2006 IEEE PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition Latin America, Venezuela
Optimal Location of Power Transmission
Lines Towers Using Reformulated Dynamic
Programming
F. R. Viera, and J. Toledo H., Member, IEEE
formulated in [1] is reformulated. Results based on this
reformulation and corresponding algorithm and computer
program are presented. Dynamic Programming consist in
segmenting the route profile, defining sites, and finding optimal
transmission line from start of profile to each site progressively.
Stages are the sites and the optimal policy will be the line of
minimal cost thru each heights of tower that support conductor.
Reformulation refers to redefine optimal policy to represent
adequately constrains determined by 3 towers (wind span, load
span, distance to mass).
Index Terms-- ---Dynamic programming. Optimization methods,
Power transmission, Power transmission lines, Transmission
lines, UHV Transmission lines.
I. INTRODUCTION
G ENERAL standards for UHV power transmission lines
design established in Venezuela recommends computer
software in selecting optimal solution to tower spotting.
Given survey terrain profile on line route and a set of tower
heights and suspension or angle, is required to specify the
sites where tower will be erected, the heights of the towers
and a indication of the class of tower from a set previously
defined, in such a way that the overall cost of running the line
form one end of the profile to the other is a minimum.
Dynamic programming in [1] is applied to optimal location
of the towers in a transmission line design. Other methods
such computer reproductions of hand design also are in papers
[2], [3]. Bellman’s The Principle of Optimality tells. “An
optimal policy has the property that whatever the initial state
and initial decision are, the remaining decisions must
constitute an optimal policy with regard to the state resulting
from the first decision”[4]. Basic algorithm is Dynamic
Programming and is considered as a finite connected net.
A. Constrains.
When designing a transmission line spotting, 3 types of
constrains may be identified. This are constrains that depends
of one tower or related to site. Constrains that depends on 2
towers, such ground clearance and distance to objects, and
1-4244-0288-3/06/$20.00 ©2006 IEEE
1
constrains that depends on 3 towers such wind span, weight
span and weight-span to wind-span ratio.
II. DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING APPROACH
Nemhauser [5] states an alternate exposition of Bellman’s
The Principle of Optimality “We may say that a problem with
N decision variables can be transformed into N sub problems,
each containing only one decision variable”. More
understandable for us, if we have survey profile adequately
prepared for a transmission line. In that profile, a fine partition
is defined of sites where’s possible locate towers. The
problem of to evaluate all combinations of N sites and in each
site its possible locate K heights of towers, with a
dimensionality of N^K is transformed in N sub-problems each
one can be resolved with one decision variable with K
outages. Problem is run in N stages, i.e., N sites, each one
with K heights of tower and from each site it’s possible to
reach M other sites determined for the scope of a tower. The
dimensionality is reduced an N x K x M.
As tradition of Dynamic Programming, N represents
stages, K represents states, M sites times K heights reachable
form a site are decisions and the sequence of states that link a
site with the first site and state are called policy. Optimal
policy is the succession of optimal decisions that link the
initial tower to the final tower in the last site of profile.
In Fig. 1 schematically this approach is showed. In site xj
there are two states, each corresponding to tower height. Each
state link to other state belong to an anterior site, this link
represents optimal decision for this estate xj-h1 or xj-h2. In
order to take optimal decision for one state, it must review
anterior stages and corresponding states, saving for each state
a label that contains anterior stage and state related to optimal
decision. Always those links complain two towers constrains
like as ground clearance, distance to objects between state in
examination and optimal decision. Also that link must
complain three tower constrains like wind span, weight span
and maximal insulator chain deviation, this constrains are
verified on the state representing optimal decision. In Figure
1, when take a decision in xj-h1, that’s links to x2, the tower
in x2 must verify 3 tower constrains, with towers in x1, x2,
xj.

Fig. 1. Schema of locating towers in Dynamic Programming
III. FIRST POINT PROBLEM
We examine now site-height states such as posed in [1],
and are represented in Fig. 1. Each couple site-height links to
only an optimal decision. Initial site x1, represents a
minimum cost presents in all solutions. When a decision is
take for height h2, site x1 is selected (supposed that all
constrains are verified), it is due that any other decision
should include additional cost of a tower in x2 or x3. When
this decision is selected, the tower in xj-h2 can be
compromised in wind load or weight load major part. Win
load compromised can impede to participate in a decision for
sites posterior to xj.
We can construct a case where exists a prohibited area to
locate towers in sites following to xj, and Dynamic
Programming approach as defined in [1] fails in find a
solution. In Fig. 2 show an extreme case where fails Dynamic
Programming approach. In this case, we have 100 meters
wind span capacity towers. After meter 100 station, there is a
140-meter area where it’s not possible to locate towers. When
Dynamic Programming approach in [1] is applied on this
profile, in station 100 meters a tower is located that links to
first point. When try to resolve site-height in station 140
meters, can’t to take a decision since a tower in station 100
meters with predecessor in station at 0 meter and successor in
station at 240 meter exceeds wind span 100 meter tower
capacity. The Fig. 2 graphic was produced with DobleRed
(NetDouble) software, which is based in an algorithm that
represents states as site-height-range and finds the only
solution. To have range included in state definition, permits a
tower in 100 meter station, to have a state linked to station 0
meter and other link to station 40 meter. When take a
decision at station 240 meters, find a tower at station 100
meter with a link to station 40 meter. Wind span on this tower
at 100 meter equals (240-40)/2 = 100 meters, which
corresponds to tower wind span capacity.
2
Fig. 2 Case test of first point problem
IV. DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING REFORMULATED
In [6] is showed a best solution to Dynamic Programming
approach. Best solution is generated in more detailed
consideration of 3 towers constrains. The quid of question is
that site-height representation not suffice to represent
constrains defined on 3 towers.
We reformulate Dynamic Programming approach defining
states as a triplet site-height-range. The range represents the
preceding sites reachable from couple site xj-hk.
In Fig. 3 triplet site–height-range is showed, the site xj, the
height h1, and links representing optimal decisions to ranges
r1, r2, and r3. Corresponding will have a set of decisions for
each height h1, h2, h3…
Fig. 3 Schema of solution in Dynamic Programming
reformulated
V. SOFTWARE DOBLERED (NETDOUBLE)
By year 2000 is completed in his actual form software
DobleRed. This software implant an algorithm based in
Dynamic Programming model defined in states site-height-
range. DobleRed is formed for blocks initial, reading of a site,
selection of optimal arrays for site-height, backward process
to find links for optimal policy.
Algorithm is realized with several versions on solution
catenary’s equation (1), where p is catenary’s parameter. This
is used in determine catenary’s vertex for various load
conditions and for ground clearance.
 3

y - yo = p * cosh [ (x - xo) / p ] (1) TABLE I

RESULTS OF COMPARE 9 KM OF TRANSMISSION LINE 115 KV

A. Characteristic of software DobleRed

In a transmission line design DobleRed represents

elements:
1.Station, terrain elevation at line axis, two lateral
elevations, angle.
2.32 heights of towers.
3.32 different class of tower
4.Load conditions for hot conductor, cold and ice
5.Calculations on angle towers.
6.Set of parameters variable for each segment of the line
determined for angle towers.
7.Graphics interface for data preparation.
8.Graphics printed as construction drawings. In Fig. 4 is showed distribution of spans for both cases. For
9.Graphic of calculation progress. DobleRed case, spans are concentrated near 360 meters, while
in other software spans are near 400 meters.

B. Disc space requirement

Number of calculations, memory required and disc memory
required depends of square number of sites dot height number.
In disc space this represents 100 Kbytes for each site
calculated. In real cases limit of 32 bits address is reached,
i.e., 2 Gigabytes for a section of 50 Kilometers, interpolating
one site each 4 meters, with 32 heights of tower.

VI. SOFTWARE APPLICATION RESULTS

Below, results from DobleRed tested with a section of line
to be constructed. A 9-kilometer transmission line at 115 kV
products a low cost of 2.55%, different heights of tower and
mean suspension height lowest. Second case compares a
230kV line S/E Cabruta to S/E Gorrin double circuit and
obtains a low cost for DobleRed 2.23% and a spans
distribution more concentrated. After, we show considerations
on sensitiveness of software results to density of sites to locate
towers.
A. Compare results over 115 kV 9 km transmission line
DobleRed produces 2.55% minor cost over 9 km de survey
compared with other software.
Accordingly to Table I, we observe an interesting fact such
a conductor suspension mean height dismiss, more short spans
and more towers. One of ideas that appoint this case is
redesign towers and newly locate the towers, for an important
minor cost of transmission line.
Fig. 4. Test on 115 kV, 9 km transmission line
B. Test of results on 230 kV double circuit 153 km
In a section of 49 km was tested DobleRed with results of
other software. DobleRed produces a transmission line design
with a 2.27% minor cost. In this test, profile of terrain was
completely flat, in great extension floodable, this mean that
results are in “design span”. In Fig. 5, a graphic with spans
distribution for both cases. More noticeable in chart is spans
concentration in “design span”. Software DobleRed produces
73 spans closed to “design span” while other software
produces 50 spans.

Fig. 5. Spans distribution on 49 km of flat terrain
C. Results sensitiveness to sites number
Software external parameter more important to DobleRed
is site number to be calculated. It is showed as interpolated
sites in survey profile. That is defined in data as “interpolation
distance”. In Table II results are showed of 3 runs with
interpolation distances of 3, 4 and 6 meters. When interpolate
a site each 3 meters, cost is lowered in 0.35% compared with
interpolation distance of 6 meters.
TABLEII
SENSITIVENESS TO SITE DENSITY
The same results are showed in Fig. 6 where looks major
concentration of spans near “design span” directly in
proportion to density of sites of localization.
Fig. 6. Sensitiveness to site density
VII. CONCLUSIONS
In this document is presented a reformulation of Dynamic
Programming approach to location of towers in transmission
lines. This reformulation permits to solve the first point
problem, throughout detailed solution to 3 towers constrains.
Additionally, the software DobleRed, is showed based on this
4
reformulation and its application results are presented.
In first term, software DobleRed produce a cut of towers
cost that in all cases was superior to 2%.
Results obtained with DobleRed show characteristics of
high regularity localization such as major concentration of
spans on a value generally called “design span”.
Software DobleRed produce consistent results when test
sensitiveness to density of location sites, best cost and
presents major precision in distribution of spans.
VIII. REFERENCES
[1] [1] G. Mitra, K. Wolfenden. “A Computer Technique for Optimizing the
Sites and Heights of Transmission Line Towers – A Dynamic
Programming Approach”, The Computer Journal, 1968, Vol. 10, p 347 –
351, Nº 4.
[2] [2] V. Converti, E. J. Hyland, D. E. Tickle, “Optimized Transmission
Tower Spotting on Digital Computer”, AIEE Transactions On Power
Apparatus and Systems, April 1962, Nº 59, p 55-63.
[3] [3] R. E. Popp, C. J. Dabekis, F. M. Fullerton, ”Electronic computer
program permits optimized spotting of electric transmission towers”
AIEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, June 1963
[4] [4] R. Bellman, S. Dreyfus, “Applied Dynamic Programming”, book
Princeton University Press, 1962, p 15.
[5] [5] G. Nemhauser, “Introduction to Dynamic programming,“, book John
Wiley and Sons, 1966.
[6] [6] F. Viera, M. Pérez., “Localización Optimizada de Soportes de
Líneas de Transmisión de Energía Eléctrica Utilizando Programación
Dinámica”, Trabajo especial de grado. Universidad Central de
Venezuela, Escuela de Computación, Junio 1982
IX. BIOGRAPHIES
Francisco Viera was born in Caracas, Venezuela in
1947. Gets degree in computer science in
Universidad Central de Venezuela, 1982, has
worked in computer technical section in Engineering
Dept. of CVG Electrificación del Caroní C. A., Guri
Project in Caroní River development. He worked in
PDVSA, Lagoven, S.A.., actually is independent
software developer.
Juan Toledo H, (S´89-M´01) was born in Caracas,
DF, Venezuela, in 1961. Electrical Engineer in
Universidad Simón Bolívar USB en 1992. He obtain
degree Magíster Scientiarum MSc, Power systems
option in Universidad Central de Venezuela UCV, in
2k. From 1991 works in CVG. EDELCA, in
Construction Division of hydroelectric Project
Caruachi of Caroní River development. Is member of
several institutions: CIV, AVIEM, IEEE-PES, IEEE-
Magnetics, AsoVac, CIGRE, and SVMNI.