You are on page 1of 10


Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine, August/September 2005; Vol. 2, No. 4 ©2005 Biby Publishing LLC; P.O. Box 284, Waterford, VA 20197 Reprinted by Permission

August/September 2005


1. Box 284. 4 ©2005 Biby Publishing LLC.agl-mag. produced by the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) in cooperation with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Vol. What changes does ‘222-G’ portend when it goes into effect in January? fter six years in development. P. No. Structural Standards for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas. In addition to changes in the design 40 above ground level www. It also corresponds more closely to the AISC steel-design code by using the limitstate approach. 2006.industry standards Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine. will be published this summer with an effective date of Jan. This revision.O. Waterford. represents the most radical change to the standard since its first publication in 1949. the new “G” revision of the ANSI/TIA-222 standard. It brings the tower industry standard in step with the major national building codes (ASCE 7 and IBC) by using the threesecond gust wind speed. VA 20197 Reprinted by Permission ANSI and EIA are set to publish the first joint revision of the ‘222’ tower structural and construction standard in nine . August/September 2005. 2.

will allow a tower owner to have the environmental loading (by adjusting the return period) more closely match the Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine. Waterford. Category III increases the return to 100-year-return loads. These factors are combined to reflect the particularity of the structure and its location. No. Environmental loads Structures classification — Structures are classified according to reliability requirements in three categories. the same return period as the TIA-222-F standard. ice thickness by county location. based on certain criteria. P. The new standard accounts for sitespecific conditions more accurately and in more detail and includes: classification of the importance category of the structure based on location and use. It incorporates state-of-the-art understanding relating to the special structures it addresses. VA 20197 Reprinted by Permission by E. This classification is intended for structures where a delay in returning the services would be acceptable. These structures are intended for services that could be provided by other means. August/September 2005. 4 ©2005 Biby Publishing LLC. Category III structures are essential facilities. grounding and existing structures. Category I structures have the lowest reliability requirements and include structures posing little hazard to life and minimum risk of property damage in the event of failure. this revision is more comprehensive in sections such as appurtenances. wind exposure categories to reflect surface irregularities. (Ice loading does not apply to this category.) Category II structures represent a substantial hazard to life and a substantial risk of property damage in the event of failure. The structures are checked for two major limit states: (1) strength limit states that ensure that structures are safe under extreme loading conditions.criteria and in the loading criteria (which now include seismic loads). These classifications. prior revisions used the “allowable-strength design” approach. and Category I reduces it to a nominal 25year-return loading. New design standard The 2005 “G” revision is based on “limit-states design”.O. P. Mark Malouf. Box 284. Vol. Category II structures use nominal 50-year-return wind and ice loads. 2. topographic effects. This revision will affect the load-carrying capacity of existing telecom structures and how these towers are designed. climbing. and (2) serviceability limit states that verify that structures are capable of providing service under normal conditions. August/September 2005 41 .E.

Standard version “G” basic wind speed values. ocean promontories and special wind regions (orange) to be examined for unusual wind conditions. Waterford. without ice factors. Box 284. Velocities are given in miles per hour (mph) and meters per second (m/s). No. 42 above ground level www. 4 ©2005 Biby Publishing LLC. VA 20197 Reprinted by Permission Figure 1. August/September 2005.Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine. The standard calls for mountainous terrain. . 2. gorges.agl-mag. for the continental United States.O. Vol.

For a wireless tower with August/September 2005 43 .35 amplification factor.6 is applied to nominal wind loads for strength limitstates design. 4 ©2005 Biby Publishing LLC. Existing towers on mountaintops or other topographical features will be affected by the new provisions and are expected to see reduced support capacity. the gust-effect factor varies from 0. especially regarding typical support platforms and mounts. These provisions also allow for reducing the effective projected areas based on the locations of the appurtenances. which will expose any overall stability issues within a tower structure. The revision provides simplified equations for determining wind speed-up effects caused by topographic features such as hills. No. and clusters or bundles of transmission lines. This issue may not be significant for wireless towers shorter than 400 feet. A directionality factor is applied to the factored wind loads to account for the probability of wind blowing from the worst-case direction.00 is used for determining the strength requirements of appurtenances.00 as height increases.85 gusteffect factor applies to guyed masts.95. it will be difficult to get the analysis model to converge on a solution under the ultimate loading conditions. the applied loads will be amplified. By using the limit-state loading. A gust-effect factor of 1. and pole structures are assigned a directionality factor of 0. but it may affect some slender broadcast towers.Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine. Highly wind-direction-dependent structures have a lower directionality factor. has specified calculation methods that prior versions did not adequately address. A load factor of 1. The revision’s appurtenances loading provisions allow for reducing the drag factors under a supercritical flow condition. Waterford. Wind loads — Revision G provides a basic wind speed map (see Figure 1 on page 42). Vol. Appurtenance loading. Gust-effect factors vary based on structure type. ridges and escarpments. Exposure C (flat open areas) and Exposure D (non-hurricane shorelines). VA 20197 Reprinted by Permission importance of the structure and the associated risk taken by the owner.10 is used for pole structures. Exposure categories are the same as those contained in ASCE 7 for Exposure B (urban or hilly areas). P. 2. to account for dynamic-interaction effects. Latticed towers are assigned a directionality factor of 0. Some of these overall stability issues may not have always been detected using the older loading provisions. A 1. For self-supporting latticed towers.85. applies to the gust-effect factor for cantilevered spines on guyed masts or latticed selfsupporting structures and for all structures supported on flexible buildings. For some slender towers with long guy spans. Wind speeds are escalated with height according to a given site’s terrain characteristics. Box 284. August/September 2005.85 to 1. A constant gust-effect factor of 1.O. and a 0.

com . No. 2. August/September 2005. P. Waterford. Vol.Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine. 44 above ground level www. Wind speed (mph) with ice and design-ice thickness standards for the continental United States. 4 ©2005 Biby Publishing LLC.O. Box 284. VA 20197 Reprinted by Permission Figure 2.agl-mag.

It also includes learned failure experiences.00 and a directionality factor of 0. Ice loads are escalated with height because ice accumulation is known to increase with wind speed. August/September 2005.S. A load factor of 1. Serviceability limit states — Limit-state deformations under service-load conditions are found in the “G” standard. P.0 is applied to wind loading for the ice condition because wind pressure is applied to a factored ice thickness. This provision is intended to reflect the limit-state condition of heavy icing and the related lower simultaneous wind speed when these parameters are combined. Vol. and other towers designed for higher wind speed combined with a significant ice thickness may see their rated support capacity increased.0 is applied to the nominal radial thickness of ice.numerous carriers. either a modal analysis (for self-supporting structures) or a time-history analysis (for guyed structures) would be required to properly account for seismic loading.85 for all structures. Ice loads — Revision G includes an ice map (see Figure 2 on page 44) and a U. The service-load condition is defined as a 60mph wind speed without ice using an importance factor of 1. or a broadcast tower with large waveguides. is based on the latest statistical data provided by the U. In general. Older towers designed without considering ice-loading will be negatively affected. this difference could result in a significant loading effect from these appurtenances. The projected area of ice is calculated by considering twice the factored radial thickness of ice. The additional projected area caused by ice is considered “round” for the purposes of calculating drag factors. 2.S. Waterford. Structures are limited to four degrees Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine. this provision should not significantly affect wireless and broadcast towers unless they have structural irregularities and are located in high-risk seismic zones. counties listing of mandatory ice thickness that escalates with height and corresponding simultaneous wind speed. This approach. which is a change from the way ice loading was accounted for in previous versions. A load factor of 2.O. Cold Region Research and Engineering Lab. Then. The “G” standard provides design criteria to ensure sufficient strength and August/September 2005 stability to resist the effects of seismic ground motions for self-supporting structures and guyed masts. 4 ©2005 Biby Publishing LLC. Earthquake loads — The design of telecommunication structures is rarely governed by earthquake loads. special consideration of towers’ response characteristics is required in regions of frequent seismic activity. Box 284. No. Nevertheless. The weight of ice on a member is calculated by considering the factored radial thickness of ice around a cylinder that circumscribes the member. VA 20197 Reprinted by Permission 45 . Nominal three-second-gust wind speeds that are to be considered to occur simultaneously with ice are provided.

Do not attach lanyard around bracing members without engineering verification. Box 284. Vol. Waterford. VA 20197 Reprinted by Permission Recommended attachment A points twist or sway rotation and a horizontal displacement equal to five percent of their . the revision provides more stringent rotation requirements for structures supporting microwave antennas. August/September 2005. Analysis methods A new section in the “G” standard includes minimum acceptable models of analysis for self-supporting lattice towers and pole structures. This simplified method provides a loading pattern and is intended to simulate the dynamic wind-loading effects on such structures. Pattern loading — To account for a latticed tower’s susceptibility to the dynamic effects of wind gusts. Examples of suitable climber attachment anchorages. Minimum weld size is 5/16" fillet or grove J applied to both sides of the plate. It has requirements to consider the effects of displacements on member forces (P-∆ effects). 2. No. and for guyed masts. wind-loading patterns are considered in conjunction with minimum shearresponse requirements. Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine.O.agl-mag. DETAIL A DETAIL B Figure 3. 4 ©2005 Biby Publishing LLC. It more closely matches the B Loop the laynard around the tower leg above the sideplate (gusset). 46 above ground level www. In addition. Recommended minimums without engineering verification: Plate length is 1". P.

