® 
 Electronics Research, Inc.
7777 Gardner Road • Chandler, Indiana 47610 • (812) 925-6000 • Fax: (812) 925-4030 • Home Page: www.ERIinc.com

North American Tower Failures: Causes and Cures

David K. Davies
Director of Structural Products and Services

The following document is a written summary of my Power Point

presentation bearing the same title. A comprehensive review of
the major causes responsible for these catastrophic events.
Additional material emphasizing the prevention of failures has
been included detailing viable methods available for safeguarding
both existing structures and those erected in the future.

   

      Using data compiled from 1960 to the present, ERI conducted an in-depth study of reported
broadcast towers that failed in North America during this 50 year period. The information
contained in 96 different case studies allowed us to determine the five (5) major reasons towers
fail. Further analysis provides insight as to what could have been done to prevent these. It is of
significance to note the information in this study is based solely on broadcast towers and did not
take into consideration failures of cellular towers, smaller structures (less than 100’) or those
originating from other industries.

With the title of this paper in mind, and in upholding our reputation, I feel it important to note
since their first tower was erected in 1944, ERI has never lost a tower anytime, anywhere for any
reason.

During the study, it became evident that the 1960’s and 1970’s were a period of
underreporting. In other words, actual figures regarding failure incidents are higher than those
provided. For a complete list of failures, visit www.eriinc.com.

The average number of years a tower was in service was 16. A number of towers failed
during construction or immediately following completion. Several stations reported multiple
failures. Due to various causes, one unfortunate station lost its tower 3 times.

1
 Top 5 Causes of Tower Failure
Cause of Failure ERI Report (2010)

Construction 31%
Ice 29%
Special Wind 19%
Aircraft 11%
Anchor Failure 10%

As displayed above, the #1 cause or 31% of all tower failures are related to
construction. Judgment errors made during the erection of a new tower or reinforcement of an
existing tower are typically to blame. These errors can be attributed to a lack of understanding
regarding the temporary, construction-related forces applied
to the tower and/or foundation(s),

California AM Tower Falls during Construction

March 18, 2008 – “On Saturday, KFI-AM personnel
welcomed the long-awaited construction of their 684-foot
guyed tower in La Merida, CA. However, at 2:04 P.M.
today, they watched in disbelief as the new tower crashed to
the ground as a tower crew prepared to pull tension on the
third level of seven guy wires. A tower rigger employed by
the erection contractor, Seacomm Erectors, Inc. of Sultan,
WA, received minor injuries.

The tower was engineered and

manufactured by Magnum Towers, Inc. of
Sacramento, CA.”

2|Page
 Joplin, MO -- “About half of the KSNF-TV tower came down this morning during an antenna
change. A large section of the broadcast tower fell, crushing a vehicle and causing damage to
several homes in the area” Joplin Globe, May 8, 2009.

On March 21, 1997, “KNOE-FM suffered a catastrophic collapse of its broadcast tower. The
1,989 foot tower, roughly 545 feet taller than Chicago’s Sears Tower, collapsed as a result of a
maintenance crew's failure to install a temporary support structure during the replacement of
diagonal braces. Of the three workers on the tower at the time of the collapse, one was killed,
one fell into a satellite dish about 12 feet above the ground, and the third walked away, virtually
unharmed.”

The three most common reasons for tower failure during construction are:
Insufficient Rigging Plan
Inadequate Reinforcement for Construction Loads
Guy Wire Slippage
1. Insufficient Rigging Plan

It is not uncommon for a contractor to have an insufficient or even non-existent Rigging Plan
in place to use as a guide during tower erection or modification. A step-by-step plan
outlining the entire construction process should be developed prior to commencing any tower
work. This guide is critically important for ensuring that proper considerations, equipment
and rigging will be used for each operation, as well as to ascertain whether the structure in
question can adequately support the anticipated loads.

A rigging plan can be very detailed or very simple depending on the lift requirements and
available equipment, but should be mandatory. Separate rigging plans are not necessarily
required for each individual life. If lift conditions are identical or very similar to past lifts, a
simplified rigging plan would be sufficient.

Further explanation and rigging plan templates can be found in the TIA-1019 Structural
Standard, annex D.

2. Inadequate Reinforcement for Construction Loads

Construction loads should be a consideration both in the design phase and during new
construction, not to mention when modifications are made to an existing structure. These
construction loads include: dead loads (weight), live loads (wind), construction (rigging),
environmental concerns (ice, earthquake), and impact loads (dynamic).

3|Page
 Some loads are localized and will focus on non-symetrical, individual tower members.
Others are general loading conditions that should be taken into consideration during the
design of the tower for both the dyanmic (under construction) condition and static (post
construction) condition.

3. Guy Wire Slippage

The potential for guy wire slippage in
the process of new a new construction
or during guy wire change of an
existing structure is oftentimes
dependant on the tools and equipment
used.

Guy wire slippage causes unplanned

and often unequal forces to be placed
on the structure. In many cases, a
dynamic change in the loading condition of the tower connections results.

Guyed towers are designed so the majority of leg members are in compression, experiencing
virtually no tension forces. Consequently, the loss of a single guy wire on a new tower under
construction/erection or that of an existing tower typically results in large, unexpected
tension loads on one or more legs of the tower.

Prior to the advent of the ANSI/TIA -222- G

designs, little attention was given to guyed tower
tension loads, or potential for lost guy wire(s) during
the design phase. These omissions by some tower
designers resulted in insufficient weld capacity and/or
insufficient connection bolt capacity at the leg splice
plates. These insufficiencies often resulted in tower
failure.

4|Page
The following are tools and attachments known to slip guy wire:

Koni Clamp

Inline Cable Splice

  Klein Clamp

Illustrations of recommended tools and attachments shown below:

  Wedge Socket

Turn back loops

with cable clips

5|Page
 There are many considerations when discussing construction in relation to tower failure. A
poorly constructed tower may offer many years of service before tumbling to the ground.
Although the failure may officially be ascribed to environmental factors, wind and/or ice, the
design errors, fabrication flaws and/or poor construction may also be responsible.

We can further categorize construction-related failures by labeling them as either Provider-

Induced or Owner-Induced.

Provider-induced failures include those caused by:

ƒ Design flaws
ƒ Fabrication flaws
ƒ Installation flaws
Owner-induced failures include the following:
ƒ Overloading
ƒ Failure to properly maintain
The WJJY incident in Bluffs, IL is an excellent example of both poor design and
overloading. “Though it would appear ice was the cause of the failure, this was not the case.
This illustrates a failure to accurately plan for climatic conditions typical in this region, coupled
with an underestimation of the antenna wind load. The tower collapsed during a massive ice
storm exposing a serious design flaw in the tower. The tower had been designed for a much
lighter antenna and couldn't handle the additional weight of the ice or the wind load. Ironically,
another station, WAND-TV, also in Illinois, suffered an almost identical failure the same
morning as WJJY when the top of their 1000’ tower crashed to the ground. An upper section of
antenna broke loose, falling through the guy wires. Both stations had similarly designed towers
installed by the same company. Again, the tower was not designed for the heavier antenna load
and the ice revealed the flaw in design”.

A two-year, $2 million technology project came crashing to a halt early March 2 for
independent station WSKY Chesapeake, Va., when high winds knocked down a digital
television tower it was building.

“The tower had been under construction since September and was about three weeks from
completion. It had already reached a height of 760 feet, with a planned final height of 1,036 feet.
The cause of the failure is under investigation, but the culprit appears to be an anchor for one of
the tower’s high-tension guy wires. The anchor failed, and the tower crashed down right through
WSKY’s new transmitter building and then folded in half on top of itself. “That a tower would
collapse in winds of only 40 mph is surprising, and it is even more so that a guy anchor would
fail”, said station President Glenn Holterhaus. “Typically”, he said, “even when towers are hit
by planes or really bad weather, anchors are the last to fail.”

6|Page
 December 11, 2007 ©
By Phillip Walzer “The
parent company of
WSKY-TV has sued the
builder of a tower that
toppled in 40 mph winds
in Camden County, N.C.,
in March, saying its work
was shoddy from start to
finish.” Walzer
commented further
saying “The suit reads
like a lament against a
sloppy contractor.”

The above clearly illustrate how design flaws were ultimately responsible for failures

Fabrication refers to the methods used to piece a tower together in the shop. These startling
photos taken from my Power Point presentation were taken after a tower collapsed as a result of
insufficient weld penetration resulting in the tower leg breaking free from the flange.

The photograph, left, is an excellent example of an

installation flaw. Failure to remove the casing after the
concrete was poured reduced the foundation skin friction
and uplift capacity.

7|Page
 Up to this point, we’ve addressed what is referred to as Provider-induced failures.
Owner-induced failures, as mentioned above, include improper loading/overloading of
antennae and transmission lines as well as the failure to adequately maintain a structure.

Preventing Construction-Related Tower Failure

Construction crews are routinely required to make engineering-related decisions, yet most
lack the training and formal education to effectively do so. Fortunately, resources are available
to guide construction personnel in maintaining a safe and productive work environment.

The ANSI/TIA 1019 (draft) Construction Standard is

an excellent resource offering guidance for tower erection
and maintenance services. The publication provides
Structural Standards for Installation, Alteration and
Maintenance of Antenna Supporting Structures and
Antennas. Compiled by the Telecommunications
Industry Association TR14.7 Subcommittee, Safety
Facilities Task Group, the Draft of the TIA-1019 has been
quoted as providing the “BEST PRACTICE” guidance
for tower erection and maintenance service. This new
Standard provides specific guidelines for applying loads
to towers during erection and reinforcement and
addresses guy wire slippage and temporary guy
connections detail.

A broad range of topics are addressed in this Standard.

Construction Considerations 
Gin Pole Operation and Use 
Loads on Structures During Construction 
Gin Pole Analysis and Design 
Gin Pole Construction 
Procurement and User Guidelines 
Rigging Plans 
Wire Rope Connections 
Evaluation of Tower Sites

     Adherence to this standard could have avoided 90% of construction-related tower failures.

8|Page
 As mentioned, owner-induced failures occur through improper loading/overloading of
antennae and transmission lines. Proper management of these lines is critical to the stability of a
structure.  
Implementation of a program specific to antenna and transmission line management should be
a priority and should include the following:
9 Accurate equipment inventory 
9 Determine tenant lease(s) match actual installation 
9 Reorganize transmission line runs to minimize wind load 
9 Be reasonable in tower expectations 
9 Structural Analysis before any major appurtenance change 

Avoiding owner-induced failures requires owners heed inspection recommendations.

Plan to perform inspections and maintenance at minimum, every 2 years. Always have an
inspection conducted immediately following any severe wind or ice event and upon completion
of any new installation.

The importance of securing qualified fabricators and installers can’t

be over-emphasized. Never trust your project to an uncertified provider.
Consider using only American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
Certified Companies. AISC “member” and AISC “compliant” is not
equivalent to being AISC “certified”. To determine if a company is currently certified visit
www.aisc.org, then click “find a certified company”.

     Additional proactive measures should be considered and implemented when planning any
type of tower work.

1. Insert a copy of “Adherence to ANSI/TIA 1019 and CPL2-1.36 Standards” into all
specifications and contracts.
2. Qualify you contractor
3. Request copies of insurance
4. Request copies of Engineered Rigging Plans prior to commencing work.
5. Check references
6. Don’t hesitate to ask questions. If something doesn’t appear right, it probably isn’t.

9|Page
 The #2 cause of tower failure is Ice and Wind over Ice, accounting for 29% of all
tower failures over the 50 year period on which our study was based. Ice accumulation on a
structure increases both the area and the weight, causing additional force. Increased surface
area captures more wind which equates
to more wind force on the tower and
appurtenances.
Earlier design standards ignored the
increased weight placed on the structure
caused by ice accumulation. In essence,
the ice and wind over ice may be the
culprit in a significant number of tower
failures, but logic tells us that if proper
considerations had been made and
published guidelines followed during
design, fabrication and installation, the
number two cause of tower failure may
NOT be ice and wind over ice.

