UNDERSTANDING FAILURE OF LATTICE TOWERS

A Seminar presentation in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of masters DEGREE in civil engineering

by

SHITTA, RAZAK OLASUNKANMI

Department of civil engineering, faculty of engineering and technology, university of Ilorin, Nigeria.

APRIL 2011

ABSTRACT

The advent of communication and the telecommunication boost in mid fifties has resulted in an exponential growth in the installation of lattice towers to meet the requirement set by Radio Frequency and Transmission details for optimum height requisite for the installation of Transceiver equipment. Free standing and Guyed tower are the two broad classes of towers which are designed in different types and configurations in accordance with relevant code of practice to meet the height specification. Lattice tower failure though not properly documented in Nigeria occur like in other parts of the world and the need to have a broad understanding of lattice towers is the basis of this seminar presentation. Relevant codes like BS8100 and EIA 222G provides guidance for lattice tower design and construction with the prevalent loads being wind and Ice. Seismic loading is also considered in seismic active regions. An over view of the basis for lattice tower design is presented based on guidance from BS8100: Lattice Towers and Masts (1986) to provide an understanding of the factors and load consideration involved in the design of such structures.

This literature work presents a discussion of the broad causes of tower failure for engineering personnel to better understand tower behavior and failures. The failure of lattice tower was discussed within the context of Design/construction, extreme Icing, special wind occurrence, aircraft collision and anchor failure in Guyed towers. It is aimed at calling the attention of tower owners, regulatory organs of government and the engineering personnel on the dangers of tower failure and the needed proactive effort at curtailing the failures.

INTRODUCTION. Within the last decade the need for tall structures has accelerated with the requirement for effective communication especially with the advent of radio, radar and television. The recent exponential growth in the use of cellular phones has led to a new era of self supporting and guyed towers. As wireless telecommunication services continue to expand, wireless providers are deploying more and more base station in order to meet the growing demand. As a result, antenna towers and support structures are being pushed to the limit of their capacity. It is therefore important for wireless provider, tower owners and engineering practitioners to understand the behavior and failure of lattice towers.
2

The overall layout of telecommunication mast and towers is governed by the requirement of transmission and receiving conditions as defined by the planning parameters. The transmission planning requirement ensures that the requisite height is defined in such a way that the Line of Sight for point to point Microwave transmission is not obstructed. The predominating design parameter for lattice tower structures is the wind load on the structure itself and on the ancillaries both discrete and linear. The wind load on the structure depends on the prevailing climatic conditions and the wind resistance of the structure, antennas etc. Apart from the wind load on the antennas, cables, and other ancillaries, the lattice tower itself contributes significantly to the wind load on the structure. The wind resistance of the lattice tower is dependent on various parameters; example is type of cross section, solidity ratio and member type. In some environment, heavy ice loads can occur on the structure and the dimensioning load can be the weight of the ice or the combination of ice load and wind load. Atmospheric icing on the structure may have significant influence on the design of the structure. Incidences of Lattice tower failures abound around the world with its inherent economic consequences and loss of lives in severe cases. Lattice tower failure has been recorded for both free standing tower and the guyed mast. Failure of such tower has been grouped as resulting from design/construction details, ice loads, special wind, air craft collision and anchor failure. This seminar focuses on understanding the failure of lattice towers so as to limit such occurrence.
2

Fig 1: Free standing Telecommunication tower Transmission tower

Fig 2: Electrical

2.0 BASIS FOR TOWER DESIGN.

3

The complexity of mast and tower structure in the three dimensional space structures makes the analysis of such structure difficult with the assumptions made to simplify the analysis. Stress calculations in the tower are normally obtained from a linear elastic analysis where members are assumed to be axially loaded and in the majority of cases to have pinned connection. Lattice towers are usually constructed using angle section or tubular sections which are eccentrically connected. Recent wind tunnel test and non linear analysis has proven that members are often subjected to moments and forensic analysis of some failed towers has confirmed this fact [1]. Guidance on the analysis and design of Lattice towers are available in some International codes of practice such as BS8100 [Lattice towers and mast Part 1-4], ANSI/TIA 222G etc, which provide a basis for the design of lattice towers in different environmental conditions. The prevalent load on the Telecommunication tower is basically that due to wind loads on the tower itself and the ancillaries. An illustration is shown in fig (3).

Wind load on tower and ancillaries

Microwave antenna

GSM antenna

Fig 3: Schematic representation of wind action on a communication tower

Estimation of meteorological parameters is detailed in section 3 of BS8100. The basic wind speed is sourced from wind maps based on meteorological office data of the mean hourly wind speed independent of direction at a height 10m above level ground at the site of the structure and having an annual probability of occurrence of 0.02. The site reference wind speed is given thus:
Vr= v .Kd .Kr. VB

Where;
VB v

- is the basic wind speed. - is the partial safety factor on wind speed

appropriate to the type of structure.

Kd is the wind direction factor Kr - is the terrain roughness factor

There is need to estimate the wind speed at the different level of the tower for application of wind loads. The wind speed variation with height for all level terrain is given as:
Vz= Vr Z-He10 Vz= Vr 21+Z10+he

for z 10+he for z 10+he

Where;
Vr is the site reference wind speed - is the power law index of variation of speed

with height appropriate to site terrain. Guidance on ice loading computation on lattice tower is given in BS8100 clause 3.5 with two loading combinations considered using the reference ice thickness and density. The load combinations to be considered are extreme icing loading in the absence of wind and combination of ice with wind. The site reference wind speed VI = 0.8 Vr The basic ice thickness in the absence of wind
rB=kir0+a-20025

but not less than ki r0 but not less than ki rw

While ice thickness in conjunction with wind is given as;

rB=kirw+a-20025

Where ki is a coefficient that is either 1.0 or 23+4D 1.2 depending on the section a is the altitude of the tower top above mean sea level.
r0 is the radial ice thickness in the absence of wind for the

appropriate position based on data available

2

The reference ice thickness rr , to be considered for design should be taken as;
rr =v .kc.rB

Where;
v - is the partial safety factor to be obtained for the

appropriate type of structure

kc - is a cable factor which is 1.0 for all tower members and

ancillaries. The weight of ice deposited on the tower should be calculated assuming all structural sections and ancillaries parts to be uniformly coated in ice thickness rr and the weight of ice estimated accordingly. The wind load on the tower sets up a dynamic effect on the structure, it is therefore essential that self supporting towers and guyed masts are analyzed for the dynamic response of the structure to the wind gust load. Guyed mast are essentially of a more complex nature due to the static system of the mast shaft as a column subjected to bending moments and elastically supported by guys with non-linear stiffness. The Wind resistance of the lattice tower is dependent on various parameters such as cross section, solidity ratio and the type of member. The wind resistance is larger for square cross section than for triangular cross section. The drag coefficient for lattice bracing is decreasing for increased solidity ratio in the structure where the solidity ratio is moderate. The wind resistance for flat sided profiles is often up to 50% larger than that of circular
2

profiles. The drag coefficient of circular profiles is dependent on the Reynolds number (proportional to the wind speed and the diameter) since the wind generates some turbulence around the cylinder which decreases the wind drag for larger circular profile [2]. Guidance on estimation of wind resistance for lattice tower is detailed in section 4 of BS8100. For the purpose of calculating wind resistance, a tower should be divided into a series of panels, where a panel is taken between intersections of legs and primary bracings and include any horizontal bracing. A tower should generally be divided into a minimum of ten panels but in cases where there are a high number of panels, when so divided, panels may be aggregated into heights not exceeding 0.05 of the total height [3]. The Total wind resistance in the direction and in the crosswind direction over a panel of lattice tower for a symmetrical tower or that with reasonable identical ancillaries on each face is given as:
RT=K .CN.AS

Where CN - is the overall drag (pressure) coefficient clause 4.22 of BS8100. As is total area projected normal to a face of the structural components within one panel height of the tower at the level concerned including icing where appropriate. K is the wind incidence factor for commonly used values of
2

 is the angle of incidence of the wind to the normal to face 1.

The effect of wind on the ancillaries also set up a wind resistance effect on the ancillaries which for a discrete ancillary such as dish reflector in the direction of the wind is
RAW=CA .KA.AA

Where:
CA is the drag coefficient for the item appropriate to

the wind direction and wind speed and should be obtained from the wind tunnel test.
AA - is the face area of the item projected in the same

direction.
KA - is a reduction factor to take account of the

shielding of the component by the tower itself. In considering the wind resistance of a tower and ancillaries under iced conditions, each element of the structure and of the supported parts should be considered to be coated on all sides. The total wind resistance in the direction of the wind over a panel of a tower should be taken as:
RW=RT+RAW

RT is the resistance of the bare tower using the

solidity ratio appropriate to the bare structure.

RAW - is the wind resistance of the ancillaries. 2

The analysis to determine the structural response of the tower members to the imposed load by the wind involves applying the force on each panel and computing the gross response of the tower as a whole. The total force in a tower member due to wind loading is given as
F=F+F'

Where
F is the maximum force in the member due to the mean wind

loading given by;

F= FT+FA+FC

Where FT - is the force in the member calculated due to the maximum mean wind load in the partially shielded tower body given as PTw
PTw = a. Vz2. Rw1+G in the direction of the wind.

