1

Contents

List of Illustrations...........................................................................................................................2

Section One......................................................................................................................................4

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................5 Kent Messenger Millenium Bridge.......................................................................................6 Stress Ribbon Bridges..........................................................................................................7

Structure............................................................................................................................................8 Principle Mechanics..............................................................................................................8 Principle Mechanics of The Kent Messenger Millennium Bridge.....................................9.Construction...................................................................................................................................10 Location...............................................................................................................................10 Geology................................................................................................................................11 Abutments...........................................................................................................................12 Deck.....................................................................................................................................13 Plan, Section and Elevation...............................................................................................14 Exploded Perspective Axonometric..................................................................................15

Details.............................................................................................................................................16 Drawings..............................................................................................................................16 Photographs........................................................................................................................20

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................22

Bibliography...................................................................................................................................23

Glossary...........................................................................................................................................24

Section Two....................................................................................................................................28

Project Diary...................................................................................................................................29 Project Notes Photocopies of Key Text Extracts Visual Sources

2

List of IllustrationsFigure 1,Cover - Sketch from bridge name plate. Ward, L. 2010.

Figure 2, Page 3 – Peruvian grass bridge. Pro Travel Guide. Hanging Bridge Made Out of Grass – Canas in Cuzco, Peru. Retrieved December 9, 2010 from: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mmBw3uzP-nJI/TBofvYxQiI/AAAAAAABWqA/tUFbro3ERdI/s1600/hanging_bridge_made_of_grass_15.jpg

Figure 3, Page 3 – Vunga Footbridge. Schneider, J. 2008. Vunga Footbridge, North Province, Rwanda, 2008. Retrieved December 9, 2010 from: http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?id=s0041578

Figure 4, Page 3 – Kent Messenger Millennium Bridge. Flint & Neil Ltd. Kent Messenger Millen-nium Bridge, Maidstone. Retrieved October 19, 2010 from: http://www.fl intneill.com/storage/pdf-documents/new-data-sheets/FN%20Flyer%20-%20Kent%20Messenger.pdf

Figure 5, Page 4 - Kent Messenger Millennium Bridge. Strasky Husty and Partners Ltd. Kent Mes-senger Millennium Bridge, west bank looking north east. Retrieved October 19, 2010 from: http://www.shp.eu/en/strasky-husty-a-partneri/projects/bridges/pedestrian-bridges/stress-ribbon-bridges/bridge-across-the-medway-river-maidstone-kent-uk/

Figure 6, Page 4 - Kent Messenger Millennium Bridge. Strasky Husty and Partners Ltd. Kent Mes-senger Millennium Bridge, east bank looking north west. Retrieved October 19, 2010 from: http://www.shp.eu/en/strasky-husty-a-partneri/projects/bridges/pedestrian-bridges/stress-ribbon-bridges/bridge-across-the-medway-river-maidstone-kent-uk/

Figure 7, Page 4 – Plan of Kent Messenger Millennium Bridge showing change of direction. Ward, L. 2010. Drawing recreated from: Baus, U., Schlaich, M. 2007. Footbridges. Birkhäuser. Page 77.

Figure 8, Page 5 – Long Section Through Kent Messenger Millennium Bridge. Ward, L. 2010. Drawing recreated from: Baus, U., Schlaich, M. 2007. Footbridges. Birkhäuser. Page 77.

Figure 9, Page 5 – Diagram showing forces in the bridge deck. Ward, L. 2010.

Figures 10 – 12, Page 5 – Examples of Stress Ribbon Bridges, Strasky Husty and Partners Ltd. Stress ribbon footbridges . Retrieved October 19, 2010 from: http://www.shp.eu/en/strasky-husty-a-partneri/projects/bridges/pedestrian-bridges/stress-ribbon-bridges/

Figure 13, Page 6 – Diagram showing equation variables. Ward, L. 2010. Drawing recreated from: Baus, U., Schlaich, M. 2007. Footbridges. Birkhäuser. Page 83.

Figure 14, Page 7 – Vertical components of forces. Ward, L. 2010

Figure 15, Page 7 – Horzontal components of forces Ward, L 2010

Figure 16, Page 8 – Map showing bridge in context. Edina Digimap. 2010. Made for Ward, L.

Figure17, Page 8 – Map showing bridge in context with Whatmans Park. Edited from photo by Ward, L. 2010. Original, Photo of Whatmans Park Visitor Information Sign, Maidstone, Kent

Figure 18, Page 8 - Plan of Kent Messenger Millennium Bridge. Ward, L. 2010. Drawing recreated from: Baus, U., Schlaich, M. 2007. Footbridges. Birkhäuser. Page 77.

3

Figure 19, Page 9 – Geological map. Edina Digimap. 2010 made for Ward, L. on December 5, 2010.

Figure 20, Page 10 – Diagrammatic section through east abutment. Ward, L. 2010. Drawing recreated from: Baus, U., Schlaich, M. 2007. Footbridges. Birkhäuser. Page 77.

Figure 21, Page 10 – Section through Sacramento River Bridge abutment. Strasky Husty and Partners Ltd. Bridge across the Sacramento River, Redding, California, USA. Retrieved October 19, 2010 from: http://www.shp.eu/en/strasky-husty-a-partneri/projects/bridges/pedestrian-bridges/stress-ribbon-bridges/bridge-across-the-sacramento-river-redding-california-usa/

Figure 22, Page 11 – Sketch of deck segment cradle. Ward, L. 2010

Figures 23-26, Page 11 – Photos showing stress ribbon bridge deck construction. Strasky Husty and Partners Ltd. Stress ribbon footbridges . Retrieved October 19, 2010 from: http://www.shp.eu/en/strasky-husty-a-partneri/projects/bridges/pedestrian-bridges/stress-ribbon-bridges/

Figure 27, Page 12 – Plan, Section and Elevation of a deck segment. Ward, L. 2010. Created using Google Sketch up Pro 8. Section recreated from: Baus, U., Schlaich, M. 2007. Footbridges. Birkhäuser. Page 76. All drawings created from photographs and site visit by Ward, L.

Figure 28, Page 13 – Exploded Perspective Axonometric of a deck segment. Ward, L. 2010. Created using Google Sketchup Pro 8

Figure 29, Page 14 – Drawing of Connection detail. Ward, L 2010

Figure 30, Page 15 – Drawing of Handrail. Ward, L. 2010.

Figure 31, Page 15 – Drawing of top plate. Ward, L. 2010.

Figure 32, Page 16 – Drawing of tie footing. Ward, L. 2010.

Figure 33, Page 17 – Drawing of top of Stair. Ward, L. 2010.

Figures 34-45,Page 20 - Site Vist Photography (12 images). Ward, L. 2010.

Glossary Strasky, Husty and Partners Ltd. Practice website. Retreived October 2010-December 2010 from: http://www.shp.eu/en/strasky-husty-a-partneri/fi rm/

Schlaich Bergermann und Partner. Footbridges. Retreived December 9 from: http://www. sbp.de/en/fl a/mittig.html

Janberg, N. Structurae. Stressed Ribbon Bridges. Retreived November 16, 2010 from: http://en.structurae.de/structures/stype/index.cfm?id=1046

Baus, U., Schlaich, M. 2007, Footbridges. 2007. Italy: Birkhäuser.

4

Section One

5

A Change In Direction

Ancient bridge builders would span distances longer than a felled tree by tying a line made from natural fi bres to a large rock or tree on each side. These cables are pulled tight, stressing the line (fi gure 3). This simple line and abutment design was then developed further by adding horizontal planks to form a more substantial bridge deck. This design is referred to as a ‘Stress Ribbon Bridge’ and is one of the oldest bridge archetypes. These simple and natural designs are still used in remote parts of the world such as the Peruvian Grass Bridges (fi gure2)(Baus,Schlaich,2007, p.82). Today there are around 20 modern Stress Ribbon Bridges, the majority of these are in Europe. All of these bridges can be found in the glossary.

In my report I am going to research a unique stress ribbon bridge with a world fi rst design; The Kent Messenger Millennium Footbridge in Maidstone. I shall try to understand the bridge through investigation and reasoning, covering the principle physics of stress ribbon bridge design, the underlying mechanics behind the bridges unique design, it’s structure, its construction, and details of the design. I will achieve this through descriptive analysis; my own drawings and diagrams, photography, and my own fi rst hand experience from visiting the bridge itself. I will then consider my exploration of the bridge to conclude whether the bridge was a success, asking questions of; suitability of site choice, was a unique design neede, does the aesthetic of the visible bridge elements justify massive and expensive hidden elements and ten years on is the design a trend setter?

Kent Messenger Millennium Footbridge. South view from river.(fi gure 4)

Peruvian grass bridge (fi gure 2) Vunga footbridge, Rwanda, 2008 (fi gure 3)

This bridge shows the basic principle of the line and abutment with a simple deck

6

The Kent Messenger Millennium Bridge is a unique stress ribbon bridge in that it is cranked. This means that, in plan, the bridge changes direction mid span. The bridge is 101.5 m long and spans in total 87m, split into two spans of 37.5m and 49.5m and changing direction by 25° between spans.

The bridge was built for Maidstone Borough Council as part of Maidstones millennium river park project, a Millennium commision funded development of Whatmans fi eld, a previously inaccessible fi eld between a railway track and the River Medway. The Bridge crosses the Medway into the southern side of what is now known Whatmans Park creating a pedestrian link from the Maidstone East Train Station and the main town. The park and bridge were opened in 2001 and the project includes woodland, wild fl ower meadows, nature reserves, adventure playgrounds, a tree top walkway and an open air performace area. (Flint and Neil Ltd, 2001)

Kent Messenger Millennium Bridge

25°

Drawing showing the 25°change in direction on plan(Ward, L. 2010)(fi gure 7)

View from west bank looking north east. (fi gure 5) View from east bank looking north west. (fi gure 6)

7

A stress ribbon bridge is a catenary structure that uses a specifi c geometry pre-set by the designer to achieve a particular deck profi le. These bridges still rely upon the principles of the line and abutment as did the ancient bridges, though the line today is formed from tendons of prestressed high yield strength steel in groups that are twisted around one another to form a single larger cable. Post tensioned pre-cast concrete segments are used to form a deck walkway. These ten-sile elements push against each other to fully stiffen and stabilise the structure in place between its abutments (fi gure 9). This will be explored and shown in more detail. Effectively, the deck of a stress ribbon bridge could be thought of as an arch in reverse with the prestressing forces along the bridges length ‘locking’ it in place. (The Happy Pontist, 2010)

The bridge was engineered by Strasky Husty and Partners Ltd in the Czech Republic. British engineers; Flint and Neil and project Architect was Cesary Bednarski. Strasky Husty and Partners Ltd is an independent engineering fi rm founded in 1991. The fi rm has practical experi-ence in bridge design all over the world including the U.K., U.S.A. and Japan.

Jiri Strasky. Prof., Ph.D., P.E. technical director of S.H.P. has driven the development of stress ribbon bridges with the introduction of the current method of construction; the pre-cast segmental erection method. He has designed many different cross sections and has taken the stress ribbon bridge to extreme spans such as the Cesky Krumlov Bridge with a single span of over 200m

Bridge across the Rogue River, Grants Pass, Oregon, U.S.A. 2001. 76.8m span.

Sacramento River Bridge, Redding, California, U.S.A. 1990. 127.4m span.

Cesky Krumlov Bridge, Czech Republic. In design.216m span.

Examples of stress ribbon bridges designed by Strasky Husty and Partners Ltd (fi gures 10-12)

Stress Ribbon Bridges

Abutment

Intermediate pier River

Deck with pre-set geometry

Long section through Kent Messenger Millennium Bridge(Ward, L. 2010) (fi gure 8)

T

C

C C

CT

T

T T - TensionC- Compression

High yeild strength steel cables

Pre Cast Concrete Segments

Diagram showing direction of forces in the bridge deck(Ward, L. 2010) (fi gure 9)

8

A key factor in the design and construction of a stress ribbon bridge is tension which is also dependant on other factors; span, loading and sag therefore an equation is used, combining these variables to design a stress ribbon bridge. The equation is; S = H = q (l2/8) f and is explained below.

S = Tension Forcel = Spanq = Loading S = H = q (l2/8) ff = SagH = Horizontal component of tension.

S - increases with the slope of the ribbon towards the abutments.H - remains constant along its length. so H = Max bending moment - q (l2/8) Max Sag - f

Diagram showing equation variables. Sag exagerated for illustrative purposes. (Ward, L. 2010) (fi gure 13)

Upon fi rst looking at a stress ribbon bridge it appears to sag in the middle of its span, under its own weight. However this is not the case. If the bridge were to be built level, then in reference to the equation, sag (f) would equal 0 and as a result, tension (H) would be infi nite and therefore an impossible scenario. Sag is needed as without it the bridge cannot be tensioned and so it is designed into the bridge as a part of the pre-set geometry and by extension this allows for a useable factor of tension. Due to sagging there are gradients at abutment ends and any intermediate piers therefore the designer has the challenge of working with all the equation variables and also of fi nding a balance between sag and user comfort. To over come this acommon ratio between sag and span of 1:50 is used resulting typically in a gradient of 8% at abutment ends under self weight.(Baus,Schlaich,2007, p.76)

Principle Mechanics in Stress Ribbon Bridges

9

Principle Mechanics in the Kent Messenger Millennium Bridge

All forces in the bridge must be in equilibrium to be stable.

These diagrams show the principle forces underlying what in reality is very complex structural mechanics. The bridge’s stair is; structurally, a large reinforced concrete strut to counter the inward lateral forces applied by the cable’s change in direction as a result of the cranked design. Further to this, a slender steel tie is introduced to fully balance the bridge and deals with both vertical and horizontal forces from live loads and torsional forces from pre-stressing the structure and issues of thermal movement.

T1 + T2 = T32R =G

T1 + T2 = T3 = A1 + A2

Vertical components of forcesDiagramatic section through stair. Nts. (Ward, L. 2010) (fi gure 14)

Horizontal components of forcesDiagramatic plan at pier. Nts. (Ward, L. 2010) (fi gure 15)

T1 - Tension in the steel tie.T2 - Compression in the concrete strut.T3 - Resultant force from the steel cables due to change in direction.A1 - Tension in the steel cables at abutment 1A2- Tension in the steel cables at abutment 2R - Reaction forceG- Gravity

10

Construction

Site Location

Map showing bridge in context with Maidstone. (fi gure 16)

Map showing the bridge in context with Whatmans Park. (fi gure 17)

Bridge Plan(Ward, L. 2010) (fi gure 18)

Kent Messenger Millennium Bridge

11

Atherfi eld Clay Formation (AC)

Folkestone Formation (FO)

Hythe Formation (HY)

Sandgate Formation (SAB)

Weald Clay Formation (WC)

Site Geology

Kent Messenger Millennium Bridge

Geological Map of the bridge site and surrounding Maidstone. (fi gure 19)

12

In any stress ribbon bridge, the abutments, the points at which the structure is anchored into the ground, is a critical aspect. The Abutments are fi rst to be constructed as the steel tensile cables have to be suspended between the abutments and the cranked pier. The design for the Kent Messenger Bridge relies heavily upon deep piles and large concrete foundation slabs due to the geology of the area. The site sits upon Atherfi eld clay and Weald clay. Due to the soft ground conditions, a series of piles were drilled 15m+ deep into which steel cages were dropped for reinforcement and then concrete poured. On top of this two large reinforced concrete pile caps were laid. The depth and size of these elements form a large surface area for friction to work against, creating a stable and solid platform from which the abutments and anchorages are built off. Abutments in other stress ribbon bridges are relatively simple in comparison as they are located where there are solid rock formations, as shown in the section through the abutment for the Sacramento River Bridge.

The piles resist the tension in the bridge deck pulling the abutment into the river and has enough mass to balance the tension and keep the deck stable.

Abutments

River Medway

River Bank

Bridge Deck

Reinforced concrete slab

Reinforced concrete pile cap

Reinforced concrete pile

Diagrammatic section through east abutment(Ward, L. 2010) (fi gure 20)

Section through Sacramento River Bridge abutment.(fi gure 21)

13

The cables run nonstop in two pairs from one abutment to the other. Precast concrete deck segments of 3.1x3.0m are moved into position using a cradle suspended from a crane on the river bank. The cradle is open on one side and is able to manoeuvre the deck segments around the cables and lift them up to the underside of the cables where they are clamped into place using steel fi xings. The joints between segments are concreted in situ and pretensioned with the addition of prestressing tendons, the troughs in the precast segments are then concreted in encasing the cables and unifying the separate elements into a solid bridge deck. (Baus,Schlaich,2007, p.76)

Photos showing stress ribbon bridge deck construction.from left to right; Svratka River Bridge, Golf-cart Bridges, Kent Messenger Millenium Bridge, Sacramento river bridge. (fi gures 23-26)

Bridge Deck

Support from cane

Steel cradle

Pre-cast concrete deck segment

Pre-stressed high yield strength steel cables

Sketch of deck segment cradle(Ward, L. 2010) (fi gure 22)

14

15

16

Bridge DetailsDrawings

These are a series of drawings looking at some of the detail elements and showing how the bridge comes together at a smaller scale.

Stainless steel handrail upright

T-bracket

FlangeBolt through fl ange to bridge deck

Stainless steel edge plate

Stainless steel cable net mesh

Cable net mesh base

Steel fi xing through uprights and T-bracket

Bridge Deck

Connection DetailDrawing showing how the handrail uprights are fi xed to the bridge deck(Ward, L. 2010)(fi gure 29)

17

Top plate detailDrawing showing the top plate connection to the handrail uprights(Ward, L. 2010) (fi gure 31)

Flange

Stainless steel handrail upright

Stainless steel top plate

Fixing through plate and fl ange

Handrail DetailDrawing showing the top of the handrail upright and the handrail(Ward, L. 2010)(fi gure 30)

Stainless Steel Handrail

Stainless steel handrail upright

Stainless steel spacer

18

Tie FootingDrawing showing the ground connection for the stainless steel tie(Ward, L. 2010) (fi gure 32)

Stainless steel tie

Stainless steel collar

Bolt fi xings into concrete

Concrete footing

19

Stainless stell cable net mesh

Stainless steel handrail

concrete strut

StairsBridge deck

Stair guard

Stair gaurd footing

Top of StairDrawing showing the railing and top of stair to bridge deck junction(Ward, L. 2010) (fi gure 33)

20

PhotographyPhotographs taken during site visit in November 2010. (Ward,L. 2010) (Figures 34-45)

21

22

ConclusionAs a structure it fulfi ls the desired need for a light weight bridge deck that does not compromise the user’s view of the site’s natural beauty as they cross over the River Medway. It is very positive for a council to go ahead with a new and unique design and equally positive for Strasky Husty and Partners, along with the other members of the design team, to be continually pushing the development and possibilities of the stress ribbon bridge.

The light weight and slender aesthetic of the bridge deck does however come with a large fl ip-side, especially with the soft geological conditions. As shown in my report the abutments had to be incredibly large in comparison to stress ribbon bridges built at locations with solid rock formations. Large piles and pile caps involve a considerable amount of material and come at a high cost. This could be justifi ed if the savings made from the lower volume of materials required for the deck were greater.

The site geology is not entirely inappropriate as it is still possible to build a stress ribbon bridge. But would another bridge type have been more suitable to the clay conditions or would it be the case that any bridge type needed just as much ground work?

The bridge is very modest. It has no overly large statement structural elements although they were not wanted in the brief. Could the one structural statement it make have been more bold? If the strut had been developed further and engineered to work on its own, could the tie have been removed altogether, creating in my opinion what would be a stunning sculptural bridge appearing to defy gravity and really standing out as a new take on an existing design? The bridge would have just as little impact on the site as was intended and as it does today but the structural statement would have been magnifi ed greatly.

One of the greatest questions this design poses is the crank. The bridge could just have easily been straight, perhaps a single span, or still with an intermediate pier and stair. If it were straight then it would be just another stress ribbon bridge. There is nothing wrong with this, people would still be able to get into the park. With the crank though, the engineers particularly Jiri Strasky have shown new possibilities of what can be done and that it doesn’t have to be just another bridge.

The bridge was opened in 2001 and it is now nearly 10 years old (late 2010). The Kent Messenger Bridge is still the only cranked stress ribbon bridge. The reasons for this could include; suitability of site as a strut has to be constructed; that the preference is to develop length or simply no one wants to spend money on another one for now.

The development of stress ribbon bridges has not stopped however. As already mentioned in my report, Strasky Husty and Partners are currently designing a stress ribbon bridge with a 216m sin-gle span with a deck depth of 480mm at its greatest. The Berlin Technical University has constructed a stress ribbon test bridge using carbon fi bre. Modern high strength and low weight materials like carbon fi bre are used mainly in aviation and motoring industries and have little application in the construction industry. Carbon Fibre is ten times stronger than structural steel and a fi fth of the weight. Berlin Technical University’s test bridge was built according to current codes of practice and standards, the structure replaced the high yield strength steel cables with carbon fi bre ribbons. The structure was able to demonstrate that a 1mm carbon fi bre ribbon could span 15m. To minimise movement in the very light weight bridge 100mm deep concrete slabs were added to increase mass.

Is this bridge just simply a case of function following form?

23

Bibliographic ReferencesBaus, U., Schlaich, M. 2007, Footbridges. 2007. Italy: Birkhäuser.

Beckett, D. 1969. Bridges. Feltham : Hamlyn.

Flint and Neil Ltd. Practice website. Retrieved October 19, 2010 from: http://www.fl intneill.com/storage/pdf-documents/new-data-sheets/FN%20Flyer%20-%20Kent%20Messenger.pdf

Fritz, L.. 1982. Brücken : Ästhetik und Gestaltung = Bridges : aesthetics and design.London : Architectural Press.

Gottemoeller, F. 1998. Bridgescape: the art of designing bridges.New York: Wiley-Academy.

Janberg, N. Structurae. Stressed Ribbon Bridges. Retrieved November 16, 2010 from: http://en.structurae.de/structures/stype/index.cfm?id=1046

Megastructures. 2006. Part 1 - Millau Bridge. DVD.

Megastructures. 2008. Part 4 - Scandinavian Megabridge. DVD.

Pearce, M., Jonson, R. 2002. Bridge Builders. Great Britain: Wiley-Academy.

Schlaich Bergermann und Partner. Footbridges. Retrieved December 9 from: http://www.sbp.de/en/fl a/mittig.html

Strasky, Husty and Partners Ltd. Practice website. Retrieved October 2010-December 2010 from: http://www.shp.eu/en/strasky-husty-a-partneri/fi rm/

The Happy Pontist. 2010. Kent Bridges: 2. Kent Messenger Millennium Bridge. Retrieved October 19, 2010 from: http://happypontist.blogspot.com/search?q=punt

Acknoweledgements

The author would like to thank Mr Ian Cross from the School of Civil Engineering & Surveying at The University of Portsmouth for generously giving up his time to answer some questions, for his general assistance and for sharing his expertise on the subject area.

Word Count3003.

24

GlossaryStress Ribbon Bridges

Blue River Bridge, Colorado, USA, 2001, 76.8m

Bridge over the N3, Bircherweid, Switzerland, 1965, 40m (First modern stress ribbon bridge)

DS-L Bridges, Czech Republic, 1979 – 1986, Multiple spans of up to 102m

Svratka River Bridge, Brno-Komin Vltava River Bridge, Prague-Troja Elbe River Bridge, Nymburk

A list of all stress ribbon bridges inlcuding name, location, date completed and span(s).

25

Enzauen Park Footbridge, Pforzheim, Germany, 1991, 50m

Erlebnisbrücke, Ronneburg, Germany, 2006, Three spans, total length 240m

Essing Bridge, Kelheim, Germany 1986, 73.3m

Glacis Bridge, Ingolstadt, Germany, 1999, 42m – 76m – 49m

Golf Cart Bridges, Santa Fe, San Diego, California,USA, 1999, Two identical bridges, 86.4m

26

Kent Messenger Millennium Bridge, Maidstone, England, 2001, 37.5m – 49.5m

Lake Hodges Bikeway Access, San Diego, USA, 2009, 100m – 100m – 100m

North Bridge, Rostock, Germany, 2003, 27m – 38m – 27m

Olse River Bridge, Bohumin, Czech Republic, In design, 38.5m – 80m – 38.5m

Pedestrian Bridge, Cesk Krumlov, Czech Republic, In design, 216m

27

Pùnt da Suransuns, Viamala, Switzerland, 1999, 40m

Rogue River Pedestrian Bridge, Grants Pass Oregon, USA, 2000, 73m - 85m - 43m

Sacramento River Trail Bridge, Redding, California, USA, 1990, 127.4m

Stress Ribbon Bridge in Geneva, Lignon-Loex, Switzerland, 1971, 136m

Vunga Footbridge, North Province, Rwanda, 2008

28

Section Two

29

Project Diary

October 19, 2010 - Modelled the bridge from photos using Google Sketchup.

October 26, 2010 - Tutorial meeting, discussed structure and construction. Ask lots of questions of the bridge, why everything?

November 4, 2010 - Made a trip to Maidstone to visit the bridge and to take photos. Visited various bridges in London including; The Victoria Docks Footbridge, The Rolling Bridge, The Bridge of Aspirations and The Challenge of Materials Bridge.

November 16, 2010 - Tutorial meeting, discussed site visit and the questions that were answered by experiencing the bridge itself.

November 23, 2010 - Tutorial meeting, discussed writting and layout structure using images as the main source to convey information.

December 8, 2010 - Submitted a draft copy.

December 9, 2010 - Met with Mr Ian Cross from the School of Civil Engineering & Surveying at The University of Portsmouth. Mr Cross was very generous with his time and helped out with a few remaining questions and engineering issues.

Received draft copy feedback; Still too note like and various grammatical errors picked up, continue working with drawings and to complete areas with omissions.

30

31

32