THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS, SRI LANKA iesl/journal/format

Structural Effect on Columns of Existing Low-Rise

Buildings due to installation of the Rooftop Towers

F. M. M Abdullah, A.M.N.L Gunarthilaka

Abstract: Telecommunication towers are vital components of any telecommunication network,

as the last-mile connectivity of any wireless network is usually provided by these towers. The amount
of expenditure for the construction of a green field tower is usually high. The use of rooftop towers as
an alternative to green field towers is both a sustainable and cost-effective solution.

However, ensuring the structural stability and integrity of the buildings is essential when installing
rooftop towers, as almost all such buildings have not been initially designed to consider additional
loads from a tower. It is because the occurrence of major repairs to a building after installing a rooftop
tower will lose the advantage of rooftop towers over green field towers as a sustainable alternative.
There is very limited scientific research on rooftop towers or the effects of rooftop tower installation
on existing structures is limited in Sri Lanka. Even in the world context, few types of research have
been done.

Accordingly, this study was focused on the investigation of the effect of roof-top towers on critical
structural elements of rectangular low-rise buildings to develop a set of general guidelines for locating
rooftop towers on such buildings to minimize structural concerns. A case study in this regard was
carried out by selecting a building through a field survey where structural defects were reported due
to installation of roof-top towers. However, to generalize the study, the location of the tower on the
rooftop of a selected building was changed to different locations (in addition to the actual case), and
separate analytical studies were carried out at each different locations.

According to the analytical results and design verification carried out for relevant analytical cases, it
was observed that locating a rooftop tower corner on a rectangular-shaped low-rise building would
lead to overstressing of columns. However, when the tower is located on the interior panel of the
building, it would be possible to avoid exceeding the design capacities of the columns of typical
rectangular low-rise buildings, which were identified by the selected building in this study. If it still
requires locating a rooftop tower at a corner of the typical rectangular low-rise building, the tower
height would have to be reduced by a considerable amount to avoid overstressing the column.

Keywords: Telecommunication Tower, Rooftop tower

1. Introduction operators try to provide such services for their

Telecommunication has become an essential
need in the present society as a lot of day-to-
day activities have become entangled with
telecommunication services. Mobile banking, e-
learning, e-commerce, and various social media
platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, etc. are a
few of the services that contribute to the
essentialness of telecommunication services in
modern society.
customers to retain their present customers and
attract new customers for their business
continuity.
As a majority of subscribers are mobile
subscribers, as highlighted in TRCSL data,
mobile towers are essential to maintain the
last- mile connectivity between subscribers and
the central networks of operators

As per the latest data from TRCSL (June 2023),

the total number of cellular mobile telephone
subscribers are about 28 million, and the total
number of fixed-line telephone subscribers are
more than 2.5 million [1] in Sri Lanka. Most of
these subscribers expect uninterrupted, high-
quality telecommunication service in this
context. Therefore, all telecommunication
Eng. (Dr.) A.M..N.L Gunathilaka, BSc. Eng((Hons0).
M.Eng.(Structural), C.Eng, MIE (Sri Lanka),
Department of Civil Engineering, The Open University
of Sri Lanka.
Mr. F.M.M Abdullah ,M.Sc (Structural), BTech(OUSL)
Department of Civil Engineering, The Open University
of Sri Lanka.

