FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   >>  
olumns is nearly 50% greater than the minimum of the concrete-steel columns. If the two lowest tests in plain concrete and the two highest in concrete-steel had not been made, the average would be in favor of the plain concrete by nearly as much as Mr. Thompson's average now favors the concrete-steel columns. Further, if these four tests be eliminated, only three of the concrete-steel columns are higher than the plain concrete. So much for the value of averages and the conclusions drawn therefrom. It is idle to draw any conclusions from such juggling of figures, except that the addition of longitudinal steel rods is altogether problematical. It may lessen the compressive strength of a concrete column. Slender rods in such a column cannot be said to reinforce it, for the reason that careful tests have been recorded in which columns of concrete-steel were weaker than those of plain concrete. In the averages of the Minneapolis tests Mr. Thompson has compared the results on two plain concrete columns with the average of tests on an indiscriminate lot of hooped and banded columns. This method of boosting the average shows anything but "critical examination" on his part. Mr. Thompson, on the subject of Mr. Withey's tests, compares plain concrete of square cross-section with concrete-steel of octagonal section. As stated before, this is not a proper comparison. In a fragile material like concrete the corners spall off under a compressive load, and the square section will not show up as well as an octagonal or round one. Mr. Thompson's contention, regarding the Minneapolis tests, that the concrete outside of the hoops should not be considered, is ridiculous. If longitudinal rods reinforce a concrete column, why is it necessary to imagine that a large part of the concrete must be assumed to be non-existent in order to make this reinforcement manifest? An imaginary core could be assumed in a plain concrete column and any desired results could be obtained. Furthermore, a properly hooped column does not enter into this discussion, as the proposition is that slender longitudinal rods do not reinforce a concrete column; if hoops are recognized, the column does not come under this proposition. Further, the proposition in the writer's fifteenth point does not say that the steel takes no part of the compression of a column. Mr. Thompson's laborious explanation of the fact that the steel receives a share of the load is needl
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   >>  



Top keywords:
concrete
 
column
 
columns
 

Thompson

 
average
 

reinforce

 
proposition
 
longitudinal
 

section

 

compressive


square

 
assumed
 

octagonal

 

conclusions

 

Minneapolis

 
hooped
 

results

 

averages

 

Further

 

ridiculous


existent

 

considered

 

minimum

 

imagine

 

greater

 

lowest

 

corners

 

material

 
contention
 
manifest

fifteenth

 
writer
 

recognized

 

compression

 

receives

 

laborious

 

explanation

 

slender

 

imaginary

 

reinforcement


fragile

 
desired
 

obtained

 

discussion

 

olumns

 
Furthermore
 
properly
 

stated

 

Slender

 
eliminated