Engineering Structures, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.

79-91, 1997
Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
S041-0296(965)00025-9 0141 0296/97 $17.00 + 0.00
ELSEVIER

Wind-induced deflections of flee-

standing lattice towers
M. J. GlanviUe and K. C. S. Kwok
The University of Sydney, School of Civil and Mining Engineering, Sydney, NSW 2006,
Australia
(Received August 1995; revised version accepted January 1996)

Full-scale deflection measurements were performed on a 67 m

steel frame tower and a 233 m steel truss tower under wind load-
ing. Measurements were acquired by various means and compared
with along-wind theoretical estimates. The latter were obtained
using a simplified frequency domain prediction that incorporates
some practical observations and remarks. The dynamic cross-wind
response of lattice towers was also measured and discussed. Copy-
right © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: lattice towers, wind loading, deflection measurements

1. Introduction 2. Full-scale measurements

Free-standing lattice towers have been used extensively as
civil engineering structures since the time of Gustave Eiffel.
Over a century later, a full understanding of the interaction
between the wind and lattice towers has not yet been fully
acquired. Perhaps the greatest hindrance in this pursuit has
been the incompatibility of lattice towers to wind tunnel
modelling and testing. Difficulties arise when modelling the
aeroelastic properties of lattice towers at the scales nor-
mally required for wind tunnels. Simulation of the Reyn-
olds number at model scales is a further problem for circu-
lar member towers. Full-scale investigations thus serve as
the most reliable means for understanding lattice tower
response to wind loading.
Free-standing lattice towers used for communications
and broadcasting are often governed by minimum deflec-
tion requirements under serviceability conditions in order
to minimize antennae 'outages'. The first part of this paper
(section 2) presents full-scale deflection measurements per-
formed on two lattice towers under wind loading. A 67 m
steel frame communications tower and a 233 m steel truss
television broadcasting tower were investigated. In the
second half of the paper (section 3) a theoretical prediction
of tower deflection that incorporates the use of ' S T R A N D 6 '
finite element software is presented for comparison with
full-scale measurements. The measured dynamic character-
istics of both towers are compared to existing data for tall
lattice towers.
At present, Australian wind codes ~'2 suggest that the
cross-wind dynamic response of lattice towers can be neg-
lected unless there are substantial enclosed parts of the
tower near the top. This recommendation is investigated
further in the light of available full-scale data.
Tower deflection comprises both mean and dynamic
components. Mean deflection is simply the average deflec-
tion under a given wind loading of set duration. Dynamic
deflection may be further divided into resonant and back-
ground parts. The resonant component is the amplified
response of the tower to frequency components near the
natural frequency no. The background component is the
response of the tower neglecting dynamic amplification
near the natural frequency. It accounts for the quasistatic
dynamic response below the natural frequency associated
with large gusts and the attenuation of frequencies greater
than no.
Prospect Tower (Figure 1) provided the ideal structure to
measure all of these along-wind and cross-wind deflection
components at full scale. Accelerometers, cup anemometers
and vanes were installed at the 57 m and 35 m levels of
the tower. Output from these instruments were continually
logged by a 486 PC fitted with an A / D converter. Dedicated
software continually sampled the data in 14 min sections at
20 Hz. Reference 3 documents some preliminary findings
from the Prospect Tower including the measured dynamic
characteristics and wind-induced resonant response.
The 126 tonne frame system of the Prospect Tower com-
prises four circular column sections rigidly joined to rolled
section platforms. The tower is located in the western sub-
urbs of Sydney amongst flat category 2 terrain. The first
natural frequency along both axes of the tower was meas-
ured 3 at about 1.08 Hz. The natural frequency was obtained
by a power spectral analysis of the wind-induced tower
acceleration. Structural damping of the tower along the
east/west axis was estimated from full-scale free vibration
decay tests to be about 0.7% of critical damping. Structural
damping along the north/south axis was measured at about
1% of critical damping.

79
80 Wind-induced deflections o f free-standing lattice towers: M. J. Glanville and K. C. S. Kwok

N N axes of the tower were measured at 0.54 Hz and 0.5% of

critical damping, respectively.
ff
2.1. Mean deflection measurements
A horizontally aligned accelerometer intended to measure
the lateral sway acceleration of a structure will also meas-
ure some degree of tilt acceleration. Tilt acceleration is the
component of gravity induced by the angular rotation of a
67m 833m structure about any horizontal axis as is shown in Figure 2.
Precise tilt acceleration measurement allows the low fre-
VHF quency quasistatic reponse of a structure to be measured.
Hsst Antennoe
Typically the magnitude of tilt acceleration g.c~ will be
806m small. Findings from this paper will show that the magni-
s~_ 57m tude of tilt acceleration induced by a 20 m/s wind was less
than 1 mg at the 57 m level of the Prospect Tower. Sun-
strand QA-1300 high resolution accelerometers were
required to measure the tilt accelerations on the Prospect
Tower. These sensitive accelerometers have a threshold and
resolution of less than 10 3 rag.
The resonant horizontal acceleration was found to be
more than an order of magnitude greater than the low fre-
quency tilt acceleration at the 57 m level of the Prospect
Tower. Two methods were employed to improve this hori-
129m zontal acceleration to tilt acceleration ratio. Firstly, the sig-
nal was lowpass filtered at 0.5 Hz and amplified before
35m
digitization. Secondly, the tilt accelerometers were moved
from the 57 m to the 35 m level of the tower. This reduced
the magnitude of the resonant signal by a factor of about
2.5. The remaining resonant horizontal acceleration compo-
nent and low frequency tilt acceleration component of the
signal were then of similar magnitude.
The mean deflection of Prospect Tower was obtained
from the measured tilt angle in accordance with the wind-
induced deflected shape of the tower as calculated by
STRAND6. In Reference 3, mode shapes of the Prospect
Tower were modelled using S T R A N D 6 and also measured
at full scale. The calculated wind-induced deflected shape
of this tower is almost identical to the calculated and meas-
ured first mode shape as seen in Figure 3.
Figure 4 (a,b) shows tilt acceleration signals that were

m
U4 ~ ,~,~0m
measured under the wind loading shown in Figure 4 (c,d).
The abscissa in Figure 4 a,b have been converted from tilt
acceleration to displacement at the 57 m level based on the
above assumptions. The tower deflection is seen to be
closely aligned to the wind yaw angle 0 as would be
A-A S-S expected.
A second method for measuring tower deflection under
wind loading involved the use of a laser beam. A H e - N e
Prospect TCN9 laser was placed at the base of the tower and magnified
Figure 1 General arrangement of Prospect Tower and TCN9 through a theodolite onto a grid placed at the 57 m level
Tower of the tower. The relative movement of the grid to the

The methods used to extract full-scale measurements

from the 233 m TCN9 television broadcasting tower occeLe~'ome~er ~ \ co~
(Figure 1) were similar to the methods employed on the
Prospect Tower 3. An accelerometer pair, cup anemometer
and vane were located at the 206 m level of the tower. Only
the resonant component of displacement was measured on
the TCN9 tower.
Situated in the northern suburbs of Sydney, the TCN9
\ clxiN
tower is surrounded by undulating category 3 terrain. The
\.
278 tonne truss system of the tower was built predomi-
c~cce/enometep ou~pu± - x + 9,~
nantly from flat-sided angle section members. Both the
natural frequency and structural damping ratio along both Figure 2 Tilt accelerometer principle of operation
Wind-induced deflections o f free-standing lattice towers: M. J. Glanville and K. C. S. Kwok 81

6@- corresponds to the high frequency resonant component of

I
/ response.
55- /
Figure 8 illustrates the coherence between wind speed
/
/
and the raw tilt acceleration signal over a varying frequency
5@- / range. It is considered that the value 0.2 Hz is an upper
/ bound for the background response on the Prospect Tower
/
,~, 4 5 - since there is little coherence beyond this point. The area
/
/
A8 under the tilt acceleration spectrum (Figure 7) between

/
"-" 4 @ - / 0 Hz and 0.2 Hz, was then multiplied by the total variance
..,.D / of the 14 min tilt acceleration record O'2otal t o give the vari-
/ ance of the background response component 4 .
4: 35- /
O3
°~ /
= A80~total ( 1)
a) 3@- I

4:Z
The correlation coefficient rw, between 10 s averaged
25- wind speed (w) and tilt (t) signals was calculated to elimin-
@
z 28-
t Inllnlu Meesured
shape t
mode ate the effects of low frequency signal drift. Any 14 min
sample had to satisfy the requirement r2, > 0.8 to be
0 included in the analysis. This indicates that at least 80% of
- - Computed mode
I-- 19- the variability in displacement results from the change in
shape 1
wind speed alone.
I@- -- -- -- C o m p u t e d Figure 9 plots the standard deviation of low frequency
def I ec t ton shape background deflection at the 57 m level of the Prospect
Tower against the mean wind speed of yaw angle 0 where
260 ° < 0 < 280 °. Clearly the cross-wind background
@ I I I i 1 I
response is about half the along-wind background response.

Figure 3 First m o d e s h a p e and w i n d - i n d u c e d d e f l e c t e d s h a p e 2.3. Resonant deflection measurement

o f Prospect T o w e r
Resonant accelerations were measured on the Prospect and
TCN9 towers at the 57 m and 206 m levels, respectively.
stationary beam was then filmed for later analysis. The Horizontally aligned, standard-type accelerometers were
tower displacement, as mapped by the laser pad, was super- used to measure the wind-induced resonant accelerations
imposed upon the simultaneously recorded tilt acceler- along the major orthogonal axes of each tower. Figures 10
ometer displacement in Figure 4 (a,b). Agreement between and 11 show the relationship between the standard devi-
these data sets serves as a full-scale calibration of the tilt ation of resonant response and mean wind speed of both
accelerometer technique. towers. This data was based upon 14 min samples. The
Two problems are inherent in the analysis of deflection acceleration response time histories and wind-induced
data obtained using either of these full-scale measurement acceleration spectra of the Prospect 3 and TCN9 Towers
methods. They are the gradual electronic drift of the instru- were seen to be dominated by mode one response. Acceler-
mentation, and tilt induced in the tower by temperature ation was then converted to displacement assuming a sinus-
fluctuations. For this reason it was not possible to compare oidal response at mode one. The magnitude of the resonant
the absolute deflection under a certain wind speed with its deflection of the TCN9 Tower was measured to be signifi-
resting position during still conditions hours earlier. Instead cantly larger than the resonant deflection of the Prospect
the incremental change in deflection with change in wind Tower at any given mean wind speed.
speed between 10 s averaged samples were plotted as It is observed from Figures 6, 9 and 10 that the magni-
shown in Figure 5. Figure 5 represents those wind speeds tude of the mean and background deflections of the Pros-
originating from between 8 - 1 0 m / s and increasing or pect Tower are well in excess of the resonant deflections
decreasing by an amount shown on the ordinate. The rate at any given wind speed. This is to be expected since the
of change in deflection with respect to wind speed over natural frequency of the Prospect Tower exceeds 1 Hz,
every 2 m/s interval between 0 and 20 m/s was found using leaving little energy in the turbulence spectrum to excite
a line of best fit. Finally, the slopes of every wind speed the tower into resonant response. There was little measured
interval were joined to form the mean deflection plot shown response between 0.2 Hz and the natural frequency of the
in Figure 6. Any remaining components of horizontally Prospect Tower (1.08 Hz) within the measured wind velo-
induced acceleration were eliminated from the data using city range. At any time, in co-ordinate space, the tower
this method. resonates about the mean deflected displacement within a
narrow frequency bandwidth.
2.2. Background deflection measurement Strong coupling between major tower axes was observed
A typical tilt acceleration spectrum is shown in Figure 7. in the resonant response of both towers. The coupled res-
This spectrum was based upon 14 min of tilt acceleration onant response of the Prospect Tower has been docu-
data obtained from the Prospect Tower. Clearly the spec- mented 3.
trum can be divided into its background and resonant
response regions. The area under the spectrum, AB, was
generated from the tilt acceleration g.c~ and corresponds to
3. Predicted along-wind deflections
the low frequency background response of the tower. Area The following procedure for estimating along-wind mean
AR was formed from residual horizontal acceleration/¢ and and dynamic deflections of lattice towers incorporates the
82 Wind-induced deflections of free-standing lattice towers: M. J. Glanville and K. C. S. Kwok

6
I D t s p I acemen L ( ~-/N ax Ls)
4r L ..... So~e~
| i t II I " J I Acce I erome Set t
. • 1Q s e c aver-a e r ll~

6) se G s6mp I es

il ,
4

b)

2@
speed . ~

viLnd
18

16
o) 14
\
c) E 1 2 ~" "., ' ',.' "",, .,~,~ ' ~-~ ~ / ,;" ! ,' ~' /.
, ~ ~ ' v,.,',... ~,,," ~. ~ ~ , ,., ,,
18
' ~ ~,/ ~-.~.--'-~ U ~' ",,"q ,
8
...... 36m ,.
6 I I I I ~ I i

278
l~ltn d d tpec t ton e
26@

c~26@
d) o
~)240

238

22% 1@ 2@ 38 48 50 6@ 70
T Line ( seconds)
Figure 4 (a), (b): Time history of deflection at 57 m level of Prospect Tower. (c), (d): simultaneously recorded wind speed and direc-
tion
Wind-induced deflections of free-standing lattice towers: M. J. Glanville and K. C. S. Kwok 83

AI o n g - ~ Ln d
5
C
0
°_~

..,._) 4

¢ E
E 3 "

-o 2 .,.: " ,:
<'1 • • %,,k# ~ ,,*

" 41~A~'~IIL~"A• Le~

• j%,~l,-:ll~'tlllPmt~lt41~t •

• • . ~ - ~ # A /kl~l L [I U speed
( m/s )

-/
-3

-4

-5

Cr'oss-~ tn d
c-
5
O

4
0 ,-~
G) E
-- E 3
q.- ,,_,
0
--o 2
<] x

x IF x x
× x ~×~LX.~ × × ×~ x ~x
X X X X

× . J
- ~

speed
x x'"
×

-2

-:3

-4

-5
Figure 5 C h a n g e in d e f l e c t i o n v e r s u s c h a n g e in w i n d s p e e d w i t h i n r a n g e 8 - 1 0 m / s at P r o s p e c t T o w e r , 57 rn level
84 Wind-induced deflections of free-standing lattice towers: M. J. Glanville and K. C. S. Kwok

14
t x. .x.x.x.x AIr - oon
6 s s - g-~4
~4 i.i. nd
nd • A

1~ Mean dell ecL (on

l .z"
~-, as cal cul aLe*d • ":J
A
fr'om sec L (on A

~18 3.1.
C
O

© A
@
-- 6
L,IL~ A
g-
A
® AAA~
-D
4
©
~.!e- X
• AA.
® xx
5- 2
x
x
XX

X X
~X
x xx
, ~X~x x
_ I L ' I ' X I x

B 10 1B 20 25
P,lLnd s p e e d (m/s)
Figure 6 Mean deflection at 57 m level of Prospect T o w e r versus wind speed. Westerly wind loading (247.50<0<292.5 °)

28

/ 15
<
F--
O
F-
0J

c10
60 AB / AR

@.-@@1 @. @1 @. 1 1
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 7 A l o n g - w i n d tilt acceleration spectrum for Prospect T o w e r

