Loud noises reported after a storm last Nov?
With so many things shut down now just think of all of the inspections that could be done.
And it isn't like it requires large groups of people.
Cynical me begins to suspect the Italian bridge operators are trying to save on arguments about demolition permits and complaints about how long the span would be closed for replacement.
I bet they thought the concrete needed patching to cover the crack rather than bothering to think about how the crack got there. It's likely that visual inspections would not have been sufficient and that internal steel reinforcement had corroded to a critical condition.
Basically the whole of the road structure in Northern Italy is screwed. Most of it was built with significant corruption ongoing and there hasn't been a lot of money spent on it. Most of these bridges are operating at well over their original design loads. And also a lot of them are single access to main artery's between significant economic areas.
Looks like an arch bridge, but the arches don't seem to meet in the middle.
I wonder if this was the crack which doesn't look like an expansion section.
I went across the bridge on streetview and couldn't really see evidence of expansion joints.
Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.
LittleInch
I see several of those cracked out areas. They seem to be relatively evenly spaced and one at each end of the bridge. I would surmise that they are expansion joints that have been paved over. Also the concrete along the sides of the road seems to be heavily patched. As with the Morandi bridge this one seems to be pretty dilapidated. It would be interesting to see what lurks underneath.
Looks like the cantilevered walkways were a later addition which makes it difficult to see the arch. Would be interesting to know where this crack was.
The Google photo shows traffic queuing on one side sure to the junction layout on one side. That's never great for a bridge[pre][/pre]
I'd say scour is a good candidate. You have an old bridge built with shallow piers, before the risk was recognized. There is a wide riverbed where high speed seasonal flow can concentrate around the piers and there are plenty of abrasives for the flow to carry.
In this photo you can see that multiple piers are broken off at the base. The break occurs between what looks like the base of the original piers and the top of a casting of retrofit concrete. I'd guess the casting was added after most of the damage was already done and the piles finally gave up.
Yes, I saw that as well. Did they say what input was used in the simulation program in terms of determining the point of initial failure? Was the simulation merely the animation of what was observed or was is the result of an actual analytical run predicting what the failure would look like?
The video description says that it is a simulation referencing online images and videos posted after the collapse, and that it assumes the failure location. Unfortunately, the images and videos used are not sourced.
I think it was done to match the result after the collapse. The first pier is the only one not to move, however it is also the only one which is piled.
Now turns out the original bridge was partly destroyed int he war and the whole superstructure re-built in about 1950, which is why it doesn't look like the original. Or at least some parts were rebuilt...
Posted before the one above was posted...
Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.
I still wonder as well if the bridge was widened at some point. If you look at this photo you can see what looks like the "original" concrete deck and the extension. Seems as if they laid another deck onto of the old one and filled in the middle to create the roadway??
Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.
