Not Applicable
1. Field of the Invention
This present invention relates to a means of increasing the load capacity of a monopole tower and in particular, an apparatus and method for increasing the bad capacity and stability of the tower to support the weight of additional communication equipment as well as the environmental forces exerted on the tower.
2. Brief Description of Prior Art
Single-pole towers, also referred to as monopole towers are used in the telecommunications industry. In particular, such towers are used to support equipment for wireless phones and other communication devices.
The increase in wireless communications has resulted in an increase of mounted communication equipment of all kinds. Not only do wireless service providers need to install equipment covering new geographic areas, competing wireless service providers need to install additional equipment covering the same or similar geographic areas. The solution to the foregoing problem is to either purchase additional land to erect new towers, or install additional equipment on existing towers. Purchasing land to install additional towers is increasingly expensive, as well as the expense associated with the construction and the maintenance of a new tower.
Towers are designed generally to support the weight of the communications equipment originally installed on the tower, as well as to withstand forces exerted on the tower by environmental factors, such as wind and ice, for example. Towers are generally not designed with sufficient stability to enable the tower to allow for the installation of additional equipment. As a result, prior art methods of increasing the stability of the tower in order to support additional equipment are known to consist basically of familiar, expected and obvious structural configurations, typically reinforcing the weak area of the tower (the area where the additional equipment is to be installed) by means of a weld repair, such as an overlay of welding material. Installing the welding material can be done manually, or by using an automatic welding machine.
Therefore, it can be appreciated that there exists a continuing need for an apparatus and method for increasing the load capacity and stability of a tower to enable the tower to support the weight of additional communication equipment as well as the environmental forces exerted on the tower.
As will be seen from the subsequent description, the preferred embodiments of the present invention overcome limitations of monopole tower arrangements.
With the proliferation of cell phones and personal communications devices comes the need for towers to support additional equipment for wireless phone and other communication devices. The present invention is designed to increase the load capacity and stability of a tower to enable the tower to support the weight of additional communication equipment as well as the environmental forces exerted on the tower. The preferred embodiment generally includes vertical flat bars disposed about the tower and mounted to the tower with one-sided bolts. A joining plate is further disclosed when joining a first vertical flat bar with a second vertical flat bar.
The presence of the tower support elements of the present invention increases the load capacity and stability of the tower. Specifically, the vertical fiat bars provide reinforcement to the tower to allow for the installation of additional equipment.
The prior art monopole tower 100 is generally attached to a base flange 110 and is comprised of a solid sheet of formed metal that forms a structure capable of supporting the various communication equipment that may be attached to the prior art tower 100.
In general, the prior art monopole tower 100 is designed to support the weight of the communications equipment originally installed on the tower 100, as well as to withstand forces exerted on the tower 100 by environmental factors, such as wind and ice, for example. The monopole towers of the prior art are generally not designed with sufficient stability to enable the tower 100 to allow for the installation of additional equipment. The tower reinforcement apparatus 1 is designed to attach to the prior art monopole tower 100 at selected locations where additional equipment will be installed in order to maximize the strength and provide reinforcement to the tower 100 at such selected locations.
In application, the tower 100 is drilled with a plurality of holes 105 at selected locations as shown in
As should be understood, the longer the vertical flat bar's 10 length, the more difficult the vertical flat bar 10 is to manage and handle when attaching the bar 10 to the tower 100 in the field. As such, when longer lengths of flat bar 10 is required, it is preferred to apply multiple vertical fiat bars 10 to maximize the strength and provide reinforcement to the tower 100.
As an example, and referring to
Referring to
As best shown in
The vertical flat bar 10 is selectively positioned along the length of the tower 100 in order to add support to that area of the tower 100 where additional communication equipment is to be installed. As discussed, multiple vertical bars 10 are preferably joined with joining plates 20 to maximize the strength and provide reinforcement to the tower 100. In the preferred embodiment, a plurality of vertical flat bars 10 and joining plates 20 may be used in order to strengthen the approximate upper region of the tower 100 where added support is needed, as well as the approximate lower region of the tower 100 where added support is needed. Further, and as illustrated in
By installing multiple vertical flat bars 10 as described above, shorter lengths of flat bars 10 may be used for easier field assembly. As a result, it is possible to attach communication equipment and/or other types of loads directly to the tower 100. Such loads may be attached to the tower 100 at any point along the vertical length of the installed tower reinforcement apparatus 1.
By installing the tower reinforcement apparatus 1 to the tower 100 as described above, bending moments experienced by the tower 100 may be passed into and absorbed by the tower reinforcement apparatus 1, thereby increasing the load capacity and stability of the tower 100 in order to enable the tower 100 to support the weight of additional communication equipment as well as the environmental forces exerted on the tower.
The tower reinforcement apparatus 1 may be installed on towers which are not yet installed or which is not vertical, or on previously installed towers.
Metal, such as steel or aluminum, is the preferred material of construction of the preferred embodiment of the vertical flat bars 10 and the joining plates 20.
The preferred bolts 150, 155 and 160 are known in the art. The size of the bolts 150, 155 and 160 and spacing of the bolts 150, 155 and 160 is determined by the amount of reinforcing required. Further, the extent of reinforcing also determines the size and length of the vertical flat bars 10. In the preferred embodiment, the vertical flat bars 10 are installed continuous up the length of the tower 100. Again, this is accomplished by installing the joining plate 20 to the ends of abutting vertical flat bars 10.
In operation, to reinforce an existing tower 100 to which additional equipment is to be added, a series of holes 105, as shown in
With the holes 105 in place, flat bars 10 with clearances 11 matching the spacing of holes 105 are placed against each flat side of the perimeter 102 of the tower 100 and are bolted to the tower using bolts. All of the holes 105 and 11 can be pre-drilled prior to placing the flat bars 10 in place or some of the holes 11, 105 might be drilled after the flat bars are in place. Most towers 100 are tall enough to require multiple sections of flat bar 10. A first flat bar 10A is placed and then a second flat bar 10B is placed aligned with the first bar 10A and with ends 10A′ and 10B′ adjacent to each other forming a joint space. In these cases a plate 20 is placed over the joint space to support it. A series of holes 21 are drilled through the plate 20 and bolts 160 secure the plate 20 to the end of bars 10A and 10B. Again, holes 21 can be pre-drilled or drilled at the time of installation. As shown in
Although the description above contains many specificities, these should not be construed as limiting the scope of the invention but as merely providing illustrations of some of the presently preferred embodiments of this invention.
It will be obvious to those skilled in the art that modifications may be made to the embodiments described above without departing from the scope of the invention. Thus the scope of the invention should be determined by the claims in the formal application and their legal equivalence, rather than by the examples given.
This application is a continuation application of and claims priority to U.S. application Ser. No. 13/427,533, filed Mar. 22, 2012, (U.S. Pat. No. 8,424,269, issued Apr. 23, 2013), which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/228,355, filed Sep. 8, 2011, (U.S. Pat. No. 8,156,712, issued Apr. 17, 2012), which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/900,225, filed on Oct. 7, 2010, (U.S. Pat. No. 8,046,972, issued Nov. 1, 2011), which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/159,689, filed on Jun. 23, 2005, (U.S. Pat. No. 7,849,659, issued Dec. 14, 2010), which is a utility conversion of Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/582,160, filed on Jun. 24, 2004. The disclosures of U.S. application Ser. Nos. 13/427,533, 13/228,355, 12/900,225 and 11/159,689 and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/582,160 are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
1074698 | Crockett | Oct 1913 | A |
1420430 | Jaeckle et al. | Jun 1922 | A |
1476584 | Beeby | Dec 1923 | A |
1517846 | Lewis | Dec 1924 | A |
2090972 | Allen | Aug 1937 | A |
2327681 | Vanderveer | Aug 1943 | A |
2401799 | Riemenschneider et al. | Jun 1946 | A |
3062335 | Baxter | Nov 1962 | A |
3201834 | Baittinger | Aug 1965 | A |
3368319 | Werner et al. | Feb 1968 | A |
4032244 | Quayle | Jun 1977 | A |
4097165 | Quayle | Jun 1978 | A |
4248025 | Kleine et al. | Feb 1981 | A |
4500064 | Calabro | Feb 1985 | A |
4543764 | Kozikowski | Oct 1985 | A |
4934114 | Lindsey | Jun 1990 | A |
4987718 | Knight | Jan 1991 | A |
5172881 | Stein | Dec 1992 | A |
5178502 | Sadri | Jan 1993 | A |
2724156 | Shaw | Nov 1995 | A |
5641141 | Goodwin | Jun 1997 | A |
5749198 | Johnson | May 1998 | A |
5782041 | Filipescu | Jul 1998 | A |
5974744 | Guilbeault | Nov 1999 | A |
6108996 | McGinnis | Aug 2000 | A |
6142434 | Trost et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6192646 | Grewe et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6453636 | Ritz | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6532711 | Gregel | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6561736 | Doleshal | May 2003 | B1 |
6622451 | Ellis | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6694698 | Ryan | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6857808 | Sugimoto et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6901717 | Brunozzi et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6915618 | Payne | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6957518 | Koch, Jr. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
7116282 | Trankina | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7849659 | Kopshever, Sr. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7905069 | Lockwood | Mar 2011 | B1 |
8046972 | Kopshever, Sr. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
20030010426 | Lockwood | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20040020158 | Kopshever, Sr. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040134161 | Lockwood et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040139665 | Ulrich et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20080250752 | Bowman et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20090016897 | Olgaard | Jan 2009 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2097239 | Nov 1982 | GB |
2114648 | Aug 1983 | GB |
2244776 | Dec 1991 | GB |
03-33375 | Feb 1991 | JP |
Entry |
---|
Bethlehem Structural Shapes, Bethlehem Steel Co., 1926. |
Thomas Clark Shedd, Structural Design in Steel, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1934. |
Mortan Newman, Standard Structural Details for Building Construction, McGraw Hill Book Company, 1968. |
Charles G. Salmon, John E. Johnson, Steel Structures Design and Behavior, Harper & Row Publishers, 1980. |
Manual of Steel Construction, 8th Ed., American Inst. of Steel Construction Inc., 1980. |
Bruce G. Johnston et al., Basic Steel Design, 2nd Ed., 1980. |
