“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
Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine, August/September 2005; Vol. 2, No. 4
©2005 Biby Publishing LLC; P.O. Box 284, Waterford, VA 20197
ANSI and EIA are set to publish the first
joint revision of the ‘222’ tower structural
and construction standard in nine years.
What changes does ‘222-G’ portend when it
goes into effect in January?
Reprinted by Permission
40 above ground level
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
Association (TIA) in cooperation with
the American National Standards In-
stitute (ANSI), represents the most
radical change to the standard since
its first publication in 1949. It brings
the tower industry standard in step
with the major national building codes
(ASCE 7 and IBC) by using the three-
second gust wind speed. It also corre-
sponds more closely to the AISC
steel-design code by using the limit-
state approach.
In addition to changes in the design
www.agl-mag.com
criteria and in the loading criteria (which
now include seismic loads), this revision
is more comprehensive in sections such
as appurtenances, climbing, grounding
and existing structures. It incorporates
state-of-the-art understanding relating to
the special structures it addresses. This
revision will affect the load-carrying ca-
pacity of existing telecom structures and
how these towers are designed.
New design standard
The 2005 “G” revision is based on
“limit-states design”; prior revisions
used the “allowable-strength design” ap-
proach. The structures are checked for
two major limit states: (1) strength limit
states that ensure that structures are safe
under extreme loading conditions, and
(2) serviceability limit states that verify
that structures are capable of providing
service under normal conditions.
August/September 2005
The new standard accounts for site-
specific conditions more accurately
and in more detail and includes:

classification of the importance
category of the structure based on
location and use.

wind exposure categories to reflect
surface irregularities.

topographic effects.

ice thickness by county location.
These factors are combined to
reflect the particularity of the structure
and its location.
Environmental loads
Structures classification — Structures
are classified according to reliability
requirements in three categories.
Category I structures have the lowest
reliability requirements and include
structures posing little hazard to life
and minimum risk of property damage
in the event of failure. This classifica-
tion is intended for structures where a
delay in returning the services would
be acceptable. (Ice loading does not ap-
ply to this category.) Category II struc-
tures represent a substantial hazard to
life and a substantial risk of property
damage in the event of failure. These
structures are intended for services that
Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine, August/September 2005; Vol. 2, No. 4
could be provided by other means. Cat-
egory III structures are essential facili-
©2005 Biby Publishing LLC; P.O. Box 284, Waterford, VA 20197
ties. Category II structures use nominal
50-year-return wind and ice loads, the
same return period as the TIA-222-F
standard. Category III increases the
return to 100-year-return loads, and
Category I reduces it to a nominal 25-
year-return loading.
Reprinted by Permission
These classifications, based on certain
criteria, will allow a tower owner to have
the environmental loading (by adjusting
the return period) more closely match the
by E. Mark Malouf, P.E.
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


importance of the structure and the as-
sociated risk taken by the owner.
Wind loads — Revision G provides a
basic wind speed map (see Figure 1 on
page 42). A load factor of 1.6 is applied
to nominal wind loads for strength limit-
states design. A directionality factor is
applied to the factored wind loads to ac-
count for the probability of wind blow-
ing from the worst-case direction. Highly
wind-direction-dependent structures have
a lower directionality factor. Latticed
towers are assigned a directionality factor
of 0.85, and pole structures are assigned
a directionality factor of 0.95.
Wind speeds are escalated with
height according to a given site’s ter-
rain characteristics. Exposure categories
are the same as those contained in ASCE
7 for Exposure B (urban or hilly areas),
Exposure C (flat open areas) and Expo-
sure D (non-hurricane shorelines). The
revision provides simplified equations
for determining wind speed-up effects
August/September 2005
caused by topographic features such as
hills, ridges and escarpments.
Existing towers on mountaintops or
other topographical features will be af-
fected by the new provisions and are ex-
pected to see reduced support capacity.
Gust-effect factors vary based on
structure type. For self-supporting lat-
ticed towers, the gust-effect factor var-
ies from 0.85 to 1.00 as height increases.
A constant gust-effect factor of 1.10 is
used for pole structures, and a 0.85 gust-
effect factor applies to guyed masts. A
1.35 amplification factor, to account for
dynamic-interaction effects, applies to
the gust-effect factor for cantilevered
spines on guyed masts or latticed self-
supporting structures and for all struc-
tures supported on flexible buildings. A
gust-effect factor of 1.00 is used for de-
termining the strength requirements of
appurtenances.
By using the limit-state loading, the
applied loads will be amplified, which
Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine, August/September 2005; Vol. 2, No. 4
©2005 Biby Publishing LLC; P.O. Box 284, Waterford, VA 20197
will expose any overall stability issues
within a tower structure. For some slen-
der towers with long guy spans, it will
be difficult to get the analysis model to
converge on a solution under the ulti-
mate loading conditions. Some of these
overall stability issues may not have al-
Reprinted by Permission
ways been detected using the older load-
ing provisions. This issue may not be
significant for wireless towers shorter
than 400 feet, but it may affect some
slender broadcast towers.
The revision’s appurtenances loading
provisions allow for reducing the drag
factors under a supercritical flow condi-
tion. These provisions also allow for re-
ducing the effective projected areas based
on the locations of the appurtenances.
Appurtenance loading, especially regard-
ing typical support platforms and mounts,
and clusters or bundles of transmission
lines, has specified calculation methods
that prior versions did not adequately
address. For a wireless tower with
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

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

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

Recommended minimums
without engineering
verification: Plate length
is 1". Minimum weld size
is 5/16" fillet or grove J
applied to both sides of
the plate.
DETAIL A
Figure 3. Examples of suitable climber attachment anchorages.
Pattern loading — To account for a lat-
ticed tower’s susceptibility to the dy-
namic effects of wind gusts,
wind-loading patterns are considered
in conjunction with minimum shear-
response requirements. This simplified
method provides a loading pattern and
is intended to simulate the dynamic
DETAIL B
wind-loading effects on such struc-
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
climbers (see Figure 3 on page 46).
Warning signs are required to be
placed on structures that do not meet the
Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine, August/September 2005; Vol. 2, No. 4
standard requirements. In addition, an
identification tag must be posted at the
©2005 Biby Publishing LLC; P.O. Box 284, Waterford, VA 20197
base of a safety climb system indicating
the size and type of safety cable, with
the intent of ensuring compatibility with
a climber’s safety sleeve. The standard
Reprinted by Permission
48 above ground level
now specifies a 3/8-inch diameter cable
as the standard size to use to minimize
the safety sleeve sizes required to be
maintained by a climber.
Existing structures
The revision has more specific lan-
guage regarding structural analysis of
existing structures, with exemptions al-
lowed from certain sections of the
standard. The revision requires that:
Existing structures are to be analyzed
in accordance with that revision of the
standard, regardless of the standard used
for the design of the original structure,
under any of the following conditions:

a change in type, size, or number of
appurtenances such as antennas, trans-
mission lines, platforms, ladders, etc.

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.
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.
www.agl-mag.com