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

net/publication/305376890

Collapse mechanisms of power towers under wind loading

Article  in  Structure and Infrastructure Engineering · July 2016

DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2016.1190765

CITATIONS READS

17 852

3 authors:

Edgar Tapia-Hernández Santiago de Jesus Ibarra-González

Metropolitan Autonomous University 5 PUBLICATIONS   22 CITATIONS   
81 PUBLICATIONS   309 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

David De Leon
Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México (UAEM)
84 PUBLICATIONS   223 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Estudio paramétrico del modelado inelástico de contravientos de acero View project

Losses on steel buildings under Hurricane winds in Mexico View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Edgar Tapia-Hernández on 11 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance

ISSN: 1573-2479 (Print) 1744-8980 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsie20

Collapse mechanisms of power towers under wind

loading

Edgar Tapia-Hernández, Santiago Ibarra-González & David De-León-

Escobedo

To cite this article: Edgar Tapia-Hernández, Santiago Ibarra-González & David De-León-
Escobedo (2016): Collapse mechanisms of power towers under wind loading, Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2016.1190765

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2016.1190765

Published online: 15 Jul 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 60

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nsie20

Download by: [Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana] Date: 22 July 2016, At: 20:44
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2016.1190765

Collapse mechanisms of power towers under wind loading

Edgar Tapia-Hernándeza  , Santiago Ibarra-Gonzáleza and David De-León-Escobedob
a
Departamento de Materiales Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Azc, Mexico City, Mexico; bCivil Engineering Department, School of Engineering,
Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Estado de México, Mexico

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In this paper, nonlinear static pushover analyses were carried out to assess the capacity and collapse Received 1 August 2015
mechanism of two existing transmission towers under wind loading. Different load distribution patterns Revised 24 March 2016
were adopted from the application of the codified design wind load of the following countries: Mexico, Accepted 11 April 2016
United States, India, Japan and the New Zealand – Australian Code. Three-dimensional inelastic response
Downloaded by [Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana] at 20:44 22 July 2016

KEYWORDS
analyses were performed using open access software. Analyses were employed to define the capacity Transmission tower; collapse
curves, stress-strain curves for structural elements, the yielding mapping sequences and the collapse mechanisms; pushover
mechanisms, and to evaluate the influence of the tower body deformation and to assess the theoretical analyses; wind load; ductility;
overstrength and ductility capacities. Results show a damage concentration, which leads to a fragile overstrength
collapse mechanism with important strength reserves and a non-uniform distribution of yielding within
the tower height. Since the collapse mechanism is not compatible with the desired performance inherent
to the design philosophy, recommendations for the design stage are proposed, which pretend to ensure
that the inelastic behaviour be consistent with the goals implicit in a code-based design to prevent tower
collapses.

1. Introduction during full-scale testing of transmission line towers, as presented

Recently, the number of partial or total collapse of transmission
lines towers, under wind loading, has been increasing in Mexico
(Figure 1). In spite of the fact that these damages are supposed
to be controllable, the vulnerability of tower transmission lines
under severe wind hazards is one of the major concerns for
designers, owners, managers and society. However, there are still
several uncertainties related to the exposed structures, storms
and the particular conditions of each tower, etc.; that makes it
difficult to quantify the probability of failure or the numbers of
failures of a line over a period of time.
Even though the design of transmission line towers follows
the code provisions, their collapse mechanism depends on many
factors such as improper detailing, material defects, fabrica-
tion errors, forces during erection, variation in bolt strength,
detailing, connection failures, etc. (Prasad, Knight, Mohan, &
Lakshmanan, 2012). It is known, however, that the structural
behaviour of a power transmission tower may depend not only
on structural elements, but also on the wind loading source
characteristics as Savory, Parke, Zeinoddini, Toy, and Disney
(2001), De Oliveira et al. (2006) and Banik, Hong, and Kopp
(2008) pointed out. Mara and Hong (2013) investigated the ine-
lastic response of a lattice tower under different wind events; the
analytical results from nonlinear static pushover show that the
yield stress and capacities depend on the wind direction. And
completely different types of premature failures were observed
by Prasad et al. (2012).
The desirable collapse mechanism of a transmission tower
must provide enough energy dissipating capability as well as
adequate strength and stiffness. It is desirable to take advantage
of the inelastic energy dissipation capacity by avoiding fragile
failure modes and, with the development of ductility, by the
excursion through the inelastic force–displacement curve. Even
though a prescribed mechanism cannot be totally achieved, the
ductile behaviour can be promoted, and brittle mechanisms can
be avoided by prescribing balanced safety factors and ductility
provisions. It is known that the leg element buckling is less desir-
able than brace buckling failure, as the former will lead to a total
collapse earlier than the latter one.
Nevertheless, as a common practice, the required codified
design check for strength is carried out at structural element level
rather than at the structural system level. While it is possible and
desirable to design so that damage occurs in the bracing system
rather than in the leg elements, it is not possible to completely
avoid the damage in vertical elements. In general, the number
of possible failure modes increase with the number of elements.
Detailing for damage control may not be sufficient based on lin-
ear frame analysis of transmission towers, because damage does
not necessarily occur only at the locations of maximum demands
as indicated in a linear analysis. So, this panorama shows the
importance to keep developing studies to enhance the failure
prediction, given the high direct or indirect losses because of

CONTACT  Edgar Tapia-Hernández  etapiah@azc.uam.mx

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2    E. Tapia-Hernández et al.
collapses, in order to improve the knowledge acquired and pro-
pose better design recommendations.
The suggested design wind load is calibrated based on the
assumption that the tower behaves elastically during a wind
event. However, this design approach does not provide any
insight into the inelastic tower behaviour under extreme wind
loading, even though the consideration of the inelastic response
can be important (Lee & McClure, 2007). Hence, this paper deals
with the results of nonlinear analysis for two tension-type towers
designed to fulfil all the recommendations of the wind and steel
guidelines of the Mexico’s Federal District Code (MFDC-04,
2004). Specifically, the main thrust of this paper is focused on
the performance of existing towers, in order to advance on the
knowledge about failure mechanisms and design recommenda-
tions to prevent collapses on these towers.
Nonlinear static pushover analyses were carried out for
Downloaded by [Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana] at 20:44 22 July 2016
two transmission line towers under wind loading in order to
study the collapse mechanism. For the analyses, different load
distribution patterns were adopted, through the application
of the specified design wind load in pushover analyses, for
several wind codes. In particular, six international regulations
were considered: North-America ASCE SEI 7-10 (ASCE-10
2010); Japan AIJ-06 (AIJ-06, 2006, chapter 6); Australian/New
Zealand 1170.2 (AS/NZS-11, 2011); India IS 875 (IS875-95
1992) and two Mexican Codes: (a) the Manual of the Mexican
Federal Electricity Commission (MOC-CFE-08) and (b) the
Guidelines for Wind Design of the Mexico’s Federal District
Code (NTCV-04, 2004). Results of the analysis were performed
to: (a) identify load–strain curves for the structural elements,
(b) draw global load–deformation curves, (c) determine
yielding mapping sequences and collapse mechanisms
and (d) assess theoretical overstrength factors and ductility
capacities.
2.  Models description
The 400-kV tangent type steel lattice towers (Figure 2) were mod-
elled as three dimensional structures according to the design and
construction drawings. Studied structures (Table 1) are repre-
sentative of typical line transmission towers in Mexico; especially
for the metropolitan area of Mexico City.
(a) Collapse in Tulancingo, Mex. Nov, 2008
Figure 1. Damage in transmission towers caused by wind loading in Mexico in recent years.
Until 2006, in Mexico there were 18,144  km of 400-kV
two-circuit power transmission lines, which represents about
40% of the total extension of the high transmission available lines
in the country (27,148 km of 230-kV and 475 km of 165 kV)
(Bolivar-Villagómez, 2006). At the metropolitan area of Mexico
City (one of the largest cities in the world by population and
density), the importance of such structures is based on the fact
that the power is provided for 24 million of people through an
external circuit of 400-kV power transmission lines.
Additionally, the Mexican power grid exports about 1.3
Terawatt per hour of electricity to the United States per year;
whereas, the 400-kV interconnection line to Guatemala and
Belize has a transmission capacity of 200 Megawatts per hour
(IEA, 2012). So, studied towers are essential on the local elec-
tric power system. The configuration of the studied towers is
frequently used in Mexico, both for tangent towers with suspen-
sion string (2 degrees of line diversion) and also for towers with
tension string from 10 to 60 degrees.
Herein, transmission line towers were analysed by using
commercial software (CSI, 2009) (Figure 3(a)) through a lin-
ear static analysis in 3D model under: (a) self-weight of cables,
insulators and tower; (b) mechanical tension in cables due to the
line deviation and (c) wind loads acting on the cables and the
tower body. For the analytical model, only braces were modelled
as a pin jointed space truss subject to axial forces only (Figure
3(c)), where hinges were placed at both ends of the member. Leg
elements were considered as continuous element in agreement
with the actual structure’s condition (Figures 3(d) and (e)). Given
that the leg elements members were modelled using frame ele-
ments, because of the potential formation of plastic hinges and,
by using a nonlinear force–deformation relation for the mem-
bers, which results from the interaction between the axial and
flexural stresses. In contrast, for the individual brace members,
it was assumed a buckling failure mode. Splice connections were
modelled and they were also assumed to exhibit full flexural
strength and stiffness continuity.
Concentric loads at both ends of members were assumed to
take into account the geometric symmetry of the actual struc-
ture (Figure 3(f)). Buckling strength of the member about its
minor axis was considered for elements made of single-angle
section whereas, for elements made out of double angle sections,
(b) Collapse in Huehuetoca, Mex. April, 2014.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering   3

52.53m Legs
5.45 1.5 Braces

8.0 m
L3"x1/4"
44.53m 5.45 L2"x1/4"
42.68m Legs
5.45 1.5 Braces
L4"x1/4"

8.5 m
8.0 m
L3"x1/4" L3"x1/4"
L2"x1/4" 36.03m 5.45
34.68m 5.45
L4"x3/8"
L4"x1/4"

8.5 m
8.5 m

L3"x1/4" 27.53m 5.45 2L4x1/4"

26.18m 5.45

52.53 m
L4"x3/8"
42.68 m
8.5 m

2L4"x3/8"
17.68m 5.45 2L4x1/4"
L4"x1/4"
Downloaded by [Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana] at 20:44 22 July 2016

27.53 m
2L4"x3/8"
17.68 m

L4"x1/4"
5.00m 5.00m 2L4"x1/2"

2L4"x1/2"
0.00m L3"x1/4" 0.00m L3"x1/4"

5.12 m 5.92 m

(a) Model 43T10 (b) Model 53T10

Figure 2. Characteristics of studied towers.

Table 1. Structural specifications.

Model 43T10 53T10
Structure height 42.68 m 52.53 m
Square base area 5.12 m × 5.12 m 5.92 m × 5.92 m
Number of elements 879 980
Voltage 400 kV
Span (both sides) 400 m
Line angle 10 degrees
Insulator Tension type (3.8 kN each)
Conductor ACSR 1113 Bluejay. Mechanical tension: 36.3 kN
Ground wire Galvanised wire 3/8”. Mechanical tension: 9.3 kN
Steel sections Equal-legged angles. ASTM A-572
Bolts ASTM A394–00 with standard hole

it was assumed that the buckling strength is around a principal
axis. According to the results, the structures fulfil all the require-
ments of the wind and steel guidelines of MFDC-04 (2004). The
considered load combinations and the load factors are shown
in Table 2; whereas the demand/capacity ratios for the main leg
elements are presented in Figure 4. Dynamic properties are sum-
marised in Table 3 and reported with further details in Ibarra-
González (2014).
The influence of the motion of the transmission lines in the
neighbouring spans and the interaction effect between the tower
and its foundation were not considered in the analysis. In par-
ticular, soil – foundation – structure interaction might affect the
response of steel structures in several ways: foundation move-
ment can modify the period of a system increasing its flexibility
(Tapia-Hernández, De Jesús, & Fernández-Sola, 2016); nonlinear
behaviour and hysteretic energy dissipation may reduce the lat-
eral force demand to the structure (Raychowdhury, 2011); and
the foundation flexibility might modify the input lateral demand.
Thus, it is expected that the obtained results are modified when
the soil foundation dynamic stiffness is introduced in the model.
According to the results, the maximum demand is linked to
the wind patterns perpendicular to the line direction (Table 2),
which is in agreement with the findings presented in other exper-
imental and analytical researches (Liang, Zou, Wang, & Cao,
2015). For this load combination, the main source of demand
is the wind pressure in the tower body, which represents 50%,
independently of the tower’s height. To illustrate this, the contri-
bution rates of the main participating components are calculated
for the critical supports as a function of the axial load demand
as shown in Table 4.
 4    E. Tapia-Hernández et al.

(c) Brace connection detail (e) Splice connection

Downloaded by [Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana] at 20:44 22 July 2016

(a) 3D (b) Existing 53T10 (d) Splice connection (f) Base view
model

Figure 3. Studied towers details.

Table 2. Considered load combinations.

Mechanical tension
Self-weight of tower Self-weight of cables in cables due the line Wind loads acting on Wind loads acting on
Load Combination elements and insulators deviation tower body cables
1. Gravitational 1.15 1.50 1.15 --- ---
2. Longitudinal direction 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 ---
3. Perpendicular direction 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10

Load combination 1 50
Load combination 2
Load combination 3
40
40

30 30
Height (m)
Height (m)

20 20

10 10

0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Demand/Capacity ratio Demand/Capacity ratio
(a) Model 43T10 (b) Model 53T10

Figure 4. Demand/capacity ratio for the main leg elements.

Table 3. Natural dynamic properties of towers.

Model Mode Main direction Period (s) Frequency (cycle/s) Angular Freq. (rad/s) Eigenvalue (rad2/s2)
43T10 1 Translation in line direction 0.493 2.03 12.75 162.6
2 Translational perpendicular to line direction 0.488 2.05 12.87 165.7
3 Rotational 0.177 5.65 35.52 1261.7
53T10 1 Translation in line direction 0.605 1.65 10.38 107.7
2 Translational perpendicular to line direction 0.601 1.66 10.45 109.3
3 Rotational 0.197 5.08 31.89 1016.8
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering   5

Table 4. Contribution rate by demand at the critical support.

Model 43T10 53T10
Component Load (kN) Contribution (%) Load (kN) Contribution (%)
Cable self-weight 11.8 1.8 11.8 1.4
Tower self-weight 34.0 5.1 43.2 5.0
Mechanical tension in cables 118.6 17.9 130.3 15.0
Wind pressure in cables 167.2 25.2 260.8 30.0
Wind pressure in tower body 332.9 50.0 422.4 48.6
Σ= 664.5 100.0 868.5 100.0

Solidity ratio 50
Proposal
40 40

Height, z (m)
Solidity ratio
30 30
Height, z (m)

Proposal

20 20
Downloaded by [Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana] at 20:44 22 July 2016

10 10

0 0
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Solidity ratio, φ Solidity ratio, φ
a) Model 43T10 b) Model 53T10

Figure 5. Solidity ratio ϕ.

4 div. 1.5

P/Py
t=10 mm 1
5 div.

plate (typ.)
0.5
4 div. 5 div.
4 div

0
0Strain (%)
4 div

-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.2

5 div.

-0.5
5 div.

P/Rc
-1
4 div

5 div. 4 div. -1.5

Single angle section Double angle section (b) Typical hysteretic response of the
(a) Section discretisation modelled elements

Figure 6. Section characteristics for the plastic analysis.

2.1.  Solidity ratio ϕ 𝜙(z) = z2

+ 0.17 0.0 ≤ z ≤ 0.55H ⎫
3H 2 ⎪
The solid areas of leg and diagonal members were carefully ⎬ (1)
computed from the construction drawings, so that the solidity 𝜙(z) = H−z
5H
+ 0.17 0.55H < z ≤ H ⎪ ⎭
ratios ϕ (effective solid area to total area of the surface) were
calculated along the height (Figure 5). From these results, lateral 3.  Nonlinear models
nodal forces were obtained.
Three-dimensional inelastic analyses were performed by using
Since solidity ratio values ϕ vary widely along the tower height
the open access software (Mazzoni, McKenna, Scott, & Fenves,
(Figure 5), they are difficult to determine in the preliminary
2006). Nonlinear beam-column elements, with plasticity spread
design of new structures. For this reason, a proposal to roughly along the element length, were considered. Two rectangular
assess an initial estimation of the solidity ratio ϕ(z) at height (z) patches were used to generate the cross section of angles: one for
for such structures was developed (Equation (1)) and it is also each leg. Patches were discretised into fibres with quadrilateral
summarised in Figure 5. The proposed expression is expressed as shapes and four integration points per element (Figure 6(a)).
a function of the tower height H and it crudely serves to estimate Figure 6(b) illustrates the hysteretic curve of a typical single angle
a preliminary magnitude of the wind forces in new designs. The element, where P is the axial load obtained along the analysis, Py
proposed curve was developed from the identified trend in two is the yielding capacity in tension (=AFy) and Rc is the buckling
ranges of the obtained solidity ratios ϕ(z): capacity in compression.
 6    E. Tapia-Hernández et al.
b= 500 mm
t=10 mm
plate (typ.)
Bolt A394
Joint detail
Leg
member Bracing
h member
Joint (see detail)
19 mm Guset
plate (typ.)
Variable
(a) Tower elevation
Figure 7. Typical elevation.
Downloaded by [Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana] at 20:44 22 July 2016
In the model, torsional restraint of the element was also
included when out-of-plane buckling is studied. Element
torsional properties have been added to the fibre nonlinear
beam-column element by using the corresponding aggregation
tool in the software (Mazzoni et al., 2006). In addition, leg mem-
bers were modelled with a set of six nonlinear beam-column
elements to reproduce the response of an axially loaded element
including large translational displacement and P-delta effects as
shown in Figure 7.
Based on the drawing specifications, a steel with nominal
properties fy = 345 MPa, E = 200,000 MPa, and G = 77 GPa was
used for all members; except for the cross section L 2′′x1/4′′,
where Fy  =  248  MPa was considered. The uniaxial Giuffre-
Menegotto-Pinto material is used for steel fibres with extensions
included for kinematic and isotropic hardening (Filippou, Popov,
& Bertero, 1983). The inelastic model used herein accounts for
the response along the element by integration of the uniaxial
hysteric steel material model over the cross section. This for-
mulation offers numerical efficiency, and it has a reasonable
agreement with experimental results and provides a more real-
istic representation of the elements response as compared to the
simpler bi-linear model (Uriz & Mahin, 2008).
Thus, element model was found to give realistic predictions
of the inelastic response of a member. Reasonable agreement can
be observed between the model in the software (Mazzoni et al.,
2006), and an experimental test used to predict the capacity of a
member under axial load in compression. It has been observed
that axially loaded steel elements give realistic predictions of the
inelastic response of a member (Hsiao, Lehman, & Roeder, 2013).
Reasonable agreement can be observed between the model and an
experimental test to predict the capacity of a member under axial
compression loads (Uriz & Mahin, 2008). This is by far superior to
the use of empirical or semi-empirical models, for which specific
test data are needed to adequately reproduce key response prop-
erties. Further details and validation of this modelling technique
may be found elsewhere in Ibarra-González (2014).
4.  Pushover analyses
Because of the material nonlinearities, an iterative solution
is required and a Newton method with line search solution
0 (typ.)
0 (typ.)
Pinned
h/6 h/6 h/6 h/6 h/6 h/6
joint
Node
.)
typ
0(
0(
typ
.)
Variable
(b) Structure model
algorithm was selected, in the software library (Mazzoni et al.,
2006), to achieve rapid convergence. The solution algorithm uses
an energy increment test, which checks the positive force conver-
gence if half of the inner-product of the displacement increment
and the unbalanced force is smaller than a tolerance equal to
10−5. The magnitude of the convergence tolerance depends on
the computational capacity, units, time step, etc. Here, this mag-
nitude is used by taking into account that the models are built
with approximately 1000 elements (Table 1). The equations are
formed using a SparseGeneral scheme and they are numbered
using the reverse Cuthill-McKee numbering, which optimises the
node numbering in order to reduce the storage bandwidth. This
method displays an error message when the structure is discon-
nected (collapsed). The constraints were represented with a Plain
constraint handler, which enforces homogeneous single-point
constraints (homogenous boundary conditions).
A single load step is performed by using a load control integra-
tor for the vertical loads: self-weight of the structure, self-weight
of cables and insulators and components of the mechanical ten-
sion in cables due the line deviation. Here, the origin in the time
domain is set to 0.0 and this load is kept constant. Subsequently,
load wind patterns on the tower body, on the insulators and on
the cables, were added as static incremental loadings. Elements
(legs and brace) in tower model were subjected only to end
forces, with no concentrated loads along the member length.
Pushover analyses are useful to assess the structural capacity
or to characterise the capacity curve by monotonically increasing
the lateral loads. The application of inelastic analyses (static and
dynamic) in wind engineering is not common because the design
for wind actions usually requires the structures to remain into
the elastic range. Therefore, this is used to evaluate the structural
capacity under seismic excitations due to the fact that, in the
seismic design philosophy, the structures are allowed to undergo
the inelastic range under severe excitations (Banik et al., 2008).
In order to do that, pushover analyses were carried out in order
to assess the nonlinear response of the structures under wind
loading through the identification of the collapse mechanism
and the inelastic capacities.
The tower model with inelastic material properties is examined
under a nonlinear static analysis and its internal deformations
and forces are calculated. The target displacement is intended to
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering   7

100 100 100

90 90 90

Towers height (m)

Towers height (m)

Towers height (m)

80 80 80
70 70 70
60 60 60
50 50 50
40 40 40
30 30 30
20 20 20
10 10 10
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

IS 875-95 VD/V R IS 875-95 VD/V R IS 875-95 VD/V R

NTCV-04 NTCV-04 NTCV-04
MOC CFE-08 MOC CFE-08 MOC CFE-08
AIJ-06 AIJ-06 AIJ-06
AS NSZ-11 AS NSZ-11 AS NSZ-11
ASCE-05 ASCE-05 ASCE-05
Note: Standards defined in References
Downloaded by [Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana] at 20:44 22 July 2016

(a) Before the hill (b) On the crest (c) After the hill

Figure 8. Wind velocity ratios for different positions around a hill.

(a) (b) (c)

θ
θ

Figure 9. Structure location in a hill-shape condition.

represent the maximum displacement likely to be experienced
during the design demand. Because the mathematical model
accounts directly for the effect of material inelastic response, the
calculated internal forces will be reasonable approximations of
those expected during the design demand. Recent studies (Banik,
Hong, & Kopp, 2010; Mara, 2013) demonstrated that the capac-
ity curves of a transmission line tower obtained from pushover
analysis, and from the Incremental Dynamic Analyses (IDA), are
similar. Thus, the dynamic wind load has little or no effect on
the capacity curve and, hence, the pushover analysis is adequate
to capture the essential features of the structural response that
significantly represents its performance.
4.1.  Loading protocols
The load patterns of wind provisions of the majority of the codes
or guidelines are based on a very sophisticated mathematical pro-
posal developed in the 1960’s (Davenport, 1961). Modern codes
propose a theoretical wind load pattern based on local observa-
tions and, given the need for simplifications they assume that,
below the gradient height, the average wind velocity decreases by
following a predefined profile as a function of the terrain condi-
tions (somehow arbitrarily defined for 3–5 categories depending
on the code). The selection of terrain category is made consid-
ering the presence of obstructions that constitute the surface
roughness. Nevertheless, in actual situations, terrain categories
are difficult to set because of the uncertainty in the assumed
shapes of the load pattern in height.
In addition, the complexity of the formulation makes neces-
sary the use of advanced knowledge to understand the concepts
and limitations behind the theoretical wind load patterns. For
example, estimated gusts associated with the theoretical wind
load patterns are estimated from the statistical outgrowth of the
turbulence and they are not a measured quantity (Peyrot, 2009).
It seems that many designers of transmission towers believe that
a better design can be achieved through the precision of complex
formulas that depend, sometimes, on unknown and intricate
parameters, instead of promoting common sense and design
simplicity.
In spite of the fact that the loading patterns in codes are based
on theoretical wind patterns developed more than 40–50 years
ago, they have evolved independently due to local adaptations
and, therefore, extremely different load patterns can be obtained
even for equal conditions depending on the specification. To
illustrate this, in Figure 8 the velocity ratios of theoretical wind
profiles are shown for structures at a height z. Load velocity
patterns VD are calculated for an inclination of θ  =  7.5° and
H = 26.3 m in three different structure locations around the hill
(Figure 9): (a) 200 m before the hill, (b) at the crest (0 m) and
(c) 200 m after the hill.
Wind forces were calculated at the top of structures between
10 m and 100 m in height in order to illustrate the velocity var-
iation for each code. Mean basic wind speed at 10  m height
was assumed to be equal to VR = 39 m/s (≈140 km/hr), for an
open terrain condition and equal circumstances of temperature,
atmospheric pressure, air density, importance factor, return
 8    E. Tapia-Hernández et al.
40 MOC-CFE
ASCE-05
AIJ-06
30
AS/NSZ-11
IS 875-95
Height (m) 20
10
0 0
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
Force/Force MOC CFE-08
(a) Load patterns for 43T10 model
Downloaded by [Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana] at 20:44 22 July 2016
Figure 10. Normative load distribution patterns considered.
period factor, wind direction factor, shielding coefficient, etc.
In this way, the theoretical wind load patterns depend only on the
terrain roughness, height factor Fα and the calculated topography
factor FT. The terrain roughness and height factor Fα are the main
parameters that link the wind speed with height in the atmos-
pheric boundary layer for different terrain roughness; whereas
the topography factor FT reflects the change of the mean wind
speed that occurs as wind passes at right angles over escarpments
or ridge-shaped topography (Figure 9).
The wind speed profiles considered represent a traditional
mean atmospheric boundary layer wind profile, where it is
assumed that the wind is a stationary and ergodic stochastic
process (De Oliveira et al. 2006). In MOC-CFE-08 (2008), it is
specified that wind speed is spatially fully correlated and that
the adopted power law leads to a 3-s gust wind speed V3 s at a
height of 10 m. Then, the wind loads were calculated in height
according to the methodology specified by the compared codes.
Nevertheless, the wind load in some cases was based on a 10-min
mean wind speed V10 min at 10 m. Therefore, a conversion of the
analytical results for a direct comparison was applied through
the ratio V3 s/V10 min = 1.43 for an open terrain condition (Durst,
1960; Mara, 2013). When necessary, and depending on the code
procedure, the following values were assumed: mean annual
temperature 16.5 °C, air density ρ = 1.22 kg/m3, return period
of 50 years and the importance factor, the wind directionality
factor, the shielding factor and the spatial correlation effect were
set to 1.0.
Regulatory theoretical wind profiles are shown in Figure 8,
where it might be observed that they are completely different
although they were calculated for similar conditions. These wind
profiles have a high dependency on the topography factor, and
this factor is defined for fluctuating wind speed, by parameters
based on the results of wind tunnel experiments conducted
in each country. This suggests that, even though the structure
could have exactly the same basic wind demands, different design
sections could be obtained according to its location around the
world. Despite this, some studies (Savory, Parke, Disney, & Toy,
2008) indicate an excellent agreement between the code calcu-
lations and measures from the field monitoring in transmission
towers, within the overall accuracy of the file data.
50
MOC CFE-08
ASCE-05
40 AIJ-06
AS/NSZ-11
IS 875-95
Height (m)
30
20
10
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
Force/ForceMOC CFE-08
(b) Load patterns for 53T10 model
Based on the above, five load distribution patterns obtained
from the application of the codified design wind load on tow-
ers were considered in this research (NTCV-04 was excluded,
because of a physical inconsistency, where gradient wind veloc-
ities depend on terrain categories). Patterns were obtained con-
sidering open terrain, with scattered obstructions, and they are
shown as normalised with respect to the MOC-CFE-08 load
pattern, for the force at the top node in order to emphasise their
differences (Figure 10).
The incipient collapse was defined by the point where the
axial shortening exceeds the theoretical ultimate deformation
capacity of the elements due to buckling, based on the results
of an experimental research (Kemp, 1996), although the anal-
yses showed a numerical convergence for a larger lateral load.
Therefore, incipient collapse was not defined in terms of the point
where there is no-convergence (in the iterative algebraic process)
for an increased lateral load but instead of that, by the theoretical
limits for the actual element capacities. The described procedure
was applied to the compression leg members, since they led to
the collapse mechanism, as it is discussed later.
According to the procedure suggested by Kemp (1996), the
effective lateral slenderness ratio is computed by taking into
account: (a) the slenderness ratio in lateral-torsional buckling,
(b) a flange slenderness factor in local buckling and, (c) a dis-
tortional restraint factor. The procedure proposed by Kemp
is based on test results for conditions at which the strain, on
the tension side of the lateral buckle, first falls under yielding
in compression, allowing for amplification of the maximum
lateral deflection due to interaction between local and lateral
buckling. The available inelastic capacity is computed by sim-
plifying the theoretical predictions based on the stress–strain
curve. Further details can be found elsewhere (Ibarra-González,
2014).
5.  Nonlinear static analyses
Pushover analyses were carried out under normative load pat-
terns. Analyses were conducted for a wind direction perpen-
dicular (transverse) to the transmission line. In the structure,
the leg elements in the left-hand side were in tension with axial
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering   9

1.0 L+50m 1.0 L+50m

P/Py
0.5

P/Rc
0.5
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 0 1
ε (103) ε (103) 2
1.0 L+45m 1.0 L+45m
P/Py

P/Rc
0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 0 1 ε (103) 2
ε (103)
1.0 L+35m 1.0 L+35m
P/Py

P/Rc
0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 1 ε (103) 2 0 1 ε (103) 2

1.0 L+25m 1.0 L+25m

P/Py
Downloaded by [Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana] at 20:44 22 July 2016

P/Rc
0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 0 1 ε (103) 2
ε (103)

1.0 L+15m 1.0 L+15m

P/Py

P/Rc
0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 1 ε (103) 2 0 1 ε (103) 2

1.0 L+5m 1.0 L+5m

P/Py

P/Rc
0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 1 ε ( 10 3) 2 0 1
ε (103) 2

Figure 11. Capacity curves for elements along the height.

extensions, while the leg elements in the right-hand side were
in compression with axial shortenings.
No dependency on the lateral load pattern has been noticed
in the developed final mechanism. This observation is in agree-
ment with similar studies, where, for any given wind direction,
the capacity curves are approximately the same regardless of the
applied loading profile (Banik et al., 2008). Figure 11 summarises
the results obtained from the pushover analyses for the 53T10
model, where P is the axial load obtained along the analysis.
These graphs show capacity curves for elements at different
heights under axial load normalised with respect to the inelastic
capacity (buckling in compression Rc and yielding in tension Py)
against the strain deformation rate (ε = δ/L). For the single-angle
sections, the compression capacity Rc was calculated by following
the criteria of the flexural-torsional buckling (singly symmetric
section); whereas, for the double-angle sections, the strength Rc
was revised in terms of the wall thickness under (a) the torsional
buckling condition and/or (b) the flexural buckling condition
(doubly symmetrical cross sections).
Results show a local damage concentration with non-uniform
distribution of plastic yielding through the height. The energy
dissipation is mostly produced by buckling in compression or
yielding in tension of the leg elements (at height of 25 m approx-
imately), without subsequent damages in brace elements. In fact,
the bracing system remained elastic along analyses under all
wind patterns considered in this research. Thus, collapse mech-
anism does not match the assumptions inherent on the code
design philosophy, where it is expected that a lot of elements
shall undergo an inelastic excursion.
5.1.  Stiffness of the gusset plate joints
Results of experimental studies, on elastic buckling of braces steel
elements axially loaded in compression, demonstrated the accu-
racy of the theoretical effective lengths whose values are, by far,
smaller than those used for the calculation in the current design
practice in members. The above is due to the restraint provided
by the complementary brace, whose stiffness is increased by the
presence of a tensile action (Metelli, 2013). Other studies (Da
Silva, Vellasco, De Andrade, & De Oliveira, 2005; Jankowska-
Sandberg & Kolodziej, 2013) suggest that the possible explana-
tion, for the braces stability (reduction of the buckling length),
is related to the fact that the actual behaviour of the element
connection is closer to semi-rigid connections, instead of the
assumed hinge connection. These sources of additional capaci-
ties, not included in the specialised codes, and commonly used
for structural analysis for the design of transmission towers, may
explain why the bracing system usually does not contribute to
the energy dissipation in transmission towers under lateral wind
patterns.
 10    E. Tapia-Hernández et al.
Downloaded by [Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana] at 20:44 22 July 2016
Figure 12. Influence of the stiffness of gusset plate joint Kr in bracing system.
The influence of the stiffness of the gusset plate joints Kr in
the axial capacity of the bracing system were studied as a func-
tion of the maximum deformation v of the unbraced length
(Figure 12(a)). Here, the model with Kr → ∞ represents an ele-
ment with a fixed support condition (theoretical rigid connec-
tion), whereas the model with Kr = 0 represents an element with
a hinge connection; so that a stiffness in the range 0 < Kr < ∞
represents models with semi-rigid connections.
Incremental static inelastic analyses were developed for critical
slenderness ratio of the bracing system (for cross section L4′′ ×
1/4′′, kL/r = 65 and kL/r = 77) in the studied models (Figure 2).
In the three-dimensional analyses, axial load in compression was
added as static incremental load, and elements were modelled as
above discussed by using the open access software (Mazzoni et al.,
2006). Figure 12b displays typical capacity curves, namely axial
load P normalised with respect to the compression buckling capac-
ity for the hinge connection RcH, against the axial strain deforma-
tion rate (ε = δ/L). In the analyses, the maximum deformation v at
the mid-span (y = L/2) was calculated in the analyses in order to
identify the stability condition of the modelled elements.
The influence of the gusset plate stiffness Kr for a joint on
the axial capacity of the bracing system is shown in Figure
12(c) related with maximum deformation v(y  =  L/2) at the
mid-span. According to the results, the assumptions adopted
in the bracing system of the studied models (Kr = 0) are related
to the limit of instability. So, in spite of the fact that there is
wide range of semi-rigid connections (0 < Kr < ∞) that could
lead to slightly different results, this research takes into account
the physically possible most critical condition. Additionally,
it worth to mention that, although the brace elements were
modelled with pinned connections, according to the results,
the bracing system does not contribute to the energy
dissipation.
5.2.  Damage concentration
It was observed that a small inelastic excursion always started
with an incipient buckling of leg elements in compression located
at the middle-height of the tower. Peak plastic deformations were
reported in leg elements where the cross-section changes from
2L4′′ × 3/8′′ to 2L4′′ × 1/4′′ at a height of approximately 25 m
(Figure 13). The overlapping on leg elements was evaluated and
included in studied models through a splice connection with
bolts (welding process is forbidden for transmission towers in
Mexico) and two additional angles L4′′ × 3/8′′, as it is shown in
the view A-A in Figure 13(a).
Based on the displacement of the nodes and capacity
curves of the fibres for the cross section of the member leg
elements (Figure 13(a)), it seems that the connection is far
enough rigid to reduce the unbraced length, which would
be beneficial to the compression capacity. Nevertheless, the
change of section from 4L 4′′ × 3/8′′ to 2L 4′′ × 1/4′′ leads to
a local increment of the stress, which produces the damage
concentration. This position of the splice connection is typ-
ical in towers in Mexico, because, according to the assembly
engineers, it facilitates the erection operation. Usually, tow-
ers are partially assembled by workers at ground level and
then installed through an erecting crane. Nevertheless, the
described failure has been previously reported on structures
under intense winds in similar connections, for example in
Huehuetoca, Mexico in May 2014 (Figure 13(b)).
The reported damage concentration in the change of the cross
section produced, then, a fragile collapse in both studied cases;
although the structure had a near-elastic response and important
strength reserves with a non-uniform inelastic response along
the height (Figure 13). Therefore, a weakness in the local design
(and assembly) process was identified; it is preferable to change
the cross section at the end of the unbraced length, instead of
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering   11
Downloaded by [Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana] at 20:44 22 July 2016

Figure 13. Concentration of the damage.

0.00-0.25
0.25-0.50
0.50-0.75
0.75-1.00
Normalised
inelastic
deformations

(a) Initial yielding (b) δglobal= 1.53% (c) Final collapse

δglobal= 1.49% (Step 1.96) (Step 2.00) δglobal= 1.68% (Step 2.20)

Figure 14. Behaviour of the 53T10 model for the analysis under MOC-CFE-08 load pattern.

doing it at the middle length, in order to avoid an undesirable
abrupt change of stiffness along of the element.
5.3.  Evolution of the collapse mechanisms
Progressive collapse mechanisms for the 53T10 model are
mapped in Figure 14. Magnitudes of inelastic deformations are
shown (with a colour scale), normalised with respect to the max-
imum axial elements with deformations by step. For each case,
the per cent of global drift (deformation at the top divided by
the tower height) is also included.
It can be observed from Figure 14 that, indeed, the inelastic
response starts with the incipient buckling of the leg elements
in compression at the middle height. In general, for the collapse
 12    E. Tapia-Hernández et al.
Figure 15. Base shear versus global drift curves.
Downloaded by [Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana] at 20:44 22 July 2016
Table 5. Deformation capacities.
Elastic analyses
Model Drift (%) δy (%)
43T10 0.64 1.19
53T10 0.85 1.49
mechanism (Figure 14(c)) the energy dissipation is mostly
obtained by the yielding of a few elements in compression and
tension. Although the structure may have enough strength
capacity reserves, studied models exhibited a non-uniform dis-
tribution of yielding along the height, which is associated to a
damage concentration mechanism. This mechanism is not con-
sidered in the design process and, in fact, it is difficult to predict.
Figure 15 summarises the capacity evaluation obtained
from the nonlinear static pushover analyses. The results are
plotted as the base force in the dominant wind direction (wind
patterns perpendicular to the line direction) versus the global
drift (displacement at the top of the tower divided by the struc-
ture height) in the same direction. The base shear is the total
reaction component from all supports in the dominant wind
direction.
Capacity curves are associated with a non-ductile behaviour,
where the collapse mechanism is formed as soon as the axial
capacity in the compression leg member is reached at the tower
middle height (Figure 14). In addition, note that the global
capacity curve (Figure 15) is not enough to describe the ine-
lastic response of the structure, since a local concentration of
damage (an unexpected redistribution of loads or a non-uniform
distribution through the tower height), is not reported at them.
Thus, only specific observations, valid for these particular cases,
may be made duly from these results.
6.  Inelastic capacities
From pushover global curves (Figure 15), obtained drift values
(deformation at the top divided by the tower height) were studied
through three different profiles (Table 5): (a) the elastic analyses
drift, which is considered in a typical design process, (b) the drift
at first yielding δy and c) the drift at the collapse mechanism δu.
Given the minimum obtained drift at yielding (Table 5), it
is possible to conservatively propose a deformation restriction,
Drift at yielding Final drift
Step δu (%) Step
2.09 1.39 2.48
1.96 1.68 2.20
for the service limit state, equal to δy≈1.20%. Moreover, as the
average final drift is 1.54%, it may be suggested a code restric-
tion for the collapse limit state equal to 1.50%. The large diver-
sity of tower configurations around the world makes it difficult
to establish a unique deformation limit which may be applied
to the particular structure configurations considered here.
Nevertheless, the obtained results for the considered config-
urations are useful and represent a reasonable estimation of
the deformation limit that a designer may take into account in
order to develop reliable designs in the revision of new and/or
existing towers.
In order to explore the potential effect of proposing drift limits
on the tower performance, the influence of the deformation of
the tower body was evaluated through the rotation at the base as
it is shown in Figure 16. The theoretical rotation ϕ(t)T was calcu-
lated by Equation (2), which can be found by static equilibrium
at the top of the tower (Figure 16(c)). Whereas, the analytical
rotation ϕ(t)A was calculated from the displacement at the top
(Equation (3)) during pushover analysis:
∑ ∑ ∑
fi yi + wi xi + Ti yi − VH
𝜙(t)T = (2)
PH
v(t)
𝜙(t)A = (3)
H
where Σ fi is the wind loads acting on the cables and the tower
body; Σ wi is the self-weight of cables, insulators and tower body;
Σ Ti is the mechanical tension in cables due to the line deviation;
y is the vertical lever arm and x is the horizontal lever arm and
v(t) is the deformation at the top along the time of the analyses.
According to the results, along the analyses, the evolution
of the analytical rotation ϕ(t)A obtained along the analysis is
more critical than the one calculated by static equilibrium ϕ(t)T.
Namely, the displacement at the top critically depends on the
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering   13

Theoretical Theoretical
Analytical Analytical φ
Yielding limit Yielding limit
0.06 0.06

y i+1
Context of Context of Fi+1

yi
0.05 0.05
Stability Stability Ti+1
0.04 0.04 Fi
Ti
φ 0.03 φ 0.03
0.02 0.02
wi+1
0.01 0.01
wi
0.00 0.00 xi
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Step(t)
V
Step(t)
(a) Model 43T10 (b) Model 53T10 (c) Variables

Figure 16. Influence of the deformation of the tower body.

Downloaded by [Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana] at 20:44 22 July 2016

50
40
40

Tower height (m)

Tower height (m)

30
30
20
20
10 10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Deformation (cm)
Deformation (cm)
drift= 0.52%
drift= 0.56%
drift= 0.64% (Elastic design) drift= 0.83% (Elastic design)
drift= 0.98% drift= 1.18%
drift= 1.19% (Initial yielding) drift= 1.49% (Initial yielding)
drift= 1.39% (Collapse) drift=1.68% (Collapse)
(a) Model 43T10 (b) Model 53T10

Figure 17. Deformed configuration for different global drifts along the analyses.

(a) dg (b) Wind direction

L= 400m L= 400m T
d3
T Cables
d2
5°
Deformed shape

10°

d1
dg

T
Undeformed
shape
Undeformed shape

T Defo
rmed ds T
dy

shap
e
s
θ

L'
T0
y

(c) W=ws
Semi-span
dx
x

Figure 18. Influence of the deformed shape in the increment of cables tension.

body deformation on the studied models. This implies that global The evolutions of these deformed configurations along the
parameters, or simplified analysis, might not correctly reflect the analyses are shown in Figure 17 for different global drifts (defor-
response of the overall structural system. mation at the top divided by tower height). According to these
 14    E. Tapia-Hernández et al.

3.0 3.0

Overstrenght, Ω
43T10 43T10 2.48
2.5 53T10 2.5 53T10

Ductility, µ
2.2
2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5
1.17 1.13
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Tower period (sec) Tower period (sec)
(a) Ductility capacities (b) Overstrength capacities

Figure 19. Developed ductility and overstrength by studied towers.

Table 6. Evaluation of the deflection in the cables tension.

Crossarms Height (m) Deflection at collapse (cm) Elongation, L′ (cm) L′/L Catenary, y (m)
Guard wire, dg 52.5 88.7 409.7 1.024 9.022
Downloaded by [Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana] at 20:44 22 July 2016

Conductor 3, d3 44.5 65.2 405.3 1.013 10.686

Conductor 2, d2 36.0 43.4 402.3 1.006 10.686
Conductor 1, d1 27.5 25.7 400.8 1.002 10.686

results, flexural deformation configurations govern at the elastic
stage (before the first yielding). This response is not strongly
affected by the loading pattern or the structure height, which is in
agreement with similar studies, where the responses are approx-
imately the same regardless of the applied loading profile (Mara,
2013; Mara & Hong, 2013). This confirms the influence of the
axial deformation (shortening or extension) of the leg elements
on the final collapse mechanism, and the poor participation of
the bracing system (shear stiffness contribution).
6.1.  Influence of the deflection in the cables
The deflection of the tower (Figure 18(a)) modifies the horizontal
cables length from L to L′ (Figure 18(b)), which causes a gauge
reduction of the catenary y and, therefore, an increment of the
tension T along the cable (Equation (4)). Here, c = T0/w, where
w is the cable weight per unit length, T0 the cable tension and s
the cable length as it is shown Figure 18(c):
� √
T= T20 + w2 s2 = w c2 + s2 (4)
Then, the increment of cable tension T is a function of the hori-
zontal distance x (Figure 18 (c)), which is defined as a function
of the cable length s by Equation (5) for a cable that supports a
uniform distributed load as self-weight:
s � � The towers fulfil all the requirements of the wind and steel
ds s s s guidelines of the local Code (MFDC-04, 2004). However, it has
x=∫ √ = c sinh−1 = c sinh−1
0 2
1 + s ∕c2 c 0 c been shown that structures may have a considerable reserve
In Table 6, the elongation L′ of the cable lengths for the model
53T10 was calculated in terms of the maximum deflections
at cross-arms (Figure 18(a)) and the span between towers
(L = 400 m, Table 1). Here, it was supposed that adjacent struc-
tures remain without deformations in order to study the more
unfavourable condition. The catenary y at the mid-span was also
calculated.
According to the results, the elongation of the distance x from
L to L′, and subsequent increment of the cable tension T has a
minimal influence in the final capacities of the tower because:
(1)  The increment of the span L′ is small L′/L → 1.0 (Table
6), even assuming that the adjacent structures are
infinitely rigid.
(2)  In a real scenario, the adjacent towers (Figure 18(b))
would develop a deflection at the same direction,
which would release the increment of cables tension.
(3)  The contribution rate on the critical support due the
cables tension represents approximately 15% of the
total axial load demand (Table 4).
6.2.  Ductility and overstrength
Finally, the inelastic behaviour was also assessed through
the ductility capacity μ  =  δu/δy and the overstrength capacity
Ω  =  Vb Final/Vb Design (variables were previously defined in
Figure  15). Due to the non-ductile collapse mechanism that
was developed, both models presented a near-elastic behaviour
(μ ≈ 1, Figure 19(a)). These results are in agreement with the
obtained capacity curves, where the damage concentrations in leg
members, by compression buckling in the middle height, lead the
collapse, although the tower still has important strength reserves.
(5)
of strength that is not explicitly considered in current codes
(Mitchel et al., 2003). This overstrength capacity in steel struc-
tures arises from several factors that sometimes occur in the
design/construction process: (a) the restricted choices for sizes
of members and elements (typification of sections) and rounding
of sizes and dimensions; (b) the difference between nominal and
factored resistances equal to 1/γ, where γ is the material resist-
ance factor as defined in the codes; (c) the ratio of actual yield
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering   15

strength to minimum specified yield strength; (d) the develop- 7. Conclusions

ment of strain hardening; (e) the development of the collapse
This paper reports the results of nonlinear analysis for
mechanism; (f) structure redundancy, (g) the adjustments to
two tension-type steel lattice towers. Three-dimensional ine-
adapt the necessary design connections to the dimensions and
lastic analyses were performed, where nonlinear beam-column
geometry of the actual structure, among other parameters.
elements with plasticity spread along the length element, were
The assessed overstrength capacity ratios (nominal shear Vnom
used to model all elements. The cross section of angles was dis-
and maximum shear Vmax) for the analysed towers, were always
cretised into fibres with quadrilateral shapes. Leg members were
larger than two (Figure 19(b)); this could mean that the towers
modelled with a set of six nonlinear beam-column elements to
have been designed for a much larger theoretical wind profiles,
reproduce the response of an axially loaded element including
than the ones that cause damage in actual structures. In addi-
large translational displacement and P-delta effects.
tion, the results lead to the observation that, by following current
Several load regulatory wind profiles were adopted from the
codes and practices, the inelastic response does not necessarily
application of the codified design wind load. Calculations were
agree in many instances with the assumptions underlying the
performed to: (a) identify load–strain curves for elements, (b)
code’s or practical design expected behaviour, as it is reported
draw global load–deformation curves, (c) obtain yielding map-
in similar studies (Belloli, Rosa, & Zasso, 2014).
ping sequences and collapse mechanisms, (d) evaluate the influ-
Ductility and overstrength are presented in terms of the fun-
ence of the tower body deformation and (e) assess theoretical
Downloaded by [Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana] at 20:44 22 July 2016

damental period (or tower height), because it has been observed

overstrength and ductility capacities.
that there exists a relationship between the tower’s period (or
Results show a local concentration of the damage with
tower height) and the inelastic capacities. This observation is
non-uniform distribution of yielding within the height. The
related to the findings in previous studies, where the inelastic
distribution of energy dissipation is mostly produced by either
capacities (ductility and overstrength) under lateral load pat-
buckling in compression or yielding in tension of the leg ele-
terns, depend on the structure height (fundamental period)
ments, without subsequent generation of damage in brace
(Tapia-Hernández & Tena-Colunga, 2014). In fact, some interna-
elements. In fact, the bracing system remained elastic along anal-
tional codes (for example MFDC-04) establish the overstrength
yses under all wind patterns considered in this research. Thus,
factor for steel structures as a function of the fundamental period
collapse mechanism does not acceptably match the intended
for seismic design.
goals in the codes design philosophy, where it is expected that
Although the overstrength concept is routinely employed for
a large number of elements would develop a significant inelas-
predicting the load–deformation behaviour in seismic design,
tic response. This mechanism is not considered into the design
its application in wind engineering has not been sufficiently
process and, in fact, it is difficult to predict. No dependency on
explored. Perhaps this is partly due to the fact that the seismic
the recommended lateral load pattern has been noticed in the
design philosophy allows the structures to undergo a permanent
developed final mechanism.
inelastic deformation under severe seismic excitations, whereas
The reported damage concentration in the change of the cross
the design for wind actions requires the structures to remain into
section leads to a fragile collapse; although the structures have
the elastic range (Banik et al., 2008). According to the obtained
near-elastic responses and important strength reserves with a
tendency, if the tower is short in height (short period), a high
non-uniform inelastic response along the height. Therefore, on
overstrength ratio may be developed. In addition, this observa-
the basis of the two analysed cases, a weakness on the local design
tion notes that methods to obtain overstrength factors in codes,
process was identified. Similar damages on actual towers under
for steel structures, should consider the geometrical variation
intense wind were also reported. A proposal for a preliminary
of the section shape in order to avoid a very low probability of
assessment of the solidity ratio ϕ for such structures was sug-
yielding.
gested, which serves to estimate the magnitude of the wind forces
This relationship is not currently considered in structures
in new designs.
codes, because there are no guidelines for the designer to limit
The main contributions of this investigation to wind-resistant
the damage and prevent the subsequent collapse. More detailed
design of electrical transmission tower are as follows:
and conservative deformation limits are proposed with the
intention to avoid the fragile collapse and to guarantee that the • According to the analysis results of two transmission tow-
structure remains in a stable configuration, valid for the two ers under lateral wind loads, the response could not be
tower configurations studied. But further efforts are required in adequately estimated (collapse mechanism, overstrength
order to close the gap between the predicted behaviour in the and ductility capacities, maximum deformation, etc.) by
design stage and the actual behaviour, especially for the inelastic following only the current international design codes;
range. specifically they could not predict the actual capacity and
High-voltage transmission towers have a distinct structural some unfavourable effects. In fact, if towers were designed
behaviour under wind loads, as compared to building structures, with an enhanced capacity-based design approach, they
because they are typically designed considering relatively small could have a better inelastic performance; but their ine-
safety margins, despite their high exposure to intense winds due lastic capacities would also be difficult to predict from the
to the large transmission line extension (Holmes, 2007). So, in current normative tools and design practices.
addition to possible deficiencies in the design process, it is worth • Capacity curves and collapse mechanisms were very simi-
mentioning that the behaviour of transmission towers under lar regardless of the applied loading profile. Thus, the over-
such action is a complex task to assess due to different factors, strength factors (ratio of yielding to maximum capacity) are
as it is noted in this research. insensitive to the considered theoretical wind load patterns.
 16    E. Tapia-Hernández et al.
• By following the current codes and practices, the designs
of the structures involve important unforeseen reserves
of strength. This notes the importance to close the gap
between the predicted behaviour, in the design stage, and
the actual behaviour especially in the inelastic range of
transmission towers.
• There was a fragile collapse mechanism developed in the
towers, both models showed a near-elastic behaviour
(ductility capacities are almost equal to μ ≈ 1). Despite
this result being predictable, there are no guidelines for
the designer to limit this kind of damage and to prevent
the subsequent fragile collapse. The fact that the collapse
is governed by a fragile response, for the considered con-
figuration types, might be taken into account by codes and
design practices through more detailed and conservative
deformation limits (as the proposed in this study) may
Downloaded by [Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana] at 20:44 22 July 2016
help to keep the structure safe and stable.
• Although several classical structures of power transmis-
sion tower are widely used all over the world, some design
and construction procedures of the tower structures
seems to be unfavourable. The results of this investigation
argue the relevance of the capacity-based design approach
and that appropriate simple measures, for example the
suggested connection between leg members (especially at
the middle height), could effectively increase the tower’s
ability to survive under strong winds.
Additional analyses of towers designed by following a detailed
capacity-based design could complement, further improve the
understanding of the actual behaviour and prevent failures of
these structures. The influence of the soil – foundation – struc-
ture interaction should also be explored. Caution should be
exercised, by designers, before the generalised application of the
above statements as they correspond to findings for the specific
cases analysed here.
Acknowledgements
The master fellowship granted to the second author by the National Science
and Technology Council of Mexico (Conacyt) is gratefully acknowledged.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Edgar Tapia-Hernández   http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4269-180X
References
AIJ-06. (2006). Recommendations for loads on building. Tokyo: AIJ
Architectural Institute of Japan.
ASCE 7-10. (2010). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures
(ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-05). New York, NY: American Society of
Civil Engineers. ISBN 07844-0809-2.
AS/NZS-11. (2011). AS/NZS 1170.2. Structural design actions. Part 2: Wind
actions (2nd ed.). Sidney: Australian/New Zealand Standard. ISBN 978-
0-7337-9805-4.
Banik, S., Hong, H., & Kopp, G. A. (2008, July 20–24). Assessment of
structural capacity of an overhead power transmission line tower under
wind loading. In Proceedings of BBAA VI, International Colloquium on
Bluff Bodies Aerodynamics & Applications. Milano, Italy.
Banik, S., Hong, H., & Kopp, G. A. (2010). Assessment of capacity curves
for transmission line towers under wind loading. Wind and Structures
An International Journal, 13(1), 1–20.
Belloli, M., Rosa, L., & Zasso, A. (2014). Wind loads on a high slender
tower: Numerical and experimental comparison. Engineering Structures,
68, 24–32.
Bolivar-Villagómez E. (2006), Sistema Eléctrico Nacional ). International
Electrotechnical Commitee. International Council on Large Electric
Systems, Cigre.(pp. 1–57 www.cigre.org.mx/uploads/media/SIN_
Mexico-CIGRE.pdf (in Spanish).
CSI. (2009). SAP 2000 analysis software. Berkeley, CA: Computers and
Structures.
Da Silva, J. G. S., Vellasco, P. C. G., De Andrade, S. A. L., & De Oliveira, M.
I. R.. (2005). Structural assessment of current steel design models for
transmission and telecommunication towers. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, 61, 1108–1134.
Davenport, A. G. (1961). The application of statistical concepts to the wind
loading on structures. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
19, 449–472.
De Oliveira, A., Silva, E., De Medeiros, J. C. P., Loredo-Souza, A. M., Rocha,
M. M., Rippel, L. I., Carpeggiani, E. A., & Núñez, G. J. Z. (2006). Wind
loads on metallic latticed transmission line towers (Paper B2-202). Paris:
International Council on Large Electric Systems, Cigre.
Durst, C. S. (1960). Wind speeds over short periods of time. Meteorological
Magazine, 89, 181–186.
Filippou, F. C., Popov, E. P., & Bertero, V. V. (1983). Effects of bond
deterioration on hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete joints (Report
EERC 83-19). Berkeley, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California.
Holmes, J. D. (2007). Wind loading of structures (2nd ed.). London: Spon
Press.
Hsiao, P.-C., Lehman, D. E., & Roeder, C. W. (2013). A model to simulate
special concentrically braced frames beyond brace fracture. Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 42, 183–200.
IEA. (2012). Electricity information. Statistics. Paris: International Energy
Agency. ISBN 978-92-64-17468-9.
Ibarra-González, S. (2014). Estudio del mecanismo de colapso de torres de
transmisión ante cargas laterales [Study of the collapse mechanism in
tower transmission lines under lateral loads] (Master thesis), Universidad
Autónoma Metropolitana – Azcapotzalco, Mexico City, Mexico (in
Spanish).
IS 875-95. (1992). Use of structural steel in over head transmission line
towers- code of practice (Materials, loads and permissible stresses). New
Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.
Jankowska-Sandberg, J., & Kolodziej, J. (2013). Experimental study of steel
truss lateral-torsional buckling. Engineering Structures, 46, 165–172.
Kemp, A. (1996). Inelastic local and lateral buckling in design codes.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 22, 374–382.
Lee, P. S., & McClure, G. (2007). Elastoplastic large deformation analysis
of a lattice steel tower structure and comparison with full-scale tests.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 63, 709–717.
Liang, S., Zou, L., Wang, D., & Cao, H. (2015). Investigation on wind
tunnel tests of a full aeroelastic model of electrical transmission tower-
line system. Engineering Structures, 85, 63–72.
Mara T. (2013), Capacity assessment of a transmission tower under wind
loading (thesis and dissertation repository). University of Western
Ontario, Ontario, Canada. Paper 1527.
Mara, T., & Hong, H. (2013). Effect of wind direction on the response and
capacity surface of a transmission tower. Engineering Structures, 57,
493–501.
Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M., & Fenves, G. (2006). Open system for
earthquake engineering simulation, user command-language manual
(Report NEES grid-TR 2004–21). Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research, University of California.
Metelli, G. (2013). Theoretical and experimental study on the cyclic
behavior of X braced steel frames. Engineering Structures, 46, 763–773.
MFDC-04. (2004). Reglamento de Construcciones para el Distrito Federal
[Mexican Federal District Code]. Gaceta Oficial del Departamento del

Distrito Federal [Official gazette of the Federal District Department].
October. Mexico City, Mexico (in Spanish).
Mitchel, D., Tremblay, R., Karacabeyli, E., Paultre, P., Saatcioglu, M.,
& Anderson, D. (2003). Seismic force modification factors for the
proposed 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 30, 308–327.
MOC-CFE-08. (2008). Manual de Diseño de Obras Civiles. Capítulo de
Diseño por Viento. México: Instituto de Investigaciones Eléctricas,
Comisión Federal de Electricidad (in Spanish).
NTCV-04. (2004). Normas Técnicas Complementarias para Diseño por
Viento [Design Guidelines for wind of the Mexican Federal District
Code]. Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal, décimo cuarta época, tomo II,
octubre [Official gazette of the Federal District Department]. October.
Mexico City, Mexico (in Spanish).
Peyrot, A. H. (2009). Wind loading: Uncertainties and honesty suggest
simplification. In Proceedings, Electrical Transmission and Substation
Structures Conference, (pp. 184–208). Fort Worth, TX: American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Prasad, R. N., Knight, G. M. S., Mohan, S. J., & Lakshmanan, N. (2012).
Studies on failure of transmission line towers in testing. Engineering
Downloaded by [Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana] at 20:44 22 July 2016
Structures, 35, 55–70.
View publication stats
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering   17
Raychowdhury, P. (2011). Seismic response of low-rise steel moment frame
(SMRF) buildings incorporating nonlinear soil-structure interaction.
Engineering Structures, 33, 958–967.
Savory, E., Parke, G. A. R., Zeinoddini, M., Toy, N., & Disney, P. (2001).
Modelling of tornado and microburst-induced wind loading and failure
of a lattice transmission tower. Engineering Structures, 23, 365–375.
Savory, E., Parke, G. A. R., Disney, P., & Toy, N. (2008). Wind-induced
transmission tower foundation loads: A field study-design code
comparison. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics,
96, 1103–1110.
Tapia-Hernández, E., & Tena-Colunga, A. (2014). Code-oriented
methodology for the seismic design of regular steel moment resisting
braced frames. Earthquake Spectra, 30(4), 1–27.
Tapia-Hernández E., De Jesús Y., & Fernández-Sola L. (2016), Dynamic
soil-structure interaction of ductile steel frames in soft soils. Advanced
Steel Construction. Submitted for publication.
Uriz, P., & Mahin, S. (2008). Toward earthquake-resistant design
of concentrically braced steel-frames structures (Report of
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, PEER 2008/08).
Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research, University of
California.