93 more I-35W bridge collapse victims sue engineering, construc...

Nearly 100 victims of the Interstate 35W bridge collapse have filed lawsuits against two companies hired by the state to work on the bridge at the time it fell into the Mississippi River on Aug.

[Disgusted]

It looks like people are getting greedy....I wonder if the attorneys are "volunteering" their services on these lawsuits.

[Mark]

Having just finished my degree in Civil Engineering, I can tell you that Bridge Design Engineers make the most conservative assumptions when they are designing. For instance, the standard design case for bridges now is to assume that the bridge is entirely full of fully-loaded semis.

Hence, I can't see why this should be blamed on anything but a fabrication error in the gusset plates. Sure, the gusset plates were in bad shape, but in a steel truss bridge, this leaves only two options:(1) Tear the bridge down and rebuild; or (2) Reinforce the plates. The problem with reinforcing the plates, of course, is that it has the effect of weaking the gusset plates due to the fact that drilling holes creates greater stress concentrations at certain points in the plate.

Yes, this was a tragedy, and the families of these victims deserve our greatest help and condolences. Let's not lose sight of the fact that this was an accident, though, and we cannot blame any firm for not having 20/20 foresight.

[Get Real]

How many people can get sued over this bridge? Didn't the state already pay out millions and that was supposed to be the end of it? Well I also suffered! I drove over the 35W bridge the night before the collapse and it could have been me! How can I join these ridiculous lawsuits and get my payday?

[steve baker]

I'm sure that if these suits succeed the State will get payed back?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Sam]

Hi Mark,

Congrats on your degree!!

Suggest you do some Googleing and read all about the history of steel truss bridges. I found out some very interesting information:

1) When the 35W bridge was constructed in the 1960s the standard size gusset was 1/2 inch, this was a nationwide standard for gussets on those types of bridges.

2) An interstate bridge was constructed in Ohio in the 1960s as well with the same steel supports as the 35W bridge. In 1990s the Ohio bridge was being media blasted to clean off scale for repainting and the bridge actually fell a couple of inches. The construction crew got off the bridge and the bridge was upgraded with new gussets and was used for years thereafter!

Response to your points:

1) Tearing the bridge down would be better than having it fall killing and injuring and halting traffic for a year AND THEN building a new bridge.

2) There are other ways of increasing the strength of the gussets, like they did in Ohio REPLACE THE PLATES!! The gusset plates on the 35W bridge were reduced by rust to 1/2 their original thickness, that would make them a RUSTY 1/4 inch, this information is in a State of Minnesota inspection report! Would you drive on a bridge with 1/4 inch of RUSTY steel holding it in place? Didn't think so, <rolls eyes>..

3) AN OPTION YOU DIDN'T MENTION::: LET THE 35W BRIDGE FALL!!! This is the option the taxpayers were given by the state and all the others involved with maintenance and construction work on the day the bridge fell into the Mississippi!

----------

IF YOU are a state of the art engineer to be working on bridges going forward in Minnesota I'll be avoiding driving on bridges you work on!!

You have the ignorance to state the only options are to tear the bridge down or drill more holes in the gussets, without understanding other options like the one used in Ohio, replaceing the gussets with new ones. Please find a new carrer before you drop a bridge!

If you really want to learn about bridges I suggest Bill Kallman, he is a seasoned bridge engineer who you could learn a lot from!!

Bill Kallman
Structural Engineer
3*1*0 Mesnard Street
Hancock, MI 4-9-9-3-0
Phone:(9*0*6) 4*8*2-5*2*0*2
E-mail: b-i-l-l-k-a-l-l-m-a-n@c-h-a-r- t-e-r-.-n-e=t

==========

Mark wrote:

Having just finished my degree in Civil Engineering, I can tell you that Bridge Design Engineers make the most conservative assumptions when they are designing. For instance, the standard design case for bridges now is to assume that the bridge is entirely full of fully-loaded semis.
Hence, I can't see why this should be blamed on anything but a fabrication error in the gusset plates. Sure, the gusset plates were in bad shape, but in a steel truss bridge, this leaves only two options:(1) Tear the bridge down and rebuild; or (2) Reinforce the plates. The problem with reinforcing the plates, of course, is that it has the effect of weaking the gusset plates due to the fact that drilling holes creates greater stress concentrations at certain points in the plate.
Yes, this was a tragedy, and the families of these victims deserve our greatest help and condolences. Let's not lose sight of the fact that this was an accident, though, and we cannot blame any firm for not having 20/20 foresight.

[Mark]

Sam,

Thank you for the congratulations.

I have to admit that I was wrong about retrofitting gusset plates. After reading the 2006 Mn/DOT-URS inspection report, I now know that's a suitable option. I am also fully aware that 1/2" was the design standard in the 1960s.

Responses to your responses:
1) Of course replacement was an option. Mn/DOT was, I believe, planning on replacing the bridge in 2018.

2) Already admitted my oversight, but it is noteworthy that I used that bridge frequently prior to its collapse, as well as the DeSoto bridge in Saint Cloud, which was later deemed unsafe.

3) I object to your notion that the bridge collapse was forced upon us. Perhaps our legislature needs to take a better look at their spending priorities first. Then new taxes should have been looked at. I would not object to higher gas taxes or a VMT system to replace it.

Lastly, please do not, under any cicumstances, question my intelligence. I find it highly offensive that you would refer to me as ignorant. Assumptive? Yes, but not ignorant. Am I to assume then, that you are a 100% expert in all matters of and relating to your field of work? Should I use the internet to question you on every detail of anything related your field? I am not going to become a structural engineer because admittedly, it is my weakest subject. So you're right. It's good that I'm not going to be designing bridges. Given more focus in the subject, though, I know I would prove more than capable.

You make the mistake of assuming, however, that I alone would be designing bridges. Any structural (or other) engineer (perhaps Bill K?) could tell that plans are checked over multiple times before signing and publishing. It's a redundancy built into the system in every field.

So, thank you for calling me out on my shortcomings. However, there's no need to make this personal. I was merely stating things to the BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.

[Sam]

My profession utilizes a review of everything everyone does to ensure minimum acceptable quality.

You represented yourself as an engineer to be designing bridges. The 35W bridge had NOTHING to do with design but all to do with maintenance.

That bridge was severely corroded as I said gussets only 1/2 their original thickness, that would be a rusty 1/4 inch, those facts are in a state report.

The NTSB report blaming the 1/2" gussets was just plain silly. That report was a whitewash if ever there was one.

When I read stuff from an engineer such as yourself I'll just blast away!!

The way I see it is you youngsters need to be alerted to your shortcomings before you get in over your head!

Please don't be afraid to utilize people who have been in the trade their entire carrer like Mr. Kallman because they have such a wealth of knowledge from 40 years in the business.

Good luck in whatever trade you work in.

==========

Mark wrote:

Sam,
Thank you for the congratulations.
I have to admit that I was wrong about retrofitting gusset plates. After reading the 2006 Mn/DOT-URS inspection report, I now know that's a suitable option. I am also fully aware that 1/2" was the design standard in the 1960s.
Responses to your responses:
1) Of course replacement was an option. Mn/DOT was, I believe, planning on replacing the bridge in 2018.
2) Already admitted my oversight, but it is noteworthy that I used that bridge frequently prior to its collapse, as well as the DeSoto bridge in Saint Cloud, which was later deemed unsafe.
3) I object to your notion that the bridge collapse was forced upon us. Perhaps our legislature needs to take a better look at their spending priorities first. Then new taxes should have been looked at. I would not object to higher gas taxes or a VMT system to replace it.
Lastly, please do not, under any cicumstances, question my intelligence. I find it highly offensive that you would refer to me as ignorant. Assumptive? Yes, but not ignorant. Am I to assume then, that you are a 100% expert in all matters of and relating to your field of work? Should I use the internet to question you on every detail of anything related your field? I am not going to become a structural engineer because admittedly, it is my weakest subject. So you're right. It's good that I'm not going to be designing bridges. Given more focus in the subject, though, I know I would prove more than capable.
You make the mistake of assuming, however, that I alone would be designing bridges. Any structural (or other) engineer (perhaps Bill K?) could tell that plans are checked over multiple times before signing and publishing. It's a redundancy built into the system in every field.
So, thank you for calling me out on my shortcomings. However, there's no need to make this personal. I was merely stating things to the BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.

[Mark]

Sam,

Just so you're aware, young engineers work with mentors in their firms/agencies precisely so that they are alerted of their shortcomings long before they become issues.

I won't be designing bridges at any point in my career, I'm sticking to roadway & signals. Trust me when I say that you have nothing to worry about the quality of any design that I am a part of.

Part of the civil engineering curriculum requires a basic understanding of structural, hydrological, water/wastewater, environmental and traffic engineering. Hence, I don't have a complete understanding of structural issues as of right now, just the necessities.

Best of luck to you in your trade as well.

[Sam]

Mark,

A story from a guy I used to work with, he was trained as a Civil Eng. working as a project manager at a computer firm

He designed a power line, all the towers etc.

His career ended after a large number of towers blew down during construction, he hadn't considered the impact of winds on the towers without the wire attached, causing the towers to hit terra firma.

I'm at the end of the "Work" part of my life having worked on a number of communication computer system implementations, stressfull but rewarding to see the stuff work.

Good luck to you and always think of the abnormal variables and maybe your signals won't blow over, LOL.

==========

Mark wrote:

Sam,
Just so you're aware, young engineers work with mentors in their firms/agencies precisely so that they are alerted of their shortcomings long before they become issues.
I won't be designing bridges at any point in my career, I'm sticking to roadway & signals. Trust me when I say that you have nothing to worry about the quality of any design that I am a part of.
Part of the civil engineering curriculum requires a basic understanding of structural, hydrological, water/wastewater, environmental and traffic engineering. Hence, I don't have a complete understanding of structural issues as of right now, just the necessities.
Best of luck to you in your trade as well.