004s7949/a s3.00+0.

00
PergamonPESS plc

ELASTIC-PLASTIC ANALYSIS OF TUBULAR

TRA~SMrSSION STRUCTURES
ROBERT LEMASTER, VICHIEN NOPRATVARAKORN
and TIMOTHY THQSS
Sverdrup Technology, inc., P.O. Box 884, Tullahoma, TN 37388, U.S.A.

(Received 6 April 1987)

Abstract-The potential application of elastic-plastic analysis and design methods to tubular steel
H-frame structures is discussed. The ma~cmati~l theory is su~uently presented for a large deflection
beam element with elastic-plastic material characteristics. The numerically integrated beam element and
associated computer program are based on an incremental Newton-Raphson solution methodology. The
beam element was used to study the failure characteristics of a 500 kV tubular steel H-frame structure
and a substation take-off structure. Computed results were found to agree well with full-scale structure
test results.

NOTATION I referenced to material con~guration at

A surface area beginning of load increment
B volume 2 referenced to material configuration at end
Green’s strain of load increment
: shear modulus Right superscripts
H instantan#us slope of stress vs plastic i,.i,k,m,n indices for contravariant components of a
strain integral tensor
s Ziegler’s effective stress (P) plastic component
T 2nd Piola stress Deriviatives
w work
nli covariant
modulus of elasticity partial
i, i
body force
i length ?I aflax’
t 5.II a%iaW
surface traction
I4 displacement
u vefocity
x spatial coordinate
Gresdc Electrical transmission structures are designed to
center of yield surface withstand climatic loads such as wind and ice, erec-
F hardening parameter tion and conductor stinging loads, and unbalan~d
tl equivalent plastic strain integral longitudinal loads resulting from a broken conductor
torsional angle of rotation
f: plastic strain evolution factor or insulator and differential ice or wind. For each of
P density these load conditions, there are different probabilities
u yield surface radius of occurrence and associated design objectives. There
SY~l~ is a high probability that an electric trans~ssion
two-dimensional matrix structure will be exposed to varying climatic loads,
column matrix and the design objective is to provide a reliable
!?rscored - quantity evaluated at node point structure which will remain in service and will not
overscored 1 base vector
overscored * time derivative require excessive maintenance every time a storm
overscored ’ deviatoric component passes through. Conversely, there is a relatively low
underscored tensor probability that a structure will be exposed to broken
Operators conductor or insulator loads, and the design objective
6 variation is to contain the failures and minimize damage to the
d differential line. As stated in [I], ‘While the industry recognizes
Subscriprs that failures occur occasionally, the extent of the
0 reference configuration failure should be limited by providing adequate
c centroid
strength in each structure to resist the lon~tudina1
Lj, k, m, n covariant tensor component indices
loads without losing more than three or four struc-
Lefr superscripts tures.’
j referenced to material configuration used
in evaluating the components of the tan- Tubular steel structures are being used on an
gent stiffness matrix increasing basis in overhead electric transmission
i ~uilib~um iteration index Iines and are designed to remain elastic under all
603
604 ROBERTLEMASTERet af.

design conditions [2,3]. In general, the size of tubular and differential surface area; and A is the current
transmission structures is controlled by large un- body force vector defined relative to the reference
balanced longitudinal loads. Following a failure, configuration. This equation is an integral statement
tubular steel structures behave quite differently from of equiiib~um, and states that the virtual work
lattice transmission structures. Self-supporting lattice performed by the internal stresses must equal the rate
structures generally behave in a brittle manner fol- of virtual work performed by the externally applied
lowing a failure and will not resist a signi~cant load loads. S~~Ii~lly, eqn {I) may be written as
in a post-failure state. Conversely, tubular steel trans-
mission structures fail in a ductile manner and can SkV,= SlPr, (2)
sustain a significant load following a failure. In the
light of the inherent ductility manifested by tubular
or alternatively,
electric transmission structures, it may be beneficial
to take advantage of this feature in the design
srit;- W,=O, (3)
process. This is particularly true for low probability
of occurrence loads in which the main objective is to
where
contain the failure within three or four structures.
A prerequisite for taking advantage of the ductile
failure characteristics of tubular electric transmission SW*= P&W d4 -I- 8% d4, (4)
structures is to be able to compute the pre- and j4 s B0
post-yield response of not only a single structure, but
also of several structures representing a segment of is the rate of internal virtual work, and
an electric transmission line. The required compu-
tational capabilities encompass static and dynamic
(5)
response with associated elastic and elastic-plastic
material behavior, small strains with large rotations,
and elastic/elastic-plastic stability phenomena. is the rate of external virtual work. If equilibrium
The purpose of this paper is to describe a nonlinear between the surface tractions and internal stresses is
beam element which has been developed and applied not satisfied, eqn (3) will not be equal to zero.
to the post-yield analysis of tubular steel electric Consider a Taylor’s series expansion of eqn (3)
transmission structures. The element is based on a about a state which is not in equilibrium, then
numerical integration of the governing equations and
is applicabIe to compact, cio~d-polygonal sections. “(s~,-&s~)=‘(s~,-~s~)
Comparisons between computed results and experi-
mental data obtained from two full-scale structure + -$ ‘(6 F& - 6 l&) dy -I- O(d&‘, (6)
tests conducted at the Transmission Line Mechanical
Research Facility (TLMRF) [4] are presented.
where the left superscripted number 1 or 2 denotes
GOVERNING EQUATIONS
the configuration to which the kinetic and kinematic
variables and integrals are referenced (note that con-
In this section the governing equations are figuration 1 is not in ~~~b~urn). If co~guration 2
presented and cast in a form compatible with an in eqn (6) is chosen to be a configuration which is in
incremental-Newton-type solution scheme. The equilibrium, then
Lagrangian statement of the rate of virtual work is [5]
‘(SlP,--SW,>=0 (7)
p,$ y d& + Y&i&dB,
j& j and eqn (6) becomes

_j @EdA,+ j &Wd&, 0)
L 8,

where p, is the material density in the reference
configuration; $ is the current acceleration vector at
a material point; & is a virtual velocity vector at a
material point; B, is the material volume in the
reference configuration; T is the 2nd Viola stress
tensor; S& is the virtual rate of the Green strain
tensor &; A, is the surface of the reference
~nfiguration; t, is the current surface traction vector
at a point on the surface, defmed relative to the
reference configuration unit outward normal vector
The right side of eqn (8) represents the amount by
which configuration 1 is out of equilibrium and can
be considered an unbalanced force. The left side of
eqn (8) represents a system of equations with un-
known displacement increments &. The displace-
ment increments dp are estimates of the dispiace-
ments required to bring the unbalanced forces into
equilibrium.
Equation (8) can be generalized to yield a
Newton-Raphson-type solution scheme in which it-
 Elastioplastic analysis of tubular transmission structures 605

erations are performed to ensure ~~lib~urn; that is, is the effective load vector. In eqn (15), (F,,) is the
vector of externally applied node point loads, and
{Tf is a vector whose components are the 2nd Piola
stress tensor components. The [B], [G] and [D]
matrices are defined sym~lically as
where the superscriptj denotes the configuration used
to compute the derivatives. The superscript i denotes W1 = WI{@I (16)
the number of the equilibrium iteration. The im-
proved displacement after i ~~lib~~ iterations is (Sy:) = [Gl(SP] (17)
obtained as
(dT) = W]{dE), (18)

where (&)r = (68,, Sz&,. . . , Si&) are the virtual

After performing the partial differentiation, eqn (9) node point velocities. The [D] matrix in eqn (18) is a
reduces to material coefficient matrix which relates the stress
increments to strain increments. For an elastic-
plastic material description, eqns (14) and (15) are
integrated numerically.
In the following sections, the components of [of,
[B], [G] and [S] matrices are presented.

