Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Earthing a tower

To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Earthing a tower
From: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 09:21:04 -0800
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
On 1/2/13 8:39 AM, K8RI wrote:
On 1/2/2013 10:12 AM, Jim Lux wrote:

I haven't found the one on the NWS event yet, but there is a comment
about half way down on
http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=131113
by  dereckbc referring to a telecom site grounding to minimum spec.

Yeah, I saw that one.. it wasn't clear whether the 4AWG copper wire was installed correctly




The NWS event I was referring to was part of a Sky Warn training session
a couple of years back, but I have little sense of time so all I can say
for sure is that it was probably some time in the last ten years.  I've
not found the specific photos I was referring to, but all I did find
appear to be related to moisture getting into the metal/concrete interface.


that seems to be a common thread in failures.

I suppose that if you had a failure like this (spalled concrete), compared to, say, a rod that didn't make good contact with the soil, you'd never see the "damage" buried with the rod, while the concrete damage is obvious.

And, of course, neither says anything about whether the thing that was being protected was damaged, or the relative cost to repair. You could be in a situation where the rod grounding electrode survives, but the equipment it's "protecting" is destroyed, or conversely, the concrete spalls but the equipment survives.




Third row down on (Depending on your screen resolution) shows a pier pin
tower base with a chunk blown out http://www.bing.com/images
/search?q=concrete+damage+by+lightning&qpvt=concrete+damage+by+lightning&FORM=IGRE




the one at ecm-web.. the guy anchor with the Ibeam sunk into the pier?
http://ecmweb.com/content/upgrades-tv-station-tower-ensure-247-operation

later on the bing page I found a better article with better pictures
http://www.copper.org/applications/electrical/pq/casestudy/a6137/a6137.html

ALong with the comment that the problem was that the rebar wasn't adequately bonded, but that the quasi Ufer ground was so much better that lightning took that path (causing damage) rather than the conventional driven rod.

And I love this quote:
"Finally, we pulled out and inspected the grounding electrodes at the anchors and found that several of the exothermic welds had failed. Several conductors were also broken, possibly by earthmoving equipment during construction. With all these problems, plus the poor connections and high ground resistance, it’s no wonder lightning ignored this part of the grounding system!”

Breaking a weld is quite the chore... what did they do, run a bulldozer over it.

Another interesting quote at the end of the article:
"Copper is cheap insurance compared with the equipment damage that could occur if the system is inadequate."

This is where the difference between a ham installation and a broadcast installation is most evident. At a multi million dollar installation that has a 24/7 requirement, the decision to spend a few thousand dollars on big copper and ring grounds etc is fairly easy. They spent more on labor than on the copper most likely. But that's a different cost and risk model than most hams would use.


_______________________________________________



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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>