Journal of Structural Engineering No.

32-14
Vol. 32, No.3, August–September 2005 pp. 147–157

Failure investigation of microwave towers during cyclones – A case study

A. Abraham∗ , P. Harikrishna∗ , S. Gomathinayagam∗ and N. Lakshmanan∗∗

Open latticed steel towers are used widely in a variety of civil engineering applications. Along the east coast
of India, many latticed towers, located in cyclone prone zones, have collapsed during cyclones with lesser wind
speeds than the design basic wind speed. Dynamic effects of wind for design of lattice towers are simplified by
most of international codes of practice with the use of Gust Effectiveness Factor (GEF). The application of gust
effectiveness factor have been evaluated as per various international codes of practice and are compared in this
paper. Case studies of failure analysis to identify the causes of possible failure of two microwave latticed towers,
which collapsed in cyclonic wind conditions, are presented. Characteristics of a measured cyclone wind turbu-
lence spectrum are used along with a practiced gust effectiveness factor approach or equivalent for the dynamic
analysis.

Open latticed steel towers are used for a number of diverse
purposes, such as radio and television broadcasting, obser-
vation (e.g., security rural, fire fighting), lighting supports,
offshore deck areas and lifeline structures. Power trans-
mission towers, electric poles, poles for telephone con-
nections and communication towers form a major set of
lifeline structures. Among these, microwave communica-
tion towers invariably adopt a open latticed type of design.
The microwave towers carry one or more antennae at
the required levels oriented in specified directions. There
are many types of antennae varying in size and construc-
tion. The structures like masts and towers are sensitive to
dynamic wind load. The need to design a lattice tower con-
sidering resonant dynamic response to wind loads arises
when their natural frequencies are low enough to be excited
by the turbulence in the natural wind1,2 . These types of
structures, which are vulnerable to wind induced oscilla-
tions are required to be examined for dynamic effects of
wind. Further, the structural loads produced by wind gusts
depend on the size, natural frequency and damping of the
structure in addition to the inherent wind turbulence. One
of the approaches used for evaluating the dynamic response
of lattice towers is the gust factor method2 . The design pro-
cedures for lattice towers are more complicated than for
the case of buildings and other cladded structures because
of the fact that, the wind, as it flows through the structure
applies varying magnitudes of loads on the tower members
along its path by their spatial dispersion and the direction
of wind3 . For such open latticed towers, it is imperative that
the dynamic wind loads are computed accurately, and, the
resulting tower responses are ensured to be within accept-
able limits. Therefore, it is necessary to estimate the wind
loads properly for the design of these towers from the con-
sideration of economy and safety. Collapse of microwave
lattice towers during cyclones emphasises the importance
of understanding the cyclone wind characteristics and the
wind induced dynamic response of these structures. Full-
scale experiments carried out by SERC, on wind char-
acteristics during extreme wind conditions like cyclones
indicated increased levels of turbulence as compared to
normal pressure system wind conditions wherein the tur-
bulence is dominated by terrain and structure sizes4 . The
necessity of inclusion of background enhancement fac-
tor in evaluation of gust effectiveness factor has already
been discussed5 . In addition, the important effect of aero-
dynamic damping which increases with increase in mean
wind speed has been reported based on many full-scale
experiments4 .
In the present investigations, two microwave lattice tow-
ers which collapsed during two cyclone events6,7 were
considered for failure analysis. Unlike the usual failure
analysis involving nonlinear, transient, elasto-plastic anal-
ysis or shakedown analysis, a designers approach coupled
with a “cause and effect” concept is adopted, failure caus-
ing extreme wind being the cause and the collapse of the
tower being the effect. Initially, gust effectiveness factors
were evaluated for these towers as per different interna-
tional codal provisions, viz., AS code8 , BS code9 , ASCE
code10 , China code11 , Canada code12 , Japan code13 , and
were compared with the values obtained using IS code14 .
The failure analysis involved identifying the basic wind
speeds at which the collapse would have initiated as per IS
code14 with the modified parameters suggested for towers
under cyclone wind conditions15 .

∗
Scientist, ∗∗ Director, Structural Engineering Research Centre, CSIR Campus, Taramani, Chennai 600 113, India.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 32, NO.3, AUGUST–SEPTEMBER 2005 147

COLLAPSED MICROWAVE TOWERS

101 m Tall Steel Lattice Microwave Tower

The first failure investigation pertains to the total collapse

of a 101 m microwave tower during a severe cyclonic storm,
which crossed (Fig. 1) the Andhra Pradesh coast on 6th
November, 1996, about 50 km southwest of Kakinada6 . The
tower site (with latitude of 16.42◦ N and a longitudinal of
81.31◦ E) was observed to be over 60 km away from the
coastline. Kakinada is situated about 8–10 km from the east
coast of India with latitude of 16.57◦ N and a longitudinal
of 82.15◦ E.

FIG. 2. 3D FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF 101 m MICROWAVE

TOWER WITH (i) MAIN AND SECONDARY MEMBERS.
(ii) MAIN MEMBERS. ∗ - by failure analysis

completely been damaged. One of the main leg members

failed in shear (Fig. 3) at the bottom bolt hole location,
which had possibly led to the total collapse of the tower as
FIG. 1. TRACK OF KAKINADA SEVERE CYCLONE shown in Fig. 4. The site specific wind speed would be less
than the maximum wind speed as mentioned above, since
the wind speed reduces from the maximum wind speed, VR ,
The 101 m tall steel lattice tower was square in plan, as the distance from centre of cyclone increases beyond the
with a width of 14.274 m at bottom and a width of 1.8 m radius of maximum wind speed, R as typically shown in
at top. The tower was fabricated using steel angle sections Fig. 517 . Since exact cyclone wind speeds were not avail-
with bolted connections. One dish type antenna having a able at the failure site, a site specific maximum wind speed
diameter of 3.0 m and weight 245 kg, and two grid type is estimated as 35.46 m/s following Fig. 5 with R = 40 km,
antennas each of which had a diameter of 3.0 m and weigh- r = 60 km and with a nominal decay coefficient, δ = 0.4
ing 120 kg were supported at 40 m, 50 m and 60 m levels using the upper bound of maximum wind speed reported
respectively. The tower legs were covered with 1.5 m × (41.7 m/s).
1.5 m square concrete blocks for a depth of 2 m, above
ground level. The FEM-model of the 101 m tall microwave
tower (704 nodes; 2012-3D truss elements) is shown in
Fig. 2.
A low-pressure area developed very close to the east
coast of India on 2nd November 1996. It turned into a
depression on 4th November, intensified into a cyclone
storm on 5th and into a severe cyclonic storm on 6th . Finally
the cyclone crossed the coast on 6th November 1996. The
maximum wind speed, sustained over 3-minutes as per
regional practice, of the cyclone was reported by the India
Meteorological Department (IMD) as about 140–150 km/h
(28.9–41.7 m/s)16 .
Observed damage at the failure site showed that two of
the concrete blocks covering the tower legs on one face FIG. 3. SHEARED LEG MEMBER INSIDE THE CONCRETE
had no/partial damage, while the other two blocks had BLOCK AT BOTTOM

148 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 32, NO.3, AUGUST–SEPTEMBER 2005

 on 9th November, 1989 near Kavali7 . Kavali is situated
about 10 km from the coast with a latitude of 14.55◦ N and
longitude of 80.03◦ E.
The 91 m tall steel lattice tower was square in plan. The
width at bottom was 12.874 m and at top it was 1.8 m.
Two dish antennae of 3.66 m diameter and each of which
weighed 386 kg, were supported at 80 m and 90 m above
the ground level. The tower was fabricated using steel angle
sections with bolted connections. The FEM-model of the
91 m tall microwave tower (645 nodes; 1824-3D truss ele-
ments) is shown in Fig. 7.
FIG. 4. COMPLETE COLLAPSE OF THE 101 m TALL STEEL
LATTICE TOWER

FIG. 5. VARIATION OF WIND SPEED WITH RADIAL DISTANCE

91 m Tall Steel Lattice Microwave Tower

The second failure investigation pertains to the total col-

lapse of a 91 m microwave tower during a severe cyclonic
storm, which crossed (Fig. 6) the Andhra Pradesh coast FIG. 7. 3D FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF 91 m MICROWAVE
TOWER WITH (i) MAIN AND SECONDARY MEMBERS.
(ii) MAIN MEMBERS. ∗ - by failure analysis

A cyclone originated in the gulf of Thailand on 1st

November 1989, and this intensified into a severe cyclonic
storm with a core of hurricane winds on the evening of
5th November. On the morning of 6th November, the storm
crossed North Andaman and after intensifying further, it
lead towards Indian main land, and hovered in the Bay of
Bengal for two subsequent days, and finally crossed the
east coast of India on Thursday, the 9th November 1989.
The maximum wind speed, sustained over 3 minutes as
per regional practice, of the cyclone was reported by IMD
was about 100–120 knots (51.4–61.7 m/s) with in a radius
of about 10 km around Kavali and as 80 knots (41.1 m/s)
between 10 and 17 km from Kavali18 .
Observed damage at the failure site includes, the main
leg members were ruptured at the base level, leading to
complete collapse of the tower as shown in Figs. 8 and 9.
The tower site was observed to be 20 km away from Kavali.
FIG. 6. TRACK OF KAVALI CYCLONE
Using the upper bound of reported maximum wind speed

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 32, NO.3, AUGUST–SEPTEMBER 2005 149

(61.7 m/s) following Fig. 5, with R = 10 km, r = 30 km
and a decay coefficient, δ = 0.4, the site specific maximum
wind speed for the cyclone is estimated as 39.74 m/s.
FIG. 8. RUPTURE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE 91 m TALL STEEL
LATTICE TOWER
effectiveness factor (function of wind, terrain and structure
characteristics).
Free vibration analyses of the two towers were carried
out and the fundamental natural frequencies of the 101 m
and 91 m tall towers were obtained as 1.38 Hz and 1.47 Hz,
respectively. Figure 10 shows the first three bending mode
shapes of the towers under investigation. Even though, the
fundamental natural frequencies were more than 1 Hz, the
towers need to be considered as dynamically sensitive as
per IS code14 since their aspect ratios (height/width) were
observed to be more than 5. Hence in the present study,
gust effectiveness factor based wind loads were considered
for the failure analysis. Assuming that the towers collapsed
were designed as per Indian practice, the failure analysis
is being done with respect to IS codal14 provisions. It is
evident that most of the international codes are also based
on the assumption of stationary wind process resulting in
background (due to low frequency wind excitation) as well
as resonant (due to energy in wind around natural frequency
of the structure) components of responses of structures2 .
The gust effectiveness factor obtained using IS code14 were
compared with those obtained using various international
codes, viz., AS code8 , BS code9 , ASCE code10 , China
code11 , Canada code12 , Japan code13 , in order to review the
usage of various wind and response parameters to quantify
the peak dynamic response.

