Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
�
The Engineerogram April 2010
The EngineerogramApril 2010 Vl 72 . 04
Capital Branch Cntral Vally Branch Fathr Rivr Branch Shasta Branch
ASCE Region 9 Continuing Education Seminars/Workshops 7Calendar 4California Legislative News from the Region 9 Board of Governors 10Capital Branch 10Central Valley Branch 10Feather River Branch 10 Is Your Membership Information Current? 7Judges Needed for Mid-Pac 2010 11Ken Kerri Endowment Fund Luncheon 9Law and Civil Engineering 3Obituary for the Lake Champlain Bridge 8Officer Contacts 2Outstanding Projects and Leaders 5 - 6President’s Column 3Sacramento Regional Science and Engineering Fair 11Shasta Branch 10The Tragedy of Angels’ Flight 1YMF 12
IN THIS ISSUE
The Tragedy of Angels' Flight: A Cautionary Tale for Public Decision Makers
by Bill Hoey
In December of 1961 I had a couple of hours between trains on my way from visiting relatives in Orange County to Eugene, Oregon. Walking around the vicinity, I found the Olvera Street Plaza and then at the corner of Hill and Third streets was the lower station of Angels’ Flight, “The World’s Shortest Railway.” I paid my nickel and rode to the top of Bunker Hill. It was my first experience of a funicular railway. I had no idea then that Angels’ Flight and I would meet again some three decades later.
About funicular railways—they are invariably short and steep. Gradients range up to 122 per cent (52 degrees) for a line in Japan. One of the longer ones is the Peak Tram in Hong Kong , which is just under a mile in length (1.4.km). In the usual arrangement, two cars are permanently connected by a wire rope cable (no grip); one of the cars is ascending while the other is descending, so that the load is balanced and a relatively small motor can handle the hauling. Cars pass each other at a siding in the center of the incline.
Originally, there were two funicular railways connecting Los Angeles City Center with Bunker Hill (a high-income residential area in the early 1900s), Angels Flight and Court Flight. The lat-ter was abandoned and demolished after a fire in 1943. Angels’ Flight was constructed in 1901 just south of and parallel to Third Street, at the point where Third Street tunneled under Bunker Hill.
Continued on Page 4
It was fully grade-separated, and one of the cars may be seen on its guideway crossing over a street early in the movie, “The Glenn Miller Story.” The railway ran up and down Bunker Hill until 1969, when the Los Angeles Redevelopment Agency dismantled the little railway to make room for a housing project. At the insistence of preservation interests, the two cars, the gateway buildings, and some of the machinery were stored in a warehouse for possible reconstruction.
Either loss of the storage space or an increase in rent caused the Redevelopment Authority to act in 1991. They engaged PBQD (Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade and Douglas) to study alternatives. PBQD engaged me, (I had a summer off from teaching at Cal Poly Pomona) as a sub-consultant to analyze alternative reconstruction concepts. I studied three alternatives: re-use of the old wooden cars; a modern funicular with cars painted to resemble the old equipment, which would be preserved in a museum; and (at the insistence of senior PBQD staff) a set of escalators.
I wound up recommending (1) a modern funicular like the one at Magic Mountain, and (2) preserving the old equipment in a static display in a small museum. New cars would be easier to design for disabled people and the equipment could likely be bought “off the shelf” from one of the European companies that specialized in such equipment. I think I remarked in one of the discussions, “A person running for their life would not notice the difference.” More to the point, the old cars themselves were replacements for the original 1901 equipment, those having been demolished due to a collision about 1910. This recommendation was included in PBQD’s report to the Redevelopment Agency. PBQD also recom-mended that the old cars, if used, be modified to include end gates and emergency track brakes acting on the rails. In September, my contract completed, I returned to full-time teaching.
With PBQD’s report accepted, the Redevelopment Agency hired another respected engineering firm, Frederick R. Harris Associates, to manage the reconstruction. Harris selected Pueblo Contracting services to construct the infrastructure, which in turn selected Lift Engineering (Yantrak) to design and supply the hoisting machinery. This company had experience in designing ski lifts -- but none with inclined railways.1 Even their ski lift experience was somewhat checkered.2
1 National Transportation Safety Board Document NTSB/RAR-03/03, Uncontrolled Movement, Collision, and Passenger Fatality on the Angels Flight Railway in Los Angeles, California, February 1, 2001 Washington, 2003, NTSB
2 See Mandell, Jason, “No Angel: How Did an Engineer with a History of Fatal Accidents Get Hired to Build the Bunker Hill Railway?” in Los Angeles Downtown News, Aug. 20, 2003
�
April 2010 The Engineerogram
The EngineerogramP.O. Box 1492Lincoln, CA 95648-1441(916) 961-2723 (phone and fax)e-mail: [email protected] site: www.asce-sacto.org
The Engineerogram is the official publication of the Sacramento Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers and distributed to ASCE members paying local dues to the Sec-tion. It is published regularly at the beginning of the month. To contribute articles, mail, fax, or e-mail to ASCE/Sacramento Section Executive Secretary Sandy Nelson at [email protected]. Deadline for articles is on the 20th of the month prior to the issue. Advertising rates upon request. (To our contributing writers: The Engineerogram reserves the right to make revisions, correct spelling and grammatical errors, to pri-oritize information and to summarize content. Articles may be shortened as editorial requirements dictate. Questions regarding this policy may be directed to the President of the Sacramento Section. Thank you for your understanding. Editors.)
For more ASCE activities if you wish to be active in a committee, career opportunities, complete text for the legislative activities, go to the Sacramento Section web site at www.asce-sacto.org, or contact a current officer. To MAKE CHANGES OR RENEW YOUR MEMBERSHIP, go to website: www.asce.org. For MEMBERSHIP APPLICATIONS, please e-mail to [email protected].
LEGENDSection Voting OfficersAdditional Section StaffRegion 9 OfficersBranch Officers who are not Section Voting OfficersYMF OfficersCommittee ChairsUniversitiesConference ChairsInstitutes
OFFICER CONTACTSSection Officers at Large Capital Branch Officers Central Valley Branch Officers Feather River Branch Officers Shasta Branch Officers
President:Larry J. Smith, PE, [email protected]
President:Jennifer [email protected]
President:Jasmine [email protected]
President:Shane [email protected]
President:
President-Elect:Oscar Serrano, [email protected]
President-Elect:Thor Larsen, [email protected]
Vice-President:Tony [email protected]
Vice-President:Amie [email protected]
Secretary:Susan [email protected]
Senior Director:Melissa Woodruff(916) 548-9859 [email protected]
Vice-President:Dan Clark, [email protected]
Secretary:Kevin [email protected]
Secretary:Tammie [email protected]
Treasurer:Dale [email protected]
Junior Director:Greg Young, [email protected]
Secretary:Mark Salmon
Treasurer:Jason [email protected]
Treasurer:Radley [email protected]
Past-President:Catherine [email protected]
Secretary:Natalie E. Calderone, P.E., [email protected]
Treasurer:Richard [email protected]
Past-President:Benjamin [email protected]
Past-President, 2006-2007:Shane [email protected]
Treasurer:Jeremy J. Zorne, PE, GE, [email protected]
Past-President:David A. Wilson, P.E., [email protected]
Younger Member Forum Officers Standing Committee Chairs Universities
Past President, 2008-2009:Fareed Pittalwala, [email protected]
Institute ChairsPresident:Kevin M. Gilton, [email protected]
College Accreditation:Joan Al-Kazily, Ph.D, PE, [email protected]
California State University, Chico
YMF Board RepresentativeKimberly Schmidt [email protected]
Coasts, Oceans, Ports & Rivers InstituteZia Zafir, [email protected]
Central Valley President:Eng-Chong Voon209-234-0518 [email protected]
Disaster Preparedness:Howard Zabel, [email protected]
California State University, SacramentoAmber Kirk, [email protected]
Past President, 2005-2006; Exec. Director:Joyce Copelan, PE, [email protected]
Construction InstituteLarry J. Smith, PE, F.ASCE916-985-4308 x [email protected]
Region 9 Officers(California)
Education & Awards:Thor Larsen, [email protected]
CSU, SacramentoJoshua A. Wagner & Jesse WallinPractitioner Advisors (PA)[email protected]@bv.com
Executive SecretaryVivian [email protected]
Environmental & Water Resources Institute :Pal Hegedus, PE, [email protected]
Chair:Chuck [email protected]
Government Relations:Craig Copelan, PE530-908-4790,[email protected]
Univeristy of California, DavisGreg YoungPractitioner Advisor (PA)[email protected]
Engineerogram EditorVivian [email protected]
Geo-InstituteKristy O'[email protected]
Governor:Joan Al-Kazily, [email protected]
History & Heritage:Norman [email protected]
Structural Engineering InstituteJoyce Copelan, PE, [email protected]
Membership-Life Members:Ray Zelinski, [email protected]
Transportation & Development InstituteNader [email protected]
Webmaster:Nicole [email protected]
Scholarship:Eric Polson, PE916-801-6290polsonengineering@earthlink.netSustainabilityRobert [email protected] A. Farber, P.E., [email protected]
�
The Engineerogram April 2010
President's MessageBuilding and Transitioning for Tomorrow
Taking a leadership role is not easy but it is important. The Sacra-mento Section Nominating Com-mittee has published notice of open positions for Officers and Directors for the ASCE Board of Direction for 2010-2011. Last month I encouraged each of our members to take advan-tage of each week throughout every
year to send out a message that engineering is about people building and enhancing the built environment. There is tremendous value in providing for our nation’s needs as volunteers. Now is the time for each of you to step forward and volunteer to serve ASCE as a Section or Branch Officer. By volunteering you can continue our focus to build and transition our Section for tomorrow.
Building and Enhancing Careers: On March 11 - 13, 2010 I at-tended the Construction Institute forum on Managing Project Risk, the annual CI Leadership Forum and annual business meeting. The focus was on strategies to avoid claims and resolve disputes to avoid costly litigation. Institutes are key Subsidiary Organizations to ASCE. Their events challenge and attract new members to partici-pate and remain excited about ASCE. I realize that many members are not able to travel outside Sacramento to attend all events offered by ASCE. Locally our Geo Institute has three great programs lined up for the summer. SEI will be hosting another Bay Bridge Tour and our Capitol Branch Monthly Luncheon Programs have lined up some excellent programs for the next several months.
Recognition: This month I recognize Andrew Langelier from CSU, Chico and Shane Cummings, our Feather River Branch President. Andrew is the Mid-Pacific student competition Chair. Andrew and Shane have worked with the Section and Branches to help organize and raise funds for Mid-Pac. The Mid-Pacific Student Conference hosts the Steel Bridge, Concrete Canoe, and Water Treatment competitions. This year the conference is being held April 8th-10th, 2010 and is being hosted by California State University, Chico.
Outreaching to Young Members: Many students and young members attended the 2010 Leadership Conference in San Diego, CA to learn to learn how to make the most of their terms as ASCE leaders. Topics discussed included various leadership styles, the transition from college to the workplace, and daily practices that help them become better leaders. I’m proud that our Section and Student Chapters were able to sponsor so many new young leaders to attend and advance leaderships skills.
Vision: Vision 2025 Outcome 2 – Stewards of the Environment: “Entrusted by our Society to create a sustainable world and enhance the global quality of life, civil engineers serve competently, col-laboratively, and ethically as master: stewards of the environment and its resources.” On September 15, 2010 our Section’s Chapter of EWRI will host a Symposium at the Hyatt Sacramento that will bring many local and national leaders together to support the
by Larry J. Smith, PE, F.ASCE, President
Society outcome for sustainable practices dealing with the reality of shrinking resources.
