Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 179 (2018) 503–513

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jweia

A review of transmission line systems under downburst wind loads

El-Sayed Abd-Elaal a, b, *, Julie E. Mills a, Xing Ma a
a
School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, Australia
b
Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University, Egypt

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Outages of power due to transmission tower failures can cause social and economic disasters. Investigations of
Downburst transmission line failures around the world have recorded that they are generally from high intensity winds from
Transmission towers downbursts and tornadoes. Downbursts represent the greatest threat due to the extreme and extended wind events
Structural analysis that they generate. Many studies have investigated the applications of these events on transmission line systems
Failure analysis (TLS). However, the wide ranges for the different downburst parameters and the varying representations of
Retrofitting
downburst wind speeds, which are different from boundary layer wind profiles, have complicated the investi-
gation of transmission line failures under these types of loads. This study reviews the research to date on TLS
under downburst wind loads. It explores downburst wind loads, their simulation models and the structural
behaviour of TLS under downburst wind loads. Modelling of TLS, static and dynamic analysis are all reviewed.
Failure analysis, critical downburst parameters, ideal retrofitting methods to avoid such catastrophic failures, and
optimization criteria of TLS are also discussed. Finally, recommendations for future research are made.

1. Introduction
More than 90% of transmission tower failures in Australia are due to
severe thunderstorm events that include downburst winds (Li, 2000), and
the situation is similar in several regions around world which have
comparable climatic conditions. The interruption of electricity due to
failure of transmission towers can generate social and economic di-
sasters. In addition the failure of one or two towers can trigger a long
chain of failures, which can destroy several transmission towers in one
event (Dempsey and White, 1996).
Savory et al. (2001) introduced the first model for isolated trans-
mission towers under localised wind loads, but the unbalanced distri-
bution of these types of loads on entire transmission line systems (TLS)
pushed researchers to study the structural behaviour of entire TLS.
However, these studies were limited to stationary downbursts, which are
different to the transient downbursts that are more usual for these events.
The translation speed increases the downburst velocity in the front of the
storm and reduces the downburst speed in the rear. There are also sug-
gestions that the translation speed causes some forward and backward
gaps in distributions of horizontal wind, which could cause different
distribution of wind speed on several panels of a TLS.
Earlier studies focused on guyed transmission towers and treated a
TLS as two separate parts: transmission line conductors and transmission
towers. Transmission line conductors have been studied alone and their
reactions have been imparted to towers at the connection points, and
towers have been investigated alone using a linear or nonlinear static
analysis (Shehata et al., 2005; Shehata and El Damatty, 2007; Darwish.
2010). By contrast, Yasui et al. (1999), Battista et al. (2003) and Gani and
Legeron (2010) highlighted the importance of the fluid flow–ca-
bles–structure interaction when evaluating the towers' behaviour under
wind forces.
Several studies investigated the structural response and failure anal-
ysis of transmission towers under downburst loads, but they did not
consider retrofitting procedures. Some reinforcement methods exist for
upgrading transmission towers, such as the leg retrofitting method, dia-
phragm bracing, friction-type reinforcement and x-brace type. The effi-
ciency of these methods, convenience of the reinforcement, cost and
optimal distribution of reinforcement through the TLS subjected to
downburst, are questions that need answers.
Assurance of structural safety with optimal design is a basic objective
in structural design and therefore modern TLS must be upgraded to
confront this case of loading. The best or optimal arrangements of towers
in TLS as well as the best orientation in front of wind loads need
discussion.
Several questions are suggested about the behaviour of TLS under
downbursts, starting from modelling downburst events, modelling TLS,

* Corresponding author. School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, Australia.
E-mail address: abdee001@mymail.unisa.edu.au (E.-S. Abd-Elaal).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2018.07.004
Received 16 March 2018; Received in revised form 22 May 2018; Accepted 4 July 2018
Available online 11 July 2018
0167-6105/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E.-S. Abd-Elaal et al.
applying these types of loads, developing the design parameters and
retrofitting old towers. This paper provides a comprehensive review of
earlier studies, including those of the authors, and then several proposals
for further research.
2. Downburst wind loads
Design specifications which assume that the atmospheric synoptic
wind is the basis of wind loads put TLS at risk due to localised wind
events such as tornadoes and downbursts. These two events pose a sig-
nificant threat to transmission towers. The probability of occurrence of
localised wind events in a specific area is low, but the threats to an overall
system grow due to the extension of TLS over long distances, thus
increasing the probability of one of these events crossing the transmission
line (Holmes et al., 2008).
Downbursts occur when warm air ascends through a cloud, and then
rises above the top of the cloud, creating a dome of warm air. The air
cools at this level and then begins to drop, collapsing the dome and
rushing back to the ground, creating an outburst of damaging air
(''Downbursts' of air are called danger to aircraft' 1979). The practical
diameters of downburst are roughly 1 km and the extent of the outburst
flow is 1.0–6.0 km (Wilson et al., 1984). Hjelmfelt (1988) showed that
the downdraft diameter ranged from 1.5 to 3.0 km, based on 11 events.
Analyses of extreme wind speeds in Australia showed that downbursts
are the extreme wind type at the height of 10 m (Holmes, 2002). Boss
(2010) reported that for every tornado damage report, there are almost
10 downburst reports.
2.1. Simulation of downburst loads
The spread of downburst winds have been modelled using three
different models: ring vortex, impinging jet model and cooling source
model. The ring vortex model forms a vortex ring before touching the
ground. The impinging jet model forms a radial out-flow after touching
the ground similar to the wind field, and the results from simulated
microburst events by using a large impinging jet were more consistent
with full-scale data (Letchford and Illidge, 1999). The impinging jet
model has been further developed to include the formation of the ring
vortex, but these models are not able to describe the buoyancy effects
Table 1
Experimental and numerical simulation findings.
Author Height of maximum horizontal velocity
Hjelmfelt (1988) 50–100 m
Wood et al. (2001) 0.016D
Chay and Letchford (2002) 50–100 m
Hangan et al. (2003) 0.08D (numerical simulation) and from
0.02D to 0.03D (experimental simulation)
Chay et al. (2006) 0.023D to 0.025D
Kim and Hangan (2007) less than 0.05D
Xu and Hangan (2008) 0.03D
Mason et al. (2009) 0.011D
Vermeire et al. (2011) 0.015D
Abd-Elaal et al. (2013a) 0.016D
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 179 (2018) 503–513
that the cooling source models have succeeded in doing (Selvam and
Holmes, 1992; Vermeire et al., 2011a). Earlier studies have used three
approaches for simulating downburst wind speeds: experimental, nu-
merical and analytical/empirical models. These will be considered in
turn.
2.2. Experimental and numerical simulation models
Experimental and numerical simulation procedures have been con-
ducted by many researchers. Bakke (1957) started an early experimental
simulation for a wall jet. Holmes (1992) and Cassar (1992) modelled
downburst wind speeds in a wind tunnel; Wood et al. (2001) employed
the impinging jet models for different embankment heights; Chay and
Letchford (2002) studied the profiles of downburst winds using a sta-
tionary wall jet tunnel then a moving downburst in a wind tunnel
(Letchford et al., 2002). Kim and Hangan (2007) investigated different
scales of downbursts in wind tunnels and concluded that the impinging
jet simulations are scale dependent. Mason et al. (2009) utilized the
cooling source model to study downburst storms. They used a dry,
non-hydrostatic, sub-cloud and axisymmetric model. The sensitive wind
field parameters relating to variations in downburst size, initiation
height, and intensity, in addition to forcing duration and downburst
shape were determined. Later Mason et al. (2010) developed the previous
model from an axisymmetric model to a three-dimensional model.
Table 1 summarises previous experimental and numerical simulation
findings. In the course of applying downburst wind loads to TLS,
adopting numerical or experimental models present several difficulties.
In addition to the complication of coupling numerical or experimental
simulation with structural analysis, there are other reservations. One is
scale dependency. Kim and Hangan (2007) and Xu and Hangan (2008)
evaluated the scale effects for steady state and unsteady state simulation
and confirmed the scale dependency.
2.3. Analytical/empirical models and turbulence component
The downburst wind speed is described as the sum of the mean wind
component (U), and turbulent wind component (u). Oseguera and
Bowles (1988) and Vicroy (1991) developed an analytical model for the
mean speed of a downburst wind in two components: radial speed and
Radial position of maximum Comments/Findings
horizontal velocity
0.75D to 1.0D Hjelmfelt (1988) investigated 11 field events and estimated rough dimensions
for downburst wind and vertical profiles of horizontal downburst wind speeds
1.5 D The height of maximum velocity increases with increasing radial distance.
1.0D The mean pressure distributions on objects immersed in downburst events
differ from those in traditional boundary layer studies.
1.0D (numerical Conducted experimental and numerical simulations and concluded that the
simulation) height of the maximum velocity decreases as Reynolds number increases.
1.0D to 1.25D Developed an analytical model for describing downburst mean and turbulent
wind components.
1.1D Conducted numerical simulations of impinging jet steady state and unsteady
state and concluded that the maximum velocity increases and the height of the
maximum velocity decreases as the Reynolds number increases.
1.1D Conducted numerical simulations and examined the different downburst
parameters, including cloud-base height, boundary conditions, scale and
terrain roughness
1.25D Conducted numerical simulations using cooling source model and concluded
that the height of the maximum velocity decreases with increasing downburst
diameter.
1.425D Compared between the impinging jet models and the cooling source models.
They found that the impinging jet model is not accurate, particularly for the
near surface out flow, and the magnitude of wind components are over-
predicted above the height of maximum radial velocity
1.46D Analysed several observed downburst events to estimate the time periods of
downbursts events
504
E.-S. Abd-Elaal et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 179 (2018) 503–513

vertical speed. However, their model did not consider the outflow ring Darwish (2010) extracted the turbulence component from the
vortex and it was temporally independent. In addition there was a sig- recorded Lubbock-Reese downburst. He calculated the moving average
nificant difference between their profiles and the field and numerical of the speed over a certain period of time (filtering period) and subtracted
data. it from the total speed. He found that the maximum forces in guyed
Holmes and Oliver (2000) added the translation speed, and allowed transmission tower members were increased by 15–20% due to the
for downburst decay with time. Chay et al. (2006) extended the model downburst turbulence component.
with several modifications. They improved the height of maximum wind Several researchers have developed analytical models for simulating
speed as a function of radius. Li et al. (2012) introduced a further the downburst turbulence component. Chen and Letchford (2004)
improvement by including the nonlinear effects of boundary layer employed the evolutionary power spectral density method to generate
growth. Abd-Elaal et al. (2013b) presented a new pair of shaping func- the Gaussian stochastic process kðx; y; z; tÞ. Then, Chay et al. (2006)
tions which are more accurate for simulating the profiles of horizontal suggested the use of the Auto Regressive Moving Average method and
and vertical downburst wind speeds. Later Abd-Elaal et al. (2014) developed the turbulent wind speed (uÞ to be a function of more pa-
developed decay functions that can be added to the earlier empirical rameters including the horizontal position, as shown in Eq. (2).
expressions to depict the temporal profile of downburst wind speeds.
The turbulent wind component (u) was introduced by an amplitude- uðx; y; z; tÞ ¼ aðx; y; z; tÞkðx; y; z; tÞ (2)
modulating process in height and time parameters (Eq. (1)) (Chen and Su et al. (2015) evaluated these approaches to drive the time-varying
Letchford, 2004), where, aðz; tÞ and kðz; tÞ are the amplitude modulation mean wind component. They developed an empirical formula to deter-
function and the Gaussian stochastic process, respectively. mine the probable window sizes, taking into consideration the
time-varying trend of downbursts and the structural fundamental fre-
uðz; tÞ ¼ aðz; tÞkðz; tÞ (1)
quency. They also recommended a discrete wavelet transform with a
Holmes (2001) stated from the observed downburst at the Andrews higher order of Daubechies wavelet and Ensemble empirical mode
Air force base, Washington, D.C., 1983, that the turbulence amplitude is decomposition approaches.
0.1 times the non-turbulent wind speed, which means aðz; tÞ ¼ 0:1U ðz;
tÞ. Holmes and several researchers computed the turbulence intensity
2.4. Topographic effects
from experimental, numerical and field events as summarised in Table 2.
Their results showed that the turbulence intensity is in the range of
Few researchers have investigated the topographic speed-up factors
0.08–0.36 and it increases with increasing surface roughness.
for downburst wind speeds. Selvam and Holmes (1992) numerically
investigated topographic speed-up factors over a single hill, of slope 0.25,
and concluded that the speed-up factors are generally much lower than
Table 2
for boundary layer flow. Letchford and Illidge (1998) measured speed-up
Summary of downburst mean turbulence intensity.
factors for various topographic features, slopes 0.2–0.6, at a single po-
Author Mean turbulence intensity Comments/Findings sition, and then measured speed-up factors at various radii from the
Holmes (2001) 0.1 From the observed downburst at stagnation point (Letchford and Illidge, 1999). They concluded that the
the Andrews Air force base, crest speed-up factors increased with embankment gradient, and
Washington, D.C., 1983
decreased as the embankment was placed further from the impact point.
Chen and 0.1 Analysed the full-scale Lubbock-
Letchford Reese downburst event and Wood et al. (2001) studied topographic effects at several distances from
(2005) concluded that the turbulence the crest of the embankment with the testing surface at different dis-
variance equal to 0.03 tances from the jet outlet. They concluded that the proposed speed-up
Chen and between 0.08 and 0.11 Carried out multi-scale factors from Letchford and Illidge (1999) were slightly conservative.
Letchford correlation analysis of the
Later researchers worked to involve more topology features. Otsuka
(2006) Lubbock-Reese downburst event
and adjusted the mean (2006) and Mason et al. (2007, 2010) presented numerical simulations
turbulence intensity. for downburst outflow wind over two-dimensional ridges and 2D topo-
Holmes et al. between 0.9 and 0.11 Employed the moving average graphic features such as hills and escarpments. Abd-Elaal et al. (2018)
(2008) filter method to analyse the
investigated the changes in downburst wind speeds as they pass over real
Lubbock-Reese downburst event
Solari et al. 0.1 Analysed more than 90 topography. They concluded that the assumption of averaging the un-
(2015a, b) thunderstorm events and dulating terrain slopes over a horizontal length of 500 m was inadequate
concluded that turbulence and highlighted the importance of including three-dimensional simula-
intensity is independent of the tion for terrain topology rather than using 2D topographic features.
ratio between the height above
ground and the terrain
roughness length. 2.5. Downburst line
Elawady et al. between 0.11 and 0.14 Measured downburst turbulence
(2017) intensity from scaled
experimental testing at the A downburst line is defined as the occurrence of two or more
WindEEE dome. simultaneous downburst events which have outflows that generate a line
Stengel and between 0.1 and 0.3 Analysed a recent presumed of divergence outward from the line axis (Vermeire et al., 2011b).
Thiele downburst wind event and Around one-eighth of all downburst events are classified as a downburst
(2017) concluded that turbulence
intensity is time sensitive.
line (McCarthy et al., 1982; McCarthy and Wilson, 1986). However,
Aboshosha between 0.08 and 0.12 for Conducted a large eddy downburst lines represent a greater threat due to their large surface
et al. (2015) open exposure, and between impinging jet simulation on footprint, which increases the number of structures under threat at one
0.08 and 0.36 for urban different exposure surfaces and time compared with a single downburst event (Oliver et al., 2000).
exposures extracted the downburst
Vermeire et al. (2011b) studied downburst lines and found that their
turbulence component from
numerical simulation models. velocity profiles and the wind speed direction are inconsistent with those
They concluded that the expected for an isolated downburst event. The peak maximum speed in
turbulence intensity increases the downburst line has an amplification factor of up to 1.55 compared
with increasing surface with isolated downburst events and the damaging surface footprint
roughness.
increased by a factor of up to 70% compared with the isolated downburst.

505
E.-S. Abd-Elaal et al.
2.6. Drag and lift coefficients
Drag and lift coefficients for transmission tower members, conductors
and wires have been computed for horizontal winds in accordance with
typical wind load codes, but these coefficients did not account for the
downburst cases where the wind loads are inclined. Mara (2007) studied
drag and lift coefficients for various vertical and horizontal angles of
wind projections using wind tunnel experiments, and calculated the drag
and lift coefficients for inclined wind. Later, Mara and Hong (2013)
investigated the effect of wind direction on the response of a single
transmission tower. They concluded that the capacity curve of the tower
is dependent on the wind direction.
2.7. Standards and gust-front factor methods
Most international standards and codes do not describe or design for
downburst events and the prediction of downburst wind loads is ignored
in most of them. The Australian/New Zealand Standard (2010) “AS/NZS
7000:2010 Overhead line design” is one of the standards to consider the
effect of downburst winds through the introduction of two simple design
charts for the vertical and the horizontal distribution of horizontal wind
speed, while the vertical wind speed is ignored. Aboshosha et al. (2016)
presented a comprehensive comparison between international code
design limitations including design wind speeds, wind pressure,
conductor forces, tower forces and the gust factors.
Fig. 1 presents the suggested Span Reduction Factor (SRF) for the
suggested distribution of horizontal wind pressure on extended structural
systems from four sources; the Australian/New Zealand Standard “AS/
NZS 7000:2010 Overhead line design”, the estimation by Holmes et al.
(2008) for the Lubbock-Reese downdraft of 2002, the estimation by
Aboshosha and El Damatty (2013) and the suggested one for the synoptic
wind. This comparison indicates the large difference between the sug-
gested profiles for downburst events and the synoptic wind profile.
However, there is no specific definition for SRF. Holmes et al. (2008)
squared the time histories of wind from the Lubbock-Reese downdraft to
become proportional to wind pressure, and then averaged them in groups
to simulate the wind loads over various span lengths. Aboshosha and El
Damatty (2013) defined the SRF as the ratio between the peak conductor
reaction that accounts for the spatial correlations of the wind field, to the
corresponding value based on the assumption of full correlation.
1.00
Peak Load Reduction Factor
0.80
0.60
SRF for synoptic wind
Holmes et al. (2008)
AS/NZS 7000:2010
Haitham andand
Aboshosha
0.40
0 200 400
Fig. 1. Span reduction factor for peak pressures.
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 179 (2018) 503–513
By contrast, ASCE-74 (2010) does not include specific consideration
of downburst events and it refers to either the application of tornado-type
narrow-front loading or a Gust-Front Factor (GFF) for extreme wind
loadings, but its GFF considers the varyiation of the conductor height and
the terrain exposure.
Kwon and Kareem (2009) developed a gust-front factor (GFF) that
accounts for variations in load effects in gust-front winds. This GFF
summarises both the kinematic and dynamic features of gust-front
induced wind effects on structural systems. They recommended that
this factor can be used in conjunction with existing design standards, as a
device for treating conventional synoptic wind. However, this study was
limited to building structures and they suggested that it could be
extended to more complex structures.
2.8. Downburst wind modelling summary and recommendations for future
research
Downburst wind speeds have been simulated and produced through
experimental, numerical and analytical approaches. However, there is a
lack of data for full-scale events to validate these results in the spatial and
temporal domain. Most studies investigated the downburst as an axi-
symmetrical event while the parent cloud motion and subcloud wind
shear have rarely been included. However, the cloud and subcloud mo-
tion change the resultant downburst wind profile on extended structures
such as TLS.
Scale dependency of downburst simulation models has been
confirmed by researchers, and this difficulty affects the simulation re-
sults. Large scale numerical simulation has high computation cost. The
changes in downburst flow profiles with different simulation scales
should be considered, particularly because most structural systems and
the main surface parameters such as surface roughness and terrain cat-
egories are located in a very low height range of < D/50 where D is the
downburst diameter.
The effects of topography on the downburst wind speed and the
corresponding speed-up factors still need further research, as most
studies have not simulated complex topology and were limited to 2D
topographic features while 3D modelling of different topographic fea-
tures is needed. In addition, the changes in the vertical downburst wind
speed component above different topographic features have been
ignored.
El El
Damatty (2013)
Damatty (2013)
600 800 1000 1200 1400
Width, (m)
506
E.-S. Abd-Elaal et al.
More research should be conducted to develop a GFF or SRF for
representing downburst wind events. Initially, a precise definition for
span reduction factor should be developed. This definition should reflect
the critical loading scenarios that lead to maximum forces in different
TLS elements. Then, entirely recorded field events should be employed
such as the investigated events by Holmes et al. (2008) and Stengel and
Thiele (2017) as these events can reflect the real coherence in downburst
winds. The developed GFF or SRF might summarise the kinematic and
dynamic features of wind effects on transmission line systems and
consider the variations of the conductor height and the terrain exposure.
Lastly, it is widely predicted that stronger and more frequent extreme
weather events including downbursts will occur due to climate change
(Brook, 2013). These beliefs seem to have been confirmed by recently
recorded strong winds that have created havoc across Europe, America,
Caribbean and Australia in the last decade. Therefore, there is a necessity
to investigate the probability of changes to different downburst param-
eters such as event frequency, wind intensity, and downburst size that
can be expected due to climate change.
3. Structural analysis of TLS under wind loads
3.1. Modelling of TLS under downburst
Savory et al. (2001) developed different models for transmission
towers under tornadoes and downbursts, which were limited to isolated
towers. However, the unequal distribution of wind loads which occurs
due to these types of events highlights the importance of studying the
entire structural systems instead of isolated towers. Shehata et al. (2005)
introduced a finite element model for whole guyed TLS under downburst
wind loads. Later, Shehata and El Damatty (2007) studied the effect of
downburst characteristics (jet velocity, location and diameter) in the
development of forces in transmission tower members. Darwish et al.
(2010) added the effect of turbulent speed to downburst mean speed
during the investigation of guyed TLS. Then, Darwish (2010) studied a
self-supported transmission line under stationary downbursts, and later
added the parent storm translation speed and investigated the trans-
mission line system under downburst loads. However, this study did not
consider the continuous change of the downburst centre with the parent
storm translation speed.
Aboshosha and El Damatty (2015) developed a procedure to calculate
the reactions of conductors subjected to downburst loads in the trans-
verse and the longitudinal directions. Elawady and El Damatty (2016)
presented a procedure to estimate the critical conductor's pretension
force subjected to downburst loads, while considering the different
geometric and material parameters affecting the behaviour of the con-
ductors. Elawady et al. (2017) conducted an aero-elastic scaled experi-
mental test of a multi-spanned transmission line at the WindEEE dome.
Conductors and ground wires have been modelled in different ways.
They have been modelled as a three-node isoparametric finite element
(Desai et al., 1995). Others have modelled them as a two-dimensional
consistent curved beam and each cable span was divided into 10
consistent elements (Shehata et al., 2005). Bartoli et al. (2006) and Cluni
et al. (2008) modelled the cables as a set of 2-joint truss elements,
geometrically non-linear and mechanically-linear, and verified the model
experimentally. Gani and Legeron (2010) and Yan et al. (2010) modelled
the conductors and ground wires as tension-only truss elements. Later,
the conductors and ground wires were modelled as three-dimensional,
non-linear cable elements using an elastic cable formulation to simu-
late the behaviour of the cable, with each cable span being divided into
30 cable elements (Hamada and El Damatty, 2011). Yang and Hong
(2016) modelled the conductors and ground wires as link elements, with
each span modelled using 30 two-node link elements. Elawady et al.
(2017) used aircraft cables to simulate the scaled bundle during scaled
experimental tests.
Shehata et al. (2005) suggested that the insulator strings act as a
three-dimensional pendulum and hence can be modelled by two
507
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 179 (2018) 503–513
perpendicular linear springs. Other researchers suggested that the insu-
lator strings act as a three-dimensional pendulum but they modelled
them as two node, three-dimensional truss elements, assuming that in-
termediate hinges are at the connection points between the insulators
and tower cross-arms (Hamada and El Damatty, 2011). However, others
modelled the insulators as 6 truss elements (Gani and Legeron, 2010).
These models allow the insulators to rotate freely and there was no limit
for the swing angle. Yan et al. (2010) modelled the insulators as
multi-rigid-body systems connected with pins, the pins being modelled
by providing connector elements in ABAQUS (ABAQUS Users' Manual,
2003), and the clamp being modelled as a rigid-body. Yang and Hong
(2016) modelled the insulator as two-node link element with both ten-
sion and compression capability.
Duranona and Cataldo (2009) suggested that downbursts can develop
intense winds which can cause excessive sway angles that bring the
conductors to a closer distance to the towers. Battista et al. (2003)
implied that the insulators are the most important component of the
system when considering the analysis of wind flow and TLS interactive
dynamic behaviour and response.
3.2. Linear, non-linear analysis and joint slippage of transmission towers
Transmission towers are one of the most complicated forms of lattice
structure systems to analyse. The behaviour of transmission towers under
complex loads cannot be predicted by using simple techniques and there
are significant differences between forces in members calculated from
linear analysis and those measured from full-scale tests (Albermani and
Kitipornchai, 1992). Prasad Rao and Kalyanaraman (2001) studied the
non-linear behaviour of lattice towers, and concluded that methods of
design which are based on a linear analysis are not consistent with test
results. Prasad Rao et al. (2010) investigated several types of premature
failures during full-scale testing of transmission towers. They found that
non-linear analysis gave results that were more accurate than the results
obtained from linear analysis and it became possible to predict the
probable capacity of the transmission tower by using non-linear analysis.
