Hydraulic hammers called in after three blasts fail to fell bridge.
Demolition contractors were forced to call in the hydraulic hammer reinforcements after three attempted explosive blasts failed to drop a bridge spanning the Salt Fork Creek.
The warning siren sounded Wednesday afternoon, March 10; a worker called out, “Fire in the hole!” and the explosives planted in the Eastwood bridge over Salt Fork Creek were detonated. When the smoke cleared, the bridge was still standing.
Disappointed demolition crews started drilling more holes, reportedly working into the night and again early Thursday, March 11.
About 9 a.m. Thursday, more explosives were detonated, and although the bridge was starting to look a rough around the edges, it was still standing.
Friday morning, the crews took one last crack at knocking the bridge down with explosives.
“It’s getting so broken up now it’s hard to find a place to drill on it safely,” said Shannon Jenkins of Lehman Construction before the final blast. “We’re going to try to blow the feet clear out from underneath it. But there’s no guarantee it’s going to fall down this time.”
Jenkins said the explosives company, Phillip Davis Controlled Blasting, wasn’t doing anything wrong in its efforts to bring the old bridge down.
Possibly true – But having run out of bridge in which to drill holes in which to place the explosives, the company eventally called for the cavalry and finished the job using excavators equipped with hydraulic hammers.
The catalogue of failed implosions can be viewed below:





In the first of a new series of “People Profile” audio podcasts, we speak to Leonard Cherry, owner of Cherry Companies (including Cherry Demolition) and a man with more than 30 years demolition experience under his belt.
In just over two weeks, 11-year old
Refurbishment and Demolition Surveys have been carried out as ‘Type 3’ surveys since the introduction of MDHS 100 in July 2001. This document provided advice and methodology for surveyors engaged in all asbestos survey types. However, the guidance for Type 3 Surveys was nominal which inevitably led to varying degrees of inspection procedures by the surveying companies.
The latest phase in 