Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Steel bridges dominate long-span and super-long-span crossings because they carry a great deal for their weight, go up quickly, behave well in earthquakes and can be recovered at end of life. This review examines how such bridges are actually built and what governs the choice of erection scheme. A systematic search of Web of Science, Scopus and Crossref covering 1990 to the present produced fifty-six sources, each resolved against publisher metadata. The literature is organised along three axes that are normally treated separately: structural type, structural composition and service scenario. Five erection methods, namely segmental prefabrication, cantilever erection, incremental launching, cable hoisting and rotary construction, are compared on mechanical principle, applicable span envelope and operational constraints, and the comparison is checked against documented long-span projects. The combination of segmental prefabrication with cantilever erection is examined in detail because it now governs most long-span practice. Work on intelligent construction is grouped into a five-layer framework running from perception through to execution. Three findings emerge: the choice of method is set by structural form, terrain and available plant rather than by span alone; digital tools have tightened process control without removing the dependence on experienced site judgement; and the unresolved problems of data interoperability, cost, extreme environments and whole-life carbon accounting are specific enough to be addressed directly. Four development trajectories are proposed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: