Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Towertalk\]\s+Pouring\s+base\s+of\s+tower\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Towertalk\]\s+Pouring\s+base\s+of\s+tower\s*$/: 39 ]

Total 39 documents matching your query.

21. [Towertalk] Pouring base of tower (score: 1): Author: drboz@pacbell.net (Donald R. Bozarth); Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 14:34:42 -0800; Well, from U.S. Towers the Registered Professional Engineer (State of California) requires the base for the TX-455 to be a single pour. "footing shall be a continuous pour such that cold joints will; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-12/msg00090.html (19,639 bytes)
22. [Towertalk] Pouring base of tower (score: 1): Author: Tom Sessions" <k4rv@mindspring.com (Tom Sessions); Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 23:02:31 -0000; At the suggestions of another Tower Talkian I checked out the USAnchor.com website. The below web address has a product that is claimed to be useful for bonding concrete to concrete. I am not sure if; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-12/msg00093.html (9,305 bytes)
23. [Towertalk] Pouring base of tower (score: 1): Author: dick@twohams.com (Dick Flanagan); Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 16:30:53 -0800; The epoxy concrete bonding adhesive I used when I had to two-pour my nine-yard tower foundation was a Five Star product. It comes in two one-gallon cans, each half full. When it is time to apply, you; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-12/msg00097.html (8,823 bytes)
24. [Towertalk] Pouring base of tower (score: 1): Author: kr7x@attbi.com (Hank Lonberg); Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:34:10 -0800; Dean: Yes there is: ACI 318-02 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete ACI 301-XX Specifications for Structural Concrete for Buildings Both from ACI (American Concrete Institute) ACI 318 i; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-12/msg00098.html (10,947 bytes)
25. [Towertalk] Pouring base of tower (score: 1): Author: kb9cry@attbi.com (Phil - KB9CRY); Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 21:30:04 -0600; Well I finally talked to my industrial concrete contractor and described the original question. He told me that the pier on a larger pier is just like a footing/foundation wall design and as long as; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-12/msg00146.html (16,161 bytes)
26. [Towertalk] Pouring base of tower (score: 1): Author: clewis@knology.net (Chuck Lewis); Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 23:53:33 -0600; Wait a minute!!! This application is NOT like a footing! I hope someone with some credentials will chime in here and keep us from doing some dumb stuff! Footings do not have to withstand overturning; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-12/msg00149.html (19,821 bytes)
27. [Towertalk] Pouring base of tower (score: 1): Author: jfarr62@comcast.net (John D. Farr); Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 03:59:36 -0600; Chuck: I'm no expert either but have had a course or two on concrete and foundation design. Sorry, I can't say you are full of c**p. Like you, I find several troubling things about this thread. Most; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-12/msg00154.html (12,867 bytes)
28. [Towertalk] Pouring base of tower (score: 1): Author: richard@karlquist.com (Richard Karlquist); Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:05:53 -0800; Yes, but the tensile strength of concrete is very low < 1000 PSI. The rebar provides most of the strength anyway even in a monolithic pour. Rick Karlquist N6RK richard@karlquist.com www.n6rk.com www; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-12/msg00162.html (9,663 bytes)
29. [Towertalk] Pouring base of tower (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com); Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 12:33:26 EST; Not necessarily. Many times in tower bases the purpose of the rebar is to keep the concrete from shrinking and cracking and is not structural. Cheers, Steve K7LXC TOWER TECH; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-12/msg00165.html (8,269 bytes)
30. [Towertalk] Pouring base of tower (score: 1): Author: clewis@knology.net (Chuck Lewis); Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 12:32:07 -0600; That's interesting and gets us a little closer to the solution, provided the rebar cage design is effective for tensile loads. If the tower manufacturer has done this correctly, and the rebar is plac; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-12/msg00174.html (11,146 bytes)
31. [Towertalk] Pouring base of tower (score: 1): Author: RedHaines@centurytel.net (Red); Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 12:40:30 -0600; Chuck is correct regarding the direction of stresses, and that the pier must be fastened to the base or it will overturn on top of the base. However, it is not difficult to achieve that with the re-b; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-12/msg00175.html (25,336 bytes)
32. [Towertalk] Pouring base of tower (score: 1): Author: RedHaines@centurytel.net (Red); Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 09:05:48 -0600; Hi, Chuck; You are correct on both points. The moment arm I mentioned is correct for the righting moment created by the weight of the pier and structure on it. The moment arm for the re-bar is the di; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-12/msg00197.html (35,663 bytes)
33. [Towertalk] Pouring base of tower (score: 1): Author: kk9a@arrl.net (kk9a@arrl.net); Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 15:26:40 -0000; This thread has been going on for a while and I forgot the original question. I don't recall anyone saying this is for a self supporting tower. If it is for a guyed tower and he's building it to Rohn; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-12/msg00199.html (32,518 bytes)
34. [Towertalk] Pouring base of tower (score: 1): Author: na9d@speakeasy.net (na9d@speakeasy.net); Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:42:06 -0800; You are absolutely right. If it is a guyed tower, most of the stress at the base will be a compression force. Very little if any lateral forces on the concrete as these are all taken up by the guys.; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-12/msg00204.html (9,014 bytes)
35. [Towertalk] Pouring base of tower (score: 1): Author: clewis@knology.net (Chuck Lewis); Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:17:16 -0600; Jon (and list), I agree, a guyed tower would be a totally different story, but I checked the original post, and it was for a self-supporting tower, thus the long discussion. A clip of the original qu; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-12/msg00205.html (10,829 bytes)
36. [Towertalk] Pouring base of tower (score: 1): Author: wz7i@arrl.net (Wes Cosand); Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 19:47:56 -0500; I am planning the installation of a self-supporting tower. My contractor asked me a question to which I don't know the answer. Is there any reason why he cannot pour the base in two pours as long as; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-11/msg00000.html (7,012 bytes)
37. [Towertalk] Pouring base of tower (score: 1): Author: kb9cry@attbi.com (Phil - KB9CRY); Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 19:12:30 -0600; No, then you'll have a cold joint which can let water in to attack the steel rebar. Tell him to just form it up properly; it is a little more difficult to do. If you have to do two pours, then specif; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-11/msg00001.html (8,193 bytes)
38. [Towertalk] Pouring base of tower (score: 1): Author: spelunk.sueno@prodigy.net (EUGENE SMAR); Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:30:05 -0500; Wes: From your description it sounds like you're installing a pier and pad type of foundation. That is, the base is a flat, thick concrete slab ( your 9' X 9' X 18" pad), and the tower actually gets; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-11/msg00002.html (8,998 bytes)
39. [Towertalk] Pouring base of tower (score: 1): Author: k3bz@arrl.net (Jerry Keller); Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:37:02 -0500; Phil....I have a similar situation coming up, and I may not be able to avoid multiple pours... do you have a product name for the "Epoxy bonding agent", and a source where can I obtain it? Jerry K3BZ; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-11/msg00003.html (9,193 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 39
Page: [1] [2]