Ultra-high-voltage (UHV) cup-type transmission towers supported with long-span transmission lines are unavoidably subjected to the coupling action between the towers and the transmission lines. Therefore, investigating how tower-line coupling affects UHV cup-type transmission towers is important. In this study, three shaking table array tests of an UHV cup-type transmission tower-line system were carried out to investigate the dynamic characteristics of the coupling action between the towers and transmission lines based on the following four comparative models: a single-tower model, a single-tower model with suspended lumped masses, a three-tower-two-line model, and a five-tower-four-line model. The test results demonstrated that the tower-line coupling interaction had a significant effect on the dynamic characteristics and seismic responses, as the suspended conductor line and the suspended lumped mass decreased the frequency of the transmission tower. Under longitudinal ground motion, the model with the suspended lumped mass had the lowest peak acceleration response and the largest peak displacement response. Under the same ground motion, the four models had similar peak strains in the longitudinal direction. Under transverse-the-line ground motion, the model with the suspended lumped mass had the lowest peak acceleration response and the smallest peak responses for displacement and strain in the transverse direction; therefore, this model is inappropriate for the simulation and seismic evaluation of transmission tower-line systems.
Electricity transmission systems consisting of transmission towers and transmission lines have been widely recognized as lifeline systems; in the system, the transmission tower is a type of lattice tower that supports the overhead transmission lines. Compared with other power equipment, the ultrahigh voltage (UHV) transmission tower structures are characterized by great heights, long spans, and complex tower-line coupling effects. However, this type of structure is generally considered to be less impacted by seismic action, and relevant studies are rare [
However, earthquakes have frequently occurred in recent years worldwide, and the power transmission systems have been severely damaged in earthquake-ridden regions [
Shaking table tests can reproduce the actual stress state of a structure under an earthquake well and can be used to study the structural dynamic performance, structural response, and failure mode under seismic action. However, the UHV transmission tower-line system is characterized by tall towers (the UHV transmission towers built in China generally exceed 100 m in height) and extremely large spans (e.g., longer than 1000 m), so it is difficult to meet the experimental requirements with single shaking table test equipment. Therefore, shaking table tests of UHV transmission tower-line systems have not often been carried out as conventional civil structures. The earliest known shaking table tests of high-voltage transmission towers were conducted in the 1980s. Kotsubo et al. [
The above studies show that the main problem in the shaking table tests of UHV transmission tower-line systems are the length limitations of single shaking tables; the use of an array of shaking tables to capture the interactions in transmission tower-line systems is scarce, making it difficult to consider the effect of tower-line coupling on the transmission towers’ responses. In this paper, an array of three shaking tables are used to test UHV cup-type transmission towers-line systems to investigate the interactions in transmission tower-line systems.
A typical transmission tower prototype, the ZBC30102A-type self-supporting suspension tower in the Ximeng-Shandong UHV project, is chosen for the shaking table tests. The tower has a height of 73.8 m and a line span of 500 m; the prototype has three conductor lines, which are suspended in the middle and on both sides of the tower head through insulators. The conductor line and the ground line types are JL/G1A-630/45 and JLB20A-170, respectively. The transmission tower prototype is shown in Figure
UHV cup-type steel tower ZBC30102A.
Considering the size limitations of the shaking tables, which have side lengths of 2.5 m, the geometric similitude ratio of the transmission tower is assumed to be 1 : 15.
If all the angle steel members are scaled based on the geometric scale ratio, for the cross section, it is difficult to make the members because their thickness would only be 0.02 mm. Therefore, the transmission tower model uses four specifications of the angle steel (L30 × 3, L25 × 3, L20 × 3, and L10 × 1). The L30 angle steel is used for the main members and diagonal members of the tower leg and tower body, the L25 angle steel is used for the main members and diagonal members of the upper and lower cranks, and the L20 angle steel is used for main members and diagonal members of the ground line supports and crossarms. The auxiliary members of the model tower are made of L10 angle steel, and welded connections are used.
The same material is chosen to use in the towers of the experimental model as is used in the prototype; therefore, the similitude ratio for the elastic modulus
Similitude coefficients of the transmission tower model.
Physical quantity | Ratio of similitude (model/prototype) |
---|---|
Geometric | 1 : 15 |
Elastic modulus | 1 : 1 |
Acceleration | 3 : 1 |
Displacement | 1 : 15 |
Density | 5 : 1 |
Stress | 1 : 1 |
Mass | 1 : 130 |
Time | 1 : 6.7 |
Frequency | 6.7 : 1 |
The total mass of the prototype transmission tower is 83544.6 kg, and the total mass of the scaled transmission tower model is 642.65 kg.
Because the density similitude ratio is 5 : 1, the total mass of the scaled transmission tower model is 642.65 kg, the weight of the transmission tower without a counterweight is 128.53 kg, and the mass of the actual scaled transmission tower without a counterweight is 129 kg; to evenly apply the counterweight, the actual balancing weight is 555 kg. The actual total mass of the manufactured transmission tower model is 684 kg, and the actual density similitude ratio is 5.3 : 1. In the tests, two counterweights are processed, with masses of 2 kg and 0.25 kg. The counterweights are shown in Figure
Counterweights of the test model tower. (a) Counterweight No. 1 (b) Counterweight No. 2.
The tests were carried out using the three-shaking-table array system at Fuzhou University. A 4.1 m × 4.1 m horizontal bidirectional shaking table is in the middle, and two 2.5 m × 2.5 m horizontal bidirectional shaking tables are on each side. The maximum distance between the middle table and the side tables is 10 m, and the horizontal span of the prototype model is 500 m. If the tests are based on a geometric scale ratio of 1 : 15, the dimensions of the shaking tables are unable to meet the requirements. Therefore, in this study, the similitude ratio of the dynamic characteristics and the similitude ratio of the inertial mass are assumed separately to design the similitude coefficients of the conductor lines and ground lines.
The fundamental natural frequency of the conductor line and ground line is as follows:
The relationship between the frequency similitude ratio and sag similitude ratio of the conductor line and ground line can be derived as follows:
The transmission tower has a frequency similitude ratio of 6.7 : 1, and the conductor line and ground line have a frequency similitude ratio of 6.7 : 1 and a sag similitude ratio of 44.9 : 1.
The mass similitude ratio of the conductor line and ground line is the same as that of the transmission tower (1 : 130). The total mass of the prototype conductor line is 2.06 × 500 = 1030 kg, so the mass of the model conductor line is 7.92 kg. The total mass of the prototype ground line is 0.49 × 500 = 245 kg. The actual linear densities of the model conductor line and ground line are calculated to be 0.88 kg/m and 0.49 kg/m, respectively (Table
Similitude coefficients of the model conductor line and ground line.
Physical quantity | Ratio of similitude (model/prototype) |
---|---|
Actual horizontal span | 1 : 55 |
Theoretical horizontal span | 1 : 15 |
Acceleration | 3 : 1 |
Mass of conductor line | 1 : 130 |
Mass of ground line | 1 : 130 |
Frequency of conductor line | 6.7 : 1 |
Frequency of ground line | 6.7 : 1 |
Elastic modulus of conductor line | 1 : 1 |
Elastic modulus of ground line | 1 : 1 |
Density of conductor line | 1 : 2.34 |
Density of ground line | 1 : 2.34 |
Steel wires with the diameters of 4 mm and 2 mm are used for the conductor line and ground line, respectively, in the experimental model. The physical components used for the conductor line and ground line are shown in Figure
Physical components used for the conductor line and ground line. (a) Conductor line (4-mm steel wire). (b) Ground line (2-mm steel wire).
According to the mass similitude ratio of the conductor line and ground line models, since the density of the steel wire is lower than that of the design model, counterweights are required. The counterweights of the conductor line and ground line are 8 kg and 4 kg, respectively. The counterweight blocks of the corresponding masses are placed uniformly along the conductor line and ground line.
The V-shaped insulator is simulated by a galvanized plain round steel bar with a diameter of 8 mm and a length of 750 mm, and the I-shaped insulator is simulated by a rigid steel plate with a length of 600 mm and a width of 50 mm. The physical components used for the insulator models are shown in Figure
Physical components used for the insulator models. (a) I-shaped insulator model. (b) V-shaped insulator model.
Physical components used for the conductor line suspension clamp model.
The equivalent tower is the side tower in the three-tower-two-line model and the five-tower-four-line model. The equivalent tower is used to simulate the boundary conditions without considering the similarity relationship with the tower model. In the tests, two equivalent towers are manufactured using welded L50 × 4, as shown in Figure
Equivalent generation tower model.
The test tower is anchored to the rigid base of the shaking table.
The three-tower-two-line model is a single-tower-two-line model that has a cup-type tower as the middle tower and equivalent towers as the side towers. All three towers are anchored to the rigid base of the shaking table. The conductor line and ground line are fixed on the equivalent towers. The boundary conditions are shown in Figure
Elevation of the three-tower-two-line model.
Physical components used for the three-tower-two-line model.
The five-tower-four-line model is an improved version of the three-tower and two-line model. That is, two new tower models, which are the same as the middle tower, are placed at the locations of the original equivalent towers, which are relocated to the outer side of the new side main towers, along the line direction, and the boundary conditions are simulated through the connection between the equivalent towers and conductor lines, as shown in Figure
Elevation of the five-tower-four-line model.
Physical components used for the five-tower-four-line model.
Considering the long span of transmission lines and the different site conditions in the regions that the lines traverse, the El Centro record, Taft record, and artificial waves are selected for site classes II, III, and IV, respectively. The duration of the ground motion is compressed to 1/6.7 of the original, based on the similarity relationship. The original wave is compressed according to the time or frequency similitude ratio and is then applied to the seismic excitation tests of the scale models. The 0.07 g seismic records are shown in Figure
The 0.07 g seismic records. (a) 0.07 g EL Centro wave. (b) 0.07 g Taft wave. (c) 0.07 g artificial wave.
Two types of acceleration sensors, namely, a piezoresistive accelerometer and piezoelectric accelerometer, are used in the tests. The piezoresistive accelerometer has a large measuring range and is mainly used to measure the seismic responses of the top of the tower and the conductor and ground lines. The piezoelectric accelerometer has a slightly smaller measuring range and is mainly used to measure the seismic responses of the tower leg and body. Two types of displacement sensors, namely, a laser displacement sensor and guyed displacement sensor, are used in the tests. Resistive strain gauges are used in the tests to test the strain of the tower model members.
In the single-tower model tests, a total of 22 acceleration sensors, 25 strain gauges, and 14 displacement sensors are deployed. The detailed placements of the sensors are shown in Figures
Layout of acceleration sensors.
Layout of displacement sensors.
Layout of strain gauges.
Schematic diagram of the layout of the acceleration sensors on the conductor and ground lines.
In the “three-tower-two-line” model, four acceleration sensors are placed on each of the two equivalent towers. Specifically, for each equivalent tower, one acceleration sensor is placed in the
Layout of the accelerator sensors and strain gauges on the equivalent tower model.
In the five-tower-four-line model, the layout of the sensors on the two model towers on the left and right small tables reference that on the middle tower. A total of 14 acceleration sensors are placed on the right main tower, as shown in Figure
The layout of the sensors on the equivalent tower in the five-tower-four-line model is identical to that on the equivalent tower of the three-tower-two-line model. The specific layout is illustrated in Figure
Acceleration sensor placement of the five-tower and four-line model. Layout of the acceleration sensors on (a) the middle tower, (b) the right model tower, and (c) the left model tower.
A total of three acceleration sensors are deployed on the conductor line, and one acceleration sensor is deployed on the ground line. The specific sensor layout is shown in Figure
Layout of the acceleration sensors on the five-tower-four-line model.
In the five-tower-four-line model, the layouts of the sensors on the two model towers on the left and right small tables reference that on the middle tower, but the sensors are all deployed above the tower structure, where the layout of the sensors above the structure of the right main tower is consistent with that of the middle tower, with 8 displacement sensors placed (Figure
Layout of the displacement sensors on the five-tower-four-line model. Layout of the displacement sensors on (a) the right model tower and (b) the left model tower.
The five-tower-four-line model has a total of 73 strain gauges, including 28 on the middle tower, 23 on the right main tower, 22 on the left main tower, and 2 on the equivalent tower. Figure
Layout of the strain gauges on the five-tower-four-line model. (a) Layout of 28 strain gauges on the middle tower. (b) Layout of 23 strain gauges on the right main tower. (c) Layout of 22 strain gauges on the left main tower.
The basic dynamic characteristics tests and seismic time-history response tests are conducted on the single-tower model, the single-tower model with suspended lumped masses, the three-tower-two-line model, and the five-tower-four-line model. A total of 21 runs were performed, as listed in Table
Test program.
Test series | Input wave | Peak acceleration (g) | Loading direction |
---|---|---|---|
1 | White noise | 0.07 | — |
2 | El Centro wave | 0.07 |
|
3 | Taft wave | 0.07 |
|
4 | Artificial wave | 0.07 |
|
5 | El Centro wave | 0.07 |
|
6 | Taft wave | 0.07 |
|
7 | Artificial wave | 0.07 |
|
8 | White noise | 0.21 | — |
9 | El Centro wave | 0.21 |
|
10 | Taft wave | 0.21 |
|
11 | Artificial wave | 0.21 |
|
12 | El Centro wave | 0.21 |
|
13 | Taft wave | 0.21 |
|
14 | Artificial wave | 0.21 |
|
15 | White noise | 0.63 | — |
16 | El Centro wave | 0.63 |
|
17 | Taft wave | 0.63 |
|
18 | Artificial wave | 0.63 |
|
19 | El Centro wave | 0.63 |
|
20 | Taft wave | 0.63 |
|
21 | Artificial wave | 0.63 |
|
To study the influence of the coupling effect of the transmission tower-line system on the transmission tower, dynamic characteristics tests and the shaking table tests are performed on the single-tower model, the single-tower model with suspended lumped masses, the three-tower-two-line model, and the five-tower-four-line model. The results of the frequency, damping, acceleration, displacement, and strain of the middle tower are obtained from the tests.
Figure
Spectrum analysis curves of the middle towers of the four counterweight models. (a) First-order frequency spectrum analysis curves. (b) Second-order frequency spectrum analysis curves.
Comparison of the basic dynamic characteristics of the middle towers of the four models.
Model | Frequency | Damping ratio | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
Single-tower model | 7.202 | 7.568 | 0.92 | 2.40 |
Single tower with suspended lumped masses | 6.836 | 7.263 | 1.06 | 1.18 |
Three-tower-two-line model | 7.143 | 7.265 | 2.99 | 2.58 |
Five-tower-four-line model | 7.143 | 7.265 | 2.38 | 1.65 |
Longitudinal peak acceleration responses of the middle tower of the four models under a 0.21 g artificial wave.
Table
Longitudinal peak acceleration responses of the middle towers of the four models.
Test series | Single-tower model (m/s2) | Single-tower model with suspended lumped masses (m/s2) | Three-tower-two-line model (m/s2) | Five-tower-four-line model (m/s2) |
---|---|---|---|---|
0.07 g artificial wave | 5.966 | 5.278 | 5.905 | 7.310 |
0.07 g El Centro wave | 4.563 | 4.122 | 4.456 | 4.096 |
0.07 g Taft wave | 5.137 | 4.202 | 5.961 | 5.810 |
0.07 g average | 5.222 | 4.534 | 5.441 | 5.739 |
0.21 g artificial wave | 16.738 | 16.166 | 18.663 | 17.921 |
0.21 g El Centro wave | 14.291 | 11.379 | 16.815 | 11.809 |
0.21 g Taft wave | 15.791 | 13.880 | 17.458 | 16.866 |
0.21 g average | 15.607 | 13.808 | 17.646 | 15.532 |
0.63 g artificial wave | 64.671 | 41.566 | 46.214 | 57.260 |
0.63 g El Centro wave | 46.165 | 36.703 | 45.403 | 38.731 |
0.63 g Taft wave | 53.828 | 41.161 | 41.546 | 49.032 |
0.63 g average | 54.888 | 39.810 | 44.388 | 48.341 |
Figure
Transverse peak acceleration responses of the four counterweight models under a 0.21 g artificial wave.
Table
Vertical peak acceleration responses of the middle towers of the four models.
Test series | Single-tower model (m/s2) | Single-tower model with suspended lumped masses (m/s2) | Three-tower-two-line model (m/s2) | Five-tower-four-line model (m/s2) |
---|---|---|---|---|
0.07 g artificial wave | 4.612 | 2.563 | 3.662 | 4.059 |
0.07 g El Centro wave | 1.795 | 1.192 | 1.716 | 1.538 |
0.07 g Taft wave | 3.349 | 2.236 | 2.996 | 2.333 |
0.07 g average | 3.252 | 1.997 | 2.791 | 2.643 |
0.21 g artificial wave | 13.710 | 7.441 | 11.511 | 10.878 |
0.21 g El Centro wave | 5.827 | 4.911 | 5.669 | 4.603 |
0.21 g Taft wave | 10.963 | 6.676 | 9.522 | 7.003 |
0.21 g average | 10.167 | 6.343 | 8.901 | 7.495 |
0.63 g artificial wave | 35.349 | 21.697 | 32.248 | 26.287 |
0.63 g El Centro wave | 17.258 | 13.433 | 18.088 | 13.516 |
0.63 g Taft wave | 29.543 | 20.806 | 24.010 | 20.001 |
0.63 g average | 27.383 | 18.645 | 24.782 | 19.935 |
Longitudinal peak displacement responses of the four models under a 0.21 g artificial wave.
Table
Longitudinal peak displacement responses of the middle towers of the four models.
Test series | Single-tower model (mm) | Single-tower model with suspended lumped masses (mm) | Three-tower-consistency model (mm) | Five-tower-consistency model (mm) |
---|---|---|---|---|
0.07 g artificial wave | 1.737 | 2.963 | 2.456 | 2.021 |
0.07 g El Centro wave | 0.989 | 0.979 | 1.389 | 1.329 |
0.07 g Taft wave | 1.161 | 1.474 | 1.149 | 1.304 |
0.07 g average | 1.296 | 1.805 | 1.665 | 1.551 |
0.21 g artificial wave | 5.936 | 10.072 | 7.516 | 6.681 |
0.21 g El Centro wave | 4.155 | 6.321 | 4.876 | 3.799 |
0.21 g Taft wave | 3.619 | 5.076 | 3.710 | 4.593 |
0.21 g average | 4.570 | 7.156 | 5.368 | 5.024 |
0.63 g artificial wave | 30.041 | 35.823 | 27.151 | 19.555 |
0.63 g El Centro wave | 15.137 | 22.200 | 14.378 | 12.541 |
0.63 g Taft wave | 14.462 | 15.054 | 10.921 | 13.204 |
0.63 g average | 19.880 | 24.359 | 17.483 | 15.100 |
Figure
Transverse peak displacement responses of the four models under a 0.21 g artificial wave.
Table
Transverse peak displacement responses of the middle towers of the four models.
Test series | Single-tower model (mm) | Single-tower model with suspended lumped masses (mm) | Three-tower-two-line model (mm) | Five-tower-four-line model (mm) |
---|---|---|---|---|
0.07 g artificial wave | 2.134 | 1.687 | 3.126 | 1.848 |
0.07 g El Centro wave | 0.811 | 0.543 | 0.720 | 0.736 |
0.07 g Taft wave | 1.127 | 0.883 | 0.824 | 0.897 |
0.07 g average | 1.357 | 1.038 | 1.557 | 1.161 |
0.21 g artificial wave | 7.258 | 5.223 | 9.663 | 6.032 |
0.21 g El Centro wave | 2.148 | 2.447 | 2.514 | 2.089 |
0.21 g Taft wave | 3.962 | 2.233 | 2.976 | 3.130 |
0.21 g average | 4.456 | 3.301 | 5.051 | 3.750 |
0.63 g artificial wave | 21.152 | 16.141 | 26.785 | 16.364 |
0.63 g El Centro wave | 7.513 | 7.250 | 8.162 | 6.549 |
0.63 g Taft wave | 12.204 | 7.045 | 7.768 | 8.783 |
0.63 g average | 13.623 | 10.146 | 14.238 | 10.565 |
Longitudinal peak strain responses of the four models under a 0.21 g artificial wave.
Table
Longitudinal peak strain responses of the middle towers of the four models.
Test series | Single-tower model ( |
Single-tower model with suspended lumped masses ( |
Three-tower-two-line model ( |
Five-tower-four-line model ( |
---|---|---|---|---|
0.07 g artificial wave | 53.546 | 59.655 | 56.044 | 56.169 |
0.07 g El Centro wave | 28.017 | 33.378 | 33.323 | 33.819 |
0.07 g Taft wave | 33.187 | 37.373 | 33.432 | 34.995 |
0.07 g average | 38.250 | 43.469 | 40.933 | 41.661 |
0.21 g artificial wave | 148.616 | 171.750 | 167.730 | 150.257 |
0.21 g El Centro wave | 101.668 | 108.935 | 129.404 | 104.848 |
0.21 g Taft wave | 106.910 | 117.344 | 111.988 | 122.553 |
0.21 g average | 119.065 | 132.677 | 136.374 | 125.886 |
0.63 g artificial wave | 450.086 | 426.452 | 442.957 | 513.300 |
0.63 g El Centro wave | 358.235 | 359.335 | 394.204 | 347.420 |
0.63 g Taft wave | 394.345 | 347.076 | 306.438 | 377.690 |
0.63 g average | 400.888 | 377.621 | 381.200 | 412.803 |
Figure
Transverse peak strain responses of the four counterweight models under a 0.21 g artificial wave.
Table
Transverse peak strain responses of the middle towers of the four models.
Test series | Single-tower model ( |
Single-tower model with suspended lumped masses ( |
Three-tower-two-line model ( |
Five towers and four lines ( |
---|---|---|---|---|
0.07 g artificial wave | 60.648 | 40.017 | 58.052 | 57.997 |
0.07 g El Centro wave | 19.677 | 17.108 | 23.169 | 19.698 |
0.07 g Taft wave | 37.271 | 30.922 | 35.836 | 41.472 |
0.07 g average | 39.199 | 29.349 | 39.019 | 39.722 |
0.21 g artificial wave | 192.680 | 115.984 | 147.565 | 178.187 |
0.21 g El Centro wave | 65.084 | 62.486 | 65.149 | 64.533 |
0.21 g Taft wave | 129.431 | 88.464 | 110.259 | 118.373 |
0.21 g average | 129.065 | 88.978 | 107.658 | 120.364 |
0.63 g artificial wave | 573.068 | 359.498 | 410.263 | 469.876 |
0.63 g El Centro wave | 193.587 | 174.849 | 178.199 | 197.560 |
0.63 g Taft wave | 384.188 | 253.697 | 298.134 | 351.734 |
0.63 g average | 383.614 | 262.681 | 295.532 | 339.723 |
In this study, three-shaking-table array system tests of UHV cup-type transmission tower-line systems were carried out, and the dynamic characteristics and seismic responses of a single-tower model, a single-tower model with suspended lumped masses, a three-tower-two-line model, and a five-tower-four-line model were studied. The test results demonstrated the following: The suspended conductor lines and suspended lumped masses reduce the frequency of the middle tower. The single-tower model with suspended lumped masses can simulate the effect of tower-line coupling on the longitudinal dynamic characteristics of the transmission tower well but cannot simulate the transverse dynamic characteristics of the transmission tower. The dynamic characteristics of the three-tower-two-line model are very close to those of the five-tower-four-line model. The effect of tower-line coupling decreased the frequency of the tower but increased the damping ratio. Under longitudinal ground motion, except for the single-tower model with suspended lumped masses, the peak accelerations and peak displacements of the other models gradually increase from the base of the tower to the top, reaching the highest peak acceleration and peak displacement at the top of the tower. The peak strain curves of the four models below the crank arm are consistent in shape and magnitude, and the strains are relatively large at the tower head, crank arms, and tower legs. The model with suspended lumped masses has the lowest peak acceleration response and the largest peak displacement response. The longitudinal peak strains of the main towers of the four models under waves are relatively close. Except for 0.63 g seismic condition, the effect of tower-line coupling increased the longitudinal peak acceleration, displacement, and strain response of the tower. Under transverse ground motion, except for the single-tower model with suspended lumped masses, the peak acceleration responses and peak displacements of the other models gradually increase from the base of the tower to the top, reaching the highest peak acceleration and peak displacement values at the top of the tower. The transverse peak strain curves of the tower structure are consistent in shape, with a parallel decreasing trend, and the model with counterweights has the largest peak strain. The model with suspended lumped masses has the smallest transverse peak acceleration responses for acceleration, displacement, and strain, and use of this model to simulate the tower-line system is inaccurate. Under the three seismic conditions of the same seismic intensity level, the effect of tower-line coupling decreases the transverse peak acceleration response of the tower, the effect of the three-tower-two-line model’s tower-line coupling increases the transverse peak displacement response of the tower, while the effect of the five-tower-four-line model’s tower-line coupling decreases the transverse peak displacement response of the tower. Except for 0.21 g seismic condition, the effect of tower-line coupling decreased the transverse peak strain response of the tower.
The data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
This study was supported by a fund from the Scientific Research Fund of the Institute of Engineering Mechanics, CEA (Nos. 2019B05 and 2019C10), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 51878631 and 51608287), and the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Nos. 2017YFC1500605 and 2018YFC1504602-01).