 Messages |
Topics |
Attachments
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - BCota
46
« on: April 05, 2010, 06:41:55 AM »
actually there is a substantial amount of rebar (especially where the sidewalk connects to the deck beams) and it is all epoxy coated (the green stuff)....just not $150,000 worth. A rough estimate of the rebar cost is more like $4-5k. The prestressing strands are more costly, somewhere in the neighborhood of $15k.
47
« on: April 02, 2010, 03:57:29 PM »
I suppose the purpose of the notice is to prevent trucks (of the specified weight class) from taking an unapproved detour while the 104 bridge is under deconstruction/construction....the issuance date is 3/1/10 and it ends 5/1/10 which lines up pretty well with the construction schedule.
48
« on: April 01, 2010, 06:47:53 AM »
What building material is the bridge made of, MikeF9? when you look at the bottom of the bridge there should be heavy timber, steel, or concrete...just curious. I suppose I can check it out for myself this weekend; you go west at the 104/128 triangle to get there right?
49
« on: March 31, 2010, 01:39:50 PM »
If any viewers have been around long enough (or know someone else who has) to remember construction of the present B.10 I'm interested in a few facts: how long it took to build (Estimates are about 10 months) and who the contractor might have been at the time? If the contractor is still around or the documents of the business still exist they may contain the bid price of the current bridge as well as who paid for it. The construction took place nearly 78 years ago so this theoretical witness would have to be nearly 100yrs young and have been a resident of the area for an awfully long time -- if you're out there, you're rare  . I imagine the construction back then would've been a significantly more memorable event than this time around will be so maybe more people will remember it than I think -- hope so!
50
« on: March 29, 2010, 04:09:19 PM »
51
« on: March 29, 2010, 10:29:53 AM »
 above is the cover sheet for the present B.10 bridge. It was cast in place sometime shortly after these drawings were approved by chief engineer H.S. Sargent on May 31st, 1932. The plan set for present B.10 consists of 10 hand drafted sheets (the new bridge plan set is 100+). link to plan set from 1932: http://filebeam.com/5198d0fee0cb54fe72f55d62070d6304a .pdf viewer is necessary to open the file. click the download button in the center of the screen after the new window opens; the file is titled: "Fairfax Bridge, 1932".
53
« on: March 28, 2010, 10:12:50 PM »
not sure how big of an effect steel prices would've had on this one....precast concrete...no onsite or stay-in-place steel formwork; just some wooden forms to cast the sidewalks.
54
« on: March 28, 2010, 05:53:14 PM »
Wild idea.....
dependent upon factors such as the structural integrity of transporting a mildly reinforced concrete bridge section that has been in service for nearly 80 years; as well as the length of the current bridge on Boissoneault Rd. and the soil conditions around it,,,what about attempting to recycle the present bridge #10? Considerations would have to be made with regards to careful partitioning of the deck and beams but it is certainly possible because many precast elements are of a similar size and shape and they transport just fine. Unlike the new bridge #10 (fabrication was completed recently), it was cast in place with elaborate staging and wooden falsework and prestressing and post-tensioning techniques were not yet commercially available. this means that most likely small cracks (the excessive rebar reinforcement will contain them) will form in the bottom of the present B.10 if they are not adequately supported during any significant movement. This would provide access for moisture and would require repair measures (time & $$$). I would not be overly concerned with the structural capacity of the bridge after placement on Boissoneault Rd. (hypothetically without significant strength reduction due to removal & transport of course) b/c everyone has been driving over it everyday for 80 years and it's safety or adequacy to support loads has never been an issue. side note: upon comparison of the new plans it appears that one of the primary reasons for replacement is to gain the apprx'ly two feet presently occupied by concrete balusters on each side of the bridge -- the new rail system I believe is aluminum and is oriented external of the sidewalk and deck in plan view and is attached to the edge of the outermost beam on each side thus creating the affect of a wider deck without occupying any more lateral width of the abutments. This is only one of multiple time saving considerations that were made in the design and construction planning of the bridge (I was not involved in the design or any of these decisions however it has become clear to me as an observation of the new bridge plans and construction specifications). end side note. just the fact that the bridge has lasted this long is indicative of quality craftsmanship, proper proportioning of concrete ingredients (and a bit of luck with ingredient selection as aggregate silica reactivity was not yet tested for), and proper mixing and placing techniques. Bad concrete is easy to diagnose at relatively early age -- and, unlike some other structural materials, the longer it lasts in good health, the stronger it gets...everyday and forever in most cases as with the new B.10 bridge beams. Avid watchers of "Life After People" have learned that the Hoover Dam will be one of the last man made relics on planet earth.
Unfortunately, this is all wishfulthinking as it is much too late in the game for such a huge decision (especially one requiring re-assessment of contract value), but that's not to say it wasn't considered. Quite possibly local residents like the Rev. would not like intrusion of a larger bridge irregardless of its sentimental or historical significance to the town. Still I wouldn't be surprised if the state attempts to sell, recycle, or reuse the bridge somehow.
$0.02 for a ten dollar word...
55
« on: March 28, 2010, 01:11:09 PM »
I have access to all detour plans as well as signage and other site restriction details that the contractor must abide by. will upload tomorrow from work.
56
« on: March 28, 2010, 12:25:40 PM »
It is also worth mention that millions are spent each year to prosecute and incarcerate non-violent marijuana users/dealers/and recreational experimentalists.
57
« on: March 28, 2010, 12:20:29 PM »
Not sure on the accuracy of that $633,000 price tag? I've been soliciting the VAOT Project manager, Carolyn Carlson, for information regarding the current bridge and according to her the new bridge is worth nearly $780,000. Not that it really matters to Fairfaxians b/c it is being funded 80% federally and 20% by the state. It is common in this type of integral route construction for the contract to include incentives for the contractor to complete the project expeditiously -- its possible that the difference in value could be related to a similar type of incentive. Rather ironic that the new bridge is funded with stimulus $$$ b/c the current bridge was built circa 1932 -- quite possibly with "New Deal" funding.
|
Show Posts
