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

net/publication/313828451

Direct Analysis of an Ultrahigh-Voltage Lattice Transmission Tower Considering

Joint Effects

Article  in  Journal of Structural Engineering · January 2017

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001736

CITATIONS READS
8 207

4 authors, including:

Wenqiang Jiang Yao-Peng Liu

north china electric power university, china,baoding The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
8 PUBLICATIONS   61 CITATIONS    50 PUBLICATIONS   245 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Siu-Lai Chan
www.hkisc.org
232 PUBLICATIONS   3,314 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Flexible barrier View project

Second-order Direct Analysis of steel and composite structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wenqiang Jiang on 20 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Direct Analysis of an Ultrahigh-Voltage Lattice
Transmission Tower Considering Joint Effects
Wen-Qiang Jiang 1; Yao-Peng Liu 2; Siu-Lai Chan 3; and Zhang-Qi Wang 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 03/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Transmission towers play an important role in transmitting electricity in a power grid safely and reliably. In traditional design
practice, the second-order P-Δ (frame side sway) and P-δ (member curvature) effects and joint effects such as load eccentricities, slippage
effects, and semirigid connection are commonly ignored in analysis. Great discrepancy is frequently noted between full-scale tower tests and
numerical simulations using first-order linear analysis. In this paper, second-order direct analysis is used and slippage of bolted joints as well
as semirigid connection behavior are taken into account. Member initial bowing and frame out-of-plumbness imperfections are considered in
the present study, which is verified by full-scale test on an ultrahigh-voltage (UHV) lattice transmission tower. The technique of semirigid
design and simulation of joint stiffness for load eccentricity by simple modeling for transmission towers meeting the requirements for direct
analysis with verification by a full-scale test is unavailable in literature and proposed in this paper. Furthermore, the influences of joint
slippage on the deflection and load behavior of the studied towers are quantified and reported. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0001736. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Ultrahigh-voltage (UHV) lattice transmission tower; Second-order direct analysis; Joint effects; Joint slippage;
Semirigid connection; Analysis and computation.

Introduction and this could lead to structural instability; this is the reason for
the traditional truss-element assumption without consideration of
Lattice transmission towers are widely used around the world to bending moment in members of transmission tower design always
carry electric circuits of the power grid safely and reliably. Most giving inaccurate predictions. These distinguishing features make
transmission towers are spatial structures with bolted connections. the analysis and design of lattice transmission towers special and
Traditionally, bearing-type connections are preferred for lattice complex when compared with other structural forms.
transmission towers because of easy field erection. As ordinary In conversional analytical and design methods, lattice transmis-
bolts with larger bolt holes for installation tolerance are commonly sion towers are modeled as ideally pin-jointed trusses or rigid-framed
used in lattice transmission towers, joint slippage likely occurs, and systems. The internal forces and moments of the members under
for this reason the load path may be changed and second-order ef- various load cases were determined by first-order linear analysis.
fects may be increased, as seen in Fig. 1. Unlike the bolted joints in The secondary members are generally excluded in a global analysis
beam-column connections of building frame structures, which are according to design codes such as ASCE 10-97 (ASCE 2000). The
normally under negligible axial force and dominant bending mo- resistance of each member is estimated by the effective-length
ment, joint slippage affects the behavior of the members under large method accounting for the nonlinear effects implicitly, such as
axial force and further alters the structural system’s behavior. Fig. 2 member end-restraint condition, load eccentricities, contribution of
shows typical connection details for angle members connected to secondary members, and the restraints for the compressed member
other members directly by bolts or via a gusset plate. It can be seen provided by the tension member in an X-braced panel.
from Fig. 2 that the end eccentricities ey and ez along the local In order to study the nonlinear behavior of lattice transmission
y-axis and z-axis, respectively, generally exist. Thus, the member towers, a quadrant of the lowest panel of a transmission tower was
with inherent initial bowing is subjected to an axial force as well as tested, and the measured results were compared with those from
a pair of end moments at its ends and, as a result, the local P-δ a classical linear analysis (Knight and Santhakumar 1993). It was
(member curvature) effect exists with the P-δ moment induced, found that the secondary stresses caused by bolted-joint effects
could be significant enough to cause failure of leg members even
1
Lecturer, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, North China Electric under normal working-load conditions. An L-section finite-beam
Power Univ., Baoding 071003, China. element was derived that successfully predicted the response
2
Research Fellow, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and ultimate capacity of angle members in lattice towers with con-
Hong Kong Polytechnic Univ., Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong 999077, sideration of load eccentricities and bounding conditions as well as
China. material and geometrical nonlinearities (Lee and McClure 2006,
3
Chair Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2007). Similar advanced modeling studies were also carried out.
Hong Kong Polytechnic Univ., Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong 999077, The geometric nonlinear tangent stiffness matrix (Albermani and
China (corresponding author). E-mail: ceslchan@polyu.edu.hk Kitipornchai 1990) in conjunction with the plastic reduction matrix
4
Professor, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, North China Electric
of thin-walled beam elements based on the full cross-section plas-
Power Univ., Baoding 071003, China.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 10, 2016; approved on ticity assumption (Kitipornchai et al. 1991) for analysis of trans-
October 27, 2016; published online on January 27, 2017. Discussion period mission tower structures has been given (Albermani et al. 2009;
open until June 27, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for in- Albermani and Kitipornchai 2003). A practical second-order analy-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, sis and design method for the trusses composed of angle sections
© ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445. considering the effects of load eccentricity, initial curvatures, and

© ASCE 04017009-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., -1--1

 Generally speaking, few studies have been conducted that give
comprehensive consideration to second-order effects, initial imper-
fections at both member and system levels, or load eccentricities
and joint effects such as slippage and semirigid connections in
tower analysis models. These issues, only partly included in pre-
vious tower modeling, may interactively contribute to actual struc-
(a)
tural behavior. The direct analysis method specified in American
Institute of steel construction-Load and resistance factor design
(AISC-LRFD 2010) requires consideration of all factors affecting
deformations, stiffness, and strength of the structure such that only
a section capacity check is sufficient to evaluate the stability of indi-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 03/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

vidual members and the whole structural system simultaneously.

Otherwise, the effective-length method using K-factor or moment-
(b)
amplification methods using B1 and B2 parameters should be
Fig. 1. Slippage in bolted joint: (a) before slippage; (b) after slippage adopted to check structural stability, but the latter approach con-
tains many uncertainties such as change of stiffness under loads,
effects of load eccentricity on buckling resistance, etc., which
hinders engineers from appreciating the structures’ true behavior.
Recently, the demand for development of ultrahigh-voltage
(UHV) transmission lines has largely arisen in emerging countries
such as China and India. The spatial dimensions of lattice transmis-
sion towers becomes larger compared with those of traditional tow-
ers in order to meet the requirement of long electrical clearance.
The use of conductors with larger diameter and more bundles in
UHV lattice transmission towers induces greater loads on the struc-
ture and further increases the risk of instability. In this paper, the
second-order direct analysis, with consideration of the P-δ and P-Δ
(frame side sway) effects, initial imperfections, load eccentricities
and joint slippage, and semirigid connections, is proposed for trans-
mission tower design and verified by a full-scale test. The simpli-
fied bolted-joint-slippage model and semirigid-connection model
are introduced for practical design. It is believed that a complete
direct analysis allowing for all of these important nonlinear effects
has not been previously applied to design of transmission towers
with results compared with those from full-scale tests.
Fig. 2. Bolted connection in angle steel tower

Second-Order Direct Analysis Method of Design

residual stresses of members was proposed by Chan and Cho The second-order direct-analysis method is a system-based holistic
(2008) and Cho and Chan (2008), which can well predict structural approach, in contrast to the traditional member-based localized de-
behavior against the test results (Fong et al. 2009). sign method using K-factor or buckling effective length. Both the
Joint-slippage effects and semirigid connections in lattice trans- P-Δ and P-δ effects with member and frame initial imperfections
mission towers have attracted wide concern. In the early 1960s, should be included in the analysis. The P-δ effect caused by exter-
it was found that the measured deflections from a full-scale tower nal loads and member initial bowing is introduced at the element
test were three times those of deflections computed from linear level and the P-Δ effect caused by external loads and frame out-of-
elastic analysis. Those discrepancies between experimental results plumbness imperfections is considered in global frames with the
and analytical solutions could be attributed to joint slippage behavior plotted in a nonlinear incremental-iterative procedure.
(Marjerrison 1968; Petersen 1962). In order to study the influence For an angle section, the equivalent initial bow imperfection,
of joint slippage, a generic instantaneous and continuous bolt- including the influence of residual stresses is taken as L=300 ac-
slippage model for typical lattice tower joints was proposed, which cording to CoPHK (2011), where L is the member length. The am-
was successfully introduced in the lattice angle steel-tower analysis plitude for out-of-plumbness imperfection is taken as H=500 in this
(Kitipornchai et al. 1994). Experimental studies on angle members paper, where H is the tower height. The lowest eigenvalue buckling
connected by typical single-leg and lap-splice bolted joints were mode shape is used to determine the imperfection distribution. Joint
also conducted to derive more-accurate joint-slippage models effects such as slippage and semirigid behavior are incorporated in
(Ungkurapinan 2000; Ungkurapinan et al. 2003). A realistic model the beam-column element. These aforementioned techniques and
including semirigid connections made up of one or two bolts via parameters are incorporated into the nonlinear analysis and design
a flexible gusset plate without consideration of joint slippage was software NIDA used in the present study.
derived (Chan and Cho 2008; Cho and Chan 2008). It was found
that the joint slippage will influence the tower behavior by reducing
Beam-Column Element with Imperfections
its load-carrying capacity and increasing deflections under working
loads (Ahmed et al. 2009; Jiang et al. 2011). However, the mem- In this paper, the curved stability function (Chan and Gu 2000)
ber’s shape, initial imperfections, and joint eccentricity effects were allowing for initial bowing is used to model steel members. A sta-
not included in their models, which were also not verified by bility-function approach is to establish the relationship between the
experimental results. axial force, nodal moments, and rotations by directly solving the

© ASCE 04017009-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., -1--1

 Pe 2
M i1 M e2
i1
ue 2
Pi1 ui1 e2

e1 M e1 Pi 2 ui 2
Pe1
M i2
ue1 i2

x
y0 0 sin
L

Fig. 3. Internal forces of the curved stability function with end springs
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 03/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

differential equilibrium equation, and as a result, one element where Pe and Pi = axial forces at external and internal nodes,
per member is adequate for design purposes. This beam-column respectively; and Sf = axial stiffness related to the relative displace-
element shows high performance even for very slender members ments at the internal and external nodes as
under large compression and therefore it is suitable for second-
order direct analysis of transmission towers. Pe Pi
Sf ¼ ¼ ð2Þ
The initial imperfection is assumed as a sinusoidal function rec- ue − ui ui − ue
ommended in design codes, as seen in Fig. 3. The detailed element
formulation for the curved stability function is referred to by Chan where ue and ui = conjugate displacements for the axial forces Pe
and Gu (2000) and is not repeated here, but the element formulation and Pi .
for joint slippage and semirigid connections is described next for Thus, the additional axial tangent stiffness matrix accounting for
completeness. the joint-slippage effects is
0 1 2 30 1
Pe1 Sf1 −Sf1 0 0 ue1
Tangent Stiffness Matrix Considering Joint Effects B C 6 7B C
B Pi1 C 6 −Sf1 G11 þ Sf1 G12 0 7B ui1 C
B C 6 7B C ð3Þ
BP C¼6 0
In order to account for the joint-slippage effects and semirigid con-
nections, the basic beam-column element stiffness (Chan and Gu @ i2 A 4 G21 G22þ Sf2 −Sf2 7 B
5@ ui2 A
C
2000) is modified by adding a dimensionless spring elements at Pe2 0 0 −Sf2 Sf2 ue2
each end, as shown in Fig. 3. In this hybrid element, the external
node is joined to the global node while the internal node is joined to where Gij = axial stiffness of the beam-column element; Sf1 and
the beam-column element. Sf2 = axial stiffness of spring elements for joint-slippage effects at
Considering the axial forces’ equilibrium condition between the element ends; and ue1 , ue2 , ui1 , and ui2 = external and internal dis-
internal and external nodes, the stiffness matrix of an axial spring placements at two ends of the element, respectively, as shown
can be written as in Fig. 3.



 Assembling the additional axial tangent stiffness matrix with the
Pe Sf −Sf ue
¼ ð1Þ rotation tangent matrix for a semirigid connection (Chan and Cho
Pi −Sf Sf ui 2008; Cho and Chan 2008) yields

2 32 3 2 3
Sf1 0 0 −Sf1 0 0 0 0 ue1 Pe1
6 76 7 6 7
6 0 Ss1 −Ss1 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 7 6 7
6 76 θe1 7 6 Me1 7
6 76 7 6 7
6 0 −Ss1 K 11 þ Ss1 0 0 K 12 0 0 7 6 7 6 7
6 76 θi1 7 6 M i1 7
6 76 7 6 7
6 −Sf1 0 0 G11 þ Sf1 G12 0 0 0 7 6 7 6 7
6 76 ui1 7 6 Pi1 7
6 76 7¼6 7 ð4Þ
6 0 0 0 G21 G22 þ Sf2 0 0 −Sf2 7 6 7 6 7
6 76 ui2 7 6 Pi2 7
6 76 7 6 7
6 0 0 K 21 0 0 K 22 þ Ss2 −Ss2 0 76 θi2 7 6 M i2 7
6 76 7 6 7
6 0 0 0 0 0 −Ss2 Ss2 0 7 6 7 6 7
6 76 θe2 7 6 Me2 7
4 54 5 4 5
0 0 0 −Sf2 0 0 Sf2 ue2 Pe2

where K ij = bending stiffness of the beam-column element; Ss1 and The presented additional tangent stiffness matrix, after static con-
Ss2 = bending stiffness of spring elements for semirigid behavior at densation to remove the internal degrees of freedom, can be easily
element ends; and θe1 , θe2 , θi1 , and θi2 = external and internal ro- introduced in the computer analysis process. Joint eccentricity can
tations at two ends of the element, respectively, as shown in Fig. 3. be modeled by adjusting the length of rigid element in Fig. 3.

© ASCE 04017009-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., -1--1

 The mathematical models for axial stiffness, Sfi , and bending 160
End Condition (a) (Galambos et al. 1969)
End Condition (a) (Present Study)
stiffness, Ssi , will be presented in the next section. Thus, the hybrid End Condition (b) (Galambos et al. 1969)
element considering major joint effects such as slippage, semirigid 140 (a) End Condition (b) (Present Study)
End Condition (c) (Galambos et al. 1969)
connection, and eccentricity is ready for second-order direct End Condition (c) (Present Study)

Applied Load, P (kN)

120 (a)
analysis.
100 (b)

Section Capacity Check (b)

80
In the codified linear design method, a member is required to be
60 (c)
checked against member buckling and sectional strength separately, (c)
while in the proposed second-order direct analysis, only a section
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 03/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

40
capacity check for each member by the following symbolic expres-
sion is required (Chan and Cho 2002; Chen and Chan 1995) during 20
the incremental-iterative process 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Member Length, L (mm)
P M̄ y þ PðΔy þ Δ0y Þ þ Pðδ y þ δ 0y Þ
þ Fig. 4. Test versus numerical results for single-angle columns under
py A M cy
different conditions
M̄ z þ PðΔz þ Δ0z Þ þ Pðδ z þ δ 0z Þ
þ ¼φ≤1 ð5Þ
M cz

where P = axial force in a member; A = cross-sectional area; py = ranges from 553.7 to 2,034.5 mm, which covers a wide range of
design strength; M̄ y and M̄ z = moments about the minor and major slenderness ratios from 60 to 200 in practical applications.
axes without considering the second-order effects; Mcy and M cz = To simulate the chord of a truss, the legs of the test specimens
moment capacities about the minor and major axes; Δy and Δz = were welded to the webs of structural Tee stubs. The eccentric loads
nodal displacements due to out-of-plumbness of frame sway were induced by applying the axial load through the center of the
induced by loads; Δ0y and Δ0z = nodal displacements due to stem of the Tee stud under three different end conditions. In End
out-of-plumbness of frame imperfections; δ y and δ z = member Condition A, the flanges of Tee studs were bolted to the head and
deformations due to loads on the member; δ0y and δ0z = member base of the testing machine directly and therefore fixed ends were
deformations due to member initial bow; and φ = section capacity assumed. In End Condition B, knife-edge ends were used with line
factor. If φ > 1, a member fails the design strength check and if loads applied on the middle plane of the stems of Tee studs and
φ ≪ 1, the member section can be reduced in size. therefore only the rotation along the direction of the outstanding
Eq. (5) is widely used for second-order elastic analysis in which leg was allowed. Similar to End Condition B, rotation along the
the load level corresponding to the first yield of a member is taken direction of the connected leg was allowed in End Condition C.
as the failure load. In second-order plastic analysis, a more-accurate The failure loads from test of the single angle columns
yield function proposed by Cho and Chan (2008) is adopted herein (Galambos et al. 1969) against the results obtained from the pro-
and rewritten as posed method are plotted in Fig. 4. It can be seen that the predicted
failure loads show reasonably good agreement with the test results
M y  M z 2 1 for a wide range of slenderness ratios. In general, the results ob-
n2 þ þ ¼ φ ≤ 1; for M y ≥ 0
M cy M cz ð1 − nÞ2 tained from present study are on the conservative side for design
M y  M z 2
purposes. A relatively large discrepancy is observed for short-angle
1
n2 − þ ¼ φ ≤ 1 for M y < 0 ð6Þ columns in all end conditions. This is because the current method
M cy M cz ð1 þ nÞ2 assumes the failure stress as the tensile yield stress, and as a result
the stocky column effect has not been well simulated. The mean
where n ¼ P=Py A; and M y and M z = moments about the minor and error of the predicted results to the test results is 4, 5, and 2% for
major axes obtained from a second-order direct analysis. End Conditions A, B, and C, respectively, and therefore the
Traditionally, the effective-length method is needed to account simulation results are considered acceptable for engineering
for the P-Δ and P-δ effects; the preceding Eqs. (5) and (6) includ- applications.
ing both P-Δ and P-δ moments will automatically consider these
buckling effects so assumption of effective length is not required.
Thus, the proposed second-order analysis only needs a section Full-Scale Test of a UHV Transmission Tower
check and eliminates the tedious member check with its uncertain
assumption of effective length. In this paper, a double-circuit UHV lattice transmission tower con-
structed for the real project of Anhui-to-East ultrahigh-voltage
power transmission lines (EPCRI 2009) is studied herein to verify
Verification of Second-Order Direct Analysis
the proposed method. The total height of the tower is 101 m and the
Second-order effects and initial imperfections will significantly nominal height, which is referred to the height from ground to the
affect the structural behavior of angle towers and therefore the first extension arm, is 45 m, as seen in Fig. 5(a). The main legs of
capability and accuracy of the proposed second-order direct analy- the transmission tower are made of steel Grade Q345 tube sections
sis for single-angle members are demonstrated in this section. with the diameters ranging from 711 to 273 mm and the plate thick-
A series of eccentrically loaded single-angle columns tested by nesses ranging from 16 to 6 mm. The diagonal bracings and hori-
Galambos et al. (1969) are used as verification examples. The equal zontal panels are made of steel Grades Q235 and Q345 equal angle
angle section is 50.8 × 50.8 × 6.35 mm and the steel grade is and tube sections. The maximum and minimum angle sections are
ASTM A242 with Young’s modulus (E) of 2.027 × 108 kN=m2 140 × 140 × 10 mm and 40 × 40 × 3 mm, respectively. Fig. 6(a) is
and yield stress (py ) of 3.509 × 105 kN=m2 . The member length the UHV lattice transmission tower under a full-scale test while

© ASCE 04017009-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 03/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 5. Profile of UHV lattice transmission tower: (a) outline; (b) load position

Fig. 6(b) is the numerical model using NIDA (2015) with gray and tower and loading truss is around 180 m. A load cell was installed at
solid shading for tube and angle sections, respectively. the end of each cable. The maximum load allowed for each loading
The design horizontal (lh ) and vertical (lv ) lengths spanning cable is 200 kN. Several cables will be used if the test load is greater
the front and rear towers for calculation of wind and gravity loads than 200 kN.
(e.g., self-weights of conductors and ice) are 500 and 800 m, re- The monitoring points and the concerned key members during
spectively. The design wind speed for this project is 30 m=s. The the full-scale test are shown in Fig. 5(a). The displacements of
total design loads for the test are calculated as joint loads with the Points A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J from the top to the bottom
loading position shown in Fig. 5(b) except the self-weight of tower of the tower were measured by total station. The internal forces of
members. The detailed test loads originally determined by first- Members 1 to 23 marked in Fig. 5(a) are recorded through strain
order analysis based on design conditions are listed in Tables 1–3 gauges. The test results will be presented and compared with
for different directions. In this project, two critical-load cases, numerical results in the following sections.
i.e., the broken-conductor case and strong transverse wind case, are
selected to study the structural behavior of the tower under dom-
inant overall torsional and bending actions. Modeling of Lattice Transmission Tower
The wind speed during the full-scale test was less than 4 m=s
and therefore the influence of wind load on test results can be
ignored. The test loads will be incrementally and slowly applied Joint Slippage Effects
to the tower in different loading positions through cables pulled by The joint-slippage effects associated with the joint axial stiffness
a hydraulic loading system. A steel truss 150 m in height was con- along the beam-column local x-axis are influenced by the number
structed on the test site. All the cables for imposing test loads were of bolts used in the connection. Fig. 7 shows a simplified joint-
horizontally connected to this loading truss and then connected to slippage model based on the four-stage joint-slippage model
the hydraulic loading system. The distance between the prototype (Ungkurapinan 2000; Ungkurapinan et al. 2003). The proposed

© ASCE 04017009-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 03/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 6. Full-scale tower test and computer model: (a) setup of full-scale test (image by Wen-Qiang Jiang); (b) computer model

simplified joint-slippage model assumes slippage occurs gradually As shown in Fig. 8, the bending moment M about the center of
with the applied load under a small axial stiffness to avoid numeri- the bolt group is
cal divergence until the bolts and steel plate are in contact. After- X
wards, the joint stiffness is increased and contributed to by the M¼ Fi ri ¼ Kθ ð7Þ
bearing contact between the bolts and the steel plate, as shown
in Fig. 7.
where K = rotation stiffness of a bolted joint; θ = rotation of the bolt
In the present UHV lattice transmission tower, flange connec-
group; and F = shear force acting on the bolt i given by
tions are used in the main legs of the tower. The flange connection
used in leg members has been well designed to fully take the bend-
Fi ¼ ki δ i ¼ ki ri θ ð8Þ
ing moment and therefore a rigid connection without joint slippage
can be assumed for the main legs. The joint-slippage effects are
considered in all diagonal members with both angle and tube where δi = displacement of bolt i; and ki = bolt shear stiffness due
sections. to the shear and bearing of bolt and hole. Therefore, Eq. (7) can be
rewritten as
Semirigid Connection X X
M¼ Fi ri ¼ ki r2i θ ð9Þ
For the bolted joint with more than one bolt, the connection does
not purely exhibit pin behavior without end moments. Hence, a The rotational stiffness K of the bolted connection will be
semirigid assumption is adopted for all diagonal members with
bolted joints. The rotational stiffness corresponding to the bending X
moment of the bolted connection can be calculated as follows. K¼ ki r2i ð10Þ

© ASCE 04017009-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., -1--1

 Table 1. Transverse Experimental Loads on the UHV Lattice Tower Table 3. Vertical Experimental Loads on the UHV Lattice Tower
Load (kN) Load (kN)
Load Load
position Mark Broken conductor Transverse wind position Mark Broken conductor Transverse wind
E1A T1 0.075 33.271 E1A V1 33.992 15.609
E1B T2 0 26.131 E1B V2 0 6.733
E2A T3 0 33.275 E2A V3 22.790 15.656
E2B T4 0 26.134 E2B V4 22.790 6.763
D3A T5 2.217 293.976 D3A V5 379.881 224.697
D3B T6 0 197.514 D3B V6 0 93.682
D4A T7 0 293.781 D4A V7 256.161 235.440
D4B T8 0 197.382 D4B V8 256.160 100.900
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 03/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

