Abutments, Wingwalls, Etc.

[Wintertime]

I just got home from looking for HT1631, which is supposed to be in a "wingwall." I Googled for descriptions and images of bridges, but I'm still not sure which part of the bridge structure is the wingwall. BDT's posting in the topic "Banging my head against a headwall" in the NGS forum kind of helps, but I'm still having trouble visualizing all the components.

 

Here are a couple of photos I took today, in both plain and annotated versions.

 

 

 

It seems to me that the wingwalls should be the parts I've outlined in yellow. But that doesn't make sense, because a benchmark wouldn't be placed on a slope like that. Could they be the orange parts?

 

And what are the other parts called? I'd call the blue part a "sidewalk." ;-) But when it's part of a bridge, maybe it has a fancier name. Is the red part the abutment? Or is it just part of the concrete-lined canal, like the orange part? And does the green part have a name?

 

Thanks!

Patty

[Z15]

The red is the abutment, the yellow and orange is the wingwall unless the yellow is all one piece with the red, then the yellow in part of the abutment and only the orange it the wingwall.

 

Blue is the deck

Green is headwall or railing depending on it its all one piece. Depends on type of construction. btw-This looks more like a culvert than a bridge.

 

Think if it as the wings on a airplane. They are not part the main body but attachments to the main body. Same with a culvery or bridge, wingwalls are not really part of the main structure but additions to it for flow control or embankment retention.

 

Note-The wingwalls can vary in configuration.

Edited November 6, 2005 by Z15

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Hi Patty,

 

This is a good question.

 

The Blue is definitely a sidewalk.

 

The mark might be in either the Yellow or the Orange. We have recovered a few on a slant like that. You would have to take a shovel to clean off the Orange overburden....I have John along for that part.

 

The Green part is called either a retainer wall or headwall. The headwalls we find are usually just about a foot taller than the street or road.

 

Then I would call the Red part the concrete box culvert.

 

I hope I got it all correct. I could show you a couple of our pictures of a wingwall and a headwall, each with a mark in them, if that would help.

 

Shirley~

[evenfall]

Patty,

 

A Headwall and an Abutment can be construed as similar things, and a wingwall can be construed as part of an abutment, but is not the part that is under the bridge... The abutment is under the bridge and is sometimes called a headwall where the earth ends and the bridge begins.

 

The slope of your wingwalls would not be a great place for a survey marker. But maybe toward the bottom of them where the concrete seems to form more of a channel lining...

 

That sidewalk by any other name is still, a sidewalk.

 

Want some terminology?

 

http://pghbridges.com/termsBrg.htm

 

Enjoy,

 

Rob

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

BRIDGE ABUTMENTS

[Wintertime]

Hi, everyone.

 

Thaks for the prompt and helpful replies. I guess the mark--if it's still there--would be under those leaves in the orange part, that being the southwest part of this structure. Shirley, could you send John over to climb the fence and clear off the concrete? :-)

 

I don't know what the official difference is between a bridge and a culvert, but NGS calls this one a bridge ("SETTING: 36 = BRIDGE"). Certainly, this part of Permanente Creek is encased in concrete, which does make the whole thing look like a culvert.

 

Shirley, yes, I'd appreciate seeing photos of the headwall and wingwall marks. That's interesting that you've recovered some marks on slants. If you have a photo of that, it would be interesting to see. However, in this case, I can rule that out because the slanted part is clean and no mark is visible. (Unless, of course, the slanted part was rebuilt at some point and the mark was destroyed.)

 

Patty

[+Black Dog Trackers]

I posted this drawing of bridge parts just 3 days ago.

[Bill93]

>>that being the southwest part of this structure

 

But the data sheet says

TOP OF THE SOUTHEAST CONCRETE WING WALL

 

The stamping in the photo posted for HT1631 doesn't seem to match the designation or monumenting date on the data sheet. So that disk is not HT1631 and if people are finding the right location, the bridge/culvert has probably been rebuilt since 1960.

 

Did Telford Ave have that bend in it in 1960, or did they reroute it and the creek to get it away from the freeway ramp?

Edited November 6, 2005 by Bill93

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Patty - It's me again....it took awhile to find the ones we wanted....

 

Here are the links to all of the logs with the pictures we wanted you to see.

 

First the wingwall - in poor shape though. This is the one that I was thinking of that was on the slanted piece.

FQ0165

 

Now, 3 headwall shots.

GP0225

(This one was a lot of fun),

GP0262,

and HN0522 that had John digging away. Another one of those 'easy' roadside benchmarks.

 

This one, GP0245 is interesting in that we found the headwall was on it's side, but the disk was still readable - just upside down.

 

The last 3 links are for Abutments.

GR0749 , HO0085

And, lastly the Glen Canyon Bridge abutment... GP0099

This is close to where we live.

 

Hope Ya'll enjoy the pictures.

 

Shirley~

[Wintertime]

>>that being the southwest part of this structure

 

But the data sheet says

TOP OF THE SOUTHEAST CONCRETE WING WALL

Oops, right. The southeast wing wall doesn't have any trees over it; I'll have to check on whether any dirt might have slid down and covered it up.

 

The stamping in the photo posted for HT1631 doesn't seem to match the designation or monumenting date on the data sheet.  So that disk is not HT1631 and if people are finding the right location, the bridge/culvert has probably been rebuilt since 1960.

People aren't finding the right location. That's why I wanted to verify whether the real mark is there or not. They're logging HT1631 "found" when what they're finding is a 1995 (1993?) Santa Clara Valley Water District mark in the sidewalk, not a pre-1960 California Division of Highways mark on the bridge. Pfeh!

 

Patty

[+Sagefox]

People aren't finding the right location. That's why I wanted to verify whether the real mark is there or not. They're logging HT1631 "found" when what they're finding is a 1995 (1993?) Santa Clara Valley Water District mark in the sidewalk, not a pre-1960 California Division of Highways mark on the bridge. Pfeh!

I agree. That seems very clear from the photos. The two previous find photos also seem to indicate that the finders have photo'd a marker in the sidewalk and not on a headwall. Wrong location, wrong disk markings.

 

The guideline stating that the disk must be found is to help people not make this mistake. If the markings on the disk don't match the description then the station has not been found. One should be suspicious of local water agency disks and those of other local or regional agencies because they usually are not on the gc.com benchmark list.

 

If you don't find a disk in any of the headwalls then another thing to consider is that the road may have been widened and the concrete work replaced since the 1960 recovery.

[+seventhings]

Patty -

 

Looking at your photos (assuming I'm correct that the view is along the south side of the bridge looking westerly), I think your mark would be in one of three possible places:

 

Most likely, on the closer orange-outlined wing-wall and out of the photo at lower left and south of where the wing-wall transitions from a down-slope to level.

 

Next most likely, at the top of the closer yellow-outlined wing-wall (where I would expect the wing-wall to have a small flat section), but now covered by the green-outlined concrete screen wall/retaining wall/abutment. By your photos, the concrete of the green-outlined section looks newer than the orange and yellow outlined sections.

 

But also, anywhere else on the bridge. Maybe it's just my atypical experience, but I have noticed a lot of direction-confusion regarding the location of marks on bridges - more so than for marks on buildings, etc.

 

Also, I would not be even slightly surprised were you unable to find the mark. In high-growth areas like Santa Clara County, CA (and Fairfax County, VA) the DOT seems to devote a great deal of time and effort rebuilding or replacing bridges, to the detriment of the marks mounted thereon. I would be surprised if your bridge was not widened, etc. in the past 45 years.

 

Will

[Wintertime]

Will--

 

That's an interesting suggestion that the mark might have been at the top of the slanted (yellow) part, later covered by a new concrete wall alongside the sidewalk (the green part). I spent about 10 minutes looking at every visible piece of concrete, so I really suspect that one way or another, this one is gone. But I'll get back there soon and double-check the orange part. Yes, you're correct that the photos are looking west along the southern side of the bridge.

 

Bill, thanks for posting a note on HT1631. It annoys me that people are blithely logging it as found when *everything* about the SCVWD mark is different from the original CAHD mark. One of the same cachers also logged another wrong one in Mountain View. How he mistook a sidewalk for a flagpole base is beyond me... :-)

 

Patty