I completely agree.
This report is about like saying the bridge failed, because it fell down. It explains nothing, and it conceals much.
The gussets, as designed, held fast for decades. They held four extra lanes of additional traffic, after the expansion project. They held concentrated point loads of construction traffic, a hopper truck and apparantly a concrete applicator truck, just north of the failure point.
The gussets, as originally designed, were re-analyzed by the U of M study, and the original design criteria were used in comparison with the actual strain measurements gathered under that study, and the traffic loads DID NOT APPROACH DESIGN LIMITS.
Like you, I am appalled at the visual condition of that bridge, from end to end, as shown in the inspection report photos.
That bridge was neglected, for decades. serious problems were neglected, for decades. In spite of that, the bridge held four additional lanes of extra traffic, and held additional construction loads too. The I-35 bridge did not fail Minnesota. MnDOT and Minnesot politicians abdicated their responsibility, and failed the bridge, along with the people who died using it.
What we see here, in my opinion, is a perfect example of the wolf guarding the sheep. I smell a fix, I do not trust or believe this report’s conclusions, I believe it is an attempt to sweep the true failings under the rug, to avoid responsibility for professional and political neglect, and believe further, that many, and quite possibly, ALL OTHER BRIDGES IN MINNESOTA ARE SUSPECT.
Minnesota has a HUGE problem right now. The people paid to watch and take care of your bridges, are not.
Instead of fixing problems, they pretend there are no problems, even now, today, after the collapse.
Minnesotans, you need to speak up, and don’t stop until you get action.
Your lives are at risk.
Congratulations on your study of this collapse. I am a retired structural engineer and worked on a lot of those bridges in the forties and fifties. I’m too lazy to study your analysis of the failure, but it looks like you have nailed it. Thank you.
Yes, we agree on this. The report just released is a coverup. Its purpose is NOT to find the truth of the matter. Its purpose is to protect those who made recent bad decisions by blaming people from the distant past who are dead or retired.
I have read the engineering reports of a number of spectacular failures going back to the Kansas City hotel walkway collapse up through the Twin Towers collapse. In each case, the engineering was truthful and let the chips fall where they may. This is NOT the case here. I am disappointed with my profession. This is the kind of thing that politicians do, not engineers. I guess a PE in Minnesota does not mean much anymore.