03-02-2009, 07:59 PM
Guys,
I see a lot of assertions here.... careful guys
I have difficulty with the dome comparision for a number of reasons. First and foremost we're talking about wood, not stone. and the transmission of force is affected by the compression and expansion of the wood.
Wood failures come from two possible sources:
- delamination of layers of the grain
- Catastrophic breaks in the grain.
And as we don't have an awful lot of evidence for the contruction (carved planks? steam bent planks? bent willow strips? wicker? hide and frame? all of the above?) which makes modelling more difficult.
In either case, whatever the method of construction, a bowl of wood has additional behaviours not well modelled by the arch parallel being employed.
Time to run again, I'll revisit later...
Cole
I see a lot of assertions here.... careful guys
I have difficulty with the dome comparision for a number of reasons. First and foremost we're talking about wood, not stone. and the transmission of force is affected by the compression and expansion of the wood.
Wood failures come from two possible sources:
- delamination of layers of the grain
- Catastrophic breaks in the grain.
And as we don't have an awful lot of evidence for the contruction (carved planks? steam bent planks? bent willow strips? wicker? hide and frame? all of the above?) which makes modelling more difficult.
In either case, whatever the method of construction, a bowl of wood has additional behaviours not well modelled by the arch parallel being employed.
Time to run again, I'll revisit later...
Cole
Cole