True, my editing made it seem I meant something you didn't say. Exactly so otherwise! <L> On Mar 5, 2009, at 8:04 AM, Dave Lewis wrote: Indeed, it was the Cypress exchange that failed in the way I meant, not the Bay Bridge. However it was poor placement of the rebar and lack of reinforcement that led to its failure, and I didn't say anything about the ground giving way, though that may have been a contributing factor in the Cologne disaster. However, the Cypress exchange was built in 1957 and failed in 1989; thirty-two years. That's about the age of many poured concrete university buildings now. UD -----Original Message----- From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lou Judson Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:53 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Einstürzende Neubauten Quibble: The Bay Bridge lost a singlepart of the roadway because two parts of it were on opposite side of a fault. it is entirelymade of steel at that end. The "Cypress Structure" in Oakland was the one that collapsed on top of dozens of cars due to inadequate reinforcment. Neither of them failed because of the ground giving way; it just shifted and the structures themselves failed. The only thing that was faulty about the reinforcement was not enough of it, combined with aging concrete. Seattle has a long double structure exactly on the same plan as the Cypress structure; it will go down given an equal shock one day! <L> Lou Judson * Intuitive Audio 415-883-2689 On Mar 5, 2009, at 7:26 AM, Dave Lewis wrote: Likewise the internal mesh of rebar and reinforcement has proven faulty in some cases; we saw that in the failure of part of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in 1989.