self-supporting.results from a full dynamic analysis. August/September 2005. which is quite involved. Waterford. including strength and dimensional requirements. revision “G” introduces a requirement for additional corrosion protection for steelguy anchor shafts in direct contact with corrosive soil (resistivity less than 5. additional capacity may be available in the lower portion of the tower and in the guy wires and anchors. The importance of a geotechnical report that the “G” standard now stresses is reflected in conservative values for the parameters of the presumptive soil and by the requirement of a report for essential facilities. the same as in prior versions. or portions with significantly reduced leg slopes. When taping or coatings are used. Box 284. For example. P. Vol. Category III structures. VA 20197 Reprinted by Permission 47 . Climbing facilities The Climbing Facilities section of the “G” revision presents compliance requirements more comprehensively. 4 ©2005 Biby Publishing LLC. However. This new provision will affect existing tall towers the most. Grounding The minimum required corrosion protection is hot-dip galvanizing. additional wind loading patterns are also considered.] Additional corrosion control methods are to be used for AM antenna structures and other August/September 2005 structures in close proximity to buried pipelines or electrical substations. that is. Foundations The foundations section has been changed to be consistent with the limitstates-design methodology. latticed towers that have extended straight portions. and some reduction in capacity may result in the upper portions of the tower. cathodic protection is also required because of the increased risk of corrosion at cracks or discontinuities. 2. The minimum shear-response requirements will negatively affect towers that were originally designed to closely meet the loading requirement curve. Cathodic control and concrete encasement are specified as acceptable additional corrosion protection. This revision eliminates the fictitious “normal soil” and instead provides presumptive soil parameters for both sandy and clay-bearing soil types for use when a geotechnical report is not available. It provides a more concise presentation of the design parameters required to maintain foundation stability.O. No. The revision recommends that soil resistivity and Ph values be included in the scope of a geotechnical investigation.000 Ohm-cm and/or Ph values below 3 or greater than 9). with at least one mast span greater than 80 feet within the top one-third of the height. [Editor’s note: See related story on page 26. The additional loading patterns apply to guyed masts with three or more spans. Examples of climber attachment anchorages in the annex Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine. For tapered.

and it provides updated and more comprehensive requirements to ensure a safe structure. regardless of the standard used for the design of the original structure. Above Ground Level (AGL) magazine. transmission lines.tiaonline. VA 20197 Reprinted by Permission 48 above ground level www. platforms.” Design and predictive advantages The new provisions of the ANSI/ TIA-222-G standard will allow the designer to use the state-of-art knowledge in the design of these special structures. The standard now specifies a 3/8-inch diameter cable as the standard size to use to minimize the safety sleeve sizes required to be maintained by a climber.7 technical editorial committee and the full committee for developing this standard. The ANSI/TIA-222-G standard will be available for purchase from the Telecommunications Industry Association. a change in the classification of the structure to a higher class. under any of the following conditions: a change in type.industry standards show suitable attachment points for climbers (see Figure 3 on page 46). with exemptions allowed from certain sections of the standard. a structural modification. 2. August/September 2005. with the intent of ensuring compatibility with a climber’s safety sleeve.agl-mag. agl www. an identification tag must be posted at the base of a safety climb system indicating the size and type of safety cable. The revision provides loading requirements that more closely represent the current understanding of the environmental loading to which a structure is subjected. if no changed condition is to occur. No. Existing structures The revision has more specific language regarding structural analysis of existing . president of Malouf Engineering International. 4 ©2005 Biby Publishing LLC. On structures that may be negatively affected by the new revision. Malouf.7 technical editorial committee for the revised 222G standard. Box 284. a change in serviceability requirements. Acknowledgement and availabilty The author wishes to acknowledge his colleagues’ hard work on the TR14. The revision requires that: Existing structures are to be analyzed in accordance with that revision of the standard. served as a member of the TIA TR-14. or number of appurtenances such as antennas. Waterford. is made to the structure.O. Vol. Warning signs are required to be placed on structures that do not meet the standard requirements. P. ladders. Existing structures need not be reanalyzed for the “G” revision of the standard unless conditions change as outlined above. the tower’s compliance is considered to be “grandfathered. In addition. size. It will allow the owners or users of a tower to adopt a loading pattern that more accurately reflects the tower’s characteristics and its use. Dallas. excepting maintenance.