JURUTERA, October 2007 26

F E AT U R E
Dynamic Analysis of Telecommunication
Monopole under Wind Loads
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
By : Engr. Lum Peng Fatt M.I.E.M., P.Eng and
Engr. Jeyananda Chinniah Ahnantakrishnan M.I.E.M., P.Eng
INTRODUCTION
Telecommunication transmission stru c t u re
has been traditionally using lattice space
s t ru c t u re, similar to the electricity
transmission towers. The aggre s s i v e
g rowth of the telecommunications
industry means an equal surge in the
number of telecommunications stru c t u re s
on the urban and rural landscape.
H o w e v e r, while pro g ress is inevitable,
ugliness is not. Monopoles can be used
w h e re aesthetic concerns are of prime
importance and also where usable space is
limited. Monopoles can also be disguised
to resemble trees or advertisement
b o a rding, where ever- i n c reasing eco-
logical awareness concerns have to be
taken into consideration, in order to
p rotect our enviro n m e n t .
Recently, in an attempt to save land
space and to shorten transmission
commission lead time, steel monopoles
are being used frequently.
Being a tall slender cantilever
structure, it is naturally susceptible to
wind excitation when subjected to wind-
attributed loading.
Various wind load codes and
design standard had been written to
give guidelines on the derivation of
wind loading.
This paper discusses the various
a p p roaches in deriving dynamic
response from the static consideration of
wind, as recommended in each Code.
STRUCTURE AND ANTENNA
REQUIREMENTS
Two cantilever monopoles at 30m and
45m height were studied in detail. Table 1
lists the antenna loading for each pole
w h e reas Table 2 shows the height at
which platform is required.
The design wind speed specified
was 120km/hr 3-sec gust. For the
simplicity of comparison, no shielding
of the pole from antenna and/or
platform is considered. Te r r a i n
characteristics, topographic category
and importance of stru c t u re were
selected for urban areas and as far as
possible, to be comparable among
d i ff e rent Standard s .
CODE REQUIREMENTS IN
WIND LOAD DERIVATION
The traditional wind code used was CP3:
Chapter V Part 2 (5). This was deemed
not applicable when one looks at the
natural frequencies of a monopole
structure of the order of 0.6 ~ 0.9 Hz,
which was thus excluded as per the
comments given in the Wind Loading
Handbook (6).
F u r t h e r m o re, CP3 had been off i c i a l l y
withdrawn on 15 October 2001, and
replaced by BS6399:Part 2: 1997.
Wind Load to BS6399:Part2:1997
This Code placed a limit to its
applicability to structures with dynamic
augmentation factor, Cr, not exceeding
0.25 (Clause 1.6). If one assumes that a
monopole structure as a single member
welded steel unclad frame, then
according to Table 1 and Figure 3 of this
Code, the limiting height of applicability
is only about 20m.
Nevertheless, as stated in Annex C of
the Code, the wind loading onto the
s t ru c t u re may still be derived using the
p rovisions of the Code but the final
response of deflection (and stresses) need
to be amplified by a factor of (1+Cr), which
a c c o rding to the Code, would be less
accurate and generally more conservative.
The dynamic augmentation factor, Cr
for the two pole heights is shown in Table 3.
The Institution of Lighting Engineers
(UK) in its Technical Report Number 7 (ILE-
TR7) provides guidelines for the estimation
of wind forces on high mast for lighting and
CCTV applications.
In this report, the provisions in
derivation of wind load according to
BS6399:Part 2:1997 were followed and
f i n a l l y, to account for the dynamic nature of
the high mast, a magnification factor called
RESPONSE FA C TOR Beta is applied.
The response factor is a function of
the natural frequency of the structure, the
mean hourly wind speed at 10m above
g round level, and the logarithmic
decrement of damping in the structural
system. The response factor varies
considerably according to the
logarithmic decrement factor. The range
given was from 0.1 to 0.4. The report
recommended that the logarithmic
decrement of damping to be used shall be
assumed to be 0.1, unless evidence can be
p roduce to justify the use of higher
values. Harris (7) had indicated that the
Diameter of parabolic Distance measured upward
from the bottom of tower ( m )
30m Monopole 30m 27m 24m 21m
1.8m 1 no. 1 no. 1 no. 1 no.
45m Monopole 45m 42m 3 9m 36m
1.8m 1 no. 1 no. 1 no. 1 no.
Table 1: Antenna requirement
Ht of monopole Distance measured upward
from the bottom of Monopole ( m )
30m 29m 26m 23m 20m
45m 44m 41m 38m 35m
Table 2: Platforms to be provided
feature monopole analysis 4pp 29/10/07 9:28 AM Page 26
JURUTERA, October 2007 27
F E AT U R E
normal range of damping for lighting
towers was 0.01 to 0.18. In view of these
recommendations, there f o re, a value of 0.1
was adopted in the present calculations.
BS8100:Part1:1986
This Code allows a quasi static or
equivalent static method of analysis to be
carried out on mast and tower structures
using mean wind forces and a fluctuating
component that accounts for the
gustiness of wind. This code appeared to
be more appropriate to the slender and
dynamically sensitive pole structure, as it
accounts directly for the gustiness of
wind, just like the telecommunication
mast and towers.
The Code imposed a limit for the
applicability of the equivalent static
method (clause 5.1) that the factor give
t h e rein must be less than 1.0. It was
found that for the cantilever monopole
s t ru c t u re, the factor was much more
than 1.0 and hence some form of
dynamic analysis, if not a spectral
analysis, need to be carried out. Since
t h e re is no commonly available
s o f t w a re to perform the spectral
analysis, it was proposed to use time
history analysis to simulate the
dynamic response of the monopole.
Dutt (8) proposed a simplified sharp-
edge gust with a variation of V
av
/4 about
V
av
, and having a gradient of 200m.p.h.
(89.4m/s) per second. V
av
was the mean
of five second gust.
For the present study, the 3 sec gust
wind speed was used in lieu of the
p roposed 5 sec gust wind speed.
Although, Dutt indicated that the
p roposed simplification worked well
with natural frequencies between 1.7 Hz
to 7 Hz, it was none the less adopted here
as one of the method of computing
dynamic response of the monopole
s t ru c t u res, whose natural frequencies are
lower than 1 Hz.
ANSI/TIA-222-G-2005
This Code uses the 3 sec gust as the
design wind speed. Clause 3.6 of the
Code states that in order to account for
the dynamic effects of wind gusts, a
series of wind load patterns are
specified, which are similar to the
patched loading defined in
BS8100:Part4:1995-Code of Practice for
Loading on Guyed Mast (9).
For monopole stru c t u res, there will
only be one single load pattern, viz.,
full loads throughout, that need to be
analysed. It must be pointed out that in
o rder to comply with this Standard ,
Clause 3.5 concerning P-Delta eff e c t
a p p e a red to be mandatory since the
height to face width ratios is certainly
g reater than 10 for the two monopole
s t ru c t u res considered here .
Nevertheless, it was found that for
the present assumed antenna and
platform loading, the second order or
P-Delta effect was small.
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT
CODES/STANDARD
While the British Standards set out a
clear criterion for determining whether
the stru c t u re is dynamically sensitive
by the limiting Cr factor in BS6399:Part
2 or Equivalent Static limit factor in
BS8100:Part1, the final method
adopted for dynamic analysis re s t s
with the designer.
It is the authors opinion that the
American Standard TIA-222-G-2005
a p p e a red to be silent in this aspect,
although it has a pole gust factor of 1.10
(clause 2.6.7.3) and a higher load factor
(for strength analysis) of 1.6, which is
higher than 1.44 for BS8100:Part 1 or 1.4
for ILE-TR7/BS6399LPart 2.
Incidentally, it was felt that the use of
wind velocity factor of 1.2 in BS8100,
which results in a load factor of 1.44, is
Table 4: Dynanic factors for 30m and 45m monopole structures
Ht. of Natural Frequency Response Factor Dynamic Ratio (1+Cr)/Beta
Monopole Beta Augmentation
(1+Cr)
30m 0.918 1.330 1.638 1.232
45m 0.605 1.421 1.880 1.323
Table 5: Analysis results for base moments for 30m high monopole using different method of analysis
Method of Moment at ULS Ratio (as Compared Ratio (Comparing
Analysis with Lowest) Dynamic Analysis
Results)
BS6399:Pt2/ILE-TR7 1636kNm 1.46 1.23
Dynamic analysis 2091kNm 1.86 1.57
using Time-Histories
Analysis
ANSI/TIA-2220G-2005 1330kNm 1.18 1.00
Equivalent Static 1123kNm 1.00 -
Method BS8100:Pt1
Table 5: Analysis results for base moments for 30m high monopole using different method of analysis
Method of Moment at ULS Ratio (as Compared Ratio (Comparing
Analysis with Lowest) Dynamic Analysis
Results)
BS6399:Pt2/ILE-TR7 1636kNm 1.46 1.23
Dynamic analysis 2091kNm 1.86 1.57
using Time-Histories
Analysis
ANSI/TIA-2220G-2005 1330kNm 1.18 1.00
Equivalent Static 1123kNm 1.00 -
Method BS8100:Pt1
Ht of monopole Distance Augmentation
Factor, Cr
30m 0.638
45m 0.880
Table 3: Dynanic augmentation factor, Cr
feature monopole analysis 4pp 29/10/07 9:28 AM Page 27
more rationale than the simple
factor of 1.4 as proposed in ILE-
TR7 and as such in the present
analyses, a velocity factor of 1.2
was adopted for both BS8100
and BS6399/ILE-TR7 methods
of analysis.
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
The computed natural frequen-
cies and response factors Beta
a c c o rding to the re c o m m e n-
dations of ILE-TR7 for the two
monopoles are listed in Table 4.
A comparison with the dynamic
augmentation according to
BS6399:Part2:1997 is also
p re s e n t e d .
F rom the table, it can be
seen that a direct magnification
of static moments by (1+Cr) is
conservative as per the
comments in Annex C of
BS6399:Part 2:1997.
Figures 1 to 6 shows the
typical structural model of the
monopole in finite element,
loading and moment distri-
bution along the height of the
pole and mode shapes of
deflection.
The results of analysis for
the 30m and 45m monopole
s t ru c t u res are present in Ta b l e
5 and 6 re s p e c t i v e l y. The
results for equivalent static
analysis from BS8100:Part1 is
also included for comparison.
From the above results, the
following can be noted:
(i) Equivalent static method
BS8100:Part1 under esti-
mate the base moment.
(ii) Time history analysis using
the arbitrary velocity
variation of +/-V
av
/4 appeared to be
over-conservative.
(iii)Although A N S I / T I A - 2 2 2 - G - 2 0 0 5
results were lower than that
computed using BS6399:Part2:1997
with magnification Beta factor, the
overall results appeared to be within
practical limits and could be
c o n s i d e red similar, in view of the
wide ranging assumptions in
deriving various factors and wind
resistance of the pole and antenna.
CONCLUSION
Dynamic response of two cantilever
monopole stru c t u res of height 30m
and 45m had been computed
a c c o rding to various methods and
recommendation by the British and
American Standards. Despite the fact
that each Standard define its own
manner in accounting for wind
p re s s u re computations for stru c t u r a l
elements and appurtenances, the
resulting base bending moments
a p p e a red to be fairly similar to each
o t h e r, with the American Standard
ANSI/TIA-222-G-2005 being lower by
about 20% as compared to the British
S t a n d a rd BS6399:Part2:1997/ILE-TR7
re c o m m e n d a t i o n s .
The use of simplified wind velocity
p rofiles based on Vav +/- Va v / 4
p roduce the largest base moment at the
lowest mode of natural fre q u e n c y,
which was as much as 50% higher than
estimation by Code method.
I
JURUTERA, October 2007 28
F E AT U R E
Figure 1: Finite element of monopole structure with
platform
Figure 2: Loading application onto pole structure
Figure 3: Distribution of moment with pole height Figure 4: Dynamic moment response of pole
feature monopole analysis 4pp 29/10/07 9:29 AM Page 28
JURUTERA, October 2007 29
F E AT U R E
Figure 5: First mode of deflection of pole under
time-history loading
Figure 6: Second mode of deflection of pole under
time-history loading
REFERENCES
[1] BS6399:Part 2 : 1997 British
Standard for Loading for
Buildings, Part 2: Code of
practice for wind loads
[2] HIGH MAST FOR LIGHTING
AND CCTV
The Institution of Lighting
Engineers (UK), Technical Report
Number 7 Specification for
design, manufacture, assembly,
erection, painting, testing and
maintenance. (2000 Edition,
Amended and reprinted 2003)
[3] ANSI/TIA-222-G-2005
TIASTANDARD, Structural
Standard for Antenna Supporting
Structures and Antennas,
Effective January 1, 2006,
Telecommunications Industry
Association (TIA) August 2005
[4] BS8100:Part 1 : 1986
British Standard for Lattice
Towers and Masts, Part 1: Code
of practice for loading
(Superseded and replaced with
BS6399:Part 2:1997)
[5] CP3: Chapter V Part 2:1972
Code of Basic Data for the design
of buildings, Chapter V. Loading,
Part 2. Wind loads
(Superseded and replaced with
BS6399:Part 2:1997)
[6] Wind loading handbook
C.W. Newberry and K.J. Eaton,
Building Research
Establishment (1974)
[7] Harris, R I
On the spectrum and auto-
c o r re l a t i o n function of gustiness
in high winds.
Electrical Research Association
TR 5273
[8] Dutt, AJ
An Approach to the
Simplification of the Dynamic
Characteristics of Wind Loading
on Tall Buildings.
Proceeding, Conference on Tall
Buildings, Kuala Lumpur,
Dec 1974
[9] BS8100:Part 4 : 1995
British Standard for Lattice
Towers and Masts, Part 4: Code
of practice for loading of guyed
masts
feature monopole analysis 4pp 29/10/07 9:29 AM Page 29