Design Loads for Transmission Towers under Skewed Wind Loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transmission tower networks, consisting of lattice support towers and conductor cables, play an important role in the infrastructure system of many countries throughout the world. Lattice support towers are typically comprised of two different components: the vertical tower body and the horizontal conductor support cross-arms. Much research has been directed towards the evaluation of aerodynamic coefficients of the compact lattice form typical of the vertical tower body sections of transmission towers, which now can often be calculated (based on solidity ratio) to an acceptable accuracy. However, the horizontal lattice form of the conductor support cross-arms have not been studied in depth. In this paper, results from wind tunnel tests on a typical conductor support cross-arm are used to show that the aerodynamics of these types of horizontal lattice sections are not as easily predicted as those for vertical lattice sections. The results from the wind tunnel tests are compared to the values calculated through the use of ASCE Manual No. 74: Guidelines for Electrical Transmission Line Structural Loading, and reasons for these discrepancies are discussed. This comparison is used to illustrate two examples where Manual No. 74 may or may not provide a conservative design estimate for tower and line loading at skewed wind directions, depending on the relative contributions of the cross-arm and tower body sections to the total wind loads. This is attributed to the underestimation of the wind loads on the cross-arms at skewed wind directions. Examples are used to show that the ratio of cross-arm area to total structure area is important for the consideration of the design wind direction. In light of the emphasis on efficiency in the world of transmission tower design, recommendations towards an improved evaluation of cross-arm force coefficients are provided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".