On 16 Mar 99,, tgstewart@pepco.com <tgstewart@pepco.com> wrote:
> However, compared to Phillystran, which has most of the same concerns, it
> is about 1/3rd the cost for a stronger product.
>
Another thing to think about is the coefficient of elasticity. That may
be the wrong term, but what I mean is how much does it stretch for
a given load.
In a recent calculation posted on his Web site, Kurt, K7NV, showed
that Rohn towers with the bottom section sunk in concrete, rather
than pier pinned, get pretty close to the 1.0 safety factor, below the
bottom set of guys, when using Phillystran. This seems to be related
to a greater stretch per unit force. You need to know how much this
stuff stretches, and not just ultimate tensile strength, before deciding
whether it is acceptable.
Kurt, correct me if I've run astray here...
73 Barry
--
Barry Kutner, W2UP Internet: w2up@mindspring.com
Newtown, PA FRC alternate: barry@w2up.wells.com
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|