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

[Fred Keen]

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 at 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 at earthlink.net>
> To: towertalk <towertalk at 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 at contesting.comhttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


_______________________________________________



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