Navigation
43 users online :: 43 Guests and 0 Registered
Most popular FAQs
- Should step pegs and safety climb be included in ... (677348 views)
- I am a structural engineer in Oregon, and I ... (655874 views)
- Section 2.6.9.2What does the term “In the absence of ... (655864 views)
- Section 2.6.9.2Is it acceptable to use the results of ... (651244 views)
- Section 2.6.9.2Is it acceptable to use the results of ... (642764 views)
- Section 2.6.9.2Can I use loading that is less than ... (640536 views)
- Section 2.6.9My question is regarding how to determine the ... (616474 views)
- Section 4.9.9: I’m using this section to calculate the ... (589382 views)
- Section 4.9.9: I'm using this section to calculate the ... (587888 views)
- 1) I knew this table 4-8 is used to ... (576242 views)
Latest FAQs
- I have a question regarding TIA-222-H Clause 2.6.9 & ... (2021-09-22 18:19)
- I have a question regarding TIA-222-H Clause 2.6.9 & ... (2021-09-22 18:17)
- I have a question regarding TIA-222-H Clause 2.6.9 & ... (2021-09-13 19:53)
- Can ASCE 7-16 wind maps be used per TIA-222-G ... (2020-01-16 16:14)
- Section 15.7 Exemption 7, states to use a 50% ... (2019-12-18 21:39)
Sticky FAQs
- How do I use this Site?
- Do we have to do a structural analysis on ...
- Does the Standard apply to the design of antennas? ...
- How to submit a question?
- Section 2.6.9.2What does the term “In the absence of ...
- Section 2.6.9.2Is it acceptable to use the results of ...
- Section 2.6.9.2Can I use loading that is less than ...
- Section 2.6.9.2Is it acceptable to use the results of ...
- Section 13.3 question regarding plumb measurement of monopoles; submitted ...
- Figure A1-1 Why were the tables and Note 3 ...
- 1) I knew this table 4-8 is used to ...
- 2.6.7.4 Gust Effect Factor for Structures Mounted on Other ...
- Is there reciprocity between ANSI/TIA-222-G and CSA S37-01? In ...
- Section 15.5 indicated "A feasibility report shall state ...
- Section 2.6.6 Calculating the topographic factors
- As everyone is aware, many jurisdictions are now adopting ...
- Section 2.7.3 states “Further, …earthquake effects may be ignored ...
- I am currently working a telecommunications tower project where ...
- Is there a tolerance recommendation for base plate to ...
- in case of telecommunication tower to be built on ...
- Is there a tolerance recommendation for base plate to ...
- in case of telecommunication tower to be built on ...
- The definition of Z in sections 2.6.5.2, 2.6.6.4, and ...
- If Ca=1.5 is used for a rectangular cluster of ...
- Section 2.6.5.2 “Velocity Pressure Coefficient”Question: Shall “z” in the ...
- Section 4.9.9: I'm using this section to calculate the ...
- Section 2.6.6.4 - Rev-G provides a simplified method of ...
- WHICH IS THE unbraced length "L" TO CONSIDER, ACCORDING ...
- Does section 2.8.2 Limit State Deformations of ANSI/TIA 222-G ...
- Where it has been suggested in previous posts that ...
- We understand section 2.6.4.1 to apply only to areas ...
- Waveguides, downleads, and other cables are frequently strapped to ...
- Should step pegs and safety climb be included in ...
- Section 3.6.2 note 1 regarding pattern loading and tower ...
- Approximately when will the next revision or amendment to ...
- I have a tower for which the plumb and ...
- In Section 4.4.1 of TIA/EIA-222-G December 2009 the minimum ...
- Section 3108.1 of the 2012 IBC eliminates the 222-G ...
- Section 9.6 What is the intent of the grade ...
- One thing I recently noticed was in Table C1, ...
- Regarding recent FAQ 1128: would it be possible to ...
- I’m trying to determine if a pad & pier ...
- Is it the intention of drafters of the TIA ...
- Section 2.6.5: Addendum 2 defines Exposure Category C as ...
- Section 5.4.2 gives requirements for Non Pre-Qualified Steel stating ...
- Which of the states adhere to the Rev G ...
- In Section 4.5.1, the following language is used:"A multiple ...
- Shall “z” in the equation be based on mid-height ...
- Section 4.9.9: I’m using this section to calculate the ...
- Section 2.6.6.4 - Rev-G provides a simplified method of ...
- Which is the unbraced length to consider, according to ...
- I am a commercial building reviewer for the City ...
- Does section 2.8.2 Limit State Deformations of ANSI/TIA 222-G ...
- Can section 2.8.2 also be applied to a TIA-222-F ...
- Table 4-6 provides slenderness requirements for horizontal members, specifically ...
- Where it has been suggested in previous posts that ...
- One thing I recently noticed was in Table C1, ...
- In Section 4.5.1, the following language is used:"A multiple ...
- Is it acceptable to use Ka = 0.6 for ...
- For double angles, are the modified (KL/r)m equations shall ...
- K is not mentioned on the right side of ...
- Is (KL/r)o shall include the curves defined in Table ...
- Section 4.9.8. Does the definition of Guy Assembly Link ...
- Section 12 Climbing Facilities in TIA-222-GWhat is the strength ...
- Section 12 Climbing Facilities TIA-222-GWhat is the strength requirement ...
- Section 4.5.3 Built-Up Members states that "A minimum of ...
- Referencing Section 2.3.2, Exception 4 and Note 3; for ...
- Is there any back up material for the usage ...
- I am a structural engineer in Oregon, and I ...
- Section 2.6.1: In the definitions section of 2.6.1, a ...
- Does TIA-222-G include any consideration of loads other than ...
- Should mounts be subjected to Section 15 requirements that ...
- Hello,The effective projected area of transmission lines mounted in ...
- Section 2.6.9My question is regarding how to determine the ...
- Hello. A question was asked about the validity of ...
- The inspection intervals are recommended. Can I extend the ...
- Is there any available document or article that explains ...
- Section A.2.2 and Table 2-1 establish the classification of ...
- Section A.2.2 and Table 2-1 establish the classification of ...
- The industry is on the verge of the release ...
- Do T-Arm mounts classify as Sector Mount or a ...
- When an EPA at an elevation is specified in ...
- Use of Survival wind speed with ANSI/TIA-222H : There ...
- Section 15.7 Exemption 7, states to use a 50% ...
- Do T-Arm mounts classify as Sector Mount or a ...
- Section 15.7 Exemption 7, states to use a 50% ...
- Can ASCE 7-16 wind maps be used per TIA-222-G ...
- I have a question regarding TIA-222-H Clause 2.6.9 & ...
I
1 2 8 A C D F H I K O R S T U W
- Is there reciprocity between ANSI/TIA-222-G and CSA S37-01? In other words, if a tower is designed to CSA S37-01, does it also meet ANSI/TIA-222-G Standard? And vice versa?
Question: Is there reciprocity between ANSI/TIA-222-G and CSA S37-01? In other words, if a tower is designed to CSA ... - I am currently working a telecommunications tower project where dead weight of concrete blockswill be used to resist uplift and sliding forces at the base of a truss tower. These blocks of concretemust be placed above the soil.Provision 2.3.2 of TIA‐222‐G, Equation 2 shows the load combination of .9D + 1.0 Dg + 1.6 W. Sincethe dead load contributed by the concrete foundation and the steel tower above is the actualweight of concrete (not some assumed dead load used for the design of superstructure), is itnecessary to reduce the dead load of the concrete footing by 10%? Is there an ASD loadcombination (where wind load is not multiplied by 1.6) that can be used to calculate the requiredcounter weight?
The loading combinations specified 2.3.2 requires the dead load factor to be applied to the weight of the substructure and weight ... - Is there a tolerance recommendation for base plate to monopole connections? If the base plate is not perfectly perpendicular to the monopole, then the pole is installed out of plumb until it is plumbed up with leveling nuts. At this point the base plate is not level. What is the recommended tolerance for how out of level the base plate of a monopole can be?
The TIA-222-G STANDARD does not provide tolerances for monopole base plates. ... - in case of telecommunication tower to be built on an isolated hill where category 2 applies and no dwellings exist around or roads, can we take importance factor of class I or in between class I and class II
Topographic Categories and Structural Class are independent design factors. Refer to the appropriate Sections in the Standard including Annex ... - Is there a tolerance recommendation for base plate to monopole connections? If the base plate is not perfectly perpendicular to the monopole, then the pole is installed out of plumb until it is plumbed up with leveling nuts. At this point the base plate is not level. What is the recommended tolerance for how out of level the base plate of a monopole can be?
