Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [TowerTalk] ma550 question

 To: Re: [TowerTalk] ma550 question Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:50:59 -0400
 ```Since storms frequently cause power outages, you would also need an automatic backup source. This seems like the most difficult way to possibly satisfy the ordinance. KK9A To: towertalk@contesting.com From: Jim Lux Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:26:22 -0700 At 11:22 AM 9/14/2006, Jim Jarvis wrote: >The argument for the MA550 is completely aesthetic, in my mind. >The real question is whether, if motorized, one could convince >zoning to rate safety based on a retracted tower. It would be >easy to have windspeed monitored, and store the antenna nested, >when not in use. This would be fine for safety, if safety is defined as "minimizing probability of expensive damage to the equipment being protected", where the maximum downside exposure is the cost of the equipment. It probably wouldn't be appropriate for life safety, or the property of others, unless the windspeed threshold were set ridicuously low and the "automatic lowering" system were suitably redundant and safeguarded. Here's a scenario. Light breeze of 10-15 mi/hr at ground level with occasional 25 mi/hr gusts as a thunderstorm approaches.. tower stays up because the windspeed threshold is set at, say, 35 mi/hr. Downburst with 70 mi/hr gust comes, folds tower over. This might be fairly unlikely, but you'd have to go through a bunch of work to prove it. This is hardly a one in a million probability, by the way. What you're really proposing is that the likely time between the wind reaching one speed (your threshold) and it reaching the failure load is less than the time to retract the antenna. As it happens, there is a fairly large body of research on this, so you could do an analysis that would give you a probability of failure. Say it takes 2 minutes to lower and stow your tower. You'd want to know what the probability is that a gust of, say, 90 mi/hr would occur less than 2 minutes after a gust of, say, 30 mi/hr. Then, the question would be what's an acceptable failure probability.. I'd venture that the city might be happy with something like a 1 failure in 100 years kind of probability. You'd combine the odds of a 90 mi/hr gust occuring (which is fairly low) with the odds of it not being preceded by a trigger gust. Other questions that would be asked: What happens if anemometer fails? How would know if anemometer is failed, vs just no wind? Can the tower be retracted under load? After being triggered to automatically lower, how long will it stay down? This could all be done, and a system designed to do it reliably. It's not a lot different than the kinds of things used for rocket launches and to assist air traffic controllers. However, it would almost certainly cost more than just buying a stronger tower. For more reading, just google for "extreme wind gust statistics" http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0112/0112063.pdf is a paper talking about just this sort of application (for auto feathering of wind generators, among other things) http://www.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/hydro/BLM2003.pdf is a better version of the same thing. The author proposes that the "waiting time distribution" is a power law. This one might be interesting: http://www.sandia.gov/wind/asme/AIAA-2001-0044.pdf > I would anticipate a topmast, placing a 3 el >steppIR @ 65'. Height would be 'tuned' appropriate to the band >in use. So nesting storage could be a normal event. > >You'd still need a PE evaluation to get the permit, but it would >be a significantly more robust result. and, once someone bit the bullet and paid for the analysis, it wouldn't be too hard to extend it to other towers and locations, if the regulatory environment would accept it. This is a pretty standard sort of thing for the design of tall buildings and bridges (and construction cranes and ski lifts) which all deal with windloads. Some bridges and buildings use active damping of wind induced vibration, and they have redundancy systems, etc. I suspect that these things aren't build to a "standard code", but make use of the "or if it can be shown safe by engineering analysis" kinds of exception. Ski lifts are typically regulated under different rules, for instance. Forking out the massive bucks for the engineering and the systems probably isn't a problem with a \$100M bridge, but might be a bit of a problem for a \$10K ham antenna. However, maybe you could get someone to do it as a PhD thesis. Colorado State has a program that deals with wind effects(http://www.windlab.colostate.edu/index.htm), and there's a very well known firm in the field (Cermak Peterka Petersen) in that area (Ft. Collins) too. Jim, W6RMK _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk ```
 Current Thread [TowerTalk] ma550 question, Jim Jarvis Re: [TowerTalk] ma550 question, Jim Lux Re: [TowerTalk] ma550 question, Kelly Johnson Re: [TowerTalk] ma550 question, Rick Karlquist Re: [TowerTalk] ma550 question, Jim Lux Re: [TowerTalk] ma550 question, john <= Re: [TowerTalk] ma550 question, Jim Lux