3rd International ASRANet Colloquium 10 12th July 2006, Glasgow, UK.

ESTIMATING THE RELIABILITY OF TRANSMISSION LINE TOWERS

J. Krishnan, Research Scholar, IIT Madras, India V. Kalyanaraman & D. Menon, Professors, IIT Madras, India ABSTRACT
Tangent suspension lattice towers are the most numerous and also the most competitively designed elements of a transmission line. These towers have a small degree of static indeterminacy and failure of any one of a few critical members leads to tower failure. First member failure can be treated as the tower failure, and the tower system simplified as a purely series system for reliability analysis. Loads on the tower consist of wind, wire breakage, temperature and dead load effects. Traditionally, only wind on the tower and dead load are modelled probabilistically while the other major load case of wire breakage is treated deterministically. This study looks at the relevance of this assumption by modelling the joint effect of wind, temperature and wire breakage probabilistically. Wire failure is assumed to occur once tension in a wire reaches its ultimate strength under the combined action of dead, wind and temperature stresses. The failure of the tower is due to force in any member crossing its limit state of strength. Appropriate models have been used for loads on the tower and member resistances. A program has been developed to model the tower, interface with the structural analysis and perform the reliability analysis. A commercial finite element package (NASTRAN) is used in this study to perform structural analysis. Monte Carlo Simulation results are found to compare well with first order reliability estimates. Using the software, reliabilities of a couple of standard towers are evaluated under critical load combinations

NOMENCLATURE BWC: Broken Wire Condition C/A: Cross Arm CoV: Coefficient of Variation ( /) FORM: First Order Reliability Method HLRF:Hassofer-Lind Rackwitz-Fiessler algorithm IEC: International Electrotechnical Commission LSF: Limit State Function MCS: Monte Carlo Simulation NC: Normal Condition Cd : Drag force coefficient Fu : Ultimate strength of steel Fy: Yield strength of steel N: Number of iterations of MCS Pf : MCS estimate of probability of failure in NC Pf(T/): Probability tower failure tower conditional to an event P(): Probability of an event Pi,j: Joint probability of failure of elements i and j T : Temperature Tult: Rated ultimate strength of wire Vb: Basic 3s 50year return period characteristic wind speed : Reliability index : Coefficient of variation of estimator Pf : Mean : Standard deviation u,: Scale and Location parameters of Gumbel (maximum value) distribution

1.

INTRODUCTION

The transmission line system is composed of various elements, the lattice tangent (line deviation less than 20) suspension transmission tower being the most numerous as well as the most optimally designed of these. The tower design is often repeated over large stretches of line and any saving in weight will thus be multiplied several fold. This causes them to be the lowest reliability elements in the line. Details of over 30 failures in suspension towers (for the period 1996 2002) caused by wind have been compiled by Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation (a state corporation in a cyclone prone region of southern India). For the whole country, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd reports 120 cases of wind induced failure (1 due to wire galloping) during the period Jan 1997 to Dec 2005, in an average population of about 100,000 towers, in 9 years [1]. In most of these cases, the towers had been designed in compliance with the prevailing Indian Code of Practice (IS: 802-1995) for Transmission Tower Design [2]. The failures have caused concern to industry and raised questions about the reliability of the prevailing design procedures. It is important to have consistent design provisions to which an acceptable level of reliability can be ascribed. However, before

attempting to modify the code procedure to produce designs of a pre-defined reliability, it is necessary to understand, in reliability terms, the current provisions. This study looks at the reliability of tangent suspension transmission line towers. A couple of towers designed according to prevailing Indian practice are used as case studies for illustration. 2. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

Since the tower consists of a large number of elements, the problem is one of system reliability estimation. For the purpose of structural and reliability analyses, certain simplifying assumptions are made. The tower is assumed to be a pin-jointed three dimensional truss. Connection failure is not considered, since usually connections are designed to be stronger than members. The design of secondary bracings is not considered, their effect being assumed to be limited to controlling the unsupported length of main members. The analysis considered is linear static. The failure of the first element of the tower is assumed to cause failure of the tower as the tower is essentially a statically determinate system. Idealised models for the loading and strength of the tower system have been developed. The probability of failure is obtained through Monte Carlo simulation (MCS). The transmission line tower supports cables for high voltage electrical transmission. Under normal conditions these cables are intact and the tension on the tower is balanced. However, there is a chance that one or more ground wire/ conductor cables may break, resulting in additional forces on the tower. This is referred to as the broken wire condition (BWC). In this paper, two transmission towers have been selected for illustration. The first is a 132kV shorter tower in a high wind zone, while the second is a multi-circuit 220kV transmission tower in a lesser wind zone. 3. LOAD MODELLING

In the vertical direction there is the self-weight of the tower. Also the transmission tower is subject to lateral loads both along the line and transverse to it from various sources, such as climatic loads -wind -ice construction and maintenance loads unbalanced tension in the line due to - deviation - differences in elevation - unequal spans. For the reliability analysis only wind and line tension are modelled probabilistically (Table 1). Details for fitting distributions for drag, wind and tension have been collected from literature and industry. Table 1: Random variables selected No 1 2 3 4 5 Random Variable Basic Wind Speed (Vb) Drag Force Coef. (Cd) Steel Yield Strength (Fy) Steel Ultimate Strength (Fu) Distribution [source]

Gumbel (u = 0.6, = 9.735)[3] Normal (=1,=0.238) [8] to [12] Lognormal (=1.3, CoV=0.0774)[13] Lognormal (=1.13, CoV=0.055) [13] Normal(=1, Model Error =0.07)[3] Fy and Fu are correlated with a correlation coefficient of 0.62[13] CLIMATIC LOADS

3.1

Load modelling plays a crucial part of any reliability analysis. Before a reliability analysis, a deterministic understanding of the load effects on the tower is necessary.

Wind is the dominant load on towers. Transmission towers, not being very high generally about 50m are relatively stiff. Problems of wind induced vibration of the tower are rare since the natural frequency of the tower, between 2 and 4 Hz, is typically well removed from the forcing frequency of high energy wind, up to about 0.5 Hz. Wind on the tower is taken as 3 second averaging time 50 year return period characteristic wind. The other major climatic load that controls tower design is ice accretion. Ice formation is not considered here since the region where this

phenomenon is observed is in the Himalayan reaches of North India where angle towers are almost universal on account of the uneven terrain. Since this study is restricted to tangent towers, ice formation will not be considered. 3.2 CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE LOADS During stringing, the cables are pulled one by one. However, unbalanced forces along the line are not allowed. Construction and maintenance operations are not carried out during heavy winds and so are independent of the climatic loading situation. Hence, forces of construction and maintenance are not considered in this study. 3.3 LINE TENSION

In compression, the main legs are taken to be concentrically loaded but capable of buckling between secondary bracing points. The braces are taken to be loaded eccentrically through one leg. They can buckle either in plane between secondary brace points or out of plane [4] across the whole length. 5. WIRE BREAKAGE MODELLING

The spans are assumed equal and the towers at the same elevation when the wires are intact. Effect of line tension is felt on the tower along the line due to line deviation transverse to the line due to deviation and wind. The tower is generally oriented such that, unless a wire breaks, there is no force on the tower along the line. In the normal condition, wind transverse to the line, temperature effects and dead load are the only loads on the structure. 3.4 WEIGHT

Natural frequency of the cables is close to high energy frequencies of wind and so wind induced vibration is a possibility. However vibration dampers are installed in all lines above 132kV thereby making galloping rare. Cable strengths are fixed from electrical considerations and the factor of safety is about 2 for the wires. A wire is taken to break when the tension induced in it due to extreme wind exceeds its ultimate tensile strength. In this study, the probability of failure of a wire or combination of wires under extreme wind loading is evaluated separately and considered. Under broken wire condition, an additional load on the tower due to the unbalanced tension acts along the line. The dynamic amplification of tower forces [5] due to sudden cable failure is also considered. Table 2: Random variables for wire breakage No 1 2 3 5.1 Random Variable Basic Wind Speed (Vb) Cable Ultimate Strength (Tult) Temperature (T) Distribution [source] Gumbel max(u=0.6, =9.375)[3] Normal (=0.942, CoV= 0.03) [6] Normal(=1, region dependant) [2,14]

The self weight of the structure as well as the weight of secondary bracings (which are not modelled) is included. 4. STRENGTH MODELLING

The transmission line tower consists of steel angles in axial tension and compression. The strength of an angle in tension is taken as the more critical of gross cross-sectional area yielding or net cross-sectional area rupture. The pitch and gauge have been taken such that poor selection of pitch and gauge will not govern failure. In the tensile strength models, a factor has been incorporated to weight against failure by tearing of a cross-section since this type of failure is without warning and hence less desirable.

LOAD MODELLING

Extreme wind loads are generated on the tower. Dampers in the line are assumed to prevent significant oscillation. The IEC methodology is used to calculate the effective tension in the tower [6]. Essentially, a reduction is made to account for the fact that the whole span will not simultaneously experience extreme gust winds. Another factor based on wire length (or rather span length) is incorporated to model cable response to wind.

5.2

STRENGTH MODELLING

Based on work by Morgan [7] a 2% strength reduction to account for fatigue over 30-50 year life is assumed. The rated strength is taken as a 2% exceedence characteristic value. Rated ultimate strength is taken to be the characteristic value from a normal distribution. The coefficient of variation of strength is taken as 3% as suggested by the IEC [6]. 6. ESTIMATING PROBABILITY OF FAILURE The total probability of tower failure considered here is for climatic effects wind alone in this study (as explained in section 3.1). It is taken as a combination of the failure probabilities under normal (NC) and broken wire (BWC) conditions. The assumption here is that probabilities of tower failure in these two conditions are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. Thus probability of failure of the tower under wind loading is evaluated using the total probability theorem, Pf (T ) = Pf (T / NC ) P ( NC ) + Pf (T / BWC ) P ( BWC ) where Pf (T) is the total probability of tower failure under wind loading Pf(T/NC) is the probability of tower failure when wires are intact Pf(T/BWC) is the probability of tower failure when a wire is broken P(BWC) is the total probability of wire failure and P(NC) is the total probability that wire fails P ( NC ) = 1 P ( BWC ) It is assumed that wires do not fail during an extreme wind event due to any cause other than tension being exceeded. Thus the reliability of the towers is separately evaluated with and without wire failure. Pf (T / BWC ) P ( BWC ) = Pf (T /1WB ) P (1WB ) +
Pf (T / 2WB ) P ( 2WB ) + ... where Pf(T/BWC) is the probability of tower failure conditional to a wire breaking P(BWC) is the probability of that a wire breaks Pf(T/1WB) is the probability of tower failure conditional to only one wire breaking

P(1WB) is the probability that only one wire breaks Pf(T/2WB) is the probability of tower failure conditional to 2 wires breaking P(2WB) is the probability that any two wires break. However, practically only the failure under a maximum of two wires is considered separately here. The probability of tower failure is assumed to be one when more than two wires break. For tower failure under NC, the MCS results are validated against first order reliability method (FORM) estimate as described below. 6.1 MCS ESTIMATE

Monte Carlo simulation provides an effective way to estimate probability of failure. It has the capability to handle large numbers of random variables. By using MCS, the correlation of failure probabilities of the elements forming the tower system can also be estimated directly. This results in a good estimate of probability of failure. Although no importance sampling has been included here, the high probabilities of failure observed, prevent the method from being unduly expensive since a good sample is obtained with less iteration. It is assumed that first element failure results in system failure. The probability of failure of the tower is then given by the ratio of the number of failure events to the total number of iterations. Also, to show the effect of increased simulation on the probability of failure, its CoV, , is plotted against number of iterations. 1 Pf = NPf where Pf is the estimated probability of failure of the system assuming it to fail when any element fails is the coefficient of variation of estimator Pf N is the number of iterations in the MCS. The critical elements and their individual and joint probabilities of failure too are picked up. In addition, narrow Ditlevsen (series) bounds are also picked up for each tower for normal condition.

Pfub = Pi ,i i = 2, j <i max Pi , j

n i =1 i 1 Pflb = P 1 + i = 2 max P i ,i j =1 P i, j , 0 n

7.

PROGRAM DETAILS

where Pfub is the upper bound on system probability of failure Pflb is the lower bound on system probability of failure P1 is the probability of failure of the first element (generally the highest component probability of failure) and Pi,j is the joint probability of failure of elements i and j (Pi,i is thus probability of failure of ith component). 6.2 FORM ESTIMATE

A first order (FORM) estimate of reliability in NC is also made as a check. Reliability analysis is carried out by linking the program developed here (which calls NASTRAN for structural analysis) to CARDINAL, a structural reliability software obtained from Stanford university. For FORM, a slight modification is made to the program (described in the next section for MCS). CARDINAL requires the limit state function (LSF) and its derivative, apart from random number definitions, as input. So these will be generated using the program. LSF, for each critical element, is defined by
Strength 1 . Force Developed

Software has been developed (in C) to interface reliability analysis and structural analysis. Essentially it reads random variables generated using MATLAB models the tower and identifies critical elements calls NASTRAN for analysis checks for critical element failures calculates probability of failure based on Ditlevsen bounds Details of towers have been collected from design agencies and checked for code compliance. Modelling of towers is automated by running them through a program which uses overall dimensions, member sizes, bracing details, cable details, span and region (terrain, velocity, temperature) properties as input to generate a header for the main program. Random numbers for each random variable are initially generated to files using MATLAB. Groups of critical elements that could potentially cause system failure are selected Legs - Where member size changes - Where number of sub-divisions changes Braces - Where the size changes - Where bracing pattern changes Arms in the case of broken wire condition 8. CASE STUDY 1: 132KV TOWER

The slopes of LSF with respect to each random variable are calculated by central difference using a step size 0.1 times the standard deviation of each random variable. The program is now called with details of input file (containing random numbers generated by CARDINAL at each step of the HLRF algorithm) and the corresponding output file (containing a single number representing LSF). A component fails when LSF takes a negative value. The critical components that make up the simplified system are clearly defined by element number MCS results are used to select the elements that govern failure. Only elements that fail independently of other elements are selected. Unimodal bounds on system reliability are also estimated by CARDINAL.

This is a 28m high double circuit 132kV tower (Fig. 1) with Panther (30/7 mm Al + 1/3.00mm St) type conductor wires and 7/3.66 mm St (Steel) ground wire. 8.1 TOWER RELIABILITY IN NC

MCS up to about half a million iterations yields fairly good results. The probability of tower failure under NC, Pf (Fig. 2) converges to 1.3110-2 and its coefficient of variation, , (Fig. 3) is almost constant at 3.910-2. The probability of NC is 0.995 leading to a tower probability of failure 1.2910-2 in NC. This corresponds to a safety index, , of 2.229.

Legs
4.08

Braces
1.2 75x75x5 45x30x4 45x45x4 90x90x6 1.4 90x90x7 45x45x5 45x45x4 50x50x4

C/A
45x45x4 45x45x5 45x45x4 45x45x5 45x45x4 45x45x5

Horizontals
45x30x4 45x45x4 45x30x4 45x45x4 45x30x4 45x45x4

4.

4.

15.92

45x45x4

100x100x7

Fig 1: Case Study 1

0.015

0.010

The elements that are selected by the program as potentially critical under the NC are Legs - First four panels - Panel with bottom cross arms (C/A) - Panel above bottom C/A - Panel with middle C/A Cross bracings - Bottom panel (Panel 1) - Top panel (Panel 12) Panel numbering is always from the ground upwards in this paper. It is observed that the top panel braces showed zero failures in half a million iterations. Apart from legs at the bottom two levels, all other element failures took place exclusively when the bottom brace in compression also failed. Bottom brace failure is about thrice as likely as leg failure in the bottom two panels. The probabilities of failure of legs in tension and in compression are found to be nearly equal. Failure of legs in panel 1 and 2 are almost equally likely with joint probability of failure about 0.8. From the study above, for FORM, three components legs in two bottom panels and bottom compression brace were considered to constitute the system. Component reliabilities and bounds are given in Table 3. Table 3: FORM results for case study 1 NC Component Description Leg in panel 1 Leg in panel 2 Brace in panel 1 Upper bound Lower bound Probability of failure 5.48010-3 5.43510-3 1.16510-2 1.63110-2 5.43510-3

0.005

0.000 0 10000 20000 40000 50000 N 30000 Fig 2: Probability of tower failure under NC

1.00

Pf

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00 0 10000 20000 N 30000 40000 Fig 3: Coefficient of Variation of Pf 50000

It is observed that the FORM results (Table 3) and MCS results are not very different. The effect of correlation is clearly seen in the separation of the bounds. The Pf as picked by MCS is closer to the FORM upper bound showing high correlation. This correlation can actually be estimated by MCS, causing the bounds to narrow after sufficient iteration. It is observed that MCS bounds on probability of failure asymptotically converge to the probability of tower failure as estimated by first element failure. This, along with

the ability to handle many more random variables, is an advantage of Monte Carlo simulation. From FORM, it is observed that Pf is ten times more sensitive to wind speed than yield strength of steel and modelling error. These in turn, are one and a half times more sensitive than drag force coefficient. 8.2 TOWER RELIABILITY UNDER BWC

Table 5: Tower reliability analysis results case study 1 No of wires Pf(T/) P() broken 0 (NC) 1.3110-2 0.995 GW 0.1 2.610-6 CW 0.42 1.2710-4 GW+CW 1. 110-6 2 CW 0.522 7.5610-5 >2 1. 3.4110-4 Total Probability of tower failure P(T) 1.2910-2 2.610-7 5.4210-5 110-6 3.9510-5 3.4110-4 1.3310-2

MCS is used to estimate tower failure probability with broken wire. The probability of wires breaking and the probability of tower failure in this event are separately estimated and total probability theorem applied. Wire failure probabilities as estimated are tabulated below: Table 4: Probability of wire breakage for Case Study 1 Number of wires failed 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 (GW) Probability of failure (10-6) 126.5 75.6 50.95 50.4 53 186.5 2.6

Probability of tower failure in BWC, 3.8210-4, is two orders of magnitude less than in NC. Total probability of tower failure is thus 1.3310-2 ( of 2.217) which is not significantly different. It is noted that probability of tower failure with two conductors broken generally nearly equals 0.5. As described in the preceding section, the bottom braces were observed to be critical. Since braces mostly take the shear on the system, wire failure that causes an increase in shear results in failure.
Opposite break side wires Same side wires break

Bending

(+) ( )

(+)

It is observed that, in this wind zone, the probability of at least one wire breaking is 5.4510-4 and so probability of intact wire is 0.995. It is observed in this wind zone that it is more likely that either a single wire or all six fail than other combinations. This is attributed to the higher variability in wind speed (CoV 0.2) than in wire strength (CoV 0.03). When a conductor wire breaks, probability of tower failure, Pf (T/BWC), is estimated as 0.423. But when ground wire breaks it is only 0.1. Also a conductor is more likely to break than ground wire. However, often the ground wire-conductor wire combination is critical in two-wire failure (Pf(T/2BW) = 1). When 2 conductor wires fail simultaneously, Pf (T/2BW) is about 0.522. It is taken that if more than two wires break, tower is almost certain to fail (Pf (T/BWC) = 1). Tower failure results are summarised in Table 5.

Torsion ()

Figure 4: Effect of 2 conductors breaking

Table 6: Tower probability of failures when 2 conductor wires break simultaneously Broken wire location Same side (+) Same side () Opposite Side (+) Opposite Side () Since these cases Pf(T/2WB)0.5. Pf(T/2WB) 0.97 0.078 0.078 0.98 are equally likely,

