HomeMy WebLinkAbout06090095 Correspondence
. ~~!~r~g'!~I~nt5
Phone (847) 282 - 0200
FaH (847) 292 - 0206
9700 W. Higgins Road. Suite 800 Rosemont, Illinois 60018
Fullertonenglneerlng.com '
September 7, 2006
Ms. Lisa Donnell
Sprint Nextel
3000 Corporate Exchange Blvd., Suite 200
Columbus.OH 4323 I
RE: SprintfNextel Sitc lN73XR538 (IN2572
Woodland
1776 East I 161h St.
Carmel, IN 46032
Dear Ms. Donnell:
Per your request, we have completed a structural review of the existing monopole structure and the
existing equipment sbelter. The purpose of the review was to determine the conformance of the
monopole and the equipment shelter with the governing 2003 Indiana Building Code and the industry
standard TIA/EIA-222-F-1996 (Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna
Supporting Structures).
The 90 ft. monopole structure currently has an existing configuration of (3) Sprint iDEN antennas (EMS
Wircless model DR90-11-00DBL) mounted on (3) standoff mounting arms at 90 ft. above grade and (9)
7/8'~ diameter coax lines routed inside the-monopole:--'Thc-existing standotT- mounting-~arms-will-be
replaced by (3) new Dual Standoff Mounts (Valmont model B1827) at 90 ft. above grade, each of which
will support (2) antennas, All existing Sprint antennas will be relocated to the new mounts and all coax
lines will remain. Three (3) new Sprint CDMA antennas ((2) Jaybeam Wireless model PCSX065-18-2H
and antennas and (I) Jaybeam Wireless model A- I 8A24-U antenna) will be installed on the new mounts
at 90 ft. above grade and (3) new 1-5/8" diameter coax lines will be routed inside the monopole. Our
rcview considered (3) additional antennas, (3) additional coax lines, and (3) new dual standoff mounts.
We have reviewed the original monopole and foundation structural design report performed by Fort
Worth Tower dated June 29, 2001, and compared its analysis loading to the new loading, Our conclusion
is that the existing monopole structure and foundation are adequate for the new loading, since the
additional loads result in less loading than was considered in the original design loading.
The equipment shelter is supported by a concrete slab on grade, with turn down edges installed below
frost line. The final configuration of existing equipment racks and the addition of (I) digital rack (1,000
Ibs), (1) battery rack (1,000 Ibs) and (I) radio rack (1,200 Ibs) were considered in our review. Our
conclusion is that because the w,' ht of the additional equipment will be supported by the existing
concrete slab on grade, the existing eql 'pment shelter is adequate for the final loading condition.
If you have allY questions or cJ"cerns, p ase do not hesitate to contact us.
-'''''~--71~- \ ,,1I~U:;'.'f
._ ,," I"
// V cry' r \ .... ~ ~. BELt ~ ....
/ ,.';4. \'t. ~G' '.
'~ \ l~ ~6\STE~~ "1~\
:~ ~ N <:> tp'i,
-'2:' o. "."
~* PE19900017 *s
~1l STATE OF (/: i
\,0-<,,,, /J\tD'A~'" ~4f./
" '~.s. Q,~ ....
....,8tONAL E.~....,
""11."""