Bridge collapse in the US

[meil]

12 hours ago, melmerby said:

Looks like the City of Baltimore is pinning the responsibility for the damage firmly on the owners as the vessel was "unseaworthy" when it left port:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68883659

Yes but they just do not get it do they? The ship may well have crashed into the bridge but the cause of the bridge collapse against such an obvious hazard that translates into a high risk (because of the consequences) is firmly down to the inadequate pier protection and therefore the owner and operator of the bridge.

 

You cannot have a totally inadequate protection against the blindly obvious risk of ship contact and not be implicated in the cause of the bridge collapse.

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, meil said:

Yes but they just do not get it do they? The ship may well have crashed into the bridge but the cause of the bridge collapse against such an obvious hazard that translates into a high risk (because of the consequences) is firmly down to the inadequate pier protection and therefore the owner and operator of the bridge.

 

You cannot have a totally inadequate protection against the blindly obvious risk of ship contact and not be implicated in the cause of the bridge collapse.

It was my understanding that the bridge was stationary at the time of the collisiion.

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, meil said:

Yes but they just do not get it do they? The ship may well have crashed into the bridge but the cause of the bridge collapse against such an obvious hazard that translates into a high risk (because of the consequences) is firmly down to the inadequate pier protection and therefore the owner and operator of the bridge.

 

You cannot have a totally inadequate protection against the blindly obvious risk of ship contact and not be implicated in the cause of the bridge collapse.

It isn't like it's the first time this has occurred. Plenty of similar events of railway bridges.

[Oldddudders]

2 hours ago, meil said:

Yes but they just do not get it do they? The ship may well have crashed into the bridge but the cause of the bridge collapse against such an obvious hazard that translates into a high risk (because of the consequences) is firmly down to the inadequate pier protection and therefore the owner and operator of the bridge.

 

You cannot have a totally inadequate protection against the blindly obvious risk of ship contact and not be implicated in the cause of the bridge collapse.

I was under the impression that having a pilot on board a vessel with a master and crew was to ensure the ship went pretty much where they directed it, in this case through the designated channel between the bridge piers. Since the power failure on board was the sole cause of the vessel failing to behave predictably, that comes down to its fitness to sail, which is the responsibility of the owners, no doubt delegated to the master. 

 

After more than 40 years of doing its job to everyone's satisfaction, to suggest that the bridge design was wrong is unlikely to succeed in court. The designers of the WTC did not seem to be pilloried for failing to make the structures proof against a C21 aeroplane. This is much the same. 

[Reorte]

10 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

After more than 40 years of doing its job to everyone's satisfaction, to suggest that the bridge design was wrong is unlikely to succeed in court. The designers of the WTC did not seem to be pilloried for failing to make the structures proof against a C21 aeroplane. This is much the same. 

I wouldn't go that far - a ship losing control when passing under a bridge that ships routinely pass under is a more foreseeable risk than someone deliberately flying a plane in to the building. There's also considerably less you can practically do with a building for the latter. Personally I'd argue that it depends on the frequency of sea traffic too - if a ship large enough to cause this much damage passing under was a once in a blue moon event vs a regular occurrence then things may be different.

[Jeff Smith]

The pilot is there to advise, the Master is in command.

 

It could be argued that the ship had inadequate fail safe systems - not such a problem in the open ocean but important in critical control situations like this or in canals.

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

It isn't like it's the first time this has occurred.

 

An admission of guilt on the part of the bridge? 

"I'd like 30 similar offences taken into consideration yeronner."

[Ozexpatriate]

14 hours ago, Reorte said:

a ship losing control when passing under a bridge that ships routinely pass under is a more foreseeable risk than someone deliberately flying a plane in to the building

It was built before the Tampa Sunshine Skyway disaster (1980). "Foreseeable" in retrospect. The Key bridge too was hit in 1980 (Blue Nagoya, at 6 knots) and what was in place for survivability was adequate at the time of design - there was limited damage and the bridge did not collapse - continuing in service for 43 more years.

 

From here:

 

"Shorting of main electrical control board; total loss of power and control." Sound familiar? Bridge not destroyed.

 

This is a cogent article.

 

You can make an argument for not retrofitting defenses after Sunshine Skyway but these could have been deprecated given it survived an allision around the same time - defenses in place functioned then.

 

Much bigger ships today and no 'existence theorem' at time of construction.

 

There are comparable examples of undefended piers in the UK.

[Ozexpatriate]

As a follow-on, this is a 'good' article.

 

CNN: ‘Absolutely a wake-up call’: Key Bridge tragedy has markings of 1980 Baltimore crash, but worse

 

It makes the comparison that the largest ships in 1975 had a capacity of 2,500 TEU*. The Neo-Panamax Dali is 12,500 TEU - five times the capacity.

 

* Twenty foot container Equivalent Units.

 

I'm unable to find a displacement for the Blue Nagoya, but it was unquestionably much smaller than the MV Dali.

 

The damage from the 1980 allision was reportedly:

Quote

The collision ripped out a 30-foot section of a protective structure around the bridge’s concrete piling, according to a 1981 article published in The Evening Sun newspaper that cited a Coast Guard report on the incident. But the piling itself was only chipped, not significantly damaged. The accident caused $500,000 in damage to the bridge and required $350,000 in ship repairs, the Sun reported.

 

[PhilJ W]

7 hours ago, Ozexpatriate said:

There are comparable examples of undefended piers in the UK.

Southend pier has been cut several times.

https://www.southendtimeline.co.uk/southend-timeline-pier-diary-history-of-southend-on-sea.html

[Oldddudders]

I note an informed quote in the CNN report :

 

“It’s absolutely a wake-up call,” said Rick Geddes, a professor and director of Cornell University’s Program in Infrastructure Policy. “The people who were building the Francis Scott Key Bridge never really contemplated ships of this size. It wasn’t their fault – they just didn’t have a crystal ball.”

