Attachment_3_-_Engineering_Report.pdf

1102 West Southern Avenue, Suite 4 / Tempe, Arizona 85282-3102 / (o) 602-272-PTX1 (7891) Dispatch 602-272-8200 / (f) 602-272-7892 www.protex-az.com

Landsend Tower Site 39.090639°N, 108.223894°W

Mesa County, Colorado

ProTeX Job No.: 11886

Tower Foundation Mapping Report http://www.protex-az.com/

PHOENIX

1102 W SOUTHERN AVE, STE 4

TEMPE, ARIZONA 85282

(O) 602-272-PTX1 (7891)

DISPATCH 602-272-8200

(F) 602-272-7892

WWW.PROTEX-AZ.COM

TUCSON

916 W GRANT ROAD

TUCSON, ARIZONA 85705

(O) 520-352-1050 (EXT 157)

DISPATCH 520-352-0150

(F) 520-352-0150

August 5, 2021

ADW Communication Services Inc.

Re: Limited Tower Foundation Mapping Report

Project: Landsend Tower Site

Mesa County, Colorado

ProTeX Job No.: 11886

Attention: Larry Zak

At your request, ProTeX has completed the limited foundation mapping report for the aforementioned tower site. The accompanying report includes field observations, measurements and testing supporting our findings and conclusions related to the evaluation of existing tower foundation system.

Please feel free to contact us for any questions regarding this report.

Respectfully submitted, ProTeX - the PT Xperts, LLC

Date Expires: 10/31/2021

Thomas M. Perkins, P.E.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope

1.2 Terms and Conditions

2.0 FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS

2.1 Visual Observations

2.2 Field Measurements

3.0 FIELD TESTING

3.1 Rebound Hammer (Schmidt Hammer) Test

3.2 Sonic Echo/Impulse Response Test

4.0 SUMMARY RESULTS

5.0 CLOSURE

5.1 Limitations

5.2 Recommended Additional Services

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Site Information

Tower Foundation - Site Map

Appendix B – Exposed Foundation Measurements

Existing Tower Foundation Dimensions and Spacing

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope

ProTeX was retained by ADW Communication Services, Inc. to perform a limited evaluation of the existing Landsend Tower Site to determine the depth and geometry of the foundation system that supports an existing 100 foot self-supported tower. The existing tower is supported by 3 leg foundation system. The content of this report contains the findings from the field observations, measurements and testing, with supporting conclusions.

1.2 Terms and Conditions

This report was prepared for ADW Communications Services, Inc. The contents of this report may not be relied upon by any other party without the expressed written permission of ProTeX - the PT

Xperts, LLC and the written permission of ADW Communication Services, Inc.. The report presents site conditions at the time of the investigation and for the aforementioned development.

2.0 FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS

2.1 Visual Observations

Visual observations conducted on July 15, 2021 of the existing 100 foot tower, indicates that the concrete foundations were found to be in good/fair condition. Small cracks ranging from 0.010 to

0.030 inches were located at the exposed top surface of each of the (3) leg foundations.

2.2 Field Measurements

The existing 100 foot tall tower is supported by a 3 leg foundation systems identified by location and diagrams seen below. The spacing and exposed portion of the existing foundation legs were measured and shown below: See Appendix A and B for Site Map and Foundation Measurements.

3.0 FIELD TESTING

3.1 Rebound Hammer (Schmidt Hammer) Test

The purpose of the rebound hammer test was to establish the relative compressive strength of the concrete for each of the 3 foundation systems in accordance with ASTM C805. The following diagram represents the test locations of the rebound hammer testing. A total of 10 measurements were taken at various locations across the top of each of the 3 foundation systems.

The following table lists the test location number and results of the rebound hammer test in pounds per square inch (psi) at each location tested:

Foundation for Leg 1

Rebound Hammer Test

Location

Concrete Hardness (psi) Average Concrete Hardness (psi)

1 5000

4780 psi

2 4200

3 4800

4 4200

5 5000

6 5200

7 5000

8 4800

9 4600

10 5000

Foundation for Leg 2

Rebound Hammer Test

Location

1 4200

4780 psi

2 4200

3 5000

4 5000

5 4200

6 5800

7 5200

8 4600

10 5000

Foundation for Leg 3

Rebound Hammer Test

Location

1 4800

4480 psi

2 4800

3 4000

4 5000

5 4000

6 4800

7 4200

8 4600

10 4000

3.2 Sonic Echo/Impulse Response Test

Sonic Echo/Impulse Response (SE/IR) tests were performed to determine the length/depth of the 3 leg foundation systems. The following represents the test data obtained during field testing:

Leg 1: SE/IR Data

Leg 1: Foundation Depth

Leg 2: SE/IR Data

Leg 2: Foundation Depth

Leg 3: SE/IR Data

Leg 3: Foundation Depth

The following table reports the resulted thickness of the mat foundation obtained during our field analysis.

*Concrete was found to be in good/fair condition: therefore, a pulse velocity of 12,500 ft/sec was estimated for the

SE/IR analysis

Tower Foundation Depth of Leg 1

SE/IR Data

Average Thickness/Depth (ft)

Channel 1 - Velocity 6.48

Tower Foundation Depth of Leg 2

Channel 1 - Velocity 6.24

Tower Foundation Depth of Leg 3

Channel 1 - Velocity 7.32

4.0 SUMMARY RESULTS

Field reconnaissance, measurements and testing performed indicates that the tower foundation consists of an existing 3 legged self-supported 100-foot tower. Please refer to Appendix B for detailed measurements of the exposed tower leg foundations. Total foundation thicknesses were analyzed to be approximately 6.48 feet for Leg 1, 6.24 feet for Leg 2 and 7.32 feet for Leg 3.

Visually the condition of the concrete foundations was in good/fair condition, with visible surface cracks ranging from 0.010 to 0.030 inches in thickness. Concrete hardness indicated by rebound hammer testing resulted in values averaging from 4480 psi to 4780 psi for the concrete tower leg foundation systems.

5.0 CLOSURE

5.1 Limitations

The findings and conclusions contained in this report are based on the observations, measurements and testing performed during the time of field reconnaissance only.

The scope of services for this project does not include any environmental assessment of the site or identification of contaminated or hazardous materials or conditions.

The findings of this report are considered valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of the site can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural events or to human activities on this or adjacent sites. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate codes and standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge.

Accordingly, this report may become invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control.

Therefore, this report is subject to review and revision as changed conditions are identified.

5.2 Recommended Additional Services

The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that a testing plan will be implemented with an adequate schedule of testing to ensure that the construction process meets the recommendations/specifications presented in this report. The testing and observation should be performed under the direction of the ProTeX Geotechnical Engineer/representative.

