Steel? Psshaw. Concrete is best for iconic bridges
The new chairman of the Concrete Bridge Development Group, David Ball, reckons concrete is under-utilised in British landmark structures, pointing to the material's now much improved durability. Maybe so, but steel remains popular for landmark bridges because it's far easier to erect, and in many cases more compatible with lightweight and geometrically unusual structural forms.
Glasgow bridge in trouble. Not quite
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/55f08/55f088ee54bab0416ec7e21625981a1b9846e86b" alt=""
Personally, I think it's entirely to Nuttall's credit that they have taken on several ambitious bridge schemes. Difficulties and set backs aren't entirely unexpected on innovative designs, and perhaps engineers should make more of the opportunity to explain this to their clients, and the public in general.
Weave Bridge to open in November
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fd3b5/fd3b534074cebbf4b70a0b775442ab1bdd22370f" alt=""
The Weave Bridge looks from the pictures to be a Warren truss with overhead bracing - a design that's essentially about 160 years old. Balmond's design seems to arise, however, mainly from playing with geometry on a computer, rather than from the purely structural imperatives which drove James Warren's solution. Similarly, Balmond's Coimbra footbridge looks in elevation like an arch, but in reality it's a twin cantilever bridge whose main purpose is to offer a platform for Balmond's complex, startling glazed parapets.
2 comments:
The main difference between a standard Warren truss and Balmond's Weave bridge, as I understand it, is that the "Weave" does not have top chords. So the bracing is working overtime to carry longitudinal axial loads (picture lazy tongs which must not "scissor" by providing rigid joints).
Good point, not sure why I didn't spot that!
Post a Comment