ELASTIC-PLASTICCONSTITUTMT
EQUATIONS: IDI MATRIX

The elastic-plastic constitutive equations used in

If the internal body force J, and external surface
traction t, are not functions of the dispIacements (i.e.
they are conservative), then eqn (11) may be reduced
to
this investigation are based on the equations
presented by Tanaka [6]. The constitutive equations
can be used to describe both combined isotropic and
Ziegler’s modified kinematic hardening. In the fol-
lowing paragraphs, the general constitutive equations
are presented first. Subsequently, the equations are
specialized to those used in conjunction with the
beam element.
The governing thr~-dimensional elastic-plastic
constitutive equations [7] are

da = it1 - 0% dTb,trl)’ (20)

(12)
da,f?I= HB dvl, WI
In matrix form, eqn (12) can be written as
where dT is the differential of the 2nd Piola stress
tensor T; dE is the differential of the Green’s strain
tensor &; 6 is the elastic material coefficient tensor;
where H is the instantaneous slope of the stress versus
plastic strain integral curve; v is the equivalent plastic
strain integral defined by

+ [~lr[Sl~Gl d(%)
1 (14)

where d&(p) is the plastic ~nt~butio~ of the strain

is the tangent stiffness matrix, {da) is the vector of
differential d&; $ is deviatoric effective stress tensor
incremental node point displacements and rotations,
defined by
and
s=r-g, (23)

where the overscored prime denotes ‘the deviatoric

606 ROBERT LEMASTERer al.

components of’, and g is the deviator of g which computed using the equation
represents the instantaneous center of the yield sur-
face; a, is the instantaneous radius of the yield surface {dE”“} = dA{S}, (32)
defined by where

?ss)=&Si. (24)
/I is a parameter ranging from zero to one which
controls the amount of isotropic and kinematic hard-
ening used to describe the material, for p = 1.0 the
equations reduce to isotropic hardening, for /I = 0.0
the equations reduce to Ziegler’s modified kinematic
hardening, for 0.0 < B < 1.0 the equations represent
combined kinematic and isotropic hardening.
The only non-zero components of the stress and
strain tensors, T and g, for a beam element are
T”, T’*, T” and E,,, E,*, E,,. Therefore, for the
special case of a beam element, eqns (19) through (2 1)
may be written in matrix form as
d’=$Hq,(r~)~+{SJT[C]{S}' (33)
The following steps are used to integrate the consti-
tutive equations at each element integration point:
(1) compute the new estimate for the radius of the
yield surface using eqns (32) and (33) in combination
with eqn (27);
(2) compute the new estimate for the stress com-
ponents using eqn (25);
(3) compute the new estimate for the stress coordi-
nates defining the center of the yield surface using eqn
(26);
(4) compute a new estimate a(q) for the radius of

C 1
PAN W[Cl the yield surface using the results from steps (2) and
WI (25)
w = [C]-~~~,(r1)2+{~}T[C]{~} (3) in conjunction with eqn (24);
(5) determine the ratio of a,(q) computed in step
(1) and a(q) computed in step (4); that is,
(26)

ratio = g ;
da,(ttI= HB h-3 (27)

where (6) scale the stress components computed in steps

(2) and (3) by the ratio in step (5).

1
YOO
[Cl= 0 G 0 (28) In step (l), dn is computed using a constant value
for H. The value at the beginning of the interval or
[ OOG at the point of transition from elastic to elastic-
plastic response during the interval is used. However,
Y = modulus of elasticity the value of H is updated during the integration of
G = shear modulus eqn (27). This technique provides consistent and close
approximations to the yield surface radius for curved
{dZ-}r= {dZ-“, dT12, dT’?} (29) stress-strain curves.
The stress and stress coordinates for the center of
{dEjr = {dE,,, 2dE,,, 2dE,,} (30) the yield surface computed in steps (2) and (3) are
tangent approximations. To ensure that the stresses
lie on the yield surface, they are scaled radially back
(31) to the yield surface according to steps (4) through (6).
This technique is essentially a tangent approximation
with radial correction (predictor-corrector) as dis-
The components of the plastic strain increments are cussed in [8].

TROID OF CROSS-SECTION

Fig. 1. Typical cross-section.

 Elastic-plastic analysis of tubular transmission structures 607

INCREMENTAL STRAIN-DISPLACEMENT The components of the virtual rate of Green’s

EQUATIONS: lBl MATRIX strain may be found from the expression
An arbitrary cross-section at any point along the
6$=;{6V”]ix”]j+ Wm]jxm]i}. (37)
length of an element is shown in Fig. 1 along with a
reference coordinate system with base vectors &, &
and &. The kinematic equations used to define the For a Cartesian coordinate system, the deformation
deformation at any point on the cross-section are gradient is

I- 1 2 2 3 xyj= ST + UI;,
u -UC-x u,,,-x u,,, (344 (38)

u2= uf- x’tl, Wb) where Sy is the Kronecker delta function, Substi-
tuting eqn (38) into eqn (37) yields the following
u’=u;+x%,. (34c) relationship for the virtual rate of Green’s strain:
The subscript c indicates that the subscripted variable
s~~==fIsv,,i+6~i,j+6~“,jU:j+6~=,juI”i}. (39)
is on the axis of the element which passes through the
--
centroid of the cross-section. These equations do not initial
small
account for warping of the cross-section in torsion, or displacement
deformation
for lateral shear deformation. These two phenomena contribution
contribution
are generally unimportant in tubular electric trans-
mission structures.
The deformation of the centroidal axis at any point For an updated Lagrangian analysis technique [5],
along the length of the beam is related to the node the initial displacement contribution is zero, and eqn
point displacement through the interpolation (39) reduces to
equations [9].

Pa)
For a beam element, the only non-zero virtual rate of
8, =fsn” +f6c’O Wb) Green’s strain components are 68,, , CL??,,
and Sl?,, .
Therefore
24;=f,ti2 +f2ziS +f3c6 +f4ii12 (35c)
W-4

u;=f,E’ +f2ii9 +f31i5+f41s”, (354

(41b)
where
26&, = SV,,, + SV,,,. (4lc)
f+l+*($3(;) W4
By substituting eqns (34), (35) and (36) into eqns (4l),
a matrix expression relating the virtual rate of
h=3($-2($ Green’s strain to the virtual node point velocities is
obtained:
f (xY 2W
7+x’ {Sk} = [B](6P}. (42)
’ - (I)2
The following expression relating the incremental
(36d) Green’s strain components to the incremental node
point displacements is obtained in a manner similar
to eqn (42):
(36e)
{dE} = [B]{dC}. (43)

(36f) The [B] matrix in eqns (42) and (43) is

f 5. I -2fi I -x%. II 0 x%.,, -x%.,, &I -di,, -X%.1, 0 al.11 -X2%.11

[El= [ 00 0 0
0 X2h.I
-x3&., 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 a..,
-x3&1 0
0 0
0. I

WI
608 ROBERT
LEMASTER
er al.

INITIAL STRRSS STIFFNESS INTEGRATION OF THE ELEMENT EQUATIONS

MATRIX: ICI AND 1st MATRICES

The initial stress contribution to the tangential The integrals contained in eqns (14) and (15) are
stiffness matrix comes from the term evaluated numerically using a Newton-Cotes algor-
ithm, which can be written as

F(x], x2, x3) dB,

in eqn (12). The components of the increment in the
virtual rate of Green’s strain can be obtained from
the expression

d(6~~)=f(6V”Jidu”lj+6VmI,du”l,). (46)
where Wi, Wj, W, are the weights applied to values
Using eqn (46), eqn (45) may be written as of the function F evaluated at the sample points
x’, x2, x3. This integration method requires the evalu-
ation of the [B], [D], [G] and [S] matrices at each
sample point in the element. Typical sample point
locations are shown in Fig. 2. The actual number of
= ~(6V”IiT”du”lj+6V”ljT”dumIi)d(~B,) sample points and their locations depends on the
I number of sides making up the polygonal cross-
section.
= {6V}T [GIT[sl[Gld(kB,){d~}, (47)
500 kV H-FRAME STRUCIWRE

where the [G] matrix is defined by

{6Y’iI = [Gl{6VII
and [S] is a matrix of stress terms required to satisfy
{Sp}T[G]T[S][G]{dri} = 6V”],T”du”lj.
The [G] and [S] matrices obtained
(39, (36), (48) and (49) are:
The element was used to analyze the full-scale
500-kV transmission structure shown in Fig. 3. The
(48)
beam element representation of the structure is
shown in Fig. 4. The purpose of the analysis was to
determine whether a numerically integrated elastic-
plastic beam element could compute the location and
(49)
model of a failure which occurred while the structure
was being tested at the TLMRF.
from eqns (34),
The subject failure occurred at the 90% load level

f 5. I -Xtr,,,,
0 fl,,
0 0
0 -f,. I

[G] = 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T” 0 0 T12 0 0 T13 0 0
0 T” 0 0 T’2 0 0 T13 0
0 0 T” 0 0 T’* 0 0 T13
T’* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 T12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (51)
0 0 T12 0 0 0 0 0 0

T'-' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 T13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 T13 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Elastic-plastic analysis of tubular transmission structures 609

0 MATERIAL NONLINEARITIES

* ELASTIC/ELASTIC-PLASTIC BUCKLING
\
NUMERICAL INTEGRA~ON POINTS

Fig. 2. Compact-ciosed-section-tapered beam element.

while the structure was exposed to a high transverse
wind and unbalanced outside conductor load combi-
nation. The faiiure shown in Fig. 5 occurred in an
x-brace member loaded in combined bending and
compression. The stress-strain curve of the material
obtained from a sample taken from the failed x-brace
member is shown in Fig. 6. Note that although the
0.2% off-set yield stress value for the material is
approximately 411 MPa (60 ksi), plastic deformation
actually begins at approximately 240 MPa (35 ksi).
The element did compute an elastic-plastic in-
stability in the x-brace at the same load level and at
the location where the x-brace failed during the test.
However, the program also indicated that the main
compression shaft-which was loaded in combined
bending, compression, and torsion-would buckle at
a 70% load level. This phenomena was not observed
during the test, and is currently under investigation.
SU~TA~ON TAKEOFF STRUCTURE
The test structure was a 115-kv substation take-off
structure as shown in Fig. 7. The member shapes were
hollow rectangular sections assembled from ASTM
A36 plates welded together. The structure was ex-
posed to a complex combination of transverse, longi-
tudinal, and vertical loads. The 100% level associated
with these loads was dictated by current design
practice and was sufficient to cause the extreme fibers
in the main cross member to just reach the material
yield stress. The loads were increased simultaneously
from the 0 to 100% levels with hold points at 50, 75,
90 and 95%. From the 100% level, all loads except
the ground wire attachment points were increased
simultaneously from the 100 to 200% load levels in
10% increments. The ground wire attachment point
loads were held constant at the 100% load level. The
structure remained intact and did not experience a
catastropic failure during the loading sequence.
Eighty-eight electric resistance strain gages were
placed at strategic locations on the structure. Each
gage was arranged to measure axial and flexure
strains and utilized a separate Wheatstone bridge
circuit. Strain versus percent load plots were obtained
for each measurement location.
The response of the structure was computed using
the geometric and material nonlinear beam element.
Figure 8 shows the geometry and location of the
numerical integration points associated with the
dement. During the analysis, the loads were applied
to the structure in 10% increments, with an average
of four equilibrium iterations performed following
each increment. Execution time on a VAX 11/780
computer was approximately one CPU hour.
An evaluation of the elastic-plastic analysis results
indicated that the most significant yielding of the
material occurred at the mid-span of the cross-beam.
This was confirmed by the test results which indicate
the development of a plastic hinge at the mid-span of
the cross-beam.
In Figs 9 through 14, six pairs of analysis and test
results are presented for the mid-span of the cross-
beam. The first plot in each pair shows the computed
stress versus strain curve at the integration point
closest to a strain gage installation. This plot shows
the degree of yielding occurring at that point in
the beam. In general, the yielding is very moderate
and does not exceed the 0.2% offset strain for the
material.
The second plot in each pair shows both the
computed and measured strains as a function of
percent load. These figures show that the computed
elastic-plastic strain growth followed the test

C.&S.
*8,$---D
610 ROBERT LEMASTER
et al.

Fig. 3. 500 kV H-frame structure.

data fairly well-the two exceptions are shown in
Figs 12(b) and 14(b).
Figure 1l(b) demonstrates a significant amount of
strain growth at each of the test hold points. This
strain growth is attributed to creep in the test struc-
ture. The slope of the test strain versus percent load
curve between the hold points agrees with the com-
puted slope, which indicates that the elastic-plastic
response between the hold points was being
computed accurately. No creep mechanism was
accounted for in the analysis.
The structural analysis terminated while at-
tempting to achieve an equilibrium configuration at
a load level of 190%. The software termination
indicated that the structure, as modeled, was unstable
in the 190% load range. However, the test structure
was capable of carrying the 200% level loads.
The results indicated that the structure had devel-
oped a plastic hinge at the mid-span of the beam.
After the plastic hinge was fully developed, the beam
began to carry the loads in tension instead of ben-
ding. The transition between the bending and tension
load carrying mechanisms is the point at which the
structural software fails to converge. An adaptive
numerical algorithm which determines the load appli-
cation increment based on solution characteristics
would have facilitated this type of computation and
is currently being implemented.
 Elastic-plastic analysis of tubular transmission structures 611

Fig. 4. H-frame structural model.

SUMMARYAND CONCLUSIONS agreed well with measured values. However, creep

In general, the use of a numerically integrated
beam element to investigate the failure mechanisms
of full-scale tubular structures under complex loading
was quite successful. The analyses performed using
the element described in this paper provided an
improved understanding of the post-yield strength of
the respective structures. The computational resource
requirements were relatively insignificant when com-
pared to the cost of constructing and testing a
prototype structure.
The analysis of a substation take-off structure
indicated that the structure could react without
significant damage, approximately twice as much
load as current design practice permits. Comparisons
between computed elastic-plastic strain increments
during test hold periods caused the total strain
(elastic-plastic creep) to exceed the computed values.
The incremental-Newton-type solution method could
not compute the response of the structure during the
transition between a bending load reaction mech-
anism and axial force reaction mechanism. Solution
methods exist which should remove this
limitation [lo-121.
The failure load level and failure mode of an
x-brace member loaded in combined bending and
compression was accurately computed for a 500 kv
H-frame structure. The element did compute a com-
bined compression, torsion, and bending instability
in one of the H-frame vertical shafts. This failure
mode was not observed during test and is currently
under investigation.
612 ROEIERT
LEMASTER
et al.

Fig. 5. Buckled x-brace member.

r-r-i--
5oo

----I--
0 I I ! I

0.000 0.002 6 0.004 0.006 0.006 0.010 0.012

(m/m)

Fig. 6. Stress-strain curve for x-brace material.

 Elastic-plastic analysis of’tubular transmission structures 613

-.I
1.22 m
jr.0”)
it-4
1.22 n
(4‘~S=

LONG~TUO~NAL

I/ TRANSVLRSE

Fig. I. Sub-station take-off structure.

Fig. 8. Geometry and numerical integration points associated with nonlinear beam element.
614 ROBERTLEMASTERer al.

-50

-100

1 I
-150

-200

-250
E
-0.175 -0.150 -0.125 -0.100

Fig. 9(a). Computed stress-strain

-0.075

STRAIN
-0.050

response for location Bl.

-0.025 -0.000

(10-2)

Xl o-2

0.00

- TEST
+ ANALYSIS

-0.05

-0.16

-0.20

0 50 100 150 200

PERCENT LOAD

Fig. 9(b). Comparison of computed and measured strain for location BI.
 Elastic-plastic analysis of tubular transmission structures 615

-250

-0.20 -0.15 -o.,o -0.05 -0.00

(10-2)
STRAIN

Fig. 10(a). Computed stress-strain response for location B2.

x10-2

0.00

-0.05

-0.10

2
a
z
* -0.15

-0.20

-0.25

0 100

PERCENT LOAD

Fig. 10(b). Comparison of measured and computed strain for location B2.
616 ROBERTLEMASTERet al.

