The_Cat
Senior Member
Sign at the Davies LRT Station:
I'm far from an expert on this, but I would suspect the issue is less in the shape of the piers, but in the quality of the concrete work & materials. A "Y" shaped pillar is pretty standard practice. Hopefully Marigold is working to different specs, or at least checking in with TransEd as to what went wrong.Not official word from Transed, but a qualified person giving an idea of challenges and timelines.
Structural Issues on Edmonton's LRT Line Could Add 6 Months to Timeline: Engineer
I wonder what Marigold is doing to respond to this. They've already formed 1 column in the same shape as these Transed columns; depending on how much they reviewed the design before using it, the Marigold column may be prone to the same issues.
I'm far from an expert on this, but I would suspect the issue is less in the shape of the piers, but in the quality of the concrete work & materials. A "Y" shaped pillar is pretty standard practice. Hopefully Marigold is working to different specs, or at least checking in with TransEd as to what went wrong.
I'm curious too. I work in oil and gas, and have worked on several projets and turnarounds that went way off the rails. Usually, it's mismanagement in oil and gas, not saying that it's the case here. I was working a turnaround in Fort Sask last year, and a client I was working for fired 40% of their QC's in the middle of the contract due to 'performance'. A four week turnaround turned into 8 because there was no manpower. Crazy.I'm sort of on the same boat here. Not an expert, but I have ordered a fair amount of concrete products through my work (structural and non-structural), and there seems to be something off about the "thermal expansion" reasoning they are giving. Concrete is such an engineered product. Maybe they ordered the wrong slump and or missed some additives or something? Having issues with 40% of your piers kinda seems like a major supply issue. Would be interesting to get a deeper look at the details regarding the issues.
Does anyone know how inspection/oversight works on a P3 like this? Id assume that the city should have some type of QA/QC/Inspection process? I'm pretty sure the City even employs concrete testers in their roadways division.
Living just off 66 street near the 38 Ave stop I've been watching a lot of the construction on this line and the amount of concrete they have replaced it ridiculous - be it something as simple as curbs and sidewalks, to sections of the track bed, to the across the whitemud, to the 3 sections of the elevated track bed. Watching the trucks I believe they mostly used the same supplier for most of the concrete - Rolling Mix Concrete. The odd thing is there was a QC truck from Rolling Mix on site for most of the pours so why was there so many issues? Some of the curb stuff was PRM (Park Ready Mix - assuming a division of Park Paving).I'm sort of on the same boat here. Not an expert, but I have ordered a fair amount of concrete products through my work (structural and non-structural), and there seems to be something off about the "thermal expansion" reasoning they are giving. Concrete is such an engineered product. Maybe they ordered the wrong slump and or missed some additives or something? Having issues with 40% of your piers kinda seems like a major supply issue. Would be interesting to get a deeper look at the details regarding the issues.
Does anyone know how inspection/oversight works on a P3 like this? Id assume that the city should have some type of QA/QC/Inspection process? I'm pretty sure the City even employs concrete testers in their roadways division.
It's pretty standard to replace sections due to a poor cure or finish. Devlin construction did out neighborhood rehab and there are like 36 spots identified around our main road where pieces of the sidewalk need to be repaired. Too bad Devlin went bankrupt so they will never be fixed.It seemed odd that some of the sidewalks were replaced.