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.
I'm a Twin Cities resident (local name for Minneapolis/St. Paul), and have taken this bridge hundreds of times, as well as biked along trails on the riverbanks below it. It was never an attractive bridge, but certainly showed no obvious signs of problems. I was shocked to learn that a good friend of mine was told by a structural engineer two weeks ago that he "always avoids driving on that bridge during rush hour" - apparently the engineer had already read/heard something that we're just finding out.
This smacks of criminal negligence - complete catastrophic failure in 4 seconds could not have been an undetectable condition.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo. -- James Klass
As the old phrase goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The technology's nice and all, but I'd saw the trick is getting people to look into this sort of thing, and take action, beforehand. I say this because in my area there was an old bridge that many people used regularly, however, it was a well known fact that it was deteriorating. The city, however, didn't want to spend the money to fix it, and it was years before anything was done (despite the fancy new road nobody wanted or needed that was built just minutes away). That bridge could have possibly collapsed, and everyone knew it. This new technology might make detection easier, but as long as the almighty buck is king, no amount of technology can compensate for human nature.
There's a lot of good info there, but here are the cliff notes:
A University of Minnesota Civil Engineer in a report to MN-DOT recently noted that this bridge is considered to be a non-redundant structure. That is, if any one member fails, the entire bridge can collapse. A key factor is that there are only four pylons holding up the arch. Any damage to any one pylon would be catastrophic. The textbook example of a non-redundant bridge is the Silver Bridge over the Ohio River. It failed shortly before Christmas in 1967 resulting in 46 deaths. A single piece of hardware failed due to a tiny manufacturing defect. But that piece was non-redundant, and the entire bridge collapsed into the icy river. Today, bridge engineers design bridges so that any single piece of the bridge can fail without causing the entire bridge to collapse. It is tragic that the I-35W bridge was built a few years too early to benefit from that lesson.
Usually "The Science of Bridge Collapse Prevention" is called "The Science of Bridge Construction"
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
It's a hard question, so I think I'll just ignore it, in light of the sad truth that a month from now, no one (who doesn't have a personal connection to the tragedy) will care. To hell with "doomed to repeat it."
The Schwartz space ain't from Spaceballs.
I have a method of Minnesota infrastructure maintenance that can assure sound bridges. My technique involves billing the Twins owner for the $392 million of government revenue (collected via a sale tax hike) being used to fund the new $522 million baseball stadium. My technique also involves continuing to dash the hopes of Minnesota football fans for a new government funded $0.5 billion football stadium. Instead, let the team owners rely on sports geek revenue to fund their stadiums, and misappropriate the tax revenue into infrastructure.
On the other hand, perhaps it isn't necessary to piss off all the Minnesota sports geeks (read: voters) and instead utilize the $2 billion dollar state surplus to deal with the states bridges. But alas, there are voters to buy with that money.
This is about the priorities of the citizens of a staggeringly wealthy nation being focused on everything but the infrastructure.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
In the worst case scenario, the bridge closes itself.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
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
I had the opportunity to take a course on U.S. Intelligence and National Security from a gentleman who had worked on the Senate Intelligence Committee as a staffer for 10 years during the Cold War, specifically during the Carter and Reagan administrations.
Discussing the politics of funding, he pointed out that it was easy - very, very easy - to get funding for new photo and signals intelligence sattelites, listening equipment, spy planes, and toys. He noted that, yes, some lobbying went on for these projects, but the lobbying isn't what swayed Congress - it was the new and shiny. They could all go home and say to themselves "wow, I put up a massive spy sattelite that can photograph buttons on Russian officers!"
However, when it came to support for this equipment - analysts to look at the data they gathered, technicians to keep them running, maintenance facilities, etc. - they always came up short. In some instances, multi-million dollar pieces of equipment were purchased and deployed only to have the data they gathered analyzed only long after it was too old to be useful, assuming it was ever analyzed at all.
I realize that this post is a bit off topic, but the problem of not supporting what is already there exists all through government. In the case of this bridge, shutting it down would have met with massive protest from all involved. Projects would have caused inconvenience, just as increased personnel staffing creates great cost for the government in many areas. People do the same thing all the time - buy new cars and toys, but never spend the money on maintenance, it all went to the toy. But if we build it or buy it we better be able to keep it in good shape.