The TIA STANDARD does not provide tolerances for monopole base plates. ... - in case of telecommunication tower to be built on an isolated hill where category 2 applies and no dwellings exist around or roads, can we take importance factor of class I or in between class I and class II
Topographic Categories and Structural Class are independent design factors. Refer to the appropriate Sections in the Standard including Annex ... - If Ca=1.5 is used for a rectangular cluster of round lines, can that be considered a "sub-critical" coefficient, so that Ka can be equal to 1-epsilon, with the 0.6 cap, provided the lines are all in the face zone? The term “sub-critical” only applies to round objects, not square or rectangular, and Ca=1.5 does not seem to be sub-critical coefficient nor a “flat” coefficient. But the edges of the cluster are round, after all.
Transitional or supercritical flow conditions cannot be considered for any cluster, be it an equivalent round, square or rectangular, due to ... - I have a tower for which the plumb and twist was recently taken by a registered surveyor. The initial Plumb and twist for the first two sections are out by a significant amount. The first two sections were stick built and it looks like the concrete foundation is not level. Is there an exemption to cover this?
No, the Standard does not include such an exemption. ... - In Section 4.4.1 of TIA/EIA-222-G December 2009 the minimum bracing resistance (Ps) is given an upper and lower limit. The lower limit relates to the 1.5% requirement in 222-F Sec. 3.1.13. However what is the purpose for the upper limit of 2.5%*Fs?
Research indicates that the force required to provide restraint does not increase beyond 2.5% as the slenderness ratio of the supported ... - I’m trying to determine if a pad & pier should use a phi of 0.75 on the resisting moment to resist overturning. Mult/(Phi*Mrest)I believe it is the intent of the TIA to say this (per 9.4) but it is not explicit.If the phi is to be included in the overturning calculation; Then does it apply to the entire resisting moment or just the portion derived from the soil (as opposed to the foundation weight or axial weight?
The resistance factor ( = 0.75) is intended to apply to only the soil resistance related to soil strength, as opposed ... - Is it the intention of drafters of the TIA Standard 222 that previous issues of the Standard are not to be used in design/analysis? Say, for example, a jurisdiction in currently still under the International Building Code (2006)--which makes reference to TIA/EIA-222-F (1996). Is Revision G to be taken to supersede all previous issues of the Standard?? Any commentary and/or other reference to seek out would be much appreciated. Thanks much.
The latest version of the TIA-222 standard represents recognized literature and is the industry standard that is based on the latest ... - In Section 4.5.1, the following language is used:"A multiple bolt or welded connection made only to a gusset plate without also being connected directly to the member providing restraint (i.e. leg member) shall not be considered to provide partial restraint in the out-of-plane direction."Is this language referring only to something like a gusset plate in the center of a tower face, or to end-tab connections (bracing-to-leg) as well? It is my understanding that end tabs would be considered to be part of the member providing restraint, and thus capable of providing resistance to out-of-plane bending of bracing members.Any clarification will be appreciated. Thank you!
The provision is intended to apply to bracing and leg connections as well. The intent is that out-of-plane restraint is ... - I am a commercial building reviewer for the City of San Antonio. My question is related to cell tower collocations. San Antonio requires that a building permit is secured before the work is started. See below for complete question
I am a commercial building reviewer for the City of San Antonio. My question is related to cell tower collocations. San ... - In Section 4.5.1, the following language is used:"A multiple bolt or welded connection made only to a gusset plate without also being connected directly to the member providing restraint (i.e. leg member) shall not be considered to provide partial restraint in the out-of-plane direction."Is this language referring only to something like a gusset plate in the center of a tower face, or to end-tab connections (bracing-to-leg) as well? It is my understanding that end tabs would be considered to be part of the member providing restraint, and thus capable of providing resistance to out-of-plane bending of bracing members.Any clarification will be appreciated. Thank you!
The provision is intended to apply to bracing to leg connections as well. The intent is that out-of-plane restraint is ... - Is it acceptable to use Ka = 0.6 for feedlines and also consider the feedline ladder (consisting of angle rails and rungs) to be shielded?
The intent of the standard for determining the EPA of waveguides was to provide 2 methods. In one method, each ... - Is (KL/r)o shall include the curves defined in Table 4-4. In the case of double angles, should Table 4-4 be applied to (KL/r)m or (KL/r)o?
(KL/r)o ... - Is there any back up material for the usage of Ka=0.6 for feedlines?The formula to subtract the solidity ratio appears to indicate that Ka=0.8 might be more likely for open structures without many feedlines. So it appears that the value of 0.6 is not conservative. The text reads:"Ka need not exceed 0.6"Should the text instead read:"Ka shall not be less than 0.6" ?
The maximum Ka value of 0.6 was taken from the IASS Standard reference contained in Annex N and from the analyses ... - I am a structural engineer in Oregon, and I have a question concerning the interplay between the requirements for wind loading from the 2012 IBC, and designs based upon the TIA-222-G standard. We have a tower that supports 911 services and therefore is considered a category IV structure. Using the 2012 IBC Section 1609.1.1, Exception 5 allows for designs using the TIA-222-G standard. Language at the end of this section notes that for designs using the TIA the ultimate design wind speeds determined from the Figures should be converted to nominal wind speeds, following Section 1609.3.1. With this tower being an essential facility, the Figure for Category III and IV structures would be used to determine the wind speed, and then converted to ASD following the Code’s provisions.From this point forward the design would be per the TIA-222-G (with Addendum 2 updates). It is our understanding that the VASD determined in the IBC serves as the basic speed to be used for the TIA analysis. Our question concerns where the importance factor comes into effect. Following the TIA as it is currently written, an analysis using this standard would apply an Iw value of 1.15 for wind without ice conditions, as required from Table 2-3, regardless of how the basic wind speed was determined. We want to validate that this is correct, as following 2012 IBC, based upon the ASCE 7-10, wind design has been revised to include the importance factor in the wind charts and removes this factor from the equations. We would appreciate direction on if the importance factor should now be considered included in the wind speed provided by the 2012 IBC and not applied when designing per the TIA, or the changes to the IBC do not affect the TIA, and the Iw values should be applied as written in the current TIA standard.
See response to similar previous FAQ question within the link (and repeated) below. Per TIA-222-G Section 2.6.4.1 the wind maps ... - Is there any available document or article that explains the use of the 5% overstress ratio as a common industry practice? Thank you!
There is no specific over-stress allowance per the ANSI/TIA-222-G Standard. Chapter 34 of the International Building Code provides guidance on ... - I have a question regarding TIA-222-H Clause 2.6.9 & Table 2.2 How to determine the Gh & Kd in the below two cases of pole structures.a. Guyed pole structures.b. Pole supported with struts.For guyed pole structures, where the main structure consists of one tube. The structure may become rigid and additionally the forces in the pole depend on the direction of the wind relative to the directions of the guy cables.1. Can we use a guest factor of 0.85 and a wind probability factor of 0.85 (like guyed lattice tower)?2. Can we use the above factors for the case of a rooftop pole supported by struts? This wind will be used to check overturning stability over the square base. No anchors to the building roof.See figure 1 as example of pole with struts. Figure 2 as example for guyed pole.
For Kd = 0.95. Main reason is the applied loads change very little based on direction, similar to a self supporting pole, as ... - I have a question regarding TIA-222-H Clause 2.6.9 & Table 2.2 How to determine the Gh & Kd in the below two cases of pole structures.a. Guyed pole structures.b. Pole supported with struts.For guyed pole structures, where the main structure consists of one tube. The structure may become rigid and additionally the forces in the pole depend on the direction of the wind relative to the directions of the guy cables.1. Can we use a guest factor of 0.85 and a wind probability factor of 0.85 (like guyed lattice tower)?2. Can we use the above factors for the case of a rooftop pole supported by struts? This wind will be used to check overturning stability over the square base. No anchors to the building roof.See figure 1 as example of pole with struts. Figure 2 as example for guyed pole.
For Kd = 0.95. Main reason is the applied loads change very little based on direction, similar to a self supporting pole, as the guy ... - I have a question regarding TIA-222-H Clause 2.6.9 & Table 2.2 How to determine the Gh & Kd in the below two cases of pole structures.a. Guyed pole structures.b. Pole supported with struts.For guyed pole structures, where the main structure consists of one tube. The structure may become rigid and additionally the forces in the pole depend on the direction of the wind relative to the directions of the guy cables.1. Can we use a guest factor of 0.85 and a wind probability factor of 0.85 (like guyed lattice tower)?2. Can we use the above factors for the case of a rooftop pole supported by struts? This wind will be used to check overturning stability over the square base. No anchors to the building roof.See figure 1 as example of pole with struts. Figure 2 as example for guyed pole.
For Kd = 0.95. Main reason is the applied loads change very little based on direction, similar to a self supporting pole, as the guy ...