Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tabe20

ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATION TOWER WITH

DIFFERENT HEIGHTS SUBJECTED TO WIND LOADS
USING TIA-222-G AND TIA-222-H STANDARDS

Ali Murtaza Rasool, Yasser E. Ibrahim, Mohsin Usman Qureshi & Zafar
Mahmood

To cite this article: Ali Murtaza Rasool, Yasser E. Ibrahim, Mohsin Usman Qureshi & Zafar
Mahmood (2022): ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATION TOWER WITH DIFFERENT HEIGHTS
SUBJECTED TO WIND LOADS USING TIA-222-G AND TIA-222-H STANDARDS, Journal of Asian
Architecture and Building Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/13467581.2022.2145203

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2022.2145203

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group on behalf of the Architectural
Institute of Japan, Architectural Institute of
Korea and Architectural Society of China.

Accepted author version posted online: 07

Nov 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tabe20
Publisher: Taylor & Francis & The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor
& Francis Group on behalf of the Architectural Institute of Japan, Architectural Institute of Korea
and Architectural Society of China.

Journal: Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering

DOI: 10.1080/13467581.2022.2145203
ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATION TOWER WITH DIFFERENT HEIGHTS SUBJECTED
TO WIND LOADS USING TIA-222-G AND TIA-222-H STANDARDS

1,2 3 4 5
Ali Murtaza Rasool , Yasser E. Ibrahim , Mohsin Usman Qureshi , Zafar Mahmood
1
National Engineering Services Pakistan (NESPAK), Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan
2
University of Central Punjab (UCP) & National College of Arts (NCA), Lahore, Pakistan
3
Engineering Management Department, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
4
Department of Civil Engineering, Sohar University, Sohar, Oman
5
Department of Civil Engineering, Al Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, Saudi Arabia
Corresponding author: Ali Murtaza Rasool, ali_eng@hotmail.com, ali.murtaza@nespak.com.pk

Abstract
Due to advancements in telecommunications, many high towers are being constructed everywhere in the
world. These towers need special attention in terms of the analysis and design under wind loads. The
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) in 2005 released a standard “TIA-222-G” which has gained a
widespread reference for the analysis and design of communication towers. In 2018, TIA released the latest
standard TIA-222-H. The latest TIA-222-H standard has some additional features e.g. limit states for analysis
of mounting systems, enhanced climber safety requirements, construction-related loading, etc. To date, not
many studies are available describing how much change in member axial forces occurs with the tower height
while using the latest standard for analysis of the tower. This study’s main objective is to provide guidelines for
wind load calculation on tower body, appurtenances, and other structures and compare the member axial
forces induced by the wind loads on different tower heights (40, 60, and 80 m) as per TIA-222-G and TIA-222-
H standards. The procedure presented in the paper about the design calculations of wind load is a useful
guide for structural engineers involved in the analysis and design of communication towers. The analysis
results showed that the member axial forces increased by 22% to 37%, which can assist the practitioner in
more optimized design.

KEYWORDS: Communication Tower; Four-legged; Wind Loads; Tower Height; TIA-222-G, TIA-222-H

1 Introduction
The best type of communication towers is self-supporting towers with large face widths greater than or equal
to the diameter of the mounted dishes (Albermani et al. 2009). The tower’s design is an interactive
compromise between many factors, which must ultimately satisfy basic strength requirements (Alam and
Santhakumar 1996; Albermani et al. 2004; Zhang et al. 2009; Huang et al. 2020). The Telecommunications
Industry Association (TIA) accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) develops TIA-222

1/19
standards with an objective to recognize literature about (a) minimum load requirements as derived from
ASCE 7-16 (ASCE 7 2016), (b) design criteria as derived from AISC 360-16 (AISC 360 2016) and building
code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318 2019). TIA in 2005 released a standard TIA-222-G,
namely “Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas” (TIA-222-G 2005), which
became effective on January 01, 2016. The TIA-222-G Standard is highly appreciated and commonly used to
analyze and design both structures and antennas under both wind and seismic loadings by local and
international experts. In 2018, TIA released the latest standard TIA-222-H, namely “Structural Standard for
Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas and Small Wind Turbine Support Structures” (TIA-222-H 2018).
This Standard provides the requirements for the structural design and fabrication of new and the modification
of existing structural antennas, antenna-supporting structures, mounts, structural components, guy
assemblies, insulators, and foundations. Structures like towers are sensitive to dynamic wind loads, and there
is a need to design a lattice tower considering a dynamic response to wind loads considering its height (Jie
2006; Xie et al. 2009). The latest TIA-222-H standard uses ultimate wind, ice, and earthquake criteria, etc. To
date, a lot of research has been done on tower members and complete towers. Zhang and Young (2012)
performed compression tests of cold-formed steel I-shaped open sections with edge and web stiffeners. The
appropriateness and reliability of the direct strength method for I-shaped open sections with edge and web
stiffeners was evaluated. It was found that the direct strength method can be used for cold-formed steel I-
shaped open sections with edge and web stiffeners (Zhang and Young 2012). Some researchers studied the
non-linear behavior of cold-formed steel sections (Dabaon et al. 2015; Roy et al. 2018a, b), whereas, others
performed experimental and numerical investigations on cold-formed steel sections (Roy et al. 2018c, 2019a,
b). Ting et. al., (2018) studied the effect of screw spacing on behavior of axially loaded back-to-back cold-
formed steel built-up channel sections. The authors also prepared finite element model which showed good
agreement with the experimental test results (Ting et al. 2018). Yaghoobi and Shooshtari (2018) performed a
study that is useful to help in designing of wind turbine towers with a higher level of accuracy and safety
(Yaghoobi and Shooshtari 2018).
Gao and Wnag (2018) studied the progressive collapse analysis of latticed telecommunication towers under
wind loads. A progressive collapse fragile curve based on collapse probability of telecommunication tower
under wind loads was proposed to assess the anticollapse performance of the towers (Gao and Wang 2018).
Gao et. al. (2020) performed a study that aimed at the dynamic response analysis and collapse simulation of
wine-cup shape power transmission tower-line system under ice-shedding. The study suggested that special
attention should be paid on the structural members connecting the middle V-part and other parts of the tower,
whose fracture would easily trigger the collapse of the whole tower (Gao et al. 2020). Rasool et.al., (2021) a
comparative study on the calculation of wind load and analysis of communication tower as per TIA-222-G and
TIA-222-H standards and showed the effect of wind load on tower leg members (Rasool et al. 2021). James
Butts (2021) stated that TIA-222-H Code uses ultimate wind speeds instead of basic wind speeds. The
difference is ultimate wind speeds were calculated using much longer return periods. The return periods are
now function of the Risk Category. The higher the Risk Category, the longer the return period, and the higher
the wind speed (Butts 2021). Rosenberger (2020), in his report, performed wind tunnel tests and found higher
drag coefficients on wind load using the TIA-222-H standard (Rosenberger 2021). As most of the existing
towers around the world have been constructed as per guidelines of TIA-222-G, the latest standard also
states, “Existing structures originally designed following a previous revision of this Standard are exempt from
the provisions of this Standard”. However, to date, not many studies are available describing how much
change in member axial forces occurs with the tower height while using the latest standard for analysis of
towers.

2/19
The main objective of this study is to provide guidelines for wind load calculation on tower body,
appurtenances, and other structures and to compare the member axial forces induced by the wind loads on
different tower heights as per TIA-222-G & TIA-222-H standards.
The paper first describes the analysis data in form of tower configuration, analysis software used and analysis
assumptions, followed by the wind load calculations and analysis as per TIA-222-G and TIA-222-H standards.
In the end, the design of the tower is also presented followed by the comparison of analysis & design results
and concluding remarks.

2 Analysis data
To perform the simplified comparative study, computer models were prepared and analyzed by considering
the dead and wind loads only. Details of tower configuration, analysis software used, and dead and wind
loads are given as follows, load applied/acting on the tower,

2.1 Tower configuration

This study gives the analysis of the 40, 60, and 80 m high four-legged self-supporting towers. The general
arrangement of the towers, including member sizes, is shown in Figure 1.

2.2 Analysis software

3D Line models of 40, 60, and 80 m towers were prepared to perform analysis on STAAD Pro V8i structural
analysis software (STAAD V8i 2014). The towers were modeled in STAAD as a space frame, which takes all
joints as pin joints. The tower support was also modeled as pin support. A typical mathematical and 3D model
2
of the tower is shown in Figure 2. A standard constant E = 200 x 106 kN/m is assumed. Four load
combinations that have been considered for analysis are;
1.2D+1.6W0 @ 0 (1)
0.9D+1.6W0 @ 0 (2)
1.2D+1.6W45 @ 45 (3)
0.9D+1.6W 45 @ 45 (4)

Where D is “Dead Load of Structure”, W0 is “Wind Load on Structure at 0”, and W45 is “Wind Load on
Structure at 45”

2.3 Dead loads on tower

The tower's dead loads include the self-weight of the tower, the weight of the antenna and other equipment,
and the weight of the ladder and feeders. Other lateral loads include ice, earthquake, and wind loads. Loads
calculations other than wind loads are the same for both standards.
The self-weight of the tower includes the weight of steel members (taken from AISC specifications), nuts,
bolts, and plates, etc. The weight of dishes and antennas, to be installed on top 10m of tower, is calculated
as, 32-5Ghz-MW dishes (32 * 0.032 = 1.024 kN), 1-24 GHz-MW dish (1 * 0.254 = 0.254 kN), 3-LTE antennas
(3 * 0.254 = 0.762 kN) and 3-RRU antennas (3 * 0.049 = 0.147 kN). Hence, the total weight is 2.18 kN, and by
adding 100% for mounts, it becomes 2.18 * 2 = 4.36 kN. The weight of the ladder (calculated by adding the
weight of rungs, angle sections, etc.), including nuts, bolts, plates, and feeders, is 0.28 kN/m (0.18 + 0.10).

3/19
3 Wind load calculations and analysis
The wind force on 40, 60 & 80 m high tower, ladder, cables, linear appurtenances & antenna, and discrete
appurtenances were computed at basic wind speeds of 125 kph & 225 kph for Structure Class I, II & Risk
Category I, II as per both standards, respectively. Due to space limitations, detailed calculations of 80 m high
tower at a wind speed of 125 kph for Structure Class I & Risk Category I as per relations given in TIA-222-G &
TIA-222-H respectively are given here. In TIA-222-G, Structure classification (I, II, or III) is used to classify the
structure. Structure Class I defines “Structures that due to height, use or location represent a low hazard to
human life and damage to property in the event of a failure and/or used for services that are optional and/or
where a delay in returning the services would be acceptable”. Structure Class II defines “Structures that due
to height, use or location, represent a significant hazard to human life and/or damage to property in the event
of failure and/or used for services that may be provided by other means”. In TIA-222-H, the Risk Category
explains the function of risk to human life, potential damage to the facility, and the structure’s primary use.
Risk Category I defines “Structures that due to use or location represent a low risk to human life and/or
damage to surrounding facilities in the event of failure”. Risk Category II defines “Structures that due to use or
location represent a moderate risk to human life and/or damage to surrounding facilities in the event of
failure”. The towers were analyzed using STAAD Pro V8i (STAAD V8i 2014). Finally, the analysis results are
discussed and compared.

4/19
Figure 1. General arrangement of (a) 40, (b) 60 and (c) 80m high towers

5/19
Figure 2. Modeling and Analysis of a typical communication tower (a) Line model, (b) 3D computer model, (c)
Loading applied

3.1 Analysis assumptions

The following assumptions are made in tower analysis as per both standards;
1. The height of the ladder is the same as the tower and has been divided into similar four sections as
the tower (Assumption-1).
2. 32-5 GHz-MW dishes (420 x 420 x 230) and 1-24 GHz-MW dish (768 x 593 x 370) will be installed on
the tower. The force coefficients for dishes have been taken from TIA-222-G and TIA-222-G H,
0
Annexure-C, Table C1. To give maximum force coefficients half dish area is placed at 0 and half at
180 azimuth about the tower (Assumption-2).
3. 3-LTE antennas (2570 x 270 x 136) and 3-RRU antennas (150 x 190 x 280) will be installed on the
tower with one antenna facing the wind and two at 120 to wind (Assumption-3).
4. The antenna/dish supplier normally provides a layout for the location of dishes, which is beyond the
scope of the current study, and their weight was distributed on the top 10m of the tower in the form of
a nodal load.

6/19
3.2 Wind load calculations
Wind calculations similar for both standards and specific for TIA-222-G and TIA-222-H will be discussed in
this section,

3.2.1 Similar for both (TIA-222-G & TIA-222-H) standards

The factors similar in both standards are Kz = 2.01(z/zg) , Kzmin = 0.85, Kzt = 1.0, Kd = 0.85, Gh = 0.85, design
2/

wind force on structure (FST). The velocity pressure is calculated using relation,
(qz) = 0.613  kz  kzt  kd  Ix  V (kN/m )
2 2

The solidity ratio () for each segment of 40, 60, and 80m high tower is calculated using relation (Af + Ar)/Ag,
as shown in Table 1.

where,
Af is the projected area of flat structural components taken from AISC
Ag is the gross area of one tower face calculated from AutoCAD
Ar is the projected area of round structural components

Table 1. Tower weight and solidity ratio

Ht. from ground Solidity ratio ()
Segment Ht.
Tower height (m) Level (m) to centerline of Ag Af
(m) 
segment (Z), (m) (m2) (m2)
1 70 – 80 10 75 10 2.41 0.24
2 60 – 70 10 65 13 3.03 0.23
3 50 – 60 10 55 19 3.63 0.19
80 4 40 – 50 10 45 25 4.29 0.17
60 5 30 – 40 10 35 31 4.92 0.16
40 6 20 – 30 10 25 37 5.52 0.15
7 10 – 20 10 15 43 6.18 0.14
8 0 – 10 10 5 49 6.80 0.14

The design wind force on the tower is calculated as,

(5)

The effective projected area (EPA)S of each tower segment is calculated in Table 2 using the following
relations,

∑ ∑ (6)

Cf = 4.02 – 5.9 + 4.0 (7)

where,
Cf = Force Coefficient for a Structure
Df = Wind Direction Factor for Flat Structural Components
Dr = Wind Direction Factor for Round Structural Components
Rr = Reduction Factor for a Round Element in a Tower Face

7/19
 Table 2. Effective projected area (EPA)S of each tower segment
(EPA)S (EPA)S
Segment  Cf Af Df (0) Df (45)
(45) m
0 2 2
(0 ) m
1 0.24 2.810 2.41 1.0 1.18 6.7731 7.997
2 0.23 2.841 3.034 1.0 1.18 8.6193 10.128
3 0.19 3.018 3.633 1.0 1.14 10.9648 12.537
4 0.17 3.105 4.293 1.0 1.13 13.3289 15.046
5 0.16 3.165 4.917 1.0 1.12 15.5614 17.413
6 0.15 3.209 5.516 1.0 1.11 17.7026 19.682
7 0.14 3.235 6.176 1.0 1.11 19.9800 22.132
8 0.14 3.258 6.8 1.0 1.10 22.1562 24.462

The wind force is assumed to be applied at an angle of 0 and 45, therefore,

Df (0) = 1.0
Df (45) = 1+0.75 (1.2 max)

The effective projected area (EPA)A of the ladder (Assumption-1) and appurtenances are calculated in Table 3
using the relation below by employing Ka = 0.6;
(EPA)A = Ka [ (Ca AA )] (8)

2
Project area of Jumper cables (top 10m) is CA * AA = 0.028 m /m and other cables (lower 30m) is CA * AA =
2
0.317 m /m

where,
Ka = Shielding Factor for Appurtenances
AA = Projected Area of an Appurtenance
CA = Force Coefficient for a Linear or Discrete Appurtenance

Table 3. Effective projected area (EPA)A of ladder & cable

Ladder Cable (EPA)A
(CAxAA) (CAxAA)
W0 0  W0 45 W0 0  W0 45 W 0 0 W0 45
2
(m /m)
Top 10m (no cage) 0.196 0.108 0.027 0.027 0.134 0.081
Lower part (with cage) 0.377 0.241 0.226 0.320 0.362 0.337

3.2.2 Using TIA-222-G standard

Wind load in TIA-222-G is based on 3-sec gust (50-yr return). The factors includes basic wind speed V = 125
kph = 34.7 m/sec, importance factor, I = 0.87 (Structure Class-I) and I = 1 (Structure Class-II) and exposure
category= C. Based on (EPA)A & (EPA)S calculated in Table 2 and Table 3, design wind force on each tower
segment, ladder (Assumption-1), cables & appurtenances is calculated in Table 4. Worst forces & moments
on dishes (Assumption-2) are calculated in Table 5.

8/19
 Table 4. Design wind force
on each tower segment on ladder, cables & appurtenances
Segment Kz qz (FST)s 0 (FST)s (EPA)A (EPA)A F(0) F(45)
2
45 (kN) (0) m (45) m
(kN/m ) 2 2
(kN) kN kN
1 1.53 0.84 4.81 5.68 0.134 0.081 0.95 0.58
2 1.48 0.81 5.95 6.99 0.362 0.362 2.50 2.50
3 1.43 0.78 7.30 8.35 0.362 0.362 2.41 2.41
4 1.37 0.75 8.51 9.60 0.362 0.362 2.31 2.31
5 1.30 0.71 9.42 10.54 0.362 0.362 2.19 2.19
6 1.21 0.66 9.99 11.10 0.362 0.362 2.04 2.04
7 1.09 0.60 10.12 11.21 0.362 0.362 1.83 1.83
8 0.87 0.47 8.91 9.83 0.362 0.362 1.45 1.45
Total force = 65.00 73.31 Total force = 15.69 15.32

Table 5. Design wind force on dishes

No. Dia. Forces on dishes Forces on tower
(m) FAM (kN) Fx (kN) MN (kN.m)
16 0.42 2.44 2.44 1.22
16 0.42 -1.66 1.66 0.83
1 0.68 0.40 0.40 0.20
Total force = 4.51 2.25

The wind force and moment on MW dishes are (4.51 kN, 2.25 kN.m). Whereas, wind force on LTE and RRU
antennas (calculated using relation qz Gh Ca (EPA)A) is (1.19 kN) & (0.08 kN) respectively. Hence, the total is
5.77 kN and 2.25 kN.m. The same calculations are also performed for the basic wind speed of 125 kph
Structure Class-II and 225 kph Structure Class-I, II. These forces are then applied to the tower model by
dividing it by the number of nodes. Figure 3 illustrates one leg of 40m high tower from the STAAD model
showing the design wind on the structure, ladder, cables, appurtenances, antennas, and discrete
appurtenances calculated and applied at the nodes for the wind speed of 125 kph. The same pattern of the
load has been applied on other legs, towers with different heights and wind speed of 225 kph, etc.

9/19
Figure 3. (a) Node interval on one leg, (b) Design wind force on structure, (c) Design wind force on the ladder,
cable, and appurtenances, (d & e) Design wind force on antennas, discrete appurtenances

3.2.2.1 Tower analysis results as per TIA-222-G standard

Maximum axial forces in selected leg members (Figure 2a) of towers with height 40, 60, and 80 m at a basic
wind speed of 125, and 225 kph and Structure Class-I is shown in Figure 4(a). It is evident that for all tower
heights, the forces in the leg members are decreased as the leg member distance from the tower base is
increased. Leg members at the base of the tower showed maximum axial force and for the same member
near the base of the tower, axial forces are increased with the increase in basic wind speed. Whereas, axial
force in members is decreased for different wind speeds as the leg member distance from the tower base is
increased. It can be seen from Figure 4(a) that there is not much difference in axial forces for leg members at
40, 60, and 80 m height. This shows that top leg members are not much affected by variation in wind speed.

10/19
 (a) (b)
Figure 4. Leg member forces at wind speed of 125, 225 kph for tower heights 40, 60, and 80 m for (a)
Structure Class-I (TIA-222-G), (b) Risk Category-I (TIA-222-H)

Maximum axial forces in selected leg members (Figure 2a) of towers with heights 40, 60, and 80 m at basic
wind speeds of 125 and 225 kph and Structure Class-II is shown in Figure 5(a). The leg members showed the
same trend as analyzed in Structure Class-I, except the member forces increased for all defined wind speeds.
A comparison of leg member forces for 80m high tower and Class-I & II at a basic wind speed of 125 and 225
kph is shown in Figure 6(a). This shows that change in the Structure Class in the TIA-222-G standard may
affect the tower design by inducing more forces in members.

