Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge

dezeen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 140 posts

Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge

#91

Post by sorenjan »

INTPenis wrote: post #86
rdtsc wrote: post #14

https://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 were 250% more apartments built from wood built in 2022 than in 2012. In total 14.4% of all new apartments finished in 2022 used wood.

https://www.di.se/hallbart-naringsliv/trahustrenden-nar-nya-...

https://www.tmf.se/bransch-naringspolitik/branschutveckling/...

Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge

#92

Post by Aeolun »

constantcrying wrote: post #79
voisin wrote: post #3

Architects’ first commandment: always prioritize function over form.

Any good design is a collaboration of art and engineering, where the end result accomplishes the technical requirements and integrates itself into the world around it in an appropriate way. Neither of these can be considered alone, function has a form of its own, just like form has a function of it's own. Architects aren't structural engineers and only in dialogue good infrastructure can be created.

I’m fairly certain good ‘infrastructure’ can be engineered. If you want something pretty that integrates into the world around it’s not solely infrastructure any more.

Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge

#93

Post by shrubble »

hilux wrote: post #13
voisin wrote: post #3

Architects’ first commandment: always prioritize function over form.

Unsurprisingly, this is Wurster Hall, home of the Architecture School (aka "College of Environmental Design") at UC Berkeley: https://www.sosbrutalism.org/cms/15892267

Wurster? Wurstest .

Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge

#94

Post by kevinpet »

_hbro wrote: post #27

The idea that a "strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to the failure of a bridge doesn't make any logical sense. Employing a strong focus on aesthetics doesn't preclude also having the necessary focus on stability and safety. Bridges fail because they were not designed or engineered properly.

If you look at the picture while it's standing, the design has the diagonal braces all running the same way. Any homeowner who has knocked together a wooden gate could recognize that as abnormal. If the bridge were standing, I might think "huh, I guess the did the math and it works fine like this". But since it's scattered across the riverbed, I guess they didn't.

Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge

#95

Post by ikekkdcjkfke »

Gare wrote: post #68
mcphage wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yeah, exposing load bearing wood and glue to the elements requires some extra caution and engineering intuition

Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge

#96

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

ars wrote: post #82
btbuildem wrote: post #50

That'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.)

This is true but the main concern with compression loads is buckling, which generally happens well before the material yields to normal stress. This means that compression members need to be much stiffer in bending, and so generally bulky and geometrically large, with a big moment of inertia. Whereas tension members can basically just be wire rope.

Wood can easily be built up into a much larger cross-section than steel for the same cost and less weight, so it makes sense to use it for compression loads.

Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge

#97

Post by arp242 »

TylerE wrote: post #56
hellofellows wrote: post #31

Earlier 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…

There are metal bridges over 100 years old still in service today, including a few you've heard of. Do you know this specific bridge was replaced for this specific reason, or are you just making stuff up?

Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge

#98

Post by MeImCounting »

trgn wrote: post #40
hilux wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unsurprisingly, this is Wurster Hall, home of the Architecture School (aka "College of Environmental Design") at UC Berkeley: https://www.sosbrutalism.org/cms/15892267

Horrific, but salvageable. Put on a wide overhang flat roof, so rain no longer streaks down the wall, and wash/paint it. Then, it will just be a large no frills classroom building. Not great, but no longer offensive either.

Ive never understood why this style of architecture is seen as "horrific" and "offensive". It looks nice. I like to see the materials a building is made of. I am so sick stucco and paneling trying to hide the material a building is made of. If you want to paint it paint a mural. Why must everything be sterilized and flattened.

Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge

#99

Post by MeImCounting »

constantcrying wrote: post #80
hilux wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unsurprisingly, this is Wurster Hall, home of the Architecture School (aka "College of Environmental Design") at UC Berkeley: https://www.sosbrutalism.org/cms/15892267

Legitimately makes some prisons look inviting. The bare concrete, which the dirt makes it look like it is rotting away, gives it the charm of an uninhibited ruin. Even on the brightest days the shadows of the building will make you inexplicably cold, while the oppressive outside has cut many conversations short.

Its beautiful! I will never understand the hate for this type of building?

Re: "Strong focus on aesthetics" contributed to collapse of Norway timber bridge

#100

Post by ikekkdcjkfke »

Gare wrote: post #60
x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #52

Earlier 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.

I believe the failure happened in the joint between the wood and steel. The joint was a sandwich with very thin slices and with many nails. Anyone with materials intuition knows that puncturing a material to such a degree weakens it. Mix in constant moisture and single points of failure.. Should have been a couple of big old bolts and some bracings, alternately thicker slices in the sandwich
Post reply on HN