Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Gut feeling

As a very old retired engineer who worked with slide rule, pencil and paper, I was taught to look at what I had designed to see whether it looked right.

Those hangar connections on the Clyde Arc bridge simply don't look right. They look flimsy and not capable of doing the job.

The cost of the connections in relation to the whole structure must have been peanuts. Why then were they not beefed up until they looked right?

The combination of static load, bridge dynamic loads, wind loads and temperature change loads in such a mobile structure must have led to some interesting, and probably ultimately indeterminate, worst cases at the individual cable connections.

Accordingly we would have designed in a massive safety factor. I see no safety factor in those skinny, single pin, two lug connections.


Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs