BLOODY HELL!!!

noseall said:
There is chatter that not a single bridge in the US has protection enough to sustain an impact from a ship as big as the Dali.
Click to expand...

That's different from protection not being possible.
Probably more likely that no one wanted to pay for it, especially upgraded protection for existing bridges.
 
The Dall is 91,000 tonnes. Typical big container ship ~230,000 tonne. This is what the bridge did look like. It's classed as a long span bridge, One of the longer ones.
KeyBridge.jpg


Frame by frame video of the collision.
 
noseall said:
Arguments amongst engineers suggest that is not true. There is chatter that not a single bridge in the US has protection enough to sustain an impact from a ship as big as the Dali.
Click to expand...


Experts agree. Sacrificial dolphins, fenders etc.

However, engineers have told NCE that it is unlikely that the bridge’s condition would have been the cause of the collapse. A bridge of this type would not have been designed to withstand loads such as that applied when the ship struck its pier, according University of Sheffield department of civil engineering blast and impact dynamics research fellow Andrew Barr.

Barr told NCE: “The video doesn't show any obvious structural deficiencies with the bridge, but it will not have been designed to survive a head-on collision with such a large vessel. Bridges in shipping lanes are sometimes designed with strong, stout piers, or additional protective structures around the piers to prevent ships from coming into contact with the bridge structure. It doesn't appear that the Key Bridge had either of these features, although it is also very likely that the size and design of the vessels passing under the bridge has changed considerably since it was completed in 1977.”

Institution of Structural Engineers fellow and independent bridge consultant Ian Firth said: “It is almost impossible to design a bridge pier to withstand this kind of impact. Therefore, we tend to design impact protection measures to prevent it from happening instead.

“Dolphins or other vessel impact protection devices in the water are commonplace since the Sunshine Skyway collapse in 1980. But this bridge was built in the 1970’s, so the design would not have incorporated these devices at that time. The fact that a vessel can veer off course and hit the pier is the reason to design vessel impact protection systems so that a large vessel cannot hit the critical bridge support.

www.newcivilengineer.com

Baltimore bridge collapse | ‘Almost impossible’ to withstand this kind of impact, engineers say | New Civil Engineer

The incident occurred this morning, 26 March, around 1.30am local time (5.30am GMT). Engineers have told NCE that the devastating result of the impact
www.newcivilengineer.com www.newcivilengineer.com
 
Last edited:
dont they tend to build islands with shallow sloping sides in front of supports so a big ship would ground and halt before hitting the bridge columns

the bridge that failed had 4 column supports -and as soon as the ship took out one of the 4 the bridge was coming down

100,000 tons is a lot to stop
 
Lots of solutions and all of them cheaper than rebuilding a bridge
 
There has been as would be expected a media frenzy concerning all sort of aspects even trying to blame China.

Also technical aspects such as a head on collision which this most definitely wasn't.

In complete information which isn't unusual within the news.

Fact is the bridge probably will be rebuilt and designed by people who do know what they are doing. It seems the original idea was a tunnel but ruled out by cost.

Fact is the main reason for this one was a ship fault at the worst possible moment. Mind you I would like to know how close it would have passed if the fault hadn't occurred. The ideal would be central to the main supports.. It is a rather long span bridge so why bother. There is no mention of a channel but that doesn't mean there isn't one. Probably not but who knows.
 
noseall said:
True.

I was mostly pointing out that MBK's championing of the cable tower protection, was bunkum in regards to the Dali collision.
Click to expand...
How was it bunkum?

Someone thought about protecting the cable towers and someone else didn’t think about protecting the bridge piers. It was reasonably foreseeable that a vessel could hit either.
 
motorbiking said:
How was it bunkum?

Someone thought about protecting the cable towers and someone else didn’t think about protecting the bridge piers. It was reasonably foreseeable that a vessel could hit either.
Click to expand...
Protection from a boat as big as the Dali?

Nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top