Appendix A

Site Plan Scale: N.T.S. Drawn by: MSK Date: 07/27/2021

ProTeX Job No.: 11886

Tower Foundation

Mapping Performed

Landsend Tower Site

Appendix B

Exposed Foundation Dimensions and Spacing: Leg 1, 2, 3 Scale: N.T.S. Drawn by: MSK Date: 07/27/2021

Landsend Tower Site 39.090639°N, 108.223894°W

Mesa County, Colorado

ProTeX Job No.: 11886

5 Feet

Leg 1 Leg 2

Leg 3

17 inches

60 inches

60 inches

60 inches

60 inches

11 inches

7 inches

60 inches

5 Feet

5 Feet

1102 West Southern Avenue, Suite 4 / Tempe, Arizona 85282-3102 / (o) 602-272-PTX1 (7891) Dispatch 602-272-7890 / (f) 602-272-7892 www.protex-az.com

39.090635°, -108.223753°

Mesa County, Colorado

ProTeX Job No.: 11886

Geotechnical Investigation

PHOENIX

1102 WEST SOUTHERN AVENUE, SUITE 4

TEMPE, ARIZONA 85282

(O) 602-272-PTX1 (7891)

DISPATCH 602-272-7890

(F) 602-272-7892

TUCSON

916 W GRANT ROAD

TUCSON, ARIZONA 85705

(O) 520-352-1050 (EXT 157)

DISPATCH 520-352-0150

(F) 520-352-0150

August 11, 2020

ADW Communication Services, Inc.

Re: Geotechnical Investigation

Project: Landsend Tower Site

Attention: Mr. Zak

At your request, ProTeX has completed a seismic refraction survey/geotechnical soil investigation for the Landsend Tower Site located at 39.090635°, -108.223753° in Mesa County, Colorado. The accompanying report includes field observations and laboratory testing supporting our conclusions and recommendations for the proposed development.

Prepared By, Kimberly Nepsa

Staff Geologist

Respectfully submitted, ProTeX - the PT Xperts, LLC

Date Expires: 10/31/2021 Date Expires: 10/31/2021

Thomas M. Perkins, P.E. Delbert A. Rapier, M.S.E., P.E.

8-12-2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope

1.2 Proposed Site Development

1.3 Terms and Conditions

2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 Geotechnical Site Reconnaissance

2.2 Field Testing - Seismic Refraction Survey

2.3 Laboratory Testing

3.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

3.1 Soil/Bedrock Stratigraphy

3.2 Excavation and Workability

3.3 Potential for Soil Expansion (Swell Potential)

3.4 Seismic Characteristics

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Foundations

4.2 Spread Foundations

4.3 Lateral Earth Pressures

4.4 Drainage

4.5 Slope Stability

5.0 SITE PREPARATION

6.0 CLOSURE

6.1 Limitations

6.2 Recommended Additional Services

Appendix A – Laboratory Test Results

Grain Size Distribution, Atterberg Limits

Appendix B – Site Information

Site Plan

Appendix C – Seismic Refraction Survey

Cross-Sectional Subsurface Analysis

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope

ProTeX was retained by ADW Communication Services, Inc. Services, Inc. to evaluate the surface and subsurface soil conditions. The content of this report contains the findings from the field exploration and laboratory testing, with supporting foundation and site preparation recommendations, for the proposed support structure and communications tower construction.

1.2 Proposed Site Development

This firm understands the proposed development will consist of:

• Self Support Communications Tower

• Support/equipment structure

The proposed structures are anticipated to have relatively light to moderate loads. Additional recommendations for spread foundations, drilled shafts, rock anchors and spread footings can be provided upon request.

1.3 Terms and Conditions

This report was prepared for ADW Communication Services, Inc. Services, Inc.. The contents of this report may not be relied upon by any other party without the expressed written permission of

ProTeX - the PT Xperts, LLC and the written permission of ADW Communication Services, Inc.

Services, Inc.. The report presents site conditions at the time of the investigation and for the aforementioned proposed development. The report should be updated prior to construction if a maximum of one year has elapsed from the issued date.

2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 Geotechnical Site Reconnaissance

The Landsend Tower Site is located near Grand Junction, in Mesa County, Colorado, at the coordinates of 39.090635°, -108.223753°. At the time of the field investigation on July 15, 2021 the following site conditions were observed:

• Rough graded mountain top yard area to the near an existing tower

• Light cover of vegetation consisting of highland grasses near the proposed construction area

• Surface cobbles and boulders were located in and around the proposed construction area

• The proposed tower site was relatively flat

2.2 Field Testing - Seismic Refraction Survey

A seismic refraction survey consists of introducing a pulse into the ground and recording the time of first arrival vibrations at different horizontal distances. The pulse was generated by manually striking a steel plate with a sledge hammer. The pulse is recorded on an engineering seismograph utilizing one or more sound vibration detection devices known as geophones. The waves recorded are called

P-wave’s.

The seismic refraction survey conducted at this site was performed along various seismic line trajectories in order to collect representative seismic data. The seismic refraction lines were conducted in the area of the proposed structures at overall lengths of 62.5 feet. Refer to Appendix B for seismic line locations and Appendix C for subsurface stratum analysis.

2.3 Laboratory Testing

Soil Subsequent to the field investigation, soil samples were submitted for laboratory testing. Tests were performed to determine the following:

• Sieve Analysis and Atterberg Limits- Used for formal classification of soils in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) per ASTM Test Method

D2487. Sieve analysis is performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Methods D421, D422 and D-1140. The Atterberg Limits were determined in general accordance with

ASTM Test Method D-4318.

Laboratory Test Summary

3.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

3.1 Soil/Bedrock Stratigraphy

The seismic refraction survey is interpreted to indicate a subsurface profile consisting of two subsurface strata (Refer to Appendix C of this report for seismic field survey):

1. Layer 1 - This uppermost surficial layer has an approximate velocity range of 1500 to

2500 fps. The layer thickness and depth from existing site surface grade varies from the surface to approximately 1 to 6 feet from the existing ground elevation, and likely represents a layer of clayey sand with various amounts of gravel and cobbles.

2. Layer 2 – This is considered the transitional zone, between Layer 1 and Layer 3, where the surficial soil layer transitions from dense soil with high amounts of gravel and cobbles to very highly weathered/fractured. The approximate velocity range of this transition zone is 2500 to 3500 fps. The layer thickness is approximately 1 to 2 feet. This layer begins approximately 1 to 6 feet below existing surface and likely represents a layer consisting mainly of dense soils with high amounts of gravel and cobbles to very highly weathered/fractured rock.

3. Layer 3 - Interfaces with the base of Layer 2 and has an approximate velocity range of between 3500 fps to 5500 fps. This layer extends from approximately 2 to 8 feet below existing surface to the extent of the explored depth and likely represents a zone of highly to moderately weathered/fractured rock.

Location Depth PI %Passing

#200 USCS Soil

Class

B1 0-1' 10 23 SC

Typical properties of these layers that may be of interest to this project include:

Layer # Unit Wt.

(pcf) ABC (psf)

Friction

Factor w/

Concrete

Ka Kp RQD Rock Mass

Rating

Layer 1 120 1500 0.25-0.50 0.260 3.85 0 Very Poor

Layer 2 130 3000 0.75-1.25 0.238 4.20 25 Very Poor to Poor

Layer 3 140 4000 1.25-2.00 0.228 4.40 40 Poor to Fair

ABC = Allowable (Design) Bearing Capacity

3.2 Excavation and Workability

Based on the seismic refraction survey, it is anticipated that conventional excavation equipment may be utilized for Layer 1, the clayey sand with various amounts of gravel and cobbles. Layer 2 is the transitional zone consisting mainly of very highly weathered/fractured rock will likely require heavier excavation equipment and may require hoe ram attachment to accomplish effective removal.

Layer 3 consists of highly to moderately weathered/fractured rock and will likely require heavier excavation equipment with hoe ram attachment, coring and/or possible blasting techniques to accomplish effective removal.

It should be noted that this is generalized assessment is not intended to be the sole basis for contractors preparing earthwork bids. Undiscovered/unexpected subsurface conditions may make excavation more difficult than expected. In addition, the relative ease/efficiency of excavation is heavily dependent on operator skill and the type of equipment assigned to the project. Thus, prospective earthwork contractors bidding on this project need to assess site excavation conditions for themselves.

Trench shoring, benching, or laying back of excavations greater than 3 feet in depth may be required to satisfy government safety regulations for personnel safety.

3.3 Potential for Soil Expansion (Swell Potential)

Based on laboratory testing the surface soils are comprised mainly of low-medium plasticity clayey sand with various amounts of gravel and cobbles; thus, the expansion potential of the native soils is anticipated to be low at the surface.

3.4 Seismic Characteristics

The subject site is located in an area of seismic activity. Values have been developed based on knowledge of the local geological conditions, soils/ weathered rock encountered during the site investigation of the subsurface soils, and the 2018 International Building Code (IBC). The 2018 IBC references the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-16 standard. Based on knowledge of the geology of the area a 100 feet boring was not advanced, however, based on seismic survey analysis weathered rock is anticipated to a depth of 100 feet.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations contained herein are based on the findings of the site visit and field investigation and engineering experience.

4.1 Foundations

It is highly recommended that the design of foundations be done under the direction of a registered professional engineer with structural expertise. It is recommended that foundation excavations be inspected prior to placement of concrete to ensure they are free of debris and loose soils.

4.2 Spread Foundations

Conventional spread footings can be considered for tower and support structures. Due to the properties of the native soils as indicated by field classification and seismic refraction survey, it is recommended that foundations bear on a firm subsurface stratum of weathered rock with a minimum frost depth of 54 inches minimum.

Site Class C (very dense soil and soft rock)

Central Latitude 39.090635°

Central Longitude -108.223753°

Ss Spectral Acceleration for Short Period 0.269g

S1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second period 0.068g

Fa Site Coefficient for Short Period 1.3

Fv Site Coefficient for a 1-second Period 1.5

Resistance to uplift loads may require that spread footings for this project be supported at depths significantly greater than 54 inches. A minimum footing width of 2 feet is recommended for this site.

Allowable bearing pressures for the recommended support conditions would be as indicated below into rock stratum 54 inches below finish grade:

Footing Depth into

Soil/Rock Layer

(ft.)

Bearing Stratum Allowable Soil

Bearing Capacity

2.5 Firm Native Soils or Controlled Compacted Fill

(Layer 1)

1500 psf

1.0 Clayey sand with various amounts of gravel and cobbles to

Very Highly to Highly Weathered and Fractured Rock (Layer 2)

2500 psf

1.0 Highly to Moderately Weathered and Fractured Rock

(Layer 3) 3500 psf

Tower footing uplift resistance can be provided by the weight of soil lying above the footing block. The soil can be assumed to be a wedge-shaped solid have a moist unit weight of 130 pcf acting within a zone bounded by a plane inclined at 20º to the vertical rising up from the top of the footing to the ground surface. A minimum factor of safety of 1.5 is recommended to be applied against transient uplift loads. Sliding resistance to lateral loads can be provided by passive pressure and frictional resistance at the footing/soil interface. Passive resistance can be developed by utilizing an equivalent fluid pressure. Frictional resistance can be considered an interface friction factor. See lateral earth pressures section for equivalent fluid pressure and interface friction factor.

Preparation of the site to raise or lower the building pad should be done in accordance to the

Section 5 - Site Preparation.

4.3 Lateral Earth Pressures

The following design parameters are presented for lateral stability analysis:

Foundation Toe Pressures: 1.33 X Max. Allowable

*Lateral Backfill Pressures:

Unrestrained Walls 33 psf/ft

Restrained Walls 51 psf/ft

Lateral Passive Pressures:

Layer 1 462 psf/ft

Layer 2 546 psf/ft

Layer 3 616 psf/ft

Coefficient of Base Friction:

Independent of Passive Resistance

Layer 1 0.35

Layer 2 0.50

Layer 3 0.75

*The backfill pressures stated do not include temporary forces imposed during compaction of the backfill, swelling pressures developed by over-compacted clayey backfill soils, hydrostatic pressures from inundation of backfills, and/or surcharge loads. Walls should be suitably braced during backfilling to prevent damage and deflection.

Design of below grade structures should account for or prevent potential hydrostatic buildup. In addition, any below grade structure penetrations to facilitate drainage may allow piping of soil and water if not addressed properly in the design of the structure.

4.4 Drainage

Establishment and long-term maintenance of proper lot post-construction surface drainage is also critical. It is recommended that structural foundation/floor slab bearing soils not be exposed to moisture infiltration/fluctuations. Roof runoff should be collected and discharged away from the structures. Drainage of surface water away from the structures should be provided during construction and maintained by the owner throughout the life of the structure. In no case should long-term ponding be allowed near structures.

4.5 Slope Stability

Stability of cut and fill slopes are dependent on soil properties such as density, cohesion, moisture content, etc. Site specific laboratory testing and experience indicates that these properties can vary significantly across the site. Temporary slopes for installation of underground utilities or structures should follow OSHA guidelines.

The following minimum excavation/cut slopes were determined by the subsurface stratums analyzed from the seismic refraction survey lines:

Subsurface Stratum Depth

(ft)

Temporary Cut Slope

(H:V)

Layer 1 0-6 2:1

Layer 2 – Transitional Layer 6-8 1:1

Layer 3 >8 1:2

-Observation should be performed by a ProTeX engineering representative, due to variation of subsurface stratums, during excavations to determine final layer depths and allowable slopes

5.0 SITE PREPARATION

The following recommendations are presented for site grading. It is recommended that a ProTeX geotechnical engineer’s representative observe and test the earthwork and foundation portions of this project to ensure compliance with this Soil Investigation report.

Prior to placement of fill a representative of ProTeX should observe the clearing process. Clearing will include removal of site vegetation and any mature vegetative root systems. The areas cleared should be inspected prior to and during scarification for evidence of organic material or loose areas that may require additional removal or processing.

After clearing, the exposed soils (layer 1) in building areas and where fills are to be placed, should be scarified a minimum of 8 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted as specified below. The surface should be free from ruts, or other uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment used. If layer 2 or layer 3 is encountered a representative of

ProTeX should be contacted to observe and confirm rock layer stratums prior to concrete placement.

Excavations into rock should be inspected to be clear all debris.

Sloping areas steeper than 5:1 (horizontal: vertical) should be benched to reduce the potential for slippage between slopes and fills. Benches should be level and wide enough to accommodate compaction and earth moving equipment.

Fill material should be free of organics, vegetative matter, deleterious or foreign material, rocks, and lumps having a nominal diameter of 6 inches. Native soils may be used as fill material provided; they are compacted as specified. If needed, imported fill material should be approved low expansive potential soils.

Fill material should be placed in layers, that when compacted, do not exceed 6 inches. Each layer should then be placed evenly and thoroughly mix during spreading to ensure uniformity of moisture throughout each layer. Each fill layer should be compacted to specified density and moisture content.

Compaction equipment should be able to compact the fill to the specified density. Compaction of each layer should be continuous over its entire area and the compaction equipment should make sufficient passes to ensure that density has been obtained.

Soil compaction is recommended to the following densities and moisture contents as determined in accordance with ASTM D-698, AASHTO T-99 or applicable equivalent:

Compaction Specifications for Conventional Foundations

For Native and Approved Import Soils

Material Compaction Percent Moisture

Below Foundation Level and Flat Work 95% Min Optimum to +4 of Optimum

Fills at Depths 5 to 10 Feet Below Finish Grade 98% Min -2 to +2 of Optimum

Fills at Depths 10 Feet or Greater Below Finish Grade 100% Min -2 to +2 of Optimum

A ProTeX geotechnical engineer’s representative should observe the grading operations to verify that all cut and fill areas are in accordance with the specifications. This office should be notified prior to earthwork operations so that appropriate observation and materials testing can be provided.

When work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations should not be resumed until the geotechnical engineer’s representative indicates that the moisture content and density of the previously placed fill are as specified.

If building pads are altered or portions excavated as a part of construction activities, fill soils should be compacted as specified.

6.0 CLOSURE

6.1 Limitations

The recommendations contained in this report are based on the assumption that the subsurface conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed by the test holes. Should unusual material or conditions be encountered during construction, the ProTeX geotechnical engineer should be notified to make supplemental recommendations should this be required? This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner to see that its provisions are carried out or brought to the attention of those concerned.

The scope of services for this project does not include any environmental assessment of the site or identification of contaminated or hazardous materials or conditions.

The findings of this report are considered valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of the site can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural events or to human activities on this or adjacent sites. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate codes and standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge.

Accordingly, this report may become invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control.

Therefore, this report is subject to review and revision as changed conditions are identified.

6.2 Recommended Additional Services

The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that a testing plan will be implemented with an adequate schedule of testing to ensure that the construction process meets the recommendations/specifications presented in this report. The testing and observation should be performed under the direction of the ProTeX Geotechnical Engineer/representative and should include, but not necessarily be limited to the following:

1. Observe and document that the existing surface and subsurface structures, vegetation and abandoned utilities are removed from the site as required in the earthwork section.

2. Approve and document that fill material used as engineered fill in building and pavement areas meets the specifications.

3. After clearing the site; monitor the over excavation, scarification and removal of any soft/loose conditions down to firm native soils.

4. Monitor and test placement of fill soils in building and pavement locations to verify and document conformance with project specifications.

5. Inspect foundation excavations to plans and specifications and to be free of loose soils and debris.

Appendix A

Client:

Project Name:

Job Name:

Material:

Sample Location:

ProTeX Job No:

ProTeX Lab No:

Date Received:

Sampled By:

Date Sampled:

Submitted By:

11886

216225 - Phoenix

7/20/2021

Thomas M Perkins

7/16/2021

Thomas M Perkins

ADW Communication Services, Inc

ADW Communication

Landsend

Geo (Native)

B1 (0-1')

ProTeX the PT Xperts LLC

1102 W. Southern Ave., Ste. 4

Tempe, AZ 85282 Fax: (602) 272-7892

Office: (602)-272-7891

Soils Summary

-Material Supplier:

ASTM D4318

Plasticity Index

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Plasticity Index

Potential ExpansionExpansion Index, (EI) Expansion Index

EI = NA

Very High> 130

High91 - 130

Medium52 - 90

Low21 - 51

Very Low0 - 20

NV% Swell

Percent Swell of Soil

Notes:

NA

NA

Resistivity (ohms-cm) pH Reading:

pH and Resistivity

NV

NV

NV

% Rock

Corr. Max. Dry Density

Opt. Moisture %

Moisture Density (Proctor)

Max. Dry Density

NV

Corr. Opt. Moisture %Class: Clayey sand with gravel

Symbol: SC

* = out of specification

*Specs% PassSieve

ASTM D1140 / D422

1001"

811/2"

62#4

55#10

42#40

27#100

23#200

Jayde Moloney

Reviewed By:Remarks:

Appendix B

Site Plan 1 Scale: N.T.S. Drawn by:TMP Date:7/27/2021

ProTeX Job No.: 11886

Legend:

Approximate Sample Location

Landsend Tower Site 39.090635°, -108.223753°

Mesa County, Colorado

Approximate Seismic Line Location A B

S1

B1

S2

Appendix C

Seismic Line #1 Scale: N.T.S. Drawn by: KJN

Landsend Tower Site 39.090635°, -108.223753°

Mesa County, Colorado

ProTeX Job No.: 11886

A B

Layer 1

Surficial Layer of Clayey Sand with Varying Amounts of Gravel and Cobbles

Vp = 1500 - 2500 fps

Layer 3

Highly to Moderately

Weathered/Fractured Rock

Vp = 3500 – 5500 fps

Date: 08/10/2021

Layer 2 – Transitional Layer

Dense soils with High Amounts of

Gravel and Cobbles to Very Highly

Weathered/Fractured Rock

Vp = 2500 – 3500 fps

Seismic Line #2 Scale: N.T.S. Drawn by: KJN Date: 08/10/2021

ProTeX Job No.: 11886

A B

Layer 2 – Transitional Layer

Dense soils with High Amounts of

Gravel and Cobbles to Very Highly

Weathered/Fractured Rock

Vp = 2500 – 3500 fps

Layer 1

Surficial Layer of Clayey Sand with Varying Amounts of Gravel and Cobbles

Vp = 1500 - 2500 fps

Layer 3

Highly to Moderately

Weathered/Fractured Rock

Vp = 3500 – 5500 fps

Landsend Tower Site

ISE, Incorporated Structural Engineers Telecommunications & Industrial Design

PO Box 50039 • Phoenix, Arizona • 85076 • Office: (602) 403-8614 • Fax: (623) 321-1283 • www.ISE-INC.biz

Date: August 26, 2021

ADW Comm 14350 N. 87th St.

Scottsdale, AZ 85260

ISE Job #: 17190

Rigorous Structural Analysis Report

Carrier Designation: Bureau of Land Management Site Number/Name: LCO-09 Grand Mesa/ Lands End Site Data: Grand Junction, CO (Mesa County)

39˚ 05’ 26.30”, -108˚ 13’ 26.00”

Analysis Criterion: IBC 2018, TIA-222-H 105 mph (3-Sec Gust) Exposure C, Topographic Category 2, Risk Category III Elevation: 9930’, Crest Height: 2800’ Seismic Design Category B

SS = 0.27, S1 = 0.068, SDS =0.285, SD1 = 0.109

ISE has completed a Rigorous Structural Analysis to evaluate the structural integrity of the existing structure for the existing and proposed carrier load configuration as detailed in this report.

Per our analysis:

1. Structure Stress Level with proposed Equipment: 71.1% PASS

2. Foundation Ratio with Proposed Equipment: 227% FAIL

Customer shall review the antenna and equipment listing presented herein and confirm that the tower is accurately represented by our assumptions.

We are pleased to have been of service for this project. If you have any questions please feel free to give us a call.

Sincerely, Prepared By: Caden Swider Glen L. Hunt III, MS, SE/PE

Principal Engineer

Glen CO Date & Sig

PO Box 50039 • Phoenix, Arizona • 85076 • Office: (602) 403-8614 • Fax: (623) 321-1283 • www.ISE-INC.biz

PROJECT INFORMATION

DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED:

Source Description Date ProTeX Geotechnical Investigation # 11886 8/11/2021 ProTeX Foundation Mapping # 11886 8/5/2021

Centerline Solutions Tower Mapping report # AAI -15-0001 12/28/2015 Centerline Solutions Structural Analysis report # AAI-15-0001 12/27/2015

PROPOSED LOADING

@ 100’ AFG Elevation

• (1) (E) Lightning Rod @ 98’ AFG Elevation

• (2) (E) Omni Antenna @ 82’ AFG Elevation

• (1) (E) Grid Antenna @ 79’ AFG Elevation

• (1) (E) Omni Antenna @ 61’ AFG Elevation

• (1) (E) Omni Antenna @ 57’ AFG Elevation

• (1) (E) Omni Antenna @ 52’ AFG Elevation

• (1) (E) Omni Antenna @ 37’ AFG Elevation

• (1) (E) Omni Antenna @ 29’ AFG Elevation

• (1) (E) Omni Antenna @ 17’ AFG Elevation

• (1) (E) Omni Antenna @ 9’ AFG Elevation

• 1(E) Ladder

ANALYSIS METHOD

tnxTower (v 8.1.1), a commercially available software program designed for the analysis of telecommunications towers was used to create a three-dimensional mathematical model of the tower and to calculate primary member stresses for load conditions defined by the TIA-222 Specification. tnxTower results are attached to this report.

An evaluation of the existing foundation system was performed by calculations as presented.

PO Box 50039 • Phoenix, Arizona • 85076 • Office: (602) 403-8614 • Fax: (623) 321-1283 • www.ISE-INC.biz

ANALYSIS RESULTS

TOWER RESULTS

Tower Component/Section Capacity1 Pass/Fail Leg Section T5 71.1% Pass

Diagonal T4 69.1% Pass Top Girt T4 69.1% Pass Bolt Checks 69.8% Pass

1. Capacity usage at 105% or less is considered acceptable per industry standards for rigorous structural analyses prepared as described herein. Customer/Tower owner acceptance criterion may exclude values in excess of 100%.

FOUNDATION

Maximum Tower Base Reactions

(Factored) Proposed Base

Reactions

Moment (kip-ft) 750.79 Shear (kip) 14.52 Axial (kip) 6.59 Compression (kip) 68.86 Uplift (kip) 53.30 Shear(kip) 8.94

Geotechnical information and foundation mapping per ProTeX Job No. 11886, 5’ square, 6.25’ deep foundation per leg

Allowable Bearing Capacity = 3500psf Soil Bearing = 68.86 kips / (5ft)2 = 2.75 ksf Soil Bearing Capacity = 2.75 ksf / 3.5 ksf = .786 OK

Soil Unit Weight = 130psf

Per Centerline Solutions Report #AAI-15-0001, Concrete Unit Weight = 150psf

Total Concrete Weight, Wc = (5ft * 5ft * 6.25ft) * 150pcf = 23.44 kips Uplift Capacity = 53.30 kip / 23.44 kip = 2.27 NOT OK

PO Box 50039 • Phoenix, Arizona • 85076 • Office: (602) 403-8614 • Fax: (623) 321-1283 • www.ISE-INC.biz

CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

The existing structure has adequate capacity for the specified proposed loads.

The existing foundation does not have adequate capacity for the specified proposed loads.

PO Box 50039 • Phoenix, Arizona • 85076 • Office: (602) 403-8614 • Fax: (623) 321-1283 • www.ISE-INC.biz

ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

1. The Structural Analysis Report (report) is the property of ISE Services and must not be reproduced, modified or copied in whole or in part without our written permission.

2. The customer must accept all liability and responsibility for the use and application of ISE's review.

Additional services of other Professional Engineering Specialists may be required.

3. The subject tower/Self-Support Tower (structure) is assumed to be installed in accordance with the drawing/s and documents referenced in the report unless otherwise noted. ISE assumes that the structure has been properly maintained and that no portions of the structure have corroded or have been mishandled, overloaded, damaged or substituted with other members. No reduction in capacity has been considered to account for the effects of cyclic loading over the life of the structure. Unless noted otherwise in the report ISE has not inspected or surveyed the loading currently supported by the structure. Unless otherwise indicated in the reviewer's comments, the structure review has been solely based on information listed or referenced in the report.

4. Assumptions made by ISE concerning antenna and appurtenance loading were based on ISE's understanding of the information provided by the customer for the review. Only the antennas and appurtenances listed or referenced in the report were considered for the review unless otherwise noted.

The results of the review are not intended nor represented to be applicable to any other loading conditions.

ISE has not investigated possible interference between existing and proposed antennas, mounts, appurtenances, etc., unless otherwise indicated in the reviewer's comments.

5. ISE has not reviewed the load carrying capability of existing or proposed mounts supplied by others, or of mounts not identified in the report. ISE also has not evaluated members of the structure for local stresses resulting from the attachment of such mounts. ISE can provide this service if requested by the customer.

6. ISE does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the information supplied to ISE or for the assumptions made for this review. ISE assumes thorough field investigations have or will be performed by others to verify all information and assumptions used for ISE's review.

7. ISE's review has been based on the wind and ice loading as specified in the ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-H, "Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas". The review is limited to the load carrying capacity of the structure for the wind and ice load indicated. Unless otherwise noted in the report, ISE assumes the structure is installed on level grade. Unless otherwise noted in the report, ISE has not reviewed the structure for conformance to local, state, or federal requirements or for site specific requirements concerning wind load, ice load, grounding, obstruction lighting requirements, obstruction marking, climbing or working facilities, etc.

8. Foundation designs have not been reviewed unless reactions exceed the original structure design reactions. Unless otherwise indicated, ISE has assumed that foundations have been installed in accordance with the original foundation drawings and that the original soil parameters provided and/or assumed were adequate based on the conditions encountered at the site. ISE assumes these parameters were verified by geotechnical investigations at the time of installation.

9. ISE's structure and/or foundation review has been performed utilizing ISE's current review methods. ISE does not accept responsibility to provide a new or revised report due to revisions of standards, codes or review methods.

10. ISE does not accept responsibility for work performed on the structure, for persons doing the work, or for the safety and adequacy of the procedures, equipment, temporary guying, scaffolding, or other work aids.

ISE has assumed that all work performed will be by competent and qualified personnel.

PO Box 50039 • Phoenix, Arizona • 85076 • Office: (602) 403-8614 • Fax: (623) 321-1283 • www.ISE-INC.biz

11. Materials for proposed additions/alterations are assumed to be manufactured or supplied by reputable manufacturers or as specified in the report. Bolts, nuts, and palnuts for all new/replacement materials must be new. ISE shall be held harmless of any liability when other materials are substituted.

12. If proposed additions/alterations to the structure are implemented, it shall be the responsibility of others to maintain the stability of the structure and to prevent overloading of any component. ISE's review has not considered stresses due to erection since erection conditions were unknown.

13. ISE does not accept responsibility for informing insurance carriers, regulatory officials or other concerned parties of the results of this review or for any proposed alterations.

14. If any of the above assumptions are not valid or have been made in error, this analysis may be affected, and ISE should review any new information to determine its effect on the tower's structural capacity.

PO Box 50039 • Phoenix, Arizona • 85076 • Office: (602) 403-8614 • Fax: (623) 321-1283 • www.ISE-INC.biz

TNXTOWER ANALYSIS RESULTS

ISE Incorperated PO Box 50039

Phoenix, AZ 85076 Phone: 602-403-8614

FAX:

Job: Landsend Project: ISE Job No. 17190 Client: ADW Comm Drawn by: Caden Swider App'd:

Code: TIA-222-H Date: 08/26/21 Scale: NTS Path:

M:\ISE Working Directory\Telcom Misc\ADW Comm\17190 Landsend\SA\TNX\17190 Landsend.eri Dwg No. E-1

100.0 ft

80.0 ft

60.0 ft

40.0 ft

20.0 ft

0.0 ft

REACTIONS - 105 mph WIND TORQUE 3 kip-ft

15 K

SHEAR

751 kip-ft

MOMENT

7 K

AXIAL

50 mph WIND - 0.2500 in ICE TORQUE 1 kip-ft

4 K

SHEAR

224 kip-ft

MOMENT

10 K

AXIAL

SHEAR: 8 K

UPLIFT: -59 K

SHEAR: 9 K

DOWN: 69 K

MAX. CORNER REACTIONS AT BASE:

ARE FACTORED

ALL REACTIONS

S e ct io n

T

T

T

T

T

L g s P x.

P x.

P

.5 x.

P x.

P

.5 x.

L g

G ra d e

A

-5

D ia g o n a ls

L x2 x1

/8 L

/2 x2

/2 x3 /1

D ia g o n a l G ra d e A

T o p

G ir ts L x2 x1 /8

L

/2 x2

/2 x3

/1

F a ce

W id th ft

P a n e ls ft

.6

W ig h t

(K

0.

0.

0.

0.

1.

4.

1' Standoff Mount 100 6' Lighting Rod 100 2"dia x 15' Omni 98 1.5' Standoff Mount 98 2"dia x 15' Omni 98 1.5' Standoff Mount 98 52" x 52" GRID 82 3"Øx20' Omni 79 3' Pipe Mount 79 2"dia x 5' Omni 61 Standoff Mount 61 Standoff Mount 61 2"dia x 5' Omni 57 3'8 Omni 52 2ft Standoff Mount 52 8' 6 " Omni 37 1.5' Standoff Mount 37 23' Dipole 29 1.5' Standoff Mount 29 8' 6 " Omni 17 1.5' Standoff Mount 17 ROHN Ladder Anti-Climb 9 - 0DESIGNED APPURTENANCE LOADING

TYPE TYPEELEVATION ELEVATION

1' Standoff Mount 100

6' Lighting Rod 100

2"dia x 15' Omni 98

1.5' Standoff Mount 98

2"dia x 15' Omni 98

1.5' Standoff Mount 98

52" x 52" GRID 82

3"Øx20' Omni 79

3' Pipe Mount 79

2"dia x 5' Omni 61

Standoff Mount 61

Standoff Mount 61

2"dia x 5' Omni 57

3'8 Omni 52

2ft Standoff Mount 52

8' 6 " Omni 37

1.5' Standoff Mount 37

23' Dipole 29

1.5' Standoff Mount 29

8' 6 " Omni 17

1.5' Standoff Mount 17

ROHN Ladder Anti-Climb 9 - 0

MATERIAL STRENGTH

GRADE GRADEFy FyFu Fu

A572-50 50 ksi 65 ksi A36 36 ksi 58 ksi

TOWER DESIGN NOTES

1. Tower designed for Exposure C to the TIA-222-H Standard.

2. Tower designed for a 105 mph basic wind in accordance with the TIA-222-H Standard.

3. Tower is also designed for a 50 mph basic wind with 0.25 in ice. Ice is considered to increase in thickness with height.

4. Deflections are based upon a 60 mph wind.

5. Tower Risk Category III.

6. Topographic Category 3 with Crest Height of 2800.000 ft ttnnxxTToowweerr Job Landsend

Page

ISE Incorperated PO Box 50039

Project ISE Job No. 17190

Date 09:44:55 08/26/21

Phoenix, AZ 85076 Phone: 602-403-8614

FAX:

Client ADW Comm

Designed by Caden Swider

Tower Input Data

The main tower is a 3x free standing tower with an overall height of 100.000 ft above the ground line.

The base of the tower is set at an elevation of 0.000 ft above the ground line.

The face width of the tower is 5.0000 ft at the top and 13.0000 ft at the base.

This tower is designed using the TIA-222-H standard.

The following design criteria apply:

• Tower base elevation above sea level: 9930.000 ft.

• Basic wind speed of 105 mph.

• Risk Category III.

• Exposure Category C.

• Simplified Topographic Factor Procedure for wind speed-up calculations is used.

• Topographic Category: 3.

• Crest Height: 2800.000 ft.

• Nominal ice thickness of 0.2500 in.

• Ice thickness is considered to increase with height.

• Ice density of 56.000 pcf.

• A wind speed of 50 mph is used in combination with ice.

• Temperature drop of 50 °F.

• Deflections calculated using a wind speed of 60 mph.

• Pressures are calculated at each section.

• Stress ratio used in tower member design is 1.

• Local bending stresses due to climbing loads, feed line supports, and appurtenance mounts are not considered.

Leg B Leg C

Leg A

Fa ce

A Face B

Face C

Triangular Tower

Wind Normal

Wind 90

Wind 180

Z

X

Page

ISE Incorperated PO Box 50039

Project ISE Job No. 17190

Date 09:44:55 08/26/21

Phoenix, AZ 85076 Phone: 602-403-8614

FAX:

Client ADW Comm

Tower Section Geometry

Tower Section

Elevation ft

Assembly Database

Description Section Width

Number of

Sections

Length

T1 100.000-80.000 5.0000 1 20.000 T2 80.000-60.000 5.0000 1 20.000 T3 60.000-40.000 7.0000 1 20.000 T4 40.000-20.000 9.0000 1 20.000 T5 20.000-0.000 11.0000 1 20.000

Tower Section Geometry (cont’d)

Diagonal Spacing

Bracing Type

Has K Brace

End Panels

Has Horizontals

Top Girt Offset in

Bottom Girt Offset

T1 100.000-80.000 4.0000 X Brace No No 0.0000 0.0000 T2 80.000-60.000 4.0000 X Brace No No 0.0000 0.0000 T3 60.000-40.000 5.0000 X Brace No No 0.0000 0.0000 T4 40.000-20.000 6.6667 X Brace No No 0.0000 0.0000 T5 20.000-0.000 6.6667 X Brace No No 0.0000 0.0000 ft

Leg Type

Size

Grade

T1 100.000-80.000

Pipe P2x.154 A572-50 (50 ksi)

Equal Angle L2x2x1/8 A36 (36 ksi)

T2 80.000-60.000 Pipe P2x.218 A572-50 (50 ksi)

Equal Angle L2x2x1/8 A36 (36 ksi)

T3 60.000-40.000 Pipe P2.5x.203 A572-50 (50 ksi)

Equal Angle L2x2x1/8 A36 (36 ksi)

T4 40.000-20.000 Pipe P3x.216 A572-50 (50 ksi)

Equal Angle L2x2x1/8 A36 (36 ksi)

T5 20.000-0.000 Pipe P3.5x.226 A572-50 (50 ksi)

Equal Angle L2 1/2x2 1/2x3/16 A36 (36 ksi) ft

T1 100.000-80.000

Equal Angle L2x2x1/8 A36 (36 ksi)

Equal Angle A36

T2 80.000-60.000 Equal Angle L2x2x1/8 A36 Equal Angle A36

Page

ISE Incorperated PO Box 50039

Project ISE Job No. 17190

Date 09:44:55 08/26/21

Phoenix, AZ 85076 Phone: 602-403-8614

FAX:

Client ADW Comm

Designed by Caden Swider

Tower Elevation ft

(36 ksi) (36 ksi) T3 60.000-40.000 Equal Angle L2x2x1/8 A36

(36 ksi) Equal Angle A36

(36 ksi) T4 40.000-20.000 Equal Angle L2x2x1/8 A36

(36 ksi) Equal Angle A36

(36 ksi) T5 20.000-0.000 Equal Angle L2 1/2x2 1/2x3/16 A36

(36 ksi) Equal Angle A36

Gusset Area

(per face) ft2

Gusset Thickness

Gusset Grade Adjust. Factor Af

Adjust.

Factor

Ar

Weight Mult.

Double Angle Stitch Bolt Spacing

Diagonals in

Double Angle Stitch Bolt Spacing

Horizontals in

Double Angle Stitch Bolt Spacing

Redundants in

T1 100.000-80.00

0.170 0.1875 A36 (36 ksi)

1 1 1 36.0000 36.0000 36.0000

T2 80.000-60.000

0.170 0.1875 A36 (36 ksi)

1 1 1 36.0000 36.0000 36.0000

T3 60.000-40.000

0.170 0.1875 A36 (36 ksi)

1 1 1 36.0000 36.0000 36.0000

T4 40.000-20.000

0.250 0.2500 A36 (36 ksi)

1 1 1 36.0000 36.0000 36.0000

T5 20.000-0.000

0.250 0.2500 A36

1 1 1 36.0000 36.0000 36.0000

K Factors1

Calc K

Single Angles

Calc K

Solid Rounds

Legs X Brace Diags

X Y

K Brace Diags

X Y

Single Diags

Y

Girts

Horiz.

Sec.

Horiz.

Inner Brace

T1 100.000-80.00

No No 1 0.96 0.96

T2 80.000-60.000

No No 1 0.96 0.96

T3 60.000-40.000

No No 1 0.96 0.96

T4 40.000-20.000

No No 1 0.96 0.96

T5 20.000-0.000

No No 1 0.96 0.96

1Note: K factors are applied to member segment lengths. K-braces without inner supporting members will have the K factor in the out-of-plane direction applied to the overall length.

Page

ISE Incorperated PO Box 50039

Project ISE Job No. 17190

Date 09:44:55 08/26/21

Phoenix, AZ 85076 Phone: 602-403-8614

FAX:

Client ADW Comm

Designed by ft

Leg Diagonal Top Girt Bottom Girt Mid Girt Long Horizontal Short Horizontal

Net Width Deduct

U

Net Width Deduct

Net

Deduct

Deduct

Deduct

Deduct

T1 100.000-80.00

0.0000 1 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75

T2 80.000-60.000

0.0000 1 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75

T3 60.000-40.000

0.0000 1 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75

T4 40.000-20.000

0.0000 1 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75

T5 20.000-0.000

0.0000 1 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 ft

Redundant Horizontal

Redundant Diagonal

Redundant Sub-Diagonal

Redundant Sub-Horizontal

Redundant Vertical Redundant Hip Redundant Hip Diagonal

Net Width Deduct

Deduct

Deduct

Deduct

Deduct

T1 100.000-80.00

0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75

T2 80.000-60.000

0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75

T3 60.000-40.000

0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75

T4 40.000-20.000

0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75

T5 20.000-0.000

0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 0.0000 0.75 ft

Leg Connection

Type

Leg Diagonal Top Girt Bottom Girt Mid Girt Long Horizontal Short Horizontal

Bolt Size in

No. Bolt Size in

No. Bolt Size in

No. Bolt Size in

No. Bolt Size in

No. Bolt Size in

No. Bolt Size in

No.

T1 100.000-80.00

Flange 0.6250 A325N

4 0.5000 A325N

1 0.5000 A325N

1 0.6250 A325N

0 0.6250 A325N

0 0.6250 A325N

0 0.6250 A325N

T2 80.000-60.000

Flange 0.6250 A325N

4 0.5000 A325N

1 0.5000 A325N

1 0.6250 A325N

0 0.6250 A325N

0 0.6250 A325N

0 0.6250 A325N

T3 60.000-40.000

Flange 0.6250 A325N

4 0.5000 A325N

1 0.5000 A325N

1 0.6250 A325N

0 0.6250 A325N

0 0.6250 A325N

0 0.6250 A325N

T4 40.000-20.000

Flange 0.6250 A325N

4 0.5000 A325N

1 0.5000 A325N

1 0.6250 A325N

0 0.6250 A325N

0 0.6250 A325N

0 0.6250 A325N

Page

ISE Incorperated PO Box 50039

Project ISE Job No. 17190

Date 09:44:55 08/26/21

Phoenix, AZ 85076 Phone: 602-403-8614

FAX:

Client ADW Comm

Designed by Caden Swider

Tower Elevation ft

Leg Connection

Type

Leg Diagonal Top Girt Bottom Girt Mid Girt Long Horizontal Short Horizontal

Bolt Size in

No. Bolt Size in

No. Bolt Size in

No. Bolt Size in

No. Bolt Size in

No. Bolt Size in

No. Bolt Size in

No.

T5 20.000-0.000

Flange 0.6250 A325N

4 0.5000 A325N

1 0.5000 A325N

1 0.6250 A325N

0 0.6250 A325N

0 0.6250 A325N

0 0.6250 A325N

Feed Line/Linear Appurtenances - Entered As Round Or Flat

Description Face or

Leg

Allow Shield

Exclude From

Torque Calculation

Component

Placement

Face Offset in

Lateral Offset

(Frac FW)

Per Row

Clear Spacing in

Width or Diameter

Perimeter

Weight klf

ROHN Ladder Rail

B No No Af (CaAa) 100.000 - 9.000

12.0000 0.5 1 1 1.5000 0.0000

1.5000 0.001

ROHN Ladder Rail

C No No Af (CaAa) 100.000 - 9.000

12.0000 -0.5 1 1 1.5000 0.0000

1.5000 0.001

ROHN Ladder Rung

B No No Ar (CaAa) 100.000 - 9.000

0.0000 0.5 1 1 0.6250 0.0000

0.6250 0.001

Safety Line 3/8

B No No Ar (CaAa) 100.000 - 9.000

0.0000 0.5 1 1 0.3750 0.3750 0.000

LMR 600

(19/32

FOAM)

A No No Ar (CaAa) 37.000 - 6.000

0.0000 -0.5 3 2 0.5900 0.5900 0.000

LMR 600

(19/32

FOAM)

A No No Ar (CaAa) 61.000 - 37.000

0.0000 -0.5 2 2 0.5900 0.5900 0.000

LMR 600

(19/32

FOAM)

A No No Ar (CaAa) 82.000 - 61.000

0.0000 -0.5 1 1 0.5900 0.5900 0.000

.4'' A No No Ar (CaAa) 52.000 - 6.000

0.0000 -0.47 1 1 0.3750 0.0000

0.3750 0.000

1'' B No No Ar (CaAa) 61.000 -

6.000

0.0000 -0.5 2 2 1.0000

0.0000

1.0000 0.001

1'' B No No Ar (CaAa) 82.000 - 61.000

0.0000 -0.5 1 1 1.0000 0.0000

1.0000 0.001

1/2'' OD A No No Ar (CaAa) 17.000 - 6.000

0.0000 0.5 2 2 0.5000 0.0000

0.5000 0.000

1/2'' OD A No No Ar (CaAa) 17.000 - 6.000

0.0000 0.5 1 1 0.5000 0.0000

0.5000 0.000

1'' A No No Ar (CaAa) 29.000 - 6.000

0.0000 0.48 1 1 1.0000 0.0000

1.0000 0.001

3/8'' B No No Ar (CaAa) 100.000 - 0.000

0.0000 0.5 1 1 0.3750 0.0000

0.3750 0.000

Feed Line/Linear Appurtenances Section Areas

Section

Tower Elevation

Face AR

AF

CAAA

In Face ft2

CAAA

Out Face

K T1 100.000-80.000 A

B 0.000 0.000

0.000 0.000

0.118 7.950

0.000 0.000

0.000 0.053

Page

ISE Incorperated PO Box 50039

Project ISE Job No. 17190

Date 09:44:55 08/26/21

Phoenix, AZ 85076 Phone: 602-403-8614

FAX:

Client ADW Comm

Designed by Caden Swider

Tower Section

Tower Elevation

Face AR

In Face ft2

CAAA

Out Face

C 0.000 0.000 5.000 0.000 0.026

T2 80.000-60.000 A B C

0.000 0.000 0.000

0.000 0.000 0.000

1.239 9.850…