Progressive Collapse Analysis of Power Transmission Tower Under

Earthquake Excitation
Abstract: Collapses of power transmission towers had usually taken place in previous large earthquake. The collapse
process of a power transmission tower under earthquake excitation is studied in this paper. Using international finite
ele-ment software ABAQUS, the three-dimensional finite element model of the power transmission tower is created based
on a practical engineering. Three typical seismic records are selected. The progress collapse processes of the power
transmission tower under different seismic excitations are simulated using the nonlinear time history method. The
collapse paths and failure positions of the power transmission tower are obtained under different seismic excitations. The
results can provide reference for seismic design of power transmission tower which can prevent the collapse of the power
transmission tower.
1.
INTRODUCTION
With the development of the national economy, the de-
mand for electric power is increasing. Transmission
tower-line system is an important lifeline project [1]. Most of
the transmission lines cross the high-intensity earthquake
zones in China. The failure of the power transmission tower
under earthquake seismic will affect the supply of electricity,
causing huge economic losses and secondary disasters. There
are several cases of damage to transmission lines during the
earthquake. In 1999, the Chi-Chi earthquake caused huge
destroy to electric power system with 69 transmission lines
destroyed, 15 towers collapsed and 26 towers inclined. Dur-
ing 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, more than 20 towers of the
110kV transmission line collapsed and all towers of one
220kV transmission line in Mao County destroyed severely.
So it is important to make sure the safety of power transmis-
sion towers in the earthquake.
In the past two decades, researchers have done some
analysis of the transmission tower-line system under earth-
quake seismic. Li et al. [2] studied the plastic limit of trans-
mission tower using ANSYS software; Tian et al. [3] studied
the transverse response of transmission tower-line system
under multiple support excitations, considering the nonlin-
earity of transmission lines. Quan et al. [4] studied the
*
Address correspondence to this author at the School of Civil and Hydraulic
Engineering, Shandong University, J inan, Shandong, 250061,
China; Tel: +86 531-88396182; Fax:+86 531-88392843;
E-mail: tianl-007@163.com
longitudinal response of a power transmission tower-line
system under multi-support excitations by nonlinear time
history analysis. Yue et al. [5] studied the longitudinal re-
sponse of the power transmission tower-line system under
multiple seismic excitations considering the effect of travel-
ing wave. But there is no research about the progressive
collapse analysis of power transmission tower under earth-
quake excitation.
Progressive collapse process of power transmission tower
is analyzed by defining the fracture strain of member in the
ABAQUS finite element software. The collapse routine,
collapse mechanism and collapse resistance capacity of
structure can be determined by progressive collapse analysis.
The result of the collapse analysis can provide reference for
the seismic design of the power transmission tower.
2. COLLAPSE ANALYSIS METHOD
Considering the size of power transmission tower and
current test conditions, it is not realistic to study the collapse
process of scaled tower model in laboratory. Numerical
simulation method is widely used in the research field of
progressive collapse. Compared to scale model tests, the
result of numerical simulation method is accurate with rea-
sonable cost. Now, there are mainly three numerical analyti-
cal methods including the discrete element method, the finite
element method and the combined finite-discrete element
method.
2.1. Introduction of Three Numerical Simulation Methods
Theoretically speaking, the discrete element method is the
most appropriate approach for collapse analysis, because
element is discontinuous in the process of collapse. But, the
large-scale application of the method is difficult owing to the
lack of theory, lower efficiency and no professional software
[6-7].
The finite element method is now widely used in the
solution of large scale industrial problems [8]. Based on
whether a new value is related to other new values in each
increment step, the finite element method can be divided into
explicit finite element method and implicit finite element
method. Compared to implicit finite element method, the
explicit finite element method can easily solve complex
contact problems with low CPU cost.
The combined finite-discrete element method is an
emerging numerical simulation method. Using the method,
total behaviors of structures from zero loading to collapse can
be followed with reliable accuracy and reasonable CPU time
[9]. But the application of the method is greatly limited due to
the absence of efficient software.
2.2 Proposed Method
Compared to the other two methods, the finite element
method is suitable for the collapse analysis of structure. The
collapse process of power transmission tower is analyzed by
defining fracture strain of materials, using explicit finite
element function of software ABAQUS. In analysis, if an
element loses bear-loading capability, it will be removed in
structure. Along with the action of seismic waves, more and
more elements will lose bear-loading capability, leading to the
collapse of power transmission tower.
3. CALCULATION MODEL
The tower used for present study was 500kV dou-
ble-circuit and four-bundle line tower in Liaoning, China. The
base width and height of the tower are 9.36m and 53.9m,
respectively. The size and the first two modals of the power
transmission tower are illustrated in Fig. (1). Main members
of the tower are made of Q345, and secondary members are
made of Q235. Only the leg and primary bracings are con-
sidered in analysis, using ABAQUS three dimensional beam
elements type B31 with three translational and three rotational
degrees of freedom per node. The material nonlinearity were
taken into consideration.
4. PROGRESS COLLAPSE ANALYSIS OF POWER
TRANSMISSION TOWER
4.1. Selection of Seismic Wave
Three typical horizontal seismic waves are selected ac-
cording to the code for design of seismic of electrical instal-
lations (GB 50260-96) [10]. In Fig. (2), there are three typical
seismic waves selected: (a) El Centro wave; (b) Kobe wave;
(c) Northridge wave. To obtain the collapse process of the
Fig. (1). Tower size and the first two modals of the power trans-
mission tower.
5
3
.
9

m

3
0

m

1
0
.
6

m

1
3
.
3

m

9.36 m
(a) Tower size
(b) The first modal
(c) The second modal
model, the peak ground accelerations are set equal to 11 m/s
2
,
10m/s
2
and 10 m/s
2
respectively. Every seismic wave is
inputted along longitudinal or transverse direction of tower,
respectively.
4.2. Collapse analysis Along Longitudinal Direction
Seismic waves are only inputted along longitudinal di-
rection of the power transmission tower. Collapse processes
of the tower under El Centro wave, Kobe wave and North-
ridge wave are shown in Figs. (3-5) respectively.
In Fig. (3), the longitudinal collapse process of power
transmission tower under El Centro seismic wave is shown.
An element of main leg at Z=32.40m yielded first at 5.18 s.
Elements of main leg and diagonal bracings at Z=28.45m lost
load-bearing capability at 5.19s. The vertical load transfer
path of tower was destroyed completely at 5.30s. Then
structure entered the stage of rapid collapse.
As shown in Fig. (4), the longitudinal collapse process of
power transmission tower under Kobe seismic wave is illus-
trated. At t=29.92s, an element of main leg at Z=32.40m
yielded first. From 29.92s to 30.65sthe elements between
Z=32.4m and Z=40.6m lost load-bearing capability gradually.
After the destruction of the power transmission towers
vertical load transfer path, the upper part of structure entered
the stage of rapid collapse. At t=31.12, cross arm at Z=30m
lost load-bearing capability.
The longitudinal collapse process of power transmission
tower under Northridge seismic wave is shown in Fig. (5). An
element of main leg at Z=15m yielded first at 16.52s. Di-
agonal bracings at Z=24m lost load-bearing capability at
16.82s. The vertical load transfer path of the power trans-
mission tower is completely destroyed at 17.32s. But few
elements above 24m height lost load-bearing capability at the
same time.
In progressive longitudinal collapse process of the tower
under El Centro seismic wave and Kobe seismic wave, ele-
ments of main leg at Z=32.40m are fracture position. During
progressive longitudinal collapse process of the tower under
Northridge seismic wave, elements of main leg at Z=15m are
fracture position. The fracture positions and longitudinal
collapse paths of power transmission tower are different
under various seismic waves.
4.3. Collapse Analysis Along Transverse Direction
Seismic waves are only inputted along transverse direc-
tion of the power transmission tower. Collapse process of the
tower under El Centro seismic wave, Kobe seismic wave and
Northridge seismic wave are shown in Figs. (6-8) respec-
tively.
0 10 20 30 40
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
El Centro
m
/
s
2
(a) El Centro wave
0 10 20 30 40
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
Kobe
m
/
s
2
S
(b) Kobe wave
0 10 20 30 40
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Northridge
m
/
s
2
(c)Northridge wave
Fig. (2). The selection of seismic waves
Fig. (3). Collapse process of tower along longitudinal direction under El Centro seismic wave.
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
3.185e+08
2.666e+08
2.147e+08
1.629e+08
1.110e+08
5.911e+07
7.238e+06
+4.464e+07
+9.651e+07
+1.484e+08
+2.003e+08
+2.521e+08
+3.040e+08
