DOCSLIB.ORG

Technical Approach​. Results​

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Technical Approach​. Results​ October 27, 2017 Kevin R. Kline, PE, District Executive PennDOT Engineering District 2-0 1924 Daisy Street - P.O. Box 342 Clearfield County, PA 16830 Dear Mr. Kline: Reference. PennDOT Engineering District 2-0, Statement of Work, subj: Concept Design for ​ ​ Vehicle Bridge over Spring Creek along Puddintown Road in College Township, Centre County, PA, dated September 1, 2017. Statement of Problem. The Spring Creek bridge, an integral part of College Township, was ​ ​ destroyed by a flood and has significantly altered the daily routines for all community members. Objective. To create a new design for the now-destroyed Spring Creek bridge. ​ ​ Design Criteria Using the bridge designer software, undergo two phases of design for both a Howe ​ bridge and a Warren bridge: one to test economic efficiency and the other for structural efficiency. After achieving optimal specifications, construct both bridges out of popsicle sticks and test them to failure. Technical Approach. ​ Phase 1: Economic Efficiency. For both the Howe and Warren bridges, design solutions that ​ ​ fit the constraints of $150,000 to $300,000 while stably holding the bridge’s own weight and a dead load. Phase 2: Structural Efficiency. Minimize the compressive and tension forces acting on the ​ ​ Howe and Warren designs while keeping them stable and in the cost constraints. Results. ​ Phase 1: Economic Efficiency. After much trial and error, we came to a design that ​ was able to support its dead weight, and the weight required. Although this met all design constraints, the economics of the trusses were far too great. We then took to research to try to understand the types of materials and how they would react under tension or compression. After understanding these concepts, we applied them to our design and produced stronger, more cost-efficient trusses. The Howe truss was made up of mostly carbon steel bars and tubes 1 | Page ​ ​ Fall 2017 costing a grand total of $234,760.68. Unlike the Howe, the Warren truss was made up mostly of High-strength Low Alloy Steel bars and tubes with a grand total of $291,392.27. Phase 2: Structural Efficiency. Testing revealed major structural deficiencies that we ​ had not noticed in the rendering of the software. The Howe did not have a cord failure, it because of shift in the lower cord during the gluing process. This caused the two sides of the bridge to be uneven therefore the weight pulled the bridge to fall through the gap. The bridge weighed .194 lbs. and the weight at failure was 43.5 lbs. The Warren truss failed due to a glue failure. The glue had not completely settled so when the load was applied, the glue joints were the first to fail at 36 lbs. The Warren weighed in at .145 lbs. Best Solution. We considered many factors and in the decision of what the best solution for ​ ​ this project would be. After long deliberation, we concluded that the Howe bridge was the best option given the design constraints and other constraints. (i) The Economic Efficiency ​ The Howe bridge ($234,760.68) cost significantly less than the Warren Bridge ($291,392.27). Overall it cost $56,631.59 less to construct the Howe bridge. (ii) The Structural Efficiency ​ The structural efficiency (mass at failure divided by the mass of the bridge) for the Howe truss is 224.22 and for the Warren truss is 248.27. Based on the 8 design teams that summited their data for the Howe and trust bridge, we see that the geomean for Warren is 265 and for Howe is 244. The highest for the Howe is by design team 3 at 366 and Warren by team 2 at 361. The minimum for the Howe is by team 7 at 113, and for the Warren by team 4 at 206. All this information is organized in tables 7 and 8. (iii)The Design Efficiency ​ When it came to Design efficacy the Howe truss had a lower design efficiency at $1,053 per unit of structural efficiency while the Warren came in at $1,175 per unit of structural efficiency. (iv)The Constructability ​ The material cost for producing the Howe was $48,833 compared to the Warren at $126,042. Connection cost was also an integral part of the design and cost calculation and the Howe was cheaper in this aspect as well, $16,000 compared to $16,800 for the Warren. The final variable was product cost that we had to take into account for the Howe truss it came in at $15,000 and $7,000 for the Warren. This is the only category where the Warren was cheaper that the Howe. Therefore, the Howe was $56,631 cheaper to produce. Conclusions and Recommendations. In conclusion, we have decided that the best truss ​ ​ ​ system to replace the Spring creek bridge is the Howe because of the following factors. In prototype analysis, the Howe held a higher load at failure (43.5lbs > 36lbs). The overall cost for production of this truss is significantly cheaper when compared to the cost of the Warren, even 2 | Page ​ ​ Fall 2017 though its natural design is much more complicated. And finally, that the Howe has a lower cost per unit of structural efficiency ($1,503 < $1,175). These are the factors that led us to choose the Howe as the best possible solution. Respectfully, Omar Aboelenin Sade Langa Engineering Student Engineering Student EDSGN100 Section 001 EDSGN100 Section 001 Design: Team 5 Design: Team 5 Design Team: Penn Engineers Design Team: Penn Engineers College of Engineering College of Engineering Penn State University Penn State University Tommy Kiefer Mike Papiernik Engineering Student Engineering Student EDSGN100 Section 001 EDSGN100 Section 001 Design: Team 5 Design: Team 5 Design Team: Penn Engineers Design Team: Penn Engineers College of Engineering College of Engineering Penn State University Penn State University 3 | Page ​ ​ Fall 2017 ATTACHMENT 1 Phase 1: Economic Efficiency Howe Truss. The group had divided the work to Omar and Tommy to be responsible ​ ​ for the Howe truss, there was also insight from the other members of the group when new ideas would arise. The Howe truss can be viewed on figure 1, while the load results can be viewed on table 7. After research and trial and error we began to see what member were under tension. We understood that we could save money and actually increase the structural integrity of the bridge by replacing the solid bars into hollow tubes. Not only did this save us money, as a concept but it led to cost cutting in different aspects. We later cut more cost by decreasing member sizes and other extremities. With half of the truss being in tension, the other half was in compression. We saw this and learned that the best way to deal with compression was with solid bars, but in most cases, the sizes we were using (the default by the simulator) were entirely too big. We also use this knowledge to further more cut the cost of the bridge. The entire truss was made out of carbon steel which was one of the cheapest alternatives. There is a possibly that we have left money still on the table with the material type. Other alternatives were priceyer but a combination of many could have saved money in the long run. Warren Truss. After experimenting with the Warren’s members, we came to a ​ ​ conclusion that met all the constraints and still fit the budget easily. The truss can be viewed in figure 5. The Warren truss used significantly less type of materials and sizes. We used entirely High-strength Alloy Steel bars and tubes, and only 7 sizes where the Howe 15 different sizes and types. We chose High Alloy steel because in our constraints it was the best suited to fit out needs. A little pricey but because the Warren does not have many members we could afford to sacrifice some of the cost for stronger, more light-weight members. The total cost of the Warren truss $291,392.27. 4 | Page ​ ​ Fall 2017 ATTACHMENT 2 Phase 2: Structural Efficiency Howe Truss. The Howe truss was created using wooden popsicle sticks, glue, and hot glue. It ​ ​ can be viewed in figure 1. Prototype Bridge. How bridge weighed in at .194 lbs and had a unique design ​ compared to the rest of the bridges in the fact that it had so many supporting members. You can see the prototype in figure 3. Load Testing. When looking at the data we collected we saw that the truss held a lot ​ more than what we expected it to (15lbs), it realistically held 36 lbs at failure. It scored among the average in the class, but there was definitely small fixes we could have made to increase the weight held dramatically. The results of the structural efficiencies are in table 7. Forensic Analysis. When looking at what caused the failure we saw not damage to the ​ members themselves, what we did see was that there was movement while gluing causing the bridge to twist and turn during the design tests and therefore causing failure before the sticks were breached. In figure 4 you can view the damaged Howe truss. Results. The Howe truss of team 5 ranked competitively among the rest of the groups in ​ the class, and like previously mentioned, small changes could have produced huge results. The data compared against the rest of the class can be found in table 7. Warren Truss. The warren was made out of 60 wooden sticks, white glue, and hot glue. The ​ ​ Warren also scored in the middle of the pack compared to the rest of the class.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Field Testing and Structural Analysis of Burr Arch Covered Bridges in Pennsylvania
    Field Testing and Structural Analysis of Burr Arch Covered Bridges in Pennsylvania Douglas Rammer1, James Wacker2, Travis Hosteng3, Justin Dahlberg4 and Yaohua Deng5 ABSTRACT: The Federal Highway Administration sponsored a comprehensive research program on Historic Covered Timber Bridges in the USA. This national program's main purpose is to develop improved methods to preserve, rehabilitate, and restore timber bridge trusses that were developed during the early 1800s and, in many cases, are still in service today. One of the many ongoing research studies is aimed at establishing a procedure for safely and reliably load- rating historic covered bridges though physical testing and improved structural modelling. This paper focuses on recent field work and analysis of four Burr Arch through-truss-type covered bridges located in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. An overview of field evaluation methods, loading testing, and structural modelling procedures are included along with a comparison of field measurements and structural model prediction of bridge behaviour. KEYWORDS: loading rating, structural analysis, covered bridges, historical landmark, burr arch 1 INTRODUCTION 123 established for historic covered bridges. Given the historic nature and unusual geometric features of these The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in structures, a procedure needs to be established detailing partnership with the USDA Forest Products Laboratory how to safely and reliably determine load ratings for and the National Park Service (NPS), sponsored a historic covered timber bridges through physical testing. comprehensive national research program on Historic Covered Timber Bridges in the USA. The main purpose Similarly, the complex behavior and unique details of is to develop improved methods to preserve, rehabilitate, covered bridges make structural modeling a daunting task and restore timber bridge trusses that were first developed for the typical bridge engineer.
    [Show full text]
  • Over Jones Falls. This Bridge Was Originally No
    The same eastbound movement from Rockland crosses Bridge 1.19 (miles west of Hollins) over Jones Falls. This bridge was originally no. 1 on the Green Spring Branch in the Northern Central numbering scheme. PHOTO BY MARTIN K VAN HORN, MARCH 1961 /COLLECTION OF ROBERT L. WILLIAMS. On October 21, 1959, the Interstate Commerce maximum extent. William Gill, later involved in the Commission gave notice in its Finance Docket No. streetcar museum at Lake Roland, worked on the 20678 that the Green Spring track west of Rockland scrapping of the upper branch and said his boss kept would be abandoned on December 18, 1959. This did saying; "Where's all the steel?" Another Baltimore not really affect any operations on the Green Spring railfan, Mark Topper, worked for Phillips on the Branch. Infrequently, a locomotive and a boxcar would removal of the bridge over Park Heights Avenue as a continue to make the trip from Hollins to the Rockland teenager for a summer job. By the autumn of 1960, Team Track and return. the track through the valley was just a sad but fond No train was dispatched to pull the rail from the memory. Green Spring Valley. The steel was sold in place to the The operation between Hollins and Rockland con- scrapper, the Phillips Construction Company of tinued for another 11/2 years and then just faded away. Timonium, and their crews worked from trucks on ad- So far as is known, no formal abandonment procedure jacent roads. Apparently, Phillips based their bid for was carried out, and no permission to abandon was the job on old charts that showed the trackage at its ' obtained.
    [Show full text]
  • Timber Bridges Design, Construction, Inspection, and Maintenance
    Timber Bridges Design, Construction, Inspection, and Maintenance Michael A. Ritter, Structural Engineer United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Ritter, Michael A. 1990. Timber Bridges: Design, Construction, Inspection, and Maintenance. Washington, DC: 944 p. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author acknowledges the following individuals, Agencies, and Associations for the substantial contributions they made to this publication: For contributions to Chapter 1, Fong Ou, Ph.D., Civil Engineer, USDA Forest Service, Engineering Staff, Washington Office. For contributions to Chapter 3, Jerry Winandy, Research Forest Products Technologist, USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. For contributions to Chapter 8, Terry Wipf, P.E., Ph.D., Associate Professor of Structural Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. For administrative overview and support, Clyde Weller, Civil Engineer, USDA Forest Service, Engineering Staff, Washington Office. For consultation and assistance during preparation and review, USDA Forest Service Bridge Engineers, Steve Bunnell, Frank Muchmore, Sakee Poulakidas, Ron Schmidt, Merv Eriksson, and David Summy; Russ Moody and Alan Freas (retired) of the USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory; Dave Pollock of the National Forest Products Association; and Lorraine Krahn and James Wacker, former students at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. In addition, special thanks to Mary Jane Baggett and Jim Anderson for editorial consultation, JoAnn Benisch for graphics preparation and layout, and Stephen Schmieding and James Vargo for photographic support. iii iv CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 TIMBER AS A BRIDGE MATERIAL 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................. l- 1 1.2 Historical Development of Timber Bridges ............................. l-2 Prehistory Through the Middle Ages ....................................... l-3 Middle Ages Through the 18th Century ................................... l-5 19th Century ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3—Historic Context for Common Historic Bridge Types
    Chapter 3—Historic Context for Common Historic Bridge Types 3.0 HISTORIC CONTEXT FOR COMMON HISTORIC BRIDGE TYPES This Chapter presents the historic contexts for the most common bridge types extant in the United States today. A “common historic bridge type,” as defined for the purposes of this study, will possess all of the characteristics below. 1) It is Common: a bridge type that is prevalent, i.e., the type is widely represented in extant examples throughout the regions of the United States. (As the discussions of the individual bridge types in this chapter indicate, some types are much less common than others.) 2) It is Historic: a type of bridge that meets National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria for evaluation of significance, as outlined in the National Register Bulletin, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. This includes types that are more than fifty years of age as of 2005. The date of 1955 was selected as the cut-off date for this study because it covers the period up to the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, which established the Interstate System and which permanently changed highway planning and design. (Since there are few NRHP-eligible or listed examples of types that have developed since 1955, they are not considered both historic and “common.”) 3) It is a Bridge Type: the primary determinate of “type” is the “form,” or manner in which the structure functions. A bridge type is not defined strictly according to materials; method of connection; type of span; or whether the majority of the bridge structure exists above or below the grade of travel surface.
    [Show full text]
  • Chambers Covered Railroad Bridge Salvage and Rehabilitation
    Chambers Covered Railroad Bridge Salvage and Rehabilitation Gregory W. Ausland, PE Greg has more than 27 years of Senior Project Manager civil/structural design and project management experience, OBEC Consulting Engrs and since 1989 has had the Eugene, Oregon, USA distinctive experience of being [email protected] the designer and/or project manager on rehabilitation and repair projects for 32 of Oregon's 50 covered bridges. Tony LaMorticella,PE, SE Inspired by the graceful bridges Sr. Project Engineer on the Oregon Coast, Tony became an engineer after OBEC Consulting Engrs building custom furniture for 15 Eugene, Oregon, USA years. He's been engaged in [email protected] structural design for 20 years, and has been lead design engineer on 18 covered bridge rehabilitation projects. Summary The Chambers Covered Bridge was built in 1925 and is the last remaining covered railroad bridge in Oregon, possibly the only one west of the Mississippi. Therefore, its rehabilitation was critical to historic preservation efforts of the country's remaining covered rail bridges. Before rehabilitation, the 27.4 m (90-foot) long timber structure was in danger of collapse after decades of neglect. In 2010 a windstorm threatened to destroy the bridge. This unique, single-span, four-leaf Howe truss structure was dismantled and rebuilt using almost all the original iron and hardware, and 25 percent of the original timber. The bridge was reconstructed on dry ground and launched onto the existing concrete piers. The rehabilitated Chambers Covered Bridge now serves as a landmark pedestrian and bicycle crossing that provides safe access across the Coast Fork of the Willamette River.
    [Show full text]
  • Timber As a Bridge Material
    TIMBER AS A BRIDGE MATERIAL 1.1 INTRODUCTION The age of wood spans human history. The stone, iron, and bronze ages were dramatic interims in human progress, but wood-a renewable re- source-has always been at hand. As a building material, wood is abun­ dant, versatile, and easily obtainable. Without it, civilization as we know it would have been impossible. One-third of the area of the United States is forest land. If scientifically managed and protected from natural disasters caused by fire, insects, and disease, forests will last forever. As older trees are harvested, they are replaced by young trees to replenish the wood supply for future generations. The cycle of regeneration, or sustained yield, can equal or surpass the volume being harvested. Wood was probably the first material used by humans to construct a bridge. Although in the 20th century concrete and steel replaced wood as the major materials for bridge construction, wood is still widely used for short- and medium-span bridges. Of the bridges in the United States with spans longer than 20 feet, approximately 12 percent of them, or 71,200 bridges, are made of timber. In the USDA Forest Service alone, approxi­ mately 7,500 timber bridges are in use, and more are built each year. The railroads have more than 1,500 miles of timber bridges and trestles in service. In addition, timber bridges recently have attracted the attention of international organizations and foreign countries, including the United Nations, Canada, England, Japan, and Australia. Timber’s strength, light weight, and energy-absorbing properties furnish features desirable for bridge construction.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic STRUCTURES Gasconade Bridge Failure 1855 by Frank Griggs, Jr., Dist
    historic STRUCTURES Gasconade Bridge Failure 1855 By Frank Griggs, Jr., Dist. M.ASCE, D.Eng., P.E., P.L.S. he Pacific Railroad was chartered in TMissouri in 1849 to build a railroad from St. Louis to the Pacific Ocean. Due to financing problems and outbreaks of cholera, construction did not begin until 1851 with a groundbreaking at which prominent citizens Gasconade bridge site. of St. Louis turned out to celebrate the start of construction of the line. It included speeches, a national salute, and the reading of a poem written for the moment in history. Due to the time required to make tunnels and build bridges, the load-carrying capacity. O’Sullivan had crossed the bridge and believed line did not reach the nearby city of Pacific until 1853. Much of the it to be safe. line between a point just east of Washington and Jefferson City was An account of the November 1st failure published in St. Louis along the Missouri River. Over the next two years, it would reach the newspapers is as follows, capital city of Jefferson City with a planned grand entry on November But how soon was the scene destined to be changed! How soon were so 1, 1855. All of their bridges were of wood with the largest one being many of those bounding hearts to be pulseless. No one dreamed that death across the Gasconade River, a tributary of the Missouri River. was near, and yet it lurked for us only a few miles further on. At 1 o’clock, The river was about 760 feet wide at the crossing, and stone abutments we left Hermann, preceded by a locomotive and tender, which had been and five piers were placed on a skew of about 30°.
    [Show full text]
  • A Context for Common Historic Bridge Types
    A Context For Common Historic Bridge Types NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 15 Prepared for The National Cooperative Highway Research Program Transportation Research Council National Research Council Prepared By Parsons Brinckerhoff and Engineering and Industrial Heritage October 2005 NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 15 A Context For Common Historic Bridge Types TRANSPORATION RESEARCH BOARD NAS-NRC PRIVILEGED DOCUMENT This report, not released for publication, is furnished for review to members or participants in the work of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). It is to be regarded as fully privileged, and dissemination of the information included herein must be approved by the NCHRP. Prepared for The National Cooperative Highway Research Program Transportation Research Council National Research Council Prepared By Parsons Brinckerhoff and Engineering and Industrial Heritage October 2005 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SPONSORSHIP This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, and was conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in the report are those of the research team. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or the individual states participating in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 15, by Parsons Brinckerhoff and Engineering and Industrial Heritage. Margaret Slater, AICP, of Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) was principal investigator for this project and led the preparation of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Guide for Timber Roof Trusses
    TFEC 4-2020 Design Guide for Timber Roof Trusses August 2020 This document is intended to be used by engineers to provide guidance in designing and evaluating timber roof truss structures. Do not attempt to design a timber roof truss structure without adult supervision from a qualified professional (preferably an experienced timber engineer). The Timber Frame Engineering Council (TFEC) and the Timber Framers Guild (TFG) assume no liability for the use or misuse of this document. TFEC-4 Committee: Jim DeStefano, P.E., AIA, F.SEI chairman Ben Brungraber, Ph.D., P.E. David Connolly, P.E. Jeff Hershberger, E.I. Jaret Lynch, P.E. Leonard Morse-Fortier, Ph.D., P.E. Robin Zirnhelt, P.Eng Illustrations by Ken Flemming and Josh Coleman Copyright © 2020 Timber Frame Engineering Council TFEC 4-2020 Page 2 Table of Contents Background 5 Truss Analysis 7 Ideal Trusses 7 Classical Methods 8 Graphical Methods 10 Squire Whipple 11 Computer Modeling 12 Truss Deflection and Camber 16 Development of Truss Forms 17 King Post Trusses 21 Queen Post Trusses 23 Howe Trusses 25 Pratt Trusses 26 Fink Trusses 27 Scissor Trusses 28 Hammer-Beam Trusses 31 Parallel Chord Trusses 34 Truss Joinery and Connections 36 Howe Truss Example 37 Scissor Truss Example 40 Scissor Truss with Clasping King 42 Block Shear 43 Friction and Joinery 45 Free Body Diagram 49 Steel Side Plates 50 Hardwood Pegs 53 Nuts and Bolts 55 Ogee Washers 57 TFEC 4-2020 Page 3 Split Rings and Shear Plates 58 Tension Joinery 59 Special Considerations 60 Truss Bracing 60 Raised and Dropped Bottom Chords 61 Curved Members 63 Grain Matched Glulams 68 Seasoning Shrinkage Considerations 69 Epilogue – Topped Out 71 TFEC 4-2020 Page 4 Background Man has been building with timber trusses for over 2,000 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Bridges in Texas
    TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Environmental Affairs Division, Historical Studies Branch Historical Studies Report No. 2004-01 A Guide to the Research and Documentation of Historic Bridges in Texas By Lila Knight, Knight & Associates A Guide to the Research and Documentation of Historic Bridges in Texas January 2004 Prepared For Environmental Affairs Division Work Authorization 572-06-SH002 By Lila Knight Knight & Associates PO Box 1990 Kyle, Texas 78640 A Guide to the Research and Documentation of Historic Bridges in Texas Copyright © 2004 by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) All rights reserved. TxDOT owns all rights, title, and interest in and to all data and other information developed for this project. Brief passages from this publication may be reproduced without permission provided that credit is given to TxDOT and the author. Permission to reprint an entire chapter or section, photographs, illustrations, and maps must be obtained in advance from the Supervisor of the Historical Studies Branch, Environmental Affairs Division, Texas Department of Transportation, 118 East Riverside Drive, Austin, Texas, 78704. Copies of this publication have been deposited with the Texas State Library in compliance with the State Depository requirements. For further information on this and other TxDOT historical publications, please contact: Texas Department of Transportation Environmental Affairs Division Historical Studies Branch Bruce Jensen, Supervisor Historical Studies Report No. 2004-01 By Lila Knight Knight & Associates Table of Contents Introduction Brief HI tory of Roads and Bridges In Texas Guide to Conducting R••earch on Texas Bridges Step One: Is the Bridge Listed in the National Register of Historic Places? Step Two: What is the Date of Construction? Step Three: What Type of Bridge is it? (Physical Description of the Bridge) Step Four: Why was the Bridge Constructed? (Function of the Bridge) Step Five: Why and How is this Bridge Important? (Historic Context) Step Six: Does the Bridge Retain its Historic Integrity? Overvle.
    [Show full text]
  • April 03, 2012
    CORRESPONDENCE NO. 1 Page 1 of 54 United States Department of the Interior EinAfW OF SUP[f(VISORS NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20240 luilHAR23 AVI.I.J ' H34(2280) The Honorable Dick Monteith MAR 12 2012 Chairman, Stanislaus County Board ofSupervisors 1010 lOth Street, Suite 6500 Modesto, California 95354 Dear Chairman Monteith: The National Park Service has completed the study ofthe Knight's Ferry Bridge in Stanislaus County, California, for the purpose ofnominating it for designation as a National Historic Landmark. We enclose a copy ofthe nomination. The Landmarks Committee ofthe National Park System Advisory Board will consider the nomination during its next meeting, at the time and place indicated on one ofthe enclosures. This enclosure also specifies how you may comment on the proposed nomination if you so choose. The Landmarks Committee will report on this nomination to the Advisory Board, which in tum will make a recommendation concerning this nomination to the Secretary ofthe Interior, based upon the criteria ofthe National Historic Landmarks Program. Ifyou wish to comment on the nomination, please do so within 60 days ofthe date ofthis letter. After the 60-day period, we will submit the nomination and all comments we have received to the Landmarks Committee. To assist you in considering this matter, we have enclosed a copy ofthe regulations governing the National Historic Landmarks Program. They describe the criteria for designation (§65.4) and include other information on the Program. We are also enclosing a fact sheet that outlines the effects of designation. Sincerely, J. Paul Loether, Chief National Register of Historic Places and National Historic Landmarks Program Enclosures CORRESPONDENCE NO.
    [Show full text]
  • Download This Article
    he Boston and Worcester Railroad, span across the Quaboad one of the first railroads built in River at Warren, just west Massachusetts, was chartered in 1831 of Spencer. It was success- Historic and opened to Worcester in 1835. This ful, and they gave Howe Twas followed by the Western Railroad, which the contract to build a would begin in Worcester and run to the New much longer bridge at structures York State line, connecting with the Hudson and Springfield. Berkshire line that ran to Albany, New York, on Howe received a patent, significant structures of the past the Hudson River. The latter line was completed #1,711, on a bridge William Howe. in 1838. The Western Railroad reached the east- on August 3, 1840 while he was building the erly shore of the Connecticut River at Springfield Connecticut River Bridge. It had braces and coun- on October 1, 1839. The line of the Western ter braces crossing two panels, with additional Railroad from W. Springfield to the New York braces at the ends and additional longitudinal State over the lower Berkshire Mountains was member just below mid height. Long claimed completed on May 4, 1841. To make the con- that it was a violation of his patent rights, but nection across the Connecticut River required was unsuccessful in convincing the Patent Office ® a long bridge. Up to this time, most wooden they had erred in granting the patent to Howe. bridges were constructed to the design of Stephen Howe wrote, “The truss-frame which I am about H. Long and by Ethiel Town.
    [Show full text]