Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: markomalley; varina davis; JimRed; normy; LadyBuzz

I had always assumed it had an internal steel superstructure. As most people assume “brick houses” are stronger, when in reality, it’s just a veneer actually tied to the wooden wall frame to support it.

But what I’ve read of the history says the Washington Monument is actually a true masonry edifice.

In other words, it’s just a pile of rocks waiting to happen.


9 posted on 09/01/2011 6:21:58 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: sam_paine

“..just a pile of rocks waiting to happen.”

Yeah, but it turns out piles of rocks are pretty natural, robust structures.

And regarding houses, what you say is true for “modern” construction (~1950 +). But earlier brick buildings really were masonry structures - typically 8” thick walls for a house. Then they’d just fir the inside and plaster the walls.

The problem with pure masonry structures is the thickness of wall required at the base for taller structures.

Buildings over 100’ tall might have walls several feet thick at the bottom.

Other than earthquakes though, they do last. Their inherent strength is based on the most reliable factor around: gravity.


15 posted on 09/01/2011 6:43:50 AM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson