FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   311   312   313   314   315   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335  
336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350   351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   >>   >|  
wall was built of concrete faced with ashlar masonry (fig. 18). The basin and quay walls at Bremen, Bremerhaven and Hamburg were built on a series of bearing and raking piles driven down to a firm stratum, the wall being begun a few feet below low water. At Southampton, ferro-concrete piles were employed in constructing the deep quays; and a wharfing of timber pilework has been frequently used for river quays. [Illustration: FIG. 16.--Glasgow River Quay Wall.] [Illustration: FIG. 17.--Rouen Quay Wall.] Where the increase of trade is moderate and the conditions of the traffic permit, and also at coal-shipping ports, economy in construction is obtained by giving sloping sides to a portion of a dock in place of dock walls, the slope being pitched where necessary with stone; and the length of the slope projecting into a dock is sometimes reduced by substituting sheet piling for the slope at the toe up to a certain height. By this arrangement jetties can be carried out across the slope as required, enabling vessels to lie against their ends; and coal-tips are very conveniently extended out across the slope at suitable intervals (fig. 8). Failures of dock walls. As dock walls, especially before the admission of water into the dock, constitute high retaining walls, not infrequently founded upon soft or slippery strata, and backed up with the excavated materials from alluvial beds, into which water is liable to percolate, they are naturally exposed under unfavourable conditions to the danger of failure. A dock wall erected on unsatisfactory foundations is liable, where the bottom is soft, to settle down at its toe, owing to the pressure at the back, and to fall forwards into the dock, as occurred at Belfast; or where the silty bottom slips forward under the weight of the backing, the wall may follow the slip at the bottom and settle down at the back, falling to some extent backwards, as exemplified by the failure of the Empress basin wall at Southampton. The most common form, however, of failure is the sliding forwards of a dock wall, with little or no subsidence, on a silty or slippery stratum under the pressure imposed by the backing. Thus the Kidderpur dock walls furnish an instance of sliding forwards on muddy silt, and part of the South West India dock walls on two underlying, detached, slippery seams of London clay. To avoid these
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   311   312   313   314   315   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335  
336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350   351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

forwards

 
slippery
 
bottom
 

failure

 
backing
 
conditions
 

Illustration

 

sliding

 

pressure

 

liable


settle

 

concrete

 
stratum
 

Southampton

 
percolate
 

London

 

underlying

 
danger
 

alluvial

 

naturally


detached

 

unfavourable

 

exposed

 

excavated

 

retaining

 
constitute
 

admission

 

infrequently

 
founded
 

backed


erected

 

materials

 

strata

 

foundations

 
extent
 

falling

 

Kidderpur

 

follow

 

backwards

 
imposed

subsidence
 
common
 

exemplified

 

Empress

 

furnish

 

unsatisfactory

 

forward

 

weight

 
instance
 

occurred