Foundation Performance of a 100-year-old Bridge1

R. F. LEGGET
531 Ecllo Drive, Ottn,vn, Cntzudrr
AND

F . L . PECKOVER
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/24/14

Geotecl~t~ical
Services, Cotlnclintl Natiotinl Raihtviys, Box 8100, Motlrrecil 101, Q~reOec
Received March 5, 1973
Accepted April 26, 1973

The Miramichi bridges in New Brunswick, each of six 200-ft (61-m) spans, were built as part of the
Intercolonial Railway by Sir Sandford Fleming in 1871-75. When construction of the Northwest Bridge
started, it was found that early borings were incorrect and the layer of gravel and sand on which the piers
were to rest was underlain by deposits of silty sand and clay-silt. The caissons of the piers were therefore
enlarged in order to spread the load better. On observing settlements during construction, Fleming stopped
the work and preloaded each pier in excess of the design load. He resumed construction when he observed
that settlements had stopped.
The level of the bridge piers has been measured periodically since 1914. Recent borings have been made,
giving a basis for analysis of the bridge performance. Calculated primary settlements are compared with
those measured during construction. Surveyed pier movements are adjusted to reduce errors, and com-
pared with calculated secondary settlements. It is deduced that the piers have settled at a rate equal to or
less than that indicated by the theory of secondary compression.
For personal use only.

The bridge is continuing to perform in a predictable and safe manner, providing an outstanding example
of early Canadian engineering.

Les ponts de la Miramichi au Nouveau Brunswick, chacun de six travtes de 200 pi., ont Cte construits
en 1871-75 par Sir Sandford Fleming, faisant partie du Chemin de fer Intercolonial. Au debut des travaux
de construction du pont nord-ouest, on a decouvert que les forages preliminaires Ctaient inexacts et qu'en
realit6 des dCp6ts de sable silteux et d'argile-silt se trouvaient au dessous de la couche de gravier et de sable
sur laquelle devait reposer les piliers. Pour compenser. les caissons de fondation des piliers furent elargis
afin de repartir d'avantage la charge. Observant des tassements, Fleminz devait suspendre les travaux et
appliquer une surcharge depassant la charge de calcul sur chaque pilier. Les travaux devaient reprendre
lorsqu'on observa 1'Ctat stable des piliers.
Le niveau des piliers du pont a CtC mesurt periodiquement depuis 1914. Des forages ont ete effect~lks
recemment permettant ainsi d'analyser la performance du pont. Les tassements primaires calc~llessont
compares ceus mesurCs durant les travaux de construction. Les etudes des mouvements des piliers sont
ajustCes afin de reduire les erreurs et sont comparkes aux tassements secondaires calculCs. Ceci demontre
que les piliers ont subi un tassement d'un degrC de vitesse egale, ou moindre que, celui indique par la thColie
de compression secondaire.
La performance du pont se continue de f a ~ o nprkvisible et s i r e , fournissant un exemple marquant du
genie canadien de I'Cpoque.

