I-794 Hoan Bridge col-

lapse (2000)
“BRIDGE TO NOWHERE”

Name ID
Fady Elkerenawy 700045193
Hasan Alahbabi 201719269
Almigdad zaareer 201350084
Muhammed Turkmen 700041940
Instructor: Dr. Bilal El-Ariss
CONTENTS OVERVIEW
01 Characteristics of the bridge and brief details about
the case.

HISTORY
02 Brief history about the incident

FAILURE
03 Reasons behind the failure of the bridge

EFFECTS
04 Effects of the bridge incident on the upcoming speci-
fications.
 01- OVERVIEW

 Bridge type: Complex Steel

Structure
Arch bridge
 Structural elements:
1- steel tied arch
2- steel girders
3- concrete deck

 Carried 6 lanes of I-794

 Bridge length: 3057.8 m
 Bridge width: 15.8 m
 Longest span: 185 m
 Clearance below: 36.6 m
 in 1975 won the American Insti-
tute of Steel Construction (AISC)
Long Span Bridge Award.
 No fatalities or significant injuries
were recorded due to the collapse
 A total loss of 16$ was recorded,
which was spent for demolishing,
replacing the damaged section
and retrofitting the remainder of
the bridge.
02- HISTORY
The Daniel Hoan Memorial Bridge
is a tied-arch bridge that con-
nects Interstate 794 in downtown
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to the
Lake Freeway across the Milwau-
kee River inlet. Originally called
the Harbor Bridge, it was re-
named after Daniel Hoan (Social-
ist Party), one of the longest serv-
ing mayors of Milwaukee.
Events
timeline In 1909, plans for a faster route between down-
1909 town and the south shore of Milwaukee, Wiscon-
sin were considered
The construction of a memorial bridge in the
1970 name of Daniel hoan began
The bridge was still not complete, but a great
amount of controversary sparked, as residents ei-
1972
ther pushed for its completion or argued that it
wasn’t needed.
The bridge was officially open to generate traffic.
1977 However, the roadways were not fully connected,
thus earning the nickname “the bridge to
nowhere”.
Three of the hoan bridge support beams nearly
2000 collapsed, leaving one lane open to each side for
almost eight months
2001 Two lanes in each direction reopened
2024 The bridge is still fully operational till this day
 On the day of the, cracks were ob-
served in 3 steel girders. Out of the 3
The investigation’s conclusions
03- FAILURE fractured girders the external 2 gird- were:
ers had a full depth fracture leading
to a near collapse. On December 28,
the most critically damaged parts of 01 All cracks were initiated from a crack-like shape
caused by improperly designed welds between the
the bridge were demolished by ex- lower lateral bracing and floorbeams
plosives. Following that, an analytic
and forensic investigation for the This crack-like shape caused very high levels of
main reasons behind the failure was
conducted by:
02 stress in the gap of the girder's web due to the
forces in the girders and lateral bracing members.
Stresses in the girder web gap were at least 60%
greater than the yield point.

01 Lichtenstein Consulting Engineers 03

Brittle fractures (cleavage) were found to develop at
every web crack examined without any detectable
fatigue crack extension or ductile tearing at the
crack origin.

Center for Advanced Technology for

02 Large Structural Systems at Lehigh 04
The way the cracks formed in the web resulted in a
detail that is not inspectable. The cracks were very
small and critical, so they could not be easily de-
University tected.

the Turner-Fairbank Research Center

03 of the Federal Highway Administra- 05
When the web cracked, it was discovered that the
bottom flange plates of the girders could not stop
the crack from spreading. Only one girder was able
tion to stop the crack from spreading further.

06 Extreme weather conditions and salt from neighbor-

ing roads accelerated the failure process
Pictures of the failure
Pictures of the failure
 04- EFFECTS

 Stress analysis revealed increased rigidity due to accumulated stress

on welds.
 Non-ductile behavior of the joint was a new and unexpected prob-
lem.
 Failure led to the assumption that poor production quality, not de-
sign, was the main cause.
 New guidelines for joint fabrication were developed to prevent fu-
ture failures.
 Analysis of Hoan joint highlighted the impact of gaps in the gusset
plate's web area.
 Different gaps from poor fabrication affected stress distribution.
 In Case A, centered plate with a small gap allowed normal stress dis-
tribution.
 In Case B, offset plate reduced the gap, increasing stiffness and lead-
ing to failure.
 Plastic analysis showed differences in constraint due to local yield-
ing.
 Joint failure attributed to poor fabrication quality, requiring inspec-
tion focus.
 General problem across joints required better fabrication control.
 Continued inspection crucial due to potential manufacturing errors.
 Detection challenge posed by sudden, hidden brittle fractures.
 Monitoring both fatigue and brittle cracks essential for identifying
potential failures.
THANK YOU