You are on page 1of 10

ABSTRACT

Telecommunication engineering is an engineering discipline that brings together electrical


Engineering, Electronics Engineering, Civil Engineering, and Structural Engineering. As
Structural Engineers, Co Engineers are responsible for the Structural design and placement of
racking and bays for the equipment to be installed in as well as for the plant to be placed on.
The wind has been taken as the primary force for the analysis and using STAAD Pro software,
the joint displacements, shear forces and bending moment and axial stress have been compared
to find out the effect of the difference in the modeling strategy on the design forces acting on a
telecommunication tower.

1
1. INTRODUCTION

These days there is an unprecedented rise in the number of telecommunication towers due to
an ever increasing demand in communication. India has more than 4 lakh cell phone towers at
present and according to an estimate is expected to have mobile towers just double this
number by 2016, making it one of the fastest growing telecommunication market. In most
parts of the world similar development in the telecommunication can be observed. The rate at
which this growth in communication is gathering momentum proportionality is increasing the
demand for the production of steel telecommunication towers. The communication towers are
often designed as 3D trusses, which is not the actual representation of the structure. In the
traditional stress calculations based on linear elastic ideal truss analysis, members are
assumed to be concentrically loaded and pin-connected. Telecommunication systems are
generally designed by telecommunication engineers who sprang from technological
improvement in telegraph industry in the late 19th century and the radio and the telephone
industries in the early 20th century. Today, telecommunication is widespread and devices that
assist the process, such as the television, radio and telephone are common in many parts of
the world. There are also many network that connect these devices, including computer
networks, and television network.
In this document, three Models are analyzed.
1. Three hinged telecommunication tower of angle with x bracing.
2. Three hinged telecommunication tower of tube section with x bracing.
3. Three hinged telecommunication tower of angle with v bracing.
Objective

1. To study the Comparisons of shear force, bending moment and deflection of three
cases.
2. To study the Comparisons of Tension and compression of three cases above
considered.

2
Tower models

ANALYSIS
Table 1: General data of tower

Basic Wind Speed 41.7m/s

Design Period 50

Type of tower GBT

Top width 1 meter

Bottom width 5 meter

Tower Height 32 meter

Terrain category II

Class B

Building height 0

3
Table 2: Tower member properties

Tower member Member size


Panel 1 leg number 130x130x10
Panel 2 leg number 110x110x10
Panel 3 leg number 110x110x8

Panel 4 leg member 100x100x8


Panel 5 leg member 90x90x8
Panel 6 leg member 75x75x5
Panel 7 to 11 leg member, horizontal 50x50x5
member, bracing member

Table: 3 Wind pressure calculations

Wind pressure calculation


Vb k1 k3
m/s
41.7 1 1
Panel Panel Elevation Elevation top bottom panel K2 Vz Pz(N/MM2)
height height height + width width area (m/s)
building
height
11 1 32 32 1 1 1 1.12 46.704 1308.8
10 1 31 31 1 1 1 1.11 46.287 1285.5
9 1 30 30 1 1 1 1.1 45.87 1262.4
8 1 29 29 1 1 1 1.09 45.453 1239.6
7 2 28 28 1 1.5 2.5 1.08 45.036 1216.9
6 3 26 26 1.5 2.5 6 1.07 44.619 1194.5
5 3.5 23 23 2 3 9.625 1.05 43.785 1150.3
4 4 19.5 19.5 2.5 3.5 13 1.04 43.368 1128.5
3 4.5 15.5 15.5 3 4 16.875 1.03 42.951 1106.9
2 5 11 11 3.5 4.5 21.25 0.99 41.283 1022.6
1 6 6 6 4 5 28.5 0.95 39.615 941.6

4
Table: 4 Calculation of load per leg

Panel H Total load at load load per load at each


each joint distribution joint leg

11 1 0.65 Top 0.32 0.32


Bottom 0.32
10 1 0.65 Top 0.32 0.65
Bottom 0.32
9 1 0.65 Top 0.33 0.65
Bottom 0.33
8 1 0.65 Top 0.32 0.65
Bottom 0.32
7 2 1.11 Top 0.56 0.88
Bottom 0.56
6 3 1.58 Top 0.79 1.35
Bottom 0.79
5 3.5 1.81 Top 0.91 1.70
Bottom 0.91
4 4 2.05 Top 1.02 1.93
Bottom 1.02
3 4.5 2.28 Top 1.14 2.16
Bottom 1.14
2 5 2.51 Top 1.26 2.40
Bottom 1.26
1 6 2.98 Top 1.49 2.75
Bottom 1.49

5
Result Comparison
1. Analysis and comparison of deflection
Table: 5 Deflections

S.NO Node Case 1 Case 2 Case 3


1 1 0 0 0
2 5 -0.054 -0.66 0
3 9 -0.04 -0.062 0.003
4 13 -0.033 -0.047 0
5 17 -0.023 -0.025 -0.005
6 21 -0.024 -0.024 -0.017
7 25 -0.009 -0.006 -0.013
8 29 -0.004 -0.004 -0.017
9 33 -0.004 -0.003 -0.04
10 37 -0.002 -0.002 -0.06
11 41 -0.001 -0.001 -0.08
12 45 0 0 -0.1
Total -0.194 -0.24 -0.329

