4 ms·
This would have been perfect situation for some destructive testing. During night time block all traffic. Then drive radio controlled, overloaded trucks over t
by vlehto 8y ago
This would have been perfect situation for some destructive testing.
During night time block all traffic. Then drive radio controlled, overloaded trucks over the bridge every six months.
If the bridge fails, you just saved human lives. If it doesn't, the cost of that project is relatively small compared to pre-emptive repairs. The likelihood of regular load destroying the bridge in the meantime could be managed to be negligible.
It's already used with pressure vessels, because hydraulic testing of them is very safe. Now you would no longer need suicidal truck drivers to do it on bridges.
- Ndymium 8y agoYou forget that there are houses below the bridge, that could have been crushed. Not exactly a place for destructive testing.
- vlehto 8y agoIf the bridge is fine, there is no problem. If the bridge is rotten, you have lot fewer victims. You want to do pre-emptive repairs? OK, the bridge ought to be fine. We can then proceed with the destructive testing. You could do the testing with something like 110% of the typical max traffic load. A rotten bridge would then collapse within 6 months of it's "natural collapse". Only things you do is to make the collapse more predictable and you save lives.
- Ndymium 8y agoI don't think a testing method where there is a risk of a lot of innocent people dying is going to be accepted anywhere. I guess that is the dilemma with these situations.
- vlehto 8y agoWould not be the first time saving lives ends up being less important than avoiding responsibility. So I agree on your prediction.
- djmips 8y agoBesides houses below, the bridge could potentially fail after the test when in use. Better to drive these trucks in simulation before you even make your bridge.