Eiffel - Proposal For A Tower

Architectural Research Quarterly
http://journals.cambridge.org/ARQ
Additional services for Architectural
Research Quarterly:
Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here
Proposal for an iron tower: 300 metres in height

Claudette Roland and Patrick Weidman
Architectural Research Quarterly / Volume 8 / Issue 3-4 / December 2004, pp 215 - 245
DOI: 10.1017/S1359135504000260, Published online: 08 December 2005
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1359135504000260

How to cite this article:
Claudette Roland and Patrick Weidman (2004). Proposal for an iron tower: 300 metres in height. Architectural Research
Quarterly, 8, pp 215-245 doi:10.1017/S1359135504000260
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ARQ, IP address: 140.254.87.149 on 27 Aug 2015
document
theory
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
In this previously untranslated text, Gustave Eiffel explains the

technical rationale of his then controversial tower and argues
persuasively for its practical uses and cultural value to Paris.
Proposal for an iron tower:

300 metres in height
This translation of the mmoire Gustave Eiffel

delivered to the French Civil Engineering Society in
1885 is the byproduct of a quest to understand the
physics underlying the construction of the Eiffel
Tower. Prior to this research, several mathematical
models for the skyline shape of the tower had been
published. In no case, however, could the proposed
physics of tower construction be traced directly to
publications by, or interviews with, Eiffel and his
engineers. The final result of this investigation,
published by P. Weidman and I. Pinelis in Comptes
Rendus Mecanique, vol 332 (2004), shows that the tower
was constructed in a fashion that would eliminate
the load on diagonal elements (trellis bars) of tall
vertical structures subjected to the bending moment
of a horizontal wind. With this design, the large
trellis bars diagonally criss-crossing each face of the
tower could be eliminated and the resulting shape
was that of four elegant curved piers that merge into
a single slender spire at mid-height. Eiffel was proud
of his new construction technique and even viewed
the tower as a product of Nature. In his mmoire he
stated: Before they meet at such an impressive
height, the uprights appear to spring out of the
ground, moulded in a way by the action of the wind

itself. The findings published (in English) in Comptes
Rendus Mecanique show indeed that the skyline shape,
formed by the 29 panels on each tower face, lends
itself to mathematical description: the tower closely
resembles an exponential profile, with width
decreasing smoothly from bottom to top.
One of the most appealing aspects of translating
this text was the fact that Eiffel, the quintessential
French engineer, had written it himself. In his own
words, the pioneer architect tells how he created and
sold the monument that would become the
unmistakable worldwide symbol of Paris and France.
The translation would not have been possible by
either translator alone. Ms Roland made every effort
to maintain the original flavour of the nineteenthcentury French text. Professor Weidman handled the
equations and did research on various technical, and
sometimes archaic, words appearing in the mmoire.
We have kept the translation as close as possible to
the original in style, and retained Eiffels
punctuation whenever feasible, including his
abundant use of commas and semicolons employed
to keep various concepts unified.
Editors note:
At the translators suggestion, Eiffels text and illustrations
have been printed as closely as possible to the original
format and layout.
document
http://journals.cambridge.org
Downloaded: 27 Aug 2015
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
IP address: 140.254.87.149
215
216
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
document
PROPOSAL FOR AN IRON TOWER
300 METRES IN HEIGHT

DESTINED FOR THE 1889 EXPOSITION
By
G. EIFFEL
Ever since my colleagues Messrs. Nouguier, Koechlin and Sauvestre and I have
informed the public of a 300-metre metal tower project intended for the 1889
Exposition, the idea has gained acceptance.
A lot of the French and foreign scientific and political press covered it, and today few
people remain unaware of the projects main features.
There was at first a lot of criticism, particularly with regard to the practical uses of
such a construction, but we also received support and encouragement from eminent
men, which gave us confidence in the viability of the project.
Currently the problem is clearly defined; various possible objections have been
raised, as were indications of genuine possible applications; and it is time for us to
acquaint the Society with the technical aspects of a project with which it already is
generally familiar, and which we have studied in detail.
The idea itself is not new: without going back to the tower of Babel, one will recall
that in 1874, a thousand-foot tower had been proposed for the Philadelphia Exposition;
we do not know why it was not built.
In 1881, M. Sbillot proposed to light up Paris with an electrical source placed 300
metres above the ground. This idea, whose practicality we do not have to discuss here,
has not been carried out to date.
Proposal for an iron tower
IP address: 140.254.87.149
document
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
Meanwhile, our studies of high metal piers supporting railroad viaducts, such as the
Garabit viaduct, led us to think that piers much higher than those already existing
could be built without great difficulties.
1. General considerations about the construction
of high metallic piers
The main difficulty encountered in the construction of these high piers is as follows:
Normally, an elaborate truss system designed to withstand the force of the wind is
built into the large planes normal to the axis of the viaduct. Since the pillars bases
must be increased in size as their heights increase, due to their great length, the truss
members efficiency becomes practically illusory.
Even if these were designed as caissons, as we were the first to do, so that each one
could withstand both tension and compression, they nevertheless remain a great
problem if the space between the pier footings reaches 25 to 30 metres. It is therefore
much better to completely eliminate these additional, relatively heavy elements and to
shape the piers in such a way that all the shearing forces will be concentrated on the
piers edges, by reducing these piers to four large uprights, without any crossbracing,
and simply linked by a few, interspersed, horizontal belts.
If we are dealing with a pier supporting a metal deck, and we consider the effect of
the wind on the deck alone, which is always greater than the effect on the pier itself, we
will simply need, in order to eliminate the crossbracing members of the vertical planes,
to have the two axes of the truss frame go through a single point located at the top of the
pier.
Obviously, in this case, the horizontal wind load can be decomposed directly
according to the axes of the truss systems, and these will not be subjected to any
shearing forces.
If, on the contrary, we are dealing with a very high pier such as our tower, where
there is no longer any horizontal wind stress on the deck at the top, but only the wind
stress on the pier itself, things are different, and it is enough, in order to eliminate the
use of the truss members, to give the uprights a curve such that the tangents to these
IP address: 140.254.87.149
217
218
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
document
uprights, brought to points located at the same height, always meet at the crossing
point of the resultant of the stress exerted by the wind on the section of the pier above
the points being discussed.
Lastly, if we want to take into consideration both the wind load on the upper viaduct
deck and the load on the pier itself, the exterior curve of the pier tends closely to a
straight line.
A tall viaduct pier, such as the one we are planning, could thus simply be composed
of four corner uprights, built in the form of caissons. The walls would be hollowed out to
decrease the surface exposed to the wind. The ratio between the height and the base
could be as great as desired to give the construction the necessary strength.
In connection with this, we studied a large viaduct pier 120 metres high with a base
of 40 metres, in whose practical advantages we firmly believe and which we hope to be
able to use one day in a large construction project.
2. Summary description of the features of the
300 metre iron tower

All this research led us to study a tower or pylon, reaching the uncommon height of
300 metres.
Here is a brief description of this tower:
The frame is essentially composed of four uprights forming the edges of a curved
pyramid. Each upright has a square section decreasing in size from the base to the top
and forming a curved caisson with a large lattice, 15 metres wide at the base and 5
metres at the top.
The spacing of the upright footings is 100 metres between axes. These uprights rest
on solid foundation blocks inside of which they are anchored, for added stability.
On the first floor, that is to say approximately 70 metres above the ground, the
uprights are linked by a 15-metre wide, glassed-in gallery, which goes around the
construction.
This gallery, with a surface of 4,200 square metres inclusive of balconies, could serve
as a meeting room either for a restaurant, or various other venues, which we will
discuss later.
IP address: 140.254.87.149
document
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
On the second floor is a square room, also glassed-in, 30 metres wide.

At the top is a 250 square metre glass cupola with an exterior balcony, from which
visitors will be able to enjoy the splendid panoramic views extending as far as 120
kilometres. Also from this terrace, scientific experiments and studies could be
conducted, and an electrical source to light the exhibition could be installed.
In the towers lower portion and on each face is a grand arch 50 metres high and
spanning 80 metres. These arches, with see-through fasciae and tympanums
ornamented with elements of various colours constitute the main decorating feature.
Visitor traffic would flow via lifts placed inside the uprights.
3. Conditions of resistance and stability of the tower;
effects of the wind; foundations; spire at the summit
I arrive now at the conditions of resistance:
The decomposition of the wind forces is established according to the principles we
discussed above.
Let us suppose, for a moment, that we have laid out on the faces of a simple truss
forming a resisting wall the shearing forces of the wind, the horizontal components of
which are:
P, P, P, P.
We know that in order to calculate the forces acting on the three pieces cut by plane
MN, we need to determine the resultant P of all exterior forces acting above the section,
and to decompose this resultant into three forces acting through the cut pieces.
If the shape of the system is such that, for each horizontal cut MN, the two extended
truss frames intersect on the exterior force P, the forces in the truss beam will be zero,
and we will be able to exclude this structural support.
It is the application of this principle which constitutes one of the distinctive features
of our system, and which we believe is worth bringing to the Societys attention.
Consequently, the direction of each upright element deflects following a curve
illustrated in the drawing (fig. 1, pl. 91), and in reality, the exterior curve of the tower
reproduces, at a given scale, the very curve created by the bending moments of the
wind.
4
IP address: 140.254.87.149
219
220
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
document
Since we do not know exactly the effects of the wind, the numbers to be used with
regard to the intensity itself, or the area of the exposed surfaces, we proceeded with
extreme caution.
With regard to the intensity, we considered two hypotheses: the first assumes that
the wind exerts a constant force of 300 kilograms per square metre against the entire
height of the tower. The second assumes that the intensity increases from the base
where it is 200 kilograms, to the summit where it reaches 400 kilograms.
As for the exposed surfaces, we did not hesitate, in spite of its apparent
exaggeration, to admit the hypothesis that, on the upper portion of the tower, all the
lattices of the caissons were replaced by plain walls; on the middle level, where the
voids take on more importance, each front face measured four times its actual iron
surface; below (first floor gallery and upper portion of the arches), the front surface was
solid; and finally, at the base of the tower, the uprights were solid walls and struck twice
by the wind.
These hypotheses are much more extreme than those generally accepted for
viaducts.
Using these surfaces, we calculated the distribution of the intensity of the wind
using both hypotheses, and we can see from the drawing that in both cases the
resulting funicular polygons are nearly identical.
IP address: 140.254.87.149
document
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
In the case of a uniform wind of 300 kilograms against the entire height, the total
horizontal load against the construction is 3,284 tons, and the centre of action is located
92.3 metres above the support. Thus the overturning moment is:
MR = 3,284 92.3 m = 303,113 ton metres.
As for the stabilising moment, the total weight of the construction is as follows:
Metal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4,800
tons
Rough-plaster floors 5,500 m at 300 kg. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1,650
Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50
Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6,500
tons
The base of the tower being 100 metres, the moment of stability will be:
100
___
MS = 6,500 2 = 325,000 ton metres, which is higher than the moment of
destabilisation.
In the second hypothesis, we used a wind varying between 200 and 400 kilograms.
The total horizontal load comes down to 2,874 tons, but the centre of action goes up to
107 metres above the support, and so the destabilising moment is:
MR = 2,874 107 = 307,518 ton metres.
This number is almost identical to the number in the first hypothesis and remains
lower than the stabilising moment.
We could even significantly increase the safety factor by attaching each of the four
