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

net/publication/267840973

A comparative criteria method for telecommunications towers with different

topological designs

Article · April 2012

DOI: 10.5755/j01.mech.18.2.1566

CITATIONS READS

3 1,128

2 authors:

Joze Duhovnik Pavel Tomšič

University of Ljubljana University of Ljubljana
167 PUBLICATIONS   1,033 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

prof. Jožef Duhovnik View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pavel Tomšič on 08 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 127

ISSN 1392 - 1207. MECHANIKA. 2012 Volume 18(2): 127-134

A comparative criteria method for telecommunications towers

with different topological designs
J. Duhovnik*, P. Tomšič**
*University of Ljubljana, Aškerčeva 6, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, E-mail: joze.duhovnik@fs.uni-lj.si
**University of Ljubljana, Aškerčeva 6, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, E-mail: pavel.tomsic@fs.uni-lj.si
http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.mech.18.2.1566

1. Introduction basis of four comparison criteria.

The first criterion is based on the limit states.
A space truss is a freestanding framework struc- Limit states represent the criteria of the load capacity of
ture consisting of one or more triangular sections con- cross-sections and the values must not exceed the designed
structed with straight members. These members are con- loads. This criterion is commonly used and described in
nected in joints that are referred to as nodes. The trusses European codes [9] as well as being discussed in various
are divided into pure trusses, where the nodal loads and papers [10].
axial forces (tension or compression) are generated and The second criterion is the serviceability of the
complex systems, where the individual members are sub- telecommunications tower, which depends on the angular
jected to member loads and, in addition to axial forces, rotations of the antennas mounting spots, because their
shear forces and bending moments appear. operation depends upon these angles.
There are several different topological designs for The third criterion of the comparison is the struc-
truss towers. The optimum design for square, free- tural mass. Therefore, the dimensions and the length of
standing, communication towers has already been dis- each member are important. Besides the technical criteria,
cussed [1], but only one topological design has been inves- the towers also have to be compared on the basis of an
tigated and no assessment other than one based on struc- economic evaluation, which includes the production pro-
tural criteria has been made. For the purpose of a compari- cesses from materials costs to the final product. The eco-
son, six different planar- truss topological designs were nomic evaluation is made from four types of assessment,
investigated, where the influence of various loads on the i.e. materials costs, production, storage, transport and
structure was observed. The towers were designed for tele- mounting costs.
communications usage and carry antenna loads.
The towers include vertical and diagonal bars as 2. Research
well as filling bars, aimed particularly at reducing the dif-
fraction length and in this way reducing the bars cross sec- The construction material used for the frame tow-
tion. All towers have the same basic dimensions: the height ers is steel quality S355, according to SIST EN 10025-2.
of the tower, the width of the base and the width of the The material characteristics are yield strength of 355 MPa
tower top. Their top-view cross section has a square shape and tensile strength of 510 MPa. However, any material
(Fig. 1). The antennas are mounted on the top of each tow- nonlinearity affects the behavior of slender structures. The-
er at all four vertexes. The towers are made from standard se material nonlinearities include gradual yielding associ-
L shaped steel profiles of different dimensions, according ated with flexural, torsion and axial stresses, as reported by
to DIN 1028. The dimensions of the profiles depend on the Nishino and Tall [11].
stress condition of each member for a certain topological
tower design.
The towers are subjected to different load combi-
nations, which are also dependent on the wind zones and
the geographical characteristics of the building site. These
loads are the self- weight, the telecommunications antenna
load, the ice load and the wind load. All the towers are
dimensioned to withstand the appropriate load combina-
tions. When applying the wind load it is necessary to pay
attention to the correct load distribution [2, 3] because the
wind speed is dependent on the tower’s height.
For the purpose of optimizing of a steel space
truss different criteria have been examined. However, the
problem occurs when having to decide on the optimization
criteria. The minimum volume of a structure [4], the mini-
mum element size [5] and the stability [6] are commonly
used criteria, although some questions have been related to
different criteria [7, 8].
In this article we investigate different topological
designs of steel lattice towers and evaluate them on the Fig. 1 Basic dimensions and stylization
 128

The basic dimensions of the towers with different signing steel structures [9, 15].
topological designs are the same (Fig. 1). The basic height For reasons of clarity, each topological concept is
of a tower is 30 m and the structural elements are designed labeled as TP X in Fig. 2, where X represents the sequen-
to withstand the various load combinations. The width to tial number of the design. The towers of the first two topo-
height ratio of the towers is b/h = 1/10. If the lowest seg- logical designs are made out of small numbers of structural
ment is removed, we have a tower of 20 m height, while beams that are relatively large scale. In the other topologi-
the used structural members do not change. If both lower cal designs there are a larger number of members. Filling
segments are removed, we have towers of 10 m height. At beams are added to the designs in order to reduce the dif-
the top of the tower the width is 1 m; this is in order to fraction lengths. The effect of different diffraction lengths
ensure satisfactory antenna signal coverage. can be further observed as some of the tower designs differ
The towers are affected by different loads, such as in terms of the element lengths (case TP 3/TP 4 and
the dead weight of the structure, the useful load (the load TP 5/TP 6).
of the telecommunications antennas), the ice load, the wind
load and the various combinations of these loads. Two 3. Loads
different useful loads have been investigated, i.e., antennas
of 400 and 800 kg. A uniform ice thickness created by The loads are divided into four categories (Fig. 3):
freezing rain on nonround structural elements must be tak- self-weight weight of the technological equipment, ice
en into account [12]. The thickness of the ice envelope and weight and wind loads. Many loads have an effect on each
the speed of wind depend on the environmental conditions other, so the influence of the load also has to be consid-
of the building site. Two different ice thicknesses have ered. The result is nine different load cases for each steel
been taken into account, i.e., ice envelope thicknesses of lattice tower.
18 and 30 mm. For the purposes of comparison, there are
two possible wind zones: the zone with mean wind speeds
up to 25 m/s and the zone with mean wind speeds up to
30 m/s. This is in accordance with the national annex for
Slovenia [13]. These wind loads can occur in the head-on
and diagonal directions and their impact can be increased
as a result of the influence of the increased surface area
due to the ice deposits.

a b c d e
Fig. 3 Calculation model (a) and actions of the tower: self-
weight (b), antenna self-weight load (c), wind an-
tenna load (d, e)

Self-weight is the result of gravity’s influences on

the towers. It is applied to all the structural members
(Fig. 3, b). This load is directly linked to one of the com-
parative criteria.
Fig. 2 Lattice towers with different topological designs The useful load of a telecommunications tower is
represented by the weight of the antennas that are mounted
A total of 155 different types of antenna towers on the top of each tower (Fig. 3, c).
calculations were made. The stress calculations for the The influence of the wind on the antennas is con-
lattice towers were obtained from a linear elastic analysis, sidered to have an effect in two directions (Fig. 3, d and e).
whereby the members are assumed to be axially loaded Wind speed is dependent on the terrain and its associated
and, in the majority of cases, to have pinned connections. roughness length z0. In our case we have an area with low
In comparison six different topological concepts were in- vegetation and particular obstacles, such as trees and build-
vestigated (Fig. 2). ings, which gives us the terrain category II [16]. The influ-
In the case of square towers two wind incidence ence of the terrain on the lattice structures (Table 1) is seen
angles that affect lattice structure and the telecommunica- through the turbulence factor ki, the terrain factor kr as well
tions antennas are considered, i.e., 0 and 45° [14]. as other influential factors and changes to the wind loads
The towers with different topological designs on the structures through the orography factor c0(z), the
were dimensioned according to strength and stability crite- factor ce(z) and the change of the mean wind velocity vm(z).
ria in accordance with the valid European norms for de-
 129

