1
Economic Analysis and Justification for
Transmission Line Transposition
Joseph B. Mooney, P.E., POWER Engineers, Inc.
Abstract—This paper shows a technique to economically
justify transposition of a transmission line using the cost of the
transposition towers versus the line losses for a transposed or
non-transposed line over the in-service life of the line. This paper
discusses and presents:
1. Background on transmission line transposition.
2. A method for calculating the three-phase line losses for
unbalanced conditions.
3. A method for calculating the net present value of the
line losses and comparing the line losses for a
transposed versus untransposed line.
4. Case study comparison for two different transmission
line configurations.
The method shown in this paper provides the transmission
line owner with the necessary tools to make an educated decision
on transmission line transposition.
Index Terms--Impedance matrix; Load flow analysis; Losses
I. INTRODUCTION
As our transmission system becomes more stressed due to
higher load transfers, we must strive to operate the power
system in the most efficient manner. Construction of new
transmission lines is underway to support additional load
growth and the installation of new generation resources, such
as wind power. These new transmission lines must be
designed to efficiently transfer the power from generating
stations to the load centers hundreds of miles away.
Minimizing the losses on a transmission line improves the
overall efficiency of the energy transfer across that line. In the
past, it was normal practice to transpose the phase conductors
on long transmission lines. Transposing the line results in
balanced phase current distribution and reduces unbalance
currents, such as zero- or negative-sequence currents, that can
result in increased heating of generators and motors. In
addition, transposition of the line can improve the sensitivity
of the protection system so that short circuits are more easily
detected.
Transmission line owners are questioning the need for line
transposition and if it is worth the added costs. In some cases,
transmission lines are not being transposed due to the
increased cost of the transposition towers and concern for
reliability because of the more complex transposition towers.
Failing to transpose transmission lines may result in increased
losses with the attendant economic penalties, increased
heating in transformers, and degradation of protective relaying
systems.
This paper presents a method for economically justifying
the installation of transposition towers. There are many
technical papers discussing unbalances resulting from
978-1-4244-6547-7/10/$26.00 © 2010 IEEE
untransposed transmission lines [2-6]. The unbalance currents
that result on an untransposed line increase the line losses,
result in increased operating costs for the transmission line,
and reduce the transmission line efficiency. As the losses are
a function of the current flowing on the line and the
transmission line resistance, which is a function of the length
of the line, it is apparent that we can compare different line
configurations at the same load and utilize the most efficient
configuration. In addition, we can evaluate different line
lengths to determine when the cost of the transposition towers
is justified.
II. TRANSPOSING THE TRANSMISSION LINE
A. Tower Configuration Affects Phase Impedances
The phase impedances are made up of the conductor self-
impedance and the mutual impedances to the adjacent phase
conductors. The self-impedance of the phase conductor is a
function of the conductor, the system frequency, and earth
resistivity. As each phase conductor bundle is identical, the
self-impedance of each phase conductor is the same.
However, the mutual impedance is a function of the distance
between the conductors, the system frequency, and the earth
resistivity. The impedances of the phase conductors are
calculated using well-known methods [1]. The self and
mutual impedances can be represented in matrix format as
shown in Figure 1.
Fig. 1 Typical Phase Impedance Matrix Format
Consider the single circuit transmission line configuration
shown in Figure 2. The distance between the outer phase
conductors is different from the distance between the inner
phase conductors; therefore, the mutual impedances are also
different. The phase conductors are an Athabaska/TW with
three conductors per phase using 18-inch spacing between
each conductor. As we are only interested in the line losses,
the shunt and inter-phase capacitance is not considered.
Figure 3 shows the phase impedance matrix (resistance and
reactance only) for the line in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2 Typical Horizontal Phase Configuration
0.1155 1.05198 0.0953 0.53118 0.0953 0.53118
0.0953 0.53118 0.1155 1.05198 0.0953 0.44707
0.0953 0.53118 0.0953 0.44707 0.1155 1.05198
Fig. 3 Phase Impedance Matrix for Line in Fig. 2 in Ohms/Mile
The result of having different mutual impedances is that the
impedances on a per-phase basis are going to be different.
The unequal phase impedances have two primary effects;
unbalance load flow and protective relay measurement issues.
In this paper, we focus only on the unbalance caused by load
flow.
Transposing the phase conductors results in balanced
mutual impedances and reduces the load current unbalance [7,
8]. In the past, transposing a transmission line was a common
practice. However, today the need for transposition is being
regularly questioned while at the same time technically sound
and practical guidance to inform the decision about whether or
not to transpose is often lacking.
Transmission line transposition is changing the position of
each phase conductor so that it occupies each of the phase
conductor positions for an equal length of the line. Typical
transposition locations are shown in Figures 4 and 5. Fig. 4
shows transposition sequence where the first transposition
occurs at 1/6 of the total line distance, the next is 1/3 of the
total line distance, the next is again at 1/3 of the total line
distance, and the last 1/6 of the total line distance back to the
original phase placement. Fig. 5 shows a transposition
sequence where the first transposition occurs at 1/3 of the total
line distance, the next is 1/3 of the total line distance, and the
final line transposition occurs at or very near the substation. It
is possible to implement a transposition at the substation
entrance. In this case, the transposition tower design may be
somewhat simpler and less costly. However, for our analysis
we will assume that all transposition towers cost the same.
Fig. 4 Transposition at 1/6-1/3-1/3-1/6 of the Line Distance
Fig. 5 Transposition at 1/3-1/3-1/3 of the Line Distance
A minimum of three transpositions is required to balance
the phase impedance matrix. A line can be transposed more
2
than three times; however, the number of transpositions must
be in multiples of three for equal phase placement. Additional
transpositions may be used when it is difficult to place
transposition towers at the ideal locations as shown in Figs. 4
and 5, however, unless the transposition points are
significantly off (more that 20-30% of the line length), the
added benefit is small and is seldom worth the cost of the
additional transposition towers.
The transmission tower can also be designed to balance the
phase impedance matrix by placing the phase conductors
equal distances apart. The ideal configuration is a triangle, or
delta configuration, with equal distance between each phase
conductor. Although equal spacing is the ideal placement, it
will be shown that the minimum distance between phase
conductors should be within 25% of the maximum distance
between phase conductors to achieve a balanced
configuration.
Figure 6 shows a typical delta configuration using the same
conductors and bundle spacing as in the tower shown in Fig.
2. For this delta configuration, the minimum distance between
phase conductors is 15% of the maximum distance between
phase conductors. Fig. 7 shows the phase impedance matrix
(resistance and reactance only) for the line in Fig. 6.
Fig. 6 Typical Delta Phase Configuration
0.1155 1.05198 0.0953 0.53470 0.0953 0.53470
0.0953 0.53470 0.1155 1.05198 0.0953 0.51498
0.0953 0.53470 0.0953 0.51498 0.1155 1.05198
Fig. 7 Phase Impedance Matrix for Line in Fig.6 in Ohms/Mile
B. Unbalance Factors from Phase Impedance Matrix
The unequal mutual impedances of an untransposed line
result in unbalance impedances and current flow. A negative-
sequence unbalance factor (m2) and a zero-sequence
unbalance factor (m0) [4, 5] can be calculated from the phase
impedance matrix from the physical geometry of the line. The
unbalance factors allow us to predict the approximate
negative-sequence and zero-sequence current flow due to
positive-sequence current flow on the line.