9. CASE STUDY 2: MULTI-CIRCUIT 220KV TOWER The second tower is a 51.65m high quadruple circuit 220kV tower (Fig 5). The conductor wire is Moose (54/7mm Al + 1/3.53mm St). Ground wire is of same properties as Case study 1.
6. 50x50x6 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 1.8 100x100x6 65x65x6 90x90x6 75x75x6 90x90x6 130x130x10 65x65x6 75x75x6 90x90x6 75x75x6 90x90x6 150x150x12 75x75x6 90x90x6 90x90x6 90x90x6 90x90x6 65x65x6 65x65x6 65x65x6 65x65x6 75x75x6 75x75x6 75x75x6 75x75x6 90x90x6 110x110x8 110x110x8 130x130x10

any other component fails. Thus effectively this component governs tower failure. Its probability of failure is obtained as 2.9810-3 from FORM.
0.0060

0.0040

0.0020

0.0000 0 10000 20000

Pf

5.2 100x100x8

30000

40000

50000

Fig 6: Probability of failure under NC

1.00

19.65 200x200x16 90x90x6

0.80

0.60

Fig 5: Case Study 2

Figs 6 and 7 show results of MCS. Probability of failure, Pf is 3.4810-3 and CoV of Pf, is 7.4810-2. Critical elements are picked up as legs - bottom panel - third panel from the bottom - panel bottom C/A - lowest panel with C/A in the hamper (panel 15) - next panel with C/A (panel 18) brace - bottom most - panel with bottom C/A - panel 12 (with third C/A pair from bottom) - panel 18 (panel with C/A below top most) It is observed that bottom level braces are most critical followed by level 2 legs. However, the bottom braces also fail in nearly all cases in which

0.40 0.20 0.00 0 10000 20000

7.5

30000

40000

50000

Fig 7: CoV of Pf

Under NC, by MCS, the probability of tower failure, Pf is estimated to lie between 3.1710-3 and 3.85510-3 i.e., 2.73 and 2.66. It is observed that the probability of failure as estimated by FORM and MCS are comparable Results wire break analysis are presented in Table 7 and of the reliability analysis in Table 8. Since the number of failures here is less than in case study 1, the results would have improved on further simulation.

Table 7: Estimated probability of wires breaking for Case Study 2 Number of wires failed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 (GW) Probability of event (10-6) 5.3 2.45 2.05 1.0 1.35 1.35 0.95 1.0 0.8 0.65 0.8 2.6 1.4

two conductors failing is 2.410-6. Probability of failure of more than two wires is 1.2610-5 and tower failure probability is taken as 1 in this case. It is observed that in this region the probability of at least one wire breaking is 1.9510-5 and so probability of NC is nearly 1. As before, the value of probability of tower failure under BWC (1.8810-5) is about two orders of magnitude less than under NC (3.4810-3). Although the probability of failure in the event of wire breaking is high, since this event is very rare, there is no need to consider the combination of wires breaking and wind for estimation of probability of failure. 10. CONCLUSIONS

Table 8: Tower reliability analysis results case study 2 No of wires broken 0 (NC) 1 (GW) 1 (CW) GW+CW 2 CW > 2 wires Pf(T/) 3.4810-3 0.01 0.766 0.834 0.515 1 P() 1 1.410-6 5.310-6 1.10-6 P(T) 3.4810-3 1.410-8 4.110-6 0.8310-6

2.4510-6 1.2610-6 1.2610-5 1.2610-5

In the case of broken wire, the probability of failure of the tower when a conductor wire breaks is about 0.766 and is 0.01 when ground wire breaks. Probabilities of occurrence of these events are 5.310-6 and 1.410-6 respectively. It is observed that, of possible two-wire failure cases, the one that causes highest tower failure probability is the combination of ground wire and conductor wire. When two conductor wires fail the probability of tower failure is about 0.515. This reduction can be explained as in section 8.2 (Figure 4 and Table 6) as the result of force cancellation in certain cases. The probability of

