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

net/publication/315584091

WIND ANALYSIS OF THREE LEGGED TRANSMISSION TOWERS WITH

DIFFERENT BRACING SYSTEMS

Conference Paper · March 2017

CITATIONS READS

2 674

2 authors, including:

Yuwaraj Marotrao Ghugal

Government Engineering College, Karad, Maharashtra State, India
150 PUBLICATIONS   3,275 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Mix proportioning of fly ash based geopolymer concrete View project

Toughness of Polymer Modified Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yuwaraj Marotrao Ghugal on 24 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 WIND ANALYSIS OF THREE LEGGED TRANSMISSION TOWERS
WITH DIFFERENT BRACING SYSTEMS
P. B. Shinde1, Y. M. Ghugal2
1
P.G.Student, Government College of engineering,
Karad,email:pournimashinde12892@gmail.com
2
Professor, Applied Mechanics Department, Government College of engineering,
Karad,email: yuwaraj.ghugal@gcekarad.ac.in

ABSTRACT
Transmission towers are constructed to carry power lines at sufficient and safe distances from
ground level due to high voltage. Transmission tower constitute 28 to 42 % cost of transmission
lines. Cost of tower depends upon tower configurations and bracing patterns used. Bracing
members enhance the stiffness and reduces the slenderness ratio of the tower. In the present
study three legged double circuit 400 kV self supporting transmission towers having 20 line
deviation consisting different bracing systems are considered. The study consists of four
models of angle sections with different bracing systems. STAAD.Pro software has been used
for analysis as 3D space structure. Four models are analyzed for wind loading as per IS 802
(1995). Performance of towers with respect to axial forces and defections is presented. The
model of tower with K bracing shows minimum deflections and axial forces as compared to
other bracing systems. Hence, towers with this type of bracing systems can be recommended
in practice.
Keywords: Bracings, broken wire conditions, normal conditions, three legged tower etc.

INTRODUCTION
Transmission line towers are carrying heavy power lines at safe and sufficient distance. Tower
is designed as per structural and electrical point of view. Tower configurations, conductors,
insulators, bracings, cross arms and foundations are major components of tower. Transmission
line towers constitute about 28 to 40% of the cost of the transmission line as stated by Rao
G.Visweswara(1995). Cost of tower depends upon tower configurations, cross arm, height and
right type of bracing systems as stated by David J.S.(1992) and Tupe D.(2008). The four
different bracing patterns are K bracing, XBX bracing, X-X bracing, W bracing are considered
in the tower body. The bracing members increases stiffness and reduces slenderness ratio of
tower. The present study is regarding bracing pattern and its impact on axial forces, deflections
under same loading pattern (as per IS 802 (1995)). Wind analyses are carry out as par IS 802
(1995).The objective of this paper is to analysis of towers for wind load.

Transmission line tower

The four legged tower is commonly used to carry power lines. The three legged tower used as
telecommunication. Radio and microwaves tower. But recent paper trend shows that three
legged tower also used to carry power line. In this study four different bracing patterns are
considered. The K type bracing shows minimum result among the bracing for same loading
criteria. The W and XX type bracing shows about 15% increase results than K type bracing. The
deflections of K type bracings are lesser than other bracings pattern of towers.

Page | 93
Description Of Tower Configuration
The present study, three legged 400 kV double circuit self supporting suspension angular tower
having line deviation of 20 with different bracing systems in tower body are considered as
stated by Ghugal Y.M(2011). The bracing patterns are K bracing, XBX bracing, W bracing and
XX bracing in the tower body. The tower configurations are given in Table 1 and Figure 2.
As per the guidelines of IS 802 and HVPNL[9], Table 2 lists the details of some parameters
typical to a 400 kV double circuit suspension type tower and Table 3 lists the details of
parameters for conductor and ground wire are considered from IS 802(Part 1/section1)1995
and IS:5613 (Part 3/section1)1989.

Fig 1 Transmission line layouts for three legged transmission tower

Modeling Approach
The STAAD.Pro 2008 has been used for the analysis. In this study, 3D analysis of tower
considering all members of tower as space truss as primary member has been used in
STAAD.Pro programmed. The wind load analysis is carried out according to IS 802(1995).
The loading is considered for both normal (NC) and broken wire conditions (BWC). The four
different models are as shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 indicates loading criteria considered while
analysis of four models of tower in STAAD.Pro software. The different bracing patterns are
differed only in tower body however other members of tower remain same in all models of
tower. The loading diagrams of towers are shown in Figure 3.

Page | 94
 (a) (b) (c) (d)
Fig 2 configurations of three legged tower in (a)XX bracing (b) W bracing (c) K bracing
(d)XBX bracing.

Table 1 Configurations of Three Legged towers

Configurations Triangular tower Configurations Triangular
tower
Base width Equilateral triangle 8500 Max.Sag of conductor 13950 mm
mm side dimension (sag at min. temperature and
36%WL)

Cage bottom Equilateral triangle 3600 Max.Sag of ground wire (sag at min. 6900 mm
width mm side dimension temperature and 36% WL)

Cage top width Equilateral triangle 2000 Vertical spacing b/w conductor 8000 mm
(top of tower) mm side dimension
Height till 28200 mm Vertical spacing b/w conductor and 5800 mm
L.C.A. Level ground wire
Height till 44200 mm Horizontal spacing b/w conductor 15000 mm
U.C.A. Level (L.C.A.)
Total Tower 50000 mm Horizontal spacing b/w conductor 13700 mm
height (M.C.A.)
(from G.L.)

