D R A G COEFFICIENTS OF LATTICED TOWERS

By Demirtas C. Bayar, 1 M . ASCE

ABSTRACT: Recent building codes require that wind loads be determined by

multiplying a calculated velocity pressure by the drag coefficient of the struc-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ture. It is suggested that the drag coefficients given in the codes for latticed
towers are conservative. To determine appropriate drag coefficients for square
self-supported latticed towers two models were constructed and tested in a wind
tunnel. Drag forces of the two models with and without heel angles as well as
half of one model and tilting to different angles of the other model were de-
termined. Results are analyzed and drag coefficients are calculated and com-
pared to other published test results and to the ANSI A58.1 Code. Recom-
mended equations are given for determining the drag coefficient of latticed towers
with solidity ratios in a given range. For the wind direction on the diagonal
axis of the tower the drag was found to be independent of the solidity ratio
and, therefore, a multiplier is recommended. A multiplier is also recommended
for towers with legs that have a heel angle.

INTRODUCTION

After the Second World War, the construction of large n u m b e r s of

radio relay towers w a s started in the North American Continent. Today
they are located in every region of the continental USA and parts of
Canada. Most of these towers are latticed steel towers self-supported or
guyed. The design of t h e towers built earlier w a s based o n applying a
uniform wind pressure throughout the height of the tower complying
to the requirements of the Codes of their times.
Since 1950, a great m a n y tests and studies have enhanced the knowl-
edge of wind engineering and allowed the building codes to rewrite their
provisions on a more realistic basis. They n o w require that w i n d loads
be determined by first selecting a calculated velocity pressure profile which
increases with height a n d d e p e n d s on the basic wind speed, the type
of terrain, and the dynamic properties of the structure. The velocity
pressure is then multiplied by the projected area and the drag coefficient
of the structure to arrive at the applied design forces. The drag coeffi-
cient of open-frame latticed towers h a s been the subject of a n u m b e r of
studies and tests (4-14). Based on these tests, model building codes have
adopted a drag coefficient similar to or as given in Ref. 1.
The experience over the years has s h o w n that self-supported towers,
w h e n designed in accordance with the model codes, are overdesigned
to some degree (2). Also, most tests performed to date used parallel
trusses, and, since a large majority of self-supported towers have sloped
faces, it became apparent that tests were needed to determine the drag
coefficient of self-supported towers with sloped faces and establish the
'Proprietor, Bayar and Assoc, Struct. Engrs., Scarsdale, NY 10583.
Note.—Discussion open until July 1, 1986. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manu-
script for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on Feb-
ruary 6, 1985. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
112, No. 2, February, 1986. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/86/0002-0417/$01.00. Paper
No. 20390.
417

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:417-430.

 amount of conservatism in the coefficients specified in the codes.
Tests sponsored by AT&T Communications, were performed at the
Colorado State Univ. facilities under the direction of Jack Cermak (3) on
two tower models, which duplicated a type most frequently encoun-
tered in practice. The aim of this paper is to present an analysis of the
test results and suggest a method of calculating drag coefficients of self-
supported towers within a given range of solidity ratios.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

MODELS

Two models were constructed using sharp edged brass angle members
duplicating the details of a full-scale tower. One model, referred to as
Section AD, simulated the top 50 ft (15.2 m) section of the tower to a
scale of 1:12 and is shown on Fig. 1. The other, referred to as Section
FJ, simulated an intermediate 100 ft (30.5 m) section of the tower to a
scale of 1:18 and is shown on Fig. 2. Both models had bracing members
on the horizontal plane at the top of all panels. Additionally, the model
simulating Section FJ had back bracing members spanning from a point
1/3 down from each panel level of the face diagonal to an interior point
on the horizontal bracing at the panel level on all four corners. Both
models were constructed in such a manner that a heel angle could be
attached to each leg member. When the heel angles were attached, the
cross section of the leg members resembled a cross.
The scales of the models were chosen to limit the maximum blockage
in the wind tunnel to a maximum of 6.9%. This occurred when tower
Section FJ with heel angles was turned to a wind angle of 20°. Except
around this configuration, all readings were taken with a blockage of
less than 6%.

TESTING FACILITIES

The tests were conducted in the meteorological wind tunnel at the

Colorado State Univ. in Fort Collins, CO. Fig. 3 shows the test facility.
The opening of the tunnel at the turntable for the model is a nominal 6
ft 8 in. x 6 ft (2.03 m X 1.83 m). In this facility, the effects of smooth
flow, turbulent wind, and Reynolds number dependencies could be in-
vestigated.
The models were seated 4.5 in. (11.4 cm) above the tunnel floor on a
square flat plate template, which had a force balance attached to each
of its four corners. The force balances were in turn rigidly connected to
the turntable. The entire assembly was rotated around the central axis
of the tower model to measure the forces at different wind angles.
Before reading the wind forces on the models, the forces on the bal-
ances were normalized and the atmospheric pressure in the tunnel was
measured in addition to plotting the turbulence profile, as shown on Fig.
4. Since the models were raised above the tunnel floor, the boundary
layer turbulence had no effect on the measurements. Mean wind loads
were measured using a strain gage force balance. The data were ac-
quired at a rate of 260 samples/sec for 16 sec. For each measurement
the reference velocity was simultaneously monitored by a pitot-static tube.
418

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:417-430.

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

NOTE:
All Members 21.477'
1.-3x2% unless noted. (6.55 m.)
1"=25.4 mm.
F
|V'". / \ / i d ~ --•
NOTE:
All Members £ m
21^-3x2%

25.05'
G
1
V/\ A ,\s
_0 eg t — _ y IF—r
^ - B a c k Bracing o r
' L-3V3M ^ i \ K \ /
L_3X2 3
\Wf ' '\^
1" ^
j j j H__
0.5
•J-
iJrv'\
\ l / / \ \ /*\/ \l
CO S
f\ / L-3x2!s-\
*** [p*!? /"Back Bracing^
25.05'

PLAN A T F, G, H, a n d I
^iPx'^ / X '' ^

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:417-430.

? L ' ^ \ \ / \Jy^ \
-o 6 irV /^ L-3x2!i"V^
? j /
V

34.002*
(10.37 m.)

ELEVATION

FIG. 1.—Tower Section AD FSG. 2.—Tower Section FJ

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

'/WWW
MOVABLE VANES
INERTIAt MOUNT AND
BUILDING MODEL

FIG. 3.—Meteorological Wind Tunnel: (a) Plan; (b) Elevation

i
(
• PS3888
50 Q

a .
•48 a "
a
30 a "
a
28 n '
a
a
18 a

\ a
1 i.
18 20 38 48 8 S 18 IS
(a) UMEAN - FPS (b) L.OCAL. TURB I N T - X

FIG. 4.—Wind Profile: (a) Mean Velocity; (6) Turbulence

The measured reference pressures on the models ranged from 1.49-1.60

psf (71.4-76.6 Pa).

DESCRIPTION OF TESTS

The two models were rotated around their central axis from —10°-55°
at 5° intervals. At each wind angle, the drag and lateral forces were read
and recorded. In this paper, these readings were converted to values
representing the full-scale tower sections and indicated as the measured
420

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:417-430.

 CdA (Drag Coefficient x Projected Area), which has the same value as
F/q (Force/Dynamic Pressure).
Heel angles with an equivalent width of 3.5 in. X 3.5 in. (89 mm x
89 mm), were then attached to the entire length of the legs on both the
models and readings were again taken as before.
Tower section FJ without heel angles was then cut in half, leaving the
bottom two panels to be measured in the tunnel. The drag and lateral
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

forces were read for a wind angle of 0°.

Tower Section AD without heel angles was also measured at tilt angles
of 5°, 10°, and 15°. At each tilt angle the model was rotated around its
axis from —10°-55° at 5° intervals.

TOWER SECTION AD

The results of the-tests and the calculated values of the drag coeffi-
cient, Cd, are shown on Tables 1 and 2. The gross enclosed area of the

TABLE 1.—Tower Section AD without Heel Angles

Wind Projected Actual Measured
CdA Drag Coefficient (Cd) Reference Cd x
angle, a area solidity
(degrees) (sq ft) ratio, <t> (sq ft) Actual Reference8 cos (a) cos (45 - a)
(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
0 143.8 0.2289 337.8 2.35 2.35 2.35 1.66
5 237.8 0.3612 350.2 1.47 2.44 2.43 1.87
10 261.8 0.3726 365.5 1.40 2.54 2.50 2.08
15 275.1 0.3707 378.8 1.38 2.63 2.54 2.28
20 284.2 0.3662 385.8 1.36 2.68 2.52 2.43
25 281.7 0.3502 393.2 1.40 2.73 2.48 2.57
30 277.3 0.3354 392.6 1.42 2.73 2.36 2.64
35 270.9 0.3213 394.4 1.46 2.74 2.25 2.70
40 249.5 0.2926 388.9 1.56 2.70 2.07 2.69
45 189.3 0.2211 383.7 2.03 2.67 1.89 2.67
"Reference Cd is based on a constant area of 143.8 sq ft.
Note: 1 sq ft = 0.093 m2.

TABLE 2.—Tower Section AD with Heel Angles

Wind Projected Actual Measured
solidity CdA Drag Coefficient (Cd) Reference Cd x
angle, a area
(degrees) (sq ft) ratio, <)> (sqft) Actual Reference3 cos (a) cos (45 - a)
(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
0 150.1 0.2366 383.7 2.56 2.56 2.56 1.81
5 272.6 0.3981 394.1 1.47 2.66 2.62 2.01
10 303.0 0.4151 413.8 1.38 2.79 2.71 2.26
15 314.4 0.4085 432.0 1.37 2.88 2.78 2.49
20 321.4 0.4001 440.4 1.37 2.93 2.76 2.66
25 315.5 0.3798 • 449.7 1.43 3.00 2.72 2.82
30 307.3 0.3606 452.3 1.47 3.01 2.61 2.91
35 297.4 0.3431 455.5 1.53 3.03 2.49 2.99
40 272.5 0.3114 444.2 1.63 2.96 2.27 2.95
45 209.9 0.2395 431.1 2.05 2.87 2.03 2.87
"Reference Cd is based on a constant area of 150.1 sqft.
Note: 1 sq ft = 0.093 m2.

421

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:417-430.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

- I . U * ' i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0° 5° 10° 15° 20° 25° 30° 35° 40° 15°
WIND ANGLE, a

FIG. B.—Cd and CL of Tower Section AD and Section FJ

face of the tower section without heel angles is 628.3 sq ft (58.4 m2) and
with a projected area of 143.8 sq ft (13.4 m2) the average solidity ratio,
<|>, is 0.2289 at a wind angle perpendicular to one face. The same tower
section with heel angles has a gross enclosed area of 634.4 sq ft (59 m2)
and, at a wind angle perpendicular to one face, an average solidity ratio
of 0.2366, which is 3.4% larger than the tower without heel angles.
For each wind angle the actual Drag Coefficient, calculated by dividing
the measured CdA by the projected area, is given in Col. 5. These show
that the actual drag coefficients at all wind angles larger than 0° are smaller
than that at 0°. When the projected area of the front face of the tower
is used as a constant reference area in determining the drag coefficients,
as given in Col. 6, the value at any wind angle is larger than that at 0°
wind angle. The curves on Fig. 5 are based on the values in Col. 6 and
are shown as Cd. The values of the lateral components calculated in the
422

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:417-430.

 , . HEEL ANGLE \ \ WIND

X Fd
J
. L-3*s x3%
"1 ( 8 9 m m . x 8 9 mm.)
L
\
\
\ \V*T
> \ 50.096'
\ \ \(15.3m.j
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

/ a = Wind
F L \ xj( Angle
L
*
J^C
r
\ \yy
\
- ^ ^ — • •
V***^r
*
= Tilt
Angle

(a) (b) (c)

FIG. 6,—Definition of Forces, Wind Angle and Tilt Angle: (a) Plan without Heel
Angles; (ft) Plan with Heel Angles; (c) Elevation

same manner as the Cd are plotted as CL on Fig. 5.

In designing square self-supported towers, the critical wind forces act-
ing on the web members are those that are parallel to the two opposite
faces of the tower. The cornponents of the reference Cd acting parallel
to the faces of the tower are shown on Col. 7. The maximum Cd is at a
wind angle of 15° and has a value of 2.54, which is plotted on Figs. 6(a-
c) as corresponding to a solidity ratio of 0.2289, the mean solidity ratio
of the tower face.
In designing the leg members, the critical forces are those that are
acting along the diagonal axis of the tower. The components of the ref-
erence Cd acting on the diagonal axis of the tower are given on Col. 8.
The maximum Cd is at a wind angle of 35° and has a value of 2.70 cor-
responding to a mean solidity ratio of 0.2289 for this tower section.
This tower section was also subjected to different wind speeds at 0°
and 45° wind angle. -The wind speeds were started at 15 fps (16.47 km/
h) and increased at 5 fps (5.49 km/h) increments to 55 fps (60.39 km/
h). The measured Cd values showed no significant difference between
any wind speed.

TOWER SECTION FJ

The relationship between the actual and reference Cd of tower Section

FJ is similar to that of tower Section AD. Tower Section FJ has a solidity
ratio of 0.1262. The maximum reference Cd for the design of web mem-
bers is 3.30 at a wind angle of 20° and the maximum reference Cd for
the design of leg members is 3.51 at a wind angle of 30°. These are in-
dicated on Tables 3 and 4.
Tower Section FJ represents four typical panels of a standard tower.
To study the influence of the aspect ratio of a tower panel on its drag
coefficient, additional tests were carried out on separate elements of this
model.
Tower Section FJ was cut into two parts of equal heights. The top part,
referred to as Section FH, was rigidly attached to the roof of the wind
tunnel while the bottom part, referred to as Section HJ, was left con-
nected to the force balances (see Fig. 7). Readings were taken of Section
423

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:417-430.

 TABLE 3.—Tower Section FJ without Heel Angles
Wind Projected Actual Measured
Drag Coefficient (Cd) Reference Cd x
angle, a area solidity - CdA
(degrees) (sq ft) ratio, 4> (sq ft) Actual Reference3 cos (a) cos (45 - a)
(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
0 355.2 0.1262 1,052.5 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

5 698.9 0.2318 1,081.4 1.55 3.04 3.03 2.33

10 770.4 0.2391 1,156.8 1.50 3.26 3.21 2.67
15 807.8 0.2373 1,194.9 1.48 3.36 3.25 2.91
20 855.2 0.2401 1,246.2 1.46 3.51 3.30 3.18
25 860.4 0.2330 1,273.3 1.48 3.58 3.25 3.37
30 846.9 0.2231 1,291.8 1.53 3.64 3.15 3.51
35 826.2 0.2134 1,263.0 1.53 3.56 2.91 3.50
40 758.0 0.1936 1,227.0 1.62 3.54 2.9i 3.50
45 422.3 0.1074 1,168.5 2.77 3.29 2.33 3.29
"Reference Cd is based on a constant area of 355.2 sq ft.
Note: 1 sq ft = 0.093 m2.

TABLE 4.—Tower Section FJ with Heel Angles

Wind Projected Actual Measured
angle, a Drag Coefficient (Cd) Reference Cd x
area solidity CdA
(degrees) (sqft) ratio, § (sq ft) Actual Reference3 cos (a) COS (45 - a)
(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
0 375.3 0.1332 1,116.2 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.10
5 763.2 0.2486 1,155.3 1.51 3.08 3.07 2.36
10 836.1 0.2551 1,255.2 1.50 3.34 3.29 2.74
15 876.6 0.2533 1,302.4 1.49 3.47 3.35 3.01
20 916.9 0.2535 1,359.2 1.48 3.62 3.40 3.28
25 912.6 0.2436 1,401.9 1.54 3.74 3.39 3.51
30 897.3 0.2332 1,414.6 1.58 3.77 3.26 3.64
35 874.1 0.2230 1,395.4 1.60 3.72 3.05 3.66
40 802.6 0.2026 1,359.1 1.69 3.62 2.77 3.61
45 463.7 0.1167 1,311.2 2.83 3.49 2.47 3.49
"Reference Cd is based on a constant area of 375.3 sq ft.
Note: 1 sq ft = 0.093 m2.

HJ in this arrangement as well as in an arrangement where the top Sec-

tion FH was removed from the wind tunnel leaving Section HJ as a can-
tilevered independent model. The results showed that the readings of
the two arrangements were not significantly different. The member that
might have affected the drag coefficient by a discontinuity is the leg
member. All other members in a panel have defined lengths within the
panel height. The top of the tower corners where the leg members were
cut are the only locations where a change in the pattern of air flow around
members was expected. At these corners the leg members, which have
a face width of 8 in. (203.2 mm) compared to a tower width of 27.74 ft
(8.46 m), occupy 4.8% of the enclosed area and act to stagnate the air
flow on their sides and lower parts in the same manner as if they had
an infinite aspect ratio but differ on their top surfaces. Test results show
that this difference is not significant for practical applications at this so-
lidity ratio.
The result of the tests on the two parts of Section FJ is given on Table
424

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:417-430.

 Wind T u n n e l C e l l i n g
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Wind

Wind T u n n e l Floor

FIG. 7.—Description of Section FH and Section HJ

TABLE 5.—Components of Tower Section FJ at 0° Wind Angle

Measured
CdA
Section Solidity ratio, $ (sqft) Cd Cdx 1.11
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
FH 170.6/1,229.0 = 0.1388 478.0 2.80 3.11
HJ 184.6/1,585.5 = 0.1164 565.0 3.06 3.39
FJ 355.2/2,814.5 = 0.1262 1,052.5 2.96 3.29
Note: 1 sq ft = 0.093 m2.

5. Col. 5 of this table indicates the expected maximum Cd when the

reference area is used in the calculations.

EFFECT OF HEEL ANGLES ON TOWERS

The results of tests on tower Section AD with heel angles and Section
FJ with heel angles are given on Tables 2 and 4. The values of the ref-
erence Cd given in Col. 6 of these tables are plotted on Fig. 5 as Cd and
the values of the lateral components calculated on the same basis as the
Cd are plotted on Fig. 5 as CL.
The measured values indicate that even though the solidity ratio of
the tower sections increases with the addition of heel angles, the drag
coefficients do not decrease but increase by 9.4% for Section AD and by
3.0% for Section FJ. This indicates that the shape of the leg members
has a significant effect on the drag forces. The percent increases seem
425

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:417-430.

 to suggest that the shape of the leg members influence the drag forces
on towers with larger solidity ratios to a greater extent than those on
towers with small solidity ratios.
Towers with heel angles also demonstrate that their lateral drag forces
have a reverse sign to those without heel angles. This can be seen on
Fig. 5. Although the amount of the lateral forces is not significantly large
and the maximum values are about the same for both conditions, special
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

care should be given to the determination of design forces when cal-

culating the gust response factor for towers sensitive to lateral vibration
and vortex shedding.

EFFECT OF TILT ON TOWERS

Some towers are located on top of hills that gradually slope up to the
base of the tower. In these locations, the wind direction may not be
horizontal but may have an angle of attack on the tower face. To study
the effect of the angle of attack on towers, tests were performed on Sec-
tion AD at different tilt angles.
The model was tilted by raising two legs at 5° intervals and readings
were taken as the model was rotated around the turntable. The results
of the test are given on Table 6. The arrangement of the tower at wind
angles other than 0° is somewhat unnatural since the tilt toward the

TABLE 6.—Tilt of Tower Section AD without Heel Angles

Wind angle Measured CdA at Tilt Angles, b (sq ft)

a (degrees) 0° 5° 10° 15°
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
0 337.8 348.9 367.8 363.7
5 350.2 359.1 373.3 372.3
10 365.5 377.2 384.9 380.0
15 378.8 385.2 395.1 388.7
20 385.8 397.1 401.9 393.6
25 393.2 398.5 403.0 398.8
30 392.6 401.9 401.4 401.5
35 394.4 405.1 409.1 414.5
40 388.9 398.3 408.8 414.3
45 383.7 388.0 397.1 399.5
Note: 1 sq ft = 0.093 m2.

