Most Popular Articles
Effects of Tower Standard 222G
Previous revisions of the standard have discussed “normal soil,” however, G eliminates this designation. In G, an annex is included that lists parameters for various soil types that may be used for bid purposes in the absence of a boring report. Before a final design is completed, however, borings should be performed and this data considered. This is one area in which corners should never be cut. While the potential exists that adequate geotechnical information could reduce cost of a project, Murphy would tend to dictate that structure failure, the other end of the spectrum, will result if proper borings are not obtained.
These design items among others are applied to structures depending on the applicable categories in which they fall. Broadcasting towers would typically be considered Class II structures: Those that represent a significant hazard to human life and/or property should they fail. In addition, each structure is also considered under exposure categories, which are used to adjust wind loading based on the terrain roughness in the vicinity of the structure. There is an additional topographic category that corrects for sites on hills or elevated locations other than buildings. The result is a much more specific solution for each structure rather than a cookie-cutter approach based on broad regional assumptions.
Other important items have been included as part of the latest revision. G has taken a much more comprehensive look at corrosion protection. Previous revisions have listed hot-dip galvanizing as the minimum corrosion protection, and this is continued in G. What is so important in the latest revision is that the requirements for protection of anchors in corrosive soil are expanded. Guy anchors are kind of like icebergs in the sense that what you see above ground is not the full enchilada, and not necessarily representative of their overall condition. There have been numerous failures in recent years of towers as a result of corrosion of steel guy anchors going unnoticed. If your periodic inspections have neglected comprehensive examinations of the guy anchors, now is the time to get them checked before the tower becomes horizontal.
Not just the tower
Revision G contains a significantly greater number of climbing and working requirements. The minimum spacing between rest platforms on towers greater than 500' in height has been reduced. Warning signs are required if a structure does not comply with the provisions of the standard pertaining to climbing and working facilities. Safety climb systems must also now carry a stamped or engraved metal tag at their base indicating the size and type of cable. This is to insure compatibility with the safety equipment of personnel. A 3/8" cable is defined as the standard to minimize the equipment that must be maintained by climbers.
So although Rev G winds up being more detailed, it offers many advantages affecting the design of a structure and related pricing. A better understanding of loads on a structure may allow for more capacity, although this should not be expected in every case. Nevertheless, by considering more detailed parameters, a given structure becomes a truly custom solution, and allows for increased capacity without over or under designing a tower.
It should be noted that the use of G is required when analyzing an existing structure for applications beyond the original scope of design performed under previous revisions. So if your tower was built during the era of the C revision and you propose the addition of an auxiliary antenna not initially considered, your engineer must study the structure under G not C. Most jurisdictions and insurance companies will, however, require use of the most current revision regardless.
Although the face of our industry is changing somewhat, the necessity of towers is an undeniable fact. Failure of one or more structures can clearly result in significant economic impact. While some of the design portions of Revision G may have limited applicability to older towers for which no changes are proposed, the safety and protection portions certainly apply, and should be considered regardless of the age of your tower. The bottom line is that Rev G is a good thing, and the standard authors have crafted an excellent standard.
Ruck is a senior engineer with D.L. Markley and Associates, Peoria, IL.
Acceptable Use Policy blog comments powered by Disqus
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Today in Radio History
The history of radio broadcasting extends beyond the work of a few famous inventors.
EAS Information More on EAS
The feed provides feeds for all US states and territories.
Need a calendar for your computer desktop? Use one of ours.
Browse Back Issues[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Also in the January Issue
- Trends in Technology: AES-X210, The "Missing Piece" of AES67?
- FCC Proposes Online Publc File Rules for Radio
- RF Engineering: Licensing AM Stations Using Method of Moments
- Field Report: Zoom H6