some news reports a canadian mechanic "solved it"

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/fiu-bridge-collapse-mystery-explained-by-foul-mouthed-canadian-youtuber-10186504

i enjoyed it but he's wrong.

looking at the DIAGRAM he said the bridge is trussed. it takes nothing to LOOK AT THE DEBRIS AND SEE THERE WAS NO TRUSSING: just concrete and rebar

(my previous argument mention SEVERAL factors: such as bolts tightened directly onto concrete)

however here i'll remind i cited the "mesh" of rebar is no longer valid when extended to a VERY long length (a column on it's side)

i think it goes without saying if one stacks any kind of concrete/rebar mesh on top of an unsupported column on it's side: the problem becomes WORSE not better - that will always be true but NOT AS IMMEDIATELY, not as immediately but the very same

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/fiu-bridge-collapse-mystery-explained-by-foul-mouthed-canadian-youtuber-10186504

he showed a point i hand't mentioned (why is to prevent confusion with un-important facts) is that the ATTEMPT* or appearance of truss has a "roof" and we have an I shape: which is astable (roll like a jeep!). but as i said: these were concrete and rebar: and in the VIDEO they came apart quickly and broke in half on the ground SHOWING they were concrete and rebar that broke (easily)

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/fiu-bridge-collapse-mystery-explained-by-foul-mouthed-canadian-youtuber-10186504

he cites a nut tightened against a metal plate: but the construction mess photos show nuts were against CONCRETE, not metal

he found a "dangling hydraulic tensioner" that he said was supposedly "in the concrete". i see no evidence concrete was poured around it (that it was ever imbedded inside the bridge - i'd have to see it up close and check these were on all columns - meaning that it was not being used to TIGHTEN the column from the outside)

he says the only way it could still be straight is if it was the cause (the cause, over-tightening). however: had the concrete failed while tightening, (ie, had like i said - no metal plate was in the wreckage for the bolt to tighten against: which is a design flaw))

however: the thing is a L shape and had it pulled straight out - that L would have significant pulling damage (it's actually a tube much wider than the rods with a large box 3/4 down the length sticking out the side: something that is NOT going to just "pull out" unless "moving the speed of a slow bullet" (which would cause wear on it - especially the undamage still square side box). that's my guess. things that "shoot through concrete" can do so but are damaged doing so)

HAD THE CONCRETE AROUND IT BROKEN in failure (leaving it dangling somewhat straight) - it the stub of the L could remain undamaged from "pulling out rapidly"

---------------------------
i think the auto cites he found the cause - but only found a symptom - furthermore the video footage seen does not support his conclusion

on the other hand, far above i sighted "rebar pulling out and being straight" all over the footage not just in one spot

the evidence and diagrams I SEE do not show the hydraulic puller is integrated inside the bridge, and i guess it was a tool being used for tensioning. if that is so: then we ALREADY KNEW a problem occured at that point. the question IS NOT HOW IT BROKE, but if the structure was strong enough to be doing the job it was sold to do

again, http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/fiu-bridge-collapse-mystery-explained-by-foul-mouthed-canadian-youtuber-10186504,

claimed he proved "the rod broke". but that never happens and didn't happen in his experiment

two thing happen:

1) concrete breaks because nut pressure is awful directly onto concrete without equal distribution across the whole column end

2) nut breaks

3) threads damage - nut pulls out

NONE of these indicate a broken rod

this does not matter but ...

the rod supposedly would take "high tention" but never snap. this would require a more maleable metal. a less maleable metal would snap (the nut would snap first in most conditions)

the problem is it would required continual tensioning over the years and eventually "have nothin left to give"

but if it were brittle metal that "resisted stretching": it would just snap at what moment no one would know

the above is a paradox if solved, and it's only solution would be allot of heavy metal (at which point metal trusses would be preferred and much easier)

IT DOES NOT MATTER BECAUSE THE WHOLE STRUCTURE COULD NEVER HAVE STOOD LONG IN A PROPER ENGINEERING SAFETY: DOUBLE THE STRENGTH IT NEED BE. IT WAS NOT DOUBLE BUT MIGHT HAVE BEEN HALF (i commented above: likely much less than half)

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/fiu-bridge-collapse-mystery-explained-by-foul-mouthed-canadian-youtuber-10186504

once more i dispute the finding: he cites on (old) plans 2 of 4 end support columns were "moved" and an under-span was not placed as on paper

but in the video it's clearly county: there are ONLY 2 COLUMNS - one at each end

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/fiu-bridge-collapse-mystery-explained-by-foul-mouthed-canadian-youtuber-10186504

he may be referring to "the lifting of it into place" (). however: that had already occurred day(s) before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1fCeo4CpQ shows this. however the JACK POINTS were reasonable the spacing was built in to the lift machine: they were not moved or wrong - he's likely reading the plan incorrectly. one lift shows a slight off center to an end-point of a downward beam. but that doesn't mean this was planned against. FURTHERMORE - more important, the plans show the "jacks" at the ends - which is impossible to have done - thus arguing that they were not as planned is rediculous. lastly, he called the outer two as the permanent ones - but on the plan they are "not flush". but in photos we see each column holding the bridge is exactly at the end of the bridge, flush.

ALSO: the mark on his paper of where the jack point moved to: IS WRONG. the jack was under the point shown on the plan: however as I said - that plan was not meant to exactly position jack points. engineers would be on site during this critical phase i imagine.

MY SUMMARY OF http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/fiu-bridge-collapse-mystery-explained-by-foul-mouthed-canadian-youtuber-10186504

At best he only re-described a symptom of failure: however I think there were flaws (significant un-answered questions) in his argument.

But none of it explains why an "experimental" and weak structure was installed over a super highway. None of it proved or even spoke to whether the STRUCTURE is flawed - which i argued SEVERAL points of it being so above / earlier.

the NTSB on http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article206280134.html March 21, 2018 06:07 PM
Updated March 21, 2018 07:31 PM

only cite many of the rumors and the cause unsure. however their language is confusing: they say "cables were being tensions"

WE SEE CLEARLY IN THE PHOTO THAT THE BRIDGE SUSPENSION PILONS AND CABLES are NO WEHERE TO BE SEEN: just a single crane with 1 wire infact

the nuts were being adjusted not tention wires, and nuts were adjusting the tention of the BOLTS (called tension rods in such a situation): not wires.

NO WIRES.

to that i again say: that's just a symptom of the failure of a weak design which could only MAYBE have survived in "other tension situations". but OVERALL that design wasn't even know and the OVERALL design: way too weak to be over a super highway

many say cracks aren't always serious: but CRACKS ALWAYS are serious



(imagine this as much less spauling and on a large structure - it might appear to be cracks with unknown depth)

"spauling" is not serious and can be cause by (un-even curing maybe?)

but cracking would have to be (x-rayed) to determine depth

there's no such thing as "ok cracking" unless it is superficial (spauling)

another spauling case is underneath (bottom side) under rebar (which is maybe an 1" from real bottom), which isn't always serious but the rust if exposed: is

"Safety is paramount in construction cases, and MCM knows that,” attorney Christos Lagos, whose firm is representing Fraga’s widow and his 15-year-old son, said at a news conference in Miami on Thursday, referring to Munilla Construction Management, the contractor. "They know better than to not shut that roadway down right before that collapse."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-truck-driver-killed-florida-bridge-collapse-sues-builders-n859226

(i would add: they didn't know what tentioning would keep the thing "up", so why would anyone surject that the tentioning was "wrong". the fact is they were taken by surprise and over-tightening a single nut broke the bridge!)

(we saw from delatt 2009 mentioned above: we don't like unseeable things, critical things that aren't know before installation time, or as i mentioned about home framing above: things with single points of total failure. do you think any worker on Golden Gate made a mistake? I have to guess they did and fixed it.)


"Experts say it is not unusual for cracks to appear in a project."

but this is "democrat fake news media", likely taking the "pro government stance"

obviously even if cracking is not unusual: it doesn't mean that it ISN'T CORRECTED nor that cost of correction isn't ... painful at times

It becomes a NASA o-ring like situation:

Some professors (asians consultants, perhaps in this case) going forward without any bounce against other's opinion of going forward, having too much authority to go forward with unchecked work or advised against work.

Worse in this case: university or city personnel who "fund it" signing off on it without even questioning why they are funding an experimental bridge in a high traffic area.

hhgvv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> many say cracks aren't always serious: but CRACKS
> ALWAYS are serious
>
> src=https://concretetoolreviews.com/wp-content/upl
> oads/2015/10/spalling_concrete.png?747efe&747efe>
>
> (imagine this as much less spauling and on a large
> structure - it might appear to be cracks with
> unknown depth)
>
> "spauling" is not serious and can be cause by
> (un-even curing maybe?)
>
> but cracking would have to be (x-rayed) to
> determine depth
>
> there's no such thing as "ok cracking" unless it
> is superficial (spauling)

You realize you're talking to yourself, right? And the word is "spalling", not "spauling". If you actually knew anything about structural engineering, I sorta suspect you'd have known that.

a non-short-term-structural issue i see

if rebar is used to "hold something up", rust is an issue (rust is an issue on bridges - though it may be inside concrete)

why is ROAD SALTING, which no doubt there would be contracts to do (in florida? yes florida can get snow and ice)

I WOULD EXPECT TO SEE EPOXY COATED REBAR - SOME BRANDS ARE COLORED BRIGHTLY

what is see appears to be "black rebar" (rust coating is not apparent, i would want to know what coating was used on the rebar IF ANY)

why is because the rebar was not just present as it is in golden gate to keep the deck together until next repaving: it was used to HOLD THE BRIDGE TOGETHER, a bridge which would be salted

(i think black coats would not be the best for salt, i'm not %100 sure, no need to be at this time)

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/structures/00081.pdf

(corrosion inhibitor possibly in concrete as well)

reddish rebar would be oxidized iron layer (sometimes seen on all-metal bridge trussing)

many other coatings exist: this green is meant to protect against road salts:
https://www.harrissupplysolutions.com/epoxy-coated-rebar.html

(i would not doubt some mfg found salt or rust resistant coatings that are black - however i didnt' see "jet black" in photos - they were after all in concrete before exposed)

this is Cron, your bump is out of date

None of this shit makes any fucking sense. Go eat dicks, faggots.

Probably multiple problem.

One may be the change/extension of the bridge deck because or wanting to move one of the vertical support piers. At this this is something I read along the way.

The primary problem is the bridge clearly had suspension support cable as part of it's design and at the end of the day the longest, primary span was installed WITHOUT the suspension cables and WITHOUT any temporary shoring supports.

Without large steel supports under the decking, a concrete span this long could not be self supporting as far as I understand. Possibly if this concrete span was slightly arched and had high strength pre-tensioning cables cast inside the concrete this this would be more likely to be more self supporting, but like anything plenty of calculations and safety factor would need to be added into the design.

I think the final report will be a combination of field design changes and improper installation.

xnwcf

4y6pt

More evidence this bridge was designed as a facade for funding (designed to disappear before much money actually building it was spent, millions missing).

****************************
****************************
****************************
. . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . .
****************************
****************************
****************************
The cross-section is capitol i shaped (ignore the .). The * are extremely heavy, the | not so much.

See that the lower deck and upper deck are extremely heavy typical building concrete (no iron truss support at all) (discussed above)

Focus next on the top deck: it is unstable. it's being supported in the middle only, not on it's edges like most any structure double deck structure of any kind (including housing). what happens when you balance something heavy only in it's middle? it wants to fall. if it's heavy? it's hard to stop.

Look at the videos you see the structure was an amazingly a-stable one over a "live highway". No engineer would design such a thing, an "I truss" (no such thing). Trusses are triangular or square, never I shaped.

I can't believe any engineer would believe an 'I' shape of extremely heavy concrete would not develop problems (if not immediately), and can't believe they'd put the thing over a live highway*

(the plan showed a huge center pilon holding it up in places: however the center pilon was never built as we can see in the image. one image above seems to show such a thing completed: but it's a computer generated image only - and very well may not be made by the people who built the bridge (copy lefted perhaps))

* you can say the middle pilon would help the faulty 'i' shape making it a visual paradox. but that would need to be integral and it wasn't even in the image as being started. it wouldn't be the only thing skipped: the plans also called for solid metal deck like any other bridge: it was never put in (and it's expensive)

'pylon'. i mean a tall center pylon "obviously" used for suspension wires as shown in the realistic looking computer image that shows a pedestrian bridge above (similar to a real one but more flighty and smaller, perhaps using a false 'i' shape as it is actually held by suspension - but rocking may still be a problem at the crux of the i shapes even for that computer generated bridge: concrete does NOT like being stretched or bent at corners).

Clearly the cross section is capitol 'i' shaped.

(advanced computer modeling. the center pylon with wires never existed in the real one, and it's clear in the 1st picture there was no plans to provide suspension)

there's yet another issue: the "dream model" suspension (which never existed, was never installed), pulls at angles and only in the center. the classic design holds on both sides of the deck and the suspension wires pull "straight up". there are a few highly specialized bridges that have wires pulling at angles.



carefully note these pylons have the same length on either side: the florida bridge has VISIBLY LONGER PULL on one side than the other, meaning it would have a natural imbalance that could only temporarily be corrected (and re-corrected, and re-corrected).

one also has to realize that car bridges are made with solid steel rail (the futuristic somehwat experimental design above: isn't built even nearly the same way inside)

the futuristic bridge: why does it work? why is because though it pulls at an angle (bad) it does so equally on both sides: the result is that the angled pull tries to compress the deck horizontally to raise it but the deck is (HOPEFULLY) designed not to squash inward and is theoretically helped by the extra tension

if the deck COULD squash under stressfull conditions: it would be a sudden quash downward when ripples occured

L

take another look at this: taking a ruler to screen you'll see a huge hump over the left support - quite literally with a ruler on the screen

we're not talking an intentional upward arch of the whole span - the thing looks warped and with a ruler you'll see IT IS WARPED during it's "lift into place"

don't let the warp in the street below misguide your eyes - the bridge was designed to be "flat"

NTSB chief, obama appointed, never did anything about this

just a nod of the head of a spoon democrats fed into the news, and take his paycheck

-----------------------------

New Lawsuit Filed Over Florida Pedestrian Bridge Collapse
April 2, 2018

More Lawsuits Filed After Florida Pedestrian Bridge Collapse
More lawsuits have been filed in the aftermath of a pedestrian bridge collapse near a Florida university campus.

March 31, 2018, at 11:22 a.m.




More

NTSB enabled, the florida College of engineers and fl gov signing off

FL COLLEGE HAS CLAIMED SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND ARE AVOIDING LAWSUITS - REFUSING TO PAY OUT OF COURT

NEVER HAVING ADMITTED IN NEWS ANY LACK OF ENGINEERING THOUGH NON-EXPERTS CAN CLEARLY READ SEVERAL JAW DROPPING FAILURES

THE PEOPLE KILLED ARE HAVING TO SUE TO GET THEM TO GET THEIR MONEY

vdghn wetbn 3twxf cfyk3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i was gonna ask if a truck hit a mooring.

It was an Uber driverless car.
(Not a Google car as reported in some fake news.)

Try to keep up.

.

.

d