![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Some needed:
*
Truss arch bridge with a landscape format (I don't want to chop the great picture currently used).--
Klaus with K
15:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
have a look at photos of
de:Müngstener Brücke or
fr:Viaduc de Garabit
*
Burr arch - a combination of arch and truss, common in wooden bridges.
Leonard G.
01:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
SOLUTION AT HAND:
Use "{{bridge-type-stub}}", displayed as:
- Leonard G. 15:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Undefined term used in Perrine's Bridge article, need an article. see [2].
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
I have removed this link twice as a violation of WP:EL and it's back.
My arguments for removing.
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 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)
Cantilever Bridges A cantilever bridge is a kind of beam bridge. It is usually built in two sections, which... etc.
Fr e dil Yu pi go 16:00, 29 July 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[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.wikipedia.org/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)
ok 68.214.4.42 22:22, 18 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can anybody include a photo of a road bridge over a railway ?. Thanks in advance. -- HybridBoy 06:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Why do some road bridges have roofs? Drutt ( talk) 07:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Seriously, Bridglings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teh Wallaby ( talk • contribs) 12:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Someone tried to add an image. Let's see what happens if I fix the tag.
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)
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 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)
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)
Maybe this is a variety of "log bridge", but see [8] for details. - Denimadept ( talk) 14:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
(out) Nope, no disappointment. Everyone starts somewhere. - Denimadept ( talk) 05:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Try to add in some more bridge records.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.202.213 ( talk) 01:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Should there be a mention about Gephyrophobia (phobia of bridges)? ShakyIsles ( talk) 00:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Some needed:
*
Truss arch bridge with a landscape format (I don't want to chop the great picture currently used).--
Klaus with K
15:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
have a look at photos of
de:Müngstener Brücke or
fr:Viaduc de Garabit
*
Burr arch - a combination of arch and truss, common in wooden bridges.
Leonard G.
01:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
SOLUTION AT HAND:
Use "{{bridge-type-stub}}", displayed as:
- Leonard G. 15:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Undefined term used in Perrine's Bridge article, need an article. see [2].
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
I have removed this link twice as a violation of WP:EL and it's back.
My arguments for removing.
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 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)
Cantilever Bridges A cantilever bridge is a kind of beam bridge. It is usually built in two sections, which... etc.
Fr e dil Yu pi go 16:00, 29 July 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[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.wikipedia.org/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)
ok 68.214.4.42 22:22, 18 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can anybody include a photo of a road bridge over a railway ?. Thanks in advance. -- HybridBoy 06:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Why do some road bridges have roofs? Drutt ( talk) 07:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Seriously, Bridglings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teh Wallaby ( talk • contribs) 12:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Someone tried to add an image. Let's see what happens if I fix the tag.
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)
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 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)
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)
Maybe this is a variety of "log bridge", but see [8] for details. - Denimadept ( talk) 14:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
(out) Nope, no disappointment. Everyone starts somewhere. - Denimadept ( talk) 05:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Try to add in some more bridge records.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.202.213 ( talk) 01:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Should there be a mention about Gephyrophobia (phobia of bridges)? ShakyIsles ( talk) 00:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)