Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

why the bridge collapsed.....

Started by Crescentius Vespasianus · · Last activity · 70 posts · 2,591 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
8 August 2007
Last activity
25 August 2007
Original author
Crescentius Vespasianus
Posts
70
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,591
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 70
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. OUTDATED TECHNOLOGY

    Engineers and bridge experts say there
    are no obvious, well-known design flaws
    with steel gusset plates from the
    mid-1960s, when the I-35W bridge was
    built. The gussets simply would have
    been designed with cruder instruments,
    such as slide rules, without the benefit
    of precise computer technology, said UC
    Berkeley's Astaneh-Asl. As a result,
    they also would have been unable to
    pinpoint high-stress areas, he said.

    That isn't by itself a problem, he said.
    However, if fatigue cracks and corrosion
    are added to the mix "then it becomes a
    perfect storm."

    Without specific knowledge of why the
    NTSB is interested in the plates, Gary
    Peterson, assistant state bridge
    engineer for MnDOT, said the only reason
    he could think why NTSB was
    investigating gusset plates would be
    corrosion.

    On the I-35W bridge, the plates are
    riveted to beams, a detail no longer
    used by bridge designers. Peterson
    called the riveting an "old technology,"
    though he said rivets are not inherently
    problematic.

    Corrosion is mentioned throughout
    several MnDOT bridge inspection reports,
    and rust was visible on gusset plates
    and elsewhere on the bridge. Peterson
    said engineers can use special equipment
    to test corrosion and determine how much
    metal remains.

    Gusset plates become susceptible to
    fracturing when they become corroded,
    said Astaneh-Asl: "If you fracture any
    gusset plate in that bridge, that's the
    end of it."

    As the first photographs and television
    images of the collapse circulated,
    Astaneh-Asl said he immediately noticed
    the gusset plates had fractured. That
    might have been a result of the collapse
    and not a contributing factor, he said.

    Some of the gusset plates may also have
    been weakened by welding, he said.
    Welding heats steel and then quickly
    cools it, he said, creating tiny cracks
    smaller than 1,000th of an inch. Such
    cracks can be problematic in a piece of
    steel, such as a gusset, subject to high
    tension. The practice was stopped in the
    1970s, he said.

    There are other examples of structural
    problems in bridges involving welds and
    gussets. In 2003, a bridge in Pottstown,
    Pa., was closed after inspectors found
    that problems involving intersecting
    welds at a gusset plate led to brittle
    fractures in two spots, according to an
    article this spring in the Journal of
    Bridge Engineering.

    The article also described how cracks
    detected in December 2000 in all three
    girders of an approach span of the Hoan
    Bridge in Milwaukee prompted officials
    to shut the 1970s-era bridge for three
    months. All three fractures involved
    gussets and welds. In 1999, a fatal
    bridge collapse in southeast China was
    attributed in part to poor welds, as was
    a 1997 bridge collapse in Israel. -

    whole article

    http://www.twincities.com/allheadlines/ci_6577877

  2. If you look at the image of the 35W bridge in Google Earth, you can see,
    at the north end of the bridge just over the edge of the river bank, an
    apparent crack running the entire width of the deck. It is clearly not
    a section joint because those are straight and at right angles to the
    roadway. The image is dated 2007 but note more specifically than that.
    Six months before the collapse? Three days before the collapse
    (probably not as there are no lane closures for construction). Not being
    an engineer I have no idea of the significance of this apparent crack.
    Could be none at all.

    A cycling buddy of mine works in the MNDoT bridge design department. I
    should ask him.

  3. Looks like a whole lot of speculation to me rather than "why the bridge
    collapsed".
    I think it is pretty hard to build a large steel structure without welds.
    Rivets are old but well proven technology.

    My guess: The problem is the use of de-icing salts and the longterm
    corrosive effects on the relatively unprotected steel, beams, gusset
    plates, connections, anchorages, reinforcements or whatever.

    Rust never sleeps.

    Marcus Coles
    Not an engineer nor do I play one on TV.

  4. Tim McNamara said:

    If you look at the image of the 35W bridge in Google Earth, you can see,
    at the north end of the bridge just over the edge of the river bank, an
    apparent crack running the entire width of the deck. It is clearly not
    a section joint because those are straight and at right angles to the
    roadway. The image is dated 2007 but note more specifically than that.
    Six months before the collapse? Three days before the collapse
    (probably not as there are no lane closures for construction). Not being
    an engineer I have no idea of the significance of this apparent crack.
    Could be none at all.

    A cycling buddy of mine works in the MNDoT bridge design department. I
    should ask him.

    It's hard to say. It looks like a crack, but it's in the right place
    to be an expansion joint. There was repair work being done on the
    decking at the time of the collapse though.

  5. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Quoted message said:
    Tim McNamara said:

    If you look at the image of the 35W bridge in Google Earth, you can
    see, at the north end of the bridge just over the edge of the river
    bank, an apparent crack running the entire width of the deck. It
    is clearly not a section joint because those are straight and at
    right angles to the roadway. The image is dated 2007 but note more
    specifically than that. Six months before the collapse? Three days
    before the collapse (probably not as there are no lane closures for
    construction). Not being an engineer I have no idea of the
    significance of this apparent crack. Could be none at all.

    A cycling buddy of mine works in the MNDoT bridge design
    department. I should ask him.

    It's hard to say. It looks like a crack, but it's in the right place
    to be an expansion joint. There was repair work being done on the
    decking at the time of the collapse though.

    I thought of that, too, but the expansion joints are clean and straight,
    most of them also having metal edging on each of the sections to prevent
    snowplows from hooking on the edges. But maybe it's just an expansion
    joint somehow distorted by the camera or the blending of that photograph
    with the next one. Note the truck fading out of or into existence just
    a little way to the north of the crack/line/joint which shows the
    morphed edges of the two images.

  6. "Marcus Coles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]!nnrp1.uunet.ca...

    Quoted message said:

    Looks like a whole lot of speculation to me rather than "why the bridge
    collapsed".
    I think it is pretty hard to build a large steel structure without


    welds.

    Quoted message said:

    Rivets are old but well proven technology.

    My guess: The problem is the use of de-icing salts and the longterm
    corrosive effects on the relatively unprotected steel, beams, gusset
    plates, connections, anchorages, reinforcements or whatever.

    Rust never sleeps.

    Marcus Coles
    Not an engineer nor do I play one on TV.

    That's what I was going to comment on too. Most of the northern states use
    or used massive quantities of rock salt for de-icing their roads.

    About 20 or so years ago a lot of bridges on the main highways around the
    country were shut down for repairs due to corrosion and deferred
    maintenance.

    One other thing, I saw a photo of several large trucks that were caught on
    the bridge by the collapse. They were heavily loaded with rock or
    something similar and very close to each other.

    If you're ever stopped in traffic on a large bridge when heavy trucks pass
    by you can fell how much they bounce the bridge. The trucks on the bridge
    could have set up some harmonics at the wrong place and time that were
    enough to trigger the collapse.

    Chas.

  7. In article <[email hidden]>,
    Crescentius Vespasianus <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Engineers and bridge experts say there
    are no obvious, well-known design flaws
    with steel gusset plates from the
    mid-1960s, when the I-35W bridge was
    built. The gussets simply would have
    been designed with cruder instruments,
    such as slide rules, without the benefit
    of precise computer technology, said UC
    Berkeley's Astaneh-Asl. As a result,
    they also would have been unable to
    pinpoint high-stress areas, he said.

    The methods used to calculate strengths of structural
    elements is irrelevant. Electronic computers make
    people think they can cut costs closer by making every
    structural element exactly as strong as it needs to be,
    but no stronger. (See box girder bridges). Who thinks
    to pay to overbuild structures? The failure of this
    bridge is probably graft, and the grifters are
    untouchable.

    --
    Michael Press

  8. Tim McNamara said:

    If you look at the image of the 35W bridge in Google Earth, you can see,
    at the north end of the bridge just over the edge of the river bank, an
    apparent crack running the entire width of the deck. It is clearly not
    a section joint because those are straight and at right angles to the
    roadway. The image is dated 2007 but note more specifically than that.
    Six months before the collapse? Three days before the collapse
    (probably not as there are no lane closures for construction). Not being
    an engineer I have no idea of the significance of this apparent crack.
    Could be none at all.

    A cycling buddy of mine works in the MNDoT bridge design department. I
    should ask him.

    You mean this:

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/34njmv
    (link to Google Maps)

    The line across the bridge at the top must be an expansion
    joint. It looks just like the one at the bottom (that a white
    pickup is crossing). The one at the top looks crooked on
    the northbound side; this is either a design element or an
    artifact of photo stitching. The drains near it (short dark
    horizontal lines near the median of the roadway) also look
    crooked, which makes me think it's an artifact.

    I don't know much about bridges, but I don't think the
    roadway of a bridge is likely to crack all the way across
    without a noticeable vertical displacement, and people
    would notice a few-inch vertical shift driving over it.

    The trucks that somebody else mentioned on the bridge
    were the gravel trucks carrying material for the resurfacing.
    They were probably stationary at the time of the collapse.
    Their weight may have been the straw that broke the bridge's
    back, but the likely _cause_ was some sort of material
    failure combined with a design that had no redundancy.
    (IOW, it probably would have failed eventually even w/o
    the gravel trucks.)
    At this point, we're just speculating.

    Ben

  9. "Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    Crescentius Vespasianus <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Engineers and bridge experts say there
    are no obvious, well-known design flaws
    with steel gusset plates from the
    mid-1960s, when the I-35W bridge was
    built. The gussets simply would have
    been designed with cruder instruments,
    such as slide rules, without the benefit
    of precise computer technology, said UC
    Berkeley's Astaneh-Asl. As a result,
    they also would have been unable to
    pinpoint high-stress areas, he said.

    The methods used to calculate strengths of structural
    elements is irrelevant. Electronic computers make
    people think they can cut costs closer by making every
    structural element exactly as strong as it needs to be,
    but no stronger. (See box girder bridges). Who thinks
    to pay to overbuild structures? The failure of this
    bridge is probably graft, and the grifters are
    untouchable.

    --
    Michael Press

    Contracts go to the lowest bidders - you get what you pay for and nothing
    more!

    Chas.

  10. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Quoted post said:
    Tim McNamara said:

    If you look at the image of the 35W bridge in Google Earth, you can
    see, at the north end of the bridge just over the edge of the river
    bank, an apparent crack running the entire width of the deck. It
    is clearly not a section joint because those are straight and at
    right angles to the roadway. The image is dated 2007 but note more
    specifically than that. Six months before the collapse? Three days
    before the collapse (probably not as there are no lane closures for
    construction). Not being an engineer I have no idea of the
    significance of this apparent crack. Could be none at all.

    A cycling buddy of mine works in the MNDoT bridge design
    department. I should ask him.

    You mean this:

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/34njmv (link to Google Maps)

    Yes, the upper line across the roadway in between the two dark sedans
    "following" the white double trailer semi which appears to actually be a
    different image. If you zoom in using Google Earth (you can zoom in
    further) the waviness of the line becomes more apparent.

    FWIW the neighboring bridge is not the "Cedar Avenue Bridge" as Google
    insists. It is the 10th Avenue bridge. Cedar Avenue is nearby.

    Quoted message said:

    The line across the bridge at the top must be an expansion joint. It
    looks just like the one at the bottom (that a white pickup is
    crossing). The one at the top looks crooked on the northbound side;
    this is either a design element or an artifact of photo stitching.

    Which is certainly a possibility.

    Quoted message said:

    The drains near it (short dark horizontal lines near the median of
    the roadway) also look crooked, which makes me think it's an
    artifact.

    I don't know much about bridges, but I don't think the roadway of a
    bridge is likely to crack all the way across without a noticeable
    vertical displacement, and people would notice a few-inch vertical
    shift driving over it.

    You would think. But bridges do noticeably bob up and down all the
    time, more noticeable when you are stopped on the bridge than driving.
    Most of us have felt that kind of thing. Local reports indicate that
    people have been hearing "stress noises" from the bridge when driving
    across it slowly with the windows down, but again that is apparently not
    unusual. I've never heard it. I've only driven across that bridge a
    handful of times in the past 20 years- it just didn't connect anywhere I
    go to anywhere else I go.

    Quoted message said:

    The trucks that somebody else mentioned on the bridge were the gravel
    trucks carrying material for the resurfacing. They were probably
    stationary at the time of the collapse. Their weight may have been
    the straw that broke the bridge's back, but the likely _cause_ was
    some sort of material failure combined with a design that had no
    redundancy. (IOW, it probably would have failed eventually even w/o
    the gravel trucks.) At this point, we're just speculating.

    Yeah, we are. And speculating based on almost no information and an
    inadequate understanding of the principles involved. I understand how a
    simple truss works, but this isn't a simple truss and I don't understand
    the failure modes. So the likelihood of an accurate conclusion can be
    no better than chance.

  11. In article <[email hidden]>,

    * * Chas said:


    "Marcus Coles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]!nnrp1.uunet.ca...

    Quoted message said:

    Looks like a whole lot of speculation to me rather than "why the
    bridge collapsed". I think it is pretty hard to build a large steel
    structure without


    welds.

    Quoted message said:

    Rivets are old but well proven technology.

    My guess: The problem is the use of de-icing salts and the longterm
    corrosive effects on the relatively unprotected steel, beams,
    gusset plates, connections, anchorages, reinforcements or whatever.

    Rust never sleeps.

    Marcus Coles Not an engineer nor do I play one on TV.

    That's what I was going to comment on too. Most of the northern
    states use or used massive quantities of rock salt for de-icing their
    roads.

    The 35W bridge was particularly prone to black ice formation in the
    winter, so it was fitted with de-icing fluid "sprinklers" a few years
    back. The bridge was just downstream from the "Niagara of the North,"
    St. Anthony Falls which contributed to black ice formation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Anthony_Falls

  12. -snip trusses-

    Quoted message said:

    "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote:


    At this point, we're just speculating.

    Quoted message said:

    Yeah, we are. And speculating based on almost no information and an
    inadequate understanding of the principles involved. I understand how a
    simple truss works, but this isn't a simple truss and I don't understand
    the failure modes. So the likelihood of an accurate conclusion can be
    no better than chance.

    That's refreshingly mature statement.
    --
    Andrew Muzi
    www.yellowjersey.org
    Open every day since 1 April, 1971

  13. In article <[email hidden]>,

    A Muzi said:

    -snip trusses-

    Quoted message said:

    "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote:


    At this point, we're just speculating.

    Quoted message said:

    Yeah, we are. And speculating based on almost no information and
    an inadequate understanding of the principles involved. I
    understand how a simple truss works, but this isn't a simple truss
    and I don't understand the failure modes. So the likelihood of an
    accurate conclusion can be no better than chance.

    That's refreshingly mature statement.

    I'm famous for my refreshing maturity. Just ask around. ;-)

  14. Tim McNamara said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    A Muzi said:

    -snip trusses-

    Quoted message said:

    "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote:


    At this point, we're just speculating.

    Quoted message said:

    Yeah, we are. And speculating based on almost no information and
    an inadequate understanding of the principles involved. I
    understand how a simple truss works, but this isn't a simple truss
    and I don't understand the failure modes. So the likelihood of an
    accurate conclusion can be no better than chance.


    That's refreshingly mature statement.

    I'm famous for my refreshing maturity. Just ask around. ;-)

    There are the ringing endorsements of Tim McNamara from jim beam. 😉
    --
    Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
    The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  15. Tim McNamara said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    A Muzi said:

    -snip trusses-

    Quoted message said:

    "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote:


    At this point, we're just speculating.

    Quoted message said:

    Yeah, we are. And speculating based on almost no information and
    an inadequate understanding of the principles involved. I
    understand how a simple truss works, but this isn't a simple truss
    and I don't understand the failure modes. So the likelihood of an
    accurate conclusion can be no better than chance.


    That's refreshingly mature statement.

    I'm famous for my refreshing maturity. Just ask around. ;-)

    Built in '67?

    The bridge collapsed because the steelworkers were too busy cussin' out
    hippies to pay attention to their work.

    No...wait a minute....the bridge collapsed because another one didn't

    I'm famous for my refreshing immaturity

    L.

  16. Leonardo said:
    Tim McNamara said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    A Muzi <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    -snip trusses-

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote:
    At this point, we're just speculating.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Yeah, we are. And speculating based on almost no information and
    > an inadequate understanding of the principles involved. I
    > understand how a simple truss works, but this isn't a simple truss
    > and I don't understand the failure modes. So the likelihood of an
    > accurate conclusion can be no better than chance.
    That's refreshingly mature statement.

    Quoted message said:

    I'm famous for my refreshing maturity. Just ask around. ;-)

    Built in '67?

    The bridge collapsed because the steelworkers were too busy cussin' out
    hippies to pay attention to their work.

    No...wait a minute....the bridge collapsed because another one didn't

    I'm famous for my refreshing immaturity

    L.- Hide quoted text -

    - Show quoted text -

    salt?

  17. "Leonardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Tim McNamara said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    A Muzi said:

    -snip trusses-

    > "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote:
    At this point, we're just speculating.

    > Yeah, we are. And speculating based on almost no information and
    > an inadequate understanding of the principles involved. I
    > understand how a simple truss works, but this isn't a simple truss
    > and I don't understand the failure modes. So the likelihood of an
    > accurate conclusion can be no better than chance.
    That's refreshingly mature statement.

    I'm famous for my refreshing maturity. Just ask around. ;-)

    Built in '67?

    The bridge collapsed because the steelworkers were too busy cussin' out
    hippies to pay attention to their work.

    No...wait a minute....the bridge collapsed because another one didn't

    I'm famous for my refreshing immaturity

    L.

    And grabbing their crotches while making catcalls to women passing by....

    "Get a haircut"!

    Chas.

  18. In article <[email hidden]>,
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    That's one part of the problem. The other is at least 17 years of
    looking at problems but deferring doing anything about them. Some
    seemingly huge problems were pointed out numerous times in increasingly
    urgent language, including stress fractures, tilting of one of the
    support pylons, etc. The more information becomes available, the more
    it seems that this bridge should have been closed years ago and replaced.

    And this bridge is far from alone. It received an acceptable Federal
    rating, 50%. That's low enough to suggest repairs and monitoring, but
    not enough to force closure until repairs are completed.

    The Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle, which carries commuter and freight
    traffic through the heart of Seattle, is rated at under 20%. The city
    and state can't agree on much of anything, so they've been making
    piecemeal upgrades while carefully measuring the viaduct as it continues
    to sink into unstable ground.

    The Murray Morgan Bridge in Tacoma receives a horrifying *TWO PERCENT*
    structural integrity rating, but it is still open to traffic.

    Building new bridges is politically sexy. Maintaining existing ones is
    expensive, clogs traffic, and doesn't generate much political credit.

    --
    [email hidden] is Joshua Putnam
    <http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
    Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
    <http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html>

  19. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    That's one part of the problem. The other is at least 17 years of
    looking at problems but deferring doing anything about them. Some
    seemingly huge problems were pointed out numerous times in


    increasingly

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    urgent language, including stress fractures, tilting of one of the
    support pylons, etc. The more information becomes available, the more
    it seems that this bridge should have been closed years ago and


    replaced.

    Quoted message said:


    And this bridge is far from alone. It received an acceptable Federal
    rating, 50%. That's low enough to suggest repairs and monitoring, but
    not enough to force closure until repairs are completed.

    The Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle, which carries commuter and freight
    traffic through the heart of Seattle, is rated at under 20%. The city
    and state can't agree on much of anything, so they've been making
    piecemeal upgrades while carefully measuring the viaduct as it continues
    to sink into unstable ground.

    The Murray Morgan Bridge in Tacoma receives a horrifying *TWO PERCENT*
    structural integrity rating, but it is still open to traffic.

    Building new bridges is politically sexy. Maintaining existing ones is
    expensive, clogs traffic, and doesn't generate much political credit.

    --
    [email hidden] is Joshua Putnam

    Remember Galloping Gerty?

    Chas.

  20. Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    -snip trusses-

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote:


    At this point, we're just speculating.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Tim McNamara said:

    Yeah, we are. And speculating based on almost no information and
    an inadequate understanding of the principles involved. I
    understand how a simple truss works, but this isn't a simple truss
    and I don't understand the failure modes. So the likelihood of an
    accurate conclusion can be no better than chance.

    Quoted message said:
    A Muzi said:

    That's refreshingly mature statement.

    Tim McNamara said:

    I'm famous for my refreshing maturity. Just ask around. ;-)

    Well, that wasn't to say you aren't generally mature, just that anyone
    admitting a lack of expertise about _anything_ on r.b.t. is rare.
    --
    Andrew Muzi
    www.yellowjersey.org
    Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.