Design of Telecommunication Tower

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES
938 Aurora Blvd.Cubao, Quezon City
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE
Civil Engineering Department
CE 509
CE Design Projects 2
DESIGN OF A 45 METER TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER IN BRGY. SAN JOSE, ANTIPOLO CITY
SUBMITTED BY:
Ang, Gabriella Angela D.R.
Benito, Charlotte F.
Holgado, Michelle E.
Mejia, Kenneth C.
SUBMITTED TO:
ENGR. JENNIFER S. CAMINO

Capstone Adviser
February 2020
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND........................................................................................................1
1.1 The Project.............................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Location......................................................................................................................................1
1.3 Project Objective.....................................................................................................................................3
1.3.1 General Objective................................................................................................................................3
1.3.2 Specific Objectives..........................................................................................................................3
1.4 The Client...............................................................................................................................................3
1.5 Project Scope and Limitations................................................................................................................3
1.5.1 Scope..............................................................................................................................................3
1.5.2 Limitations.......................................................................................................................................3
1.6 Project Development..............................................................................................................................4
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN CRITERIA AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE............................................6
2.1 Design Criteria........................................................................................................................................6
2.1.1 Demography....................................................................................................................................6
2.1.2 Topography.....................................................................................................................................7
2.1.3 Soil Map........................................................................................................................................10
2.1.4 Dead Loads...................................................................................................................................14
2.1.5 Live Load.......................................................................................................................................14
2.1.5 Seismic Loads...............................................................................................................................14
2.1.6 Wind Loads...................................................................................................................................21
2.1.5 Architectural Plan..........................................................................................................................45
2.2 Review of Related Literature................................................................................................................52
2.2.1 Foreign Literature..........................................................................................................................52
2.2.2 Local Literature.............................................................................................................................54
CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINTS, TRADEOFFS AND STANDARDS................................................................56
3.1 Design Constraints...............................................................................................................................56
3.1.1 Qualitative Constraints..................................................................................................................56
3.1.2 Quantitative Constraints (Context 1).............................................................................................56
3.1.3 Quantitative Constraints (Context 2).............................................................................................57
3.2 Trade-offs.............................................................................................................................................58
3.2.1 Structural Trade-offs.....................................................................................................................59
ii
3.2.2 Geotechnical Trade-offs................................................................................................................61
3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking......................................................................................................................64
3.4 Initial Estimates and Ranking Computation.........................................................................................65
3.4.1 Raw Ranking for Structural Tradeoffs...........................................................................................66
3.4.2 Raw Ranking for Geotechnical Tradeoffs.....................................................................................71
3.5 Tradeoffs Assessment..........................................................................................................................77
3.5.1 Tradeoffs Assessment for Structural Tradeoffs............................................................................77
3.5.2 Trade-offs Assessment for Geotechnical Trade-offs....................................................................78
3.6 Design Standards.................................................................................................................................79
3.6.1 National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015.........................................................................79
3.6.2 American National Standards Institute 2005................................................................................79
3.6.3 American Institute of Steel Construction 2016.............................................................................79
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE.......................................................................................................80
4.1 Design Methodology of Structural Tradeoffs........................................................................................80
4.2 Structure Line Diagram.........................................................................................................................81
4.3 Load Case Details................................................................................................................................84
4.3.1 Primary Loads...............................................................................................................................84
4.3.2 Combination Loads.......................................................................................................................85
4.4 Load Diagrams.....................................................................................................................................88
4.4.1 Deflection Diagram........................................................................................................................88
4.4.2 Beam Stress..................................................................................................................................89
4.4.3 Axial Force....................................................................................................................................90
4.4.4 Shear Y Force..............................................................................................................................91
4.4.5 Shear Z Force Diagram.................................................................................................................92
4.4.6 Wind Load Diagram......................................................................................................................93
4.5 Design Process of Wind Load Analysis...............................................................................................94
4.5.1 Velocity Pressure..........................................................................................................................96
4.5.2 Force Coefficient of a Structure....................................................................................................97
4.5.3 Solidity Ratio.................................................................................................................................97
4.5.4 Structure Design Wind Force........................................................................................................99
4.5.5 Design Wind Force on Appurtenances.........................................................................................99
4.6 Design Process of Telecommunication Tower...................................................................................102
4.6.1 Design A (Self Supporting Tower)..............................................................................................103
iii
4.6.2 Design B (Guyed Tower)............................................................................................................104
4.6.3 Design C (Monopole Tower).......................................................................................................105
4.6.4 Design Process of Foundation....................................................................................................106
4.6.5 Design Process of Base Plate....................................................................................................110
4.7 Design Process of Welded Connection..............................................................................................112
4.7.1 Shielded Metal Arc Welding Process (SMAW)...........................................................................113
4.7.3 Fillet Weld....................................................................................................................................113
4.8 Design of Guy Wires...........................................................................................................................114
4.9 Design Methodology of Geotechnical Tradeoffs................................................................................115
4.10 Design Process of Dynamic Compaction....................................................................................116
4.10.1 Design A (Dynamic Compaction)..............................................................................................117
4.11 Design Process of Dynamic Replacement..................................................................................121
4.11.1 Design B (Dynamic Replacement)............................................................................................122
4.12 Design Process of Compaction Grouting.....................................................................................126
4.12.1 Design C (Compaction Grouting)..............................................................................................127
4.13 Final Estimated Trade-off Values.....................................................................................................132
4.13.1 Raw Ranking for Structural Tradeoffs.......................................................................................133
4.13.2 Raw Ranking of Geotechnical Tradeoffs..................................................................................138
4.14 Tradeoffs Assessment......................................................................................................................143
4.14.1 Tradeoffs Assessment for Structural Tradeoffs........................................................................143
4.14.2 Tradeoffs Assessment for Geotechnical Tradeoffs..................................................................145
4.15 Influence of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards...........................................................146
4.15.1 Comparison of Final Estimates for Structural Tradeoffs...........................................................147
4.15.2 Comparison of Final Estimates for Geotechnical Tradeoffs.....................................................150
4.16 Sensitivity Analysis...........................................................................................................................153
4.16.1 Sensitivity Analysis for Structural Tradeoffs.............................................................................153
4.16.2 Sensitivity Analysis for Geotechnical Tradeoffs........................................................................156
CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN.......................................................................................................................160
5.1 Final Design Project...........................................................................................................................160
5.2 Schedules and Details of Guyed Tower.............................................................................................160
5.2.1 Architectural Plan........................................................................................................................161
5.2.2 Structural Plan.............................................................................................................................162
5.2.3 Structure Line Diagram and Geometric Model...........................................................................163
iv
5.3 Details of Dynamic Compaction.........................................................................................................164
5.3.1 Dynamic Compaction Parameters and Inputs............................................................................164
5.3.2 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................165
APPENDIX A - INITIAL ESTIMATE..............................................................................................................167
APPENDIX B - FINAL ESTIMATE................................................................................................................173
APPENDIX C - WIND CALCULATION.........................................................................................................179
APPENDIX D - DESIGN OF FOUNDATION................................................................................................197
APPENDIX E - COMPUTATION FOR WELD..............................................................................................206
APPENDIX F – SAMPLE COMPUTATION FOR BASE PLATE.................................................................209
APPENDIX G - CONSTRUCTION PROCESS DURATION.........................................................................212
APPENDIX H - DESIGN OF GEOTECHNICAL TRADEOFFS....................................................................234
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................................254
v
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Antipolo Base Map..........................................................................................................................2

Figure 1-2 Site Location on Marilaque Highway...............................................................................................2
Figure 1-3 Project Development Plan...............................................................................................................5
Figure 2-1 Contour and Topographic Map of Barangay San Jose, Antipolo City............................................8
Figure 2-2 Hazard Map of Brgy. San Jose, Antipolo City.................................................................................9
Figure 2-3 Soil Map City of Antipolo...............................................................................................................10
Figure 2-4Test Pit Soil Profile.........................................................................................................................12
Figure 2-5 AASHTO Soil Specifications.........................................................................................................13
Figure 2-6 Distance Project Site to the Valley Fault System..........................................................................15
Figure 2-7 Referenced Seismic Map of the Philippines.................................................................................16
Figure 2-8 Equivalent Modal Coefficients, a,b,&c...........................................................................................18
Figure 2-9 Referenced Basic Wind Speed Map of the Philippines................................................................22
Figure 2-10 Wind Forces on Appurtenances..................................................................................................33
Figure 2-11 Wind Forces on Typical Microwave Antennas............................................................................35
Figure 2-12 Symmetrical Frame/Truss Platforms...........................................................................................35
Figure 2-13 Low Profile Platforms...................................................................................................................40
Figure 2-14 Circular Ring Platforms...............................................................................................................41
Figure 2-15 Wind Force on Guys....................................................................................................................42
Figure 2-16 Shielding Limitations....................................................................................................................43
Figure 2-17 Equivalent EPA of Transmission Line Clusters...........................................................................44
Figure 2-19 Area of the Whole Facility of Self- Supporting Tower.................................................................46
Figure 2-20 Self- Supporting Tower................................................................................................................47
Figure 2-21 Area of the Whole Facility of Guyed Tower................................................................................48
Figure 2-22 Guyed Tower...............................................................................................................................49
Figure 2-23 Area of the Whole Facility of Monopole Tower...........................................................................50
Figure 2-24 Monopole Tower..........................................................................................................................51
Figure 3-1 Self Supporting Tower...................................................................................................................59
Figure 3-2 Guyed Towers...............................................................................................................................60
Figure 3-3 Monopole Towers..........................................................................................................................61
Figure 3-4 Dynamic Compaction....................................................................................................................62
Figure 3-6 Compaction Grouting.....................................................................................................................64
Figure 3-7 Ranking Scale Value.....................................................................................................................65
Figure 3-8 Subordinate Rank of Guyed Tower Plotted in a Rank Line..........................................................67
Figure 3-9 Subordinate Rank of Monopole Tower Plotted in a Rank Line.....................................................67
Figure 3-10 Subordinate Rank of Self Supporting Tower Plotted in a Rank Line..........................................68
Figure 3-11 Subordinate Rank of Monopole Tower Plotted in a Rank Line...................................................68
Figure 3-12 Subordinate Rank of Guyed Tower Plotted in a Rank Line........................................................69
Figure 3-14 Subordinate Rank of Self Supporting Tower Plotted in a Rank Line..........................................70
vi
Figure 3-16 Subordinate Rank of Dynamic Replacement Plotted in a Rank Line.........................................72
Figure 3-17 Subordinate Rank of Compaction Grouting Plotted in a Rank Line............................................72
Figure 3-18 Subordinate Rank of Dynamic Compaction Plotted in a Rank Line...........................................73
Figure 3-19 Subordinate Rank of Compaction Grouting Plotted in a Rank Line............................................74
Figure 3-21Subordinate Rank of Compaction Grouting Plotted in a Rank Line.............................................75
Figure 3-23Subordinate Rank of Compaction Grouting Plotted in a Rank Line.............................................76
Figure 4-1 Design Methodology of Geotechnical Tradeoffs...........................................................................80
Figure 4-2 Structure Line Diagram of Self Supporting Tower........................................................................81
Figure 4-3 Structure Line Diagram of Guyed Tower.......................................................................................82
Figure 4-4 Structure Line Diagram of Monopole Tower.................................................................................83
Figure 4-5 Beam Deflection Diagrams............................................................................................................88
Figure 4-6 Beam Stress Diagrams.................................................................................................................89
Figure 4-7 Axial Force Diagram......................................................................................................................90
Figure 4-8 Shear Y Force Diagram.................................................................................................................91
Figure 4-9 Shear Z Force Diagram.................................................................................................................92
Figure 4-10 Wind Force Diagram....................................................................................................................93
Figure 4-11 Design Process for Wind Load Analysis of Self Supporting Tower............................................94
Figure 4-12 Design Process for Wind Load Analysis of Guyed and Monopole Tower..................................95
Figure 4-13 Design Process for Wind Load Analysis of Self Supporting Tower..........................................102
Figure 4-14 Design Process of Foundation..................................................................................................106
Figure 4-15 Reinforcement Results Top and Bottom Rebar for Self-Supporting Tower..............................109
Figure 4-16 Reinforcement Results Top and Bottom Rebar for Guyed Tower...........................................109
Figure 4-17 Reinforcement Results Top and Bottom Rebar for Monopole Tower.......................................110
Figure 4-18 Design Process of Welded Connection.....................................................................................112
Figure 4-19 Shielded Metal Arc Welding......................................................................................................113
Figure 4-20 Fillet Weld Type.........................................................................................................................113
Figure 4-21 Design Methodology of Geotechnical Tradeoffs.......................................................................115
Figure 4-22 Design Process of Dynamic Compaction..................................................................................116
Figure 4-23 Design Process of Dynamic Replacement................................................................................121
Figure 4-24 Design Process of Compaction Grouting..................................................................................126
Figure 4-25 Subordinate Rank of MonopoleTower Plotted in a Rank Line..................................................133
Figure 4-26 Subordinate Rank of Self Supporting Tower Plotted in a Rank Line........................................134
Figure 4-28 Subordinate Rank of GuyedTower Plotted in a Rank Line.......................................................135
Figure 4-30 Subordinate Rank of Guyed Tower Plotted in a Rank Line......................................................136
Figure 4-31 Subordinate Rank of Guyed Tower Plotted in a Rank Line......................................................137
Figure 4-32 Subordinate Rank of Monopole Tower Plotted in a Rank Line.................................................137
vii
Figure 4-33 Subordinate Rank of Dynamic Replacement Plotted in a Rank Line.......................................139
Figure 4-34 Subordinate Rank of Compaction Grouting Plotted in a Rank Line..........................................139
Figure 4-41 Graphical Comparison of Structural Safety Constraint.............................................................147
Figure 4-42 Graphical Comparison of Economic Constraint........................................................................148
Figure 4-43 Graphical Comparison of Constructability Constraint...............................................................148
Figure 4-44 Graphical Comparison of Sustainability Constraint..................................................................149
Figure 4-45 Graphical Comparison of Structural Safety Constraint.............................................................150
Figure 4-46 Graphical Comparison of Economic Constraint........................................................................151
Figure 4-47 Graphical Comparison of Constructability Constraint...............................................................151
Figure 4-48 Graphical Comparison of Sustainability Constraint..................................................................152
Figure 4-49 Summary of Comparison on Cost vs Duration..........................................................................154
Figure 4-50 Summary of Comparison on Structure Cost vs Maintenance Cost..........................................155
Figure 4-51 Summary of Comparison on Cost vs Deflection.......................................................................156
Figure 4-52 Summary of Comparison on Cost vs Duration..........................................................................157
Figure 4-53 Summary of Comparison on Project Cost vs Maintenance Cost..............................................158
Figure 4-54 Summary of Comparison on Cost vs Deflection.......................................................................159
Figure 5-1 Architectural Plan of Guyed Tower.............................................................................................161
Figure 5-2 Foundation Plan of Guyed Tower...............................................................................................162
Figure 5-3 Structure Line Diagram of Guyed Tower.....................................................................................163
viii
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Population Census............................................................................................................................6

Table 2-2 Age Group Percentage.....................................................................................................................7
Table 2-3 Borehole Data.................................................................................................................................11
Table 2-4 Test Pit............................................................................................................................................12
Table 2.5 Unified Soil Classification System..................................................................................................13
Table 2.6 USCS Soil Classification.................................................................................................................14
Table 2-7 Minimum Design Densities for Design Loads from Materials........................................................14
Table 2-8 Live Load Parameters.....................................................................................................................14
Table 2-9 Acceleration-Based Site Coefficient...............................................................................................20
Table 2-10 Velocity-Based Site Coefficient....................................................................................................20
Table 2-11 Exposure Category Coefficients...................................................................................................24
Table 2-12 Topographic Category Coefficients..............................................................................................25
Table 2-13 Wind Direction Probability Factor.................................................................................................27
Table 2-14 Wind Direction Factors.................................................................................................................27
Table 2-15 Importance Factors.......................................................................................................................29
Table 2-16 Force Coefficients for Pole Structures..........................................................................................31
Table 2-17 Effective Projected Area per Carrier Type....................................................................................34
Table 2-18 Wind Force Coefficients for Typical Microwave Antenna without Radome.................................36
Table 2-19 Wind Force Coefficients for Typical Microwave Antenna with Radome......................................37
Table 2-20 Wind Force Coefficients for Typical Microwave Antenna with Cylindrical Shroud.......................38
Table 2-21 Wind Force Coefficients for Typical Microwave Grid Antenna without Ice..................................39
Table 3-1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Self-Supporting Tower...........................................................59
Table 3-2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Guyed Tower..........................................................................60
Table 3-3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Monopole Tower....................................................................61
Table 3- 4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Dynamic Compaction............................................................62
Table 3-5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Dynamic Replacement...........................................................63
Table 3- 6 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Compaction Grouting......................................................64
Table 3-7 Initial Estimates of Structural Tradeoffs..........................................................................................65
Table 3-8 Initial Estimates of Geotechnical Tradeoffs....................................................................................66
Table 3-9 Initial Estimated Value for Risk Assessment Constraint................................................................66
Table 3-10 Initial Estimated Value for Economic Constraint..........................................................................67
Table 3-11 Initial Estimated Value for Constructability Constraint.................................................................68
Table 3-12 Initial Estimated Value for Sustainability Constraint.....................................................................70
Table 3-13 Designers’ Raw Ranking for Structural Tradeoffs........................................................................71
Table 3-14 Initial Estimated Value for Risk Assessment Constraint..............................................................71
Table 3-15 Initial Estimated Value for Economic Constraint..........................................................................73
Table 3-16 Initial Estimated Value for Constructability Constraint.................................................................74
Table 3-17 Initial Estimated Value for Sustainability Constraint.....................................................................75
Table 3-18 Designers’ Raw Ranking for Geotechnical Tradeoffs..................................................................76
ix
Table 3- 19 Designers’ Raw Ranking for Structural Tradeoffs.......................................................................77
Table 3-20 Designers’ Raw Ranking for Geotechnical Tradeoffs..................................................................78
Table 4-1 Primary Load Details for Self Supporting Tower............................................................................84
Table 4-2 Primary Load Details for Guyed and Monopole Tower..................................................................85
Table 4-3 Combination Load Details Using Allowable Stress Design (ASD) for Self Supporting Tower.......85
Table 4-4 Combination Load Details Using Allowable Stress Design (ASD) for Guyed and Monopole........86
Table 4-5 Combination Load Details Using Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Self Supporting....86
Table 4-6 Combination Load Details Using Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Guyed and...........87
Table 4-7 Summary of Velocity Pressures.....................................................................................................96
Table 4-8 Wind Direction Factors...................................................................................................................97
Table 4-9 Solidity Ratio and Force Coefficient for Self Supporting Tower.....................................................98
Table 4-10 Solidity Ratio and Force Coefficient for Guyed Tower.................................................................98
Table 4-11 Solidity Ratio and Force Coefficient for Monopole Tower............................................................99
Table 4-12 Summary of Design Wind Pressures...........................................................................................99
Table 4-13 Summary of Wind Forces for Microwave Antenna, F(kN) of Self Supporting Tower..................99
Table 4-14 Summary of Wind Forces for Microwave Antenna, F(kN) of Guyed Tower...............................100
Table 4-15 Summary of Wind Forces for Microwave Antenna, F(kN) of Monopole Tower.........................100
Table 4-16 Summary of Wind Forces for Collinear Antenna, F(kN) of Self Supporting Tower...................100
Table 4-17 Summary of Wind Forces for Collinear Antenna, F(kN) of Guyed Tower..................................101
Table 4-18 Summary of Wind Forces for Microwave Antenna, F(kN) of Monopole Tower.........................101
Table 4-19 Final Sections Summary for Self Supporting Tower..................................................................103
Table 4-20 Maximum Node Displacements for Self Supporting Tower.......................................................103
Table 4-21 Maximum Reactions for Self Supporting Tower.........................................................................103
Table 4-22 Final Sections Summary for Guyed Tower................................................................................104
Table 4-23 Maximum Node Displacements for Guyed Tower......................................................................104
Table 4-24 Maximum Reactions for Guyed Tower.......................................................................................104
Table 4-25 Final Sections Summary for Monopole Tower...........................................................................105
Table 4-26 Maximum Node Displacements for Monopole Tower................................................................105
Table 4-27 Maximum Reactions for Monopole Tower..................................................................................105
Table 4-28 Material Properties......................................................................................................................107
Table 4-29 Slab Data for Self Supporting Tower..........................................................................................107
Table 4-30 Slab Data for Guyed Tower........................................................................................................107
Table 4-31 Slab Data for Monopole Tower...................................................................................................108
Table 4-32 Column Data for Self Supporting Tower.....................................................................................108
Table 4-33 Column Data for Guyed Tower...................................................................................................108
Table 4-34 Column Data for Monopole Tower.............................................................................................108
Table 4-35 Material Properties on Base Plates............................................................................................110
Table 4-36 Design Result of Base Plates.....................................................................................................111
Table 4-37 Maximum Size of Fillet Welds....................................................................................................113
Table 4-38 Design Result of of Size of Fillet Weld.......................................................................................114
Table 4-39 Design of Guy Wires...................................................................................................................114
x
Table 4-40 Design of Guy Takeoff................................................................................................................114
Table 4-41 Dynamic Compaction Parameters for Self Supporting Tower...................................................117
Table 4-42 Design Inputs for Self Supporting Tower...................................................................................117
Table 4-43 Dynamic Compaction Parameters for Guyed Tower.................................................................118
Table 4-44 Design Inputs for Guyed Tower..................................................................................................118
Table 4-45 Dynamic Compaction Parameters for Monopole Tower............................................................119
Table 4-46 Design Inputs for Monopole Tower............................................................................................119
Table 4-47 Dynamic Replacement Parameters for Self Supporting Tower.................................................122
Table 4-53 Compaction Grouting Parameters for Self Supporting Tower...................................................127
Table 4-59 Final Estimates of Structural Tradeoffs......................................................................................132
Table 4-60 Final Estimates of Geotechnical Tradeoffs................................................................................132
Table 4-61:Final Estimated Value for Risk Assessment Constraint.............................................................133
Table 4-62: Final Estimated Value for Economic Constraint........................................................................134
Table 4-63 Final Estimated Value for Constructability Constraint................................................................135
Table 4-64:Final Estimated Value for Sustainability Constraint...................................................................136
Table 4-65 Designers’ Raw Ranking for Structural Tradeoffs......................................................................138
Table 4-66 FinalEstimated Value for Risk Assessment Constraint..............................................................138
Table 4-67:Final Estimated Value for Economic Constraint.........................................................................139
Table 4-68: Final Estimated Value for Constructability Constraint...............................................................141
Table 4-69:Final Estimated Value for Economic Constraint.........................................................................142
Table 4-70 Designers’ Raw Ranking for Geotechnical Tradeoffs................................................................143
Table 4-71 Risk Assessment for Structural Tradeoffs..................................................................................143
Table 4-72 Economical Assessment for Structural Tradeoffs......................................................................144
Table 4-73 Constructability Assessment for Structural Tradeoffs................................................................144
Table 4-74 Sustainability Assessment for Structural Tradeoffs...................................................................144
Table 4-75 Risk Assessment for Geotechnical Tradeoffs............................................................................145
Table 4-76 Economical Assessment for Geotechnical Tradeoffs................................................................145
Table 4-77 Constructability Assessment for Geotechnical Tradeoffs..........................................................145
Table 4-78 Sustainability Assessment for Geotechnical Tradeoffs..............................................................146
Table 4-79 Cost Increased and Duration for Each Structural Trade-offs.....................................................153
Table 4-80 Cost Increased for Structure and Maintenance for Each Structural Trade-offs.........................154
xi
Table 4-81 Cost Increased and Deflection for Each Structural Trade-offs..................................................155
Table 4-82 Cost Increased and Duration for Each Geotechnical Trade-offs...............................................156
Table 4-83 Cost Increased for Structure and Maintenance for Each Geotechnical Trade-offs...................157
Table 4-84 Cost Increased and Settlement for Each Geotechnical Trade-offs............................................158
Table 5-1 Final Design Dynamic Compaction Parameters..........................................................................164
Table 5-2 Final Design Dynamic Compaction Inputs...................................................................................164
Table 5-3 Final Design of Guyed Tower.......................................................................................................165
Table 5-4 Final Guyed Wires Design............................................................................................................165
Table 5-5 Final Guyed Wires Details............................................................................................................166
Table 5-6 Dynamic Compaction Design for Guyed Tower..........................................................................166
xii
List of Equations
Equation 2-1 Lateral Seismic Force................................................................................................................17

Equation 2-2 Acceleration Coefficient.............................................................................................................17
Equation 2-3 Self- Supporting Latticed Structure...........................................................................................18
Equation 2-4 Weight of Structure and Appurtenances...................................................................................18
Equation 2-5 Self- Supporting Pole Structures...............................................................................................19
Equation 2-6 Average Moment of Inertia........................................................................................................19
Equation 2-7 Weight of the Structure..............................................................................................................19
Equation 2-8 Guyed Mast Tower....................................................................................................................19
Equation 2-9 Equivalent Stiffness of Guys.....................................................................................................19
Equation 2-10 Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period....................................................................20
Equation 2-11 Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 Second.........................................................................20
Equation 2-12 Velocity Pressure Coefficient..................................................................................................24
Equation 2-13 Topographic Factor.................................................................................................................24
Equation 2-14 Height Reduction Factor..........................................................................................................24
Equation 2-14 Gust Effect Factor....................................................................................................................25
Equation 2-16 Design Wind Load...................................................................................................................26
Equation 2-17Design Wind Load Force on Structure.....................................................................................27
Equation 2-18 Effective Projected Area of Appurtenances............................................................................27
Equation 2-19 Coefficient for Square Cross Sections....................................................................................27
Equation 2-20 Coefficient for Triangular Cross Section.................................................................................27
Equation 2-21 Solidity Ratio............................................................................................................................27
Equation 2-22 Reduction Factor.....................................................................................................................27
Equation 2-23 Force Coefficient.....................................................................................................................27
Equation 2-24 Effective Projected Area of Pole Structure..............................................................................29
Equation 2-25 Design Wind Force on Appurtenances...................................................................................31
Equation 2-26 Effective Projected Area of Appurtenances............................................................................31
Equation 2-27Effective Projected Area of Appurtenances at Windward Face Normal..................................31
Equation 2-28 Effective Projected Area of Appurtenances at Windward Side Face.....................................32
Equation 2-29 Axial Force on Antenna...........................................................................................................33
Equation 2-30 Side Force on Antenna............................................................................................................33
Equation 2-31Twisting Moment......................................................................................................................33
Equation 2-32 Design Wind Force on Guys...................................................................................................40
Equation 2-33 Velocity Pressure.....................................................................................................................43
Equation 3-1 Percent Difference.....................................................................................................................62
Equation 3-2 Subordinate Rank......................................................................................................................63
xiii
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 The Project

“Smartphone users in the Philippines are expected to more than double, hitting 90 million by 2021 from just
40 million today” (Gowran, 2016).
San Jose, formerly Poblacion, is a barangay in the city of Antipolo, in the province of Rizal. Its population
as determined by 2015 Census, conducted by Philippine Statistics Authority, was 103,051. Antipolo has
long been known for its many resorts and special attractions. San Jose in particular also offers numerous
attractions such as Boso-Boso Highlands Resort, Mystical Cave and Boso-Boso Church, where tourists
visit especially during Holy Week.
In this fast-paced development of digital devices, most of the people have their mobile phones with them.
Filipinos thrive on staying connected with their community and with the convenience that mobile phone
brings, it is no doubt that it leads to their obsession in it. Wherever they go, people bring their hand devices
with them. The large extent of this development results in the installation of a large number of towers to
increase the coverage area and network consistency. In wireless communication network, these towers
play a significant role for mobile phone receives signals from the tower that allows texts, calls, and use of
data or internet. However, there are areas in the country where signal is not available, which is necessary
for mobile phone network coverage. With this, it is a problem when there is no coverage in home, office and
outdoor location.
The project aims to design a sturdy and safe telecommunication tower considering all possible extreme
conditions along Marilaque Highway of Barangay San Jose, Antipolo, Rizal.
1.2 Project Location

The project is located at Marilaque Highway Barangay San Jose, Antipolo City. As seen on the map San
Jose is situated at approximately 14.6111, 121.2202, on the island of Luzon. Elevation at these coordinates
is estimated at 85.1 meters or 279.2 feet above mean sea level.
xiv
Figure 1-1 Antipolo Base Map
(Source: Municipal of Antipolo City)
Figure 1-2 Site Location on Marilaque Highway

(Source: Google Map)
1.3 Project Objective

The project designers aim to achieve the following objectives:
1.3.1 General Objective
To design a telecommunication tower to support antennae that will provide wireless communication such as
mobile networking in most part of Brgy. San Jose, Antipolo City.
1.3.2 Specific Objectives
 To identify different constraints and trade-offs in building a telecommunication tower.
 To compute the appropriate loading conditions.
 To analyze the tower considering the basic parameters such as base width, height of tower, soil
bearing capacity and configuration of tower.
 To design a telecommunication tower based on the American National Standards Institute
xv
1.4 The Client
The designers prepared a detailed design project of telecommunication tower for Brgy. San Jose, Antipolo
City. The major provider of telecommunication services in the Philippines, Globe Telecom Inc. is the client
of this project represented by Alberto M. de Larrazabal. The client wants the designers to consider an
economical solution to the problem without compromising the safety and longevity of the proposed design
project.
1.5 Project Scope and Limitations
1.5.1 Scope
The following are the scope covered by the project:
 Architectural plan and structural plan of the telecommunication tower are provided.
 The estimated cost of the materials used in the design.
 Structural analysis and design the telecommunication tower with the use of available software.
1.5.2 Limitations
The following are the limitations of the project:
 Communication process analysis.
1.6 Project Development

The project development process is initiated in response to an identified need of a telecommunication
tower. The sequence of decisions made through the project development process progressively narrows
the project focus and, ultimately, leads to a project that addresses the identified needs. The completion of
the design will be based on the flowchart below.
1. Identifying the Problems - Identifying the existing problems in a particular area, gives the designers
to recognize every single idea and formulate possible solutions for the said problems.
2. Conceptualization - The designers will formulate the initial plan for the elimination of the existing
problem and considering factors that can affect the design of the project.
3. Data Gathering - Gathering all data, record, and references that will help the designers in the
project. Under it are the lot-plans, land survey data, and site profiling.
4. Research - This includes studying of terminologies of communication tower and its components, its
behaviors, and methodology for analysis and design.
xvi
5. Identification of Constraints and Tradeoffs - Describing and identifying of the quantifiable factors
that will limit the project objectives.
6. Selection framework of tower - Has involved fixing of top width, bottom width, number of panels
and their heights, type of bracing system and slope of a tower.
7. Computation of loads acting on tower - Considered loadings are dead loads or vertical load.
8. Analysis of tower for appropriate loading conditions - The designers will apply all calculate loads at
appropriate nodes and the stress parameters, deformations of the structure under the effect of the
applied load is studied.
9. Design of tower members - The designers will finalize based on the stresses developing in
allowable stresses, limiting slenderness ratios and effective length of compression members.
10. Design of foundation - The designers will calculate the allowable bearing pressure, the thickness of
slab base, the thickness of column base and the thickness of foundation.
11. Evaluation of Result - After presenting each trade-off with their specific aspects, results will be
compared and evaluated to come up with the most efficient alternative.
12. Final Design - The final design is based on the most efficient, economical and effective result
evaluated by the designer. This output will be recommended to be able to design a
telecommunication tower through the specified constraints.
xvii
Figure 1-3
Project
Development
Plan
xviii
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN CRITERIA AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Design Criteria
2.1.1 Demography
Brgy. San Jose has a land area of 13,787 hectares. The population of San Jose grew from 36,647 in 1995
to 103,051 in 2015. The latest census figures in 2015 denote a positive growth rate of 3% or an increase of
14,829 people from the previous population in 2010. In projecting the City’s population from 2018 to 2020,
the Philippines Statistics Authority suggested to use a 6.3% Annual Growth Rate (AGR).
The population density is calculated at 747 people per square kilometre. Based on the 2015 census of
population and housing, conducted by the Philippine Statistics Authority, the average household size is 5
and the average annual salary is Php 188,288 in the city of Antipolo.
Table 2-1 Population Census
Population Census
2015 2018 2019 2020
103,051 143,828 152,889 162,521

(Source: Philippine Statistics Authority)
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2015 2018 2019 2020
xix
In the 2010 Census of Population & Housing (CPH) conducted by Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), the
median age is 24, which is considered the millennials who grew up as digital natives.
Table 2-2 Age Group Percentage
Age Group Population (2015) Age Group Percentage
0-14 years 34,144 33.14%
15-64 years 65,679 63.73%
65+ years 3,228 3.13%

(Source: Philippine Statistics Authority)
The designers conducted a simple random sampling to statistically draw conclusions of how many people
in the barangay of San Jose had their mobile phones with them. The sample chosen are representative of
the population and lives near the proposed site area.
10 people with an age varying from 15-64 years old were asked as they are the target market for the
proposed project. The result shows that 10 out of 10 people said that they have a mobile phone with them.
2.1.2 Topography
In building a telecommunication tower, some topography factors may cause poor signals intensity. The
location of the project may be described as generally hilly and mountainous, with the hilly portions lying in
the west and the mountainous area concentrated in the east as part of the Sierra Madre Mountain Range.
Well-watered valleys are located in the middle of the city and in the northern and southern edges. Plateaus
of over 200 meters above sea level are seen in the western half of the study area, including the site of the
San Joseand portions of Barangay Cupang and San Juan.
Also cell intersection may prevent or weaken the access of the signal. The designers oversee the location
and located the nearest cell tower with a distance ranges up to 6 kilometers.
xx
Figure 2-1 Contour and Topographic Map
of Barangay San Jose, Antipolo City
xxi
Figure 2-2 Topographic Map Elevation
(Source: Topographicmap.com)
xxii
Figure 2-3
Hazard Map of
Brgy. San
Jose,
Antipolo City
xxiii
2.1.3 Soil Map
Figure 2-4 Soil Map City of Antipolo

(Source: Antipolo City, 2000)
These are the results of the subgrade investigation work conducted for the various road sections located at
various areas of Rizal Province, Philippines. The Department of Public Works and Highways-Rizal 1 st
Engineering commissioned A. M. Geoconsult& Associated, Inc. to carry out subgrade investigation works
covered by this project. The field investigation was carried out during the period of September 20 to
October 11, 2013.
2.1.3.1 Geotechnical Investigation Report
This report is composed of the results and investigation including boring log, soil profile, laboratory tests,
soil classification using AASHTO Soil Classification System and soil properties and behavior in which the
designer will base the design of foundation.
The holes were drilled at different locations within the proposed construction area of Brgy. San Jose as
geotechnical investigation for Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Rizal I DEO.
SPT and laboratory tests data indicate that the soil in the field comprises clayey soils (A-6/A-7-6) and silty
or clayey gravel and sand (A-2-4). The bearing capacity of the soil obtained in the geotechnical
investigation for the project is reflected in Table 2-4.
xxiv
Ground improvement is needed for weak soil layers, up to 4.5m where the bearing capacity is weak.
Application of plastic filters in the design of foundation is also recommended to minimize scouring.
Table 2-3 Borehole Data

Boreho Depth SPT N- Bearing Classificati
Soil Description
le I.D. (m) Value Capacity on
1.5 9 103.4 Silty clay with traces of shale A-6 (7)
3.00 20 152.52 Clay with fines A-7-6 (11)
4.5 14 86.60 Clay with fine sand and gravel A-7-6 (11)
6.00 28 309.68 Sandy silt with fines A-4 (2)
BH1
1.5 5 52.42 Silty sand with gravel A-2-4 (0)
3.00 6 188.06 Sand with fines A-1-b (0)
4.5 14 134.76 Silty sand with traces of gravel A-2-4 (0)
6.00 34 1059.03 Very fine sand A-3 (0)

7.5 37 1302.45 Gravelly sand with fines A-1-b (0)
BH2
9.00 40 1545.87 Gravelly sand with fines A-1-b (0)
10.5 42 816.54 Silt with fine sand and gravel A-4 (3)
(Source: CCAP Geotech and Engineering Services)
2.1.3.2 Test Pit Soil Profile
The purpose of the investigation was to assess the subgrade condition based on excavated soil samples
which shall be used for this project. All field and laboratory investigation procedures were performed in
accordance with the American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The
report covers the details of field and laboratory above mentioned road stretch. Location plan, soil profile, log
sheets, photographs, and laboratory test results are appended to this report.
Covered by this projection a total of twenty five (25) test pits conducted at different locations. Test pit
method was conducted on road subgrade using acceptable sampling procedures. Recovered soil samples
were brought to the laboratory for testing and classifications.
The summary of scope of works for this subgrade investigation work is presented below:
xxv
Table 2-4 Test Pit
Item Road Section Started Ended No. of Test Pits
1 Marikina-Infanta Road 025+889 027+685 13
2 Marikina-Infanta-Inarawan 024+600 25+700 5

Road
3 Cabrera-Antipolo Road 030+240 031+30 2
4 Antipolo Circumferential Road 028+398 2
The results of test findings from laboratory California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and Compaction Test for twenty
five (25) test pits are presented in the following table. These include stationing, test pit number, depth,
AASHTO Classification, CBR, and Laboratory Compaction data. More details of these results including
photographs are appended to this report.
Site investigation or soil explorations are done for obtaining the information about subsurface conditions at
the site of proposed structure. Soil exploration consists of determining the profile of the natural soil deposits
at the site, taking the soil samples and determining the engineering properties of soils. It also includes in-
site testing of soils. The figure shows the test pit soil profile that includes the soil type of the soil sample in
0-1.5m.
Figure 2-5Test Pit Soil Profile

(Source: Department of Public Works and Highways)
xxvi
2.1.3.3 AASHTO Soil Specifications
Figure 2-6 AASHTO Soil Specifications

(Source: Department of Public Works and Highways)
The figure shows the AASHTO Soil Specifications based on Soil Classifications provided by the Summary
of Results. This shows the group classification, the type of the soil which is a clayey soil and the rating of
the soil on how good it will be to build a structure above it. The result give the designers on what foundation
can be used to build the project, it will only be given as background to the client.
2.1.3.4 USCS Soil Classification System
The following figures show the USCS Soil Classification based on the plasticity index and liquid limit
provided by the geotechnical report.
Fine-Grained Soil Classification, Field Plasticity Tests (based on Table 12, ASTM D2488-09a)
Table 2.5 Unified Soil Classification System
Soil Type Group Symbol Dry Strength Dilatancy Toughness & Plasticity
Silt ML None to low Slow to rapid Nonplastic to low
Lean Clay CL Medium to high None to slow Medium
Elastic Silt MH Low to medium None to slow Low to medium
Fat Clay CH High to very high None Hign
Table 2.6 USCS Soil Classification
xxvii
Liquid Limit (LL or WL)(%) 58
Plastic Limit (PL or Wp)(%) 37
Plasticity Index (PI)(%) 21
USCS Classification CH
2.1.4 Dead Loads

Based on ANSI/TIA-222-G-2005, for foundation design, the weight of soil and substructure shall be
considered as dead load in all loading combinations.
Table 2-7 Minimum Design Densities for Design Loads from Materials
CLASSIFICATION DENSITY (kN/m3)
Steel, cold-drawn 77.3
Antenna 0.27
(Source: National Structural Code of the Philippines (2015), Chapter 2 - Minimum Design Loads, Table 204-1)
2.1.5 Live Load
Based from Section 12.4 Strength Requirements of TIA/ANSI-222-G-2-2009, the following Live Load
Parameters are considered:
Table 2-8 Live Load Parameters

Component Material Description Load
Maintenance Platform Area 2.2 kN
2.1.6 Seismic Loads
The earthquake hazard map indicates that Antipolo City has an active fault which is near the location of the
project, the active fault named East Valley Fault. This will help the designers to know the types of seismic
sources. The location and type of seismic sources to be used for design shall be established based on the
approved geological data as well as the seismic zone that will be based from NSCP.
Based on the available published information from the data of Philippine Institute of Volcanology and
Seismology (PHIVOLCS), the project site in Marilaque Highway Barangay San Jose, Antipolo City has
xxviii
located a distance of more or less 12.0 kilometres from the East Valley Fault System (VFS). The Greater
Metro Manila Area (GMMA) is transacted by VFS one such high-risk region, as a segment of the VFS may
result in a 7.2-magnitude of the earthquake which is highly destructive. This Fault classified as Seismic
Source Type A or that are capable of producing earthquakes with magnitude M is greater than 7.0.
xxix
Figure 2-7 Distance Project Site to the Valley Fault System
(Source: Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLS), FaultFinder)

Figure 2-8 Referenced Seismic Map of the Philippines
(Source: National Structural Code of the Philippines Volume 1, 7th Edition, 2015)
xxx
The Philippine archipelago is divided into two seismic zones namely as Zone 2 and Zone 4. Zone 2 covers
the provinces of Palawan (except Busuanga), Sulu and Tawi-Tawi, while the rest of the country falls under
Zone 4.
2.1.6.1 Equivalent Modal Analysis Procedure
1. Calculate the fundamental frequency of the structure in accordance with Section 2.1.5.1.2.
2. Determine the seismic forces for each level of the structure in accordance with 2.1.5.1.
3. Analyze the structure statically using the seismic forces as external loads.
2.1.6.1.1 Determination of Seismic Forces
The lateral seismic force (Fsz) induced at each level of the structure (z) shall be determined from the
following equation:
Equation 2-1 Lateral Seismic Force

z = number designating the level under consideration
Saz = acceleration coefficient at height z
Equation 2-2 Acceleration Coefficient

wz = portion of total gravity load (W) assigned to level under consideration
I = importance factor from Table 2-14
R = response modification coefficient equal to 3.0 for latticed self-supporting structures, 2.5 for latticed
guyed masts and 1.5 for tubular pole structures
a, b & c acceleration coefficients determined from Figure 2-8
SA = SD1(f1) when f1 ≤ SDS/SD1, otherwise SA = SDS
f1 = fundamental frequency of structure from 2.1.5.1.2
SDS = design spectral response acceleration at short periods from 2.1.5.1.6
SD1 = design spectral response acceleration at 1 second from 2.1.5.1.6
xxxi
Figure 2-9 Equivalent Modal Coefficients, a,b,&c
2.1.6.1.2 Fundamental Frequency of Structure

The fundamental natural frequency of the structure (f 1) in the direction under consideration shall be
determined using the structural properties and deformational characteristics of the resisting elements. In
lieu of a formal analysis, the fundamental natural frequency of a structure may be determined in
accordance with 2.1.5.1.3 through 2.1.5.1.5
2.1.6.1.3 Self-Supporting Latticed Structures
Equation 2-3 Self- Supporting Latticed Structure
Equation 2-4 Weight of Structure and Appurtenances
where:
Ks = 1500 for h and wa in meters
W = total weight of the structure including appurtenances
W2 = weight of structure and appurtenances within top 5% of the structure height
wa = average face width of structure, m
wo = face width at base of structure, m
h = height of structure, m
xxxii
2.1.6.1.4 Self-Supporting Pole Structures
Equation 2-5 Self- Supporting Pole Structures
where:
E = modulus of elasticity of structure material, MPa
Iavg = (Itop + Ibot) / 2, mm4
Equation 2-6 Average Moment of Inertia
Itop = moment of inertia at top of structure, mm 4
Ibot = moment of inertia at base of structure, mm 4
Wu = weight of discrete appurtenances in the top third of structure, N
W L = W t– W u , N
Equation 2-7 Weight of the Structure
Wt= total weight of the structure including appurtenances, N

L = height of pole structure, mm
g = acceleration due to gravity, mm/s2
2.1.6.1.5 Guyed Masts
Equation 2-8 Guyed Mast Tower
Equation 2-9 Equivalent Stiffness of Guys
where:
Cg = 14.66
Kg = equivalent stiffness of guys
Wt = weight of structure including appurtenances and the total weight of all guys,kN
n = number of guy levels
i = number designating guy level starting from the base to the uppermost guy level
xxxiii
2.1.6.1.6 Design Spectral Response Accelerations
The design earthquake spectral response acceleration at short periods, S DS, and at 1 second, S D1, shall be
determined from the following equations:
SDS = 2/3 Fa Ss
Equation 2-10 Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period
SD1 = 2/3 Fv S1
Equation 2-11 Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 Second
where:
Fa = acceleration-based site coefficient based on site class and spectral response acceleration at short
periods from Table 2-8.
Fv = velocity-based site coefficient based on site class and spectral response acceleration at 1 second from
Table 2-9
Note: when Ss and S1 are based on site-specific dynamic response analysis procedures, F a and Fv shall be
equal to 1.0.
Table 2-9 Acceleration-Based Site Coefficient
(Source: ANSI/TIA-222-G-2005)
Table 2-10 Velocity-Based Site Coefficient
xxxiv
2.1.7 Wind Loads
Antennas and antenna supporting structures have unusual shapes and response characteristics due to
wind load. The following are the factors taken into consideration in computing the wind load.
 Basic wind speed in the area
 Topographic Category
 Topographic Factor, Kzt
 Gust Effect Factor, Gh

 Design Wind Force on Structure
 Effective Projected Area of Latticed Structures
 Effective Projected Area of Latticed Leg Structures
 Effective Projected Area of Pole Structures
 Uniform Wind Applied to Structure

 Antenna Mounting Pipes
 Effective Projected Area for Mounting Frames
 Effective Projected Area for Symmetrical Frame/Truss Platforms
 Effective Projected Area for Low Profile Platforms
 Effective Projected Area for Symmetrical Circular Ring Platforms
 Design Wind Force on Guys
 Shielding
 Transmission Lines Mounted in Clusters or Blocks
 Velocity Pressure
xxxv
xxxvi
Figure 2-10 Referenced Basic Wind Speed Map of the Philippines
(Source: National Structural Code of the Philippines Volume 1, 7th Edition, 2015)
In the current wind zone map found in the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP), the
maximumspeedepxperienced in Antipolo can reach as high as 270kph or 168mph.
xxxvii
2.1.7.1 Exposure Category
An exposure category that adequately reflects the characteristics of ground surface irregularities at the site
shall be determined. Account shall be taken of variations in ground surface roughness that arise from
natural topography and vegetation as well as from constructed features. The exposure category for a
structure shall be assessed as being one of the following:
1. Exposure B: Urban and suburban areas, wooded areas, or other terrain with numerous closely spaced
obstructions having the size of single-family dwellings or larger. Use of this exposure shall be limited to
those areas for which terrain representative of Exposure B surrounds the structure in all directions for a
distance of at least 2,630 ft [800 m] or ten times the height of the structure, whichever is greater.
2. Exposure C: Open terrain with scattered obstructions having heights generally less than 30 ft [9.1 m].
This category includes flat, open country, grasslands and shorelines in hurricane prone regions.
3. Exposure D: Flat, unobstructed shorelines exposed to wind flowing over open water (excluding
shorelines in hurricane prone regions) for a distance of at least 1 mile [1.61 km]. Shorelines in Exposure D
include inland waterways, lakes and non-hurricane coastal areas. Exposure D extends inland a distance of
660 ft [200 m] or ten times the height of the structure, whichever is greater. Smooth mud flats, salt flats and
other similar terrain shall be considered as Exposure D.
2.1.7.2 Topographic Category
The topographic category for a structure shall be assessed as being one of the following:
1. Category 1: No abrupt changes in general topography, e.g. flat or rolling terrain, no wind speed-up
consideration shall be required.
2. Category 2: Structures located at or near the crest of an escarpment. Wind speed-up shall be
considered to occur in all directions. Structures located vertically on the lower half of an escarpment or
horizontally beyond 8 times the height of the escarpment from its crest, shall be permitted to be considered
as Topographic Category 1.
3. Category 3: Structures located in the upper half of a hill. Wind speed-up shall be considered to occur in
all directions. Structures located vertically on the lower half of a hill shall be permitted to be considered as
Topographic Category 1.
4. Category 4: Structures located in the upper half of a ridge. Wind speed-up shall be considered to occur
in all directions. Structures located vertically on the lower half of a ridge shall be permitted to be
considered as Topographic Category 1.
5. Category 5: Wind speed-up criteria based on a site-specific investigation.
xxxviii
2.1.7.3 Velocity Pressure Coefficient
Velocity pressure coefficient (KZ) shall be determined as follows:
KZ = 2.01(z/zg)2/a
Equation 2-12 Velocity Pressure Coefficient
Kzmin ≤Kz ≤ 2.01
where:
z = height above ground level at the base of the structure
Table 2-11 Exposure Category Coefficients
2.1.7.4 Topographic Factor
The wind speed-up effect shall be included in the calculation of design wind loads by using the factor K zt:
KeKt 2
Kzt =[1+ ]
Kh
Equation 2-13 Topographic Factor
where:
Kh = height reduction factor given by the following equation:
f −z
=e ( H
)
Equation 2-14 Height Reduction Factor

e = natural logarithmic base = 2.718
Ke= terrain constant given in Table 2-10
Kt = topographic constant given in Table 2-11
xxxix
f = height attenuation factor given in Table 2-11
z = height above ground level at the base of the structure
H = height of crest above surrounding terrain
Kzt = 1.0 for topographic category 1. For topographic category 5, K zt shall be based on recognized
published literature or research findings.
Table 2-12 Topographic Category Coefficients
2.1.7.5 Gust Effect Factor
For self-supporting latticed structures, the gust effect factor shall be 1.00 for structures 600 ft [183 m] or
greater in height. For structures 450 ft [137 m] or less in height, the gust effect factor shall be 0.85. The
gust effect factor shall be linearly interpolated for structure heights between 450 ft [137 m] and 600 ft [183
m].
These conditions are expressed by the following equations:
h
Gh=0.85+0.15 [ −3.0]
45.7
Equation 2-14 Gust Effect Factor
0.85 ≤ Gh ≤ 1.00
where:
h = height of structure
Note: For structures supported on buildings or other structures, the height of structure, h, shall not include
the height of the supporting structure.
For guyed masts, the gust effect factor shall be 0.85.
For pole structures, the gust effect factor shall be 1.10.
xl
2.1.7.6 Structures Supported on other Structure
For cantilevered tubular or latticed spines, poles or similar structures mounted on guyed masts or latticed
self-supporting structures, and for all structures supported on flexible buildings (height to width ratio greater
than 5), the gust effect factor shall be 1.35. Gust effect factors for supporting guyed masts and latticed self-
supporting structures shall be in accordance with 2.1.6.5 using the loads from the cantilever based on a
1.35 gust effect factor.
2.1.7.7 Design Wind Load
The design wind load shall include the sum of the horizontal design wind forces applied to the structure in
the direction of the wind and the design wind forces on guys and appurtenances. All appurtenances,
including antennas, mounts and lines, shall be assumed to remain intact and attached to the structure.
Strength design shall be based on the wind directions resulting in the maximum responses. For latticed
structures, each of the wind directions indicated in Table 2-13 shall be considered for each face.
The horizontal design wind force for the strength design of appurtenances and their connections to
supporting structures shall be determined using a gust effect factor of 1.0 and a directionality factor
determined from Table 2-12. No shielding from the structure shall be considered (Ka= 1.0, refer to
2.1.6.12).
The horizontal design wind force for the strength design of a cantilevered tubular or latticed spine, pole or
similar structure mounted on a guyed mast, latticed self-supporting structure, or flexible building shall be
determined using a gust effect factor of 1.35 (refer to 2.1.6.6) and a directionality factor determined from
Table 2-13 for the cantilevered structure.
Note: The directionality factor for determining the design wind load for the total structure, including the
cantilever, shall be determined from Table 2-13 based on the type of supporting structure.
The design wind load, FW, shall be determined in accordance with the following:
FW = FST + FA + FG
Equation 2-16 Design Wind Load
where:
FST = design wind force on the structure from 2.1.6.8
FA = design wind force on appurtenances from 2.1.6.12
FG = design wind force on guys from 2.1.6.17
The design wind forces, FS + FA, need not exceed the wind force calculated for a structure using a solidity
ratio of 1.0 (solid-faced) plus the wind load on externally mounted appurtenances that are outside the
normal projected area of the structure in the direction of the wind.
xli
Table 2-13 Wind Direction Probability Factor
Table 2-14 Wind Direction Factors
2.1.7.8 Design Wind Force on Structure
The design wind force, Fs, applied to each section of a structure shall be determined in accordance with
the following:
FST =qZGh (EPA)s
Equation 2-17Design Wind Load Force on Structure
where:
FST = horizontal design wind force on the structure in the direction of the wind
QZ = velocity pressure from 2.1.6.20
Gh= gust effect factor from 2.1.6.5
(EPA)s = effective projected area of the structure from 2.1.6.8 or 2.1.6.11
2.1.7.9 Effective Projected Area of Latticed Structure
The effective projected area of structural components for a section, (EPA) s, shall be determined from the
equation:
(EPA)s= Cf [DfΣAf + Dr Σ (Ar Rr )]

Equation 2-18 Effective Projected Area of Appurtenances
xlii
where:
Cf = 4.0ε2 – 5.9ε + 4.0 (square cross sections)
Equation 2-19Coefficient for Square Cross Sections
Cf = 3.4ε2 – 4.7ε + 3.4 (triangular cross sections)
Equation 2-20 Coefficient for Triangular Cross Section
ε = solidity ratio = (Af + Ar)/Ag)
Equation 2-21 Solidity Ratio
Af = projected area of flat structural components in one face of the section
Ar = projected area of round structural components in one face of the section including the projected area of
ice on flat and round structural components in one face for loading combinations that include ice
Ag = gross area of one face as if the face were solid
Df = wind direction factor for flat structural components determined from Table 2-14
Dr = wind direction factor for round structural components determined from Table 2-14
Rr = reduction factor for a round element
Equation 2-22 Reduction Factor
2 3
= 0.36 + 0.26ε + 0.97ε – 0.63ε when C > 64 [8.7] for no-ice conditions (supercritical flow)
where: C = [I Kz Kt ]1 /2VD
Equation 2-23 Force Coefficient
Kz = velocity pressure coefficient from 2.1.6.3
Kzt = topographic factor from 2.1.6.4
V = the basic wind speed for the loading condition under investigation, mph [m/s]
D = outside diameter of the structural component without ice, ft [m]
Notes:
1) The projected area of structural components shall include the projected area of connection plates in the
face of a section.
2) In order for a structural component to be considered as a round structural component, the component
must have a round profile on the windward and leeward sides of the component. (Formed U-shaped angle
or channel members shall be considered as flat structural components.)
3) Bracing members in adjacent faces and internal plan and hip bracing need not be included in the
projected area of structural components.
4) For no-ice conditions, linear interpolation may be used when 32 [4.4] ≤ C ≤ 64 [8.7] to determine R r. For
iced conditions, Rr shall be based on subcritical flow for all values of C.
5) When attachments such as step bolts or similar irregularities are attached to a round structural member,
the reduction factor for the round elements, R r shall be calculated as follows:
(a) when Ra ≤ 0.1, the projected areas of the attachments may be ignored
xliii
(b) when 0.1 < Ra ≤ 0.2, the value for R r shall be multiplied by 1.0 + 3(R a – 0.1), and the projected areas of
the attachments may be ignored
© when Ra> 0.20, or alternatively for any value of R a, the value of Rr for subcritical flow shall be used. The
projected areas of attachments shall be considered separately in addition to the structural member using
appropriate force coefficients for appurtenances.
Where Ra is the ratio of the projected area of the attachments to the projected area of the structural
member without the attachments for the portion being considered. For iced conditions, the ice thickness
need not be included in the determination of R a.
6) When attachments such as step bolts or similar irregularities are attached to a flat structural member, the
projected areas of the attachments shall be considered separately in addition to the structural member
using appropriate force coefficients except when R a is less than or equal to 0.1, the projected areas of the
attachments may be ignored.
Table 2-15 Importance Factors
2.1.7.10 Effective Projected Area of Latticed Leg Structures
Latticed legs shall be considered as equivalent round members for the purpose of determining the effective
projected area, (EPA)s, of structures with latticed legs.
The effective projected area of an individual latticed leg shall be determined in accordance with 2.1.6.8 with
Rr based on subcritical flow and the direction factors, D f and Dr, equal to 1.0. The diameter of the
equivalent round member shall be determined by dividing the (EPA) s of the individual latticed leg by the
quantity of 1.2 times the length of the latticed leg. Gross area, A g, of the structure shall be based of the full
width of the structure including the width of the latticed leg and ice when applicable. The reduction factor,
Rr, for the equivalent round member shall be based on subcritical flow.
2.1.7.11 Effective Projected Area of Pole Structures
The effective projected area of a pole section, (EPA) s, shall be determined from the equation:
(EPA)s= Cf Ap
Equation 2-24 Effective Projected Area of Pole Structure
where:
xliv
Cf = force coefficient for cantilevered pole structure from Table 2-15
Ap = actual projected area based on the pole outside diameter (for rounds), the outside point-to-point
diameter (for polygons), or overall width, including ice thickness for load combinations that include ice
Note: In the absence of a detailed transmission line layout and installation bend radii of the lines, the
minimum diameter of a pole structure shall not be less than the diameter which results in 45% utilization of
the cross-section for the placement of internal transmission lines.
xlv
Table 2-16 Force Coefficients for Pole Structures
2.1.7.12 Uniform Wind and Ice Applied to Structure
The design wind force and ice thickness applied to a section of a structure may be based on the velocity
pressure and ice thickness at the mid-height of the section. The section length considered to have uniform
velocity pressure and ice thickness shall not exceed the following:
a) 60 ft [18 m] for latticed structures
b) 20 ft [6 m] for pole structures
2.1.7.12 Design Wind Force on Appurtenances
The design wind force on appurtenances (either discrete or linear but excluding microwave antennas), FA,
shall be determined from the equation:
xlvi
FA = qzGh (EPA)a
Equation 2-25 Design Wind Force on Appurtenances
where:
qz = velocity pressure at the centerline height of the appurtenance from 2.1.6.20
Gh = gust effect factor from 2.1.6.5
(Note: see 2.1.6.7 for Gh for the strength design of appurtenances.)
(EPA)A = effective projected area of the appurtenance including ice for loading combinations that include
ice. The design wind force, FA, shall be applied at the centroid of the effective projected area of the
appurtenance in the direction of the wind. For a linear appurtenance, the length considered to have
uniform velocity pressure and ice thickness shall not exceed the section length specified in 2.1.6.12.
In the absence of more accurate data, the design wind force on microwave antennas shall be determined
using 2.1.6.13.
In the absence of more accurate data specifying effective projected area values for each critical wind
direction, the effective projected area, (EPA) A, of an appurtenance shall be determined from the equation:
(EPA)A = Ka[(EPA)N cos2(θ) + (EPA)T sin2(θ)]
Equation 2-26 Effective Projected Area of Appurtenances
where:
Ka = 1.0 for round appurtenances, regardless of location, when transitional or supercritical force coefficients
are considered.
= (1- ε) for appurtenances when subcritical force coefficients are considered, entirely inside the cross
section of a latticed structure or outside the cross section entirely within a face zone as defined in
Figure 2-3, where ε is the minimum solidity ratio of the structure considering each face for the section
containing the appurtenance. Ka need not exceed 0.6.
= 0.8 for antenna mounting configurations (when subcritical force coefficients are considered only) such
as side arms, T-arms, stand-offs, etc. when 3 or more mounts are located at the same relative elevation
(shielding from the mounting configuration and shielding of mounting members from antennas is
excluded, refer to 2.1.6.19)
= 1.0 for other appurtenances unless otherwise specified in this section
(Notes: 1. Ka = 1.0 may be conservatively used for any appurtenance; 2. The value of K a is constant for all
wind directions)
θ = relative angle between the azimuth associated with the normal face of the appurtenance and the wind
direction (refer to Figure 2-14).
(EPA)N = effective projected area associated with the windward face normal to the azimuth of the
appurtenance.
(EPA)T = effective projected area associated with the windward side face of the appurtenance.
The larger value of (EPA)N or (EPA)T may be conservatively used for (EPA)A for all wind directions.
In the absence of more accurate data, an appurtenance shall be considered as consisting of flat and round
components in accordance with the following:
xlvii
(EPA)N = Σ(Ca Aa)N
Equation 2-27Effective Projected Area of Appurtenances at Windward Face Normal
(EPA)T = Σ(Ca Aa)T

Equation 2-28 Effective Projected Area of Appurtenances at Windward Side Face
Ca = force coefficient from Table 2-15
Aa = projected area of a component of the appurtenance. The additional projected area of ice shall
be considered as a round component for loading combinations that include ice.
Equivalent flat plate areas based on Revision C of this Standard shall be multiplied by a force coefficient,
Ca, equal to 2.0 except when the appurtenance is made up of round members only, a force coefficient of
1.8 may be applied.
The total (EPA)A for a wireless carrier shall be determined in accordance with 2.1.6.13 when specific
antenna and mounting information is not available.
Figure 2-11 Wind Forces on Appurtenances
2.1.7.13 Design Wind Force on Typical Antennas (Normative)
This contains wind load data for typical wireless carriers and microwave antennas.
When the azimuth orientations of antennas located on the same relative elevation on a structure are not
specified, the antennas shall be assumed to radiate symmetrically about the structure.
C.1 Typical Wireless Carrier Antenna Loading

A typical wireless carrier consists of multiple antennas mounted on a platform or similar mount. The
effective projected areas, (EPA), provided in this annex are intended to be used as presumptive standard
values when actual antennas and mounting details are undefined (e.g. for future loading considerations). It
is not practical to provide standard EPA values to cover all possible antenna and mounting arrangements.
xlviii
Prior to adding a wireless carrier to a structure designed using presumptive EPA values, a review of the
structure considering the existing and the actual proposed antennas, mounts, and appurtenances shall be
preformed in accordance with this Standard.
Table 2-17 Effective Projected Area per Carrier Type
Note: For latticed structures, all lines to a carrier elevation shall be considered to be on one face of the
structure. It shall be permissible to assume lines for different carriers are placed on adjacent faces of the
structure.
C.2 Typical Microwave Antennas

Wind force data presented in this annex for typical microwave antennas (including grid antennas) are
described in the antenna axis system having the origin at the vertex of the reflector. The axial force, F AM,
acts along the axis of the antenna. The side force, F SM, acts perpendicular to the antenna axis in the plane
of the antenna axis and the wind vector. The twisting moment, M M, acts in the plane containing FAM and
FSM. (See Figure 2-11).
In all cases, the magnitude of F AM, FSM, and MM depend on the dynamic pressure of the wind, the projected
frontal area of the antenna, and the aerodynamic characteristics of the antenna body. The aerodynamic
characteristics vary with wind angle. The values of F AM, FAM, and MM shall be determined from the following
equations:
FAM = qzGh CA A
Equation 2-29 Axial Force on Antenna
FSM = qzGh CS A
Equation 2-30 Side Force on Antenna
MM = qzGh CM A D
Equation 2-31Twisting Moment
where:
qz = velocity pressure at vertex of the antenna from 2.1.6.20
Gh = gust effect factor from 2.1.6.5 (depending on the type of structure supporting the antenna)
xlix
CA, CS, and CM are the coefficients contained in Tables 2-17 through 2-20 as a function of wind angle, θ.
θ = wind angle, see Figure 2-11 for positive sign conventions.
A = outside aperture area of microwave antenna.
D = outside diameter of microwave antenna.
Figure 2-12 Wind Forces on Typical Microwave Antennas
Figure 2-13 Symmetrical Frame/Truss Platforms
l
Table 2-18 Wind Force Coefficients for Typical Microwave Antenna without Radome
li
Table 2-19 Wind Force Coefficients for Typical Microwave Antenna with Radome
lii
Table 2-20 Wind Force Coefficients for Typical Microwave Antenna with Cylindrical Shroud
liii
Table 2-21 Wind Force Coefficients for Typical Microwave Grid Antenna without Ice
liv
2.1.7.14 Effective Projected Area for Symmetrical Frame/Truss Platforms
The effective projected area, (EPA) A, of frame/truss triangle or square symmetrical platforms (refer to Fig.
2-12) that are continuous around the perimeter of a structure (or with a horizontal gap between the corners
of adjacent faces less than or equal to 10% of the width of the platform) shall be determined as if the
platform were a section of a latticed structure in accordance with 2.1.6.8 using directionality factors D F and
Dr = 1.0. The projected area of all supporting members for the entire platform shall be projected onto a
plane parallel to a face without regard to shielding or overlapping members of the platform or the supporting
structure. A drag factor of 2.0 for flat members and a drag factor of 1.2 for round members shall be applied
to the projected areas of the supporting members. Fifty percent of the total effective projected area of the
supporting members shall be added to the effective projected area of the platform. The resulting total
effective projected area shall be used for all wind directions. No shielding shall be considered for the
supporting structure. Antennas and mounting pipes supported on the platform shall be considered as
generic appurtenances with a value of Ka equal to 0.75.
2.1.7.15 Effective Projected Area for Low Profile Platforms
The effective projected area, (EPA) A, of low profile symmetrical platforms (refer to Fig 2-13) that are
continuous around the perimeter of a structure (or with a horizontal gap between the corners of adjacent
faces less than or equal to 10% of the width of the platform) shall be determined by summing the projected
areas of all members of the platform onto a plane parallel to a face of the platform without regard to
shielding or overlapping members of the platform or the
supporting structure. A drag factor of 2.0 for flat members and a drag factor of 1.2 for round members shall
be applied to the projected areas of all members. The total effective projected area shall be multiplied by
factor equal to 0.75 for square platform and 0.67 for triangular platforms. The resulting effective projected
area shall be used for all wind directions. No shielding shall be considered for the supporting structure.
Antennas and mounting pipes supported on the platform shall be considered as generic appurtenances
using a value of Ka equal to 0.8.
Figure 2-14 Low Profile Platforms
lv
2.1.7.16 Effective Projected Area for Symmetrical Circular Ring Platforms
The effective projected area, (EPA) A, of symmetrical circular ring platforms (refer to Fig 2-14) that are
continuous around the perimeter of a structure shall be determined by considering the supporting members
of the platform and the ring members as individual members. The projected area of each ring member
shall be equal to the product of the diameter of the ring and the projected vertical dimension of the ring
member exposed to the wind. The projected area of all supporting members for the entire platform shall be
determined by projecting all supporting members onto a vertical plane without regard to shielding or
overlapping members of the platform or the supporting structure. A drag factor of 2.0 for flat members and
a drag factor of 1.2 for round members shall be applied to the projected areas of the supporting members
and the ring members. A 0.50 factor shall be applied to total effective projected area of the supporting
members and a 1.75 factor shall be applied to the total effective projected area of the ring members. The
resulting total effective projected area shall be used for all wind directions. No shielding shall be
considered for the supporting structure. Antennas and mounting pipes supported on the platform shall be
considered as generic appurtenances using a value of Ka equal to 0.8.
Notes for all mounting frame/platform types:
1. Ka shall equal 1.0 for antennas and antenna mounting pipes under transitional or supercritical flow
conditions.
2. Grating and other horizontal working surfaces need not be included in the effective projected area
Figure 2-15 Circular Ring Platforms
2.1.7.17 Design Wind Force on Guys
The design wind force on guys, FG, shall be determined in accordance with the following equation:
lvi
FG = Cd d LgGhqz sin2θg
Equation 2-32 Design Wind Force on Guys
where:
FG = force applied normal to the chord of the guy in the plane containing the guy chord and the wind, refer
to Figure 2-15.
Cd = 1.2, drag factor for guy
d = guy diameter including ice for loading combinations that include ice
Lg = length of guy
Gh = gust effect factor from 2.1.6.5
Qz = velocity pressure at mid-height of guy from 2.1.6.20
Θg = true angle of wind incidence to the guy chord
Note: A higher drag factor, C d, or an increased effective guy diameter may be required when attachments
such as spoilers, insulators, markers, etc. are attached to a guy.
The design wind force and ice thickness may be assumed to be uniform based on the velocity pressure and
ice thickness at the mid-height of each guy or guy segment. The length of each guy or guy segment may
be assumed to equal the chord length. The design wind force shall be considered as a distributed force
normal to the guy chord.
For ground-supported structures, mid-height shall be referenced to the ground elevation at the base of the
structure. For structures supported on buildings or other supporting structures, the mid-height of a guy
shall be measured from the mid-height elevation of the guy to the ground level of the building or other
supporting structure. The height z for a guy segment shall not be less than zero.
Figure 2-16 Wind Force on Guys
lvii
2.1.7.18 Shielding
Shielding, except as noted herein, may be considered for intersecting or parallel elements. The unshielded
element shall be considered as flat unless both elements are round. Full shielding may be considered
when the clear distance between the elements in the direction under consideration for determining effective
projected areas (EPA) is less than or equal to 2.0 times the smallest projected dimension of the element in
the direction under consideration. No shielding shall be considered for clear distance ratios greater than
4.0. Linear interpolation shall be allowed for ratios between 2.0 and 4.0. Refer to Figure 2-16.
Shielding from an appurtenance shall not be considered when a value of K a less than 1.0 per 2.1.6.12 is
used to determine the design wind force on the appurtenance.
Note: Shielding considerations will vary with wind direction
Figure 2-17 Shielding Limitations
2.1.7.19 Transmission Lines Mounted in Clusters or Blocks
The projected area of each line in a cluster or block, independent of their spacing or location within the
group, (i.e. no shielding of lines and no reduction of ice thickness) shall be included in the calculation of
wind loads using a force coefficient, C a, equal to 1.2 (based on round/elliptical lines), except that the group
of lines need not be considered larger than an equivalent appurtenance with a width equal to the maximum
out-to-out dimension of the group for both the normal and transverse sides with a force coefficient, C a,
equal to 1.5 for square or rectangular clusters and 1.2 for round clusters. Refer to Figure 2-17. For loading
lviii
conditions that include ice, a force coefficient, C a, equal to 1.5 shall apply for both round, square and
rectangular clusters.
Note: The width of the equivalent appurtenance may be used for determining shielding in accordance with
2.1.4.19. For purpose of calculating the weight of ice, the radial thickness of ice shall be considered on
each individual line except that the total cross section of ice need not exceed the area of a cluster as
indicated in Figure 2-17.
Figure 2-18 Equivalent EPA of Transmission Line Clusters
2.1.7.20 Velocity Pressure
The velocity pressure, qz, evaluated at height z shall be calculated by the following equation:
Qz= 0.613 KzKztKd V2 I [N/m2]
Equation 2-33 Velocity Pressure
where:
Kz = velocity pressure coefficient from 2.1.6.3
Kzt = topographic factor from 2.1.6.4
Kd = wind direction probability factor from Table 2-12
V = the basic wind speed for the loading condition under investigation, mph [m/s]
lix
2.1.8 Architectural Plan
Fi
gure 2- 19 Telecommunication Tower Total Lot Area
lx
Figure 2-20 Area of the Whole Facility of Self- Supporting Tower
lxi
Figure 2-21 Self- Supporting Tower
lxii
Figure 2-22 Area of the Whole Facility of Guyed Tower
lxiii
Figure 2-23 Guyed Tower
lxiv
Figure 2-24 Area of the Whole Facility of Monopole Tower
lxv
Figure 2-25 Monopole Tower
lxvi
2.2 Review of Related Literature
2.2.1 Foreign Literature
Telecommunications tower requires elevated antennas to transmit and receive radiofrequency. Without tall
buildings for these antennas to be mounted to, self-supporting, monopoles and guyed towers tend to be the
most economical choice for mounting antennas. these types of towers are lightweight and can be easily
fabricated. the most used tower is the Self-Supporting tower in the field of communication. A self-supporting
tower has a smaller footprint and is adapted to different types of landforms. Therefore, it is preferable to
use in areas with large land dedication. Self-supporting towers are widely used due to its easy construction
and convenient operation. In China, self-supporting towers are commonly used. It is then concluded that
Self-Supporting Towers have lower lateral displacements when compared to Monopole Towers of same
height for same amount of loading. This can be said because they have higher stiffness. But the steel
quantity required for Self-Supporting Towers is about two times more than the Monopole Towers for a given
tower height, wind speed and loading. However, Self-Support Towers have more load carrying capacity
than Monopoles because of their rigidity. Monopoles might be preferred if towers are of height below or
equal 40 m. But, with the increase in height beyond 50m, Self-Support Towers are recommended. This is
because, in case of any unexpected and abnormally high wind speeds during cyclones, the structural
rigidity will be intact and the damage and repair for the structure may not be so high unlike Monopole. It can
be highly suggested to adopt Self-Support Tower as they can support more equipment. Further greater
heights, higher stiffness and easiness for modifications in case of member failure make Self-Supporting
Towers more suitable for adoption by telecommunication industry.
Guyed towers are supported by cables at various faces of a tower. There are usually three to four cables
for each guy-connecting location. Guyed towers are smaller in size and made of tubular materials or small
rods and pipes that look like a lattice. Guyed towers offer good strength, are easy to install and reasonably
priced. However, it requires a large base area because of the supporting guy cables and is difficult to
maintain the area around the guy anchors and cables. These towers are used only in a plane or hilly area.
The cost of the tower itself is low, but the land cost is increasing due to guy cables and anchors. Guyed
towers have large root span for the guys and have limited choices for tower positions. Due to a large height
of this kind of tower, guys are susceptible to be loose due to ice and wind loads, making operation and
maintenance difficult. Guyed towers have less material cost than the self-supporting tower with the use of
high-strength steel. these towers are guyed in three directions and have a triangular lattice section of the
central mast.
Tubular towers are called Monopole Towers, Pipe Towers or other related names. Monopole towers should
have a large diameter to have a sufficient stiffness instead of using heavier wall thickness. And after a
thorough exploration, it was then overview that the monopole tower may be supported on either a
monolithic mat or a pier and pad foundation bearing directly on bedrock or on a thin layer of minus ¾-inch
crushed stone placed on the bedrock. Sand and gravel fill should not be placed directly over bedrock. Rock
anchors may be used in order to provide adequate overturning and sliding resistance, if sufficient
embedment is not achieved in the bedrock. Monopole towers are placed on top of high-rise buildings. it
uses minimal space and resembles a single tube not exceeding 45m of height. Towers with tubular
members may divide the weight of the angular tower in half due to reduced wind load in circular sections.
However, it is more costly and harder to connect. Preparation of the site should include removal of topsoil,
organic subsoil (subsoil with visible roots), or otherwise unsuitable materials. The soil subgrade should be
proof rolled with a vibratory roller or heavy plate compactor.
lxvii
The Dynamic Replacement technique is usually used in soft soils. It uses the concept of dynamic
compaction to drive granular materials down into the soil forming a pillar of 2-2.5m diameter. Dynamic
Replacement is commonly used to improve the properties of soft clayey soils. It uses larger drop of weights
to improve penetration of weight through soft soils. The advantages of Dynamic Replacement are an
increase in bearing capacity of soils, can be used in a wide variety of soils, raises the rate of consolidation
of fine soils, reduces the post-construction settlements, high production rates and uses a broad range of
materials to create pillars using gravel, sand, demolished concrete and dredged materials. In dynamic
replacement method, firm the sandy columns are compressed into natural soil to improve its strength and
stiffness characteristics. The test that they gathered are focused on the influenced group of columns on the
adjacent soil. The outcome of the previous studies summary, the strengthening effect of the soil and the
time period between the column formation and testing the improvement effect occurred in soils which they
compact during column formation in the deposits and was found both under columns and around them. The
test completed by the DMT and CPTU indicate that the surrounding soil softens during dynamic
replacement process may vary the range of the impacted zone. The radius zone can be estimated as up to
2.5 times the diameter of the top of the column. While cohesive soils, the had a higher stiffness, the
softening is greater than for weaker soil.
Dynamic Compaction is a ground improvement technique for compacting fills or soft and loose natural soils.
It has been proven to be effective and economical alternative to deep vibratory compaction and the smooth
wheel vibratory roller compactor. It requires a controlled application of dynamic stresses to the ground
surface. It uses a crane to drop weights of between 5 to 20 tons from heights up to 20 meters. It is best to
use in large sites where few obstructions are present. It is commonly used in reclaimed areas and landfill
rehabilitation to provide a strong ground with less susceptibility for settlement. The dynamic compaction
method is effective to reinforce soft soil foundation with a low degree of saturation. They conducted some
tests, based on the different dewatering method, such as dewatering in natural state and vacuum well-point
dewatering. They also use some material like hammer of 8 to 30 tons lifted by the crane and freely falls
down from 60 to 30-meter height. By poured water and air into soil that will discharge at the same time, the
strength of the soil capacity of foundation will be enhanced and will improve. The dynamic compaction
method with vacuum well-point dewatering makes construction time of the project shorter had a percentage
of 25%. For the soils with a depth of 4 meters, the reinforcement effect of dynamic compaction method with
vacuum well point dewatering is obviously superior to dynamic compaction method. Deep dynamic
compaction is a proven technique for densification and liquefaction mitigation of sands containing little or no
silt. It involves high-energy impacts to the ground surface by systematically dropping heavy weights of 6 to
35 tons from heights ranging from 12 to 40 m to compact the underlying ground using heavy crawler
cranes.
Compaction Grouting involves the injection of high viscosity mortar-type grout under relatively high
pressure that displaces and compacts the soil in place. The first requirement is to decide the appropriate
consistency of grout mix. The gradation of mineral aggregates is based on the recommendation of Warner
and Brown (1974) and Nichols and Goodings (2000). It was prepared for four soils, K-5 (0.15-0.85mm), K-6
(0.106-0.6mm), K-7 (0.27-0.35mm), K-8 (lower than 0.48mm), commercially available in Japan, mixing in
the ratio of 1:2:2:2. Mineral aggregate, cement, bentonite and water are combined in several proportions to
check the most appropriate consistency of the grout mix. Confining of ground were found effective at any
time and at any radial distance, however, densification do not change after the grouting.
In tower foundation construction considerations, for the mat/pad not to be supported partially on bedrock
and partially on soil, subsoil should be over excavated to allow placement of the mat/pad foundation on
lxviii
bedrock surface. The base of foundation excavations should be free of water and loose soil/broken rock
prior to placing concrete. With the result of the study conducted by Gunathilaka in 2015, it is concluded that
four legged Green field towers in the height range from 30m to 80m will survive without any problem under
minor to moderate earthquakes (which is the most probable magnitude for earthquakes that can occur in a
country like Sri Lanka), if such towers have been properly designed for recommended design wind speed of
the respective wind zones. Even under severe or very severe earthquake loading conditions, all of the
above towers will behave satisfactorily, if such towers have been designed considering a designed wind
speed of 50m/s.
2.2.2 Local Literature
In structural engineering, a tower is a self-supporting or cantilevered structure, while a mast is held up by

stays or guys. It was then discussed the parameters to be considered in choosing what type of tower to be
used. First to consider is the rigidity or the capability of the tower to hold loads such as antennas and
cables prior to construction. Second, the height of the tower must be enough in order to avoid obstructions.
The anticipated wind loading should also be identified under harsh and additional loading. Then the land
area will determine the kind of towers that can be employed. Lastly is the cost of the antenna, this would
vary depending on height and wind loading.
With the growth of the telecommunication industry, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)
in the exercise of its mandate to ensure rational land use by regulating land development, and likewise in
response to the request of sectors concerned, saw the necessity to provide guidelines for the location of
communication infrastructure proliferating at present for the protection of the providers and users, as well
as the public in general while ensuring efficient and responsive communication services. This guideline
intends to: a. facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the target users; b. minimize
adverse visual effects of towers through careful design and siting. standards; c. serve as a guide for the
HLURB and local government units in the issuance of locational clearance for base stations (paging and
trunking services) and cell sites (for cellular mobile telephone service). After securing the locational
clearance, the minimum locational guidelines should be considered. This includes the zoning classification
where a base station may be located.
Self-supporting towers in the Philippines, with base aspect ratios typically greater than four (4), are
currently being designed with dynamic wind effects neglected (rigid design), although it is required in the
2015 National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP-15) that a flexible-structure gust effect factor (GEF)
should be used (flexible design) for structures with such aspect ratios. Meanwhile , there are no such GEF
formulations available in the literature that is appropriate for antenna towers and directly compatible with
the NSCP-15, as well as information on input parameters such as the dynamic properties of towers in the
Philippines. If all other parameters in the wind load calculation are correct, antenna towers designed using
the NSCP-15 rigid structure GEF are under-designed according to the requirements of the NSCP-15,
although failure in terms of yielding of steel members is not expected.
The design wind speed specification may cause an often-misleading area of disagreement if not precisely
defined. So it is highly considered that a precise design wind speed is calculated considering that is one of
the requirements in tower design. Some client specifies tower wind design requirements in terms that relate
to velocity. But the structure is designed to resist various pressures, one is the wind load, a conversion from
lxix
velocity to pressure must be done. This design escalates the wind speed from the "base" of the tower
(defined as the portion of the tower from the ground to 10 meters elevation) to the top of the tower.
In creating a construction plan for a building foundation there must be a foundation design that needed to
be made. Foundation design is a highly specialized function and structural engineer are usually performed
this design. Foundation is a structural base which stands on the ground and support the rest of the building.
Therefore, foundation design must involve extensive study of the ground below the foundation as well as
the design and materials used on the foundation itself. laid at ground level, most foundations may be
installed at a variety of depths. These are required depth of any foundation can depend on several factors
first is soil bearing capacity which is the one who determines how much load (weight or force) the existing
soil can withstand. Next is soil type which is the Different types of soil have different properties that can
affect their suitability for supporting a foundation. The third one is frost depth is the depth to which the soil
freezes in the coldest time of the year, known as the frost depth or frost line, often is used to determine the
minimum depth for many types of foundations. The fourth one is groundwater table. A high groundwater
table can limit the foundation depth as well as the type of foundation that can be used. Groundwater height
is usually included in a soil study and lastly minimum depth disregarding other factors, the minimum depth
of a foundation typically is not less than 18 inches to allow for removal of topsoil and variations in ground
level.
Communication System is composed of three types of communication network namely public switch
network, wireless network and radio system. In public switch network, it is composed of central office and
outside plant. In wireless network its major elements are cell sites, transmission tower, mobile telephone
exchange and subscriber equipment. In radio system these are the systems that used by police, fire,
rescue services and other commercial organization. Improving earthquake resilience of mobile telecom
system is needed in making telecom tower since this country belongs to the pacific ring of fire where
earthquakes mostly occur. Communication buildings are critical facilities and should be designed to remain
operational after a major earthquake. Entails additional special requirements for both building and
equipment design.
Data from measurements of thirty-four (34) actual trussed towers from other countries is analyzed, and
estimation formulas for the natural frequency and structural damping ratio are suggested. An estimation
formula for the aerodynamic damping ratio is also suggested. The estimates are generally on the
conservative side, considering the variance in the available data. Using these estimates for antenna towers
in the Philippines, those with typical heights from around 30 to 60 meters are estimated to have very low
damping, and that the GEF and correspondingly the wind loads in the flexible design are significantly larger
than the rigid structure value in a rigid design, even for natural frequencies greater than 1 Hz. A flexible
design is thus recommended for all towers in the Philippines, regardless of natural frequency.
Guyed towers feature simple tower type, easy construction, and smaller weight of single tower which can
reduce steel consumption and construction costs, and they are mostly used in areas where operation and
maintenance are convenient, such as shallow hills and deserts. However, guyed towers are unfavorable for
operation and maintenance due to measures taken to protect guys against looseness and theft; meanwhile,
guyed towers have large root span for the guys, large footprints, and limited choice of sites for tower
positions, which usually leads to higher overall costs than self-supporting towers. Further greater heights,
higher stiffness and easiness for modifications in case of member failure make Self-Supporting Towers
more suitable for adoption by telecommunication industry.
lxx
CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINTS, TRADEOFFS AND STANDARDS
3.1 Design Constraints

Design constraints are conditions needed to be considered in designing an infrastructure. It helps the
designers pick the appropriate choice in designing the infrastructure to fit the client’s needs. Design
engineers must consider both qualitative and quantitative constraints. Qualitative constraints are
constraints that can be analyzed through the engineer’s experience and perception. Quantitative
constraints are constraints that are computed and measured through engineering methods with the help of
provisions and codes stated by the National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015 and National Building
Code of the Philippines 2015.
3.1.1 Qualitative Constraints
3.1.1.1 Aesthetics Constraint
The aesthetic of the Telecommunication Tower on how it will be constructed with high quality thru the
process of exactly aesthetics to use smooth service and how make it look good. The designers will look for
affordable materials that will suit the aesthetics design of Telecommunication Tower.
3.1.1.2 Environmental Constraint
The radiation cause by the tower can affect the growth of the agricultural crops and plants. The
electromagnet radiation generate heat due to the micro organisms present in the soil that will affect the
growth of plants. The designers will choose the location meters away from the farm to avoid the harm that
micro organism have.
3.1.1.3 Health and Safety
Telecommunication towers is a large antenna that is used to communicate with mobiles and internet
without wire and connecting with the cell phones and the internet. The effects of the radiation produced by
Telecommunication towers are still unclear being harmful or not and has not yet been proven safe. Though,
scientific studies show that the electromagnetic radiation caused by the Telecommunication towers can be
hazardous for all residents around it and the environment. That is why choosing the location is very crucial
to the designers. The designers will choose a location which is meters away from the residents and to
consider environment safety.
3.1.2 Quantitative Constraints (Context 1)
3.1.2.1 Risk Assessment (Structure Deflection)
Analysis of all the risk that may occur during the duration of the design life. This ensures the ongoing safety
to general users and members of the public that will benefit in the structure once it has been constructed.
Taking wind loads into consideration, it is expected that an unavoidable stress due to earthquakes and high
intensity wind will greatly affect the whole structure. The designers must make sure that the structure will
have sufficient resistance to both wind and seismic forces to avoid excessive storey drift and overturning,
lxxi
Therefore, this constraint will be measured based on maximum lateral forces that will occur due to wind
effect, seismic ground motion at the base of the structure.
 Limitation: This constraint will only focus on the effect due to wind and earthquake forces, and
sufficient resistance to these effects. The preferred structural drift is less than 200 mm.
3.1.2.4 Economic Constraint (Project Cost)
The Project Cost is most important to the client and designers when it comes to construction of the
Telecommunication Tower. The material costs and construction operation is the major components in any
construction projects. It is always dependent on the client’s eagerness to spend to construct the project.
The designers will find another design that will fit the budget of the clients.
● Limitation: The constraints will only focus on the total cost of the installation of the tower and such
factors that will determine the total cost of the projects such as the cost of the materials. The
allotted budget for the proposed project is Php 5,000,000.00.
3.1.2.3 Constructability Constraint (Duration of the Project)
The duration of the project plays a vital part in the decision making of the trade-offs. The client wants to
have information about the duration of the project, for him, the sooner the better. It can contribute to the
economical constraint for every extension of duration occurs, the more it becomes costly. With the main
problem of demand for network coverage in the area also affects the need for fast and efficient construction
phase of the project.
● Limitation: This constraint will only focus on the project duration and on how it affects the total cost
of the project. The client prefers the overall project to be done in less than four months.
3.1.2.1 Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost)
Structure performance to prolong its value and building life cycle. Structures deteriorate over time due to
aging and exposure to different types of aggressive environments. Regular repair and maintenance are
critical in extending the anticipated service life of these structures. This constraint will focus on the cost of
modification in case of a member failure.
3.1.3 Quantitative Constraints (Context 2)
3.1.3.1 Risk Assessment (Soil Settlement)
Analysis of all the risk that may occur during the duration of the design life. This ensures the ongoing safety
to general users and members of the public that will benefit in the structure once it has been constructed.
The settlement of the soil should be taken into account as the possibility of soft storey effect may occur. To
make sure that the structure will sustain its stability and safety, the designers should know the bearing
lxxii
capacity to improve the soil if needed. Therefore, this constraint will be measured based on the settlement
of the soil.
 Limitation: This constraint will only focus on the settlement of the soil. The preferred settlement is
10 mm.
The Project Cost is most important to the client and designers when it comes to construction of the
Telecommunication Tower. The material costs and construction operation is the major components in any
construction projects. It is always dependent on the client’s eagerness to spend to construct the project.
The designers will find another design that will fit the budget of the clients.
● Limitation: This constraint will only focus on the total cost of improvement of the soil. The allotted
budget for the proposed project is Php 1,000,000.00
3.1.3.3 Constructability Constraint (Duration of the Project)
The duration of the project plays a vital part in the decision making of the trade-offs. The client wants to
have information about the duration of the project, for him, the sooner the better. It can contribute to the
economical constraint for every extension of duration occurs, the more it becomes costly. With the main
problem of demand for network coverage in the area also affects the need for fast and efficient construction
phase of the project.
Limitation: This constraint will only focus on the project duration and on how it affects the total cost of the
project. The client prefers the improvement of the soil to be done in less than one month.
Maintenance is essential in preserving structures’ appearance and performance. It needs to upkeep the
structure performance to prolong its value and building life cycle. Structures deteriorate over time due to
aging and exposure to different types of aggressive environments. Regular repair and maintenance are
critical in extending the anticipated service life of these structures. This constraint will focus on the cost of
modification in case of instability of structure due to excessive soil settlement.
3.2 Trade-offs
Design trade-off strategies are always present in the design process. Considering design constraints, trade-
offs that have significant effects on the structural and geotechnical design of the structure were provided by
the designer. After a thorough evaluation of the trade-offs the design team need to consider what trade-offs
is appropriate in the project.
lxxiii
3.2.1 Structural Trade-offs
3.2.1.1 Self Supporting Tower
Self Supporting Towers are typically three-legged triangular or four-legged square lattice-type structures. It
has a stem pattern tower which is compiled and connected to form a self-supporting frame without any
other subvention. Self Supporting Tower is a conventional one in a form of tower frame which is designed
with the strong frame, able to hold the wind pressure and geographic condition at the area where the tower
will be built. The height of the lattice tower is between 30M up to 120M. These are towers that are
supported on the ground or buildings.
Figure 3-1 Self Supporting Tower
Table 3-1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Self-Supporting Tower

Advantages Disadvantages
● Most popular and versatile type of structure ● More expensive than guyed towers of the
today in the wireless industry same height
● Can accommodate heaviest of loads and
strongest wind
● Has a good loading capacity
● Ideal for cellular towers, wireless internet
towers, broadcast towers, radio towers,
● homeland security towers, and wind towers.
● Designed with the strong frame, able to hold
the wind pressure and geographic condition
at the area where the tower will be built
(Source: FredTeichman)
lxxiv
3.2.1.2 Guyed Tower
A guyed tower is a tall thin vertical structure that depends on guy lines for stability. The mast itself has
compressive strength to support its own weight, but does not have the shear strength to stand
unsupported, and requires guy lines to resist lateral forces such as wind loads and keep it upright. Guy
lines are diagonal tensioned cables attached to the ground, usually spaced at equal angles about the
structure's base.
Figure 3-2 Guyed Towers
Table 3-2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Guyed Tower

● Has compressive strength to support its ● Larger area required for the supporting
own weight guy cables
● Cheaper than building a free-standing ● Difficulty of maintaining the area around
tower, which can withstand the same force the guy anchors and cables
● Very easy upgrading of existing structures
● Less expensive to purchase, transport,
and install
lxxv
3.2.1.3 Monopole Tower
Monopole Tower is a kind of tower that consists of one stem or one pole anchored to the ground. It is a
single tube tower and typically stands between 100-200 ft. with antennas mounted on the exterior of the
tower.
Figure 3-3 Monopole Towers
Table 3-3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Monopole Tower

● Easy to assemble ● They tend to cost 50% to 100% more than

● Less expensive installation a lattice type freestanding tower
● Interior routing of cables which reduces ● They tend to be more effective at radiating
wind loading sound than other types of towers so noise
● Platforms and antenna arrays can be from the turbine can be amplified
rotated to any azimuth
● they take very little space
3.2.2 Geotechnical Trade-offs
Ground improvement is a method of geotechnical construction used to alter and improve the ground
condition. From the geotechnical report of the project, identified that the soil on location of the project is soft
and clayey soil which means the structures built may settle because the soil cannot carry the weight of the
structure. The designers pick three methodologies in ground improvement or soil stabilization to fix the
problem.
lxxvi
3.2.2.1 Dynamic Compaction
Dynamic Compaction (DC) is for compacting of soft and loose natural soils and to improve mechanical
properties for soil by transmitting the high-energy impact to loose granular soils, the impacts create the
body and surface waves that reproduce in the soil, dynamic compaction is also effective and economical
alternative by the deep vibratory compaction. The depth of treatment depends on the soil type, the weight
of the drop varies between 5 and 20 tons from heights up to 20 meters and it is suites to large and open
sites where few obstructions are present.
Figure 3-4 Dynamic Compaction

(Source: Ground Improvement Case - Science Direct Website)
Table 3- 4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Dynamic Compaction

● Low cost for large area improvement ● Requires intensive in situ testing
● Increase the soil density and avoid programme
collapse ● Requires constant monitoring
● Reduces post-construction settlement ● May cause liquefaction in silty and clayey
● Reduces the volume of landfill waste soil
(Source: Geotechnical Investigations and Improvements (2019), Soil Compaction)
3.2.2.2 Dynamic Replacement
Dynamic Replacement (DR) is a type of dynamic compaction, the formation by heavy tamping granular soil
will improve by compress and consolidate the body of soft saturated soil.
lxxvii
Figure 3- 5 Dynamic Replacement
(Source: Dynamic Replacement - Trevi)
Table 3-5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Dynamic Replacement

● Enhanced bearing capacity ● Large vibrations during construction
● Reduces total and differential settlements ● Only effective on granular and cohesive
● Reduces the need for reinforced soils
foundations ● Requires continuous sampling and in situ
● Creates no spoil in the displacement testing
process
● Applicable for a wide range of soils up to
8m
● Flexible specifications for backfilling
material
(Source: Menard Group)
3.2.2.3 Compaction Grouting
Compaction Grouting (CG) is the injection top and down that use on shallow injection applications, with this
method can strengthen the upper layer of the soils to help contain the pressure on the lower levels of
compaction. It is also used in sinkholes, to arrest foundation settlements, pre-construction site improvement
and the level of slabs and foundations lift. Compaction grouting process the mortar will pump the stages
from top and bottom, mostly unsecure ground in order to compact it without breaking it up.
lxxviii
Figure 3-6 Compaction Grouting
(Source: Construction Methods - Bauer net)
Table 3- 6 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Compaction Grouting

● Causes minimal disruption to the ● Difficulty in analyzing results

landscape, surrounding soils and nearby ● Limited application at a very shallow depth
structures ● Requires deep work
● Can be utilized for projects that have
limited access and require more delicate
installations
● Cost-effective and easy to install
● Strengthens ground soil
(Source: Engineered Solutions of Georgia)
3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking
Three structural and geotechnical trade-offs were considered by the designers to address the different
constraints stated. Using the model on strategies in Engineering Design by Otto and Antonsson (1991),
scaled criterion’s importance ranges from 0 to 10, 10 being the highest.
Computation of ranking for the ability to satisfy the criterion:
HIgher Value−Lower Value

% difference= × 10
Higher Value
Equation 3-1Percent Difference
lxxix
ubordnaRan Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank−(% difference ×10)
Equation 3-2Subordinate Rank
The Governing Rank is an independent variable set by the designer to rank the constraints based on the
designer’s perception of the importance of different constraints. The Subordinate Rank is the dependent
variable that corresponds to its percentage distance from the governing rank along with the ranking scale of
0 to 10.
Figure 3-7 Ranking Scale Value

(Source: Otto, K.N. and Antonsson, E.K. (1991). Trade of Strategies in Engineering Design. Research in Engineering Design,
Volume 3, Number 2, Pages 87-104)
3.4 Initial Estimates and Ranking Computation
The tables show the initial estimates of the three tradeoffs for each constraint. The estimated cost consists
of the material costing for steel, rentable machineries and equipments estimated by “Philippine
Construction Material” and “Technical Specification of Ground Based Tower” by Arry Kusuma. For the life
span is based the estimated values from similar previous projects. The constructability was estimated by
using the book “Estimator’s General Construction Man-Hour Manual” by John S. Page and for the duration
of the project is based on estimated number of days and years for geotechnical and structural trade-offs.
For the drift and settlement, the designers based the estimated values from “Structural Evaluation of Self-
Supporting Tower” by Yoppy Soleman.
Table 3-7 Initial Estimates of Structural Tradeoffs

Structural Trade-offs Importanc
e Factor
Constraint Self- Supporting
Guyed Tower Monopole Tower (on a scale
Tower of 0-10)
Risk Assessment
6.4177 5.2096 5.2534 10
(Structural Drift – mm)
Economic
5,705,043.00 5,620,493.06 7,472,658.00 9
(Cost - Php)
Constructability
24 21 20 8
(Duration – Days)
Sustainability
1,141,008.60 1,124,098.61 1,494,531.60 7
(Maintenance Cost – Php)
Table 3-8 Initial Estimates of Geotechnical Tradeoffs
lxxx
Importance
Geotechnical Trade-offs Factor (on a
Constraint scale of 0-10)
Dynamic Dynamic Compaction
Compaction Replacement Grouting
Risk
Assessment
1.5mm 2.1mm 3mm 10
(Settlement –
mm)
Economic
721,968.00 330,000.00 753,152.00 9
(Cost - Php)
Constructabilit
y
13 6 16 8
(Duration –
Days)
Sustainability
(Maintenance 43,318.08 19,800.00 45,189.12 7
Cost – Php)
3.4.1 Raw Ranking for Structural Tradeoffs
3.4.1.1 Computation of Raw Ranking for Risk Assessment Constraint

Table 3-9 Initial Estimated Value for Risk Assessment Constraint
Description Self-Supporting Tower Guyed Tower Monopole Tower
Risk Assessment
(Structural Drift – 6.4177 5.2096 5.2534
mm)
Subordinate Rank 10 8.12 8.18
Self-Supporting Tower vs. Guyed Tower

6.42−5.21
% Difference= x 10
6.42
% Difference=1.88 %
Subordinate Rank=10−1.88
Subordinate Rank=8.12
lxxxi
Figure 3-8 Subordinate Rank of Guyed Tower Plotted in a Rank Line
Self-Supporting Tower vs. Monopole Tower
6.42−5.25
% Difference= x 10
6.42
% Difference=1.82 %
Figure 3-9 Subordinate Rank of Monopole Tower Plotted in a Rank Line
3.4.1.2 Computation of Raw Ranking Economic Constraint

Table 3-10 Initial Estimated Value for Economic Constraint
Economic
5,097,976.92.00 4,427,020.00 7,629,410.00
(Cost - PHP)
Subordinate Rank 8.68 10 5.8
lxxxii
Guyed Tower vs Self Supporting Tower
5,097,976.02−4,427,020
% Difference= x 10
5,097,976.02
% Difference=1.32 %
Figure 3-10 Subordinate Rank of Self Supporting Tower Plotted in a Rank Line
Guyed Tower vs. Monopole Tower
7,629,410−4,427,020
% Difference= x 10
7,629,410
% Difference=4.2 %
lxxxiii
3.4.1.3 Computation of Raw Ranking for Constructability Constraint
Table 3-11 Initial Estimated Value for Constructability Constraint
Constructibility
24 21 20
(Duration -
Months)
Self-Supporting Tower vs. Guyed Tower
24−21
% Difference= x 10
24
% Difference=1.25 %
Self-Supporting Tower vs. Monopole Tower
lxxxiv
24−20
% Difference= x 10
24
% Difference=1.67 %
3.4.1.4 Computation of Raw Ranking for Sustainability Constraint

The designers made an estimate of the maintenance cost to determine the improvement configuration.
Table 3-12 Initial Estimated Value for Sustainability Constraint
Sustainability
(Maintenance Cost 1,141,008.60 1,124,098.61 1,494,531.60
- Php)
Guyed Tower vs Self Supporting Tower
1,141,008.60−1,124,098.61
% Difference= x 10
1,141,008.60
% Difference=0.15 %
lxxxv
1,494,531.60−1,124,098.61
% Difference= x 10
1,494,531.60
% Difference=2.48 %
SSubordinate Rank=10−2.48
Table 3-13 Designers’ Raw Ranking for Structural Tradeoffs

Importance Structural Tradeoffs
Constraints Factor (on a
scale of 0-10) Self-Supporting Guyed Tower Monopole Tower
Tower
Risk Assessment 10 10 8.12 8.18

(Structural Drift
– mm)
Economic 9 8.68 10 5.8
(Cost - Php)
Constructability 8 10 8.75 8.33
(Duration –
Days)
Sustainability 7 9.85 10 7.52
(Maintenance
Cost - Php)
Overall Ranking 327.07 313.395 253.28
lxxxvi
3.4.2 Raw Ranking for Geotechnical Tradeoffs
The estimates will give the designers a way to improve the foundation of the structure.
Since the Dynamic Compaction has the least amount of settlement, the designer gave it a scale of 10.
Table 3-14 Initial Estimated Value for Risk Assessment Constraint

Description
Risk Assessment
1.5mm 2.1mm 3mm
(Settlement-mm)
Subordinate Rank 10 7.1 5
Dynamic Compaction vs. Dynamic Replacement
2.1−1.5
% Difference= x 10
2.1
% Difference=2.9 %
Figure 3-16 Subordinate Rank of Dynamic Replacement Plotted in a Rank Line
Dynamic Compaction vs. Compaction Grouting
3−1.5
% Difference= x 10
3
lxxxvii
% Difference=5.0 %
Figure 3-17 Subordinate Rank of Compaction Grouting Plotted in a Rank Line
3.4.2.2 Computation of Raw Ranking for Economic Constraint
Since the Dynamic Replacement has the least amount of cost, the designer gave it a scale of 7. The
following table shows the initial cost estimate of the given tradeoffs.
Table 3-15 Initial Estimated Value for Economic Constraint
Description
Economic
721,968.00 330,000.00 753,152.00
(Cost - Php)
721,968.00−330,000
% Difference= x 10
721,968.00
% Difference=5.4 %
lxxxviii
Figure 3-18 Subordinate Rank of Dynamic Compaction Plotted in a Rank Line
Compaction Grouting vs. Dynamic Replacement
753,152.00−330,000.00
% Difference= x 10
753,152.00
% Difference=5.6 %
3.4.2.3 Computation of Raw Ranking Constructability Constraint
Dynamic Replacement will be ranked 8 as it takes the shortest duration of construction.
Table 3-16 Initial Estimated Value for Constructability Constraint

Description
Constructability
13 6 16
(Duration – Days)
13−6
% Difference= x 10
13
% Difference=5.4 %
lxxxix
16−6
% Difference= x 10
16
% Difference=6.3 %
SSubordinate Rank=10−6.3
Figure 3-21Subordinate Rank of Compaction Grouting Plotted in a Rank Line
Since the Dynamic Replacement has the lowest maintenance cost, it will be rated as 10.
xc
Table 3-17 Initial Estimated Value for Sustainability Constraint
Description
Sustainability
43,318.08 19,800.00 45,189.12
(Maintenance Cost
- Php)
43,318.08−19,800.00
% Difference= x 10
43,318.08
% Difference=5.4 %

45,189.12−19,800.00
% Difference= x 10
45,189.12
% Difference=5.6 %
xci
Figure 3-23Subordinate Rank of Compaction Grouting Plotted in a Rank Line
Table 3-18 Designers’ Raw Ranking for Geotechnical Tradeoffs

Importance Geotechnical Tradeoffs
Factor (on a Dynamic Dynamic Compaction
Constraints
scale of 0-10) Compaction Replacement Grouting
Risk Assessment
(Settlement – 10 10 7.1 5
mm)
Economic
9 4.6 10 4.4
(Cost - Php)
Constructability
(Duration – 8 3.6 10 3.7
Days)
Sustainability
(Maintenance 7 4.6 10 4.4
Cost - Php)
Overall Ranking 213.35 315.35 156.4
3.5 Tradeoffs Assessment
3.5.1 Tradeoffs Assessment for Structural Tradeoffs

Based on the Designers’ Raw Ranking for Structural Tradeoffs, the governing tradeoff is the Self-
Supporting Tower with an overall rank of 277.78, followed by Guyed Tower with an overall rank of 228.40
and lastly, the Monopole Tower with an overall rank of 206.64. The sustainability and allowable structural
drift of the Self-Supporting Tower caused a great advantage in its overall ranking.
Table 3- 19 Designers’ Raw Ranking for Structural Tradeoffs
Factor (on a Self-Supporting
Constraints Guyed Tower Monopole Tower
scale of 0-10) Tower
Risk Assessment 10 8.12 8.18
(Structural Drift – 10
mm)
Economic 8.68 10 5.8
9
(Cost - Php)
Constructability 10 8.75 8.33
8
(Duration – Days)
Sustainability 9.85 10 7.52
(Maintenance Cost - 7
Php)
Overall Ranking 327.07 313.395 253.28
xcii
In an economic approach, the Self-Supporting Tower holds the second cheapest value. It is caused by its
large amount of steel needed.
For sustainability constraint, Monopole tower exceeds in maintenance cost since it is also the one who
holds the costly amount in project cost.
3.5.1.3 Constructability Constraint (Duration)
The trade-off that has the least duration of construction is the Monopole Tower due to its single steel tube
specification. However, it requires continuous compaction of soil because of its small base area.
3.5.1.4 Risk Assessment (Structural Drift)
The Self-Supporting Tower has the maximum allowable deflection due to amount of steel present in the
tower.
3.5.2 Trade-offs Assessment for Geotechnical Trade-offs

Constraints
Risk Assessment
(Settlement – 10 10 7.1 5
mm)
Economic
9 4.6 10 4.4
(Cost - Php)
Constructability
(Duration – 8 3.6 10 3.7
Days)
Sustainability
(Maintenance 7 4.6 10 4.4
Cost - Php)
Overall Ranking 231.1 231.7 191.4
xciii
The economic assessment of trade-off yields the result of using the Dynamic Replacement as a method of
strengthen the soil for Telecommunication Tower in Antipolo City. This outcome is the result of the Dynamic
Replacement’s cheaper cost with only 330,000.00 for construction.
3.5.2.2 Constructability Constraint (Duration)
The constructability assessment of trade-off yields the result of using the Dynamic Replacement as a
method to strengthen the soil for Telecommunication Tower in Antipolo City. This outcome is the result of
the Dynamic Replacement more efficient in terms of amount of time with only more than 6 days.
The sustainability assessment of trade-offs yields the result of using the Dynamic Replacement as a
method to strengthen the soil for Telecommunication Tower in Antipolo City. This outcome is the result of
the Dynamic Replacement cheaper cost with only Php 66,000.00 in terms of maintenance cost compared
to dynamic compaction and compaction grouting.
3.5.2.4 Risk Assessment Constraint (Structural Drift)
The risk assessment of trade-offs yields the result of using the Dynamic Compaction as a method to
strengthen the soil for Telecommunication Tower in Antipolo City. This outcome is the result of the Dynamic
Replacement have the lowest settlement with 1.5mm compared to dynamic compaction and compaction
grouting.
3.6 Design Standards
The design of telecommunication tower is based on the following codes and provisions:
1. National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015

2. American National Standards Institute 2005
3. American Institute of Steel Construction 2016
3.6.1 National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015
This code provides standards that regulate the design, specification, quality and construction of the
structural aspects of buildings and structures under its jurisdiction. The provision of this code shall apply to
the construction, alteration, design, use and maintenance of buildings under its jurisdiction.
NSCP 2015 Chapter 2: Minimum Design Loads

NSCP 2015 Chapter 2 Section 208: Earthquake Loads
NSCP 2015 Chapter 2 Section 207: Wind Loads
NSCP 2015 Chapter 5: Structural Steel
xciv
3.6.2 American National Standards Institute 2005
This code provides standards and specification fostering the development of technology in the United
States. TIA-222-G is the revision of TIA-222-F which discussed the structural standards for antennas and
its supporting structures.
ANSI/TIA-222-G Chapter 2: Loads
3.6.3 American Institute of Steel Construction 2016

This code provides an integrated treatment of allowable strength design and load and resistance factor
design.
ANSI/AISC 360-16 Specification for Structural Steel Buildings
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE
4.1 Design Methodology of Structural Tradeoffs
The figure below shows the project design methodology to illustrate the systematic process in designing the
Telecommunication Tower.
xcv
Figure 4-1 Design Methodology of Geotechnical Tradeoffs
4.2 Structure Line Diagram
The following figures show the structure line diagram for each trade off of structural context of the
Telecommunication Tower which are the Self Supporting Tower, Guyed Tower and Monopole Tower.
xcvi
xcvii
Figure 4-2 Structure Line Diagram of Self Supporting Tower
xcviii
Figure 4-3 Structure Line Diagram of Guyed Tower
xcix
Figure 4-4 Structure Line Diagram of Monopole Tower
4.3 Load Case Details
Different load cases used in the structural analysis of the Telecommunication Tower are made into a table
below. The combinations shown will be applied and the designers will determine the load combination that
will produce the maximum stress in the structure. The governing load combination will then be selected for
the calculation of the member forces for the structure’s design.
4.3.1 Primary Loads
The table shows the Primary Load Cases for each tradeoff.
Table 4-1 Primary Load Details for Self Supporting Tower

Load Case Description Load Specification
No.
1 Dead Load (DL) Self-Weight Y -1.15
Joint Loads
2 Wind Load_0 Degrees (WL_0°) Wind Load X 1 Type 1
Joint Loads
3 Wind Load_45 Degrees (WL_45°) Wind Load X 0.707 Type 2
Wind Load Z 0.707 Type 2
Joint Loads
4 Wind Load_90 Degrees (WL_90°) Wind Load Z 1 Type 1
Joint Loads
5 Wind Load_135 Degrees (WL_135°) Wind Load X -0.707 Type 2
Wind Load Z 0.707 Type 2
Joint Loads
6 Wind Load_180 Degrees (WL_180°) Wind Load X -1 Type 1
Joint Loads
7 Wind Load_225 Degrees (WL_225°) Wind Load X -0.707 Type 2
Wind Load Z -0.707 Type 2
Joint Loads
8 Wind Load_270 Degrees (WL_270°) Wind Load Z -1 Type 1
Joint Loads
9 Wind Load_315 Degrees (WL_315°) Wind Load X 0.707 Type 2
Wind Load Z -0.707 Type 2
Joint Loads
10 Live Load (LL) Member Load 1.2
c
Table 4-2 Primary Load Details for Guyed and Monopole Tower
Load Case No. Primary Load Cases
1 Self Weight (DL)
2 Antenna Weight (DL)
3 Live Load (LL)
4 Wind Load in X Direction (WL)
5 Wind Load in Z Direction (WL)
4.3.2 Combination Loads
The structure is to be designed to resist wind, uplift or overturning, seismic ground motions and other loads
that will cause the life of the structure to deplete or shorten. All portions of the structure shall resist the most
critical effects from the following combinations of factored loads.
Load Case No. Description Load Specification

101 DL + WL_0° Combination
109 0.6DL + WL_0° Combination
117 DL + LL Combination
Table 4-3 Combination Load Details Using Allowable Stress Design (ASD) for Self Supporting Tower
ci
101 DL + WL Combination
102 0.6DL + WL Combination
103 DL + LL Combination
Table 4-4 Combination Load Details Using Allowable Stress Design (ASD) for Guyed and Monopole Tower

217 1.4DL Combination
218 1.2DL + 1.6LL Combination
219 1.2DL + WL_0° + LL Combination
Table 4-5 Combination Load Details Using Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Self Supporting Tower
cii
203 1.4DL Combination
204 1.2DL + 1.6LL Combination
205 1.2DL + WL + LL Combination
Table 4-6 Combination Load Details Using Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Guyed and Monopole Tower
ciii
4.4 Load Diagrams
4.4.1 Deflection Diagram
Figure 4-5 Beam Deflection Diagrams
civ
4.4.2 Beam Stress
Figure 4-6 Beam Stress Diagrams
cv
4.4.3 Axial Force
Scale: 1000 Kn per m

Figure 4-7 Axial Force Diagram
cvi
4.4.4 Shear Y Force
Scale: 10 Kn per m
Figure 4-8 Shear Y Force Diagram
cvii
4.4.5 Shear Z Force Diagram
Scale: 10 Kn per m
Figure 4-9 Shear Z Force Diagram
cviii
4.4.6 Wind Load Diagram
Figure 4-10 Wind Force Diagram
cix
4.5 Design Process of Wind Load Analysis
Wind load analysis for Self-Supporting Tower.
cx
Figure 4-11 Design Process for Wind Load Analysis of Self Supporting Tower
Wind load analysis for both Guyed and Monopole Tower.
cxi
Figure 4-12 Design Process for Wind Load Analysis of Guyed and Monopole Tower
4.5.1 Velocity Pressure
The velocity pressure, q z , evaluated at height z shall be calculated by the following equation:
q z =0.613 K z K zt K d V 2
where:
K z = velocity pressure coefficient

K zt = topographic factor
K d = wind probability factor
V = basic wind speed for the loading condition under investigation
I w = importance factor
The tables below show the velocity pressure coefficient, topographic factor, wind probability factor, and the
velocity pressure for each panel evaluated at height z for every tower. The designers used the software
Microsoft Excel to obtain the most accurate results.
Table 4-7 Summary of Velocity Pressures

Height
Kzt Kz Kd qz (kPa)
(m)
3 1 0.509535728 0.85 1.493401451
6 1 0.62113101 0.85 1.82047676
9 1 0.697420968 0.85 2.044075475
12 1 0.757167183 0.85 2.219186028
15 1 0.807012678 0.85 2.365278502
18 1 0.850165683 0.85 2.491755914
21 1 0.888446386 0.85 2.603953064
24 1 0.922997134 0.85 2.705218069
27 1 0.954586656 0.85 2.797803995
30 1 0.983759474 0.85 2.88330679
33 1 1.010916789 0.85 2.962902335
36 1 1.036363576 0.85 3.037484482
39 1 1.060337623 0.85 3.107750165
41 1 1.07559722 0.85 3.152474615
cxii
43 1 1.090334004 0.85 3.195666747
45 1 1.104589005 0.85 3.237446819
4.5.2 Force Coefficient of a Structure
The force coefficient of a structure shall be determined from the equation:
C f =4.0 ε 2 −5.9 ε +4.0
where:
As
ε = solidity ratio =
Ag
A s = projected area of structural components in one face of the section
A g = gross area of one face
C f = force coefficient for a structure
Df = wind direction factor for flat structural components
Dr = wind direction factor for round structural components
Table 4-8 Wind Direction Factors

Wind Direction Normal 45°
Df 1.0 1 + 0.75 (1.2 max)

Dr 1.0 1 + 0.75 (1.2 max)
4.5.3 Solidity Ratio
Wind exerts force when passes through a structure. If there are hollow spaces in the structure, wind will
pass through unobstructed from those spaces and will exert force only on that part of structure that blocks
it. Thus, the ratio of the actual exposed area of the surface to the total area is the solidity ratio.
solid area
ε=
gross area
For Self Supporting Tower:
cxiii
Gross Area Solid Area
For Guyed and Monopole Tower:
The tables below show the solidity ratio for the Self Supporting Tower,
Guyed Tower, and Monopole Tower respectively including the force coefficient ( Cf) for the structure.
Table 4-9 Solidity Ratio and Force Coefficient for Self Supporting Tower
Force
Height Gross Area Solid Area Solidity
Panel Coefficient
(m) (sq.m) (sq.m) Ratio (e)
(Cf)
1 3 19.2 5.17 0.269270833 2.70132921
2 6 18.1 5.89 0.325414365 2.503633283
3 9 17 5.43 0.319411765 2.52356609
4 12 15.9 5.15 0.323899371 2.508636921
5 15 14.8 4.78 0.322972973 2.511705625
6 18 13.7 4.38 0.319708029 2.522575523
7 21 12.6 3.97 0.315079365 2.538131771
8 24 11.5 3.71 0.322608696 2.512914178
9 27 10.4 3.47 0.333653846 2.476741864
10 30 9.3 3.15 0.338709677 2.460509886
11 33 8.2 2.91 0.354878049 2.40997323
12 36 7.1 2.57 0.361971831 2.388460623
13 39 6 1.69 0.281666667 2.655511111
14 41 4.5 1.32 0.293333333 2.613511111
15 43 4.5 1.32 0.293333333 2.613511111
16 45 4.5 1.32 0.293333333 2.613511111
Table 4-10 Solidity Ratio and Force Coefficient for Guyed Tower
cxiv
Force
Panel Coefficient
(Cf)
1 45 0.2121 0.0173 0.2400 2.8144
Table 4-11 Solidity Ratio and Force Coefficient for Monopole Tower
Force
Panel Coefficient
(Cf)
1 45 0.5891 0.2854 0.0374 3.78949
4.5.4 Structure Design Wind Force
Having gathered the necessary data for wind load analysis, the calculated pressures may then be applied
on the structure to compute loads on members using STAAD Pro’s built-in wind load algorithm for the
closed as well as open-lattice type structures.
Table 4-12 Summary of Design Wind Pressures

Height (m) Self Supporting
Panel qz (kPa)
F Normal F Diagonal
1 3 1.493401 3.429043618 4.114852342
2 6 1.820477 3.874135277 4.648962333
3 9 2.044075 4.38460562 5.261526744
4 12 2.219186 4.732062203 5.678474644
5 15 2.365279 5.04975082 6.059700984
6 18 2.491756 5.342796107 6.411355329
7 21 2.603953 5.617799602 6.741359523
8 24 2.705218 5.778283714 6.933940457
9 27 2.797804 5.89002254 7.068027047
10 30 2.883307 6.030244131 7.236292957
11 33 2.962902 6.069438014 7.283325617
12 36 3.037484 6.166675266 7.40001032
13 39 3.10775 7.014765331 8.417718397
14 41 3.152475 7.003173319 8.403807983
15 43 3.195667 7.099123968 8.518948761
16 45 3.237447 7.191937747 8.630325297
Panel Height (m) qz (kPa) F Normal
cxv
Guyed 1 45 3.237447 2.45087
1 30 6.030244131 2.6017
Monopole
2 45 7.191937747 3.1717
4.5.5 Design Wind Force on Appurtenances

Table 4-13 Summary of Wind Forces for Microwave Antenna, F(kN) of Self Supporting Tower
Wind Microwave @ Elev. 45m Wind Microwave @ Elev.
Angle Angle 45m
Fx Fz My Fx Fz My
0° 4.582 - 0.000 180° -3.688 - 0.000
- - - -
45° 4.071 - -0.045 225° -3.256 - -0.958
- 0.791 - -0.733
90° -0.397 - 0.110 270° -0.397 - -0.110
- 1.688 - -1.688
135º -3.256 - 0.095 315° 4.071 - 0.457
- 0.733 - -0.791
Table 4-14 Summary of Wind Forces for Microwave Antenna, F(kN) of Guyed Tower
Wind Microwave Antenna (@ Elev 45m)
Direction Fx Fz My
2.6952 2.6952 -
0 degree
2.6952 - 1.9058
2.6952 1.9058 1.9058
45 degree
2.6952 - 2.6952
Table 4-15 Summary of Wind Forces for Microwave Antenna, F(kN) of Monopole Tower
Microwave Antenna (@ Elev.
Wind Angle Wind Direction 45m)
Fx Fz My
FA 0.2684 0.2684 -
0 degree 0
FS 0 -
FA 0.2973 0.2973
45 degree -0.0387
FS 4.1264 - 4.1264
Table 4-16 Summary of Wind Forces for Collinear Antenna, F(kN) of Self Supporting Tower
cxvi
Wind Collinear @ Elev. 45m Wind Collinear @ Elev.
Angle Angle 45m
Fx Fz My Fx Fz My
0° 3.632 - - 180° -3.362 - -
- 0.00 - 0.00
45° 2.568 - - 225° -2.568 - -
- 2.568 - -2.568
90° 0.00 - - 270° 0.00 - -
- 3.632 - -3.632
135º -2.568 - - 315° 2.568 - -
Table - 2.568 - -2.56 4-17
Summary of Wind Forces for Collinear Antenna, F(kN) of Guyed Tower
Wind Collinear Antenna (@ Elev. 45m)
Direction Fx Fz My
2.6952 2.6952 -
0 degree
2.6952 - 1.9058
2.6952 1.9058 1.9058
45 degree
2.6952 - 2.6952
Table 4-18 Summary of Wind Forces for Microwave Antenna, F(kN) of Monopole Tower
Collinear Microwave (@ Elev. 30m)
Wind Angle
Fx Fz My
0.2684 -
0 degree 0
- -
0.2973 -
45 degree -0.0387
- 4.1264
cxvii
4.6 Design Process of Telecommunication Tower
cxviii
Figure 4-13 Design Process for Wind Load Analysis of Self Supporting Tower
cxix
4.6.1 Design A (Self Supporting Tower)
This section illustrates the design results of the Self Supporting Tower. The structure shall be designed to
resist the load combinations.
4.6.1.1 Final Sections, Maximum Displacements and Reactions

Table 4-19 Final Sections Summary for Self Supporting Tower
cxx
4.6.2 Design B (Guyed Tower)
This section illustrates the design results of the Guyed Tower. The structure shall be designed to resist the
load combinations.

Table 4-22 Final Sections Summary for Guyed Tower
Elevatio
Bar STAAD Section (D x t)
Member n
Number Name (m x m)
(m)
0-25 4-6 PIPE 0.6 x 0.3
Member
25-45 1-3 PIPE 0.6 x 0.3
Table 4-23 Maximum Node Displacements for Guyed Tower

Horizon Vertic Horizon Resulta
tal al tal nt
Node L/C
X mm Y mm Z mm mm
Max X 2 107 1.2DL+WL+LL 65.802 -0.202 0.35 65.803
Min X 1 1 DEAD LOAD 0 0 0 0
Max Y 2 4 WLZ ON ANTENNA 0 0 0.362 0.362
Min Y 2 105 1.4DL 0 -0.236 -0.015 0.237
Max Z 2 4 WLZ ON ANTENNA 0 0 0.362 0.362
Min Z 2 105 1.4DL 0 -0.236 -0.015 0.237
Table 4-24 Maximum Reactions for Guyed Tower

Horizon Vertica Horizon
tal l tal
Node L/C
Fx kN Fy kN Fz kN
Max
Fx 8 105 1.4DL 0.264 0.613 0
Min Fx 1 107 1.2DL+WL+LL -2142.74 3800.212 -3.933
Max
Fy 1 105 1.4DL 0 4433.965 0.449
Min Fy 9 5 WLX ON TOWER -20.675 -41.927 0
Max
Fz 1 105 1.4DL 0 4433.965 0.449
Min Fz 1 4 WLZ ON ANTENNA 0 -0.33 -4.318
cxxi
4.6.3 Design C (Monopole Tower)
This section illustrates the design results of the Monopole Tower. The structure shall be designed to resist
the load combinations.

Table 4-25 Final Sections Summary for Monopole Tower
Elevatio
Member n
Number Name (m x m)
(m)
0-25 1 PIPE 3x1/2
Member
25-45 2 PIPE 3x1/2
Table 4-26 Maximum
Node
Displacements for Monopole Tower
Horizon Vertic Horizon Resulta
tal al tal nt
Node L/C
X mm Y mm Z mm mm
Max X 2 107 1.2DL + WL + LL 178.952 -0.202 2.641 178.972
Min X 1 1 DEAD LOAD 0 0 0 0
Max Y 1 1 DEAD LOAD 0 0 0 0
Min Y 2 105 1.4DL 0 -0.236 0 0.236
Max Z 2 4 WLZ ON ANTENNA 0 0 2.641 2.641
Min Z 1 1 DEAD LOAD 0 0 0 0
Table 4-27 Maximum Reactions for Monopole Tower

Horizon Vertica Horizon
tal l tal
Node L/C
Fx kN Fy kN Fz kN
Max
Fx 1 1 DEAD LOAD 0 1357.513 0
Min Fx 1 107 1.2DL + WL + LL -1313.79 1629.016 -7.895
Max
Fy 1 105 1.4DL 0 1900.518 0
Min Fy 1 2 LIVE LOAD -2.199 0 0
Max
Fz 1 1 DEAD LOAD 0 1357.513 0
cxxii
Min Fz 1 4 WLZ ON ANTENNA 0 0 -7.895
cxxiii
4.6.4 Design Process of Foundation
Figure 4-14 Design Process of Foundation
cxxiv
4.6.4.1 Design Inputs in CSI Safe v.12
Table 4-28 Material Properties
Materials Properties
Strength of Concrete (f’c) 20.7
Yield strength of main reinforcement 415 MPa
(Fy)
Young Modulus of Concrete 4700√ f ' c
Table 4-29 Slab Data for Self Supporting Tower

Slab Data (Footing Data)
Thickness 650 mm
Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity 150 KN/m²
Subgrade Modulus (Unit Weight of Soil) 16 KN/m³
Along X Direction
Left Edge Distance 1.7 m
Right Edge Distance 1.7 m
Number of Span/s 1 span
Spacing 6m
Along Y Direction
Spacing 6m
Table 4-30 Slab Data for Guyed Tower

Thickness 500 mm
Along X Direction
Left Edge Distance 1m
Right Edge Distance 1m
Spacing 0m
Along Y Direction
Left Edge Distance 1m
Right Edge Distance 1m
cxxv
Spacing 0m
Table 4-31 Slab Data for Monopole Tower

Thickness 500 mm
Along X Direction
Spacing 0m
Along Y Direction
Spacing 0m
Table 4-32
Column Data
for Self
Supporting
Tower
Column Data
Column Size 0.5 m x 0.5 m
Dead Load 1460.981 kN
Live Load 99 kN
Table 4-33 Column Data for Guyed Tower

Column Data
Dead Load 490.0616 KN
Live Load 66 KN
Table 4-34 Column Data for Monopole Tower

Column Data
Dead Load 1357.5129 KN
cxxvi
Live Load 66 KN
In Calculating the Design of Foundation, the designers used the software CSI Safe v.12 to obtain the most
accurate results.
cxxvii
Figure 4-15 Reinforcement Results Top and Bottom Rebar for Self-Supporting Tower
Figure 4-16 Reinforcement Results Top and Bottom Rebar for Guyed Tower
cxxviii
Figure 4-17 Reinforcement Results Top and Bottom Rebar for Monopole Tower
4.6.5 Design Process of Base Plate
4.6.5.1 Base Plate
The Base Plate is evaluated by the Allowable Concrete Stress.
A1= Area of Base Plate

P DL=Dead Load ( Axial)
P¿ =Live Load ( Axial)
In calculating the Base Plate size, the designers used the software MS Excel to obtain the most accurate
results. The table below show the Design Inputs
Table 4-35 Material Properties on Base Plates

Materials Properties
Design Inputs Self Supporting Tower Guyed Tower Monopole Tower
Dead Load 1460.981 N 3168.887 kN 4977.546
Live Load 99 kN 66 kN 66 kN
F’c 20.7 MPa 20.7 MPa 20.7 MPa
Fy 415 MPa 415 MPa 415 MPa
4.6.5.2 Design Result of Base

Plates
Table 4-36 Design Result of Base Plates

Self Supporting Guyed Tower Monopole
Tower Tower
Base Plate Size 600 mm x 500 mm 1.5 m x 1.5 m 900 mm x 900 mm
Thickness of Base Plate 50 mm 50 mm 50 mm
Size of Fillet Weld 6 mm 8 mm 8 mm
Diameter of Anchor Bolts 50 mm Ø 50 mm Ø 50 mm Ø
Number of Anchor Bolts 2 12 8
Number of Base and 4 1 1
Pedestal
cxxix
4.7 Design Process of
Welded Connection
In this section, the design of

welded connection will be
displayed. The designers used
the welded type connection for
this project because it is
faster to install in terms of
construction and its more
durable rather than using bolted
type connection. The
welded type of connection is also
more economical than
the bolted type.
cxxx
Figure 4-18 Design Process of Welded Connection
4.7.1 Shielded Metal Arc Welding Process

(SMAW)
Shielded Metal Arc Welding Process is a

manual arc welding processes that uses a
consumable electrode covered with a
flux to lay the weld. This is the type of welding
cxxxi
process the designers chose. It is the simplest, least expensive, and mostly widely used arc welding
process. This process produces coalescence of metals by heating them with an arc between a covered
metal electrode and the base metal work piece. Shielding is provided by decomposition of the electrode
covering. The main function of the shielding is to protect the arc and the hot metal from chemical reaction
with constituents of the atmosphere.
Figure 4-19 Shielded Metal Arc Welding
4.7.3 Fillet Weld
The type of Weld used by the designers for connecting the horizontal and diagonal members of the tower is
by filleting. This type of weld is usually used for structural connections.
Figure 4-20 Fillet Weld Type
4.7.3.2 Size of Fillet Welds
The designers used the maximum size of fillet weld for this project.
Table 4-37 Maximum Size of Fillet Welds

Material Thickness Maximum Size of Fillet Welds
< 6 mm Not greater than thickness of material
> 6 mm Not greater than thickness of material minus 1.6
mm
4.7.3.3 Design Result of Size of Fillet Weld
The designers used E60 electrode with a minimum tensile strength of 415 Mpa.
cxxxii
Table 4-38 Design Result of of Size of Fillet Weld
Size of Fillet Weld
Horizontal Members 8 mm
Self Supporting
Diagonal Members 6 mm
Guyed Top Member 10 mm
Monopole Top Member 10 mm
4.8
Design of
Guy
Wires
The
designers used software Guy Wire Calculator to obtain estimate results for the number and sizes of guy
wires in each level. The table also shows the estimate summary of guy takeoffs including the turnbuckles,
preforms, sleeves, thimbles, shackles and wire lengths.
Table 4-39 Design of Guy Wires

Turnbuckles
Level EL Anch # Wires Guy Size Type Qty
Pos Size
cxxxiii
1 16.4 Inner 3 1/4 1/2 x 12 J-E 3
2 32.8 Inner 3 5/16 5/8 x 12 J-E 3
3 49.2 Inner 3 3/8 5/8 x 12 J-E 3
4 65.6 Outer 3 7/16 3/4 x 12 J-E 3
5 82 Outer 3 1/2 7/8 x 12 J-E 3
6 98.4 Outer 3 9/16 7/8 x 12 J-E 3
Table 4-40 Design of Guy Takeoff

Sleeves Thimbles Shackles Wire Lengths
Level Size Qty Size Qty Size Qty A B C Total
1 1/4 6 3/8 HVY 6 5/8 3 17 17 17 51
2 5/16 6 3/8 HVY 6 5/8 3 34 34 34 102
3 3/8 6 1/2 HVY 6 5/8 3 52 52 52 156
4 7/16 6 1/2 HVY 6 5/8 3 69 69 69 207
5 1/2 6 5/8 HVY 6 7/8 3 86 86 86 258
6 9/16 6 5/8 HVY 6 7/8 3 103 103 103 309
cxxxiv
4.9 Design Methodology of Geotechnical Tradeoffs
The figure below shows the project design methodology to illustrate the systematic process in designing the
ground improvement of the location.
Figure 4-
21
Design
Methodology of Geotechnical Tradeoffs
cxxxv
4.10 Design Process of Dynamic Compaction
Figure 4-22
Design Process of Dynamic Compaction
cxxxvi
4.10.1 Design A (Dynamic Compaction)

Table 4-41 Dynamic Compaction Parameters for Self Supporting Tower
Dynamic Compaction Parameters
Estimated Specific Energy 800 kJ/m3
Tamper Weight 3.3 ton (32.88 kN)
Tamper Width 0.7m
Dropping Height 5m
Grid Spacing 1.75m
Layer Thickness 1.5m
Total Number of Blows 2
Table 4-42 Design Inputs for Self Supporting Tower

Design Inputs in GEO5
Width of Pile 7m
Length of Pile 4.5m
Pile Head Offset 0m
Depth of finish grade 0m
Thickness of Layer 1.5m
Dead Load - 1147.4891kN
Load
Live Load - 66kN
The figures below show the verification of design for each tradeoff showing the vertical bearing capacity
and
settlement.
cxxxvii
4.10.1.2
Guyed
Tower
Table 4-43 Dynamic Compaction Parameters for Guyed Tower
Tamper Width 0.7m
Dropping Height 5m
Grid Spacing 1.25m
Table 4-44 Design Inputs for Guyed Tower

Width of Pile 2.5m
Length of Pile 4.5m
Pile Head Offset 0m
Load
Live Load - 66kN
and
cxxxviii
settlement.

Table 4-45 Dynamic Compaction Parameters for Monopole Tower
Tamper Width 0.7m
Dropping Height 5m
Grid Spacing 1.025m
Table 4-46 Design Inputs for Monopole Tower

Width of Pile 4.1m
Length of Pile 4.5m
Pile Head Offset 0m
Load
Live Load - 66kN
cxxxix
and
settlement.
Using the settlement for Guyed Tower as the governing structural tradeoff,
cxl
TRADEOFF SETTLEMENT (mm)
Dynamic Compaction (Guyed Tower) 3.4mm
cxli
4.11 Design Process of Dynamic Replacement
Figure 4-23 Design Process of Dynamic Replacement
4.11.1 Design B (Dynamic Replacement)
4.11.1.1 Self- Supporting

Tower
Table 4-47 Dynamic Replacement
Parameters for Self Supporting
Tower
Dynamic Replacement Parameters
Tamper Width 0.7m
Dropping Height 5m
Grid Spacing 1.75m

Width of Pile 7m
Length of Pile 4.5m
Pile Head Offset 0m
Load
Live Load - 66kN
and settlement.
cxlii
4.11.1.2 Guyed Tower
Table 4-49 Dynamic Replacement Parameters for Self Supporting Tower
Tamper Width 0.7m
Dropping Height 5m
Grid Spacing 1.25m

Width of Pile 2.5m
Length of Pile 4.5m
Pile Head Offset 0m
cxliii
Dead Load - 490.0616 kN
Load
Live Load - 66kN
and
settlement.
4.11.1.3
Monopole
Tower
Table 4-51 Dynamic Replacement Parameters for Self Supporting Tower
Tamper Width 0.7m
Dropping Height 5m
cxliv
Grid Spacing 1.025m

Width of Pile 4.1m
Length of Pile 4.5m
Pile Head Offset 0m
Load
Live Load - 66kN
cxlv
Dynamic Replacement (Guyed Tower) 3.6mm
4.12 Design Process of Compaction Grouting
cxlvi
Figure 4-24 Design Process of Compaction Grouting
4.12.1 Design C (Compaction Grouting)

Table 4-53 Compaction Grouting Parameters for Self Supporting Tower
Compaction Grouting Parameters
Jet Grout Column Diameter 0.5m
Width of Pile Cap (x) 7m
Width of Pile Cap (y) 7m
Length of Column 3m
Jet Grout Column Target Strength 150 MPa
Average Angle of Internal Friction 35.3

Number of Piles (x and y) 9
Pile Diameter 0.5m
Spacing of Piles (x and y) 3m
Thickness of Pile Cap 1m
Length of Pile 3m
Load
Live Load - 66kN
cxlvii
and
settlement.
4.12.1.2 Guyed Tower

Width of Pile Cap (x) 2.5m
Width of Pile Cap (y) 2.5m
Length of Column 3m

Pile Diameter 0.5m
Length of Pile 3m
cxlviii
Load Dead Load - 490.0616 kN
Live Load - 66kN
cxlix

Width of Pile Cap (x) 4.1m
Width of Pile Cap (y) 4.1m
Length of Column 3m

Pile Diameter 0.5m
Length of Pile 3m
Load
Live Load - 66kN
cl

Compaction Grouting (Guyed Tower) 3.94mm
cli
4.13 Final Estimated Trade-off Values
The table below shows the summary of final estimated values for each trade-off which will be used in
computing for the subordinate ranking based on the applicable constraints. The detailed calculation of the
values obtained can be seen in the Final Estimate (Appendix B) of this paper.
Table 4-59 Final Estimates of Structural Tradeoffs
Importance
Structural Trade-offs Factor (on a
scale of 0-10)
Constraint
Self- Supporting
Guyed Tower Monopole Tower
Tower
Risk Assessment
(Structural Drift – 153.804 65.809 178.972 10
mm)
Economic
2,643,067.29 1,682,206.03 1,147,049.03 9
(Cost - Php)
Constructability
107 61 58 8
(Duration – Days)
Sustainability
(Maintenance Cost- 132,153.365 168,220.603 1,147,049.03 7
Php)
clii
Table 4-60 Final Estimates of Geotechnical Tradeoffs
Geotechnical Trade-offs Constraint
Constraint Dynamic Dynamic Compaction
Risk Assessment
3.4 mm 3.6 mm 3.94 mm 10
(Settlement – mm)
Economic
460,778.50 537,945.50 640,195.50 9
(Cost - Php)
Constructability
14 16 18 8
(Duration – Days)
Sustainability
(Maintenance Cost –
27,646.71 32,276.73 38,411.73 7
Php)
4.13.1 Raw Ranking for Structural Tradeoffs
Table 4-61:Final Estimated Value for Risk Assessment Constraint

Risk Assessment
(Structural Drift – 153.804 65.809 178.972
mm)
178.972−65.809
% Difference= x 10
178.972
% Difference=6.32 %
cliii
Figure 4-25 Subordinate Rank of MonopoleTower Plotted in a Rank Line
Guyed Tower vs Self-Supporting Tower
153.804−65.809
% Difference= x 10
153.804
% Difference=5.72 %

Table 4-62: Final Estimated Value for Economic Constraint
Economic
2,643,067.29 1,682,206.03 1,147,049.03
(Cost - PHP)
Subordinate Rank 4.34 6.82 10
Monopole Tower vs Self Supporting Tower
2,643,067.29−1,147,049.03
% Difference= x 10
2,643,067.29
% Difference=5.66 %
cliv
Monopole Tower vs. Guyed Tower
1,682,206.03−1,147,049.03
% Difference= x 10
1,682,206.03
% Difference=3.18 %
Figure 4-28 Subordinate Rank of GuyedTower Plotted in a Rank Line
Table 4-63 Final Estimated Value for Constructability Constraint

Constructability
(Duration - 107 61 58
Months)
Subordinate Rank 5.42 9.51 10
clv
Monopole Tower vs. Self-Supporting Tower
107−58
% Difference= x 10
107
% Difference=4.58 %
61−58
% Difference= x 10
61
% Difference=0.49 %
clvi
The designers made an estimate of the maintenance cost to determine the improvement configuration.
Table 4-64:Final Estimated Value for Sustainability Constraint
Sustainability
(Maintenance Cost- 132,153.365 168,220.603 1,147,049.03
Php)
Self-Supporting Tower vs Guyed Tower
168,220.603−132,153.365
% Difference= x 10
168,220.603
% Difference=2.14 %
1,147,049.03−132,153.365
% Difference= x 10
1,147,049.03
% Difference=8.85 %
clvii
Table 4-65 Designers’ Raw Ranking for Structural Tradeoffs

Factor (on a Self-Supporting
Constraints Guyed Tower Monopole Tower
scale of 0-10) Tower
Risk Assessment
(Structural Drift 10 4.28 10 3.68
– mm)
Economic
9 4.34 6.82 10
(Cost - Php)
Constructability
(Duration – 8 5.42 9.51 10
Days)
Sustainability
(Maintenance 7 10 7.76 1.15
Cost-Php)
Overall Ranking 204.34 308.805 211.055
4.13.2 Raw Ranking of Geotechnical Tradeoffs
Table 4-66 FinalEstimated Value for Risk Assessment Constraint

Description
clviii
Risk Assessment
(Structural Drift – 3.4 mm 3.6 mm 3.94 mm
mm)
3.6−3.4
% Difference= x 10
3.6
% Difference=0.56 %
Dynamic Compaction vs Compaction Grouting
3.94−3.4
% Difference= x 10
3.94
% Difference=1.37 %
clix
Table 4-67:Final Estimated Value for Economic Constraint

Description
Economic
460,778.50 537,945.50 640,195.50
(Cost - Php)
537,945.50−460,778.50
% Difference= x 10
537,945.50
% Difference=1.43 %
SubordinateRank=10−1.43
SubordinateRank=8.57
clx
Dynamic Replacement vs Compaction Grouting
640,195.50−460,778.50
% Difference= x 10
640,195.50
% Difference=2.80 %
SubordinateRank=10−2.80
SubordinateRank=7.20

Table 4-68: Final Estimated Value for Constructability Constraint
Description
Constructability
14 16 18
(Duration - Days)
clxi
16−14
% Difference= x 10
16
% Difference=1.25 %
Dynamic Compaction vs. Compaction Grouting
18−14
% Difference= x 10
18
% Difference=2.22 %

Table 4-69:Final Estimated Value for Economic Constraint
Description
clxii
Economic
27,646.71 32,276.73 38,411.73
(Cost - Php)
32,276.73−27,646.71
% Difference= x 10
32,276.73
% Difference=1.43 %
Dynamic Replacement vs Compaction Grouting
38,411.73−27,646.71
% Difference= x 10
38,411.73
% Difference=2.80 %
clxiii

Constraints
Risk Assessment
(Settlement – 10 10 9.44 8.63
mm)
Economic
9 10 9.30 7.54
(Cost - Php)
Constructability
(Duration – 8 10 8.75 7.78
Days)
Sustainability
(Maintenance
7 10 9.30 7.54
Cost -Php)
Overall Ranking 340.000 312.715 267.665
4.14 Tradeoffs Assessment
4.14.1 Tradeoffs Assessment for Structural Tradeoffs
4.14.1.1 Risk Assessment (Structural Drift)

Table 4-71 Risk Assessment for Structural Tradeoffs
Trade-Off Final Estimate Subordinate Rank
Self-Supporting Tower 153.804 mm 4.28
Guyed Tower 65.809 mm 10
Monopole Tower 178.972 3.68
In this criterion, it can be seen in the table that the governing tradeoff is the Guyed Tower with the lowest
node displacement of 65.809 mm. Whereas, the Self Supporting Tower succeeded the aforementioned
tradeoff design with a node displacement of 153.804 mm and the design tradeoff with the highest node
displacement of 178.972 mm is the Monopole Tower. Thus, the design tradeoff that presents the most
structurally safe design with the smallest node displacement is the Guyed Tower.
4.14.1.2 Economic (Project Cost)

Table 4-72 Economical Assessment for Structural Tradeoffs
clxiv
Self-Supporting Tower 2,643,067.29 4.34
Guyed Tower 1,682,206.03 10
Monopole Tower 1,147,049.03 6.82
The table reveals the estimated cost of the structure for each tradeoff where the Monopole Tower presents
the least estimated value that govern the criterion with a value of Php 1,147,049.03. Moreover, the Guyed
Tower with an estimated structure cost of Php 1,682,206.03 seconded it while the most expensive among
the three tradeoffs is the Self Supporting Tower that offered an estimated structure cost of Php
2,643,067.29. Therefore, the most economic tradeoff design is Monopole Tower having the least estimated
structure cost.
4.14.1.3 Constructability (Duration of the Project)

Table 4-73 Constructability Assessment for Structural Tradeoffs
Self-Supporting Tower 107 5.42
Guyed Tower 61 9.51
Monopole Tower 58 10
It can be gleaned in the table that the governing Tradeoff Design is Monopole Tower with an estimated
duration of construction of 58 days. Where, it was followed by the Guyed Tower having an estimated
duration of construction of 61 days and obtaining a total of 107 days of construction for the Self Supporting
Tower. Hence, having the least number of days for construction presents the most feasible mode of tower
system which is the Monopole Tower.
4.14.1.4 Sustainability (Maintenance Cost)

Table 4-74 Sustainability Assessment for Structural Tradeoffs
Self-Supporting Tower 132,153.37 10
Guyed Tower 168,220.60 7.76
Monopole Tower 1,147,049.03 1.15
The table shows the estimated maintenance cost of the structure for each tradeoff where the Self
Supporting Tower presents the least estimated value that govern the criterion with a value of Php
132,153.37. Moreover, the Guyed Tower with an estimated structure cost of Php 168,220.60 seconded it
while with the highest maintenance cost among the three tradeoffs is the Monopole Tower that offered an
estimated maintenance cost of Php 1,147,049.03. Therefore, the most sustainable tradeoff design is Self
Supporting Tower having the least estimated maintenance cost.
clxv
4.14.2 Tradeoffs Assessment for Geotechnical Tradeoffs
4.14.2.1 Risk Assessment (Soil Settlement)

Table 4-75 Risk Assessment for Geotechnical Tradeoffs
Dynamic Compaction 3.4 mm 10
Dynamic Replacement 3.6 mm 9.44
Compaction Grouting 3.94 mm 8.63
In this criterion, it can be seen in the table that the governing tradeoff is the Dynamic Compaction with the
lowest soil settlement of 3.4 mm. Whereas, the Dynamic Replacement succeeded the aforementioned
tradeoff design with a soil settlement of 3.6 mm and the design tradeoff with the highest soil settlement of
3.94 mm is the Compaction Grouting. Thus, the design tradeoff that presents the safest design with the
smallest soil settlement is the Dynamic Compaction.
4.14.2.2 Economic (Project Cost)

Table 4-76 Economical Assessment for Geotechnical Tradeoffs
Dynamic Compaction 460,778.50 10
Dynamic Replacement 537,945.50 8.57
Compaction Grouting 640,195.50 7.20
The table reveals the estimated cost of the soil improvement for each tradeoff where the Dynamic
Compaction presents the least estimated value that govern the criterion with a value of Php 1460,778.50.
Moreover, the Dynamic Replacement with an estimated structure cost of Php 537,945.50 seconded it while
wih the highest value among the three tradeoffs is the Compaction Grouting that offered an estimated cost
of Php 640,195.50. Therefore, the most economic tradeoff design is Dynamic Compaction having the least
estimated cost.
4.14.2.3 Constructability (Duration of the Project)

Table 4-77 Constructability Assessment for Geotechnical Tradeoffs
Dynamic Compaction 14 10
Dynamic Replacement 16 8.75
Compaction Grouting 18 7.78
It can be gleaned in the table that the governing Tradeoff Design is Dynamic Compaction with an estimated
duration of 14 days. Where, it was followed by the Dynamic Replacement having an estimated duration of
16 days and obtaining a total of 18 days of duration for the Compaction Grouting. Hence, having the least
number of days for soil improvement presents the most feasible which is the Dynamic Compaction.
clxvi
4.14.2.4 Sustainability (Maintenance Cost)
Table 4-78 Sustainability Assessment for Geotechnical Tradeoffs
Dynamic Compaction 27,646.71 10
Dynamic Replacement 32,276.73 8.57
Compaction Grouting 38,411.73 7.20
The table shows the estimated maintenance cost for each tradeoff where the Dynamic Compaction
presents the least estimated value that govern the criterion with a value of Php 27,646.71. Moreover, the
Dynamic Replacement with an estimated structure cost of Php 32,276.73 seconded it while with the highest
maintenance cost among the three tradeoffs is the Compaction Grouting that offered an estimated
maintenance cost of Php 38,411.73. Therefore, the most sustainable tradeoff design is Dynamic
Compaction having the least estimated maintenance cost.
4.15 Influence of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards
Having the effects of multiple constraints, the designers have come up with the final design for each trade-
off considering the influences of the constraints. The effects of the constraints are very significant in the
design for it will solve the problems regarding the concern of expenses, safety, duration and maintenance
cost.
4.15.1 Comparison of Final Estimates for Structural Tradeoffs
4.15.1.1 Comparison of Final Estimates for Risk Assessment Constraint
153.8 178.97
100.00
80.00 65.81
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
Deflection (mm)
Self Supporting Guyed Monopole
clxvii
Figure 4-41 Graphical Comparison of Structural Safety Constraint
The figure above shows the difference in the structure’s safety in terms of its maximum node deflection in
millimeters due to the different load combinations applied to the structure. The governing trade-off is the
Guyed Tower having the least maximum node displacement as shown in the figure above which 65.809
mm compared to the other two trade-offs, Monopole having 178.972 mm and Self Supporting having
153.804 mm. It indicates that the over-all stiffness of the Guyed is higher than of the two other bracing
system. Wind and Earthquake loads are the primary loadings that caused these node displacements.
The least stiff design was found to be the Monopole having a total node displacement of 178.972 mm. The
difference from the stiffest design trade-off and the least stiff design is 113.163 mm.
4.15.1.1 Comparison of Final Estimates for Economical Constraint
₱5,000,000.00
₱4,500,000.00
₱4,000,000.00
₱3,500,000.00 2,643,067.29
₱3,000,000.00
₱2,500,000.00 1,682,206.03
₱2,000,000.00 1,147,049.03
₱1,500,000.00
₱1,000,000.00
₱500,000.00
₱0.00
Cost (Php)
Figure 4-42 Graphical Comparison of Economic Constraint

The figure above shows the comparison of each trade-offs with respect to their total construction cost. The
governing trade-off for being the most economic design is Monopole since it has the cheapest design
among the other trade-offs that costs Php 1,147,049.03, compared to the Guyed and Self Supporting.
The least economical design for this project is the Self Supporting that costs Php 2,643,067.29 which is
Php 1,496,018.26 more expensive than Monopole. The detailed evaluation of the final cost estimates for
each trade-off can be located in Appendix B of this paper.
clxviii
4.15.1.1 Comparison of Final Estimates for Constructability Constraint
107
90 61
80 58
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Duration (days)
Figure 4-43 Graphical Comparison of Constructability Constraint
The figure above shows the comparison of each trade-off with respect to their total construction duration in
terms of days. It is indicated in the figure that the governing trade-off is the Monopole for having the least
days of construction to complete the project being 58 days compared to Guyed and Self Supporting.
The latest project duration is the Self Supporting having 107 days to complete the construction of the
project. It has a difference of 49 days from the fastest project duration trade-off.
clxix
4.15.1.1 Comparison of Final Estimates for Sustainability Constraint
₱5,000,000.00
₱4,500,000.00
₱4,000,000.00
₱3,500,000.00
₱3,000,000.00
₱2,500,000.00
₱2,000,000.00 1,147,049.03
₱1,500,000.00
₱1,000,000.00 132,153.37 168,220.60
₱500,000.00
₱0.00
Cost (Php)
Figure 4-44 Graphical Comparison of Sustainability Constraint

The figure above indicates the comparison of each trade-off with respect to their approximate maintenance
cost. It is shown in the figure that the governing trade-off is the Self Supporting having the lowest cost value
for the maintenance of structure, compared to Guyed with Php 168,220.60 and to Monopole with Php
1,147,049.03.
The trade-off with the highest maintenance cost for this project was found to be Monopole.. It has a
difference of Php 1,014,895.66 from the lowest maintenance cost amount. Hence, the best trade-off in
terms of its maintenance cost is Self Supporting Tower.
clxx
4.15.2 Comparison of Final Estimates for Geotechnical Tradeoffs
4.15.2.1 Comparison of Final Estimates for Risk Assessment Constraint
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00 3.4 3.6 3.94
0.00
Settlement (mm)
Dynamic Compaction Dynamic Replacement

Compaction Grouting
Figure 4-45 Graphical Comparison of Structural Safety Constraint

The figure above shows the difference in the structure’s safety in terms of its soil settlement in millimeters
due to the maximum bearing capacity of the soil. The governing trade-off is the Dynamic Compaction
having the least settlement as shown in the figure above which 3.4 mm compared to the other two trade-
offs, Dynamic Replacement having 3.6 mm and Compaction Grouting having 3.94 mm
The least safe design was found to be Compaction Grouting having a soil settlement of 3.94 mm. The
difference from the safest design trade-off and the least safe design is 0.54 mm.
clxxi
4.15.2.1 Comparison of Final Estimates for Economical Constraint
₱5,000,000.00
₱4,500,000.00
₱4,000,000.00
₱3,500,000.00
₱3,000,000.00
₱2,500,000.00
₱2,000,000.00
₱1,500,000.00 460,778.50 537,945.50 640,195.50
₱1,000,000.00
₱500,000.00
₱0.00
Cost (Php)
Dynamic Compaction Dynamic Replacement Compaction Grouting
Figure 4-46 Graphical Comparison of Economic Constraint

The figure above shows the comparison of each trade-offs with respect to their total project cost. The
governing trade-off for being the most economic design is Dynamic Compaction since it has the cheapest
design among the other trade-offs that costs Php 460,778.50, compared to the Dynamic Replacement and
Compaction Grouting..
The least economical design for this project is the Compaction Grouting that costs Php 640,195.50 which is
Php 179,417 more expensive than Dynamic Compaction. The detailed evaluation of the final cost estimates
for each trade-off can be located in Appendix B of this paper.
4.15.2.1 Comparison of Final Estimates for Constructability Constraint
80
60
40 14 16 18
20
0
Duration (days)
Figure 4-47 Graphical Comparison of Constructability Constraint
clxxii
The figure above shows the comparison of each trade-off with respect to their total project duration in terms
of days. It is indicated in the figure that the governing trade-off is the Dynamic Compaction for having the
least days of construction to complete the project being 14 days compared to Dynamic Replacement and
Compaction Grouting.
The latest project duration is the Compaction Grouting having 18 days to complete the construction of the
project. It has a difference of 4 days from the fastest project duration trade-off.
4.15.2.1 Comparison of Final Estimates for Sustainability Constraint
₱5,000,000.00
₱4,500,000.00
₱4,000,000.00
₱3,500,000.00
₱3,000,000.00
₱2,500,000.00
₱2,000,000.00
₱1,500,000.00
₱1,000,000.00 27,646.71 32,276.73 38,411.73
₱500,000.00
₱0.00
Cost (Php)
Figure 4-48 Graphical Comparison of Sustainability Constraint

The figure above indicates the comparison of each trade-off with respect to their approximate maintenance
cost. It is shown in the figure that the governing trade-off is the Dynamic Compatioc having the lowest cost
value for the maintenance, compared to Dynamic Replacement with Php 32,276.73 and to Compaction
Grouting with Php 38,411.73.
The trade-off with the highest maintenance cost for this project was found to be Compaction Grouting.. It
has a difference of Php 10,765.02 from the lowest maintenance cost amount. Hence, the best trade-off in
terms of its maintenance cost is Dynamic Compaction.
clxxiii
4.16 Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity Analysis is defined as the technique used to determine how different values of an independent
variable will impact a particular dependent variable under a given set of assumptions. It is used within
specific boundaries that will depend on one or more input variables, such as the effect that changes in
interest rates will have on a bond's price. It is also known as the “what if” analysis. Sensitivity analysis can
be used for any activity or system.
A Sensitivity Analysis is conducted right after the validation of each trade-off wherein the designer will come
up a question about – what if the importance factor of each constraint values were changed? If the
variables deviate from expectations, what will be the effects on the system, and which variables, dependent
or independent will likely cause the largest deviations? If the criterion’s importance factor is to be changed,
does it affects the design of the project? For such case, the designers come up with a sensitivity analysis
wherein each constraint will be evaluated by changing the importance factor value of each criterion in
different cases.
4.16.1 Sensitivity Analysis for Structural Tradeoffs
4.16.1.1 Case 1: Economical Vs Constructability
Money is one of the essential considerations in tower design; this table illustrates the effect of the
incremented cost to the number of days of construction. The basis of the decreased number of days is the
increase of labor workers. The increment value used for all cases is 2%.
Table 4-79 Cost Increased and Duration for Each Structural Trade-offs
Target Self-Supporting Tower Guyed Tower Monopole Tower
Increased Duration Duration Duration
Cost (Php) Cost (Php) Cost (Php)
% (Days) (Days) (Days)
0% ₱2,643,067.29 107 ₱1,682,206.03 61 ₱1,147,049.03 58
5% ₱2,775,220.56 102 ₱1,766,316.33 58 ₱1,204,401.48 56
10% ₱2,907,374.02 97 ₱1,850,426,63 55 ₱1,261,753.93 53
15% ₱3,039,527.29 91 ₱1,934,536.94 52 ₱1,319,106.39 50
20% ₱3,171,680.75 86 ₱2,018,647.24 49 ₱1,376,458.84 47
25% ₱3,303,834.11 81 ₱2,102,757.54 46 ₱1,433,811.29 44
clxxiv
ECONOMIC vs. SUSTAINABILITY
120
100
80 Self Supporting
Duration (days)
Guyed
60 Monopole
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 4-49 Summary of Comparison on Cost vs Duration

As the estimated price for a tower increases, the duration of the project construction decreases. It has an
inverse relationship between the cost and the duration of the project because the more budget for the
project means more capability to hire more workers to speed-up the construction of the project. If the cost
(budget) will increase by 10%, the construction duration will drop down to more than half of the original
duration of the project.
4.16.1.2 Case 2: Economical Vs Sustainability
This table illustrates the effect of the incremented cost to the maintenance cost of the structure during
operation.
Table 4-80 Cost Increased for Structure and Maintenance for Each Structural Trade-offs
Increas Cost (Php) Maintenance Cost (Php) Maintenance Cost (Php) Maintenance
ed % Cost (Php) Cost (Php) Cost (Php)
0% ₱2,643,067.2 ₱132,153.36 ₱1,682,206. ₱168,220.60 ₱1,147,049.0 ₱1,147,049.0
9 5 03 3 3 3
5% ₱2,775,220.5 ₱138,761.03 ₱1,766,316. ₱176,631.63 ₱1,204,401.4 ₱1,204,401.4
6 33 8 8
10% ₱2,907,374.0 ₱145,368.70 ₱1,850,426, ₱185,042.66 ₱1,261,753.9 ₱1,261,753.9
2 63 3 3
15% ₱3,039,527.2 ₱151,976.37 ₱1,934,536. ₱193,453.69 ₱1,319,106.3 ₱1,319,106.3
9 94 9 8
20% ₱3,171,680.7 ₱158,584.04 ₱2,018,647. ₱201,864.72 ₱1,376,458.8 ₱1,376,458.8
5 24 4 4
clxxv
25% ₱3,303,834.1 ₱165,191.71 ₱2,102,757. ₱210,275.75 ₱2,102,757.5 ₱1,433,811.2
1 54 4 9

1,600,000.00
1,400,000.00
1,200,000.00
Maintenance Cost (Php)
1,000,000.00 Self Supporting

Guyed
800,000.00 Monopole
600,000.00
400,000.00
200,000.00
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 4-50 Summary of Comparison on Structure Cost vs Maintenance Cost
In terms of its sustainability tweaked with its cost, their relationship is directly proportional. As the cost
increases the maintenance cost increases as well. By having more cost to the project, a more standardized
or more durable material can be used for the project, as well as for the equipment and or facilities that will
prolong the service life of the project.
4.16.1.3 Case 3: Economical Vs Structural Safety
This table illustrates the effect of the incremented cost to the maximum displacement of the structure. The basis
of the decreased displacement is the increase of structural stiffness properties of the members.
Table 4-81 Cost Increased and Deflection for Each Structural Trade-offs
Increased Deflectio Deflectio Deflection
Cost (Php) Cost (Php) Cost (Php)
% n (mm) n (mm) (mm)
0% ₱2,643,067.29 153.804 ₱1,682,206.03 65.803 ₱1,147,049.03 178.972
5% ₱2,775,220.56 161.49 ₱1,766,316.33 69.09 ₱1,204,401.48 187.92
10% ₱2,907,374.02 169.18 ₱1,850,426,63 72.38 ₱1,261,753.93 196.87
15% ₱3,039,527.29 176.87 ₱1,934,536.94 75.67 ₱1,319,106.39 205.82
20% ₱3,171,680.75 184.56 ₱2,018,647.24 78.96 ₱1,376,458.84 214.77
25% ₱3,303,834.11 192.26 ₱2,102,757.54 82.25 ₱2,102,757.54 223.72
clxxvi
ECONOMIC vs. RISK ASSESSMENT
300
250
200 Self Supporting

Deflection (mm)
Guyed
150 Monopole
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 4-51 Summary of Comparison on Cost vs Deflection
Structural safety is in terms of millimeter deflection in this project. The deflections correspond to the weight
of the structure with the stiffness being constant for each structural member. By increasing the cost of the
project, it is capable of affording larger sections. The larger the section, the heavier the project and
therefore, there will be an increase to its deflections because of the increase in weight of the structural
members.
4.16.2 Sensitivity Analysis for Geotechnical Tradeoffs
4.16.2.1 Case 1: Economical Vs Constructability
Money is one of the essential considerations in geotechnical design; this table illustrates the effect of the
incremented cost to the number of days of construction. The basis of the decreased number of days is the
increase of labor workers. The increment value used for all cases is 2%.
Table 4-82 Cost Increased and Duration for Each Geotechnical Trade-offs
Target Dynamic Compaction Dynamic Replacement Compaction Grouting
Increased Cost (Php) Duration Cost (Php) Duration Cost (Php) Duration
% (Days) (Days) (Days)
0% ₱460,778.50 14 ₱537,945.50 16 ₱640,195.50 18
5% ₱483,817.43 14 ₱564,842.78 16 ₱672,205.28 18
10% ₱506,856.35 13 ₱591,740.05 15 ₱704,215.05 17
15% ₱529,895.28 12 ₱618,637.33 14 ₱736,224.83 16
20% ₱552,934.20 12 ₱645,534.60 13 ₱768,234.60 15
25% ₱575,973.13 11 ₱672,431.88 12 ₱800,244.38 14
clxxvii
ECONOMIC vs. CONSTRUTABILITY
20
18
16
14
Dynamic Compaction
Duration (days)
12 Dynamic Replacement
10 Compaction Grouuting
8
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 4-52 Summary of Comparison on Cost vs Duration
As the estimated price for a tower increases, the duration of the project construction decreases. It has an
inverse relationship between the cost and the duration of the project because the more budget for the
project means more capability to hire more workers to speed-up the construction of the project. If the cost
(budget) will increase by 10%, the construction duration will drop down to more than half of the original
duration of the project.
4.16.2.2 Case 2: Economical Vs Sustainability
This table illustrates the effect of the incremented project cost to the maintenance cost during service
condition.
Table 4-83 Cost Increased for Structure and Maintenance for Each Geotechnical Trade-offs
Increase Cost (Php) Maintenance Cost (Php) Maintenance Cost (Php) Maintenance
d% Cost (Php) Cost (Php) Cost (Php)
0% ₱460,778.50 ₱27,646.71 ₱537,945.5 ₱32,276.73 ₱460,778.50 ₱38,411.73
0
5% ₱483,817.43 ₱29,029.05 ₱564,842.7 ₱483,817.43
₱33,890.57 ₱40,332.32
8
10% ₱506,856.35 ₱30,411.38 ₱591,740.0 ₱506,856.35
₱35,504.40 ₱42,252.90
5
clxxviii
15% ₱529,895.28 ₱31,793.72 ₱618,637.3 ₱529,895.28
₱37,118.24 ₱44,173.49
3
20% ₱552,934.20 ₱33,176.05 ₱645,534.6 ₱552,934.20
₱38,732.08 ₱46,094.08
0
25% ₱575,973.13 ₱34,558.39 ₱672,431.8 ₱575,973.13
₱40,345.91 ₱48,014.66
8

60,000.00
50,000.00
Maintenance Cost (Php)
40,000.00 Dynamic Compaction

Dynamic Replacement
30,000.00 Compaction Grouting
20,000.00
10,000.00
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 4-53 Summary of Comparison on Project Cost vs Maintenance Cost
In terms of its sustainability tweaked with its cost, their relationship is directly proportional. As the project
cost increases the maintenance cost increases as well. By having more cost to the project, a more
standardized or more durable material can be used for the project, as well as for the equipment and or
facilities that will prolong the service life of the project.
4.16.2.3 Case 3: Economical Vs Structural Safety
This table illustrates the effect of the incremented cost to the maximum settlement of the soil. The basis of the
decreased settlement is the increase of structural stiffness properties of the foundation.
Table 4-84 Cost Increased and Settlement for Each Geotechnical Trade-offs
Increased Cost (Php) Settleme Cost (Php) Settleme Cost (Php) Settlement(
% nt(mm) nt(mm) mm)
0% ₱460,778.50 3.4 ₱537,945.50 3.6 ₱640,195.50 3.94
5% ₱483,817.43 3.57 ₱564,842.78 3.78 ₱672,205.28 4.14
clxxix
10% ₱506,856.35 3.74 ₱591,740.05 3.96 ₱704,215.05 4.33
15% ₱529,895.28 3.91 ₱618,637.33 4.14 ₱736,224.83 4.53
20% ₱552,934.20 4.08 ₱645,534.60 4.32 ₱768,234.60 4.73
25% ₱575,973.13 4.25 ₱672,431.88 4.50 ₱800,244.38 4.93
Figure 4-54 Summary of Comparison on Cost vs Deflection

Structural safety is in terms of millimeter settlement in this project. The settlement correspond to the
bearing capacity of the soil. By increasing the cost of the project, it is capable of affording larger sections.
The larger the section, the heavier the project and therefore, there will be an increase to weight of the
structural members that will increase the settlement of the soil.
clxxx
CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN
5.1 Final Design Project
This project aims to design an efficient tower with an economical cost. This assessment shows the
estimation made by the designers where the Guyed Tower resulted as the governing design for the
structural context and Dynamic
Compaction for the geotechnical
context. The Guyed Tower
surpassed the two other tradeoffs
for the structural context in the
final raw ranking. The study
wishes to design a tower that can
carry 12 aerial antennas and
efficient foundation
design. STAAD PRO V8i and
CSI SAFE 2014 was the
software used in designing the
structural aspect of the tower and
to evaluate the structural
integrity that has the ability to
clxxxi
withstand calamities and environmental hazards such as wind loads, earthquake loads, and dead loads
acting upon the structure. The Guyed Tower showed a maximum node deflection of 65.803. The foundation
was designed to accommodate the load of the tower and earthquake loads. From the overall analysis, the
designers determined that the Guyed Tower is the most appropriate tradeoff design to prevail. This project
also aims to design a strong ground which will have the ability to carry the load from the foundation and the
tower itself. The designers determined that the most efficient design for ground improvement is Dynamic
Compaction. It surpassed the two tradeoffs in terms of the economic and sustainable aspect according to
the final raw ranking made by the designers. For this project, Guyed Tower and Dynamic Compaction are
the prevailing designs to be used for the execution of this project.
5.2 Schedules and Details of Guyed Tower
All details from the governing structural tradeoff will be provided in this section.
5.2.1 Architectural Plan
clxxxii
clxxxiii
Figure 5-1 Architectural Plan of Guyed Tower
clxxxiv
5.2.2 Structural Plan
Figure 5-2 shows that the design tower was divided into three sections, where each was designated
different material properties in terms of angle bar dimensions. Dimensions are tabulated on Table 5-1 that
corresponds to the tower’s panel number and member criteria.
Elevatio
Member n
Number Name (m x m)
(m)
0-15 4-6 PIPE 0.6 x 0.3
Member
15-30 1-3 PIPE 0.6 x 0.3
Figure 5-2 Foundation Plan of

Guyed Tower
clxxxv
clxxxvi
5.2.3 Structure Line Diagram and Geometric Model
clxxxvii
Figure 5-3 Structure Line Diagram of Guyed Tower
5.3 Details of Dynamic Compaction
All details from the governing structural tradeoff will be provided in this section.
5.3.1 Dynamic Compaction Parameters and Inputs

Table 5-1 Final Design Dynamic Compaction Parameters
Tamper Width 0.7m
Dropping Height 5m
Grid Spacing 1.25m
Table 5-2 Final Design Dynamic Compaction Inputs

Width of Pile 2.5m
Length of Pile 4.5m
Pile Head Offset 0m
Load Dead Load - 490.0616kN
Live Load - 66kN
5.3.2 Bearing Capacity and Settlement
clxxxviii
5.3.2 Conclusion
This section illustrates the design results of the Guyed Tower. The final sections and details for the project
are shown below:
Table 5-3 Final Design of Guyed Tower
Elevatio
Member n
Number Name (m x m)
(m)
0-15 4-6 PIPE 0.6 x 0.3
Member
15-30 1-3 PIPE 0.6 x 0.3
Table 5-4 Final Guyed Wires Design

Turnbuckles Preforms
Level EL Anch # Wires Guy Size Type Qty Size Qty
Pos Size
1 16.4 Inner 3 1/4 1/2 x 12 J-E 3 1/4 6
clxxxix
2 32.8 Inner 3 5/16 5/8 x 12 J-E 3 5/16 6
3 49.2 Inner 3 3/8 5/8 x 12 J-E 3 3/8 6
4 65.6 Outer 3 7/16 3/4 x 12 J-E 3 7/16 6
5 82 Outer 3 1/2 7/8 x 12 J-E 3 1/2 6
6 98.4 Outer 3 9/16 7/8 x 12 J-E 3 9/16 6
Table 5-5 Final Guyed Wires Details

Sleeves Thimbles Shackles Wire Lengths
Level Size Qty Size Qty Size Qty A B C Total
1 1/4 6 3/8 HVY 6 5/8 3 17 17 17 51
2 5/16 6 3/8 HVY 6 5/8 3 34 34 34 102
3 3/8 6 1/2 HVY 6 5/8 3 52 52 52 156
4 7/16 6 1/2 HVY 6 5/8 3 69 69 69 207
5 1/2 6 5/8 HVY 6 7/8 3 86 86 86 258
6 9/16 6 5/8 HVY 6 7/8 3 103 103 103 309
Table 5-6 Dynamic Compaction Design for Guyed Tower

Dynamic Compaction
Tamper Width 0.7m
Dropping Height 5m
Grid Spacing 1.25m
Width of Pile 2.5m
Length of Pile 4.5m
Pile Head Offset 0m
cxc
APPENDIX A - INITIAL ESTIMATE
A.1 STRUCTURAL TRADEOFF
A.1.1 SELF SUPPORTING TOWER
SELF- SUPPORTING TOWER

MATERIALS / QTY UNIT UNIT COST (PHP) TOTAL COST
WORK (PHP)
DESCRIPTION
STEEL WORKS
Angle Bars, 6mm 670 pc 1386.00/pc 928,620.00
thick x 50 mm x 50
mm x 6 m
Splice Cleat Angle, 8 pc 130.00/pc 1,040.00
8 mm x 90 mm x 90
mm
10 mm x 90 mm x
90 mm
12 mm x 130 mm x
130 mm
10 mm x 110 mm x
110 mm
Splice Cleat Plate, 8 32 pc 150.00/pc 4,800.00
cxci
mm x 80 mm x 351
mm
mm x 50 mm x 150
mm
Splice Cleat Plate, 16 pc 170.00/pc 2,720.00
10 mm x 140 mm x
530 mm
12 mm x 120 mm x
470 mm
12 mm x 272 mm x
470 mm
12 mm x 120 mm x
470 mm
Splice Cleat Plate, 4 8 pc 120.00/pc 960.00
mm x 110 mm x
260 mm
mm x 190 mm x
230 mm
mm x 120 mm x
470 mm
Gusset Plate, 6 mm 16 pc 60.27/pc 964.32
x 271 mm x 201
mm
Gusset Plate, 6 mm 80 pc 60.27/pc 4,821.6
x 271 mm x 328
mm
x 225 mm x 235
mm
x 225 mm x 240
mm
cxcii
x 225 mm x 255
mm
x 205 mm x 401
mm
Batten Plate, 12 16 pc 4,542.00/pc 72,672.00
mm x 272 mm x
100 mm
Base Plate, 25 mm 4 pc 4,490.00/pc 17,960.00
x 450 mm x 450
mm
Foundation Bolt 48 pc 43.75/pc 2,100.00
CONSTRUCTION WORKS
Welder 7 Person 170917.00/year 1,196,419.00
Construction 5 Person 230,076.00/year 1,150,380.00
Worker
Steelman 5 Person 158,592.00/year 792,960.00
LAND COST
Lot 100 Square meters 8982.00/sq.m. 898200.00
TOTAL COST 5,097,976.92
A.1.2 GUYED TOWER
GUYED TOWER
WORK (PHP)
DESCRIPTION
STEEL WORKS
Angle Bars, 6mm 650 pc 1386.00/pc 900,900.00
thick x 50 mm x 50
mm x 6 m
8 mm x 90 mm x 90
mm
cxciii
10 mm x 90 mm x
90 mm
12 mm x 130 mm x
130 mm
10 mm x 110 mm x
110 mm
mm x 80 mm x 351
mm
mm x 50 mm x 150
mm
10 mm x 140 mm x
530 mm
12 mm x 120 mm x
470 mm
12 mm x 272 mm x
470 mm
12 mm x 120 mm x
470 mm
mm x 110 mm x
260 mm
mm x 190 mm x
230 mm
mm x 120 mm x
470 mm
Gusset Plate, 6 mm 16 pc 60.27/pc 964.32
x 271 mm x 201
mm
cxciv
x 271 mm x 328
mm
x 225 mm x 235
mm
x 225 mm x 240
mm
x 225 mm x 255
mm
x 205 mm x 401
mm
Batten Plate, 12 16 pc 4,542.00/pc 72,672.00
mm x 272 mm x
100 mm
Base Plate, 25 mm 4 pc 4,490.00/pc 17,960.00
x 450 mm x 450
mm
Foundation Bolt 48 pc 43.75/pc 2,100.00
CONSTRUCTION WORKS
Welder 5 Person 170917.00/year 854,585.00
Construction 3 Person 230,076.00/year 690,228.00
Worker
Welder 5 Person 170917.00/year 854,585.00
LAND COST
Lot 100 Square meters 8982.00/sq.m. 898200.00
TOTAL COST 4,427,020.00
A.1.3 MONOPOLE TOWER
MONOPOLE TOWER
cxcv
WORK (PHP)
DESCRIPTION
STEEL WORKS
Galvanized Steel 1 pc 70,000.00/ton 3,922,800.00
Antenna Monopole
Tower
CONSTRUCTION WORKS
Welder 3 Person 170917.00/year 1,025,502.00
Construction 3 Person 230,076.00/year 1,280,456.00
Worker
LAND COST
Lot 50 Square meters 8982.00/sq.m. 449,100.00
TOTAL COST 7,629,410.00
A.2 GEOTECHNICAL TRADEOFF
A.2.1 DYNAMIC COMPACTION
DYNAMIC COMPACTION
WORK (PHP)
DESCRIPTION
GEOTECHNICAL WORKS
Crawler Crane
(40-3,500 short 1 pc 1,902.00/hour 197,808.00/day
cxcvi
tons lifting
capacity)
Plate Compactor 1 pc 123.00/hour 12,792.00/day
Backhoe, wheel 1 pc 922.00/hour 95,888.00/day
mounted
Payloader 1 pc 1,733.00/hour 180,232.00/day
CONSTRUCTION WORKS
Construction 6 Person 536.00/day 41,808.00/day
Worker
Crane, Backhoe
and Payloader 3 Person 620.00/day 193,440.00/day
Operator
TOTAL COST 721,968.00
A.2.2 COMPACTION GROUTING
COMPACTION GROUTING
WORK (PHP)
DESCRIPTION
GEOTECHNICAL WORKS
Soil compaction
Grout Injection 1 pc 1,550.00/hour 198,400.00/day
Hydraulic and 1 pc 502.00/hour 64,256.00/day
electric pump
Compaction track 1 pc 2,123.00/hour 271,744.00/day
mounted drill
CONSTRUCTION WORKS
Worker
Compaction truck
mounted drill 2 Person 620.00/day 158,720.00/day
Operator
A.2.3 DYNAMIC REPLACEMENT
DYNAMIC REPLACEMENT
cxcvii
WORK (PHP)
DESCRIPTION
GEOTECHNICAL WORKS
Crawler Crane
(40-3,500 short 1 pc 1,902.00/hour 91,296.00/day
tons lifting
capacity)
Plate Compactor 1 pc 123.00/hour 5,904.00/day
Backhoe, wheel 1 pc 922.00/hour 44,256.00/day
mounted
Payloader 1 pc 1,733.00/hour 83,184.00/day
CONSTRUCTION WORKS
Worker
Crane, Backhoe
and Payloader 3 Person 620.00/day 89,280.00/day
Operator
cxcviii
APPENDIX B - FINAL ESTIMATE
B.1 STRUCTURAL TRADEOFFS
B.1.1 Self Supporting Tower
COST ESTIMATE OF SELF SUPPORTING TOWER SYSTEM

DESCRIPTION OF QTY. UNI MATERIAL COST LABOR COST TOTAL
WORK T
1. GENERAL Unit Cost Amount Unit Amount
REQUIREMENT Cost
Mobilization 1 Lot 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00
Demobilization 1 Lot 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00
Temporary 1 Lot 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00
Facilities
Plans, 1 Lot 114,000.0 114,000.0 114,000.00
Documentation, 0 0
and Fees
Permits and 1 Lot 42,000.00 42,000.00 42,000.00
Licenses
Sub-total A 246,000.0 246,000.00
0
2. CIVIL WORKS
2
2.1 Clearing and 36 m 500 18,000.00 18,000.00
Grubbing
2.2 Excavation 50 m3 700 35,000.00 35,000.00
3
2.3 Backfill 40 m 260 10,400.00 10,400.80
(Excavated Soil)
2.4 Gravel Fill 5 m3 180 900 900.00
3
2.5 Compaction 60 m 468 23,400.00 23,400.00
2.6 Formworks 75 m2 612 29,376.00 275.4 20,655.00 50,031.00
2.7 Concrete, 3000 0.00
psi
Foundation 29.7 m3 5,500.00 230,400.0 2,475.00 73,507.50 303,907.50
0
Pedestal 3.2 m3 5,500.00 17,600.00 2,475.00 7,920.00 25,520.00
2.8 Reinforcing
Bars (ASTM Grade
60)
cxcix
20mm dia x 6m 754.6 Kg 20 15,092.00 9 6,791.40 21,883.40
– 51 pcs.
G.I Tie Wire #16 1 Lot 15,000 15,000.00 15,000.00
Sub-total B 308,368.0 195,673.9 504,042.70
0 0
3. STRUCTURAL
STEEL
W18 x 130 4963.63 Kg 38.5 191501.31 21 129895.0 295737.673
6 0 6
W16 x 40 1309.09 Kg 38.5 25252.92 21 76287.30 52743.8290
1 9
W14 x 26 283.636 Kg 38.5 5471.47 21 24283.60 11427.8296
4 4
W16 x 89 3398.18 Kg 38.5 65552.37 21 54523.60 136914.189
2 7
W12 x 65 2127.27 Kg 38.5 41036.00 21 81785.50 85708.7222
3 7
W8 x 35 381.818 Kg 38.5 7365.44 21 6872.73 15383.6168
2 2
W18 x 119 9087.27 Kg 38.5 175297.35 21 210076.0 366130.080
3 0 3
W14 x 74 4843.63 Kg 38.5 93435.80 21 163571.0 195152.167
6 0 6
W10 x 54 1178.18 Kg 38.5 22727.63 21 35280.00 47469.4461
2 8
Epoxy Paint 255 Gals 700 178,500.0 350 89,250.00 267,750.00
0
Base Plates 4 Pcs 500 2,000.00 250 1,000.00 3,000.00
Anchor Bolts 8 Pcs 900 7,200.00 202.5 4,860.00 15,660.00
Temporary 1 Lot 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.0 30,000.00 60,000.00
Platform 0
Consumables 1 Lot 70,000.00 70,000.00 70,000.0 70,000.00 140,000.00
(Welding Rods, 0
Oxy-Acetylene, etc.)
Sub-total C 915340.29 977684.7 1,893,024.5
3 9
TOTAL DIRECT 2,643,067.2

COST 9
B.1.2 Guyed Tower
cc
COST ESTIMATE OF GUYED TOWER
cci
DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT MATERIAL COST LABOR COST TOTAL
OF WORK
1. GENERAL Unit Cost Amount Unit Cost Amount
REQUIREMENT
Mobilization 1 lot 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00
Demobilization 1 lot 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00
Temporary 1 lot 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00
Facilities
Plans, 1 lot 114,000.0 114,000.0 114,000.00
Documentation, 0 0
and Fees
Permits and 1 lot 42,000.00 42,000.00 42,000.00
Licenses
Sub-total A 246,000.0 246,000.00
0
2. CIVIL WORKS
2.1 Clearing and 225 m2 523.2 117,720.0 117,720.00
Grubbing 0
2.2 Excavation 300 m3 583 174,900.0 174,900.00
0
2.3 Backfill 260 m3 250 65,000.00 65,000.00
(Excavated Soil)
2.4 Gravel Fill 5 m3 180 900 900
2.5 Compaction 60 m3 468 23,400.00 23,400.00
2.6 Formworks 75 m2 612 29,376.00 275.5 20,655.00 50,031.00
2.7 Concrete,
3000 psi
Foundation 29.9 m3 5,500.00 164,450.0 2,475.00 74,002.5 238,452.5
0
Pedestal 3.5 m3 5,500.00 17,600.00 2,475.00 7,920.00 25,520.00
2.8 Reinforcing
bars (ASTM Grade
40)
20mm dia. x 6mm 133.5 kg 26.16 3,492.36 11.772 1,568.03 5,051.76
dia.
25mm dia. x 6mm 208.1 kg 26.16 5,443.896 11.772 2,449.75 7,892.86
dia.
28mm dia. x 6mm 203 kg 26.16 5,310.48 11.772 2,389.72 7,701.25
dia.
G.I Tie Wire #16 1 lot 15,000 15,000.00 15,000.00
Sub-total B 241,572.7 490,005.0 731,569.37
3 0
ccii
3.STRUCTURAL
STEEL
Round Steel Pipe 1,814. kg 81, 163,008.0 4,640.00 69,600.00 232,608.00
Tower 600mm x 3695 504.00 0
300mm
Galvanized Guy 1 lot 19,866.60 19,866.60 46,40.00 60,320.00 80,186.6
Strand 0 0
Epoxy Paint 255 gals 700 178,500.0 523.2 3,139.2 181,639.2
0
Base Plates 1 pcs 500 500 250 1000 1,500
Anchor Bolts 8 pcs 450 3,600 205 820 4,420
Round Member 2 pcs 1,766.43 3,532.86 250 750 4,282.86
Adapter
Temporary 1 lot 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 60,000.00
Platform
Consumables 1 lot 70,000.00 70,000.00 70,000.00 70,000.00 140,000.00
(Welding Rods,
Oxy-Acetylene,
etc.)
Sub-total C 469,007.4 235,629.2 704,636.66
6
COST 3
B.1.3 Monopole Tower
COST ESTIMATE OF MONOPOLE TOWER

DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT MATERIAL COST LABOR COST TOTAL
OF WORK
1. GENERAL Unit Cost Amount Unit Cost Amount
REQUIREMENT
Mobilization 1 lot 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00
Demobilization 1 lot 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00
Temporary 1 lot 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00
Facilities
Plans, 1 lot 114,000.0 114,000.0 114,000.00
Documentation, 0 0
and Fees
Permits and 1 lot 42,000.00 42,000.00 42,000.00
Licenses
Sub-total A 246,000.0 246,000.00
0
cciii
2. CIVIL WORKS
2.1 Clearing and 64 m2 523.2 33,484.8 33,484.8
Grubbing
2.2 Excavation 78 m3 583 45,474.00 45,474.00
3
2.3 Backfill 45 m 250 11,250.00 11,250.00
(Excavated Soil)
2.4 Gravel Fill 5 m3 180 900 900
3
2.5 Compaction 60 m 468 23,400.00 23,400.00
2.6 Formworks 75 m2 612 29,376.00 275.5 20,655.00 50,031.00
2.7 Concrete,
3000 psi
Foundation 29.9 m3 5,500.00 164,450.0 2,475.00 74,002.5 238,452.5
0
Pedestal 3.5 m3 5,500.00 17,600.00 2,475.00 7,920.00 25,520.00
2.8 Reinforcing
Bars (ASTM
Grade 40)
20mm dia. x 6mm 133.5 kg 26.16 3,492.36 11.772 1,568.03 5,051.76
dia.
25mm dia. x 6mm 208.1 kg 26.16 5,443.896 11.772 2,449.75 7,892.86
dia.
28mm dia. x 6mm 203 kg 26.16 5,310.48 11.772 2,389.72 7,701.25
dia.
G.I Tie Wire #16 1 lot 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00
Sub-total B 241,572.7 222,593.8 464,158.17
2
3.STRUCTURAL
STEEL
Round Steel Pipe 1,814 kg 81, 163,008.0 4,640.00 69,600.00 232,608.00
Tower 1000mm x .3695 504.00 0
500mm
Round Member 2 pcs 1,766.43 3,532.86 250 750 4,282.86
Adapter
Temporary 1 lot 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 60,000.00
Platform
Consumables 1 lot 70,000.00 70,000.00 70,000.00 70,000.00 140,000.00
(Welding Rods,
Oxy-Acetylene,
etc.)
Sub-total C 266,540.8 170,350.00 436,890.86
6
COST 3
cciv
B.2 GEOTECHNICAL TRADEOFFS
B.2.1 Dynamic Compaction
DYNAMIC COMPACTION
MATERIAL/EQUIPMENT
LABOR COST
DESCRIPTION OF COST
Qty. Unit Total
WORK Unit
Unit Cost Amount Amount
Cost
Clearing and
Grubbing 16.81 m2 550.00 9,300.50 10,560.00 19,860.50
Excavation 50.43 m3 1,600.00 80,688.00 19,440.00 100,128.00
Compaction 16.81 m3 16,000.00 268,960.00 38,880.00 307,840.00
Backfill 55 m3 250.00 13,750.00 19,200.00 32,950.00
TOTAL AMOUNT 460,778.50
B.2.2 Compaction Grouting
COMPACTION GROUTING
MATERIAL COST LABOR COST
DESCRIPTION OF
Qty. Unit Unit Total
WORK Unit Cost Amount Amount
Cost
Clearing and
Grubbing 16.81 m2 550.00 9,245.50 10,560.00 19,805.50
Insertion of
Injection Pipe 50.43 m3 1,600.00 80,688.00 19,440.00 100,128.00
Stabilize
subsurface voids 16.81 m3 6,200.00 104,222.00 12,000.00 116,222.00
Compaction
Grouting 16.81 m3 16,000.00 268,960.00 38,880.00 307,840.00
Backfill 55 m3 1,400.00 77,000.00 19,200.00 96,200.00
ccv
B.2.3 Dynamic Replacement
DYNAMIC REPLACEMENT
DESCRIPTION OF Qty. Unit MATERIAL COST LABOR COST Total
WORK Unit Cost Amount Unit Amount
Cost
Clearing and
Grubbing 16.81 m2 550.00 9,245.50 10,550.00 19,795.50
Excavation 50.43 m3 1,600.00 80,688.00 19,440.00 100,128.00
Gravel Fill 16.81 m3 2,200.00 36,982.00 6,880.00 43,862.00
Compaction 16,000.0
16.81 m3 0 268,960.00 9,000.00 277,960.00
Backfill 55 m3 1,400.00 77,000.00 19,200.00 96,200.00
ccvi
APPENDIX C - WIND CALCULATION
C.1. Structure Design Wind Force
Data:
Basic Wind Speed: 270 Kph (Zone II)
Category I – Essential Facilities
Category Exposure B
The Topographic Factor, K zt =1.0
Wind Direction Factor, k d=¿ 0.85
F s=q z G h C f
Where:
F s = Horizontal Design Wind Force
q z = Velocity Pressure
( Epas¿¿ s) ¿ = Effective Projected Area
Determine q z :
q z =0.613 k z k zt k d V 2
k zt =¿1.0
k d=¿ 0.85
k z:
Z g= 365 (for Exposure B)
a= 7.0
For z < 4.5
2
4.5
K z=2.01 ( )
Zg
a
For 4.5 < = z < z

2
z
K z=2.01 ( )
Zg
a
ccvii
FOR SELF SUPPORTING TOWER:
Calculation: (For Panel 7 @ 21m)
2
21
K z 7=2.01 ( 365.76 ) 7
k z 7=0.888446
Calculate the Velocity Pressure:

q z 7 =0.613 ( 0.88844 ) ( 1.0 ) ( 0.85 )( 75 )2
q z 7 =2.60395 kPa
Calculate the Solidity Ratio:

Solid Area
ε=
Gross Area
3.97
ε 7=
12.6
ε 7=0.3151 m2
Calculate the Force Coefficient:

C f =4.0 ε 2 −5.9 ε +4.0
C f 7=4.0(0.3151)2−5.9(0.3151)+4.0
C f 7=2.5381
Determine and Calculate the Wind Direction Factor:

DfN =1.0(Normal)
D f =1+0.75 ε , Max :1.2( Diagonal)
DfD =1+ 0.75(0.3151)
D fD =1.2
ccviii
Calculation for Effective Projected Area
EPAs=C f D f
EPAn=2.5381( Normal)
EPAd=3.0458 (Diagonal)
Calculate Design Wind Force on Structure

F s=q z Gh (EPAs )
where G h=0.85
Design Wind Force (Normal)

F N =q z Gh (EPAn)
where G h=0.85
F N 7 =2.603953(0.85)(2.53813177)
F N 7 =5.6177996 kPa
Design Wind Force (Diagonal)

F D =q z Gh (EPAd)
where G h=0.85
F D 7 =2.603953(0.85)(3.045758)
F D 7 =6.7413595 kPa
Calculation of Wind Pressure, F7 @ Panel 7

F A=q z Gh C Aa
where G h=0.85 , C=1.2 , A a=1.1
F A 7=2.603953 ( 0.85 ) ( 1.2 )( 1.1 )
F A 7=2.921635 kP a

2
45
K z 16=2.01 ( 365.76 ) 7
ccix
k z 16=1.104589

q z 16=0.613 ( 1.10459 ) ( 1.0 ) ( 0.85 ) (75 )2
q z 16=3.237447 kPa

Solid Area
ε=
Gross Area
1.32
ε 16=
4.5
ε 16=0.2933 m 2

C f =4.0 ε 2 −5.9 ε +4.0
C f 16=4.0(0.2933)2−5.9( 0.2933)+ 4.0
C f 16=2.5381
Determine and Calculate the Wind Direction Factor:

D fN =1.0(Normal)
Df =1+0.75 ε , Max :1.2( Diagonal)
D fD =1+ 0.75(0.3151)
DfD =1.2
Calculation for Effective Projected Area

EPAs=C f D f
EPAn=2.6135( Normal)
EPAd=3.1362( Diagonal )

F s=q z Gh (EPAs )
where G h=0.85
ccx
F N =q z G h (EPAn)
where Gh=0.85
F N 16 =3.237447(0.85)(2.6135)
F N 16 =5.6177996 kPa
Design Wind Force (Diagonal)

F D =q z G h (EPAd)
where Gh=0.85
F D 16=3.237447(0.85)(3.1362)
F D 16 =8.6303 kPa

F A=q z G h C Aa
where Gh=0.85 , C=1.2 , A a=1.1
F A 16=3.237447 ( 0.85 ) ( 1.2 )( 1.1 )
F A 16=3.632415 kPa
FOR GUYED TOWER:

2
30
K z=2.01 ( 365.76 ) 7
k z = 0.9838
q z =0.613 ( 0.9838 ) (1.0 )( 0.85 ) ( 75 )2
q z =2.8834 kPa

Solid Area
ε=
Gross Area
ccxi
Outside Ø 1 =2 m
Inside Ø 1=1.5 m
Gross Area 1=1.3744467
π (2)2
−1.5
4
ε 1=
1.3744467
Solid Area = 0.0708
ε 1=0.0515 m2

2
C f =4.0 ε −5.9 ε +4.0
C f 1=4.0(0.0515)2−5.9(0.0515)+ 4.0
C f 1=3.6023
Determine the Wind Direction Factor:

D f =1.0(Normal)
F s=q z G h C f
Gh=0.85 for Guyed Tower
F s 1=2.8834 (0.85)( 3.6023)

F s 1=8.8288

F N =q z G h D fN
G h=0.85 for Guyed Tower
F N 1 =2.8834(0.85)(1.0)
F N 1 =2.45089 kPa
ccxii
Calculation for Effective Projected Area with the Windward Face Normal to the azimuth of the
Appurtenance, EpaN (Normal)
EpaN =Ca Aa
Where: Ca = Force Coefficient from Table 2-8
AA = Projected Area of a component of the appurtenance (8.7m)
1.43
Ca=
C 0.485
0.5
Where: C=( I k zt k z ) ( V ) ( D )
0.5
C 1=[ 1 ( 1.0 )( 0.9838 ) ] ( 75 ) (3)C 1=148.7800
1.43
Ca=
(148.7800)0.485
Ca=0.1264
EpaN =0.1264 ( 8.7 )

EpaN =1.0997

F A=q z Gh ( Epa N )
G h=¿ 0.85 for Guyed Tower
F 1=2.8834( 0.85)(1.0997)
F 1=2.6952 kPa
Effective Projected Area

( Epa)s=C f A p
Where: C f = Force Coefficient
A p = Outside Diameter
( Epa )s=3.6023 ( 2 )
( Epa )s=7.204
ccxiii
FOR MONOPOLE TOWER
Calculation: (For Panel 1 @ 30m, Guyed Tower)
2
15
K z 1=2.01 ( 365.76 ) 7
k z = 0.8070
2
15
K z 2=2.01 ( 365.76 ) 7
k z = 0.9838

q z 1=0.613 ( 0.8070 )( 1.0 ) ( 0.85 ) ( 75 )2
q z 1=2.3652kPa
q z 2=0.613 ( 0.9838 )( 1.0 ) ( 0.85 ) ( 75 )2

q z 2=2.8834 kPa

Solid Area
ε=
Gross Area
Outside Ø 1 =3 m
Inside Ø 1=1.5
Gross Area 1=2.15984489
π (3)2
−2.5
4
ε 1=
2.15984489
Solid Area = 4.5686
ε 1=2.1152 m2

C f =4.0 ε 2 −5.9 ε +4.0
ccxiv
C f 1=4.0(2.1152)2−5.9(2.1152)+ 4.0
C f 1=9.4166
Determine the Wind Direction Factor:

D f =1.0(Normal)

F s=q z G h C f
G h=1.10 for Monopole Tower
F s 1=2.3652(1.10)(9.4166)
F s 1=24.4994
F s 2=2.8834 (1.10)( 9.4166)

F s 2=29.8670

F N =q z G h D fN
Gh=1.10 for Monopole Tower
F N 1 =2.3652(1.10)(10)
F N 1 =2.60172kPa
F N 2 =2.8834(1.10)(10)
F N 2 =3.1717 kPa
Calculation for Effective Projected Area with the Windward Face Normal to the azimuth of the
Appurtenance, EpaN (Normal)
EpaN =Ca Aa
Where: Ca = Force Coefficient from Table 2-8
AA = Projected Area of a component of the appurtenance (8.7m)
ccxv
1.43
Ca=
C 0.485
0.5
Where: C=( I k zt k z ) ( V ) ( D )
0.5
C 1=[ 1 ( 1.0 )( 0.8070 ) ] ( 75 ) (3)C 1=202.1247
0.5
C 2=[ 1 ( 1.0 )( 0.9838 ) ] ( 75 ) (3)C 2=223.1701
1.43
Ca1= 0.485
(202.1247)
Ca1=0.1089
1.43
Ca 2= 0.485
(223.1701)
Ca 2=0.1038
EpaN 1=0.1089 ( 8.7 )

EpaN 1=0.94743
EpaN 2=0.1038 ( 8.7 )

EpaN 2=0.9031

F A=q z Gh ( Epa N )
G h=¿ 1.10 for Monopole Tower
F 1=2.3652(1.10)(094743)
F 1=2.4649 kPa
F2 @ Panel 2
F 2=2.8834(1.10)(0.9031)
F 2=2.8644 kPa
ccxvi
Effective Projected Area
( Epa)s=C f A p
Where: C f = Force Coefficient
A p = Outside Diameter
( Epa )s=9.4166 ( 3 )
( Epa )s=28.2498
C.1.1 Summary of Wind Pressure, F (kPa)
A. Self – Supporting Tower
Panel Height qz (kPa) FN FD

(m)
1 3 1.493401451 3.429044 4.114852
2
Wind 6
Microwave @ 1.82047676
Elev. 45m Wind 3.874135 Microwave4.648962
@ Elev.
Angle
3 9 2.044075475 Angle4.384606 45m5.261527
4 12F x F z 2.219186028
My Fx
4.732062 F z 5.678475
My
5 0° 4.582
15 - 2.365278502
0.000 180°5.049751
-3.688 - 6.059701
0.000
6 18- - 2.491755914 5.342796- - 6.411355
745° 4.071
21 - 2.603953064
-0.045 225° 5.6178
-3.256 - -0.958
6.74136
8 24- 0.7912.705218069 5.778284- -0.733 6.93394
990° -0.397
27 - 2.797803995
0.110 270°5.890023
-0.397 - 7.068027
-0.110
10 30- 1.6882.88330679 6.030244- -1.688 7.236293
135º -3.256 - 0.095 315° 4.071 - 0.457
11 33 2.962902335 6.069438 7.283326
- 0.733 - -0.791
12 36 3.037484482 6.166675 7.40001
13 39 3.107750165 7.014765 8.417718
14 41 3.152474615 7.003173 8.403808
15 43 3.195666747 7.099124 8.518949
16 45 3.237446819 7.191938 8.630325
B. Guyed Tower
Level H (m) q z ( kPa) FN

1 45 2.8834 2.45089
C. Monopole
ccxvii
Level H (m) q z ( kPa) FN
1 30 2.3652 2.6017
2 45 2.8834 3.1717
C.2. Design Wind Force on Appurtenances
C.2.1 Microwave Antenna
Wind Angle  CA CS CM
(Degrees)
0 1.2617 0.0000 0.0000
45 1.1211 0.2930 -0.0406
90 -0.1094 0.6250 0.0980
135 -0.8965 0.2715 0.0852
180 -1.0156 0.0000 0.0000
225 -0.8965 -0.2715 -0.0852
270 -0.1094 -0.6250 -0.0980
315 1.1211 -0.2930 0.0406
A. Self Supporting Tower
For Wind Load_0 Degrees
F x =F A Ca
F x =3632 ( 1.12617 )
F x =4.582 kN
F z =F S C a
F z =2701 ( 0 )
F z =0 kN
M z =1125 ( 0 )
ccxviii
M z =0 kN
For Wind Collinear @ Elev. 45m Wind Collinear @ Elev. Wind
Angle Angle 45m
Fx Fz My Fx Fz My
0° 3.632 - - 180° -3.362 - -
- 0.00 - 0.00
45° 2.568 - - 225° -2.568 - -
- 2.568 - -2.568
90° 0.00 - - 270° 0.00 - -
- 3.632 - -3.632
135º -2.568 - - 315° 2.568 - -
- 2.568 - -2.56
Load_45 Degrees
F x =F A Ca
F x =3632 ( 1.1211 )
F x =4.071 kN
F z =F S C a
F z =2701 ( 0.293 )
F z =0.791 kN
M z =1125 ( 0 )
M z =−0.045 kN
B. Guyed Tower

F x =F A Ca
F x =2.6952 ( 0.1264 )
F x =0.3407 kN
F z =F S C a
F z =8.8288 ( 0 )
ccxix
F z =0 kN
M z =0.952 ( 0 )
M z =0 kN

F x =F A Ca
F x =2.6952 ( 1.1211 )
F x =0.3264 kN
F z =F S C a
F z =8.8288 ( 0.2930 )
F z =2.5868 kN
M z =0.952 (−0.0406 )
M z =−0.0387 kN −m
C. Monopole Tower

F x =F A Ca
F x =2.4649 ( 0.1089 )
F x =0.2684 kN
F z =F S C a
F z =54.3664 ( 0 )
F z =0 kN
M z =0.952 ( 0 )
M z =0 kN
ccxx
F x =F A Ca
F x =2.8643 ( 1.1211 )
F x =3.2112 kN
F z =F S C a
F z =54.3664 ( 0.2930 )
F z =15.9294 kN
M z =0.952 (−0.0406 )
M z =−0.0387 kN −m
C.2.1.1
Summary
of
Pressure
A. Self
Supporting Tower
ccxxi
Wind Microwave @ Elev. 45m Wind Microwave @ Elev.
Angle Angle 45m
Fx Fz My Fx Fz My
0° 4.582 - 0.000 180° -3.688 - 0.000
- - - -
45° 4.071 - -0.045 225° -3.256 - -0.958
- 0.791 - -0.733
90° -0.397 - 0.110 270° -0.397 - -0.110
- 1.688 - -1.688
135º -3.256 - 0.095 315° 4.071 - 0.457
- 0.733 - -0.791
B. Guyed Tower
Wind Microwave Antenna (@ Elev 45m)

Direction Fx Fz My
2.6952 2.6952 -
0 degree
2.6952 - 1.9058
2.6952 1.9058 1.9058
45 degree
2.6952 - 2.6952
C. Monopole Tower
Microwave Antenna (@ Elev 45m)

Wind Angle Wind Direction
Fx Fz My
FA 0.2684 0.2684 -
0 degree 0
FS 0 -
FA 0.2973 0.2973
45 degree -0.0387
FS 4.1264 - 4.1264
C.2.2 Collinear Antenna
F x =F A cos ϴ
ccxxii
F z =F S sin ϴ
A. SELF SUPPORTING TOWER

F x =F A cos ϴ
F x =3.632 cos( 0)
F x =3.632 kN
F z =F S sin ϴ
F z =3.632sin(0)
F z =0 kN
F x =F A cos ϴ
F x =3.632 cos(45)
F x =2.568 kN
F z =F S sin ϴ
F z =3.632sin(45)
F z =2.568 kN
Wind Collinear @ Elev. 45m Wind Collinear @ Elev.

Angle Angle 45m
Fx Fz My Fx Fz My
0° 3.632 - - 180° -3.362 - -
- 0.00 - 0.00
45° 2.568 - - 225° -2.568 - -
- 2.568 - -2.568
90° 0.00 - - 270° 0.00 - -
- 3.632 - -3.632
135º -2.568 - - 315° 2.568 - -
- 2.568 - -2.56
B. GUYED TOWER
ccxxiii
F x =F A cos ϴ
F x =2.6952 cos( 0)
F x =2.6952 kN
F z =F S sin ϴ
F z =.652sin(0)
F z =0 kN
For Wind Load_45
Degrees
F x =F A cos ϴ
F x =2.6952 cos(45)
ccxxiv
F x =1.9058 kN
F z =F S sin ϴ
F z =2.6952sin (45)
ccxxv
F z =1.9058 kN
Summary of Wind Forces for Collinear Antenna, F (kN)

Wind Collinear Antenna (@ Elev.45m)
Direction Fx Fz My
2.6952 2.6952 -
0 degree
2.6952 - 1.9058
2.6952 1.9058 1.9058
45 degree
2.6952 - 2.6952
C. MONOPOLE TOWER
F x =F A cos ϴ
F x =5.3292 cos(0)
F x =5.3292 kN
F z =F S sin ϴ
F z =5.3292sin( 0)
ccxxvi
F z =0 kN
For Wind
Load_45
Degrees
F x =F A cos ϴ
F x =5.3292 cos(45)
ccxxvii
F x =3.7683 kN
F z =F S sin ϴ
F z =5.3292sin( 45)
F z =3.7683 kN
Summary of Wind Forces for Collinear Antenna, F (kN)

Wind Angle Collinear Microwave (@ Elev. 45m)
ccxxviii
Fx Fz My
0.2684 -
0 degree 0
- -
0.2973 -
45 degree -0.0387
- 4.1264
APPENDIX D - DESIGN OF FOUNDATION
D.1 SELF SUPPORTING TOWER
ccxxix
TOP VIEW
FRONT VIEW
ISOMETRIC VIEW
ccxxx
CHECKING OF ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY:
ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY = 150 KPA

MAXIMUM SOIL PRESSURE = 141.72 KPA
ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY > MAXIMUM SOIL PRESSURE ; ADEQUATE

CHECKING OF PUNCHING SHEAR:
PUNCHING SHEAR
Vp = 0.3968
Vp < 1 ; ADEQUATE
ccxxxi
D.2 GUYED
TOWER
ccxxxii
TOP VIEW
FRONT
VIEW
ccxxxiii
ISOMETRIC VIEW
CHECKING OF ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY

CHECKING OF PUNCHING SHEAR
ccxxxiv
Vp = 0.1702
Vp < 1 ; ADEQUATE
D.3
MONOPOLE TOWER
ccxxxv
TOP VIEW
FRONT
VIEW
ccxxxvi
ISOMETRIC VIEW
CHECKING OF ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY

ccxxxvii
CHECKING OF PUNCHING SHEAR
PUNCHING SHEAR
Vp = 0.6443
Vp < 1 ; ADEQUATE
ccxxxviii
APPENDIX E - COMPUTATION FOR WELD
E.1 SELF SUPPORTING TOWER
FOR HORIZONTAL MEMBERS
Shear flow at the neutral axis:
VQ
q=
I
635000(11625000)
q=
5411x 106
q=1364.23 N /mm
Size of Fillet Weld:
For 1mm fillet weld, the allowable capacity.
q all =0.707 ( 1 )( 0.3 )( 415)
q all =88.02 N /mm
1364.23=88.02(2)t
t=7.75 mm say 8 mm
Use 8mm fillet weld
FOR DIAGONALMEMBERS
Shear flow at the neutral axis:
VQ
q=
I
635000(1447875)
q=
911.54 x 106
ccxxxix
q=1008.62 N /mm
Size of Fillet Weld:
For 1mm fillet weld, the allowable capacity.
q all =0.707 ( 1 )( 0.3 )( 415)
q all =88.02 N /mm
1008.62=88.02(2) t
t=5.72 mm say 6 mm
Use 6mm fillet weld
E.2 GUYED TOWER

Size of Fillet Weld
Due to Cross Shear
(Consider 1mm Strip of Weld)
P
R=
πd
679
R=
π (300)
R=0.7204 N / mm
Due to Torsion:
Tr
R=
2 πr3
T
R=
2 πr3
2.037 X 106
R= 3
2 π (300)
R=0.0120 N /mm
ccxl
Total Reaction = 0.7204 + 0.0120
Total Reaction = 0.7324 N/mm
Capacity of Fillet Weld:

R=0.707 t(1)S s
0.7324=0.707 t ( 1 ) ( 0.3 ) ( 415 )
t=8.3206 mm
Use t= 10 mm fillet weld
E.3 MONOPOLE TOWER

Size of Fillet Weld
Due to Cross Shear
(Consider 1mm Strip of Weld)
P
R=
πd
81.5
R=
π (300)
R=0.0865 N /mm
Due to Torsion:
Tr
R=
2 πr3
T
R=
2 πr3
1.2225 X 106
R=
2 π (300)3
R=7.2061 N /mm
Total Reaction = 0.0865 + 7.2061
Total Reaction = 7.2926 N/mm
Capacity of Fillet Weld:

R=0.707 t(1)S s
7.2926=0.707 t ( 1 ) ( 0.3 )( 415 )
ccxli
t=8.2850 mm
Use t= 10 mm fillet weld
APPENDIX F – SAMPLE COMPUTATION FOR BASE PLATE
F.1.1 Self Supporting Tower
W18 x 130
DESIGN INPUTS
Dead Load 1147.4891 kN
Live Load 99 kN
f'c 20.7 MPa
Fy (bolts) 246.67 MPa
Fy (weld) 483.8 Mpa
Fv 193 MPa
fx 184.045 kN
Fz 184.131 kN
ccxlii
F p=0.35 f ' c
F p=0.35(20.7)
F p=7.245 MPa
P DL + P¿
A 1=
Fp
1147.4891+99
A1=
7.245
A1=172,048 mm 2
Base Plate¿ √ A
Base Plate¿ √ 172,048
Base Plate¿ 414.7866 mm
Use Column Size: 600mm x 500 mm

Axial Load = 653.6 kN
Moment =290.97 kN.m
Computation for Diameter of Bolts:

7.245 ( a )( 500 ) a
2 ( )
525− =653.6 ( 200 )( 1000 ) +290.97(10)6
2
a=507.7 mm
∑ F y =0 ;
7.245 ( 507.7 )
T + 653.6(1000)= (500)
2
T =265,971.6
T = A s f s ; f s=0.6 F y
π d2 ( )
265,971.6= 0.6 (246.67)
4
d=47.83 mm say 50 mmØ
Use: 50 mm Ø anchor bolts
Computation for size of fillet weld:
ccxliii
265,971.6
Force per weld =
2
Force per weld =132,985.8
132,985.8
Stresses on one weld =
300
f y =443.286 N /mm
6M
f x=
b d2
M =132,985.8 ( 50 )
M =6,649,290 N . mm
6(6649290)
f x=
1(300)2
f x =443.286
R=√ (443.286)2 +( 443.286)2

R=626.9
R=0.707 t ( 1 ) (0.30)F y
626.9=0.707 t ( 1 ) ( 0.30 ) (483.8)
t=6.1 mm
Use: 6 mm fillet weld
Computation for Thickness of base plate:
M =49948 N . mm
6M
F b=
b d2
F b=0.75 ( 246.67 ) =185 MPa

6 (49948)
185=
1 t2
t=40.25mm say 50mm
APPENDIX G - CONSTRUCTION PROCESS DURATION
ccxliv
G.1 STRUCTURAL TRADEOFF
G.1.1 Self Supporting Tower
ccxlv
ccxlvi
ccxlvii
ccxlviii
ccxlix
ccl
ccli
cclii
ccliii
ccliv
cclv
cclvi
cclvii
cclviii
cclix
cclx
cclxi
cclxii
cclxiii
cclxiv
cclxv
cclxvi
cclxvii
G.1.2 Guyed Tower
cclxviii
cclxix
cclxx
cclxxi
cclxxii
G.1.3 Monopole Tower
cclxxiii
cclxxiv
cclxxv
G.2 GEOTECHNICAL TRADEOFF
G.2.1 Dynamic Compaction
G.2.2 Dynamic Replacement
cclxxvi
cclxxvii
G.2.3 Compaction Grouting
cclxxviii
APPENDIX H - DESIGN OF GEOTECHNICAL TRADEOFFS
H.1 DYNAMIC COMPACTION
H.1.1 SELF-SUPPORTING TOWER

Tamper Width 0.7m
Dropping Height 5m
Grid Spacing 1.75m

Width of Pile 7m
Length of Pile 4.5m
Pile Head Offset 0m
Live Load - 66kN
Maximum Depth of Influence = 0.53√ Tamper Weig h t

= 0.53√ 32.88
= 3.04m
Volume of Borehole = Grid Spacing2 x Layer Thickness
= (1.75m)2 x 1.5m
= 4.5938 m3
Required Energy per point = Estimated specific
energy/Volume
800 kJ /m3
=
4.5938 m 3
= 174.148 kJ
cclxxix
Energy of Single Drop = Tamper Weight x Height of Drop
= 3.3 ton x 5 m
= 16.5 ton-m
= 164.41 kJ
Required Number of Blows = Required Energy per point/ Energy of Single Drop
= 174.148kJ/164.41kJ
= 1.06 blows
～ 2 blows
FOR VERTICAL DEFORMATION:
Number of sublayers - 3
Soil Block Width (B1) = 0.5(h+2b) = 0.5[1.5+(2*0.7)]
Soil Block Width (B1) = 1.75m
ELASTIC MODULUS OF SOIL = 3*N2.5

E0-1.5m= 3*(18.22.5)= 4239.354 ton/m2
cclxxx
E1.5-3m= 3*(18.22.5)= 4239.354 ton/m2
E3-4.5m= 3*(302.5)= 14788.509 ton/m2
STIFFNESS (K) = EB2/h
K1= (4239.354*1.752)/1.5= 8655.348 ton/m
K2= (4239.354*2.52)/1.5= 17663.977 ton/m
K3= (14788.509*3.252)/1.5= 104135.751 ton/m
KEQ= K1+K2+K3= 130455.076 ton/m
DEPTH SPT N-VALUE E (ton/m2) STIFFNESS (K)
0-1.5m 18.2 4239.354 8655.348
1.5-3.00m 18.2 4239.354 17663.977
3.00-4.5m 30 14788.509 104135.751
KEQ 130455.076
2 WH
TOTAL DEFORMATION =
2 X 3.3 X 5 = 0.016024 m
√ K EQ
=
√ 130455.076
Δ TOTAL= 16.024mm
H.1.2 GUYED TOWER
Tamper Width 0.7m
Dropping Height 5m
Grid Spacing 1.25m
cclxxxi
Width of Pile 2.5m
Length of Pile 4.5m
Pile Head Offset 0m

Live Load - 66kN
Maximum Depth of Influence = 0.53√ Tamper Weig h t

= 0.53√ 32.88
= 3.04m
Volume of Borehole = Grid Spacing2 x Layer Thickness
= (1.25m)2 x 1.5m
= 2.3438 m3
Required Energy per point = Estimated specific energy/Volume
500 kJ /m 3
=
2.3438 m3
= 213.3288 kJ
Energy of Single Drop = Tamper Weight x Height of Drop
= 3.3 ton x 5 m
= 16.5 ton-m
= 164.41 kJ
Required Number of Blows = Required Energy per point/ Energy of Single Drop
= 213.3288kJ/164.41kJ
= 1.298 blows
cclxxxii
～ 2 blows
FOR VERTICAL DEFORMATION:
Number of sublayers - 3
ELASTIC MODULUS OF SOIL = 3*N2.5

E0-1.5m= 3*(18.22.5)= 4239.354 ton/m2
E1.5-3m= 3*(18.22.5)= 4239.354 ton/m2
E3-4.5m= 3*(302.5)= 14788.509 ton/m2
STIFFNESS (K) = EB2/h
K1= (4239.354*1.752)/1.5= 8655.348 ton/m
K2= (4239.354*2.52)/1.5= 17663.977 ton/m
K3= (14788.509*3.252)/1.5= 104135.751 ton/m
KEQ= K1+K2+K3= 130455.076 ton/m
cclxxxiii
DEPTH SPT N-VALUE E (ton/m2) STIFFNESS (K)
0-1.5m 18.2 4239.354 8655.348
1.5-3.00m 18.2 4239.354 17663.977
3.00-4.5m 30 14788.509 104135.751
KEQ 130455.076
2 WH 2 X 3.3 X 5
TOTAL DEFORMATION =
√ K EQ
=
√
130455.076
= 0.016024 m
Δ TOTAL= 16.024mm
H.1.3 MONOPOLE TOWER
Tamper Width 0.7m
Dropping Height 5m
Grid Spacing 1.025m
Width of Pile 4.1m
Length of Pile 4.5m
Pile Head Offset 0m
cclxxxiv

Design of Telecommunication Tower

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of Telecommunication Tower

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of Telecommunication Tower

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the project about?

What is the project about?

What design criteria were considered?

What design criteria were considered?

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 Aurora Blvd.Cubao, Quezon City

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

Civil Engineering Department

DESIGN OF A 45 METER TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER IN BRGY. SAN JOSE, ANTIPOLO CITY

Ang, Gabriella Angela D.R.

ENGR. JENNIFER S. CAMINO

Figure 1-1 Antipolo Base Map..........................................................................................................................2

Table 2-1 Population Census............................................................................................................................6

Equation 2-1 Lateral Seismic Force................................................................................................................17

1.1 The Project

1.2 Project Location

Figure 1-2 Site Location on Marilaque Highway

1.3 Project Objective

1.3.1 General Objective

 To identify different constraints and trade-offs in building a telecommunication tower.

 To compute the appropriate loading conditions.

 To design a telecommunication tower based on the American National Standards Institute

1.5 Project Scope and Limitations

The following are the scope covered by the project:

 The estimated cost of the materials used in the design.

The following are the limitations of the project:

 Communication process analysis.

1.6 Project Development

2.1 Design Criteria

Table 2-1 Population Census

2015 2018 2019 2020

103,051 143,828 152,889 162,521

Table 2-2 Age Group Percentage

Age Group Population (2015) Age Group Percentage

0-14 years 34,144 33.14%

15-64 years 65,679 63.73%

65+ years 3,228 3.13%

Figure 2-4 Soil Map City of Antipolo

2.1.3.1 Geotechnical Investigation Report

Table 2-3 Borehole Data

4.5 14 134.76 Silty sand with traces of gravel A-2-4 (0)

6.00 34 1059.03 Very fine sand A-3 (0)

2.1.3.2 Test Pit Soil Profile

1 Marikina-Infanta Road 025+889 027+685 13

2 Marikina-Infanta-Inarawan 024+600 25+700 5

4 Antipolo Circumferential Road 028+398 2

Figure 2-5Test Pit Soil Profile

Figure 2-6 AASHTO Soil Specifications

2.1.3.4 USCS Soil Classification System

Table 2.5 Unified Soil Classification System

Silt ML None to low Slow to rapid Nonplastic to low

Lean Clay CL Medium to high None to slow Medium

Elastic Silt MH Low to medium None to slow Low to medium

Fat Clay CH High to very high None Hign

Table 2.6 USCS Soil Classification

Plastic Limit (PL or Wp)(%) 37

Plasticity Index (PI)(%) 21

2.1.4 Dead Loads

Steel, cold-drawn 77.3