GUYED TOWER OPTIMIZATION

LANSFORD C. BELL
Department
of CivilEngineering,
AuburnUniversity,Auburn,AL 36830,U.S.A.

and

DAN&XM. BROWN
Department
of CivilEngineeting,
Vanderbilt
University,Nashville,TN 37235,U.S.A.

(Received10August1975)

Abstract-Auniqueprocedurefor the optimum design of a guyed tower structure is presented. The method depends
on a carefully established design hierarchy which is based on the observed independence of the design variables in
certain portions of the design space. Powell Search and Branch-and-Bound sub-optimization routines are used to
generate locally optimum designs in terms of cable area, initial cabie tension, mast area and anchor to tie locations. A
designexample is presented and computer program capabilities are discussed.

1. AXON The procedure obviously requires a detailed knowledge

The optimum design of a unique, complex or extremely
large indeterminate structure is not easily obtained using
formal mathematical programming techniques. Penalty
functions [l], gradient projection [2] and techniques based
on the Simplex method [3] have been applied to structural
problems of various types. These methods are severely
limited, however, by their inability to realistically handle
discrete design variables. Moreover, idealized or overly
simplified mathematical models are often required when
dealing with full scale structures.
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate a heuristic
approach to the optimization of a specific type of com-
plex, nonlinear able-suited structure, namely the
guyed tower. Mathematics pro~am~g techniques are
pickily diicuh to apply to the guyed tower structure
for the following reasons:
1. Mechanical properties (area, weight, strength, etc.)
of neither the cable nor the tower mast can be approxi-
mated as continuous variables;
2. Simplified reanalysis techniques are complicated by
the non-linear behavior of both cables and mast;
3. Constraints in terms of both stress and displacement
are involved thus increasing the likelihood of non-fully-
stressed optimal designs.
The proposed procedure depends on two proper-
ties which have generally been observed by
designers:
1. The decision making process iogically evolves into a
hierarchial progression which proceeds generally from
topological properties to geometric properties and thence
to mechanical properties, with increasing attention to
detail as the design proceeds;
2. During each stage of the process, modification of the
variables associated with that stage has relatively little
effect on the optimum values of variables associated with
earlier stages (although some iteration is usually re-
quired).
It seems logical, therefore, that optimization algorithms
could be applied to individual stages of the design pro-
cess. Optimum cable areas, for example could be deter-
mined before the selection of opium tower mast sec-
tions. Initial cable tensions could likewise be adjusted to
optimum values independent of the design for mechanical
properties.
447
of the various design variable interactions. Feedback
loops and redesign iterations must be specified when
variable changes affect the results of a previous optimiza-
tion step. Experience with the interactive problem-
oriented design package TOWER[4] has convinced the
authors that a variable independence does in fact exist in
certain portions of the design space. It was further noted
that a judicious ordering of the design process hierarchy
will maximize variable independence and therefore
minimize the number of feedback loops or redesigns
required. Once the design hierarchy has been established
and broken into stages, simplified search type algorithms
can be applied to each indi~dual stage.
This procedure does not necessarily produce an overall
global optimum solution although the resulting designs
can seldom be improved by an experienced designer using
an interactive program.
The investigation is co&red to a class of guyed towers
lOO-5OOft (30.5 m- 152.4m) in elevation that support
heavy microwave antermas. Development of a detailed
optimization algorithm is justified by the large number of
such structures in use for the transmission of voice
commumcations.
2. PROBLEMFORMULATION
Tower design is defined as the process by which the
design variables shown in Fig. 1 are selected. Note the
process en~mpasses more than the selection of member
sizes in that decisions must be made with respect to initial
cable tensions and the physical placement of tie and
anchor locations. The design objective is thus to minimize
the cost of the overall structure:
M~z=ki~(nCL,)i+ki~(LA),
(1)
subject to the stress and rotation constraints:
s/s,iow
-< 1.Oin each cable of all cable sets i (2)
S/S&0$?L 1.0 at all critical points in each tower span i
(3)
ete puorv
I 1.Oat each antenna location (4)
 LANSFORD C. ~ELL and DANIEL M. BROWN

compute
quadmtic
bahaviof
mc&Jls
forcabbstramand tcmr rot&n

OQimia cabb ten&m to

min mu (Cable stresslallow, tower b/allow)

HZ HI (Pcwell starch)
Fig. 1. Design variables. C Cable area; T Initial cabIe tension; H
AnchorIocation;V Tie iocatioa; A Mast area.

where k, and kl are relative costs of cable and tower steel;

L and I.,, are lengths of mast and cable; S and 0 are stress
and rotation; r and s are the number of cable sets and Fwelbbdmlgnwithmepea N
tower mast sections respectively and n is the number of f0wbbmeeendtoworrotstion?
cables in the set. The rotation constraint (tilt) is critical in
that the antenna beams must maintain a prescribed align-
ment under load.
For simplicity, the objective function is stated as a
quasi weight function in that the total amount of tower
steel is the quantity to be minimized. If sufficient data are
available, additional terms may be added to the objective
function without affectiug the optimization algorithm. For
example, site cost could be specified as a function of
anchor location and cable connection costs could be
specified as a function of cable tension.
Such for olimr fmibb combindons
3. DiLSKN OFTIMIZAT~ON ofcabbar@nthatreduwtotaltoworcort
Design experience and a careful study of variable
~te~ctions has produced a design stage hierarchy which (Branch and Baund)
is shown somewhat simpli6ed in Fig. 2. An initial infeasi-
ble design is selected and initial cable tensions optimized
using the relatively efficient Direct Search Method of
Powell [S].
This method minimizes a given function one or more
times in each coordinate direction and then in an as-
sociated pattern direction where a pattern direction vector
is defined by:

sq=xq- xq-, (5)

where n is the number of steps preceding the move. One
coordinate direction is then discarded in favor of the
pattern direction for inclusion in the next m minimiza-
0 End

Fig. 2. Heuristic design Rowchart.

tions. After the next cycle of minimizations, a new pattern
direction again replaces one of the coordinate directions.
A combination of initial cable tensions that minimizes
stress and rotation values at critical locations is computed
and cabfe areas are increased until a feasible design with
respect to cable stress and tower rotation is located. Mast
sections are then selected ~de~ndent of the cable optim-
ization design stages. Other feasible combinations of cable
area may possibly exist in which case a branch and bound
procedure is used to explore alternate integer combina-
tions of cable area. The procedure employed is analogous
to the three phase method of Cella and Logcher [6] which,
for discrete structural components, proceeds as fohows:
1. Input an initial infeasible solution and modify the
infeasible member that results in a minimum cost in-
crease;
2. Use a branch and bound algorithm to explore the
portion of the feasible region between the given solution
and the problem cons~aints;
3. Expiore solutions adjacent to the local minimum
generated above by “bouncing away” from the con-
straints.
Adjustments to cable tie and anchor locations are
performed in the &ml design stage although cable tie
Iocations are somewhat predetermined by antenna loca-
tion and bracing details. Optimum values previously de-
 Guyedtoweroptimization 449

termined are relatively unaffected by minor adjustments

in this stage.
It is very important that the number of analysis itera-
tions be held to a minimum. Quadratic behavior models [ 11
are therefore used to predict changes in cable stress and
tower rotation caused by variations in initial cable ten-
sion. For a tower with r cable sets, a total of 2n + 1
analysis iterations are required to compute the desired
relationships. Using a step length of t, the quadratic
equation is: 300’ 150’

F = a + bt + ct2 (6) Cableset Cable Tower section Leg angle

(in order of size (in order of size
where: increasing (in.) increasing (in.)
elevation) elevation)
a =f@)
1 518 1 4~4x7116
b = [4!(t) - 3f(O)-f(2?)]/2t 2 5/8 2 4x4~318
3 518 3 4x4~318
\C =U(21)+f(0)=2f(t)]/2t2 4 518 4 4x4~5116
5 518 5 4x4~5116
Each cable tension and tower rotation is approximated
under load by expressions of the form of eqn (6). Exact Fig. 3. Initial infeasible design.
values of these parameters, denoted by f, are used to
compute the constants a, b, and c.

