Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 11271141

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Investigation of transmission line tower failures

N. Prasad Rao a,*,1, G.M. Samuel Knight a,2, N. Lakshmanan b,3, Nagesh R. Iyer b,4
a
b

College of Engineering Guindy, Anna University, Chennai, India

SERC, Chennai, India

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 16 December 2009
Accepted 27 January 2010
Available online 4 February 2010
Keywords:
Transmission line towers
Non-linear analysis
Tower testing
Redundant
Cruciform angle section

a b s t r a c t
This paper presents different types of premature failures observed during full-scale testing
of Transmission line towers at Tower Testing and Research Station, Structural Engineering
Research Centre, Chennai. Failures that have been observed during testing are studied and
the reasons are discussed in detail. The effect of non-triangulated hip bracing pattern and
isolated hip bracings connected to elevation redundants in K and X braced panels, on
tower behaviour are studied. The tower members are modeled using beam-column and
plate elements. Different types of failures are modeled using nite element software and
the analytical results and the test results are compared with various codal provisions.
The non-linear nite element analysis program NE-NASTRAN has been used to model
the elasto-plastic behaviour of towers. Importance of secondary member design and connection detail in overall performance of the tower was studied. Non-linear nite element
analysis is useful in understanding the system behaviour and for prediction of failure pattern and ultimate load. Based on the test results the importance of studying the failures is
highlighted. The need for testing of transmission line towers is emphasized.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The design of transmission line (TL) towers, which are mass-produced, is generally based on minimum weight. The towers, in general, are of lattice type consisting of legs, primary/secondary bracings and cross arm members. Structural design of
the tower is mainly governed by wind loads acting on conductor/tower body, self weight of conductor/tower and other loads
due to icing, line deviation, broken wire condition, cascading, erection, maintenance, etc. Generally the tower is modeled as a
pin jointed space truss. Only legs and primary bracings are considered in the analysis. Transmission line towers are generally
analyzed by linear static analysis methods and the maximum member forces are arrived assuming that all the members are
subjected to only axial forces and the deformations are small after analyzing for signicant load cases. The nal member
sizes are determined by assuming the effective lengths. The members are designed based on the prevailing codes of practice.
Bearing type bolted connections are used to connect the tower members with nominal bolt hole clearance of 1.5 mm. Steel
equal angle sections with different grades such as mild, high tensile and super high tensile steels are generally used in TL
towers. The load carrying capacity of the tower, not only depends on the individual member capacity but, also on other aspects like joint detailing, uncertainties in framing eccentricities of members, force tting of members, unequal force distribution in bolts and gusset plate connections, etc. In a purely commercial exercise, the towers are to be erected on the test

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 044 22641206; fax: +91 044 22641734.
E-mail address: nprao@sercm.org (N. Prasad Rao).
1
Scientist (CSIR-SERC, Chennai, India) and (PhD Scholar, Anna University, Chennai, India).
2
Professor.
3
Project Advisor and Former Director.
4
Director.
1350-6307/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2010.01.008

1128

N. Prasad Rao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 11271141

pad, and all the loads and load combinations are to be applied on the tower one at a time in a particular sequence. The tower
needs to sustain and withstand these loads for a certain period of time. Prototype testing of transmission line towers is recommended and considered essential to verify the design and detailing. Most of the power transmission towers industries all
over the world have made proto type testing of TL towers mandatory.
Kemp et al. [1] conducted series of tests with slenderness ratio ranging from 102 to 160 on cross bracing system widely
used in transmission line towers and concluded that due to dominant effect of end eccentricity, the secant formulation can
be used to provide a design formulation for cross bracing in the slenderness ratio range of 100160. Cross bracing members
connected to main legs by one ange of each bracing member signicantly inuences the displacement within the bracing
system. As a result, the intersection joint of tension, compression bracings system deects out of plane even at low loads and
bending moments are generated.
Albermani et al. [2] presented a non-linear analytical technique accounting both material and geometric non-linearity to
predict transmission tower failure. This method has been calibrated with the results from full-scale tower test conducted on
transmission line tower. The technique showed a good accuracy in terms of failure load and failure mode. The authors have
quoted that technique developed can be used for failure analysis prediction, for design up gradation and modications.
2. Design practice
The members in TL towers are generally subjected to tension or compression forces due to external loads. The design of
leg member is reliable, since the assumption of concentric load at both ends of the member is achieved in a real structure due
to geometric symmetry of the structure. However, eccentricities in bracing connections cannot be avoided. The eccentricities
involved in the member connections are accounted in the form of end-restraint coefcients and hence, bracing member designs do have certain approximations built into them.
The tower members are generally made of steel equal angle sections. Generally, buckling strength of the member about
VV-axis (minor axis) is considered in the design. If the main member is restrained by a redundant member connected to a relatively rigid member at its other end then it can prevent VV-axis buckling of full member and increase its buckling strength. If
buckling about VV-axis is prevented using a redundant member then the member has to buckle about XX-axis for the
same length. This principle is used in the general design practice of TL towers. The capacity of members given in Table 1
are determined based on the buckling formulae given in IS: 802 (Part 1/Sec 2)-1992 [3] and ASCE 10-97 [4] which are formulated in accordance with ASCE manual 52.
3. Failure of transmission line towers
Even though transmission line towers are designed as per the codal provisions, may fail during testing due to so many
reasons such as incorrect design assumptions, improper detailing, material defects, fabrication errors, force tting during
erection, variation in bolt grade, etc. The failures that occurred at Tower Testing and Research Station, Chennai are classied
as structural failure of leg, bracing and redundant member failures, improper detailing, connection failures, material defects
Table 1
Comaprison of member capacities, analytical and test failure loads.
Tower type

