Can you explain more "stringent"

Discussion in 'Design, Development and Standards Discussions' started by David Lehrer, Nov 14, 2008.

  1. David Lehrer

    David Lehrer Industry Observer

    There seems to be a general consensus that Rev G is more ?stringent? than Rev F. Under Rev F the purchaser is required to provide the fastest mile basic wind speed and an exposure category. Ice should be detailed, but it?s not a requirement.

    With Rev G you will be required to provide wind speed, classification of structure, topographic and exposure categories, ice, seismic, etc. or default values will be used.

    Does ?stringent? mean that Rev G is more inflexible in design requirements such as mandatory ice values or does ?stringent? mean that the structure, if designed under Rev G, would be stronger and fare better than one that was designed under Rev F if default values for both revisions were used? If the latter is correct, then would a Rev G Class 1, Exposure B Category tower with no ice be ?less stringent? than one designed under Rev F using default values?
  2. Mike  Plahovinsak

    Mike Plahovinsak Friend of the Community

    Although I haven't run more than a handful of designs, from what I've seen, a (4) carrier structure designed under Rev-F will be lighter than a (4) carrier structure under Rev-G.
  3. Simon Weisman

    Simon Weisman Industry Observer

    Rev G is definitely more stringent than Rev F in its requirement to consider ice and seismic issues, as well as in its explicit requirements for treatment of certain appurtenances. Also, its requirements for consideration of more loading conditions, especially the effects of overestimating some loads in tall guyed masts with long spans and self supporting towers with multiple tapers make it more stringent.

    As far as I know, there was no intention of making towers heavier, as there was a consensus that, on the whole, towers properly designed to the requirements of Rev F were performing well and posed no significant risk to the safety of the public. Rev F did have some areas where it provided the designer little or no guidance, and most of these areas have been addressed together with the need to harmonize with other national standards for structures.

    It is true that too little testing and calibrating has been done, but it is unlikely that all structures designed to Rev G will be heavier.

Share This Page