Jack C. McCormac, Structural Steel Design, 3rd Ed., Harper & Row Publishers, 1981. |
Engineering for Steel Construction, American Inst. of Steel Construction Inc., 1984. |
Manual of Steel Construction, Allowable Stress Design, 9th Ed., American Inst. of Steel Construction Inc., 1989. |
Omer W. Blodgett, Design of Welded Structures, The James F. Lincoln Arc Welding Foundation, 1996. |
Roger L. Brockenbrough, AISC Rehabilitation and Retrofit Guide, A Reference for Historic Shapes Specifications, R.L. Brockenbrough & Associates Inc., 2002. |
Rochester Tower Installation, May 30, 2002. |
Bridgewater Tower Installation, May 30, 2003 |
Fairport Tower Installation, Jun. 10, 2003. |
Parma Tower Installation, May 30, 2003. |
Grafton Tower Installation, Sep. 9, 2003 |
“AeroForce™ Systems Monopole and Tower Upgrades,” Aero Solutions, LLC, 2003. |
Grayson Tower Installation, Mar. 17, 2004. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/602,048, filed Jun. 24, 2003, USPTO Office Action dated Jun. 27, 2005. |
Tower Reinforcement, Inc. v. Crown Castle International Corp. et al., Civ. No. 3:12-cv-0060-SEB-WGH, Defendant's Invalidity Contentions, Nov. 14, 2012 (S.D. Ind.). |
Tower Reinforcement, Inc. v. Crown Castle International Corp. et al., Civ. No. 3:12-cv-0060-SEB-WGH, Defendant's Invalidity Contentions, Ex. A1, Nov. 14, 2012 (S.D. Ind.). |
Tower Reinforcement, Inc. v. Crown Castle International Corp. et al., Civ. No. 3:12-cv-0060-SEB-WGH, Defendant's Invalidity Contentions, Ex. A2, Nov. 14, 2012 (S.D. Ind.). |
Tower Reinforcement, Inc. v. Crown Castle International Corp. et al., Civ. No. 3:12-cv-0060-SEB-WGH, Defendant's Invalidity Contentions, Ex. A3, Nov. 14, 2012 (S.D. Ind.). |
Tower Reinforcement, Inc. v. Crown Castle International Corp. et al., Civ. No. 3:12-cv-0060-SEB-WGH, Defendant's Invalidity Contentions, Ex. A4, Nov. 14, 2012 (S.D. Ind.). |
Tower Reinforcement, Inc. v. Crown Castle International Corp. et al., Civ. No. 3:12-cv-0060-SEB-WGH, Defendant's Invalidity Contentions, Ex. A5, Nov. 14, 2012 (S.D. Ind.). |
Tower Reinforcement, Inc. v. Crown Castle International Corp. et al., Civ. No. 3:12-cv-0060-SEB-WGH, Defendant's Invalidity Contentions, Ex. A6, Nov. 14, 2012 (S.D. Ind.). |
Tower Reinforcement, Inc. v. Crown Castle International Corp. et al., Civ. No. 3:12-cv-0060-SEB-WGH, Defendant's Invalidity Contentions, Ex. A7, Nov. 14, 2012 (S.D. Ind.). |
Tower Reinforcement, Inc. v. Crown Castle International Corp. et al., Civ. No. 3:12-cv-0060-SEB-WGH, Defendant's Invalidity Contentions, Ex. A8, Nov. 14, 2012 (S.D. Ind.). |
Tower Reinforcement, Inc. v. Crown Castle International Corp. et al., Civ. No. 3:12-cv-0060-SEB-WGH, Defendant's Invalidity Contentions, Ex. A9, Nov. 14, 2012 (S.D. Ind.). |
Tower Reinforcement, Inc. v. Crown Castle International Corp. et al., Civ. No. 3:12-cv-0060-SEB-WGH, Defendant's Invalidity Contentions, Ex. A10, Nov. 14, 2012 (S.D. Ind.). |
Tower Reinforcement, Inc. v. Crown Castle International Corp. et al., Civ. No. 3:12-cv-0060-SEB-WGH, Defendant's Invalidity Contentions, Ex. A11, Nov. 14, 2012 (S.D. Ind.). |
Tower Reinforcement, Inc. v. Crown Castle International Corp. et al., Civ. No. 3:12-cv-0060-SEB-WGH, Defendant's Invalidity Contentions, Ex. A12, Nov. 14, 2012 (S.D. Ind.). |
Tower Reinforcement, Inc. v. Crown Castle International Corp. et al., Civ. No. 3:12-cv-0060-SEB-WGH, Defendant's Invalidity Contentions, Ex. B, Nov. 14, 2012 (S.D. Ind.). |
Tower Reinforcement, Inc. v. Crown Castle International Corp. et al., Civ. No. 3:12-cv-0060-SEB-WGH, Ex. C Production Nos. CCI001583061-001583066, Nov. 14, 2012 (S.D. Ind.). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130081351 A1 | Apr 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60582160 | Jun 2004 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13427533 | Mar 2012 | US |
Child | 13685465 | US | |
Parent | 13228355 | Sep 2011 | US |
Child | 13427533 | US | |
Parent | 12900225 | Oct 2010 | US |
Child | 13228355 | US | |
Parent | 11159689 | Jun 2005 | US |
Child | 12900225 | US |