Viewing these photos of real-life iced towers gives us a better understanding and appreciation of the
devastation that might arise because of the increased surface area and weight ice accumulation of this
magnitude creates.

10 | P a g e
 WATERLOO, February 24, 2007 - The upper half of the KHKE tower
collapsed during an ice storm. "There was over an inch of ice on the
tower, and coupled with 30- to 40-mph winds, it just toppled," said
KHKE and KUNI General Manager Wayne Jarvis.

The tower once stood 400 feet tall, but when the top two guy wires
snapped, the upper half of the tower came crashing to the ground.
According to Jarvis, the 32-year-old tower should have survived for
another 20 or 30 years before it needed to be replaced, but the
circumstances on Saturday were so extreme that it simply could not
burden the load.

"Ice is just one of the biggest issues that you can have with a radio or TV
tower," said Jarvis. "It is rare that a tower will collapse without wind,
but when you couple wind with ice, these are the kinds of things that can
happen."

Before the ‘G’ code was established, older design codes gave little attention to ice and the
deleterious effects of the additional weight and stress placed on these structures. Subsequently,
there was nothing mandating that ice and wind
over ice be addressed during the design phase.

Guidelines suggesting realistic amounts of

ice for a particular region, based on climate
and the appropriate winds that should be
applied with ice for these ice-prone regions of
our country were virtually non-existent.

Solutions for dealing with Ice and Wind over Ice

ANSI/TIA 222-G standard, effective January 1, 2006 introduced a mandatory ice loading
specific for local county criteria. This revision is based on tower height, elevation and exposure.
Through understanding what was lacking in previous design standards regarding ice and wind
over ice, we can clearly see how failures attributed to insufficient design and those failures
blamed on Mother Nature, in this case, ice and wind over ice, become difficult to distinguish.

11 | P a g e
 Comparing Previous
Codes to ‘G’

• 350 foot “Utility”

guyed tower
• Typical FM tower
• Designed using the
“C” code, no ice
• Analyzed using (1),
“F” Code, with ice
• Analyzed using (2),
“G” Code, with ice

The graphic diagrams below

contrast the differences of
designing a tower using the EIA-
222-C code, TIA/EIA-222-F code and the ANSI/TIA 222-G code. The now defunct Utility Tower
Company designed and fabricated the tower following the specifications in the EIA-222-C design
standard, providing no consideration for ice accumulation.

The tower was reanalyzed using the TIA/EIA-222-F code and the ANSI/TIA-222-G design standard.
Of the three vertical lines displayed in the diagrams on page 13, the black line represents tower leg
capacity while the green line represents the tower leg stress. The original tower design was sufficient to
meet the "no ice" condition for the two more recent design codes. However, the original design fails both
the ‘F’ and “G” revisions of the design code when radial ice is included in the equation.

It is interesting to note the points of failure are dependent on which code is utilized. Analysis using
the ‘F’ code reveals obvious insufficiency of the tower legs about mid-way up the structure, the point at
which the green stress line crosses the leg capacity line. In contrast, the more accurate ‘G’ code indicates
leg failure near the base of the tower, with the additional weight of ice taken into consideration.

If the original tower was reinforced to meet the less accurate ‘F’ code load, this reinforcement would
have created additional stress to those portions of the tower previously deemed insufficient using the ‘G’
code analysis. In other words, reinforcing the tower to the “F” code would result in additional leg stress
to the most critical ‘G’ code tower members, hastening tower failure.

12 | P a g e
 ‘F’ Code, No Ice and Ice 75 mph, 65 mph with ½” ice

‘G’ Code, No Ice and Ice 90 mph, 40 mph with ¾” ice (below)

                                                     

13 | P a g e
 ‘F’ Code Ice vs. ‘G’ Code Ice

‘F’ Code ‘G’ Code

Annex A of the 222-G provides the broadcast tower owner and tenant a list and explanation
of the procurement specifications required for purchasing a new tower and for purchasing an
analysis/modification to existing towers. The major items that need to be included in the
procurement specifications for new towers and for analysis/modification to existing towers, with
respect to wind and ice are:

Structure classification
Three-second-gust basic wind speed and design ice thickness
Exposure category
Topographic category

Annex B of the 222-G includes a county listing of minimum basic wind speed without ice,
minimum basic wind speed with ice and minimum design ice thickness. There are methods
available providing broadcast owners and tenants a quick estimate on the feasibility of upgrading
the tower from the original tower design parameters to 222-G. In addition, there are also methods
available to quickly determine the feasibility for equipment inventory changes to the tower.
Contact ERI for more information.

14 | P a g e
ANSI/TIA-222-G map depicting Ice Load and Wind Speed Zones

Map Ice* Max Radial Thickness* 

   ¼”                                           .7” 

   ½”                                         1.4” 

   ¾”                                         2.1” 

    1”                                     2.8” 

1 ¼”                                          3.5” 

*Based on 30 to 40 mph winds

15 | P a g e
When working with existing towers, solutions for ice and wind always include the following:
9 Remove all unused appurtenances
9 Structural analysis using ‘G’ Code
9 Reanalyze when changes are considered
9 Annual inspections, including anchors
9 Preventative maintenance

Basic guidelines when new towers are under consideration:

9 Design to the ‘G’ standard
9 Use site variables in specifications
9 Recognize “minimum requirement” and substitute performance
requirements
9 Use AISC certified providers

16 | P a g e
 Special Winds: Hurricanes, Tornadoes and Straight Line Winds constitute
the #3 cause of tower failures, accounting for approximately 20% of all disasters. As with
Ice and Wind over Ice failures, unacceptable design, fabrication and installation techniques are
oftentimes to blame. The design of numerous structures is obsolete due to inadequate and/or
inaccurate wind speed maps and oversimplified, outdated methods of calculating wind force.

“On Saturday, May 10, 2003, a strong storm moved

through the Midwest. A tornado touched down in
Peoria, IL. Three out of the four towers were
toppled.” See photo, right

“About 10:30 Wednesday night (8/23/00),

a thunderstorm with straight line winds in
excess of 70 mph moved through Mexico,
MO.” Gary Leonard: KXEO and KWWR's
tower failure August 2000, photo, left.

17 | P a g e
 Outdated Wind Maps
Compare the two maps shown left and below. The
map on the left was published in the EIA RS-222 (A-
C), the Standard from 1949 to 1985. The D thru F
Standard, implemented in 1986, brought us the
Fastest-Mile Wind Speed, shown below.

Wind Speeds
The EIA/RS-222-C standard converted a
‘basic’ wind speed to a wind pressure. The
country was divided into three separate areas,
each with differing wind pressure requirements.
Zone A required a 30 psf design. Zone B
required a 40 psf design and Zone C, a 50 psf design. Tower designers weren’t required to
determine the appropriate wind speed, only the prescribed wind pressure, as dictated by the
above map.
The EIA/RS-222-D through F revision eliminated the simplified three zones and their
associated wind pressure by substituting a ‘wind map’ prescribing the appropriate wind speed
according to location. Wind speed was referred to as Fastest Mile Wind Speed, or the average
speed measured during the passage of one mile of wind. In other words, the average time
between the peak and lull wind speeds fluctuated as a function of the wind’s velocity. For
example, a 60 mph fastest mile wind speed would represent an average of the fluctuating wind
velocities for 60 seconds. This is not the wind speed reported on the 6 o’clock news. Nor is it
what county building officials expect to see displayed on submitted tower designs.
The ANSI/TIA-222-G standard revision adopted the Peak Wind Speed design method:
a 3-second average of the recorded peak wind velocities. This method is comparable to the
International Building Code (IBC) requirements and is the method used for determining proper
wind velocity calculations recognized by most state and local building authorities.
In short, a ‘C’ code design using zone A wind speed would compare to an ‘F’ code 70 mph
design wind speed, which, in turn, compares to a ‘G’ code 85 mph, exposure C wind speed
design.

18 | P a g e
Terrain variables are one of the design parameters the ‘C thru F’ code failed to mandate.

Exposure Categories
Exposure categories may not be thoroughly studied and considered during the design phase of
a tower. Proper exposures were previously the responsibility of the purchaser. The information
below was used in the Power Point presentation on tower failures and provides a detailed
explanation of each of the three Exposures, ignored by previous design codes.

19 | P a g e
Exposure B
The photographs below depict various differences in ground roughness with respect to urban,
suburban and wooded areas. Roughness directly affects wind speed and force.

Exposure C: Open Terrain

20 | P a g e
Exposure D relates to unobstructed shorelines.

“In every wind induced tower

failure I have investigated, the
tower would NOT have passed
the current design code”
Forensic Engineer, Ernie Jones,
PE

21 | P a g e
Solutions for the #3 cause of tower failure, Special Winds can be achieved
using the 2006 ANSI TIA/EIA-222- G Code.
Awareness of this standard is crucial. The guidelines set forth should be adhered to during
both design and analysis of a tower. The ANSI ‘fastest mile’ wind speed has been replaced. The
new revision requires that wind loading be calculated according to the three-second-gust wind
speed (ASCE-7), allowing the tower’s design to accommodate instantaneous loads. Most
National Weather Service sites record three-second gust wind speeds which will provide for
more accurate averages for Rev G and
future revisions.
The ‘G’ code also recognizes wind
speed as a function of height. The effects
of wind on a tower are no longer based
on a single wind zone chart, but rather a
number of external conditions that might
change the dynamic of wind, such as
terrain. The TIA/EIA-222-G standard
mandates consideration of various types
of terrain (exposure B for rough surfaces,
exposure C for flat surfaces, and
exposure D for smooth surfaces).
Exposure D results in the most stringent
loading. Previous versions of the
standard were based on exposure C conditions, unless the purchaser specified otherwise.
Furthermore, topography and ground roughness have been included in the national standard’s
seventh revision for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures.

Requiring the use of other exposures results in site-specific design criteria for a structure
based on its surrounding terrain. Topographic features can produce significantly higher wind
speeds as the wind passes over them. The standard provides definitions of various types of
topographic features which must be considered in design. The standard also allows the use of
more sophisticated methods when accurate topographic data is available. The appropriate type of
topographic feature for a structure must be included in the specifications. The default condition
assumes that a structure is not located on a significant topographic feature with that no wind
speed-up considerations are required for design.

Not only should future towers should be designed to meet the ANSI/TIA-222-G standard,
existing towers should be analyzed and brought up to the Standard, if indicated.
Keep in mind, the Standard specifies the ‘minimum’ criteria to be employed during design and
fabrication. Owners should augment the minimum specifications with performance-related
design criteria, for example, increased tower twist and sway requirements, to enhance antennae
performance. Contact ERI for antenna performance-based tower design recommendations and
specifications.

22 | P a g e
 Aviation-related incidents, accounting for just over 10% of all failures, are the
th
4 leading cause of tower failure. Statistically, no single type of aircraft is more
vulnerable or likely to collide with a tower than another. Helicopters, single-engine planes and
military aircraft have proven equally hazardous to broadcast towers. Time of day and daylight
versus darkness do not show a pattern of any kind. Surprisingly, there is no correlation between
the presence of any particular type of lighting system and collision. These factors combined
create a bit of a challenge when addressing solutions.
     

 UPPER QUEBEC PROVINCE, CANADA – “On Sunday,

April 22nd 2001, 38-year old Gilbert Paquette was killed
when his single-engine Cessna 150 struck a 1,217-foot tall
communications tower while flying in heavy fog during
daylight hours over a remote region of upper Quebec
Province.”
Note the wreckage near the top right portion of the tower.

St. Petersburg, Florida- On April 25, 2000 a medical helicopter flew into a guy wire on
WRMD’s 198m (650’) tower. Three people were killed. The incident happened during daylight
hours in clear skies.”

La Mirada, CA- “On Sunday, December 19, 2004 at 9:45 a.m. PST Jim and Mary Ghosoph
were killed when their rented Cessna 182P single engine airplane, travelling from the El Monte
airport to Fullerton Municipal, struck KFI's transmission tower. The solid steel truss, originally
built in 1948, collapsed upon itself, falling primarily into a parking lot north of the site. For
years, pilots had complained to KFI management citing the need for strobe lights on the tower
and reflective balls on the guy wire. Both KFI and Clear Channel responded by saying the tower
was in compliance with FCC and FAA regulations, maintaining no changes were necessary.”

Incidentally, on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 KFI’s replacement tower collapsed while under
construction. “Approximately 300’ of the total 684’ had been erected when a guy wire support
failed, causing the tower to tip over the opposite direction. No major injuries and limited
collateral damage resulted.”

23 | P a g e
 DOERUN, GA -- “A military helicopter has
crashed after striking the upper portion of WFXL's
1,000-foot tall TV tower near Doerun in Colquitt
County. The collision caused a guy wire to break
loose, opening the possibility that the steel tower
could fall.” And it did.

Both crashes shown left and below, occurred

during daylight hours in clear skies.

                                                                                                          

   

    

24 | P a g e
Solutions for Aircraft
Without question, make certain your tower is registered with the FAA, even if you are not the
owner, but renting the structure. Tower registration can be confirmed through the following
URL and entering your coordinates: www.wireless.fcc.gov/antenna.
The following are basic guidelines for tower marking, as provided for in the FAA Advisory
Circular AC-70/7460-1K:
TOWER MUST BE MARKED (painted), unless the tower is lighted with high-
intensity flashing white lights (high-intensity strobes) or medium-intensity strobes.
Towers up to 700 feet should have seven evenly spaced bands; towers from 701 to 900
feet need nine bands; towers from 901 to 1100 feet need 11 bands and taller towers
require 13 bands.
The tower lighting and marking is the responsibility of the owner of the tower. If the
tower is shared, a written agreement can be made between the parties involved as to
whose responsibility it is to monitor the lights and to decide when it must be painted.

One tower, two photos:

Non-Compliant Paint (FCC) FCC-Compliant Paint applied

25 | P a g e
 There are three basic types of lighting systems. The first is conventional red lights. Painted
marking is always required with these. The next level is medium-intensity flashing white
obstruction lights. They may be authorized on towers up to 500 feet AGL and will normally be at
full intensity during daytime and twilight hours and at reduced intensity during nighttime hours.
The third basic system is high-intensity flashing white obstruction lights that operate at full
intensity during daytime hours, reduced intensity during twilight hours and even further reduced
intensity at night.
The only time high-intensity strobes may be required is for those structures over 500 feet. In
addition, the FAA will often permit dual lighting systems where medium or high-intensity
strobes are used during the day and twilight hours and conventional red lights are used at night.
That type of lighting system avoids the necessity to paint the tower but is a much better neighbor
at night. In many areas, the zoning regulations require dual lighting unless the FAA absolutely
insists on high-intensity strobes at all times. A station can count on complaints from the
neighbors if high-intensity strobes are used.

Painted towers with red lights, left. A Strobe

system is shown, below.

Due to high RF environments associated with TV and FM transmission, ERI prefers using red
lights and paint on broadcast towers. Strobe systems are more costly to maintain and more
susceptible to failure. Painted towers offer a dual protection system: the paint protects the
galvanized coating which, in turn, protects the underlying steel.

26 | P a g e
 Proper maintenance and inspections are critical to ensure lighting systems are functioning
properly and to capacity. The station chief operator, by regulation, is responsible for seeing that
the technical operation of the station is in compliance with the Commission's rules and
regulations. That obviously includes seeing that the tower lights are on and operating normally
every day.
Annually, lighting systems should be inspected closely for signs of lightning damage, the #1
cause of damage to tower lighting systems. Additionally, check for signs of electrical arcing,
defined as an electrical breakdown of a gas which produces an ongoing plasma discharge,
resulting from a current flowing through normally nonconductive media such as air. Arcing can
also occur when a low resistance channel (foreign object, conductive dust or moisture) forms
between places with different potential. Electric arc over the surface of plastics causes
degradation.
The beacon should be unobstructed and not shielded by tower members or antenna
appurtenances. The lens of the beacon must be inspected for clarity. A crazed lens results from
minute cracking, hazing or the appearance of yellowing.  
Grounding straps should be inspected for functionality. Mechanical and electrical
attachments must be checked and deemed secure.

Aviation Balls are another safety measure used to avoid collision, though they would not be
appropriate in some areas. While they do make towers and lines significantly more visible, the
additional wind load could be detrimental.

27 | P a g e
If all else fails……
¾ Don’t shoot until you see the whites of their eyes
¾ Stay with the National Guard PSAs

28 | P a g e
The remaining 10% of tower failures can be attributed to Anchor Failure.
An earlier study conducted by Stainless Tower, LLC found anchor failure responsible for 5%
of the broadcast tower failures. The 2010 ERI study clearly indicates anchor failure is the reason
10% of those towers fail. We have seen a 100% increase in only 4 years! What causes anchor
failure? Corrosion does.

December 14, 2009, Tulsa, Oklahoma--

“We are not totally sure why the tower

fell,” said Chief Engineer Ed Bettinger.
“This was a surprise. We just inspected the
tower and tested the guy wire tension on
April 20 and everything seemed fine.”

“We believe there was some electrolytic

corrosion on one of the guy wire anchors
several feet underground,” Bettinger said.
“The high winds and the anchor letting go is
probably what did it in.”

Anchor rod failure caused by corrosion

29 | P a g e
 Corrosion of an anchor shaft is the result of an
electrochemical process or galvanic action, causing
metal to deteriorate. A galvanic cell requires five
elements:

1) Anode
2) Cathode
3) Electrical Path (conductor)
4) Electrolyte
5) Current Flow

These five elements are present in both External (between metals) and Internal (same metal)
corrosion.
Corrosion occurs when there is an electrical current flow from the anchor shaft to the
surrounding soil. Material migration accompanies the current flow with the more refined metal
sacrificing to more noble metals. Galvanic corrosion occurs when there is a self generated
current due to an electrochemical reaction between dissimilar metals.

30 | P a g e
 A guy tower anchor is a perfect example. The
copper ground system is electrically connected
to the galvanized steel anchor shaft through the
guy wires. If the soil is conductive (low ground
resistance) the difference in the electrical
potential of the connected metals will create an
electromotive force. The guy anchor shaft will
sacrifice to the copper grounding system.

