Trans Canada Highway Closed due to Bridge Failure
- Thread starter Mowich
- Start date
I don't know if it's possible there, the left bank looks kind of steep. Then again, I'm not an engineer. :lol:
The Wynned Sock says,
Well here's a hint, don't outsource important infrastructure projects instead of using Canadians who might actually know something about dealing with Canada's environment.
Thank goodness. Now we just have a ticking time bomb until they correct the problem altogether.
Liberal logic. Why build a bridge for 25 million when you can build one for 106 million?
the stuff of flossy and friends.
Ontario heralded the opening of the westbound portion of new Nipigon River Bridge – the province's first cable-stayed bridge – in late November
but anyway kids...The Nipigon River Bridge ‘an architectural masterpiece & engineering nightmare’
Was the building of the Nipigon River Bridge a waste of taxpayer monies in creating a “jewel of the north’. More show than form? Wawa-news has received information from a Professional Engineer who is very familiar with this type of structure, and in fact was the Structural Designer of world’s first Cable Stayed Post Tensioned Steel Structure – Baxter Labs headquarters in Deerfield, Illinois. He is a Registered Professional Engineer in eight Canadian Provinces, and a Life Member of Structural Engineers Association Of Illinois.
He begins by stating that this bridge is costing 5 times what it would cost if it were designed according to fundamental engineering principles. “These bridge spans are far too short for a cable stayed bridge design. Ironically, these bridge spans are far longer than need be. See the photos of the train bridge and former highway bridge beside it (posted below). These designs were based on engineering fundamentals. The cables close to the expansion joint are a serious mistake and unnecessary because there is a bridge abutment there. They magnify the temperature lift forces.” He questions, “Why are they there? For looks?”
Michael notes that there are no tie-downs. “There is no method of keeping this bridge from lifting in the cold weather. The longest cable, unrestrained, will contract 3” in a temperature change of 100 degrees F. Expansion joints are not tie-downs and they “lifted” 2′. Please see the photo at left, of the tie-downs I used below the roof structure to prevent this. I didn’t invent this. The person who invented the umbrella did and I just copied it.”
Regarding the failure, “In addition to the 2′ “lift”, the expansion joint “twisted”. The north end “lifted” twice as much as the south end. This means the expansion joint “unbuttoned” – like ripping the buttons off a shirt from top to bottom. This puts tremendous loads on each bolt, progressively, one at a time. My “very rough calculation” suggests the 7/8″ diameter bolts had a strength of ~40,000 lbs each and the force created by the cold weather was ~600,000 lbs. or 15 times their capacity.”
It is concerning that he says “Media attention suggesting the cause of the failure was 40 defective anchor bolts, is a red herring across the trail.”
Notice the short spans on old highway bridge and the railway bridge. That is fundamental structural engineering. Cost goes up roughly by the square of the span. The fish spawning problem could be solved by setting one pier on each side of the water- instead of just one pier for the cable stayed bridge. He concludes, “There really is no place for a cable styed bridge in this situation – unless it’s for show ($106 million). We could easily span this river conventionally for $20 to $25 million. That’s about the cost of consultant and management fees for the cable stayed bridge. C’est dommage.”
I quote his explanation,
The Structural Design: Form follows function? Not here!
The bridge span that failed is only 113 meters (371 ft.), far to short for a cabled stayed bridge. The top 100 cable stayed bridge spans in the world are all over 400 meters (1300 ft.) in length. The economical design for this bridge span is a box girder or truss. The cost of the span goes up roughly by the square of the distance spanned. It was not necessary to span 113 meters. Look at photos of the train bridge and former highway bridge beside it. They have much shorter spans. A rough rule of thumb is to put down as many piers as possible for economy. Our predecessor engineers did just that.
