Started By
Message
re: 14 Years Ago
Posted on 11/18/13 at 12:15 pm to aggressor
Posted on 11/18/13 at 12:15 pm to aggressor
quote:
The '99 Bonfire that fell had a first and second stack that were both of almost equal size, they did this thinking it would make it stronger when in fact the opposite was true. That is why the collapse was so catastrophic and without warning, just too much weight.
Jesus.
0
Posted on 11/18/13 at 12:20 pm to Agforlife
quote:
Much taller than that
When I was in school it was built to the class number of the freshman class - in my case 79 feet. And then some smartass senior would be raised to the top just before installing the outhouse and cut the top 3' off.
Posted on 11/18/13 at 3:49 pm to finestfirst79
Makes me feel old. I was a freshman and asleep in the dorm when it happened. Went to high school with one of those lost. I'm thankful that t Igot to see the 98 bonfire as a senior in high school, and yet sad that no students since know what it was like.
Posted on 11/18/13 at 8:44 pm to aggressor
quote:
The '99 Bonfire that fell had a first and second stack that were both of almost equal size, they did this thinking it would make it stronger when in fact the opposite was true. That is why the collapse was so catastrophic and without warning, just too much weight.
I don't recall that being listed at all in the Linbeck report. It's also not accurate. 1st stack was 18 feet and second stack was 16 feet. Those figures were in line with the averages for the preceding twenty years.
The two primary causes were excessive wedging of second stack into first and a lack of containment of outward stresses caused both by lack of cabling (as we used in previous years) and insufficient wire strength.
But the ultimate conclusion was that the design was untenable.
As for the earlier post about the location change, it had jack to do with it. The 1994 issue was caused by heavy rain. They tested the soil in 1999 and it was perfectly stable.
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News