Sheet 1 of 148

442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
1-GENERAL You may send your comments to: Engr.Abdul.Aziz@TLE
Heysung Industries co. Ltd., Seoul Korea had submitted with their prequalification information a description of a computer p
to be used for tower design. It was based on stiffness method with 3-D struss modelling. They actually sent a representativ
and highlight this software and its advantages. At that time (and for our projects in Karachi in early eightys), all Korean com
using a digital version of the graphic method of plane frame analysis. I kept the source listing of KEMCO for quite some tim
four plane frames are isolated from the 3D model, only the frame that is worst loaded out of the four is designed and found
worst of the four frames, are not only in leg directions but also shears were listed only for the transverse directions.

Moreover the VDE specified NO WIND in BROKEN WIRE conditions. Thus mostly the NORMAL LOADING case was the w
vertical foundations, they would take the longitudnal shear same as the transverse shear, and leg forces in leg direction we
vertically. which would be an over estimation. So I was happy that this time we would get the right reactions from 3-D analy
disappointed to see the final design folder.So I asked them in a personal encounter with their chief designer, rather politely,
unable to follow the description of their softwar in reference to these printouts. Hyosung chief designer told me, in private c
could not acquire the software and consequently used the same old graphical method in digital form. So I put him the seco
do you compute Foundation reactions with different longitudnal and transverse shears". He promised me to send the meth
returned to Korea.

The gentleman kept his promise and I got a small folder explaing the calculation-How to convert from the outputs of digital-
into 3-D reactions. I had some questions and some terminology was not familiar to me. I put another question on summing
reactions for the case of leg directions. So I received another small folder. But as the order had been executed, I did not ha
their expertse. I asked my company to send me for tower tests, so that I would meet the designers for my querries. But I w
another colleague, who could use his superior social techniques with the people who mattered at the supplier and inspectio
considered too-streight forward for the job in hand, WHICH I WAS. In other words, I was deprived to improve my knowledg
my moral attitude.

Now that I am free of all official chores and restrictions, 5 years after retirement, I located the document, cleaned it of dust
to decypher, so that a spreadsheet can be designed. In the non printing area on the right, I am giving the images of all the
this first folder as a reference to understand the discourse that I have made for the benefit of my young readers. Reproduc
three further pages of their response to my telex querries.So please do not expect too much of theory from me. The unfam
"corner factor", probably due to translation from Korean to English was quite confusing to me. The translation was done by
But unfortunately they could not use familiar terminology. I am really grateful to their chief designer, who obviousl
very hard to write this document to satisfy my curiosity.

Earlier in 1983 I had visited Korea and had learnt only the Korean script with a few general phrases for pleasant talk and g
therefore kept, For example their "Corner Factor" that is actually another name for "Slope". Slope is usually expressed by T
while corner factor is a ratio between true length of a member and its vertical projection, sometimes taking negative sign as
represents the 3-D composition of forces in the members.

2-METHODOLOGY
Hyosung methodology description was, though a sincere designer to designer contribution, yet I find it inadequate. Firstly t
not complete. The designer had given a solved example. Thus the hints in methodology description are supplimented by th
unfortunately, he not only changed serial numbers but also the equations used. Equations in the methodology section were
using informal notation. After several trials to integrate the two, I decided to keep things as ther were.
 Sheet 2 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

Additionally I have tried to explain the statics behind it, that was not explained by the designer. I had to introduce some
Apparently missing serial numbers needed in the methodology by adding either sub-numbers in braces or have u

❶-Member Stresses: Each member stress of LEG/BRACING are calculated from external loads i.e. (a) Wind load on tow
(b) Transverse Load,( c) Longitudnal Loads. LEG only get a force from (d) vertical loads as well. Force in each member, LE
algebraic sum of three forces, each resulting from Longitudnal, Transverse or vertical external Reactions. Hyosung forgets
taken in transverse direction, in aid of the wind loads but due to the vertical load of wires. In a normal case they all balance
cross arms are equal. Should the cross arms be unequal in length or should one or more wires break, called a broken wire
a net moment, which should also be added. To the transverse moment.

❷-Member Numbering: Members of the tower base (bottom part of tower usually a leg extension) are numbered as per s

LEGs are numbered 1, 4, 7 and 10. Brasings are numbered 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12

❸-Sign Convention:
 Sheet 3 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

❹-Calculation of Moments
1-Moment for Leg Forces (Mp)
Moment about "B" point is ZERO.
Mp = external load x ΣHn. Actually
two terms. External loads are indicated by HT and HTA for w
cross arm respectively. Also Hc indicates load of conductor (
if applicable). Hn is the height of the load above point "B".

In their calculation section ❶ subsections , 1,2,3 and 4 , Hyos

ΣM'2, ΣM'3 and ΣM'4 to represent moments due to wind loads
wind loads on cross arms (per face), Wire loads in transverse
loads in longitudnal direction respectively. Sum of all these lo
ΣP'1 ,ΣP'2, ΣP'3, and ΣP'4 (loads per face) respectively. All ar
to get moments and loads per tower and indicated as ΣM1, Σ
ΣP1,ΣP2, ΣP3, and ΣP4 respectively.
2-Moment for Bracing Forces (MB)
Moment about "C" Point is ZERO
Mp = external load x Σ(Hn-h).
two terms. External loads are indicated by HT and HTA for w
cross arm respectively. Also Hc indicates load of conductor (
if applicable). Hn is the height of the load above point "B", an
point "C" above point "B".

In their calculation section ❽ subsections 1 and 2, external lo

P4 and moments ΣP1,ΣP2, ΣP3, and ΣP4 respectively.

Each member length (true) is computed from the basic inputs

of tower leg anf height of point "B", shown as I. These are us
member stress and should have been computed upfront. He
 Sheet 4 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

this calculation in a wrong order. I am keeping it at the same

confusion.

True length of Leg and Bracing are indicated by G & H re

the vertical height of Point "B" above base line. C is the
on base from the vertical at point "B" and a line D, projec
in the plane of the frame of the leg extension. F is the pro
to the base, in a direction along the diagonal of tower at
Definition of A, B and E are obvious from the inspection

NOTE: Hyosung has used symbols in the theory section

from those in their calculation section. I have not change
had to change H to h-Hn in the formula at section ❺ sub
in keeping with the Hyosung notation for the case of bra
❺-Forces in each member:
NOTE: Equations given in this section are GENERIC in nature, but are detailed in the verification part. Mp Should also inc
not mention it) moment due to unbalanced vertical load of conductors & wires. For example if these are not located symetr
a net unbalanced Transverse moment. This moment will get added to the transverse moment.
 Sheet 5 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
① For POST or LEG: ( LEG or POST refere to the main members of the tower body, while BRACING refers to all o
Þ T, the stress in a POST or LEG produced due to transverse loads is computed by equation below:

T
 M  HT  0.2HTA  Hc  X  G   G  accounts for
 
   I  leg slopes
4A I 
The RHS fraction is in an informal notation, and can be formally represented by: MB G
T 
M B   M1   M 2   M 3
into 3 parts as given below: 4A I
Where:(a)
 M  2 M  2 HT  Hn Sum of all moments of Tower Wind Loads
1
'
1

(b)
 P  2 P  2 HT Sum of all tower wind loads
1 1
'

and (c)
 M  2 M  2 0.2HTA  Hn Sum of all moments due to wind loads at cross arms
2
'
2

(d)  P  2 P  2 HTA Sum of all wind loads on cross arms

2 2
'
members to the area enclose

and (e)
 M   M   Hc  Hn Sum of all moments due to transverse loads at ground wire and cond
3
'
3

(f)
 P   Hc Sum of all transverse loads on ground wire and conductors
3

Þ W, the stress in a POST or LEG produced due to vertical loads is computed by equation below:
wc  wT  G 
W x  wc is the sum weight of all
4 I 
conductors and ground wires.
 G accounts for wT is the weight of tower
 
 I leg slopes
See also their detailed calculation item ❼-③
Þ L, the stress in a POST or LEG produced due to Longitudnal loads is computed by equation below:

 M ( PULL) X  G  PULL is the longitudnal load and to

  obtain a moment it is multiplied by  G  accounts for
4A I   
relevant distance to point "B"  I  leg slopes
See also their detailed calculation item ❼-②

Following table combines these components for each numbered leg:

Force in each numbered LEG
Leg # 1 4 7 10
 Sheet 6 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
Force -T-L+W +T-L+W +T+L+W -T+L+W
②For BRACING:
Hyosung give the two formulae showing H as the lever arm, while in calculation section ❽ subsection 2 they correctly use
So I have corrected it below:
Þ C , the stress in a BRACING due to Transvers loads is computed by equation below:
T

M C H Where
CT  M C    HT   H n  h    0.2  HTA   H n  h      HC   H n  h  
4h B
Þ C , the stress in a BRACING due to Transvers loads is computed
L

by equation below:
 
  P  H n  h  H Again the formula has been
CL   corrected to use Hn-h
4h B instead of H used by
Hyosung. It is assumed that vertical loads do not induce force in
BRACING. The derivation of the formulae for CT and CL has been
attempted below, and I did find a contradiction in assumptions.
Reference may be made to the diagram below:
 Sheet 7 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
3-POSSIBLE DERIVATION (PLANE FRAME)
The discussion assumes that the plain frame shown, lies in the
in the plane of paper, which actually passes through the centre
line of the tower. Thus the LEGS do not slope in a direction out of
the plain of paper, and length of bracing shown as H' is the
projection of its true length of brace H on to the plain of the paper.
assumption that is WRONG but seems to have been made by
Hyosung as will be clear from the discussion. I am only
considering transverse case, but the argument is easly extendable
to the longitudnal case.

① For POST or LEG:

MC
2T  h  as the other leg will also balance the moments
2A
MC MC is the sum of all moments about point C
Therefore T 
4 Ah
②For BRACING:
If CT is the stress in the bracing, and M'B is the moment per face
about "C" (and this hould be equated to zero)

M B' and
CT  h1  as the other brace will also balance the moments
2
M and h1  h  cos  and cos   B
M B'  B H'
2 Please note that length H' I less than
the true length H, by a factor determined by slope and Height.
and Q = Q as one can from basic geometrical theorems of Euclid.
Combining all these equations:
M 1 M H' I have redesignated
CT  B   B      (1) H' instead of
22 h B 4h B
Hyosung's H.
H'
NOTE 1: Hyosung has replaced this H' with Correct H, which
partly compensates the error. The other Part of the error
is using h measured along the tower centre line. This
has been considered in my

NOTE 2: Above two equations for CT and CL compute the lever arm by subtracting algebrically h- height to point "C" from
load from point "B", for each load. In their calcultion (solved example below section ❽- ① and ❽- ②), a weghted
 Sheet 8 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
been taken as a shortcut calculation. One can easily follow the logic as below for example concerning numerato

  Pn  H n 
  Pn   H n  h     Pn  H n  h  Pn   Pn  h
 P 
 n 
Again Hyosung have used inconsistant symbols. In keeping with symbols in methodology CT and CL should ha
But they did probably to keep a distinction and clarity for tabulation of member forces, lest the two tables are not

Following table shows forces for each numbered BRACING with approperiate sign:
Force in each numbered BRACINGS
Leg # 2 3 5 6 8 9 11
Force +CT +CL -CT +CL -CT -CL +CT
The sign are based on the fact that Transverse loads are acting from left to right and longitudnal loads
are acting into the paper.
 Sheet 9 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
4-POSSIBLE DERIVATION (3-D FRAME)
 Sheet 10 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

The Hyosung figure is shown in black color. Here I have renamed Points "C" and "B" as "C0"and "B0" respectively. Also I h
dimensions A, B H and I as A', B' H' and I' respectively. Q has been renamed a Q'. Also dimensions h and h1 have been re
The tower frame below lowest cros arm has been shown tilted and at an angle a between the white centre line of the tilted
line of the Hyosung frame. This angle is usually of the order of 4-6 degrees, but in order to derive expressions for the tilted
this angle. But it creates a difficulty in accurately represent the point C'- where all the four legs of the frame meet, that still l
line (only a little lower to keep the dimensions A and B equal to A' and B' respectively. The centre line shown in white color
become longer by a factor of 1/cos a. Please do imagine that the point "C'" and "C", still lie at the same position. I apologis
I could not manage things in a 3-D drawing. It reminds me of the difficulty Einstein faced in making 4-D drawings and he ha
called thought experiments via drawings that resembled, in difficulty, to my drawing. So you see I am in Einsteins boots, tho
too big for me as I am stuck in the third dimension, yet if it aids your imagination, I don't mind in walking in them.

