~~7~9~3 %.llo + 0.

00
@ 1993 Pergaman Res Ltd
NONLINEAR SEISMIC RESPONSE OF
ANTENNA-S~PORTIN~ STRUCTURES
E. GUEVAIU and G. MCCLURE
Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Abstract-In the event of a severe seismic excitation, preservation of essential infrastructures, such as
tel~ommuni~tion facilities, is of high priority. The objective of this paper is to investigate the
geometrically nonlinear response of antenna-supporting guyed towers under earthquake loading. Two
guyed towers are analyzed: a 350 ft (107 m) tower with six stay levels and an 80 ft (24 m) mast with only
two stay levels. Two horizontal accelerograms are used, El Centro and Parkfield, with each record being
scaled to match the elastic design spectra of the 1990 National Building Code of Canada. Elements of
response analysed are: guy tensions, horizontal shears, and displacements and rotations at the tip of the
mast. Results indicate that although the absolute values of the dynamic amplifications are well below the
limit strength and pliability criteria for such towers, dynamic int~actions between the guywires and
the mast are important, especially in the vertical direction. Multiple support excitation of the tallest tower
also causes additional dynamic effects that are not present when only synchronous ground motion is
studied.
1. ~RODU~O~
Structural designers of telecommunication towers
receive very little guidance from their national stan-
dards for seismic analysis. It is generally recognized
that wind effects, or combinations of wind and ice
effects in cold climates, are more likely to govern all
aspects of design (stability, strength and serviceabil-
ity) than are earthquake effects, but one must also
concede that the seismic behaviour of such structures
has not yet been thoroughly investigated. Also, as
increasingly tall towers are being built, more insight
is needed in this area. Tall tel~mmunication towers
are likely to be crucial points of a network, and may
be required to be serviceable during a major earth-
quake, or at least be left undamaged in order to
resume normal operations shortly after the event.
The International Association For Shell and
Spatial Structures (IASS) makes only very general
recommendations for the seismic analysis of guyed
masts (11. It states that such structures may be
analysed under a static lateral load proportional to
their weight, as is done in most building design codes
for base shears. Designers are then referred to their
national standards for more specific guidelines on
dynamic amplification factors and force dist~bution.
More recommendations follow on modelling con-
siderations applicable to detailed dynamic analysis
for various loads. Particular recommendations for
seismic vibrations include the use of a random
vibration approach in load modelling and the as-
sumption that wave propagation effects at the ground
surface are negligible (input may be assumed to be
synchronous at all supports). Since earthquake loads
are already extreme events, they are assumed to be
combined with dead loads only, and to occur under
still air conditions. Modal superposition, valid for
linear structures, is also suggested. However, caution
in its use is recommended for very taI1 guyed masts
or for unusual towers, both of which may exhibit
important geometric nonlinearities.
Referring to the recommendations of the Canadian
Standards Association in CAN/CSA-S37 [2] for
structural design of antenna-supporting st~ctures,
one finds only a general note on the possible need for
a detailed dynamic analysis of seismic response for
very tall towers.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the
seismic response of guyed towers using numerical
simulations on a detailed finite element model that
includes geometric nonlinearities and that allows for
potential interactions between the mast and the guy-
wires. Two guyed masts are analysed: a short tower
with only two guying levels and a taller one with six.
Only lateral ground excitation is considered, and
effects of surface wave propagation are illustrated for
the tallest tower, for which the excitation at various
ground anchorage points is delayed.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Publications related to dynamic analysis of guyed
towers pertain almost exclusively to wind response.
Work reported by Augusti and collaborators. [3]
includes modelling of a 200 m guyed mast with three
guying levels using equivalent elastic linear springs
for the guy cables. The stiffness of the springs varies
with the frequency of oscillation, however. Inertia
effects of the cables are not modelied and the mast is
a three-dimensional (3-D) lattice structure with seven
lumped masses along its height. Although such a
model cannot account for full dynamic cable-mast
interactions, it retains the essential characteristics of
711
712 E. GUEVARA and G. MCCLURE
geometric nonlinearities. The random vibration ap-
proach used for wind effects could also be adapted to
a study of seismic excitation. More recently [4],
detailed analyses on two guyed towers have been
reported in which the guy cables are represented by a
mesh of from five to twelve two-node cable elements.
Modelling aspects pertaining to geometrically non-
linear effects were also investigated by Ekhande and
Madugula [S]. For static analysis, they proposed a
special cable element formulation which accounts for
sagging effects by using an equivalent modulus of
elasticity. Such a formulation is not appropriate,
however, if inertia effects of the cables are to be
modelled. Another numerical study by Raman and
coworkers [6] confirms the importance of geometric
nonlinearities in guyed tower response under
quasi-static loads.
Irvine [7] has contributed many useful discussions
on the dynamic behaviour of guyed towers, namely
those presenting analytical expressions for linearized
cable vibrations. More recently, Argyris and Mlejnek
[8] have briefly presented results for a 150 m transmit-
ter tower subjected to idealized sinusoidal earthquake
loading. Computed displacements were of large am-
plitude, indicating that serviceability conditions
might be exceeded. Many other contributions to
guyed tower dynamics were made by researchers
from the offshore industry but are not directly rel-
evant to aerial towers, and hence are not reviewed
here.
3. MODELLI NG OF GUYED TOWERS
3.1. Modelling of mast
Figure 1 illustrates the geometry of the two guyed
towers that were analysed. Tower A is an 80 ft (24 m)
mast with two stay levels and Tower B is a taller mast
with a height of 350 ft (107 m) and six stay levels. In
terms of height, Tower A represents the shortest
category of towers used in the industry while Tower
B would be classified as average-detailed data being
obtained from members of the technical committee of
CAN/CSA-S37. Both towers consist of three-legged
!attice galvanized steel masts pinned on their foun-
dation and stayed by pretensioned guy wires. All guy
wires, except those of the lowest cluster, are con-
nected to the mast by means of an outrigger or
stabilizer aimed at increasing the torsional stiffness of
the tower. A total of six guy wires are attached at
each. stabilizer to form three pairs of cables anchored
on the ground on radii oriented at a horizontal angle
of 120. Due to symmetry, only one of the three sets
of cables is shown in Fig. 1. Most connections are
welded and long mast sections are bolted together on
site.
Considering the large number of individual mem-
bers in a lattice mast, the modelling of the masts
required a reduction in the number of degrees of
freedom. Equivalent properties were derived for sec-
tions of the masts. Panels made of four cells as shown
in Fig. 1 were analysed for shear, bending and
torsional effects. Typical panels were modelled as
space trusses, thus neglecting the additional bending
rigidity provided by the welded connections. The
response was then used to compute equivalent shear
and bending properties using Timoshenkos beam
theory. St Venant torsion was used to derive the
torsional stiffness, thus neglecting warping effects in
the mast. This simplification is not significant, how-
ever, since most of the torsional rigidity of the tower
is provided by the guy wires connected at the outrig-
gers. Finally, the axial stiffness was directly obtained
from the cross-sectional area of the legs. It was
observed that due to the lack of symmetry in the
layout of the diagonals, a distortion of the cross-
section is induced by simple lateral loading. This
coupled effect of bending and torsion is not ac-
counted for in the formulation of the 3-D frame
element used, and thus, the equivalent beam model of
the mast is not able to replicate the response of the
detailed space truss model. The comparison of the
equivalent mast with the detailed mast in terms of
axial, lateral and torsional loads, resulted in differ-
ences of less than 3% for Tower A and less than 5%
for Tower B. Special consideration was given to the
outriggers or stabilizers that were modelled with rigid
links from the mast to the cable attachment points.
In view of mass modelling, equivalent panel den-
sities were found for each typical panel. Note that no
provision was made for the mass of ancillary com-
ponents and of antennas attached to the masts. A
lumped mass matrix formulation was used at the
element level. The mast in Tower A was modelled by
a total of 15 elements for a total of 90 degrees of
freedom while the model of the mast in Tower B
includes 31 elements for a total of 183 degrees
of freedom. Gravity effects are included in the analy-
sis and lumped masses are also activated in the
horizontal global directions during seismic analysis.
Rotational inertia effects in individual elements are
neglected. Nor does the model account for structural
damping: note that for all welded steelwork, the IASS
[l] recommends an equivalent modal viscous damp-
ing ratio of 1.2%. Algorithmic damping is used,
however, as discussed in Sec. 4.3, and can be con-
sidered as a replacement of low structural damping.
The material (structural steel) is assumed to be
Hookean.
The mast equivalent models were validated by a
frequency analysis of the equilibrium configuration
under dead weight and cable prestressing forces. The
first five normal modes illustrated in Figs 2(a) and (b)
represent the accuracy of the beam element mesh for
the masts of Towers A and B, respectively. Detailed
3-D truss models were compared with equivalent
models having two-node 3-D frame elements. For
Tower A, there are discrepancies between these
models in terms of mode shapes 4 and 5 near the base
of the mast. These discrepancies occur since the
713
Fig. I. Guy tower geometry: (a) Tower A; (b) Tower B.
E. GUEVAIU and G. MCCLURE
T-o.363 so
;
NON1 uodD2
Fig. 2. Lowest flexural modes of vibration: (a) Tower A; (b) Tower B.
equivalent frame model uses constant element prop-
erties (constant bending rigidity) to model the tapered
shape of the actual structure. Refinements would be
necessary if shear and bending response near the base
was to be studied. Apart from that local effect, Fig. 2
shows that the first five modes are reasonably well
represented by the equivalent mast models. As ex-
pected, the accuracy of the prediction for the corre-
sponding periods is much better: in the order of 1.5%
for the fifth mode of Tower A and 3.2% for that of
Tower B.