FIG. 9. COMPLETE COLLAPSE OF THE 91 m TALL STEEL

LATTICE TOWER

DYNAMIC WIND LOADS

The present failure investigation involves the estimation

of the dynamic wind loads causing the failure of the two
towers under the respective reported cyclone wind con-
ditions. Wind force is basically random and dynamic in
nature, and it is treated as stationary for simplicity in the
analysis and design of wind sensitive structures. When
the fundamental frequency of the structure is less than
1 Hz or the aspect ratio (height/width) of the structure is
very high (> 5), most of the international wind load-
ing standards recommend equivalent steady state wind
loads based on gust effectiveness factor approach as given
below,
1 2
F = GCf ρV Ae (1)
2
where, Cf = force coefficient; V = hourly mean wind FIG. 10. FIRST THREE MODE (BENDING) SHAPES OF THE
TOWERS. (a) 101 m, (b) 91 m
speed; ρ = air density; Ae = exposed area; and G = gust

150 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 32, NO.3, AUGUST–SEPTEMBER 2005

EVALUATION OF GUST EFFECTIVENESS FACTOR
(GEF) BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTER-
NATIONAL CODES
Gust effectiveness factors for the two towers have been
evaluated based on expressions provided in various inter-
national codes for a standard terrain category of open fields

with a terrain roughness height, z0 , close to 0.02–0.03 m
(or) with a power law coefficient, α, close to 0.15–0.165.
Australian Standard AS 3995–19948
The Australian code suggests two methods, viz., (i) sim-
plified method, (ii) detailed approach, to evaluate the gust
response factor for free-standing lattice towers, based on
stochastic response of a linear single degree of freedom sys-
tem (i.e., corresponding to the first mode of the structure).
In this paper, the gust response factors were evaluated for
terrain category 2 with the roughness length, z0 = 0.02 m,
for both the towers6,7 based on the simplified method given
in clause 2.3.88 . In this method, the gust response factor
for both bending moment and shear force is to be the same
but it varies with height and is given as,

 
SE
Gs = 1 + rH gB Bs + gR
2 2 (2)
ζ 9–87–199411
where, Gs = gust response factor; r = roughness fac-
tor; H = height factor; gB = peak factor for the back-
ground response; Bs = background factor; gR = peak
factor for the resonant response; S = size factor for res-
onant response; E = gust energy factor; and ζ = critical
damping ratio. gB given in above expression includes the
effect of factor, φ, as given in IS code14 expression. Since
the values obtained using the above expression are being
compared with the values obtained using the IS code14
expression, instead of gB only gu as given in AS code8 was
used for consistency.
British Standard BS 8100: Part 1–19869
The British standard suggests gust response factor for bend-
ing moment and shear force separately, which vary with
height under the equivalent static method. In this paper,
the gust response factor was evaluated for bending moment
alone for terrain category III with the terrain roughness
parameter, z0 = 0.03 m, for both the towers6,7 . The gust
response factor for fluctuating bending moment at any
height zm is given as (clause 5.2.39 and G59 ):
  z 2 
G = GB 1 + 0.2
m
(3)
H
where, G = gust response factor; GB = basic gust
response factor; zm = height above the ground at
which bending moment is required; H = overall tower
height. The gust response factor for total bending moment
(= 1 + G) at the base of the tower is evaluated with α =
0.165, for both the towers and taking zm as zero. The British
standard recommends the gust response factor for top
deflection is the same as that for the base bending moment.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 32, NO.3, AUGUST–SEPTEMBER 2005
ASCE Standard 7–9810
This code suggests that for the slender buildings and other
structures that have a fundamental natural frequency less
than 1 Hz, the gust effect factor shall be calculated by
(clause 6.5.8.210 ),

1 + 1.7Iz + gQ 2
Q2 + gR2 R 2
Gf = 0.925   (4)
1 + 1.7gv Iz
where, Gf = gust effect factor; Iz = intensity of turbu-
lence at height z; gQ = peak factor for the background
response; Q = background response factor; gR = peak
factor for the resonant response; R = resonant response
factor; gv = peak factor for wind response. However, this
gust effect factor is to be applied over wind loads obtained
using 3-sec gust wind speed. Hence, the expression given in
the denominator in Eq. (4) was excluded in order to be con-
sistent with other international codal values that are applied
over wind loads obtained using mean hourly wind speed.
The gust effect factors were evaluated for terrain category
C with α = 0.1538, for both the towers6,7 .
National Standard of the People’s Republic of China GBJ
This code suggests that for buildings/structures with a
height greater than 30 m and a ratio of height to width
greater than 1.5, and for high-rise structures such as tower
frames, masts, chimneys, etc., with a fundamental natu-
ral period of vibration T1 which is greater than 0.25 s, the
dynamic wind effect factor shall be adopted in considera-
tion of the fluctuation effects of wind pressure. This means
fundamental modes with frequencies upto 4 Hz must be
checked for dynamic wind effects.
The dynamic wind effect factor of high-rise structures or
tall buildings at the height z, may be calculated as (clause
6.4.211 ):
1 + ξ νϕz
βz = (5)
µz
where, βz = dynamic wind effect factor; ξ = magnifi-
cation factor of wind fluctuation; ν = wind fluctuation fac-
tor; ϕz = vibration mode factor; µz = exposure factor for
wind load. The dynamic wind effect factors were evaluated
for terrain category B (open), for both the towers6,7 .
National Building Code of Canada-199512
The code suggests a dynamic approach to the action of wind
gusts to be called “detailed procedure” for tall buildings
and slender structures.
The gust effect factor, equal to the ratio of peak loading
to the mean loading, is given as (clause 4.1.8.1. (6)12 ):
 
σ
C g = 1 + gp (6)
µ
151
where, Cg = dynamic gust factor; gp = statistical peak
factor for the loading effect; σ = root-mean square loading
effect; µ = mean loading effect. The value of σ/µ is given
as,

 

σ K SF
= + B+ (7)
µ Ce H β β
The gust effect factors were evaluated based on this proce-
dure for terrain category A, for both the towers6,7 .
AIJ Recommendations for Loads on Buildings, Japan13
The code suggests two methods, viz., (i) detailed proce-
dure I, (ii) detailed procedure II to evaluate the gust effect
factor, for tall and relatively flexible buildings based on
the basic wind speed corresponding to the 10-min mean
wind speed. In this paper, the gust effect factor is evaluated
based on detailed procedure II, for the design of structural
frames and components/cladding of buildings when reso-
nant effects are not negligible. This code suggests that the
same procedure can also be used for the design of buildings
when resonant effects are small.
The gust effect factor can be calculated from the equation
(clause 6.3.2. (2)13 ):
Gf = 1 + gf rf Bf + Rf (8)
where, Gf = gust effect factor; gf = peak factor;
rf = turbulence factor; Bf = background excitation fac-
tor; Rf = resonance factor. The gust effect factors are eval-
uated for category II with α = 0.15, for both the towers6,7 .
Indian Standard IS-875 Part-3 (1987)14
This code suggests the following expression for estimation
of gust effectiveness factor,
 
SE
G = 1 + gf r B(1 + φ) + 2 (9)
where, G = gust effectiveness factor; gf = peak factor;
r = roughness factor (twice the value of intensity of turbu-
lence, σV /V ); B = background factor; S = size reduction
factor; E = measure of available energy in the wind stream
at the natural frequency of the structure; β = damping
coefficient of the structure, σV = rms value of along wind
fluctuations and V = mean wind velocity. The parameters
gf , r, B, S, E and β can be obtained from 14
√ IS code and the
parameter φ can be calculated as (gf r B)/4, and is to be
accounted only for buildings less than 75 m high in terrain
category 4 and for buildings less than 25 m high in terrain
category 3 and is to be taken as zero in all other cases. The
gust effectiveness factors were evaluated for terrain cate-
gory 2 with φ = 0 for both the towers6,7 .
COMPARISON OF CODAL PROVISIONS
Table 1 gives the GEF values as per various international
codal expressions. The gust effectiveness factor as per
IS code14 for the 101 m tower was obtained as 1.828.
The gust effectiveness factors for the 101 m tower as per
AS code (with gu )8 , BS code9 , ASCE code (over hourly
mean wind speed)10 , China code11 , Canada code12 and

TABLE 1
GUST EFFECTIVENESS FACTOR FROM VARIOUS INTERNATIONAL CODAL PROVISIONS
Code(s) Ht. (m) GEF Basic input values to evaluate the gust effectiveness factor
101 2.022 T.C.:2; h = 101 m; s = 0; n = 1.38 Hz; ws = w0 = 8.038 m; T = 3600 s; ζ = 0.05; V = 44 m/s;
AS:3995-19948 M (z,cat) = 0.841; M t = 1.0; Md = 1.0; z0 = 0.02 m
91 2.064 T.C.:2 h = 91 m; s = 0; n = 1.47 Hz; ws = w0 = 7.337 m; T = 3600 s; ζ = 0.05; V = 44 m/s;
M (z,cat) = 0.8292; M t = 1.0; Md = 1.0; z0 = 0.02 m
BS:8100-Part 1- 101 1.989 T.C.:III; H = 101 m; z = 0 m; zm = 0 m; z0 = 0.03 m; KR = 1; α = 0.165; z0 = 0.03 m
19869 91 2.015 T.C.:III; H = 91 m; z = 0 m; zm = 0 m; z0 = 0.03 m; KR = 1; α = 0.165; z0 = 0.03 m
101 0.871 T.C.:C; b = 0.65; h = 331 ft; z = 199 ft; α = 0.1538; n1 = 1.38 Hz; B = 26 ft; L = 26 ft;
10 β = 0.02; ε = 1/5; gq = gv = 3.4; c = 0.2; V = 44 m/s; l = 500 ft
ASCE7-98
91 0.873 T.C.:C; b = 0.65; h = 299 ft; z = 179 ft; α = 0.1538; n1 = 1.47 Hz; B = 24 ft; L = 24 ft;
β = 0.02; ε = 1/5; gq = gv = 3.4; c = 0.2; V = 44 m/s; l = 500 ft
GBJ 101 1.927 T.C.:B; T1 = 0.73 s; v0 = 31 m/s; z = 101 m; H = 101 m; Bh = 1.8 m; Bo = 14.274 m
9-87-199411 91 1.937 T.C.:B; T1 = 0.68 s; v0 = 31 m/s; z = 91 m; H = 91 m; Bh = 1.8 m; Bo = 12.874 m
101 1.902 T.C.:A; H = 101 m; W = 8.037 m; n0 = 1.38 Hz; β = 0.01; V = 30 m/s; K = 1; Ce H = 1.4;
NBC of B = 0.92; s = 0.07; F = 0.122
Canada-199512 91 1.929 T.C.:A; H = 91 m; W = 7.337 m; n0 = 1.47 Hz; β = 0.01; V = 30 m/s; K = 1; Ce H = 1.3;
B = 0.96; s = 0.06; F = 0.107
AIJ Recommen- 101 1.646 T.C.:II; H = 101 m; B = 8.037 m; n0 = 1.38 Hz; ZG = 350 m; U0 = 47 m/s; nf = 0.02; α = 0.15;
13 r = 100 yr; Eg = 1.0
Dations ,
91 1.666 T.C.:II; H = 91 m; B = 7.337 m; n0 = 1.47 Hz; ZG = 350 m; U0 = 46 m/s; nf = 0.02; α = 0.15;
Japan
r = 100 yr; Eg = 1.0
101 1.828 T.C.:2; Vb = 44 m/s; k1 = 1.0; k 2 = 0.9208; k3 = 1.0; h = 101 m; b = 8.037 m; Cy = 10; Cz = 12;
IS:875-Part-2- f0 = 1.38 Hz; β = 0.02
198714 91 1.858 T.C.:2; Vb = 44 m/s; k1 = 1.0; k 2 = 0.91; k3 = 1.0; h = 91 m; b = 7.337 m; Cy = 10; Cz = 12;
f0 = 1.47 Hz; β = 0.02
Note: T.C.: Terrain category

152 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 32, NO.3, AUGUST–SEPTEMBER 2005

Japan code13 were obtained as 1.85, 1.989, 1.617, 1.927,
1.902, and 1.646, respectively. The percentage variation
of these values as compared to IS code14 value were
obtained as +1.2%, +8.8%, −11.5%, +5.4%, +4.0% and
−10.0%, respectively.
The gust effectiveness factor as per IS code14 for the
91 m tower was obtained as 1.858. The gust effective-
ness factors for the 91 m tower as per AS code (with
gu )8 , BS code9 , ASCE code (over hourly mean wind
speed)10 , China code11 , Canada code12 and Japan code13
were obtained as 1.879, 2.015, 1.634, 1.937, 1.929, and
1.666, respectively. The percentage variation of these val-
ues as compared to IS code14 value were obtained as
+1.1%, +8.4%, −12.1%, +4.3%, +3.8% and −10.3%,
respectively.
The gust effectiveness factor values as per these interna-
tional codes were observed to be within and about ±10%
of variation as compared to the gust effectiveness factor
values as per IS code14 . Hence in the present investigation,
the expression for gust effectiveness factor as per IS code14
is considered for the detailed failure investigation.
FAILURE ANALYSIS OF TOWERS
Under Normal Wind Conditions
In most damage surveys, collection of measured wind data
at the failure site is difficult to ascertain. Exact failure
triggering mechanism and progressive failure sequences
during cyclones is not well understood due to lack of
documented information. However internationally adopted
design procedures have similar basic concepts to account
for the dynamic effects of wind on open latticed struc-
tures.
In the square towers, it is obvious that quartering wind
(diagonal) will be governing for the design of leg members,
since only two leg members will be actively resisting the
moment due to lateral loads. While for the design of bracing
members, wind normal to the face will be governing.
Hence, the static analysis of 101 m and 91 m tall tow-
ers were carried out for wind loads calculated using basic
wind speed of 44 m/s (as per IS code14 ), and the corre-
sponding mean hourly wind speed of 29.48 m/s considering
terrain category 2 and gust effectiveness factors of 1.828
and 1.858, respectively. The basic wind speed is defined as
highest 3-sec gust wind speed at 10 m above ground level
in a category 2 terrain (having mean surface roughness of
0.02 m). Figures 2 and 7 show the identified critical leg and
bracing members for 101 m and 91 m tall steel lattice tow-
ers, respectively. Using limit state design approach, the leg
and bracing members having the least margin of allowable
to calculated stresses were identified in both the towers. For
both the towers, the critical leg member was noted to be in
the first panel from bottom and the critical bracing member
was noted to be in the second panel from bottom initiating a
condition for first passage failure leading to collapse of the
tower. The expected buckling mode of failure as per analy-
sis involving the critical leg member and the critical brac-
ing member seems to compare well with the failed towers
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 32, NO.3, AUGUST–SEPTEMBER 2005
as shown in Figs. 4 and 9. The limiting basic wind speeds
causing the failure of the critical leg and bracing members
with respective critical wind directions (diagonal/normal
to face) were obtained as 67 m/s and 48 m/s, respectively
for 101 m tall tower, and as 66 m/s and 54 m/s, for 91 m
tall tower. Failure is expected to be initiated when the lim-
iting basic wind speed for the critical bracing member is
exceeded.
Since the reported maximum wind speeds were sus-
tained over 3-minutes of duration, the corresponding basic
wind speed (3-sec gust) can be obtained by applying a gust
factor over the 3-minute (180 sec) sustained wind speed.
The gust factor can be obtained using the following expres-
sion as reported elsewhere19 for terrain category 214 and at
10 m level.
 
t
Gv (t) = 1 − 0.59(0.15) ln1.13
(10)
3600
where t is the averaging period in seconds.
The gust factor for converting the 3-minute sustained
wind speed to 3-sec gust speed is obtained as 1.23{=
Gv (3)/Gv (180)}. For 101 m tall steel lattice tower, the
site specific maximum wind speed was 35.46 m/s sustained
over 3-minutes. The corresponding site specific cyclone
basic wind speed (3-sec gust) is obtained by applying the
gust factor as 43.61 m/s (= 1.23 × 35.46) which is less
than the limiting basic wind speed of 48 m/s for the critical
bracing member as obtained by the analysis.
For 91 m tall steel lattice tower, the site specific maxi-
mum wind speed was 39.74 m/s sustained over 3-minutes.
The corresponding site specific cyclone basic wind speed
(3-sec gust) is obtained by applying the gust factor as
48.90 m/s (= 1.23 × 39.74) which is less than the limiting
basic wind speed of 54 m/s for the critical bracing member
as obtained by the analysis.
In both the cases, the failures are not envisaged using the
GEF values evaluated as per the existing codal provisions14 .
Since the measured cyclone wind characteristics were dif-
ferent from normal wind characteristics, the GEF values
under the cyclone wind conditions have to be evalu-
ated with the modifications to various parameters as dis-
cussed in the following section to obtain the modified GEF
values.
Parameters for Cyclone Wind Conditions
Two full scale field experiments on a 101 m and a 52 m (at
Structural Engineering Research Centre, Chennai) tall steel
lattice towers were carried out to measure the wind, terrain
and structural characteristics during normal and extreme
wind conditions. The details of the structure, instrumenta-
tion system, collection of data, analysis of data and results
of analysis are explained elsewhere4,5,20,21 . Based on the
measurements during normal and cyclonic wind condi-
tions it was observed that some of the specifications rec-
ommended in the IS code14 needed modifications for the
evaluation of the gust effectiveness factor4,5 .
Based on these observations, the following modifica-
tions to the parameters φ, gf , r, L, E and β, given in IS
153
code14 for the evaluation of gust effectiveness factor for
cyclone prone regions based on measured spectral charac-
teristics of cyclone winds are considered15 .
a) The value of background enhancement factor, φ, has
to be considered for all terrain categories irrespective
of the height of the tower5 .
b) In cyclone prone areas, the structures should be
designed for a pseudo rougher terrain category (cat-
egory 3 instead of category 2), with the same mean
wind velocity, V 10 , since the turbulence intensities are
bound to be more than those during normal winds,
thus increasing the dynamic loads. Hence, the values
of gf , r and L have to be taken for the next rougher
terrain category15 .
c) The gust energy content in the cyclonic wind spec-
trum was observed to be constant between 1 and
10 Hz4 , whereas in normal wind, the gust energy
decays beyond 1 Hz. Hence in cyclone prone areas,
the modified turbulence spectrum may be used, and
the structures with natural frequency more than 1 Hz
also be considered dynamically wind sensitive. Hence
the gust energy factor, E, used in Eq. (9), has to be
modified taking into account of the measured cyclonic
wind spectrum4 as given in Fig. 11.
d) Since the aerodynamic damping increases with mean
wind speed, the total damping ratio should include the
aerodynamic damping in addition to structural damp-
ing. Hence a damping ratio of 0.0415 can be consid-
ered instead of 0.02 for bolted steel structures as per
the current code of practice14 .
FIG. 11. GUST ENERGY FACTOR, E
Under Cyclone Wind Conditions
Under the post-collapse failure investigation of the two
towers, the sensitivity of the GEF, which is inline with
various international codes of practice, to parameters,
with suggested modifications under cyclone wind condi-
tions, has been studied. The GEF values with suggested
modifications15 under cyclone wind conditions can be
154 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 32, NO.3, AUGUST–SEPTEMBER 2005
written as,

 
S(Ec1 + Ec2 + Ec3 )
Gc = 1 + gf rc B(1 + φc )2 +
βc
(11)
where, Gc = GEF with cyclone wind characteristics;
gf rc = peak factor and roughness factor due to cyclone
for the next rougher terrain category (i.e.
√ terrain category
3); B = background factor; φc = (gf rc B)/4); S = size
reduction factor; Ec1 , Ec2 , Ec3 = measure of available
energy in the cyclone wind storm at first (f01 ), second
(f02 ) and third (f03 ) natural frequencies of the tower; and
βc = increased total damping coefficient of the tower. The
gust effectiveness factors were evaluated with these modi-
fied parameters for both towers.
Tables 2 and 3 show the individual and combined effect
of modifications as given in Eq. (10) for the evaluation of
GEF for 101 m and 91 m tall steel lattice towers, respec-
tively. Further, the contribution of two more higher modes
was also included along with modified damping coefficient
βc of 0.04 instead of usual 0.02, due to possible increase in
aerodynamic damping.
The Gc under cyclone wind conditions after consider-
ing the modifications discussed above, were obtained as
2.28 and 2.38 for 101 m and 91 m tall steel lattice towers,
respectively. The ratios (Rg ) of Gc under cyclone wind con-
dition (Eq. (11)) to G as per codal provisions14 (Eq. (9))
are obtained as 1.25 and 1.27 for 101 m and 91 m tall
steel lattice towers, respectively. With the member capac-
ity remaining the same, increase in gust effectiveness fac-
tor due to higher turbulence levels causes a reduction in
limiting basic wind speed for the critical member. Since
the dynamic wind loads are proportional to square of wind
speed, the limiting basic wind speeds of the critical
√ bracing
members would be reduced by a factor of (1/ R g ).
 
1
Vlb = √ Vb (12)
Rg
where, Vlb = Limiting basic wind speed.
For 101 m tall steel lattice tower, considering the
enhanced gust factor, the limiting basic wind speed√ (as per
Eq. (12)) at failure is estimated as 43 m/s (= 48/ 1.25)
which is close to the reported site specific cyclonic basic
wind speed of 43.61 m/s. For 91 m tall steel lattice tower,
considering the enhanced gust factor, the limiting basic
wind speed (as√ per Eq. (12)) at the failure is estimated as
48 m/s (= 54/ 1.27) which is close to the reported site
specific cyclonic basic wind speed of 48.90 m/s. The close-
ness of the limiting wind speeds derived based on strength
of bracings including the effects of increased turbulence
to the reported cyclonic wind speed validates the design
recommendations15 as discussed in the previous section.
The critical bracing members in the 101 m and 91 m tall
steel lattice microwave towers would have initiated the fail-
ure during the respective cyclonic storms. The failure of
the critical bracing member causes the loss of triangula-
tion and load path in the second panel from bottom, leading
 TABLE 2
CALCULATION OF DYNAMIC WIND PRESSURE FOR 101 m TALL STEEL LATTICE TOWER
‘Gc ’ with modified parameters for cyclonic wind conditions
‘G’ φc , gf rc , L(h)c , φc , gf rc , L(h)c ,
IS code14 φc , gf rc , Ec1 , Ec2 , Ec3 , Ec1 , Ec2 , Ec3 ,
Parameters with φ = 0 Ec φ gf rc , L(h)c L(h)c , Ec (f01 + f02 + f03 ) (f01 + f02 + f03 ), βc
f0 , (Hz) 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38, 2.83, 4.69 1.38, 2.83, 4.69
V h , (m/s) 40.52 40.52 40.52 40.52 40.52 40.52 40.52
L(h), (m) 1687.5 1687.5 1687.5 1450.0 1450.0 1450 1450
gf r 0.9333 0.9333 0.9333 1.1875 1.1875 1.1875 1.1875
B 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
φ 0.0 0.0 0.197983 0.0 0.248383 0.248383 0.248383
S 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036,0.0215, 0.0086 0.036,0.0215, 0.0086
E 0.037 0.054 0.037 0.037 0.063 0.063,0.043, 0.043 0.063, 0.043, 0.043
β 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04
(SE/β) 0.0666 0.0972 0.0666 0.0666 0.1134 0.1435 0.07355
GEF/GRF 1.828 1.844 1.979 2.040 2.303 2.319 2.281
% of increase 0.87 8.27 11.66 26.01 26.90 24.82