D5A T9 0 278.974 D5A V9 256.161 222.450

D5B T10 0 190.906 D5B V10 256.160 92.040
D6A T11 0 278.674 D6A V11 256.161 235.389
D6B T12 0 190.700 D6B V12 256.160 100.900
D7A T13 0 256.082 D7A V13 256.161 231.243
D7B T14 0 179.062 D7B V14 256.160 98.034
D8A T15 0 256.104 D8A V15 256.161 230.709
D8B T16 0 179.106 D8B V16 256.160 97.494
F1 WT1 0 86.960
Note: Total load (vertical): broken conductor = 3,021.058 kN; transverse
F2 WT2 0 72.360
wind = 2,007.739 kN.
F3 WT3 0 114.360
F4 WT4 0 84.320
F5 WT5 0 105.280
F6 WT6 0 134.640
F7 WT7 0 166.920 Number
A Slope P Q B R C
of bolts
Note: Total load (transverse): broken conductor = 2.292 kN; transverse (kN) (kN/mm) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN)
per joint
wind = 3,675.912 kN.
1 9.29 27.51 0.85 2.74 65.03 6.04 107.8
2 20.14 84.81 0.85 1.73 91.51 2.55 157.7
3 29.28 113.9 0.85 2.40 152.9 2.18 204.4
4 46.95 139.0 0.85 1.85 168.2 1.16 207.6

Table 2. Longitudinal Experimental Loads on the UHV Lattice Tower

Load (kN)
Load
position Mark Broken conductor Transverse wind
E1A L1 90.124 −0.036
E2A L3 0 −0.112
D3A L5 439.626 0.759
D4A L7 0 0.897
D5A L9 0 1.926
D6A L11 0 2.316
D7A L13 0 1.908
D8A L15 0 0.855
Note: Total load (longitudinal): broken conductor = 529.750 kN; transverse
wind = 8.513 kN.

Fig. 7. Bolted-joint-slippage model

From these equations, the rotational stiffness K of the connec-
tion can be determined once the component stiffness ki is provided.
It is clear that the thickness of the connected plate and the grade and
to predict the response and ultimate capacity of angle members
size of the bolt contribute to the stiffness ki . In the present study, the
in lattice towers. In this paper, the load eccentricities are simply
value of ki is taken as 2.0 × 107 N=m from the experimental results
considered by modeling member end eccentricities in the curved
on single-bolted joints (Ungkurapinan 2000; Ungkurapinan et al.
stability function (Chan and Gu 2000). The end eccentricities func-
2003) as the bolt size and plate thickness are similar for these two
tion as rigid element and will produce end-eccentricity moments on
cases. Thus, the rotational stiffness for various bolted joints used in
the angle members.
the lattice tower can be calculated according to Eq. (10).
To fulfill code requirements for second-order direct analysis,
initial imperfections at both global-frame and local-member levels
Load Eccentricities, Imperfections, and Other should be considered. In this paper, the equivalent initial bow
Considerations imperfections including the influence of residual stresses are taken
Load eccentricities due to noncoincidence between the shear center as L/300 and L/500 for angle and tube members, respectively,
and cross-section centroid will induce additional moment on steel according to CoPHK (2011), where L is the member length. The
angle members. The additional moment accompanied by axial amplitude for out-of-plumbness imperfections is taken as H/500
compression will further increase the P-δ moment and finally lead in this paper, where H is the tower height. The lowest eigenvalue
to an instability problem. Lee and McClure (2006) proposed an buckling mode shape is used to determine the imperfections’
L-section beam element with consideration of load eccentricities distribution.

© ASCE 04017009-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., -1--1

 i

Fig. 10. Numerical Models of the UHV Tower

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 03/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

elements for the diagonal members connected to the main legs

are inserted on the ends of beam-column elements instead of being
modeling at the global-frame level. Therefore, additional nonlinear
spring elements for the whole structure are avoided, which greatly
reduces the computer time and modeling effort for the tower.
Fig. 9(b) shows the modeling of crossing members by sharing one
node, which, however, is commonly assumed to be disconnected in
traditional spatial truss modeling.
Based on these stated assumptions and considerations, two
numerical models are built in NIDA (2015) for the present tower.
For the first model, namely Model I, joint slippage effects are in-
troduced according to the assumption in Fig. 7. For the second
Fig. 8. Modeling of bolted-joint stiffness model, namely Model II, no joint slippage is allowed, which means
that the axial stiffness of a bolted joint is infinite. Fig. 10 provides
the numerical models of the present UHV lattice tower. Member
imperfections such as initial curvatures and residual stresses, nomi-
nal joint eccentricities, and both geometric and material nonlinear-
ities are included in the two models so that the study can focus on
joint effects.
In addition, the tower’s self-weight is considered in the first load
stage and then kept constant in the second-load stage, in which the
test loads for different loading conditions are applied step by step
(Liu and Chan 2011).

Comparison of Numerical and Experimental Results

(a) The UHV lattice transmission tower under the full-scale test is
shown in Fig. 6(a) while the analysis model using NIDA (2015)
is shown in Fig. 6(b). As mentioned in the previous section, one
element per member is adequate to capture the structural behavior.
In total, there are 1,678 elements (members) and 632 nodes used in
the numerical model.
Fig. 5(a) shows the monitoring points and the concerned key
members during the full-scale test. The displacements of Points A,
B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J and the internal forces of Members 1
to 23 are recorded for studies of structural performance.

Comparison of Displacements
(b)
The longitudinal displacements (Uz) against structural height and
Fig. 9. Modeling of bolted joints in lattice tower: (a) diagonal mem- applied loads from experimental test and numerical Models I and II
bers; (b) crossing members for the broken-conductor case are plotted in Figs. 11 and 12, re-
spectively. The transverse and vertical displacements are not pre-
sented here as they are relatively small compared with the main
deflection along longitudinal direction under the broken conduc-
To model the joint effects, dimensionless nonlinear spring ele- tor case.
ments are introduced to both ends of beam-column element auto- Fig. 11 shows the longitudinal displacements of Points A, C, E,
matically, and the axial and rotational stiffnesses are calculated and G [indicated in Fig. 5(a)] under the broken-conductor load
according to the prototype drawing of bolted joints. case. As seen from Fig. 11, the results from Model I agree well
Fig. 9 depicts the typical bolted-joint configurations used in the with the experimental results while a great discrepancy between
tower and their respective mechanical models implemented in Model II and the experimental test is observed. The longitudinal
the analysis. From Fig. 9(a), the dimensionless nonlinear spring displacement versus load factor curves of Points A and B [shown

© ASCE 04017009-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., -1--1

 Model I Model II Full Scale Test

110 110 110 110

100 100 100 100

90 90 90 90

Height (m)

Height (m)

Height (m)
Height (m)
80 80 80 80

70 70 70 70
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 03/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

