๐Ÿ“‹ Case Study

Historic Masonry Bridge Retrofit on Alluvial Floodplain

Low-density floodplain deposits (OCR ~1.2), high seasonal water table, and risk of scour undermining abutments

๐Ÿ—๏ธ Project Overview

Seismic retrofit of 1892 stone arch bridge over Mississippi tributary in Missouri

๐ŸŽฏ Challenge

Low-density floodplain deposits (OCR ~1.2), high seasonal water table, and risk of scour undermining abutments

๐Ÿ”ง Design Approach

Mini-pile underpinning + graded filter blanket + real-time piezometer network; phased load transfer verified by strain gauges

๐Ÿ“ Design Diagram

Seasonal water tableHistoric masonry bridgeMini-pileqโ‚› = 110 kPaGraded filter blanketPiezometerReal-timeStrain gaugeScour zoneV๊œ€ = 1.82 m/sฮด = 8.3 mmSchmertmannAlluvial floodplain (OCR โ‰ˆ 1.2)

AI-generated project design illustration

๐Ÿ“ Key Calculations

Ultimate skin friction (qโ‚›)

qโ‚› = ฮฑ ร— cแตค (ฮฑ = 0.55 for mini-piles)
Result: 110 kPa
Defined pile length requirement

Scour critical velocity (V๊œ€)

V๊œ€ = K ร— (g ร— Dโ‚…โ‚€)โฐยทโต
Result: 1.82 m/s
Informed flow training structure geometry

Settlement under dead load (Schmertmann)

ฮด = ฮฃ(ฮ”ฯƒ ร— I ร— ฮ”z / Eโ‚›)
Result: 8.3 mm
Below allowable 10 mm tolerance

๐Ÿ“Š Results

Completed within historic preservation constraints; monitored settlement < 0.3 mm/year post-retrofit

๐Ÿ’ก Lessons Learned

  • โ€ขMini-piles minimized vibration impact on historic masonry
  • โ€ขGraded filters prevented internal erosion despite frequent saturation cycles

โœ… Key Takeaways

  • 1Mini-piles minimized vibration impact on historic masonry
  • 2Graded filters prevented internal erosion despite frequent saturation cycles