Sounds miserably similar to this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_International_Universi... Though the FIU one collapsed within a week of the fatally flawed span first being installed .
[flagged]
"Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
61–70 of 140 posts
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#62Bookmark this for the next time you read "if construction engineers built like programmers" trope.
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Glulam isn’t a new material, it’s over 100 years old.
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#64Tretten 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...
Here's the daylight view:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2023-09-04_13_02_10_View_...
I'd say it is a very conventional (& rock-solid) steel through-truss bridge, with a bunch of neon 'tude tacked onto its side.
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Function over form is a false equivalency, a modernist fetish. Architect's first commandment should be to strive to a perfect integration of beauty, usefulness and durability. There are many real world examples, so it's not a trade-off. Plus, that "strong focus on aesthetics" seem to be a throwaway comment in the report, and it is disputed by the design studio who built the bridge.
It presupposes a false _dichotomy_, one that misunderstands the nature of beauty. A building's beauty will in large part be a matter of its _function_. It it not just a matter of decoration, which is important, but does not exhaust the aesthetic concerns of an architect. The Pantheon in Rome is an especially nice sign of contradiction, but it is hardly alone. We are human beings, not some consumerist homo economicus…
"prioritizing function over form" is not a dichotomy, merely a statement that when the two are in conflict, function should win.
That does not strictly mean that the two are always in conflict.
I am more than a machine without feeling, but I prefer my bridges to not collapse when I drive on them, no matter how pretty they are.
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#66The actual report with animated video and english subtitles: https://www.nsia.no/Road/Published-reports/2024-03 I translated some of the norweigan paragraps that include "estetik" but I can't figure out if they mean "they should have used steel" or they mean "the diagonal members should change direction to keep them in compression" or both.
Well, either would work: Steel can be easily fitted to take tension loads; Or the wood could be oriented to be in compression, with the ends butted against other structure thus relieving the bolts of most of the load.
Here's one that combines both techniques:
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F...
What was done instead concentrated the tension stress onto a small central core section of the member, with rest transferred to wood grain-aligned, therefore weak, sheer faces within the timber.
Thanks for the video: To anyone who's spent some time working with wooden garden gates, that's enough to tell the story.
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 si…
I don't know in what poor country you live, but in my country bridges are well maintained and I don't recall a single critical failure. Even though we're one of the poorest EU countries.
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Glulam isn’t a new material, it’s over 100 years old.
How many 70 m span glulam road bridges have been built in those 100 years?
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#69Earlier 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.
Isn't that basically arguing "Don't talk to me about statistics, I want to talk about this one specific data point"?
Bridges on the whole are pretty clearly better built and safer today then they were 130 years ago. I don't think there's any significant argument to the contrary. There are outliers in both directions, obviously. The old one at this site looks like it was pretty great. The new one sucked. That doesn't say much about why that was true, just that it was.
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#70Earlier 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.
There so far haven't been any steel bridges that have actually lasted centuries, even if we highly suspect that they are capable of it with the right maintenance.