Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Engineering\s+advice\s+on\s+above\s+ground\s+foundation\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Engineering advice on above ground foundation (score: 1)
Author: Rudy Bakalov <r_bakalov@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
I have a rather complex situation that certainly can benefit from the collective wisdom and experience of this reflector. My property has a very high water table and as a result my builder and I deci
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-06/msg00125.html (8,083 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] Engineering advice on above ground foundation (score: 1)
Author: "K1TTT" <K1TTT@ARRL.NET>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:41:01 +0000
Complex situations like that call for professional advice. I would have hoped that instead of 'my builder and I decided' you could have stated that the professional engineer's design plans said to do
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-06/msg00128.html (10,538 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] Engineering advice on above ground foundation (score: 1)
Author: <john@kk9a.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 18:12:45 -0400
Instead of relying on the undisturbed earth to hold your tower in position, you are basically relying on a 60,000 pound weight with a 10 foot square footing to hold up a 90 foot tower. Since this is
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-06/msg00139.html (9,857 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] Engineering advice on above ground foundation (score: 1)
Author: <scottw3tx@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:17:06 -0400
I agree with KK9A. Your project needs to be reviewed/studied/stamped by a PE licensed in your state before you do anything else! Safety is first, second, and third! Don't risk anyones life or propert
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-06/msg00140.html (10,949 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] Engineering advice on above ground foundation (score: 1)
Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:49:21 -0700
Worse... if it's in water, the 60,000 pounds only weighs about 25,000 pounds. It's the difference between standing on a log laying on the ground and a log floating in a lake (well.. not that bad, but
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-06/msg00143.html (8,144 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] Engineering advice on above ground foundation (score: 1)
Author: "Richard Elizondo" <relizondo@ionoscom.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 17:54:03 -0500
The following are some things that could help in the review process. Type of concrete and rebar used. Soil samples. Pictures of the installation. Was the excavation belled into the soil at the lowest
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-06/msg00146.html (13,607 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] Engineering advice on above ground foundation (score: 1)
Author: <john@kk9a.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 21:36:50 -0400
Is the concrete base growing? The original post (shown below) said that the base is 10 x 10 x 5 which is 18 1/2 cu yards of concrete and would weigh considerably less than your estimate. As Jim Lux p
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-06/msg00161.html (13,475 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] Engineering advice on above ground foundation (score: 1)
Author: "Richard Elizondo" <relizondo@ionoscom.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 22:07:04 -0500
_____ "In Rudy's case the section modulus (b x d x d / 6) of the foundation area is 11x11x11 / 6 = 221 ft cu." I think I am missing something here 11x11x11 ? Secondly, I am not try to argue the fact
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-06/msg00167.html (17,112 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu