Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

My question is that accepted Temp S

Status
Not open for further replies.

ALK2415

Structural
Sep 15, 2014
278
0
16
IQ
My question is that accepted Temp SHORING SYSTEM OF SUCH LARGE WEIGHT STRUCTURE ???
I even seen the 2nd leader of country tacking picture with this construction company ?
Iam confused ! this should be steel TEMP SHORING SYSTEM ?
1700613842779_dxghwp.jpg
1700613843018_l351es.jpg
1700613843558_yuigxj.jpg
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Not to mention all of the heavy timber bridges for rail and vehicles that exist in many locations. Provided it is designed accordingly and constructed appropriately, I don't see an issue.
 
I'd be curious to see the finished shoring because those stacks under the lower beam are really sketchy. I'm suspecting those are to get it into position and then they went back and installed something more substantial.
 
Ever heard of pit props??

This is not an engineering failure.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.
 
Perhaps CalTrans thought it better to get temporary shoring in place quickly rather than fussing around for weeks/months coming up with the "perfect" shoring.
 
The horizontal beams look like steel?

Agree the supports look a bit shonky....

But they haven't failed yet.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.
 
Wood is fine for this kind of load, look at all the wooden truss railway bridges in North America. Particularly as the concrete pillars are actually able to bear the load themselves (since the bridge hasn't fallen down since the fire), so this is more about adding some redundancy and safety margin at this stage.
 
I went to a FEMA Structures Specialist training in October and first off - it was amazing. The shoring I'm seeing looks a lot like the recommended shoring for emergency situations for this type of condition. It's meant to make the structure as safe as possible for a short period of time. The key words here are "safe as possible" - which as we all know, is different from "safe."

cheers, y'all.

Please remember: we're not all guys!
 
I seem to remember in mining for props they always use this method. And they had tried different materials and methods but went back to the old ways because it worked better and there was less failures.

For the life of me, I can't remember why.
 
SLTA - good to see you - you have been very quiet for a long time....

I have started to avoid the use of the word "safe" as the only "safe" thing is not to do something or completely remove the hazard. I now use "acceptable risk" or "as low a risk as possible". Bit more of a mouthful, but avoids the issue of what does "safe" actually mean....

Alistair - the think I always recall about timber pit props is that the miners said they used to warn them before failure by creaking a lot, whereas the steel ones just buckled with very little warning.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.
 
@ LittleInch
would like to hear your opinion about the risk "Rebars Severe Corrosion Effects" in the 2nd thread ? if you have the time !
 
Re the blocking(shims?).
As I see it the timbers are between two steel beams.
The lower beam has enough ground clearance for jacking.
The beam is supported by jacks and then blocks and wedges are placed under the beam.
Multiple blocks under a beam is not the same as individual blocks under each column.
Individual blocks under each column would be much less stable.
Please forgive me if I have misinterpreted the photos.

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top