

A newly installed pedestrian bridge has collapsed at Florida International University in the Miami area, crushing at least five vehicles and causing multiple injuries.
The 950-tonne span fell on Thursday afternoon at the university’s main Miami-area campus. Video shows vehicles underneath the bridge were hit.
Several people were seen being put into ambulances and the authorities launched search and rescue missions as Miami-Dade Fire Rescue tweeted that “multiple” people were injured.
The overhead walkway was only installed on Saturday, and was put in place to increase the safety of students crossing the busy Tamiami Trail from one area of the campus to another.
According to the Miami Herald, the operation to install the 174ft span took several hours. Construction crews had spent several months erecting support towers on either side of the roadway, and cranes lifted the walkway into place on Saturday morning, the newspaper said.
The $14.2m project was funded by the US Department of Transportation.
I think you may be onto something hereDOB wrote:The only thing that stops a bad guy with a bridge is a good guy with a bridge.
Covered walkway ?Gavin Duffy wrote:That's not a design type I've seen before, looks like the deck is suspended off the top beam.
Gavin Duffy wrote:What it was supposed to look like ultimately.
Sadly construction is riddled with people making cretinous decisionsCM11 wrote:Epic fail if Boobs and cam are correct (and I see no reason to say they're not).
Did they somehow think that it would hold up without a load on it?
Is it, now?fishfoodie wrote:Sadly construction is riddled with people making cretinous decisionsCM11 wrote:Epic fail if Boobs and cam are correct (and I see no reason to say they're not).
Did they somehow think that it would hold up without a load on it?
Yes, it really is.Gavin Duffy wrote:Is it, now?fishfoodie wrote:Sadly construction is riddled with people making cretinous decisionsCM11 wrote:Epic fail if Boobs and cam are correct (and I see no reason to say they're not).
Did they somehow think that it would hold up without a load on it?
For an erection like this, there would be several firms of Consulting Engineers checking both the sequence, and the subsequent stresses in the bridge members for each stage; viz. the original design engineers, the contractors engineers for the erection, and possibly an independent firm acting for the client.fishfoodie wrote:Sadly construction is riddled with people making cretinous decisionsCM11 wrote:Epic fail if Boobs and cam are correct (and I see no reason to say they're not).
Did they somehow think that it would hold up without a load on it?
Well, you only have to look here to validate his point without looking anywhere else!Gavin Duffy wrote:Is it, now?fishfoodie wrote:Sadly construction is riddled with people making cretinous decisionsCM11 wrote:Epic fail if Boobs and cam are correct (and I see no reason to say they're not).
Did they somehow think that it would hold up without a load on it?
I forgot to add the word 'history'.Gavin Duffy wrote:Is it, now?fishfoodie wrote:Sadly construction is riddled with people making cretinous decisionsCM11 wrote:Epic fail if Boobs and cam are correct (and I see no reason to say they're not).
Did they somehow think that it would hold up without a load on it?
I know a single data point is sufficient for you..CM11 wrote:Well, you only have to look here to validate his point without looking anywhere else!Gavin Duffy wrote:Is it, now?fishfoodie wrote:Sadly construction is riddled with people making cretinous decisionsCM11 wrote:Epic fail if Boobs and cam are correct (and I see no reason to say they're not).
Did they somehow think that it would hold up without a load on it?
Someone is in a lot of trouble and you can be sure the lawyers are going to come out of this very rich figuring out who.camroc1 wrote:For an erection like this, there would be several firms of Consulting Engineers checking both the sequence, and the subsequent stresses in the bridge members for each stage; viz. the original design engineers, the contractors engineers for the erection, and possibly an independent firm acting for the client.fishfoodie wrote:Sadly construction is riddled with people making cretinous decisionsCM11 wrote:Epic fail if Boobs and cam are correct (and I see no reason to say they're not).
Did they somehow think that it would hold up without a load on it?
Well, it was tongue in cheek anyway (and I always like bringing that example up as it's barely believable) but my point was that there were so many mistakes from so many different contractors that it alone was validating his point.Gavin Duffy wrote:I know a single data point is sufficient for you..CM11 wrote:Well, you only have to look here to validate his point without looking anywhere else!Gavin Duffy wrote:Is it, now?fishfoodie wrote:Sadly construction is riddled with people making cretinous decisionsCM11 wrote:Epic fail if Boobs and cam are correct (and I see no reason to say they're not).
Did they somehow think that it would hold up without a load on it?
That will be known within a couple of weeks once the forensic engineers have looked over the design for the bridge in permanent, temporary and erection stages. After that it will go to the insurers, unless there are criminal charges.CM11 wrote:Someone is in a lot of trouble and you can be sure the lawyers are going to come out of this very rich figuring out who.camroc1 wrote:For an erection like this, there would be several firms of Consulting Engineers checking both the sequence, and the subsequent stresses in the bridge members for each stage; viz. the original design engineers, the contractors engineers for the erection, and possibly an independent firm acting for the client.fishfoodie wrote:Sadly construction is riddled with people making cretinous decisionsCM11 wrote:Epic fail if Boobs and cam are correct (and I see no reason to say they're not).
Did they somehow think that it would hold up without a load on it?
Temporary loading design criteria during construction is (or should be) bog standard for a construction of that size. I'd guess failure in erection over failure in design.fishfoodie wrote:Gavin Duffy wrote:What it was supposed to look like ultimately.
Ah, that's a good pic, it shows the column angles align with the suspension cables.
I wonder if anyone did the calculations on how the whole mass of the walkway would do without the suspension cables in situ ?
Really? You don't see every last email and correspondence being examined from all parties and different interpretations of said correspondence being given to muddy the waters?camroc1 wrote:That will be known within a couple of weeks once the forensic engineers have looked over the design for the bridge in permanent, temporary and erection stages. After that it will go to the insurers, unless there are criminal charges.CM11 wrote:Someone is in a lot of trouble and you can be sure the lawyers are going to come out of this very rich figuring out who.camroc1 wrote:For an erection like this, there would be several firms of Consulting Engineers checking both the sequence, and the subsequent stresses in the bridge members for each stage; viz. the original design engineers, the contractors engineers for the erection, and possibly an independent firm acting for the client.fishfoodie wrote:Sadly construction is riddled with people making cretinous decisionsCM11 wrote:Epic fail if Boobs and cam are correct (and I see no reason to say they're not).
Did they somehow think that it would hold up without a load on it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... _collapsesGavin Duffy wrote:I know a single data point is sufficient for you..CM11 wrote:Well, you only have to look here to validate his point without looking anywhere else!Gavin Duffy wrote:Is it, now?fishfoodie wrote:Sadly construction is riddled with people making cretinous decisionsCM11 wrote:Epic fail if Boobs and cam are correct (and I see no reason to say they're not).
Did they somehow think that it would hold up without a load on it?
No. That's a spectacular failure. The reason for it will become very clear, very quickly, and will be agreed by all the engineers involved.CM11 wrote:Really? You don't see every last email and correspondence being examined from all parties and different interpretations of said correspondence being given to muddy the waters?camroc1 wrote:That will be known within a couple of weeks once the forensic engineers have looked over the design for the bridge in permanent, temporary and erection stages. After that it will go to the insurers, unless there are criminal charges.CM11 wrote:Someone is in a lot of trouble and you can be sure the lawyers are going to come out of this very rich figuring out who.camroc1 wrote:For an erection like this, there would be several firms of Consulting Engineers checking both the sequence, and the subsequent stresses in the bridge members for each stage; viz. the original design engineers, the contractors engineers for the erection, and possibly an independent firm acting for the client.fishfoodie wrote:
Sadly construction is riddled with people making cretinous decisions
Isn't that what I already said without the fancy wording?That is the RC girder was not designed to span the road on its own even in the unloaded state.
camroc1 wrote: No. That's a spectacular failure. The reason for it will become very clear, very quickly, and will be agreed by all the engineers involved.
I don't know whether Jeff agrees, but looking at the height of the stay tower, it looks to me that the requisite node points should have been propped to ground until the permanent cables were fixed in place. That is the RC girder was not designed to span the road on its own even in the unloaded state.
Presume that's directed at fishfoodie?Jeff the Bear wrote:That's nonsense. Newly engineered, newly built structures very very very rarely collapse. I mean infinitesimally small numbers when you consider how many new structures are built in a given year.
In fact, and old skool engineer who taught me once said (correctly in my opinion), when discussing why the gene4wl populace don't appear to give engineering it's dues..."engineers don't get respect, because nothing ever falls down. The effort that goes into making sure a building stands up is therefore not apprecjated, and is just accepted. You can guarantee if things fell down all the time, then there'd be a lot more respect for good engineers."
Yeah, that definitely looks the issue. It's fairly obvious, but if the girder could span that distance on it's own, then there'd be no need for the cable stayed portion. Without knowing the exact support conditions prior to collapse, it's tough to be accurate...suffice to say, and noted, that bridge would have needed a few intermediary supports underneath until the cables were attached to the roof.No. That's a spectacular failure. The reason for it will become very clear, very quickly, and will be agreed by all the engineers involved.
I don't know whether Jeff agrees, but looking at the height of the stay tower, it looks to me that the requisite node points should have been propped to ground until the permanent cables were fixed in place. That is the RC girder was not designed to span the road on its own even in the unloaded state.
Aye, it's certainly a excellent point, that the failures are a tiny fraction of the overall population; but when the bad things happen, they're inevitably spectacular, & end up leading on the News Programs.CM11 wrote:Presume that's directed at fishfoodie?Jeff the Bear wrote:That's nonsense. Newly engineered, newly built structures very very very rarely collapse. I mean infinitesimally small numbers when you consider how many new structures are built in a given year.
In fact, and old skool engineer who taught me once said (correctly in my opinion), when discussing why the gene4wl populace don't appear to give engineering it's dues..."engineers don't get respect, because nothing ever falls down. The effort that goes into making sure a building stands up is therefore not apprecjated, and is just accepted. You can guarantee if things fell down all the time, then there'd be a lot more respect for good engineers."
Obviously you make a valid point but I think it'd be fair to say that there are plenty of mistakes in the process that have to be fixed along the way and sometimes those errors don't get fixed.
Same goes for IT as well though. You only hear the complaints when something doesn't work, that is human nature.Jeff the Bear wrote:That's nonsense. Newly engineered, newly built structures very very very rarely collapse. I mean infinitesimally small numbers when you consider how many new structures are built in a given year.
In fact, an old skool engineer who taught me once said (correctly in my opinion), when discussing why the general populace don't appear to give engineering it's dues..."engineers don't get respect, because nothing ever falls down. The effort that goes into making sure a building stands up is therefore not appreciated, and is just accepted. You can guarantee if things fell down all the time, then there'd be a lot more respect for good engineers."
Indeed, Ford have just issued a recall on over a million cars because the steering wheel might fall off.fishfoodie wrote:Aye, it's certainly a excellent point, that the failures are a tiny fraction of the overall population; but when the bad things happen, they're inevitably spectacular, & end up leading on the News Programs.CM11 wrote:Presume that's directed at fishfoodie?Jeff the Bear wrote:That's nonsense. Newly engineered, newly built structures very very very rarely collapse. I mean infinitesimally small numbers when you consider how many new structures are built in a given year.
In fact, and old skool engineer who taught me once said (correctly in my opinion), when discussing why the gene4wl populace don't appear to give engineering it's dues..."engineers don't get respect, because nothing ever falls down. The effort that goes into making sure a building stands up is therefore not apprecjated, and is just accepted. You can guarantee if things fell down all the time, then there'd be a lot more respect for good engineers."
Obviously you make a valid point but I think it'd be fair to say that there are plenty of mistakes in the process that have to be fixed along the way and sometimes those errors don't get fixed.
Toyota, or Ford can kill off hundreds before the even trouble themselves to order a recall, but if a bridge falls down, someone is going to Gaol.
This is the bit I don't get. If I designed any piece of structure, or perhaps more importantly was responsible for the design of any piece of structure, that was to span over an open public road in the temporary condition, I would be making sure of a belt and braces solution, with the expectation that the main contractors/erectors insurers engineers would be adding at least an extra belt to that.DOB wrote:I can’t believe they would conduct a stress test while the road under the bridge was active. Or that they would open the road to traffic unless they were absolutely 100% certain that the structure had passed the stress test and had deflected elastically back to its original condition.