Wow.
Onerous, imho.
Wondering if amateur towers in fact are subject to the IBC?
Are they "telecommunication towers"? Those being commercial.
I can understand the requirement, IF the tower in question is somehow
within "striking distance"
to people/other structures. But in the instance where the tower sits off
at some distance from same,
and on a sufficiently sized private property (is there such a thing as
private property??) and the owner carries adequate liability insurance,
what's the point?
Well I know the argument that will come back, but it makes a tower into
"a rich man's game"... not exactly
fair, imho.
_-_-
PS. IF I was buying the tower /new, /I'd insist that the mfr get the
"wet stamp" up to date... or some other persuasive document to me.
On 10/8/2017 2:59 PM, Mickey Baker wrote:
Quick explanation of how your building code affects your tower permit
from a city government point of view.
Building codes generally specify the requirements for construction of
structures to withstand risks at whatever location something needs to
be built. Generally, amateurs are sensitive to wind load requirements
as a limiting factor as to what can be built where. We should also be
realistic and conservative as to what wind load we attach to towers.
Every set of engineered plans for a tower that I've seen have a set of
calculations for the wind load presented by the tower itself and a
design wind load.
The IBC and most other building codes specify structural requirements
for certain types of buildings. The IBC classifies Towers as
"Miscellaneous and Utility Group U" structures. You'll find this in
Chapter 3 of the 2012 IBC, p 312.1. Specific structural/wind load
requirements are in Chapter 16.
A licensed professional engineer would need to examine the tower
construction, come up with a structural analysis and perhaps certify
that your tower meets the code that your municipality requires.
If you have a certification of an older code for the same tower, this
will be a good place to start and might save you money in hiring an
engineer to certify compliance to the new code, particularly if you
have the detailed structural analysis.
Generally, building officials that work in a municipality are not
officially qualified to determine if an old code is the same as a new
code. Some of them are indeed, PE's, but the service that a building
department offers is to examine plans for sufficiency - compliance to
code, not to discern differences in current vs. older versions of
building codes for new construction.
You can go in and argue that the "new code is the same as the old
code" all day long, show them texts from the code, etc., but until
they have a licensed professional agree with you by stamping your
plans and certifying it as such, you're not likely to get a permit.
My advice - find the PE who originally certified the plans and pay
him/her to certify to the standards you're seeking. $500 is cheap.
I'm not a PE, but I am the CIO of a city government and have been
through this myself several times as a ham - yes, I pull permits, and
yes I pay for the stamp. It isn't that the building department doesn't
want to help you, it is that they are constrained by their legal
requirements to issue a structural permit and open the government to
potential liability if they divert from the code.
Resistance is futile. Get a wet seal PE stamp and build your tower.
73,
Mickey N4MB
Mickey Baker, N4MB
Palm Beach Gardens
/“Tell me, and I will listen. Show me, and I will understand. Involve
me, and I will learn.” /Teton Lakota, American Indian Saying.
On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:00 PM, bear <bear@bearlabs.com
<mailto:bear@bearlabs.com>> wrote:
I'm ignorant of this IBC thing.
So aside from the idea that it OUGHT to be called the
/Intra/national Building Code, and Wikipedia
says they picked "International" because it was applied to some
juristictions outside of the USA...
(which makes little sense to me) I downloaded the 2012 copy from
Archive.org.
Nothing in there makes a reference to antennas or towers.
Is there another version that does?
_-_-
On 10/7/2017 12:00 PM, towertalk-request@contesting.com
<mailto:towertalk-request@contesting.com> wrote:
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 12:02:30 -0700
From: Raymond Benny<rayn6vr@gmail.com <mailto:rayn6vr@gmail.com>>
To: Tower Talk<TowerTalk@contesting.com
<mailto:TowerTalk@contesting.com>>,
"CADXA_SHARE1@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:CADXA_SHARE1@yahoogroups.com>"
<CADXA_SHARE1@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:CADXA_SHARE1@yahoogroups.com>>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Wet samp for TX455 USTower
Message-ID:
<CAHv=PBFCtwJfSRK+643AgNZ+C90-L_MTBkKKcr8NnAkXisvT5g@mail.gmail.com
<mailto:PBFCtwJfSRK%2B643AgNZ%2BC90-L_MTBkKKcr8NnAkXisvT5g@mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
All,
I'm looking for a wet stamped UST TX455 set of plans for IBC
2012, any
state.
The UST website has a wet stamped plan for IBC 2006, my County
has asked me
for an IBC 2012 set. I am hoping they might accept another
State copy. At
least I can give it a try. UST did sent me their IBC 2012, but
it is not
stamped.
I told my local Building & Safety Dept that it would cost $500
or more for
an Arizona copy. They have been flexible in the past, so I'm
hoping they
will be lenient again.
73 & thanks for any help,
Ray,
N6VR
Chino Valley, AZ
--
-- bearlabs.com <http://bearlabs.com> --
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com <mailto:TowerTalk@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|