- 上一篇：级进模设计英文文献和中文翻译
- 下一篇：可重构冲压模具英文文献和中文翻译
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
Billington, D.P. 1983. The Tower and the Bridge. New York: Basic Books. Billington, D.P. 2003. The Art of Structural Design: A Swiss Legacy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Brown, J.L. 2004. Cable-stayed pedestrian crossing doubles as sundial. Civil Engineering 74, No. 3, p. 26.
Dallard, P. et. al. 2001. The London Millennium Footbridge. The Structural Engineer 79 No. 22, pp. 17-33.
O’Brien, D. 2001. $200M Going Downtown Council Approves Eaton’s Demolition New Provencher Bridge Gets OK. Winnipeg Free Press. June 21, 2001.
Welch, M.A. 2003. Provencher Bridge Runs $1M More Over Budget Final Central Plaza Work Costlier than Expected. Winnipeg Free Press. December 5, 2003.
We are happy that a recent article,Innovation and Aestthetics in Bridge English, written by Paul Gauvreau published in the winter 2006-2007 issue of the Canadian Civil Engineer(pp.10-12) attracted our readers to respond. To date we have received two discussions that are published in full below, together with Paul Gauvreau’s reply.
Aftab Mufti, FCSCE, ISIS Canada Research Network; Baidar Bakht FCSCE, JMBT Structures Research Inc.: Gamil Tadros, FCSCE, Speco Engineering Ltd.
In his article, Paul Gauvreau makes the statement that “bridges built in recent years… have little in common with the work of Maillart” because “instead of economy, we find extravagance. Instead of clean efficient load paths, we find flows of forces that are indirect and inefficient. Instead of design leadership by engineers, we find architects playing key roles in defining the primary characteristics of the structural system.”