I guess I didn't follow the explaination. Why would there not be a
difference in torsional loading between a tower constrained only at the
bottom versus one constrained at both the top and bottom?
>Comments bottom-postedFrom: "Arthur Trampler" <email@example.com>Subject:
>[TowerTalk] Q on guyed rotating towers<snip>From what I understand part of the
>strength of a guyed tower is that torsional movement is converted into down
>force by the guy wires tightening as they attempt to cover a greater distance
>(as the tower twists).With a rotating guyed tower, is there some sort of
>locking mechanism between the bearings and tower, at least in a given "parked"
>position to allow this phenomenon to occur? Otherwise it would seem that this
>benefit is lost as the guys are not attached to the tower, but to the bearing
>rings.Help me out...maybe the difference in strength is inconsequential or
>mitigated by other factors.Art, K?RO-0-The strength of the tower is the
>strength of the tower, based on the materials and design. LOADING on the
>tower comes from mass and surface area, as the wind works on the structure.
>Loads are transferred into vertical compression by the guy system. Torsio
nal loading on a triangular tower indeed does add to the down force somewhat,
but this is quite small compared to the other loads. Thus, a tower which
rotates inside a ring-coupled guy system is simply relieved of whatever torsion
loading might otherwise be imposed upon it. It is neither stronger nor weaker
as a result.Make sense?n2ea
>TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk mailing list