SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: aladin who wrote (150949)12/14/2005 11:44:25 AM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (3) of 793838
 
The information concerning the 10 ft. pilings rather than the specified 17 ft. length was based on sonograms. They seem to have been in error, but I cannot confirm this since only a few sections have been lifted. It is impossible yet to state with any conviction that all of the pilings were in fact 17 ft. long.

The originally designed 17 ft. pilings have been widely criticized as inadequate by some eminent engineers and the National Science Foundation as being insufficient. If the 17th st.canal had been overtopped, a failure mechanism could be readily identified. Howerver, they were not overtopped. Bottom line: The sheet pilings were either insufficiently designed or improperly constructed, both of which fall into the COE'slap.

There is also an increased focus on dredging of one of the canals whose purpose was to increase the canal's depth beyond its original design. It removed some impervious clay soils and increased the load on the sheet pilings. The dredging was approved by the COE, and was performed only on the side of the levee which failed. The significance of this has not been yet assessed, but it certainly raises suspicions that the removal of the clay soils reduced the effectiveness of the sheet pilings because water could seep under them.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext