ARTICLE IN PRESS

Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1017–1030 www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Behaviour of cold formed lipped angles in transmission line towers
S.J. Mohana,Ã, S. Rahima Shabeenb, G.M. Samuel Knightc
b

Structural Engineering Research Centre, Chennai 600 113, India Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai 600 036, India c Department of Civil Engineering, Anna University, Chennai 600 025, India Received 2 March 2006; accepted 26 July 2006

a

Abstract The importance and use of equivalent radius of gyration method is discussed and necessary expressions are derived in this paper. The limiting values of slenderness ratio for the equivalent radius of gyration with the least radius of gyration are discussed to establish the buckling behaviour of lipped angles. Finite Element Analysis on the buckling behaviour of the mathematical models of individual lipped angle members and a full scale X-panel was carried out to compare the values predicted by equivalent radius of gyration. A series of compression tests were carried out on lipped angle sections and their behaviour is studied in the elastic and in the inelastic ranges of loading. These tests were broadly classified under two categories; concentrically loaded members and eccentrically loaded members. Experimental investigations on full scale tower panels with conventional patterns of leg and diagonals were also carried out. The results of the experiments were compared with analytical predictions using torsional flexural buckling equations, Finite Element Analysis and the equivalent radius of gyration approach. r 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: Lipped angle; Torsional–flexural buckling; Equivalent radius of gyration; Transmission line tower; Tower panel; Leg member; Diagonal bracing member

1. Introduction The torsional–flexural buckling equations for singly symmetric cold formed sections are used to predict the member capacity in most of the International Standards like AISI [1], AS/NZS:4600 [2], BS 5950-Part 5 [3] and IS801 [4]. However, these codes of practices do not adequately cover the design of transmission line towers since they are formulated for the use in general building constructions. The American Standard ASCE 10-97 [5] meant for the design of transmission line towers suggests a method for designing the cold formed sections which is based on equivalent radius of gyration approach. Although codes of practice on cold formed steel sections are available, their accuracy in predicting the actual behaviour has not been fully established. Studies have been carried out to quantify this accuracy for members of latticed masts.
ÃCorresponding author. Tel./fax: +91 044 22641734.

E-mail address: mohansj@sercm.org (S.J. Mohan). 0263-8231/$ - see front matter r 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.tws.2006.07.006

Latticed mast consists of a continuous leg member braced on both flanges and assumed concentrically loaded. The lattices or the bracings are connected on only one flange and hence they are always assumed as eccentrically loaded members. While bracings are connected with leg members framing eccentricity may also bound to occur. Normal framing eccentricity implies that the centroid of the bolt pattern is located between the heel of the angle and the centre line of the connected leg. When this is not the case, due consideration should be given to the additional stresses induced in the member. ASCE Standard 10-97 [5] account for these considerations in terms of effective length by using equivalent radius of gyration instead of least radius of gyration. Though the theory of torsional–flexural buckling of mono-symmetric thin walled open sections under concentric loading is well developed, determination of the torsional–flexural buckling load with normal framing eccentricities is extremely tedious. Equivalent radius of gyration approach is an attempt to understand the theory of torsional flexural buckling by taking into

r0 the polar radius of gyration. FEM and experimental results are analysed and concluded. IP the polar moment of inertia. Young [9] presented the behaviour of cold formed steel lipped equal angle columns. Cw the warping constant. residual stresses and corner material properties of the cold formed steel angles were measured and reported. r0 (6) . When a member buckles in the torsional mode the equivalent torsional radius of gyration may be obtained by equating the torsional buckling stress to flexural buckling stress assuming that the radius of gyration used is the torsional radius of gyration [10].and Y-axis translations. Venant torsional constant. r2 ¼ t IP sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 0:04Jl 2 þ C w rt ¼ . Equivalent radius of gyration concept Theoretical studies on torsional flexural buckling of mono-symmetric sections carried out during recent times are briefly mentioned. rt the torsional radius of gyration. The design problem of angle sections whose legs are slender. l the unbraced length of column. E the modulus of elasticity. (1) ¼ GJ þ l2 ðl=rt Þ2 Ar2 0 The term Ar2 is the polar moment of inertia and denoted 0 by IP. then & ' l2 p2 EC w 2 . Structure level FEM analysis was used to compare the buckling mode and load carrying capacity of axially loaded leg members. (5) stf ¼ 2k where k ¼1À  2 x0 .G i y Shear Centre v Shear Centre x0 C. Torsional–flexural buckling deformations. Liu et al. Since literature was very scant on equivalent radius of gyration.r. J the St.The following expression is used:   p2 E 1 p2 EC w . Szymczak [6] presented sensitivity analysis of thin walled members with open monosymmetric or bisymmetric cross sections. Further an extensive parametric study was carried out using the finite element method to study the effect of cross section geometries on the strength and behaviour of lipped angle columns. when the member buckles in the torsional– flexural mode the torsional–flexural radius of gyration or the equivalent radius of gyration may be obtained by equating the torsional–flexural buckling stress to the flexural buckling stress assuming the radius of gyration used is the equivalent radius of gyration. y x C. u and v the X. Similarly. A typical torsional flexural buckling deformation is shown in Fig. Buckling loads predicted from analytical methods. r the least radius of gyration. 1. (2) GJ þ rt ¼ 2 p EI P l2 Assuming G ¼ 0:4E and p2 ¼ 9:87   0:04Jl 2 þ C w . The load versus axial shortening. 2. IP (3) (4) where A is the gross area of cross section. [7] presented a global optimization approach suited for optimization of cold formed cross sections. deflection and strain field across the cross section were compared between the individual element test and structural test. 1. Finite Element Analysis on cold formed individual members and as a component in full scale structure were carried out to asses the buckling capacities of lipped angles. The analysis was based upon the classical theory of thin walled beams with non-deformable cross section. An expert based approach on the knowledge gained in the design optimization process was considered as a basis for the design optimization problems. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1017–1030 account all the basic parameters that contribute to this buckling. G the shearing modulus of elasticity. However.ARTICLE IN PRESS 1018 S. subjected to local buckling was addressed by Rasmussen [8].G x x0 u Fig. It was stated that for slender angle sections the local buckling mode is identical to the torsional mode and traditional design procedure becomes excessively conservative. Mohan et al.J. The initial local imperfections. the prediction of buckling strength of mono-symmetric sections with normal framing eccentricities were not addressed in the recent research works.t x-axis. i the rotation about shear centre w. Experiments were carried out on axially and eccentrically loaded individual compression members and also on full scale panels with normal framing eccentricities. its derivation is included as a separate section. The torsional– flexural buckling stress is given by qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi! 1 ðsx þ st Þ À ðsx þ st Þ2 À 4ksx st .

15 100x100x30x4 150x150x50x6 100 150 200 250 300 p2 Er2 st ¼ 2 t . Hence. For non-compact sections the scatter of rtf/rmin is very wide and also rtf is a minimum even for long columns when slenderness ratio is more than 160. l2 (7) 1. Though the equivalent radius of gyration is valid for all mono-symmetric sections its characteristics behaviour relevant to cold formed lipped angle sections alone exclusively studied here. (10) rtf ¼ t x x t 2k Considering the reciprocal term: 1 ¼ 2k & r2 tf 1 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi' .and y-axis. hence column will buckle in flexure. 2. most of the long columns will buckle in flexure without interaction of torsional–flexural.4 0. respectively.J.. The variations of equivalent radius of gyration on a non-dimensional form of graphs are shown in Figs. For compact sections (Fig. . (14) r2 rt rx r2 r2 r2 r2 t x x t tf Substituting the value of k from Eq.0 the least radius of gyration is rtf and when rtf/rmin41.2 0 0 50 75x75x30x3. sx the flexural buckling stress. i. ¼ 2þ 2þ þ þ À r2 rt rx r4 r4 r2 r2 r2 r2 t x x t x t tf (13) Adding and subtracting the term 2=r2 r2 within the x t square root term and simplifying ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi s  2 1 1 1 1 2 4ð1 À kÞ ¼ 2þ 2þ À þ .6 0.8 0. Then the equivalent radius of gyration may not necessarily be a representative parameter to characterize the buckling of long columns.15 150x150x50x4 multiplying and dividing by the complementary terms qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 9 8 < ðr2 þ r2 Þ þ ðr2 þ r2 Þ2 À 4kr2 r2 = t 1 x x t x t  à . 2 and 3 for compact and noncompact sections.0 correspond to a slenderness ratio of 160 and more. stf the torsional–flexural buckling stress. for intermediate columns the rtf value is lower than the least radius of gyration and results in lowest buckling value.2 1 0. However.4 1.2 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Slenderness ratio (l/rmin) Fig. (9) l2 where rtf is the equivalent radius of gyration.4 1.4 0. st is the torsional buckling stress. rx rr r0 r2 rt rx r2 rx t tf (15) The equivalent radius of gyration (rtf) is a function of (rt) the torsional radius of gyration which is a function of effective length of the member. the significance of equivalent radius of gyration for non-compact sections may not be a true representative parameter for buckling. Further for non-compact sections the local plate buckling coefficient and distortional buckling plays a significant role which was not accounted in the derivation of equivalent radius of gyration. 2) the value rtf/rmin ¼ 1 refer to change of radius of gyration from rtf to rmin. (6) ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi s    2 1 1 1 1 2 x0 2 ¼ 2þ 2þ À 2 þ4 .6 0. ðr2 þ r2 Þ À ðr2 þ r2 Þ2 À 4kr2 r2 t t x x x t (11) Fig. In other words when rtf/rmino1. ¼ 2k (12) 2 2 þ r2 Þ2 À ðr2 þ r2 Þ2 À 4kr2 r2 . The torsional and torsional–flexural buckling stresses can then be written in terms of flexural buckling stresses to find an expression for equivalent radius of gyration. ry radius of gyration about y-axis. stf ¼ p2 Er2 tf .0 the least radius of gyration is rmin rtf/rmin41. (5) and canceling the common factor (p2E/l2) we obtain & qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi' 1 2 2 2 ðrx þ rt Þ À ðr2 þ r2 Þ2 À 4kr2 r2 . Behaviour of equivalent radius of gyration for non-compact sections. 1.8 0.2 1 0. 3. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1017–1030 1019 Ratio of rtf/rmin x0 and y0 are the distances from shear centre to centroid along the x. In general at these ranges of slenderness ratios.5 100x100x40x3. respectively. Mohan et al.e. Behaviour of equivalent radius of gyration for compact sections. Substituting the above values in the Eq. Various sizes of lipped angles were considered under a broad classification of compact and non-compact sections. l sx ¼ (8) Slenderness ratio (l/rmin) rtf / rmin p2 Er2 x .ARTICLE IN PRESS S. :ðrx rtf t t x x t simplifying the above expression sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2 1 1 1 1 2 4k . rx the radius of gyration about x-axis. 75x75x30x1.

The behaviour of cross bracing can be idealised as shown in Fig. For the lipped angle 75 Â 75 Â 30 Â 3. Cross-bracing. the strut will be restrained by the tie and buckling mechanism is as shown in Fig. In some occasions if plan bracings at cross-over joints and other secondary bracings are . Bracing members are eccentrically loaded with uni axial eccentricity. nonlinear buckling analysis and nonlinear transient response analysis. FEMAP [13] has the capability to develop the physical models for sophisticated analyses of stress. boundary conditions and any other superimposed restraints in the model.15 75 Â 75 Â 30 Â 3. no. 6a. and is integrated with a pre and post processor called FEMAP [13]. This program has a special capability to solve linear buckling analysis.15 75 Â 75 Â 30 Â 3. The element has six degrees of freedom per node. 4. 6. formed lipped angles are given in Table 1. Flexible bracing system can bend along with the tie as a whole as shown in Fig. monitors the analysis and allows to change the settings and options related to application of loads. the buckling stress calculated correspond to flexural buckling stress: whereas when rtf is used. However. When the least radius of gyration ry is used. the strut is restrained by the tie member at the cross-over joint (Kemp and Behneke [14]). processes the analysis. In a latticed towers the cross bracings are subjected to compression and tension alternatively as shown in Fig. A general purpose finite element program NE-NASTRAN [12] was used to analyse the buckling behaviour and also to predict the ultimate capacity of cold formed sections. Members which are loaded concentrically are classified as leg member and further classified as long column and stub column depending on its slenderness ratios.15 Fig. The rotational degrees of freedom at the connecting nodal points and normal to the elements are active in the element formulation and required to be constrained only at fixed end boundaries. The analytical models generated for studying the buckling behaviour of cold Cross-over joint Fig. This program facilitates to analyse any field problem.15 75 Â 75 Â 30 Â 3. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1017–1030 Table 1 Analytical models S. The simplest formulation of four noded linear quadrilateral isoparametric plate elements was used for discretizing the cold formed sections. This element typically resists in-plane membrane shear and bending.75x75x30x3. 1 2 3 Details Long column Stub column Bracing member 3D full scale panel transverse and vertical loads 3D panel for torsional loads Section 75 Â 75 Â 30 Â 3.J.ARTICLE IN PRESS 1020 S. The member strength can be worked out using the least radius of gyration and equivalent radius of gyration. the buckling represents torsional–flexural buckling stress which is lower than flexural buckling stress. 5. Variation of stress with respect to equivalent radius of gyration. 3. temperature and dynamic performance of any engineering problem. The behaviour of the bracing system in a panel is such that within each set of cross bracing. Hence.15 Dimension 2500 720 1512 (Unsupported) 2500 (Leg member) 2500 (Leg member) 400 350 Allowable Stress (MPa) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 1000 2000 3000 Effective Length (mm) 4000 Fa (rtf) Fa (ry) Section . FEMAP [13] can then import the results from the solver and provide a wide variety of tools for visualizing and reporting the results. for bracings which are commonly used in a latticed mast. 4. 6b.15 mm the buckling values for various lengths were worked as per the formula given in ASCE Standard 10-97 [5] and plotted as shown in Fig. Finite element analysis Finite element analysis on lipped angles were carried out at the individual member levels as well as a members in three-dimensional analytical models of full scale panels. 5.15 mm Yield = 350 Mpa 4 5 75 Â 75 Â 30 Â 3. NE-NASTRAN [12] is basically a solver. it was suggested in ASCE Manual 52 [11] and ASCE Standard 10-97 [5] that equivalent radius of gyration should be taken into account when cold formed lipped angles are designed for transmission line towers. which receives the FEMAP [13] codes. Mohan et al.

The deflected shapes of the panels are shown in Fig. A linear elastic buckling analysis was preformed on all these mathematical models followed by a nonlinear ultimate strength analysis to predict the ultimate load capacity.J. Displacement contours of members.5 m at . one to simulate the normal service condition of transmission line towers and the other for the broken conductor load case. 6c. Deflected contours of the 3D panel. The mid surface modelling technique was adopted for generating the model of the 3-D panel. The displacement contours for all these three sample members are shown in Fig. Behaviour of cross-bracing.1. 4. introduced then the bracing system will behave as shown in Fig. The test setup consists of a MTS displacement controlled machine with spherical joints Fig. The members were categorised under two basic types: members concentrically loaded corresponding to leg members of a latticed mast and members eccentrically loaded simulating a diagonal bracing member of a tower. Test on cold formed members A series of tests was carried out on lipped angles of size 75 Â 75 Â 30 Â 3. Fig.0 Â 2. 4. 7. The mathematical model was analysed for two load cases. top and 2. 6b) was considered. the effective area causes a shift in the centroidal axis.0 m at base 1. The panel was analysed for hinged base condition and hence the bottom most nodes were arrested for translation in all the direction letting the rotational degrees of freedom as free. 7. 6.5 m in height was also analysed. 8.5 Â 1.15 mm as compression members in the elastic and in the inelastic ranges. Experimental values on compression members connected by only one leg of angle sections were found to be less than the prediction by AISC [17] and ASCE Standard 10-97 [5] for hot rolled sections [18]. For the purposes of this study the commonly used bracing system (Fig. Analytically predicted buckling values of the individual members and as a member in the panels are compared in Table 2. The details of panel dimensions and loadings are explained with relevant sketches in Appendix A. 8. Full scale three-dimensional panel made of cold formed lipped angle of dimension 2. It was stated that when lipped channels subjected to concentric loads. Mohan et al. In the Finite Element model the mid-segment bracing bolt hole translation degrees of freedom perpendicular to the member axis was arrested and all other degrees of freedoms were allowed. Experimental results have indicated that the shift predicted by codes are more than the actual shift leading to conservative buckling stresses [16]. Experimental investigation Concentrically loaded column tests on cold formed members have indicated that the accuracy of the codes of practices vary with wide margin of difference and also vary with respect to various cross sections and shapes [15].ARTICLE IN PRESS S. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1017–1030 1021 Tie Member eccentricity (a) Strut (b) (c) Fig.

85 36. 200x200x20 Base plate Fig. no.28 39.56 193.31 1.07 1. 9.10 1.55 119.50 49. The load versus axial shortening behaviour of the leg and bracing member is shown in Fig.99 0. For eccentrically loaded specimens the same setup was used by connecting only one flange of the specimen with the welded angle. Measurements of strains were taken at mid height of the leg member and at the mid length of the longer unsupported span of the bracing member.G 75 16 dia Bolt 75x75x30x3.06 1.45 0.00 148.33 40.50 171.33 1.50 43. Whereas for the bracing member.56 62.16 1. 11.50 86.83 51.83 Equivalent radius of gyration Per (kN) 52.55 119.83 52. 10.6 kN Ultimate Load of Bracing = 82.20 1.25 48.95 47.43 1.96 152.23 83.00 146.52 171.35 Specimen codes: EC—elastic range concentrically loaded.56 122.56 29.51 152.52 86.96 43.17 1.59 52. 10 to measure the strains across the cross section of the lipped angle during testing.83 81. Strain gauge locations.31 1.96 152.51 119.59 FEM analysis (kN) Experimental value Pex (kN) (Ptf)/ (Pex) (Per)/ (Pex) (PFE)/ (Pex) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 EC1 EC2 EC3 IC1 IC2 IC3 IE1 IE2 IE3 ECP1 ECP2 119.56 62. the behaviour is nonlinear right from the onset of loading and there is a long horizontal plateau showing large 90 80 70 Load (kN) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 Ultimate load of leg = 39. IC—inelastic range concentrically loaded.55 80.83 81.59 52.56 74.11 1. Mohan et al.63 122. For stub columns tests the same end fixtures were used.48 74.01 1.52 171. ECP—elastic range concentrically loaded panel test.98 1. For the leg member there is a sudden drop in the load after the ultimate load.56 193.32 1.28 1. IE—inelastic range eccentrically loaded.51 119.83 193.35 1.96 62. The specimens were instrumented with strain gauges at six locations across the cross section as shown in Fig.51 119.09 0.48 74.96 152.05 1.48 119.59 158. Necessary accessories were added to this setup to restrain the connected flange at a discrete location which simulate the X-bracing tension member support.63 122.08 1. 11.16 1. End fixtures.84 158.30 1.ARTICLE IN PRESS 1022 S.59 52.92 1.43 1.51 29.63 152.24 1.83 51.83 51.50 43. 9. ductility before the ultimate load is reached.J.04 1. and ball bearing headings at both ends.56 119.52 143. Specimen code l/rmin l/rtf Torsional flexural capacity Ptf (kN) 51.45 1.48 1.84 158.00 82. 30 15 90x90x6 Angle welded to base plate C.31 1.15 Lipped angle 10 Gauge 6 Gauge 5 Gauge 4 Gauge 1 10 Gauge 3 Gauge 2 10 75 Fig.33 1. The end sections of the specimens were connected to the joint by means of a specially made end fixtures as shown in Fig.56 29. Load versus axial shortening of leg and bracing members.89 39.84 81.50 86.09 1. The restraint provided between the length of bracing member increases the load carrying capacity significantly and at the 1118 1512 .11 1.55 51. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1017–1030 Table 2 Comparison of experimental and torsional–flexural capacities S.2 kN Bracing 10 15 Strain Gauges 2500 Strain Gauges 30 Bracing Leg Leg 5 10 15 20 Axial shortening (x 10-3mm) 25 30 Fig.

Load versus strain behaviour for bracing member. Typical schematic views of the panel is shown in Fig. The load versus lateral deflection behaviour was linear up to 70% of the ultimate load which represents the combined stiffness of both transverse X-bracing systems. Load slip tests were conducted on both the panels by loading them up to 30% of ultimate load for three cycles. The size were chosen to simulate an actual panel below the bottom cross arm level of a transmission line tower.15 mm as leg. A portion on the flange near the lip of the angle has a small magnitude of compressive stress till 95% of ultimate load beyond which there is a change over to tension. Figs. 13. After a small horizontal deflection of the panel the rate of increase of the panel deflection was less since the compression . Hence studies on cold formed compression members at the structure level. The heel of the section is always in compression indicating that the neutral axis passed through the opposite corners of the lipped angle. Initially strains at all the locations remained compressive and strains near the unconnected lips changed over to tensile at 60% of ultimate load. 12. The behaviour is symmetrical and the lips are in tension throughout the loading ranges. 13. were carried out on full scale tower panels. Studies on the cross bracing made of hot rolled angles with typical bolted connection have been examined by Kemp and Behneke [14] and found that the ASCE Standard 10-97 [5] and European Manuals [19] do not adequately allow for the reduction in strength due to end eccentricities. A typical three-dimensional X-braced panel of dimension 1. The details of panel testing is also described in Appendix A. same time retains the ultimate load for larger axial deformations.2. The strains at the connected leg remained predominantly compressive. 16(a) and (b) show the load versus lateral deflection behaviour of these panels.ARTICLE IN PRESS S.2 kN 10 0 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 Strain (X10-6) 2000 3000 Unconnected flange 6 5 1 3 2 Connected flange 6 5 4 Fig. Buckling of specimens. The load versus strain behaviour of the leg member is shown in Fig. The strains in the lip closer to the connected leg remained compressive till the ultimate load and changed over to tension at the ultimate load.5 m was fabricated and tested to failure. Beyond 70% of the ultimate load the stiffness of X-bracing system reduced continuously leading to panel collapse. 4.6 kN 20 10 -3000 -2000 εy 0 -1000 0 Strain (x10-6) 1000 εy 2000 3000 Fig. Mohan et al. For broken conductor loads the panel response was different from that of the normal load condition. For normal load condition the panel responded predominantly by developing resistance in two plane frames in the transverse direction only with less interaction of longitudinal bracings.5 m at the top and 2. The panels were designed using lipped angle sections of size 75 Â 75 Â 30 Â 3.0 Â 2. Fig. 14. Load versus strain behaviour for leg member. diagonal and top horizontal bracing. Test on cold formed panels 4 3 2 1 80 70 60 Load (kN) 50 40 30 20 Ultimate Load = 82. It can be seen that the buckling mode of the leg member is flexure and that of the bracing member is torsional–flexure.5 Â 1. Then the actual test was conducted with load increments of 5% of the ultimate load.0 m at the bottom with the height of 2. stub column and bracing member are shown in Fig. The overall lateral deflections of the top of the panel were monitored continuously using a thedolite of 1 s accuracy with a scale of 1 mm least count. 14. An unsymmetrical behaviour is noticed in the case of bracing members. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1017–1030 1023 Load (kN) 4 40 3 2 5 6 1 6 5 4 1 3 2 30 Ultimate load 39. The load versus strain variations of the bracing member is shown in Fig. Two panels were tested one normal loading condition and other for broken conductor load condition. The modes of buckling for leg member.J. 12. 15.

Plan 40 Load (kN) 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 Deflection (mm) 20 Load (kN) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 Longitudinal deflection Transverse deflection 5 (a) (b) 10 15 Deflection (mm) 20 Fig.1 x7 75 5x 30 1512 Leg member Transverse 90 100 175 1920 2000 bracing 503 Transverse Axis Elevation Fig. Mohan et al. The variation in the elastic range of members (EC1. the variation between experiments and classical theories can be up to 30% if the sections are made of press break processes [15. Table 2 gives the comparison of experimental values with other theoretical methods and also finite element analytical values of the cold formed angles. It can be seen that the experimental capacities are always lower than the theoretical capacities calculated based on torsional flexural theory {(Ptf)/(Pex)}. The equivalent radius of gyration method can predict the member capacity of the intermediate columns with an accuracy of 10% and hence may be an acceptable and rational method.ARTICLE IN PRESS 1024 S. Such wide variations were observed during this experimental studies also. EC3. Comparison of ultimate loads The specimens of cold formed sections used in these experiments are all made of press break system.21.15 Axis . bracing started resisting the load through its axial stiffness which is much higher than the full panel structure stiffness. 15. IE3) the variation between the equivalent radius of gyration method and actual experiment is around 10% {(Per)/(Pex)}. respectively.15 x3 30 5x x7 75 5 75x75x30x3.15 90 130 1118 Longitudinal bracing Longitudinal 2400 . This reduced panel deflection persisted till the panel collapse. IE1. the load carrying capacity is 15% less than that of rolled cold formed sections [20]. Cold-formed tower panel.22]. . 16. IC3. Also it was stated. ECP1.J. Considering the columns in the inelastic range (IC1. IC2. 17(a) and (b). The collapsed panels for normal load condition and broken conductor load condition are shown in Figs. and (b) broken conductor condition.15 x3 75x75x30x3 . Panel deflection: (a) normal loading condition. It is a general conclusion that the specimens made of press brake method. IE2. which was triggered by one of the critically loaded leg member. EC2. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1017–1030 1500 1420 75x75x30x3. 5.

(SERC) a National Laboratory under Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Chennai. Normal load condition Transmission line towers are generally designed for environmental and climatic loads. The full panel is fabricated with cold formed steel sections. Three-dimensional panel tests on cold formed members The behaviour of cold formed steel compression members at the structure level on a full scale tower panel is studied. Servo-controlled hydraulic actuators are used for applying the loads in the resultant direction at the top nodes of the panel. The panels were instrumented with dial gauges to measure the member deformations as shown in Fig. The wind loads on conductor is a horizontal load. For stub columns the (IC1.J. Lakshmanan. A1.0 m at the bottom with a height of 2. the panel stiffness increased marginally and then decreased indicating panel collapse. Fig. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1017–1030 1025    Comparing the overall deflection of the panel with axial shortening of individual elements it is evident that the structural stiffness was lower than both the leg and the bracing member for both the load cases. and (b) broken conductor condition. A2. Comparing the finite element results with experimental results except the panel buckling load of leg member other values are within the margin of 20% {(PFE)/(Pex)}. Appendix A A. India.0 Â 2. Two panels were tested for two different loading conditions. For inelastic and elastic columns (EC1. N. The self weight of the conductor acts in the direction of gravity. Schematic views of the panel are shown in Fig. EC2. In the normal load case the panel lost its stiffness before it reaches the failure load. IE2. However.5 Â 1. diagonal and top horizontal bracings and sections of size 50 Â 50 Â 20 Â 3. Structural Engineering Research Centre. There is a long horizontal plateau in the behaviour of the bracing member indicating the effect of restraint provided. These panels were tested at Tower Testing and Research Station of Structural Engineering Research Centre. IE1. A typical X-braced panel of dimension 1.ARTICLE IN PRESS S. when they are used as structural members in latticed mast with normal framing eccentricities. Cold formed sections made of press brake processes may be unconservative to an extent of 45% compared to torsional flexural buckling theories. irrespective of whether it is in tension or in compression. while comparing the results of the classical theories with experiment for the elastic and inelastic ranges of columns the variation is 10–48%.1. The load versus strain behaviour of the leg member showed that. IC3) the FEM estimate the buckling value 15–20% more than the experimental value. IE3) the analytical values are within the variation of 10%. Chennai and thank him for his permission to submit this paper for possible publication. Due to force redistribution caused by joint rotations the structural stiffness varied. However. for panel test the deviations were up to 35% since it is difficult to model the imperfections in connections and initial crookedness of the members of the panel in the finite element analysis.5 m which is normally used in transmission line tower was investigated. whereas in broken conductor loading condition.1. The load versus axial shortening behaviour for the leg and bracing member tested as an element shows a distinctly different behaviour. . Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the constant support and encouragement given by Dr. Panel failure: (a) normal loading condition. EC3. A. Transmission line towers ECP2) the buckling strength is between 10% and 45% which indicates that the equivalent radius of gyration method may not be considered as rationale for long columns. the strain variations are linear upto 90% of ultimate load. one to simulate the normal service condition of transmission line towers and the other for the broken conductor condition. The behaviour also indicated that the neutral axis passed through the opposite corners of the lipped angles. 6.15 mm as leg. Mohan et al. IC2.15 mm as top plan diagonal bracings.1. Conclusion    It is more appropriate to use the equivalent radius of gyration to predict the member capacity for intermediate columns since the equivalent radius of gyration is lower than least radius of gyration and also supported by experimental results. The panel consists of lipped angle sections of size 75 Â 75 Â 30 Â 3. Director.5 m at the top and 2. 17.

A. A4. The load to be applied to a structure under test and the actual load realized by the load cell at the point of load application are both fed as equivalent electrical voltages separately to the two inputs of the comparator circuit of the control system. The rams are operated through servo valve with a variable voltage from the individual control channel. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1017–1030 50 x5 0x 20 x3 . This unbalanced load is referred as the broken conductor load which acts in the longitudinal direction of the tower and induces torsional effects in tower.1 5 50 x5 0x 20 x3 . A1. Deflecto-meters in position. An unbalanced load sets in the transmission line system due to the intact conductor next to broken conductor.1. Schematic views of the panel. To generate the torsional effect two horizontal loads in orthogonal direction were applied on the panel as shown in Fig. Power conductors may some time snap due to ageing and fatigue effect of components like shackles.ARTICLE IN PRESS 1026 S. A. A3. . This condition of load is simulated with loads at the top four corners of the panel in the horizontal and the vertical directions of equal magnitude at each top node as shown in Fig. Fig. strainer plates or pins. This is achieved by setting the required test load potentiometer to the full load for the particular test.1. Broken conductor load condition Apart from climatic load conditions transmission line towers may also be subjected to accidental load cases. A2.15 75 x7 5x 30 x3 . are normally subjected to these two combinations of loads through out the life span of the structure and hence this combination of load is referred as Normal load condition. Hence the normal load case is a combination of vertical load and transverse shear.15 Fig.3.15 75x75x30x3.2. Mohan et al. A5 shows the schematic diagram of the control system arrangement for the application of the resultant load at the required angle at a typical load point on the panel.J. insulators. Load application system Fig.15 75x75x30x3.

The panel was loaded further in the inelastic range and upto failure to obtain the ultimate load carrying capacity of the panel. which is attached along the axis of the load sensor to monitor the angle of load application. and a longitudinal component simultaneously at all load points and ensures that the loads are proportional from zero to maximum. is attached to the tower end with a load cell to measure the load and an angle sensor. The resultant load is applied at the four top nodal points.5% of their rated value for a full scale reading of the recorder. The transverse and vertical load components are combined into a resultant force. and 12. A. Broken conductor loads. the panel deflects in both transverse and longitudinal directions under broken wire condition. The magnitude of load and angle of application can be seen on the control channel. 25%. Limit switches help to see that the load applied never crosses the ultimate value. Material properties The material properties of the specimens were determined according to the procedure of the standard tension . The test set up for normal condition is shown in Fig. Two panel deflection measuring stations were established along the axes of the panel and the deflections are measured using theodolites. the longitudinal component being applied in the horizontal plane.2. The double acting hydraulic rams are regulated by a remote control from the control room loading channels. A3. 50%. A6 incorporate a switching arrangement. two horizontal loads are applied at the top of the panel in mutually orthogonal directions equal in magnitude. Broken conductor load Wind load Fig.ARTICLE IN PRESS S. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1017–1030 1027 Gravity load Wind load Longitudinal bracing Longitudinal Axis Leg member Transverse bracing Transverse Axis Fig. which transmits the resultant load. A7. A4. All other arrangements are similar to the normal load condition. The broken conductor load conditions are normally simulated during the testing of full scale transmission line towers. In the broken conductor loading condition. Strain variations and lateral deflections in the members were recorded. A8. Mohan et al. Unlike the normal load condition where panel deflects only in transverse direction. The panel has been loaded in steps within the linear range and for many cycles of loading. which allows the load transducers to be used at 100%. This control is automatic by means of a closed loop servo system. The rope.J. which adjusts the resultant transverse. Normal load condition and plan view of the panel. The test setup for broken conductor condition is as shown in Fig. The circuit compares these two inputs and produces a differential output signal under the following three conditions:    Demand load4actual load-inward movement of Ram Demand loadoactual load-outward movement of Ram Demand load ¼ actual load-stationary position of Ram The control channels shown in Fig. The resultant load and the angle of application are controlled by the hydraulic ram at transverse ram station and the vertical ram at the lower level.

Three coupons were tested from two batch of specimens received. Mohan et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1017–1030 (VE) LOAD FEED BACK Conductor Load Wire rape LOAD CELL LT IL OP Wind Load HY HYDRAULIC PUMP SERVO VALVE ANGLE SELECTION H V V TYPICAL INDIVIDUAL CONTROL H PANEL DRIVE CURRENT +V (IN) SERVO MANUAL +V (OUT) SERVO AMP V1-VE V1 SERVO AMP ANGLE CONDITIONING UNIT REQUIRED LOAD CENTRAL ANGLE DEVIATION METER SERVO +V (IN) MANUAL -V (OUT) VE LOCAL LOAD CONDITIONING UNIT DEMAND LOAD RECORDER 1 2 3 4 ANGLE RPT CENTRAL DEMAND LOAD RPT CENTRAL CONTROL PANEL Fig. The coupons were cut from the centre of the flange of the finished sections in the longitudinal direction and machined to the exact dimensions as stipulated in ASTM Standards.J. The typical ANGLE FEED BACK SERVO VALVE HYDRAULIC RAM AT GROUND LEVEL DR C LI AU R AM AT H Wire rope ANGLE SENSOR . Schematic diagram of the control system for loading.ARTICLE IN PRESS 1028 S. A5. tests recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM 2003).