upright chords to the foundation blocks using three tie rods of a diameter of 0.11 metre,
involving a masonry cube sufficient to double the factor of safety.
As for the foundations, a few numbers will suffice to show that their execution would
be simple.
They are built as follows:
Each of the corner chords rests on a square, ordinary masonry block 6 metres high
and 8 metres wide, supported by a concrete base 4 metres thick and 9 metres wide.
IP address: 140.254.87.149
221
222
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
document
These blocks are crossed by 8-metre long anchors and linked to each other by a wall
one metre thick. This leaves between them a large glassed-in room of approximately
250 square metres, which will be used for access to lifts and to house the machinery.
Under these conditions, the load on the foundation floor would be as follows, based
on a wind of 300 kilograms:
1) Metal upright load:
Weight alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6,500
4
= 1,625 tons
3,162
tons
2) Masonry load. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5,400
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8,562
tons
Wind load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
307,518
= 1,537
2 100
which distributed over a surface of 324 square metres, gives per square centimetre:
8,562,000
= 2.6 kg on average
3,240,000
and 4.50 kg on the most compressed edge.
Finally, to estimate the maximum wind load, note that we must use a wind of 300
kilograms, which is so exceptional that it has never been known to occur in Paris, and
we will use a load coefficient of 10 kilograms, which would be the equivalent of a 6 to 7
kilogram load under normal wind occurrences in Paris.
The 10 kilogram coefficient is customarily used in Germany and Austria for large
steelworks not subjected (like bridges) to vibrations caused by trains. We have already
used it ourselves in the Budapest train station, and railway companies in France also
use it for large steelworks.
In our tower, the total coefficient portion due to the loads is 5 kilograms, and it is also
5 kilograms for loads due to winds of 300 kilograms. It will be reduced to 1 or 2
kilograms for ordinary strong winds in Paris.
IP address: 140.254.87.149
document
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
I must also address the potential deflection under the action of the wind in such a
tower. This is an interesting problem, not so much with regard to the deflection which
may occur under the extreme conditions of a wind of 300 to 400 kilograms, which we do
not have to worry about since the summit of the tower would no longer be accessible,
but it is useful to determine if, with ordinary violent winds, people present on the upper
platform would be uncomfortable.
Working with the wind classifications used in Claudels work, and calculating
deflections corresponding to the pressures indicated, we found the deflections to be as
follows:
TABLE of deflections under various winds
WIND CLASSIFICATION
SPEED
PRESSURE
DEFLECTION
per second
per square metre
of the tower
metres
kgs.
metres
Very strong breeze . . . . . . . .
10.00
13.54
0.038
Breeze affecting top sails . .
12.00
19.50
0.055
Very strong wind . . . . . . . . .
15.00
30.47
0.086
Blustering wind . . . . . . . . . .
20.00
54.16
0.153
Storm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24.00
78.00
0.221
These numbers are quite reassuring, and since the oscillations will be extremely
slow because of the great length of the bending portion, the effect will almost certainly
not be felt. It will be much less noticeable than in a masonry lighthouse, where the
mortars elasticity is the major cause of deflection.
IP address: 140.254.87.149
223
224
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
document
4. Lifts
For the lifts to be installed in the tower, which will be of unusual size, we went to M.
Heurtebise, who proposed the following system which seems to us quite workable as
well as capable of ensuring complete safety.
The well known system of hydraulic lifts with compensator created by his company
would activate two articulated shafts running the entire length of the tower, placed
inside one of the four uprights and following its curvature.
Each of these shafts would, every thirty metres (run of hydraulic pistons) receive
cabins which would, thanks to an alternate movement given the shafts, line up in front
of each other at the end of their run. At that point, they would stop for approximately
half a minute, during which time the lower cabin would fill up. Each alternate cabin
would empty its passengers into the facing cabin, and the upper cabin would let out its
passengers on the towers platform. A similar second lift would be used for the descent.
This system would be absolutely safe and would enable a great number of
passengers to go up at the same time, with continuous departures.
The cabins speed would be limited to 50 centimetres per second, since too great a
speed would be uncomfortable for most people. Thus the ascent of the 30 metres
constituting a floor would take one minute. If we include a half a minute stop, the climb
of each 30 metre span will take one and a half minutes, or a total of 15 minutes for the
entire ascent.
With each cabin holding ten passengers and departures occurring every minute and
a half, 400 people per hour could be taken up.
The total cost of this apparatus could reach 200,000 francs, excluding the machinery,
250,000 francs if we include it.
5. Using the tower to electrically light

the Exposition
At least for the duration of the Exposition, the top of the tower can be used to house
an electric light source, capable of giving out a warm and pleasant light over the park
and the gardens.
IP address: 140.254.87.149
document
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
If we consider the surface to be lit a circle 1,000 metres in diameter, and as a

