@J Pergamon 0045-7949(94)00597-4

Computers & Structures vol. 57. No. I. pp. 81-92, 1995

Copyright (" 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0045-7949/95 $9.50 + 0.00

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

t Rcceired 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-freemethod 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.

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

Of late, the investment in transmission facilities for
extra high-voltage networks has increased consider-
ably. In this connection, minimizing the cost of
transmission line structures is an obvious need. While
a uniform code of design practice [1] for these struc-
tures is followed, more or less, by many countries,
there are no established criteria for obtaining an
optimal tower design with regard to its weight and
geometry. A high-voltage transmission line structure
is a complex structure in that its design is character-
ized by the special requirements to be met from both
electrical and structural points of view. The former
decides the general shape of the tower in respect of
its height and the length of its cross-arms that carry
the electrical conductors. While the manoeuvreability
in arriving at an optimal tower design is no doubt
reduced by these electrical considerations. there is
scope for the weight minimization and optimum
geometry shaping of a transmission line tower. This
is apart from the optimum sizing of the members by
a structural design algorithm based on the fully
stressed design concept [2].
Optimization of structures in weight and shape
through mathematical programming methods has
attracted wide attention in the past [2-7]. Member
sectional areas are usually treated as design variables
for weight optimization. The joint coordinates are
included as decision variables in the case of shape
optimization. In combined shape and weight optimiz-
ation problems, the main objective function, viz. the
weight of the structure, is a highly nonlinear function
of the design variables. This is since the nodal
coordinates, and hence the member lengths, vary at
each stage of iteration. The member sectional areas
which are by themselves design variables are depen-
dent on these member lengths. Thus the complexity
of such an optimization process lies in the increased
considered the base width and the panel heights
also as the decision variables in his study on
optimum configuration of a transmission line
tower. Such a choice obviously results in fewer design
variables.
Fuzziness or vagueness in the description of the
design variables and the associated constraints are
other complicating factors that one has to consider in
optimization problems. Optimization studies relevant
to structural systems in such a fuzzy environment are
of recent origin [9-14]. Structural engineers often
encounter situations in which it is not possible to
precisely define their aspiration levels and constraint
functions in a design problem. For example, in the
present case of the transmission line tower if the base
width is considered as one of the design variables in
the optimization process, fixation of crisp lower and
upper bounds for the variables mostly depends on the
experience of the designer and is obviously affected
by impreciseness. The fuzzy-set theory developed by
Zadeh [15] has become a useful tool in modelling the
intuition and impreciseness in the definition of design
optimization problem. The procedure to arrive at an
optimum structural design in a fuzzy environment
involves the following steps:
(i) Assign a transition interval for the variation of
the objective function and the constraints from absol-
ute preciseness to absolute impreciseness.
(ii) Construct a membership function mapping
each transition interval onto the number line between
o and I. A fuzzy feasible domain is now characterized
by a membership function which is an intersection of
the membership functions of all the constraints.
Within the general framework of the above pro-
cedure, there exist two familiar approachesv-x cut
approach [16] and ;. formulation [17], for obtaining
an optimum solution in fuzzy environment. In the

81
82 G. Visweswara Rao

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

G.C level - s
,~~.:::~'~" ~.~.;.'..
T.C level
h r---w- i
~

td
,

M.C level

B.C level
h
li~' ~
:···.
H'""

ttd
..

h f" rjl k:<J

I'
Ie------I
.. I
'·1
/ ):~i
I ...•. I
~-j ~
I I I " I
I: :1 I: :1
I . I • I
f--'--l f----:*-1
I I I I
g , I 1..1
I I I I
f---'-.----1 I I
I I I I
I . I I I
I I r-~
I I I I
Ground level I I
I
I,

(a) (b) (c)

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

along the tower height, fixes up the required configur-

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

Table I. Main electrical and structural design parameters of the example tower
Item No. Parameter Specification Description
Tower type 400 kV Double Fig.
Circuit Tangent
Tower
2 Angle of deviation 2 Fig. A2
3 Ground clearance 8.84m Fig. I
4 Conductor
diameter 31.77 mm
t
unit weight 2.002 kg m
area of
cross-section 5.97 cm'
breaking capacity 16280 kg
coefficient of
linear expansion 0.1935 x ID 'deg' t
Young's modulus 0.686 x 10"kgcm'
5 Groundwire
diameter 11.0mm
t
unit weight 0.7363 kg m
area of
cross-section 0.578 cm'
breaking capacity 6950 kg
coefficient of
expansion 0.115 x ID 'deg- t
Young's modulus 0.1933 x 10' kgcm
6 Insulator Suspension type Fig. A4
7 Shield angle 20 Fig. A3
8 Line span 400 m Between two
adjacent towers
9 Weight span 600 m Between lowest points
of adjacent spans
ID Wind pressure To compute wind loads
conductor on the projected area
and groundwire 45 kgm "

tower members 195 kg m-'

1I 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
Maximum tension ip 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 9.27
at 65 and zero wind
pressure
4 Minimum sag in m
at 0 and 45 kg m
, 10.05 7.75

the presence of an additional load case of a broken
conductor or groundwire loading condition (Appen-
dix 11). 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 ground wire. the
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 11). On the other
hand. it obviously increases the conductor and
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 variables
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.:
(b) groundwire tension t g ;
(c) tower base width b.;
(d) tower width at bottom crossarm level h2 ;
(e) tower width at tower top h];
(f) panel bracing angle q;.
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

a = 8830
b = 3535
c = 2355
=
d 6600 Maximum working tensions:
e = 6355 I conductor: 4405 kg
f = 6110 I groundwire: 1710 kg
=
g 3240 I
=
hi 26035 I Panel angle = e = 45 0

I
h 2 = 7665
h 3 = 7665 I
I
=
h 4 2975 I
I

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

 Optimum designs for transmission line towers 85

ir-;:n---l r-------::'"
double circuit tangent-type tower, the details of
,I which are listed in Tables I and 2.
./ I
1---)

e
(a)
Fig. 4. Bracing patterns generally adopted for high voltage
transmission line towers. 0 = panel angle. (a) K type brac-
ing. (b) X type bracing.
3. CRISP OPTIMIZATION
(b) In most of the earlier truss optimization studies in
literature, joint coordinates and the member sizes
form the control variable vector. This obviously leads
to too large a size optimization problem to handle,

(a) (b)

1690 1690 2565 -, 1060 1270

-,

• •
I I I I

380 ---..
7700
I
---.. 380
7700
I
5775
" •
165 ---.. ---.. 285
5775
I

• ---.. • •
I

7700 7700
•
2640 - - -.. ~--+_---: --.. 2640 1980 -.. 1980
5775 5775

•
I I I I

2640 - - -.. ~-+_---:

7700
• 7700
-.. 2640 1980 ---..• • --.. 1980
5775 5775

.~-+----:•
I I

•
I I

2640 - - -.. --.. 2640 1980 ---..• --.. 1980

Normal condition Ground wire broken condition

(c) (d) (e)

1270 1270 1270 1270 1270 1270

• •
I I

• •
I I I I

285 ---- • • ---.. 285

5775
285 ----
5775
---.. 285
5775
285 ---..
5775
---.. 285
5775
6605 -, , 4335
,.
---..
I I

• ---..
I

•
I

• 1980 ---..~-+-- •
I

•
I

--.. 1980

----.
1175 --.. 1980 1980 --.. 1980
5775 5775 6605 -, , 4335 5775 5775 5775

•
I I

• , ~-+_---:' --..
I I

1980 - - -.. •--'--r---'•

I I

--.. 1980

.
1980 ---.. --.. 1980 1175 1980
5775 5775 5775 5775 6605, 4335 5775

•
I

•
I I I ,
, I

•
I

1980 ---.. --.. 1980 1980

----• ~--+--' ---.. 1980 1175 ---..--'--t--- -.. 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*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
le 4405 kg 44355 13 11710 44265 13 11585
(+2.7%) (+ 1.6%)
2 (, 1710 kg 42805 13 11335 45705 13 11650
(-0.6%) (+2.2%)
3 h, 8830 mm 44330 II 11710 44340 13 11135
(+2.7%) (-2.3%)
4 h, 3535 mm 44470 II 11620 44260 14 10805
(+ 1.9%) (-5.2%)
h, 2355 mm 44390 10 12085 44310 15 10635
(+6.0%) (-6.7%)
6 </J 45 44380 9 11990 44310 17 10965
(+5.1%) (-3.8%)

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

W(X) is the tower weight and g,(X) is the vector of k Lir :(; 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 k l.Jr :(; 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, I' is the radius
eompression types. The nonlinear constrained of gyration. k is a nondimensional factor aecounting
optimization problem is defined in eqn (I) is solved for different end fixity conditions. k is taken to be
by the Hookes-Jcevcs derivative-free method [19, 20]. unity in this study.
The method is simple, elegant and is easily adoptable The constraint functions gi(X) are
for program development. It is basically a hili-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 designs for transmission line towers 87

as in eqn (3). For example, the upper bounds on the

j = member number
i = I, ... ,6 (3)
l: I stands for absolute value.
To and Tg are taken to be the maximum working
tension values corresponding to the initial configur-
ation (Fig. 3). The bounds b; and B~ , i = I, ... , 3, on
the different tower widths are intuitively taken to be
25% below and above the respective initial configur-
ation values. The bounds on if> are chosen to be 40
and 60°, respectively. a, is the compressive or tensile
stress injth member. The upper bound a is taken to
U
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-
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
imprecise and vague environments is made con-
venient by the theory of fuzzy sets [15]. The main task
in a fuzzy optimization problem is to treat the fuzzy
objective function and the fuzzy constraints as fuzzy
sets in the space of decision alternatives and charac-
terize them by their membership functions. The mem-
bership functions are descriptors of the impreciseness
or vagueness with which the boundaries of the fuzzy
sets are known.
For example, in the present case the membership
functions for the lower and upper boundaries of the
conductor maximum tension le can be defined, re-
spectively as,
/lgl (X) = 0

be 2600 kg cm -2.
The weight of the tower at the start of the optim-
ization process is 11.400 tonne while the optimum
weight of the tower is obtained as 10.000 tonne. The
linear dimensions of the configuration corresponding
to the final optimized design are shown in Fig. 6.
=1 (4)
Figure 7 shows the convergence of the tower weight
with the number of iterations under the crisp optim-
ization process.
= (te - 0.9* Tcl(O. I *Tc )
4. FUZZY OPTlMIZATlOi\

It is intuitively obvious that in reality the bounds

on the control variables may not be as crisply defined =1 (5)

-g-

/--:'-'lc~-_
-fl I -
d "f~
~--._--.-
I I e

a = 9300 = B 1 db~
....I '1
b = 2400 = B 2 d 1 1
c=1180=B 3 jl 'I
d = 6150 I I Maximum working tensions:
e = 5880 I' \ r.. 4100 kg
f = 5615 1 I T g : 1710 kg
g = 2935 I I
i
hI = 26770
I
1
1

I
Panel angle =8 =60°
h 2 = 7670 1 I
h 3 = 7670 1 1
h 4 = 2205 1 I
1 I
1 1
I 1
,I a I,

Fig. 6. Crisp optimization. The final optimum tower design configuration.

88 G. Visweswara Rao

11.5
gs(X):

E
11.0 ~\ Il g 5 (X) = 0

~ =(-b[ + I.1*BI)/(O.I*Bn
'0:;
10,5 +
-+,
: 10.0 ~'~~+I~~_I-~
":cs
... 9.5 ~

9.0 L-.-l:--~-~--+'---:7--;':;:----;
1

Fig. 7. Fuzzy optimization. Convergence of tower weight

= (b, - 0.8* B: )/(0.2* B:)
with number of iterations.

The shapes of the membership functions, as given

by eqns (4) and (5), are shown in Fig. 8. The lower =1
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
!1g7(X) = 0 ifb,?1.1*B 2
resulting factor of safety of 3.7 with respect to its
ultimate breaking capacity. A small variation of 10% =(-b2 + I.I*B2)/(O.I*B2)
above this stipulated value is not substantial and may
be acceptable. In other words, the assumed member-
ship function in eqn (4) for gj (X) describes this
intentional small violation in a mathematical form. =1 ifb,~B~,
Similarly, the membership functions for the other
constraints in cqn (3) are defined as g8(X):

Ug 8 (X ) = 0

= (b, - 0.9* BD/(O.I * BD

if 0.9*BJ ~ b, ~ BJ

=1
=1
~(X):

if b, ? 1.1 *B J

= (-h J + 1.1*BJ)/(O.I*B])

=1 =1 if b, ~ B~,

1.0

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

11.5

if b, ~ 0.9* e;
= tb.> 0.9*B))/(0.I*B)) E:
1::
on
if 0.9*B\ ~ hJ ~ B\ 'il
~
... 10.9
=1 ifb,~Bi. '"0~
f-< I~
10.7
gll (X):

/1gll (X) = 0 if 4> ~ 1.1 *1>" IO.5 L -~_---I~-~-~--:,,:---:,:::----:,

1

= (-1> + 1.1*1>")/(0.1*1>")
Fig. 9. Crisp optimization. Convergence of tower weight
with number of iterations.

=1
function and the fuzzy constraints. Consequently the
membership function of the fuzzy domain turns out
to be
if 1> ~ 0.9*1> I
/1D(X) = min{/1".(X), /1g;(X)}, i = 1, 12. (8)
= (1) - 0.9*4> 1)/(0.1 *4> I)
If flD(X) is now denoted by le, the optimum solution
if O.9*rj> I ~ 1> ~ rj> I
is obtained by maximizing ).. At this stage the fuzzy
=1 (6) optimization problem can be stated as an equivalent
crisp optimization problem as
The membership function for W(X) is also con-
maxrrruze )"
structed as

/1,,(X) = 0 if W(X) ~ W" subjected to the constraints

= ( - W(X) + WU):(O.1 * WO) I, ~ /1". (X) and A ~ /1g;(X), i = I, 12. (9)

if 0.9* W" ~ W(X) ~ J-V"
4.1. Results
=1 if W(X) ~ WU. (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 A. The

a = 8880 = B l
=
b 3220 B2 =
c = 1920 = B3
d = 6465 Maximum working tensions:
e = 6185 r.. 4205 kg
f = 5900 \I
T g:1745kg
g = 4700 I
hi = 26490 I Panel angle = e = 45°
h 2 = 7680
h3 = 7680
h 4 = 2340

a
Fig. 10. 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
t,
Item I. HI (l)
11, 0.58 0.31 0.76
configuration as in Fig. 3 is again utilized to start the
optimization process. WU in eqn (7) is taken to be the
corresponding tower weight (Table 3). The final
optimization solution is 10.700 tonne in the form of
tower weight. Figure 9 shows the convergence of the
optimum solution in terms of tower weight with
number of iterations. The linear dimensions of the
tower are shown in Fig. 10. The value of i. corre-
sponding to the optimum solution is 0.58 and
amounts to the maximum degree of membership of
the optimum vector X* to the feasible domain D. At
the end of the optimization process all the elements
of the control variable vector X remain active in
either upper or lower constraint ranges. The degree of
satisfaction expressed by the respective membership
function values at the optimum solution are detailed
in Table 4.
5. DISCUSSION
The crisp and fuzzy optimization results are pre-
sented for transmission line towers of tangent type
(Appendix I). This type of tower being used for
straight stretches of a transmission line. constitutes
80-90% of the total number of towers. In this
context. weight optimization of the tangent type
towers assumes significance. The minimization
scheme is applicable to other types of transmission
line towers as well. It is based on the optimization of
tower shape through the judicious selection of a few
control parameters. In particular there are six par-
ameters in all and excepting the two tension par-
ameters le and 19. the others are directly connected
with the tower shape. Variations in le and 19 indirectly
affect the tower shape in the form of varying the in ter
cross-arm heights and hence the tower weight. The
selection of the panel angle ib as a control variable is
significant in that its variation controls the panel
height. the key parameter deciding the nodal coordi-
nates. The sensitivity of tower weight and geometry
with respect to this parameter is comparable to that
of b., b 2 , and b,. This can be observed from Table 3.
It is to be noted however, that geometry shaping and
weight minimization strongly depends on the com-
bined influence of these variables. In a crisp optimiz-
ation problem the saving in weight of the tower is to
the extent of 12% with respect to the tower weight.
corresponding to the base vector. The fuzzy optimiz-
ation has resulted in a tower weight higher than that
of crisp optimization. However a saving in tower
weight of 6% is achieved by the fuzzy optimization
process. The convergence of tower weight. by the
Hookes-Jeeves method, is fast in the case of both
crisp and fuzzy optimization. as can be observed from
I, hi h, h, 1>
(U) (Uj (L) (l) (U)
0.65 0.94 0.58 0.06 0.50
Figs 7 and 9. It is to be noted that the membership
functions in eqns (4)--(7), chosen for the transition
interval of each parameter, are not unique. However
the active participation of the control variables
chosen for the optimization process is apparent
from their respective membership function values in
Table 4.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Optimum design of transmission-line towers has
been discussed in this paper. A systematic procedure
has been presented for obtaining minimum weight
tower design in both crisp and fuzzy environments.
The efficiency of the optimization scheme is due to the
choice of a few key parameters that influence the
tower geometry and thus indirectly the weight, as
design control variables. This has also reduced the
computational effort considerably. A dedicated pro-
gram has been developed for developing the optimum
design from the initial stage of tower configuration
generation. to that of analysis, design and optimiz-
ation. The results presented for a typical high voltage
transmission line tower have shown substantial sav-
ing in tower weight.
REFERENCES
I. Committee on Electrical Transmision Structures of the
Committee on Analysis and Design of Structures of the
Structural Division. loadings for electrical transmission
structures. J. struct. tn« ASCE 108(5), 1088-1105
( 1982).
" B. H. V. Topping. Shape optimization of skeletal struc-
tures: a review. J. struct. Engng ASCE 109(8),
19331951 (1983).
3. D. J. Sheppard and A. C. Palmer, Optimal design of
transmission towers by dynamic programming. Comput.
Struct. 2,455468 (1972).
4. G. N. Vanderplaats and F. Moses. Automated design of
trusses for optimum geometry. 1. struct. DiL ASCE 98,
671690 (1973).
5. R. H. Gallagher and O. C. Zienkiewicz, Optimum
Structural Design. Theory and Applications. Wiley, New
York (1973).
6. M. P. Saka, Shape optimization of trusses. J. struct. Diu.
ASCE 106(5),1155-1174 (1980).
7. W. H. Greene, Minimum weight sizing of guyed an-
tenna tower. 1. struct. Engng ASCE 111(10), 2121-2137
(1985).
~. G. N. Vanderplaats, Numerical methods for shape
optimization-an assessment of the state of the art.
Proc. 1111. Svmp, Optimum SIeel Design. Tuscon, AZ
(19~1 )
9. D. I. Blockley, The role of fuzzysets in civilengineering.
FU22\' Sets SIS/. 2, 267278 (1979).
10. C. B'. Brown and J. T. P. Yao, Fuzzy sets and structural
engineering. 1. struct . Engng ASCE 109, 1211-1225
(1983 ).
 Optimum designs for transmission line towers 91

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

of aseismic structures. Earthquake EnKnK struct. Dvn.
",
I
13, 827-837 (1985).
"
I ~
12. W. G. Yuan and W. W. Quan, Fuzzy optimum design I
1-'
of structures. Engng Optimiz . 8, 291-300 (1985).
13. R. N. Tiwari, S. Dharmar and J. R. Rao, Fuzzy goal
-1- ":.~ '
programming, an additive model. Fuzzy Sets Sysl. 24,
27- 34 (1987). .:'. . ------r··..-
.
.
. _-~~1==:=":~;
-:-----.--
'I

I
14. S. U. Mohandas, T. A. Phelps and K. M. RagsdelL
__ J----- ,- "
Structural optimization by goal programming ap- .1.---- !
proach. Comput. Struct. 37( I), 1--8 (1990).
15. L. Zedeh, Fuzzy sets. Information Control 8, 338-353 I"
(1965).
I
,I
16. S. S. Rao, K. Sundararaju, B. G. Prakash and C. I
I
Balakrishna, Multiobjective fuzzy optimization tech- .'
niques for engineering design. Comput . Struct, 42( I),
17-44 (1992). Fig. A2. Angle of conductor deviation near a typical cross-
17. S. S. Rao, Multiobjective optimization of fuzzy struc- arm.
tural systems. Int. J. numer. Meth. EnKnK 24, 1157 1171
(1987).
18. W. Weaver Jr. and C. Lawrence Loh, Dynamics of
trusses by component mode method. J. struct . EnKnK (i) Line ioltage. The voltage level generally fixes up
ASCE III (I 2), 25652575 (1985). the safe limits on the conductor-to-ground clearance
19. D. M. Himrnelblau. Applied Noniinear Programming, (Fig. I), conductor-to-metal clearances (Fig. AI) and re-
McGraw-Hill, New York (1972). quired clearances over terrain obstacles such as river-rail
20. S. S. Rao, Optimization: Theory and Applications, 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 deriation, {I (Fig. A 2). f3 broadly
design of transmission line tower are: classifies transmission line towers into tangent and angle
type towers. 0-2 belongs to the first category and above 2'
to the angle type.

(ir') Shield angle (Fig. A 3). 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.

(r) Insulators (Fig. A 4). 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.

\\ (I'i) Conductor and groundwire. ACSR (aluminium

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

/ Groundwire attachment
point

Insulator

Conductor attachment
point

Fig. A3. Shield angle

92 G. Visweswara Rao

----- APPENDIX 11
--::cr-----_:._ _ _ The loads on a transmission line tower are mainly due
':-----l.C-1/_/~_/] ---==>r------- to wind and self weight. The deviation of the line
(Fig. A2) also causes a load arising from the tension of

1--- Insulator
a conductor-groundwire at their respective cross-arm
ends. This load acts in the direction of the cross-arm
axis.
Thus, in normal operating condition (Fig. 5a) the
(a) 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 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
/ ':-- Conductor analysis.
In the case of a broken condition (Fig. 5b-e) of either a
ground wire 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.