The coupons were tested in tension testing machine. A8. .J. 1996. A10. A9.5 20 50 12. Dimensions of the tension test coupon. Stress versus strain behaviour of coupon. E = 2. A6.5 50 Fig. A9. The mechanical properties of the specimens were summarised and the values of Young’s Modulus. A7. Washington.ARTICLE IN PRESS S. The reactions and the load applications were achieved using friction grip wedges. DC: American Iron and Steel Institute. Test setup for broken conductor load condition.198x105 N/mm2 Fig. Mohan et al. 500 400 Stress (N/mm2) 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 Strain (x 10-3) 20 25 30 Yield stress Fy = 350 N/mm2 Ultimate stress Fult = 459 N/mm2 Elongation = 19% Young's Modulus. References [1] AISI. Test setup for normal load condition. Fig. Gauge length=50 12. yield stress. The stress–strain behaviour of coupon were obtained from the in-built facilities of the machine as shown in Fig. ultimate stress and the percentage elongation are shown in the inset.5 75 200 12. A10. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1017–1030 1029 Fig. Fig. dimensions of the coupon is as shown in Fig. Control channels. Specification for the design of cold formed steel structural members. All physical dimensions of the coupons were measured at salient locations and the gauge length was marked and punched along the centre line.

Rodrigues FC.J.131(10):1570–9. 1985. The Netherlands. [9] Young B. [12] NE-NASTRAN.42(6): 785–801.131(10):1553–60. Test of fixed ended plain channel columns. 2nd ed.29(1):26–32. O’Leary JA. Code of practice for design of cold formed thin gauge sections. European Commission for Constructional Steel Work. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1017–1030 [13] FEMAP. The accuracy of some codes of practice in predicting the load capacity of cold-formed columns. 1975. Rotterdam. [5] ASCE Standard 10-97. 1995. load and resistance factor design. Knowledge based global optimization of cold formed steel columns. [8] Rasmussen KJR. [6] Szymczak C. J Struct Eng Am Soc Civil Eng 1998. [7] Liu H. Rotterdam. Pekoz T. Design of latticed steel transmission structures. The Netherlands. User guide version 8. 2001. Thin-Walled Struct 2003. J Constr Steel Res 1996. J Struct Eng Am Soc Civil Eng 2005. Considerations for the design of single-angle compression members attached by one leg. p. Thin-Walled Struct 2004. Compression test of cold-formed steel columns.1. Behneke RH.28(2):121–36. . 1st ed. 1988.ARTICLE IN PRESS 1030 S. [2] AS/NZS 4600. User’s manual version 8. Design of angle columns with locally unstable legs.124(2):131–9.124(4):360–7. USA: American Institute of Steel Construction. Australian/New Zealand standard cold formed steel structures. [17] AISC manual of steel construction. [11] ASCE manual 52. manual no. [4] IS:801.41(2–3):271–90. [14] Kemp AR. CA90720-2855. [3] BS 5950-Part 5. [21] Batista EM. Schafer BW. Mohan et al. 107–12. Behaviour of cross-bracing in latticed towers.116(5):1230–46. Seah LK. SDRC. J Struct Eng Am Soc Civil Eng 2005. [22] Young B. Recommendations for angles in latticed transmission towers.5(2–3):235–46.37(2):137–72. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards. Sensitivity analysis of thin walled members. USA: Noran Engineering Inc.0. Buckling curve for cold-formed compressed members. 1998. 1996. Eng J Am Inst Steel Constr 1992. Sakla SSS. London: British Standards Institution. J Struct Eng Am Soc Civil Eng 1998. 2001. In: Proceeding of structural stability and design. Indian standard code of practice for use of cold-formed light gauge steel structural members in general building construction. problems and applications. Local buckling and shift of effective centroid of cold formed steel columns. Rasmussen KJR. Guide for design of steel transmission towers. J Constr Steel Res 1994. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Buckling analysis of cold-formed steel lipped angle columns. [15] Chou SM. [19] ECCS. J Struct Eng Am Soc Civil Eng 1990. Sydney. Igusa T. An equivalent radius of gyration approach to flexural–torsional buckling for singly symmetric sections. [18] Temple CT. Asia-Pacific Headquaters. Tokyo 151-8583: Structural Dynamics Research Corporation. [10] Bakos Jr JD.39. 2000. Australia: Standards Australia. [20] Weng CC. USA: American Society of Civil Engineers. British standard structural use of steelwork in building—part 5. 1986. Steel Composite Struct 2005. [16] Young B.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful