21 minute read
Resource Guide (Bridge)
Hudson Highland Bridge as proposed by Serrell 1868, Harper’s Weekly.
was not funded at the time, and it fi nally died when the Poughkeepsie Railroad Bridge was opened just upstream in 1889. He was appointed chief engineer of the New Haven, Middletown and Willimantic Railroad in 1870, on which the well known Rapallo and Lyman Viaducts were built. He apparently had trouble with the designs and approached Clarke and Reeves & Company, under T. C. Clarke, to submit a design for the wrought iron viaduct. Th e plans were completed in 1872. Serrell still did not trust the design and authorized traffi c on only one track rather than the called for twin track line. After leaving the line, he wrote a letter to the governor of Connecticut expressing his concern about safety of the bridge. James Laurie, former president of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), was then called in to report on the viaducts. He determined they were both well designed and able to carry the load specifi ed by Clarke. In 1888, Serrell became president of the Washington County Railroad (now Vermont Rail System) running 56 miles from Greenwich, New York to Rutland, Vermont. He then returned to his interest in an isthmian canal. He talked with President McKinley in September 1901 about his project and wrote that McKinley seemed to be agreeable to his proposed route, but that McKinley stated, “this must be harmonized, see if you can arrange a plan to harmonize.” McKinley was assassinated a few days later on September 6, 1901. In 1902, at the age of 76, Serrell was still promoting his Darien (San Blas) route for the isthmus canal and on January 18 made a presentation to the Isthmian Canal Commission for the American Isthmian Ship Canal Company. He sent a letter to the editor of the New York Times on the project on December 14, 1903, after a treaty was signed with Panama, and was critical of the Panama Route. In supporting his route he stated, “By it not only will the United States and the whole world get a canal adequate to do the business to be done, instead of, as at Panama, having a rain-water canal with locks, having less than one-tenth of the business ability of the Darien, but by the method provided by the Pugsley bill the Government will save the entire cost of construction of the canal, and expenditures variously estimated at from $180,000,000 to $250,000,000, and several years of time, because the Darien-Mandingo route can be built much quicker than any other.” His plan was for a sea level canal with a huge tunnel. In 1904, he wrote a 16 page pamphlet, Th e American Isthmian canals: Th e Darien Mandingo canal, in support of his proposal. His route was not accepted. He wrote again about his attempts at a fl ying machine during the Civil War in article entitled
A Flying Machine in the Army on June 24, 1904 in Science. Th is was after the Wright
Brothers fi rst fl ight but before public fl ights in 1908. In it he described experiments with a helicopter-type machine made (unsuccessfully) by offi cers of the Northern Army during the Civil War.
Serrell died on April 25, 1906, at
Rossville, New York and is buried in St.
Luke’s Cemetery. One source noted, “He is a young man who may be considered a good example of what patient, enduring, energetic, determined action will accomplish. Without fortune or family infl uences, he has, by his own unaided industry and natural talents, won his way to his present high position in an honorable and useful profession.” He, along with Charles Ellet and John A. Roebling, developed the use of the wire cable suspension bridge in the United States.▪
Dr. Griggs specializes in the restoration of historic bridges, having restored many 19th Century cast and wrought iron bridges. He was formerly Director of Historic Bridge Programs for Clough,
Harbour & Associates LLP in Albany,
NY, and is now an independent
Consulting Engineer. Dr. Griggs can be reached at fgriggs@nycap.rr.com.
Top Firms Engineering & Construction
Contech Construction Products Inc.
Phone: 800-338-1122 Email: nollj@contech-cpi.com Web: www.contech-cpi.com Product: CONSPAN Bridge Systems Description: CON/SPAN’s innovative, economical design stands apart from any other system. Its distinctive arch action utilizes fast, set-in-place construction; and your design and installation is backed by extensive technical support.
Hayward Baker Inc.
Phone: 800-456-6548 Email: info@HaywardBaker.com Web: www.HaywardBaker.com Product: Geotechnical Construction Description: Hayward Baker provides the complete range of geotechnical construction techniques for Design-Build solutions for new bridge construction and remediation of existing bridges, specializing in deep foundations, foundation rehabilitation, and ground improvement. Old and new bridges benefit from Hayward Baker’s decades of advancement of geotechnical construction techniques.
Software Vendors/Developers
ADAPT Corporation
Phone: 650-306-2400 Email: info@adaptsoft.com Web: www.adaptsoft.com Product: ADAPT-ABI 2012 Description: Easy-to-use, cost effective, and practical bridge design software for all of your concrete bridge types: balanced cantilever (cast-in-place or precast), incrementally launched, span-by-span, cable-stayed, precast-prestressed girders with field splicing and topping slab, box girder bridges and more. Handles geometry and stress control during construction and reports service load design values.
Georgia Tech – CASE Center
Phone: 404-894-2260 Email: joan.incrocci@ce.gatech.edu Web: www.gtstrudl.gatech.edu Product: GT STRUDL Description: GT STRUDL Structural Design & Analysis software offers linear and nonlinear static and dynamic analysis features including response spectrum, transient and pushover analyses, plastic hinges, discrete dampers, base isolation, and nonlinear connections. Optional Multi-Processor Solver module enables the solution of static/dynamic models with over 300,000 DOF.
MIDASoft, Inc.
Phone: 212-835-1666 Email: midasoft@MidasUser.com Web: www.MidasUser.com Product: midasCivil Description: Software for all bridge types – Curved steel girder, Prestressed and Post-tensioned Segmental, Cable stayed & Suspension bridges. Construction stages with time dependent material effects (creep, shrinkage, concrete modulus & tension losses in tendons). Nonlinear dynamic analyses covering dampers, isolators and soil-structure interaction. Live load analysis to AASHTO & CSA S6.
RISA Technologies
Phone: 949-951-5815 Email: info@risatech.com Web: www.risa.com Product: RISA-3D Description: With RISA-3D’s versatile modeling environment and intuitive graphic interface you can model any structure from bridges to buildings in minutes. Get the most out of your model with advanced features such as moving loads, dynamic analysis, and over 40 design codes. Structural design has never been so thorough or easy!
S-FRAME Software Inc.
Phone: 203-421-4800 Email: info@s-frame.com Web: www.s-frame.com Product: S-FRAME® Structural Office Description: S-FRAME Structural Office R10 is a structural modeling, analysis and design suite of tools for frames, trusses, bridges, office and residential high-rises, industrial buildings, plate/ shell structures, and cable structures for seismic analysis, staged construction, Direct Analysis Method, linear/nonlinear static and time-history analyses, moving load analysis, buckling load evaluation and more.
Strand7 Pty Ltd
Phone: 252-504-2282 Email: anne@beaufort-analysis.com Web: www.strand7.com Product: Strand7 Description: Strand7 is an advanced, general purpose, FEA system used worldwide by engineers for a wide range of structural analysis applications. It comprises preprocessing, solvers (linear, non linear, dynamic and thermal) and post processing. Release 2.4 includes staged construction, a moving load module, a quasi-static solver for shrinkage and creep/relaxation problems.
Suppliers
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp.
Phone: 800-929-3030 Email: jong@ctscement.com Web: www.ctscement.com Product: Rapid Set® Low-P™ Cement and Type-K Cement Shrinkage Description: Complete bridge deck overlays faster with Rapid Set Low-P cement. Get better quality, lasting performance and an in-place cost less than Portland cement concrete. Type-K Cement Shrinkage-Compensating Concrete has been used in over 800 bridge decks with reduced permeability, excellent durability, virtually no cracks and increased concrete life cycle. Fyfe Co. LLC
Phone: 858-642-0694 Email: michael@fyfeco.com Web: www.fyfeco.com Product: Tyfo® Fibrwrap® Systems Description: FYFE Company is the manufacturer of Tyfo FIBRWRAP Systems used for the strengthening, repair, and restoration of concrete, timber, steel and masonry structures. These externally-bonded carbon and glass fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) systems can be applied to bridge structures for increased load ratings, seismic retrofit, corrosion rehabilitation, and service life extension.
