See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258585424

Effect of Geometric Nonlinear Behaviour of a Guyed Transmission Tower

under Downburst Loading

Article  in  Applied Mechanics and Materials · November 2012

DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.226-228.1240

CITATIONS READS

5 176

3 authors:

Chris Ladubec Ashraf El Damatty

National Research Council Canada The University of Western Ontario
8 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS    224 PUBLICATIONS   2,169 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ayman M. El Ansary
The University of Western Ontario
40 PUBLICATIONS   138 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Reinforced Concrete Conical Tanks under Hydrostatic Pressure View project

Analysis of Framing Failures in Wood-Frame Residential Roofs Under Wind Load View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ayman M. El Ansary on 17 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Applied Mechanics and Materials Vols. 226-228 (2012) pp 1240-1249
© (2012) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.226-228.1240

Effect of Geometric Nonlinear Behaviour of a Guyed Transmission Tower

under Downburst Loading
C. Ladubec1,a, A.A. El Damatty 2,b and A.M. El Ansary2,c
1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada, N2L 3G1.
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada,
N6A 5B9.
a
cladubec@uwaterloo.ca, bdamatty@uwo.ca, caelansar@alumni.uwo.ca

Keywords: Geometric nonlinearity, Finite-element, Downburst, Microburst, High intensity wind,

Transmission line, Transmission tower.

Abstract. Downburst winds, which are a source of extreme wind loading and are referred to as high
intensity wind (HIW) loads, have caused numerous transmission tower failures around the world. A
previous investigation was conducted to study the performance of a transmission tower under
downburst wind loading, where the behaviour of the tower was limited to a linear response. In the
current study, a nonlinear frame element is used to assess the performance of the tower under
downburst wind loading. The behaviour is studied using downburst wind field data obtained from a
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model. In order to assess the geometric nonlinear behaviour of
the tower, the results are compared to a previous linear analysis for a number of critical
configurations of a downburst. The nonlinear analysis predicted that peak axial loads in certain
members can be up to 34% larger than those predicted by the linear analysis.

Introduction
Wind loading is often the governing load case for transmission line structures. Most transmission
line failures can be attributed to a particular category of wind known as high intensity winds (HIW),
such as tornadoes and downbursts. In the past, the foundation of wind loading codes was typically
determined through sole consideration of the characteristics of synoptic (large-scale or normal) wind.
However, there are important differences between HIW and synoptic wind. The exclusive use of
normal wind in the development of wind loading codes has been questioned in the past [1].
Letchford et al. [1] notes key differences between HIW and normal wind including, non-stationary
nature and complex three-dimensional flow of HIW, differences in velocity profile with height,
smaller role of turbulence in HIW, and decreased spatial and temporal events of HIW. The horizontal
extent of HIW events is relatively small and the probability of a HIW event occurring at a given
location is also quite small. However, the large horizontal extent of transmission line systems
increases the probability of the line intercepting a HIW event.
The current study focuses on downburst events. Fujita [2] defined a downburst as a strong
downdraft that produces damaging winds on or near the ground. Downbursts may also have a
rotation, however the magnitude of the rotational velocities are typically insignificant in terms of
structural loading [3]. The wind fields produced by downbursts are associated with thunderstorm
systems and are highly divergent. In the current study, an attempt is made to expand upon the
information available in regards to the response of electrical transmission line structures, particularly
guyed lattice towers, to the internal loads induced by downburst events.
Using a downburst wind field based on CFD analysis by Hangan et al. [4], Shehata [5] identified
several critical downburst configurations that resulted in peak axial loads developed in the angle
section members of a guyed lattice tower. This study was performed numerically using nonlinear
finite elements to model the cables, and linear finite elements to study the tower members and guys.
The response of the guyed tower to the loading from normal wind and downburst winds was found to

All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of TTP,
www.ttp.net. (ID: 129.100.254.152-20/09/12,15:39:52)
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vols. 226-228 1241

be quite different. This difference in behaviour is mainly the result of unbalanced loads acting on the
conductors, which results in an off-design condition with considerable load acting in the longitudinal
direction of the transmission line system.
Studies conducted by Shehata et al. [6] and Shehata [5] highlighted the fact that downburst winds
are significantly different from normal winds. A key finding of these studies was that the behaviour of
members in the conductor cross arms area due to downburst loading was quite different from normal
wind loading because of the unbalanced loading that can be produced by narrow fronted events such
as downbursts.
The main purpose of the current investigation is to assess the extent of the geometric nonlinear
behaviour of the same guyed tower studied by Shehata [5]. In the current study, a geometrically
nonlinear formulation of three-dimensional frame elements is used to assess more accurately the peak
axial loads induced in the tower members when the transmission line system is subjected to loadings
resulting from the critical configurations of downburst parameters, as determined by Shehata [5]. The
included geometric nonlinearity accounts for the P-delta effect. This model is an improvement of the
linear finite element analysis of the tower conducted previously by Shehata [5].

Description of the Transmission Tower

A guyed tower, type A-402-0, which is one of Manitoba Hydro’s towers, is examined. The
A-402-0 tower is the same as that studied by Shehata [5].
Fig. 1 illustrates the tower geometry. The total height of the tower is 44.39 m and the conductors
and the ground wire are connected to the tower at heights of 38.23 m and 44.39 m, respectively. The
conductors are attached to the insulator strings, which are connected to the tower at points C1 and C2
as shown in Fig. 1. Each insulator string carries a set of two bundled conductors. The ground wire is
directly attached to the tower at point G. The guy wires are attached directly to the tower at an
elevation of 35.18 m. The guys are composed of double 11.68 mm diameter grade 225 galvanized
steel wires. The tower is divided into seven zones, as was originally done by Shehata [5]. The
boundaries between zones are located at splices between two main chord members. Several members
in each zone were selected by Shehata [5] to determine the critical configurations for the downburst.
Those same members are re-examined in the current study.
13.41 m 6.10 m
1.68 m 1.68 m
G 2.21 m 2.21 m
5.87 m 5.87 m
C1 C2
F514
3.87 m F118 F406 Zone 7 F608 F593
2.09 m
5.33 m Zone 6 F398 F215
3.05 m F437
F538 1.68 m
1.68 m F422
F318 F368
8.36 m F359
Zone 5

F231 F275 F285

44.39 m 8.76 m Zone 4

F141
8.92 m Zone 3
F172
F183
3.05 m
F86 Zone 2
F100 F105
F43
6.09 m 1.14 m Zone 1 1.68 m
F45 F14
x
37.41 m 43.51 m

Fig. 1 Geometry of tower A-402-0

1242 Vibration, Structural Engineering and Measurement II

Modeling of Transmission Line System

Downburst Wind Field

Several analytical models have been proposed to study the effects of downburst winds on
structures [4, 7, 8]. The downburst wind field used in the current study was developed through
computational fluid dynamic (CFD) analysis by Hangan et al. [4]. For a complete description of the
CFD model, the reader is referred to Hangan et al. [4], Shehata [5], and Shehata et al. [6].
As reported in Shehata [5] a downburst velocity profile can be characterized by several parameters
including, jet diameter DJf, jet velocity VJf, and the relative location between the point of interest on
the tower and the center of the downburst, defined in radial coordinates by (rf, θf ).
Fig. 2 illustrates the relative location of the downburst with respect to the tower. The relative
location is defined by the radial coordinates (rf, θf ). When the centre of the downburst and the centre
of the tower are both located in a vertical plane perpendicular to the transmission line, θf = 0°. A value
of θf = 90° means that the same two centers are located in a vertical plane parallel to the transmission
line.

Tower
Transmission Line y

rf

Djf

x
Fig. 2 Downburst parameters

Table 1 Critical downburst configurations for tower A-402-0 [5]

Number DJf [m] rf /DJf θf [º]

1 250 1.20 0
2 250 1.20 90
3 250 1.80 45
4 500 1.20 0
5 500 1.20 90
6 500 1.40 45
7 500 1.40 30
8 1000 1.20 0
9 1000 1.60 30

Before the downburst wind field can be used to simulate loading on a full-scale model of the
transmission line system, the data must be scaled up from the model values to obtain the
corresponding values for the full-scale structure. The scaling approach utilized in the current
investigation follows the same approach that has been used by Shehata et al. [6] to properly scale the
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vols. 226-228 1243

height, radius, velocity, and time. Also, the critical downburst configurations for Manitoba Hydro’s
A-402-0 tower were identified in a previous study conducted by Shehata [5] and will be further
investigated, considering the geometric nonlinear response of the tower members. Table 1 outlines
the downburst parameters investigated in the current study, where nine sets of parameters were found
to produce peak axial forces in various segments of the tower.