The fundamental purpose of the cable stays is to replace piers and reduce spans. This principal was not applied here. Two or three cable stays would have been effective, but eleven? Ridiculous! This makes the deck so light that it is no help in holding the bridge down when the weather gets cold and the cables shrink. So many cables close to the expansion joint greatly magnifies the temperature forces. Why is there a cable right over the expansion joint? There is a bridge abutment there to carry the end on the bridge (and hold it down).
There isn’t an ill wind that doesn’t blow some good. Bad design detail resulted in a favourable result.
The bridge spans are not symmetrical about the mast. West span is 113 m (371 ft.) and east span is 139 m (455 ft.). The cables for the longer east span do not go to the expansion joint and so it was spared the humiliation of the west span.
Does economics mean anything? This bridge is 5 times the cost of a conventional design – before repairs!
The cost of the cable stayed structure that I designed in Chicago was ten times the cost of a conventional design. It was rationalized as a brand symbol. Please click here and wait a few seconds for the slide show. I conservatively estimate the cost of the Nipigon River Bridge to be five times the cost of a conventional design based on engineering principals used to design the bridges right beside it.
Did anybody think of twining the highway bridge beside it?
Why did this design evolve this way? It comes down to the respective roles of Architect and Engineer. The Architect defines it. The Engineer makes it work. When it succeeds, the architect is a hero. When it fails, the engineer is to blame. Engineers were not always subordinate to Architects – for example Sir Sandford Fleming and Sir Casmir Gzowski.
Michael concludes, “I don’t work for architects. Too dangerous.”
The Nipigon River Bridge 'an architectural masterpiece & engineering nightmare' - wawa-news.com
the stuff of flossy and friends.
Ontario heralded the opening of the westbound portion of new Nipigon River Bridge – the province's first cable-stayed bridge – in late November
but anyway kids...The Nipigon River Bridge ‘an architectural masterpiece & engineering nightmare’
Was the building of the Nipigon River Bridge a waste of taxpayer monies in creating a “jewel of the north’. More show than form? Wawa-news has received information from a Professional Engineer who is very familiar with this type of structure, and in fact was the Structural Designer of world’s first Cable Stayed Post Tensioned Steel Structure – Baxter Labs headquarters in Deerfield, Illinois. He is a Registered Professional Engineer in eight Canadian Provinces, and a Life Member of Structural Engineers Association Of Illinois.
He begins by stating that this bridge is costing 5 times what it would cost if it were designed according to fundamental engineering principles. “These bridge spans are far too short for a cable stayed bridge design. Ironically, these bridge spans are far longer than need be. See the photos of the train bridge and former highway bridge beside it (posted below). These designs were based on engineering fundamentals. The cables close to the expansion joint are a serious mistake and unnecessary because there is a bridge abutment there. They magnify the temperature lift forces.” He questions, “Why are they there? For looks?”
Michael notes that there are no tie-downs. “There is no method of keeping this bridge from lifting in the cold weather. The longest cable, unrestrained, will contract 3” in a temperature change of 100 degrees F. Expansion joints are not tie-downs and they “lifted” 2′. Please see the photo at left, of the tie-downs I used below the roof structure to prevent this. I didn’t invent this. The person who invented the umbrella did and I just copied it.”
Regarding the failure, “In addition to the 2′ “lift”, the expansion joint “twisted”. The north end “lifted” twice as much as the south end. This means the expansion joint “unbuttoned” – like ripping the buttons off a shirt from top to bottom. This puts tremendous loads on each bolt, progressively, one at a time. My “very rough calculation” suggests the 7/8″ diameter bolts had a strength of ~40,000 lbs each and the force created by the cold weather was ~600,000 lbs. or 15 times their capacity.”
It is concerning that he says “Media attention suggesting the cause of the failure was 40 defective anchor bolts, is a red herring across the trail.”
Notice the short spans on old highway bridge and the railway bridge. That is fundamental structural engineering. Cost goes up roughly by the square of the span. The fish spawning problem could be solved by setting one pier on each side of the water- instead of just one pier for the cable stayed bridge. He concludes, “There really is no place for a cable styed bridge in this situation – unless it’s for show ($106 million). We could easily span this river conventionally for $20 to $25 million. That’s about the cost of consultant and management fees for the cable stayed bridge. C’est dommage.”
I quote his explanation,
The Structural Design: Form follows function? Not here!
The bridge span that failed is only 113 meters (371 ft.), far to short for a cabled stayed bridge. The top 100 cable stayed bridge spans in the world are all over 400 meters (1300 ft.) in length. The economical design for this bridge span is a box girder or truss. The cost of the span goes up roughly by the square of the distance spanned. It was not necessary to span 113 meters. Look at photos of the train bridge and former highway bridge beside it. They have much shorter spans. A rough rule of thumb is to put down as many piers as possible for economy. Our predecessor engineers did just that.
The fundamental purpose of the cable stays is to replace piers and reduce spans. This principal was not applied here. Two or three cable stays would have been effective, but eleven? Ridiculous! This makes the deck so light that it is no help in holding the bridge down when the weather gets cold and the cables shrink. So many cables close to the expansion joint greatly magnifies the temperature forces. Why is there a cable right over the expansion joint? There is a bridge abutment there to carry the end on the bridge (and hold it down).
There isn’t an ill wind that doesn’t blow some good. Bad design detail resulted in a favourable result.
The bridge spans are not symmetrical about the mast. West span is 113 m (371 ft.) and east span is 139 m (455 ft.). The cables for the longer east span do not go to the expansion joint and so it was spared the humiliation of the west span.
Does economics mean anything? This bridge is 5 times the cost of a conventional design – before repairs!
The cost of the cable stayed structure that I designed in Chicago was ten times the cost of a conventional design. It was rationalized as a brand symbol. Please click here and wait a few seconds for the slide show. I conservatively estimate the cost of the Nipigon River Bridge to be five times the cost of a conventional design based on engineering principals used to design the bridges right beside it.
Did anybody think of twining the highway bridge beside it?
Why did this design evolve this way? It comes down to the respective roles of Architect and Engineer. The Architect defines it. The Engineer makes it work. When it succeeds, the architect is a hero. When it fails, the engineer is to blame. Engineers were not always subordinate to Architects – for example Sir Sandford Fleming and Sir Casmir Gzowski.
Michael concludes, “I don’t work for architects. Too dangerous.”
The Nipigon River Bridge 'an architectural masterpiece & engineering nightmare' - wawa-news.com
Ontario's opposition parties demand reports into Nipigon River Bridge failure
KEITH LESLIE, THE CANADIAN PRESS
First posted: Friday, July 22, 2016 05:01 PM EDT
Ontario's opposition parties are demanding the release of expert reports into the $106 million Nipigon River Bridge, which failed last January less than two months after it opened.
The steel decking on the bridge lifted about 60 centimetres, causing a 24-hour closure of the east-west link on the Trans Canada highway and forcing about 1,300 trucks a day to detour for several weeks.
Progressive Conservative transport critic Michael Harris said Friday that two independent labs tested the bolts on the bridge and submitted reports to the government, and he believes there's also an internal Ministry of Transportation report into the failure.
Harris added that Transport Minister Steven Del Duca is sitting on the reports in hopes of finding someone else to blame for the sudden failure of the first cable-stayed bridge ever built in Ontario.
"That internal analysis that's been done by the MTO will likely show exactly where the finger can be pointed, and that finger may be turned back at them," he said. "I think it's more about protecting their own hides than making sure the public has all the information."
Del Duca issued a statement Friday saying it would be reckless to release "limited information in piecemeal fashion prior to having all of the facts," and promised to release all the reports into the bridge failure sometime this fall.
"Any assertion that the Ministry of Transportation is hiding information is false and represents an unfortunate attempt by the opposition parties to politicize a process that is being led by engineers and other appropriate experts and research bodies," he said.
New Democrat transport critic Wayne Gates said people deserve to know what is in the reports, and what is being done to fix the problem so it doesn't happen again.
"The ministry has two reports on what went wrong," said Gates. "Ontarians shouldn't have to wait until next fall to learn why the Nipigon bridge failed."
Del Duca said government bridge engineers are conducting their own analysis, as is an independent engineering consultant with expertise in cable-stayed bridges. Their findings will be compared, and only then will the results -- including the already-completed bolt analyses -- be made public.
"When the entire investigation is completed, which we expect will be in the fall, the reports, expert findings and details from the engineers will be made public," he said.
"This is the prudent approach, not the political one, and it will provide all Ontarians with the information they expect and deserve regarding this incident."
Harris said the minister obviously wants to chose the timing of the release of the reports so it's to the government's advantage.
One lane of the bridge was re-opened to light vehicles one day after the failure when engineers placed huge concrete blocks to lower the deck to road level, but it was nearly a month and a half before a second lane was open to traffic.
The government said the temporary repair still functions as expected, and "the bridge remains safe for use by all."
Ontario's opposition parties demand reports into Nipigon River Bridge failure |
KEITH LESLIE, THE CANADIAN PRESS
First posted: Friday, July 22, 2016 05:01 PM EDT
Ontario's opposition parties are demanding the release of expert reports into the $106 million Nipigon River Bridge, which failed last January less than two months after it opened.
The steel decking on the bridge lifted about 60 centimetres, causing a 24-hour closure of the east-west link on the Trans Canada highway and forcing about 1,300 trucks a day to detour for several weeks.
Progressive Conservative transport critic Michael Harris said Friday that two independent labs tested the bolts on the bridge and submitted reports to the government, and he believes there's also an internal Ministry of Transportation report into the failure.
Harris added that Transport Minister Steven Del Duca is sitting on the reports in hopes of finding someone else to blame for the sudden failure of the first cable-stayed bridge ever built in Ontario.
"That internal analysis that's been done by the MTO will likely show exactly where the finger can be pointed, and that finger may be turned back at them," he said. "I think it's more about protecting their own hides than making sure the public has all the information."
Del Duca issued a statement Friday saying it would be reckless to release "limited information in piecemeal fashion prior to having all of the facts," and promised to release all the reports into the bridge failure sometime this fall.
"Any assertion that the Ministry of Transportation is hiding information is false and represents an unfortunate attempt by the opposition parties to politicize a process that is being led by engineers and other appropriate experts and research bodies," he said.
New Democrat transport critic Wayne Gates said people deserve to know what is in the reports, and what is being done to fix the problem so it doesn't happen again.
"The ministry has two reports on what went wrong," said Gates. "Ontarians shouldn't have to wait until next fall to learn why the Nipigon bridge failed."
Del Duca said government bridge engineers are conducting their own analysis, as is an independent engineering consultant with expertise in cable-stayed bridges. Their findings will be compared, and only then will the results -- including the already-completed bolt analyses -- be made public.
"When the entire investigation is completed, which we expect will be in the fall, the reports, expert findings and details from the engineers will be made public," he said.
"This is the prudent approach, not the political one, and it will provide all Ontarians with the information they expect and deserve regarding this incident."
Harris said the minister obviously wants to chose the timing of the release of the reports so it's to the government's advantage.
One lane of the bridge was re-opened to light vehicles one day after the failure when engineers placed huge concrete blocks to lower the deck to road level, but it was nearly a month and a half before a second lane was open to traffic.
The government said the temporary repair still functions as expected, and "the bridge remains safe for use by all."
Ontario's opposition parties demand reports into Nipigon River Bridge failure |
Regulating body for Ontario engineers investigates Nipigon River Bridge failure
Keith Leslie, THE CANADIAN PRESS
First posted: Friday, October 21, 2016 12:47 PM EDT | Updated: Friday, October 21, 2016 12:51 PM EDT
TORONTO - The regulating body for professional engineers in Ontario is investigating the possibility of incompetence in the failure of the Nipigon River bridge last January, which severed a critical link on the Trans-Canada Highway.
Two engineering reports found that improperly tightened bolts on one portion of the first suspension bridge ever built in Ontario had snapped, causing the steel decking to lift about 60 centimetres.
Other factors that contributed to the failure of the $106-million bridge just six weeks after it opened were the design of the shoe plate and its flexibility, and a lack of rotation in the bearing.
Professional Engineers Ontario says it can initiate investigations in the absence of a complaint being filed “on the reasonable and probable grounds...of professional misconduct or incompetence.”
The regulator says it has a responsibility to investigate “any possible engineering practice deficiencies related to the failure and determine if engineering work was carried out by appropriately licensed people and companies.”
The failure of the Nipigon Bridge forced up to 1,300 trucks — carrying an estimated $100 million worth of goods — to detour each day for several weeks.
One lane of the bridge was reopened to light vehicles one day after the failure when engineers placed huge concrete blocks to lower the deck to road level, but it was nearly a month and a half before a second lane was open to traffic.
The engineering reports released in September found the bearing design for the suspension bridge did not comply with the requirements of the contract.
The shoe plate, the bolted connection between the shoe plate and girder, the bolted connection between shoe plate and bearing, and the bearing design all failed to meet the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. The bolts were both too long and not properly tightened during installation, the reports found.
There were also bolt polish marks on another part of the bridge, “suggesting that it was also experiencing bolt bending and was prone to a fracture similar to the north-west bearing failure,” according to one of the reports.
Regulating body for Ontario engineers investigates Nipigon River Bridge failure
Keith Leslie, THE CANADIAN PRESS
First posted: Friday, October 21, 2016 12:47 PM EDT | Updated: Friday, October 21, 2016 12:51 PM EDT
TORONTO - The regulating body for professional engineers in Ontario is investigating the possibility of incompetence in the failure of the Nipigon River bridge last January, which severed a critical link on the Trans-Canada Highway.
Two engineering reports found that improperly tightened bolts on one portion of the first suspension bridge ever built in Ontario had snapped, causing the steel decking to lift about 60 centimetres.
Other factors that contributed to the failure of the $106-million bridge just six weeks after it opened were the design of the shoe plate and its flexibility, and a lack of rotation in the bearing.
Professional Engineers Ontario says it can initiate investigations in the absence of a complaint being filed “on the reasonable and probable grounds...of professional misconduct or incompetence.”
The regulator says it has a responsibility to investigate “any possible engineering practice deficiencies related to the failure and determine if engineering work was carried out by appropriately licensed people and companies.”
The failure of the Nipigon Bridge forced up to 1,300 trucks — carrying an estimated $100 million worth of goods — to detour each day for several weeks.
One lane of the bridge was reopened to light vehicles one day after the failure when engineers placed huge concrete blocks to lower the deck to road level, but it was nearly a month and a half before a second lane was open to traffic.
The engineering reports released in September found the bearing design for the suspension bridge did not comply with the requirements of the contract.
The shoe plate, the bolted connection between the shoe plate and girder, the bolted connection between shoe plate and bearing, and the bearing design all failed to meet the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. The bolts were both too long and not properly tightened during installation, the reports found.
There were also bolt polish marks on another part of the bridge, “suggesting that it was also experiencing bolt bending and was prone to a fracture similar to the north-west bearing failure,” according to one of the reports.
Regulating body for Ontario engineers investigates Nipigon River Bridge failure
Hindsite nothing. Just another example of the idiocy and incompetenece of the Ontario Liberals. "Hey, let's get a company from a subtropical country to design a bridge for sub-arctic conditions and large temperature fluctuations from cold to hot." F*cking brilliant, although par for the course when it comes to the mental midgets known as the Ontario Liberal party. And in this case they chose aesthetics over structural integrity. Which is no surprise, the Liberals aren't big fans of integrity to begin with.