mm coiiUarmAiv, nioo.nsjiunrf, fa friiay, Ai'ittk 27, isi.
THE BLOOMSBURG
BRIDGE.
JOHN A. WILSON'B REPORT, AND THE
ACTION OF THE COUNTY COM
MISSIONERS THEREON.
It was our intention to publish last
week the report of John A. Wilson on
the river bridge at this plate, and the
action of the commissioners, but it
was unavoidably crowded out, and we
therefore issue an enlarged paper this
week in order to make room for it.
Mr. Wilson is a civil engineer of
wide experience and high reputation,
and his seivices are sought for all over
the country.
The present board of commissioners
on assuming their official duties, found
that they had resting upon them the
responsibility of building a bridge
across the Susquehanna River At
Bloomsburg, under a contract made
by their predecessors in office, involv
ing the expenditure of about seventy
thousand dollars.
When the first abutment on the
other side of the river was completed
the commissioners inspected it, and
were not satisfied with it, and refused
to pay the bills according to the esli
mates furnished.
In the dispute that followed with
Joseph Ilendler, the contractor for the
stone work, the latter told the om
missioners that they knew nothing
about such work, but if they would
employ a competent person, naming
several and among them John A. Wil
son, he, Ilendler, would listen to
him.
Accordingly, Mr. ilson was sent
lor, and alter examining the masonry
he made the report which is printed
below.
The commissioners assert that they
have no intention or desire to do any
thing to hinder or delay the erection
of the bridge, and they could not
annu the contract if tl.ey had such
desire, but they are anxious to have
the work done properly, and accord
ing to the specifications, hence their
action in the matter.
Warren F.yer has been employed by
them as assistant engineer, ami is pre
sent at the work constantly and super
vises it for them as it progresses.
It is probable that matters are now
satisfactorily adjusted, and the bridge
will be completed without delay.
To one who does not pretend to
know anything about masonry it looks
as though the workmanship in the
abutment on this side of the river is
quite an improvement on that on the
other side.
mr. wilson's report.
W. H. Rhawn, Esq.,
Solicitor for Commissioners of Co
lumbia County, Penna.
Dear Sir : At your request, I
spent March 30th and 31st at Blooms
burg confering with yourself and the
Commissioners relative to the con
struction of the new county bridge
across the North Branch of the Sus
quehanna river at Bloom Ferry. 1
went to the site of the bridge, exam
ined the work that had been done,
conferred with Mr. James C. Brown
who is acting as Engineer of the work,
and examined sundry contracts, draw,
ings, papers, &c. I now have the hon
or to report the results of my investi
gations. The bridge is intended to cross' the
river square, i. e. practically at right
angles with the current of the river,
and, as I am informed, will consist of
six spans of iron superstructure sup
ported on masonry piers and abut
ments. The spans are each about 189 feet
in length giving a total length of 1150
feet for the bridge exclusive of ap
proaches. There will be two abutments loca
ted at the river banks and five piers
in the river.
I have been shown two contracts,
viz : one dated November 25, 1893,
with Joseph Ilendler, of Wilkes Barre,
Pa., for the masonry j the other dated
November 24, 1893, with the King
Bridge Company, of Cleveland, Ohio,
for the superstructure.
When I visited the site, I found
that a piece of masonry had been con
structed on the South side of the river
; for an abutment, and that excavation
was in progress for the North abut
ment, also a considerable quantity of
iron work for the superstructure had
been delivered and stored on the
ground adjacent to the N. & W. B.
R. R. south of the river and a short
distance east of the Bloom Ferry
Station on that railroad.
I had been informed by you that
the Acts of Assembly relative to the
construction of county bridges, require
that before the construction of such a
bridge can be authorized, plans and
estimates must be filed, and that
neither the Engineer nor the Commis
sioners have any right to deviate from
the plans filed, without going through
special formalties. This, of course, is
matter of law, which I am not sup
posed to know about except as I urn
advised by you.
In my interview with Mr. Brown, I
asked for the map and profile of the
"ridge, but received answer that there
was none, except a rough profile which
tod bten furnished to the King
fridge Company and which was not
filed.
