FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   >>  
nding moment at the end of the arch, which is found by the elastic theory (on paper), has merely to overturn this block of concrete, and it is aided very materially in this by the thrust of the arch. The deformation of the abutment, due to deficiency in its moment of inertia, is a theoretical trifle which might very aptly be minutely considered by the elastic arch theorist. He appears to have settled all fears on that score among his votaries. The settlement of the abutment both vertically and horizontally, a thing of tremendously more magnitude and importance, he has totally ignored. Most soils are more or less compressible. The resultant thrust on an arch abutment is usually in a direction cutting about the edge of the middle third. The effect of this force is to tend to cause more settlement of the abutment at the outer, than at the inner, edge, or, in other words, it would cause the abutment to rotate. In addition to this the same force tends to spread the abutments apart. Both these efforts put an initial bending moment in the arch ring at the springing; a moment not calculated, and impossible to calculate. Messrs. Taylor and Thompson, in their book, give much space to the elastic theory of the reinforced concrete arch. Little of that space, however, is taken up with the abutment, and the case they give has abutments in solid rock with a slope about normal to the thrust of the arch ring. They recommend that the thrust be made to strike as near the middle of the base of the abutment as possible. Malverd A. Howe, M. Am. Soc. C. E., in a recent issue of _Engineering News_, shows how to find the stresses and moments in an elastic arch; but he does not say anything about how to take care of the large bending moments which he finds at the springing. Specialists in arch construction state that when the centering is struck, every arch increases in span by settlement. Is this one fact not enough to make the elastic theory a nullity, for that theory assumes immovable abutments? Professor Howe made some recent tests on checking up the elastic behavior of arches. He reports[X] that "a very slight change at the support does seriously affect the values of _H_ and _M_." The arch tested was of 20-ft. span, and built between two heavy stone walls out of all proportion to the magnitude of the arch, as measured by comparison with an ordinary arch and its abutment. To make the arch fixed ended, a large heavily reinforced hea
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   >>  



Top keywords:

abutment

 

elastic

 
thrust
 

moment

 

theory

 

abutments

 

settlement

 

middle

 

magnitude

 

recent


reinforced

 
moments
 
bending
 

springing

 
concrete
 
Specialists
 

construction

 

centering

 

increases

 

struck


Malverd

 

stresses

 

overturn

 

Engineering

 

nullity

 

proportion

 

heavily

 

measured

 

comparison

 
ordinary

tested

 

checking

 
Professor
 

immovable

 

assumes

 
behavior
 

arches

 
affect
 

values

 
support

change

 

reports

 

slight

 
materially
 

considered

 

effect

 
minutely
 

theorist

 

cutting

 
appears