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
2.572e+08
2.168e+08
1.764e+08
1.360e+08
9.559e+07
5.520e+07
1.481e+07
+2.558e+07
+6.597e+07
+1.064e+08
+1.468e+08
+1.871e+08
+2.275e+08
(a) t=5.18s (b) t=5.30s
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
1.708e+08
1.371e+08
1.034e+08
6.969e+07
3.599e+07
2.284e+06
+3.142e+07
+6.512e+07
+9.882e+07
+1.325e+08
+1.662e+08
+1.999e+08
+2.336e+08
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
1.963e+08
1.650e+08
1.338e+08
1.026e+08
7.133e+07
4.010e+07
8.858e+06
+2.238e+07
+5.362e+07
+8.486e+07
+1.161e+08
+1.473e+08
+1.786e+08
(c) t=5.50s (d) t=5.70s
The transverse collapse process of power transmission
tower under El Centro seismic wave is given in Fig. (6). At
4.67s, an element of main leg at Z=32.40m yielded first.
T=4.71s, the vertical load transfer path of the tower lost and
upper structure entered the stage of rapid collapse. At 5.12s, a
bracing component of diaphragm at Z=26.80m lost
bear-loading capability and the entire structure began to
collapse rapidly.
Fig. (7) gives the transverse collapse of power transmis-
sion tower under Kobe seismic wave. Elements of main leg at
Z=32.40m yielded at t=23.56s. The vertical load transfer path
of tower was destroyed at 23.68s. Upper structure and cross
arm at Z=30m began to lose bear-loading capability at the
same time. At 26.8s, a bracing component of diaphragm at
Z=26.80m lost bear-loading capability. At 25.03s, all bracing
components of diaphragm destroyed.
In Fig. (8), the transverse collapse process of power
transmission tower under Northridge seismic wave is illus-
trated. Diagonal bracings at Z=22.875m yielded at 12.94s
and more peripheral diagonal bracing yielded subsequently.
An element of main leg at Z=15m lost load-bearing capability
at 14.62s.
In progressive transverse collapse process of the tower
under El Centro seismic wave and Kobe seismic wave, ele-
ments of main leg at Z=32.40m are fracture position. During
progressive transverse collapse process of the tower under
Northridge seismic wave, diagonal bracings at Z=22.875m
Fig. (4). Collapse process of tower along longitudinal direction under Kobe seismic wave.
(a) t=16.7s (b) t=16.9s (c) t=17.0s (d) t=17.3s
Fig. (5). Collapse process of tower along longitudinal direction under Northridge seismic wave.
Fig. (6). Collapse process of tower along transverse direction under El Centro siemsic wave.
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
3.306e+08
2.763e+08
2.220e+08
1.677e+08
1.134e+08
5.911e+07
4.812e+06
+4.948e+07
+1.038e+08
+1.581e+08
+2.124e+08
+2.667e+08
+3.209e+08
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
1.714e+08
1.370e+08
1.026e+08
6.826e+07
3.389e+07
+4.858e+05
+3.486e+07
+6.923e+07
+1.036e+08
+1.380e+08
+1.723e+08
+2.067e+08
+2.411e+08
(a) t=29.9s (b) t=30.0s
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
2.398e+08
2.053e+08
1.709e+08
1.365e+08
1.020e+08
6.759e+07
3.316e+07
+1.278e+06
+3.571e+07
+7.015e+07
+1.046e+08
+1.390e+08
+1.734e+08
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
2.144e+08
1.759e+08
1.374e+08
9.891e+07
6.043e+07
2.195e+07
+1.653e+07
+5.502e+07
+9.350e+07
+1.320e+08
+1.705e+08
+2.089e+08
+2.474e+08
(c) t=30.3s (d) 30.5s
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
2.036e+08
1.734e+08