I was shown three blue prints,
which 1 was informed were the plans
filed. One was entitled "Abutment
River Bridge, Bloomsburg, Pa., South
Side j another entitled "Abutment
River Bridge, Bloomsburg, Pa., North
Side j" a third entitled "River Pier
No. 1." ,
All were noted as being on a scale
of inch to a foot, but were simply
crude outline sketches with only a few
dimensions noted on them.
I was also shown a paper purport
ing to be an estimate which contained
the following information, viz :
Excation $ 100.00
Masonry 30,456.00
Timber for foundations.. 700.00
Superstructure 38,000.00
$ 69,256.00
There should be on file an accurate
map showing the river banks, the to
pography of the ground on both sides
of the river, with the positions of the
public roads which the bridge is in
tended to connect, and the center
lines of the bridge with the position
of the piers, abutments and approach
es. There should also be on file a prof
ile showing the bottom of the river,
high and low water lines, the position
of the masonry, depths of foundations,
top of piers, &c, the floor lines of the
finished bridge and the banks of the
river and natural surfaces on the line
of approaches ; all these being indi
cated by actual figures of elevations
referred to some permanent Monu
ment or Bench Mark, without having
to trust to scale measurements. With
the exceptions of the words "Blooms
burg, Pa.," on the two abutment blue
prints, there is nothing on the plans
to show where the bridge is to be sit
uated, and a strange Engineer, furn
ished only with these filed plans, and
without verbal explanation, could not
form the slightest conception of the
work. On referring to the contract
lor me superstructure, I hint there is
attached to the blue print, from the
King Bridge Company, marked ap
proved November 24, 1893, and which
blue print is filed, it does not however,
give any assistance in understanding
the location of the bridge or the con
struction of the masonry, as it is sun
ply a detail of iron construction.
I have been shown some detailed
plans of the masonry construction
I hese refer to the several pieces of
masonry separately, and appear to be
only tor the information of the con
tractor, but they are not complete
and show nothing about the location
of the bridge, position for tops of piers,
&c. 1 hey are as follows :
Drawing of Pier No. 1 dated Jan io, '94
" Cofferdam " " 13,
" South Abut. " " 17,
" Caisson " " 26,
" " Pier No. 2, " " 25,
" " " " 4, " " 25,
" " North Abut. " " 25,
All these are dated subsequent to
the contract for the masonry.
My idea of a complete set of plans
lor the masonry of a bridge is that
they should be such as to enable any
competent engineer, after examining
them to locate the bridge on the
ground, and proceed with the con
struction intelligently. There are of
course matters cf minor details which
will arise during the construction, and
which the supervising engineer must
provide for and settle, and I do not
want to be understood as claiming that
such matters should be covered by
the general plans, but I am very .-sure
that an engineer who was strange to
the locality, and who was furnished
only with the filed and detailed plans
above referred to, could not find the
sight of the bridge, nor lay the work
out and direct its construction. The
estimate previously mentioned gives
in detailed information as to the char
acter, quality, quantity, or prices of
the various kinds of work in the pro
posed bridge, and can hardlv be
classed as an engineer's estimate. 1
am informed that the approaches of
the bridge are not included in the ex
isting plans, estimates and contracts.
While this is a matter which the
County can hereafter arrange for by
making additional contracts, and with
increased expenditures, I would re
spectfully call your attention to the
decision in the case of Westfield bor
ough v.-. Tioga county, Pa., State Re
ports No. 150 (Monogam 1892) page
152 to 163, in which the Supreme
Court announces the very sensible
doctrine, that the definition of a bridge
includes the approaches necessary to
make it accessible to public travel
and that until thus completed there is
no bridge, (page 157.) It might be
well to note in this connection, that
both the contracts hereinbefore men
tioned contain clauses making them
subject to the laws of Pennsylvania,
relative to bridge inspectors.
Coming now to the construction of
the masonry j as previously stated the
South abutment has been built, and
foundations are being prepared for
the North abutment. I questioned
Mr. Brown as to how he obtained the
distance across the river, and fixed
the points for the masonry. This is
entirely a matter of surveying, depend
ant on the skill and care of the sur
veyor. Mr. Brown's methods as ex
plained by him verbally, appear to be
in the main, correct. The iron work
will be manufactured to be very close
Imiensions, and it would be a serious
matter, if it did not fit on the mason
ry. I hereby call attention to this
matter as one of the details which re
quires the utmost care and attention.
