was
deemed satisfactory by the electricity authority, hence
50
no further upgrading of the leg members was
introduced.
CONCLUSIONS
The paper shows how a reliable nonlinear analysis
technique is utilised to verify the design of large-scale
structures such as guyed transmission towers.
The nonlinear analysis identified a number of
weaknesses in the structures, which were rectified
accordingly. The results from the nonlinear analysis
prevented a catastrophic collapse of the tower which
could happen even during the full-scale testing. The
savings in resources and time results from the
nonlinear simulation is quite substantial.
ACKNOVVLEDGEMENT
The author would like to thank the designer, Mr Max
Gardener of Queensland Electricity Commission, for
many interesting and stimulating discussions. Thanks
is also due to Dr F. Gatto of BHP Engineering for
reading the manuscript.
REFERENCES
I. Electric Power Research Institute, Structural Development
Studies at the EPRI Transmission Line Mechanical
Research Facility, EPRI EL-4756, 1986.
2. Albermani, F.G.A. and Kitipomchai, S., Nonlinear Analysis
of Thin-Walled Structures Using Least Element/Member, J.
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 116 (I), pp. 215-234 (1990).
3. Albermani, EG.A. and Kitipomchai, S., Elasto-plastic large
deformation analysis of thin-walled structures, Engng
Struct., 12 (I), pp. 28-36, 1990.
4. Albermani, F.G.A. and Kitipomchai, S., Nonlinear Finite
Element Analysis of Latticed Transmission Towers, Special
Issue on Transmission Line Structures, Engng Struct., 15
(4), pp, 259-270, 1993.
5. Ernst, J.H., Der E-Modul von Seilen unter Berucksichtigung
des Durchanges, Der Bauingenieur, 40 (2), 1965.
6. Albermani, F.G.A., Kitipomchai, S. and Chan, S.L., Formex
Formulation of Transmission Tower Structures, Int. 1. Space
Structures, 7 (I), pp. 1-10, 1992.
7. Nooshin, H., Formex Configuration Processing in Structural
Engineering, Elsevier Applied Science Publishers Ltd.
(1984).
International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 12 No.1 1997