Jointless Bridges
by Roy R. Pedersen, PE

Many of our clients own bridges. A common problem with bridges is deterioration of the beams, bearings, and substructure elements in the areas where deck joints have leaked, allowing salt water to drip through onto these elements.

Joints are introduced to allow deck movement due to thermal expansion and contraction, and rotational movements due to live loads. Many different types of joints have been used to try to accommodate these movements while sealing out water leakage. Unfortunately, most joints eventually leak leading to deterioration and expensive repairs or replacement of the structure.

Engineers are now trying to build bridge decks without joints to avoid the inevitable leaking. This is done by designing bearings to accommodate expansion and contraction of the span, or often several spans. The decks and beams are designed as continuous, basically eliminating rotation over the support.

An article in the March 2003 issue of the Precast Association of New York featured a 20 year old jointless bridge, over a half-mile long, performing well. This bridge carries I-81 over the Holston River in Kingsport, Tennessee and was designed by the Tennessee Dept. of Transportation.

Another way to accommodate movement is with a type of abutment known as an integral abutment. These are short abutments built on top of piles or caissons which are flexible, rather than rigid. They move as required to accommodate bridge movements.

E & M has designed several jointless bridge decks and fully expects to continue this trend. One multi span jointless bridge is now 12 years old and doing very well. The general thinking in the engineering community is that any adverse affect caused by eliminating a bridge deck joint is much less and more tolerable than the adverse affects caused by joints.

OUR LAND - Where and When did it all Begin?
by James A. Nearhood, PLS

Our land title historically was claimed by King James I, of England. In 1620 King James granted New England to the Plymouth Company (Massachusetts), this tract extended from sea to shining sea, from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean. William and Mary in 1691 confirmed this grant by a second charter which limited the tract to the area between north latitudes 42 deg. 5 min. and 44 deg. 15 min.

The problem with the 1691 charter was that previously in 1663 the Duke of York and Albany was granted the province of New York. This province was bounded north by Canada, east by a line twenty miles east of the Hudson River, south and west by lines not described, see sketch below. So you can see that with overlapping grants in place, a dispute between New York and Massachusetts was unavoidable. This problem with territorial rights and jurisdiction over what was then primeval forest and lightly occupied land festered for decades and was not resolved until years after the American Revolution.

The revolutionary government declared most of what was then America public land and in 1785 passed The Land Ordinance which permitted the selling of public lands. This allowed the federal and state government to sell the surplus land to help pay for the costs of the revolution. The problem of rights to parts of New York claimed by Massachusetts was resolved by an agreement by the two parties on December 16, 1786 in Hartford, Connecticut, giving Massachusetts preemption right to its claimed land and granting New York jurisdiction over it.

Two years later, in 1788, Massachusetts sold to Nathaniel Gorham and Oliver Phelps, two New England businessmen, over six million acres of land in New York. Unfortunately they were not able to make regular payments. In 1790 they were forced to revert about two-thirds of their purchased land back to Massachusetts.

Robert Morris, in 1791, purchased over four million acres from Massachusetts. This purchase consisted of five tracts of the reverted land. William and John Willink, along with four other bankers from the Netherlands, purchased, in 1791 and 1792, tracts number 2 through 5. Robert Morris retained the eastern tract number one which is known as the Morris Reserve. The Amsterdam bankers were busy in the next few years purchasing other land in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In May 1795 the Amsterdam bankers formed Hollandsche Land Compagnie. This is the European name for the name we see on many old deeds and abstracts of title, the Holland Land Company.

More history next time....

Stormwater Regulations
by Garrett Hacker, Project Engineer

Are you aware of the new Phase II stormwater regulations and how they affect you? This article will briefly discuss the Phase I and II regulations and how they affect construction activities in New York State.

In 1987 the creation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) began a national effort to regulate the discharge of pollutants from stormwater runoff into water ways. The CWA prohibited the discharge of pollutants from point sources unless authorized by a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Historically the NPDES focus has been on discharge from municipal sewage treatment plants and industrial wastewater. However, the EPA has since expanded its efforts to improve water quality with the formation of Phase I and II stormwater regulations.

Phase I regulations created by the EPA in 1990 targeted medium and large municipalities and stormwater runoff from listed activities including construction. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) is in charge of administering the NPDES program in New York State. The NYSDEC issued two (2) permits in 1993 pursuant to its State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES). One permit dealt with industrial site runoff and another addressing stormwater runoff from construction projects involving a disturbance of five (5) or more acres. Although the threshold for phase I permits is five (5) acres of disturbance, prior to the Phase II regulations, operators of construction sites containing five or less acres were required to obtain a permit if the activity is part of a larger plan. Some examples of construction activities requiring a permit include construction of commercial buildings, industrial sites, residential housing projects, road construction and demolition.

A more stringent regulation known as Phase II of the NPDES program became effective March 10, 2003. Phase II covers Asmall construction activities@ disturbing between one (1) and five (5) acres. Similar to the Phase I regulation, operators of small construction activities are required to obtain a (SPDES) permit and implement practices to minimize pollutant runoff. The permit process consists of three major stages. The first stage is the submission of the Notice of Intent (NOI) which includes general information regarding the construction activity. The second step is the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) including proposed Best Management Practices (BMP=s) to reduce the discharge of pollutants. The final step in the permit process is the submission of a Notice of Termination (NOT). The NYSDEC will accept NOT only when final stabilization (finished seeding, etc.) at the site is achieved.

The following diagram describes the complete stormwater permit process for construction activities.

Town Hall Gets a Face Lift
by Glenn D. Cooley, PE

Over the last 3 years the Town of Yorkshire has added on to their Town Hall and completely renovated its exterior. The first phase of the work was a 2100 square foot addition to the rear of the building. The addition includes a new board-meeting room, clerk=s office, justices= office and a small meeting room. All of them handicapped accessible. The addition is air conditioned and a new heating boiler for the building was added. Other remodeling of the existing building included a supervisor=s office, an assessor=s office, handicapped and improved restrooms, a new metal roof and a new septic system.

The second phase improved energy conservation to the exterior. The building was covered with 1.5 inch foam insulation and vinyl siding which matched the addition. Additionally, all old steel framed, single pane windows were replaced with wood framed thermopane windows. A contrasting front facade, window shutters and a covered entry completed the renovation.

The project cost approximately $290,000 and was funded by the Town without outside grants or loans through a capital improvement fund. Contact: Richard Fuller, Supervisor (716)492-4834.