US Cellular LTE Upgrade Structural Analysis Report I
I
I
i
i
Edge
Consulting Engineers, Inc.
624 Water Street
Prairie du Sac, Wisconsin 53578
608.644.7449 Phone
608.644.1549 Fax
w;
wwedgecons
,STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT
PREPARED FOR:
AF I
ue ,..,ellutar
140 FT MONOPOLE
LTE INSTALLATION
BL AIR 11 1
BLAIR NEBRASKA
EDGE PROJECT NUMBER-,,.,
E'i 80
a
A
STRUCTURAL ANALYS REPORT
Project Information: Blair II
217 North 10th Street
Blair, NE 68008
Client Project Number: 855486
Client: U.S. Cellular - Madison
5117 West Terrace Drive
Madison, WI 53718
Contact: Brand! Vandenberg
Phone: (402) 515 -8275
Consultant: Edge Consulting Engineers
624 Water Street
Prairie du Sac, Wisconsin 53578
Contact: Andy Bradley
Phone: (608) 644 -1449
Edge Project Number; 8180
Date: November 7, 2012
-- -- 11 /7/
Jo Sweno, ELT, Date
Structural Engineer
KL Cl
y a RYAN JO 7°
READE
E•12916
sT9T�r OF
11 --
Ryan J. Reader, PZ, S -E, Date
Structural Engineer
i
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 'I
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION 2
2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 2
2,2 PURPOSE OF REPORT 2
2.3 SCOPE OF SERVICES 2
SECTION 3 ANALYSIS 3
3.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3
3.2 LOADING CONDITION 3
33 ANALYSIS CRITERIA 4
3.4 ANALYSIS METHOD 4
3.5 TOWER FOUNDATIONS 4
SECTION 4 RESULTS 5 j
4.1 TOWER STRUCTURE 5
4.2 TOWER FOUNDATIONS 5
4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS b
SECTION 5 LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 7
FIGURES
I
Figure 1: Feedline Placement Diagram
APPENDICES
Appendix A: TIA -222 -G Analysis Criteria Definitions
Appendix B: Structural Calculations
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Site Name: Blair II
Site Location: Blair, Nebraska
Purpose: LTE Installation
Tower Type: 140 ft, Monopole
We have completed a structural analysis of the above described tower, per your LTE installation
request. The existing antennas to be removed include two (2) Ante] BCD -80010 E -DIN omni
antennas located at an elevation of 142.5 feet, Accordingly, all feedlines associated with these
antennas are to be removed, The work further called for the installation of three (3) Powerwave
P65E- 17 -XL -R panel antennas and three (3) KMW KASCTPR82008 Bias -T's at an elevation of 139
feet. Included with the installation are six (6) additional 1 -5/8" coax.
Our analysis was completed per the TIA- 222 -G, Under TIA -222 -G requirements, the performed
investigation is considered a rigorous analysis.
An additional analysis was also performed in accordance with the TIA /EIA- 222 -F.
One loading scenario was considered in the analysis, The loading condition takes into account
the modified existing tower loading along with the proposed loading.
The analysis shows that per TIA- 222 -G, the existing tower is structurally adequate to support the
proposed change in loading.
Similarly, the additional analysis shows that per TIA /EIA- 222 -F, the existing tower is structurally
adequate to support the proposed change in loading.
Please refer to the report which follows this summary for further information. Fee] free to contact
us if you have any questions or concerns.
Blair lL(855486)_Structural Analysis Report_2012- 11 -07.docx _ 1 _
i
i
SECTION 2
INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
This report summarizes the results of a tower structural analysis conducted by Edge Consulting
Engineers (Edge) for U.S. Cellular, who is considering modifying the loading condition of an
existing 140 foot monopole,
2.2 PURPOSE OF REPORT
The purpose of this report is to assess the adequacy of the existing tower structure to support the
proposed antenna, feedline and other appurtenance loading configurations while considering
appropriate wind and ice loading criteria, This assessment was completed using background
information provided by the client and /or obtained in the field (where noted) and in
conformance with current applicable codes, client directed protocols, and the judgment of the
structural engineer.
