Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] [Tower Talk] Was something else - Now Radian specsvs. Pe

To: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] [Tower Talk] Was something else - Now Radian specsvs. Peoria specs ??
From: "Dick, W1KSZ" <w1ksz@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:51:23 -0400
List-post: <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
I think they changed the windload from 75 mph to 90 mph.

73, Dick, W1KSZ

Jim Lux wrote:
> At 12:19 PM 6/26/2007, Clint Talmadge wrote:
>> Bob, AD5VJ asked a question about a concrete base for a Rohn tower.
>>
>> When Bob, NA6T posted this reply I thought the amount of concrete 
>> sounded a bit high. I checked the Radian site and sure enough that 
>> is what is listed.  So I drug out my old Peoria Rohn Catalog, circa 
>> 1983 and researched base dimensions. Peoria Rohn specs call for a 2' 
>> X 2' by 4' deep hole for the tower that Bob, AD5VJ is installing. It 
>> calls for guy anchors of 2' X 2' by 1' deep.
>>
>> Which raises the question: Did Radian re-engineer the base 
>> dimensions or did the fear of litigation cause Radian to up the numbers?
> 
> Purely speculation, but a lot has changed in the last 25 years, 
> including how windspeeds are specified (or, more properly, what load 
> corresponds to what rated speed), perhaps some assumptions about the 
> bearing capacity of soil, perhaps standard construction practices have 
> changed?
> 
> One likes to hope that folks aren't motivated by "fear of litigation" 
> but, rather, a desire to "do the job right", and if a reanalysis 
> shows you need different dimensions, then so be it.  I sort of doubt 
> they just blindly increased the size in hopes that it would be "safer".
> 
> 
>> I've installed two towers for myself, both Rohn 25G, both in the 30' 
>> to 40' range ( I use a full section for the base) and both were 
>> planted in 2' X 2' X 4' holes. Neither came down (yet).
> 
> That's not surprising on a sample of 2. The footing design would 
> generally not be designed to fail at 1 mi/hr over the limit, but 
> would include some margin for things like variations in soil, 
> variations in material properties, etc.  Failure is a probability 
> thing, not a "exceed the limit and total destruction is certain" sort of 
> thing.
> 
> Jim, W6RMK 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> 

-- 
73, Dick, W1KSZ
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

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