Shock and Vibration
Volume 2018 (2018), Article ID 5064930, 18 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5064930

Research Article

Statistical Analysis of Wind-Induced Dynamic Response of Power Towers and Four-Circuit Transmission Tower-Line System

Xiaolei Zhang, Yanzhong Ju, and Fuwang Wang

Northeast Electric Power University, 169 Changchun Rd., Chuanying District, Jilin 132012, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Xiaolei Zhang; xiaolei_052@sina.com

Received 29 July 2017; Revised 4 January 2018; Accepted 7 February 2018; Published 12 March 2018

Academic Editor: Giuseppe Carlo Marano

Copyright © 2018 Xiaolei Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

Only one wind field model loading the transmission tower or the tower-line system was investigated in the previous studies, while the influence of two different wind field models was not considered. In addition, only one sample of the wind speed random process was used in the past numerical simulations, and the multiple dynamic response statistical analysis should be carried out. In this paper, statistical analysis of the wind-induced dynamic response of single towers and the transmission tower-line system is performed with the improved accuracy. A finite element model of the transmission tower-line system (the tower consisted of both steel tubes and angel steels) is established by ANSYS software. The analysis was performed by three statistical methods. The effects of the length of the time history and of the number of samples were investigated. The frequency histograms of samples follow the Gaussian distribution. The characteristic statistical parameters of samples were random. The displacements and the axial forces of the low tower are larger than those of the high tower. Two wind field models were applied to simulate the wind speed time history. In field 1 model, Davenport wind speed spectrum and Shiotani coherence function were applied, while in field 2 model Kaimal wind speed spectrum and Davenport coherence function were used. The results indicate that wind field 1 is calmer than wind field 2. The displacements and the axial forces of the tower-line system are less than those of single towers, which indicate damping of wind-induced vibrations by the transmission line. An extended dynamic response statistical analysis should be carried out for the transmission tower-line system.

1. Introduction

The power transmission tower-line system is a complex spatial coupled vibration system. Vibration is the main cause of damage to the power circuits [1–4]. Because of the high flexibility of power towers and the geometrical nonlinearity of the conductor and insulator strings, it is difficult to simulate precisely the dynamic response of a tower-line system. Usually, the transmission line and the towers were analyzed independently, the coupling effect of the line and tower was ignored; thus, the calculation analysis was inaccurate [5–8].

The wind response of the power transmission tower-line systems has been considered in a series of studies. Mara and Hong [9] performed a numerical simulation to investigate the effect of wind direction on the response and the surface capacity of a lattice transmission tower under wind loads. The inelastic response parameters and the capacity curve for a single tower were calculated in the paper. Yang et al. [10, 11] developed the three-dimensional finite element models of UHV single anchor tower and the tower-line system and analyzed the responses of the anchor tower and tower-line system under a wind load. The results show that the displacement, the axial force, and the main column counteracting force have a nonlinear change trend with the initial stress increase. Under a wind load, the mean displacement and the maximum axial force on anchor tower are much higher than those under the equivalent static load. Chen et al. [12] and Aboshosha and El Damatty [13] emphasized that the influence of dynamic interaction of the conductor and ground wires on towers needs to be investigated. Zhou et al. [14, 15] introduced the theory of rain wind-induced vibration on the stay cable in transmission line. Hamada et al. [16–20] developed a nonlinear three-dimensional four-nodded cable element and the nonlinear three-dimensional numerical model to simulate the transmission line and towers behaviour. They studied the progressive failure of the lattice transmission tower-line systems under tornado wind loads and proved the importance of the transmission lines in the analysis of transmission tower-line systems under tornado loads. Tian and Zeng [21] carried out a parametric study of tuned mass dampers for a long span transmission tower-line system under wind loads. Barbosa et a1. [22] proposed a methodology for the reduction of faults in transmission tower-line system under high-speed wind events and gusts, including a safety analysis and recommendations for corrective maintenance. The above researchers mainly focused on either angle steel tower or the steel tube tower, while towers consisted of both steel tubes and angel steels were less investigated. Therefore, the coupling effect of the tower-line system on the wind vibration response should also be considered for the case of the tower which consisted of both steel tubes and angel steels. It should be noted that only one wind field model loading the transmission tower or the tower-line system was investigated in the previous studies, while the influence of two different wind field models was not considered. So far, two wind field models must be investigated.

In addition, only one sample of the wind speed random process was used in the past numerical simulations. Taking into account actual complicated wind field, the multiple dynamic response statistical analysis should be carried out. According to a Japanese standard [23], the response of a single mass system on wind acting 160 times in 10 min was calculated, and the results showed that the interval analysis should be performed at least four times to make the results 90% credible. The multinode system deviations may be larger. Gui-niu [24] analyzed the wind vibration of seven typical high-rise buildings, made statistical analysis of the results, and concluded that the internal forces of the structure, the displacement, and the acceleration responses to the wind on the top are all relatively consistent, verified the correctness and applicability of the method, and provided a reasonable statistical method to assess the wind vibration time history analysis result.

This paper is based on the four-circuit electrical power line. We designed a finite element model of the transmission tower-line system using ANSYS software. The effects of the length of the time history and of the number of samples were investigated. To improve the credibility of the wind vibration response analysis, we selected 600 s sample length of time history and the total number of samples 10 for the further analysis. Based on the engineering practice, we considered 90° wind angle under two wind field models. Then, we carried out statistics and comparative analysis of the wind vibration response of single towers and the transmission tower-line system. Finally, the results obtained with two different wind field models have been compared. This study supplies an advanced statistical analysis of the vibration response of transmission tower-line system.

2. Structural Model

2.1. Project Profile

In this paper, we investigated a 220 kV transmission line of four circuits as the engineering background, adopting the method of strain tower, tangent tower, tangent tower, and strain tower, which spans on 280 m, 653 m, and 259 m. The tangent tower is a four-circuit tower consisted of steel tubes and angel steels, the nominal height of the high tower is 72 m, and its total height is 97.3 m with the root of 22 m; the nominal height of the low tower is 45 m, its total height is 70.3 m, and the root is 11 m. The conductor line is a double split type JLHA2/LB14-630/45, and the upper two ground lines are JLHA2/LB14-95/55. The tower advocate is made of Q345 steel tube, and the other parts are made of Q235 equilateral angle steel. The type and parameters of the lines are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Types and parameters of lines.

Conductor line
Ground line

Type
JLHA2/LB14-630/45
JLHA2/LB14-95/55

(mm2)
666.6
152.8

(mm)
33.6
16

(kg/km)
2030
670

(N)
58116
26120

(N)
77488
32650

(MPa)
62400
97400

2.2. The Finite Element Model

The model of the transmission tower-line system was designed by ANSYS software. We employed Beam 188 unit for simulations; the quality of steel tube and angle steel elements, the nodal plate, auxiliary materials, and fittings is considered by adjusting the density of the material. The elasticity modulus and the Poisson ratio of the steel for Q235 equilateral angle steel and Q345 steel tube were 206 GPa and 0.3, respectively. The tower-line system was built for four circuits. The conductor line of the tower is vertically arranged and consists of four layers. The top one is the ground line, and the remaining layers are four pairs of double split conductors. Each pair of double split conductors and the ground line were simulated with cables. According to the search theory of the conductor line, we used Link 10 to model the line and applied the initial strain for the initial stress of the line with the basic length of the element of 20 m. The suspension insulator string was modeled with Link 8. The foot of the tower was fixed with constraints. The stiffness of the tension tower is large, and both ends of the line have fixing constraints. The finite element model of the tower-line system consists of 2450 nodes and 5084 elements. It is shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1: Schematic of the transmission tower-line system crossing a watercourse.

Figure 2: Finite element model of the transmission tower-line system.

3. Numerical Simulation of the Wind Speed

3.1. Three-Dimensional Wind Field Parameters

In the wind speed time history curve, the instantaneous wind speed consists of two parts: one is a rather long period of more than 10 min, the mean wind that does not change with time; the other one is the fluctuating wind with the period of a few seconds. The wind speed in the structure can be expressed by the mean wind speed and the fluctuating wind speed. See the following formula:

3.1.1. The Mean Wind

Davenport [25] proposed an exponential function to describe the mean wind speed; it changes with the height. In the wind-resistant design of civil engineering, the exponential function is usually adopted as follows:

where is the mean wind speed at the height of ; is the mean wind speed at the height of ;is the height; is the standard reference height; is the ground roughness exponent.

3.1.2. The Fluctuating Wind

The turbulent characteristics of the fluctuating wind within the frequency domain are described by the longitudinal fluctuating wind speed spectrum and the coherence function of the fluctuating wind speed.

The specification in China [26] adopts the Canadian Davenport wind speed spectrum [25]. Davenport obtained more than 90 strong wind records based on different places and heights in the world and established the empirical mathematical expression:

where is the fluctuation wind speed spectrum; is the frequency;is the height; is the mean wind speed at the height of ; is the mean wind speed at the standard height of 10 m; is the ground roughness exponent; is the terrain rough factor.

The transmission tower is a high structure, suitable for the use of the Kaimal wind speed spectrum [27] as the target power spectrum to simulate the wind speed. Its mathematical expressions are the following:

where is the fluctuation wind speed spectrum; is the longitudinal friction velocity;is the root variance of the pulsating wind speed; the rest of the symbolic parameters are the same as in (3).

According to the specification in China [26], the three-dimensional frequency-independent spatial coherence function was adopted by Shiotani and Arai [28]. Its expression is as follows:

where is the square root of the coherent function;are the coordinates; , , .

The coherence function proposed by Davenport [25] is related to the frequency, and its expression is

where is the square root of the coherent function; is the frequency; are the coordinates; are the mean wind speed at the heights of and ; are the attenuation coefficient, , , .

3.1.3. Method of Numerical Simulation of the Fluctuating Wind Speed

Many researchers in China and abroad observed and studied the fluctuating wind, and it is generally believed that the fluctuating wind can be approximated as a stationary random process with a zero mean value. The simulation method of the stationary random process is divided into two kinds: linear filtration and harmonic synthesis. In recent years, the Autoregressive (AR) model of the linear filtering method is widely used in studies of random vibrations and the time domain analysis. It possesses a small amount of calculations and fast. After the linear filtering, the white noise random process (zero mean value) becomes a stationary random process with the characteristic spectrum. In this paper, the numerical simulation of the fluctuating wind speed was carried out by the Autoregressive model of the linear filtering method (AR [29]).

The AR model of points associated with the fluctuating wind is expressed as follows:

where , , , are the coordinates of number point, ; is the order number of AR model; is the time step; is matrix, the Autoregressive coefficient matrix of AR model; ; is the independent random process vector.

3.2. Simulation of the Wind Speed Time History

The main parameters of the wind speed simulation are shown in Table 2, according to the specification in China [26] and the engineering practice. The specification in China states that the fluctuating wind field is composed of Davenport wind speed spectrum and Shiotani coherence function. Therefore, this paper considers Davenport wind speed spectrum and Shiotani coherence function as the wind field 1, but Davenport wind speed spectrum does not change with altitude, while Kaimal wind speed spectrum changes with altitude. The transmission tower is a high structure, suitable for the use of the Kaimal wind speed spectrum as the target power spectrum to simulate the wind speed. In addition, Shiotani coherence function does not take into account the frequency, However, Davenport coherence function is related to the frequency. Therefore, this paper considers the Kaimal wind speed spectrum and Davenport coherence function as the wind field 2.

Table 2: The main parameters of wind speed simulation.

Parameters
Values

Surface roughness class
A type (, )

Mean wind profile
Exponential function

35 m/s

Fluctuation wind speed spectrum
Davenport/Kaimal

Coherence function
Shiotani/Davenport

Simulation method
The Autoregressive model of linear filtering method (AR)

Length of time history
100 s, 200 s, 600 s, 1000 s, 2000 s

Number of samples
1, 3, 5, 8, 10

Time step
0.1 s

Frequency range
The initial frequency is 0.01 Hz and the end frequency is 10 Hz

Due to the large node of the transmission tower, we simplified the simulation area in this paper. Figure 3 shows the subsection schematic of single towers and lines. We used the wind speed simulation at a centre point as the representative of each area. In each area, the wind speed time history at all nodes is the same as the wind speed time history of the representative point. Using MATLAB software to initiate the fluctuating wind speed time history simulation program, we simulated the wind speed for the single towers and the lines, respectively.

