Nonlinear analysis of

transmission

towers

F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. K i t i p o r n c h a i
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland,
4072 Australia
(Received May 1991; revised August 1991)

A nonlinear analytical technique for predicting and simulating the

ultimate structural behaviour of self-supporting transmission towers
under static load conditions is presented. The method considers both
the geometric and material nonlinear effects and treats the angle
members in the tower as general asymmetrical thin-walled beamcolumn elements. Modelling of material nonlinearity for angle
members is based on the assumption of lumped plasticity coupled
with the concept of a yield surface in force space. A formex formulation is used for automatic generation of data necessary for the
analysis. The developed software, AK TOWER, is used to predict the
ultimate behaviour of two full-scale towers recently tested in
Australia.

Keywords: elasto-plastic analysis, formex algebra, full-scale testing,

steel structure, transmission tower, ultimate strength

Transmission tower structures are generally constructed

using asymmetric thin-walled angle section members
which are eccentrically connected. They are widely
regarded as one of the most difficult forms of lattice
structure to analyse. Proof-loading or full-scale testing
of such structures has traditionally formed an integral
part of the development of tower design. Stress calculations in the structure are normally obtained from a linear
elastic analysis where members are assumed to be
axially loaded and, for the majority of cases, pinconnected. In practice, such conditions do not exist and
members are detailed to minimize bending stresses.
Despite this, results from full-scale testing of transmission towers indicate that bending stresses in the
members can be as significant as axial stresses 1.
Design practices for transmission towers are different
from those for other steel structures in that stresses are
permitted to be higher because towers are tested to their
ultimate design strength and designs incorporate
modifications based on test results. A recent study by the
Electric Power Research Institute 2 (EPRI) indicated
that current design practices have, for the most part,
served the industry well. However, data from full-scale
tests show that the behaviour of transmission towers
under complex load situations cannot be consistently
predicted using the present techniques. The investigation
by EPRI 2 also revealed that out of the 57 structure load
cases conducted, 23% experienced premature failure.
On average, failure occurred at 95.4% of the design load
level but failure could occur at unexpected locations.
Further, available data showed considerable discrepancies between member forces computed from linear

elastic truss analyses and those measured from full-scale

tests. The EPRI report 2 indicated that the linear elastic
truss analysis method for transmission towers should be
used with caution.
For these reasons, there is a need to develop a method
of analysis capable of predicting the ultimate structural
behaviour of transmission towers more accurately than
the present 3D linear elastic truss approach. Such a
refined technique would provide the designer with a
better understanding of tower behaviour which
undoubtedly will lead to a more economical structural
design. Any saving in the design of one tower is
magnified many times over because large numbers of
towers of the same designs are usually constructed. For
example, in a 250 km transmission line, there may be
500 towers of which up to 80% are of the same type.
This paper presents a nonlinear analytical technique
for simulating the ultimate structural behaviour of selfsupporting transmission towers under static loading.
The proposed technique incorporates both the geometric
and material nonlinear effects including large
displacements, and treats the angle members in the
tower as general asymmetric thin-walled beam-column
elements 3. Based on an updated Lagrangian formulation, a deformation stiffness matrix" is used together
with the linear and geometric stiffness matrices to enable
accurate modelling of transmission tower structures with
the least possible number of elements. Modelling of
material nonlinearity for angle members is based on the
assumption of lumped plasticity coupled with the concept of a yield surface in force space. A formex formulation is used for automatic generation of data necessary

0141-0296/92/030139-13
1992 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 3

139

Nonlinear analysis of transmission towers: F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. Kitipornchai

for the analysis of transmission towers. These include

the topology, geometry, load and support conditions.
The developed software, the AK TOWER program (AIBermani and Kitipornchai), is used to predict the
ultimate behaviour of two full-scale transmission towers
recently tested in Australia. The tests were conducted by
the industry in conjunction with the electricity authority
requirements for design verification. No measurements
of member forces were reported but comparisons of test
and predicted results are possible through the comparison of deflections, ultimate loads and the deflected
shapes of the towers at ultimate load.

Brief review of current practice

General
There are many types of configurations of transmission
towers, and a multitude of load combinations that can act
on them. Self-supporting transmissions towers are the
more conventional type and may be classified according
to their function along the transmission line 5.
Tower structures are subject to different kinds of
loads. These include conductor weight, tower weight,
ice load, transverse wind load, longitudinal or oblique
wind loads, transverse load resulting from an angle in
the line, longitudinal loads caused by some unbalanced
forces in the conductor tensions, loads imposed during
the stringing operation, torsional loads resulting from
broken conductors and dynamic loading from galloping
conductors and other effects. All of these loads must be
considered to act in various combinations as specified by
the electricity safety codes, statutory regulation and
industry standards 6'7.

Design specifications
The two most widely used design specifications for the
design of axially loaded angle members in selfsupporting transmission towers are the ASCE manual
52: guide for design of steel transmission towers 5'8 and
the ECCS recommendations for angles in lattice
transmission towers 9. Tower structures are considered
to consist of members supported by stress-carrying bracing and redundant members which are nominally
unstressed. The design manuals specify limiting
slenderness ratios for different member types to account
for partial end restraint and joint eccentricity. In the
ASCE manuals 5'8, the ultimate maximum stress is
determined using the SSRC 1 basic column curves
(curves 1 or 4 as appropriate), whereas in the ECCS
manual 9 the ultimate maximum stress is based on the
ECCS multiple column curves 11 (Curve a0).

failure is repeated until the tower is able to support the

ultimate design load.
Although the ultimate load testing will, to some
extent, verify the adequacy of the tower in withstanding
the specified static design loads, it cannot predict exactly
how the structure will behave in practice under differing
load conditions.