Table 1 The peak pressure on the surfaces resulting from

Terrain influence on the towers the wind forces does not appear simultaneously. Therefore,
when calculating the wind force on the structure, the struc-
z0,II, m 0.05 kr 0.19
z0, m 0.05 ki 1
tural factor cscd should be taken into account. The wind
zmin, m 2.0 c0 1 force on the structure depends on the height of the tower.
The wind force increment as a result of increasing tower
A consequence of the turbulence is that dynamic height is clearly seen in Fig. 4, b and c.
loading on a structure depends on the size of eddies that
occur around the members. Slender structures (such as Fw,e  cs cd  we Aref
surfaces
lattice towers in our case are) are sensitive to a dynamic
response in line with the wind direction as a consequence Ice load is a consequence of freezing rain on the
of turbulence buffering. Therefore, the dynamical structur- structural elements and is taken into account as an addi-
al properties, characterised by natural frequencies, modal tional construction mass (Fig. 4, a). A uniform ice thick-
shapes, equivalent masses and logarithmic decrements of ness is presumed for all the structural members [12]. The
damping are important. The fundamental flexural frequen- density of the ice envelope is determined as ρ = 7.0 kN/m3.
cies of the towers are in the range from 1.70 to 1.85 Hz. Ice load is determined as
When calculating the fundamental flexural mode for the
towers the lattice tower factors have to be taken into ac-
Fice,vozl 
  li ni qi ,ice 
count. The equivalent mass per unit length me depends on n
the tower design (Fig. 2); its value changes from 77 up to
194 kg/m. The logarithmic decrement of the damping  When applying the wind load the wind incidence
depends on the logarithmic decrement of the structural has to be taken into account (Fig. 4). The actions associat-
damping, the logarithmic decrement of the aerodynamic ed with the ice should be considered in terms of their
damping for the fundamental mode and the logarithmic gravity effects and their effect on the wind actions. There-
decrement of the damping due to special devices and its fore, when applying the wind load a magnified surface area
value depends on the height of the tower and the topologi- due to ice deposits has to be considered.
cal design. When calculating the towers the equivalent static
method [15] can be used if the stated criterion is satisfied.
If not, more complex methods, such as the spectral analysis
method, should be used.

7mt  5 hT 
   1
 s c fT AT dB  0  6 h 

At the same time a combination of loads affects

the structures. Altogether, there are nine different load cas-
es (Table 2):
1) structural self-weight,
2) useful weight (presents the antenna load),
3) ice load,
4) front wind,
5) diagonal wind,
6) front wind taking account the increased surface
area due to the ice deposits,
7) diagonal wind taking account the increased sur-
a b c face area due to the ice deposits,
8) effect of front wind on the antennas,
Fig. 4 Ice (a) and wind (b, c) loads of towers 9) effect of diagonal wind on the antennas.
Table 2
Load combinations matrix with influential factors
Limit state No. Gself Gant Qice Wx Wxy Wx,ice Wxy,ice Wx,ant Wxy,ant
ULS 1 1.10 1.10 1.40 1.40
ULS 2 1.10 1.10 1.40 1.40
ULS 3 1.10 1.10 1.40 0.35 0.35
ULS 4 1.10 1.10 1.40 0.35 0.35
ULS 5 1.10 1.10 0.70 0.70 0.70
ULS 6 1.10 1.10 0.70 0.70 0.70
SLS 7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
SLS 8 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
SLS 9 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.25
SLS 10 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.25
SLS 11 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50
SLS 12 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50
 130

