Monopole Structures Current Issues PDF

2010 ASCE / SEI Structures Congress | Orlando, FL
Non-Building Structures | May 15, 2010 | D. Hawkins

Discussion of Current Issues Related to Steel Telecommunications Monopole Structures
Discussion of Current Issues

Related to
Steel Telecommunications
Monopole Structures
David W. Hawkins, P.E., M.ASCE 1
1 Department Manager, Paul J. Ford and Company, Structural Engineers,
250 East Broad Street, Suite 1500, Columbus, OH 43215
PH (614) 221-6679; email: dhawkins@pjfweb.com
© Copyright 2010 by Paul J. Ford and Company, all rights reserved.
1 of 37
About Paul J. Ford and Company
 Founded in 1965 by Paul J. Ford
 Employee-Owned (ESOP) Since 1994
 Since 1976; Design of Self-Support and Guyed

Towers for Cable TV and Long-Distance Telephone
 Since 1985; Design of Telecom/Cellular Towers
 Mid-1990‟s; Telecom Act of „96; Boom in Design of

Telecom Towers and Monopoles
 Yearly Average of 2,000 Analyses, Designs and/or

Reinforcement of Towers and Monopoles
2 of 37
About the Author
David W. Hawkins, P.E., M.ASCE
▪ Education: BS („83), MS („89), The Ohio State University
▪ Experience: 25 years with Paul J. Ford and Company,

Structural Engineers
▪ Member, TIA TR-14.7 Engineering Subcommittee
▪ Member, TIA TR-14.7 Structural Reliability Task Group
▪ Chair, TIA TR-14.7 Monopole Design Sub-Task Group

3 of 37
Overview -- Types of Tubular Steel Poles:

▪ Flagpoles
▪ Electric Utility Poles
▪ Traffic Signal Poles
▪ Highway Light and Sign Poles
▪ Commercial Sign Poles
▪ Telecommunications Antenna
Support Poles (Monopoles)
4 of 37
Telecommunications Monopoles
Generally categorized into two main types:
(1.) Tubular Round Shafts

with bolted flange splices
(2.) Polygonal Tapered Shafts

with slip-joint splices and
bolted base plate connections.
(12 and 18-sided are common)
5 of 37
Telecommunications
Monopoles
Polygonal
Pole
Fabrication

6 of 37
Telecommunications
Monopoles
Polygonal
Pole
Components

7 of 37
Telecommunications Design Reference Standards

TIA/EIA-222-F-96 (1996)
▪ Referenced by IBC 2006 (Ch. 35)
▪ Sections 1609.1.1, 3108.4
TIA-222-G-2005 (2005)
▪ Referenced by 2007 Supplement
to the IBC (Ch. 35; Sect. 1609.1.1)
▪ Referenced by IBC 2009 (Ch. 35)
Sections 1609.1.1, 3108.4
8 of 37
Telecommunications Design Reference Standards

TIA-222-F (1996)
▪ ASCE 7-88 Fastest Mile Winds
▪ AISC ASD (elastic; 1/3 stress increase)
TIA-222-G (2005)
▪ ASCE 7-02 3-sec Gust Winds
▪ AISC LRFD (elastic limit states)
TIA-222-G-2 (2009)
▪ AISC LRFD (plastic limit states)
9 of 37
Compare TIA-222-G with G-2
TIA-222-G and G-1 (Addendum 1):

Factored Loads with
Elastic Limit States
TIA-222-G-2 (Addendum 2):

Factored Loads with
Plastic Limit States
10 of 37

Table 4-8: Effective Yield Stress for Polygonal Tubular Members
TIA-222-G and G-1 (Addendum 1) Upper Limits:

Effective Yield Stress, F‟y = Fy
Moment Capacity, Mn = F‟y S (Elastic)
TIA-222-G-2 (Addendum 2) Upper Limits:

Effective Yield Stress, F‟y = 1.27 Fy
Moment Capacity, Mn = F‟y S
= (1.27 Fy) S
(where Z ≈ 1.27 S for 18-sided polygon)
= Fy Z (Plastic)
11 of 37
TIA-222-G Table 4-8 (18-sided Polygon)

1.3 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.25
1.22 TIA-222-G-2 (Addendum 2)

1.18
1.2
1.14
1.10 TIA-222-G and G-1
1.1 1.06
1.02
F'y / Fy
0.99
1.0 0.95
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.91
0.96 0.87
0.9 0.92
0.83
0.89
0.80
Compact Limit
Compact Limit
0.85
0.8 0.82
0.76
0.74
0.759
0.78
1.17
0.75
0.7 0.72
0.68
0.67
0.6

(Fy/E)1/2 (w/t) 12 of 37
Factored Flexural Strength (Shaft Moment Capacity) Chart

Comparison of TIA-222-G and G-1 (Addendum 1) with TIA-222-G-2 (Addendum 2)
9,000 Example: Shaft 48” Diam; 18-Sided Polygon; Fy=65 ksi 80
Factored Flexural Strength: Shaft Moment Capacity,
Table 4-8: Effective Yield Stress, øf F‟y

8,000 70
7,000
60
6,000
50
Φf Mn (ft-kips)
5,000
40
4,000
30
3,000
TIA-222-G Factored Flexural Strength, ΦMn
20
2,000
TIA-222-G-2 Factored Flexural Strength, ΦMn
1,000 TIA-222-G Table 4-8: Effective Yield Stress, Φf F'y 10
TIA-222-G-2 Table 4-8: Effective Yield Stress, Φf F'y

0 0
0.125 0.188 0.250 0.313 0.375 0.438 0.500 0.563 0.625 0.688 0.750
Shaft Wall Thickness, t (inches) 13 of 37

Summary:
Effective Shaft Flexural
Strength for Polygonal Poles
Can be 10% to 27% Higher
With TIA-222-G-2
(Addendum 2)
14 of 37
Fatigue and Vortex Shedding Issues

• Criteria for fatigue and dynamic effects from vortex
shedding are not currently addressed in TIA-222-G.
• AASHTO has fatigue criteria for highway structures, but
may not be appropriate for telecommunications poles.
• ASCE Manual 72 (1990) and ASCE 48-05 Standard
(2006) mention vortex shedding and fatigue but do not
provide specific criteria.
• TIA TR-14.7 Subcommittee intends to address fatigue
and vortex shedding criteria in future revisions of the
TIA-222 Standard.
• Additional research and testing is needed to develop
fatigue design criteria for poles.
15 of 37
Shaft Upgrades and Reinforcing
Main Types:
1. Field Welded
Risks: Fire, Corrosion
2. Field Bolted
Cons: Larger connections
than welded
Polygonal pole shaft with field bolted channel

reinforcements. (Courtesy B. Reese) 16 of 37
Discussion of Monopole Failures

Man-Caused:
▪ Monopole Fires
▪ Vandalism
▪ Cracks in Poor Welds in Base Plates
Environmental Influence:
▪ Extreme Wind with Debris
▪ Vortex Shedding Fatigue
17 of 37
Monopole Fires
(Courtesy B. Reese)
(Courtesy B. Reese)
(Courtesy B. Reese)
Most fires are caused by field activities such as flame torching holes
in the shaft and field welding. Heat from careless burning and
welding ignites debris, such as bird nests, in the pole which then
ignites the plastic coated coaxial cables.
18 of 37
Monopole Flange Connection Failures
(Courtesy B. Reese) (D. Hawkins)
Collapse of pipe poles

19 of 37
(D. Hawkins)

(D. Hawkins)
20 of 37
(D. Hawkins) (D. Hawkins)

21 of 37
Toe crack at top of weld at vertex in Toe crack at vertex in shaft.

shaft to base plate connection. (Courtesy B. Reese)
(Courtesy B. Reese)
“Toe Cracks” in Base Plate Welds at Shaft

Vertex in Polygonal Poles
22 of 37
(Courtesy B. Reese) (Courtesy B. Reese)
Magnetic Particle (MT) Ultrasonic (UT) Testing
NDT Testing for “Toe Cracks”

© Copyright 2010 by Paul J. Ford and Company, all rights reserved. in Base Plate Welds 23 of 37
Base Plate and Flange Plate Connections

▪ Base Plates Without Stiffeners
▪ Base Plates With Gusset Plate Stiffeners
▪ Flange to Shaft Connection Types:

(a) “Socket” Type with fillet welds
(b) “Tee” Joint Type with CJP Welds
24 of 37
Base Plates Without Stiffeners

Current design methodologies assume linear elastic bending of the base
plate. Typically used with AISC-ASD with TIA-222-F working loads.
TIA TR-14.7 Subcommittee researching new base plate design criteria:

• Plastic yield line methods at limit states. Analogous to yield lines in
concrete slabs, uses balanced energy approach.
• Uses AISC-LRFD with TIA-222-G factored loads.
• Base plate is proportioned for minimum thickness to eliminate prying

forces on the bolts.
• Plate ultimate capacity determined by plastic bending limits (FyZ).
• Results indicate plate thickness should be at least equal to anchor rod

diameter.
• Preliminary FEA studies of unstiffened base plates show yield line

distribution of stress.
25 of 37
FEA model results for six bolt double flange

connection on round pole shaft.
26 of 37
FEA model results for six bolt flange connection.

Round pole shaft elements hidden.
27 of 37
FEA model results for six bolt flange connection.

28 of 37
Base Plates Reinforced With

Gusset Plate Stiffeners
Base plate reinforcement with „Tall‟

gusset plate stiffeners. (Courtesy B. Base plate reinforcement with „Tall‟
Reese) gusset plate stiffeners, new anchor
rods and brackets. (Courtesy B.
© Copyright 2010 by Paul J. Ford and Company, all rights reserved. Reese)
29 of 37
Gusset Plate Stiffener Proportions

Taper
(typ.)
h 18”
Taper
(typ.)
h 6”
w Chamfer w Chamfer
6” (typ.) 6” (typ.)
„Short‟ Stiffener with „Tall‟ Stiffener with
h:w = 1:1 aspect ratio h:w = 3:1 aspect ratio
(Not recommended)
© Copyright 2010 by Paul J. Ford and Company, all rights reserved. (Recommended) 30 of 37
FEA of Stiffened Base Plates
No Stiffeners 3x3 6x6

Stiffeners Stiffeners
6x18 Dbl 6x18

Stiffeners
Stiffeners 31 of 37
FEA of Stiffened Base Plates
No Stiffeners 3x3 Stiffeners 6x6 Stiffeners
6x18
Dbl 6x18
Stiffeners
Stiffeners 32 of 37
Further Research Needed

Issues:
TIA TR-14.7 Subcommittee has voluntary

members from engineering firms, tower
owners, fabricators and contractors.
There has been no significant funding

available for research. Each group
contributes their own time and resources
for any research work done.
33 of 37
Further Research Needed

Opportunities for Additional Research:
• Develop base plate design methods using limit
states and reliability based approaches.
• FEA studies of unstiffened and stiffened base

plates using non linear methods.
• Full scale physical testing of unstiffened and

stiffened base plates to correlate with FEA.
• Fatigue research for base plate connections,

with and without stiffeners.
34 of 37
Additional Research Needed

FEA Simulations:
 „Non-Rigid‟ Base Plates with Bolt Prying
 Square Base Plates (bolts in quadrants)
 Base Plates with Stiffeners (incl. fatigue)
 Using Nonlinear Material (Plastic) Methods
 Parametric studies (plate thickness, bolt size,

shaft type, bolt circle, flange diameter, etc.) to
determine empirical relationships
35 of 37
Additional Research Needed

(continued)
Physical Testing:
 Full scale physical testing of base
plates
 Full scale physical testing of base

plates with stiffeners

36 of 37
THANK YOU

37 of 37

Monopole Structures Current Issues PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Monopole Structures Current Issues PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2010 ASCE / SEI Structures Congress | Orlando, FL

Non-Building Structures | May 15, 2010 | D. Hawkins

Discussion of Current Issues

About Paul J. Ford and Company

 Founded in 1965 by Paul J. Ford

 Employee-Owned (ESOP) Since 1994

 Since 1976; Design of Self-Support and Guyed

 Since 1985; Design of Telecom/Cellular Towers

 Mid-1990‟s; Telecom Act of „96; Boom in Design of

 Yearly Average of 2,000 Analyses, Designs and/or

About the Author

David W. Hawkins, P.E., M.ASCE

▪ Education: BS („83), MS („89), The Ohio State University

▪ Experience: 25 years with Paul J. Ford and Company,

▪ Member, TIA TR-14.7 Engineering Subcommittee

▪ Member, TIA TR-14.7 Structural Reliability Task Group

▪ Chair, TIA TR-14.7 Monopole Design Sub-Task Group

Overview -- Types of Tubular Steel Poles:

Generally categorized into two main types:

(1.) Tubular Round Shafts

(2.) Polygonal Tapered Shafts

© Copyright 2010 by Paul J. Ford and Company, all rights reserved.

© Copyright 2010 by Paul J. Ford and Company, all rights reserved.

Telecommunications Design Reference Standards

Telecommunications Design Reference Standards

Compare TIA-222-G with G-2

TIA-222-G and G-1 (Addendum 1):

TIA-222-G-2 (Addendum 2):

Compare TIA-222-G with G-2

TIA-222-G and G-1 (Addendum 1) Upper Limits:

TIA-222-G-2 (Addendum 2) Upper Limits:

TIA-222-G Table 4-8 (18-sided Polygon)

1.22 TIA-222-G-2 (Addendum 2)

© Copyright 2010 by Paul J. Ford and Company, all rights reserved.

Factored Flexural Strength (Shaft Moment Capacity) Chart

Table 4-8: Effective Yield Stress, øf F‟y

1,000 TIA-222-G Table 4-8: Effective Yield Stress, Φf F'y 10

TIA-222-G-2 Table 4-8: Effective Yield Stress, Φf F'y

Compare TIA-222-G with G-2

Fatigue and Vortex Shedding Issues

Shaft Upgrades and Reinforcing

Polygonal pole shaft with field bolted channel

Discussion of Monopole Failures

Monopole Flange Connection Failures

(Courtesy B. Reese) (D. Hawkins)

Collapse of pipe poles

Monopole Flange Connection Failures

Collapse of pipe poles

Monopole Flange Connection Failures

(D. Hawkins) (D. Hawkins)

Collapse of pipe poles

Monopole Flange Connection Failures

Toe crack at top of weld at vertex in Toe crack at vertex in shaft.

“Toe Cracks” in Base Plate Welds at Shaft

Monopole Flange Connection Failures

(Courtesy B. Reese) (Courtesy B. Reese)

Magnetic Particle (MT) Ultrasonic (UT) Testing

NDT Testing for “Toe Cracks”

Base Plate and Flange Plate Connections

▪ Base Plates With Gusset Plate Stiffeners

▪ Flange to Shaft Connection Types:

Base Plates Without Stiffeners

TIA TR-14.7 Subcommittee researching new base plate design criteria: