INTRODUCTION

Design of bridge piers and abutments is an important civil engineering task that
will fall at some time to the lot of most practicing civil engineers. History is replete with
many examples of substantial bridge works such as the piled foundation of the Roman
bridge across the Rhine, and London Bridge, over the Thames. According to a thirdcentury Roman writer, there was a bridge across the Thames just above its mouth as early
as A.D. 43. On its arrival in A.D. 1014 to aid King Ethelred of England against the
occupying Danes, the fleet of King Olaf (St. Olaf) "rowed quite up under the bridge and
then rowed off with all the ships as hard as they could downstream (having secured ropes
to the piles supporting the bridge). The piles were then shaken at the bottom and were
loosened under the bridge," which gave way, throwing all the defenders ranged upon it
into the river.
The London Bridge so well-known through illustrations in history books appears
to have been completed in the early part of the thirteenth century. The waterway was so
reduced by this multiarched structure that swift rapids developed and many persons lost
their lives in passing through. The old saying was that "London Bridge was made for
wise men to go over and fools to go under. An act of Parliament h 1756 ordered all the
buildings on the bridge to be removed and the two central arches rebuilt into one arch.
This work inevitably diverted the main flow through the opening and set up serious
scouring, which eventually led to demolition of the bridge and replacement with a
modem structure. This is but one of the ancient bridges in which piers have caused
trouble. Records are scarce, unfortunately, but it can safely be said that scouring out of
the foundation beds adjacent to bridge piers has been a major cause of trouble in the past.
The piers of ancient bridges rarely failed because of excessive loading on the foundation
beds, if only because of the limitation of span length imposed by the structural materials
available. The two defects mentioned can be regarded as the two main possibilities of
failure to be investigated in the design of bridge piers. Both are essentially geological in
character.

Figure 8.1 The ancient London Bridge supported by piled foundation.

Figure 8.2 Model of Caesars bridge across the Rhine (Museo nazionale della civilta
romana, Roma)

IMPORTANCE OF BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS

However scientifically a bridge pier may be designed, the whole weight of the
bridge itself and of the loads that it supports must ultimately be carried by the underlying
foundation bed. Although piers and abutments may be relatively uninteresting to
structural engineers, the careful consideration of foundation materials is as challenging as
the determinate mathematical calculations relating to the arrangement of steel, reinforced
concrete, or timber to be used for the superstructure. Sometimes it is assumed that the
cost of foundations, compared with the total cost of a bridge, is relatively small. Actual
cost records, however, show that the cost of foundations (piers and abutments) often
almost equals the cost of superstructure, even on large bridges.
It has not always been fully recognized that concern should always be given to the
pier- and abutment-bearing surfaces and whether they can support the structure without
fear of any serious movement in the future. Dr. Terzaghi once said that:
On account of the fact that there is no glory attached to the foundations, and that
the sources of success or failure are hidden deep in the ground, building
foundations have always been treated as stepchildren and their acts of revenge for
lack of attention can be very embarrassing.
Of no group of foundations is this more true than of those for bridges.
SPECIAL PRELIMINARY WORK
The first considerations in bridge location are ge4erally those of convenience and
economy. Foundation conditions usually take a subsidiary place, for the prime
requirement of a transportation route is that it connects its terminal points by the shortest
convenient route consistent with topography. For crossings of deep canyons,
considerations of cost usually limit the choice to the site requiring the shortest possible
structure. The bridge engineer must therefore often fit design to available foundation
conditions. The limitation of site selectivity necessitates acquisition of the most complete
geologic information possible.
A still more compelling reason for obtaining full geologic information is that once
the construction of bridge piers is started, their respective locations cannot be changed

except in most unusual circumstances. More than the usual degree or certainty must
therefore be attached to the design and anticipated performance of bridge piers and
abutments. There is yet a further reason for this special care in preliminary investigations.
Bridges, as a rule, are constructed to cross river or othervalleys-topographic depressions
that generally exit because of departure from normal geologic structure. Terrain covered
by glacial debris may now conceal an older riverbed or other depression well below the
existing riverbed. Such conditions are common, and even if known in advance can have
serious effects on design.
Riverbeds contain many types of deposits, including boulders and if preliminary
geologic work is not done carefully, an extensive boulder deposit can easily be mistaken
for solid rock. A telling example is that of the Georges River Bridge, Sydney in New
South Wales, Australia. Construction of a toll highway bridge to replace existing
vehicular ferries was begun in 1923. Three possible sites were explored by an
experienced drilling foreman. The borings at the site finally selected showed solid rock at
depths below bed level varying between 10.5 and 14.1m (35 and 47 ft.) at regular
intervals across a river section about 450 m (1,500ft) wide, the rock at the sides of which
was known to dip steeply. On the basis of this information, a through-truss bridge of six
main spans supported on cylinder piers was designed, and a lump-sum contract was
awarded. During construction, rock was found at only two of the seven main piers.
Additional borings taken to depths up to 39 m (130 ft.) failed to disclose any solid rock at
all the other pier sites, and what is even more strange, they disclosed no stratum harder
than "indurated sand". Construction had to be stopped and designs changed; in
consequence, the bridge took five years to build instead of two and cost 27 .6 percent
more than the contract price.
Discussion of the paper in which this work was reported to the Institution of Civil
Engineers naturally emphasized the rigid necessity of having borings most carefully
watched by a trained observer. The absence of geological references in both paper and
discussion suggests that neglect of geologic features may have been contributory cause of
the trouble experienced.

Although this is an unusual and possibly exceptional example, the construction of the
Georges River Bridge is a telling reminder of the supreme importance of preliminary
geological information in bridge design and of the vital necessity for professional
supervision of test boring work.
Another reason for devoting unusual care to geologic investigations at bridge sites
in all cases of river crossings is the fact that so much of the ground surface involved is
hidden below the water. The results of the underwater borings must be correlated with
geologic observations secured at the adjacent shores. Where sound rock is encountered,
this calls for no unusual attention, provided the exposed surfaces of the rock show no
signs of weathering or frequent fracturing, but if any part of the foundation bed consists
either wholly or partially of clay, then it is desirable-in most cases imperative-to obtain
samples of the clay in as undisturbed samples of clay and other unconsolidated materials,
even through great depths of water.
The cities of San Francisco and Oakland are separated by the entrance to San
Francisco Harbor. Yerba Buena Island stands in the center of the harbor and divides it
into the East Bay and the West Bay. For many years, transportation across the harbor was
restricted to ferries, but a bridge reached the construction stage in 1993, being officially
opened on November 12, 1936. Early in their planning, the engineers decided upon a
program of borings and soil testing to enable them (1) to determine the nature of the
subsurface materials, (2) to ascertain the most desirable location for the center line of the
bridge, (3) to determine the best location for individual piers, (4) to select basis for the
design of the piers. Preliminary jet borings provided the basis for contouring the top of
the rock surface of the harbor. With the aid of additional wash-pipe borings and diamond
core borings into the rock, they prepared a final design for the West Bay crossing. Piers
were located and designed; all were founded on solid rock and constructed by means of
caissons, the behavior of which could be accurately foretold.
The East Bay crossing presented quite distinct problems. Since rock was not
found by borings at practicable depths, it became necessary to rely on the overlying
unconsolidated material. Cores were obtained and hermetically sealed in the sampling
tube, right on the deck of the drill barge; they were soon tested at the University of
California. When the containers were opened, perfect cores were generally found,

although in some cases a slight swelling was noticed, possibly due to the change in
internal pressure in the sample as it came up to the surface. Material was obtained in this
way from depths of 82m (273 ft) below water level.
This unique example still has many ordinary features of preliminary
investigations. Adequate borings, not only along the line of the selected bridge site, but
also on either side of it; careful study of core samples; and correlation of this information
with the geologic structure of the adjoining dry ground should present a reasonably
accurate structural picture of the foundation beds. This information will enable the
designing engineer to locate and design accurately the bridge abutments and piers.
Finally, the necessity of taking all borings deep enough below the surface of solid
material (and especially of unconsolidated material) must be stressed. Loadings from
bridge supports are always relatively concentrated and often inclined to the vertical. It is
therefore doubly necessary to be sure that no underlying stratum may fail to support the
loads transmitted to it, even indirectly, by the strata above.
An interesting example of trouble due to this cause is the failure of a highway
bridge over the La Salle River at St. Norbert, Manitoba. Thebridge was a single
reinforced-concrete arch, with a clear span of 30m ( l00ft.); the spandrels were earth
filled. The roadway was about 9m (30ft) above the bottom of the river, and the height of
the fill placed in each approach was about 6m (20 ft.). The bridge abutments were
founded on piles driven into the stiff blue clay exposed at the site and thought to overlie
limestone bedrock, as shown by preliminary auger borings and the record of an adjacent
well. Failure occurred by excessive settlement. The north abutment dropped l.2m (4ft),
and bearing piles were bent and broken. Subsequent investigations disclosed the
existence of a stratum of "slippery white mud" (actually bentonitic clay) about 7.5 m (25
ft.) below the original surface; this material failed to carry the superimposed load.
Local soils were formed in an ancient glacial lake and usually overlie lodgment
till, under which is limestone carrying subartesian water. The existence of this water
complicated the underpinning of the bridge foundation, but the work was successfully
completed, and the bridge was restored to use. The bentonitic clay was previously
unknown in the vicinity, and illustrates the uncertainty of glacial deposition. The
occurrence has a special interest for engineers; although the bearing piles were driven

