4.6 Article

Failure Analysis of Transmission Tower in Full-Scale Tests

Journal

BUILDINGS
Volume 12, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/buildings12040389

Keywords

transmission tower; full-scale test; joint slip; tower failure; design code

Funding

  1. State Grid Heilongjiang Electric Power Co., Ltd. science and technology project [522448200018]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With the rapid development of Ultra-High Voltage (UHV) transmission lines, studying the performance of UHV transmission towers has become necessary. Through full-scale tests and comparison with calculation results, it was found that bolt slippage increases the displacement of the tower, but it can be corrected by residual displacement. Additionally, the new joint design exhibits good mechanical performance.
With the rapid development of Ultra-High Voltage (UHV) transmission lines, it is necessary to study the performance of UHV transmission towers. First, we performed full-scale tests on a transmission tower under seven loading patterns. Then, the test results were compared with the calculation results of the Chinese tower design software Transmission Tower Analysis Program (TTA), and the failure location of the tower and the stress characteristics of the key parts were studied. Finally, we discuss the influence of bolt slippage and a new joint on the tower performance, and propose some design proposals for the current Chinese code, based on the test results. The results show that a bolt slip will significantly increase the displacement of the transmission tower, but the residual displacement can correct it. The new joint design has good mechanical performance. The bracing member at the bottom of the tower leg is located at the connection of the tower leg and the foundation, and there is a significant sudden change in stiffness, which we recommend designing according to 4% of the axial force of the main members.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available