In closing I invite each of you to communicate your ideas to the Board of Directors. Please send your comments or ideas to: [email protected].
by Eugene L. Bass, Esq.
Are You Entitled to Record a Mechanic’s Lien?
Anyone who performs work on property at the request of the owner or the owner’s agent, is entitled to record a mechanic’s lien to secure payment for the work performed.
The law enumerates the general classifications of those persons who can claim mechanic’s lien rights. Included are “registered engineers,” and “licensed land surveyors,” as well as contractors and many others involved in the construction process.
The work that is the subject of a mechanic’s lien must be per-formed at the request of the owner of the property, or an agent of the owner. That does not mean that a claimant can only obtain a lien if there is a contract directly with the owner of the property, or with someone who is acting as an agent of the owner. The law provides that for purposes of mechanic’s liens, every contractor, sub-contractor, architect, builder or other person having charge of a work of improvement or portion thereof, shall be held to be the agent of the owner.
If an owner hires a contractor and the contractor does the job on a neighbor’s lot, the contractor cannot record a lien against the neighbor’s land, even though he may have improved the property, because the contractor did not perform the work at the request of the neighbor or of a statutory agent of the neighbor.
In order to obtain a mechanic’s lien on a property, the lien claimant must have furnished something that contributed to the work of improvement of the property. This may include labor, skill, services, materials and also includes leasing equipment that is used or consumed in the work of improvement. The improvement to the property must be of a permanent nature.
The question of the sufficiency of the work of improvement for lien purposes is an issue that has been tested by the California courts. A civil engineer that had performed services in connection with a land development project including surveying, planning, and mapping, was held to be entitled to a mechanic’s lien against the lots even where the project did not progress to the point where the subdivision map was approved. The reason for allowing the lien was because it was determined that the engineer had made permanent improvements in that it had set metal pipes for lot and boundary markers and street monuments. The court held that the setting of the pipes for corners and monuments following extensive engineer-ing services constituted sufficient commencement of a permanent work of improvement, and was an integral and essential part of the scheme of improvement to give the right to a mechanic’s lien.
Future articles will address other aspects of mechanic’s liens that are important to engineers.
The author’s discussion of legal ramifications of the particular case(s) are provided only for educational purposes andshould not be relied on as legal advice. If you have a specific legal problem, please consult with your attorney.
The Law and Civil Engineering
�
April 2010 The Engineerogram
In common with more recent funiculars, the original Angels’ Flight used a single cable wound around a large drum (with enough turns to avoid slipping) to raise one car while the other was being lowered. Yantrak elected to use two drums geared to operate in opposite directions. The forces necessary to elevate the cars were transmitted through a gear train at the head house. Yantrak also elected to omit the fiber safety rope (which would stretch while bringing a car to a stop if the main cable broke) and instead increase the diameter of the main cable. However, the flanges on the wind-ing drums were not proportionally increased in depth.3 They also omitted the proposed track brakes (a feature of elevators since the time of Otis).
The decision to omit the track brakes was questioned by PBQD, which pointed out that gear slippage in the drive system could cause a catastrophic failure and that track brakes for the outside rail could readily be welded to the steel under-frame of the wooden cars. In the event the system was not “fail safe,” and the failure to comply with PBQD’s specifications led PBQD to formally state that the Redevelopment Agency had approved a design that did not meet the safety specifications of the scope of work, and that PBQD therefore passed all responsibility for that design flaw to the Redevelopment Agency.
The rebuilt Angels’ Flight connected a Red Line subway entrance on Spring Street with California Plaza, an office and hotel complex on the apex of Bunker Hill. It was reopened with some fanfare on February 24, 1996. The railway ran, with occasional gearbox overheating, for nearly five years. Then, on February 1, 2001, a
The Tragedy of Angels’ Flight - Continued from Page 3 gear in the winding machinery for the “Sinai” car was stripped due to under-design and a difference in metal hardness, allowing that car to run away and partially collide4 with the ascending “Olivet” car, whose power transmission gear train was intact. An emergency brake acting on the “Sinai” car’s winding drum did not work be-cause of a design flaw in the hydraulic system.5 The result was a collision that injured six people seriously, one of whom died soon after arrival in hospital.
The decision makers of the City of Los Angeles Redevelopment Agency bear a heavy responsibility for selecting a ski lift company for work that should have been done by a genuine funicular railway engineering firm (such as the Austrian firm, Voest-Alpine, which designed the golf course funicular in Industry City). The whole course of events is reminiscent of the Kansas City Walkway col-lapse (which had many more fatalities), where the construction contractor altered the civil engineer’s plans and weakened the connections in the process.
But there is another aspect to the Yantrak design—it violated a key principle of historic preservation. The old cars were put back into use, but the hoisting machinery differed radically from the design that had been used successfully by the old Angels’ Flight for over half a century. The cable was not continuous between the cars, there was no traditional winding drum, and the safety rope was omitted. The restored Angels’ Flight was thus a fake in historic preservation terms as well as a mechanical engineering disaster waiting to happen.
4 Angels’ Flight cars ran on a three-rail track above and below the central passing place. The two cars shared the center rail, so the collision was not directly head-on.
5 NTSB op.cit. 3 NTSB op.cit.
Date(s) (Times) Event Location Information2010AprilContact Jasmine Noriega for info Central Valley Branch Meeting, Page 10 Marie Calendar's, 2628 W. March
Lane, StocktonJasmine Noriega, [email protected] 209-406-8982
Contact Shasta Branch for info Shasta Branch, Page 10 [email protected]
Contact Shane Cummings Feather River Branch Meeting, Page 10 Shane Cummings, [email protected]
Wednesday, 14th6:00 pm Engineers Without Borders Meeting
Parsons Brinckerhoff Office2329 Gateway Oaks, Ste. 200, Sacramento
Mark Quito, 916-567-2500, [email protected]
Wednesday, 14th 6:00 - 8:00 p.m.
Sacramento Chapter of the Environmental & Water Resources Institute To be determined Lori Baccus at [email protected]
Tuesday, 20th Sacramento Section Board MeetingGeoCon Consultants, 3160 Gold Valley Drive, Suite 800 Rancho Cordova, CA
Jeremy Zorne, 916-852-9118, [email protected]
Tuesday, 27th Capital Branch Meeting, Page 10 Sofia Restaurant, 815 - 11th St (the corner of 11th and H Street).
Jennifer Wheelis, [email protected]
MayThursday - Friday 13th - 14th
ASCE Seminar: Construction Administration for Engineers
Radisson Hotel Sacramento, 500 Leisure Lane
Contact: 1-800-548-2723; [email protected];www.asce.org/conted/seminars
July
Monday, 12th YMF Make-A-Wish Charity Golf Tournament Catte Verdera Country Club More information to follow
Conferences Section Officer Meetings Seminars YMF EventsSection Meetings Branch Meetings Outreach Events Student EventsRegion 9 Events
MASTER CALENDAR
�
The Engineerogram April 2010
Continued on Page 6
Outstanding Projects and Leaders
by Martin Farber, P.E., D.WRE
This month’s outstanding project: Feather River Setback Levee
When the Sacramento Section held its 2010 Engineers Week Awards Banquet earlier this year, the Three Rivers Levee Im-provement Authority (TRLIA) was announced as the winner of the Section’s Outstanding Flood Control Project of the Year Award for the Feather River Setback Levee. Just a year earlier, TRLIA’s Bear River Setback Levee had won Region 9’s Outstand-ing Flood Control Project Award. The project was featured in the February 2007 issue of Civil Engineering (pg16). This article will look at the Feather River Setback Levee project, and examine the reasons for TRLIA’s success at winning Outstanding Project honors from ASCE.
Levees in south Yuba County along the Yuba, Bear, and Feather Rivers provide the main flood defense for about 16,000 acres in Reclamation Dis-trict 784, where there are not only many farms, but also about 40,000 residents in Linda, Olivehurst, and
Plumas Lake, with another 9,000 future households planned for Plumas Lake. The problems with these levees are fairly common to our region; that is, levees originally designed for agriculture, constructed with sandy soils, on variable foundations, are inad-equate to protect farm fields, rural populations, and ever-expand-ing urban development. In 2004, the area was estimated to have only a 20-year level of flood protection, and had already suffered repeated catastrophic flooding, with widespread property damage and loss of life.
To address the levee problems, the TRLIA (www.trlia.org) was es-tablished in May 2004 by the County of Yuba and RD-784 (www.rd784.org) to finance and construct levee improvements along the Yuba, Bear, and Feather Rivers and Western Pacific Interceptor Canal in south
Yuba County. TRLIA’s mission is to provide 200-year levels of flood protection to the reclaimed floodplain. The levee improve-ment program is expected to cover 29 miles of levees, and to cost $405 million. The Feather River Setback Levee Project, designed for TRLIA by GEI Consultants, Inc., is a key component of the levee improvement program.
The most interesting and innovative feature of the program is its decision to avoid the common practice of building or improving
levees at or near the bank of the river channel, and instead decon-struct the old levees and build new levees set back from the river channel at distances up to half a mile. Planning-level estimates indicated that it would cost more to build new setback levees than to improve the existing ones. However, the setback levees are expected to provide significantly greater benefits, which include reduced velocity and erosion potential of flood flows, increased stability of levees and their foundations, and lower flood stages in the project area and beyond. The ability of the setback-levee alternative to offer benefits well beyond its construction limits may have helped TRLIA obtain about $140 million in State fund-ing, which was more than enough to make up for the incremental cost of choosing the setback-levee alternative.
The project replaced the existing levee with the new six-mile-long 3,600,000 CY setback levee, providing more than 1,600 acres of land for expanded flow capacity and restored or improved riparian habitat. With this added capacity, the project is expected to lower water elevations by up to a foot and a half during significant flood events, easing pressure on both the Yuba and Feather River Levees and providing increased flood protec-tion to South Yuba County, as well as the cities of Marysville and Yuba City.
The setback-levee approach allowed designers to choose a levee alignment that offered the best available foundation conditions. Nevertheless, the new levees had to be constructed on a founda-tion of highly-variable, soft and pervious streambed deposits, and required various methods of seepage control to maintain structural integrity. The project team performed extensive geological and geotechnical studies to gain a detailed understanding of subsur-face conditions. The geotechnical investigations were used to refine the alignment of the new levee and locate it on an older, more consolidated soil formation wherever possible. The older soil formation was found to have more strength, less permeability, and less settlement potential than the more recent alluvial sedi-ments found closer to the river. To control underseepage, about three-fourths of the new levee has a soil-bentonite slurry trench cutoff wall, up to 75 ft. deep, and 26 relief wells were installed
The Feather River Levee failed in 1997, causing catastrophic flooding.
Profile of the old levee shows sandy structure.
Three-fourths of the new levee has a soil-bentonite slurry trench cutoff wall, up to 75 ft. deep.
�
April 2010 The Engineerogram
in areas where deep, recent alluvial soils could not be avoided. The levee alignment was also altered to work around existing agricultural parcels of land, and the levee design was modified to avoid disturbing a Native American burial ground unexpectedly discovered during foundation preparation.
The soils needed to construct the levee had to be found lo-cally. Soils in the old levees were too sandy to be used for this purpose. Some of the soil came from borrow areas located within the setback area. The borrow areas are now being backfilled and restored using soil taken from the deconstruction of the old levee. Additional soils came from a local owner/developer whose resi-dential development site was blanketed with clayey soils more suitable for levee construction than for home-building. Since the sandy soils of the old levee were more suitable for residential development, an agreement was struck with the owner to excavate 1.5MCY of the clayey soil for levee construction, and then to backfill the excavation with the more sandy material from the deconstruction of the former levee. Another local developer who needed to expand a detention basin was able to offer 0.5MCY of soil suitable for levee construction.
The use of setback le-vees naturally involves taking some lands previ-ously in use, mostly farms and a very small number of homes. Some of these lands were purchased by agreement, and some was acquired by eminent do-main. Overall, land ac-quisition cost about $60 million, and this cost is said to be the primary reason why the setback-levee alternative was more costly.
One of the challenges of the TRLIA program has been manag-ing the existing and future uses of the land between the degraded old levee and the new setback levee. For the present, at least, TRLIA has tried to maintain existing agriculture to the extent practicable. About one-third of the land is still in agricultural use, through leasing arrangements, mostly with prior owners.
However, some changes will be unavoidable. Cer-tainly there will be changes to floodplain agriculture. The lands in question, pre-viously on the dry side of the old levee, will be on the wet side of the new setback levee, and thus
will be flooded more frequently. This may eventually bring an end to cultivation of orchards and other crops that are least flood-tolerant and/or too valuable to grow economically with the increased probability of flood damage or destruction. In addition, some lands will be used for environmental mitigation, including about 30 acres of restored wetlands, and 40 acres of replanted or replaced elderberry bushes. [An additional 86 acres of Giant Garter Snake mitigation was done off-site, by purchase from a mitigation bank.] Vacant areas and refilled borrow areas would become mostly prairie grasses, with some trees and other ripar-ian vegetation.
In the long term, fur-ther changes are expected, mostly in the direction of denser and more wide-spread riparian habitat. The State will ultimately own all the floodway lands, and will take responsibility for its uses. Such uses could easily include agriculture, recreation, and environmental mitiga-tion for State and other projects.
To allow the State flexibility for these changes, TRLIA in conjunction with the State decided to limit the farm leases on the floodway lands to a term of five years. However, the necessity for flexibility in future yet-to-be-determined land uses posed a challenge to the project’s hydraulic design. To make sure that the project would achieve its flood-control objectives even under worst-case future “riparian jungle” conditions, engineers assumed a very conservative value of channel roughness (Manning’s n) for levee and floodway analysis and design. This should allow for a welcome bit of slack in actual project performance, at least in the near term. That is, so long as actual conditions in the floodway offer less resistance to flow than the assumed future riparian jungle, flood risks in RD-784 will be lower than the nominal project design risk of 200 to 1.
Construction of the levee improvements took place between June 2008 and November 2009, and the new levee and expanded floodway are now fully operational. Improvements to the Upper Yuba River Levee, the final phase of the project, will begin this year. When completed next year, Yuba County will be the first urban area in the Central Valley to offer a 200-year level of flood protection.
The author offers special thanks to Paul G. Brunner, PE, Execu-tive Director, Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority, for the courtesy of a personal interview, and for providing information and photos for this article.
Cutoff wall installation.
Borrow Excavation - scraper operation.
The new levee was built according to latest engineering standards.
Oustanding Projects and Leaders - Continued from Page 5
Relief wells were installed in areas where deep, recent alluvial soils could not be avoided.
�
The Engineerogram April 2010
ASCE Region 9 Spring/Summer 2010 Continuing Education Seminars and Computer Workshops
by Michael Cook, Senior Manager ASCE Geographic Services
Geographic Services is pleased to provide you with the below list of upcoming Continuing Education seminars and computer work-shops in your geographic area.
These in-depth, practice-oriented programs are produced by ASCE’s Continuing Education Department and may be of interest to many ASCE members.
The Spring-Summer 2010 list has been formatted to provide the user with links to easily access course descriptions, course brochures, and online registrations. The region list, as well as a list of all Region Spring-Summer Continuing Education courses can also be down-loaded from the Region 9 Website at http://region9.asce.org/ under the “Links” tab.
Is Your Membership Information Current?
by Fareed Pittalwala, Past-President
The Sacramento Section ASCE has recently made significant changes to the way we communicate with our membership. Many of you have already noticed the new way we distribute the Engineerogram by email, and the links to registration for events found in our email announcements. We have already received tremendous positive feedback about these changes. Our Institutes are also using the new email system to streamline their announcements and ensure that we are not sending out mass emails to those of you who prefer not to get them. For that reason, we need your help!
Please ensure that your membership information is up to date with ASCE’s national database, as our local sys-tem is dependant on your information being current. It’s a quick and easy fix that you can accomplish in less than five minutes by going to: http://tinyurl.com/yhl6pvd
REGION 9 SEMINARS AND COMPUTER WORKSHOP LINKS TECHNICAL DIVISION DATES CITY/STATE
Risk Assessment in Geotechnical Engineering Geotechnical April 22-23, 2010 San Francisco, CA
Liability of Engineers: How to Stay out of Trouble Management and Leadership April 29-30, 2010 Orange County, CA
Construction Administration for Engineers Construction/Development May 13-14, 2010 Sacramento, CA
Earth Retaining Structures Section, Design, Construction and Inspection: Geotechnical May 13-14, 2010 San Diego, CA
Now in an LRFD Design Platform - Newly Updated!
Low Impact Development Applications for Water Resource Management Hydraulics/Environmental May 20-21, 2010 San Francisco, CA
Structural Condition Assessment of Existing Structures Structural May 20-21, 2010 San Diego, CA
Leadership Development for the Engineer Management and Leadership June 17-18, 2010 San Francisco, CA
Cable-Stayed Bridges: Key Design, Construction and Management Issues- New! Structural June 24-25, 2010 San Francisco, CA
Pumping Systems Design for Civil Engineers Hydraulics & Water Resources June 24-25, 2010 San Diego, CA
Introduction to Tunnel Design and Construction Geotechnical July 14-16, 2010 San Diego, CA
Sustainable Land Development- Ensuring Growth in a Green Economy - New! Construction/Development July 15-16, 2010 San Francisco, CA
HEC-RAS Computer Workshop for Unsteady Flow Applications Hydraulics & Water Resources July 28-30, 2010 San Francisco, CA
Ownership Transition Planning, Company Valuations Strategic Planning - Newly Updated! Management and Leadership September 9-10, 2010 San Francisco, CA
Design and Construction of Microtunneling Projects Geotechnical September 15-17, 2010 San Francisco, CA
�
April 2010 The Engineerogram
Obituary for the Lake Champlain Bridge
by Bill HoeyThe Tuesday, December 29th issue of the Sacramento Bee has a
photo of the demolition of the Crown Point Bridge over the narrow part of Lake Champlain. The bridge was designed by the Boston-based consulting firm of Fay, Spofford, and Thorndike, whose senior partners were also professors at MIT, and a large framed air photo of that bridge was hung in “Building 1” (home of the CE Department at MIT) for about 20 years. As a first-year student at MIT in 1949, I liked to visit Building 1 and look at the bridge photos hanging there.
I thought in 1949 that the Crown Point Bridge was a particularly elegant design. It had a three-span continuous truss with the center span roadway suspended from the truss span that was curved to resemble an arch to clear navigation. Approaches were conven-tional simple deck trusses. A pioneer in the use of the continuous truss concept for a highway crossing, the bridge was listed in the National Register of Historic Places. According to the ASCE web site, ASCE has never recognized it as a National Civil Engineering Landmark. I suppose it is too late now. Fay, Spofford and Thorndike also did the two highway bridges that span the Cape Cod Canal, and their pictures also hung in Building 1 of MIT. Although the canal is an ASCE National Landmark, none of the bridges (two elegant highway bridges and one vertical lift span for the railroad tracks) is an ASCE National Landmark.
Dr. John B. Wilbur, then head of the CE department at MIT and himself a partner at Fay, Spofford and Thorndike, once remarked that Professor Spofford always required that a steel-cable suspension bridge be considered for a major crossing. Two suspension designs were considered, but the continuous truss won. I cannot prove that the firm used the Hardy Cross moment distribution technique to design the Lake Champlain Bridge. Although he did not publish his technique until 1932, Cross, an MIT grad, was a graduate student at Harvard at the same time that Charles Spofford was the Hayward Professor of Civil Engineering and also Chairman of the CE Department (1911-1936).
New York and Vermont formed a joint commission to build the Lake Champlain Bridge in 1927. Financed by tolls (no Federal aid), it opened August 26, 1929. The American Bridge Company fabricated the structure. A photo taken during construction can be found on the NY State DOT web site (look for Fay Spofford and Thorndike Bridges). It shows the truss members as having been as-sembled from riveted lattice sections, like those on the old Carquinez Strait Bridge. Such structures do not last forever, even with the best of maintenance. Moreover, although elegant in appearance, the bridge was too narrow by today’s standards. A 26-foot carriageway provided two eleven-foot lanes for vehicles and a two-foot bike lane on each side.
The destruction of the Lake Champlain Bridge has been an unfor-tunate event, not just for engineering history but also for public con-venience. After the joint commission was dissolved and tolls were removed in 1987, responsibility for inspection and maintenance was split between the under-funded Transportation Departments of the two states. Some work was done on the structure and bridge deck in 1991, then nothing until the two states initiated an alternative analysis in 2006 – considering a new structure on new alignment, a new bridge at the same location, and rehabilitation of the old bridge.
A consulting engineer’s study (by HNTB) commenced in June 2009, after the two states had finally converged on an agreement to share the costs. Within a month, based on preliminary structural inspec-tion, the bridge was reduced to one lane, alternating flow; further inspection of the piers proved that rehab would be infeasible. The bridge closed to all traffic on October 16, and was demolished by explosives in December 28, 2009. There is a temporary ferry with slips next to the bridge site. It is not clear whether the ferry will function when the lake freezes. A new tied-arch bridge is supposed to open on the old site in 2013.
Although my talents as a Civil Engineer turned out to lie in the design of public transit networks rather than structures (I dreaded that there would be a Hardy Cross moment distribution problem on the CE registration exam back in 1971), I cannot help mourn-ing the disappearance of so many bridges constructed during the late 1920s and early 1930s -- Robinson and Steinman’s Carquinez Strait span, the Crown Point Bridge, and soon the east span of the Bay Bridge with its aging eyebars. At least the Caltrans Division of Bay Toll Crossings has given us the new Carquinez span and promises a neat suspension span for the East Bay. Had design not been delayed by a demonstration of Oakland’s inferiority complex, the new bridge might have been open before the eyebars on the old span started failing.
In this context I think tolls are important. Even though the original bonds may be retired, tolls provide funds for inspection, mainte-nance, and when necessary replacement before a total crisis occurs. The original toll-financed Lake Champlain crossing required two years from appointing the commission to grand opening. Funding for the new bridge, planned to be completed in three years, depends on two state DOTs, the FHWA, and perhaps an Act of Congress. Long live Caltrans!
PerspectiveThe story of the Lake Champlain Bridge, the Old Carquinez Strait
Bridge, and the Oakland side of the Bay Bridge raises a question: how long a lifespan should we assume in designing a structure. In the area I know a little bit about, we have designed highway pavements to last 20 years and assume a resurfacing for another 20. Certainly the Lake Champlain Bridge was designed to be built as inexpen-sively and rapidly as possible. Its riveted lattice members were much lighter in weight than the corresponding elements of older railway bridge trusses. When the Carquinez Strait Bridge opened in 1927, and the Lake Champlain Bridge in 1929, thee were still millions of Model T Fords on our highway system, and the “stick-shift” Model A Ford was the state of the art in low priced cars.