GRL Engineers, Inc.
Phone: 216-831-6131 Email: media@pile.com Web: www.GRLengineers.com Product: Services for QA,QC of Bridge Foundations Description: GRL Engineers, Inc. specializes in testing and analysis of deep foundations. Services include: Wave Equation Analysis, Dynamic Load Testing, Dynamic Pile Monitoring, Vibration Monitoring, Cross Hole Sonic Logging, Pulse Echo Integrity Testing, Evaluation of Existing Foundations, Hammer Performance Analysis of Driving, Becker Drill and SPT Hammers. Offices nationwide.
Western Wood Structures
Phone: 800-547-5411 Email: bridges@westernwoodstructures.com Web: www.westernwoodstructures.com Product: Timber Bridge Design and Supply Description: Western Wood Structures is a sales and engineering company specializing in the design, fabrication, distribution, and installation of glulam timber bridges. We design and supply vehicular and pedestrian bridges, using the highest quality, pressure-treated glulam timber. Experience our enduring commitment to quality, achieved through 42 years of premium performance.
Wheeler
Phone: 800-328-3986 Email: info@wheeler-con.com Web: www.wheeler-con.com Product: Panel-Lam Timber Vehicle Bridges Description: Treated timber bridge kits for low volume road applications. Designs for HS20 and HL93. Crash-tested railings available.
Wheeling Corrugating
Phone: 304-234-2326 Email: bensonmw@wheelingcorrugating.com Web: www.wheelingcorrugating.com Product: Stay-In-Place Steel Bridge Forms Description: Wheeling Bridge Form is a heavyduty steel decking system for forming bridge slabs quickly and permanently. High strength, galvanized Wheeling Bridge Deck is specially designed to sustain heavy loads and adapts to pre-stressed concrete, built-up girders, or steel beam bridges. Wheeling Bridge Deck also provides a safe, solid, working platform.
By David J. Hatem, P.C., Donna Hunt, Esq., AIA and Sue E. Yoakum, Esq., AIA
Professional Liability Insurance is the fundamental strategy structural engineers utilize to transfer and mitigate their greatest risk. The primary insurance risk for structural engineers is their exposure to professional liability claims. Such claims typically fall under an engineer’s errors and omissions or “E&O” insurance coverage. Most professional liability claims against engineers allege negligence, but breach of contract claims are also common. Breach of contract and negligence claims are frequently deeply intertwined. A generic example would be a claim or suit for breach of contract for the failure of a structural element where the purported contractual breach is the engineer’s deficient load calculations. The liability analysis in such a circumstance would still predominantly be a negligence analysis. As a practical matter, lawsuits often raise both breach of contract and negligence in order to “cover all bases.” In legal-speak, negligence is a tort, or a civil wrong. Payment under a professional liability policy under a negligent performance theory against an engineer in the performance of professional service is thus linked to the legal elements of a tort. To prove negligence, a claimant or plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) the engineer had a duty to perform relevant professional services, (2) the engineer breached that duty, (3) the engineer’s breach is the cause of the claimed damages, and (4) the claimant suffered those damages. If a claimant fails to establish each of these four elements of negligence, the claim should ultimately fail. Weak or missing elements of negligence are factored into a defense attorney’s evaluation of a claim, and may dictate how a matter is defended. Claims and cases which have missing or questionable elements may still settle due to the high cost of litigating a matter, but it is generally the missing elements which permit them to be settled at a very low nuisance value level. Strong negligence cases, those containing credible proof of each element of negligence against an engineer, are more challenging to defend. This variety of cases can only be defended successfully when the engineer, his attorney, and the engineer’s professional liability carrier work as a team in confronting the claim or litigation. Professional liability insurance policies typically define “professional services” as those services that the insured is legally qualified to perform for others in their licensed capacity as an architect, engineer, land surveyor, landscape architect, or construction manager. In some instances, additional, non-traditional services may be covered by a professional liability policy if the additional service is specifically included in a specialized endorsement (addition) to the insurance policy. Professional services are frequently defined in insurance policies and in statutory language as those services for which special training, education, or licensing is required. Selected examples of types of professional services include: design; preparation of reports and studies; observation of contractor’s performance and resident engineering services; review and evaluation of contractor’s shop drawings and other submittals, change order proposals, value