2.3 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services for this project included structural analysis and modeling of the tower
structure and foundation systems in accordance with client supplied information. A
comprehensive study was completed to obtain more detailed information regarding the tower
structure and foundation composition, while also verifying the tower geometry and existing tower
loading. This type of analysis, under the TIA -222 -G standard, is considered to be a "rigorous'
analysis of the tower including each member connection, weld, bolt, and gussets.
This report summarizes the structural analysis results,
Blair 0_(855486)_Shuatura1 Analysis aeporr_2012- 11- 07,aocx -2-
I
SECTION
ANALYSIS
3.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The subject tower is an existing Sabre 140 foot tall, 18 sided, tapered monopole which was
originally designed in July of 2007. It is our understanding that the tower geometry has not been
altered from the original design, We were provided the following information at the project
outset:
i
1, Tower & foundation drawings: Sabre Eng. File: 08 -07109 dated 7/24/2007
2. Tower inventory report: Edge Eng, File: 8180 dated 10/30/2012
3. Proposed antenna and feedline loading configuration
4. Information from a comprehensive study of the tower and foundation
5. Geotechnicai report: GSI Eng. File: 071113 dated 7/27/2007
The tower was originally designed under TIA /EIA -222 -F with an 80 mph basic wind speed and 1/2"
radial ice,
The following information was not provided or available at the time of this analysis:
1. Information regarding the condition of tower members
Edge recommends that qualified personnel assess the physical condition of the tower, in
accordance with the guidelines provided in the TIA -222 -G standard. j
3.2 LOADING CONDITION
I
The listed elevations for panel antennas are representative of the antenna centerline. For omni
and dipole antennas the listed elevations represent the base of the antenna,
The following loading condition was considered during this analysis:
Antenna Technology Coax Details Carrier /
Height # Manufacturer &Model # Mounting Type / Notes ( #) Size Location Owner Status
118' 6 Kathrein Scala 742 215 12.5' Platform w/ Handrail Panel (12) 15/8" Tower Interior AT &T Existing
118' 6 Powerwave LGP18606 12.5' Platform w/ Handrail TMA AT &T Existing
139' 3 Powerwave P65E -17 XL-R 12.5' V -Frame LTE (6) 15/8" Tower Interior U.S. Cellular Proposed
139' 3 KMW KASCTPR82008 12.5'V-Frame Bias -T - - U.S, Cellular Proposed
140' 2 Antel BSA - 185065 -10 12.5'V-Frame PCs (2) 1 -5/8" Tower Interior U.S. Cellular Existing
140' 4 Antel BSA - 185065 -12CF 12.5'V-Frame PCs (4) 1-5/8" Tower Interior U.S. Cellular Existing
1425 2 Antel BCD -80010 E -DIN 12,5'V-Frame TDMA (2) 1 -5/8" Tower Interior U,S. Cellular Existing
(To Be Removed)
The loading condition is further described in the Designed Appurtenance Loading table
provided in Appendix B.
The feedline placement associated with the proposed loading condition which was considered
in this analysis is attached as Figure 1,
Blair II_(855486)_5tructural Analysis Report_2012- 11-07.docx -3-
3.3 ANALYSIS CRITERIA
This analysis was performed in accordance with both TIA -222 -G and TIA /EIA- 222 -F. Per the current
Nebraska Building Code (IBC 2006), TIA /EIA -222 -F is required. The basis of this report is the results
from the TIA -222 -G analysis, though the status of the tower according to TIA /EIA -222 -F is also given.
Analyzing the tower with TIA /EIA- 222 -F, the basic wind speed for Washington County, Nebraska is
80 mph with no ice, 69 mph with 0.50 inches of ice, and a 60 mph service wind speed for
deflection calculations.
Analyzing the tower with TIA- 222 -G, the basic wind speed for Washington County, Nebraska is 90
mph with no ice, 50 mph with 0.75 inches of ice, and a 60 mph service wind speed for deflection
calculations.
This analysis utilized the following Tower Structure Class, Topographic Category and Exposure
Criteria;
Tower Structure Class; II
Topographic Category, 1
Exposure Criteria: C
These criteria were selected based on the location and use of the subject tower, Should the
client desire an alternate Structure Class or have reason for selection of other criteria, they must
contact the engineer.
