Orion/Baker on tue 3 feb 98
Vince, Paul, other good souls --
I'm very happy to agree that a metal frame may be the most convenient and
cost efficient way to contain a sprung arch.
The concept I've been trying to share is that arches differ in the degree
of lateral restraint required to (a) stand, or (b) "stay sprung." There
are various trade-offs and efficiencies to consider when developing any
design -- headroom, chamber volume, expense, etc.
I'm all in favor of taking the practical approach to any mechanical
problem. Of course, Vince, big buttresses and heavy retaining walls may be
an inefficient approach. But Paul, metal isn't the one-and-only choice.
There are lots of options, configurations, etc. I tried to make my points
as generally as possible because this whole debate was sparked by over-use
of exaggeration and absolutes ("always," "never," etc.).
If a person decides to use a metal frame to contain a sprung arch, using
threaded rods is perhaps easier (and definitely more adjustable) than
welding a fixed frame. Incorporating springs, as Marshall suggested, may
work well -- though I've never been around one of those (is heat hard on
spring steel? maybe not!).
It's been a good debate, and I'm sure there's much more to talk about. On
the whole, folks have kept a pretty good tone too -- issue-oriented, not
emotional. Good debate.
Best regards, as always,
Ellen Baker - Glacier, WA
orion@telcomplus.net
PS -- I'm always happy to discuss details by direct e-mail if someone
want's to exchange specifics.
| |
|
