A few other things to keep in mind.
The tower industry has revised its standards from EIA 222 Rev F to Rev G.
The tower failures in the broadcast industry and the wireless industry
(and the associated fatalities) have caused much more development in the
rigging and foundation designs. As an example, ROHN will not support the
old fold-over designs at all any more. So although the foundation size has
generally increased, it is in good measure to match the safety margins in
the rest of the tower.
We used to think that if the antenna stayed up in the winter, then that
meant it was a good design. The tools are much better now to analyze
circumstances that may not have occurred but could have with regard to a
specific tower. I believe that hams are also putting up bigger arrays.
Bigger arrays mean more stress and a bigger mess if things don¹t go well.
Patrick¹s comments about the options for legal recourse are all spot on.
Greg
N9GB
Greg Best P.E.
16100 Outlook Avenue
Stilwell, KS 66085
-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk <towertalk-bounces@contesting.com> on behalf of Patrick
Greenlee <patrick_g@windstream.net>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 8:17 AM
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Rebar or no rebar
>As our society has become so very much more litigious and jury awards
>have risen toward enormous, the potential cost per failure has risen
>precipitously. Tower base specs above and beyond any reasonable
>requirement tend to remove the tower company from liability. If an
>installation fails it will be clear that is was not the fault of the
>tower MFG as their design is easily seen to be more than adequate.
>
>Same reason why medical costs are often much more a product of
>malpractice insurance rates than the actual cost of the goods and
>services. Anything goes wrong and there is likely going to be a law
>suite, expensive lawyers, and perhaps huge awards.
>
>In the medical instance a reasonable response is expensive high limit
>malpractice insurance. In the tower arena specifying ultra conservative
>bases and guys, where appropriate, is part of the self defense
>preparations of the MFG. Undoubtedly some of the increase in tower
>prices reflects the MFG's rising cost of liability insurance.
>
>These days if anything bad happens, someone has to be at fault so they
>are identified and sued.
>
>Patrick NJ5G
>
>
>On 5/15/2017 4:54 AM, Ken wrote:
>> On 5/14/17 7:41 PM, Mike Ricketts wrote:
>>> Looking at the plans, the foundation (5x5x6) calls for only the 3 base
>>> legs, and no rebar is specified.
>>
>> In 1972, I put up a used Heights 64' tower. All their specs at the
>> time required was 4'x4'x4' of concrete, no rebar. Actually I put it
>> up at two different locations. It is amazing to me how the base
>> requirements have increased over the years. But no one remembers any
>> of the old bases failing. Now that same tower requires twice as much
>> concrete plus rebar.
>>
>> Ken WA8JXM
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|