G is the Gust response factor

a- is the density of air at the reference temperature and

pressure.
Vz is the mean wind speed at the level of the centre of area

of the panel at a height z meters above the site ground level.

Rw - is the total wind resistance of the structure in the

direction of the wind over the panel height concerned. Also,

FA - is the force in the member calculated due to maximum wind

load PAW on the ancillaries given as;

PAw = a2. Vz2.RAW FC - is the force in the member calculated due to the maximum

wind load PCW in all attached cables

3

And
F' - is the max fluctuating force in the number due to

turbulence and given by;

F'= F'TW+ F'AW2+F'TX+ F'AX2+ F'C2

F'TW and F'TX are the components of forces in the member

due to downwind and crosswind fluctuating wind loads respectively.

F'TX and F'AX are the components of forces in the member

due to downwind and crosswind fluctuating wind loads respectively in all the ancillaries.
F'C - is the component of the force in the member due to

downwind and crosswind fluctuating wind loads respectively in all the attached cables.

3.0 UNDERSTANDING LATTICE TOWER FAILURE. Lattice tower are employed in the provision towers, of essential radio

infrastructure such as in electrical transmission grid lines, broadcast towers, telecommunication military towers etc. Thus failure of such structures imposes enormous economic consequence in addition to the risk to human and properties. As such, it is pertinent to bring to light the fact that lattice tower failure abound and arouse the consciousness of engineers to have a detailed understanding of the failure modes and the need to report such failure to help in further research. Fig 4 depicts an example of a collapse tower.
1

Fig 4: Collapsed telecommunication tower The peculiar nature of the Nigerian environment has allowed for little or no proper reporting and documentation of structural failures. Thus there is little or no documented lattice tower failure. A detailed understanding of the design, construction, and inservice flaws which can arise in lattice tower structures is essential for its failure analysis. This discussion of understanding lattice tower failure shall be analyzed under five broad categories as Illustrated below with inferences drawn to make clear the examples. Table 1: Associated causes of Tower failures 3.1. Design and Construction flaws. 3.1.1 Design flaws: The need to accurately estimate the

loads imposed on a lattice tower just like any other structure and pay attention to details cannot be over emphasized. Various factors are considered in the design of lattice towers such as the wind loads, the ancillary dead and induced loads, ice loads etc.
1

Any oversight in accurately estimating the loads can be fatal to the survival of the tower. In the procurement process for a new lattice tower installation, the vendor must have detailed information on the climatic conditions prevailing in the area as well as reasonably estimate the antenna area that is to be placed on the tower. Tower manufacturers such as Mast Project of South Africa which is commonly used by telecoms companies in Nigeria produce towers for Light load, Medium load and Backbone towers depending on the antenna area induced load on the tower. Fig 5 shows guidance on procurement of tower types based on manufacturers design details.

Fig 5a: Medium Tower Antenna Area (7.5-25m2)

Fig 5b Backbone Tower Antenna Area (39m2)

A guide that can be used to determine if a proposed site would require a medium or backbone tower is to estimate the total antenna area based on the designed Radio frequency parameters using fig 6.

Fig 6: Antenna Area load guide (Mast Project Documentation) Recent forensic investigation has also pointed to the high values of secondary moments which were not accounted for in the design [1]. These moments dubbed as secondary moment and neglected in common design causes the overstressing of the members and ultimately lead to the cascading failure of the towers. Hence the analysis and design of lattice towers should consider both the axial force and bending moments in the main legs. Adequate design of guys for the tensile actions is also of grave importance to prevent guy failure as result of poor design. A critical design consideration for guyed tower is to be able to withstand wind pressure in still air conditions and at a reduced wind pressure should guy rupture occur. The most significant incident of guy failure was the fall of the tallest guyed mast in the world [4]. Guy rupture can be caused by vandalism, deterioration of guys (fatigue and corrosion), and erection failures.

Fig (7) collapse of Tallest Mast in the world (1991) due to guy rupture Failure of towers due to foundation associated problems has also been recorded and has to be accurately accommodated in the design. Proper soil borings should be made by competent soil testing specialists and they must go deeper than the probable depth of the foundation to make sure of soil type consistency. A point to note in Cone penetrometer test generally observed in Nigeria indicates that test are carried to depth of refusal or to CPT anchor pull which might not satisfy the standard for geotechnical investigation. A design based on this may overestimate soil parameters whereas the properties at the zone of influence of the soil pressure may be much lower. The depth of exploration should be at least one and a half times the width of the loaded area, unless the imposed stress change becomes insignificant when compared with the strength and stiffness of the ground at a lesser depth [5].
1

The construction procedure for tower base construction should ensure that concrete quality is not comprised so as to ensure the target strength is achieved.

