Talk:Millau Viaduct

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	France Portal Millau Viaduct is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Castle.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.

Millau Viaduct has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

WikiProject Echo has identified Millau Viaduct as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges, a WikiProject which aims to expand coverage of bridges on Wikipedia. Please feel free to join us.

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in France may be able to help!

Contents 1 Tallest or Highest 2 Traffic 3 Pillar or pier 4 Some odd phrasing 5 Name 6 127,000 m³ or 85,000 m³? 7 Units 8 3 percent or 3 degrees? 9 Picture 10 FAC? 11 Toll Free ? 12 Height? 13 Time Benefit? 14 Is there a Pedestrian Path? 15 Curved for visibility? 16 Lack of construction/engineering Info 17 Viaduct Voted a Wonder of the World

[edit] Tallest or Highest

Perhaps a little controversy as to which bridge is "highest". While the pillar of the Millau Viaduct is possibly the tallest, the roadway itself is "only" 891 feet above the valley. The 1,053 ft measurement for the Royal Gorge bridge is the distance from the road surface to the river below. I can't find the measurement for the top of the pillars of the Royal Gorge bridge. But, it is still the highest bridge in the world as near as I can see. THe Millau Viaduct can likely claim "tallest" though.

I'm sorry, but the article uses "meters" (the UM used by the world); how much is it 1052 ft? Thanks

answer: 1142.19 feet (reference: http://www.geocities.com/qubestrader/conversion.html)

I also noticed that the latest AP article (by a certain "Perrine Latrasse") asserted that the Royal Gorge "was designed for pedestrians", making the Millau the highest road bridge. However, the Royal Gorge actually does have one vehicular lane, and last time I was there they were indeed allowing vehicles to cross it (slowly—the deck is just wooden planks). So unless they have a rather narrow definition of "road bridge", I think they are still mistaken. --keckos

Although you can drive across it, does the Royal Gorge Bridge actually go anywhere? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:40, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well of course, it goes to the other side. ; ) And yes, there is something on the other side: see this park map. Satisfied? --keckos 11:31, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

I think the point is that a 'road bridge' doesn't so much carry cars or traffic, but rather a road. Now you can get into semantics about what counts as a road as opposed to a street, a track or a trail, but in this context I think it needs to go between two places (towns) and it probably needs to have a prepared surface too. In which case an internal park driveway which arrives at a bridge which can support a car (one at a time?) on a wooden deck, probably doesn't count as a 'road bridge'. -- Solipsist 14:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

To give some numbers: The royal gorge towers are 150ft (46m). (It is a much smaller bridge.) It is cited as being 1052ft (320m) high. I'm pretty sure this is the distance from the deck of the bridge to the Arkansas River. This is much higher than the 876ft(267m) that the Millau deck is above the Tarn. Even if the 1052ft measures from the top of the towers the deck is still at least 900ft above the river (more like 950, since it's only part way down the towers.) So, Millau is the tallest and Royal gorge is the highest. (Millau is also longer, wider, carries much more traffic, ...)

Also, (throwing in my two cents) roads don't have to be made from concrete (think of the term 'dirt road'). In 1927, very few were, still today, much of the western US is only accessible by dirt road, some of which have wooden bridges on them. I've driven across some pretty heavily used wooden bridge decks. The RGB is, at this point, just a tourist attraction and the only folks driving across it are doing it for the fun of it; but I get the impression that when it opened 80 years ago, it was actually an honest to goodness road with real non-tourist traffic. Jmeppley 15:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Traffic

This article and most news articles about this bridge fail to say how many lanes of traffic, and what types of traffic the bridge is built to accomodate.

Four lanes of road traffic. I've amended the article accordingly. -- ChrisO 19:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pillar or pier

When I translated pile from fr:Viaduc de Millau, I picked "pillar." The external link yahoo news article also says "pillar." But the Millau Viaduct article, which I just found and redirected to this one, called them "piers." If anyone knows which word is most correct, please say so (or just change it). Nathan 15:39, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

The official site of the Rio-Antirio bridge calls them "pier", and this fits with one of the meanings of "pier" given by my dictionary. David.Monniaux 07:07, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Pier" seems like the least natural word in this context. It's technically correct, and might even be the architectural term (I am not an architect), but I think 'pillar' is a more common name for the vertical members of a bridge. Plus the cable-stayed bridge entry uses this word. - Plutor 16:41, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually Pier or Pylon is correct for bridges. Pillar is used when referring to a supporting member for the roof or roof sections such as a grand entry or a large hall. (Paul Bosanquet, Australia. No, I'm not an architect but I like Roman/Greek architecture.)

I think you're right - having checked on a number of professional architecture websites, the word "pier" does seem to be used preferentially for the vertical members of the Millau viaduct specifically. I've changed the article accordingly. -- ChrisO 19:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Some odd phrasing

The following sentences sound odd. I can't really fathom their meaning, and so won't make edits, but if someone comes along who can figure them out, they should be changed.

The Millau viaduct consists of an eight-span steel roadway supported by seven concrete piers.

The word "span" seems out of place here. Are these "spans" somehow related to traffic lanes? Are they attached to one another? Are they separated by little walls? Very ambiguous.

I read this as meaning that the roadway consists of eight individual segments (which it does).

The roadway [...] curves in plan section on a 20 km radius

I get that it has a curve on a 20 km radius. But what does it mean to be "in plan section"? -- [User:Yath|Yath]] 21:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could this be a typo for "in plane section"? Not that that makes much more sense! -- ChrisO 22:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They are both architectural terminology. A 'span' is a portion of a bridge between two supports, whether they be either side of a valley, or two piers. A 'section' is a drawing of a slice through a building, and the 'plan section' is the horizontal section showing the layout of the building as seen from above (most drawings would also show at least one vertical section, or 'elevation', too).

So it is not so much odd phrasing as technical jargon. It sounds like some additional explanation is in order though. -- Solipsist 01:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Why Millau viaduct rather than Millau Viaduct? Isn't it a proper name, like Severn Bridge or Golden Gate Bridge? Millau Viaduct has a history - does this need to go to WP:RM? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

answer to name question: the name is written in the French manner: proper names have capital letters, the rest of road names etc are put in lower case.

I did it; the duplicate is now at Talk:Millau Viaduct/duplicate. Dunc|☺ 11:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've moved it to Millau viaduct and deleted the duplicate, so the edit histories are now both in the article space. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 127,000 m³ or 85,000 m³?

In the section "Statistics", the total volume of concrete used is reported to be 85,000 m³.

In the subsection "Construction / Costs and resources", the total volume of concrete used is reported to be 127,000 m³.

[edit] Units

some of you are unbelievably petty! how many times are we still going to convert units backwards and forwards? can the next person who insists on converting units please keep both metric and imperial? 137.222.40.132 17:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no really need to include non-SI luddite units or FFU (=Fred Flintstone Units), just to feed some people's ignorance and arrogance. The information in SI units is understandable to all. If you are an ignorant person who claims not to know them, then take the effort to learn what 99 % of the world knows. Adding FFU only makes the articles look cluttered and unprofessional.

Here is the information on the bridge in correct units without the clutter of FFU:

Structural statistics

17 December 2004 : Opening of bridge to traffic

15 December 2004 : Inauguration)

10 October 2001 : Construction work started

343 m : Height at top of pylons

270 m : Height of roadway over the Tarn

2,460 m : Total length of roadway

8 spans resting on 7 piers

2230 tonnes : Weight of each of the 16 sections of road-deck. Each section is built up from 60 tonne deck-units, each 4 m wide by 17 m long. The deck-units are built in Eiffel’s factories at Lauterbourg and Fos-sur-Mer.

Heights of the 7 piers :

P1 : 94,50 m P2 : 244,96 m P3 : 221,05 m P4 : 144,21 m P5 : 136,42 m P6 : 111,94 m P7 : 77,56 m

97 m : Height of the 7 pylons

154 : Number of stays supporting the road-deck from the pylons

36,000 tonnes : Total weight of roadbed’s steel structure (5 times the Eiffel tower)

19,000 tonnes : Steel used for reinforcing the concrete piers

5,000 tonnes : Steel used for the stays and cables

4.20 m : Thickness of steel road-deck

32.05 m : Width of road-deck

205,000 tonnes : Concrete

85,000 m3 : Total volume of concrete 3% (approximately) : Slope (for safety, to enable better visibility)

9,000 tonnes : Road tarmac - specially flexible bitumen laid to 6cm thickness

4,000 tonnes : Standard bitumen for the emergency strips on either side 520 workers

300 million euro : Cost. The cost has finished at half the anticipated estimate. (plus 20 million euro for the toll station 6 km from the bridge’s North end).

120 years : Predicted lifespan

Architect: Norman Foster

Constructor: Eiffage Group. Their website has a number of short web films on the bridge as construction progresses and an animation of the bridge in use. (Note: commentaries in French.)

Paris-Clermont-Ferrand-Béziers : The Viaduc de Millau will complete this north-south motorway through te heart of France, crossing the Massif Central.

Tolls - 4.60 euro: off-season, 6.50 euro: during July and August; both charges for light vehicles. Lorries: 20 euro throughout the year. The rest of the 340 km A75 autoroute is free.

Constructed for the A75 motorway (autoroute) - the Méridienne. The weblink provided is to the English version of the motorway company’s “complete file”, which details the original planning for the route taken and for the final choice of bridge structure (includes maps, photos and diagrams)

http://www.abelard.org/france/viaduct-de-millau.asp

Happy Metric Motoring!

"There is no really need to include non-SI luddite units "

But you used "tonnes"... which is not an SI unit. I'm just saying! ;-)

I agree that metric should be given first here, seeing as this bridge would have been engineered in metric units. However, even in the metricated world many still have a more natural feel for imperial units (even my Canadian relatives use pounds and feet in conversation). So, why is there an objection to having metric (primarily here) and then imperial units in brackets following?

I should point out that by using the commar as both a "10 to the third power" separator AND as a decimal point, you too are confusing the issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 20.133.0.1 (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 3 percent or 3 degrees?

The roadway has a slight slope of 3%

I assume this means 3°, as that is how slopes are usually measured, but I'm no engineer. Ливай | ☺ 22:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, an "angle" is measured in degress, but a "slope" is the ratio of rise to run, and is the measurement favored by architects. 3%=3/100; Google says "arctan(3 / 100) in degrees" = 1.718358 (not 3). Keckos

Over here in Britain you often see road signs warning of steep slopes, measured in degrees. -- ChrisO

Well actually, I think the UK only has older road signs which show gradients as a ratio ( 1:4 or 'one in four' ) or newer signs which give the gradient as a percentage ( 20% ). See for example [1] (where the pictures also prove that all UK road signs are held in place by school children...) -- Solipsist 11:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Slopes are measured as ratios, on both roads and railways. -- Anon.

This is why I didn't decide to major in mathematics/engineering/anything requiring calculation. Thanks for clearing that up for me guys. Ливай | ☺ 17:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

You can see a pic of Millau at night on Serbian Wikipedia. --pokrajac 00:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] FAC?

I have posted this on WP:PR with a view to going to WP:FAC in a while. The page looks short but pretty complete to me - what else should be added? Some paper references would be good, but the web pages should suffice.

One area confuses me: the last paragraph of section 3.3 (Costs and resources) says:

The project required about 127,000 m³ of concrete ...

but the next section states:

• 85,000 m³: total volume of concrete used

Which is right? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toll Free ?

My understanding was that the section of road from Clermont Ferrand south was only toll free until the Viaduct opened. Perhaps someone can confirm that tolls are now in place all the way to the south coast CustardJack 12:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having crossed it two days ago, it is toll from from Clermont Ferrand to the turnoff for Millau and toll free from Millau to Montpellier. the bridge itself is now 5.10 Euro for light cars- Gandalf

[edit] Height?

The first paragraph says "...it is the tallest vehicular bridge in the world, with one pier's summit at 343 metres (1,125 ft)...", but then the Description paragraph says "The Millau Viaduct is the second highest vehicular bridge measured from the roadway elevation. Its deck, at approximately 270 m (886 ft) above the Tarn, is slightly higher than the New River Gorge Bridge in West Virginia in the United States, which is 267 m (876 ft) above the New River. The Royal Gorge Bridge in Colorado, United States has a deck considerably higher than either, at 321 m (1,053 ft) above the Arkansas River". Which one of these is true? If the bridge was 1,125 ft off the ground, then it would be the tallest in the world. bruce89 11:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the 343 metres measure refers to the height to the top of the tallest tower (ie pier) from its base. But the highest vehicular bridge record is about the height to the road deck. With a cable stayed (and suspension bridges and several other designs) the road deck is some way below the top of the tallest tower - in this case its presumably about 70m lower.

With respect to the comparison with other bridges, the main issue is that the Royal Gorge Bridge is barely a road bridge, but it depends where you want to draw the line in your definitions. -- Solipsist 12:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time Benefit?

How much time is saved crossing the valley because of this bridge? --Commking 01:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A considerable amount of time, but how much depends on the time of year. It was not uncommon to spend 4 hours driving via Millau on the old Route National 9 on a Saturday in summer. Actually, 'driving' is not quite the right word - crawling would be better. Even on a less busy day, the route through the town of Millau, though spectacular, would still take about an hour, assuming no hold ups. The A75 over the viaduct takes about 15 minutes to cover the 42km of road it has replaced. I went over the viaduct a few days ago for the tenth time - a great sight! Emeraude 18:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a Pedestrian Path?

Is it possible to walk across this bridge? --Eraticus 19:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not - it's a motorway so stopping is not allowed either. There is a viewpoint constructed at the north end of the bridge accessed from the motorway, and there are excellent vantage points all around. A visitor centre is located UNDER the bridge. Emeraude 18:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Curved for visibility?

The article says that it is curved on a 20km radius "to give drivers better visibility". It occurs to me, however, that this curve is likely to be of huge benefit to the bridge in terms of stability - I think it is far more likely to be an engineering decision than a practical one, though added visibility may well be an additional effect.

Yeah there's no way they curved it for the drivers' benefit. The Confederation bridge that goes from New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island is also curved a lot, to prevent it from collapsing from high winds. 216.13.217.231 23:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of construction/engineering Info

I think the article would benefit from more about the construction of the bridge. It is generally regarded as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, engineering achievement ever. You only have to consider that the motorway was built over a hundred miles away, and moved on top of the pillars which as we know are over 200m above the ground. The whole thing could have been destroyed had any mistakes been made at this stage. On top of that there were 0 major injuries to workers involved. No disrespect to Norman Foster, but in terms of the whole construction of the bridge, his contribution is dwarfed by the engineering feat. Macgruder 12:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Viaduct Voted a Wonder of the World

I'd make the entry myself but it's partly due to laziness and lack of formatting skills which prevents me from doing so

Anyway, according Classic FM, the Viaduct has been voted as one of the new Wonders of the World http://www.classicfmwonders.com/

--Jayau1234 11:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)