Stupide question? Did the bridge really need to collapse? Why weren't there protective concrete pylons in front of each bridge support that would have brought any ship to a stop...

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Why weren't there protective concrete pylons in front of each bridge support that would have brought any ship to a stop before actually hitting the bridge supports? Granted, I'm not an engineer, but it seems like common sense.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Cheaper to not install any dolphins.

The bridges on the Delaware River in Philadelphia have dolphins protecting the bridge supports.

therwol Loc: USA

SteveR wrote:

Why weren't there protective concrete pylons in front of each bridge support that would have brought any ship to a stop before actually hitting the bridge supports? Granted, I'm not an engineer, but it seems like common sense.

This has been brought up. I'll bet the replacement has this sort of protection.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

therwol wrote:

This has been brought up. I'll bet the replacement has this sort of protection.

Only if they're smart......

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

SteveR wrote:

Why weren't there protective concrete pylons in front of each bridge support that would have brought any ship to a stop before actually hitting the bridge supports? Granted, I'm not an engineer, but it seems like common sense.

Older bridge, they were apparently large wooden posts designed to stop or turn ships of the 60s or so.
The Dali is almost 900 feet long and almost 117,000 tons loaded and was moving at about 9 mph. They just slowed it a bit, and getting tangled in the wreckage of the bridge is what stopped it. And that with the power out so it was just gliding on momentum after the engines stopped.

dustie Loc: Nose to the grindstone

SteveR wrote:

Why weren't there protective concrete pylons in front of each bridge support that would have brought any ship to a stop before actually hitting the bridge supports? Granted, I'm not an engineer, but it seems like common sense.

How many acres of islands would need to be planted around every bridge pylon in order to build something solid enough to stop the absolutely heaviest possible, even low speed, contact?

Not just considering the surface area that would be big enough to construct parks or playgrounds on each island, but how tall/thick are those islands going to need to be to make them as unmovable as the Rock of Gibralter?
Some bridge pylons in some locations/harbors may be in water 100' plus feet deep. Floating bumpers or elongated concrete pillars are not going to stop the massive amounts of energy involved in hundreds of tons of real estate bumping a bridge pylon.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

robertjerl wrote:

Older bridge, they were apparently large wooden posts designed to stop or turn ships of the 60s or so.
The Dali is almost 900 feet long and almost 117,000 tons loaded and was moving at about 9 mph. They just slowed it a bit, and getting tangled in the wreckage of the bridge is what stopped it. And that with the power out so it was just gliding on momentum after the engines stopped.

The posts are not easily visible in Google satellite view, small, eh?

I guess they'll be using larger dolphins next time.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

dustie wrote:

How many acres of islands would need to be planted... (show quote)

So are we gonna have to live with bridges <possibly> being hit then?

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Longshadow wrote:

So are we gonna have to live with bridges <possibly> being hit then?

Haw, in the old days (and some places today) they had to worry about wooden bridges burning, rotting or being eaten by termites.

dustie Loc: Nose to the grindstone

Longshadow wrote:

So are we gonna have to live with bridges <possibly> being hit then?

How can we absolutely, completely fail-safe, damage-proof any bridge structures being built?

Get the ancient Egyptians to come back and build pyramids around every pylon, maybe?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

dustie wrote:

How can we absolutely, completely fail-safe, damage-proof any bridge structures being built?

Get the ancient Egyptians to come back and build pyramids around every pylon, maybe?

Bubble Wrap..........

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

As was said, it was an old bridge, and ships are bigger. We have not kept up. As we do, there will be discussion about upgrading designs, costs versus risks will be weighed, and if it costs too much we won't hear anything more about it.
I suspect the truth is the costs will be enormous to retro-fit bridges for greater safety, but the decaying bridges on our roadways will be a higher priority.

dustie Loc: Nose to the grindstone

Longshadow wrote:

Bubble Wrap..........

👍

Probably better than pens of jellyfish. 😋

Nigel7 Loc: Worcestershire. UK.

Reports in the UK say that protection around the supports came in in the 1980s whilst this bridge was built in 1977. Some older bridges have had protection added but doubtful that anything could stop a ship of this size, weight and momentum.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

The Sunshine Skyway bridge incident which killed 35 people in Tampa occurred in 1980, three years after the Key Bridge was built. When the Skyway Bridge was built, it was moved to a different location, but bumpers placed around its supports to stop wayward ships (a ship lost in the fog had hit the bridge in Tampa). This has become the standard since then.

If you don't think these "bumpers" can stop large ships, then take a look at how the bridge supports in Baltimore stopped the ship that knocked the bridge down there. It still sits among the crumpled steel of the bridge.