Print

Print


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.