400 kV D/C
(02)

400 kV D/C
(015)
220 kV D/C
DE 90 Dev.
220 kV D/C
60 Dev.

275 kV D/C

Member details

Failure load in
percentage

Non-linear analysis
force in kN

Member capacity

Failed members

At test
failure
load

At FE
failure
load

ASCE 10-97/
IS:802 in kN

927
848
37
69
94
160

896
826
45
79
126
185

950
904
39
66
96
157

Leg in 3rd panel

Leg in 4th panel
Bracing in 2nd panel
Bracing in 4th panel
Bracing in 5th panel
K brace in 2nd panel
X Brace in 3rd
panel top half
Bottom half
Leg in second panel
from ground level
Inclined redundant
in 2nd sub panel
Leg in 1st panel
Leg in 2nd panel
Leg in 3rd panel
Brace in 1st panel
Brace in 2nd panel

Size

L/r

Fy

Test

FE NL
analysis

ISA130  130  10
ISA130  130  10
ISA 70  70  5
ISA 75  75  6
ISA 80  80  6
ISA 100  100  8

50
60
200
163
114
133

450
450
255
255
255
290

100

105

95

102

872
798
36
65
91
146

ISA 90  90  8

89

290

100

103

186

189

240

193

ISA 90  90  8
200  200  18
Cruciform
ISA 45  45  5

96
23

290
350

90

191
3466

196
4027

228
4659

183
4401

227

255

33

39

21

17

ISA
ISA
ISA
ISA
ISA

52
52
62
120
126

410
410
410
275
275

1464
1399
1334
75
75

1481
1410
1361
76
77

1795
1795
1663
185
151

1883
1883
1786
148
117

150  150  18
150  150  18
150  150  18
100  100  7
100  100  6

100

104.7

101

BS in
kN

N. Prasad Rao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 11271141

1129

and fabrication errors. Generally leg members are designed with slenderness ratios of 4060. In this range, the compression
capacity is more or less equal to the net tension capacity of the member. The leg members may fail by inelastic buckling.
Bracing members are designed with slenderness ratio <200 and generally it varies from 60 to 170. High strength steels
are mostly used for leg members. Many failures of towers are caused by buckling of compression leg or bracing members.
Improper design of redundant member may cause the failure of leg or main bracing member.
4. Present study
Out of 138 full-scale tower tests conducted at Tower Testing and Research Station, Structural Engineering Research Centre, Chennai, 32 towers experienced different types of premature failures. In the present study, ve towers are investigated
for its failure during testing. Different types of failures that occurred in these ve towers are investigated. The member
capacities have been worked out for individual cases following ASCE 10-97/IS: 802 provisions and are given in the same table. The capacity of member calculated based on IS: 802 Standard is same as ASCE. In order to study the problem in detail,
non-linear nite element analysis using NE-NASTRAN was carried out. Member capacities calculated based on BS-8100 [5]
standard is compared with ASCE 10-97 and test results in Table 1. The member capacities and member forces at the time of
failure obtained using beam-column elements in nite element models are given in the same table.
5. Numerical method
The non-linear nite element analysis methods are effective for evaluating the behaviour and strength of compression
members and space frames. The non-linear nite element analysis program NE-NASTRAN is used in this study to model
the elasto-plastic behaviour of towers. A number of beam-column elements were used to model each angle member of
the tower along the centroid of the section. A minimum of four beam-column elements are to be used to model a member
for convergence. So each member is subdivided into four elements. Even though, the beam-column element is a line element,
shape of the section can be dened. The stresses can be obtained from different points on the cross section called stress
recovery points. The limit load is reached in the nite element analysis when the stress at the maximum stressed points
of the member reaches the yield stress. The non-linear analysis capability of the software accounting for geometric and
material non-linearity was used in the analysis of idealized conguration models to obtain their pre-ultimate behaviour
and the limit loads. The elastic and plastic material property of steel was represented by an elasto-plastic bi-linear model,
with a modulus of elasticity as 2E5 MPa up to yield and 2000 MPa above yield stress. The stress strain behaviour was given as
input for modeling the material properties for some towers for which the tensile test data was available The incremental
load and predictorcorrector iteration under each load increment were used in the non-linear range. The isotropic hardening
model was used in the post yield range. Load increments were carried out in 3035 steps, until the limit point was reached in
the load deformation behaviour. The yielding is modeled by the von Mises criterion. Arc-length method in conjunction with
modied Newton Raphson method is used to further accelerate numerical solution convergence.
6. Towers studied
For the present study, ve vertical conguration towers of different voltage clauses are considered. This includes two
400 kV, one 275 kV and two 220 kV double circuit towers.
6.1. 400 kV double circuit tangent type tower
The 400 kV double circuit tower [6] was designed for 02 line deviation. The tower was designed for normal, earth wire
broken and one conductor broken conditions. Super high tensile steel of 450 MPa yield stress for leg members and mild steel
for all other members are used. The 59 m high square tower was 15 m wide at base, and 4.1 m wide at waist level. The conguration of tower, dimensions, member sizes, redundant pattern, loads applied during testing and the test tower at test bed
are shown in Fig. 1.
During testing, the transverse horizontal load, longitudinal horizontal load and vertical loads are applied separately. Individual load sensors are connected at loading points to measure these loads. Angle sensors are used to control the direction of
application of transverse and longitudinal loads. The loads are applied through centralized servo controlled hydraulic actuators simultaneously at all loading points. To simulate the eld condition of conductors suspended from V insulator string,
two steel wire ropes of equal lengths are attached in V form during testing and the loads are applied through it.
The Testing was conducted as per IS:802 Part III [7] specications and the loads are applied in increments of 25%, 50%,
75%, 90%, 95% and 100% of the specied loads. At each load increment, the loads are maintained for a minimum of two minutes and for the nal 100% level, the loads are maintained for ve minutes. The deection measurements were taken at each
load level in the transverse and longitudinal directions at top of the tower. Strain gauge readings were measured in some
members, which are likely to be critically stressed.
On applying loads corresponding to normal condition (reliability) load case, at 100% load, the tower collapsed as shown
in Fig. 2. The failure has occurred in third and fourth panels from ground level and members in all other panels were

1130

N. Prasad Rao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 11271141

Fig. 1. Conguration of 400 kV D/C (02) dev. Type tower and loads.

Fig. 2. Collapsed 400 kV D/C (02) dev. Type tower.

undamaged. Super high tensile steel angles of (Indian Standard Angle) ISA130  130  12 mm for rst and second panels and
ISA130x130x10 mm for third and fourth panels were used for leg members. For leg member in fth panel
ISA110  110  10 mm angle was used. The capacity of leg members based on ASCE and IS standards in rst, second and fth
panels were 10%, 7% and 17% more than the linear static analysis forces. The capacity of the leg members in third and fourth
panels were just 4% more than the analytical force. Forces obtained from non-linear static analysis and capacities of leg
members are given in Table 1.
To study the failure in detail entire tower was modeled using beam-column elements in NE-NASTRAN. The V string insulator was modeled using cable element and the loads are applied through it. The non-linear nite element analysis clearly
shows that the leg members in third and fourth panels have failed. The non-linear analysis forces in leg members are 23%
more as compared to linear static analysis forces. The nite element model shows that stresses in the anges of leg cross
section in third and fourth panel have crossed yield level and predicts the failure load as 105%. The deformed nite element
model and the stress pattern are shown in Fig. 3. The analysis failure pattern is similar to test and it clearly shows the failure
of leg member in third and fourth panels. The experimental deformation was 1.35 more than the analytical deformation in
transverse and longitudinal directions. This additional deformation might have increased the member forces further.
6.2. 400 kV double circuit medium angle tower
The 400 kV double circuit tower [8] was designed for 015 line deviation. The tower was designed for normal, earth wire
plus one conductor broken and simultaneous two conductor broken conditions. High tensile steel of 350 MPa yield stress for
leg members and mild steel for all other members were used. The 50 m high square tower was 18.5 m wide at base, and
reduces to 5.5 m at 28 m level. The conguration of tower, dimensions, member sizes, redundant pattern, and loads applied

