Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: bay bridge

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Scott,
 
We put fire supression system in basically every building.  IMO, such system is appropriate for unique bridges that are not that many (Bay, Verrazzano, Golden Gate, etc.).  And I meant not an freak tanker accident, but some possible (to say the least) planned act.
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
  
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 08:57
Subject: Re: bay bridge

If you look only at this situation, then it might be cost and time
efficient.  But, you need to look at all cases.  How many times has a fuel
tanker crashed and produced a fire that is hot enough to weaken the steel
and collapse a structure?  So, now does using fire protection on ALL steel
bridges across the country really look that cost efficient?  You have one
incident at one bridge when there are years and years of tons of steel
bridges in service.  So, yes...you might save some money in not having to
rebuild this "bridge" (and Mark, many people consider a horizontal span of
highway to be a bridge even it is NOT really the Bay Bridge) but how much
more money are you going to end up spending on bridges that don't and
never have been hit in such a situation that a fire could cause a section
of the bridge to collapse.  You willing to have your taxes increased to
put fire protection on all those bridges (hell, we cannot even just pay
for maintance of our roads and bridges here in Michigan without more money
[aka taxes]) due to one incident at one bridge over how many years?  Good
luck on that one.

It is the same reason why we don't design every building to that level
that we design hospitals for seismic events.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

On Wed, 2 May 2007, S. Gordin wrote:

> Mark,
>
> You are right, but the condition may be extrapolated...
>
> It appears that an effective overlapping system of fire suppression is warranted on all bridges, especially, on the steel structures.  In the current situation, it may be a worthy, relatively cost- and time-effective investment into the infrastructure.
>
> V. Steve Gordin, SE
> Irvine CA
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Mark Gilligan
>   To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
>   Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 08:13
>   Subject: Re: bay bridge
>
>
>   The Bay Bridge is still standing.
>
>   The damage occured to some of the elevated structures
>   at the East end of the bridge where several freways
>   intersect.
>
>   Mark Gilligan
>
>   ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
>   *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
>   *
>   *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
>   *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
>   *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
>   *
>   *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
>   *
>   *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
>   *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
>   *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
>   *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
>   ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********