Slashdot Mirror
The Science of Bridge Collapse Prevention
toddatcw writes "In the wake of the Minneapolis Interstate 35W bridge collapse this week, Computerworld investigates ongoing research which could someday help to prevent future disasters. Acoustic emissions detection systems, which listen for the sounds of metal snapping on structures, are already sold and fitted. Likewise, a new generation of detector systems that monitor for tilting of bridge columns and piers are being designed, prototyped, and researched. 'Sound waves move more efficiently through solid objects than through air, making any sounds easier to listen out for, Tamutus said. "It's not amazing. It's simple. Doctors use stethoscopes all the time. If you put your ear on a train track, you can hear a train approaching from far away... The Sensor Highway II systems, which are portable and can be moved from bridge to bridge as needed, usually cost between $20,000 to several hundred thousand dollars each. Typically, evaluations take between one day and a week.'"
It was known well before the collapse that the bridge was in need of repairs. It seems that no public employee, elected or not, understands that prevention is better than reaction. New techniques to detect a heightened probability of failure are useful only if someone acts on the information once it is available.
The Schwartz space ain't from Spaceballs.
Step 1: Stop nation building OTHER COUNTRIES
Step 2: Start nation bulding OUR COUNTRY
Step 3: No step 3. It doesn't have to be so complicated.
This smacks of criminal negligence - complete catastrophic failure in 4 seconds could not have been an undetectable condition.
You have way to much confidence in science and technology. I think it's certainly possible that the inspections done didn't detect the problem with the bridge. Science isn't perfect, and there's always assumptions and things no one knows.
AccountKiller
Are sure that was written by an engineer?
He says look at the WTC, it collapsed because of the lack of redundancy.
What?
Seriously, the building was hit by 150,000 lb aircraft carrying 20,000 gallons of flammable liquid. It was obviously never designed to withstand that kind of structural complication.
However, for a minute lets say someone had enough foresight to add "resistance to impact from commercial aircraft" into the structural requirements. Why stop there? What about earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, tsunamis, or meteorites?
Where do you draw line? How much cost can you tolerate?
It is not engineering that is overly concerned with cost to benefit ratios, that responsibility falls on management and/or accounting. If engineering comes up with two designs for a bridge, where one is under budget and lacks redundancy and the other is over budget and but incorporates redundancy, it is management or the customer that must decide what is most important.
Now some people may say that engineering has an ethical responsibility to build the best product, which may be true. But how does one do that, by quitting their job every time that don't get their way? Or by building the better a better product with the lesser budget, that is working for free?
While I agree that modern engineering has a lot less design tolerance. I think this is thanks to a better understanding of physics as well as better tools. So it is now possible to safely design bridge with a poor failure mode because we 'better' understand what drives the failure (I am not saying that poor failure modes are better).
In this case I think the inspection process is more suspect than actual design. I think everyone would agree that the design had areas of concern. But no design is perfect and all bridges will eventually fail. That is why they are inspected on regular bases. How is it that this bridge was inspected in the last few year and no critical issues were found? Doesn't that mean that a better inspection process is needed?
disaster waiting to happen, just like the World Trade Center
A disaster? WTF do you have to do to be considered a success for this guy?
A fuel-laden commercial jet slams into a 110 story building (x2) and a little less than 3,000 people died.
The buildings could have collapsed immediately and killed, what, about 20,000 people? But both stood long enough (56 minutes and 102 minutes) to evacuate most of the occupants. Sounds like a pretty damn successful building design to me.
Taking into account all the factors that can cause a disaster is just about impossible. While it is possible to design something that is nearly disaster proof it can't be done with 100% confidence, because there are things that can occur that can be outside of the original design plan. Two simple examples are designing for a category 4 hurricane and then getting hit with a category 6 or designing for a richtor 5 earthquake and then getting hit with a richtor 7 earthquake.
All that can be done is to have a flexible disaster prevention (eg. periodic bridge checks which actually were done) and a rescue program in place which from what I read about was quite good although to some who lost friends and relatives maybe not good enough. I would leave that to the investigation committee to comment on this.
The problem with any disaster is it normally happens with little or no warning and sometimes so quickly people just cannot get out of the way. The question of "it could have been prevented" is rather mute after it has happened.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007