KCCI is doing a report on this project and the delays/costs tonight at 10pm.
Cutting edge news. We have been talking about it for weeks, but now the Ames Tribune and KCCI are doing stories. Once again CF is the leading media outlet!
KCCI is doing a report on this project and the delays/costs tonight at 10pm.
On some of the flyovers in Council Bluffs, the IDiOT left no places for them to push snow off in case of a massive snowfall. Workers have been talking about a giant snow blower or even a payloader to remove deep snow.
It's the same way on the West Dodge Overpass. I don't know if they just bring in trucks and end loaders or what. We haven't had enough snow the last few years for it to be a problem.
We're everywhere mtownIt's amazing to me how everyone knows either Structural Engineers or someone at the DOT.
What is the expected bonding to be like at the intersection of the original pour (now chipped-down) concrete and the new pour material? Wouldn't that create a weakend longitudinal joint just below the anchor bolts and embed plates? (Unless rebar will be added by anchoring into the old and extending into the new...)There are no embed plates that get cast into the boxes at the top of the piers. This appears to be why they have to chip down the distance that they are and will have to repour back up to elevation with the anchor bolts embedded in the concrete.
I probably missed it in the thread but apparently, according to KCCI's report, all of the piers are too tall and each one of them has to be jack-hammered down and re-poured at the top. They said right now it's set to take about 2.5 weeks to fix each of the piers and it's costing the contractor $5,500/day each day that the project is extended. The claim is that taxpayers won't owe more for this and the contractor has to absorb the cost.
So they didn't do inspections on the piers individually as they were going up to ensure correct heights? I don't know how all of that works but figure the mistake would get caught by the time they were looking at the second pier after it was up. Who knows.
By the way, we can't keep the money in state with a contractor from Iowa? We gotta send the money to a contractor from Minnesota? C'mon.
I probably missed it in the thread but apparently, according to KCCI's report, all of the piers are too tall and each one of them has to be jack-hammered down and re-poured at the top.
I probably missed it in the thread but apparently, according to KCCI's report, all of the piers are too tall and each one of them has to be jack-hammered down and re-poured at the top. They said right now it's set to take about 2.5 weeks to fix each of the piers and it's costing the contractor $5,500/day each day that the project is extended. The claim is that taxpayers won't owe more for this and the contractor has to absorb the cost.
So they didn't do inspections on the piers individually as they were going up to ensure correct heights? I don't know how all of that works but figure the mistake would get caught by the time they were looking at the second pier after it was up. Who knows.
By the way, we can't keep the money in state with a contractor from Iowa? We gotta send the money to a contractor from Minnesota? C'mon.
In this case it looks like a good thing it isn't an Iowa company. Let Minnesota eat all the cost overruns.
The guy in charge said, "We're confident that the bridge piers will be structurally sound and safe."What is the expected bonding to be like at the intersection of the original pour (now chipped-down) concrete and the new pour material? Wouldn't that create a weakend longitudinal joint just below the anchor bolts and embed plates? (Unless rebar will be added by anchoring into the old and extending into the new...)
I'm going to guess there aren't an overabundance of companies who do that type of work in Iowa. The bids should be public record to find out who did bid it but it is a somewhat "specialized" project.I probably missed it in the thread but apparently, according to KCCI's report, all of the piers are too tall and each one of them has to be jack-hammered down and re-poured at the top. They said right now it's set to take about 2.5 weeks to fix each of the piers and it's costing the contractor $5,500/day each day that the project is extended. The claim is that taxpayers won't owe more for this and the contractor has to absorb the cost.
So they didn't do inspections on the piers individually as they were going up to ensure correct heights? I don't know how all of that works but figure the mistake would get caught by the time they were looking at the second pier after it was up. Who knows.
By the way, we can't keep the money in state with a contractor from Iowa? We gotta send the money to a contractor from Minnesota? C'mon.