4 ms·
That's especially true because their design seems upside down. While they're 18 feet in diameter at the ceiling, they are just nine inches across at the floor.
by abduhl 13y ago
That's especially true because their design seems upside down. While they're 18 feet in diameter at the ceiling, they are just nine inches across at the floor. How something like that could hold 60 tons is a small bit of Frank Lloyd Wright magic. But that's exactly what they do.
This sentence irked me. How something that is 9" across can hold 60 tons is not magic, it is pretty straight forward engineering. Doing the code required design calculation for this column gives a nominal capacity for this column of around 100 tons. Buckling of this column would most likely not be a an issue due to the generous taper of the column if one were to actually do the math.
This is not magic. This is basic engineering.
- cj 13y agoBasic engineering is like magic, for most people.
- gohrt 13y agoWas that code already published by 1937?
- abduhl 13y agoWhile I'm obviously not aware of what the codes in place were in 1937, the American Concrete Institute (ACI) has been around since 1906 I believe. In addition, my comment is not in response to whether or not the building codes or inspectors back then knew what we now know about concrete (they obviously did not), my comment is in response to a modern day visitor like the post's author looking at something with a relatively straightforward explanation using today's engineering principles and calling it magic.
- tzs 13y ago> Doing the code required design calculation for this column gives a nominal capacity for this column of around 100 tons You say "this column". Do you mean a single column of that design should hold around 100 tons, or do you mean that the complete set of columns should hold around 100 tons?
- willyt 13y agoHe's saying just one of those columns will support 100 tons. The self weight is probably something like 20 tons. 100 tons is not a very big load in construction terms.
- jeffclark 13y agoRelax. The guy writing the article is likely a journalist, not an engineer.