To be fair, it was really pretty!
I suppose assthetics is in the eye of the beeholder?
"Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
81–90 of 140 posts
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#82That's so strange! Looking through the photos on the page, there's one showing the bridge still intact. It's almost as if someone accidentally flipped the materials -- the members that work in compression are were made of metal, the members under tension, out of lumber. That's the opposite of what each material is naturally strong at.
Actually wood is stronger in tensile: "tensile strength of soft- woods parallel to grain at 12% moisture content generally ranges between 70 to 140MPa. The compression strength is lower and is usually in the range 30 to 60 MPa."
Steel is similar in strength both ways, although it varies a lot depending on how it was annealed. (The harder the metal the better compression is vs tensile.)
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#83Earlier 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.
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…
> Isn't that basically arguing "Don't talk to me about statistics, I want to talk about this one specific data point"?
For sure, we can each talk about different things. I can talk about ironic things and you can talk about statistics, and we can still be friends!
> That doesn't say much about why that was true, just that it was.
Well, why do you think it sucked?
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#84Earlier 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.
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…
> Isn't that basically arguing "Don't talk to me about statistics, I want to talk about this one specific data point"?
And why not? In this particular case, the statistics did not justify the expectation that this bridge would be at least as robust as the one it replaced.
There's a general point to be made about engineering progress, but here we have a case which bucks the trend. Speaking in generalities when the topic is a specific incident is a way of missing the point.
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#85Tretten 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.
The similarities really kinda end beyond the name :P
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#86https://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…
The bridge was built during a trend to build wooden apartment houses here in Sweden, and probably all over Scandinavia.
This fad has now passed and there have been several news stories about what a bad idea it was. I guess they were trying to get back to using more natural materials.
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#87Earlier 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.
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…
On the whole they may be better built, but the same design in steel would likely not have failed?
I guess that’s what they’re going for when they say aesthetics had too much of a focus?
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#88https://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…
The bridge was built during a trend to build wooden apartment houses here in Sweden, and probably all over Scandinavia. This fad has now passed and there have been several news stories about what a bad idea it was. I guess they were trying to get back to using more natural materials.
There's nothing wrong with wood frame construction, if it's done right.
It sounds like they didn't do it right, though.
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#89Earlier 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.
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…
There's nothing in statistics that helps you build a bridge.
Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
maybe they wouldn't be so poor if they didn't waste all their money on infrastructure maintenance