Posted on 08/01/2007 4:28:27 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo
Just turned on the news. 35W bridge collapsed in the Mississippi River. Cars, trucks, semis.....
Fires burning, tanker trucks, at least one school bus, more than ten cars......
Just now breaking.......
You mean near the smashed train cars? Has freight train derailment been ruled out, or considered?
Both of your analyses are good.
Salt on decks corrodes rebar in the deck. Drainage systems on bridge decks divert all storm water away from the structural elements. (but it does look like an upper chord failure, at a support bent. The weakest point on a cantilever is over the support bents)
“I heard him, too... I AM concerned about bridges just falling in the water - if it is NOT terrorism (and the fact that the Dept of Homeland Security so quickly said it wasn’t is a little suspect to me.”
I recall the DHS warning us of this very thing. Now when it occurs, they are the first to say it wasn’t.
I had heard that part of the construction project involved a deicing system for the bridge surface.
Not that the words "there are no indications of" have a different meaning than "ruled out."
Spare us the Clintonic parsing.
They made a statement -- artfully crafted, I will concede -- aimed at conveying a particular sentiment.
I chose to address the message they worked to convey, you opted to fall back on "the exact wording" (if I might be so brazen as to invoke The Words of Clinton, when caught up by his own petard).
That they left themselves an "out", should circumstances leave them no opportunity to "stay on message" -- an "out" allowing them to Clintonize with something along the lines of, "I think that if you'll go back and check my precise wordking, you'll find that..." -- I don't find that particularly admirable, nor do I think it in any real way negates the message they worked to convey with their present phrasing.
The "art" of saying one thing while making it sound like something else is being said, has become increasingly acceptable since the Clinton era. That is, at least in some quarters.
Straight Vermonter wrote:
The problem began on the right side of that picture.
I agree. Based on some of the other pictures I have seen I would speculate that the problem started not
over the pier closest to the water but over the much smaller pier set farther back from the water.
I can’t say one way or another. The main span seems to have sheared on both ends and dropped straight down, but a side span problem may have initiated the failure.
Whatever started it, structurally, there’s nothing left of that pier or the steelwork. Excessive live load and/or failure transferred dead load, all of it point loaded on that pier, is going to have to be at least contributory.
Depending, of course, on what "is" is...
Roger that. Lets just hold our breath and pray that the problem is because of something akin to what you mention.
Thank you to a special freepmailer for pointing to this article:
http://img.iht.com/images/2007/08/02/02bridge550.jpg
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/02/america/02cndbridge.php
“Bridge collapse in Minneapolis kills at least 6”
By Libby Sander and Susan Saulny
Published: August 1, 2007
ARTICLE SNIPPET: “According to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the eight lanes of I-35W crossing the river were supposed to be restricted to a much reduced flow beginning on Tuesday night for the northbound lanes and at 8 p.m. Wednesday for the southbound lanes, about two hours after the collapse. The reason stated on the agency’s Web site was “overlay work,” which refers to roadway resurfacing.
A 2001 evaluation of the bridge, prepared for the state transportation department by the University of Minnesota Civil Engineering Department, reported that there were preliminary signs of fatigue on the steel truss section under the roadway, but no cracking. It said there was no need for the transportation department to replace the bridge because of fatigue cracking.”
Thak you for your critique of my theory.
One lane was closed.
Has the bridge ever had bumper to bumper traffic? Yes.
Has it had it when one lane has had the concrete ground away and new concrete is being poured by numerous concrete trucks, concentrating heavier than normal loads on it? Not that I know of.
There were concrete trucks, one of them was halfway in the river at a key point of the collapse.
Sorry the news folks aren’t showing this to you right now, probably because it’s DARK right now.
The ‘concrete structure portion’ landed on top of the train. Ya think maybe it could have failed ???? Shifted???? Added to the combined factors to produce this disaster.
As for center piers, look at the bridge next to it, and look at pictures of this one before the collapse.
SEE ANY PIER IN MIDSTREAM????
I anxiously await your informed response.
Thanks...it is good news. And I give my regards to all others who are affected by this, regardless of whether it involves friend, relative or even an acquaintance.
It’s so easy to be indifferent to an event that may happen in a different locality - unfortunately, we all at one point or another think that something like this will never happen (”Not in my back yard!”). But when something does happen, one takes stock of their attitude and begins to appreciate the frailty of our existence.
(OK, I’m done being philosophical now!)
What? You would question your Leaders?
Homeland Security already declared this to be a non -terrorist event. Two hours after the collapse. With not one little bit of inspection or investigation. They are all psychics over there at HS...or all psychos.
The shame, the shame!
Looks like the north end of the bridge was just responding to the collapse, from what I read. Pics of the south side show lots of twisted metal, and it seems the bridge deck is slanted sideways. Does this mesh with your theory?
Thanks for all your great work tonight, Cindy.....
The water there is between 30-40ft deep there.
OK, case closed.
Methinks it was a 40 year old (relatively new) UNION built bridge.
We've got all the bases covered now.
One band declares that it's the bridge, because it's an old bridge, and the other declares that it's the bridge because it's a new bridge.
The one consistent theme is that it is "the bridge", and thus, it cannot be terrorism-related.
Ain't logic grand?
Oh bull.. It's you trying to parse it into something it isn't... "No indications of" means exactly what it means. That there are no indications yet. I think it's you, not they, who are trying to convey something that is not in evidence.
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.
