Minneapolis bridge collapse report

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the preliminary report on the Minneapolis bridge collapse, examining potential design flaws, the adequacy of the bridge's original design, and the implications of modifications and maintenance over time. Participants explore the technical aspects of the gusset plates and the role of corrosion in the incident.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the gusset plates that failed were reportedly only half the thickness of the rest, raising questions about whether this was a design error or an issue with the installation of incorrect plates.
  • Others argue that labeling the situation as a design flaw is questionable given that the bridge functioned effectively for 40 years, suggesting it may be more accurate to consider it a failure to operate within design limitations.
  • One participant mentions the NTSB's recommendation for thorough checks on bridge designs when modifications occur, speculating whether such changes might have contributed to the collapse, despite this not being explicitly stated in the report.
  • Concerns are raised about the absence of evidence linking corrosion to the collapse, contrasting initial speculations and previous condition reports that suggested it might have been a factor.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the bridge's failure should be classified as a design flaw or a failure to adhere to design limitations. There is also disagreement regarding the role of corrosion in the collapse, with some participants questioning the report's conclusions.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the available evidence, including the inability to locate original calculations that would support claims about gusset plate sizes, as well as the lack of clarity on the impact of modifications and maintenance practices on the bridge's integrity.

mgb_phys
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
7,906
Reaction score
15
The preliminary report is out on the bridge in Minneapolis that collapsed last year,
The BBC claims they found that some of the gusset plates that failed were only half the thickness of the rest and are calling it a design error.
Although they cannot find the original design so it's not clear if the thin plates were wrongly designed or the wrong plates were fitted.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
You can read the full report here:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/i35wbridge/pdfs/ntsb_design_adequacy_report.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still wonder if it is a proper conclusion to call it a design flaw when the design stood the test of time. If anything I think it should still be called a failure to use the bridge within the design limitations.

I look forward to reading this report. Thanks for posting it.
 
I thought it was a bit unfair to call it a design fault if the bridge had worked perfectly for 40 years. Yes it was under-designed (or underbuilt) but it did quite well upto then.
 
In a separate letter, the NTSB recommended that bridge and structure designs be checked thoroughly when modifications are made to the structure, or if traffic operations change. Because of that, I'm wondering if they suspect this was the case on the I-35W, even though it wasn't mentioned in the report. But that's just pure speculation on my part.

The calculations don't support the gusset plate sizes, so what do you call it besides a design error? They were able to retrieve plans, and these showed the incorrect thicknesses, but they were unable to find the original calcs to back this up.

NTSB safety recommendation: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/i35wbridge/pdfs/ntsb_safety_recommendation.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was thinking the same thing, Fred, & mgb. I was also surprised that they said corrosion played no role at all, after all the initial speculation and the previous condition report on the bridge.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
12K
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K