at Genoa were founded under water on a rubble mound in a similar manner by the aid of compressed air (fig. 15). Quay walls also on the Clyde have been founded on caissons, consisting of a bottomless steel structure, surmounted by a brick superstructure having hollows filled with concrete, in lengths of 80 ft. and 27 ft., and widths of 18 ft. and 21 ft. respectively, carried down by means of compressed air from 54 to 70 ft. below quay-level, on the top of which a continuous wall of concrete, faced with brickwork, and having a granite coping, was built up from near low-water level (fig. 16). In many cases where soft strata extend to considerable depths, river quays and basin walls have been constructed by building a light quay wall upon a series of bearing and raking piles driven into, and if possible through, the soft alluvium. Thus the walls along the Seine, and round the basins at Rouen, were built upon bearing piles carried down through the alluvial bed of the river to the chalk. The lower portion of the quay wall was constructed of concrete faced with brickwork within water-tight timber caissons, resting upon the piles at a depth of 934 ft. below low water; and upon this a rubble wall faced with bricks was erected from low water to quay-level, backed by rubble stone laid on a timber flooring supported by piles, together with chalk, to form a quay right back to the top of the slope of the bank of the deepened river (fig. 17). The quay walls of the open basins bordering the Hudson river at New York have had, in certain parts, to be founded on bearing piles combined with raking piles, driven into a thick bed of soft silt where no firm stratum could be reached, and where, therefore, the weight could only be borne by the adherence of the long piles in the silt. Before driving the piles, however, the silt round the upper part of the piles and under the quay wall was consolidated by depositing small stones in a trench dredged to a depth of 30 ft. below low water; the piles were driven through these stones, and were further kept in place by a long toe of rubble stone in front and a backing of rubble stone behind carried nearly up to quay-level, behind which a light filling of ashes and earth was raised to quay-level. The slight quay wall resting upon the front rows of bearing piles was carried up under water by 70-ton concrete blocks deposited by means of a floating derrick; and the upper part of the 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.
 |
 | |
| Fig. 16.—Glasgow River Quay Wall. | 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).
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 Failures of dock walls.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 failures with untrustworthy foundations, great care has to be exercised in selecting the best hard material available, unaffected by water, for the backing, which should be brought up in thin, horizontal layers carefully consolidated; and where there is a possibility of water accumulating at the back, pipes should be introduced at intervals near the bottom right through the wall in building it, and rubble stone deposited close to the back of the wall, so as to carry off any water from behind, these pipes being stopped up just before the water is let into the dock. These precautions, moreover, are assisted by reducing the amount of backing to a minimum in the construction of the wall, best effected by building the wall inside a timbered trench. The liability to slide forwards can be obviated by carrying down the foundations of the wall sufficiently below dock-bottom to provide an efficient buttress of earth in front of the wall, and also by making the base of the wall slope down towards the back, thereby forcing the wall in sliding forwards to mount the slope, or to push forward a larger mass of earth; whilst a row of sheet piling in front of the foundations offers a very effectual impediment to a forward movement, and, in combination with bearing piles, prevents settlement at the toe in soft ground. In very treacherous foundations it may be advisable to defer the completion of the backing till after the admission of the water; but the additional stability given to a retaining wall or reservoir dam by an ample batter in front, is precluded in dock walls by the modern requirements of vessels.
 |
| Fig. 18.—New York Quay Wall, Hudson river. |
Silt accumulates in docks where the lowering of the water-level by locking, the drawing down of half-tide basins, and the raising of the water at spring tides, involve the admission of considerable volumes of tidal water heavily charged with silt, which is deposited in still water and has to be periodically Maintenance of depth.removed by dredging. To avoid this, the water is sometimes replenished from some clear inland source, an arrangement adopted at some of the South Wales ports opening into the muddy Severn estuary, and at the Alexandra dock, Hull, to exclude the silty waters of the Humber. At the Kidderpur docks on the Húgli, the water from the river for replenishing the docks is conducted by a circuitous canal, in which it deposits its burden of silt before it is pumped into the docks.
In order to deal expeditiously with the cargoes and goods brought into and despatched from docks, numerous sidings communicating with the railways of the district are arranged along the quays, which are also provided with steam, hydraulic or electric travelling cranes at Equipment on quays.intervals alongside the docks, basins or river, for discharging or loading vessels, and with sheds and warehouses for the storage of merchandise, &c., the arrangements depending largely upon the special trade of the port. Though different sources of power are sometimes made use of at different parts of the same port, as for example at Hamburg, where the numerous cranes are worked by steam, hydraulic power or most recently by electricity, and a few by gas engines, it is generally most convenient to work the various installations by one form of power from a central station. Water-pressure has been very commonly used
