OT Key Bridge collapse - seems surreal

[Mr.Appa]

Originally Posted by yarg

If you look at the picture OtayBW posted you can see the power line poles are protected. I cannot imagine why pier protection for bridges in maritime environments like this is not mandated. As a civil engineer this just boggles my mind.

It boggles my mind, too, but the scale of it is eye watering. That's a lot of potential energy going into a pretty tiny chunk of concrete in comparison, and I can't imagine the boat blocker on the transmission tower would've fared any better.

I agree that if its not part of AASHTO bridge design manual or not required by an outside regulator for CEII/CUI (which this bridge probably isn't, although it may make sense to include it now?) then it won't be mandated. And it still probably won't because 1) unfunded mandates aren't particularly popular (and we can already not keep thousands of bridges structurally competent without a boat ramming into it) and 2) in a risk framework this is way less than it just being deficient due to age or seismic risk (remember that EQ in 2011 that this bridge wasn't designed for?)

It's the talk of the office in my design group full of a bunch of Civils on how this will play out. None of us are sure. But we hope that the whatever lessons and information we learn from this is worth the 6 lives it cost (as of 20:36 PST)

[Louis]

Originally Posted by Mr.Appa

It boggles my mind, too, but the scale of it is eye watering. That's a lot of potential energy going into a pretty tiny chunk of concrete in comparison, and I can't imagine the boat blocker on the transmission tower would've fared any better.

Not to be pedantic, but that was kinetic energy, not potential (although those containers are stacked pretty high up there).

[Mr.Appa]

Originally Posted by Louis

Not to be pedantic

Proceeds to be pedantic

[yarg]

Originally Posted by Mr.Appa

It boggles my mind, too, but the scale of it is eye watering. That's a lot of potential energy going into a pretty tiny chunk of concrete in comparison, and I can't imagine the boat blocker on the transmission tower would've fared any better.

I agree that if its not part of AASHTO bridge design manual or not required by an outside regulator for CEII/CUI (which this bridge probably isn't, although it may make sense to include it now?) then it won't be mandated. And it still probably won't because 1) unfunded mandates aren't particularly popular (and we can already not keep thousands of bridges structurally competent without a boat ramming into it) and 2) in a risk framework this is way less than it just being deficient due to age or seismic risk (remember that EQ in 2011 that this bridge wasn't designed for?)

It's the talk of the office in my design group full of a bunch of Civils on how this will play out. None of us are sure. But we hope that the whatever lessons and information we learn from this is worth the 6 lives it cost (as of 20:36 PST)

I realize that the protection of the power line was limited, but none the less, the owners thought it provided some protection against risk. There the risk is loss of power to customers and their infrastructure, not much chance of loss of life. The bridge is entirely different, much larger economic costs of a failed bridge and most important the almost certain loss of life. This could have been so much worse if occurred during rush hour. Risks like this are not acceptable.

I spent most of my career building bridges and roads not designing them. However, I am sure a that for the new bridge will either have a fender system designed and built to prevent this or the new bridge will not have its piers placed in a such a vulnerable position. For existing bridges in this environment this will become a hot topic for retrofit much like the Schoharie bridge collapse caused bridges to be evaluated for scour risk.

[unterhausen]

There is a big traffic jam of ships outside the harbor while they figure out where else to go. Not all that many ships that can't leave, but that must be a pretty helpless feeling right now.

This guy must have had his channel really take off:
https://youtu.be/N39w6aQFKSQ?si=Fpu1EydakCJQNF3f

[tuxbailey]

It was such a terrifying event, straight from a disaster movie. And it confirms my anxiety every time I drive over the Bay Bridge.

Only silver lining is that this happened middle of the night and the ship was able to alert the authority to stop the traffic prior to the collision. I feel so bad for the working crew. They need add some kind of alert system on the bridge so they blast siren/text to notify people that are on that imminent danger would happen, just to give them a chance (just thinking out loud.)

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by tuxbailey

It was such a terrifying event, straight from a disaster movie. And it confirms my anxiety every time I drive over the Bay Bridge.

Only silver lining is that this happened middle of the night and the ship was able to alert the authority to stop the traffic prior to the collision. I feel so bad for the working crew. They need add some kind of alert system on the bridge so they blast siren/text to notify people that are on that imminent danger would happen, just to give them a chance (just thinking out loud.)

Have they finished repairs on that Bay bridge that were supposed to make it much more immune to earthquakes?

[NHAero]

Originally Posted by tuxbailey

It was such a terrifying event, straight from a disaster movie. And it confirms my anxiety every time I drive over the Bay Bridge.

Only silver lining is that this happened middle of the night and the ship was able to alert the authority to stop the traffic prior to the collision. I feel so bad for the working crew. They need add some kind of alert system on the bridge so they blast siren/text to notify people that are on that imminent danger would happen, just to give them a chance (just thinking out loud.)

That Youtube channel link is really helpful.
It's shocking to see a couple of vehicles speed over that bridge seconds before the ship collapses it.

[Mr. Pink]

I still haven't heard. Were those containers full or empty?

