ICSBE 2022

A STUDY ON ROOFTOP TOWER CONSTRUCTION FOR SELECTION OF AN

APPROPRIATE LOCATION TO MINIMIZE ADDITIONAL STRESS ON HOST
STRUCTURE
F. M. M Abdullah1*, A. M. L.N. Gunathilaka1
1
The Open University of Sri lanka, Nawala
*
E-mail: abdullah.fz786@gmail.com, TP: +94764667470

Abstract: Telecommunication towers are vital components of any telecommunication network as last
mile connectivity of any wireless network is usually provided by these towers. The amount of expendi-
ture for a construction of a green field tower is usually high. Further, the number of disturbances caused
by new green field tower construction to undisturbed environment is also a concern.
Usage of rooftop towers as an alternative for green field towers is both sustainable and cost effective
solution. Since rooftop tower are constructed on existing buildings, effects caused on natural
vegetation is minimum. Hence, it is a green approach towards sustainability.
However, ensuring structural stability and integrity of building are essential when installing rooftop
towers as almost all such buildings have not been initially designed considering additional loads from a
tower. It is because the occurrence of major repair of a building after installing a rooftop tower will lose
the advantage of rooftop towers over green field towers as a sustainable alternative. Hence, this study
will focus on minimizing additional stresses on a selected building due to rooftop tower installation by
appropriate selection of a location for a tower installation on the rooftop.

Keywords: Rooftop tower; Greenfield towers; Structural Stability; Sustainability

1. Introduction
Mobile and internet connectivity are essential needs of the modern
world. Especially with the COVID 19 pandemic, social distancing be-
came a part of life and therefore virtual connectivity through various
social media platform and other communication platforms became es-
sential to execute routine work of general public. The work from home
concept was introduced by most of the employers and education sys-
tem was also largely changed to virtual education mode.
In this context, uninterrupted mobile and data connectivity with supe-
rior speeds was expected by each and every segment of the population.
Therefore, telecommunication operators started to commission more
and more towers. Even, in pre COVID 19 era, there was huge demand
to telecommunication services and hence, number of telecommunica-
tion towers exponentially increases during last few decades in the
country. However, construction of greenfield towers to cater for this
requirement was not really practical especially in urban areas due to
various socio-economic factors.
As an alternative for greenfield towers telecommunication operators
started to construct rooftop towers. Commissioning of rooftop towers
requires relatively lower cost and time compared to greenfield towers.
Hence, this would be a sustainable approach relevant to the telecom-
munication network development by minimizing resource utilization
and minimizing cost. However, ensuring proper structural assessment
prior to installation of tower due to additional loading is essential.
Now, Telecommunication Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka
(TRCSL) has imposed a regulation to obtain structural stability report
from a charted civil engineer prior to installation of tower. Neverthe-
less, there are considerable number of rooftop towers which were con-
structed before implementation of this rule. Further, even in cases
where structural certification is obtained, there may be so many uncer-
tainty factors relevant to actual structural performance after installa-
tion of a rooftop tower. This study is focused on assessment of real
structural performance of a selected case with different structural ar-
rangements to minimize the undesirable stress conditions for the build-
ing under additional loading due to the rooftop tower.

2. Methodology
As minimization of additional stresses on the host structure due to in-
stallation of rooftop towers was the main objective of this study, a lim-
ited site survey was carried out to identify the present practice. It had
to limit the number of sites visited in the survey to small number due
to permission issues for visiting of sites from telecommunication op-
erators and building owners. Summary of results of the survey is pre-
sented in table 1 as follows;

Table 1: Details of site survey

Site No/Loca- Problem identified

Height of the building and tower (m)
tion

Site No 1/ Building – 9 m (G+2storied) Cracks in column

Kaluthra north Tower - 21 m

Site No 2/ Building –6 m (G+1 Storied) Cracks in walls and column

Katukurunda Tower - 18 m
dialog
 Site No/Loca- Problem identified
Height of the building and tower (m)
tion
Site No 03/
pamunuwa, Building – 6 m (G+1 Story)
maharagama Tower - 12 m No cracks were identified

Site No 4/ Building –6 m (G+2 Storied) Cracks visible in columns and walls

Rathmalana Tower - 12 m

According to the survey results, serious structural defects were ob-

served in certain sites, such as cracks in columns, beams, infill brick
walls. As per results of the survey, any unique pattern for selecting a
location on a building was not observed. In certain sites, towers were
located close to corner columns of the building and in some sites tow-
ers have been located close to middle of the building and the particular
slab panel.
Usually, existing beams and slab of the building would not affect from
the rooftop tower installation as the tower would be placed on a new
beam system on the rooftop. However, the columns will have to carry
additional stresses as new beams ultimately transfer additional loads
to columns.
During the literature survey carried out relevant to this topic, a very
limited number of local publications were found. According to a study
Gunathilake (2013), it has recommended to locate the tower close to
the middle of a slab panel to ensure even stress distribution on col-
umns. However, as discussed, it was noticed that it was rarely practised
in the industry. Few international publications were also refereed.
Jahnavi & Kumar (2019) has highlighted the importance excessive in-
crease of column load under certain tower installations and require-
ment of strengthening of columns in such situations. Aseem & Quadir
(2017) has also highlighted the importance of detailed structural anal-
ysis prior to installation of rooftop tower due to considerable increase
in additional load on column under certain conditions.

In general, the most critical load combinations that would cause worse
additional stresses on columns are wind load combinations. Due to
wind load combinations, one or two legs of the tower are subjected to
axial tension while other legs are under compression. Once these loads
are transferred to the columns of the building through beams, uplift
forces may develop in certain columns close to the roof level. Axial
compression also increases in certain columns. Further, columns mo-
ments may also increase due to additional horizontal shear forces that
will transfer at roof level due to behaviour of tower under wind load-
ing.
It is very important to maintain these additional loads as low as possi-
ble since those additional loads have never been considered at the ini-
tial design stage of the building. Excessive additional loads would be
the main cause for structural defects that have been reported at certain
sites.
Accordingly, site 4 of the field survey (presented in table 1) where it
had observed highest number of structural defects was selected as a
case study for further analysis. In the analysis, the tower was located
at six different locations as marked in Figure 1 and applied wind di-
rection are marked in Figure 2
Figure 1: Different locations of tower for analysis

Figure 2: Applied wind force directions

A separate structural analysis was carried out for each location by de-
veloping 3D model in ETABS by incorporating both the tower and the
building. A 3D ETABS model of the building (without a tower) was
also prepared for comparison of results. Tower location 1 is the case
which represents the actual case that was observed in the field survey.
Tower and building models were developed as per actual details rec-
orded at the site.
However, structural reinforcement details of slabs, beams and columns
were unable to be collected as those were not available with the owner.
There were 17 loading combinations considered for each case were
listed below as per the load combination guidelines of BS 8110. The
wind calculations were done as CP3 – Chapter V for both tower and
building and 33m/s 3s-gust wind speed was consider for the analysis
as per local wind design guideline (“Design of building for high winds-
Sri Lanka”-1978).

 Case 01- 1.4Gk+1.6Qk

 Case 02- 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2Wx
 Case 03- 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2Wy
 Case 04- 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag1)
 Case 05- 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag2)
 Case 06- 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag3)
 Case 07- 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag4)
 Case 08- 1.2Gk+1.2Qk +1.2(-Wx)
 Case 09- 1.2Gk+1.2Qk +1.2(-Wy)
 Case 10- 1.0Gk + 1.4Wx
 Case 11- 1.0Gk + 1.4Wy
 Case 12- 1.0Gk +1.4(-Wx)
 Case 13- 1.0Gk +1.4(-Wy)
 Case 14- 1.0Gk + 1.4Wdiag(1)
 Case 15- 1.0Gk + 1.4Wdiag(2)
 Case 16- 1.0Gk + 1.4Wdiag(3)
 Case 17- 1.0Gk + 1.4Wdiag(4)

At the end of the analysis of each case, the loading of columns imme-
diately below the roof slab (where it more susceptible to develop up-
lift) and at ground level were recorded. Figure 3 and 4 show the typical
3D models prepared for case 1 and case 4 as an example.
 Figure 3: Tower location 01

Figure 4: Tower location 04

3. Results and Discussion

Table 2 present the column loads of columns of the slab panel on
which rooftop tower was placed in each case considered for the
 analysis. During the preliminary check it was found that effect of
rooftop installation is almost negligible on remaining columns of
the building other than columns of the panel on which tower was
located

Table 2: Analysis results

Maximum Com-
Maximum Ten- Maximum Force
pression with % of In-
Loca- Col- sion (kN) at Sec- without tower
Tower at GF crease in
tion of umn ond Floor (kN)
(kN) Compres-
Tower No
sion
Load Load Load
Force Force Force
case case case
C3 Case 1 16.80 Case 6 293.28 Case 1 247.10 18.69%
C4 Case 15 89.07 Case 4 278.90 Case 1 150.10 85.81%
1
C6 - - Case 1 325.10 Case 1 311.80 4.27%
C7 Case 11 62.90 Case 9 287.20 Case 1 243.00 18.19%
C3 Case 17 66.51 Case 6 353.96 Case 1 247.10 43.25%
C4 Case 12 49.04 Case 2 230.32 Case 1 150.10 53.44%
2
C6 - - Case 9 336.39 Case 1 311.80 7.89%
C7 - - Case 1 258.59 Case 1 243.00 6.41%
C3 Case 17 8.35 Case 6 297.29 Case 1 247.10 20.31%
C4 Case 15 35.35 Case 4 225.29 Case 1 150.10 50.09%
3
C6 - - Case 5 341.84 Case 1 311.80 9.63%
C7 Case 16 11.95 Case 7 300.01 Case 1 243.00 23.46%
C9 - - Case 8 331.62 Case 1 298.10 11.24%
C10 Case 15 67.34 Case 4 338.87 Case 1 229.00 47.98%
4
C12 - - Case 1 314.51 Case 1 300.00 4.84%
C13 Case 11 9.78 Case 9 275.36 Case 1 231.60 18.90%
C9 Case 17 44.29 Case 6 389.53 Case 1 298.10 30.67%
C10 Case 12 27.87 Case 2 291.97 Case 1 229.00 27.50%
5
C12 - - Case 9 326.58 Case 1 300.00 8.86%
C13 - - Case 1 247.36 Case 1 231.60 6.80%
C9 - - Case 6 332.64 Case 1 298.10 11.59%
C10 Case 15 12.72 Case 4 284.90 Case 1 229.00 24.41%
6
C12 - - Case 5 331.97 Case 1 300.00 10.66%
C13 Case 16 12.21 Case 7 285.17 Case 1 231.60 23.13%
With respect to columns of the considered panels, highest compressive
and tensile loads reported in each column is listed in the table 2. Ten-
sile loads were checked at the second-floor level as it is the level where
tensile stresses are most likely to occur. Relevant to compressive loads,
the loads were recorded at ground floor as highest compressive forces
usually develop at ground floor level. Further, column loads of same
columns at considered levels under without tower conditions were also
recorded to compare results.
According to results, very high tensile loads have been reported in cer-
tain columns when tower is located at location 1,2 and 4. The highest
reported tensile loads is 89kN and it was in column C4. The relevant
tower location is location 1. Incidentally, the highest percentage in-
crease of compressive load was also reported under same tower loca-
tion. The percentage increase of compressive load in column C4 is
85.8%.
2nd and 3rd worst load scenarios were observed under tower location 2
and 4. Tower is located close to a discontinuous corner in respective
panels on all of the above cases. Tower location 6 provides the best
results in terms of minimizing the additional column loads due to roof-
top tower installation. The maximum uplift load reported was 12kN in
that case. Also, maximum percentage increase of compressive loading
under this location is only 24%.
Location 3 also showed relatively less percentage increase of compres-
sive load and low tensile column loads compared with cases where the
tower was located at corners.
Any significant increase of column bending moments were not ob-
served in any of the considered case due to tower installation.
According to results, locating of a rooftop tower close to the middle
of a panel is highly justified. Further, selection of internal panel (as in
the case of location 3) has also been emphasized. Considering the nu-
merical results under tower location 3, if the tower is located at that
position column of the building will perform without any major struc-
tural concern as percentage increase of compressive column load and
uplift forces in columns are very low. As it was already discussed,
maximum percentage increase of compressive load in this case is 24%
and this would be usually manageable with the partial safety factor of
loading that had been used for the design of the building. This amount
of additional load will not make any structural concerns. Uplift load of
12kN is also a comparative small tensile load and with the amount of
reinforcement present in the column it may also not be a major con-
cern.
However, in case of corner location conditions (tower location 1,2 and
4) major structural concerns may arise. Relatively low vertical loads
on corner columns from the building and uneven load distribution due
to selected location for the tower may be main reasons for this situa-
tion.
Development of excessive tensile (uplift) loads on columns is the ma-
jor concern here. The amount of reinforcements in the columns may
be sufficient to resist the tension. However, inadequate lap length of
reinforcements in columns would become critical under this condition
as it was usually provided compression lap lengths for columns. Inad-
equate lap lengths of reinforcements in columns may cause cracking
in columns.
Therefore, cracks reported in columns at site 4(which is the case se-
lected for this study as case study) may have occurred due to this issue.
The photographs of the cracks in columns are shown in Figure 05 and
06. This actual site condition is represented by tower location 2 case
of this analysis. As comparatively high axial tensile forces of 66.5kN
and 49.0kN were reported in column C3 and C4 respectively under
this case, it can suspect that insufficient lap length of reinforcements
under these tensile forces would be the probable cause of these cracks.
Therefore, structural repair may require to be executed at the site after
detailed site investigation of site with necessary testing,etc.

Figure 5: A Crack in column at gridline C7 (Column C4)- 2nd floor level

in Figure 1 at actual site
 Figure 6: A Crack in column at grid line B7(Column C3) -2nd floor level
in Figure 1 at actual site

4. Conclusion
The main aim of this study was identification of most suitable location for
installation of the rooftop tower on a host structure to minimize additional
stresses due to tower installation. According to results of this case study,
locating a rooftop tower close to corners and edges of the building may pro-
duce excessive additional stresses on nearby columns which even lead to
ultimate failures. However, it was noted that many rooftop towers had been
constructed close to edges as it had minimized disturbances to usable area
of rooftop for other activities based on request of site owners. However, this
is highly non-recommendable in structural engineering perspective accord-
ing to the results of this study.
The best possible location that can recommend to install of rooftop tower is
selection of a location close to the middle of an interior panel. Even distri-
bution of additional loading from tower and considerably large vertical col-
umn loading of existing building will ensure least uplift(tensile) forces on
columns in a such case. Increase of compressive loads are also minimum
under this scenario due to the same reason.
In conclusion, selection of a location for a rooftop tower installation should
be done with a proper analytical approach and selection of near middle lo-
cation of an interior panel would generally reduce additional loading on host
structure to ensure structural stability, sustainability and durability.

References
Gunathilaka, A. M. L. N. (2012) “Structural effects on existing build-
ings due to intatllation of rooftop towers”, Annual Transactions
of IESL (2012 March) pp. (112-119), The Institution of Sri
Lanka
Jahnavi, K. and Kumar, P.A. (2019)“Case Study on Structural Be-
havior of Lattice Tower on a Building”, International Journal &
Magazine of Engineering, Technology, Management and Re-
search, Volume No.06 (2019), Issue No.07
Faria Aseem and Abdula Qadir , (2017) ‘Effect of rooftop mounted
telecommunication tower on design of the building structure, Int
Research Journal of Engineering and Technology , Vol. 4, Issue
11, 2017, ISSN No 2395-0056
CP 3: Chapter V: Part 02: September: 1972: The code of basic data
for the design of building chapter V. Loading
“Design of building for high winds-Sri Lanka”, 1980, Ministry of
Local Government, Housing and Construction.
BS 8110 part 1: 1985, Structural use of concrete – Code of practice
for design and construction