Capstone 2 Chapter 1-3 Presentation

DESIGN OF
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER
AT BARANGAY SAN RAFAEL-
UPPER, RODRIGUEZ, RIZAL.”
Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon
Chapter 1

The Problem
• Mobile Phones are very common and known to be the easiest way to
communicate from one individual to another. But how can we
communicate using our mobile phone if there is no signal in our
area?
• With the booming population and the growing demands of mobile

phones with the influence of continuous innovation of technologies,
absence of signal would be a problem to the society, especially in
rural areas.

The Project and its Location
• The Project is to design a Telecommunication Tower in Barangay San
Rafael-Upper, Rodriguez, Rizal.
• The project is located at Mt. Susong Dalaga located southeast of Mt.

Binacayan and Northwest of Pentecostal Missionary Church of 4th
Watch.
• It is approximately located 609.30 meters from the extension of

Marikina River.

Map view of Project Location
Approximate Distance between the Project Site and Marikina

River Extension
Front View of the Location
Back View of the Location

The Client
• Smart Telecommunication led by Manny V. Pangilinan
• The client’s budget for telecommunication tower is

limited to 40 million pesos only.
• This budget includes all the cost of the entire project.

Project Objective
• GENERAL OBJECTIVE
• The main objective of the project is to design a

Telecommunication tower in Barangay, San Rafael-
Upper, Rodriguez, Rizal

Project Objective
• SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE
• To provide a cost estimate for structural and geotechnical works
• To design a telecommunication tower based on the standard listed in
the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) and
Telecommunications Industry Association's TIA-222-G-2005: Structural
Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas
• To differentiate the trade-offs for determining the most feasible
solution that suits the clients’ needs

Scope
• ● The designers will provide Structural Analysis particularly in Steel
Analysis in accordance to the Provision of National Structural Code of the
Philippines (NSCP) and TIA.
• ● The designers will utilize STAAD Tower software to design the
superstructure and substructure
• ● The designers will provide Structural and Architectural plans of the
Telecommunication Tower
• ● The designers will provide a cost estimate and analysis of the given
trade-off
• ● The designers will provide the specifications of the tower listed in the
given trade-off

Limitations
• The designers will not provide the Electrical and Electronics Engineering related
works.
• The designers will not implement the project.
• The design of the miscellaneous structures are not included in the analysis and
cost estimate.
• Due to unavailability of geotechnical parameters the designers tend to rely to the
available presumptive geotechnical report provided in the TIA-222-G-2005.
• The designers will not provide an accurate number of mobile phone users in the
Barangay.
• The designers will not provide detailed construction activities.
• The project does not include the structural repairs
• The designers will not provide the actual and accurate cost for manpower and
equipment.
Project Development
• The development of the project will mainly start in the planning stage.
• Second is the gathering of data.
• Conceptualization
• Identification of design standards, specifications, and constraints
• Presentation of trade-offs
• Evaluation of trade-offs
• Preliminary Design of the Chosen Trade-off
• Identification of Materials and Properties
• Cost Estimate
• Evaluation of Preliminary Design
• Final Structural Design

Chapter 2
Design Criteria and Review of
Related Literature
Group 8: Gachalian, Indaya, Mateo, Quimzon
2.1 Design Criteria
2.1.1 Demography
The population of Barangay San Rafael grew from 10,548 in
1990 to 27,956 in 2015, an increase of 17,408 people. The
latest census figures in 2015 denote a positive growth rate of
2.38%, or an increase of 3,246 people, from the previous
population of 24,710 in 2010.
. The continuous growth of the population has a great
contribution to the demand of cellphone users in the area,
but some areas in the barangay do not have a signal that
forces the users to go far just to have a phone signal.

Survey Interpretation
Survey Interpretation
2.1.2 Description of the Project
To design a telecommunication tower with a
total area of 19.5 m x 14 m to provide a cellular
signal in Barangay, San Rafael.
2.1.3 Architectural Plan

FINAL-ELEVATION.pdf
FINAL-PERSPECTIVE.pdf
FINAL-TOP-VIEW.pdf
2.1.4 Topography
The topography of Rodriguez, Rizal is very

rough and the Barangay, San Rafael-upper is
composed of hilly terrain with elevation
estimated to 689ft above mean sea level.

Topography Map of Project Location
2.1.5 Loads
Load Combination is based on the Telecommunication
Industry Association(TIA) Standard (TIA-222-G-2005)
Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures
and Antennas.
It is a standard mandated by the TIA which approved by
the American National Standard Institute(ANSI) last
August 2, 2005, and is reaffirmed last December 20, 2012.
2.1.5.2 Dead Loads
Dead Load is the weight of the telecommunication tower

including plates, diagonal steel member, legs, bolts and
other appurtenances.

The table below are the
parameters used in
determining Dead Loads
to design a
Telecommunication
Tower.
2.1.5.3 Seismic Design Parameters
Earthquake Load or Seismic Load takes place due to the

inertia forced produced in the building bacause of
seismic excitations.
Barangay San Rafael-Upper, Rodriguez, Rizal is 3.2 km
away from a valley fault system.

2.1.5.4 Wind Loads
Wind Load is the pressure and force that the
wind exerts on the structures.
The antenna tower and antenna supporting

structures shall be designed and constructed to
resist wind loads based on Section 2.6 of the TIA-
222-G-2005 suggested by section 207.1 of the NSCP
2015.
2.1.6 Structural Design Criteria
Section 3.4 of TIA-222-G-2005 provides the minimum models of
analysis for self supporting lattice towers. These includes
a) Elastic three-dimensional truss model made of straight
members pin connected at joints producing axial forces in
the members.
b) Three-dimensional frame-truss model where continuous
members(legs,K-type bracing horizontal without plan
bracing) are modeled as 3-D beam Elements that subjected
to axial loads may be modeled as 3-D truss elements
producing only axial forces in the members.

2.1.7 Design Criteria for Foundation
2.1.7.1 Soil Data

These are the presumptive soil parameters
that the designers provide based on TIA-222-
G-2005

Where :
N= number of blows
C= cohesion
K= Lateral modulus of soil reaction
Φ = Angle of internal Friction
ϒ = yield modulus
Sf= ultimate skin friction
ϵ = strain of ultimate compression

2.2 Review of Related Literature
2.2.1 Local Literature
2.2.1.1 Structural assessment of current steel design models for transmission and telecommunication
towers
-Proposing alternative design of a telecom tower
2.2.1.2 Consideration of Dynamic Wind Effects in the Structural Design of Truss-Type Structure
-They proposed about the practicing of flexible structure GEF
2.2.1.3 Advantages of using a Tubular Profile for telecommunication structure
-they focus on the advantage of a tubular tower to angular tower
2.2.1.4 Structural Application of GRC in Telecommunication Towers
-they proposed about the application of GRC in telecommunication tower

2.2.1 Local Literature
2.2.1.5 Globe, Smart, Mislatel back DICT’s (Department of Information and Communications
Technology) Common Tower Policy
-it states that there are new company that wants to provide or to put up infrastructure for smart and globe
2.2.1.6 Common-Tower Policy Seen Addressing Telco Infrastructure seen addressing Telco
Infrastructure Dearth
-
2.2.1.7 Gov’t pushes new cell tower scheme for the level field, better service
2.2.1.8 DICT, Telcos Indentify 1,000 Location for common tower Project

2.2.2 Foreign Literature
2.2.2.1 Design of Telecommunication Towers for Earthquake Loading in Sri Lanka

for Sustainability
2.2.2.2 Structural Analysis and Design of Steel Transmission Tower in Wind Zones II
and IV-A Comparative Study
2.2.2.3 Analysis of Telecommunication Tower with Different Bracing System

2.2.2.4 Progressive Collapse Analysis of Latticed Telecommunication Towers under
Wind Loads

2.2.2.5 Telecommunication Cell Tower Most Common Alternatives Overview
2.2.2.6 Comparative Analysis of Steel Telecommunication tower subjected to Seismic

and Wind loading
2.2.2.7 Evaluation of the Factors Influencing Time and Cost Overruns in Telecom
Tower Constructions in Ghana
2.2.2.8 Effect of Rooftop Mounted Telecommunication Tower on Design of the
building Structure

2.2.2.9 Influence of Telecommunication Tower on Response of Host Structure
2.2.2.10 Comparative Analysis of Telecommunication Tower
2.2.2.11 Effects of Mobile Tower Radiation on Human Health
2.2.2.12 Comparison of Various Bracing System of Self-Supporting Steel Lattice

Structure Towers

2.2.2.13 Wind Analysis of Microwave Antenna Towers
2.2.2.14 Analysis of the Monopoly Communication Tower
2.2.2.15 Structural Analysis of Guyed Steel

Telecommunications Towers for Radio Antennas
2.2.2.16 Telecommunication Cell Tower Most Common Alternatives

2.2.2.17 Stabilization of very soft soils using high strength geosynthetics: the role of finite element analysis
2.2.2.18 Effect of infiltration on the performance of an unsaturated Geotextile-Reinforced soil Wall
2.2.2.19 Retaining Wall with Flexible mechanical soil stabilizing sheet
2.2.2.20 Slope stabilization system and method
2.2.2.21 Connector and method for engaging soil-reinforcing grid and earth retaining wall
2.2.2.22 Innovations in Shotcrete technology

Software used
• AutoCAD
• Microsoft Word and Power Point Presentation

Chapter 3

Design Constraints
• Constraints are defined as constraining conditions, agencies, or forces
that limit the systems’ performance in a given context or
environment.

Design Constraints
• Quantitative Structural
• 3.1.1.1 Economic Constraint (Material Cost)

The economic constraint arises from the budget limit and allocation of
the money. The budget is one of the concerns for all construction
projects.
• 3.1.1.2 Sustainability (Lifespan)
Each trade-off is assessed based on the lifespan their design can
provide to the structure. The one which has the longest lifespan will get
the highest rating for the assessment.

Design Constraints
• 3.1.1.3 Risk Assessment

In this constraint, the designers considered the lateral stability of the
tower against earthquakes.
3.1.1.4 Constructability Constraint (Construction Duration)
Construction duration also depends on the difficulty of transport
materials and equipment along with the project site.

Design Constraints
• 3.1.1.5 Environmental Constraint (Maintenance Cost)

• The trade-off which has the least maintenance cost will prevail in the
assessment of this constraint.

Design Constraints
• Quantitative Geotechnical
• 3.1.2.1 Economic Constraint (Material and Equipment Cost)

For the geotechnical context, the designers need to consider the quantity of
the materials that will be used in developing each trade-off. The designers
need to allocate the set budget in a way that the strength requirements and
stability of the soil are achieved.
3.1.2.2 Sustainability (Lifespan)
Each trade-off provides the solution to attain the stability of the soil around
the project site. Each of them must be evaluated in terms of longevity they
will provide the said condition. After the evaluation, the geotechnical trade-
off which provides a longer time of effectivity will prevail in the assessment
of this constraint.
Design Constraints
• 3.1.2.3 Risk Assessment

The trade-off which provides the highest percent reduction to the amount of
soil settlement around the project area will prevail in the assessment of this
constraint.
• 3.1.2.4 Constructability Constraint (Construction Duration)
The faster the construction, the lesser the cost of it. The geotechnical work
must be done in the fastest way possible without sacrificing the quality of
the soil. As such, the trade-off which provides the least required working time
alongside with the best quality condition of the soil will prevail in the
evaluation of this constraint.

Design Constraints
• 3.1.2.5 Environmental Constraint (Maintenance Cost)

The assessment includes the maintenance cost for each geotechnical
trade-off throughout its lifespan. The trade-off which has the least
maintenance cost will prevail in the assessment of this constraint.

Design Constraints
• Qualitative Constraints for both Structural and Geotechnical Context
• 3.1.3.1 Codes and Standards
• The designer must follow the codes and standards specifically from the
National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015 and the TIA-222-G-
2005 (Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas)
for designing the tower.
• 3.1.3.2 Legal Constraints
• Legal limitations are referring to the numerous laws that must be followed
by the work and practice of building projects, which most frequently
concern labor law, security requirements, scheduling and building
regulations, economic conditions, etc.

Trade-Offs (STRUCTURAL)
• 3.2.1.1 Guyed Towers
Guyed Towers can be lightweight to
heavyweight towers often seen as
slender steel structures

Advantage Disadvantages
the cheapest of all tower types to It requires more time to be

install. constructed.
The materials for construction It requires many foundations for
are less expensive to transport the cable supports and the mast
itself.
The strength of the structure is It requires larger space for the
maximized since loads can be construction.
transported to the cable supports.

• 3.2.1.2 Monopole tower
• These tower from the name itself is a
single-pole tower that can be tubular
or tapered in cross-section.

It is much easier to install compared It has the greatest cost as compared
to other towers. to the other towers.
It reduces the number of materials It is effective at radiating sound
required for construction. because of the big turbines.
It is the least intrusive of all other The main disadvantage of this type
types of the tower of tower is that, once its required
height has been determined
• 3.2.1.3 Self Support Tower
Available in three-legged-triangular and
four-legged square lattice-type
structures, their braces can
accommodate the heaviest of loads and
the strongest of winds.

Self-supporting towers require They become extremely expensive at
minimal land for construction. heights of 150 ft. or greater
Less effort for changes This involves more excavation work,
which can become very costly.

Trade-Offs (GEOTECHNICAL)
• 3.2.2.1 Shotcreting
Rigid slope surface protection is frequently used to decrease the
infiltration of rainwater and to stop the erosion of materials forming
the slope. One of the techniques frequently used for slope protection
is shotcreting. Due to its versatility, durability, early strength and
ability to adhere to subtract, it figures prominently among several
techniques for slope stabilization. It offers protection against slope by
applying a spray mortar to the slope surface.

Advantages Disadvantages
Because shotcrete is applied pneumatically, the A very steep slope in terrains with poor rock
material is compacted against the surface to mass quality entails a greater risk of slope
fill cracks and fissures and prevent loose failure, and therefore a superficial layer of
material from falling. shotcrete will not suffice.
Shotcrete can act both as a protective coating The success of shotcrete depends on the
over the slope’s surface, but also as an performance of the operator.
‘anchoring surface’ onto which bolts and other
support systems can be fastened.
The application of shotcrete to the surface of To obtain a perfect bond with the base is
landfills and other waste areas is beneficial to impossible.
prevent surface water infiltration.

• 3.2.2.2 Geotextile Application
• Soil stabilization is the alteration of soils to enhance their physical
properties. Stabilization can increase the shear strength of a soil
and/or control the shrink-well properties of a soil, thus improving the
load-bearing capacity of the subgrade to support pavements and
foundations.
• One of the methods used in soil stabilization is the application of
geotextile. Typically, a geotextile is described as any permeable
textile material used to improve soil stability, control erosion, or
drainage assistance.
Installation is critical and requires
Decreased in plasticity index
experienced contractors.
Increase in soil strength
Increase in fatigue strength Not appropriate for fields with
Increase in durability heavy foot traffic (tripping hazard)
Decreased well potential and – for example, pad areas around
volume change under construction structures.
Increased on compressibility
• 3.2.2.3 Gabion Wall
• Gabions are galvanized, rectangular stone baskets, which are used for
slope stabilization and channel stabilization as pervious, semi-flexible
structures between the baskets filled with rocks, live rooting
branches can be supported. Gabion is a wire cage or cage filled with
stone, cement, sand and soil materials. Gabion therefore is a partly
flexible building block used in buildings to protect the slope and
erosion stability. Within the different engineering buildings, various
types of gabions are built and used.

