My Ryerson book is not handy, but there is some serious weight in a wide
flange, say 8' or 10" web that is 20'0 long. And then there is consideration
for the "fixed to ground" part.
Fred KC5YN
On Friday, January 26, 2018 9:41 AM, Grant Saviers <grants2@pacbell.net>
wrote:
Sure, outriggers work on trailer mounted crank-ups or pneumatic masts.
Enough stiffness/strength in the outrigger and long enough and the need
for mass or a hole in the ground goes away.
Grant KZ1W
On 1/26/2018 5:03 AM, Hans Hammarquist via TowerTalk wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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
|