N. Prasad Rao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 11271141

1131

Fig. 3. Deformed FE model and stress pattern of 400 kV D/C (02) tower.

during testing and erected test tower at test bed are shown in Fig. 4. The tower was tested with +6 m body extension. For leg
member ISA150  150  20 mm and for bracing ISA100  100  7 mm was used in the bottom panel.

Fig. 4. Conguration of 400 kV D/C (015) dev. Type tower and loads.

1132

N. Prasad Rao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 11271141

Fig. 5. Bracing failure in 400 kV D/C (015) tower.

In testing, the transverse horizontal, longitudinal horizontal and vertical loads are applied separately. Wind loads on
tower body in between cross arms are combined with the conductor loads. The wind on tower body below waist level
was combined and applied at 6 m and 12 m levels. The loads are applied through centralized servo controlled hydraulic actuators simultaneously at all loading points. The Testing was conducted as per IS: 802 Part III specications. The deection
measurements were taken at each load level in the transverse and longitudinal directions at top of the tower.
The tower was designed for 11 different loading cases corresponding to reliability, security and safety conditions. On
applying the loads corresponding to 0 deviation middle and bottom conductor broken in security condition, at 95% load,
the longitudinal face K bracing in second panel at 12 m level and transverse face inverted K bracing in third panel above
horizontal belt failed as shown in Fig. 5.
ISA100  100  8 mm angle for K bracing and ISA130  130  8 mm for inverted K bracing was provided. The K bracing was divided into four segments in elevation. The length of top segment nearer to 12 m level horizontal belt was two
times compared to other segments. The provided hip bracing pattern divides the K bracing into four parts with the length
of bottom part nearer to horizontal belt at 6 m level, as twice compared to others. The top segment (0.4 L) was designed
for major axis buckling with the restraint provided by the hip bracing. The bottom segment (0.4 L) was also designed for
major axis buckling with restraint from elevation redundant. The middle segment was designed for minor axis buckling.
The failure occurred in top segment about major axis.
To study the failure in detail, the entire tower was modeled using beam-column elements in NE-NASTRAN. The failure
load obtained through non-linear analysis is 102% of middle and bottom conductor broken condition load and the failure
pattern is shown in Fig. 6.
The capacity of longitudinal face K bracing at 12 m level as per ASCE and IS standard was 20% more as compared to the
force obtained from non-linear analysis. The capacity based on British standard was 5% less compared to analysis force. The
capacity of inverted K bracing predicted based on ASCE and British standards are 56% and 30% more than the analysis force.

Fig. 6. FE model bracing failure.

