You are on page 1of 10

“CHANGES ON THE WIND”

MARK MALOUF, P.E.


AGL (ABOVE GROUND LEVEL)
AUG/SEP 2005
pp. 40-48
Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine, August/September 2005; Vol. 2, No. 4
©2005 Biby Publishing LLC; P.O. Box 284, Waterford, VA 20197
Reprinted by Permission

August/September 2005 39
industry standards

fter six years in develop-


ment, the new “G” revision
of the ANSI/TIA-222
standard, Structural Stan-
dards for Antenna Supporting Struc-
tures and Antennas, will be published
this summer with an effective date of
Jan. 1, 2006. This revision, produced
by the Telecommunications Industry
Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine, August/September 2005; Vol. 2, No. 4

Association (TIA) in cooperation with


the American National Standards In-
©2005 Biby Publishing LLC; P.O. Box 284, Waterford, VA 20197

ANSI and EIA are set to publish the first stitute (ANSI), represents the most
radical change to the standard since
joint revision of the ‘222’ tower structural its first publication in 1949. It brings
the tower industry standard in step
and construction standard in nine years. with the major national building codes
What changes does ‘222-G’ portend when it (ASCE 7 and IBC) by using the three-
second gust wind speed. It also corre-
goes into effect in January?
Reprinted by Permission

sponds more closely to the AISC


steel-design code by using the limit-
state approach.
In addition to changes in the design

40 above ground level www.agl-mag.com


criteria and in the loading criteria (which The new standard accounts for site- in the event of failure. This classifica-
now include seismic loads), this revision specific conditions more accurately tion is intended for structures where a
is more comprehensive in sections such and in more detail and includes: delay in returning the services would
as appurtenances, climbing, grounding  classification of the importance be acceptable. (Ice loading does not ap-
and existing structures. It incorporates category of the structure based on ply to this category.) Category II struc-
state-of-the-art understanding relating to location and use. tures represent a substantial hazard to
the special structures it addresses. This  wind exposure categories to reflect life and a substantial risk of property
revision will affect the load-carrying ca- surface irregularities. damage in the event of failure. These
pacity of existing telecom structures and  topographic effects. structures are intended for services that

Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine, August/September 2005; Vol. 2, No. 4


how these towers are designed.  ice thickness by county location. could be provided by other means. Cat-
These factors are combined to egory III structures are essential facili-

©2005 Biby Publishing LLC; P.O. Box 284, Waterford, VA 20197


New design standard reflect the particularity of the structure ties. Category II structures use nominal
The 2005 “G” revision is based on and its location. 50-year-return wind and ice loads, the
“limit-states design”; prior revisions same return period as the TIA-222-F
used the “allowable-strength design” ap- Environmental loads standard. Category III increases the
proach. The structures are checked for Structures classification — Structures return to 100-year-return loads, and
two major limit states: (1) strength limit are classified according to reliability Category I reduces it to a nominal 25-
states that ensure that structures are safe requirements in three categories. year-return loading.

Reprinted by Permission
under extreme loading conditions, and Category I structures have the lowest These classifications, based on certain
(2) serviceability limit states that verify reliability requirements and include criteria, will allow a tower owner to have
that structures are capable of providing structures posing little hazard to life the environmental loading (by adjusting
service under normal conditions. and minimum risk of property damage the return period) more closely match the

by E. Mark Malouf, P.E.

August/September 2005 41
Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine, August/September 2005; Vol. 2, No. 4
©2005 Biby Publishing LLC; P.O. Box 284, Waterford, VA 20197
Reprinted by Permission

Figure 1. Standard version “G” basic wind speed values, without ice factors, for the continental United States. Ve-
locities are given in miles per hour (mph) and meters per second (m/s). The standard calls for mountainous terrain,
gorges, ocean promontories and special wind regions (orange) to be examined for unusual wind conditions.

42 above ground level www.agl-mag.com


Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine, August/September 2005; Vol. 2, No. 4
©2005 Biby Publishing LLC; P.O. Box 284, Waterford, VA 20197
importance of the structure and the as- caused by topographic features such as will expose any overall stability issues
sociated risk taken by the owner. hills, ridges and escarpments. within a tower structure. For some slen-
Wind loads — Revision G provides a Existing towers on mountaintops or der towers with long guy spans, it will
basic wind speed map (see Figure 1 on other topographical features will be af- be difficult to get the analysis model to
page 42). A load factor of 1.6 is applied fected by the new provisions and are ex- converge on a solution under the ulti-
to nominal wind loads for strength limit- pected to see reduced support capacity. mate loading conditions. Some of these
states design. A directionality factor is Gust-effect factors vary based on overall stability issues may not have al-

Reprinted by Permission
applied to the factored wind loads to ac- structure type. For self-supporting lat- ways been detected using the older load-
count for the probability of wind blow- ticed towers, the gust-effect factor var- ing provisions. This issue may not be
ing from the worst-case direction. Highly ies from 0.85 to 1.00 as height increases. significant for wireless towers shorter
wind-direction-dependent structures have A constant gust-effect factor of 1.10 is than 400 feet, but it may affect some
a lower directionality factor. Latticed used for pole structures, and a 0.85 gust- slender broadcast towers.
towers are assigned a directionality factor effect factor applies to guyed masts. A The revision’s appurtenances loading
of 0.85, and pole structures are assigned 1.35 amplification factor, to account for provisions allow for reducing the drag
a directionality factor of 0.95. dynamic-interaction effects, applies to factors under a supercritical flow condi-
Wind speeds are escalated with the gust-effect factor for cantilevered tion. These provisions also allow for re-
height according to a given site’s ter- spines on guyed masts or latticed self- ducing the effective projected areas based
rain characteristics. Exposure categories supporting structures and for all struc- on the locations of the appurtenances.
are the same as those contained in ASCE tures supported on flexible buildings. A Appurtenance loading, especially regard-
7 for Exposure B (urban or hilly areas), gust-effect factor of 1.00 is used for de- ing typical support platforms and mounts,
Exposure C (flat open areas) and Expo- termining the strength requirements of and clusters or bundles of transmission
sure D (non-hurricane shorelines). The appurtenances. lines, has specified calculation methods
revision provides simplified equations By using the limit-state loading, the that prior versions did not adequately
for determining wind speed-up effects applied loads will be amplified, which address. For a wireless tower with

August/September 2005 43
Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine, August/September 2005; Vol. 2, No. 4
©2005 Biby Publishing LLC; P.O. Box 284, Waterford, VA 20197
Reprinted by Permission

44
above ground level
Figure 2. Wind speed (mph) with ice and design-ice thickness standards for the continental United States.

www.agl-mag.com
numerous carriers, or a broadcast tower stability to resist the effects of seismic structures) would be required to
with large waveguides, this difference ground motions for self-supporting properly account for seismic loading.
could result in a significant loading ef- structures and guyed masts. In general, Serviceability limit states — Limit-state
fect from these appurtenances. this provision should not significantly deformations under service-load condi-

Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine, August/September 2005; Vol. 2, No. 4


Ice loads — Revision G includes an ice affect wireless and broadcast towers tions are found in the “G” standard. The
map (see Figure 2 on page 44) and a U.S. unless they have structural irregularities service-load condition is defined as a 60-

©2005 Biby Publishing LLC; P.O. Box 284, Waterford, VA 20197


counties listing of mandatory ice thick- and are located in high-risk seismic mph wind speed without ice using an
ness that escalates with height and cor- zones. Then, either a modal analysis importance factor of 1.00 and a direc-
responding simultaneous wind speed. (for self-supporting structures) or a tionality factor of 0.85 for all structures.
A load factor of 2.0 is applied to the time-history analysis (for guyed Structures are limited to four degrees
nominal radial thickness of ice. The
weight of ice on a member is calculated
by considering the factored radial thick-
ness of ice around a cylinder that cir-

Reprinted by Permission
cumscribes the member. The projected
area of ice is calculated by considering
twice the factored radial thickness of
ice. The additional projected area
caused by ice is considered “round” for
the purposes of calculating drag factors.
Nominal three-second-gust wind
speeds that are to be considered to
occur simultaneously with ice are
provided. A load factor of 1.0 is ap-
plied to wind loading for the ice con-
dition because wind pressure is
applied to a factored ice thickness.
Ice loads are escalated with height
because ice accumulation is known
to increase with wind speed.
This provision is intended to reflect
the limit-state condition of heavy icing
and the related lower simultaneous wind
speed when these parameters are com-
bined. This approach, which is a change
from the way ice loading was accounted
for in previous versions, is based on the
latest statistical data provided by the
U.S. Cold Region Research and Engi-
neering Lab. It also includes learned
failure experiences.
Older towers designed without con-
sidering ice-loading will be negatively
affected, and other towers designed for
higher wind speed combined with a sig-
nificant ice thickness may see their
rated support capacity increased.
Earthquake loads — The design of
telecommunication structures is rarely
governed by earthquake loads. Never-
theless, special consideration of tow-
ers’ response characteristics is required
in regions of frequent seismic activity.
The “G” standard provides design
criteria to ensure sufficient strength and

August/September 2005 45
Do not attach lanyard around bracing
members without engineering verification.

twist or sway rotation and a horizontal


displacement equal to five percent of
their height. In addition, the revision
provides more stringent rotation re-
Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine, August/September 2005; Vol. 2, No. 4

Recommended
quirements for structures supporting
attachment
A microwave antennas.
©2005 Biby Publishing LLC; P.O. Box 284, Waterford, VA 20197

points

Analysis methods
A new section in the “G” standard
includes minimum acceptable models
of analysis for self-supporting lattice
B
towers and pole structures, and for
guyed masts. It has requirements to
Loop the laynard around the tower consider the effects of displacements
Reprinted by Permission

leg above the sideplate (gusset). on member forces (P-∆ effects).


Pattern loading — To account for a lat-
Recommended minimums ticed tower’s susceptibility to the dy-
without engineering namic effects of wind gusts,
verification: Plate length wind-loading patterns are considered
is 1". Minimum weld size in conjunction with minimum shear-
is 5/16" fillet or grove J response requirements. This simplified
applied to both sides of method provides a loading pattern and
the plate. is intended to simulate the dynamic
DETAIL A DETAIL B
wind-loading effects on such struc-
Figure 3. Examples of suitable climber attachment anchorages. tures. It more closely matches the

46 above ground level www.agl-mag.com


results from a full dynamic analysis, structures in close proximity to buried be included in the scope of a
which is quite involved. pipelines or electrical substations. geotechnical investigation.
The additional loading patterns apply Cathodic control and concrete en-
to guyed masts with three or more spans, casement are specified as acceptable Climbing facilities

Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine, August/September 2005; Vol. 2, No. 4


with at least one mast span greater than additional corrosion protection. When The Climbing Facilities section of
80 feet within the top one-third of the taping or coatings are used, cathodic the “G” revision presents compliance

©2005 Biby Publishing LLC; P.O. Box 284, Waterford, VA 20197


height. For tapered, self-supporting, lat- protection is also required because of requirements more comprehensively,
ticed towers that have extended straight the increased risk of corrosion at cracks including strength and dimensional re-
portions, or portions with significantly or discontinuities. The revision recom- quirements. Examples of climber
reduced leg slopes, additional wind load- mends that soil resistivity and Ph values attachment anchorages in the annex
ing patterns are also considered.
This new provision will affect ex-
isting tall towers the most. For ex-
ample, additional capacity may be

Reprinted by Permission
available in the lower portion of the
tower and in the guy wires and anchors,
and some reduction in capacity may
result in the upper portions of the tower.
The minimum shear-response require-
ments will negatively affect towers that
were originally designed to closely
meet the loading requirement curve.

Foundations
The foundations section has been
changed to be consistent with the limit-
states-design methodology. It provides a
more concise presentation of the design
parameters required to maintain founda-
tion stability. This revision eliminates the
fictitious “normal soil” and instead pro-
vides presumptive soil parameters for
both sandy and clay-bearing soil types
for use when a geotechnical report is not
available. The importance of a
geotechnical report that the “G” standard
now stresses is reflected in conservative
values for the parameters of the presump-
tive soil and by the requirement of a re-
port for essential facilities; that is,
Category III structures.

Grounding
The minimum required corrosion
protection is hot-dip galvanizing, the
same as in prior versions. However, re-
vision “G” introduces a requirement for
additional corrosion protection for steel-
guy anchor shafts in direct contact with
corrosive soil (resistivity less than 5,000
Ohm-cm and/or Ph values below 3 or
greater than 9). [Editor’s note: See re-
lated story on page 26.] Additional cor-
rosion control methods are to be used
for AM antenna structures and other

August/September 2005 47
industry standards

show suitable attachment points for now specifies a 3/8-inch diameter cable standard. The revision requires that:
climbers (see Figure 3 on page 46). as the standard size to use to minimize Existing structures are to be analyzed
Warning signs are required to be the safety sleeve sizes required to be in accordance with that revision of the
placed on structures that do not meet the maintained by a climber. standard, regardless of the standard used
Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine, August/September 2005; Vol. 2, No. 4

standard requirements. In addition, an for the design of the original structure,


identification tag must be posted at the Existing structures under any of the following conditions:
©2005 Biby Publishing LLC; P.O. Box 284, Waterford, VA 20197

base of a safety climb system indicating The revision has more specific lan-  a change in type, size, or number of
the size and type of safety cable, with guage regarding structural analysis of appurtenances such as antennas, trans-
the intent of ensuring compatibility with existing structures, with exemptions al- mission lines, platforms, ladders, etc.
a climber’s safety sleeve. The standard lowed from certain sections of the  a structural modification, excepting
maintenance, is made to the structure.
 a change in serviceability requirements.
 a change in the classification of the
structure to a higher class.
Reprinted by Permission

Existing structures need not be re-


analyzed for the “G” revision of the
standard unless conditions change as
outlined above. On structures that may
be negatively affected by the new revi-
sion, if no changed condition is to oc-
cur, the tower’s compliance is
considered to be “grandfathered.”

Design and predictive advantages


The new provisions of the ANSI/
TIA-222-G standard will allow the de-
signer to use the state-of-art knowledge
in the design of these special structures.
It will allow the owners or users of a
tower to adopt a loading pattern that
more accurately reflects the tower’s
characteristics and its use.
The revision provides loading re-
quirements that more closely represent
the current understanding of the envi-
ronmental loading to which a structure
is subjected, and it provides updated and
more comprehensive requirements to
ensure a safe structure.

Acknowledgement and availabilty


The author wishes to acknowledge his
colleagues’ hard work on the TR14.7
technical editorial committee and the full
committee for developing this standard.
The ANSI/TIA-222-G standard will
be available for purchase from the Tele-
communications Industry Association,
www.tiaonline.com. agl

Malouf, president of Malouf Engineer-


ing International, Dallas, served as a
member of the TIA TR-14.7 technical
editorial committee for the revised 222-
G standard.

48 above ground level www.agl-mag.com