ADVANTAGES OF USING TUBULAR PROFILES FOR

TELECOMMUNICATION STRUCTURES

M. G. Nielsen

RAMBØLL
Bredevej 2, DK-2830 Virum, Denmark

ABSTRACT

The telecommunication industry is one of the fastest growing industries; consequently the
telecommunication industry focuses on the towers for supporting the antennas. The focus is
particularly on the total costs as well as production and erection time of the towers. However,
aesthetics become more and more important since building permits become more difficult to
achieve.

Steel lattice towers are primarily produced of tubular or angular profiles. Compared to lattice towers
of angular profiles the towers of tubular profiles have the advantages of lower wind resistance,
increased buckling capacity and more aesthetic appearance. On the other hand, towers of angular
profiles are easier to produce and demand less skilled people in the shop. Finally, angular profiles
are less expensive per kilogram than tubular profiles. In practice the towers of tubular profiles are
up to twice as expensive per kilogram as towers produced of angular profiles. However, towers of
tubular profiles can compete with towers of angular profiles, but this calls for intelligent design and
innovative solutions by the tower designer.

The paper gives an overview of advantages and disadvantages of using tubular profiles compared to
angular profiles as well as some practical examples on innovative connection details to reduce
production costs. Furthermore some aspects regarding maintenance and problems regarding ice are
mentioned. Finally, the difference between use of hot-rolled, cold-formed and welded profiles is
discussed.

KEYWORDS

Lattice towers, tubular profiles, angular profiles, wind resistance, ice load, buckling curves,
economic design.
INTRODUCTION

The need for towers to support telecommunication antennas is increasing rapidly at the moment. In
the period from 2001 to 2003 minimum 50 000 towers are needed in Europe for the UMTS mobile
communication system. The telecommunication industry focuses on the total cost and delivery time
for the towers. This includes the manufacturing of the tower itself, but also foundation and erection,
that all should be taken into account.

Traditionally lattice towers have been produced of angular profiles, circular tubes or solid round
bars.

In the very beginning, more than 100 years ago, the first steel lattice towers for telecommunications
were produced of flat-sided profiles like the angular profiles since it was easy to produce and easy
to assemble. However, some 50 years ago the first lattice towers were produced of tubular profiles
and solid round bars in order to reduce the wind load and save material.

Nowadays towers are in most cases produced of tubular profiles in the northern part of Europe. In
the UK and America the majority of the towers is however produced of angular profiles. The choice
of structure is controlled by the options according to the national codes, manufacturing process but
also traditions and innovations within the design.

In the following the angular profiles are considered as 90° angle profiles.

TOWERS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Towers for telecommunications are designed to withstand the wind load on antennas, cables,
ladders etc. and on the structure itself. In some regions the towers are furthermore designed to
withstand ice load and the combination of wind and ice load.

Since the towers carries antennas and often parabolics for microwave links the stiffness criteria is
set up for the towers in order to be able to use the network under severe weather conditions. The
stiffness criteria is often the design driver of the towers, especially when they carry parabolics and
the height of the tower is more than 40 m.

The arrangement of the antennas is an important parameter in the design of the towers. The
antennas are often arranged in one of the following to configurations:
• Road configuration covering two directions using two antennas directions.
• Normal configuration covering all directions using three antenna directions.
A triangular cross section enables the attachment of the antennas directly to the legs.

WIND LOAD

Apart from the wind load on the antenna, cables and other ancillaries, the lattice structure itself
contributes significant to the wind resistance of 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 sections 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 coefficients for lattice bracing is decreasing for
increasing solidity ratio in situations were the solidity ratio is moderate. Finally is the wind
resistance for flat-sided profiles often up to 50 % larger that the circular profiles.

Figure 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). 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. Some codes like the American TIA/EIA-
222-F (1996) does not take this reduction of the wind load for circular profiles into account.

Triangular cross section Square cross section

4,0 4.0

Flat sided Flat sided

3,5 Circular (Subcritical) 3.5 Circular (Subcritical)
Circular (Supercritical) Circular (Supercritical)
Drag coefficient
Drag coefficient

3,0 3.0

2,5 2.5

2,0 2.0

1,5 1.5

1,0 1.0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Solidity ratio Solidity ratio

Figure 1 Drag coefficients for lattice sections

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 the 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 the tubes. The special considerations
concerning ice load is further described in Nielsen, M.G. and Nielsen, S.O. (1998).

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 typical 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 result in a significant lower buckling capacity of the single angular profiles for the same
distance between the bracing.

Furthermore are the diagonals for the sections with single angular profiles often eccentric loaded,
which results in even lower buckling capacity.

The buckling curve according to EC 3:Part 1-1 (1992) gives less critical stresses for angle than the
buckling curve used for hot rolled or even cold formed circular tubes. This results in a approx. 20%
higher buckling capacity for the hot rolled circular profiles compared to the angular profiles for a
typical slenderness of 60-120. The American standard, TIA/EIA-222-F (1996), does not separate
the buckling curves. Consequently it is more difficult for the towers with circular tubes to compete
with the towers of angular profiles when the American standard is followed.

In order to meet the requirements laid down in the codes the design of towers of angular profiles
demands more bracings and more members than for towers of circular profiles. This makes the
towers of angular profiles more complicated to erect.

COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT STRUCTURAL LAYOUTS.

The production costs per kilo steel for the towers of angular profiles are relatively low since the
angular profiles are cheep and the production of the joints is straightforward. Normally no welding
is needed. The members can therefore be manufactured by CNC machinery in the industrialised
countries or with less heavy machinery in developing countries.

90 m triangular tower with 30 m triangular tower with V- 42 m triangular tower with V-

cross bracing of square tubes, bracing of circular tubes, bracing of circular tubes,
PANNON, Hungary Connect-Austria KPN-Orange, Belgium

Figure 2: Standard towers of tubular profiles

However, the lattice towers of angular profiles are quite heavy and the number of bracing members
is relative high. The lattice towers of circular tubes compete in this particular respect.

Figure 2 shows a number of different lattice towers of tubular profiles.

Table 1 from Støttrup-Andersen, U. (2000) shows the weight of steel and the overturning moment
on the foundation for a typical 40 m lattice tower for mobile communications using five different
layouts of the structure, where each layout is optimised based on the different conditions.

TABLE 1
Comparison of different designs of lattice towers

Tower Layout Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V

Cross section Square Square Triangular Triangular Triangular
Legs Angle profile Circ. tubes Circ. tubes Circ. tubes Circ. tubes
Bracing configuration Cross Cross Cross V-bracing V-bracing
Diagonals Angle profile Square tubes Square tubes Square tubes Circ. tubes
Weight of steel 3.6 ton 2.9 ton 2.7 ton 2.4 ton 2.0 ton
overturning moment, foundation 810 kNm 670 kNm 590 kNm 530 kNm 420 kNm

The table shows that towers produced of circular tubes (Type V) are superior to angle profile
constructions (Type I) with respect to weight of steel and overturning moment with potential
savings of approximately 45%.

Furthermore, the tower of angular profiles (Type I) be more visible than the triangular tower of
circular tubes (Type V) since the solidity of the tower is greater and the tower will look more
massive with more and wider bracings. This is a disadvantage for the tower of angular profiles since
aesthetics become more and more important in order to get the building permits.

DETAILS

In order to reduce the delivery costs it is not only important to reduce the costs of the raw material
but also the costs of manufacturing. For the towers produced of angular profiles the costs of the
manufacturing are rather low since normally the joints consists of bolts and plates and no welding is
included. The joints for lattice sections of circular tower are traditionally more complicated and
time consuming. As an example hereof the bolted joint between the leg and diagonals is mentioned.
This has traditionally been rather complicated with gusset plates welding etc. as shown in Figure 3
from a series of standard towers to Connect-Austria. However the towers were very competitive and
more than 800 of these towers were delivered within a short period.
Figure 3: Traditional joint between diagonal and Figure 4: New joint between diagonal and leg,
legs, both circular tubes. Connect-Austria both circular tubes. KPN-Orange in Belgium

Recently a new joint has been introduced were the amount of welding is reduced: the ends of the
circular diagonals are squeezed together on a plate in order to have two plane faces in the ends of
the tube. The diagonal is accordingly bolted to a special designed gusset plate welded to the legs as
shown in figure 4.

The principle of the joint is more illustrative shown in figure 5. The gusset plate is prepared in a
way that is possible to exchange the diagonals.

Figure 5: Principles of the assembly of the diagonals

Another type of joint is used between the cross bracing of square tubes and circular leg members as
shown in figure 6 and 6. Here no welding is used for the square tubes; only drilling and a saw cut
under an angle of approximate 45°.
Figure 6: Eccentric joint between diagonal and Figure 7: Joint in the intersection between cross
leg, PANNON, Hungary bracing, PANNON, Hungary

SPECIAL PROBLEMS FOR TUBULAR PROFILES

In some designs the designers have chosen not to protect the inner surface of the tubes but just
closed the profiles e.g. with welded flanges etc. In case of weld porosities air will come into the
tube from the exterior and water will condense in the tube. Apart from the corrosion problem the
water can break the tube wall when it freezes and expands. This has been seen quite often and
consequently all tubular structures should be equipped with holes for draining. It is especially
important to drain the leg members of circular tubes in the bottom at the foundation, since there
here is a risk to collect water from the leg members in all the sections above. The hole for draining
should as a minimum be Ø15 mm in order not to be blocked by leaves, dirt etc.

The inner surfaces of tubular profiles have to be protected against corrosion, but the inner surface is
not as exposed to corrosion as the outside even if it is open in both ends. Hot dip galvanising will be
the best solution as protection against corrosion, since it is unrealistic to protect the inner surface by
painting.

When the above mentioned special precautions are taken into account, experience has shown that
lattice towers of circular tubes are maintenance free and can fully compete with towers of angular
profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Lattice towers of tubular profiles have many advantages compared to towers of angular profiles,
since the wind load is lower, the weight of steel is less and the overturning moment is less. These
advantages can fully counterbalance the less expensive angular profiles; especially if the designer
focus on the minimising the labour cost for the manufacturing of the joints.

However some codes like the American does not take due account to the decreased wind load and
increased buckling capacity of the circular profiles compared to angular profiles. This challenge the
designer to make even better designs in order to be able to compete with the lattice towers of
angular profiles.
Our experiences shows that lattice of towers tubular are very competitive with towers of angular
profiles, especially for towers delivered to areas covered by the Eurocodes.

References

EC 3:Part 1-1 (1992), Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
buildings; ENV 1993-1-1:1992.

EC 3:Part 3-1 (1997), Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 3-1: Towers and masts; ENV
1993-3-1:1997.

Nielsen, M.G. and Nielsen, S.O. (1998), Telecommunication Structures in Arctic Regions,
POLARTECH, Nuuk, Greenland

Støttrup-Andersen, U. (2000), Reducing the costs of Masts and Towers, Nordic Mast Seminar 2000,
Stockholm, Sweden

TIA/EIA-222-F (1996), Structural standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting
Structures, Telecommunications Industry Association, USA.