N. Prasad Rao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 11271141

1133

This clearly shows that failure has occurred in the longitudinal face K bracing in second panel and this has caused the
failure of transverse face inverted K bracing in third panel. As a remedial measure, both K and inverted K bracings are
changed to higher section and redundant pattern was also changed.
6.3. 220 kV double circuit dead end tower
The 220 kV Double circuit tower [9] was designed for dead end and large angle deviation locations. The 42 m high square
tower was 12.9 m wide at base and tapers to 4 m width at 22 m level from ground. The double circuit tower was with
pointed cross arms on left side and box cross arms on right side. The tower was tested with +6 m body extension. For all
members mild steel of 255 MPa was used. ISA150  150  18 mm angle for leg member and ISA100  100  7 mm for K
bracing were used in bottom panel. The tower was designed for reliability, security and safety condition loads. The tower
conguration, cross arm details, secondary bracing pattern, dimensions and loads corresponding to failure load condition
are shown in Fig. 7.
In testing, the transverse horizontal and vertical loads are combined and applied as resultant load at a resultant angle.
Longitudinal loads are applied separately. Load and angle sensors are xed at cross arm tips to measure the loads. Wind loads
on tower body in between cross arms are combined and applied separately at each cross arm level. The wind on tower body
below waist level was combined and applied at 6 m level. The loads are applied through centralized servo controlled hydraulic actuators simultaneously at all loading points.
The testing was conducted as per IS:802 Part III specications and loads are applied in increments of 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%,
95% and 100% of the specied loads.
On applying the loads corresponding to top, middle and bottom conductor broken in security condition, at 100% load, rear
side transverse face bracing in third panel from ground level failed as shown in Fig. 8. In this load case, the tower was subjected to transverse horizontal and vertical loads at all load points in addition to longitudinal load on box cross arms.
The failed bracing was ISA90  90  8 mm angle divided into three parts below cross over point and designed for minor
axis buckling about one third length by providing isolated hip bracings at two locations. The bracing above cross over point
was divided into two parts in elevation and designed for minor axis buckling about half length by providing an isolated hip
bracings at one location. These isolated hip bracings were connected to the redundant members in elevation, instead of main
bracing. The capacity of the member predicted based on ASCE and IS Standards was 20% more compared to non-linear analysis force. The capacity predicted based on BS Standard was 4% less as compared to the non-linear analysis force.
To study the failure in detail, the entire tower was modeled using beam-column elements in NE-NASTRAN. The failure
load obtained through non-linear analysis is 103% of top, middle and bottom conductor broken condition load. The failed
bracing member was also modeled using plate elements to study the stress pattern. The plate element model and beam-column element model failure patterns and failure loads were same and shown in Fig. 9. The failure predicted by non-linear
analysis was similar to experimental failure.
The isolated hip bracings provided at bottom segment has offered required restraint to the main bracing and the other hip
bracing nearer to cross over point in second segment was not fully effective. Both the nite element model failure pattern

Fig. 7. Details of 220 kV D/C dead end type tower and loads.

1134

N. Prasad Rao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 11271141

Fig. 8. X Bracing failure.

Fig. 9. Bracing failure in FE model beam elements: plate elements.

and experimental failure pattern shows out of plane deformation of the bracing between crossover point and above rst segment. This emphasizes the need of fully triangulated hip bracing pattern.
6.4. 220 kV double circuit dead end D9DT type tower
The 220 kV Double circuit tower [10] was designed for large angle deviation and dead end locations. The 59 m high square
tower was 16.5 m wide at base and reduces to 5.8 m width at 29 m level. The conguration of tower, dimensions, member
sizes, redundant pattern and loads applied during testing are shown in Fig. 10. The tower was designed for heavy loading
accounting for wind with dust storms. The cross arms were box type on right side and pointed on left side. The tower
was tested with +9 m body extension. For leg members high tensile steel 350 MPa yield stress and for all other members
mild steel angles of 255 MPa were used. Cruciform sections made of two angles ISA200  200  20 mm for rst panel and
ISA200  200  18 mm for second panel were used for leg members. Two ISA100  100  6 mm angles connected back to
back was used for bracing member.
The testing was conducted as per IEC [11] specications and loads are applied in increments of 50%, 75%, 90%, 95% and
100% of the specied loads. At each load increment, the loads are maintained for a minimum of one minute. For the nal
100% level, the loads are maintained for two minutes. The deection measurements were taken at each load level in transverse and longitudinal directions at top of the tower.
The transverse horizontal and vertical loads are combined and applied as resultant load at a resultant angle during testing. Longitudinal load is applied as a separate horizontal load. Load, angle sensors are connected at cross arm tips to measure
and control the loads and angle of application. The loads are applied through centralized servo controlled hydraulic actuators
simultaneously at all loading points. Wind loads on tower body is combined with the conductor loads at respective heights
and the wind on tower body below waist level is combined and applied at 9 m and 18 m levels.

N. Prasad Rao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 11271141

1135

Fig. 10. Conguration of 220 kV D/C DE-D9DT type tower and loads.

The tower was designed for 10 different loading cases. In testing, the tower withstood the loads corresponding to all conductors and ground wire broken condition in both pointed and box cross arms. The tower was subjected to transverse, vertical and longitudinal loads at all conductor and ground wire points.
On applying the loads corresponding to Dead End Normal Condition case, after reaching 90% load, the leg member in
second 9 m K braced panel from ground level failed as shown in Fig. 11. The leg member in second K braced 9 m panel

Fig. 11. Failed leg member of 220 kV D/C DE-D9DT type tower in test.

1136

N. Prasad Rao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 11271141

Fig. 12. Failure in FE model beam elements.

was divided into 5 equal parts. Fully triangulated hip bracing pattern was used. The capacity of the failed leg member, based
on ASCE and IS Standards is 22% more as compared to the analytical force, but still failure occurred.
To nd out cause of the failure, entire tower was modeled using beam-column elements in NE-NASTRAN. As per non-linear analysis the failure load is 104.7% of Dead End Normal Condition load. The nite element non-linear analysis failure pattern is shown in Fig. 12. The nite element failure pattern clearly shows that the leg member in second 9 m K panel has
failed. Finite element model failure pattern is similar to test failure.
To check the member plastication, all anges of the leg member in cruciform shape made of two angle sections at the
failed location was modeled using plate elements. All other members are modeled as beam-column elements. Batten plates

Fig. 13. Stress pattern in plate elements.

N. Prasad Rao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 11271141

1137

are also modeled as plate elements at a spacing of one meter as given in the tower drawing. At the transition between beam
and plate elements, a rigid element was used to connect the beam element node with the nodes of the angle section modeled
as plate elements. This method is useful in modeling the progressive yielding at the point of plastic hinge formation and subsequent failure by local buckling of the elements. The non-linear nite element failure and stress pattern of leg member
modeled as plate elements is shown in Fig. 13. The failure pattern is same as that of model with beam-column elements.
The nite element model shows that stresses in the anges of the leg cross section have crossed yield level. The analytical
failure load obtained by this method is 4% less when compared to the failure load obtained from the model with all beamcolumn elements.
The slenderness ratio of secondary members in the failed panel varies from 130 to 227. The redundant pattern is such,
that the leg member is restrained by a secondary member which is connected to another redundant member at its mid span
as shown in Fig. 10. The nite element failure analysis shows that the force in the redundant member at analytical failure
load is more than its capacity. The analysis force in the rst inclined redundant member marked as R in detail P of Fig. 10 at
11 m height in second 9 m K braced panel is 1.57 times more than its predicted capacity.
In order to check the forces in the redundant members, BS Standard procedure is adopted. As per this procedure, a hypothetical force shall be applied transverse to the leg member being stabilized at the node point of the attachment of the secondary member. This force varies with the slenderness ratio of the leg member being stabilized and is expressed as a
percentage of the leg load. This force shall be applied at one node at a time and the effect shall be calculated. For the present
case, the nodal force is worked out based on the leg member slenderness ratio and force in it. The effect of this force on the
redundant members is calculated by performing linear elastic analysis as mentioned in BS Standard. Since there is more than
one intermediate node in the second 9 m K braced panel, the secondary bracing system is checked separately for 2.5% of the
leg load applied equally between all the intermediate node points, as per BS procedure. These loads are applied together at
right angles to the leg member and in the plane of bracing system. Secondary member shall be designed for the maximum
force obtained from the above two procedures. The force obtained in the redundant members in the second K braced panel
by this procedure exceeds the respective member capacities and it is lesser than the 2.5% force in the leg member.
The entire secondary members in the failed panel were replaced with higher sections and the tower was tested to its full
capacity.
6.5. 275 kV double circuit medium line deviation tower
The 275 kV Double circuit tower [12] was designed for use in medium angle deviation locations. The 63 m high square
tower was 12.6 m wide at base and tapers to 3.8 m width at 30 m from ground level. The double circuit tower was with
pointed cross arms on both left and right side. The tower was tested with +9 m body extension. First and second panels from
ground level were 9 m and 6 m high with K bracing system. For leg members high tensile steel 410 MPa yield stress and for
all other members mild steel of 255 MPa was used. For leg members in rst 9 m and second 6 m K braced panels

Fig. 14. Conguration of 275 kV D/C M type tower and loads.

1138

N. Prasad Rao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 11271141

ISA150  150  18 mm angle was used. For K bracings in rst and second panels ISA100  100  7 mm and
ISA100  100  6 mm were used. The tower was designed for normal, earth wire broken and simultaneous two conductor
broken conditions. Tower conguration, cross arm details, secondary bracing pattern, dimensions, loads corresponding to
failure loading condition and the test tower in test bed is shown in Fig. 14.
In testing, the transverse, longitudinal and vertical loads are applied separately. The loads are applied through centralized
servo controlled hydraulic actuators simultaneously at all loading points. The Testing was conducted as per IEC specications
and loads are applied in increments of 50%, 75%, 90%, 95% and 100% of the specied loads. At each load increment, the loads
are maintained for a minimum of one minute and for the nal 100% level, the loads are maintained for two minutes. The
deection measurements were taken at each load level in the transverse and longitudinal directions at top of the tower.
In testing, the tower withstood the loads corresponding to conductor broken and ground wire broken conditions. On
applying loads corresponding to normal condition in which the tower is subjected to transverse horizontal and vertical loads,
the entire tower collapsed at 100% load as shown in Fig. 15. The failure occurred in second 6 m K braced panel.
The leg and bracing members in second K braced 6 m panel was divided into 4 equal parts. The bracing member was
designed for 0.5 L about major axis (0.5 L/rxx). The failure pattern shows that the compression bracing member has failed rst
and subsequently the leg members failed. Triangulated hip bracing pattern was not provided in this panel. Isolated hip bracing members connected to elevation redundant away from the main bracing and hip bracing intersecting point was provided
in rst and second sub-panels. Leg members in rst and second panels were having a safety factor of 1.22 and 1.28 and bracing members were having 2.0 and 1.70 on the assumption that the isolated hip bracing provides the required restraint. But
the tower collapsed at 100% load.

Fig. 15. Collapsed 275 kV D/C M type tower.

Fig. 16. Failure in FE model.

1139

N. Prasad Rao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 11271141

In the rst K braced 9 m panel the leg and bracing members are equally divided into six parts and fully triangulated hip
bracing pattern was provided as shown in Fig. 14. The bracing was designed for 0.33 L about major axis and this has behaved
as per design assumptions and hence there was no failure in the bottom panel.
The entire tower was modeled using beam-column elements in NE-NASTRAN. The isolated hip bracings connected to elevation redundant member in the K braced 6 m panel were also modeled. The non-linear analysis failure pattern is shown in
Fig. 16 and the failure load is 101% of normal condition. The non-linear analysis failure pattern shows out of plane deformation of main K bracing in second panel over three-fourth lengths instead of assumed half length (0.5 L). This clearly shows
that the isolated hip bracing provided in the second sub panel of K braced 6 m panel has not offered required restraint to the
main bracing. The main bracing buckled about its major axis on three-fourth length (0.75 L), there by increased the effective
length of the leg member and caused its failure. Finite element analysis shows that the behaviour of 9 m K panel was as per
design assumptions and there was no failure of bracing and leg members. Finite element stress pattern shows that the maximum stress in the second panel leg member is 370Mpa which is below its yield stress. This shows that the failure is due to
instability in the second K braced panel. Triangulated hip bracing pattern shall be used if K or X braced panels are divided
into two or more sub-panels.

6.6. Comparison of member capacities

The member capacities are calculated based on BS Standard apart from ASCE and IS Standard and given in Table 1. IS code
is almost same as ASCE. British code takes full width of angle section for calculation of width to thickness (b/t) ratio. The
limiting b/t ratio is 1.22 times higher in BS standard compared to ASCE standard.
For cruciform angle sections connected intermittently the possible additional deformations due to shear is taken into account in British standard by modifying the slenderness ratio. In Table 1, the capacity of the bracing member calculated based
on ASCE and IS standard is more compared to BS standard.
Figs. 17 and 18 shows the comparison of failure loads for leg and bracing members calculated based on different standards, nite element analysis and also based on experiments. FEM results are higher by 314% for all towers. The capacity
of bracing member predicted from ASCE standard is always higher than the test values for all slenderness ratios.
The British Standard predicts the capacity of single angle bracing members closer to 25% of the experimental values for
all ranges of slenderness ratio.
The predicted capacity of single angle leg member based on British Standard is 10% more than the experimental values for
members with slenderness ratio <60.
The American Standard overestimates the capacity of single angle bracing members by 1020% for all slenderness ratios.
The capacity of cruciform sections made of two angles calculated based on American Standard is 1620% more than the
experimental values. The capacity calculated based on British Standard is only 10% more than the test values. This may be
due to consideration of additional deformations due to shear in intermittently connected sections.

5000
4750
4500
4250
4000
3750

LEG MEMBERS

FEM
TEST
ASCE and IS

CAPACITY IN kN

3500
3250
3000

BS

2750
2500
2250
2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
0

TOWER 1

TOWER 5

Fig. 17. Comparison of leg member capacity.

TOWER 4

1140

N. Prasad Rao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 11271141

275

BRACING MEMBERS

250

CAPACITY IN kN

225

FEM
TEST

200

ASCE and IS

175

BS

150
125
100
75
50
25
0

TOWER 1

TOWER 2

TOWER 3

TOWER 4

Fig. 18. Comparison of bracing member capacity.

The capacity calculated based on British Standard for a compound member consisting of pair of angles connected back to
back at intervals in the form of T section and designed for major axis buckling is closer to test results as compared to the
capacity calculated based on American Standard.
7. Conclusions
Based on the experimental, analytical and theoretical investigation carried on ve different towers of various voltages
ranging from 220 kV to 400 kV vertical conguration the following conclusions are drawn.
 The results shows that the member forces obtained from non-linear analysis are more as compared to the conventional
linear static analysis force with truss elements.
 The leg and bracing members failed in the panels below waist level for all towers.
 The forces in the leg members calculated based on non-linear analysis are 24% more than the forces calculated based on
conventional linear static analysis.
 In the 400 kV tangent type tower, leg member in third and fourth panels and bracing member in second and fourth panels
failed due to less safety margins provided.
 Non-linear analysis shall be carried out for tangent towers, slender and tall towers with height to bottom width ratio
above 3.7.
 ASCE and IS standards overestimates the bracing member capacity compared to experimental values for all ranges of slenderness ratios.
 Predictions by the British standard overestimate the capacity of single angle leg members with slenderness ratio below 60
as compared to the experimental value.
 In 220 kV DE type tower, the bracing member in the third panel failed due to non-triangulated hip bracing pattern
provided.
 The isolated hip bracings shall be connected to main bracings by bent up gussets to obtain full restraint.
 In the 220 kV DE-D9DT type tower, the leg member in second 9 m K braced panel failed due to insufcient capacity of
redundant member.
 Whenever, compound members are used such as a built up section with two angles as cruciform section, or back to back
as T section, the redundant members shall be designed for the forces obtained from the procedure given by the British
Standard or it should be designed for 2.5% of the force carried by the main member to avoid failure.
 The 275 kV medium angle tower failed in second K braced panel because of instability due to non-triangulated hip bracing pattern.
 In X and K braced panels divided into more than two sub-panels, triangulated hip bracing pattern shall be provided for
geometric stability and for the required restraint to the main member.
 It is possible to predict through Finite element non-linear analysis the probable load carrying capacity of the tower, deciencies in the design and the instability in the structure.
 Bracing members with slenderness ratios above 170 becomes ineffective even though it has to carry small forces.

N. Prasad Rao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 11271141

1141

 Fully triangulated hip bracing pattern as given BS code is effective in K braced panels especially at the bottom of towers
where width and height of the panels are more and subdivided into more than two sub-panels, instead of isolated hip
bracings.
 Redundant members shall be checked based on British Standard provisions or it should be designed for 2.5% of axial force
in the main member.
 Redundant members shall be included in the analysis of towers.

References
[1] Kemp Alan R, Behncke Roberto H. Behaviour of cross bracing in latticed towers. J Struct Eng 1998;124(4):3607.
[2] Albermani F, Kitipornchai S. Failure analysis of transmission towers. J Eng Failure Anal 2009;16(6):19228.
[3] IS: 802 (part 1/sec 1:1995 and sec 2: 1992) use of structural steel in over head transmission line towers code of practice (materials, loads and
permissible stresses).
[4] Design of latticed steel transmission structures. ASCE Standard, ASCE 10-97, 2000.
[5] Lattice towers and masts: part 3 code of practice for strength assessment of members of lattice towers and masts. British Standard BS: 8100 3:1999.
[6] Test report on 400 kV D/C type DA + 9 m tower, TSP 1091 41, October, 2002, SERC, Chennai.
[7] IS: 802 (part III)-1978. Use of structural steel in over head transmission line towers-code of practice, part III testing.
[8] Test report on 400 kV D/C type-DB (015) + 6 m body extension tower, TSP 1142 41, October, 2009, SERC, Chennai.
[9] Test report on 220 kV D/C D-90/DE-0 tower TSP 1119 41, SERC, Chennai, June, 2007.
[10] Test report on 220 kV D/C type D6/D9/DT + 9 m tower TSP 1104 41, SERC, Chennai, December, 2005.
[11] Loading tests on overhead lines structures, IEC 60 652; 2002.
[12] Test report on 275 kV D/C type 275M + 9 m extension tower TSP 1093 41, SERC, Chennai, December, 2003.