International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology E-ISSN 0976-3945

Research Paper
COMPUTER AIDED ANALYSIS AND STRUCTURAL
OPTIMIZATION OF TRANSMISSION LINE TOWER
Mr. T. Raghavendra

Address for Correspondence

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, R.V.College of Engineering, Bangalore – 560059
ABSTRACT
The Transmission-line tower is highly indeterminate structure. In present study, a typical 132-KV double circuit
transmission-line tower is considered, for optimizing the structure with respect to configuration and different materials as
variable parameters. The tower is modeled and analyzed using STAAD-PRO and ANSYS software’s. The basic model of the
tower considered is analyzed in STAAD-PRO and the results with respect to the member axial forces are validated in
ANSYS. A number of experimental configurations of the tower are obtained by increasing the base width of the tower and
also by decreasing the bracing patterns below the waist of the tower.
KEYWORDS: Transmission line tower, Optimize, STAAD-PRO, ANSYS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The basic model of tower is 4.46 M base width and
30 M height consisting of 6-panels of bracings below
its waist, which was decreased up to 4-panels and 3-
panels respectively. All this resulted in totally 5 types
of tower configurations, first is the basic model of
4.46 M base width and 6-panels, second model of 5.2
M base width and 6-panels, third model of 6.0 M
base width and 6-panels, fourth model of base width
4.46 M and 4-panels, and fifth model of base width
4.46 M and 3-panels.
Considering Mild Steel of 250 Mpa yield strength, as
the member material property, the towers of five
different configurations are first analyzed in Staad
Pro by assigning a nominal member size of Indian
Steel Angles. After successive iterations member
sizes capable of withstanding the axial force
produced in each member taking a strength factor
related to quality (5%-10%) is assigned and as per the
codal provisions [1]. All the individual members of
the towers are assigned angle sizes of having a tensile
strength 1.05 to 1.1 times more than that particular
member axial tensile force and then also checked for
compressive forces. Similarly considering High
Tension Steel of 350 Mpa yield strength the above
procedure is repeated. Also considering a composite
material i.e. by assigning only leg members angle
sizes of High Tension Steel(350 Mpa) and by
assigning remaining members angle sizes of Mild
Steel(250 Mpa), weight of all the five types of tower
configurations is obtained.
The type of tower configuration giving the least
weight considering the material used and
subsequently resulting in most economical in terms
of cost of materials is finalized as the optimum tower
having economical configuration resulting in least
weight of the tower and also having economical cost INPUT DATA (all in mm)
of Steel, on the total tower concerned as a whole.
1.1 Material and methods
1.2 The basic data available was the normal span and
line deviation between the towers to find out the
design parameters such as design wind pressure
on conductor / ground wire. The analysis was
carried out for wind zone-4 [2] & [3]. In practice
these parameters have to be fixed based on the
location of tower to be erected. From IS: 802
(Part 1 / Sec 1) 1995, page 3, the basic wind
speed is 47 m/sec with respect to wind zone 4.
1.1.1 Design Parameters

IJAET/Vol.III/ Issue III/July-Sept, 2012/44-50

 International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology E-ISSN 0976-3945

1.1.2 Loads on tower being used in CPRI is based on this unit. The results
For calculation of loads the basic data required are are presented in SI units. Table 1 gives the basic data
the normal span, line deviation angle, design wind and details of conductor, ground wire and insulator.
pressure, wind pressure on conductor, wind pressure The Table 2 and 3 shows the calculated load on “A”
on ground wire, conductor details, insulator details type (suspension tower) transmission line tower.
and ground wire details. The loads are determined in Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 gives the ten
MKS units because the in-house software that is different load cases considered.
Table 1: Basic Data, Details of Conductor, Ground wire and Insulator

Table 2: Calculated loads (kg) on “A” type tower (Suspension tower)

Table 3: Calculated loads (kg) on “A” type tower (Suspension tower)

IJAET/Vol.III/ Issue III/July-Sept, 2012/XXXX

 International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology E-ISSN 0976-3945

Fig 1 & Fig 2: shows a tree diagram of the loading on “A” type tower related to Reliability condition
(Load Case 1) and Security {Ground wire Broken} condition (Load Case 2) only.

Fig 3 & Fig 4: shows a tree diagram of the loading on “A” type tower related to Security {Top Conductor
Broken} condition (Load Case 3) and Security {Middle Conductor Broken} condition (Load Case 4) only.

Fig 5 & Fig 6: shows a tree diagram of the loading on “A” type tower related to Security {Bottom
Conductor Broken} condition (Load Case 5) and Safety {Bottom Conductor Broken} condition (Load
Case 10) only.

Fig 7 & Fig 8: shows a tree diagram of the loading on “A” type tower related to Safety {Normal}
condition (Load Case 6) and Safety {Ground wire Broken} condition (Load Case 7) only.

IJAET/Vol.III/ Issue III/July-Sept, 2012/XXXX

 International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology E-ISSN 0976-3945

Fig 9 & Fig 10: shows a tree diagram of the loading on “A” type tower related to Safety {Top Conductor
Broken} condition (Load Case 8) and Safety {Middle Conductor Broken} condition (Load Case 9) only.
1.1.3 Angle sections considered for the project tensile stresses with reference to the allowable unit
Angle section is selected out of a list of available stresses as stipulated in the code. Table 4 gives the
rationalized sections given in Appendix G, Chapter 3 list of angle properties considered
of the Manual [4] and checked for compressive and
Table 4: Properties of angle sections normally rolled in the country

1.2 Calculation 1.2.2 Validation of the analysis

1.2.1 Modeling of the tower in ANSYS
A Link 8, 3–D spar element had been selected which
is a uniaxial tension-compression element with three
degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the
nodal x, y and z directions. As in a pin-jointed
structure, no bending of the element is considered.
There is also a Link 10 element with same properties
that of Link 8 expect that in Link 10 elements,
temperatures and fluencies may be given as element
body loads at the nodes. Since it was not required in
the present work, Link 8 element has been selected.
A suspension tower or “A” type tower of height
30.00 M, base width of 4.46 M and base fixed was
analyzed for load case 1 (Reliability-Normal
Condition) both in STAAD PRO-04 and ANSYS.
The results with respect to member axial forces for
selected leg members were validated and hence
checking their consistency. The Table 5 gives the
comparison of forces in selected Leg members. It is
clear from the table that the variation in the results is
well within the limits. From the below table we can
observe that the variation in member forces, analyzed

IJAET/Vol.III/ Issue III/July-Sept, 2012/XXXX

 International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology
in both the STAAD PRO and ANSYS packages are
within permissible range. Hence the further analysis
and design optimization is carried out in STAAD
PRO.
Table 5: Comparison of the static analysis results
1.2.3 Experimental configurations of the tower
Figures 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 shows the diagram of the
five types of tower considered.
Fig 11: Transmission line Tower-first type & Fig
12: Transmission line Tower-second type & Fig
13: Transmission line Tower-third type
(All dimensions are in mm)
IJAET/Vol.III/ Issue III/July-Sept, 2012/XXXX
E-ISSN 0976-3945
Fig 14: Transmission line Tower-fourth type &
Fig 15: Transmission line Tower-fifth type (All
dimensions are in mm)
1.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The optimization of tower with configuration and
materials as variables has resulted in different tower
weights and subsequently leading to direct cost of the
material, and also the tower foundation can be made
economical if the weight of the tower is kept least.
1.3.1 Comparison with respect to member
material
The weights obtained from all the five types of tower
configurations with respect to the material considered
is plotted against each other in figures 16, 17 & 18.
The values are given in table 6, 7 & 8.
One can observe that the least weight of tower is
obtained for the fifth type of tower configuration, that
is, for panels – 3 and base width 4.46 M, this in turn
has a direct effect on the economy leading to
optimum design of tower foundation and hence
reducing the cost of an effective transmission line
system as a whole.
Also the least weight obtained of 18,592.7 Newton’s,
is for the fifth type of tower configuration and with
the use of high tension steel as the member material.
No doubt that this tower yields an economic
foundation design, but it has to be noted that high
tension steel is much costlier than the conventional
mild steel, hence optimum design with respect to
economy has to be considered based on both material
cost and foundation cost, finally to arrive at a
conclusion regarding which configuration is
economical for particular weight of tower and by
using a particular material.
Table 6: Weight of steel obtained for all the tower
configuration types – for mild steel
Table 7: Weight of steel obtained for all the tower
configuration types – for high tension steel
 International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology E-ISSN 0976-3945

Fig 16: Graph showing tower weight v/s the configuration types – for mild steel & Fig 17: Graph showing
tower weight v/s the configuration types – for high tension steel.
Table 8: Weight of steel obtained for all the tower configuration types – for both mild steel and high
tension steel

Fig 18: Graph showing the tower weight v/s the configuration types – for both mild steel and high tension
steel.
1.3.2 Comparison with respect to cost of the may change from time to time due to market
material fluctuations.
Also a comparison of cost with respect to the member 1.3.3 Comparison with respect to member forces
material used is given in table 9. The cost of Mild Also a comparison of member forces for different
Steel (250 MPa) is Rupees. 52/- per KG and that of materials and configurations, both compressive and
High Tension Steel (350 MPa) is Rupees. 75/- per tensile forces with respect to first panel leg members,
KG. These rates of mild steel and high tension steel bottom or waist level cross arm members and 2nd &
have been arrived based on present market rates and 3rd panel bracings members are given in tables 10, 11,
12, 13, 14 & 15.
Table 9: Cost of steel obtained for all the tower configuration types

IJAET/Vol.III/ Issue III/July-Sept, 2012/XXXX

 International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology
Table 10: Compressive force in leg members, bracing
members and cross arm members obtained for all the
tower configuration types – for mild steel.
Table 11: Compressive force in leg members, bracing
members and cross arm members obtained for all the
tower configuration types – for high tension steel.
Table 12: Compressive force in leg members, bracing
members and cross arm members obtained for all the
tower configuration types – for composite steel.
Table 13: Tensile force in leg members, bracing
members and cross arm members obtained for all the
tower configuration types – for mild steel.
Table 14: Tensile force in leg members, bracing
members and cross arm members obtained for all the
tower configuration types – for high tension steel.
Table 15: Tensile force in leg members, bracing
members and cross arm members obtained for all the
tower configuration types – for composite steel.
IJAET/Vol.III/ Issue III/July-Sept, 2012/44-50
E-ISSN 0976-3945
1.3.4 Concluding remarks
This work attempts to optimize the transmission line
tower structure for a 132 KV double circuit, with
respect to configuration and different materials as
variable parameters. Due to multiple loading
conditions, each member subjected to maximum
stress under any of these loading conditions is
assigned an angle size taking into account the
strength factor of 1.05 to 1.1, related to quality [5].
This work has focused on techno – economical
analysis and design of transmission line tower
structure. Also, the focus is on saving time and cost
when optimization of tower for different
configurations and materials are considered.
The following are the major observation and
conclusions drawn from the present project work.
• Optimization of tower geometry with respect
to member forces. The fifth type of tower
configuration having 3-panels and base width
4.46 M is concluded as the optimum tower
configuration with respect to geometry.
• Tower structure with least weight is directly
associated in reduction of the foundation cost.
The fifth type of tower configuration when
completely assigned high tension steel angles
to its members gives the least weight of tower
of 18,592.7 (N).
• Material optimization with respect to cost of
the material and availability.
• Techno-Economical design to achieve the
reliable performance of the transmission line
tower structure.
• Time saving with respect to computer aided
design (CAD).
• Analytical evaluation or verification with
respect to finite element method software.
1.4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The technical guidance provided by Mr. M.Selvaraj,
Engineering Officer, Mechanical Engineering
Division, CPRI, Bangalore and Dr. M.U. Aswath,
Professor, BIT, Bangalore is gratefully
acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. I.S 802 (Part 1/Sec 1): 1995 and I.S 802 (Part 1/Sec 2):
1992 “Use of structural steel in overheads Transmission
line Tower – code of practice”.
2. Bureau of Indian Standards code, IS 875(Part 2)-1987,
“Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake)
for building and structures” Part 2, Imposed loads, BIS,
Manak Bhawan, New Delhi, India.
3. Bureau of Indian Standards code, IS 875(Part 3)-1987,
“Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake)
for building and structures”, Part 3, Wind loads, BIS,
Manak Bhawan, New Delhi, India
4. “Manual on Transmission line Towers”, Central board of
Irrigation and power, technical report no.9, 1977.
5. A. R. Santha Kumar and S. R. Satish Kumar, Design of
Steel Structures.
6. S.Christian Johnson et al , “Experimental study on
corrosion of transmission line tower foundation and its
rehabilitation”,
7. Prasad Rao et al., “Failure Analysis of Transmission Line
Towers.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 25(3), 231–240.Doi :
10.1061/ ( ASCE) CF .1943-5509.0000161