Illustration of Transmission Line (TL) Tower

Design with IS 802(Part 1/Sec1)-2015 and IS 875

(Part 3):2015 codal provisions in Wind Zone -5
of India

A Thesis
Submitted In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
In

Structural Engineering and Natural Disaster Management

By
GUMPENA VIJAY KRISHNA 121821101002

Under the Esteemed Guidance of

Sri Dr. P, C. KUMAR

Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

GITAM INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
GITAM
(Deemed to be University)
VISAKHAPATNAM-530045
JUNE 2020
Please input page numbers before submitting the thesis
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Thesis entitled “Illustration of

Transmission Line (TL) Tower Design With IS 802(Part
1/Sec1)-2015 and IS 875 (Part 3):2015 codal provisions in
Wind Zone -5 of India”, submitted by Mr. VIJAY KRISHNA
GUMPENA,121821101002 to the GITAM Institute of
Technology, GITAM Deemed to be University towards fulfilment
of the requirements for the award of Degree of Master of
Technology in Structural Engineering and Natural Disaster
Management is a Bonafide record of the work carried out by him
under my supervision and guidance.

The contents of this thesis, in full (or) part have not been
submitted to any other university (or) Institution for the award of
any degree (or) diploma.

Prof. K.Venkata Ramesh Dr. P.C.Kumar

Professor and HOD Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering
GIT, GITAM. GIT, GITAM.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to place on record my deep sense of gratitude to Sri Dr. P.C.Kumar,
Assistant Professor, for his generous guidance, help and useful suggestions. I express
my sincere gratitude to for his stimulating guidance, continuous encouragement and
supervision throughout the course of present work.

I also wish to extend my thanks to Sri. Arthesh Basak, Assistant Professor and other
faculty for attending my seminars and for their insightful comments and constructive
suggestions to improve the quality of this research work.

I am extremely thankful to Prof. K.V. Ramesh, HOD, Dept.of Civil

Engineering, who had given a special care and attention for me in submitting the
report.

Finally, I am indebted to my parents for their moral support and continuous

encouragement in carrying out this study.
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
GITAM
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GITAM

(Deemed To Be University)

M.Tech THESIS EVALUATION REPORT

This thesis entitled "Illustration of Transmission Line (TL) Tower Design With IS
802(Part 1/Sec1)-2015 and IS 875 (Part 3):2015 codal provisions in Wind Zone
-5 of India” submitted by in VIJAY KRISHNA GUMPENA partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Technology in Structural
Engineering and Natural Disaster Management of GITAM Deemed to be University,
Visakhapatnam has been approved.

EXAMINERS

1. ……………………………… Thesis Supervisor

2. ……………………….. External Examiner

3. …………………………
Head of the
Department
Civil Engineering

DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the work which is being presented in the thesis entitled
“Illustration of Transmission Line (TL) Tower Design With IS 802(Part 1/Sec1)-
2015 and IS 875 (Part 3):2015 codal provisions in Wind Zone -5 of India” by
“VIJAY KRISHNA GUMPENA” in partial fulfillment of requirements for the
award of degree of M.Tech in Structural Engineering and Natural Disaster
Management submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering at GITAM Institute of
technology, GITAM, Deemed to be University is an authentic record of my own work
carried out during a period from 2017 to 2019 under supervision of Sri Dr.P.C
KUMAR . The matter presented in this thesis has not been submitted in any other
University/Institute for the award of any degree.

VIJAY KRISHNA GUMPENA Signature of Student

This is to certify that the above statement made by the candidate is correct to the best
of my/our Knowledge.

Dr. P.C. Kumar Signature of Supervisor

CONTENTS

Page.
CONTENTS No

CERTIFICATE i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii
DECLARATION iv
LIST OF TABLES v-vi
LIST OF FIGURES vii-viii
LIST OF SYMBOLS ix-x
3.2 Setback Guidelines for constructing a tower 23
LIST OF ABBERIVATION xi
3.3 Dynamic Analysis
ABSTRACT 24
CHAPTER I 1-6
3.3.1 Wind load according to IS 802-2015 25
INTRODUCTION
3.4
1.1 General 126
1.2
3.5 Types of Towers 227
1.3 Bracing System 4
CHAPTER IV
1.4 Scope and Objectives 6
MODELLING
CHAPTER II OF TOWER 29-40
REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8-20
4.1 Geometry of TL 29
2.1 Introduction 8
2.2
4.1.1 Literatures
Analysis reviewed
of tower 829
2.3 Critical Review 20
4.1.2 Static analysis 31
CHAPTER III
4.1.3
DESIGN Dynamic analysis
BASIS REPORT 31
21-27
3.1
4.2 Structural design
Calculation of TLwind speed, Force,
of Design 21
33
3.1.1 Pressure,
StructuralDrag Coefficient
Analysis 21
4.2.1 TL for 40 m Tower 33
3.1.2 Loads on towers 21
4.2.2 TL for 60 m Tower 35

4.3 Analysis of Staad pro 40

CHAPTER V

5.2.2 RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS

Displacement 44 42-51

5.2.3 5.1 Results

Axial Forces 42
46
5.2 Comparison 40m and 60m towers 42

5.2.1 Gust Factor 43

 5.2.4 Base Shear 48

5.2.5 Moments 49

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 52-53

6.1 Summary 52

6.2 Conclusion 52

CHAPTER VIII

REFERNCES 53-56

LIST OF TABLES

Table no. Description

PageNo.
3.1 Force Coefficient vales of IS 875-2015 27
3.1.2 Force Coefficient vales of IS 802-2015 28
4.1 Computation of wind force as per 34
IS:8022015(part-1/sec-1) for 40 m
transmission tower
4.2 Computation of wind force as per IS:875- 35
2015(part-3) for 40 m transmission tower
4.3 Computation of wind force as per 36
IS:8022015(part-1/sec-1) for 60 m
transmission tower Moment capacity of
section
4.4 Computation of wind force as per IS:875- 37
2015(part-3) for 60 m transmission tower
5.1 Percentage of Deflection between IS 44
802:1995 & IS875:2015 for 40m tower
According to IS 802-2015
5.2 Percentage of Deflection between IS 45
802:1995 & IS875:2015 for 60m tower
According to IS 802-2015
5.3 Percentage of Axial force between IS 46
802:1995 & IS875:2015 for 40m tower
According to IS 802-2015
5.4 Percentage of Axial force between IS 47
802:1995 & IS875:2015 for 60m tower
According to IS 802-2015
5.5 Percentage of Base Shear between IS 48
802:1995 & IS875:2015 for 40m tower
According to IS 802-2015
5.6 Percentage of Base Shear between IS 49
802:1995 & IS875:2015 for 60m tower
According to IS 802-2015
5.7 Percentage of Base Moment between IS 50
802:1995 & IS875:2015 for 40m tower
According to IS 802-2015
5.8 Percentage of Base Moment between IS 51
802:1995 & IS875:2015 for 60m tower
According to IS 802-2015
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig no. Description Page No.

1.1 Lattice tower 2

1.2 Guyed tower 3
1.3 Monopole tower 3
1.4 Camouflage tower 4
1.5 Self-support tower 4
1.6 Types of Bracing systems 6
4.1 Modelling of 40 m tower in Staad pro 30
4.2 Modelling of 60 m tower in Staad pro 30
4.3 Variation of Drag coefficient for 40 m Tower 38
4.4 Variation of Drag coefficient for 60 m Tower 38
4.5 Variation of Wind Pressure for 40 m Tower 39
4.6 Variation of wind pressure for 60 m Tower 39
4.7 Modelling of 40 m tower with body wind forces 40
and conductor forces
4.8 Modelling of 60 m tower with body wind forces 40
and conductor forces
5.1 Variation of Gust Factor for 40 m tower 43

5.2 Variation of Gust Factor for 60 m tower 43

5.3 Variation of Displacement for 40m tower 44

5.4 Variation of Displacement for 60m tower 45
5.5 Variation of Axial Force for 40m tower 46
5.6 Variation of Axial Force for 60m tower 47
5.7 Variation of Base shear for40m tower 48
5.8 Variation of Base Shear for 60m tower 49

5.9 Variation of Base moment for 40m tower 50

5.10 Variation of Base moment for 60m tower 51

 List of Symbols

A = Area

Ae = Effective area of the member

Cf = Force of coefficient

k1 = Probability coefficient

k2 = Terrain Roughness

k3 = Topography coefficient

k4 = Importance factor

Cpe = External pressure coefficient

Cpi = Internal pressure coefficient

L/r = Slenderness Ratio

L = Length

r = Radius of Gyration

Vb = Design Wind Speed

Pd = Design Wind Pressure

Pd = Design Compressive strength

Vz = Design Wind Speed

Pz = Wind Pressure

Z = Height

Ka = Area Averaging Factor

Kc = Combination Factor

Td = Design Tension Member

fcd = Design Compressive stress

G = Gust Factor

fy = Yield stress

fa = Allowable stress

E = Young modulus

Tdg = Yielding strength

Tdn = Rupture strength

 LIST OF ABBERVATION

STAAD PRO Vi 8 Structural Analysis and Design

ANSYS Analysis of System

F-E model Finite Element model
IS Indian Standards
SAP Structural Analysis and Program
GRF Gust Response Factor
 ABSTRACT

The revised version of IS 802(Part-1/Sec-1) code was released in 2015. In the

code cycle between 1995&2015, the design wind load calculations on the
Transmission Line (TL) Tower have been modified. Similarly changes for
computation of wind loads with cyclonic load factor (k4 factor) have been
advised in the third revised (IS 875-2015) Wind loading code provisions in the
wind Zone – 5(coastal area) of India. The number values 1.00, 1.15 and 1.30 of
k4 factor were attributed to the safety of the structures against the
unprecedented higher gale speeds during the cyclones. This factor was not
reflected in the IS 802 -2015 code provisions.
Hence, a comparative analysis with Gust factor method was utilized in STAAD
Pro Connet V22 version Program to illustrate the design specifications of 230
kV double Circuit 40 M and 60 M high with 200 m span Transmission Line
(TL) tower in Wind Zone 5 of India with IS 802-2015 version and IS 875-
2015code provisions. The design specifications include top deflection, Axial
force in the bottom profile leg, Base Shear Force and Base Bending moments
have obtained 37%, 33%,35%and 46% more when k4 factor is 1.00., similarly,
56%, 56%, 58% and 78% higher when k4 factor is 1.15 finally the above
parameters have increased by 79%, 83%, 88%, and 115% when k4 factor is
1.30 with IS 875-2015 version for 40 M tower.
Hence with the above inferences, the codal provisions of IS 802 -2015 version
cannot proportionate with mandatory recommendations of IS 875-2015
provisions in Wind zone -5 of India. Hence necessary provisions of k4 factor
may be admitted in IS 802 -2015 version code. However, IS 802-1995(previous
version) code satisfying the wind load provisions of IS 8752015 Code
requirements in the coastal area.
 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

A transmission line (TL) consists of two separate structural systems, the

structural support system and the wire system. The structural support system,
comprising towers, poles, and foundations, has the primary task of supporting
the load from the wire, insulators, hardware, and wire accessories, including
accumulated ice. Tall lattice towers are widely used for power transmission
lines. Design of electrical TL tower governs the proper application of industrial
codes and standards for optimization of tower geometry in terms of strength and
economy. Even though transmission line design principles are more or less the
same all over the world, but different countries/regions adopt the different
regulations based on the safety and reliability conditions.
The design is primarily governed by the evaluation of wind loads and responses.
A small mistake in computations has resulted in a large variation in structural
safety parameters because the wind loads are proportional to the square of the
wind velocity. By structural property, the TL towers are designed as columns
under gravity load and cantilever beams under lateral loads, hence heavy
structural members are required even if they are subject to less wind pressure.
Telecommunication towers are of different types based on,

 Structural action
 Cross section
 Material property
 Placement of tower
 Number of segments
1.2 Types of Tower

Lattice Towers

Lattice towers are freestanding and segmentally designed with rectangular or

triangular base steel lattices. This type of tower construction can be useful in
situations which require modifications such as mounting large number of panel
or dish antennas. They can be used as electricity transmission tower, radio
towers or as an observation tower.

Fig 1.1 Lattice tower

Guyed Towers

Guyed towers can be lightweight to heavyweight towers often seen as slender

steel structures. Commonly seen in the tower industry, guyed towers are
designed to provide maximum strength, efficiency and
versatilitywitheasyinstallation.They are supported by one or more levels of
braided or stranded steel guy cables that anchor to the ground.
 Fig 1.2 Guyed tower
Monopole Towers

Monopole towers work well when space is limited, zoning is difficult or harsh
weather conditions need to be considered. Designed as a single-pole that can be
a tubular section design or a formed, tapered pole, they are the least intrusive –
making most popular types in wireless communication industry. Because of the
single-pole design, it advantageously reduces visual impact and results in a
shorter construction time (and typically cost) compared to traditional lattice
structures. Many monopoles can also be designed as stealth, camouflaged
towers.
 Fig 1.3 Monopole towers

Camouflaged Towers

Camouflage towers are typically used in urban areas to reduce visual impact on
the environment is a concern. They are often seen in the form of artificial pine
trees, palm trees, clock towers and even in the form of artificial cacti.

Fig 1.4Camouflaged Tower

Self-Support Towers

Self-support towers offer most possibilities compared to other types of

telecomtowersandareconsideredappropriateforallwirelesscommunication
applications.Availablein3-leggedtriangularand4-leggedsquarelattice-type
structures, their braces can accommodate the heaviest loads and the strongest
ofwinds.
 Fig 1.4 Self-Support Tower

1.3 BRACING SSYSTEM

Bracings are used to interconnect the legs of transmission lines and framing
angel of bracing and main leg of transmission towers should not exceed more
than 15degrees as per IS802 code. Members of transmission towers are were
designed to compression and tension loads. Following are various patterns were
used for bracing in telecommunicationtowers.
 Portal System
 Pratt System
 Diamond Bracing
 Double web system
 Warren system
 Single web system
 Multiple Bracing

Portal Bracing System

Portal Bracing System are widely used for bottom panel and this is one half of
horizontal member. This type of portal bracing system is ideal for where the
extension of transmission lines and to cross a heavy river.

Pratt System

Pratt bracing system use for large deflection under heavy load and unequal
shears at top of the focus stubs for design. Pratt type of bracing system is
also use of bottom two or three panels and warren bracing. In this bracing
system share carried by diagonal members as shown in figure ?.

Diamond Bracing System

Diamond type bracing system is much like warran type and the horizontal
member of the tower carry no major loads designed as redundant supports.

Warren System

Warren bracing System is widely used for both large and small towers. In
warren bracing system tension diagonal will give effective support to
compression one at point of connections.

Single web system

In this single web bracing system, the struts designed in compress and
diagonal of in tension. This bracing system got narrow base and these
types of bracing are much use in 66kV transmission line. Single web
bracing system consist diagonal and struts of an all diagonals of
transmission tower and this bracing system is widely used for narrow
based transmission towers.

Multiple Bracing System

Multiple bracing system is much suitable where the tower strength should
increase and the member size reduce. This will also lead the increase in number
of bolts, erection costs and fabrication.

Fig 1.5 Types of bracing systems (May include few more)

1.4 Sscope and Oobjectives

Scope
 The scope of the project is to modelling the overhead Transmission
Tower line and compare the results with the revised code.

OBJECTIVES

 To analyze and design the Transmission tower for wind loads with
revised codal provisions at a given location for given parameters.
 To design the Transmission Tower with the revised wind loading
equations of ground wire, conductors, insulators and strings.
 Results of IS:802 (part1/sec1):2015, IS:875(part 3):2015,
IS:875(part3)1987 are to be compared with the IS:802 (part1/sec1):1995.
 CHAPTER-II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Introduction

In order to carry out the project work, various literature reviews, books and
code are referred to understand the behavior of the tower when it is subjected to
the different wind load pattern at different heights. Literature reviews done on
this topic are listed below briefly in this section.

2.2 Literature Reviews

Vinit Dhanvijay et al.,[1]. In this they study on comparison of International

standards. The chosen standards are Euro code, IBC (American Society of civil
Engineers) and Indian code i.e. IS 1893:2002. The structure analysed is
symmetrical, G+10, Special RC moment-resting frame (SMRF). Modelling of
the structure is done as per staad STAAD Ppro. V8i software. Results of the
model buildings are then represented graphically and in tabular form, it is
compared and analysed taking note of any significant differences. This study
focuses on exploring variations in the results obtained using the three codes i.e.
Euro code, IBC (ASCE) and Indian code. A comparative analysis is performed
in terms of Base shear, Displacement, Axial load, Moments in Y and Z direction
for selected columns and also comparing Displacement, Axial load, Moments in
Y and Z direction Floor wise of different codes for same selected columns.
Accompanied by comparative analysis of Displacement, shear Y, Torsion and
Moment Z of selected beams on each floor for different international codes.
[2]
K.M. Shaikh et al., . In this they made an attempt to make the transmission
line more cost effective by changing the geometry (shape) of lattice
transmission tower. They take 132kV double circuit self-supporting angle tower
is taken with vertical and horizontal configuration of cross-arms. A three-
dimensional analysis of each of these different configuration towers has been
carried out using STAAD.Pro. V8i software. Each of these tower members are
then designed as an angle section. It is to be noted that for optimizing any
member section, the entire wind load computations have to be repeated thus the
analysis and design process too simultaneously. Wind loading is calculated for
each tower leading to the following results Vertical Configured Tower: 11519
kg Horizontal Configured Tower: 9645 kg. it is observed that horizontal
configured self-supporting tower exhibits a saving of
3.16% in the weight of structural steel.

[3]
Gopiram Addala et al., Studied analyzing the dynamic behavior of a single
transmission tower and transmission tower system that are linked by conductors
has been studied in this research work. The dynamic analysis is performed on
both the single transmission tower and the tower line system. The wind force
acting on the tower is considered as an equivalent static force. The seismic
analysis of the tower has been performed in SAP2000 Nonlinear computer
program (SAP2000, Computers and Structures). The tower elements are
modelled using 3D frame elements. The material behavior of the leg members
of the tower has been studied when it is subjected to the two strong ground
motionsconsidered strong ground motion in the present parametric study
byapplying the tension in the cable at three different angles 50,100 and 150 mm
to the cross arms of the transmission tower was around 430kN. The leg
members of the tower were designed for a force of 330KN, which is less than
the compressive force developed in the leg members. Permissible stress from IS
800-1984 for leg member is 136N/mm2. But the stress developed in the leg
member due to force developed exceeds this permissible stress (136kN/mm2).
Srikanth L et al., [4] Studied about the predominant external loads which act on
these towers are wind and earthquake loads. In this present study tower is
analyzed using Indian Standards IS: 875:1987 (Wind Load), IS: 802:1995
(Structural steel), IS:1893:2002 (Earthquake) and dynamic analysis of tower has
been performed considering ground motion of 2001 Bhuj Earthquake (India).
The dynamic analysis was performed considering a tower system consisting two
towers spaced 800m apart and 35m height each. This analysis has been
performed using numerical time stepping finite difference method which is
central difference method were employed by a developed MATLAB program to
get the normalized ground motion parameters includes acceleration, frequency,
velocity which are important in designing the tower. The tower is analysed
using response spectrum analysis. from this analysis it observed that the
maximum axial force in the leg members is 1600kN considering the breaking
load combination and the axial force is reduced to 522.382kN without
considering breaking load. As the tower is assumed to be in the central span of
equal distances between the adjacent towers, the breaking load will not be the
major criteria for design of elements. Though dynamic analysis is performed,
wind is the predominant load on these tall structures.

T.Abhi ram reddy et al., [5] Studied about Transmission Line Towers represent
approximately 28 to 42 percent of the cost of the transmission line. In the
present work, an attempt has been made to make the transmission line price
effective through converting the geometry (form) and behaviour (type) of
transmission line structure. The main objective of our study is to design a 220
KV single Circuit Transmission Line carrying rectangular Base Selfsupporting
Towers, which optimize the present geometry, such a suspension towers is
replaced by Triangular Base Self-supporting Tower. Then, the structural
behaviour of existing tower is studied with the aid of developing rectangular
Base Guyed Mast. Excel programs are developed together with AutoCAD for
configuring towers 9 and calculating loading. By using STAAD.pro, evaluation
of each of those 3 towers has been executed in a threedimensional system.
Then, the tower members are designed as ISA angle sections. For optimizing
any member phase, the whole wind load computations must be repeated,
simultaneously the analysis and again the design. Hence, three successive
iterations had been carried out earlier arriving at the inexpensive designs of
square base and triangular base self-supporting towers and the square form
guyed mast. Then all the3 towers are compared and analysed.
[6]
S.B. Chaudhari et al., This research paper presents a study on wind analysis
of four legged towers with different bracing systems for angle & tube section.
Wind analysis of towers is done by using STAAD Pro software & with the help
of guidelines given by IS: 802 (Part 1)-1995. Comparison has been done
between different bracing systems & between the angle & tube sections in terms
of parameters such as axial force, shear force, torsional moment, bending
moment & deflection in normal as well as broken wire condition. Study reveals
that W type of bracing with tube section is most suitable since it gives optimum
values of all the parameters for all the conditions.

[7]
K. N. Venkata Lakshmi et al., Studied about the Economical design can be
obtained by selecting optimum base width and low tower weight. The proposal
work is the analysis and design of 220 kV double circuits steel transmission line
towers for different wind velocities of 50 m/s, 60 m/s, 70 m/s. STAAD. Pro
program is going to be used for analysis and design the members of 220kV
double circuit tower of A type. The maximum sag and tension calculations of
conductor and ground wire as per IS: 5613 (Part 3/Sec 1) 1989. Loads on
transmission tower are to be calculated using code IS802 (Part 1/Sec 1):
1995.foundation is done according to IS 4091-1979
 [8]
Tanvi.G et al., Estimation of feasible solution to optimize transmission line
tower for weight parameter. The cost of transmission line towers is about 35%
to 40% of the total cost of the transmission tower. But lesser study is carried out
in the field of minimizing weight of transmission line tower; also less literature
is available on transmission line tower with cold form sections. Analysis of
transmission line tower carried out as per standard codes, also comparative
study is carried on the basis of different types of bracing systems (warren,
horizontal, diagonal and diamond) and materials such as hot rolled and cold
form sections. By designing transmission line tower with hot rolled sections
using STAAD
pro, hot rolled sections gives light weight design.

B.Santoshkumar et al., [9] Studied about the revised IS 875 Part3:2015 presents
the k4 factor for augmenting the design wind speed Vz with numerical value
1.15 and 1.30 for industrial and post cyclone structures with important
structures respectively. This paper attempts to explore the impact of the k4factor
on A type truss of 12- 24 meters with a roof slope of 1 in 3 and 1 in 5 for
various building permeability conditions. The permeability conditions
consisting low, medium large opening buildings. The trusses are modelled using
SAAP 2000 software. The results were generated for both industrial and post
cyclonic structure and comparison were carried for IS 875 1987 wind code and
2015wind code with k4 factor. Finding from the analysis suggest that even after
multiplying design wind speed with the k4 factor, the impact on the industrial
buildings are insignificant for post cyclone important structures the load was
increased to 25% - 30% maximum variation was found in the low permeability
conditions.

[10]
B.Santosh Kumar et al., The authors submitted the failure reports of
telecommunication towers during the last 40 years of cyclone periods in India
are alarmingly increasing, even though during the design stages these factors
have been considered according to IS: 875 Part (3) 1987 design guidelines. This
situation emphasis the IS: 875 Part (3) 2015 to recommend the cyclonic
importance factor in the dynamic analysis of tall and flexible structures even
after peak factor for upwind velocity fluctuations and peak factor for resonance
have been introduced in this revised version .This paper explains the influence
of the cyclonic importance factor on 40 and 60 m height tri-pole
telecommunication towers using STAAD Pro (V8i).

Rangoli k et al., [11] studied about the transmission line is an integrated system
consisting of conductor subsystem, ground wire subsystem and one subsystem
for each category of the support structure. Mechanical supports of transmission
line represent a significant portion of the cost of the line and they play an
important role in the reliable power transmission. They are designed and
constructed in the wide variety of shapes, types, sizes, configurations, and
materials. In general, most towers may be idealized as statically determinate and
analyzed for wind forces as per IS 875 part 3:1987. Revised code IS 875 is
introduced in 2015. In revised code IS 875: Part 3-2015, loading and design
parameters are changed. In this paper, the comparison of code IS 875: Part
21987 and EN 1991-1-4:2005will be carried out.

B.Santosh Kumar et al.,[12] Studies the IS code875 (Part3)2015 presents the

cyclonic importance factor (k4 factor) according to the importance level of
structure with a maximum value of 1.30 for post cyclonic importance structures
category. This factor is recommended in static and dynamic analysis of wind
load computations. This is the additional wind speed multiplication factor
besides the offshore wind velocity multiplication factor of 1.15 that has been
retained in the revised wind code 2015 version for coastal areas up to 200 Km.
Monopole towers, which are vulnerable to cyclonic wind speeds, are ideal for
use when zoning is difficult in urban areas. The towers with heights 30, 40 and
50m are modelled in STAAD.Pro (V8i) software to evaluate the k4factor in
static and dynamic analysis. The results suggested that when the design wind
speed is increased by 30% (1.30) for k4 factor in dynamic analysis contribute
the more along wind internal stresses in comparison with static and offshore
static analyses. The maximum internal stresses variations are observed in
offshore dynamic conditions where k4 factor of 1.30 in association with
offshore wind velocity factor of 1.15 is considered.

[13]
Ramesh Bantupalli et al., studied about the safety parameter of monopole
with the Lattice tower transmission line design in urban areas, Pipe section for
monopole and a four-legged section for lattice tower have been chosen as tower
profiles. The analysis is carried out with IS 802 (Part-1/Sec-1): 2015 and IS
875(Part3)-2015 revised code versions for 60 m height and 250 m span. It is
concluded that the Monopole pipe sections are 6.7% less in weight than the
four-legged lattice tower with composite conductors. While comparing the
design philosophy of IS 802:2015 code and IS 875-2015 versions, former code
contributed an economic design when compared to IS 875-2015 loading
procedure. It is further extended that in terms of weight comparison, monopole
and four-legged towers have illustrated as 30% & 9.18% less in comparison
with IS 875 Code procedure.

[14]
B.Santhosh Kumar et al., In this paper Author suggested for adoption of k4
factor for very low-cost structures - hoarding designs in city limits, semi urban
areas with the anticipation of damages to property and life in the cyclonic
region. These are high wind sensitive structures resulting carry away the
components that have characteristics of wind debris. The hoarding shall be
designed for 25 years of design life with k4 factor value 1.00 for remote
location where there is no damage to life and property. The hoarding shall be
designed for 25 years of design life with 1.15 of k4 value for city/ town
outskirts where there is a sparse population with minimum damage to property
and life. The hoarding shall be designed for 25 years of design life with 1.30 of
k4 value with in the city/ town limits where there is high risk to life and
property when damages can anticipated be occurred within the city/town limits.

[15]
Xuan Li et al., studied about probabilistic assessment approach for a typical
transmission tower-line system subjected to strong wind loadings under
synoptic winds (atmospheric boundary layer wind). Due to the complicated
structural details and complex wind-structure interactions, wind tunnel
experiments were carried out to obtain the static wind load coefficients for
different panels of the transmission towers as well as for the transmission lines.
Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is carried out to obtain the capacity curve
for the transmission tower-line system80% Transmission line failures in
Americas, Australia and South Africa are due to strong winds and these towers
have similar capacity when the wind yaw angle is 30 0, 600 and 90 o however the
wind yaw angle 0o (wind along the conductor) shows the higher capacity of
towers.

[16]
He Bo et al., To analyze the stability of the tower-line system, the
windinduced response of the system was evaluated-with the tower-line coupling
considered-by finite element modeling, and an effective method was introduced.
Firstly, a finite element model containing three towers and two-line segments
was set up in accordance with actual transmission lines having a disaster history
of strong wind. Secondly, static and dynamic wind loads were applied to the
model, and the stress distribution was simulated. Thirdly, the relationship
among the largest stress value, wind speed and wind direction were established,
and the stability limit of the transmission line was evaluated. The method
showed good efficiency in evaluating the mechanical properties of the tower-
line coupling system under strong wind conditions.

[17]
Gaurav Gugliani et al., In this paper, cyclonic factors for six zones of India
have been specified based on the modeling of extreme wind speed data for
tropical cyclones. The Fréchet distribution is a suitable distribution to model
both basic as well as extreme wind speed. The cyclonic factors (k4) vary from 1
to 1.31 for six different zones based on return periods. Based on the design
criteria, the design wind speed can be enhanced by a factor of k4. The cyclonic
factor varies from 1.5 to 2.82 for the region of Bay of Bengal and had a huge
impact on the structures situated in this region, as the variation of percentage
error in wind load varies from 74.69 to 501.31% for 5 to 10000 years return
periods.

