The Analysis of Masts and

Towers
Mogens G. Nielsen, MSc CEng,

Chief Consultant, Secretary of IASS Working Group no. 4 Masts and Towers,
Rambøll Denmark, Bredevej 2, DK-2830 Virum, Denmark

Received February, 7, 2008; Revised version February, 6, 2009; Acceptation March, 25, 2009

ABSTRACT: For many years both guyed masts and self-supporting towers
have been used for supporting antennas for mobile and other communications.
The choice between masts and towers has often been determined by the
tradition. However masts have its clear advantages in the open country,
whereas the towers are more likely to be chosen in the urban areas.
Masts and towers are often used for broadcasting of radio and television or
antennas for cellular phones. The masts and towers consequently are situated
on the top of hills and mountains, where the climate often is extreme with
respect to wind load and in some cases due to atmospheric icing. Since the
wind is turbulent and the masts and towers are flexible and sensitive to
dynamic load, the dynamic response becomes important in the analysis of
towers and guyed masts. However there are some differences in the analysis of
masts and towers.
The wind resistance for lattice sections is dependent on the type of
members, the solidity of the sections and for tubular members also dependant
on the Reynolds number. Furthermore, latest research within the IASS
Working Group for Masts and Towers has shown that the wind resistance of
tubular sections is dependent on the turbulence of the wind.
The masts act strongly in non-linear fashion since the guy ropes are varying
from slackened to a taut string. Over the years different methods have been
used for analysing guyed masts making the methods more and more realistic:
starting by a gust factor method, over the IASS patch wind method to the
Eurocode patch wind method, which gives results close to the results from a
stochastic analysis and the time domain analysis.
The towers do not act as non-linear as the masts. However, the towers are
also sensitive to the dynamics of the wind and a dynamic factor should be
applied depending on the turbulence of the wind, the height of the structure etc.

Keywords: Masts, Towers, Wind, Ice, Buckling, Guy rupture

1. INTRODUCTION
Within the last few decades the need for tall structures
has accelerated with the requirements for effective
communication especially with the advent of radio,
radar and television. Recently the exponential growth
in the use of cellular phones has led to a new era for
self-supporting towers and guyed masts.
In addition to the complexity in the structural
system itself, the predominant loads of self-supporting
towers and guyed masts are natural loads due to wind
and ice and these also affects the structural behaviour.
The wind load is a dynamic load and the slender
structures are sensitive to the dynamic part in the
wind. Ice on a mast will by its weight change the
dynamic behaviour, as well as it may increase the
wind drag of a lattice mast dramatically.
The overall layout of telecommunication masts is
governed by the requirements to the transmission and
receiving conditions. Added hereto the access and
working conditions for installation and service are