Two different towers industrially designed based on the Indian standard for transmission line tower design were selected and reliability analyses performed. The safety indices for the two towers are 2.23 and 2.7. This corresponds to failure rates of approximately 1 in 100 and 3.5 in 1000 towers, respectively. The reported rate of wind induced failure is about 1 in 10,000. This difference could be because line system reliability effects (including actual spans being less than design spans) [15] and wind directionality (wind being assumed to act in the most unfavourable direction) are not included in this study [16]. Both first order reliability and Monte Carlo estimates were made for towers under normal operating conditions. MCS and FORM results compare well. After sufficient iteration, MCS results converge. A good estimate of failure correlation is also automatically obtained. These correlations are quite high since the dominant loading on all the elements is wind and failure of other elements usually implies weakest element failure. For the towers studied here, it is observed that braces, followed by legs, in lower panels govern failure. It is also observed that the tower probability of failure under NC is generally two orders of magnitude greater than under BWC in the same wind zone (as also supported by the limited failure data obtained from industry). Since this is so, the effect of simultaneous extreme wind and wire break can effectively be neglected for reliability-based design of tangent suspension transmission line towers, where conductor icing is not observed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank PGCIL and APTransco for failure data, INSDAG, Vizag Steel and TISCO for steel mill data, L&T and CDC consultants for all their help. REFERENCES [1] DATA COMPILED BY APTRANSCO CHIEF ENGINEER & PGCIL, Personal Communication [2] BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS, 1995, Indian Standard Use of Structural Steel in Overhead Transmission Line Towers-Code of Practice. Part 1 Materials, Loads and Permissible Stresses. Section 1 Materials & Loads, IS 802(Part 1/Sec1): 1995 Third Revision [3] MOZER, J.D., PEYROT A.H., DIGIOIA, A.M., 1984, Probabilistic Design Of Transmission Line Structures ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.110, No.10, October 1984 p.2513-2529 [4] RAO, S.S., SATISH KUMAR,S.R., KALYANARAMAN, V., 2003, Numerical Study on Eccentrically Loaded Hot Rolled Steel Angle Struts, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Civil and Structural Computing, Civil and Computing Press, Netherlands, Sept. 2-4. [5] PEYROT, A.H., KLUGE, R. O., LEE, J.W., 1980, Longitudinal Loads from Broken Conductors and Broken Insulators and their Effect on Transmission Lines, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-99, No. 1 pp.222-234 [6] IEC, 2003, Design Criteria for Overhead Transmission Lines, IEC 60826 [7] MORGAN, VT, 1979, Loss of Tensile Strength of Hard-Drawn Conductors by annealing in Service', IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. P-8, pp. 700-709. [8] BAYAR,D.C, Drag Coefficients of Latticed Towers, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.112, No.2, February, 1986, p.417-430 [9] FLINT, A.R AND SMITH, B.W, The Development of the British Draft Code of Practice for the Loading of Lattice Towers, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Wind Engineering, held at Fort Collins, CO 1979, Pergammon Press,1980.pp. 1293-1304

[10] FUJIMOTO, M, MATSUSHITA, OKHUMA, AMANO AND AKAGI, On Wind-Proof Performance of Latticed Steel Towers, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Wind Engineering, held at Fort Collins, CO 1979, Pergammon Press,1980. pp. 1203-1216 [11] GEORGIOU, P.N AND VICKERY,B.J, Wind Loads on Building Frames, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Wind Engineering, held at Fort Collins, CO 1979, Pergammon Press,1980. pp. 421-433 [12] WHITBREAD, R.E, The Influence Of Shielding On The Wind Forces Experienced By Arrays Of Lattice Frames, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Wind Engineering, held at Fort Collins, CO 1979, Pergammon Press,1980.,pp.405-420. [13] STEEL MILL DATA COLLECTED FROM MAJOR PRODUCERS IN INDIA AND STATISTICALLY ANALYSED, Personal Communication [14] MAPS OF INDIA http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/india/annualte mperature.htm [15] CIGRE WORKING GROUP 6, 1990, Loading and Strength of overhead transmission Lines Electra, n 129, March 1990, pp. 64-98. [16] SIMIU, E., 1995, Estimation of Extreme Wind Speeds, State of the Art in Wind Engineering. Volume 1. Proceedings, 9th International Conference on Wind Engineering, Davenport Sixtieth Birth Anniversary Volume. .Wiley Eastern Limited, New Delhi, India, pp. 109-123.