A simplified method for seismic analysis of 4-legged lattice telecommunication

towers
As suggested by others the time period given in IS 1893 and as quoted by Mr. Khalid is
not applicable to towers, and applicable to steel framed buildings only. But as rightly
pointed out by Mr. Rajendra Lele, towers come in variety of shapes and sizes, viz., guyed
masts, transmission line towers, lattice towers supporting water tank, towers supporting
radio dishes and antennas and so on. In any earthquake design, mass of the structure
influences the response. Since steel towers are light weight and flexible, compared to
steel framed structures, they may not be affected by EQ loads. However as pointed out by
Mr. Rajendra Lele, you have to be careful about towers carrying heavy load at the top,
such as towers supporting tanks. As pointed out by him Transmission line towers could
be assumed to be restrained at the top by Earthwire and at different levels by current
carrying cables and hence may behave differently than antenna towers. In the case of
wind loading, the parameters such as loading combinations, angle of attack of the wind
force, wind velocity or wind pressure, ice radial thickness, and number and weight of
mounted antennas affect the tower behavior. To my knowledge the best source for
dynamic response of lattice towers and guyed masts is the ASCE report by Prof. Murty
Madugula of Univ. of Windsor, Canada. I had the privilege of reviewing the manuscript1.
The latest book by Smith (2007) provides detailed information on:

history, design considerations and failures

meteorological parameters, wind resistance and strength
aerodynamic stability, fatigue, access and safety
Codes of practice and design standards.

We have designed about 430 antenna towers ranging in height from 15m 120m for
various organizations in the past 20 years and have not checked them for EQ loads, as the
Indian Tower code (IS 802) does not specify these loads. A few of these towers were
checked by SERC for seismic load condition and it was found that the EQ loads do not
govern their design. However if a number of antennas are mounted at the top and the
tower is situated in high seismic zone, EQ load may govern the design.
In this connection it is interesting to note that the new revision (Revision G) of the
Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas, TIA/EIA-222-G 2
incorporates several significant changes from previous revisions. It moves form
allowable stress design to limit state design, and incorporates the wind and ice provisions
of ASCE 7. However, the most significant change is the addition of seismic provisions
for communication towers. This is the first time the Standard has seismic loading
requirements for tower in regions of high seismicity. Revision G provides methods that
better estimate the performance of communication structures subjected to ground motion.
Revision G provides: methods for determining (1) when earthquake loads need to be
considered in the design of communication towers, (2) the fundamental period of various

classes of towers, (3) seismic forces. For design purposes, the response of selfsupporting towers can be predicted using linear elastic methods of analysis. Pole
structures fall under this category. However, guyed towers are intrinsically nonlinear.
Despite their nonlinear behavior, studies at the University of Windsor and McGill
University show that the equivalent lateral force method provides an adequate estimate of
the seismic forces in guyed towers when using the equations for the fundamental
frequency defined in Revision G. As a precaution, the writers of Revision G put a limit on
the use of the equivalent lateral force method on guyed towers with mass or stiffness
irregularities taller than 450 m and when any guy radius exceeds 300 m. Under these
conditions, the Revision G requires that a time history analysis be performed.
Furthermore, when any guy radius exceeds 300 m, out-of-phase motion of the anchor
points needs to be considered.
Simplified methods for seismic analysis of latticed telecommunication towers are also
provided by Khedr and McClure, (1999, 2000). Such simplified methods for dynamic
analysis of a guyed mast are provided by references 6-8.
I summarizing some of the equations and observations made by Amiri et al (2007),
which will be useful to calculate time periods and to check whether 4 legged
telecommunication towers are to be checked for earthquake loads.
Amiri, et al (2007) analyzed 4-legged telecommunication towers with heights ranging
between 16 to 67 m, for 4 different earthquakes of varying intensity and based on the
results obtained by them proposed the following empirical equations for finding the time
period of first three modes as
T1 = 0.0102 H0.958
T2 = 0.0027 H1.027
T3 = 0.0010 H1.13

[1a]
[1b]
[1c]

