I-35 / US 30 Flyover Progress

Ms3r4ISU

Me: Mea culpa. Also me: Sine cura sis.
Staff member
Bookie
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
May 7, 2008
12,889
8,438
113
Ames
Well, to be honest, those media likely get their news ideas from the Ames People Facebook group. No kidding.
 

MNCYWX

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2010
2,302
978
113
WDM
Basically how it's done up here. I've seen either a slow rolling lane closure for a huge front-end snow blower into trucks or a gang plow to clear snow out of tight spaces in my area.

Both of these are frequently used on an old, narrow stretch with a concrete median on I90 where I used to live.

They really should have full-width shoulders on all new bridges in this day though.

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.
 

SayMyName

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2017
1,012
1,749
113
ABQ
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.
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...)
 

ISUAlum2002

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
22,888
5,141
113
Toon Town, IA
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.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: khardbored

SayMyName

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2017
1,012
1,749
113
ABQ
OK, after watching the KCCI piece (indicating a surveying error as the source of the problem), they are jack-hammering the concrete between the existing rebar cage to create voids. Presumably they can then extend it with new rebar tied to the old, and pour to the correct height.

Boy, what a cluster that project has become. 2.5 weeks for just the demo work. Per pier.
 

aeroclone

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2006
10,368
7,185
113
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.
 

isufbcurt

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2006
27,527
44,485
113
46
Newton
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.

To be fair the owners of the company live in Decorah, IA. They also own Bruening Rock Products, Skyline Construction, Skyline Materials and Bullseye Trucking.
 

cyclonedave25

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jul 10, 2007
21,447
11,169
113
Chicago, IL
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...)
The guy in charge said, "We're confident that the bridge piers will be structurally sound and safe."
Hopefully, he's more confident than they were about the original height of those piers.
 

IcSyU

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2007
28,300
6,962
113
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'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.
 

Cycsk

Year-round tailgater
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 17, 2009
28,430
17,354
113
The report makes it sound like this was just recently discovered, but we have seen that something was wrong with the lowest pier for months.
 

dafarmer

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2012
7,235
6,910
113
SW Iowa
Easy solution to this. Find a detour for the traffic trying to enter north bound 35 from Hwy 30 and close down entrance ramp. It's a cluster #### on game days with someone trying to enter when everyone is trying to get off.
 

khardbored

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2012
10,238
7,581
113
Middle of the Midwest
After watching that, I see that they are having to use little "one hand" jackhammers to get between the rebar -- I'm no expert, but it looks like that would take forever!!!