ATrafficCone wrote:I was thinking that maybe I could base my tower design off of a alternating series of arches, with the base just being 4 big arches. I've already got a method of creating the arches so that's not a concern. I guess I really want to know if it would be structurally sound, because that's really my only concern. Thanks!
A Traffic Cone _/\_
I think I understand what you're describing; first set - 4 arches at the bottom, then, second set, 4 arches sitting on top of them, etc. up to the top. The ends of the second set would be sitting on top of the middle of the first set.
Structurally "sound" is different from structurally efficient. A few things to think about:
In a ..... conventional approach - square base - you have 4 leg segments, a set of ladders at the top of the base, tension strap at the bottom, and some number of....bracing sets. With 4 arches, you'll have two..... arch ends at each corner- almost twice the leg wood of a conventional..
Another issue you'll run into is getting things symmetrical. As we've discussed, if the layout of pieces in 3-d space is not symmetrical, one or some pieces will get disproportionate loading, and the overloaded piece(s) will fail first. Very difficult to get all arches to the exact same curvature, and,,,,, challenging to get some sort of jig to line things up symmetrically.
With the ends of the second set of arches sitting on tops of first set, you'll be putting a very concentrated "point load" on the top of the lower arches - on the side of the arch stick. At some point, this will deform the arch, or....crush/push through.
I have no idea how to figure out additional bracing that would be needed.
All these factors make me think that while a tower of this design could be built to carry 15kg, it would be much heavier than a conventional approach.