Fisher, A D and Robitaille, A M (2011) Replacement of the movable span of the Thames River Bridge: How 19th century technology impacted 21st century construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137, pp. 895-900. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The replacement of the Thames River Railroad Bridge between Groton and New London, Connecticut, was a challenging task on many levels, some of them anticipated, some of them not. The effort culminated with an outage that stopped the most heavily used passenger rail service in the United States for 4days and blocked navigation for industrial and national defense waterway users. Unanticipated foundation problems added an additional set of challenges. All challenges were successfully overcome with a spirit of cooperation and innovation by all involved. Advances in information technology after completion of the project led to the discovery of lost information that could have warned the project team of problems to come had that knowledge been available at the start of the project.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bascule; bridge; lift; open-well caisson; railroad |
| Index terms: | London, replacement, cooperation, information technology, United States, waterway, caisson, project team |
| Subjects: | materials science, computing systems, water management, Geography, psychology, geotechnical engineering, project delivery |
| Topics: | Project Management, Geographical Context, Organizational Design, Digital Applications, Sustainability, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here