Cnmpuun & Strwrures Vol. 57. No. I, pp.

81-92, 1995
Copyright ‘3; 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
00457949(94)00597-4 Printed in Great Brmin. All nghts reserved
0045.7949/95 $9.50 + o.no

OPTIMUM DESIGNS FOR TRANSMISSION LINE TOWERS

G. Visweswara Rao
Senior Research Analyst, Engineering Mechanics Research India (p) Ltd, 907 Barton Centre,
84 M. G. Road, Bangalore-560001, India

(Received 10 April 1994)

Abstract-A method for the development of optimized tower designs for extra high-voltage transmission
lines is presented in this paper. The optimization is with reference to both tower weight and geometry.
It is achieved by the control of a chosen set of key design parameters. Fuzziness in the definition of these
control variables is also included in the design process. A derivative-free method of nonlinear optimization
is incorporated in the program, specially developed for the configuration, analysis and design of
transmission line towers. A few interesting results of both crisp and fuzzy optimization, relevant to the
design of a typical double circuit transmission line tower under multiple loading conditions, are presented.

1. INTRODUCTION number of design variables. Vanderplaats [8] has

Of late, the investment in transmission facilities for considered the base width and the panel heights
extra high-voltage networks has increased consider- also as the decision variables in his study on
ably. In this connection, minimizing the cost of optimum configuration of a transmission line
transmission line structures is an obvious need. While tower. Such a choice obviously results in fewer design
a uniform code of design practice [I] for these struc- variables.
tures is followed, more or less, by many countries, Fuzziness or vagueness in the description of the
there are no established criteria for obtaining an design variables and the associated constraints are
optimal tower design with regard to its weight and other complicating factors that one has to consider in
geometry. A high-voltage transmission line structure optimization problems. Optimization studies relevant
is a complex structure in that its design is character- to structural systems in such a fuzzy environment are
ized by the special requirements to be met from both of recent origin [9-141. Structural engineers often
electrical and structural points of view. The former encounter situations in which it is not possible to
decides the general shape of the tower in respect of precisely define their aspiration levels and constraint
its height and the length of its cross-arms that carry functions in a design problem. For example, in the
the electrical conductors. While the manoeuvreability present case of the transmission line tower if the base
in arriving at an optimal tower design is no doubt width is considered as one of the design variables in
reduced by these electrical considerations, there is the optimization process, fixation of crisp lower and
scope for the weight minimization and optimum upper bounds for the variables mostly depends on the
geometry shaping of a transmission line tower. This experience of the designer and is obviously affected
is apart from the optimum sizing of the members by by impreciseness. The fuzzy-set theory developed by
a structural design algorithm based on the fully Zadeh [15] has become a useful tool in modelling the
stressed design concept [2]. intuition and impreciseness in the definition of design
Optimization of structures in weight and shape optimization problem. The procedure to arrive at an
through mathematical programming methods has optimum structural design in a fuzzy environment
attracted wide attention in the past [2-71. Member involves the following steps:
sectional areas are usually treated as design variables (i) Assign a transition interval for the variation of
for weight optimization. The joint coordinates are the objective function and the constraints from absol-
included as decision variables in the case of shape ute preciseness to absolute impreciseness.
optimization. In combined shape and weight optimiz- (ii) Construct a membership function mapping
ation problems, the main objective function, viz. the each transition interval onto the number line between
weight of the structure, is a highly nonlinear function 0 and I. A fuzzy feasible domain is now characterized
of the design variables. This is since the nodal by a membership function which is an intersection of
coordinates, and hence the member lengths, vary at the membership functions of all the constraints.
each stage of iteration. The member sectional areas Within the general framework of the above pro-
which are by themselves design variables are depen- cedure, there exist two familiar approaches--cc cut
dent on these member lengths. Thus the complexity approach [ 161 and 2. formulation [ 171, for obtaining
of such an optimization process lies in the increased an optimum solution in fuzzy environment. In the

81
82 G. Visweswara Rao

former approach, different satisfactory design levels u different levels and conductor and groundwire cross-
between 0 and 1 of the membership function of the arm dimensions. This no doubt introduces a con-
fuzzy feasible domain are specified, resulting in a straint in the form of not having full freedom in
sequence of non-fuzzy optimization problems. It is to arriving at a tower design from a shape optimization
be noted that in this approach the objective function point of view. However, the selection of tower basic
is supposed to be devoid of fuzziness. 1 formulation dimensions, such as base width and widths at cross-
approach considers a new objective function in terms arm levels, is still open for a designer to shape a
of a single parameter 1 which is characterized by a transmission line tower in an optimum way. Some of
membership function defined by the intersection of the main parameters of electrical specification are
the membership functions of both the constraints and briefly described in Appendix I.
the objective function. The optimization is then ob-
tained by maximizing i with the help of any of the 2.1. Normul design practice
non-fuzzy optimization techniques. A complete overview of the different stages in-
In this paper optimum weight and geometry of a volved in a transmission line tower design is shown
transmission line tower under static loads with mul- in the form of a flow-chart in Fig. 2. The optimization
tiple loading cases are obtained. Few specific design of the tower being the main theme of the paper, only
variables that control the optimum solution are ident- salient features of the developed program are de-
ified. Fuzziness in the specification of the boundaries scribed here for the sake of brevity. The first stage of
of these control variables is considered and 1 formu- configuration is the distinguishing feature peculiar to
lation approach is adopted in arriving at the optimum a transmission line tower alone, when compared to
design. Results are obtained from a dedicated pro- the design of other normal steel structures. The main
gram developed for the purpose and based on finite considerations in arriving at the tower configuration
element truss analysis. Numerical results are pre- are: the specified electrical clearances; tower type;
sented for a typical transmission line tower illustrat- wind pressure; maximum and minimum temperature
ing the procedure adopted in the crisp and fuzzy conditions; possible ice loads on the conductor and
optimization schemes. groundwire and terrain profile. Table 1 lists the
details of some of these parameters typical to a
400 kV double circuit tangent type tower. Configur-
ing a transmission line tower basically requires
2. TRANSMISSION LINE TOWER AND DESIGN
VARIABLES
computation of conductor and groundwire sags and
their permissible maximum working tensions under
In the design of a high-voltage transmission line the critical wind pressure and temperature conditions.
tower (Fig. 1) the electrical specification decides the Proper coordination of these sags, in conjunction
general shape of the tower in respect of its height at with maintainence of stipulated electrical clearances

G.C level 7 s
T.C level
f h

MC level
h

B.C level
h

Ground level

(4
Fig. I. Transmission line tower. (a) Transverse face, (b) longitudinal face and (c) 3-D view. g-ground
clearance. h-insulator length + conductor sag. s-groundwire sag. B.C-bottom cross-arm. M.C-
middle cross-arm. T.C-top cross-arm. G.C-groundwire cross-arm.
 Optimum designs for transmission line towers 83

along the tower height, fixes up the required configur-

ation.
Configuration of the tower -> height, Table 2 gives the results of the sag-tension compu-
-
widths & crossarm dimensions tations of the conductor and groundwire. Figure 3
I shows the single line diagram of the tower with main
Panelling of the tower
dimensions fixed by the configuration part of the
I design process. With regard to the next two stages of
Nodes & element generation and
formation of global stiffness matrix panelling and node, element generation of the
I transmission line tower design process, it is normal
Computation of loads &
identification of load cases practice to adopt a K or X (double-warren) type of
I bracing (Fig. 4). The panel heights are obviously
3.dimensional analysis of the tower
for nodal displacements & member forces dependent on the choice of the bracing angle 4 used
I in each of these panels.
Structural design of tower members In the analysis of a structure like the transmission
and arriving at the tower weight
I line tower having large number of members, the effect
Start optimization of tower weight of flexure is not significant [18] and it is generally
and tower geometry
analyzed as a truss with many members. In the static
analysis of the tower, the primary loads that are
considered are the wind and the dead-weight loads [l]
Fig. 2. Flow chart of transmission line tower design pro- with appropriate factors of safety. It is highlighted
gram. here that a transmission line tower is also typified by

Table 1. Main electrical and structural design parameters of the example tower
Item No. Parameter Specification Description
1 Tower type 400 kV Double Fig. 1
Circuit Tangent
Tower
Angle of deviation 2” Fig. A2
Ground clearance 8.84 m Fig. 1
Conductor
diameter 31.77 mm
unit weight 2.002 kg m-t
area of
cross-section 5.97 cm*
breaking capacity 16280 kg
coefficient of
linear expansion 0.1935 x 10e4 deg-’
Young’s modulus 0.686 x IO6 kg cm-’
Groundwire
diameter ll.Omm
unit weight 0.7363 kg m-’
area of
cross-section 0.578 cm’
breaking capacity 6950 kg
coefficient of
expansion 0.115 x 10-4deg-’
Young’s modulus 0.1933 x IO’kgcm-*
Insulator Suspension type Fig. A4
Shield angle 20” Fig. A3
Line span 400 m Between two
adjacent towers
9 Weight span 600 m Between lowest points
of adjacent spans
10 Wind pressure To compute wind loads
conductor on the projected area
and groundwire 45 kg m-’
tower members 195 kgm-’
11 Temperature For sag-tension
maximum 65’ computations
minimum 0”
84 G. Visweswara Rao

Table 2. 400 kV double circuit tangent type tower. Sag-tension values of conductor and
groundwire under critical wind pressure and temperature conditions
Item no. Description Conductor Groundwire
1 Maximum tension in kg 4405.0 1710.0
at 0 and 45 kgm-?
wind pressure
2 Minimum tension in kg 3180.0 1250.0
at 65’ and zero wind
pressure
3 Maximum sag in m 12.6 9.21
at 65’ and zero wind
pressure
4 Minimum sag in m 10.05 1.75
at Or and 45kgm-’

the presence of an additional load case of a broken
conductor or groundwire loading condition (Appen-
dix II). Figure 5 shows the multiple load cases along
with the computed loads for the example tower of
400 kV line. In Fig. 5 it can be observed that an extra
load, normally termed as a longitudinal load, acts in
a direction normal to the cross-arm axis in each of the
broken conductor-groundwire condition cases. A
mention has to be made here about the factors of
safety to be maintained regarding the maximum
working tensions in the conductor and groundwire.
While these are dependent on the respective breaking
capacities of the conductor and groundwire,
factors of safety impose an upper limit on these
tension values in a crisp optimization process. Lower-
ing the working tension values no doubt brings down
the tower loads (refer to Appendix II). On the other
hand, it obviously increases the conductor
groundwire sags, thereby resulting in an increase in
tower height followed by a possible upward or down-
ward trend in tower weight.
2.2. Choice of’ control aariables
With a specified transmission line voltage the par-
ameters, like line span, conductor and groundwire
dimensions, remain invariant in the design process.
As one can perceive, the wind pressure and tempera-
ture conditions are also out of the purview of control
variables. Of the other different parameters that
significantly influence the tower weight and geometry,
the following are the chosen set of control variables
in the present optimization study:
(a) conductor tension t,;
the (b) groundwire tension t,;
(c) tower base width b,;
(d) tower width at bottom crossarm level b2;
(e) tower width at tower top b,;
(f) panel bracing angle 4.
and The above choice is based on a sensitivity study
carried out on the effect of each of these variables on
the tower weight and geometry. Table 3 shows the
results of such a study with respect to the 400 kV

h3 j
;_i /;-,
--

hz e .I- I
/J b/-‘_
a = 8830 T
b = 3535 .d .-/ /
c = 2355 I I,
d = 6600 Maximum working tensions:
e=6355 I) conductor: 4405 kg
f=6110 groundwire: 17 10 kg
g = 3240
ht :
h, = 26035 Panel angle = 0 = 45”
h2 = 7665
h3 = 7665
h4 = 2975
//
2. i a ‘,

Fig. 3. Tower geometry. Results from configuration part of the program.

 Optimum designs for transmission line towers 85

--T-T,, ,,----Y,
{I ; double circuit tangent-type tower, the details of
I” ,‘:.--
,y.-f--y which are listed in Tables 1 and 2.
;/ ( ,,,’ ., 1‘:
( ‘,<, ,,fI/ / ‘!
,‘+’ ‘CL_: ,; 1, / ‘i,
,,a’.’ “, 1 !a,,,
.’ ,,I’ 3. CRISP OPTIMIZATION
;*‘,. ‘. :’._
!.’i, e :,, s’., 8
,...:i. i: , In most of the earlier truss optimization studies in
(4 ’ (b) ‘{

Fig. 4. Bracing patterns generally adopted for high voltage literature, joint coordinates and the member sizes
transmission line towers. H = panel angle. (a) K type brac- form the control variable vector. This obviously leads
ing. (b) X type bracing. to too large a size optimization problem to handle,

1690 1690 2565 \ 1060 1270

I
4 ‘\; ;
380 --+’ --- 380 165 ---7--- 285
7700 7700 5775 5775
I I
;
2640 --et ‘--+ 2640 1980 --+’ --- 1980
7700 7700 5775 5775
I I
2640 --et ‘--a 2640 1980 --+’ ‘--+ 1980
7700 7700 5775 5775
I I
;
2640 --+I ‘--+ 2640 1980 --+’ --- 1980

Normal condition Ground wire broken condition

(c) (d) (e)

1270 1270 1270 1270 1270 1270

I
i -r--h 285
285 ----
5775 5775

i i
1980 ---- ---- 1980
5775 5715
t t
1980 ---- ---- 1980
5775 5775 6605 \ 4335 5775

,175 __1i- t
1980 --+’ ‘--+ 1980 ---- 1980

Top conductor broken condition Middle conductor broken condition Bottom conductor broken condition

Fig. 5. Multiple load cases. 400 kV double circuit tangent type transmission line tower. (a) Normal loading
condition, (b) groundwire broken loading condition, (c) top conductor broken loading condition,
(d) middle conductor broken loading condition and (e) bottom conductor broken loading condition.
(The inclined arrow at each crossarm level in the broken loading conditions indicates the additional
longitudinal load).
86 G. Visweswara Rao

Table 3. 400 kV double circuit tower. Sensitivity analysis results. Effect of control variables on tower
geometry and weight (percentage values in parenthesis is the effect of each variable with respect to tower
weight of 11400 kg at base vector of control variables)
I. I *Base value 0.8*Base value
Base
value Total Total Total Total
Serial Control (initial height No. of weight height No. of weight
No. variable configuration) in mm panels in kg in mm panels in kg

I 1, 4405 kg 44355 13 11710 44265 I3 11585

(+2.7%) (+ 1.6%)
2 ‘, 1710 kg 42805 13 II335 45705 I3 II650
(-0.6%) (+2.2%)
3 h, 8830 mm 44330 II 11710 44340 13 II135
(+2.7%) (-2.3%)
4 b> 3535 mm 44470 II II620 44260 I4 10805
(+ 1.9%) (-5.2%)
5 b, 2355 mm 44390 IO 12085 44310 I5 10635
(+6.0%) (-6.7%)
6 4 45 44380 9 II990 44310 I7 10965
(f5.1%) (-3.8%)

especially with PC based software. In the present is possible, while a sequence of accelerating steps of
study, selection of tower widths at a few nodal points pattern searches are made along this direction till it
on the tower, and the panel bracing angle as elements continues to be a successful direction.
of the design variable vector X, has an obvious
advantage. The variations affected in these variables
during the optimization process indirectly amount to 3.1. Results
changing the nodal coordinates as well, while sub- The optimization problem in eqn (1) is solved for
stantial reduction in the size of the problem is the case of the 400 kV double circuit transmission-
achieved. Moreover, for a transmission line tower, line tower, the details of which are given in Table 1.
there is lack of freedom in choosing all nodal coordi- It is designed as a self-supporting tower with steel
nates as design variables. This is due to the fact that members of L-shaped angles with a bolted type
arbitrary changes in these coordinates are likely to construction. The configuration of Fig. 3 is utilized to
lead to violation of electrical clearance requirements. arrive at the starting design. The design of tower
Thus, for the transmission line tower on hand, the members is guided by the following slenderness ratio
crisp optimization problem can be stated as requirements,
for tension members
minimize W(X),
L/r d 300, and
subjected to g,(X) > 0.0 for i = 1, . , m, (1)
for compression members
where X is the control variable vector given by
kL/r d 150 if it is a leg member or
crossarm member

W(X) is the tower weight and g,(X) is the vector of kLlr < 200 if it is a member carrying
m constraint functions. In the present case, g,(X) computed stresses
covers the lower and upper limit constraints on the
selected design variables. They also include the kL/r d 250 if it is a redundant member
stress constraints and the restriction of positivity of carrying nominal stresses (2)
all elements of the control variable vector. The
stress constraints include both tension and where L is the length of the member, r is the radius
compression types. The nonlinear constrained of gyration. k is a nondimensional factor accounting
optimization problem is defined in eqn (1) is solved for different end fixity conditions. k is taken to be
by the Hookes-Jeeves derivative-free method [19,20]. unity in this study.
The method is simple, elegant and is easily adoptable The constraint functions g,(X) are
for program development. It is basically a hill-climb-
ing technique in that each control variable is varied
in succession by a series of exploratory and pattern
searches for achieving the desired objective of an
optimized solution. The exploratory search is for
finding the successful direction in which optimization
 Optimum

f&(X) = B: <b, < B;, as in eqn (3). For example, the upper bounds on the
conductor and groundwire maximum working ten-
sion can as well be relaxed, to a small extent, without
violating the specified factor of safety by any appreci-
g6(X)=4’<4<#” and able margin. In a similar fashion, the earlier selection
of the lower and upper bounds on the tower widths
in eqn (3) is governed by more intuition than avail-
ability of crisp boundaries. Decision making in such
i = member number imprecise and vague environments is made con-
venient by the theory of fuzzy sets [15]. The main task
gj, 7(X) = x, 2 0.0, in a fuzzy optimization problem is to treat the fuzzy
objective function and the fuzzy constraints as fuzzy
i=1,...,6 (3) sets in the space of decision alternatives and charac-
terize them by their membership functions. The mem-
1 1 stands for absolute value. bership functions are descriptors of the impreciseness
or vagueness with which the boundaries of the fuzzy
T, and T, are taken to be the maximum working sets are known.
tension values corresponding to the initial configur- For example, in the present case the membership
ation (Fig. 3). The bounds bf and B:, i = 1, . ,3, on functions for the lower and upper boundaries of the
the different tower widths are intuitively taken to be conductor maximum tension t, can be defined, re-
25% below and above the respective initial configur- spectively as,
ation values. The bounds on C#Jare chosen to be 40
and 60”, respectively. a, is the compressive or tensile P,, (W = 0 if t, 2 I.l*T,
stress injth member. The upper bound tr” is taken to
be 2600 kg cm-‘. =(-t,+ I.l*TC)/(O.l*TC)
The weight of the tower at the start of the optim-
ization process is 11.400 tonne while the optimum if T,g t,< l.l*T,
weight of the tower is obtained as 10.000 tonne. The
linear dimensions of the configuration corresponding = 1 if t, ,< T, (4)
to the final optimized design are shown in Fig. 6.
Figure 7 shows the convergence of the tower weight
&2(X) = 0 if t, < 0.9*T,
with the number of iterations under the crisp optim-
ization process.
= (t, - 0.9*T,)/(O. 1*T,)

4. FUZZY OPTIMIZATION
if 0.9*T, < t, < T,
It is intuitively obvious that in reality the bounds
on the control variables may not be as crisply defined = I if t, 2 T,. (5)

a=9300=B,
;:
b = 2400 = Bz {
c= 1180=B3 j
d = 6150 I \ Maximum working tensions:
e = 5880 T,:4100kg
f=5615
h, ; Ts: 1710 kg
g = 2935
hl = 26770 Panel angle = 0 = 60”
h2 = 7670
h3 = 7670
h4 = 2205 i
I
i
Fig. 6. Crisp optimization. The final optimum tower design configuration.
88 G. Rao

r.of
i 3 5 7 9 fl 13 15

Number of iterations

Fig. 7. Fuzzy optimization. Convergence of tower weight

with number of iterations.

The shapes of the ~~ernbershj~ functions, as given

by eqns (4) and (S), are shown in Fig, 8. The lower
value of T, = 4405 kg (Table 2) in eqns (4) and (5) is
the value of the conductor maximum working tension
as worked out from sag-tension computations with a
resulting factor of safety of 3.7 with respect to its
ultimate breaking capacity. A small variation of 10%
above this stipulated value is not substantial and may
be acceptable. In other words, the assumed member-
ship function in eqn (4) for g,(X) describes this
intentional small violation in a mathematical form.
Similarly, the membership functions for the other
constraints in eqn (3) are defined as

(a> (b)
Fig. 8. Fuzzy optimization. Shape of membership function chosen for r,. (a) Lower constraint range.
(b) Upper constraint range.
 Optimum designs for transmission line towers 89

g,, W): 11.5

r
P~ldX)= 0 if 6, < 0.9*Bi 11.3
E
= (b, - 0.9*B:)/(o. 1*B:)
2
if 0.9*B: < b, < Bi $ \
= 1 2 10.9 +\
if b, > B:, 3
+\
tF: 10.7 +-++++-m
i%,,(X):
.04 11.11
IO.51 I I I I I I I
r+,(X)=0 if 4 2 I.l*qS”
I 3 5 7 9 II 13 15
Number of iterations
= (-4 + 1.1*q5”)/(o.l*q%“)
Fig. 9. Crisp optimization. Convergence of tower weight
if l.l*$“>f$2&” with number of iterations.

1 if 4 <4”,
function and the fuzzy constraints. Consequently the
membership function of the fuzzy domain turns out
i%(X):
to be
y,m = 0 if qb < 0.9*4’
PD(X) = min{~,$0 P&X)}, i = 1, 12. (8)
= (c#l- 0.9*+ ‘)/(O. 1*cj 1)
If pD(X) is now denoted by 2, the optimum solution
if0.9*$1<&<f&’
is obtained by maximizing 1. At this stage the fuzzy
= 1 if4 24’. (6) optimization problem can be stated as an equivalent
crisp optimization problem as
The membership function for W(X) is also con-
maximize 2,
structed as

I&(X) = 0 if W(X) 2 W” subjected to the constraints

= (- W(X) + W”)/(O. 1* W”) 1 <p,,.(X) and 1 <am,,, i = 1, 12. (9)

if 0.9*W” < W(X) < W”
4.1. Results
zr 1 if W(X) < W”. (7) The fuzzy optimization problem as stated in eqn (9)
is solved by the Hookes and Jeeves method. It is to
The optimization in fuzzy environment is now be noted here that the control variable vector is now
viewed as an intersection of the fuzzy objective augmented by one more element in the form of 1. The

._.g ..
7
h4 _.

h2 I e I I

a=8880=B, j-
b = 3220 = BZ j
c = 1920 = B3 j
d = 6465 Maximum working tensions:
e=6185 T, : 4205 kg
f = 5900 T,: 1745 kg
g = 4700 ht ;
h, = 26490 II I Panel angle = 8 = 45”
h2 = 7680 I I
h3 = 7680
h4 = 2340 I I
// I

Fig. IO. Fuzzy optimization. The final optimum tower design configuration.
90 G. Visweswara Rao

Table 4. Fuzzy optimization. Membership function values at optimum solution;

L-lower constraint range, U-upper constraint range

h,
W (2, c& (U) hL
(L) (hLi) 2)
0.31 0.76 0.65 0.94 0.58 0.06 0.50

configuration as in Fig. 3 is again utilized to start the Figs 7 and 9. It is to be noted that the membership
optimization process. W” in eqn (7) is taken to be the functions in eqns (4)-(7). chosen for the transition
corresponding tower weight (Table 3). The final interval of each parameter, are not unique. However
optimization solution is 10.700 tonne in the form of the active participation of the control variables
tower weight. Figure 9 shows the convergence of the chosen for the optimization process is apparent
optimum solution in terms of tower weight with from their respective membership function values in
number of iterations. The linear dimensions of the Table 4.
tower are shown in Fig. 10. The value of 1 corre-
sponding to the optimum solution is 0.58 and
6. CONCLUSIONS
amounts to the maximum degree of membership of
the optimum vector X* to the feasible domain D. At Optimum design of transmission-line towers has
the end of the optimization process all the elements been discussed in this paper. A systematic procedure
of the control variable vector X remain active in has been presented for obtaining minimum weight
either upper or lower constraint ranges. The degree of tower design in both crisp and fuzzy environments.
satisfaction expressed by the respective membership The efficiency of the optimization scheme is due to the
function values at the optimum solution are detailed choice of a few key parameters that influence the
in Table 4. tower geometry and thus indirectly the weight, as
design control variables. This has also reduced the
5. DISCUSSION computational effort considerably. A dedicated pro-
gram has been developed for developing the optimum
The crisp and fuzzy optimization results are pre-
design from the initial stage of tower configuration
sented for transmission line towers of tangent type
generation. to that of analysis, design and optimiz-
(Appendix I). This type of tower being used for
ation. The results presented for a typical high voltage
straight stretches of a transmission line, constitutes
transmission line tower have shown substantial sav-
80-90% of the total number of towers. In this
ing in tower weight.
context, weight optimization of the tangent type
towers assumes significance. The minimization
scheme is applicable to other types of transmission REFERENCES

line towers as well. It is based on the optimization of

I. Committee on Electrical Transmision Structures of the
tower shape through the judicious selection of a few Committee on Analysis and Design of Structures of the
control parameters. In particular there are six par- Structural Division. Loadings for electrical transmission
ameters in all and excepting the two tension par- structures. J. .s~ruc(. Dir. ASCE 108(5), 1088~1105
ameters t, and t,, the others are directly connected (1982).
2. B. H. V. Topping. Shape optimization of skeletal struc-
with the tower shape. Variations in r, and 1, indirectly tures: a review. J. .v/ruct. Engng ASCE 109(g),
affect the tower shape in the form of varying the inter 1933 -1951 (1983).
cross-arm heights and hence the tower weight. The 3. D. J. Sheppard and A. C. Palmer, Optimal design of
selection of the panel angle 4 as a control variable is transmission towers by dynamic programming. Compul.
Srruct. 2, 455 468 (1972).
significant in that its variation controls the panel
4. G. N. Vanderplaats and F. Moses, Automated design of
height, the key parameter deciding the nodal coordi- trusses for optimum geometry. J. SITUCI.Die. ASCE 98,
nates. The sensitivity of tower weight and geometry 671690 (1973).
with respect to this parameter is comparable to that 5. R. H. Gallagher and 0. C. Zienkiewicz, Optimum
of b, , b2, and b,. This can be observed from Table 3. Structuml Design, Theory and Applications. Wiley. New
York (1973).
It is to be noted however, that geometry shaping and 6. M. P. Saka, Shape optimization of trusses. /. slruc’t. Div.
weight minimization strongly depends on the com- ASCE 106(5), 115551174 (1980).
bined influence of these variables. In a crisp optimiz- 7. W. H. Greene, Minimum weight sizing of guyed an-
ation problem the saving in weight of the tower is to tenna tower. J. struct. Engng ASCE lll(lO), 2121~~2137
(1985).
the extent of 12% with respect to the tower weight,
8. G. N. Vanderplaats. Numerical methods for shape
corresponding to the base vector. The fuzzy optimiz- optimization-& assessment of the state of the art.
ation has resulted in a tower weight higher than that Proc. Int. Swap. O~tmum Steel Design, Tuscan. AZ
of crisp optimization. However a saving in tower (1981).
weight of 6% is achieved by the fuzzy optimization 9. D. 1. Blockley. The role of fuzzy sets in civil engineering.
Fu-_-_J,Sets .S_v.st.2, 2677278 (1979).
process. The convergence of tower weight, by the IO. C. B. Brown and J. T. P. Yao, Fuzzy sets and structural
Hookes-Jeeves method, is fast in the case of both engineermg. J. .struct. EngnX ASCE 109, 1211~1225
crisp and fuzzy optimization, as can be observed from (1983).
 Optimum designs for transmission line towers 91

11. W. G. Yuan and W. W. Quart, Fuzzy optimum design

of aseismic structures. Earfhquake Engng snuc/. Dyn.
13, 827-837 (1985).
12. W. G. Yuan and W. W. Quart, Fuzzy optimum design
of structures. Engng Optbniz. 8, 291-300 (1985).
13. R. N. Tiwari, S. Dharmar and J. R. Rao, Fuzzy goal
programming, an additive model. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 24,
27-34 (1987).
14. S. U. Mohandas, T. A. Phelps and K. M. Ragsdell,
Structural optimization by goal programming ap-
proach. Comput. Strucr. 37(l), l-8 (1990).
15. L. Zedeh. Fuzzy sets. Information Control 8, 338-353
(1965).
16. S. S. Rao, K. Sundararaju, B. G. Prakash and C.
Balakrishna, Multiobjective fuzzy optimization tech-
niques for engineering design. Compuf. Strucr. 42(l),
1744 (1992). Fig. A2. Angle of conductor deviation near a typical cross-
17. S. S. Rao, Multiobjective optimization of fuzzy struc- arm.
tural systems. Inr. J. numer. Meth. Engng 24, 1157-I 111
(1987).
18. W. Weaver Jr, and C. Lawrence Loh, Dynamics of
trusses by component mode method. J. struct. Engng (i) Line voltage. The voltage level generally fixes up
ASCE 111(12), 256552575 (1985). the safe limits on the conductor-to-ground clearance
19. D. M. Himmelblau, Applied Nonlinear Programming. (Fig. I), conductor-to-metal clearances (Fig. Al) and re-
McGraw-Hill, New York (1972). quired clearances over terrain obstacles such as river-rail
20. S. S. Rao, Optimization: Theory and Apphcalions, 2nd crossings, teleline and other transmission lines of different
Edn. Wiley, New York (1984). voltage.

(ii) Number of circuits. The number of circuits decide the

APPENDIX I number of cross-arms.

The main parameters of the electrical specification in the (iii) Angle of conductor deviation, /l (Fig. A2). #’ broadly
design of transmission line tower are: classifies transmission line towers into tangent and angle
type towers. O-2” belongs to the first category and above 2,’
to the angle type.

(iv) Shield angle (Fig. A3). Shield angle is the angle

between the line joining the groundwire and conductor
attachment points and the vertical. It is meant for electrical
protection of the current carrying conductor.

(u) Znsulators (Fig. A4). Suspension insulators are used

for tangent type towers and tension insulators are used
for angle type of towers. These insulators and their
associated connecting wires are susceptible to deflections
due to wind. Maintenance of electrical clearances
and hence the cross-arm lengths and heights are strongly
dependent on these insulator swing angles.

(vi) Conductor and groundM,ire. ACSR (aluminium

conductor steel reinforced) stranded conductors are
normally used for high voltage transmission lines. High
tensile galvanized steel wires are used as groundwires. The
Fig. Al. Electrical clearances. Conductor to metal clear- sizes of conductor and groundwire depend on the line
ance diagram. c-specified electrical clearance. voltage.

I, Groundwire attachment
I. -----_-_________
.I_
(---T- \_____-.------~---- :_,, pomt
1
~___------
- Insulator

- Conductor attachment
point
i
‘I
Fig. A3. Shield angle.
92 G. Visweswara Rao

-----_____ GPPENDIX II
,.. ---___
_.: y.- --_ The loads on a transmission line tower are mainly due
_:’ -----z ____

-
_/- __._--- --__ to wind and self weight. The deviation of the line
z (Fig. A2) also canses a load arising from the tension of

$
a conductor-groundwire at their respective cross-arm
Insulator
ends. This load acts in the direction of the cross-arm
axis.
Thus, in normal operating condition (Fig. 5a) the
loads are of two types. They are given by items (i) and (ii)
below.
(i) Vertical load at a cross-arm tip
=self weight of conductor-groundwire + insulator
and its hardware + weight of linemen and tools.
(ii) Transverse load at a cross-arm tip
=wind load on conductor-groundwire and
insulator + tension component due to line devia-
tion.
The wind load on tower members also forms part of
the transverse load. It is either lumped at the cross-arm
tips with appropriate apportioning of the tower body
for the purpose or treated as a distributed load in the
.f’ - Conductor analysis.
In the case of a broken condition (Fig. Se) of either a
groundwire or a conductor, the resulting unbalanced tension
(b) in the intact span acts in a direction parallel to the conductor
Fig. A4. Insulators. (a) Suspension type used for tangent and a major load component acts in a direction normal to
type towers and (b) tension type used for angle type towers. the cross-arm axis.