I Beam help needed

[CurlyDave]

I do not mean to step on any toes I am just sharing my experience and thoughts and worst of all opinions.

You aren't stepping on my toes -- I am learning a lot.

For example a 10’ span with 4 kips at the end and 2 kips at center of the span will have a shear of 5 kips at one end. The total load is 6k so a uniformly load distributed with this total load would only yield 3k at each end.

You are right -- I just checked the wheelbase of my JD 110 and it is only 60". I was thinking the wheelbase of a CUT would be longer and would prevent that situation.

I was thinking of 7" centers all across the bridge -- maybe that has to be further decreased. I really don't like the idea of beefing up only the area under the tires. Sooner or later a vehicle will wander from the intended track. If stiffness of the bridge decreases toward the edge it will want to wander more. As a practical matter, driving off the edge of a bridge like this seems like more of a danger than failure of the bridge -- ask Teddy Kennedy.

I have no experience with precast concrete, but I would ask what machine that Eddie already owns is going to be able to place these sections? Or even what machine is going to place them and how much is it going to cost to rent it?

One of the great virtues of wood is that one man, with no outside help at all, is going to be able to carry every piece and easily place it right where it is supposed to go.

Even if he uses 20' steel beams the W8x24's weigh 35 or 36 pounds per foot. Getting a 700# beam into a precise final position is not my idea of a fun day.

After all this discussion, the idea of a wooden footbridge maybe 4' wide for people, at the top of the dam, and then a way to drive the tractor across the spillway a lot closer to the base of the dam is sounding a lot more desireable. And a lot more cost-effective.

 

[radair]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ....Even if he uses 20' steel beams the W8x24's weigh 35 or 36 pounds per foot. Getting a 700# beam into a precise final position is not my idea of a fun day...)</font>

W8x24s weigh 24 lbs. per foot - the designation means 8" deep (tall) and 24 plf.

This bridge can certainly be designed as wood, steel, or precast concrete. Which is more economical depends on local suppliers and the labor involved.

 

[EddieWalker]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( After all this discussion, the idea of a wooden footbridge maybe 4' wide for people, at the top of the dam, and then a way to drive the tractor across the spillway a lot closer to the base of the dam is sounding a lot more desireable. And a lot more cost-effective. )</font>

Dave,

It's comments like this that make this site so important to me in my planning. I suffer from fixating on something from a certain perspective, and fail to see all the different options.

There is absolutely no reason I have to drive the tractor across the bridge.

You have just saved me several thousand dollars!!! Thank you.

I tell Steph that most of the overall planning for the park is done. Set in stone and I'm 100 percent commited to doing it that way. But there are allot of areas and specific details that are still pretty grey in my mind how to do them. Cost, function and apperance have to be considered, and what I picture in my mind changes as thing progress and take shape.

You have turned a grey area into a solid one. The lightbulb just went off and switch just clicked in my head!!!!

Of course, now I gotta figure out how to build the foot bridge to be safe for people traffic. hahaha

Eddie

 

[hilld]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">(

Of course, now I gotta figure out how to build the foot bridge to be safe for people traffic. hahaha

Eddie


)</font>

You could build a bridge like in one of the James Bond movies (like the one with a trap door and prinaha's below) to get rid of the obnoxious customers.

Just a thought. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Derek

 

[Parttimer]

Curlydave, Thanks for the link to that website. I can enjoy myself reading the threads and the links pop up. Easier and more interesting than googling for them.

dave

ps. even if eddie goes with just a pedestrian bridge, without a stamped design, eddie (with-out) the proper backgground or education in the field, would be out on a platter liability-wise (IF) anything were to happen. This being an RV park would be open to the public increases the liability. Small price to pay for a nice nights sleep. I looked up the bill for the last pedestrian bridge I designed for a Park over a small stream and it was 3,000.00 which included a site visit.

for what it is worth.

again a great site.

 

[bugstruck]

Parttimer,

If one were building an RV park here in Maryland or in Mass. we'd have no choice but to stamp the design. What am I thinking? Our states don't even allow RV parks /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif , do they? Eddie lives somewhere the other side of rebel territory, and I think they just stopped firing warning shots over inspectors, paper servers, and revenuers last month. Focusing all the ammo on the border now. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif Actually, he may not even have to get that inspected down there. That wouldn't limit liability any and may even add a little. But no worries, they always save a few rounds to take the wounded out of their misery. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif


Sorry Parttimer, guess I'm unusually roguish tonight.

 

[Parttimer]

Chris, It took me about 5 minutes to stop laughing. I still run into the shotgun thing here once in a great while. There are still a few remote spots here, just a few. "It's my land and I'll do what I want" Puts me in a bind sometimes. LOL great responce chris.

Dave

 

[EddieWalker]

Chris,

I have no idea what's involved with building in your area or for that matter, most of the country, except from what I read on this site. I grew up in California and learned what little I know from working there under their rules and regs.

Coming to Texas was like falling off the planet. City inspectors are nice, considerate and helpful. Code makes sense, or at least it does compared to California Code, which contridicts itself and is dependent on your inspector. One does it one way, another does it a different way. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

I've even had inspectors here tell me I did it wrong, but when we talked about how and why I did it, they changed their minds and signed me off when they realized it was stonger this way. Most everything I do is to California earthquake code, or close to it. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Outside of city limits, there isn't much for code. There's a few rules, but very minimal depending on if you're commercial and sewage. No inspections, no code and no minimum standards. It can be extremely scarry when buying a house here because there's no way to know what your getting. Home inspectors are a must, but all you learn is what's wrong with the place. It won't stop the sale or force the seller to change anything. Take it or leave it, it's your choice.

As for the RV Park. I'm concerned about liability with everything, but not to the extent that I feel I need a certificate for the bridge. If I build it with an engineered certificate, there's still no protection from getting sued if it fails. Lot's of bridges fail that have been designed by engineers and then it's finger pointing time when in the end, it's my butt on the line anyway. I'll just avoid all that and deal with it when it happens. The same is true for my buildings, roads, trees and drainage, plus who knows what else I could get sued for. It's part of the business to get sued. If I lose, life goes on, I'm just poorer. If I win, it still goes on and I'm still poorer. No way to win one, so I'll have a large policy and deal with it when it happens.

For a foot bridge four feet wide, I think that PT 2x12's on sixteen inch centers with 2x8 or 2x10 decking with blocking at three points will be plenty strong enough for a ten foot span.

I'm also going to use the flashing idea to protect the edge of the 2x12's. I like that one allot!!!! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Thanks
Eddie

 

[bugstruck]

Partimer,

Glad you saw the humor. Sure was the intent. I'm seldom that good, it just hit me at the time to interject some laughter. Hope my Texas friends didn't take it wrong. I admire their way of doing things different than us east coast dwellers. I even ponder.... should we move Congress to Kansas and eliminate Pacific and Atlantic state membership? /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif Probably wouldn't hurt. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[bugstruck]

Eddie,

Same inspector experience in Maryland as CA. Different interpretations of the same code, even within the same department as I think you infer.

I didn't think you needed inspections on that bridge. I also agree on the liability issue and the insurance solution even though our engineer friends will cringe. The only advantage I'm aware of on the insurance side (with a stamp) is you'd have two insurance companies, or possibly a third in line with professional liability, that could share the hit by suing or sharing the judgement with one another. That can actually be a bigger mess in finalizing settlements. You will incur liability from today's jurys, stamped or not. Telling the jury it was stamped just means you tried. Still failed. The stamp may help in situtations where someone was bringing a very marginal case and cause their side to withdraw though.

That's my take and Derek, Partimer, or the other pros, who have seen more of this litigation, may have a better view than I. I'm working from Contractor and Rental Owner perspective, so my blinders are well fixed.