Nancy Young wrote:
> "Sheldon" > wrote
>
>> On Aug 3, 8:08?am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
>>> I think the design of this particular bridge played a big role. 40
>>> years is not old for a bridge.
>>
>> More than mechanical design probably inferior grade steel. I'd bet
>> my bipee when/if the original specs are checked against what's
>> actually there they'll find a lesser grade of steel than what was
>> called out... likely not in error, more at typical construction
>> project graft. The powers that be covered it up then, ditto now.
>
> When I looked at the before picture I thought, what, were toothpicks
> not available? Looked like Tinker Toys. Of course, I'm not an
> engineer, and steel is deceptively strong. Apparently not *that*
> strong.
>
When I was dating Ray he was a construction superintendant. He said
government contracts were the *worse* because the contractor was forced to
lowball the bid to win the contract, then try to do the work using quality
materials and not go over cost. Obviously many contractors don't adhere to
the original specs; rather, as Sheldon says, they use inferior and hence
cheaper materials to get the job done. Go over cost and they're not likely
to get another big government contract. Big catch 22 at the expense of
safety.

They did a news report about the bridges over the Mississippi River from
Memphis to Arkansas shortly after the MN/St. Paul collapse. I always get
nervous driving over the main Memphis/Arkansas bridge. The river is a lot
deeper and a lot wider here than up in Minneapolis. The news report
indicated they are inspected every two years. Since we are located on the
New Madrid fault, the bridges were built (or upgraded) to withstand a level
8 on the Richter scale earthquake. I guess that's supposed to be comforting


Jill