TABLE 7.—Maximum Cd at Tilt Angles, b

Component Normal to Face Component Diagonal to Tower
Tilt Percent Percent
angle, b larger than larger than
(degrees) Maximum Cd no tilt Maximum Cd no tilt
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
5 2.59 1.9 2.77 2.8
10 2.65 4.5 2.83 4.9
15 2.61 2.8 2.84 5.1

426

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:417-430.

 wind is in two directions. The results, therefore, represent larger amounts
than can be found in nature.
Using a constant reference area, the calculated maximum drag coef-
ficient is at a wind angle of 15° for the component normal to the tower
face and between 35° and 40° for the component diagonal to the tower.
Table 7 gives the maximum values and compares them with the maxi-
mum Cd determined by previous tests on section AD without a tilt an-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

gle-
Considering that the arrangement of the tilted model results in pro-
ducing larger values than can be found in nature, the percentage in-
crease is not very significant and a 3% increase in the CdA at extreme
locations may be considered adequate.

ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS

The critical maximum drag coefficients corresponding to their solidity

ratios are plotted on Fig. 8. The actual relationships between drag coef-
ficients and solidity ratios are also plotted on this figure for reference
only. If the towers with heel angles are disregarded the points indicate
that a curve which has values as much as 10.5% less than that given in
the ANSI A58.1-1982 (1) can be fitted within the range of solidity ratios
studied in these tests.
The large majority of square self-supported towers have a range of
solidity ratios between 0.10 and 0.27 when ice is not considered. The

0 TOWERS with HEEL ANCLES.

O TOWERS without HEEL ANCLES.

• Measured Cd at actual Solidity Ratio.

Cd = 3 . 5-3.5o

0.20 0.30
SOLIDITY RATIO, <f

FIG. 8.—Drag Coefficient versus Solidity Ratio of Tested Tower Models

427

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:417-430.

 ® Reference 11.
P Reference 6.
A Reference 14.
v \ O Reference 10.
Reference 13.

Cd = 1). 2-7<* \ Reference 9.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

^ Reference 5.
Reference 12.
^ + Reference 8.
\
\ Cd = 3.5-3.5d

© >5
ft
0 ®

v-\

I
0.20 0.30
0.40
SOLIDITY RATIO, 4

FIG. 9.—Drag Coefficient versus Solidity Ratio of Square Lattice Towers with Flat-
Sided Members

range of solidity ratios in these tests is between 0.11 and 0.24. Within
this range, other test results (5,6,8-14) plotted on Fig. 9 indicate a trend
similar to those of these tests.
The study of a 175 ft (53.4 m) tower, which was subjected to hurricane
winds (2) and survived loads exceeding its failure capacity, indicates that
the methods of determining wind loads on square latticed towers with
flat sided members are conservative. The recommended Eqs. 1 and 2
can be considered as a practical method of determining drag coefficients
which are safe.
Range of Solidity Ratio Cd
0.11-0.20 Cd = 4.2 - 76 (1)
0.20-0.24 Cd = 3.5 - 3.50 (2)
The upper bound of the tests indicated on Fig. 9 lies below the curves
given in Eqs. 1 and 2. The difference between these curves and the ANSI
A58.1-1982 curve is more than 10% at some solidity ratios that have prac-
tical applications. This reduction in the drag coefficient represents a sub-
stantial saving in the cost of structures.
The results of the tests suggest that the diagonal component of the
drag coefficients has a linear relationship with the maximum normal
component. In each case the diagonal component is not more than 7%
428

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:417-430.

 larger than the normal component. Therefore, in designing the leg mem-
bers of the tower the drag coefficient can be considered as being 7%
larger than the values derived from Eqs. 1 a n d 2.
The tests also showed that these tower sections are i n d e p e n d e n t of
the Reynolds number.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the test results that determined the drag coefficients
of square towers with flat sided members and of various solidity ratios,
general conclusions may be d r a w n as follows:

1. In designing the w e b members of towers a reduction of u p to 10%

may be achieved by using Eqs. 1 and 2 without sacrificing safety.
2. In designing the leg members of towers Eqs. 1 and 2 m a y be mul-
tiplied by 1.07, which is the amount observed in the results of the tests.
3. The Cd values of the towers with heel angles are larger t h a n towers
with legs that have a single angle shape. An increase that can be linearly
interpolated between 3% at a solidity ratio of 0.11 and 9% at a solidity
ratio of 0.24 m a y be applied to drag coefficients calculated otherwise.
Towers with leg shapes different than indicated here m u s t be treated as
special cases and wind tunnel tests should be performed.
4. The effect of the w i n d angle of attack m a y be neglected except at
well defined extreme locations where the drag coefficients m a y be in-
creased by 3 % .

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer of this p a p e r gratefully acknowledges the assistance a n d

comments given by Joseph Vellozzi a n d Jack Cermak w h o have partic-
ipated in setting u p and all other phases of the tests a n d to AT&T Com-
munications for sponsoring the tests.

APPENDIX I.—REFERENCES

1. "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures," American Na-
tional Standards Institute, ANSI Standard A58.1-1982, New York, NY, 1982.
2. Bayar, D. C , "Design of Radio Relay Towers to Satisfy Building Code Re-
quirements," Proceedings, 3rd US National Conference Wind Engineering Re-
search, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL, Feb. 26-Mar. 1, 1978, pp. 465-473.
3. Cermak, J. E., Peterka, J. A., Bienkiewicz, B., and Hosoya, N., "Wind Forces
on Microwave Antennas, Equipment and Towers," Colorado State Univ.,
Report CER82-83JEC-JAP-BB-NH43, Project 2-95380, Fort Collins, CO, 1983.
4. Cohen, E., Vellozzi, J., and Suh, S., "Calculations of Wind Forces and Pres-
sures on Antennas," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 116,
Art. 1, June, 1964, pp. 161-221.
5. Cowdrey, C. E., "Aerodynamic Forces and Moments on Models of Two Sec-
tions of a Forth Crossing Tower," NPL/Aero Special Report 027, June, 1965.
6. Flaschbart, O., and Winter, H., "Model Research on the Wind Loading of
Lattice Structures," translated from German by B. L. Tucker, Sandia Corp.
AFSWP-464, Albuquerque, NM, 1934-35. .
7. Flint, A. R., and Smith, B. W., "The Development of the British Draft Code
of Practice for the Loading of Lattice Towers," (July 1779), Wind Engineering,

429

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:417-430.

 Proceedings of the 5th International Conference, held at Fort Collins, CO,
in July, 1979, published by Pergamon Press, 1980, pp. 1293-1304.
8. Fujimoto, M., et al., "On Wind-Proof Performance of Latticed Steel Towers,"
Wind Engineering, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference, held
at Fort Collins, CO, in July, 1979, published by Pergamon Press, 1980, pp.
1203-1216.
9. Georgiou, P. N., and Vickery, B. J., "Wind Loads on Building Frames," Wind
Engineering, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference, held at Fort
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 07/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Collins, CO, in July 1979, published by Pergamon Press, 1980, pp. 421-433.
10. Pagon, W. Watters, "Wind Forces on Structures: Plate Girders and Trusses,"
Journal of the Structural Engineering Division, Vol. 84, No. ST4, 1958.
11. Tests at Daniel Guggenheim Airship Institute, Akron, OH.
12. "Wind Loading on Lattice Towers," N.M.I, Report on Project P/352003, to
be published.
13. Whitbread, R. F., "The Influence of Shielding on the Wind Forces Experi-
enced by Arrays of Lattice Frames," Wind Engineering, Proceedings of the
5th International Conference, held at Fort Collins, CO, in July, 1979, pub-
lished by Pergamon Press, 1980, pp. 405-420.
14. Woodhouse, W. B., "Wind Pressure on Latticed Towers," Journal of the In-
stitute of Electrical Engineering, Vol. 77, 1935, pp. 189-196.

APPENDIX II.—NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

a = wind angle in degrees,

b = tilt angle in degrees,
Fd = measured force,
FL = measured lateral force,
Cd = on wind drag coefficient,
CL = lateral drag coefficient,
CdA = Cd X projected area = Fd/q,
a = dynamic pressure = 1/pV 2 ,
p = mass density of the airstream,
V = wind velocity,
4> = solidity ratio = projected area/enclosed area, a n d
fps = feet per second.

430

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:417-430.