[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Guying on a small lot

Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Guying on a small lot
From: Bob Nielsen <>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:43:05 -0700
List-post: <>
On Apr 17, 2006, at 10:56 AM, ROBERT CARROLL wrote:

> I have a question more or less related to this thread.  I have a  
> MonstIR
> which is about to go up on 70' of Rohn 55.  The system has been  
> designed by
> a couple of real pros and I have had a PE look over the design.   
> Although I
> am on two acres, the lot is not level and I could not put the tower  
> in the
> best location because it turned out a septic field is in the way.   
> So I am
> left in a situation where the guys are going to be elevated and  
> attached to
> posts, 2/3 of which are in cement per the PE's guidance.  They are  
> equally
> spaced in azimuth angle and all meet the Rohn minimum distance from  
> the base
> of the tower guidance.
> I am by no means a structural engineer, but--and I see traces of  
> the idea in
> the "small lot" thread--had assumed the guys should also be  
> anchored the
> same distance out from the tower.  That sounds pretty from a symmetry
> standpoint, but it is just not possible in my case.  The PE and the  
> tower
> guru say there are fairly frequent commercial installations where  
> the same
> problem exists--and in fact where one guy has to be almost  
> horizontal due to
> tilted earth.  They say the important thing is maintaining the minimum
> attachment distance from the base and the 120 degree spacing.  They  
> also say
> the guys, though of different lengths of Phillystran, should be set  
> to the
> same static tension.
> It is too late to change any of this, and I trust the two experts,  
> but I
> would appreciate some educational feedback on the subject of guys of
> different lengths.
> By the way there will be an upper and lower set of guys, and it is  
> unlikely
> the stainless posts will ever bend the way the ones did in the pix  
> on the
> reflector this AM.  I noticed that installation didn't comply with  
> the 2/3
> in the ground requirement of my PE.
> Bob W2WG

I am a physicist not a P.E., but this sounds incorrect to me.  I  
believe you need  to end up with zero net horizontal force at the  
attachment point on the tower of each set of guys (i.e., guy tension  
X sine of angle between guy and vertical is equal), not equal static  
tension.  If you have something other than 120 degree spacing it gets  
a bit more complicated, but you still want to have zero net  
horizontal force component on the tower.

Bob, N7XY


TowerTalk mailing list

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