Fabrication Errors in Erection and Strength of Towers Erection

428
The Effect of Fabrication and Erection Tolerances

on the Strength of Lattice Steel Transmission Towers
Working Group
B2.08
October 2010
The Effect of Fabrication and Erection
Tolerances on the Strength of Lattice Steel
Transmission Towers
Working Group
B2.08
Convenor: J.B.G.F. da Silva (Brazil), Secretary: D. Hughes (United Kingdom)
Regular members:
L. Binette (Canada), J. Fernadez (Spain), A. Fuchs (Germany), R. Jansson (Sweden),

L. Kempner (United States), D.I. Lee (Korea), N. Masaoka (Japan), G. Nesgard (Norway),
V. Numminen (Finland), L. Pellet (France), J. Peralta (Portugal), R.C. Ramos de Menezes (Brazil),
J. Rogier (Belgium), J.D. Serrano (R. South Africa), E. Thorsteins (Iceland), S. Villa (Italy)
Correspondent members:
C.G. Alamo (Venezuela), G. Brown (Australia), G. Gheorghita (Romania), R. Guimarães (Brazil),

H Hawes (Australia), C. Laub (Czech Republic), F. Legeron (Canada), T. Leskinen (Finland),
M. Ishac (Canada), J.M. Menéndez (Cuba), F. Meza Rosso (Bolivia), K. Nieminen (Finland),
R. Peixoto (Brazil), J. Prieto (Spain), C. Thorn (UK), J. Toth (Canada), K. Van Dam (Belgium),
M. Vanner (UK)
Copyright © 2010
“Ownership of a CIGRE publication, whether in paper form or on electronic support only infers right of
use for personal purposes. Are prohibited, except if explicitly agreed by CIGRE, total or partial
reproduction of the publication for use other than personal and transfer to a third party; hence
circulation on any intranet or other company network is forbidden”.
Disclaimer notice
“CIGRE gives no warranty or assurance about the contents of this publication, nor does it accept any
responsibility, as to the accuracy or exhaustiveness of the information. All implied warranties and
conditions are excluded to the maximum extent permitted by law”.
ISBN : 978–2–85873–116-9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5
2. Imperfection in Member Length ........................................................................................ 7
2.1. Fabrication and erection tolerances in member length............................................... 7
2.2. Effect of fabrication and erection tolerances in member length ................................ 7
3. Effect of Tower Vertical Inclination ................................................................................ 10
3.1. Vertical Inclination Tolerances ................................................................................ 10
3.2. Numerical simulation ............................................................................................... 10
4. Effect of Foundation Displacement.................................................................................. 11
4.1. Tolerances on foundation position ........................................................................... 11
4.2. Numerical simulation ............................................................................................... 11
4.3. Experimental approach ............................................................................................. 13
5. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 17
6. Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................ 18
7. References ........................................................................................................................ 18
Annex....................................................................................................................................... 19
WG B2.08 TF2.4- Questionnaire......................................................................................... 19
“Tolerances for steel supply / manufacture / assembly and erection” .......................... 19
1
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Tower prototypes in the Test Yard ............................................................................. 6

Figure 2: Member length variation............................................................................................. 7
Figure 3: Effects of one member longer than nominal (displacements blown up for clarity) ... 9
Figure 4: Inclined tower ........................................................................................................... 10
Figure 5: Foundation displacement scenarios .......................................................................... 12
Figure 6: Prototype 2 vertical foundation movements ............................................................. 14
Figure 7: Device designed for foundation displacements ........................................................ 14
Figure 8: F2B loading pattern .................................................................................................. 16
Figure 9: B11L loading pattern ................................................................................................ 16
Figure 10: Simulated versus measured member forces – Effect of foundation displacement . 16
2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Characteristics of the three towers tested by Cigré ...................................................... 6

Table 2: Member forces comparison – Length Tolerances Effect. ............................................ 9
Table 3: Members forces (largest) from tower inclination ...................................................... 11
Table 4: Member forces (largest) from foundation displacements .......................................... 12
Table 5: Bar loads due to foundation vertical displacements................................................... 15
3
Abstract
Transmission tower designs are based on structural models idealized as pin jointed frames,
and assumed as perfect with all dimensions in accordance with the drawings. However, the
fabrication and erection of towers is inevitably subject to tolerances which result in a certain
level of imperfection that is considered acceptable in practice. In order to evaluate the
structural reliability of the transmission line supports, it is necessary to evaluate the impact of
these imperfections on the real tower strength. For this purpose, the same prototypes
previously tested by the Cigré SCB2.08 TF4 have now been modeled with imperfect
geometry. Afterwards, the member forces under the imperfect condition were compared to
member forces under the normal design condition. The brochure shows that most of the
fabrication and erection tolerances do not induce large forces on the tower bars as compared
to external load effects.
4
1. Introduction
Currently the towers are fabricated and erected according to the dimensions indicated in the
workshop drawings assuming certain limits of tolerance. As comprehensive standards do not
exist for such tolerances, a questionnaire (see Annex TF2.4 Questionnaire: “Tolerances for
steel supply / manufacture / assembly and erection”) issued and circulated by the task force
Cigré TF2.4 of WGB2.08, in order to get an overview about the international industry
practices. The values of tolerances received, are based on professional experiences on what is
reasonable to be obtained and possible to be measured. The purpose of the study is try to
quantify the effect on tower member forces of some identified fabrication tolerances, such as,
length of members, position of holes, and erection imperfections like tower vertical
inclination, foundation settlement, etc. During the studies carried out, it became evident the
difficulties in mathematically model the reality. For this reason, the numerical simulations
undertaken, in many circumstances, were just simplifications of reality somewhat unrealistic.
Three geometrically similar tower models having different degrees of determination from
isostatic (determinate) to hyperstatic were used for this investigation (see table and Figure 1).
These structures had already been analysed and load tested regarding predicted and measured
member forces by the Cigré TF 4 of WGB2.08 (see Cigré Technical Brochure reference [1]).
For the purpose of this study, five groups of bars of the three prototype towers were selected
for structural analysis:
• Groups 1 and 2: Main members (Legs);

• Groups 3 and 5: Diagonal bracings;
• Group 4: Diaphragm bars.
For the structural analyses carried out, the advanced software named ADINA was used. As
the ADINA program was able to reflect well the measured member forces of the former Cigré
tested tower models, the following fabrication and erection tolerances were now simulated:
• Effect of member length,

• Effect of tower vertical inclination,
• Effect of foundation displacement.
5
The affects of a simulation of foundations displacement on a real-scale tower was tested in the
above mentioned study of Cigré (as per Cigré report [2]). The results of the theoretically
ADINA calculations were compared with the measured values during the tests. The actual
internal forces (built-in member stresses) could be quantified and the importance of
considering the erection tolerances justified.
Table 1: Characteristics of the three towers tested by Cigré
TOWER 1 TOWER 2 TOWER 2A

Area Length Area Length Area Length
Type Type Type
(mm2) (mm) (mm2) (mm) (mm2) (mm)
Group1 1060 3069 90x90x6.0 1060 3069 90x90x6.0 1060 3069 90x90x6.0
Group2 1060 2046 90x90x6.0 1060 2046 90x90x6.0 1060 2046 90x90x6.0
Group3 631 3193 65x65x5.0 631 3193 65x65x5.0 631 3193 65x65x5.0
Group4 480 1388 50x50x5.0 480 1388 50x50x5.0 480 1388 50x50x5.0
Group5 631 1320 65x65x5.0 631 1853 65x65x5.0 631 1853 65x65x5.0
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 2A
Figure 1: Tower prototypes in the Test Yard

6
2. Imperfection in Member Length
2.1. Fabrication and erection tolerances in member length
As said before, to investigate the worldwide industry tolerances on fabrication and erection
practices, a questionnaire (see Annex) was circulated among WG08 members.
According to the responses of that questionnaire, positions of holes are punched or drilled
within 1mm of tolerance over the nominal value. Hole diameters for the tower bolts are
oversized by 0.8mm. During the erection process, the oversized hole results in a fabrication
tolerance on the member lengths of 1mm or less. This allowable fabrication imperfection was
used in this exercise as the tower leg member length tolerance.
Still in accordance with such questionnaire, dimensions of the tower width are defined by
erection tolerances of about 0.1% of the horizontal dimension of the tower base. For bracing
members, length tolerances are about 0.15% of the member length.
2.2. Effect of fabrication and erection tolerances in member length
In order to evaluate the effects of fabrication and erection tolerances on member forces of
actual member length, finite element analyses were performed with the ADINA software. The
ADINA model was able to predict very well the forces in the members measured during the
prototype tests previously performed by Cigré. The same models were used to determine the
effect due to variation on member length. The lengths of members were varied as shown in
the figure 2. Effects on the towers are represented on the figure 3.
Figure 2: Member length variation

7
For the calculations, it was assumed that 99% of the members have a length as specified by
the plans.
Assuming that the imperfections follow a normal distribution, this was used to determine a
standard deviation of the imperfections and to run statistical analyses on the effect of
tolerance on member length. The forces generated by those deviations are then compiled in
order to get the standard deviation from each element.
Depending on the type of member (legs, bracings, diaphragms), the relevant results
(ΔL = 1mm or ε = 0.15%) are retained. Thus, for the groups 1 and 2, the ΔL=1mm results
were used since these groups are composed by leg members. The groups 3, 4 and 5 are
composed of bracings and diaphragm bars, so the ε = 0.15% results were used.
Results of the relevant calculations are presented in the table 2 for the five groups of bars. In
the column “imperfection”, the member forces (in 99% of the time) are provided for each
group according to tolerances (imperfections) of 0.15% for bracings and 1mm for leg
members. The column labeled “Test” is the results measured during the real-scale test for load
case 4D at the 100% level (see reference [1].
It can be seen that, in some cases, the forces are very small and in some other cases quite
significant. According to the calculations carried out, the diaphragm bars are the members
more loaded due to “members length tolerances.” It should be remarked, however, that these
members are not currently subjected to very high forces under external loads.
The model used in this exercise does not take into account bolts slippage and other factors,
like clearances on holes that would allow for a significant decrease of the calculated loads.
This will be further discussed in section 4. As the model here used is a truss analysis model,
in the real structures, some of the loads will be redistributed in bending through the
connections which will not behave as simple connections in all cases. As it has been seen
when designing members, the bending moment can have a smaller influence in practice than
calculations may prove, as bending moment effect is limited by yielding.
Finally, it is curious to note that tower 1 and 2A have responded generally better to the
“member length imperfection effect” than tower 2. Maybe this can be explained by the higher
level of statical indeterminacy of this tower.
8
Figure 3: Effects of one member longer than nominal (displacements blown up for clarity)
Table 2: Member forces comparison – Length Tolerances Effect.
Tower 1
(kN)
Dead
load Test Imperfection Ratio
Gr1 -2,53 -247,84 26,45 0,11
Gr2 -1,69 -227,97 24,88 0,11
Gr3 -0,06 -29,83 12,30 0,41
Gr4 -0,10 12,91 6,29 0,49
Gr5 -0,06 -62,13 10,63 0,17
Tower 2
(kN)
Dead
Gr1 -1,98 -210,35 34,48 0,16
Gr2 -1,70 -224,19 28,88 0,13
Gr3 -0,09 -32,92 78,47 2,38
Gr4 0,28 31,43 44,56 1,42
Gr5 -0,08 -48,05 66,52 1,38
Tower 2A
(kN)
Dead
Gr1 -1,96 -211,63 34,35 0,16
Gr2 -1,54 -215,77 24,61 0,11
Gr3 -0,18 -42,16 11,88 0,28
Gr4 0,32 36,80 40,10 1,09
Gr5 -0,22 -61,07 10,06 0,16
9
3. Effect of Tower Vertical Inclination
3.1. Vertical Inclination Tolerances
Instead of being on vertical position, towers can be vertically inclined. This can be mainly due
to imperfect erection works or even the actual setting position of the foundations.
According to the answers received from the questionnaire, industry tolerances on tower
vertical inclination are generally around 0.3% from vertical.
3.2. Numerical simulation
Using again the Cigré three prototypes, models were evaluated inclined by 0.3% from its
vertical axis. Since those towers are 11 m high, the top of the structures were displaced 33
mm from the nominal position. While being inclined, the testing loads were applied to the
towers. Inclinations on the three models were applied along the three main directions, along
the axis of the conductor, perpendicular to the conductor, and 45 degrees from the
longitudinal direction of the line (see figure 4). With all the loads applied (dead and external
loads) non-linear analysis were performed taking into account the large displacement effects.
Results are shown at Table 3. From these results, it can be seen that the non-linear effects due
to tower vertical inclinations are very small and negligible for practical purposes. This
conclusion could be extended to other types of wide base towers, but the effect could be
higher for narrow base ones. However, from these calculations it was felt that the 0.3%
industry tolerance is satisfactory to limit second order effect in most of the cases. All results
are based on load case 4D, as per Cigré experiment reference [1].
Normal Transverse Longitudinal 45 degrees

(Perpendicular to Conductors Axis) (Along the Conductor Axis) (From the Conductor Axis)
Figure 4: Inclined tower
10
Table 3: Members forces (largest) from tower inclination
Tower 1 Tower 2 Tower 2A

(kN) (kN) (kN)
Test
load Inclined Ratio Test load Inclined Ratio Test load Inclined Ratio
(normal) (normal) (normal)
Group 1 -247,84 -248,23 1,002 -210,35 -210,60 1,001 -211,63 -211,62 1,000
Group 2 -227,97 -228,31 1,001 -224,19 -224,51 1,001 -215,77 -216,91 1,005
Group 3 -29,83 -29,84 1,000 -32,92 -33,17 1,007 -42,16 -41,35 0,981
Group 4 12,91 12,95 1,003 31,43 31,44 1,000 36,80 36,20 0,984
Group 5 -62,13 -62,13 1,000 -48,05 -48,40 1,007 -61,07 -60,35 0,988
4. Effect of Foundation Displacement
4.1. Tolerances on foundation position
According to responses from the questionnaire received by the members, the largest practical
tolerances on foundation positions reported were of about 25 mm in the horizontal and/or
vertical directions. Normal foundation setting tolerances limits can be seen at Cigré reference
[3].
4.2. Numerical simulation
For a numerical simulation of a foundation displacement, one of the support legs has been
moved in various positions:
• ± 25mm perpendicular to the axis of conductor(±X)

• ± 25mm in the diagonal direction (±XY)
• ± 25mm in the axis of the conductor (±Y)
• ± 25mm vertically (±Z)
The foundation displacement effects are illustrated at Figure. 5.
The analysis carried out to account for the effects of large displacements were non-linear.
Only one support leg is affected each time. The displaced leg is considered pinned like the
other supports.
11
Table 4 shows the largest internal forces due to foundation displacement (in the column
“highest”). For most of the members, the loads are quite high. The proper displacement
combined with the proper loading can induce very high forces in the members. It is interesting
to note that regardless of the tower types (1, 2 or 2A), the ratios are similar for each group.
The only difference comes from the group 4 which is a diaphragm group, thus being
sometimes difficult to predict, which is common for this member type.
The vertical displacements affect the towers much more than the horizontal ones.
X Y
Δ Δ
Δ Δ
Perpendicular to the
Diagonal Direction Axis of the Conductor
Axis of the Conductor Vertical Axis (±Z)
(±XY) (±Y)
(±X)
Figure 5: Foundation displacement scenarios
Table 4: Member forces (largest) from foundation displacements
Tower 1 Tower 2 Tower 2A

(kN) (kN) (kN)
Test
load Analysis Ratio Test load Analysis Ratio Test load Analysis Ratio
(normal) (normal) (normal)
Group 1 -247,84 -428,50 1.73 -210,35 -385,30 1.83 -211,63 -416,81 1.97
Group 2 -227,97 -361,76 1.59 -224,19 -380,67 1.70 -215,77 -372,12 1.72
Group 3 -29,83 -38,86 1.30 -32,92 -45,45 1.38 -42,16 -53,19 1.26
Group 4 12,91 27,45 2.13 31,43 81,58 2.60 36,80 74,02 2.01
Group 5 -62,13 -80,63 1.30 -48,05 -66,27 1.38 -61,07 -77,15 1.26
12
4.3. Experimental approach
During the previous Cigré prototype tests, conducted in South Africa, a special device was
constructed to simulate foundation vertical displacements. After theoretical analysis done by
the WG08 group, it was concluded that:
- Prototype 2 should be selected (see Table 1 and Figure 1) for simulating such test due to
its highest degree of hyperstaticity (indeterminate) or rigidity condition that could
maximize the effects on the bar loads.
- Previous calculations had shown that only vertical foundation movements tending to
force one foundation out of the plane of the other three will induce forces in the structure.
For this reason, the most critical condition for the tower regarding foundation
displacements (as per [2]) is differential “uplift or settlement” in only one of the tower
legs. This way, one of the prototype 2 feet was raised and lowered during those tests (see
figures 6 and 7).
- It was agreed that a maximum displacement of about 25mm “up and down” should be
simulated since those values, according to the WG members professional experiences,
reflected well the current industry practices. As per the previous calculation, failure on
the lowest main member would occur when the foundation displacement would reach
about 45 mm upward displacement.
- The other tower footings were considered to be rigid and, as such, does not represent
reality; whereby, movement of the other footings would normally occur and
consequentially redistribution of the tower member forces.
- It was also a common understanding that, the foundation displacement tests, should be
carried out with the structure unloaded by external loads. This would permit a better
interpretation about the impact of those effects isolated from the other loads.
13
Figure 6: Prototype 2 vertical foundation movements
Figure 7: Device designed for foundation displacements
14
Table 5: Bar loads due to foundation vertical displacements
Test ADINA
(kN) (kN)
Tension Compression Tension Compression
F2B 70,55 -58,75 125,30 -124,04
P3L 13,62 -17,97 80,43 -65,66
F4 90,85 -82,70 152,16 -172,51
T12L 9,13 -1,99 15,86 -14,41
T13L 10,18 -0,39 11,50 -12,68
T12T 1,27 -7,49 15,52 -14,70
B11L 0,00 -10,00 17,64 -1,82
T11L 0,00 -15,99 17,03 -18,25
B11T 10,35 0,00 17,64 -1,82
T11T 15,18 -1,78 16,69 -18,65
It was therefore defined that, the main objective of the tests, would be to qualify the effects of
the foundation “uplift and settlement movements” on several relevant tower members, which
would be real time strain-gage monitored during the tests. Figure 6 shows the bars retained
during those tests and their numerical corresponding structure elements.
Table 5 shows the highest values, both in tension and compression, reached by each
monitored bar during the tests, as compared with those values obtained with the ADINA
simulation.
It is important to remark that, as already commented on item 2.2, no “bolt slippage” or

“clearances of holes” were taken into account for the theoretical simulations performed on
this exercise. Therefore, the “load-reliever” effects exerted by the bolt slippage or the grips on
joints, could not be accounted for during this analysis. As a consequence, the real structural
behavior is not exactly as estimated by the calculations herein carried out by the ADINA
simulation. Figures 8 and 9 show the “loading pattern” of the elements F2B and B11L. It is
interesting to note that if the displacement is increasing or decreasing, the load values are not
the same for the same vertical displacement. This effect is mainly due to the bolt slippages
(and/or hole clearances movements) on joints which were not accounted for in the
simulations. If taken into consideration, those effects would result in reduction on the tower
stiffness (that is lower on the real structure than in the model) and therefore in lower internal
forces in the simulation results. Also note the existence of non-uniform hysteresis behaviors
of members as can be seen on Figures 8 and 9.
As a general trend, the maximum bar force values estimated by the software ADINA were
higher than experimental values measured during the field tests. Figure 10 shows such
15
comparisons for all the prototype 2 monitored members. It is important to note that for the leg
members (F2B, F4) the simulated values are consistently higher than the experimental results,
on average, about twice the measured values of member forces. For bracing elements, the
simulated member forces could be as much as ten times the tested member force.
150
100
50
Force (kN)
-50
-100
-150
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Vertical Displacement (mm)
Figure 8: F2B loading pattern
20
15
10
5
Force (kN)
-5
-10
-15
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Vertical Displacement (mm)
Figure 9: B11L loading pattern
175
125
75
Axial Force (kN)
25
-25
-75
-125
-175
F2B P3L F4 T12L T13L T12T B11L T11L B11T T11T
Leg Elements Brace Elements
Elements
Figure 10: Simulated versus measured member forces – Effect of foundation displacement
16
5. Conclusions
The article presents the prediction of the effect of three types of fabrication and erection
industry tolerances on tower member forces, namely allowable imperfection in member
length, overall vertical tolerances of tower and foundation location or displacement.
Based on numerical simulations, field tests and comparison with the professional experiences,
it is possible to conclude that the impact of the fabrication and erection industry tolerances
can be relevant or not. It will strongly depend on the quality of fabrication and erection. The
same tolerances that induce internal forces (built-in member stresses), can act as a load/stress
reliever. To occur this, it is mandatory that the imperfections be compatible with the
tolerances and that they are provided by good fabrication and erection practices.
Regarding the fabrication and erection imperfections studied in this exercise, it was possible
to see that the variation on members length and the location (or displacement) of foundations
may have significant effect on the actual member forces of the towers. Any how, it is
important to remark that, towers are constructed of a ductile material capable of considerable
plastic deformation. This implies that increased stresses in members due to lack of fit
probably does not imply a corresponding reduction of the failure load of the structure as a
whole.
It is clear, however, that tower inclination has much less or even no impact on increasing
member forces of almost all kind of self supporting towers.
The ADINA simulation model using truss element and perfect hinged connections could not
properly predict the behavior of bolt assembled members of lattice structures as analyzed in
this exercise. In reality connections in towers usually have moment capacity and eccentricities
which are not considered in structural models. This way bolt slippage and “clearance of hole”
movements may play an important role to predict accurately the forces in members when
performing any structural analysis on lattice towers.
Future researches should be focused on using real towers to check internal member forces
after construction. These “built-in” member stresses could therefore be taken into account in a
method where accuracy in fabrication and erection could be rewarded with higher strength
factors than lower quality of fabrication and erection workmanship.
17
6. Acknowledgments
B2.08 Group recognizes the support received from Sherbrooke University, ABB and ESKOM
for this investigation.
The convener thanks the reviewers N. Cuer and C. Thorn for their valuable work of revision
and comments.
7. References
[1] Influence of the Hyperstatic Modeling on the Behavior of Transmission Line Lattice
Structures.
[2] On the Structural Interaction Between Transmission Line Towers and Foundations.
[3] Foundation Installation – An Overview

Cigré Technical Brochure nr. 308
18
Annex
WG B2.08 TF2.4- Questionnaire
“Tolerances for steel supply / manufacture /

assembly and erection”
Part A: Mill tolerances for equal and unequal angle sections and plates
Part B: Manufacture tolerances for nuts, bolts and washers
Part C: Tolerances for post-fabrication checks for equal / unequal angle and plate sections
Part D: Tolerances employed for the check assembly supports
Part E: Erection tolerances for supports
19
Tolerances for steel supply / manufacture / assembly
and erection a
B2-WG08-TF2.4
.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa prepared by David Hughes
Introduction When a tranmission line is designed employing probabilistic techniques it is necessary to have a knowledge of the strength
(resistance) of all of its component parts (characteristic strength and associated standard of deviation). One of the main components
of a transmission line are the supports (tangent towers and tension towers) and it is clear that our knowledge of their characteristic
strength (Rc) and associated standard deviations (σ) is not sufficiently well known to enable the designer to make economies whilst
maintaining the required level of risk-of-failure. IEC 826 assumes the coeffficient of variation (COV) for tangent towers is 10%; it is
the intention of B2-WG08-TF2 to attempt to verify the suitability of this figure or establish a methodology of determining a more
realistic value.
From raw steel to finished product various tolerance allowances are inherently built into the overall process and, principally, these are
determined by economic consequences of their own. These tolerances include :-
a) tolerance limits for raw materials (steel sections / plates / bolts) received from the mill at the fabrication factory;
b) tolerances employed by the fabrication factory during the fabrication process;
c) tolerances employed during the check assembly of the support and, finally;
d) tolerances employed during the erection process (including those for foundation construction as well as tower erection).
All the tolerances, a) to d), will effect the overall strength of the finished product, namely the transmission line. To determine the
magnitude of this effect it is necessary to determine what checks are, in fact, imposed during each of the above stages and what
variations are considered permissible by the industry. Having this knoweldge will permit analysis of the estimated residual overall
strength and COV of the tangent and tension supports and, hence, the transmission line itself.
B2-WG08 (TF2.1) has already published a paper covering item a) entitled "Variability of the mechanical properties of materials for
Transmission Lines steel towers", published in ELECTRA No 189, April 2000 (please contact HughesDavid@PBWorld.com for a
copy). This paper addressed the effect on support resistance from the actual variation of phyiscal and mechanical properties of
equal and unequal angles as delivered to the fabrication factory (allowable variations stated by the supply standard and the actual
variations as measured during the "Material Receipt" tests upon delivery to the factory. The paper was based on a limited survey of
the materials delivered to one company in Brazil.
It is intended to expand the findings of TF2.1 from a local to a world-wide basis by the issue of this questionnaire.
This questionnaire is split into six parts:-
Part 1 : (this worksheet) - Introduction, Definitions and Basic Reference Data relating to the respondee. (see below to
complete initial data)
Part 2 : Worksheet - "Mill Steel". The tolerances employed by the manufacturing Mill / supplier of the raw (black) steel to determine
the acceptability of the steel being supplied. It is presumed the same limits will be applied by the end user / tower fabricator for
acceptance of the raw material delivered to the factory.
Part 3 : Worksheet - "Bolt Supply". The tolerances employed by the bolt manufacturer to determine the acceptability of the nuts,
bolts and washers being supplied. It is presumed the same limits will be applied by the end user / tower fabricator for acceptance of
the material delivered to the factory
Part 4 : Worksheet - "Fabrication". The tolerances employed by the fabricator to determine the acceptability of the fabricated steel
work (limited to the fabrication of angle sections). It is presumed the same limits will be applied by the end user for acceptance of
the delivered material
Part 5 : Worksheet - "Assembly". The tolerances employed by the fabricator during the checks on the fabricated steelwork to
determine the suitability of the steelwork detailing and the actual fabrication process. These checks are usually made on galvanised
steelwork. It is presumed the same limits will be applied by the end user for acceptance of the delivered material to site
Part 6 : Worksheet - "Erection". The tolerances employed by the constructor / erector (or imposed by the customer) to determine
the acceptability of the erected steel work. These tolerances include those tolerances employed during the construction of the
foundations and the erection of the steelwork. It is presumed these same limits will be applied by the end user for acceptance of the
final erected material that will be put into service.
IMPORTANT REQUEST The questions asked in this questionnaire apply to the implementation of a quality control process which, normally, require records to
be maintained of all achieved results. It is recognised the answers to this questionnaire will only provide the upper and lower
tolerance bounds as dictated by others (standards, customer specifications, etc.) whereas the ACTUAL bounds could be determined
from an analysis of the factory / contractor quality records.
THE ANALYSIS OBJECTIVES OF CIGRE B2-WG08-TF2.4 WOULD BE GREATLY ENHANCED IF YOU COULD MAKE YOUR
FACTORY / CONSTRUCTION QUALITY CONTROL RECORDS AVAILABLE TO THE WORKING GROUP. PLEASE INDICATE
ON THE FOLLOWING WORKSHEETS IS SUCH RECORDS CAN BE PROVIDED
Definitions NOTE : the following definitions are applicable to all work sheets (specific definitions are given in each worksheet)
N/A = Information is NOT AVAILABLE (assumed default for items left blank)
N/R = Item is NOT RELEVANT or NOT APPLICABLE (give reasons)
All units are considered to be metric (dimension = mm; force = N) unless stated in "Other Definitions" below
Steel sections considered in this exercise are equal and uneaqual angle sections and plates only
Symbols with suffix ('), i.e. r2', indicate tolerances
The tolerances requested are those imposed by the mill, the fabrication works, the designer or by the customer / country utility during
your normal process of structure fabrication for angles or bolts. These may be independent of those quoted by standards.
Respondee / Source (please enter here who you are and who you represent)
Contact Details advise contact details for Respondee (email address, telephone number)
Other Definitions
State dimension units
millimeters (mm) or inches (in)
employed
State force units
Newtons (N), Kilogrammes force (kgf), Kips, or other
employed
Other definitions
employed by respondee (advise the definitions for any other abreviations or symbols employed in your response)
20
Tolerances for steel supply / manufacture /
assembly and erection a
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
B2-WG08-TF2.4
.
aaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa PartaAa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa prepared by David Hughes
These tolerances refer to the acceptance criteria applied
MILL TOLERANCES FOR EQUAL AND
to the raw steel (black) received at the fabrication works
UNEQUAL ANGLE SECTIONS AND PLATES from the supplier
Designation method for angle sections
Longest length
All are nominal dimensions as ordered
thickness t
L = length of section delivered
A
Definitions A = Longest flange
B = shortest flange
t = thickness of flange A and B B
m = mass per unit length Shortest length
Requested data (highlighted yellow)

Question : Do you apply
any of the following Tolerance Limit
Explanation / Sketch Reference
tests / checks as supply Applicable (millimeters (mm) Comments
Standard, if
acceptance criteria? to: Target min max (& sampling rate)
applicable
value (-) (+)
What material grades do Grade :
(note: if different tolerances are
you normally employ for Grade :
applicable to different material grades,
the angle sections for
please complete a separate sheet for Grade :
transmission line
each grade as applicable)
supports? Grade :
PHYSICAL DIMENSIONAL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (state the sampling rate in comments column)
Do you perform
Define acceptance / reject criteria
"appearance" Tests?
L <=
L <=
Give the min / max
tolerances (L') on L <=
delivered angle section L <=
lengths (L)? Ordered Length L
L <=
diff L'
other/define
t <=
Advise the min / max t <=
tolerances (t') on measured t <=
delivered angle section thickness t'
thickness (t)? t <=
other/define
a' (+ or -) a or b <=
Advise the min / max
Longest
length A
tolerances (a') on the a or b <=

length of the flanges (A a or b <=
and/or B) of delivered
a or b <=
angle sections?
Shortest length B other/define
Advise the min / Max L <=

tolerances (s') on the s' L <=
straightness of delivered
Length L L <=
angle sections (assumed
to be function of ordered L <=
Please state how "straightness" is
length L)? other/define
measured
A or B <=
m' θ' A or B <=
Advise the min / max A or B <=
tolerances (m' or θ' - state A or B
other/define
which employed) for "out-
of-squareness" for A or B <=
delivered angle sections? m'
A or B <=
θ' A or B <=
other/define
21
A or B <=
Max / Min twist tolerance A or B <=
(δº' or T', state which) for A or B <=
delivered angle section
δº A or B <=
over delivered length T
(L ) A or B <=
other
Toe length Lt A, B or t <= for Lt'
Advise the min / max A, B or t <= for Lt'
tolerances (r2' and Lt') for other/define for Lt'
the "toe" dimensions (r2
and Lt) of delivered angle A, B or t <= For r2'
sections A, B or t <= For r2'
Toe radius r2
other/define For r2'
A,B or t <= for r1'
Root radius r1 A,B or t <= for r1'
tolerances for the "root" other/define for r1'
dimensions (r1' and Lr') of A,B or t <= For Lr'
delivered angle sections
A,B or t <= For Lr'
Root length Lr
other/define For Lr'

Nominal mass per unit length= w
tolerances (w') on the
Actual mass per unit length = W
mass per unit length (w)
Difference = w - W per unit length
of delivered angle
Tolerance w' = (w - W) / w (%)
sections?
other/define
Advise the min / max Nominal area = As

tolerance (As') on the Actual Area = AS
sectional area (As) of the Difference = As - AS
delivered angle sections? Tolerance As' = (As - AS) / As (%)
other/define
W <=
Advise the min / max Measured thickness W
W <=
tolerance (W') on the
W <=
thickness (W ) of the
delivered plate sections? W <=
other/define
Major length A B,A <=
Minor length B
Advise the min / max B,A <=

tolerances (A') on the
B,A <=
length (A x B) of the
delivered plate sections? B,A <=
other/define
Advise the min / max W, L <=
tolerance (Sr') on the
flatness (steepness ratio W, L <=
Sr) of delivered plate or W, L <=
sections? (defined as
W, L <=
H/Lx100% with plate
resting under own weight) other/define
Advise the min / max W, L <=

tolerance (Cm') on the W, L <=
camber (Camber/Length
W, L <=
in %) of delivered plate
sections with nominal W, L <=
thickness/width of w ? other/define
Advise the min / max w <=

tolerance (Os') on the Out- w <=
of-square (Os' = U / W
w <=
x100% ) of delivered plate
sections with nominal w <=
thickness/width of w? other/define
22
Do you impose any other
physical tolerance
Show / define define define
limitations (e.g. area,
surface area, etc.)?
MECHANICAL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA. Which of the following mechanical tests do you perform for your factory acceptance
tests? Please advise the sampling rate (explanation / sketch column) and acceptance criteria (tolerance limits / comments
column)
Tensile strength
Minimum Yield strength
Percentage elongation
Impact strength
(Charpy V-notch)
Bend test
Hardness (Brinell)
Hardness (Rockwell)
Others (define)
CHEMICAL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA. Which of the following chemical tests do you perform for your factory acceptance
column)
Carbon Equivalent Value
Carbon
Silicon
Sulphur
Copper
Nickel
Chromium
Manganese
Phosphorus
Molybdenum
Vanadium
Other? (state)
Can you supply actual Quality Records for any of the above tests
you have indicated have been performed? If Yes, please provide Please advise contact details here or refer to data provided with
contact details (Name, email address, etc.) to facilitate the your response
transfer of data, else please attach to your response.
23
B2-WG08-TF2.4
.
aaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa PartaBa
aaaaaaaaaaaa
MANUFACTURE TOLERANCES FOR NUTS,
to black bolts, nuts and washers received at the
BOLTS AND WASHERS fabrication works from the manufacturer.
Head
Across corners Thickness Thread Length (Lt)
Radius of
(C) (F)
fillet (R)
Washer
Bolt Head / Nut / (B) Shank Diameter Nut Lock

Head
Lock Nut Nut
Grip Length (GL) Nut Thick (D)

Across flats (A)
(E) Inside dia (Dh)
Lock nut thick
Washer thickness (W)
Outside dia (Dw)
Bolt Length (L)
DEFINITION OF PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS EMPLOYED FOR BOLTS, NUTS, WASHERS AND LOCKNUTS
Question: Do you apply
Tolerance Limit
any of the following
Applicable (millimeters (mm) Reference
acceptance checks for Explanation / Sketch
to nominal Comments Standard, if
bolt supply? If yes, advise Target min max
dia? applicable
tolerances used. value (-) (+)
B=
Firstly : Please advise
B=
what nominal bolt
diameters you normally Bolt shank diameter (unthreaded B=
employ for steel lattice portion) B=
transmission supports?
B=
State all applicable
others?
for M
(note: if different tolerances are for M
2nd. What Bolt Grade(s)
applicable to different bolt grades for M
do you normaly employ
please copy this worksheet and
for the above nominal bolt for M
complete for each bolt grade as
diameters?
applicable) for M
others? State
Tighten nut to torque ?
Split spring washer ?
Domed spring washer (Bellville) ?
3rd. What nut locking
method, if any, do you Washers with locking tabs ?
generally employ ? Advise Double nuts ?
if you use a combination
Thread deformation ?
of methods.
Swaged Nuts ?
Chemical locking material ?
Other ?
PHYSICAL DIMENSIONAL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (state the sampling rate in comments column)
Do you perform
Define
"appearance" Tests?
24
for M
for M
Advise the tolerances (L') Shank Diameter B for M
for the nominal bolt length
(L) for M
for M
Bolt Length (L)
others? Define
for M
for M
Advise the max / min for M
tolerances (B') for each See above
nominal bolt diameter (B) for M
for M
others? Define
for M
For each nominal bolt
for M
diameter (B) advise the Bolt Head
max / min tolerances (A') for M
applied for the bolt head for M
/ nut / lock nut diameter
for M
across flats (A)
Across flats (A)
others? Define
Across corners
for M
For each nominal bolt (C) for M
diameter (B) advise the
max / min tolerances (C') for M
Bolt Head
diameter across corners
for M
(C)
others? Define
F for M
For each nominal bolt for M
diameter (B) advise the for M
max / min tolerances (F')
Head

thickness (F) for M
others? Define
for M
Radius of fillet (R)
Head
for M
max / min tolerances (R')
applied for the radius of for M
the head fillet (R) for M
others? Define
for M
β
for M
max / min tolerances (β') for M
taper (inclination of
for M
bearing surface)
others? Define
for M
for M
max / min tolerances (α') for M
applied for the incination for M
(α) of the bolt head side
faces for M
α
others? Define
for M
For each nominal bolt Eh
for M
max / min tolerances (Eh') for M
applied for the eccentricity for M
of bolt head to the
shank (Eh) for M
others? Define
25
for M
Thread Length (Lt)
max / min tolerances (Lt') for M
applied for the threaded
length on the bolt (Lt) for M
for use WITHOUT lock for M
nuts but with washers
others? Define
for M
max / min tolerances (Lt'') for M
applied for the threaded See above
length on the bolt (Lt) for M
for use WITH lock nuts for M
and washers
others? Define
P for M
for M
thread pitch tolerance (P') for M
for the required pitch (P)
for M
others? Define
for M
for M
H
thread height tolerance for M
(H')
for M
others? Define
for M
for M
diameter (B) advise the Nut /
max / min tolerances (An') Lock Nut for M
applied for the nut / lock for M
nut diameter across
for M
flats (An)
Across flats (An) others? Define
Across corners
for M
For each nominal bolt (Cn) for M
max / min tolerances for M
(Cn') applied for the nut / Nut / for M
lock nut diameter Lock Nut
for M
across corners (Cn)
others? Define
for M
Nut E
max / min tolerances (E')
applied for the thickness for M
of the nut (E) for M
others? Define
for M
For each nominal bolt Lock Nut for M
max / min tolerances (Di')
Di for M
applied for the internal
thread diameter (Di) for M
others? Define
for M
What are the standard
washer thicknesses (W) Washer thickness (W) for M
and their respective for M
tolerances (W') you
normally employ for lattice for M
steel transmission for M
supports?
others? Define
26
for M
Outside dia (Dw)

Washer for M
(Dw') applied for the for M
outside diameter of the
washer (Dw) for M
others? Define
for M
Inside dia (Dh)

For each nominal bolt Washer for M
(Dh') applied for the for M
outside diameter of the
washer (Dh) for M
others? Define
for M
difference between the
washer inside hole for M
as defined above
diameter and the bolt for M
nominal diameter (Dh-B)
for M
together with
associated tolerances others? Define
Do you use locking
devices? (if yes, state
type and any tolerance Define
limits applied for their Type?
supply)
for M
diameter (B) advise the D for M
Lock Nut
max / min tolerances (D')
applied for the lock nut for M
thickness (D) for M
others? Define
for M
Advise how you calculate
for M
the allowable grip length
(GL) for each nominal bolt for M
Define
diameter B (include all for M
allowances, e.g. for
galvanising thickness) for M
others? Define
Do you impose any other

physical tolerance Show / define
checks / tests ?
MECHANICAL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA. Which of the following mechanical tests do you perform for your factory acceptance
tests? If Yes, please advise the sampling rate (explanation / sketch column) and acceptance criteria (tolerance limits /
comments column)
Tensile test
Shear test
Wedge tensile test
Proof stress test
Proof load test
Head percussion test
Decarborized layer test
Retempering test
Surface hardness test
Hardness test Vickers
Hardness test Rockwell
Hardness test Rockwell
Hardness test Brinell
Other test? Define
27
CHEMICAL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA. Which of the following chemical tests do you perform for your factory acceptance
column)
Carbon Equivalent Value
Carbon
Silicon
Sulphur
Copper
Nickel
Chromium
Manganese
Phosphorus
Molybdenum
Vanadium
Other? (state) define
28
B2-WG08-TF2.4
.
aaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa PartaCa
aaaaaaaaaaaa
TOLERANCES FOR POST-FABRICATION CHECKS FOR
AFTER fabrication (before galvanising) for angle and plate
EQUAL / UNEQUAL ANGLE & PLATE SECTIONS
sections
DEFINITIONS AS PER PREVIOUS WORKSHEETS
Question: Do you apply Tolerance Limit
any of the following tests / (millimeters (mm) Reference
Explanations / Sketchs Applicable
checks for fabrication Comments Standard, if
acceptance? to: Target min max
applicable
value (-) (+)
HOLES / DIAMETERS
-
-
Nominal bolt diameters
previously advised to be -
(see Worksheet "Bolt supply")
employed for steel lattice -
transmission supports
-
-
Bolt dia (B) - -
For each nominal bolt - -
diameter (B) advise the - -
the required hole
diameter (Dh) and its - -
tolerance (+/-Dh') - -
Hole dia (Dh) - -
- -
- -
State thickness / steel
grade limits for making - -
hole by punching or - - -
drilling for each nominal
- -
bolt diameter (B)
- -
other? define
D - side of entry - -
Taper of punched holes, - -
defined as the difference
between the hole - -
diameters on either side - -
of the angle or plate
section (d' = d-D) - -
d - side of exit - -
- -
- -
Inclined axis of hole - -
perpendicular to face of
angle or plate section - -
- -
Di
- -
max d - -
Non-circularity of hole. - -
For target hole diameter - -
Dh, tolerances are:
+dc' = dmax - Dh and B min d - -
-dc' = Dh - dmin - -
- -
29
Advise tolerances for any
other hole / diameter Define
checks performed
LENGTHS AND DISTANCES

L<=
L<=
Overall length of member
as per drawing (L) advise L<=
max and min tolerance Length on drawing L L<=
(L') after fabrication diff L'
L<=
L<=
a, b<=
Advise tolerance (a' or b') a' or b'
a, b<=
for the squareness of
sawn or sheared ends of a, b<=
sections, (measured a or b
a, b<=
between the toe and heel
of the angle) a, b<=
a, b<=
z <=
z <=
Advise the tolerance (z') z <=
for drawing dimension (z)
to required center of hole z <=
z z' z <=
z <=
S <=
= S <=
=
Tolerance (S') to drawing
dimension (S) to the S <=
(theoretical) center of a S <=
groups of holes
S' S <=
S
S <=
Ec<=
Ec<=
Tolerance (Ec') to
drawing dimension (Ec) Ec<=
between any two adjacent Ec<=
holes
Ec Ec<=
Ec'
Ec<=
Minimum distance (Er) -
between a rolled edge -
(heel) and hole centre for Er
each bolt diameter B and -
associated tolerance (Er') -
on actual guage line Er' -
dimension (Er) as per
drawing -
Minimum distance (Et) -
between a rolled edge Et' -
(toe) and hole centre for
each bolt diameter B and -
associated tolerances -
(Et') on actual guage line Et
-
dimension (Et) as per
drawing -
-
Minimum distance (Es)
between a seared or cut Es -
edge and hole centre for -
each bolt diameter B and
associated tolerances -
(Es') on actual dimension Es' -
(Es) as per drawing Es
-
30
-
Tolerance (Eo') of -
drawing dimension (Eo) -
between two holes in
opposite faces of an -
angle section -
Eo Eo' -

other length or distance Define
checks performed
ANGLES Limits on achievable bend ß

Grade ßº a, b t
ß
Maximum bend angles
(ßº) for open or closed
flanges - state angle or
plate section limits ß
(thickness (t), flange
width (a,b) and or grade)

other angle checks Define
performed
31
B2-WG08-TF2.4.
aaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa PartaDa
aaaaaaaaaaaa
This sheet refers to the methods and acceptance criteria
TOLERANCES EMPLOYED FOR THE CHECK
employed AFTER fabrication AND galvanising for the test
ASSEMBLY SUPPORTS
to check detailing / fabrication accuracy
Question: Do you apply Requested data (highlighted yellow)
any of the following tests / Applicable Tolerance Limit Reference
Explanation / Sketch
checks for check to min max Comments Standard, if
Target
assembly acceptance? Dimension? (-) (+) applicable
GENERAL PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS
Do you perform / require check assembly tests?
If, yes, do you perform / require check assembly tests in the

vertical or horizontal?
Are the check assembly / trial tests performed with galvanised
steel?
Are the tests performed with the actual bolts (diameters, lengths
and grades), washers and nuts to be supplied with the towers?
What measuring device(s) do you employ to record dimensions?
What accuracy is achievable ?
What measuring device(s) do you employ to record levels ? What
accuracy is achievable ?
Are the above devices calibrated before each test ?
If steel tapes are employed are allowances made for temperature

and tension ?
Are all bolts included in the assembly / trial test ?
If all the bolts are not included under what conditions are some
bolts not included ?
Are the bolts tightened during the test ?
Maximum manual with no checks ?
Manual, with random checks using a

calibrated tool ?
If the bolts are tightened,
Calibrated power tool ?
what method or
combination of methods is
used at site ? Load indicating washer ?
Turn of nut method ?
Other ?
-
If bolts are torqued identify the torque value (q) and its derivation
(in comments column) plus the permitted tolerances (q') for each -
of the nominal bolt diameters and grades you previously
-
identified.
-
32
For horizontal tests…..
How many faces do you assemble for horizontal assembly / trial

tests ?
Are adjustable (rigid) supports employed to maintain the tower
centre-line as a true horizontal ?
If supports are employed for horizontal tests, to what accuracy are
they set ?
What precautions are taken to minimise any effects from member
or panel self-weight ?
Are adjustable (rigid) supports employed to maintain the tower
centre-line as a true horizontal ?
If supports are employed, to what accuracy are they set ?
What precautions are taken to minimise any effects from member

or panel self-weight ?
Advise what limits you suggest would necessitate an assembly /
trial test to be conducted in the vertical.
P<=
P<=
Twist (λ) between top and
λ
bottom of support Tower top P<=
expressed as a
percentage of the support P<=
or panel height (P)
Tower base P<=
P<=
Offset fs P<=
Tolerance (V') for P<=

Tower height P.
Centre line of
"Verticality" of tower
top member P<=
expressed as a
percentage of the offset
P<=
(fs) to the overall support
Centre line at
height (P) ground level P<=
P<=
Levels ?
Rake of leg joints to base ?

What tolerances are
employed when setting Twist of leg to support face ?
the support footings?
Face Heel-heel dimensions?
Diagional Heel-heel dimensions ?
33
For horizontal and vertical tests…….
H<=
Dimension H<=
Identify the tolerance (H') between heels H
on dimensions measured H'
H<=
across tower faces
on-the-square
(H -horizontal distance H<=
between heels of legs)
H<=
H<=
L<=
Dimension
L' between heels L L<=
Tolerance (L') on
dimensions measured L<=
on-the-diagonal
across tower diagonal
(L -horizontal distance L<=
between heels of legs)
L<=
L<=
M<=
M<=
What tolerance (M') is
permitted for dimensions M<=
(M) between connections
as identified in the Dimension M M<=
drawings ?
M<=
M<=
L<=
R L<=
Tolerance of
"straightness" R' L L<=
(expressed as percentage
of member / panel length L<=
L) when assembled ?
L<=
L<=
Advise any other checks

performed and the
tolerances adopted for
Define
either horizontal or
vertical check assembly /
trial tests
34
B2-WG08-TF2.4.
aaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa PartaEa
aaaaaaaaaaaa

ERECTION TOLERANCES FOR SUPPORTS
PRIOR TO, DURING & AFTER erection of the support
DEFINITIONS AS PER PREVIOUS WORKSHEETS
Applicable Tolerance Limit Reference
Question Explanation / Sketch
to min max Comments Standard, if
Target
dimension? (-) (+) applicable
FOUNDATION STUB SETTING TOLERANCES
Levels at top of stub ?
Rake of leg joints to base ?

What instrument is
employed on site to Twist of leg to support face ?
measure :-
Levels at top of stub ?
What are the acceptance Rake of leg joints to base ?

tolerances employed at
Twist of leg to support face ?
site for ?
TOLERANCES FOR TOWER ERECTION
Are the checks you identify below made at different stages of
support erection ? If yes, please define
Drifting (hammering a tapered probe
into the holes to bring them in line) ?
Are any of the following
Reaming (cutting the mis-fit hole(s) to
practices to correct mis-fit
permit bolt entry) ?
of holes permitted during
erection? If yes, indentify Site welding of holes and redrilling ?
the acceptable limits
Other ? Identify
P<=
P<=
Twist (λ) between top and
bottom of support λ P<=
expressed as a Tower top
percentage of the support P<=
or panel height (P)
P<=
Tower base
P<=
Offset fs P<=
Tolerance (V') for P<=

Tower height P.
Centre line of
"Verticality" of tower
top member P<=
expressed as a
percentage of the offset
P<=
(fs) to the overall support
Centre line at
height (P) ground level P<=
P<=
H<=
Identify the tolerance (H') Dimension H<=

on dimensions measured H' between heels H
H<=
across tower faces
on-the-square H<=
(H -horizontal distance
between heels of legs) H<=
H<=
35
L<=
Dimension
Tolerance (L') on between heels L L<=
L'
dimensions measured L<=
across tower diagonal
on-the-diagonal L<=
(L -horizontal distance
between heels of legs) L<=
L<=
M<=
What tolerance (M') is M<=

permitted for dimensions M<=
(M) between connections
as identified in the M<=
drawings ? Dimension M M<=
M<=
L<=
Tolerance of L<=
R
"straightness" R' L<=
(expressed as percentage
of member / panel length L L<=
L) when assembled ? L<=
L<=
Maximum manual with no checks ?
Manual, with random checks using a

calibrated tool ?
If the bolts are tightened Calibrated power tool ?

at site, advise what
method is used ? Load indicating washer ?
Turn of nut method ?
Other ?
-
If bolts are torqued
identify the torque value -
(q) and its derivation (in
comments column) plus -
the permitted tolerances
(q') for each of the -
nominal bolt diameters
and grades you -
previously identified.
-
Advise any other checks

performed and the
tolerances adopted for
Define
either horizontal or
vertical check assembly /
trial tests
36

Fabrication Errors in Erection and Strength of Towers Erection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fabrication Errors in Erection and Strength of Towers Erection

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fabrication Errors in Erection and Strength of Towers Erection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

428

The Effect of Fabrication and Erection Tolerances

L. Binette (Canada), J. Fernadez (Spain), A. Fuchs (Germany), R. Jansson (Sweden),

C.G. Alamo (Venezuela), G. Brown (Australia), G. Gheorghita (Romania), R. Guimarães (Brazil),

Figure 1: Tower prototypes in the Test Yard ............................................................................. 6

Table 1: Characteristics of the three towers tested by Cigré ...................................................... 6

• Groups 1 and 2: Main members (Legs);

• Effect of member length,

TOWER 1 TOWER 2 TOWER 2A

Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 2A

Figure 1: Tower prototypes in the Test Yard

2.1. Fabrication and erection tolerances in member length

2.2. Effect of fabrication and erection tolerances in member length

Figure 2: Member length variation

Table 2: Member forces comparison – Length Tolerances Effect.

3.1. Vertical Inclination Tolerances

3.2. Numerical simulation

Normal Transverse Longitudinal 45 degrees

Tower 1 Tower 2 Tower 2A

4. Effect of Foundation Displacement

4.1. Tolerances on foundation position

4.2. Numerical simulation

• ± 25mm perpendicular to the axis of conductor(±X)

The foundation displacement effects are illustrated at Figure. 5.

Table 4: Member forces (largest) from foundation displacements

Tower 1 Tower 2 Tower 2A

Figure 7: Device designed for foundation displacements

It is important to remark that, as already commented on item 2.2, no “bolt slippage” or

Figure 8: F2B loading pattern

Figure 9: B11L loading pattern

[3] Foundation Installation – An Overview

WG B2.08 TF2.4- Questionnaire

“Tolerances for steel supply / manufacture /

Part B: Manufacture tolerances for nuts, bolts and washers

Part D: Tolerances employed for the check assembly supports

Part E: Erection tolerances for supports

Requested data (highlighted yellow)

tolerances (a') on the a or b <=

Advise the min / Max L <=

Advise the min / max

Advise the min / max Nominal area = As

Advise the min / max B,A <=

Advise the min / max W, L <=

Advise the min / max w <=

Carbon Equivalent Value

Bolt Head / Nut / (B) Shank Diameter Nut Lock

Grip Length (GL) Nut Thick (D)

applied for the bolt head for M

Outside dia (Dw)

Inside dia (Dh)

Do you impose any other

LENGTHS AND DISTANCES

Advise tolerances for any

ANGLES Limits on achievable bend ß

Advise tolerances for any

Do you perform / require check assembly tests?

If, yes, do you perform / require check assembly tests in the

Are the above devices calibrated before each test ?

If steel tapes are employed are allowances made for temperature