Eiffel Tower

The Eiffel Tower was the winning entry in a competition for a centerpiece for the Paris
Exposition of 1889. The design by Gustav Eiffel, an engineer, was selected from over
three hundred entries for its striking design and for its economical structure which
displayed the French prowess in metal construction.
Geometry and Materials.
The Tower is made exclusively of wrought iron, although steel was available at the time.
Eiffel chose iron because steel was more expensive since it was a new development and
because he was experienced and confident in iron design.
Since the Eiffel Tower is also a tower structure, it will behave much like the Washington
Monument. However, there are some important differences. The Tower is nearly twice
as tall as the Monument and, therefore, its form is directly influenced by the wind. Dead
loads are the most influential in the Monuments form. This dominant wind load makes
the Tower act as a cantilever rather than as a column. A cantilever is usually a horizontal
projection (rather than a vertical upright) rigidly supported at only one end, but this
vertical structure is a good example to explain cantilever and show the most efficient
shape one can have.
In the Monument analysis the following equation was given as a division between
columnar and cantilevered structures:

The following analysis finds values of NG and NW which yield a ratio of 1.34 which is
only 0.01 higher than 4/3. However, this ratio is misleading in this circumstance because
the Tower was designed to efficiently resist wind loads, i.e., its base is splayed. If the
Tower had a narrower base (e.g. half the width) then the ratio would be much higher
because the effect of the wind would increase (e.g. N would double and the ratio would
be 1.7 which is much larger than 4/3.)
This indicates that the wind is the more important load and will influence the overall
form of the structure more than the dead load. The Tower is used to introduce the
cantilever as a structural form because it illustrates the most efficient cantilever form
splayed at the support. Although the Monument is also wider at its base than at its tip, its
shape is not an ideal shape for a cnatilever as is the Eiffel Towers shape. Ine should
realize that the general structural actions of the two towers are similar, but the Monument
better illustrates the structural form of a column, while the Tower best illustrates a
cantilever becase of the differences in loads and shapes.
The Tower is a rather complex structure in detail, especially in its geometry, and to some
extent, in its loading. Therefore, the analysis will make some simplifications and
idealizations concerning both its geometry and loading. The analysis will follow the

same format developed in the first analysis: after a discussion of the geometry and
loading, the support reactions, the internal forces and the internal stresses are all found.
To complete the analysis both the safety and the efficiency of the design are evaluated.
Eiffel designed the Tower to be 300 meters high, which is 984 feet (approximately 90
stories); it is 328 feet wide at its base. This dimension quickly tapers as illustrated by the
following diagram and chart. There are four observation decks located as shown in the
diagram. For analysis, the Tower will be divided into three parts as indicated on the same
diagram. The widths of the Tower corresponding to each of these heights have been
calculated from the equations for a parabola, which is an idealization of the Towers
shape; its true shape is somewhat more sharply curved than a parabola.
The basic structure of the Tower is lattice-work columns at each of the four corners of the
Tower, in which diagonals connect four elements, thus making stiff, but lightweight
columns. Typical sections illustrating these columns can be seen next to their positions
along the Tower in the large diagram (p. 40). Such composite structural elements require
detailed calculations in analysis, so the composite columns are idealized by single solid
cross section columns, each with an area of 800 square inches.
[figure]
These four elements are assumed to rise along the curve of the actual columns of the
Tower and meet near the top.
[figure]
This idealization, however, is still three-dimensional and must be further simplified to
two dimensions for this simple analysis. This is accomplished by essentially combining
the two front and the two back columns into two of double thickness. This results in an
area of 1600 square inches for each of the simplified supports.
[figure]
One should realize that in this simplification the curve of the columns is altered. In threedimensional structure the curve is toward the center of the square base, but in the twodimensional simplification the curve is in the plane of the model, and therefore,
decreased somewhat.
[figure]
This change is slight, however, in light of the idealizations of the Towers form. The
analysis will assume that the curved elements follow a parabola, but actually they curve
more sharply than this, as illustrated in the diagram at the top of the next page. This more
curved shape was selected because it was the most efficient in resisting the wind load
(which is really not uniform, as it is presently assumed to be.)

One further point must be made about the geometry of the model: the overall structure
has a vertical axis between the two columns, but, individually, each column has its own
axis that follows the curve of the elements. These axes are idealized as parabolas.
[figure]
Overall internal forces are found from an analysis centered on the tower axis. Internal
forces in the individual elements, which act on the curved element axes, are found from
the overall forces. When the tower axis is used, the connections between the columns
will be idealized as continuous. They are actually continuous above the second platform,
but below this point, they are made only by the lower platform and the ground.
[figure]
Loads.
Three types of loads act on the Tower: the dead load its weight, the live load the
people and machinery on the platforms, and the wind loads. The weight of the Tower is
known from documents as 18, 800 kips. This weight is not distributed uniformly along
the height of the Tower; there is more material at the base than near the top. A detailed
analysis would divide this weight among many parts of the Tower, but here the weight
will be divided between the three portions defined earlier. Estimates of the weights of the
three portions are shown below:
[figure]
The live load of 50 pounds per square foot is calculated over the two lower platforms
where it is most significant. The lower platform is 240 feet square and the second
platform is 110 feet square. The total live load is found from the load on each of these
platforms:
[calculations]
This live load acts with the dead load for a total vertical load of Qt = 18,800 k + 3,480 k
+ 22,280 k. This load acts through the centroid of the Tower which is at a height of 257
feet from the ground.
The wind pressure on the Tower is stronger near the top than at the bottom, but the wind
force is fairly uniform because the Tower is tapered. (The rationalization is the same as
that used for the Washington Monument Analysis.) This analysis will use the assumption
that the wind is a uniform load acting all along the Tower, but a conservatively high force
is used to simulate high wind speeds. This value is taken as p = 2.6 k/ft. A more refined
analysis would account for the variable force of the wind along with the diminishing area
of the Tower. Realizing that the assumptions may produce imprecise results (but still

good estimates) one can find the total force from the wind. Along the height of 984 feet,
the total force is:
[calculation]
The centroid of this force is halfway up the Tower so P, the idealized point wind load,
acts at this point. This is illustrated in the diagram at the top of the next page.
Reactions.
The overall reactions at the base of the Tower are easily found from the wind and gravity
loads (dead and live). The second diagram on the next page shows these loads. Overall
vertical and horizontal reactions will develop to balance the respective loads. A moment
reaction will also develop to balance the horizontal load applied through its centroid a
distance from the support.
[several figures]
The reactions at the base of each column, instead of for the Tower as a whole, are
necessary to find the internal forces in the individual columns. Each column will
logically develop half of the horizontal and vertical reactions found for the entire
structure.
[figure]
The bending reactions in the individual columns will be investigated with the internal
forces. The wind force will create a higher vertical reaction in the leeward support and a
lower vertical reaction in the windward support because the wind alone would create
tension in the windward support and compression in the leeward support.
[figure]
Internal Forces.
The internal forces in the columns are found using the reactions, the loads and the
principles of equilibrium. The simplest internal forces are the axial ones, which result
from the vertical loads and reactions. They reach a maximum at the base of the Tower.
The axial force in the columns is the inclined force, N, shown acting along the axis of one
column. This force is equal to the combination of a vertical and a horizontal component.
The gravity loads and reactions are vertical and create the vertical component; the
horizontal component develops because the vertical forces are carried in an inclined
column, i.e., for the columns to be in equilibrium there must be a horizontal component
of the axial force.

[figure]
These three forces create a force polygon where, drawn head to tail, the scaled
components are equal to the axial force and three form a closed shape. The magnitudes
of the horizontal components and the axial force can be found from the vertical force and
the angle of the column axis with trigonometry. The chart shown earlier gives the slope
of the columns at the base as B = 18.4 degrees. The simple trigonometric relationship
[formula]
can be rearranged to find N:
[calculation]
This is the axial force that is developed in both columns at their bases. The horizontal
components at the base can be found from the trigonometric formula:
[formula / calculation]
These horizontal forces tend to push the Tower apart but are resisted by the connection all
along the Tower and the ground. This can be visualized if one imagines a ladder propped
against a building. If there was no friction between the ground and ladder base, or if the
base were on wheels, the ladder would slide away from the wall.
[figure]
In the same manner, the columns of the Tower would slide apart if there wer no
connections between them. These connections, which have been idealized as continuous,
experience tension force equal to the horizontal forces they are resisting.
[figure]
A tht ebase, the ground will resist with horizontal reactions of 3700 kips acting inward.
[figure]
The axial force will decrease with height as the vertical load and angle of inclination
decrease. As an example,, the axial force at the second platform will be found. The
entire top and middle parts are above this point, therefore, the vertical load is:
[calculation]
[figure]

The chart shows that at this height of 380 feet, the slope of the elements is 11.6 degrees.
The trigonometric formula
[formula]
is used to find:
[calculation]
The value at the base is almost seven times this value. The compression forces from the
dead load will be identical in both of the columns because they are each taking half of the
vertical load. (The cross-sectional area could be decreased at the higher point because
the smaller compression force would create a small compressive stress. This is indeed
what Eiffel did, as shown in the earlier figure; this is neglected in the simplification.)
The horizontal component of the axial force at the second platform is:
[calculation]
[figure]
This force will be resisted by the connection made by the second platform itself.
[figure]
The internal forces created by the overall bending moment are investigated next. The
bending moment from the wind load can be found at any point if the entire structure is
treated as a single unit rather than as two columns. The bending moment is found around
the tower axis, whereas the axial forces were found along the columns awes. The overall
bending moment from the horizontal wind load will produce tension (T) in one column
and compression (C) in the other. Exaggerated action under wind load is shown:
[figure]
The values of the bending moment all along the height of the Tower must be known to
find the resulting tension and compression forces in the columns. A bending moment
diagram illustrates the continuous values, which are found as they were in the
Washington Monument analysis. The horizontal force creating the bending moment is
the wind, simplified as a point load acting at the mid-point of the area under
consideration.
[figure]
At a point a distance x from the bottom as shown in the diagram below, the bending
moment is found using p(l-x) as the magnitude of the point load and (l-x)/2 as the
distance.

[figure]
The equation for the moment at any point along the Tower uses these values:
[formulas]
For the Eiffel Tower, l = 984 feet and p = 2.6 k/ft; the reaction calculation was made
where x = 0 to find M = 1,260,000 ft-k.
[figure]
The reaction formula used earlier, M = Pl/2, is a simplified versio of this formula where x
= 0 and where P = pl.
The graph of the equation M = p(l-x)^2 / 2 with changing values of x is a diagram of the
continuous bending moment along the Tower, similar to the diagram found for the
Monument. The shape is also a parabola, only the magnitude is different.
[figure]
The shape of the Eiffel Tower roughly imitates the shape of this diagram; the idealization
imitates it exactly, but the actual tower is more sharply curved as shown earlier.
At any point along the height of the Tower, the overall bending moment, M, and the
width of the structure, d, are used to determine the value of both the tension (T) and
compression (C) forces (which are equal) from the formula:
[formula]
This formula was justified in the Monument analysis where it was shown that the tension
or compression forces result from the bending moment acting over the depth (or width
here) of the structure.
[figure]
This calculation uses the bending moments found around the tower axis to find axial
forces that act along the column axes.
[figures]
At the base of the Tower the moment force is M = 1,260,000 ft-k (the reaction force), and
the width, d, is 328 feet. Therefore,
[calculation]

where T = +3850k and C = -3850k because compression forces are designated as

negative. Both of these forces are vertical reactions to the wind.
[figure]
The axial forces in the inclined elements resulting from the wind load are found from the
vertical reactions and the horizontal reactions to the wind found earlier.
[figure]
In the leeward side, where the wind creates vertical compression reaction, Vc and H
contribute part of their forces along the axis of the column. The compression force, Vc,
contributes a component of (-Vc cosB) to the axial force, Nc and H contributes (-HsinB)
to Nc. Nc can be found from Vc, H and the angle at the base of the column, B = 18.4
degrees. Negative signs are used because the axial force is compressive.
[calculations]
The windward side will have a positive value of N because Vt and H create axial tension:
[calculations]
[figure]
The axial forces produced by the horizontal load of the wind are +/-4050 kips. These
forces are shown on the diagram at the top of the next page. To further illustrate this
idea, the axial forces produced by the wind load at the second platform will be
investigated. The horizontal and bending moment reactions from the wind on the top and
middle parts of the Tower are found with a free-body diagram cut at the second platform.
[figures]
[calculations]
The chart shows that d = 123 feet at the second platform, so the tension and compression
are:
[calculations]
Hm is found as 1570k / 2 = 785 k in each column. With these values Nc and Nt can be
found using the formulas introduced earlier:
[calculations]
[figure]

The axial forces and the vertical components are nearly equal. This illustrates that at a
small angle these calculations hardly need be performed, especially considering the
simplicity of this analysis. Generally at an angle less than 15 degrees, one can consider
the axial force and vertical force equal. The vertical forces, Vt and Vc, at this height are
roughly equal to the vertical tension and compression found at the base; they are all
roughly 4000 kips. This shows that if the shape of a structure imitates the shape of its
bending moment diagram, the vertical forces created by the bending moment will be
constant all along its height. The width of the base is equally capable of resisting the
bending moment at the base as the width at the second platform is capable of resisting the
bending moment at that point.
Now that the axial forces from both vertical and horizontal loads have been calculated,
the total axial forces in the column supports are found by simply adding the asial force
found from the two loads. Compression forces are negative and tension are position.
This addition of the forces is shown in the diagram at the top of the next page. The
second diagram shows the corresponding forces at the second platform.
[figure]
At this point (the second platform) the windward column experiences tension forces
rather than the compression found near the base. This creates no structural problems
because wrought iron resists tension just as well as compression, unlike masonry, which
resists tension on weakly, as in the Washington Monument. The total axial forces are
used to find the internal stress, however, first an investigation of the shear force in the
columns further illustrates the efficient shape of the Tower. Since the shape of the Tower
nearly imitates the shape of the moment diagram, and since the vertical compression
force has been found to be constant all along the Towers height, there should,
theoretically, be no shear force in the column from the horizontal wind load. This is
investigated using the vertical compression and horizontal forces found earlier. (See the
diagram at the top of the next page.) Where Sc = -CsinB and Sh = HcosB, the total shear
force is found by the formula:
[formula]
[figure]
[calculations]
This result verifies the concept that, from the wind load, the parabolic shape of the Tower
will allow only uniform vertical forces, and axial forces that decrease with the angle of
the columns.
Internal Stresses.
The values of compressive and tensile stress can be found from the formula:

[formula]
where the force, N, is the total axial force found from both vertical and horizontal loads.
Again, negative numbers are compressive and positive tensile. In the idealization of the
Towers geometry, the area of each of the two simplified columns is 1600 square inches.
The compression forces found at the bases of the Towers columns are N = -7630 kips on
the windward side, and N = -15,780 kips on the leeward side. The resulting stresses are:
[calculations]
on the windward side and:
[calculation]
on the leeward side.
[figure]
Because the wind may act on the Tower from any direction, each of the supports must be
designed to take the maximum stress of -9.9 ksi. This is also a rough estimate of the
maximum stress on each of the actual Towers four columns, because the idealization has
combined four into two twice as large.
Safety and Efficiency.
The safety factor for the Eiffel Tower is the ratio of the ultimate stress and the actual
stress. The ultimate stress for iron is about 45 ksi. This is the maximum it can withstand
in both tension or compression before it fails or breaks. Unlike masonry where
compression and tension failure occur at different stress levels, iron failure occurs at the
same stress for both types of force. The value of actual stress, -9.9 ksi, is used with the
ultimate stress, 45 ksi, in the safety factor formula:
[formula]
The Tower could withstand four and a half times as much load as it ordinarily carries
without danger of collapse. It may seem as if Eiffel over designed the Tower because it
will never be subjected to this much loading. However, structures are usually designed
with at least a safety factor of two, i.e. only half a building materials maximum strength
is used. This is due to the fact that long before a material will fail, it will start to stretch
or shorten and its dimensions will either increase or decrease slightly. While not
critically dangerous, these size changes deformations are unsightly and can cause
connection problems and high local stresses. Therefore, in design, one wants a structure
not only to be strong, but stiff, so that these deformations cannot occur.

These considerations are accounted for in structural design by using an allowable stress.
This value is a set percentage of the ultimate stress and is used as the basis for design,
i.e., ideally the designer of a structure will proportion its elements so that they are
stressed to this value. Higher stresses can be dangerous and cause deformation, and
lower stresses do not use the full strength of the material. Designing with the allowable
stress is essentially building a safety factor into the design. If a structure is stressed to the
allowable limit, the safety factor is found as usual:
[formula]
The ultimate stress is a property of the material, but the allowable stress is a set standard
based on deformation calculations, i.e., a minimum safety factor is chosen for a material
and the allowable stress is found as
[formula]
The safety factor for wrought iron is about three, so the allowable stress is:
[calculation]
This value is a standard used in building codes at the time of the Towers design. As
mentioned, the elements of an ideal design will be stressed to the value. This rarely
occurs, so a measure of a designs efficiency is
[formula]
This value is the percentage of allowable stress that is actually used. An ideal structure
has an efficiency of 1.0 or 100% where actual stress equals the allowable. The Eiffel
Tower, with a maximum stress of 9.9 ksi, has an efficiency of
[formula]
This means that 66% of the irons allowable stress is utilized in the design. The Eiffel
Tower is a moderately efficient and conservative design. This conclusion is reinforced by
a comparison of the safety factors. The actual structure has a factor of four and a half
while the material could withstand a factor of only three.
The explanations used and the estimates found in this analysis are all valid, and accurate,
but still the analysis must be viewed as a simplification of the actual situation. A brief
review of the assumptions used in this analysis will emphasize its simplicity; the actual
Towers geometry has been idealized in a number of critical ways by using solid columns
and a two-dimensional model, and the loads, both dead and wind, were simplified.
Although the efficiency and safety factor are reasonable for such a structure, they are
only estimates, and cannot be seen as precise measures. They should be interpreted as
indicative of a relatively safe and efficient structure.