Ideally, New York and Vermont should have kept the toll-funded bridge commission, and had a new bridge in place 20 years ago, on new piers and with a roadway reflecting current geometric design standards. The environmentally sensitive location of the old bridge approaches, crossing the Crown Point historic site on the south and Vermont’s Chimney Point State Park on the north, could have dictated a longer and more expensive alignment for a replacement bridge. As it is, with the old bridge gone, the new piers and the new tied arch structure can go in on the old alignment.
The point is that we need to anticipate geometric and structural obsolescence as best we can, recognize the finite life expectancy of our designs, and plan ahead for their replacement when the time comes.
�
The Engineerogram April 2010
Endowment fund luncheon
Sacramento State Alumni Center
Col. Thomas C. ChapmanDistrict Engineer | U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento
Dr. Ken Kerri11:30 a.m. — 1:30 p.m.
keynote speaker
First Name Last Name
Organization (if applicable)
Address
City State Zip Code
Phone Number Email Address
Lunch will be served at the cost of $25 per person. If you prefer the vegetarian option, please check here.
Below, please indicate how you will be paying for lunch.
I have included a check with this registration form.
Civil Engineering Department, Sac State. I would like to pay by credit card.
Please complete the registration form for each person attending, coordinate preferred payment method (as outlined below) and either fax the registration form to (916) 278-7957 (Attention: Neysa Bush) or mail it, along with payment by check to:
Department of Civil EngineeringAttention: Neysa BushCalifornia State University, Sacramento6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819-6029
(916) 278-6982 [email protected]
REGISTRATION DEADLINE: April 9th
Alumni B.S. ______ year M.S. ______ year
�0
April 2010 The Engineerogram
The Region 9 Board of Governors is supporting Assembly Bill 1431 [http://tiny.cc/HKAm6] by Assembly Member Jerry Hill (D-South San Francisco). Last year, as part of the budget package the Legislature consolidated the Board for Geologists and Geophysicists with the Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (BPELS). AB 4X 20 transferred all of the roles and responsibilities of the Board for Geologists and Geophysicists to BPELS, but did not change the title BPELS to reflect their new role and responsibilities, nor did it include a licensed geologist or geophysicist on the Board now overseeing geologist and geophysicists. AB 1431 updates the name and expands membership to include one licensed geologist or geophysicist. In deciding to support the bill, ASCE Region 9 Governors felt it important that geologists and geophysicists be rep-resented on the board. The bill has been approved by the Assembly and is awaiting its first hearing in the State Senate.
Region 9 has joined a broad coalition of professions licensed by the State in opposing efforts to give the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) broad authority to suspend a professional license, including an engineer’s license, for failure to pay taxes. Existing law permits BPELS to suspend or deny renewal or a license if notified by the FTB. But the FTB wants to bypass the individual license boards and be permitted to revoke a professional practice license when taxes are owed. The ASCE Region 9 Board of Governors voted to
California Legislative News from the Region 9 Board of Governors
by Rich Haller, P.E., SecretaryRegion 9 Board of Governors
oppose the bill, in part because the proponents of the plan could not explain how a taxpayer with an outstanding tax obligation could pay if they couldn’t work in their licensed profession. The coali-tion has proposed amendments to counter the argument that license boards ignore tax claims. The proposal is part of this year’s budget package and may be amended into several of the budget bills being considered by the Legislature.
Region 9 has joined a similar coalition of more than 1,000 busi-ness and professional societies in opposing a mandate that anyone employing a non-corporate independent contractor withhold 3% of any payments and remit these amounts to the State. The 3% is credited against the final tax obligation of the contractor but if it results in overpayment of estimated taxes, it becomes an “interest free” loan to the State and, if California financial problems continue, could be refunded with an IOU.
The Region 9 Board of Governors concluded this idea is bad for engineers whether they work for a consultant engineering firm or a public agency. It was pointed out that the 3% withholding require-ment makes it harder for a public agency to build a multi-disciplinary team for its projects, and would create a paper keeping and reporting nightmare requiring the agency to check if withholding is needed, then send the money every month to the State Treasurer, and then report to the consultant at the end of the year – and there is no re-imbursement for these costs and no additional revenue to the State. All it does is collect the money monthly instead of quarterly. Like the license suspension bill, this idea is part of the budget package being considered by the State Legislature.
Region 9 is watching Senate Bill 189 [http://tiny.cc/7rzTs] by Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach). This omnibus mechan-ics lien bill recodifies, reorganizes, and clarifies the mechanics lien statute, and enacts separate provisions for private and public works. It becomes operative January 1, 2012 to allow the industry and ho-meowners time to become familiar with the new organization of the law and updates. Existing law allows licensed architects, engineers, and surveyors to claim a “design professionals lien” for pre-com-mencement design services provided for a work of improvement. Services that these design professionals provide are also governed by selected provisions of the mechanics lien statute. (Sections 3081.1 to 3081.10). SB 189 adds licensed landscape architects to the identified list of design professionals.
Region 9 supports passage and is monitoring activities related to the Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Supply Water Act of 2010 (also known as the “Water Bond”). ASCE will be working to inform members and voters on the facts about the Bond which will be on the November 2010 ballot. If passed, it will provide $11.14 Billion in funding for Statewide Water System Operational Improvement, Delta Sustainability, Conservation and Watershed Protection, Wa-ter Supply Reliability, Water Recycling and Water Conservation, Groundwater Protection and Water Quality, and Drought Relief.
For more information about the Capital Branch meetings, please contact Jennifer Wheelis at [email protected], or 916-616-5987.
Capital Branch - April 27th
Central alley Branch
Jasmine Noriega, President, Central Valley Branch
For more information about the Central Valley Branch meetings, please contact Jasmine Noriega at 209-406-8982, or [email protected].
The Shasta Branch is looking for members to fulfill officer and chair duties, including Scholarship Chair and Program Chair. If you are interested, or have questions, please email us at [email protected].
Shasta Branch
Feather River Branch News
If you have suggestions or recommendations for a meeting topic or location, please contact Amie McAl-lister at [email protected] or Shane Cummings at [email protected]. We are looking to increase our membership participation in our monthly meetings and regular community outreach activities, so please drop us some suggestions.
��
The Engineerogram April 2010
The The Sacramento Regional Science and Engineering Fair, an an-nual event for middle to high schcool students in Northern California to pursue science and engineering, was held on March 26 to 27, 2010 at Rosemont High School. Many thanks to over 50 volunteers from ASCE and other organizations who participated as men-
tors, judges and leaders of hands-on activities at the ASCE tables. The ASCE activities drew many, and included con-struction projects using gum drops and toothpicks; legos; and newspaper tubes and colored “Duck
Tape.” Concrete material samples were on display.
Reference manuals for the Fundamentals of En-gineering were provided by ASCE members to the more advanced stu-dents participating in the Fair. We had an opportu-nity to connect with some of the brightest students in our area and their fami-
lies, and to encourage them to
consider engineering as a future career choice. The winners in the catego-ries received awards and encouragement. Final-ists will advance to inter-national competitions. For more information, please visit www.srsefair.org.
Sacramento Regional Science and Engineering Fair
by Joyce Copelan, P.E.
Randi Hines, ASCE YMF; Joyce Copelan, ASCE Sacramento Section; Phillip Asher, CSUS ASCE; John Tran, CSUS ASCE; and Jaimie Davis, CSUS ASCE, led hands-on activities at the ASCE table.
Many joined in and had fun participating in the activities led by ASCE members.
Above: John Tran, CSUS ASCE, led hands-on activities at the ASCE tables.
Right: Phillip Asher, CSUS ASCE, led hands-on activities at the ASCE tables.
The Mid-Pacific Conference will be held at Chico State Uni-versity on April 9th and 10th. The Conference is looking for eager judges to help out with the competitions! There are still available positions for the Concrete Canoe, Steel Bridge, and Water Treatment competitions as well as many mini-games. You will be able to see the future of engineering in Northern California and Northern Nevada, as well as receive free meals while judging and a free Staff T-Shirt for the competition. There are only a few slots available for the Bridge, Canoe, and Water Treatment competitions so don’t hesitate to respond.
Conference information can be found at the website www.midpac2010.com or contact Conference Chair Andrew Langelier, 209-470-0390 or [email protected]. Conference documents include Judging Guidelines, Conference Agenda, Conference Fact Sheet, and Competition Sheet.
Judges Needed for Mid-Pac 2010
3251 Beacon Blvd.,
Suite 300
West Sacramento
CA , 95691Phone: (916) 372-1434
Fax: (916) 372-2565
www.wallace-kuhl.com West Sacramento • Stockton • Reno
Geotechnical Engineering Engineering Geology
Environmental & Ecological Services Earthwork Services
Construction Materials Testing and Inspection
��
April 2010 The Engineerogram
April 2010
UPCOMING EVENTS
* Quarterly Business Meeting, Wednesday April 7, Blackburn Consulting, 2491 Boatman Ave, West Sacramento, CA 95691
* Charity Golf Tournament, Monday July 12, Catta Verdera Country Club
For more information, visit www.sacymf.org
A number of your YMF officers and chairs attended this year’s WRYMC on February 26 and 27 in beautiful San Diego! The event included a two day packed agenda, full of events which focused on the future of ASCE, leadership, team building, and camaraderie. YMF members participated in various sessions with Section, Branch, and Student chapter representatives and were fortunate enough to visit either the San Vicente Dam, Padre Water Recycling Facility, or Wastewater Treatment Plant for the technical tour of the weekend. Evenings were spent getting to know other YMF groups at organized socials. All in all, the weekend was a great opportunity to get re-energized and gain fresh ideas to bring back to our own YMF group. Attend this month’s YMF Business Meeting on Wednesday, April 7 to hear more about our WRYMC experience!
SACRAMENTO REGION SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING FAIR
Want to show young would-be engineers that en-gineering is about more than just math? Engineers make the world go ‘round, and now’s your chance to spread the word! The Sacramento Region Science and Engineering Fair is right around the corner, and the Capital Branch is looking for volunteers to participate in ASCE’s booth. The Fair will take place on Saturday, March 27th at Rosemont High School. Contact Student Affairs Chair Randi Hines ([email protected]) for more info!
SOCIAL WITH THE CAPITAL BRANCHThe Capital Branch is planning a social to a Rivercats game during the summer. Look for more info in the
coming months!
GOLF TOURNAMENT NEWSJames Pangburn, our new Golf Committee Chairman for
Sacramento YMF, has successfully booked Catta Verdera Country Club for the Make-a-Wish charity golf tournament again this year. The tournament will be held on Monday, July 12th. Mark your calendars! More details will become available in the coming weeks.
YMF BROWLING SOCIAL SUCCESS!
This year’s bowling social was another success! The annual event was held on Wednesday, March 3rd from 6 to 8 pm at Country Club Lanes. The event was not only a fun, social gather-ing amongst friends and collegues, but we also raised money for local students to compete in the Concrete Canoe, Steel Bridge and MidPac competitions. The group raised a $253 donation! Thank you for all who attended and generously donated to the cause, and a special thanks to Programs Chair Elias Karam for organizing yet another successful event!
WELCOME BACK FROM WRYMC!
