FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70  
71   72   >>  
he stresses due to the thrust of the material will" not "change if bracing should be substituted for the material in the area" designated by him, etc., provided he makes the further assumption that absolutely no motion, however infinitesimal, has taken place meantime; but, unless such motion has actually taken place, no arch action can have developed. An arch thrust can result only with true arch action, that is, with stable abutments, and the mass stressed wholly in compression, with corresponding shortening of the arch line. The arch thrust must be proportional to the elastic deformation (shortening) of the arch line. If any such arch as is shown in Fig. 5 is assumed to carry the whole of the weight of material above it, that assumed arch must relieve all the assumed arches below. Therefore each of the assumed arches can carry nothing more than its own mass. Otherwise the resulting thrust would increase with the depth, which is opposed to the author's theory. Turning again to the condition that each arch can carry only its own weight: if these arches are assumed of thicknesses proportional to the distance upward from the bottom of the wall, they will be similar figures, and it is easily demonstrated that the thrust will then be uniform in amount throughout the whole height of the wall, except, perhaps, at the very top. This condition is contrary to the author's ideas and also to the facts as demonstrated by the writer's experiment on the 40-ft. retaining wall at St. George. Consequently, the author's statement: "nor can anyone * * * doubt that the top timbers are stressed more heavily than those at the bottom," is emphatically doubted and earnestly denied by the writer. Furthermore, "the assumption" made by the author as to "the tendency of the material to slide" so as to cause it "to wedge * * * between the face of the sheeting * * * and some plane between the sheeting and the plane of repose," is considered as absolutely unwarranted, and consequently the whole conclusion is believed to be unjustified. Nor is the author's assumption (line 5, p. 361), that "the thrust * * * is measured by its weight divided by the tangent of the * * * angle of repose" at all obvious. The author presents some very interesting photographs showing the natural surface slopes of various materials; but it is interesting to note that he describes these slopes as having been produced by the "continual slipping down of particles." The vast
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70  
71   72   >>  



Top keywords:

author

 

thrust

 

assumed

 
material
 

arches

 

weight

 

assumption

 
shortening
 

stressed

 

repose


interesting

 

slopes

 
proportional
 

demonstrated

 

writer

 
sheeting
 

bottom

 

condition

 

absolutely

 

motion


action
 

retaining

 
George
 

substituted

 

tendency

 

Consequently

 

emphatically

 

heavily

 
timbers
 

doubted


earnestly
 

Furthermore

 

denied

 

statement

 
conclusion
 

materials

 

describes

 

change

 
natural
 

surface


particles

 

slipping

 

produced

 

continual

 
showing
 

photographs

 

believed

 

unjustified

 
experiment
 

considered