Flexibility
Strength
Gabions are sometimes criticized as being
Permeability
unsightly. They can be made more attractive
Durability
by use of attractive facing stone toward the
Economy
front of the wall and by establishing
Little maintenance is required.
vegetation in the spaces between the rocks.
Gabion construction is simple, does not
Low habitat value.
require skilled labor.
Gabions are more expensive than either
Suitable stone fill is available normally on
vegetated slopes or riprap.
site or from nearby quarries.
The wire baskets used for gabions may be
Minimum foundation preparation is
subject to heavy wear and tear due to wire
required, the surface needs to be only
abrasion by bedload movement in streams
reasonably plane.
with high velocity flow.
No costly drainage provision is required,
Difficult to install, requiring large equipment.
as gabions are permeable.
Ecology
Designer’s Raw Ranking
• To come up in the selection of the trade-off, the designers used the
model on trade-offs strategies in engineering design by Otto and
Antonson (1991) wherein the importance of each criterion (on a scale
of 1 to 10, 10 with the highest importance) was assigned and each
design methodology’s ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale from 1
to 10, 10 with the highest ability to satisfy the criterion) was tabulated
below.


• The economic constraint criterion’s importance is ranked as ten (10)
because the client specified the amount of budget and it must be
enough for the project. The constructability constraint criterion's
importance was ranked nine (9) since the budget provided by the
client will also be consumed in man-hour labor. The sustainability
constraint was given an importance value of ten (10) which signifies
that the client and designer gives priority to the effectivity of the
trade-off. The risk assessment criterion's importance was also given a
rank of ten (10) since safety must be prioritized at all times. Lastly,
environmental constraint criterion's importance was given the highest
rank of eight (8) since maintenance cost is just a portion of the
budget.
Initial Estimate(STRUCTURAL)
Design Constraints
Economic Sustainability Risk Assessment Constructibility Environmental
Structural
Trade-offs
Cost Life Span, Years Weight in kg Duration, Days Maintenance Cost
Guyed Tower Php 591,544 25 Years 6,450 250 Php 17,746.32
Self - Php 658,035 40 Years 8,200 250 Php 19,741.05

Supporting
Tower
Monopole Php 785,745 20 Years 6,854 180 Php 23,572.35
Tower

Ranking Computation
Table 3-8 Initial Estimates for Economic
Constraint (Structural)
Structural Trade- Initial Estimate Subordinate Rank
offs Cost, in Peso (Php)
Guyed Tower 591,544 10

Self-Supporting Tower 658,035 8.99
Monopole Tower 785,745 7.53

Ranking Computation
Table 3-9 Initial Estimates for Sustainability
Constraint (Structural)
Structural Trade-offs Life Span, Years Subordinate Rank
Guyed Tower 25 Years 6.25
Self-Supporting Tower 40 Years 10
Monopole Tower 20 Years 5

Ranking Computation
Table 3-10 Initial Estimates for Risk
Assessment Constraint (Structural)
Structural Trade- Weight in kg Subordinate Rank
offs
7.87
Guyed Tower 6,450
10
Self-Supporting Tower 8,200
8.36
Monopole Tower 6,854

Ranking Computation
Table 3-11 Initial Estimates for
Constructability Constraint (Structural)
Structural Trade-offs Duration, Days Subordinate Rank
6.2
Guyed Tower 250
6.2
Self-Supporting Tower 250
9
Monopole Tower 180

Ranking Computation
Environmental Constraint (Structural)
Structural Trade-offs Maintenance Cost Subordinate Rank
8
Guyed Tower Php 17,746.32
6.99
Self-Supporting Tower Php 19,741.05
5.53
Monopole Tower Php 23,572.35

Summary of Results for Structural
Trade-offs)
Decision Criterion's Ability to Satisfy the Criterion
Criteria Importance
Guyed Tower Self-Supporting Monopole Tower
(Scale of 0
Tower
to 10)
Economic 10 10 100 8.99 89.9 7.53 75.3
Sustainability 10 6.25 62.5 10 100 5 50
Risk Assessment 10 7.87 78.7 10 100 8.36 83.6
Constructibility 9 6.2 55.8 6.2 55.8 9 81
Environmental 8 8 64 6.99 55.92 5.53 44.24
Over-all 361 401.62 334.14
Ranking
Initial Estimate(GEOTECHNICAL)
Design Constraints
Economic Sustainability Risk Assessment Constructibility Environmental
Geotechnic
al Trade- Cost in peso Life Span, Settlement Duration, Days Maintenance
offs Years (% Reduction) Cost
Shotcreting 1, 353, 236 20 70% 30 Php 180,000
Geotextile 2, 271, 360 30 40% 80 Php 156,000
Gabion Wall 103, 705.95 30 73% 28 Php 51,300

Ranking Computation
Table 3-15 Initial Estimates for Economic
Constraint (Geotechnical)
Geotechnical Trade- Initial Estimate Subordinate Rank
offs Cost, in Peso (Php)
Shotcreting 1, 353, 236 0.77
Geotextile Application 2, 271, 360 0.46

Gabion Wall 103, 705.95 10

Ranking Computation
Sustainability Constraint (Geotechnical)
Geotechnical Trade- Life Span, Years Subordinate Rank
offs
Shotcreting 20 6.67
Geotextile Application 30 10
Gabion Wall 30 10

Ranking Computation
Constructibility Constraint (Geotechnical)
Geotechnical Trade- Duration, Days Subordinate Rank
offs
Shotcreting 30 7.33
Geotextile Application 80 1.5
Gabion Wall 28 8

Ranking Computation
Table 3-18 Initial Estimates for Risk
Assessment Constraint (Geotechnical)
Geotechnical Trade-offs Soil Settlement Subordinate Rank
(% Reduction)
Shotcreting 70 9.59
Geotextile Application 40 5.48
Gabion Wall 73 10

Ranking Computation
Environmental Constraint (Geotechnical)
Geotechnical Trade-offs Maintenance Cost Subordinate Rank
Shotcreting 180,000 0.85

Geotextile Application 156,000 1.29
Gabion Wall 51,300 8

Table 3-20 Summary of Results for
Geotechnical Trade-offs
Decision Criterion's Ability to Satisfy the Criterion
Criteria Importanc Shotcreting Geotextile Gabion Wall
e (Scale of Application
0 to 10)
Economic 10
Geotechnical 0.77
Trade-offs 7.7 Cost 0.46 Subordinate
Maintenance 4.6 Rank 10 100
Shotcreting 180,000 6.67
Sustainability 10 Application 6.67
Geotextile 66.7
156,000 10 100
8 10 100
Concrete Cantilever Retaining 160,000 7.75
Constructibility Wall 8 7.33 58.64 1.5 12 8 64
Risk Assessment 10 9.59 95.9 5.48 54.8 10 100
Environmental 8 0.85 6.8 1.29 10.24 8 64
Over-all 235.74 181.64 428
Ranking
Trade-off Assessment (STRUCTURAL)
• From the Overall Assessment, it can be concluded that the second
trade-off namely Self-Supporting tower is the best option among the
three given trade-offs for having the highest total rank of 401.62. It is
mainly because of its highest ranking from the two constraints which
are the risk assessment and sustainability constraint. It is followed by
the Guyed tower with a total ranking score of 361. If the Economic
and Environmental constraints are considered, the first trade-off
might be the best option due to its low cost. Moreover, if the
constructibility is considered, the third trade-off namely the Monopole
tower might be the best option. Based on this assessment using the
quantitative constraints, the designers recommend the self-supporting
tower as the design of the telecommunication tower.
Trade-off Assessment (GEOTECHNICAL)
• From the overall assessment, it can be concluded that the third trade-
off namely Gabion Wall is the best option among the three given
trade-offs for having the highest ranking of 428. This is because it is
dominant over all the constraints presented in this design. It is
followed by the shotcreting method with a ranking of 235.74. Based
on this assessment using quantitative constraints, the designers
recommend the gabion wall as the best alternative for the
geotechnical context of the Telecommunication Tower.

Design Standards
• 1. National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015 Edition
• 2. Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP)
Steel Handbook (2004)
• 3. Telecommunications Industry Association's TIA-222-G-2005:
Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas

Design Standards
• Load Combination
• ● TIA-222-G: Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures
and Antennas (TIA-222-G-2005)
• ● Strength Limit State Load Combinations as per TIA-222-G
• ● Classifications of Structures (Table 2-1 of TIA-222-G)

Design Standards
• Dead Loads:
• ● Minimum Densities for Design Loads from Materials (NSCP 2015)
• ● Weight of Steel Sections as per ASEP Steel Handbook 2004
• Seismic Loads:
• ● Seismic Load Parameters as per TIA-222-G-2005

Design Standards
• Wind Loads:
• ● Wind Load Parameters as per TIA-222-G-2005
• ● Design Wind Velocity as per NSCP 2015
• Structural Design Criteria
• ● Section 3.4 of the TIA-222-G-2005
• Design Criteria for Foundation

• ● Annex F of the TIA-222-G-2005
• ● Section 9.4.2 of the TIA-222-G-2005

Capstone 2 Chapter 1-3 Presentation

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

Capstone 2 Chapter 1-3 Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DESIGN OF

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

• With the booming population and the growing demands of mobile

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

• The project is located at Mt. Susong Dalaga located southeast of Mt.

• It is approximately located 609.30 meters from the extension of

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

Approximate Distance between the Project Site and Marikina

Back View of the Location

• The client’s budget for telecommunication tower is

• This budget includes all the cost of the entire project.

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

• The main objective of the project is to design a

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

2.1.3 Architectural Plan

The topography of Rodriguez, Rizal is very

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

Dead Load is the weight of the telecommunication tower

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

Earthquake Load or Seismic Load takes place due to the

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

The antenna tower and antenna supporting

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

2.1.7.1 Soil Data

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

2.2.2.1 Design of Telecommunication Towers for Earthquake Loading in Sri Lanka

2.2.2.3 Analysis of Telecommunication Tower with Different Bracing System

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

2.2.2.5 Telecommunication Cell Tower Most Common Alternatives Overview

2.2.2.6 Comparative Analysis of Steel Telecommunication tower subjected to Seismic

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

2.2.2.9 Influence of Telecommunication Tower on Response of Host Structure

2.2.2.10 Comparative Analysis of Telecommunication Tower

2.2.2.11 Effects of Mobile Tower Radiation on Human Health

2.2.2.12 Comparison of Various Bracing System of Self-Supporting Steel Lattice

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

2.2.2.13 Wind Analysis of Microwave Antenna Towers

2.2.2.14 Analysis of the Monopoly Communication Tower

2.2.2.15 Structural Analysis of Guyed Steel

2.2.2.16 Telecommunication Cell Tower Most Common Alternatives

2.2.2.18 Effect of infiltration on the performance of an unsaturated Geotextile-Reinforced soil Wall

2.2.2.19 Retaining Wall with Flexible mechanical soil stabilizing sheet

2.2.2.20 Slope stabilization system and method

2.2.2.22 Innovations in Shotcrete technology

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

• 3.1.1.1 Economic Constraint (Material Cost)

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

• 3.1.1.3 Risk Assessment

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

• 3.1.1.5 Environmental Constraint (Maintenance Cost)

Group 1: Indaya, Mateo,Prangan, Quimzon

• 3.1.2.1 Economic Constraint (Material and Equipment Cost)

• 3.1.2.3 Risk Assessment