A Canadian single track main line railway
bridge, opened for use on 26 August 1875, has
performed satisfactorily for almost a century,
despite serious doubts raised about its founda-
tions during its construction which started al-
most exactly 100 years ago. Preliminary studies
included some pioneer penetration tests on the
underlying clay. During construction, preload-
ing of the piers was carried out to accelerate
anticipated settlement. Correlation of 'the rec-
'Presented at the 25th Canadian Geotechnical Con-
ference, Ottawa, Canada. December 7-8, 1972.
Can. Gcotcch. .I., 10. jO!4 (1973)
ords of levels on the piers taken at that time
and since then with calculated primary and
secondary consolidation settlement is dis-
cussed. This paper contains a summary ac-
count of the construction and design of the
foundations of this important structure by one
of Canada's most eminent early engineers, Mr.
(later Sir) Sandford Fleming.
It seems desirable to thc authors that they
should, at the outset of the paper, acknowledge
their appreciation of the inadequacy of the
geotcchnical information which they have been
able to assemble for the Miramichi Bridge. The
 LEGGET A N D PECKOVER: FOUNDATION PERFORMANCE
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/24/14
For personal use only.
FIG. 1. Location of Miramichi Bridges, from Fleming 1876.
I
records do not compare, for example, with the
unbroken sixty-year settlement observations at
the Emprcss Hotel, Victoria, reported upon by
Crawford and Sutherland (1971 ). The authors
vcnture to think, however, that the fact that it
has been possible to prepare even a partial
record of the performance of a major Canadian
bridge over a period of 100 years will compen-
sate for the gaps in the record now presented.
The authors present their considered evalua-
tion of thc assembled information while regret-
ting thc impossibility of more rigorous analysis.
The Intercolonial
The bridge is one of the two six-span bridges
which now carry the main Montreal to Halifax
linc of Canadian National Railways over the
northwest and southwest branches of the
Miramichi River, New Brunswick, about 2
milcs upstrcam of the junction of the two
branches and 3 milcs from Newcastle Station
on the west bank of the combined river (see
Fig. 1 ) . Thc two bridgcs are similar in overall
design but that over the southwest branch gave
risc to no unusual problems in design, con-
505
struction, or maintenance. Attention will be
dirccted to thc bridge over the northwest arm
(Fig. 2 ) but since both were constructed at the
same time, and each has six 2 0 0 4 (61-m)
spans, many general comments apply to both.
The Halifax to Montreal line of the C.N.R.
was built as 'The Intercolonial Railway', a
name still used by sonre who live along its
route. It was thc first grcat pionecr railway of
Canada, pcnetrating difficult underdeveloped
country for more than half of its total length.
Connection by rail of the Maritime Provinces
with Montreal was suggested as carly as 1832.
A numbcr of projects were discussed in the
following 25 years, one almost approaching the
construction stage, but all these attempts
proved abortive. The Grand Trunk Railway
extcnded its lincs eastward as far as Rivikre du
Loup. Thc Nova Scotia Railway built its line
from Halifax to Truro but between Truro and
Rivikrc du Loup there still remaincd 500 miles
of relatively unexplored country to be crossed.
The vital need for this physical transporta-
tion link bctween the separated provinces be-
came evident as the possibility of federation
 506 CAN. GEOTECH. J . VOL. 10, 1973
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/24/14
FIG.2. The Northwest Miramichi Bridge.
For personal use only.
approached a reality. Sandford Fleming was
therefore appointed in 1862 as Engineer for the
pros~ective railway by the Imperial Govern-
ment and that of the United Province of
Canada. He initiated preliminary surveys. Con-
struction of the railway was promised through
clause 145 of the British North America Act.
It now seems entircly probable that Confedera-
tion would not then have been achieved had
this assurance not been given. Four Railway
Commissioners were appointed in 1868 but
Sandford Fleming's appointment as Chief En-
gineer was independently confirmed. Argu-
ments soon started, especially between Fleming
and C. J. Brydges, one of the Commissioners
who was also the general manager of the
Grand Trunk Railway.
The Commissioners had their way in forcing
Fleming to award lump sum contracts instead
of the more usual type of civil engineering con-
tract based on unit prices, with what doleful
results he relates in the book that he produced
as his final report to the Minister of Public
Works (Fleming 1876). On the other hand,
Fleming had his way in having all bridges and
other structures constructed of masonry and
iron instead of in timber, as the Commissioners
wished as a measure of economy. C.N.R. engi-
neers of recent years have testified to the ex-
cellence of the original masonry work all of
which is still in service."
Major civil engineering works on the line
consisted of a number of short tunnels, some
extensive drainage works including tunnels be-
neath the track to serve as culverts, and a
variety of bridges. That over the Restigouche
River at Matapedia, and the twin bridges over
the Miramichi, would rank as important struc-
tures even today. When built a century ago,
they were truly outstanding examples of ad-
vanced bridge design and construction.
The Miramichi Bridges
The sites selected for the Miramichi crossings
were 1350 and 1600 ft (41 1 and 487 m ) wide,
respectively, for the northwest and southwest
branches. The initial surveys and borings sug-
gested that bedrock would be reached across
both sites between 45 and 50 ft (13.7 and
15.2 m ) below H.W.0.S.T.3 with a tidal range
'Condon, F. H., 1939, personal communication to
Legget, R. F.
H.W.0.S.T.-High Water on Spring Tides, but since
some readers may not be familiar with Maritime ter-
minology, H.W.L. will be used hereafter to denote
high water level at the bridge.
 LEGGET A N D PECKOVER: FOIJ N D A T I O N PERFORMANCE
of 10 ft (3 m ) , the depth of water ranging
generally between 15 and 33 ft (4.6 and 10.0
m ) . The original borings showed a bed of silt
ovcrlying the assumed bedrock. Designs were
accordingly prepared using standard iron
trusses of 200 ft (61 m ) span, with five for the
northwest bridge and six for the southwest
bridge, the effective widths of waterway be-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/24/14
tween the masonry abutments being thus, re-
spectively, 1000 and 1200 ft (305 and 365 m ) .
The bridge piers were all to be founded upon
open timber caissons, floated into place and
filled with tremie concrete to the appropriate
level.
When construction work started in 1869 it
was quickly found that the material thought to
be bedrock was actually gravel and sand, be-
neath which was found 'silt' in the northwest
branch to a depth of 112 ft (34.0 m) and
'clay' in the southwest branch to a depth of
90 ft (27.4 m ) , both being average figures. In
his own account, Fleming quite frankly admits
For personal use only.
that the initial borings were made with "only
such boring implements . . . as could be extem-
porized in the neighbourhood by a country
blacksmith".
He goes on to explain that "the operator
saw sandstone rock cropping out on the river-
bank; and he naturally, but as it afterwards
proved incorrectly, inferred that he had struck
a continuation of the rock formation underlying
the river" when he encountered the hard mate-
rial.
"During the winter of 1870-71" Fleming
goes on to relate, "more perfect boring imple-
ments were employed in testing the nature of
the river bottom before building operations
were cornmcnced. It was then that the true
nature of the river bed was discovered" and
designs were accordingly reviewed. Even with
the still imperfect equipment then available,
Fleming was able to deduce the surprisingly
different characteristics of the river bed mate-
rial beneath the gravel and sand stratum in the
two branches. This difference is itself of much
interest, due at least in part to the significant
differences between the geology of the two
catchment areas. No changes were needed in
the pier designs for the southwest bridge, con-
struction of which proceeded as planned and
~ was completed without any serious difficulties.
The second set of borings, taken on center
507
line and 50 ft (15.2 m) on either side of each
pier, showed that the material beneath the
gravel and sand in the northwest arm was of a
decidedly weaker character. Fleming therefore
decided to increase the number of spans to six
which would permit both abutments to be
founded on rock, moving the south one closer
to the natural rivcr bank. This involved an
extra payment to the contractor which Fleming
officially recommended on 13 January 1872.
The Commissioners did not support his recom-
mendation but insisted on an independent
opinion bcing obtained. Engineers S. Keefer
and C. S. Gzowski prepared a report after care-
ful study, advising the use of timber piles to
support the piers. Fleming disagreed and car-
ried out what would today be called deep pene-
tration tests in the weak material in order to
support his view (Peckover and Legget 1973).
He won the support of thc Chairman of the
Commissioners and so proceeded with his re-
vised design, still using open timber caissons
although of increased base area to reduce the
unit load on the gravel and so upon the under-
lying clay (Legget 1972). He also introduced
a fill of quarry rubble stone with alternate
layers of concrete for the lower part of each
caisson, in place of the weak material in the
upper part of the river bed. Concrete was then
~isedabove the level of the river bed up to low
watcr level, and thereaftcr solid masonry.
Indicative of the speed of construction
achieved, with abundant manpower, was the
start of building the timber caisson for one pier
on 19 June 1872; it had been completed, floated
out, and sunk in position by 6 July; and by
26 July concrete had been brought up to the
required height for masonry to proceed. Exca-
vation was carried out by buckets and dredge
pumps operated by fixed 'dredging towers' at
each pier. Divers were used as necessary, as
for the removal of buried logs, many of which
were encountered. Concrete was made from
"broken stone, coarse river sand, and the
celebrated English Portland Cement". Stone for
masonry came from two quarries, one 4 miles
upstream on the Northwest Miramichi and the
other 17 miles away at the mouth of the River
Bartibogue. Messrs. Brown, Brooks, and Ryan
were the contractors for both bridges. Mr.
W. B. Smellic was Resident Engineer for both,
under Mr. A. L. Light, the District Engineer.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/24/14
For personal use only.

PIERS AND N 5
ABUTMENTS

DISTANCE FT

FIG. 3. Cross section showing foundation conditions and 1961 test borings, N.W. Miramichi Bridge.
 L E G G E T AND P E C K O V E R f:OUNl)r\TION
The first train passed over the completed
bridges on 26 August 1875 and they have been
in use contin~iouslysince that day.
Piers for the N.W. Bridge
The difficulties that Sandford Fleming had
to contend with in redesigning and constructing
the piers for the N.W. Bridge and the degree
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/24/14
of his success can best be judged by combining
a detailed account of his approach with an
analysis based on the results of a recent study
made by Canadian National Railways. The
purpose of the latter was to determine the con-
dition of the masonry in the piers and to predict
future performance of the bridge.
The river bed profile which Fleming records
from his second set of construction borings is
shown in Table 1, compared with the findings
of C.N.R. borings made in 1961. Figure 3
shows a section across the river bed, interpreted
from both the 1961 borings and Fleming's
findings.
For personal use only.
The most obvious difference between the
1871 and 1961 borings is Fleming's identifica-
tion of the thick deposits of fine sand and
underlying marine clay and silt as 'silt', an
understandable error with the wash boring
techniques of the day. Although the term 'clay'
is used in his reports, it is reserved for material
such as tough clay till with s~tbstantialcohesion
which probably still appeared as chunks in the
wash water of the borings. All material which
would have appeared in suspension in the wash
water, with grains too fine to be seen, appears
to have been called 'silt'.
In dredging the sand and mud layer above
the gravcl, Fleming reported that pieces of dc-
TABLE 1. Comparison of river bed profile from 1871
and 1961 borings
.- -.
1871 boring~ 1961 boring~
-
Sand and mud, 16 ft Fine sand, pieces
organic matter, of wood
logs
Gravel 9 ft Gravel and sand 3-18 ft material. General soil test properties are shown
Silt 40ft { Fine sand (a lens-
Silty clay, thicker
near banks 17-41 ft
shaped deposit) 0-44 ft Pier 1. Descriptioils and average properties of
Clay, overlain by 10 ft Gravel and sand,
gravel on ~ 0 ~ 1 t h missing on north
side side
Sandstone bedrock Sandstone bedrock
PERFORMANCE 509
cayed wood frequently jammed his pumps, and
he indeed had difficulty in removing two birch
logs 16 and 20 in. (40 and 50 cm) in diameter
from within the caisson of Pier 1, 40 ft ( 1 2 m)
below H.W.L. Pieces of wood were also fre-
quently found in the 1961 borings. This upper
stratum has clearly been subject to removal by
river scour and redeposition at times during its
history. No organic material was found in the
lower layers.
Foundation Soil Conditions
Fleming describes in detail his procedures
and observations during pier construction. A
review of the engineering properties of the
foundation soils will assist in appraising what
he rclates; the 1961 borings provide this in-
formation. Five holes were put down to bed-
rock, one near each pier. Borings were also
made down through the entire depth of Piers 1,
3, and 5 in order to determine thc coildition
of the masonry and to establish on what the
piers were resting. The location of all borings
is shown in Fig. 3.
The borings through Piers 3 and 5 showed
them to be founded on the lower part of the
layer of fine sand instead of on the gravel as
Fleming had intended. Sand to a depth of 3
and 6 ft (0.9 and 1.8 m), respectively, was
identified under the base of the piers before
the borings were stopped. In the base of Pier 1
the boring passed through a mixture of fine
sand and gravel-sized picccs of sandstone be-
tween El. -19 and -32 before stopping. It is
thought that this deposit may be a layer of the
quarry rubble stone used to fill the caissons,
now in a state of disintegration due to long
submergence. The rubble was interlaid with
concrete up to river bed level. The 1961 soil
.- borings were made from a scow, samples being
recovered with a 2-in. (5.1-cm) spoon, 2-in.
(5.1-cm) thin walled tube, or 3-in. (7.6-cm)
16 ft piston sampler as appropriatc. The latter
sampler was used generally in the clay-silt
in Fig. 4, representing a boring log adjacent to
the various soil deposits are given in Table 2.
0-7 ft
Clay-Silt Materia!
The layer of clay and silt is that mainly
influencing the bridge behavior. Although this
 C A N . GEOTECH. J . VOL. 10, 1973
TABLE2. Properties of soils and rock as determined in 1961
-- - . - --
-

Deposit Average properties

SAND, fine to medium, Clay and silt sizes 12%

little silt, pieces of wood Water content 32%
grey, very loose to loose Standard penetration test
5 blows/ft
GRAVEL and SAND, Variable grain size
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/24/14

grey, dense Standard penetration test

24 blows/ft
SAND, fine, little silt, Silt and clay sizes 12%
uniform, grey, medium Water content 28%
dense Standard penetration test
15 blows/ft
CLAY and SILT, some Sand (and gravel)
sand, layered, grey, sizes 21%
firm, sensitive Clay and silt sizes 79%
Water content 30%
Liquid limit 31
Plastic limit 22
Wet unit weight 121 Ib/ft3
Void ratio 0.8
Undrained shear strength
740 Ib/ft2
For personal use only.

GRAVEL and SAND, Standard penetration test

grey, dense 38 blows/ft
SANDSTONE Fine to coarse grained,
brown, weathered,
weakly cemented

was recognizcd at the time of the 1961 study, CoefJicierzto f Recompression Cr

many of the sample test records have been mis-
laid unfortunately, since that time, and so were
not available for the prcparation of this paper.
The clay-silt is not a homogeneous material.
Its percentage of silt content is not known but
the silt occurs mainly in layers and is indicated
by the average low plasticity index and rela-
tively high unit weight and low void ratio of the
deposit. A typical pressure - void ratio curve
for the material is shown in Fig. 5. From tests
on samples from various depths in borings
adjacent to Piers 1 and 5, values of functions
for settlement analyses have been chosen as
follows, keeping in mind the anisotropic nature
of the material.
Compression Index Cc
Test values ranged from 0.13 to 0.30. Since
the low values appear to be due to sample dis-
turbance, a value of 0.3 is used in analyses,
consistent with water content and liquid limit
relationships.
A value of 0.05 is used from consolidatioil
test results.
Coeficient of Consolidation c,;
Average value from laboratory tests is 0.4 ft2
(0.04 m" per day. It is thought that field
values will be higher than this since the labora-
tory c, is reduced by sample disturbance; in
particular, three-dimensional drainage and mul-
tiple drainage layers are present in field con-
ditions but not in a laboratory sample. For
these reasons a value of 1.0 ft2 (0.09 m2) per
day has been used in analyses.
Preconsolidation Pressure p,.
Average values from consolidation curves
range from 1.2 to 1.7 t/ft2 (1.2 to 1.6 kg/cm".
These may be considered low if samples are
disturbed, or high if samples have been subject
to the influence of pier loads nearby. The rela-
tionship of the values to effective stresses is
discussed below.
 LEGGET AND PECKOVER FOUND4TION PERFORMANCE
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/24/14
UPPER PART, GREY,
V E R Y LOOSE TO
MEDIUM DENSE
C L A Y AN[? SILT,
For personal use only.
LAYERED, FIRM,
SENSITIVE, GREY
FIG.4. Log of boring adjacent to Pier 1 and test results, 1961.
Coefficient o f Secordary Conzpressiorl C ,
Value varies as a function of stress level:
values used are 0.004 at Piers 2 and 3, 0.005
at Pier 4, and 0.008 at Piers 1 and 5.
Loading Conditions
Load distribution under the piers is estimated
as the basis for calculating settlements in each
case. Pier 1 is selected as an example for the
procedure since it was built first, Fleming de-
scribes what he did there in particular detail,
and it has undergone appreciable settlement
since that time.
Many assumptions are required in analysis,
since as-buiIt drawings are naturally not avail-
51 1
SAND 100 O/o
SAND 100 '10
GRAVEL 15, SAND 40,
21 * 134p.d. c.735ps.f.
able. Dimensions of Pier 1 are shown in Fig.
6 ( a ) . The pier and its foundation conditions
are shown in ( b ) . The original natural effective
stress y o at mid-depth of the clay-silt layer,
40 ft (12.2 m) below the river bed, is 2400
Ib/ft2 (11 700 kg/m2), assuming an average
submerged weight of soil as 60 1b/ft3 (960
kg/m3). If it is conservatively assumed that no
load is distributed by friction at the sides of the
caisson, and that pier and riprap are circular
loads, their weight will increase stresses at mid-
depth of the Iayer by 1600 lb/ft2 (7800
kg/m2) due to the pier as shown in Fig. 6(c)
and an additional 300 lb/ft2 (1460 kg/m2)
due to the riprap, giving a total increase of
 CAN. GEOTECH. J . VOL. 10, 1973

1 TEST BORING NW-2

SAMPLE No.9
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/24/14

I I 10
PRESSURE TONS/ FT2
FIG.5. Typical pressure - void ratio curve for clay-silt material.
For personal use only.

CLAY - SILT

?COO 4000

S O I L P R E S S U R E I b per sq f t
FIG. 6 . Foundation conditions at Pier 1; ( a ) o u t l ~ n e sof pier; (b) foundation conditions;
(c) increase in soil pressure due to pier; and ( d ) effective stresses and preconsolidation
pressures.
 LEGGET AND PECKOVER: FOUNDATION PERFORMANCE

E o
W

0
2500- -
a? -15 I PRELOAD *
-cn 2000-Z-'0
$2- 62;
wJ\
REMOVED -
MASONRY
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/24/14

LL
1500-,: V,WO COMPLETED-
!5 %I-
zp" 7 0 0 DAYS
0
a 1000- v,s -
S TIME DAYS -
100 400 500 6 00
I
0
- I

-
C
Y

I-
.25 -
MEASURED (FLEMING+
-

W
.50 - -
I CALCULATED
y .75-
I-
I- b,.\ -
w 1.0
For personal use only.

- \
V) &-----

FIG.7 . Measured and calculated primary settlements vs. load at Pier 1 during construction
period.

1900 lb/ft"(9270 k g / m q . This change in
loading conditions, together with preconsolida-
tion pressures found in laboratory tests, is
plotted against dcpth in Fig. 6 ( d ) . It is ap-
parent that application of the pier load will
cause stresses to exceed p,. appreciably only in
the upper part of the clay-silt layer. Most of
the consolidation will have taken place there.
The factor of safety against general shear
failure of the pier foundation is calculated to
be nearly four. As the creep strength of the
clay-silt is unlikely to be exceeded by this load,
the possibility of pier movement due to creep
failure is not considered.
Settlements During Construction
A review of the construction of Pier 1 will
show the manner in which the loads were ap-
plied and the settlements took place. A load -
settlement time plot is shown in Fig. 7. Con-
crete was placed from river bed level to El.
-15 within the caisson during June and July
1873. After some dificulties in dewatering the
caisson to place concrctc in its upper part, the
work was deferred until the following spring.
Concrete was then completed and masonry
work started on the pier in May 1874. By the
end of June it was found that thc caisson had
settled 6 in. ( I S cm) from its original position.
Fleming instituted regular measurements that
showed gradual settlement was taking place.
When the masonry was nearly to full height in
July it was stopped, settlement at that time
totalling 10.5 in. (26.7 cm).
Fleming judged that this settlement was due
to consolidation of the stone filling in the cais-
son under the weight of the pier. The idea of
foundation consolidation settlement was not
then understood. By his penetration tests he
had already satisfied himself that the gravel
layer would support the pier without failure.
With his usual initiative, he therefore set about
solving the problem-by building a platform
around the masonry and placing a load "greater
than, on completion of the bridge, it would be
 514 CAN. GEOTECH. J . VOL. 10, 1973
required to carry, and thus by direct weight
forcing the whole structure to a permanent
bearing". Stones and rails to a weight of 450 t
(4.6 x 10" kg) were placed. The calculated
weight of the finished iron trusses and bridge
deck is 400 t (4.1 x 10" kg).
A further settlement of 2.5 in. (6.4 cm) was
measured under this load up to the beginning
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/24/14
of October. The load remained in place until
the following spring when another 100 t (1.0 x
10" kg) were added. Fleming says that "no
further settlement was perceptible" after Oc-
tober. He closely examined the caisson and
reported no disturbance to thc piling and no
yielding of the supporting gravel stratum. With
this confirmation of his opinion of the cause of
the settlement, he had the load removed, the
structure complcted, falscwork and sheeting re-
moved, and riprap placcd.
The typical sequence of loading for all other
piers was caisson, masonry, and preload in
quick succession, followed after a few months
For personal use only.
by the addition of riprap. Removal of preload
and substitution of truss and deck loads are
not detailed by Fleming and are neglected in
settlement analyses as they are believed to have
occurred over a relatively short time during the
pcriod of secondary scttlcment.
From present knowlcdge, the settlements ob-
served during construction were made up of an
immediate settlement due to the elastic com-
pression of the soil under undrained or no
volume change conditions and primary con-
solidation due to the dissipation of pore pres-
sures. The immediate settlement was naturally
small in comparison with the primary settle-
ment.
Immediate settlement can be calculated from
the equation (Leonards 1962) :
where ~ p = uniform pressure on surface of
loaded area (2500 Ib/ft2 (1 2 200
kg/m" )-see Fig. 6 (c) ,
b = width of loaded area (32 f t (9.7
m)),
p = Poisson's ratio (0.5),
I, = influence value, depending on foun-
dation shape (0.8),
E = modulus of elasticity for gravel-
sand 'and clay-silt layers (2800
Ib/in.2 ( 195 kg/cm2) ) . This value
is interpolated with judgment from
average values given by Leonards.
Immediate settlement AH^ is thus calculated as
0.12 ft (3.7 cm) for Pier 1.
Primary settlement is found from conven-
tional formulae:
C H log'
AH-'
l-1-1-e~ po
for consolidation up to the preconsolidation
pressure, and
COH* log -
Pa
AHz = -
1 + eo PC
for consolidation beyond p,.
where H,= thickness of compressible layer
(25 ft (7.6 m ) ), and
pa = total stress at mid-depth of layer
(4500 Ib/ft2 (21 960 kg/m2) ).
Values calculated for Pier 1 are AH1 = 0.09
and AH^ = 0.63 ft (0.03 and 0.19 m ) . Total
settlement during construction is therefore cal-
culated as:
If the preconsolidation load is not considered,
primary settlement will be greater than calcu-
lated. Using c,, the time to 90% consolidation
is calculated as 186 days.
The approximate primary settlement curve
is plotted in Fig. 7. It is seen that measured
settlements are roughly 50% greater than cal-
culated. The difference may be due in part to
the influence of the stone filling within the cais-
son which under load would have penetrated
into the zone of soil at its base which was
loosened by excavation. In addition, the value
of compression index may in reality be higher
than that assumed, depending on the degree of
disturbance of the samples tested.
The construction of the other piers was simi-
lar to that of Pier 1 with minor variations. All
were preloaded when settlement was detected.
In each case the preload applied was more than
the finished weight of the structure. All settled
monolithically and vertically, and their settle-
ment was observed to stop within a few weeks
or months at the most.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/24/14
For personal use only.