Methods of analysis and design

Stress calculations in a transmission tower structure are
generally based on a linear elastic analysis, normally
assuming that members are axially loaded and pinconnected, with the stiffer main leg members considered
as continuous beams. Forces or stresses in the members
are usually determined using a computer-aided method
of analysis.
Two basic approaches have been used in developing
computer programs for analysing transmission towers.
The first approach translates the logic of conventional
methods into routines to carry out the analysis of the
structure. The second approach uses structural analysis
methods such as the stiffness method.
Most of the computer programs available are based on
the linear 3D elastic truss approach using the stiffness
method, for example the BPA TOWER program 13 and
the TRANTOWER program TM. The BPA TOWER
program is a linear elastic analysis program adjusted to
handle, long, slender, tension only bracing members.
The analysis requires a certain number of iterations to
determine which bracing members are loaded beyond
their compression capacity and to remove such members
from the model, thus forcing the remaining bracing
members to carry the tensile load. In the
TRANTOWER program ~'~4, members are assumed to
be fully active when in tension and are capable of sustaining only a certain compression. The compression
members are characterized as having a bilinear
force-displacement relationship where the member
buckling load is obtained through the use of appropriate
design formulae recommended by codes or design
manuals 5. Secondary effects were incorporated by considering the geometric nonlinearity due to large tower
displacements ~.
When a truss type model is used to analyse a transmission tower, the structure should be free of planar joints
which cause local instability. Significant effort on the
part of the designer is required to remove planar joints,
a process which requires the addition of stabilizing
members. Identifying and correcting such instabilities
generally requires a few additional computer runs.

Proposed nonlinear analytical technique

Procedure for full-scale load testing

General

Full-scale testing of transmission tower structures plays

an important and integral role in the development of the
designs. Guidelines for transmission tower testing are
available 5'1z. The test is generally set up to simulate the
most critical design conditions. Loads are normally
incremented to 50%, 90%, 95% and 100% of the maximum specified loads. Typically, each load increment is
held for one or two minutes. When a premature failure
occurs, corrective measures are taken and all failed
members are replaced. The load case which caused the

In the proposed nonlinear analytical technique, the

tower is modelled as an assembly of general thin-walled
beam-column elements. Since most of the tower connections are multiple-bolted end connections offering some
degree of restraint, it is assumed that the restraint
offered by a connection relative to the moments induced
in the tower members is large enough to regard the connection as rigid. The effect of joint flexibility can also
be inco,rporated in the technique provided information
on joint flexibility is known ~5.

140

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 3

Nonlinear analysis of transmission towers: F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. Kitipornchai

(a) YX plane

z /

Y'lYn
/~= "C)
IMY1'0~yl
~ o/ Mzl,Ozl /1"
/;~S~_~// "~iS'~'-- Fzl'W

Centroida, =/"
ax,s /
,,p"

/'/

~.~ ,?"/"/M,x~,'OxlFyl,Vl
~

,,
4~'/'~'/

/~// )/

Fx.,U,

z/ r
.4hea

s\

1~

Lo

Co ,o
2

ax,s,,/

.Mz2,ez2
~ tT2My2'OY2
....
#I

\z

/ / ~ . center

_*" . x ,0

C2

(b) ZX plane

l~y ...~-C2

F,;,v=

x
Element generalized forces and displacements and
reference axes

Figure 1

y\y
Basic assumptions
Figure l shows an element of general thin-walled open
section. The right-hand orthogonal coordinate system x,
y, z is chosen such that y and z pass through the end
cross-section shear centres S and S' of the dement
before deformation, and are parallel to the principal y
and ~ axes of the cross-section. A parallel set of coordinates ~, y, ~ passes through the end cross-section centroids C and C' of the element. By neglecting the effect
of warping, there are six possible actions (F,, F r, F z,
M,, Mr and Mz) with corresponding displacement components (u, v, w, 0x, 0y and 0z) that can be applied at
each end of the thin-walled element.
The following assumptions are made:
the element, but not necessarily the member, is
prismatic and straight
cross-sections are rigid and do not distort
shear deformations are assumed to be negligible
the material is homogeneous, isotropic and elasticperfectly plastic
strains are small but displacements and rotations can
be large
warping of the cross-section is neglected
loads are conservative
Geometric nonlinearity

Figure 2 shows the deformation of an element in the projected YX and ZX planes of the global X, Y and Z coordinate system. The element deformation may be
described using three different configurations, Co, C]
and C2. These configurations represent the initial
undeformed state, the current (known) deformed state
and a neighbouring (desired) deformed state, respectively. The tensor notation and nomenclature used by
Yang and McGuire ~6 is adopted. A left superscript
denotes the configuration in which the quantity occurs.

Figure 2

planes

Element deformations in projected global YX and ZX

The absence of such a superscript indicates that the

quantity is an increment between C~ and C2. A left
subscript denotes the configuration in which the quantity
is measured.
In an updated Lagrangian formulation, the principle of
virtual displacements can be expressed as 16.17
'

I ~o6t~1 dV= ~W

(1)

where ~o is the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor

and dire is the variation of the Green-Lagrange strain
tensor. Equation (2) represents the equilibrium of the
element in the displaced configuration C2, in which the
stresses 12oare corresponding to C2 but measured in Cl.
The stresses 12o can be decomposed into

~0~--"1r"]"lO

(2)

where lz denotes the Cartesian component of the

Cauchy stress tensor and ~o is the Cartesian component
of the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress increment tensor
referred to IC. Similarly the strain increments ~ can be

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 3 141

Nonlinear analysis of transmission towers: F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. Kitipornchai

decomposed into
i~ =

(3)

]E L -F l eN

in which ~eL and I~N are the incremental linear and

nonlinear strain components of the Green-Lagrange
incremental strain tensor. The linearized constitutive
relation between stress and strain increment is
,a = ID, eL

(4)

where ~D is the material matrix = diag [ E G G].

Substitution of equations (2)-(4) into equation (1)
yields the incremental equilibrium equation of the element in C2

tl'

'v1DIeL61eLI dV + t"v

IT616NIdV

ment. Plastic hinges are assumed to be elastic prior to

the full plastification so that the initial stiffness of the
complete element corresponds to that of the elastic
beam. As the stress resultants at the ends of the element
increase, the hinges yield resulting in a reduction in the
element stiffness. For a steel section the hinges are
assumed to become fully elastic again upon unloading.
A solution method suitable for elasto-plastic nonlinear
analysis of large scale structures has been presented by
the authors 19. Since transmission towers are almost
invariably constructed of angle sections, a single equation representing the stress-resultant yield surface for
angle sections under a combination of axial force and
biaxial moments 19'2 may be used. Approximate yield
surfaces for angle sections are shown in Figure 3 for
varying normalized axial (compressive and tensile) force
values. A single equation describing the yield surfaces
can be expressed as

+ ,i 'vlD16L61f:N
ldV
=

lw

4
d~(p, my, m:) = ~ ~b3(~ - l) + (9 +/z)3sign(1, p)
(5)

-3([2 + #)

sign(l, p)

in which
+ff( + #)2 + ~b

~W= l'v ]r6teL'dV

(6)

The linear, geometric and deformation stiffness

matrices, [KL], [Ka] and [Ko] can be determined,
respectively, from the first, second and the third
integrals on the left hand side of equation (5). Hence the
tangent stiffness obtained will take into account not only
the stress state but also the deformation state of the element.
The linear stiffness matrix [Kt.] is available in the
standard texts ~8. The geometric and deformation stiffness matrices for a general thin-walled beam-column
element, [KG] and [Ko], have been presented by
Kitipornchai and Chan 3 and by the authors 4, respectively. The deformation stiffness matrix [Ko]
introduces the necessary coupling between the axial
stretching and the flexural and torsional deformations
thereby greatly reducing the number of elements needed
to model the tower structure accurately in a nonlinear
large displacement analysis.

Solution procedure
The solution methods used in this paper are similar to
those presented elsewhere 4']9. The analysis of large

Compression
p -ve
Tension
p +ve

- x

1.0

p=O

/1-~

~...

my
-

0.8
0.6
0.4

For large scale structures such as transmission towers,

modelling of material nonlinearity based on the assumption of lumped plasticity, coupled with the concept of
yield surface in force space, provides a compact and
practical method for modelling nonlinear global structural behaviour. The solution to the nonlinear response
is obtained as a sequence of linearized solutions in which
either the tangent stiffness is modified to reflect the
extent of the development of plastic flow, or the load is
modified by a residual force to maintain equilibrium.
The stress resultants in the cross-section interact to
produce yielding for the section. Any plastic behaviour
is deemed to be concentrated at the familiar generalized
plastic hinges located at the two extremities of an ele-

0.2

Eng. S t r u c t . 1 9 9 2 , Vol. 14, No 3

(7)

in which p, mr and mz are the normalized axial and

bending moments about the centroidal axes parallel to
the legs, and the coefficients or, /3, ~b, 7, ~b,/z, 9, and
are expressed in terms of p, my and mz2.

Material nonlinearity

142

= 0

2 L J - ~ - - - - - ~ >, " \ ~ \

I/J

0
-0.2

/ , /

-0.4
-0.6

-0.8

-1"0110

J,4'
I

-0.8 - 0 . 6 - 0 . 4 -0.2

Figure 3

0.2

Yield surfaces for angle section

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Nonlinear analysis of transmission towers: F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. Kitipornchai

scale structures such as transmission towers involves the

solution of several hundred simultaneous equations and,
for this purpose, an out-of-core solution scheme 2~ is
used.
For a given load increment {AR}, a corresponding
displacement increment {Ar}, may be obtained by solving the incremental equilibrium equation
tAR} = [Kr] {Ar}

(8)

in which [Kr] is the tangent stiffness matrix. Using the

nodal displacements and the incremental constitutive
law, the incremental resisting forces of the structure can
be obtained. These are then compared with the externally applied forces to obtain the out-of-balance forces,
{AR,}, which must be dissipated through an iterative
procedure subjected to some imposed constraint conditions depending on the solution strategy selected.
The element stiffness matrices are formed in the local
principal axes of the element where the axial forces are
referred to the centroidal axis, the shear forces and the
torque to the shear centre axis and the bending moments
to axes passing through the shear centre and parallel to
the principal axes. In order to assemble these matrices
to obtain the tangent stiffness matrix of the structure
[Kr], the tangent stiffness matrix for each element has
to be transformed to the global axes. Since general thinwalled sections are considered, this transformation
process consists of three steps: rotational, translational
and local to global transformations.
The solution strategy chosen is the arc-length
method 22. To avoid the case where the force-point for a
certain element jumps from within the yield surface to
a point outside the surface during a loading cycle, and
so as to avoid the case where the force-point deviates
excessively from the curved yield surface, a simple solution advancement control method is used in conjunction
with the arc-length method. The solution advancement
control is achieved by using the arc-distance from the
previous cycle and the maximum value of the yield function in the last two cycles to extrapolate to maximum
arc-distance for the present cycle. This brings the forcepoint gradually to the yield surface and guards against
excessive deviation from the surface.
The iteration process stops and the solution proceeds
to the next load cycle when a certain norm criterion is
satisfied and the force-point for any element which has
entered the plastic stage returns to the yield surface. An
out-of-balance force convergence criteria is adopted
using the Euclidean norm measure with a convergence
tolerance set to 5 %.
When analysing a large scale structure such a s a
transmission tower, the self-weight of the structure has
to be considered. In the present analysis the tower's selfweight is generated automatically and applied incrementally on the tower prior to the incremental application of
external loads.

Formex configuration processing

In the analysis and design of transmission tower structures, the processes of data generation describing the
topology and geometry of such large scale structures
presents a real challenge. This task could be very time
consuming, tedious and prone to error. The formex

algebra approach due to Nooshin 23 provides a very

general and elegant avenue for handling this type of
problem. Formex algebra is a mathematical system that
consists of a set of abstract objects, known as formices,
and a number of rules according to which of these
objects may be manipulated. The formex is a
mathematical entity that consists of an arrangement of
integers. This approach has been used successfully for
the data processing of double-layer grids and braced
domes 23.
A detailed description of the formex formulation of
transmission towers is given elsewhere 24. A
preprocessor which is capable of generating the
topology, geometry, loading and supporting conditions
of transmission towers has been implemented on a personal computer. Only a small amount of data is required
for this program to generate details of the tower structure.

Practical application
The developed software, the AK TOWER program, has
been used to predict the ultimate structural behaviour of
two transmission towers recently tested in Australia.
They are (see Figure 4) the Nebo-Ross 275 kV tension
tower 25 and the Ross-Chalumbin 275 kV double circuit
heavy suspension tower 26. Descriptions of them are
given in Figure 4.

Nebo-Ross 275 kV tension tower

The Nebo-Ross 275 kV tension tower forms part of the
Nebo- Ross transmission
line constructed in
Queensland, Australia. Details of test procedure and
results have been reported by Transfield Pty Ltd 25, and
some of the results are summarized below.

Test programme. The topological outline (front and side

views) of the test tower is shown in Figure 5. The tower
was tested for the load conditions shown in Figures
6(a)- (e). These are:
Test no 1 temporary termination of both circuits
(see Figure 6(a))
Test no 2 temporary termination of a single circuit (see Figure 6(b))
Test no 3 intact/broken maintenance (see Figure

6(c))
Test no 4 broken earth-wire and upper phase
(see Figure 6 (d))
Test no 5 cross-arm rigging (see Figure 6 (e))
The test loads (in kN) shown in Figure 6 represent
the design ultimate loads for each load condition. Loads
indicated by Q represent static loads, while the remaining loads are applied incrementally to the tower. In the
analysis, static loads Q together with the tower selfweight are applied prior to the application of the test
loads. Deflections at selected points on the tower were
recorded at different stages during and at the complexion
of each test. When the full design load was reached, the
loads were held for 2 to 3 minutes before they were
finally released.
The points at which deflections were recorded for the
different tests are shown in Figure 609. A fixed notation

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 3

143

Nonlinear analysis of transmission towers: F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. Kitipornchai

Nebo-Ross 275 kV Tension Tower:

Ross-Chalumbin

Tension tower, 15 degrees

maximum line deviation
Tower Structure:
Square base, lattice steel,
all members of hot-rolled
angle section
Height:
50500 mm
Self-Weight:
146.2 kN
Conductor Configuration: 275 kV double circuit,
pyramid type
Tower Type:

Nebo-Ross

0
0
to

Ross-Chalumbin 275 kV Double

Circuit Heavy Suspension Tower:
o

tO

Tower Type:
Tower Structure:

Heavy suspension tower

Rectangular base, lattice
steel, all members of
hot-roiled angle section
Height:
59600 mm
Self-Weight:
99.27 kN (original tower)
100.43 kN (upgraded tower)
Conductor Configuration: 275 kV Double circuit
Figure 4

T o w e r s used in case studies

Earthwire Peak
Top c r o s s - a r m
Super
structure

Middle c r o s s - a r m
Bottom c r o s s - a r m

Common
body

Body

+o

Bo.,y
Leg 12

(a)

(b)

Figure 5

Elevation views of N e b o - R o s s test tower: (a), front

view; (b), side view

is used for deflections: deflection in the transverse (T)

direction at point AL is TAL, in the longitudinal (L)
direction at point CR is LCR and in the vertical (V)
direction at point EL is VEL.

Test loading procedure. During the test, loads were

applied in an incremental-cycle manner 25. That is, a
certain load increment was given to one load and then
followed by the same percentage increment to another
144

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 3

load so as to bring them to the same percentage level of

the design load. This procedure was repeated for every
load increment of every load point in the tower in order
to achieve the specified load level.
When the load increment is applied to a particular
point, however, loads at other locations are relaxed and
they in turn must be re-adjusted to the same percentage
level. The sequence of loading and re-adjustment every
time a certain load increment level is applied to the
structure cannot be simulated easily in the analysis
where all the loads are incremented simultaneously.
This effect becomes more significant as the structure
begins to yield. Hence, some discrepancies in the
ultimate loads and the deflections from the analysis and
the test read-outs can be expected.

Test results. At the commencement of test no. 1, deflection read-outs assigned to LER, LAR and LBR (see
Figure 609) were malfunctioning and therefore ignored.
Loads were incremented in stages up to 100% of the
design ultimate loads and held for 2 min. No permanent
deformation or over-stressing was reported.
At 90 % of the design ultimate load during test no. 2,
the compression leg of Body :v0 (see Figure 5(a)) collapsed due to the failure of the diagonals in the body.
The design was checked and as a result it was decided
that the diagonal members of Body :F0, Body - 6 . 5 ,
and Body +7.5 would be upgraded. Larger angle
sections were chosen with a higher grade steel of
350 MPa used instead of 250 MPa as used in the
original design.
During test no. 3, at 50% of the design ultimate load,
malfunction of the deflection read-out assigned to LAR

Nonlinear analysis of transmission towers: F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. Kitipornchai

18.5Q

8.50

~6.4

-~t,,~
~,,j-.,-4.5Q
30.0<
~
"30.0_ 12.3
15.3-.... " ~ L - - i - - - - - - - ~ .
4.5Q

8'8/148"

17.5 . . .
80.8/*46.0

I 8'8/+48"12.3

80.~,

17.s
8 0 . 8 "-~r---v46.0

1I2"2" '511"1
1101.11/157.4
35:35--L
_1102.7 /I 53.5

18.5--

4__6:103

3,eao~

48 0

5.8

2.2Q - , ~ _
..,.~-,- 1.1Q
15 ~ ) 8 . . ~ _ ~ . 0 ~ 2

e.7-

-I

8 . I Q ---,I
9.6Q "-J

11o

10110-1

(a) Test no.1

115.5

(b) Test no.2

~8.5Q

3.20

8.40

22.5 1 . 5 Q ~
- - 18.8
18.8 - 144.4 so.8/i 88.7
~-188
18,8 '-'- 144.4
44.4
--18.8

18.8--11o8.8

144.4

8.5
10.4 Q-,,-~,.~
. 7.6Q-~
35.9
; 4-'~'.4

34.8 --144. 4
3 4 . 8 " ~44.4""

2.1
~ - 5.2Q
29;8_14. 5
114.60
~---34.8
44.4

7,W

13.2

-- 7.1

15.2Q
24.1Q
27.3Q

-,- 4.8Q
-- 5 . 5 Q

(d) Test no.4

(c) Test no.3

- 8.8

8o.8/i 88.7

: AR

AL =

BL
CL

BR
X1

CR

X2
X3

(e) Test no.5

T
(f) Nomenclature

Figure 6 Load conditions for N e b o - R o s s test t o w e r

was reported. Adjustments were attempted but were

unsuccessful and LAR deflection readings were subsequently disregarded. The test tower was able to hold
loads at 100% of the design ultimate load condition for
three minutes with no permanent deformation or overstressing observed.
Test no. 4 passed without incident. The tower held
100% of the design ultimate load for two minutes with
no permanent deformation or over-stressing observed.
Cross-arm AR was selected for test no. 5 (cross-arm
rigging). At 70% of the design ultimate load, the bottom
chord adjacent to point of load application failed due to
local plate buckling. Since the present analysis does not
account for local plate buckling, this test load condition
is not considered in the study.

Predicted results. The N e b o - R o s s test tower under the

various test load conditions has been analysed using the
developed AK TOWER program. The tower topology,
geometry, load and support conditions were generated
automatically using the formex algebra approach 23. A
total of 1238 elements and 487 nodes has been used to
model the tower. It should be noted that although the
developed software can handle any joint flexibility, the
present analysis assumes that no joint slippage in the
tower occurred.
Test no. 1: This test represents a load condition for temporary termination of both circuits as shown in Figure
6 (a)). The tower passed this test without incident and
this is confirmed by the present analysis. Further, the

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 3 145

Nonlinear analysis of transmission towers: F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. Kitipornchai

1.4

1.2

X=1.22
1.0

1.2
.

~
-

tO

Test

0.8

"~ 0.6

/--Theory

"J 0.4

0.2

100

(b)

eory

200
300
400
Deflection. TER (ram)

Test no.2
Transverse deflection

"o 0.4

Test no. 1
Transverse deflection
at ER

"-" 0.6

(a)

0
-J

0.2

I
15

500

I
30

'

'

-~

60

"<_ 1"6I~~.=.

X=1.5

1.6

1
1.2

1.2

0
0
o~

Test up. to X_= 1..0

0"811 / - ' T h e r y
--

Vertical deflection
I

50

100
Deflection, VAR (ram)

Figure 7 T h e o r e t i c a l l o a d - d e f l e c t i o n c u r v e s f o r N e b o - R o s s

0.8

test tower:

Test no. 2. This test represents a load condition for temporary termination of a single circuit as shown in Figure

.
(d)

Test no.4
Transverse deflection
at Xl

/
[

150

f -T_est_.Lup
- - - - - to X= 1.0

Theory
0.4

AK TOWER program is able to predict an ultimate load

factor ), = 1.22 for this load condition. The theoretical.
load-deflection curve at TER (see Figure 6(/9) are shown
m Figure 7(a). The tower deflected shape at failure
(X = 1.22) is shown in Figure 8(a).
The first plastic hinge starts in the compression leg of
the common body at a load factor ), = 0.92. This is
followed by gradual spread of plastic hinges in the compression legs of the common body until a maximum load
of ~, = 1.22 is reached. After this stage, plastic hinges
start to spread in the compression leg of the lower body
(Leg + 12) causing a drop in the load and a rapid spread
of plastic hinges in the diagonals of the common body.
As reported by Transfield 25, the test was passed successfully. It can be seen from Figure 7(a) that the
derived load-deflection curve is still quite linear up to
the design ultimate load (i.e. at ~, = 1.0). A comparison
between the test measurements and the numerical results
for the deflections of different nodes at the design
ultimate load (), = 1.0) is presented in Table 1. The
predicted deflections agree reasonably with the test
measurements considering the effect of bolt slippage
which must have occurred at joints and the manner in
which loads were applied during the test.

146 Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 3

- -- ..- _ ~ ~ _

0
..J

Test no.3

II/

II1

"o

(c)

0.4 I-l/
0

at X1
I
45

Deflection, TX1 (mm)

I

[ l h = 1.62

failed at ;~= 0.9

.~ 0.8 -___h=0.75

50

100
150
Deflection, TX 1 (mrn)

200

(a), t e s t no. 1; (b), t e s t no. 2; (c), t e s t no. 3; (d), t e s t no. 4

6(b). During the test, the tower failed at a load factor

X = 0.90 due to the collapse of the compression leg in
Body ~:0 which was initiated by the buckling of the
diagonal members in the body.
The load-deflection curves obtained from the AK
TOWER program are shown in Figure 7(b) for the
deflection TX1. The deflected shape of the tower is
shown in Figure 8(b). The first plastic hinge forms at
X = 0.52 in the common body and spreads down to the
diagonals of Body - 6 . 5 and Body 0 . However, when
the applied load reaches X = 0.75, the numerical method
starts to diverge and the analysis breaks down as the
tangent stiffness matrix becomes ill-conditioned.
Results predicted by the AK TOWER program
indicate a weakness in the tower under this load condition and a nonlinear behaviour at a relatively low load
level (i.e. at X ~- 0.5, see Figure 7(b)). The reason for
the higher test load (h = 0.90 compared to the predicted
), = 0.75) may be attributed to the different loading
(incremental-cyclic) method used during the test.

Test no. 3. This test represents a load condition for

intact/broken maintenance as shown in Figure 6(c). The
tower passed this test without incident z5 and this is confirmed by the present analysis. The load-deflection
curve for the deflection VAR is shown in Figure 7(c).
The first plastic hinge forms at X = 0.95 and hinges

Nonlinear analysis of transmission towers: F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. Kitipornchai

Test

Figure 8

Test

no. 1

no.2

Test

no.3

Test

no.4

)~=1.22

h=0.75

~=1.62

;k= 1 . 5

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

=neoreticai failure deflected shapes of N e b o - R o s s test tower: (a), test no. 1; (b), test no. 2; (c), test no. 3; (d), test no. 4

spread but remain confined to the cross-arms AR and

CL. A maximum load factor ~, = 1.62 is reached as
indicated by the plateau in the load-deflection curve in
Figure 7(c). The predicted deflected shape of the tower
at the maximum load value is shown in Figure 8(c).
A comparison between the test read-outs and the
numerical results for various nodal deflections at the
design ultimate load (X = 1.0) is presented in Table 1.
It can be seen that the predicted deflections agree
reasonably with the test measurements.

Table 1 Comparison

Test no 4. This test represents a loading for a broken

earth-wire and upper phase as shown in Figure 6(d). The
tower passed this test without incident and this is confirmed by the present analysis. The load-deflection
curve for the deflection TX1 is shown in Figure 7(d).
The first plastic hinge forms at X = 0.75 in the diagonals
of the common body. More hinges start to spread to the
other diagonals but remain confined to the common
body until a maximum load factor ~, --- 1.5 is reached.
After this point, plastic hinges start to form in the leg

of predicted nodal deflections with full-scale test measurements for Nebo-Ross 2 7 5 kV tension t o w e r

Measured Deflections (turn)

Test no. 1

Test no. 3

Test no. 4

Measurement
locations

Test

Predicted

Test

Predicted

Test

Predicted

TER
LER
LEL
TAR
LAR
LAL
TBR
LBR
TCR
LCR
VCR
VCL

-54
**
-87
**
-74
**
-44
-148
-

-88
-513
-68
-392
-47
-263
-29
-159
-

-86
-218
-93
-86
**
-19
.
.
-24
.
+16
-77

-115
-161
-105
-93
-151
-44
.
.
-39
.
+ 5
-54

-114
-453
+13
-150
-225
+44

-215
-251
-82
-159
-230
-14

-48

-65

* * T h e s e malfunctioned during the test and were

.
.
.

.
.
.

disregarded

Eng. Struct.

1992,

Vol.

14, No 3

147

Nonlinear analysis of transmission towers: F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. Kitipornchai

Body

-6

(a)
Figure 9

Front and side views of R o s s - C h a l u m b i n test towers: (a), original tower; (b), upgraded t o w e r

members of the common body causing a drop in the load

followed by a failure of the numerical method indicating
that a collapse condition has been reached.
The predicted deflected shape of the tower at the end
of the analysis for this test is shown in Figure 8(d). A
comparison between the test read-outs and the numerical
results for different nodal deflections at the design
ultimate load (X = 1.0) is presented in Table 1. It can be
seen that some of the predictions are in reasonable
agreement with the test read-outs while others are not so
good. The differences between the predicted results and
the test read-outs for LER, LEL and LAL can be
attributed to the effects of bolt slippage, damage to some
of the members from earlier tests and the incrementalcyclic loading procedure used in the test.

Ross-Chalumbin 275 kV double circuit heavy

suspension tower
This tower (see Figure 4) is part of the R o s s Chalumbin transmission line recently constructed in
Queensland, Australia. Details of test procedure and
results have been reported
by Electric Power Transmis2~
sion (EPT) Pry Ltd . It is worth noting that the loading
procedure used in this test is different from that
employed in the tension (Nebo-Ross) test tower. In the
Ross-Chalumbin tower, all loads were applied
simultaneously in an incremental manner which is
similar to that used in the analysis hence better predictions are expected.

Test results. The topological outline of the test tower is

shown in Figure 9. The tower was tested under six dif-

148

(b)

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 3

ferent load conditions and passed the first five tests successfully. In the sixth test, which was under the intact
maximum wind load condition, the tower collapsed at
90 % of the design ultimate, load. The failure described
in the test report 26 as an unusual failure which
involved a general collapse of the compressed face of the
tower'. Figure 10 shows a photograph of the failed
original tower after the test.
The ultimate design load condition for the sixth test is
shown in Figure 11(a). Figure 11(b) shows the notation
adopted for different nodes and displacements.
Following the collapse of the tower in the sixth test,
the tower was strengthened by adding a number of
horizontal members in an attempt to prevent the global
failure experienced in the sixth test. The initial upgraded
tower shown in Figure 9go) (compared with the original
tower in Figure 9(a)) was tested and it again failed at a
load only slightly higher than that encountered in the
original tower. The tower finally passed the test after
further strengthening but details of the final configuration are not given in the test report 26.

Results predicted by AK TOWER program. Both the

original and the initial upgraded towers have been
analysed using the proposed nonlinear analysis AK
TOWER program. The tower topology, geometry, load
and support conditions were generated automatically
using the formex algebra approach 23. A total of 1732
elements and 768 nodes have been used to model the
original tower. The initial upgraded tower has been
modelled using 1761 elements and 772 nodes.
In the analysis of the original tower, the first plastic

Nonlinear analysis of transmission towers: F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. Kitipornchai

)0

1.95

Figure 12 Theoretical failure deflected shapes of R o s s Chalumbin test towers: (a), original tower; (b), initial upgraded
tower

at collapse is shown in Figure 12(a). The shape closely

resembles the actual tower failure shape obtained during
the test as depicted by the photograph taken after failure

(Figure 10).
Figure 10 Photograph of failed (original) Ross-Chalumbin test
tower

hmge is formed at a load factor h = 0.7 in Body - 6 (see

Figure 9(a)). Subsequent plastic hinges spread rapidly to

other parts of the tower below Body - 6 accompanied by
a rapid increase in displacement. A maximum load factor )~ = 0.91 is reached followed by a break down of the
numerical method indicating collapse of the tower. This
compares extremely well with the 90% failure load
reported in the test :6. The deflected shape of the tower

10.83

10.83

6.83--I
23.86 --145.39
23.86 --145.39
23.86 --145.39

In the analysis of the initial upgraded tower, the first

plastic hinge is formed at a load factor )~ = 0.8. Plastic
hinges then spread in a similar fashion as before but less
rapidly and with less displacement. A maximum load
factor X = 0.95 is obtained. This load is only a little
higher than that of the original tower as was confirmed
by the test report 26. The predicted deflected shape of
the initial upgraded tower is shown in Figure 12(b).
Load-deflection curves for vertical deflection VER at
node ER of the original and the initial upgraded towers
are shown in Figure 13. It can be seen that the addition
of a number of horizontal members to the tower has, to
some extent, improved the tower's behaviour.

I. 11.37
45.39 I - 3 2 - 3 2
45.391 - 35"78
45.391-40"66
~20.5
--15.4
--35
~35

= ER

EL =

BL=

=AR
-- BR

eL--

-- CR

AL'-

Xl
X2
X3

X4
7__
L

(a)

(b)

Figure 1 1 Critical load condition for Ross - Chalumbin test tower

Eng. S t r u c t 1992, Vol. 14, No 3

149

Nonlinear analysis of transmission towers: F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. Kitipornchai

1.2

,<

1.0 -

X=0.95

'

X=O.9

profound effect on tower deflection but should only have

little influence on tower ultimate capacity 27.

Acknowledgements
7

0.8

o
0

0.6

"0
0

-~ 0 . 4 -

-Original
tower

/
0.2 -

/I

50
Vertical

Initial
upgraded
tower

100

150

200

deflection,

250

This project has been supported by funds from the

Australian Research Council (ARC) under Project Grant
No. 834 and from the Australian Electricity Supply
Industry Research Board (AESIRB).
The authors wish to thank the Queensland Electricity
Commission (QEC) for making the full-scale test data of
the two tested transmission towers available. In particular, the authors wish to acknowledge the assistance
from Mr Henry Hawes of the QEC for his continued
encouragement, advice and technical support throughout
the course of this work.
The authors wish also to thank Dr S. L. Chan of the
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering (Hong
Kong Polytechnic) for the initial work on developing the
geometric stiffness for asymmetric thin-walled beamcolumn elements and Mr Warren Traves, (Gutteridge
Haskins and Davey Pty Ltd) for proof-reading the
manuscript.

VER (mm)

Figure 13 Theoretical l o a d - d e f l e c t i o n curves of original and

References

initial upgraded R o s s - C h a l u m b i n test t o w e r s

Conclusions
Accurate structural analysis of transmission towers is
complicated because the structure is three-dimensional
and comprised of asymmetric angle section members
eccentrically connected. The influences of geometric
and material nonlinearities play a very important role in
determining the ultimate behaviour of the structure.
The paper describes a nonlinear analytical method in
which most factors affecting the ultimate behaviour of
the tower structure can be incorporated. These include
geometric and material nonlinearities, joint flexibility
and the effects of large deflection. The developed software, the AK TOWER program, was used to predict the
ultimate structural behaviour of two electric transmission towers recently tested in Australia. No comparison
of the calculated and the actual member forces was made
due to the lack of such field data in these tests, but
predictions of the ultimate loads, the nodal deflections at
various points and the tower failure deflected shapes
have been made.
The developed software was able to predict accurately
the collapse load (predominantly flexural load) for the
Ross-Chalumbin heavy suspension tower. As for the
N e b o - R o s s tension tower, the predicted collapse load
for test no. 2 (torsional load) was 16.7% lower than the
test collapse load. This may be attributed to the different
loading procedures used. In the test, loads were applied
in an incremental-cyclic manner whereas in the analysis
all loads were incremented simultaneously. Moreover, a
torsional load case is generally regarded as more difficult to predict than a flexural load case.
Comparison of measured and predicted deflections
have not all been good. This may be attributed to the
effect of bolt slippage which must have occurred at most
joints during test, particularly at high load level, but was
totally ignored in the analysis. Bolt slippage will have a

150

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 3

1 Roy, S., Fang, S. and Rossow, E. 'Secondary stresses on transmission tower structures', J. Energy Engng, ASCE 1984, 110, (2),
157 - 172
2 Electric Power Research Institute. 'Structural development studies at
the EPRI transmission line mechanical research facility', Interim
Report No. 1: EPRI EL-4756, August 1986, Sverdrup Technology.
Inc., Tullahoma, Tennessee.
3 Kitipornchai, S. and Chan, S. L. 'Nonlinear finite element analysis
of angle and tee beam-columns', J. Struct. Engng, ASCE 1987, 113,
4, 721-739
4 AI-Bermani, F. G. A. and Kitipornchai, S. 'Nonlinear analysis of
thin-walled structures using least element/member', J. Struct. Engng,
ASCE 1990, 116, (1), 215-234
5 American Society of Civil Engineers. 'Guide for design of steel
transmission towers', Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice,
No. 52, ASCE 1988
6 American Society of Civil Engineers Committee on electric transmission structures. 'Loading of electrical transmission structures', J.
Struct. Div., ASCE 1982, 108, (ST5.), 1088-1105
7 American Society of Civil Engineers Committee on electric transmission structures. 'Guidelines for transmission line structural loading',
ASCE, New York, 1984
8 American Society of Civil Engineers 'Guide for design of steel
transmission towers', Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice,
No. 52, ASCE, New York, 1971
9 European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (ECCS).
'Recommendations for angles in lattice transmission towers', January
1985
10 Structural Stability Research Council: SSRC. "Guide to stability
criteria for metal structures', (4th edn) T. V. Galambos (Ed.) John
Wiley New York, 1988
11 Eurocode, 'Common Unified Code of Practice for Steel Structures'.
Eurocode no. 3, 1984, Commission of the European Communities,
Directorate-General, Brussels
12 International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). 'Loading tests on
overhead line towers', Publication No. 652, 1979
13 Bonneville Power Administration. 'Elastic design program',
Portland, Oregon, 1987
14 Lo, D., Morcos, A. and Goel, S. 'Use of computer in transmission
tower design', J. Struct. Div., ASCEI975, 101, (ST7), 1443-1453
15 AI-Bermani, F. G. A. and Kitipornchai, S. 'Elasto-plastic analysis of
flexibly-jointed space frames, J. Struct. Engng, ASCE 1992, 118, (1),
108- 127
16 Yang, Y. B. and McGuire, W. 'Stiffness matrix for geometric
nonlinear analysis', J. Struct. Engng, ASCE 1986, 112, (4), 853 -877
17 Bathe, K. J. and Bolourchi, S. 'Large displacement analysis of threedimensional beam structures', Int. J. Num. Meth. Engng 1979, 14,
961 - 986

Nonlinear analysis of transmission towers: F. G. A. AI-Bermani and S. Kitipornchai

8 Przemieniecki, J. S. "Theory of matrix structural analysis ', McGrawHill, New York 1968
9 AI-Bermani, F. G. A. and Kitipornchai, S. 'Elasto-plastic large
deformation analysis of thin-walled structures', Engng Struct. 1990,
12, 28-36
~) Kitipornchai, S., Zhu, K., Xiang, Y. and AI-Bermani, F. G. A.
'Single-equation yield surfaces for monosymmetric and asymmetric
sections', Engng Struct 1991, 13, (4), 366-370
1 Wilson, E. L. and Dovey, H. H. 'Solution or reduction of
equilibrium equations for large complex structural systems', Adv.
Engng Software 1978, 1, (1), 19-25
2 Crisfield, M. A. 'A fast incremental/iterative solution procedure that
handles snap-through', Comp. Struct. 1981, 13, (1), 55-62

23 Nooshin, H. Formex configuration processing in structural engineering', Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, 1984
24 Al-Bermani, F. G. A., Kitipornchai, S. and Chan, S. L. 'Formex formulation of transmission towers', Int. J. Space Struct. 1992, 7 (1)
25 Transfield Pty Ltd 'Test Report, The Queensland Electricity
Generating Board, Northern Region, Nebo-Ross Transmission
Line, Tower D2T15 + 12M Queensland, Australia', November 1983
26 Electric Power Transmission (EPt) Pry Ltd, Test Report No. 497
275 kV T/L Ross-Chalumbin D. C. Heavy Suspension Tower
D2S2D' February 1988, NSW, Australia
27 Kitipornchai, S., AI-Bermani, F. G. A. and Peyrot, A. H. 'Effect of
bolt slippage on the ultimate behaviour of lattice structures', (to be
published)

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 3

151