Meaning of sugar daddy. Free sugar daddy. Sugar daddy dating. Sugar daddy. Sugar daddy 101….

Free naked grannies. Naked grannies. Naked british grannies….

You yahoos can’t even talk about a tragic bridge collapse without being partisan jacka*ses.

Dave Rywall on October 26, 2008

Hurricane Katrina says hello.

And yes, had you seen the post-accident political attacks by these grandstanding morons, it was truly crap. They should apologize not only to the Republicans who they attacked, but also to the employees of MDOT including the Commissioner who lost her job due to partisanship.

The people of Minnesota deserve better. Much better.

[Dave Rywall on October 26, 2008 at 1:32 PM]

If, in your agreement, you are simultaneously disavowing your first comment, then I am sorry for the comment.
—–

[Mallard T. Drake on October 26, 2008 at 1:22 PM]

I agree to a great extent with the point of your comment here, Mallard. Since I was a green young engineer wannabe, the use of factors of safety have been impressed upon me and they are not for others to use. Again, I go back to page 4, Chapter 1 — Introduction to Structural Steel Design, McCormac for the discusssion of factors of safety, and skipping past some standard calculation prefacing of it, there’s this,

“The student may feel that it is quite foolish to build a structure with a strength several times that which is theoretically required. As the years go by, however, he will learn that safety factors are subject to so many uncertainties that he may spend sleepless nights wondering if those he has used are sufficient (and he may join other designers in calling them factors of ignorance rather than factors of safety).”

I’ve already listed several of those uncertainties. Can anyone in the profession adjudge their designs to meet the design criteria decided on and that upon construction of it, none of their factor of safety be used up to any extent whatsoever; that the both the design and the construction has occurred flawlessly?

As with you, I haven’t followed the investigation. However, this from the Star Tribune, bothers me greatly:

“Had key steel gusset plates been designed properly — they were one-half inch thick instead of an inch — the bridge would have been able to withstand tons of concrete and steel added in two renovation projects as well as the 287-ton construction load on the bridge the day it collapsed, sources said.”

Unless MinnDOT specifically required that some additional future loads, both the added renovation loads and also the construction loads, be included in the original design and that the original factors of safety may be infringed at any time, then, IMHO, the investigation has failed to adequately address the failure. In addition, if this former is not the case or the latter is, they have seriously jeopardized the design use of factors of safety and will, unless it has already been adequately been addressed over time, initiate either heightened hold-harmless clause verbiage, or significant increased costs due to undefined additional factors of safety by, at the very least, design firms. I’d have to think about the potentiality for reaction by the construction industry.

typing too quick.

democrates >>>> democrats (yikes!!! Not once, but twice!)

entitety >>>>> entirety

I thought…

Dave Rywall on October 26, 2008 at 12:17 PM

No you didn’t.

You yahoos can’t even talk about a tragic bridge collapse without being partisan jacka*ses.

Dave Rywall on October 26, 2008 at 12:15 PM

The democrates made it a partisan thing before the sun set the day of the failure. Do some research.

I’m talking abut a bridge and engineering. You’re talking about Obama and democrats and stuff that’s entirely irrelevant.

Dave Rywall on October 26, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Your reading comprehension is abysmal. Ed’s article is about the real reason for the bridge failure and how the democrates declared a different reason for the failure, and blamed the Republicans, before the sun set that day. Hence the discussion of the bridge in conjunction with “talking about Obama and the democrates”. Please do try to keep up, or better yet, go back and read the entitety of Ed’s post.

Dusty on October 26, 2008 at 12:25 PM
——-
I agreed with you. We were basically saying the same thing. Ewww how gross.

Then an investigation was conducted and, surprise surprise, the reroofing work had nothing to do with the falling tiles. With out boring you with too much detail, the construction detail of how the tiles were set in the forms for the casting of the concrete dome caused problems. Many of the tile were not properly bonded to the concrete and over time some of the tiles fatigued and fell. In fact many other tile were ready to fall and they were no where near the reroofing work at the time of the failures.

Once again, media rushed to judgment, got it wrong, and some innocents get blamed unfairly.

Had key steel gusset plates been designed properly — they were one-half inch thick instead of an inch — the bridge would have been able to withstand tons of concrete and steel added in two renovation projects as well as the 287-ton construction load on the bridge the day it collapsed, sources said.

I obviously haven’t seen the report, but I take exception to the assertion that the gusset plates were improperly designed. In 1968, should the designers have accommodated the renovation loads and construction loads that would be applied to the bridge over the next 40 years? I’d like to hear the answer to that question before blame is heaped on the original designers. If blame has to be assigned, then let’s look at the engineers of the renovations and why they didn’t require that the gusset plate be beefed up prior to the additional weight of the repairs.

This reminds me of post 9/11 when the designers of the WTC was being criticized for not making the buildings strong enough to withstand impact from the terrorist’s planes. Of course planes that large did not exist when the WTC was built, and the the buildings were designed with the impact of airliners of the day considered. It isn’t really a design flaw if the designer can’t see the future, is it?

The bridge collapse and subsequent “rushes to judgement” are typical for these types of disasters. In the early 1980s, the walkways at the Hyatt Regency in Kansas City collapsed kill a large number of people. The immediate story in the news was that the people on the walkways were dancing and created a harmonic vibration that lead to the collapse. That was the story the media latched onto and wouldn’t let go until the truth actually came out.

Of course the real reason wasn’t so exotic. The detail of the walkways hangers was changed and the engineers did not realize it had been done. The walkways simple collapsed because they were overloaded and the hanger connections failed.

I don’t recall if there was a lot of finger pointing with regard to the “harmonic vibration” theory, but the media had it wrong from the start.

Why are you getting your panties all tied in a knot? When your boy Obama wins, you can flee from Harper and re-settle here. After he wins, no more bad things will happen. It’s only 9 more days til Paradise, but you don’t sound happy.

JiangxiDad on October 26, 2008 at 12:44 PM

now that’s something I’ll be using real soon… if everything is going to be so wonderful why are you democrats soooo upset all the time.

Where is the apology? Where is their honor? Their self-repect? Their dignity?

29Victor on October 26, 2008 at 12:50 PM

That’s given up when the D goes after their name.

For brevity and to not either question those who have done the investigation or create a brouhaha here, I left out the one reason that grtflmark {on October 26, 2008 at 12:26 PM] alludes to: (from Structural Steel Design, McCormac, ’65, ’71)

2) The methods of analysis are often subject to appreciable error.

Of course, this, along with the other items I mention, are defined by those in the profession and related fields, not a public, like Dave, ignorant of their meaning and allergic to Google.

Where is the apology? Where is their honor? Their self-repect? Their dignity?

You yahoos can’t even talk about a tragic bridge collapse without being partisan jacka*ses.

Dave Rywall on October 26, 2008 at 12:15 PM

Why are you getting your panties all tied in a knot? When your boy Obama wins, you can flee from Harper and re-settle here. After he wins, no more bad things will happen. It’s only 9 more days til Paradise, but you don’t sound happy.

“Early on, the information gleaned from around the country pointed to inadequate gusset plates and a design mentality of the era that eschewed redundancy in favor of sleekness.”

Sleekness is the wrong word. Anyone looking at the bridge and its gussets wouldn’t think: “Oh, those are some pretty sleek gussets!” Their length and width would be the same, only their thickness would be different and even one-inch thick gussets would have been dwarfed by the dimensions of the beams to which they were attached.

At half the thickness, the steel plate used for the gussets would cost significantly less for the material and also cost much less to install, which should be understood as the principal design benefit of using the thinner material. Where the design engineers erred was in that they did not account that the future loading of the bridge might exceed the gussets’ ability to sustain that loading.

On that count, Dusty’s explanation is dead on:

Design factors of safety are not for you to use to overload the structure. They are for the designers and the constructors to account for unknowns, particularly of the material kind, production and construction tolerances, production and construction produced stresses, time induced strength degradation, among others.