Our transportation secretary made an appearance, (where has he been?) and made a ridiculous statement, that the bridge was a "cathedral of American infrastructure". A billion Chinese spit their tea out upon hearing that. If anything, just proves how our infrastructure is so bad and unsuited to the modern world that this could happen. Look at the picture of that monster ship. They are all over the world now, but didn't really exist forty to fifty years ago. That bridge was built in 1977, before anybody even considered the state of containerized shipping as it exists today. It's a technology that's changed the world, but, unfortunately, most of the world needs serious ports to accommodate them. That was an accident just waiting to happen, but I guess the only good thing to come out of this is a new, giant cargo ship resistant bridge. Or, move that port to the other side of that bridge. Maybe we should hire the Chinese to sort all of that out. They're pretty good at that.

[verticaldoug]

The insurance side will be fascinating and determination of liability. The laws are also pretty unique.




Titanic Law Helps Ship Owner Limit Bridge Collapse Liability (2)
2024-03-27 12:17:51.343 GMT


By Ethan M Steinberg, Chris Dolmetsch and Matthew Griffin
(Bloomberg) -- The owner of the ship that rammed into a
Baltimore bridge could face hundreds of millions of dollars in
damage claims after the accident sent vehicles plunging into the
water and threw the eastern US transportation network into
chaos.
But legal experts said there is a path for reducing
liability under an obscure 19th-century law once invoked by the
owner of the Titanic to limit its payout for the 1912 sinking.
At the center of the legal fallout will be Singapore-based
Grace Ocean, owner of the container ship Dali that crashed
Tuesday into the Francis Scott Key Bridge at the start of a
voyage chartered by the shipping giant Maersk.

Stationary Objects

The company could face a bevy of lawsuits from multiple
directions, including from the bridge’s owner and the families
of six workers who were presumed dead after a search in the
Patapsco River.
Damages claims are likely to fall on the ship owner and not
the agency that operates the bridge, since stationary objects
aren’t typically at fault if a moving vessel hits them, said
Michael Sturley, a maritime law expert at the University of
Texas at Austin’s School of Law.
But an 1851 law could lower the exposure to tens of
millions of dollars by capping the ship owner’s liability at how
much the vessel is worth after the crash, plus any earnings it
collected from carrying the freight on board, said Martin
Davies, the director of Tulane University’s Maritime Law Center.

The law was passed initially to prevent shipping giants
from suffering steep and insurmountable losses from disasters at
sea. An eight-figure sum, while still hefty, would amount to
“considerably less” than the full claims total, Davies said.

‘Very Unusual’

“It’s a very unusual casualty in one respect, particularly
because of this footage of the whole bridge falling down,”
Davies said. “But in many ways, it’s not unusual, because ships
collide and there’s damage and there’s injury all the time.”
Lawrence B. Brennan, an adjunct professor of law at Fordham
University School of Law in New York and an expert on admiralty
and maritime law, said he assumes the Dali’s operator will
shortly begin a proceeding in the US under the 1851 law, which
was cited by the Titanic’s owner in a Supreme Court case more
than a century ago.
The ship owner’s insurance would help the company through
the legal risks. About 90% of the world’s ocean-bound cargo is
insured by an arm of the International Group of Protection and
Indemnity Clubs, which oversees the 12 major mutual insurance
associations for ship owners.
A key to determining any insurance claims will be proving
whether the accident was caused by negligence, and if so by
whom, or mechanical failure, according to Bloomberg
Intelligence. The ship is insured by the Britannia Protection
and Indemnity Club, which is a mutual insurance association
that’s owned by shipping companies. It’s one of the dozen clubs
that make up the International Group of P&I Clubs.
That gives the policies related to the Dali a total insured
limit of about $3 billion, a sizable sum but one that “would be
very manageable for the global reinsurance market,” Bloomberg
Intelligence analysts Matthew Palazola and Charles Graham said
in a note.
“We are working closely with the ship manager and relevant
authorities to establish the facts and to help ensure that this
situation is dealt with quickly and professionally,” Britannia P&I
said.
Bloomberg Intelligence also said Maersk may not be liable
as the Danish company had no crew on board and the ship was
operated by a charter company.
“Maritime insurance will likely cover some of the costs,
yet uncertainty around the total liabilities and who will pay
for them will likely weigh on Maersk’s spreads in the near
term,” said Stephane Kovatchev, a credit analyst with Bloomberg
Intelligence.

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by verticaldoug

The insurance side will be fascinating and determination of liability. The laws are also pretty unique.




Titanic Law Helps Ship Owner Limit Bridge Collapse Liability (2)
2024-03-27 12:17:51.343 GMT


By Ethan M Steinberg, Chris Dolmetsch and Matthew Griffin
(Bloomberg) -- The owner of the ship that rammed into a
Baltimore bridge could face hundreds of millions of dollars in
damage claims after the accident sent vehicles plunging into the
water and threw the eastern US transportation network into
chaos.
But legal experts said there is a path for reducing
liability under an obscure 19th-century law once invoked by the
owner of the Titanic to limit its payout for the 1912 sinking.
At the center of the legal fallout will be Singapore-based
Grace Ocean, owner of the container ship Dali that crashed
Tuesday into the Francis Scott Key Bridge at the start of a
voyage chartered by the shipping giant Maersk.

Stationary Objects

The company could face a bevy of lawsuits from multiple
directions, including from the bridge’s owner and the families
of six workers who were presumed dead after a search in the
Patapsco River.
Damages claims are likely to fall on the ship owner and not
the agency that operates the bridge, since stationary objects
aren’t typically at fault if a moving vessel hits them, said
Michael Sturley, a maritime law expert at the University of
Texas at Austin’s School of Law.
But an 1851 law could lower the exposure to tens of
millions of dollars by capping the ship owner’s liability at how
much the vessel is worth after the crash, plus any earnings it
collected from carrying the freight on board, said Martin
Davies, the director of Tulane University’s Maritime Law Center.

The law was passed initially to prevent shipping giants
from suffering steep and insurmountable losses from disasters at
sea. An eight-figure sum, while still hefty, would amount to
“considerably less” than the full claims total, Davies said.

‘Very Unusual’

“It’s a very unusual casualty in one respect, particularly
because of this footage of the whole bridge falling down,”
Davies said. “But in many ways, it’s not unusual, because ships
collide and there’s damage and there’s injury all the time.”
Lawrence B. Brennan, an adjunct professor of law at Fordham
University School of Law in New York and an expert on admiralty
and maritime law, said he assumes the Dali’s operator will
shortly begin a proceeding in the US under the 1851 law, which
was cited by the Titanic’s owner in a Supreme Court case more
than a century ago.
The ship owner’s insurance would help the company through
the legal risks. About 90% of the world’s ocean-bound cargo is
insured by an arm of the International Group of Protection and
Indemnity Clubs, which oversees the 12 major mutual insurance
associations for ship owners.
A key to determining any insurance claims will be proving
whether the accident was caused by negligence, and if so by
whom, or mechanical failure, according to Bloomberg
Intelligence. The ship is insured by the Britannia Protection
and Indemnity Club, which is a mutual insurance association
that’s owned by shipping companies. It’s one of the dozen clubs
that make up the International Group of P&I Clubs.
That gives the policies related to the Dali a total insured
limit of about $3 billion, a sizable sum but one that “would be
very manageable for the global reinsurance market,” Bloomberg
Intelligence analysts Matthew Palazola and Charles Graham said
in a note.
“We are working closely with the ship manager and relevant
authorities to establish the facts and to help ensure that this
situation is dealt with quickly and professionally,” Britannia P&I
said.
Bloomberg Intelligence also said Maersk may not be liable
as the Danish company had no crew on board and the ship was
operated by a charter company.
“Maritime insurance will likely cover some of the costs,
yet uncertainty around the total liabilities and who will pay
for them will likely weigh on Maersk’s spreads in the near
term,” said Stephane Kovatchev, a credit analyst with Bloomberg
Intelligence.

Maritime ambulance chasers.

I wouldn't worry too much about losses to the families of those killed. That won't be too much. May sound cruel, but, they were repairing pot holes. Their lives values will be bargained down. It's the state and federal government, and the Port of Baltimore, if they decide to sue, hooboy, that's going to be some kind of settlement. There's a lot of lawyers who are going to make life changing sums for all that.

[zmudshark]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

Maritime ambulance chasers.

I wouldn't worry too much about losses to the families of those killed. That won't be too much. May sound cruel, but, they were repairing pot holes. Their lives values will be bargained down. It's the state and federal government, and the Port of Baltimore, if they decide to sue, hooboy, that's going to be some kind of settlement. There's a lot of lawyers who are going to make life changing sums for all that.

The victims in the bridge collapse were from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, officials say. They were also minutes away from being cleared from the bridge.

[weisan]

Radio dispatch requesting traffic stop moments before collapse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0be78Mifeg

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by zmudshark

The victims in the bridge collapse were from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, officials say. They were also minutes away from being cleared from the bridge.

A lot of the US economy is out of sight out of mind. The ship was bound for Sri Lanka. I was wondering what the US exports to Sri Lanka which would require such a large ship since we don't really make anything. The BBC today reported part of the cargo on the containership was hazardous waste and it had leaked into the harbor. To which a little research shows -

Sri Lanka, like many other countries in the Global South, routinely imports waste from the West for recycling. However, it is also a party to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. This means that exporters must obtain Sri Lanka’s consent before sending medical or other biohazardous waste to the country. However, practice on paper and practice in real life may differ. Many shipments are illegal and many containers on legal shipments often contain illegal biohazardous materials. (Fly tipping at an industrial scale). As someone from the EPA told me a few years ago, if you don't spend money on enforcement, the regulation doesn't exist.

I guess the old joke in the west to the developing world that we import your cheap stuff and export our pollution still holds.

https://www.cea.lk/web/granting-cons...0not%20allowed.

https://news.mongabay.com/2020/12/sr...-more-to-come/

Obviously, the issue is not just US.

[benb]

The ships themselves are often just run aground in developing nations and then broken down without much effort put into proper waste cleanup.

They can actually be run pretty far aground. Lots of pictures. They run them up big shallow beaches and can then tear them apart on the beach. Easy to find pictures.