reminds me of "modern" web development.
"Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
51–60 of 140 posts
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Engineers in 1895 knew how to use steel trusses and built a bridge that lasted 100+ years It's a little too strong of a claim. Plenty of poorly designed steel bridges from the 19th century have collapsed as well, despite the superior material.
> Plenty of poorly designed steel bridges from the 19th century have collapsed as well That's true. But I only meant that particular bridge, which did last for 100+ years. So, when the architects and the engineers go to the archives to relearn a few things, they can focus on the ones which haven't collapsed.
To be fair, there have been a lot of advancements in timber and glue -- They just didn't take into account their weaknesses when designing (e.g. Stress that would pull laminated beams apart).
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#53Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#54https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tretten_Bridge The ironic part is "The bridge replaced a steel truss bridge built in 1895 at the same location". Engineers in 1895 knew how to use steel trusses and built a bridge that lasted 100+ years, and in 2012 they decided to use glued wooden beams and it fell apart in 10 years. Well perhaps Plan Arkitekter and Norconsult can take a trip to the archives and see what the engineers i…
> Engineers in 1895 knew how to use steel trusses and built a bridge that lasted 100+ years It's a little too strong of a claim. Plenty of poorly designed steel bridges from the 19th century have collapsed as well, despite the superior material.
> Plenty of poorly designed steel bridges from the 19th century have collapsed as well, despite the superior material.
Disagree. In late 19th century steel girder bridges were well understood and many of them survive to this day.
They were usually replaced due to changed demands (wider roads, heavier loads), not because of failure.
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#55Tretten Bridge, not to be confused with (Lower) Trenton Bridge, the most passive aggressive bridge in the world. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/20...
It’s like the body of an OSS maintainer and the mind of a HN commenter. Well in the body of a bridge.
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Plenty of poorly designed steel bridges from the 19th century have collapsed as well That's true. But I only meant that particular bridge, which did last for 100+ years. So, when the architects and the engineers go to the archives to relearn a few things, they can focus on the ones which haven't collapsed.
+ why even remove the steel bridge in the first place?
Moisture causes corrosion.
Rivers produce lots of moisture.
Corrosion weakens the steel. It's literally the metal flaking away.
All steel corrodes. Even stainless.
Once corrosion sets in and the outside of the metal starts to pit, the corrosion speeds up drastically. (The old area vs volume thing, same thing that makes lump coal difficult to ignite while aerosolized coal dust is practically an explosive).
Here's a modern US bridge - all steel - that collapsed in Pittsburgh two years ago. In some areas over 80% of the original steel thinkness was gone after 49 years.
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#57Somewhat amusing to see this headline on deezen, the site that usually celebrates a "strong focus on aesthetics" above all else.
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
+ why even remove the steel bridge in the first place?
Moisture causes corrosion. Rivers produce lots of moisture. Corrosion weakens the steel. It's literally the metal flaking away. All steel corrodes. Even stainless. Once corrosion sets in and the outside of the metal starts to pit, the corrosion speeds up drastically. (The old area vs volume thing, same thing that makes lump coal difficult to ignite while aerosolized coal dust is practically an explosive). Here's a mo…
Paint protects steel. A frequently painted steel bridge can last centuries.
As always, lack of maintenance and poor design choices (use of corten steel) are the culprit.
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moisture causes corrosion. Rivers produce lots of moisture. Corrosion weakens the steel. It's literally the metal flaking away. All steel corrodes. Even stainless. Once corrosion sets in and the outside of the metal starts to pit, the corrosion speeds up drastically. (The old area vs volume thing, same thing that makes lump coal difficult to ignite while aerosolized coal dust is practically an explosive). Here's a mo…
Paint protects steel. A frequently painted steel bridge can last centuries. As always, lack of maintenance and poor design choices (use of corten steel) are the culprit.
Something like 20% of the bridges in this country are 10 years or more past their design lifetime and mostly not due to be replaced any time soon. You think they're keeping on top of painting every one? Saying preventing corrosion is as easy as slapping on paint is like saying computer security is as easy as not leaking your password. There are a million things that could happen, many of which are outside what any single person could control.
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Plenty of poorly designed steel bridges from the 19th century have collapsed as well That's true. But I only meant that particular bridge, which did last for 100+ years. So, when the architects and the engineers go to the archives to relearn a few things, they can focus on the ones which haven't collapsed.
To be fair, there have been a lot of advancements in timber and glue -- They just didn't take into account their weaknesses when designing (e.g. Stress that would pull laminated beams apart).
There are always unknown unknowns in trying new designs and/or materials. Even with all the simulations and calculations, nothing beats experience.
Sure, novel things should be tried, but in a conservative manner. Overdesign first, then optimize iteratively. Because failure costs lives.