Where, H is the total height of the tower in m. They found that the tallest tower with 67m height was the most flexible having a fundamental period of 0.58 seconds. The shortest
tower with 18-m height exhibited the highest stiffness with a fundamental period of 0.17
seconds. They also found that in all the towers, approximately 90 % of the total effective
mass participation is attributed to the first three flexural modes, which is indicative of its
sufficiency for the performance of a dynamic analysis. In the case of taller towers,
considering the lowest five flexural modes in the analysis was found to increase the
accuracy and precision.
They also proposed the following linear equation for determining the Base shear of these
towers
Vh = M Ah (1.86 0.66 Tf )

[2]

Where Vh is horizontal base shear, M is tower mass, Ah is maximum horizontal ground

acceleration, and Tf is fundamental flexural period of tower. The above relation was

found to be in agreement with the relations proposed by Khedr and McClure [1999], for
three-legged lattice towers which were obtained from the application of 45 earthquake
records.
A relation for determining the maximum lateral displacement of towers with respect to
their height, when subjected to the design spectrum presented in the Iranian seismic code
of practice, is expressed as follows:
dmax = 3E-5 H2.0435

[3]

Note that they chose a low value for the response reduction factor, R, for the
telecommunication towers (R=1). Due to the stability and serviceability criteria required
for such structures during and after the occurrence of an earthquake, i.e. elastic behavior
of the structure, the selected value seems to be reasonable, according to them. Since the
Iranian Code provisions are similar to the Indian Code provisions (IS :1893), we may use
these equations in our calculations.
Note that the weight of ancillary components, such as ladder, platforms, feeders, lights
for aircraft warning, and bolts/nuts is considerably high and its exclusion from the
analysis can alter the results. With the increase in the mass of antennas mounted on the
towers, the base shear values due to the seismic force were found to decrease, while the
axial force in the members near the proximity of antenna mountings increased. Analyzing
the towers for a wind speed of 160 km/hr, they found higher axial forces in the members
compared to seismic load. This may be the reason why most design codes specify the
wind load as the dominant force in the design of self-supporting telecommunication
towers.
The empirical formulas presented above may be used to can quantitatively estimate the
seismic response of these towers. Comparing the results with those obtained from the
wind effects, the designer can decide on the necessity of seismic load application or
otherwise. In general it may be concluded that the effect of seismic loads are to be
considered only in high seismic zones when the towers are mounted with more number of
heavy antennas. With the introduction of new digital communication systems, the
antennas used will be of much smaller diameter and weight than the presently used
antennas, and hence may result in the reduction of the inertial effects of antennas on the
tower response.
Dr.N. Subramanian
References:
1. Madugula, M. K. S (ed)(2002). Dynamic response of lattice towers and guyed
masts. Committee report, Reston: American Society of Civil Engineers, 266 pp.
2. Smith, B. W. (2007), Communication structures. Thomas Telford, 352 pp
3. TIA/EIA-222-G. (2007). Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures
and Antennas, American National Standards Institute (ANSI), New York, NY $97.
4. Khedr, M. A. and McClure, G., (1999) Earthquake amplification factors for selfsupporting telecommunication towers, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.208-215.

5. Khedr, M.A., and G. McClure, (2000). A simplified method for seismic analysis
of lattice telecommunication towers. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol.
27, pp. 533-542
6. Gerstoft, P.; and Devenport, A. G., (1986). A simplified method for dynamic
analysis of a guyed mast. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, Vol.23, No.1, pp. 487-499.
7. Gantes, CH.; Khoury, R.; Connor, J. J.; and Pouangare, C. (1993) Modeling,
loading, and preliminary design considerations for tall guyed towers. Computers
and Structures, 1993, Vol. 49, No.5, pp. 797-805.
8. Meshmesha, H.; Sennah, K.; and Kennedy, J. B., (2006) Simple method for static
and dynamic analyses of guyed towers. Structural Engineering and Mechanics,
2006, Vol.23, No.6, pp. 635-649.
9. Amiri, G.G., Massah, S. R., and Boostan, A., (2007) Seismic Response of 4Legged Self-Supporting Telecommunication
towers, IJE Transactions B:
Applications, Vol. 20, No. 2, August, pp.107-126.