Application of Wind Loads

The resulting forces from the downburst wind field are applied to the nodes of the tower based on
the tributary area of the members at each node and the average solidity ratio. This is performed
following the ASCE No. 74 guidelines [9]. The forces applied to the structure in the direction of the
wind are determined from the following equations:
1
F XT = ρ aV x2 C fx Ax (1)
2
1
FYT = ρ aV y2 C fy Ay (2)
2

where FXT and FYT are the wind forces in the x and y-directions, ρa is the density of air (ρa =1.226
kg/m3), Cfx and Cfy are the force coefficients in the x and y-directions, Vx and Vy is the wind velocity in
the x and y-directions, Ax and Ay are the tributary areas defined by the members connected at the joint
projected onto a plane normal to the x and y-directions. The force coefficients for tower
members are calculated using Table 4.6-1 of the ASCE No. 74 manual [9] based on average solidity
ratios at each loaded height. The total force at each loaded height is distributed to the windward nodes
and the leeward nodes using the shielding factor, Kx according to the National Building Code of
Canada [10]. The forces are applied directly to the conductors and the ground wire using Eq. 1 and
Eq. 2 with a substitution of Cfx = Cfy = 1.

Tower Members

The tower members, which are mainly steel angle sections, are modelled using a nonlinear
three-dimensional frame element that was derived in a previous study [11]. This element considers
the geometric nonlinearity resulting from the P-delta effect. More details about the relevant stiffness
matrices and the incremental solution technique of this element are described in Ladubec [11].
Each bolted connection in the tower is modelled with a single node, with the attached members
modelled as three-dimensional frame elements with the appropriate properties. The primary leg
members are multi-bolted connections that can resist moments, so a fixed connection between all
members is assumed. The model does not consider the eccentricity of the connections. Only a single
tower is modelled in the finite element analysis. The adjacent towers are accounted for in the model
through modification of the stiffness of the conductors and ground wire.

Guy Wires

The guy wires are modelled using linear three-dimensional frame elements with two nodes, and
six degrees of freedom at each node. The degrees of freedom for the linear frame elements are
identical to the degrees of freedom of the nonlinear frame element used in modeling tower members.

Conductors

Due to the slenderness of cables, the response under wind loading is largely nonlinear. This effect
is magnified by the tendency of downbursts to apply large unbalanced loads to the cables. For these
reasons, the geometric nonlinearity of the conductors and the ground wire is considered. Table 2
1244 Vibration, Structural Engineering and Measurement II

presents the properties of the individual conductors and the ground wire. Each insulator string
supports two conductors, which are tied at regular intervals. Therefore, the behaviour of each set of
conductors can be approximated by a single conductor with equivalent properties.

Table 2 Conductor and ground wire properties for A-402-0 tower

Properties Conductors Ground Wire

Wind Span [m] 389 389
Diameter [mm] 28 9
Weight [N/m] 15.6 4.0
Modulus of Elasticity [N/m2] 5.17 x1010 1.72x1011
Sag [m] 14.6 7.4

Six spans of the conductors and the ground wire were considered in the analysis, three on each side
of the modelled tower. Shehata et al. [6] found that the inclusion of six spans in the finite element
analysis is sufficient to provide accurate reactions on the tower from the cables. The effect of the
adjacent towers on the stiffness of the cables is considered in the model.
A two-dimensional consistent curved beam element that was developed by Koziey and Mirza [12]
and extended by Gerges and El Damatty [13] to include geometric nonlinearity is used to model the
cables.
The insulator strings are modelled using a set of perpendicular nonlinear springs in the global x
and y-directions. The spring constants of the insulator strings are determined from the equations
given by Shehata [5]. The stiffness at the cable connection to the insulator strings is further modified
by the stiffness of the tower at the point of connection to the insulator strings using flexibility
matrices given in Shehata [5]. For a complete description of the insulator strings model, the reader is
referred to Desai et al. [14], Shehata et al. [6], and Shehata [5].

Results and Discussions

The results of the current study are presented in Table 3. This table compares the peak axial loads
from a linear analysis conducted by Shehata [5] of the tower under downburst loading with the peak
axial loads obtained from the nonlinear analysis conducted in the present study. In both analyses, the
dead load of the tower is not considered. This assumption is justified as the analysis shows that the
dead load contribution to the nonlinear effect is insignificant. The nonlinear response when
accounting for dead load is nearly equal to the superposition of the response due to dead load alone
and the response under downburst loading alone (without dead load). Thus, the magnitude of the dead
load induced forces in the tower is insignificant compared to the forces due to downburst loading. As
such, the results will be discussed for the critical configurations highlighted in bold in Table 1, by
considering the data presented in Table 3. For the majority of members presented in Table 3, the
nonlinear analysis predicted axial forces that were greater than those predicted by the linear analysis
conducted by Shehata [5]. The areas that exhibited the most distinct differences in response are zones
1 and 6. In zone 1, the chord member F14, and the diagonal member perpendicular to the transmission
line F45, show a 20% increase in axial forces. Below the guy cross-arms, the chord members, and
diagonal members in each face exhibit better agreement with the linear analysis as the height above
the ground increases. In zone 6, the tower chord member F215, shows an increase in axial load by
22%. The tower diagonal member perpendicular to the transmission line in zone 6 (F406) shows a
decrease in axial load compared to the linear analysis. The lower and upper chords of the conductor
cross arms (F118 and F538) show the greatest difference compared to the linear analysis with axial
forces exceeding those predicted from a linear analysis by 31% and 34%, respectively. In the guy
cross arms area of zone 6, the lower and upper chord members, F422 and F437, displayed very little
difference compared to the nonlinear analysis. The same can be said for the members of zone 7.
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vols. 226-228 1245

Table 3 Results of linear and nonlinear analysis without tower dead load

Zone Downburst Nonlinear

Member Linear Analysis
No. Parameters Analysis

Axial Axial
D jf rf / Time Time
No. Type θf Force Force
[m] D jf [sec] [sec]
[kN] [kN]
F14 Chord 250 1.20 90º 53 89 53 106
Zone 1 F43 Diagonal (I) 250 1.20 90º 53 2.0 53 2.3
F45 Diagonal (II) 250 1.20 0º 53 10 53 12
F86 Chord 250 1.20 90º 53 110 53 127
Zone 2 F105 Diagonal (I) 250 1.20 90º 53 21 53 21
F100 Diagonal (II) 250 1.20 0º 53 10 53 10
F141 Chord 250 1.20 90º 53 172 53 191
Zone 3 F183 Diagonal (I) 250 1.20 90º 53 18 53 18
F172 Diagonal (II) 500 1.20 0º 105 2.5 109 2.6
F231 Chord 250 1.20 90º 53 175 53 193
Zone 4 F285 Diagonal (I) 250 1.20 90º 53 -7.4 53 -7.4
F275 Diagonal (II) 500 1.20 0º 105 23 105 23
F318 Chord 250 1.20 90º 53 132 53 149
Zone 5 F368 Diagonal (I) 250 1.20 90º 53 17 53 17
F359 Diagonal (II) 500 1.20 0º 105 31 105 31
F215 Chord 250 1.80 45º 54 57 54 69
Tower

F398 Diagonal (I) 500 1.40 45º 105 46 105 47

F406 Diagonal (II) 1000 1.20 0º 211 -54 211 -48
F437 Upper Chord 500 1.40 30º 109 -143 109 -141
Guy
Zone 6

C.

F422 Lower Chord 500 1.40 30º 109 127 109 125
Conductor

F118 Upper Chord 1000 1.60 30º 225 -99 225 -129
C.

F538 Lower Chord 1000 1.60 30º 225 128 225 172
F593 Chord 250 1.80 45º 54 52 54 52
Zone 7 F608 Diagonal (I) 500 1.20 90º 105 -2.9 105 -2.9
F514 Diagonal (II) 500 1.40 30º 109 -23 109 -22

Note: Axial forces are positive in compression.

Case 1: θf = 90°, rf /DJf = 1.20, DJf = 250 m

Fig. 3 illustrates the radial and axial velocity profiles at the time of the peak response for member
F14, located in zone 1. The downburst parameters that produce these velocities are rf /DJf = 1.20 and
DJf = 250 m. The maximum radial velocity is 79 m/sec and occurs over an approximate range of
heights from 22 m to 32 m. The maximum axial velocity (taken as positive when the velocity is
directed towards the ground) occurs near the top of the tower. Notice the magnitudes of the axial
velocities are significantly less than the magnitudes of radial velocities.
1246 Vibration, Structural Engineering and Measurement II

50

40 Axial Velocity
Radial Velocity
Height (m)

30

20

10

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Velocity (m/sec)

Fig. 3 Downburst velocity profile at rf /DJf = 1.20, DJf = 250 m, and tf = 53 sec

Fig. 4 illustrates the displacements of the nodes that connect the conductors (attached to insulator
strings) and the ground wire to the tower vs. the variable g for rf /DJf = 1.20, DJf = 250 m, θf = 90°,
and tf = 53 sec. This represents the critical condition for member F14. In Fig. 4, the variable g is the
ratio of the load applied to the structure in the current load increment to the total load applied to the
structure. It should be noticed that the x and y displacement directions shown in Fig. 4 represent the
directions perpendicular and parallel to the transmission line, respectively, as illustrated in Fig. 2.
Fig. 4 also shows that there is almost no displacement perpendicular to the transmission line,
which makes sense as the tower is loaded parallel to the transmission line. There are no horizontal
forces in the x-direction acting on the conductors or the ground wire for this configuration. The two
nodes attached to the insulator strings undergo the same displacement in the y-direction (parallel to
the transmission line). It is also apparent from the same figure that points C1 and C2 (attached to
insulator strings) undergo a total peak displacement of -180 mm (in the direction of the applied wind)
while the ground wire attachment point, G, undergoes a displacement of -109 mm. These
displacements are less than 0.5% of the height of the tower. The relative displacements can be
explained by considering the tower as a simple beam with the guys acting as supports, with the
section above the supports acting as a cantilevered section. In this case, the majority of the load
applied to the tower will be below the guy supports, thus the cantilevered tip that supports the
conductors and ground wire will deflect back towards the applied load. The displacement of the tower
in the direction of the transmission line results in a relatively small unbalanced load applied towards
the downburst from the conductors and ground wire, which amplifies the bending moments below the
guy attachment points. Finally, by comparing results from both linear and nonlinear analysis for the
critical member F14, it can be seen that at the peak axial load (g = 1), the force obtained from the
nonlinear solution is about 20% higher than the linear solution.
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vols. 226-228 1247

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
gL

0.5
C1 - x-direction
0.4 C1 - y-direction
0.3 C2 - x-direction
0.2 C2 - y-direction
G - x-direction
0.1
G - y-direction
0

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 4 Displacement of cable attachment points vs. fraction of total load, g for rf /DJf = 1.20, DJf =
250 m, θf = 90° and tf = 53 sec

Case 2: θf = 0°, rf /DJf = 1.20, DJf = 250 m

This case represents the critical configuration for member F45, which is a diagonal element near
the base of the tower parallel to the direction of the loading.
Fig. 5 illustrates the displacements of the cable attachment points vs. g for rf /DJf = 1.20, DJf =
250 m, θf = 0°, and tf = 53 sec. In this case, the horizontal loading of the system occurs perpendicular
to the transmission line, thus there is no displacement in the y-direction (parallel to transmission line).
Points C1 and C2, with the attached insulator strings, share the same displacement in the x-direction
(perpendicular to transmission line), with a peak deflection of -323 mm. The ground wire connection
point, G, undergoes a peak deflection of -373 mm. These deflections are less than 1% of the total
tower height.

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
gL

0.5
C1 - x-direction
0.4 C1 - y-direction
0.3 C2 - x-direction
0.2 C2 - y-direction
G - x-direction
0.1
G - y-direction
0

-400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 5 Displacement of cable attachment points vs. fraction of total load, g for, rf /DJf = 1.20, DJf =
250 m, θf = 0° and tf = 53 sec
1248 Vibration, Structural Engineering and Measurement II

Case 3: θf = 30°, rf /DJf = 1.60, DJf = 1000 m

This case represents the critical configuration for the conductor cross arm lower chord F538 and
upper chord F118, located in zone 6. The maximum radial velocity is 60 m/sec and the maximum
axial velocity is -9 m/sec, both located near the top of the tower. The displacements of the cable
connection points are given in Fig. 6. The deflections in the y-direction are larger than in the
x-direction due to the unbalanced loading of the conductors and ground wire in the longitudinal
direction (y-direction) due to location of the downburst relative to the tower.

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
gL

0.5
C1 - x-direction
0.4 C1 - y-direction
0.3 C2 - x-direction
0.2 C2 - y-direction
G - x-direction
0.1
G - y-direction
0

-100 -50 0 50 100 150

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 6 Displacement of cable attachment points vs. fraction of total load, g for rf /DJf = 1.60, DJf =
1000 m, θf = 30° and tf = 225 sec

The nonlinear analysis for member F118 yields a peak axial force that is 31% greater than the
linear solution, while the nonlinear analysis for F538 shows a 34% increase over the linear solution.
The peak axial loads for this case are higher for the nonlinear analysis due to the large loads from the
conductors in both the x and y-directions. The chord members of the conductor cross arms exhibit the
greatest difference in peak axial loads of the members presented in this study.

Conclusion
A nonlinear analysis of a guyed tower, type A-402-0, part of Manitoba Hydro’s electrical grid, is
conducted under downburst wind loading. The critical configurations determined by Shehata [5] are
used to determine the peak axial forces experienced in several tower members in seven separate
zones. The results of the nonlinear analysis are compared to the results determined by a linear
analysis of the tower members conducted by Shehata [5].
The most significant difference in peak axial loads of the studied guyed tower is found to be in the
chord members F118 and F538 of the conductor cross arms in zone 6. The nonlinear analysis
predicted peak axial loads that are 31% and 34% larger than those predicted by the linear analysis
conducted by Shehata [5]. This can be attributed to the large loads applied to the tower from the
conductors in both the x and y-directions for this case.
Other significant differences between the nonlinear analysis in the current study and the linear
analysis performed by Shehata [5] are found in zone 1. Chord member F14 and diagonal member F45
(perpendicular to the transmission line) show increases in peak axial forces of 20% compared to the
linear analysis. The critical case for member F14 occurred due to unbalanced forces in the
longitudinal direction of the transmission line, with only small transverse reactions from the cables.
On the other hand, the critical case for member F45 has large transverse reactions applied to the tower
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vols. 226-228 1249

from the conductors and ground wire. The other zones of the tower also show differences in axial load
response of varying degrees between the nonlinear analysis and the linear analysis conducted by
Shehata [5].
The results indicate that the member stiffness may be affected appreciably by the P-delta effect.
Thus, it is clear that under critical downburst loading of guyed lattice transmission towers the
geometric nonlinear behaviour becomes important. The geometric nonlinear effect should be even
more significant for taller transmission line structures. However, it should be noted that all reported
results are based on a jet velocity VJf equal to 70.0 m/sec, which represents a typical extreme wind
speed recorded during downburst events. As such, the differences between the nonlinear and linear
analysis results will be reduced for lower values of jet velocity.

References

[1] Letchford, C. W., Mans, C., and Chay, M. T. (2002). “Thunderstorms-their importance in wind
engineering (a case for the next generation wind tunnel).” Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, 90, pp. 1415-1433.
[2] Fujita, T. T. (1981). “Tornadoes and downbursts in the context of generalized planetary scales.”
Journal of Atmospheric Science, Vol. 38, pp. 1511-1534.
[3] Savory, E., Parke, G., Zeinoddini, M., Toy, N., and Disney, P. (2001). “Modelling of tornado and
microburst-induced wind loading and failure of a lattice transmission tower.” Engineering
Structures, Vol. 23, pp. 365-375.
[4] Hangan, H., Roberts, D., Xu, Z., and Kim, J. (2003). “Downburst simulation. Experimental and
numerical challenges.” Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Wind Engineering,
Lubbock, Texas, Electronic Version.
[5] Shehata, A. Y. (2006). “Analysis and behaviour of guyed transmission line structures under
downburst wind loading.” Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
[6] Shehata, A. Y., El Damatty, A. A., and Savory, E. (2005). “Finite element modelling of
transmission line under downburst wind loading.” Finite Element in Analysis and Design, Vol.
42, pp. 71-89.
[7] Zhu, S. and Etkin, B. (1985). “Model of the wind field in a downburst.” Journal of Aircraft, Vol.
22, pp. 595-601.
[8] Holmes, J. D. and Oliver, S. E. (2000). “An empirical model of a downburst.” Engineering
Structures, Vol. 22, pp. 1167-1172.
[9] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (1991). “Guidelines for electrical transmission line
structural loading.” ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice, No. 74, New York.
[10] National Research Council of Canada, (1996). “User's guide-NBC 1995 structural
commentaries (Part 4).” Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, National Research
Council of Canada, Ottawa.
[11] Ladubec, C. (2007). “Linear and non-linear analysis of transmission line structures under
normal and downburst wind loading.” M.Sc. Dissertation. The University of Western Ontario,
London, Ontario, Canada.
[12] Koziey, B. and Mirza, F. (1994). “Consistent curved beam element.” Computers and Structures,
Vol. 51, No. 6, 643-654.
[13] Gerges, R. R. and El-Damatty, A. A. (2002). “Large displacement analysis of curved beams.”
Proceeding of CSCE Conference, Montreal, QC, Canada, ST 100.
[14] Desai, Y., Yu, P., Popplewell, N., and Shah, A. (1995). “Finite element modelling of
transmission line galloping.” Computers and Structures, Vol. 57, pp. 407-420.

View publication stats