STEEL TOWER ECONOMICS*

By P. J. RYLE, B.Sc.(Eng.), Member.t

(The paper wasfirstreceived 25th May, and in revised form Uth September, 1945. // was read before the TRANSMISSION SECTION 9th January, 1946, and before the NORTH-EASTERN CENTRE 22nd October, 1945.) SUMMARY Partly from theoretical considerations, but mainly from practical data, an empirical formula is derived giving the approximate weight of any tower in terms of its height and maximum working overturning moment at the base. The tower weight above ground line is shown to be satisfactorily represented by kHy/M tons, where H is the overall tower height above ground line, in feet; M is the overturning moment at ground line, in thousand lb-ft; and A is a "constant' : which varies within an extreme range of about 0-0014 to 0 0029 throughout the whole series of towers; most towers have k values well within this range. The towers investigated covered ranges of about 16 to 1 in height, 3 000 to 1 in overturning moment, and 1 200 to 1 in tower weight. Design factors which explain variations in the "constant" k are discussed at some length on a qualitative basis. It is shown that an economic value for the base width of any tower is in the neighbourhood of 0 5 y/Mft. On the assumption that, for any given general type of tower, the total erected cost may be regarded as proportional to the aboveground weight, the tower-weight formula, kH^/M, can be used with convenience and reasonable accuracy for a wide field of cost estimations, especially those involving comparisons of a number of alternatives of a generally similar nature. Such investigations include the following: Ordinary transmission lines: (a) Economic span lengths. (6) Relative costs of lines for different voltages, conductor sizes and conductor materials, (c) Number of circuits, (d) Number and height of earth conductors, (e) Abnormal wind and ice loading assumptions and/or factors of safety. (/) Different clearances between conductors and ground, (g) Suspended auxiliary cables, (h) Hypothetical "dogleg" lines. 0 ) Hypothetical "super e.h.v." lines. Navigable river crossings: (a) General layout, (b) Clearance to high water; Air Ministry height restrictions, (c) Span lengths and river bank configuration, (d) Foundation conditions, (e) Number of circuits. (/) Long spans; economic conductor, (g) Narrow waterways; economic number of towers. (A) Terminal-type crossing towers; economic conductor tension. (1) TOWER-WEIGHT ESTIMATION (1.1) Theoretical Approach to Tower-Weight Formula, The fundamental function of an overhead transmission-line tower is simply that of a dual-purpose distance pieceto keep the conductors apart and at not less than some prescribed minimum height above ground. The chief duty of a tower, however, is to resist the mechanical loads which may be applied to it by the wind acting on the conductors (ice-covered) and on the tower itself, by the resultants of the conductor tensions, and by the dead weights of the (ice-covered) conductors and of the tower itself. Usually the effects of dead weight are comparatively unimportant, and a tower may be considered basically as a vertical cantilever resisting one or more horizontal forces applied at or near its top. For a given tower height and loading, it might at a first glance be expected that there must be some particular design of tower which would be the most economical in weight of steelwork. This would, however, be true only so long as definite minimum thicknesses of metal in the various members were specified.
* Transmission Section paper. t

Theoretically, if the designer were free and satisfied to use metal indefinitely thin, and if such construction were practicable, there would appear to be no lower limit to the tower weight. In default of a rigid proof of these assertions, take a simple calculable case, namely that of an ordinary cylindrical tubular mast of constant wall thickness, assumed small in comparison with the diameter. If the diameter is d, the thickness /, the height h and the overturning moment at the base w, in any convenient units, the modulus of section of the tube will be proportional to d2t. For a given working stress, m will then be proportional to d2t, or dec y/imlt). The area of cross-section of the tube metal will be proportional to td, thus making the total mast weight proportional to htd, hence to ht^irnft) or to hy/(jnt). Hence, for given height and overturning moment, the mast weight can always be reduced by reducing t. The diameter would, of course, have to be increased inversely as the square root of the wall thickness, but no lower limit to the mast weight is indicated. On the other hand, if the thickness / isfixedat some prescribed minimum, the mast weight is determined and will be of the form kh^/m. It will also be seen that, for a fixed value of t, the diameter or base dimension is proportional to y/m. Throughout the paper, H is the total height of a tower above ground line, in feet; and M is the total overturning moment (usually transverse) at the ground line, under maximum working load, in thousands of lb-ft. Tower weights above ground line are given in tons; and, unless otherwise stated or implied, all tower designs referred to are based on a factor of safety of 2-5 under maximum working loads. Also, except where otherwise indicated, the effects of broken-conductor design assumptions are ignored. In Appendix 7.1, a simplified mathematical basis is given for arriving at the economic proportions and weight of an elementary square-based, parallel-sided lattice steel mast, without cross-arms, for a given height and given single horizontal load at the top. Such mathematical treatment depends on certain simplifying assumptions of which some, though of a practical order, are somewhat arbitrary and debatable. However, the results are given in a very simple form and may even be of some practical use in the preliminary design of small lattice masts. The chief result of the investigation in Appendix 7.1 is that the weight of the economic elementary lattice mast is kH^/M tons, where k, on the particular assumptions made, is 0-00153.

(1.2) Empirical Confirmation of Tower-Weight Formula: Range of Application For lattice steel overhead-line towers of normally tapering outline necessitating bracing members of varying lengths and angles of inclination, with leg-member sizes graded in steps up the tower, and with different loadings applied at different heights, no such simplified approach to a mathematical basis for economical design or tower-weight estimation is feasible. However, from the foregoing considerations, it is not unreasonable to expect that the weight of any tower of commercially economic design and constructed, as is usual, of members of defined minimum thicknesses, may be satisfactorily represented by an empirical formula of the form kHy/M. This is found to be true. Merz and McLellan. [263]

264

RYLE: STEEL TOWER ECONOMICS 500

9

//

450 River Thames sing tower

8 7

400

V *
/
/ * >

350

*~>
.O

$3

300 Typical river-crossing tower 250

I4
3 2 1

a /

ft
*

200

150 Typical l.i^kV tower Typical r 55'kVtowiT .' RBmast $*

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000 6000

100 Fig. 2.Weights of ordinary transmission-line towers. 50

one hypothetical design of minimum weight; on the other hand, for the same duty, there is no limit to the amount by which a tower could, without increasing factors of safety, be made heavier than the most economical design by adopting structurally Fig. 1. Comparative sizes of typical towers. inefficient proportions. Fig. 1 shows, drawn to scale, the scope of tower sizes and duties From his investigations the author would regard with some investigated; it covers ranges of about 16 to 1 in height, 3 000 to suspicion the adequacy of design of any ordinary transmission1 in overturning moment, and 1 200 to 1 in tower weight. With line tower giving a weight of less than, say, 0-0013//\AM; on comparatively small variations in k, which are discussed below, the other hand, he would hazard that any ordinary tower weighit is found that the formula for tower weight, kHy/M, is ap- ing more than, say, 0-QOlHy/M must be, for some reason, of plicable over the whole range. uneconomic design and therefore capable of improvement. These assertions only refer to towers of conventional types, (1.3) Weights of Ordinary Transmission-Line Towers particularly as regards number and disposition of conductors. Fig. 2 plots tower weights down to ground line, against Hy/M, For instance, a single tower of normal height, but to carry four for some 60 different designs of ordinary transmission-line 132-kV circuits, would need a very abnormal type of "toptowers. Values near the origin apply to small "PB" masts, and hamper," and would undoubtedly have a weight in excess of those at the upper end of the curve to 132-kV double-circuit any figure suggested above, although probably not more than towers for large angles of deviation. Between these limits are one of the order of 0 0024/f\/M. points representative of single- and double-circuit, straight-line and angle, towers for various conductor numbers and sizes and (1.4) Weights of River-Crossing Towers conductor loadings, and for voltages of 33, 66, 88, 110 and Fig. 3, which is similar to Fig. 2 but to different scales, shows 132 kV. The actual designs are due to the designers of half-a- the plot of tower weight down to ground line against Hy/M for dozen firms. A reliable average figure for tower weight may be a number of special river-crossing towers of heights from, say, taken as 0-0016 H-\/M tons, for nearly all the towers have 120 ft upward. The upper limit is the C.E.B. River Thames weights between 0 0014#VA/and 0 0018i/VMtons. crossing tower, which is 487 ft high. To demonstrate the wide Some variation in the value of k is to be expected, because of range over which the empirical formula, kH\JM, is found to be (a) type and number of cross-arms, which are not part of the generally applicable, all the points in Fig. 2 would occupy the basic-cantilever structure, but which may contribute appreciably to small black triangular area near the origin in Fig. 3. the total weight of the tower; (b) the adoption of different speciIt will be seen from Fig. 3 that for the tall towers the value fications for assumed broken-conductor conditions (if any), which for k is somewhat higher than for towers of more normal height. will affect design in respect of longitudinal loadings and torsion; and (c) differences in technique of different designers. (1.5) General Design Features Affecting Value of fc On the whole, the general range of k values is unexpectedly A qualitative investigation will now be made of general small. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is some physically acceptable mean value, there is of course more scope design features which may be expected to affect the relative for upward than downward variation. For specified minimum weights of towers; variations from empirical mean-weight formember thicknesses, etc., there must be for any given duty some mulae will also be considered.

RYLE: STEEL TOWER ECONOMICS

Rive Tha nest )wer- t

265

280 260 240 220 200 180 I: 1 0 6

(4-circuit^* ,

River Rodin6 towerJ

/ -

f 140
s 120 3 / ^ 100 / 80 / 60 40

(a) (b) Fig. 4220/330-kV single-circuit tower arrangements.

of total tower weight represented by cross-arms or equivalent "top-hamper."

(1.5.2) Bracing Members and Tower Outline. The bracing members in the main body of a tower should be considered under the two heads of stressed and unstressed 10 W 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 iOO 110 120 bracings. Stressed braces are those which perform a mechanical Thousands duty, generally in resisting the horizontal shear forces due to the applied loads. Unstressed bracings are those which have no Fig. 3.Weights of river-crossing towers. reciprocal counterpart in the stress diagram and which are only required for stiffening (by reducing their unsupported lengths) (1.5.1) Cross-Arms and " Top-Hamper." other members which are called upon to act as struts. As pointed out above, a tower is fundamentally a dualIn Appendix 7.2 it is shown that the weight of a stressed compurpose distance piece, of which one function is to keep the pression brace may be considered as roughly proportional to conductors at prescribed distances apart. For ordinary 3-phase Pi + c/2, where P is the design load, c a constant, and / the lines there may be 2, 3 or 6 separate arms projecting from the unsupported length. The weight of an unstressed brace is then main cantilever structure. For reasons of electrical and roughly proportional to /2. The general arrangement of a mechanical clearances, the general dimensions of the cross-arms tower, provided that the leg-member weight is not appreciably depend on the line voltage, the conductor material and size, and increased thereby, should therefore be such that the loads in the span length. The proportion of the total tower weight stressed braces, and the individual and total lengths of both represented by cross-arms may therefore show appreciable stressed and unstressed braces, are made as small as possible. variations. The simplest lattice-cantilever frame, that to resist a single load When the voltage range of, say, 220-330 kV is reached, the at the top^ is naturally of triangular outline with the lines of the power-transmitting capacity per circuit approaches such high legs meeting at the load point. There is then no load in any of values that the tendency is to avoid double-circuit construction the braces. Extending this, it can be shown that, at any section in order to eliminate the risk of simultaneous 2-circuit faults. At of a tower body, if the lines of the leg members meet at the centre the same time the insulation level is approaching a value where, of gravity of all the applied horizontal loads above that section, with low tower-footing resistance and with adequate overhead the braces in that section will be unstressed. Owing to the need earth-conductor protection, the line may be regarded as nearly for an appreciable width of tower body at the upper levels for "lightning-proof." These considerations, of which a detailed firm attachment of cross-arms, and to meet the requirements of discussion would be outside the scope of the paper, favour the torsional strength under broken-conductor conditions, this adoption of the single-circuit arrangement, in which the three line principle cannot often be fully applied. conductors are in one horizontal plane with two widely-spaced A good example of partial application, however, is that of the earth conductors well above them. The "top-hamper" of the outline design of the main body part of the typical 220/330-kV tower is then forced, by mechanical and electrical spacing re- single-circuit tower. The requirements of line and earthquirements, to take the general form shown as ABCD in Fig. 4. conductor spacing, as mentioned above,fixthe "top-hamper" on It is clear that the purely "top-hamper" steelwork must represent the lines depicted as ABCD in Fig. 4. At first sight, the main a comparatively large proportion of the total. body below the line-conductor cross-arm level would obviously Table 1 gives for typical towers the approximate percentages be set out as a vertical-sided structure EFGH as in Fig. 4(a). This arrangement, however, would involve an inordinate total Table 1I length of bracing members, and, since the leg-member lines would not approach the desirable condition of meeting at the centre of Approximate cross-arm Type of tower or "top-hamper" weight gravity of the loads, the stressed braces would be heavily loaded. (ordinary line) as percentage of total The total weight of braces would therefore be very high. tower weight The general design adopted in practice is shown in Fig. 4(b). As far as possible the leg lines are directed towards the load 33-kV single circuit 8% centre of gravity, although a "waist line" JK is reached, above 132-kV double circuit . . 18% which the leg members must branch out again. However, from 220/330-kV single circuit Probably 25-30% ground line up to the waist level the ideal condition is approached;
20

266

RYLE: STEEL TOWER ECONOMICS

the leg members will in general be little, if at all, increased in size, stressed braces will be lightly loaded, and the lengths of both stressed and unstressed braces will obviously be much less than in Fig. 4(a). In spite of this, the "top-hamper" of such towers renders them relatively heavy in comparison with towers of more common outline having ordinary cross-arms. Tower weights may be expected to be of the order of 0 0022#VAf tons. A similar "waisted" effect below the bottom cross-arm has been adopted on certain rather unusual river-crossing towers such as the C.E.B. River Witham (3-circuit, 33-kV) and River Roding (4-circuit, 66-kV), of which the upper parts are shown in outline in Fig. 5.

