Calling all Civ Engs...How feasible would it be to build a trans-oceanic bridge?

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: wacki
I saw an episode on discovery channel (maybe it was the history channel, not sure) about building a berring straight to alaska bridge. It was pretty interesting. They showed how it would be possible, how the pillars had to be specially shaped to lift and split ice, how to work around wind, what kind of concrete to use, etc. Then they went into the cost, it was something like rediculous amount, but strangely enough, the US could afford it. It was an interesting show, not only because of the technology they talked about, but just also because somebody actually spent the money and time to do all of the research needed to build a bridge that would probably never even be built because of the cost/practicality factor. They actually built swimming pools that could freeze over, made model scales of the bridges, and then forced the model bridge through the ice to simulate the stress of glacier activity.

that is really interesting. sounds like some crazy engineering...gotta have quite a few heads put together to come up with stuff like this.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: wacki

Originally posted by: Witling
Then there is the fact that water transportation is the cheapest form of shipping goods known to man.

Couldn't of said it better

Aww, cmon, everyone knows a screw is more efficient than a wheel. If your tires just were more screw-shaped then it would be a fair comparison... not. :evil:

 

[martind1]

Originally posted by: martind1
you gotta start watching more discovery channel and TLC. They do shows on things like this all the time. Actually not this, because its pretty much impossible(at least for now).

however they are always doing shows on a bering straight brdige and another in the mediterrianin somewhere.

so, (and you can quote me to your parents) watch more tv!

see. i said this along time ago,

 

[Lithium381]

without reading more than four or five responses: it's simply unpractal....

there would have to be a midpoint and many stops, suppose there was an accident or any other emergency, it would take hours to get assistance.....a hurricane would JACK the bridge, as would a lot of other natural elements.

 

[Excelsior]

I agree, very impractical. However, I also saw a TV show where they were talking about building a bridge over the strait of gibraltar.

Here it is!

 

[TStep]

On shipping. Priced a project my company bid in Africa. Had a time limit, so much heavy equipment had to be shipped from the states via air.

Price for 8 flights from Eastern US to Mombasa in a russian built AN-124 - 3.8 million dollars - 30 days mobilization

Price for space on an ocean going ship - $800,000 - 90 days mobilization

If it were possible by land, there would be about 45 trips by tractor and lowboy combos. Cost per hour of operation of a tractor-lowboy is about $70/hr paying US prices for fuel. Assuming there were roads capable of high speed transporation, avg speed would be 50mph on the run. This equates to 240 hours x 45 trips x $70/hr = $756,000. Tolls, tariffs, fees, fuel adjustments outside the US are not taken into account. Total mobe time would still be in the 45-50 day range.

In reality, the justification of a bridge is not really beneficial from a cost standpoint if time is not of the essence, as they are essentially equal.

Feasibility of construction from and engineering standpoint. Floating is out. Works ok for an army-type Bailly bridge over calm river waters, but I cannot see how it could handle waves that crest over 80 feet on a regular basis. Would you like to drive up and down the equivalent of the worst parts of a roller coaster?? Suspension bridge - its only good for about a mile or so between spans, so that means about 3000 pier towers. Some would have to be 4-5 miles deep. Our tallest skyscapers are only a 1/2 mile tall. These are hard pressed to handle wind and earthquakes, nothing like the forces a pier tower would see under wave action or in combination with an underwater earthqauke and wind acting on the exposed portion of the bridge. Construction underwater - we cant effectively explore the ocean bottom with any sort of efficiency, let alone be constructive?? Cost to construct and future maintainance - beyond belief, might as well head off to Mars with Yogi Bear and a pic-a-nick basket, it would be cheaper.

 

[bonkers325]

not feasible at all. will never happen. ever.

 

[MadRat]

How about a submarine-style train instead? Fluid resistance is probably far less of a problem than fighting 80 foot pitching waves.

 

[EarthwormJim]

I think it would be more feasable to move all the continents together, and create a new Pangea, than to make a trans-oceanic bridge.

 

[stephbu]

Originally posted by: wacki
I saw an episode on discovery channel (maybe it was the history channel, not sure) about building a berring straight to alaska bridge. It was pretty interesting. They showed how it would be possible, how the pillars had to be specially shaped to lift and split ice, how to work around wind, what kind of concrete to use, etc. Then they went into the cost, it was something like rediculous amount, but strangely enough, the US could afford it. It was an interesting show, not only because of the technology they talked about, but just also because somebody actually spent the money and time to do all of the research needed to build a bridge that would probably never even be built because of the cost/practicality factor. They actually built swimming pools that could freeze over, made model scales of the bridges, and then forced the model bridge through the ice to simulate the stress of glacier activity.

Yeah saw the same show - damn amazing how much force a chunk of ice can exert on a concrete pillar, and the sound it made was awesome too! The modelling was originally for a bridge in built in Canada on the edge of the Artic circle (can't remember exactly where) - but it brought the unique weather issues of the Bering Strait into context really well.