|To:||Paul Christensen <firstname.lastname@example.org>,Tower Talk List <email@example.com>|
|Subject:||Re: [TowerTalk] exploding foundations|
|From:||Jim Lux <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:20:33 -0700|
Paul Christensen wrote:
What exploding concrete?? Back up your claim with real life validated proof. My experience has been the opposite.
The text says the only grounding was through the foundation and makes no mention of whether it was a properly constructed CEGR (i.e. 20 feet of conductor, etc.)
Also, the picture does not show whether a structural failure occurred as a result of the lightning damage (the tower is still standing, after all), or whether that's just surface damage. If it's a 1/8" deep crack in the surface and doesn't penetrate, who cares? For all we know from the limited data in the article there was a prexisting crack in the concrete that was enlarged as a result of steam induced spalling.
Considering that Ufer did an awful lot of tests over the years, and subsequent researchers have also done a lot of tests, I think that if there actually was a realistic concern about spalling and exploding foundations it would have shown up in the reviewed literature (as opposed to in anecdotal reports or ground rod manufacturer sales literature). I have no doubt that there are cases where there has been lightning damage, but I would suspect that those don't fit in the category of a proper concrete encased grounding electrode. For instance, the "3 2 foot J bolts in the top of the footing" used to bolt the tower mounting plate is probably NOT a suitable grounding connection.
The article also sort of contradicts itself. On the one hand it advocates external grounding systems, but then, it says that the external 20 rod grounding system showed an impedance of 150 ohms, but after bonding to the structural steel, the impedance dropped to 1 ohm. Sounds to me like the steel was a better ground than the rods.
The article also mentions the "conduit as choke" thing, which I used to believe in, but subsequently have not seen a good analysis to show that it actually works, particularly for large surge currents, taking into account the magnetic saturation of the steel.
Which section? (just curious.. I don't have my copy of 780 here)
_______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [TowerTalk] Ufer gnds/foundations, Jim Lux|
|Next by Date:||Re: [TowerTalk] exploding foundations, Doug Renwick|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [TowerTalk] exploding foundations, Paul Christensen|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [TowerTalk] exploding foundations, K4SAV|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|