Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="blue streak 1"]Volker======== Good questions. Did span fail first then pylon or maybe part of pylon failed and the span then rest of pylon ?[/quote] Currently everythings seems still possible. German experts have speculated about the collapse of a stay caused by breaking, corroded tendons. As the strengthening of the stays at the first pylon 28 years ago was caused by corrosion It sounds like an educated guess but is nevertheless speculation. The structure of the bridge with the suspended spans everywhere in between might have accelerated and aggrevated the collapse. The statically determined parts of the bridge deck lead to a smaller safety margin than at a continous deck but were easier to calculate in times without computers. Calculative the safety factor is the same for both structures. For a contious bridge deck to break, it has to develop the joint that are already built into the determined structure. Than the systems are really equal. But that is not considered in structural analysis or better has come into the equation about 15 years ago with better material knowledge. While both structures might have a safety factor of 1.75, the real safety factor of the continous structure might be above 4.00. A determined structure can collapse like a card house. Regards, Volker
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag