4.5 Article

I-35W Bridge Collapse

期刊

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING
卷 15, 期 5, 页码 608-614

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000090

关键词

Bridge failures; Plates; Bending; Stress concentration; Fatigue; Cracking; Minnesota; I-35W; Bridge collapse; Structural failure; Gusset plate; Truss approximation; NTSB; Bending moment; Stress concentration; Ductile; Fatigue; Fracture

资金

  1. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The I-35W bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, Minnesota, collapsed suddenly on August 1, 2007. This note briefly summarizes an analysis based on original design drawings, an investigation of material evidence provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and a full-scale load rating of the bridge superstructure. The results of the investigation and conclusions of the analysis include. (i) The thickness of gusset and the thickness of the side wall of the upper chords were designed proportional to the bending moment solution of a one-dimensional influence line analysis. This fact reveals that the NTSB-disclosed undersized gusset plates are the consequence of a bias toward a one-dimensional model in the original design that did not give sufficient consideration to the effects of the forces from diagonal truss members. (ii) Although the bridge's truss-cell structure was appropriately designed, the design of the node that connected the floor members to the main truss-frame was inadequate to effectively distribute live and dead loads. Consequently, the local redundancy provided by the truss-cells was significantly reduced. (iii) A three-dimensional, nonlinear, finite-element, computation-based load rating indicates that some of the gusset plates had almost reached their yield limit when the bridge experienced the design load condition. The bridge was sustained by the additional safety margin provided by the ultimate strength of the ductile steel that comprised the gusset plates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据