2 ms·
Likely only viable for novelty structures carrying light loads. If you look at this from a strict engineering perspective, a set of steps resting on the hill i
by jqpabc123 3y ago
Likely only viable for novelty structures carrying light loads.
If you look at this from a strict engineering perspective, a set of steps resting on the hill in the background could have achieved the same result at a fraction of the cost.
- IshKebab 3y agoWhy light loads? Concrete arches should be able to carry extremely heavy loads. I don't understand what you mean about a set of steps achieving the same result. That wouldn't be a bridge.
- usrusr 3y agoDepends on how close "concrete ink" made from random torn down buildings comes to the performance characteristics of concrete from well known sources that is cast in place. Even that has a super wide range of performance characteristics. Chances are the printed blocks are much weaker, perhaps like particle board vs proper wood.
- jqpabc123 3y agoConcrete arches should be able to carry extremely heavy loads. Monolithic concrete structures, yes. Concrete pieced together, not so sure. That wouldn't be a bridge. No, it wouldn't. In this particular cases, there is nothing being bridged. The only place this "bridge" goes is up a small incline in the background.
- IshKebab 3y ago> The only place this "bridge" goes is up a small incline in the background. You understand that this is a technology demonstration right?
- jqpabc123 3y agoYes, and the only thing demonstrated is the ability to resist it's own weight and light foot traffic.
- IshKebab 3y ago> Monolithic concrete structures, yes. Concrete pieced together, not so sure. It's in compression. The fact that it is pieced together makes no difference to its theoretical strength.
- jqpabc123 3y agoOnly true for a real circular shaped arch --- which this shallow ellipse shaped demonstration "bridge" most definitely is not.