Engineer Breaks Down Baltimore Bridge Collapse
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 май 2024
- Structural engineer Mathew Picardal explains the Baltimore bridge collapse (Francis Scott Key Bridge). How much impact force did the ship hit the bridge and how are bridges engineered to handle impacts from cargo ships, why the way the bridge collapsed was an engineer’s worst nightmare, and essentially, what does this mean for bridge engineering?
📗 Chapters 📗
0:00 Intro
0:26 Structural Engineers
1:19 Collision Impact Force
2:36 How Bridges Are Engineered For Barge Impacts
3:51 Are Existing Bridges Safe? - Collision Protection
4:42 Crumple Zones
5:12 Worst Way to Collapse - Progressive Collapse Explained
💻 My Gear 💻 (affiliate)
KEYBOARD: amzn.to/3pmeBYe
MOUSE: amzn.to/3xM9wfJ
MONITOR: amzn.to/2WQy7iR
DESK PAD: amzn.to/3xJ1zI2
HEADPHONES: amzn.to/33UkVeu
WEBCAM: amzn.to/3xMk7XO
CAMERA: amzn.to/3runQsg
LENS: amzn.to/3ErMblO
👇 SUBSCRIBE TO MAT'S RUclips CHANNEL 👇
ruclips.net/user/MatPicardal...
►Join me as I co-host The Structural Engineering Channel Podcast (TSEC):bit.ly/2Ja3rAU
►iTunes link for TSEC Podcast: apple.co/2JaawkT
►Music I use: www.epidemicsound.com/referra...
Mat Picardal is a structural project manager at DCI Engineers. This video and this channel does not necessarily reflect the opinion nor beliefs of DCI Engineers. All thoughts expressed are purely his own observations and experiences.
For business inquiries email: matpicardal@gmail.com
Follow me on LinkedIn: / matpicardal
Follow me on Instagram: / matpicardal
Disclaimer: Product links are 'affiliate links' so if you click and buy something I get a small commission. This affects you in no way and helps support the channel.
#structuralengineering #civilengineering #baltimorebridgecollapse
Structural/Bridge engineer here in Indiana. My rough numbers showed an equivalent required force of 30,000,000 lb and assuming a 50' channel depth, would be a moment of 1.5 billion lbft! That also assumes fixity at the mudline which would be too liberal. From what I could determine, it wasn't even an AASHTO requirement in 1977 to design for vessel collisions. It appeared that was included in the 1991 AASHTO for the first time (I couldn't 100% confirm that though). Fun fact though, the current AASHTO LRFD manual still sends you to the 1991 AASHTO code for vessel impact loading in the commentary. I'm sure regardless of whether it was an AASHTO requirement in 1977, that bridge should have had some pier collision factored into the design given the intended use of the bridge and it being an NSTM/fracture critical superstructure design. I'd also be curious if they change how the vessel collision force is applied. It looked like the video showed it ramping up into the columns which is not how we apply the load. Will probably be developments in the code to better prepare for collisions, although obviously this was beyond the conventional "Extreme I/II" load case.
Appreciate your perspective on this.
The bridge does have dolphins but the vessel missed them. Unlikely they would of saved the bridge.
Thanks for the bridge engineering insights, these are great!
I'd love to see a few high skills bridge engineers review the existing and proposed replacement plans for the Norris Bridge in Virginia, between Whitestone and Topping, near where the Rappahannock River enters the lower Chesapeake Bay.
That's the longest river crossing in the state, and about 20% longer than this Baltimore bridge.
The existing bridge has a mix of precast deck modules over archaic sizes of WF beams, on sections with pin-hanger design, and central over and under tension truss systems. The pins and hangers get 2 year inspections, and had safety catches added after the Connecticut Mianus River Bridge on I-95 collapsed. The tension truss sections have had periodic inspections, and a decade ago saw an overhaul with some members with cracks be replaced, leading into a paint job. Under quirks of HazMat law, letting old lead paint flake into a watercourse isn't illegal, but sandblasting surface prep requires substantial containment and collection. New paint is also interesting tech, where they used a 3 part Sherwin Williams process, heavy zinc primer, epoxy main coat, and urethane over-layer protectant.
The main reason for replacement is that old bridge has no shoulders, and narrow lanes, and so is easy to shut down and block with accidents or oversize loads.
The proposed replacement whose plans I have from FOIA'd documents in an electric utility litigation project we won, show an underside box girder design that avoids pins and hangers, as well as tension truss systems, as both are more subject to severe sudden failures from critical elements, than currently favored engineering designs.
I don't have the currently updated replacement proposed design, but the former proposal mentioned above, as well as analysis of the existing bridge and even soil testing and proposals predating WW-II, not built until the late 1950's due to war diversions of steel and labor and budgets, to develop alternatives for balancing costs and safety for repairs or maintenance over different potential life extensions, are part of a 6 figure cost and 4-500 page engineering report the state DoT files included.
Some of the issues of that bridge have great similarity to this one in Baltimore, and a few are even more extreme conditions, other than the major port shipping traffic not existing there as it's a rural area between DC and Norfolk with their urban centers.
Any takers on some potential comparisons to Baltimore and bridge engineering in general?
The size and mass of today's ships was not a consideration 50 years ago.
NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERD
It wasn't a "freak" accident, it was an inevitable accident. It was low probability, so it took nearly 50 years to happen, but nevertheless inevitable because there was no adequate protection against ship strikes.
Usually the hundred year storm event is the one that happens 3 months after you build your infrastructure , but Murphies Law didnt turn up to this one for 50 years ....
Many bridges built 50 years before this one, both in the US and Europe have had numerous strikes and the Whole Bridge didn't come down. As I said earlier, there were heavy armor plated Battleships all around the world.
The Key Bridge was a faulty design for the entire bridge to have come down.
I completely agree. No adequate dolphins, also, why is there no requirement for ships without tugs to have their emergency diesels running until they reach open water? Seems like a no brainer to me.
This is a result of failing and lack of government infrastructure updates. The private sector, aka in this case Transportation/Ships, have been increased in size in recent years. This ship should have run aground before damage the bridge pillars. I have read that after 9/11 this was discussed but was deemed to costly. Well now it's quite a bit more costly. It should be done regardless.
It is also result of profit-seeking at all costs on the private sector, pushing to operates bigger and bigger ships with smaller and smaller crew, putting short term profits over safety.
there was nothing there to stop a collision with the pylons if it wasnt this cargo ship it could have been any other ship quite possiblys a cruise ship which could have resulted in deaths they did not put a ring around the pylons so it wasnt an if it was a when a disaster would happen all down to cutting costs on 3 things ship crews bridge maintinence & harbor staff:- ie tugboats if all these were done properly balitmore bridge would stll be standing
Huyard, would you agree that hindsight is 20/20 ?
It's always about money and greed. These shipping companies operate and take shortcuts sometimes in safety and accident prevention and for the majority of the time they can get away with it. But, this time it bite them in the butt. Everybody wants to blame the bridge and not enough dolphins. The bridge was working just fine till the ship hit it. Let's place blame where blame belongs. That ship ran into the bridge. The bridge did not run into the ship!
@@russellhowell9854that's not how engineering works. You design for failure scenarios and then add in a factor of safety.
I have noticed an increase in your passion in newer videos, thank you.
Great video. You are a very smart individual and i love how you “qualified” yourself (or disqualified as a bridge expert) to start the video. Great info!
What a terrible incident! This is a very thoughtful and interesting share. Great stuff Mat
True in the seventy's ships were smaller ships but in a main shipping channel they should have anticipated +accidents of hitting the bridge peers and added protection
Thanks for new learning, God bless my fellow engineer
The crash protect built into a large ship is called a port tug that has the massive power to stop a large ship moving in the wrong direct. Apart from the lack of protection pillows the Port of Baltimore shares the blame for this accident by not mandating such large vessels are guided by tugs as do most ports in Europe like Rotterdam.
And the "but the ships were smaller back then!" similarly applied only to a limited extent - they dredged the channel to allow bigger ships to enter the port, to make more money. They should also carry some responsibility if they didn't make sure it was *safe* for them to enter.
My experience with engineers has been they design for CYA. Then the powers that be say that is way too expensive. Then management starts cutting aspects from the design to make it reasonably cost wish. This is a reality of life. The discussion at this point is about regulations about tugboats. And as you know nobody cares about regulations until the bridge collapses.
