Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pre-collapse photos show bends on bridge ( Minnesota )
The Associated Press...Star Tribune ^ | Mar 23, 2008

Posted on 03/23/2008 7:36:56 PM PDT by george76

Old photos of the Interstate 35W bridge show two steel connecting plates were visibly bent as early as 2003 — four years before the span collapsed into the Mississippi River, killing 13 people.

Minnesota Department of Transportation officials declined to say when the state first knew about the bending in the pieces of steel, called gusset plates.

Two photos, part of a report issued earlier this month by the National Transportation Safety Board, reveal slight bends in gusset plates that hold beams together at two separate connecting points. The plates are in areas believed to be among the first points of failure when the span collapsed.

The NTSB's Office of Highway Safety confirmed that the bowing is part of the investigation into why the bridge collapsed Aug. 1, NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker didn't comment on the photos, but has said the original design for the bridge specified steel for those and other gusset plates that was too thin.

NTSB spokesman Terry Williams told the Star Tribune the bowing is among "the many things that we are looking at as part of this investigation."

The newspaper said inspection records make no mention of repairs to the bending gusset plates.

Since the bridge's construction during the 1960s, the state highway department had increased weight on the bridge by adding a layer of concrete to the deck in 1977 and by installing concrete barriers in 1998. And the NTSB said last week that, at the time of the collapse, more than 191 tons of construction material had been piled over the bridge's weakest areas.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; US: Minnesota
KEYWORDS: 35w; bridge; bridgecollapse; collapse; minneapolis; ntsb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last
To: sgtyork

“Can’t wait till theymanage our healthcare.”

— — —

That will collapse for the same reasons as the bridge: Poor initial construction and eventual overload.


41 posted on 03/23/2008 9:17:24 PM PDT by HighWheeler (The higher the concentration of libs, the bigger the tragedy that follows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: george76

Cripe, and I used to be scared walking over the old Washington Avenue bridge, back in the ‘40’s. I just knew it was going to come down.


42 posted on 03/23/2008 9:27:00 PM PDT by norge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Incorrigible

Incorrect. The article said “more than 191 tons of construction material had been piled over the bridge’s weakest areas.”

It did NOT say the “weakest point of the bridge.” Big difference between the weakest point (singular) and the weakest areas (multiple unstated locations).


43 posted on 03/23/2008 10:37:34 PM PDT by JSteff ( This election is about the 4 or 5 Supreme Court Justices who will retire . Vote Accordingly!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: george76

That amount of bend did NOT “cause” the failure (speaking as a registered professional structural engineer). It was not even a very good warning.

They say that the original design was flawed (gussetts half the thickness of what they should have been). If so, why did the MNDot approve to add additional lanes a few years ago. Did they not check the calculations when they approved that?

If the original design was flawed, why did MNDot allow it to continue in service when half of the thickness of some of the gussetts were rust (presumably they were then only 1/4 the thickness they needed to be at that time). Didn’t they check the calculations?

If the original design was flawed, why did MNDot decide to redeck the bridge, which implies that they expected the bridge to last another 15 years before replaceement. Didn’t they check the calculations?

The people who made the later decisions were more responsible for the collapse than the people who did the original designs. The later people approved heavier loads and a longer life than they should have. It if VERY obvious that the later people DID NOT CHECK THE CALCULATIONS before they made their desisions.


44 posted on 03/24/2008 6:42:31 AM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

They don’t look too bent, to me.


45 posted on 03/24/2008 8:27:25 AM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Incorrigible

Now, that could do it....


46 posted on 03/24/2008 8:28:30 AM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: janetjanet998

Actually, I heard it reported that the plates were 1/2 as thick as they should have been for the bridge “as it was” when it was first constructed. So it was compromised from Day 1.


47 posted on 03/24/2008 8:55:32 AM PDT by Abigail Adams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: expatpat

It was years ago, so they had plenty of chance to bend more, and in any case, “not looking too bent” doesn’t mean the plates weren’t severly overstressed. They might have not supposed to bend at all, in which case any bend at all would have been way too much.


48 posted on 03/24/2008 8:57:39 AM PDT by coloradan (The US is becoming a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

Oh, I don’t disagree. The point I was making is that the bending is a lot less than the headline suggested.


49 posted on 03/24/2008 9:30:28 AM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: expatpat

“The point I was making is that the bending is a lot less than the headline suggested.”

When steel takes on a permanent bend under load, which is not in the original design as as illustrated in the posted photo, it is telling the observant something. Unfortunately, there were no observant, or they were ignored, over ruled, ad nauseam.


50 posted on 03/24/2008 10:05:13 AM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: george76
Meanwhile...

St. Cloud rerouting traffic after bridge closed

Inspectors found bowing gusset plates.

51 posted on 03/24/2008 10:13:01 AM PDT by mewzilla (In politics the middle way is none at all. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76
"The two photos are believed to have been taken by URS Inc., a San Francisco consulting firm the state hired to examine the bridge from 2003 to 2007. "URS and the state have both got a lot of explaining to do as far as why (the bending) was not observed, and if it was observed, why that was not immediately investigated," James Schwebel, an attorney representing a group of victims, told the AP on Sunday. "How could it possibly have been missed?"

In the photo, something is taped to the beams in serveral locations, could they be stress/load sensors of some sort?

1.
52 posted on 03/24/2008 10:38:56 AM PDT by jaydubya2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

I wish you hadn’t posted that pic. Now the tin-foil hatters are going to start screaming that the bridge was collapsed by explosives triggered by Karl Rove.


53 posted on 03/24/2008 10:43:12 AM PDT by CholeraJoe ("That others may live.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe

you’re right, their probably C4 charges!


54 posted on 03/24/2008 10:44:42 AM PDT by jaydubya2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: george76

It looks like the gussets in the photo are on the topside of the truss. The ones that failed were on the bottom side of the truss. This had nothing to do with the failure.

These had to be in compression to have a slight bend like that. Fatigue breaks don’t happen in compression. They happen in tension. Of course, gussets in tension would not bend like that.

This means absolutely nothing.


55 posted on 03/25/2008 5:20:18 AM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: river rat

good analysis
I agree
almost looks like the construction union got paid by the rivet


56 posted on 03/25/2008 5:28:35 AM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe

Or maybe Ben Mitchell.


57 posted on 03/25/2008 9:12:37 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson