@danielgreene89
H Beams look exactly like I Beams, but H Beams have the same thickness in the flange and web, and are commonly used in vertical orientations where the loads are applied parallel to the beam length. The thicker web of an H Beam makes them more resistant to twisting. Whereas I-beams are typically horizontal, have thinner webs, because they are designed to only handle loads perpendicular to the length (top in compression, bottom in tension)
@ElectroBOOM
I didn't know I wanted to know about piles until now!
@westlarper
grady the only guy who can get me to watch a 17 minute video about bridge foundations
@AppliedCryogenics
This channel often gets me to appreciate details that I might have missed. It's comforting to know that something as rational as civil engineering is still chugging along as normal. Thanks for that.
@dandandan18
I'm still a student in civil engineering, and your channel has helped me a lot through the years. It's the only channel I've found almost exclusively for civil engineering making feature videos and content that are high quality and made with the non-engineering audience in mind. Honestly, I turn to your videos to understand a lot of concepts and principles on civil structures. I can't blame our professors for not delving deep on these aspects because of the limited lecture units/ hours, and it gets so busy that you have to prioritize learning the hard maths over the art of designing structures. It's a shame that my university has one of the biggest and oldest libraries in my country but I can't check all the books I want to consult. So your content are really incredibly helpful and very much a delight to watch. I hope I'll find somewhere to buy or borrow your book soon. Keep being awesome!
@CarlosValeraLeon
"imagine pouring a smoothie at the bottom of a pool. Let me show you what I mean" I cannot understate my disappointment that there wasn't a smash cut to Grady pouring a smoothie at the bottom of a pool XD
@DyslexicMitochondria
Broken bridges annoy me. I just can't get over them
@davidfalterman8713
“skin friction” and “shaft resistance” did give me a giggle, I have to admit….
@wingsman13
I’m a Construction Inspector Supervisor in PA and my current project is a 1100’ long, 4 span steel girder structure that spans a deep ravine and creek. We have a little bit of everything on this project, including Micropile, Drilled Caissons and Steel Piling. Each installation method has extensive testing involved such as Tension and Compression testing for the micropiles, CSL or Cross Sonic Logging testing for the Caissons and Dynamic Load Monitoring for the Driven Steel Pile. Pretty cool stuff!
@p_noc
0:40 nice bass
@mercoid
Your overall production quality is excellent in nearly every aspect. Animations, voice level and quality, music.. not too loud, well chosen stock footage, editing….. etc. etc… Very impressive.
@akashx
Bridges don't sink because they know how to swim
@mmseng2
"The purpose of a foundation is to not move" Grady spittin' the hard truths we all need to hear.
@zachrichardson5581
I'm a CAD drafter (6 years rebar detailing and now about a year and a half doing pre cast/stressed) and I've done a lot of shafts & piles during bridgework. Loved them because they're almost always easy, repetitive and made my end of year weight report look good to the bosses. It's really cool to see different perspectives on stuff like this that I have a decent understanding of but can learn more about the "why" behind the engineering of certain aspects. Plus the info graphics style animations combined with the at home demo stuff really helps explain things. Great video.
@laura-ann.0726
Great video! I was a draftsman and engineering tech in the CalTrans Office of Structure Design in Sacramento for 15 years, 1991-2006, and spent thousands of hours working on bridge and retaining wall foundation plans and Logs of soil test borings. The only foundations I can think of that have to bear heavier loads than highway and rail bridges are dams, especially the "big guys": Hoover Dam, Glen Canyon, Grand Coulee, etc. And maybe skyscaper office towers built on soils where bedrock is too deep to be reached directly by the building foundation. When the new East Span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge was being built a few years ago, I was out at the jobsite one day on a field trip with some of our design section Engineers, just sightseeing (our section didn't have any direct involvement with the project), and we got to watch piles being driven for one of the bents on the Skyway portion of the bridge. The "Skyway" was that part of the bridge that didn't have to be raised high enough for ships to pass under, so it was a cantilevered pre-fab box girder, running from the east abutment on the Oakland shore, to the east end of the new Cable-stayed span. The mud under this part of the new bridge was very deep: the depth from the water surface to bedrock was 350 feet at the center of the channel between the Oakland shore and Yerba Buena Island, so several of the Skyway bents had to be built on pile caps supported by 36" diameter cast-in-steel-shell pipe piles that were 300+ feet long. These consisted of sections of 36" pipe, Schedule 40 I think, that were somewhere between 20 feet to 40 feet long (I don't remember the exact number). The first section to be lowered from the transport barge by a crane had cap plates welded on the ends to keep water and mud out, and was long enough to reach from the mud line to several feet above high-tide water level. This was lowered to the mud and allowed to sink in several feet under it's own weight, then the crane operator would tilt the pile to a pre-determined angle. The "footprint" of the piles as they entered the mud was substantially wider than the pattern of the tops of the piles at the pile cap. I seem to remember there were 12 piles under each pile cap, and 2 pile caps per bent. As the pile reached equilibrium and stopped sinking deeper under it's own weight, it would be driven a bit deeper, then a new section of pipe field-welded on and the driving would continue, with additional sections of pipe added, until the calculated bearing capacity of that pile was obtained, or "refusal" was reached. A rebar cage would be lowered in, and the pile back-filled with concrete. One of the engineers mentioned to me that the cost of the foundations alone - the piles and pile caps - for the Skyway was nearly half the total cost, and maybe a bit more than half. The whole project - the cable-stayed span, the skyway, and the approaches and abutments - eventually totalled out to over $7 billion, I heard, so we're not talking penny-ante level civil engineering here. The Burj Khalifa didn't cost nearly as much as this bridge, I think. The entire original SFOBB, both the east and west spans, only cost $75 million in 1936, so I guess there's no escaping the boogeyman of Inflation even if you are The Federal Government paying the bills.
@Mrcheesebumble
Bridges don't sink because engineers secretly put thousands of pool noodles in the support columns.
@fiskurtjorn
3:34 I once saw a construction site where piles were driven into the ground. There was a peat layer between two layers of sand. It took the machine a good amount of effort to drive the first four meters or so. Then it sank by itself until about four meters left. Those last few meters took a lot of effort again. Watching this for a morning gave a lot of insight into how the peat was undulating on the bottom more than on the top.
@NoeraldinKabam
Amsterdam is build on wooden poles. A lot of older houses in the Netherlands are build like that. Due to groundwater depletion the foundations of those houses are now having problems because the poles that stayed wet and therefor didn’t rot now do (rot)
@TheTech9
Your vocal intonation and texture is comfortingly expressive. I hope you enjoy making these!
@PracticalEngineeringChannel