Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

# Re: Guyed Tower

• To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
• Subject: Re: Guyed Tower
• From: "Greg Smith" <strusup(--nospam--at)gte.net>
• Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 19:52:40 -0500

```     Yes, but it is standard practice to pre-tension the cables which would
result in a larger "virtual" catenary.

Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Wright <chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com>
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Date: Monday, August 02, 1999 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: Guyed Tower

>>I have not designed a tower either but my thought on it is to model it
>>by :  if the ground support is point A and the tower connection is point B
>>and the cable at point A is not tangent to horizontal (very few would be)
>The cable force is statically determinate and the shape falls out of the
>assumption that the cable has no bending stiffness. A given weight of
>cable supported between two specified points assumes one and only one
>shape which you can figure out yourself. The cable tension falls out from
>the end slopes of the catenary curve assumed by the cable so as to
>balance the weight with the resultant force tangent to the curve at the
>ends. The curve doesn't form by elastic deformation like the deflection
>curve of a beam. A finite element approach would be pretty elegant. If
>you used the calculated catenary as model input, you could find the
>results of applied loads on the tower, however.
>
>Christopher Wright P.E.    |"They couldn't hit an elephant from
>chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com        | this distance"   (last words of Gen.
>___________________________| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania 1864)
>http://www.skypoint.com/~chrisw
>
>

```