1 ENGINEER
However, construction of telecommunication
towers especially in urban and suburban areas
is a challenging task due to implications like
scarcity of lands, high construction costs,
regulatory restrictions, social and cultural
concerns, etc. As an alternative solution for
these concerns, telecommunication operators
started to construct relatively shorter towers on
rooftops of existing buildings as heights of
buildings itself would beneficially add on for
the total effective height
However, ensuring the structural stability of
host structures is essential as rooftop towers
may transfer considerable excessive stresses on
structural element of host structures.
Presently, TRCSL has introduced regulations to
obtain structural certification for host structures
prior to the installation of a tower, considering
the structural effects of tower installation.
Nevertheless, effective implementation of this
rule is questionable as the availability of
structural drawings in most existing structures
is rare in local contexts (especially domestic and
commercial structures owned by individuals).
Therefore, only an approximate assessment
subjected to a considerable number of
assumptions would be performed in this type
of structure, and the accuracy of such an
analysis would be doubtful. Further, there are a
considerable number of rooftop towers in the
country that were constructed prior to the
implementation of this rule
Therefore, this study focused on investigating
structural effects on columns due to the
installation of rooftop towers through a case
study of a selected building. After a field
survey of the building, structural defects were
reported after tower installations. Columns
were selected as the main structural elements of
concern since loads from rooftop towers are
directly transferred to columns in general in
most rooftop tower construction.
A very limited number of publications are
available, especially in the local context relevant
to rooftop tower construction. According to a
study done by Gunathilaka (2013)
recommended that policy of a tower in the
middle of a slab panel with appropriate beam
system would reduce the additional column
loads on the relevant panel due to tower
installation [2]. As par study of Aseem and
Quadir (2017), column loads of host structures
have been increased by a considerable amount
due to rooftop tower installations [3]. Malviya
& Jamle (2013) has studied about seismic
performance of a building with roof top
tower[4]. According to results of this study,
ENGINEER
location of tower on the building greatly effect
to the seismic performance of the building
locating the tower close to middle of the
building has provided the best seismic
performances if consider 12 storey building.
However, any of this analysis of columns due
to additional forces from rooftop towers.
2. Methodology
There are different structural systems available
for rooftop towers. The following are the
common structural systems used in Sri Lanka:.
1. Self-supporting lattice towers
2. Monopoles
3. Guy masts
4. Poles with supporting struts
Usually, if the antenna load on the proposed
tower is high and the required height above the
roof level is high, self-supporting lattice towers
would be the preferred structural system for
rooftop towers.
Therefore, a considerably high percentage of
rooftop towers presently in the country belong
to the self-supporting lattice tower category.
Also, the additional stresses that would transfer
to host structures are high when self-supporting
lattice towers are installed on roof tops.
Accordingly, this study was mainly focused on
buildings with self-supporting lattice towers in
this context.
Usually, self-supporting lattice towers are
installed on a newly placed beam system on
rooftops to ensure transferring additional
stresses from rooftop towers directly to
columns of host structures. The structural
adequacy of existing roof beams and slabs
under additional loads from rooftop towers
would be highly doubtful as drastic increases in
stresses and stress reversals can take place in
these elements.
This problem would usually be addressed by
placing a new set of beams on the rooftop for
the placement of a roof-top tower. Figure 01
shows a photograph of a typical beam system
used on a roof-top tower in this regard.
2
 THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS, SRI LANKA iesl/journal/format

additional loads transferred to columns due to

rooftop tower installation based on the location
of the tower on the rooftop, Another 05
locations, as marked in Figure 04 were towers
placed in the analysis model in different
locations; the actual tower was considered in
tower location 01 and separate "ETABS" Models
were prepared for all tower locations as per
Figure 5
Table 01- Site Visit Details

Figure 1 – Structural beam arrangement of Site Location Building details and

beams for tower Defects
Site No 01 Story – G+2
As columns generally have some additional Kalutara north Tower height – 21 m
structural capacities over their desirable Problem – Cracks in
capacities due to design approaches, columns columns
would be able to withstand this additional
stress in general. That is the reason for allowing
the installation of these towers by structural
designers during the prior clarification process
as per the present regularity process in most of
Site No 02 Story – G+1
the cases.
Katukurunda Tower height – 18 m
Problem – Cracks in
However, as the loading patterns that develop
columns and walls
due to rooftop tower installation significantly
differ from conventional loading patterns that
exist in columns of a typical building
(development axial tension in columns is a
highly likely possibility when a rooftop is
installed), both primary and secondary
structural effects may affect the performance of
columns in such a building.
Site No 03 Story – G+1
Pamunuwa Tower height – 18 m
Accordingly, a detailed field survey was carried
Problem – No cracks
out on buildings where rooftop towers exist on
identified
the rooftop. Table 1 shows a summary of the
results of that survey. The number of sites that
were considered for the survey was restricted
due to the reluctance of site owners to allow for
such a survey and restrictions imposed by the
telecommunication operators, who are the
owners of these towers. Site No 4/ Story – G+2
Tower height – 12 m
Rathmalana
As per the results of the survey, visible cracks Problem – Cracks in
in columns have been identified at 3 sites, and visible in columns and
the worst affected site out of these sites is site walls
no. 4. Clear, visible cracks had been observed in
certain columns between the 1st floor level and
the roof slab level. The photographs of observed
cracks and graphical representations of crack
locations are shown in Figures 02 and 03.

To access the probable cause of these cracks, a

3D analytical model of the building with a 12-
meter rooftop tower was developed using
structural analytical software using ETABS.
Also, a separate model without a rooftop was
prepared to simulate the initial condition of the
building. Further, to access the variation of

3 ENGINEER
Figure 2 – Cracks in the column at corner C4
column (Site No 04-Second floor)

Figure 3 – Cracks in the column at C3 column

(Site No 04-First Floor Figure 5– Analysis models with the different
tower locations
Geometric details of the building considered for
this analysis as follows, The ETABS models were also prepared
accordingly in addition to the analysis
 Type of the building: Residential Building considered the following loads
 Location: Ratmalana
 Building Dimension: 19.2 x 6 m Gravity Loads
 No of Floors: G+1  Finishes – 2.5 kN/m2
 Slab thickness: 125 mm  Ceiling & Services – 0.5 kN/m2
 Column Size: 225x225 mm  Lice Loads – 2.5 kN/m2
 Beam Size: 225x300 Lateral Loads
 Floor to floor height: 3 m  Wind Speed – 33 m/s
As the building is located in Colombo district, a
wind speed of 33 m/s was considered for the
calculation of wind load on building a tower,
and the calculation of wind loads was done as
per CP 3, Chapter V

Eight wind directional combinations shown in

Figure 6 were considered in the analysis of
cases. The following load combinations were
considered as per BS8110..
Figure 4 – Locations of the tower for analytical
study 1. 1.4 Qk +1.6 Qk
2. 1.0 Qk + 104 Qk
3. 1.2 (Qk + Gk + Wk)

ENGINEER 4
 THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS, SRI LANKA iesl/journal/format

below the rooftop level, as any axial tension

that would develop would diminish with the
loading from slabs.

Table 2 shows column forces without the tower

Figure 6 – Locations of the tower for analytical
study
Accordingly, 17 different load cases were
considered with 8 directional combinations in
altogether.
Load Combinations
 Com 01- 1.4Gk+1.6Qk
 Com 02- 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2Wx
 Com 03- 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2Wy
 Com 04- 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag1)
 Com 05- 1.2Gk+1.2Qk-1.2W(diag2)
 Com 06- 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag3)
 Com 07- 1.2Gk+1.2Qk +1.2(-W(diag4))
 Com 08- 1.2Gk+1.2Qk +1.2(-Wx)
 Com 09- 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2(-Wy)
 Com 10- 1.0Gk + 1.4Wx
 Com 11- 1.0Gk + 1.4Wy
 Com 12- 1.0Gk + 1.4(Wx)
 Com 13- 1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wy)
 Com 14- 1.0Gk + 1.4Wdiag(1)
 Com 15- 1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wdiag(2)
 Com 16- 1.0Gk + 1.4Wdiag(3)
 Com 17- 1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wdiag(4))
case. Table 3 shows column forces with tower
case at ground floor level. In both tables,
reported maximum compressive forces were
tabulated with respect to each column with the
respective load combination. The highest
compressive load of 389.53 kN on column C9
was reported as the highest compressive load
on a column with a rooftop tower under tower
location 05. The relevant load combination for
this case is 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W (diag3) (refer to
Table 03).
However, the highest percentage increase of
compressive load in a column due to tower
installation was reported in column C4 with the
tower location 01 scenario. As per the actual
scenario with tower location no 01. The
percentage increase of compressive load in
column C4 is 85.8% (refer to Table 4).
According to reported column loads, the
increase in column loads was reported as as
86%. Large increases were reported in cases
where the tower was located close to a corner
or edge of the building (cases 1,2,3 & 4) . Based
on these reported column forces and bending
moments, design verifications of columns were
performed for each and every case separately as
per BS8110 chapters and relevant column
designs..
According to the results of design verifications,
the reinforcement requirements of all
considered columns could still be satisfied with
the nominal amount of reinforcement of 4T12,
even with a considerable increase in the
compressive forces at the foundation levels of
the columns.