condition that there be sufficient light to read a printed page, Messrs. Sautter and
Lemonnier, the well known manufacturers of electrical beacons, while they do not think
this would be the best use of light, estimate that a source placed at the top of the tower
would have to be 3,000 ampres. They base this estimate on the lighting of the quays of
Rouen, for which the source was placed at a height of 13 metres, with an intensity of 24
ampres, and adequately lit a circle 130 metres in diameter.
In our case, the distance between the light and the centre of the circle is
approximately 10 times greater than in Rouen, and it would be necessary to have a
source 100 times more powerful. But since we also have to factor in atmospheric
absorption, the source of light will have to be 125 24, or 3,000 ampres, which will
require a 400 to 500 horsepower generator.
However, 90 ampres is, until now, the maximum that one can practically obtain
with a single lamp.
At most, we would need 33 lamps, but it is better to plan for 48 of various intensities,
which would be positioned around the upper lantern, in three tiers and lighting three
concentric zones.
With light sources of continuous current we dont have to be overly concerned with
aiming the light towards the ground since it has been demonstrated that almost all
rays are naturally projected from bottom to top in the shape of a cone whose
generatrices are 45 degrees from a vertical line, but it will be necessary to train each
lamp so as to produce the maximum intensity in the portion of areas to be lit, and for
that, the best way is to fit each source with a special optical device focused differently
for each one.
6. Construction price
With regard to the cost of our tower, the weight of the metal came to 4,810 tons
distributed as follows:
10
IP address: 140.254.87.149
225
226
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
document
Uprights, with crosspieces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3,500 tons
1st floor gallery = 70 m 15 m 4 = 4,200 m
2nd floor room = 30 m 30 m
900 m2
5,110 m2
At 100 kilograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
510
Upper room and platform of 100 m2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
100
Anchors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
100
Four double arches at the base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
600
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4,810
tons
which, at 50 cents per kilogram, installed, amount to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F 2,405,000
Estimated cost of foundation and masonry for the base . . . . . . . . .
400,000
Various additional glass works, roofing of the halls, etc.,

are estimated at . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
100,000
The total cost of the construction itself is then . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F 2,905,000
to which we must add the cost of the lifts, which, according to M. Heurtebises estimate
will be 250,000 francs, including the necessary machinery.
The total cost therefore is 3,155,000 francs.1
Such would be the real cost of this type of construction. Other estimates published
by outside sources were grossly inflated.
1
We researched what the costs would be if the height of the tower were to be reduced, and we studied
two other towers, one 250 metres and the other 200 metres. This latter would still be the highest known
monument.
Applying the same elements of the estimate to these two projects would give the following prices, which
include the foundations and the lifts:
Tower 250 metres high and 85 metre base . . . . . . . . .

Tower 200 metres high and 70 metre base . . . . . . . . .
F 2,000,000
F 1,400,000 .
In the event one of these towers was transferred after the Exposition to another, higher location in
Paris, the moving costs would be:
For the tower of 250 metres . . . . . . . . .
And for the one of 200 metres . . . . . . .
F 500,000
F 375,000.
11
IP address: 140.254.87.149
document
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
Of course, we are not including the price of the land, since if the tower is built on the
Esplanade des Invalides, on the Champ de Mars, or any other space within the
Exposition, we would not have to pay for the land occupied.
In fact, we point out that only the surface occupied by the four foundation bases
supporting the tower will actually take up space. There will be room on the remainder
of the land for buildings or parks for public usage.
Now that you are aware of the construction details I have just given you, I dont
think there can remain any more doubts about the ease of assembling and building the
tower.
I will again be able to apply the same methods adapting them to this project to
take advantage of the lower upright anchors I have often used in the past to build
cantilevered constructions such as for example the bridges of Douro, Garabit,
Cubzac, etc.
Based on this experience I am certain that the assembly would not take more than
a year.
7. Choice of material: iron or steel?
Before we go on to list the possible practical uses for such a building, we must say a
few words about our selection of material.
The use of iron or steel appears to be the most appropriate because of the metals
great strength for its light weight, because a small surface would be exposed to the
wind, and because all the building materials involved would work at the same rate of
expansion and compression, which can all be calculated, and therefore give us complete
security.
We hesitated for a long time between iron and steel, but since in this case lightness is
not a concern and would rather be a hindrance with regard to resistance to the wind,
and, since we are dealing with great dimensions, resistance to buckling is the main
concern, and finally, since steel works at a higher coefficient than iron, and bending and
vibrations due to the wind would be greater, we finally selected iron. However, only a
final, detailed study to analyse the costs and comparison between actual metal rates
will determine whether to select iron or steel, and we reserve our choice until then.
12
IP address: 140.254.87.149
227
228
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
document
Finally, metal has a special advantage in that the construction can be dismantled
and for a modest cost the tower could be moved if, for any reason, it had to be
transported to a location other than the Exposition. We estimate the moving costs at
between 6 and 700,000 francs.
8. Use of masonry
Apart from metal, we also wanted to investigate the use of masonry, and we studied
two solutions, one, a combination of masonry and iron, and the other, masonry alone.
Lets say right off that after some research, we found that these alternatives would be
much inferior to using metal alone, if not outright impossible.
Attempting a combination iron and masonry would expose us to all the
inconveniences of a mixed solution where heterogeneous factors such as flexibility,
strength and expansion would enter into play, and it is enough to say that we
encountered so many difficulties that it made it impossible to carry out such a project.
As for the use of masonry alone, we dont believe it is possible unless we wanted to
set aside all price considerations.
Here is a summary of our findings:
The first thing to worry about is which coefficient of resistance per square
centimetre to use.
Indeed, in research for large masonry works, considerations of tipping over under
force of wind are not as important as those relative to wind resistance itself.
In addition, there is a capital consideration to be taken into account in this research,
without which one would be in error, if the potential height of an edifice was calculated
based solely on the toughness of the stone used in its construction, as though it were a
monolith, and if it was assumed that by using porphyry or granite one could build a
taller tower than with good limestone.
Indeed, if we dont want to do simple mathematical abstractions and if we stay
within the reality of facts, which is that we are working here on a large construction,
where materials have to withstand a very great load, we must not forget that these
materials, with surfaces more or less well squared off, will not simply be stacked up on
top of each other. They will inevitably be separated by mortar beds intended to ensure
adequate pressure distribution.
13
IP address: 140.254.87.149
document
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
Thus the stability of the work requires that this mortar not be crushed. So in the
construction of such masonry work we have to factor in the point of crushing of the
mortar, rather than that of the stone, which, if factored in alone, would mislead us into
believing we could build to fantastic heights far beyond all practical limits.
The necessary condition is that the materials used be stronger than mortar, their
surplus strength only providing additional security which cannot be evaluated.
Now, the maximum resistance indicated in classical buildings for cement mortars is
between 150 and 200 kilograms per square centimetre.
If we accept as the practical maximum 1/10 of this resistance, as is usually
admitted, a masonry construction in cut stone should not bear loads greater than 15 to
20 kilograms per square centimetre. Quite exceptionally, and going beyond the usual
safety point, getting, so to speak, into the danger zone, we could go as far as 25
kilograms. A limit of thirty kilograms becomes almost unacceptable for large works. In
any case it is quite an extreme limit.
Navier cites the buildings having the greatest loads. They are:
Pillars of the dome of the Invalides, in Paris . . . . . . . . . . . .
14.76 kgs
of Saint Peter of Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16.36
of Saint Paul of London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19.36
Columns of Saint Pauls outside the walls, in Rome . . . . . .
19.76
Pillars of the tower of the Saint-Merri church, in Paris . .
29.40
29.44
of the dome of the Pantheon in Paris. . . . . . . . . . . . .
He even adds a 45 kilogram figure for the All Saints Day Church in Angers, but this
doesnt seem to be a convincing example since the church is in ruins.
The conclusion drawn from this table is that the limit of resistance of the
constructions considered the most daring is, as we were saying earlier, between 15 and
20 kilograms per square centimetre, going up to 30 kilograms in two of the buildings.
9. Washington Monument
But there exists a more striking example of construction which was just inaugurated
and about which I would like to give a few interesting details since they are so timely.
14
IP address: 140.254.87.149
229
230
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
document
15
IP address: 140.254.87.149
document
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
I am referring to the great stone obelisk known as the Washington Monument,

which is currently the highest in the world. (See figure on opposite page.)
This building, entirely constructed in marble-covered granite is 169.25 metres high.
It is square from top to bottom. At the base, the foundations are 16.75 wide. At the top,
below the pyramidon, it is 10.50 metres wide. The pyramidon itself is 16.86 metres
high. Inside this obelisk a rectangular space has been hollowed out such that the
thickness of the walls at the top is 0.50 metres and at the base, 4.5 metres. Its exterior
batter is 3.15 metres for a height of 152.4 metres, or 0.0206 metre per metre. The
interior space contains a steam lift, which was used to transport the building materials
and is now used for carrying up visitors.
The weight of the construction above the foundations is 45,000 tons, distributed on a
223 square metre base, giving a compression coefficient of 20 kilograms per square
centimetre.
If we account for the effect of a 300 kilogram wind, the wind stress coefficient is 6.5
kilograms per square centimetre, for a total stress of 26.5 kilograms per square
centimetre.
Such is the limit that even with choice materials and a particularly careful
execution, American engineers, who are not known for lacking boldness, did not dare go
beyond, and for good reasons.
Allow us to digress here on the subject of this monument and say that this is not an
encouraging example in favour of stone for the construction of a tower.
The construction of the first project was started in 1848. It was to include a 600-ft
pyramid, or a height of 183 meters, standing in the middle of a pantheon with a
colonnade forming a peristyle. But when, in 1854, the pyramid reached the height of 46
metres, it was seen to be leaning in such a frightening way that the work was stopped.
Work only resumed in 1877. The height originally planned was reduced by 100 ft and
definitely fixed at 160 metres. Then the foundation was underpinned. The size of the
base was considerably increased by adding around it numerous new concrete blocks
sunk deeper, giving a total footing of 38 metres, bringing the foundation surface from
600 square metres to 1,500 square metres. The maximum stress on the lower bed of the
foundation reaches 6 kilograms. Nevertheless, additional settling continued to occur
unevenly on each of the faces, measuring approximately 10 centimetres since the
beginning.
16
IP address: 140.254.87.149
231
232
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
document
It is only after great difficulties were overcome that, in 1880, work was resumed on
the upper portion. It went on steadily at the rate of approximately 30 metres per year,
and the monument was inaugurated last February 21. The total costs to date are
6,225,000 francs, and it is estimated that additional work will cost 870,000 francs,
bringing the total to 7,095,000 francs. As for the Pantheon, planned as decoration for
the monument, it was permanently postponed due to the considerable expense of
building it.
This is an example of cost figure which must be remembered, keeping in mind that
the edifice is overly simplified, reduced in effect to a large chimney, which is, after all,
only 170 metres high.
What would this price become for a 300 metre pyramid?
We tried to estimate it, and, by figuring a pier of equal strength for a coefficient of 30
kilograms, we arrived at a cube no less than 70,000 cubic metres, excluding the
foundations. If we estimate a cubic metre at 200 francs, the total cost would be 14
million. As for the foundation, its upper diameter would be approximately 30 metres,
its lower diameter 70, and its height approximately 20 metres, arriving at a cube of
38,000 cubic metres, which, at 50 francs per cubic metre, would cost 2 million, or a
total of approximately 16 million.
If we wanted to ornament this pyramid with a Pantheon and special decorations, the
numbers would be greatly increased, and we abandoned the idea of estimating the cost,
even approximately.
In summary, the difficulty of the foundations, the dangerous risks which could arise,
such as either uneven settling of the ground (settling which does not have serious
consequences in the case of a metal tower), or the uneven settling of mortars and their
inadequate hold within these large blocks, the difficulty and slowness of construction
generated by building the necessary enormous masonry cube, and the considerable cost
of the building, all these factors convinced us that a masonry tower, difficult to project
in theory, would in practice present great dangers and inconveniences, the least of
which would be a disproportionate cost for the goal to be attained.
17
IP address: 140.254.87.149
document
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
10. Conclusion in favour of metal

