Anda di halaman 1dari 23

1989: San FranciscoOakland Bay

Bridge Earthquake Collapse

Case Analysis
Arie Trifiantie
Favor Mula P.T.
Yusrina Amni

KRONOLOGIS
v19311933

Proses perancangan desain jembatan

19331936

Proses pembuatan jembatan

1955

Jalur kereta api ditutup dan kemudin masing-masing


deck diganti dengan lalu lintas satu jalur

19591961

Rekonstruksi

1989

Gempa Loma Prieta terjadi pukul 05:04 PM. 7.1 skala


richter

1931-193

Pada tahun 1931 lembaga legislatif California mengesahkan CTBA


``` Toll Bridge Authority yang sudah dibentuk semenjak tahun
(California
1929.

Lembaga legislatif California memberikan dana sebesar $650.000


untuk mendesain rancangan jembatan.

C.H Purcell yang belajar teknik sipil di Universitas Stanford ditunjuk


sebagai chief engineering untuk proyek pembangunan oakland bay
bridge. Charles Andrew yang belajar teknik sipil di Universitas Illinois
merupakan asiten dari C.H Purcell

Setelah mendapat persetujuan pembebasan dari pelayanan sipil


Purccell dan Andrew merekrut lebih dari 50 orang enjinir dan bekerja
sama dengan spesialis terasuk surveyor, juru gambar dan staff
administrasi

1933-193
12

an s 6
t
b a it a
Jem paa r
ka jalu
r
be

se Jar
tin ak
g V
da gi ert
se Ho n 22 ika
pa ri Jar 0 f l
nj zo ak ee
an nt
t
f e g al
et 16
50

je
m
en u mb
F
n
Pu ran yeb tuk atan
la isc ra
n
u
Ye o d gi
rb en Sa
a
g n
Bu an
en
a

Bridge
Concept and
Design
uk
t
un i
n
ta rang
a
b eb rba
m
e gn
y
Je
1 men au Y en
d
l
Pu na land
e
Bu Oak

Desain jembatan yang dipilih untuk


dibangun adalah model suspensi untuk
area barat (Yerba Buena San
Fransiso) dan untuk area timur akan
dibangun dengan model Cantilever
(Oakland Yerba buena).
Untuk
daerah
barat
dibangun
dengan model suspensi karena harga
yang lebih murah dan untuk estetika,
dan karena jarak yang ditentukan lebih
cocok apabila menggunakan model

1955
jalur kereta antarkota mulai ditutup.
Oleh karena, lalu lintas jauh lebih
padat daripada yang diantisipasi
33
juta
kendaraan/tahun
Vs
perkiraan 11 juta di tahun 1950),
setiap deck diubah menjadi 1 arah
(one-way traffic)

1959-196
Selama fase rekonstruksi, pekerjaan
yang
paling
kompleks
adalah
menguatkan upper deck di area
timur.
12 Oktober 1963 rekonstruksi
selesai
Rekonstruksi
jembatan
dilakukan
untuk
menampung
kapasitas mobil harian sebanyak
110.000.

1989
Gempa Loma Prieta terjadi pukul 05:04 PM. 7.1
skala richter Lalu lintas siang hari lebih padat dari
biasanya karena banyak komuter mengubah
jadwal untuk third game of the World Series yang
dimulai pukul 05:30 PM di Candlestick Park

1989
Jembatan ini ditutup selama satu
bulan
untuk
direkontruksi
dan
kemudian dibuka kembali pada 18
November tahun itu (hanya sebulan
masa rekonstruksi).

1989
Karena
dibangun
pada
tahun
1930an, jembatan tidak sesuai
dengan
standar
operasional
American Association of Highway and
Transportation Officials.
Ahli geologi menegaskan bahwa
gempa bumi yang jauh lebih besar
dari gempa Loma Prieta
70%
kemungkinan terjadi dalam 30 tahun
ke depan di Bay Area.

Requirement Jembatan baru


Pembangunan jembatan baru sejajar
dari posisi utara dan selatan dari
jembatan lama

orrelation Analysis

Case vs Session 5 Context

SESSION 5 PURPOSE:
Decision Making Process

orrelation Analysis
Analysis of Issues in Ethical Prob

ase vs Session 5 Context

San Fransisco Oakland Bay


Problem:
A devastating earthquake rocked the San Francisco Bay area at rush hour
A mile-long span of an Interstate highway collapsed and the Bay Bridge
to Oakland wrecked apart
At least 200 people killed
(Barron, 1989)
The construction, reconfiguration, rebuilding of San Fransisco
Oakland Bay is problematic in several layers create delay, cost and
safety issue

Correlation Analysis
Analysis of Issues in Ethical Prob
Case vs Session 5 Context
FACTS Issue

Ethical Issue

Status Quo Issue


1. High Growth Rate of
Automobiles
Data : in 1929, ratio of
automobiles are
one car per 2,7 people
2. San Fransisco Oakland has the
highest
traffic of commute (Important
Route)

Trade-offs Issue
1. Societys Safety
2. Societys Welfare (Societys
Right of Transportation)
3. Government Cost
4. Time

This issue appear as:


a) The trigger to create highway
b) The main issue for the highway
(caused by missforecast)

Inattentional Blindness
(Focusing Failure)

Perceptual Differences
1. Different forecast/projection vs
reality
(traffic growth rate ; design

Cause
Normative Myophia
(inability to see ethical value)

Change Blindness
(Fail to recognize gradual changes)

Correlation Analysis
Case vs Session 5 Context

1.
2.
3.
4.

Identifying Stakeholder

Government Financial Ministry


Cost
San Fransisco Society
Right of Transportation, Safety
California Toll Bridge Authority (CTBA) Safety
American Association of Highway
Safety
and Transportation Officials
5. Government Engineer
Safety
6. Army Corps of Engineer
Safety
7. War Department
Safety, State Safety, State Interest
8. California Governor C.C.Young
State Interest & Development
9. Governor Schwarzenegger
State Interest & Development
10.
Legislators (Bay Area & California)
Society Welfare, State
Interest & Safety
11.
President Herber Hoover
State Interest & Development

Correlation Analysis

Alternative

Case vs Session 5 Context

Real
Initial Construction
a. Designed by Committee or Designed by Architect (Design by
committee)
b. Suspension design vs Cantilever design (Both)
Reconfiguration
b. Divided by phase & Keep the highway operating (Used)
c. Done in a fast manner & Close the highway
Post-Earthquake
1a. Replace the East Bay crossing with a new bridge
1b. Seismically retrofit the existing structure
2a. Redesign to met Army Corps of Engineers study
2b. Go with initial Idea
3a. Simplifying design eliminating the tower in the remaining 2010 feet
to reduce costs
3b. Restricting only Bay Area commuters, through tolls
3c. Californians should pay for cost overruns of $2.9 billion

Correlation Analysis

Alternative; Line Drawing

Case vs Session 5 Context

2
B
4

3
A
3

2
1
A
B
1

3
B
1

3
1
C
A

1
B
3

2
A
5

10

3
2
B
B
6

10

2
A
5

10

Unsafe

3
3
C
A

1
A
0

Costly

3
3
B
C
4

Society Welfare
Low
1
B
9

Long Time

2
A

3
A

1
B
1

At Budget Cost

Society Welfare
High

2
1
B
A
2

3
2
A
1
B
A

Highly Safe

3
C
1

3
B
1

10

Short Time

Correlation Analysis
Case vs Session 5 Context
OPT

CALC

1A

Replace the East


Bay crossing with
a new bridge

OPT
1B

Seismically retrofit
the existing
structure
CALC

2A

6+2+5-2 =
11

4-1+1-7 =
-3 to met
Redesign
Army Corps of
Engineers study

10-1+7-5 =
11
Go with initial Idea

2B

-5+8+5+2 =
10

Alternative; Middleways
CONSIDERATION

a. Minimize risk for unknown material


condition (affect cost, time & safety
unmeasurable) and the wrong
infrastructure to begin with so more
measurable on budget
b. Keep the progress executed fast, lower
cost, not restricted with traffic needed and
the traffic can still be used as is
a. The basic infrastructure exist, fix the wrong part
b. Done in phase, fiscal can be spread widely
c. Long time because
need to maintain stability of
CONSIDERATION
traffic
a. Minimize risk of repairing when
earthquake occur
b. Scientific base, level of trust high,
enhance safety
c. Longer time to redesign and testing
d. May be costly due to longer work time
a.
b.
c.
d.

Proven wrong and not sufficient for safety


High risk of future repairment cost
Shorter time, execution only
The faster the better for society to get better

Correlation Analysis
Case vs Session 5 Context
OPT

3A

3B

3C

CALC

Alternative; Middleways
CONSIDERATION

a. A form of effectivity and efficiency effort


b. Should be followed with quality and
specification control for safety
Simplifying
design to reduce c. Have the ability to reduce cost without
costs
reducing society welfare and not reducing
1+6+5-4= 8
function
d. May take longer time to plan and should
be creative (high level of difficulty)
Restricting only Bay
Area commuters,
through tolls

+2+8-5+2 =
7
Californians should
pay for cost overruns
of $2.9 billion

6+6-5+0=7

a. Reducing society welfare significantly


b. Probably didnt fulfill state interest of
transportation development
c. Same cost as initial, but simpler maintainance
d. Reduce the possibilities of the same mistake of
overtraffic
a. Reducing society welfare significantly, put
burden on society
b. Ethically inappropriate, double payment for
state infrastructure
c. Reducing the value of government job

Correlation Analysis
Case vs Session 5 Context

Alternative; Flowchart

Value in Order:
- Safety
(increase safety, reduce risk, reduce
potential cost. Suitable with Government
agenda and obligation to ensure society
health & safety, within the interest of both
govenment and society)
- Budget / Cost
(within the interest of government, financial
budgeting important because the money
come from society as well;tax; so the use of
it should be able to be felt by society in
many different post)
- Society Right
(Society right of transportation come third
because it is important but society can bear
not having one because they initially dont
have one, but still important because its
within the interest of society and
government to ensure optimum level of

THANK
YOU
For your kind attention