into the lodgment till ("hardpan"), settlement of the abutment occurred as the result of
failure of soft material underlying this.
DESIGN OF BRIDGE PIERS
Generally speaking, there are four types of bridge-pier loading, one or more of
which may have to be provided for in design: (1) vertical loads possibly of varying
intensity, from truss or girder spans or suspension bridge towers; (2) inclined loads, again
of varying intensity and possibly varying direction, for arched spans; (3) inclined
tensions, from the cables of suspension bridges; and (a) horizontal thrusts due to the
pressure of ice or possible debris, the flow of water impinging on the pier, and the wind
acting on the bridge superstructure and piers. In earthquake regions allowance must also
be made for seismic forces that may act upon the piers. Combinations of these several
loads will give rise to certain maximum and minimum unit pressures to be taken on
foundation beds. From considerations of these results and of the nature of the strata to be
encountered, the type of foundation can be determined.
Estimation of foundation load at the site of a bridge pier is generally similar to the
same operation for other foundation work. Aside from concern for weak strata below the
surface, there are two unusual features that may require reductions of the calculated net
load on the base area. The first is the allowance for the natural material excavated and for
the displacement by the pier of water; and the second is the reduction for skin friction on
the sides of the pier because of the usually large surface area exposed as compared with
the base are. These two factors are obviously dependent on the nature of the foundation
strata. Estimation of the first is straightforward, but that of the second is generally a
matter of experience or of experiment during pier sinking, tempered by the results of
careful laboratory soil tests.
Weaker strata may even dictate the use of hollow piers to reduce unit loads or of
such unusual structures as the open reinforced-concrete framework abutment supports
adopted for the Mortimer E. Cooley Bridge across the Manistee River in Michigan. This
singularly beautiful bridge, consisting of two 37.5-m (125-ft) deck truss steel cantilever
arms supporting a l5-m (50 ft) suspended span and balanced by two 37.5-m (125-ft)
anchor arms, has its deck level about 18 m (60 ft.) above the level of the ground on either

side of the river. The foundation of varying strata of consolidated materials was
accurately explored and foundation loads were kept to a minimum through use of the
open framework design.
When preliminary investigations indicate foundation material of poor bearing
capacity, consideration may be given to the use of artificial methods of consolidating
such material to improve its bearing capacity. This is no new expedient. The account
given by Leland (antiquary to King Henry VII) in 1538 concerning the Wade Bridge in
England revealed that the foundation of certain of tharches was first sette on so quick
sandy ground that Lovebone (Vicar of Wadebridge) almost despaired to perform the
bridge ontylsuchtyme as he layed pakkes of wollefor foundation". Although this use of
wool has been disputed, the record demonstrates that some artificial means was used to
improve bearing capacity. Modern methods include grouting chemical consolidation, or
leaving t[e steel piling of the pier cofferdam in place to confine the foundation-bed
material and thus prevent lateral displacement. In this way bearing capacity will be
increased to some extent.
The foundations for the Tappan Zee Bridge that carries the New York Thruway
across the Hudson River for a distance of 4.5 km (2.8 mi) between Nyack and Tarrytown,
New York, provide an even more unusual approach to the problem of minimizing loads
on weak strata. The bridge site selected through careful studies had to be accepted even
though the bedrock drops off under the bridge to depths as great as 420 m (1,400 ft.)
below water level-a depth too great to be reached by end-bearing piles. The approach
spans are therefore carried on friction-bearing piles, driven into the silt, sand, and gravel
that form the riverbed.
The main piers carrying the 363.3 m (1,212-ft) cantilever main-channel span,
however, are founded on buoyant, reinforced-concrete boxes, carrying about two-thirds
of the dead load of the superstructure. The remaining part of the dead load, and the live
load, are taken by 75-cm (30-in) concrete-filled pipe piles for the four main piers and by
35-cm (14-in) steel H piles for the four buoyant boxes; in each case piles and boxes are
ingeniously connected together. The steel piles had to be driven to depths up to 52.5 m
(175 ft.), but the concrete pipe piles went as deep as

102.0 m (340 ft.) below water level, being driven through clay and then gravelly clay
after the sand and gravel had been penetrated. The hollow piles were mucked out to full
depth by water jet and airlift techniques and then grouted into preplaced aggregate. The
grouting consolidated the sheared gneiss and decomposed sandstone bedrock.

Figure 8.3 The Tappan Zee Bridge over the Hudson River, New York, looking east,
showing the spans which are supported by the special piers, described in the text.
Details of the piers are admittedly an engineering matter, but it was geology of the
site that dictated such bold design.
Geologic information can be applied to predict settlement of loaded piers. What
happens when uneven settlement does take place is well illustrated by the failure of piers
4 and 8 of Waterloo Bridge, London; the whole bridge had to be taken down and a new
structure erected. Described by Canova as "the noblest bridge in the world worth a visit
from the remotest corner of the earth", Waterloo Bridge was constructed from l8ll to
1817. Timber rafts on timber piles bearing on gravel were designed to protect the pier
foundations against scour. Progressive settlement became serious in 1923; the total
settlement of pier 4 exceeded 75 cm (2ft) and naturally caused an arching action between
piers 3 and 5.

Figure 8.4 The old Waterloo Bridge

Settlement may occur from one or more of the following causes: (1) displacement
by scour, (2) lateral displacement due lack of restraint, (3) consolidation of the underlying
material, or (4) failure of an underlying stratum. Only condition 3 can be controlled; the
other three types are of a nature that may cause serious trouble on the structure. All types
can be predicted on the basis of adequate preliminary geologic information.
Provision against unequal settlement of piers has assumed considerable
importance in recent years owing to the development of the rigid-frame type of structure,
requiring "unyielding" abutments and uniform settlement of piers. Rigid-frame structures
founded on clay require isolation of the bridge foundation from the bearing piles and load
transmittal through a tamped layer of crushed rock (employed at a Canadian National
Railways bridge at Vaudreuil in Quebec). Uneven foundation-bed loading, especially that

caused by irregular construction scheduling, must also be carefully considered in design.

During the 1932 construction of the Broadway Bridge, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan,
concreting of the six arches proceeded in varying stages. As a result, the piers tilted when
carrying the dead load of only one adjacent arch rib. Amaximum deflection of l5mm (0.6
in) was recorded as anticipated.
Inclined tensions of the third type of loading are generally transmitted to
anchorages in solid rock. This design approach provides for shearing resistance in the
rock, which, together with allowance for the dead weight of the anchorage, will be
sufficient to balance the tensile forces in the bridge cables. Some inclined tension in
bridge cables is taken up wholly by concrete piers, as at the Ile d'Orleans (suspension)
Bridge, in Quebec. The suspension span is carried into the long approach structures and
secured in anchor piers, one of which is founded on rock, but the other on sand. The
stability calculations for these piers had to keep the unit toe and heel pressures within the
limit for the foundation-bed material. Frictional values of concrete-to-rock and concreteto-sand provided the basis for this anchorage. Inclined H-beam piles wore driven into the
sand underlying one of the anchor piers and were left to project outwardly in
counterforte, into the concrete of the finished pier to give the necessary increase in
stability.
As a final example, Burford Bridge across the river Mole in Surrey, England, was
designed to accommodate an unusual geological condition. The bridge is a single
reinforced-concrete arch span of 24 m (80ft.), 30m (100 ft.) wide between parapets, with
specially selected brick facing. The Mole Valley, located some 40 km (25 mi) to the south
of London, flows through chalk formation, which is highly susceptible to groundwater
dissolution. Underground cavities here are so large as to receive the whole normal flow of
the stream. Borings were put down to see if any such "swallow holes" in the chalk were
revealed. Two soft spots were located which proved to be dissolution channels having
most vertical sides and filled with alluvial matter. Concrete domes were constructedover
each of the holes, domes founded on circular ledges cut in the chalk around the tops of
the excavated channels; the largest dome was 17.4 m (58 ft.) in diameter with a rise of 2.4
m (8 ft.). The holes were filled up to the undersides of the domes, and the filling was then
covered with waterproof paper and used as the lower form for concreting the domes.

Each dome was furnished with an access shaft con1ecting to a manhole at road level by
means of which engineers may inspect the swallow holes from time to time to see that no
dangerous undercutting or further erosion of the chalk is taking place.