C.G.of all loads above CC C.G. of all loads above BB C.G. of all loads above AA

River Witham crossing .5-circuit. 55-kV)

River Roding crossing (4-circuit. 66k V) I Fig. 6.Typical "Eiffel" outline (exaggerated).

Fig. 5.River-crossing towers with special "top-hamper." For river-crossing towers of considerable height, the principle also leads to the "Eiffel Tower" type of outline, in which the leg lines appear curved, but are actually made in three or more straight-legged sections of slightly different leg slopes. On such towers the wind load on the tower itself may be of the same order as the total conductor wind load; on the River Thames tower the overturning moment at the base due to tower wind is nearly double that due to the conductor wind. Table 2 gives the approximate proportion of the tower-wind overturning moment for typical suspension, or straight-line, towers. Table 2
Tower type Tower-wind overturning moment as approximate percentage of total overturning moment

33-kV double circuit .. 132-kV double circuit .. "Average" river crossing

Thames crossing

10% 20% Between 25% and 50% depending on number of conductors and relation between tower heights and span lengths 62%

On a tall tower, the position of the centre of gravity of all horizontal loads above each tower section then varies considerably and is lower for lower sections. This obviously favours the "Eiffel" outline, as indicated in Fig. 6, in which, for clarity, the tower base and body widths have been exaggerated in size. Even if the conductor loads were the only ones acting, some degree of "Eiffel" outline would probably prove economical for the taller towers, because of the quite considerable reductions

which could be made in the individual and total lengths of bracing members, notably of the unstressed braces. Fig. 7 shows typical sections of bracings, legs and stressed braces being shown as full lines and unstressed braces as broken lines. In the lower parts of a tall tower, the unstressed braces represent a very considerable proportion of the steelwork weight; besides bracings in the plane of the tower face, further unstressed bracings may be required in inclined planes "across the corners," in order to stiffen the face bracings against movement normal to the face (Fig. 7). In the bottom panel section [Fig. 8(a)] of the River Thames tower, i.e. from ground level up to the 87-ft level, the total weight of unstressed braces is nearly four times that of the stressed braces, and actually represents nearly 10% of the whole tower weight. It is not impossible, in the author's opinion, that for a tower of this order of size a bottom panel arrangement generally as shown in Fig. 8(6) might prove economical. The total weight of the stressed braces EF, FG, GH and FH would probably be higher than that of AB and BC in the existing arrangement, but the saving in total weight of unstressed braces should more than counterbalance this. Another type of (normally) unstressed bracing which must contribute considerably to the weight of a tall tower is that commonly described as "plan" bracing. At several levels up the tower, bracings are put in to ensure that horizontal sections of the tower as a whole remain square under the effects of unbalanced torsion due to broken conductors, and to distribute the effects of such torsion. A typical frame of such "plan" bracing is shown in Fig. 9. The total weight of such a frame may be considerable, but can obviously be much reduced wherever the transverse dimensions of the tower body can be decreased by "Eiffel" outline. How many frames of "plan" bracing are necessary in a tower is debatable.

RYLE: STEEL TOWER ECONOMICS

267 Table 3

Table 3 shows, for typical tower bodies (omitting cross-arms), how the proportional weights of legs and stressed and unstressed braces vary with different types of tower. It will be seen that legs and total braces roughly share the weight in any tower, but that unstressed braces represent a percentage increasing rapidly with tower size. On the Thames tower the unstressed braces amount to considerably more than the stressed braces and represent one-third of the total tower-body weight. In a very tall tower, the total design load in the bottom section of the leg member, and therefore the crosssection and weight of the member, are markedly affected by the dead weight of the tower itself; this effect is usually small in an ordinary transmission-line tower. Table 4 gives for some typical towers the approximate proportion of the total load in the bottom-leg section, due to dead weight of the tower itself. Even "on tallj towers the weight of unusual types of "top-hamper" (e.g. Fig. 5) may account for a relatively large part of the total weight. Terminal-type river-crossing towers for long spans may also be relatively heavy; the main overturning moment is longitudinal owing to the conductor tensions, but there is, in

TOWER BODIES, APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE WEIGHTS Typical 33-kV .(narrow-base type tower) Typical 132-kV tower "Average" river-crossing tower

Thames crossing tower

Legs Stressed braces .. Unstressed braces

57 431

r 43

50 441 ^50

49 301 2lJ

47 201

6J

r 53

33j Table 4
Tower type Load in bottom leg, due to tower weight, as percentage of total load in leg

33-kV large-angle tower 33-kV straight-line tower 132-kV large-angle tower 132-kV straight-line tower "Average" river-crossing tower Thames crossing tower

3 7 5 10 15-30 40

Plan on A B
8' '.Typical stressed and unstressed bracings.

87 ft

f *

120 ft

*\

487-ft Thames tower. Towers with special "top-hamper" or long-span terminal-type towers may be from 10-20% heavier. Though not strictly within the intended scope of the paper, the author would anticipate that tall self-supporting radio towers of the type not designed for any transverse loading, except the wind on the tower itself, would reveal quite a low weight-factor k in comparison with similarly tall transmission-line towers. At the top, a tall transmission-line tower is subject to heavy transverse loads, and a little lower the tower body has to resist a considerable moment, so that even the upper members are quite heavy. On the other hand, a tower designed to resist only the wind on itself could in the upper sections consist theoretically of nothing more than a thin tapering rod or spike. For equal height and overturning moment at the base and equal factor of safety, a tall radio tower of the type referred to is therefore likely to be considerably lighter than a transmission tower. The author has no experience of radio towers, but from admittedly very rough calculations, he estimates that the weights of such towers, for a factor of safety of 2-5, might not much exceed about 00012HVM tons. (1.5.3) Broken Conductor Conditions. It will hardly be disputed that, for lines of major importance, steel towers should be designed with some margin of safety against the effects of unbalanced longitudinal loads due to broken conductors. In Great Britain, the majority of towers are designed for a factor of safety of 1^ under such conditions, the number of conductors assumed to be broken ranging from only one on suspension towers up to four on 132-kV double-circuit largeangle towers. Service experience has shown the value of this practice, since the number of tower failures under excessive wind and ice loadings accompanied by conductor breakages has been very small. No attempt is made here to estimate the degree to which broken-conductor design requirements affect tower weight, and in Figs. 2 and 3, and in corresponding recommended averageweight formulae, no differentiation is made between towers designed for light or onerous broken-conductor assumptions. In general terms it may be said, however, that the provision, in design, for one broken conductor may be more decisive in the weight of a suspension tower than the provision for even

(a) (b) Fig. 8.River Thames crossing tower, bottom panel.

addition, a considerable transverse overturning moment due to the wind on the conductors and tower. The author has not, so far, established any entirely satisfactory basis for a simple kH\/M weight formula for such towers. In Fig. 3, points marked with a cross represent certain 3- or 4-circuit towers with heavy "top-hamper" and Fig. 9.Typical frame of ' 'plan" bracing. certain long-span terminal towers. It will be seen that their weight factor k tends to be high. Tall towers also include a not inappreciable weight represented by climbing ladders, railings and platforms. Taking all things into consideration, it is probably fair to say that the weight of a river-crossing suspension tower with normal cross-arms lies between 0Q0l7H\/M for towers of about only 120 ft in height, and 0-0Q25HVM for towers similar to the

268

RYLE: STEEL TOWER ECONOMICS

three or four broken conductors in the weight of a large-angle tower. (1.6) Weights of Reinforced-Concrete Poles As a digression from the subject of the paper, it appears that the empirical weight formula kH^JM may also apply satisfactorily to reinforced-concrete poles, with a suitable modification in the value of k. In the paper1 by Neate and Bowling, design loadings, heights and weights are given for various reinforced-concrete poles of a single general basis of design. Fig. 10, in which the total concrete-pole weight (no cross-

Appendix 7.1, it is not unreasonable to expect that actual towerbase dimensions might be approximately proportional to y/M. In Fig. 11 the base width is plotted against ^/M for the majority
120 110 100 90 Thames c r o s s i n g /

I
!*>

/ /

//

^0
|4x

4 70 ? 60
40 / // /
/
/

/ !

r'1

f
y^
100 200
500

30 20 10
400

/ y

/2s

2
20 40 60 80 100 J20 140 160 180 200 220 240

Fig. 11.Tower base widths.

10.Reinforced-concrete-pole weights.

arms) is plotted against H^/M, indicates that the weight can be very fairly represented by 0-QOSHy/M tons. This value of k = 0-005 is to be compared with 0-0016 taken by the author as representative for ordinary steel towers. For the same duty, therefore, a reinforced-concrete pole may be taken to weigh about three times as much as a lattice steel tower. Now the weight of reinforcing steel in a concrete pole is usually about one quarter of the total pole weight, so that for the same duty a reinforced-concrete pole uses about three quarters as much steel as a lattice steel tower; considered purely as a means of saving steel, it cannot therefore be regarded as a very impressive alternative.

(2) TOWER-BASE DIMENSIONS In Section 1.1 it was pointed out that, for defined unit stress and fixed wall thickness, the diameter or base dimension of a cylindrical tubular mast is proportional to ^m. In Appendix 7.1 it is shown that, on the simplifying assumptions made, the economical base-width of the elementary lattice tower is also simply proportional to the square root of the over(3) ECONOMIC APPLICATIONS turning moment and appears as 0 333 ^M ft. This is, of course, (3.1) General Application of Weight Formulae to Cost for minimum weight of the elementary tower itself and takes no Estimation account of foundation cost, which will, in general, decrease with The formulae recommended for use in average tower-weight increase of base width. For foundations of the single mass concrete-block type the base-width formula arrived at would estimation from Sections 1.3 and 1.5.2 are: probably be quite sound as a basis of design, and would give Ordinary transmission-line results comparable with actual narrow-base tower designs, which 0 0016H\/M tons to ground line tower are much used, probably from wayleave considerations, on the 220/330-kV single-circuit Continent. British and American practice generally favours the 0 QOllH^M tons to ground line tower so-called wide-base type of design, for which the total cost of 0-0017 to 0-0025#V^ tons to River-crossing tower tower plus foundations is presumably a minimum. In the ground line United States a continuous, wide strip of land called the "right (depending on height and loading, of way" has usually to be acquired along the line route; in Great and with upward adjustment Britain the payments made for individual-tower wayleaves are for special "top-hamper" or usually reasonably small and not greatly affected by tower-base for long-span terminal-type dimensions; for both, therefore, a truly economical base-width is towers). free to be adopted. The author does not suggest that tower weights given by Taking account of the expression for economical base-width in

of the towers whose weights are represented in Figs. 2 and 3. Base widths are seen to lie mostly between 0-35^M and 0-65^M; a good overall average figure would be Q-5y/M. Marked divergencies from a mean value are only to be expected. If, for any given tower duty, the true total cost of tower plus foundations could be plotted against base width, the curve whose minimum represented the economical base would probably be very flat over a considerable range. Again, the actual fixing of the base width for a given tower duty must often be largely a matter of engineering convenience; for example, a variation in width might just permit the economical use of some convenient or easily obtainable size of B.S. angle for the leg member. In spite of the obvious "spread" of the points in Fig. 11, it is clear that the empirical proportionality of base width to y/M can be justified, and it is suggested that, for the quick preliminary design of any new tower, or for, say, the pre-estimation of the ground space likely to be taken up by a projected rivercrossing tower, a base width of 0-5\/Mft would be a very reasonable starting point.

RYLE: STEEL TOWER ECONOMICS these formulae would be sufficiently accurate for tendering for a particular contract, without checking by approximate design; but they should at least be accurate enough for preliminary estimates of, say, the total tonnage of steel likely to be required. The chief usefulness of the formulae is, however, for estimating purposes when time, or number and nature of estimates required, or uncertainty of data, makes it impossible to invite tenders or even to prepare rough designs. The formulae merely give the estimated tower weights above ground line. The total cost of an erected tower involves supply, transport and erection of the tower itself and of the foundations, and various overhead charges, profit, etc. Many of these items will not be proportional to the tower weight, but the author finds that for estimating purposes it is reasonable to assume that the complete erected cost of a tower of given general type is proportional to its above-ground weight. The assumed total erected cost per ton will, of course, vary with the general type of tower and contract concerned, but from previous contracts a suitable unit cost can be chosen. It is obvious that the cost of an erected ton of steel 300 ft above ground, on a contract involving two towers only a few hundred feet apart, will not be the same as that of a ton of steel when only 60 ft above ground on a contract involving 600 towers spread over 100 miles of country. The following are examples of the types of investigation in which the weight formulae prove extremely useful and in which, without them, consistent and sufficiently accurate answers would be almost unobtainable, short of actually designing a large number of different towers. (3.2) Ordinary Transmission Lines (3.2.1) Economic Span Length and General Line Estimates. The economic span length of a steel tower line depends principally on: (a) The size, material and number of conductors. (b) The assumed wind and ice loadings. (<) The specified factors of safety.

269

depend upon (d), (e) and (/). The tower loadings due to the conductors, per foot of span, depend upon (a) and (b). The costs per tower, independent of span length, depend upon (/) and (/*). Consider, as an example, a 132-kV double-circuit line with 0-25-in2 (copper equivalent) steel-cored aluminium conductors and one earth conductor, erected generally in accordance with existing Grid (0- 175-in2) line practice. Assume on a rough pre-war basis a cost of 45 per ton for erected towers, and 50 per tower for erected insulators and fittings and capitalized wayleaves. With principal towerheight dimensions as indicated in Fig. 12, the total tower

Fig. 12.132-kV tower, showing principal height dimensions.

height H, in feet, will then be 58 + sag, and the height, in feet, of the centre of gravity of conductor loads 42* 5 + sag. The calculations are best set out as in Table 5. Table 5

Span length, ft

600

800

1000

1200

1400

(1) Sag (approximately) at 122 F ft (2) H - 58 -f- sag ft (3) Height of centre of gravity of conductors = 42-5 + sag .. .. ft (4) Total transverse conductor load lb ,,._,, ^ , . . item (4) x item (3) , ^ ^ ,, r . (5) Conductor overturning moment = ^ * lb " ft (6) Tower-wind overturning moment (estimated) 1 000 Ib-ft (7) M = item (5) + item (6) 1 000 lb-ft (8) VM (9) Tower weight - QW>\6H\/M tons (10) Erected cost per tower at 45 per ton (11) Cost, per tower, of insulators, fittings and capitalized wayleaves (12) Total cost per tower position = item (10) + item (11) (13) Towers per mile .. (14) Total cost per mile, variable with span length = item (12) x item (13) ..

9 67 51-5 5 750 296 126 422 20-6 2-21 99-5 50 149-5 8-8 1 315

16 74 58-5 7 680 449 153

602

25 83 67-5 9600 648 193

841

24-6 2-91 131 50 181 6-6 1 195

29 3-84 173 50 223 5-28 1 180

36 94 78-5 11500 904 247 1 151 33-9 51 230 50 280 4-4 1 230

49 107 91-5
13 400

1 225 320 1 545 39-4 6-75 304 50 354 3-77 1 330

(d) The minimum conductor clearance to ground at highest The tower-wind overturning moment, item (6) in Table 5, can temperature. be estimated from a rough analysis of designs of existing, (e) The general conductor disposition. generally similar towers. From these previous designs an apIf) The line voltage. proximate estimate can be made of the likely projected area of (g) The cost of erected towers per ton. steel members expressed as so many square feet per foot of tower (h) The costs of erected insulators and fittings and of capi- height. The actual figure will vary somewhat from base to talized wayleaves. tower top, and will depend, of course, on the general type and The conductor sag/span relation depends upon (a), (b) and (c). size of tower. The components of total tower height, independent of sag, The total cost per mile variable with span length is plotted,

270

RYLE: STEEL TOWER ECONOMICS

1400

at a list of line-cost estimates which appear reasonable at first sight, but which reveal awkward inconsistencies among themselves.

1300 1200 1100

S
C"

'c0
S a.

\
.

1000
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

(3.2.2) Effects of Conductor Material. The voltage and conductor size of a projected line may be fixed, and comparative line costs for different conductor materials may then be required. For important lines, especially on new schemes, possibly abroad, it may be justifiable for reasons of finance, policy or even of prejudice to examine the pros and cons of any or all of the four present-day alternatives, i.e. copper, cadmium-copper, steel-cored copper or steel-cored aluminium. Each, apart from the conductor cost itself, will mean different values of sag and tower height, tower loadings, economic span length, and therefore different total costs. (3.2.3) Number of Circuits. A comparison of costs of single- and double-circuit lines is, of course, very frequently required. Sometimes congestion of route space may justify consideration of sections of line carrying three or more circuits on one set of towers. The leading-out of a large number of circuits from a major power station in a more or less built-up area is one condition which may warrant such an investigation; the impracticability of more than one line of towers along the bottom of a steep-sided gorge through a mountainous area is another. Generally speaking, a tower designed to carry a number of circuits should cost less per circuit than one designed to carry fewer circuits. At first sight multi-circuit lines are therefore attractive, but the basket rapidly becomes too full of eggs. The more important a line is, the less can one tolerate even the temporary loss of more than one circuit at a time. Direct lightning strokes to tower or earth conductor are likely to affect simultaneously more than one circuit on a tower. This also applies to crashed or misdirected aircraft (a hazard likely to increase, even in peace time), to the occasional blown tree branch or similar object, or to the admittedly very rare failure of a tower due, for example, to blizzard overloading, flood "wash-out" of foundations, subsidence, or malicious or accidental damage. (3.2.4) Number and Height of Earth Conductors. The voltage and line-conductor size and material of a projected line may have been settled, but, especially in certain regions abroad, it may be desirable to give special attention to lightning considerations. Comparative estimates may then be required for otherwise identical lines with one, two or even three overhead earth conductors. Such earth conductors, being at the tower top, seriously affect the tower overturning moment, and if there is more than one they call for additional weight owing to special "top-hamper." Theoretically, the higher the earth conductors can be put above the line conductors the better from the point of view of lightning protection, but there are obviously practical limits. Estimates may thus be required for earth conductors at various heights. (3.2.5) Abnormal Conductor Loadings. Especially after any unusually heavy occurrence of wind and/or ice loading, which has led to serious line failures (whether of conductors or towers or both), the question is revived whether lines should not be designed with greater margins against such contingencies. Such inquiries may take several different forms; for instance the effects on total line cost if, say, (a) the assumed wind pressures are doubled, or (b) the assumed radial thicknesses of ice-coating are doubled, or (c) the assumed loadings remain unaltered, but the factors of safety in conductors and towers are doubled. Each involves a different approach. For (a) and (b), the con-

varii

Spanlpngth.fcet Fig. 13.Economic span length (132-kV, double-circuit, 0-25 in2 s.c.u.). with a displaced zero, in Fig. 13. It will be seen that over the span range considered the curve is comparatively flat, and that the variable cost changes only about 6% between span lengths of 700 and 1 300 ft. Between, say, 800 and 1 100 ft the change does not exceed about 2%. The corresponding percentages of the true total line cost would, of course, be very much less. The economic span length could be put at 900 or 1 000 ft; the author favours the latter. The majority of line faults occur at insulators, so that the fewer insulators there are the better; as an insulator, air is cheap, reliable and self-repairing. In general, too, wayleave considerations and amenities favour maximum spans or, in other words, minimum number of towers visible from any one spot. It may be pointed out that the economic span length as obtained above would be little affected by quite considerable changes in the relative assumed unit costs. For instance, if the insulatorplus-wayleave costs per tower were halved, the economic span length would still be about 800 feet; if doubled, about 1100 ft. When preparing preliminary estimates for projected large-scale transmission schemes, it is frequently necessary to examine two or three different line voltages, and for each voltage possibly two or three conductor sizes. The chief effects of voltage on line cost, apart from the actual cost of insulators, are on account of conductor spacing; insulator string lengths, clearances from live metal to steelwork, and corona considerations decide the cross-arm dimensions and spacing and the height of the bottom cross-arm above ground. Below say 66 kV, except for the "step" at the change from pintype to suspension insulators, the effects of voltage on tower dimensions and cost are relatively small, but at the higher voltages the proportion of total tower height determined by voltage requirements becomes increasingly important. On a 132-kV double-circuit tower, approximately one-third of the total tower height is above the bottom cross-arm; a 330-kV double-circuit tower, if such an unlikely structure were used, would have well over half its total height above the bottom cross-arm. The tower-weight formulae enable estimates of total line cost to be made fairly quickly, and the various alternatives are all known to be on a common, sound basis for comparison. Without some such common basis it is usually necessary, in estimating for a number of alternatives, to make somewhat arbitrary adjustments from costs of previous contracts which may have been carried out by different contractors, at different dates, under different labour and transport conditions, and possibly even in different parts of the world, and it is very easy to arrive

RYLE: STEEL TOWER ECONOMICS ductor wind loads and the sag and tower height would be increased, but in different ways and to different degrees. For (c), the conductor wind loads would be unaffected, but the sag and tower heights would be increased and the tower weights would be increased owing to both the greater height and the greater factor of safety. (3.2.6) Clearance to Ground. Estimates are sometimes required for the variations to be expected in total cost of an otherwise standard design of line for a change in the specified minimum clearance from bottom conductor to ground. Typical examples are estimates of (a) the percentage reduction in cost if ground clearance were reduced to 17 ft, or even to 15 ft in remote regions such as open moorland, and (b) the percentage increase in cost if ground clearance were increased to 40 or 50 ft for traversing suburban built-up areas. (3.2.7) Catenary-Suspended Auxiliary Cables. It is sometimes necessary to make comparative estimates for a line carrying a suspended auxiliary cable, and for the alternative of a straightforward line with the auxiliary cable underground. The former is sometimes a convenient, but rarely an economical, arrangement. The suspended cable must, for a given span, have a sag usually very much greater than that of the conductors on the straightforward line. This means a much shortened span. The wind load on the catenary plus cable and suspenders is large, adding appreciably to the tower overturning moment. The costs of the suspending fittings and of actually running out and erecting the cable are very high, and the overall comparison often favours putting the cables underground and leaving the line free to assume its economical long-span construction. (3.2.8) "Dog-leg" Lines in Congested Areas: Economic Conductor Tension. Considerable mileages of line in congested areas are often forced to take very indirect routes, usually involving shortened spans and a very high proportion of angle towers. Although there would rarely be justification for a distinctive range of tower designs for such routes, the author has, purely as a matter of interest, investigated the economics of a 132-kV, 0- 175-in2 steelcored aluminium line on the quite hypothetical assumptions that the mean span is only 700 ft and that every tower will carry, on the average, a 30-deg deviation. On such an angle tower, of course, the major part of the conductor transverse loading is due to the resultant of the conductor tensions, the wind loads being relatively unimportant. It appears that designing such a hypothetical line for the ordinary maximum working conductor tension of 8 0001b might not be desirable, and that, in fact, it might pay to adopt a lower tension. Reduced tension would reduce the tower loads, but would increase the sag and therefore the tower height, so that some economic value for the tension is to be expected. On the quite arbitrary example chosen, this economic tension works out at about 5 000 lb instead of the normal 8 0001b. (3.2.9) Hypothetical "Super E.H.V." Lines. Interest is occasionally shown in possible, but so far entirely hypothetical, future lines at voltages above, say, 220 kV. No previous contracts or even designs are available as a basis for estimating, and the vague generalities of the type of problem rule out the invitation of tenders or the preparation of designs. However, the tower-weight formulae can, after sketching out probable leading tower dimensions for each alternative, be used to arrive at reasonably justifiable and at least comparable estimates. Typical questions may be: (1) What would be the approximate relative costs of single-circuit lines at, say, 264, 330,

271

440 or 550 kV? (2) At, say, 440 kV, what would be the comparative costs, on some particular basis of equal powertransmitting capacity, for single-circuit lines as follows: (a) a 3-phase a.c. line, (b) a 2-wire d.c. line, and (c) a 1-wire, earrhreturn, d.c. line? (3.3) Navigable-River Crossings The main topographical features affecting the general layout, economics and design of a navigable-river crossing are the feasibility of suitable approach spans, the prescribed minimum clearance to high-water level, Air Ministry height restrictions, the length of the waterway crossing, the general contour and height of the banks above high-water level, and foundation conditions. (3.3.1) Approach Spans. The desirable arrangement is, of course, such that the tall crossing towers do not have to carry any horizontal loadings due to the conductor tensions, but only those due to the transverse wind on the conductors. This means that the tall towers should preferably carry no angle-of-route deviation and no terminal tension, the conductors being anchored off at anchor towers of substantially normal height situated in line with the crossing span. The Thames crossing (main span 3 060 ft, approach spans each 1 530 ft, clearance at high water 250 ft, sag 172 ft, tower height 487 ft) is a good example of this arrangement.2 Sometimes, in congested districts, it is impossible to obtain suitable approach spans, and the tall towers may have to carry an angle of deviation or, worse still, act as terminal or self-anchoring towers. These towers are, of course, heavy and costly. (3.3.2) Clearance to High Water: Air Ministry Height Restrictions. It sometimes takes a long time to obtain a final decision from the river authorities as to the prescribed minimum clearance tohigh water; in the meantime, comparative estimates may have to be made for crossings giving different clearances. It is frequently not fully realized that at an important crossing the river authorities have the power arbitrarily to increase very considerably the total crossing cost by specifying an excessive clearance. On a tall tower, a large proportion of the total overturning moment is due to wind on the tower itself, which, other things being equal, makes the tower weight approach direct proportionality to the square of the tower height. Whilst the requirements of river authorities tend to make the towers as tall as possible, the Air Ministry may require that some maximum overall height is not exceeded. To satisfy both it may be necessary to adopt special measures to reduce the conductor sag, e.g. by using an uneconomically large conductor, or by shortening the crossing span by placing the towers in wateredge positions involving heavy special foundation costs. (3.3.3) Span Length and River-Bank Configuration. For a given conductor, the sag may be regarded as proportional to the square of the span, so that the siting of a crossing over a river of large but varying width may have a considerable bearing on the cost. It may sometimes pay to make a wide diversion in the general run of a transmission line in order to site the crossing at a narrow reach. On the other hand, a crossing over a narrow reach, where the towers have to be situated on flat ground only a few feet above the water, may prove more expensive than a somewhat longer span crossing where the ground rises abruptly to a good height above the water level and the towers themselves can be of comparatively low height. (3.3.4) Foundation Conditions. The foundations for the tall towers of a river crossing have,

272

RYLE: STEEL TOWER ECONOMICS ductors hundreds of feet above ground level, have been of the order of 380 ft, which would have called for towers nearly 700 ft high instead of the actual 487 ft. The total cost of the crossing would have been very much increased. The actual conductor used, 84 strands of phosphor-bronze over 7 strands of cadmium-copper, with an overall diameter of 0-942 in, a weight per foot of 2-07 lb, and a maximum working tension of 25 650 lb, was chosen after an exhaustive investigation of the economics of this and other conductors. The other conductors considered included: steel-cored aluminium of conventional make-up (2 layers of aluminium wires) but of sizes larger than normal, steel-cored aluminium with extra large steel core and only one layer of aluminium wires, cadmium-copper, and high-tensile steel alone. Apart from economics, features such as freedom from corrosion and fatigue troubles, conductivity and current-carrying capacity based on heating, and manufacture, transport and erection had, of course, also to be considered. (3.3.7) Narrow Waterways: Number of Crossing Towers. The first mental picture of the general layout of a river crossing is naturally of a tall tower each side of the river. However, for narrow waterways it will often be found economical to use only one tall tower. Fig. 14A shows diagrammatically a two-tower

more often than not, to be piled. The cost of such foundations is fairly high, but in the early estimating stages of an investigation, which may involve considering the possibilities of a number of different crossing sites, it is usually impracticable to carry out trial borings. In any case a trial bore is of little value unless made at the precise location of the proposed foundations; 200 ft away the underground conditions may be quite different. Preestimation of foundation costs can therefore sometimes be little better than a well-informed guess based upon actual costs of roughly similar previous jobs. However, with good approximations for the tower overturning moment, tower base-width, and tower weight, and assuming likely lengths of piles required, it is possible to arrive at a reasonable estimate of the foundation cost, and one which will give figures comparable with those for alternative crossings. (3.3.5) Number of Circuits. Power stations are frequently situated on the banks of navigable rivers, and it is therefore sometimes necessary, in the'neighbourhood of a station, to run a number of circuits across the river. A decision has then to be made, usually as a compromise between cost, reliability and site facilities, as to the number of circuits to be carried on one set of towers. To take a fairly extreme case, suppose that six circuits have to be taken over a river. Possible symmetrical arrangements would be (a) six single-circuit crossings, (b) three double-circuit crossings, (c) two 3-circuit crossings, and (d) one 6-circuit crossing. Purely from the aspect of operational reliability, (a) would be favoured since lightning, aircraft or other hazards would be unlikely to cause the loss of more than one out of the six circuits at any one time; on the other hand, it would be by far the most costly and would, in practice, often be impracticable owing to site restrictions. At the other extreme, (d) would almost certainly be the cheapest and the easiest to site; but the risk of simultaneous faults on several or even all of the six circuits would be a very real one. The choice might then lie between (b) and (c), of which the latter would be the cheaper and the easier to accommodate. The seriousness of possible multi-circuit faults would, of course, be minimized by ensuring that the two circuits of any duplicate supply were split between the two separate crossings. Power-station sites are now also studied from the aesthetic angle, and the preservation of amenities may have a bearing on the number of separate crossings. Six, or even three, separate crossings, probably of slightly different span lengths and therefore different sags, would, if fairly close together, certainly be unsightly.

Fig. 14A.Narrow waterway.

Note: In Figs. 14A and 14B, the tall towers are represented by vertical lines carried up to the bottom conductor only: hatched areas indicate requisite clearances to water. Heights and conductor sags are exaggerated for clearness.

crossing ABCD, and the alternative single-tower crossing AED. Depending chiefly on the waterway width, clearance to water, and sag/span relationship of the conductor used, the cost of the single tower may be either less or more than that of the two shorter towers. The River Roding crossing, with a span of 1 829 ft, a width of waterway of only 370 ft, and 150 ft clearance to water, is an example of a single-tower crossing. The tower, Fig. 5, is 362 ft high. (3.3.6) Long Spans: Economic Conductor. A fairly narrow river may have an island in mid-stream and If the crossing span is very long, say above 1 500 ft, the sag suitable for siting a tower, as in Fig. 14B. Depending again on of a normal line conductor becomes very great and represents a large proportion of the total tower height. A conductor of greater tensile strength will permit smaller sag and reduced tower height; for equal conductivity, however, this will usually mean greater conductor diameter and therefore greater conductor wind loads on the towers. The cost of the conductor itself and probably of the supporting insulators and fittings will also be higher. Increased conductor tension means more expensive anchor towers terminating the approach spans. The economic balance is therefore complicated, but it may be financially important for it to be fully explored. Fig. 14B.Waterway with possible mid-stream tower site. The Thames crossing is an outstanding example. It forms, electrically, part of a standard 132-kV line with 0- 175-in2 steel- waterway widths, clearance to water, and sag/span relationship, cored aluminium conductors, 0-77-in diameter, with a maximum the economic arrangement may be any one of the following: working tension of 8 000 lb. If this standard conductor had crossing ABCDE, three not very tall towers B, C and D; crossing been used at the crossing, the sag in the 3 060-ft crossing span AFGE, two rather tall towers F and G; or crossing AHE, one would, under the increased wind pressure assumed for con- very tall tower H.

RYLE: STEEL TOWER ECONOMICS (3.3.8) Terminal-Type Crossing Towers: Short Spans: Economic Conductor Tension. In congested districts it is sometimes impossible to find room for approach spans, and the tall crossing towers are forced to be of the terminal type. The main overturning moment to be resisted is then the longitudinal one due to the conductor tensions and, especially for double-circuit or multi-circuit towers, will be large. If the crossing span is short, it may prove economical to use considerably reduced conductor tensions at the expense of slightly taller towers. For a particular conductor, the economic tension will depend chiefly on the relative proportions of the span length and the clearance to water. Take, as an example, a hypothetical 132-kV double-circuit, 0-175 in2 steel-cored aluminium, 900-ft crossing span, clearance to water 150 ft, and tower bases substantially at highwater level. If the maximum working conductor tension were the normal 8 000 lb, the 122 still-air sag would be about 25 ft, and the total tower height about 210 ft. If the conductor tension were reduced to 6 000 lb, the longitudinal loads on the towers would be reduced by 25 %, but the sag would only increase to about 33 ft, adding 8 ft or only about 4% to the tower height. For this particular example, it can be shown that the economic conductor tension would be only about 4 000 lb. With a still shorter span, the economic tension would be still slacker; at a 500-ft span, with other particulars the same, the economic tension would be only about 2 000 lb, or one-quarter of the normal.

273

J. R. Harding (Pirelli-General Cable Works, Ltd.), for assistance and the loan of slides, etc.; and to Merz and McLellan for permission to publish the paper. (6) REFERENCES E. C , and BOWLING, W. F.: "Reinforced Concrete Transmission Line Supports," Journal I.E.E., 1944, 91, Part II, p. 341.

(1)

NEATE,

(2) BOYSE, C. O., and HART, F. DE B.: "The 132-kV Overhead

Crossing of the River Thames," The Paris H.T. Conference, 1933, Paper No. 53. (3) EVE, J. L., and BROWN, R. C : "The Erection of Tall Towers," Institution of Civil Engineers, Structural and Building Engineering Division, 1945, Pamphlet No. 11.

(7) APPENDICES (7.1) Approximate Economical Design of Elementary Lattice Mast Fig. 15 represents the elevation of one face of an elementary parallel-sided, lattice steel mast, square in plan, without crossarms, and of modest dimensions. The single horizontal load P (in 1 000 lb) acting on the whole mast at the top, and the height h (in feet) are given. It is required to find the economical basewidth b, the economical brace disposition and the weight of the economical mast. It is assumed that: (1) Leg members are throughout of one size of B.S. equal (4) CONCLUSION angle, i in thick. General problems calling for discussion are the following: (2) Brace members are throughout of another size of B.S. (1) Experience of any actual tower designs showing marked equal angle, -g in thick. departure from the general limits of tower weight in terms of (3) All braces are at one inclination, 9, to the horizontal. H-\/M indicated in Figs. 2 and 3. Further data for amplifying (4) Slenderness ratio is 100 in leg members, and 150 in braces. Fig. 3 would also be valuable. (5) At IIr = 100, safe working stress in leg members is (2) The effect of broken-conductor design assumptions on 10 000 lb/in2. tower weights. (6) Brace-member size is fixed by slenderness only, and stress (3) Whether a tower base width of 0 - 5 \ / ^ f t approaches, in in braces can be ignored. general, the practical and economical dimension for any tower. (7) The mast is a plain cantilever, and the effect of its own (4) How far the total cost of an erected tower of any single weight on stress in leg members is negligible. general type can be regarded as proportional to its above(8) Weights of member joints, bolts, etc., are ignored. ground weight, and to what extent actual cost depends on such (9) Weight of steel, 0-284 lb/in*. factors as: () number and simplicity of member joints; use or Some of these assumptions are debatable, but they must be avoidance of gusset plates; bolt sizes, and number of bolts and holes per ton of steel; (b) number of members of different sizes made for the simplified treatment given, and in any case they and lengths, for example to what extent a parallel-sided tower are not unrepresentative. with all braces of the same size, length and inclination would be Load in leg member is 1 OOOPh/lb lb. cheaper, per ton, than one of normal design in which such a conAt a stress of 10 000 lb/in2, the leg area required dition cannot usually be approached; (c) commercial availability Ph . . 1 OOOP/i or otherwise of the exact sizes of rolled-steel sections theoretically ^cr 2 . . . . (1) desirable; templates; fabrication; storage; galvanizing; transport, 10 000 x 2b = 20b in etc.; {(I) special erection costs dependent chiefly on tower height; Ph some aspects of this have been discussed by Boyse and Hart,2 Volume of steel in four legs = 4 x h x - - x 12 in3 3 and Eve and Brown. Ph It would be interesting to know how far the formulae for Weight of four legs = 0-284 X 4 X h x ^ -r x 12 tower weight and base width given here have parallels in bridge and girder design. For such structures, height would be replaced by unsupported span, and base width by beam depth. lb (2) In bridge and girder design, deflection is, of course, often a major criterion, whereas a transmission-line tower is almost From equation (1), the leg area is Ph/20b in2; for any B.S. invariably designed for strength alone, and stiffness or de- equal angle, i in thick, it can be taken that the ratio (area in flection at working load is of no significance. in2)/(radius of gyration in inches) = 2-41. The leg radius of gyration is therefore Phl(20b x 2-41) in. (5) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS At /// = 100, the unsupported leg length Acknowledgments and thanks are due to the Central Electricity 0-173 Ph lOOPh Board, Mr. C. O. Boyse (British Insulated Callender Cables, (3) a = 20b x 2-41 x 12 Ltd.), Mr. J. L. Eve (J. L. Eve Construction Co., Ltd.), Mr.

274

RYLE: STEEL TOWER ECONOMICS Substituting this value of 6 in (2) and (4) respectively, we obtain Weight of legs = A0-333 V(Ph) Weight of braces = \12Ph*
(8)

Length of one brace = 126/cos0in. At !/r = 150, brace radius of gyration is 126/150 cos 6 in; for any B.S. equal angle, -&- in thick, it can be taken that the ratio (area in in2)/(radius of gyration in inches) = 1-82. The brace area is therefore 1-82 x 126 0-1466. 150 cos 6 cos 6 The total length of braces per mast face = A/sin 6 ft. The weight of all braces is therefore
1-986A 4 x 0-284 x ~ a x ' _ lb. sin d cos 0 sin 6 cos 9 a As sin 6 cos 6 tan 6 f T t a n 2 0 ' a n d t a n ^ 2 6 ( F i g - 15)' weight of all braces is therefore

04h\/(Pli) lb . (7)

Total economical mast weight, (7) + (8) = 3-4\h\/(Ph) lb or 0 00153hV(Ph) tons (9) From (7), (8) and (9),
the

2*04 Weight of legs = ^-^r, or 60% of total weight 1-37 and weight of braces = ~-jr, or 40% of total weight (10)

1 a 2b
lb.

For the economical mast, these percentages are, on the assumptions made, constant and independent of P and h.
P, in 1OOOI b

The slope of the braces is given by tan 6 = o/26 From (3) and (6), tan 6 = Therefore = 38C 0- 666 V(Ph) (ID

h ft

Fig. 15.Elementary lattice mast. From equation (3), a = 0- 173PA/6, therefore the weight of all braces is

On the assumptions made, this slope is constant for the economical mast and independent of P and ft. The following are conclusions for the economical elementary mast on the basis of the preliminary assumptions made: Replacing, in the expressions obtained above, Ph by M, where M is the overturning moment at the ground line in 1 000 lb-ft, Economical base width = O-333^/Mit. Economical mast weight = 0-00153 hy/Mtons. Leg weight = 60 % of total mast weight. Brace weight = 40% of total mast weight. Economical brace inclination to the horizontal = 38. Variations in the preliminary assumptions within the limits representative of normal practice will alter these results only slightly; it is therefore suggested that, as a basis for actual preliminary design of small narrow-base towers, they may be of some practical value. It should be remembered that the mastweight formula represents a plain mast body above ground line and without cross-arms.

(7.2) General Approximate Weight of a B.S. Equal-Angle Strut of Given Thickness Let P represent the design compression load in the strut, in lb; a the area of cross-section, in in2; r the radius of gyration, in 0-99A * + ? * . ( ) inches, and / the straight-line strut formula, 18 000 - safe working 4 stress follows the length in inches. Assume that the 80//rlb/in2. Then P = a(18 000 - 80//r) = 18 000a - SOIa/r. From equation (2), the weight of all legs is 0-68Ph2/b lb, so Now for B.S. equal angles of any one thickness, afr may be that the total weight of the mast is regarded as a constant n. Therefore, P = 18 000a SOnl, or fl = (p+8O/7/)/18OOO. 0-852Ph2 , 22-963 In 4 (5) The volume, and therefore the weight, of the strut is proportional to la, so that the weight is proportional to (PI To find the economical base-width, differentiate with respect + 80A//2)/18 000, or to PI + cl\ where c is a constant. to 6 and equate to zero; this gives The constant c will be different for other strut formulae, and will, of course, vary for different thicknesses and again for shapes 0-852P//2 of cross-section different from B.S. equal angles. However, the nature of the general relationship between load, length and From which 6* = 0 0124PW weight of a strut of given thickness should be approximately as and 6 = 0- 333V(Ph) ft (6) given above.