Albermani et al. (2009) described a non-linear analytical procedure to
predict the failure of transmission towers by employing beam-column
and truss elements for modelling tower members. Oliveira et al. (2007)
investigated guyed transmission towers using three different procedures
to find which modelling procedure best represented the towers. The first
modelling method used truss elements; the second modelling method
used beam elements with rigid connections; and the third modelling
method used beams for the tower main legs and truss elements for the
bracing elements. They evaluated the three modelling methods by using
static linear and non-linear, and dynamic analysis. They recommended
using beam elements for main members and truss elements for bracing
elements.
Kitipornchai et al. (1994) studied theoretically the effect of bolt
slippage on the deflection and ultimate capacity for lattice towers and
concluded that slippage of bolts has a significant effect on deflection but
no effect on the ultimate strength. Ungkurapinan et al. (2003) investi-
gated experimentally several variables that influence joint slippage such
as: load applied, construction clearance and number of bolts. They
developed a mathematical expression for the relationship between joint
slippage and the applied load. Jiang et al. (2011) studied the impact of
joint modelling in lattice transmission towers. They conducted their
research experimentally and validated it numerically and concluded that
structural analysis models which ignored joint slippage effects and ec-
centricities are approximate in representing the global response of lattice
towers measured in full-scale tests. They stated that the effect of joint
slippage on the ultimate capacity alters according to the case of loading.
In the case of torsional loading there is no significant effect on the ulti-
mate capacity whereas in the case of flexural loading the ultimate ca-
pacity was reduced by approximately 15% compared with models
without joint slippage being considered.
E.-S. Abd-Elaal et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 179 (2018) 503–513

3.3. Static and dynamic analysis of transmission line system calculating critical microburst parameters for each member in trans-
mission towers. Darwish (2010) gave priority to effects of varying r/D
For better understanding of the dynamic analysis of transmission line and θ rather than the effects of varying D. Later, El Damatty and Elawady
systems under downburst wind speeds, the distinction between the fre- (2018) appended transmission line parameters such as tower types,
quencies of the downburst mean wind component (non-turbulent) and spans, heights and conductor properties for the earlier study.
the turbulent component should be identified. Downburst wind loads are
not like synoptic wind loads, they produce very strong wind that changes 3.6. Failure analysis of transmission towers
its speed and direction in a very short time. Kim and Hangan (2007)
indicated from analysing a full-scale downburst event while considering Failure analysis of transmission towers is important for identifying
the translation velocity of downburst, that the downburst frequency is the critical zone or critical members in transmission towers and it assists
0.025 Hz (T ¼ 40 s) in the translation side and 0.01 Hz (T ¼ 100 s) in the in determining the required reinforcements if towers need upgrading and
opposite translation. Holmes et al. (2008) investigated the turbulence for their arrangement through the TLS. Prasad Rao et al. (2010) examined
a full-scale downburst; and found that the peaks occurred at a frequency different kinds of tower failures through full-scale testing of transmission
range of 0.005–0.4 Hz. The turbulence component for the same full scale towers, concluding that the failures could occur due to the bracing sys-
downburst event has been investigated by Darwish et al. (2010). They tems (220 kV DE type tower), due to redundant members (220 kV
found that the peak power spectrum occurs at frequencies less than DE-D9DT type tower), or due to main leg members (400 kV tangent
0.01 Hz. tower). Moon et al. (2009) prepared a half-scaled structure test to eval-
Regarding towers and conductors frequencies, Yasui et al. (1999) and uate the failure mode of transmission towers. They concluded that adding
Battista et al. (2003) have indicated that the natural frequency of
self-supporting transmission towers was 1.28 Hz and 1.35 Hz, respec-
Table 3
tively. Shehata et al. (2005) computed the natural frequencies for guyed Summary of static and dynamic analysis findings.
transmission towers and conductors as 1.73 Hz and 0.12 Hz, respectively.
Author System type Comments/Findings
There is a large gap between the mean wind frequency of 0.025 Hz
and the minimum frequency calculated for self-supporting transmission Battista Conducted analytical- The dynamic characteristics of the
et al. numerical modelling for self- transmission towers and the lateral
towers (1.28 Hz), guyed transmission towers (1.73 Hz) and conductors
(2003) supported towers under movement of the cables increase the
(0.12 Hz). Therefore, studying transmission tower systems under down- boundary layer winds importance of fluid
burst mean wind components will not need dynamic analysis. However, flow–cables–structure interaction,
the effect of the downburst turbulent component is still somewhat the height of the chain of insulators
ambiguous. Some scholars suggest that quasi-static analysis is sufficient, described the dynamic properties of
the TLS, and the chain of insulators
reasoning that there is large aerodynamic damping, and others promote
tended to move as a double
the importance of dynamic analysis. Table 3 summarises the static and pendulum
dynamic analysis results. Darwish Evaluated numerically the The boundary conditions have a
et al. dynamic characteristics of significant effect on the dynamic
(2010) conductors under the properties. They considered the
3.4. Influence of conductor bundling downburst turbulence influence of pre-tension forces on
component. natural frequency and calculated
the natural frequency, mode shape,
Long high voltage TLS are commonly constructed with conductor
sagging and stresses. They
bundles. Bundling of conductors has rarely been included in transmission concluded that quasi-static analysis
line studies, where wind actions on conductor bundles cause aero- is sufficient in assessing the
dynamic coefficients and vibrations that differ from those found on single downburst turbulence component
conductors. Cooper (1973) obtained from experimental data the aero- where the resonant component of
the turbulence is damped out by the
dynamic coefficients for a bundle of two conductors. Then, Braun and aerodynamic damping.
Awruch (2005) studied numerically the aerodynamic and the aeroelastic Lin et al. Investigated experimentally They initiated fifty-seven ensembles
characteristics of a bundle of conductors (Fig. 2). (2012) aeroelastic models for a single of downdraft outflow and
Riera and Oliveira (2010) researched the wind-structure interaction transmission line span under concluded that in most cases
simulated downburst wind downdraft outflow wind forces
of conductor bundles. They classified the models into four categories;
loads behaved in a quasi-static manner,
rigid bundle, flexible bundle, flexible interacting bundle, and fully but some trials did not and hence
interacting bundle according to the allowed motion for the bundle. They there is a need for further research.
obtained a dynamic response for a normal span under wind loads Yang and Conducted nonlinear inelastic They found a match between the
although they neglected the boundary conditions at the span end. Hong numerical analysis for capacity curves of a single tower
(2016) transmission tower-line with or without the end-springs and
system under downburst showed that including a dynamic
3.5. Critical downburst parameters loads. tower-line interaction has no effect
on the capacity curve of the tower
under downburst loads.
The downburst wind velocity and the associated loads vary with the Elawady Conducted an aero-elastic The responses of the towers and the
diameters of the downbursts, the coordinates of the centre of the et al. scaled experimental test of a conductors under high downburst
downburst, and the jet velocity. Each member in a transmission tower (2017) multi-spanned transmission wind speeds are mainly
line at the WindEEE dome. background, and therefore the
has different critical downburst parameters that produce maximum in-
quasi-static analysis is appropriate
ternal forces in those members. Shehata et al. (2008) developed a finite for investigating the response of
element optimization technique for calculating critical microburst pa- transmission line systems under
rameters for transmission tower members by using genetic algorithms downburst loads.
and grid mutation. They assumed the optimization parameters (D, r/D, θ) Stengel Investigated the equation of They found a big discrepancy
et al. motion for modelling between numerical and
as independent variables, for jet diameter (D) ranges between 500 and (2017) aerodynamic damping of experimental and theory results
2000 m, r/D ratio ranges between 0.0 and 2.2, and θ ranges between 00 nonlinear movement of after a certain level of deflection,
and 900 . They divided each parameter range into several divisions until conductors then they developed a formula to
the population had approximately 100 random instances. They employed suit the nonlinear movement of a
swaying cable.
genetic algorithms with grid mutation for developing the generations and

508
E.-S. Abd-Elaal et al.
Fig. 2. Wind streamline on two-conductor bundle (Braun and Awruch, 2005).
additional braces may not improve the strength or stiffness of the
transmission tower and that it was necessary to enlarge the main mem-
bers or add stiffeners to the weak joints.
3.7. TLS modelling summary and recommendations for future research
According to the previous review, it is suggested that an analysis
should be developed that harvests the outcomes from all of these studies.
Finite element models should be developed, the main tower leg members
should be modelled as beam elements, the bracing members should be
modelled as truss elements, and joint slippage should be included. The
conductors should be modelled as cable elements and the conductor
bundle should be modelled as a flexible bundle category. Insulator
models should be developed, the effect of the main features of insulators
in terms of type, length, cross-section and swing angle limits should be
added, and the description of connections between insulator chains
should be introduced. The insulator model should include elements
shaped like an insulator chain (Fig. 3a), and the type and nature of the
connection between insulator strings should be considered. The main
different types of insulators have not yet been studied, so the three
common types of insulators: V-chain, I-chain and Relaxation chain need
further research as well (Fig. 3b).
In planning the construction of a TLS, the route of a TLS is divided
into straight sections. At each end of the sections there are tension towers
and suspension towers are applied between them. Therefore, the tension
towers should be provided for in the model and the interaction between
these two types of towers should be studied.
The earlier studies did not include transient downbursts except for a
single study conducted by Darwish (2010). Darwish (2010) added the
translation speed as a vector summation for downburst speeds but
ignored the translation of the downburst centroid. The translation speed
a) Insulator chain
Fig. 3. Transmission line insulators (ESDEP, n.d.).
509
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 179 (2018) 503–513
can be 1/3 the speed of the downburst (Holmes, 2001). Kwon and Kar-
eem (2009) concluded from several references that the storm translation
speed is around 10–20 m/s. This speed is a significant component and
must be added to the produced speeds from the downburst event, as well
as considering the movement of the downburst centroid.
Furthermore, the assumption of vector addition of parent storm
translation speed does not have any theoretical or numerical proof. The
authors suggest conducting numerical or experimental simulations for
both transient downbursts and isolated downbursts, and then adding the
translation speeds as a vector summation to the isolated downburst wind
speeds. Finally, this summation should be compared with the transient
downburst model in the four dimensions - at different height, different
radial distance, different angular direction and different time.
The structural behaviour of TLS under tilted downburst and down-
burst lines has not yet been investigated and knowledge of the behaviour
of TLS under different downburst sizes is incomplete. While Shehata et al.
(2005) and Shehata and El Damatty (2007) investigated the TLS for a
wide range of downburst diameters, they scaled this range from a single
downburst event and ignored scale dependency. The assumption of
scaling a range of events from a single downburst event may be
inadequate.
Finally, analysis of the wind-structure interaction of TLS under
downburst wind loads has been limited to a few experimental studies and
no numerical studies have been conducted, according to the authors'
knowledge.
4. Upgrading of TLS
4.1. Retrofitting transmission towers and transmission line systems
The incompatibility of many old transmission towers with current
standards pushed researchers to investigate reinforcement methods.
There are several reinforcement methods for upgrading old transmission
towers such as the leg retrofitting method, diaphragm bracing system,
friction type reinforcement method and x-brace method.
Albermani et al. (2004) used a diaphragm bracing system at mid
height of diagonal members to upgrade old lattice towers. They tested the
upgraded samples under two load cases - bending and torsional, and
found that the buckling load capacity of diagonal compression members
increased by 156–289%. They concluded that using a diaphragm is very
effective for upgrading old transmission towers with high leg slenderness
ratios.
The technique of leg reinforcement is based on attaching an extra leg
member to the existing leg using a number of interconnectors in each
panel. UniSA tower team (Denton et al., 2005; Zhuge et al., 2012)
investigated experimentally the load sharing effectiveness for this rein-
forcement method by using three different types of connections (aligned,
alternate and cruciform connection). They concluded that the load is
transferred from the original leg to the reinforcing leg member for all
b) Types of insulators (ESDEP n.d.)
E.-S. Abd-Elaal et al.
kinds of interconnection, but the maximum load transfer occurred in the
cruciform starred angle connection type. In addition, a series of mono-
tonic tests (Mills et al., 2012) and numerical modelling studies (Lu et al.,
2014; Zhuge et al., 2012) on retrofitted tower structures showed an
obvious structural strength increase in towers retrofitted through the leg
reinforcement method. Recent experimental studies (Lu et al., 2018)
indicated that long-term dynamic loading histories reduced the bolt-slip
load and structural stiffness of cruciform connectors due to surface
smoothing and bolt pretension loss, and thus reduced the load trans-
ferring effectiveness between original members and reinforcing
members.
Park et al. (2007) utilized friction type slotted connections to upgrade
the resistance performance of transmission towers to wind loads and to
lessen the force in the main structure members. They investigated two
units from the middle of the tower body and stated that friction-type
reinforcement can fortify the transmission tower's main legs loaded
axially and improve energy dissipation capacity (Park et al., 2009). They
introduced some modifications to slotted bolted connections to reduce
practical installation problems such as corrosion resistance at the sliding
interface and variation of friction force through cycling loading. They
recommended using stainless steel plates for slotted connections with
grinded surfaces and to develop a new closed type of friction damper.
Limited research has been conducted on the x-brace reinforcement
method. Park et al. (2007) conducted a small numerical comparison
between x-brace reinforcement methods and friction-type reinforcement
methods. They found that tower legs bear most of the loads through their
cantilever action; and the braced members carry little of the load.
Tongkasame et al. (2007) compared this pair of methods and concluded
that their effectiveness depends on the slenderness ratio of the original
member, and that the x-brace method achieves good results for members
with a high slenderness ratio of ℓ=i > 100.
From a large scale view, cascading failures that trigger a long chain of
failures of TLS cause expensive social and economic issues and strong
winds are the main reason of cascading failure accidents (Alminhana
et al. (2016). The CIGRE  Technical Brochure No. 515. (2012) presented
the different methodologies for mitigating cascading failures such as
adding control sliding clamps, load-limiting cross arms, the Bonneville
power administration approach, installation of anti-cascading towers at
set intervals, and load reduction and control devices. However, most of
these techniques are applicable at early design stages, not as retrofitting
options to existing TLS.
4.2. Retrofitting summary and recommendations
Several scenarios are suggested for reinforcement:
 Introducing reinforcement for critical members only in towers,
whether these members are the main members, the bracing members
or the redundant members or critical joints.
 Introducing complete systems of reinforcement such as using dia-
phragm bracing, x-brace type methods, leg reinforcement or a com-
bination of two methods.
 Reinforcing using solid round steel members
These reinforcement procedures should then be evaluated under
downburst wind loads, as well as the general forms of wind loads. Their
effectiveness, convenience of construction, cost and optimal distribution
of reinforcement through the TLS, should all be considered.
Kumalasari et al. (2005) investigated reinforcement of solid round
steel members by adding one or two split pipe(s) with and without end
welds in conjunction with using U-bolts for all cases. Using two split
pipes without end welds increased compression strength by 30% and if
the end is welded the increase became 60%. This means that one split
pipe with end welds has similar effectiveness to two split pipes without
end welds. They recommended using two split pipes without end welds
as the welding is hazardous in the field and very expensive.
510
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 179 (2018) 503–513
Using adhesive connections instead of welded connection is another
possibility, in conjunction with U-bolts. Pasternak et al. (2004) found
that adhesive connections showed higher strength and stiffness than
bolted connections, but adhesive connections have abrupt failures and
their long term behaviour is unknown. However, if the adhesive has been
applied in conjunction with a bolted connection, their earlier limitations
could be improved.
The authors would suggest researching new techniques and ap-
proaches for reinforcing limited towers within TLS instead of all towers
in TLS. For example, the wind load on transmission towers is calculated
from the wind span which is different from the weight span. The weight
span is the horizontal distance between the lowest points of the con-
ductors (Fig. 4). The wind span is the span where the wind acts trans-
versely on the conductors and equals half the sum of the two spans. It is
formed in a horizontal plane so that the lowest points are at the middle of
each span. If wind loads are decreased on selected towers in a TLS, then
an increase will result on the other towers. In this case, the first group of
towers will not require reinforcement and the other group will require
further reinforcement.
If the rotation angle of the insulators is controlled (Fig. 5a), the dis-
tribution of wind loads between the neighbouring towers will be
changed. This could be achieved by adding elastic members for the
insulator chains that will give some fixation and will reduce their swing
angle (Fig. 5b). This change should apply for half the towers in TLS, for
example the odd towers. By preventing or reducing one end of the con-
ductors from swinging and letting the other end swing freely, the position
of the lowest points in the wind span curve will transmit away from the
odd towers and approach from the even towers. This technique will in-
crease wind loads on the odd towers, which could then be reinforced, and
will reduce wind loads on the even towers. It is proposed that this
technique will be economical as it will reduce the number of reinforced
towers to half the number.
4.3. Optimal design of TLS
Optimal design of TLS involves many levels of optimization beginning
with the selection of conductor configurations and voltage, and ending
with the design details of tower components (Ghannoum and Yaacoub,
1989). Ranyard and Wren (1967) developed a procedure to obtain the
best arrangement of towers in TLS, by studying the arrangement of
towers in one of their straight sections. They applied several restrictions
to the procedure; towers had to be spaced under a restricted maximum
ratio (single span restriction), the distance between the conductors and
any point on the land must realize the minimum clearance, the summa-
tion of the length of the adjacent spans must not be more than a restricted
maximum and each tower must carry at least 35% of the combined load
of the two spans it carries.
White (1993) studied the optimization of conductors, the necessary
amount of steel for the reinforcement of conductors and the option of
alloying. He achieved 30% saving in the total weight of support steel, but
did not discuss the cost of the alloying option and steel reinforcement.
Shea and Smith (2006) improved the design of transmission towers
through shape and topology optimization. They reduced the structural
mass of existing towers by improving existing tower member section
sizing, tower envelope, joint positions and topology. Guo and Li (2011)
further developed the structural topology optimization methods, and
presented a layer combination optimization method to generate new
configurations.
However, tower optimizations that are based on minimum weight
have severe handicaps, as the tower foundations and conductors repre-
sent the major cost in TLS (Ghannoum and Yaacoub, 1989). They rec-
ommended optimization procedures that combined the cost of
foundations and the cost of towers.
Darwish (2010) studied two guyed towers with heights of 44 m and
55 m with different guy configurations under downburst loads and found
that increasing the height or changing the guy configuration had
E.-S. Abd-Elaal et al.
Fig. 4. Weight spans and wind spans.
negligible effect on the overall behaviour of tower members subjected to
downbursts.
Dagher and Lu (1993) investigated the reliability analysis of trans-
mission lines subjected to severe thunderstorms and local winds and
concluded that the probability of failure of the line of the transmission
line is proportional to their length. They posed questions about the op-
timum length for the transmission line and the optimum distance be-
tween tension tower types. Later, El Damatty and Elawady (2018)
investigated the implications of upgrading three different types of guyed
tower systems with similar spans. The ratio of required increase in the
weight of the towers due to downburst loads relative to the initial towers
was found to be 3%, 23%, and 14%, This might point to the significant
effects of the transmission line properties e.g. tower height, width of
conductor cross arm, number of conductors, dimensions of conductors,
insulator length, etc. However, this study did not include the analysis of
the guys that support the towers, where a large percentage of the forces
transfer directly to the ground supports through the guys.
4.4. TLS upgrade systems and design improvement summary
It is clear that the optimal design of TLS is highly complicated.
However, downburst wind is the governing type of wind load in several
areas around the world, therefore, it is necessary to improve the design of
new TLS to mitigate against these types of loads.
In general, the different parameters of TLS: spans, tower topology,
configuration, heights, tower orientations, etc. have been developed
without any consideration of downburst wind loads. It is suggested that
all of these parameters must be investigated under these types of loads.
For example, the collected field data about transmission tower failures in
Uruguay under downburst wind loads proposed that the threat of
downburst damage increases when the transmission lines are orientated
perpendicular to the storm direction (Duranona and Cataldo, 2009).
Therefore, they raised questions about the best orientation of trans-
mission line systems to mitigate the downburst threats.
a) Insulator swing angle
Fig. 5. Insulator swing angle and fixation.
511
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 179 (2018) 503–513
It should also be noted that the construction of new transmission line
systems is decreasing in several regions around the world. In the 20th
century there were generally a few central power stations such as hy-
droelectric power stations or fossil fuel power stations and TLS networks
were required to transfer the high voltage generated electricity to the
cities. However, with the increasing use of local generation through solar
panels on building rooves, smaller capacity generation through wind
turbines, pumped hydro etc the generation can occur closer to the con-
sumer, so there is some reduced dependency on high voltage TLS. For
example, in 2017 the South Australian government preferred to invest in
and install the world's largest lithium ion battery instead of constructing
a new transmission line system. This may mean there is less need for
design optimisation research for new TLS, but the need for upgrading of
existing TLS is likely to remain for some time.
5. Conclusion and recommendations for future work
Downburst wind speeds vary significantly from the uniform and
symmetrical large-scale wind events. Downburst wind speeds vary in the
four-dimensions of r; θ; h and t, where r is the radial distance from the
downburst centre, θ is the angular direction (angular direction is effective
for asymmetrical downburst events), h is the height above the ground
and t is the time. In addition to the 4-dimension variations, downburst
wind flows are characterised by rapid time variations, highly correlated
wind, extreme wind speeds at very low heights, vorticity and negative
buoyancy, and the localised nature of events with respect to space and
time. Consequently, downbursts result in unequal and different distri-
butions of wind loads over the TLS which differs to the distribution from
traditional boundary layer wind flows, and most design standards do not
provide enough information about these events.
This paper presents a review of the research to date on downburst
wind loads and ways of simulating them. The assumptions, advantages
and disadvantages of each procedure have been considered, and
modelling of TLS has been reviewed. Research to date has examined
several points that have significant effects on the analysis results, such as
linear and non-linear analysis, joint slippage effects, bundles of conduc-
tors and critical downburst parameters. Finally, the different techniques
that mitigate tower failures have been discussed, ranging from studying
the failure analysis of TLS, to the available retrofitting methods, with
several recommendations for further research. From this review, the
following critical points can be concluded:
 Downburst wind loads have been simulated by different procedures;
experimentally, numerically and analytically, however, these models
have not yet been validated or calibrated sufficiently against full-scale
data, which is very difficult to obtain due to the localised nature of
downburst events.
 Although different studies have investigated TLS under downburst
wind loads, they were primarily limited to stationary downburst
E.-S. Abd-Elaal et al.
events. However, moving downbursts could represent the critical
wind distribution on an extended structure such as a transmission line
system, due to the forward or backward gaps with horizontal distri-
bution of downburst wind which occur due to the parent storm
translation speed. Also, the structural behaviour of TLS under
downburst lines has not yet been studied.
 The review highlighted several factors that should be considered
during modelling of TLS including: bundles of conductors, detailed
model for insulator that considers swing angle limit, cable-structure
interaction, and joint slippage effects.
 Several reinforcement techniques have been presented, further de-
velopments and new applications have been suggested. In addition,
several improvements have been proposed for optimum design of
transmission line systems under downburst wind loads.
References
ABAQUS Users’ Manual, 2003. Ver. 6.4:Hibbitt[M]. Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc.
Abd-Elaal, E., Mills, J.E., Ma, X., 2013a. A coupled parametric-CFD study for determining
ages of downbursts through investigation of different field parameters. J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerod. 123, 30–42.
Abd-Elaal, E., Mills, J.E., Ma, X., 2013b. An analytical model for simulating steady state
flows of downburst. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 115, 53–64.
Abd-Elaal, E., Mills, J.E., Ma, X., 2014. Empirical models for predicting unsteady-state
downburst wind speeds. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 129, 49–63.
Abd-Elaal, E., Mills, J.E., Ma, X., 2018. Numerical simulation of downburst wind flow
over real topography. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 172, 85–95.
Aboshosha, H., El Damatty, A., 2013. Span reduction factor of transmission line
conductors under downburst winds. In: Proceeding of the Eighth Asia-Pacific
Conference on Wind Engineering, Chennai, India, December 10-14, 2013.
Aboshosha, H., El Damatty, A., 2015. Engineering method for estimating the reactions of
transmission line conductors under downburst winds. Eng. Struct. 99, 272–284.
Aboshosha, H., Bitsuamlak, G., El Damatty, A., 2015. Turbulence characterization of
downbursts using LES. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 136, 44–61.
Aboshosha, H., Elawady, A., El Ansary, A., El Damatty, A., 2016. Review on dynamic and
quasi-static buffeting response of transmission lines under synoptic and non-synoptic
winds. Eng. Struct. 112, 23–46.
Albermani, F., Kitipornchai, S., 1992. Nonlinear analysis of transmission towers. Eng.
Struct. 14 (3), 139–151.
Albermani, F., Kitipornchai, S., Chan, R.W.K., 2009. Failure analysis of transmission
towers. Eng. Fail. Anal. 16 (6), 1922–1928.
Albermani, F., Mahendran, M., Kitipornchai, S., 2004. Upgrading of transmission towers
using a diaphragm bracing system. Eng. Struct. 26 (6), 735–744.
Alminhana, F., Albermani, F., Mason, M., 2016. A study of transmission line cascades
triggered by conductor breakage and wind loads. In: The 18th Australasian Wind
Engineering Society Workshop, McLaren Vale, Australia, 06–08 July 2016, American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2010. Guidelines for Electrical Transmission Line
Structural Loading. ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice, No. 74, New
York, NY, USA.
Australian New Zealand Standard, 2010. Overhead Line Design, Standards Australia/
Standards New Zealand, Sydney. AS/NZS, vol. 7000, p. 2010.
Bakke, P., 1957. An experimental investigation of a wall jet. J. Fluid Mech. 2, 467–472.
Bartoli, G., Cluni, F., Gusella, V., Procino, L., 2006. Dynamics of cable under wind action:
wind tunnel experimental analysis. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 94 (5), 259–273.
Battista, R.C., Rodrigues, R.S., Pfeil, M.S., 2003. Dynamic behaviour and stability of
transmission line towers under wind forces. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 91 (8),
1051–1067.
Boss, 2010. Downbursts, Tornadoes Cause Different Damage. Spokesman, Review. http://
www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/mar/14/downbursts-tornadoes-cause-different-
damage/.
Braun, A.L., Awruch, A.M., 2005. Aerodynamic and aeroelastic analysis of bundled cables
by numerical simulation. J. Sound Vib. 284 (1–2), 51–73.
Brooks, H.E., 2013. Severe thunderstorms and climate change. Atmos. Res. 123 (0),
129–138.
Cassar, R., 1992. Simulation of a thunderstorm downdraft by a wind tunnel jet. In:
Summer Vacation Report, DBCE 92/22(M) CSIRO, Australia, February 1992.
Chay, M.T., Albermani, F., Wilson, R., 2006. Numerical and analytical simulation of
downburst wind loads. Eng. Struct. 28 (2), 240–254.
Chay, M.T., Letchford, C.W., 2002. Pressure distributions on a cube in a simulated
thunderstorm downburst-Part A: stationary downburst observations. J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerod. 90 (7), 711.
Chen, L., Letchford, C.W., 2004. A deterministic-stochastic hybrid model of downbursts
and its impact on a cantilevered structure. Eng. Struct. 26 (5), 619–629.
Chen, L., Letchford, C.W., 2005. Proper orthogonal decomposition of two vertical profiles
of full-scale nonstationary downburst wind speeds. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 93 (3),
187–216.
Chen, L., Letchford, C.W., 2006. Multi-scale correlation analyses of two lateral profiles of
full-scale downburst wind speeds. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 94 (9), 675–696.
CIGRE  Technical Brochure No 515, 2012. Mechanical security of overhead lines -
containing cascading failures and mitigating their effects. In: International Council on
Large Electrical Systems, Working Group B2.22.
512
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 179 (2018) 503–513
Cluni, F., Gusella, V., Bartoli, G., 2008. Wind tunnel scale model testing of suspended
cables and numerical comparison. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 96 (6–7), 1134–1140.
Cooper, K.R., January, 1973. Wind Tunnel and Theoretical Investigations into the
Aerodynamic Stability of Smooth and Stranded Twin-Bundled Power Conductors.
Technical Report, LTR-LA-115. National Research Council of Canada.
Dagher, H.J., Lu, Q., 1993. System reliability analysis of transmission lines. Eng. Struct.
15 (4), 251–258.
Darwish, M., 2010. Characteristics and Design of Downburst Loaded Transmission Lines.
Ph.D. thesis. The University of Western Ontario, Canada.
Darwish, M., El Damatty, A.A., Hangan, H.M., 2010. Dynamic characteristics of
transmission line conductors and behaviour under turbulent downburst loading.
Wind Struct. 13 (4), 327–346.
Dempsey, D., White, H.B., 1996. Winds wreak havoc on lines. T&D World Mag. 48 (6),
32–42.
Denton, J., Windsor, D., Mills, J., Tongkasame, C., Zhuge, Y., 2005. Effectiveness of load
sharing connections for the reinforcement of steel lattice tower leg members. In:
Australian Structural Engineering Conference 2005, Newcastle, Australia, September.
Desai, Y.M., Yu, P., Popplewell, N., Shah, A.H., 1995. Finite element modelling of
transmission line galloping. Comput. Struct. 57 (3), 407–420.
Downbursts' of air are called danger to aircraft, 1979. The Globe and Mail 21.
Duranona, V., Cataldo, J., 2009. Analysis of severe storms in Uruguay and their effect on
high voltage transmission lines. In: The 11th American Conference on the Wind
Engineering (ACWE), San Juan, Puerto Rico, USA, June.
Elawady, A., El Damatty, A., 2016. Longitudinal force on transmission towers due to non-
symmetric downburst conductor loads. Eng. Struct. 127, 206–226.
Elawady, A., Aboshosha, H., El Damatty, A., Bitsuamlak, G., Hangan, H., Elatar, A., 2017.
Aero-elastic testing of multi-spanned transmission line subjected to downbursts.
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 169, 194–216.
El Damatty, A., Elawady, A., 2018. Critical load cases for lattice transmission line
structures subjected to downbursts: economic implications for design of transmission
lines. Eng. Struct. 159, 213–226.
ESDEP, n.d. Lattice Towers and Masts. viewed 17 August (2011), http://www.fgg.uni-lj.
si/kmk/esdep/master/wg15c/l0300.htm
Gani, F., Legeron, F., 2010. Dynamic response of transmission lines guyed towers under
wind loading. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 37 (3), 450–465.
Ghannoum, E., Yaacoub, S.J., 1989. Optimization of transmission towers and foundations
based on their minimum cost. Power Delivery, IEEE Transactions on 4 (1), 614–620.
Guo, H.Y., Li, Z.L., 2011. Structural topology optimization of high-voltage transmission
tower with discrete variables. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 43 (6), 851–861.
Hamada, A., El Damatty, A.A., 2011. Behaviour of guyed transmission line structures
under tornado wind loading. Comput. Struct. 89 (11–12), 986–1003.
Hangan, H., Roberts, D., Xu, Z., Kim, J., 2003. Downburst simulation, Experimental and
numerical challenges. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Wind
Engineering, Lubbock, Texas.
Hjelmfelt, M.R., 1988. Structure and life cycle of microburst outflows observed in
Colorado. J. Appl. Meteorol. 27 (8), 900–927.
Holmes, J.D., 1992. Physical modelling of thunderstorm downdrafts by wind tunnel jet.
In: Second Australasian Wind Engineering Society Workshop, Monash University,
21–22 February 1992, 29–32.
Holmes, J.D., Oliver, S.E., 2000. An empirical model of a downburst. Eng. Struct. 22 (9),
1167–1172.
Holmes, J.D., 2001. Wind Loading of Structures. Spon Press, London.
Holmes, J.D., 2002. A Re-analysis of record extreme wind speeds in region a. Aust. J.
Struct. Eng. 4 (1), 29–40.
Holmes, J.D., Hangan, H.M., Schroeder, J.L., Letchford, C.W., Orwig, K.D., 2008.
A forensic study of the Lubbock-Reese downdraft of 2002. Wind Struct. 11 (2),
137–152.
Jiang, W.Q., Wang, Z.Q., McClure, G., Wang, G.L., Geng, J.D., 2011. Accurate modeling of
joint effects in lattice transmission towers. Eng. Struct. 33 (5), 1817–1827.
Kim, J., Hangan, H.M., 2007. Numerical simulations of impinging jets with application to
downbursts. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 95 (4), 279–298.
Kitipornchai, S., Albermani, F., Peyrot, A.H., 1994. Effect of bolt slippage on ultimate
behaviour of lattice structures. J. Struct. Eng-ASCE 120 (8), 2281–22817.
Kumalasari, C., Tickle, Vand, M., 2005. Compressive strength of solid round steel
members reinforced with split pipe(s). Civil Eng. Dimension 7 (2), 61–67.
Kwon, D.K., Kareem, A., 2009. Gust-front factor: new framework for wind load effects on
structures. J. Struct. Eng.-ASCE 135 (6), 717–732.
Letchford, Illidge, G., 1998. Topographic effects in simulated thunderstorm downdrafts
by wind tunnel jet. In: Proceedings of the Seventh AWES Workshop, Auckland.
Letchford, Illidge, G., 1999. Turbulence and topographic effects in simulated downrafts
by wind tunnel jet. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Wind
Engineering, Copenhagen.
Letchford, C.W., Mans, C., Chay, M.T., 2002. Thunderstorms—their importancein wind
engineering (a case for the next generation wind tunnel). J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 90
(12–15), 1415–1433.
Li, C., Li, Q.S., Xiao, Y.Q., Ou, J.P., 2012. A revised empirical model and CFD simulations
for 3D axisymmetric steady-state flows of downbursts and impinging jets. J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerod. 102, 48–60.
Li, C.Q., 2000. A stochastic model of severe thunderstorms for transmission line design.
Probabilist. Eng. Mech. 15 (4), 359–364.
Lin, W.E., Savory, E., McIntyre, R.P., Vandelaar, C.S., King, J.P.C., 2012. The response of
an overhead electrical power transmission line to two types of wind forcing. J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerod. 100 (1), 58–69.