[18]
Gopi SudamPunse., In this project, an attempt has been made to make the
transmission line more cost effective keeping in view to provide optimum
electric supply for the required area by considering unique transmission line
tower structure. The objective of this research is met by choosing a 220KV and
110KV Multi Voltage Multi Circuit with narrow based Self-Supporting Lattice
Towers with a view to optimize the existing geometry. Using STAAD PRO v8i
analysis and design of tower has been carried out as a three-dimensional
structure. Narrow based steel lattice transmission tower structure plays a vital
role in its performance especially while considering eccentric loading
conditions for high altitude as compared to another normal tower. Narrow based
steel lattice transmission tower considered in this paper can safely withstand the
design wind load and actually load acting on tower.

Soheil DadrasEslamlou et al., [19] In this paperthe progressive collapse analysis

is performed and the results are reported as time history diagrams.Then, the
impact factor of members’ removal and the capacity-to-demand ratio are
calculated for different failure scenarios of structural members due to the results
of preliminary analysis of progressive collapse. The critical areas of the
transmission tower through impact factor and capacity-to-demand ratio are
determined so that it will be more feasible to propose retrofitting methods for
the damaged structure in order to reduce the future risks. For the studied sample
transmission tower, impact factors and capacity-to-demand ratios of 41% of
APM cases can predict same critical areas.

[20]
Alok Dua et al., Transmission tower-line systems are designed using static
loads specified in various codes. This paper compares the dynamic response of
a test transmission line with the response due to static loads given by Eurocode.
Finite element design software SAP2000 was used to model towers and power-
lines. Nonlinear dynamic analysis including the large displacement effects was
carried out. Macroscopic aspects of wind coherence along element length and
integration time step were investigated. An approach is presented to compare
the probabilistic dynamic response due to 7 different stochastically simulated
wind fields with the response according to EN-50341. The developed model is
used to study the response recorded on a test line due to the actual wind speed
time history recorded. It was found that static load as calculated from EN-50341
underestimates the response of conductor cables.
The response of coupled system considering towers and cables was found to be
different from response of only cables with fixed supports.

AntanasKudzys et al.,[21]Studies the extreme wind storm, ice deposit and

broken conductor events and relevant loads of structures are considered. The
structural performance of prestressed spun (centrifugally cast) concrete poles of
annular cross-section and metal towers are analysed. The time-dependent
performance processes of particular members (sections or angle bars) are
presented in terms of their random safety margin sequences. The survival
probability of poles and towers as auto systems representing their multicriteria
failure mode is analysed. It is recommended that their survival probabilities are
calculated using the analytical method of transformed conditional probabilities.
The target reliability index of poles and towers is considered.

T.G. Mara et al.,[22]The present study investigates the inelastic response of a

self-supported lattice transmission tower under different wind events, including
traditional atmospheric boundary layer wind (ABL) and downburst wind, and
for wind loading at different directions relative to the tower. The nonlinear
static pushover (NSP) analysis is used to obtain the capacity curve of the tower,
defined by the force–deformation relationship, at each considered wind
direction. The results show that the yield and maximum capacities vary with
wind direction. The deformation trajectory is projected on the horizontal plan
for each wind direction, illustrating the out-of-plane loading deformation. Since
the trajectories are sufficiently smooth and do not overlap for closely spaced
wind directions, it is suggested that the capacity curves obtained for different
wind directions can be used to form the capacity surface of the tower.
Moreover, the results indicate that the capacity for ABL and rectangular
(uniform) winds could provide an approximate envelope for the capacity
estimated for different sizes of downburst events. These findings could assist in
the evaluation of the adequacy of existing towers under downburst events, as
well as in the design of new towers.

K. Natarajan et al.,[23] Studies the structural design of a transmission line tower

is most often governed by IS:802-1977, IS:802 (draft)-1989 (Indian standard
code for design of transmission line towers) and Indian electricity rules. There
have been failures reported in transmission line towers, particularly in Andhra
Pradesh, a southern state of India, due to cyclonic storms. Against this
background of codal specifications not properly taking into account the
uncertainty factors in loading and material properties, the need for reliability-
based design is highlighted in the present paper. Four independent computer
programs for component reliability, reliability analysis, optimization and
automation of failure mode generation were developed. Not only were these
programs independently developed and validated, they were all linked together.
This has enabled not only the more economical design of typical towers but also
ensured a particular level of chosen reliability for the towers. It has also been
demonstrated that the program can be used for checking the existing towers for
assessing the reliability levels available in them.

[24]
M. Pavan Kumar et al., This paper presents a comparison between
Monopole and Self-Support type Towers with different heights of 30m, 40m
and 50m for basic wind speeds of 33m/sec, 47m/sec and 55m/sec. Dead loads
and Wind loads are considered for analysis of the tower using STAAD(X)
Tower software which is tailor made for analyzing Telecommunication Towers.
It is concluded from this study that Self-Support Towers have lower lateral
displacements compared to the Monopole Towers of same height for same
amount of loading. This is because they have higher stiffness. But, the steel
quantity required for Self-Support Towers is about 2 times more than the
Monopole Towers for a given tower height, wind speed and loading. However,
due to their rigidity, SelfSupport Towers have more load carrying capacity than
Monopoles. For towers of height below or equal to 40m, Monopoles might be
preferred. But, with the increase in height beyond 50m, Self-Support Towers are
recommended. This is because, in case of any unexpected and abnormally high
wind speeds during cyclones, the structural rigidity will be intact and the
damage and repair for the structure may not be so high unlike Monopole.

[25]
B Santhosh Kumar et al., Studies the tropical cyclones are dangerous
meteorological phenomenon that inflicts an incredible level of damages to the
built environment and non-availability of Isotachs in the regional wind speed
map of India necessitates the formulation of k4 factor for better safety of lifeline
structures in the coastal regions of India by IS 875 (Part3) 2015 version. This is
the additional wind speed multiplication factor besides the offshore wind
velocity factor of 1.15. This factor is recommended for static analysis and
dynamic response of structures. The effectiveness of the factor is examined on
rectangular steel communication towers of 30 and 60m heights. The Towers
have been modeled in STAAD Pro (V8i) software with 1987 wind code
provisions and 2015 code provisions with the k4 factor. The analyses have been
carried for static, dynamic including offshore static and offshore dynamic
conditions. The comparisons have been made with 1987 code static analysis
with 2015 code dynamic method of the axial forces for bottom bracing
members, reaction forces at the base of the tower and displacements at the top
tower. The results concluded that significant variation of bracing forces was
found in comparison with two other parameters.

2.3 Critical review

 After studying the above literature reviews, it is understood that the

various authors made the comparative studies on Indian and international
codes on wind load for the telecommunication, trusses and transmission
towers.

 Since there is a change in wind load equation in revised code IS 802(part

-1, sec-1) 2015, the above-mentioned literature reviews haven’t done the
comparison of codal provisions there is a need to study the comparison of
code 1995 & 2015.

Important and Most relevant papers only be included in thesis.Include last

 5 yeears International papers also

CHAPTER –III
PRIMINARY INVESTIGATION

3.1 Structural design of Transmission Tower

The structural design configuration of Transmission towers is

largely governed by voltage which it carries and area which it
distributes on a case-by-case basis. Depending on the altitude of a
location, this often leads to relatively tall slender structures.
Furthermore, access and working conditions for maintenance and
installation, upgrades are important design considerations.For
structural analysis and design is to be safe.

3.1.1 Structural Analysis

The Dynamic analysis (Gust Factor) is performed for the tower within
the scope of the study and sectional proprieties are obtained from the
design as per IS:800-2007, IS:802(Part-1/Sec-1) -2015 and
IS:875(Part-3):2015. The tower was modelled in STAAD. Pro V8i
software.

3.1.2 Loads on Tower

Transmission line tower are subjected to various loads during their

 lifetime. These loads are classified into three distinct categories,
namely

• Climatic loads, related to reliability requirements.

• Failure containment loads, related to security requirements.
• Construction and maintenance loads, related to safety
requirements.

Climatic Loads

These are random loads imposed on tower, insulator string,

conductor and ground wire/OPGW due to action of wind on
transmission line and do not act continuously. Climatic loads shall
be determined under the following climatic conditions, whichever is
more stringent

• 100 percent design wind pressure at everyday temperature, [(Pd)

for transverse wind and (Pd* sin²Ω) for oblique wind],
• 75 percent design wind pressure at everyday temperature, or
• 36 percent design wind pressure at minimum temperature

Failure containment loads

These loads comprise of,

a) Aanti-cascading loads.
b) Itorsional and longitudinal loads.
c) Nnarrow front wind loads.
 Anti-Cascading Loads
Cascade failure may be caused by failure of items such as insulators,
hardware, joints, failures of major components such as towers,
foundations, conductor due to defective material or workmanship or
from climatic overloads or sometimes from casual events such as
misdirected aircraft, avalanches, sabotage, etc.

Torsional and Llongitudinal loads

Torsional and Longitudinal Loads These loads are caused by
breakage of conductors) and/ or ground wire/OPGW. All the towers
shall be designed for these loads for the number of conductor(s)
and/or ground wire/OPGW considered broken. The mechanical
tension of conductor/ground wire/OPGW is the tension
corresponding to 100 percent design wind pressure at every day
temperature or 36 percent design wind pressure at minimum
temperature after accounting for drag coefficient and gust response
factor

Narrow front wind loads

Narrow Front Wind Loads Only suspension towers are to be
designed under this condition. These loads are caused by higher
wind velocity in narrow width acting on tower and insulator and no
wind is considered acting on wires under this condition.

Construction and Mmaintenance loads

Construction and Maintenance Loads These are loads imposed on

towers during construction and maintenance of transmission lines.
3.2 Setback Guidelines for EREconstructing a tower

 The setback shall be measured from the centre point of the base
of the tower.

 Tower height shall be determined by measuring the vertical

distance from the point of contact with the ground to the highest
point of the tower including g all the cross-arms.

 Towers located closer to a property line than the distance equal to

the height of the tower plus 100 feet shall be designed and
engineered to collapse progressively within the distance between the
tower and the property line (REF). The applicant for the tower shall
submit written documentation explaining tower construction and
possible failure and provide assurance that blowing or falling ice can
be contained on the subject property.

3.3 Dynamic analysis (Gust Factor)

According to IS 875(Part-3):2015 the design peak along wind base

bending moment, shall be obtained by the summing the moments
resulting from design peak along wind loads acting at different
heights, z, along the height of the building/structure and can be
obtained from

Ma = Fz Z (1)
Fz=CfzAz Pd G (2)
Where.
Fz = Design peak along wind load on the structure at any height z.

Az= Effective frontal area of the structure at any height z.

Pd = Design hourly mean wind pressure corresponding to V z,d and

obtained as 0.6 V2z,d (IS 875 PART III )

3.3.1 Wind loads according to IS 802-2015.

In order to determine the wind load on tower, the tower is divided

into different panels. These panels should normally be taken
between connecting points of the legs and bracings. For
square/rectangular lattice tower, the wind load for wind normal to
the face of tower, on a panel height of ‘h’ applied at the center of
gravity of the panel is

Fwt = Pd (1 + 0.2 sin²2θ) (AeL *CdtL*cos²θ + AeTCdtT sin²θ) GT

To calculate wind loads separately in transverse and longitudinal

directions, above formula can be further simplified in two
components as follows: Component of ½Fwt in:

Transverse direction

Fwt trans= Pd* (1 + 0.2 sin²2θ) (AeT*CdtT*sinθ) GT

Longitudinal direction

Fwtlongi = Pd *(1 + 0.2 sin²2θ) (AeL*CdtL*cosθ) GT

Where,

Fwt = wind load, in N;

Fwt trans = component of wind load (Fwt) in transverse direction.

Fwtlongi = component of wind load (Fwt) in longitudinal direction.

Pd = design wind pressure.

θ = angle of incidence of the wind direction with the perpendicular to

longitudinal face of the tower.

CdtL, CdtT = drag coefficients.

AeL, AeT = Area of exposed surface.

GT = Gust response factor

3.4 Wind Loads (IS 875 Part3:2015):

The basic wind speed (Vb) for any site shall be obtained and
shall be modified to include the following effects to design
wind speed, Vz at any height z, for the chosen structure

 Risk level(k1)

 Terrain roughness and height of thestructure(k2)

 Topography factor(k3)
 Importance factor for cyclonicregion(k4)

Vz = Vb x k1 x k2 x k3 x k4

Where Vz = design wind speed at any height z in m/s, V b is

the basicwind speed for the zone, k 1= probability factor/risk
coefficient, k2= terrain roughness (Category2) and height
factor varies according to the height of a structure, k3=
topography factor, k4 = Importance factor for cyclonic
region areadopted.

3.5 Geometry of the Ttower

The tower is design for two different heights force

coefficient for lattice tower for square or equilateral triangle
section with flat side members for wind blowing against
any face can be taken as according to IS 875:2015 is given
in table 33

.
S Soli Force
l dity Coeffic
N Rati ient
o o

1 <0.1 3.8
 2 0.2 3.3

3 0.3 2.8

4 0.4 2.3

5 0.5 2.1

Table: 3.1 Force coefficient values of IS 875-2015

Force Coefficient for tower according to IS 802:2015 with

respect to solidity ratio is given in Ttable :5 in code book.

Table: 3.1.2 Force coefficient values of IS 802-2015

Sl no Solidity Force
Ratio Coefficient
1 0.1 1.9
2 0.2 1.8
3 0.3 1.7
4 0.4 1.7
5 0.5 1.6
6 0.75 1.6
7 1.00 2.0
 CHAPTER-IV
DESIGN BASIS REPORT

4.1 Geometry of transmission tower

Steel transmission tower is modelledmodeled according to the IS
802(Part-1/S ec1):2015, 1995 and IS875(part-3):2015. Open lattice
steel tower with a Square base is selected. The tower is classified as
convergent and parallel leg section. Tower is modelledmodeled with
K diagonal type bracing later on X bracing as shown in the figure
Self- supporting tower are generally preferred since they have less
base area and are more suitable for lateral loading.

The Four-legged open steel tower angular section is analyzed in

STAAD PRO V8i. The tower is analyzed for 40 m&60 m height in
the software with respect to various codes conforming to the Indian
 standard. Tower with base of 10 m for 40m tower and 13.5m for
60m transmission tower.
The wind forces are calculated according to IS:802-2015(Part-1/Sec-
1) and IS:875-2015 (Part-3).

4.1.1 Analysis of tower

Dynamic analysis is performed for the towers within scope of the
study and sectional properties are obtained from the design as per IS:
875-2015(Part-3) and IS:802-2015(Part-1/sec-1) as shown in Fig.4.1.

Fig.4.1 modelling MODEL of 40 m tower in STAAD pro

 Fig.4.2 modelling MODEL of 60 m tower in STAAD pro

4.1.2 Static Analysis

The design wind speed (Vz) and design wind pressure (Pz) for the
lattice tower have been computed with the equations (1) and (2)
respectively. The design wind speed depends on the design life of
the structure (k1 factor), the terrain (k2 factor), the topography of the
location (k3 factor) and also on the importance factor for the cyclonic
region (k4 factor). In this way along wind load for any panel of the
tower is computed with the equation (3).

Vz= Vb∗ k1 ∗ k2 ∗ k3 ∗ k4(1)

Pz= 0.6 ∗ Vz2(2) Fz= Cf∗ Ae ∗ Pz
(3)

Assuming k1 as 1 (as mean probable design life of structure was 50

years), k2 depends upon the variation with height in different terrains
for different classes of building/structures as specified in clause
5.3.2.2 (earlier code) and 6.3.2.2 (revised code) and topography
factor, k3 taken as 1 and importance factor for cyclonic region k 4, the
value was 1.3 for post cyclonic structures, 1.15 for industrial
structures and 1.00 for other structures as specified in the code IS :
 875-2015(Part-3).

According to IS:802-2015(Part-1/sec-1), the design wind speed

includes risk coefficient K1, and terrain roughness coefficient K2.
The design wind speed is calculated according to reliability levels.
Of the tower, the wind loads on each panel is calculated by

Vd = VR * k1* k2

Where,

VR= Meteorological wind speed

k1 = risk coefficient
k2 = terrain roughness coefficient

4.1.3 Dynamic Analysis (Gust Factor Method)

The dynamic analysis of towers may be performed in the frequency domain
based on the characteristic that depends upon the frequencies of both the

approaching upwind action and the structural properties of the

structure. This analysis focuses only on the wind action and does not
consider any exposed areas related to non –structural elements such
as ladders, feeders, platforms or antennas. It is a common approach
to consider the wind forces on antennas and the effect on the
computation of the wind forces and the IS 875 (Part3:1987 & 2015)
Indian code does not cover the force coefficient for the Ancillaries
such as Antenna.

Fz = Cfz Ae Pz G (4)

In order to determine the wind load on tower, the tower is divided

into different panels. These panels should normally be taken
between connecting points of the legs and bracings. For
square/rectangular lattice tower, the wind load for wind normal to
the face of tower, on a panel height of ‘h’ applied at the center of
gravity of the panel is

Fwt = Pd (1 + 0.2 sin²2θ) (AeL *CdtL*cos²θ + AeTCdtT sin²θ) GT

 To calculate wind loads separately in transverse and longitudinal
directions, above formula can be further simplified in two
components as follows:

Component of ½Fwt in:

Transverse direction

Fwt trans= Pd* (1 + 0.2 sin²2θ) (AeT*CdtT*sinθ) GT

Longitudinal direction

Fwt longi = Pd *(1 + 0.2 sin²2θ) (AeL*CdtL*cosθ) GT

Where,

Fwt = wind load, in N;

Fwt trans = component of wind load (Fwt) in transverse direction.
Fwtlongi = component of wind load (Fwt) in longitudinal direction. Pd
= design wind pressure. θ = angle of incidence of the wind direction
with the perpendicular to longitudinal face of the tower.
CdtL, CdtT = drag coefficients.
AeL, AeT = Area of exposed
surface. GT = Gust response
factor

4.2 Calculations of Design Wind velocity, Design wind

pressure and forces.

The design wind speed for the Transmission Tower are calculated
according to
IS:875-2015. The body forces are calculated according to IS:802-
2015 and IS:875-2015. The body forces mainly change by the terrain
factor K2, which depends on the height of the wind acting on the
panel.
 The following table illustrate the calculations of V z, Pz, &F for
40 m and 60 m tower according to IS:802-2015 and IS:875-2015
(Part-3).

4.2.1. Transmission tower of 40M height

In the static analysis, the computation of wind pressures has been

evaluated based on the code of practice IS:802-2015. The design
wind velocity, risk coefficient factor K1, and terrain roughness factor
K2 are being taken from the code and design wind pressure is
calculated. With the design wind pressure, the body force has been
calculated for the transmission tower.

Table.4.1 Computation of wind force as per IS:802-2015(Ppart-1/Ssec-

1) for transmission tower.

Heigh Vb Pz F
t (m) (m/sec) K1 K2 Vd (Kn/m2) (Kn)
5 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 10.22
8 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 5.29
12 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 11.24
16 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 7.88
19 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 7.79
21 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 6.28
23 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 2.60
25 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 2.60
27 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 2.85
28 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 2.72
29 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 2.42
 31 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 1.91
32 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 1.82
35 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 1.59
37 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 1.41
40 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 0.94

In the Dynamic analysis, the computation of wind pressures has

been evaluated based on the code of practice IS:875-2015. The
design wind velocity, risk coefficient factor K1, terrain roughness
factor K2, and topography factor K3 and cyclonic factor K4 are been
taken from the code and design wind pressure is calculated. With the
design wind pressure, the body force has been calculated.

