3rd Generation

Chainette Towers
& Other Tower
Optimisation Concepts

Pierre Marais
2015 PLS-CADD AdvancedSlideTraining
1 of 32 & User Group Meeting
Optimisation of chainette towers
• Evolution of 400kV crossrope structures in South
Africa
• Chainette Tower Variants
• Understanding the performance
• Modelling in Tower
 1st & 2nd generation Chainette towers
• Further potential efficiencies
 3rd generation ideas
Optimisation of a narrow base 132kV lattice tower

Slide 2 of 32
 Evolution of EHV Structures in Eskom
Pre- 1985 1985

Self - Supporting Suspension Guyed Vee Suspension

100% Cost 65% Cost

Slide 3 of 32
 Evolution of EHV Structures in Eskom

1995 2003

1st Gen Cross-rope 2nd Gen Cross-rope

Suspension Suspension
55% Cost 50% Cost

Slide 4 of 32
 Chainette Tower Variants
1998 2005

Cross-rope
Suspension
50% Cost
Compact Cross-rope “Flat Delta” Cross-
Suspension rope Suspension

Efficient Long Distance Transmission

Slide 5 of 32
 Chainette Tower Variants
R450,000

R375,000

R300,000 Misc Costs

52%
Insulation
Saving
Hardware
R225,000
Tower Erection
Tower Supply
R150,000
Foundations

R75,000

R0

• 0-15 Degree
guyed strain Slide 6 of 32
0-15 degree structures
Chainette Tower Variants

$120,000
Insulators
$100,000
Conductor
$80,000 43% Hardware
Cables & Stays

$60,000
Tower Hardware

50m 30m $40,000 Foundation Cost

$20,000 Tower Erection

Tower Supply
$0

Double Circuit 380kV

Slide 7 of 32
Chainette Tower Variants

970km 350kV DC line 2007

Slide 8 of 32
 • Crossrope / chainette towers have the lowest
fault rate of any tower type on the Eskom grid
SELF SUPPORTING GUYED VEE MIX CROSSROPE

4
275kV Line

275kV Line

275kV Line

MINIMUM PORTION OF
LINE FUALTS DUE TO
3 PIGYBACK FAILURE

275kV Line
2

1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1

HYDRA HYDRA PEGASUS WITKOP VENUS VENUS VENUS VENUS MIDAS MIDAS PLUTO SPITSKOP SPITSKOP PEGASUS VENUS PEGASUS KOKERBOOM MAPUTO SPITSKOP DUVHA EDWALENI HYDRA MAPUTO WITKOP

DROERIVIER DROERIVIER TUTUKA TABOR GEORGEDALE GEORGEDALE MAJUBA MAJUBA MATIMBA MATIMBA MATIMBA MATIMBA MATIMBA MAJUBA ARIADNE ATHENE ARIES ARNOT BIGHORN CAMDEN CAMDEN DROERIVIER EDWALENI SPENCER

AVERAGE VALUE

5.4 3.0 2.8 1.2

FAULTS/100KM/YEAR FAULTS/100KM/YEAR FAULTS/100KM/YEAR FAULTS/100KM/YEAR

Slide 9 of 32
• A naturally high electric strength
HV Impulse tests confirm a higher electrical
strength compared to conventional towers

3.10 m

Slide 10 of 32
• Bird pollution flashovers virtually eliminated
Birds do not perch on crossrope
No possibility of nesting
No bird pollution on insulators

Slide 11 of 32
• Excellent shielding from Lightning Strikes
 Phases well protected against lightning strikes

NEGATIVE
SHIELDING
ANGE

Slide 12 of 32
• Multiple earth contacts produce lower
superior connection to earth
Reduced back-flashover rate

6 Earth
connections
over a large area

Slide 13 of 32
• Low weight
Rapid re-construction

Slide 14 of 32
• Compact phase
spacing is
electrically
efficient
Capacitance 
Inductance  7m

Lower losses 7m

7m

Slide 15 of 32
Slide 16 of 32
• Solution to wide tower footprint:
Standard right of way required for line (40-50m)
80x60m building restriction around every tower site

80m 40-50m

60m

Slide 17 of 32
 Welding Eliminated
 Be careful to avoid eccentricities
 Replicate the original Tower FEM model as far as possible

1st Generation 2nd Generation

Slide 18 of 32
• What is the optimal attachment height?
• Possibly taller than you think (Unless you have flat terrain)
– Taller suspensions can eliminate in line strain structures
– Optimum spotting will reveal the optimal height

1st Generation 2nd Generation

33.4m
28.9m

20.0m
18.3m

Optimal height Optimal height for

for flat terrain “normal” terrain

Slide 19 of 32
• Staggered bracing shown to be the most
effective bracing pattern
• Take note of RLX ratio (see also ex5.tow)

Slide 20 of 32
• Offset peaks can provide some structural efficiency
 But also can induce torsional loads – choose extent
carefully

Wind
direction Bending Bending
induced by induced by
offset peak wind load

Heavily Lightly
loaded loaded
mast mast

Slide 21 of 32
• Hot rolled 60 degree angles

Hot rolled 60o angle “Schifflerized” 60o angle

• Potentially more cost effective material cost

• Lower drag coefficient
 SAPS wind used to benchmark current (square) design with proposed
(triangular) mast

Slide 22 of 32
 • Compared to 90 degree angles of the same size:
SECTION PROPERTIES OF
COMPLEX SHAPES CAN BE
DETERMINED IN AUTOCAD
USING “REGION” AND
“MASSPROP” FUNCTIONS

90o angle 60o angle

90o ANGLE 60o ANGLE % change
rx 21.3 19.1 -10%
rz 13.7 16.8 22%

 Ix, rx decreases
 Iz, rz increases

• This impacts the relative efficiency of different bracing patterns

Slide 23 of 32
 • 2 different bracing patterns investigated

(L1 can = 1.75L2 for

same main leg size)

L1
L2

Symmetrical bracing Staggered bracing

(1.2L/rz controls) (2.4L/rx controls)
10% Lighter

• Staggered bracing still more efficient than Symmetrical bracing

Slide 24 of 32
• Utilising higher steel grades (on main
legs) can produce further efficiency
• Gr. 450MPa compared with Gr.355MPa
steel
• Viability dependant on relative fabrication
Fy = 450MPa (65ksi)
costs
Fy = 355MPa (51ksi)

Slide 25 of 32
• Combination of steel grade and 60o hot rolled
angles produce a 15% reduction in weight
• Alternatively structural efficiency can be translated
into increased strength
• Viability dependant on fabrication cost implications

Slide 26 of 32
 Electrical Design
Electrical Design

Collaboration with stakeholders

Superstructure Design
Suppliers Contractors End Users

Hardware Design
Insulation &
Hardware Design
Mechanical Testing Superstructure
Design
Foundation
Electrical Testing Design

Foundation Design
Mechanical Testing Electrical Testing

Conventional Integrated
 OPTIMAL WIDTH
CONSIDERING TOTAL
COST

OPTIMAL WIDTH
CONSIDERING
SUPERSTRUCTURE
ONLY

Base width Base width

Slide 29 of 32
 - Different bracing patterns
may have slightly
different optimal base
widths
- Minimal difference in
Redundants overall cost between
options
- For standard width
towers more significant
differences expected
2.5m 2.6m 2.5m

Staggered Staggered Bracing

Bracing with redundants X - Bracing

Slide 30 of 32
 - Variable spacing on common body provides
additional efficiency
1. Determine load vs. position on main leg (max of all load
cases)
VARIABLE SPACING
DISTANCE BELOW X-ARM

2. Determine compression load curve for main leg

COMMON BODY

3. Calculate bracing interval incrementally with successive

locations down the main leg
1M SPACING
EXTENSIONS
BODY & LEG

Slide 31 of 32
“Tusk Tower” 400kV Multi-Circuit
Sculpture Tower

Slide 32 of 32
 Thank You

Questions?

pierrem@taprojects.co.za