COOPERATIVE EFFORT OVERCOMES PROBLEMS WITH PIER AND

COFFERDAM CONSTRUCTION CAUSED BY ROCK SLOPE

Herbert F. “Buck” Darling, III, Herbert F. Darling, Inc., Williamsville, NY

Richard J. Hartman, Hartman Engineering, Clarence, NY

A bridge replacement project in Rochester, NY, encountered difficulties when it was

determined that rock below one pier was sloping downward toward the river at an angle
of 42 degrees versus anticipated 12 degrees. Cofferdam design and construction
became very difficult. The unanticipated subsurface conditions delayed the project by
eighteen months and increased the cofferdam cost by almost $3.0 million ($US) when
direct costs and associated delays were taken into account. The initial approach after
discovery of the problem was to use the same type pier design and modify the
cofferdam accordingly. This resulted in a cofferdam 12 meters (39.4 feet) deep on the
shore side and 18 meters (59.0 feet) deep on the water side. The design used a master
pile system to attain required wall strength and used rock anchors to prevent the
cofferdam from moving toward the river. The pier foundation was then redesigned by
the owner using revised seismic parameters. The original stepped footing carved into
rock was replaced by caissons socketed into the rock beneath a large tremie concrete
placement. The revised pier and cofferdam designs caused a shift from a mostly land
based cofferdam, excavation, and rock removal project into an almost entirely water
based cofferdam, caisson drilling, and tremie construction project. These design
changes resulted in a reliable, safe, and unusual cofferdam and construction method.
All of this was accomplished within a very narrow worksite with a railroad on one side,
and the river with its public and commercial freighter traffic on the other. In addition,
the existing two-leaf drawbridge was to be maintained in place which put further
limitations on the water borne equipment. The engineering and construction
considerations, problems, and solutions related to these cofferdams and pier
foundations are presented.

History piers would require cofferdams in the river.

The Stutson Street Bridge over the Genesee
River in Rochester, NY was built in 1917 as
a double leaf bascule bridge. It provided
access to both sides of the river while
allowing recreational and commercial boat
traffic. Having reached the end of its service
life, and due to the fact that commercial
freighter traffic and cruise traffic were still
using that portion of the river, a new lift
bridge was required to replace the existing
one. In July of 2000, the Monroe County
Department of Transportation (MCDOT) in
conjunction with the New York State
Department of Transportation (NYSDOT),
which provided the conceptual design and
which would provide construction oversight,
let out for bid the contract documents for
what would become the new Colonel Patrick
O’Rorke Bridge. The bridge was so named
in honor of a local Civil War hero. The
design of the new bridge called for two
abutments and four piers, and two of the
The two abutments were to be supported by
HP305x79 (HP12x53) piles. Pier 1, located
in the river, was to be founded on rock.
Piers 2 through 4 were to be supported by
HP356x174 (HP14x117) piles, with Pier 2
also a river pier. Herbert F. Darling, Inc.,
(HFD) elected to bid the piling portions of
the project as the piling subcontractor.
Early on in the bidding process, it was
apparent that one of the two river piers,
Pier 1, would not be of normal construction.
Pier 2 was constructed using standard
methods; it utililzed an H-pile foundation, a
large tremie concrete placement inside a
typical cofferdam, all designed in
accordance with the original bid documents.
Pier 2 was located only 50 meters (164.0
feet) face to face from Pier 1 which was
founded on rock at approximately 15 meters
(49.2 feet) depth. Pier 2 required
HP356x174 (HP14x117) piles 27 meters
(88.6 feet) long to reach rock. Pier 1,
however, was to be especially difficult
because of differential water and soil depths
to rock across the cofferdam width, the large
size of the pier, the need to excavate
contaminated river sediments to rock, and to
also excavate rock underwater to a stepped
pattern. As a result of these perceived
difficulties, Hartman Engineering was
retained as the cofferdam design consultant
to provide pre-bid and post-bid consultation
for methods and means of river cofferdam
construction. As early as the middle stages
of the bidding process, there were concerns
regarding elevations of the rock at Pier 1,
but nothing specific could be determined
Figure 1 – Boring Location Plan
The bid estimate was completed and bids
submitted to the owner on July 24, 2000.
Crane Hogan Structural Systems of
Rochester, NY, was the apparent low
bidder. MCDOT officially awarded the
general contract, and a groundbreaking was
held on September 27, 2000. Shortly after
that, the general contractor awarded a
subcontract in the amount of $4.2 million
dollars ($US) to the piling subcontractor to
perform minor water side demolition work,
bearing pile, fender pile, and fender timber
installation, drilled shafts for river dolphins
anchoring the fender system, river
cofferdam installation, and cofferdam
excavation work. After the subcontract was
finalized, the cofferdam design consultant
with the available information. A soil boring
location plan is shown in Figure 1.
A cofferdam design was then discussed and
bid, based upon the assumption that
conditions would be as presented in the
contract bid documents. That is, that a
rectangular steel sheet piling cofferdam with
multiple rows of bracing would be founded
on rock believed to slope at approximately
12 degrees across the width of the cell. This
cofferdam would allow excavation of the
river sediments and excavation of the
stepped foundation in the rock.
was formally retained by the piling
subcontractor to perform design work for the
two piers located in the Genesee River.
Cofferdam Designed for Anticipated
Conditions
The original pier design required
construction of a cofferdam with plan
dimensions approximately 14 meters by 35
meters (45.9 feet by 114.8 feet). Rock was
anticipated to slope approximately 12
degrees, or 3 meters (9.8 feet), toward the
river across the width of the cofferdam and 5
degrees, or 3 meters (9.8 feet), along the
length of the cofferdam; thus, across a
diagonal connecting opposite corners of the
cofferdam, the maximum anticipated change
of elevation of the rock was 6 meters (19.7
feet). The soil surface was level along the
cofferdam length but sloped at
approximately 12 degrees, similar to the
rock, across the cofferdam. The foundation
design called for 24 rectangular flat areas to
be excavated into the rock, all at different
elevations. The rock at the site is known to
be shale at the elevations involved in the
Figure 2 – Anticipated Cofferdam
Design and construction of the cofferdam
presented technical challenges resulting
primarily from the changes in elevation of
the soil and rock. Due to the soil slope,
diagonal bracing was required between the
st nd
1 (upper) wale level and the 2 (middle)
wale level in order to prevent movement of
st
the 1 level of bracing toward the water.
nd
Due to the rock slope, the 2 wale level and
rd
3 (lowest) wale level were required to slope
approximately 3 degrees parallel to the
cofferdam length in order to remain above
the highest rock and still control sheet piling
spans at the locations where the rock was
lowest.
construction. The cofferdam designed for
anticipated conditions is shown in Figure 2.
The components are standard materials
consisting of Z-shape sheet piling, pipe
struts, and W-section wales. A tremie
concrete seal was to be placed on the
excavated rock and would extend upward to
the elevation of the bottom of the pier
foundation.
Construction was anticipated to proceed
along conventional lines. The three levels of
bracing would be pre-fabricated, stacked
together, and set in location on spud piles
(piles driven to support the dead loads of the
bracing prior to attachment to the sheet
piles). Sheet piling would be set and driven
around the perimeter. Excavation of soil
nd rd
would proceed until the 2 and 3 levels of
bracing, still stacked together, could be
nd
lowered so that the 2 level was in final
position. Diagonals and posts would be
st nd
installed between the 1 and 2 bracing
levels. Then soil would be excavated as
rd
necessary to allow the 3 level to be
lowered into final position. After lowering
rd
the 3 level, the remaining soil would be
excavated. When the soil excavation was
completed, the rock would be excavated to
form the 24 rectangles required for the
foundation.
Provisions were made in the design for
normal variations in rock elevation. The
elevation of the bottom of each sheet pile
would be monitored; this would ensure that
the occurrence of gaps between the sheet
piling and rock would be detected, and they
could then be closed. In addition, if sheet
piles extended deeper than anticipated, toe
pins cut from steel rod would be set into
holes drilled in the rock to restrain the
bottom of the sheet piling.
From a constructability standpoint, this
conventional type design would presumably
have few difficulties associated with it. It
would be possible to install the sheet piling
from land, and the bracing could be installed
in pieces sufficiently small and of
appropriate weight for the crane to handle
and eventually lower into place. Excavation
would be incrementally performed and the
bracing elements sequentially lowered to
their proper positions. In summary, it would
be a normal cofferdam installation utilizing
typical, readily available materials and
construction methods.
The Start of Cofferdam Construction
With the early phases of the general
contractor’s work on the project proceeding
on schedule and knowing that the river piers
were in the critical path, the piling
subcontractor began the submittal process
for all its required work. In order to
purchase sheet piling necessary for Pier 1
installation, more accurate elevation data
was required to determine the proper
lengths. The piling subcontractor wished to
perform a probing program utilizing a long H
pile and a vibratory hammer along specific
section lines in order to determine the rock
elevations.
Unfortunately, no work was allowed in the
th
river until November 15 in order to protect
spawning salmon, trout, and steelhead. On
September 13, 2000, and again on October
26, the piling contractor requested special
permission of the owner to enter the water to
perform the probing, citing the need to
complete the cofferdam design and order
the sheet piles to allow cofferdam
construction to start on the first unrestricted
day in the river. Access was denied. The
New York Department of State had
jurisdiction over all other regulating bodies
involved in the construction process. After
repeated requests and negotiation,
permission was granted to access the water
in order to perform the probing.
st
Preliminary probing began November 21 ,
and the data showed a much steeper rock
slope at Pier 1 than had been anticipated.
Formal written notice of the changed
condition was forwarded to the general
contractor for transmission to the owner.
This notice was written to include the
opinion that major delays and cost increases
were likely due to the unexpectedly steep
rock slope.
In the meantime, mobilization of a crew and
equipment to the site occurred on November
th
14 in preparation for the first non-restricted
th
water work date of November 16 . The first
order of business was to build a new
docking structure for trans-loading materials
and docking of water equipment. Then work
would begin on the Pier 2 cofferdam
template and sheet piling. This would allow
the unexpectedly more complicated design
of the cofferdam for Pier 1 to be undertaken
with the least disturbance possible to the
overall project schedule.
Discovery of Unanticipated Rock
Conditions
The piling subcontractor conducted a
program to map the top elevation of the soil
and rock in the vicinity of the cofferdam
location. Soil elevations were established
using a weighted tape and rock elevations
were determined using an H-Pile probe
driven with a vibratory hammer. Soil
elevations were found to be essentially as
anticipated. However, the top surface of the
rock sloped toward the river, or across the
cofferdam, much steeper than anticipated.
The originally anticipated 12 degree slope
was found to be 42 degrees, resulting in 13
meters (42.7 feet) of elevation change
across the 14 meter (45.9 feet) cofferdam
width. Rock slope along the cofferdam
length was found to be approximately 5
degrees, resulting in 3 meter (9.8 feet)
elevation change along the length; this was
consistent with the previous data. However,
the change from 12 degree to 42 degree
slope across the cofferdam width presented
major problems. Whereas the anticipated
difference in rock elevation diagonally
across the cofferdam was 6 meters (19.7
feet), it was now 16 meters (52.5 feet).
After the probing established that the
elevation of the rock surface was much
different than anticipated, borings were
taken and soil samples and rock cores were
collected. Soil was confirmed to be a typical
mixture of sand and silt. Rock cores
confirmed that the rock was shale but
examination of the rock and experimentation
with it established that the rock was very
poor quality; it lost all its strength when
disturbed, and it would disintegrate into
Figure 3 – Deep Cofferdam with Rock Excavation
particles if placed in water and slightly
agitated. These rock properties presented
additional major difficulties for both design
and construction.
Deep Cofferdam with Rock Excavation
Meetings were then conducted among the
owner, contractors, and the contractors’
consultants in order to determine the best
solution to the problems. The owner wished
to maintain the same type of pier foundation,
i.e., a tremie concrete seal placed on top of
horizontal rectangular platforms excavated
into the rock; the number of rectangles was
reduced to 8 from the original 24. Figure 3
shows the primary features of the cofferdam
system designed for the deep excavation.
The design presented numerous challenges
and construction was anticipated to be very
difficult.
An obvious problem was the long spans, up
to 16 meters (52.5 feet), to which the walls
were subjected. They required a wall with
strength greater than can be provided by
conventional sheet piling. There were two
options. One was a master pile system,
which utilizes W section master piles with
flat sheet piles (PS type) between the
master piles. The other was a combination
wall system which utilizes W section master
piles with Z-shape piles between. In both
cases the master piles would be W36
Another problem was that the very steep
rock slope resulted in a large unbalanced
force applied to the cofferdam. The method
selected to resist the unbalanced force was
a set of 14 rock anchors installed along the
wall on the land side. As shown in Figure 3,
soil would be placed between the cofferdam
and shore in order to provide passive
resistance to allow testing and loading of the
rock anchors.
From a construction standpoint, this design
represented an increase in complexity over
the initial design. A routine land based
installation became a complicated water
based operation. Constructability and
material availability were becoming major
issues. The schedule was slipping away, so
no materials could be used that would
require long lead times. This system would
require a large amount of pre-fabrication to
allow bracing installation below water by
divers. In order for this installation process
to be planned and to allow for tolerance in
placement of the drilled piles, wales were
designed to be smaller than the inside
dimensions of the sheet piles by 0.3 meters
(1.0 feet). In order to then fill in this gap,
thus effectively blocking the wale to the pile,
special upper and lower steel wedge blocks
would be fabricated. Special plates designed
to hang from the outside face of the wale
would be fabricated with a sloping face
toward the master pile to accept the
wedges, all of which could be handled by a
diver.
Because of the steeply sloping rock only two
rows of bracing could fit into the rock
excavation geometry. As a result of this, the
lower wale now consisted of double
W920x271 (W36x182) beams. The finished
row of bracing was so heavy that the crane
sections and would be set into holes drilled
into the rock. The master pile system with
flat sheets was selected for two reasons.
First, a larger distance could be used
between master piles, thus reducing the
number of master piles and the number of
holes that must be drilled for rock sockets.
Second, the piling subcontractor was
concerned about the difficulties associated
with alignment of the master piles and
considered that the system using flat web
sheet piles provided more flexibility.
could not be used to lower it into final
position. Thus, a mechanical system utilizing
hydraulic cylinders, threaded rods, nuts, and
plates was designed for hanging the wale
above the water, and later, lowering the
bottom wale into place.
The selected master piles were W920x201
(W36x135) and W920x253 (W36x170)
sections with cover plates welded to one
flange, and a specially bent PS27.5 flat
sheet pile welded to the other flange. The
size and weight of the material was
increasing significantly. The weight of these
materials would become unmanageable
given the availability of standard equipment.
The drill rig to install the master piles would
have to be mounted on a barge in order to
access all the master pile locations. Finally,
the sheer enormity of the drilling task led to
schedule concerns. There were a total of 38
holes that would need to be drilled.
Paradoxically, and in accordance with
previous experience, the very rock that
could not be counted upon to carry the
design loads of the pier once exposed to
water would likely be very difficult to drill in-
situ. This could lead to accuracy problems in
the placement of the piles. The piling
subcontractor was also concerned that there
would not be sufficient room for error in
being able to install the flat web sheet piles
between the master piles given the
uncertainty of the master pile final locations.
Revised System Using Drilled Shafts to
Support the Pier
Considering the multiple difficulties
associated with the deep cofferdam, the
owner elected to modify the design of the
pier foundation. Extensive work was
required for redesigning the pier in order to
resolve difficulties associated with the rock
slope and seismic considerations. The system as constructed are shown in
redesigned pier and resulting cofferdam Photograph 1 and Figure 4.

