Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Where did 0.6 come from?

To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Where did 0.6 come from?
From: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:34:16 -0800
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
On 2/10/13 8:30 AM, SPWoo wrote:
I'm not an engineer by profession; so I'm not saying that this is correct.  In 
various software programs and Excel spreadsheets I obtained from ham-related 
sources use a Cd of 1.2 for round members and 2.0 for flat members.  A specific 
example of this is the AntennaMast Calculator that came with the ARRL Antenna 
Handbook.



And Kurt's page gives similar numbers..

What's odd is that Cd of 1.2 for transverse flow over a cylinder is for a VERY low Reynolds number (like 400 => 0.5" cylinder at 1 mi/hr) and laminar flow.

Of course, Cd is lower than 1.2 for anything with higher Re, so maybe it's a safe assumption. But it also doesn't mean that the drag force on a 2" round pipe is 0.6 of the drag force on a 2" flat strap.

The curves of Cd vs Re are very different for a cylinder and a flat plate and a square member. So what the "standard" does, probably, is take a worst case.. Cd is never bigger than 1.2 for a cylinder. Cd is never bigger than 2.0 for a flat plate. Both might be less, but then, the standard overestimates the loads, and the resulting structure will be safe.

I think one thing the Kurt's page makes clear is that the tower standards and the "wind ratings" that derive from them are not necessarily based on actual aerodynamic analysis. They're a standard where you plug in the parameters to see if your proposed design meets the standard.

For instance, it doesn't really matter what the wind speed actually is: you use the "wind zone" (older versions) or the "reference wind speed by county" (newer versions). What matters is that when you calculate the "wind load" by multiply the frontal area of your tower by the pounds/square foot number for your area.

That is, the standard gives a common and uniform way to determine what the design loads for your structure should be (whether or not those happen to be the real loads.. hopefully, the design load is always GREATER than the actual loads you expect to see)

  After that it's straightforward structural analysis.

_______________________________________________



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

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