Wind-induced deflections of free-standing lattice towers: M. J. Glanville and K. C. S. Kwok 85

1 Or--

@ 9 Meen r4 tn d speed = 1 7.2m/s

0 8

@ 7
0
©
c@ 6
0
c-05
0
C-

©04
(._)

0:3

@ 2

@ 1

@ 1 L I I I I I i " I
13 @.1 @.2 @.3 0.4 @.5
F-r'equer] cy (Hz)
Figure 8 Coherence between wind speed and along-wind tower tilt acceleration for Prospect Tower

r-
b-
E 4 /
AAAAA AI ong-~ Lnd /
4--) xxxxx Cr'oss-~4 tnd /
t-- ---- AI ong-~4 [nd b~ck gPound /
(]) dell ecL Lon ms /
E ce I cu I m Led fPom /A
(D
o 3 sec L ton 3.2. ~ / ,, "
©

o_
co

-0
A A A M •
~2 • X X
©
(- • • xX X

(])
D
0"-
(]3
f._
q_ 1 •
/
/
x
XX x x
x X
X
X

X xX XX
©
X
o x ×
¢q
t i I l
6 10 15 20 25
Mean r4 End speed (m/s)
Figure 9 Standard deviation of low frequency (background) displacement versus mean wind speed at 57 m level of Prospect Tower.
Westerly wind loading ( 2 6 0 o < 0 < 2 8 0 ° )
86 Wind-induced deflections of free-standing lattice towers: M. J. Glanville and K. C. S. Kwok

2.5
E "•""• AI on g-~4 tn d
E xxxxx Cr'oss-~4 tnd x
AI o n g - ~ 4
[.nd r-eson~n L
dell ec L (on es
2.0 c~ I cu I ~ Led from ~x
® sec L ton 3. 3. xX
E
6)
© X
© • x ~x
-- 1.5 x •~•/
O_
u?
°J

-(3

O
c-
~ •×~ x ×

£0

¢q X

8" B 18 15 28 25
I~lean ~ i.n d speed (m/s)
Figure 10 Standard deviation of resonant displacement versus mean wind speed at 57 m level of Prospect Tower. Westerly wind
loading (247.5o<(5<292.5 ° )

E
18
/
E 9 AAAAA AI on g-~ tn d /

.,_p
8
xxxxx Cr'oss-~4
AIong-w
response
tnd
lnd
~s
resonenL
c~l cul ~Led /
/
C
® tn s e c L ton 3. 3. ~
E
e
o
(0
7 x
x
/
6 X A• X /
--
O_
co
/
X X•
-D
X X~< Xx

X •A X •• A
~ 4
c~
© X •~A

c 3 x~ ×~
©
XxX A
®
a 2 × •
x x

£3
Or)
~ t 5 10 t5 28 25
blean ~4 Ln d speed (m/s)
Figure 71 Standard deviation of resonant displacement versus mean wind speed at 206 m level of TCN9 Tower. Southerly wind
loading ( 157.5°<O<202.5 °)
Wind-induced deflections o f free-standing lattice towers: M. J. Glanville and K. C. S. Kwok
use of STRAND6 finite element software and parameters
measured at full-scale. Root-mean square (RMS) estimates
of the background deflection {~ff82and resonant deflection
"~-5R2 are obtained for comparison with full-scale results.
This method will also provide good deflection estimates for
other free-standing lattice tower configurations using alter-
native software packages and wind code parameters as
found in References 1 or 2. The designer can obtain peak
deflections by multiplying these RMS values with back-
ground and resonant peak factors contained within wind
codes. The total peak deflection k can then be determined
from equation (2).
(2)
Where x,, is the mean deflection component.
3.1. Predicted mean deflection
The mean deflection x,~ of the Prospect Tower under wind
loading was predicted using STRAND6 to solve equation
(3) for the unknown displacements {x}.
[K] {x} : {P} (3)
[K] represents the global stiffness matrix and {P} the
applied load vector matrix. The natural frequency and mode
shape of the tower were modelled by STRAND6 in Refer-
ence 3 and agreed well with those measurements made in
full-scale. The modelled stiffness matrix [K] and mass dis-
tribution of the tower was then known to be representative
of the real structure.
The applied load vector matrix {P} was obtained by
applying discrete static wind drag forces to the STRAND6
finite element model over the height of the tower. Drag
forces were calculated as follows
Fj = Ca,, A~ q. (4)
Each level of the Prospect Tower was assigned a panel for
which Fj was calculated. 19 different values of Cj~, A= and
q. over the height of the tower were required.
A. represents the projected 'shadow' area of the members
in one face of the tower without ancillaries. Drawings and
photographs were used to meticulously calculate A~ at each
panel. The free stream wind pressure q. at any height z
was estimated using a Deaves and Harrisncategory 2 wind
velocity profile. Selection of a terrain category 2 classi-
fication was based upon full-scale measurements performed
at the Prospect Tower site. Full-scale turbulence intensity,
spectral density, velocity ratio and spatial coherence
measurements were made between the 35 m and 57 m
anemometer levels of the Prospect Tower (turbulence inten-
sity at 57 m = 0.15, turbulence length scale
L(57) ~ 1500m, power law exponent ce ~ 0.2 and the
decay constant Cy ~- 10). Without field measurements, the
designer can usually classify terrain category by eye.
The effective drag force coefficient for a tower with
ancillaries is denoted Cae where
ca~ =Ca + ACa (5)
For highly porous lattice towers, it is adequate to estimate
the total drag force coefficient by the summation of Ca
values of individual members over the whole structure. As
87
the porosity of the tower decreases, downwind members
become shielded in the wakes of upstream members and
flow is diverted around instead of through the lattice. The
summation of individual Cj values will then become too
conservative and an empirical estimate becomes more
appropriate. The 'reference face' approach developed for
BS81005 and later used in AS39952 provides the best avail-
able empirical estimate of lattice tower drag force coef-
ficients Cj. These estimates are based on the findings of
large-scale wind tunnel tests. Estimates of Ca are made for
lattice towers of varying solidity ratios built from square
and/or circular members. Cj was calculated for each panel
of the Prospect Tower using the 'reference face' method.
ACd is the additional drag force coefficient due to ancil-
laries. Wind tunnel tests have been carried out by Holmes
et al. 6 tO determine suitable ACa values for microwave dish
ancillaries. The drag on isolated dishes was measured in
these tests and an allowance made for the mutual aerody-
namic interference between the tower and its ancillaries
through an interference factor. Ancillaries on the Prospect
Tower are predominantly unshrouded parabolic dishes
which constitute around 5% of the tower face projected
area. ACj values were calculated using the Holmes test
result formulae that are also presented in Reference 2.
The validity of this theoretical prediction is confirmed
when compared with the full-scale deflection data at the
57 m level of the tower (Figure 6). Agreement between
these results serves as a full-scale calibration of the wind
tunnel test estimates for the effective drag coefficient Caw.
3.2. Predicted along-wind background deflection
The RMS background deflection ~/~ of the Prospect Tower
was obtained using an influence line approach advocated
by Holmes 7 based on stationary random processes. This
type of analysis is suited to tower deflection estimates under
long duration wind loadings such as synoptic gales and
tropical cyclones.
~X¢28 --- x,, r (6)
Xm represents the mean deflection of the tower as calculated
in Section 3.1. The roughness factor r is a function of the
terrain roughness and tower mode shape and is approxi-
mately twice the longitudinal turbulence intensity at a
height h. This turbulence intensity at the 57 m level of the
Prospect Tower was measured at full-scale 3. Turbulence
intensity can alternatively be obtained from wind codes ~'2.
The background factor B allows for the lack of corre-
lation in low frequency fluctuating wind speed over the
height of a tower. B would be unity was it not for the lim-
ited spatial extent of higher frequency gusts. An initial esti-
mate of B developed by Vickery 8 involved integrating a
modified wind loading spectrum over its entire frequency
range. A more recent approach used by Holmes and Kas-
perski is the 'load response correlation' method outlined in
References 7, 9 and 10. An approximation to the back-
ground factor B is also provided in AS39952. Both the
Vickery and Holmes-Kasperski methods were found to
estimate B for the Prospect Tower to within 3% of the code
value. Hence the code estimate given by equation (7) was
used for 'accessibility' reasons.
88 Wind-induced deflections of free-standing lattice towers: M. J. Glanville and K. C. S. Kwok

1 4jr lIIIIFeee vtbroLLon decay

B ~ . . . . . (7) (::33 ] E3~E3OE3H~I f - p o l l e r b~nd~ tdLh
~/36h2+64w 2 c OOO00 0 t h e r

1+
L(h)

where w and h are the average width and total height of

the tower, respectively. L(h) is a turbulence length scale
©
discussed further in section 3.3. 0
Agreement was found between the background deflection
of the Prospect Tower as predicted by equation (6) and the
corresponding full-scale measurements of Figure 9. £
0 0
3.3. Predicted along-wind resonant deflection %-
The RMS resonant deflections ",/~RSR
2 for only the first modes 0
Prospec L Token
of both the Prospect and TCN9 Towers were obtained using
the gust factor ~ approach of equation (8)
O\
TCN9 •
~oMe~'
# a# = (8)
= a F -
% 1L
~ ~ 4
Na Lural fr-'equency (Hz)
where a is the mean modal deflection given by equation Figure 12 Lattice tower damping versus natural frequency
(9), S is a size reduction factor, E the gust energy factor
and ~', the total damping of the tower.
latter oscillates at its natural frequency. This component of
- Q damping can be significant for lattice towers at high wind
speeds due to their low mass. A simplified approximation
a (2,n.no)2G (9)
to ~',, which is compatible with the methodology adopted in
this paper is given by equation (13). Reference 19 contains
Many finite element software packages provide modal force a derivation of equation (13)
Q and modal mass G as output in addition to an eigenvalue
analysis to determine natural frequency no. Solving the inte- 3.75 a no
grals of equations (10) and (11) will also provide adequate L, ~ - (13)
Uh
estimates of Q and G

h
where uj, is the design wind speed at the top of the tower.
Q=
f 0
h
p(z) Ix(z) dz (10) A reliable estimate of natural frequency no is necessary
in order to predict the degree of resonant response under
wind loading. An eigenvalue analysis to determine the natu-
G =
f o
In(z) t.L2 ( Z ) d z ( 11 )
ral frequency of a lattice tower is sensitive to both the mod-
elled stiffness and mass distributions. The benefit of hind-
sight in the form of full-scale measurements then serves as
where p(z) and m(z) represent load and mass distributions, a useful confirmation for the designing engineer using a
respectively, over the height of the tower, and /x(z) is the finite element model to predict no. Figure 13 plots the natu-
mode shape of the tower normalized to the height of ral frequency of 19 lattice towers as measured at full-scale
deflection calculation. against their total height h (including top masts and antenna
Probably the least known parameter in equation (8) is stacks). Each point on the plot is notated as the plan cross-
that describing total damping ~',. Total damping comprises section of each tower. This data was obtained from publi-
both structural and aerodynamic components such that cations~2 1~.20-22.As a "rule of thumb' based upon this data,
the designer can estimate the natural frequency of a plane
if, = ~, + ~,, (12) lattice tower in Hertz as

Figure 12 plots structural damping ~ as a percentage of 75

critical damping versus tower natural frequency no for 15
lattice towers. This data was obtained from full-scale
measurement publications ~2 ~8. Each symbol on the plot is
referenced to the method used to extract its value. Included
in this curve are the serviceability level damping ratios of
the Prospect and TCN9 towers. Typical [~ values are low,
ranging from between 0.3-1.1% of critical damping. It is
suggested that tall lattice towers act as homogeneous sys-
tems at serviceability levels with few redundancies and
energy dissipation mechanisms available.
Aerodynamic damping ~',, is associated with changes in
the relative velocity between the wind and the tower as the
no ~ h (14)
Significant lumped mass near the top of the tower will pro-
duce even lower natural frequencies as shown in Figure 13.
Equation (14) is similar to other formulations relating no
to the critical dimensions of civil engineering structures,
for example, a simplified algorithm relating no to the span
of pedestrian footbridges 23.
The size reduction factor S acts as an admittance function
to account for the correlation of pressures induced by turbu-
lent flow over the height of the tower. Vickery ~ has esti-
mated S as a function of no, critical tower dimensions and
Wind-induced deflections o f free-standing lattice towers: M. J. Glanville and K. C. S. Kwok 89

lated to be significanly larger than the resonant deflection

[3 at the 57 m level of the Prospect Tower at any given wind
- - 75/h
speed. A lower modal stiffness (2 ~rno)2 G and a larger
N (3 Squore plan Lo~er
1 • Squere plen wLth value for E (corresponding to greater energy in the turbu-
s Lgn t f [can L I umped lence spectrum near no) on the TCN9 Tower were the main
3 m~s~
>. reasons for this.
o
£

D
(D-
4. Cross-wind dynamic deflection
O)
~-2 It is clear from the measured results of this paper that the
zx [] cross-wind background response is approximately half the
along-wind background response for the Prospect Tower.
© OrospecL
(._ T o~er
To~er This behaviour can be explained in terms of turbulence
D spectra of wind energy. It is well known in the field of
el a TCN9 boundary-layer meteorology that the lateral component of
Z To,or turbulence has roughly half the energy of the longitudinal
zxo
AO
El •
-- • AA
A El component at low frequencies. Background response is then
proportional to these components of the turbulence spectra
at low frequencies.
5b 1e e 1 ~e 26e 26@ The magnitude of the resonant response of both the Pros-
To~en h e t g h L (m) pect and TCN9 Towers was found to be approximately
equal in the along-wind and cross-wind directions. Several
Figure 13 Lattice t o w e r natural frequency versus height a u t h o r s 7'~2JsJ7'25 have also measured the cross-wind res-
onant response of free standing steel lattice towers. Their
correlation decay coefficients across the tower. Holmes 9 unanimous findings confirm that the along-wind and cross-
later modified this estimate to convert Vickery's implied wind resonant response is approximately equal in magni-
'high correlation' estimate to a 'low correlation' estimate tude. At higher frequencies the length scales of the large
that is more suited to the correction of S at the natural low frequencies eddies decrease through the vortex stretch-
frequency of lattice towers. Considering the degree of ing process becoming increasingly isotropic and intermit-
uncertainty in Vickery's original estimate, a code approxi- tent. These high frequency eddies load porous lattice towers
mation 2 of S was found to be adequate. Equation (15) is with minimal degradation to the structure of the turbulence.
the code estimate. An applied isotropic load, with energy near no, in combi-
nation with strongly coupled resonant response will then
1 induce tower resonance equally in the along-wind and
S= (15)
[1 + (3.5 noh)] [1 + (4noWo)] cross-wind directions.
/Ah L/h
Joint probability distributions were used to further illus-
trate the dependency of the background and resonant
where We is the average width of the tower between h response upon the mean wind velocity. Figures 14 and 15
and h/2. represent the joint probability densities P(a,c) of the Pros-
The gust energy factor E is derived from the Harris-yon pect Tower dynamic response over a 14 min period under
Karman 24 spectral density of the micrometeorological peak the same wind vector shown. The elongated symmetry in
in combination with the mechanical admittance function at Figure 14 about the along-wind (a) axis reveals that the
the natural frequency of a structure

0.47N
E= (16)
(2 + N2)-w6

where E
4

noL( h ) X
N- (17) c
@
17.4m/s XX[]XX
LI h
E
o
The turbulence length scales L(h) of the Prospect and (0
TCN9 Towers were obtained by matching the Harris-von 22
Karman equation 24 to full-scale wind velocity spectra. Aus- X
tralian wind c o d e s h2 define L(h) as CD
-4
Key XX
h o 25
L(h) = l O 0 0 ( l ~ ) - (18) -6 Zech sheded area represents an
] equal probeb[i tLy of occurence

Predicted along-wind resonant deflections of the Prospect -_E -b '6 -'4 -~ ~ ~- 4 4 8

and TCN9 Towers agree well with their measured results @i. s p I 8cemen L ( mr'q]

as shown in Figures 10 and 11. The magnitude of resonant Figure 14 Joint probability density of background response.
deflection at the 206 m level of the TCN9 Tower was calcu- Prospect Tower, 57 m level
90 Wind-induced deflections of free-standing lattice towers: M. J. Glanville and K. C. S. Kwok

E
2
...)
c 1 17.4m./s
Q) \
E
0
©

CL

Q-2
'i . '." ~ ~ " -" ".
-3 Key
Rq
E~cn of Lhe fou ~ sn~aea
_Z_ ~e~9 ~eorosen.t e~ ease
[] pnob~b T.I LLy of occurence
I I I I I I I I ..- I
-5 -4 -S -2 -1 0 1 2 2 4 5
Dtspl ~cemen L ( ram
Figure 15 Joint probability density of resonant response. Prospect Tower, 57 m level

background response is strongly correlated to the mean
wind direction. The bisymmetry of the resonant response
that is present in Figure 15 suggests that along-wind (a)
and cross-wind (c) response is uncorrelated (ac = 0). The
circular contours of P(a,c) in Figure 15 are also indicative
that the product of the two probability distributions P,,(a)
and P~(c) along the along-wind (a) and cross-wind (c) axes
gives the joint density function P(a,c).
P(a,c) = P,(a).P,(c) (19)
This suggests that response about the along-wind (a) and
cross-wind (c) axes, and consequently the excitation mech-
anisms are statistically independent. This is consistent with
the resonant component of loading induced by intermittent
and isotropic eddies with energy near no.
Wake-induced cross-wind forces are not expected to play
a significant role in the cross-wind resonant response of
lattice towers particularly at low solidity ratios. Small
elemental wakes may exist, however, their correlation over
the height of the tower will be weak contributing little
toward the global response. Furthermore, the formation of
a single wake will be suppressed by flow through the lat-
tice. If single wake excitation was present on the Prospect
or TCN9 Towers then a peak might be expected in the
resonant acceleration response of Figure 10 or 11 at a criti-
cal wind speed. Nevertheless wake excitation could be
expected if there were very high solidity sections of the
towers near the top.
5. Conclusions
Full-scale deflection measurements were performed upon
two lattice towers under wind loading. Commerically avail-
able accelerometers and a H e - N e laser beam were used to
measure the mean, background and resonant deflections of
a 67 m steel frame communications tower. Mean and back-
ground components were found to dominate total deflec-
tion. Little tower response was found between the upper
bound of the background response at 0.2 Hz and the natural
frequency at 1.08 Hz. The resonant deflections of a 233 m
steel truss television broadcasting tower were also meas-
ured. The magnitude of the resonant deflection at the top
of the 233 m tower was measured to be significantly larger
than the resonant deflection at the top of the 67 m tower at
any given wind speed. Two reasons for this included a
lower modal stiffness of the 233 m tower and greater
energy in the wind loading spectrum at the natural fre-
quency of the 233 m tower.
Theoretical estimates of along-wind deflections were
obtained for both towers using a frequency domain analysis
which incorporated the use of STRAND6 finite element
software. This estimate was found to predict full-scale
results well. Many of the parameters used for this predic-
tion were measured at full scale. 'Rule of thumb' and wind
code parameters were also described which the designer
can use when a priori full-scale measurements are not avail-
able.
Cross-wind background deflection was found to be
approximately half the along-wind background deflection
of the Prospect Tower. Both components of resonant
deflection were approximately equal for the Prospect and
TCN9 towers. This was consistent with the findings of
other full-scale investigations of lattice towers. Such behav-
iour was explained in terms of the excitation provided by
the longitudinal and lateral wind velocity spectra and the
strongly coupled resonant response oscillations of lattice
towers.
Wind-induced deflections o f free-standing lattice towers: M. J. Glanville and K. C. S. Kwok
Acknowledgments
Communications with Dr J. D. Holmes (C.S.I.R.O.,
Division of Building, Construction and Engineering) are
gratefully acknowledged. Prospect Tower access was pro-
vided by Prospect Electricity and ACER Wargon Chapman
Pty. Ltd. TCN9 Tower measurements were made possible
through the co-operation of TCN Channel 9 Pty. Ltd. and
Everingham Platt & Anthony Pty. Ltd. The first author is
supported by an Australian Postgraduate Research Award
and a J. W. and I. C. M. Roderick Bequest Scholarship.
References
1 Standards Australia. AS1170.2-1989 'SAA loading code, Part 2:
Wind loads', Standards Australia, North Sydney, 1989
2 Standards Australia. AS3995-1994 'Design of steel lattice towers and
masts', Standards Australia, North Sydney, 1994
3 Glanville, M. J. and Kwok, K. C. S. 'Dynamic characteristics and
wind induced response of a steel frame tower', J. Wind Engng Ind.
Aerodyn. 1995, 54/55, 133-149
4 Deaves, D. M. and Harris, R. I. 'A mathematical model of the struc-
ture of strong winds', Construction Industry Research and Infor-
mation Association, UK, 1978, Report 76
5 British Standard. BS8100, Part 1-1986 'Lattice towers and masts-
Part 1, Code of Practice for loading', British Standards Institution,
London 1986
6 Holmes, J. D., Banks, R. W. and Roberts, G. 'Drag and aerodynamic
interference on microwave dish antennas and their supporting tow-
ers', Second Int. Coll. on Bluff Body Aerodynamics and Applications,
Melbourne, 1992, Vol 2, Session 11B
7 Holmes, J. D. 'Along-wind response of lattice towers: Part II--Aero-
dynamic damping and deflections', Engng Struct. 1996, 18(7),
483~1-88
8 Vickery, B. J. 'On the reliability of gust loading factors', Inst. Engrs,
Australia Cir. Engng Trons. 1971, CE13, 1-9
9 Holmes, J. D. 'Along-wind response of lattice towers: Part I', Engng
Struct. 1994, 16, 287-292
10 Holmes, J. D. 'Along-wind response of lattic towers: Part Ill--Effec-
tive load distributions' Engng Struct. 1996, 18(7), 489-494
11 Davenport, A. G. 'The application of statistical concepts to the wind
loading of structures', Proc. Inst. Civil Engrs 1961, 19, 449-471
91
12 Ballio, G., Maberini, F. and Solari, G. 'A 60 year old, 100 m high
steel tower: limit states under wind actions', J. Wind Engng Ind. Aer-
odyn. 1992, 43, 2089-2100
13 Chiu, A. N. L. and Yuan, S. 'Full-scale study of wind effects on a tall
structure', Proc. Second Asia-Pacific Symp. on Wind Engineering,
Beijing,China, 1989, Vol 2, pp. 693-700
14 Fujii, K., Tamura, Y., Sato, T. and Wakahara, T. 'Wind-induced
vibration of tower and practical applications of tuned sloshing dam-
per', J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodyn. 1990, 33, 263-272
15 Hiramatsu, K. and Akagi, H. 'The response of latticed towers due to
the action of wind', J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodyn. 1988, 30, 7-16
16 Mackey, S., Ko, P. K. L. and Lam, C. H. 'Response of a 180-ft
latticed tower to high winds', Proc. U.S.,-Japan Seminar on Wind
Effects, Kyoto, Japan, 1974, pp. 199-207
17 Royles, R. and Das, P. K. 'Investigation of the dynamic response of
lattice tower structures to wind excitation', Proc. Int. Symp. on Full
Scale Measurements of Wind Effects on Tall Buildings and Other
Structures, Ontario, Canada 1974
18 Staalduinen, P. C. van, 'Wind loading and fatigue of steel framed
masts', Proc. Second European Conf Structural Dynamics,
Trondheim, Norway, 1993, Vol 21 23, pp 1107-1113
19 Glanville, M. J., Kwok, K. C. S. and Denoon, R. O. 'Full-scale damp-
ing measurements of structures in Australia', J. Wind Engng Ind.
Aerodyn. 1996 (in press)
20 Chiu, A. N. L. and Taoka, G. T. 'Comparative studies of full-scale
structures subjected to wind forces', Proc. Third Conf. on Wind
Effects on Buildings and Structures, Tokyo, Japan, 1971,
pp. 1089-1099
21 Gusella, V., Spinelli, P. and Augusti, G. 'Wind loading and structural
response of a large broadcasting antenna', Second Asia-Pacific Symp.
on Wind Engineering, Beijing, China, 1989, Vol 2, pp. 709-716
22 Shanmugasundaram, J., Gomathinayagam, S., Harikrishna, P.. Aru-
mugam, M. and Venkateswarlu, B. 'Full-scale field experiments on
a 101 m high lattice tower', Proc. Ninth Int. Cot~ on Wind Engineer-
ing, New Delhi, India, 1995, Vol 1, pp 445 456
23 Samali, B., Kwok, K. C. S., Glanville, M. J., Campbell, J. 'Dynamic
behaviour of pedestrian bridges', Proc. Australasian Structural
Engineering Conf., Sydney, Australia, 1994, Vol 1, pp. 501-506
24 Karman, T. yon 'Progress in the statistical theory of turbulence',
Proc. National Academy of Sciences U.S.A., Washington D.C.,
1948, Vol 34
25 Holmes, J. D., Schafer, B. L. and Banks, R. W. 'Wind induced
vibration of a large broadcasting tower', J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodyn.
1992, 43, 2101-2109