See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309564532

Consideration of dynamic wind effects in the structural design of truss-type

structures similar to those damaged during recent typhoons

Conference Paper · May 2007

CITATIONS READS

4 590

3 authors, including:

Ronwaldo Emmanuel Aquino Benito M. Pacheco

Motioneering Inc / RWDI University of the Philippines
39 PUBLICATIONS   242 CITATIONS    44 PUBLICATIONS   1,902 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Project Damping Modelling View project

Project Typhoon Engineering View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ronwaldo Emmanuel Aquino on 26 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CONSIDERATION OF DYNAMIC WIND EFFECTS
IN THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TRUSS-TYPE STRUCTURES
SIMILAR TO THOSE DAMAGED DURING RECENT TYPHOONS
R. E. R. Aquino, B.M. Pacheco, and F.J. Germar

ABSTRACT: Many truss-type vertical structures damaged in recent typhoons in the Philippines
have aspect ratios typically greater than 4, and by NSCP-2001 wind loading requirements, a
flexible-structure GEF should be "obtained by a rational analysis that incorporates the dynamic
properties of the structure." However, an appropriate flexible-structure GEF is possibly not
being used in current design practice. Arguments are herein presented why a flexible-structure
GEF should be used for the design of these types of structures in the Philippines. An example
supplementary material to the NSCP-2001 based on recent work by the first author is then
discussed and presented.

KEYWORDS: typhoon damage, truss-type structures, dynamic wind effects, gust effect factor,
NSCP

1. DAMAGES TO TRUSS-TYPE STRUCTURES DURING RECENT TYPHOONS

In November of 2004, Typhoon Unding (International Name: Muifa) made landfall in the
Philippines and caused damages in the Bicol region, particularly in Naga City which was within
~10 kilometers from the path of the typhoon. PAGASA’s recorded maximum gust speed for this
typhoon is only around 180 kph. Notably damaged were truss-type structures such as
transmission towers (trussed towers1 supporting electrical transmission lines; see Figure 1a).

In September of 2006, Typhoon Milenyo (International Name: Xangsane) made landfall in the
Philippines and again caused damages to different structures in Northern Samar, the Bicol
region, Quezon province, Southern Tagalog provinces, and Metro Manila. PAGASA’s recorded
maximum gust speed for this typhoon is around 160 kph. Many pole-type structures (e.g.
electrical transmission posts, sign structures, guyed masts) were affected. But among the most
notably affected structures were billboards (truss-type structures supporting advertisement
boards; see Figure 1b) in Metro Manila, which is said to have been in the path of the typhoon.

While there are other types of structures that were damaged (e.g. pole-type structures) during
these two recent typhoons that made landfall in the Philippines, this paper aims to address wind
loading issues related to truss-type structures such as trussed towers and billboard structures
only.

1
The term ‘lattice tower’ is used in other literature instead of ‘trussed tower’ that is the term used in the NSCP-
2001. Trussed towers may be self-supporting (also called free-standing) or guyed. Guyed trussed towers are those
with guy cables for additional (although tension-only) support. Self-supporting trussed towers are those without any
cables for support. Trussed towers include certain ‘antenna towers’ that are used to support above ground broadcast
(TV and radio) and telecommunication (cellular phone networks) antennas, and certain ‘transmission towers’ that
are used to support above-ground electrical transmission lines.
1
 Figure 1a. Photos of damaged transmission towers in Naga City after the occurrence of
Typhoon ‘Unding’ in 2004. Photos taken from Typhoon2000.com website.

Damaged billboard structure Billboard collapsing on vehicle Billboard collapsing on adjacent structure
(maniladailyphoto.com) (bettylopez.i.ph) (maniladailyphoto.com)
Figure 1b. Selected photos of billboard structures in Metro Manila after the occurrence of
Typhoon ‘Milenyo’ in 2006. Photos taken from Internet websites (in parentheses).

2. THE DYNAMIC WIND LOADING ISSUE IN THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND

EVALUATION OF TRUSS-TYPE STRUCTURES

Aquino (2006) identified three major wind loading issues in the current structural design and
evaluation practice: namely, the use of inappropriate design wind speeds, the non-consideration
of topographic effects, and the non-consideration of dynamic wind effects. All these essentially
relate to new features first introduced in the NSCP-2001 that structural designers may still not be
using properly. Again, this paper addresses only the non-consideration of dynamic wind effects,
particularly on truss-type structures.

The NSCP-2001 wind loading provisions define “rigid” and “flexible” structures, and their
corresponding gust effect factors (GEF), as presented in Table 1. Note that the natural
frequencies (n1) for many trussed towers and billboard structures, estimated using the procedure
given in Appendix A2, are greater than 1 Hz (Table 2). However, the aspect ratios3 of these
structures are typically greater than 4. Thus by NSCP-2001 requirements alone, the flexible-
structure GEF should be used (or that a flexible design should be carried out) for these types of
structures in the Philippines.

2
The procedures given in Appendix A are based on trussed tower data and really intended for trussed towers. Thus,
the values for billboard structures are rough estimates only, on the high side. Note though that the difference
between the flexible- and rigid-structure values is still significant. (See Table 3, and discussion in Chapter 5.)
3
The aspect ratio is taken as h/B0 for trussed towers; h/D for billboards. Refer to Appendix B for notations.
2
 Table 1. NSCP-2001 GEF

NSCP-2001 Terrain Exposure Category

Applicable to
Gust effect factor A B C D
Rigid structures G
G = 0.8 G = 0.85
(n1 ≥ 1 Hz) (rigid-structure GEF)
Flexible structures Gf “shall be calculated by a rational analysis that
Gf
(n1 < 1 Hz, incorporates the dynamic properties of the main
(flexible-structure GEF)
or aspect ratio > 4) wind-force resisting system.”

Table 2a. Example Dimensions of Trussed Towers in the Philippines

Tower h Bh B0 h n1
Plan Use Supp. App.
ID (m) (m) (m) B0 (Hz)
G12 12 2 2 6.0 SQ AT R A-4 5.61
G30 30 2 4.5 6.7 SQ AT G A 2.19
G30t 30 2 4.4 6.8 TR AT G A 1.97
E30t 30 2 4.8 6.3 TR AT G A-8 2.00
RP40 40 1.8 5.4 7.4 SQ --- G --- 1.61
G40 40 2 5.75 7.0 SQ AT G A 1.63
E40 40 2 6 6.7 SQ AT G A-2 1.65
E40t 40 2 6.2 6.5 TR AT G A-2 1.49
G40t 40 2 5.4 7.4 TR AT G A 1.45
D50 50 2 6.8 7.4 SQ AT G A-8 1.29
E50 50 2 8.67 5.8 SQ AT G A 1.36
D60 60 2 8 7.5 SQ AT G A-8 1.07
G60 60 2 8.25 7.3 SQ AT G A 1.08
G60t 60 2 7 8.6 TR AT G A 0.94
E60t 60 2 9 6.7 TR AT G A-2 0.99
D70 70 2 8.67 8.1 SQ AT G A-8 0.91
ABT 183 2 27.4 6.7 SQ AT G A-1 0.36

Table 2b. Example Dimensions of Billboard Structures in Metro Manila

Billboard h B D h n1
Supp.
ID (m) (m) (m) D (Hz)
MM1 8 16 2 4 G 9.6
MM1R 8 16 2 4 R-15 9.6
MM2 4 8 1 4 G 19.3
MM2R 4 8 1 4 R-15 19.3
Notes on Tables 2a and 2b:
1. Refer to Appendix B and to NSCP-2001 Section 207 for symbols and notations.
2. Plan: SQ = square, TR = triangular
3. Use: AT = antenna tower, --- = no information
4. Supp. (support): G = ground, R = on building roof, R-XX = on top of XX-meter high building
5. App. (attached appurtenances): A-X = X number of antennas, A = no info on number of antennas
6. The natural frequency (n1) is estimated using the procedure provided in Appendix A, which is
intended for trussed towers only. The values for billboard structures are rough estimates only. All
other data are from literature or were provided by structural engineering firms.
3
Unfortunately, because no procedure for obtaining a flexible-structure GEF by a “rational
analysis” as required in the NSCP-2001 is readily available from the NSCP-2001 itself, or from
other literature, the tendency in current practice in the Philippines is to use the GEF values of 0.8
or 0.85 provided in the NSCP-2001 for rigid-structures, or to carry out a rigid design. Likewise,
estimates of dynamic properties appropriate to these structures are also not readily available, and
meanwhile these are important parameters to the GEF. In fact by NSCP-2001 requirements, the
dynamic properties should be “incorporated” into the flexible-structure GEF (see Table 1).

Considering that the flexible-structure GEF, wherein the resonant response may not be negligible
(R ≥ 0), is possibly larger than the rigid-structure value (R ≈ 0), the GEF is then possibly under-
estimated for these truss-type structures in the Philippines. Considering that the design wind
load is directly proportional to the GEF, the design wind loads are then also possibly under-
estimated. Assuming all other parameters are correct, these structures are thus possibly under-
designed, at least according to the NSCP-2001.

However for antenna towers or trussed towers supporting antennas, there is a justification
assumed by many in current practice for the use of a rigid design: that member sizes and
consequentially member capacities are increased anyway to satisfy strict deflection criteria and
thus compensating for the non-use of the flexible-structure GEF, or essentially the non-
consideration of dynamic wind effects.

Meanwhile for billboard structures which may be categorized as “solid signs” according to
NSCP-2001 definition, the code additionally requires that torsional effects are considered. This
essentially requires the designers to design for an additional load wherein the original resultant
wind load is applied at a certain eccentricity from the center of the face of the billboard or sign.
This results in much larger design member forces and thus for a more economic design, the
tendency is to not use this new requirement of the NSCP-2001.

3. ARGUMENTS FOR USING A FLEXIBLE DESIGN FOR

TRUSSED TOWERS AND BILLBOARD STRUCTURES IN THE PHILIPPINES

3.1. The NSCP-2001 requires a flexible design for structures with aspect ratios over 4.

As mentioned earlier, because these trussed towers and billboard structures in the Philippines
typically have base aspect ratios greater than 4, a flexible design is required by NSCP-2001
requirements alone. Again, a rigid design is carried out when the given NSCP-2001 rigid-
structure values of 0.8 and 0.85 are used. Also, a rigid design is carried when using codes such
as pre-NSCP-2001 codes (e.g. the NSCP-19924), the ASCE Manual No. 74 for transmission line
structures (ASCE 1991), and the ANSI/EIA/TIA-222-F-1996 (TIA/EIA, 1996) and earlier
versions (for antenna towers).

Furthermore, the NSCP-2001 requires that the flexible-structure GEF should be “obtained by a
rational analysis that incorporates the dynamic properties of the main wind-force resisting
system.” For different structures of different dynamic properties in the same exposure category,

4
This can be shown by comparing the combined terrain, height, and gust factors in NSCP-1992, and the product of
the terrain-height factor and rigid-structure gust response factors in ASCE7-88 and ASCE7-93. Also, the NSCP-
1992 does not distinguish between “rigid” and “flexible” structures.
4
the NSCP-2001 rigid-structure value stays the same (say, for Exposure Category C, it is 0.85).
Also, it does not change at all with differing dynamic properties among different structures. It
also does not change with any change in the basic wind speed. The same is true for the
ANSI/EIA/TIA-222-G-2005 (222-G) GEF for trussed towers. Conversely, with this deficiency
of the NSCP-2001 rigid-structure or 222-G GEFs, and considering the NSCP-2001 requirements
for flexible structures, use of the NSCP-2001 rigid-structure value or the 222-G GEF could not
be considered as “rational analysis” methods.