Photograph 1 – Cofferdam for Pier 1 and

Completed Pier 2

Figure 4 – As Built Cofferdam with Drilled Shafts

The cofferdam design and construction both
faced challenges but the system was much
safer for construction personnel, primarily
divers, and the pier foundation was much
more reliable. In overall concept, the pier is
supported on 24 drilled shafts, and a tremie
seal was installed to allow dry construction
of the pier footing. Horizontal restraint was
still required to resist the unbalanced
horizontal load. The revised design used
circular cells and connecting arcs as
anchorage and tension members connected
the cofferdam to the cells. Use of the
circular cells for anchorage was enhanced
because the load was reduced by
excavating soil from the area between the
cells and the rectangular cofferdam. The
rock slope beneath the circular cells was
less severe than beneath the pier and this
mitigated concerns related to the cellular
structures sliding on the rock.
The drilled shafts were installed at the same
time as the cellular structures and prior to
the cofferdam. The casings extending
upward from the shafts supported the
cofferdam bracing. Sheet piling was then
installed on the cofferdam perimeter. In
order to expedite installation of the bracing
system and reduce associated diver work,
an “unfolding” post and diagonal system was
used between the two levels of bracing.
After excavation had progressed sufficiently
nd
to allow positioning of the 2 level of
nd
bracing, the 2 level was lowered and the
posts and diagonals “unfolded” into their
design location. They were then secured by
bolts installed by personnel standing on the
upper brace level. Photograph 2 shows the
cofferdam with the shaft casings and bracing
system still in place. Photograph 3 shows
the cofferdam after removal of the casings
and the bracing system when the area is
ready for construction of the pier footing.
Administrative and construction difficulties
with the final design were numerous. Much
care and consideration for constructability
and material availability were incorporated
into this final design. However, constructing
the final product was still a challenge.
Photograph 2 – Cofferdam with Bracing
in Place
Photograph 3 – Completed Cofferdam
Ready for Pier Construction
As the final cofferdam design was
completed, submitted and approved,
arrangements were in process for creation
of the mechanisms to pay for the changes.
They resulted in an addition to the general
contract in excess of ten million dollars. The
original bid specifications contained an item
for escrow of all bidding documents to be
opened and used in just such a case. They
would be used to determine the items
originally included in the general contractors
bid, and used as a starting point for
assessing costs for new work if it became
necessary. New items were created, old
items deleted or modified, and coordination
with other items were undertaken in order to
account for previous and future impacts.
With the introduction of the drilled caissons
into the footing design, the project changed
from a land based operation to a water
based installation using rented floats and
contractor owned spud barges and tugboat.
In addition, the river work was required to
comply with the calendar restrictions placed
on the project by regulating authorities.
One of the major problems was to ensure
the location and dimensional accuracy with
which the newly redesigned footing needed
to be constructed. The caissons were
required to be located accurately so that the
cofferdam could be built around them to the
correct size. Due to the large size of the
cofferdam, even minor increases in size
resulted in larger quantities for excavation,
tremie concrete, and backfill. Conversely,
there was no tolerance for having the
cofferdam and tremie be smaller than
designed. This led to great effort being
expended in the fabrication and placement
of templates to ensure accurate location of
the permanent casings for the caissons.
Due to the extremely limited reach of the
caisson equipment on the barge, only one
row of casings could be vibrated into the soil
at a time. After the casings were in place in
the soil, the drilling subcontractor could
clean them out and proceed with rock
drilling. Casing installation and drilling were
performed in very close quarters and that
resulted in implications for safety. It was only
after all of the caissons were installed that
work on the steel sheet piling cofferdam
could be started. The cofferdam portion of
the work proceeded without significant
difficulty.
Working on the water, there were to be no
impacts to the use of the navigable channel
during pier construction. There were
numerous recreation vessels and two major
commercial users of the river. This reach of
the river is a primary access point for boat
traffic to and from Lake Ontario. There was
a dinner cruise ship and a commercial
cement freighter that required full and
unrestricted use of the channel. The size of
the freighter and the narrowness of the
channel made it necessary to completely
clear the channel for its passage. A full hour
was required to move all barges offline prior
to the arrival of the ship. Then it took about
another hour for the ship to clear. The piling
subcontractor could then move back into
position to work, but then would have to
move again for the ship to go back out to the
lake either the same day or the next
depending on arrival time. The freighter
returned every one to two weeks,
sometimes more often. Total time lost was
on the order of 3 to 6 hours of work per
appearance depending upon the timing.
Once installation of the caissons and the
steel sheet pile cofferdam were complete,
excavation of river sediments and placement
of the bracing were undertaken. Due to the
depth of excavation, the water based
operation, and the contaminated nature of
the excavated materials, the excavation was
performed by crane and clam bucket (the
excavation of contaminated material would
be a problem no matter which design was
undertaken). Concerns for environmental
problems during the disposal of the spoils
became a concern. Thus, the excavated
material was required to be transported by
barge to a confined disposal facility operated
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in
Buffalo, NY. The round trip including transit
of the Welland Canal and unloading the
contaminated spoils required 2 to 3 days,
slowing the excavation process and causing
large amounts of downtime for equipment
and personnel both at the site and at the
disposal facility. However, there was much
labor intensive hand cleaning of the caisson
casings, the in-bays of the sheet piling, and
the top of rock that had to be performed by
divers working in water with no visibility.
Much of this was done during the delay time,
thus reducing downtime charged to the
owner.
After the first stage of excavation and
cleaning operations were completed,
bracing installation occurred in a manner
very similar to that of the first redesign. The
two rings were fabricated in place atop one
another and sequentially lowered and
blocked into place utilizing the wedge block
procedure described previously. The final
excavation, rock and casing cleaning, brace
lowering and wedging operations were
performed in stages.
Once all the excavation, bracing, and mud
cleaning operations were complete, the
truss posts and diagonals were secured. As
described earlier, these were prefabricated
as much as possible to allow them to be
placed from above water elevation and
“unfolded” into place. They were bolted to
the upper level brace by workers in dry
conditions. This was successful because of
extensive planning and prefabrication.
Simultaneous with work on the water, a crew
on shore installed the circular cells to be
used as an anchor for the sheet pile
cofferdam. As soon as the rear wall of the
cofferdam and the circular cells were
completed, the two were connected using
HP sections as tension members.
Well before completion of the steel sheet
pile cofferdam, circular cells, bracing and
excavation, plans were being made for
installation of the tremie concrete. This was
a major operation due to its location.
The access for equipment behind the
cellular structures consisted of a linear
roadway, approximately 15 meters (49.5
feet) wide sandwiched between an operating
railroad line and the circular cell structure.
Space was required to set up the concrete
pump, to maintain access for two concrete
trucks at the pump, and to maintain room to
stage at least two more trucks in the event
they arrived early. Concrete was required to
be delivered from two plants simultaneously
in order to maintain anticipated production of
the pump. The concrete suppliers could
guarantee the production of their plants only
if the tremie were placed during off hours.
This was both to dedicate the plants to the
project, and to reasonably assure no traffic
delays for the transit trucks. Therefore, it
was decided that the tremie installation
would begin at the end of the normal first
shift and go on through the night. Great
effort was expended to ensure uniform and
accurate top elevation of the tremie
concrete. It was night time and there was no
visibility through the 2.5 to 3.0 meter (8 to 10
feet) of water above the top of tremie
elevation. Concern for the elevation of the
top of the tremie concrete was a result of the
lesson learned at the Pier 2 location at
which the top of tremie was too high varying
from 2 inches to 16 inches, thus requiring a
massive expenditure of labor and equipment
to grind, chip, and clean the top down to the
proper elevation.
Upon completion of the tremie placement, all
of the bracing was removed and the open
cofferdam is shown in Photograph 3. This
allowed construction of the pier footing and
pier to take place in dry conditions. After the
footing and pier stem were completed, the
sheet piles were cut off at the top of tremie
elevation by divers. The cutting and removal
of the sheet pilling was a very slow
operation. Limited or no visibility in the water
caused incomplete cuts to go unnoticed until
attempting to remove the pieces with the
crane, resulting in re-cutting of the sheet
piles.
Conclusion
A relatively straightforward job became a
complex series of engineering and work
tasks requiring great effort on the part of all
parties associated with the project. A
change in the geology underlying one pier of
the bridge caused a massive redesign and
construction effort.
Eighteen months passed from the start to
the finish of the design and planning phases
for Pier 1. This occurred because it was
required that parties agree on what needed
to be done, how it would be done, how much
it would cost, who was going to pay for the
increases, and what payment mechanisms
would be put in place to pay $3.0 million
design, construction, and delay cost
overruns for the cofferdam. The general
contractor incurred additional costs including
delays, installation of the caissons, overruns
on the disposal of excavated soil, and
placement of additional tremie concrete. In
total, the cost increase exceeded $10
million.
The redesign and construction required the
combined effort of three design engineers,
the general contractor, two subcontractors,
and two departments of transportation. All
parties were required to take into account
constructability and material availability in
order to complete the project in the fastest
and safest manner possible.
Typical of subsurface work, none of the
additional planning, construction, and cost is
now apparent when viewing the bridge. But
everyone involved knows the detail and
effort required to complete the project and
can be pleased with the final product.
Without the cooperation and commitment of
every participant, it would certainly have
taken even longer and cost more.