Key Bridge, Baltimore, has collapsed.

1 to 6 hours expected survival time in 10 degree water. Age, fitness and underlying health conditions being the major factor.

If anyone is still in the water, it is likely they are dead.
In the forces (Royal Navy) we aimed to have
A) Swimmer
Or
B) RIB (rigid inflatable)

In the water by 6 minutes with a man overboard scenario.
 
Police have already ruled that out, in any case you'd hardly carry out a terrorist attack at 01:40 in the morning, on a nearly empty bridge.

bbc says +10 C, air temperature -1 C


If it had been -10 C it would be frozen.
 
I think the important word that was used was 'relatively'. It's not massive chunks of concrete.

However, I agree with what appears to be your point - if you hit any bridge with a 300m long cargo ship, it's likely to collapse.
That is my point. But the experts here have apparently determined it's a shite American bridge and bemoaned the lack of spending on quality infrastructure.

That said, there's a point to that argument -- but they have no idea if it has anything to do with why this bridge collapsed.

We could as easily say that that South Korean shipbuilding looks absolute crap given it appears there were power/steering failures that caused the accident.
 
Because of the way the bridge collapsed, I wouldn’t expect a bridge to collapse in that way after a cargo ship hits one of the concrete pylons, like I said just my opinion, what’s your take on it ?

Then your sense of scale is even more fucked than I previously noted :)
 
You could argue that the bridge appears flimsy when it collapses as it does, but it wasn't designed to withstand a direct hit to a supporting pylon by a massive ship. It was opened to traffic in 1977 and supposedly has 11 million vehicles passing over it annually. So in that respect, it is far from flimsy and has been operating as intended for many years.

If a HGV is travelling 60mph on a road and smashes into a 'flimsy' pedestrian bridge, its going to collapse.

I'm sure when rebuilt they will look into some more preventative measures to protect any supporting structures, but you can't engineer everything to withstand all possible disastrous scenarios.
 
That is my point. But the experts here have apparently determined it's a shite American bridge and bemoaned the lack of spending on quality infrastructure.

That said, there's a point to that argument -- but they have no idea if it has anything to do with why this bridge collapsed.

We could as easily say that that South Korean shipbuilding looks absolute crap given it appears there were power/steering failures that caused the accident.
Awfy precious over a few comments over a singular bridge are you no.
 
So . . . every bridge support is "flimsy" then, apparently, when a big ship hits it.

I assume same if a bomb is dropped on it.

Nailed it. The irony is people talking about 'modern' bridges, which have since found ways to, erm, become even more slender. This one had a whole type of truss named after it, and is a big fuck-off structure. That got hit by a massive fucking force with unimaginable momentum.

Been speaking to 6 different practicing structural engineers about it this morning as well btw, and they all agree, and that while the guy on bbc is 'right' in his pointing out what weaknesses there are in that type of structure, every other type has weaknesses and it is unlikely any would or would be expected to withstand a cargo ship crashing into its main support. Nor would any see its main portion stay up, because that's not how bridges work.

Apart from arguably the forth rail, which is effectively tiny bridges between 3 separate structures.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.