Perhaps a question that may be raised is: if the natural frequency of the truss-type structure being
designed is much greater than 1 Hz even if its base aspect ratio is greater than 4, is a rigid design
still justified?

3.2. Rigid-structure values of 0.8 and 0.85 are calibrated for buildings in the USA.

The ASCE7-95 GEF (ASCE 1996), the basis of the NSCP-2001 rigid-structure GEF, was
developed specifically for buildings. When a sensitivity analysis was performed for various
“rigid” structures to come up with a single value (0.8 or 0.85) for rigid structures in general, only
building structures were included in the analysis. (ASCE 2003) Because buildings generally
have larger surface areas than trussed towers, size reduction effects are even more pronounced
for buildings than for towers. This essentially means that buildings are expected to have lower
GEF values than towers of the same height, base width, dynamic properties, and same location.

The basic wind speed is also a parameter in the GEF formulation, and generally, higher wind
speeds mean higher GEF values. In the same sensitivity analysis mentioned above, only basic
wind speeds in the USA were considered. Meanwhile, the basic wind speed in the US is only
around 145 kph (40 m/s) for most of the USA, or a maximum of around 235 kph (65 m/s) at a
few locations, compared to 200 kph (55 m/s) for most of the Philippines (Wind Zone II) to as
much as 250 kph (75 m/s, in Wind Zone I). Based on this alone, we could expect GEF values for
structures in the Philippines could even be higher than that prescribed in the ASCE7, for the
same structure particularly for those in Wind Zones I and II.

There is also a reduction factor that is inherent in the ASCE7 GEF formulation as well as its
derivative codes such as the 222-G and the NSCP-2001, and meant to “adjust loads closer to the
previous version,” and also to account for “additional spatial correlation effects.” However,
there are six justifications why this reduction factor should not be used, particularly for the wind
loading of truss-type structures in the Philippines (Aquino 2006, and Aquino et al 2006):

1. The reduction factor does adjust loads in the NSCP-2001 closer to its previous
versions (e.g. the NSCP-1992), which assumes only a rigid design (see Footnote 4).
2. The “additional spatial correlation effects” may be applicable only to buildings and
not necessarily to these truss-type structures.
3. Using the reduction factor provides analytical estimates of the wind response that are
even smaller than that measured in wind tunnel studies.

5
 4. More conservative estimates of the wind loads are desired when using the GLF
Method or any GEF or GRF5 formulation, considering that a more detailed analysis
method estimates even larger design wind forces.6
5. A mathematical significance of the GEF is lost; i.e. the GEF should be equal to unity
(Gf = 1) for very small, rigid structures. The ASCE7 GEF with its reduction factor is
less than unity (Gf < 1) for such a case.
6. The ASCE7-95 used the reduction factor for rigid structures only, anyway, and
meanwhile it has been established that trussed towers and many billboard structures
in the Philippines are typically categorized as flexible structures because of their
aspect ratio.

Given all these arguments, the appropriate rigid-structure GEF is unity for these types of
structures that can be considered “rigid,” or that G = 1, and not 0.8 or 0.85 intended for
buildings. At this point, it should be mentioned that these steel, truss-type structures in general,
or at least steel trussed towers in particular, are expected to have much lower damping than steel
buildings of the same height or of the same natural frequency, because of less mass and less non-
structural attachments. Meanwhile, damping plays a major role in the dynamic response of these
structures, and thus, even the 1 Hz cut-off frequency between “rigid” and “flexible” structures
may not be appropriate for these steel, truss-type structures.

3.3. A flexible-structure GEF is more appropriate for trussed towers and billboard
structures.

For a sufficiently rigid structure, the flexible-structure GEF would actually converge to a rigid-
structure value. Rigid-structure GEF values are really lower bound simplified versions of
flexible-structure GEF formulations with all the appropriate input parameters.

For trussed towers, a sensitivity analysis of GEF formulations conducted by Aquino (2006) has
shown that for practical ranges of trussed tower heights in the Philippines (say up to 150 meters),
the flexible-structure value is always larger than unity. The same study has also concluded that
the flexible-structure value is largest and therefore dynamic wind effects are even more critical
for typical ranges of trussed tower heights in the Philippines (between 30 and 60 meters), mostly
because of both low structural and aerodynamic damping estimates for such structures. It should
be mentioned though that these towers have natural frequencies ranging from around 1 to 3 Hz.

Using a flexible design this time for four (4) example billboard structures, the calculated GEF
values are lower than unity, but still larger than the NSCP rigid-structure values (see Table 3b
and Chapter 5 later). Thus in the design or evaluation of these truss-type structures, it seems
more appropriate to just simply check for dynamic wind effects using a flexible-structure GEF,
even if their natural frequency is greater than 1 Hz, as there is a possible under-estimate of the
design wind forces if a rigid design is used. Again, if the structure is sufficiently rigid, the
flexible-structure GEF will converge to the lower-bound, rigid-structure value.

Note here that the terms “rigid design” and “rigid structure” in the context of the NSCP-2001
wind loading provisions do not imply a stiffer or stronger design compared to when a “flexible
5
GRF = gust response factor, a related but slightly different formulation from the GEF.
6
For example, refer to (Loredo-Souza & Davenport, 2003). The study applies to trussed towers only.
6
design” is used for a “flexible structure.” In this sense, the use of the terms “rigid” or “flexible”
should be re-considered, as these terms can be confusing. Instead of “flexible” structure, other
codes use the term “dynamically wind-sensitive” structure, which sounds more appropriate. The
terms “simplified design” and “dynamic design” could also be used instead of “rigid design” and
“flexible design,” with “dynamic design” involving the calculation of a rational GEF value and
“simplified design” involving the use of a single, but preferably conservative (high) value.