[jjb1970]

I guess the question might be what size of ship could allide with the bridge without resulting in a catastrophic structural failure? The Dali is a big ship, but a smaller feeder ship is still a big object. The 2500TEU boats of the early 70's had a deadweight of around 50,000T, I'm not sure that would have made much difference to the consequences of allision with the bridge compared to the much bigger boats of today.

[PhilJ W]

Even a small vessel such as a tug or a fishing vessel can cause a bridge to collapse if it strikes the bridge in the wrong place. 

https://www.severntales.co.uk/severn-bridge-disaster.html

[ejstubbs]

On 25/04/2024 at 10:37, PhilJ W said:

Southend pier has been cut several times.

 

I think Ozexpatriate meant bridge piers, not pleasure piers.  (That said, Southend Pier is the longest pleasure pier in the world so potentially is a greater risk of being hit by seagoing vessels than other such.)

[Oldddudders]

In my mother's youth there was a joke about the impossibility of abolishing the Second Chamber (i.e. House of Lords) because of the number of Liberal peers.....

[ejstubbs]

On 28/03/2024 at 15:57, Ozexpatriate said:

Earlier this thread had illustrations of dolphins around the Forth Road bridge. The adjacent newer (?) Queensferry Crossing has undefended piers (though the centre pier has a small caisson surrounding it).

 

The Queensferry Crossing is indeed newer than the Forth Road Bridge.  It was opened in 2017, fifty-three years after the Forth Road Bridge.  I was one of 50,000 granted the privilege of walking over it on the weekend before it opened to traffic:

 

 

As it's a motorway class road, that would be illegal now.  (Pedestrians can still cross the firth using the footways on the Forth Road Bridge.)

 

The Forth Bridges web site has this to say about the protection of the Queensferry Crossing:

 

Quote

Protection from potential ship impacts was carefully considered during the design of the Queensferry Crossing. The main shipping channel is between the south and centre towers, so the south tower and the nearest south approach viaduct pier had additional strengthening incorporated during the construction process. The centre tower is founded on Beamer Rock, and this acts as a natural protection.

 

You can see Beamer Rock in this "firthview" photo from Google Maps.  (I would note that Google Maps' aerial view of the Queensferry Crossing seems to be somewhat out of date: if you turn off labels it looks very much as if there is still construction work being carried out on the bridge decks, and around Beamer Rock.  The photo seems to have been taken when the tide was a fair way in, going by how much of the South Queensferry foreshore is covered, so there might not have been much of Beamer Rock exposed anyway.)

 

Beamer Rock is also shown on the 1:25,000 OS map - which in fact also shows the dolphins protecting the piers of Forth Road Bridge:

 

 

Edited April 26 by ejstubbs

[kevinlms]

On 25/04/2024 at 19:37, PhilJ W said:

Southend pier has been cut several times.

https://www.southendtimeline.co.uk/southend-timeline-pier-diary-history-of-southend-on-sea.html

From the number of hits/fires, they should build a section that when something is coming towards it, opens out and starts the automatic sprinkler system!

[Ozexpatriate]

22 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

The Dali is a big ship, but a smaller feeder ship is still a big object. The 2500TEU boats of the early 70's had a deadweight of around 50,000T, I'm not sure that would have made much difference to the consequences of allision with the bridge compared to the much bigger boats of today.

The difference is less than an order of magnitude - and both kinetic energy and momentum are proportional to mass, rather than exponentially so.

 

So 50 kt compared with 150 kt. (One of the articles made the point about MV Dali being "three times the size" of Blue Nagoya.)

 

There's no question that something 3 times the mass will have 3 times the potential impact. How much would cause catastrophic failure is a function of the bridge design.

 

With the direct hit on the pier this was the worst-case scenario for this bridge.

 

I remain unconvinced that with precisely the 'wrong' angle of incidence that a dolphin would have prevented this accident - though if they created enough deflection of the ship's movement they would. The use of the dolphins will decrease the probability of a catastrophic failure. I suspect they are not a 'absolute' guarantee.

 

Edited April 27 by Ozexpatriate
Spelling

[J. S. Bach]

The first ship passed through sometime earlier today.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/26/first-ship-baltimore-bridge-collapse

[Michael Hodgson]

Americans really don't rate this Indian crew do they? 

If this clip is true, they're being kept on board whilst the ship is blown up with explosives.  Seems a bit extreme to me.

 

 

[melmerby]

I was watching a US video on the Dali and they reckoned that some of the containers have stolen cars in them!

A close up photo of one of the containers that had it's doors ripped off by the crash showed a vehicle they claimed was missing after being stolen.🙂

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

I was watching a US video on the Dali and they reckoned that some of the containers have stolen cars in them!

A close up photo of one of the containers that had it's doors ripped off by the crash showed a vehicle they claimed was missing after being stolen.🙂

It's plausible.

[PhilJ W]

Before they demolish the ship they're going to remove the remains of the bridge hanging on the Dali using explosives.

 

[Ozexpatriate]

On 10/05/2024 at 02:35, PhilJ W said:

Before they demolish the ship they're going to remove the remains of the bridge hanging on the Dali using explosives.

News outlets all over the US are showing an animation of the 'precision cutting' controlled demolition.

 

You can find one (of many spliced into broadcasts) here at 50s. I haven't located the source - from "Unified Command'. 

 

EDIT: 

Here's the original.

 

Edited May 13 by Ozexpatriate

[Night Train]

Shaped charges used to cut the steel girders. Crew are 300m away hidden behind a wall of containers 25 deep. They will be fine.