60 60 60 60

50 50 50 50

40 40 40 40
0 500 1000 0 1000 2000 0 1000 2000 0 1000 2000
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 11. Longitudinal displacement versus height under the broken conductor case: (a) 50% test load; (b) 75% test load; (c) 90% test load; (d) 100%
test load

1.2 Point A 1.2 Point B

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8
Load Factor
Load Factor

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4
Model I Model I
Model II Model II
0.2 0.2
Full Scale Test Full Scale Test
0.0 0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 100 200 300 400
(a) Displacement (mm) (b) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 12. Longitudinal displacement versus load under the broken conductor case: (a) Point A; (b) Point B

in Fig. 5(a)] are plotted in Fig. 12, which clearly shows the they are much smaller. Here, 1.3 times the predetermined test loads
influence of joint slippage. Taking Point A at a load factor of are applied to the full-scale tower test in order to determine the
1.0 for example, also shown in Fig. 12(a), the displacement Uz ultimate resistance of the UHV tower under the strong-wind case.
from Model I, Model II, and experimental test is 1,409, 690, Fig. 13 shows the comparison of displacement Ux between the
and 1,505 mm, respectively. It means that the error is 118% for numerical and experimental results for Points B, F, I, and J [marked
Model II compared with the experimental test. For Point B shown in Fig. 5(a)] under the dominant transverse wind case. It can be seen
in Fig. 12(b), the displacement Uz from Model I, Model II, and that the second-order direct-analysis results from both Models I
experimental test is 312, 256, and 331 mm, respectively. The and II are close to the displacements measured in the full-scale test.
errors of Model I and Model II are 5.7 and 22.7%, respectively, The transverse displacement versus load curves of Monitoring
when compared with the experimental test. The reason for rela- Points B and F [marked in Fig. 5(a)] are also shown in Fig. 14,
tively small discrepancy for Point B is that the distance between which indicates that there is no significant difference between the
Point B and the central axis of the tower is relatively small when three sets of results. For Point B at a load factor of 1.0, the trans-
compared with that for Point A. These distances are 1.8 and 20.5 m verse displacements from Model I, Model II, and the test are 1,010,
for Points A and B, respectively. These findings show that joint 945, and 1,016 mm, respectively. Similarly, the displacements of
slippage in the lattice tower will significantly influence deflection Point F are 443, 390, and 471 mm, respectively. Therefore, joint
under torsional loads, and these effects are reduced with decreasing slippage will slightly affect the deflection when the tower is sub-
distance between the point and central axis of the tower. jected to an overall bending action.
The transverse displacements Ux versus structural height are In summary, the slippage effect on displacements under the
presented in Figs. 13 and 14 under a strong transverse wind case torsional case is more significant than that in the bending case;
while the longitudinal and vertical displacements are not given as when the lattice tower suffering from overall bending action,

© ASCE 04017009-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., -1--1

 Model I Model II Full Scale Test

120 120 120 120

100 100 100 100

80 80 80 80

Height (m)

Height (m)
Height (m)

Height (m)
60 60 60 60
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 03/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

40 40 40 40

20 20 20 20

0 0 0 0
0 400 800 0 400 800 0 400 800 0 400 800 1200
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(a) (b) (c) (d)

120 120 120 120

100 100 100 100

80 80 80 80
Height (m)

Height (m)

Height (m)

Height (m)
60 60 60 60

40 40 40 40

20 20 20 20

0 0 0 0
0 400 800 1200 0 400 800 1200 0 400 800 1200 0 400 800 1200
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(e) (f) (g) (h)

Fig. 13. Transverse displacement versus height under strong transverse wind load: (a) 50% test load; (b) 75% test load; (c) 90% test load; (d) 100%
test load; (e) 110% test load; (f) 120% test load; (g) 125% test load; (h) 130% test load

Point B 1.4 Point F

1.4
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
Load Factor

Load Factor

0.8
0.8
0.6 0.6

0.4 Model I 0.4

Model I
Model II 0.2 Model II
0.2
Full Scale Test Full Scale Test
0.0 0.0
0 500 1000 1500 0 100 200 300 400 500
(a) Displacement (mm) (b) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 14. Transverse displacement versus load under strong transverse wind load: (a) Point B; (b) Point F

the main legs will be highly stressed and the bolts of the flange- the tower’s diagonal members are under highly axial compression
bolted connection are mainly under axial force but not shear force. or tension, which means large shear forces acted on bolts, and
Hence, joint slippage has little effect on the bolted joints of the therefore joint slippage most likely occurs and as a result, the
main legs. When a lattice tower is suffering from torsional action, overall deformation of lattice tower will be increased.

© ASCE 04017009-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., -1--1

 1000 1000

500
500

Force(kN)

Force(kN)
0
-500
-500
50% -1000 75%
Model I Model I
-1000
Model II -1500 Model II
Full Scale Test Full Scale Test
-1500 -2000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 03/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

1000 1000

500 500

0 0
Force(kN)

Force(kN)
-500 -500

-1000 -1000
90% 100%
-1500 Model I -1500 Model I

-2000 Model II -2000 Model II

Full Scale Test Full Scale Test
-2500 -2500
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
(c) (d)

Fig. 15. Member axial forces under the broken conductor case: (a) 50% test load; (b) 75% test load; (c) 90% test load; (d) 100% test load

Failed cross members in

numerical simulation

Failed cross members in full-scale test

Fig. 16. Failed cross members in numerical Model I and full-scale test (100% test load) (image by Wen-Qiang Jiang)

© ASCE 04017009-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., -1--1

 Comparison of Axial Forces lattice tower. The mentioned member numbering can be seen in
Fig. 5(a).
Fig. 15 shows the axial forces at various test load levels under the
The comparison of axial forces from numerical Model I,
broken conductor load case. A number of members on the tower
Model II, and full-scale test is shown in Fig. 15, in which the
body, i.e., Members 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,
vertical axis is the axial force while the horizontal axis is member
22, and 23, and several members on tower arm, i.e., Members 1, 3,
numbering. A negative sign on the axial force means compression.
4, 8, 9, 13, and 14, are selected to study the behavior of the UHV
It can be seen that joint slippage affects the axial forces quite differ-

500 1000
0 0
-500
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 03/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-1000
Force (kN)

Force (kN)
-1000
-2000
-1500
-3000
-2000
50% -4000 75%
-2500 Model I Model I
-3000 Model II -5000 Model II
Full-scale Test Full-scale Test
-3500 -6000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
(a) (b)