Definitions of the different categories and criteria were taken from the TIA -222 -G standard and
are provided in Appendix A,
3.4 ANALYSIS METHOD
Structural analysis computations and modeling of the tower structure were performed using TNX
Tower Version 6,0 software, TNX Tower is a general - purpose modeling, analysis, and design
program created specifically for communications towers using the TIA -222 -G (including Addenda
No. 1 and 2) or any previous TIA /EIA Standards back to RS -222 (1959). Steel design Is checked
using the AISC ASD 9 1h Edition or the AISC I_RFD Specifications, This program automatically
generates nodes and elements for a subsequent finite element analysis (FEA) for standard tower
types including self - support towers, guyed towers and monopoles. It allows entry of dishes,
feedlines, discrete loads (loads from appurtenances) and user defined loads anywhere on the
tower. TNX Tower uses wind effects from multiple directions and ice loads to develop pressure
coefficients, wind pressures, ice loads and resulting forces on the tower per TIA code
requirements.
3.5 TOWER FOUNDATIONS
The drilled pier tower foundation was reviewed for the resulting applied forces due to the
proposed change in loading,
Blair II_(855486)_ tructural Analysis Report_2012- 11 -07.docx _4_
i
i
I
i
BECTION
REBULTS
4.1 TOWER STRUCTURE
The analysis results of the existing tower structure, when considering the proposed loading
condition, indicate the tower structure is adequate
The results of the analysis are shown in the following table. The ratio listed for each tower element
represents the capacity ratio calculated for the controlling member(s) for each element type,
Capacity ratios of less than 105% are considered acceptable,
i
Capacity - Results
Capacity
Tower Sturcture Elements Ratio Comment
Pole
0 46.75' 29.0% Adequate
Base Plate / Anchor Rods
(Bolt Tension) 24.0% Adequate
Diagrams of the towers maximum deflection, tilt, and twist are provided in Appendix B.
The controlling capacity ratio per the TIA /EIA -222 -F analysis was 32,7 % (Pole 0'- 46.75').
4.2 TOWER FOUNDATIONS
The analysis results of the existing tower foundation when considering the proposed loading
condition indicates the tower foundation system is adequate
The results of the analysis are shown in the following table, The reactions from the original tower
design were compared against those calculated for the loading condition. The ratio of
proposed to original reactions was computed. Ratios of less than 1.05 are considered
acceptable,
Tower Foundation Results
Condition Axial Shear Moment
(Kips) (Kies) (K -Ft)
Original 54.8 56.6 6044.0
Proposed 37.6 20.0 17924
Ratio 1 0.69 0.35 0.30
The original design reactions have been multiplied by 1.35 per TIA- 222 -G,
The results of the additional foundation analysis verify the adequacy of the tower foundation.
From this analysis it was found that the foundation meets requirements per the current ACI
specification.
Blair II_(855486)_Wucturai Analysis Report_2012- 11 -07.docx -5-
i
i
4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
l
Based on the results of this analysis, it is our professional opinion that the existing tower structure
as analyzed under the proposed loading condition meets the requirements of TIA -222 -G as a
rigorous analysis.
Similarly, the tower foundation is adequate under the proposed loading condition and the
requirements of TIA -222 -G as a rigorous analysis,
Based on the results of the additional analysis in accordance with TIA /EIA- 222 -F, the existing tower
and foundation structure are adequate as analyzed under the proposed loading condition.
If the proposed loading condition is altered from that analyzed, this report shall be deemed
obsolete and further analysis will be required,
Blair II Analysis Report _2012- 11 -07.docx _�
I
I
SECTION 5
LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
1. This report was prepared in accordance with generally accepted structural engineering practices common to the tower
industry and makes no other warranties, either expressed or implied, as to the professional advice provided under the terms
of the agreement between Engineer and Client, This report has not been prepared for uses or parties other than those
specifically named, or for uses or applications other than those enumerated herein. The report may contain insufficient or
inaccurate information for other purposes, applications, and /or other uses.
2. This report is intended for the use of the client, and cannot be utilized or relied upon by other parties without the written
consent of Edge Consulting Engineers,
3. Edge consulting Engineers is not responsible for any, and all, tower modifications completed prior to, or hereafter, which
Edge Consulting Engineers was not, or will not, be directly involved.
4, The model, conclusions, and recommendations contained within this report are based upon the supplied and attained
information as described within the report. If it is known, or becomes known, that any item(s) are in conflict with what is
described within this document, this report should be considered void and Edge Consulting Engineers should be contacted
immediately.
5, Edge Consulting Engineers disclaims all liability for any information, conclusion, or recommendation that is not expressly
stated or represented within this report,
6. Edge Consulting Engineers shall not be liable for any incidental, consequential, indirect, special or punitive damages
arising out of any claim associated with the use of this report.
7, The scope of worked performed for this analysis is limited to the items in which we were furnished complete and accurate
information.
8. Accessories and appurtenances such as antenna mounts, feed line ladders, climbing ladders, lighting mounts, etc. were
not analyzed as part of this work, and Edge Consulting Engineers, Inc. makes no claim as to their adequacy of their design
or their installation.
9. This analysis was performed under the assumption that all tower elements are in like new condition, free from rust and other
deterioration. It is also assumed the tower was properly installed per construction documents, and that the tower and all
associated appurtenances were originally designed and fabricated in accordance with all applicable codes and
standards, Edge Consulting Engineers cannot account for, nor be held responsible, if tower elements are deteriorated,
damaged, and /or missing.
lo, This tower analysis was performed based upon the antenna, feed line and other appurtenance loading and placement as
described within this report. Any alterations to the described loading or placement will require re- analysis of the tower, and
the findings contained in this report are not valid.
The loading conditions utilized for this analysis is based on information provided by the client, and readily available
manufacturer /vendor information (antenna and mount projected areas, weight and shape factors), However, if the
described loading criteria and design assumptions within this report are not accurate, are altered, or changed in any form,
this analysis shall be considered void and an additional analysis must be performed.
12. It is the responsibility of the client and the tower owner to thoroughly review the existing and proposed loading, and bring
any discrepancy to the attention of Edge Consulting Engineers.
13. Modification designs are to be based upon a rigorous analysis per the TIA -222 -G standard. As such designs assume any
suggested modifications are installed as recommended and are not intended to address temporary conditions on the
tower as modifications are being performed. It is strongly recommended that the Installer of any tower modification
thoroughly assess installation procedures and how temporary conditions present while modifications are being performed
influence tower members. Installer is responsible for sequence of operation and any required temporary bracing or
strengthening of tower during modification operations,
14. Site - specific loading or local building code requirements may be more stringent than the minimum loading requirements
specified in the Standard. These and other unique loads or loading combination requirements are to be specified by the
owner (in the procurement specifications).
15. Supplementary rime ice and in -cloud ice loadings (including thickness, density, escalation with height and corresponding
wind speed) are to be included in the procurement specification when appropriate for a given site location.
16. The service loads and deformation limits specified in the Standard are the minimum requirements for communication
structures. When more stringent requirements are required for a specific application, the serviceability limit state basic wind
speed and, if required, the serviceability limit state design ice thickness; the deformation limitations (twist, sway and
horizontal displacement) and the location /elevation where the deformation limitations apply are to be included in the
procurement specification.
Blair II-(855486)-Structural Analysis Report_2012- 11 -07.docx -7-
i
I
FIGURE
DIAGRAM FEEDLINE PLACEMENT
r------------------- ------------------------------ ----------------------- - - - - -1
^Ak
I 1
I 1
I 1
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I 1
1
I 1
I I
I I
NORTH 1
I 1
i I
I I
I I
I 1
I I
I I
I 1
I 1
I I
I 1
I 1
I I
I I
I 1 I
I 1
I 1
I 1
I 1
1 2 3 I
I 1
4 5 6 1
I 1
I 1
I 1
I I
1 7 8 9
I
1 10 11 12 1
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I 1
I 1
I 1
I I
I 1
I 1
I 1
I 1
1 13 14 15 16
I I
17 18 19 20 1
21 22 23 24 1
1 I
I I
I 1
I 1
I 1
I 1
I i
I 1
I 1
I 1
I 1
I I
I 1
I 1
1 'TOWER COAX ROUTING 1
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I 1
I 1
I I
Cocnc # Size Mounting Type Carder / Owner Term Inadon Height Status
I I
1 - 6 1 -5/8" Tower Interior U.S. Cellular 140' Existing
1 I
7- 12 1 -5/8" Tower Interior U.S. Cellular 139' Proposed I
I
13-24 1 -5/8" Tower I nterior AT &T 118' Existing
I 1
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 1
I 1
I i
I I
I I
I 1
I
I
i
I
I
APPENDIX A
TIA-222-G
I
i
I
Feasibility Structural Analysis
A feasibility structural analysis is used as a preliminary review to identify the impact of
proposed changed conditions. This type of analysis determines the overall stability and the
adequacy of the main structural members to support a proposed changed condition. A
feasibility structural analysis does not include the evaluation of connections and may
consider that the structure has been properly installed and maintained,
The reactions from a feasibility structural analysis may be compared to the original design
reactions to identify the impact on foundations due to proposed changed conditions, When
the original design reactions are based upon an Allowable Stress Design procedure, the
original reactions shall be multiplied by a 1.35 factor for comparison to the reactions
determined in accordance with this Standard.
Rigorous Structural Analysis
A rigorous structural analysis is used to determine the final acceptance of proposed
changed conditions and /or required modifications. This type of analysis determines the
overall stability and the adequacy of structural members, foundations and connection
details. A rigorous structural analysis may consider that the structure has been properly
installed and maintained.
For a rigorous analysis of a foundation, site specific geotechnicai and foundation data are
required.
Note; Certain foundation details and connection details (such as inside weld sizes of flanged
leg connections) cannot be determined without dismantling the structure or extensive field
nondestructive testing. The assumptions regarding these types of details shall be
documented along with the results of the rigorous structural analysis,
Tower Structure Class
Class I
Structures that due to height, use or location represent a low hazard to human life and
damage to property in the event of failure and /or used for services that are optional
and /or where a delay in returning the services would be acceptable,
Class II
Structures that due to height, use or location represent a substantial hazard to human life
and /or damage to property in the event of failure and /or used for services that may be
provided by other means.
Class III
Structures that due to height, use or location represent a high hazard to human life
and /or damage to property in the event of failure and /or used primarily for essential
communications.
i
Topographic Categories
(,
Category 1
No abrupt changes in general topography, e.g. flat or rolling terrain, no wind speed -up
consideration shall be required,
I
Category 2
Structures located at or near the crest of an escarpment. Wind speed -up shall be
I
considered to occur in all directions. Structures located vertically on the lower half of an
escarpment or horizontally beyond 8 times the height of the escarpment from its crest,
shall be permitted to be considered as Category 1,
Category 3
Structures located in the upper half of a hill, Wind speed -up shall be considered to occur
in all directions. Structures located vertically on the lower half of a hill shall be permitted
to be considered Category 1,
i
Category 4
Structures located in the upper half of a ridge, Wind speed -up shall be considered to
occur in all directions. Structures located vertically on the lower half of a ridge shall be
permitted to be considered as Category 1,
Exposure Criteria
Exposure B
Urban and suburban areas, wooded areas, or other terrain with numerous closely spaced
obstructions having the size of single - family dwellings or larger, Use of this exposure shall
be limited to those areas for which terrain representative of Exposure B surrounds the
structure in all directions for a distance of at least 2,630 ft, or ten times the height of the
structure, whichever is greater.
Exposure C
Open terrain with scattered obstructions having heights generally less than 30 ft. This
category includes flat, open country, grasslands and shorelines in hurricane prone
regions.
Exposure D
Flat, unobstructed shorelines exposed to wind flowing over open water (excluding
shorelines in hurricane prone regions) for a distance of at least 1 mile. Shorelines in
Exposure D include inland waterways, lakes and non - hurricane coastal areas, Exposure D
extends inland a distance of 660 ft, or ten times the height of the structure, whichever is
greater. Smooth mud flats, salt flats and other similar terrain shall be considered as
Exposure D.
I
I
i
APPENDIX
CALCULATIONS STRUCTURAL
i
I
DESIGNED APPURTENANCE LOADING
TYPE ELEVATION TYPE ELEVATION
(2) BSA -, 85065110CF w/Mount Pipe 140 12.5'V-Frame (U.S. Cellular) 138
(U.S. Cellular) 12.5'V-Frame (U.S. Cellular) 138
(2) BSA - 185065/12 w/Mount Pipe 140 12.5'V-Frame (U.S. Cellular) 138
139_0 It (U.S. Cellular) 972^ Antenna Mount Pipe (U.S. 138
(2) BSA- 185065 /12 w /Mount Pipe 140 Cellular) j
(U.S. Cellular) 982" Antenna Mount Pipe (U.S. 138
15'x2 112" Pipe Mount (Tower) 139 Cellular) j
Lightning Rod 5/8x4' (Tower) 139 9'x2" Antenna Mount Pipe (U.S. 138
P65E- 17 -XL -R w/ Mount Pipe (U.S. 139 Cellular)
Cellular) (2) 742 215 w/ Mount Pipe (ATI) 118
P65E- 17 -XL -R w/ Mount Pipe (U.S. 139 (2) 742 215 w/ Mount Pipe (ATI) 118
Cellular)
P65E- 17 -XL -R w /Mount Pipe (U.S, 139 (2) 742 215 w/ Mount Pipe (A71) 118
a ppp Cellular) (2) LGP18606 TMA (ATI) 118
KMW KASCTPR82008 (U.S. Cellular) 139 ( LGP18606 TNIA (ATn 118
"• N �' ,� W u I KMW KASCTPR82008 (U.S. Cellular) 139 (2) LGP18606 TMA(Al� 118
125 Platform w/handrail (ATE) 117
KMW KASCTPR82008 (U.S. Cellular I 139
TOWER DESIGN NOTES
1. Tower is located in Washington County, Nebraska.
2. Tower designed for Exposure C to the TIA -222 -G Standard.
3. Tower designed for a 90 mph basic wind in accordance with the TIA -222 -G Standard.
4. Tower is also designed for a 50 mph basic wind with 0.75 in ice. Ice is considered to increase
in thickness with height.
95.5 ft 5. Deflections are based upon a 60 mph wind.
6. Tower Structure Class II.
7. Topographic Category 1 with Crest Height of 0.000 It
8. Weld together tower sections have flange connections.
9. Connections use galvanized A325 bolts, nuts and locking devices. Installation per
TIA/EIA -222 and AISC Specifications.
10. Tower members are "hot dipped" galvanized in accordance with ASTM All 23 and ASTM
A153 Standards.
11. Welds are fabricated with ER -70S -6 electrodes.
12. TOWER RATING: 29%
Q
46.8 ft
ALL REACTIONS
ARE FACTORED
AXIAL
58876 Ib
N
M N SHEAR MOMENT
v 758216 688979 lb -ft
TORQUE 44 lb -ft
50 mph WIND - 0.750 in ICE
AXIAL
376371b
SHEAR � MOMENT
2001416 179239216 -ft
0.0 ft
TORQUE 91 lb-ft
N REACTIONS - 90 mph WIND
N_ —
g J
N 2 O C
Edge Consulting Engineers l ob: Blair ll (855486)
Edga 624 Water Street Project: 8180
no Burelnu Engl „ °��' rn °_ Prairie du Sac, WI 53578 Client: U.S. Cellular Drawn byjsweno App'd:
Phone: 608.644.1449 Code: TIA -222 -G Date: 11/02/12 Scale: NTS
FAX: 608.644.1549 Path: e�emmeieo�snu�m aiv�e, Moaenei,,, a el 1 c m .1uzi. Dw9 No. E -1
TIA -222 -G - Service - 60 mph Maximum Values
Deflection (in) Tilt (deg) Twist (deg)
0 5 10 0 0.5 0 0.05 0.1
139.00C 39.000
I I I I I I
I I I I 1 I I I
1 I I I i I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I ( I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I 1 1
I I I I I I I I I I ( I
I I i I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I ( I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I 1 i I I I I I
1 I I I i 1 I I
i I I I i I I I I I I I
i I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I 1 I I I
I I I I I I I i
I I I I I I i I I I I I
I I i I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I i I I I I I I I I I I I I
I i I I I I I I
I I I i I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I i i I I
i I I I I I I I I I
95.50
I I I I I I 1 I I I
I I i I I I i I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I 1 I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I 1 I I I I I I ( (
i I I I i i I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I i I I I I
I I I I I I i I I I I I
o I 1 I I I I I I I I I I
I I I 1 I I I I I I I I
I I I i I I I I
i I I I I I
W I I
I I I I I I i i
I I I I I I I I ( I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I i I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I 1 I I I
I I I I I i I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
46.750 I I 6.750
'-- +-- - --' -- ----- +
-- � - -1 -- - - - - - ----------- -�- - -- -- ---- I - -- I -- ---- -�-- �- - - --
I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
i I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I 1 1
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I
0.000 1 1 .000
0 5 10 0 0.5 0 0.05 0.1
Edge Consulting Engineers "': Bl air 11(855486)
Edge 624 Water Street Project: 8180
Prairie du Sac, WI 53578 O11e nt: U.S. Cellular Drawn Wisweno App'd:
Phone: 608.644.1449 code: TIA -222 -G Date:11/02/12 scale: NTS
FAX: 608.644.1549 Path: u�emmelemsm�rn „an.o-xz,rnoe�ne�aal 855486 rexT — ee..c - -1oa1 Dwg No. E -
Feedline Distribution Chart
0' -139'
Round _ Flat App In Face App Out Face Truss Leg
139.000 Face A Face B Face C 139,000
118.000 - - - 118.000 - - - - - - - pl - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
95.500 95.50
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I-_____________(4 -_____ -
0
0
E
4!
>
0
LU
46.750 ___________._ - - - - - - - - - - - 46.750
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
it
10.000 - - - - - - - - - - - 10.000 ----- - - - - - 1'
8 : 8.000
3 .000 ____________$,____________ - 3.000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.000 0.000
Edge Consulting Engineers "': Blair H (855486)
Ed ga- 624 Water Street Project: 8180
Client: Drawn ly:jsweno App'd:
Prairie du Sac, W1 53578 U.S. Cellular I I
Phone: 608.644.1449 Code: TIA-222-G Dale: 11/02/
Path:
FAX: 608 . 644.1549 -1-1 T11X 1—
Drilled Pier Foundation Calculations f
Project Name - Blair II [855488]
Blair, Nebraska Consulting Engineers, Inc,
Edge #8180
Completed By: Sweno
Checked By: Reader
Applied Loads;
Axial (P) = 31.4 kip *Divided by 1.2
Shear (V) = 12.5 kip (Reactions wto ice) *Divided by 1.6
Moment (M) = 1120.2 k -ft *Divided by 1.6
Foundation Dimensions & Soil Properties:
Pier Diameter (D = 10.00 ft
Pier Total Height (H = 42.00 ft
Pier Height Above Ground Surface (H = 1.00 ft
Water Table Depth (d,,,) = 18 ft *Per Geotech Report
Y -a 115 lb /ft'
= Ib /fO
Woi= 16
q,= 1500 Ib /fe Net
y <= 150 Ib /fO
87.6 lb /ti *Concrete below the water table
H r 23.0 it
Hug - H p,er — Hp
Underground Pier Length (H, = 41.00 it
Steel Requirement
A D _ ) z
.005
.,� _ �r • 2 J
Min Steel (A,,,,, = 56.5 in'
Vertical Reber Size= #10
Pieces of Verttical Reber = 58
Vertical Reber Diameter (d = 1.270 in
Area of Vertical Steel (As) = 73.5 in' Good
Bearing Check
Distance on top of Ignored Skin Friction (d 5.0 ft
Allowable Skin Friction (F,) = 175.0 psf
2 z 1
Y1 o,r a;a (DZ;e.I ' H 8 Y 10 0 + (DZ " J tr H, 1000
l JJ Weight of Concrete (W. = 124.5 J kip *y = 0 if q is not net
R _ Dpier- (Hug dtO -Ra
Applied Skin Friction (R = 197.9 kip Ok...Friction resists any bearing
P +W —Ri .1000
9, n
rD e l
I l 2 J
q,,,,= 0 psf gmax<ga OK !
Passive Soil Pressure
Allowable Passive Soil Pressure (q = 1863.0 psf
1, =H, — Sjt
Effective Pier Length (I = 36 it
V arPr = AJ
1, 1
Shear Force Couple (V,,, = 46.68 kip
__ f oo�nra +V
9P j
Applied Passive Soil Pressure (q = 328.8 psf
Ratio = 0.176 qp < qpa OK
(