TABLE 3
CALCULATION OF DYNAMIC WIND PRESSURE FOR 91 m TALL STEEL LATTICE TOWER
‘Gc ’ with modified parameters for cyclonic wind conditions
‘G’ φc , gf rc , L(h)c , φc , gf rc , L(h)c ,
IS code14 φc , gf rc , Ec1 , Ec2 , Ec3 , Ec1 , Ec2 , Ec3 ,
Parameters with φ = 0 Ec φ gf rc , L(h)c L(h)c , Ec (f01 + f02 + f03 ) (f01 + f02 + f03 ), βc
f0 , (Hz) 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47, 2.89, 4.80 1.47, 2.89, 4.80
V h , (m/s) 40.04 40.04 40.04 40.04 40.04 40.04 40.04
L(h), (m) 1625.0 1625.0 1625.0 1420.0 1420.0 1420 1420
gf r 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
B 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
φ 0.0 0.0 0.205768 0 0.261456 0.261456 0.261456
S 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037, 0.011, 0.0044 0.037, 0.011, 0.0044
E 0.034 0.054 0.034 0.034 0.058 0.058, 0.043, 0.043 0.058, 0.043, 0.043
β 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04
(SE/β) 0.0629 0.0999 0.0629 0.0629 0.1073 0.1404 0.0702
GEF/GRF 1.858 1.878 2.022 2.092 2.381 2.400 2.360
% of increase 1.08 8.57 12.57 28.15 29.15 27.01

to large deflections in both the towers. The second order
effects would have induced combined axial and bending
stresses in the critical leg members of the bottom panel as
can be seen in Figs. 3 and 8, for which the leg members
were not designed. Hence the total collapse of the towers.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the failure analysis, the first passage failure is
observed to be initiated always in the critical bracing mem-
bers of both the towers. After the failure of the critical
bracing members, the second order effects would have
induced combined axial and bending stresses in the critical
leg members of the bottom panel for which the leg mem-
bers were not designed. This is ascertained by the observed
failures (Figs. 3 and 8) which clearly indicate exceedance
of combined bending and axial tension/compression in the
leg members. The basic wind speeds at both sites corre-
sponding to reported maximum wind speeds did not envis-
age the failure initiation in both the towers using the GEF
values of G as given in Eq. (9), evaluated as per existing
practice14 .
The dynamic wind loads acting on a lattice tower are
increased greatly for the same mean wind speeds due to
enhanced turbulence intensities and higher energy at high
frequency regime of the wind spectra during a cyclone.
Based on the earlier measurements, it was reported4,5,15
that during cyclones, there are significant changes in the
practiced values of gf , r, φ, E, and β, which are used for
evaluating dynamic wind loads on the tower. By consider-
ing the suggested modifications in evaluating Gc (Eq. (11)),
the dynamic wind loads increase by 25% for 101 m and
27% for 91 m tall lattice tower. From the reported informa-
tion, the estimated cyclonic basic wind speeds have been
43.61 and 48.90 m/s at the sites of 101 m tall steel lat-
tice tower and 91 m tall steel lattice tower, respectively.
The minimum limiting basic wind speeds reworked based
on the failure triggering mechanism of brace members of
both the towers have been 48 m/s (101 m tall steel lattice
tower) and of 54 m/s (91 m tall steel lattice tower). With the
member capacities remaining the same, increase in GEF
(Gc > G) values due to higher turbulence would cause
the member to fail even when the cyclonic basic wind
speeds are lower than the limiting basic wind speeds, as has

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 32, NO.3, AUGUST–SEPTEMBER 2005 155

been observed in both the towers under respective cyclone b breadth of the structure normal to the wind stream
conditions. b mean hourly wind speed factor
While the simplicity in design procedure using GEF can- c turbulence intensity factor
not be over looked, due to possible deviations of the param- f0 natural frequency of the structure
eters used for the calculation of Gc under cyclone wind gv peak factor for wind response
conditions, the conservatism in designs using G may not h height of the structure above ground8
be guaranteed. Hence in cyclone prone regions, it is prefer- h mean roof height of a building10
able to consider Gc for the design of these towers along h height of a structure14
with the wind speed profiles corresponding to local terrain k1 probability factor
conditions to have an extra margin of safety against the k2 terrain and height factor
additional turbulence induced dynamic peak loads. k3 topographic factor
l integral length scale factor
n first mode natural sway frequency
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
n0 natural frequency of vibration12
n0 natural frequency for the first translation mode in
This paper is being published with the kind permission
along-wind direction13
of the Director, Structural Engineering Research Centre,
n1 building natural frequency
Madras. The authors wish to pay the deep sense of grati-
nf critical damping ratio for the first translation
tude to their colleague (Late) Shri. J. Shanmugasundaram,
mode in along-wind direction
Deputy Director (Field Experiments Laboratory), for his
r design return period
valuable suggestions during the course of the investigation.
s height of the design peak shear force and design
bending moment above ground level
NOTATION s size reduction factor12
v0 maximum mean wind velocity
B horizontal dimension of building measured nor- w0 average width of the structure between h/2 and h
mal to wind direction10 ws average width of the structure between h and s
B background turbulence factor12 z height above the ground at which bending
B projected breadth13 moments or shear force is required9
B0 windward side bottom width of the structure z height above the ground level10
BH windward side top width of the structure z reference height11
Ce H exposure factor at the top of the building, H z0 roughness length8
Cy lateral correlation constant z0 terrain roughness parameter9
Cz longitudinal correlation constant zm height above the ground at which bending
Eg topography factor moment is required
F gust energy ratio at the natural frequency of the α power law index of wind speed variation with
structure height9
H overall tower height9 α exponent of the power law in the wind speed
H total height11 profile13
H height of windward face of the building12 α mean hourly wind speed power law exponent
H reference height13 β critical damping ratio12
K a factor related to the surface roughness β damping coefficient14
KR terrain roughness factor δ decay coefficient17
L horizontal dimension of building measured par- ε integral length scale power law exponent
allel to the wind direction ζ critical damping ratio
Md wind direction multiplier
Mt topographic multiplier for mean wind speeds
REFERENCES
M (z,cat) mean wind speed multiplier for a terrain category
at height z 1. Holmes, J.D., “Along-wind response of lattice tow-
T averaging time ers: Part I – derivation of expressions for gust
T1 fundamental natural period of vibration response factors”, Engg. Struct., V. 16, No. 4, 1994,
U0 basic wind speed pp. 287–292.
V basic wind speed8
V basic wind speed10 2. Davenport, A.G., “Gust loading factors”, Journal of
Structural Engineering Division, Proc. of the ASCE,
V reference wind speed
V. 93, No. ST3, 1967, pp. 11–34.
VH mean wind speed (m/s) at the top of the structure,
H 3. Dharanipathy, M.V., Keshava Rao, M.N., “Spectral
Vb regional basic wind speed analysis of co‘mmunication tower responses to wind
W width of windward face of the building spectra”, J. of Struct. Engg., V. 14, No. 2, 1987,
ZG gradient height pp. 51–59.

156 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 32, NO.3, AUGUST–SEPTEMBER 2005

 4. Shanmugasundaram, J., Harikrishna, P., Gomathi-
nayagam, S., Lakshmanan, N., “Wind, Terrain and
Structural Damping Characteristics under Tropical
Cyclonic Conditions”, Engg. Struct., V. 21, No. 11,
1999, pp. 1006–1014.
5. Harikrishna, P., Shanmugasundaram, J., Gomathi-
nayagam, S., Lakshmanan, N., “Analytical and
Experimental Studies on the Gust Response of a
52 m Tall Steel Lattice Tower under Wind Loading”,
Comp. and Struct., V. 70, No. 2, 1999, pp. 149–160.
6. Shanmugasundaram, J., Gomathinayagam, S.,
Arunachalam, S., Harikrishna, P., “Damage survey
of buildings and structures due to November 1996
cyclone near Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh”, Research
Report, Structural Engineering Research Centre,
Chennai, 1997.
7. Shanmugasundaram, J., Arunachalam, S., “Struc-
tural damage due to cyclone at Kavali, Andhra
Pradesh”, Research Report, Structural Engineering
Research Centre, Chennai, 1989.
8. “AS 3995: Australian Standard for design of steel
lattice towers and masts”, Standard Australia, North
Sydney, Australia, 1994.
9. “BS 8100: Part 1. British standard for lattice towers
and masts: part 1- Code of practice for loading”,
British Standards, London, 1986.
10. “ASCE 7-98: American society of civil engineers
standard for minimum design loads for buildings
and other structures”, ASCE Standard, USA, 1998.
11. “GBJ 9-87: National standard of the people’s repub-
lic of China for load code for the design of buildings
structures”, Beijing, 1994.
12. “Canadian Commission on Building and Fire
Codes”, National building code of Canada, Canada,
1995.
13. “AIJ recommendations for loads on buildings”,
Japan.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 32, NO.3, AUGUST–SEPTEMBER 2005
14. “Code of Practice for Design of Loads (other than
Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures, Part 3,
Wind Loads. IS 875 (Part 3)-1987”, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, 1989.
15. Shanmugasundaram, J., Gomathinayagam, S.,
Harikrishna, P., Annadurai, A., Lakshmanan,
N., “Design of Steel Lattice Tower subjected to
Dynamic Extreme Wind Loads”, Proc. of the
National Symposium on Advances in Structural
Dynamics and Design, (ASDD), 2001, pp. 625–
631.
16. “Cyclones and depressions over north Indian Ocean
during 1996”, Mausam (Ind. J. of Meteorology
Hydrology Geophysics), V. 48, No. 3, 1997, pp. 343–
350.
17. Lakshmanan, N., Shanmugasundaram, J., “A model
for cyclone damage evaluation”, J. of the Inst. of
Engr. (India), V. 83, 2002, pp. 173–179.
18. “Cyclones and depressions over the Indian seas dur-
ing 1989”, Mausam (Ind. J. of Meteorology Hydrol-
ogy Geophysics), V. 42, No. 1, 1991, pp. 1–16.
19. Venkateswarlu, B., Arunachalam, S., Shanmu-
gasundaram, J., Annamalai, G., “Variations of
Wind Speed with Terrain Roughness and Height”,
J. of the Inst. of Engr. (India), V. 69, No. 4,
1989.
20. Shanmugasundaram, J., Gomathinayagam, S.,
Harikrishna, P., Lakshmanan, N., “Full-scale Field
Measurement of Wind and Structural Response of a
Lattice Tower”, 10th ICWE, A. Larson, et al (Eds.),
Balkema Press, 1999, pp. 551–557.
21. Shanmugasundaram, J., Harikrishna, P., Gomathi-
nayagam, S., Lakshmanan, N., “ Full scale measure-
ments of dynamic response of a lattice tower”, Proc
inter seminar on structural assessment - The role of
large and full scale testing, Institution of structural
engineers and city university, E&FN SPON, U.K.,
1996, pp. 363–372.
157