Jump to content

Talk:Arch bridge

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

Untitled

[edit]

That old photo sucks. I used the lack of copyright info as justification for removing it, but that fact that #1 it is still an unknown location, #2 the photo is underexposed, #3 it dosent even show the whole main span, much less the entire bridge (read abutments). #4 a rock takes up 1/3 of the photo. Cacophony 18:55, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

i'd vote for the old photo to stay for now. Because 2 photos is better than 1, and a photo of older bridge is nice complement to a modern tech version. Xah Lee 21:04, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

This is not a good photo for this article as the bridge is a compression arch suspended-deck bridge, a sophisticated variation of the basic arch bridge. Better would be Image:NagasakiMeganebashi.jpg - Leonard G. 04:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 2 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ccedric2.0.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Future changes

[edit]

I'm planning to add the following to this article:

  • brief history or timeline, including reference to the extensive history of arch bridges in China, plus key engineers like Perronet
  • comments on arch shapes, i.e. semicircular, elliptical, basket-handle, gothic pointed etc.
  • more on arch terminology e.g. voussoirs, starlings, intrados and the like
  • some notable arch bridges e.g. the largest spans

Any other ideas for what is missing? -- Kvetner 19:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'thrust arch bridge', where the arch is above the deck, is common elsewhere, e.g. http://www.steelconstruction.info/Tied-arch_bridges - would it make sense to have these as a sub-category of arch bridge. (Thurst arch bridges are different from tied arch bridges, which have an article to themselves) 82.10.224.23 (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Me. I would be most grateful for including material on the medieval superbridge at Trezzo sull'Adda. Why? Because this bridge must have been amazing as it doubled the longest span of stone bridges then (from 37 to 72). Still, the briidge is almost unknown, as nobody covers the subject.
There is also a claim that the Etruscans build very early on stone arch bridges (earlier than both Greeks and Romans). Two of them are included in Structurae, but I am not sure whether these are still the original structures. Including the Etruscans in a comprehensive history of stone arch bridges would definitely be an almost revolutionary thing.
For the timeline, see also
I will review all the above against my various reference books when I get a moment. Please note that Trajan's bridge was not the longest span, it just claims to be the longest bridge (total length). -- Kvetner 16:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. But which ancient or medieval bridge had a span of more than 57 meters? Gun Powder Ma 22:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a reference to substantiate that quoted span of 57 metres, and I note that the main Wikipedia article on Trajan's Bridge only says 52 metres. In Troyano's "Bridge Engineering: A Global Perspective", it refers to spans up to 38 metres, with masonry piers up to 15 metres thick - you'll note that adds up to 53 metres, and I therefore wonder whether Structurae is incorrect. Whitney doesn't mention the bridge at all. There were certainly Roman stone arch bridges up to 32-35 metre span, and it's debated whether they got up to 38 metres (at the Ponte Vella de Ourense, for example). So the best that could be said would be that Trajan's Bridge is probably the longest span for a millennium - unless you can find a better reference.
Yes, the Trezzo bridge was a major advance, and again it is discussed in Troyano - possibly little covered elsewhere as it was destroyed in the 15th century.
On segmental arches, I am fairly sure there are Roman examples. Troyano cites Alconetar bridge over the Tagus, which was Roman and had a fairly low span/rise ratio. Whitney mentions the Pons Fabricus as not being semi-circular, but segmental. There were also a number of low span/rise ratio bridges built in the 14th century, of which the Pont d'Avignon (a.k.a. Saint-Benezet) was only one - Vecchio and Scaliger are from the same century and I don't know which came first - there's nothing in the Wikipedia article on Pont Saint-Bénezet to make this clear (according to Troyano, it was originally built as a timber bridge in the 12th century, with the stone arch bridge being a 14th century rebuild - this contradicts Whitney who reports the stone bridge as dating from the 12th century - any other sources on this one?). -- Kvetner 23:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think structurae has arrived at their "57 m" by dividing the total length by the number of pillars (1135/20 = 56,7). However, they did not calculate the width of the pillars, as a bridge span is in my understanding defined as the free space between two pillars, so you are correct that they number is strange. Anyway, the bridge's wooden arches are clearly segmental, so assuming a record span is not unrealistic: www.hdg.de/eurovisionen/html/br2_1.html
As for Alconetar, go to Google Images. You can see that the three surviving arches are segmental arches, but
  • these look a bit like much later amendments
  • these segmental arches had very conventional span/rise ratio, so the advantages of the seg. arch bridge were not fully exploited
The arches of the Pons Fabricius look rather semi-circular to me.
Could you uncover your references? As for Roman bridges there is the classical: Colin O'Connor, Roman Bridges, Cambridge Univ. Press (1994) ISBN 0-521-39326-4 Gun Powder Ma 10:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're right about where Structurae derived the span from, and yes, for a masonry arch the span is the clear distance between springings.
Troyano's book states that two arches at the Alconetar site are original (spans 6m and 7m), although a photo caption confirms that some are later reconstructions on top of the original Roman piers. Troyano doesn't state a span/rise ratio but from his photos it is clearly much higher than the 2:1 of a semi-circular arch.
Charles Whitney's book discusses the Pons Fabricius (page 61 of my copy) and states that it is not semi-circular - his photo and others on the net certainly appear to show that the arch intrados does not become vertical at the visible springings but is still sloping, although Whitney acknowledges that there may be real springings lower down, hidden by the stonework at the base of piers, in which case the arches would indeed be semi-circular.
Now all we need to do is get some of this information onto the relevant pages! -- Kvetner 20:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working for some time on category:Roman bridges, but you certainly provide new infos here. This is what a webpage says about the Alconetar bridge: destroyed in the 13th century, 3 arches left, moved in 1972 - I hope they did not change the arch structure then. Here the most authoritative photo: http://users.servicios.retecal.es/jomicoe/Alconetar.JPG
El puente de Alconétar, sobre el Tajo en Garrovillas (Cáceres) cerca de Alcántara, estaba en la Vía de la Plata. Debió de ser también monumental. Fue destruido por los árabes en el siglo XIII y nunca después reconstruido. Hoy día es un puente sin río. Al construir el pantano de Alcántara hubiera quedado sepultado por las aguas. En el año 1972 se trasladaron sus restos a un nuevo emplazamiento. Apenas quedan tres arcos de los 13 que tuvo. Se aprecia su solidez en sus fuertes machones.
As for the Pons Fabricius, there are some Roman bridges (and even more medieval ones) whose arches are designed somewhere between semi-circular and segmental. This is only natural as a demanding structure the segmental arch bridge could not have been invented in a day, but must have been reasonably the result of a lengthy development process. This means there are certainly transitory forms between the two types, what we need in every single case is the span/rise ratio of the bridge to make qualified judgements on its segmental or semi-circle character. Gun Powder Ma 23:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That photo at retecal.es is similar to the ones in Troyano's book - his text and captions imply that the arch on the left is an original Roman arch and the other two are more recent, but he doesn't state his source for this. On the Pons Fabricius, my understanding is that any circular arc shorter than the boundary of a semi-circle is a segment, and hence Pons Fabricius is segmental - it lacks the higher span/rise ratio of the bridges more normally called segmental, but as you say, it's transitional. Ironically though, I believe it's one of the earlier Roman bridges? There is a drawing of this bridge by Piranesi (not the one on the Pons Fabricius page), reproduced by Whitney, and available online at [1], which suggests the arch is just the top portion of an enormous circular structure, but this is incredibly unlikely and probably just an overactive imagination on Piranesi's part. PS: I've reset the indentation to avoid this discussion getting too hard to follow! -- Kvetner 12:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. You first said that "Troyano's book states that two arches at the Alconetar site are original (spans 6m and 7m)", but now you write that "his text and captions imply that the arch on the left is an original Roman arch and the other two are more recent". In that case, the bridge would not be a Roman segmental arch bridge at all, wouldn't it?
Did Troyano somewhere write that the wooden low span/rise ratio bridges of the Romans also constitute segmental arches (despite their superstructure being out of wood, not stone)? Gun Powder Ma 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct; if I read Troyano correctly then the implication is that there is at least one more arch not shown in the photograph you mentioned. But it could just be that he got it wrong, of course. I don't recall if he discusses timber arches (I'm at work right now, the book is at home); it may be a while before I can comment further as I'm travelling quite a bit over the next week. -- Kvetner 15:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back home, and my reading of Troyano is correct, he reports two surviving arches. He gives the following references: Victor W Von Hagen "Los caminos que conducian a Roma", Barcelona, 1973; and Carlos Fernandez Casado "Tres monumentos salvados de las aguas por la sociedad Hidroelectrica Espanola", Boletin de la Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando, 1979. Apparently, the Alconetar's designer was Apollodorus of Damascus, also credited with Trajan's Bridge at Orsovo, which we have already discussed! -- Kvetner 19:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which arches are Roman? The two segmental arches or the semi-circles one(s)? Gun Powder Ma 22:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any semi-circular arches in the photo, all three are segmental. The one on the left is of the same appearance as Troyano's photo which he labels "Roman arch" (he labels the others "later arches"). -- Kvetner 13:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a new article on Alconétar Bridge which covers some of the discussion above. I've linked it from the Apollodorus of Damascus and Zhaozhou Bridge articles initially. -- Kvetner 21:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. I hope the classification of the Alconetar bridge as probable segmental arch bridge is covered by your sources. Perhaps giving the exact page or even a quote will improve your article. Regards Gun Powder Ma 14:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's stated as segmental here [2], but I'm not sure there's much argument about it - it's clearly not semi-circular, it might at a stretch be some other non-circular shape, but in any event it was unusual by Roman standards. I'm going to have a go at an article on the Trezzo sull'Adda Bridge next, watch for the link when it's done. -- Kvetner 19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at least two of the arches are segmental, that is clear beyond doubt, but the question is whether these two segmental arches are Roman or a later - medieval - replacement. Your source says: "Archs are segmental, instead of round. Both first archs show a Roman construction; the others did suffer Medieval rebuildings." We need to know exactly when which arch by whom was built before we can establish the fact the the Romans not only build wooden, but also stone segmental arch bridges. Do you know by chance other potential candidates? Regards Gun Powder Ma 20:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Troyano's book is quite clear. It shows a picture of one segmental arch on the Alconétar Bridge, and labels it a Roman arch. The Alconétar Bridge article also refers to [3] and [4], both of which also state these are Roman arches. Unless you can point to a reference saying they aren't Roman arches, I don't see what needs to be changed further. To summarise: the arches are visibly segmental, they are described as segmental, and they are described in at least three sources as being Roman.
Ok, lets leave it at that until I may have the chance to take a closer look at other sources.Gun Powder Ma 21:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have also taken the opportunity to amend the article to make clear that Trajan's Bridge was only the longest for a thousand years in Europe - the Maya Bridge at Yaxchilan overtook its world record in the 7th century. -- Kvetner 20:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I propose to distinguish scrupulously between suspension bridges and arch bridges, especially in terms of 'records'. It is apples and oranges. Regards Gun Powder Ma 20:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Trajan's Bridge article claimed it was the longest span anywhere in the world for a millennium, and the text here on arch bridge implicitly said the same thing. This is clearly incorrect. I've amended it to say it was the longest span in Europe for a millennium, which is fair; you could amend it to say it was the longest arch span in the world for a millennium, which would also be true. Or it could most usefully say "the longest bridge span in the world for five centuries (when the Maya Bridge at Yaxchilan was built), and the longest arch span in the world for a millennium (when the Trezzo Bridge was built). I think it will be more productive to get the articles correct than to extend the debate here. -- Kvetner 20:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see you have got there already, well done! -- Kvetner 21:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already included the suffix ARCH in the other relevant articles. ;-) Gun Powder Ma 21:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Valley civilisation

[edit]

What is this mysterious civilization with no name, in the Indus Valley? Weren't arch bridges invented in Ancient Rome? I'd like to see some evidence in the article that these Indus Valley people invented arch bridges. Huey45 04:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the information comes from the intro in the Arch article, which uses this page as a source (concerning "The Rounded Arch").
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David Steinmain in "Bridges and their Builders" (1941) states that there were voussoir arches in Mesopotamia, dating to 4000 BCE. There were similar arches in Egypt dating from around 3600 BCE. The Greeks used voussoir arches from about 500 BCE (all from the same source). The oldest *surviving* stone arch bridges are usually acknowledged as Roman, but there's uncertainty as to when the surviving Dezful bridge was built, with various dates from 300 BCE to about 400 CE suggested. Personally, I think there's little doubt that one of these cultures will have built stone arch bridges before the Romans, but a quick trawl through the bookshelves hasn't found a more definitive statement. -- Kvetner 13:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the citation needed tag - if there is an issue, it's with the main arch article, rather than here. The arch bridge article doesn't make a claim as to who invented arch bridges, only who invented stone arches, and it would therefore be better discussed on Talk:Arch -- Kvetner 13:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information, Kvetner. Dunno about removing the citation tag though, rather replace the sentence using the source you mentioned above, IMO.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

I think a cull of images is in order here. The text is being crowded out. Leithp 21:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No comment from anyone, so I've done it. Leithp 21:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Moved here, User:71.74.22.224 had added this to the main article. "wikipedia uses lots of vocab. in these statements[:" "this web site has to much vocabulary usein it[:" --Mmdoogie (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Proske book

[edit]

The book is new, unreviewed (google finds only adverts), and touches on only a small part of this topic. Tedickey (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear why the anonymous editor, 206.82.218.140, inserted the reference. It intrigues me that the editor specifically referenced page 336. I would concur with the removal of the reference unless the anon shows up and gives better reasoning or an in-line link. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This says the book has 366 pages (perhaps a typo). Tedickey (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arc bridge

[edit]

I have redirected "Arc bridge" here but I think this may be wrong. If Clyde Arc is typical then it seems to be a kind of suspension bridge. Are there any bridge engineers out there? Biscuittin (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your redirect is appropriate; there's no specific type of bridge known as an "arc". The Clyde Arc is just a stylised name—the type of bridge is a tied-arch, and there are several others that look like it, including the magnificent Juscelino Kubitschek bridge in Brazil. Maedin\talk 11:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Biscuittin (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Span-to-rise ratio confusion

[edit]

Compare "Constructions such as [...] Ponte Veccio combined sound engineering (span-to-rise ratio of over 5.3 to 1) with aesthetical appeal" with "the Zhaozhou Bridge [...] combined a very low span-to-rise ratio of 5.2:1 with ...". It seems contradictory to me and I would suggest that the latter is incorrect. —MegaPedant 12:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eleutherna Bridge, Crete, Greece. Pic 03.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Eleutherna Bridge, Crete, Greece. Pic 03.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arch 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) 04:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arch 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) 13:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arch_bridge&oldid=1198911880"