Russia built the entire Kerch bridge in 3 years. China would rebuild this bridge in 3 months.

  • Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Explain something to me, please, because I am unfamiliar with the locale. The bridge appears to have used a solid concrete strut and steel structure. The ship struck it at (reportedly) 15 kmh. And that was enough to collapse the whole thing. But how? There was a case in USSR of a ship hitting a bridge, and while the circumstances of the crash were different, the bridge itself is much smaller, yet stands to this day.

    So why did it fold so (seemingly) easily?

    • oscardejarjayes [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      A pretty substantial amount of the bridge is still standing, it was the center bit that went down

      Also, that ship in the USSR that hit the bridge just hit the span, not the pier. “The span cut the deck house and the cinema hall”. The pier is in many ways more fragile, and also more important.

      But to answer your question, the Francis Scott Key bridge was structurally deficient. It also didn’t have many anti-ship defenses (like dolphins), unlike other bridges. To add on to that, the MV Dali (and most modern container ships) is really heavy, and therefore had a lot of energy, almost all of which got transferred into the bridge. Not many bridges can survive a head-on with a container ship.

    • FreudianCafe@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Burguer Americans say some shit like “anyone can build a bridge that stands, but only an engineer can build a bridge that barely stands”. Cheaper is better right?

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      That Soviet ship is 4000 tons, while this one have 115000 tons. Also from what i understand the Soviet ship hit the bridge with fairly light superstructure which got cut off. While this one here just rammed one of the central bridge spans with energy enough for it to just crumble and half of the brigde fallen straight down because it lost support and the other half following soon after because losing the balance. It’s clearly visible on this video, entire thing just crumpled like house of cards after the hit.

      For comparison, photo of that accident in Ulyanovsk, you can clearly see the difference.

    • Houdini@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Keep in mind that the propaganda win here isn’t that the bridge didn’t survive being hit by a ship. It’s that the work safety conditions, and this is on record the company that ran the port or the ship, I can’t remember, the work conditions were so poor and the safety so poor and people so overworked that something like this was allowed to happen. And you tie that back in with the trained derailment and the continued overworking of the proletariat.

    • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Well it directly hit the column, and this was a fully loaded container ship. I don’t think any bridge would’ve survived that.

    • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      The Soviet ship was about 4000 tons displacement, the Mv Dali was 150,000 tons displacement. Ships have gotten massive over the last few decades so it’s possible that the Baltimore bridge could have remained standing after being hit by an older, smaller, ship like the Soviet one.