iron foundations
TRANSCRIPT
OTHER CIVIL ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS
The use of iron in foundations
Introduction
Once cast iron had been established as a useful and practical structural material in the
late eighteenth century, it was only going to be a question of time before an
enterprising ironmaster, engineer or architect considered its application for
substructures. Timber piles and platforms in combination with masonry were the
traditional foundation materials, although other expedients such as rammed chalk and
fascines had been employed, and in the early nineteenth century concrete began to be
used . (Chrimes, 1996; Kerisel, 1956; 1985). Iron itself had been used for specialist
applications such as rock foundations (below) and for pile shoes.
The application of iron to foundations was a specialist area and even when iron was
employed in superstructures, whether bridges, iron frames or roofs, its performance
was generally governed by that of substructures built using traditional methods and
materials. While the Leaning Tower of Pisa provides an enduring monument to the
foundation problems faced by past generations, and towers in Bologna show similar
signs of distress, others towers having collapsed completely, mediaeval and
renaissance master builders were capable of erecting enduring structures on a scale
not regularly surpassed before the twentieth century. The gothic cathedral is perhaps
the most spectacular example, but in northern Italy and the Low Countries large civic
buildings were erected, while military engineers designed successive generations of
fortifications. More the province of the civil engineer were the hydraulic structures
erected on the rivers and canals of the Netherlands and Lombardy from the fourteenth
century onwards, using timber for bearing and sheet piles, lock walls, gates and
floors, in combination with masonry and (pozzolanic) mortars. (Skempton, 1957 repr
Chrimes 1998). Fascine work was traditionally used to stabilise coastal defence
works.
Our knowledge of the foundations of the medieval and early modern period is based
on surviving documentary evidence (Brown, 1963; Parsons, 1939), including some
specifications (Salzman, 1952) archaeological evidence, and the discoveries of those
who have had to deal with surviving structures. Price, Willis (R. Willis 1972-1973)
Architectural history of some English Cathedrals, 2 parts, Chicheley: P B Minet,),
Viollet le Duc, F. Fox. Recent conferences have discussed some of the problems
presented by older structures to modern geotechnical engineers.
As an example at Amiens cathedral there was a raft of stones set in mortar on which
a grid of masonry walls and stepped piers supporting the main structural columns
rested. Appropriate good practice would have been adopted elsewhere although one
suspects few modern engineers would accept such a definition for the foundations of
the tower at Salisbury Cathedral. The main columns there rest upon stone slabs
founded on medium dense gravel excavated to a depth of 5ft - just above the summer
water table - the gravel rests upon chalk, and the load on the slabs is 10 tons/ft2.
In a local context builders and artisans would have been aware of the limitations of
local ground, and developed the necessary expertise. Although piling engines were
rare, the London Bridge engines being lent for other work in the late mediaeval
period, they were in use, and for some mediaeval projects there is considerable
knowledge on how foundations were installed (Boyer, 1981-1985).
In the early mediaeval period bridge pier foundations were generally built as artificial
islands using loose masonry confined by piles on which a levelled platform could be
formed above water level-London Bridge was erected on such ‘starlings’. On the
continent cofferdams were in use by the fifteenth century as a means of excluding
water and building up from the river bed in the dry; such techniques are known from
early printed works such as Ramelli (1588), but it is unclear when they were first used
in England. However, by the start of the eighteenth century in England the number of
river improvement and land reclamation schemes was such that there were some
craftsmen practising who described themselves as ‘water carpenters’, expert in the
installation of sheet piles, locks and weirs. The Swiss engineer Charles Labelye
introduced timber caissons at this time as an alternative to cofferdams for the
foundations of Westminster Bridge (Walker, 1979) and in the second half of the
eighteenth century this emerged as the most economical method of subaqueous
foundations for bridge piers. At Westminster the masonry caisson was placed on a
prepared dredged bed, and the masonry for the piers built up on the caisson bottom,
but concerns over the performance of the foundations meant that at Blackfriars piles
were driven beneath the site of the caisson before it was placed. In this technique the
caisson sides would be reused for successive piers. By the end of the eighteenth
century such techniques had become obsolescent as more efficient steam pumps
became available, cofferdam construction techniques improved, and the need for
economy was less pressing (Ruddock, 1979). Caissons were also used in harbours as
instanced by Smeaton at Ramsgate in the 1790s.
With the changing nature of warfare retaining wall design became a major
consideration for the military engineer. Although this aspect of military architecture
is most commonly associated with work of the French engineer Vauban at the end of
the seventeenth century, one of the earliest English military treatises, by Paul Ive,
discusses proportions for retaining walls, as well as the use of piling (Ive, 1589).
If foundation engineering was essentially a practical science down to 1700, from then
onwards, particularly in France there was increasing consideration given to providing
a more theoretical foundation for the design of arch bridges, including their
abutments, piers, and retaining walls. These developments have been summarised by
Heyman (1972). They were accompanied by some practical experiments on earth
pressure, which continued into the early nineteenth century (Field, 1948; Skempton,
1977). More general reviews of the advances in the understanding of soil mechanics
are provided by Skempton (1977, 1985). While one can doubt the influence of theory
on the local contractor at a time when contracts where still generally given on a trade
basis, by the end of the eighteenth century, when iron was being introduced, engineers
like Telford and Rennie are known to have possessed a number of continental
textbooks, which would also have been available to military engineers. Published
works like those of Meyer (1685), Perronet (1782-1789) and De Cessart (1806)
provide illustrations of foundation techniques of the time. Jensen ( 1969) was able to
draw on these to provide a useful summary. Perronet and De Cessart also provide
detailed records of construction experience. For some idea of British practice one can
refer to Smeaton’s reports (Smeaton, 1812), Cresy’s Encyclopaedia of civil
engineering (Cresy, 1847), and Hughes’ Essay on bridge foundations for Weale.
Hughes’ work is of particular interest as he was a second generation civil engineering
contractor whose family had worked for Telford and Rennie.
For ordinary masonry walls, and column piers stepped brickwork would be normal to
help spread the load [fig.__], accompanied as appropriate by piling and/or a timber
platform. Between the pile heads it was normal to ram layer of rubble. It was
important the steps were not too broad or there was a danger the concentrated load
would shear off the step below. Such methods were carried over into iron supported
structures such as that illustrated here at the Tobacco Dock warehouse London Docks
(Mitchell). Such methods were not always successful as a brick footing capped with
Yorkshire stone failed, according to a London iron founder George Cottam, c.1830.
The iron column it was supporting passed through the stone and on through its
brickwork support [fig. ___]. The most likely explanation could be a weakened slab,
and a footing of brick encased ‘rubbish’, with no solid bonded brick core.
London Bridge (Nash, 1973; 1981) can be seen as indicative of best practice in bridge
foundations at the start of the nineteenth century and can be compared with that of the
iron bridges at Southwark and Tewkesbury [figs. ____]. By that time, in contrast to
half a century earlier, major contractors existed such as Hugh McIntosh (Chrimes)
and Jolliffe and Banks (Dickinson). Such organisations would have had considerable
expertise in construction, and, allowing for commercial pressures and the occasional
incompetent agent, they were unlikely to install inappropriate foundations unless
instructed by the engineer. Foundation engineering seems to have remained their
province, if one can judge by the lack of textbooks which appeared on the subject
through the nineteenth century, Dobson being a solitary exception. Site investigation
was still, however, in its infancy in terms of instrumentation, and it was difficult to
obtain uncontaminated samples in soft ground [fig. ____].
Use of iron in foundations and substructures
Turning to the introduction of iron, timber’s susceptibility to decay, particularly in
exposed marine locations meant any economical alternative was likely to be
considered seriously. Availability of reliable quality ironwork at economical prices,
facility of fabrication and installation, perceived advantages of durability, and relative
strength of the material will all have played a part in the adoption of iron for
foundations. Perhaps the most obvious application would be the use of hollow
circular castings for piles, but plate iron could be used for sheet pile work - accurate
driving of timber dovetail piles which had been used for centuries must have been
very difficult - and iron could also be used for ties and anchorages. Timber piles were
unsuitable for hard driving, and iron offered a possible practical alternative -
assuming the use of piles was appropriate at all. Larger diameter ‘cylinders’ could be
fabricated and be used for bridge piers and as caissons, later making use of
compressed air work. Cast iron ‘tubbing’ was employed to line mine and water well
shafts. An obvious though perhaps surprisingly late development was to employ such
lining for horizontal, rather than vertical, excavations in the form of ‘tube’ tunnels.
The implications for substructures of the use of structural ironwork are perhaps best
exemplified by the Midland Railway’s St Pancras Station. The approach to the
terminus was well above street level and the original intention had been to erect a
multispan train shed on fill. From the earliest introduction of railways to London
Railway Companies had looked at letting out space beneath viaducts as a means of
recouping capital expenditure, and this had been followed with the Charing Cross and
Cannon Street extensions into London. When considering this option, rather than the
expensive foundations associated with the heavy traditional masonry vaulting for
cellarage, Barlow looked at the idea of supporting the track and platform level on
beams and cast iron columns, developing a layout based on the dimensions of Burton
beer barrels, the most obvious customer. This option maximised the cellarage and
opened up new possibilities for the superstructure. The girders supporting the station
floor could act as a tie, which could be used in construction with a single arch roof .
A tied arch of this nature avoided the need for expensive intermediate footings and
massive columns supporting a multi-span roof structure and cluttering the cellarage.
St Pancras is justly regarded as one of the structural masterpieces of the age of iron,
and of course iron had been used, more modestly, many times below ground before.
Sources
P Ive (1589, repr, 1970) The Practice of fortifications; A W Skempton (1979)
Landmarks in early soil mechanics, European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 7th, vol.5, pp.1-26; A W Skempton (1985) A History of soil
properties 1717-1927, 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering. Golden Jubilee volume, pp.95-121; J Heyman (1972)
Coulomb’s memoir on statics. Cambridge: University Press; J Heyman. Couplet’s.
History of technology; J Kerisel. Histoire de la mecanique des sols en France
jusqu’au 20e siecle. Geotechnique, vol.6, 1956, pp.151-166; J Kerisel (1985) The
History of geotechnical engineering up until 1700. 11th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Golden Jubilee volume, pp.3-94; J
Field (1948) Early history and bibliography of soil mechanics. 2nd International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rotterdam, vol.1, pp.1-7;
N Flodin, and B B Broms (1981) History of civil engineering in soft clay in Soft clay
engineering, 1977. Elsevier, 1981. Chapter 1; M N Boyer (1981) Moving ahead with
the fifteenth century: new ideas in bridge construction at Orleans. History of
technology, 6, p.2-; L F Salzman (1952) Building in England down to 1540. Oxford:
Clarendon, p.86; R A Brown and others. Eds. (1963) History of the King’s works.
The Middle Ages. London: HMSO, vol.1, p.434; M N Boyer (1984) A fourteenth
century pile driver: the engine at Orleans. History of technology, 9, 38; W B Parsons
(1939) Engineers and engineering in the Renaissance. Baltimore: Williams &
Wilkins, 1939, pp.116-117, fig.76, p.150; M N Boyer (1985) Resistance to
technological innovation: the history of the pile driver through the eighteenth century.
Technology and culture, vol.26, 1, 1985, pp.56-58; A Ramelli (1588) Le Diverse et
artificiose machine, Chap.111-112, pp.171-174; C Meyer (1685) L’Arte di restruire a
Roma la tralasciata navigatione de sue Tevere. Roma; B D de Belidor (1737-1753)
Architecture hydraulique, 2 volumes in 4 parts. Paris; P Bullet (1691) Architecture
pratique. Paris; L A De Cessart (1806) Travaux hydrauliques, 2 volumes. Paris,
1806. esp. volume 1, pp.47-224; J A Eytelwein. Praktische Anweisung zur
Wasserbaukunst. 4 volumes, 1802-1808 etc; H Gautier. Traite des ponts, various
editions. Paris, 1714-. See chapters x-xviii; J H Lambert (1776) Sur la fluidite de
sables. Nouveaux memoirs de I’Academie Royale des Sciences, Berlin; J R Perronet
(1782-1789). Description des projets et de la construction des ponts de Neuilli … 1st,
2nd editions, 1782-1789. Includes his Memoire sur les pieux et pitotis; G A Semple
(1776) Treatise on building in water, 1776; R Woltman (1799) Beytrage zur
hydraulischen Architectur, 4 volumes. Gottingen, 4, pp.371-389); G Hagen (1863-
1874) Handbuch der Wasserbauknst. Berlin; P Krapf (1906) Formeln und versucher
uber die Tragfahigkeit engeramrater pfahle. Leipzig: Engelmann; J K T L Nash
(1981) The foundations of London Bridge. Canadian geotechnical journal, volume
18, pp.331-356; J K T L Nash (1973) [Discussion on London Bridge]. ICE
Proceedings, volume 54, pp.726-732; T Ruddock (1979) Arch bridges and their
builders. Cambridge, University Press; R J B Walker (1979) Old Westminster
Bridge. Newton Abbot: David and Charles, 1979; G G Lewis (1843) On the use of
fascines in foundations of buildings, Professional papers Royal Engineers, 1st series,
VI, 216-218
F2 Ties and anchorages
Iron may have been used at an early date to tie back retaining walls in preference to
timber [____]
The most obvious application of iron for anchorages was in suspension bridges (see
section ____) and their vulnerability to corrosion was a factor in the abandonment of
widespread use of suspension bridges in France in the mid-nineteenth century. (Picon
Sir Marc Isambard Brunel made use of 8ft long flat wrought iron pins to help provide
horizontal support for the poling boards an early use of soil nailing, in the Thames
Tunnel in the 1830s [?fig.1]. (Muir Wood, 1994; Skempton and Chrimes, 1994).
Wrought iron ties were used by railway engineers to anchor retaining walls and
tunnel portals. The anchorages for the Kilsby Tunnel on the London-Birmingham
Railway were 100 ft long (Simms, 1838) [fig.2]. On the same line struts were
installed between the retaining walls in the approaches to Euston Station, and other
examples of the use of cast iron arched ribs and beams for bracing can be found on
the Metropolitan and District Railways [fig. __]. The failure of the cast iron sheet
piles used at Greenwich pier was attributed to the contractor (Grissell and Peto)
failing to anchor the piles properly, although the design, with superincumbent
masonry, may have been inherently unstable [fig.3]. A M Muir Wood (1994) ICE
Procs Civ eng; A W Skempton and M M Chrimes (1994) Geotechnique
F3 Foundations in rock
As early as 1696 Winstanley dowelled his Edystone Lighthouse to the rocks using
twelve iron bars of 3¾in diameter. A method of installing foundations in rock by the
use of iron is described in some detail by Telford (1814) in the Edinburgh
Encyclopaedia. The enterprising contractors Simpson and Cargill had to build a
cofferdam for the Corpach Locks at the western entrance to the Caledonian Canal. To
secure the main piles of the cofferdam iron dowels were installed in the bedrock. A
wooden cylinder made up of 3in fir planks with an internal diameter of 22in and 8ft
long was constructed, bound up with hoop iron and shod at the base with a circular
iron shoe [fig.5]. It was fitted with iron clamps and eyes to permit raising and
extraction using chains. The cylinder was positioned at low water beside a 30ft high
pile engine and fitted with a 2ft ash ‘cap’, the bottom 6in of which were turned to fit
inside the cylinder. Upon this was placed a 12in square pile, of the same length as the
depth the cylinder was to be sunk into mud, and the whole was driven using a 1008lb
ram.
A sand augur was used to clear the mud inside out of the cylinder regularly as it was
sunk until the rock was reached. A frame was then inserted into the cylinder and sunk
to its bottom; down a square hole in the middle of this frame a square pipe, 4x4in at
the top and 3x3in at the bottom was driven down to the rock to clear any remaining
sand using a 3in external diameter tube fitted with a valve. A jumper was then passed
through the frame and worked by a lever on the scaffolding until a hole 2½in diameter
and 20 in deep had been bored into the rock, and a 2in square iron dowel was
positioned in this cavity and driven in 18in into the rock. The frame having been
secured the main pile, with a matching recess, was lowered onto the dowel, its end
strengthened with iron, with external diameter made up to 22in to ensure a tight fit in
the cylinder. The pile was driven on to the dowel and the cylinder then raised by a
lever and chain (T Telford (1814). Article on bridge practice, Edinburgh
Encyclopaedia).
Several early piers were founded on rock. At Gravesend Tierney Clark used cast iron
shells to accurately position and drive cast iron piles into chalk (see section 8 below).
At Margate driven cast iron piles and wrought iron screw piles were sunk 10ft into the
chalk.
The short-lived pier at Westwood Ho! had cast iron piles of a form developed by the
engineer J W Wilson for use in rock (J W Wilson, 1875) [fig. __] The piles were 12-
15ft in length and 11½in external diameter at their base. The thickness of metal
involved varied from 1½in at the top to 4in at a depth of 16in in the rock reducing by
again to 1in at the base. 13in diameter holes were bored by placing an iron cylinder
8ft long with an internal diameter of 14in, made in halves and jointed, over the site of
the hole, secured in position to an ‘outrigger’. Within this cylinder the ‘jumper’
worked to bore the hole [fig. ___]. The jumper had four wings with a point 6in in
diameter, the shaft 3in in diameter, and total length 4ft 6in. Further lengths of 2in
diameter rods were screwed into this, and connected via a shackle and chain to a rope
and winch driven by a steam engine which enabled the raising and release of the
jumper. Once the hole was of sufficient depth a diver was able to wedge in the pile,
using doorways in the cylinder, with wrought iron wedges and concrete. The depth of
water under which this operation was carried out varied between 6 and 40ft, and each
socket would take up to a week to complete. Due to irregularities in the rock surface
it was difficult to keep the cylinder in position and exclude debris excited by the
action of the sea. Once in position the piles were filled with concrete. A special form
of built up wrought iron column was used with these piles.
Bridge piers could be founded directly on rock, as at Crumlin, where the base column
was cast with a base plate which could be bolted directly into the rock.
F6 Iron column supports for bridges and viaducts
The earliest cast iron bridges in Britain were arch designs with traditional masonry
abutments, and some early examples had the ribs embedded in masonry without
springing plates. In the inventive spirit of the era it was only a question of time
before practical consideration was given to the use of iron in the supporting structure
and raking struts were used for the Longdon aqueduct, and John Nash’s patent of
1797 (2165) includes reference to iron columnar bridge piers. These were both
preceded by Telford’s proposal for iron columns to support Pont Cysslte Aqueduct.
Thomas Wilson considered a two span cast iron arch bridge at Yarm with the central
pier formed of cast iron columns (c.1804) before the single arch design was finalised.
This columnar approach was finally adopted by James Walker for his bridge on the
Barking Road across the River Lea (c.1811-1814), details of which are regrettably
lacking. Rather better known is the Macclesfield Road Bridge over the Regent’s
Canal in Regent’s Park (c.1816) [fig.9]. Although cast iron columns were used to
support arcade style railway bridges in urban areas, most notably Hawkshaw’s
colonnades on the Junction Railway in Manchester (Hawkshaw, 1852) [fig.10], little
progress was made in the application of iron to subaqueous foundations until the
development of Mitchell’s screw piles in the 1830s., and the more or less
contemporary development of cylinder piers using Potts system and then compressed
air. (See sections below). Iron instead generally rested on traditional foundations.
Sources
J Hawkshaw (1852) Description of a cast iron viaduct, or colonnade, constructed at
Salford, Min Procs., ICE, 11, 241-243.
F6.1 Foundations for iron viaducts on land
Perhaps the most extensive form of the arcade-style railway in the UK was the
Liverpool Overhead Railway system, modelled on the New York ‘Elevated’ Railway
system. The Railway, designed by Sir Douglas Fox and J H Greathead with F
Huddleston one of the contractors’ staff, and G A Hobson helping in the design, was
opened in 1893. It extended over six miles from Dingle to Seaforth along the line of
the dock road, and was intended to deal particularly with the congestion of dock and
passenger traffic immediately inland of the docks. The structure was founded on rock
or concrete blocks, designed for a maximum load on the base of 1 ton/ft2, and test
loaded to 1.5 times the greatest working load. The supporting columns of the viaduct
were built up riveted steel box columns grouted into cast iron sockets bedded and
bolted into the concrete blocks, with concrete ‘bumpers’ to protect the columns
against collision. Spans varied 30-98ft; most were 50ft plate girders. (J H Greathead
and F Fox (1893-1894) The Liverpool overhead railway. Minutes of Proceedings,
ICE, 117, 51-144; ills).
The availability of iron for piers affected the design of bridges in a number of ways.
In comparison with masonry iron piers could be quicker to erect and also provide a
lighter load for a required strength in weaker soils - a factor which became important
when Bouch was obliged to alter the design of his piers for the Tay Bridge (see
below). It was estimated that the load of the Crumlin Viaduct piers in iron was 600
tons in comparison with an estimated 3,300 tons if they had been made of masonry
(Maynard, 1868). The ironwork contractors were keen to extol the virtues of ease of
erection of iron piers particularly with their eyes on the export market. The total cost
of the pier themselves also affected the overall spans. With deeper valleys the cost of
the piers was corresponding more, and longer spans more economic.
The now demolished Crumlin Viaduct was perhaps the archetypal example of a
British iron girder viaduct supported on iron bridge piers. The piers varied in height,
but a typical 170ft height pier comprised 14 hollow cast iron columns, 12in in
diameter, arranged as a hexagon, with the iron of the two outermost columns 1in
thick, and the remainder ¾in. Each column was built up of 13 10ft lengths, with the
bottom comprising a 2ft 3in column with a 3ft square base plate and ‘feathers’ to
spread the load. It was anchored to the rock with 12in long bolts secured by pouring
in molten ‘brimstone’. At joints there was horizontal bracings of wrought iron
diagonal ties with cast iron spacers, the columns being cast octagonally to receive
this, and vertical wrought iron bracing 4in wide [fig.____].
Light construction of this type was the characteristic of Thomas Bouch. The design
of the superstructure of viaducts such as that at Beelah was worked out by Bow
c.1855. The viaduct had 15 piers of varying heights supporting 60ft spans of lattice
girders. (Humber) The piers were made up of 6 tapered hollow columns in the form of
a tapered trapezium, braced with cross girders every 15ft and with horizontal and
diagonal wrought iron ties. The columns, 12in in diameter, at 50ft centres at the base,
tapered to 22ft centres at the top. The taper was provided in the foundation piece,
bolted into a stone base, angled to produce the taper [fig. ___].
There are two surviving wrought iron viaducts of the Crumlin type, those at Meldon
and Bennerley. Bennerley is intended for conversion to a cycleyway. It comprises 16
wrought iron spans of 77ft supported on piers of groups of 10 vertical wrought iron
tubes, with a raking tube on each end and wrought iron cross bracing. The
foundations are of concrete capped with brickwork and gritstone [fig.__]. At Meldon
there are two parallel viaducts of 1874 and 1879 of 2 90ft Warren girder spans
supported on piers varying from 48 to 20ft in height formed of four wrought iron
columns founded on 24ft wide masonry bases. The columns are made up of 10ft 6in
lengths in 6 parts riveted longitudinally braced horizontally and vertically at each
joint. The 1874 viaduct was strengthened in 1959 with additional bracing and collars
around the columns. [HEW 270] [HEW 120] (Engineer, 19 October 1877)
Concrete filled columns
Concrete was regularly used in combination with cylinder foundations (see below)
Staithes viaduct (693ft long) was another lightweight structure, designed by the
contractor John Dixon, on the Whitby, Redcar and Middlesbrough Union Railway
(1873) and built by Skerne ironworks. Six Warren truss girder spans of 60ft were
supported on concrete filled wrought iron piers up to 152ft in height. These columns
were 5/10in thick and varied from 3ft 6in diameter at the base to 2ft 6in at the top.
There were 30ft span plate girder side spans similarly supported. Similar structures
were erected on the same line at Sandsend, East Row, Newholm and Upgang.
Foundations at Staithes, in shale or stiff clay, were 3-4ft deep, 6-12ft diameter
portland cement concrete blocks, shaped to receive cast iron base plates for the
columns. The plates and the bases of the columns were covered in concrete above
ground level. The viaduct was designed using a wind pressure of 28lb/ft2. Dixon
estimated the costs of the Staithes type columns were about half that of the clustered
supports at Crumlin.
Sources
J Dixon (1875) The Staithes viaduct, London, Whitby; W R L Forrest (1896-1897)
Strengthening the East Row and Upgang viaducts on the Whitby and Loftus Railway,
Min Procs., ICE, 130, 234-240; E Hutchinson (1879) Girder making … at the Skerne
ironworks, 105-113
Driven bearing piles
The use of iron for piles is normally associated with sheet piling and screw piles, both
discussed below, but iron piles were driven, on occasion into rock (see above) for
foundations rather than retaining/water excluding structures, although such
applications are not as well documented. Examples include the foundations of seaside
piers (below), and Solway Viaduct but it is unclear when they were first used as
bearing piles for building structures.
At Solway (1869, damaged, 1875, 1881) unlike other estuarine crossings driven
piles-1224 of cast iron-were used for the foundations of the piers which comprised 5
braced columns supporting 30ft span plate girders. The engineer, Brunlees, had
originally intended to use screw piles, by then a well-established technique, but a hard
stratum of gravel bound by stiff clay was discovered 4 ft below the sand, and the 12 in
diameter piles of 20 ft length were driven using a timber dolly to absorb some of the
shock of driving (Brunlees and Eckersley, 1868) [Transporter bridges] [Minutes of
Proceedings, 230, 125-142, 17, 442-445, Corrosion endorsed brickwork].
Possibly the earliest examples were of concrete filled columns as used at. Generally
however it seems timber continued to be used for bearing piles in the UK until the
earliest twentieth century when it began to be replaced by reinforced concrete. In the
United States once steel sections became widely available they were used for bearing
piles , and it seems unlikely that UK and continental engineers did not on occasion
use similar, unrecorded, expedients, especially as other uses of iron for foundations
are so well known over the previous 80 years.
It appears American engineers first started using I sections for foundations in the
1890’s; an early example was for a bridge in Nebraska where traditional piled
foundations were being undermined by scour in the gravel river bed, but the steel
piles could be driven deeper, beneath the scouring effect. In 1908 Bethlehem Steel
introduced the stronger H section, which could be driven into hard ground, and
resisted scouring action and also ice loads. The idea caught on, and by 1932 10,000
bridges had been erected in the western states using H piles, generally as trestle
supports, but also for bridge abutments, especially in hard ground (Durkee and
McIntosh, 1937) In the 1930’s such piles gained more general acceptance, and they
were used, for example, in Norway at this time.
There is little evidence in section books, piling handbooks, or the literature for
widespread use in the UK before the Second World War. The 1948 Appleby
Frodingham handbook for example suggests they were suitable for very hard driving
and emergencies when reinforced concrete piles were unavailable. More recently their
use has been encouraged by the steel industry, and H piles and box sections, a
development of sheet profiles, are familiar to most engineers (Anon(1932) Steel-pile
foundations in Nebraska, Civil engineering, 2, 553-; J Brunlees, and W Eckersley
(1868) Discussion on Supporting power of piles, Min Procs ICE, 309-319;A.B.
Carson (1965) Foundation construction, 154-157; R D Chellis (1961) Pile
foundations; Cornfield (1974-199) Steel bearing piles, 4 eds.Constrado and SCI; E.L.
Durkee and R.C. McIntosh (1937) Structural steel bearing piles: their use and
capacity, Boston Soc Civil Engineers Jnl, 24, 78-104; H S Jacoby and R P Davis
(1941) Foundations of bridges and buildings, Mcgraw Hill, 198-215; Highway
engineer, July 1953; Little comp (1961) Foundations, 145-154; NGI 125
Subaqueous foundations
F5 Iron sheet piles
The use of timber sheet pile walls is of ancient origin and, the use of interlocking
sheet piles for a cofferdam is a feature of one of the earliest printed technical books
(Ramelli, 1588). In Britain the importance of a barrier of interlocking sheet piles was
recognised around 1700 (Perry, 1721) by John Perry, and used at Dagenham Breach.
His assistant John Reynolds specialised in such work, and details of his sluice work at
Chester are known [fig]. The idea of using iron rather than timber for piles was
apparently first considered by John Nash in his 1797 bridge patent (Patent 2165), but
no practical application of iron in this way is recorded until around 1820 when David
Matthews made use of them when constructing the foundations of the North Pier at
Bridlington Harbour (Borthwick, 1836). Shortly afterwards Peter Ewart (Ewart,
1822), in 1822, patented a method of using sheet piles for cofferdams, thinking of
them for temporary works. His idea was employed by W C Mylne at Broken Wharf,
in London, and by Jesse Hartley, a protégé of Ewart’s, at George’s Dock Basin in
Liverpool. A plan and elevation of a Ewart-style cofferdam is shown in [fig.4a], with
the sheet piles united by cramps of cast iron. Both Ewart and Matthews were known
to James Walker, and it was under his influence that iron sheet piling was more
extensively adopted, initially for foundations at Downs Wharf near the site of St
Katharine’s Dock in 1824 and more importantly for permanent works at Brunswick
Wharf on the river front at Blackwall where they formed a wall 720ft in length backed
by concrete [fig.4b].
Work began at Blackwall in March 1833. A trench was dredged to low water level
along the line of the wharf and timber piles driven to which two rows of walings were
attached to serve as guides for the main iron piles. These were cast in two parts to
facilitate handling, with the lower, 25ft length, driven into the river bed at 7ft centres,
and the upper 12ft length bolted on. The sheet piles, 22ft long, were then driven in
the bays between the main piles and bolted on to the upper waling. The upper 14ft of
the wharf was made up of three iron plates spanning between the main piles. The
wall was anchored with land ties before being backed with in-situ concrete. The
contractor was Hugh McIntosh and ironwork supplied by Horseley and Birtley
Ironworks (Borthwick; Skempton, 1981-1982).
The piles at Brunswick Wharf were driven by a 13-15 ram with a fall of 3ft 6in. or
less, using a ‘crab engine’, taking care to avoid any great stress. Only 5 out of c.600
piles were broken in driving. Part of the wharf failed c.1903; the backing concrete
appears to have broken up [fig.____].
In 1832 Cubitt used 30ft long sheet piles, ‘T’ shaped in section, with a tapering back
flange, for 200ft of wharfing at the sea entrance to the Norwich and Lowestoft
navigation (4c). These piles were contiguous rather than interlocking and to guide the
driving of piles a wrought iron ‘cheek’ projecting about 2-3in was riveted to the
bottom end of each new pile to guide it alongside the driven piles. At Limehouse in
1832 Sibley used oval hollow piles with two sets of grooves into which 9ft flat plates
could be let at 10ft centres [fig.4d]. An augur was introduced through the hollow core
to bore out the ground and facilitate driving, and the piles were afterwards filled with
concrete. Sheet piles were used here following the failure of a wharf whose
foundations had been undermined by dredging at Limehouse Cut. It was felt that by
using this method of ‘permanent formwork’ backed by 6ft of lime concrete the need
for using a cofferdam and rebuilding the wharf would be avoided and no obstruction
to the navigation caused. (Sibley, 1832). This system was also used on the North and
South shores of the Thames adjacent to the ‘new’ London Bridge. The Brunswick
wharf system was used at Deptford Creek (Simms, 1838). The use of cast iron sheet
piles was also specified on the London Birmingham Railway at much the same
time.(Brees, 1838). One suspects cast iron sheet piles were regularly used along the
Thames for small wharves by engineers such as J B Redman in the first half of the
century.
At Victoria Docks entrance (c.1854-1855) (Kingsbury, 1858-1859) cast iron sheet
piles were used in a similar way to Blackwall (and Fleetwood Harbour), no doubt
influenced by the fact G P Bidder, engineer for the Docks had worked at Blackwall
and Fleetwood [fig.4.e]. The cast iron piling comprised bays at 7ft 1in centres from
centre of main pile to main pile, with three cast iron horizontal plates at the top and 4
cast iron sheet piles beneath, and main piles again made up of two lengths, the whole
again backed by concrete. In June 1855, when this work was complete, although
work on the docks was continuing, the entrance lock walls failed, probably due to
changing ground water levels caused by the works. The piles were redriven to a
greater depth of 5ft into the clay, and the concrete wall carried up from 3ft into the
clay, with a thickness of 18ft for the first 18ft of depth, and then successively thinner
sections [fig.4.e].
At both Westminster and Chelsea Bridge the Engineer Thomas Page used a similar
construction of cast iron cofferdams employing hollow cast iron main piles between
which were placed cast iron plates, the space enclosed being dredged to the gravel,
and timber bearing piles being driven and the cofferdam filled with concrete and stone
landings.
A surprisingly late application of cast iron sheet piles was for Egyptian barrage works
by British engineers at the start of the twentieth century. On Benjamin Baker’s
recommendation the foundations of the Asyut Barrage (1898-1902) included cast iron
sheet piles with tongued and grooved ends driven beneath the floor of the barrage, the
joints being designed to permit grouting up with cement once installed [fig.4.f]. This
method was used in preference to well foundations as it was felt the piling could be
made watertight under ground conditions amounting to quicksand (Stephens, 1904).
Similar methods were used for the Esna Barrage.
