Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Tower Foundation Pouring

To: "'JVarney'" <jvarn359@gmail.com>, <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Tower Foundation Pouring
From: "Hardy Landskov" <n7rt@cox.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 19:30:58 -0500
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
I think the lawyers also had a hand in the wording to protect the company.
73 N7RT

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
JVarney
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 6:20 PM
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Tower Foundation Pouring

That's where the urban myth came from. It's on tower manu- facturers plans
but it gets misinterpreted as gospel. If we couldn't use forms and compacted
backfill, there would be thousands of buildings, bridges and retaining walls
that never would have been built.

I think the cast-in-hole against undisturbed soil method is great as long as
the soil can hold a vertical face. In loose soils that cave in, open forms
and compacted backfill may be a better solution. Unusual soils may need a
custom design because the manufacturer's generic design may prove inadequate
at that location. This is also true for sidehill locations.

73 Jim K6OK


Dick W1KSZ wrote:

>> I think it's more than just an ..."urban myth"... .
>> From what I have seen, it's recommended by the Tower Manufacturer.
_______________________________________________



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

_______________________________________________



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

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