engineering proposals; recommendations regarding rejection of contractor’s work and/or acceptance of work; and, forensic engineering/expert services. It is customary for owners to require engineers to carry a certain amount of professional liability insurance as a negotiated term of a project’s contract. An owner can require professional liability insurance in the form of coverage under the engineers’ general practice policy. This is the typical E&O policy which is maintained in the engineer’s ordinary course of business. In addition, depending on the scope and nature of the project, an owner may elect to purchase or require the purchase of a project specific professional liability insurance policy covering the design team involved in the particular project. In a rare example of the insurance industry being simple and direct, this type of professional liability insurance is frequently referred to as “a project policy.” The project policy concept has been around for decades, but is applicable to only a small percentage of construction. The most common way to insure a design professional against negligence claims is the conventional E&O practice policy. The practice policy usually supplies coverage for all of the engineering firm’s projects. Most firms carry $1–$2 million in professional liability coverage. Some engineers who work on larger scale projects will carry larger limits. Engineers should review their level of coverage with their brokers frequently. The undertaking of new work should be discussed with the broker to make certain that adequate coverage is always available. Engineers should also seek value from their brokers in selecting a policy. In some instances, a professional liability carrier will provide its clientele with additional services, such as contract review and risk management advice, at no additional charge. Engineers should not hesitate to have their broker’s research carriers who provide this valuable assistance. An owner of a large project or megaproject will often require project specific professional liability insurance. This dedicated insurance for a particular project could provide coverage in the range of $10 to $50 million. Policies of this type often require a deductible or self insured retention (SIR), in a greater than usual amount. Amounts of $250,000 to $2 million are not uncommon, depending on the size of the given project. Some project policies serve as the primary professional coverage for the engineer for the project. The engineer’s own practice policy may sit in excess or on top of the project specific professional policy in an umbrella coverage capacity. The details of how this works depends on each engineering firm’s practice policy and the particular insurance company providing the practice policy. Projects which require a project policy require additional consultation on coverage with an engineering firm’s broker. Legal advice should also be sought on all contracts which require insurance coverage greater than a company’s typical practice policy. While project policies are an innovative and often necessary insurance product, they are not without their potential pitfalls. There are three common problems associated with project policies from an insured’s perspective. While these are not always unmanageable,
they can present challenges to an insured if it is not properly educated on the project policy’s terms, and the financial or other obligations imposed upon the insured as a condition of the project policy coverage. These typical problems are; 1) very high deductible or SIR obligations, 2) limited coverage for architect and engineer subconsultants on Design-Build Projects, and 3) professional protective insurance policies. As noted above, project policy deductibles and SIRs tend to be much higher than a practice policy deductible. This could be a trap for the unwary if an engineering firm is not mindful that it must contribute $250,000 or more in order to get to the point where the policy’s coverage “kicks in.” If an engineering firm is unable to meet this financial burden, the protective coverage of the project policy might not come into play. In situations where a project policy is purchased by an owner, higher deductibles and SIR obligations are often selected in order to reduce the owner’s cost of the project policy. Some project policies are written with a $5 Million or $10 Million per claim SIR. Cleary, such a policy with absurdly high SIR are of no comfort to the designer. Some project owners may attempt to mitigate the significant per claim SIR funding obligations of the engineer by agreeing to pay all or a significant portion of the SIR obligations. If that is the case, that specific obligation of the owner must be set forth clearly and concisely in the Project’s contract documents. Engineers should note that even if this term appears in a contract with a public entity, the term may be interpreted by a Court as a conflict of interest or be otherwise unenforceable. Such a term might also create accountability or ethics concerns for public owners. A public owner’s agreement to pay an insured’s SIR could also raise concerns