FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   2   3   4   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   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   >>   >|  
d who was not a destructive critic. If showing up errors and faults is destructive criticism, we cannot have too much of it; in fact, we cannot advance without it. If engineering practice is to be purged of its inconsistencies and absurdities, it will never be done by dwelling on its excellencies. Reinforced concrete engineering has fairly leaped into prominence and apparently into full growth, but it still wears some of its swaddling-bands. Some of the garments which it borrowed from sister forms of construction in its short infancy still cling to it, and, while these were, perhaps, the best makeshifts under the circumstances, they fit badly and should be discarded. It is some of these misfits and absurdities which the writer would like to bring prominently before the Engineering Profession. [Illustration: FIG. 1.] The first point to which attention is called, is illustrated in Fig. 1. It concerns sharp bends in reinforcing rods in concrete. Fig. 1 shows a reinforced concrete design, one held out, in nearly all books on the subject, as a model. The reinforcing rod is bent up at a sharp angle, and then may or may not be bent again and run parallel with the top of the beam. At the bend is a condition which resembles that of a hog-chain or truss-rod around a queen-post. The reinforcing rod is the hog-chain or the truss-rod. Where is the queen-post? Suppose this rod has a section of 1 sq. in. and an inclination of 60 deg. with the horizontal, and that its unit stress is 16,000 lb. per sq. in. The forces, _a_ and _b_, are then 16,000 lb. The force, _c_, must be also 16000 lb. What is to take this force, _c_, of 16,000 lb.? There is nothing but concrete. At 500 lb. per sq. in., this force would require an area of 32 sq. in. Will some advocate of this type of design please state where this area can be found? It must, of necessity, be in contact with the rod, and, for structural reasons, because of the lack of stiffness in the rod, it would have to be close to the point of bend. If analogy to the queen-post fails so completely, because of the almost complete absence of the post, why should not this borrowed garment be discarded? If this same rod be given a gentle curve of a radius twenty or thirty times the diameter of the rod, the side unit pressure will be from one-twentieth to one-thirtieth of the unit stress on the steel. This being the case, and being a simple principle of mechanics which ought to be thoroughly un
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   2   3   4   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   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

concrete

 

reinforcing

 
stress
 

borrowed

 

design

 

discarded

 

destructive

 
engineering
 

absurdities

 

require


Suppose

 

section

 

critic

 
inclination
 
forces
 

showing

 

horizontal

 
thirty
 

diameter

 

twenty


radius
 

gentle

 
pressure
 

twentieth

 

mechanics

 

principle

 

simple

 

thirtieth

 

garment

 
necessity

contact

 

advocate

 

structural

 
reasons
 

completely

 
complete
 
absence
 

stiffness

 

analogy

 
infancy

construction

 
advance
 
sister
 

misfits

 

makeshifts

 

circumstances

 

garments

 
excellencies
 
Reinforced
 

practice