LEGGET AND PECKOVER: FOUNDATION PERFORMANCE

 CAN. GEOTECH. J . VOL. 10, 1973

PlER
N 5 4 3 2 I S
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/24/14

CALCULATED

1.5 k I I I I
FIG.9. Measured vs. calculated primary settlements for all piers.

TIME YEARS
94 9 8
For personal use only.

-2 - -

-3- -

5 - -

(A) SURVEY DURING

CONSTRUCTION
1874
LEGEND -
( 0 ) 1914-53 SURVEYS

&--A
S-ABUTMENT
PlER I
-
(C) 1961 6 8 SURVEYS

NOTE
- DIFFERENT MARKERS USED FOR EACH
GROUP OF S U R V E Y S

FIG. 10. Results of settlement surveys on Pier 1 and south abutment made in: (a) 1874;
(b) 1914-53; and (c) 1961-68.

From Fleming's text the details of construc-
tion and preloading can be plotted as in Fig. 8.
In Fig. 8 ( a ) the time duration of the masonry
construction and preloading as well as 90%
primary consolidation are shown. In Fig. 8 ( b )
the time rate of measured settlements is plotted
for each pier. For Piers 1, 2, and 3 the sur-
charge loads were left on throughout a winter.
It is reported that settlement was not observed
after the last readings shown at about 130 to
150 days. Piers 4 and 5 were built last, which
probably explains why they were surcharged
only briefly as time was pressing for completion
of the bridge.
From Fig. 8 (a) it is seen that the preloading
time exceeded the approximate duration of
primary settlement for Piers 1, 2, and 3. The
effect of the reduced prcloading time for Piers
 L E G G E T AND PECKOVER: FOUNDATION PERFORMANCE

PIERS
N 5 4 3 2 I S
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/24/14

- V - CALCULATEDSECONDAR
SETTLEMENT

FIG. 1 1 . Adjusted levels of piers vs. calculated secondary settlements.

For personal use only.

4 and 5 is shown most clearly in Fig. 9 where
measured and calculated primary settlements
are compared for each pier. The abutments are
known to be founded on rock. It seems evident
that if preloading on Piers 4 and 5 had been
continued, the same order of relationship with
calculated values would have been reached.
This figure shows another point worthy of
note. The general pattern of pier movement is
accounted for by the distribution of soil deposits
across the river, as shown in Fig. 1. Piers 1
and 5 rest most directly on the layer of clay-silt.
At the other piers the load is spread by the
deposit of silty sand before reaching the clay-
silt. Under these conditions it would be ex-
pected that Piers 1 and 5 would settle most, and
the observations confirm this.
Settlements Since Construction
There is no evidence that movements of the
piers were of concern for many years after
completion of the bridge. Eventually in 1914,
some 41 years after construction was started, a
check on pier movements was made. Survey
marks were installed and level surveys made
in 1914, 1919, 1950, and 1953. In the latter
year the survey marks were unfortunately dis-
placed when the bridge masonry was grouted
and repointed. Surveys were resumed with new
marks in 1961 and were made almost yearly
to 1968. Although sight distances between
piers are 200 f t (61 m ) , all these surveys were
made with a standard level and rod, recording
to the nearest 0.001 ft (0.0003 m ) . Bench
marks used for the first survey are not known
but for the latter, steel rails were driven in the
approach embankments to the bridge.
Taking Pier 1 as an example again, Fig. 10
is plotted showing pier settlement during the
course of each survey, as well as during Flem-
ing's original measurements. Interpretation of
all the surveys is difficult as the relationship
between bench marks is not known. The pat-
tern is similar for the other piers.
There are unknown errors in all the surveys.
An indication of these is shown by the plot in
Fig. 10 of the elevation of the south abutment
relative to Pier 1 for the 1914-53 and 1961-68
surveys. This abutment is founded on rock and
should therefore be at a constant elevation.
The magnitude of survey errors in the 1961-68
surveys can readily be seen in the varying
difference in elevation between the south abut-
ment and Pier 1. These surveys do not warrant
any accurate conclusions as to the recent settle-
ment of the pier. The apparent downward
 518 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL 10, 1973
trend in the elevation of the abutment on rock,
however, raises suspicion that the driven rail
bench mark may have been subject to upward
heave by frost action.
The 1914-53 group of surveys shows a more
definite trend of pier settlement while the eleva-
tion of the abutment is relatively constant. If
plotted against the log of time, these surveys
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/24/14
could be taken to mean that secondary com-
pression was proceeding, 79 years after con-
struction, at the rate of nearly 0.007 f t (0.002
m) per year, or about six times the theoretical
rate. If this trend continued to the present time,
secondary compression since construction
would amount to about 2.0 ft (0.6 m).
There are two practical points to cast doubt
on such a conclusion. Firstly, the substantial
granular (silt) content and restraining effect
of the silt layers in the clay-silt deposit make
it unlikely that secondary com~~ression is still
SO active. Secondly, there is no l~hysicalindica-
tion that the bridge piers have settled this
For personal use only.
amount. AS the present capstoile of Pier 1 is
now about 0.4 ft (0.1 m) below the south
abutment, it would be necessary to assume that
the masonry at the top of the pier has been
raised at some time. There is no sign of this
and it is not known to have happened.
In past interpretations of the surveys, Fkm-
ing's assurance that both abutments are
founded on rock has been apparently ignored
in favor of the installed bench marks. If it is
assumed that the abutments have not settled-
and this seems reasonable-then the results of
each survey can be adjusted by taking the
averaged surveyed elevation of the abutment
as fixed. Individual survey profiles of pier levels
may then be matched to these assumed abut-
ment levels by a linear distribution of differ-
ences in level. The results are plotted for ap-
praisal in Fig. 11. The abutments were not
built at the same level since the bridge was on
a slight grade.
This plot should show the net change in
elevation of piers relative to abutments over
the whole period 1914 to 1968. With the ex-
ception of the 1914 survey levels for Piers 1,
4, and 5 , it is indicated that the levels of each
pier have only changed relative to the abut-
ments by amounts which are within the ex-
pected survey errors.
A comparison of these findings with the
calculated secondary compression for all piers
will be of interest. The following formula (U.S.
Department of Navy 1963) is used for calcula-
tion:
AH, = C,H, log&
t,
Where t,,, = time over which A H , takes place
(1968-1875 = 93 years), and
t, = time of 90% primary consolida-
tion (186 days;.
Using values of C , varying with the stress
level in the clay-silt layer as mentioned previ-
ously, the secondary compression for each pier
is obtained and plotted below the grade line
between abutments in Fig. 11, assuming that
most of the primary consolidation was complete
when the piers were finished.
The plot shows reasonable agreement with
the adjusted survey levels for Piers 1, 4, and
5. Piers 4 and 5 show no sign of excess settle-
ment due to the unfinished primary consolida-
tion at the time the piers were finished, as noted
in Fig. 8. Piers 2 and 3 are relatively higher in
elevation. This suggests the faint possibility
that Fleming, although observing no more
settlement during the preloading time at his
disposal for these piers, perhaps sensed that
there would be some continuing movement and
built the bridge higher toward the center. He
does not mention such an intention.
Although individual judgments on the in-
terpretation of the survey data will vary, it is
the authors' conclusion that the weight of evi-
dence indicates that secondary compression of
the piers is generally proceeding at a rate close
to or less than that given by theory, rather than
at a much faster rate as one interpretation of
the data would indicate.
Regular annual surveys have been started
to measure pier movements in all directions,
using the most accurate available methods, to
check thesefindings.
Acknowledgments
The paper has been prepared with the valued
assistance of Messrs. M. N. Mahendran and
W. E. Jubien of the C.N.R. geotechnical staff.
It is published with the interest and approval of
 L E G G E T AND PECKOVER: FOUNDATION PERFOR1,lANCE
Mr. R. J. Hansen, former Chief Engineer and
Mr. R. L. Gray, present Chief Engineer, Cana-
dian National Railways, Montreal.
CRAWFORD, C. B., and SUTHERLAND, J. G. 1971. The
Empress Hotel, Victoria, British Columbia. Sixty-five
years of foundation settlements. Can. Geotech. J. 8,
pp. 77-93.
F L E M ~ NS.
G ,1876. The Intercolonial-a historical sketch.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/24/14
Dawson Brothers, Montreal, Quebec. pp. 200-202.
For personal use only.
519
LEGGET,R. F. 1972. Intercolonial Bridge-A monument to
Fleming's fine judgment. Can. Consult. Eng. April.
pp. 56-57.
LEONARDS. G. A. (Editor.).1962. Foundation engineering.
McGraw-Hill. Toronto, Ont. pp. 556, 789.
PECKOVER, F. L.. and LEGGET,R. F. 1973. Canadian soil
penetration tests of 1872. Can. Geotech. J. 10(3), pp.
000-000.
U.S. Department of Navy. 1963. Navdocks design manual
DM-7. Soil mechanics, foundations and earth struc-
tures. Washington, D.C.