(103
STRAIN

Fig. I l(a). Computed stress-strain response for location B4.

-0.05

0 50 100 150
1
200

PERCENT LOAD

Fig. II(b). Comparison of measured and computed strain for location B4.
 Elastic-plastic analysis of tubular transmission structures 617

260

200

f 160

scn
s
E
u) 100

50

0 I,,, ,,I, ,I,, ),I, ,,I(

0.000 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175

STRAIN (103

Fig. 12(a). Computed stress-strain response for location BS.

- TEST
+ ANALVSIS

I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I , I I

0 50 100 150

PERCENT LOAD

Fig. 12(b). Comparison of measured and computed strain for location BS.
618 ROBERTLEMAWERet al.

200

K 150

3
v)

E
a 100

50

0 I I I I I I , I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I .

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

(lo-q
STRAIN

Fig. 13(a). Computed stress-strain response for location B6.

__ TEST
+ ANALYSIS

-0.05

0 50 100 150 200

PERCENT LOAD

Fig. 13(b). Comparison of measured and computed strain for location B6.
 Elastic-plastic analysis of tubular transmission structures 619

-0.150 -0.125 -0.100 -0.075 -0.050 -0.025 0.000

STRAIN (103

Fig. 14(a). Computed stress-strain response for location B8.

x10-2

0.00
- TEST
+ ANALYSIS

-0.05
E

-0.10

l--
0 50 100 150 200

PERCENT LOAD

Fig. 14(b). Comparison of measured and computed strain for location B8.
620 ROBERTLEMASTER
er al.
Acknowledgements-The work reported in this paper was
supported by the Electric Power Research Institute under
contract RP2016-03. The data from the 500-kv H-frame
structure were obtained during a co-sponsored research test
between Valmont Industries, Inc., Valley, Nebraska, and
EPRI. The data from the sub-station take-off structure were
obtained during a co-sponsored research test between the
Western Area Power Authority, Denver, Colorado, and
EPRI. In addition to the financial support provided by these
organizations, the efforts of the TLMRF operations staff
played an important role in the accomplishment of this
work.
REFERENCES
Guidelines for transmission line structural loading,
p. 117. Prepared by the Committee on Electrical Trans-
mission Structures of the Committee on Analysis and
Design of Structures of the Structural Division of the
American Society of Civil Engineers. American Society
of Civil Engineers, New York (1984).
Design of steel transmission pole structures, p. 10.
Prepared by Task Committee on Steel Transmission
Poles of the Committee on Analysis and Design of
Structures of the Structural Division of the American
Society of Civil Engineers. American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York (1978).
Tapered Tubular Steel Structures-ANSI/NEMA
ITI-1983, p. 6. American National Standards Institute.
Inc., New York (1984)
4. TLMRF the Transmission Line Mechanical Research
Facility. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
CA (1983).
5. K. I. Bathe, Finite Element Procedures in Engineering
Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1982).
6. M. Tanaka, Elastoplastic constitutive laws based on
combined isotropic and kinematic hardening. Osaka
(Japan) University Faculty of Engineering Technology
Reports, No. 25, 101-115 (1975).
7. R. A. LeMaster, Finite deformation-finite element
formulations for elastic-visccplastic materials. Thesis
presented to the University of Tennessee, at Knoxville,
TN, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy (1983).
8. R. D. Kriea and D. B. Kriea. Accuracies of
numerical sohrtion methods for thi elastic-perfectly
plastic model. J. Pressure Vessel Technol. 99, 510-515
(1977).
9. R. S. Barsoum and R. H. Gallagher, Finite element
analysis of torsional and torsional-flexural stability
problems. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2, 335-352
(1970).
10. M. A. Crisfield, A fast incremental/iterative procedure
that handles snap-through. Comput. Strucr. 13, 55-62
(1981).
11. J. Podovan and S. Tovichakchaikul, Self-adaptive
predictor-corrector algorithms for static nonlinear
structural analysis. Compnr. Struct. 15, 365 (1982).
12. E. Riks, An incremental approach to the solution of
snapping and buckling problems. Inr. J. Solids Struct.
IS, 529-551 (1979).