The negative-sequence and zero-sequence unbalance
factors are determined as follows:
21
2 (1)
1
(2)
where:
1 transmission line. The unbalance factors are calculated using
1 (3)
3 the physical line parameters such as phase conductor spacing,
1 subconductor bundling, and the conductor characteristics. The
0 2 (4)
3 phase impedance matrix is calculated for the untransposed
1 2 2 line. The positive-sequence impedance is calculated from the
21 2 (5)
3
1 2 2
01 (6)
3
For the line configurations shown in Figs. 2 and 6, the
unbalance factors as calculated as follows:
Horizontal: m2 = 0.1046
m0 = 0.0136
Delta: m2 = 0.0257
m0 = 0.0031
This means that for every 1000 amps of positive-sequence
current flow on horizontal line configuration there is 104.6
amps of negative-sequence current and 13.6 amps of zero-
sequence current. In contrast, on the delta line configuration,
there is only 25.7 amps of negative-sequence current and 3.1
amps of zero-sequence current for an equivalent amount of
positive-sequence current flow. Note that for an ideally
transposed line the negative- and zero-sequence currents
would be zero (the unbalance factors are zero).
The effect of the additional negative-sequence and zero-
sequence current flow are higher losses on the untransposed
line as compared to the transposed line for the same value of
positive-sequence current flow. The increased losses are due
to the unbalance phase currents magnitudes that result from
the negative- and zero-sequence currents. These unbalance
phase currents result in proportionally higher I2R losses in the
untransposed line for the same magnitude of positive-
sequence current flow.
III. METHOD FOR CALCULATING LOSSES AND
ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION
A. Transposed and Untransposed Line Loss Calculations
A transmission line experiences losses as a function of load
transfer and the length of the line. These losses are
approximated through I2R calculations. On an ideally
transposed line, the current flow is balanced and the losses are
calculated considering only the phase current and the line
resistance. However, on an untransposed line, the phase
currents are generally not balanced and the losses are
increased due to unbalance current flow. The magnitude of
the unbalance currents is a function of the physical conductor
3
spacing and the current flowing on the line. The result is that
line losses are higher on an untransposed line versus the line
losses on a transposed line. The increase in the losses occurs
because the line losses are related to the square of the current,
resulting in a disproportionately larger increase in losses in the
phase with higher than average phase current.
The unbalance currents can be estimated by calculating
negative-sequence and zero-sequence unbalance factors of the
phase impedance matrix, as well as the negative-sequence
unbalance factor and zero-sequence unbalance factor that
result from the untransposed line. The positive-sequence
impedance is the same for a transposed and untransposed line;
therefore, it is not necessary to calculate the phase impedance
matrix for the transposed line. In addition, a transposed line
or a line with equal spacing between each of the phase
conductors (for example, conductors in a triangular
configuration) the unbalance factors are zero, as the mutual
impedances are all the same.
The transmission line losses are calculated for varying line
lengths at different load values. For our analysis, the positive-
sequence current magnitude is the same for both the
transposed and untransposed lines. The line losses for the
transposed line are calculated using only the positive-sequence
impedance and the positive-sequence current. The line losses
on the untransposed line are calculated using the positive-
sequence impedance as well as the unbalance factors, the total
losses are the sum of the positive-sequence impedance losses
plus the losses caused by current unbalance. The difference in
the untransposed versus transposed line losses is used in the
economic analysis.
The transmission line losses do not include other system
conditions that may increase or decrease the phase current
unbalance, such as unbalanced loading, adjacent lines that are
not transposed, or line capacitance. In addition, these
calculations are for a single line only and do not included the
effects of closely coupled parallel transmission lines, such as
double-circuit towers.
B. Economic Analysis of Line Losses
The cost of the difference in the losses, which would be
incurred in the future, is calculated by multiplying the
predicted losses by 8760 hours (the number of hours in a
year), and dividing by 106 to arrive at the number of MWH
per year. The MWH per year is multiplied by the cost per
MWH of energy to arrive at the annual cost of losses. The
annual cost of losses over 30 years is converted to a net
present value (NPV) by using compound interest calculations.
A preliminary estimate of the added costs to install
transposition towers is made. The costs of interest break
down into two categories:
• Transposition Tower Costs – The transposition tower is
a more complex design as the phase conductors must
 4

be physically displaced or moved. The estimated The added cost is a result of the lower efficiency of the
incremental cost of a transposition tower versus a transmission line caused by the increased line losses due to the
conventional tower is $175,000 per tower for the current unbalance.
lines shown in Figs. 1 and 5. To fully transpose the
line, three transposition towers are required.
• Ongoing Maintenance Costs – No added costs are
assigned for maintenance, as there is little
documentation to determine if transposition towers
carry higher maintenance costs than conventional
towers.
Developing the NPV is a multi-step process. Input data
such as the line parameters (conductor type, bundling,
spacing), energy costs, study period, interest rate, and
incremental costs of the transposition towers is needed to
develop the NPV plots. In summary, the calculations to
develop an NPV go through the following steps:
• Calculate the losses on the transposed line at varying
load values and line lengths.
• Calculate the losses on the untransposed line at
varying load values and line lengths.
• Calculate the difference in the losses between the
untransposed line and transposed line by subtracting Fig. 8 NPV versus Power Flow for Horizontal Line Configuration
the transposed line losses from the untransposed line
Figure 9 shows the NPV versus Power Flow for the delta line
losses.
configuration shown in Figure 6. Line lengths of 50, 100,
• Calculate the difference in energy consumed in losses
150, 200, and 250 miles are plotted on the graph. For this line
over a year by multiplying the difference in losses by
the number of hours in a year. configuration the graph shows us transposing the line cannot
be economically justified. For example, a 250-mile line
• Calculate the cost of energy per year consumed in
losses by multiplying the difference in energy operating at 2000 MW will cost approximately $400,000 more
consumed by the cost of energy. to operate over a 30-year period if it is not transposed. The
• Calculate the NPV of the annual cost of energy additional cost of operation does not justify installation of
difference per year consumed in losses for each year transposition towers when the cost of installation for the
throughout the study period (typically 30 years). transposition towers is over $500,000.
The NPV calculation is compared with the added
construction costs of installing the transposition towers. Once
the NPV of the cost difference in the losses exceeds the cost of
installing the transposition towers, it becomes economically
attractive to transpose the line.

IV. COMPARISON OF TOWER CONFIGURATIONS

The NPV analysis is performed on the lines shown in Figs.
2 and 6. From previous experience, our expectation would be
that the line with a horizontal conductor configuration would
require transposition for a relatively short distance or high
load transfer. The delta conductor configuration, which have
somewhat equal inter-phase spacing, may not have to be
transposed except under extraordinary conditions of a
extremely long line (over 200 miles long) or extremely high
loading (over 3000 MW).
Figure 8 shows the NPV versus Power Flow for the
Fig. 9 NPV versus Power Flow for Delta Line Configuration
horizontal line configuration shown in Figure 2. Line lengths
of 50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 miles are plotted on the graph. Note that the NPV scale in Fig. 8 is 10-times the NPV scale in
What the graph shows us is that even for relatively short lines, Fig. 9 (Fig. 8 is millions of dollars, Fig. 9 is hundreds of
the value of the loss difference between transposed and thousands of dollars). The two plots show that the cost of the
untransposed lines is quite high. For example, a 50-mile line difference in losses between a transposed and untransposed
operating at 1700 MW will cost approximately $1,000,000 line is nearly 20-times more for the horizontal line
more to operate over a 30-year period if it is not transposed. configuration versus the delta configuration.
 5

Figure 10 shows the NPV plot for a delta-configured line with
narrow phase spacing. The two configurations are the same as
Fig. 6 but the distance from the top phase conductor to the
lower phase conductors is 30 feet versus 34 feet.
[3] R.F. Lawrence and D.J. Povejsil, “Determination of Inductive and
Capacitive Unbalance for Untransposed Transmission Lines,” AIEE
Transactions Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS – 71, Pt. III, pp.
547–556, Jan. 1952.
[4] E.T.B. Gross and M.H. Hesse, “Electromagnetic Unbalance of
Untransposed Transmission Lines,” AIEE Transactions Power
Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS – 72, Issue 2, Pt. III, pp. 1323–1336,
Jan. 1953.
[5] E.T.B Gross and S.W. Nelson, “Electromagnetic Unbalance of
Untransposed Transmission Lines–II. Single Lines with Horizontal
Conductor Arrangement,” AIEE Transactions Power Apparatus and
Systems, vol. PAS – 74, Issue 3, Pt. III, pp. 887–893, Jan. 1955.
[6] E.T.B. Gross, “Unbalances of Untransposed Overhead Lines,” Journal
of the Franklin Institute, vol. 254, pp. 487–497, 1952.
[7] E.T.B. Gross and A.H. Weston, “Transposition of High-Voltage
Overhead Lines and Elimination of Electrostatic Unbalance to Ground,”
AIEE Transactions Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS – 70, Issue
2, pp. 1837–1844, 1951.
[8] H. Holley, D. Coleman and R.B. Shipley, “Untransposed EHV Line
Computations,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems,
vol. PAS – 83, Issue 3, pp. 291–296, March 1964.

VII. BIOGRAPHY
Joseph B. Mooney, P.E., received his B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering from
Washington State University in 1985. He joined Pacific Gas and Electric
Company upon graduation as a System Protection Engineer. In 1989, he left
Fig. 10 NPV versus Power Flow for Delta Line Configuration
Pacific Gas and Electric and was employed by Bonneville Power
Administration as a System Protection Maintenance District Supervisor.
Fig. 10 shows us that a 50-mile or 100-mile line would not
From 1991 to 2008, he was employed by Schweitzer Engineering
need to be transposed. However, for line lengths exceeding Laboratories as an Application Engineer, Application Engineering Manager,
150-miles, transposing the line is justified at particular load Power Engineering Manager, and Manager of the Transmission Engineering
values. Fig. 10 also shows lines that do not have near equal Group in the Research and Development division. He is currently at POWER
Engineers, Inc. in the SCADA and Analytical Studies group focusing on
phase conductor spacing should be evaluated to determine if transmission line studies, advanced relay systems and applications, and relay
transposing the line is necessary. performance testing. He has been granted four patents and has authored many
technical papers. He is a registered Professional Engineer in the states of
California and Washington.
V. CONCLUSIONS
1) Transposing transmission lines was once a common
practice, but today transmission line owners are questioning
the need to transpose transmission lines.
2) An untransposed transmission line has unbalanced
current flow that increases the transmission line losses when
compared to the losses on a transposed transmission line.
3) Negative-sequence and zero-sequence unbalance factors
can be calculated from the physical line parameters. These
unbalance factors can be used to estimate the increased line
losses on an untransposed line.
4) Line configurations that have nearly equal inter-phase
conductor spacing typically do not need to be transposed
except in extreme cases of very high load flow or very long
distances.
5) Determining the present day net value of the difference
between the transposed and untransposed line losses can
provide the information necessary to economically justify
transposition and if transposition is even needed.

VI. REFERENCES
[1] EPRI, “Transmission Line Reference Book: 345kV and Above,” Second
Addition, Revised 1987, pp. 133-135 and Appendix 3.6.
[2] E.T.B. Gross and W. Chin, “Electrostatic Unbalance of Untransposed
Single Circuit Lines,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems, vol. PAS – 87, Issue 1, pp. 24–34, Jan. 1968.