Monday, March 09, 2020

Harry Prince Stony Brook Hall of Fame Induction October 2019








Boys of Fall 1967 Stony Brook Soccer Team



Jack Esposito 1967 Captain



Goalie Harry Prince


Coach John Ramsey, Forward Greg Speer, Goalie Harry Prince and Center Halfback Danny Kay




Sophmores 1967



Juniors 1967



Seniors


Boys of Fall Gathered for Harry Prince’s 2019 Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony








Thursday, December 29, 2016

Thank you, from Henry Hessing



I am extremely honored to be receiving “The Frank Patti Award” and “The Individual Achievement Award”.

I am earnestly grateful for the recognition, as no one could fail to be deeply moved by such a tribute, coming from the American Society of Civil Engineers Metropolitan Section Long Island Branch that I love and have served so long. It fills me with emotion I cannot express.

I am especially happy to receive the Frank Patti Award from Frank. If you have not had a chance, speak with Frank, inquire about the fascinating projects he did during his career, and yet still created the time to found the LI Branch.
Thank you so much Frank.
Top of Form

The Individual Achievement Award I truly believe symbolizes the code of conduct of the civil engineering profession. To me, this is the meaning of the award. For all eyes and for all time, it is an expression of the ethics of the American Civil Engineer. That I should be integrated in this way with so noble an ideal arouses a sense of pride and yet of humility which will be with me always.


Top of Form
My individual code of conduct is based on a philosophy expressed by Ayn Rand, in essence  “the concept of man as an heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”

Paraphrasing General Douglas MacArthur:
“These concepts teach you to be proud and unbending in honest failure, but humble and gentle in success; not to substitute words for action; not to seek the path of comfort, but to face the stress and spur of difficulty and challenge; to learn to stand up in the storm, but to have compassion on those who fall; to master yourself before you seek to master others; to have a heart that is clean, a goal that is high; to learn to laugh, yet never forget how to weep; to reach into the future, yet never neglect the past; to be serious, yet never take yourself too seriously; to be modest so that you will remember the simplicity of true greatness; the open mind of true wisdom, the meekness of true strength.
They give you a temper of the will, a quality of the imagination, a vigor of reason, a freshness of the deep springs of life, a temperamental predominance of courage over timidity, an appetite for adventure over love of ease. They create in your heart the sense of wonder, the unfailing hope of what next, and the joy and inspiration of life. They teach you in this way to be a gentleman and an engineer”.




I have faced several challenges on my way here, but each one of them has only strengthened me to make me a thorough professional who knows exactly what he wants to accomplish; someone who sets his eyes on the goal, an individual who does not lose sight of it, unless it is achieved. As Robert Moses might say, “gets the job done”.


Winning this award would not have been possible without the inspiration I have received from those who were the senior engineers when I was young, my civil engineering colleagues for whom I have the deepest respect, and from whom I have derived the strength to challenge myself and perform better at each stage of a lifetime in engineering.

I sincerely thank the ASCE Met Section Long Island Branch, the Board, every one of you in our profession, and especially my family. I thank our sons for taking time from their hectic schedules, and their own families to share this evening.

Most importantly, I thank Joni, my wife of 43 years, who has been the “bright spot in my day”, every day, for helping me reach a stage where I can proudly hold up these awards as marks of achievement. 

Thank you!

VIBRATION ANALYSIS REPORT

VILLAGE OF OCEAN BEACH – BULKHEAD AND FERRY TERMINAL REHABILITATION




Vibration Limits for Buildings
                                     

Vibration Limits for Buildings
Scope of Report
The purpose of this report is to identify potential issues with the buildings surrounding the boat basin and establishing recommended vibration limits at the property lines to ensure damage does not occur to the adjacent properties located in Ocean Beach, Fire Island.

Introduction
Construction activities have the potential to produce vibration levels that may be annoying or disturbing to humans and may cause damage to structures. Architectural and/or structural damage may occur if appropriate precautions are not taken.
Effects of ground-borne vibration include discernable movement of building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. Construction related activity can create vibration waves that propagate through the various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby structure, certain resonant, or natural, frequencies of various components of the building may be “excited”. In extreme cases vibration can cause damage to buildings.

Types of Vibration Impacts
Measurements of vibrations used in the evaluation are expressed in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (ips or in/sec). The PPV, a quantity commonly used for vibration measurements, is the maximum velocity experienced by any point in a structure during a vibration event. It is an indication of the magnitude of energy transmitted through vibration. PPV is an indicator often used in determining potential damage to buildings from stress associated with blasting and other construction activities.
One of the more frequently used thresholds for vibration, established by the United States Bureau of Mines, is a PPV of 2.0 ips at the closest structure to prevent structural damage. This level is a typical nominal structural damage criterion employed by construction projects. When most stringent criteria is required, PPV limit of 0.5 ips is used. 0.5 ips is 10 times more restrictive than 2.0 on the logarithmic scale and is associated with protection of surrounding historic structures that are susceptible to cosmetic cracks in fragile plaster. This limit could be lowered to protect fragile and/or historic structures based on a detailed vibration assessment conducted by the construction contractor prior to construction. A quantitative assessment of potential vibration impacts from blasting is not provided as none is anticipated at this time.
Another type of vibration impact is human annoyance which is highly dependent on frequency of occurrence and generally occurs when inside buildings. Ground borne vibration impacts may be somewhat perceptible to people who are outdoors. It is almost never annoying. This is because without shaking of a building or items within a building or the rumble noise that can only occur indoors, vibration does not cause a strong adverse human reaction

Construction Activities
To determine potential impacts of the project’s construction activities, estimates of vibration levels induced by construction equipment at 25 feet are based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), “Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment”, April 1995 as up dated in 2006. 
For the equipment anticipated to be used on this project we find:
Table A
Typical Levels of Vibration for Construction Equipment
Similar for that Proposed for Sheet Pile Construction
Construction Activity   PPV at 25 feet              
                                                (ips)                                        
Pile Driver (impact)                   
upper range                   1.518                                       
typical                           0.644                                       
Pile Driver (sonic)                     
upper range                   0.734                                       
typical                           0.170                                       
The values provided in the tables are based on the FTA literature. Actual vibration levels are dependent on construction procedures, soil and geological conditions, and the structural characteristics of the receptor (e.g., foundation and construction type).
PPV at other distances can be calculated. PPV at Distance D = PPV (at 25 feet) * (25/D) raised to the 1.5 power.
The anticipated typical vibration levels for this project using continuous sheet pile driving with PPV at 25 ft = 0.170 in/sec implies:
10 feet                                      0.67 in/sec
15 feet                                      0.37 in/sec
25 feet                                      0.17 in/sec
40 feet                                      0.11 in/sec
And 50 feet                               0.06 in/sec
The further away a building is from sheet pile installation using continuous vibration the smaller the PPV is. The closer the building is to the source of vibration the higher the PPV value becomes.

Table B
Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category                                                                    PPV (in/sec)
Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster)                           0.5 
Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster)                             0.3 
Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings                              0.2
Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage                     0.12

Establishing Vibration Limits to Protect Buildings
One of the most commonly referenced studies is the USBM RI 8507.
Table C
Damage Thresholds as reported by the US Bureau of Mines Report Investigations 8507, Structure Response and Damage Produced by Ground Vibration from Surface Mining Blasting (USBM RI 8507),
Conditions Observed                                                   Typical PPV (in/sec)
Threshold Damage (hairline cracking in plaster,                            2 - 3
Opening of old cracks, etc.)                                                        Never at < 0.5              
Minor damage (hairline cracking in masonry,                                4 - 5                                                                              breaking windows)                                 Never at < 1.0
Major Structure Damage (cracking or
Shifting of foundations or bearing walls)                                       > 5
There are limitations to these findings, however, they are offered as a guideline.

Another study cited in the literature is Swiss Standard SN 640 312 only available in French and German. A partial translation indicates that for most light framed structures, and for continuous vibrations anticipated on this project, the limit is 0.59 in/sec. For fragile or historic buildings subjected to transient vibrations is a range from 0.12 to 0.24 in/sec. depending on professional judgement. Section 12 of the standard provides useful commentary: “If the velocity values occur below the guide values, then the probability of minor damage is extremely small. If the guide values are only rarely exceeded up to about 30%, then the probability that damage occurs is not increased significantly. If the values exceed twice the guide values, then damage (i.e., cosmetic cracking) is likely to occur. Cracks that penetrate through an entire wall or floor have to be expected if values exceed the guide values by several times. If conditions are very special, an expert would be allowed to define higher or lower guide values.

The limit for historical and/or fragile buildings will likely be in the range of 0.12 to 0.5 in/sec depending on evaluation of key factors for the individual case. 

In the examples cited below, vibrations typically originated outside the buildings, and the vibration response (where the limits apply) was measured at the base of the building or near a column or bearing wall within the building, such that dynamic amplification effects were not included. This is consistent with the basis of this paper which assumes that vibrations originate outside the building and are measured at the base of the building.

Examples:
For cases of extreme fragility or where a very high importance factor is desired, the lowest vibration limit that should be set is the maximum ambient level of vibration in the building. This level can be determined by monitoring vibrations in the building for a period of time during normal, day to day activities before construction begins. Per the literature these values are expressed as vibration amplitudes (in/sec) and range between 0.02 – 0.05 for occupants walking or closing doors to 0.10 to 0.14 for moving furniture in an office building. 

For the special case of using vibratory sheet pile driving (i.e., potentially continuous vibrations) within about 30 feet of a structure a lower vibration limit of 0.2 in/sec (frequency-dependent) can be used for any continuous vibrations (defined as cyclic vibrations with duration greater than 2 seconds) . Careful pre- and post - construction surveys of the structure should be conducted by staff to ensure no adverse effects are found.

It should be noted that in 2015, Mr. E. Hammarberg commented that he has been involved in the monitoring of several hundred old (many historic) unreinforced-masonry buildings in New York City and that he has never observed damaged caused by construction vibrations at levels below 0.5 in/sec, which is the stipulated limit for New York City landmark buildings (reference NYC TPPN-1088).


Summary
Using PPV =  0.5 in/sec is an acceptable limit for the project where the distance from driving sheet piling to the base of a structure is 25 feet or greater. The only structure at 10 feet to 15 feet away from the piling is the police station. The allowable PPV should be limited to 0.3 in/sec and could be lowered further in accordance with Table B above.

If at a future time it is determined that a structure is an historic building, the limit for historic buildings will be in the range of 0.12 to 0.5 in/sec depending on evaluations of the key factors for the individual case. For cases of extreme fragility or where a very importance factor is desired, the lowest vibration limit that should be set is the maximum ambient level of vibration in the building. 

Conclusion
PPV = 0.5 in/sec is the recommended acceptable vibration limit for the project with a reduction down to 0.3 in/sec in the vicinity of the police station. The inspection staff monitoring vibration can ask the Contractor to change his operations to reduce the observed PPV if deemed desirable for the project.

References and Notes
City Tunnel No. 3, Stage 2 Manhattan Leg Shaft 33B Final EIS
US Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 8507, “Structure Response and Damage Produced by Ground Vibration from Surface Mine Blasting” (USBM RI 8507).
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), “Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment”, April 1995 as up dated in 2006.  Also see FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.
Swiss SN 640 312, Swiss Standard SN 640 312, notably J. Struder, translation found in APT Bulletin published by Association of Preservation Technology, credit to: Arne P. Johnson and W. Robert Hannen
“Protection of Historic Urban Structures During Adjacent Construction,” E. Hammarberg et.al.
Sullivan Arch, Art Institute of Chicago

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

John Aliprantis: A Friend Passed Away

John Aliprantis came to the United States as a 6 year old from an island in Greece, not speaking a word of English. He worked, mastered the English language, served in the US Army and received a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Columbia University. He was a professional engineer, and senior vice president of Seeley, Stevenson, Value and Knecht, later known as STV Incorporated. John was responsible for the entire civil division, both design and construction, in the New York City office. This work included roads, bridges, airports, and rail. John created a cadre of professional civil engineers who were or became vice presidents capable of managing major projects for our clients. They were Rogers Thackaberry, Dick Posthauer, Jim Hynes, George Shearer, Bruce Smith, Dr. Peter Cheu, and Donald Yue. He gave them responsibility, and let them succeed. He was always there for them, if needed. He cared for the people who worked for him. A patient man, reflective by nature, his hobby was making furniture, an exacting labor of love. Simply try to do wood joinery to see how much effort goes into it. He liked to dabble in stocks as well but John’s life was truly his wife and two sons. The job was second to them. Every once in a while, he’d mention what one or both of his sons had done. And if it was something that most parents would be upset about, he’d shrug it off saying, “Things happen”. John took great pride in Peter and Antonio as they were growing up, making decisions about college, life, home and marriage. John was in St Francis hospital where I saw him for a few short visits late last April. He said he was there because of fluid around the lungs caused by a reaction to medicine. True to his stoic nature, he never mentioned cancer in our conversations. He went to Boston but what was prescribed had a negative effect. He came home and died July 2nd, about a week later. Donald and I went to the viewing. Surprisingly, we were the only ones he worked with who were there. In passing, he was surrounded by his loving family, grand children, relatives, neighbors and friends. He will be missed. Hank Hessing