Ayuh,.... That's a pretty good video, but they took alota "Artistic License" in much of it, rather than posting just the facts,....Nice to see something good for a change. Nature finds a way.
At least that will get the bridge open quicker and more safe as well. not like an experiment.Ayuh,..... Maine DOT is going to rebuild the fallen bridge, with Steel beams,....
That's good news, in My book,.....
![]()
MaineDOT to use steel girders in Old Town bridge rebuild
The Maine Department of Transportation says it will use conventional steel girders to replace the Llewellyn Estes Bridge over the Stillwater River in Old Town.www.wabi.tv
At this point, Maine DOT has no other option. They are screwed from a public perception standpoint. If they used another composite girder and it collapsed causing injury or death, decision-makers would be going to jail. They have zero choice but to switch back to steel from a liability standpoint.At least that will get the bridge open quicker and more safe as well. not like an experiment.
Do you remember when the installers used quick set epoxy to install masonry sheets in the ceiling of the "Big Dig" tunnel in Boston. The sheets with the slow set epoxy stayed in place, but the ones installed with the quick set epoxy fell onto moving cars one day causing lots of injuries. Of course, installing masonry into the ceiling with straight bolts, epoxy or not, is risky IMO.At this point, Maine DOT has no other option. They are screwed from a public perception standpoint. If they used another composite girder and it collapsed causing injury or death, decision-makers would be going to jail. They have zero choice but to switch back to steel from a liability standpoint.
My background is in complex commercial construction on the owner's rep side. I've seen all kinds of product failures. Based upon my experiences, more often than not the design is not the problem. Engineers don't stake their careers on a good guess, in terms of the design. Something in the process of installation usually is the culprit. It's the general constructor (or subcontractors) using inferior components that are not up to specification, or not following the prescribed procedure to the letter. It takes really good management structure within the GC's ranks to ensure that every step is followed 100%.
This case might be one of those outliers though, where the design was the problem. We heard designers and engineers state publicly that they were pushing this technology to its max. That's never something that you want to put on record - true or not.