with project overseers, regulators and grantors at both the state and federal levels. In projects where there is a higher than usual deductible or SIR, engineers need to be very careful in establishing their fee for services. Risk and expenses associated with a high per claim deductible or SIR must be factored into the project’s costs. Failure to consider this critical factor carefully or the failure to discuss the implications of a high deductible or SIR with the engineer’s broker and attorney could create a situation where an engineer’s insurance obligations on a project diminish or eliminate entirely the intended profit. Another frequent concern with project policies arises in the Design-Build project context, and involves exclusion of coverage for claims by the Design-Builder against the Design-Builder’s engineering subconsultants. The exclusion of that coverage renders dysfunctional any joint defense between the Design-Builder and its engineer subconsultants. This scenario may require the sub-consultant to attempt to obtain professional liability insurance coverage from their practice policy even if there is a project policy. If that does not occur, the DesignBuilder may wind up being responsible for the negligent acts and omissions of its sub-consultants through vicarious liability. That is an unenviable position to be in on a project if you are a Design-Builder engineering firm, and there are owner based claims alleging errors and omissions of a sub-consultant engineer. There may be professional liability risk for an engineering sub-consultant under its practice policy in addressing claims from the Design-Builder if that the sub-consultant is not eligible for coverage under the project policy. Another problematic scenario is that the sub-consultant engineer may have a deductible and SIR obligations under both a project policy and its own practice policy before any coverage comes into play. To further complicate things, some practice policy professional liability insurers have exclusions under their practice policies for claims against the engineering insured on projects in which a project policy is in effect. Because of these various potential problems, sub-consultant engineers should review their practice policy, and any applicable project policy thoroughly with their broker and legal counsel before entering into a sub-consultant agreement where a project policy is believed to be in effect. Another issue involving practice policies has to do with the particular type of practice policy purchased. The procurement of an Owner Professional Protective Insurance Policy (OPPI) by the project owner, or Constructor Professional Protective Insurance (CPPI) by the contractor or Design-Builder, will have ramifications on coverage to an engineer working on the project. These policies initially provide coverage only to the procurer, either the project owner, constructor or DesignBuilder, but not the engineer. Although not specifically excess in nature, coverage under these policies is triggered once the underlying practice coverage limits of the engineer (or a defined sub-limit thereof) have been exhausted. The existence of these professional protective policies often is not disclosed to the engineer. The OPPI or CPPI insurer also may reserve rights to subrogate against the engineer.
Conclusion
The simple fact that a project owner may be supplying a project policy does not necessarily eliminate an engineer’s professional liability insurance concerns on a project. In fact, as several situations discussed above illustrate, project policies can complicate an engineer’s intended insurance coverage. Project policies are frequently an ideal insurance product for a specific situation. However, engineers must know and understand the terms and obligations of a project policy in order to determine whether it supplies an actual benefit. A project policy with a deductible or SIR so high that the engineer can never pay it, is of no practical value and could easily jeopardize the viability of the engineering firm in the event of a large claim. When it comes to obtaining and evaluating professional liability insurance, whether it is a practice policy or a project policy, an engineer’s broker and his lawyer are his best resources. Engineers should seek the advice of these professionals, both before entering into contracts and immediately upon the presentation of a claim, in order to protect themselves and their businesses.▪
David J. Hatem, PC is the founding Partner of the multi-practice law firm Donovan Hatem LLP. He leads the firm’s Professional Practice Group. He can be reached at dhatem@donovanhatem.com. Donna Hunt, Esq., AIA is the Director of Claims/Risk Management Services at Lexington Insurance Company. In addition, Donna is responsible for the management of Lexington’s Professional Lines Risk Management Programs, and is a licensed architect. She may be reached at donna.hunt@chartisinsurance.com. Sue Yoakum, Esq., AIA is an attorney and a licensed architect at Donovan Hatem LLP. Ms. Yoakum focuses her practice assisting design professionals. She can be reached at syoakum@donovanhatem.com.
Trimbloid X
By Keith Bouchard, E.I.T.
If you have ever walked, run, biked, roller-bladed, or spent any time at all on Boston’s Charles River Esplanade, it’s likely you have come across the sculpture Trimbloid X. The sculpture, which was created by the late artist David Kibbey in the early 1970s, has had a prominent position in Boston’s signature park for a number of years. Trimbloid X is a three-dimensional X-shape standing 10 feet tall and fabricated from Cor-Ten Steel™ sheets that were bent and welded together. The sculpture’s three “legs” and three “arms” are all welded together at a horizontal plane of symmetry at mid-height of the object to create its unique geometry. As was common for sculptures at the time, the artist chose Cor-Ten Steel for its distinctive red patina and its corrosion resistant characteristic that would presumably allow the sculpture to be displayed outdoors for many years to come. However, as has become well understood in the years following the creation of Trimbloid X, Cor-Ten Steel and its weathering steel successors are not as resistant to corrosion as the industry initially claimed. It is true that, if exposed to intermittent wetting and drying cycles, Cor-Ten Steel will form a protective red patina that will prevent further corrosion of the underlying steel. Unfortunately, in cases of ponding water or constant moisture, the protective patina will not form and the steel will be susceptible to continuous oxidation until eventually the full section dissolves. There is no better example of this regrettable fact than Trimbloid X. The natural shape of Trimbloid X funnels water to the center of the sculpture, where no means are provided to whisk it away. The standing water eventually ate through the center of the object, allowing moisture and organic matter into the hollow “legs” and accelerating deterioration. Add years of delayed maintenance and the result is what you’ll see if you stroll down the Esplanade today – gaping holes in the side of the sculpture, trails of corrosion down the legs, and protective fencing to keep the public away from its sharp, rusty edges. This is the condition that CBI Consulting Inc. (CBI) found the sculpture in when engaged by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) to assess the condition of the sculpture and provide repair schemes and estimates. The Massachusetts DCR has a very limited budget for the repair of the object, so CBI explored a variety of different options to re-establish its structural integrity while respecting the original artistic intent. These include reinforcing the sculpture in the field, shop-repairing the object with new weathering steel and possibly painting with a weather-resistive coating, and “skinning” the object with new weathering steel sheets. Each of these options has pros and cons with regards to ease of construction and respect to the sculpture, as well as cost. Through consultation with steel fabricators and the Massachusetts DCR, CBI recommended that the object be disassembled and repaired in the shop with new weathering steel patches. Coating the sculpture with a patina-colored paint was not recommended, as there was concern that it would interfere too much with the “industrial” look of the original sculpture. The existing patina on salvaged parts of the sculpture to remain will need to be sand-blasted off to attempt to match the
Above: Trimbloid X on Boston’s Esplanade.
Right: Corroded Steel at the Center of the Sculpture.
new steel. The owner was warned that, even with this measure, there is no guarantee that the original steel will closely resemble the repair steel. As one steel supplier noted, different batches of weathering steel are like “trees in a forest: they all basically look the same but no two are alike.” However, with the severe level of deterioration present on the object and the limited budget, this is likely the best the owner can do short of completely re-sculpting the piece.▪
Keith Bouchard, E.I.T. is a Project Manager with CBI Consulting Inc. in Boston, MA. He can be reached at kbouchard@cbiconsultinginc.com.
Historical research for Trimbloid X was provided by Barbara Mangum of Sculpture and Decorative Arts Conservation Services, Somerville, MA. This article was originally printed in the SEAMass Newsletter (July 2010) and is reprinted here with permission.