Lu, C., Ma, X., Mills, J.E., 2014. The structural effect of bolted splices on retrofitted
transmission tower angle members. J. Constr. Steel Res. 95, 263–278.
E.-S. Abd-Elaal et al.
Lu, C., Ma, X., Mills, J.E., 2018. Cyclic performance of bolted cruciform and splice
connectors in retrofitted transmission tower legs. Thin-Walled Struct. 122, 264–285.
McCarthy, J., Wilson, J., Wand Fujita, T.T., 1982. The joint airport weather studies
project. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 63, 15–22.
McCarthy, J., Wilson, J., 1986. Classify, locate and avoid wind shear (CLAWS) project at
Denver”s international airport: operational testing of terminal weather hazard
warnings with emphasis on microburst windshear. American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics Monographs 32, 17–26.
Mara, T.G., 2007. The Effects of Multi-directional Winds on Lattice Sections, M.Eng.
Dissertation. University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
Mara, T.G., Hong, H.P., 2013. Effect of wind direction on the response and capacity
surface of a transmission tower. Eng. Struct. 57, 493–501.
Mason, M.S., Wood, G.S., Fletcher, D.F., 2007. Impinging jet simulation of stationary
downburst flow over topography. Wind Struct. 10 (5), 437–462.
Mason, M.S., Wood, G.S., Fletcher, D.F., 2009. Numerical simulation of downburst winds.
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 97 (11–12), 523–539.
Mason, M.S., Fletcher, D.F., Wood, G.S., 2010. Numerical simulation of idealised three-
dimensional downburst wind fields. Eng. Struct. 32 (11), 3558–3570.
Mills, J.E., Ma, X., Zhuge, Y., 2012. Experimental study on multi-panel retrofitted steel
transmission towers. J. Constr. Steel Res. 78, 58–67.
Moon, B.W., Park, J.H., Lee, S.K., Kim, J., Kim, T., Min, K.W., 2009. Performance
evaluation of a transmission tower by substructure test. J. Constr. Steel Res. 65 (1),
1–11.
Oliveira, M., Silva, J., Vellasco, P., Andrade, S., Lima, L., 2007. Structural analysis of
guyed steel telecommunication towers for radio antennas. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci.
Eng. 29, 185–195.
Oliver, S.E., Moriarty, W.W., Holmes, J.D., 2000. A risk model for design of transmission
line systems against thunderstorm downburst winds. Eng. Struct. 22 (9), 1173–1179.
Oseguera, R.M., Bowles, R.L., 1988. A simple, analytic 3-dimensional downburst model
based on boundary layer stagnation flow. NASA Tech. Memo. 100632.
Otsuka, K., 2006. Effects of topography on the surface wind of an isolated wet microburst.
In: 4th International Symposium on Computational Wind Engineering, Yokohama.
Park, J.H., Moon, B.W., Min, K.W., Lee, S.K., Kyeong Kim, C., 2007. Cyclic loading test of
friction-type reinforcing members upgrading wind-resistant performance of
transmission towers. Eng. Struct. 29 (11), 3185–3196.
Park, J.H., Moon, B.W., Min, K.W., Lee, S.K., Kyeong Kim, C., 2009. Experimental study
on the energy dissipation capacity of a plane transmission tower substructure with
friction-type reinforcing members. Power Deli. IEEE Trans. 24 (4), 2062–2070.
Pasternak, H., Schwarzlos, A., Schimmack, N., 2004. The application of adhesives to
connect steel members. J. Constr. Steel Res. 60 (3–5), 649–658.
Prasad Rao, N., Kalyanaraman, V., 2001. Non-linear behaviour of lattice panel of angle
towers. J. Constr. Steel Res. 57 (12), 1337–1357.
Prasad Rao, N., Knight, G.M.S., Lakshmanan, N., Iyer, N.R., 2010. Investigation of
transmission line tower failures. Eng. Fail. Anal. 17 (5), 1127–1141.
Ranyard, J.C., Wren, A., 1967. The optimum arrangement of towers in an electric power
transmission line. Comput. J. 10 (2), 157–161.
Riera, J.D., Oliveira, T.T., 2010. Wind-structure interaction in conductor bundles in
transmission lines. Struct. Infrastruct. E. 6 (4), 435–446.
Savory, E., Parke, G.A.R., Zeinoddini, M., Toy, N., Disney, P., 2001. Modelling of tornado
and microburst-induced wind loading and failure of a lattice transmission tower. Eng.
Struct. 23 (4), 365–375.
Selvam, R., Holmes, J.D., 1992. Numerical simulation of thunderstorm downdrafts.
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 44 (1–3), 2817–2825.
513
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 179 (2018) 503–513
Shea, K., Smith, I.F.C., 2006. Improving full-scale transmission tower design through
topology and shape optimization. J. Struct. Eng. 132 (5), 781–790.
Shehata, A.Y., El Damatty, A.A., Savory, E., 2005. Finite element modeling of
transmission line under downburst wind loading. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 42 (1),
71–89.
Shehata, A.Y., El Damatty, A.A., 2007. Behaviour of guyed transmission line structures
under downburst wind loading. Wind Struct. 10 (3), 249–268.
Shehata, A.Y., Nassef, A.O., El Damatty, A.A., 2008. A coupled finite element-
optimization technique to determine critical microburst parameters for transmission
towers. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 45 (1), 1–12.
Solari, G., De Gaetano, P., Repetto, M., 2015a. Thunderstorm response spectrum:
fundamentals and case study. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 143, 62–77.
Solari, G., Burlando, M., De Gaetano, P., Repetto, M.P., 2015b. Characteristics of
thunderstorms relevant to the wind loading of structures. Wind Struct. 20 (6),
763–791.
Stengel, D., Thiele, K., 2017. Measurements of downburst wind loading acting on an
overhead transmission line in Northern Germany. Procedia Eng. 199, 3152–3157.
Stengel, D., Thiele, K., Clobes, M., Mehdianpour, M., 2017. Aerodynamic damping of
nonlinear movement of conductor cables in wind tunnel tests, numerical simulations
and full scale measurements. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 169, 47–53.
Su, Y., Huang, G., Xu, Y.L., 2015. Derivation of time-varying mean for non-stationary
downburst winds. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 141, 39–48.
Tongkasame, C., Mills, J., Zhuge, Y., 2007. Finite element modelling of steel lattice tower
legs reinforced for increased loads. In: The 4th International Structural Engineering
and Construction Conference (ISEC-4), Melbourne, Australia, September.
Ungkurapinan, N., Chandrakeerthy, S.R.D.S., Rajapakse, R.K.N.D., Yue, S.B., 2003. Joint
slip in steel electric transmission towers. Eng. Struct. 25 (6), 779–788.
Vermeire, B.C., Orf, L.G., Savory, E., 2011a. Improved modelling of downburst outflows
for wind engineering applications using a cooling source approach. J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerod. 99 (8), 801–814.
Vermeire, B.C., Orf, L.G., Savory, E., 2011b. A parametric study of downburst line near-
surface outflows. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 99 (4), 226–238.
Vicroy, D.D., 1991. A simple, analytical, axisymmetric microburst model for downdraft
estimation. NASA Tech. Memo. 104053.
White, H.B., 1993. Guyed structures for transmission lines. Eng. Struct. 15 (4), 289–302.
Wilson, J.W., Roberts, R.D., Kessinger, C., McCarthy, J., 1984. Microburst wind structure
and evaluation of Doppler radar for airport wind shear detection. J. Clim. Appl.
Meteorol. 23 (6), 898–915.
Wood, G.S., Kwok, K.C.S., Motteram, N.A., Fletcher, D.F., 2001. Physical and numerical
modelling of thunderstorm downbursts. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 89 (6), 535–552.
Xu, Z., Hangan, H.M., 2008. Scale, boundary and inlet condition effects on impinging jets.
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 96 (12), 2383–2402.
Yan, B., Lin, X., Luo, W., Chen, Z., Liu, Z., 2010. Numerical study on dynamic swing of
suspension insulator string in overhead transmission line under wind load. Power
Deli. IEEE Trans. 25 (1), 248–259.
Yang, S.C., Hong, H.P., 2016. Nonlinear inelastic responses of transmission tower-line
system under downburst wind. Eng. Struct. 123, 490–500.
Yasui, H., Marukawa, H., Momomura, Y., Ohkuma, T., 1999. Analytical study on wind-
induced vibration of power transmission towers. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 83 (1–3),
431–441.
Zhuge, Y., Mills, J.E., Ma, X., 2012. Modelling of steel lattice tower angle legs reinforced
for increased load capacity. Eng. Struct. 43, 160–168.