Ken,
Yes, your proposed approach will work, but a few additional points to
consider:
- Pipe is a very non-cost effective structural shape for this
application! You would be much better off to find a junkyard that sells
I-beams. This is very commonly available, and a far more efficient shape
for structural side-loads than pipe.
- Plan on using L O T S of concrete! The foundation must resist the
overturning moment that the I-beam (or pipe) will apply to the foundation.
73
Frank
W3LPL
donovanf@sgate.com
On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Claerbout, Ken wrote:
> It dawned on me last night as I was mowing the lawn that I could
> probably go with the guying dimensions for 110' tower since that is
> what I would have in effect. The top guy could be moved down from
> 101' to 99' or so. The only problem is that I do not have the room
> to go out 88' from the tower for guy anchors. This may not be a
> problem since I wanted to elevate the guy point to keep someone
> from hanging themself in my backyard.
> On my 75' Rohn 25G I have one of the points elevated using a steel
> pipe, filled with concrete, with an OD of 3 1/2" and wall
> thickness of 1/4". It works fine for this appliation.
> Are there others who have done this and would care to share their
> experiences? This would seem to be an acceptable subsutitution for
> the traditional guy point provided the pipe & concrete base is
> capable of handling the reactive loads as provided in Rohn's
> catalog.
> Using a bit of trigonometry (remember that fun stuff), the location
> of the pipe and height can be obtained so that the guy lines are at
> the same angles and the load is distributed properly.
>
> 73 K4ZW
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search
|