thanks that makes sense.....See the following post upthread...
https://www.amtraktrains.com/thread...is-scott-key-bridge.87125/page-3#post-1037350
thanks that makes sense.....See the following post upthread...
https://www.amtraktrains.com/thread...is-scott-key-bridge.87125/page-3#post-1037350
I think it was designed to break up into pieces large enough for the cranes to pick them up, and they're going to clear the debris as soon as they get the ship out of the way and back to the dock.seems on odd way to demolish the bridge to me. It means the debris is now on the river bed where it will in future be a hazard to dredgers and may one day cost many times what was saved here to lift back to the surface. A severe case of "not my department" mentality.
The bow down is explained in this video:If you examine the pictures closely you will notice that the ship is down at the bow. there appears to be a lot of concrete on the bow that will need to be removed to float the ship. That removal will be difficult. Do the salvagers just break up concrete with pieces falling into the channel or try to pick big pieces up? Have no idea.
Is it grounded on the bow but floating on the stern?If you examine the pictures closely you will notice that the ship is down at the bow. there appears to be a lot of concrete on the bow that will need to be removed to float the ship. That removal will be difficult. Do the salvagers just break up concrete with pieces falling into the channel or try to pick big pieces up? Have no idea.
This requires a full engineering analysis, not educated (or uneducated) guesses. My uneducated guesses are that a cable-stayed bridge has the road surface much closer to the bottom of the span at the piers (there is lots of truss between the top of the piers and the road surface) but the truss itself in the middle of the span is much thicker than a cable-stayed bridge*. To keep the same clearance height above the water, the piers would have to be significantly taller, but perhaps not as much as it might appear because what matters is the vertical clearance between the piers, not at the piers. The truss is thinner in the middle of the span, but the thicker part at the piers extends out a significant distance on either side of each pier. The bottom side of a cable-stayed bridge is much closer to flat and level (compared to a truss bridge) between the piers, which would make the clear channel between them much wider at a lower height.The proposal for building a cable stayed bridge as a replacement has much merit. By placing the support columns way back in shallow water appears a good protection from a repeat incident. But still some protection from runaway barges will be needed. AS well construction will be faster than a standard truss bridge. I do hope that ship owners and operators are held fully liable for all costs but suspect. If so, that will probably mean a bankruptcy will be the result.
Have no idea if any columns of remaining bridge will be useable as each column will need extensive surveys to find any hidden damage. Aswell, the higher clearances proposed for the cable stay may preclude using of the old bridge piers.
Yes, that is what I was picturing for a cable-stayed bridge.A picture describes the architecture in best terms - - -
Are you picturing something like the Sunshine Skyway bridge - Tampa/St. Pete FL LINK:
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6373805,-82.6993001,3a,17.1y,109.14h,90.68t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syBFq4gelKSpZm1gzAPKuXw!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?panoid=yBFq4gelKSpZm1gzAPKuXw&cb_client=search.revgeo_and_fetch.gps&w=96&h=64&yaw=306.31946&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Zooom in for more detail
There's a lot to see at this web site : https://keybridgerebuild.com/The proposal for building a cable stayed bridge as a replacement has much merit. By placing the support columns way back in shallow water appears a good protection from a repeat incident. But still some protection from runaway barges will be needed. AS well construction will be faster than a standard truss bridge. I do hope that ship owners and operators are held fully liable for all costs but suspect. If so, that will probably mean a bankruptcy will be the result.
Have no idea if any columns of remaining bridge will be useable as each column will need extensive surveys to find any hidden damage. Aswell, the higher clearances proposed for the cable stay may preclude using of the old bridge piers.
Experience elsewhere shows that once all the permits hoops are cleared it could be built in as little as a couple of years.There's a lot to see at this web site : https://keybridgerebuild.com/
The cable stayed bridge does look like an improvement, and it might not take any longer than other designs.
Enter your email address to join: