It seems like even modest defenses to slow the ship or push some energy aside could have mitigated a collapse.
It seems like even modest defenses to slow the ship or push some energy aside could have mitigated a collapse.
A cargo ship at that time would have maxed around 3000 TEU (pre-Panamax).
Dali is close to 3x that size at just shy of 10,000 TEU.
And Dali basically center-punched that bridge support. And swerved very close to the bridge. A dolphin might have mitigated a glancing blow, but I doubt it would have stopped a direct hit such as this.
I'm sure the replacement bridge will have more protection, for the optics if nothing else. But, we can't really afford to redesign bridges every time a larger ship is built.
Are you referring to the animal, or is this slang for some sort of nautical device?
What I don't know is how much protection these would offer in a direct hit like the Dali on the Key Bridge. They definitely work for glancing blows and smaller vessels. Would the Dali just push right through/over these? Or would the impact move enough earth (below the surface) to cause the bridge major structural damage?
I’m just asking, should not the obligation for reasonable protection of the bridge be on the government or port authority?
It's an incredibly rare event. Retro-fitting things in the water is crazy expensive. Somebody estimated that the force hitting the bridge was 30 Million Pounds. That's a lot of protection needed.
https://maritime-executive.com/article/baltimore-bridge-coll...
[0] https://webapp.navionics.com/?lang=en#boating@15&key=gqjnFz%... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abutment
Edit: Changed distribution to disruption.
Sometimes bad things happen that cannot be "modestly" prepared for. That is why these vessels are required to be insured.