Signature bridges
Signature bridges
(OP)
Excellent article on signature bridges and some of the challenges they present.
I like it specially because it articulates some of my own thoughts on the subject.
I would like to know what other bridge engineers think
http:/ /enr.const ruction.co m/opinions /viewPoint /archives/ 071012.asp
and for the article itself:
h ttp://enr. constructi on.com/opi nions/view Point/2007 /docs/0710 12-Buildin g-Better-B ridges.pdf
I like it specially because it articulates some of my own thoughts on the subject.
I would like to know what other bridge engineers think
http:/
and for the article itself:
h





RE: Signature bridges
Real Bridge Economics 101: You can't compare "basic short or medium span" birdges to cable-stayed bridges, which are typically long spans, or at least medium.
And are there really *that* many signature bridges going up to warrant a 20-page rant on the subject?
That said, most well-designed bridges look pretty good if you just leave them alone and keep the architects' hands off them.
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Signature bridges
Comparations are never fair, but the Cooper River Bridge in SC was built for about 630M USD (including foundations and approaches). On the other hand, the new East Bay Bridge project will cost about 6,300M USD, with 1,400 M USD for the superstructure alone (no foundations) of the main span (no approaches), with a span size relatively similar and both bridges on seismic areas.
As I said, comparations are never fair, but it seems to me that the cost for a 'signature bridge' can be quite significant. Does it warrant an article? I think it does, this is a growing trend, 23 M USD for a footbridge (Sundial Bridge) is quite a bit of money.
I am not opposed to signature bridges, I just think that people has to understand what the issues are.
And yes, keep architects away
Cooper River Bridge
http:/
New East Bay Bridge
htt
Sundial Bridge
http://
RE: Signature bridges
Architects are annoying, but I do not agree that we should keep the the away completely. After a basic configuration that makes sense structurally is established, let them pretty things up. They can also help with laying out piers and other elements in a way that is harmonious with the environment but not bad structurally. I have had some good experiences with architects working this way.
I have had bad experiences too with architects that try to dictate structural shapes that create huge moments, have fatigue issues, or are be difficult to inspect and maintain.
RE: Signature bridges
RE: Signature bridges
I think I get the gist, though, and my perspective is that the public should get a nice-looking bridge if it's in a prominent, visible location where what it looks like really matters.
I do notice, though, that when the public is asked for opinions on different bridge-configuration options (or, for that matter, when the public volunteers opinions), the all-important price-tag information is too often either missing completely or not shared in a way that really brings it home.
The public ought to be asked, would you be willing to pay $x more in taxes for "y" years to get THIS pretty type of bridge instead of THAT ordinary-looking type of bridge?
And bridge details or types that are not as safe as alternatives should just be nixed, in my opinion, no matter how pretty they might be.
RE: Signature bridges
The earliest Architect’s were really Engineer’s, the structure’s they designed were works of art. Think of the great monuments of the World, do you ever hear of anyone talking about the floor plan, the colors, or the fixtures? No, you see the structure, the arches, beams, walls, etc. That’s why a bridge Engineer is basically an original Architect. So in a way you can say that Architect’s already design bridges, they just have PE stamps and not AIA stamps.
RE: Signature bridges
You hit the nail on the head. The public is not aware of the costs and the government is not pushing to give it to them.
In the US, most money is allocated to a region by formula. If you have so many miles of road, so much population, ..., you get "X" dollars of funding from the higher government levels. If you spend it all on one bridge, you don't get anything else for the rest of the cycle. But the public doesn't know how all this works. They just think they can get it all on this project and it comes out of the "big pot". But it really comes out of their small pot. And then they complain about the roads with potholes in their area.