11/19
 (a) (b)
Figure 5. Leg member forces at wind speed of 125, 225 kph for tower heights 40, 60, and 80 m for (a)
Structure Class-II (TIA-222-G), (b) Risk Category-II (TIA-222-H)

12/19
 (a) (b)
Figure 6. Comparison of forces in leg members for 80m high tower at basic wind speed of 125 & 225kph for
(a) Structure Class-I & II, (b) Risk Category-I & II

3.2.3 Using TIA-222-H standard

Wind load in TIA-222-H is based on ultimate wind. The factors include, basic wind speed = 125 kph = 34.72
m/sec, conversion factor for ultimate wind = 1.18, ultimate wind speed, V = 40.97 m/sec, importance factor, I =
N/A (Risk Category-I), I = 1 (Risk Category-II), ground elevation factor, Ke = 1, Ke = 0.82 (Risk Category-II),
2
roof top wind speed-up factor, KS =1, and Velocity Pressure (qz) = 1.26 Kz (kN/m ).
The solidity ratio (), effective projected area (EPA)S of each tower segment, and the effective projected area
(EPA)A of the ladder (Assumption-1), and appurtenances are the same as calculated in Table 1, Table 2, and
Table 3, respectively. Based on (EPA)A & (EPA)S calculated in Table 2 and Table 3, the design wind force on
each tower segment, ladder (Assumption-1), cables & appurtenances are calculated in Table 6. The worst
forces and moments on dishes (Assumption-2) are calculated in Table 7.

Table 6. Design wind force

on each tower segment on ladder, cables & appurtenances
Segment Kz qz (FST)s 0 (FST)s 45 (EPA)A (0) (EPA)A F(0) F(45)
(45) m
2 2 2
(kN/m ) (kN) (kN) m kN kN
1 1.53 1.34 7.71 9.10 0.134 0.081 1.53 0.92
2 1.48 1.30 9.51 11.18 0.362 0.362 4.00 4.00
3 1.43 1.25 11.69 13.36 0.362 0.362 3.86 3.86
4 1.37 1.20 13.62 15.37 0.362 0.362 3.70 3.70
5 1.30 1.14 15.08 16.87 0.362 0.362 3.51 3.51
6 1.21 1.06 15.98 17.77 0.362 0.362 3.27 3.27
7 1.09 0.95 16.20 17.94 0.362 0.362 2.93 2.93
8 0.87 0.76 14.25 15.74 0.362 0.362 2.33 2.33
Total force = 104.03 117.33 Total force = 25.12 24.52

13/19
 Table 7. Design wind force on dishes
Dia. Forces on dishes Forces on tower
No.
(m) FAM (kN) Fx (kN) MN (kN.m)
16 0.42 3.91 3.91 1.96
16 0.42 -2.66 2.66 1.33
1 0.68 0.64 0.64 0.32
Total force = 7.21 3.61

The wind force and moment on MW dishes are (7.21 kN, 3.61 kN.m). Whereas wind forces on LTE and RRU
antennas (calculated using relation qz Gh Ca (EPA)A) are (1.90 kN), and (0.12 kN) respectively. Hence, the
total is 9.24 kN and 3.61 kN.m. The same calculations are also performed for the basic wind speed of 125 kph
Risk Category-II and 225 kph Risk Category-I, II. These forces are then applied to the tower model by dividing
it by the number of nodes.

3.2.3.1 Tower analysis results as per TIA-222-H standard

Maximum axial forces in selected leg members (Figure 2a) of towers with heights 40, 60, and 80 m at basic
wind speed of 125 and 225 kph and Risk Category-I is shown in Figure 4(b). It is evident that the forces in the
leg members decrease as the height of the tower increases. Leg members at the base of the tower showed
maximum axial force and for the same members near the base of the tower axial forces increased with an
increase in basic wind speed. Whereas, axial force in members decreased for different wind speeds as the leg
member distance from the tower base increased. It can be seen from Figure 4(b) that there is not much
difference in axial forces for leg members at 40, 60, and 80 m height. This shows that top leg members are
not much affected by variation in wind speed.
Maximum axial forces in selected leg members (Figure 2a) of towers with height 40, 60 & 80m at basic wind
speed of 125 & 225kph and Risk Category-II are shown in Figure 5(b). The leg members showed the same
behavior as analyzed in Risk Category-I except the member forces little decreased for all defined wind
speeds. The decrease in member forces is due to the change in ground elevation factor, Ke from 1 (Risk
Category-I) to 0.82 (Risk Category-II). A comparison of leg member forces for 80m high tower and Risk
Category-I & II at a basic wind speed of 125 & 225 kph is shown in Figure 6(b). This shows that change in the
Risk Category in TIA-222-H may affect the tower design by decreasing forces in members.

4 Design of Tower
After analyzing the tower for different wind forces, the structural design of the tower was carried out in
accordance with TIA-222-G, TIA-222-H, and ASIC standards (TIA-222-G 2005; AISC 360 2016; TIA-222-H
2018). Some aspects of tower design are listed as follows,

4.1 Design of Members

i. The design axial strength of the compression member was taken as c Pn
where,
(c = 0.9 for TIA-222-G and 1.0 for TIA-222-H) ; Pn = Ag Fcr
ii. The design axial tensile strength, tPn, of member was taken the lesser of yielding in the gross
section, rupture in the net effective section or block shear rupture. However, block shear failure was
not applicable in this case.
 For tension yielding in the gross section:

14/19
 (t = 0.9 for TIA-222-G and 0.97 for TIA-222-H), Pn = Ag Fy
 For rupture in the effective net section:
t = 0.75 ; Pn = Aen Fu
 For rupture in the effective net section:
Aen = An U ; 0.75 < U < 0.9
(use U = 0.75 for diagonal and 0.9 for leg members for TIA-222-G)
(use U = 0.75 for diagonal and 0.8 for leg members for TIA-222-H)

4.2 Design of Bolts

i. The design tensile strength of a single bolt was taken as  Rnt
where,
( = 0.75 for both TIA-222-G & H); Rnt = An Fub (use An = 0.75 Ab)
ii. The design bearing strength at a bolt,  Rn, was taken as
( = 0.8 for both TIA-222-G & H) ; Rn = 1.2 (Lc + d/4) t Fu < 2.4 dt Fu
iii. The design shear strength at a bolt,  Rnv, was taken as
 = 0.75
Rnv = 0.55 Fub Ab (when threads are excluded from the shear plane) for TIA-222-G
Rnv = 0.45 Fub Ab (when threads are included in the shear plane) for TIA-222-G
Rnv = 0.625 Fub Ab (when threads are excluded from the shear plane) for TIA-222-H
Rnv = 0.625 Fub Ab (when threads are included in the shear plane) for TIA-222-H

In explaining the above equations,

Ag = gross area of member, An = net area, Ab = nominal unthreaded body area of bolt, t= thickness of the
critical connected part, d = nominal diameter of the bolt, Lc = clear distance (in the direction of the force)
between the edge of the hole and the edge of an adjacent hole of the material, Fub = specified minimum
tensile strength of bolt, Fu = specified minimum tensile strength of the critical connected part.

4.2 Design Results

Table 8 shows the compressive & tensile strengths of tower leg members along with the bolt strengths
calculated using the above-defined relations for 40 m high tower for a wind speed of 225 kph and Structure
Class II & Risk Category II. It is clear from the table that the compressive & tensile capacity of the leg
members increased with the increase in the member size. Similarly, the bolt strength also increased with
increase in bolt diameter. Member and bolt capacity calculated using TIA-222-H standards showed more
strength as compared to TIA-222-G due to change in strength factors. It can be seen from the table that the
utilization ratio of all the leg members and the bolts is well below 1.

Table 8. Leg Members compressive, tensile, bolt strength, and utility ratios for 40m high tower
Axial Compressive Tensile
Bolt Strength (kN)
Block Code / load, Strength Strength (kN)
Angle Size
(m) Standard Pu Utility Utility Utility
c Pn c Pn  Rnb  Rnb
(kN) Ratio Ratio Ratio
TIA-222-G 10.89 132 0.08 172 0.06 281 332 0.11
0-5 HL 3”x3/16”
TIA-222-H 14.06 157 0.09 188 0.07 365 398 0.11
TIA-222-G 43.68 174 0.25 227 0.19 374 332 0.36
5 – 10 HL 3” x ¼”
TIA-222-H 56.54 224 0.25 269 0.21 486 398 0.36

15/19
 TIA-222-G 80.19 265 0.30 332 0.24 374 332 0.65
10 – 15 HL 4” x ¼”
TIA-222-H 103.88 321 0.32 385 0.27 486 400 0.65
TIA-222-G 113.02 432 0.26 487 0.23 842 498 0.61
15 – 20 HL 4” x 3/8”
TIA-222-H 146.4 530 0.28 636 0.23 1095 598 0.61
TIA-222-G 146.20 432 0.34 487 0.30 842 498 0.79
20 – 25 HL 4” x 3/8”
TIA-222-H 189.5 530 0.36 636 0.30 1095 600 0.79
TIA-222-G 178.31 602 0.30 619 0.29 1053 778 0.62
25 – 30 HL 5” x 3/8”
TIA-222-H 231.33 715 0.32 858 0.27 1369 935 0.62
TIA-222-G 208.15 602 0.35 619 0.34 1053 778 0.72
30 – 35 HL 5” x 3/8”
TIA-222-H 270.28 715 0.38 858 0.32 1369 397 0.72
TIA-222-G 238.28 792 0.30 812 0.29 1404 778 0.83
35 – 40 HL 5” x 1/2”
TIA-222-H 209.57 941 0.33 1129 0.27 1825 400 0.83

5 Discussion
In addition to the wind forces, there are some other parameters that must be considered while analyzing and
designing the communication towers e.g. bolt slip and tower displacement, etc. Bolt slip is inevitable in the
communication tower. By taking bearing connections, as in transmission towers, bolt slip can be ignored.
However, in slip critical (friction type) connection, bolt slip is to avoided by tightening the bolts to their
permissible tension limits. Similarly, displacement along the height of the tower is the key to judge whether the
communication tower operates safely. Maximum displacements for the studied towers with heights of 40, 60,
and 80 m at wind speed of 125 kph for Structure Class I, Risk Category I, and load case “W0” are listed in
Table 9. It can be seen from the table that displacement increases with the tower height and the structure
class in the case of TIA-222-G. More displacements were observed for towers analyzed with the TIA-222-H
standard, however, in that case change in risk category affected the displacement and some decrease in
displacements were observed. All the deflections were found within acceptable range i.e. 5% of tower height.

Table 9. Tower top maximum displacements

Sr. Tower Height Structure Class I Structure Class II Risk Category I Risk Category II
No. (m) 125 kph 125 kph 125 kph 125 kph
1 40 136.44 160 223.52 203.2
2 60 287.02 328.68 452.22 438.15
3 80 424.94 476.76 660.4 622.3

The latest TIA-222-H standard has some additional features including seismic analysis requirements for all
risk categories (except category-1), limit states for analysis of mounting systems, enhanced climber safety
requirements, construction-related loading, etc. Comparison of leg member forces for 40, 60, and 80m high
towers at basic wind speed of 125 and 225 kph and for Structure Class-1 & II/Risk Category-I & II as per TIA-
222-G, and TIA-222-H is made in this study. However, only comparison at a wind speed of 225 kph for
Structure Class-1 & II and Risk Category-I & II is shown in Figures 7 and 8 respectively. It was observed that
for all tower heights the member axial forces are increased by a percentage of 37% when analyzed for wind
speed of 125 and 225 kph and Risk Category-I as per TIA-222-H. Similarly, member forces are observed to
be increased by a percentage of 22% when analyzed for the wind speed of 125 and 225 kph and Risk
Category-II as per TIA-222-H. Thus, analysis results show that the percentage difference in member forces
remains the same with the tower height, it can also be noted that wind calculations as per TIA-222-H standard

16/19
resulted in more member forces; however, change in Risk Category can also affect the member forces. It is
also important to mention here that this study is limited to the comparison of member axial forces under dead
and wind load combination. The addition of any other forces might affect the analysis results.

Figure 7. Comparison of leg member forces for 40, 60 & 80m high tower and Structure Class-I/Risk Category-
I at basic wind speed of 225kph.

Figure 8. Comparison of leg member forces for 40, 60 & 80m high tower and Structure Class-II/Risk
Category-II at basic wind speed of 225kph.

6 Concluding Remarks
Except the methods used in the paper, some of the most representative computational intelligence algorithms
can be used to solve the problems, like monarch butterfly optimization (MBO) (Feng et al. 2021), earthworm
optimization algorithm (EWA) (Pasupuleti and Balaswamy 2021), elephant herding optimization (EHO) (Wang
et al. 2015), moth search (MS) algorithm (Wang 2018), Slime mould algorithm (SMA) (Li et al. 2020), hunger
games search (HGS) (Yang et al. 2021), Runge Kutta optimizer (RUN) (Ahmadianfar et al. 2021), colony
predation algorithm (CPA) (Tu et al. 2021), and Harris hawks optimization (HHO) (Heidari et al. 2019). This
study gives a comparative analysis of two ANSI/TIA standards (222-G & H) that are commonly used for the

17/19
analysis and design of communication towers, poles, antennas, and supporting structures for antennas and
small wind turbines.
 The procedure presented in the paper about the design calculations of wind load is a useful guide
for structural engineers involved in the analysis and design of communication towers. The
analysis results showed that the member axial forces increased by a percentage of 37% when
analyzed for a wind speed of 125 & 225 kph (Risk Category-I) and 22% when analyzed for Risk
Category-II, which can assist the practitioner in more optimized design.
 The wind speed in TIA-222-H is significantly higher than in TIA-222-G. This is due to the change
from using nominal wind speeds to ultimate wind speeds, which essentially have load factors and
importance factors already built-in.
 Ground elevation factor (Ke) is also an important factor. The density of air decreases as its
distance from ground level increases. This means that at the same wind speed air produces more
pressure on an object at sea level than it does at a higher elevation. TIA-222-H establishes a
ground elevation factor (Ke) to take advantage of this, whereas, TIA-222-G conservatively
calculated the wind pressure by assuming the site was located at sea level.
 The ice thicknesses in TIA-222-H generally appear twice as big as in TIA-222-G. This is because
a factor of two (02) was moved from the design ice thickness equation in TIA-222-G to the values
in the ice thickness map in TIA-222-H. Essentially, a 1-inch thickness on the TIA-222-G map is
equivalent to a 2-inch thickness on the TIA-222-H map. Incorporating the load factors into the
mapped values makes the ice maps more consistent with the wind and seismic maps.
 The latest TIA-222-H standard has some additional features including seismic analysis
requirements for all risk categories (except Category-I), limit states for analysis of mounting
systems, enhanced climber safety requirements, construction-related loading, etc.

Acknowledgments
Experts from National Engineering Services Pakistan (NESPAK), Prince Sultan University and Sohar
University, Oman are greatly acknowledged for providing technical assistance. The authors would like to
thank Prince Sultan University for supporting the publication of the manuscript.

REFERENCES
ACI 318 (2019) Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
Ahmadianfar I, Heidari AA, Gandomi AH, et al (2021) RUN beyond the metaphor: An efficient optimization algorithm based on
Runge Kutta method. Expert Syst Appl 181:115079. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESWA.2021.115079
AISC 360 (2016) Specifications for Structural Steel Buildings
Alam JM, Santhakumar RA (1996) Reliability Analysis and Full-Scale Testing of Transmission Tower. J Struct Eng 122:338–344.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1996)122:3(338)
Albermani F, Kitipornchai S, Chan RWK (2009) Failure analysis of transmission towers. Eng Fail Anal 16:1922–1928.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGFAILANAL.2008.10.001
Albermani F, Mahendran M, Kitipornchai S (2004) Upgrading of transmission towers using a diaphragm bracing system. Eng Struct
26:735–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2004.01.004
ASCE 7 (2016) Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. American Society of Civil
Engineers
Butts J (2021) TIA-222 Codes and Dielectric Antenna Design
Dabaon M, Ellobody E, Ramzy K (2015) Nonlinear behaviour of built-up cold-formed steel section battened columns. J Constr Steel
Res 110:16–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.03.007
Feng Y, Deb S, Wang GG, Alavi AH (2021) Monarch butterfly optimization: A comprehensive review. Expert Syst Appl 168:114418.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESWA.2020.114418
Gao S, Wang S (2018) Progressive Collapse Analysis of Latticed Telecommunication Towers under Wind Loads. Adv Civ Eng
2018:3293506. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3293506

18/19
Gao S, Zeng C, Zhou L, et al (2020) Numerical analysis of the dynamic effects of wine-cup shape power transmission tower-line
system under ice-shedding. Structures 24:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ISTRUC.2020.01.002
Heidari AA, Mirjalili S, Faris H, et al (2019) Harris hawks optimization: Algorithm and applications. Futur Gener Comput Syst
97:849–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUTURE.2019.02.028
Huang S, Qi Q, Liu W, et al (2020) Seismic behavior analysis of wind turbine tower affected by hydrodynamic pressure based on a
simplified calculation model. Lat Am J Solids Struct 17:. https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-78256196
Jie L (2006) Effects of Diaphragm on Wind Resistant Design of Power Transmission Towers. High Volt Eng
Li S, Chen H, Wang M, et al (2020) Slime mould algorithm: A new method for stochastic optimization. Futur Gener Comput Syst
111:300–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUTURE.2020.03.055
Pasupuleti VR, Balaswamy C (2021) Performance Analysis of Fractional Earthworm Optimization Algorithm for Optimal Routing in
Wireless Sensor Networks. EAI Endorsed Trans Scalable Inf Syst 8:1–10. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.21-4-2021.169419
Rasool AM, Qureshi MU, Ahmad M (2021) A Comparative Study on the Calculation of Wind Load and Analysis of Communication
Tower as per TIA-222-G and TIA-222-H Standards. KSCE J Civ Eng 25:646–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-020-0662-5
Rosenberger (2021) Wind Load Test and Calculation of the Base Station Antenna. White Pap Dielectr
Roy K, Mohammadjani C, Lim JBP (2019a) Experimental and numerical investigation into the behaviour of face-to-face built-up cold-
formed steel channel sections under compression. Thin-Walled Struct 134:291–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2018.09.045
Roy K, Ting TCH, Lau HH, Lim JBP (2018a) Nonlinear behaviour of back-to-back gapped built-up cold-formed steel channel sections
under compression. J Constr Steel Res 147:257–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.04.007
Roy K, Ting TCH, Lau HH, Lim JBP (2018b) Nonlinear behavior of axially loaded back-to-back built-up cold-formed steel un-lipped
channel sections. Steel Compos Struct 28:233–250. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2018.28.2.233
Roy K, Ting TCH, Lau HH, Lim JBP (2018c) Effect of thickness on the behaviour of axially loaded back-to-back cold-formed steel
built-up channel sections - Experimental and numerical investigation. Structures 16:327–346.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2018.09.009
Roy K, Ting TCH, Lau HH, Lim JBP (2019b) Experimental and numerical investigations on the axial capacity of cold-formed steel
built-up box sections. J Constr Steel Res 160:411–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.05.038
STAAD V8i (2014) STAAD Pro V8i. Bentley Syst Inc
TIA-222-G (2005) Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas
TIA-222-H (2018) Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas and Small Wind Turbine Support Structures
Ting TCH, Roy K, Lau HH, Lim JBP (2018) Effect of screw spacing on behavior of axially loaded back-to-back cold-formed steel
built-up channel sections. Adv Struct Eng 21:474–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369433217719986
Tu J, Chen H, Wang M, Gandomi AH (2021) The Colony Predation Algorithm. J Bionic Eng 18:674–710.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42235-021-0050-y
Wang G-G (2018) Moth search algorithm: a bio-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for global optimization problems. Memetic Comput
10:151–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12293-016-0212-3
Wang G-G, Deb S, Coelho L d. S (2015) Elephant Herding Optimization. In: 2015 3rd International Symposium on Computational
and Business Intelligence (ISCBI). pp 1–5
Xie Q, Ding Z-D, Zhao G-F, Li J (2009) Wind resistant analysis of power transmission tower with different diaphragm arrangements.
Gaodianya Jishu/High Volt Eng 35:683–688
Yaghoobi S, Shooshtari A (2018) Joint slip investigation based on finite element modelling verified by experimental results on wind
turbine lattice towers. Front Struct Civ Eng 12:341–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-017-0393-y
Yang Y, Chen H, Heidari AA, Gandomi AH (2021) Hunger games search: Visions, conception, implementation, deep analysis,
perspectives, and towards performance shifts. Expert Syst Appl 177:114864. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESWA.2021.114864
Zhang JH, Young B (2012) Compression tests of cold-formed steel I-shaped open sections with edge and web stiffeners. Thin-Walled
Struct 52:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2011.11.006
Zhang Z, Li A, He J, Wang J (2009) Wind-induced vibration control of Hefei TV tower with fluid viscous damper. Front Archit Civ
Eng China 3:249–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-009-0038-x

19/19