[TowerTalk] Wet samp for TX455 USTower
bear
bear at bearlabs.com
Sun Oct 8 16:57:47 EDT 2017
Wow.
Onerous, imho.
Wondering if amateur towers in fact are subject to the IBC?
Are they "telecommunication towers"? Those being commercial.
I can understand the requirement, IF the tower in question is somehow
within "striking distance"
to people/other structures. But in the instance where the tower sits off
at some distance from same,
and on a sufficiently sized private property (is there such a thing as
private property??) and the owner carries adequate liability insurance,
what's the point?
Well I know the argument that will come back, but it makes a tower into
"a rich man's game"... not exactly
fair, imho.
_-_-
PS. IF I was buying the tower /new, /I'd insist that the mfr get the
"wet stamp" up to date... or some other persuasive document to me.
On 10/8/2017 2:59 PM, Mickey Baker wrote:
> Quick explanation of how your building code affects your tower permit
> from a city government point of view.
>
> Building codes generally specify the requirements for construction of
> structures to withstand risks at whatever location something needs to
> be built. Generally, amateurs are sensitive to wind load requirements
> as a limiting factor as to what can be built where. We should also be
> realistic and conservative as to what wind load we attach to towers.
> Every set of engineered plans for a tower that I've seen have a set of
> calculations for the wind load presented by the tower itself and a
> design wind load.
>
> The IBC and most other building codes specify structural requirements
> for certain types of buildings. The IBC classifies Towers as
> "Miscellaneous and Utility Group U" structures. You'll find this in
> Chapter 3 of the 2012 IBC, p 312.1. Specific structural/wind load
> requirements are in Chapter 16.
>
> A licensed professional engineer would need to examine the tower
> construction, come up with a structural analysis and perhaps certify
> that your tower meets the code that your municipality requires.
>
> If you have a certification of an older code for the same tower, this
> will be a good place to start and might save you money in hiring an
> engineer to certify compliance to the new code, particularly if you
> have the detailed structural analysis.
>
> Generally, building officials that work in a municipality are not
> officially qualified to determine if an old code is the same as a new
> code. Some of them are indeed, PE's, but the service that a building
> department offers is to examine plans for sufficiency - compliance to
> code, not to discern differences in current vs. older versions of
> building codes for new construction.
>
> You can go in and argue that the "new code is the same as the old
> code" all day long, show them texts from the code, etc., but until
> they have a licensed professional agree with you by stamping your
> plans and certifying it as such, you're not likely to get a permit.
>
> My advice - find the PE who originally certified the plans and pay
> him/her to certify to the standards you're seeking. $500 is cheap.
>
> I'm not a PE, but I am the CIO of a city government and have been
> through this myself several times as a ham - yes, I pull permits, and
> yes I pay for the stamp. It isn't that the building department doesn't
> want to help you, it is that they are constrained by their legal
> requirements to issue a structural permit and open the government to
> potential liability if they divert from the code.
>
> Resistance is futile. Get a wet seal PE stamp and build your tower.
>
> 73,
>
> Mickey N4MB
>
>
> Mickey Baker, N4MB
> Palm Beach Gardens
> /“Tell me, and I will listen. Show me, and I will understand. Involve
> me, and I will learn.” /Teton Lakota, American Indian Saying.
>
> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:00 PM, bear <bear at bearlabs.com
> <mailto:bear at bearlabs.com>> wrote:
>
> I'm ignorant of this IBC thing.
> So aside from the idea that it OUGHT to be called the
> /Intra/national Building Code, and Wikipedia
> says they picked "International" because it was applied to some
> juristictions outside of the USA...
> (which makes little sense to me) I downloaded the 2012 copy from
> Archive.org.
>
> Nothing in there makes a reference to antennas or towers.
>
> Is there another version that does?
>
> _-_-
>
> On 10/7/2017 12:00 PM, towertalk-request at contesting.com
> <mailto:towertalk-request at contesting.com> wrote:
>
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 12:02:30 -0700
> From: Raymond Benny<rayn6vr at gmail.com <mailto:rayn6vr at gmail.com>>
> To: Tower Talk<TowerTalk at contesting.com
> <mailto:TowerTalk at contesting.com>>,
> "CADXA_SHARE1 at yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:CADXA_SHARE1 at yahoogroups.com>"
> <CADXA_SHARE1 at yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:CADXA_SHARE1 at yahoogroups.com>>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Wet samp for TX455 USTower
> Message-ID:
>
> <CAHv=PBFCtwJfSRK+643AgNZ+C90-L_MTBkKKcr8NnAkXisvT5g at mail.gmail.com
> <mailto:PBFCtwJfSRK%2B643AgNZ%2BC90-L_MTBkKKcr8NnAkXisvT5g at mail.gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> All,
>
> I'm looking for a wet stamped UST TX455 set of plans for IBC
> 2012, any
> state.
>
> The UST website has a wet stamped plan for IBC 2006, my County
> has asked me
> for an IBC 2012 set. I am hoping they might accept another
> State copy. At
> least I can give it a try. UST did sent me their IBC 2012, but
> it is not
> stamped.
>
> I told my local Building & Safety Dept that it would cost $500
> or more for
> an Arizona copy. They have been flexible in the past, so I'm
> hoping they
> will be lenient again.
>
> 73 & thanks for any help,
>
> Ray,
> N6VR
> Chino Valley, AZ
>
>
> --
> -- bearlabs.com <http://bearlabs.com> --
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com <mailto:TowerTalk at contesting.com>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>
>
>
More information about the TowerTalk
mailing list