4.COMPUTERPROGRAM AND DESIGNEXAMPLE

The computer program AGTD (Automated Guyed
Tower Design) was written to generate locally optimum
designs using the hierarchical approach described above.
Load magnitudes and initial values for all design variables
(Fig. 1) are entered as input. The initial design is normally
infeasible with respect to stress and/or antenna rotation.
Feasible design variables which minimize tower cost are
printed as program output. The capabilities and limita-
tions of AGTD may be summarized as follows:
1. The structure is designed elastically to withstand a Cable set Cable Initial Tower section Leg angle
basic wind load with appropriate gust factor. (in order of size tension (in order of size
2. Tower cross section is either square or triangular increasing (in.) (% breaking increasing (in.)
with 4 or 3 vertical leg angles respectively. Leg angle sizes elevation) strength elevation)
remain constant between cable tie locations.
: 5/8
3/4 0.46
0.50 21 4x4x l/2
4x4x7/16
3. Cable sets consist of 8 or 4 cables if cross section is
square; 6 or 3 cables if cross section is triangular. 3 314 0.50 3 4x4~7116
4. A minimum initial cable tension is maintained to 4 518 0.50 4 4x4~5116
prevent dynamic instabilities. 5 5/8 0.48 5 4x4x5/16
5. The horizontal distance separating the vertical leg
angles is given and remains constant for all elevations. Fig. 4. Optimum design.
6. Cable nonlinearities and the effect of increased
flexure due to axial load have been considered[7,8]. above required less than 2.Omin Xerox Sigma 7 CPU
7. The effects of wind load on the cables have been time. An extremely poor choice of initial design variables
considered. will produce convergence in less than 5.0 min CPU time.
8. Cable areas and mast leg angle size are selected from
an auxiliary data file of available sections. 5. CONCLUSION
9. Allowable stresses and factors of safety in the tower Formal nonlinear programming methods are not easily
mast are based on the AISC Specification. applied to complex cable-supported structures with in-
Applying concentrated and uniformly-distributed loads teger design variables. An intuitive approach to guyed
corresponding to a 90mph wind to the initial design tower optimization was therefore developed whereby
shown in Fig. 3 results in the optimum design shown in search routines are applied to the individual stages of the
Fig. 4. The design was based on a relative objective overall design process.
function that assumes: A computer program was written to optimize the major
design variables shown in Fig. 1 with respect to stress and
Total cost = 3.O(cost of cable/lb) displacement constraints. Locally optimum designs which
cannot be readily improved by alternate methods have
+ l.O(cost of mast steel/lb) (7) been generated at reasonable expense.

Allthough rarely excessive, computer execution time REFFmNclB

depends on the user’s ability to specify reasonable values 1. D. Kavlie and J. Moe, Automated design of statically indeter-
for the initial design variables. The example presented minate frames. ASCE 5th Conf Elecrron. Camp. (1970).
450 LANSFORD
C. BELLand DANIELM. BROH~N
2. D. M. Brown and A. H. S. Ang, Structural optimization by
nonlinear programming.J. Strucf. Div. ASCE 92 (ST6), 319-340
(1966).
3. F. Moses, Optimum structural design using linear program-
ming. I. Struct. Diu. ASCE 90 (ST6), 89-104 (1964).
4. K. L. Reichelt, D. M. Brown and J. W. Melin, TOWER, design
system for guyed towers. J. Struct. Diu. ASCE 97 (STl),
237-251 (1971).
5. M.J. D. Powell, An efficient method for findingthe minimumof a
function of several variables without calculating derivatives.
Computer J. 7(3), 155-162(1964).
6. A. Cella and R. Logcher, Automated optimum design
from discrete components. ASCE 5th Conf. Electron. Camp.
(1970).
7. D. L. Dean, Static and dynamic analysis of guy cables. J.
Stnrct. Diu. ASCE 87 (STl) (l%l).
8. S. P. Timoshenko and J. M. Gere, Theory of Elastic Stability.
McGraw-Hill, New York (1961).