So in this thought experiment, I have the following relationships:

1 1
h  h' ------(2) I I' ------(3) H  I 2  B 2 ----(4)
cos  cos 
B
h1  h cos  ------(5) cos   -----(6)
H
2
 1 
Combining equations 3 and 4 H  I '   B ----(7)
2

 cos  

Considering equilibrium of moments in the tilted frame: MB Using value of h1 from equat
CT  h1  ---(8)
4
B MB MBH
from equation 6 into equation 8 CT  h  ---(9) Which gives CT  ---(10
H 4 4hB
You may note that this equation (10) is very similar to Heyosung equation (1 above), except that value of H' is taken equal
equation 7 above, and value of h is taken from equation 2. As MB has an h multiplied inside it, even that that need to be am
Thus the new equation can be written as: Using this equation and us
2 2
MB  1   1 
 B  B
2 2 example the value of stress
I ' MB  I '
cos   cos    cos   approximately same. My fig
CT  cos = ---(11)
4h ' B 4h ' B
 Sheet 11 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
Similar equation can be assumed for CL just by replacing the value of MB computed with longitudnal loads.

2
 1 
 B
2
M BL I'
 cos  
CL  ---(12)
4h ' B
NOTE 1: One additional effect of Longitudnal load acting on tip of the cross arm is TORSION on the tower body. Hyosung
it as well. I have given some more details in a subsequent paragraph or two.
NOTE 2: Even for the stresses in LEGs moment has to be amplified as above. But I will provide that in the template.

❻-Actual lengths of Members and "Corner" Factors

Hyosung did not include calculation of actual length of members in "Methodology", but is obvious from their calc
that they probably cut and pasted as TABLE 1 from some spreadsheet. I have "reverse-engineered" the formula
Þ calculation of actual length of members:
INPUT A Half length of horizontal Member at top of the LEG EXTNSION part
TAN α Sigle slope of tower Main LEG
I Height of the LEG EXTENSION
EYE Not one
OUTPUT α TAN 1
COS α
C I  TAN
I
D
COS
B A+C
F

G I2  F2
E B2  C 2
H I 2  E2
A
h
TAN 
Þ calculation of "Corner" Factors
Hyosung Serial #6 in "Methodology"
Member Vertical Transverse Longitudnal Member Vertical
Number Number
1 I/G -C/G -C/G 7 I/G
2 I/H -B/H -C/H 8 I/H
3 I/H -C/H -B/H 9 I/H
 Sheet 12 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
4 I/G C/G -C/G 10 I/G
5 I/H B/H -C/H 11 I/H
6 I/H C/H -B/H 12 I/H

5-DERIVATION OF "CORNER" FACTORS

The derivation of these factors require concepts of 3-D geometry. Force in LEG or BRACE are decomposed into three orth
Here is the diagram for LEG only:
 Sheet 13 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

Symbols used have new meanings for this diagram only. T is the force in the main leg (direction only typical). UT is the vert
this force. HT and HL are horizontal component in the transverse and longitudnal components respectively. I, G, D, A, B, C
lengths as shown.

And here is the diagram for BRACE only.

 Sheet 14 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

NOTE: I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ATTACH SIGNS TO THE COMPONENTS OF STRESSES IN THE
LEG OR BRACE. MAY BE I NEED TO THINK ANOTHER TIME.

6-EFFECT OF TORTION ON BRACINGS

Hyosung has not given a methodology to find out axial force in bracings due to tortion. It is customary to design bracings fo
ignore tortion for LEGS. I MYSELF HAS NEVER DONE THIS EXERCISE. In fact the first time I realised its effect was whe
saw KEMCO designs, back in 1983.

In the second solved example of Hyosung, they have taken axial force for the bracing as 1805.2. It has been probably read
where it appears, with the indication that this force has the same formula as for lateral or longitudnal loads. I tried many po
their second set of computations, that I found bundled with tower design methodology, as a figure of 1805.2. It seems they
transverse or Longitudnal loads, but not taking its effect on stresses in LEGs. I tried to compute it as follows:
4960 kg Pull x 7.00 m
  1518.166 that is nearly 1518.2
2 x (2 x 2.8587122)
So it matched with their of 1518.2 as in their solved example. CARPENTEIR's book mentioned next on it's page 108, also
totion (converted to force X and Y- Transverse and longitudnal instead of the transverse or longitudnal in the formula :
M M
f   Where  is the angle that the diagonal makes with the horizontal.
2 2.h.cos 
 Sheet 15 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
7-FURTHER DISCOURSE ON TORTION
Here are some thoughts on TORTION as discussed by H. CARPENTIER in his book (French Language) LIGNES ÉLECTR
In case of broken wire condition, the tower body is subject
to a tortion at the level of the cross arm on which the wire
is broken.

Shear Forces:
Two cases have to be considered. One without and the
other with one or more beam elements (by adding
diagonols to the centre of the tower at the level of cross
arm). If there is no diagonal, nodes A, B, C and D, are
assumed to be flexible (pin jointed) and the shear
force F is not transmitted to the face CD. The system
is statically determinate and decomposition of force is
obvious, with the result:
1-In face AB a force F is acting.
2-In face BC and AD, forces q are acting. Thus:

In reality, frame ABCD does exist and posseses a certain

rigidity, so that face CD participates with with the face AB,
This involves work done by the TORTION on face AB, such
that there is a reduction in the work done on faces BC and
AD.

In the second case, rigidity of the frame is ensured by one or more diagonals.
The system is not statically determinate. Each diagonal introduces a static
indeterminacy. It is required to use elastic deformation of the frame in the
equation. In order to resolve this. following hypothesis is used (See fig. 43 above):
1- The TORTION moment tends to rotate the frame ABCD about the axis of the
tower passing through point O.
2- The frame ABCD does not suffer any deformation.
3- The displacement in the braces is very small as compared to the two forces
in these members.

M. Bachet has established a method of calculation approach which leads to

acceptance of the statement that the TORTION really speaking does not act
on main members of the tower body. See Fig. 44 on the right.
In such a condition, the forces X and Y act parallel on the faces of the beam
(horizontal member) and are related as per equation:
bX  aY -------(XI)
 Sheet 16 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C bX  aY
D -------(XI)
E F G H I
This seems to be the assumption made by M. Bachet.

And the displacements as per b   x  a   y ------(XII)

This seems to be another assumption made by M. Bachet.
We obtain: M
X
2b (XIII)
M
Y
2a

The missing step is that:

M and therefore equation XIII
 Xb  Ya
2 follows from this missing step.
Equation XII does seem to be used
at all in the discussion.
M represents TORTION MOMENT = F.L

We normally use square towers and so a = b.

Equation XIII would become:
M
X Y  --------(XIIIa)
2a
This relationship is also supported by McCombe (OVERHEAD LINE
PRACTICE-MACDONALD LONDON- 1949). Please refere to his
his Fig. 55, shown here:

These shear forces are because of tortion only and are to be added to
those resulting from bending. The forgoing assumes that the dimensions
a, b (at the level of the external force- i. e. at the cross arm), to a', b'
at the level of the bracing, have a consistant relationship:
a' a That is to say the tower leg slope
 ---(XIIIb) does not change in between.
b' b
If such relationship is not held, average values instead would be
sufficiently accurate.

Please refere to his diagram FIG. 45, redrawn by me

(with slight modification to fit the case under consideration) below:
Consider first tower with 4-streight legs that converge to a single
theoretical vertex.CARPENTIER reasoning applies to his original diagram
shown below refrawn from Fig. 45 of the book.
 Sheet 17 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

By considering a section mn through the middle

calculated, we will get:
X  f sin   2 f 'sin  ----
In the relation f is the only unkown.
frames obtained by considering the plan under s
subjected to the only force only X, that is to say:
Xh
f ' .....(XV) here cos changes
a 'cos 
from Vertical to LE

The shear force W in the face can be written as:

 2
W  X  2 f ' sin   f  sin   X 1 
 a
There is a missing step here- We use eq. XV w

Xh
W  X  2 f ' sin   X  2   sin 
a ' cos 

After transformation of the above equation (a) a

the equation XIII above, we get:
a b M
W X  X  ------(XVI
a' b' 2b '
Again something is missing. Let us see:
I do not understand why he drew the line a'cosβ
a slight modification and deduce his equation (X

Equation (a) can be written as:

 2 
W  X 1  h  tan   ----(b)
 a' 

A perview of my slight modified diagram indicates:

 Sheet 18 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

a ' a
h  tan  
2
Substituting this in equation b, we get:
 2 a ' a   a ' a  a
W  X 1  =X 1   X  a '  ---(c)
 a ' 2   a ' 

Substituting the value of X from equation (XIII) we get:

M a Now taking into account equation XIIIb we get:

W
2b a '
M b M
W 
2b b ' 2b '

Remembering that M here is equal to F. L Which is tortion moment.

The shear forces in the two faces of the rectangle at the section will be:
M M
W1  and W2  -----(XVII)
2b ' 2a '

Verifying well the equation of equilibrium: b 'W1  a 'W2  M

From these reduced shears, we can at once deduce the forces applied
to the diagonals of the two faces :

W1 W2
f1  and f 21  ------(XVIII)
sin 1 sin  2
 Sheet 19 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
Now applying the above argument to the K-brace instead of the single diagonal, refering to my MODIFIED FIG 45 below:

X  2 f sin   2 f 'sin  -----(XIV-1) Multipl

because there are
Xh
f ' .....(XV-1) Division by 2 becau
2a 'cos 
there are two brace

 2  h  sin
W  X  2 f ' sin   2 f  sin   X 1 
 a ' cos

a b M
W X  X  ------(XVI-1)
a' b' 2b '
Remembering that M here is equal to F. L Which
M M
W1  and W2  -----(XVII-1)
2b ' 2a '

W1 W2
f1  and f 2  ------(XVI
2 sin 1 2sin  2

Hyosung mentioned in their second solved example, AND have listed under heading "axial force IN BRACE" resulting from
While their official print out gives this figure at 1805. This tells that they computed this figure anew and did not take from th
this is not the axial force but TORTION. I computed and verified this as follows: M 34,7

Length of X-Arm from CL of tower
Longitudnal force
L
F
7m
4,960 kg
Tortion (force) =

2  2 B 2  2  2.
Tortion (moment) M=Q 34,720 kg.m Q
Tower base width at GL 2B 2x2.85871 m

2
= 5.71742 m
Their official printout, of course does point to a method as follows:

The full page is shown on the right in the non printing area.
 Sheet 20 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
On my TELEX Enquiry (Dated 03-10-1987, refered to by them in their three supplimentory calculation sheets, repro
area just opposite Fig 45 above) they have given a computation, that I have tried to describe below in "HYOSUNG

8-HYOSUNG TORQUE COMPUTATION

Please refer to the calculations just below Fig. 45 above and diagrams below:

M = PULL X LENGTH OF CROSS-ARM

Q 2B is the base width of tower (see diagram on right)
2 is the Torque force computed above as 1518.17

Color coding shows correspondance of Torque shears with torque moments

HYOSUNG did not show this correspondance.

9-VERIFICATION
Following is the verification of Hyosung long hand calculation. It will help understand the methodology. Hyosung only gave
theoretical part, but more items are needed. In fact I have supplimented the methodology with additional items taking hint f
Where possible I use item numbers corresponding to above methodology. Tower weights and wind on tower are picked up
diagram, which is the standard way all Korean designers use. I have added text boxes explaing the calculation of loads.

Some descrepensies have been noted. I have continued with calculations using Hyosung figures so that the results can be
I have also computed, using corrected figures, so that my spreadsheet design can be verified. I have also compared the ou
Official printout, just for acedamic interest.
 Sheet 21 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
CASE 1- ALL WIRES IN TACT- WIND LOAD PRESENT

Tower Weight is given as Wind on tower panels is split into

cumulated at each level.
two parts. Half acting on top of
the panel, while other half is
applied at bottom of it, which is
added to the half load the next
panel.

Wind on arm is given

as a load on gross
area enclosed by it's
main members. A
factor of 0.2 is applied
during calculations to
account for the
"empty space". Wind
loads are then
divided by 2 to get
the loads per face.
 Sheet 22 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

❶-Calculation of Moments:
①-Moments for POSTS due to WIND on TOWER about point "B"

Per Face Per Face

Wind Loa Hn Moment
kg m kg.m
88 41.20 3625.60
135 35.35 4772.25
109 33.70 3673.30
98 31.90 3126.20
97 30.10 2919.70
108 28.35 3061.80
132 26.70 3524.40 TOTAL LOAD DUE TO WIND
119 24.90 2963.10 ON TWO FACES OF TOWER
118 23.10 2725.80 SP1 2 x 2949 5898 kg
130 21.35 2775.50 Agrees with hyosung
147 19.70 2895.90 TOTAL MOMENT DUE TO WIND
193 18.00 3474.00 ON TWO FACES OF TOWER
263 14.60 3839.80 SM1 2 x 50166 100332 kg.m
268 11.30 3028.40 Agrees with hyosung
340 8.00 2720.00
325 3.20 1040.00
279 0.00 0.00
2949 50166.0
SP'1 SM'1

②-Moment due to WIND on X-ARMS about point "B"

Per Face Per Face

Wind Loa Hn Moment
kg m kg.m
88 35.35 3110.80 TOTAL LOAD DUE TO WIND ON TWO FACES OF TOWER
220 33.70 7414.00 SP2 2 X (0.2 X 924) 369.6 kg
88 28.35 2494.80 Agrees with Hyosung computation
220 26.70 5874.00 TOTAL MOMENT DUE TO WIND ON TWO FACES OF TOWER
88 21.35 1878.80 SM2 2 X (.2 X 25106.40) 10043 kg.m
220 19.70 4334.00 Agrees with Hyosung computation
924 25106.40
SP'2 SM'2
 Sheet 23 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

③-Moment due to TRANSVERSE load on EW & CONDUCTORS about point "B"

Wire/ Per Tower Per Tower

Cond Wind Load Hn Moment
kg m kg.m
GW 883 41.20 36379.60
C1 2562 33.70 86339.40
C2 2562 26.70 68405.40
C3 2562 19.70 50471.40
C4 2562 33.70 86339.40
C5 2562 26.70 68405.40
C6 2562 19.70 50471.40
16255 446812 Agrees with Hyosung computation
SP3 SM'3

④-Moment due to LONGITUDNAL loads on EW & CONDUCTORS about point "B"

Wire/ Per Tower Per Tower

Cond Wire Pull Hn Moment
kg m kg.m
GW 0 41.20 0.00
C1 0 33.70 0.00
C2 0 26.70 0.00
C3 0 19.70 0.00
C4 0 33.70 0.00
C5 0 26.70 0.00
C6 0 19.70 0.00
0 0 Agrees with Hyosung computation
SP4 SM4

❺- VERTICAL due to TOWER, EW & CONDUCTORS weights

Per LEG:
Tower Weight 3,045 kg Hyosung's Figure from actual loading sheet
EW & COND 7,621 kg GW 1263 I have taken the weight
10,666 kg C1 5008 figures from HYOSUNG
Actual 10,873 kg C2 5008 design folder sheet no:
Consideration of LEG slope(Refer to table 1 C3 5008 002 of 066-T from the
below. C4 5008 Loading Tree for case 1
 wt  wc  
G C5 5008

I = 10,721 Hyosung C6 5008
 Sheet 24 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

 w  w    MAKES THE DIFFERENCE

ENGINEERINGG Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987
t c  
A I  B C D E F G H I
10,929 Actual 31311
Per LEG: 7827.75 HYOSUNG uses 7621

❻-Actual lengths of Members

The Hyosung print out relevaent portion is reproduced below:

Below is given a verification of the calculations:

INPUT A Half length of horizontal Mwmber at top of the LEG EXTNSION part
TAN α Sigle slope of tower Main LEG
I Height of the LEG EXTENSION
EYE Not one
OUTPUT α TAN-1α
COS α
C I  TAN
I
D
COS
 Sheet 25 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
B A+C
F
𝐶√2

√(𝐼^2+F^2 )
G
 Sheet 26 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

√(𝐵^2+𝐶^2 )
E

√(I^2+E^2 )
H

h A / TAN α

❼ POST or LEG stresses due to External Loads. (Total moment at "B" point is ZERO).

❼-①- Force T due to TRANSVERSE Moment:

T
�M 1 2  3 �G �
� � = (100332 + 10042.56 + 446812)
4A �I �
(4 x 2.6428031)

= 52,980.00 kg Agrees with Hyosung value

❼-②- Force L due to LONGITUDNAL Moment:

L
�M �G �
4
� � = (0) 3.015499
4 A �I �
4 x 2.6428031 3.000000
LONGITUDNAL load being ZERO,CL is also zero.
NOTE: One effect of Longitudnal load on the tip of cross arm is TORTION on tower body, causing additional stresses in
This tortion requires addition of dagonal members horizontally in the "floor" of the cross arms inside 4 legs of the
Such effects were considered earlier by KOLON of KOREA. I don't have access to their print-out. So I am dropp

❼-③ Force W due to TOWER, EW & CONDUCTORS weights

 wt  wc  
G = 10,721

I  Agrees with Hyosung value
Using corrected data = 10,929

❽ BRACNG stresses due to External Loads. (Total moment at "C" point id ZERO).

❽- ① Force Ct due to TRANSVERSE Moment:

Relating Load (P) Height (Hn-h) Moment Pn x (Hn - h)

 100331.5 
P1 5898   36.721052   -116249 kg.m
 5898 
 Sheet 27 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

 10043 
P2 369.6   36.721052   -3530 kg.m
 369.6  -3529 kg-m

 446812 
P3 16255   36.721052   -150089 kg-m
 16255 

P1 +P2 +P3 22522.6 Total -269867 kg-m

Agrees with Hyosung
MB H
Ct  -2667 kg Agrees with Hyosung
4h B

Using corrected data and corrected formula MB -269867 kg-m

I' 3.00000
2 cos 
 1  0.99742
 B
2
MB I '
 cos  
CT  ---(11)
4h ' B CT = -2667

❽- ② Force CL due to LONGITUDNAL Moment:

LONGITUDNAL load being ZERO,CL is also zero.

❾ LEG number and LOAD Table, considering second tower slope:

Slope (corner factors) not yet multiplied.

❾-① Stresses in LEG #

1 4 7
Formula -T-L+W T-L+W T+L+W
Values -52980-0+10721 52980-0+10721 52980+0+10721
Result -42,259 63,701 63,701
corrected -52980-0+10929 52980-0+10929 52980+0+10929
Result -42,051 63,909.00 63,909

❾-② Stresses in BRACING # -Using Hyosung data

2 3 5 6 8 9 11
 Sheet 28 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
Formula +Ct +CL -Ct +CL -Ct -CL +Ct
Valus/Result -2667 0 2667 0 2667 0 -2667

❾-② Stresses in BRACING #-Using corrected data corrected formula

Valus/Result -2667 0 2667 0 2667 0 -2667

CONCLUSION: MAN LEG FORCES MATCH THE PRINT OUT WITH CORRECTED DATA. BRACING FORCES MATCH W
DATA AND HYOSUNG FORMULA. BRACING FORCES WITH CORRECTED DATA AND CORRECTED FORMULA IS ALS
APPROXIMATELY SAME.
 Sheet 29 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

❿ "Corner" Factors

Member Vertical Transverse Longitudnal Member Vertical

Number Number
1 0.994860 -0.071600 -0.071600 7 0.994860
2 0.722968 -0.688919 -0.052032 8 0.722968
3 0.722968 -0.052032 -0.688919 9 0.722968
4 0.994860 0.071600 -0.071600 10 0.994860
5 0.722968 0.688919 -0.052032 11 0.722968
6 0.722968 0.052032 -0.688919 12 0.722968

NOTE: All above "Corner Factors" Agree with Hyosung values

⓫-① FOUNDATION REACTIONS -Hyosung loads

MEMBER# LOADS CORNER FACTORS CORNER FACTORED LOADS

VERTICAL TRANSVERLONGITUD VERT TRANS LONGIT
1 -42,259 0.994860 -0.071600 -0.071600 -42,042 3,026 3,026
2 -2,667 0.722968 -0.688919 -0.052032 -1,928 1,837 139
3 0 0.722968 -0.052032 -0.688919 0 0 0
4 63,701 0.994860 0.071600 -0.071600 63,374 4,561 -4,561
5 2,667 0.722968 0.688919 -0.052032 1,928 1,837 -139
6 0 0.722968 0.052032 -0.688919 0 0 0
7 63,701 0.994860 0.071600 0.071600 63,374 4,561 4,561
8 2,667 0.722968 0.688919 0.052032 1,928 1,837 139
9 0 0.722968 0.052032 0.688919 0 0 0
10 -42,259 0.994860 -0.071600 0.071600 -42,042 3,026 -3,026
11 -2,667 0.722968 -0.688919 0.052032 -1,928 1,837 -139
12 0 0.722968 -0.052032 0.724838 0 0 0
TOTAL REACTION 42,664 22,522 0
EQUILIBRIUM CHECK :
APPLIED LOADS 42,664 22,523 0

10666X4
5898+369.6+16255

⓫-② ORTHOGONAL FOUNDATION REACTIONS-Hyosung loads & Hyosung formula

(G. L. SHEAR ??????? , TORTION 0
These are ORTHOGONAL reactions
MEMBER# MEMBER# ADDED VERTICAL TRANSVERSE LONGITUDNAL
1 1+2+3 -43,970 4,863 3,165
4 4+5+6 65,302 6,398 -4,700
7 7+8+9 65,302 6,398 4,700
 Sheet 30 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
10 10 + 11 + 12 -43,970 4,863 -3,165
EQUILIBRIUM CHECK :
TOTAL REACTION 42,664 22,522 0
APPLIED LOADS 42,664 22,523 0
NOTE: These are not part of the print out.

⓫-① FOUNDATION REACTIONS-Using corrected data BUT corrected formula

MEMBER# LOADS CORNER FACTORS CORNER FACTORED LOADS

VERTICAL TRANSVERLONGITUD VERT TRANS LONGIT
1 -42,051 0.994860 -0.071600 -0.071600 -41,835 3,011 3,011
2 -2,667 0.722968 -0.688919 -0.052032 -1,928 1,837 139
3 0 0.722968 -0.052032 -0.688919 0 0 0
4 63,909 0.994860 0.071600 -0.071600 63,581 4,576 -4,576
5 2,667 0.722968 0.688919 -0.052032 1,928 1,837 -139
6 0 0.722968 0.052032 -0.688919 0 0 0
7 63,909 0.994860 0.071600 0.071600 63,581 4,576 4,576
8 2,667 0.722968 0.688919 0.052032 1,928 1,837 139
9 0 0.722968 0.052032 0.688919 0 0 0
10 -42,051 0.994860 -0.071600 0.071600 -41,835 3,011 -3,011
11 -2,667 0.722968 -0.688919 0.052032 -1,928 1,837 -139
12 0 0.722968 -0.052032 0.724838 0 0 0
EQUILIBRIUM CHECK : TOTAL REACTION 43,492 22,522 0
APPLIED LOADS 43,491 22,523 0

10872.75X4
5898+369.6+16255

⓫-② TOTAL SHEAR FORCE FOR VERTICAL COLUMN-Using corrected data

(G. L. SHEAR ??????? , TORTION 0
These are ORTHOGONAL reactions
MEMBER# MEMBER# ADDED VERTICAL TRANSVERSE LONGITUDNAL
1 1+2+3 -43,763 4,848 3,150
4 4+5+6 65,509 6,413 -4,715
7 7+8+9 65,509 6,413 4,715
10 10 + 11 + 12 -43,763 4,848 -3,150
43,492 22,522 0

⓫-③ TOTAL SHEAR FORCE FOR INCLINED COLUMN-Hyosung loads

(G. L. SHEAR ??????? , TORTION 0
These are ORTHOGONAL reactions
 Sheet 31 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
MEMBER# IN LEG DIRECTION TRANSVERSE LONGITUDNAL
1 -42,259 1,837 139
4 63,701 1,837 -139
7 63,701 1,837 139
10 -42,259 1,837 -139
NOT LISTED BY
HYOSUNG

The difference say in LEG#7 force is (63909-63701)/63909 = 0.325% NOT MUCH

 Sheet 32 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
⓫-③ TOTAL SHEAR FORCE FOR INCLINED COLUMN-Using corrected data
(G. L. SHEAR ??????? , TORTION 0
These are ORTHOGONAL reactions
MEMBER# VERTICAL TRANSVERSE LONGITUDNAL
1 -42,051 1,837 139
4 63,909 1,837 -139
7 63,909 1,837 139
10 -42,051 1,837 -139
NOT LISTED BY
HYOSUNG

Corresponding table in official print out of tower calc.is reproduced below and obviously the results match:

There is no difference in force of say LEG # 7.

Corresponding table in official print out of foundation reactions is reproduced below. You can observe that Shear forces agr
Uplift and compression DO NOT.