Thus we believe that iron or steel are the only materials leading to the solution of the
problem. Besides, in antiquity, in the Middle Ages and during the Renaissance, the use
of stone was pushed to its extreme limits of boldness, and it seems hardly possible to go
beyond what our predecessors achieved with the same materials, all the more so since
there has not been any notable progress in this direction in the art of construction for a
long time.
Therefore, such as we are planning it, this edifice of unusual height rationally
requires a material not necessarily new, but one that has not yet been industrially
available to the engineers and architects who preceded us. This material is iron or
steel, through the use of which the most difficult construction problems are solved
simply, and with which we commonly build either frameworks or bridges with a span
which would have seemed quite unachievable in the past.
Now for the shape of the edifice.
The one we are submitting for our tower might possibly be improved after further
studies, but we feel that it already demonstrates a striking feeling of strength and size,
as well as adaptation to the goal to be achieved.
Before they meet at such an impressive height, the uprights appear to spring out of
the ground, moulded in a way by the action of the wind itself.
Of course, shapes can be discussed, this one like any other, however, we are pleased
to be in the position of having received the endorsement of many artists and prominent
architects.
11. Use of the 300 metre tower
One of the most frequent objections raised by the public over the construction of this
tower has been its lack of practical use.
We are now quite confident that the practical applications of this tower are real, as
we will demonstrate later by examining some of its applications one by one.
First of all, with the popularity among the public of previous ascensions in the
Giffard captive balloons and in the Trocadero lifts, there is no doubt that people would
greatly enjoy, without incurring any danger or exertion, visiting the various floors
18
IP address: 140.254.87.149
233
234
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
document
of our tower which will offer them quite an extraordinary panoramic view, as far as 120
to 130 kilometres, from a birds-eye view, as though from a balloon, without interference
by the foreground such as when climbing a mountain when the feeling of distance and
height is missing. The brilliant lights of Paris by night would be a wonderful sight
which so far has only been experienced by aeronauts.
There is therefore no doubt that this tower would be one of the most popular
attractions in the Exposition, and that once it is completed, many people would
continue to visit it either during the day or in the evening.
But, outside of this application of a special nature, science would find there a vast
field of observation.
12. Opinion of M. Herv-Mangon
With regard to meteorology, we cannot do any better than show you a few excerpts
from M. Herv-Mangons March 3 report to the French Meteorological Society:
I am quoting these excerpts verbatim:
The usefulness of building an open metal tower structure of great height to house
certain scientific instruments and from which to carry out experiments and studies at
various elevations above ground level has often been brought to the attention of the
French Meteorological Society.
There exist masonry towers in several observatories, however they present more
inconveniences than advantages for the installation of meteorological instruments.
In the sun, the mass of the construction heats up, the wall surfaces produce eddies
which impede the study of rain, mist, snow and dew, even conducted at a great range;
all hygrometric or thermometric data become inaccurate or deceptive.
The 300 metre iron tower proposal established by M. Eiffel and Messrs. Nouguier
and Koechlin, engineers, and M. Sauvestre, architect, is therefore of considerable
interest to meteorologists.
It would enable us to conduct many meteorological studies and experiments of the
greatest interest, among which we will randomly mention the following:
The law of temperature decrease with height would easily be observed, and the
variations due to the wind, clouds, etc., would certainly supply ample data which is
completely lacking as of now.
19
IP address: 140.254.87.149
document
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
The amount of rain falling at various heights on the same vertical has been widely
estimated. Such an interesting problem for the theory of formation of the rain would be
solved by a few years of observations made with about fifteen precipitation gauges
positioned at regular intervals along the height of the tower.
Mist, fog, dew often form in layers thinner than 300 metres, thus we could observe
these meteors throughout their entire depth, take air samples at various levels,
measure the volume of water in its globular state held suspended in each layer. This
liquid volume is much greater than its equivalent in steam, and its knowledge would
explain why clouds of small volumes sometimes pour out such considerable amounts of
water on the ground.
The hygrometric state of air varies with height. Nothing would be easier than to
study these changes if we could simultaneously observe instruments placed relatively
far apart above each other. Evaporation would also occasion very useful experiments.
Atmospheric electricity, about which we still have only imperfect knowledge, should
be the subject of the most active research in the towers observatory. The difference of
electrical tension between two points located 300 metres above each other is probably
great, and would cause very interesting phenomena.
Wind velocity usually increases rapidly as it gets farther away from the ground
surface; the tower would enable us to determine the law of increase of this speed up to
300 metres and probably slightly higher. Independently from its theoretical interest,
this determination would supply useful information to the aerostation.
Air transparency could be observed from the tower, in exceptionally favourable
conditions, following either a vertical, or vectors of a given inclination.
Independently from the meteorological observations I have just mentioned and
which are my only concern here, a 300 metre tower would also enable the realisation of
a large number of experiments impossible to attempt today. For example, it would
make it possible to set up manometers of up to 400 atmospheres, which could serve to
experimentally calibrate the manometers of hydraulic presses, and to establish
pendulums with oscillations lasting over a quarter of a minute, etc., etc.
Without further developing, due to lack of time, a programme of studies which a 300
metre tower would make possible, I am convinced that the Society will join me in my
wish to see the realisation of this magnificent edifice proposed by M. Eiffel for the 1889
20
IP address: 140.254.87.149
235
236
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
document
Exposition, and whose usefulness as a scientific research instrument cannot be

