Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2010
5th October 2010, 09:52 AM
(This post was last modified: 5th October 2010, 02:25 PM by Stephen Jack.)
The following text is from Colin O' Connor, Roman Bridges, page 51 1st column 4th paragraph
"The use of these construction techniques is confirmed by the the bridge at Trier (Chevallier, 1976; Cuppers, 1969). Remains found beneath the Moselle show that the earlier bridge had seven piers supported on 0.5m diameter oak piles, with their tips protected by iron shoes. The piles were driven to form a pentagonal base (rectangular with a pointed upstream face) 10.2m x 19.5m, with flat planking laid over a clay floor rammed down with broken stones into the gaps between the piles. Ashlar stone blocks were then laid on this base."
Cited Books
Chevallier R, Roman Roads, 1976
Cuppers H,Die Tierer Romerbrucken, 1969
Surprised I am. How can flat planking be a component found in the foundations of bridge piers? Should this be, beam compressed over time to now resemble the form of a flat plank. Beams will transfer loading to piles planks will not.
If anyone has either of the cited books I would be interested in reading the original text, also of particular interest are diagrams and photographs of the piles; What is the spacing between the piles?
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
5th October 2010, 12:28 PM
Sounds like what is being described is the dolphins (think that's what they're called - please feel free to correct me, anyone?) around/protecting the actual structural piers - flat planking would work for the sides of those, on the pointy non-structural end anyway, all it has to do is deflect floating driftwood and drunken bargees?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
5th October 2010, 12:53 PM
Not sure that you would want the weight of stone baring down on piles as this might cause them to differentially subside and pull apart the stonework. The planks might have been a way to form a flat base on which to distribute the stone work. That they are ashlars would suggest that they were intended to fit/lock neatly together. Possibly there are two phases (of construction if not of use) going on with an original construction based on wooden piles followed by a consolidated stone bridge.
(I make this up as I go along)
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2010
6th October 2010, 12:36 AM
Hey Dino - and someone correct me too if I am wrong, but I always thought that dolphins were structures in their own right - don't you mean starlings?
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
6th October 2010, 12:32 PM
Madweasels Wrote:Hey Dino - and someone correct me too if I am wrong, but I always thought that dolphins were structures in their own right - don't you mean starlings?
Who knows? - I did say I wasn't sure. Why not settle on cut-waters? :face-approve:
Entirely by coincidence yesterday afternoon a colleague was showing me piccies of what looks suspiciously like a Roman stone dolphin/starling/cutwater or whatever he's just found lurking within the structure of a sequence of later bridges/modifications somewhere in Yorkshire, bet there are more out there waiting to be found so on with the waders......
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
6th October 2010, 07:44 PM
I would suggest that you read Bidwell and Holbrook.
Belhaven is your friend
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
6th October 2010, 07:51 PM
Luckily my only recent direct involvement in the subject was demonstrating that a Roman bridge pier on some geophysics (different bridge) was actually some 1950s hardcore, so luckily I can save that pleasure for another time, but have passed the reference on to my colleague anyway, cheers :face-approve:
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
6th October 2010, 07:54 PM
Oh no, didn't have an acceptance speech ready for 500th post....:face-crying:
....wierd metamorphosis on the rank bit though when the post came up :p
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2010
7th October 2010, 11:09 PM
Unitof1 Wrote:Not sure that you would want the weight of stone baring down on piles as this might cause them to differentially subside and pull apart the stonework. The planks might have been a way to form a flat base on which to distribute the stone work. That they are ashlars would suggest that they were intended to fit/lock neatly together. Possibly there are two phases (of construction if not of use) going on with an original construction based on wooden piles followed by a consolidated stone bridge.
(I make this up as I go along)
I came across a very strange roman use of wooden piles this week. 1000m up on a mountain in Turkey, piles were densely packed to form the foundation of stone walls. The soil conditions were sound so why use a foundation method which is for unstable soil conditions? Getting back to planks, I still think they must be a squashed beams, if they were planks how thick do you think they would be 2000 years on, less than 1mm?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2010
7th October 2010, 11:25 PM
Bier Keller Wrote:I would suggest that you read Bidwell and Holbrook.
Why? No French library carries it.
Bidwell and Holbrook Hadrian's Wall Bridges 1989 has a Google index of about 7, it's slightly higher if you use only the ISBN. To put this into perspective Roman Bridges by O' Connor has a Google index of 62000.
Was it ever published in hardback?
Just watched 'The Spy Who Came In From The Cold', your shot in the last scene. :0