Electrolytic corrosion is similar to galvanic

corrosion and occurs when the current source is
external. Radiated or stray current captured by
the guy wires or grounding system provide the
electromotive force for electrolytic corrosion.
However, the result is the same: deterioration of
the steel anchor shaft.

EXTERNAL CORROSION caused by Dissimilar Metals” in guy tower anchor

Why hot dip galvanizing isn’t effective protection against galvanic corrosion: The main
component of galvanizing is zinc. Zinc is very high in the galvanic series and acts as an anode
with the coated steel acting as the cathode. When exposed to the atmosphere (CO2), zinc forms
its own passivation film. However, when buried in an anaerobic environment, the zinc sacrifices
to the more noble metals, most notably, the copper grounding system.

31 | P a g e
Soil Classification and Corrosion
The 4 elements or classifications of soil that are most contributory to corrosion are:
1) particle size and aeration
2) moisture content
3) pH
4) Chlorides and organics

(#1) (#2)
Soil Type Particle Size Corrosion Rate

Sand .07 to 2 mm Low

Silt .005 to .07 mm Moderate

Clay less than .005 mm High

Low Corrosion Rate – Coarse grain soil, less than 50% passing through a # 200 sieve
Higher Corrosion Rate – Fine grain soil, more than 50% passing through a #200 sieve

Moisture Content
Usually represented in % moisture by soil weight, or
Difference between in situ soil weight and dry soil weight
Generally, the greater the moisture content the greater the corrosion probability.
Above 15% moisture by weight would be considered aggressive soil
Hydrogen Ion Activity (pH)
Extreme corrosion rates are to be expected in soils having Low or High pH. The pH range is
from 0 to 14, with 7 considered neutral.
A reading below 6 or above 12 should be considered as aggressive soil. The soils included in
this list include cinder, ash, and slag fills, as well as organic fills, mine and industrial waste.

32 | P a g e
Other naturally occurring chemical elements primarily refer to Chloride Ions.
Chloride concentration in the soil above 50 ppm is considered aggressively corrosive for
steel. High levels are typically found in areas of historic salt water and may also be resultant
from de-icing operations.

Soil Symbol Soil Type Degree of Risk

Pt Peat and other highly organic soils High Risk
OH Organic clay
CH Inorganic clay
MH Inorganic silts and very fine sands
OL Organic silts
CL Inorganic clays, silty clays, lean clays
ML Inorganic silts with fine sands
SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures
SM Silty sands, sandy silts Moderate Risk

Solutions for Anchor Rod Failure

Evaluate risk potential
Inspect shaft, depending on evaluation
findings
Install protective devices if active
corrosion is indicated
Replace anchor, if warranted

Professional on-site evaluation to determine galvanic risk potential can be contracted through
an engineering firm specializing in this field. ERI is an example of such a firm.

33 | P a g e
 Soil composition and other characteristics can be
easily evaluated using site and smell. Using the
above information will assist in determining a soil’s
corrosion potential, what is referred to as aggressive
soil. The photograph, right, shows an anchor shaft
surrounded by standing water, increasing the risk
for corrosion. Odorous soil may indicate high
levels of bacteria present. Local agricultural
equipment suppliers are good sources for obtaining
information on soil in a particular region.
Specifically, information pertaining to moisture, pH
and bacteria is readily available.

Another simple method for classifying soil through visual observation is through color
analysis. Tan, red or light brown colors indicate large particle, well-aerated soil. These sandy,
lighter weight types of soil do not hold water for long periods. Soils of these colors have a lower
probability of corrosion. In contrast, gray and green/gray soil indicates smaller particle size
with poor aeration, bringing with it a higher incidence of corrosion. These types of soil are easy
to identify because they are clumpy and clayey.
Inspect the exposed anchor shaft. If rust is visible it is likely corrosion is occurring at a
greater rate farther down the buried shaft.
Look for indications of an active, externally-driven anode bed and other sources of external
electrical currents near the tower. The sources of these ‘stray currents’ include:

• Plating works

• DC supply systems in industrial plants 

• Large direct drive motors

• Welding Equipment

• DC communications

• AM tower site

Pipelines are a major concern when dealing with stray currents. The National Pipeline
Mapping System (NPMS) is a valuable resource for locating pipelines. Their database can be
accessed by visiting http://www.npms.phmsa.gov/

34 | P a g e
 On-site testing is comprised of gathering information via electrical measurements. The data
is interpreted and used to determine relative risk of galvanic corrosion on buried anchor shafts.
The three measurements taken during this type of on-site evaluation are:
1. Soil resistivity
2. Grounding system resistance
3. Electrical current flow between the grounding electrode and the anchor shaft
Generally speaking, soils with a resistance less than 10,000 Ohm-cm would be considered
corrosive and less than 5000 Ohm-cm extremely corrosive. A single 10' by 5/8" diameter
grounding rod with a measured resistance of less than 16 Ohms would indicate a more
aggressive soil. Additionally, direct current flow in excess of 15 mA between the anchor
grounding rod and the anchor shaft would indicate an aggressive soil. Discharged current flow
of 1 amp for one year will migrate 20 pounds of steel.

Anchor Rod Inspection: 3 Methods

1. Limited Excavation is typically used by most installers to check for anchor corrosion
prior to other work being performed to the tower. The soil around the anchor shaft it
excavated to a twelve to thirty inch depth to reveal the shaft for inspection. If corrosion is
found, the shaft is completely excavated and inspected. At this point, a determination of
the tower’s stability is made. If, however, no corrosion is visible at the 12’ to 30’ depth,
the assumption that there is no corrosion deeper in the earth is made. Limited excavation
proves insufficient for determining corrosion as the most prevalent location for corrosion is
at the intersection between the shaft and the buried concrete anchor block. Therefore, this
method is not indicative of shaft integrity.

Limited excavation is not indicative of rod condition, as above photos illustrate

35 | P a g e
2. Total Excavation involves removing the majority of the soil surrounding the anchor shaft
and concrete anchor. Although this affords an excellent inspection, this method also
removes most of the anchor's uplift resistance. For safety and liability reasons only
experienced excavators are able to complete these inspections. Not only is it cost-
prohibitive, the results are destructive and often tragic. The digging process could cause
the sudden release of a compromised anchor shaft. Consequently, site limitations can
render the anchor impossible to completely excavate.

Total Excavation:
•Expensive
•Can be destructive
•Dangerous
•Difficult to repeat

3. Cylindrical Guided Wave-Ultrasound or Ultrasound is the most promising and effective

method for anchor shaft inspection. Most RF engineers are familiar with the process
called TDR testing for transmission line. When using a TDR (time domain reflectometer),
an electrical pulse is injected into a
coaxial transmission line. This pulse is
reflected if an anomaly is present in the
line. Ultrasound testing works exactly
the same with anchor shafts, except that
the conductor is a solid round bar of
steel and the pulse is sonic, not
electrical.

36 | P a g e
 Ultrasound testing is a practical means for interrogating anchor shafts from the surface,
avoiding the problems associated with excavation. When properly administered, this method
will locate and estimate the extent of corrosion damage and loss of steel material. Ultrasound
testing is cost-effective and eliminates unnecessary destruction and liability concerns.

Ultrasound does have a few limitations. This method is only effective with solid steel shapes
such as a solid or flat bar. The anchor shaft and fan plate joint must afford access to the end of
the shaft, with sufficient room to properly seat the UT transducer. Without adequate seating
area, smaller, less sensitive transducers must be used which may prove less accurate. Contact
ERI to determine if Ultrasound testing is feasible for your site.

37 | P a g e
Corrosion Prevention

If the electrical current of the galvanic cell can be disrupted then corrosion may be arrested.
Typically, this can be achieved through the use of one or more of the following:

Concrete Encasement
Coatings
Impressed Counter Electrical Current
Sacrificial Anodes

Concrete Encasement is the traditional method used to lessen the possibility of galvanic
corrosion of an anchor shaft. Until the early 1960, this was customarily included in major
broadcast tower designs. Subsequently, with the propagation of FM and AM radio towers,
concrete encasement during construction was widely discontinued as it became cost-prohibitive;
Concrete encasement is expensive, costing as much or more than the supporting concrete dead-
man anchor. Unfortunately, it cannot totally prevent corrosion. If insufficient reinforcing
steel is incorporated in the design and the concrete becomes cracked, the effects of galvanic
corrosion will not only be focused but intensified.
Coatings are a less expensive means of encasing an anchor shaft, as they are typically
comprised of bituminous material or plastic tape. Both are fragile leaving them susceptible to
damage during the transportation and/or installation process. Like a crack in concrete, if
damaged, the effects of galvanic corrosion will be localized and intensified. Coatings are also
difficult to apply in the field.
Impressed counter electrical currents can be artificially induced within the tower structure
opposing the polarity of the naturally accruing electrical currents of the galvanic cell. Although
this method has proven very successful in protecting structures such as underground pipe lines, it
is not practical for use with most guyed towers. In addition to costly installation, this method
requires constant monitoring and adjusting to keep the counter current balanced and the galvanic
cell current balanced. Over-protection can lead to galvanic corrosion and may also hasten
corrosion in non-protected structures.
Sacrificial anodes offer the most effective
protection. With a sacrificial anode, the base metal
is much higher in the galvanic series than steel.
Translated, if the soil is sufficiently conductive, the
anode sacrifices to the anchor shaft preventing its
corrosion.
Unfortunately, sacrificial anodes can
simultaneously reduce the effectiveness of the tower
grounding system by transferring insulating material
directly to the grounding electrode. The two photos
on the following page display a grounding rod
originally connected to a tower guying system which
employed a sacrificial anode. Notice the isolative "coral-like” material coating the grounding
rod. Increased resistance in the anchor grounding system increases the likelihood of damage to
the anchor as a result of a lightning strike.

38 | P a g e
 ERI’s MAG-ROD™ is a viable option for avoiding the problems associated with most sacrificial
anodes through combining the sacrificial anode and the grounding system. The MAG-ROD™ is a
chemical grounding rod offering very low electrical resistance for fault currents. This accessory
is comprised of a magnesium alloy which is significantly higher in the galvanic series than steel.
The benefit is seen when the soil becomes sufficiently conductive. The MAG-ROD™ sacrifices to
the anchor shaft preventing corrosion. Furthermore, electrical resistance of the MAG-ROD™
decreases over time, as opposed an increase in electrical resistance using a standard copper base
grounding rod equipped with a separate sacrificial anode.

Corrosion cell MAG-ROD™ protected

39 | P a g e
 The preceding pages explore the major causes of tower failure. Accurate statistics and data
combined with real-life photographs and reports of accidents, negligence and catastrophic
incidents portray a phenomenon our industry must continually strive to avoid. While Mother
Nature is often unpredictable and accidents are not always avoidable, we stand firmly in our
belief that through proper design, fabrication, construction and maintenance, tower failure will
become a rarity. As stated on page one, since their first tower was erected in 1944, ERI has
never lost a tower anytime, anywhere for any reason.

I feel it appropriate to conclude this essay with a list of related products and services provided
by and available through Electronics Research, Incorporated. ERI has manufactured state-of-
the-art commercial and telecommunications broadcast products since 1943. From our 165,000-
square-foot facility in Chandler, IN, we offer innovative engineering, meticulous fabrication and
customer satisfaction. Attention to these details makes ERI the standard by which others in the
industry are measured.

TOWERS
¾ Guyed Towers: welded and bolt-together
¾ Self-Supporting: welded (lattice poles) and bolt-together

Quality construction begins with engineering competence. ERI’s in-house engineering staff
is comprised of Registered Professional, Degreed and Graduate Engineers. Our engineers are
always available for telephone consultations and/or site visits.

All structures are designed to meet the most current TIA/ EIA-
222, the approved national standard for communications
structures. ERI realizes that rapid change in the communications
industry is creating a need for quality tower construction of the
most specialized design. That is why ERI designs towers to meet specific customer needs. Who
better than an antenna manufacturer to design an antenna-supporting tower? ERI backs its
products with a fully trained staff of licensed professionals, who possess the specific knowledge
and commitment to excellence you need to get the results that you desire.

Solid Steel Construction

ERI employs all solid steel members in each tower design, which reduces surface area
exposure to destructive elements when compared to steel pipe members.

Modular, All-Welded Construction

The ERI guyed tower design minimizes the need for bolted inner member connections, which
in turn decreases both hardware cost and installation time. Welded connections are achieved
under factory controlled conditions, and every weld exceeds the strength of the attached member.
To facilitate transportation and installation, welded modular sections can vary in length.

ERI Inner-Lock™ Section Connection Design

The lack of diagonal bracing at section connections can result in an undesirable combination
of axial and moment loadings on tower members. ERI’s section connection design properly
transfers axial loads from section to section without creating additional torque loads on tower
frame members.
40 | P a g e
 ERI Guyed welded tower ERI bolt-together tower

ERI Self supporting bolt‐together tower ERI Self supporting welded tower

41 | P a g e
LIGHTNING PROTECTION
Lightning is the leading cause of weather-related damage to broadcast equipment. With
average lightning currents of 20 to 30 kilo amps and heat energy in excess of 20,000°C, the need
for improved lightning protection is evident.

• Shields structure by reducing the electric potential

of the tower or structure

• Divert the electrostatic energy away from critical

equipment and toward a safe path to earth

• Exceptional electrical dissipation characteristics

• No antenna and beacon interference

• 180 mph survival wind speed

ERI LIGHTNING SPURS

STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS AND ACCESSORIES

ERI offers a full line of Structural System Components, Installation Accessories, and System
Services to complete your next broadcast facility. These products are designed to protect your
investment, lower your maintenance costs, and reduce the likelihood of an off-air emergency.
Our teams of RF and structural engineers have collaborated to produce designs that meet the
unique needs of the broadcast industry.

GROUNDING SYSTEMS

K-ROD™ Improved Electrolytic Grounding System

Low impedance grounding is essential to protect
transmitting facilities and personnel from external or internal
electrical anomalies. Copper clad driven ground rods are often
insufficient due to high ground resistivity or a limited
installation area. The K-ROD provides a superior, stable, low
resistance interface with true earth while minimizing
installation area and time.
The copper K-ROD constantly conditions the surrounding soil
with a self-contained electrolyte enhancer. When combined
with moisture, the resulting solution reduces the resistance
between the electrode and earth, providing years of
maintenance free, stable, low impedance for a wide variety of
soil conditions.
ERI K-ROD™
42 | P a g e
 MAG-ROD™ Combined Cathodic Protection and Grounding System
provides cathodic corrosion protection for tower anchor shafts and
Electrical Grounding System for guy wires and anchors.

• Low impedance electrical grounding

• Prevents underground corrosion
• Eliminates need for sacrificial anodes
• No external voltage source required
• No test cell monitoring necessary
• Simple and quick installation
• Easy, above ground inspection and maintenance

ERI MAG-ROD™

ULTRA™ Guy Anchor Rod: Quick, Easy, and Reproducible Inspection of Buried Guy
Anchor Rods

• Noninvasive (no digging)

• Nondestructive (no surface damage)
• No temporary anchors required
• Provides more detail than visual inspection
including detection of stress cracks and internal
flaws
• Historical record (base line test) for future
evaluation
• Polyethylene sealed and anti-corrosive tape wrapped
at the factory for additional protection (available
option) patent pending
ERI ULTRA™ ANCHOR ROD

GUY-GUARD™ Ground Wire Attachment is

an electrical grounding wire to guy wire
attachment providing guy wire grip protection
from ice damage.
• Averts galvanic corrosion between copper
grounding wire and guy wire
• Reduces electrical resistance between
grounding wire and guy wire
• Eliminates point load stress to guy wire
• Prevents ice damage to grounding wire,
guy wire grip, and tower failure

A stainless steel grounding attachment machined

for close guy wire tolerance and easy fit, using a
single U-bolt attachment.
ERI GUY-GUARD™
43 | P a g e
INVISI-SHIELD™ Electrically Transparent Ice-Shield

The ERI INVISI-SHIELD™ is an electrically transparent ice

shield offering protection from falling ice. Utilizing custom
fabricated materials and careful placement of connection
components has resulted in a structure which has no perceptible
effect on an antenna’s pattern. The INVISI-SHIELD™ can be
mounted directly over an antenna element. The compact design
allows the product to be in close proximity to the antenna,
without the negative effects associated with excess weight and
wind load.

ERI INVISI-SHIELD™

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

The depth and breadth of broadcast products offered by Electronics Research is only
exceeded by the quality of professional services performed to complement these products. With
an industry leading team of engineers, project managers, draftsmen, field technicians, and
manufacturing staff, ERI delivers a range of services found nowhere else.
Our Professional Service Team activities include:
Antenna Test Range

Turn Key Installation

Structural Analysis

After Sales Maintenance and Inspection

Tower Reinforcement and Rescue

Transmission Line System Design and Layout

System Optimization Testing Service

System Optimization Tuner

Field Technical Advisory Service

Site Survey and Inspection Services

44 | P a g e
 For comprehensive information regarding inspections, types and recommended frequency of
such, visit http://www.eriinc.com/products/pst/index.htm
With information and knowledge concerning galvanic corrosion becoming more
commonplace for those in our industry, requests for ERI’s non-invasive, cost effective
Ultrasound testing of anchor rods are rapidly increasing. This ‘specialty’ inspection method is
gaining popularity as an extremely effective tool for detecting anchor rod corrosion determining
the next step(s) in saving a structure.

Director of Structural Products and Services, David K. Davies

I LOVE YOU I LOVE YOU I LOVE YOU I LOVE YOU I LOVE YOU I LOVE YOU

For additional information concerning products and services visit www.eriinc.com or contact
a member of our engineering staff directly.

Electronics Research, Inc.

7777 Gardner Road
Chandler, Indiana 47610 USA
+1 (812) 925-6000

Copyright 2010 Electronics Research, Incorporated

This presentation is the work product of ERI. Reproduction, transmission or disclosure to others, or
unauthorized use without the expressed written consent of ERI is prohibited and a violation of Federal Law

45 | P a g e