Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Luciano R. O. de Lima
luciano@eng.uerj.br
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - UERJ
Departamento de Estruturas e Fundaes
J. of the Braz. Soc. of Mech. Sci. & Eng. Copyright 2007 by ABCM April-June 2007, Vol. XXIX, No. 2 / 185
Marcel Isandro R. de Oliveira et al
effects were the main horizontal loads. These horizontal loads were All the above-mentioned aspects allied to all the difficulties
calculated according to the procedures described on the Brazilian associated with the investigated tower geometry and to the truss
code NBR 6123 (NBR 6123, 1988) and applied to the guyed tower finite element characteristics highlight the fact that the traditional
nodes. Two wind load cases related to actions perpendicular and truss design is not the best-recommended methodology to be used. It
diagonal to the towers face were considered in this analysis. The should be stressed that the large number of dummy bars, adopted to
adopted guy prestress loads were in accordance to the values enable the structural analysis to be performed, is the major
described in the Canadian Code CSA S37-94 (CSA S37-94, 1994). disadvantage of this structural modelling strategy. The used 3D truss
A lateral view of the tower and its corresponding idealized finite element is presented in Fig. 3.
structural model are presented in Fig. 2. It can be shown that the This structural modelling strategy is characterised by the use of
idealized structural model cannot only be represented by 3D truss 3D beam finite elements with rigid connections. The adopted beam
finite elements. finite elements presented six degrees of freedom per node associated
The steel tower modelling presented problems related to the loss with translation and rotation displacements in space, respectively, as
of continuity, in some parts of the structure, due to the presence of shown in Fig. 3.
hinges associated with the 3D truss finite elements. The vertical
angles (main legs) are usually connected by a three-bolt connection
leading to a rigid design assumption. Using truss elements to model
the angles a moment discontinuity occurs, since the trusses
connections are considered flexible. On the other hand, using only
one bolt in the diagonal or horizontal versus leg angle connections,
give rises to another discontinuity. Although the in-plane behaviour
can be considered flexible, the out-of-plane behaviour disregards the
torsion and bending continuity present in the structure.
To overcome this problem, dummy bars, without mass and with
low axial stiffness, were incorporated to the structure. In this
process every new bar represents the suppression of an internal
degree of freedom. Although the towers have only four bars in the
horizontal plane defined by a typical transversal section (Fig. 2) it is (a)
still necessary to add a fifth dummy bar to create two isostatic
triangles. If this restraint was not considered a simple structural
mechanism collapse would occur. Another reason for using these
bars is to improve the structure torsion stiffness.
(b)
(a)
(c)
Figure 3. (a)Adopted spatial truss, (b) cable (tension only) and (c) spatial
beam finite elements.
J. of the Braz. Soc. of Mech. Sci. & Eng. Copyright 2007 by ABCM April-June 2007, Vol. XXIX, No. 2 / 187
Marcel Isandro R. de Oliveira et al
connections adopted in this strategy can lead to some disturbing compression-only) element. With the tension-only option, the
and/or spurious effects, especially when the tower critical buckling stiffness is removed if the element goes into compression
loads are considered. (simulating a slack cable or slack chain condition). This feature is
Based on an extensive parametric investigation, a modelling useful for static guy-wire applications where the entire guy wire is
strategy combining three-dimensional beam and truss finite modelled with a single element.
elements was proposed. In this methodology the main structure uses
3D beam elements, while the bracing system utilises truss finite Static Analysis
elements. This method models the structure as a static determined
system discarding the need for dummy bars present in the traditional Table 1 present linear static analysis results for the investigated
analysis. The adoption of truss finite elements in the bracing system guyed towers (50m, 70m and 90m high), according to the three
is explained by two main reasons: a single bolt indicating a hinged earlier mentioned structural models. Maximum values of stresses
behaviour usually makes the bracing system connections to the main and horizontal displacements are presented and compared.
structural system. Additionally, the low flexure stiffness values, The acting loads considered in the present analysis where self-
associated with the bracing elements, imply that no significant weight and two wind load cases. In theses cases the horizontal wind
moments will be present or transmitted to these structural members. loads were applied perpendicular and diagonal to the towers face.
The use of these two types of 3D finite elements (beam and The horizontal wind loads were calculated according to the
truss) also eliminates the spurious mechanisms found in the procedures described on the Brazilian code NBR 6123 (NBR 6123,
traditional design strategy, disregarding the need for the previously 1988) and applied to the guyed tower nodes.
mentioned dummy bars. The authors believe, based on the The prestress cable loads at the lateral anchoring foundation
performed parametric investigations, (Silva et al, 2000, 2002 and region are normally defined as 10% of the cable nominal strength
2005), that this mixed modelling strategy can produce more realistic capacity. It is relevant to observe that prestress cable load values
and trustworthy results in respect to the static and dynamic situated between limits of 8% and 15% are allowed by the Canadian
structural analysis, as well as to the tower critical load assessment. Standard (CSA S37-94, 1994). The present analysis adopted values
The proposed computational model, developed for the steel tower approximately equal to 14%. 13% and 11% for the prestress cable
static and dynamic analysis, adopted the usual mesh refinement loads of the towers with 50m 70m and 90m height, respectively
techniques present in finite element method simulations (Menin, 2002).
implemented in the ANSYS program (ANSYS, 1998). In this The largest differences between the maximum stress values
computational model, the main structure was represented by three- obtained for the simple truss model (Strategy I) and for combined
dimensional beam elements where flexural and torsion effects are beam and truss element model (Strategy III) are 76.5% (50m high
considered or truss elements having a uniaxial tension-only (or tower), 83.1% (70m high tower) and 79.9% (90m high tower) when
compression-only) element. The prestressed cables were simulated compared to the values obtained from the third modelling. When a
by spar elements, see Fig. 3. quantitative analysis of the data was performed it was possible to
The ANSYS beam element BEAM44 (ANSYS, 1998), Fig. 3, is confirm that the maximum stress values were significantly modified,
a uniaxial element with tension, compression, torsion, and bending for the three investigated towers, Table 1. The maximum stress
capabilities. The element has six degrees of freedom at each node: points are depicted in Fig. 4 for the mixed beam and truss element
translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions and rotations about model considering the perpendicular wind load case. The maximum
the nodal x, y, and z-axes. The ANSYS spar element LINK10 stresses, caused mainly by bending effects, were associated, in all
(ANSYS, 1998), Fig. 3, is a 3-D element having the unique feature cases studied, to the towers base members.
of a bilinear stiffness matrix resulting in a uniaxial tension-only (or
Modelling Strategies:
I - Truss Element
II - Beam Element
III - Combined Beam and Truss Element
Perpendicular Wind Diagonal Wind Direction
Models Tower Height (m)
max. (MPa) umax. (mm) max. (MPa) umax. (mm)
I 83.8 0.049 78.6 0.025
II 344.7 0.049 318.4 0.026
III 50 357.0 0.049 330.3 0.024
Difference (I and III) 76.5% None 76.2% 3.8%
Difference (II and III) 3.4% None 3.6% 7.7%
I 74.7 0.089 66.4 0.039
II 411.6 0.093 378.9 0.044
III 70 425.7 0.093 392.2 0.044
Difference (I and III) 82.5% None 83.1% None
Difference (II and III) 3.3% None 3.4% None
I 83.4 0.090 74.2 0.041
II 388.8 0.099 360.7 0.049
III 90 398.5 0.099 369.9 0.049
Difference (I and III) 79.1% 9.1% 79.9% 16.3%
Difference (II and III) 2.4% None 2.5% None
Modelling Strategies:
I - Truss Element
II - Beam Element
III - Combined Beam and Truss Element
Natural Frequencies f0i (Hz)
Models Tower Height (m)
f01 f02 f03 f04 f05
I 3.420 3.420 4.203 4.203 5.360
II 50 4.142 4.142 5.124 5.124 5.504
III 2.609 2.698 2.698 2.731 4.000
I 2.616 2.616 3.783 3.783 4.233
II 70 3.016 3.016 4.225 4.225 4.781
III 3.015 3.015 4.222 4.222 4.779
I 2.497 2.497 3.151 3.151 3.420
II 90 2.903 2.903 3.634 3.634 3.812
III 2.902 2.902 3.633 3.633 3.806
Table 3. High steel towers buckling loads.
Modelling Strategies:
II - Beam Element
III - Combined Beam and Truss Element
Wind Direction
Perpendicular Diagonal
Models Tower Height (m)
Buckling Loads 0i
01 02 03 01 02 03
II 10.114 10.306 11.164 10.566 11.063 11.142
50
III 5.520 5.859 6.118 10.526 10.570 10.630
II 14.568 14.810 16.085 15.676 16.079 16.205
70
III 11.245 11.499 11.648 13.350 13.501 13.522
II 11.066 11.121 11.946 11.617 12.354 12.440
90
III 8.3721 8.4425 8.5999 9.2856 9.3311 9.3617
J. of the Braz. Soc. of Mech. Sci. & Eng. Copyright 2007 by ABCM April-June 2007, Vol. XXIX, No. 2 / 189
Marcel Isandro R. de Oliveira et al
Dynamic Analysis
The dynamical analysis performed in the present investigation is (c) Mixed beam and truss element modelling
based on a free vibration strategy. The study was concentrated in
Figure 6. 50m tower models, first mode shape, lateral view.
(c) Mixed beam and truss element modelling (c) Mixed beam and truss element modelling
Figure 7. 70m tower models, first mode shape, lateral view. Figure 8. 90m tower models, first mode shape, lateral view.
The tower natural frequencies knowledge is a fundamental issue The results depicted in Table 2 indicated that the finite element
regarding the tower structural design. This is explained by the fact modelling strategy can somehow affect the nominal values of the
that if the excitation frequencies are similar to the natural tower tower natural frequencies for the initial vibration modes. These
frequencies the structure could, in extreme cases, be jeopardised by results also indicated that the finite element modelling strategy can
the resonance or fatigue related phenomena. significantly affect the values of the tower natural frequencies for
J. of the Braz. Soc. of Mech. Sci. & Eng. Copyright 2007 by ABCM April-June 2007, Vol. XXIX, No. 2 / 191
Marcel Isandro R. de Oliveira et al
the 50m tower initial vibration modes. The last two towers (70m and next two mode shapes associated with the mixed beam and truss
90m) presented small natural frequencies differences for different element models can be clearly noticed.
modelling strategies. The truss element modelling is associated with
the smallest values, indicating a reduced system stiffness. The Stability Analysis
second and third modelling strategies presented no meaningful
differences. Table 3 presents the first three buckling load factor for the
investigated tower structures. The stability analysis considered the
load actions related to perpendicular and diagonal wind load
combinations and the last two already mentioned finite element
modelling strategies (beam elements and mixed beam and truss
elements). As expected the results clearly indicated the significant
influence of the bracing system finite element modelling strategy
over the tower critical loads.
Critical loads evaluated according to second methodology (beam
elements) are substantially higher than the proposed combined
strategy. The lower critical factors are always associated with the
perpendicular wind load case, which can be associated with the
instability failure control. These buckling loads are not associated
with usual design practice and, if adopted, could lead to unsafe
structures.
are associated with local effects, except for the 70m high tower, Wind loads are duplicated and applied after gravity loads and guys
when represented by beam elements. In this case the instability prestressing and Case III - Wind loads are quadruplicated and
mode is defined by a global structural system behaviour, Fig. 11. applied after gravity loads and guys prestressing.
Mixed beam and truss element modelling Mixed beam and truss element modelling
Figure 11. 70m high tower first bucking mode, perpendicular wind load Figure 12. 90m high tower first bucking mode, perpendicular wind load
case. case.
Non-linear Analysis
A guyed tower is generally very sensitive to non-linear effects.
These effects can produce substantial influence over the structural
behaviour indicating that a preliminary investigation should be
made before neglecting them. Because of its low stiffness, the tower
is subjected to large displacements even under service loading
conditions. Other source of non-linearity is the tension-only nature
of the guys. The prestressing level of the guys should be enough to
keep its status as in tension and never allowing a slack
configuration.
To investigate the presence of these two above described non-
linearities, a large displacement analysis was performed considering
the guys as cable (tension-only) elements, as illustrated in Fig. 3, for
the 90m high steel tower structure. The updated Lagrangean
formulation, based on the Newton-Raphson method, was used to Figure 13. Tower top displacement versus nominal wind load ratio (Load
model the geometric non-linearity (ANSYS, 1998). condition I).
Three load cases are considered to determine the load level in
which the non-linearities can be clearly observed: Case I - Wind
loads are applied after gravity loads and guys prestressing; Case II -
J. of the Braz. Soc. of Mech. Sci. & Eng. Copyright 2007 by ABCM April-June 2007, Vol. XXIX, No. 2 / 193
Marcel Isandro R. de Oliveira et al
It is important to notice that gravity loads and the forces due to the amount of work to model the structure and generates a potential
guys prestressing are symmetric and do not induce lateral error source if the rigidities and/or number of dummy bars were not
deflections before the wind loads are introduced into the system. properly considered.
For the first and second load condition, non-linear effects related Despite the numerous advantages related to the use of beam
to the guyed steel tower structure, cannot be observed as depicted in finite elements its adoption for modelling the investigated steel
Figs. 13 and 14. Alternatively, when the quadruple of the wind load tower should be carefully addressed. The designer should bear in
were applied to the system the non-linear effects can be clearly mind that if rigid connections were used in the design model, higher
identified, Fig. 15. buckling load values would be produced, overestimating the actual
values. The effects produced by the adopted modelling strategy
were small when the dynamical behaviour of the systems is
considered. The correspondence between natural frequencies and
mode shapes is dependent of each studied model.
A non-linear analysis was performed and non-linearities were
detected only for extreme load conditions. These results can be used
to validate the initial assumption of the system linear behaviour for
the usual limited load ranges used in design practice.
Finally, based on the obtained results for the investigated tower
geometries, the authors would like to suggest the adoption of the
third mixed strategy in which the bracing systems are modelled by
truss elements.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support for this work
Figure 14. Tower top displacement versus nominal wind load ratio (Load provided by the Faculty of Engineering of the State University of
condition II). Rio de Janeiro, FEN/UERJ, Brazil and by the Brazilian Science
Foundations CAPES and CNPq.
References
Albermani, F.G.A., Kitipornchai, S. (2003). Numerical Simulation of
Structural Behaviour of Transmission Tower, Thin-Walled Structures, Vol.
41, N0 2-3, pp 167-177.
Al-Bermani, F.G.A., Kitipornchai, S. (1993). Nonlinear Finite Element
Analysis of Latticed Transmission Towers, Engineering Structures, Vol. 15,
N0 4, pp 259-269.
Albermani, F.G.A., Mahendran, M., Kitipornchai, S. (2004).
Upgrading of Transmission Towers Using a Diaphragm Bracing System,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 26, N0 6, pp 735-744.
ANSYS (1998). Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 65,
Johnson Road, Houston, PA, 15342-0065, version 5.5, Basic analysis
procedures, Second edition.
Associao Brasileira de Normas Tcnicas, ABNT, NBR 6123 (1988).
Foras Devidas ao Vento em Edificaes.
Figure 15. Tower top displacement versus nominal wind load ratio (Load
Blessmann, J. (2001). Acidentes Causados pelos Ventos (Accidents
condition III). Caused by Wind Loading), 4th Edition, Editora da Universidade Federal do
Rio Grande do Sul, In Portuguese, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Canadian Standards Association - CSA S37-94 (1994). Antennas,
Towers and Antenna-Supporting Structure, Ontario, Canada, 1994.
Final Remarks Carril Jnior, C.F. (2000). Anlise Numrica e Experimental do Efeito
Dinmico do Vento em Torres Metlicas Treliadas para Telecomunicaes,
This paper proposes an alternative structural analysis modelling PhD Thesis, Escola Politcnica da Universidade de So Paulo - USP, In
strategy, based on qualitative and quantitative comparisons, for Portuguese, So Paulo, Brazil.
guyed steel towers. The proposed methodology, less conservative El-Ghazaly, H.A., Al-Khaiat, H.A. (1995). Analysis and Design of
than traditional analysis methods, uses a combined solution of three- Guyed Transmission Towers - Case Study in Kuwait, Computers &
dimensional beam and truss finite element to model the structural Structures, Vol. 55, N0 3, pp 413-431.
Kahla, N, (1994), Dynamic Analysis of Guyed Towers, Eng.
behaviour of 3D tower structures under several loading conditions. Structures, Vol. 16, pp. 293-301.
Generally, in all the cases studied, the maximum stress values Kahla N, (2000), Response of a Guyed Tower to a Guy Rupture Under
for the structural tower modelling based on the three investigated no Wind Pressure, Engineering Structures, Vol. 22, pp. 699-706.
methodologies were significantly modified. On the other hand, the Kitipornchai, S., Albermani, F.G.A. (1992). Nonlinear Analysis of
lateral displacement values were not significantly changed when the Lattice Structures, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 23, N0 1-
usual truss model, the beam model or the combined beam and truss 3, pp 209-225.
Madugula, M.K.S., Wahba, Y.M.F., Monforton, G.R. (1998). Dynamic
model were considered. Response of Guyed Masts, Engineering Structures, Vol. 20, N0 12, pp
Based on the difficulties found in the analysed guyed steel 1097-1101.
towers, present in current engineering design practice, and Menin, R.C.G., (2002), Anlise Esttica e Dinmica de Torres
corroborated by the nature of the 3D truss finite element, an analysis Metlicas Estaiadas, MSc. Dissertation, Publication E.DM-009A/2002,
only using this element cannot be indicated. This method also Depto. de Engenharia Civil e Ambiental, University of Braslia, Brazil (in
implies in the utilization of a great number of dummy bars to portuguese).
prevent the occurrence of structural mechanisms. This fact increases
Policani, M.N. (2000). Comportamento Estrutural de Torres Metlicas, Engineering Computational Methods, CILAMCE 2000, pp.1-10, CD ROM,
MSc Dissertation, Engineering Science Laboratory - UENF, In Portuguese, (In Portuguese), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Silva, J.G.S. da, Vellasco, P.C.G. da S., Andrade, S.A.L. de, Oliveira,
Policani, M.N., Silva, J.G.S. da, Estrella Jnior, L.F., Vellasco, P.C.G. M.I.R. (2002). An Evaluation of Structural Steel Design Systems for
da S., Andrade, S.A.L. de. (2000a). Structural Assessment of Steel Transmission and Telecommunication Towers, International IASS
Telecommunication Towers, International Conference on Steel Structures Symposium, pp 1-6, Warsaw, Poland.
of the 2000's, pp. 251-256, Istanbul, Turkey. Silva, J.G.S. da, Vellasco, P.C.G. da S., Andrade, S.A.L. de, Oliveira,
Rao, N.P., Kalyanaraman, V. (2001). Non-Linear Behaviour of Lattice M.I.R. (2005). Structural Assessment of Current Steel Design Models for
Panel of Angle Towers, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 57, Transmission and Telecommunication Towers, Journal of Constructional
N0 12, pp 1337-1357. Steel Research, Vol. 61, N0 8, pp 1108-1134.
Saxena, R., Popplewell, N., Trainor, P.G.S., Shah, A.H. (1989). Walba, Y, Madugula, M, & Monforton, G, (1996), Free Vibration of
Vibrations of Complex Guyed Towers, 12th Biennial Conference on Guyed Antenna Towers, Advances in Steel Structures - Proceedings of
Mechanical Vibration and Noise Control, Montreal, Canada. International Conference on Advances in Steel Structures, Hong Kong,
Silva, J.G.S. da, Vellasco, P.C.G. da S., Andrade, S.A.L. de, Estrella Chan, S. L. and Teng, J. G. edts, ISBN:0080428304, pp. 1095- 1100.
Jnior, L.F., Policani, M.N. (2000). Comportamento Estrutural de Torres Wahba, Y.M.F., Madugula, M.K.S., Monforton, G. R. (1998).
Metlicas de Telecomunicaes, 21th Iberian Latin American Congress of Evaluation of Non-Linear Analysis of Guyed Antenna Towers, Computers
& Structures, Vol. 68, N0 3, pp 207-212.
J. of the Braz. Soc. of Mech. Sci. & Eng. Copyright 2007 by ABCM April-June 2007, Vol. XXIX, No. 2 / 195