I bet someone proposed adding these at some point since it was built in '77 and were told, "Nah, cost too much."

@DennisMerwood-xk8wp

Ай бұрын

Funny how $$$$$ is the source of all evil eh!

@hedonismbot1508

Ай бұрын

I understand container ships were smaller in the '70s

@stevep2430

Ай бұрын

Exactly.

@samuelhowie4543

Ай бұрын

They just spent $14 million a couple of years ago on upgrades for it.

@jorgej5916

Ай бұрын

also heard that Maryland is the "Least" corrupted state in the union

Our port on the northwest coast of Canada all ships have 2 tugboat escorts to open water. Many of our longshore workers here were questioning why there was no tugboat escorts in Baltimore.

@slvrktman7824

Ай бұрын

Good thing Baltimore isn’t a corrupt place!

@ronblack7870

Ай бұрын

who runs baltimore , that's why

@Jaycee604

Ай бұрын

@@ronblack7870Are you insinuating that because the mayor and the governor are black they’re inept?

@johnnieangel99

Ай бұрын

The ship had two tugs assisting her from her berth. Once she is able to move under her own speed the tugs depart. Though, when the MAYDAY was sent out both tugs tried to catch up and save the ship. Thankfully the hour made it much easier to close down both sides of the bridge.

@Paul_Wetor

Ай бұрын

Considering the lack of protection around the supports, it would have been a relatively cheap precaution.

We here in Baltimore have been saying this for YEARS. When the bridge collapsed I was shocked at what happened but not surprised that the bridge collapsed from the impact. Its been known that if one of those massive cargo ships ever hit the support structure the bridge would be compromised. Why were there no dolphins ever installed? THAT'S the real scandal.

@ontheroad5555

Ай бұрын

Why no two tug boats to accompany the ship under the bridge and out to ocean?

@captcorajus

Ай бұрын

@@ontheroad5555 That's not how it works. The tug assist only lasts until the ship is in the center of the harbor and under its own power. The ship is driven by a highly trained Harbor Pilot, not the ship's crew.

@ontheroad5555

Ай бұрын

@@captcorajus Years ago I worked at the seaport with the federal government. Most of my job dealt with cargo ships and having to board many ships. However we also had the passenger cruise terminal and we also boarded those ships mostly once in port. We had an office inside the passenger cruise terminal building. One time I had to board the ocean liner the QEII that was coming from England but running late. We boarded a tugboat from the cruise terminal pier in Manhattan along with one pilot. According to Coast Guard regulations here those big ships are not allowed to power their way past the Verrazano Bridge north of Sandy Hook on their own. A local pilot will board the ship from a tugboat and steer it into port escorted by at least one or two tugboats. From what you say, and I've read other comments on other forums, apparently this is not the case in Baltimore. But if you hear me out the point I'm making is that with that Key Bridge up ahead it would have made sense to be escorted by at least the two tugboats they allowed to cut loose earlier. When trouble started the pilot on the Dali tried to get the two tugboats back but it was too late. Had those two tugboats been there the bridge would still be standing today because those tugboats are very powerful in helping to get big ships along the way.

@JoeGator23

Ай бұрын

@@ontheroad5555 Having tugs would have been their best hope. NYC already knows better... Baltimore should have known, too. Why, though?

@stepaushi

Ай бұрын

Perhaps the Maryland taxpayers (ie, citizens) were not willing to pay for the protective structures? Just a guess.

No dolphins on such a bridge in that location is pretty insane.

@patleo123

Ай бұрын

Is 'dolphin' the correct word ??

@Transit_Biker

Ай бұрын

@@patleo123It is. There are many types and different designs for different purposes.

@DavidPirouet

Ай бұрын

Helpful probably on smaller ships the little blobs of concrete wouldn't stop a ship that was large enough and was doing a hard turn into the supports in fact they could cause a collision because the ship could bounce off one side and into the bridge where it is weak enough.

@FlanaFugue

Ай бұрын

@@DavidPirouet that is rather ignorant I'm afraid. They would have certainly minimized the impact. THere are reasons that such things are used everywhere.

@desmondjefferson2127

Ай бұрын

Plus, 40 years ago the Skyway bridge did the exact same yet, THEY IGNORED that as possibly happening again. It's pure negligence

The bridge didn’t stand a chance with this loaded behemoth. None

@magnobraga4619

Ай бұрын

I dont know about protections too...

@tonysylvester721

Ай бұрын

The bow of the boat sticks out much further

@nomenclature9373

Ай бұрын

In 2007 the Cosco Busan struck the San Francisco Bay Bridge. Well, almost because protection around the piers took the impact preventing a similar Boston event. In that case, Harbor Pilot navigation error.

@michaeltewes7833

Ай бұрын

Where were the tugboats?? They usually assist in guiding the mamath boats

@chrismcgonigle964

Ай бұрын

Almost 1000 feet of cargo going 8 knots? Like a Miata in front of a freight train.

I'm no structural engineer, but the level of confusion various experts seem to be experiencing after a massive ship, fully loaded with cargo, struck one of the support piers of a bridge which then subsequently collapsed is baffling to me? What's so surprising?

@user-xo4rx8ov5o

Ай бұрын

I would have thought that "smart" engineering would be able to limit the impact above, isolate by section

@BS-vx8dg

Ай бұрын

@@user-xo4rx8ov5o No. Just no. The very nature of the way that a bridge is constructed relies on the distribution of its weight *all* along its length. If you watch the way such bridges are built, it is evident that the entire main span is co-dependent.

@jimmorris5700

Ай бұрын

So nearly every bridge in the world is at risk then is it ? You’re the expert so does it mean everybody’s in danger because when they were built we didn’t have these massive cargo ships but we did a massive bulk carriers which are far more dangerous much more concentrated with coal I’ll steal et cetera. I’m just an expert why the hell do you experts allow all these crappy looking bridges to be built they look like they’re just bolted together with the hopes an a prayer. Are you seem concerned about his profit at the expense of tasteful looks or safety

@FAFO4wisdom

Ай бұрын

What gets me even more, is how the general public assigns expertise to news talking heads in the following days.

@deekang6244

Ай бұрын

@@jimmorris5700ummm, no. There are different types of bridges.

After the 1980’s Sunshine Skyway bridge collision & collapse I would have assumed that the concrete ship impact barriers would have been mandatory for bridges with such large traffic.

@wobblybobengland

Ай бұрын

they are, on bridges built since then.

@fishmonger6879

Ай бұрын

We don't have the money to retrofit all the bridges in the USA, we have wars to fight and migrants to take care of!

@amende

Ай бұрын

@@fishmonger6879 and the migrants are because of the wars and the exploiting of the countries of origin

I'm from the Tampa Bay area....and the Skyway Bridge has these barriers in the water to prevent ships from hitting the support pillars on the bridge. This tragedy could have been prevented.

@ha_ur_dead6675

Ай бұрын

I saw a documentary on that a few years back and when I hear this occurred my mind when racing to that documentary.

@squareballoons289

Ай бұрын

Seems common sense to protect the support pillars.. such a preventable tragedy.

@paulengels6926

Ай бұрын

Not true. It was over 400,000 lbs going at 8 knots. Engineers.say no protections would have saved it from collapsing.

@michealortiz3350

Ай бұрын

Lol this was all setup, it wasn't no accident.

@hen5555

Ай бұрын

​@@poa2.0surface77 I'm guessing the closest you've ever got to piloting a ship is when you were in the bath

The engineer was not surprised that the bridge collapsed; he was surprised about the lack of safety features at the bridge. It needs clarification for some that are watching. You can chalk this up to the local news station using clickbait titles.

@penguin44ca

Ай бұрын

Safety features?! The ship lost power and slammed into it. What features would you need? Air bags and a bridge made from diamonds

@playstore-guy001

Ай бұрын

​@@penguin44ca there are structures valled protective islands build on both sides of the pier's where heavy ships and boat traffic are in place

@BatMan-oe2gh

Ай бұрын

The title: Here's what surprised a structural engineering professor about the Baltimore bridge collapse. Not having the safety features surprised him. "About" is the important word in the title.

@ssjlkrillin

Ай бұрын

@@playstore-guy001 precisely. Some people should watch the entire video before commenting.

@AnAmericanPatriot1555

Ай бұрын

@@penguin44ca So you commented without even listening to the video. How embarrassing…

Why does the Port Authority of Baltimore allow a container vessel 300 meters long, almost 50 meters wide and loaded with 10,000 containers to sail along the port's exit channel without being supported by at least 2 or 3 tugboats until open sea to avoid emergency situations, and even more so with the obstacle of a bridge built in the 70s designed for navigation at that time when there were no ships with the large dimensions that exist today?

@kevinb3812

Ай бұрын

Humans are a confident species!

@user-oc7uq8ue7t

Ай бұрын

Same reason we're letting our boarders be over run no body's home.

@mikematusky7717

Ай бұрын

Somebody said it would cost too much to have tug support for all ships till they got to open sea.

Dr. Aghayere is mistaken. The continuous truss bridge is susceptible to this failure because it is... continuous. Adjacent spans are dependent on each other for support (via a cantilever arrangement) so if one fails catastrophically, its adjacent span will also.

@chrisoffutt8968

Ай бұрын

seems like a poor design choice but I'm sure they had their reasons.

@ellaella5537

Ай бұрын

Yeah, I’m a little worried by his comments. I hope I don’t cross any bridges he built.

@acheable

Ай бұрын

Its common sense to zerorise the chance of collision against a bridge. As always the case when tragedy happened blame on human error or failure in safety management instead of implementing zero safety risk on a man made structure.

@physicsphirst191

Ай бұрын

@@ellaella5537Don't worry, he doesn't design bridges, and his students have more professors that do.

@openeyes-411

Ай бұрын

​@@acheable Well firstly, there is no such thing as "zero" safety risk in the *real world* - and to even virtually approach such becomes cost prohibitive... Secondly, the OP is absolutely correct in stating that a continuous truss is dependent on distributing the load across ALL of its supporting network - and removing even one of those supports causes the remaining supports to be stressed beyond their design capabilities, resulting in total catastrophic failure... And this IS common sense! Lastly, as an example , it was said like 50 years ago that consumer automobiles could be designed to withstand crashes to the impact of NASCAR, thus making hwy fatalities virtually unheard of - but a vehicle would then cost like 1/4 million Dollars, or almost $1.3 million today! So we're always dealing with a compromise.

Brilliant analysis. Simply riveting. Boat hit pier, bridge fell down. Stunning what a deep insight into the engineering this was. I don't know why nobody under the age of 80 watches TV News anymore.

@MochaMaknMoney

Ай бұрын

😂😂😂😂😂😂

You didn’t need a structural engineer to see there was no protection for the bridge supports. This is the first thing many of us saw and we are not structural engineers.

@crosshairs3

Ай бұрын

Lol well you’re wrong so maybe you should listen to more informed engineers. I don’t have a degree and there are obviously four concrete dolphins upstream and downstream of each support. They’re farther away from the pier than usual but they’re there. The ship missed the dolphin.

@jamesmatheson5115

Ай бұрын

@@crosshairs3 So for us non engineers the real engineers stuffed up then didnt they, THE SHIP MISSED THE DOLPHIN, wow all those years of uni wasted, if tugs stayed with the ship until it passed the bridge or if the bridge only had one lane they they could build a football field around the footings. At least if the U.S. authorities have used safety measures that were put in place after the Hobart's Tasman Bridge across the River Derwent then this accident would never had happened.

@Dave-sw2dm

Ай бұрын

Did you not hear the part about how the continuous span should not have collapsed the way it did even if the pier was taken out?

@jamesmatheson5115

Ай бұрын

@@Dave-sw2dm Crap, the piers are there for support, if the bridge wouldnt have collapsed without them, then why put them there in the first place, the correct safety procedures were not in place, just another small reason why America is actually a Third World Country.

@Sammiora

Ай бұрын

​@@Dave-sw2dm I'm a strutural Engineer. From a few rough calculations you would need 40m (131 foot) diameter pier for the pier to sustain a sationary load ( if the ship is at rest but hypothetically leaned on to the pier). But the ship is moving at 7.5 knots (13.9km/hr) that would require around 850m/ 0.53 mile diameter pier (you don't have a port) with the highest concrete grade mankind has ever seen. The professor claims a continous span bridge should have stayed a little longer which I totally disagree. Once you lost one support, all of your smart calculations are gone and failure is inevitable. Had it been a simply supported span, the outer spans might not be affected. Though I know what he's trying to say (a continous span should have redistributed the load) but I don't think he has seen the mechanism and type of the support provided. Once there is no weight to couner balance at one end, all the weights are supported with the one at the opposite end (roughly double what it needs to carry) this is due to the nature of the support. (designing the support this way has huge advantage at normal circumstances). Edit. whoever tells you that you can design a feasible structure that can withstand this kind of cargo ship (119,000 tonne at 13.8km/hr) , just show him your middle finger, he deserves it.

The same thing happened over 43 years ago when the M/V Summit Venture took out the Sunshine Skyway bridge. The new bridge was built with large elliptical islands around the support columns and concrete dolphins in front of those. We've only had four decades to retrofit all of our bridges over shipping traffic. Why haven't we already?

@garybulwinkle82

Ай бұрын

Biden has already vowed to rebuild the bridge. I was wondering why the ship's insurance company wouldn't be on the hook for the costs? But, it should have had better protection against collision would be their argument.

@America-First2024

Ай бұрын

Because money has to be sent/spent everywhere but the United States.

@JoelAz909

Ай бұрын

@@America-First2024 As dumb an answer as any. The real reasons are that people vote selfishly, more concerned with "kitchen table" issues while other are overly focused on "philosophical" issues like 2A and reproductive rights and that colors what the local politicians focus on. The Federal Government is not responsible for maintaining or improving these projects - the state's/local governors, congress and mayors are. Those mayors, governors and reps have nothing to do with what gets sent to Ukraine or anywhere else for that matter. IF those local pols had advocated more, set aside more budget or raised capital by selling their own bonds to fund these projects, they'd be funded. But these projects take years if not decades to bear fruit and likely that fruit will be under a different pols administration. There is no immediate ROI at the voting booth for them so these projects don't get funding or priority till there's a tragedy like this one. You'd probably know that if you pulled your head out of your ass long enough to look around at the world as it is instead of the way your echo chamber feeds it to you. Sorry if the facts and truth interfere with your narrative but facts and truth matter. Not alternative facts or Fox-truths (aka bullshit) but the actual measurable facts that rational and thinking people can see and measure for themselves.

@neilkurzman4907

Ай бұрын

And since then, all new bridges require protection of the peers. This one was built a few years before the accident.

@quentinpugh1969

Ай бұрын

Because people vote for people whom won't invest in infrastructure. We now have an infrastructure bill passed, and half the country is crying about it while simultaneously criticizing the very people whom are trying to fix it.

I'm a strutural Engineer. From a few rough calculations you would need 40m (131 foot) diameter pier for the pier to sustain a sationary load ( if the ship is at rest but hypothetically leaned on to the pier). But the ship is moving at 7.5 knots (13.9km/hr) that would require around 850m/ 0.53 mile diameter pier (you don't have a port) with the highest concrete grade mankind has ever seen. The professor claims a continous span bridge should have stayed a little longer which I totally disagree. Once you lost one support, all of your smart calculations are gone and failure is inevitable. Had it been a simply supported span, the outer spans might not be affected. Though I know what he's trying to say (a continous span should have redistributed the load) but I don't think he has seen the mechanism and type of the support provided. Once there is no weight to couner balance at one end, all the weights are supported with the one at the opposite end (roughly double what it needs to carry) this is due to the nature of the support. (designing the support this way has huge advantage at normal circumstances). Edit. whoever tells you that you can design a feasible structure that can withstand this kind of cargo ship (119,000 tonne at 13.8km/hr) , just show him your middle finger, he deserves it.

@LOGIBEAR01

Ай бұрын

Your calculations are way the fuck to lunch.

@rotorblade9508

Ай бұрын

40m to sustain what load if the ship is not moving? you mean the weight of the ship as if it was hanging on a cable from a pulley? Then impact at 7.5kts? did you assume the ship was a block made of solid steel? 40m might be ok to stop any known cargo ship but 800m seems way too much. the highest force is given by how strong is the structure of the ship and how much stronger the force gets after it starts to compress and total compression length the containers also play a role but you need either to know the design of the structure or some general coefficients for boats like this:

@thedolphin5428

Ай бұрын

Quite true. 1. Work out the momentum for that mass at that speed. Yoyd need waaay more buffers to "stop it" without pylon damage. 2. No multispan bridge would just sit there if one pylon is taken out. One section pulls on another. And the ends are NOT FIRMLY ATTACHED to the piers. They roll and have to move with expansion.

@nathanhawee5373

Ай бұрын

Really Wow!

@kenbrown2808

Ай бұрын

you are correct about what he was incorrect about. the entire bridge was a single truss. when one part of a truss fails, the whole truss fails. and yes, you are also correct about the magnitude of the impact. I did a scratch calculation, and the impact was comparable to an average person walking into a TV tray.

Those protective barriers were the 1st thing that I was searching for in those videos of this bridge disaster. Quite AMAZING that those things were not present in such an open water area.

I don't know. Those protective barriers around the Betsy Ross don't look too impressive. Of course they don't have the same kind of massive container ships like the one involved in Baltimore so maybe they're good enough. But some of the piers aren't protected at all.

@diegojines-us9pc

Ай бұрын

i seen barriers before. a barge hit one turned side ways and still took out the bridge.

@sputnut

Ай бұрын

In a river, boats only run in the channel, not everywhere. In other words, big boats only go through certain areas. Some piers do not need to be protected.

@peterschmidt1453

Ай бұрын

The water it likely way too shallow on the unprotected piers, ships would run aground before reaching them.

@DaveTexas

Ай бұрын

@@diegojines-us9pc exactly what bridge was that, and what was the date? We can check to see if you actually "seen" it. And what language were you trying to write there? It certainly wasn’t English.

@aussie8114

Ай бұрын

They would deflect the ship rather than stop it.

Screw talking about the bridge! It was the GIANT CONTAINER SHIP!

@firestarter105G

Ай бұрын

Bringing in Chinese made junk?

@pacodelahoya2000

Ай бұрын

@RepublicanWave2022 and both consequently fell into their own footprints, just like building 7 that fell into its own footprint even though it wasn't struck by an airplane. Wanna by some property in the Everglades? Beautiful building site with views of the water in all directions.

@JohnPiperBoots

Ай бұрын

Agree! Also DEI - Diversion, Equity Inclusion (Dumb Evil Idiots) at it's best instead of MERIT! Improper maintainence of SHIP! Vote Trump 2024 !!!! 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

@glennscanlon8765

Ай бұрын

@@firestarter105G No ... the ship was on its way OUT of the harbor.

@JohnPiperBoots

Ай бұрын

@johnwingate8799 - Agree! Also DEI - Diversion, Equity Inclusion (Dumb Evil Idiots) at it's best instead of based on MERIT! Improper maintainence of SHIP! Vote Trump 2024 !!!! 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

As a Baltimore (county) resident who lives 4 miles from the bridge, who woke up when I heard it collapse AND who crossed that bridge only 5 hours prior to its collapse, I can tell you that it was dangerous. We all knew it.. I've driven cars and ambulances over it, I used to ride my motorcycle across it. Over the last few years we all have noticed it just didn't seem like it used to be. One man they interviewed that morning even said he stopped in to the office and tried to tell them it was unsafe. He said they told him it wasn't their problem (keep in mind, I am only repeating what the man said on live TV so I have no way to prove this even occurred. However, knowing Baltimore and the state of Maryland, that type of attitude is very believable). I was pretty shocked there weren't pilons or any sort of barrier in place to protect the structural integrity... I always just assumed they were below water level. We have paid tolls to cross that bridge and they continued to rise. Nobody ever thought there weren't safety systems in place if something hit it. How could our State just turn a blind eye to protecting a heavily traveled VITAL bridge?!?! And it makes sense because those structural pilons were always scuffed up from ships hitting them in the past (smaller ones). But the thought that it only took one large cargo ship to lose power to bring the entire bridge down is absolutely terrifying. I've gone on that bridge literally thousands of times in my 40 years, I've fished under it, flew over it in helicopters and used it as a background for photos. What I find most shocking is the fact that it's been literally UNPROTECTED for close to 50 years and this is the first time any of it collapsed. It's shocking, terrifying, and disturbing considering the large ship traffic into and out of the Port... and the cruise ship terminal. And in true Baltimoron fashion, we're all shocked that bridge is gone, but truthfully, nobody is really surprised.

@brodriguez11000

Ай бұрын

The shocking thing will be the bill for all this when everything is said and done.

Sammiora question is the ship still going or did it stop after it hit the column. It stopped there for putting protective barriers in front of the columns would stop the ship. Or make them in the shape if hit they would guide the ship past the column

Ship's have gotten much bigger.

@emilyfeagin2673

Ай бұрын

Good point

@wandaherring7526

Ай бұрын

But infrastructure has stayed the same.

@april-showers77

Ай бұрын

True. But why did the FSK bridge not have the concrete barriers like the Betsy Ross bridge?

@stephensaines7100

Ай бұрын

@@april-showers77 Barriers are only good for deflecting a glancing impact. This was head on, and just somewhere below 100,000 tons.

@donaldwayne4219

Ай бұрын

@@stephensaines7100 That is a very good point you raise there! 👍

Cost effective, budget? Now it will cost even more to replace it!

@scottrobertson9452

Ай бұрын

And I'm sure it will be given a new name..one that doesn't have such a "patrotic" name

@spconrad9612

Ай бұрын

It was due for a paint job..... Or an overhaul.

@pinkfreud62

Ай бұрын

And to think Ukraine is building new bridges with our tax $$$$!

@susanstarks109

Ай бұрын

Not yet. They are buying missiles, drones and artillery shells from US arms dealers now. The US will have to compete with the EU and China for the bridge and road rebuilding contracts.

@avairal5936

Ай бұрын

They should name it Harriet Tubman bridge, since she literally grew up around that particular area

I’m from the U.K. and the first time I visited the U.S. I was struck by how old and basic a lot of the infrastructure like bridges looked compared to Europe.

@crazedvole

Ай бұрын

Unfortunately, in the U.S when some politician tries to get some money put into infrastructure, they either water it down to nothing or it does not happen at all because it will create jobs, help people and improve safety and one side does not want the other side to get a "victory."

@aaronb7631

Ай бұрын

I'm a resident of the U.S., and sadly, it takes a disaster to get anything accomplished here!

@edmartinez6946

Ай бұрын

The USA is a large country, how can you form an opinion from a limited view of the USA? It's impossible.

@EmyajEniacSovereign

Ай бұрын

I need to move back to Europe for the first time again....hahaha

@user-tt2lg5kg1t

Ай бұрын

The US spends its money on foreign aid and Military and of course crooked politicians

Is anyone talking to the mini explosions lights that occur in each of the breaking point just seconds before the bridge collapses?

@user-ou5et3fo3z

Ай бұрын

Extremely suspicious

@mikematusky7717

Ай бұрын

@@user-ou5et3fo3z That would be the rupture of the concrete under compression failure.

Why are we suddenly concerned about bridges when, for decades, they’ve held up to everything except a fully loaded cargo ship plowing through one?

@johnnybates7580

Ай бұрын

100%

@HyperKilljoy112

Ай бұрын

ADHD mentality and panic. Not to be rude but imagine how you would feel if say your favorite brand of bread or snack is suddenly recalled because there’s traces of contamination, like idk asbestos or some extreme. You’d feel the rush of “oh no, what else is effected” and so on. That’s what’s going on here. Whatever happened on that ship to be allowed to veer off course and into the bridge is beyond my comprehension. Either someone was distracted, malfunctioning equipment, or a simple whoopsies. Someone is getting let go and drastic measures are going to be taken and things will change

@stevereimer5254

Ай бұрын

Not where I live in Western Washington. Galloping Gertie was just the first. Two floating bridges have partially sunk in storms and an Interstate Highway bridge section was dropped into its river by an over-height truck. That doesn't count freeway bridges that are subject to failure in earthquakes. Seattle's Alaska Way viaduct took years to remove after the 2001 quake nearly brought it down. Minneapolis may have some comments about bridge structural integrity too.

@user-ww8nz5oo2l

Ай бұрын

Because explosives going off during impact

@mmmd3429

Ай бұрын

Because we live in a reactive society and not a proactive society. Safety rules and laws are written with blood.

Suddenly everyone is an expert.

@johnwattdotca

Ай бұрын

I like the "Captain Hindsight" comment.

@NineInchTyrone

Ай бұрын

Obviously the decision was made to not protect the bridge by experts since other bridges are protected

@nomenclature9373

Ай бұрын

The Anchor School of Maritime Engineering at Couch University is not known for producing the best scholars. Couch U, home of the Fighting Cushions.

@reubensvlogchannel8565

Ай бұрын

Outta leave this world behind.

@Hardawayfits

Ай бұрын

To many chiefs not enough indians.

A nicely put together news segment.

Exactly! Installed at the new I-275 Skyway Bridge in Florida after the old bridge collapsed from a ship collision just like FS Key Bridge.

Any structural engineer that is surprised about this should have every project they were involved in throughly inspected. 😮

@richardjohnson8009

Ай бұрын

that just makes things more strange that exactly this would happen now to something that is known to be deficient structurally

@MrJoker-

Ай бұрын

@@richardjohnson8009 cheaper demo than a contractor? Seems just getting all the debris out is gonna be a hassle, has salvaging even began?

@FrankskinOrweed-ep4ij

Ай бұрын

@richardjohnson8009 Do u think it was intentional? If so, what was the motive

@sharr630

Ай бұрын

@@FrankskinOrweed-ep4ij sniff around the internet. Foreign forces were definitely behind this. And no, I don't mean Russia.

@sting4598

Ай бұрын

@@FrankskinOrweed-ep4ij to have the government push for another large infrastructure bill and it will be changed last minute and send the money overseas.

If any ship this big with that much weight loses power while it's moving there is no stopping it. Being on a carrier for many years and being smaller than these cargo ships but still huge ships we always had tug boats come out and guide us in to the pier. For bridges like this one maybe something similar should be used until some barriers can be put in place.

@davejohn255

Ай бұрын

The tug boats had left after guiding this ship out of the port...

@alexanderdeburdegala4609

Ай бұрын

Tugs were with it most of the way, they broke off once the ship hit the deep channel.

@diegojines-us9pc

Ай бұрын

i seen those barriers, a barge hit one turned sideways and took out the bridge as well.

@danharasty6686

Ай бұрын

Bullard need to be protecting alot wider area of under bridge-deck water

@AlliedBroom9081

Ай бұрын

I completely agree with this, even from the engineering side there is only so much we can do structurally to prevent this, having tugs up until after they passed the key bridge would have at least reduced the impact force from total collapse to just minor damage

Thank you for your report .

I wanna know why the "disabled" ship appears to change course, directly targeting the pier after it "loses" power.

@ricinro

Ай бұрын

The ship appears to go full astern and the paddle-wheeling effect of the props would have turned the direction of the ship.

Hindsight is 20/20

@randygraham926

Ай бұрын

No, it's not if you're serious about protecting infrastructure. U.S. wasting trillions on wars but can't 'protect' its bridges with basic concrete bulwarks? 🙂

@NineInchTyrone

Ай бұрын

Experts are supposed to see ahead

@AlliedBroom9081

Ай бұрын

facts

@mediocreman2

Ай бұрын

They've known about this risk forever. That's why other bridges have protection.

@theodorejay1046

Ай бұрын

It's called planning on contingencies like flooding, dead & dynamic loads, stress, bad weather, etc. Engineers do that or they neglect their science & in this case cause a major disaster.

look out all the experts are out, it's captain hindsight time 😂🤣😂

@JCIIIBULLET

Ай бұрын

Bwahahahahaaaaaaaa ❕🤣

@nomenclature9373

Ай бұрын

Couch University has some good training opportunities. The Anchor School of Structural Engineering is not one of them. Couch U, Home of the Fighting Cushions. Go Cushions!

@Rutherford_Inchworm_III

Ай бұрын

Mission #1: Don't crash the ship Mission #2: Don't crash the ship into anything important Mission #3: Bring everybody's stupid knicknacks from China so Jeff Bezos can get richer. In that order.

@patty109109

Ай бұрын

It’s called a post mortem. Likely not something you ever need to worry about as a shelf stocker, but in the world of engineering failures are analyzed for root cause and measures put in to mitigate future such events.

@carl5381

Ай бұрын

If one had a cell in their brain, a terrible collapse just like this one happened in 1980 to an old bridge in Tampa that had zero protections. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that ALL waterway bridges should have been reinforced this way. Aside from the people here, the issue isn't a hindsight issue. This is literally 40 years of laziness. But, at least we have diversity so there's that. Gotta focus on what's important.

In my humble opinion this bridge collapsed way too easily & quickly !!!!!

A part of engineering design is a HAZOP (hazard and operability) study. The question "what if a ship hits a support" would have been one of the questions asked. It would have been seen as low probability but highly significant. I would have expected some design countermeasures. So the lack of countermeasures surprises me.

@JS-hl1oc

Ай бұрын

DFMEA

@ellaella5537

Ай бұрын

It’s 55 years old, ships this size and this heavy didn’t exist. A brand new bridge wouldn’t even be able to sustain that type of force. Remember when one of them got stuck in the Suez canal, experts debated that maybe those cargo ships were just too massive.

On German television they interviewed a professor of structural engineering. We don't know how difficult the foundation of the bridge pillars is and why massive barriers were omitted. To do this you would have to know more about the subsoil. Half-timbered construction can be the first choice when there are difficult construction conditions. He also said: If a component fails, it is inevitable that it will collapse and there is no redundancy in the design.

@nulnoh219

Ай бұрын

They interviewed an engineer from the Florida International University. That designed a pedestrian bridge that collapsed during construction.

@user-vl5ye1sn3v

Ай бұрын

the $$$$$ to build the safety Bollards was diverted into Equity , Inclusion and Diversity training to create safety for LGBTQ peoples feelings............

@rumfordc

Ай бұрын

so some guy in germany says he doesn't know something... what a story!

@FlanaFugue

Ай бұрын

@@rumfordc every bridge in Germany has protective barriers in case of ship collision...

The bridge collapsed as though it were made of Tinkertoys.

@anonomys7287

Ай бұрын

I was thinking the same thing, no segments held what so ever just like dominos.

@ceasetheday87

Ай бұрын

“That’s how the cookie crumbles” That’s exactly the way a structural engineer would expect a bridge to fail without a supporting column.

@jonstardc7160

Ай бұрын

If you look close at the top at the bridge soon as the ship touch look where it snaps and pause the video you would see fire explosion 💥 they demolished it at every point it snap you would see the small explosions..... Spread the word after you rewind at look

@jonstardc7160

Ай бұрын

​@@anonomys7287 If you look close at the top at the bridge soon as the ship touch look where it snaps and pause the video you would see fire explosion 💥 they demolished it at every point it snap you would see the small explosions..... Spread the word after you rewind at look

@danoman1893

Ай бұрын

THANK YOU! GLAD I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO NOTICED THAT...@@jonstardc7160

what's the depth of the delewar vs the chesapeke? pretty hard to do with the depth I am sure

0:36 - What is the smoke and fire coming from the top of the bridge?

That particular ship has a gross weight of 95,000 tons, so no, a bridge pylon isn't going to stop it.

@oldtimer4888

Ай бұрын

Correct.

@MichaelT_123

Ай бұрын

A protection pier in the shape of a slightly angled segmented ramp will take any weight ... as the forces generated during a collision are directed to the ground. Small sandy islands around piers would do the job also ... absorbing the forces like boxing gloves. Both of the above are not expensive solutions, even in the US context, aren't they?

@alexanderdeburdegala4609

Ай бұрын

Unfortunately you're comments here why true, don't apply. These pylons were not designed to handle an impact from anything near this massive.

@astridgalactic9336

Ай бұрын

Plus, this ship had a history of troubles during inspections with the same issues that caused the ship to fail. On top of that, it's a full moon which affects the currents and tides.

@RWZiggy

Ай бұрын

@@MichaelT_123 false, would not "take any weight", you aren't an engineer.

Wondering how many such bridges have zero protective measures at all 🤔

@brianokeefe7781

Ай бұрын

good question and today I've been using Google to look at some BIG bridges ...... good to know that the one big support for the Golden Gate adjacent to the ship channel has substantial buffering ..... Bay bridge less so but here the passages are wider and the basic support structure is MASSIVE. Run the bridges up the St John's river from ocean to JAX ..... hmmmm some good some bad - but BIG ships don't regularly go all the way up town. Lastly find a before and after picture for Sunshine Skyway ..... the new bridge supports sit on SIGNIFICANT ISLANDS and several secondary supports to either side of the mains (away from the ship channel) ALSO have multiple concrete dolphins over 20 feet in diameter. In this case, Florida did not need to be slapped twice . . .

@9ZERO6

Ай бұрын

Look at the Mackinac Bridge too.

@paulamarlowe4205

Ай бұрын

I bet ALOT

@user-ux3bh3kf2u

Ай бұрын

Most bridges in the U.S. are old as hell😂😂😂😂

@9ZERO6

Ай бұрын

@@user-ux3bh3kf2u thats because no country bombs us back into the stone age, and we also spend more BILLIONS on other countries infrastructure after we blow them up and reset thier hard drive...In the name of freedom and oil and old rich white men. But shhhhhh, people are still trying to imigrate here by the millions every year. Or they are just rollin up though our huge gap toothed southern border wall and squatting in Californy.

What a fun video. I haven’t thought about the fortune teller in years! How fun to see them again.!!!❤ Your page turned out beautifully.❤ I really liked when Freddie was watching you so intently. He’s such a precious boy.❤️ Have a Blessed day and a Blessed Easter🙏🏻 K.

This is a painful lesson that transportation agencies around the country are now reacting to. Hopefully there will be no more arguments about the need for these dolphin pilings to protect the pier. With these huge container vessels the island will need to be substantial to adequately deflect the vessel. A secondary island preceding the major island is used in some cases.

Those protection barriers need to be bigger. Way bigger. The ships now are massive in comparison two ships of the 70s

@vincentyeo88

Ай бұрын

Protection against ships, yes. Protection against earthquakes, no.

@davidp7178

Ай бұрын

Were there only 2 ships in the 70's?????

@RaiderNation-North

Ай бұрын

Booty Judge is about breaking down barriers…not creating them. That definitely wasn’t a racist bridge!

@wobblybobengland

Ай бұрын

there weren't any barriers

The bridge appears to be a continuous span rather than simply supported design, meaning it was securely pinned at either end with 2 large intermediate piers on which the bridge “rested” but was not pinned down. Losing one of the large supporting intermediate piers (due to the wayward container ship) undermined the entire bridge, subjecting it to dead weight well beyond the shear, compressive, and tensile strength of the truss frame members and connection bolts/welds. The Drexel engineer's assumption/analysis is incorrect.

@dixierebel8422

Ай бұрын

Being a Mechanical Engineer, I say your statements are spot on. A much better analysis than this so called professor. Drexel is hurting for qualified instructors.

@Samqdf

Ай бұрын

Thank you! you can clearly see the body of the bridge pivot on the second main support column before the other side collapsed because of it.

@ceasetheday87

Ай бұрын

From the moment I read “continuous span” and “simply supported,” I knew an engineer (structural, mechanical, or other) must have provided this comment.

@danoman1893

Ай бұрын

PLEASE LOOK CLOSELY AT THE VIDEO AGAIN... WATCH THE TOP BEAMS WHERE THEY SNAPPED IN TWO. CAN YOU SEE THE SMALL EXPLOSION AT EACH BREAKING POINT? HINT: THE DISTANCE IT WAS FILMED AT MAKES IT KINDA HARD TO SEE, BUT, IT LOOKS LIKE A SHAPE CHARGE EXPLOSION.... AND IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IT, IT BECOMES OBVIOUS...

This was quite informative!

Who filmed the origional footage?

@farmerthatflies

Ай бұрын

A security camera down river of it

@RFC3514

Ай бұрын

No one filmed it, and there's no footage. It's a digital camera, there's _byteage._

@farmerthatflies

Ай бұрын

Technicalities

I heard that the container ship initially had tugboats guiding it out but the tugboats departed before the container ship ever reached the bridge. I also heard that there was no requirement for tugboats to be used to guide large or heavily loaded ships under the bridge. I'm no expert but I am now wondering if tugboats had remained attached to the container ship guiding it until it passed under the bridge, would they have been able to safely get that container ship through even though the propulsion system on the ship failed.

@butchs.4239

Ай бұрын

Possibly, but nobody was expecting a 100,000 ton ocean going container ship to completely go dark and lose both propulsion and steering. The tugboats peel off once the ship is in the channel and under way as they've got to get ready for the next ship waiting to dock at the berth just freed up. Having tugs on station seems prudent, but I'd look more at why the bridge's support piers weren't better protected. I get that Key Bridge was fairly old and there hadn't been a problem previously, but similar situations have occurred before with similar results elsewhere, and the costs to passively protect the bridge would've been far less that the cost of replacing it now it's gone.

@HALLish-jl5mo

Ай бұрын

Remaining attached would be pretty dangerous for the tugs, but they could have traveled in formation ready to push her if needed

@brianokeefe7781

Ай бұрын

@@butchs.4239 Key bridge completed in 1977 according to WIKI - Skyway knockdown was 1980 - when NTSB noted lack of pier protection as an issue and recommended 'look at all similar bridges'. The tugs were 'docking tugs' and once the ship was away from the pier no longer required . There are places/situations/conditions where tugs are required to 'escort'. In San Fran a tanker requires an escort. Establishing a rule requiring an escort meets HUGE industry resistance as tugs cost $$$ and the ship is the one that pays even if is a legal requirement. In a typical cruise ship port a ship without all of its systems or if wind exceeds XX, tugs are required. They don't like this .... These are Captain of the Port issues.

That bridge fell like a deck of cards

@wandaherring7526

Ай бұрын

That cargo ship is massive compared to the bridge.. our infrastructure hasn’t changed but cargo ships are much bigger than when the shipping lanes and ports were built.

@williamfeng7980

Ай бұрын

Make in china.

@odiesclips7621

Ай бұрын

I believe you mean "house" of cards....?

@cw5451

Ай бұрын

I was thinking it fell like dominoes.

@mjphoto45

Ай бұрын

Or dominoes

When I first saw those concrete barriers near the Betsy Ross Bridge, I thought they seemed like an excellent solution. Their physical separation from the bridge would allow them to be impacted without necessarily taking out the bridge. Then I thought about the phenomenal size of the Dali. The more I thought about it, the more it seemed to me that those barriers would not be large enough to stop a ship of that bulk. I think the momentum of the ship would still cause it to take out the bridge -- but the barriers would be large enough to rip a hole in the hull of the ship, so that we could have the bridge out and the ship sunk. That might not be an improvement.

It was a continuous truss but it was cantilevered so once part was damaged and it separated the imbalance sealed its fate. Didn’t clue in until I saw pictures of the construction. Before the span was complete in the center they had temp supports to the sides of the main supports. Once completed the continuous truss was balancing the weight of the ends vs the center. As you see from this story a very common bridge design hundreds of large bridges like this. Be cool if they can do a cable stay like the new Gordie Howe bridge, they are awesome looking structures.

Why? The lowest bidder. That’s why.

@henrylubinski2728

Ай бұрын

Perfect handle for someone with no knowledge of physics.

@slabbusterrtr7690

Ай бұрын

And they took three sweet time to build I mean come on 10 years?? in Japan they could do it in 2 years

@drewsimmons1629

Ай бұрын

​@@henrylubinski2728what does his comment have to do with physics there brainiac? C'mon genius enlighten us lol

@patty109109

Ай бұрын

@@henrylubinski2728most Americans don’t have even a passing knowledge of physics. It’s remarkable in a terrible way.

@elliotkane4443

Ай бұрын

Thats not how these contracts work, the state road authority puts out its requirements and companies compete for the contract. Obviously it wasn't a requirement. The bridge was built in 1972, thats before the tampa bay bridge collapse caused by a ship that led to the building of these dolphins and other obstructions to prevent future collapses.

I heard there was talk about them putting bumpers around the foundations for the Francis Scott Key bridge but they said it was too expensive so I guess it's cheaper now to rebuild the bridge.?

The Bay bridge in San Francisco can have a similar fail due to lack of crash cushions big enough to handle the prow of these large container ships. The design of the cushions must also be changed.

Crazy to give names to bridges. Greetings From Finland 🎉

Concrete dolphins are critical in shipping channels and would have possibly prevented this tragedy. Thankful that there wasn't a much higher loss of life in this.

As I commented on another site re this disaster. If the ship had been under the bridge when the wind took it into the pier of the support metalwork, quite possibly the bridge would be ok as the overhang of the side of the ship is non existent and if the pier was strong enough the ship would not touch the bridge supports. But the bow overhang on modern container ships is massive, far bigger than those around when the bridge was constructed to a minimal budget. It would require a pier near half the width of the ship on the transit side to prevent the top of the hull taking out the bridge support column. Also without a wide pier barrier any striking of the support column is a cutting glancing blow this creasing the support meaning instant collapse. Just like standing on a can and tapping the side, it collapses instantly. Also the support columns require engineered wings/platforms on the internal sides just below the rollers to prevent the span falling if the span moves away from the support column. Then there is the issue that if the power had failed a little earlier the ship would have hit the bridge under one of the other spans as the wind drove it to starboard a fair distance. Retro fitting larger piers around the metal support structure should have been done years ago. Also as container ships go this one is not a giant. There are far bigger ships around and the bigger they are the more the bow overhangs the hull for streamlining underwater and maximising width capacity above the water.

@nathanhawee5373

Ай бұрын

Holy crap, very well explained.

@arslongavitabrevis5136

Ай бұрын

Excellent commentary and analysis. Thank you!

@runstrumshoot7869

Ай бұрын

You noticed that. Good eye.

@SpamSucker

Ай бұрын

I disagree with some of your statements; at least I don’t understand what you’re getting at. When you say “bow overhang” are you talking about the height of the forecastle above the water line, or the distance that it protrudes forward of the ship (the “rake”)? It is relevant if you are claiming this modern design is fundamentally different from ships of the 1970s. And the second point, while there are “much larger” containerships out there, this was a quite large one, probably pushing the limits of what the Port of Baltimore can handle. 300m length, 48m beam, 15m draft nearing 117kdwt, that’s not trivial.

@jimspc07

Ай бұрын

@@SpamSucker Size wise yes its big. This ship is not small. But compared to the capacity of container ships in the 1960-80s it is very big. The capacity when this bridge was built averaged about 750 containers per ship today it is over 4500 average and the largest over 25k. Also size was usually restricted by the Panama Canal having a maximum length of under 1000 feet prior to 2016. By the overhang I refer to the difference between the ships width at the waterline compared to the width at the deck line. In the centre they are equal in most ships. At the bow the waterline width is narrow as a result of minimising water drag as much as possible. Yet at the same point, say 10-20m from the bow, the deck line width is as wide as it can be to enable more container capacity as far forward as possible. This is the overhang I write of. When I was at sea in a former life bulbous bows were only on fast passenger ships. Bulk commercial ships were built for maximum internal hull capacity with wide blunt bows and the container ships were marginally sleeker but still blunt.

Even the Betsie Ross bridge shown with those protective islands... only had them on the center most supports. Could a ship with no power hit one of the unprotected supports? That type of protection should be on every major bridge that sees heavy ships.

I was sure that I remember seeing those barriers in pictures of the bridge but maybe I'm confused with another bridge that had the barriers and I assume that that was what was for was to keep ships off of it

What surprised me was how people are in awe that a barge can take out a bridge 😮🙄

@tzon6802

Ай бұрын

A barge did not take out a bridge

@lewisner

Ай бұрын

When it weighs 100,000 tons

@robertkarp2070

Ай бұрын

Barges are towed, this was a Cargo ship with it's own power and in this case the power failed, which caused other systems to fail.

@Emphasis213

Ай бұрын

Lol a barge? It was a humongous cargo ship. With thousands of tons of goods.

@fidelcatsro6948

Ай бұрын

barge my cat! that was a giant ship fully laden with cargo and super duper heavy!

Why did you never talk about that protection since the bridge was built?

Why is this only in 360p?

@danoman1893

Ай бұрын

IT HELPS TO HIDE THE EXPLOSIONS THAT HAPPENED WHERE THE TOP BEAMS SNAPPED IN TWO....

Look at 1:27 on the video. The power line to the left of the bridge has those protective barriers.

Bridges in Alaska have massive piers at and below water level to protect against huge moving ice sheets. Why not here to protect against similar forces?

The lack of barriers is a heinous oversight. It should be REQUIRED. Perhaps this tragedy will instigate that change.

@ericdraven7185

Ай бұрын

No.. they need to send more billions to Ukraine and continue to ignore the needs of our own country and infrastructure.

@steelionx9255

Ай бұрын

Haha! Great sarcasm, Dave!

@jonathanbuzzard1376

Ай бұрын

It would be today, just not when the bridge was built. The right solution is a suspension bridge with no piers in the water that can be reached by a ship without running aground first.

@leehaber

Ай бұрын

@@ericdraven7185 Yep, second-hand military equipment could have stopped this ship from ramming the bridge.

@codetech5598

Ай бұрын

Yeah, and they should also protect the tops of the bridge towers from aircraft.

are these protections strong enough against such a big tanker?

Thank lots for sharing 👍❤️🧡♥️

I was kinda shocked just how quickly the entire bridge fell apart. Amazing to get away with such a low death toll. That could have been so much worse.

@ArtStoneUS

Ай бұрын

Amazingly, in just a couple minutes they had shut traffic on both ends. My guess is that because of the pothole filling, there were dot people at each end manning the signs warning people that lanes were closed.

@jonstardc7160

Ай бұрын

If you look close at the top at the bridge soon as the ship touch look where it snaps and pause the video you would see fire explosion 💥 they demolished it at every point it snap you would see the small explosions..... Spread the word after you rewind at look

@LOGIBEAR01

Ай бұрын

​@@jonstardc7160retarded.

@TomasRodriguez-tx6bm

Ай бұрын

there are two explosions at each end of the bridge at the same time and more explosions along @@jonstardc7160

In the freezing winter, a bridge will literally shrink and in the summer, it will elongate. The longer a bridge is, the bigger this effect. The supports holding up the bridge must allow for the bridge to move around a bit to allow for thermal expansion and excessive vibrations (earth quakes, etc). By design, these bridges are not rigidly attached to their main supports. The bridge literally just rests on the main supports. This is why, when one of the main supports was taken out the rest of the bridge instantly collapsed.

@peacenow42

Ай бұрын

but does it rest FIGURATEVELY on the supports?

@rumfordc

Ай бұрын

umm you are not very intelligent. please think harder before spreading ignorance. engineers already account for temperature. good bridges don't collapse all at once.

Old bridges should be taken care of with updated safety measures. Not because it lasted decades means it will last centuries.

I just need to share my oppinion here, The Abutment of Bridge better design like ship that have both ends are tapered (top view) , so when big ship lost controll hit the abutment first not direct hit the colum beam of bridge, so better make separate abutment arround center abutment to protect , like earth protected from commet i think..we hope big ship will stop or broken down when hit protection abutment first, before hit the center of bridge column. so the main abutment & bridge column keep safe

This problem was first called attention to back in *1980* when the Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Tampa was destroyed. There were protective berms installed on its successor, so it would be almost impossible to do such a thing again, no matter the size of the ship. This is negligence of the worst kind, to not have dealt with this issue in the course of more than 4 decades, on _any significant bridge in this country._ The individuals who were in charge in the past 40 years who were not calling openly for this to be resolved by adding protections, who were not being rejected by supervisors, should be brought up on charges. And any who weren't being supported by supervisors, well, THOSE supervisors should be charged. It is inexcusable that something like this should happen again, with that much notice. Even more importantly, terrorists are certainly taking note -- you can assume that any bridge of significance lacking these protections are going to be targets within a year.

@AlChemist-235

Ай бұрын

The focus of zhe value western idiocracys concerning bridges was zhe destruction of the Crimea bridge. Or did you hear anything else? Right?

@jdsguam

Ай бұрын

Infrastructure Money was spent on Liberal Causes; NOT, on infrastructure and safety concerns. Now, Biden is going to make this bridge a major part of his reelection campaign. The Taxpayers across America will be funding the rebuild effort.

@petechilimindris9900

Ай бұрын

I completely agree. I also base my opinion on the fact that I fish under this bridge for years and can tell you all that it's known how old and rickety this thing was even 5 years ago. It's a piece of crap straight up!! Baltimore is reactionary to everything and not proactive about anything. You could look at the thing and tell ot was on ita last leg. I'm just a fisherman and a carpenter and even I can tell it wasn't strong. All it takes is some common sense and knowing what minimizing risk in life really means. Its like me going to the hood in Baltimore and wondering why I got robbed for my jeep. Well it wasn't a coincidence or unlucky.

@FUGP72

Ай бұрын

"such a thing" was not THIS though. Those would NOT stop a 200 million pound ship from hitting head on. They are designed to guide a GLANCING blow away from the bridge support.

@3DPDK

Ай бұрын

@@FUGP72 which if you watch the video is exactly what this ship did. It didn't ram the piling head on, it ground the piling with it's starboard rail. The sudden change in direction at the very end wasn't from the rudder input, it was the bow being deflected by the piling. The ship stopped in place because of the bridge span falling on to it's bow. A dolphin system would indeed have protected the pilings.

I bet when this bridge gets rebuilt it'll have those protective bumpers. Pretty amazing it didn't have them when the bridge was originally built. Now that this has happened there should be a long hard look into other bridges throughout the nation and every port where these gigantic cargo and cruise ships have to navigate under them and be retrofitted if they don't have these protective barriers. This highlights the need for more money for infrastructure and maybe less for weapons if need be. Just this one incident is going to cost billions ...not for the bridge per se but in lost revenue and jobs. This was a huge tragedy

@brianokeefe7781

Ай бұрын

NTSB recommended this very thing after the 1980 knockdown of the Sunshine Skyway ...... from the ntsb report: The Safety Board believes that the Coast Guard and the FHWA should coordinate their efforts in providing for the safety of the general public by determining the specific existing and proposed bridges which are in need of additional protection from ship collisions and issue standards for the design, performance, and location of structural bridge pier protection systems.

@bret383

Ай бұрын

It was opened in 1977

@TheSoundsage

Ай бұрын

Well, there you have it in a nutshell: when it comes to feeding the dogs of war at the trough, money is no object- but when it comes to domestic infrastructure it is an entirely different matter- and the citizens of this democracy are to blame for not demanding better. (though admittedly they do not have millions to pay off lobbyists.)

"All of our bridges have safety measures," he said. Well, now that the bridge in question is no longer a bridge, but rather a debris field, he's not wrong...

I noticed only the two center piers have protection. If a ship lost engine and steering wouldn't hitting one of the side piers cause the same thing. I didn't see any protection there.

Bridge looked like it was built out of matchsticks and glue the way it just splintered up and collapsed 🙄

@slabbusterrtr7690

Ай бұрын

It fell like it was barely holding on as it was we can send billions to another country but we can even make a bridge here so that don't happen I bet there was costs cut when building our government will spend whatever unless it to help it's own people that's the damn truth

@Paul_Wetor

Ай бұрын

It was a sturdy bridge, but if any one of the supports was gone, the whole bridge falls down, not just the part that was hit. Maybe that was good enough when it was built, but not with today's huge ships.

@jdsguam

Ай бұрын

@@Paul_Wetor And after 40+ years, no one considered it? I am quite sure, the need for protecting the bridge was brought up a few times over the years; but, the liberals in charge, stopped the funding. Just kicked the can down the road, year after year.

@TheRightONe-et3gh

Ай бұрын

stupid comment!

@perryallan3524

Ай бұрын

The design is typical of its era. Today these are called "fracture critical" bridges because if one key element fails the entire bridge collapses. Modern bridge design has multiple redundant elements - and are not fracture critical.

I traded well on my Demo account but when I invested in to my main account i lost all my funds. Please i need an expert to assist me with my trading. It's frustrating how people loss funds in this trading, I really feel so bad.

@Lindasafley2

Ай бұрын

Isn't that the same Expert Rebecca Anne Dickson my neighbors has been talking about, she has to be a perfect expert for people to talk about her so well.

@timothyhight9588

Ай бұрын

Another scammer!

@ReformedAgnostic

Ай бұрын

True "investing experts" do NOT use Whatsapp. They do not give advice over Whatsapp or text. You must meet them in their office, or - if you're too far away - they will have a secure video call with you so that you can see their face, and you can easily look up their qualifications online (and the person mentioned here doesn't seem to exist). THIS ENTIRE THREAD IS A SCAM. How do I know? I've been an investor for 40 years and know investing scams when I see them.

@larrygronewold6529

Ай бұрын

Rebecca Anne Dickson got busted for cocaine possession last night

What's surprising is that it steered directly into the pier.

@justrelax3323

Ай бұрын

Shh, please don't startle the sheep.

@allanchurm

Ай бұрын

it could not steer as it needs electricity to activate the steering ..whatevr position the rudder was in when it lost power is the position it will stay in.

@viperdemonz-jenkins

Ай бұрын

@@allanchurm then why did they not drop anchor they were having power issues long before the crash. and an anchor can be dropped without power, and yes they can drop the anchor manually.

@danoman1893

Ай бұрын

THANK YOU!

The bridge was severed in sections at the moment of impact ..... there has been several people show the video of the incident frame by frame which shows small explosions at the points of separation !

@Mooseman327

Ай бұрын

That's been debunked already.

It wasn’t the bridge!!

@GardenOfEdenYT

Ай бұрын

?

@jtmcm9

Ай бұрын

It was the fact that the tugs did not escort the ship out of the harbor

@GardenOfEdenYT

Ай бұрын

@@jtmcm9 Someone clearly doesn't understand shipping :D

@jtmcm9

Ай бұрын

@@GardenOfEdenYT I understand that this would’ve come at a cost to the shipping company. However, this should be mandatory. The port is close enough to the bridge that it should just be common practice. You know, to avoid a ship losing power/control and demolishing shit? :D doesn’t matter how good your captain is if the ship doesnt move under its own power. GREED put lives at risk and killed 6 workers. Not the construction of the bridge.

@randygraham926

Ай бұрын

The bridge should have had bulwarks (concrete islands) to protect the pylons from out of control ships. It's the priority of the U.S. to waste trillions on wars and bailing out bankers than upgrading and protecting infrastructure.

There must be a Concrete barrier I agree with the Engineer

@rumfordc

Ай бұрын

@@vinezero of course they would have. that's why they're built around bridges all around the world... because they work.

You couldn’t see that coming. Blows my mind

Strange that there actually seem to be protective structures at Baltimore around the nearby power lines crossing the river but not the bridge itself.

@mikematusky7717

Ай бұрын

Without the protective barriers around the power lines their supports (poles) would be much harder to see (easier to miss) in dark or inclement weather. In thinking about it somebody probably said "You can't miss the bridge..."

How about jetty-like structures extending far enough upstream from the piers that any ship hitting this man made reed would become stuck fast ?

yeah like whats stopping a 200000 ton panamax cargo ship at 7 knots

@diegojines-us9pc

Ай бұрын

i saw that movie. nothing.

@sheireland3737

Ай бұрын

The bridge pylon stopped it. Why wouldn’t a protective barrier?

@NotExpatJoe

Ай бұрын

Apparently a bridge can stop it.

@johanjacobs9240

Ай бұрын

@@sheireland3737 Because they are engineered is such a way to effectively stopping big ships before it reach the pylons itself. Several meters of concrete around the pylons anchored into the bedrock.

@mattywho8485

Ай бұрын

You don't need to STOP it, you only need to deflect it.

Even here in San Francisco, the Bay Bridge, all support piers have large caissons surrounding them like mini islands. No chance for anything to hit it that low in water.

Look for the iron thermite, clean perfect 45 degree cuts on the I beam supports. Why reinvent the wheel when it worked so well the last time around.

@danoman1893

Ай бұрын

THANK YOU!

I’m very happy for let me know a very important information about a structure how it makes sense to have those concrete posts around 🧐👍😜

Just a little weird that this is Philadelphia ABC news desk and reporter onsite at a Philadelphia area bridge but it's posted by ABC Chicago.

Had we done something differently, there might have been different results? Of course. Does the Deleware River use 'Port Pilots' to safely navigate, and would the bridge shown survive a direct hit by a similar ship that missed the barriers on either side? Undoubtedly, safety lessons are to be learned, but it is too early to speculate on them.

I am sorry but the Francis Scott key bridge looked strategic, especially how important it is

@chriswestbrook2645

Ай бұрын

Shipping lane in St. Mary’s River closed after ship hits light. Sault Ste. Marie MI this morning, Thursday, March28

@chriswestbrook2645

Ай бұрын

Do you think we should have someone protecting the Mackinac Bridge?

What surprised me is some reports indicate that the pilot ordered left hard rudder, which is not unusual in low speed maneuvering. But that assumes propulsion is working, and speed stays above a minimum value. We don't know that for sure yet, but we did get to see black smoke from the stack in the wake of power coming back on, then blacking out again. That is either engines working very hard or... maybe a loss of control air, which on failsafe systems means alot of valves close. Do that to a turbo intake or engine room vents at hard throttle [with all doors closed] and it can't get enough air and exhaust becomes an industrial 'rolling coal' exercise. The ship did not speed up, but slowed down as video shows. And guess what: full reverse with hard left rudder makes the stern walk to port... and aims the vessel further to starboard, right at the bridge support structure without forward movement having been stopped. It appears a major problem with few options was turned from a serious situation into a five star disater by... the pilot. They just might have squeaked through keeping rudder midship, then tripping anchor after crossing under.

@nomenclature9373

Ай бұрын

Voyage data recorder will have the rudder position and helm commands, speed from time of leaving the dock.

@user-gg1kk9jp9u

Ай бұрын

Think it was a Biden planned disaster to change the topic - Black Swan Event!! Biden and Zelensky booked this up with his Ukraine captain.

@bronco5334

Ай бұрын

Why do you assume they actually had any revolutions on the screw at all, and if they did, what makes you assume they went full aft? They didn't need to change speed, they needed to change course. Only if they could change engine settings while simultaneously unable to move the rudder, would it make sense to order reverse. But all the reports so far say they never restored power to the screw. Weird that you assume (with no evidence) the pilot made a big mistake, instead of blaming the crew for failing to keep their machinery running. If the crew were doing their job, they should have had backup generators up to power steerage in case of a power failure during this critical phase of transit. If the crew were doing their job, the ship should have had rudder even when the engine died. "Hard left rudder" is the sensible order, because it should have still provided directional control when the engine was out.

@flinch622

Ай бұрын

@@bronco5334 It all hinges on a left hard rudder command being what actually happened. Even no revs, plus ship has forward momentum, the standard pivot would be stern to starboard, bow to port... they would have turned left in plain english, and tracked back into the lane where they belonged. It might be possible that feedback [or default position] went haywire on account of blackout, but there's no news on that yet - it's vessel specific, and we might be wailting on the ntsb report to find out full details.

@danoman1893

Ай бұрын

BUT IT WILL HAVE NO DATA JUST AFTER POWER LOSS AND WILL START RECORDING AGAIN AFTER THE BRIDGE IS IN THE WATER... IT WAS PLANNED....@@nomenclature9373

Since there were no billowing oceanic waves present in the water that night, where did the force(s) come from to knock the ship off its initial trajectory towards the open waters and redirect it towards the bridge pillar?

@u2mister17

Ай бұрын

NTSB told the world that answer will take 2 to 4 years to answer.

The ship struck the concrete base.. then it turned and the upper cargo containers made contact with the metalwork and twisted thus imparting a tearing motion.. the bridge was not designed to deal with this.

@giftedone831

Ай бұрын

Your theory isnt supported in any video ive seen. Too much weight too fast. Plain and simple!

@janwitts2688

Ай бұрын

@giftedone831 As someone with eyesight

Tug escorts to open water should have been required

@Mooseman327

Ай бұрын

Not really. Been doing it this way for over 50 years with no issues and many ports have similar protocols. The bridge piers needed more protection. Today's massive cargo ships are also in question. Sometimes "too big" is too big.

There are indeed protective Dolphins fore & aft of the bridge supports. Although a bit farther out than the ones in this video. The container ship came in at an angle, dragging anchor under full reverse power & simply missed them.

I'm sure the shipping company owners will point out that the port made no attempt to mitigate possible damage. That will likely reduce their liability for damage to the bridge.

I don’t know, the ship are getting bigger and bigger, , those protectors are not big enough for today size ships. The other bridge doesn’t have them. I see just before the bridge the channel turns left. The ship needs more depth than 50-51’ cause 49.4’ does not give enough water under for flow, and since the channel was only 1400’ wide and the ship 150’ and as it stayed straight, the slope up on the right, creating drag on the side of the ship. With out multiple tug boats to keep it in the center of the channel. When the Evergiven was blown about in the Suez Canal, the guy Sal explained the physic about water between the ships and the canal or channel. Not enough room for error. A fleet of American Tugboats should have controlled those ships until they are in open waters

Note that each tall power poles in the water near the bridge had a large protective barrier around them, while this huge and expensive bridge did not. As cargo ships more than doubled in size since the bridge was built a half century ago, the real question is why weren't protective barriers retrofitted around the bridge supports?

@neilkurzman4907

Ай бұрын

Actually, ships have more than quadruple in size since then. That didn’t have any protection, since it wasn’t required when it was built. With 20/20 hindsight it probably should’ve been added it.

@freedomfighter22222

Ай бұрын

@@neilkurzman4907 plenty of bridges have had additional protection added since 1977 and new bridges are always built with additional protection. No hindsight needed, just regular inspection and improvements made according to new standards, as is normal for large structures.

@neilkurzman4907

Ай бұрын

@@freedomfighter22222 No, it’s not normal. There’s a lot of bridges that aren’t even properly maintained as you might’ve heard in the news. There are thousands of bridges in the United States that don’t have passing marks and thousands of others that need to be replaced because they’re outdated or insufficient for the traffic they handle. So no, this isn’t normal in the United States. Though perhaps it should be.

@freedomfighter22222

Ай бұрын

@@neilkurzman4907 Do you have any clue how many bridges there are in the United States? It is entirely possible for thousands to not be up to standards while it is also normal to do rechecks and upgrades to bridges. What you see on your drive to work or all the worst case scenarios that you see on the news isn't a good measurement of what is normal, the tens of thousands of bridges you don't hear about besides when someone complain that money is being spent on upgraded safety features that likely wont ever be used is what is normal.