3.2. Modelling of guy cables
Guy cables are modelled with three-node truss
elements with numerical integration at two Gauss
points. An initial prestress equal to approximately
10% of the cable ultimate tensile strength is specified
for each cable element by prescribing an initial strain.
Material properties are elastic, as for the mast-this
is a valid assumption since it is not expected that
cable tensions will exceed 75% of their ultimate
capacity. The stress-strain law is defined only in
tension, however, which allows for cable slackening
effects to be modelled if necessary. A sufficiently fine
mesh, using a large kinematics formulation for the
cable stiffness [!I-111, can then account for full
geometric nonlinearities.
Although a frequency analysis of the cables is not
strictly correct due to the geometric nonlinearities of
the cables, it remains informative to decide on the
necessary degree of mesh refinement. Our objective
was to obtain a good prediction (error below 1%) for
the sixth transverse mode, and this was achieved by
using 15 three-node cable elements. Two and four-
node elements were also considered but the three-
node element proved to be the best compromise in
terms of accuracy and numerical effort. Frequency
analyses using both lumped and consistent cable mass
Seismic response of antenna-supporting structures
715
were carried out for Tower A and no important
difference (less than 0.8%) was observed between the
resulting fundamental periods. For the period of the
fourth mode the difference is increased to 11%. For
simplicity, and considering the exploratory nature of
the numerical simulations to be performed, the
lumped mass formulation was retained. It should be
noted that the overestimation of the equivalent stiff-
ness of the entire tower which is inherent to the
discretization process compensates somewhat for the
effect of the lumped mass formulation on the natural
pi OdS.
Cable damping, either structural or aerodynamic,
is not modelled. Unsuccessful attempts were made to
include viscous damping as dashpot elements. Prob-
lems arise with that approach mainly because discrete
dashpots can only be specified once along a fixed
direction [9,10] whereas we need a follower type of
damping force, along the axial direction of each cable
element. An alternative consists of introducing Ray-
leigh damping but since the dynamic analysis will
proceed by direct integration, it is not a viable option
as it would require the calculation of many mode
shapes to obtain proper calibration of the propor-
tionality constants [1 11. In view of the difficulties
associated with realistic modelling of cable damping
for nonlinear analysis, it was decided to rely strictly
on algorithmic damping to filter numerically gener-
ated high frequency components. Although a detailed
discussion of cable damping is beyond the scope of
this paper, it is recognized that research is still needed
in this area to derive more appropriate damping
models for displacement-based finite element pro-
cedures for nonlinear analysis. The main disadvan-
tage of algorithmic damping induced by direct
integration operators is that it cannot be calibrated
with physical damping.
3.3. Comparison of models
Modelling decisions outlined in the above para-
graphs are based on the assumption that only the first
few transverse modes of vibration of both the cables
and the masts will be excited by the ground motion.
Comparisons between the two models of the natu-
ral frequencies of the entire tower are made for both
Towers A and B. For Tower A, results from the
detailed 3-D truss mast model with 1335 degrees of
freedom are compared with those of the equivalent
model having a mesh of 15 frame elements with 564
degrees of freedom. For Tower B, the detailed model
with a total of 3723 degrees of freedom is compared
with the equivalent model having 31 frame elements
and only 2610 degrees of freedom. Note that in all
cases, the finite element mesh used for the guy wires
is similar: 10-15 three-node 3-D tension-only truss
elements, depending on cable length. For the Tower
A comparisons, a maximum difference of the order of
8% is obtained in the fundamental natural frequency.
Results for Tower B comparisons show greater simi-
larity between the models with a maximum difference
of the order of only 5% in the fourth frequency.
Natural frequencies in the reduced model of Tower A
are consistently lower than those of the real tower,
indicating greater flexibility in the equivalent model.
On the contrary, for Tower B, the natural frequencies
are consistently higher in the reduced model than in
the detailed one. Referring again to Fig. 2, it can be
seen that localized effects near the foundation in
higher modes of Tower A originate from the lack of
appropriate representation of the tapered mast.
4. OTHER MODELLI NG CONSI DERATI ONS
4.1. I nput ground motion
Two ground motions were selected for the dynamic
analysis, namely the SOOE component of the 1940 El
Centro earthquake and the N65E component of the
1966 Parkfield earthquake. Each record represents a
different type of seismic loading: the El Centro record
containing a wide range of frequencies and a long
duration of strong motion, while the Parkfield record
is a good representation of a single pulse load with
dominant lower frequencies. These ground motions
are used to reflect realistic frequency contents as
exhibited by real earthquakes. However, their magni-
tude is scaled to a level compatible with the rec-
ommended design spectra of the National Building
Code of Canada [ 121. For the Montreal region which
is selected as the reference for this study, the peak
horizontal ground acceleration is 0.18 g and the peak
horizontal ground velocity is 0.10 m/set. These values
correspond to a spectral acceleration of 0.54g and a
spectral velocity of 0.20 m/set, respectively. Details of
the scaling procedure are given by Schiff [13]. The
scaling is necessary to allow comparison of the
response of the towers between the two accelero-
grams at the same intensity. Note that only horizon-
tal ground motions were simulated because it
was suspected that these would generate the largest
amplifications in flexible guyed towers.
4.2. Support conditions
Earthquake ground motions have high variability
in time and space. For structures in which the
distance between supports is particularly large, the
space variability can be very important and the
assumption that every point at the base of the
structure vibrates synchronously is inaccurate. Since
the absolute velocity of the horizontal ground motion
can be determined, we can treat the motion as a
travelling wave with specific velocity. Time delays for
the arrival of the wave at the base of the structure can
then be introduced at each support. This is illustrated
in Fig. 3 where the ground motion first excites
anchorage point 1, then excites the foundation of the
mast, and lastly, excites anchorage points 2 and 3.
Assuming a shear wave velocity of 3-4 km/set in a
rock medium [14], a total time delay of 0.045 set
occurs between extreme ground anchorage points
716 E. GUEVAIU and G. MCCLURE
which span 125m for Tower B. Delays are not
significant on shorter Tower A, and hence, results
reported for that tower are for the synchronous
ground excitation only.
To take different input ground excitations at vari-
ous support points into account we modified the
boundary conditions of the problem. The method
used is the large mass method (LMM) whose basic
principles and numerical performance are well sum-
marized by LCger et al. [15] in relation to long span
bridges. The method consists of changing the support
conditions from fixed to free in the horizontal plane
and of introducing a large lumped mass in the
direction of these released degrees of freedom. The
effect of the appropriate accelerogram, a(t), is then
introduced directly at these large lumped masses by
an external concentrated inertia force, F(t), which is
equal to the product of large mass, M, and a(t). The
analysis then proceeds as with fixed supports. Rela-
tive displacements of the superstructure can readily
be obtained with respect to any support, by subtract-
ing the absolute displacement at the support being
considered. The value of the large mass appropriate
for this particular application was determined by
sensitivity analyses using a single degree of freedom
model for Tower B. Results obtained from the LMM
and the fixed base method were compared using the
same undelayed sinusoidal ground excitation at all
supports. After conducting trials in the range of
107-10o times the total mass of Tower B, it was found
that a factor of lo* was the best choice to ensure
convergent and accurate results. The LMM is equiv-
alent to the penalty method used in static analysis to
prescribe a support degree of freedom.
4.3. Numerical methods
Stiffness matrix updates using the BFGS method
[ 10,111 are performed at every time step since nonlin-
earities in the guy cables can be important. This
approach is used instead of a full reformulation of the
tangent stiffness matrix at each time step, in order to
save computational effort. Equilibrium iterations
within every time step are also performed whenever
necessary. The tolerance criterion used is based on
the Euclidean norm of the strain energy imbalance
between consecutive time steps.
The nonlinear dynamic equations of motion are
solved by direct step-by-step integration using the
Newmark+ method. Two variants of the integration
method are used: the first one is the common trape
zoidal rule with parameters 6 = 0.5 and b = 0.25,
which does not introduce any amplitude decay in the
calculated response; and the second one is the New-
mark-j method with parameters 6 = 0.55 and
fl = 0.3, which does introduce some amplitude decay.
The second method was used to eliminate spurious
high frequency components in the calculated re-
sponse, which would normally be filtered out by
physical damping.
The time increment used in all calculations is
0.005 sec. Thus, 200 time steps are necessary to
compute the response for a duration of 1 sec.
2
PLAN VIEW
Fig. 3. Modelling of support conditions for asynchronous ground motion.
Seismic response of antenna-supporting structures
Table 1. Summary of rcsponsc for Tower A
717
Cluster 1: r, = 6 kN
qm/=o
Shear (N)
Displacement (mm)
Cluster 2: To = 5 kN
T,,/T,
Shear (N)
Displacement (mm)
Parkfield El Gxtro
No Numerical No Numerical
damping damping damping damping
1.43 (1.19) 1.41(1.14) l.SS(l.24) 1.48 (1.19)
1166 (599) 802 (342) 1670 (750) 1340 (600)
5.36 (3.09) 5.18(2.81) 6.36 (5.1) 8.72 (4.0)
1.26 (1.11) 1.25 (1.10) 1.46(1.25) 1.34(1.16)
1600 (750) 1041(590) 2610(1250) 2133 (1100)
6.27 (3.0) 5.54 (3.0) 11.45 (6.0) 10.0 (6.0)
S.RRSULlS
5.1. General description
Calculated results for various elements of response
are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 for numerical
simulations on Towers A and B, respectively. These
results include ratios of the peak dynamic cable
tension to the initial prestressing force (TdYo/TO),
horizontal shear forces induced in the mast, and
lateral mast displacements at cable attachment
points. Time histories are also presented for the most
relevant response indicators.
Numerical simulations on Tower A are presented
for the two ground accelerograms derived from the
Parkfield and El Centro records. In both cases, results
with no damping and results with numerical damping
are obtained, and as mentioned previously, no time
delay is introduced between the support excitation
points. Time histories (Figs 4and 5) are generated for
a total duration of 15 set which represents 3000 time
steps-the earthquake record available has a total
duration of 2Ose.c.
Simulations on Tower B are obtained only for the
Parkfield ground excitation, and time delays were
Table 2. Summary of response for Tower B
No time delay Time delay
Cluster 1: To= 11.3 kN
Tdyn/q
1.37 1.55
Shear (N) 1250 1250
Cluster 2: To = 17.8 kN
Tdyn/& 1.31 1.32
Shear (N) 3500 3200
Cluster 3: To= 17.8 kN
T,,,/T, 1.29 1.30
Shear (N) 2800 2600
Cluster 4: To =21.3 kN
T&T, 1.34 1.36
Shear (N) 2700 3000
Cluster 5: To =41 kN
Tdp/=a 1.37 1.33
Shear (N) 1900 1800
Cluster 6: To =41 kN
T,,/T, 1.67 1.51
Shear (N) 1800 2060
introduced for comparison with the synchronous
input. Time histories are shown in Figs 6, 11 and 12
and have a total duration of 8 sec. Note that most of
the ground shaking takes place in the first 4sec. It
was also desirable to reduce the total calculation time
for this model since the number of degrees of freedom
is considerably larger than in Tower A.
5.2. Tower A
Table 1 summarizes the dynamic amplifications
observed for three typical elements of response: axial
tension in guy cable, shear force in mast at cluster
attachment point, and lateral displacement parallel to
earthquake direction at the same point. Note that
cable clusters are labelled in ascending number with
the elevation of their mast attachment point being
such that Cluster 1 corresponds to the lowest attach-
ment point. Values in parentheses represent dynamic
effects in the steady-state zone of the time histories,
whereas the main values are those of the peak
transient response. This is best appreciated by look-
ing at Fig. 4(a) where a peak transient tension of
8.6 kN is obtained, compared with an initial prestress
of 6 kN, for an amplification factor of 1.43. The range
of tension fluctuations about the initial prestress in
the steady-state portion that follows is in the order
of 19%. Results for horizontal shears and for dis-
placements at cluster attachment points are given in
absolute values.
Results for cable tensions are all given for a typical
cable aligned with the direction of the input ground
motion. Recall that this has already been illustrated
schematically in Fig. 3. Time histories in Figs 4(a)
and (b) show that the peak transient response occurs
at approximately time t = 4.5 set, which corresponds
to the peak transient in the input excitation. For
Cluster 1, peak amplifications are of the order of
43%. Since the input excitation is rather uniform
after that transient peak, the tower reacts more or less
in a steady-state manner after that point, with maxi-
mum dynamic amplifications of the order of 19%.
Corresponding results are lower for Cluster 2 with
relative amplifications of 26% and 11%, respectively,
for the undamped case. Note that Cluster 2 is made
of cables that are 37% longer than those of Cluster
718
E. GUEVARA and G. MCCLURE
1 with a lower prestressing force, resulting in a more
flexible cluster. Results for the numerically damped
case are only slightly lower with reduction in peak
values from 2-S%. It is seen by comparing Figs 4(a)
and (b) that numerical damping is efficient in filtering
out the high frequency components of the response
that are present in the undamped case during the first
3 set of the time history.
The effect of numerical damping is more evident in
the reduction of the peak values of the mast shear
(0)
9 OE+003
6 OE+OO3
9
zi
7 OE+003
z
z 6.OE+003
c
2 5 OE+003
3
4 OE+003
3 OE+003
Cc)
t OE+003
7 5E+002
z
5.OE+OOZ
w 2 5E+002
2
Lo 0 OEfOW
%
-2 5Ec002
Y -5 OEfoo2
b-l
-7.5Ec002
-1 OE+003 c
-1 3ECOO3 I
0 3
1
ThE (s,
(e)
6 OE-003
-6 OE-003 -I
0 3
T:ME (s,
t
12 15
forces induced in the steady-state range at approxi-
mately time t = 9 set, as shown in Figs 4(c) and (d)
at the level of attachment of Cluster 1. The case with
no damping in Fig. 4(c) shows a tendency for growing
response, which is not physically possible. In Fig. 4(d)
with numerical damping, steady-state amplitudes are
more or less constant, whereas in reality they would
be progressively reduced by structural damping. The
initial response of the first 3 set is not significantly
affected by numerical damping.
(b)
9 OE+003
1
6 OE+003
7
6
OE+003
iii
z 6 OE+W3
P
2 5 OE+003
::::::: I._
TYME (s, 12 1s
(d)
7 5E+002 1
LT -2 SE+002
-7 SE+002
I
-1 OEc003 /
0 3
I
TiME (s, l2
C!
6 OE-003
7 4.OE-003
2 2 OE-003
w
zz
8 00E+000
4
n
v, -2 OE-003
0
-6 OE-003 -I
0 3
I
TktE (s, l5
Fig. 4. Elements of response for Tower A (ParMeld ground motion): (a), (c) and (e) with no damping;
(b), (d) and (f) with numerical damping.
Seismic response of antehna-supporting structures 719
Horizontal displacements and tilting rotations are cable response were found to be linked to the inter-
given at the top of the tower in Figs 4(e) and (f). The action between axial modes of the mast, and should
response is very small with frequency contents similar be filtered out by physical damping. This filtering is
to those observed in shears and cable tensions. achieved by numerical damping in Fig. 5(b). Con-
The same response indicators of Fig. 4 am repeated trary to cable tension, shear response at Attachment
in Fig. 5 for the El Centro ground excitation, and the 1 exhibits higher frequency contents only after 3-4 set
pulsed time histories obtained are characteristics of of ground shaking. Another interesting result is that
this particular acceleration record. High frequencies shear forces in the mast at intermediate points,
in the cable tensions are only present in the first between the cluster attachment points, had higher
1.5 set as shown in Fig. 5(a). As will be discussed later frequency content than the shear forces at cluster
for Tower B, these initial high frequency effects in attachment points. This result was investigated by
(b)
6 OE+WS
F
2 7 OE+OOJ
0
iz
z 6 OE+003
F
d
5 OE+003
3 4.OEc003
6
7 OE+W3
iii
z 6 OE+OO3
k
A 4 5.OE+W3
2
4 OE+OO3
2 OE+003
0 3
ThE (s, 5
Cc)
2 OE+003
30E+003 ! 1
0 3
ThE (s, l2 l5
Cd)
1 5E+003
1 5E+003
g 1 OE+oOS
g 5 Of+002
lx
t? OOE+OOO
s -5 OE+OOZ
:: -l.OE+003
1 OE+W3
9
w SOE+OOZ
x
i? o.OE+wo
@L
5 -5.OE+OOZ
??I
- 1 OE+003
-2 OE+Om
0 3
TikE (s, l5
(e)
1 ZE-002
1 DE-002
-1 x+003 4 1
0 3 TilE (s, 15
(0
1 OE-002 ,
6 OE-003
E
6 m-003
6 OE-003
+ 40E-003
$ 2 OE-003
I
w O.OE+OOO
bi-
2 OE-003
L -4.OE-003
in
6 -S.OE-003
-6.OE-003
- 60E-003
E
- 40E-003
2 ZOE-003
; OOE+WO
2 -2 OE-003
b -4.OE-003
5
-6.OE-003
- 1 .OE-002
-6.OE-003
-1 ZE-002 , -1 OE-002 4
0 3 ThE (s, l5 0 3 TbE (s, l5
Fig. 5. Elements of response for Tower A (El Centro ground motion): (a), (c) and (e) with no damping;
(b), (d) and (f) with numerical damping.
120 E. GUEVARA and G. MCCLURE
generating a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of the
time history analysis of the shear force between the
foundation and Attachment 1. It was found that
there is frequency coincidence between the first axial
mode of the mast and the fifth bending mode of the
tower, at approximately 38 Hz.
In general, from Table 1, one can observe that the
El Centro excitation produces larger cable tension
amplifications, larger shear forces, and larger dis-
placements, than the Parkfield.
I 6E+004
1 SE+004
91 4E+004
2 1 3E+OO4
0
i3
z 1 2E+004
P
1 1E+OO4
d
x 1
Q
OF+004
9 OE+OOS
8 m+oo3
2 4E+004 ,
1 aE+004
5T
-1 SE+004
$
9 1 4E+004
k I *E+oo4
d
-
2
1 1E+004
9 OE+OO3
I
2
TIME4 (s)
a
Cc)
7 SE+003 /
0
TIME4 (s) 6
8
2 4E+004 ,
(d)
2 OE+004
9 F
-1 SE+004
1
0
SE+004
0
iTj v,
1 SE+004
z 1 2E+004
F
ZI
b 1 2E+W4
J
4 8 OEcOO3
2 9 OEt003
5 2
6 OE+OO3
4 OE+O03
I
1
5.3. Tower B
Table 2 summarizes the dynamic tension amplifica-
tions (T,,,/T,) observed for a typical cable in the
response of each of the six clusters. Maximum shear
forces induced at the cluster attachment points are
also listed. Corresponding complete time histories of
the cable tensions for Clusters 1, 3 and 6 are shown
in Fig. 6 for both synchronous and asynchronous
ground excitations. Recall that guy clusters are
0 OE+OOO 1 7
0 2 TIME4 6 8
(s)
3 OE+003 / I
0
TIME4 (s) 6
a
6 4E+004 , 6 2E+004
5 6E+004
9
4
5
BE+004
v,
z 4 OE+004
?
A 3 2E+004
I
2
2 4E+004
-r
2 6E+004
I 6E+004 I I
0 2
TIME4 (s)
6 8
5 6E+004
7s
-5 OE+004
$
v,
4 rE+004
z
k 3 aE+004
2
x 3.2E+004
6
2 OE+004
0 2
TIME4 (s) 6
8
Fig. 6. Elements of response for Tower B: (a), (c) and (e) synchronous ground motion; (b). (d) and (f)
asynchronous ground motion.
Seismic response of ~tenna-supping structures 721
labelled in ascending number with the elevation of
their mast attachment point being such that Cluster
1 corresponds to the lowest attachment point. All
results were obtained using the model with numerical
damping. Results in Table 2 indicate amplifi~tions in
the cable tensions in the range of 29-37% for the five
lowest clusters, and a much larger ampiification of
67% in the top cluster, for the model with syn-
chronous base excitation. It is interesting to observe
the effect of the time delay on the cable tensions in
Cluster 1. Namely, tensions are amplified from 1.37
to 1.55 times the initial prestress. The amplitudes are
more or less unaffected by the delay in the other
clusters, In Cluster 6, however, the time delay tends
to reduce the peak tensions.
Note the presence of high frequency components in
the first three seconds of the time histories, especially
in Cluster 3 (Fig. SC). To investigate the source of
these high frequencies, we ran a Fast Fourier Trans-
form analysis of the cable tension time history for all
three clusters (1, 3 and 6). Plots are given in Fig. 7.
It was first thought that these high frequencies were
due to the vibration of the guy wires since some of the
higher transverse vibration modes of these cables are
also close to 11 Hz, a dominant frequency for the
20000.00
II
20000 00
1
16000 cl0
II
(b)
16000 00
i
(4
axial tension in Cluster 3. We then refined the cable
mesh and observed no important change in the cable
tensions. To get more insight into this special feature
of the response, we decided to study the seismic
response of individual ~mponents. First, the isolated
cable typical of Cluster 6 was subjected to base
motion. The tension calculated at the top attachment
point is plotted in Fig. 8 and indicates no high
frequency components. We then applied the vertical
force component of all cables of Cluster 6 as an
external compressive load, P(t), on the isolated
mast-the mast was assumed to be pinned at both
ends and subjected to base motion. Results for the
vertical reaction in the mast are shown in Fig. 9(a)
and an FFT of that time history is given in Fig. 9(b).
Dominant frequencies in Fig. 9(b) match the lowest
two axial frequencies of the mast, and clearly show
the implant cont~bution of the mast in the gener-
ation of these high frequencies. In the fully coupled
model, these high frequencies propagate through the
mast and in the guy wires. This result is supported by
the time histories shown in Figs 6(c) and (d) for
Cluster 3. Returning to the response of the complete
model, Fig. IO shows the time history of the axial
force in the mast for an intermediate point between
(4
0 00 0.00
6
FREQUENCY (Hz)
0
FBREQI;EN& (&)
Pig. 7. Fast Fourier Transform of axial tension in guys for synchronous motion.
CM 41,4,-
722
6.OE+004
5.6E+004
5.2E+004
u,
z 4.8E+004
W
t
2 4.4E-tO04
-
2
4.OE+004
3.6E+004
0
E. GUEVARA and G. MCCLURE
I I I I
1
TIME2 (s) 3
4
Fig. 8. Axial response of guywire without mast interaction.
the foundation and the attachment point of Cluster
1. In this case also, it is clear that the interaction of
the axial modes of the mast is significant. This is an
important finding since it indicates that vertical
ground motion could possibly trigger large dynamic
amplifications if combined with lateral excitation.
The largest shear effects are induced at the attach-
ment points of Clusters 2 and 4 for which time
histories are shown in Figs II(a) and (b) for the
synchronous and asynchronous excitation, respect-
ively. Table 2 indicates that shears at Attachment 2
are about three times as large as those induced at the
5 - 1 SE+005
d
l -5 2E+005
9
z
w -4 BE+005
>
-64E+005 I
0 1
TIME (s) 3
I
4
first stay level. Shear forces do not show a particu-
larly high frequency content, however, and a transi-
ent peak occurs shortly after 3 set which coincides
with the transient peak of the excitation.
Lateral displacement time histories of the displace-
ment at the top of the tower are given in Figs 12(a)
and (b) for the two types of excitation. As expected,
the frequency content of the displacement response is
lower than that of the shears. It is observed that the
peak displacements are of the same order (approxi-
mately 5 cm) in both the delayed and undelayed
cases.
(b)
1 OE+005
Fig. 9. Mast response without cable interaction: (a) vertical reaction at base of the mast; (b) FFT of the
vertical reaction.
Seismic response of antenna-supporting structures 123
9.6E+005
- 8.OE+005
Z
w
w 6.4E+005
FG
0 4.8E+005
IA-
A 3 2E+005
Q
x
Q 1.6E+005
O.OE+OOO
- 1.6E+005
I I I I 1
0 2 TIME4 6 8
(s)
Fig. 10. Axial force in the mast at elevation 3 A.
6. CONCLUSION
In this paper we have presented a detailed numeri-
cal investigation of the seismic behaviour of two
guyed telecommunication towers. The towers selected
represent current industrial practice in Canada.
Results indicate that the absolute values of the
dynamic cable tensions and of the induced shear
forces in the mast are well below the limit strength.
Displacements obtained at cable attachment points
and at the top of the tower are also well below
serviceability criteria for such towers. It is recognized
(0)
3 OE+OOJ
2 OE+003
52
- 1 OE+OOJ
8
,,Z OOE+OOO
8
w -1 OE+003
4
1 -Z.OE+OOJ
U-J
-4OE+003 !
0 1
I
TIME4 (s) 6
8
that seismic risk is not a serious concern in the
Montreal region, and it will be interesting to study
the response of the same structures for other
locations where the risk is higher, such as the
Vancouver region in British Columbia. Numerical
modelling of a taller tower is also planned in order to
cover the complete range of telecommunication tower
categories, from below 30 m high to over 300 m. For
multi-level guyed towers, it seems that top and bot-
tom clusters are prone to the largest dynamic effects.
An important observation is that dynamic inter-
actions between the guywires and the mast are
4 OE+OO3 ,
b)
3 OE+OO3
z 2 OE+003
8 1 OE+OO3
; OOE+OOO
% -1 OE+OO3
w
5 -U,E+OOJ
-1OE+OOJ ! I
0
TIME4 (s) 6
8
Fig. 11. Shear force at the second attachment point for Tower B: (a) synchronous motion; (b)
asynchronous motion.
724 E. GUEVARA and G. MCCLURE
(b)
-0 03 - -0 05
-0 04 1 -006
0 2 TIME4 6 8 0 TIME4 8
(s) (s)
Fig. 12. Displacements at the top of Tower B: (a) synchronous motion; (b) asynchronous motion.
important, especially in the vertical direction. This
needs to be further investigated because in real
earthquakes, both horizontal and vertical ground
motions are present, and the combination of the two
might adversely affect the tower.
Another interesting finding is that multiple support
excitation of the tallest tower causes additional dy-
namic effects that are not present when only syn-
chronous ground motion is studied. This result,
combined with the fact that vertical accelerations
may also trigger important dynamic amplifications,
suggests that more numerical investigations are
needed to understand fully the seismic behaviour of
tall, geometrically nonlinear towers.
Acknowledgemenfs-The work reported here was carried
out with the financial support provided by the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to
the second author. The assistance of Professor Murty
Maduuula of the University of Windsor (Ontario) and of
Mr &mon Weisman of Weisman Con&ants Inc. of
Downsview (Ontario) is also gratefully acknowledged.
1.
2.
REFERENCES
IASS (International Association For Shell and Spatial
Structures), Working Group No. 4, Recommendations
for guyed masts, IA&S, Madrid (1981).
CSA (Canadian Standards Association), CAN/CSA-
S37M86, Antennas, towers, and antenna-supporting
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
structures, A National Standard of Canada, CSA,
Rexdale, Toronto (1986).
G. Augusti, C. Borri, L. Marradi and P. Spinelli, On the
time-domain analysis of wind response -of structures,
J. Wind Emme I ndusil. Aerodvn. 23. 449-463 (1986).
G. Augusti,-C:Borri and V. Gusella, Simulationof wind
loading and response of geometrically non-linear struc-
tures with particular reference to large antennas, Srruc-
rural Safefy 8, 161-179 (1990).
S. G. Ekhande and M. K. S. Madugula, Geometric
non-linear analysis of three-dimensional guyed towers.
cO??lDUt. Struct. 29. 801-806 (1988).
N. V. Raman, G. V. Surya Kumar and V. V. Sreedhara
Rao, Large displacement analysis of guyed towers.
Compur. Struct. 28, 93-104 (1988).
H. M. Irvine, Cable Structures. MIT Press, Cambridge.
MA (1981).
J. Argyris and H. P. Mlejnek, Dynamics of Structures.
Texts on Comoutational Mechanics. Vol. V. North-
Holland, New kork (1991).
ADINA R&D, Inc., ADINA-IN for ADINA users
manual. Report ARD 90-4, Watertown, MA (1990).
ADINA R&D, Inc., ADINA theory and modeling
guide. Report ARD 87-8, Watertown, MA (1987).
K. J. Bathe, Finite Element Procedures in Engineering
Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1982).
12 National Research Council of Canada, National build-
13.
14.
15.
ing code of Canada 1990, 10th Bdn, Ottawa (1990).
S. D. Schiff. Seismic desian studies of low-rise steel
frames. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois (Urbana-
Champaign) (1988).
M. Wakabayashi, Design of Earthquake Resistant
Buildings, pp. 6-7. McGraw-Hill, New York (1986).
P. Leger, M. Ide and P. Paultre, Multiple-support
seismic analysis of large structures. Compur. Strucf. 36,
1153-l 158 (1990).