Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Tower buried section legs -- Buried in Concrete orBelow

To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Tower buried section legs -- Buried in Concrete orBelow
From: "john@kk9a.com" <john@kk9a.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 07:00:04 -0500
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
I concur. Also you would need a lot wider chunk of concrete to bury a
section.

John KK9A


To:     <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject:        Re: [TowerTalk] Tower buried section legs -- Buried in Concrete
orBelow the Concrete?
From:   "Jeff DePolo" <jd0@broadsci.com>
Date:   Mon, 08 Feb 2016 23:50:58 -0500


I have no reason to doubt that's the case, but unless there was a real good
reason to do it, I would almost always be biased towards a pier pin.  The
encased bottom section provides some resistance to axial rotation, and if
the tower is designed and guyed properly with respect to the design loads,
that should be a non-issue -- the guy wires (double-guyed if necessary)
and/or torque arms/triangles should be doing the work, not the base.  The
buried base could be argued to provide a bit more lightning protection, but
a properly-designed and properly-installed ground system makes that a moot
point as well.  If anything, the pier foundation would require less concrete
than a buried base as the only stress is compression with a pin.

So, what's left that would make the buried base preferable over a pier pin?
Saving a few minutes of time when stacking the bottom couple of sections is
hardly a reason in my book :-)

73.

                                        --- Jeff WN3A


_______________________________________________



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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [TowerTalk] Tower buried section legs -- Buried in Concrete orBelow, john@kk9a.com <=