- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Expect that ratio to go up.
Let your kids and grandkids pay for it -- one way or the other.
I-35 Bridge Collapse
- Thread starter ToyotaNSaturn
- Start date
- Status
Expect that ratio to go up.
Let your kids and grandkids pay for it -- one way or the other.
O/K. ..so it goes up to .75 deaths per year. Wouldn't it be more cost effective to look at the 40,000 vehicle deaths per year? Scheesch.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
As a cynic, why not just look at the 100% mortality rate of humans and call it a day?
"As a cynic, why not just look at the 100% mortality rate of humans and call it a day? "
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's right, we're all temporary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's right, we're all temporary.
It looks like we do the same with bridges that we do with stop lights. People complaign about not having a stop light and nothing is done in the way of planning to put one in until the body count goes up and then some politican steps forward and demands something be done, we can't put a price on safety. Now that this bridge has failed it will move up on the list of things to do. Politicans can now step forward and demand that something be done. He/she does not have to fear negative press that might hurt a re-election campaign. We now have proof that the I-35 bridge needs to be repaired because, sad to say, there is a body count. My granddaughter and I said a prayer for those poor souls that went into the river. They will never know that we could not afford to save them. They were only citizens.
Agree. But putting money into something that is already built and "may" fail is not something a politician want to get behind. And putting money into bridges/infrastructure does not buy votes the way "more important" social programs do.
No excuses for this...typical government ineptitude. If a private company owned this, heads would roll and there would be screams for more government regulation/oversight!
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I'll take random chance statistics over assured outcomes even if they're lower.
You can drive non-stop without thinking about some statistic of probability that you'll be involved in an accident where a fatality is going to occur.
You cannot enter a bridge or a building, without anxiety, knowing that the only thing that will be done in assuring its safety is that it will be redesigned/repaired/replaced AFTER someone (maybe you) are one of the many killed in its failure.
Airlines would do well to fly every airliner until the point of failure in the air. Statistically they'll still (probably) be the safest form of travel in the way that air travel give the perception of some safety advantage (on a death/M-miles basis).
You can drive non-stop without thinking about some statistic of probability that you'll be involved in an accident where a fatality is going to occur.
You cannot enter a bridge or a building, without anxiety, knowing that the only thing that will be done in assuring its safety is that it will be redesigned/repaired/replaced AFTER someone (maybe you) are one of the many killed in its failure.
Airlines would do well to fly every airliner until the point of failure in the air. Statistically they'll still (probably) be the safest form of travel in the way that air travel give the perception of some safety advantage (on a death/M-miles basis).
Statistics have a different meaning depending on whether they describe a negative effect on someone else, or a negative effect on YOU.
A .5 bridge deaths/yr statistic is a 100% catastrophic failure if it is your death which is being described.
A .5 bridge deaths/yr statistic is a 100% catastrophic failure if it is your death which is being described.
Here you can see how man deficient bridges your state has and Which bridges they are. I drive over 4 Obsolete bridges everyday apparenetly. Including one with a 400FT Drop off. Yea!! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20093413/?GT1=10252
Great link! That shining gem to government competence and utopia that is D.C.
, has a GREATER than %55 bridge problem rate. Why am I not surprised??
I would not be surprised if this bridge was welded construction. I think there were a lot of bridges about this time that were welded construction and with no backup features in case of a failure.
I remember several years ago when I was working for a steel fabrication firm. We could not find good welders (and this was several years ago).Several graduates of a local technology college that had welding certificates were tested and they failed the welding test without exception. We had to search for experienced welders.
And back in the 1960s they did not realize how large the semi-trucks were going to get. The big tractor trailer trucks cause a lot of damage to the roads. The road system was not really designed for the massive cargos. The railroads and of course ships were designed for heavy cargos.
I remember several years ago when I was working for a steel fabrication firm. We could not find good welders (and this was several years ago).Several graduates of a local technology college that had welding certificates were tested and they failed the welding test without exception. We had to search for experienced welders.
And back in the 1960s they did not realize how large the semi-trucks were going to get. The big tractor trailer trucks cause a lot of damage to the roads. The road system was not really designed for the massive cargos. The railroads and of course ships were designed for heavy cargos.
Mystic,
about a decade ago we were recycling on old bridge (1960s) into a new bridge after some civil works.
The welder was good, but couldn't pass NDT on these beams.
So we NDTed the beams themselves, and found them to be a barely functional collection of laminations that never would have left a steel mill these days.
Wonder how many similar beams are scattered across the country.
about a decade ago we were recycling on old bridge (1960s) into a new bridge after some civil works.
The welder was good, but couldn't pass NDT on these beams.
So we NDTed the beams themselves, and found them to be a barely functional collection of laminations that never would have left a steel mill these days.
Wonder how many similar beams are scattered across the country.
Ahh.. Liberalism at its finest.
O.K. for 99.999% safe bridges we pay maybe 3.5 Trillion over 10 years. With borrowed money (by the government) that comes out to about $15,000 per person over that time. $60,000/per family of 4. I assume you are willing to pay that to save 5 people over 10 years. Didn't think so.
But if for that money you personally could save thousands of people in Africa or maybe provide some mamagrams to poor folks in the U.S. and save lots more than .5 lives/year.
BTW the Department Head of for Advanced Technology of Large Steel Structures (Lehigh Engineering School) said that MinDot followed the rules for bridge inspection, considering its elevated inspection need (35W bridge). Yet it fell down. Things fail/break..fact of life-money isn't always the final answer.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I'll agree with much of that, Al ..but just put a big sign on the bridges stating "cross at your own risk! We're unable to determine the safety limits of this bridge due to incompetence" Simple enough for me.
Can we assume from this that you support some penalty being levied against/upon the bridge for not following the "rules" as MinDOT and the Department Head of for Advanced Technology of Large Steel Structures saw fit??
Poll:
Who was wrong in the collapse of the bridge?
A: Those who set up the criteria for the bridge inspections and safety analysis.
B: The bridge.
When a nuke eventually fails due to being in service too long under constant neutron bombardment and the subsequent vessel embrittlement, who is to blame?
A: The people who took it too long in service.
B: The nuke
I just can't see it, Al.
Can we assume from this that you support some penalty being levied against/upon the bridge for not following the "rules" as MinDOT and the Department Head of for Advanced Technology of Large Steel Structures saw fit??
Poll:
Who was wrong in the collapse of the bridge?
A: Those who set up the criteria for the bridge inspections and safety analysis.
B: The bridge.
When a nuke eventually fails due to being in service too long under constant neutron bombardment and the subsequent vessel embrittlement, who is to blame?
A: The people who took it too long in service.
B: The nuke
I just can't see it, Al.
"Rated 'structurally deficient' in 2006. 70,000 bridges in the U.S rated 'structurally deficient'. Somebody not doing their job"
Kind of siding with Al here ..... we, the people, have known for at a couple of decades now that lots of bridges present a risk. Have we, the people, demanded that something be done about it ? Or like we, the people, usually do, will we wait until something bites us in the you know where, or worse, before demanding some improvement ?
Improving infrastructure isn't something that a lot of people are willing to pay for, thius is obvious right, or we wouldn't have the problem that we do. Instead we want more infrastructure that we don't want to maintain.
Kind of siding with Al here ..... we, the people, have known for at a couple of decades now that lots of bridges present a risk. Have we, the people, demanded that something be done about it ? Or like we, the people, usually do, will we wait until something bites us in the you know where, or worse, before demanding some improvement ?
Improving infrastructure isn't something that a lot of people are willing to pay for, thius is obvious right, or we wouldn't have the problem that we do. Instead we want more infrastructure that we don't want to maintain.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
No one wants to spend money (but some seem to spend it anyway). I tend to disagree with you here. I don't think that the average person has a clue about bridge condition ..and even if they do ..they depend on whomever is in charge of bridge analysis to, in doing their job, protect the public from, IF NOTHING ELSE, loss of life. I assure you that if 100 people are polled they would never consider loss of life as an anticipated outcome of structurally deficient bridges. The WORST they would assume is loss of use from them being condemned and deemed unsafe for traffic.
Again, close them down or post a sign on them. Let the locals figure out how much money they're losing in lost productivity and added costs and see what they feel about it then.
I shouldn't have to do any research to figure out if it's a good idea to take a drive. Even if I did, being from PA, how would I know what bridges I'm going to cross at any given path that I choose going from one state to another?? Should they all be suspect?
I'm still not there yet. There are some things that you cannot afford NOT to do. This is one of them.
Again, close them down or post a sign on them. Let the locals figure out how much money they're losing in lost productivity and added costs and see what they feel about it then.
I shouldn't have to do any research to figure out if it's a good idea to take a drive. Even if I did, being from PA, how would I know what bridges I'm going to cross at any given path that I choose going from one state to another?? Should they all be suspect?
I'm still not there yet. There are some things that you cannot afford NOT to do. This is one of them.
Kestas
Staff member
As mentioned before, I think a big part of the problem is the lack of "glamour" for a politician to support rebuilding our infrastructure. This includes not only bridges, but our water and sewer systems.
Here in Detroit I've watched politicians waste good money on useless programs, just so they have a "legacy" where they can hoist their ego. The Renaissance Center was supposed to herald a new beginning for the city in 1975(never happened). Tiger Stadium was replaced with Comerica Park (there was nothing wrong with Tiger Stadium, capacity or otherwise).
In a way, I'd like to see another big bridge collapse within the next week (except for the people it could involve). This would really get the public's attention and provide the momentum to bring these infrastructure problems to the forefront, and prod the politicians into rearranging their priorities.
1sttruck, to your point, politicians in Michigan have already decided to stop building new roads (mainly freeways) until we are able to maintain what we already have in place.
Unfortunately, (I imagine) it's easier to build a new bridge than it is to rebuild an existing bridge that first needs to be torn up.
Here in Detroit I've watched politicians waste good money on useless programs, just so they have a "legacy" where they can hoist their ego. The Renaissance Center was supposed to herald a new beginning for the city in 1975(never happened). Tiger Stadium was replaced with Comerica Park (there was nothing wrong with Tiger Stadium, capacity or otherwise).
In a way, I'd like to see another big bridge collapse within the next week (except for the people it could involve). This would really get the public's attention and provide the momentum to bring these infrastructure problems to the forefront, and prod the politicians into rearranging their priorities.
1sttruck, to your point, politicians in Michigan have already decided to stop building new roads (mainly freeways) until we are able to maintain what we already have in place.
Unfortunately, (I imagine) it's easier to build a new bridge than it is to rebuild an existing bridge that first needs to be torn up.
I can agree with you there also Shannow. When I worked at the steel fabrication company we had giant W beams come in that were bent, crushed along sides, etc. I was stunned that such junk was allowed to leave the manufacturing plant. We had to fix a lot of big beams ourselves. A bear of a job.
Back in the old days they used all kinds of massive bolts and nuts and not a lot of welding. Now, there is nothing wrong with welding-if it is done properly. Welding results in a lighter, cheaper construction. But with the massive cargo trucks (often overloaded) on the roads today it would not hurt to have a lot of bolts and nuts used in the construction of these bridges. And the workers are more likely going to be able to properly install bolts and nuts than good welds. And nuts and bolts can be checked more easily. And like you say, there can be cases of poor quality steel.
And people often move away from the good stuff. The Roman Arch works. Why not continue to use it? In this bridge they used steel trusses. And if anything went seriously wrong there was no backup system. No cables, etc.
There are some 700 bridges like this one in the USA. You can bet that if there was a really good study done a lot of substandard material and workmanship would be found. Somebody is always trying to cut costs and increase profits. Looks to me like this entire bridge design was a cost cutting concept. It sure is not the Golden Gate Bridge.
Back in the old days they used all kinds of massive bolts and nuts and not a lot of welding. Now, there is nothing wrong with welding-if it is done properly. Welding results in a lighter, cheaper construction. But with the massive cargo trucks (often overloaded) on the roads today it would not hurt to have a lot of bolts and nuts used in the construction of these bridges. And the workers are more likely going to be able to properly install bolts and nuts than good welds. And nuts and bolts can be checked more easily. And like you say, there can be cases of poor quality steel.
And people often move away from the good stuff. The Roman Arch works. Why not continue to use it? In this bridge they used steel trusses. And if anything went seriously wrong there was no backup system. No cables, etc.
There are some 700 bridges like this one in the USA. You can bet that if there was a really good study done a lot of substandard material and workmanship would be found. Somebody is always trying to cut costs and increase profits. Looks to me like this entire bridge design was a cost cutting concept. It sure is not the Golden Gate Bridge.
Mystic,
the design does lead to "columns in compression" (under the deck, and including the deck itself), which I try to avoid like the plague in my designs.
As you say, a rigid joint like a weld does not redistribute stresses as well as a theoretical pin joint, or even a bolted joint, plus residual stresses from fabrication are unknown.
http://www.designnews.com/contents/pdf/UMnFatigueEval.pdf
A 2001 report on the fatigue life/loadings of the bridge. Reports that although the fatigue loadings are close to the theoretical limits, they are not a problem at the reported 15,000 vehicle movements each direction (10% trucks).
I thought the number was 140-150,000 vehicle movements.
If that's the case, the assumptions regarding fatigue life are out wildly.
Heads should roll.
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6465487.html?industryid=43654
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6465051.html?industryid=43654
edit: the 2001 report states
The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is given as 15,000, in each direction with 10 percent trucks
then later that it assumed 15,000 trucks each direction per day.
Wonder which figure they used.
the design does lead to "columns in compression" (under the deck, and including the deck itself), which I try to avoid like the plague in my designs.
As you say, a rigid joint like a weld does not redistribute stresses as well as a theoretical pin joint, or even a bolted joint, plus residual stresses from fabrication are unknown.
http://www.designnews.com/contents/pdf/UMnFatigueEval.pdf
A 2001 report on the fatigue life/loadings of the bridge. Reports that although the fatigue loadings are close to the theoretical limits, they are not a problem at the reported 15,000 vehicle movements each direction (10% trucks).
I thought the number was 140-150,000 vehicle movements.
If that's the case, the assumptions regarding fatigue life are out wildly.
Heads should roll.
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6465487.html?industryid=43654
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6465051.html?industryid=43654
edit: the 2001 report states
The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is given as 15,000, in each direction with 10 percent trucks
then later that it assumed 15,000 trucks each direction per day.
Wonder which figure they used.
Last edited:
Yes, but it was caused by a gasoline truck that crashed and exploded on the bridge. Wasn't the bridge's fault. They had the bridge repaired and operational again within a month or so.
- Status
Similar threads