•Corresponding author. E-mail Address: mon@ramboll.dk

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 2 2009 97


important issues for the design. The first requirement
often leads to relatively tall structures or in mountainous
areas a smaller structure on the top of hills or
mountains. Both solutions lead to various problems
with regard to analysis, design and construction.
2. BASIS OF THE DESIGN
The operator normally specifies their basic requirements
to the structures, as for instance [13] & [18]:
• the placing of antennas and cables
• the stiffness of the structure
• the access system for service and working and the
cable management system
• the codes and standards to be used for the project
• the standard heights of the structures
The Eurocode for Towers and Masts [3] and the
American TIA/EIA-222-G [1] are two codes that
include the specific considerations regarding guyed
masts and self-supporting towers. The predomi-nating
design parameter for the structures is the wind load on
the structure itself and on the antennas and feeders.
The wind load on the structure depends on the wind
climate and the wind resistance of the structure,
antennas etc. If a large number of structures are going
to be built it could be an advantage to divide the
structures into different groups:
• heights of the structures
• self-supporting towers and guyed masts
• different categories of sites depending of the
wind climate
• wind resistances from antennas
3. WIND LOAD
Apart from the wind load on the antennas, cables and
other ancillaries, the lattice structure itself contributes
significantly to the wind loading on the tower. The
wind resistance of the flat-sided profiles such as
angular profiles is larger than for the circular profiles.
Consequently is the demand for the strength and the
stiffness of the sections of the tower and the
foundation dependent on the type of members.
The wind resistance of the lattice towers is
dependent on various parameters: e.g. type of cross
section, solidity ratio and type of members. The wind
resistance is larger for square cross sections than for
triangular cross sections. The drag coefficient for
lattice bracing is decreasing for increasing solidity
ratio in situations where the solidity ratio is moderate.
Finally the wind resistance for flat-sided profiles is
often up to 50 % larger that the circular profiles [14].
98
The Analysis of Masts and Towers
Overall Drag Coefficients for Masts
5,0
4,5
4,0
Circular subcritical
Drag Coefficient
3,5 Flat sided
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
0,5
0,0
Circular supercritical
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
Solidity Ratio
Figure 1. Drag Coefficients Dependent on the Solidity Ratio,
Type of Cross Section and Profile.
Fig 1 illustrates the drag coefficient dependent on
the solidity ratio, type of cross section and profile. The
values are based upon data from wind tunnel tests and
are given in EC 3: Part 3-1 1997 [3]. For circular
profiles the drag coefficient 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 profiles [10]. Some codes
like the old American TIA/EIA-222-F [2] does not
take this reduction of the wind load for circular
profiles into account.
4. ICE LOAD
In some regions heavy ice load occurs on the structure
and the dimensioning load can be the weight of the ice
or the combination of ice load and wind load.
The weight per meter of ice on a profile is
dependent on the free surface area and since all the
surfaces on angular profiles are exposed to ice load;
the amount of ice on an angular profile is more than for
a tubular profile, see Fig 2.
The special considerations concerning ice load is
further described in [9].
5. BUCKLING CAPACITY
The design of the members in the bracing of lattice
towers is normally controlled by their buckling
capacity. Important parameters for the buckling
capacity are radius of inertia, buckling length,
eccentricity and the buckling curve.
When comparing a circular tube to a single angular
profile with identical width and area of cross sections,
the radius of inertia of a circular tube will typically be
10% larger than the radius of inertia about the strong
axis of the angular profile and 70 % larger compared
to the radius about the weak axis. This results in a
International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 2 2009
Mogens G. Nielsen

rolled circular profiles compared to the angular

profiles for a typical slenderness of 60-120. The

t
American standards [1] & [2] do not separate the
buckling curves. Consequently it is more difficult for

W
the towers with circular tubes to compete with the

D
towers of angular profiles when the American
standard is followed.
In order to meet the requirements laid down in the
8t Wmax codes, the design of towers of angular profiles
L I demands more bracings and more members than for
towers of circular profiles. This makes the towers of
angular profiles more complicated to erect. The major
t

advantage of towers with angular sections is the

simplicity in detailing at joints as compared to tubular
sections.
W

6. ANALYSIS OF MASTS AND

TOWERS
The predominant load on self-supporting towers and
8t Wmax guyed masts is the wind load. In some areas also the
atmospheric icing on the structure may have important
L
influence on the design. Especially when icing is
Figure 2. Ice Accretion Model for Rime on Circular and combined with wind this may be decisive for the
Angular Profiles. design in some countries [9].
The wind is a dynamic load and slender structures like
self-supporting towers and guyed masts are sensitive to
400
S355 Curve a, Hot finnished tubes dynamic load as, they are flexible and they have low
Allowable stress acc. to EC

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 50
Slenderness
Figure 3. Buckling Curves According to EC 3:Part 1-1 1992.
A Significant Lower Buckling Capacity of the Single Angle
Profile for the Same Distance Between the Bracings.
significant lower buckling capacity of the single angle
profile for the same distance between the bracings
(See Fig 3).
Furthermore, the diagonals for the sections with
single angular profiles are often eccentrically loaded,
which results in even lower buckling capacity.
The buckling curve according to EC 3: Part 1-1
1992 gives less critical stresses for angular profiles
than the buckling curve used for hot rolled or even
cold formed circular profiles. This result in an
approx. 20% higher buckling capacity for the hot
S235 Curve a, Hot finnished tubes
S355 Curve b, Cold formed tubes
S355 Curve c, L-profiles tubes
100 150
structural damping characteristics. It is therefore
essential that self-supporting towers and guyed masts are
analysed for the dynamic response of the structure to the
wind. In the case of self-supporting towers, whose
natural frequencies usually are well separated, the
response of the structure to wind gusts is governed by the
fundamental mode of vibration. This enables simplified
analysis procedures to be adopted using appropriate gust
200
response factors. Nevertheless, care needs always to be
exercised in the design, especially for heavily eiffelated
tower configura-tions [16].
Guyed masts are essentially of a more complex
nature for several reasons. Some of them are due to the
static system of a mast shaft as a column subjected to
bending moments and elastically supported by guys
with non-linear stiffness. The guyed mast is also
dependent of the loading directly on the guys
themselves, for instance wind and ice. Some of them
are as mentioned due to the nature of the loads, namely
natural loads as wind and ice, where an accurate
estimation of the design values and combinations often
is difficult. Most important is perhaps that the wind
load acts dynamically and guyed masts are sensitive to
dynamic loads.
If the static system of a guyed mast is complex it is
nothing compared with the complexity of the dynamic

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 2 2009 99

 The Analysis of Masts and Towers

0.766 Hz 2.186 Hz 5.068 Hz 9.560 Hz 15.367 Hz

0.567 Hz 0.615 Hz 0.689 Hz 1.153 Hz 1.260 Hz 1.593 Hz 2.067 Hz 2.405 Hz 2.617 Hz

Figure 4. Modes of a Lattice Tower Compared to a Guyed Mast.

system. In guyed masts the fundamental mode of

vibration alone does not govern the design, as the
modes are not well separated and many modes may
contribute to the response of the structure to turbulent
wind [8] & [11].
It is not only the modes of the shaft that are
interesting but in some instances the modes of the guys
1000 kN
are important too. The frequencies of the structure are
— EC3 part 3.0 – –“IASS Patch” . . . . Full dynamic
dependent on the loading on the mast due to wind, and
ice if appropriate, and also dependent on the direction Axial forces in leg members
Comparison analysis
of the wind on the structure. Also, if non- Overall extreme values
symmetrically deposit of ice on the mast shaft and the Figure 5. The Comparison of the Extreme Forces in the Leg
individual guys shall be taken into consideration, the Members of a 160 m Guyed Mast.
dynamic analysis of the guyed masts will be almost
impossible. Fig 4 illustrates some of the modes of a
guyed mast compared to a tower.
There are few computer programs available for a
full dynamic stochastic analysis of guyed masts. Even
with the latest generation of fast high capacity
computers a fully dynamic analysis of guyed masts
may run for several hours. Therefore considerable
efforts has been expended in trying to produce
simplifications for the design rules for codes and
standards, and recently a relatively reliable simplified
procedure has been developed and adopted in new
codes, latest in the list is the Eurocode 3: Part 3.1
Towers and Masts [3]. For a number of different
existing guyed masts the procedure based on
simplified static patch wind models has been
compared with a full dynamic analysis - and
reasonable agreement has been found.
The principle of applying the patches is described in
the Eurocode 3 Part 3-1 model. Fig 5 shows the
comparison of the extreme forces in the leg members
of a 160 m guyed mast. Besides the new patch model 0. 25. 50. 75. 100. kN
as adopted in the Eurocode for Towers and Masts [3],
— EC3 part 3.1 – –“IASS Patch” . . . . Full dynamic
the former IASS Patch Wind Model has also been
compared with the result of a full dynamic analysis. Axial forces in diagonals
Comparison analysis
Fig 6 shows the extreme forces developed in the Overall extreme values
diagonals for the three analytical models. It may be Figure 6. Extreme Forces Developed in the Diagonals for the
seen that the Eurocode Model is quite close to the full Three Analytical Models.

100 International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 2 2009

Mogens G. Nielsen
dynamic response analysis and that the IASS Model is
clearly on the safe side.
Analysis in the time domain has shown similar
results as the results from the stochastic method and
the Eurocode patch [4].
7. GUY RUPTURE
Guy rupture is an additional design criterion for design
of guyed masts, which is seldom considered by
designers. However guy rupture relative often leads to
collapses of guyed masts. The most significant
incident was the fall of the tallest guyed mast in the
World [12].
Guy rupture is a critical event, which can lead to
collapse of the guyed mast. Consequently it should
be included in the design analysis for guyed masts in
high reliability class. This is already recommend-ded
in the Eurocode for towers and masts [3] and the
TIA-222-G [1].
The guyed masts must be able to withstand guy
rupture in still air conditions and at a reduced wind
pressure in the absence of the ruptured guy.
8. MAST FAILURES
Guyed masts are more likely to collapse than other
structures as for example towers due to the non-linear
behaviour of the guy ropes. An overview over all
collapses is difficult to get. However J. Laiho has
created a database of the known collapses of mast and
towers [5]. According to this the most common cause
of failure of guyed masts is ice load (70 %), but
collapses due to guy rupture also appear quite often (8
%). At least 14 collapses have been registrated by
Laiho and among these was the tallest mast in the
world the 646 m mast in Poland.
Guy rupture can be caused by a number of events e.g.
cut of guys (Aeroplanes, falling objects etc.), broken
insulators (Lightning), vandalism, erection failures,
deterioration of the guys (fatigue, corro-sions) etc.
9. THE FUTURE
Even though today we have a wide knowledge of the
various factors affecting the analysis, design and
behaviour of masts, there are still areas which are not
fully understood and which need further development
and research. As examples of such areas the following
phenomena may be mentioned:
• improved assessment of the drag force of lattice
sections with circular profiles exposed to
turbulent wind;
International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 2 2009
• assessment of atmospheric ice loading and
especially the combination of wind and ice;
• galloping of guys, the true theoretical
background, the computer modelling, the way to
predict galloping and how to prevent/dampen
when it occurs, etc.;
• non-linear dynamic response analysis of a guyed
mast;
• aero elastic instability of various mast
sections/antenna configurations;
• assessment of various parameters for full
dynamic response and fatigue analyses including,
for instance, full-scale measure-ments;
• convergence on an acceptable procedure to
predict vortex excitation on masts suppor-ting
cylindrical sections.
Also the development of new materials, particularly
those with high structural strength and good electrical
resistivity - may have a significant effect on mast and
tower design in the future.
10. REFERENCES
[1] ANSI/TIA-222-G 2006. Structural standards for Steel
Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures,
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), USA.
[2] TIA/EIA-222-F 1996. Structural standards for Steel
Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures,
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), USA.
[3] EC3 Part 3-1 (1997) “Eurocode 3: Design of Steel
Structures, Part 3.1: Towers and Masts”, ENV 1993-3-1
[4] Bakmar, C.B. (2004) “Wind Load on Guyed Masts”,
Master Thesis, DTU
[5] Laiho, J, (1997) “Some known mast failure”, IASS WG4,
Chicago
[6] Heslop, P, (2007) “Functional Requirements for
Telecoms Masts and Towers”, SEWC, Bangalore
[7] Leuchsenring, P., Støttrup-Andersen, U. (1997),
“Aesthetic Approach to Mast and Tower Design”, IASS
Symposium, Singapore
[8] Nielsen, M.G. (1995), “Comparison of Maximum
Dynamic Response for Guyed Masts using four different
Methods of Analysis”, IASS WG4, Winchester
[9] Nielsen, M.G. & Nielsen, S.O. 1998,
“Telecommunication Structures in Arctic Regions”,
POLARTECH, Nuuk
[10] Nielsen, M.G. (2001), “Wind Tunnel Tests”, IASS WG4,
Oslo
[11] Nielsen, M.G., Støttrup-Andersen, U. (2005), “Design of
Guyed Masts”, 2nd Latin American Symposium on
Tension Structures, Caracas
[12] Nielsen, M.G. (2006),”Guyed masts Exposed to Guy
Failure”, ASCE Congress, St. Louis
[13] Nielsen, M.G., Støttrup-Andersen, U. (2006),
“Comparison of the Advantages of Guyed Masts to Self-
supporting Towers”, ASCE Congress, St. Louis.
[14] Nielsen, M.G.; Støttrup-Andersen, U. (2006),
“Advantages of using tubular profiles for
telecommunication structures”, ISTS11, Québec.
101

[15] Peil, U. (1997) “Mast Failures - Gales and Guy Rupture”,
IASS WG4, Chicago.
[16] Smith, B.W., Støttrup-Andersen, U. (1997), ”Towers and
Masts: The Past, Present and the Future”, IASS
Colloquium, Madrid.
102
The Analysis of Masts and Towers
[17] Støttrup-Andersen, U. (2002), “Analysis and design of
masts and towers”, IASS Symposium on Lightweight
Structures in Civil Engineering, Warsaw.
[18] Støttrup-Andersen, U. (2005), “Mast and towers for the
UMTS networks in Sweden”, Eurosteel, Mastricht.
International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 2 2009