1.432e+08
1.130e+08
8.277e+07
5.257e+07
2.236e+07
+7.841e+06
+3.805e+07
+6.825e+07
+9.845e+07
+1.287e+08
+1.589e+08
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
1.586e+08
1.212e+08
8.381e+07
4.643e+07
9.046e+06
+2.834e+07
+6.572e+07
+1.031e+08
+1.405e+08
+1.779e+08
+2.153e+08
+2.526e+08
+2.900e+08
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
2.871e+08
2.431e+08
1.992e+08
1.552e+08
1.113e+08
6.729e+07
2.332e+07
+2.064e+07
+6.460e+07
+1.086e+08
+1.525e+08
+1.965e+08
+2.405e+08
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
1.718e+08
1.431e+08
1.144e+08
8.572e+07
5.701e+07
2.830e+07
+4.109e+05
+2.912e+07
+5.783e+07
+8.654e+07
+1.152e+08
+1.440e+08
+1.727e+08
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
2.758e+08
2.367e+08
1.977e+08
1.586e+08
1.196e+08
8.050e+07
4.144e+07
2.383e+06
+3.668e+07
+7.574e+07
+1.148e+08
+1.539e+08
+1.929e+08
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
1.748e+08
1.413e+08
1.078e+08
7.427e+07
4.076e+07
7.237e+06
+2.628e+07
+5.980e+07
+9.332e+07
+1.268e+08
+1.604e+08
+1.939e+08
+2.274e+08
(a) t=4.7s (b) t=5.0s
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
1.686e+08
1.379e+08
1.072e+08
7.644e+07
4.573e+07
1.503e+07
+1.568e+07
+4.639e+07
+7.710e+07
+1.078e+08
+1.385e+08
+1.692e+08
+1.999e+08
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
1.500e+08
1.122e+08
7.434e+07
3.650e+07
+1.350e+06
+3.920e+07
+7.704e+07
+1.149e+08
+1.527e+08
+1.906e+08
+2.284e+08
+2.663e+08
+3.041e+08
(c) t=5.3s (d) t=5.6s
are fracture position. The fracture positions and transverse
collapse paths of power transmission tower are different
under various ground motions.
5. CONCLUSIONS
From progressive collapse analysis based on explicit finite
element method of ABAQUS, the following conclusions are
drawn:
(1) The method used in the paper is an efficient method of the
collapse analysis.
(2) According to the collapse analysis, the failure position and
collapse routine of the tower under seismic waves can be
obtained.
(3) The longitudinal or transverse collapse paths are different
under various seismic waves. Three or more seismic
waves should be used for longitudinal or transverse col-
lapse analysis.
(4) The result of collapse analysis can be used for the seismic
design of power transmission tower and the reinforcement
of current structures.
CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS
The authors confirm that this article content has no con-
flicts of interest.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is financially supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China under grant No. 51208285, the
China Postdoctoral Science Foundation funded project under
grant No. 2012M521338 and Independent Innovation Foun-
dation of Shandong University of China under No.
2011GN051. The supports for this research are greatly ap-
preciated.
REFERENCES
[1] Q. Xie and J . Li, Current situation of natural disaster in electric
power systemand counter measures, Journal of Natural Disasters,
vol. 15, pp.126-131, 2006. (in Chinese).
[2] H. N. Li, D. Z. Hu and L. Z. Huang, Plastic limit analysis of the
transmission tower systemsubjected to earthquake action, Pro-
ceedings of the CSEE, vol. 26, pp.192-199, 2006. (in Chinese).
