Baltimore Bridge Collapse

VimFuego

littlegreenman said:

Francis Scott Key wrote The Star Spangled Banner; ergo it was a hit job by anti patriotic, New World Order, Biden sponsored Islamo-Atheist tarot-fied conspiracists!

Hit like and subscribe

I've seen people say it's cos of woke, libtards, it's not real, it's a jewish conspiracy (but also an islamist one, possibly at the same time) it's cos murica has abandoned god. And worryingly, that's some of the least crazy stuff out there.

Kittyfrisk

VimFuego said:

littlegreenman said:

Francis Scott Key wrote The Star Spangled Banner; ergo it was a hit job by anti patriotic, New World Order, Biden sponsored Islamo-Atheist tarot-fied conspiracists!

Hit like and subscribe

I've seen people say it's cos of woke, libtards, it's not real, it's a jewish conspiracy (but also an islamist one, possibly at the same time) it's cos murica has abandoned god. And worryingly, that's some of the least crazy stuff out there.

You don't have to test that the ambulance onboard Entonox is working every 5 minutes...

VimFuego

Kittyfrisk said:

VimFuego said:

littlegreenman said:

Francis Scott Key wrote The Star Spangled Banner; ergo it was a hit job by anti patriotic, New World Order, Biden sponsored Islamo-Atheist tarot-fied conspiracists!

Hit like and subscribe

I've seen people say it's cos of woke, libtards, it's not real, it's a jewish conspiracy (but also an islamist one, possibly at the same time) it's cos murica has abandoned god. And worryingly, that's some of the least crazy stuff out there.

You don't have to test that the ambulance onboard Entonox is working every 5 minutes...

well, they monitor the morphine so it's all I've got!!!

Haych

Expect everything to almost immediately start costing more. 

Reports that it will have a significant impact on global supply chains are already hitting headlines. 

Sporky

pigface said:

Perhaps you missed the third part of my post.

No. I just didn't consider it even worth mocking. 

Always in these threads unqualified people start puffing themselves up to demonstrate how much smarter they are than the professionals who are there. It's like a weird desperation to be in the starring role a disaster that's killed people. 

Your claim that the structural impact was that the bridge had fallen over was proof enough that you'd not thought for a moment before posting.

Next phase is usually regurgitation of vaguely technical sounding stuff from news reports, with comments like "any fool worth his salt will tell you you can't use unthermigated yonce-concrete to support a three-span fibble-bridge over tidal waters!", or "I see the BBC doesn't have a chartered civil engineer with any real experience in soil compaction void ratios on its staff!". 

This sort of ghoulish nonsense should be safely locked away in NP&E where the real experts in every subject under the sun (cue" actually, I read a very interesting article about the inside of the sun three years ago so am something of a specialist") hold court. 

sev112

You seem to know something about void ratios and compaction though that puts you in a pretty limited group. even most chartered civil engineers know very little of that - they couldn’t give you the typical range values, and they are pretty small.   But you are right, has nothing to do with this 

Paul_C

Rarely do we see anything which is over-engineered or safety procedures which prioritse human life.

The human approach is often "the minimum we can get away with" and "unless something unusual happens people aren't certain to die", which means everywhere you look we cut corners and take unnecessary risks.

As has been said, infrastructure in the US has been in decline for a very long time, but politics has become so extreme that it's very difficult to get things done while stupid amounts of money go on things that are detrimental to people all over the world, but this could be said about almost anywhere these days as humans seem to be getting more and more deranged.

RandallFlagg

I hope it's not in poor taste or too soon but...

I do hope this bridge disaster doesn't become an idea for the name of a band.

One for the forum long termers.

elstoof

I don’t think any bridge pier in the world would shrug off being hit with 200,000 tons of ship tbf

FarleyUK

RandallFlagg said:

I hope it's not in poor taste or too soon but...

I do hope this bridge disaster doesn't become an idea for the name of a band.

One for the forum long termers.

Whoever does that would have to flounce from this forum, though. In a massively egotisitical way.

pigface

Sporky said:

pigface said:

Perhaps you missed the third part of my post.

No. I just didn't consider it even worth mocking. 

Always in these threads unqualified people start puffing themselves up to demonstrate how much smarter they are than the professionals who are there. It's like a weird desperation to be in the starring role a disaster that's killed people. 

Your claim that the structural impact was that the bridge had fallen over was proof enough that you'd not thought for a moment before posting.

Next phase is usually regurgitation of vaguely technical sounding stuff from news reports, with comments like "any fool worth his salt will tell you you can't use unthermigated yonce-concrete to support a three-span fibble-bridge over tidal waters!", or "I see the BBC doesn't have a chartered civil engineer with any real experience in soil compaction void ratios on its staff!". 

This sort of ghoulish nonsense should be safely locked away in NP&E where the real experts in every subject under the sun (cue" actually, I read a very interesting article about the inside of the sun three years ago so am something of a specialist") hold court. 

Sigh ... I don't (and did not) claim to know any more about structural engineering than you know about what I was thinking. The reported quote struck me as incongrous, that's all. 

crosstownvamp

Paul_C said:

Rarely do we see anything which is over-engineered or safety procedures which prioritise human life.

Yeah but there's a reason for that. Things are built to deal with foreseeable risks. If you build things to take account of the one in a million event you have to build it *much* stronger. 

In the case of a building that means putting in more steel and more concrete.. that makes the entire thing heavier so then you have to add even more steel and concrete to take account of the extra weight - as result the material and construction costs go up a lot. (I'm not an engineer but I shared a flat with one who explained all that to me).

Anyway the bridge was built 50 years ago, when container ships were a lot smaller. But even then any ship hitting those supports would bring the bridge down. It's cantilevered against itself (whatever the technical term for that is ) - a finely balanced pack of cards.

It's also a very narrow span to get  a monster ship like that through. 

I reckon the Port Authorities are partly to blame for inadequate safety protocols.

crunchman

crosstownvamp said:

In the case of a building that means putting in more steel and more concrete.. that makes the entire thing heavier so then you have to add even more steel and concrete to take account of the extra weight - as result the material and construction costs go up a lot. (I'm not an engineer but I shared a flat with one who explained all that to me).

You would like to think that.

When I was at university, the sports centre / gym was basically only a basement, and the roof of it was only a metre or so above street level.  I was told that it was originally planned to have more floors on top, including a swimming pool.  The problem was that it was designed by the Civil Engineering department and they forgot to allow for the weight of the water.

scrumhalf

FarleyUK said:

RandallFlagg said:

I hope it's not in poor taste or too soon but...

I do hope this bridge disaster doesn't become an idea for the name of a band.

One for the forum long termers.

Whoever does that would have to flounce from this forum, though. In a massively egotisitical way.

... and do it more than once. 

drofluf

crunchman said:

crosstownvamp said:

In the case of a building that means putting in more steel and more concrete.. that makes the entire thing heavier so then you have to add even more steel and concrete to take account of the extra weight - as result the material and construction costs go up a lot. (I'm not an engineer but I shared a flat with one who explained all that to me).

You would like to think that.

When I was at university, the sports centre / gym was basically only a basement, and the roof of it was only a metre or so above street level.  I was told that it was originally planned to have more floors on top, including a swimming pool.  The problem was that it was designed by the Civil Engineering department and they forgot to allow for the weight of the water.

There’s a similar story about the library at The University of Exeter which is built on the side of a hill. Apparently they forgot to allow for the weight of the books so it’s sliding down the hill. However it still appears to be in the same place almost 30 years later. 

Paul_C

crosstownvamp said:

Paul_C said:

Rarely do we see anything which is over-engineered or safety procedures which prioritise human life.

Yeah but there's a reason for that. Things are built to deal with foreseeable risks. If you build things to take account of the one in a million event you have to build it *much* stronger. 

In the case of a building that means putting in more steel and more concrete.. that makes the entire thing heavier so then you have to add even more steel and concrete to take account of the extra weight - as result the material and construction costs go up a lot. (I'm not an engineer but I shared a flat with one who explained all that to me).

Anyway the bridge was built 50 years ago, when container ships were a lot smaller. But even then any ship hitting those supports would bring the bridge down. It's cantilevered against itself (whatever the technical term for that is ) - a finely balanced pack of cards.

It's also a very narrow span to get  a monster ship like that through. 

I reckon the Port Authorities are partly to blame for inadequate safety protocols.

That's fair enough, but they could have pilot boats steering them in. 

Jfingers

.

Sporky

Paul_C said:

Rarely do we see anything which is over-engineered or safety procedures which prioritse human life.

Every structure (in the developed world) is over-engineered. Once all the loads are calculated a factor of safety is applied - this basically multiplies the strength of each component to several times what it is expected to be subjected to in normal use.

That factor of safety is typically at least 3; it is often much higher. The fixings we use for projectors (which hurt if they fall on you) are rated for five to ten times (depending largely on the height above the floor) the anticipated maximum load, and that is not just the weight of the projector and its mount.

In the UK, the CDM regulations make me and every other designer in the built environment personally responsible for the safety of what we design past a certain project size (which is pretty small). They cover use, maintenance, and the initial installation - every stage has to be provably safe.

Rocker

It is very sad that there was a loss of lives due to the accident.  On WhatsApp there is circulating a video which combines bits from Only Fools and Horses with the bridge collapse.  Pathetic and in very poor taste.  If there was no loss of life, the video would be funny but..........

But there are a number of questions to be asked.

Why have a bridge spanning a river or inlet that is directly in the path of a major shipping port?
The bridge should never have been built there or the port infrastructure should be on the 'outside' (the seaside) of the bridge.
Were the workers on the bridge wearing any floatation aids?
A ferry system can be setup fairly quickly to move people and goods across the river/sea inlet.  How quickly can the main channel be cleared to allow shipping to resume (pending a decision on what to do about a permanent river/sea inlet crossing)?

randella

Sporky said:

I the UK, the CDM regulations make me and every other designer in the built environment personally responsible for the safety of what we design past a certain project size (which is pretty small). They cover use, maintenance, and the initial installation - every stage has to be provably safe.

My dad the same, before he retired. His personal liability premiums were eye-watering - I used to spend summers making a bit of pocket money doing his typing while he dictated H&S applications and the like. Dear God what they didn't cover wasn't worth bothering with.