The International Information Center for Structural Engineers

Multimedia

Multimedia (12)

Children categories

Virtual Structural Engineer

Virtual Structural Engineer (11)

Welcome to the main entrance of the Virtual Structural Engineer. In the Structural Engineering area the "visual"factor is very important. Photos, diagrams and maps play an important role in the understanding of a matter. In this page, some cases which are related with the civil engineering works are presented via photos. Resourcesare divided into sections shown to the left. Choose the topic of your interest.  

Resources may be listed in more categories, if more categories are appropriate to the document's content. Contact us to inform us about a resource, donate or make other recommendations. 

Currently the Virtual Structural Engineer Section includes114 resourcesin5 categories.

View items...
Friday, 09 May 2014 14:36

Did the Great Pyramid have an Elevetor?

Written by

DID THE GREAT PYRAMID HAVE AN ELEVATOR?


Peter C. Sundt
BSc Rice University
e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  

Abstract

In constructing the Great Pyramid at Giza it is suggested that an internal vertical shaft and a man-powered elevator could have been used to hoist the building stones from the level of the King’s chamber (at 45m) to the working plateau at higher elevations. This method would have been more energy efficient and faster than using ramps or levers.

Figure 1- The Great Pyramid of Khufu at Giza. 

Most agree that the Great Pyramid at Giza, the last remaining Wonder of the Ancient World, was an amazing job of construction. It’s a great pity, though, that the Egyptians left little or no records of how they did it. Lacking such information, a number of theories about the construction methods have been proposed over the centuries by archeologists, historians and engineers. Construction theories include straight ramps, spiral ramps, levers, kites and supernatural levitation. Another possible method, involving an internal elevator, is discussed below.


First of all, a few words about the scale of the job. Previous explorations and measurements have revealed that, with a base measuring 230m on a side and a height of 146m, the pyramid contains about 2,300,000 stones. These include mostly limestone blocks weighing an average of 2 tons each and a number of huge granite blocks, some weighing more than 50 tons. All of these had to be quarried, transported to the site and assembled into a pyramid containing three chambers and numerous passages, as shown in Figure 2. Many historians agree that the stones were loaded onto wooden sledges and hauled to the site by teams of men or oxen. How such heavy stones were then lifted to the great heights is still an open question.

Figure 2- Cross section of the Great Pyramid at Giza, showing the chambers, passages and a possible vertical shaft used for hoisting stones to the construction plateau. 

Many construction theories involve the use of one or more ramps, either straight ramps up to the height of the plateau under construction, or ramps spiraling up the sides of the pyramid to the plateau. Both types of ramps were practical during the construction of the lower tiers, but as the elevation of the construction plateau reached higher levels, the use of ramps reached a point of diminishing returns. There are two reasons why the exclusive use of ramps seems unlikely. First of all, the length of the ramps would need to be quite long if the grade of the slope is held to 10% or less, as some have suggested. For example, a ramp, either straight or spiral, with a 10% grade and reaching all the way to the apex would have a length of 1.4km! The math reveals that as the height of a ramp increases, a point is reached where the volume of the ramp exceeds the volume of the partial pyramid. Figure 3 shows how the volumes of the pyramid and ramp increase with height. In this example the ramp has a 10% grade, embankments of 52 degrees and a 10 m wide lane along the top. At a height of less than 100m the volume of the ramp exceeds that of the pyramid. Further, the rate of volume increase of the ramp (slope of the curve) exceeds that of the pyramid at about 50m height, meaning that beyond this point more material was going into the ramp than into the pyramid. In order to have enough stability for the job, the ramps themselves would have to have been made of stone, or faced with stone. All this extra stone would have to be quarried, hauled to the site and disposed of when the job was completed.

Figure 3 - Plots showing the relationship between the volumes of the pyramid and ramp, as the height of construction increases. 

A second drawback with ramps is the amount of energy wasted to friction as the stone is dragged up an incline. The energy (E) required to haul a stone block up a ramp is given by the expression in Figure 4. The first term (Wh) is the energy required to lift the block up to the plateau against gravity, and the second term is the energy required to overcome sliding friction. Again, assuming a 10% ramp grade [tan (a) = 0.1] and a coefficient of friction = 0.3 (wood on stone, lubricated with water), the energy spent to overcome friction is three times that to overcome gravity. The relationship between hauling energy and ramp angle is shown in Figure 4, where it is seen that a steep ramp is more energy efficient. 

 

Figure 4 - Plot showing that the energy required to haul a stone up an incline decreases with the ramp angle. A steep ramp is more efficient. 

One might argue that cost and efficiency were of no concern to the pharaoh, and regardless of the waste in material and labor, a simple brute force ramp all the way to the top was the way to go. Maybe cost was no object, but time was very much a concern, for it was imperative to finish the pyramid while the pharaoh was still alive. It was therefore important to the pharaoh’s engineers to minimize the total hauling energy (man-hours of labor) as much as possible. Although energy formulas were unknown in those days, the pharaoh’s engineers could easily have analyzed the problem by experimenting with a scale model. Therefore, there must have been a strong incentive to make the slope as steep as could be managed. Two theorists, James Edwards  and Franz Lohner,  are in agreement with this conclusion. They suggest that all but the largest stones were hauled straight up the side of the pyramid on wooden sledges by large teams of men. Both writers assume that the polished facing stones were installed as the pyramid was built, thus providing a smooth surface for the sledges. They propose that the sledge runners would have been lubricated with water to reduce friction. This would have required workers on ladders accompanying the sledge to pour water continually under the sledge runners.  Another method for hoisting the stones, a system of levers and timber cribs, was proposed by Prevos . His method does not address the problem of lifting the 50 ton granite blocks to the levels of the royal chambers.

Man-powered Elevator - This article suggests still another method of construction, which would have been much less labor intensive than hauling blocks up an inclined plane, and would have been especially suitable at the higher elevations. It involves the use of an internal vertical shaft near the axis of the pyramid, extending from the level of the king’s chamber to the construction plateau; together with a man-powered apparatus for hoisting the stones up the shaft.

The procedure would have been as follows: In the first stage of construction, a ramp would have been employed to build the pyramid up to the level of the king’s chamber at 45m. The ramp could have been the side of the pyramid itself, as Edwards and Lohner suggest. In the beginning of construction, the ramp would have been quite wide, allowing for multiple hauling lanes. As the pyramid increased in height, the number of lanes would decrease as the ramp and plateau narrowed; however, fewer stones were needed per tier, so fewer lanes would have been required. At the 45m level about 70% of the pyramid volume had been completed, including the various passages, the lower chamber, the royal chambers and the grand gallery. Even though most of the volume of the pyramid was in place at the 45m level, there still remained 100m to go vertically.

In the next stage, a small ramp was constructed up to the entrance passage on the north face of the pyramid. The building stones were then hauled on sledges up the ascending passage and through the grand gallery to the antechamber, adjacent to the king’s chamber. The sledges were then lifted up a vertical shaft, which extended from the roof of the antechamber to the construction plateau. A four-sided wooden scaffold, straddling the shaft at the plateau, was equipped with four sets of rollers, as shown in Figure 5.The rollers and axles were likely made of ironwood, a strong, dense wood with self-lubricating properties. Ropes were led over the rollers on each side of the scaffold and attached to a metal lifting hook. At the bottom of the shaft the hook was connected with a rope bridle to a sledge waiting in the antechamber.

Figure 5- East view of the four-sided scaffold used to lift the stone blocks to the construction plateau. The top rollers are positioned to lift the load clear of the plateau. The bottom rollers position the hauling ropes for a level pull.

On the plateau, four teams of workers (Figure 6) then pulled in unison and hoisted the sledge up the vertical shaft. It is estimated that a total of 40 men, divided into four hauling teams, would be able to lift a 2 ton load to the plateau at a velocity of 30m per minute. With a simple ratchet device on each of the lower rollers, the teams could haul in stages, releasing most of the tension on the hauling ropes as they repositioned themselves for the next pull. This feature would have been especially useful when the area of the plateau diminished at the higher elevations. When the sledge cleared the surface of the plateau, two or more wooden beams spanning the shaft were then placed under the sledge, so that it could be skidded away from the shaft and onto the work area. The hook was then let down the shaft to fetch the next sledge. As each tier of stones was added, the scaffold was levered up to the new plateau.        

Figure 6- Four teams of workers are shown hauling a building stone up the vertical shaft to the construction plateau.  

Another important function of the scaffold would be for transporting workers and supplies to and from the plateau. At the end of a work shift, the men on the plateau would hoist up their relief workers and supplies in large wicker baskets, after which the relieved workers would be let down the shaft in the same baskets. This apparatus, then, was essentially a man-powered elevator.
                      
In its present condition, the apex of the great pyramid is missing. All of the polished facing stones on the sides of the pyramid, as well as those from the top, were pilfered by later rulers for their own monuments. The remaining plateau at the top of the pyramid measures about 12m on a side. At this point, or a bit higher, the construction method described here would have ended. The vertical shaft would have been plugged at both ends and perhaps filled with stones and rubble. Before the shaft was filled, the roof of the antechamber would have been reinforced with a portcullis of granite blocks, which can be seen there today. Also in evidence is an arrangement of stones at the summit that suggest a plug at the top of a vertical shaft, as suggested in the article by Gerardo.

Conclusion

In constructing the Great Pyramid, the practicality of ramps for moving the building stones diminished as the elevation of the structure increased, owing to the great quantity of materials and labor required for the growing ramps. Once the massive granite blocks for the king’s chamber were in place, the balance of the pyramid could have been constructed by hoisting the building stones up a vertical shaft extending from the anteroom to the construction plateau, with great savings in time, material and labor.

Bibliography 

  1. Edwards, James Frederick (2003), "Building the Great Pyramid," Technology and Culture 44:340-354. 
  2. Lohner, Franz (2006), "Building the Great Pyramid"
  3. Prevos, Peter (1997), "Pyramid Construction: Desk Study",  
  4. Gerardo, Daniel (2002), "Construction of the Great Pyramid", 
  5. Petrie, W.M. Flinders (1883), "The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh"


© 2007
Revised May 2009

 

Friday, 09 May 2014 14:02

Earthquakes

Written by

General

Photo Gallery of Damages to Structures due to Earthquake. National Information Center of Earthquake Engineering at IIT Kanpur, India. 

Earthquake Photo Collections. Available from United States Department of Transportation - U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program. 

L. Braile, Purdue University, (2005). Seismic Wave Demonstrations and Animations. 

Videos and Photos of Shake-Table Test on a Nonductile Concrete Frame: Available from Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). 

Videos and Photos of Shake-Table Test on a SF Residential-styled Apartment Building. Available from Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER).

Earthquake Damage to Schools, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, View Captions, Thumbnails, or Slides. 

Earthquake Damage to Schools, Photos from John A. Martin & Associates, Inc.

The Karl V. Steinbrugge Slide and Photograph Collection, World earthquakes and earthquake engineering. 

Earthquake Damage – General, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, View Captions, Thumbnails, or Slides. 

Earthquake Damage to Transportation Systems, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, View Captions, Thumbnails, or Slides. 

Behavior of Columns during Earthquakes, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, View Captions, Thumbnails, or Slides. 


 

Algeria 

Earthquake Damage, May 21, 2003 Boumerdes earthquake, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, Captions, Thumbnails, or Slides.


Armenia 

Earthquake Damage, Spitak (Armeni SSR), December 7, 1988, Photos from John A. Martin & Associates, Inc. 

Earthquake Damage, Spitak, Armeni SSR, December 7, 1988, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, View Captions, Thumbnails, or Slides. 


Chile

Valdivia Earthquake of May 22, 1960 - Anniversary Edition, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, View Captions, Thumbnails, or Slides.


China

May 12, 2008 Sichuan Earthquake, National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, Taiwan. 

May 12, 2008 Sichuan Earthquake, photos from Veronica Cedillos, project manager with Geohazards International, who visited Chengdu, Dujiangyan, Bailu, Pengzhou, Mianzhu, and Hanwang in July 2008.   

2008 Sichuan (Wenchuan) Earthquake, China. Earthquake Image Archives by M. Yoshimine, Soil Mechanics Laboratory, Civil Engineering, Tokyo Mteropolitan University, Japan. 


Colombia

El Quindio, Colombia Earthquake, January 25, 1999, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, View Captions, Thumbnails, or Slides.  


Greece

The Earthquake of Athens in September 1999.  


Guatemala 

Motaqua Fault Earthquake, February 4, 1976, U.S. Geological Survey Photographic Library.


India

Bhuj Earthquake of 26 January, 2001, India, Photos from Conservationtech.com, Building Conservation Technology. 


Indonesia

New Zealand Padanq Earthquake assistance project team-photo gallery


Iran 

Earthquake Damage, Manjil (Northern Iran) Earthquake, June 20, 1990, Photos from John A. Martin & Associates, Inc. 

Earthquake Damage, Manjil (Northern Iran), June 20, 1990, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, View Captions, Thumbnails, or Slides.  


Japan

2004 The Mid Niigata Prefecture Earthquake, Japan (Near the west coast of Honshu, Japan- October 23, 2004), Japan, Photos © M. Yoshimine, 2004. 

2003 Tokachi-oki Earthquake, Hokkaido, Japan. Photos by M. Yoshimine. 

Great Hanshin-Awaji (Kobe) Earthquake, January 16, 1995, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, View Captions, Thumbnails, or Slides. 

2011 Tohoku earthwake tsunami (Onagawa-Ishinomaki)

Pictures of Tsunami damage of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. Available from Masumi Yamada Site.


Mexico

Earthquake Damage, Guerrero-Michoacan (Mexico City), September 19, 1985, Photos from John A. Martin & Associates, Inc. 

Guerrero-Michoacan (Mexico City) Earthquake 1985, U.S. Geological Survey Photographic Library. 

Earthquake Damage in Mexico City, Mexico, September 19, 1985, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, View Captions, Thumbnails, or Slides. 


New Zealand

Selected images of the M6.3 Christchurch Earthwake February 22,2011 Compiled by the staff of the CA Seismmic Safety Commmission By Fred Turrner.

Degenkolb New Zealand EQ Recon Team, (2011). New Zealand Earthquake Day 2: Observations from the Central Business District. Available from Degenkolb.

Degenkolb New Zealand EQ Recon Team, (2011). New Zealand Earthquake Day 2: Moving Forward. Available from Degenkolb.

Degenkolb New Zealand EQ Recon Team, (2011). New Zealand Earthquake: Day 4. Available from Degenkolb.

Degenkolb New Zealand EQ Recon Team, (2011). New Zealand Earthquake Sunday Blog – Hospitals and Wineries. Available from Degenkolb.


Pakistan  

Earthquake Damage, Kashmir October 8, 2005, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, View Captions, Thumbnails, or Slides.  


Russian Federation 

Shikotan, Kuril Islands Earthquake & Tsunami October 4, 1994 Set 1, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, View Captions, Thumbnails, or Slides. 

Shikotan, Kuril Islands Earthquake & Tsunami October 4, 1994 Set 2, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, View Captions, Thumbnails, or Slides. 


Taiwan 

Chi-Chi, Taiwan Earthquake, September 20, 1999, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, View Captions, Thumbnails, or Slides.

Damage of Concrete Structures in Chi-Chi, Taiwan Earthquake, Prepared by Japan Society of Civil Engineers. 

[TOP OF PAGE


Turkey 

Duzce, Turkey Earthquake, November 12, 1999, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, Captions, Thumbnails, or Slides. 

Izmit (Kocaeli) Turkey Earthquake, August 17, 1999-Set 1, Coastal Effects, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, View Captions, Thumbnails, or Slides. 

Izmit (Kocaeli) Turkey Earthquake, August 17, 1999-Set 2, Structural Damage, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, View Captions, Thumbnails, or Slides. 

1992 Erzincan Earthquake, Turkey. Earthquake Image Archives by M. Yoshimine, Soil Mechanics Laboratory, Civil Engineering, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Japan.

Ricardo Hernandez, (2011). Post Turkey Earthquake – Day 1. Available from Degenkolb.

Ricardo Hernandez, (2011). Post Turkey Earthquake – Day 2: City Center of Van. Available from Degenkolb.

Ricardo Hernandez, (2011). Post Turkey Earthquake – Day 3: Industrial Facilities and the Port. Available from Degenkolb.

Ricardo Hernandez, (2011). Post Turkey Earthquake – Day 4: One last look at Ercis. Available from Degenkolb.


USA 

Damage to the Starbucks International Headquartes Building, February 28, 2001, Nisqually Earthquake. Photographs by Randolph Langenbach, April, 2001. Building Conservation Technology. 

Damage to the 1923 Legislative Buildings, State Capitol Complex, February 28, 2001, Nisqually Earthquake. Building Conservation Technology. 

Pioneer Square Area of Downtown Seattle, February 28, 2001, Nisqually Earthquake. Photographs by Randolph Langenbach, April, 2001. Building Conservation Technology. 

February 28 2001, Mw 6.8 Nisqually Washington Earthquake, Damage Pictures. Photos by A. Sanli and M. Celebi (USGS), S. Akkar ( METU, Ankara, Turkey). Building Conservation Technology. 

February 28, 2001, Mw 6.8 Nisqually, Washington Earthquake, Olympia, Washington Damage Pictures, Photos by  A. Sanli and M. Celebi (USGS), S. Akkar ( METU, Ankara, Turkey. 

Northridge, California Earthquake, January 17, 1994, Set 1, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, View Captions, Thumbnails, or Slides. 

Northridge, California Earthquake, January 17, 1994, Set 2, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, View Captions, Thumbnails, or Slides. 

Northridge Earthquake, California of  January 17, 1994, Part I (20 Images), Photos from John A. Martin & Associates, Inc. 

Northridge Earthquake, California of January 17, 1994, Part II (20 Images), Photos from John A. Martin & Associates, Inc. 

Northridge Earthquake Slide Show, photos from Southern California Earthquake Data Center. 

Landers / Big Bear Earthquake, California of June 28, 1992 (20 Images), Photos from John A. Martin & Associates, Inc. 

Landers and Big Bear, California Earthquakes, June 28, 1992, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, View Captions, Thumbnails, or Slides. 

Cape Mendocino Earthquake, California of April 25 & 26, 1992 (20 Images). Photos from John A. Martin & Associates, Inc. 

Cape Mendocino, California Earthquakes, April 25 & 26, 1992, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, View Captions, Thumbnails, or Slides. 

Loma Prieta Earthquake, California of October 17, 1989, Part 1: Effects in Loma Prieta Vicinity. Photos from John A. Martin & Associates, Inc. 

Loma Prieta Earthquake, California of October 17, 1989, Part 2: Effects in San Francisco and Oakland. Photos from John A. Martin & Associates, Inc. 

Loma Prieta Earthquake, California of October 17, 1989. USGS Photo Archive. 

Loma Prieta Earthquake, California of October 17, 1989 - Selected Photographs. U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-29 Version 1.2.  

Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake 1989, U.S. Geological Survey Photographic Library. 

Loma Prieta Earthquake, October 18, 1989, Part 1, NGDC Natural Hazards Slide Sets, View Captions,

 

Friday, 09 May 2014 14:01

Carrot-shaped sample testing of shotcrete

Written by

Shotcrete Sample Testing

The slab of concrete (see picture 1) was brought from the construction site. This sample of concrete was used in a tunnel in Attiki Odos. The machine has a rotating pivot. Along with the pressure and the water "cuts" the slab pieces of concrete into carrot-shaped ones.Then, the samples are taken to the machine (see picture 3) in order to be pressed. The values of pressure in which the samples crack, the quality of the concrete used is checked.

 

Picture#1

 

Picture #2

 

 

Picture#3

 

Friday, 09 May 2014 13:59

Production unit of concrete in Patras

Written by

Concrete Production Unit Interbeton Inc., Patras

The photos of this text are taken by Dimitris P. Zekkos, during the excursion of the second-year students of the Department of Civil Engineering in Patras University, organized by the Assistant Professor T. Triantafyllou on March 2000.

 

This unit produces around 150 cubic meters of concrete in a daily basis.

 

First of all, the aggregates are gradated in three kinds (gravel, sand), based on their volume which are kept in an area above the machine of the picture. A bulldozer picks a quantity of each part and puts it into the machine which is divided into 6 parts (two parts for each kind). Each part ends in an opening at the bottom. The amount of each gradated part, corresponds to a time (controlled by a computer) during which it''s allowed to pass through the opening. The engineer inserts the quantity and the characteristics of the concrete needed and the computer calculates the amount of cement, aggregates and water. 

 

The water of mud of the first tank goes to a factory for the production of cement. The water of the third tank can be used for the cleaning of the unit. 

 

 

With this technique the aggregates are being transferred to the cement mixer where they are mixed with cement and water. Then, as shown in the picture below, a vehicle takes the concrete and sends it to the customer.

 

  

 

The StructuralEngineer.info News Center is being funded by our Annual Corporate Sponsors " (learn more):

Available by the Geoengineer website

 

This photo shows a diamond saw. It is used for preparing (or coring) rock or concrete specimens. Such preparation is necessary for example for the performance of an unconfined compression test. (In the bottom left of the picture you can see a Marshall test sample) The photo was taken from the Central Laboratory and Training Center of Attiki Odos JV, Athens, Greece.

 

 

Water Isolation using geosynthetics for a two sub-storey parking in Patras (September 2000)

    

The photos are from a project in the city of Patras, Greece. The project consists of a two sub-storey parking below an entertainment complex. After the completion of the deep excavation, geosynthetics were used for the water isolation of the excavated area. The Geomembranes used (yellow color), are bonded together with some kind of glue. It is very important that the two parts are perfectly bonded using thermal bonding. This is a very delicate procedure since imperfections in the bonding could lead to water intrusion. Photos of the thermal bonding procedure are provided. Below are briefly described some details in the execution of thermal bonding and Construction Quality Assurance (CQA). 

 

Methods to check the quality of work 

  1. There is a very thin copper wire along the joining. This wire must not have contact with the air if the work is done properly. So at the two-ends of the wire a source (like a battery) is installed. If there is a pointwere the wire comes in contact with air, then a sparkle comes out and the spot is indicated to restore it.
  2. A pump presses air between the bonds. If the air pressure falls, this mean that in a place the textiles are not bonded perfectly. 


Materials 

In the specific site, three kind of geosynthetics were used (check the photo above) forming a "geocomposite": 

  1. In the outside, in contact with the concrete a tough plastic was used for the protection of the other two PVC (dark green) typically called Geoglass.
  2. In the middle, a white colored geotextile (Polyfond type) is used to protect the geomembrane.
  3. On the top, a geomembrane (yellow) is used as a hydraulic barrier.  

 

Bonds with heat of the textiles

            

 

Views of the Site  

   

 

Reference: 

  1. More information on the project of the deep excavation using slurry walls, are provided here.

 

The StructuralEngineer.info News Center is being funded by our Annual Corporate Sponsors " (learn more):

Friday, 09 May 2014 13:44

Traditional Stone Bridge in Andros

Written by

This is a picture of a bridge in Andros. The drawing, made in 1840, is of a British traveller. Even though he presumed that the bridge was constructed by the Franks, it seems to be much older, of the 17th century. 

The dimensions of the arc are:

Opening: 8,90 m.

Maximum Height: 6 m.

Width: 1.34-1.40 m.

Width of piers:  2.32-2.35 m.

 

  

 

 
Friday, 09 May 2014 13:43

Photos of the Golden Gate Bridge from Sea & Land

Written by

  

The main span of the bridge is 7650ft (2331.7m). The diameter of one cable is 92.4cm and in each cable there are 27572 wires! Total wire used is 80,000 miles (128,748m) and the weight of each cable is 24500 tons (22.226m.tons).

 

Photo # 1: cross-section of the cable.

 

Collection of photos from the sea

 

Photo # 2 to the South almost below the deck

Photo # 3 to the North almost below the deck

Photo # 4 to the South

Photo # 5 to the North

 

Collection of photos from the land

 

Photo # 6 from the North towards the South

Photo # 7 from the North towards the South

Photo #8 from the deck. 

 

 
Friday, 09 May 2014 13:43

Rion-Antirrion Bridge

Written by

Rion-Antirrion Bridge: Views of the piers, in the dry dock, floating, in place and of their interior

Photos taken in October 2001

Photos provided by G. Konstantakopoulos, N. Stathopoulos, J. Simeonoglou.

Texts by G. Konstantakopoulos 

Figure 1: View of the bridge pier, currently under construction, that is currently floating near the coast. Access to the pier is through the ship illustrated in the figure. The ship is modified to allow transportation of the reinforcements using trucks. 

 

Figure 2: Another pier of the bridge. 

Figure 3: Reinforcement placement in the pier, according to the design. The reinforcement has previously being transported with a truck next to the pier. 

Figure 4: Interior of the pier of Figure 6. The thickness of the reinforced wall is approximately 2.0m.

Figure 5: Interior of the pier. Detail of the pier wall.

Figure 6: View of the piers that are under construction close to the coasts. The right one is the one illustrated in Figure 4 and 5.

Figure 7: View of a pier that has currently touched the bottom of the sea.

Figure 8: Footing of a pier, currently under construction, in the dry dock.

Figure 9: Footing of a pier, currently under construction, in the dry dock. 

 

STEEL RODS MANUFACTURING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF RION -ANTIRRION BRIDGE

Photos taken in October 2001

Photos provided by G. Konstantakopoulos, N. Stathopoulos, J. Simeonoglou.

Texts by G. Konstantakopoulos 

Machine used to automate the shaping of the reinforcements in the shape required by the design. 


Machine used to automate the shaping of the reinforcements in the shape required by the design. Used for steel rods of smaller diameter. The user has specified the geometric characteristics of the steel rod. On the left you can see the steel rod which is inserted in the machine to be shaped.
 

Steel rods to be used in the above machines. A label with the barcode described the technical characteristics of the reinforcement that are going to be used to.