Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

I always slow for bridges...even tall ones with no signs. There are too
many stupid jet skiers that like to run slalom blind through the pilings.



"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


I'm familiar with the Sanibel Causeway. If you read the article, the
Coast
Guard talks about the safety of the boaters. They're concerned "chunks
could fall off and hit the boaters". The chunks they are talking about
are
mostly from the overhead span, not the support polls. Waves aren't
responsible for that...a combination of environmental conditions, and
the
multitude of dump trucks, construction vehicle traffic, delivery trucks,
and
passenger cars are responsible.



Here's a crazy analogy:

On the road, when you approach places where there are suddenly a higher
number of variables to watch for (like intersections), the painted line is
usually solid, which suggests that you shouldn't pass or change lanes.
This
is a good idea.

While it may not always be true that the passage under a bridge is
narrower
than the channel which leads up to it, it still seems like a good idea for
boats to slow down because there are more variables to be concerned with,
specifically bridge supports and boats which are suddenly closer to you.
Maybe even fishing lines which could result in YOU getting a large hook in
your face.

The amount of the fine is logically irrelevant. Would someone go SLOWER if
they agreed with a $100 fine, but faster if they disagreed with a $27,500
fine? :-) The law is the law, regardless of the fine.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

1.IF wakes will damage the bridge, is it safe for cars?


They are limiting truck traffic, they lowered the speed limit on the bridge to
a crawl and it was closed for a while.
The high bridge/low bridge debate still rages on.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

I've been reading this thread and can't understand how boat wakes can
destroy a bridge. I think I read that parts of the bridge are falling
off. How do boats manage to do that?

A $27,000 wake fine in this case is insane.

The best example is Venice, Italy. Boat wakes are literally eating away at
the city's infrastructure. Therefore, they have very severe no wake
policies in place. In order to film the high speed boat chase scenes in the
recent remake of the movie "The Italian Job", the producers of the movie had
to get very brief, very explicit, and I would imagine very expensive waivers
from the city. Not hard to imagine how the same forces could cause damage
to a concrete bridge with it's foundation in the water and constantly being
subjected to nearby high speed boat traffic.

RG

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

Not hard to imagine how the same forces could cause damage
to a concrete bridge with it's foundation in the water and constantly being
subjected to nearby high speed boat traffic.


High speed is a relative thing. The speed limit in all the channels around here
is 25.

The reality is his bridge is mostly damaged by the 200-400 heavy trucks a day
that cross it daily. (mostly dump trucks and concrete mixers)
The insanity, a speeding ticket for a 40 ton truck going over the bridge is
$80-100 but a 12' jon boat going under the bridge can get a $27,500 fine.
Ain't government great?

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

Doug,
I believe that American law has always held that the punishment should
fit the crime. Are you saying that if you were to be going under the bridge
too fast and creating a SMALL wake, (and I think it's up to the officer's
judgment as to what constitutes a wake), if he were to find you to be
creating a wake where you shouldn't, you wouldn't object to paying $27,500
for the mistake? The law may very well be the law, but that don't make it
right. Now on the other hand, if you owned a mega million dollar shipping
company and your skippers were blasting through there creating a gigantic
wake to make you more money by saving time, than a $27,500 fine might not be
enough.
Paul

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


I'm familiar with the Sanibel Causeway. If you read the article, the
Coast
Guard talks about the safety of the boaters. They're concerned "chunks
could fall off and hit the boaters". The chunks they are talking about
are
mostly from the overhead span, not the support polls. Waves aren't
responsible for that...a combination of environmental conditions, and
the
multitude of dump trucks, construction vehicle traffic, delivery trucks,
and
passenger cars are responsible.



Here's a crazy analogy:

On the road, when you approach places where there are suddenly a higher
number of variables to watch for (like intersections), the painted line is
usually solid, which suggests that you shouldn't pass or change lanes.
This
is a good idea.

While it may not always be true that the passage under a bridge is
narrower
than the channel which leads up to it, it still seems like a good idea for
boats to slow down because there are more variables to be concerned with,
specifically bridge supports and boats which are suddenly closer to you.
Maybe even fishing lines which could result in YOU getting a large hook in
your face.

The amount of the fine is logically irrelevant. Would someone go SLOWER if
they agreed with a $100 fine, but faster if they disagreed with a $27,500
fine? :-) The law is the law, regardless of the fine.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

"Florida Keyz" wrote in message
...
Seems to me

1.IF wakes will damage the bridge, is it safe for cars?

Yes...till it falls. Then it will be unsafe. Just ask the Gov't.

2. How will they prevent the wind from kicking up the water there?

They will ban the wind. And if the wind blows, they will assess a $27,500
fine against God for each occurrance. The fine will be collected from all
churches in the area regardless of denomination. Those who don't believe in
God will get a refund (even though they didn't pay anything to begin
with...just like the income tax rebate for those who didn't pay any taxes).

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

Subject: Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
From: (JK)

See link below. (FL. msnbc news)
http://www.msnbc.com/local/wbbh/ifyourefinc.asp
JK


My guess is that the fine is up to $27,500. Not automaticaly $27,500.

Capt. Bill

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:wEOyb.23809
Damn! It is a concrete bridge. Shame on the locals and the state for
letting it get in such deplorable condition that the wake from a 21'
boat
would cause it to come down.

Who said that a wake from a 21' boat was going to "make it come down"?
From that statement, I take it you don't understand a thing about
concrete (HOW much does it weigh?) or you'd certainly know that it is
a HUGE problem. Not on just this bridge, but all over. They just
completed a few billion dollar rehab on the bridge over Lake
Ponchetrain in La. because the piers were eroding, and not just in the
ship channel, just the wave action will do it over time.

From 99% of your posts, you prove you do not know ****! Sure, wear and tear
from the water eroding the concrete causes problems. Even bigger problem
you do not seem to understand is the rebar rusts and expands and breaks the
concrete. Normal wear and tear. But the USCG and the locals going for a
$27,000 fine for causing a wake? IT IS THE BRIDGE OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY TO
MAINTAIN THE BRIDGE! They have used the revenues from the bridge for non
bridge items. No reserve to fix the bridge. Bridge is unsafe for boats.
Boaters should sue the local bridge district. If a boater gets a $27,000
fine, would be cheaper to sue the bridge owners than paying the fine. Just
like the San Francisco Bay Bridge. Toll $2. maintenance costs for bridge
less than 25 cents per car. Local politicians want an election to raise the
toll some more for mass transit, etc. Screw the minority who has to travel
over the bridge. They get outvoted.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

"RG" wrote in message
news:RMrzb.23304$o9.11675@fed1read07...

I've been reading this thread and can't understand how boat wakes can
destroy a bridge. I think I read that parts of the bridge are falling
off. How do boats manage to do that?

A $27,000 wake fine in this case is insane.

The best example is Venice, Italy. Boat wakes are literally eating away
at
the city's infrastructure. Therefore, they have very severe no wake
policies in place. In order to film the high speed boat chase scenes in
the
recent remake of the movie "The Italian Job", the producers of the movie
had
to get very brief, very explicit, and I would imagine very expensive
waivers
from the city. Not hard to imagine how the same forces could cause damage
to a concrete bridge with it's foundation in the water and constantly
being
subjected to nearby high speed boat traffic.

RG



The major problem in Venice, is subsidence. They pumped so much fresh water
from under the city over the 1000 years, that the islands that the city are
built on subsided under sea level. You can see beautiful marble steps that
are at least 4' underwater. So the boat wakes go in the first floor of
buildings that originally were high and dry. And the first floor was not
build as a seawall.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

Just
like the San Francisco Bay Bridge. Toll $2. maintenance costs for bridge
less than 25 cents per car. Local politicians want an election to raise the
toll some more for mass transit, etc.

The sanibel bridge(s) have a toll of $3 and they want to make it $6. It is a
causeway with 3 small bridges. Certainly nothing like the bay bridge. Lee
County has put the money in the general fund for decades.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 05:03:48 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:
Just
like the San Francisco Bay Bridge. Toll $2. maintenance costs for bridge
less than 25 cents per car.
============================

Yes, and the SF Bay Bridge is a SERIOUS piece of construction compared
to the Sanibel Island bridge which is a low, medium size causeway
linked by a small lift span. With a $3 toll, it could have been
maintained to like new standards AND have built a new span along side.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

"Mole" wrote in message t...
"Florida Keyz" wrote in message
...
Seems to me

1.IF wakes will damage the bridge, is it safe for cars?

Yes...till it falls. Then it will be unsafe. Just ask the Gov't.

2. How will they prevent the wind from kicking up the water there?

They will ban the wind. And if the wind blows, they will assess a $27,500
fine against God for each occurrance. The fine will be collected from all
churches in the area regardless of denomination. Those who don't believe in
God will get a refund (even though they didn't pay anything to begin
with...just like the income tax rebate for those who didn't pay any taxes).

There are different dynamics for water. A wake caused by a boat is not
the same as wave action from water. Now, of course, we can't change
the actions caused by wind, but we can change the actions caused by
idiots who can't read a no wake sign.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

"Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message ...
bass,
BTW - What does the sign "Slow Speed Minimal wake" mean? Just what is
minimal wake, how do you quantify that? It's sounds faster than "No Wake",
but to what degree?
Paul

Actually, Slow Speed Minimal Wake would be a better term than No Wake.
If you are going to move the boat, there is going to be some sort of
wake. Probably can't NOTICE it, but it's there. So, I would think that
minimal wake would be idle speed, the slowest forward (or reverse)
momentum possible for a particular boat. Quite simple, really.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

"Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message ...
Boots,
Doesn't it sound reasonable to you that a bridge should be built strong
enough to withstand normal wave action, such as boats and normal winds
generate. Most windy days produce waves that are larger than most boat
wakes. My major point was that $27,500 was ludicrous unless you rammed the
bridge and caused that much in damage.
Paul


Paul, the problem is, what the bridge is founded on.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

bass,
I don't claim to know bridge construction, but wouldn't it be founded on
bed rock, or at least huge caissons?
Paul

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message
...
Boots,
Doesn't it sound reasonable to you that a bridge should be built
strong
enough to withstand normal wave action, such as boats and normal winds
generate. Most windy days produce waves that are larger than most boat
wakes. My major point was that $27,500 was ludicrous unless you rammed
the
bridge and caused that much in damage.
Paul


Paul, the problem is, what the bridge is founded on.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

bass,
Forgive me, but I have a hard time with your statement, not withstanding
a wave caused by an underwater earthquake, which I think sets up a wave that
goes quite below the surface, I don't understand what the difference is
between a wind generated wave and a boat generated wave. Depending on the
wind and fetch or the size and speed of the boat one could be equal to the
other. In short I think they should build the construction strong enough to
last normal conditions that the bridge sees and perhaps even hurricane
conditions for these occur as well.
Paul

"basskisser" wrote in message
m...
"Mole" wrote in message
t...
"Florida Keyz" wrote in message
...
Seems to me

1.IF wakes will damage the bridge, is it safe for cars?

Yes...till it falls. Then it will be unsafe. Just ask the Gov't.

2. How will they prevent the wind from kicking up the water there?

They will ban the wind. And if the wind blows, they will assess a
$27,500
fine against God for each occurrance. The fine will be collected from
all
churches in the area regardless of denomination. Those who don't
believe in
God will get a refund (even though they didn't pay anything to begin
with...just like the income tax rebate for those who didn't pay any
taxes).

There are different dynamics for water. A wake caused by a boat is not
the same as wave action from water. Now, of course, we can't change
the actions caused by wind, but we can change the actions caused by
idiots who can't read a no wake sign.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

Bill,
When rebar rust it expands? Anything I've seen rusted was diminished in
size, eventually to nothing. I thought if the rebar was encapsulated in
cement it wouldn't rust due to lack of oxygen. I thought the purpose of
rebar was to strengthen the concrete and keep it from cracking. Are you
sure about this?
Paul

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:wEOyb.23809
Damn! It is a concrete bridge. Shame on the locals and the state for
letting it get in such deplorable condition that the wake from a 21'
boat
would cause it to come down.

Who said that a wake from a 21' boat was going to "make it come down"?
From that statement, I take it you don't understand a thing about
concrete (HOW much does it weigh?) or you'd certainly know that it is
a HUGE problem. Not on just this bridge, but all over. They just
completed a few billion dollar rehab on the bridge over Lake
Ponchetrain in La. because the piers were eroding, and not just in the
ship channel, just the wave action will do it over time.

From 99% of your posts, you prove you do not know ****! Sure, wear and
tear
from the water eroding the concrete causes problems. Even bigger problem
you do not seem to understand is the rebar rusts and expands and breaks
the
concrete. Normal wear and tear. But the USCG and the locals going for a
$27,000 fine for causing a wake? IT IS THE BRIDGE OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY
TO
MAINTAIN THE BRIDGE! They have used the revenues from the bridge for non
bridge items. No reserve to fix the bridge. Bridge is unsafe for boats.
Boaters should sue the local bridge district. If a boater gets a $27,000
fine, would be cheaper to sue the bridge owners than paying the fine.
Just
like the San Francisco Bay Bridge. Toll $2. maintenance costs for bridge
less than 25 cents per car. Local politicians want an election to raise
the
toll some more for mass transit, etc. Screw the minority who has to
travel
over the bridge. They get outvoted.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

Greg,
BTW - Is it cheaper per trip if you get one of those bar code stickers
to allow you to pass through without having to throw coins in the basket, if
so, do you know by how much? Just curious.
Paul

"Greg" wrote in message
...
Just
like the San Francisco Bay Bridge. Toll $2. maintenance costs for
bridge
less than 25 cents per car. Local politicians want an election to raise
the
toll some more for mass transit, etc.

The sanibel bridge(s) have a toll of $3 and they want to make it $6. It is
a
causeway with 3 small bridges. Certainly nothing like the bay bridge. Lee
County has put the money in the general fund for decades.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

Paul Schilter wrote:

Bill,
When rebar rust it expands?

Yes, it sure does.

Anything I've seen rusted was diminished in
size, eventually to nothing.

Well, if the rust flakes away, then sure it does. However, if the rust is
encapsulated along with the original material, the the whole thing expands.


I thought if the rebar was encapsulated in
cement it wouldn't rust due to lack of oxygen.

That's the idea, yes. But it doesn't always work perfectly.

I thought the purpose of
rebar was to strengthen the concrete and keep it from cracking.

The purpose of the rebar is to give the concrete some strength in tension.
Concrete is enormously strong in compression, but has almost zero tensile or
torsional strength.

The concrete can still crack from a number of causes... impact, water
penetration (especially during freeze-thaw cycles), etc etc.

Hope this helps

Doug King

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

Greg,
BTW - Is it cheaper per trip if you get one of those bar code stickers
to allow you to pass through without having to throw coins in the basket, if
so, do you know by how much? Just curious.

I don't have a clue. When I lived there in the early 80s a ticket book worked
out to 50 cents a trip. I think it is around the same price per trip, plus a
hundred bucks or so for the sticker. They try to keep the riff raff out.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

Very well put. Look at rusting cast iron pipes. There are big sheets of
rust. Figure how much air is between those sheets. Same reason rebar
expands if the rust can not flake away.
Bill

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Paul Schilter wrote:

Bill,
When rebar rust it expands?

Yes, it sure does.

Anything I've seen rusted was diminished in
size, eventually to nothing.

Well, if the rust flakes away, then sure it does. However, if the rust is
encapsulated along with the original material, the the whole thing
expands.


I thought if the rebar was encapsulated in
cement it wouldn't rust due to lack of oxygen.

That's the idea, yes. But it doesn't always work perfectly.

I thought the purpose of
rebar was to strengthen the concrete and keep it from cracking.

The purpose of the rebar is to give the concrete some strength in tension.
Concrete is enormously strong in compression, but has almost zero tensile
or
torsional strength.

The concrete can still crack from a number of causes... impact, water
penetration (especially during freeze-thaw cycles), etc etc.

Hope this helps

Doug King

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

"Greg" wrote in message
...
Greg,
BTW - Is it cheaper per trip if you get one of those bar code
stickers
to allow you to pass through without having to throw coins in the basket,
if
so, do you know by how much? Just curious.

I don't have a clue. When I lived there in the early 80s a ticket book
worked
out to 50 cents a trip. I think it is around the same price per trip, plus
a
hundred bucks or so for the sticker. They try to keep the riff raff out.

When I used to use the ticket book, working and going to SFSU was cheaper by
about 10%. Now is just more convenient. Up to 3 transponders there is no
deposit for the transponder. You just give them a credit card number and
they charge the card $30. When the amount is reduced to some lesser amount
($10 I think) they charge the card again. For a check, I think you get a
bill. You get FastTrac only lanes and also the FastTrac is good in any
lane. Takes only a short time towing to use up that $20-30. Is $2 for a
car and $6.25 for 4 axles. Tandem axle boat trailer gets the $6.25 kiss.
The pass is good on all the bay area bridges except the Golden Gate. And we
have about 8 toll bridges.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

Same reason rebar
expands if the rust can not flake away.

All of those oxygen atoms gotta go somewhere.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

DSK wrote in message ...
Paul Schilter wrote:

Bill,
When rebar rust it expands?

Yes, it sure does.

Anything I've seen rusted was diminished in
size, eventually to nothing.

Well, if the rust flakes away, then sure it does. However, if the rust is
encapsulated along with the original material, the the whole thing expands.


I thought if the rebar was encapsulated in
cement it wouldn't rust due to lack of oxygen.

That's the idea, yes. But it doesn't always work perfectly.

It doesn't work perfectly, because CONCRETE (NOT cement) is porous.

I thought the purpose of
rebar was to strengthen the concrete and keep it from cracking.

The purpose of the rebar is to give the concrete some strength in tension.
Concrete is enormously strong in compression, but has almost zero tensile or
torsional strength.

The above is true, to an extent. There are a number of things rebar
does in concrete, ONE of which is provide tensile strength. Another
important design consideration is temperature-shrinkage control.

The concrete can still crack from a number of causes... impact, water
penetration (especially during freeze-thaw cycles), etc etc.

Concrete will develop stress cracks just from the loss of water when
curing. Slab cracking, for one thing, is VERY hard to control.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

"Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message ...
bass,
Forgive me, but I have a hard time with your statement, not withstanding
a wave caused by an underwater earthquake, which I think sets up a wave that
goes quite below the surface, I don't understand what the difference is
between a wind generated wave and a boat generated wave. Depending on the
wind and fetch or the size and speed of the boat one could be equal to the
other. In short I think they should build the construction strong enough to
last normal conditions that the bridge sees and perhaps even hurricane
conditions for these occur as well.
Paul

Paul, it all has to do with frequency, and dynamics. Wind swept waves,
in a protected area like under a bridge, are minimal. The waves from
wind will most likely be coming from somewhere beyond the bridge,
especially if they are perpendicular to the abutements. So, these
waves will be well below there initial strength when they get to the
abutement. When a boat plows through making a huge wake, five feet
from the abutement, that huge wave is almost at it's original
strength, which is likely many times greater than the wind generated
wave.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

"Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message ...
bass,
I don't claim to know bridge construction, but wouldn't it be founded on
bed rock, or at least huge caissons?

Nope, not at all, Paul. Restrained soils in that area are safely able
to handle somewhere in the vicinity of of 3,500 pound per square inch
pressure. Also, being mostly sand, they are not subject to
expansion/contraction. All this to say that, no, there is no reason to
found on bedrock, or caissons. Even if the soils were crappy, and it
were founded on caissons, likely the caissons in that area would not
be founded on bedrock. They would use skin friction to support the
design loads.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message thlink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:wEOyb.23809
Damn! It is a concrete bridge. Shame on the locals and the state for
letting it get in such deplorable condition that the wake from a 21'
boat
would cause it to come down.

Who said that a wake from a 21' boat was going to "make it come down"?
From that statement, I take it you don't understand a thing about
concrete (HOW much does it weigh?) or you'd certainly know that it is
a HUGE problem. Not on just this bridge, but all over. They just
completed a few billion dollar rehab on the bridge over Lake
Ponchetrain in La. because the piers were eroding, and not just in the
ship channel, just the wave action will do it over time.

From 99% of your posts, you prove you do not know ****! Sure, wear and tear
from the water eroding the concrete causes problems. Even bigger problem
you do not seem to understand is the rebar rusts and expands and breaks the
concrete. Normal wear and tear.

Haaahaaa!! I know more about concrete than you will EVER know!! My
thesis was on composite reinforcing in concrete!!! Now, your idiotic
"rust" issue. That is NOT an inherant problem if constructed properly.
EVENTUALLY, yes, the rebar will rust. BUT, if constructed following
normal guidelines, and following ACI 318, which CLEARLY details
minimum coverage for a given situation, and is backed by years and
years of research, you will find that it is not an issue.

But the USCG and the locals going for a
$27,000 fine for causing a wake? IT IS THE BRIDGE OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY TO
MAINTAIN THE BRIDGE! They have used the revenues from the bridge for non
bridge items. No reserve to fix the bridge. Bridge is unsafe for boats.
Boaters should sue the local bridge district. If a boater gets a $27,000
fine, would be cheaper to sue the bridge owners than paying the fine. Just
like the San Francisco Bay Bridge. Toll $2. maintenance costs for bridge
less than 25 cents per car. Local politicians want an election to raise the
toll some more for mass transit, etc. Screw the minority who has to travel
over the bridge. They get outvoted.

I could care less about the politics. As for the technical aspect, YOU
are the one who doesn't know ****.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

You still know less than ****. Well, you do know ****! Rust and expansion
is a major item for rebar in concrete bridge construction. Actually I know
a lot about rebar. My buddy, who we debate some construction issues, is the
son of the owner of the last american owned rebar manufacturer, and still
sells rebar, now that the foundry's have been sold.
Bill

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:wEOyb.23809
Damn! It is a concrete bridge. Shame on the locals and the state
for
letting it get in such deplorable condition that the wake from a 21'
boat
would cause it to come down.

Who said that a wake from a 21' boat was going to "make it come down"?
From that statement, I take it you don't understand a thing about
concrete (HOW much does it weigh?) or you'd certainly know that it is
a HUGE problem. Not on just this bridge, but all over. They just
completed a few billion dollar rehab on the bridge over Lake
Ponchetrain in La. because the piers were eroding, and not just in the
ship channel, just the wave action will do it over time.

From 99% of your posts, you prove you do not know ****! Sure, wear and
tear
from the water eroding the concrete causes problems. Even bigger
problem
you do not seem to understand is the rebar rusts and expands and breaks
the
concrete. Normal wear and tear.

Haaahaaa!! I know more about concrete than you will EVER know!! My
thesis was on composite reinforcing in concrete!!! Now, your idiotic
"rust" issue. That is NOT an inherant problem if constructed properly.
EVENTUALLY, yes, the rebar will rust. BUT, if constructed following
normal guidelines, and following ACI 318, which CLEARLY details
minimum coverage for a given situation, and is backed by years and
years of research, you will find that it is not an issue.

But the USCG and the locals going for a
$27,000 fine for causing a wake? IT IS THE BRIDGE OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY
TO
MAINTAIN THE BRIDGE! They have used the revenues from the bridge for
non
bridge items. No reserve to fix the bridge. Bridge is unsafe for
boats.
Boaters should sue the local bridge district. If a boater gets a
$27,000
fine, would be cheaper to sue the bridge owners than paying the fine.
Just
like the San Francisco Bay Bridge. Toll $2. maintenance costs for
bridge
less than 25 cents per car. Local politicians want an election to raise
the
toll some more for mass transit, etc. Screw the minority who has to
travel
over the bridge. They get outvoted.

I could care less about the politics. As for the technical aspect, YOU
are the one who doesn't know ****.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

bass,
Okay, thanks, you seem to have a handle on this bridge construction
thing, way more than I know about it. But don't you think that they can
build bridges that aren't bothered by normal wave action, for at least one
of our life times? For example, when I lived on the lake, my sea wall was
strong enough that normal storms didn't phase it. It had to be strong enough
for the normal storm, so a boats wake didn't really bother me. On the other
hand I could only have had a boat if I had a hoist. I didn't have one but my
next door neighbor did, he could only launch or retrieve his boat if the
waves were calm. If he left when they were calm, and he returned when the
chop was up, he docked his boat at the neighbor across the street who lived
on a canal. That hoist will beat your boat to death before you get it up.
As a side note; I asked the neighbor on my other side who didn't have a
hoist either. I was admiring my other neighbor's hoist and asking my second
neighbor about it. He was telling be that it cost around $8,000. I
commented that I didn't think that was too bad it that in the long run it
would be cheaper than in a marina. He said, "Yea they're nice, we used to
have one. At least until one spring when the ice flows blew in here and
took out the hoist. Than he explained that you can't insure against ice
damage. Well I never put in a hoist. :-(. But such is the sea, and Lake
Saint Clair is a small sea.
Paul

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message
...
bass,
I don't claim to know bridge construction, but wouldn't it be
founded on
bed rock, or at least huge caissons?

Nope, not at all, Paul. Restrained soils in that area are safely able
to handle somewhere in the vicinity of of 3,500 pound per square inch
pressure. Also, being mostly sand, they are not subject to
expansion/contraction. All this to say that, no, there is no reason to
found on bedrock, or caissons. Even if the soils were crappy, and it
were founded on caissons, likely the caissons in that area would not
be founded on bedrock. They would use skin friction to support the
design loads.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

bass,
I see your point. If the boat displaced enough, the resultant wave would
pack a lot more energy. But as a scuba diver I also know that a boat's wake
doesn't travel far beneath the surface. I have dove in 4 foot waves and it's
calm 6 feet below the surface. Now when diving in the keys there was a
noticeable tidal surge that would shift you back and forth for I guess 6 to
12 inches at even 40 feet down and in this instance that was the bottom. I
haven't dove in the Sanibel area so I can't comment on the state of tidal
surges in the area. Bottom line, it seems to me that nature puts a whole
lot more stress on the bridge than the average boat wake creates. It's like
how many millimeters does the boat wakes damage the bridge per year? Can't
they make it a few feet thicker so it'll last? Bass, maybe I'm ignorant of
some facts here, but if so, I wonder how many other boats feel similar. As
I'm under the Sanibel bridge in a 23 footer at planning speed, it's hard to
imagine I'm hurting this bridge. IMHO
Paul

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message
...
bass,
Forgive me, but I have a hard time with your statement, not
withstanding
a wave caused by an underwater earthquake, which I think sets up a wave
that
goes quite below the surface, I don't understand what the difference is
between a wind generated wave and a boat generated wave. Depending on
the
wind and fetch or the size and speed of the boat one could be equal to
the
other. In short I think they should build the construction strong
enough to
last normal conditions that the bridge sees and perhaps even hurricane
conditions for these occur as well.
Paul

Paul, it all has to do with frequency, and dynamics. Wind swept waves,
in a protected area like under a bridge, are minimal. The waves from
wind will most likely be coming from somewhere beyond the bridge,
especially if they are perpendicular to the abutements. So, these
waves will be well below there initial strength when they get to the
abutement. When a boat plows through making a huge wake, five feet
from the abutement, that huge wave is almost at it's original
strength, which is likely many times greater than the wind generated
wave.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

Doug,
Thanks for your comments.
Paul

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Paul Schilter wrote:

Bill,
When rebar rust it expands?

Yes, it sure does.

Anything I've seen rusted was diminished in
size, eventually to nothing.

Well, if the rust flakes away, then sure it does. However, if the rust is
encapsulated along with the original material, the the whole thing
expands.


I thought if the rebar was encapsulated in
cement it wouldn't rust due to lack of oxygen.

That's the idea, yes. But it doesn't always work perfectly.

I thought the purpose of
rebar was to strengthen the concrete and keep it from cracking.

The purpose of the rebar is to give the concrete some strength in tension.
Concrete is enormously strong in compression, but has almost zero tensile
or
torsional strength.

The concrete can still crack from a number of causes... impact, water
penetration (especially during freeze-thaw cycles), etc etc.

Hope this helps

Doug King

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

Bill,
Sure doesn't seem to be the best material to use under water. Thanks for
the info.
Paul

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Very well put. Look at rusting cast iron pipes. There are big sheets of
rust. Figure how much air is between those sheets. Same reason rebar
expands if the rust can not flake away.
Bill

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Paul Schilter wrote:

Bill,
When rebar rust it expands?

Yes, it sure does.

Anything I've seen rusted was diminished in
size, eventually to nothing.

Well, if the rust flakes away, then sure it does. However, if the rust
is
encapsulated along with the original material, the the whole thing
expands.


I thought if the rebar was encapsulated in
cement it wouldn't rust due to lack of oxygen.

That's the idea, yes. But it doesn't always work perfectly.

I thought the purpose of
rebar was to strengthen the concrete and keep it from cracking.

The purpose of the rebar is to give the concrete some strength in
tension.
Concrete is enormously strong in compression, but has almost zero
tensile
or
torsional strength.

The concrete can still crack from a number of causes... impact, water
penetration (especially during freeze-thaw cycles), etc etc.

Hope this helps

Doug King

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

bass,
In light of the below statement, how does this figure when the concrete,
for the bridge, is going to be curing in salt water? I understand that a
different type of concrete is used for underwater concrete, but does this
type than have the problem you spoke of? The feeling I get from this thread
is that the concrete used for the bridge is rather fragile, the substance we
put inside to strengthen it, rebar, just destroys it instead. What's wrong
with our building techniques?
Paul


"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
deleted
Concrete will develop stress cracks just from the loss of water when
curing. Slab cracking, for one thing, is VERY hard to control.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

Greg,
Well if they double the price they'll keep twice as many of the riff
raft out. :-) BTW - It is a unique island but not worth it at twice the
price if you've been there before. Damn, I must be riff raft. :-)
Paul

"Greg" wrote in message
...
deleted
They try to keep the riff raff out.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

There is galvanized and epoxy coated rebar. Both are big bucks. The is a
company that is/was making a fiberglass rebar, too. From what I understand,
they use these products in places like the Florida Keys where concrete is made
with sal****er rather than expensive "city" water that is piped down from Miami.

Dan


Paul Schilter wrote:
bass,
In light of the below statement, how does this figure when the concrete,
for the bridge, is going to be curing in salt water? I understand that a
different type of concrete is used for underwater concrete, but does this
type than have the problem you spoke of? The feeling I get from this thread
is that the concrete used for the bridge is rather fragile, the substance we
put inside to strengthen it, rebar, just destroys it instead. What's wrong
with our building techniques?
Paul


"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
deleted

Concrete will develop stress cracks just from the loss of water when
curing. Slab cracking, for one thing, is VERY hard to control.

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

Nothing better at a decent price. They epoxy coat now and that will help.
Trouble is concrete is fantastic at supporting compression, but any other
direction and get failures.
Bill

"Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message
...
Bill,
Sure doesn't seem to be the best material to use under water. Thanks
for
the info.
Paul

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Very well put. Look at rusting cast iron pipes. There are big sheets
of
rust. Figure how much air is between those sheets. Same reason rebar
expands if the rust can not flake away.
Bill

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Paul Schilter wrote:

Bill,
When rebar rust it expands?

Yes, it sure does.

Anything I've seen rusted was diminished in
size, eventually to nothing.

Well, if the rust flakes away, then sure it does. However, if the rust
is
encapsulated along with the original material, the the whole thing
expands.


I thought if the rebar was encapsulated in
cement it wouldn't rust due to lack of oxygen.

That's the idea, yes. But it doesn't always work perfectly.

I thought the purpose of
rebar was to strengthen the concrete and keep it from cracking.

The purpose of the rebar is to give the concrete some strength in
tension.
Concrete is enormously strong in compression, but has almost zero
tensile
or
torsional strength.

The concrete can still crack from a number of causes... impact, water
penetration (especially during freeze-thaw cycles), etc etc.

Hope this helps

Doug King

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net...
Nothing better at a decent price. They epoxy coat now and that will help.
Trouble is concrete is fantastic at supporting compression, but any other
direction and get failures.
Bill

What about fiber reinforced concrete? What about composite-fiber type
reinforcement bars for concrete? What about using structural steel
members, embedded for tensile reinforcement?

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

"Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message ...
bass,
In light of the below statement, how does this figure when the concrete,
for the bridge, is going to be curing in salt water?

It's actually quite a complex thing, when water cures underwater.
Believe it or not, the concrete still goes through the same process,
only chemical additives make it work faster. Curing from the inside
out, thermal evaporation still takes place.

I understand that a
different type of concrete is used for underwater concrete, but does this
type than have the problem you spoke of? The feeling I get from this thread
is that the concrete used for the bridge is rather fragile, the substance we
put inside to strengthen it, rebar, just destroys it instead. What's wrong
with our building techniques?
Paul

Economics!

Fine for creating a wake: $27,500
 

"Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message ...
bass,
I see your point. If the boat displaced enough, the resultant wave would
pack a lot more energy. But as a scuba diver I also know that a boat's wake
doesn't travel far beneath the surface. I have dove in 4 foot waves and it's
calm 6 feet below the surface. Now when diving in the keys there was a
noticeable tidal surge that would shift you back and forth for I guess 6 to
12 inches at even 40 feet down and in this instance that was the bottom. I
haven't dove in the Sanibel area so I can't comment on the state of tidal
surges in the area. Bottom line, it seems to me that nature puts a whole
lot more stress on the bridge than the average boat wake creates. It's like
how many millimeters does the boat wakes damage the bridge per year? Can't
they make it a few feet thicker so it'll last? Bass, maybe I'm ignorant of
some facts here, but if so, I wonder how many other boats feel similar. As
I'm under the Sanibel bridge in a 23 footer at planning speed, it's hard to
imagine I'm hurting this bridge. IMHO
Paul

Now, I'm not a wave expert, but I DO know, that when I'm fishing, and
a boat comes through where I am fishing, at speed, and around the same
distances that one would be from bridge piers and/or abutements, that
my boat takes quite a hit from these waves. Sometimes uncomfortable.
Now I've never been in wind that bobbed my boat around like that. But,
let's assume that it does happen, that wind blown wakes can have that
impact. How often does that occur, compared to how often does it occur
from boats? Also, there is more to the equation than simple erosion of
the concrete, as you say, in a few millemeters per year. There is
impact, there is erosion of the founding soils, there are wet/dry
cycles, etc., etc.