David K.

Davies
Consolidated Engineering, Inc P.O. Box 4203 Evansville, Indiana 47724

CEI

GET THE MOST OUT OF YOUR TOWER

EFFECTIVELY USING DESIGN STANDARDS TO YOUR ADVANTAGE
This presentation is the work product of CEI. Reproduction, transmission or disclosure to others, or unauthorized use without the expressed written consent of CEI is prohibited and a violation of Federal Law

SPONSORED BY Electronics Research, Inc.

7777 Gardner Rd. Chandler, IN 47610

QUESTIONS!?!
WHERE DO Recent events I BEGIN? necessitate a new antenna installation on a 30 year old tower. You begin to wonder

HOW DO I PROCEED?

WHOs GOING TO CARE?

LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORI TY? YOUR INSURANCE PROVIDER?

TOWER SPACE RENTER? YOUR NEIGHBORS, MOST OF WHOM SEEM TO BE ATTORNEYS?

GEE, I HAD BETTER MEET THE CODE!!!

Or, maybe NOT? Several factors must be taken into consideration.

DESIGN STANDARD is all thats necessary

Maybe just a

DESIGN CODE or DESIGN STANDARD

DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE?
DESIGN CODES ARE MANDATORY
Code is short for Codification, i.e. formalizing the laws of jurisdiction by setting them out in a book or law or codex.

Design Codes are formulated by the Legislative Branch, enforced by the Executive Branch and sometimes reviewed by the Judicial Branch of Government.

CODES AND TOWERS

THE RELATIONSHIP IS TYPICALLY A FUNCTION OF LOCAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT

Examples:

Southern States Building Codes Florida Building Code Dillard Building Code BOCA UBC Unified Building Code IBC International Building Code

DESIGN STANDARDS
DESIGN STANDARDS ARE VOLUNTARY
STANDARDS detail engineering methods and/or specifications promulgated by Public or Private organizations. STANDARDS direct engineers and technicians in using methods specified for in the design process.

TOWER DESIGN STANDARDS

For the past 60 years, the EIA,TIA, and ANSI Organizations have provided Tower Design Standards with the stated purpose of:

1. Eliminating misunderstanding between manufacturers and purchasers 2. Assist the purchaser in selecting and obtaining the proper product for his particular need

STANDARDS CAN BE FOUND WITHIN THE CODES

A Tower Design Code may include one of the Tower Design Standards. If so, it MUST be applied without variation.
IBC 2000 TIA/EIA 222 E IBC 2003 TIA/EIA 222 F IBC 2006 TIA/EIA 222 F IBC 2009 ANSI/TIA 222 G

YOUR FIRST DECISION

DETERMINE WHAT YOURE TRYING TO ACHIEVE
Is your primary goal to satisfy Building Permit Requirements (ie local codes)? Is it the towers CAPACITY you need to determine?
Which path do I take?

Or, do you just want to get er done?

MEETING BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS

IF a BUILDING PERMIT is required, meeting the CURRENT DESIGN CODE of this jurisdiction may be mandatory.

VERIFYING TOWER CAPACITY

YOUR ONLY REQUIREMENT IN SOME SITUATIONS MAY BE:

VERIFICATION OF THE TOWERS STRUCTURAL CAPACITY

VERIFYING TOWER STRENGTH REQUIRES PROOF YOURE COMPLYING WITH A STANDARD, NOT NECESSARILY A SPECIFIC STANDARD This allows the owner maximum flexibility in determining which Design Standard best fits his needs and how it shall be applied.

VERIFYING TOWER CAPACITY

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS IS THE METHOD FOR DETERMINING A TOWERS CAPACITY

Structural Analysis using a Design Standard will assist the purchaser in achieving his goal or objective.

VERIFICATION OF TOWER CAPACITY

HELPFUL OR NECESSARY UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Proposed antenna change Proposed tower modification Requirement to obtain or retain insurance Potential tower space rental requirement Address public concern General Liability purposes

DECICION #2
WHICH TYPE OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS IS BEST-SUITED FOR MY NEEDS?
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS INVESTIGATES THE MAIN STRUCTURAL MEMBERS AND OVERALL STABILITY OF THE STRUCTURE RIGOROUS ANALYSIS EVALUATES ALL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS, CONNECTIONS AND FOUNDATIONS

FEASABILITY OR RIGOROUS ANALYSIS THE DECISION IS YOURS!

Bases your decision with your goal in mind-

Dont be swayed by what the tower manufacturer or consulting engineer wants to sell you!

DECICION #3
Adhering to the Design Standard used during the construction of your tower may be advantageousBUT NOT
CHOOSING WHICH DESIGN STANDARD TO IMPLEMENT

ALWAYS!

After reviewing the Standards, both the advantages and disadvantages will be apparent

EVOLUTION of the STANDARDS

MEET THE FAMILIES
ORIGINAL FAMILY: EIA-RS-222 (A, B and C) THE Standard until 1987 SECOND FAMILY: TIA/EIA-222 (D, E, and F) used until 2006 THIRD FAMILY: ANSI/TIA 222 Rev G became THE in 2006

EIA/RS 222-C FAMILY

RUDIMENTARY COMPARED TO LATER STANDARDS THE C-STANDARD HAD ITS SHORTCOMINGS, YET ADVANTAGES, AS WELL, DEPENDING UPON ONES PERSPECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE

EIA/RS 222-C FAMILY

ICE ACCUMULATION on tower members and appurtenances NOT MENTIONED TOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURES and the effect of increased wind force NOT MENTIONED LOWER WIND VELOCITY (force) than upcoming Standards WIND SHIELDING at engineers discretion SOIL DESIGN PARAMETERS extremely liberal

EIA/RS 222-C STANDARDS

ASSOCIATED PROBLEMS
CONFLICTED WITH NEWLY EVOLVING BUILDING CODES

CONSEQUENCES: BUILDING PERMITS QUESTIONED and/or DENIED

EIA/RS 222-C EVOLVES

Tower manufacturers realized the urgency to revamp the RS FAMILY OF STANDARDS to comply with the newly authored American National Standard (ANSI) A58.1:

Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures

FROM EIA/RS 222-C to TIA/EIA 222-F

Despite a major overhaul, the stated intent remained unchanged:

" To assist the tower owner in obtaining a proper product for his particular need.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, SUBSEQUENT REVISIONS BECAME MORE STRINGENT

BUT NOT FOR EVERY CASE OR IN ALL GEOGRAPHIC AREAS

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES, DEPENDING ON YOUR GOAL AND PERSPECTIVE

THE F FAMILY, OR STANDARD, BROUGHT MAJOR CHANGES REGARDING WIND SPEED/PRESSURE SPECIFICATIONS
1) WIND VELOCITY REPLACED THE OUTDATED POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT WIND PRESSURE 2) FASTEST MILE WAS INTRODUCED 3) D INCLUDED A MAP, E AND F IMPLEMENTED A COUNTY BY COUNTY LISTING

SOME WIND FORCES PER AREA WERE INCREASED, OTHER WERE NOT
TIA/EIA 222 D-F

FASTEST MILE

RS 222 A-C

PSF

INTRODUCINGICE! COURTESY OF THE F FAMILY

THE F FAMILY WAS THE FIRST TO ADDRESS THE EFFECTS OF ICE ACCUMULATION ON THE TOWER AND APPURTENANCES AND INCLUDED A METHOD FOR CALCULATING THE ADDITIONAL LOADING
Consideration for ICE was still optional and the responsibility of the PURCHASER as to whether it was included in the design Suggested (evenly applied) radial ice with 13% a reduced wind velocity Designers were instructed to factor for AREA ONLY, not the additional weight of ICE; The Standard does recognize that ice may be a significant load for structures to be located in areas of significant ice

MORE F FEATURES & INCLUSIONS

Topographic Features and increased Wind Velocity were introduced but not mandatory in the design Wind speed was increase with height of tower but each revision used different methods Wind Shielding could vary from 35% to 65% Both C Standards and F Standards used an Allowable Stress design method but the F Standards allowed a 1/3 increase above the factored members strength

F FAMILY OF STANDARDS CONTINUED SAFETY FACTORS

A SAFETY FACTOR IS THE RATIO OF LOAD CAPACITY TO APPLIED LOAD

THE F STANDARD REDUCED THE DESIGN SAFETY FACTOR FROM THE PREVIOUS MAXIMUM OF 2.5, MANDATED IN THE C STANDARD

CONCERNING F, SAFETY FACTORS VARIED AS A FUNCTION OF TOWER HEIGHT AND MEMBER FUNCTION. SOME WERE AS LOW AS 1.6
SOIL DESIGN PARAMETERS REMAINED VERY LIBERAL BUT SOME RESTRICTIONS WERE IMPOSED ON THE PREVIOUS DESIGN METHODS

ASCE 7 INTRODUCED by the AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS

Just when we were comfortable using the Fastest Mile wind speed calculation, ASCE-7 WIND VELOCITIES started gaining popularity for building and other structures designs. Most Planning and Review Boards were accustomed to seeing higher wind speeds than the fastest mile average presented, creating additional problems for new tower applications.

