Impressive (and correct), if a little disconcerting:
All the access roads have been disabled too.
damage:event="2018-08-14 Genova Collapsed Bridge"
Are you allowed to bring your bike onboard this ferry? Does it have a toilet? All answerable with OSM!
Of course, the downside is a diverse set of opinions on how to tag stuff, but I get the impression OSM editors are aware of the vast public benefits of having an agreed-upon way to tag things.
It has a quite a good 3d render of the bridge and street level view if you zoom in
edit: I'm not blaming anyone for this tragic accident. The cause will be found eventually. What I mean is it's important to remember how your work may impact lives, regardless of what that work is.
edit: I should add that it could very well be the fault of an engineer from 50 years ago (poor design, implementation), but this just happened today and it will take a while for people to figure out what really happened, and without any other data my first inclination is to think "poor maintenance" as that is what Occam's Razor (simple: lack of maintenance is very common these days, at least in the US: prepare to be afraid of many bridges you drive over) and then there's the whole downburst thing that seems vaguely plausible for now.
edit2: "The U.S. has 614,387 bridges, almost four in 10 of which are 50 years or older. 56,007 — 9.1% — of the nation’s bridges were structurally deficient in 2016, and on average there were 188 million trips across a structurally deficient bridge each day. While the number of bridges that are in such poor condition as to be considered structurally deficient is decreasing, the average age of America’s bridges keeps going up and many of the nation’s bridges are approaching the end of their design life. The most recent estimate puts the nation’s backlog of bridge rehabilitation needs at $123 billion."
Unfortunately, in this case it's probably a bit of both. A bridge that was the direct precursor to this one, collapsed after a few years. Maintenance expenses for the Genoa bridge were already off the charts 20 years ago, and likely went down after its privatisation. It had been described a few years ago as a "failure of engineering" by several people.
Chances are that everyone involved in its maintenance knew that shit could hit the fan at some point, but there was no political will to close one of the main city arteries, and probably no budget (or even space, in that city) to build a replacement either.
Being a civil engineer can be tough, especially in complicated countries like Italy. The main architect is long dead; the country has been broke for decades now; the elements are unforgiving; and people are more than ready to lynch you if shit happens.
Do you mean the one which was hit by a supertanker?
It's most likely a corrupt contractor paired with a corrupt politician to blame. They usually use bad or sloppy concrete, or not the planned amount of steel the engineer demanded.
The country is broke, but our survival skills are so proverbial that the markets more or less trust we'll always come up with enough money to keep going. The day this stops being true, we'll go the Argentina way very quickly.
To be fair, that was 1992 so way before the euro. The problem is that ratings are easy to send down, but very hard to bring back up. Currently they are just two steps above junk, (despite having had pretty low interest until a few days before the current government swore in). Even just a single downgrading would be bad, two would lead to a massive sell and basically a disaster way worse than the Argentinian crisis.
And waste of resources.
But broke no, thanks €!
As soon as the markets get a whiff of potential instability in the country that would cause a deviation on the austerity policy imposed by the EU, the credit spread on goverment bonds skyrockets.
And with some good reason, as pre-EU governments used devaluation of the Lira to boost the exports and increase GDP (of course increasing inflation) on one hand, and kept borrowing money on the other, instead of trying to address historical problems like under-development of the South, unsustainable social security, rampant tax evasion, corruption in local administrations.
Even if currency devaluation were possible these days (basically only by leaving the EU), it would have to face a much more globalized economy than last century, where many exports depend on parts manufactured abroad, which would be suddenly more expensive to produce...
Italy is not broke as long it can pay interests on its debt, but every fluctuation in the global economy affect Italy way more than UK, US or Japan.
This number is kept higher than it needs to be for economic/political reasons. If your bridge is about to fall down at any minute it's easier to get federal dollars (or justify using your existing dollars) to build a new bridge. As a result there's lots of bridges that are past due with shovel ready plans for replacement but the local/state gov is just waiting for it to become a crisis so that they don't have to pay for as much of the fix. If the replacement bridge requires taking private land, disrupting traffic, etc, etc. there's even more reason to wait for a crisis.
For example, if someone dies in a car crash, it's a little out of context for you to focus on the responsibility and ethics of the car designer over and above the circumstances of the crash. Usually the latter focus is for when there's concern about said ethics and responsibilities.
As a matter of fact if you have a legion marching on it, almost any bridge will collapse, there is a reason why, when soldiers cross bridges they are ordered to "break stride" in order to avoid possible issues with resonance of the structure.
And of course, while placing architects and engineers under the bridge was "fair", the poor soldiers were innocent (and at the time among valuable resources to society) so their lives wouldn't have been deliberately risked.
There are some (unconfirmed) reports about the architect standing below the bridge when the scaffolding/support was removed, however.
Because of the nature of it's construction people would over time start to sync their steps, the more this happened the more the bridge swayed and the more people synced their steps.
It was fixed by adding dampers.
EDIT: found a source, seems to be a true story
Contrary to what the grandparent post says, few bridges are susceptible to being brought down by marching.
It is easy to see how a suspension bridge would resonate fairly easily. Also see the Tacoma Narrows bridge.
My wife has three pieces of jewelry- engagement ring, wedding ring, iron ring. She doesn't tell me which one she loves best.
Thanks for that!
I know of an instance of contractors having the rebar inspected by the engineer and then moving the reinforcement to the next part in the sequence to be constructed. The engineer caught them at it because he got up very early to go sea fishing and happened to walk past the site. Incidentally this anecdote happened in Italy in the 1960's, maybe it was a widespread practice.
This sounds like a case where the maintenance was not carried out properly. Or the procedure the contractors were doing was wrong. Then a storm came and it exceeded its limits.
Source: I'm not a civil engineer, but I've lived with one for some time and know a bit from conversation.
Edit: I don' mean to just say, "it's the contractors" fault. It could have been higher up with budget cuts and telling the contractors, don't do this because we don't want to spend the money. This is the exact reason of having a 3rd party firm monitoring it as far as risk assessment and compliance goes.
Another Edit: The civil engineer I live with said the rain or lighting should have had no effect, UNLESS it was a foundation issue. Which another commentator mentioned the foundation was undergoing maintenance at the time? Seems to be the most likely scenario.
The only facts we know are that the bridge collapsed and a bunch of people died. Let's not turn the conversation to "blame the engineer".
Accountability and ethics are the yardstick everyone is measured by.
Seemed like an Italian academic called it an "failure of engineering" two years ago, and another construction of the same engineer was reported to have collapsed in earlier years.
Well, you're blaming the engineers.
If you say "I'm not saying it's the engineers' fault, but engineers should remember that they're responsible for what they build", it's like blaming the engineers.
No, it's not. I did not assign blame to anyone, that is what the court will do.
You may argue I insinuated it might be the engineers fault. Well I did and it might. I'm an engineer myself and many others here are too, so it's a relevant angle for us.
We need to increase quality but not at the expense of people working.
Its actually stressful and the pay isn't that great. I did mostly landfill design which is a little different, but slope stability and retention pond calculations were always checked and double checked.
Though there is always ongoing maintenance which would be the owner responsibility.
And because the actual measure only addresses, even in principal, quality related to health conditions (though you could apply the basic methodology to construct a broader quality measure), and because the entire theoretical construct by which it assesses quality adjustment is, to put it mildly, suspect.
Except that QALY is a bullshit metric based on economic doctrine that is unsupported empirically (and, arguably, in their specific application in QALY, outright disproven.)
There's probably lots of software where it could play part
Or cars while they are crossing the roads. I see this daily.
In the '80s the support structures were already reinforced and apparently it took years of filling the subsidences in the asphalt surface for it to stabilize and provide a level surface for the cars.
I'm not a structural engineer and I am in no position to judge, but there definitely was the suspicion that the design of the bridge was flawed, even before today.
The bridge was - at the time - a bleeding edge of concrete technology, designed by the greatest expert in concrete (and pre-compression) in Italy (and probably in the world), Riccardo Morandi.
He designed also the Maracaibo Bridge:
Allow me to doubt that the design had structural flaws, though it is true that at the time some aspects of long span pre-stressed concrete structures were not yet fully undestood, namely creep and shrinkage:
Which have definitely increased the need for maintenance, shortening the expected working life of similar structures.
However from the little it can be seen from the photos that have been posted here and there, it seems like the initial point of failure was not the bridge (meaning the deck) but rather the pier, causing the two adjoining spans to collapse.
The Nondestructive Testing article I linked to in another comment said "significant environmental damage requiring repair typically occurs before the average bridge reaches mid-life."
The difference here is probably maintainability: for a stone arch design, you can prop it up for safety, replace a few stones, and voila, like new. For a cable-stayed and/or concrete design...not really. In other words, the bridges that have "lasted for centuries" have hot-swappable parts ;)
Seems like a more plausible explanation on the face of things. Lots of highly publicized incidents in the US of fatal bridge and overpass incidents due to construction. While I assume these are overseen by an engineer, there are a lot of things out of their control that can go wrong when people are actively using the structure under maintenance.
See from 16:45m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHjC0l9nJOg
There are probably many more aspects which led to the Greenfell disaster. The building having a sprinkler system would have prevented it. The firemen having an appropriately high ladder rtuck or aerial work platform would have made it almost comfortable to salvage the trapped 80 people. Some waited many hours before they borned to death. The firemen in London, Kensington didn't had a high ladder. Because of cost.