[3] L. Tian, H. N. Li and L. Z. Huang, Lateral response of transmission
tower-line systemunder multiple support excitations, Proceedings
of the CSEE, vol. 28, pp.108-114, 2008. (in Chinese).
[4] W. Quan, H. N. Li and M. G. Yue, Longitudinal response of a
power transmission tower-cable systemunder multi-support excita-
tions, Journal of Vibration and Shock, vol. 27, pp.75-80, 2008. (in
Chinese).
[5] M. G. Yue, H. N. Li and D. S. Wang, Longitudinal response of the
power transmission tower-cable system under traveling seismic
wave excitations, Proceedings of the CSEE, vol. 26, pp.145-150,
2006 (in Chinese).
[6] K. X. Liu and L. T. Gao, A review on the discrete element method,
Advances in Mechanics, vol. 33, pp. 483-490, 2003. (in Chinese).
Fig. (7). Collapse process of tower along transverse direction under Kobe siemsic wave.
Fig. (8). Collapse process of tower along transverse direction under Northridge seismic wave
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
2.088e+08
1.748e+08
1.408e+08
1.069e+08
7.287e+07
3.888e+07
4.896e+06
+2.909e+07
+6.308e+07
+9.707e+07
+1.311e+08
+1.650e+08
+1.990e+08
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
2.219e+08
1.837e+08
1.455e+08
1.073e+08
6.912e+07
3.093e+07
+7.266e+06
+4.546e+07
+8.365e+07
+1.218e+08
+1.600e+08
+1.982e+08
+2.364e+08
(a) t=23.5s (b) t=23.6s
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
1.984e+08
1.641e+08
1.297e+08
9.539e+07
6.104e+07
2.670e+07
+7.645e+06
+4.199e+07
+7.634e+07
+1.107e+08
+1.450e+08
+1.794e+08
+2.137e+08 (Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
3.284e+08
2.815e+08
2.346e+08
1.877e+08
1.408e+08
9.393e+07
4.704e+07
1.468e+05
+4.675e+07
+9.364e+07
+1.405e+08
+1.874e+08
+2.343e+08
(c) t=23.7s (d) t=24s
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
1.853e+08
1.537e+08
1.221e+08
9.058e+07
5.902e+07
2.747e+07
+4.089e+06
+3.564e+07
+6.720e+07
+9.876e+07
+1.303e+08
+1.619e+08
+1.934e+08
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
1.526e+08
1.250e+08
9.749e+07
6.996e+07
4.243e+07
1.489e+07
+1.264e+07
+4.018e+07
+6.771e+07
+9.525e+07
+1.228e+08
+1.503e+08
+1.779e+08
(a) t=14.0s (b) t=14.7s
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
2.322e+08
1.960e+08
1.598e+08
1.236e+08
8.743e+07
5.125e+07
1.506e+07
+2.112e+07
+5.730e+07
+9.348e+07
+1.297e+08
+1.658e+08
+2.020e+08
(Avg: 75%)
Right, (1fraction = 1.0)
S, S11
2.441e+08
2.095e+08
1.749e+08
1.403e+08
1.056e+08
7.101e+07
3.638e+07
1.754e+06
+3.287e+07
+6.750e+07
+1.021e+08
+1.367e+08
+1.714e+08
(c) t=15.0s (d) t=15.3s
Progressive Collapse Analysis of Power Transmission Tower Under Earthquake Excitation The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2013, Volume 7 169
[7] X. Q. Zhou, W. Y. Xu, X. Q. Niu and Y. Z. Cui, A review of distinct
element method researching progress and application, Rock and
Soil Mechanics, vol. 28, pp.408-416, 2007. (in Chinese).
[8] X. C. Wang, Finite Element Method. Beijing: Tsinghua University
Press, 2003. (in Chinese).
[9] K. Meguro and H. Tagel-Din, Applied element method for struc-
tural analysis: theory and application for linear materials, Structural
Eng. / Earthquake En. JSCE, vol. 17, pp.21-35, 2000.
[10] GB 50260-96. Code for Design of Seismic of Electrical Installa-
tions[S]. Beijing: China Planning Press, 1996. (in Chinese).