With regard to the five river piers,
the dimensions as shown by the filed
and detailed plans, appear to be suf
ficient, though I think that in a stream
like the Susquehanna, subject to
Hoods and heavy ice, it would be bet
ter to have dressed the faces of its ice
breakers, and rounded the down stream
ends of the pie rs. The filed plans do
not indicate the character of the pro
posed foundations, but the detailed
masonry plans and Mr. Brown's ver
bal explanation indicate that No. 1
(from the South side of the river) will
be located on the rock, the founda
tion being put in through the medium
of a coffer dam. For the other four
piers my understanding is that it is
proposed to use timber platforms on
the present bed of the river, the plat
form being floated into place, wooden
sides being built up to exclude the
water, thus forming a caisson, and
the caisson being sunk with the weight
of the masonry built inside of it. On
inquiry I am informed that the bot
tom of the river is formed of gravel
and coal dirt, but that no examina
tions have been made to ascertain
what is below the surface of the
gravel.
It seems to me that a great risk is
being taken, in founding the piers of
an expensive and important bridge in
the river bottom, without any knowl
edge of what is below. Assuming,
however, that the river bottom is hard
gravel, it will be necessary to protect
the timber bottom with riprap (which is
not provided for in plans, specifica
tions or contracts) and obstructions
will thus be formed in the river, the
result of which will be to cause the
channels in the river to deepen by
washing. This, it is well known, will
occur in the hardest gravel, and in a
few years the bottom of the piers
might be above the rest of the river
bed, with more or less tendency to be
injured with heavy freshets or ice
floods. My opinion is that the found
ations of the piers should be placed
not less than 3 to 4 feet below the
present river bottom except when they
rest on rock. It might be found by
examination, that rock could b
reached at a reasonable depth below
the river bottom, in which case
wouldibe advisable io use coffer-dams
and sink to it. The same question
comes up relative to the foundations
of the north abutment. When I was
at the site the excavation had been
made a few feet in depth. The ma
terial was hard gravel but with water
flowing freely as if from springs, I was
informed that after I left the place
on March 30th, the foundation tim
bers were hurried in for fear that
quicksand might be struck. Mr.
Brown, however, said to me that he
had tested the place with bars, and
found several feet of gravel below the
proposed foundation level.
If I were professionally responsible
for the work, I would want to mak
more satisfactory examinations before
constructing an abutment for a large
river bridge of that kind, and if there
were any quicksand there, I should
want to know it before putting ma
sonrv on it. The south side abutment
I understand is on rock which of
course makes a good foundation. I
have stated that the dimensions of the
piers appear to be sufficient, but I re
gret that I cannot say the same of
the abutments, lake first the north
abutment. The filed plan shown for
the main abutment wall, a thickness
at top of foundation courses of 7 5J
ana a height to the bridge seat ot 25
feet. This wall should be 1 r feet
thick of neat work, with a correspond
ing increase in width of foundations.
On the same filed drawing, the
wing walls are noted to be 4 feet
thick at the bottom when they should
be 1 1 feet thick.
Turning now to the detailed ma
sonry plan for the same abutment, we
find noted a thickness of main wall at
bottom (resting on timber) of 8 feet
with a height of 28 feet which requires
for strength and stability at bottom a
thickness of 1 2 feet.
For the wing walls the thickness is
noted at the bottom in figures as 6
feet, when it should be 12 feet. The
required thickness of wall depends on
its height, and the filed and detailed
plans do not give the same height.
Now take the south abutment. The
filed plan shows for the main front
wall a thickness at bottom of 7 10 J
for a heighf of 34 feet, whereas the
thickness of the wall should be 14J
feet.
The wing walls on the same draw
ing are shown as 4$ feet thick when
they should be 14J feet thick. On
the detailed drawings of same abut
ment, the main wall is noted to be 8
Teet thick at bottom for a height of 33
feet, when it should be 14 feet thick,
and the wing walls are noted to be 6
feet thick when they should be 14 feet
thick at the bottom. It is to be un
derstood that I am giving the correct
thickness at bottom, and it is proper
to reduce the thickness by offsets,
keeping its thickness not less than 3-7
of its height at any point. The simple
fact is that these walls are called upon
to sustain the embankment of clay,
gravel, or other ordinary material they
will not stay there, and it would be
necessary to back them in with rock
laid by hand, which would not need
any support from a wall to keep it in
position. Relative to this south abut
ment, Mr. Brown stated at our con
ference that he had made the main
wall 10 feet thick at the bottom, and
that on account of finding rock bot
tom, the height had been reduced to
30 feet, also that he had increased
the thickness of the wing walls pro
portionately. The main wall then
under these conditions, should have a
thickness of T3 feet at the bottom and
the wing walls should be the same
thickness where they join the face
wall, reducing of course further south
if the foundation rises and they may
have less weight. In view of the le
gal requirement to adhere to the filed
plans, it is difficult to see how changes
in the thickness of the walls could be
made. Now with regard to the design
for the wing walls. - il noticed on the
detailed drawings that these wings are
flared, that is, being wider apart at
their rear end than where they join
their main abutment wall, also that
they step down towards the rear end.
The driveway on the bridge is 18 feet
wide with wheel and hub guards pro
vided. It is customary on wagon road
bridges to construct the wing walls
masonry to the full haight of the ap
proaching roadway, widening the em
bankment out so as to fill in level be
tween the walls and then to build a
masonry parapet to 3 or 4 feet above
the road surface, thus forming a com
plete guard to guide teams into the
bridge proper, and give proper space
for teams that may be passing each
other. On railroad bridges this is
not necessary, as all that is required
there is to preserve the proper width
of road bed for the tracks, and the
side slopes may run off either way,
the walls being built to the proper
height to retain them. In the case of
the Bloom Ferry bridge there is no
data on the plans by which I can
work out the slopes, proper position
of wing walls, &c, at the north end of
the bridge, but at the south end
where the masonry is now built, the
thing shows for itself. 1 he total width
between wing walls where they join
the front wall is about 20 feet. Mr.
lirown advises me that there is an as
cending grade southward of the
bridge of about 1 foot per 100 feet,
and that the same grade extended
will reach the level of the N. & W. B.
R. R. track. (N. B. A proper prof
ile of the bridge would show this.)
1 he result will be, the way the ma
sonry is now built, that a roadway of
not over 20 feet wide with a steep
slope on each side will form the ap
proach to the bridge from the south,
and it will be very difficult to main
tain any proper fence or guard on the
top edge of this roadway. Country
teams coming along are apt to be
timid on approaching the railroad,
and it may be difficult to handle them
and avoid accid -lit especially if a train
should be passing or standing at the
station. These wing walls should have
been built in the way and usual cus
torn for country bridges, and with a
masonry parapet or strong fence
above the road surface. This, I con
sider a serious defect in the design of
this bridge and I doubt if the ap
proaches as now designed will be sat
isfactory to the citizens of Columbia
county. It is further a question
whether the material composing the
embankment on the approaches will
not fljw around the end of the wing
walls, down to the river bank.
If this occurs, the embankment of
the approaches is liable to be dam
aged at every flood in the river. The
remedy for this latter difficulty would
be to construct additional dry mason
ry walls to hold up the slopes, which,
of course, will add just so much to
the cost of the structure. My opinion
has been asked as to the specification
and contract for the masonry and the
quality of the work being done by
the masonry contractor. The con
tract and specifications are in many
respects indefinite, but on the whole
call for good work. The foundations
are to be constructed, as in the opin
ion of the engineer, may be necessary
to secure a solid bearing. The ma
sonry of wing walls of abutments is to
be third class masonry, that is, rubble
work, otherwise the masonry is to be
rock range work, the "face .stone to
be accurately jointed and bedded,
and laid in regular horizontal courses"
"The stones for the heart of the
wall will be the same thickness as the
face and back, well bedded but not
jointed, but must be well fitted in
their places. This means dressed
stones in regular courses throughout,
excepting the wing walls. My inspec
tion of the only piece of masonry laid
up, in the south abutment shows a
fair quality of rubble work in the wing
walls, so far as external examination
can determine. Just how the work
may be bonded in the interior of the
wall could be ascertained only by ob
servation during the progress of the
work. The main wall, however con
sists of range work on the face with
rubble backing, and is thus clearly
not in accordance with the specifica
tions and contract. The wall is thin
and the stone used are in heavy
courses. It therefore becomes diffi
cult to secure a good bond and tie the '
work well together. My judgment is
that there is very little bond between
the face and back of the wall, and I
am clear that this wall is not in accor
dance with the contract and its ac
companying specifications. It is some
what difficult to pass an opinion upon
the merits of the wall where only the
outside can be inspected. I exam
ined the stone delivered on the ground
for the purpose of the work, and so
far as strength and durability is con
cerned need not be any question
raised about it. The cutting of the
stone is not perfect and is open to
the usual criticism on all work of this
character but on the whole the face
stone which I saw, if properly laid will
make good strong work. Of course
care is necessary to get the proper
headers and stretchers and judgment
must be used on the part of the ma
son and the inspecting engineer. I
inquired about the cement, and was
informed that the contractor was using
Lcsly and Trinklers Improved Union
Brand. This brand of cement has a
good reputation and shoiipl be all
right. I examined the sand placed
near the north abutment, it is clean
and mostly pure quartz, but not sharp,
being water worn. I am told that it
is the best obtainable in this locality.
The specifications require that the
rock face of the stone shall not ex
tend 4 inches beyond the neat lines
for the ordinary work, and 2 inches is
fixed as the limit on the faces of the
ice breakers. The work however built
shows greater projections of the rock
face. I do not consider this a serious
matter, though of course if the Com
missioners insist on it the contractor
should scabble the face down to the
specification limits. My opinion has
been requested as to the inspection
of the mason work during construc
tion. I have no hesitation in saying
that a reliable and competent inspec
tor in the employ of the Couny should
be on the ground the whole time that
masonry is in progress, to see that the
work is done properly, and he should
give special attention as to the mixing
and use of cement, to insure the
proper amount being used, and the
mortar being made fresh, as needed,
so that the cement will not be spoiled
in its manipulation.
My opinion as an engineer has been
asked respecting certain estimates, as
to what is usual and customary in the
business, and what should be a proper
interpretation on the contract in this
respect. Copies of two estimates in
favor of Joseph Ilendler, contractor,
certified to by J. C. Brown, engineer
have been shown me, viz: Estimate
No. 1 approved December 30th, 1893,
for 1 100 yards of stone dressed at
quarry ready.to be shipped, $5940.00.
Estimate No. 2 approved February
7 th, 1894, for sundry items including
stone dressed in quarry, stone, cement
and sand delivered on the work &c,
amounting to $5395.82, after deduct
ing the assumed payment on Esti
mate No. 1. Contractors are often
men of small means and it is usual
and customary to make them monthly
payments, and the written contract
generally reads "for materials deliv
ered and work clone." This is fair
and right and in accordance with the
customs of the business. But in no
case should the Engineer estimate
and pay a contractor anything for
materials not delivered and not in the
custody and the control of the owner
of the work. All materials estimated
and paid for must be so deposited
that the owner of the work shall .have
a clear title to it, as against all other
claimants, and it is evident that stone
dressed in a quarry, perhaps 50 miles
or more from the site of the bridge,
cannot be in the physical possession
of the owner of the bridge and conse
quently is not in proper shape to be
included in an estimate, and cannot
safely be paid for. In the particular
case now under consideration, who
ever prepared the contract for the
masonry omitted to mention "mater
ials delivered-' as an item in making
estimates. The contract with Mr.
Ilendler distinctly recites prices for
work in place completed. My opin
ion of a contract of this kind is, that
the contract is the law which governs
the Engineer, that he derives all his
authority from the contract, and can
not go beyond it, and that the County
Commissioners should not make pay
ment except in accordance to the
contiact. lherefore, I am of the
opinion in this case no payments
can be made to Mr. Ilendler except
for completed and accepted work in
place, and that materials delivered at
the site of the bridge, or stone out in
the quarry, ready for shipment, &c,
&c. should not be estimated. The
King Bridge Company understand
this matter, and in their printed form
of contract, which has been signed by
the Commissioners of Columbia Coun
ty, they recite that the monthly pay
ments are to be made on acceptable
material at the shops, delivered on
the ground; and in course of erection.
