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

121–130 of 140 posts

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

#121

Post by arp242 »

TylerE wrote: post #104
arp242 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I’m not making any thing up. Why the hostile tone? This is basic materials engineering.

The question was why this specific steel bridge was replaced. Not "what are possible reasons someone could replace steel bridges?" and it's absolutely not "basic materials engineering" that every bridge needs replacing after a fixed amount of time due to corrosion.

So again, do you know this specific bridge was replaced for this specific reason, or are you just making stuff up? Because bumping in on a specific question with a generic answer without any knowledge if that applies to this specific case is making stuff up.

The hostile tone is because you're talking complete nonsense with great arrogance.

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

#122

Post by trgn »

MeImCounting wrote: post #98
trgn wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because they didnt bother to put a roof on it for ideological reasons (postwar architects were obsessed with cubes, purely because it made a statement), so rain streaks down and those skidmarks looks awful on big concrete slabs.

So they at least need to wash it and put on a roof that prevents it from happening again.

Apart from that, this building is fine overall.

It's odd though, because I would call this building sterilized and flattened as well!

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

#123

Post by ch_sm »

Sakos wrote: post #113
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…

Am I the only one who thinks it's strange there isn't a single picture of the bridge pre-collapse on that page?

there is one though!

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

#124

Post by joshstrange »

8bitsrule wrote: post #111
Gare wrote: post #58

Earlier 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.

The Golden Gate in S.F. has been continuously painted since it was built in 1937 ... that when they've finished on one end, they move to the other end and start again. [0] https://www.goldengate.org/bridge/bridge-maintenance/paintin... This page details the other continuous maintenance going-on. [1] https://www.goldengate.org/bridge/bridge-maintenance/

From reading the linked article it seems that they are continuously painting but it’s not really end-to-end then restart. It’s more of an ongoing maintenance as-needed, at least based on the description on that website.

Now that effectively might mean then combing over the bridge end-to-end and painting as needed so what I said might be a distinction without a difference.

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

#125

Post by Intralexical »

cwillu wrote: post #75
Gare wrote: post #58

Earlier 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.

Ode to The Paint on Nuclear Submarines The purpose of the hull is to protect the paint. The purpose of the reactor is to drive the paint around. The purpose of the SUBSAFE program is to ensure the paint comes to the surface and will not be lost. The purpose of the cathodic protection system is to back up the paint. The purpose of the weapons is to defend the paint. The purpose of the Special Hull Treatment is to prot…

What's the purpose of the crew? Provide the paint company?

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

#126

Post by wizzwizz4 »

smegsicle wrote: post #90
Gare wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What else is a country supposed to spend money on‽ Transportation, utilities, healthcare, bureaucracy, government: a country is its infrastructure.

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

#127

Post by avery17 »

VelesDude wrote: post #46
im3w1l wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well to paraphrase a common saying, it's easy to build a bridge that stands, but it's difficult to make sure that is so optimized that it's on the verge of failing but still somehow stands.

A good engineer can make a bridge that stands 1,000 years. A great one makes one that can stand 100 years.

These guys must be the best engineers in the world then!

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

#128

Post by euroderf »

Intralexical wrote: post #125
cwillu wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ode to The Paint on Nuclear Submarines The purpose of the hull is to protect the paint. The purpose of the reactor is to drive the paint around. The purpose of the SUBSAFE program is to ensure the paint comes to the surface and will not be lost. The purpose of the cathodic protection system is to back up the paint. The purpose of the weapons is to defend the paint. The purpose of the Special Hull Treatment is to prot…

What's the purpose of the crew? Provide the paint company?

They are the only carbon-based life forms, otherwise useless to the paint, capable of touching up the paint.

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

#129

Post by btbuildem »

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.)

Wow, fascinating. Thanks for the correction!

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

#130

Post by twobitshifter »

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…

You will see wooden covered bridges from 1895 that last a long time too. It is not a material choice problem here, it’s the design and how the members are laid out.
Post reply on HN