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

net/publication/322153356

Review on analysis and design of lattice steel structure of overhead

transmission tower

Article  in  International Journal of ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES · January 2018

DOI: 10.21833/ijaas.2018.01.010

CITATIONS READS

7 4,155

3 authors:

Siti Aisyah Kamarudin Fathoni Usman

Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN) Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN)
4 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS    83 PUBLICATIONS   206 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

I. N. Z. Baharuddin
Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN)
33 PUBLICATIONS   68 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Value Engineering Advisory System: Building Construction View project

Detail FEM Study and Integrated Structural Stability Assessment System Development for Overhead Transmission Tower View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fathoni Usman on 31 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 5(1) 2018, Pages: 73-80

Contents lists available at Science-Gate

International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences

Journal homepage: http://www.science-gate.com/IJAAS.html

Review on analysis and design of lattice steel structure of overhead

transmission tower
Siti Aisyah Kamarudin 1, *, Fathoni Usman 2, Intan Nor Zuliana Baharuddin 2

1College of Graduate Studies, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Kajang, Malaysia

2Institute of Energy Infrastructure, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Kajang, Malaysia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history: Demand for electricity is increasing as the population grows. Transmission
Received 14 August 2017 towers need to be upgraded in order to satisfy these increasing demands for
Received in revised form power supply. A study on the stability of the transmission tower is significant
23 October 2017 to make sure that the tower is stable and capable enough to transmit
Accepted 20 November 2017 electricity due to high demand. In this paper, a review on analysis and design
of the lattice steel structure of the overhead transmission tower together
Keywords: with its design as in ASCE and Eurocode standard are presented. Two
P-delta methods are introduced which are linear static analysis and p-delta analysis
Linear static to compare its maximum internal force, maximum displacement as well as
Tower failure location for critical part of the tower when different loadings applied. In
Overhead transmission tower analysis, the tower model used for modelling and simulation is assumed as
Lattice steel fully-beam and fully-truss. Standard code MS 1533:2000 is referred for wind
loading calculation. It is found that the highest internal force is at the leg of
the tower on a normal case with an angle of attack of wind is 45°.

© 2017 The Authors. Published by IASE. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction phenomenon (Kamarudin et al., 2017). About 2.9%

year-on-year increase in revenue to RM44.5 billion
* An increasing demand in power supply means primarily due to 4% electricity demand growth in
that these towers require an upgrading to carry the Peninsular Malaysia is recorded (TNB, 2016). In
resultant heavier loading and electric power order to maintain stability of the transmission tower,
(Albermani et al., 2004). A continued community’s the structure of the tower itself need to be stable.
growth need more demands on development and The collapse mechanism depends on many factors
expansion of power plants also power distribution such as improper detailing, material defects,
networks. The reliable and uninterrupted operation fabrication errors, and forces during the erection, a
of power transmission lines is crucial (Asgarian et variation in bolt strength detailing, connection
al., 2016). failures and more although the design transmission
In Malaysia, Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) is the line towers follows the code provision (Rao et al.,
largest electricity utility with the core business of 2012). So, the structural response of the
providing electricity to the country’s businesses, transmission tower under extreme loading needs a
homes and industries, TNB now is the key better understanding. It is necessary for improving
contributor to the Nation building. The total length the safety and security of power lines. The impact of
of transmission network recorded in Peninsular element failure on the response of the entire system
Malaysia is 22,478 km, with the total transmission and failure modes should be realized (Asgarian et al.,
substation of 426 station (TNB, 2016). After all, the 2016). According to (Ellingwood et al., 2007), some
highest demand for electricity recorded in of the possible abnormal loads which can cause
Peninsular Malaysia is 17,788 megawatts (MW) progressive collapse arise from the following events:
during April 2016 as stated in Tenaga Nasional design errors, heavy object collision, fire, an
Berhad Annual Report 2016. The peak reading explosion, accidental overload, lack of proper
recorded is 37.82% increase compared to demand connectivity, etc.
on January 2016 (12,906 MW) due to an El-Nino The existing National Grid for power distribution
is able to serve the Nation and this current demand
* Corresponding Author. still can be fulfilled. In order to prevent power
Email Address: AisyahS@uniten.edu.my (S. A. Kamarudin) outage due to increasing demand in the future,
https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2018.01.010 monitoring need to be implemented. To establish a
2313-626X/© 2017 The Authors. Published by IASE.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license new infrastructure for future development, land
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) acquisition is a challenge to get an area for the

73
 Kamarudin et al/ International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 5(1) 2018, Pages: 73-80

construction. At this moment, optimization is the tower led to its collapse, triggering a major power
best way to fix this problem. In this matter, the blackout. An emergency temporary tower was built
objective of optimization is to enhance the capability immediately, but it also collapsed during
of the transmission tower for carrying heavier construction killing TNB personnel. While on 1 May
loading as well as for cost saving. 2008, another tower collapsed due to missing
Before proceed with the optimization, a brief structural members of the tower that were
study on the transmission tower analysis must be suspected of being stolen. After all, reported cases of
conducted by using suitable methods. Like in this power supply disruption in 2015 are 293 cases
study, the chosen methods are linear static analysis caused by wind. It was 0.42% of total power supply
and p-delta analysis. Those methods are most likely disruption in Peninsular Malaysia (Kamarudin et al.,
has the same procedure but the different theory 2017).
assumptions and parameters lead the methods However, according to Eslamlou and Asgarian
producing different results. Thus, this paper is aimed (2016) the main causes of failure in transmission
to study the comparison of linear static analysis and towers may be cable rupture during a storm,
p-delta analysis. A brief review of analysis and improper behavior of a member or a connection and
design of a lattice steel structure of the overhead an explosion near the tower.
transmission tower is presented in this paper as
well. 2.2. Modeling for simulating and analysing of the
tower
2. Overview of the lattice overhead transmission
tower There are studies that using a nonlinear analytical
technique to simulate and assess the ultimate
This part explains the failure, modeling and structural response of latticed transmission towers.
design codes of the transmission tower. The technique may be used to verify new tower
design and reduce or eliminate the need for full-scale
2.1. Failure of the transmission tower tower testing. This also can be used to determine
strength of existing tower or to upgrade old tower. It
There are a lot of failures reported and one of it has been calibrated with results from full-scale
was due to rain loads and wind. The collapse of tower tests with good accuracy in terms of the
transmission towers causes great economic loss and failure load and failure mode (Albermani and
many accidents. The fact of the transmission tower Kitipornchai, 2003). Using the same concept, study
collapsed during hurricanes or typhoons attracts about non-linear analysis of angle compression
researchers to accomplish their research to this members and the single panel of angle planar as well
issue. Typhoons or hurricanes are always followed as three-dimensional lattice frames, as in typical
by the strong rainfall, and the influence of a rain load lattice towers, are carried out using MSC-NASTRAN
on the tower collapse has not been studied before. software. Member of eccentricity, local deformation
Therefore, as well as a rotational rigidity of joints, a beam-
considering the rain load, even the action of both column effects and material non-linearity is taken
wind and rain loads together is very necessary and into account. The analytical models are calibrated
significant (Fu and Li, 2016). with test results. Using this calibrated model,
Transmission tower-conductor coupling systems parametric studies are carried out to evaluate the
are more susceptible to natural disasters which have forces in the redundant and the results are
been more frequent and severe over the past few compared with code provisions (Rao and
years due to the rapidly increased height and span. Kalyanaraman, 2001). Other than that, a systematic
In China, during 2008, the Southern area suffered methodology to model both the static and dynamic
severe ice disasters. Power systems sustained behaviors of a line due to conductor breakage using
serious damage due to the catastrophic freezing rain. the ADINA (Automatic Dynamic Incremental
According to released statistics, the gross collapsed Nonlinear Analysis) program is presented as by
number and damaged towers with rating above 35 Haldar et al. (2010). Based on the analysis, the extent
kV of the State Grid Corporation of China and local of a cascade damage or failure zone is estimated and
electrical companies reached 7263 towers (Xie and a mitigation approach for correcting the situation is
Sun, 2012). Meanwhile, in 2010, five transmission provided (Haldar et al., 2010). According to Vinay et
towers collapsed due to the strong wind and rain in al. (2014), transmission towers are generally
Guangdong Province of China. During 2013, natural analyzed by linear static analysis methods and
disaster typhoon Fitow in Zhejiang Province of China second order analysis are usually neglected. Linear
affected the area and collapse of the tower also static analysis does not reflect the structural
charged to power interruption (Tian et al., 2014). characteristic of transmission towers. There is a
Vandalism also contributed to the reason of the study in (Vinay et al., 2014) that presented p-delta
failure. In Malaysia, a power blackout occurred on 22 effects. A tower is modelled using angle and tubular
April 2008 and Sabah had the worst power outage sections using STAAD.Pro V8i software and analyzed
since the commissioning of the east west power grid. for the wind load by using linear static and p-delta
Suspected vandals were believed to have removed analysis to study the importance of p-delta analysis
steel pieces of a 132 kV overhead transmission for the transmission tower. After analysis, the
74
 Kamarudin et al/ International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 5(1) 2018, Pages: 73-80

comparative study is presented with respective to thickness of the leg,

𝑤
against the( )
𝑊 𝑤
. If ( ) ≤
cost and displacement for both sections. A saving in 𝑡 𝑡 𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝑡
𝑊 𝑤 𝑊
steel weight up to 20.9% resulted when a tubular ( ) , use (1) or (2), and if ( ) ≥ ( )
𝑡 𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝑡 𝑡 𝑙𝑖𝑚
section is compared with the angular section. The 𝐾𝐿 2
displacement values increased for both angular and 1 𝑟𝑣
𝐹𝑎 = 1 − [ − ( ) ] 𝐹𝑦 (1)
2 𝐶𝑐
tubular sections when the tower is analyzed for p-
𝜋2 𝐸
delta as compared to static analysis (Vinay et al., 𝐹𝑎 = 𝐾𝐿2
(2)
2014). 𝑟
𝑤
( )
Other than that, numerical analysis of steel lattice 𝐹𝑐𝑟 = [1.677 − 0.677 𝑊
𝑡
] (3)
towers has recently been performed by other ( )
𝑡 𝑙𝑖𝑚

researchers worldwide (Fu and Li, 2016; Xie and The compression capacity,
Sun, 2012;Tian et al., 2014). There is a study about a
bolted splice connection used in the main legs of 𝑓𝑎 = 𝐹𝑎 × 𝐴𝑠 (4)
steel lattice transmission towers. This method According to ASCE 10-97, all structure
conducted using finite element modelling of test components (e.g., members, connections, guys) are
specimens prepared in the commercially available selected to resist design-factored loads on stresses
computer program ANSYS (Baran et al., 2016). approaching failure in yielding, buckling, fracture, or
Meanwhile, there is another study that illustrated any other specified limiting condition. Design-
with a case study of the line section having suffered factored load is an unfactored load multiplied by a
two tower failures due to conductor breakages specified load factor to establish the design load n a
during an ice storm. This study successfully applied structure. Other than that, all applied loads shall be
cable dynamic model to several examples by using measured at the point of attachment to the
ADINA software (Mcclure and Lapointe, 2003). prototype. Loads shall be measured through a
There is a study for transmission towers where verifiable arrangement of strain devices or by
advanced non-linear analysis applied. They predetermined dead weights. Load-measuring
emphasized that the problem is more complicated by devices shall be used in accordance with a
the spatial nature of the configuration and by the fact manufacturer’s recommendations and calibrated
that individual components are a symmetric angle prior (ASCE, 1997).
shapes that are eccentrically connected. Then, the The actual yield point for tension and
elements undergo uniaxial loading and biaxial compression members of effective length with a
bending effects, which are impossible to model using radius of gyration ratio, KL/r values that less than
conventional 3D elastic truss-type methods 120 are critical in determining the member capacity.
(Eslamlou and Asgarian, 2016). According to Thus, the design members must conform to the
Eslamlou and Asgarian (2016), non-linear analysis standard material specifications, but their actual
results are compared between a truss model and a yield points are not as critical to their load-carrying
frame model where the tower legs are represented capabilities. Meanwhile, in EN 1993-3-1:2006, as far
with frame elements while the secondary bracing as overhead transmission towers are concerned all
members (redundant members ignored in linear matters related to wind and ice loading, loading
analysis) were also taken into consideration. Both combinations, safety matters and special
models yielded similar results, but the frame method requirements (i.e., such as for conductors, insulators,
is more preferable. Eslamlou and Asgarian (2016) clearance, etc.) are covered by the European
discussed the dynamic effects of progressive Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization
member failure of a truss structures. Their method is Code (CENELEC) EN 50341, that can be referred for
to replace the damaged member by the adequate the design of such structures. Loads along the
external force functions at its end joints. They member length including wind, or dead loading on
observed that sudden buckling failures can cause other members framing into the member should be
significant stress redistributions near adjacent considered as well as the loading to be used to
members and might cause a second member failure, calculate bracing member forces should be based on
and possibly trigger progressive collapse. the configuration of the tower. The structure should
generally be divided into a sufficient number of
2.3. Design codes sections to enable the wind loading to be adequately
modelled for global analysis (ECS, 2011).
According to the American Society of Civil The design buckling resistance on a compression
Engineers as in ASCE 10-97, latticed steel structures member in a lattice tower or mast should be
shall be designed with geometric configurations determined according to ECS (2005). In addition, all
based on electrical, economic, and safety the basic assumptions for the calculations shall
requirements (ASCE, 1997). The compression reflect the structural behaviour at the relevant limit
capacity, fa is calculated referring clause 3.6 and state with appropriate accuracy and reflect with the
clause 3.7 of ASCE 10-97 (ASCE, 1997). It is started anticipated type of behaviour of the cross sections,
by comparing the ratio value of flat width to members, joints and bearings (ECS, 2011; ECS,
2005).

75
 Kamarudin et al/ International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 5(1) 2018, Pages: 73-80

3. Methodology to the line and the transverse load is perpendicular

to the line. For the vertical load, it is basically from
This part discussed the analysis of a transmission the self-weight of the Overhead Transmission Tower
tower using p-delta analysis and to be compared (OTT) (Usman and Megat Asyraf, 2011).
with linear static analysis. In this part also
interpreted on the details of assumption and Table 1: Loading calculation for normal condition
procedure of conducting this study. (conductor Zebra)
Force
In the p-delta analysis, a single element may be No. Description of Loads Calculation
(N)
subjected to arbitrarily large displacements and 1 × 0.5 × 3.28 ×
1 Wind on insulator string 179
rotations as a rigid body, but the true deformation 0.254 × 430
(i.e., this one which generates strains, and in 2 × 365 × 0.02862
2 Wind on conductor 8984
× 430
consequence stresses), remain small within one Transverse load due to 2 × 2 × 3754 × sin
element. It means that for the element interior 3 2571
tension in conductor 1 × 9.81
geometrical relationships stay linear. Geometrical 4 Weight of insulator string 1 × 1690 1690
non-linearity is thus treated on the level of the Weight of conductor 2 × 600 × 1.635 ×
5 19247
(downward load) 9.81
structure. 6 Minimum vertical load 6502

3.1. Structure model 4. Result and discussion

A 275 kV lattice steel of the overhead This part discusses a result taken from the p-delta
transmission tower (OTT) and 24SL type is used in analysis and linear static analysis to determine the
this study. Studied structures are representative of effect of an angle of attack of wind to the tower and
typical lines in Malaysia. There are 11 different steel internal force in every member. It is fully concerned
sections used in this tower model (i.e. EQA 100 x 100 to a description of a p-delta analysis on a 275 kV
x 8, EQA 90 x 90 x 7, EQA 70 x 70 x 5, EQA 60 x 60 x lattice steel of the overhead transmission tower and
5, EQA 50 x 50 x 5, etc.). The placement of the to present the obtained results. A simplified
different steel section depends on compression analytical model of the transmission tower based on
capacity of the steel section for main members and standard regulations has been presented in this
bracing accordingly. The support condition for this paper. Also, the comparison between both analyses
tower model is restrained condition. The members is focused on the maximum internal force terms of a
are assumed as a beam and a fixed connection for bar section, the main part of the tower, loading
each joint. The main load cases are divided into four condition, displacement, the angle of attack and
conditions which are Normal Condition (NC), Ground deflection ratio.
Wire Broken (GWB), Middle Conductor Broken Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional
(MCB) and Top Conductor Broken (TCB). The factor 2017 (ARSA) has been used to construct the model
of safety (FOS) of 2.0 for normal condition and FOS and carry out the analysis as mentioned earlier in
of 1.25 for broken wire condition. Fig. 1 shows the methodology part. The load cases and a
loading trees for the Normal Condition case. While combination of loads have been applied according to
the Table 1 presents the loading calculation for the specific manual and load specification. The p-
Normal Condition. The model is generated in delta analysis together with the iterative method, a
Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional Newton-Raphson method which is a solver in ARSA
2017 (ARSA). is used.
Based on the result as stated in Table 2, in linear
static analysis, the highest value for internal force is
488.43 kN. Unlike p-delta analysis, the highest value
is 495.21 kN. There is 1.5% difference in the internal
force between both methods. Both value is in
compression and located at the bar number 4 which
is at the leg of the tower. From the analysis, the
velocity for the wind is 33.5 m/s as it is based on the
MS 1533:2002. After all, this tower can be
considered as safe because the highest internal force
still not exceeding the compression capacity value
calculated by referring to the clause 3.6 and clause
3.7 of ASCE 10-97 as in (4) which is 553.70 kN.
Fig. 1: The loading tree for normal condition Basically, analysis shows that the highest value for
internal loading in compression ranging from 100 –
The outlined drawing of the tower as shown in 495 kN.
Fig. 2 is provided by the manufacturer. Three In both linear static and p-delta analysis, the
different directions of the load assigned to the maximum value of internal loading is found to be at
structure of the tower which are vertical, transverse member size 100 × 100 × 8. Table 3 below shows,
and longitudinal. The longitudinal loads act parallel the larger value found in other bar members for both

76
 Kamarudin et al/ International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 5(1) 2018, Pages: 73-80

analysis. Here, it can be seen that the difference in After observation, in linear static and p-delta
sizing would produce a different value in internal analysis, the leg areas have the larger value of
loading. Lattice of Overhead Transmission Tower internal. Besides, 480.49 kN of force is found to be at
(OTT) can be divided into three main parts which are the body part which contributed to the second
arm, body and leg. largest loading for linear static analysis while for p-
delta analysis is 420.81 kN. Next, the internal loading
Table 2: Maximum internal force
Maximum Internal Force
at the arm part is 93.96 kN in linear static analysis
No. and 94.96 kN in p-delta analysis. Furthermore,
Details Static Analysis P-Delta Analysis
1 Compression 488.43 kN 495.21 kN according to the study in (Albermani et al., 2009), if
2 Bar 4 4 the failure occurred in the lower part of the tower, it
3 Case 15 (C) 15 (C) is actually triggered by the elastic buckling of a hip
bracing member, leading to buckling of the main
diagonal bracing member, which initiated the
compression leg to buckle as well, resulting in the
full collapse of the tower.
Table 3: Bar section and maximum internal force
Internal Force (kN)
Bar
Linear Static P-Delta Location
Section
Analysis Analysis
90 × 90 ×
418.55 426.41 Body
7
70 × 70 ×
38.14 14.12 Leg
5
75 × 75 ×
64.84 93.77 Bottom Arm
5
60 × 60 ×
480.39 490.21 Leg, Body
5
50 × 50 × Upper Arm,
44.34 57.79
5 Body
45 × 45 ×
32.08 18.25 Arm Bracing
5

According to the Table 4, it presents the

maximum internal force with different loading
condition. It is noticed that the highest force is in
Normal Condition case. The percentage difference
for all four conditions is ranging from 0.6% - 4.4 %.
Those values are different due to the particular
arrangement and configuration of each loading
condition.

Table 4: Loading condition and maximum internal force

Internal Force (kN)
Loading Condition Linear Static P-Delta
Analysis Analysis
Normal Condition 418.55 426.41
Ground Wire Broken 38.14 14.12
Middle Conductor
64.84 93.77
Broken
Top Conductor Broken 480.39 490.21

Other than that, in the term of displacement there

is a study in (Fu, 2009) declares that under the same
general conditions, a member removal at an upper
level will induce larger vertical displacement than a
member removal at ground level. From the Table 5
shows that the maximum displacement occur at the
top most point of arm position.
Fig. 2: The 3D model for 275kV OTT

Table 5: Node position and maximum displacement

Location
No. Node Position
Linear Static Analysis P-Delta Analysis Maximum Permissible Displacement
1 Base of Leg 0 0 0
2 Bottom Hamper Point 184 188 360
3 Middle Cross Arm Tip 316 323 434
4 Top Most Point of Arm 534 547 526

77
 Kamarudin et al/ International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 5(1) 2018, Pages: 73-80

While Fig. 3 presents the relationship between delta which both is located at bar 4, the leg member
the different angle of attack with internal loading. of the tower.
Maximum loading for linear static and p-delta Table 6 represents the value of internal forces
analysis is detected coming from 45° direction. Both compared to the maximum values for the respective
analysis have the maximum internal loading which load case. The highlighted cell on the ratio’s column
more than 400 kN. Other than that, the ratio of represents the maximum ratio. It is shown that most
internal force with compression capacity indicates of the member subject to less than 0.5 of the ratio of
the allowable loading that can subject to the tower its internal force to its capacity. An optimization
instability. It is found that the highest ratio is 0.93 in method can be applied by reducing the members
linear static analyses likewise 0.89 ratios is for p- with the lowest ratio to have more reliable tower
design without affecting its stability.

Table 6: Internal forces on some truss members

CASE 14 CASE 15
MEMBER NO. INTERNAL LOADING (Fx) RATIO MEMBER NO. INTERNAL LOADING (Fx) RATIO
2 -214.94 -0.39 2 -120.82 -0.22
3 -215.71 -0.39 3 -298.45 -0.54
4 407.28 0.74 4 488.43 0.88
5 406.63 0.73 5 308.68 0.56
6 -13.16 -0.08 6 -13.24 -0.08
7 33.39 0.21 7 29.87 0.18
8 20.98 0.13 8 11.05 0.07
9 21.17 0.13 9 31.01 0.19
10 33.37 0.21 10 33.17 0.20
11 -13.11 -0.08 11 -8.20 -0.05
12 0.55 0.00 12 16.48 0.10
13 0.51 0.00 13 -15.50 -0.10
14 2.60 0.01 14 0.99 0.00
15 -0.11 0.00 15 5.18 0.02
16 2.63 0.01 16 2.85 0.01
17 -0.25 0.00 17 0.54 0.00
18 4.45 0.03 18 1.50 0.01
19 -2.02 -0.01 19 1.64 0.01
20 1.05 0.01 20 -0.94 -0.01
21 -1.67 -0.01 21 1.72 0.01
22 -1.69 -0.01 22 -0.77 -0.01
23 1.07 0.01 23 -0.89 -0.01
24 -1.99 -0.01 24 -0.89 -0.01
25 4.45 0.03 25 1.57 0.01
27 7.42 0.03 27 4.77 0.02
28 7.41 0.03 28 10.31 0.05
29 -0.43 0.00 29 -1.67 -0.01
30 11.6 0.05 30 9.36 0.04
31 11.6 0.05 31 10.63 0.05
32 -0.44 0.00 32 1.67 0.01
33 -3.15 -0.01 33 5.65 0.03
34 -3.16 -0.01 34 -9.39 -0.04
35 -0.18 0.00 35 -0.2 0.00
36 0.42 0.00 36 0.78 0.01
37 -0.36 0.00 37 -0.5 0.00
38 3.88 0.03 38 2.31 0.02

According to the study by (Preeti and Mohan, node deflection throughout the tower height,
2013), a square tower is found to have the maximum followed by the triangular tower and then the guyed
78
 Kamarudin et al/ International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 5(1) 2018, Pages: 73-80

mast. Other than that, this tower is having the the maximum internal forces also a displacement
maximum factor of safety for the upper cross arm and a review on analysis and design of a lattice steel
members. This behavior might be because of the structure of the overhead transmission tower. In
minimum length of the members. Upper cross arm addition, both methods showed a minor different
member sections are found to be the same for all the values as for the internal forces and the
towers. This might be because of these members are displacement after that will give ideas for further
designed as the tension members and steel already tower optimization.
has a good margin of safety in tension.

0.00
500
315.0 400 45.00
0 300
200
100
270.0
0 90.00
0

Linear
225.0 135.0 Static
0 0
P-Delta
180.0
0

Fig. 3: Chart of an angle of attack with internal loading

There is a marginal difference between linear Fig. 4: Location for the critical part of the tower
static analysis and p-delta analysis. Thus, in fact the
tower model reveals that the effect of p-delta Acknowledgement
analysis significantly influence the axial, moment
and displacement of the structural component The authors would like to thank UNITEN R and D
(Bondre and gaikwad, 2016). In the same way, get Sdn. Bhd. for the financial support trough Project
higher value than linear static analysis. However, a Grant No. U-TS-CR-17-01 and for the opportunity to
specific modelling methods for OTT need to be publish this paper.
developed. Advanced FEM technology with the
capability of considering bolted connection References
behaviors and detecting failure mode needs further
investigation. The tower structure is then assumed Albermani F, Kitipornchai S, and Chan RWK (2009). Failure
as a fully truss structure. The difference between analysis of transmission towers. Engineering Failure Analysis,
16(6): 1922-1928.
beam and truss for both methods are represents in
the Table 7 below. The maximum internal force Albermani F, Mahendran M, and Kitipornchai S (2004). Upgrading
occurs at the bar 4 which is at the leg of the tower of transmission towers using a diaphragm bracing system.
Engineering Structures, 26(6): 735-744.
with case number 15 (Normal Condition).
Albermani FGA and Kitipornchai S (2003). Numerical simulation
Table 7: Maximum internal force for beam and truss of structural behaviour of transmission towers. Thin-Walled
Structures, 41(2): 167-177.
Maximum Internal Force (kN)
Methods
Beam Truss ASCE (1997). ASCE 10-97 Manual: Design of latticed steel
Linear Static transmission structures. American Society of Civil Engineers,
418.55 426.41
Analysis Virginia, USA. Available online at: www.pubs.asce.org
P-Delta Analysis 495.21 503.21
Asgarian B, Eslamlou SD, Zaghi AE, and Mehr M (2016).
Progressive collapse analysis of power transmission towers.
The highest internal loading occurs at bar Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 123: 31-40.
number 4. Fig. 4 shows the location of bar 4 which is
Baran E, Akis T, Sen G, and Draisawi A (2016). Experimental and
at the leg part of the tower. After all, latticed steel numerical analysis of a bolted connection in steel
structures shall be designed with geometric transmission towers. Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
configurations based on electrical, economic, and 121: 253-260.
safety requirements according to the American Bondre R and gaikwad S (2016). Analysis of structures with
Society of Civil Engineers 10 - England 1997 (ASCE respect to linear static analysis using p-delta effect.
10-97) (ASCE, 1997). International Journal of Advance Research and Innovative
Ideas in Education, 2(4): 838–845.
5. Conclusion ECS (2005). Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-1:
General rules and rules for buildings (EN 1993-1-1). European
Committee for Standardization, Europe.
This paper explains the comparison between p-
delta analysis and linear static analysis to determine

79
 Kamarudin et al/ International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 5(1) 2018, Pages: 73-80

ECS (2011). Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures - Part 3-1: McClure G and Lapointe M (2003). Modeling the structural
Towers, masts and chimneys - Towers and masts. The dynamic response of overhead transmission lines. Computers
European Union, European Committee for Standardization, and Structures, 81(8): 825-834.
Europe.
Preeti C and Mohan JK (2013). Analysis of transmission towers
Ellingwood BR, Smilowitz R, Dusenberry DO, Duthinh D, Lew HS, with different configurations. Jordan Journal of Civil
and Carino NJ (2007). Best practices for reducing the potential Engineering, 7(4): 450–460.
for progressive collapse in buildings. National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA. Rao NP and Kalyanaraman V (2001). Non-linear behaviour of
lattice panel of angle towers. Journal of Constructional Steel
Eslamlou SD and Asgarian B (2016). Determining critical areas of Research, 57(12): 1337-1357.
transmission towers due to sudden removal of members. Case
Studies in Engineering Failure Analysis. Rao NP, Knight GS, Mohan SJ, and Lakshmanan N (2012). Studies
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csefa.2015.09.005 on failure of transmission line towers in testing. Engineering
Structures, 35: 55-70.
Fu F (2009). Progressive collapse analysis of high-rise building
with 3-D finite element modeling method. Journal of Tian L, Yu Q, Ma R, and Wang C (2014). The collapse analysis of a
Constructional Steel Research, 65(6): 1269-1278. transmission tower under wind excitation. Open Civil
Engineering Journal, 8: 136-142.
Fu X and Li HN (2016). Dynamic analysis of transmission tower-
line system subjected to wind and rain loads. Journal of Wind TNB (2016). Integrated Annual Report. Tenaga Nasional Berhad,
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 157: 95–103. BASIS Publication House Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia.

Haldar A, Veitch M, and Andrews T (2010). Estimation of Usman F and Megat Asyraf MIR (2011). Simulation of progressive
containment loads on a 230kV steel transmission line using collapse for transmission tower. In the 1st TNB ICT Technical
finite element model. In the Electrical Transmission and Conference, College of Information Technology, Universiti
Substation Structures Conference, American Society of Civil Tenaga Nasional, Kajang, Malaysia.
Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas, USA: 1-13. Vinay RB, Ranjith A, and Bharath A (2014). Optimization of
https://doi.org/10.1061/41077(363)3 transmission line towers : P-Delta analysis. International
Kamarudin SA, Usman F, and Omar RC (2017). Evaluation of Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and
overhead transmission tower subjected to predominantly Technology, 3(7): 14563–14569.
wind loading. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Xie Q and Sun L (2012). Failure mechanism and retrofitting
Geo-Environment. In the 1st National Colloquium on Wind and strategy of transmission tower structures under ice load.
Earthquake Engineering, Pahang, Malaysia. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 74: 26-36.

80

View publication stats