You say jpal: "Bill Crowle [sic] did say that the spillway slab was 6 foot thick in sections,..."
Yet you provide no proof to 6 feet in Bill Croyle's statement. In fact, the only information is a 4 foot to 5 foot value from "coring" of the Upper Main Spillway. (see information from metabunk where Dan B. contacted DWR to get further details): (https://www.metabunk.org/oroville-spillway-investigation-and-repair.t8640/page-3)
- - metabunk clip: I asked DWR the week before last to expand on the claim about the thicker concrete. Here's part of an email exchange with the person who's been put in charge of responding to most spillway questions:
Q. Director Croyle mentioned that drilling on the upper spillway has revealed areas with 4 or 5 feet of concrete. How extensive are those areas? Earlier reports from Board of Consultants and others stated the slab was 9 to 15 inches thick (depending on placement of sub-slab herringbone drains). Were those reports essentially accurate?
A. A number of holes have been drilled in the upper portion of the gated flood control spillway and more will be drilled in order to assess geological conditions. Some bore holes show concrete that is four to five feet thick, some do not.
And that's all the department's communications apparatus chooses to say on that subject. I don't know if you could be less informative if you tried, but I'm guessing that's precisely the department's intention. It would be easier if they'd just say "take our word for it."
= = end clip @ metabunk
Given this, you claim: "..and that chunk does appear to be from one of those extra thick sections".
So how did the Upper main spillway suddenly break off a chunk and hurl itself down to the end of the bottom of the Main spillway without anyone noticing? AND while it was on the way down, this chunk, after being "cored", grew to 7.5 feet in thickness?
You see... I can disassemble your reasoning & statements swiftly.
Bill Croyle's 4ft to 5ft statement was a PR response to pressure from the thin design issues & proven thin areas of the near 5 linear miles of cracked drains. Did it ever enter into your thinking that the thickness of the slabs, when recently cored, may have been affected by all of the "void" filling that has been going on for years in the pressurized erosion washing conditions under the spillway? OR was it possible that the 4ft to 5ft coring thickness statement was from testing the Upper Main Spillway sidewall footings? (a highly deceptive answer in a PR sensitive distrust of DWR).? I could continue to disassemble the rest of your reasoning & statements in the post. But I will wait to see how you answer on all of these post items.
Hi EarthResarcher333.
Re post 3718:
You have a point and I rescind the claim that the concrete “chunk does appear to be from one of those extra thick sections”. I don’t know what part of the spillway it came from.
My point was that most smaller chucks of concrete got washed away, and that one didn’t, plausible due to it’s weight and thickness. It did certainly enter my mind that this thickness could be do to post construction “void filling”.