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