Travanca and André
168
market, while there is not enough information available and adequate communication
within the sector concerning vulnerabilities. In addition, the physical infrastructures
have recently started to be used as an additional resource of income by leasing their
exploitation to third parties. As a result, the ageing communication structures suffer
from lack of overall regulation and accountability and there is a lack of a clear understanding of system dependencies.
The above limitations often lead to vulnerabilities of these structures with respect to
man‐made (e.g. human error, explosions, impacts of objects) and natural disasters (e.g.
hurricanes, tsunamis, floods or earthquakes). In a context of increasing threats due to
terrorism and hazards due to climate change, the risks to which the safety of mobile
communication networks structures are exposed are rising.
Climate change, natural catastrophes and failure of critical infrastructures are ranked
at the top of the 2015 Global Risks database prepared by the World Economic Forum
[10] and for which less progress has been made. In the period between 1980 and 2014,
more than 20 000 natural disasters occurred worldwide, mainly meteorological and
hydrological events [11–13]. Examples of recent natural disasters include, for example,
the hurricane Katrina in the USA, which caused severe losses to the mobile communications infrastructure in Louisiana and Mississippi on August 29, 2005, and the great
earthquake on March 11, 2011, in Japan, which significantly affected the Japanese
mobile communication network.
To properly plan and manage the mobile communication networks structures, it is necessary to gather a correct understanding of the structural behaviour of such structures.
Therefore, there is an urgent need to apply advanced research methods, for example,
structural health monitoring, wind tunnel testing and numerical simulation and calibration, and develop a comprehensive risk framework to elaborate new, and review existing
design guidelines, which will surely contribute to overcome the existing weaknesses.
This chapter will present and explore the most recent advances in research and innovation in the field of structural engineering applied to structures used in mobile
communication networks.
8.2 Historical Development
8.2.1 Typology
Communication structures typologies vary widely across countries according to their
uses, location and more commonly used materials. For example, in Portugal and Spain,
where masts and towers are often installed in locations of high altitude (e.g. 500 m), the
height of the structures will rarely exceed 60 metres. In contrast, in Denmark and in the
Netherlands, where the elevation of the land is practically nonexistent, masts and towers with heights of over than 250 metres are common [4,5]. The choice of type of
structure is frequently dictated purely by technical requirements. For example, certain
antennas demand larger face widths for mounting and a high degree of resistance to
angular structural deflection under extreme wind loading, so that signal quality is maintained. In the latter cases, heavier construction self‐supporting towers are usually more
suitable [3,6]. On the other hand, it is more efficient to attach radio and television
antennas at the maximum height possible. This led to the advent of guyed masts.
168
market, while there is not enough information available and adequate communication
within the sector concerning vulnerabilities. In addition, the physical infrastructures
have recently started to be used as an additional resource of income by leasing their
exploitation to third parties. As a result, the ageing communication structures suffer
from lack of overall regulation and accountability and there is a lack of a clear understanding of system dependencies.
The above limitations often lead to vulnerabilities of these structures with respect to
man‐made (e.g. human error, explosions, impacts of objects) and natural disasters (e.g.
hurricanes, tsunamis, floods or earthquakes). In a context of increasing threats due to
terrorism and hazards due to climate change, the risks to which the safety of mobile
communication networks structures are exposed are rising.
Climate change, natural catastrophes and failure of critical infrastructures are ranked
at the top of the 2015 Global Risks database prepared by the World Economic Forum
[10] and for which less progress has been made. In the period between 1980 and 2014,
more than 20 000 natural disasters occurred worldwide, mainly meteorological and
hydrological events [11–13]. Examples of recent natural disasters include, for example,
the hurricane Katrina in the USA, which caused severe losses to the mobile communications infrastructure in Louisiana and Mississippi on August 29, 2005, and the great
earthquake on March 11, 2011, in Japan, which significantly affected the Japanese
mobile communication network.
To properly plan and manage the mobile communication networks structures, it is necessary to gather a correct understanding of the structural behaviour of such structures.
Therefore, there is an urgent need to apply advanced research methods, for example,
structural health monitoring, wind tunnel testing and numerical simulation and calibration, and develop a comprehensive risk framework to elaborate new, and review existing
design guidelines, which will surely contribute to overcome the existing weaknesses.
This chapter will present and explore the most recent advances in research and innovation in the field of structural engineering applied to structures used in mobile
communication networks.
8.2 Historical Development
8.2.1 Typology
Communication structures typologies vary widely across countries according to their
uses, location and more commonly used materials. For example, in Portugal and Spain,
where masts and towers are often installed in locations of high altitude (e.g. 500 m), the
height of the structures will rarely exceed 60 metres. In contrast, in Denmark and in the
Netherlands, where the elevation of the land is practically nonexistent, masts and towers with heights of over than 250 metres are common [4,5]. The choice of type of
structure is frequently dictated purely by technical requirements. For example, certain
antennas demand larger face widths for mounting and a high degree of resistance to
angular structural deflection under extreme wind loading, so that signal quality is maintained. In the latter cases, heavier construction self‐supporting towers are usually more
suitable [3,6]. On the other hand, it is more efficient to attach radio and television
antennas at the maximum height possible. This led to the advent of guyed masts.