Corn/m/m & S/w rurm Vol. 55. No 3, pp. 387403.

1995
Copyright < 1995 Elwier Science Ltd
Pergamon 0045-7949(94)00468-4 Prmted m Great Britam All rights reserved
0045.7949195 $9.50 + 0.00

RELIABILITY-BASED OPTIMIZATION OF TRANSMISSION

LINE TOWERS

K. Natarajan and A. R. Santhakumar

Faculty of Civil Engineering, Anna University, Madras 600 025, India

(Receioed 28 December 1993)

Abstract-Transmission line towers form the major part of a power grid and contribute a large percentage
to the total cost of the transmission line network. The structural design of a transmission line tower is
most often governed by IS:802-1977, IS:802 (draft)-1989 (Indian standard code for design of
transmission line towers) and Indian electricity rules. There have been failures reported in transmission
line towers, particularly in Andhra Pradesh, a southern state of India, due to cyclonic storms. Against
this background of codal specifications not properly taking into account the uncertainty factors in loading
and material properties, the need for reliability-based design is highlighted in the present paper. Four
independent computer programs for component reliability, reliability analysis, optimization and auto-
mation of failure mode generation were developed. Not only were these programs independently
developed and validated, they were all linked together. This has enabled not only the more economical
design of typical towers but also ensured a particular level of chosen reliability for the towers. It has also
been demonstrated that the program can be used for checking the existing towers for assessing the
reliability levels available in them.

1. INTRODUCTION reliability index for the tower, so that the least-weight

tower is most economical for a target reliability
I. 1. General
index.
The assurance of structural safety and reliability is an The computer program developed was tested on
important in engineering design. Indeed, the
objective the following typical cases: two categories of tower-
evaluation of reliability of a given or proposed system 220 and I IO kV double circuit-were designed based
is one of the purposes of structural analysis and it is on reliability theory with optimization as a constraint
necessary in the development of proper criteria for and the results were compared with those designed
the design. The anticipated growth in electrical power conventionally.
and the transmission programme in the future is quite Based on the results of the above applications. the
significant. It is therefore necessary to effect all relationship between weight and system reliability
possible economy on one hand and ensure safety of of the tower, as well as between the co-efficient of
the structure for a reliable performance on the other, variation of variables (load and resistance) and sys-
because important loads on transmission line towers tem reliability index of the tower has been studied
are probabilistic in nature. In the present work, an and presented. This study was carried out in order to
attempt is made to formulate a realistic and unified give an insight to the designer regarding the target
probability-based design procedure. reliability index to be chosen, while designing the
tower most economically (minimum weight).
I .2. Objective and methodology of study
The objective of the study was to formulate a
2. FORMULATION OF SYSTEM RELIABILITY FOR
reliability-based optimum design procedure for trans- TRANSMISSION LINE TOWERS
mission line towers. The methodology adopted to
achieve the objective is briefly discussed below. 2.1. General
(I) Determination of the component reliability It is well known that loads acting on structures are
index for all the members of the tower under study, generally random variables. Similarly, the strength of
given the probabilistic distribution of the loading and materials and geometric parameters have inherent
the resistance variables by developing a computer statistical variation. Since the loads and strengths
program. (resistances) are random variables, the safety of the
(2) Performance of reliability analysis and deter- structure is also a statistical variable. Hence, there is
mination of the system reliability index of the tower a need for adopting a statistical approach in the
by developing a suitable computer program. evaluation of structural safety, taking into account
(3) Optimization of the weight of the tower with these random variations. The ad hoc factors of safety
one of the constraints such as user-defined system adopted in the design of transmission line towers will

387
388 K. Natarajan and A. R. Santhakumar

2.3. System reliability

2.3. I. General remarks. There are two basic ap-

failure surface proaches for solving structural system reliability
problems, namely the Failure Mode Approach
(FMA) and the Stable Configuration Approach
(SCA). In the present work, FMA is adopted, be-
cause it is effective for a structural system made of
,ZI ductile material.
2.3.2. Failure mode approach (FMA). In the FMA,
all the possible ways that a structure can fail are
considered. Each of these ways is defined as a failure
Fig. I. Component reliability index concept. (I) Failure mode of the structural system. A structure fails if any
region. (2) Failure surface. (3) Design point. (4) Safe region. one of the failure mode occurs. Probability of struc-
tural failure (collapse) is given by the probability of
not give the desired security against various types of union of all the events corresponding to the failure
random loads.

2.2. Component reliability index (Hasofer and Lind

Method)

Let the failure function g be a function of indepen-

dent basic variables X,, X1,. , A’,, i.e. g(X,, X2,
A’,,).The basic variables are then normalized using the
relationship:

Z,=(X,-p,)/cr, i=1,2...n, (1) t

I I I

Compute partial derivatives

9: =&, pant x*= (XI’.X2’,..... Xn’)
where I*, = px, and a, = ux,. In the Z coordinate , I,
system, the failure surface is a function of Z,. Using t
I I
eqn (1) in the failure function and equating it to zero,
I Compute sensitivity co-cfiicicnt for all i

the failure surface equation is written in the normal-

ized coordinate system, i.e. the Z coordinate system.
The failure surface divides the design sample space
into two regions, namely, safe and failure. Because of
the normalization of the basic variables,
t
pz,=O and o,,=l. (2) Find convergence

It is also to be noted that the Z coordinate system

has a rotational symmetry with respect to the stan-
dard deviation, and the origin 0 will usually lie in the
safe region (Fig. 1). It could be noted from Fig. 1 Evaluate
Z = g(x’) = g(r,‘. x2’ ,......._._,x’.)

that, as the failure surface g(Z,, Z,) moves away

from the origin, the reliability, g(Z) > 0, increases,
and as it moves closer to the origin. reliability de-
creases. Hence, the position of the failure surface with
respect to the origin in the normalized coordinate
system determines the measure of reliability. The Compute probability of failure

reliability index defined by Cornell [I] will coincide

with the value obtained by Hasofer and Lind [2].
when the failure function is a linear function of basic
variables. Hence, in this method (Hasofer and Lind),
the relation given by

/4=4(-b) (3)

can be used, provided the failure function is a

linear function of the normally distributed basic Fig. 2. Flow diagram for component reliability index
variables. program.
 Reliability-based optimization of transmission line towers 389

Read mined truss is simple and hence its failure probability

of tower, properties of angle
is easily evaluated. In the case of a statically indeter-
co-ads of initial configuration
minate truss system like transmission line towers,
there are many possible modes for the complete
failure of the structure and it is therefore impossible
in practice to generate all of them. Hence, only
dominant failure modes are considered.
2.4.2. Uncertainties in loads and strengths. In deter-

---t--l
Call camp. exe.
ministic design of transmission line towers, one uses
a single value (nominal value) to quantify the en-
vironmental phenomena’ producing loads on the
Call rel. exe. system. Nominal values for wind speed, wind direc-
tion, ice thickness and temperature are taken by the
designer, who obtains the design load effect S in each
component. Then, one selects a component with
strength R equal to or larger than S.
In reality, all environmental phenomena are ran-
dom quantities which can only be described proba-
bilistically. The real component strength R is also
random. If the probability density functions (PDF) of
S and R are known, it is possible to calculate the
configuration with system reliability of the component. In general, the PDF of
reliabilitv index
S is not known, since S itself is a complex function
of the various environmental load variables such as:
(1) wind velocity;
(2) wind direction;
Fig. 3. Flow diagram for reliability analysis program.
(3) temperature.
In the present work, only wind speed is treated as
modes of the structure. For the class of structural a probabilistic variable, while the others are treated
system that are built of elements of elasto-plastic (or as deterministic. Statistical data on wind that are
ductile) material such as mild steel, the FMA has needed can be found in the studies of Natarajan [4]
proven to be effective, provided that the dominant and Alam et al. [5].
collapse modes of the system can be easily found. For It is reasonable to assume Gumbel distribution for
the class of structures having brittle components, annual maximum mean-hourly wind speed. Analysis
the number of potential failure modes is increased of wind data from a large number of meteorological
dramatically, and FMA becomes cumbersome and stations shows that, although the annual maximum
ineffective. SCA is suitable for highly indeterminate mean-hourly wind speed may vary from one location
structures with brittle components [3]. to another, the coefficient of variation of this quantity
is sensibly constant for locations of similar exposure.
2.4. Application of reliability theory to transmission
A typical value for the coefficient of variation of
line towers
annual maximum mean-hourly wind speeds is
2.4. I. General remarks. Reliability analysis is car- l2-25%.
ried out by systematically generating the failure Data for the strength of the transmission structure
modes by using the matrix method of structural components are usually scarce. Following are the
analysis. The failure criterion for a statically deter- contributions to the uncertainties in R.

Table I, Dominant failure modes of 110 kV tangent tower

Reliability
Structure no. Modes of failure-i index
I 53, 50, 54, 49 2.65
2 57, 54, 58, 53 2.54
3 99. 100. 139. 135. 97. 138. 163. 164 2.32
4 139, 140, 151, 143, 137, 150, 155 2.64
5 135, 136, 143, 144, 138, 137, 139, 150, 151 2.40
6 143, 144, 155, 156, 150, 149, 151. 152 2.31
143. 144, 100, 99, 140, 139, 136, 135 2.24
8 155, 156. 140, 139, 152, 151, 144, 143 2.081
9 54, 55, 50, 52 2.55’
IO 58, 59, 54, 56 2.62
t Indicates the member numbers that have failed
$ System reliability index of the tower.
390 K. Natarajan and A. R. Santhakumar

0
Read
Start

EL, NLN, LNUMW, MNOl(I), MN02(1)

1
Read
NDELE, NODE 1, NODE 2

I J

TEMP2 = NODE2

Write
I
LNUM (I)
MNOI(I) MN02(1)
1

ICompute forces in X, Y, Z direction

for the node ‘NODE I’ I

Compute forces in X, Y, Z direction

for the node ‘NODE 2’

Write NODE 1, NODE 2. FORCES

(I;
stop

Fig. 4. Flow diagram for automation program.

 Reliability-based optimization of transmission line towers 391

Read no. of configurations,

design variables

IJ =0
1
Call rel. exe
I

IJ = IJ+l

No

1
I=I+l

c
Choose the least WT.
1
J=O

1
- J=J+l
, I Determine worst
config. and delete

I
Call gload, truss, design

Fig. 5. Flow diagram for optimization program.

(1) material strength variability; (4) deterioration of strength with time in service.
(2) fabrication and construction variability (geo- A few tests were conducted by Peyrot and
metric); Dagher [6,7] and recommended normal (Gaussian)
(3) professional factor, to account for inability of distribution for the resistance variables with COV
simplified code procedures to predict a true strength, ranging from 0.05 to 0.2, depending upon the mem-
even if all uncertainties are eliminated; ber type. In the present work, normal distribution
392 K. Natarajan and A. R. Santhakumar

Failure of a member occurs when the force in the

member exceeds its strength. The safety margin is
defined as the difference between the strength and the
force caused by loads. The strength R is determined

I Call truss exe. t-

I
I Call camp. exe.

I
I Call rel. exe. I

*
I Callopt. exe I
I
(a) Normal condition

Fig. 6. Flow diagram

0
stop

for reliability-based optimization

- 240 447

program.

with a uniform COV value of 0.15 is assumed for

resistance variable.
2.43. Methodology of‘application to tower system.
A computer program was developed to perform
reliability analysis. The failure mode approach
(FMA) was adopted in determining the system re-
liability index of the tower. The option is also given
to the user of deciding the sequence of failure of
members. In the case of a statically indeterminate (b) Broken condition - 1
structure like transmission line towers, failure in any
one member does not result in complete failure of the
286
structural system. Structural failure is assumed to
occur in the following manner, i.e. when any one
member fails, redistribution of the forces occurs
among the remaining surviving members. The mem-
ber next to fail can be determined using the analysis.
After repeating a similar process, complete failure of
the tower results when the members up to some
specified number N are lost. Thus it is possible to
search and find a series of members which will fail
before the final collapse of the tower. Complete
failure of the tower is determined by investigating
singularity of the total structure stiffness matrix,
formed with surviving members. In a structural
system, depending upon the loading condition, con-
dition of the system. etc.. there are many modes of (c) Broken wire condition - II
failure. Thus, it is a very tedious process to find all
possible failure modes for a transmission line tower.
A transmission line is a truss structure which
Note: All loads are in kg.
consists of n members. The configuration and the
materials to be used are also assumed to be specified. Fig. 7. Loading tree for I IO kV tangent tower.
 Reliability-based optimization of transmission line towers 393
1.52m
(4) the residual strength of the failed member is
1 Reference added to the corresponding nodes of the member as
130 x130 xl2
external forces; thus, the failed member is removed
110x110x12 and in its place its strength is applied as external loads
100x100x10 to the joints connecting the removed member;
60x 60x 6
(5) step number I is repeated;
50x 50x 6
50x 50x 5 (6) stability of the structure is checked, by investi-
45 x 45 x 5 gating the singularity of the total structural stiffness
matrix formed with the remaining surviving mem-
bers; the criterion for complete failure is given by,

i.e. the determinant value of stiffness matrix of the

tower system is checked as a failure criterion.
(7) if the above criterion is not satisfied, steps
number 3-6 are repeated, until the condition in step
number 6 is satisfied.
Once the failure criterion is satisfied, the generation
of one of the failure modes is complete. Steps num-
bers 2-6 are repeated by choosing some other mem-
ber as the starting point of the next failure mode. The
reliability index of the failure mode is evaluated as the

IL
B F
average value of the component reliability index
value of the members involved in that mode.
Different failure modes are investigated and the
A Not to Scale corresponding system reliability index is calculated.
The system reliability index of the tower is evaluated
as the least value of the different failure modes
generated.
h 3.51 m r(

Fig. 8. I10 kV tangent tower-initial configuration (not to 3. TOWER OPTIMIZATION

scale).
3. I. General
Two computer-aided design methods are in vogue,
by specifying the material and dimension of the depending on the computer memory. The first
member. On the other hand, the force S, is complex method uses a fixed geometry (configuration) and
to evaluate, and thus is derived by structural analysis minimizes the weight of the tower, while the second
using the matrix method. method assumes the geometry as unknown and de-
The following steps are involved in the reliability rives the minimization of weight. In the present work
analysis of transmission line towers: the second method has been adopted.
(I) a space truss analysis is performed to determine
the member forces in all members of the tower; 3.2. Minimum weight design with geometry as a
(2) component reliability indexes of all members of L>ariable(method 2)
the tower are determined; This method is adopted in the present work. As
(3) any one member of the tower is assumed to explained, before the tower geometry is assumed as a
have failed; the member chosen is the one having design variable, an initial geometry for starting
lowest component reliability value; the solution is assumed. A number of geometric-

Table 2. Comparison of design methods

Reliability-based Reliability-based
Conventional method design (without design (with
of design optimization) optimization)
Structure Weight Reliability Weight Rehability Weight Reliability
no. Configuration (tonnes) index (tonnes) index (tonnes) index
I I IO kV d.c. 2.95 1.70 3.16 2.80 3.040 2.08
tangent tower
2 220 kV d.c. 4.60 1.72 4.92 2.83 4.784 2.20
tangent tower
 K. Natarajan and A. R. Santhakumar

6 7

162
IO 10 11

14 I5

19

58

Fig. 9. Continued opposite.

parameters are then randomly generated (initial com- ative procedure is adopted for the optimum tower
plex). Reflection steps were implemented to achieve design, it is obvious that the use of a computer is
improvement of the designs generated in the initial essential.
complex. The algorithm used for optimum tower design is
In method 1, only the member sizes are treated as similar to that given by Lipson and Agarwal[8],
variables, whereas the geometry was assumed to which presumes that an initial feasible configuration
be fixed. Method 2 also treats the geometry as is available for the structure. The tower is divided
a variable and gets the most preferred geometry. into a number of groups and the externally applied
The geometry developed by the computer results in loads are obtained. For the given configuration, the
the minimum weight of tower for any practically upper limits and the lower limits on the design
acceptable configuration. For solution, since an iter- variables, namely the joint coordinates, are fixed. The
 Reliability-based optimization of transmission line towers 395

Fig. 9. I IO kV tower-member numbering for three-dimensional analysw

(k - 1) new configurations are generated randomly number of design variables and r,j is the random
as: number for the ith coordinate of the jth configur-
ation, the random numbers having a distribution over
x,, = !, + r,i(Uj - 1,) (4) the interval 0 to 1, and u is the upper limit and I is
the lower limit of the ith independent variable.
i=1,2...n Thus, the complex containing k number of feasible
solutions is generated and all these configurations will
j-1,2,...k, satisfy the explicit constraints, namely, the upper and
lower bounds on the design variables. Next, for all
where k is the total number of configurations in the these k configuratims. analysis atld fully stressed
complex, usually larger than (n + i), where n is the designs are carried out and their corresponding total
396 K. Natarajan and A. R. Santhakumar

weights determined. Since the fully stressed design (1) Guess a value for fl.
concept is an economical and practical design, it is (2) Initialize the design vectors at the mean values,
used for steel area optimization. Every area optimiz- m,.
ation problem is associated with more than one
analysis and design. For the analysis of the truss, the X,* =m,, i = I, 2,. n.
stiffness method has been used. Therefore, all the
generated configurations also satisfy the implicit con- Here, n is the number of design variables.
straints, namely the allowable stress constraints. (3) Start the iteration, i.e.
Reflection steps were implemented to achieve im-
provement of the designs generated in the initial
ITERATION = 1.
complex.
From the value of the objective function (total
weight of the structure) of k configurations, the (4) Compute partial derivatives, g) = Sg/SX,, at
vector which yields the maximum weight is searched design points:
and discarded, and the centroid c of each joint of the
k - 1 configurations is determined from

(5) Compute sensitivity coefficient for all design

UT,,= l/P - 1) i (x,,) - x,,, (5) vectors.
,=I

a, =
si6
i=l,2,3...n,
r i (sg/sx,)2(al’)2 lj2’
L/=1 1
where x,, and x,,, are the ith coordinates of the
centroid c and the discarded configuration W. 1.52 m
Then a new configuration is generated by reflecting
the worst configuration through the centroid, x,, Reference
That is, 90X90X8
15 x 15 x 8
15X75X6
x,,,= Xl,. + a (x,, - x,,,1 (6) 60X60X6
50 x 50 x 6
50 x 50 x 5
i = I, 2,. . n, 45X45X5

where a is a constant. (x,,,,),, is the coordinate after

reflection for the new configuration.
This new configuration is first examined to satisfy
the explicit constraints. If it exceeds the upper or
lower bound value, then the value is taken as corre-
sponding to the limiting value, namely the upper or
lower bound. Then the area optimization is carried
out for the newly generated configuration and the
weight is determined. If this weight is better than
the second worst. the point is accepted as an
improvement and the process of developing the new
configuration is repeated as mentioned earlier. Other-
wise, the newly generated point is moved half way
towards the centroid of the remaining points and the
area optimization is repeated for the new configur-
ation This process is repeated over a fixed number of
iterations and at the end of every iteration, the weight
and the corresponding configuration are printed out.

4. COMPUTER PROGRAMS FOR RELIABILITY BASED

OPTIMIZATION

4.1. Component wliubility index program

The flow diagram for the computation of reliability Fig. 10. I IO kV tangent tower-tinal configuration (not to
index is shown in Fig. 2. scale).
 Reliability-based optimization of transmission line towers 397

(6) Modify the design vector
coefficients and the jl value:
x: = (m:‘-
using the sensitivity the structure. Each time the input data has to be
modified by removing the failed member. Further
analysis thus requires renumbering the members.
aiBa:‘).
383

j_151
(7) Find the convergence, if the difference is within

676:i” ,i”
the tolerance limit (specified by the user), then the
next step is executed, otherwise the steps numbers 4-7
c676
are repeated:

XD = (xl’)“+ ‘) - Xf)/(Xf).

Here p denotes the iteration number.

(8) Evaluate the performance function 2.

z=g(x*)=g(x:,x: )..., X,*).

If the value of the function is within the tolerance

limit, then the next step is executed, otherwise step (a) Normal condition
numbers 4-7 are executed.
(9) Compute probability of failure, ,Y~.
383
(IO) Print reliability index value, /?, and prob-
ability of failure value, pr.
- 254 950
4.2. Reliability analysis program

A flow diagram of the computer program devel-

oped is shown in Fig. 3 and explained step-wise
below:
(1) The tower details required for analysis are read
through an input file.
(2) The value of IJ is given as input by the user.
950 950
If any value greater than zero is given, then there is
no necessity to call the automation program. This I I-
676- 676
may be necessary while beginning the analysis pro-
cedure. -I-
(3) If the IJ value is given as zero, then the (b) Broken wire condition - I
program requires the user to specify the member
number to be failed and calls the automation pro-
292
gram AUTO.EXE to generate input data for the
analysis purpose.
(4) Once the input data is ready, the three-dimen- - 144 950
sional truss analysis is performed.
(5) The determinant value of the stiffness matrix of
the tower system is checked for the failure criterion

(6) If the above criterion is not satisfied, then the

tower is stable, and the program asks for the next
member to fail, and calls the automation program to
generate input data necessary for the next analysis.
(7) Once the criterion in step no. 5 is satisfied, then
the reliability index of the failed members in the (c) Broken condition - II
failure mode is computed.
(8) A system reliability index corresponding to
that particular failure mode is printed.
Note: All loads are in kg.
4.3. Automation program
Fig. 1I. Loading tree for 220 kV tangent tower. (a) Normal
In the above reliability analysis procedure, the condition. (b) Broken wire condition I. (c) Broken condition
analysis has to be repeated until complete failure of II. Note: all loads are in kg.
398 K. Nataraian and A. R. Santhakumar

1.14 m
I-;Ji

c 110x 110x10
D I 110x110x 8 I

E
s
::

to Scale

-
4.88 m

Fig. 12. 220 kV tangent tower-initial configuration (not to scale)

Also, the residual strength of the member which determined. The following steps are involved in the
has failed is applied as equivalent external forces at automation procedure:
the nodes connecting the member in X, Y and Z (I) The following input variables are read by the
directions. program:
Due to the above tedious process in the failure
mode approach, there is a tendency to generate fewer (a) NEL total number of el-
modes of failure, which will apparently result in ements
over-estimation of system reliability index of the (b) NLN number of loaded
tower. This is one of the main drawbacks of the nodes
failure mode approach. This drawback is overcome (c) LNUM (I) member numbers
in the present work by developing an automation (d) MN01 (I), MN02(1) node numbers
program. (e) NDELE element number to be
The algorithm adopted for this program is shown deleted
in Fig. 4. The program asks the user to specify the (f) NODEI, NODE2 node numbers con-
member number to fail. Next. the program automati- necting the deleted
cally calculates the forces and also generates the input member
data necessary for the space truss analysis program. (8) R resistance of the
Due to this automation, it was possible to generate deleted member
nearly 100 modes of failure for each loading case (h) Xl, Yl. ZI, X2, ~2, 22 coordinates of the
of the tower. Based on such a large number of nodes connecting the
failure modes, the system reliability index value was deleted member.
 Reliability-based optimization of transmission line towers 399

(2) The nodes connecting the deleted member, WRITE LNUM (I - I), MN01 (I), MN02 (I).
namely NODE1 and NODE2, are stored in arrays
TEMPI and TEMP2, respectively.
(IO) Forces in the X, Y and Z directions are
(3) The member number is designated by the
calculated for nodes, NODEI and NODEZ.
variable 1 and initialized to zero.
(11) The nodes, NODE1 and NODE2, and Forces
(4) In this step, I = I + I is done.
on the nodes are written to an output file.
(5) It is checked whether I > fixed NDELE.
(6) If in step number 7, the answer obtained is NO,
4.4. Tower optimization program
then the program proceeds to step number 9, other-
wise step number 11 is executed. The flow diagram for the program is shown in
(7) It is checked whether LNUM (I) = NDELE. If Fig. 5, and the procedure is already explained in
the answer obtained is YES, then step numbers 6 and Section 3.2. An explanation of the notations used in
7 are repeated. If the answer obtained is NO, then the flow diagram is given below:
step number IO is executed.
(8) The member numbers and the node numbers GENERN sub-program to generate tower
connecting them are written: configurations
REL.EXE external program to compute
WRITE LNUM (I), MN01 (I), MN02 (I). system reliability index of the
tower
(9) The member numbers (reduced by one) and the GLOAD, sub-programs to generate Ioad-
nodes connecting them are written: ing data for the tower analysis

-
T Reference
110x llOx12mm
110x IlOx
100x 100x 8
100x 100x 8
100x 100x 6
75 x 75x 6
70x 70x 6
65 x 65x 6

Not to Scale

5.88 m

Fig. 13. 220 kV tangent tower--final configuration (not to scale).

400 K. Natarajan and A. R. Santhakumar

Table 3. Dominant failure modes of 220 kV tangent tower

Reliability
System no. Modes of failuret index
I 61, 5X. 62. 57 2.86
2 65, 62. 66. 61 2.84
3 131. 132. 179, 175, 129. 178. 183, 191, I84 2.80
4 179. 180, 191, 183, 177. 190, 195 2.75
5 175. 176, 183. 184, 178, 177, 179, 180, I81 2.42
6 183, 1X4, 132. 180. 179, 176. 175. 130. 129 2.35
7 183, 184. 196, 190. 189. 191. 192, 193 2.38
8 195, 196. 140, 139. 192, 191. 144. 143. 138, 137 2.20:
9 62. 63, 38, 60 2.55
IO 66. 67. 62. 64 2.45
t Indicates the member numbers that have failed.
$ System reliability index of the tower

TRUSS, DESIGN sub-programs to perform program developed, and were compared with other
tower analysis and design, methods of design. A target reliability index range of
respectively 2.0-2.5 was given as the input for the reliability
J, NT, IJ counter for area optimization. analysis, and the optimization of tower weight subject
number of tower configur- to this reliability constraint was achieved.
ations and number of iter-
ations, respectively. 5.2. ReliuhilitJ-bused optinzizatiorl of’ 1 IO kV tower

4.5. Ocerall network of’ the developed computer 5.2. I Towr properties
programs (i) General information:
Figure 6 shows the flow diagram of the overall
tower voltage IlOkV
function of the computer program. Following are the
number of circuits double circuit
steps involved in the reliability-based optimum design
type of tower tangent
procedure: 2
angle of deviation
Step l-details of the structures. properties of
normal span 320 m
angle and coordinates of initial configuration, which
weightjnormal span ratio I .25.
are for the given tower specification. are read as input
by the reliability analysis program.
(ii) Wind: extreme annual wind speed with Gum-
Step 2-the program TRUSS.EXE is called to
bel distribution. mean = 45 m s ’ and coefficient of
perform the three-dimensional analysis of the tower,
variation (COV) = 0.2.
to determine the forces in the members.
(iii) Component strength: allowable strengths
Step 3-the program COMP.EXE is called to
Gaussian with COV = 0.15.
determine the component reliability index of all the
members of the tower. 5.2.2. Design promlure. The 100 kV double circuit
Step 4-reliability analysis is carried out on the design process was started by initially specifying the
initial configuration to check whether the system range of target reliability index. Figure 7 shows the
reliability index range lies between the chosen range, loading tree for the tower. The tower was analysed
i.e. 2.0 and 3.0. If the system reliability index for the following conditions:
lies within the required range, then optimization
procedure is started. Otherwise the configuration is (i) normal condition [Fig. 7(a)];
revised by calling the routine GENERN, until (ii) broken wire condition I [Fig. 7(b)];
this condition is satisfied. The program called for in (iii) broken wire condition II [Fig. 7(c)].
the reliability analysis is REL.EXE.
Step 5-the optimization procedure requires the The system reliability index range specified as a
user to specify target reliability index range and the constraint during the optimization process was
number of iterations, The program called is 2.0~~2.5. The initial configuration obtained based on
OPT.EXE.
Step 6--final configuration of the tower with Table 4. Coefficient of variation (load and resistance) vs
system reliability index is printed. system reliability index
System Coelfcient of System reliability
no. carnation index
5. ILLWiTRATIVE EXAMPLES
I 0.20 2.80
5. I General
2 0.28 1.70
The tangent towers, I IO and 220 kV, were designed 3 0.56 0.80
4 0.64 0 65
based on reliability concepts using the computer
Fig. 14. 220 kV tower-member nun&l -ing for three-dimensional analysis.

,,
402 K. Natarajan and A. R. Santhakumar

empirical rules is shown in Fig. 8. Figure 9 shows the

member numbers of the tower used for the three-
dimensional analysis. Table I shows some of the
dominant modes of failure generated. The system
reliability index value of this tower (without optimiz-
ation) was 2.8. The final configuration of the opti-
mized tower shown in Fig. IO has a reliability index
value of 2.08. Table 2 shows a comparison of system
reliability index value made with respect to various
methods of design adopted. namely, conventional
method, reliability-based method without optimiz-
ation and reliability-based design with optimization.
Co-efficient of variation of wind speed
The tower designed by conventional space truss
method has a reliability index of only 1.7. Fig. 16. Coefficient of variation of load and resistance
It can be inferred from the results that the re- variables vs system reliability index graph. (I) System
reliability index. (2) Coefficient of variation of wind speed.
liability-based optimally designed tower is only 3% (3) COV R =0.15.
heavier than the tower designed using the conven-
tional method. The reliability-based design is more
rational and the safety index value is more realistic (ii) Wind: extreme annual wind speed with Gum-
compared to the factor of safety used in the conven- bel distribution, mean = 45 m s ’ and COV = 0.2.
tional method of design. In Table 2, it can also be (iii) Component strength: allowable strength
seen that reliability design without optimization leads Gaussian with COV = 0.15.
to a tower whose weight is 7% more than the 5.3.2. Design procedure. The design procedure
conventional method of design. Thus, it can be
adopted was similar to the one adopted for I IO kV
concluded that reliability design with optimization
double circuit tower. Figure I I shows the loading
incorporated, will result in economic and reliable
tree for the tower. The tower was analysed for the
designs.
following conditions:

5.3. Reliability-based optimi-_ation gf‘ 220 kV tower

(i) normal condition [Fig. I l(a)];
5.3.1. Tower properties (ii) broken wire condition I [Fig. I l(b)];
(i) General information: (iii) broken wire condition II [Fig. I l(c)].

tower voltage 220 kV The results are presented in Table 2. Figure I2

number of circuits double circuit shows that the system reliability index attainable is
type of tower tangent tower 2.83 for tower configuration (without optimization)
angle of deviation 2 and Fig. I3 shows the final optimized configuration
normal span 350.000 m of the tower, whose reliability index is 2.2.
weight/normal span ratio 1.200. Figure I4 shows the member numbering of the
tower used for the three-dimensional analysis.
Table 3 shows some of the dominant failure modes
3.6 generated. It can be inferred from the results that the
3.4
3.2
reliability based optimally designed tower is only 4%
3.0 heavier than the tower designed using the conven-
2.8
tional method. In Table 2 it can be also seen that
2.6
2.4
reliability design without optimization leads to a
:: 2.2 tower whose weight is 7% more than the convcn-
-0
.E 2.0 tional method of design. The tower designed by space
x 1.8
2 1.6
truss method has reliability index of only I .72. Hence.
4 14 there is the necessity to design using reliability criteria
= 1.2 to achieve the desired security level of the tower
k??
1.0
3 0.8
system.
z 0.6
m 0.4 5.4. Purunzrtric studies
5.4. I Weight L’S.systcm re1irrhilit.v indr.~. This study
2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200 3300
was done to give an insight to the dcsigncr. while
Wt in kg fixing the target reliability index of the tower to be
Fig. 15. Weight vs system reliability index graph. (1) System
designed, given the weight as a constraint. The
reliability index. (2) Weight in kg. (3) COV R = 0.15 and example chosen for this purpose was the I IO kV
s = 0.2. tower which had been already designed for COV of
 Reliability-based optimization of transmission line towers 403

wind speed = 0.2 and COV of component is so high that further increase in weight only reduces
strength = 0.15. The weight of the tower increased, the reliability index.
when the tower was designed for a larger system (3) A study was done to investigate the sensitivity
reliability index. Figure 15 shows the weight vs of the reliability index with respect to the uncertain-
system reliability index relationship graph. It can be ties in the loading and resistant variables on a I 10 kV
seen from the graph that the variation of system tower designed earlier, based on reliability concepts.
reliability with weight of tower is approximately COV of component strength was fixed at 0.15 and
linear in the useful range. Also, it could be inferred COV of wind speed was varied from 0.15 to 0.72. It
from the graph that the reliability index of the tower can be inferred from the study that a change in the
increases with increase in weight up to a value of COV value of wind speed by 1% results in 1.5%
3.325 tonnes. Beyond this transition point, increase in reduction in system reliability index of the tower. This
weight only reduces the system reliability index. This indicates the significance of uncertainty factors on the
is due to enormous increases in self-weight, which design results.
induces large compressive forces in the leg members,
leading to premature failure by unfavourable modes. Acknowledgements-The support of Tamil Nadu Electricity
5.4.2. Coqficient qf variation qfload and resistance Board for the optimization phase of the vvork is gratefully
variables 1’s system reliability index. This study was acknowledged by the authors.
done to investigate the sensitivity of the system
reliability index with respect to the uncertainties in
the loading and resistant variables. The tower chosen
REFERENCES
for this purpose was the 1 IO kV tower, designed
earlier based on reliability concepts. The component I. C. A. Cornell, A probability based structural code. AC1
strength COV was fixed at 0.15 and COV for wind J. 66, 974-985 (1969).
speed was varied from 0.15 to 0.72. Figure 16 shows 2. A. M. Hasofer and N. C. Lind, An exact and invariant
first-order reliability format. J. Eqng Me& Div. ASCE
the variation of system reliability index with respect lOO(EMl), II Ill21 (1974).
to COV of wind speed. Table 4 shows some of the 3. S. T. Quek, Structural system reliability by the
typical values obtained from the graph (shown as method of stable configuration. Ph.D. Thesis, Graduate
dotted lines in Fig. 16). College of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Cham-
paign (I 987).
It can be inferred from the graph in Fig. 16 and
4. K. Natarajan. Wind load analysis-probabilistic ap-
from Table 4 that a change in COV value of wind proach. National Seminar on Analysis and Des&r .fi)r
speed by 1% results in nearly 1.5% reduction in Wind Lauds, Indian Concrete Institute (ICI). Madras.
system reliability index of the tower. This shows the pp. 35-46 (1991).
significance of uncertainty factors on the system 5. M. J. Alam, K. Natarajan and A. R. Santhakumar.
Design wind speeds for transmission line structures. In/.
reliability index value of the tower. J. Struct. 12, l-19 (1992).
6. A. H. Peyrot and H. J. Dagher, Strength of trans-
mission line components. A paper presented at
6. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON EXAMPLES STUDIED
the IEEE-PES Summcv Mwtitzg, Los Angeles, CA
(1983).
(1) The weight of the optimal tower accounting for 7. A. H. Peyrot and H. J. Dagher, Reliability based design
reliability as a constraint for both 110 and 220 kV of transmission lines. J. Strut. Enpzg ASCE llO( I I ),
tangent towers is only 3-4% heavier than the tower 2758-2777 (1984).
designed using the conventional method. 8. S. L. Lipson and K. M. Agarwal, Weight optimization
of plane trusses. J. S/rue/. Dir. ASCE lOO(ST5).
(2) From the relationship studied between weight
865879 (1974).
and reliability index for fixed COV values of 0.2 and 9. IS:802 (l977)-Indian standard code of practice for
0.15 for loading and resistance variables, respectively, use of structural steel in overhead transmission line
on a 1IO kV tangent tower, it could be inferred that towers.
it is approximately linear in the useful range. It could IO. IS:802 (DRAFT) CED7 (4724) (I 989)-Indian stan-
dard code of practice for use of structural steel in
also be understood that reliability index of the tower
overhead transmission line towers,
increases with increase in weight, up to a value of II. S. S. Murthy and A. R. Santhakumar, Trtrtr.vnri.v.\iotr
3.325 tonnes. beyond that the self weight of the tower Line Structures. McGraw-Hill, Singapore (1990).