Looking for a structural or civil engineer

[64FJ40]

The 5' version spans far enough, it might be doable, but that all depends on what they say the setbacks must be.

Definitely something to gauge the price on with everything else and keep in the back pocket as a solution.

You said DNR was requiring a bridge?

Can you get away with a bottomless arched culvert? We've done them anywhere from 6' to 18' bottom width. The sections bolt together, and are a LOT lighter to lift into place than prefab concrete panels.

 

[nowires]

Problem solved :fawkdancesmiley::haha::haha:

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1XjubCknvo&feature=fvst[/YT]

 

[JOOP]

Travis,

Let me know when you guys are planning on building it. I'll take time off to come out and help. :awesomework:

 

[Travis1]

How long and wide is this trail you can take a civic down cause if there is enough room you might be able to have UV set it for you. A 300 size machine has a track width of. About 12' plus the swing radius which takes a bit of room

I was looking at the track width and capacity of those things when the idea was brought up. If that was a solution, I'de have to go take some measurements. They are 11'-1" wide, which I *think* would fit. The gate being the narrowest point. Obviously, there would also be a challenge getting the prefab units over this terrain, a tractor trailer won't fit at all, and you've got move that unit 400-500 yards to the job site without a truck. Keeping in mind the unit would weigh at least 13 tons.

The tail swing might be an issue too. The road is 10-12' wide surrounded by brush and trees. I need to go back there and start picturing the job in my head.

 

[Travis1]

You said DNR was requiring a bridge?

Can you get away with a bottomless arched culvert? We've done them anywhere from 6' to 18' bottom width. The sections bolt together, and are a LOT lighter to lift into place than prefab concrete panels.

I'll bring this up and ask them. Bringing pictures with me.

What does the footing look like/need to be for those?

 

[Travis1]

Travis,

Let me know when you guys are planning on building it. I'll take time off to come out and help. :awesomework:

Assuming it remains a bridge, I can't imagine not making a call for volunteers on this one.

 

[mark]

That's a box culvert, not a bridge. If DNR said it has to be a bridge, it can't have footings in the wetted perimeter of the stream.

I just grabbed something I knew was close, I thought they were listed as bridges as well, or atleast I know they make a version that is. Truth be told, I'm sure the have a load capacity rating for the tops of all these, and I will garentee they FAR outweigh any sort of load a 4x4 would put on top of them.

You said DNR was requiring a bridge?

Can you get away with a bottomless arched culvert? We've done them anywhere from 6' to 18' bottom width. The sections bolt together, and are a LOT lighter to lift into place than prefab concrete panels.

I'll admit, I like that better in a way, especially in the transport and assembly sector. And again, even with marginal cover the top strength should be WAY over what would be needed for a 4x4 trail.


Seems one of the problems I see from the sidelines is the (reasonably) unrealistic expectations that are put on subjects like this. This is a 4x4 trail, with lets figure the average top-end weight of no more the 8-10K lbs with flotation tires at that (low psi foot print), yet all the design specs are for like H-20 (highway) spec as BS like that. OVERKILL IMO. Take the old cedar bridge on top of Isabelle for example. FIELD engineered, places 50+ years ago with no equipment and no "special" foundation prep work. Lasted all these years for logging and then 4x4 traffic and had many more years left. Only lost do to MASSIVE flooding and land-slides, not the bridge. Yet that kind of bridge is not "engineered". Makes my head hurt.

 

[Travis1]

When I was talking to the DNR, the engineers were looking for worst case scenarios. So, if it's a 60' bridge, it needs to support 4 trucks, or figure on 15 distributed tons on the outside.

Then there's also work parties, I wonder if they took in to account that we sometimes use larger excavators for work.

As for upper issabelle, sure, but that was 50+ years ago. I'de love to be able to just drop some large logs across this span and build a log bridge. Not only would it be an assload cheaper, it would be freakin' cool.

 

[Binder]

Truth be told, I'm sure the have a load capacity rating for the tops of all these, and I will garentee they FAR outweigh any sort of load a 4x4 would put on top of them.

Seems one of the problems I see from the sidelines is the (reasonably) unrealistic expectations that are put on subjects like this. This is a 4x4 trail, with lets figure the average top-end weight of no more the 8-10K lbs with flotation tires at that (low psi foot print), yet all the design specs are for like H-20 (highway) spec as BS like that. OVERKILL IMO.

I agree Mark what they typically want to do is overkill. Keep in mind though these bridges aren't built with vehicle weight in mind as that isn't the most it would see. Snow load with end to end vehicles would be much more as well as I bet they are accounting for possible fire under the bridge......The only way any of us could make sense of any of it would be to see the required specs which don't seem to be public information.

 

[Binder]

I'de love to be able to just drop some large logs across this span and build a log bridge. Not only would it be an assload cheaper, it would be freakin' cool.

And it could be engineered if we knew the specs.:;

 

[Travis1]

And it could be engineered if we knew the specs.:;

I can get them. I don't think it's private or privileged info, I just think it's a matter of knowing where to find it.

 

[Travis1]

I agree Mark what they typically want to do is overkill. Keep in mind though these bridges aren't built with vehicle weight in mind as that isn't the most it would see. Snow load with end to end vehicles would be much more as well as I bet they are accounting for possible fire under the bridge......The only way any of us could make sense of any of it would be to see the required specs which don't seem to be public information.

Time could also be a factor. If you know you'll never be able to maintain it, overbuild it to the point that you could ignore it for 30 years and not worry about it.

Could be one of those realistic but undocumented design specs.

 

[Binder]

I can get them. I don't think it's private or privileged info, I just think it's a matter of knowing where to find it.

Then do yourself a huge favor and get them. Why would you continue to guess when you don't have to....BTW getting the specs is the only chance you have of ever getting a engineer to stamp a design.

 

[Travis1]

Then do yourself a huge favor and get them. Why would you continue to guess when you don't have to....BTW getting the specs is the only chance you have of ever getting a engineer to stamp a design.

I'm not guessing. Before I sink a bunch of time in to finding the exact specs, I'm first finding out if an engineer would be even willing to do this for us for free or damn close to it.

Steps are:

1) find engineer agreeing to concept
2) get specs
3) design bridge solution
4) engineer stamp

Plus 3,000 other steps after those basic 4.

 

[64FJ40]

I'll bring this up and ask them. Bringing pictures with me.

What does the footing look like/need to be for those?

The footing is poured in place. The cross-section size depends on how big the span is, but for your application, figure 18"-24" square, with a 4"x4" notch down the middle of the top. The pieces get bolted together, set into the notches, then mortared in place.

 

[Toyotanut]

I'm with Binder. I'd think any engineer would want to know the specs before even desiding if he may want to take something like this on pro bono or next to nothing.