- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Walker mayor threatens lawsuit....
Posted on 8/26/16 at 11:49 am to terd ferguson
Posted on 8/26/16 at 11:49 am to terd ferguson
maybe a few slots under the barrier wall 
0
Posted on 8/26/16 at 12:03 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
or you could have proper drainage under the raise roadway.
you are placeing blame on this wall when really there was not proper drainage under the raised roadway. it is simple as that.
Who gives a shite if it was the wall or lack of culverts? They are both design flaws. No one is trying to argue that proper drainage wouldn't have prevented this. You seem hell bent on just shifting blame away from the wall, when that's not the point of the lawsuit at all.
Posted on 8/26/16 at 12:16 pm to terd ferguson
quote:on that stretch of interstate, probably so. from your picture there isnt a huge median to allow for the space needed for a cable system to work. if you install that cable system where there isnt proper space, you risk the vehicle crashing into the cable system pushing into the on coming traffic.
Are you telling me that the only possible barrier on that stretch of interstate is a 5 foot concrete wall? Cable barriers are the best for absorbing the force of impact and would allow for adequate drainage.
quote:which if the water had a path under the elevated road way would never have gotten to the wall that fast.
Drainage or not, it's more than a raised roadway. The flood water got 5 feet ABOVE the raised roadway due to the additional height of the wall.
is it getting simpler or do i need to draw another picture.
Posted on 8/26/16 at 12:17 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
Who gives a shite if it was the wall or lack of culverts? They are both design flaws. No one is trying to argue that proper drainage wouldn't have prevented this. You seem hell bent on just shifting blame away from the wall, when that's not the point of the lawsuit at all.
because every one is whining about this wall. I think that is funny. like people craying about a gun that killed someone and overlooking the crazy fricker holding the gun. Posted on 8/26/16 at 12:28 pm to terd ferguson
so, tell me what the role hydraulics / hydrology aspects play when considering a 1000-year event burden on one designed for a 25-year event (which is standard)?
Posted on 8/26/16 at 12:43 pm to CarRamrod
That looks nothing like what is on I12.
Posted on 8/26/16 at 1:03 pm to CarRamrod
So why were drainage holes identified in your schematic?
For the wall in question there are none in the schematic. The only flow at all was from the pressure built up on wall forcing water through the joints.
For the wall in question there are none in the schematic. The only flow at all was from the pressure built up on wall forcing water through the joints.
Posted on 8/26/16 at 1:20 pm to Catman88
quote:cause i pulled a random picture off google photos, doofus.
So why were drainage holes identified in your schematic?
For the wall in question there are none in the schematic. The only flow at all was from the pressure built up on wall forcing water through the joints.
have you seen the "schematic"? do you have it?
I love how you and others are using these descriptive phrases like "pressure built" and "forcing water" to increase the emotion of your posts.
Posted on 8/26/16 at 1:37 pm to CarRamrod
Using common sense phrases?
No I have spoken with the mayor though and understand that the complaint was that the schematic in question did not contain drainage. But his request to add it was denied.
Isn't that the point of this thread?
My post was highlighting that a proper design DOES consider a certain level of drainage. The wall as built contained no consideration for drainage. When it was brought to their attention they denied adding it.
Hence a lawsuit over it.
No I have spoken with the mayor though and understand that the complaint was that the schematic in question did not contain drainage. But his request to add it was denied.
Isn't that the point of this thread?
My post was highlighting that a proper design DOES consider a certain level of drainage. The wall as built contained no consideration for drainage. When it was brought to their attention they denied adding it.
Hence a lawsuit over it.
This post was edited on 8/26/16 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 8/26/16 at 1:37 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
because every one is whining about this wall. I think that is funny. like people craying about a gun that killed someone and overlooking the crazy fricker holding the gun.
Get over yourself. We get it, you deal with this professionally in some way. No one is blaming strictly the wall, it's a symptom of bad design, not a cause. Last I checked it's the highway department being sued, not a few hunks of concrete.
Posted on 8/26/16 at 1:43 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
it's a symptom of bad design
please elaborate.
Posted on 8/26/16 at 1:48 pm to Catman88
quote:
schematic in question did not contain drainage
you are aware projects are not constructed using schematics?
also, this will go beyond the plans and more to the hydraulic modeling and approach. That will be based on the design year burden not the 1000-year one experienced......the mayor will likely lose.
Posted on 8/26/16 at 1:50 pm to PhiTiger1764
quote:
I don't think interstates are designed at a 1000 year storm frequency. Could be wrong.
This. I don't see why DOTD should have any responsibility to design freeways to handle flooding of this magnitude. This was a 1000 year event. There's a lot of infrastructure out there that exacerbated the problems...like overflowing sewers or low bridges.
Also, would the divider have not saved some houses from flooding as well?
This post was edited on 8/26/16 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 8/26/16 at 1:52 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
have you seen the "schematic"? do you have it?
Ride down that stretch of interstate and look at it. I remember seeing them build those wall sections. They form everything up with rebar and then a machine forms the slab over it. The only places where there are any sort of spots where something could get through is at the joint between each section. I'd say it looks to be around 1/2" slit between each individual section and it's just part of the manufacturing process. The actual form itself goes all the way down to the road and has no drainage gaps or anything like that built into it.
It's called a slipform barrier. If you do a search you can see them being made.
Posted on 8/26/16 at 1:52 pm to terd ferguson
quote:
The barriers on I-12 are permanent and were built in place. They framed them up with wire and then a machine forms the concrete over top. That is a solid concrete wall... not a jersey barrier
Very cool process if you've ever seen it. They use a slip form machine to create the wall, whose foundation extends down to the road bed. It's supposed to be able to stop a truck from crossing over.....so it's no Jersey barrier.
And it's typical for newer interstates to have a 5' wall built exactly like that. Standard practice. Nothing out of the norm.
This post was edited on 8/26/16 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 8/26/16 at 1:53 pm to CharlesLSU
I think it will mainly depend on the exact response given as reason to not include any sort of drainage after a drainage consideration was initially requested for the plans.
It boils down to why was the request denied?
It boils down to why was the request denied?
This post was edited on 8/26/16 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 8/26/16 at 2:01 pm to goofball
quote:
This. I don't see why DOTD should have any responsibility to design freeways to handle flooding of this magnitude. This was a 1000 year event. There's a lot of infrastructure out there that exacerbated the problems...like overflowing sewers or low bridges. Also, would the divider have not saved some houses from flooding as well?
They don't have the responsibility of designing for a 1000 year flood. Typically an interstate will follow the procedural norm of 100 year unless specified. The concrete barriers built on the crest of the roadways are not designed to release water "into the pathway of cars" that's just not going to happen.
If anything needs to be studied its culverts (if any) running under the roadways from north to south.
Posted on 8/26/16 at 2:01 pm to Catman88
quote:IMO it will come out come out that there is way more to it than that.
My post was highlighting that a proper design DOES consider a certain level of drainage. The wall as built contained no consideration for drainage. When it was brought to their attention they denied adding it.
I would go out on a limb and say that even a incompetent engineer would agree that a missed detail in the drainage design would need to be changed if the mistake were to be pointed out. This passed though to many engineers hands to not have been revised from DOTD, consultant, to contractor.
But what do i know, im just some random internet poster.
Posted on 8/26/16 at 2:03 pm to terd ferguson
quote:
It's called a slipform barrier. If you do a search you can see them being made.
im from the area i watched the construction. Also ill go out on a limb and say im kinda familiar with some of this. ETA: no i do not work for DOTD.
This post was edited on 8/26/16 at 2:04 pm
Posted on 8/26/16 at 2:09 pm to goofball
quote:Jersey, F shape, single slope, vertical. doesnt matter. they are the shap eof the barriers. not if they are permanent or movable.
so it's no Jersey barrier.
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News