[Towertalk] Inquiry - Tower Collapse/Fall/Radius Zone

[Guy Olinger, K2AV]

I would call that severe overload.

Maybe a C3 up there.

----- Original Message -----
From: <n4kg@juno.com>
To: <TOWERTALK@contesting.com>; <k2av@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Towertalk] Inquiry - Tower Collapse/Fall/Radius Zone


> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002  "Guy Olinger, K2AV" <k2av@contesting.com>
writes:
>
> > One thing I do NOT see often in these collapse discussions, is
> > discussion of the merits of self supporting towers in these tight
> > situations.
> > SNIP
>
> > A self-supporting tower is made of much stronger stuff at the
bottom
> > than at the top, and apparently has a VERY different failure mode.
I
> > have heard only one failure story on a Trylon self-supporter.
(LXC,
> > any tales or stats on self-supporting?)
> >
> SNIP
>
> I saw an 80 ft Heights Aluminum Tower with KT34XA
> laying in the side street 3 weeks after installation.
> One of the tapered legs folded in on the base or
> next to base section.  I have never understood
> why Heights does NOT have a horizontal brace
> on the TOP of each section, especially the ones
> which taper in.
>
> Contributing factors included some defective welds
> and probable overloading of the tower based on
> low wind speed ratings.  The owner was advised
> against placing such a large antenna on this tower
> but proceeded anyway.
>
> Tom  N4KG
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
> _______________________________________________
> Towertalk mailing list
> Towertalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>