Table.4.2 Computation of wind force as per IS:875-2015(part-3) for

transmission tower.

Heigh Vb Pz F
t (m) (m/sec) K1 K2 K3 K4 Vz (kn)
5 50 1 0.51 1 1.3 33.14 659.05 27.63
8 50 1 0.60 1 1.3 38.82 903.99 17.68
12 50 1 0.68 1 1.3 43.92 1157.31 47.39
16 50 1 0.71 1 1.3 46.10 1274.86 32.48
19 50 1 0.73 1 1.3 47.35 1345.44 29.45
21 50 1 0.74 1 1.3 48.30 1399.52 21.68
23 50 1 0.75 1 1.3 48.75 1425.89 9.67
25 50 1 0.76 1 1.3 49.15 1449.19 9.63
27 50 1 0.77 1 1.3 49.84 1490.62 11.90
28 50 1 0.77 1 1.3 50.22 1513.22 9.44
29 50 1 0.78 1 1.3 50.56 1533.57 8.68
 31 50 1 0.78 1 1.3 50.94 1556.90 7.51
32 50 1 0.79 1 1.3 51.30 1579.19 7.07
35 50 1 0.80 1 1.3 51.77 1608.21 6.31
37 50 1 0.80 1 1.3 52.21 1635.65 5.20
40 50 1 0.81 1 1.3 52.42 1648.77 2.43

4.2.2 Transmission tower of 60M height

In the static analysis, the computation of wind pressures has been

evaluated based on the code of practice IS:802-2015. The design
wind velocity, risk coefficient factor K1, and terrain roughness factor
K2 are being taken from the code and design wind pressure is
calculated. With the design wind pressure, the body force has been
calculated for the transmission tower.

Table.4.3 Computation of wind force as per IS:802-2015(part-1/sec-1)

for transmission tower.

Height Vb Pz F
(m) (m/sec) K1 K2 Vd (Kn/m2) (Kn)
4 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 14.47
8 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 9.50
13 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 12.00
18 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 12.40
21 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 10.56
25 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 10.87
29 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 9.95
32 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 10.03
36 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 7.25
38 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 12.72
40 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 4.19
42 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 4.25
44 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 5.42
45 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 8.70
47 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 2.77
49 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 3.50
52 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 3.57
53 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 4.90
54 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 6.65
56 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 1.53
57 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 3.51
58 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 2.31
60 50 1 1 36.6 793.39 1.33

In the Dynamic analysis, the computation of wind pressures has been

evaluated based on the code of practice IS:875-2015. The design
wind velocity, risk coefficient factor K1, terrain roughness factor K2,
and topography factor K3 and cyclonic factor K4 are been taken from
the code and design wind pressure is calculated. With the design
wind pressure, the body force has been calculated.
Table.4.4: Computation of wind force as per IS:875-2015(part-3) for
transmission tower.

Height Vb F
Pz
(m) (m/sec) K1 K2 K3 K4 Vz (kn)
4 50 1 0.50 1 1.3 32.32 626.59 27.39
8 50 1 0.62 1 1.3 40.03 961.21 34.40
13 50 1 0.68 1 1.3 44.28 1176.36 52.27
18 50 1 0.72 1 1.3 46.91 1320.22 57.31
21 50 1 0.74 1 1.3 48.30 1399.52 46.52
25 50 1 0.76 1 1.3 49.45 1467.46 45.53
29 50 1 0.78 1 1.3 50.45 1527.04 43.05
32 50 1 0.79 1 1.3 51.32 1580.19 42.70
36 50 1 0.80 1 1.3 52.09 1627.72 42.68
38 50 1 0.81 1 1.3 52.49 1653.28 33.56
40 50 1 0.81 1 1.3 52.88 1677.62 14.04
42 50 1 0.82 1 1.3 53.24 1700.86 18.20
 44 50 1 0.82 1 1.3 53.59 1723.10 22.23
45 50 1 0.83 1 1.3 53.84 1739.18 20.25
47 50 1 0.83 1 1.3 54.10 1755.79 11.76
49 50 1 0.84 1 1.3 54.34 1771.90 14.92
52 50 1 0.84 1 1.3 54.58 1787.53 14.66
53 50 1 0.84 1 1.3 54.84 1804.67 19.29
54 50 1 0.85 1 1.3 54.98 1813.90 13.63
56 50 1 0.85 1 1.3 55.12 1822.98 5.64
57 50 1 0.85 1 1.3 55.26 1832.26 11.60
58 50 1 0.85 1 1.3 55.53 1850.26 9.40
60 50 1 0.86 1 1.3 55.86 1872.05 5.31

From the above obtained vales, the following graphs were drawn for
Force, Wind Pressure and Drag Coefficient with respect to height for
40 m and 60 m towers.
 Fig.4.3 Variation of Drag Fig.4.4 Variation of Drag
coefficient for 40 m Coefficient for 60 m
REORIENTATION OF GRAPHS NEEDED

The figure 2 shows the variation of drag forces, it varies for 40 m and
60 m from 2.0 to 3.8, 2.5 to 3.75 for IS 802 1995 version, while for
2015 version it is from 1.60 to 1.9. But for 40 m and 60 m it is
varied from 2.10 to 3.8, 2.8 to 3.8 is observed for IS 875 2015 code.
here a huge difference of drag coefficients were observed for the
same solidity ratios in IS 802-1995 and 2015 revised versions.
However slight difference for IS 802-1995 and IS 875-2015 code
provisions. These variations are shown in the figure 2.
 Fig.4.5 Variation of Wind Fig.4.6 Variation of Wind
pressure for 40 m pressure for 60 m

The wind pressure variation along the height is depicted in the fig 4.5,
fig 4.6 for the IS 802 code provisions it is almost vertical and
approximately constant over the height of the tower, but it follows the
velocity profile in the IS 875 2015 code provisions for 40 m and 60 m
transmission tower.

4.3 Analysis of STAAD. Pro

The resultant forces which were obtained are to apply in STAAD

 Pro to obtain the displacement, member forces, weight and member
stress as shown in fig.4.9,4.10.

Fig.4.9 Modelling of 40 m tower with body wind forces and conductor

forces

Fig.4.10 Modelling of 60 m tower with body wind forces and conductor

forces

STEP 1 (Creation of Geometry)

 New Project Select Plane Length meters: Force =KN;
File Name tower Next Select space Finish.====??

STEP 2 (Member Geometry)

Select the memberFrom Main Menu Commands Member
Property Section Databases Indian Steel Properties Select
Member Assign Close.

STEP 3 (Supports)
Change to node cursor (joints) and select the nodes (joints)
From the main menu Commands Support Specification
Pinned Assign Close Deselect the nodes and change to beam
cursor.

STEP 4 (Loading)
From the main menu Commands loading Primary load Dead
load / Wind load Add Close Select Dead load / Wind load
Add Nodal Force Close.

STEP 5 (Analysis)
From the Main Menu Commands Analysis Perform Analysis
Print OK.

STEP 6 (Post Analysis Print)

From Main Menu Command Post Analysis Print Support
reaction to view OK.
THE ABOVE STEPWISE PROCEEDURE NEEDS TO BE
LITTLE MORE CLEAR

CHAPTER V
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
5.1 Results

Wind analysis is carried out for wind zone of basic wind speed
50m/s. The load combinations for the dead load and the wind loads
are taken into the consideration for the analysis of the models
according to IS:802-2015. The model analysis helps in the
computation of deflections for high wind condition, which
essentially depends on the distribution of stiffness and mass within
the structure.
A Comparison of variation of Displacement, Base Shear, Base
Moments, Bending Moment, Axial Forces between IS 802(Part
1/Sec 1):1995, IS802 (Part 1/Sec 1):2015, IS 875(part 3): 1987, IS
875(Part 3): 2015 for 40 and 60 M height four legged transmission
tower are performed with steel angular member as a profile legs and
bracings and the results shown below

5.2 Comparison of Results for 40 & 60 m tower

The variation of gust factor values is depicted in the figure 5.1. It is

varied from 1.90 to 2.2 for IS 802 code (it increases along the
height) and for IS IS 875 it varied from 2.20 to 3.2.(it decreases
along the height).

5.2.1 Gust Factor

 Fig.5.1: Variation of Gust factor for 40m tower

Fig.5.2: Variation of Gust factor for 60m tower.

The variation of gust factor values is depicted in the figure 5.2. It is

varied from 1.90 to 2.25 for IS 802 code (it increases along the
height) and for is 875 it varied from 2.20 to 3.2 . (it decreases along
the height).
5.2.2 Deflection

Table.5.1 Percentage of Deflection between IS 802:1995 &

IS875:2015 for 40m tower According to IS 802-
2015.

Code Deflection Percentage

IS 802:2015 240.59 0
IS 802:1995 497.3 43
IS 875:2015(k4=1.0) 330.15 37
IS 875:2015(k4=1.15) 376.7 57
IS 875:2015(k4=1.30) 432.07 80

Displacement
600
497.3
500
432.077
376.7
Displacement

400
330.15
300
240.59

200

100

0
40 mts

802-1995 802-2015 (k4=1)875-2015 (k4=1.15) 875-2015 (k4=1.30)875-2015

Fig.5.3: Variation of Displacement for 40m tower.

This figure illustrates the variation of IS 802-1995(Part-1/Sec-1) and

IS 875(Part-3)-2015 (k4 = 1,1.15, 1.30) angular section TL tower of
40 m height with ACSR(include in List of Abbreviations) conductor
according to IS 802-2015. The percentage of variation of
Displacement is 37-80% lesser than the IS 802-2015(Part-1/Sec-1).
Table.5.2 Percentage of Deflection between IS 802:1995 & IS
875:2015 for 60m tower According to IS 802-2015.

Code Deflection Percentage

IS 802:2015 459.81 0

IS 802:1995 589.94 28

IS 875:2015(k4=1.0) 541.28 18

IS 875:2015(k4=1.15) 655.57 43

IS 875:2015(k4=1.30) 783.72 70

Displacement
900
783.72
800
700 655.57
589.94
Displacement

600 541.28
500 459.81
400
300
200
100
0
60 mts
802-1995 802-2015 (k4=1)875-2015 (k4=1.15) 875-2015 (k4=1.30)875-2015

Fig.5.4: Variation of Displacement for 60m tower

This figure illustrates the variation of IS 802-1995(Part-1/Sec-1) and IS

875(Part-3)-2015 (k4 = 1,1.15,1.30) angular section TL tower of 60 m height
with ACSR conductor according to IS 802-2015. The percentage of variation
of Displacement is 18-70% lesser than the IS 802-2015(Part-1/Sec-1).
5.2.3 Axial Force

Table.5.3 Percentage of Axial force between IS 802:1995 &

IS875:2015 for 40m tower According to IS 802-2015

Code Axial Force Percentage

IS 802:2015 189.81 0
IS 802:1995 423 123
IS 875:2015(k4=1.0) 253 33
IS 296.48 26
875:2015(k4=1.15)
IS 348.16 83
875:2015(k4=1.30)

Axial force
450 423
400
348.16
350
296.48
300
Axial force

253
250
200 189.81

150
100
50
0
40mts
802-1995 802-2015 (k4=1)875-2015 (k4=1.15) 875-2015 (k4=1.30)875-2015

Fig.5.5: Variation of Axial Force for 40m tower

This figure illustrates the variation of IS 802-1995(Part-1/Sec-1) and

IS 875(Part-3)-2015 (k4 = 1,1.15,1.30) angular section TL tower of
40 m height with ACSR conductor according to IS 802-2015. The
percentage of variation of Axial Force is 26-123% lesser than the IS
802-2015(Part-1/Sec-1).
Table.5.4 Percentage of Axial force between IS 802:1995 & IS875:2015 for
60m tower According to IS 802-2015

Code Axial Force Percentage

IS 802:2015 376.64 0
IS 802:1995 497.25 32
IS 875:2015(k4=1.0) 555.09 47
IS 875:2015(k4=1.15) 685.73 82
IS 875:2015(k4=1.30) 843.80 124

Axial force
900 843.8
800
685.73
700
Axial force

600 555.09
497.25
500
376.64
400
300
200
100
0
60mts

802-1995 802-2015 (k4=1)875-2015 (k4=1.15) 875-2015 (k4=1.30)875-2015

Fig.5.6: Variation of Axial Force for 60m tower

This figure illustrates the variation of IS 802-1995(Part-1/Sec-1) and

IS 875(Part-3)-2015 (k4 = 1,1.15,1.30) angular section TL tower of
60 m height with ACSR conductor according to IS 802-2015. The
percentage of variation of Axial Force is 32-124% lesser than the IS
802-2015 (Part-1/Sec-1).
5.2.4 Base Shear

Table.5.4 Percentage of Base Shear between IS 802:1995 & IS875:2015

for 40m tower According to IS 802-2015
 Code Base Shear Percentage
IS 802:2015 193.02 0
IS 802:1995 261 127
IS 875:2015(k4=1.0) 261.07 35
IS 875:2015(k4=1.15) 307.91 59
IS 875:2015(k4=1.30) 368.8 88

Base shear
500
438.6
450
400 363.8
350 307.91
Base Shear

300 261.07
250
193.02
200
150
100
50
0
40mts

802-1995 802-2015 (k4=1)875-2015

(k4=1.15) 875-2015 (k4=1.30)875-2015

Fig.5.7: Variation of Base Shear for 40m tower

This figure illustrates the variation of IS 802-1995(Part-1/Sec-1) and

IS 875(Part-3)-2015 (k4 = 1,1.15,1.30) angular section TL tower of
40 m height with ACSR conductor according to IS 802-2015. The
percentage of variation of Base Shear is 35-127% lesser than the IS
802-2015(Part-1/Sec-1).
Table.5.5. Percentage of Base Shear between IS 802:1995 &IS875:2015 for
60m tower According to IS 802-2015

Code Base Shear Percentage

 IS 802:2015 407.63 0
IS 802:1995 541.62 33
IS 875:2015(k4=1.0) 598.25 47
IS 875:2015(k4=1.15) 742.69 82
IS 875:2015(k4=1.30) 918.86 125

Base shear
1000 918.86
900
800 742.69
700
Base Shear

598.25
600 541.62
500 407.63
400
300
200
100
0
60mts
802-1995 802-2015 (k4=1)875-2015 (k4=1.15) 875-2015 (k4=1.30)875-2015

Fig.5.8: Variation of Base Shear for 60m tower

This figure illustrates the variation of IS 802-1995(Part-1/Sec-1) and

IS 875(Part-3)-2015 (k4 = 1,1.15,1.30) angular section TL tower of
60 m height with ACSR conductor according to IS 802-2015. The
percentage of variation of Base Shear is 33-125% lesser than the IS
802-2015(Part-1/Sec-1).
5.2.5 Moments

Table.5.6 Percentage of Moment between IS 802:1995 & IS875:2015 for

40m tower According to IS 802-2015

Code Moment Percentage

IS 802:2015 878.97 0
 IS 802:1995 2389.6 172
IS 875:2015(k4=1.0) 1279.27 46
IS 875:2015(k4=1.15) 1558.33 77
IS 875:2015(k4=1.30) 1891.3 115

Moment
3000
2389.9
2500
1891.3
2000
1558.33
moment

1500 1279.27

1000 878.97

500

0
40mts

802-1995 802-2015 (k4=1)875-2015

(k4=1.15) 875-2015 (k4=1.30)875-2015

Fig.5.9: Variation of Moments for 40m tower

This figure illustrates the variation of IS 802-1995(Part-1/Sec-1) and

IS 875(Part-3)-2015 (k4 = 1,1.15,1.30) angular section TL tower of
40 m height with ACSR conductor according to IS 802-2015. The
percentage of variation of Moment is 46-172% lesser than the IS
802-2015(Part-1/Sec-1).

Table.5.7 Percentage of Base Moment between IS 802:1995 &

IS875:2015 for 60m tower According to IS 802-2015

Code Base Moment Percentage

IS 802:2015 1910.71 0
IS 802:1995 2697.97 41
IS 875:2015(k4=1.0) 3053.74 60
IS 875:2015(k4=1.15) 3899.57 104
IS 875:2015(k4=1.30) 5089.84 166

Moment
6000
5089.84
5000
3899.57
4000
Moment

3053.74
3000 2697.97
1910.71
2000

1000

0
60mts
802-1995 802-2015 (k4=1)875-2015 (k4=1.15) 875-2015 (k4=1.30)875-2015

Fig.5.10: Variation of Moments for 60m tower

This figure illustrates the variation of IS 802-1995(Part-1/Sec-1) and

IS 875(Part-3)-2015 (k4 = 1,1.15,1.30) angular section TL tower of
40 m height with ACSR conductor according to IS 802-2015. The
percentage of variation of Moment is 41-166% lesser than the IS
802-2015(Part-1/Sec-1).
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

6.1SUMMARY

The project discusses the comparative studies of revised Design codal

provisions of the transmission towers with uses of angular sections. The
tower is located in terrain category-2. The This study project also focusses
on wind code provision which was revised in 2015 introducinges the
Ccyclonic Iimportance Ffactor(k4). The study focuses on Displacement,
Base shear, Axial Forces, Base moments, variation solidity ratio with
 respect to height. for 40 m and 60 m tower. Various parameters like
Displacement, Axial Forces, Base Shear,Moments, Solidity Ratios etc have
been investigated for Transmission Line Tower models with 40 mtr and 60
mtr heights. After incorporating various codal provisions and studying the
behavior of the Tower models the following conclusions were drawn.

6.2CONCLUSION

The existing 230 kV transmission lattice tower 40 m and 60 m in heights was

analyzed under the action of load patterns from two wind design regulations
IS 802-1995 and 2015 revised version and wind loading code IS 875-2015
version for terrain category 2. Particularly, only IS 875-2015 version code
states a specific load factor for cyclonic region, which is different from the
traditionally considered standard normal winds. Basic parameters related to
load patterns such as solidity ratios ϕ for studied towers were also presented.
according to the results, Main observations from the results of this study are:

 The tower drag force coefficients of IS 802-2015 have the lower values
for the same solidity ratios of IS 802-1997 and IS 875-2015 code
provisions, hence lesser wind loads are obtained for 802-2015 code
recommendations. which is a
 general implication with the previous code 1995 version and IS 875-2015
code versions.
 Similarly, the computed wind loads with IS 802-2015 code are far less in
cyclonic regions where k4 factor 1.30 is considered in IS 875-2015.
 Among the computed internal parameters of top deflection, axial force,
Base Shear force and Base bending moments. The Base bending moment
was observed 172% for 40 m & 41% for 60 m more variation for 1995
version provisions.
 Similarly, in Cyclonic area, the base bending moment was observed
115% for 40 m 166 % for 60 m more variation for IS 875-2015
provisions.

 Finally, it is WAS concluded that recommended codal provisions of IS

802 -2015 version presents the less safety parameters in wind zone -5 of
India.
Conclusions incorporated in the communicated paper may be included here.
Reasons for the variations to be given here. The text is available in the paper.
 REFERENCES

1. Vinit Dhanvijay. Deepa Telang, Vikrant Nair., “Comparative Study of

Different Codes in Seismic Assessment” International Research
Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Volume: 02 Issue: 04,
 July-2015 page number if available
2. Kamil M. Shaikh, Binita A. Vyas.,“Analysis and Design of A Lattice
Transmission Line Tower with Vertical and Horizontal
Configuration of Cross-Arms”Volume: 3, Issue: 3 01/06/2015 pg484-
490.
3. Gopiram Addala, D.Neelima Satyam, Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar.,
“Dynamic analysis of transmission towers under strong ground
motion proceedings” 3rd International Earthquake Symposium,
Bangladesh, Dhaka, March.5-6 2010,
4. Lingampally Srikanth, Dr D Neelima Satyam., “Dynamic analysis of
transmission line tower” International Conference on Civil Engineering
and Applied Mechanics (ICCEAM), 2014.
5. T.Abhiramreddy, K. Murali, DSVSMRK. Chekravarthy, P. Anil Sagar.,
“Analysis and economical design of transmission line towers of
different configurations subjected to wind load” 16 International
Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 9, Issue
1, January 2018, pp. 388–397.

6. S.B. Chaudhari et al., “Wind analysis of four-legged transmission

towers with different bracing systems for angle section & tube
section” volume 9 No 1,2019

7. 7.Tanvi G. Londhe, Prof. M.S.Kakamare., “Review Paper on

Comparative Study of Dynamic Analysis of Transmission Towers”
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
Volume: 05 Issue: 08 | Aug 2018

8. K. N. Venkata Lakshmi, T.Sujatha, B. Panduranga Rao., “Analysis and

design of transmission towers for different wind velocities”
International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Emerging Technologies,
Volume 8, Issue 1, July 2015. pp: 1-6

9. Baljai K.V.G.D, B Santhosh Kumar, Chandan Kumar.Patnaikuni., “A

study of k4 factor impact on industrial and post cyclonic important
structures” International Journal of Engineering & Technology, July
2017, volume 8, pg 264-273
10.Santhosh Kumar, B, Chandan Kumar.Patnaikuni et al., “Along Wind
Response of Free-Standing Tri-Pole Lattice Towers.” International
Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology 9(6), 2018, 172–81.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp.
11. Rangoli K. Jiwankar., “Comparison of Wind Codes for Transmission
Tower” International Journal of Engineering Research in Mechanical and
 Civil Engineering (IJERMCE) Vol 3, Issue 1, January 2018.
12.Balaji K.V.G.D, Ramesh. B, Santhosh Kumar. B, Jnanchand. S,
Chandan Kumar.Patnaikuni., “Effect of Cyclonic Load Factor on
Monopole Towers” International Journal of Engineering & Technology,
7 4.1, 2018, pg 75-84
13.Ramesh Bantupalli Sharon Potireddy, Baljai K.V.G.D, Santhosh Kumar
B., “Advantages of monopole transmission tower with new generation
conductors” International Journal of Advanced Research in
Engineering and Technology (IJARET) Volume 11, Issue 3, March 2020,
pp. 79-90.
14.B. Santhosh Kumar, K.V.G.D. Balaji, Chandan Kumar
Patnaikuni., “Perception of k4 Factor in Cyclonic Region of India”
International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology
(IJEAT), Volume-8, Issue-2S, December 2018.
15.Li, Xuan, Wei Zhang, Huawei Niu, and Zheng Yi Wu. 2018.
“Probabilistic Capacity Assessment of Single Circuit Transmission
Tower-Line System Subjected to Strong Winds.”Engineering
Structures 175(August): pg 517–30
16.He Boa, Zhao Mingxia, Feng Wentaoa, XiuYapingb, Wang Yuc, Feng
Lijund, Qin Yongjiane, Wang Chukun., “A method for analyzing stability
of tower-line system under strong winds” 2019, pg 1-7
17.Gugliani, Gaurav, A Sarkar, Abhay Gupta, and SasankasekharMandal..
“Determination of Cyclonic Factor in Different Wind Zones of
India.” 9th Asia Pacific Conference on Wind Engineering, Auckland,
2017.
18.Gopi SudamPunse., “Analysis and Design of Transmission Tower”
International Journal of Modern Engineering Research. Vol. 4, Iss. 1, Jan.
2014, pg 116-138.
19.Soheil DadrasEslamlou , Behrouz Asgarian., “Determining critical
areas of transmission towers due to sudden removal of members”
Elsevier, volume 9, 2017, pg 138-147.
20.Alok Dua., “Dynamic Analysis of Overhead Transmission Line under
Turbulent Wind Loading” Germany Thomas Höbbel Electronic Journal
of Structural Engineering 15(1) 2015
21.AntanasKudzys., “Safety of power transmission line structures under
wind and ice storms” Engineering Structures 28 (2006), pg 682–689.
22.T.G. Mara , H.P. Hong., “Effect of wind direction on the response and
capacity surface of a transmission tower” Elsevier, pg 493-501.
23.K. Natarajan and A. R. Santhakumar., “Reliability-based optimization
of transmission line towers”Elwier Science Ltd, Vol. 55. No 3,1995, pp.
387-403.
24.N. Prasad Rao, G. M. Samuel Knight, S. Seetharaman, N. Lakshmanan,
Nagesh R. Iyer., “Failure Analysis of Transmission Line Towers”
25.Bureau of Indian standards IS 802-1997(Part-1/sec-1),” Use of structural
steel in overhead transmission line towers”, Materials and Loads, Bureau
of Indian standards, (1997)
26.Bureau of Indian standards IS 802-2015(Part-1/sec-1),” Use of structural
steel in overhead transmission line towers”, Materials and Loads, Bureau
of Indian standards, (2015).
27.Bureau of Indian standards: IS 875 (Part 3): 1987 (Re affirmed
1997),Code of practice for Design loads (other than Earth Quake) for
Buildings and Structures, New Delhi, India (1987)
28.Bureau of Indian standards: IS 875 (Part 3):2015, Design Loads (other
than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures-code of Practice, New
Delhi, India (2015)

29.Indian Meteorological Department, New Delhi, A report on the very

severe cyclonic storm, Phailin over the Bay of Bengal (0814
October2013),
http://www.rsmcnewdelhi.imd.gov.in/images/pdf/publications/preliminar
y-report/phailin.pdf.
30.Indian Meteorological Department, New Delhi, A report on the very
severe cyclonic Storm HUDHUD over the Bay of Bengal
(0714Octobe2014),
http://www.rsmcnewdelhi.imd.gov.in/images/pdf/publications/preliminar
y-report/hud.pdf.
31.Indian Meteorological Department, New Delhi, A report on the very
severe cyclonic Storm VARDAH over the Bay of Bengal
(0714October2016),
http://www.rsmcnewdelhi.imd.gov.in/images/pdf/publications/preliminar
y-report/vardah.pdf.
32.Indian Meteorological Department, New Delhi, A report on the very
severe cyclonic Storm, TITLI, Oct, 2018.
http://www.rsmcnewdelhi.imd.gov.in/images/pdf/publications/preliminar
y-report/titli.pdf.

Design wind speed (Vz):

The basic wind speed (Vd) for any site shall be obtained from the design
wind map and shall be modified to include the following effects to get
design wind speed Vz at any height Z, for chosen structure:
a) Risk level
b) Terrain roughness and height of the structure
c) Local topography and
d) Importance factor for the cyclonic region.
It can be mathematically expressed as follows:
Vz = Vd*k1*k2*k3*k4
Where
Vz = design wind speed at height z, in m/s
K1 = probability factor (risk coefficient)
K2 = terrain roughness and height factor
K3 = topography factor
K4 = importance factor for the cyclonic region
The basic wind calculation according to IS:875-2015(Part-3)
Meteorological Reference Wind speed, VR
It is the extreme value of wind speed over an averaging period of 10 min
duration and it is to be calculated from basic wind speed, VBby the
following relations.
VR = VB/K0
Where, Ko is a factor to convert 3secs peak gust into average speed of wind
during 10 min peak level of 10m above ground. K0 may be taken as 1.375.

Design wind speed (IS:802-2015)

Reference wind speed obtained in meteorological reference wind speed shall
be modified to include the following effects to get the design wind speed:
a) Risk coefficient K1,
b) Terrain roughness coefficient K2 It may be
expressed as follows:
Vd = VR * k1* k2
 The risk coefficient values for different wind zones and reliability levels is
tabulated below.

Table.1 Risk coefficients for different reliability levels, K1

Sl Reliability Level Co-efficient, K1 for wind zones
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6
i 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 1.00 1.00
0
ii 2 1.08 1.10 1.11 1.1 1.13 1.14
2
iii 3 1.17 1.22 1.25 1.2 1.28 1.30
7
Terrain Roughness coefficient corresponding to 10 min averaged wind speed
is tabulated below.
Table.2 Terrain roughness coefficient, K2
Terrain Category 1 2 3
Coefficient, K2 1.08 1.00 0.85

In this way, the wind forces on the towers according to IS:875-2015(Part-3)

and IS:802-205(Part-1/sec-1) are calculated.
Due to the increasing demand of electrical energy, a significant importance
should be given to the analysis & design of transmission line towers. Since the
transmission towers are the tall structures, they are mainly affected by wind
forces. Therefore before the design & construction of these structures, they must
be analysed for wind forces. This research paper presents a study on wind
analysis of four legged towers with different bracing systems for angle & tube
section. Wind analysis of towers is done by using STAAD Pro software & with

the help of guidelines given by IS: 802 (Part 1)-1995. Comparison has been
done between different bracing systems & between the angle & tube
sections in terms of parameters such as axial force, shear force, torsional
moment, bending moment & deflection in normal as well as broken wire
condition. Study reveals that W type of bracing with tube section is most
suitable since it gives optimum values of all the parameters for all the
conditions.

Basic wind speed:

The figure gives basic wind speed map of India, as applicable to 10m height
above mean ground level for different zones of the country. Basic wind
speed is based on peak gust velocity averaged over a short time interval of
about 3 secs and corresponds to mean heights above ground level in an open
terrain(category-2). Basic wind speed presented in the figure have been
worked out for a 50 year return period.
 Fig.1 Design wind speeds map of India

Annexure must be quoted in the text above.Please check. If the text doesn’t
require may please remove Annexure because it is nothing but the content from
Code.