Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" " <br />.' " <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Results, Option 1 <br /> <br />dExistinq Tower ti1h Existinq Antennas) <br />\;80 MfJi wind and!lQ'.li;L Analvsis'Der <br />TIA/EIA-222-F. <br /> <br />Mast: <br /> <br />Leas: The maximum combined stress ratio in the <br />vertical members is 1.21 at elevation 180' <br />which is less than the maximum allowable <br />value of 1.33. See comments. <br /> <br />Diaq: The maximum combined stress ratios in the <br />braCing members is 0.95 at elevation 400' <br />which is less than the maximum allowable <br />value of 1.33. See comments. <br /> <br />GUvs: The minimum guy safety factor is 2.42 at <br />elevation 520' which is greater than the <br />minimum required value of 2.00. See comments. <br /> <br />Foundation: <br /> <br />Ba <br /> <br /> <br />Actual axial load at b~se of tower per our analy- <br />sis is 232,300 Rips. This results in a net bear- <br />ing ,pressure of 3337 PSF based on foundation <br />drawing numberc810975 llY Unarco-Rohn. Allowable <br />net bearing pressure is 3000 PSF based on drawing <br />number C810975 by Unarco-Rohn and soils report by <br />Subterranean Engineering, Inc. date July, 1981. <br /> <br /> <br />EEl cannot comment on nor account for the existing <br />soils under the base foundation to safely support <br />this increased net bearing pressure. We suggest <br />the vertical load at the base of the tower is <br />forwarded., to Subterranean Engineering, Inc. to <br />review the base ,design and their soils report to <br />determine if soils are adequate. Modifications <br />may be required. <br /> <br />Inn Anc: Actual vertical uplift load of 14.53 Kips and an <br />actual horizontal load of 18.79 Kips per our <br />analysis. Per the original reactions furnished to <br />Subterranean Engineering, Inc. by Unarco-Rohn, the <br />inner anchors were design for an uplift load of <br />17.10 kips and a horizontal load of 21.80 kips. <br /> <br />Due to the lack of information regarding the <br />existing anchor shaft, EEl cannot comment on nor <br />account for the capacity of the existing anchor <br />shaft to develop reactions per our current <br />analysis. <br /> <br />3 <br />