COMMENTS: So far I have followed perfactly all the steps in Hyosung's manual calculation. Corrected data, with
exactly the results given in their print out for inclined leg loads (Sh. 049). But the print out sheet 050 gives COMP. and UPL
than the those printed in Sh. 049, persistantly in all load cases and in all tower types.

Another thing that bothers me is that logic would suggest that the axial force in LEGs should always be a higher figure that
direction, as it is the leg that communicates with the soil to produce the reaction. But it is just the reverse here. Please see

MORAL of the story is neither result matches fully with their print out. And that there is a apparent descripency in
sheets, So what cannot be cured must be endured. And beggers are not choosers.
 Sheet 33 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

CASE 2- EARTH WIRE & CONDUCTOR TOP LEFT ARM BROKEN- NO WIND

Tower Weight is given as

cumulated at each level.

WIND LOAD
NOT
APPLICABLE
.
 Sheet 34 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

❶-Calculation of Moments:
①-Moments for POSTS due to WIND on TOWER about point "B"

Per Face Per Face TOTAL LOAD DUE TO WIND ON TWO FACES OF TOWER
Wind Loa Hn Moment SP1 2x0 0 kg
kg m kg.m Agrees with hyosung
0 41.20 0.00
0 0.0 TOTAL MOMENT DUE TO WIND ON TWO FACES OF TOWER
SP'1 SM'1 SM1 2x0 0 kg.m
Agrees with hyosung
 Sheet 35 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

②-Moment due to WIND on X-ARMS about point "B"

Per Face Per Face TOTAL LOAD DUE TO WIND ON TWO FACES OF TOWER
Wind Loa Hn Moment SP2 2x0 0 kg
kg m kg.m Agrees with Hyosung computation
0 35.35 0.00 TOTAL MOMENT DUE TO WIND ON TWO FACES OF TOWER
0 0.00 SM2 2x0 0 kg.m
SP'2 SM'2 Agrees with Hyosung computation

③-Moment due to TRANSVERSE load on EW & CONDUCTORS about point "B"

Wire/ Per Tower Per Tower

Cond Wind Load Hn Moment
kg m kg.m
GW 137 41.20 5644.40
C1 433 33.70 14592.10
C2 865 26.70 23095.50
C3 865 19.70 17040.50
C4 865 33.70 29150.50
C5 865 26.70 23095.50
C6 865 19.70 17040.50
4895 129659 Agrees with Hyosung computation
SP3 SM'3

④-Moment due to LONGITUDNAL loads on EW & CONDUCTORS about point "B"

Wire/ Per Tower Per Tower

Cond Wire Pull Hn Moment
kg m kg.m
GW 3150 41.20 129780
C1 4960 33.70 167152
C2 0 26.70 0.00
C3 0 19.70 0.00
C4 0 33.70 0.00
C5 0 26.70 0.00
C6 0 19.70 0.00
8110 296932 Agrees with Hyosung computation
SP4 SM4

❺- VERTICAL due to TOWER, EW & CONDUCTORS weights

 Sheet 36 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
Per LEG:
Tower Weight 3,045 kg Hyosung's Figure from actual loading sheet
EW & COND 6,917 kg GW 636 I have taken the weight
9,962 kg C1 2749 figures from HYOSUNG
Actual 10,151 kg C2 5008 design folder sheet no:
Consideration of LEG slope(Refer to table 1 C3 5008 002 of 066-T from the
below. C4 5008 Loading Tree for case 1

 wt  wc  
G C5 5008

I = 10,013 Hyosung C6 5008
10,204 Actual 28425
Per LEG: 7106.25 HYOSUNG uses 6916.5

❻-Actual lengths of Members

The Hyosung print out relevaent portion is reproduced below:

Below is given a verification of the calculations:

INPUT A Half length of horizontal Mwmber at top of the LEG EXTNSION part
 Sheet 37 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
TAN α Sigle slope of tower Main LEG
I Height of the LEG EXTENSION
EYE Not one
OUTPUT α TAN-1α
COS α
C I  TAN
D
B A+C
F 𝐶√2

G √(𝐼^2+F^2 )

E √(𝐵^2+𝐶^2 )

H √(I^2+E^2 )

h A / TAN α
 Sheet 38 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
❼ POST or LEG stresses due to External Loads. (Total moment at "B" point is ZERO).

❼-①- Force T due to TRANSVERSE Moment:

T
�M 1 2  3 �G �
= (0 + 0 + 129659)
� �
4A �I � 4 x 2.6428031)

= 12,329.00 kg Agrees with Hyosung value

❼-②- Force L due to LONGITUDNAL Moment:

L
�M �G �
4
= 296932 3.015499
� �
4 A �I � 4 x 2.6428031 3.000000
= 28234 kg Agrees with Hyosung value
NOTE: One effect of Longitudnal load on the tip of cross arm is TORTION on tower body, causing additional stresses in
This tortion requires addition of dagonal members horizontally in the "floor" of the cross arms inside 4 legs of the
Such effects were considered earlier by KOLON of KOREA. I don't have access to their print-out. But I did deriv
based on CARPENTIER book.

❼-③ Force W due to TOWER, EW & CONDUCTORS weights

 wt  wc  
G = 10,013

I 
Using corrected data = 10,204

❽ BRACNG stresses due to External Loads. (Total moment at "C" point id ZERO).

❽- ① Force Ct due to TRANSVERSE Moment:

Relating Load (P) Height (Hn-h) Moment Pn x (Hn - h)

P1 0 0 0 kg.m

P2 0 0
0 kg-m

129659
� �
�  36.721052 �
�4895 �
 Sheet 39 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C 129659
�D E �F G H I
�  36.721052 �
P3 4895 �4895 � -50091 kg-m

P1 +P2 +P3 4895 Total -50091 kg-m

Agrees with Hyosung
MB H 50091 x 4.1495605
Ct  -495 kg
4h B 4 x 36.921052 x 2.8589122

Using corrected data and corrected formula MB -50091 kg-m

I' 3.00000
2 cos  0.99742
 1 
 B
2
MB I '
 cos  
CT  ---(11)
4h ' B CT = -495

❽- ② Force CL due to LONGITUDNAL Moment:

Moment for CL 8110 x ( 296932 - 36.7211 )

8110
CL -876 x 4.1495605
4 x 36.7210521 x 2.8587122

❾ LEG number and LOAD Table, considering second tower slope:

Slope (corner factors) not yet multiplied.

❾-① Stresses in LEG #

1 4 7
Formula -T-L+W T-L+W T+L+W
Values -12329-28234+10013 12329-28234+10013 12329+28234+10013
Result -30,550 -5,892 50,576
corrected -12329-28234+10204 12329-28234+10204 12329+28234+10204
Result -30,359 (5,701.00) 50,767

❾-② Stresses in BRACING # -Using Hyosung data

2 3 5 6 8 9 11
Formula +Ct +CL -Ct +CL -Ct -CL +Ct
Valus/Result -495 -9 495 -9 495 9 -495

❾-② Stresses in BRACING #-Using corrected data corrected formula

 Sheet 40 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
Valus/Result -495 -9 495 -9 495 9 -495

CONCLUSION: MAN LEG FORCES MATCH THE PRINT OUT WITH CORRECTED DATA. BRACING FORCES MATCH W
DATA AND HYOSUNG FORMULA. BRACING FORCES WITH CORRECTED DATA AND CORRECTED FORMULA IS ALS
APPROXIMATELY SAME.

❿ "Corner" Factors

Member Vertical Transverse Longitudnal Member Vertical

Number Number
1 0.994860 -0.071600 -0.071600 7 0.994860
2 0.722968 -0.688919 -0.052032 8 0.722968
3 0.722968 -0.052032 -0.688919 9 0.722968
4 0.994860 0.071600 -0.071600 10 0.994860
5 0.722968 0.688919 -0.052032 11 0.722968
6 0.722968 0.052032 -0.688919 12 0.722968

NOTE: All above "Corner Factors" Agree with Hyosung values

 Sheet 41 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

⓫-⓿ COMPUTATION OF TORTION

M M a' = b' 5.28561 m

W1  and W2  -----(XVII-1)
2b ' 2a ' sin α1=sin α2 D/H
F 4960 kg
L 7m
W1 W2
f1  and f 2  ------(XVIII-1) M 34720 kg-m
2sin 1 2 sin  2 W1=W2 3284.39 kg
f1 =f2 2265.6 kg
If 2B was used instead of 2a', we would get W1 =3036.33223 W/2 1642.2
f1 = 2094.49004
W/2 1518.2 This is the value given by Hyosung printout.

⓫-① FOUNDATION REACTIONS -Hyosung loads

MEMBER# LOADS CORNER FACTORS CORNER FACTORED LOADS

VERTICAL TRANSVERLONGITUD VERT TRANS LONGIT
1 -30,550 0.994860 -0.071600 -0.071600 -30,393 2,187 2,187
2 -495 0.722968 -0.688919 -0.052032 -358 341 26
3 -9 0.722968 -0.052032 -0.688919 -7 0 6
4 -5,892 0.994860 0.071600 -0.071600 -5,862 -422 422
5 495 0.722968 0.688919 -0.052032 358 341 -26
6 -9 0.722968 0.052032 -0.688919 -7 0 6
7 50,576 0.994860 0.071600 0.071600 50,316 3,621 3,621
8 495 0.722968 0.688919 0.052032 358 341 26
9 9 0.722968 0.052032 0.688919 7 0 6
10 25,918 0.994860 -0.071600 0.071600 25,785 -1,856 1,856
11 -495 0.722968 -0.688919 0.052032 -358 341 -26
12 9 0.722968 -0.052032 0.724838 7 0 7
TOTAL REACTION 39,846 4,894 8,111
EQUILIBRIUM CHECK :
APPLIED LOADS 39,846 4,895 8110

9961.5X4
0+0+4895

⓫-② ORTHOGONAL FOUNDATION REACTIONS-Hyosung loads

(G. L. SHEAR ??????? , TORTION 1518.2
These are ORTHOGONAL reactions
MEMBER# MEMBER# ADDED VERTICAL TRANSVERSE LONGITUDNAL
1 1+2+3 -30,758 4,046 3,737
4 4+5+6 -5,511 1,437 1,920
 Sheet 42 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
7 7+8+9 50,681 5,480 5,171
10 10 + 11 + 12 25,434 3 3,355
EQUILIBRIUM CHECK :
TOTAL REACTION 39,846 10,967 14,184
APPLIED LOADS 39,846 11,464 14,679
NOTE: These are not part of the print out.

⓫-① FOUNDATION REACTIONS-Using corrected data AND corrected formula

MEMBER# LOADS CORNER FACTORS CORNER FACTORED LOADS

VERTICAL TRANSVERLONGITUD VERT TRANS LONGIT
1 -30,359 0.994860 -0.071600 -0.071600 -30,203 2,174 2,174
2 -495 0.722968 -0.688919 -0.052032 -358 341 26
3 -9 0.722968 -0.052032 -0.688919 -7 0 6
4 -5,701 0.994860 0.071600 -0.071600 -5,672 -408 408
5 495 0.722968 0.688919 -0.052032 358 341 -26
6 -9 0.722968 0.052032 -0.688919 -7 0 6
7 50,767 0.994860 0.071600 0.071600 50,506 3,635 3,635
8 495 0.722968 0.688919 0.052032 358 341 26
9 9 0.722968 0.052032 0.688919 7 0 6
10 26,109 0.994860 -0.071600 0.071600 25,975 -1,869 1,869
11 -495 0.722968 -0.688919 0.052032 -358 341 -26
12 9 0.722968 -0.052032 0.724838 7 0 7
EQUILIBRIUM CHECK : TOTAL REACTION 40,606 4,896 8,111
APPLIED LOADS 40,605 4,895 8110

10151.25X4 0+0+4895

⓫-② TOTAL SHEAR FORCE FOR VERTICAL COLUMN-Using corrected data

(G. L. SHEAR ??????? , TORTION 1518.2
These are ORTHOGONAL reactions
MEMBER# MEMBER# ADDED VERTICAL TRANSVERSE LONGITUDNAL
1 1+2+3 -30,568 4,157 2,206
4 4+5+6 -5,321 1,575 388
7 7+8+9 50,871 5,618 3,667
10 10 + 11 + 12 25,624 114 1,850
40,606 11,465 8,111

⓫-③ TOTAL SHEAR FORCE FOR INCLINED COLUMN-Hyosung loads

(G. L. SHEAR ??????? , TORTION 1518.2
 Sheet 43 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
DETAILED COMPUTATION
Transverse/Longitudnal Loads of Leg#2 & 3 ± Q/2-HYOSUNG missed the menstion of Leg #3

LEG#1 TORTION DIRECTION

Trance: 341 + 0 - 1518.2 = -1,177 kg
Long. 26 + 6 + 1518.2 = 1,550 kg
Resul. SQRT(1177.2^2 + 1550.2^2) = 1947 kg
HYOSUNG Value Resultant 1946 kg

TORTION DIRECTION
Trance: 341 + 0 + 1518.2 = 1,859 kg
Long. 26 + 6 - 1518.2 = -1,486 kg
Resul. SQRT(1859.2^2 + 1486.2^2) = 2380 kg Worst Case
HYOSUNG Value Resultant 2381 kg

Transverse/Longitudnal Loads of Leg#5 & 6 ± Q/2-HYOSUNG seem to have missed this line

LEG#4 TORTION DIRECTION

Trance: 341 + 0 - 1518.2 = -1,177 kg
Long. -26 + 6 - 1518.2 = -1,538 kg
Resul. SQRT(1177.2^2 + 1538.2^2) = 1937 kg
HYOSUNG Value Resultant 1937 kg

TORTION DIRECTION
Trance: 341 + 0 + 1518.2 = 1,859 kg
Long. -26 + 6 + 1518.2 = 1,498 kg
Resul. SQRT(1859.2^2 + 1498.2^2) = 2388 kg Worst Case
HYOSUNG Value Resultant 2387 kg
HYOSUNG seem to have given page 3 as an exact copy of page 2. Actually this page should relate LEGS
 Sheet 44 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

Transverse/Longitudnal Loads of Leg#8 & 9 ± Q/2

LEG#7 TORTION DIRECTION

Trance: 341 + 0 + 1518.2 = 1,859 kg
Long. 26 + 6 - 1518.2 = -1,486 kg
Resul. SQRT(1859.2^2 + 1486.2^2) = 2380 kg Worst Case

TORTION DIRECTION
Trance: 341 + 0 - 1518.2 = -1,177 kg
Long. 26 + 6 + 1518.2 = 1,550 kg
Resul. SQRT(1177.2^2 + 1550.2^2) = 1947 kg
HYOSUNG Values (Worst) Resultant 2381 kg Computed by me
Trance: 1860 kg
Long. 1486 kg

Transverse/Longitudnal Loads of Leg#11& 12 ± Q/2

LEG#10 TORTION DIRECTION

Trance: 341 + 0 + 1518.2 = 1,859 kg
Long. -26 + 7 + 1518.2 = 1,499 kg
Resul. SQRT(1859.2^2 + 1499.2^2) = 2388 kg Worst Case

TORTION DIRECTION
Trance: 341 + 0 - 1518.2 = -1,177 kg
Long. -26 + 7 + 1518.2 = 1,499 kg
Resul. SQRT(1177.2^2 + 1499.2^2) = 1906 kg
HYOSUNG Values (Worst) Resultant 2387 kg Computed by me
Trance: 1859 kg
Long. 1498 kg

MEMBER# VERTICAL TRANSVERSE LONGITUDNAL

1 -30,550 1,859 -1,486
4 -5,892 1,859 1,498
7 50,576 1,859 -1,486
10 25,918 1,859 1,499
NOT LISTED BY
HYOSUNG

The difference say in vertical LEG#7 force with that in corrected data is (50576-50767)/50767
Forces in Leg #7 & 10 not computed by Hyosung.
 Sheet 45 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
⓫-③ TOTAL SHEAR FORCE FOR INCLINED COLUMN-Using corrected data
(G. L. SHEAR ??????? , TORTION 1518.2
These are ORTHOGONAL reactions
MEMBER# VERTICAL TRANSVERSE LONGITUDNAL
1 -30,359 1,859 -1,486
4 -5,701 1,859 1,498
7 50,767 1,859 -1,486
10 26,109 1,859 1,499
NOT LISTED BY
HYOSUNG
Forces in Leg #7 & 10 not computed by Hyosung.
 Sheet 46 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N
nts to: Engr.Abdul.Aziz@TLEngr.com
on a description of a computer program proposed
ey actually sent a representative to explain
n early eightys), all Korean companies were
g of KEMCO for quite some times. As the
the four is designed and foundation reactions,
e transverse directions.

RMAL LOADING case was the worst. For design of

nd leg forces in leg direction were assumed acting
e right reactions from 3-D analysis. But was row 20
ir chief designer, rather politely, saying that I am
ef designer told me, in private conversatin, that they
gital form. So I put him the second question-"How
promised me to send the methodolgy when he

nvert from the outputs of digital-graphical program

t another question on summing up of these
had been executed, I did not have further benefit of
signers for my querries. But I was refused, in favour of row 30
red at the supplier and inspection agencies. I was
prived to improve my knowledge and skill because of

e document, cleaned it of dust of time and tried

am giving the images of all the original 15 pages from
of my young readers. Reproduced below that are the
h of theory from me. The unfamiliar term of
e. The translation was done by Koreans themselves.
chief designer, who obviously worked row 40

phrases for pleasant talk and gaining goodwill. I have

Slope is usually expressed by Tangent of an angle,
metimes taking negative sign as well. That is to say it

yet I find it inadequate. Firstly the methodology is

scription are supplimented by the solved example. But row 50
n the methodology section were more general
 Sheet 47 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

ner. I had to introduce some

numbers in braces or have used bullets.

l loads i.e. (a) Wind load on tower and Cross-arms,

well. Force in each member, LEG or BRACE are
nal Reactions. Hyosung forgets the net moment,
a normal case they all balance each other if all row 60
res break, called a broken wire case, there will be

tension) are numbered as per sketch below.

row 70

row 80

5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12

row 90
 Sheet 48 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 100

B" point is ZERO. row 110

ad x ΣHn. Actually Σ should be outside the two
indicated by HT and HTA for wind on tower and
Hc indicates load of conductor (wind and angle load,
of the load above point "B".

subsections , 1,2,3 and 4, Hyosung used ΣM'1,

ent moments due to wind loads on tower (per face),
r face), Wire loads in transverse direction and wire
respectively. Sum of all these loads is indicated by
ds per face) respectively. All are then multiplied by 2 row 120
r tower and indicated as ΣM1, ΣM2, ΣM3, ΣM4 and

C" Point is ZERO

ad x Σ(Hn-h). Actually Σ should be outside the two
indicated by HT and HTA for wind on tower and
Hc indicates load of conductor (wind and angle load,
of the load above point "B", and h is the height of

row 130
subsections 1 and 2, external loads P1, P2 ,P3 and
P3, and ΣP4 respectively.

computed from the basic inputs A, True single slope

t "B", shown as I. These are used to compute each
ave been computed upfront. Heysung have delayed
 Sheet 49 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

der. I am keeping it at the same place, for avoiding

row 140
cing are indicated by G & H respectively. I is
"B" above base line. C is the distance projected
point "B" and a line D, projection of the vertical
the leg extension. F is the projection of G on
long the diagonal of tower at the base level.
obvious from the inspection of the diagram.

ymbols in the theory section that differ somewhat

on section. I have not changed them except I
the formula at section ❺ sub-section ②, row 150
ng notation for the case of bracing.

cation part. Mp Should also include (Hyosung did

if these are not located symetrically, there will be
 Sheet 50 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N
while BRACING refers to all other members).

accounts for
leg slopes row 160

MB (moment abot point "B" in this equation

has been split by Hyosung See also their
detailed calculation Item ❼-①

oads at cross arms Factor 0.20 is the assumed row 170

ratio of projected area of
members to the area enclosed by the outer members
of cross arms)
ads at ground wire and conductors
Ironically Hyosung have taken
these loads as "per tower"

row 180

row 190

numbered leg:
 Sheet 51 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

subsection 2 they correctly use H - hn.

row 200

row 210
 Sheet 52 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 220

row 230

row 240

row 250

ically h- height to point "C" from Hn-height of the

ion ❽- ① and ❽- ②), a weghted average has
 Sheet 53 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N
example concerning numerator of equation 5:

thodology CT and CL should have been T and L. row 260

rces, lest the two tables are not confused.

12
-CL
and longitudnal loads
 Sheet 54 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N
row 270

row 280

row 290

row 300

row 310
 Sheet 55 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

0"and "B0" respectively. Also I have renamed

ensions h and h1 have been renamed as h0 and h'0.
he white centre line of the tilted fram and black centre
derive expressions for the tilted frame, I have exagerated
gs of the frame meet, that still lies on the black centre
entre line shown in white color on the tilted frame will
at the same position. I apologise for my bad drawing. row 320
making 4-D drawings and he had to invent, what he
see I am in Einsteins boots, though his boots are
nd in walking in them.

row 330

Using value of h1 from equation 5, and that of cos 

M BH
CT  ---(10)
4hB
that value of H' is taken equal to H and H is used from row 340
it, even that that need to be amplified by 1/cos a.
Using this equation and using data from solved

example the value of stress in bracing remains

approximately same. My figure is 2675 as against
Hyosung figure of 2667. (Page 8)
 Sheet 56 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N
gitudnal loads.
row 350

ON on the tower body. Hyosung did not give details on

ovide that in the template.

", but is obvious from their calculations row 360

everse-engineered" the formulae as follows:

TNSION part

row 370

row 380

Transverse Longitudnal

C/G C/G
B/H C/H
C/H B/H
 Sheet 57 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N
-C/G C/G
-B/H C/H row 390
-C/H B/H

are decomposed into three orthogonal components.

row 400

row 410

row 420
 Sheet 58 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N
row 430

ction only typical). UT is the vertical component of

nts respectively. I, G, D, A, B, C, ((E) and F are

row 440

row 450

row 460

row 470
 Sheet 59 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

RESSES IN THE

customary to design bracings for tortion loads and

me I realised its effect was when I visited Korea and
row 480

805.2. It has been probably read from their printouts,

ngitudnal loads. I tried many possibilities, but with
figure of 1805.2. It seems they treat it like the
pute it as follows:

ned next on it's page 108, also confirms the use of

ongitudnal in the formula : row 490

with the horizontal.

 Sheet 60 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

h Language) LIGNES ÉLECTRIQUES T. H. T.

row 500

row 510

row 520

row 530
 Sheet 61 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 540

row 550

row 560

row 570
 Sheet 62 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 584
section mn through the middle of the diagonal to be

X  f sin   2 f 'sin  -----(XIV)

s the only unkown. f' is the is the average force in the
by considering the plan under study. The frame is
only force only X, that is to say:

....(XV) here cos changes the force direction

row 594
from Vertical to LEG direction.

W in the face can be written as:

 2  h  sin  
sin   f  sin   X 1  ---- (a)
 a ' cos  
ng step here- We use eq. XV we get as follows:

Xh  2  h  sin   row 604

  X 2  sin   X 1 
a ' cos   a ' cos  

ion of the above equation (a) and taking into account

above, we get:
b M
X X ------(XVI)
' b' 2b '
is missing. Let us see:
nd why he drew the line a'cosβ in the diagram. I draw row 614
ion and deduce his equation (XVI) as follows:
 Sheet 63 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 624

row 634

row 644
 Sheet 64 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N
my MODIFIED FIG 45 below: row 654

sin  -----(XIV-1) Multiplied by 2

because there are 2 braces

(XV-1) Division by 2 because

there are two braces.

row 664
 2  h  sin  
2 f  sin   X 1  ---- (a-1)
 a ' cos  

M
X  ------(XVI-1)
2b '
at M here is equal to F. L Which is tortion moment.
M
W2  -----(XVII-1)
2a ' row 674

W2
nd f 2  ------(XVIII-1)
2sin  2

force IN BRACE" resulting from TORTION is 1805.2.

anew and did not take from the printout. And actually
M 34, 720 row 684
 
2  2 B 2   2  2.85871 3,036.33

Q 3,036.33
 
2 2 1,518.17

row 694
 Sheet 65 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N
tory calculation sheets, reproduced here in the non printing
escribe below in "HYOSUNG TORQUE"

row 704

row 714

ethodology. Hyosung only gave items 1 to 6 in the row 724

ith additional items taking hint from the calculations.
nd wind on tower are picked up from the following
aing the calculation of loads.

gures so that the results can be verified. Additionaly

ed. I have also compared the outputs with the
 Sheet 66 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 734

ls is split into
g on top of
er half is
it, which is
d the next
row 744

d on arm is given
load on gross
a enclosed by it's
n members. A
or of 0.2 is applied
ng calculations to
ount for the
pty space". Wind row 754
ds are then
ded by 2 to get
loads per face.

row 764

row 774
 Sheet 67 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 784

row 794

row 804

row 814
 Sheet 68 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 824

row 834

row 844

row 854
 Sheet 69 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 864

row 874

row 884

2.6428031 row 894

0.0719697
3.0000000

0.0718458 Radians
0.9974202
0.2159091 Agrees with Hyosung value
3.00775942 Agrees with Hyosung value
 Sheet 70 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N
2.8587122 Agrees with Hyosung value
0.30534158 Agrees with Hyosung value row 904

3.01549888 Agrees with Hyosung value

 Sheet 71 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

2.86685406 Agrees with Hyosung value

4.14956048 Agrees with Hyosung value

36.7210521 Agrees with Hyosung value

row 914

3.01549888
3.0000000

with Hyosung value

row 924

= 0 kg

y, causing additional stresses in LEGS.

e cross arms inside 4 legs of the tower.
to their print-out. So I am dropping it.

kg Hyosung row 934

Agrees with Hyosung value
kg

row 944

Agrees with Hyosung

 Sheet 72 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

Hyosung result
nearly same

Agrees with Hyosung row 954

Agrees with Hyosung

with Hyosung

h' 36.7210521
B 2.8587122 row 964

Agrees with Hyosung

row 974

10
-T+L+W
-52980+0+10721
-42,259
-52980+0+10929 row 984
-42,051

12
 Sheet 73 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N
-CL
0

0 row 994

BRACING FORCES MATCH WITH CORRECTED

ORRECTED FORMULA IS ALSO
 Sheet 74 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N
row 1004

Transverse Longitudnal

0.07159979 0.07159979
0.68891928 0.0520318
0.0520318 0.68891928
-0.0715998 0.07159979
-0.6889193 0.0520318
-0.0520318 0.72483807 row 1014

ORED LOADS

row 1024

row 1034

LONGITUDNAL
row 1044
 Sheet 75 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 1054
ORED LOADS

row 1064

row 1074

LONGITUDNAL

row 1084
 Sheet 76 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N
LONGITUDNAL

row 1094

NOT MUCH
 Sheet 77 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

LONGITUDNAL

row 1104

viously the results match:

row 1114

n observe that Shear forces agree but results match:

row 1124

calculation. Corrected data, with their method gives

heet 050 gives COMP. and UPLIFT that are higher
row 1134

d always be a higher figure that the force in vertical

st the reverse here. Please see this:

is a apparent descripency in the two Print out

choosers.
 Sheet 78 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 1144

D LOAD
row 1154

CABLE

row 1164

row 1174
 Sheet 79 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N
row 1184

row 1194
 Sheet 80 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 1204

row 1214

row 1224

row 1234
 Sheet 81 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 1244

row 1254

row 1264

row 1274

2.6428031 row 1284

 Sheet 82 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N
0.0719697
3.0000000

0.0718458 Radians
0.9974202
0.2159091 Agrees with Hyosung value
3.00775942 Agrees with Hyosung value
2.8587122 Agrees with Hyosung value
0.30534158 Agrees with Hyosung value
row 1294
3.01549888 Agrees with Hyosung value

2.86685406 Agrees with Hyosung value

4.1495605 Agrees with Hyosung value

36.7210521 Agrees with Hyosung value

 Sheet 83 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 1304

3.01549888
3.0000000

Agrees with Hyosung value

row 1314

Agrees with Hyosung value

y, causing additional stresses in LEGS.
e cross arms inside 4 legs of the tower.
to their print-out. But I did derive expressions

kg Hyosung row 1324

kg

row 1334

row 1344
 Sheet 84 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N
Agrees with Hyosung

Agrees with Hyosung

Agrees with Hyosung

h' 36.7210521
B 2.8587122 row 1354

Agrees with Hyosung

-876 kg-Agrees with Hyosung

-9 kg-Agrees with Hyosung row 1364

10
-T+L+W
-12329+28234+10013 row 1374
25,918
-12329+28234+10204
26,109

12
-CL
9
row 1384
 Sheet 85 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N
9

BRACING FORCES MATCH WITH CORRECTED

ORRECTED FORMULA IS ALSO row 1394

Transverse Longitudnal

0.07159979 0.07159979
0.68891927 0.0520318
0.0520318 0.68891927
-0.0715998 0.07159979 row 1404
-0.6889193 0.0520318
-0.0520318 0.72483807
 Sheet 86 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

0.72483807
row 1414

osung printout.

row 1424
ORED LOADS

row 1434

row 1444

LONGITUDNAL
 Sheet 87 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 1454

ORED LOADS

row 1464

row 1474

LONGITUDNAL
row 1484
 Sheet 88 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

enstion of Leg #3 row 1494

row 1504

missed this line

row 1514

this page should relate LEGS#8,9 and 11,12

 Sheet 89 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 1524

row 1534

row 1544

LONGITUDNAL row 1554

= 0.376% NOT MUCH

 Sheet 90 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method
F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N
row 1564

LONGITUDNAL

row 1574
 Sheet 91 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
1-GENERAL You may send your comments to: Engr.Abdul.Aziz@TLE
❶-Member Numbering: Members of the tower base (bottom part of tower usually a leg extension) are numbered as per s

LEGs are numbered 1, 4, 7 and 10. Brasings are numbered 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12

❷-Sign Convention:

❸-Reference figure for Calculation of Moments

 Sheet 92 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
 Sheet 93 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

2-INPUTS
❶-Loading Case: G. W & C1 BROKEN ❷-Wind Pressure 0 kg/m2

❶-Wind loads on Tower Panels and Lever Arm Hn:

hn is the lever Arm measured from Point "B".

Number of Tower Panels n = 17
Following section of the spreadsheet provides 25 panels.
Panels place holders not filled with data are coded yelow.
This data is usually computed by the designer
of the tower and is available in their design folder.

Panel# Wind Load Hn

n kg m
1 0 41.20
2 0 35.35
3 0 33.70
4 0 31.90
5 0 30.10
6 0 28.35
7 0 26.70
8 0 24.90
9 0 23.10
10 0 21.35
11 0 19.70
12 0 18.00
13 0 14.60
14 0 11.30
15 0 8.00
16 0 3.20
17 0 0.00
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 Sheet 94 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
0
SP'1

❷-Wind loads on X-Arm Panels and Lever Arm Hn:

Number of Cross Arms 3
Wind load on every cross-Arm is applied in tow parts-One above and
the other below the cross-Arm. Thus each cross-Arm has two load positions.
Even in a single circuit tower, load positions are 6. So we fixed this number at 6.
Panel# Load Per Face These loads may have been computed
n Posi- Wind Hn in the following two ways:
tions Load 1-By using the exposed area of each
kg m individual member of the cross-Arm.
1 Top 0 35.35 2-By computing gross area enclosed
Bottom 0 33.70 by the main members of the Cross-Arm
2 Top 0 28.35 and then using an experience factor or
Bottom 0 26.70 what is equivalent to a solidity factor.
3 Top 0 21.35 That factor in case of data listed here
Bottom 0 19.70 was 20% and all the loads were multiplied
0 with it before listing here.
SP'2

❸-Length of X-Arm (Tower CL to tip of arm) 7.000

❺-Half width of tower at junction of V-Brsce A 2.642803

❻-Sigle slope of tower Main LEG TAN α 0.07197

❼-Height of the LEG EXTENSION I 3.000000

❽-VERTICAL due to TOWER: 12,180

❾-VERTICAL due to EW & CONDUCTORS weights

GW C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
528 2638 4900 4900 4900 4900 4900
 Sheet 95 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

❿-TRANSVERSE load on EW & CONDUCTORS 528

137
Wire/ Per Tower
Cond Wind Load Hn
kg m 2638
3150
GW 137 41.20
C1 433 33.70
433
C2 865 26.70
C3 865 19.70
C4 865 33.70 4960
4900
C5 865 26.70
C6 865 19.70
4895 865
SP3

0 4900

865
⓫-LONGITUDNAL loads on EW & CONDUCTORS

Wire/ Per Twr 0

Cond Wire Hn
Pull(kg) m 12,180
GW 3150 41.20
C1 4960 33.70
C2 0 26.70 G. W & C1 BROKEN
C3 0 19.70
C4 0 33.70
C5 0 26.70
C6 0 19.70
8110
SP4

3-COMPUTATIONS

❶-True Length of members:

A Half length of horizontal Member 2.6428031 m

at top of the LEG EXTNSION part
TAN α Sigle slope of tower Main LEG 0.0719697
 Sheet 96 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
I Height of the LEG EXTENSION 3.0000000 m
α TAN-1α 0.0718458 Radians
COS α 0.9974202
C I  TAN 0.2159091 m
I
D 3.00775942 m
COS
B A+C 2.8587122 m
F 𝐶√2 0.30534158 m
G √(𝐼^2+F^2 ) 3.01549888 m
E √(𝐵^2+𝐶^2 ) 2.86685406 m
H √(I^2+E^2 ) 4.1495605 m

❷-Moments for POSTS due to WIND on TOWER about point "B"

Panel# Per Face Per Face

n Wind Load Hn Moment
kg m kg.m
1 0 41.2 0.00
2 0 35.35 0.00
3 0 33.7 0.00
4 0 31.9 0.00
5 0 30.1 0.00
6 0 28.35 0.00
7 0 26.7 0.00 TOTAL LOAD DUE TO WIND
8 0 24.9 0.00 ON TWO FACES OF TOWER
9 0 23.1 0.00 SP1 2x0 0 kg
10 0 21.35 0.00
11 0 19.7 0.00 TOTAL MOMENT DUE TO WIND
12 0 18 0.00 ON TWO FACES OF TOWER
13 0 14.6 0.00 SM1 2x0 0 kg.m
14 0 11.3 0.00
15 0 8 0.00
16 0 3.2 0.00
17 0 0 0.00
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
 Sheet 97 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
25
0 0.0
SP'1 SM'1
 Sheet 98 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
❸-Moments WIND on ARMS about point "B"
Panel# Load Per Face Per Face
n Posi- Wind Load Hn Moment
tions kg m kg.m
1 Top 0 35.35 0.00 TOTAL LOAD DUE TO WIND ON TWO FACES OF TOWER
Bottom 0 33.70 0.00 SP2 2X0 0.00
2 Top 0 28.35 0.00
Bottom 0 26.70 0.00 TOTAL MOMENT DUE TO WIND ON TWO FACES OF TOW
3 Top 0 21.35 0.00 SM2 2X0 0.00
Bottom 0 19.70 0.00
0 0.00
SP'2 SM'2

❹-Moment due to TRANSVERSE load on EW & CONDUCTORS about point "B"

Wire/ Per Tower Per Tower

Cond Wind Load Hn Moment
kg m kg.m
GW 137 41.20 5644.40
C1 433 33.70 14592.10
C2 865 26.70 23095.50
C3 865 19.70 17040.50
C4 865 33.70 29150.50
C5 865 26.70 23095.50
C6 865 19.70 17040.50
4895 129659
SP3 SM'3

❺-Moment due to LONGITUDNAL loads on EW & CONDUCTORS about point "B"

Wire/ Per Tower Per Tower ❻-Longitudnal Force 4,960 kg

Cond Wire Pull Hn Moment
kg m kg.m This input line is provided so that you may
GW 3150 41.20 129780.00 compute approperiately, if the tortion is on
C1 4960 33.70 167152.00 more than one cross-arm tip. That case
C2 0 26.70 0.00 one may take a weighted average using
C3 0 19.70 0.00 X-arm length and longitudnal force on
C4 0 33.70 0.00 each X-arm.
C5 0 26.70 0.00
C6 0 19.70 0.00
8110 296932
 Sheet 99 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
SP4 SM4

❼ POST or LEG stresses due to External Loads. (Total moment at "B" point is ZERO).

❼ -①- Force T due to TRANSVERSE Moment:

T
�M 1 2  3 �G � = (0 + 0 + 129659)
� �
4A �I � (4 x 2.6428031)

= 12,329 kg

❼ -②- Force L due to LONGITUDNAL Moment:

L
�M �G �
4
= (296932) 3.015499
� �
4 A �I � 4 x 2.6428031 3.000000
= 28,234 kg

❼ -③ Force W due to TOWER, EW & CONDUCTORS weights

Per LEG:
Tower Weight 3,045 kg
EW & COND 6,917 kg
9,962 kg
Consideration of LEG slope(Refer to item ❶ above)

 wt  wc  
W= G = 10,013 kg

I
❽ BRACNG stresses due to External Loads. (Total moment at "C" point id ZERO).

❽- ① Force Ct due to TRANSVERSE Moment:

h = A/TAN α =

Hn is computed as a weighted average = M/P

Relating Load (P) Height (Hn-h)

P1 0 0 36.721 )
x ( -
0 0 0521
 Sheet 100 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

P2 0.00 0 36.721 )
x ( -
0 0 0521

129,659 36.721 )
x ( -
P3 4,895 4,895 4,895 0521

P1 +P2 +P3 4895 Total -50,091 kg-m

 Sheet 101 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

Using I' = I and h' = h

� 1 � 2
MB �I ' � B =
� cos  �
CT  ----(11)
4h ' B

❽- ② Force CL due to LONGITUDNAL Moment:

Moment for CL = MBL = 8110 x ( 296932 - 36.7211 ) =
8110
2
� 1 � 2
M BL �I ' � B
� cos  �
CL  ----(12) =
4h ' B
❾ LEG number and LOAD Table, considering second tower slope:
Slope (corner factors) not yet multiplied.

❾-① Stresses in LEG #

1 4 7
Formula -T-L+W T-L+W T+L+W
Values -12329-28234+10013 12329-28234+10013 12329+28234+10013
Result -30,550 -5,892 50,576

❾-② Stresses in BRACING #

2 3 5 6 8 9 11
Formula +Ct +CL -Ct +CL -Ct -CL +Ct
Valus/Result -495 -9 495 -9 495 9 -495

❿ "Corner" Factors

Member Vertical Transverse Longitudnal Member Vertical

Number Number
1 0.994860 -0.071600 -0.071600 7 0.994860
2 0.722968 -0.688919 -0.052032 8 0.722968
3 0.722968 -0.052032 -0.688919 9 0.722968
4 0.994860 0.071600 -0.071600 10 0.994860
5 0.722968 0.688919 -0.052032 11 0.722968
6 0.722968 0.052032 -0.688919 12 0.722968

⓫-⓿ COMPUTATION OF TORTION

 Sheet 102 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

M M a' = b' = 2B 5.717424

W1  and W2  -----(XVII-1)
2b ' 2a ' sin α1=sin α2 D/H
You may have to change this term F 4,960 kg
L 7.000 m
W1 W2
f1  and f 2  ------(XVIII-1) M 34,720 kg-m
2sin 1 2sin  2 W1=W2 3,036 kg
f1 =f2 2,094 kg
W/2 1,518 kg

⓫-① FOUNDATION REACTIONS

MEMBER# LOADS CORNER FACTORS CORNER FACTORED LOADS

VERTICAL TRANSVERLONGITUD VERT TRANS LONGIT
1 -30,550 0.994860 -0.071600 -0.071600 -30,393 2,187 2,187
2 -495 0.722968 -0.688919 -0.052032 -358 341 26
3 -9 0.722968 -0.052032 -0.688919 -7 0 6
4 -5,892 0.994860 0.071600 -0.071600 -5,862 -422 422
5 495 0.722968 0.688919 -0.052032 358 341 -26
6 -9 0.722968 0.052032 -0.688919 -7 0 6
7 50,576 0.994860 0.071600 0.071600 50,316 3,621 3,621
8 495 0.722968 0.688919 0.052032 358 341 26
9 9 0.722968 0.052032 0.688919 7 0 6
10 25,918 0.994860 -0.071600 0.071600 25,785 -1,856 1,856
11 -495 0.722968 -0.688919 0.052032 -358 341 -26
12 9 0.722968 -0.052032 0.688919 7 0 6
TOTAL REACTION 39,846 4,894 8,110
EQUILIBRIUM CHECK :
APPLIED LOADS 39,846 4,895 8110

9961.5X4
0+0+4895

⓫-② ORTHOGONAL FOUNDATION REACTIONS

(G. L. SHEAR 0 , TORTION 1518.2

MEMBER# MEMBER# ADDED VERTICAL TRANSVERSE LONGITUDNAL

1 1+2+3 -30,758 4,046 3,737
4 4+5+6 -5,511 1,437 1,920
7 7+8+9 50,681 5,480 5,171
10 10 + 11 + 12 25,434 3 3,354
EQUILIBRIUM CHECK :
TOTAL REACTION 39,846 10,967 14,183
 Sheet 103 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
APPLIED LOADS 39,846 10,968 14,183
 Sheet 104 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
⓫-③ TOTAL SHEAR FORCE FOR INCLINED COLUMN
(G. L. SHEAR 0 , TORTION 1518.2
DETAILED COMPUTATION
Transverse/Longitudnal Loads of Leg#2 & 3 ± Q/2

LEG#1 TORTION DIRECTION

Trance: 341 + 0 - 1518.2 = -1,177 kg
Long. 26 + 6 + 1518.2 = 1,550 kg
Resul. SQRT(1177.2^2 + 1550.2^2) = 1947 kg

TORTION DIRECTION
Trance: 341 + 0 + 1518.2 = 1,859 kg
Long. 26 + 6 - 1518.2 = -1,486 kg
Resul. SQRT(1859.2^2 + 1486.2^2) = 2380 kg Worst Case

Transverse/Longitudnal Loads of Leg#5 & 6 ± Q/2

LEG#4 TORTION DIRECTION

Trance: 341 - 0 - 1518.2 = -1,177 kg
Long. -26 + 6 - 1518.2 = -1,538 kg
Resul. SQRT(1177.2^2 + 1538.2^2) = 1937 kg
HYOSUNG Value Resultant 1937 kg

TORTION DIRECTION
Trance: -26 + 6 + 1518.2 = 1,859 kg
Long. -26 + 6 + 1518.2 = 1,498 kg
Resul. SQRT(1859.2^2 + 1498.2^2) = 2388 kg Worst Case

Transverse/Longitudnal Loads of Leg#8 & 9 ± Q/2

LEG#7 TORTION DIRECTION

Trance: 341 + 0 + 1518.2 = 1,859 kg
Long. 26 + 6 - 1518.2 = -1,486 kg
Resul. SQRT(1859.2^2 + 1486.2^2) = 2380 kg Worst Case

TORTION DIRECTION
Trance: 341 + 0 - 1518.2 = -1,177 kg
Long. 26 + 6+1518.2 = 1,550 kg
Resul. SQRT(1177.2^2 + 1550.2^2) = 1947 kg

Transverse/Longitudnal Loads of Leg#11& 12 ± Q/2

 Sheet 105 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
LEG#10 TORTION DIRECTION
Trance: 341 + 0 + 1518.2 = 1,859 kg
Long. -26 + -26 + 1518.2 = 1,498 kg
Resul. SQRT(1859.2^2 + 1498.2^2) = 2388 kg Worst Case

TORTION DIRECTION
Trance: 341 + 0 - 1518.2 = -1,177 kg
Long. -26 + 6 + 1518.2 = 1,498 kg
Resul. SQRT(1177.2^2 + 1498.2^2) = 1905 kg

MEMBER# VERTICAL TRANSVERSE LONGITUDNAL

1 -30,550 1859 -1,486
4 -5,892 1859 1,498
7 50,576 1,859 -1,486
10 25,918 1,859 1,498
 Sheet 106 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N
nts to: Engr.Abdul.Aziz@TLEngr.com
tension) are numbered as per sketch below.

row 20

row 30
5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12

row 40

row 50
 Sheet 107 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 70

row 80

row 90
 Sheet 108 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 100

row 110

row 120

row 130
 Sheet 109 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 140

row 150

row 160
m

kg

row 170
 Sheet 110 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

528

4900

865 row 180

0
4900

865

0 4900

865 row 190

C1 BROKEN
row 200

row 210
 Sheet 111 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 220

row 230

row 240

row 250
 Sheet 112 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N
row 260

ON TWO FACES OF TOWER

kg

IND ON TWO FACES OF TOWER

kg.m

row 270

row 280

row 290

row 300
 Sheet 113 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

3.01549888
3.0000000 row 310

row 320

row 330

36.7210521

Moment Pn x (Hn - h)

row 340
0 kg.m
 Sheet 114 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

0 kg-m

-50,091 kg-m row 350

 Sheet 115 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

-495 kg

-876 kg-m row 360

-9 kg

row 370
10
-T+L+W
-12329+28234+10013
25,918

12
-CL
9 row 380

Transverse Longitudnal

0.07159979 0.07159979
0.68891927 0.0520318
0.0520318 0.68891927
-0.0715998 0.07159979
-0.6889193 0.0520318 row 390
-0.0520318 0.68891927
 Sheet 116 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

m
0.72483807
For Tortion on C1 only

row 400

TORTION

ORED LOADS

row 410

row 420

LONGITUDNAL row 430

 Sheet 117 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 440
 Sheet 118 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 450

row 460

row 470

row 480
 Sheet 119 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 490

LONGITUDNAL
 Sheet 120 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
1-GENERAL You may send your comments to: Engr.Abdul.Aziz@TLE
❶-Member Numbering: Members of the tower base (bottom part of tower usually a leg extension) are numbered as per s

LEGs are numbered 1, 4, 7 and 10. Brasings are numbered 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12

❷-Sign Convention:

❸-Reference figure for Calculation of Moments

 Sheet 121 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
 Sheet 122 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
2-INPUTS
❶-Loading Case: NORMAL CONDITION ❷-Wind Pressure 250 kg/m2

❶-Wind loads on Tower Panels and Lever Arm Hn:

hn is the lever Arm measured from Point "B".

Number of Tower Panels n = 17
Following section of the spreadsheet provides 25 panels.
Panels place holders not filled with data are coded yelow.
This data is usually computed by the designer
of the tower and is available in their design folder.

Panel# Wind Load Hn

n kg m
1 88 41.20
2 135 35.35
3 109 33.70
4 98 31.90
5 97 30.10
6 108 28.35
7 132 26.70
8 119 24.90
9 118 23.10
10 130 21.35
11 147 19.70
12 193 18.00
13 263 14.60
14 268 11.30
15 340 8.00
16 325 3.20
17 279 0.00
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2949
 Sheet 123 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
SP'1

❷-Wind loads on X-Arm Panels and Lever Arm Hn:

Number of Cross Arms 3
Wind load on every cross-Arm is applied in tow parts-One above and
the other below the cross-Arm. Thus each cross-Arm has two load positions.
Even in a single circuit tower, load positions are 6. So we fixed this number at 6.
Panel# Load Per Face These loads may have been computed
n Posi- Wind Hn in the following two ways:
tions Load 1-By using the exposed area of each
kg m individual member of the cross-Arm.
1 Top 17.6 35.35 2-By computing gross area enclosed
Bottom 44 33.70 by the main members of the Cross-Arm
2 Top 17.6 28.35 and then using an experience factor or
Bottom 44 26.70 what is equivalent to a solidity factor.
3 Top 17.6 21.35 That factor in case of data listed here
Bottom 44 19.70 wass 20% and all the loads were multiplied
184.8 with it before listing here.
SP'2

❸-Length of X-Arm (Tower CL to tip of arm) 7.000

❺-Half width of tower at junction of V-Brsce A 2.642803

❻-Sigle slope of tower Main LEG TAN α 0.07197

❼-Height of the LEG EXTENSION I 3.000000

❽-VERTICAL due to TOWER: 12,180

❾-VERTICAL due to EW & CONDUCTORS weights

GW C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
1260 4870 4870 4870 4870 4870 4870
 Sheet 124 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

1260
❿-TRANSVERSE load on EW & CONDUCTORS
883
Wire/ Per Tower
Cond Wind Load Hn 4870
kg m
GW 883 41.20 0
C1 2562 33.70 2562
C2 2562 26.70
C3 2562 19.70
C4 2562 33.70 0 4870
C5 2562 26.70
C6 2562 19.70
16255 2562
SP3
0 4870

2562
⓫-LONGITUDNAL loads on EW & CONDUCTORS
0
Wire/ Per Twr
Cond Wire Hn 12,180
Pull(kg) m
GW 0 41.20
C1 0 33.70
C2 0 26.70 NORMAL CONDITION
C3 0 19.70
C4 0 33.70
C5 0 26.70
C6 0 19.70
0
SP4

3-COMPUTATIONS

❶-True Length of members:

A Half length of horizontal Member 2.6428031 m

at top of the LEG EXTNSION part
TAN α Sigle slope of tower Main LEG 0.0719697
 Sheet 125 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
I Height of the LEG EXTENSION 3.0000000 m
α TAN-1α 0.0718458 Radians
COS α 0.9974202
C I  TAN 0.2159091 m
I
D 3.00775942 m
COS
B A+C 2.8587122 m
F 𝐶√2 0.30534158 m
G √(𝐼^2+F^2 ) 3.01549888 m
E √(𝐵^2+𝐶^2 ) 2.86685406 m
H √(I^2+E^2 ) 4.1495605 m

❷-Moments for POSTS due to WIND on TOWER about point "B"

Panel# Per Face Per Face

n Wind Load Hn Moment
kg m kg.m
1 88 41.2 3625.60
2 135 35.35 4772.25
3 109 33.7 3673.30
4 98 31.9 3126.20
5 97 30.1 2919.70
6 108 28.35 3061.80
7 132 26.7 3524.40 TOTAL LOAD DUE TO WIND
8 119 24.9 2963.10 ON TWO FACES OF TOWER
9 118 23.1 2725.80 SP1 2 x 2949 5,898 kg
10 130 21.35 2775.50
11 147 19.7 2895.90 TOTAL MOMENT DUE TO WIND
12 193 18 3474.00 ON TWO FACES OF TOWER
13 263 14.6 3839.80 SM1 2 x 50166 100,332 kg.m
14 268 11.3 3028.40
15 340 8 2720.00
16 325 3.2 1040.00
17 279 0 0.00
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
 Sheet 126 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
25
2949 50166.0
SP'1 SM'1
 Sheet 127 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
❸-Moments WIND on ARMS about point "B"
Panel# Load Per Face Per Face
n Posi- Wind Load Hn Moment
tions kg m kg.m
1 Top 17.6 35.35 622.16 TOTAL LOAD DUE TO WIND ON TWO FACES OF TOWER
Bottom 44 33.70 1482.80 SP2 2 X 184.8 369.60
2 Top 17.6 28.35 498.96
Bottom 44 26.70 1174.80 TOTAL MOMENT DUE TO WIND ON TWO FACES OF TOW
3 Top 17.6 21.35 375.76 SM2 2 X 5021.28 10,043
Bottom 44 19.70 866.80
184.8 5021.28
SP'2 SM'2

❹-Moment due to TRANSVERSE load on EW & CONDUCTORS about point "B"

Wire/ Per Tower Per Tower

Cond Wind Load Hn Moment
kg m kg.m
GW 883 41.20 36379.60
C1 2562 33.70 86339.40
C2 2562 26.70 68405.40
C3 2562 19.70 50471.40
C4 2562 33.70 86339.40
C5 2562 26.70 68405.40
C6 2562 19.70 50471.40
16255 446812
SP3 SM'3

❺-Moment due to LONGITUDNAL loads on EW & CONDUCTORS about point "B"

Wire/ Per Tower Per Tower ❻-Longitudnal Force 0 kg

Cond Wire Pull Hn Moment
kg m kg.m This input line is provided so that you may
GW 0 41.20 0.00 compute approperiately, if the tortion is on
C1 0 33.70 0.00 more than one cross-arm tip. That case
C2 0 26.70 0.00 one may take a weighted average using
C3 0 19.70 0.00 X-arm length and longitudnal force on
C4 0 33.70 0.00 each X-arm.
C5 0 26.70 0.00
C6 0 19.70 0.00
0 0
 Sheet 128 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
SP4 SM4

❼ POST or LEG stresses due to External Loads. (Total moment at "B" point is ZERO).

❼ -①- Force T due to TRANSVERSE Moment:

T
�M 1 2  3 �G � = (100332 + 10042.56 + 446812)
� �
4A �I � (4 x 2.6428031)

= 52,980 kg

❼ -②- Force L due to LONGITUDNAL Moment:

L
�M �G �
4
= (0) 3.015499
� �
4 A �I � 4 x 2.6428031 3.000000
= 0.0 kg

❼ -③ Force W due to TOWER, EW & CONDUCTORS weights

Per LEG:
Tower Weight 3,045 kg
EW & COND 7,620 kg
10,665 kg
Consideration of LEG slope(Refer to item ❶ above)

 wt  wc  
W= G = 10,720 kg

I
❽ BRACNG stresses due to External Loads. (Total moment at "C" point id ZERO).

❽- ① Force Ct due to TRANSVERSE Moment:

h = A/TAN α =

Hn is computed as a weighted average = M/P

Relating Load (P) Height (Hn-h)

P1 5,898 100,332 36.7210 )

x ( -
5,898 5,898 521
 Sheet 129 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

P2 369.60 10,043 36.7210 )

x ( -
370 0 521

446,812 36.7210 )
x ( -
P3 16,255 16,255 16,255 521

P1 +P2 +P3 22522.6 Total -269,867 kg-m

 Sheet 130 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

Using I' = I and h' = h

� 1 � 2
MB �I ' � B =
� cos  �
CT  ----(11)
4h ' B

❽- ② Force CL due to LONGITUDNAL Moment:

Moment for CL = MBL = 0 x ( 0 - 36.7211 ) =
0
2
� 1 � 2
M BL �I ' � B
� cos  �
CL  ----(12) =
4h ' B
❾ LEG number and LOAD Table, considering second tower slope:
Slope (corner factors) not yet multiplied.

❾-① Stresses in LEG #

1 4 7
Formula -T-L+W T-L+W T+L+W
Values -52980-0+10720 52980-0+10720 52980+0+10720
Result -42,260 63,700 63,700

❾-② Stresses in BRACING #

2 3 5 6 8 9 11
Formula +Ct +CL -Ct +CL -Ct -CL +Ct
Valus/Result -2667 0 2667 0 2667 0 -2667

❿ "Corner" Factors

Member Vertical Transverse Longitudnal Member Vertical

Number Number
1 0.994860 -0.071600 -0.071600 7 0.994860
2 0.722968 -0.688919 -0.052032 8 0.722968
3 0.722968 -0.052032 -0.688919 9 0.722968
4 0.994860 0.071600 -0.071600 10 0.994860
5 0.722968 0.688919 -0.052032 11 0.722968
6 0.722968 0.052032 -0.688919 12 0.722968

⓫-⓿ COMPUTATION OF TORTION

 Sheet 131 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I

M M a' = b' = 2B 5.717424

W1  and W2  -----(XVII-1)
2b ' 2a ' sin α1=sin α2 D/H
You may have to change this term F 0 kg
L 7.000 m
W1 W2
f1  and f 2  ------(XVIII-1) M 0 kg-m
2sin 1 2sin  2 W1=W2 0 kg
f1 =f2 0 kg
W/2 0 kg

⓫-① FOUNDATION REACTIONS

MEMBER# LOADS CORNER FACTORS CORNER FACTORED LOADS

VERTICAL TRANSVERLONGITUD VERT TRANS LONGIT
1 -42,260 0.994860 -0.071600 -0.071600 -42,043 3,026 3,026
2 -2,667 0.722968 -0.688919 -0.052032 -1,928 1,837 139
3 0 0.722968 -0.052032 -0.688919 0 0 0
4 63,700 0.994860 0.071600 -0.071600 63,373 4,561 -4,561
5 2,667 0.722968 0.688919 -0.052032 1,928 1,837 -139
6 0 0.722968 0.052032 -0.688919 0 0 0
7 63,700 0.994860 0.071600 0.071600 63,373 4,561 4,561
8 2,667 0.722968 0.688919 0.052032 1,928 1,837 139
9 0 0.722968 0.052032 0.688919 0 0 0
10 -42,260 0.994860 -0.071600 0.071600 -42,043 3,026 -3,026
11 -2,667 0.722968 -0.688919 0.052032 -1,928 1,837 -139
12 0 0.722968 -0.052032 0.688919 0 0 0
TOTAL REACTION 42,660 22,522 0
EQUILIBRIUM CHECK :
APPLIED LOADS 42,660 22,523 0

10665X4
5898+184.8+16255

⓫-② ORTHOGONAL FOUNDATION REACTIONS

(G. L. SHEAR 0 , TORTION 0

MEMBER# MEMBER# ADDED VERTICAL TRANSVERSE LONGITUDNAL

1 1+2+3 -43,971 4,863 3,165
4 4+5+6 65,301 6,398 -4,700
7 7+8+9 65,301 6,398 4,700
10 10 + 11 + 12 -43,971 4,863 -3,165
EQUILIBRIUM CHECK :
TOTAL REACTION 42,660 22,522 0
 Sheet 132 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
APPLIED LOADS 42,660 22,523 0
 Sheet 133 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
⓫-③ TOTAL SHEAR FORCE FOR INCLINED COLUMN
(G. L. SHEAR 0 , TORTION 0.0
DETAILED COMPUTATION
Transverse/Longitudnal Loads of Leg#2 & 3 ± Q/2

LEG#1 TORTION DIRECTION

Trance: 1837 + 0 - 0 = 1,837 kg
Long. 139 + 0 + 0 = 139 kg
Resul. SQRT(1837^2 + 139^2) = 1842 kg Worst Case

TORTION DIRECTION
Trance: 1837 + 0 + 0 = 1,837 kg
Long. 139 + 0 - 0 = 139 kg
Resul. SQRT(1837^2 + 139^2) = 1842 kg Worst Case

Transverse/Longitudnal Loads of Leg#5 & 6 ± Q/2

LEG#4 TORTION DIRECTION

Trance: 1837 - 0 - 0 = 1,837 kg
Long. -139 + 0 - 0 = -139 kg
Resul. SQRT(1837^2 + 139^2) = 1842 kg
HYOSUNG Value Resultant 1937 kg

TORTION DIRECTION
Trance: -139 + 0 + 0 = 1,837 kg
Long. -139 + 0 + 0 = -139 kg
Resul. SQRT(1837^2 + 139^2) = 1842 kg

Transverse/Longitudnal Loads of Leg#8 & 9 ± Q/2

LEG#7 TORTION DIRECTION

Trance: 1837 + 0 + 0 = 1,837 kg
Long. 139 + 0 - 0 = 139 kg
Resul. SQRT(1837^2 + 139^2) = 1842 kg

TORTION DIRECTION
Trance: 1837 + 0 - 0 = 1,837 kg
Long. 139 + 0+0 = 139 kg
Resul. SQRT(1837^2 + 139^2) = 1842 kg

Transverse/Longitudnal Loads of Leg#11& 12 ± Q/2

 Sheet 134 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

ENGR. ABDUL AZIZ

Foundation Reactions-
Heyosung Method

ENGINEERING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE Original Date:Aug. 23, 1987

A B C D E F G H I
LEG#10 TORTION DIRECTION
Trance: 1837 + 0 + 0 = 1,837 kg
Long. -139 + -139 + 0 = -139 kg
Resul. SQRT(1837^2 + 139^2) = 1842 kg

TORTION DIRECTION
Trance: 1837 + 0 - 0 = 1,837 kg
Long. -139 + 0 + 0 = -139 kg
Resul. SQRT(1837^2 + 139^2) = 1842 kg

MEMBER# VERTICAL TRANSVERSE LONGITUDNAL

1 -42,260 1837 139
4 63,700 1837 -139
7 63,700 1,837 139
10 -42,260 1,837 -139
 Sheet 135 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N
ts to: Engr.Abdul.Aziz@TLEngr.com
ension) are numbered as per sketch below.

row 20

row 30
6, 8, 9, 11, 12

row 40

row 50
 Sheet 136 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 70

row 80

row 90
 Sheet 137 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 100

row 110

row 120

row 130
 Sheet 138 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 140

row 150

row 160
m

kg

row 170
 Sheet 139 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

1260

4870

row 180
2562

0 4870

2562

0 4870

row 190
2562
0

250

L CONDITION
row 200

row 210
 Sheet 140 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 220

row 230

row 240

row 250
 Sheet 141 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N
row 260

ON TWO FACES OF TOWER

kg

ND ON TWO FACES OF TOWER

kg.m

row 270

row 280

row 290

row 300
 Sheet 142 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

3.01549888
3.0000000 row 310

row 320

row 330

36.7210521

Moment Pn x (Hn - h)

row 340
-116,249 kg.m
 Sheet 143 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

-3,530 kg-m

-150,089 kg-m row 350

 Sheet 144 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

-2667 kg C350*(IF(F350=0,0,F349/F350)-J334)

0 kg-m row 360

0 kg

row 370
10
-T+L+W
-52980+0+10720
(42,260)

12
-CL
0 row 380

Transverse Longitudnal

0.07159979 0.07159979
0.68891927 0.0520318
0.0520318 0.68891927
-0.0715998 0.07159979
-0.6889193 0.0520318 row 390
-0.0520318 0.68891927
 Sheet 145 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

m
0.72483807
For Tortion on C1 only

row 400

TORTION

RED LOADS

row 410

row 420

LONGITUDNAL row 430

 Sheet 146 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 440
 Sheet 147 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 450

row 460

row 470

row 480
 Sheet 148 of 148
442314458.xlsx.xls

16-Oct-19
7:01 AM
Reactions-
Method F-25
V 1.30 Template:F25-FReacHyosung.xlsx
J K L M N

row 490

LONGITUDNAL