1.was a new material in the early twentieth century. Whereas most of his contemporaries designing concrete bridges used concrete primarily as cast-in-place masonry, Maillart developed structural systems that made effective use of the composite material’s unique properties, including its capacity to resist tensile and bending stresses. If we are looking for opportunities to innovate in the twenty-first century, therefore, we should look to our own new materials. There is an abundance of new materials available to structural designers, for which suitable structural systems have not yet been developed. These should provide the starting point for designers looking for ways to move bridge technology forward.
2. Designers who can innovate. It is unfair to expect engineers to innovate when their education consists predominately of teaching them how to calculate forces in structural systems made with materials in common use a half a century ago. Maillart’s teacher at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Wilhelm Ritter,taught his students how to design in reinforced concrete at a time when this material was still struggling for acceptance (Billington 2003). How many civil engineering programs teach undergraduate students how to design in ultra highperformance concrete, high-performance steel, and advanced composite materials?
3.Designers who can create works of aesthetic significance. Wilhelm Ritter taught structural engineering on the basis of critical study of real completed structures (Billington 2003). An integral part of this approach was to give critical comment on the aesthetic qualities of structures and to relate these comments to properties of the structural systems and details. If we expect designers to create works of visual elegance, then we must not only teach them that this is important, but also give them the skills and values necessary to deal with issues related to bridge aesthetics in the design process.
4.Owners who embrace innovation. Innovation by necessity involves moving into unknown territory. Although the owners of the Salginatobel Bridge were not designers of the calibre of Maillart, they recognized the potential benefits of his ideas and were sophisticated enough to retain the services of impartial experts to give their assessment of Maillart’s proposed concepts. On the basis of this independent counsel, they gained the confidence to proceed with construction. Current owners of bridges must find analogous ways of gaining the level of confidence needed to move forward with new ideas.
5. Owners who are not bound by preconceived notions of aesthetics. It is significant that none of the bridges designed by Maillart as an independent consultant was built in a major city. In the mountains of Depression-era Switzerland, people valued the Salginatobel Bridge primarily for its contribution to the local economy; there was no expectation of a “signature” structure. Unburdened by preconceived notions of what the bridge should look like, Maillart was free to use the opportunities offered by new structural systems to create visible forms that were bold and unique, and which certainly would not have conformed to the 1930s conventional vision of a “good looking” bridge. Provided these conditions can be met, it is likely that the tradition of Maillart can be maintained into the twenty-first century. The design of aesthetically pleasing bridges does not necessarily require inclined towers and large premiums in cost relative to the minimum cost option. If engineers are prepared to move bridge technology forward, and if owners are willing to accept and reward innovation, then there will be a way to build, within the discipline of economy, aesthetically significant bridges with bold and original visible forms. references
上一页 [1] [2] [3] [4] 下一页
桥梁工程论文英文参考文献和翻译 第3页下载如图片无法显示或论文不完整，请联系qq752018766