2. Analysis and comparison of shear-force


Table: 6 Shear Force

S.no Beam Case 1 Case 2 Case 3


1 9 88.574 87.51 70.29
2 14 9.224 8.393 7.57
3 13 63.91 63.04 49.7
4 7 88.89 87.83 70.3
5 2 0 0 0
6 8 9.39 8.52 7.93
7 49 5.513 5.51 4.26
8 56 1.502 1.51 1.42
9 61 1.136 1.13 1.004
10 68 0.301 0.09 0.29
11 64 0.09 0.3 0.25
12 37 10.677 11.32 10.67
Total 279.207 275.153 223.694

6
3. ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF BENDING MOMENT
TABLE: 7 BENDING MOMENT

S.no Beam Case 1 Case 2 Case 3


1 9 0.078 0.1 0.08
2 14 0.01 0.03 0.005
3 13 -0.1 0.002 0.001
4 7 0.06 0.03 0.07
5 2 0 0 0
6 8 0.33 0.18 0.55
7 49 0.006 0.006 0.009
8 56 0 0 0.002
9 61 0.004 0.003 0
10 68 -0.001 0 0.001
11 64 0 0 0
12 37 0.005 0.004 0.008
Total 0.392 0.355 0.726

4. Analysis and comparison of compressive stress

Table: 8 Compressive stresses

S.no Beam Case 1 Case 2 Case 3


1 9 0 0 0
2 14 -5.683 -0.682 -2.093
3 13 -30.882 -43.034 -24.361
4 7 -37.59 -47.42 -31.184
5 2 36.614 -18.169 -36.614
6 8 -4.76 -2.803 -7.881
7 49 -12.135 -11.838 -10.675
8 56 -0.412 -0.491 0
9 61 -2.57 -2.507 -1.269
10 68 -0.568 -0.727 -0.085
11 64 -1.139 -0.752 -0.551
12 37 -15.455 -9.74 -15.944
Total -74.583 -138.163 -130.66

7
5. Analysis and comparison of tensile stress
Table: 9 Tensile stresses

S.no Beam Case 1 Case 2 Case 3


1 9 36.424 47.228 31.078
2 14 12.907 11.663 5.44
3 13 14.145 17.621 9.41
4 7 12.687 13.01 8.942
5 2 27.208 18.169 27.208
6 8 10.413 8.459 7.856
7 49 6.074 5.761 5.82
8 56 4.757 4.357 3.256
9 61 2.597 2.91 2.297
10 68 2.546 1.936 0.926
11 64 1.052 0.546 0.673
12 37 10.472 6.52 9.34
Total 141.288 138.18 112.246

6. Discussion on Results

Table: 10 Evolution of results

X bracing angle V bracing angle X bracing tube


tower tower section
Deflection III I II
Shear force I III II
Bending moment II I III
Tensile stress II I III
Compressive stress II I III

8
CONCLUSION

 The Tube section is more efficient compare to X bracing with angle and V bracing of
angle
 The X bracing is more efficient compare to V bracing.
 The Shear force is 20% more in bracing telecommunication tower compare to V
bracing telecommunication tower.
 V bracing telecommunication tower is 21 % more efficient in compression compare
to X bracing telecommunication tower of angle section and tube section of X bracing.
 V bracing telecommunication tower have 25 % more tensile stress compare to X
bracing telecommunication tower of angle section and tube section of X bracing.
 The wind analysis results showed that irrespective of the tower height modeling
strategy does not significantly affect the displacement pattern, particularly maximum
lateral displacement at the top of the tower. It is also mentioned in the journal of
“Influence of modeling in the response of steel lattice mobile tower under wind
loading.”

REFERENCES

 Richa Bhatt1, A.D.Pandey2*,Vipul Prakash3. “Influence of modeling In the response


of steel lattice mobile tower under wind loading” International Journal of Scientific
Engineering and Technology.
 G.ghodratiamiri1, M.A. barkhordari2, S.R.Massah3”Seismic behavior of 3 legged
self-supporting telecommunication tower”.
 A.N. Nayak and Dr.S.K. Bhattacharya “.Behaviorof joints with rectangular and square
hollowsections” Journal of the Institution of Engineers,Civil Engineering
Division.78:116-122, Nov1997.
 Berding Daniel and Charney Finley A. “The effectof modeling parameters on the
wind drift of steel frame buildings”.2007 Structures Congress: NewHorizons and
Better Practices, ASCE.
 Gomathinayagam S.et al. “Dynamic Response ofLattice Tower with Antenna under
Wind Loading”.Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India).87: 37-43, 2000.
 Jiang W.Q. et al. “Accurate modeling of jointeffects in lattice transmission towers”
Engineering Structures. 33:1817–1827, 2011.

9
 Sullins Eric James.” Analysis of radiocommunication towers subjected to wind, ice
andseismic loadings”. MS Thesis, (2006) Faculty ofthe Graduate School of the
University of Missouri,Columbia.
 GucuyenEnginet al.” Effect of changes on jointconnections of steel lattice towers due
to environmental loads” International Journal of Engineering and Industries.2(11),
2011.
 Harikrishna P. et al. “Analytical and Experimental Studies on the Gust Response of a
52m Tall Steel Lattice Tower under Wind Loading.” Computersand Structures,
70:149-160, 1999. Structural Engineering Research Centre, Chennai.
 Konno T, Kimura E. "Earthquake effects on steel tower structures atop buildings".
Proceedings of the 5th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Italy,
Vol. 1. 1973. p. 184-193.

10

You might also like