Valravn Goes Vertical--Construction Starts

jo linn said:

Wrong, look at the renderings. The locations of the supports are right on the money in the renderings, and the foundations for that last tall support are clearly visible on the web cam.

Do you read a post completely before you reply? Try and read it once more...

Anyone else notice how Valravn is missing the vertical supports at the beginning of the pullout that the other big DMs have? Valravn just has a series of angled "A" supports starting at the holding brake and going all the way down to the bottom of the drop. Makes it look lopsided and not as stable as if it were to have the vertical supports directly underneath the vertical track to hold everything up. I know that B&M know what they're doing, just curious as to why and how they changed the support design for the vertical drop.

Yeh, it is rather odd looking the way the supports are. Maybe they redesigned after building these for a while now in favor of better design. It looks like it would fall forward, LOL!

Quick answer: They're engineers. They know math.
Long answer: Ask one of them......I'm not an engineer. :)

Coasters in general seem to be designed now with less and less supports. Look at MF vs. I305. They when from a large support structure to a design that uses the classic arch. The ride's track basically forming it's own giant support.

One thing I did notice is that one set of supports in the concept art uses 3 supports, while its currently installed with two. There appears to be a footer in place for the third support. So I'm assuming it will be placed, just at a later phase of construction.

Just where is this missing support you speak of? If it's the one on the 1st drop, look again. It's just the angle of the art. There's only 2 supports that consist of 3 beams. One on the pullout from the Immelmann and one after the "airtime hill"

If you are talking about the support that extends vertically from the drop, I bet you can blame the soft sand under Cedar Point. That load must be displaced horizontally and therefore not extend directly into the ground.

Of course, this is purely speculation as I didn't design it, but it seems like the most appropriate explanation.

Looking back at the ride renderings it's a bit of a trick of the eye. It's a support from the second drop after the midcourse that extends behind the first drop.

Looking at the track layout online (the one on Point's page that is numbered for elements) it appeared to be a support for the pull out of the first drop.

CP Maverick said:

If you are talking about the support that extends vertically from the drop, I bet you can blame the soft sand under Cedar Point.

Not likely. My understanding is the engineering of the foundations has little to do with the design of the support structure. You could plop the same ride somewhere else, but the foundations would be different, based on the characteristics of the soil.

im really beginning to appreciate Valravn. It may not have the tunnel/splashdown features.. But makes up for it in size and track elements.

Tomorrow looks to be a big day. 5 cranes are in place while a 6th seems to be being worked on for the last several days. There are alot of things to hold in place for that next, longest "V" support.

Tony says that the next Valravn Minute will explain why there are so few supports.

Jeff said:

CP Maverick said:

If you are talking about the support that extends vertically from the drop, I bet you can blame the soft sand under Cedar Point.

Not likely. My understanding is the engineering of the foundations has little to do with the design of the support structure. You could plop the same ride somewhere else, but the foundations would be different, based on the characteristics of the soil.

A pylon dropped vertically still has a maximum capacity based on the depth of the foundation. The support structure works with the foundations to spread the load effectively across the ground. I can see that being the case under Valravn as compared to Griffon or SheiKra.

Wow it looks really tricky what they're doing right now! "Crane ballet" as Tony calls it.

^^ The width of the footer, not the depth is the critical variable in terms of transferring a load to the ground. Sandy soil would require a much larger bearing area than the same load on undisturbed clay.

What a cool day for the live cam, that was a very fun lift to watch.

I think I spotted foundation work for the photo building next to the Blue Streak turn today as well.

I am still curious about the land between the road and the dive loop, this is a nice small plot of land that looks thru the dive loop toward the big stage. Could this "further back area" serve as a nice beer garden that can see the stage somewhat, and provide an expanded area to take in the late night show while giving some relief to the passers thru?

JUnderhill said:

^^ The width of the footer, not the depth is the critical variable in terms of transferring a load to the ground. Sandy soil would require a much larger bearing area than the same load on undisturbed clay.

So, hypothetically speaking, the entire weight of the lift could be held by a 2ft deep foundation so long as it's wide enough? The concrete still has a shear strength that determines how deep it needs to be under a single load point.

Hypothetically speaking, yes, a 2' deep footer that is wide enough to transfer the load it is bearing to the soil on which it sits is indeed deep enough. The PSI of the concrete mix, along with the layout, and size of the re-bar in it will determine the depth required.

In climates where the ground is prone to freezing footers are installed deeper so they bear on soil below the frost line so that is also another consideration in determining the proper depth.

I didn't know they still worked this late. There is still some activity at the site.

Oh offseason discussions. Gotta love them.