In their case I am of the opinion that
the Commissioners have obliged them
selves not only to pay for materials
delivered on the ground, but also for
that in the shops at Cleveland, Ohio,
and they will have to depend on the
solvency of the Bridge Company and
their bond as security for the money
paid out. Whether the clause in the
contract making the contract subject I
to the laws of Pennsylvania, relative
to Bridge Inspection, will modify this
condition or not is a question which
I cannot answer. Under the condi
tions hereinbefore stated, it is evident
that the Commissioners of Columbia
County were perfectly right and justi
fiable in passing their resolution of
March 1st, 1894, rejecting estimates
No. t and No. 2 in favor of Joseph
Ilendler, contractor, as not binding
on the county, the special points be
ing that said estimates were for work
in place, (south abutment) not con
structed in accordance with the speci
fications and contract, and for mater
ials delivered or prepared at the quar
ry, which were not the subject of an
estimate under the contract.
I have been requested to state fig
ures of cost for various kind of ma
sonry. This is somewhat difficult to
do, as the cost will vary with local cir
cumstances, and be governed largely by
the freight charges on material, the
cost of quarrying and cutting the par
ticular kind of stone, and incidental
expenses due to the particular loca
tion of the work. On the Philadel
phia & Reading Terminal work in the
city of Philadelphia from May, 1891,
to fall of 1893, I have been paying for
masonry constructed ot Conshocken
stone, and laid in Portland cement
mortar the following prices:
Rubble work in retaining walls :
$625 per cubic yard. First class ma
sonry in abutments ; $9.75 per cubic
oard. First class masonry in piers :
$12.75 Per cubic yard.
This masonry in its execution and
finish is superior so far as that done
at the Bloom Ferry Budge, and the
backing in first class masonry is all
coursed.
In answer to an in piiry propound
ed to me I would state (though per
haps I have covered the point pre
viously) that the filed plans of the
bridge masonry are in my opinion
crude and indefinite, that the quanti
ties of masonry and other work can
not be figured from them. The orig
inal estimates filed arc also indefinite.
The object as I understand it in filing
plan and estimates is that the Com
missioners shall have in their office a
definite statement of what the work
is going to cost, and also to have a.
check on the estimates returned frr
time to time from their Engineer. '
preliminary estimate should be in
tail, giving the measurement of e
kind of work, with probable price
and this would be a check as to quan
tities on future returns. I understand ,
from you that under the law the
amount of the original estimate can
not be exceeded. It is usual in mak
ing such estimates to include an item
of ten per cent, for engineering and
contingencies which appear not to
have been done in this case, therefore
any incidental expenses must be
charged against the general account.
In Mr. Hendler's contract the work
done is to be paid for by the cubic
yard, &c, but there is nothing in the
contract fixing a limit as to the, num
ber of yards, &c, or the ultimate cost
of the work.
The superstructure cf the bridge isj
covered in the contract with the King
Bridge Company. One drawing showing
details of the iron work is attached to
the contract of November 24th, 1893,
and is marked approved by Mr. Brown
as of that date. Six other blue prints
were handed to me. beinr dated re
spectively, December 6th, 1893, Jan
uary 13, 17, two prints 18, and 20,
1894.
Two or three of these sheets wprt
given me just before I left Blooms
burg, and I did not have an opportu
nity to examine them caretully at that
time. From my first hasty look at
the drawings, I was under the impres
sion that no strain sheet had been
furnished : on a closer examinntirm T
find that most of the information is
contained on the blue prints, though
it is not in the shaoe that we are nr.
customed to see it. I have not had
the iron work drawings examined and
figured over, as it would take
time to do it properly. It can bo
done hereafter if you ,desire it, and
could be covered quicker with some
additional information from the
Bridge Company, Mr. Brown in
formed me, in answer to my inquiries,
that the strain sheet had not ln(n
checked over, that no test had been
made ot the quality of the iron and
steel used in the structure, and nr. in
spection had bten made of the work-
mansnip at the lindge Shop. It is
usual for the Engineer to attend r nil
these matters, otherwise you are sim
ply taking and paying for what the
Bridge Company chooses to rrii'A vnu
The examinations and tests of the iron
work should undoubtedly have pre
ceded the certifvinc of est!
the Engineer, in favor of the Bridge
company. 1 ne work may be all right
and it is now too late to test tli
terial, as it has been worked up into
ouapes, anu a portion delivered on
the ground ready for erection. The
Bridge Company mav have hi,1 t:
made of the material and be able to
furnish certificates. 1 will await you
further instructions bef
thing more with the matter of the
superstructure.
Respectfully Submitted,
Signed, John A. Wilson,
Civil Engineer.