Posted on 09/19/2018 8:36:34 AM PDT by Gamecock
A rural politician in eastern Saskatchewan says he’s at a loss to explain why a newly built bridge collapsed just hours after opening.
But by 4:30 p.m. the same day, part of bridge deck had collapsed into the Swan River below.
“The company did not build a bridge to fall over. We sure didn’t buy a bridge to fall over,” Hicks said. “Nobody expected this.”
He received a call from the fire department soon after saying that the bridge went down.
Hicks suspects there may have been something under the bridge that let go which caused the collapse. He said he’s not blaming anyone, because he doesn’t know what happened.
The previous bridge had been in place for more than 50 years and Hicks estimates that 50 to 60 cars pass over it each day.
The bridge is mostly used by farmers, so Hicks said the municipality wanted the bridge completed in time for harvest.
Hicks, who has been the reeve for two years, said the bridge was built to Canadian standards and the municipality has been told it won’t be on the hook for the cost of repairs.
(Excerpt) Read more at theglobeandmail.com ...
Kramerica Industries expands operations.
Lead architect: Art Vandelay.
You beat me to it.
I saw this movie with that girl from the bus.
You got me.
I assumed everyone was straight. Tells you something about my age and the fact I don’t date.
I would have guessed the same guy that did the Guggenheim.
The pilings on the closest edge moved and the deck slid off them.
Poor foundation.
I suspect there MAY NOT have been something under the bridge, looking at the picture.
If properly implemented, that Miami bridge design would have been far more cost-effective and durable than standard designs. Oops...
#67 I would like to hear the names of the engineers.
Simply knowing the names might explain everything
It was the Bob & Doug McKenzie engineering group.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJE3EgTGg9k
Yes, that is the group, but the individual engineers names is probably going to indicate that affirmative action engineers were more important than bridge safety.
The Reeve of the rural municipality of Clayton says the bridge that collapsed six hours after it opened was built without having geotechnical investigation done on the riverbed it stood on.
He said the issue was with five underwater pilings and “the whole five of them just went straight down. Boom. Four feet.”
Hicks said a geotechnical study of the riverbed wasn't done before the bridge was built. Inertia, the engineering company for the project, declined to answer media questions and referred calls to the RM.
Initially, Hicks told CBC the geotech work wasn't done because it's not possible to do that work under the river.
“You can't drill through water,” he said. “You can't do it. You can't take underground samples.”
He said people in the industry he spoke to told him standard practice was to drill holes on each shore and assume the soil under the river would be the same.
Later in the interview, Hicks acknowledged that perhaps drilling can be done under the riverbed, but said it would be costly.
“Well the fact of the matter is we don't have a heck of a lot of money,” said Hicks.
According to Sasktenders, the bridge contract was worth $325,000. Hicks said it's difficult to justify a huge budget for this bridge, which he estimated would have about 1,000 vehicles crossing it annually.
U.T. Prof Gauvreau also disputed Hick's claim about the cost of this work.
“A geotechnical investigation relative to the cost to build a bridge is not that expensive. It's being sort of penny-wise and pound-foolish by not doing the geotechnical investigation,” he said.
Furthermore, he said making this sort of decision based on cost is not appropriate.
“It's not an insignificant cost but the point is that's not a cost that you can shave,” Gauvreau said.
No kidding ....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.