Evolution of seawall construction methods in Boston Harbor,

P. S. Rosen and D. B. Vine . Seawall construction methods Boston, in

Massachusetts, USA, evolved as materials such as cut stone, concrete and steel became available, as the understanding of geotechnical principles grew, and as the growth of trade required more substantial coastal structures. As a significant number of 19th century stone seawalls are still in use in the Boston region, techniques for evaluating and repairing surviving historic structures, as opposed to replacing them, are important during the ongoing revitalization of the harbour.

Proc. lnstn Civ. Engrs Structs & Bldgs, 1995, 110, Aug., 239-249

Structural and Building Board Structural Panel Paper10539

Written discussion

out of fines; the shifting of stonesor the loss of closes October 17 1995 chink stones.Woodcomponents decay,while stonesmay crack or spall as a result of fires or .

intensewaveaction.Historic walls are often underdesigned modernstandardsin termsof by lateral forcesand stonesize.A common problemis foundationfailure, caused the. by underminingof the footing or exposure of woodenfoundations,which leadsto marine boreractivity or rot. In addition, manyotherwisesoundseawallscanbe affectedby changing uses,which alter load or draft requirements. 5. As plansoften do not exist for older seaIntroduction walls, historical research, evaluationof the hisThe earliestseawallsin the Bostonregion were torical significance,and detailec!. inspections of crib construction.Cobbcribs had an open and surveysare necessary both plan the resto frameworkand couldreadily be floated into toration and definethe constraintson the positionand sunk with rock from local sources. projectalternatives. As fill material became scarcerowing to 6. Frequentlyusedmethodsfor mainongoingwharfing and landfilling activities, tenance walls includepointing of the stone of solid cribs wereusedwhich werefilled with a joints. Fabric barriers can be placedon the largevariety of materials,including soil and landwardside of a wall by excavaton the fill of refuse.Thesewoodenstructuresunderwent to preventthe washoutof the fines and sinkcontinualrepair as a result of the rapid decay holes.Also, the fill behindthe wall canbe of woodcaused marineborers. by replaced with standardor ligqtweight concrete 2. Stoneseawallsdatefrom as early as 1784 to add m!lss,to relieveload and to increase in the region,althoughconstructionwas diffibondingwith the stone.Thesemethodsdo not cult. Methodsto efficiently cut, or hew,the affect the outward appearance the wall. If the of local graniteswerenot widely useduntil about landwardside of the wall cannotbe altered, 1830. Some early stoneseawallsusedwood stonecanbe placedon the seawardside to platformsas foundations,which sunk in the increase passivepressures to reducethe and mud as weight was added. exposed height. 3. With cut stone,a vertical wall with fewer 7. The seawallsof New Englandhave woodsupportswas possible.In the 1800s, the evolvedconsiderablysincethe colonial period, importance the characteristics the fill of of 350yearsago (Fig. 1).Contributingfactors materialbehindthe wall in reducinglateral includethe development maritime trade and of forcesand promotingdrainagewas recognized. deeper draft ships,and the advancement conof After the mid 1800s, stoneseawallsweretypistruction methods, equipmentand materials. cally supportedby woodpile foundations. The development seawallsis intertwined hisof While concrete was developed the mid 1800s, torically with the development wharves,or in of the harshenvironmental conditionsin Boston structureslying alongsidenavigablewatersfur mayhaveresultedin the common practiceof the purposeof unloadingvessels. constructinga seawallof concrete, of conand 8. Documentation early seawallconstrucof tinuing to facethe structure in stone.In the tion by plans or recordsof procedures rare in is 20thcentury,concrete was usedpredominantly the USA. Bray and Tatham indicatereferences for shallowseawalls,while steelsheetpiling to early British designers seawallprojectsin of wasusedfor deeper structures. manyparts of the country and overseas.! 4. Many stoneseawallsdating from before Similar parallelswith Americancolonialengithe 20th century are still in usein the Boston neershavenot beendocumented. Bray2indiHarborregion.Rehabilitationis often necessary catedin his discussionon the restorationof owing to a variety of factors: sinkholeslandcolonial wharvesin Salem, Massachusetts, 'It ward of the walls; voids caused the washing became by evident that wharfs as suchwerecon-

~~

P. S. Rosen, Department of Geology, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

D. B. Vine, Nucci VineAssociates, Newburyport, Massachusetts, USA

239

ROSENAND VINE
Heintzelman-Muego,3 . The small amount of data available is scattered throughout the United States in the form of field notes, site files, project reports and some photographs, all of which are located in usually little known labs, offices of contracting ag~ncies, the private files of local historians or a few historical societies, museums and libraries '. 9. Another factor in the development of seawalls is the evolution of the accompanying engineering sciences. Modern soil mechanics is generally considered to date back to the 1920s with the works of Karl Terzaghi. However, much earlier work by Rankine4 and Coulombs developed the initial basis for the theories on lateral earth pressure. This work was supplemented by the work of Poncelet,6Rebhann,7 and Meem.8By the late 1800s,several publications on harbour and dock construction included empirical methods to size and design seawalls. Colson9 discussed the theory that the earth pressure can be determined by the weight of the angle mass above the angle of one-half the angle of repose. Experiments demonstrated that this theory yielded a factor of safety of about two. 10. Seawalls were built as a response to economic expansion of the region. However, seawalls were often reconstructed as a result of periodic damage by storms. A study of the history of seawalls in the Boston region has revealed that rebuilding often falls i~to patterns that coincide with major storms that affected the region. While hurricanes (tropical cyclones) and nor'easters (extra tropical cyclones) are the dominant storms on the east coast of the USA, nor'easters have historically had the greatest impacts on coastal flooding and impacts on coastal structures in the Massachusetts Bay/Boston region. The south-facing coasts of New England have been most impactedby hurricanes. Table III shows the 10

Fig. 1. Boston Harbor and other locations

sidered too commonplace to merit description by historians of the time, while the builders were for the most part not given to writing '. A similar conclusion was reached by

Massachusetts 11 Date

Table 1. Maximum observed water levels in Boston Harbor,

Name

7 Feb. 1978
16 Apr. 1851 26 Dec. 1909 1 Feb. 1987 12 Dec. 1992 30 Oct. 1991 25 Jan. 1979 29 Dec. 1959 27 Dec. 1839 15 Dec. 1839 19 Feb. 1972 24 Feb. 1723 26 Mar. 1830 26 May 1967 21 Apr. 1940 29 Dec. 1853 4 Dec. 1786 20 Jan. 1961 30 Nov. 1944 4 Mar. 1931 3 Dec. 1854 3 Nov. 1861

Blizzard of 78 Minots light storm Christmas gale Christmas nor'easter Halloween nor'easter

Triple hurricanes Triple hurricanes

maximumhistoric water levelsin Boston, which wereprobablyfollowed by periodsof maj~rseawallrepair. The decade the 1990s of is proving to be oneof severe storms.The Halloweennor'easterof 1991, December the nor'easter 1992, of and the December nor'easters 1993haveall caused of significant damage Bostonareaseawalls. to
Colonial seawalls 11. Colonial seawall construction was centred around the needs of the maritime industry. Until about the mid 1700s,maximum ship draft requirements generally were in the order of 10-15 ft (3.3-4.5 m) thus allowing berthing facilities to be of relatively simple, forgiving construction. As the tide range in the Boston region is about 10 ft (3 m), early seawalls were, in most cases,located just above mean low water. Vessels would enter berths at high tide and rest on the bottom at low tide.

December gale

* Mean tide height in Boston is 4,58 ft (1'37 m) above mean low water. NGVD references National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929,which is the current standard for vertical datum; it approximates mean sea level. t Approximate value based on historical account.

240

SEAWALL CONSTRUCTION IN BOSTON HARBOR

12. Construction waterfront facilities of weregen~rallyundertakenby merchanttraders or by cooperative town efforts. The Revolutionary War was a great stimulus to commerce and trade,as the colonistswereforcedto expand and werenow allowedto establishnew trade routesand markets.Later development centred aroundthe railroad industry which had the ability to subsidizemuch larger facilities, and to provide a modefor transporting seawall materialsto the site. 13. An early exampleof the efforts madeto createand expandwaterfront facilities is Long Wharf in New Haven,Connecticut. 1644, In six yearsafter the town was founded,every male between agesof 16and 60 was askedto the providefour days work on the constructionof a wharf. It was completed 1663,and was in enlarged stagesover the next century.By in 1774, lottery was established raise funds to a to

payfor furtherenlargement thewharf. of 12

14. Early colonialseawallsusedboth timber and stone.The abundance timber, of however, madeit the first choicefor colonial walls. Early walls madeuseof joinery that was indicativeof European methods. Iron nails were not economical useuntil about 1840.Treeto nails, or trunnels,often madeof hickory, were usedin joinery for early seawalls.Stonewas readily availablein NewEnglandas rounded glacial cobblesand boulderscommonlyfound alongthe shoreline. 15. The most successful solid wharfstructure of early colonial times was the crib wharf. This type of structure typically utilized a timber crib formedby laying timber members in alternating rows of' headers'and . stretchers The useof the crib for construc'. tion of seawallsis very ancient.An exampleof a crib in Londonthat datesfrom the second centuryhasa similar style of constructionas an 18thcentury crib excavated the Charlesat town Navy Yard, Boston. This structure was 13 of solid crib construction,built with squared, hewntimbers of white pine. Trunnelswerethe mainmethodof fasteningthetimbers. Cobbor crib seawallswereusedthroughoutthe 19tn centuryand into the 20th century.As older crib structureswereoften buried during landfilling andwharf expansion, examples thesestrucof turesmay still be preserved. 16. The bottom of the crib had a floor which servedas a platform for the fill. This type of constructionwas ideal for thetidal conditions of NewEnglandwherecolonial builders could float the cribs to the properlocationand sink themwith cobblesor ballast. Sometimes, the flooring formedonly a partial platform, so that the ballast servesto anchorthe crib from later:almovement. Also, the crib floor was occasionally built up severallogs up fromthe bottom,which allowedthe crib to sink into the bottomwhenballasted. 13

variety of material was used~s fill. Boring logs from subsequently landfilledwaterfront areas reveal that fill material typically contains bricks,asphalt, wood, cinders, ash, coal, ceramics, glass and le~ther, along with soil. An

17. The earliestcrib wharf was the' cobb wharf'. By meansof simpleconstructiontechniques,horizontal logs werenotchedtogether and joined with trunnels to form cribs. A gap existedbetween a)ternatingrows of timber (Fig. 2), suchthat finer fill materialwould quickly be washedout. A wharf of cobbconstruction was built at the cornerof North and Blackstone Streetson BostonNeckaround 1676. was built of alternating rows of rough It timber and filled with logs and cobblesor ballast.3 18. Another exampleof this type of structure is the solid cr4bwharf. This systemuseda seriesof interconnected cells which weremore closelyfitted together,preventingfiner fill material,suchas mud or sandysilt, from washingout of the timber framework. 19. The transition from cobbto solid crib frameworksin the Bostonregion is probably relatedto the availability of fill material.The opencobbstructurerequiredcoarsermaterial than would notwashuut, suchas cobblestones, from which its nameis probably derived.Such coarsematerial was available, initially along the erodingglacial shorelines the Boston of region.However,other materialswereusedto fiU cobbs,including ballast rock discardedby , .tradevessels, brush, treestumpsand dredged harbourdeposits.The solid crib frameworkdid not haveopertingsandcould be filled with a wider variety of material. 20. As seawalland wharf.building in Bostonwas typically relatedto ongoingland, fillingatt,ivities, fill material was soonin gre.at demand. OnceJocalsources wereexhausted, It was derivedliirgely jromthe excavationof nearbydrumlins. As demand continued,a wider '" ,

Fig. 2. Example of a
colonial cobb wharf crib constructed of notched, trunnelled logs (based on Douglass Wharf, New London, Connecticut3)

241

ROSEN AND VINE

analysisat onelocation(200StateStreet) showedthat the fill material included7% wood, 8% coal, 19%cjnders,8% brick, 3% ceramic, 3% glass and 3% leather.14 21. On Long Wharf, NewHaven,Connecticut, in the late 18thcentury,eachproprietor who leasedspaceon the wharf was responsible for keepingtheir sectionin goodstructural condition.12Historical recordsshowthat large amountsof fill wereroutinely purchased and placedon the wharf, so that repairing washouts and slumpingappearto havebeena normal aspectof wharf maintenance. 22. Early seawallsin the Bostonregion underwentcontinual repair. Suchfactors as susceptibility of woodto marineborers,rarity of cut stone,and continualwashoutof fill materialweredealt with by continualfilling and facing of structures.Marine borersappear to havebeenmoreabundantin harboursin colonialtimes,owing to their intoleranceto present-day pollution levels.IS As late as the early 20th century,Greenel6 cited the needto replaceportions of timber structuresevery 12-15 yearsowing to marineborers. 23. Oneexampleof the repair of a cobb structurebeyondongoingfilling and replacementof timbers was the facing of Derby Wharf, Salem, Massachusetts with stoneat a time beforequarry stone-cuttingwas developed. The wharf was built between1762and 1771as a timber crib. It was facedwith stonein 1784and 1800. The stonefacing containssplit boulders and beachrock. Small17 described process the basedon observations madeduring reconstruction of the wharf in 1938:'These boulderswere split by fire, or by wetting down woodenpegs or wedges insertedinto crevicesof the natural rock. . . For the foundationsof the walls, large rafts weremadeof hewntimbers. . . fastened togetherwith crosspiecesof oak-pins' (Fig. 3). The rafts would be floated into position, alignedwith guide piles, and weighteddown with rock. As constructioncontinuedslowly, the entire structure would settle into the mud. By the time the wall was up to grade,the settlementshouldhaveceased. Hydrostaticpressure

againstthe wall sometimes causedthe foundation raft to shift, or dislocate,resulting in an irregular rubble-pilethat preventedthe close berthing of ships.In thesecases, Derby the Wharf was apparentlyrepairedby meansof extendingwoodenpile-supported platforms over the damaged areasto allow efficient wharf operations. 24. Recent archaeological investigationsat DerbyWharf indicatethat the oldestbulkhead sections werenot constructed the standard of crib type construction.Instead,the faceof the bulkheadwas constructed horizontal timbers of attachedto seawardalignmentpiles with trunnels.The bulkheadderivedits horizontalresistancefrom timber tiebacksnotchedinto openings between horizontalfacemembers at varying heightsand varying spacingswhich average ft (1 m) on centre.It is believedthat 3 this earlier type of structurerequiredless sophisticated constructionoperations and could be undertaken a smaller,lessskilled work by crewduring periodswhenwharf activity was low. 25. Threetypes of early stonecontainment wall wereidentified by Weinrauband Frank.IS The earliest,and that requiring the least stonework skill, consistedof a containment wall of undressed stonewhich slopedlandward.It was stabilizedwith woodencap logs,piles and,possibly, transversefendersand tiebacksfor sta-

bility (typeC,Fig.4).BrayandTathan 1

indicatethat failures of walls of this type were by: 'overturning following destructionof the ties by marineborersor by decay,by bulging, sliding, or combinationof these'. 26. The ability to set (andretain) rounded stonesto the desiredheightslimited this type of constructionin colonialyears.The difficulty in splitting and transporting cut stoneto a site madeother methods, which could utilize the moreabundantround stones,moreattractive. 27. The abundance marinewood-borers of in colonialwaters,alongwith the local abundanceof rock, probablyexplainswhy timber wall constructionin NewEnglandwas not particularly widespread. exampleof a colonial One

Fig. 3. Cross-section of a stone wall on a sunken raft (left) and a Platform built over a dislocated wall (right) (Such stone walls were built to face or repair early cobb wharves17)

242

SEAWALL CONSTRUCTION IN

BOSTON HARBOR timber seawallis CentralWharf, Salem, Massachusetts.The original seawall,constructed before1780, was of cobbconstruction.For addedstrengthand stability, the wall was not built straight but with jogs every 30-40 ft (9-12 m). Thesewerecoveredwith planking to form a uniform wharf decksurface.After 1805, the timber wall was refacedto eliminatethe jogs.Pilesweredriven approximately5 ft (1.5m) on centre,with horizontal timber planks fastenedfrom behind.Thereis believedto be a stonefooting, at least3 courses deepand slightly wider than the timbers,placedbelow the bulkhead.13 wall was backfilled with The cobbles, which would haveminimizedthe lateral loading on the wall.

Nineteenth century seawalls 28. The prominence the USA as a trading of nation grew in the 19thcentury.Long-distance trade,particularly with the Far East, and an increased volumeof trade with Europeled to the useof larger ships with deeper draft. Wharf facilities in cities wereundergoingcontinuous upgradingand expansionto attract and to accommodate theselarger vessels. The most obviousdirection of growth was the extension of solid-fill wharvesinto deeperwater. This often took placeby building woodenpiers seawardof the existing wharf, and then extending the solid.fill seawardwhenthe project provedsuccessful. Examplesof this type of 19 growth are the' Long Wharves' of Boston,Massachusetts, NewHaven,Connecticut. and 29. By the early 1800s, stonewharveswere beingbuilt throughoutNewEngland.They weremost likely constructedof beachor cobblestone not quarry-cut stone.Wharves and of quarry-cutstonewerenot common before 1830. to that time, stoneusedevenin buildUp Fig. 5. Nineteenth century seawall constructed of semi-dressedstone with ing constructionappearsto havebeenworked primarily from rock which lay on the surfaceof oak fender piles (tyPe B),' Central Wharf, Hingham Harbor, Massachusetts the ground.Quarrieshad not yet beenopened in the local granites,as tools that would work the rock effectively had not beendevised.In 1803, methodof splitting large stonethat a madeuseof iron wedges was devised,which led to the openingof quarriesin Quincy,Massachusetts.However,the useof stonefrom these quarriesdid not flourish until the Granite Railwaywas built in 1826, facilitating transfer
of the stone.17

Fig. 4. Three types of stone wharf: type A is constructed of dressedor semi-dressedPlain stone.. type B is constructed of dressed or semi-dressed stone with oak cap and fender piles.. type C is constructed of undressed stone with cap and piles using transverse fenders and bolted oak/spruce drifts for stability 18

30. With the useof dressed semi-dressed or stone,a vertical wall and fewer timber supports werepossible.Thereweretwo generaltypes of fitted stonewharf in the 19thcentury.The first was built of rough quarriedstonelaid up in randompatternsand chinkedwith smaller stones.This could includeusing a caplogand fenderpiles (Fig. 4, type B; Fig. 5), or semidressed plain stone(Fig. 4, type A; Fig. 6). The second type was built with larger quarried stoneblocksdressed and laid up dry in a

Fig. 6. Face view of 19th century seawall constructed of semi-dressed plain stone (type A); Barnes Wharf, Hingham Harbor, Massachusetts

243

RO~ENAND VINE brokenstoneand oyster shellsadjacentto the wall. 33. The substratein BostonHarbor is highly variable,consistingof extensiveglaciomarineclay deposits,glacial tills and alluvial sands.Thesenatural conditions,alongwith the extensivelandfilling in the area,haveresulted in mostof the stonestructuresafter the mid 1800s being supportedon woodpile foundations. Many of thesestructuresare on friction piles which are proneto settlement. survey of A Boston'sCommonwealth No.6 indicated Pier thatover2 ft (0.6m)of pilesettlement had occured sinceconstructionin 1911. measure A usedto preventsoil underminingand exposure of the piles was to constructa short timber bulkheadcut-off wall within severalfeet of the toe.Fig. 9 showsa pile-supported seawallin East Bostonwith a timber cut-off wall which common running bond(Fig. 7). Many of the sea. wasconstructed during the 1860s. The plan of walls remainingin Boston,Salem, Hingham, 1909illustrates the installation of a replaceAllerton and Cohasset Harborsconsistof these mentbulkheadand the backfilling of the repair typesfrom the 1800s. The quality of stone, with concrete. alignmentpatternsand quarry-facecharacter34. Severaltechnological advances allowed istics are generallyindicative of the ageof the the constructionof morepermanent stable and wall. shores structures.The adventof the steam ide 31. By the mid 19thcentury,muchof the engineled to the development circa 1.825 in of waterfront development centredaroundcomthe steampile-driver. Along with iron, that was mercewhich was supportedby the intermodal becoming increasinglyavailable,and, later, railroad industry. Unlike the earlier shipsteelspikes,timber piling became more a building industry of NewEngland,the railroad attractive alternative.After about 1840, industry provideda readily availableway of wrought-irontie rods cameinto common use. transportingcut stoneby rail to the waterfront. With the ability to drive woodenpilings effiThe adventof rail transportationis responsible ciently, a different methodof woodseawallconfor the manycut granite seawallsobserved struction became prevalent.This involved throughoutNewEnglandharbours. driving closely-spaced vertical piles, sheathing 32. The importanceof using quality fill, the interior with heavyplanking, and backadjacentto a seawallappearsto havebeenrec- filling. This methodof constructionwas ognizedin the mid 1800s. Records 18th of popularin NewYork Harbor by 1840. The same centuryseawallsrarely reference stoneor char- type of structure was attributed to Bpston,with . moreattention. . . by the builders to the duraacteristicsof fill. Plansfrom the late 1800s specifystoneor riprap adjacentto seawallsto bility of the work '.19This addedattentionto reducelateral forcesand to provide drainage. durability may havebeena necessity an in Fig. 8 showsplans for a portiontimber- Wharf, environment of Long -with greaterimpactsarising from Boston, 1869, in consisting a of ice;greatertidal ranges,and exposure northto supportedcut granite seawallbackfilled with eaststorms.

Fig. 7. Nineteenth century seawall constructed with quarried stone blocks dressed and laid up in a common running bond; Hingham Harbor, Massachusetts at the Rotary

GRAVEL

,
...'

; """,
_..

-::r
COMMON; EARTH
DALl.I1ST
.-,co'

~W'

"o,f i':';'"Y"o '

..:.,,:..,\-~

Fig. 8. Plan for a

Pile-supported granite seawall with stone and oyster shell specified as backfill; Long Wharf, Boston, 1869

,.':7:~~'r;f-~::~,~~~~. ," 0 .' 0 ~

C'"

,,;'l~o~~:~:::'~;:~~.~~~~~:~~ '. J I ,", !~""'o..l~,'

" '0 ",. .~~

...,~..."'o~,.,

': ..? "\( ~

"".

i,j cr,'

'.c','

.~';-'.!.\.I

t~":'-."~

~ fi-

I+~I'

'
'

-,.. c.,. ,.0 ~ '.

.'~

~J1
,
':)'t

.A{LW'

BROKEN STONE o!:-",

OYSTER SHELLS

;.,,';.
.~o-

~;. i;'

244

1/

fJ

SEAWALL CONSTRUCTION IN BOSTON HARBOR

region. Thisis substantiated Greene: by . The

35. A major factor that affectedthe construction of seawallsin the 1800s was the inventionof PortlandCement Joseph by Aspdin in 1824.This invention resultedin an immediate cost advantage over timber or stonewalls. Formsof concrete had beenusedsinceRoman times.With the fall of Rome, art of building the with concrete was dimin~shed until the 19th century. 36. Aspdin's patentedPortlandCement was successfullyutilized in the constructionof the first ThamesTunnel in 1828. From the 1830s through to about 1880,concrete technologyhad not developed a level whereit consistently to provideda durablestructure in the salt/tidal environment. many yearsafter its introFor duction,seawallsand bridge piers continuedto be facedwith granite or other masonry, althoughthe backingwas of concrete. 37. The severe environmentalconditionsof NewEnglandmay also be responsible the for extensivenumberof granite (insteadof concreteor steel)seawallstructuresfound in the

- r- r--r-,-'Co":

---,. '.'. . , ... ..

=- :;7 ~ :::::cd J.. '0.0 . " e.l.C_,,?

-:;:-t';-;'"";::t...:~::

::':;:..:: .;. . ',,":

:.._',"
/ ::.:;-:; -.'
... ~'_..' .. ,

!!,;

" :i
i.ii&t:1 r'i81

.,., I!

.::c-~

;::;;~"-"""'~
-;..,~.": ":

. :1'

fact that the climatein Bostonis severeand the tidal rangeis unusually large and that there had beenmany failures of concrete between high and low water may havehad considerable influencein the choiceof granite insteadof concrete Many of the 19thcentury seawalls '.16 throughoutNewEnglandharboursthat appear to be granite may haveconcrete backing.Fig. 10 showsa cross-section a seawallfacedwith of dressed-granite, with concreteinterior, from GallopsIsland, BostonHarbor,built in 1870. 38. The forerunnerof steelsheet-pile bulkheadswas the useof cast iron. The cost of cast iron and difficulty of installation apparently limited its usein the USA.A seawallwas built in Englandby Renniein 1804and repairedin 1834with cast iron sheetpiling.Seventyyears later (1904), cast iron was observed be in the to goodcondition exceptin the tidal zonewhere the iron was described graphitic'.2O as' 39. As concrete technologyprogressed in the 1800s, did steeltechnology.With the so

Wf'

inventionof the Bessemer Process Henry (by Bessemer Englandand William Kelly in the in USA,working independently eachother)in of about 1847. Steelsheetpile walls provideda means constructionwherethe wider gravity of walls could not be used.By the turn of the 20th century,steelsheetpiling was recognized as having a clear advantage cost,in having less in volume,in simplicity, easeand speedof construction.13 While mostof.thesetechnologies continuedinto the 20th century,the useof concretefor seawallsof shallowdepth and of steel for seawallsof deeper depthsbecame more prominent. Repair of seawall structures 40. The rehabilitation of colonialseawalls hascontinuedsincetheir initial construction, whenbuilders beganto recognize difficulty the

Fig. 9. Planfor a Pile-supported seawall with a timber cutoff wall,.East Boston, circa 1860

Fig. 10. Cross-section of seawall on Gallops Island, Boston Harbor, constructed in 1870 of concrete with facing of dressed granite

245

ROSENAND VINE in dealingwith the extremetidal and storm conditionsof NewEngland. 41. The repair of historic seawallsrequires a thoroughunderstandingof the construction and conditionof the structure.The conditions resulting from the evolutionof the seawall structureto its presentconditionare varied and often difficult to ascertain.It is critical to deriveas muchbackgroundinformation as possible about the structure.Although assumptions are necessary qualifying conditions, in they are secondary first-hand field documento tation. Sincethe majority of surviving historic seawallsare stone,the following discussionis focused their rehabilitation. on
Common

conditions requiring repair

42. A common problemwith historic seawalls is that of sinkholesadjacentto walls that havebeencaused the migration of fines by through voids. Largevoids often exist as a result of movement along the joints or the loss of the smaller stonesusedin interlocking the larger stonecourses. 43. The structural integrity of seawallscan be affectedby poor details,small sizestone, difficult environmentalsiting and improper accountingfor hydrostaticforcesand tidal lag. Suchdeficiencies proneto the ravelling and are dislodgingof stoneby constantcoastalprocesses, including scour,ice,wind, wavesand currents(Fig. 11).Gradualdeteriorationis accelerated stormsand extremetidal condiby tions. 44. Material deteriorationin granite seawalls can include the crackingof stoneas a result of waveaction or fire, and borer attack

and dry rot in timber members. Walls with concreteelements experience can surfacespalling and deteriorationof concrete components owing to the expansionby salt water corrosionof the reinforcing rod. Mortaredjoints deteriorateby freeze-thaw water pressures. and Concrete in older NewEnglandseawallshasbeenidentified to be experiencing chemicalalkali-silica reactions which causeexpansion the concrete of and severe strength deterioration. 45. The lossof foundationsoil coverby scouringor anothercoastalprocess be a can major problemto stoneor masonrywalls. With pile-supported foundations,this conditioncan expose timber piles to biological and environmentalattack which canresult in rapid material loss.The underminingof footings without pile support cancreateunbalanced bearingthat results in the leaningor bulging of the structure.Thesereduced structuresare proneto severe damage stormsor extreme by tidal conditions. 46. A seawallmay requirerepair if the use of the site haschanged. Increased load or draft requirements historic seawallstructures for may causefailure of the structure. Investigations 47. The history of the constructionof a historic seawallshouldbe performedearly in the programme it always increases efficiency as the of the field investigations.For manyprojects, historic tidelandsdocumentation requiredas is the Commonwealth Massachusetts of retainsan interest in intertidal and subtidal areas.For harboursiteswith a complexhistory, a plan of the structural history and sequence become can

Fig. 11. Dislodged stonewith washout behindthe seawallat MoonIsland,Boston Harbor

246

SEAWALL CONSTRUCTION IN

BOSTON HARBOR a useful tool. Fig. 12 illustrates the licence history for the East BostonPiers 3-5 since 1866. Sources information includerecords of from regulatory agencies (Stateand USArmy Corpsof Engineers), registry of deeds, historical and archeological records,annualmunicipal reports,and informationderivedfrom adjacent or similar structures. 48. The historical significanceof the structure and any restrictionsthat could be placed on rehabilitation, suchas restorationrequirements,aesthetics archeological or issuescan be major factors in the eventualchoiceof an approach.Often,altering the wetlandsseaward of the wall is not possibleowing to environmentalregulations.Logical engineeringsolutions must be modifiedto conformto these environmental and historic requirements. These factorsshould be determined early in the programme. 49. A visual and tactical inspectionof the structure is essential. Frequently,the alignment or uniformity of historic seawallsare not consistent owing to poor constructioncontrol or undocumented repairs.The inspectionshould includephysical characteristics, horizontaland vertical alignment,notation of any evidence of past repairs,joint conditions,material deterioration and any other conditionsthat could affect the overall stability. Gooddocumentation with photographs and/or videosis important. 50. Geotechnical investigationsare a primary part of any seawallrepair or rehabilitation programme. Test pits, borings and probescan provide information on the wall configuration, bearingsoils and backfill quality necessary the structural analyses. for Water conditions,including drainagecharacteristics and tidal lag, should be defined,as they are major factors in the analysis.Quite often, unlessthere is a clear understanding soil of parameters past constructionprocedures, and it is uncertainwhy the structure is still standing. 51. Structural and geotechnical analysesof historic structurescan result in modern-day low factors of safety for stability, sliding and overturning.Owing to the inherentvariables encountered historic seawalls,it is essential in that rehabilitation designutilizes modern factorsof safety.Seismiccodesand require-

LJC. NO. 2469 (SEE NOTE 2)~

UC NOTE 91 L_'(SEE NO. 2768 Ir

j ~,

" ;Ill! I 'I , U

'1

.r ~~~
~~
SEAWAl.l. 1878-""\ . .

r ~
I
..

LJC. NO. 3394

(SEE

~~:~.~~~i1il~ill~;E leE 7). OTE I

I

.
..- ..;
' \iIj3

"

I
I

\
]

I
I

I
I~

.
. .

.
..

,
I

.
.
1

~ I

Li

; .

,~

~~

I
I

- ,
~ I & ~
, ~,

I ~-

,'/O7E 8)

O. 3439

J
NOTI.5

j 0 - 0

I :I I I
L[~EE N;~-;l~J~.-N~~3;;.5
(SEE NOTE 6)

SE~ NOTE 4:'" 0 100' 200.

L~
Luc. NO.33;S
(SEE NOTE SJ

-sc;;;c

NUMBERING SYSn:M OF PIERS AND DOCXS HAVE CHANGED OVER PAST 100 YEARS. DASHED LINE INDICATI.5 LIMm OF THEN PIERS 1-1 PER LIC. 3" (1/11/1111). SUBSEQUENT NUMBERS REFERENCE NUMBERING AT THE TIME OF UCENSE. LICENSED WORK NOT SHOWN ABSORBED BY LATER LICENSES. LIC.1'6' (1/I3/01) PERMITTED CONSTRUCTION OF PILE PLATFORM (SHOWN) " ENLARGEMENT OF THEN PIER 1 (ABSORBED IN CUNARD PIER LIC. 33IS). LIC. :S31 (II/IJ/OI) PER~IITn:D RE~IOVAL OF THEN PIER 3 AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW STRUcruRE CONNECTING TO THEN PIER .. LIC.1S31 ALSO PER.'"TTED REHABILITATION WORK ON THE ADJACENT PIER I. LIC. 1111 (112110") FOR PIER 3 RECONSTRUCTION SHOWED ORIGINAL PIERS 6" 1 COMBINED AS SHOIVN. NO LICENSE FOR COMBINING WORK FOUND LIC. 33IS (IO/II/OI) PER~IITTED CONSTRUCTION OF PRESENT PIER 3 ALIGNMENT SHOWN (THEN KNOWN AS CUNARD PIER). WORK ABSORBED PILE STRUCTURES BUILT UNDER PRIOR UC. 3'1 (WAREHOUSE II/IJ/I111). S1S (EXTENDED DOCK 3 3/1/1111). AND I..6'. ALSO PER~IfTTED RE~IOVAL OF PILE STRUCTURES BUILT UNDER LIC. S91 (WIDEN PIER I 3/I/IIII) " I'3S (REHAB. PIER I). LIC. JJ6S (61'/09) PER~IITTED CONSTRUCTION OF PRESENT PIER.. (THEN KNOWN AS LEYLAND PIER) ALIGNMENT SHOWN. (ABSORBING PILE STRUcruRES BUILT UNDER LIC. SI6 (WHARF SECTION PIER S II/IO/IIII) & 1111' AND FOR REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES BUILT UNDER LIC. NOS. 110S (REPAIR PIER NO. . '/11/11") AND ISJI. LIC. JJ6S ALSO PERMnTED DREDGING ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF THE NEw STRUcruRE TO EL -3S (MLW). LIC. 33" (I/S/O') PERMITTED CONSTRUCTION OF THE PILE SUPPORTED TRESTLE STRUCTURE SHOWN AND FOR DREDGING OF THEN DOCKS' AND S. LIC. )43' (6/IJ/I!)) PERMITn:D CONSTRUCTION OF PRESENT PIER S AT SITE OF THEN PIERS 6" 1 AND TO DREDGE DOCK S TO EL -3S. LIC. ~61 (6/11/.6) PERMITn:D FILLING OF THE PILE STRUcruRE BUILT UNDER LIC. 33" AND FOR PLACING RIPRAP nLL ALONG THE THEN EXISTING FACE OF THE STRUcruRE.

Fig. 12. Licence history Plan of East Boston Piers 3-5

since1866

247

ROSENAND VINE
ments, although not always well-defined for waterfront structures, must be accounted for in design. The effect of new drainage systems and modifications !o tidal current patterns must be considered. Design solutions must be evaluated for longevity, cost, constructability, aesthetics and safety, and must be tolerant of the many unknowns. Repair

52. Thereare many provenrepair techniquesfor seawallstructures.Longevity of repair is generallya function of price and aesthetics.Attention to details in design,contractor experience commitment, the and and engineer's insistence proper installation, are on components an effectiverepair. for 53. In the following paragraphs, general descriptionsof typical repair methodsare gIven. 54. Stonealignmentimprovement. Almost all stoneor masonryseawallsrequire some periodicresettingor pointing stone.In seawall repair, the issueof dry or mortaredjoints and the placement weepholes of must be resolved. Most early New Englandstoneseawallswere not originally mortaredand typically do not havesafety factors consistentwith modern standards. Surfacejoint mortaring or an attemptto drive small stonesinto the joints typically cannotprovide lasting repair on accountof the extremeenvironmental forces and freeze-thaw conditionsof NewEngland. Morepositive methodsfor increasingwall stability includegrouting, shotcreting,dowelling, and stitching or stapling stonetogetherwith steelrods. Injection grouting seawallmaintenance rehabilitation can be effectivein and sealingjoints, but is expensive highly and dependent quality control. The stability of on the wall must be analysedfor changed hydrostatic conditionsif mortaring is adopted. 55. Fabric barriers. The mostcommon problemfound in historic seawallsis sinkholes adjacentto the wall resulting from movement of the fine soil material through joints or voids in the structure.The most simplerepair for this conditionis to placefilter fabric barriers adjacentto the wall to inhibit soil movement. Geotechnicalinvestigationsto definethe wall compositionand sectionand test pits to evaluate the wall's ability to be excavated critical are for suchrepairs.Unlessthe fabric is laid closelyagainstthe wall, this methodmay have limited effectiveness, sinkholesadjacentto as the cap stonesmay continueto develop.Special attentionshould be providedin the contract documents ensurethat the contractorproto videsthoroughinstallation of oneor more fabric barriers. Plansmust thoroughly detail wall protrusionsand endconditions.Excavated

techniques

materialcan be variable,contaminated, and expensive disposeoffsite. to 56. Fabric repairs canbe performedto belowthe baseof the wall, or as a cost-cutting measure, a shallowrepair within 3-4 ft as (0,9-1,2 m) of the top of wall. The deeper the repair and the moreattention paid to quality contractorinstallation, the morelong-lasting and effectivethe repair will be.This type of repair will not increase capacityof the wall, the unlesslighter backfill is used. 57. Placement standardconcrete, of lightweightconcrete fill. A methodto increase or the stability of a wall and to maintain the aesthetic appearance to install concrete is fill behindthe wall. This increases massof the the wall and providessomebondingto stone.A newdrainagesystemwill be requiredto relieve potential increased hydrostaticpressures which couldresult from thesealteredconditions.A variation to this techniqueis providing lightweight concrete soil fill. Lightweight backfill or will relieve backland loads,thus increasingstability. Lightweight concrete is available fill with unit weights in the rangeof 24-115Ib/ft3 (1150-5520Pa).A non-restoration variation is to provide a new concrete structure seaward of the wall, possibly using the wall as a back form. Granitestonecan be embedded the in face,similar to the 19thcentury concretebackedgranite walls. 58. Foundationimprovement techniques. The repair of undermined pile-supported foundationscan includerepair to the piles, placing material in front of the piles, and filling voids with tremieconcrete. Portionsof piles with insufficient diametermust be replacedor strengthened. repairswhereadditional area Pile is requiredwould involve removalof the deteriorated pile section,installation of a pile jack or post, and backfilling the adjacentvoid with concrete. 59. Wherepiles hare sufficient diameteror at locationsof foundationunderminingwhere no piles exist, filling the void with concrete is the most practical repair. Methodsto contain the areaadjacentto the void includethe placementof stone,timber, concrete-filled bagsor the creationof a form for tremieconcrete backfill. Oftena timber or stonerevetmentor a scourmat are providedto inhibit deterioration of the form. This repair is consistentwith the shallowtimber bulkheadsfound at the toe of many historic seawalls (Fig. 8).~ 60. Wall heightreductionmethods. Another technique quite often usedwhenthe overall stability and conditionof the structure requiremajor rehabilitation is seaward filling to reducethe height of wall and to increase the passivepressures. This technique often the is mostcost-effective solution which allows

248

SEAWALL CONSTRUCTION IN

BOSTON HARBOR minimumdisturbanceto the backland area. Negativefactorsincluderestrictions due to wetlandsprotectionrequirements, lossof aesthetic quality,decreased draft and possible increased waverunup. 61. Major rehabilitation. With changed usageor needfor additional draft, major rehabilitation programmes may be required. Typically, the foundationmust be strengthened using sheetpiling,injectedpiles, embedded anchors,or other underpinningmethods. Quite often, the historical significanceof a structure must be evaluated,as a complete abandoning of the structure may be the morelogical solution.
architecture). Mem. Acad. Roy. des Sciences, Paris, 1776, 3, 38. 6. PONCELET Mem sur la stabilite des revetements V. et de leurs Foundations. Mem. de l'officier du genie, 1840, 13. 7. REBHANN Theorie des Erddruckes und der FutG. termauern. Vienna, 1871. 8. MEEM C. The bracing of trenches and tunnels, J. with practical formulas for earth pressures. Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs, Trans., 1908, 60,1-23. Discussions 24-100. 9. COLSON Notes on docks and dock construction. C. Longmans, Green & Co., London, 1894. 10. US ARMYCORPS ENGINEERs. OF Massachusetts coastal study. US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, 1978, Sept. 11. US ARMYCORPS ENGINEERS. OF Flood damage reduction: Saugus River and Tributaries. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Vol. 2, Appendix B, Hydrology and Hydraulics. US Army Corps of Engineers, 1989,June. 12. HEINTZELMAN, Colonial wharf construction: A. uncovering the untold past. The Log of Mystic Seaport, 1986,37, No.4, 124-135. 13. WILSON A. and MORAN P. /fistoric structure M. G. report. Central Wharf, Salem Maritime National Historic Site, Massachusetts: Denver Service Center, Branch of Historic Preservation, US National Park Service, Denver, Colorado, 1980.
14. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINIsTRAnoN. Draft supple-

Conclusions 62. A remarkable number of historic stone seawalls in the Boston region have survived to the present time because they performed their function and required little maintenance. With the revitalization of the city's waterfront and the growth of the region, the future of these walls is coming into question. In many cases, proper engineering solutions can maintain these walls to allow them to be integrated into new waterfront land-uses.

References 1. BRAYR. N. and TATHAM F. B. Old waterfront P. walls: management, maintenance and rehabilitation.Chapman & Hall, London, 1992. 2. BRAYO. Restoring historic wharf at Salem, Massachusetts. Civil Engineering, Feb. 1940, 105107.
3. HEINTZELMAN-MuEGOA. Construction material

and design of nineteenth century and earlier wharves: an urban archaeological concern. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology and Council for Underwater Archaeology, Jan., 1983, Denver, Colorado, 1983. 4. RANKINE J. M. On the stability of loose earth. W. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc.,London, 1857, 147, Part 1, 9-27. 5. COUWMB A. Essai sur une Application des C. Regles des Maximis et Minimis a quelque Problemes de Statique Relatifs a I' Architecture (An attempt to apply the rules of maxima and minima to several problems of stability related to

mental environmental impact statement. Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project, 1982, FHW A-MA.EIS.82.02.DS2, Part II. 15. BOYLE J. Marine wood-borers in Boston Harbor. P. Report submitted to Massport Authority Engineering Department. Edgerton Research Laboratory, New England Aquarium, Boston, 1986. 16. GREENE Wharves and piers.. their design, conC. struction, and equipment. McGraw-HilI, New York,1917. 17. SMALL W. Wharf building of a century and E. more ago. Popular Study Series, History No.9, US National Park Service, Washington, D. C., 1941. 18. WEINRAUB C. L. and FRANKS. Industrial, comW. mercial and maritime introduction to New Bedford, Massachusetts 1760-1900. G. W. Blunt White Library, Mystic Seaport Museum, Mystic, Connecticut, 1975, unpublished manuscript. 19. HODGSON W. Shore protection and harbor F. development work on the New England coast. Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs, Trans., 1923, 86. 20. DU-PLAT-TAYLORF. The design, construction M. and maintenance of docks, wharves and piers. Eyre & Spottiswoode, London, 1949.

249