It could also be about distance of the dredged channel from the roadway bridge supports. Sounds like the bay's muddy bottom would do an excellent job of stopping a wayward ship.
Appreciate your stepping us through the engineering issues associated with this incident.
PS - Under current standards, wouldn’t the new bridge foundation be placed away from the shipping channel so that the ship would run aground before even approaching the foundations? That’s what port of Long Beach did for its new bridge.
PS2 - Coronado bridge in San Diego, CA is designed to float should it be knocked off foundations so as to not trap US Navy ships docked further up the bay.
Well the easier thing to do would be to create more barriers/dolphins around the base and it would also be more economical.
Great video as usual! Where can I get those modeling springs you used for the demo? They look like a ton of fun.
Look up Mola model kit. If you find my video review, there’s a discount code as well.
Well done. Very informative, thanks
Thank you for the video!
Thank you, all you engineers, for the work you do for our country.
When you lose all power, you have No Ship. In open water no big deal till power comes back up. Not in a port. Not that big of a ship. The local pilot saves many lives by calling the mayday.
I enjoy your videos. They are informative and need to be understood. Perhaps we will see much more preventative measures taken.
Can you talk about the complex engineering and analysis to remove the broken bridge. For example, could the ship founder if the bridge mass on the port side was left unbalanced ?
The critical vertical support structure should never be built where the flair of a ships bow can get to the vertical. Just a matter of time before something knocks it out of column.
Agree ... BUT this number has changed with time .... I'm NOT defending ...
When that bridge was designed nobody foresaw ships with 150’ beams and extreme bow flares. The average ship size when this bridge was designed is half the size of the Dali. The channel depth has been dredged to allow these larger ships to call on Baltimore, with air draft becoming the constraining limit of ship size. There has been recommendations for decades to install ship protection. Thank Maryland for ignoring the recommendations.
@@Jon_Flys_RCthere were aircraft carriers larger than Dali in 1977. Given that Chesapeake bay is easily the most strategically important harbor system in North America (Washington and Annapolis are not far away), this bridge should have been designed to handle naval ships in wartime.
@@atomicsmith Baltimore was never a port for the navy. Comparing it to a navy port isn’t really applicable. At the time none of the channels had the controlling depth for a ship that deep to even get them there.
@@Jon_Flys_RC Exactly, that port was mainly for commerce, not military. This is why I agree with the assessment that the people who built this bridge didn't foresee a ship as large as the Dali in that port.
By all standards it seems to me the bridge was actually well-built considering how intact most of the truss work is and the only thing that stand out as bad is the severe lack of dolphins around the bridge to protect it.
Yes, its stiff construction lead to its downfall, but I imagine they had good reason for the design.
The Francis Scott Key was a continuous truss bridge, which was a very common bridge type at the time, and they are usually solidly built.
Sure, a few have gone down since the 2000s started, but only because they could not keep up with local demand.
It's highly likely the new bridge will be the same bridge type, as I'm unsure if a cable stayed bridge will work in this area.
Baltimore can get some severe weather, so you need a bridge capable of handling that.
A Tied-Arch Bridge may do, but they can have limited spans and expensive.
A suspension bridge may also do, but again there is a cost and weather factor here.
Cantilevers are also highly expensive.
Another route to go is a Steel Truss Deck bridge, which would be the least expensive, but man they are as exciting as cardboard in looks unless they create mock cable stays or something for aesthetics.
From the perspective of the ship coming towards towards the bridge as seen in videos.
Why did the span to the left fail midsection prior to what appears enough damage being inflicted by the ship making contact with the bridge. I hope that made sense.
What is the kit you're using (springs and grey pieces)?
In some time travel show, they discussed a tragic event where a bridge collapsed and time travellers went back to prevent it.
In every way the time travellers tried to prevent it, steering the ship away, fixing blue prints, etc., it always led to worse outcomes in the timeline because humanity was not allowed to learn from their mistakes.
In fact it was worse because the engineers thought it was a solid design and they didn't know of their flaws, so they made more of that model.
Basically, despite this being a tradgedy, it will likely spur engineers to re-evaluate their construction methods and this will be less likely to happen again in the same way.
Question: Comparing the structural engineering for the bow of the cargo ship, given that vector is not anticipated as a primary one to engineer for, as compared to an Ice breaker, can one determine if the ships hull. was designed to bear a 12,500 ton impact without catastrophic hull breach ? Eg, previous history shows what impact with an iceberg can result in, etc, so given the surface area of the impact upon both the ship and the bridge support pile, is the mutual damage as one would expect, or is there a bias toward one side that would indicate were forces were dissipated as anticipated ? In short, was the damage to the ship equitable with a 12,500 ton impact?
0:40
No such thing as "a freak accident". Even if the primary cause was a failed 50c O-ring, or some dirt in the fuel, every (non natural) event in this world has a string of causes arising from human actions or inactions.
Possibly one consideration,at least in new bridge, is main towers far apart.
The Golden Gate Bridge towers are 4800 feet apart. I believe this bridge support piers were only 1700 feet apart.
This may have been fine when it was built since ships were much smaller and ship traffic was many times lower.
It would be far more economical to put large protective barriers around the pylons than to increase the bridge span significantly
Thank you for your video. If barriers had been installed later in the 6:45
bridge life based on ship size and weight would have helped. Dropping the port anchor didn't help. The pylons were wimpy as well.
Great video and explanation. I was wondering how a whole highway bridge collapsed when the boat crashed
2:30 then too- and this is a biggie that no one has talked about. The roughly 50' deep channel was 600' wide, the towers were 1,200 feet apart (they want to widen the channel) the rest of the river bed is around 20' deep. So for the last 100' or so, the ship was running deeply aground. Which does reduce the impact force, obviously not enough. But if you look, you see it lurch a little as it leaves the channel. That should show up on the black box.
Not from the old sonar imaged I've seen of the dredged channel. The deep center channel is dredged right up to the bridge's support columns of the center span.
From the underwater lidar(?) images relrased today we can see that Dali is now resting on the bottom of the channel.
But as the waterline is still quite close to where it was when it was floating, scraping the bottom most likely did not slow it enough.
There's only that much fight mud can put against a hundred thousand tonnes at nine knots.
@@JariJuslin if the MV Dali had contacted the muddy bottom, it woyld have stopped pretty quickly.
Prop walk after the anchor was dropped caused the ship to drift?
I wish u would have like a playlist of how you would explain some steel design, foundation design, timber design and reinforced concrete design for residential up to high-rises and other structures
.. why did the bridge fall.. how did it fall !!!???
..because due collision it lost his footing..
..this 'smart' guy to tell how to clear and lift the constructions
To include crumble zones on ships will be stupid as it would increase the weight of the ship which means Less cargo. Also it wouldnt make much more of a difference to the impact. Crumble zones are used mainly to protect the occupants of a vehicle and not to protect the impact structure. As you have to take the derivative of the impact force.
Ships by default already have a crumble zones for ship to ship collisions. It has the bulbus bow, the forecastle space, the forepeak ballast tank, and rounded off with the collision bulkhead.
Have you done a video on the Florida international University bridge collapse?
I think what is really crazy is the fact that the shipping companies can get away with using individual shell companies for each vessel to limit their liability in the the event of an accident like this!
Basically maximum liability is $3b usd, so if the bridge rebuild costs more / victim compensation/ compensation to the city for lost income … it’s all got to come from taxpayers!
It appears the truss structure was balanced so that almost all the weight of it rested on the two center piers and little weight on the two outer piers. The weight of the truss to the outsides of the two center piers counterbalanced the weight of the portion of the truss between them.
Great video Mat!
I think its worth to clarify the definition of progressive collapse is the opposite of local collapse.
Progressive collapse is when a local failure causes the rest of the structure to "progressively" collapse. So we design to prevent progressive collapse.
Respected Mr. Mat Picardal .. It would be helpful if you could give possible solution to the problem occured.. While explaning the cause of failure in your videos.. Thankyou!!
What has not been taken into account is the bulbros bow which proceeds the bow by some times 10 Mtrs,, sometimes a lot more, so the crash barrier needs to be at least 20 mtrs beyond the piller of the bridge.
How would high rise buildings be built differently if there were 150,000 ton ships driving on the streets? I presume more reinforcement against massive side loads would be in order.
I think it would be a swell time to reevaluate the probability approach when it comes to large port bridges with constant ship traffic. We just need to assume the bridge will be hit someday and build accordingly.
I Live In Baltimore City I Had Rode Across That Bridge Multiple Times.That Incident Happened 3 weeks ago And It’s Still Bodies In The Water Now The FBI Is doing a Investigating. this is sad
The logical and practicality of such a problem is not the problem of the bridge design. What should have been in place was the tug boats that get the ship out and away from important structures. That would solve the problem of not having this happen again.
From what I know living nearby and seeing ships going to and from port they only seem to use tugboats in tight areas, the key bridge was very wide where ships went under. Usually there is instead a guy called a pilot that comes on board and acts as captain in the bay, the pilot does this because they know the area better than any captain. Tl;dr tugboat for taxiing in port, pilot for outside of port but still close to the harbor.
@aaaaghdoor6056 That's what I am hearing. Some say that the ships are too big for the tugs to even maneuver once its up and going into the channel. I don't know if this is true but I know a lot of ports used to require tugs to get ships out to open seas. Maybe those days are over but they do need a backup plan for situations like this past accident.
@aaaaghdoor6056 Yeah but that pilot can't do nothing if everything goes out and can't steer the ship.
That's where other backups are in place to avoid this happening again.
I know almost nothing about engineering a bridge.
I have driven over the Key Bridge a few times years ago. Construction began in 1972 and it was finished in 1977. This was long before the big container ships were put in use. The Key Bridge was only two lanes in each direction with no shoulders or emergency lanes.
While it was certainly functional before the collapse, it was becoming obsolete.
The likely replacement will be a cable stayed bridge with its piers far from the shipping channel and close enough to the shorelines to not allow collisions from large ships.
Farther down the Chesapeake, the two spans of the Bay Bridge were built in the 1950s and 1970s and are both functionally obsolete and unprotected from an errant container ship. A collapse there would be worse than the Key Bridge.
I think this is what is technically known as an "MCF" - massive cluster f***
Progressive collapse is a huge part in design. I practice the Eurocode and we either:
1. Add in reinforcement or 'tie bars' to ensure that the rest of the horizontal structural elements has the structural capacity to handle loss of support or accidental loadings.
2. We design for removal of columns/piers so that the structure is still feasible. Im not sure how Francis Scott is designed but having a rigid structure is not a bad thing and it doesnt mean the entire structure collapses. The structure just needs to be desgined for the removal of 1 column in any span and it is a lot better than having a localised failure.
There are many ways to design for progressive collapse whether is is pinned/semi-rigid/rigid.
I think even without rigid connections, there would be some progressive collapse, as when one span has gone, the pier/column it is attached to becomes _unbalanced_ - all the weight remaining is now on one side only, so it will tip - unless it was built strong enough to support a span on one side only, which they usually aren't: if you look at pictures of them under construction, they usually build the spans out from each side of the piers/columns fairly symmetrically, until the spans meet. You _can_ make them strong enough to support one side only - cantilever - but you then need _much_ more robust/massive towers.
5:15 cars has to carry , but a birge is stationary, and if the energy absorber and the main body is connected is not good because you are try to divert energy from the main body so , more they are a separate system are better
4:42 what if cargo ships had crumple zone built-in? 5:33 should design for progressive collapse
Top Naval Architect schools in the US are:
Webb Institute (tops!)
U of Michigan
FIT
3:10 any other building has to be kept up to code. Why bridges get an exception and do not update their infrastructure to the ships that operate today?
Love this video… will you please make a super in-depth video like this like an hour long one
The ship was nearly 1000 feet long--- probably three times the size of ships at the time the bridge was built.
Is it me or is the ship cargo taller then the clearance of the bridge itself???
It's you - probably based on the perspective distortions from what you see. Don't forget that the Dali sailed under the bridge on its way into the port of Baltimore a few days before it sailed out and hit the bridge
mat-Couldn't maybe 4 Dolphins (similar to St Pete/Tampa bridge-though not as many) have stopped the ship maybe with a mini island to ground it. I think the dolphins -there were only 2 not placed near the support and they seemed to be pitiful-maybe there to only direct the captains, not prevent impacts. Of course 4 dolphins doesn't guarantee a stoppage, but maybe there would have been a 90% chance of not hitting the support.
Hindsight experts to the rescue as usual.
propability space approach : we design the best in the budget available and pray to God (especially when it comes to earthquake which is more of a chaotic phenomenon)
So to take with us : the progressive collapse design/mechanism was not well designed or high enough
Thank you for the FUNtastic analysis !!
btw- please if possible show us real life soft storey stiffeners stiffeners
Can you post a link for the bridge model you’re using?
Why would anything like that only have one engine?
The problem with your idea of making the bow of a ship into a crumple zone is that it would be destroyed in stormy weather. Evan a moderate sized wave is more massive than a bridge pier.
What is needed is a ships engineer to find out the cause of the crash
The truth of the crash may never come out lest Insurance/Compensation be denied for the Pilots/officals erranous actions when faced with an emergency
very nice descriptive explanation.
Plus 1-2 knots of tide.
Those taking civil engineering right now I imagine will be reading about this untill they are blue in the face.😅
My father chose to go into civil engineering in the late 40s , this of course came fairly recently after the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows bridge. He said that collapse was gone over and studied from every angle possible , final lesson was " this is how you DONT do it"😅
We will do what we always have done since time began , learn and apply and move on.
Knots are not units of acceleration, but speed.
No engineer asks "how come the ship stays afloat and intact, on engine?"
I am ME, NA including bridge and port.
I predicted this long ago. The structural design is total failure.
The ship did not rise above the pier. It went right through the protection and impacted the pier.
Agree that the incident was not planned.
But the event was a freak stupidity. The state had the example of the 1980 Florida bridge collapse. But MD was too cheap to retrofit. Very sound decision making
You estimated the impact force at 12,500 tons. I don't get it if the ship weight is 100,000 tons how can the impact be less? What I'm missing?
Normal human nature, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Shouldn’t bridges be built in protected segments rather than like falling domino’s ?
It's amazing how many engineers suddenly joined RUclips and know everything about everything pertaining to ships and bridges.😂
The oly time the clueless one's think, is when they think they do know everything about everything.
Dunning Kruger style.
It's amazing how many idiots on the Internet never actually DO anything, yet dismiss advice and insight given by those who actually DO something.
Engineers knew how to protect the bridge but didn't. Negligence. No one will be held accountable. It's a disgrace.
Someone clearly didn’t watch the video
@@texasvet2729 And it seems to be you.
I wonder about an accident like this happening with different types of ships. What if it had been a naval destroyer or a cruise ship? Would the exact same thing happen?
Any perspective All engineers departments under one roof. & should work together. Structural & civil engineering are slightly different Civil do build the bridges . Structural u design .
Let us look at the balance perspective . Why pillar is collapsed ?
Love you
Bridge pears not robust enough to take the hit . If they were a solid oval type all the way up to the bridge feet we would not be talking about a collapse we would be talking about a damaged ship.
You are building on 100+200ft of mud here (East Coast tidal flow).
@@jonmccormick8683 The bridge caisson have to to go down to solid bed rock
@@jonmccormick8683 In Detroit they built a 70 story ren cen right next to the Detroit river . Bridge not built right there .Built for looks it seems. Look at how the bridge support snapped like a twig . Come on man . .
The thing is that bridge didn't have much to protect itself.
there was me thinking a big thing was hit by a bigger thing.
Simply, physics says that a big moving mass hits a small post, and the post will lose.
You failed to talk about subsurface barriers
1:52
Not 150 tonnes. 150 THOUSAND TONNES.
I was more horrified to see cars on that bridge deck.
That bridge was flimsy and never stood a chance
dude. its a cantilever bridge. because it sat on 2 piers, it requires 4 major forces to work. you take away one of those forces, the whole thing comes down. that's cantilevers. the whole thing works as a system, you remove one of those parts, the whole system doesn't work anymore. the entire thing fails. I dont like cantilevers because of this reason.
Cement pillars have great strength in compression but not for side or shear forces
Money it's always the money now someone will make a lot of money
Huh? What does being born decades after the bridge being built have to do with anything?
Another expert
If u are an engineer u could say if it were possible that 2 planes could bring 2 towers STRAIGHT DOWN without help. Let's see if possible to get an answer an a truthful answer
The Thermite was there standing by to help out
@@heartobefelt That's y they paid to send the steel to China and I thought they had to collapse the whole foundation at one time first but i was wrong they had explosive charges on every corner of the building at the top and as it collapsed floor by floor downward the weight of each floor collapsing downward causes the controlled demolition
Jesus you conspiracy theorist are rampant
They won't say it know y the same reason only one fire inspector over 30 years said in the last 10 years but it might have been 17 that out of 107 only 4 of them were natural. Mostly in California and one Oprahs mansion fine and from that fire she scooped up 70 acres. That inspector called his 3 buddies but they wouldn't do an interview cuz they see how dangerous they are. They don't care how many people have to die to bring their one world government agenda to pass. It's impossible to bring those towers STRAIGHT DOWN like a perfect controlled demolition and building 7 that the guy that owned 6 months before increased the insurance to get but it may have been 1 or 2 months. Where were the F-16s when the plane's crossed restricted airspace never came.
They don't realize it goes against structural science facts but they used the lie of terriost in planes to cover up the controlled demolition but most people don't know that cuz they don't know about construction
In all fairness , one doesn't need a structural Engineer to break this accident down. Exactly the same accident happened in Florida in the 1980 .Piers should have been protected from large ship collision simple as that. There was nothing wrong with the bridge other than that. It was a faulty ship that precipitated the accident. This was not mathematics - just a basic lack of common sense.
Not simple at all. The bridge approaches will have to be armored at a cost equal to or greater than cost of the bridge. Or all large ships will have to be escorted by large tugs.
@@michaelmartin5632Escorting each of these ships out would require two possibly three tugs. Not economical. Also a 100k ton ship at 7-8 knots ain’t going to be nudged. Not going to happen.
@@michaelmartin5632one accident will cost:
The cleanup + The loss of trade and commerce + The cost of reconstruction
= armoring the piers is a bargain
I imagine the 80+ billion we’ve sent to that former Soviet country could have armored all the U.S. bridges with container ship traffic 4 times over.
Was hoping he was a ships chief engineer
I think he was just trying to explain things in a way that the general population would understand. He dies mention how they were built for such possible accidents; but, sometimes there are things that happen that are out of people's control.
1975 wasn't 100 yrs ago like the embarrassed Engineers are trying to tell us. The World even in the 1920's had hundreds of Massive Battleships traveling all over and if one of them hit a pillar of an 8636 foot bridge, the whole bridge would not have fallen down. I have a 75 Buick and it may have more safety features than this terribly designed bridge.
An analogy of the Bridge collapse is building a house with a garage attached, but if the car bumped the garage, both the garage and the house fall down. Construction engineers would never let this happen, so why did this happen to the bridge?
There were ZERO barriers protecting the bridge piers. Epic fail.
Barely got bumped and collapsed
Did we watch the same video?
Mat, is the title of this video intended to be a pun?
Certainly.
Tugs.
The media focus on the bridge. I focus on the ship. Why did its power fail? Was the captain attempt to switch to less expensive, high sulfur fuel before passing the bridge? Did the problem arise from this attempt? I don't know. Something caused the repeated power failures, but the media distracts from the cause of the problem. Why? Yes. the bridge collapse was tragic. People were killed. The repair will be costly and take time. BUT WHAT CAUSED THE POWER TO FAIL ??? LET'S HAVE ATTENTION TO THAT !!!
Do like to share this informative video please.
We dont need engineers opinions, we need to know why the bridge was "hit" in the first place.
Then why did you click on a video titled "Engineer Breaks Down Baltimore Bridge Collapse" ?
@@jimbobeire exactly
"Engineer Breaks Down Baltimore Bridge Collapse" - might be better to use "explains" rather than "breaks down" in this context :)
You think rhis was an accident??? Amerca dont make mistakes...rhey calculate
Get off RUclips
Hey dude if you actually watch that bridge collapse it did not collapse it was blowed up and there is actually two big bangs with flames when it blew up if you would look at the footage real close
Don’t like talking bout these things, puts up video 😂
If you were carefully listening, he was being compassionate and respectful because lives were lost. That’s common to say that because a tragedy occurred.