FASTEST MILE TO PEAK 3-SECOND GUST COMPARISON & CONVERSION

ANSI/TIA/EIA-222 REV G THE INDUSTRYS MOST SWEEPING CHANGE

STANDARD SINCE ITS FIRST PUBLICATION IN 1949, INTRODUCED NEW VARIABLES FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE DESIGN OF BROADCAST TOWERS. DESIGN CRITERIA NOW BASED ON SITE-SPECIFIC VARIABLES RATHER THAN GENERIC CRITERIA USED IN PREVIOUS ADDITIONS TO THE STANDARD. REV G POSES ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES FOR EXISTING BROADCAST TOWERS. ANOTHER MAJOR ELEMENT OF THIS STANDARD IS THE BURDEN OF RESPONSIBILITY IN MANY AREAS HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM THE PURCHASER OR OWNER TO THE DESIGNING ENGINEER(S).

REVISION G, THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE CHANGE TO THE

ANSI/TIA/EIA-222 REV G
HIGHLIGHTS
EMPLOYED ASCE 7 WIND AND ICE PREDICTIONS: 3-Second Gust replaced Fastest Mile EXPOSURE (Terrain Roughness) Categories included TOPOGRAPHY and resultant Windspeedup COUNTY by COUNTY WIND AND ICE MAPS

ANSI/TIA/EIA-222 REV G
WIND SPEED MAP

TOPOGRAPHIC CATEGORIES

ANSI/TIA/EIA-222 REV G

INCREASE VARIES WITH TYPE AND SIZE OF TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURE

ANSI/TIA/EIA-222 REV G
EXPOSURE CATEGORIES

Exposure C: Open Terrain Exposure B: Smaller Building and Trees

Another example of tower design variables not mandated in previous Design Standards. Exposure categories relate to ground roughness which may affect wind velocity by reducing or increasing the wind speed, deviating from the wind velocity specified in Appendix B of Rev G.

Exposure D: Unobstructed Shorelines

ANSI/TIA/EIA-222 REV G
ADDITIONAL FEATURES
NO 1/3 INCREASE IN MEMBER STRENGTH

ALLOWED

ELIMINATES NORMAL SOIL and replaces it with

more conservative, explicit definitions

OWNERS can specify IMPORTANCE FACTORS or

CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE FACTOR which may reduce or increase design forces

CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES

REV G
CLASS AND IMPORTANCE FACTORS
CLASS I 25 year return Period: Same as C Standard. Importance Factor = 0.87x wind pressure
Creates a wind pressure that is
13% less than Class II, (7% decrease in wind speed) 24% less than Class III (13% decrease in wind speed)

CLASS II 50 year return Period: Same as F Standard. Importance Factor = 1.00 x wind pressure
Creates a wind pressure that is
13% Greater than Class I, (7% increase in wind speed) 15% less than Class III, (7% decrease in wind speed)

CLASS III 100 year return Period: Importance Factor = 1.15 x wind pressure
Creates a wind pressure that is
13% Greater than Class II, (7% increase in wind speed) 24% Greater than Class I (13% increase in wind speed)

C-G WIND FORCE COMPARISON

USING A 400 TOWER
F Standard

C Standard

G Standard
Class II

30 psf 40 psf 50 psf

73 mph 84 mph 95 mph

83 mph 95 mph 107 mph

EVOLVING WIND FORCES

FAMILY MAP COMPARISON
C:PSF G:3 SEC GUST

F:FASTEST MILE

C G COMPARISON
Ice
C STANDARD: No

mention, not required required, but if used ice at 87% of design wind speed with included ice map and reduced wind speed of 30 or 40 mph
G STANDARD: Mandated F STANDARD: Not

REV G WIND & ICE MAP

222-G WIND & ICE

Safety Factor and Member Strength

1. C STANDARD: Safety Factors ranged from 2.5 for guy wire to 2.0 for steel, no 1/3 increase in member

C G COMPARISON

strength

2. F STANDARD: Safety Factors ranged from 2.0 to 1.6, and also 1/3 increase in member strength allowed. (1.5 to 1.2) 3. G STANDARD: No Safety Factors per se, but would range from 1.7 to 2.0, no 1/3 increase in

member strength allowed

WHICH STANDARD IS BEST-SUITED FOR ACHIEVING YOUR GOAL?

1) WHAT IS YOUR OBJECTIVE? 2) WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL DESIGN STANDARD? 3) WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE?

USING THE STANDARDS TO ACHIEVE YOUR GOAL

BUILDING PERMIT ESTABLISH TOWER CAPACITY JUST GET ER DONE
1. Antenna up? 2. Insurance purchased? 3. Neighbors appeased?

#1 DEFINING YOUR OBJECTIVE

USING THE STANDARDS TO ACHIEVE YOUR GOAL

#2 WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL DESIGN STANDARD? MOST C TOWERS CAN MEET F ANALYSIS w/o ICE and G
ANALYSIS in minimal icing areas MOST F TOWERS w/ICE CAN MEET G ANALYSIS MOST F TOWERS w/o ICE CANNOT MEET a G Analysis Unless these are adjusted
2. ICE PREDICTIONS PER ASCE 3. EXPOSURE

1. AREA-SPECIAL WIND SPEED

COMPARING THE STANDARDS

LOADING
EXAMPLE: 350 UTILITY GUYED TOWER (TYPICAL FM TOWER )

DESIGNED USING: C STANDARD, ANALYZED USING:STANDARD 1) F

2) G STANDARD

NO ICE

COMPARISON
75 MPH NO ICE and 65 MPH WITH ICE

F STANDARD NO ICE AND ICE

OVER-STRESSED

COMPARISON
90 MPH NO ICE and 40 MPH WITH 3/4 ICE

G STANDARD NO ICE AND ICE

OVER-STRESSED

COMPARING F STANDARD ICE With G STANDARD ICE

F WITH ICE G WITH ICE

OVER-STRESSED

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS
MOST TOWERS DESIGNED TO THE F STANDARD, WITHOUT ICE, CANNOT MEET THE G STANDARD WITHOUT ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. AREA-SPECIFIC WIND SPEED 2. ICE PREDICTIONS, PER ASCE 3. EXPOSURE

FOUR WIND CONTOURS FOUND WITHIN THE SAME COUNTY

4 2 1 3

ASCE WIND SPEED MAP WITH ICE

WIND SPEED (MPH) WITH ICE AND DESIGN-ICE THICKNESS STANDARDS

GROUND ROUGHNESS REDUCES WIND VELOCITY AND FORCE

EXPOSURE

LESS VELOCITY AND FORCE

MORE VELOCITY AND FORCE

#3 THE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE

CLASS 1: POSES LITTLE RISK TO HUMAN LIFE
IMPORTANCE FACTOR = 0.87 x WIND PRESSURE

USING THE STANDARDS TO ACHIEVE YOUR GOAL

CREATES A WIND PRESSURE THAT IS:

1) 2) 13% LESS THAN CLASS II, (7% DECREASE IN WIND SPEED) 24% LESS THAN CLASS III (13% DECREASE IN WIND SPEED)

TOWER MODIFICATION AND REINFORCEMENT

THE LEAST DESIRABLE OUTCOME OF ANALYSIS
RECALL THE OBJECTIVES OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS:

1. TO VERIFY THE TOWERS CAPACITY 2. ASSIST THE OWNER IN OBTAINING THE APPROPRIATE PRODUCT(S) TO MEET HIS SPECIFIC NEEDS/REQUIREMENTS

THE 3 MOST VOLITILE FACTORS IN REINFORCING-DESIGN COST

1. 2. 3. WIND SHIELDING INITIAL GUY WIRE TENSION METHODS OF REINFORCING

THE 3 MOST VOLITILE FACTORS IN REINFORCING-DESIGN COST WIND SHIELDING

Can vary from 0 to 100% depending upon Design Standard and the engineers discretion. Unfortunately, its not uncommon for a tower to be designed and sold using a high amount of wind shielding. Then later Analyzed by same company using a lower amount of shielding, the tower now appears to require reinforcing.

HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?

THE 3 MOST VOLITILE FACTORS IN REINFORCING-DESIGN COST INITIAL GUY WIRE TENSION
(GUY WIRE PRE-TENSION)

TYPICALLY, 10% OF BREAKING STRENGTH IN NEW DESIGNS, BUT MAY VARY FROM 8% TO 15%

INITIAL GUY WIRE TENSION

DEFLECTION GRAPH OF TOWER UNDER LOAD

Before Adjustments

After Adjustments

INITIAL GUY WIRE TENSION

CHANGES IN INITIAL TENSION OF GUYS

EXISTING GUY INITIAL TENSIONS

NEW GUY INITIAL TENSIONS

THE 3 MOST VOLITILE FACTORS IN REINFORCING-DESIGN COST METHODS OF REINFORCING

MOST REINFORCING METHODS ARE THEORETICAL AND WITHOUT TEST DATA OR DOCUMENTATION TO VERIFY IMPROVEMENT TO MEMBER STRENGTH.

WHEN FACED WITH A $250,000.00 REINFORCING PROJECT, IT NEVER HURTS TO GET A $2,500.00 SECOND OPINION.

ASK SOMEONE WHO KNOWS! VERIFY WITH ACTUAL TESTING DATA

REVIEWING A REINFORCING DESIGN ASK YOURSELF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

AM I USING THE BEST SUITED DESIGN

STANDARD?

AM I USING ALL OF THE ADVANTAGES

OFFERED BY THAT STANDARD?

AM I GETTING THE MOST ECONOMICAL

DESIGN OR MERELY BUYING STEEL?

For additional information concerning our products and services contact:

DAVID K. DAVIES ddavies@ConEngInc.com CEI CONSOLIDATED ENGINEERING, INC P.O. BOX 4203 EVANSVILLE, INDIANA 477244203 +1 (812) 459-1341