Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Square\s+vs\s+Round\s+Holes\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Square\s+vs\s+Round\s+Holes\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Square vs Round Holes (score: 1): Author: Dino Darling <dino@k6rix.com>; Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 14:10:55 -0700; -=Since everyone else takes liberties of changing the SUBJECT name of the thread, let me give it a shot also.=- "Save on concrete"? Its not the shape of the hole that matters, but the size of the fou; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-05/msg00216.html (8,842 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] Square vs Round Holes (score: 1): Author: "Its from Onion" <aredandgold@msn.com>; Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 16:09:20 -0500; well there are lots of PE's that disagree. I have formed hundreds of holes 36" round X 8 feet with 4 yards of cement and they have held up for years. When was the last time a tractor-trailer truck st; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-05/msg00217.html (9,887 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] Square vs Round Holes (score: 1): Author: "Rick Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>; Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 14:26:35 -0700 (PDT); FWIW, on my HDX5106 I had a 6 ft round hole (9 ft deep) dug with a large auger truck. I had a round rebar cage fabricated by a local rebar shop, and dropped it in the hole. No problem at all. Rick N6; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-05/msg00220.html (8,186 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] Square vs Round Holes (score: 1): Author: Dino Darling <dino@k6rix.com>; Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 14:26:37 -0700; Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to have your PEs take the following data and convert it to a 36" round hole... http://www.ustower.com/hdx572.pdf Unlike a light pole that has a 8" - 12" b; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-05/msg00221.html (10,733 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] Square vs Round Holes (score: 1): Author: "Daron Wilson" <daron@wilson.org>; Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 14:36:56 -0700; 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 i; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-05/msg00223.html (9,343 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] Square vs Round Holes (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com; Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 17:43:29 EDT; provide (and have on here) drawing certified by PE and state contractors that disagree with your assessment. The basis is that the PE that calculated and stamped the plans has designed the hole. In t; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-05/msg00225.html (8,309 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] Square vs Round Holes (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 14:50:54 -0700; Not necessarily. If the mass is being used as a "big weight in the ground", then that's what's important. If it's for a free standing tower, then it's mostly resisting the overturning moment, so long; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-05/msg00226.html (10,514 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] Square vs Round Holes (score: 1): Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>; Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 17:18:34 -0700; I agree. Calculating equivalences (round versus square) almost for sure requires a competent engineer, and it might even (maybe even probably) be significantly different depending upon location. For; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-05/msg00233.html (9,773 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]