Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Guyed + self supporting /2 ??

To: towertalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Guyed + self supporting /2 ??
From: Steve Maki <lists@oakcom.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 21:02:04 -0400
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
On 10/15/2014 10:42 AM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:

Actual modelling shows that guying can increase the load limits if
properly applied.  In the crank up tower case, UST specifically
says its OK to guy the base section.  The load on the base will
be less than the self supporting case and in any event, the base
is in compression and not be the weak link.

I have a certified engineer doing the modelling.  I'm just reporting
here what he is telling me.

After much repeated discussion on this forum over the years I asked a
structural engineer about this, and he confirmed what you are saying - that basically a guy system could be designed for pretty much any *self supporter* to favorably affect it's load limits (within a reasonable footprint), but that it would be silly to start out designing one that way since it would be a waste of materials. If you're going to guy a tower, use a *guyed tower*.

But when someone says *you MUST not guy a self supporter*, it makes me cringe.

-Steve K8LX
_______________________________________________



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

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