Diaphragms for Lattice Steel Supports
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
196 DIAPHRAGMS FOR LATTICE STEEL SUPPORTS Working Group 22.08 April 2002 196 DIAPHRAGMS FOR LATTICE STEEL SUPPORTS Working Group 22.08 MARCH 2002 Copyright © 2002 “Ownership of a CIGRE publication, whether in paper form or on electronic support only infers right of use for personal purposes. Are prohibited, except if explicitly agreed by CIGRE, total or partial reproduction of the publication for use other than personal and transfer to a third party; hence circulation on any intranet or other company network is forbidden”. Disclaimer notice “CIGRE gives no warranty or assurance about the contents of this publication, nor does it accept any responsibility, as to the accuracy or exhaustiveness of the information. All implied warranties and conditions are excluded to the maximum extent permitted by law”. 196 DIAPHRAGMS FOR LATTICE STEEL SUPPORTS SC22 WG08 Task Force Members: G. Gheorghita (Task Force Leader) (Romania), JBGF da Silva (Brazil), DA Hughes (UK) During the preparation of this report, WG08 comprised the following: Members : JBGF da Silva (Convenor, Brazil), DA Hughes (Secretary, UK); S Kitipornchai (Australia), J Rogier (Belgium), RC de Menezes (Brazil), L Binette (Canada), K Nieminen (Finland), B Rassineux (France), R Paschen (Germany), E Thorsteins (Iceland), PM Ahluwalia (India), S Villa (Italy), G Nesgård (Norway), GA Copoiu (Romania), J Diez Serrano (South Africa), J Fernandez (Spain), R Jansson (Sweden), L Kempner (United States), JA Pardiñas (Venezuela). Corresponding Members: H. Hawes (Australia), RP. Guimarães (Brazil), K Mito (Japan), TJ. Ploeg (Netherlands), G. Gheorghita (Romania), KE. Lindsey (United States), C Garcia (Venezuela). i 196 CONTENTS Page 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 THE QUESTIONNAIRE 3 2.1 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE 4 2.1.1 Question 1 : “Who is responsible for the choice of the principles 4 employed for diaphragm design”? 2.1.2 Question 2 : “Are there any special loading cases considered for 6 diaphragm design not addressed by standards”? 2.1.3 Question 3 : “Is the Consultant / Designer’s experience 8 considered adequate to establish the levels / heights at which diaphragms should be employed”? 2.1.4 Question 4 : “What is the maximum distance allowed between two 9 horizontal diaphragms”? 2.1.5 Question 5 : “Are any special design rules employed to check the 10 permissible sag of the diaphragm members when erected”? 2.1.6 Question 6 : “During fabrication, is it necessary to adjust member 11 flange angles to ensure a flush connection between the flanges of the diaphragm and the horizontal support face members”? 2.1.7 Question 7 : “What forces are employed for the member design of 12 diaphragms”? 2.1.8 Question 8 : “Are different design philosophies employed for the 13 diaphragms in supports to be tested as opposed to those not to be tested”? 2.1.9 Question 9 : “Are there any differences in the design and or type 13 of diaphragm employed for heavy supports (angle, terminal) than for the relatively lighter suspension supports”? 2.1.10 Question 10 : “Are you using the geometry described in the 14 Figure”? 2.1.11 Question 11 : “Who is responsible for the choice of principles 15 employed for diaphragm design”? 2.1.12 Question 12 : “What is the maximum distance allowed between 15 two horizontal diaphragms”? 3 STANDARDS / GUIDES FOR DIAPHRAGMS 17 3.1 INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL STANDARDS 17 3.1.1 ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 52, 2nd 17 Edition “Guide for Design of Steel Transmission Supports” 3.1.2 ANSI/ASCE 10-97 “Design of latticed steel transmission 19 structures”. iii 196 Page 3.1.3 EUROPEAN STANDARD EN 50341-1 : 2001 Overhead electrical 19 lines exceeding AC 45kV, Part 1 General Requirements - Common Specifications 3.1.4 CENELEC prENV1993-3-1 : 1997 Overhead electrical lines 21 3.1.5 BS 8100 Lattice towers and masts; Part 3 : Code of practice for 22 strength assessment of members of lattice towers and masts : 1999 3.1.6 DIN VDE 0210 /12.85 : Planning and Design of Overhead Lines 26 with rated voltages above 1 kV 3.1.7 DIN 18 800 Part 2 : Steel Structures, stability, buckling of bars 27 and skeletal structures. 3.1.8 DIN 18 800 Part 1 : Steel Structures, stability, buckling of bars 28 and skeletal structures. 3.1.9 ASTM A6/A6M-00a : Standard Specification for General 29 Requirements for Rolled Structural Steel Bars, Plates, Shapes, and Sheet Piling 3.1.10 Australian Standard AS 3995 - 1994 : Design of steel lattice 30 towers and masts 3.1.11 Australia : HB C(b)1 1999. Guidelines for Design and 30 Maintenance of Overhead Distribution and Transmission Lines 3.1.12 Romania Departmental Rule PE 105 : 1990. Methodology for 30 OHTL Steel Tower Design 3.1.13 Slovenian Regulation On Technical Norms Covering Construction 33 Overhead Power Lines of 1kV to 400kV, U.l. SFRJ 65/88 3.1.14 Japanese Electrical Code JEC-127 : Overhead Transmission 33 Lines 3.1.15 ECCS Publication No 39. “Recommendations for angles in lattice 44 transmission towers” 3.2 INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND PRACTICES 45 3.2.1 Companhia Energética de São Paulo Technical (CESP) 45 Specification ET-EMTL-100/91 3.2.2 Centrais Elétricas do Norte do Brasil S.A. (ELETRONORTE) 45 Technical Specifications PEL-000-10001 3.2.3 Companhia Hidro Elétrica do São Francisco (CHESF) Technical 45 Specification ET/DET 132 -Rev 1 - 1995 3.2.4 Japan : Tohoku Electric Power Co. Inc. Standard For 46 Transmission Towers 3.3 OTHER REFERENCES 49 3.3.1 CIGRÉ paper 22-102 “Assessment and upgrading of 49 Transmission towers”. S Kitipornchai and F Alobermani. iv 196 Page 3.3.2 “Investigation into damage of tower horizontal plan bracing during 50 high intensity winds”. Introduction 50 Overview of Damage 51 Local Wind Effect Research 53 Design Specification 55 Member Failures 56 Material Testing 59 Conclusions 60 3.4 COUNTRY SPECIFIC COMMENTS 61 4 USE AND APPLICATION OF DIAPHRAGMS 63 4.1 STRUCTURAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR DIAPHRAGM 64 LOCATIONS 4.1.1 Torsion distribution 64 4.1.2 Support geometry 64 4.1.3 Stability 65 4.1.4 Maintenance Loading 66 4.2 ERECTION CONSIDERATIONS 66 4.3 OTHER BENEFITS OF DIAPHRAGMS 75 4.3.1 Support Upgrading 75 4.3.2 Support Repairs 75 5 CONCLUSIONS 79 5.1 REQUIREMENTS FOR DIAPHRAGMS 79 5.1.1 Reasons for Diaphragms 79 5.1.2 Necessary locations for diaphragms 80 5.1.3 Design conditions for diaphragms 80 5.1.4 Arrangement of Diaphragms 81 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 81 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 83 REFERENCES 85 ANNEX 1 : Questionnaire Issued ANNEX 2 : Detailed Responses to Questionnaire ANNEX 3 : Calculation example for plan bracing (J. Short) ANNEX 4 : Dimensioning of diaphragm members (Brazilian experience) v 196 Page LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 3.1 : ACSE Figure 3.1 Model of Simplified Tower 18 Figure 3.2 : prEN 50341-1 (Figure J.9) - Typical plan bracing. 20 Figure 3.3 : prEN 50341-1 (Figure J.10) - Typical plan bracing 21 Figure 3.4 : prENV - Figure 5.3 - Typical plan bracing 22 Figure 3.5 : BS 8100 Figure 6 - Typical plan bracing 24 Figure 3.6 : BS 8100 Figure 7 - K bracing horizontals without plan bracing 24 Figure 3.7 : Table 1– Applied force as percentage of leg load, F 26 Figure 3.8 : Figure 1 DIN VDE 0210. 27 Horizontal loads acting on the tower body resulting from a torsional moment Figure 3.9 : DIN 18 800 Figure 2 – Initial bow imperfections of 27 member in the form of a quadratic parabola or sine half wave Figure 3.10 : PE 105 Figure. 8.2a 31 Figure 3.11 : PE 105 Figure. 8.2b 32 Figure 3.12 : PE 105 Figure. 8.2c 32 Figure 3.13 : JEC-127 Figure 34 34 Figure 3.14 : JEC-127 Figure 35 : Example of plan trusses 34 Figure 3.15 : JEC-127 Figure 37 35 Figure 3.16 : JEC-127 Figure 1 (Section 6) 37 Figure 3.17 : JEC-127 Figure 2 (Section 6) 37 Figure 3.18 : JEC-127 Fig. 3 (Section 6) Settlement force determined 39 from damaged tower members Figure 3.19 : Tokoku Diaphragms 47 Figure 3.20 : Tokoku A-Plans 48 Figure 3.21 : Tokoku B,C-Plans 48 Figure 3.22 : Figure 7 : Case Study 3 - Upgrading 400 kV suspension 50 Figure 3.23 : Report Figure 1 : Plan Configuration that failed 51 Figure 3.24 : Report Photo1 : View of damaged support 52 Figure 3.25 : Report Photo 2 : Underside view of damaged support 53 54 Figure 3.26 : Report Photo 3 : Scale topographical model for wind tunnel test Figure 3.27 : Report Table 1 : Comparison of loads arising from test 55 Figure 3.28 : Report Table 2 : Loads arising from test at 10-15 m 56 Figure 3.29 : Report Table 3 : Peak Gust speeds due to local effects 56 Figure 3.30 : Report Figure 2 : Modified diaphragm arrangement 57 Figure 3.31 : Report Figure 3 : Angle of member wind incidence 59 Figure 3.32 : Report Table 4 : Revised design wind pressures 60 Figure 4.01 : Typical locations for diaphragms (self supporting structure) 63 vi 196 Page Figure 4.02 : Typical torsion moment philosophy 64 Figure 4.03 : Diaphragms at change in leg slope 65 Figure 4.04 : Triangulation philosophy 65 Figure 4.05 : Collapse of inadequately supported leg extension 67 Figure 4.06 : Bending failure of main leg. 68 Figure 4.07 : Legs unsupported 69 Figure 4.08 : Temporary erection supports 69 Figure 4.09 : Temporary guys for initial stability 70 Figure 4.10 : Legs faces installed with temporary guys 70 Figure 4.11 : Location of diaphragms for erection purposes 71 Figure 4.12 : Main member joint located above diaphragm level 71 Figure 4.13 : Diaphragm providing stability to partially erected support 72 Figure 4.14 : Stability provided by two diaphragms 72 Figure 4.15 : Unsupported main members above bottom panel 73 Figure 4.16 : Two diaphragm levels 74 Figure 4.17 : Upgrading by adding a diaphragm 75 Figure 4.18 : 400 kV Suspension support with deformed structure 76 geometry Figure 4.19 : 400 kV Support with deformed geometry.