doubted.
13. Opinion of Admiral Mouchez
Admiral Mouchez, director of the Observatory, wrote us a letter from which are the
following excerpts:
I hasten to inform you that I have seen your proposal for a 300 metre tower with the
greatest of interest. I very much desire the realisation of the project because I believe
that in addition to the general interest presented by such a monument, it will be
extremely useful for various scientific matters and specifically for the study of the lower
layers of atmosphere, which have some influence on the precision of astronomical
studies. A height of 300 metres would enable us to regularly observe the frequent
inversions of the law of decrease of temperature with height, and in better conditions
than on a mountain.
We will also be able to study humidity variations, atmospheric electricity and wind
variations in force and direction.
Comparisons between four similar sets of registering instruments placed at ground
level, at 100, 200 and 300 metres would certainly give greatly interesting results. As for
astronomical observations, I dont believe it would be as useful. It is, however, certain
that in the middle of the city of Paris, the atmosphere at that height would be much
purer than in our observation rooms; most of the city smoke and dust would be left
below us.
With regard to meteorological observations and the atmospheric studies I was
mentioning, a masonry tower would take away a great part of the precision and interest
from observations that would be made in an iron tower; with the latter, instruments
would be completely isolated in the atmosphere; with a masonry tower, they heat up and
cool off along with the tower and are alternatively in the shade or in the sun, etc., and
the conditions are quite different.
An iron tower would unquestionably be superior for meteorological observations.
You did not tell me the approximate cost of this tower; whatever it is, I
wholeheartedly wish that your project will be realised.
21
IP address: 140.254.87.149
document
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
14. Opinion of M. Pierre Puiseux

From a specifically astronomical point of view, M. Pierre Puiseux, astronomer at the
Paris Observatory, was kind enough to give us the following information:
Undoubtedly the projected tower will enable applications useful in astronomical
studies. The motion of the platform under the influence of the wind probably precludes
observations intended to determine the precise position of the stars, but it clears the
way for most physical astronomical research. Spectroscopes to analyze the light of the
sun and the stars, to observe the movements of the stars by the displacement of the
rays, would function better at an altitude of 300 metres than on ground level. The
elimination of dusts and local mists would make it possible to follow the sun closer to
the horizon, which would be a great advantage for the study of telluric lines due to solar
light absorption by the atmosphere.
A camera to photograph the sun or the moon would also be practical; its utilisation
would mostly serve during the passages of Mercury or when eclipses occur near the
horizon. Since photographing stars or nebulae requires a long exposition time, it is
therefore most susceptible to being affected by the wind and should be reserved for
calm nights. It will be necessary to make sure that the lateral translation of the
instrument has no negative influence. The most important is that the optical axis
remains parallel to itself. It seems difficult to decide, prior to the experiment, if the
motions caused by the wind will in fact be of this nature. In any event, the physical
aspects of the moon, the planets, the nebulae will be able to be studied and charted
under favourable conditions.
A searcher or a wide aperture telescope installed at the top of the tower will enable
us to follow those stars which are low on the Paris horizon. These observations, of
course, would not be as good in terms of accuracy as those made in fixed observatories,
but they could be made in the event the latter were no longer possible. Now, we know
that it is important to obtain measurements, even approximate, as soon as possible for
newly discovered stars.
Temperature variations with altitude would also constitute an interesting field of
study for meteorology and astronomy. All the theories of refraction given to date are
based on unwarranted hypotheses, often contradicted by experience.
22
IP address: 140.254.87.149
237
238
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
document
15. Opinion of Colonel Perrier

Finally, Colonel Perrier, whom we had consulted regarding optical telegraphy
applications, confirmed to us that such a tower would be extremely useful and would
allow types of communication not yet in existence, but about which he did not want to
elaborate, which we understand, as to where they would be located.
He was also kind enough to summarise the areas that the construction of the iron
tower might help clarify.
Astronomy: Law of refraction, spectroscopy, telluric lines.
Plant Chemistry: Plants at 300 metres, air composition, carbonic acid.
Meteorology: Winds, temperature, hygrometry, electrical state, lightning, upper air
streams.
Physics: Deviation of a falling body. Atmospheric electricity.
Foucaults experiment to demonstrate the rotation of the earth.
War: Optical telegraphy.
The range of possible experiments is quite wide, and will go on increasing as science
progresses.
I believe you will be doing something worthwhile by building this gigantic tower.
Based on the expertise of the prominent men I have just named, I believe I can
positively state that the scientific usefulness of the planned tower has been
demonstrated, and that we will have with us the entire scientific community in support
of our project.
16. Summary and conclusion
In summary:
1.
The potential for the execution of the project I have the honour of presenting
cannot be seriously doubted: the nature of the material we have selected, the degree of
certainty with which we can adapt the result of our calculations to it, a degree much
greater than the one included in the use of masonry, the knowledge acquired by todays
engineers in the construction of great metalworks, everything assures us that we may
assert that no hazards are to be feared.
23
IP address: 140.254.87.149
document
2.
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
The cost of this work, that I have estimated at 3,150,000 francs, is based on very
advanced detailed studies, and has been sufficiently examined to not be subject to great
variations if we move on to the execution stage.
3.
The uses of this tower will be great from a scientific point of view and very
important militarily.
4.
Not only would it be one of the great attractions of the Exposition, but after the
Exposition, it would remain one of the most interesting monuments in Paris, and
certainly one of the most visited.
Finally, if I may add, such a tall tower which goes far beyond anything achieved until
now, may be worthy of personifying, not only the art of modern engineering, but also the
century of Industry and Science in which we live, the road to which was paved by the
great scientific movement of the end of the eighteenth century and by the revolution of
1789, to all of which this monument would be erected as an expression of Frances
gratitude.
24
IP address: 140.254.87.149
239
240
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
document
25
IP address: 140.254.87.149
document
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
Plate 91
The fold-out drawing on the following page designated Pl.91 shows, from left to
right: moment distributions on the tower computed from two different wind load
distributions; plan and elevation views of a tower footing resting on its partially buried
caisson structure; and an overhead detail and a horizontal cut of the massive bolt
structure holding a footing to its caisson.
Information concerning estimates of loads and moments based on two different wind
models, with augmented tower surface areas as described in 3 to provide an ample
factor of safety, are given below:
Diagram of wind resistance
Case 1:
Wind of 300 kg from the base to the summit.
Case 2:
Wind increasing from 200 kg at the base to 400 kg at the summit.

Surfaces and corresponding forces
Nos. of
elements
and forces
Summit
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Height of
surface
element
76 m
64.5
18.5
11.5
39
7
42
41.5
300 m
Area of
surface
element
1st wind model

Wind force
Total
per sq. m
wind force
359 m2
1064
583
391
1236
360
3003
3361
300 kg
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
285,000 kg
319,200
174,900
117,300
370,800
108,000
900,900
1,008,300
3,284,400 kg
2nd wind model

Wind force
Total
per sq. m
wind force
400 kg
375
328
300
290
274
58
242
215
356,250
348,992
174,900
113,390
338,664
92,880
726,726
722,615
2,874,417
Below the table two calculations are presented. The first is the determination of
forces in the primary rafters and the second is a calculation of the surface area of each
foundation necessary to distribute the tower weight and the forces wrought by the wind
according to the two wind load models. In the lower left corner are two polygon force
diagrams for wind distribution models presented on a scale of 0.001 m per 60,000 kg.
26
IP address: 140.254.87.149
241
242
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
document
This and following two pages: Eiffel's fold-out Plate 91
IP address: 140.254.87.149
document
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
IP address: 140.254.87.149
243
244
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
document
IP address: 140.254.87.149
document
Acknowledgements
We have benefited from constructive
comments on the accuracy of
translation from Edward Allen at MIT,
Professor Bernard Amadei at the
University of Colorado, Andrzej
Herczynski at Boston College and
Stephane Eisen a recent graduate
from the University of Colorado. The
mmoire was originally published
under the title Projet dune Tour en
Fer de 300 Mtres de Hauteur Destine
LExposition de 1889 in Bulletin de la
Societ des Ingnieurs Civils de France, 38,
pp345370 with one fold-out plate.
Biographies
Claudette Roland is a freelance
translator in Los Angeles whose
translation credits include museum
catalogues, art criticism essays and
film scripts.
Patrick Weidman is a Professor at
the University of Colorado. He
received postgraduate degrees from
Caltech in Pasadena, the Von Krmn
Institute for Fluid Dynamics in
Belgium, the University of Southern
California in Los Angeles and is a
fellow of the American Physical
Society.
Translators addresses
Claudette Roland
PO Box 24035
Los Angeles
CA 90024, usa
croland1@gte.net
Professor Patrick Weidman
Department of Mechanical
Engineering
University of Colorado
Boulder
CO 803090427, usa
weidman@colorado.edu
arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004
IP address: 140.254.87.149
245

Eiffel - Proposal For A Tower

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eiffel - Proposal For A Tower

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Architectural Research Quarterly

Email alerts: Click here

Proposal for an iron tower: 300 metres in height

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1359135504000260

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ARQ, IP address: 140.254.87.149 on 27 Aug 2015

arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004

In this previously untranslated text, Gustave Eiffel explains the

Proposal for an iron tower:

This translation of the mmoire Gustave Eiffel

ground, moulded in a way by the action of the wind

Downloaded: 27 Aug 2015

arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004

arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004

PROPOSAL FOR AN IRON TOWER

300 METRES IN HEIGHT

Claudette Roland and Patrick Weidman

Proposal for an iron tower

Downloaded: 27 Aug 2015

arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004

Proposal for an iron tower

Downloaded: 27 Aug 2015

Claudette Roland and Patrick Weidman

arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004

300 metre iron tower

Claudette Roland and Patrick Weidman

Proposal for an iron tower

Downloaded: 27 Aug 2015

arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004

On the second floor is a square room, also glassed-in, 30 metres wide.

Proposal for an iron tower

Downloaded: 27 Aug 2015

Claudette Roland and Patrick Weidman

arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004

Claudette Roland and Patrick Weidman

Proposal for an iron tower

Downloaded: 27 Aug 2015

arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004

Rough-plaster floors 5,500 m at 300 kg. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Proposal for an iron tower

Downloaded: 27 Aug 2015

Claudette Roland and Patrick Weidman

arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004

Claudette Roland and Patrick Weidman

Proposal for an iron tower

Downloaded: 27 Aug 2015

arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004

per square metre

Very strong breeze . . . . . . . .

Breeze affecting top sails . .

Very strong wind . . . . . . . . .

Proposal for an iron tower

Downloaded: 27 Aug 2015

Claudette Roland and Patrick Weidman

arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004

5. Using the tower to electrically light

Claudette Roland and Patrick Weidman

Proposal for an iron tower

Downloaded: 27 Aug 2015

arq . vol 8 . nos 3/4 . 2004

If we consider the surface to be lit a circle 1,000 metres in diameter, and as a

Proposal for an iron tower

Downloaded: 27 Aug 2015

Claudette Roland and Patrick Weidman