The Structural Engineer > Archive > Volume 49 (1971) > Issues > Issue 8 > Discussion The Design and Construction of Kingston Bridge and Elevated Approach Roads, Glasgow by W.
Name of File 3303-49-08.pdf cached at 18/12/2017 01:13:07 - with 9 pages. pdfPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\d1\d169df3f-4a5d-421f-b72d-16ffe348942f.pdf. thumbPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\pdfthumbs\d169df3f-4a5d-421f-b72d-16ffe348942f_1.png. objDoc: 1 - True. objPreview.Log: . strFileName: d169df3f-4a5d-421f-b72d-16ffe348942f_1.png

Members/subscribers must be logged in to view this article

Discussion The Design and Construction of Kingston Bridge and Elevated Approach Roads, Glasgow by W.A. Fairhurst, A. Beveridge and G.F. Farquhar

Mr. D. J. Lee (F): I am going to raise a query on the shape of the river crossing and relate this to cantilever bridges in general. One can plot span against the span/ rise ratio for various bridges as shown in the diagram, Fig Dl. The upper band noted as typical prestressed concrete cantilever zone is placed arbitrarily to include several international and European examples of various spans, including the largest cantilever span, Bendorf, point 5. The Bettingen Bridge, point 3, has a span that is pretty well identical to the Kingston Bridge(point 1). Point 2 is the Medway Bridge. It will be seen that these two bridges are rather curiously located half-way between the cantilever zone and the concrete arch zone. Although one would not expect the two zones to have constant S/R values for any span, i.e. one would expect slightly lower S/R values the larger the span, nevertheless the trend as based on existing cases is interesting and I would welcome the authors’ comments.