1、 bridge aestheticsbridge aesthetics sourcebook Practical Ideas for Short- and Medium-Span Bridges No v ember 2 0 1 0a B r i d g e A e s t h e t i c s s o u r c e b o o k Pr a c t i c a l id e a s f o r s h o r t - a n d M e d i u m - s p a n B r i d g e s i i Credits for Sourcebook on Bridge Aesthet
2、ics Task Force Leader Frederick Gottemoeller Sourcebook Why Consider Aesthetics? Frederick Gottemoeller How To Consider Aesthetics Frederick GottemoellerJoseph ShowersEric Yermack Design Guidelines Joseph ShowersFaith BaumDavid Traini Eric Yermack Background Information Frederick GottemoellerMary Mc
3、CahonRobert ShulockDean Van LanduytEric Yermack Example Bridges Dean Van Landuyt Bibliography Tom Morreale 2010 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.c h A P t e r 0 0 N a m e o f t h e c h a p t e
4、 r w i l l g o h e r e b i i i Review, Comment, and Editing Faith BaumAlan MatejowskyMary McCahonMary Ann NaborRobert ShulockBryan SpanglerDale ThomasKen WilsonEric Yermack Graphic Design Mario Olivero for AASHTO Photo Credits Page/Place/Photographer Page 68 : Winchester Bridge, Oregon: Gary Weber,
5、Photographer 2010 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.a B r i d g e A e s t h e t i c s s o u r c e b o o k Pr a c t i c a l id e a s f o r s h o r t - a n d M e d i u m - s p a n B r i d g e s i
6、 v Voting Members Officers: President: Larry L. “Butch” Brown, Mississippi Vice President: Susan Martinovich, Nevada Secretary-Treasurer: Carlos Braceras, Utah Regional Representatives: REGION I: Joseph Marie, Connecticut, One-Year TermGabe Klein, District of Columbia, Two-Year Term REGION II: Dan F
7、lowers, Arkansas, One-Year TermMike Hancock, Kentucky, Two-Year Term REGION III: Nancy J. Richardson, One-Year TermThomas K. Sorel, Minnesota, Two-Year Term REGION IV: Paula Hammond, Washington, One-Year Term Amadeo Saenz, Jr., Texas, Two-Year Term Nonvoting Members Immediate Past President: Allen B
8、iehler, Pennsylvania AASHTO Executive Director: John Horsley, Washington, DC Executive Committee 20092010 2010 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.c h A P t e r 0 0 N a m e o f t h e c h a p t e
9、r w i l l g o h e r e b v ALABAMA, John F. “Buddy” Black, William “Tim” Colquett, George H. Conner ALASKA, Richard A. Pratt ARIZONA, Jean A. Nehme ARKANSAS, Phil Brand CALIFORNIA, Kevin Thompson, Susan Hida, Barton J. Newton COLORADO, Mark A. Leonard, Michael G. Salamon CONNECTICUT, Julie F. Georges
10、 DELAWARE, Jiten K. Soneji, Barry A. Benton DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Nicolas Galdos, L. Donald Cooney, Konjit “Connie” Eskender FLORIDA, Marcus Ansley, Sam Fallaha, Jeff Pouliotte GEORGIA, Paul V. Liles, Jr. HAWAII, Paul T. Santo IDAHO, Matthew M. Farrar ILLINOIS, Ralph E. Anderson, Thomas J. Domagalsk
11、i INDIANA, Anne M. Rearick IOWA, Norman L. McDonald KANSAS, Kenneth F. Hurst, James J. Brennan, Loren R. Risch KENTUCKY, Mark Hite LOUISIANA, Hossein Ghara, Arthur DAndrea, Paul Fossier MAINE, David B. Sherlock, Jeffrey S. Folsom MARYLAND, Earle S. Freedman, Robert J. Healy MASSACHUSETTS, Alexander
12、K. Bardow, Shirley Eslinger MICHIGAN, Steven P . Beck, David Juntunen MINNESOTA, Daniel L. Dorgan, Kevin Western MISSISSIPPI, Mitchell K. Carr, B. Keith Carr MISSOURI, Dennis Heckman, Michael Harms MONTANA, Kent M. Barnes NEBRASKA, Mark J. Traynowicz, Mark Ahlman, Fouad Jaber NEVADA, Mark P . Eliceg
13、ui, Todd Stefonowicz NEW HAMPSHIRE, Mark W. Richardson, David L. Scott NEW JERSEY, Richard W. Dunne NEW MEXICO, Raymond M. Trujillo, Jimmy D. Camp NEW YORK, George A. Christian, Donald F. Dwyer, Arthur P . Yannotti NORTH CAROLINA, Greg R. Perfetti NORTH DAKOTA, Terrence R. Udland OHIO, Timothy J. Ke
14、ller, Jawdat Siddiqi OKLAHOMA, Robert J. Rusch, Gregory D. Allen, John A. Schmiedel OREGON, Bruce V. Johnson, Hormoz Seradj PENNSYLVANIA, Thomas P . Macioce, Harold C. “Hal” Rogers, Jr., Lou Ruzzi PUERTO RICO, (Vacant) RHODE ISLAND, David Fish SOUTH CAROLINA, Barry W. Bowers, Jeff Sizemore SOUTH DAK
15、OTA, Kevin Goeden TENNESSEE, Edward P . Wasserman TEXAS, David P . Hohmann, Keith L. Ramsey U.S. DOT, M. Myint Lwin, Firas I. Sheikh Ibrahim UTAH, (Vacant) VERMONT, Wayne B. Symonds VIRGINIA, Malcolm T. Kerley, Kendal Walus, Prasad L. Nallapaneni, Julius F. J. Volgyi, Jr. WASHINGTON, Jugesh Kapur, T
16、ony M. Allen, Bijan Khaleghi WEST VIRGINIA, Gregory Bailey, James D. Shook WISCONSIN, Scot Becker, Beth A. Cannestra, William Dreher WYOMING, Gregg C. Fredrick, Keith R. Fulton GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, Kary H. Witt N.J. TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, Richard J. Raczynski N.Y. STATE BRIDGE AUTHORITY, William J. More
17、au PENN. TURNPIKE COMMISSION, James L. Stump U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSDEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Christopher H. Westbrook U.S. COAST GUARD, Hala Elgaaly U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREFOREST SERVICE, John R. Kattell, Scott F. Mitchell ALBERTA, Tom Loo NEW BRUNSWICK, Doug Noble NOVA SCOTIA, Mark Pertu
18、s ONTARIO, Bala Tharmabala SASKATCHEWAN, Howard Yea TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARDWaseem Dekelbab MALCOLM T. KERLEY, Chair JAMES A. MOORE, Vice Chair M. MYINT LWIN, Federal Highway Administration, Secretary RAJ AILANEY, Federal Highway Administration, Assistant Secretary KEN KOBETSKY, AASHTO Liaison
19、KELLEY REHM, AASHTO Liaison Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures 2009 2010 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.a B r i d g e A e s t h e t i c s s o u r c e b o o k Pr a c t i c a l id
20、e a s f o r s h o r t - a n d M e d i u m - s p a n B r i d g e s v i Preface This Sourcebook presents guidelines for improving the appearance of short- to medium-span bridges (those with spans up to about 300 feet). These structures constitute the great majority of bridges and are often referred to
21、 as “workhorse” bridges. The intended audience includes all of those engaged in advancing transportation projects: engineers, administrators, planners, environmentalists, and the general public. The goal is to encourage a common understanding of and terminology for bridge aesthetics that will encour
22、age interaction among these individuals and result in more attractive and context sensitive bridges through- out the United States. The Sourcebook begins by explaining why it is necessary to consider bridge aes- thetics. It then provides practical, easy-to-apply ideas for design engineers and other
23、professionals to use in developing elegant designs for the typical bridges on which they work every day. This Sourcebook has been prepared by the Subcommittee on Bridge Aesthetics (AFF10(2) of the Transportation Research Board (TRB). Full credits may be found at the end of the Sourcebook. The Source
24、book was approved by the subcom- mittees parent committee, TRBs General Structures Committee (AFF10), at the January 2010 meeting of TRB. The Sourcebook was presented for comment to the Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures (SCOBS) of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Off
25、icials (AASHTO) at its May 2008 meeting. No comments were received from SCOBS members, so the Sourcebook was placed on the agenda of the May 2010 meeting for approval by SCOBS. Prior to the meeting, during preliminary consideration of the Sourcebook by the T-9 committee of SCOBS, one SCOBS member pr
26、esented comments. This final version of this Sourcebook reflects responses to those comments. SCOBS approved it for AASHTO publica- tion by electronic ballot in September 2010. a 2010 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a vio
27、lation of applicable law.c h A P t e r 0 0 N a m e o f t h e c h a p t e r w i l l g o h e r e b v i i Table of Contents 1 . Why Consider Aesthetics? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 . How to Consider Aesthetics . . .
28、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.1. Understand the Goals and the Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.2. Develop a Design Intention/Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.3. Do a Conceptual Engineering Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.4. Proceed to Detailed Analysis and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3 . Design
30、 Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.1. Horizontal and Vertical Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.2. Superstructure Type . . . . . . .
31、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173.3. Pier/Support Placement and Span Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183.4. Abutment Placement and Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32、. . . . . . . . . . . 193.5. Superstructure Shape (including parapets, overhangs, and railings) . . . . . . . . . 203.6. Pier Shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233.7. Abutment Shape . . . . . . . . .
33、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243.8. Color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263.9. Texture, Ornamentation, and Details . . .
34、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273.10. Lighting, Signing, and Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4 . Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334.1. Fundamentals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334.1.1. Visual Characterstics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36、. . 334.1.2. Visual Qualities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364.2. Context Sensitive Design/Context Sensitive Solutions and How to Achieve Them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414.3. Community and Stakeholder Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434.4. Practical Tips When Historic Bridges or Historic Settings are Involved . . . . . . . 464.5. Working with Architects, Landscape Architects,
38、 and Artists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484.6. Bridge Aesthetics and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5 . Example Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535.1. Genessee Mountain Interchange (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545.2. NB81 Connector over I-35 (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555.3. Loop 340 over I-35 (2007) .
40、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 6 . Bibliography and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 2010 by the American Association of State Highway and Transport
41、ation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.a B r i d g e A e s t h e t i c s s o u r c e b o o k Pr a c t i c a l id e a s f o r s h o r t - a n d M e d i u m - s p a n B r i d g e s v i i i It so happens that the work which is likely to be our most durable mo
42、nument, and to convey some knowledge of us to the most remote posterity, is a work of bare utility; not a shrine, not a fortress, not a palace, but a bridge. Montgomery Schuyler, 1883, writing about John Roebling s Brooklyn Bridge 2010 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
43、Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.c h A P t e r 1 W h y c o n s i d e r A e s t h e t i c s ? b 1 Chapter 1 Why Consider Aesthetics? The public is becoming ever more aware of the appearance of bridges and the effects they have in their communities. We need
44、to respond to that concern. We cannot just worry about the structure and leave the aesthetics to someone else. Every structural decision is an aesthetic decision. If a decision affects the size, shape, color, or surface texture of a visible part of the bridge, it affects how people will feel about t
45、he bridge. For the same reason we would not build a bridge that is unsafe, we should not build one that is ugly. To ignore aesthetics is irresponsible. Of course, the first obligation is to build a bridge that is safe and meets the clients functional requirements. The designers obligation then is to
46、 satisfy those requirements with the best combination of efficiency, economy, and elegance. Frequent Objections to Considering Aesthetics: It automatically adds cost Most agency planners immediately associate bridge aesthetics with increased design and construction costs and additional construction
47、time. While this is frequently the case, it is not always so. Whether it is so and the degree to which it is so varies widely depending on region of the country, owner prefer- ences and practices, contractor capabilities, span length, size of project, community aspirations, and other project specifi
48、cs. If increased cost is involved, then the relevant question is does the aesthetic improvement justify the additional cost? We make such judgments every day when buying a car or a suit. We can make them about bridges, too. If the affected community is involved, we can take advan- tage of their guid
49、ance as well. See Chapter 4, Background Information, for more on costs. Figure 1-1 Often simply paying at- tention to proportions and details can result in an attractive bridge with no increase in cost. Canyon Creek Bridge, Anchorage, Alaska. 2010 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.a B r i d g e A e s t h e t i c s s o u r c e b o o k Pr a c t i c a l id e a s f o r s h o r t - a n d M e d i u m - s p a n B r i d g e s 2 People cannot agree
