Posted by Manuel Oliveros on December 02, 2002 at 10:11:52:
In Reply to: Re: Floating Bridge ... reinventing the pontoon posted by Per Corell on December 01, 2002 at 04:32:02:
Well thought, within the limitations of water levels.
Only as an observation, I think the reference to pontoons is if not ideal at least well brought. Pontoons were early bridges, since out of modularity they could and can be made in the shortests timespans and for the widest rivers. Now that rails and concrete pours are made entirely continuous for what in the past would be fantastic lengths I can see a continuous structure even quite long of the kind you propose (I mean, optimized, not necessarily exactly as in your drawing) is feasible and can be interesting.
On the other hand, at this structural level, the hull may have voids and you may still want see it as a honeycomb structure. But the level of detail you provide us with in your last rendition shows in my view more than anything a view on how to build the floating hull, I mean, may be valid but not a best example of honeycombed structures. Matrices of members with plates are presently used in bridges and vessels without any reference to a honeycomb structure, more likely (in vessels) when affecting the whole body of the vessel being referred as structural cells of such size that are containers (except for the double-hull unfortunately so famous lately). So I seeing your drawing would think you have chosen to frame the plates constituing the lanes and hull in the ways used for structures type Lamella, rather than saying here Per is using a honeycombed sructure (which for me in reality would be -is- good of you, since you look verbally so focused about the honeycombed ones.
Free 3D Models