Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Fwd: Square Hole or Round Hole for Self Supporter?

To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd: Square Hole or Round Hole for Self Supporter?
From: Hans Hammarquist via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Reply-to: Hans Hammarquist <hanslg@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 08:03:41 -0500
List-post: <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
 I wonder if the old idea of using two 20 foot steel beams in an X 
configuration anchored to the ground with screw anchors would work.According to 
the script each anchor has a pull-up rating of 14,000 pounds. That wold result 
in a resulting 280,000 foot-pound torque which might be enough for a decent, 
self-supporting tower. I don't know if a buried or above-ground installation 
should be best. Buried makes inspection for corrosion damages hard while 
above-ground is a trip hazard.


I've never seen it implemented but believe an above-ground installation could 
be cheaper (depending on the price of the steel beams) than a buried cement 
lump. At least it would require a back-hoe. Just a thought.


Hans - N2JFS

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
To: towertalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:22
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Square Hole or Round Hole for Self Supporter?

On 1/22/18 12:06 PM, Richard Thorne wrote:> Clay,> > I emailed a fella by the 
name of Jeremy.  He quoted me $2800 for a 10' > hole.> >  From the other post's 
on the subject probably a reasonable number. I'll > still research the back hoe 
method.  I'll bet will be less expensive to > use a back hoe and have the dirt 
hauled off (if needed).> generally that's the case.  Round piers are handy if 
you're already drilling them for some other reason, or if you have limited room 
on top (a 20 foot deep 3-4 ft pier will fit a lot of places)There's also other 
schemes - shallower and larger in plan, for instance.There have been 
discussions on this list a few years ago about a sort of X plan -essentially 
radial reinforced concrete beams - you could be pretty shallow, at the cost of 
having 10 or 15 foot "arms" sticking out.   There are lots of engineering 
alternatives - there's nothing "special" about the "cube" as a base.Or, if your 
self supporter isn't a "flagpole" and skinny - Tapered to
 wers: HV transmission towers, Windmills and Rohn BX have a lot of taper.  I 
suspect that you don't need a lot of "foundation" under the feet for that - 
enough to keep the downwind leg from sinking, and the upwind leg from 
lifting.______________________________________________________________________________________________TowerTalk
 mailing 
listTowerTalk@contesting.comhttp://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>