3.4. For antenna towers, deflection criteria could not compensate for non-consideration of
dynamic wind effects.

A simple and generalized 1DOF analysis of truss structures by Aquino (2006) has shown that by
virtue of the design, the deflections under a rigid design or a flexible design are the same. Thus
in both cases the member sizes may need to be increased to satisfy any deflection criteria. This
is true particularly for antenna towers. In any case, when a flexible design is necessary and the
flexible design results in larger design wind forces and thus requires larger member sizes, truss
structures such as antenna towers that are designed using the rigid-structure GEF are still under-
designed even if member sizes are increased to satisfy any deflection criteria in the rigid design.

Now, there may be many inherent assumptions made in any 1DOF analysis. However, in an
MDOF analysis of one actual trussed tower also by Aquino (2006), summarized in the next
chapter, the same conclusions as in the 1DOF analysis had been made. In the MDOF analysis,
deflection quantities obtained using the rigid and the flexible designs were within ±4%.

3.5. Use of rigid design may be one possible cause of structural collapse during typhoons.

For the collapsed trussed towers, the design 3-second gust speed is around 220 kph (equivalent to
the 200 kph fastest-kilometer in Wind Zone I). For the billboards, it is around 200 kph (Wind
Zone II). This goes to show that these structures failed at actual wind speeds much lower than
their design wind speeds, implying that their design wind forces may have been under-estimated.

Meanwhile, it could be that many if not all of these typhoon-damaged truss-type structures have
a rigid design, either by use of the NSCP-2001 rigid-structure GEF, or of pre-NSCP-2001 codes
(e.g. the NSCP-1992) which also assume a rigid design (see Footnote 4). Of course, there are
many factors that could have contributed to the failure of these structures, and the non-
consideration of dynamic wind effects is only one of these many possible causes of failure.

4. PROPOSED NEW SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL TO THE NSCP-2001

(PRELIMINARY)

Given the justifications presented earlier, as well as the findings in the study by Aquino (2006) to
be summarized later in Chapter 5, a flexible design procedure is indeed necessary supplementary
material to the NSCP-2001. Aquino’s (2006) study then suggested a new Section 207.6.4 as
supplementary material to the NSCP-2001 essentially incorporating a flexible design procedure
(e.g. Appendix A), together with new symbols & notations (Appendix B), as well as some
suggested modifications of existing symbols & notations7. The flexible design procedure should
provide a “rational” GEF formulation that incorporates the dynamic properties of the structure,
7
Refer also to (Aquino et al, 2006).
7
and estimates of dynamic properties of the structure. However, note that the example
supplementary material given in Appendix A is for trussed towers only.

In any case, it should be mentioned at this point that Aquino (2006) actually recognizes
limitations of the flexible design procedure as outlined in Appendix A, and certainly
improvements or better formulations (for the GEF or for the estimates of dynamic properties)
could be made. For example, the GEF formulation may consider incorporating the von Karman
gust spectrum model, which has been recommended by an ISO technical committee on wind
loading, but only being used in current Japanese and Australian codes. (Tamura et al 2005)

Similar new supplementary sections, or a modified version of such example supplementary

section given in Appendix A, should be prepared for billboard structures, as well as other
“dynamically wind-sensitive” structures such as pole-type structures, “dynamically wind-
sensitive” buildings, transmission line cables attached to transmission towers, and so on,
considering the findings of the study.

In addition, the study recognizes that there are more detailed analytical procedures which could
more appropriately account for the dynamic wind effects, including effects of non-linear mode
shapes, higher modes of vibration, and so on.8 For this reason, the study also suggested that the
NSCP-2001 could allow for such a more detailed analytical procedure (see Aquino et al 2006).

Among many future studies that could improve the flexible design procedure as presented in
Appendix A include physical or experimental validation of such a GEF formulation and the other
more detailed analytical procedures, improvement of the NSCP-2001-prescribed basic wind
speeds which is an essential parameter to the GEF, and the conduct of more and better
measurements of dynamic properties of these structures, particularly those in the Philippines.

5. A STUDY ON THE CONSIDERATION OF DYNAMIC WIND EFFECTS FOR

TRUSSED TOWERS

The justifications given in Chapter 3 as to why the flexible-structure GEF should be used instead
of the NSCP-2001 rigid-structure GEF, or even the 222-G or ASCE7 GEF formulations,
particularly for trussed towers are presented in a recent study by the first author (Aquino 2006).
The study essentially aimed to address the issue of the non-consideration of dynamic wind
effects in the structural design or evaluation of trussed towers in the Philippines, which usually
have a rigid design (i.e. using the NSCP-2001 rigid-structure GEF, or using pre-NSCP-2001
codes such as NSCP-1992). A summary of the study can also be found in (Aquino et al 2006).

In the first part of the study, it was shown that, after some modifications, many formulations can
be considered as a “rational analysis” that can be used in a flexible design following NSCP-2001
requirements. A modified version of Davenport’s formulation for trussed towers as presented in
the ASCE Manual No. 74 (ASCE 1991) was selected for trussed towers because it has been
shown to be used in a wind loading code that has NSCP-2001-compatible wind characterization

8
Refer to (Loredo-Souza & Davenport, 2003), and (Holmes, 1994 and 1996).
8
(i.e., the ASCE Manual No. 74). Other formulations9 may also be used in lieu of this modified
Davenport formulation, but will need further modifications.

In general, trussed towers are assumed as 1-D, vertical line structures in the GEF formulation;
i.e. the width and depths are assumed negligible (B = D = 0). Size reduction (or spatial
correlation) effects are thus affected only by the height of the structure.10

In the second part of the study, measured natural frequencies of thirty-four (34) trussed towers
from other countries were analyzed to come up with a single formula for estimating the natural
frequency. An effort was made to come up with a natural frequency estimate for towers in the
Philippines. Of the thirty-four towers, thirty-two (32) also had measured structural damping
ratios which were also analyzed. A simple formula for estimating the aerodynamic damping
ratio, and a single value for the mode shape exponent, were also suggested. These suggested
estimates were also compared with those found in literature.

In the third part of the study, the modified Davenport formulation together with the suggested
estimates of dynamic properties from the first two parts of the study (and reflected in Appendix
A) were then used so that a flexible-structure GEF could be calculated for one antenna tower
originally designed using the rigid design method, and so that a flexible design could be carried
out for the same tower. The flexible-structure GEF calculated is around 1.19. The original rigid-
structure GEF used is 0.85. In this case, the difference between the values is around 40%.

As mentioned earlier, the deflections are practically the same between the rigid and flexible
designs in this case study and therefore any increase in member sizes to minimize the deflections
to meet strict deflection criteria could not compensate for the non-consideration of dynamic wind
effects. The case study also showed that member sizes and also the natural frequency are both
larger in a flexible design than in a rigid design.

Additionally for such a tower for which a flexible design is required, a rigid design would result
in member stresses reaching around 80% or more of the yield stress (compared to around 60% to
66% in allowable stress design). Thus a rigid design would result in a design that falls short of
NSCP-2001 requirements for such a tower, although failure in terms of yielding is not yet
expected. This further implies that if such a structure with a rigid design would collapse due to
typhoon winds, there are other causes contributing to the collapse in addition to the non-
consideration of dynamic wind effects.

Similar to the third part and essentially using the same procedure as in the first two parts of the
study, the flexible-structure GEF was calculated for the trussed towers listed in Table 2a,
assuming these are in NSCP-2001 Wind Zone II (V = 200 kph) and in Exposure Category C (flat,
open country terrain). The calculated values are listed in Error! Not a valid bookmark self-
reference.a. Of course, if a different basic wind speed V (or a different wind zone) or terrain
exposure category were considered, the calculated GEF values would be different.

9
e.g. from (Holmes, 1996), (ASCE, 2003), (AIJ, 2004), and (AS/NZS, 2002).
10
The same assumptions can be made for pole-type structures such as electrical transmission posts, lighting posts,
flag poles, and masts. (Simiu & Scanlan, 1996)
9
 Table 3a. Flexible-structure GEF values using procedure in Appendix A
of antenna towers in the Philippines, with h/B0 = 7 and up to 3 antennas,
in NSCP-2001 Wind Zone II, Exposure C

Flexible- % Difference over

Tower h B0 h Pla n1
ID (m) (m) B0 n (Hz)
β structure rigid-structure value
GEF of 0.85 (Exp C)
G12 12 2 6.0 SQ 5.61 0.011 1.17 +38%
G30 30 4.5 6.7 SQ 2.19 0.022 1.26 +48%
G30t 30 4.4 6.8 TR 1.97 0.013 1.30 +53%
E30t 30 4.8 6.3 TR 2.00 0.011 1.30 +53%
RP40 40 5.4 7.4 SQ 1.61 0.013 1.26 +48%
G40 40 5.8 7.0 SQ 1.63 0.012 1.26 +48%
G40t 40 5.4 7.4 TR 1.45 0.011 1.28 +51%
E40 40 6 6.7 SQ 1.65 0.014 1.25 +47%
D50 50 6.8 7.4 SQ 1.29 0.012 1.23 +45%
D60 60 7.5 8.0 SQ 1.07 0.013 1.19 +40%
E50 50 8.7 5.8 SQ 1.36 0.014 1.22 +44%
G60 60 8.3 7.3 SQ 1.08 0.012 1.21 +42%
G60t 60 7 8.6 TR 0.94 0.011 1.23 +45%
E60t 60 9 6.7 TR 0.99 0.011 1.22 +44%
D70 70 8.7 8.1 SQ 0.91 0.011 1.19 +40%
ABT 183 27 6.7 SQ 0.36 0.013 1.07 +26%

Table 3b. Flexible-structure GEF values for example billboard structures

in NSCP-2001 Wind Zone II, Exposure B

Flexible- % Difference over

Billboard h D h n1
ID (m) (m) D
Supp.
(Hz)
β structure rigid-structure value
GEF of 0.8 (Exp B)
MM1 8 2 4 G 9.6 0.033 0.93 +16%
MM1R 8 2 4 R-15 9.6 0.033 0.94 +18%
MM2 4 1 4 G 19.3 0.059 0.95 +19%
MM2R 4 1 4 R-15 19.3 0.059 0.96 +20%

The rigid-structure GEF for the towers is 0.85 in this case (for Exposure C – such as in Naga
City; refer to Figure 1a). Note that for these towers, the flexible-structure value is always greater
than unity (Table 3a), and thus always greater than the NSCP-2001 rigid-structure value.

The flexible-structure value is around 20% to 50% larger than the NSCP-2001 rigid-structure
value for the trussed towers, suggesting 20% to 50% under-estimates of the total design wind
forces for these example towers in Wind Zone II and Exposure C. Again the results could be
different for other towers, or for the same towers at different locations (different basic wind
speed or wind zone, or different terrain exposure).

6. CONSIDERATION OF DYNAMIC WIND EFFECTS FOR BILLBOARD

STRUCTURES

The ASCE7 GEF formulation may be used for billboard structures following some suggested
assumptions in literature. Billboard structures are to be assumed as 2-D vertical plane structures
10
in the GEF calculation; i.e. the depth of the structure is assumed negligible (D = 0). Size
reduction effects are thus affected only by the size of the billboard advertisement itself.

For the example billboard structures listed in Table 2b, the calculated GEF values using the
ASCE7 GEF for buildings with the suggested assumptions from literature listed above are listed
in Similar to the third part and essentially using the same procedure as in the first two parts of the
study, the flexible-structure GEF was calculated for the trussed towers listed in Table 2a,
assuming these are in NSCP-2001 Wind Zone II (V = 200 kph) and in Exposure Category C (flat,
open country terrain). The calculated values are listed in Error! Not a valid bookmark self-
reference.a. Of course, if a different basic wind speed V (or a different wind zone) or terrain
exposure category were considered, the calculated GEF values would be different.

Table 3a. Flexible-structure GEF values using procedure in Appendix A

of antenna towers in the Philippines, with h/B0 = 7 and up to 3 antennas,
in NSCP-2001 Wind Zone II, Exposure C

Flexible- % Difference over

Tower h B0 h Pla n1
ID (m) (m) B0 n (Hz)
β structure rigid-structure value
GEF of 0.85 (Exp C)
G12 12 2 6.0 SQ 5.61 0.011 1.17 +38%
G30 30 4.5 6.7 SQ 2.19 0.022 1.26 +48%
G30t 30 4.4 6.8 TR 1.97 0.013 1.30 +53%
E30t 30 4.8 6.3 TR 2.00 0.011 1.30 +53%
RP40 40 5.4 7.4 SQ 1.61 0.013 1.26 +48%
G40 40 5.8 7.0 SQ 1.63 0.012 1.26 +48%
G40t 40 5.4 7.4 TR 1.45 0.011 1.28 +51%
E40 40 6 6.7 SQ 1.65 0.014 1.25 +47%
D50 50 6.8 7.4 SQ 1.29 0.012 1.23 +45%
D60 60 7.5 8.0 SQ 1.07 0.013 1.19 +40%
E50 50 8.7 5.8 SQ 1.36 0.014 1.22 +44%
G60 60 8.3 7.3 SQ 1.08 0.012 1.21 +42%
G60t 60 7 8.6 TR 0.94 0.011 1.23 +45%
E60t 60 9 6.7 TR 0.99 0.011 1.22 +44%
D70 70 8.7 8.1 SQ 0.91 0.011 1.19 +40%
ABT 183 27 6.7 SQ 0.36 0.013 1.07 +26%

Table 3b. Flexible-structure GEF values for example billboard structures

in NSCP-2001 Wind Zone II, Exposure B

Flexible- % Difference over

Billboard h D h n1
ID (m) (m) D
Supp.
(Hz)
β structure rigid-structure value
GEF of 0.8 (Exp B)
MM1 8 2 4 G 9.6 0.033 0.93 +16%
MM1R 8 2 4 R-15 9.6 0.033 0.94 +18%
MM2 4 1 4 G 19.3 0.059 0.95 +19%
MM2R 4 1 4 R-15 19.3 0.059 0.96 +20%

11
The rigid-structure GEF for the towers is 0.85 in this case (for Exposure C – such as in Naga
City; refer to Figure 1a). Note that for these towers, the flexible-structure value is always greater
than unity (Table 3a), and thus always greater than the NSCP-2001 rigid-structure value.

The flexible-structure value is around 20% to 50% larger than the NSCP-2001 rigid-structure
value for the trussed towers, suggesting 20% to 50% under-estimates of the total design wind
forces for these example towers in Wind Zone II and Exposure C. Again the results could be
different for other towers, or for the same towers at different locations (different basic wind
speed or wind zone, or different terrain exposure).

b. Again, if a different basic wind speed V (or a different wind zone) or terrain exposure
category were considered, the calculated GEF values would be different.

The rigid-structure GEF for the billboard structures is 0.8 (Exposure B – urban/suburban terrain
such as in Metro Manila). Note that for these example billboards, the flexible-structure value is
greater by around 15% to 20% than the NSCP-2001 rigid-structure value, suggesting 15% to
20% under-estimates of the total design wind forces for these example billboard structures in
Wind Zone II and Exposure B. Again the results could be different for other towers, or for the
same towers at different locations (different basic wind speed or wind zone, or different terrain
exposure).

7. CONCLUSION

It is hoped that the paper has shown the significance of using the flexible-structure GEF for these
truss-type structures that are similar to those typically damaged due to recent typhoons. The use
of the flexible-structure GEF may also be more appropriate than the rigid-structure value in the
design of other structures, but that is left here for future study.

The proposed (preliminary) flexible design procedure for trussed towers given in Appendix A
might seem to include very complicated formulas, but in fact the procedure is easy to encode in
spreadsheet software such as Microsoft Excel, as demonstrated by Aquino (2006) in his study.
Also, the flexible design procedure will converge to lower-bound (rigid-structure) values anyway
for structures that are actually “rigid,” or those that are not at all dynamically wind-sensitive.

Again, there are still more improvements that could be made to the proposed flexible design
procedure given in Appendix A, and to the NSCP-2001 wind loading provisions in general,
considering recent developments in wind loading codes and provisions used in other countries.
It should be mentioned at this point also that wind loads on antennas and wind loads on electrical
transmission line cables supported on trussed towers, as well as other attachments on these truss-
type structures should also be considered, but these are not yet covered in Appendix A.

It was also mentioned that the terms “rigid” and “flexible” can be confusing, and the term
“dynamically wind-sensitive” is suggested instead, in place of the term “flexible.” The paper has
also suggested the use of the terms “simplified design” and “dynamic design,” to delineate
between the detailed calculation of a rational GEF value and the use of a single, but conservative
value.

12
Finally, an investigation study of other possible causes of failure (e.g. fatigue, insufficient
connection detailing, inappropriate design wind speed, etc.) may be conducted for a more
complete evaluation of such structures damaged due to typhoon winds. This starts with proper
documentation of design specifications, actual construction, and nature and extent of damage.
Proper documentation of the damage starts with taking photographs of damaged structures,
which is encouraged.

REFERENCES

American National Standards Institute, and American Society of Civil Engineers (1990), Minimum
Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ANSI/ASCE7-88), ASCE Press.
American Society of Civil Engineers (1991), Electrical transmission line structural loading, ASCE
Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 74, ASCE.
American Society of Civil Engineers (1996), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures (ASCE7-95), ASCE Press.
American Society of Civil Engineers (2003), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures (ASCE7-02), ASCE Press.
Aquino, R.E.R. (2006), Consideration of dynamic wind effects using a modified Davenport gust
response factor formulation in the structural design and evaluation of self-supporting antenna
towers in the Philippines, M.S. Thesis, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.
Aquino, R.E.R., Pacheco, B.M., and Germar, F.J. (2006), Dynamic wind loading of trussed towers:
proposed supplementary material to the NSCP-2001, Proc. 2006 PICE National Convention, Iloilo
City.
Architectural Institute of Japan (2004), Recommendations for Loads on Buildings (AIJ-RLB-2004),
AIJ.
Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (1992), National Structural Code of the
Philippines, Vol. 1 – Buildings, Towers, and Other Vertical Structures (NSCP-1992), 4th ed., ASEP.
Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (2001), National Structural Code of the
Philippines, Vol. 1 – Buildings, Towers, and Other Vertical Structures (NSCP-2001), 5th ed., ASEP.
Holmes, J.D. (1996), ‘Along-wind response of lattice towers: Part II – aerodynamic damping and
deflections,’ Eng. Struct., Vol. 18, No. 7, pp. 483-488.
Loredo-Souza, A.M., and Davenport, A.G. (2003), ‘The influence of design methodology in the response
of transmission towers to wind loading,’ J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., Vol. 91, pp. 995-1005.
Simiu, E., and Scanlan, R. (1996), Wind effects on structures: fundamentals and applications to
design, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Standards Australia, and Standards New Zealand (2002), Structural Design Actions – Part 2: Wind
Actions (AS/NZS 1170.2:2002), AS/NZS.
Tamura, Y., Kareem, A., Solari, G., Kwok, K.C.S., Holmes, J.D., and Melbourne, W.H. (2005), ‘Aspects
of the dynamic wind-induced response of structures and codification,’ Wind and Structures, Vol. 8, No.
4, July 2005, Techno-Press.

13
Telecommunications Industry Association and Electronics Industries Association (2005), Structural
Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures (ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-G-
2005).
Telecommunications Industry Association and Electronics Industries Association (1996), Structural
Standards for Antennas and Antenna Supporting Structures (ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-F-1996).

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Ronwaldo “Ronjie” Aquino, M.ASEP, M.PICE, is currently a member of the PICE Committee on
DMAPS and DQRP, and a member of the PICE Makati Chapter’s Board of Directors. He recently
submitted his thesis that forms the basis of this paper, for his M.S. in Civil Engineering (Major in
Structural Engineering) degree from the University of the Philippines, Diliman, where he also graduated
B.S. in Civil Engineering. He was a short-term researcher at the Tokyo Polytechnic University (Japan) in
2005, under the Center of Excellence (COE) Program for Wind Effects on Buildings and Urban
Environment. (Email: ronjie@gmail.com)
Benito M. Pacheco, PhD, PE, F.ASEP, F.PICE, is co-founder and presently chairman of Vibrametrics,
Inc. Vibrametrics provides vibration testing and other non-destructive tests for full-scale existing
structures. The group performs: testing & monitoring; site & structure assessment; mitigation design;
earthquake risk management solutions; training; and specialized studies.
Dr. Pacheco is former ASEP president, current PICE National Business Manager, and current chairman of
the PICE Committee on DMAPS and DQRP.
He is a licensed civil engineer in the Philippines, registered professional engineer in the USA, certified
ASEAN engineer, and certified APEC engineer. He is a professorial lecturer in structural engineering at
UP Diliman, special lecturer at PUP for the program in master of earthquake engineering, and former
associate professor of civil engineering at the University of Tokyo in Japan. (Email:
bmpacheco@vibrametrics.net)
Fernando J. Germar, MSCE, is an associate professor at the Department of Civil Engineering of the
University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City. He is presently the director of the Office of the
Campus Architect also in UP Diliman, and principal engineer at AMH Engineers. (Email:
fjgermar@yahoo.com)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the inputs and comments on the contents of an earlier version of
this paper by Dr. Andre S. Publico and Prof. Ulpiano P. Ignacio, Jr., of the Department of Civil
Engineering, UP Diliman.

APPENDIX A
PROPOSED NEW SECTION 207.6.4 FOR THE NSCP-2001 (PRELIMINARY)

207.6.4. Trussed Towers. Gust effect factor Gt provisions contained in this section is not
for main wind-force resisting systems of trussed applicable to guyed towers.
towers, including antenna towers, transmission
towers, towers supporting lighting equipment, and 1 + 0.85 ger Q 2 + R 2
the like, whether rigid or flexible, shall be Gt = (207-3)
1 + 0.85 gr
obtained from Eq. 207-3 below. Gt shall be
substituted for G or Gf in Table 207-11. The
14
where r = 4.9 D0 (10 z )1 / α (207-4) for antenna towers with up to 3 attached antennas
and base aspect ratios of up to 7±1, mr may be
taken as 0.05, Ma as 0.9, and Ra = 0.85, or:
1
Q= (207-5)
1 + 0.27 h l Plan-shape Service-level Strength-level
Square 81/h 68/h
−5 / 3 Triangular 73/h 61/h
0.017  n1 z 
R=   (207-6)
β  Vz  For towers without attachments, mr = 0, or Ma =
1.0. For towers without attachments and base
α
aspect ratios of up to 7±1:
and V z = b   V 
z 1000 
 K zt K d , in m/s
 10   3600  Plan-shape Service-level Strength-level
(207-7) Square 91/h 75/h
The peak factor g shall be taken as 4.0. The value Triangular 81/h 68/h
of e shall be 0.75 for transmission towers with
cables, or 1.0 for all other trussed towers. The The natural frequency may be obtained by a
parameters that define the wind field modal calculation on an analytical model of the
characteristics, specifically D0, α, l, ε , b , and tower, with attachments appropriately modeled.
However, this calculated natural frequency shall
α , shall be obtained from Table 207-11. The
be assumed to be a service-level value, and it shall
effective height z shall be taken as two-thirds the
be multiplied by Aa to obtain the appropriate value
height of the tower (2/3h), but not less than zmin as
for the strength-level condition. Also, this
listed in Table 207-11. V is the 3-sec gust basic
calculated natural frequency shall be benchmarked
wind speed in kph, from Figure 207-1. K zt is as
from the value calculated from Eq. 207-8, and the
defined in Section 207.5.5, and evaluated at the lower value shall then be taken.
effective height or at z = z . For towers at
locations isolated from special topographic For evaluation studies, the natural frequency may
features, K zt = 1.0. The directionality factor is set be obtained from full-scale measurements. The
as Kd = 0.85 for trussed towers. amplitude of wind and other loads during the time
of measurements should be properly documented,
The natural frequency n1 of a trussed tower may together will all pertinent information on the
be estimated using the following formula: structure being tested. Any computer model of
the structure shall then be benchmarked from this
n1 = 107 M a Ra 0 Pa Aa (207-8) full-scale measurement.
h
The structural damping ratio βs at service-level
where Ra0 = 1.25(h/B0)-0.2 (207-9)
condition may be taken as
1 β s = 0.0019n1 ≥ 0.003 (207-12)
Ma = (207-10)
1 + k m mr
where n1 is the service-level natural frequency.
3
and km = 2
(207-11) The structural damping ratio βs at strength-level
 B0 h  + 0.15 condition may be taken as
 B0 

β s = 0.0027n1 ≥ 0.0036 (207-13)
Pa = 1.0 for square towers, and 0.9 for triangular
towers. Aa = 1.0 for service-level condition, and where n1 is the strength-level natural frequency.
0.83 for strength-level condition. B0h is the
average tower width, or average of the base and The aerodynamic damping ratio βa at service-level
top widths, B0 and Bh, of the tower. Alternatively, condition may be taken as

15
 0.007 The total damping ratio β shall be taken as
βa = ≥ 0.007 (207-14)
n1
β = β s + β a ≤ 0.06 (207-17)
where n1 is the service-level natural frequency.
Alternatively, the total damping ratio β may be
The aerodynamic damping ratio βa at strength- taken as 0.01.
level condition may be taken as
Table 207-11. Parameters defining the wind field
0.0106 characteristics in the calculation
βa = ≥ 0.007 for Zone I or II, of the GEF according to Eq. 207-3
n1
Exposure α zg (m) â b̂ α
or for V > 162 kph, (207-15)
A 5.0 457 1/5 0.64 1/3.0
0.009 B 7.0 366 1/7 0.84 1/4.0
βa = ≥ 0.007 for Zone III, C 9.5 274 1/9.5 1.00 1/6.5
n1
D 11.5 213 1/11.5 1.07 1/9.0
or for V ≤ 162 kph (207-16)
Table 207-11 (cont’d)
where n1 is the strength-level natural frequency.
Expo- b c l ε zmin D0
The aerodynamic damping ratio βa may be sure (m) (m)
A 0.30 0.45 55 ½.0 18.3 0.025
obtained from a more detailed analysis with the
B 0.45 0.30 98 1/3.0 9.1 0.010
appropriate basic wind speed V as parameter, the
C 0.65 0.20 152 1/5.0 4.6 0.005
hourly mean wind speed from Eq. 207-7, a mode D 0.80 0.15 198 1/8.0 2.1 0.003
shape exponent of 3.0, unit mass at the base, and
solidity ratio ε and drag force coefficient Cf
evaluated at the effective height.

APPENDIX B
ADDITIONAL SYMBOLS & NOTATIONS FOR THE NSCP-2001

Aa = amplitude factor for calculation of n1
b = mean hourly wind speed factor
b̂ = 3-second gust speed factor
c = turbulence intensity factor
D0 = surface drag coefficient
Gt = gust effect factor for main wind-force
resisting systems of trussed towers
(proposed new Eq. 207-3 for NSCP-2001);
also called a “dynamic response factor”
g = peak factor for general use in estimating
background, resonant, or wind response
Kd = wind directionality factor
K zt = topographic effect factor evaluated at the
effective height z
l = integral length scale factor, or integral
length scale of turbulence evaluated at the
reference height (z = 10 meters), in meters
Ma = mass factor for calculation of n1
mr = mass ratio, or the ratio of attached masses
(e.g. antennas) at the top 5% of towers to
the total mass of the tower alone; for
attached masses at lower levels of the
tower, an equivalent mass ratio shall be
taken
n1 = trussed tower fundamental (1st mode)
natural frequency under consideration, in
Hz
Pa = plan-shape factor for calculation of n1
Q = non-dimensional background or quasi-static
response factor in GEF formulations
(proposed new Eq. 207-5 for NSCP-2001)
R = non-dimensional resonant response factor
in GEF formulations (proposed new Eq.
207-6 for NSCP-2001)
Ra0 = aspect ratio factor for n1, evaluated for base
width B0
r = roughness factor
Vz = hourly mean wind speed at equivalent
height z of structure, in meters per second
(m/s), corresponding to the basic, 3-second
gust wind speed, V, and terrain exposure
16
 category (proposed new Eq. 207-7 for
NSCP-2001)
z = equivalent height of structure, in meters
zg = nominal height of the atmospheric
boundary layer used in the NSCP-2001
(and in the ASCE7), in meters
zmin = exposure constant, in meters
α = 3-second gust speed power law exponent
α̂ = reciprocal of α
α = hourly mean wind speed power law
exponent
β = total damping ratio
βs = structural damping ratio
βa = aerodynamic damping ratio
ε = integral length scale power law exponent

View publication stats