BLOODY HELL!!!

Just my thoughts...

This bridge seems to have had a single point of failure.
In my field, if we find an SPF, we can:
Risk assess it out - could tugs have accompanied the ship past the bridge?
Engineer it out - could embankments, reinforcements etc. have slowed the ship enough to avoid contact?
Or, use a combination of both.
We never ignore it.
I may be ignorant and very wrong, but from what I have seen so far, I am not convinced there was much thought into the mitigation of risk.
 
RandomGrinch said:
I may be very ignorant and wrong, but from what I have seen so far, I am not convinced there was much thought into the mitigation of risk.
Click to expand...
I don't think there was ANY regards the bridge. Maybe there is a futility to protecting against massive ship collisions? Maybe it costs too much money v's the probability/risk etc? There seems to be a reliance on the ship doing its bit, rather than the bridge having to protect itself.
 
The option sometimes used is deflection. Sort of guard rail type arrangement but if hit at an unfortunate angle and it may not achieve anything and not a good idea to transmit any force to the actual bridge support

A ramp type grounding idea. Energy goes due to friction and the end to the ship being lifted. An angle of 45 degrees would experience a lot of horizontal force. Make it 15 a lot less. ;) In theory anyway. Again if that force gets to the support it could be bad news. They are designed to work mostly in compression.

What ever is added - what's the river bed like. Ground rock usable? High tonnages of concrete etc to keep the fender or what ever in place.

Best left to the experts.
 
Last edited:
noseall said:
Protection from a boat as big as the Dali?

Nonsense.
Click to expand...
Oh I get it. You think they should have over engineered the protection so that they would protect the cable towers from ships that would ground before they arrived rather than design it to protect the towers from vessels that wouldn’t.

Well it’s an idea.
 
noseall said:
I don't think there was ANY regards the bridge. Maybe there is a futility to protecting against massive ship collisions? Maybe it costs too much money v's the probability/risk etc? There seems to be a reliance on the ship doing its bit, rather than the bridge having to protect itself.
Click to expand...
Just so that we are clear. There are plenty of solutions that would stop even a “head on collision” btw it was starboard bow not head on.

The piers were not in very deep water and the channel not extremely narrow. Plenty of cost effective options and plenty of experts are saying they would have stopped Dali.
 
Just up the road from Baltimore..

Genius, pure genius… or just common sense based on the realistic and foreseeable risk.

www.repierson.com

DRBA Ship Collision and Protection System - Richard E. Pierson Construction Co., Inc.

DRBA Ship Collision and Protection System Delaware River and Bay Authority (DRBA) has awarded the contract to RE Pierson Construction, which will construct a vessel collision protection system for the northbound and southbound structures of the bridge. RE Pierson will construct the new pier...
www.repierson.com www.repierson.com

Impact protection for a 120k ton vessel doing around 7kts. This of course replaced previous protection.
 
Last edited:
noseall said:
What I'm saying is, that making a fuss and championing the protection of the cable towers is pointless in an argument where said protection is useless against a big ship or that the cable towers are in too shallow water to be affected by deeper draught boats.
Click to expand...
 
noseall said:
But not the protection they put around the cable towers, eh. (y)
Click to expand...
Different solutions based on different risks.

Someone assessed the risks and mitigated them. Someone else didn’t.

Were you of the opinion that it would be impossible to protect a bridge from such a vessel?
 
motorbiking said:
Were you of the opinion that it would be impossible to protect a bridge from such a vessel?
Click to expand...
No. I was merely pointing out that the cable tower bumpers were nothing to shout about in terms of the Dali potentially colliding with them.

I'm just a baffled as everyone else, why such a vulnerable structure was left unprotected. Part of me thinks it's because it's either pointless or that large ship protection causes other issues.
 
Experts have appeared to have sorted it out. Even that method is likely to need changes based on where it is intended to be used.
 
ReganAndCarter said:
Always amazed how many armchair experts on absolutely everything there are on here.
Click to expand...
Reading is good for you. I encourage my sprogs to read also. It will help with your learning. Its amazing.

Presently in the US, the current crop of moron RWR gammons are actually BANNING books. Can you believe those nutters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top