So far the year 2011 has been a troubled one in terms of major natural disasters, such as earthquakes and tsunamis, along with civil unrest that has led, in some cases, to open rebellion and conflict. Two papers in this issue of Engineering History and Heritage highlight the way in which civil engineering has made an effective contribution to the mitigation of natural disaster and in meeting military requirements in times of conflict. One is concerned with earthquake-resistant construction methods the other with the provision of engineering solutions under wartime conditions.
A solution to the latter during World War II was the Bailey bridge, in which Colonel John Joiner reminds us that it ‘was certainly one of the major inventions of World War II, ranking alongside, for example, the jet engine and radar’ (Joiner, 2011). Field Marshall Montgomery praised the great contribution it made to the war effort and there is little doubt that it did much to shorten the course of the war. At the beginning of the war it was recognised that new and heavier tanks would be developed and, consequently, the army needed a military bridge with a 40 ton capacity. Problems in adapting the existing bridging system, developed by Professor Charles Inglis in World War I, led to Donald Bailey's innovative design. He had formed some ideas for an alternative system some years before and in late 1940 he famously sketched his ideas on the back of an envelope for a new bridge system made from panels, and the Bailey bridge was born. Joiner gives the fuller picture of the design and production of the finished product, including the contributions made by other engineers. This work began in December 1940 at a considerable pace, the pilot model was tested in May 1941, production started in July the same year and troops received the first bridges by December 1941. Ironically, the Inglis bridging system was to be superseded at the time that Inglis would serve as president of the Institution of Civil Engineers (1941–1942). It was not just effective in wartime, as its post-war use as emergency or temporary bridging has led to the Bailey bridge becoming a generic name for applications of this nature. Modern variants continue to be used throughout the world, as in 2009 when it was used to replace the bridge at Workington destroyed by the Cumbrian floods.
Natural disasters, such as sudden floods and earthquakes, are notoriously difficult to predict with engineering solutions remaining the only effective means of mitigating such problems. In 1908 Messina and the southern Calabria region of Italy was devastated by a powerful earthquake. This seismic event ‘created tens of thousands of victims and had a deep impact on Italian society’ and is one that Professor Luigi Sorrentino has elected to write about, describing the stimulus that it provided for the development of earthquake-resistant construction methods (Sorrentino, 2011). It would lead to the establishment of government interventions in Italy and the first quantitative code of practice for building design in earthquake-prone areas. Almost contemporary to this original code was an early significant contribution to the use of dynamics, and some of the first computations in earthquake engineering. The disaster gained a high profile, both with the public and the technical community, with several private initiatives and competitions held in Milan and Florence that called for proposals for earthquake-resistant construction. These would attract much international attention and resulted in numerous papers being published in scientific journals. Sorrentino focuses on the Milan competition, summarising the competition judges' report and illustrates the three innovative proposals that emerged from the competition. These were the reinforced masonry building by the Italians Vittorio Gianfranceschi and Giulio Revere, from Fritz von Emperger of Austria proposals for a steel-reinforced concrete structure, and the Frenchman Edmond Coignet's reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame. Despite these award-winning projects, interest was not sustained beyond a few individuals, but the Milan competition encouraged the development of ideas that were ‘ahead of their time’.
Drought, and the lack of sufficient water supplies to sustain life, is a natural disaster that frequently occurs in developing countries. Irrigation and the development of water supplies have been of crucial importance throughout history in establishing and sustaining civilisations. Charles L. Abernethy outlines the importance of irrigation governance and why the governance of an irrigation system is complicated because of varying objectives and the many participants involved (Abernethy, 2011). An irrigation system may have evolved for many centuries and through several phases, of ‘construction, operation, renewal, extension and technological improvement – and in each of these phases the demands on governance arrangements are different’. Abernethy considers the meaning of ‘good governance’ and the changes that have taken place in the post-colonial period, as well as the move from bureaucratic dominance towards greater democratic involvement. In looking forward, he believes that there must be a move towards the establishment of institutions for water or river-basin governance, in which irrigation governance will have to be conducted. Concern is also voiced that in making this transition the beneficial aspects of self-governance, such as transparency and responsiveness to local circumstances, are not lost.
Another bridge-themed topic is that of Eberhard Pelke's paper on the construction of prestressed concrete bridges built in Germany in the years leading up to World War II (Pelke, 2011a). These pioneering works, and the knowledge gained by German engineers, would have a major impact following the end of the war in the take up of prestressed concrete as a bridge building material. It would also give Germany a head start in the domination of the road bridge market. Of the six nuclei regarded as the basis for the future development of prestressed concrete, Eberhard Pelke discusses two in this paper (the remaining four nuclei will be presented later in a companion paper (Pelke, 2011b)). It is well illustrated with engineering drawings and photographs, and the reasons how Germany took such a lead are explained with the work of the French pioneer of prestressed concrete Eugène Freyssinet being brought to Germany by Dr Karl W. Mautner, a member of the board of the Neue Baugesellschaft (NBG) Wayss & Freytag A.G., and professor at the Technical University of Aachen. Wayss & Freytag acquired Freyssinet's patents in 1935 to pursue their first bridge construction projects, new markets for bridges, underpasses and flyovers being opened up with German road projects, such as the lucrative Reichsautobahn programme. Development of prestressed concrete was also stimulated from 1936 by the directing of steel away from the building industry and into the German war machine. Pelke examines from all aspects the way that Wayss & Freytag would use their head start in knowledge and expertise to dominate the field from 1945 to 1965.
The subject of the third bridge paper in this issue is the most historic of the three, that of the chain bridge and one in which I have taken an interest in for many years, most recently with the exhibition Web of Iron developed as part of the ICE Wales Cymru contribution to the Thomas Telford 250 celebrations in 2007. Web of Iron covered the development of the chain bridge and the pioneering work in this area by Telford and Captain Sir Samuel Brown. William Tierney Clark was also an important pioneer who deserves wider recognition and, in William Tierney Clark and the Buda-Pesth chain bridge by Sandor P. Vaci, the role of Clark in the construction of Buda-Pesth chain bridge is addressed (Vaci, 2011). The bridge is well known as an international landmark and Vaci sets out to raise Clark's profile, ‘to rekindle interest in his qualities and achievements’. This is needed as Clark's role in the development of the chain bridge in Britain is largely forgotten compared to Telford, Isambard Kingdom Brunel or even Samuel Brown who have all featured in recent ICE Proceedings or publications (Barlow and Barr, 2003; ICE, 2007; Miller, 2006). Vaci makes the point that not only is Clark ‘a somewhat overlooked figure in civil engineering history’ but that he is overshadowed at Budapesth by the driving force of the project, Count István Széchenyi, who was also a leading figure behind the Hungarian reform movement. Széchenyi visited Britain with the purpose of investigating bridge designs to connect the cities of Pesth and Buda over the river Danube and his accounts give an interesting illustration of Britain's position in the world of engineering: ‘England is at such a high level that she surpasses others and could rise ever higher’. Drawing upon contemporary illustrations and maps, including a map showing the London connections with Clark, the first seventeen years of the project, from the first meeting with Clark and Széchenyi in 1832 to the completion of the bridge in 1849, are detailed. The later history of the famous chain bridge is also touched upon.
