Talk:King Street Bridge (Melbourne)

Australia: Melbourne / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal King Street Bridge (Melbourne) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Bridges and Tunnels Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name of bridge

This bridge is known in many sources as the Kings Bridge, e.g. in Melway. What's the source of the "official" name used for this article? - Bricks J. Winzer (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on King Street Bridge (Melbourne). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Failure of the Bridge

THe failure of the bridge was due to hydrogen embrittlement and poor design which resulted in hydrogen cracking. The cracks were likely to have happened either as the semi passed over or shortly before the semi passed over it. Therefore, there wasn't a possibility that the inspector would have caught it. Also being a partial penetration weld, it could not have been reasonably non destructively tested if the crack were there. By the time the cracks appeared at the surface, the connections failed and the bridge collapsed. The fabricator is familiar with welding structural steel and almost all structural steel is low alloy steel and somewhat higher in carbon than mild steel. Hydrogen mitigation which is needed for welding higher carbon steel is not decided to be used by the fabricator or the welder but the person who comes up with the welding procedure which is likely a professional engineer. This was a failure mostly however by the engineer who designed the connection of the doubler plate. The doubler plate needed to be welded only on 3 sides but it was welded on 4 which greatly reduces the fatigue strength when compared to 3 sides. Hydrogen mitigation would not have been needed had the connection been properly designed. There were three solutions to this. The easiest was to just use a thicker flanged I beam, the second easiest was to have used a 3 sided weld, the hardest would have been to pre-heat the weld and enact strict quality control measures such as having a third party or supervisor hand over a few "baked" rods at a time to ensure the electrodes were properly heated prior to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heretical NBK (talk • contribs) 02:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]