Figure 3: Subsection schematic of single towers and lines.

We used AR model of the linear filtering method (AR [29]) to simulate the wind speed time history at 90° wind angle. Figure 4 shows the simulation results of the fluctuating wind speed time history for the transmission tower-line system at 61.05 m, sample 5, under the influence of wind fields 1 and 2. Figure 5 shows the comparison of the fluctuating wind speed spectrum with the target spectrum at 61.05 m, sample 5, under wind fields 1 and 2.

(a)

(b)

Figure 4: The fluctuating wind speed time history under wind fields 1 and 2.

(a)

(b)

Figure 5: Comparison of the pulsating wind speed spectrum with the target spectrum under wind fields 1 and 2.

It can be seen from Figure 5 that the spectral line trend of the simulated spectrum is consistent with that of the target spectrum. Using the Autoregressive model of the linear filtering method (AR model) to simulate the wind field, we achieve good accuracy. The simulation results of the wind speed time history show that the fluctuating wind under Davenport wind speed spectrum possesses more broad fluctuation range.

3.3. Calculation of the Wind Load Time History

According to the manual description in China [30], the wind load on the transmission tower can be expressed as follows:

where is the wind load for transmission tower; is the wind load shape coefficient; is the wind area of the element in the transmission tower; is the wind speed.

When the wind load is applied to the towers, after working out each section of the wind load, the load values were distributed into four nodes in this section of the whole body of the tower to calculate the internal forces of the structure.

The wind load of the line can be expressed as follows:

where is the standard value of horizontal wind load for vertical line action; is the uneven factor of the wind speed; is the wind load adjustment coefficient of the line; is the wind load shape coefficient of the line diameter < 17 mm or ice cover (no matter the diameter of the wire), , the wire diameter  mm, and the wire is not ice covered, ; is the wind pressure height coefficient; is the diameter of the line or the mean outer diameter of the line under ice cover (for bundled conductor, the outer diameter of the subconductor). is horizontal span; is the angle between the wind and the line; is the wind pressure, .

When the wind load is applied to the lines, it is also applied to nodes of the sections.

4. Statistical Analysis of the Wind-Induced Dynamic Response

Figure 6 shows the location map of the maximum displacement nodes and the maximum axial force elements.

(a) High tower

(b) Low tower

Figure 6: The location map of the maximum displacement nodes and the maximum axial force elements.

4.1. Total Length and Total Number of Samples Selection

In this paper, the total time history length and a total number of samples are selected for the high tower (without the load of the lines). The length is 100 s, 200 s, 600 s, 1000 s, and 2000 s; the total number of samples is 1, 3, 5, 8, 10. To analyze the results of the average dynamic response, we removed the first 10 s of the unstable stage of structural vibration. The statistical comparison and analysis results of the calculation of the Ux displacement (the displacement along the wind direction) on high tower top node 35# are presented in Tables 3, 4, and 5.

Table 3: The average of extremum Ux displacement on tower top node 35# (mm).

The length of samples (s)

100
200
600
1000
2000

The total number of samples
1
170.52
176.07
172.02
176.38
185.61

3
167.29
179.30
172.84
177.68
181.66

5
168.59
176.76
171.85
176.58
185.29

8
169.94
173.83
170.77
180.29
184.28

10
169.77
173.44
171.71
179.58
183.38

Table 4: The average of mean Ux displacement on tower top node 35# (mm).

The length of samples (s)

100
200
600
1000
2000

The total number of samples
1
124.27
126.19
123.76
123.11
124.46

3
121.85
124.86
123.23
124.78
124.63

5
124.37
124.21
123.78
124.53
124.95

8
124.73
123.41
123.27
124.67
125.00

10
124.44
123.63
123.45
124.59
124.92

Table 5: The average of variance Ux displacement on tower top node 35# (mm).

The length of samples (s)

100
200
600
1000
2000

The total number of samples
1
14.54
14.06
13.60
15.48
14.14

3
13.88
15.03
13.65
14.83
14.23

5
14.41
14.97
14.04
14.64
14.35

8
14.89
14.61
14.33
14.76
14.47

10
14.71
14.50
14.32
14.73
14.51

It can be seen from Table 3 that the extreme displacement value increases gradually with the increase of the sample length; the reason of this phenomenon is that there will be such result in the dynamic analysis, and the numerical is very big but the frequency is very low, relating to the sample length. With an increase in the sample length, the error of this method also increases as the statistical result of dynamic response. It can be concluded from Table 3 that the extreme displacement value is not consistent with one sample. The relative error of the statistical results for the number of more than one sample is no more than 2%, and the deviation is small.

The relative error of the mean value of the displacement response (Table 4) is no more than 3%; it does not change with the sample length and the number of samples. The average wind that is equivalent to static forces is the main factor that causes the average result; thus, the statistical results of the time history are calculated on average.

From Table 5, it can be seen that the root variance of the displacement response tends to a certain fixed value with an increase in the sample length and the number of samples. This value is about 14.50 mm. The effect of sample length variation is small, and the relative error is about 8%, which can be reduced by an increase in the number of samples.

To sum up, we resume that high accuracy of the calculation results of the wind-induced nonlinear dynamic response statistics may be provided by the length of samples of 600 s and the total number of samples of 10. The time step was 0.1 s, excluding the initial 10 s of the unstable stage in structural vibration, and the total number of statistical points was 59,000.

4.2. Dynamic Response Statistical Analysis

Using ANSYS and Origin software, we analyzed the nonlinear dynamic response of single towers and the tower-line system for the selected 600 s length 10 samples under two kinds of the wind field. Figures 7–14 show the time history curves and the frequency histograms of the single tower and tower in the tower-line system under wind fields 1 and 2.

(a)

(b)

Figure 7: Time history curve of single high tower under wind field 1.

(a)

(b)

Figure 8: Frequency histogram of single high tower under wind field 1.

(a)

(b)

Figure 9: Time history curve of single low tower under wind field 2.

(a)

(b)

Figure 10: Frequency histogram of single low tower under wind field 2.

(a)

(b)

Figure 11: Time history curve of high tower in the tower-line system under wind field 2.

(a)

(b)

Figure 12: Frequency histogram of high tower in the tower-line system under wind field 2.

(a)

(b)

Figure 13: Time history curve of low tower in the tower-line system under wind field 1.

(a)

(b)

Figure 14: Frequency histogram of low tower in the tower-line system under wind field 1.

The frequency histograms show that the frequency distribution of displacement and axial force statistical results possess Gaussian distribution (thin lines are the Gaussian curve fittings by Origin).

Tables 6–21 present statistics of 10 samples parameters of single towers and towers in the system under two kinds of the wind field.

Table 6: Statistics of 10 samples parameters of the single high tower top node 35# Ux displacement time history under wind field 1 (m).

Displacement
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Minimum
Maximum

Sample 1
0.35442
0.06831
0.13752
0.09248
0.12564
0.62239

Sample 2
0.35890
0.07097
0.05107
−0.15181
0.11660
0.57983

Sample 3
0.35444
0.06559
0.05681
0.34004
0.12688
0.63887

Sample 4
0.35050
0.06803
−0.02753
0.13739
0.08682
0.59494

Sample 5
0.35621
0.06778
−0.13817
−0.06441
0.07765
0.58402

Sample 6
0.34745
0.06941
0.17547
0.12119
0.11916
0.61964

Sample 7
0.35154
0.07096
0.05388
0.09499
0.10151
0.58926

Sample 8
0.35595
0.06740
0.02192
0.19480
0.10866
0.63173

Sample 9
0.35450
0.06794
0.01347
−0.19614
0.14479
0.56227

Sample 10
0.35138
0.06998
−0.03027
−0.12573
0.12174
0.5984

Table 7: Statistics of 10 samples parameters of the single high tower element 1972# axial force time history under wind field 1 (N).

Axial force
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Minimum
maximum

Sample 1
−2949190
225007
−0.17856
0.07085
−3822520
−2119440

Sample 2
−2950810
232705
−0.03571
−0.15095
−3660450
−2131130

Sample 3
−2937700
219395
−0.07871
0.40531
−3985950
−2135060

Sample 4
−2940790
225055
0.03573
0.15023
−3730720
−2032810

Sample 5
−2941240
225111
0.14216
0.02959
−3762320
−1956890

Sample 6
−2931170
232844
−0.20734
0.12401
−3910300
−2142180

Sample 7
−2935120
232508
−0.04941
0.05375
−3698390
−2099490

Sample 8
−2936460
227044
0.00731
0.03378
−3816710
−2145960

Sample 9
−2927360
228612
−0.01472
−0.13648
−3705960
−2211190

Sample 10
−2938370
230554
0.0376
−0.13684
−3739450
−2212520

Table 8: Statistics of 10 samples parameters of the single high tower top node 35# Ux displacement time history under wind field 2 (m).

Displacement
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Minimum
Maximum

Sample 1
0.35656
0.03693
−0.18703
−0.03583
0.21504
0.47104

Sample 2
0.35073
0.03515
0.23975
0.21275
0.25089
0.49667

Sample 3
0.34378
0.03559
−0.06313
−0.01272
0.21787
0.45803

Sample 4
0.35171
0.03376
−0.04804
−0.07481
0.23818
0.47092

Sample 5
0.35240
0.03495
−0.15822
0.04742
0.22354
0.46427

Sample 6
0.35231
0.03791
−0.19994
0.46160
0.19914
0.46968

Sample 7
0.34313
0.03985
−0.03358
−0.19496
0.19995
0.47154

Sample 8
0.34723
0.03761
−0.02709
−0.04106
0.22602
0.46813

Sample 9
0.34644
0.03561
−0.13752
−0.25035
0.21269
0.45174

Sample 10
0.35075
0.03550
−0.11431
0.00106
0.21375
0.49495

Table 9: Statistics of 10 samples parameters of the single high tower element 1972# axial force time history under wind field 2 (N).

Axial force
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Minimum
maximum

Sample 1
−2948080
140919
0.17295
−0.17540
−3370600
−2444340

Sample 2
−2935270
132886
−0.26298
0.19441
−3477780
−2534960

Sample 3
−2905090
134097
0.16187
0.05996
−3339770
−2400450

Sample 4
−2930700
127225
0.02708
−0.10905
−3376020
−2549530

Sample 5
−2942440
130176
0.15989
−0.01083
−3319490
−2430920

Sample 6
−2923830
143796
0.16689
0.32566
−3368890
−2332000

Sample 7
−2902400
153641
0.08227
−0.21682
−3376560
−2331160

Sample 8
−2921840
142735
−0.04108
−0.19449
−3413370
−2492820

Sample 9
−2907490
132675
0.13648
−0.30934
−3263360
−2526720

Sample 10
−2932580
134586
0.1526
−0.14411
−3447680
−2437930

Table 10: Statistics of 10 samples parameters of the single low tower top node 874# Ux displacement time history under wind field 1 (m).

Displacement
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Minimum
Maximum

Sample 1
0.22218
0.04530
−0.02671
0.38976
0.02268
0.42222

Sample 2
0.22022
0.04435
−0.1314
0.18416
0.03907
0.3918

Sample 3
0.22132
0.04658
−0.0305
0.02998
0.06550
0.38712

Sample 4
0.21970
0.04688
−0.01637
−0.01960
0.04685
0.38675

Sample 5
0.22132
0.04325
−0.03241
−0.19524
0.07749
0.35659

Sample 6
0.21745
0.04478
0.05446
−0.00820
0.06996
0.3807

Sample 7
0.22377
0.04309
0.0077
−0.25533
0.08035
0.38412

Sample 8
0.22365
0.04780
0.1368
0.17935
0.05807
0.40093

Sample 9
0.22044
0.04361
0.0464
0.16881
0.06084
0.39196

Sample 10
0.21944
0.04352
0.00647
−0.02461
0.05496
0.37344

Table 11: Statistics of 10 samples parameters of the single low tower element 3986# axial force time history under wind field 1 (N).

Axial force
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Minimum
maximum

Sample 1
−2082860
169524
0.01765
0.34298
−2832540
−1319350

Sample 2
−2073850
162592
0.13724
0.13390
−2656770
−1448890

Sample 3
−2077750
174300
0.05555
−0.04310
−2655310
−1522670

Sample 4
−2068890
173793
0.02291
−0.07825
−2666350
−1421670

Sample 5
−2078850
161427
−0.00686
−0.24323
−2584010
−1584550

Sample 6
−2060190
166659
−0.0369
−0.03360
−2654160
−1465200

Sample 7
−2088820
158783
−0.00452
−0.17713
−2714900
−1553110

Sample 8
−2083710
177654
−0.19925
0.19016
−2777500
−1513340

Sample 9
−2075190
159751
−0.02932
0.13758
−2664530
−1492870

Sample 10
−2069550
160157
−0.02257
−0.00476
−2633630
−1525840

Table 12: Statistics of 10 samples parameters of the single low tower top node 874# Ux displacement time history under wind field 2 (m).

Displacement
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Minimum
Maximum

Sample 1
0.22514
0.02572
−0.03497
0.35147
0.10754
0.31219

Sample 2
0.22209
0.02837
−0.02827
−0.22073
0.14054
0.32388

Sample 3
0.22374
0.02627
0.01650
−0.23694
0.12845
0.31262

Sample 4
0.21937
0.02918
0.09423
−0.10346
0.12755
0.31399

Sample 5
0.22691
0.02537
0.17305
0.16969
0.11514
0.31096

Sample 6
0.21709
0.02526
−0.02530
−0.15620
0.12656
0.30634

Sample 7
0.22686
0.02407
−0.09220
0.15697
0.13991
0.31507

Sample 8
0.21504
0.02781
0.01384
−0.01940
0.12086
0.30812

Sample 9
0.21722
0.02517
−0.11976
0.66410
0.12086
0.32400

Sample 10
0.22322
0.02428
0.09103
−0.01395
0.13545
0.30322

Table 13: Statistics of 10 samples parameters of the single low tower element 3986# axial force time history under wind field 2 (N).

Axial force
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Minimum
maximum

Sample 1
−2094690
107707
0.0077
0.22676
−2452950
−1616830

Sample 2
−2082530
118333
0.02739
−0.24416
−2500100
−1732870

Sample 3
−2090200
110671
−0.000196
−0.25047
−2453230
−1702140

Sample 4
−2068760
122979
−0.09519
−0.16871
−2454330
−1708950

Sample 5
−2101960
108367
−0.20278
0.15694
−2453410
−1628760

Sample 6
−2059300
104250
0.06863
−0.17650
−2425230
−1687330

Sample 7
−2104580
101206
0.06531
0.18746
−2500850
−1750660

Sample 8
−2049980
117069
−0.01751
−0.04761
−2429990
−1668020

Sample 9
−2060060
106047
0.23684
0.86047
−2494290
−1629370

Sample 10
−2087080
101083
−0.17578
0.14326
−2451000
−1745540

Table 14: Statistics of 10 samples parameters of high tower in the system top node 35# Ux displacement time history under wind field 1 (m).

Displacement
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Minimum
Maximum

Sample 1
0.32330
0.02974
0.10779
0.18315
0.22458
0.44661

Sample 2
0.31841
0.03038
−0.02766
−0.00132
0.21733
0.43928

Sample 3
0.31864
0.02934
0.08242
−0.11575
0.22185
0.4174

Sample 4
0.32026
0.03065
−0.00738
0.08926
0.20795
0.42238

Sample 5
0.32299
0.03063
0.04103
0.20988
0.18418
0.44216

Sample 6
0.32308
0.02990
−0.0116
0.30768
0.21552
0.43896

Sample 7
0.32486
0.03049
0.03309
0.00446
0.22536
0.43633

Sample 8
0.32136
0.03042
0.03473
0.10439
0.20734
0.44905

Sample 9
0.32192
0.03045
−0.10315
0.08275
0.21565
0.41596

Sample 10
0.32186
0.03094
0.13139
−0.14000
0.21494
0.43481

Table 15: Statistics of 10 samples parameters of high tower in the system element 1972# axial force time history under wind field 1 (N).

Axial force
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Minimum
maximum

Sample 1
−2764420
117829
−0.08952
−0.06287
−3153370
−2368250

Sample 2
−2745900
115359
0.0534
−0.04482
−3155580
−2354910

Sample 3
−2751510
114232
−0.05331
−0.00765
−3169110
−2340380

Sample 4
−2756110
120891
−0.04072
−0.08704
−3177180
−2372540

Sample 5
−2766420
119284
−0.03748
0.11486
−3245510
−2305030

Sample 6
−2767990
116249
−0.01359
0.18738
−3171830
−2374290

Sample 7
−2774830
119638
0.11258
0.01836
−3141770
−2336580

Sample 8
−2761040
118749
0.0004
−0.01720
−3176570
−2347060

Sample 9
−2762820
120316
0.05717
0.05883
−3188790
−2362880

Sample 10
−2766160
121813
−0.056
−0.19360
−3139350
−2348950

Table 16: Statistics of 10 samples parameters of high tower in the system top node 35# Ux displacement time history under wind field 2 (m).

Displacement
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Minimum
Maximum

Sample 1
0.32390
0.01979
0.02170
−0.10203
0.26349
0.40088

Sample 2
0.31469
0.02212
−0.20609
0.23266
0.23122
0.37960

Sample 3
0.31516
0.02067
−0.08654
0.50949
0.24704
0.41275

Sample 4
0.31720
0.02374
0.20045
−0.21313
0.23982
0.40715

Sample 5
0.32499
0.02618
0.34043
0.14454
0.25832
0.41941

Sample 6
0.32549
0.02616
−0.10295
0.17649
0.23848
0.41391

Sample 7
0.32417
0.02269
0.33877
0.12758
0.25590
0.41618

Sample 8
0.31876
0.02523
0.07881
0.05582
0.24046
0.42604

Sample 9
0.31902
0.02232
0.10203
0.06224
0.25438
0.40586

Sample 10
0.32502
0.02393
−0.08207
−0.09111
0.24802
0.41339

Table 17: Statistics of 10 samples parameters of high tower in the system element 1972# axial force time history under wind field 2 (N).

Axial force
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Minimum
maximum

Sample 1
−2766730
80424
0.09442
0.04115
−3040150
−2484060

Sample 2
−2729260
89952
0.36791
0.23231
−3025500
−2366020

Sample 3
−2734140
85454
0.1637
0.15528
−3136020
−2459260

Sample 4
−2740050
102842
−0.26335
−0.33218
−3106210
−2456440

Sample 5
−2773030
109547
−0.38259
0.24823
−3155320
−2454760

Sample 6
−2777580
109056
−0.07278
0.36029
−3137000
−2430630

Sample 7
−2774270
90187
−0.21247
0.00087
−3089440
−2480530

Sample 8
−2746430
109665
−0.08952
0.00632
−3094720
−2375430

Sample 9
−2750570
94028
−0.07622
−0.06608
−3214130
−2479610

Sample 10
−2779340
98622
0.21257
0.12578
−3099170
−2434880

Table 18: Statistics of 10 samples parameters of low tower in the system top node 874# Ux displacement time history under wind field 1 (m).

Displacement
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Minimum
Maximum

Sample 1
0.20172
0.02069
0.17222
0.23026
0.13554
0.30662

Sample 2
0.20006
0.02114
0.08235
0.00699
0.12600
0.27096

Sample 3
0.20069
0.02073
0.06948
0.10717
0.12750
0.2815

Sample 4
0.19951
0.01945
0.1794
0.27326
0.12948
0.28295

Sample 5
0.20105
0.02043
0.05912
0.05919
0.13795
0.27355

Sample 6
0.20208
0.02008
0.13388
0.04497
0.13019
0.26971

Sample 7
0.20135
0.02076
0.14814
0.25605
0.13445
0.29724

Sample 8
0.20067
0.01950
0.12126
0.02237
0.12363
0.27096

Sample 9
0.20280
0.01959
0.16538
0.24519
0.13675
0.29595

Sample 10
0.19928
0.02025
0.0133
0.05149
0.11540
0.27521

Table 19: Statistics of 10 samples parameters of low tower in the system element 3986# axial force time history under wind field 1 (N).

Axial force
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Minimum
maximum

Sample 1
−1989210
91975
−0.23888
0.53071
−2486860
−1723230

Sample 2
−1982100
93565
−0.10102
0.15964
−2302060
−1637630

Sample 3
−1985410
92553
−0.0233
0.12298
−2325000
−1632300

Sample 4
−1980010
86823
−0.28028
0.75853
−2412110
−1657230

Sample 5
−1986780
90776
−0.05874
0.20562
−2316480
−1633210

Sample 6
−1993140
89244
−0.16064
0.17712
−2380800
−1677460

Sample 7
−1987410
91865
−0.28757
0.89180
−2553190
−1685600

Sample 8
−1985370
85843
−0.13573
0.38890
−2362630
−1538990

Sample 9
−1995940
87631
−0.23869
0.65880
−2479220
−1652330

Sample 10
−1977210
89291
−0.05338
0.23054
−2303600
−1516040

Table 20: Statistics of 10 samples parameters of low tower in the system top node 874# Ux displacement time history under wind field 2 (m).

Displacement
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Minimum
Maximum

Sample 1
0.20474
0.01716
0.21285
−0.25034
0.15718
0.26938

Sample 2
0.19786
0.01478
−0.18439
−0.02441
0.14613
0.24476

Sample 3
0.19756
0.01429
0.6389
1.95256
0.15665
0.29188

Sample 4
0.19713
0.01639
0.25773
0.50871
0.14560
0.27491

Sample 5
0.20114
0.01573
0.23138
−0.07892
0.15503
0.26071

Sample 6
0.20166
0.01705
0.24128
0.67868
0.15298
0.28411

Sample 7
0.20188
0.01491
0.16281
0.67360
0.15510
0.27966

Sample 8
0.20029
0.01518
0.06761
0.09526
0.13861
0.26583

Sample 9
0.20143
0.01667
−0.09939
−0.02418
0.15240
0.2647

Sample 10
0.20109
0.01560
−0.08412
−0.13405
0.13951
0.24841

Table 21: Statistics of 10 samples parameters of low tower in the system element 3986# axial force time history under wind field 2 (N).

Axial force
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Minimum
maximum

Sample 1
−2003970
81613
−0.25174
−0.12699
−2393590
−1773560

Sample 2
−1970750
70321
0.21342
0.26403
−2201780
−1631920

Sample 3
−1970020
67161
−0.72856
2.71910
−2458630
−1755420

Sample 4
−1968010
76148
−0.3753
1.31182
−2458310
−1690060

Sample 5
−1989460
75171
−0.19104
0.12478
−2306520
−1698410

Sample 6
−1991600
78931
−0.28651
1.12501
−2457960
−1753990

Sample 7
−1990110
69899
−0.30044
1.64027
−2464100
−1734350

Sample 8
−1983460
70168
−0.06092
0.77690
−2364690
−1583980

Sample 9
−1989120
78892
0.02409
0.28657
−2373170
−1728910

Sample 10
−1985380
74337
0.10206
0.12704
−2228420
−1593240

In Tables 6–21, one may see the statistical description of the samples from the central tendency, the dispersion degree, the Skewness, and Kurtosis. The Skewness and Kurtosis describe particular characteristics of an individual sample. Skewness characterizes the distribution of symmetry. Kurtosis is a measure of the degree of Kurtosis of a set of data. As can be seen from Tables 6–21, the values of Skewness and Kurtosis are basically around 0 that is in accordance with the Gaussian distribution.

We used three statistical methods in this paper [31]. Method 1, the maximum average: the extreme value in the analysis of the wind vibration is not most representative, but sometimes it cannot be ignored. Considering the maximum average results as a statistical result is relatively conservative. Method 2, “3 σ rule”: we add three times root variance to the mean of samples. And then we calculate the average of the sum: in the simulation, the wind speed is assumed to be a stationary Gaussian random process; the time history analysis results basically have normal distribution, also following “3 σ rule” of statistical analysis. Method 3, the root mean squares average (RMS): because the average of the fluctuating wind is near zero, the wind-induced dynamic response of displacement and internal force response of root mean square (RMS) value is approximately equal to the average, so it relates to the response caused by the average wind.

The dynamic response displacements and axial force values of single towers and the transmission tower-line system were obtained for the sample length of 600 s and 10 samples by the three statistical methods mentioned above, and the results are listed in Tables 22–25.

Table 22: Comparison of statistical results on single high tower node 35# Ux displacement and element 1972# axial force.

Number
Statistical methods
Single high tower

Wind field 1
Wind field 2

Displacement (m)
Axial force (N)
Displacement (m)
Axial force (N)

1
Method 1
0.60214
−3783277
0.47170
−3375352

2
Method 2
0.55944
−3622471
0.45836
−3336793

3
Method 3
0.36013
−2947645
0.35139
−2928202

4
The average of mean
0.35353
−2938821
0.34950
−2924127

5
Item 1/Item 4
1.703
1.287
1.350
1.154

6
Item 2/Item 4
1.582
1.233
1.311
1.141

7
Item 3/Item 4
1.019
1.003
1.005
1.001

Table 23: Comparison of statistical results on single low tower node 874# Ux displacement and element 3986# axial force.

Number
Statistical methods
Single low tower

Wind field 1
Wind field 2

Displacement (m)
Axial force (N)
Displacement (m)
Axial force (N)

1
Method 1
0.38756
−2683970
0.31304
−2461538

2
Method 2
0.35570
−2575358
0.30012
−2409227

3
Method 3
0.22547
−2082638
0.22321
−2082823

4
The average of mean
0.22095
−2075966
0.22167
−2079914

5
Item 1/Item 4
1.754
1.293
1.412
1.183

6
Item 2/Item 4
1.610
1.241
1.354
1.158

7
Item 3/Item 4
1.020
1.003
1.007
1.001

Table 24: Comparison of statistical results on high tower in the system node 35# Ux displacement and element 1972# axial force.

Number
Statistical methods
High tower in transmission tower-line system

Wind field 1
Wind field 2

Displacement (m)
Axial force (N)
Displacement (m)
Axial force (N)

1
Method 1
0.43429
−3171906
0.40952
−3109766

2
Method 2
0.41255
−3117028
0.39069
−3048073

3
Method 3
0.32309
−2764258
0.32169
−2758864

4
The average of mean
0.32167
−2761720
0.32084
−2754673

5
Item 1/Item 4
1.35
1.15
1.28
1.13

6
Item 2/Item 4
1.28
1.13
1.22
1.11

7
Item 3/Item 4
1.00
1.001
1.00
1.00

Table 25: Comparison of statistical results on low tower in the system node 874# Ux displacement and element 3986# axial force.

Number
Statistical methods
Low tower in transmission tower-line system

Wind field 1
Wind field 2

Displacement (m)
Axial force (N)
Displacement (m)
Axial force (N)

1
Method 1
0.28247
−2392195
0.26844
−2370717

2
Method 2
0.26171
−2256128
0.24781
−2206980

3
Method 3
0.20194
−1988296
0.20110
−1985582

4
The average of mean
0.20092
−1986258
0.20048
−1984188

5
Item 1/Item 4
1.40
1.20
1.34
1.20

6
Item 2/Item 4
1.30
1.14
1.24
1.11

7
Item 3/Item 4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.001

5. Conclusion

Based on the numerical simulation method, the dynamic response of the transmission tower-line system is obtained within the sample length of 600 s for 10 samples. The conclusions are the following:

The Autoregressive model of linear filtering method (AR model) provides good accuracy of the wind field simulation. The simulation results of the wind speed time history show that the fluctuating wind under Davenport wind speed spectrum has broad fluctuation range. The wind speed fluctuation range simulated under Kaimal wind speed spectrum is less broad.

The sample length of 600 s, 10 samples, and the number of statistical points 59,000 were selected to satisfy the accuracy of calculation results of the displacement and the axial force of the single tower and tower-line system. The frequency histograms of samples basically follow the Gaussian distribution. The characteristic statistical parameters of the samples are random.

The results of the dynamic response of single towers and the transmission tower-line system show that the data obtained by Method 3 are closer to the average of the mean value. In the other two methods, for the single high tower under wind field 1, the displacements are 58%–70% larger than the average of mean, and the axial forces are 23%–29% larger than the average of mean values. Under the wind field 2, the displacements were 31%–35% larger than the average of mean, and the axial forces were 14%-15% larger as well. In the case of the single low tower under wind field 1, the displacements are 61%–75% larger than the average of mean, while the axial forces are 24%–29% larger. Under the wind field 2, the displacements were 35%–41% larger, and the axial forces were 16%–18% larger than the average of mean values.

For the high tower in the system under wind field 1, the displacements are 28%–35% larger, and the axial forces are 13%–15% larger than their average of mean values. Under the wind field 2, the displacements were 22%–28% larger than the average of mean, and the axial forces exceeded on 11%–13% the average of mean values. For the low tower in the system, under wind field 1, the displacements are 30%–40% larger, while the axial forces are 14%–20% larger than the average of mean. And under the wind field 2, the displacements were 24%–34% larger than the average of mean; the axial forces were 11%–20% larger than the average of mean.

The effect of statistical results of the low tower is greater than those of the high tower. The values obtained with wind field 1 is slightly larger than those under wind field 2, indicating that wind field 1 is more conservative than wind field 2. The results of the tower-line system are smaller than those of the single towers, which shows that the transmission line damps the transmission tower-line vibrations. The extended dynamic response statistical analysis should be carried out for the transmission tower-line system.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from Northeast Electric Power University (BSJXM-201521), Jilin City Science and Technology Bureau (20166012), and Natural Science Foundation of China (51378095).

References

S. Ozono and J. Maeda, “In-plane dynamic interaction between a tower and conductors at lower frequencies,” Engineering Structures, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 210–216, 1992.

N. Prasad Rao and V. Kalyanaraman, “Non-linear behaviour of lattice panel of angle towers,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 1337–1357, 2001.

R. C. Battista, R. S. Rodrigues, and M. S. Pfeil, “Dynamic behavior and stability of transmission line towers under wind forces,” Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics, vol. 91, no. 8, pp. 1051–1067, 2003.

H. Yasui, H. Marukawa, Y. Momomura, and T. Ohkuma, “Analytical study on wind-induced vibration of power transmission towers,” Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics, vol. 83, pp. 431–441, 1999.

G. Diana, M. Falco, A. Cigada, and A. Manenti, “On the measurement of over head transmission lines conductor self-damping,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 285–292, 2000.

T. Takahashi, T. Ohtsu, M. F. Yassin, S. Kato, and S. Murakami, “Turbulence characteristics of wind over a hill with a rough surface,” Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics, vol. 90, no. 12, pp. 1697–1706, 2002.

T. Okamura, T. Ohkuma, E. Hongo, and H. Okada, “Wind response analysis of a transmission tower in a mountainous area,” Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 53–63, 2003.

M. J. Paluch, T. T. O. Cappellari, and J. D. Riera, “Experimental and numerical assessment of EPS wind action on long span transmission line conductors,” Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics, vol. 95, no. 7, pp. 473–492, 2007.

T. G. Mara and H. P. Hong, “Effect of wind direction on the response and capacity surface of a transmission tower,” Engineering Structures, vol. 57, pp. 493–501, 2013.

W. G. Yang, K. Zhang, Z. Q. Wang, and Y. Q. Ge, “The influence of initial guy cable prestress on single-mast guyed tower's mechanical properties,” Applied Mechanics and Materials. Trans Tech Publications, vol. 351, pp. 55–60, 2013.

W. G. Yang, B. W. Zhu, and Z. Q. Wang, “Wind-induced response of UHV guyed single-mast transmission tower-line system,” Applied Mechanics and Materials, vol. 501-504, pp. 533–537, 2014.

B. Chen, W. H. Guo, P. Y. Li, and W. P. Xie, “Dynamic responses and vibration control of the transmission tower-line system: a state-of-the-art-review,” The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2014, Article ID 538457, 20 pages, 2014.

H. Aboshosha and A. El Damatty, “Engineering method for estimating the reactions of transmission line conductors under downburst winds,” Engineering Structures, vol. 99, pp. 272–284, 2015.

C. Zhou and Y. Liu, “Analytical model of high-voltage transmission line subjected to the downburst wind with rainfall,” Advances in Mechanical Engineering, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1–13, 2015.

C. Zhou, Y. Liu, and Z. Ma, “Investigation on aerodynamic instability of high-voltage transmission lines under rain-wind condition,” Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 131–139, 2015.

A. Hamada, “Nonlinear formulation of four-noded cable element and application to transmission lines under tornadoes,” in Proceedings of International conference on advances in wind and structures, Busan, Korea, 2014.

A. Hamada, Numerical and Experimental Studies of Transmission Lines Subjected to Tornadoes [Ph.D. thesis], School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, University of Western Ontario, 2014.

A. Hamada and A. A. El Damatty, “Failure analysis of guyed transmission lines during F2 tornado event,” Engineering Structures, vol. 85, pp. 11–25, 2015.

A. Hamada and A. A. El Damatty, “Behaviour of transmission line conductors under tornado wind,” Wind and Structures, An International Journal, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 369–391, 2016.

A. Hamada, J. P. C. King, A. A. El Damatty, G. Bitsuamlak, and M. Hamada, “The response of a guyed transmission line system to boundary layer wind,” Engineering Structures, vol. 139, pp. 135–152, 2017.

L. Tian and Y. Zeng, “Parametric study of tuned mass dampers for long span transmission tower-line system under wind loads,” Shock and Vibration, vol. 2016, Article ID 4965056, 11 pages, 2016.

C. D. F. Barbosa, C. Severino, E. Matsumoto et al., “Windbreaks working as barriers to high speed winds for protection of electric power transmission lines and towers,” Engineering Failure Analysis, vol. 82, pp. 753–764, 2017.

“Structural Design Concepts for Earthquake and Wind[S],” Architectural Institute of Japan, 1999.

M. Gui-niu, Research on wind-induced vibration time-history analysis of tall building structure[D], University of Technology, South China, Guangdong, China, 2010.

A. G. Davenport, “The spectrum of horizontal gustiness near the ground in high winds,” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, vol. 87, no. 372, pp. 194–211, 1961.

GB50009, Load code for the design of Building structures [S], China Architecture and Building Press, Beijing, China, 2012.

J. C. Kaimal, J. C. Wyngaard, Y. Izumi, and O. R. Coté, “Spectral characteristics of surface-layer turbulence,” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, vol. 98, no. 417, pp. 563–589, 1972.

M. Shiotani and H. Arai, “Lateral Structures of Gusts in High Winds [C],” in Proceedings of Conference on Wind, pp. 20–26, University of Toronto Press, 1967.

J. S. Owen, B. J. Eccles, B. S. Choo, and M. A. Woodings, “The application of auto-regressive time series modelling for the: time-frequency analysis of civil engineering structures,” Engineering Structures, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 521–536, 2001.

Northeast Electric Power Design Institute of the National Electricity Company, Power engineering high voltage power transmission line Design Manual, China Electric Power Press, Beijing, China, 2003.

X. Ruiguo, Probability theory and mathematical statistics[M], Higher Education Press, Beijing, China, 2002.