Yeah. As I recall, the last such thread was triggered by someone wanting to
guy a crank-up. It morphed into a general discussion on any guyed
self-supporters. As I recall, Yuri finally quenched the issue by making the
distinction between cable-dependent crank-ups and non-cable-dependent
(ratcheted) or fixed self supporters. It would appear from all those old
posts that leg failure in compression would take a back seat to other
possible failure modes such as section interfaces, dynamics, and all those
other issues that require more than simple static analysis. There seemed to
be a consensus that guying a cable-dependent crankup was probably a bad
idea, but that certain fixed self-supporters might benefit. Proving it,
however, would not be a trivial task, which is probably the reason most
manufacturers avoid the issue even though their towers woud 'appear' to be
capable.
All that still leaves us back at the "analyze it if you have the
credentials, or pay someone else who does; otherwise do what the maker says"
point. YMMV.
Chuck, N4NM
> I note the periodic return to this topic initially with
> amusement, but eventually with annoyance. There is a prejudice on the
> reflector against crank-up towers and some of this rubs off on
> self-supporting towers..... after all it isn't guyed Rohn 25/45/55 so it
> cannot be right.
>
> To suggest that a sensibly guyed 'self-supporting' tower is less safe than
> without the guys is risible......(as I said in my post of 18 April 2003!)
>
> Chris
_______________________________________________
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|