tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post3022113041892030303..comments2024-01-30T06:35:10.103+00:00Comments on www.Sarsen.org: Anthony Johnson's Solving Stonehenge Argument That I'm Wrong.Tim Dawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10667360714222841797noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-42595316878168360882013-07-12T07:51:37.230+01:002013-07-12T07:51:37.230+01:00Thanks Tim
I would love to see their figures: You...Thanks Tim<br /><br />I would love to see their figures: You wouldn't expect to see crushing deformation on the toe side because the stresses don't look high enough. With this type of foundation, the failure mechanism can instead be along Mohr circles (shear) because chalk has relatively weak horizontal planes: <br /><br />So if failure were to occur, the whole block of chalk behind the toe would start to rotate, but would appear to remain undisturbed. As the slippage progresses, the structural component slips into the void created by the Mohr failure. <br /><br />Jon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-72566731007901746802013-07-11T19:03:38.435+01:002013-07-11T19:03:38.435+01:00Sorry Jon I don't.
As for the stresses Anthon...Sorry Jon I don't. <br />As for the stresses Anthony says that Gowland found a "clean face" which is very different to what a stress deformed face would have been. The difference is because on one side there was solid undisturbed chalk rock and on the other chalk rubble fill. Tim Dawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10667360714222841797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-29915233898888886602013-07-11T17:37:11.636+01:002013-07-11T17:37:11.636+01:00Incidentally, do you know who did the soil deforma...Incidentally, do you know who did the soil deformation analysis for MPP's book? There's a two stage process for this as the initial deformation is increased due to the method of reset that Gowland appears to have used. Tony's figures look better to me, but I made assumptions about the soil stata based on public data, so the assumptions may be unjustified.Jon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-35116008771191399682013-07-11T11:29:54.046+01:002013-07-11T11:29:54.046+01:00From an engineering perspective, his analysis is c...From an engineering perspective, his analysis is correct in so far as its position is concerned: This type of ground does deform under the type of pressure that would be exerted.<br /><br />The centre of gravity of the stone would have exerted a force component (stress) down into the soil on the inner face. As all forces must balance in any system, the direction of this stress results in a lateral component force on the sidewall of the outer surface of the hole within which the stone is set. <br /><br />Chalk, particularly partially sofflucated chalk and/or fill, deforms under long term pressure, which would have allowed the stone to slip laterally as he describes.<br /><br />Gowland would have had to re-set the base of the trilithon in order to correct for this. It does seem that Gowland did not do this.Jon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.com