On 1/5/16 9:42 AM, Ken wrote:
I am totally amazed at how concrete has weakened over the years.
More that people care more about edge cases and unlikely scenarios.
All the changes in regulatory codes are usually in response to some "bad
event" and a desire to "make sure that can't happen again".
In a commercial environment (which is what Rohn, et al, design for and
what local codes contemplate when making tradeoffs), the incremental
cost of a cubic yard of concrete against the total job cost (including
labor!) is pretty small.
By and large, businesses and regulators don't contemplate "homebrew"
implementations with self provided labor when making the tradeoffs. You
see this all the time with building codes.
When I put up my 64' UNGUYED Heights tower in 1970, 4'x4'x4' was all
that was required and that held a tribander and other antennas for
years (rebar wasn't mentioned and it was hand mixed concrete). For a
50' guyed tower, all I used was 30" square and 8" deep.
But that was back before we had modern computers to tell us it
wouldn't work.
Ken WA8JXM
On 1/4/16 12:59 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
Rohn recommends more. 3 ft x 3 ft, 4 ft x 4 ft. More mass in the
ground is better when the wind blows.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|