Despite these well-documented uses of cast iron sheet piling it is unclear how widely
it was used through the nineteenth century, whilst there is abundant evidence of the
continuing use of timber for cofferdams and other temporary works. For instance of
the three Thames embankments built to the designs of Sir Joseph Bazalgette c.1863-
1870, only Furness’s No.1 contract on the Victoria Embankment was built making
extensive use of iron for the temporary works. The other Victoria Embankment
contracts (Nos.2 and 3) and those for Chelsea and Albert Embankments all relied on
various forms of timber cofferdams and sheet pile walls, although Edward Bazalgette
believed the iron temporary works were cheaper. (Bazalgette, ____)
The Embankment as executed comprised a granite faced brick wall with a slightly
curved batter, with Portland cement concrete foundations and backing. For No.1
contract, where ground conditions were difficult, and there were concerns about
piling in the vicinity of neighbouring structures, Bazalgette suggested the use of iron
caisson cofferdams, parts of which could be reused. The caissons were built up from
wrought iron oval half rings with upright flanges at each end so they could be bolted
together to form a 12ft 6in x 7ft caisson 4ft 6in deep. The plates were ½in-¾in thick.
The lowest rings were of cast iron with a cutting edge to facilitate sinking. To make
the cofferdam watertight a cast iron grove was bolted to the flanges at each end of the
caisson down which guide piles could be driven. In the event this arrangement was
unsuccessful, and guide piles were used during sinking, and adjacent caissons bolted
together. For the upper part of the dam only half rings were used, with the convex
face forming the river wall.
The caissons were sunk by excavation to a depth of at least 4ft into London clay
(between -33.15 and -17.09ft below OD) weighted down by iron blocks 9cwt each
(.45 tons) cast in the shape of the rings piled on timber. 187ft of 2,440 timber foot of
excavation was carried out under compressed air. Sluices were built into the caissons
just above low water to permit pumping: 195 caissons were used in the contract, the
base remaining as permanent formwork, filled with concrete to a depth of c.14ft.
Behind the caisson wall timber whaling supported the main excavation. For the work
around the pier of Waterloo Bridge a permanent cofferdam of ribbed cast iron plates
fitted in grooves between cast iron screw piles at c.5ft centres was used. Within this
other excavation around the pier was filled with concrete and faced with brick and
granite.
The use of wrought iron in the Embankment reflects its increasing use in engineering.
However, there is little evidence of its use for sheet piling. Although some patents
were taken out, such as that of Jeffreys (Jeffreys, ____), and a whole range of shapes
were being rolled for ships, the concept of an interlocking sheet pile wall as
anticipated by Ewart, and so familiar to modern engineers in steel, with its advantages
of watertightness and strength, appears to have been neglected. Presumably
traditional temporary works, and fabricated cylinders were found to answer and there
was no great commercial pressure to explore new forms before the advent of steel,
Britain then seems to have followed the lead from overseas.
Possibly the first use of rolled steel joists for sheet piling in the British Isles was for
c.5,400ft of the Outer barrier at Hodbarrow c.1904(?) (Bidwell, 1906) [fig.4.9] The
basic cut-off comprised a puddled trench where clay was at or near the surface, a
timber sheet pile wall where the piles could reach the clay easily, and steel sheet piles
where the clay was absent or difficult to reach. After testing two arrangements, a
sheet piling system was adopted using ‘H’ joists, 9in x 7in, ¾in thick, and 31ft 6in or
34ft 6in long., with ‘jaws’ of angle bars riveted on the flanges between which were
driven ¾in thick, stiffened steel plates 2ft wide with cast steel driving levels. Water
jets were used to help with the driving. The engineers, Coodes, and contractors, Airds
had used wrought iron sheet piling on a similar system for the original barrier before
1890.
By the time of Hodbarrow (2) steel was being widely produced. One of the earliest
documented examples of its use for ‘sheet’ piles was at Bremen in 1895, where rolled
steel channels were interconnected by steel joists. In 1897 the Larrsen pile was first
used at the same port. (Handbach; Wilhelms, 1910). Other early continental sections
were based on the US Vanderkloof, and Behrend profiles (Esselburn, 1910).
In the United States a series of interlocking steel piles systems were developed in the
opening years of the century (Anon a & b, 1905, Woodworth, 1909). The Jackson
system was a development of the German patent of August Simon (1893) which
originally involved applying steel driven piles for lining (tubbing) mineshafts.
George A Jackson used it at Randolph Street Bridge, Chicago in 1901. Luther P
Freistedt introduced (1899) a form of interlock between steel channels using ‘Z’ bars
when he encountered quicksand in a foundation contract in Chicago; the normal
timber sheeting failed. He developed the idea which was patented in 1902 (US
707837). The Freistedt system was exported to Britain and her colonies -
Simonstown, Singapore, and a large amount was employed at Buccleuch Dock. The
original system had a weakness in that only every other pile had ‘Z’ bars; the
intervening pile was weaker and liable to buckle, as W G Fargo discovered on a dam
at Grand Rapids, Michigan, and consequently developed his own system. Freistedt
and others made further modifications. Another early system, patented by Mathias R
Vanderkloot in 1904, proved very expensive to produce and was soon abandoned.
The most popular early US section was a development of Dodge’s 1870 patent for
tunnel linings by Samuel K Behrend of 1889, which became known as United States
Sheet Piling. The Lackawanna profile was developed by Boardman and first rolled
by the Company successfully in 1908. In those early developments, while there was
some appreciation of the need for a satisfactory interlock for strength and water
tightness, as well as sufficient stiffness to sustain the driving operation, manufacture
was a major practical consideration. Somewhat surprisingly the better known British
steel producers do not appear to have participated in this trend, the only references in
the early section books to foundations being to grillages, dealt with elsewhere
(where?). (Redpath Brown Handbook, 1913; 1915; 1928; 1938 eds; Dorman Long
Handbook, 1895; 1924; Pocket Companion, 1913; 1915 eds; R A Skelton Handbook,
no.16, 1915; Carnegie Steel Company Pocket Companion, 1913; Hall and Pickles).
It is unclear which specially formed steel sheet pile system was first to be produced in
Britain, although Cargo Fleet were involved in a 1905 patent, which may not have
gone into production. However, after the First World War the French were able to
obtain stocks of Ransome, Annison and Lackawanna profiles from the US and UK,
and the Universal system from Germany (Claise, 1921). BSP, who are generally
associated with Larrsen piles were not offering these until the 1930s, but only
‘Universal’ and their own (1912) ‘Simplex’ profiles (BSP, 1920) [figs.__]. Larrsen
piles were first imported in 1926 for use at a wharf in Shoreham Harbour (Mackay,
1971), and were extensively used, along with Universal sections in the Nag Hammadi
barrage in Egypt (1927) by Sir John Jackson and Company (BSP, 1929). Early uses
in the UK seem to have been on a smaller scale, for river and canal works, and sea
defence works, as at Wallasey and Newquay (BSP, 1940). Larsen profiles were
produced exclusively by Cargo Fleet Iron Company, subsequently the South Durham
Steel and Iron Company from 1929. In the late 1930s other sections being produced
included Krupp’s and Universal (Kempe, 193_; Dorman Long, 1938), and Appleby
Frodingham were also producing their sheet pile sections (Skelton, Larrsen) using the
Hoesch system from 1937. This was a development of the ‘Z’ section or lamp wall
system introduced in Belgium in 1913; the German association led to the Frodingham
‘mark’ being adopted in the Second World War.
Early handbooks provided little information on design apart from the properties of the
sections, but from the 1940s more guidance was provided on earth and water pressure,
BSP using Rankine’s theory (BSP, 1940), and Appleby Frodingham (1948)
developing both Rankine and Coulomb’s theories. In the post-war period the design
and installation of sheet piling work has attracted the attentions of engineers like P W
Rowe, Terzaghi and others and an extensive literature has resulted (CIRIA ____),
with alternative design methods available (Potts ____).
Sources
Algoma Steel Corporation (1942) Algoma steel sheet piling; Anon (1865) Jennings’
mode of constructing caissons, cofferdams, etc. The Engineer, 19, 43; Anon (1905a)
American steel sheet piling. The Engineer, 100, 435-436; Anon (1905b) Steel sheet
piling. Engineering record, 23 November, 545-546; Anon (1906) Palplanches
metalliques, systeme Krupp. Genie civil, 49, 109 (Zentralblatt der Bauwerwaltung, 4
April 1906); Appleby Frodingham (1948) Steel sheet piling; E. Bazalgette(1877-
78)The Victoria, Albert and Chelsea embankments, Min Procs ICE, 54, 1-60;H S
Bidwell (1906) Outer barrier, Hodbarrow iron mines, Millon, Cumberland. Min
Procs., ICE, 165, 165-173, 193; M A Borthwick (1836) Memoire on the use of cast
iron in piling, particularly at Brunswick Wharf, Blackwall. ICE Trans., 1, 195-206;
S.C Brees(1838) Railway practice, 1st series; British Steel Piling Company (1920)
BSP pocketbook; British Steel Piling Company (c.1929) Nag Hammadi barrage;
British Steel Piling Company (c.1940) Larsen sheet piling. BSP publication, 173;
British Steel Piling Company (c.1940) The durability of Larsen steel piling. BSP
publication, 176; British Steel Piling Company (1940) BSP pocketbook, 5th ed.;
Candrelier (1913) Emploi des palplanches sur les chantiers de la Compagnie
Parisienne de Distribution d’Electricite. Annales des Ponts et Chaussees, 17, 445-
453; Dorman Long (1938) Handbook, 125-129; K Esselborn (1910) Lehrbuch des
Tiefbaues, 4 Aufl, Band I (Leipzig, Engelmann), 149; P Ewart (1822) Specification
… for a new method of making a cofferdam. Repertory of arts and manufacturers, 2,
43, 193-202 and plate 9; C E Fowler (1914) A practical treatise on subaqueous
foundations, 156-178; O Franzius (1927) Der Grundbau (Berlin, Springer), 86-93; P
Frick (1926) Fouilles et fondations. ; Handbuch der Ingenieur Wissenschaften
(1884), 2 Aufl, 1, 2, 329-334; Handbuch der Ingenieur Wissenschaften (1906), 4 Aufl,
I, 3,45; K E Hilgard (____) Neue Querschmittsformen fur eiserne Spundwande.
Schweizersche Bauzeitung, 45, 224-228; H R Kempe (1923) Engineer’s yearbook,
505-509; W J Kingsbury (1858-1859) Description of the entrance lock, and jetty
works of the Victorian (London) Docks, ICE Mins Procs., 18, 447; F R Mackley
(1971) A history of sheet piling. ICE Southern Association, Chairman’s address; J
Perry (1721) An Account of the stopping of Dagenham Breach (London, T Tooke); A
Ramelli (1588) Le diverse et artificiose machine, Chap 111-112, pp.171-174; T P
Roberts (1905) Construction of cofferdams, Engineering news, 10 August; R Sibley
(1832) Motives which induced the adoption of cast iron piles and panels to face the
wharf of the lead works at Limehouse, ICE Original communication, 140, ICE
archives; Sidelor (c.1952) Steel sheet piling: Rombas, Lansea, Lackawanna; Sidelor
(c.1957) Steel sheet piling, 2nd ed.; A W Skempton (1981-1982) Engineering in the
Port of London, Trans Newc Soc.,; R A Skelton (1944) Handbook no.22, 3rd ed.,
165-169; South Durham Steel and Iron Company (1956) Larssen piling pocketbook
for site engineers; South Durham Steel and Iron Company (c.1960) Larssen piling
pocketbook for site engineers; G H Stephens (1904) The barrage across the Nile at
Asyut, ICE Min Procs., 158, 30-36; 71, plate 2; J Wilhelmi (1910) Die eiserne
Spundwand von Larssen, VDI-Zeitschrift, 2094-2098; R B Woodworth (1909) Steel
sheeting and steel piling, ASCE Trans., 64, 476-
Description of the cofferdams used in the execution of no. 2 contract of the Thames
embankment Min procs ICE, 31, -32
Sheet pile structures: further reading
K Terzaghi (1954) Anchored bulkheads, ASCE Trans., 119, 1243-1324; K Terzaghi
(1944) Stability and stiffness of cellular cofferdams, ASCE Trans., 110, 1083-1202;
Belz, C A (1970) Cellular structure design methods; E M Cummings (1960) Cellular
cofferdams and docks, ASCE Trans., 125, 13-45; Tennessee Valley Authority (1957)
Steel sheet piling cellular cofferdams on rock, TVA technical monograph, 75; H Y
Fang and T D Dismuke (1970) Design and installation of pile foundations and cellular
structures, Lehigh, Envo; M Rossow, et al (1987) Theoretical manual for design of
cellular pile structures, USWES technical report, ITL, 85-5; G P Tsinker. Anchored
sheet pile bulkheads: design practice, ASCE Journal of geotechnical engineering, 109,
GT8, 1021-1038; P W Rowe (1952) Anchored sheet pile walls, ICE Procs, I, 1, 27-70;
EAU 1990 (1992) Recommendations of the Committee for Waterfront Structures,
Harbours and Waterways, 6th English ed., Berlin, Ernst, 1992; S Packshaw (1933)
Civil engineering; B P Williams and D Waite (1993) The design and construction of
sheet-piled cofferdams, CIRIA SP95; R L Mosher. Three dimensional finite element
analysis of sheet-pile cellular cofferdams, USWES report TR ITL-92-1; R A Day and
D M Potts (1989) A comparison of design methods for propped sheet pile walls, SCI
publication 77; J B Hansen (1953) Earth pressure calculations; United States Corps of
Engineers (1996) Design of sheet pile walls, ASCE, NY,3; J P R N Stroyer (1927-
1928) Earth pressure in flexible walls, Min Procs., ICE, 226, 94- (include
Downpatrick?); Recent developments in caisson design are provided by Tomlinson;
M J Tomlinson (1995) Foundation design and construction, 6th ed. Longman:
Harlow, 232-264
F9 Cast iron cylinder foundations
Cylinder foundations were developed in the nineteenth century using, initially, cast
iron for a prefabricated/precast foundation of cylindrical form sunk rather than driven
into position. They were normally of cast iron and filled with brickwork or (latterly
portland cement) concrete, which was intended to support the superstructure of a
bridge. Diameters varied from 4ft up to 21ft, in rings 6 to 9ft in length. By the 1890s
design tables were available relating to weights, loads and diameters and thickness of
cylinder (Newman, 1893).
Nash (Nash,17xx) had suggested cylinders as a rather unstable form of enclosure for
bridge piers, but the first practical example of cast iron cylinders rather than piles for
foundations appears to have been developed c.1842 by J B Redman for the
foundations of the Royal Terrace Pier, Gravesend (Redman, 1845). The pier was
erected 1842-1844. The work reveals how difficult this type of construction could be,
and how important subsequent developments were in facilitating the process. The
contract, with Fox Henderson, commenced in 1843, was for a pier 250ft long with a
‘T’ head 90ft x 30ft. It was, in a manner echoing Gravesend Town Pier, supported on
22 Doric columns of cast iron and cast iron beams with timber joists and deck. The
columns were 22ft long, arranged in rows of 3 at 22ft centres, with their bases at low
water level, caps 8ft above spring high water. The first row of foundations were of
brick carried down to chalk some 25ft below ground level and 21ft below datum. The
next row of foundations comprised 6ft diameter cylinder, of 4 segmental plates bolted
together, and sunk through the river bed by excavating the cylinders from within and
loading the cylinders to force them down. Problems were experienced in keeping
these cylinders vertical and the next row used 7ft diameter cylinders externally which
were secured at half the planned depth, and the permanent cylinders sunk within
these. Well-sinking techniques employing misering tools were used, and one of the
cylinders ‘blew’.
Once the cylinder was at the required depth (c.5ft below the bed) the base was
levelled off, and a floor of dry bricks laid followed by a bed of roman cement and
tiles; within this floor a cast iron cross was bedded with a wrought iron holding down
bolt through it. The brickwork was built up around the bolt leaving a space so it
could be kept vertical until the capping level was reached. The brickwork was capped
in stone through which the bolt passed and was attached to another cast iron cross
within the cast iron column which was thus held down in position. Unfortunately,
after about 20 years the pier fell into the hands of the Receiver, and suffered 30 years
neglect until 1893 when it was repaired and extended with subscriptions from Thames
Pilots. It was possibly as a result of his visit to this site that Dr L H Potts developed
his patent (9975, 1843) for ‘Improvements in the construction of piers, embankments,
breakwaters, and other similar structures’.
Lawrence Holker Potts (1789-1850) was a surgeon who turned his mind to inventions.
For around 25 years he practised in Cornwall and probably observed the sinking of
mine shafts offshore. [f below] After his move to the London area in 1837 he
witnessed early experiments with Mitchell’s screw piles. Following this he developed
his method for sinking foundations, which involved sinking iron cylinders, open at the
base, but sealed at the top by a cap [fig.__] (Potts, 1847). A partial vacuum was
created within the cylinder by means of a pump and by atmospheric pressure sand,
silt, shingle, etc., were sucked up into the cylinder, the pressure of water from below
broke up the river or sea bed and undermined the edge of the pile cylinder which then
sank by its own gravity combined with atmospheric pressure on the closed end.
When filled the cylinder was emptied by a pump. As the cylinder descended the cap
was removed and a fresh length added. In 1844 Potts publicised his invention at the
Harbours of Refuge Inquiry (Potts, 1844).
The potential of the system was immediately recognised by James Walker and
Alexander Mitchell. As with screw piles some of the first experiments were carried
out with offshore beacons. A trial was carried out with a 2ft 6in diameter tube on
Goodwin Sands in July 1845. Following this success a similar diameter cylinder was
used as the foundation for a braced beacon on the Sands in 1847, which was
destroyed in a storm. (Anon, 1845, Findley, 1847).
Potts’ system was adopted by contractors Fox Henderson after considerable
investment in developing suitable equipment, and used for the foundations of bridges
at Black Potts (Windsor), Huntingdon and Peterborough. The first use was on Betts’
contract on the Chester-Holyhead Railway for a viaduct in Anglesey. The
foundations here comprised nineteen 1ft diameter tubes 16ft long. Although early
applications were successful problems were experienced sinking larger diameter
cylinders in unsuitable ground. There were problems at Peterborough, with cast iron
caissons 6 ft x 20ft long, and sinking was completed by pumping and excavation in
the usual way. The Potts system had to be abandoned for the Athlone Bridge, 10ft
diameter. Most famously at Rochester (1851-1852) Fox’s site agent reversed the
process when the sinking process jammed, and introduced compressed air working.
(see ______) The foundations for the piers comprised 14 cylinders 6ft 11in in
diameter. Similarly I K Brunel abandoned the Potts process for Chepstow Railway
Bridge (____) and resorted to compressed air when one of the cylinders hit a tree.
Pneumatic or compressed air working was not always necessary. When converting
Brunel’s Hungerford Bridge for Railway use Hawkshaw reused the masonry piers,
and intoduced additional piers of cast iron cylinders (Hayter, 1863)(fig).The majority
were 14 ft diameter below, and 10 ft diameter above ground, made up of respectively
7 or 5 segments 9 ft high, with conical pieces in 5 segments between. They were
bolted together using internal flanges sealed with iron cement. They were sunk from
staging into the bed of mud and gravel overlaying London Clay by divers excavating
from within, and weighting the cylinders down as excavation proceeded down into the
London Clay, wnen, after a few feet the excavation could be pumped dry. Once the
cylinders had been filled with concrete up to the conical section, with brickwork
above, to high water mark the foundations were preloaded to observe settlement.
Once complted each set of cylinders was linked by wrought iron box girders which
also supported the trackway.
Lambeth Bridge is relatively well known for its use of (12ft diameter) cast iron
segmental cylinders for the piers supporting its suspension towers. The cylinders were
also sunk by weighting down and internal excavation and filled with concrete and
brickwork. Rather more unusual was the use of ‘caissons’ of 12 boxes of cast iron 8ft
x 10 ft 8 in, bolted together in 3 tiers, enclosing an area 48ft x 32 ft, the interior spac
32 ft x 16 ft being filled with concrete. These were used on the Westminster shore
due to poor ground, and supported an abutment comprising a ring of brickwork 8 ft
thick (fig) (W.Humber, 1863). Cast iron was still usual for cylinder foundations at
this time and although Brunel used wrought iron at Saltash this was for a caisson, and
cast iron continued to be used for cylinders down to the end of the century by
engineers, including Benjamin Baker at Barrow on the Rosslare line (1906).
An alternative form of bridge pier was patented by E W Hughes, an Engineer who
worked with Sir John Hawkshaw and Benjamin Piercy. His patent (102) of 1862 for
cylinders and tubes described round, octagonal and hexagonal wrought iron piers. A
road bridge near Rhyl built by the Worcester Engine Works used his wrought iron
riveted columns of 18in diameter (Mechanics magazine, 9, 1863, 361), and the Wye
Railway bridge at Whitney, Herefordshire, had two sets of piers of six of his
hexagonal riveted wrought iron columns braced together by wrought iron diagonal
flat bars and tie rods, attached to screw piles driven 12-20ft into the river bed
(Matheson, 1873).
When Thomas Bouch designed the Tay Railway Bridge he had established a
reputation for economical bridge design, and this approach governed his design. His
initial design was based upon the results of a site investigation by Jesse Wylie, which
claimed to find a bed of rock all the way across the estuary except for 250 yards on
the northern side - an insignificant proportion of what was intended as a viaduct 3,450
yards long. With this reassurance, Bouch designed a viaduct of 89 spans of lattice
girders supported on brick piers of 9ft 6in or 13ft 6in diameter, with the exception of
the northern end where, because of the ground conditions, a lighter form of cast iron
columns braced with wrought iron ties was chosen. The piers were to be founded on
cylinders sunk to the rock foundation, lined with brick and filled with concrete. It
was intended that the foundations would be excavated in wrought iron caissons, of
____ diameter, with a bell-shaped base, and work on the brick piers began.
The contracting engineer Albert Grothe was confident of the stability of the
foundations and calculated the load on the piers from the superstructure would never
exceed 6 tons/ft2 whilst the concrete was capable of sustaining a total of 80 tons/ft2.
He also believed it would require a wind loading of 90 tons/ft2 at the tops of the piers
to overturn them - compared with the estimated 42 tons/ft2 of a typhoon. Whether
this was true or not became academic when in 1873 it was discovered while working
on the fourteenth pier that rather than rock a thin, if hard, bed of gravel conglomerate
was present, with only mud beneath. Moreover, attempts to found the first piers at the
north end were also unsuccessful.
Bouch redesigned the foundation to increase the area of the base, and thus reduce the
load from 6.5 tons/ft2 to 4.5 tons/ft2, using concrete filled caissons. Unfortunately
when Allen Stewart calculated the bearing capacity of the ground he realised the load
had to be reduced to 2.75 tons/ft2, which could only be achieved by a total redesign of
the piers. Enlarged caissons were used, originally intended for 8 cast iron columns,
but in practice only 6 could be accommodated, which were arranged in a hexagon on
a hexagonal masonry pier capped by a cast iron plate. The columns were 15in and
18in diameter cast in 10ft lengths and bolted together through flanges, and bolted
down to the base with holding down bolts with a capacity of 200 tons. Lugs were cast
with the columns for diagonal wrought iron bracing ties. The piers were founded
upon concrete bases over 30ft in diameter, and specialist Dutch piling contractors
were brought in to help. A pump was specially designed to help with the excavation
within the caissons. To help with the costs the number of piers was reduced. The cast
iron columns were based at a level 5ft above spring high tide levels to reduce the risk
of corrosion.
Although safely completed the subsequent fate of the bridge is well known and the
inadequacy of the cast iron column design for the fatal wind loads has been
demonstrated in recent investigations. The consequent rebuild provided greatest
contrast in the foundation and pier construction, as many of the bridge girders were
re-used [fig. of photo of vols].
William Henry Barlow, who was appointed engineer for the replacement bridge,
organised research into the effects of scour on the original bridge which revealed the
foundations were not deep enough in some places. More detailed site investigations
revealed a section of 900ft in breadth over the centre of the estuary where the river
bed was silty sand with beds of gravel. To investigate the bearing capacity of the bed
one of the old piers was test loaded with 3.5 tons/ft2 and settlement of 2in was
observed in micaeous sand. A trial cylinder filled with concrete was then sunk to a
length of 20ft in the worst area of silty sand, and loaded to 7 tons/ft2, after an initial
settlement of 5¼in no further settlement was observed for 3½ months.
The new viaduct was a 10,711ft long, with 85 piers, 60ft upstream of the original
structure, with piers located in line with the old structure. The most obvious design
difference was for a double track structure, but the foundations are radically different.
Because of design changes the original foundations took a variety of forms. The new
foundations were 16.5ft diameter wrought iron cylinders belled out at the base to 23ft,
filled with concrete and brickwork. At 1ft 6in above high water the cylinders were
joined by a concrete and brickwork beam 7ft deep on cast iron supports, which in turn
supported a wrought iron frame which acted as the base for the wrought iron plate
piers - two octagonal columns with a connecting arch beneath the superstructure [fig.
____].
The Tay Bridge was only one of a number of viaducts built across wide estuaries in
the second half of the nineteenth century. The Severn Railway Bridge erected 1875-
1879 and designed by G W Keeling and G W Owen, had an overall length of 4162ft
and comprised 22 main spans, the widest of 327ft and was intended for single line
traffic. The bridge foundations comprised cast iron cylinders 9ft-10ft in diameter
below low water and 7-8ft above sunk in 4ft lengths, weighted down by 150 tons of
ballast to rock in some cases 70ft below high water. Compressed air working was
necessary using air locks similar to those employed on Bouch’s Tay Bridge, with
pressures between 5 and 40lb/in2. There were four such cylinders supporting the
three piers of the widest spans and two for the others, with cast iron bracing between
the cylinders. The cylinders were filled with lime concrete and a layer of felt inserted
between the cast iron and concrete, to help reduce the likelihood of cracking due to
stresses arising from differential thermal expansion between the cast iron ‘shell’ and
the concrete base. In fact after 80 years of the bridge most of the cylinders showed
signs of cracking due to frost action (Berridge, (1969). The Girder Bridge, p.151).
The bridge was regularly was struck by barges and other vessels, and one such
collision by two barges on 25 October 1960, with a combined weight of 858 tons,
destroyed pier 17 and brought down the adjacent spans, making the bridge
uneconomic to repair. Bridges of this type were clearly very vulnerable to lateral
loads.
Sources
J B Redman (1845) Account of the new cast iron pier, at Milton-on-Thames, near
Gravesend. Min Procs ICE, 4, 222-250; Terrace new pier; Gravesend, Illustrated
London News, 6, 5 April 1845, 1-2; A short history of the acquisition and restoration
of the Royal Terrace Pier by Pilots in the year 1893 … c.1895; D Swinfer (1994) The
Fall of the Tay Bridge, Edinburgh: Mercat Press; Anon (1845) Lighthouse on the
Goodwin Sands, Mechs mag., 43, 9 August 1996; Anon (1847) Pneumatic pile
driving, Civ engr. arch jnl., 10 December, 385; Anon (1849) Failure of a cast iron
girder bridge, Mechs mag., 51, 166; Anon (1850) Shannon iron bridge, Civ engr, arch
jnl, 13 December, 392; G R Burnell (1850) Supplement to the theory, practice, and
architecture of bridges. Weale: London, 1850, 98-107; A G Findlay (1847) On
lighthouses and beacons, Trans Society of Arts, 56, 269-71; C Fox (1850) Minutes of
evidence, 9 July, Select Committee on the Westminster Temporary Bridge Bill.
HMSO: London, 23-24; H. Hayter(1863)The Charing Cross Bridge, Min Procs ICE,
512-517;W Humber (1863) Record of modern engineering, 42-44; W Humber (1870)
A complete treatise on cast and wrought iron bridge construction, 3rd ed. Crosby
Lockwood (?): London, 180-181, 247; J Newman (1893) Notes on cylinder bridge
piers. Spon: London; L H Potts (1844) Minutes of Evidence, 10 June. Commission
upon the subject of harbour of refuge. HMSO: London, 119-122; L H Potts (1847)
On a pneumatic process for forming foundations for piers, breakwaters and similar
structures, Trans Society of Arts, 156, 441-443; R D Prosser (1896) and M M
Chrimes (1997) Laurence Holker Potts (new) Dictionary of national biography
F10 Compressed air foundations
The first man to suggest the use of compressed air for shafts and tunnels under
construction in permeable strata was Sir Thomas Cochrane (patent 6018, 1830)
(Glossop, 1976). The first practical application was by Jacques Triger, a French
mining engineer who sank a shaft using his own patented method in 1839. Over the
next decade the further mineshafts were sunk in Belgium and France, but it was not
until Potts’ pneumatic method for sinking cylindrical foundations was exposed as
unsatisfactory that Sir William Cubitt, consultant for the Rochester bridge, discussed
with the contractors, Fox Henderson, another means of proceeding (Hughes, 1851).
Cubitt’s resident engineer, John Wright, suggested using compressed air, although
apparently unaware of Triger or Cochrane’s work. Wright’s proposal lacked an air
lock, but fortunately Fox Henderson’s site agent, John d’Urban Hughes, read about
Triger’s work in Ure’s Dictionary (Ure, 1846), and read Triger’s paper (Triger, 1841).
This led to a redesign, which included many of the features of Cochrane’s original
patent as regards the air lock. The work proved a great success and Hughes was
subsequently called in by Brunel to advise on the Chepstow Bridge cylinders, and Fox
used the technique at Athlone [Chepstow, Forth].
Arguably the finest early application of compressed air for bridge foundations was for
the central pier of I K Brunel’s Royal Albert Bridge, Saltash (Brereton (1861-1862);
Shirley-Smith (1976)). Following his experience at Chepstow Brunel planned to use
a compressed air caisson from the first. Detailed site investigations were carried out
at mid-river using a wrought iron cylinder 85ft long and 6ft in diameter, which was
sunk through the river bed to the rock and, for a trial, masonry built up to the river
bed level. Brunel then designed a caisson comprising a 35ft diameter wrought iron
cylinder with an inclined cutting edge 6ft deeper to the south west to suit the profile
of the rock surface below. About 20ft above the cutting edge there was a dome of
wrought iron to form the roof of the working chamber above which a 10ft diameter
shaft, open at top and bottom, provided access to the surface. Within the working
chamber, at the suggestion of R P Brereton the resident engineer, an annular space 4ft
in diameter was built around the circumference, the intention being to pump air into
this space only, to expel the water and enable the workmen to enter it and built a
cofferdam, avoiding the need to pressurise the whole chamber. A 6ft diameter
cylinder within the 10ft shaft was connected to the annular ring, which was divided
into 11 compartments.
The caisson was built on the river bank and floated out before being moored and sunk
to the river bed using water pressure and iron ballast. The equipment used was that
previously employed at Chepstow. Once in position the workmen were able to work
outside the ring to level the rock surface. The cutting edge of the caisson was 82ft
below high water, necessitating an air pressure of 35psi; although this could be
reduced by pumping water out of the river cylinder, the original 7 hour shifts were too
long and many of the workmen suffered bends. These effects were eventually
alleviated by limiting shifts to 3 hours.
There were considerable problems in dealing with rock fissures, but eventually the
cylinder was sunk to a depth of 87ft 6in below high water and a granite ring 4ft thick
and 7ft high built in the air jacket. After the caisson had been weighted down with
pig iron and kentledge in case compressed air was required in the whole chamber,
water was successfully pumped out of the working chambers, and excavation of the
remaining mud and rock completed in the open. The inner plates of the chambers
were cut out and masonry built up and successive layers of ironwork removed until
the 35ft (solid) masonry pier had reached its full height of 96ft above foundation
level. Once capped four 10ft diameter octagonal columns of cast iron 2in thick, 10ft
in height were erected in 6ft lengths with internal flanges and internal stiffening, to
rail level, with cross bracing. The whole was completed with a cast iron portal 50ft in
height. The combined dead and live load at the base of the pier was estimated at 10
tons/ft2. Work began on the pier in the spring of 1853, and was not completed until
autumn 1856.
The Forth Railway bridge caissons represent caisson design brought to maturity.
Joseph Phillips, a member of the contracting consortium had also been an employee
of Fox Henderson when the first experiments were constructed with pneumatic
foundations in the 1850s. The foundations for the main bridge towers are located at
Queensferry, Inchgarvie and Fife, moving south to north. (3 timber cofferdam at
Queensferry?) Each tower was supported by four foundation piers, which were of
?granite faced concrete, built up within wrought iron caissons 70ft in diameter at the
cutting edge. At Queensferry where boulder clay was present, they were sunk under
compressed air, at Fife the caissons were open as the rock was sufficiently accessible,
as it was for the two northern piers at Inchgarvie; the southern piers at Inchgarvie
were founded under compressed air. The caissons [fig. __] had an internal wall 7ft in
from the outer wall, with bracing between, and this space was utilised to weigh down
the caisson with stone, etc., for sinking. Specially designed air locks were developed
by Arrol and Baker. Two shafts within the caisson provided access for material and
air for workers.
Caisson work was carried out by Coiseau, specialist subcontractors (Coiseau had been
a site agent for Hersent et Cie), with foreign labour. Below low water the caissons
were filled with concrete, and above the caissons the masonry piers were built up,
55ft in diameter at their base, 49ft at the top, and 36ft in height. On top of each pier
48 24ft long 2.5in diameter steel bolts were cast (into the concrete?) to secure the base
plates for the superstructure. Generally the caisson work proceeded smoothly, with
the exception of the north west Queensferry pier where the effect of spring tide
resulted in the caisson sinking unevenly in the mud and sliding out of position.
External water pressure during pumping out caused some of the plates to buckle, and
in all work was delayed by ten months on this pier. Some of the earliest examples of
the use of flash photography in civil engineering provide an atmospheric glimpse of
work in these caissons [fig.___].
More or less contemporaneously with the Forth cast iron was used for the caisson for
the Victoria Bridge at Stockton - and during sinking a fracture appeared which had to
be lined with wrought iron plates and sealed with cement grout (Minutes of
Proceedings, 109). This appears to have been the last occasion when cast iron was
used, and subsequent caissons for compressed air work were all of mild steel
(Conway, 1898; Redheugh ,1901; Barmouth, 1902; King Edward VII, Newcastle,
1904, ( G W M Boycott (1909)) .
The greatest exponents of this system of foundation contracts were Hersent et Cie
who made use of compressed air on several important international jobs (Hersent,
1889) including tunnelling. The development of this aspect of tunnelling - soft
ground subaqueous tunnelling under compressed air brought together three
technological strands - the tunnelling shield, compressed air working, and also cast
iron segmental tunnel lining (R Glossop (1976)).
Sources
G W M Boycott (1909) Compressed air work and diving. Crosby Lockwood,
London; R P Brereton (1861) Description of the centre pier of the Saltash Bridge on
the Cornwall Railway, and the means employed for its construction, Min Proc Instn
Civ Engrs, 21, 268-276; W C Copperthwaite (1906) Tunnel shields and the use of
compressed air in subaqueous works. London: Archibald Constable & Co. Ltd.; W
Daniel (1874) On compressed air machinery for underground haulage, Min Proc Instn
Civ Engrs; Gaudard (1867-1877) On foundations, Min Proc Instn Civ Engrs, 50, 112-
147; R Glossop (1976) The invention and early use of compressed air to exclude
water from shafts and tunnels ‘Geotechnqiue’, 26, 253-280); J H Greathead, (1896)
The City and South London Railway; with some remarks upon subaqueous tunnelling
by shield and compressed air, Proc Instn Civ Engrs, 123, 39-73; H Hersent (1889)
Travaux publics. Ouvrages executes au moyen de l’air comprime. Dragage,
derochements, terrassements, outillage. Description des moyens d’execution,
machines, engines et installations diverses. Paris: H J & G Hersent (1899).
Entreprises de travaux publics et maritimes, fondations a l’air comprime, dragages,
derochments, bassins de radoub, etc. Paris: Imprimerie Chaix; J Hersent and G
Hersent (1906) Note sur l’emploi de l’air comprime pour l’execution des ouvrages
hydrauliques et specialement des fondations. Experiences faites a Bordeaux pour
demontrer qu’il est possible de travailler a de plus grandes profondeurs que celles
usitees. Paris: Dunod; J Hughes (1851) On the pneumatic method adopted in
constructing the foundations of the new bridge across the Medway at Rochester. Min
Proc Instn Civ Engrs. 10, 356; W J M’Alpine (1868) The supporting power of piles;
and on the pneumatic process for sinking iron columns, as practised in America, Min
Proc Instn Civ Engrs, 27, 275-293; H Shirley Smith (1976) Royal Albert Bridge,
Saltash, in A Pugsley ed. The Works of Isambard Kingdom Brunel, 163-170; Triger
(1841). Memoire sur un appareil a air comprime pour le percement des puits de
mines et autres travaux sous les eaux et dans les sables submerges. C R Acad Sci, 30,
July, December
F7 Screw pile foundations
Cast iron screw pile foundations supporting cast iron columns are the archetypal
nineteenth century marine substructure. The use of screw piles appears to have
developed from the need to provide satisfactory anchorages for marine moorings.
Early attempts to ‘anchor’ foundations involved the excavation of the sea or river bed
and placing an anchorage plate before covering it with sand, etc., Although
consolidation took place it was not an ideal solution. In 1833 Alexander Mitchell
patented his screw pile foundation.
In its pioneering phase of development the patentee, Alexander Mitchell, and his son,
were able to demonstrate that screws could be driven into most kinds of sea bed
except solid rock, determining the required diameter of the screw by site
investigation. Diameters of up to 4ft were used, but the practical upper limits were set
by manufacturing facility and installation problems.
The system proved immediately popular for securing moorings which had hitherto
been liable to drift due to problems in satisfactorily anchoring them to the sea or river
bed (Mitchell, 1848). The early screw anchorages were driven from a variety of
vessels available to port authorities, but W A Brooks, engineer on the Tyne, designed
a purpose built barge. Generally the screw was attached to a wrought iron shaft and
was driven to refusal or ‘a sufficient depth’ by men using a capstan.
Of greater import was the potential of the screw system to provide an adequate
foundation for permanent offshore structures such as lighthouse beacons. Many
attempts to mark shoals, sand banks and similar obstacles to navigation had proved
unsatisfactory, particularly in exposed locations. The screw pile offered a possibility
of a more secure foundation.
Following conclusions of his early experiments with both moorings and installations
of screw piles, at the end of 1834 Mitchell was asked to install a fixed light on the
Dumbbell, a mud bank at the entrance to the Bristol Avon. Although plans were
drawn up they were overtaken by Trinity House’s decision to place a stone lighthouse
in the area.
Over the next four years Mitchell actively publicised his invention, and by 1838 had
persuaded James Walker the idea should be tried out by Trinity House for the
foundations of a lighthouse at Maplin Sands. Initially a jointed boring rod 30ft long
and 1¼ in diameter with a 6in diameter special flange at its base was screwed into the
sands, and once it had reached a depth of 27ft a timber platform was erected upon it to
support twelve men. The estimated load upon the ‘flange’, including equipment was
one ton, and as no settlement took place it was assumed a 4ft diameter screw could
support at least 6 tons, an experiment Mitchell himself realised ‘was nothing more
than an approximation to the truth’. The total weight of the intended superstructure
was 72 tons. Following this success a timber raft was built to act as a working
platform for forty men and work began on the lighthouse foundations which
comprised nine wrought iron piles of 5in diameter, 26ft in length, with 4ft diameter
cast iron screws at their base, one at each corner of an octagonal plan and one at its
centre, giving a height of 4ft above the bank when driven. Once the piles were
installed they were left for two years to observe settlement, etc. In the meantime a
lighthouse on screw piles was erected in Morecambe Bay in the approaches to
Fleetwood, by the Mitchells 1839-1840, and was lit on 6 June 1840. [fig. ____]
Here the wrought iron piles were 16ft long and the screws 3ft in diameter, sunk to a
hexagonal plan with a central pile. The superstructure was of timber. A further
lighthouse followed on a similar pattern at Hollywood Bank, Carrickfergus Bay. At
Kish Bank the installation was unsuccessful as a storm destroyed the foundations
before any bracing could be added and here and on Arklow and Blackwater Banks
beacons were installed founded on cast iron screws and wrought iron piles.
With the system’s practicality demonstrated the first application to a jetty took place
at Courtown in 1847 - 260ft in length, 18ft 6in wide, with a 54ft long 30ft wide head
founded on 2ft diameter screws with 5in diameter wrought iron piles.
With the system established firms like Ransomes and May developed a variety of
screw piles which could be used as pile shoes for timber piles or columns on land.
Iron lighthouses
The development of the screw pile in the 1830s followed more than fifty years of
applications of iron in the marine environment where its strength and durability made
it an attractive alternative to timber. Several eighteenth century lighthouses made use
of iron in the lantern house - for example Smeaton’s Edystone lighthouse had cast
iron corner columns and a wrought iron frame for its lantern. In 1745 iron legs were
proposed by Henry Whiteside for Smalls Lighthouse, but these were replaced by
timber as the iron legs proved faulty. In 1795 Henry Smith erected a wrought iron
mast (Douglas, 1870) 20ft high, 4in diameter, braced with stays, at Wolf Rock; it was
almost immediately swept away. This was followed by unsuccessful iron beacons at
Bell Rock (1799-1800), and a further early design for Bell Rock by Robert Stevenson
of a lighthouse supported on cast iron columns. More successful was Carr Rock
Beacon (1812-1818) which had a stone base on which 6 cast iron pillars supported an
iron beacon. Apparently in ignorance of these developments Samuel Brown designed
a lighthouse supported on 5 cast iron columns 80ft long for the Smalls with trussed
bracing. From the 1820s cast iron lighthouses were built, beginning with that on
Broomelaw Quay, Glasgow (1824), and Gravesend Town Pier (1834). One of the
earliest such surviving is at Maryport (1846). [fig. ____] The ready prefabrication of
such structures led to their export to the colonies, and from the 1840s more than 100
were erected, firms such as Grissell, Cottam specialising in their fabrication. Such
structures required a reasonable foundation, and under their consulting engineer
James Walker Trinity House experimented with a variety of beacons and lights
supported on iron columns for offshore locations.
Sources
G Herbert (1978) Pioneers of prefabrications, Baltimore, John Hopkins, 31-33, 151,
172-173; D A Stevenson (1959) The world’s lighthouses before 1820, OUP, London
F7.1 Jetted pile foundations
For his viaduct over the Leven in 1853 James Brunlees proposed a series of St
Andrews cross type trussed spans supported on Mitchell type screw pile foundations
and cast iron columns. Concern over the bearing capacity of the sand/silt site led to
the development of an alternative method, making use of large plates to increase the
bearing surface, and sinking the piles using jetting techniques developed with a
contractor, Harry Brogden. There was a hole in the centre of each disk, 2in diameter,
connected by a flexible hose, to a donkey engine and pump. These forced water
through the pipe into the sand, which was consequently loosened and the piles sunk
rapidly a depth of 7ft to 9ft of sand, and move slowly through mud below. The
technique having proved successful, it was employed in appropriate situations with
specialist heads for breaking up the ground. [fig. ____].
Sources
J Brunlees (1858) Description of the iron viaducts erected across the tidal estuaries of
the rivers Leven and Kent, in Morecambe Bay, for the Ulverstone and Lancaster
Railway, Min Procs ICE, 17, 442-448
F8 Seaside piers
[suggested illustrations: Margate pier (Builder); Jetting at Southport; Southport
(1861); Westward Ho!; Skegness; Clevedon; Clacton; Brighton West; Brighton
Palace; Blackpool Central; Dixon’s piles; Dowson’s columns]
The development of seaside resorts in the second half of the nineteenth century was
associated with the construction of seaside piers, offering visitors the possibility of
promenading, an increasing range of attractions in the associated ‘buildings’, and a
landing place for pleasure steamers and ferries. The archetypal structure associated
with this comprises screw pile foundations, cast iron columns with wrought iron ties,
and wrought iron longitudinal lattice girders supporting cross beams and a timber
deck. An examination of contemporary descriptions reveals this to be a gross
oversimplification of what was built, and table C summarises details of surviving
piers. An early alternative design of which no examples survive was an application of
suspension bridge technology, at Newhaven (ferry) pier in Scotland, and, more
famously, Brighton Chain Pier, and, latterly, Seaview. It should also be remembered
that a number of ferry piers built on major estuaries such as the Mersey, Thames, and
Humber, shared many of the civil engineering features of the seaside piers, and the
floating landing stages to be found, for example, on the Mersey, are of interest in
themselves. In contrast the coal staithes, so typical of the north-east coalfield, survive
only in timber at Blyth and Dunstan.
The earliest use of iron in a pier substructure was almost certainly in Tierney Clark’s
Town Pier at Gravesend (1833-1834), while Redman’s pier nearby is the earliest use
of cylinder foundations (section).
The earliest seaside piers, commencing with Ryde (1813-1814) were intended as piers
for coastal steamers. They were built with traditional timber foundations, with their
open form combining the supposed advantages of offering little resistance to wave
action and coastal drift with economy of construction. These early structures soon
needed attention, largely because of the ravages of teredo navalis, most classically at
Southend (Paton, 1850?) Following the pioneering work of Mitchell and Potts in the
1830s and 1840s, the possibility of using iron for subaqueous foundations was
established, and, as the first generation of piers was renewed, iron was increasingly
adopted.
Herne Bay, originally built in untreated timber to designs of Thomas Telford in 1831,
was showing signs of the ravages of teredo navalies by 1839 when the contractor
James McIntosh was asked to report. Action was finally taken in 184(1) when J M
Higgins removed the damaged piers replacing the outer piles in timber which was felt
more capable of resisting the shock of vessels, etc., and the inner (driven) piles with
cast iron, jointed to the sound timber with special pieces of iron (Higgins, 1845).
For Gravesend Town Pier Clark founded the supporting shoreward cast iron columns
on masonry foundations, but at the river end each column was supported by three cast
iron piles. These were accurately positioned by driving from a timber platform with
circular holes in cast iron templates corresponding with the centre of each pile. Cast
iron shells were passed through the holes and driven into the chalk. An auger was
inserted, to bore a hole to receive the pile, which was then lowered into the shell and
partially driven. Once secure the shell could be withdrawn and driving completed.
Plates were fitted to each pile group and the iron column bolted in position.
Sources
D Smith, TNS 63, 1991-1992, 193-195, Works of W T Clark
The coming of the railways increased the popularity of seaside trips, and the rivalry
between resorts encouraged the developments of additional facilities for visitors.
Southport (1859-1860) paved the way in this respect as the first pier designed for
seaside entertainment rather than for landing.
The 1860s and 1870s were the golden age of pier construction. Of a total 88 piers
built, 40 were erected in those decades, although they continued to be built down to
the First World War, and existing piers were enlarged. There was a down side to this
success story, with fires and storms taking their toll from an early date. Westward
Ho, for example, was severely damaged before completion and demolished within 5
years of its commencement. Physical damage and improvements must have to made
it difficult to assess the possible long term effects of corrosion. By the 1890s, after a
period of experimentation in the 1860s and 1870s, it would appear that hollow cast
iron columns, with some sort of anti-corrosion preservative measures applied to the
interior were being preferred to solid wrought iron piles because of durability
concerns (Newman, 1896). At that time there was increasing use of steel in the
superstructure. Timber was used throughout, not just for the decks, but also for
landing stages and other situations where lateral shocks from boats were likely; at
Westwood Ho! trussed longitudinal timber girders were used.
The typical seaside pier is associated with the name of Eugenius Birch. Eugenius
(1818-1884) and his brother John Brannis (1813-1862) were the sons of a London
architect and surveyor, and took an interest in engineering in its broadest sense from
an early age; their early work would now be considered mechanical engineering, and
included theatrical machinery. In the 1840s, when they set up in practice at Cannon
Row, Westminster, they inevitably became involved in railway work in the mania
years, and their first pier design dates from this period - an 1847 proposal for a 800ft
landing pier at Dover (CEAJ 10, 1847, 263). This was not built, presumably because
the capital could not be raised due to the financial crisis, but in the early 1850s
another design, at Margate, was realised.
Erected 1853-1856, Margate was the first seaside pier to make use of screw pile
foundations. Although the Birch design was successful, both Redman and Mitchell
had tendered. It replaced an earlier (1831) timber structure, which had cast iron pile
foundations (Webb, 1862). Work on the pier began on 3 May 1853 with S Bastow of
Hartlepool acting as contractors, The landward section was curved in plan, narrowing
from 84ft at the entrance to 20ft at 180ft from the shore. The entrance was supported
on 23 cast iron piles 12in(?) in diameter, driven 10ft into the chalk, supporting
wrought iron girders beneath a timber deck. The main pier continued 20ft wide for
950ft supported on 14 clusters of five piles, 16in in diameter, with one in the centre of
the cluster, braced by wrought iron ties horizontally and vertically, at 72ft centres,
driven 10ft into the chalk. The piles were made up of 3 lengths, making an average
overall length of 40ft. The pier head was a parallelogram 110ft long and 45ft broad,
supported on 57 screw piles with shafts of wrought iron 5½in in diameter, 20ft long,
with a 30in diameter screw, each pile being screwed 10ft into the chalk. The pier was
greatly extended 1875-1878. Screw piles were next employed for the extension of the
original Ryde Pier in 1859.
Although some piers were built on columnar iron piles by British engineers overseas
in the 1850s, it is not really until 1860 that the idea began to take hold, with Southport
(1859-1860) and Blackpool (1862-1863) paving the way. The original Southport Pier
was 1,200 yards long and supported on lines of 3 cast iron columns cast in three
lengths. The lowest length, 8-10ft long, was sunk 7-9ft into the sand. Of 7in external
diameter and 5¾in internal diameter it had a 1ft 6in diameter circular disk at the end,
with a hole in the centre to facilitate sinking and a wrought iron pipe could be passed
through for ‘water jetting’ (section ____). The bottom length had a socket joint
sealed with iron cement to receive the next length, remaining joints were bolted
flanges. The outer piles were sunk with a slight rake. 6-7 piles could be sunk every
24 hours, and they were load tested with 12 tons, (7 tons/ft2). There were double row
of columns at 3 places to provide continuity(?). The superstructure was supported on
3 rows of lattice girders, 3ft deep spanning 48ft 10in, at 50ft centres.
