Mount - Technical - Guidance v22

IMPORTANT NOTE: This document reflects general guidance only.
A duly licensed engineer operating in that

capacity is responsible for ultimate design decisions. Deviations from this guidance should be documented.
Mount Technical Guidance

ATT-002-291-373
The intended audience for this document is primarily license engineers

providing professional mount engineering services to AT&T as well as
manufacturers that design mounts. Site acquisition suppliers that subcontract
engineering services to 3rd party A&E firms should ensure that the Engineer of
Record is kept current by timely distribution of the latest revision and
removing obsolete versions from circulation. This document supersedes all
previous versions.
IMPORTANT NOTE: This document reflects general guidance only. A duly

licensed engineer operating in that capacity is responsible for ultimate
design decisions. Deviations from this guidance should be documented.
Contents:
1. Objective
2. Responsibility
3. Mount Mapping
4. Mount Analysis and Opinion Letters
5. Mount Modifications and Replacements
6. Closeout Documentation
7. Mount Design Criteria and Classification
8. A&E Firm Prequalification
9. Approving Mount Engineer
10. Acronyms
11. Note on Guidance
12. Revision Log
1.0 Objective
The purpose of this technical directive is to provide recommendations to the
Engineer and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to formulate reproducible,
standards-based work for AT&T, and provide processes to achieve the objective cost
effectively, building safety and capacity into their designs with the least Effective
Projected Area (EPA).
ATT-002-291-373 Revision 21. Effective April 29, 2022

© 2022 AT&T Intellectual Property – AT&T Proprietary – Not for use or disclosure outside of AT&T companies and its third-party representatives
except under written agreement.
Page 1
IMPORTANT NOTE: This document reflects general guidance only. A duly licensed engineer operating in that
AT&T meets the standardization objective by using ANSI/TIA-222-H for analyzing

mounts at all tower sites within its network effective as of January 2019. Using TIA-
222-H should also reduce the cost of compliance, given the standard’s adoption of
ASCE7-16 winds and ice parameters.
Provide the simplest solution that can be effectively built.

The cost objectives are further elaborated in Mount Mapping, where unnecessary
mapping is avoided. Mount Analysis and Opinion Letters outline how the cost to
analyze is reduced by using opinion letters, when a baseline analysis and a
specification exist for the mount.
Mount Modifications and Replacements and Closeout Documentation criteria each

facilitate documentation. While Mount Design Criteria and Classification embraces
safety with the inclusion of maintenance tie-offs and rigging.
A&E Firm Prequalification and use of Approved Mount Engineers seeks alignment
from A&E firms on quality standards.
2.0 Responsibility
Site acquisition and turf suppliers that provide engineering services to AT&T should
ensure that the methods and procedures outlined in this document are considered
before documents are presented to AT&T as a record. AT&T national, regional, and
market level managers should ensure that suppliers follow these methods and
procedures.
Deviations by the Engineer of Record from the recommendations in this document

should be clearly documented.
3.0 Mount Mapping

When a mount is damaged or corroded (i.e., material loss, not flash rust), no mapping,
mount analysis, or mod design should be generated, and the mount should be
replaced.
When a mount mapping is performed, the following are required deliverables:

1. Computer generated mount sketches should have the following information.
a. Mount azimuth and elevation

Page 2
b. Mount geometry and dimensions

c. Member sizes
d. Member connection information including:
i. Bolts: diameter, length, and material grade for each
ii. Plate Components: give size and geometry of each
iii. Welds: give length of each, and where possible, also the size; per AWS
D1.1.
iv. Steel grades, if available
v. Other mount-specific connection information, as required by the EOR
e. Appurtenance information: make, model, dimensions, drag factor (if
manufacturer supplied), elevation, tilt, azimuth, and mounting pipe position.
The spatial orientation relative to the mount should make clear to an
engineer relying on this mapping information, whether asymmetries exist
that would cause vertical or horizontal eccentric moments.
f. Tie-back information: as best as can be determined give the angle,
attachment point on mount, and attachment point on structure.
g. Mount-to-tower connection: give detailed dimensional information,
including the monopole diameter or the tower face width, leg type and size
at the point of attachment. This information allows for more constructible
mount mod designs.
h. Safety climb facility location in plan view of mount (looking down at the
mount from above) with any obstruction noted between the safety climb
and mount structure.
2. Photographs should, at a minimum, meet the following requirements.
a. Include any photographs, as required to verify the information listed in 3.1.
b. Positively identify the site ID and location by photographing the signage.
c. Include a full view of the mount from the ground. If an unmanned aerial
system (UAS) is used, also include a full view of the mount at elevation for
each sector.
d. Meet any additional requirements given by the Engineer of Record (EOR).

Page 3
4.0 Mount Analysis and Opinion Letters

Each mount should have a baseline passing mount analysis record and TIA-5053
Rating that should remain valid until the structure is modified or replaced. When
mount analyses are performed on tower sites, they should conform to the
requirements of ANSI/TIA-222-H, IBC-2018, and ASCE 7-16 or later revisions.
Each subsequent project should require the use of an opinion letter or Mount Analysis
to certify that the mount remains within the TIA REV H capacity usage limit of 105%
(cf. TIA-222-H §16.9). The TIA 5053 Rating in combination with the baseline analysis
should be considered a sufficient statement of capacity for the purposes of
defaulting to opinion letters in subsequent non-failing assessments. Note that an
Opinion Letter may only be used if antenna locations, or symmetry (vertical and
horizontal) remain unchanged, and wind and weight of each mount load does not
exceed the limit of the TIA5053 Rating.
If any jurisdiction has a lower limitation for capacity usage than 105%, the
jurisdiction’s lower limit should be used for either the mount analysis or opinion letter.
It is not typically recommended to include a copy of the mount analysis with building
permit applications, unless specifically required by the jurisdiction.
If a jurisdiction specifies a windspeed that overrides IBC or state building code

windspeeds, that windspeed should be applied only if a mount analysis is required by
the jurisdiction.
Once a mount’s capacity is exhausted, A&E firms should generate an analysis,

showing individual failing members (cf. §4.3c(ii)), rather than give an opinion letter.
The final loading configuration and positions of equipment in the mount analysis
should match what is shown on the Construction Drawings (CDs), and the CDs should
incorporate the mount analysis by reference. If the mount analysis and CDs do not
match, the turf supplier is responsible for corrections at their own expense. More
generally, all CD errors (of which configuration errors are only one specific instance)
should be corrected by the A&E firm at their own expense.
1. When performing a mount analysis, it is recommended to use the following as
input to the mount analysis.
a. Search the existing documentation in both AT&T and supplier file systems,
and reference any document used in the documents section of the mount
Page 4
analysis (cf. §4.3c(iv)). Supplier required to complete a DE118 form, Mount

Analysis and Mapping Checklist.
b. Provide the EOR with a mount mapping document that meets the
requirements of Section 3.0.
i. If the mount mapping document does not meet the requirements of
Section 3.0 a new mount mapping should be ordered to supplement
the missing information.
c. Verify the procurement and installation of the mount, as follows.
i. Provide recent close-out documents.
ii. Show photographs of the installed mount.
iii. Include the most recent structural artifacts (e.g., a prior mount
analysis) that itemize all mount structural members in their original
or reinforced condition, provided that the most recent artifact
describes the current state of the mount.
d. If there is missing or conflicting information in the data provided, the
engineer should obtain the additional information required by AT&T.
Assumptions made by the engineer should be clearly stated in the
assumptions section of the mount analysis along with a list of items where
field verification is required (cf. §4.3c(v)).
e. Where documentation is insufficient to generate a mount analysis and field
verification would not suffice, then obtain a mapping of the mount.
2. Mount Analysis Methods
a. Mount analysis should be based on a finite element analysis (FEA) model of
the mount, using industry accepted 3D software (e.g., RISA 3D)
b. Strength limit state load combinations per TIA-222-H §16.4 should be
applied. All topographic effects should be calculated using the “Rigorous
Topographic Factor Procedure (Method 2)” from TIA-222-H §2.6.6.2.2, using
the mount centerline as z.
c. Show the fixity (free, pinned, or fixed and in which plane) for each internal
mount member connection and the connection between the mount and
the tower, including member to plate connections. Fixity of pinned
connections relative to the axis or plane where such fixity applies should be
determined by the Engineer of Record.

Page 5
Fixity Designations
b. c.
a.
Figure 4.1: The reference coordinate system (a) and reaction force boundary condition symbol from RISA 3D (b)
are used to describe a connection with a vertical pipe (c) that is free to rotate about the y-axis but resists rotation
around both x and z axes jointly illustrate the requirement of 4.2d(ii).
d. The connection of the mount to the tower should be modeled and

analyzed, unless it is explained under professional seal that the connection
to the tower does not fail. In cases where moments can cause the
connection to fail in plate flexure (such as a single collar on a monopole),
the analysis should include flexure as a failure mode. Flat plate members,
such as gusset plates, transferring moment about their weak axis or
torsional loads required for stability should likewise require analysis. All
interface analysis parameters should include, but not be limited to, tension
failure, shear failure, weld failure, bolt failure, edge distance failure, member
buckling or yield, stiffener punching shear, U-bolt shear friction, and collar
all-thread tension yielding.
Exemptions to Plate Flexural Stress Calculations Requirement:
i. The analyst may obtain design specifications and/or capacities from
the mount manufacturer on properties and capacities of the mount
interface and determine that the mount interface is within those
tolerances
1) Such capacities and/or specifications should be clearly noted via
assumptions and/or calculations
ii. If the professional opinion of the EOR is that plate flexure should not
govern the connection capacity (see Figure 4.2.b), it should be clearly
stated in the report.
iii. If the exceptions above do not apply, a plate flexural analysis should
be done using an acceptable method, FEA being one example. If this
fails, a modification should be performed with the most practical and
cost-effective solution.

Page 6
If the Failure CSR is too high to modify, or not feasible for any other reason,
or if visible signs of plate distortion can be seen, the EOR may recommend a
replacement of the entire mount or the connection hardware.
Mount-to-Tower Connection Examples

a. The mount analyst should confirm that the
mount collar or connection in question is suitable
for the pole or leg. This example shows an
oversized connection to a tower leg.
b. By inspection of both drawings and photographs,

it can be determined that this HSS should fail
before the plate.
Figure 4.2: Inspection of photographs may reveal limiting conditions to the Engineer, where in the opinion of the
Engineer a full FEA would not be needed.
Installation note: for example, to maximize contact

surfaces and evenly distribute forces at connection
points, nuts should first be snug onto the bolts joining
them, then cross tightened. Here an airgap can be seen
at the top of the flange connection. An improper bolt
tightening technique may have led to the bending of
the plate at the right-hand side of this connection.
Figure 4.3: Include installation best practices as notes to avoid damaging mounts during installation.
3. Mount Analysis Deliverable

a. The mount analysis report and FEA model should be submitted to AT&T
in a stamped or sealed .pdf file as well as an editable data file used to
generate the model (e.g., *.r3d files).
b. Factors used in the determination of wind pressures (qz) and antenna
forces should be clearly noted and reported (e.g., Ka, Ke, Ke(s), Kd, etc.).

Page 7
c. A report consisting of the following sections should be reported. See

Mount Modifications and Replacements for additional criteria on passing
analyses that include a structural improvement.
i. Cover-Page: Identify AT&T’s direct supplier that subcontracted the
A&E firm, site detail (e.g., FA location, E-911 address, county,
(Lat/Long), date of analysis, list all applicable codes and standard
version, mount make, model, AT&T item number of mount (if
applicable) from CONMAT, the maximum demand-capacity ratio
(CSR), pass/fail status, and affix professional seal.
ii. Summary & Results: Include tables showing the proposed equipment
quantities, elevations, sector, position #, azimuth make and model.
Include the design parameters (e.g., nominal wind speed, ice
thickness, exposure category, topographic category, etc.) relied on
for the analysis, table of member CSRs by member type (e.g., face
horizontals, stand-off horizontal, etc.) including bolts and plates. All
basic load cases and load combinations developed by the basic load
cases, also known as BLCs & LC’s, must be shown in a tabulated
format; avoid truncating (i.e., must be legible)
iii. Recommendations: When a mount fails, recommend either a
reinforcement or a replacement of the existing mount. Such
recommendation should consider the cost and constructability of
the solution and, if provided by AT&T, any future loading guidance
forecasted. Reinforcements should generally be preferred over
replacements. Whenever positional changes in either appurtenances
(e.g., centering antennas) or mount members (e.g., relocating or
adding a tieback) can resolve the overcapacity condition, such
changes should be made known. New mount or reinforcement kits
should be recommended by make, model, and AT&T item number
(e.g., CEQ number) from CONMAT. For vertically or horizontally
offset appurtenances, the Engineer should incorporate that into CSR
calculations.
iv. Documents Provided: Identify the document type (e.g., mapping,
mount analysis, manufacturer’s cut sheets, etc.), the source, and the
date.
v. Assumptions
vi. Disclaimers
Page 8
vii. Wind Calculations

1) Calculations should include relevant parameters and
factors used to determine wind pressures.
viii. Seismic Calculations: Seismic calculations should be calculated in
accordance with TIA-222-H Section 16.7.
ix. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) model and output: Include diagrams
and tables (include grade, length, pipe schedule, and plate detail in a
table of CSRs for each member). Format the output to be legible (i.e.,
avoid truncating content).
1) Give the input loads.
2) Give the member sizes, dimensions, and grades.
3) Show the fixity conditions used for each connection.
4) Give the calculations used to determine loads, including
appurtenance EPAs and weights.
5) Show the nodal points of each connection.
x. TIA-5053 Rating Standardization: Provide a mount classification that
is based on the structural capacity of a mounting system, eliminating
the need for a mount analysis for site specific applications that are
within limitations. This should be supplied after each Mount
Modification and is unnecessary for passing MARs.
i. Development criteria that should be met:
1) For vertical asymmetry of > 24” an MCR is not required but
a MAR must be done every time.
2) Vertical eccentricities are allowed and must be listed in the
classification number.
3) Horizontal locations shall be nearly symmetrical and not
exceed more than 6-inch offset to create horizontal
eccentricity for any position.

Page 9
TIA5053 Rating Example Loading Example
4. Passing mount analyses that require action to be taken for the analysis to
pass (also known as a Conditional Passing Analysis), for example, removal of
appurtenances or addition of steel may only be provided if accompanied by
a failing mount analysis. Conditional passing analyses must be approved by
the market TARP PM and should include deliverables outline in section 3.0
and 5.0 depending on the circumstance
5.0 Mount Modifications and Replacements

All mount replacement decisions should be approved by the TARP PM, even if the
replacement was not structurally driven.
1. Modification Design
a. Each of the following requirements should be relied on to formulate a
reinforcement design.

Page 10
i. Constructability: Care should be taken to formulate a design that can

be built.
ii. Tower impact: care should be taken to minimize the impact of loads
transferred to the tower. (For example, tiebacks should be
connected to tower legs vs bracing member.)
iii. Off-the-shelf solutions: commercially available reinforcement kits
from AT&T’s approved mount OEM suppliers may be used, preferably
matching the make of the mount.
iv. Plumb and level: direction should be given to verify that the
reinforced mount is plumb and level.
v. If mount members have flash rust, then treat the surface and
reinforce.
b. T-arms, which are characterized as mounts having a single-member
standoff from the tower, can be reinforced in accordance with this
document.
i. If T-arms are present and can be reinforced to CSR < 95%, then
reinforce. If the structure fails a mount Analysis, the EOR (Engineer of
Record) may consider a knee brace directly under the cantilever
(thus bracing in Y-Z plane) and two knee braces from each end of the
T (thus bracing in both X-Z and Y-Z plane) effectively converting to a
T–Boom mount type.
c. Each of the following should be included in the reinforcement design
delivered.
i. Tiebacks: where added or repositioned, give the tower and mount
attachment points and the tieback angle.
ii. Reinforcement kits: where reinforcement kits are the chosen
solution, include manufacturer drawings and specification sheets in
the report, and cite the documents in the “Documents Provided”
section.
iii. Passing analysis: the mount analysis used to determine the efficacy
of the reinforcement design should accompany the reinforcement
design in the same document.
iv. TIA 5053 Rating Sheet Materials: list member sizes, lengths, and
grades.
Page 11
v. Manufacturer drawings of reinforcement kits, hardware, and tiebacks