Table 02- Column loads at foundation level

3. Results and Discussion without tower case

Under additional loads from a rooftop tower, Case : Without Tower ( Wind Speed 33 m/s) ANALYSIS RESULTS

two main structurally critical conditions can Station P M2 M3

arise in columns in a building. Story Column Output Case

m kN kN-m kN-m
1. Increase the axial compressive load on S1 C2 1.4Gk+1.6qK 0 -150.10 0.00 0.0
columns with the increase in bending S1 C3 1.4Gk+1.6qK 0 -247.10 0.00 0.0
S1 C4 1.4Gk+1.6qK 0 -150.10 0.00 0.0
moments S1 C5 1.4Gk+1.6qK 0 -243.00 0.00 0.0
2. Development of axial tension in S1 C6 1.4Gk+1.6qK 0 -311.80 0.00 0.0
S1 C7 1.4Gk+1.6qK 0 -243.00 0.00 0.0
columns with the increase of bending S1 C8 1.4Gk+1.6qK 0 -229.40 0.00 0
moments S1
S1
C9
C10
1.4Gk+1.6qK
1.4Gk+1.6qK
0
0
-298.10
-229.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
In case 01, the most critical locations would be
Table 03- Column loads with tower case at
the foundation level and first floor level of the
ground floor
building and in case of case 2 would be just

5 ENGINEER
 With Tower
Tower M2 M3
Column Load Combination Station P(kN)
Location (kNm) (kNm) Tower
Column No of bars
Location As,req Req.No of As prov
m Load Combination (As,Prov)
C3 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag3) -293.28 0.0 0.0 (mm )
2
bars (T12) 2
(mm )
(T12)
C4 1.2Gk+1.2Qk +1.2W(diag1) 0 -278.90 0.0 0.0
C6 1.4Gk+1.6qK 0 -324.81 0.0 0.0 C3 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag3) 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
Location 01 1.2Gk+1.2Qk +1.2W(diag1) 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
C7 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag4) 0 -289.05 0.0 0.0 C4
0 C6 1.4Gk+1.6qK 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
C2 1.4Gk+1.6qK -150.74 0.0 0.0 Location 01
C7 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag4) 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
C10 1.4Gk+1.6qK 0 -230.29 0.0 0.0
C2 1.4Gk+1.6qK 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
C3 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag3) 0 -353.96 0.0 0.0 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
C10 1.4Gk+1.6qK
C4 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2Wx 0 -230.32 0.0 0.0 C3 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag3) 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
Location 02
C6 1.2Gk + 1.2Qk + 1.2(-Wy) 0 -336.39 0.0 0.0 C4 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2Wx 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
Location 02
C7 1.4Gk+1.6qK 0 -258.59 0.0 0.0 C6 1.2Gk + 1.2Qk - 1.2Wy 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
C3 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag3) 0 -297.29 0.0 0.0 C7 1.4Gk+1.6qK 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
0 C3 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag3) 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
C4 1.2Gk+1.2Qk +1.2W(diag1) -225.29 0.0 0.0
Location 03 C4 1.2Gk+1.2Qk +1.2W(diag1) 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
C6 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag2) 0 -341.84 0.0 0.0 Location 03
C6 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag2) 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
C7 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag4) 0 -300.01 0.0 0.0 C7 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag4)
C9 1.2Gk+1.2Qk -1.2Wx 0 -331.62 0.0 0.0 C9 1.2Gk + 1.2Qk + 1.2(-Wx) 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
C10 1.2Gk+1.2Qk +1.2W(diag1) 0 -338.87 0.0 0.0 C10 1.2Gk+1.2Qk +1.2W(diag1) 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
Location 04 Location 04
C12 1.4Gk+1.6qK 0 -314.51 0.0 0.0 C12 1.4Gk+1.6qK 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
C13 1.2Gk + 1.2Qk + 1.2(-Wy) 0 -275.36 0.0 0.0 C13 1.2Gk + 1.2Qk + 1.2(-Wy) 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
C9 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag3) 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
C9 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag3) 0 -389.53 0.0 0.0
C10 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2Wx 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
C10 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2Wx 0 -291.97 0.0 0.0 Location 05
Location 05 C12 1.2Gk + 1.2Qk - 1.2Wy 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
C12 1.2Gk + 1.2Qk + 1.2(-Wy) 0 -326.58 0.0 0.0 C13 1.4Gk+1.6qK 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
C13 1.4Gk+1.6qK 0 -247.36 0.0 0.0 C9 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag3) 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
C9 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag3) 0 -332.64 0.0 0.0 C10 1.2Gk+1.2Qk +1.2W(diag1) 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
Location 06
C10 1.2Gk+1.2Qk +1.2W(diag1) 0 -284.90 0.0 0.0 C12 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag2) 202.50 2.0 452.40 4
Location 06 4
C12 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag2) 0 -331.97 0.0 0.0 C13 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag4) 202.50 2.0 452.40
C13 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2W(diag4) 0 -285.17 0.0 0.0

However, at the 1st floor level, certain columns

required more than the nominal amount of
Table 04- Comparison analysis results at reinforcement to resist additional
ground floor with and without tower comprehensive forces and bending moments
developed due to rooftop towers.
Maximum Maximum
Compression with Compression The required amount of reinforcements for
Location of Column Tower at GF (kN) without tower (kN) % of Increase columns at the 01st floor level of all considered
in
Tower No
Load
Force
Load
Force
Compression cases with and without a rooftop tower and
case case
with a rooftop tower are listed in tables 6, and 7,
C3
C4
Com 6
Com 4
293.28
278.90
Com 1
Com 1
247.10
150.10
18.69%
85.81%
respectively.
C6 Com 1 325.10 Com 1 311.80 4.27%
Location 01
C7
C2
Com 9
Com 01
287.20
150.70
Com 1
Com 1
243.00
150.10
18.19%
0.40%
Table 06- Check for main reinforcement at
C10 Com 01 230.00 Com 1 229.00 0.44% first floor slab bottom level without tower
C3 Com 6 353.96 Com 1 247.10 43.25%
C4 Com 2 230.32 Com 1 150.10 53.44%
Location 02
C6 Com 9 336.39 Com 1 311.80 7.89%
C7 Com 1 258.59 Com 1 243.00 6.41% No of
Station M2 M3 As,req
C3 Com 6 297.29 Com 1 247.10 20.31% Column Output Case
(m)
P(kN)
(kNm) (kNm) 2 bars
(mm )
C4 Com 4 225.29 Com 1 150.10 50.09% (T12)
Location 03 C2 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2Wy 2.7 -123.70 -5.50 3.50 202.5 2
C6 Com 5 341.84 Com 1 311.80 9.63%
C2 1.0 Gk - 1.4Wx-1 2.7 -97.30 -3.30 9.40 202.5 2
C7 Com 7 300.01 Com 1 243.00 23.46%
C3 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2Wy 2.7 -204.40 -4.10 -0.02 202.5 2
C9 Com 8 331.62 Com 1 298.10 11.24% C3 1.0 Gk - 1.4Wx-1 2.7 -145.60 -1.80 8.00 202.5 2
C10 Com 4 338.87 Com 1 229.00 47.98% C4 1.2Gk+1.2Qk+1.2Wy 2.7 -123.60 -5.50 -3.50 202.5 2
Location 04
C12 Com 1 314.51 Com 1 300.00 4.84% C4 1.0 Gk - 1.4Wx-1 2.7 -87.00 -3.20 4.10 202.5 2
C5 1.0 Gk + 1.4Wy 2.7 -143.30 -1.00 1.40 202.5 2
C13 Com 9 275.36 Com 1 231.60 18.90%
C5 1.0 Gk - 1.4Wx-1 2.7 -148.70 0.50 8.20 202.5 2
C9 Com 6 389.53 Com 1 298.10 30.67%
C6 1.0Gk - 1.4Wy 2.7 -158.30 1.90 0.01 202.5 2
C10 Com 2 291.97 Com 1 229.00 27.50% C6 1.0 Gk - 1.4Wx-1 2.7 -158.00 0.30 8.00 202.5 2
Location 05
C12 Com 9 326.58 Com 1 300.00 8.86% C7 1.0Gk - 1.4Wy 2.7 -143.90 2.20 -1.40 202.5 2
C13 Com 1 247.36 Com 1 231.60 6.80% C7 1.0 Gk + 1.4Wx 2.7 -148.70 0.60 -8.20 202.5 2
C8 1.0 Gk + 1.4Wy 2.7 -135.20 -1.60 1.40 202.5 2
C9 Com 6 332.64 Com 1 298.10 11.59%
C8 1.2Gk+1.2Qk -1.2Wx-1 2.7 -193.10 -0.10 8.20 202.5 2
C10 Com 4 284.90 Com 1 229.00 24.41% C9 1.0Gk - 1.4Wy 2.7 -150.90 1.60 0.02 202.5 2
Location 06
C12 Com 5 331.97 Com 1 300.00 10.66% C9 1.0 Gk + 1.4Wx 2.7 -150.90 -0.01 -8.00 202.5 2
C13 Com 7 285.17 Com 1 231.60 23.13% C10 1.0 Gk + 1.4Wy 2.7 -135.00 -1.60 -1.40 202.5 2
C10 1.0 Gk + 1.4Wx 2.7 -140.20 -0.10 -8.20 202.5 2

As per the results tabulated in Table 5, it is

reported that at the foundation level with tower
cases (all the tower locations), there are
sufficient 4T12 rebars that have been utilized in
the existing building.

Table 05- Comparison analysis results at

ground floor with and without tower Table 07- Check for main reinforcement at
first floor slab bottom level with tower

ENGINEER 6
 THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS, SRI LANKA iesl/journal/format

Tower
Column Load Combination Station P(kN)
M2 M3 As,req
2
No of
bars
where tower has been placed either at corner or
Location (kNm) (kNm) (mm )
C3 1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wx) 2.7 -240.00 -1.87 20.00 556.88
(T12)
5.0
at an edge of the building.
C4 1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wx) 2.7 -214.40 -1.48 -18.47 556.88 5.0
Location C6 1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wx) 2.7 -175.95 0.45 17.29 556.88 5.0
01 C7 1.0Gk + 1.4Wx 2.7 -179.90 3.06 -15.64 506.25 5.0 However, when it was checked, the
C2 1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wx) 2.7 -110.63 -1.34 18.70 227.81 3.0
C10 1.0Gk + 1.4Wx 2.7 -147.91 2.14 -13.55 226.80 3.0 reinforcement requirement to resist these
2.7
tensile forces as per BS8110. Nominal amount
C3 1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wx) -255.07 -1.93 19.47 556.88 5.0
Location C4 1.0Gk + 1.4Wx 2.7 -207.75 -1.43 -19.14 556.88 5.0
02 C6
C7
1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wx)
1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wx)
2.7
2.7
-179.18
-178.58
0.54
2.95
17.20
-15.61
506.25
506.25
5.0
5.0
reinforcement (4T12) would be sufficient under
Location
C3
C4
1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wx)
1.0Gk + 1.4Wx
2.7
2.7
-211.14
-172.90
-1.95
-1.73
18.75
-18.00
556.88
506.25
5.0
5.0
the ultimate limit state. Nevertheless, lap
03 C6 1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wx)
1.0Gk + 1.4Wx
2.7
2.7
-220.72 0.44 16.58 455.63 5.0 lengths that would be provided for columns
C7 -222.15 2.67 -15.05 506.25 5.0
C9 1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wx) 2.7 -244.88 -0.03 13.29 253.13 3.0 may become another concern, as usually lap
Location C10 1.0Gk + 1.4Wx 2.7 -251.60 0.56 -11.80 253.13 3.0
04 C12 1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wx) 2.7 -170.66 0.13 12.30 253.13 3.0 lengths provided for columns are done
C13
C9
C1.0Gk + 1.4Wx
1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wx)
2.7
2.7
-168.16
-259.17
0.86
-0.08
-11.58
12.72
253.13
227.81
3.0
3.0 considering compression lap conditions.
Location C10 1.0Gk + 1.4Wx 2.7 -245.48 0.59 -12.52 227.81 3.0
05 C12 1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wx) 2.7 -173.95 0.19 12.22 227.81 3.0
C13 1.0Gk + 1.4Wx
1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wx)
2.7
2.7
-166.26
-215.98
0.78
-0.07
-11.59
12.53
229.33
227.81
3.0
3.0
Accordingly, the minimum lap length
C9
Location C10 1.0Gk + 1.4Wx 2.7 -211.05 0.25 -11.78 229.84 3.0 requirement for each column with reported
06 C12 1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wx) 2.7 -214.96 0.11 12.14 227.81 3.0
C13 1.0Gk + 1.4Wx 2.7 -210.27 0.46 -11.45 227.81 3.0 tensile forces was performed and tabulated in
Table 8 (calculations were performed as per
Chapter 3.12 of BS8110).
According to the facts in tables 6 and 7, this
additional requirement has occurred in certain As per Table 8, it is clearly nodal that some of
columns under tower locations 1, 2, and 3. All the columns relevant to tower locations 1, 2,
three of these cases are relevant when the lower and 4 required a larger lop length than the
is located at a corner panel of the considered nominal compression lap length of 300 mm as
building. The combined effect of increasing specified in BS8110. The lap length requirement
both compressive forces and bending moments of column C3 under location 1 is as high as 597
in these columns would be the reason for the mm, which is almost two times the
higher reinforcement requirements of these compression lap length requirement of 300 mm.
columns. Table 8 shows the results of tensions In a study done by Fegal (2023) highlighted that
developed in columns with the installation of insufficient lap length is one major cause of
rooftop towers at just below roof levels.. deboning in concrete elements. Therefore, the
noted chestier lap length in these columns
Table 08- Check for main reinforcement at under uplifting loads may lead to cracks at
first floor slab bottom level with tower those locations.
TABLE: Element Forces - Columns (for wind speed 33 m/s)
Tension Required Required Therefore, when it considers the tower location
Tower M2 M3
Location
Story Column Load Combination P(kN)
(kNm) (kNm)
Lap
(mm)
Steel Area Steel Bars
(mm2) (T12) 1 condition, which simulates the condition
S2
S2
C3
C4
Wind X
1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wdiag(2))
59.24
89.23
-0.04
-2.54
-3.48
1.46
398.09
597.13
137.30
205.95
2.00
2.00 observed at the actual site selected for this
Location 01
S1
S1
C6
C7
Wind diagonal +Ve
Wind diagonal (-Ve)
12.51
56.40
-2.31
-4.20
-4.74
5.13
58.52
262.41
2883.00
129.30
1.00
2.00
study (Site no 04), columns in the near vicinity
S1
S1
C2
C5
-
-
0.00
0.00
-
-
of the tower (Columns C3, C4, C6, and C7) have
S2
S2
C3
C4
1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wdiag(4))
1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wx)
66.51
49.04
-1.61
-4.21
-7.31
-1.36
441.31
325.35
152.21
112.21
2.00
1.00
been subjected to overstressing from their
Location 02
S2
S2
C7
C6
-
-
0.00
0.00
-
-
design capacities of that level under certain
S2
Location 03 S2
C3
C4
1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wdiag(4))
1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wdiag(2))
8.35
35.35
-2.22
-3.20
-5.43
-0.63
55.38
234.54
19.10
80.89
1
1
wind load combinations (refer to Tables 5 and
S2 C7
C6 -
0.00
0.00 -
6). Additionally, columns C3 and C4 have
S2
S2
C10
C13
1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wdiag(2)) 67.34
1.0Gk + 1.4Wy 9.78
1.86
0.00
0.14
-2.53
446.76
45.41
154.10
22.40
2
1
shown larger lap length requirements at 1st
Location 04
C9
C12
0.00
0.00
floor level with the uplifting stresses reported
S2
S2
C9
C10
1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wdiag(4)) 44.29
1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wx) 27.87
1.79
-0.13
-3.79
-3.84
205.68
184.90
101.40
63.71
1
in those columns under certain wind load
Location 05
C13
C12
0.00
0.00
-
-
combinations.
S2 C10 1.0Gk + 1.4(-Wdiag(2))3 12.72 1.28 -1.99 84.40 29.10 1
Location 06
S2 C13 1.0Gk + 1.4Wdiag(3) 12.21 -1.49 -1.93 84.40 30.00 1
If considers consider the actual situation of site
no. 04, tower location 01, based on these
The highest tension was reported in column C4. analytical results, columns C3 and C4 of the
The tensile force is 89.23 kN, and the required floor level would be subjected to axial
lap length is 597 mm. For the above tensile compressive and tensile stresses. During
force, under tower location 1,case 1. The tensile uplifting conditions, stresses at lap joints may
forces were reported in all columns of that exceed the bond strength complicating lapping
panel with the positioning at location 1 and the points. Therefore, combining the effects of those
tower location at locations 2 and 4. Also, conditions (tension, compression, and bending)
considerably high tension force of 67KN (In would become the probable reason for the
column C3) and 67KN (in column C10) were considerably larger crack observed at Site No.
reported. These cases are relevant conditions 4.

7 ENGINEER
According to the design verification results of
the other locations, locations 05, 07 and 06
provided the least increase in compressive
tensile and bonding stresses with the
installation of considered rooftop towers.
Expedience of column design capacities or
bond stresses of lap joints have not been
observed in any columns with these locations.
Therefore, locations 05 or 06 would be the most
appropriate locations to recommend the
installation of a rooftop tower considering the
structural performance of the columns of this
considerable building.
Reference
1. TRCSL,,,.
2. A. M. L. N. (2012) “Structural effects on existing
buildings due to installation of rooftop towers”,
Annual Transactions of IESL (2012 March) pp.
(112-119), The Institution of Sri Lanka
3. Aseem F and Quadir, A. (2017) “Effect of
Rooftop Mounted Telecommunication Tower on
Design of the Building Structure”, International
Journal of Engineering Technology, Volume No
04 (2017), Issue No 11.

4. Conclusion 4. Malviya S. and Jamle, S. (2019). Determination of

This study focused on the investigation of
structural effects on columns of an existing
building due to the installation of rooftop
towers through a selected case study based on a 5.
field survey. According to the analytical results
of the study, it is evident that the installation of
a 12 m tower nearby the columns of the 6.
building is affected by additional stresses from
the rooftop tower according to certain design
capacities of columns and reinforcement
lapping points. 7.
These would be the main reasons for the
structural cracks reported in the columns of this
site, and urgent attention would be required to
repair these cracks and strengthen of columns.
8.
Based on the analytical results of cases
considering other alternative locations on
rooftops, it is clear that when a rooftop tower is
located close to a corner or to the edge of the
building, the chance of exceeding the design
load-carrying capacities of columns is
considerably higher compared with interior
locations on the rooftop. However, usually site
ounces try to locate rooftop towers of a corner
of a building, considering the effective
utilization of space for rooftops for other
operational purposes.
Optimum Location of Rooftop
Telecommunication Tower over Multistory
Building under Seismic Loading. International
Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and
Science, 6(2), pp. 65–73.
TRCSL,,,.
A. M. L. N. (2012) “Structural effects on existing
buildings due to installation of rooftop towers”,
Annual Transactions of IESL (2012 March) pp.
(112-119), The Institution of Sri Lanka
Aseem F and Quadir, A. (2017) “Effect of
Rooftop Mounted Telecommunication Tower on
Design of the Building Structure”, International
Journal of Engineering Technology, Volume No
04 (2017), Issue No 11.
Malviya S. and Jamle, S. (2019). Determination of
Optimum Location of Rooftop
Telecommunication Tower over Multistory
Building under Seismic Loading. International
Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and
Science, 6(2), pp. 65–73.

As per the results of this study, this practice

cannot be recommended in structural
engineering prospective unless with accurate
structural analysis based on actual structural
data of the site.

In conclusion, the installation of a rooftop tower

on an existing low-rise rectangular building
would always cause a considerable increase in
column loads, and hence, the selection of an
appropriate location (close to the middle of the
building in several) with proper analysis is
always recommended.

ENGINEER 8