[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Square vs Round Holes

To: <>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Square vs Round Holes
From: "Daron Wilson" <>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 14:36:56 -0700
List-post: <">>
> Nobody said the hole has to be square. Find a utility pole contractor
>has a digger derrick truck with a 36" bit.

I'm going to have to argue just a bit.  I suspect that whomever did the
engineering on the tower base drew a square hole for the foundation.  If
that is the case, you have an engineered solution and it is not wise to
deviate from that.  Can you?  Sure.  Is it likely to increase your personal
liability?  Absolutely.  IF you have an issue with the tower, good luck
defending your position.

>ALL OF the traffic light / street light poles in your city have round
>holes and you cant knock 
>them down with a truck. Trust me, I seen it tried.
> Might even save on concrete.
There is much more to the picture than just the shape of the hole.  I bet
when you were setting traffic poles and street lights in cardboard tube
forming there were SPECIFIC design requirements for the size of the tube,
the depth below grade, and the steel inside the pour. 

- 4x4x8 square hole - 128 cu. feet, 4.7 yards of concrete, weight of the
base is roughly 19,000 lbs.
- 3' diameter hole 8 feet deep - 56 cu. feet, 2.1 yards of concrete, weight
of the base is roughly 8,290 lbs. (not quite the same)

Just for fun...

- 3' diameter hole, 16 feet deep - 112 cu. feet, 4.2 yards of concrete,
weight is roughly 16,600 lbs.

Of course this is just a consideration for the difference in mass and
weight, not at all taken into account are the other factors like leverage
and the amount of surface area of the pour in contact with the earth.

Something tells me there is more to it than just 'dig a round hole instead'.

Your mileage may vary...

Daron N7HQR


TowerTalk mailing list

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