when available.
d. Deliver the combined passing analysis and the reinforcement design that
produces the passing analysis as one sealed document.
2. Mount Replacement
a. Any mount having a clearly identifiable defect and no reinforcement
remedy should be replaced.
i. All plasticly deformed, cracked, or corroded mounts should be clearly
identified as hazardous and be recommended for immediate
replacement.
ii. Mounts with chains used in place of monopole collars to support low
profile or sector frame mounts should be recommended for
replacement. No new mounts with this feature should be considered
for new installations.
b. If mount members have material loss due to corrosion (not flash rust), then
replace.
c. Structurally failing T-arms should be replaced with the most efficient option
for both construction and operation.
d. Mount selection
i. The EOR should recommend a mount from an approved
manufacturer.
ii. The model-specific MA should be of a mount listed in CONMAT,
unless the site requires a rare or unique installation, as may occur on
some concealment poles or uniquely designed structures.
iii. The EOR should select a mount having a minimum of 20% reserved
capacity unless the TARP PM approves a variance.
iv. The EOR should supply a passing baseline mount analysis, verifying
that the capacity requirements are met by the selected make and
model. Baseline analysis to include manufacturer design spec sheet
and TIA-5053 Rating (per cf. §4.3c(x)) as part of deliverable.
e. All new mounts should be supplied with a permanent tag or engraving that
identifies the make and model of the mount and follows the traceability
markings of the manufacturer.

Page 12
6.0 Closeout Documentation

All documents generated or referenced by the EOR, as part of any project, should be
incorporated as part of the closeout package. This includes both primary and
secondary documentation. If the reference document is already recorded in AT&T’s
document repository, duplication is not needed.
1. Primary documents: mount analyses, opinion letters, and reinforcement
designs should all be uploaded to AT&T’s document repository. This includes
redlined versions of the documents, when the field condition is determined to
differ from what is documented in the original.
2. Secondary documents: mount mapping checklist, mount mapping,
photographs, CAD files, mount model files (e.g., *.r3d files) should also be
uploaded to AT&T’s document repository.
The general contractor (GC) should submit red-lined (as-built) mount reinforcement
design drawings and supporting photographs for approval by the EOR. Because
deviations potentially impact project cost and structural capacity, unsatisfactory
work should be returned to the GC for correction.
For ease of reference, the GC should include a table on the cover page or immediately
following it, as space permits. The table should reference the changed items and the
pages or drawings on which changes are found. The EOR should indicate whether
each change is acceptable or needs field correction. If no field changes have occurred,
the GC should positively report a “No Change” condition.
In the case of a reinforcement or mount substitution, the TURF, thru its GC, should
provide a PMI (Post Mod Inspection) showing photos of any mod performed, and
either measure member size or locate part number.
7.0 Mount Design Criteria and Classification

OEM mount designs developed for AT&T should consider the following:
1. The OEM should make reasonable efforts to maximize the design capacity of
the mount, while minimizing its EPA.
2. Monopole mounting systems should include a maintenance tie-off location,
using a separate connection to the tower other than the main connection used

Page 13
for mounting appurtenances (see ANSI / ASSE A10.48 – 2016, 6.5.2). Where the
mount elevation is not at the top of the monopole, the maintenance tie-off
should be placed at shoulder height to the elevated worker.
3. Connections to the tower should be designed with sufficient capacity under
maximum mount design loads. The connection capacity should be checked as
part of the Analysis.
4. Mount Tower Connections should be designed to have minimal impact on
tower structural integrity. On Lattice type towers, every effort should be made
to transfer load to panel points rather than mid panel leg load.
5. For rigging purposes, TIA-322 §4.0 should be used to determine the maximum
operational and non- operational loads (see fig 7.1 for example) at the
uppermost horizontal member’s worst location. The maximum loads for each
should be given as both vertical and horizontal components using a 4:1 ratio
respectively. This applies to all mount pipes being loaded.
a. ANSI/TIA-222-H should be used for the supporting structure strength and
stability investigations (cf. TIA-322 §4.2). All other design and analysis
requirements in TIA-322 §4.0 should remain.
b. The construction duration wind speeds should be chosen not to exceed six
weeks (i.e., TIA-322 §4.5d).
c. The reference load should be:
i. EPA = 17.5 ft2 / pipe
ii. Unfactored dead load = 450 lbs. / pipe
iii. Elevation = 400-ft AGL
iv. Exposure Category = C
v. Topographic Category = 1
vi. Risk Category = II.
d. Equipment Mounting Pipes and loading should be vertically and horizontally
within the symmetry tolerance of TIA- 5053.
e. A licensed engineer should stamp or seal these in a product data sheet to
be made available to AT&T’s civil Supplier such that they can be relied on for
designing Class IV rigging plans.

Page 14
Rigging Load Determination
Top
face
horizont
Horizontal
Vertical
Figure 7.1: The maximum allowable vertical and horizontal loads at the worst top face horizontal location.
6. The OEM should certify their mount capacities to the TIA-5053 Standard to a 6”
and 24” offset [MxxxR(xxx)-4(6) and MxxxR(xxx)-4(24)]. These maximum
calculated capacities should then be used to provide a matrix of values for
(EPA)N and (EPA)T, using Exposure Category C, Topographic Category 1, and
Risk Category II, as follows:
a. Provide maximum (EPA)N and (EPA)T tables.
i. Elevations should be given at rows for 50-400 ft AGL in 50-ft
increments and should be based on the calculated TIA-5053 forces
used to determine the mount capacities. (See Table 1)
ii. A licensed engineer should stamp and seal these in a product data
sheet to be made available to the EOR upon request.
7. The OEM should also provide the EPA for the mount based on type – (EPA) N
and (EPA)T for sector frames and (EPA)A for platforms, Mount Pipes to Only be
included if part of mount superstructure.

Page 15
Capacity Table
TIA-5053 Equivalent EPA Table
Elevation ANS/TIA-222-H Ultimate Wind

AGL (ft) Speed (mph)
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Table 1: EPAN and EPAT table should span the windspeed and elevation spectra stated above.
The TIA-5053 Equivalent EPA table may be used to determine whether the per-pipe
loading should exceed the capacity of a mount rated to TIA-5053. If the total snPE
letter may be issued in lieu of a full mount analysis if the listed TIA-5053 rating
eccentricities are not exceeded.
Conversion of Heavy-5, Heavy-10, and Heavy-WLL to TIA-5053
AT&T Mount Classification TIA-5053 Mount Classification
Heavy-5 M750R(750)-4 (6)
Heavy-10 M1300R(1300)-4 (6)
Heavy-WLL M1500R(1000)-5 (6) or M1500R(1300)-4 (6)
Table 2: These conversions are approximate. The EOR is cautioned to perform their own conversion.

Page 16
8.0 A&E Firm Prequalification

Any use of a subcontracted A&E firm must be approved by AT&T before
commencement of the work.
Approved Mount Engineer Suppliers that have completed the AT&T certification
process, are pre-approved to perform Mount Analyses. TARP Suppliers are pre-
approved.
Any other firm should submit Mount Analyses to TARP Engineer for review or should
begin the qualifications process as outlined in section 9.0.
Any mount analysis (passing or failing) is subject to review by an AT&T TARP supplier
using the mount review forms (MRF). AT&T’s current approval practice relies on both
MRFs and a questionnaire to arrive at an approval decision. Firms seeking approval
should market their services to AT&T’s site acquisition suppliers.
For firms that succeed in obtaining approval, the EOR should be subject to ongoing
review under normal operations through periodic sampling.
In addition to TARP supplier reviews, all Failing MAs should be reviewed and approved
by the market TARP PM regardless of whether the EOR is approved.
9.0 Approving a Mount Engineer
SAVs or TVs may select EORs by subcontracting professional services to A&E firms,
according to the Mobility Network General Agreement (MNGA) with AT&T. AT&T may
at its sole discretion, disapprove further work from any EOR, under the subcontractor
clause of the MNGA; by notifying the SAV of findings. In the interest of controlling
both cost and quality, all EORs should be qualified as AMEs using the qualification
steps outlined below. Once qualified to perform engineering services, the ongoing
quality of their work should be subject to random periodic reviews by a TARP Vendor,
an independent 3rd party.
To become qualified, the following must occur:
1. An AT&T TARP PM endorsement is required.

Page 17
2. A questionnaire should be successfully completed via a score of 70% by an

engineer in the firm and evaluated by AT&T TARP National.
a. 30 sequential MAs should be reviewed via the MRF process. The MAs
should be a mixture of passing and failing (15±5 of each) totaling 30, to
assess EOR’s approach.
b. MRFs should be returned as soon as possible after each MA to the EOR
to allow improvement. More than one TARP vendor should be used for
MRF reviews.
3. Final designation and approval as an AME should be provided by the AT&T
TARP national team.
4. Vendor should score 70% based on scoring chart below
5. Vendors disqualified by initial review should remain disqualified for a period of
no less than six months and may not be used to perform work in a structural
capacity on AT&T Mount MA projects in any market.
6. After six months, the vendor may choose to write a summary of remedial steps
taken, submit a control plan, and the re-review should be limited to the delivery
of 30 projects and only pursuant to a qualifying review may become an AME.
10.0 Acronyms
A&E: Architecture and Engineering
AME: Approved Mount Engineer
CAD: Computer-aided design
CD: Construction drawings
CONMAT: Contracted materials
CSR: Combined stress ratio
EOR: Engineer of record
EPA: Effective projected area; EPAN and EPAT are EPA normal and tangential
respectively.
FA Location: Fixed asset location
FEA: Finite element analysis
GC: General contractor
HSS: Hollow structural section
MAR or MA: Mount Analysis Report
MCR: Mount Capacity Rating
OEM: Original equipment manufacturer

Page 18
11.0 Note on Guidance

IMPORTANT NOTE: This document reflects general guidance only. A duly
licensed engineer operating in that capacity is responsible for ultimate design
decisions. Deviations from this guidance should be documented.
12.0 Revision Log
Date Author Rev Description
8/10/17 VA 0 Initial Release
9/1/2017 GR 1 Modified
10/13/17 VA 2 Modified per TURF 4.0
2/6/2018 GR 3 Updated reserved capacity and reviewed

reinforcement kit requirement
2/8/2018 GR 4 Updated Mount Analysis section to conform with ATT-002-

290-478.
4/2/2018 GR 5 Clarified objective and requirements of 4.2(iv)
4/30/2018 GR 6 Added criteria for basic wind determination 4.2(f). Also,

expanded reference criteria in 5.2(e). Moved Heavy-5, 10, WLL
parameters and definitions to a new section.
5/3/2018 VA 7 Added T-arm criteria to 5.1
5/8/2018 GR 7.1 Corrected inconsistencies in T-arm replacement language
6/7/2018 GR 8 Reduced live load to industry standard in 4.2(c). Added back

disallowance of chain mounts in 5.2(a).
8/7/2018 GR, VA 9 Added requirements for analyzing mount connection

to tower 4.2(f)(vi). Added supplement to code
requirement for Rev F jurisdictions in 8.0.
11/10/18 GR 10 All Failing MAs MUS go to TARP PM for review and all mount
replacements should be sanctioned by the TARP PM
11/15/18 VA 11 When doing a MA in REV G, the EOR may consider a

shielding parameter of 10%, but is not obligated to.
Page 19
This is moot in REV H.
1/14/2019 GR 12 Update reflects a change in direction to use TIA-222-H on

all future projects, TIA-5053 classification, ISO-9001
certification, and xml files.
4/4/2019 GR 13 Opinion letter requirements were updated in 4.0. Rigging and

mount capacity were updated in 7.0. Quality system was
updated in 8.0.
6/14/2019 GR 14 Strength Limit State criteria for T-arms (4.2b), fixity

requirements (4.2d), and engineering requirements (8.0)
were updated.
9/17/2019 GR, DM, VA 15 Comprehensive review
5/21/2021 GR 16 Added nonstandard loading (4.3). Estimate eccentric usage

(4.4c). CONMAT items changed to required (5.2d). Provide
sealed capacities (7.7).
1/21/2022 VA 17 Altered language on new Mount Capacity ratings and

eliminated Various windspeeds.
3/4/2022 VA 18 Peer reviewed
3/17/22 TARP 19 TARP National Reviewed

National
4/4/22 Legal 20 Paul Theiss (Legal) Reviewed April 1, 2022
4/29/22 Review by 21 Re-worded and formatted for additional clarity. Clarified

Markets & objective and requirements of newly added Section 4.3.C(x)
TARP PMs regarding TIA-5053 classification.
5/13/22 Additional 22 Align with RFP

Review by
VA
For questions regarding the content of this document, please contact the program manager,
Victor Allen (va2976@att.com) or Jennifer Van Horn (jv067q@att.com).

Page 20

Mount - Technical - Guidance v22

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mount - Technical - Guidance v22

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IMPORTANT NOTE: This document reflects general guidance only.

A duly licensed engineer operating in that

Mount Technical Guidance

The intended audience for this document is primarily license engineers

IMPORTANT NOTE: This document reflects general guidance only. A duly

ATT-002-291-373 Revision 21. Effective April 29, 2022

AT&T meets the standardization objective by using ANSI/TIA-222-H for analyzing

Provide the simplest solution that can be effectively built.

Mount Modifications and Replacements and Closeout Documentation criteria each

Deviations by the Engineer of Record from the recommendations in this document

3.0 Mount Mapping

When a mount mapping is performed, the following are required deliverables:

ATT-002-291-373 Revision 21. Effective April 29, 2022

b. Mount geometry and dimensions

ATT-002-291-373 Revision 21. Effective April 29, 2022

4.0 Mount Analysis and Opinion Letters

If a jurisdiction specifies a windspeed that overrides IBC or state building code

Once a mount’s capacity is exhausted, A&E firms should generate an analysis,

analysis (cf. §4.3c(iv)). Supplier required to complete a DE118 form, Mount

ATT-002-291-373 Revision 21. Effective April 29, 2022

d. The connection of the mount to the tower should be modeled and

ATT-002-291-373 Revision 21. Effective April 29, 2022

Mount-to-Tower Connection Examples

b. By inspection of both drawings and photographs,

Installation note: for example, to maximize contact

3. Mount Analysis Deliverable

ATT-002-291-373 Revision 21. Effective April 29, 2022

c. A report consisting of the following sections should be reported. See

vii. Wind Calculations

ATT-002-291-373 Revision 21. Effective April 29, 2022

TIA5053 Rating Example Loading Example

5.0 Mount Modifications and Replacements

ATT-002-291-373 Revision 21. Effective April 29, 2022

i. Constructability: Care should be taken to formulate a design that can

v. Manufacturer drawings of reinforcement kits, hardware, and tiebacks

ATT-002-291-373 Revision 21. Effective April 29, 2022

6.0 Closeout Documentation

7.0 Mount Design Criteria and Classification

ATT-002-291-373 Revision 21. Effective April 29, 2022

ATT-002-291-373 Revision 21. Effective April 29, 2022

Rigging Load Determination

ATT-002-291-373 Revision 21. Effective April 29, 2022

TIA-5053 Equivalent EPA Table

Elevation ANS/TIA-222-H Ultimate Wind

Conversion of Heavy-5, Heavy-10, and Heavy-WLL to TIA-5053

AT&T Mount Classification TIA-5053 Mount Classification

Heavy-5 M750R(750)-4 (6)

Heavy-10 M1300R(1300)-4 (6)

Heavy-WLL M1500R(1000)-5 (6) or M1500R(1300)-4 (6)

ATT-002-291-373 Revision 21. Effective April 29, 2022

8.0 A&E Firm Prequalification

9.0 Approving a Mount Engineer

To become qualified, the following must occur:

1. An AT&T TARP PM endorsement is required.

2. A questionnaire should be successfully completed via a score of 70% by an

ATT-002-291-373 Revision 21. Effective April 29, 2022

11.0 Note on Guidance

12.0 Revision Log

Date Author Rev Description

8/10/17 VA 0 Initial Release

10/13/17 VA 2 Modified per TURF 4.0

2/6/2018 GR 3 Updated reserved capacity and reviewed

2/8/2018 GR 4 Updated Mount Analysis section to conform with ATT-002-