A common issue with many of the 1960s reinforced concrete structures is the difficulty of inspecting key structural members (e.g. encased tendons which may have also been the case with the Genoese bridge), lower standards than current (so the distance to reinforcement is less and corrosion is more likely) and maintenance regimes with lowered funding to repair an increasing number of deficient structures.
They still don't have a long-term plan to replace it afaik, despite the strengthening works only being a temporary measure.
Everyone knows that temporary is a new word for permanent.
//TODO: temporary workaround, fix ASAP, etc.
Oh yes? So I suppose everybody also knows why it collapsed, right?
The thing is, saying that something is wrong is not a proof of anything: the signal to noise ratio is also important. Every time something happens, everybody knew it was going to happen: the problem is, this is true also for all the things that eventually didn't happen. It's very tempting, after the fact, to say "ah, we all knew it". It's also, mostly, a delusion
Don't live under a bridge if you can help it. Given the state of disrepair of most American infrastructure it takes very little to bring them down.
There's that one dike in Wilnis though that threatens to break every time we have a severe drought, like this year...
Interesting! Why would a dike be under greater threat in a drought when there is less water?
A photo of the construction (1964):
Looking at some of the links from the various Wikipedia articles on the subject, it does look like the buildings underneath the bridge predate the bridge: http://informesdelaconstruccion.revistas.csic.es/index.php/i...
Usually, the bridge is new-ish (second half of 20th century or newer) and the buildings are 19th century or older.
On the BBC the person they interviewed said that those apartments were abandoned however, so it may not be as bad as it looks.
This might be even true.
Decade No. Built
Your table is scary - and it leads me to one question: why is the future maintenance not budgeted in with any public infrastructure project? For example, a city wants a shiny new bridge... but without provable funding for the maintenance in the future (e.g. tax projections), it is not allowed to be built.
Of course stuff like economic shifts (leading to a loss of tax base) can't be prevented but it's a small risk compared to some politician deciding "I need something monumental where I can cut the opening ribbons" and loading the future generations with maintenance debt.
This is, in fact, how greenfield suburbs operate; they claim much lower tax rates because they don't really care about the infrastructure lifecycle, whereas cities are constantly maintaining and fixing things. Some of the first suburbs in America in Nassau County have such poor financial positions that county finances have been controlled by the state since 2000, and property taxes have hiked every year, with increases of up to 20% in a single year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassau_Interim_Finance_Authori...
For me now I vote for the politician that will have the most taxes.
Because proving viable funding does nothing to guarantee that those funds will be put towards maintenance, repair, and replacement. The next round of legislators in 10 years may very well decide to put that money elsewhere.
I like ancient Roman bridges because they're both complex and simple, but my favorite thing about them is how utilitarian they are. At least the examples we have today were clearly not undermining their integrity for the sake of a cool design (2 prestressed concrete tension beams? what the fuck?). Pretty much the only thing that would fell them was the force of flooding rivers. Some fell apart over time, but we're talking over a thousand years. Bridges today barely last 100.
We have to stop letting architects design, and cities then build, hipster bridges. Their primary consideration must be their integrity and longevity.
Agreed. You don't have to go back to roman times to see engineering for function over form. If there's one thing the red side of the iron curtain did right it was not letting form compromise function when it came to public works and civil engineering.
>At least the examples we have today were clearly not undermining their integrity for the sake of a cool design
What people like to see follows what they're used to seeing. A good example is the GMT800 Chevy truck platform. In 2000-2005 everyone thought they looked like ugly slant eyed jelly beans, now they just look normal because people have gotten used to them. If we built functional things people would get used to how they look and start to like it.
Um. You're technically correct (because the reasoning was "form be damned, gotta build a wartime infrastructure, we'll just let civilians use it until it's needed for tanks"), but this was undermined by lack of maintenance.
- To Engineer Is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design (1985) 
- Design Paradigms: Case Histories of Error and Judgment in Engineering (1994) 
- Engineers of Dreams: Great Bridge Builders and The Spanning of America (1995) 
He also wrote a salient op-ed after the 2007 bridge failure in Minneapolis: Learning from bridge failure. 
As for people asking why the highway needs to go through Genova instead of around, it's probably the same kind of reasoning that leads to using nuclear bombs to build harbors and the like.
Mountains. And a few of the major highways actually go under Genoa, via tunnels.
I'm guessing what happened here is neither maintenance nor (planned) demolition.
It will be a while before we learn the actual cause for the collapse, however.
Care to post a link?
The bridge (actually a long viaduct) has been subject to several overhaulings in the years, including the replacement of some structural parts, though these interventions were largely related to the deck, while - at least from the pictures I have seen - it seems more like a pier collapsed, which is "unusual".
hopefully for me, i wont see so many news here in the future