3.1.2

Fabrication and material failure:

In the manufacturing and fabrication of the steel members, quality control becomes paramount as failure of a member imposes enormous reactive loads on other members which may cause the entire structure to fail. An illustration of such failure is shown below which was attributed to insufficient weld penetration resulting in the tower leg breaking free from the flange.

Fig 8: An illustration of fabrication flaw resulting in tower failure 3.1.3 Installation flaw:

Judgment errors made during the erection of a new tower or reinforcement of an existing tower negatively affect its survival. Lattice tower are manufactured in sections and are to be assembled usually by bolting at the site for ease of transport. The
2

specification for the bolt torque must be strictly adhered to avoid failure of the connection. Tower tilting incident as a result of bolt slip due to poor joint installation is not uncommon in Nigeria. The standard installation of lattice tower is that the tower is assembled in segments and hoisted to position where it is finally bolted to torque specification. Tower Installation in Nigeria possess a serious safety issue considering the fact that tower members are hoisted individual with the riggers climbing through the leg already assembled to install the next section. There is the issue of connection not properly tightened to the required torque specifications and this has resulted in some tower tilting and failure issues in Nigeria. Another issue of grave concern is in the installation of guys for guyed towers which has to be precise in terms of location and required tension. Poor installation of the guys can cause guy slippage failure which imposed excessive loads and reversal loads on the members and can eventually lead to the total collapse of the tower. A detailed understanding is of great importance because most radio towers in Nigeria are procured from fabricators directly who have no knowledge of such design but base their fabrication on experience.

Fig 9: Guy slippage Failures 3.1.4 Overloading:

The design of telecommunication tower as described above considers an antenna area for the computation of wind and ice loads on the tower. It is the practice in the Telecommunication industry for operators to share facilities which will inadvertently result in the installation of new Microwave and Sectorial antennas thereby increasing the antenna area and wind induced load on the tower. Operators also often increase the number of microwave antenna on their towers to allow for more transmission capacity. Expert advice must be sought in this regard to ensure that the designed antenna area is not exceeded by overloading the tower. 3.1.5 Failure in maintenance

Towers and antennas systems are in a constant state of deterioration which might be a gradual process but going on continually. Guidance on Maintenance and condition assessment
3

is given in section 14 and appendix J of ANSI/EIA-222-G 2006 [6]. Maintenance and condition assessment was specified to be performed as follows: a) Three-year intervals for guyed masts and five-year intervals for structures. b) After severe wind and/or ice storms or other extreme conditions. c) Shorter inspection intervals may be required for Class III structures and structures in coastal regions, in corrosive environments, and in areas subject to frequent vandalism. Maintenance assessment anchor and of condition assessment of the involves structure finishes, detailed (member lightning

the

condition concrete

deterioration, joints etc), anchorage condition, guy and guy mast conditions, foundation conditions, grounding, lightning, antenna and insulator condition. Structural condition assessment involves observing the tower for damaged members (legs and bracing), Loose members, missing members, climbing facilities, platforms, loose and/or missing bolts and/or nut locking devices, visible cracks in welded connections and taking record of temperature, wind speed and direction, and other environmental conditions. Condition assessment of towers if adequately carried out can help identify defects which may inherently result in the collapse of the tower.

3.2 Extreme Icing: Earlier design standards ignored the increased weight placed on the structure caused by ice accumulation. Ice accumulation on a structure increases both the area and weight, causing additional force on the tower. The increased surface area due to ice captures more wind resulting in significant increase in the wind force on the tower and the appurtenances. Fig 10 of real-life iced towers give us a better understanding and appreciation of the devastation that might arise because of the increased surface area and weight ice accumulation of this magnitude creates.

Fig 10a: Ice towers 3.3 Special wind:

Fig 10b: Ice towers

Hurricanes, tornadoes and straight line wind can pose a serious threat to the survival of the tower if the design survival wind
5

speed is exceeded. Earlier design standards were lenient in the design factors for such occurrence and have resulted in the failure of such towers. Some of the recent wind induced tower failures investigated would not have passed the current design code considering the factors which have been incorporated in the latest code. 3.4 Aircraft collision Failure of lattice towers by aircraft collision is not an uncommon occurrence and has been responsible for failures of some broadcast towers. Helicopters, single-engine planes and military aircraft have proven equally hazardous to broadcast towers. An example of such collision is the St. Petersburg, Florida occurrence which happened on April 25, 2000 where a medical helicopter flew into a guy wire on WRMDs 198m (650) tower. Three people were killed. The incident happened during daylight hours in clear skies. Another reported incident is the Doerun occurrence where a military helicopter crashed after striking the upper portion of WFXL's 1,000-foot tall TV tower near Doerun in Colquitt County, USA. The collision caused a guy wire to break loose, resulting in steel tower vulnerability to collapse. 3.5 Anchor failure: Towers have been popularly used to support various antenna systems since the 1940's with very little attention given to corrosion of buried tower components. Many tower facilities are
6

coming of age and the problem of anchor shaft corrosion is now becoming an industry issue. Anchors are employed in guyed towers to support tension in forces in the tower. Anchor failure has been responsible for about 5% of broadcast tower failures. The principal cause of anchor failure is due to corrosion. Corrosion causes the deterioration of the anchor thus reducing the strength required to support the tensile forces thereby causing the failure of the anchor. This corrosion is caused as a result of electromechanical or galvanic action causing the metal to deteriorate in thickness and invariably the strength. The schematic representation of the guyed anchor system is detailed below.

Fig 11: Anchor schematics The effect of the anchor failure is a sudden redistribution of the load when the guy is loose resulting in load reversal and excessive load in some members. This can result in the failure of
8

the members due to load reversal and excessive loads and ultimately the failure of the guyed tower. Example of such tower failure is the December 14, 2009 Tusla tower in Oklahoma and the collapsed tower in San Bernardino County, CA. August 2005 both in the USA. The causes of the failures were attributed to electrolytic corrosion on one of the guy wire anchors.

Fig 13 Collapse Tusle tower Oklahoma due to anchor Failure

Fig (14)

collapsed tower in San Bernardino County, CA August 2005

4.0 CONCLUSION An overview of lattice tower failure was presented to provide an in-depth understanding of lattice tower failures and a basis for further study. Lattice tower are employed in the provision of essential infrastructure such as in Electrical transmission grid lines, broadcast towers, telecommunication towers, military radio towers etc. Thus failure of such structures imposes enormous economic consequence in addition to the risk to human and properties.
11

The need to bring to light the fact that lattice tower failure abound and arouse the consciousness of engineers to have a detailed understanding of such failure is important because even though lattice towers failures have been confirmed in Nigeria, such is not documented to provide a guide for young engineers. The failure was broadly discussed as arising from design/construction, extreme icing, special wind occurrence, aircraft collision and anchor failure in guyed towers. these broad classifications are discussed to provide a working literature for practitioners to better understand failure of lattice towers. The incidence of tower failure can be minimized by paying detail to routine inspection of towers by tower owners and stiff regulation by regulatory organs of government.

5.0 REFERENCES.

12

[1]

F. Al-Mashary, A. Arafah, G. H. Siddiqi and Y. Al-Salloum (2008) Investigation Of Failure Of Six Transmission Towers, Civil Engineering Department, King Saud University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/2639/Publications Mogens G. Nielsen (2009) The analysis of Mast and Towers, International Journal of Space Structures Vol 24 N0.2 2009. BS8100 Part 1-4, (1986) Lattice towers and Masts Part 1-4 British Standard Institution STTTRUP-ANDERSEN, Ulrik (2009) Mast and towers, Proceedings of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) Symposium, Valencia Evolution and Trends in Design, Analysis and Construction of Shell and Spatial Structures.

[2] [3] [4]

[5] BS5930, (2005) Code of practice for site investigations, British Standard Institution [7] ANSI/EIA-222-G 2006. Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Strucutres, Telecommunication Industry Association (TIA), U.S.A F. Al-Mashary, A. Arafah and G.H. Siddiqi (2008) Effective bracing of Trussed towers against Secondary moments, Civil Engineering Department, King Saud University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/2639/Publications. ANSI/EIA-222-G 2006. Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Strucutres, Telecommunication Industry Association (TIA), U.S.A D. Jatulis, Z. Kamaitis, A. Juozapaitis (2007) Static Behaviour Analysis Of Masts With Combined Guys, Journal Of Civil Engineering And Management, 2007, Vol XIII, No 3, 177182. C. T. Georgakis, U. Stttrup-Andersen, M. Johnsen, M. G. Nielsen, H. H. Koss (2009) Drag coefficients of lattice masts from full-scale wind-tunnel tests, EACWE 5 Florence, Italy.

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10] Craig M. Snyder (2004) Understanding and Preventing Guyed Tower Failure Due to Anchor Shaft Corrosion, Sioux Falls Tower Specialists, Inc, South Dakota USA [11] www.eriinc.com.