261–270 of 1001 posts
Also important to note. The logistic company running this ship was Maersk. That is the same shipping company that had the ever given stuck in the suez canal a few years ago. Is Maersk now officially the "Boeing" of shipping?
What? No it wasn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Dali_(2015)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't the US have a problem with bridges exceeding their expected service lives?
The boom of bridges after automobiles became common are all running out of time. Yet, paying for a replacement early is also wasteful. So it's an issue, but those bridges where also constructed by a far poorer nation so it's not that big a deal.
That's a must more interesting question when discussing the topic of infrastructure.
Sure we've created a lot more money in the last 50 years, but we've also lost a lot of domestic manufacturing. When it comes to something as vital as roads and bridges are we poorer when we have less paper money or when we are less independent in the manufacturing and maintenance of them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least in the links with the video now you can see that the container ship directly hits one of the two main (and in the central area only) pillars completely collapsing it. No matter(1) the engineering there is no pretty much way to not lose the whole large middle area and left area leading to the destroyed pillar in that situation. Such a collapse crates so much force (tension vibrations etc.) so that the collaps…
It certainly does not seem reasonable to design a bridge pillar to withstand a direct impact from a massive cargo ship. But I guess I thought that maybe there was... typically some kind of earthen buffer around the pillar to prevent such an impact? That's probably impractical too, I guess. I guess I just didn't realize ~$1bn bridges were one fluky ship accident away from total collapse at any given time. I think mayb…
It does look reasonable to have such a buffer. But any preventive measure will have limits as what and how serious an impact it can deal with.
In this case the ship this massive is something that is carrying ridiculous inertia, and its highly unlikely even a buffer could stop such an impact.
I think at some point you are better off solving these issues with more regulation(smaller ships)? Instead of treating this as a engineering problem.
I was wondering after watching the video whether there could be an emergency bridge closure protocol if a ship veers off its intended course. It naively looks to me like there would be sufficient time to log the course deviation and stop vehicles from entering the bridge with lights and sirens and stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clip here, beginning at 1m23s, shows a (sped-up) edit of the ship approaching the bridge, with lights going out, on, and out again immediately prior to impact: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=Cs6PrRiIHEw&t=1m23s >
Curious, is there a specific reason you put links between ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's a very major port, they can afford to make it a tunnel.
However hazardous cargo is not allowed in tunnels so bridges like this one are the only way hazmat can be transported over water crossings.
It makes sense to me that cargo would be restricted, and it's bizarre that it would be related to terrorism (an additional rule isn't going to prevent an attack...).
Not that it matters to anyone else, but having driven across that bridge dozens of times with my kids, this is just shocking. It’s one of the main corridors in the area. Thank god it happened in the middle of the night, though that’ll be no consolation to the families of those who may have died.
I don't think that's quite right. People in Dundalk will suffer a fair bit, as will folks in Glen Burnie and Annapolis, but most people are going from DC to Delaware, and go north rather than over the Key bridge. I think this is most harmful for commuters. Blocking the Baltimore harbor is brutal although I suspect the passage will be cleared as quickly as possible.
I was wondering after watching the video whether there could be an emergency bridge closure protocol if a ship veers off its intended course. It naively looks to me like there would be sufficient time to log the course deviation and stop vehicles from entering the bridge with lights and sirens and stuff.
How could the cost of this possibly be justified?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It opened in 1977. So, oldish, but not that old. Plenty of far older bridges around than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_(Balt...
Notably predating the 1980 collapse of the Sunshine Skyway after a ship hit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On a long enough timeline we all get rammed by a container ship. I would be interested to know some calculations with factors like: expected bridge lifetime, chance of being rammed per year, cost of making supports strong enough plus an extra safety margin to survive maximum ramming force, cost of having major commercial shipping route unusable for an extended period.
Bridges only last for roughly 50 years. Considering such collisions are rare enough to make the news as a memorable event you can workout for yourself that the odds are quite low over a bridges lifespan. They are designed to withstand smaller boat impacts because they occur relatively frequently, but cost vs benefit on rare events that are difficult to mitigate is quite different.
The bridge projects I've been on spec 75 or 100 years. Main difference is better protection/sacrificial depth on ferrous members.