[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] How about this tower?

To: <>
Subject: [TowerTalk] How about this tower?
From: (Leikhim, Joe)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 22:13:03 -0500
Jim Stahl wrote:
>      A few weeks ago there was a post (imported from another group) by an
> obviously inexperienced person who wanted to put up some sort of house
> bracketed tower.
>     Shortly after that I ran across an article in Radio World (a
> broadcasting trade paper) by a Troy Conner of Tower Maintenance Specialists.
> He had been asked to look this tower over by a small church that thinking of
> buying it along with a radio station.  Here are the some excerpts;
> unfortunately I'm not able to reproduce several photographs from the
> original article.
>      ..."a small guyed tower 140 feet tall, with a face width of 12 inches.
> The structure was stayed by four guy levels, with three cables at each
> level.  A folded AM radiator was installed on the structure."
>     "Even at a distance, I could see that this tower had a serious problem.
> The top 20 feet was canted about 10 or 15 degrees out of plumb.  Closer
> examination made the problems of this tower even more evident.
>       ..."Starting at the ground, I examined three guy anchors.  While the
> connections were in fair shape, the cable tensions were horribly low.  At
> the base of the tower, I was in for my next surprise.  Normally, a tower is
> firmly bolted to the concrete foundation pier.  In this case, the tapered
> base section actually stood on the top of the anchor bolts.  Nothing
> prevented the tower from merely falling off the pier.
>      " The concrete foundation peir had been poured inside an 18-inch
> galvanized culvert pipe, which extended about 4 feet above grade.  In
> addition to being too small and protruding way too far above ground, the
> pier appeared to have shifted slightly downhill, causing a distinct lean.
>      "...Examining the first splice, I noted that the bolt holes between
> sections did not appear to line up.  As a result, the original crew had used
> smaller diameter bolts.  Later, the manufacturer of these sections told me
> that their towers must be assembled in sequence, although the sections
> appear identical. Not only were bolts used in only about half of the holes;
> the bolts themselves were too short, often only catching part of the nut.
>      "At 100 feet, I decided to climb no further. At this point, the tower
> was held together tenuously by one bolt on one leg, two U-bolts haphazardly
> around the second leg, and a turnbuckle on the third.  Apparently, the crew,
> having run out of sections from one manufacturer, simply created this fine
> interface in order to use some handy sections from another company.
>      "The piece de resistance was the old rusted come-along with two of the
> four cable strands broken.  In lieu of bolts, this splendid arrangement had
> been contrived to connect the seventh and eighth sections. The top 40 feet
> of tower did not appear to have any splice bolts; only gravity and friction
> held the sleeve-type connections between sections."
>       I hope your towers don't fit the above description!
> Jim Stahl   K8MR
> --
> FAQ on WWW:     
> Submissions:    
> Administrative requests:
> Problems:       
> Sponsored by:             Akorn Access, Inc. & N4VJ / K4AAA

The photos in the article were pretty scary. Whoever built that tower 
should be banned from future work.
Joe Leikhim

"tv dinner by the pool, 
i'm so glad i finished school" -F.Zappa 1967

"The Revolution will NOT be televised" -Gil Scott Heron

FAQ on WWW:     
Administrative requests:
Sponsored by:             Akorn Access, Inc. & N4VJ / K4AAA

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>