The load case combinations are divided into the mance under designed loads where no plastic deformation
ultimate limit states (ULS) and the serviceability limit occurs and they are a matter of structural application. The
states (SLS). Every combination is determined as a concur- proper function of the antenna services of a telecommuni-
rent effect of the loads with the compliance of influential cations tower is affected by the rotation angle of the at-
factors [9], as described in Table 2. tached telecommunications antennas (the signal quality
Before the calculation of the towers is carried out depends on these angles). Telecommunications technology
the reliability level of the structures has to be determined. advances, so it is advantageous to have versatile and
Different levels of reliability are adopted for the ULS veri- adaptable towers. The minimization of the rotation angle
fications of the towers, depending on the possible econom- provides an opportunity to adapt the tower to expansion
ic and social consequence on their collapse. Therefore, a and adaptation to different kinds of antennas. The rotations
consequences class (CC) and a reliability class (RC) have are checked at each point of the antenna mount and they
to be determined. occur in two directions, x and y. The angles of rotation
Telecommunications towers have a medium con- are compared with each other:
sequence on economic and social life as they have a role in
the information flow in modern societies. All the structures  x ;  y ;    x2   y2
being calculated are in CC of CC2. The RC class of a
structure is determined using the reliability index β, which
is associated with CC; therefore the reliability class is The construction mass is important for any tower
RC2. This results in a partial factor for the permanent ac- comparison because it effects the construction pricing as
tions γG = 1.1 and partial factor for the variable actions well as the transport and storage costs. As a result, we
γQ = 1.4. The reduction factor of wind pressure k = 0.5 (ice strive to minimize the construction mass. The mass of each
class G3) has to be accounted for when a combination of tower is obtained by summing the mass of each structural
ice and wind loads is applied to the structure. member. The towers are divided into segments of different
heights and the members are divided into vertical, diagonal
4. Comparison criteria and filling beams

 
n n m n m
The comparison of the steel lattice towers with msum   msegm,i   mel , j ,i   lel , j ,i qL,el , j ,i
different topological designs was carried out on the basis i 1 i 1 j 1 i 1 j 1
of various criteria such as:
1) the criteria of ultimate limit states, The economic comparison of the towers is a crite-
2) the criteria of applicability, rion based on different costs. The cost of the material is
3) the mass criteria, directly linked with the construction mass. The cost of
4) the economic criteria. production depends on the topological complexity and the
The ULS criteria present the criteria of the load dimensions of the tower. Next are the cost of storage and
capacity of the cross-sections. It is necessary to satisfy the transport. This criterion depends on the size of each tower
condition of the axial, shear and bending load capacities segment as well as its geographical and orthographical
and any possible combinations of these internal forces. The location. In this case it has been assumed that no helicopter
designed load capacity depends on the compactness class transport is required as this greatly increases the costs. The
of the cross-section (in our case all the cross-sections are transportation is only by trucks and the transport distance
of 3rd class). The condition of Von Mises yield criterion is, in all cases, the same. Finally, the telecommunications
must be satisfied tower has to be assembled and placed on the mounting
location.
2 2 2
  x ,Ed    z ,Ed    x ,Ed 
       C  Cmat  material   C prod  production  
 fy / M0   fy / M0   fy / M 0 
     
2 2
Cst&tr  storage/transport   Casm  assembly 
  z ,Ed    Ed 
   3   1.0
 fy / M0   fy / M 0  It is assumed that that all the members of the an-
    tenna towers are made of the same material. The criterion
of the material price therefore depends only on the con-
Some structural members are affected by a com-
struction mass. Some 10% of the used material represents
bination load of compression with bending internal forces
production waste.The manufacturing costs are dependent
and have to satisfy the following criteria
on the complexity of the production processes and on the
number of manufactured members and include the costs
N Ed M y ,Ed  M y ,Ed M  M z ,Ed
 k yy  k yz z ,Ed  1.0 related to trimming, CN and CNC treatments and the pro-
 y N Rk M y ,Rk M z ,Rk cedures for weather protection (galvanizing and painting).
 LT
 M1  M1  M1 The same production processes are used for all the towers.
Therefore, the parameter of manufacturing costs is deter-
N Ed M y ,Ed  M y ,Ed M  M z ,Ed mined on the basis of the members and their characteris-
 k zy  k zz z ,Ed  1.0 tics.
 z N Rk M y ,Rk M z ,Rk
 LT The raw material has to be in storage prior to the
 M1  M1  M1 production and after the various processes the members
have to wait for transportation to the building site. The
The SLS are defined by the functional perfor- necessary complexity of the storage facility system is de-
 131

pendent on the number of different members, the length ever, the designs TP 5 and TP 6 achieve the smallest val-
and the mass. The transport is dependent on the mass and ues of the limit state for the lower heights.
the load dimensions (as well as the transport distance). The A close look at the graph in Fig. 5 reveals a saw-
towers have appropriate dimensions for transport (it is not shaped appearance for each topological design. This is
necessary to use large-scale transportation vehicles). mainly a consequence of the two different wind loads ap-
The antenna towers need to be assembled and plied to the towers. It is clear that different wind speed has
placed on the placement location. It is necessary to pay little impact on the tower TP 3 and a great influence on the
attention to the tower’s foundation in order to achieve the tower TP 4.
required construction conditions. The assembly cost is de-
pendent on the time and the complexity. The assembly in
the production facilities and at the building site is calculat-
ed separately. Some parts need additional machining be-
fore assembly.

5. Comparison based on criteria

The results of the comparison of the load combi-

nations on the structures are presented in graphical form.
The impact on the criteria for every topological design is
clearly seen. During every comparison the results from
different heights (10, 20 and 30 m) can be observed.
If the value of the limit states is less than 1.00, the
towers are over dimensioned, which is favorable. This
gives us the chance to mount additional telecommunica-
tions antennas on top of the towers (of course, in this case,
the criterion has to be checked again). Another affect of Fig. 5 Comparison of stability check during ULS
smaller values is the opportunity to replace some of the
structural members with beams of smaller cross-section. When comparing the tower designs to the ultimate
This positively influences the construction mass and the limit states criteria we seek to maximize the reduction,
economic criteria, but has a negative influence on the an- because it affects the usefulness of the structure. In Table 3
gles of rotation (SLS). For the comparison, typical towers the average reduction of the criteria (when compared to the
and constructions are dimensioned for a height of 30 m. values at 30 m) is seen as a percentage. The towers of dif-
However, when lowering the height used profiles of the ferent topological designs do not experience similar reduc-
construction elements do not change. tions when lowering the maximum height. Thus, for a
In the ULS comparison graph in Fig. 5 (the crite- height of 20 m a reduction occurs in the range between 4
ria of load cross-sectional capacity) it is clear that the tow- and 16%, for a height of 10 m, this difference is even more
ers with different topological concepts have a common pronounced, the reduction in the area ranges between 17
property, i.e., when lowering the height of the tower the and 41%. It turns out that the TP 1 tower design has the
ULS values are reduced. The tower design TP 1 reaches smallest drop of criteria (unfavorable); meanwhile, the
the highest values at all heights. The TP 3 towers also TP 5 tower achieve the biggest drop of criteria (favorable)
achieve high values; therefore, both designs are not good and, therefore, they can be adapted.
for mounting additional antennas at a lower height. How-

Table 3
Lowering of the limit states criteria with a reduction in the height of the tower
Topological design
Ultimate limit states criterion
TP 1 TP 2 TP 3 TP 4 TP 5 TP 6
30 m height average value 0.958 0.974 0.969 0.964 0.965 0.948
average decline, % 7.0 14.504 10.4 13.9 16.3 4.4
20 m height
average value 0.891 0.833 0.866 0.830 0.808 0.905
average decline, % 17.4 37.0 29.0 36.2 41.4 38.6
10 m height
average value 0.791 0.614 0.684 0.615 0.565 0.583

The angle of rotation of the antenna was ob- the height of the tower the rotation angles also decrease a
served. It mainly depends on the wind’s effect on the struc- great deal. It is clear that the TP 2 towers reach the highest
ture, which impacts in different directions. The wind ve- values of rotation for all heights. On the other hand, the
locity is dependent on the height of the tower and therefore tower designs TP 4 and TP 6 have small angular rotations.
with lower towers there is an impact of lower wind veloci- When constructing a tower, control of the SLS
ty. A comparison based on the criteria of angular rotation values is necessary. In our case the telecommunications
is shown in the graph in Fig. 6. In the case of the rotations antennas have a maximum allowed rotation φmax = 0.75° at
of telecommunications towers at the antenna mounts, this a maximum wind speed of vmax = 120 km/h to ensure suffi-
presents the serviceability of the structure. When reducing cient data transmission.
 132

During a comparison of the towers in terms of the

size of the angle of rotation, it is favorable to achieve min-
imal rotation angles in order to ensure better signal disper-
sion from the antenna. Towers with different topological
designs achieve similar reductions of angular rotation
when lowering the height from 30 m (Table 4). Thus, at a
height of 20 m a drop of 25% (± 3%) occurs, and at a
height of 10 m the size of the drop is 59% (± 3%). But
there is a difference in the values of the angles of rotation
when comparing topological designs. The TP 4 towers
stand out because they achieve small angles of rotation
(which is favorable for the operation of telecommunica-
tions antennas) while the TP 2 towers reach the highest
values of rotation (unfavorable). In all the tower designs,
the size of the angular rotation is reduced by lowering the
height of the towers.
Fig. 6 Comparison of angular rotations
Table 4
Lowering the angular rotation by lowering the height of the tower
Topological design
Angular rotation
TP 1 TP 2 TP 3 TP 4 TP 5 TP 6
30 m height average value, ° 0.507 0.638 0.465 0.402 0.468 0.450
average decline, % 23.7 28.4 27.8 27.0 25.0 25.4
20 m height
average value, ° 0.387 0.458 0.336 0.294 0.352 0.336
average decline, % 56.1 61.4 61.3 58.2 60.6 57.5
10 m height
average value, ° 0.222 0.247 0.180 0.168 0.185 0.191

from 30 to 20 m. On the other hand, the TP 2 towers have

the smallest masses at all heights. At the same time, they
achieve the smallest reduction with a lowering of the
height of the tower. The towers with other topological de-
signs achieve comparable structural masses for all heights,
except for the TP 3 towers, which have slightly smaller
masses at greater heights.
The graph in Fig. 7 shows the impact of different
loads on the construction. A different antenna load changes
the appearance of the graphs and gives us distinctive saw-
shaped graphs for each topological design.
During a comparison of the towers, depending on
the structural mass, it is favorable to have the minimum
masses per meter height for all heights. The towers with
different topological designs have similar reductions in of
masses as a result of lowering the tower height, except for
TP 1 and TP 2. Thus, at a height of 20 m a drop in mass of
20% (± 4%) occurs, and at a height of 10 m the reduction
is 40% (± 8%), as seen in Table 5.
Fig. 7 Construction mass comparison The tower design TP 2 stands out because it has
the lowest masses per meter of height for all heights (fa-
The mass of the tower depends on the number of vorable) and at the same time it has the smallest reduction
used members and their dimensions. It is presumed that the in construction mass. On the other hand, the TP 1 towers
towers of smaller height have smaller construction masses. have the highest structural masses per meter of height at all
This is a positive effect, as mass influences the material, heights. The masses of the other topological designs are
transport and storage costs. Structural beams of smaller somewhere in between, at low heights the masses are simi-
cross-sections can also have a negative effect because the lar (except for TP 2), whereas at greater heights the differ-
angles of rotation at the top may increase and the tower ences between the topological designs are clearly seen.
could become unusable for the purpose of telecommunica- When looking at the economic criteria of the lat-
tions usage (SLS). tice towers it is expected that structures with a lower height
For the tower-mass comparison presented in are more favorable, because less material is being used and
Fig. 7 it is clear that the structural mass is reduced by re- fewer logistic capacities and a smaller work force is need-
ducing the height of the towers (this is because less materi- ed in order to construct the tower. Economically favorable
al is used for the construction of smaller towers). designs mean a smaller price per meter of height.
Towers with the design TP 1 achieve the highest
masses at all heights, despite the sharp decrease in mass
 133

Table 5
Change in the construction mass per meter of height
Topological design
Construction mass
TP 1 TP 2 TP 3 TP 4 TP 5 TP 6
30 m height average value, kg/m 164.0 77.4 118.0 134.4 132.0 135.7
average decline, % 22.0 16.3 21.1 20.8 25.2 23.8
20 m height
average value, kg/m 128.0 65.0 93.0 106.6 98.3 103.5
average decline, % 44.1 33.0 40.2 45.8 46.5 47.7
10 m height
average value, kg/m 91.5 51.8 70.0 73.0 70.5 71.1

greater heights.
It is advantageous to achieve the lowest ratio of
tower price per meter of height. For all the tower designs
this increases with an increase in the height. However, the
towers with different topological designs do not exhibit
similar increases. Thus, at a height of 20 m there is an in-
crease in the range between 11 and 30%; at a height of
10 m, this difference is even more pronounced, i.e., the
increase ranges between 28 and 55% (Table 6).
For greater heights the best economic assessment
goes to the TP 2 towers, but at smaller heights the TP 5
and TP 6 towers have the lowest tower price per meter of
height. On the other hand, the TP 5 towers also have high
costs at greater heights (unfavorable). Therefore, in an
economic comparison there is no clear winner when it
comes to the most suitable design for the tower.
The comparison of the economic criteria showed
Fig. 8 Comparison of economical criteria that there are similarities between the mass comparison
and the economical comparison when observing towers
For the tower comparison based on the economic with a low height. At greater heights the overall cost of the
criteria presented in Fig. 8 it is clear that the tower’s price structure is influenced by the cost of man hours and the
per meter of height increases when the height of the towers processing technology, which also has an influence on the
is increased. The TP 1 towers have the least favorable eco- complexity of the production. This effect is revealed as an
nomic evaluation. On the other hand, the TP 2 tower has increased structural (topological) complexity of the tower’s
the most economical most favorable design. Despite hav- design and its influence increases with the height of the
ing a good economic evaluation for low heights, the tower tower.
designs TP 5 and TP 6 appear to lose their advantage at

Table 6
Change in the price of the tower per meter of height
Topological design
Economical evaluation TP 1 TP 2 TP 3 TP 4 TP 5 TP 6
30 m height average value, €/m 506.89 375.41 467.54 474.72 488.76 460.81
average decline, % 29.5 11.7 22.0 24.2 28.2 29.4
20 m height
average value, €/m 356.92 330.89 363.74 359.40 350.40 324.95
average decline, % 47.6 27.9 43.9 43.8 55.5 52.5
10 m height
average value, €/m 264.54 270.07 261.32 266.17 217.65 218.69

6. Conclusion comparison of the towers for telecommunications usage

was carried out. The analysis show that the TP 2 towers
In this paper the differences between the topolog- achieved a good economic evaluation, but they also have
ical designs of lattice towers for telecommunications pur- large angular rotations and therefore they do not represent
poses on the basis of comparative criteria have been ex- a good design for a telecommunications tower.
plored. It has been shown that each topological design has There is a clear connection between the tower’s
its advantages, as well as its disadvantages, depending up- mass and the economic evaluation. For greater tower
on the discussed criteria. heights the effect of the topological complexity of the de-
For instance, towers with topological designs that sign and, consequently, the production complexity has an
seemed to be a good solution with regards to the displace- increasingly significant impact on the economic evalua-
ment angles of rotation achieved only an average economic tion.
evaluation (case TP 3 and TP 4). And the results appear in
a similar pattern if we change the order of the criteria (case References
TP 1). Towers of design TP 4 and TP 6 were shown to be
good designs as their results achieved a fair evaluation. A 1. Jasim, N.A.; Galeb, A.C. 2002. Optimum design of
 134

square free-standing communication towers, Journal of J. Duhovnik, P. Tomišič

Constructional Steel Research, Elsevier 58(2): 413-425.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0143-974X(01)00055-4. LYGINAMŲJŲ KRITERIJŲ METODAS SKIRTINGOS
2. Holmes, J.D. 1996. Along wind response of lattice TOPOLOGIJOS TELEKOMUNIKACIJOS BOKŠTAMS
towers- III. Effective load distributions, Engineering PROJEKTUOTI
Structures 18(7): 489-494.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0141-0296(95)00166-2. Reziumė
3. Moon, B.; Park, J.; Lee, S.; Kim, J.; Kim, T.; Min,
K. 2009. Performance evaluation of a transmission Straipsnyje aprašomas skirtingos topologijos plie-
tower by substructure test, Journal of Constructional ninių santvarų panaudojimo telekomunikacijų bokštams
Steel Research, 65(1): 1-11. tyrimas, kai antenos yra montuojamos bokšto viršūnėje.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.04.003. Bokštai yra veikiami įvairių krūvų: savojo svorio, vėjo,
4. Jankovski, V.; Atkočiūnas, J. 2011. Biparametric ledo ir jų kombinacijų (apledėjus bokštams padidėja jų
shakedown design of steel frame structures, Mechanika paviršius ir sustiprėja vėjo poveikis). Krūvio poveikio re-
17(1): 5-12. zultatai yra palyginti tarpusavyje naudojant lyginamuosius
http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.mech.17.1.196. kriterijus, tokius kaip ribinis padėties kriterijus, antenos
5. Harl, B.; Kegl, M. 2005. efficient shape optimization posūkio kriterijus, konstrukcijos masės kriterijus ir konst-
of space trusses, Journal of Mechanical Engineering rukcijos ekonominis įvertinimas. Palyginimas atskleidė
51(9): 570-588. keletą kiekvieno topologinio projekto konstrukcinių ypa-
6. Samofalov, M.; Šlivinskas, T. 2009. Stability analysis tumų.
of steel frames with variable cross-section for sports
and entertainment centre, Mechanika 5(79): 5-12.
7. Noilublao, N.; Bureerat, S. 2011. Simultaneous topol- J. Duhovnik, P. Tomšič
ogy, shape and sizing optimisation of a three-
dimensional slender truss tower using multiobjective A COMPARATIVE CRITERIA METHOD FOR
evolutionary algorithms, Computers and structures, TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS WITH
Elsevier, Article in Press. DIFFERENT TOPOLOGICAL DESIGNS
8. Chan, C.M.; Wong, K.M. 2008. Structural topology
and element sizing design optimisation of tall steel Summary
frameworks using a hybrid OC–GA method, Structural
and Multidisciplinary Optimization 35(5): 473-488. This paper presents an investigation of different
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00158-007-0151-1. topological designs of steel-frame towers for the purpose
9. EN 1993-1-1: 2005; Eurocode 3: Design of steel struc- of telecommunications usage, where the antennas are
tures: Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. mounted at the top of the tower. The towers are subjected
10. Agüero, A.; Pallarés, F.J. 2007. Proposal to evaluate to different loads, such as self-weight, antenna loads, wind
the ultimate limit state of slender structures, Part 1: loads, ice loads and their combination (wind has an effect
Technical aspects, Engineering Structures 29(4): 483- on iced towers because of the increased surface area). The
497. results of the load impacts are compared to each other on
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.05.014. the basis of comparative criteria, such as the criteria of
11. Nishino, F.; Tall, L. 1969. Residual stress and local ultimate limit states, the criteria of angular rotation at the
buckling strength of steel columns, JSCE 172: 79-96. antenna mounting, the structural mass criteria and econom-
12. Jones, K.F.; Peabody, A.B. 2006. The application of a ic evaluation of the structures. The comparison revealed
uniform radial ice thickness to structural sections, Cold some of the structural features of each topological design.
Regions Science and Technology, 44(2): 145-148.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2005.10.002. Keywords: comparative criteria method, telecommunica-
13. EN 1991-1-4: 2005/oA101; Eurocode 1: Actions on tions tower, topological designs.
structures: Part 1-4: Wind actions – National annex.
14. Célio, F.; Carril, Jr.; Isyumov, N.; Brasilc, R. 2003. Received April 11, 2011
Experimental study of the wind forces on rectangular Accepted March 29, 2012
latticed communication towers with antennas, Journal
of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics,
91(8): 1007-1022.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6105(03)00049-7.
15. EN 1993-3-1: 2007; Eurocode 3: Design of steel struc-
tures part-3-1: Towers, masts and chimneys- Towers ad
masts.
16. EN 1991-1-4: 2005; Eurocode 1: Actions on structures:
Part 1-4: Wind actions.

View publication stats