1000 2000
0 1000
0
-1000
-1000
Force (kN)

-2000 Force (kN) -2000

-3000 -3000
-4000 -4000
90% -5000 100%
-5000 Model I Model I
-6000
-6000 Model II -7000 Model II
Full-scale Test Full-scale Test
-7000 -8000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
(c) (d)

2000 2000
1000
0 0
-1000
-2000 -2000
Force (kN)

Force (kN)

-3000
-4000
-4000
-5000 -6000
110% 120%
-6000
Model I Model I
-7000 -8000
Model II Model II
-8000
Full-scale Test Full-scale Test
-9000 -10000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
(e) (f)

2000 2000

0 0

-2000
-2000
Force (kN)

Force (kN)

-4000
-4000
-6000
-6000 125% 130%
-8000
Model I Model I
-8000 -10000
Model II Model II
Full-scale Test Full-scale Test
-10000 -12000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
(g) (h)

Fig. 17. Member axial forces under the strong transverse wind load case: (a) 50% test load; (b) 75% test load; (c) 90% test load; (d) 100% test load;
(e) 110% test load; (f) 120% test load; (g) 125% test load; (h) 130% test load

© ASCE 04017009-12 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., -1--1

 ently for various locations of the measured members. Generally, for Conclusions
the members under compressive forces, such as Members 10, 11,
12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 22 in Fig. 15, Model I gives larger axial In this paper, the tangent stiffness matrix is derived on the basis
forces than those from Model II. However, when the members are of force equilibrium between internal and external nodes. The slip-
in tension, as indicated in Members 19, 21, and 23 in Fig. 15, page of bolted joints and the semirigid connection behavior are
Model I predicts smaller axial forces than those from Model II modeled in an element stiffness matrix. The simplified bolted-
when compared with the test. It is also observed that the influence joint-slippage model and the semirigid-connection model are pro-
of joint slippage on the axial force varied greatly with the location posed for practical design. Joint eccentricities are also included,
of measuring points, as seen in the main leg Members 10, 11, 12, and therefore joint effects are considered fully in this study. The
15, 16, 17, and 18 in Fig. 15. In contrast, joint slippage has a slight member initial bowing and frame out-of-plumbness imperfections
influence on the axial forces of the tower arm Members 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, are also modeled in the present analysis model. Thus, the important
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 03/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

13, and 14. factors influencing the structural behavior of lattice transmission
Local member failure of the tower is found in both numerical towers have been taken into account. This implies that the require-
models and the experimental test under the broken-conductor load ments of direct analysis have been met and therefore the analysis
case. Fig. 16. shows the failure member (one facial diagonal mem- output can be directly used for practical design such that tedious
bers in the cross arm) in the numerical analysis and test. The and unreliable member design checks using the uncertain effec-
member will be assumed a failure once its section capacity factor tive-length method can be avoided. The proposed numerical model
defined in Eq. (6) is equal to or greater than 1.0 in NIDA (2015). is verified by a full-scale test of a UHV lattice transmission tower.
It is interesting that the failure mode is in the shape of bending at From the findings reported in this paper, the following conclusions
the member’s midspan due to the P-δ effect. The traditional linear are drawn:
analysis method cannot predict this failure mode because it does • The proposed second-order direct analysis method with consid-
not include secondary member buckling in the computer model eration of initial member and frame imperfections, joint slip-
such as the truss model without consideration of P-δ moment. This page, and semirigid connections can be used in the practical
observation shows the distinctive advantage of the proposed direct- design of lattice transmission towers in terms of accuracy,
analysis method for prediction of real structural behavior by the simplicity, and practicality. Generally speaking, the proposed
incremental-iterative nonlinear analysis procedure. numerical Model I predicts well the behavior of the UHV lattice
The axial forces at various load levels under the strong trans- transmission tower under the full-scale test;
verse wind load case are presented in Fig. 17. The same members • The proposed simplified bolted-joint-slippage model is easy to
used in the broken-conductor case are selected to study the re- code into nonlinear analysis software such as NIDA with numer-
sponse of the UHV lattice tower. The influence of joint slippage is ical convergence achieved in all cases. Thus, the proposed
very similar to that seen in the broken-conductor case. Model I analysis and design method can be used for daily design of
gives a bigger axial forces than Model II for compression members transmission towers;
in the tower body as Members 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, • The joint slippage present in the lattice tower has a great
22, and 23 in Fig. 17. Also, the joint-slippage effect on the mem- influence on the structural deflection when the tower is under
bers at the bottom of tower is more severe than for the members at dominant torsional loads. The larger the distance between the
an intermediate height due to the accumulated P-Δ effect. For ex- measuring point and the central axis of tower, the more severe
ample, when the members on the tower body are under 130% test effects from joint slippage will be induced. However, joint
load, the difference in axial forces between Model I and Model II slippage has only minor effects on deflection when the tower
are 264 and 653 kN for Member 10 (at height of 101 m) and is subjected to overall bending action;
Member 20 (at height of less than 5 m), respectively, as seen in • Joint slippage will increase the axial force of the compressive
Fig. 17(g). Similarly, joint slippage has less influence on the tower members on tower body, which may further cause premature
arm members, such as Members 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, and 14. and unexpected failure for the members in tower leg if this effect
Accordingly, it can be concluded that joint slippage will increase is not modeled; and
the axial force from the compression members on the tower body. • The traditional linear-analysis method without consideration of
second-order effects and joint behavior cannot predict the
Unexpected early failure of the compressive members, especially
tower’s behavior and therefore it is not recommended for use
those on tower leg, may occur. The numerical model without
in designing slender structures like lattice transmission towers.
consideration of joint slippage may underestimate the axial forces
of the tower members and therefore cannot accurately predict the
tower’s behavior. Acknowledgments
The joint-slippage effect will increase the second-order P-Δ ef-
fect at the system level and further increase the P-δ effect at the The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by the
member level, especially for the case of a tower head under large Natural Science Foundation of China (51408221), Natural Science
vertical loads. Generally, slippage has little effect on individual Foundation of Hebei Province of China (E2015502016), Funda-
members under tension or compression, which is why joint slip- mental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China
page has less influence on the tower arm members, which exhibit (2014ZD36), and the science and technology projects of Eastern
relatively localized behavior. However, joint slippage will affect the Inner Mongolia Electric Power Co., Ltd (the cryogenic mechanical
system’s behavior and further affect the behavior of main legs. property of tower member in Eastern Inner Mongolia area). They
In this study, it is found that the forces of the main legs on the are grateful for financial support from the Research Grant Council
compression side are increased due to second-order effects while of the Hong Kong SAR Government on the projects “Second-Order
the member forces on the tension side are decreased as the contri- Analysis of Flexible Steel Cable Nets Supporting Debris (PolyU
bution from bracing members is reduced due to joint slippage. 152008/15E),” “Second-Order and Advanced Analysis of Arches
Joint-slippage effects may have little influence if the global P-Δ and Curved Structures (PolyU 152012/14E),” and the Hong Kong
effect is insignificant, such as in the case in low-rise stocky trans- Branch of Chinese National Engineering Research Centre for Steel
mission towers. Construction supported by The Innovation and Technology Fund

© ASCE 04017009-13 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., -1--1

 of the Hong Kong SAR Government for the project “Advanced Fong, M., Cho, S. H., and Chan, S. L. (2009). “Design of angle trusses
Numerical Analyses for Building Structures Using High Perfor- by codes and second-order analysis with experimental verification.”
mance Steel Materials.” J. Constr. Steel Res., 65(12), 2140–2147.
Galambos, T. V., Usami, T., and Trahair, N. S. (1969). “Eccentrically
loaded single angle columns.” Research Rep. No. 11, Civil and
References Environmental Engineering Dept., School of Engineering and Applied
Science, Washington Univ., St. Louis.
Ahmed, K. I. E., Rajapakse, R. K. N. D., and Gadala, M. S. (2009). Jiang, W. Q., Wang, Z. Q., McClure, G., Wang, G. L., and Geng, J. D.
“Influence of bolted-joint slippage on the response of transmission (2011). “Accurate modeling of joint effects in lattice transmission
towers subjected to frost-heave.” Adv. Struct. Eng., 12(1), 1–17. towers.” Eng. Struct., 33(5), 1817–1827.
AISC-LRFD (American Institute of Steel Construction-Load and Kitipornchai, S., Albermani, F. G. A., and Peyrot, A. H. (1994).
Resistance Factor Design). (2010). “Specification for structural steel “Effect of bolt slippage on ultimate behavior of lattice structures.”
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 03/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

buildings.” ANSI/AISC 360-10, Chicago. J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1994)120:8(2281),

Albermani, F., Kitipornchai, S., and Chan, R. W. K. (2009). “Failure analy-
2281–2287.
sis of transmission towers.” Eng. Fail. Anal., 16(6), 1922–1928.
Kitipornchai, S., Zhu, K., Xiang, Y., and Al-Bermani, F. G. A. (1991).
Albermani, F. G. A., and Kitipornchai, S. (1990). “Nonlinear-analysis
“Single-equation yield surfaces for monosymmetric and asymmetric
of thin-walled structures using least element member.” J. Struct. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1990)116:1(215), 215–234. sections.” Eng. Struct., 13(4), 366–370.
Albermani, F. G. A., and Kitipornchai, S. (2003). “Numerical simulation Knight, G. M. S., and Santhakumar, A. R. (1993). “Joint effects on behavior
of structural behaviour of transmission towers.” Thin Walled Struct., of transmission towers.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445
41(2–3), 167–177. (1993)119:3(698), 698–712.
ASCE. (2000). “Design of latticed steel transmission structures.” ASCE Lee, P. S., and McClure, G. (2006). “A general three-dimensional L-section
10-97, Reston, VA. beam finite element for elastoplastic large deformation analysis.”
Chan, S. L., and Cho, S. H. (2002). “Design of steel frames using calibrated Comput. Struct., 84(3–4), 215–229.
design curves for buckling strength of hot-rolled members.” Proc. of Lee, P. S., and McClure, G. (2007). “Elastoplastic large deformation analy-
3rd Int. Conf. on Advances in Steel Structures ICASS'02, Hong Kong, sis of a lattice steel tower structure and comparison with full-scale tests.”
1193–1199. J. Constr. Steel Res., 63(5), 709–717.
Chan, S. L., and Cho, S. H. (2008). “Second-order analysis and design of Liu, Y. P., and Chan, S. L. (2011). “Second-order and advanced analysis of
angle trusses. Part I: Elastic analysis and design.” Eng. Struct., 30(3), structures allowing for load and construction sequences.” Adv. Struct.
616–625. Eng., 14(4), 635–646.
Chan, S. L., and Gu, J. X. (2000). “Exact tangent stiffness for imperfect Marjerrison, M. M. (1968). “Electric transmission tower design.” J. Struct.
beam-column members.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445 Div., Proc. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 94, 1–23.
(2000)126:9(1094), 1094–1102. NIDA. (2015). “User’s manual, nonlinear integrated design and analysis.”
Chen, W. F., and Chan, S. L. (1995). “2nd-order inelastic analysis of steel 〈http://www.nidacse.com〉 (Sep. 24, 2011).
frames using element with midspan and end springs.” J. Struct. Eng.,
NIDA version 9.0 [Computer software]. Hong Kong Polytechnic Univ.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1995)121:3(530), 530–541.
Hong Kong.
Cho, S. H., and Chan, S. L. (2008). “Second-order analysis and design of
Petersen, W. O. (1962). “Design of EHV steel tower transmission lines.”
angle trusses. Part II: Plastic analysis and design.” Eng. Struct., 30(3),
626–631. J. Power Div., 88, 39–65.
COPHK (Code of practice for structural uses of steel in Hong Kong). Ungkurapinan, N. (2000). “A study of joint slip in galvanized bolted
(2011). “Code of practice for the structural use of steel 2011.” Buildings angle connections.” Master’s thesis, Univ. of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB,
Dept., Hong Kong SAR Government, People’s Republic of China. Canada.
EPCRI (Electric Power Construction Research Institute of State Grid Ungkurapinan, N., Chandrakeerthy, S. R. D., Rajapakse, R. K. N. D., and
Corporation). (2009). “Experimental report of 1000 kV Anhui-to-East Yue, S. B. (2003). “Joint slip in steel electric transmission towers.”
transmission lines project (SJ3021).” Beijing. Eng. Struct., 25(6), 779–788.

© ASCE 04017009-14 J. Struct. Eng.

View publication stats J. Struct. Eng., -1--1