Page | 95
Minimum 8840 mm Horizontal spacing b/w conductor 12800 mm
ground (T.C.A.)
clearance
Horizontal 7000 mm
spacing b/w
ground wire

Table 2 Parameters for the Transmission Line and Tower Components

Transmission line 400 kV Double Basic wind speed 39 m/s
voltage Circuit

Tower type Suspension Tower Basic wind pressure 483 N/mm2

No. of circuit Double circuit Max. temperatures 75°c
Angle of line deviation 0°- 2° Every day temperature 32°
Cross arm Pointed Min. temperature 0°
Tower shape Barrel shaped Insulator type Suspension type
Bracing pattern Body X-X Bracing Size of insulator disc 280x170
Terrain type considered Category Length of insulator string 3850 mm
Return period 50 years Length of ground wire 2000 mm
Minimum wind load on 1.0 kN Weight of Insulator Disk 3.5 kN
insulators
Wind span 400m 400m Weight of Ground Wire 2.00 kN/m

Table 3 Parameters for the Conductor and Ground Wire Conductor size
Description Conductor Ground wire

Conductor type and material ACSR Galvanized steel Earth

wire
Conductor size 54/3.53 mm AL + 7/3.53 mm steel 7/3.66
Overall diameter of the 31.77mm 11.0 mm
conductor
Area of the conductor 5.97cm2 0.578cm2
Weight of the conductor 2.00kg/m 0.7363Kg/m
Breaking strength of the 16280.00Kg 6950Kg
conductor
Coefficient of linear expansion 0.193 X10-4/0 0.115X10-4/0
(α)
Modulus of Elasticity 686000kg/cm2 0.1933X107 Kg/cm2

Page | 96
 Normal condition (a) B.W.C.L.B.C.(b)

B.W.C.L.T.C.(c) B.W.C.L.G.W.(d)
Fig 3Wind load on conductors and insulators

DISCUSSIONS AND RESULTS

Maximum forces
Figure 4 show maximum axial forces in the members of towers. It is observed that K type
bracing patterns has minimum axial forces in both normal and broken wire condition. Axial
forces are increased by about 6% in broken wire condition than axial forces in normal
condition. Axial forces in W bracing are about 15% more than K type bracing where as forces
in XX bracing is about 9% more than that of K bracing. Configurations of cross arm with
different bracing system in towers are similar. So axial forces in cross arm member is near
about same.

Page | 97
 2500 2500
K Bracing
2000 2000
1500 XBX Bracing 1500 K Bracing
1000 W Bracing 1000
500 XBX Bracing
XX Bracing 500
0 W Bracing
0
Leg Main Cross XX Bracing
member bracing arm
member

(a) (b)
Fig 4 Axial forces in towers different bracing systems in (a) Normal,(b)broken wire
conditions.
Maximum deflection
Figure 5 shows that maximum deflection in towers with different bracing systems at different
height of tower. It shows that W bracing system has maximum deflection in both conditions.
K type bracing has minimum defection. All deflections are within permissible limit.

600 K Bracing K Bracing

600
500 500 XBX Bracing
400 XBX Bracing
400
300 300 XX Bracing
XX Bracing
200 200 W Bracing
100 W Bracing 100
0 Permissible
0
Permissible 28.2 36.2 44.2 50 deflection
28.2 36.2 44.2 50
deflection
(a) (b)
Fig 5 Deflections of tower in different bracing systems in (a) Normal, (b)Broken wire
conditions.

CONCLUSION

1. Axial forces in all members of towers in broken wire condition are 5 to 6% more than
axial forces in normal condition
2. Axial forces in main bracing members of towers in broken wire conditions are 20 to
40%
more than axial forces in normal conditions.
3. Axial forces in cross arm members of towers in broken wire conditions are 12 to 30%
more than axial forces in normal conditions.
4. Axial forces in all members of XX and W bracing are about 15% more than K type
bracing.
5. Max. Deflection at the top of tower in W bracing is 16% more than maximum
deflection of K type bracing.
6. All cross arm members with different bracing patterns do not show much difference in
axial forces.

Page | 98
 REFERENCE
[1]Y. M. Ghugal et al, “Analysis and Design of Three and Four Legged 400KV Steel
Transmission Line Towers: Comparative Study”, International Journal of Earth Sciences and
Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp 691-694.
[2] “Dynamic Response of Power Transmission Towers under Wind Load” by Li Pengyun, Lin
Jiedong, Nie Ming, Zhong Wanli, Huang Auguo - SciVerse Energy Procedia 17 (2012) 1124
1131.
[3] “OPTIMUM DESIGNS FOR TRANSMISSION LINE TOWERS”, by G.Visweswara Rao,
Computer & Structures vol.57.No.1.pp.81-92, 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd.
[4] I.S. 802 (Part -1/Sec 1)1995, “Use of Structural Steel in Overhead Transmission Line
Towers - Code of Practice”.
[5] I.S. 5613 (Part-1/Sec 2):1985, “Code of Practice for Design, Installation and Maintenance
of Overhead Power Lines”.
[6] I.S. 802(Part1/Sec2):1995, “Use of Structural Steel in Overhead Transmission Line Towers
– Code of Practice”.
[7] Central Board of Irrigation and Power (CBIP), “Transmission Line Manual”, Publication
No. 268.
[8] “Transmission line Structure” Text Book on Transmission line Structure by Murthy and
Santhakumar A.R.
[9] “Transmission line Structure” Text Book on Transmission line Structure by Dayaratnam.

Page | 99

View publication stats