2026-09-20T13:45:29Zhttps://dspace.mit.edu/server/oai/requestoai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/345872022-01-13T07:54:23Zcom_1721.1_7582com_1721.1_7581col_1721.1_131023
Jerome Connor.
Shabanowitz, Timothy B. (Timothy Brian)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
2006-11-07T13:09:54Z
2006-11-07T13:09:54Z
2006
2006
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/34587
71250086
Thesis (M. Eng.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2006.
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 43-44).
History states that architects and engineers rarely operate in a peaceful environment as each have their own specific agendas to fulfill. The architect appeals to the plastic form of a building before tending to its structural behavior while the engineer tends towards the opposite. While both are striving for a workable structure, their priorities are mismatched. Bridge building, through history usually was considered an engineering feat as it was strictly constructed to traverse a crevasse, waterway or some other obstacle. However through the 20th century, the respective roles have evolved and bridges have become more than a mere span. The architect has revolutionized the art of building a bridge, but was it the technology of the engineer that helped propel the architect or was it just a simple awakening by the architectural community? By analyzing a variety of bridges by Santiago Calatrava and Robert Maillart among other architects and engineers that have been the most influential in this movement, and their construction process, form, materials, and design process, et al., it can be observed how the bridge building process has evolved. Bridge building is an engineering movement no more, but it is not an architectural movement either. In part, by way of these bridge building pioneers, the two professions have started to sideline their angst and ridicule and create a new harmony throughout the built environment.
(cont.) Bridge building is an engineering movement no more, but it is not an architectural movement either. In part, by way of these bridge building pioneers, the two professions have started to sideline their angst and ridicule and create a new harmony throughout the built environment.
by Timothy B. Shabanowitz.
M.Eng.
44 leaves
14127873 bytes
14127589 bytes
application/pdf
application/pdf
eng
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582
Civil and Environmental Engineering.
The progressive synthesis of architecture and engineering in modern bridge design
Thesis
application/pdf
false
Publication
unknown
unknown
<Publication xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/1.1/" id="b334f0b6-f8e2-411a-abd5-9229ce8c5d2c">
<Type xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/vocab/COAR_Publication_Types">http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_1843</Type>
<Language>eng</Language>
<Title>The progressive synthesis of architecture and engineering in modern bridge design</Title>
<PublishedIn>
<Publication>
</Publication>
</PublishedIn>
<PublicationDate>2006</PublicationDate>
<Authors>
<Author>
<DisplayName>Shabanowitz, Timothy B. (Timothy Brian)</DisplayName>
<Affiliation>
<OrgUnit>
</OrgUnit>
</Affiliation>
</Author>
</Authors>
<Editors>
</Editors>
<Publishers>
<Publisher>
<DisplayName>Massachusetts Institute of Technology</DisplayName>
<OrgUnit />
</Publisher>
</Publishers>
<License>http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582</License>
<Keyword>Civil and Environmental Engineering.</Keyword>
<Abstract>History states that architects and engineers rarely operate in a peaceful environment as each have their own specific agendas to fulfill. The architect appeals to the plastic form of a building before tending to its structural behavior while the engineer tends towards the opposite. While both are striving for a workable structure, their priorities are mismatched. Bridge building, through history usually was considered an engineering feat as it was strictly constructed to traverse a crevasse, waterway or some other obstacle. However through the 20th century, the respective roles have evolved and bridges have become more than a mere span. The architect has revolutionized the art of building a bridge, but was it the technology of the engineer that helped propel the architect or was it just a simple awakening by the architectural community? By analyzing a variety of bridges by Santiago Calatrava and Robert Maillart among other architects and engineers that have been the most influential in this movement, and their construction process, form, materials, and design process, et al., it can be observed how the bridge building process has evolved. Bridge building is an engineering movement no more, but it is not an architectural movement either. In part, by way of these bridge building pioneers, the two professions have started to sideline their angst and ridicule and create a new harmony throughout the built environment.</Abstract>
<Abstract>(cont.) Bridge building is an engineering movement no more, but it is not an architectural movement either. In part, by way of these bridge building pioneers, the two professions have started to sideline their angst and ridicule and create a new harmony throughout the built environment.</Abstract>
<Access xmlns="http://purl.org/coar/access_right"
>
</Access>
</Publication>