Although the original construction at Southport used Brunlees’ jetted piles subsequent
work made use of Dixon’s cast iron driven piles [fig. ___]. Dixon presumably
adopted this form for added strength in driving, and used a wooden dolly to minimise
the risk of fracture. Dixon was not the only name aside from Birch and Brunlees to
become associated with this form of construction. Some contractors such as Wilson,
Laidlaw, Dowson, Head Wrightson and the Wigan foundry developed specialist
expertise. Dowson developed a form of ‘Phoenix’ column of wrought iron, the first
with internal flanges (patent 20, 1863) and the second with the more familiar external
flanges (1937, 1863) [figs.] At Blackpool Central (1867-1868) curved wrought iron
boiler plates were fabricated into columns of 2 halves fixed together, joined to cast
iron screw pile foundations. The ill-fated Westwood Ho! columns were built up from
wrought iron channels and plates. The use of such columns for the support of the
piers is only one example of the variety of forms of construction employed.
F8.1 Recent pier work
Bangor Garth Pier (Barker, 1984)
A relatively late pier, built in 1896 by Alfred Thorne to designs of J J Webster, its
original length was 1500ft, and width 24ft. Founded on cast iron screwed piles and
with cast iron columns its superstructure of lattice girder and transverse beams was of
steel, with a timber deck. By 1971 it was in such poor condition it had to be closed.
Restoration work began in 1982, using rectangular hollow sections for the trusses for
the girder work.
Brighton West Pier (Mills, 1991)
The best known of the surviving piers, originally built 1861-1863, and extended 1875,
1891, and 1914-1916, it was closed 1975. Birch’s original construction had cast iron
screw piles connected to 4-5in diameter wrought iron bars. These were within 10-15
years being reduced to 2in diameter by corrosion and having to be replaced. A
Posford Duvivier survey revealed in 1984 40% of the timber deck was missing or
unusable, 60% of the steel and timber deck jetty, 34% of the longitudinal girders 4%
of the columns, 4% of the piles and 75% of the ties. An inspection by Ralph Mills in
1991 revealed large sections of the pier suffering from advanced corrosion.
Clevedon Pier (Fenton, 1991)
Clevedon was designed by J W Grover and R Ward and built 1867-1868 by Windsor
Ironworks, Liverpool. It is approximately 24in long and 6.00m wide and is a graceful
structure made up of 8 100ft spans supported on columns built up of wrought iron
‘Barlow-rail’ sections raked at 1 in 10 and braced with 45mm, and 64mm diameter,
wrought iron tie rods and horizontal ‘girders’ comprising wrought iron angles and
cast iron struts.
The Barlow rails are curved to form longitudinal and transverse arches, with 1070mm
deep wrought iron longitudinal girders with 450mm deep, 14mm thick flange plates.
The 127mm cast iron screw of the foundation were secured into the sea bed until its
resistance snapped a 114mm diameter rope, at a depth of 2-5.00m. The pile itself was
of wrought iron and the columns were connected to the screws by cast iron shoes.
The spans 7 and 8 pier collapsed famously during a load test using water in polythene
tubes in 1970 and for many years Clevedon faced demolition as supporters sought to
raise funds for its preservation. A detailed physical and condition survey was carried
out, revealing a dramatic variation in the extent of corrosion through the structure,
with the shoreward spans worst affected. A modern computer analysis for the
continuous plate girder and supporting arches revealed a close correlation with Ward
and Grover’s calculations. Tests on the wrought iron revealed a yield strength of
250N/mm2, and a permissible stress of 80N/mm2 was developed for bending and
direct stresses. The results of calculations assuming a full section were compared
with the physical survey to establish the extent of repair necessary which revealed
that despite the considerable loss of material only a small proportion of the plate
girder needed to be replaced for structural reasons.
Some repairs were effected by butt welding replacement steel which could seal
existing laminations. Where loss of material was so great as to raise concerns about
the theoretical tensile stresses the whole section was replaced because of concerns
over cracking of the wrought iron in the heat affected zone. The original intention
was to repair in-situ, but the (original) successful contractor’s specified tender
involved dismantling the structure and repairing it on dry land. Sufficient ‘Barlow
rail’ material was acquired from British Rail to avoid the need for facsimile
reconstruction. Steel pile and concrete dolphin support were provided for the
wrought iron piles which had been exposed since original installation by scour to a
depth of 1.5m.
Southend Pier (Douglas, 1991)
Southend Pier is of interest in part because of its size, and in part because its history
of successive repairs and extension has meant a variety of forms of construction are
found. The presence of the pier railway has meant it has to bear greater service
loadings than most other piers. The main pier stem, 6,000ft in length is supported at
30ft centres by transverse lines of 4 cast iron columns at 9ft centres, with wrought
iron ties. Three lines of columns were founded on cast iron screwed piles, and the 4th
on driven cast iron piles. The columns support 4 longitudinal girders of steel or
wrought iron and transverse steel joists. A similar mix of materials is found
elsewhere with the exception of the Prince George extension which is of reinforced
concrete. An inspection carried out in 1971 revealed that the cast iron columns were
generally sound, although no detailed inspection of the piles was possible. In contrast
the wrought iron ties were in poor condition. The material of the longitudinal girders
reflected the history of past repairs and enlargements with the two lines on the west
generally of the original (1890) wrought iron and those on the east of (1930-1935)
steel. The initial inspection revealed that the wrought iron was generally in better
condition than the steel, although there was much corrosion on the underside of the
girders and where there were beam-column and beam-beam connections. It was
decided to test two of the longitudinal girders, which was done with point loads at
third points. Test results revealed the girders carried approximately 4 times the
maximum working load before collapse. In contrast the transverse beams, which had
to carry the rail track loadings, required extensive replacement. All the surviving
original wrought iron joists had been replaced in 1935, and successive repairs to the
rail had involved further replacement of steel joists. Of 4,000 transverse beams
supplying the rail track 745 were condemned and duplicated as an emergency
measure and 108 identified as requiring attention.
F11 Durability of iron structures in underground and underground and marine
environments
The issue of corrosion of cast and wrought iron and steel is dealt with elsewhere (see
section). The durability of iron was, however, a factor in its original selection for
foundations and piers and some notice of historical views on the subject is perhaps
appropriate here. Design inadequacies of many of the largely offshore beacons and
piers probably meant that longer term corrosion was not a factor in their demise.
Early engineers views about the durability of cast and wrought iron were ambiguous.
While the inadequacies of timber were obvious, the potential for iron to corrode was
of some concern, although early reports are based on anecdotal observations, such as
cutting immersed cannon balls with knives, rather than a systematic scientific
examination. The most important early tests were those carried out by Robert Mallet
(Mallet, 1838-1843) ‘On the corrosion of cast and wrought iron in water’, using
samples of cast and wrought iron, some treated with paint or galvanised in saline and
in saline water, clear and foul, and various temperatures. Following Mallet’s research
further discussions took place at the Institution of Civil Engineers and elsewhere
recording engineers’ views and research. There was general agreement that when an
adequate protective coating could be achieved with regular maintenance durability
was not an immediate problem.
The views of leading engineers, many of whom referred to Mallet’s work were
expressed in their evidence to the Select Committee on Westminster Bridge (1856).
Page’s use of cast iron plates for the bridge foundations was criticised by Robert
Stephenson among others as it was only a ‘temporary’ structure with a design life of
c.50 years, only suitable for wharves and other cheaper engineering works. Other
engineers such as Fowler and Hawkshaw supported Page as the main foundation was
the concrete placed within the cast iron plates upon bearing piles, and would have had
plenty of time to gather strength before the cast iron had deteriorated.
Although evidence of extreme instances of corrosion was reported on occasion, such
as the poor condition of the bolts holding the ties of the original Tay Bridge (St John
Day, 1880), and the fatal collapse of the landing stage at Morecambe Pier in 1895
(Addison, 1896), Newman, in 1896 observed that ‘The duration of the parts of a
structure which are either constantly submerged or buried in the earth, can only be
deductively estimated from the behaviour of similar works subject to like conditions
and circumstances.’ He suggested installing piles, etc., independently of, but adjacent
to the main structure which could be removed for inspection periodically, without
damaging the structural integrity, to give an indication of rates of corrosion. He also
recommended ‘It would be a valuable guide, when old girders are removed, if even a
few bare details were supplied, stating the dimensions of the original members of a
structure, and they were compared with the thickness of the bridge when taken down;
the nature of the traffic; abstract of specification, date of erection; how often painted;
and with what substance, etc., etc. Then, in time, some valuable data could be
tabulated showing the most vulnerable parts of an ordinary metallic structure … At
present, information is very fragmentary and difficult to obtain (J Newman (1896).
By this time there was a better understanding of the general process of corrosion and
the influence of factors such as proximity of metals with differing electro-chemical
properties, following investigations by Thomas Andrews and others. No practical
guidance, however, existed.
No doubt reflecting an awareness of the imperfect knowledge of the time, in 1916 the
Institution of Civil Engineers applied to the government for research funding to study
the ‘Deterioration of structures of timber, metal and concrete exposed to the action of
sea water’. Over the next fifty years a series of reports were produced on their own
long term observations of iron and steel, and experience elsewhere. Their first, 1920,
report contains information on the performance of a number of nineteenth century
structures in the UK and overseas. These ICE initiated studies were more or less
contemporaneous with similar studies carried out under the auspices of the United
States National Bureau of Standards into long term durability of metal pipes
underground. Results were published after the war by Romanoff. A summary of
subsequent research into the performance of mild steel has been provided by
Melchers (1997), which suggests a shortage of long term studies. BCIRA research
into the marine corrosion of cast iron initiated in 1966 suggests a superior
performance to steel even when uncoated (Rooker, 1984)
Sources
T Andrews (1884) On galvanic action between wrought iron, cast metals and various
steels during long exposure in sea water, Min Procs., ICE, 77, 323-336 (1885)
Corrosion of metals during long exposure to sea water, Min Procs ICE, 82, 281-300;
(1894) The effect of stress on the corrosion of metals, Min Procs ICE, 118, 356-374;
Institution of Civil Engineers (1920-1967) Reports of the Sea Action Committee, 1-
22; R Mallet (1838-1840) Report(s) upon experiments upon the action of sea and river
water … upon cast and wrought iron, Brit Assn Rep., 1838, 253-312, 1840, 221-308;
J Newman (1896) Metallic structures: corrosion and fouling, and their prevention; R
Mallet (1840) On the corrosion of cast and wrought iron in water, Min Procs ICE, 1,
70-75; R Mallet (1843) On the action of air and water … upon cast and wrought iron,
and steel, Min Procs, ICE, 2, 171-181; M Romanoff (1957) Underground corrosion,
US NBS Circular, 579; M Romanoff (1962) Corrosion of steel pilings in soils, US
NBS, Journal of research, 66c, 3, 223; US NBS monograph 58; M Romanoff (1964)
Exterior corrosion of cast iron pipes, Am Water Works Assn Jnl., 56, 9, 1129-1143;
M Romanoff (1967) Results of NBS corrosion investigations in disturbed and
undisturbed soils, West Virginia University Engg. Expt. Station, Tech. Bull., 86, 437-
460; W Rooker (1984) Cast iron and the Coalbrookdale Company in Pier Symposium,
DoE, 1-8; Select Committee on Westminster Bridge (1856) Minutes of Evidence
F12 Canals and other hydraulic structures
The application of iron to canals and hydraulic structures is generally associated with
open channel canal aqueducts such as Longdon-on-Tern and Pontcysyllte (section
______), but was used more extensively and much earlier in enclosed channels, or
pipelines. Indeed one of the earliest works on the strength of materials, Mariotte’s
Traite du mouvement des eaux (1718), was in part inspired by the application of metal
pipes to the Versailles water supply (Mariotte, (1718); Desaguliers).
The earliest use appears to have been in Germany for cast iron pipes at Dillenburg
Castle water supply in 1455. (Buffet and award 1950). At Versailles over 40km of
pipes were installed after 1672 (Belidor, 1739). Cast iron pipes were used
increasingly for London’s water supply from the early eighteenth century. The first
applications were probably connections to steam engines, with firms like
Coalbrookdale using cast iron for steam engines from c.1722. Chelsea waterworks
installed their first cast iron main in 1746, by which time London Bridge waterworks
had 1813 yards installed (Messinger?) Edinburgh also had cast iron mains by this
time. By the 1770s Carron, Wilkinson, and Coalbrookdale were all tendering for
water supply pipes. Wilkinson exported pipes to Paris, where the family were heavily
involved in the water supply scheme, and New York.
In the early nineteenth century, after a brief flirtation with stone pipes, cast iron
became the standard material (Stanton, 1936), and the production of cast iron pipes
was further encouraged by growth of gas supply. By mid-century a whole range of
joints and fittings were available. To meet concerns about bursting pipes were tested
using specialist equipment such as the hydraulic equipment developed by Tangyes.
Rankine recommended a bursting pressure of 5 times the working pressure. Specialist
equipment was also made to gauge pipe thickness. Transfer of production technology
was most obvious for structural columns, but flanged ‘pipes’ could also be used for
bridge structures (see ______).
Pipes were traditionally cast horizontally, which could lead to an unequal distribution
of iron, of crucial importance for pipes subject to internal pressure. To alleviate this
problem for the 1860s pipes were cast at an angle, or, following the patent of D Y
Stewart of the Lindley foundry, Montrose, vertically. In 1914 the Brazilian engineer
Sensand de Lavalld began experimenting with centrifugal casting, and his method
became general after the First World War. (Humber, 1878; Stanton, 1936; Early
Victorian water engineers, London, Telford).
Sources
B F Belidor (1739) Architecture hydraulique, 2, 350; G M Binnie (1981) Early
Victorian water engineers, London, Telford; B Buffet and R Evrard (1950) L’Eau
potable a travers les ages, 154-155; C Cavallier (1904) The life of cast iron pipe, New
England Waterworks Association Journal, 18; W Humber (1878) A comprehensive
treatise on the water supply of cities and towns, London, Crosby Lockwood; Stanton
Ironwork Company (1936) Cast iron pipe: its life and service
Iron pipeline aqueducts could be major structures in their own right and Simpson’s
Bristol wrought iron aqueduct is justifiably regarded as a major achievement of
British water engineers. In three sections, forming part of an eleven mile aqueduct
from east of the Mendips to the Barrow reservoirs, the wrought iron aqueduct
comprised an oval riveted structure, approximately 7ft x 3ft 6in maximum diameter,
supported at 50ft centres, and rising to 60ft in high supported on cast iron saddles
with balls to permit thermal movement, resting on masonry piers. The aqueduct
varied between 350 and 825ft in length (Binnie, 1981).
While pipes and other hydraulic structures such as flap gates might be regarded as
items of street furniture, used through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, some
waterway structures are more unusual.
Telford may justly be regarded as a pioneer of the application of iron to canal
structures. In addition to his involvement in aqueducts, his canals featured cast iron
locks and lock gates. On the Ellesmere Canal concern about the durability of timber
lock gates, and the ready availability of cast iron led into its application on the
Ellesmere Port, Nantwich section, for the heads, heels and ribs sheeted with timber
planking. On the larger locks of 14ft width these were cast separately with flanges for
fastening, but the narrower 7 ft lock gates were cast as single leafs. (Telford (1838)
Life, 36-37). On the Caledonian Canal the shortage of suitable oak, doubtless
exacerbated by the demands of the navy in the Napoleonic Wars, led to the use of cast
iron for the heads, heels and bars of the locks. This application does not appear to
have been a durable success (Kingsbury ____), but Telford was undoubtedly
impressed by the use of iron gates in the Ellesmere, as they were also adopted on the
Gotha Canal. The first ‘model’ gates were designed by James Thompson and
imported from Hazledine’s works, due to problems in setting up a convenient foundry
in Sweden, but subsequent gates were made in Sweden [fig. ].
In some ways Telford’s confidence in cast iron is best demonstrated by his decision to
use it to deal with the problems of quicksand which had destroyed the locks at
Beeston, a development which anticipated the use of iron for caisson structures
(sections ____) (Telford, Life, p.37, plate 11).
Despite Telford’s lead iron was not widely adopted for lock gates in the early
nineteenth century, although the requirement for larger locks grew with the size of
vessels. The only other example appears to be John Rennie’s cast iron dock gates at
Sheerness (c.1821). Jesse Hartley preferred to use greenheart, which was resistant to
the ravages of teredo navalis, even for 75ft span gates at Liverpool (Rawlinson,
18__). Some engineers realised, however, that the use of cast iron framing and
wrought iron plates meant a ‘floating’ gate could be built, reducing the weight on the
supports. This was further developed at London’s Victoria Docks into all wrought
iron gates [fig. ]; wrought iron floating caissons were also employed as convenient
water excluding structures during construction (Kingsbury, 1859). Such ‘caisson’
gates had been introduced, in timber, to Britain, by Samuel Bentham at Portsmouth
(1798-1801) and they continued to be used in the first half of the nineteenth century.
Generally they were floated and then towed into position, but when arrangements
were being made for the steam navy at Keyham (Portsmouth) in the 1840’s it was
decided to use sliding caisson gates, and employ wrought iron, whose merits had
been displayed in the Britannia Bridge research. [fig] (Fairbairn, 1854). By 1880 a
whole range of caissons had been used (Macalister, 1881). Forces on lock gates were
analysed by Barlow in an early ICE paper (Barlow ______). Numerous examples, and
discussion of the merits of the various forms of lock gates is to be found in standard
Victorian and early twentieth century textbooks such as Vernon Harcourt (1889),
Cunningham (1904-1922), Colson (1894), Plat Taylor (1928-1949). Generally, whilst
iron and steel were initially cheaper, Greenheart was found to be relatively
maintenance free.
Iron gates for control structures were widely adopted from … and some fabricators
such as Ransome and Rapier specialised in such structures. Francis Gould Morony
Storey (c.1836-1897), with a background in railway and shipbuilding, became
interested in the problems of designing sluice gates for Indian irrigation works
following working there in 1869. He patented his first invention, an equilibrium
sluice in 1872, and followed this with a cylindrical sluice which was first used on the
Weaver navigation in 1873 - 28 were ordered there - and later the same year the roller
sluice for which he was best known. The first large examples were installed at Lough
Erne in 1883, but it was their extensive use on the Manchester Ship Canal - 30 flood
sluices and 80 lock sluices - which led to their widespread adoption on works such as
those on the first Aswan Dam (Ashford, 1920; Bligh 1910; Price, 1890; Stokes, 1903;
Williams, 1898). The gates supplied for the Sukkur barrage were recently restored.
One of the 6.1m high steel caisson gates on the barrage failed after 50 years service in
December 1982. Subsequent inspection of the other gates revealed corrosion
problems throughout, up to 30% in some members (Buttfield, 1990; Dane, 1988).
Sources
A Buttfield (1990) Repairing Pakistan’s Sukkur Barrage, Construction, maintenance
and repair journal, 1990, 3-7; R Dane (1988) Sukkur barrage rehabilitation, Crown
Agents Review, 1, 8-14; P W Barlow (1836) Strain to which lock gates are subjected,
Trans ICE, 1; C Colson (1894) Notes on docks and dock construction; B
Cunningham; F M Du-Plat Taylor (1928-1949) The design, construction and
maintenance of docks, wharves and piers, 3 editions, Eyre and Spottiswood: London;
Fairbairn; Hovey; Kemp; D Macalister (1881) Caissons for dock entrances, Min
Procs., 65, 337-350; L F Vernon Harcourt (1889) Harbours and docks, 2 vols.,
Oxford, Clarendon; W J Kingsbury (1859) Description of the entrance, entrance lock,
and jetty walls of the Victoria (London) Docks. Min Procs., ICE, 18, 445-476
Sources
J Ashford (1920) Sluice gates for irrigation works. Punjab Irrigation Department; W
G Bligh (1910) The practical design of irrigation works. London: Constable; J Price
(1890) Lough Erne drainage. Min Procs, ICE, 101, 73-127; F W S Stokes (1903)
Sluices and lock gates of the Nile reservoir. Min Procs., ICE, 152, 108-123; E L
Williams (1898) The Manchester Ship Canal, Min Procs., ICE, 131, 19, 45-46;
Domestically the Thames Barrier provides a recent example of this tradition.
W. Fairbairn(1854)Description of the sliding caisson at Keyham dockyard. Min Procs
ICE, 444-463.
Iron framing, and occasionally iron plates were employed in the second half of the
nineteenth century for moveable dams [fig ____] the origins of which can be traced
back centuries to the flash locks and wickets used to temporarily raise water levels for
navigation. Such a system was taken one stage further in the United States at the end
of the century when a fixed steel dam 184ft long was erected at Ash Fork, Arizonia in
1898. Further essays followed in the early twentieth century (Hovey, 1935).
Sources
O E Hovey (1935) Steel dams; E L Kemp (1999) The Great Kanawha navigation,
University of Pittsburg Press; E Wegmann (1901) Design and construction of dams,
4th ed, etc., L F Vernon Harcourt (1880) Fixed and moveable weirs, Min Procs, ICE,
60, 24-42; B Cunningham (1904-1922) A Treatise on the principles and practice of
dock engineering. London: Griffin
F13 Cast iron shafts
F5.1 Shaft linings
From the seventeenth century methods were developed in the North East coalfield to
line mine shafts and thus exclude percolation from water bearing strata into the shaft.
Such methods were particularly important in areas of quick sand and other loose
water bearing strata. These methods, known as tubbing, were first carried out using
timber planks for the lining, resting on a timber curb installed in ‘impermeable’ strata.
Solid wood tubbing was found capable of resisting pressure of 200-300psi.
The coal industry were early users of iron and as early as 1737 James Erskine ordered
cast iron barrels and plates for use in his mines at Alloa. In 1792 John Buddle the
elder made use of full shaft diameter cast iron cylinders at Wallsend ‘A’ pit to deal
with quicksand. In 1795 the first experiments by Thomas Barnes were made at King
Pit, Walker Colliery with cast iron lining, comprising cylinders 6ft long and of the
same diameter as the internal diameter of the shaft, with outward projecting flanges
and sheeted between the joints between the cylinders which were placed one upon
another. This method was found unsatisfactory due to problems with casting, and
also obstruction of pumps and other equipment. Although large diameter castings
with inward projecting flanges were subsequently employed sinking into soft strata by
gravity, and excavating the interior, the method which was more generally adopted
involved building up the cylinders using segments. Initially this was expensive, but
the method introduced by John Buddle at Percymain in 1795-1796 with 4ft x 2ft
segments bolted on inward flanges and at Howdon Colliery near North Shields (1804-
1805) with outward flanges, and no screws, became widespread. By the 1860s tables
had been drawn up (Hedley,1865) indicating the (water) pressure, depth of shafts,
shaft diameter and thickness and size of the cast iron tubbing plates required to depths
of 600ft. Ang formula was used to ascertain the plate thickness using an additional
thickness of 1/8in to allow for oxidation. A key aspect of their successful use was the
installation of the (generally) cast iron curb which had to be wedged tightly into
position prior to building the plates upon it. A typical shaft is shown as [fig.6].
Cast iron shafts were also used in the early nineteenth century in Cornwall for tin
mining offshore at Porth, Carnon and Restronguet. The first attempt at Porth early in
the century was flooded by the sea and a second shaft sunk in the early 1820s. The
6ft diameter cylinder was sunk by mooring a loaded barge above the shaft at high
tide. At Restronguet an artificial island was created c.100ft in diameter, and a 12ft
diameter riveted wrought iron shaft sunk through this to bedrock by loading it with
silt.
[J Buddle (1838) On mining records, Trans. Nat. Hist. Soc., Northumberland, 2, 320-
321; M Dunn (1838) On the sinking of Preston Grange Engine Pit, Trans. NHSN, 2,
230; M Dunn (1852) A treatise on the mining and working of collieries, 2nd ed.,
Newcastle, Dunn; M W Flinn (1984) History of the British Coal industry, Clarendon,
Oxford, vol.2, 76-77; R L Galloway (1882) A history of coal mining in Great Britain.
London: Macmillan, 1882; G C Greenwell (1855) A practical treatise on mine
engineering; E Hedley (1865) On the tubbing of shafts, South Wales Inst. Engineers,
Transactions, 4, 104-119
F5.2 Well sinking was also carried out using similar methods (Spon, 1875). Page had
refined methods of well-sinking using timber supports and a brick lining in the late
eighteenth century (Page, 1784, 1797). A combination of brick on curbs and cast iron
was used by the New River Company in Hampstead in 1835 (Mylne, 1842). [fig.
____].
In the nineteenth century a variety of specialist boring tools were developed, by firms
such as Mather and Platt (Humber, 1876, Mather, 1864). Their tube linings were of
cast iron, 5/8in - in in thickness, and in lengths of 9ft, joined with wrought iron hoops
9in long, and the same external diameter as the tubing, which reduced in diameter at
each end to fit into the hoops [fig.7]. Diameter varied for the boreholes from 6in-
24in. A section through a well at Charrington’s Brewery, Mile End is displayed as
[fig.8]. The cast iron lining had a diameter varying from 9-10ft, and was 9in thick
cast iron.
Sources
W Humber (1876) A comprehensive treatise on the water supply of cities and towns;
S Hughes (1859) A treatise on waterworks, London, Weale; W Mather (1855); W
Mather (1864) On the machinery used in boring artesian wells and its application to
mining purposes, South Wales Inst Engineers, Trans., 4, 51-78, 123-132; R W Mylne
and others (1842) On the supply of water from artesian wells in the London Basin,
ICE Trans., 3, 229-244; T H Page (1797) An account of the commencement and
progress in sinking wells, at Sheerness, Harwich and Landguard Fort (London,
Stockdale) from Phil Trans., 74, 1784; J G Swindell and G R Burrell (1883)
Rudimentary treatise on wells and well sinking, London, Crosby Lockwood
F5.3 Tube tunnels
For horizontal workings the traditional means of support was timber. In the 1820s
Brunel employed cast iron for his Thames Tunnel shield, details of the second version
being provided by Law (1846); the size of the face to be supported was probably
unprecedented in soft ground. The costs of the scheme, and problems encountered,
were sufficient to deter any immediate follow up, and soft ground tunnelling
continued to be carried out using timber supports, and in water bearing strata pumping
and perseverance were the order of the day; brick lining was the norm. By 1860
considerable experience had been obtained with cast iron cylinders, and also the
employment of compressed air in excavations in subaqueous conditions. From
remarks by his nephew, Crawford Barlow (C Barlow (1896)), it would appear that it
was from his experience with the sinking of cylinders for Lambeth Bridge that Peter
William Barlow first thought of using a cylindrical iron shield and cast iron lining for
tunnelling in his patent of 1864 (2207).
Barlow experienced problems with raising capital and securing a contractor for a
scheme, and the first application, for the Tower Subway, was built by his former
assistant James Henry Greathead, who was largely responsible for making modern
shield tunnelling a practical reality. The Tower Subway, 1,350ft long and driven in
clay throughout, was lined with cast iron rings with an internal diameter of 6ft 7in.
Each ring was 18in wide and made up of 3 segments and a key piece. It was 7/8in
thick with flanges 218in deep. The shield, cylindrical in form, was advanced by 6
screws, worked by men in the shield, thrusting against the lining, and was made up of
wrought iron plates ½ thick. It was wider at the front than behind to reduce skin
friction. At the front was a cast iron ring with its round edge forward, to which were
bolted wrought iron plates with an opening for men and materials. Progress averaged
9ft in 24 hours.
The engineering success of the Tower Subway was followed by an unsuccessful
attempt to raise capital for a project under the Thames at Woolwich, and then the City
and South London Railway, which obtained its Act in 1884, work not starting until
1886 due to financial problems (Greathead, 1896). The first sections to be built were
the two tunnels beneath the Thames, largely to demonstrate the feasibility of the
project, as most scepticism attached to this length. Work began near the Monument
70ft below the surface in October 1886 and the section below the river was 73ft below
High Water. From London Bridge it continued beneath Borough High Street via the
Elephant and Castle to Stockwell. Progress was slow at first - only 23ft in two weeks,
while the workers got used to the equipment, but was later 80ft a week, and the south
bank was reached in February 1887.
The access shafts were of cast iron segments through the water bearing strata and
below that brick lined; station tunnels were also of brick. There were 18 shields used
on the line, generally they were 5ft 11in diameter cylinders, built up of two thickness
of steel plates ¼in thick riveted together, bolted to a cast iron ring at the face, with
plates and channel beams bolted to this, and adjustable steel cutters which could be
adjusted to ‘corner’. The under river tunnel work, 10ft 2in diameter, was made up of
1ft 7in rings of 6 segments and a key piece, and the section to the Elephant 10ft 6in in
diameter made up of 1ft 8in rings. The flanges were 3½in deep and 1 3/16in thick,
and plates 1in thick in the ‘City’ section. All holes were cast. The segments were
cast from soft grey pigs dipped in a pitch and tar composition. Tarred hemp rope was
packed in the joints which were pointed with Medinia cement, although iron cement
was used in water bearing strata. Average progress was 2,000ft a month.
Compressed air was first employed in 1887 in the Elephant and Castle area where
difficult water bearing strata were encountered. Greathead develop a hydraulic
segment lifting device and used hydraulic power to advance the shield, as well as a
compressed air grouting device to fill cavities behind the shield.
The subsequent development of shield tunnelling is well known (Copperthwaite
(1906)); West (1988)) and is generally associated with underground railways in urban
areas for which traditional cut and cover methods became prohibitively expensive and
disruptive. However, within ten years of the commencement of the City and South
London link cast iron linings had been employed at Blackton Reservoir, Fiddlers
Ferry, and Kingston in association with water works schemes, as well as Glasgow
Harbour and Blackwall road tunnels, the Mound Railway in Edinburgh, and the
Waterloo and City Railway. With these early successes it became universal practice
in Britain to use a circular cast iron lining of successive rings of segments with a
closing key, the only exception being on the Great Northern and City Railway where
there was hand excavation and a flattened invert was used.
The diameter was much greater to use for main line traffic, and brick was used in part
of the lining to reduce costs. Generally the size, weight and thickness of the segments
was determined by practical considerations relating to castings and erection, rather
than theoretical. Segments were 1ft 6in to 1ft 9in wide and ¾in thick. Larger
segments being used for the Blackwall and Rotherhithe road tunnels (Copperthwaite
(1906). Generally the cast iron used was of relatively low grade grey cast iron
(Megaw and Bartlett (1981)), brittle and of low tensile strength. Its compressible
strength has proved adequate, and generally there has been little evidence of corrosion
in tunnels of over a century in service. Various bituminous and red lead coatings
were used. Joints were caulked with lead wire and rust cements.
In the 1930s concrete segments were introduced and employed McApline (1935), and
concrete for the Ilford extension of the Central Line in London (1939). Costs were
about a third less, and since that time concrete linings have been regularly adopted.
In 1947 spherical graphite cast iron was introduced and its increased tensile and
impact strength made it an attractive alternative for cast iron tunnel linings. This
ductile form of cast iron proved competitive with concrete linings in difficult water
bearing ground for large diameter tunnels (Lyons and Reed (1974)).
Sources
C Barlow (1896) Discussion on Greathead (1895) below Min Procs ICE, 123, 75-76;
W C Copperthwaite (1906) Tunnel shields and the use of compressed air in
subaqueous works; J H Greathead (1896) The City and South London Railway, Min
Procs, ICE, 123, 39-123; H Law (1846) A memoir of the Thames Tunnel, London,
Weale; A G Lyons and A J Reed (1974) Modern cast iron tunnel and shaft linings,
RETC Procs., 2, 1, 669-668; Sir Robert McAlpine & Sons (1935) The McAlpine
system of reinforced concrete tunnel lining; T N Megaw and J V Bartlett (1981)
Tunnels, 1, 221-225; G West (1988) Innovation and the rise of the tunnelling
industry, Cambridge, University Press
F12 Design of foundations
In Britain, geotechnical engineering, in the modern sense of the term, is largely a post
Second World War development. Some sense of the excitement felt by the early
pioneers can be obtained from Sir Harold Harding’s autobiography (Harding, ____).
When one looks at the design of foundations by previous generations of engineers one
must bear in mind, therefore, that they lacked many of the methods of site
investigation, sampling, testing, analysis and design which are taken for granted
today. Problems faced by the engineer before the war were highlighted by Terzaghi
in his 1927 paper ‘The science of foundations - its present and future’. Terzaghi.
This focused on specific shortcomings of foundation design at that time: selecting
allowable soil pressure regardless of the area covered by individual foundations and
the maximum permissible differential settlement of the superstructure, calculating the
bearing capacity of piles by the ‘Engineering News’ formula without regard to the
properties of the soil, and using the bearing capacity of an individual pile as a
guarantee of the bearing capacity of the whole foundation. The discussion on
Terzaghi’s paper provides a fascinating insight into the state of soil mechanics at that
time.
The question of an allowable soil pressure for the design of foundations appears to
have developed on an empirical basis through the nineteenth century. One could
regard foundation design of the time as a two stage process: having computed the
super-imposed load of the superstructure, foundations were designed of sufficient
strength to sustain this load, while selecting the foundation type and dimensions to
ensure that the load would not exceed the safe bearing capacity of the ground. It is
apparent there was little consensus in the late nineteenth century as to what the safe
bearing capacity might be. This dilemma was highlighted by E L Corthell in 1920
when involved in the design of deep caisson foundations at Rosario Harbour in
Argentina. The experienced contractors Schneider and Hersent proposed a foundation
based on a load of 7.3 tons/ft. This was rejected by the Board considering the design,
and after considerable discussion an allowable bearing pressure of 3.2 tons/ft was
determined upon, with consequent increase in the cost of the works. Corthell was
dissatisfied with the lack of consensus among engineers as to safe bearing capacities
of soils, and compiled a large amount of data to illustrate the situation often based on
case studies involving iron cylinder and caisson foundations.
Corthell was not the first to investigate the question. In the late 1880s I O Baker had
attempted, by examining a group of case studies, to compile some guidance on safe
bearing capacities of various types of ground. Even earlier, British engineers in
Bengal, confronted with numerous examples of settlement and cracking of buildings
in Calcutta, carried out a series of experiments to establish the optimum load on the
alluvial soil of the area and the depth to which foundations should be dug, concluding
that to avoid differential settlement the load should not exceed 1 ton/ft, and in
undisturbed ground the foundation depth should be 4-6ft. In 1893 Sutcliffe and
Newman published some figures for various types of ground which bear many
similarities to the recommendations of the 1950 Civil Engineering Code of Practice
for Foundations. The first statutory regulations appear to be those contained in the
iron and steel frame regulations of the 1909 London County Council (General
Powers) Act. Over the next 30 years guidelines were published in various trade
catalogues, some of which were more detailed than the LCC recommendations.
F13 Pile driving formulae
Another area discussed by Terzaghi was the value of dynamic pile driving formulae.
From the early eighteenth century various formulae were proposed by engineers and
scientists to calculate the percussive effect of piling engines, and relating the force
exercised by the ram to the set and the bearing capacity of the foundation. Much was
written on the subject, and a large number of formulae are listed by Chellis. Among
the earliest formulae to come into widespread use were those of Woltmann and
Eytelwein.
There is not much evidence to suggest these formulae were used by British engineers
in the first half of the nineteenth century. It is possible that a crude formula based on
the velocity of the ram as described by Cresy in his ‘Encyclopaedia of Civil
Engineering’ in 1847 was used.
In the second half of the nineteenth century A M Wellington developed the
‘Engineering News’ formula. This was apparently widely used, and continued to be
on into the early twentieth century. All of these formulae were essentially developed
before steam hammers were widely used, and were modified accordingly around the
end of the century.
Of the formulae developed in the first half of the twentieth century, two attracted most
comment. The Hiley formula was developed in the 1920s for use with and
reproduced in piling handbooks of the time. Dissatisfaction with this and other
formulae led Oscar Faber to develop his own formulae, attempting to take account of
the difference in behaviour between piles driven in clay and those driven in sand or
ballast.
His formulae attracted much interest at the time, but their value was immediately
questioned, particularly with reference to clay. As the science of soil mechanics has
progressed and foundation technology changed, such formulae have been replaced by
more reliable methods of foundation design.
Piers
General
P Dunkerley (1984) Construction details of 11 remaining piers. Piers Symposium, DoE, 15-
41
F Pearce (1982) End of the pier show. New Scientist, 298-301
E B Webb (1862) On iron breakwaters and piers
J W Wilson (1875) The construction of modern piers. Society of Engineers, 29-52
ABERYSTWYTH
*Royal pier pavilion, The Engineer, vol 82 (1896), p281-2, 286
ALDBOROUGH, SUFFOLK
The Engineer, vol 46, 1878, pp 182-4
BANGOR
Anon (1984) Onshore rescue, Building, 5 October, 37-40
J Barter (1984) The Restoration of Bangor Pier, Pier Symposium, DoE, 68
BIRCH, Eugenius
Obituary, ICE Minutes of Proceedings, vol 78, pp 414-416.
DNB Missing persons volume
Piers newsletter
BIRCH, R W P
Designed concert hall on Brighton west pier. Nephew of Eugenius. Associate of ICE
6/12/1870, member 25/5/1880.
Photograph in ICE collection - Cartes de visites.
BLACKPOOL North (HEW 646)
Anon (1863) Artizan, 21 166-; Anon (1863), Notes from the Northern and Eastern Counties,
Engineer, 15, 312
NEW PIER at BLACKPOOL
CE&AJ, 26, 1863, p162 (E Birch); Blackpool Central (HEW 1006), Engineer, 27, 288; 42,
597-598
Anon (1869) New jetty at Blackpool
BLACKPOOL SOUTH (HEW 1005)
Engineer, 75, 49
BOGNOR
Anon (1865) Artizan, 23, 142
BOSCOME
F B Dolamore (1926-1927) Some recent work at Bournemouth, Procs Instn Munic & County
Engineers, 53, 598-603
BOURNEMOUTH
Anon (1900) Proposed pier pavilion in Bournemouth, Builder, 276-277
Civil engineering & public works review, April 1948
The show must go on Contract jnl, 10 July 1980
G. Rideout(1980)Victorian legacy hampers Bournemouth pier access, New Civil Engineer,
31 Jan, 22-23
R Bond (1980) Bournemouth all set for a walk across the briny Surveyor 12 June, 7-8
BRIGHTON
Chain pier, effects of Teredo Navalis & protection to be added to piles, Mechanics Magazine,
vol 43, 1845, S Brown
Chain pier - The Engineer, vol 73, 1892, 198-199
Palace pier: [HEW 429] Engineer, 73, 1892, 91-92, 136-137; S. Wade (1973) Rogue barge
batters Brighton pier, NCE 25 October, p.12; W D Everett (1984) Brighton Palace Pier ...
Pier Symposium, DoE, 42-46
Private cash preserves Palace pride NCE 26 June 1986, 42-44
West Pier - Anon (1866) [HEW 212] New Pier at Brighton, Engineering, vol.2, 284,
Mechanics magazine, 16, 1866, 230
P Reina (1975) How near is the end of Brighton pier, NCE 6 February, 20-21
Anon (1979) Competition to save Brighton Pier, RIBA, Journal, October, 86, 433-434
P. Reina(1980) Brighton pier close to demolition NCE 17 April 1980, 9; £3 million appeal to
save Brighton’s West Pier NCE 14 June 1979, 8; More troubles for Brighton pier 9 March
1978;
D Seare (1984) Make or break for West Pier, NCE 26 July, 20-22
J Scatchard (1984) Structural condition of Brighton West Pier, Pier Symposim, DoE, 62-64,
82-83
M Soudain (1997) Return to glory days, New Civil Engineer, 24 April, 26-28
BRODICK
RTC 1895, 150
CLACTON
Anon (1896) Pier pavilion at Clacton-on-Sea
Engineering, 61, 1896, 372-374
CLEVEDON (HEW 430)
J W Grover and R. Ward (1871) Description of a wrought iron pier at Clevedon, Somerset,
Min Procs ICE ,32, 130-136;
The new Clevedon pier, Engineering, 4, 1867, 527-528, 532; 7, 1869, 32; Engineering, 47
(1889) 128
Anon (1869) Clevedon pier Illustrated London News 10 April 1869, 369-370
N Barrett (1988) Pier comes back, NCE 18 Aug; S McCormack (1985) Clevedon pier in dock
NCE 18 July, 14-15; J Parkinson (1982) Clevedon pier preservation case gathers momentum,
NCE 24 June, 18-19
Allman (1981) Clevedon pier - Preservation beside the seaside Chartered surveyor Oct 1981
Clevedon pier is falling down Engineering July, 1971; K Mallory (1981) Clevedon Pier; R
Fenton (1984) Clevedon Pier: special problems relating to its restoration, Piers Symposium,
DoE, 65-67
CROMER
Anon (1900) The Builder, vol 79, 113;
The Builder, vol 80, 1901
DEAL (HEW 715)
J Parkinson (1978) Good deal for Deal pier NCE 10 Aug, 20-29
Contract jnl 14 June 1956; Surveyor 23 Nov 1957
DOUGLAS
The promenade pier at Douglas, Engineering, 6, 1868, 524; New iron pier at Douglas, 8,
1869, 153
EASTBOURNE (HEW 431)
FALMOUTH (HEW 1896)
FELIXSTOWE
Anon (1905) The Builder, vol 89, 21
FLEETWOOD
See Dunkerley (1986)
FOLKESTONE
H. T. Ker (1907-1908) Folkestone pier Min Procs ICE, 171, 49-
Anon (1887) New promenade pier and pavilion at Folkestone, Engineer, 63, 416, 418, 420;
Folkestone new pier and harbour works (1904), Engineering, 78, 37-41
GREAT YARMOUTH
Anon (1900) New pier for Yarmouth, The Builder, vol 79, 596
Anon (1902) New pier at Great Yarmouth, The Engineer, vol93, 628
M J Watkiss & H W Doe. Restoration of Yarmouth pier (part of Seaside piers: opportunities
and problems)
S P Thompson (1928) Wellington pier - new entrance, Procs Instn Munic & County
Engineers, 55, 414;
HASTINGS
Hastings pier, Engineering, 8, 1869, 127
G F Miller (1917) Hastings pier parade extension, Procs Instn Munic & County Engineers,
44, 40-46;
HERNE BAY
J Rickman (ed) (1838) Life of Thomas Telford; J M Higgins (1844) Restoration of the Herne
Bay Pier, Weale’s Quarterly papers on engineering, 2,
CE&AJ, 1862, 25, p.247
The ceremony, Engineer (1896), 82, 215
B J Wormleignton (1927-1928) The pier, Procs Instn Munic & County Engineers, 54, 572-
574
Piers down , NCE, 19 Jan 1978, 5
ILFRACOMBE
Dumbleton(1983) Poorly pier gets fitted fabric prop NCE 28 Nov, 14-18
LEE-on-SOLENT
YATES COOK & DARBYSHIRE (1936) New pier buildings Architect, 27 march 400-403
LLANDUDNO (HEW 432)
E. Hutchinson (1879) Girder making, 135, 137
P Dunkerley (1984) Construction details of 11 remaining piers, Piers Symposium, DoE, 15-
41
LYTHAM
Anon (1865) Mechanics Magazine, 13, 255
T. Mellor (1947) Entrance building to Lytham Pier, Archts jnl, 24 April, 339-340
MARGATE
The Builder, 11, 1853, 323; The Builder, 1855, p.450-451; Margate jetty, Civil engineer and
architects journal, 25, 1862, 247; Margate pier improvements, Engineering, 11, 431, 436.
What price Margate pier, Daily Telegraph 25 March 1979; Army manoeuvres for Margate
pier, NCE 23 Feb 1978, 9; Third time lucky, NCE 1 Feb 1979, 5
MERSEY FERRY PIERS
C G Smith, The design and construction of south reserve landing stage and pier at
Birkenhead (i.e., Wallasey), Min Procs ICE, 5, 164; J L Potts (1881) The construction of
Egremont Ferry landing pier, Liverpool Engineering Society, Transactions, 1, 118; W S
Boult (1881) Putting down screw piles through very hard clay at Seacombe, Liverpool
Engineering Society, 1, 129
MORECOMBE CENTRAL
Engineer (1856) 2, 526
P Dunkerley (1984) Construction details of 11 remaining piers, Piers Symposium, DoE, 15-
41
MORECOMBE WEST
T P Worthington (1893). Proposed pier, Engineer, 75, p.49; NCE 17 Nov 1977, p.7
MUMBLES
Anon (1890) Mumbles railway and pier, Engineering 50, 339
NEW BRIGHTON
Illustrated London News, 51, 1867, 269-270; Reconstruction, The Engineer, vol 150, 1930,
pp 262
PAIGNTON
Proposed new pier at Paignton Builder, 10 March 1950
PENARTH
Penarth Pier, Engineering 47, (1889), 128; 49, (1890), 768; 50, (1890) 673
PORTSMOUTH
R S Jenkins (1928-1929) South parade pier, Procs Instn Munic & County Engineers, 55, 578
RAMSGATE
*Anon (1883) Iron promenade pier, Ramsgate, The Engineer, vol 53, 382-386
RAMSAY
P Dunkerley (1984) Construction details of 11 remaining piers, Piers Symposium, DoE, 15-
41
RHYL
Illustrated London News (1867), 51, 199
ST ANNES
J L Potts (1892) Notes on screwing cast iron and driving greenheart piles at St Annes on the
Sea, Lancashire, Liverpool Engineering Society, Transactions, 13, 13-27
P Dunkerley (1984) Construction details of 11 remaining piers, Piers Symposium, DoE, 15-
41
RYDE
Anon (1859) Ryde new pier, Artizan, 17, 212; Railway magazine, 1904, 124; 1954, 564-568;
Dec 1963, 110-; 1916 (2)153
St LEONARDS-on-SEA
New promenade pier, The Engineer, vol.65, (1888), pp 380-381; 73, (1892) 115;
Engineering, 45, 1888, 334; Structural Engineer, January-February 1933;
SALTBURN
The End of the pier in sight Yorkshire post, 12 Feb 1975
SEAVIEW (HEW 716)
Suspension pier at Seaview, Isle of Wight, Engineering 31, (1881), 606-7
SHANKLIN
Railway magazine 1913(1) 12
SKEGNESS
The Engineer, vol 49, (1880), pp 42 & 44, 62, 72
S Hannan and D Robinson(1979) The End of the pier Lincolnshire Life, Feb, 9
L Hellman (1985) Plague on ideas, Architects jnl, 181, 29 May, 28-30
SOUTHEND
J. Paton (1850) Description of pier head of old Southend pier ICE Mins of Procs, 9, 23-40
Pier extension by James Simpson, CE&AJ, 1862, p247
Building news 55, 1888, 476
A Ficker (1901) The Municipal works of Southend-on-Sea, Procs Assn Muni & County
Engineers, 28, 47-48
E J Elford, Sewerage and other municipal works, Southend-on-Sea, Procs Instn Munic &
County Engineers, 40, 709-714; Protecting Southend pier Consulting engineer, Dec 1954;
Corrosion technology, Oct 1955;
Trollop (1976) Elevator, lift & ropeway engineer Nov/Dec 1972; Chartered Municipal
engineer Nov;
Pier’s future hangs in balance NCE 7 Aug 1976, 10
R H R Douglas. Case study - Southend Pier’ from Seaside Piers: opportunities and problems
conf Engineer, 187, 177; Southend pier parted NCE 3 July, 1986, 5
SOUTHAMPTON
Anon (1892) The New pier at Southampton, Engineering, 54, 307
J Lemon (1892) Description of the New Royal Pier at Southampton, IMechE, Procs., 313-318
SOUTHPORT
Anon (1860) Southport pier, Illustrated London News, 37, 162
Anon (1861) Southport pier, Artizan, 110
H Hooper (1861) Description of the pier at Southport, Min Procs., ICE, 20, 292-299
Anon (186?) Southport pier, Mechanics magazine, ns, vol.5, 159
*Sinking piles at the Southport pier, Engineering, 5, 1868, 411
W Humber (1863) Record of modern engineering, 8-9
P Dunkerley (1984) Construction details of 11 remaining piers, Piers Symposium, DoE, 15-
41
SWANAGE (HEW 1634)
M Du-Plat-Taylor (1928) Swanage pier repairs Instn Munic. Eng. Procs, 55, Oct, 489-492
TORQUAY (HEW 1640)
H A Garrett (1894) Municipal and harbour engineering works, Torquay, Procs Assn Munic &
County Engineers, 20, 182-184, 188; H A Garrett (1910-1911) Municipal engineering works,
Torquay, Procs Institution of Municipal & County Engineers, 37, 302, 305-306
VENTNOR
Railway magazine, 1913(1), 12
WALTON-ON-THE-NAZE
PHEW report
WESTON SUPER MARE
Birnbeck Pier (HEW 434)
Anon (1867) New pier at Weston-super-Mare, Illustrated London News, 15 June, 600-610
Western-super-Mare Pier Company, Engineering, 1886, 41, 223
Institution of Civil Engineers (1924) Report on the corrosion of iron and steel in the landing
stage at Western-super-Mare, Sea Action Committee Report, 28-39
WEYMOUTH
V J Wenning (1939) New Bandstand pier, Builder, 9 June, 1083-1084;
WITHENSEA
The Engineer, vol 45, 1878, pp 62,66
WOOLWICH
J W Grover, Pier at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, Engineering, 7, 1869, 20-21
WORTHING
The Worthing pier, Engineering, 17 October 1866, 288; P E Harvey (1925) Recent municipal
works in Worthing, Procs Instn Munic & County Engineers, 51, 937-938; Worthing pier gets
a lift, Civil engineering, Dec 1980
[Checked Engineer Index; PIANC 1885-1900; Min Procs ICE; Humber; Bibliographies, card
index; Mechs mag, n.s.; J G James collection; Builder observations index; Cleveland
Engineering Society; Liverpool Engineering Society; North East County Engineers Society;
mechs mag n.s., Engineering 1886-1880 and passim; IMechE Procs; IMechE]
National Piers Society, 82 Speed House, Barbican, London EC2Y 8AU