4 ms·

The problem is the static scheme of the bridge. Most modern bridges are hyperstatic: if you remove one support, it still stands. Or at least isostatic: you re

The problem is the static scheme of the bridge. Most modern bridges are hyperstatic: if you remove one support, it still stands. Or at least isostatic: you remove one support or one span, and nothing happens to the nearest ones. This bridge was ill conceived: you remove one support or span, and it brings down everything like a chain that pulls down everything it's linked to. It's bad because the "engineer" just wanted to show off.

4gotunameagain 3y ago
You cannot put the entire weight of the 70's safety culture to an engineer "showing off" I bet there was a much more complex and nuanced analysis which included crossing ship dimensions, budget, time to completion, available technology, composition of the local seabed etc.. Designing a bridge is proper engineering and not that easy.
- baq 3y ago
  > Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands. ...in other words.
- _giorgio_ 3y ago
  Believe me, an engineering student that sees that, immediately understands the problems after taking the first science of construction lessons. You do need need the truss at all. If the truss fails (in any of the three spans), it brings down two adjacents spans. It's just a show off.
  - bigbillheck 3y ago
    There's been at least 50 years, probably more like 60 or 70, of advances in the art (much less pedagogy) that those students have and the bridge engineer did not.
- Tanoc 3y ago
  The '70s were also a transitional period in bridge design where truss bridges were being phased out in favour of newer types of hybrid suspension bridge. Many of the iron and steel bridges of the 1890s through the 1970s were later replaced with suspension bridges or arch span bridges because they used less material and could be architecturally adapted to the area better. So some truss bridges were made as much for appearance as function in order to compete with the futuristic hybrid suspension bridges like the 1967 Ponte Morandi or the 1987 replacement Sunshine Skyway.

4gotunameagain 3y ago

You cannot put the entire weight of the 70's safety culture to an engineer "showing off" I bet there was a much more complex and nuanced analysis which included crossing ship dimensions, budget, time to completion, available technology, composition of the local seabed etc.. Designing a bridge is proper engineering and not that easy.

baq 3y ago
> Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands. ...in other words.
_giorgio_ 3y ago
Believe me, an engineering student that sees that, immediately understands the problems after taking the first science of construction lessons. You do need need the truss at all. If the truss fails (in any of the three spans), it brings down two adjacents spans. It's just a show off.
- bigbillheck 3y ago
  There's been at least 50 years, probably more like 60 or 70, of advances in the art (much less pedagogy) that those students have and the bridge engineer did not.
Tanoc 3y ago
The '70s were also a transitional period in bridge design where truss bridges were being phased out in favour of newer types of hybrid suspension bridge. Many of the iron and steel bridges of the 1890s through the 1970s were later replaced with suspension bridges or arch span bridges because they used less material and could be architecturally adapted to the area better. So some truss bridges were made as much for appearance as function in order to compete with the futuristic hybrid suspension bridges like the 1967 Ponte Morandi or the 1987 replacement Sunshine Skyway.