Home
> Uncategorized > The ground is a risk…(contd)
The ground is a risk…(contd)
PSB for the cross-sections of drawings. For clarity the top drawing is the repair drawing (inaccurate) that the government provided the contractor in the bid – the vertical protrusion is a fence post.. The middle drawing is the actual representation of the repair that took place – thick red line representing the present loc of the fallen cantilever wall and thick blue line indicating the road and side pavement. The bottom drawing is the ‘as built’ and desired end product. (PennDOT = Pennsylvania Dept of Transport)
Categories: Uncategorized
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
Thanks Howard. What do you make of the nature of the failure given the final position of the original barrier, the nature of the repair and the need for these works?
Must admit to being more confused than usual
The original failure was a freakish storm… that’s life maybe the rip rap could be increased in size but nothing mushc would have prevented the scour
The r.c. retaining wall was all a bit strange. It was necessary to retain the highway edge whilst reip rap was placed?..but this implied an unsupported excavation to get the retaining wall in so would have had to have been done in segments ..which begs the question why not excavate and re-fill with rock armour in segments and just leave the retaining wall out . Since it was fully embedded I can’t see what it was doing.
The new scheme is similar…it permits a slightly lower angle on the rock armour protected slope and has a deeper shear key into placed fill …but has a worse construction sequence issue…that there is a deepened excavation face to place the fill…..just don’t get it at all