FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29  
30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   >>  
ontinued for several years to circulate petitions advocating its demolition by the government. One of these critics, it was said--probably apocryphally--took an office on the first platform, that being the only place in Paris from which the Tower could not be seen. [Illustration: Figure 3.--Trevithick's proposed cast-iron tower (1832) would have been 1,000 feet high, 100 feet in diameter at the base, 12 feet at the top, and surmounted by a colossal statue. (From F. Dye, _Popular Engineering_, London, 1895, p. 205.)] The Tower's Structural Rationale During the previously mentioned studies of high piers undertaken by the Eiffel firm, it was established that as the base width of these piers increased in proportion to their height, the diagonal bracing connecting the vertical members, necessary for rigidity, became so long as to be subject to high flexural stresses from wind and columnar loading. To resist these stresses, the bracing required extremely large sections which greatly increased the surface of the structure exposed to the wind, and was, moreover, decidedly uneconomical. To overcome this difficulty, the principle which became the basic design concept of the Tower was developed. The material which would otherwise have been used for the continuous lattice of diagonal bracing was concentrated in the four corner columns of the Tower, and these verticals were connected only at two widely separated points by the deep bands of trussing which formed the first and second platforms. A slight curvature inward was given to the main piers to further widen the base and increase the stability of the structure. At a point slightly above the second platform, the four members converged to the extent that conventional bracing became more economical, and they were joined. [Illustration: Figure 4.--The proposed 1,000-foot iron tower designed by Clarke, Reeves & Co. for the Centennial Exhibition of 1876 at Philadelphia. (From _Scientific American_, Jan. 24, 1874, vol. 30, p. 47.)] That this theory was successful not only practically, but visually, is evident from the resulting work. The curve of the legs and the openings beneath the two lower platforms are primarily responsible for the Tower's graceful beauty as well as for its structural soundness. The design of the Tower was not actually the work of Eiffel himself but of two of his chief engineers, Emile Nouguier (1840-?) and Maurice Koechlin (1856-1946
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29  
30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   >>  



Top keywords:

bracing

 

platforms

 

diagonal

 

members

 

structure

 

stresses

 

increased

 

Eiffel

 
design
 
Illustration

proposed

 
Figure
 

platform

 

engineers

 

stability

 
increase
 

economical

 
conventional
 

extent

 

converged


slightly

 
widely
 

separated

 
points
 

Koechlin

 

connected

 
verticals
 

Maurice

 

slight

 

curvature


Nouguier
 

trussing

 
formed
 

successful

 

practically

 

responsible

 

primarily

 

columns

 

theory

 

visually


openings

 

beneath

 
resulting
 
evident
 

Clarke

 

Reeves

 

structural

 

designed

 

soundness

 

beauty