In 1929 Carl Gayler, the last surviving member of Eads’ design staff, gave a speech at the Engineers Club in St Louis. In his remarks, Gayler recalled his experience working on the bridge.[1]
I will give you the history of those River Piers... Mr. Pfeifer, like the accomplished Engineer he is, has laid out one of those piers correctly with the pressure lines of the different assumed loadings laid off, the lower end of the pressure lines striking the bottom within safe distance from the face of the Pier, as the law directs. When Eads comes to see the drawing (I was standing right there) he marks off with a pencil a slice of two or three feet thickness the whole height of the Pier. It was the artist in Eads who protested, and his artistic side led him into this blunder. Eads, true enough, didn't want the pier too slim, but he wanted above all a graceful looking pier.... Poor Pfeifer argues and protests in vain. Eads is his Superior and that ends the controversy.[2]
The drawing that Gayler describes would have been similar to Figure 1, opposite. In the figure, “reaction lines” (pressure lines) describe the path that will be followed by the forces acting on the masonry.
The lines are plotted for the load combinations that Pfeifer identified in his appendix to the 1868 Report of the Engineer in Chief.[3] These are the loads that generate the greatest horizontal thrust (red curve) and loads that cause the strongest moment tending to overturn the masonry (blue curve). The least favorable of the red and blue lines at any elevation within the masonry determines the necessary width of the pier or abutment at that elevation.
Ideally a reaction line will fall within the center third of the thickness of the masonry. This ensures that the entire cross-section is subject to compression. If the line wanders outside of the center third but remains within the boundaries of the masonry, a portion of the pier or abutment on the side farthest from the reaction line will be unloaded. The pier will still be stable but masonry in the unloaded area, relieved of the clamping action of the load, will be susceptible to cracking. A reaction line that passes outside of the masonry indicates that the pier or abutment will fail.
The red reaction line on the pier wanders slightly outside of the center third of the pier’s thickness. The departure is small, less then three feet against a forty-six foot thickness of masonry, but sufficient to lend credibility to Gayler’s story. Pfeifer’s numerical calculations reveal a similar departure, indicated by positive l1 values in his tabulated results.[4]
For the pier only, a third load condition is considered. The black curve represents a special case that occurs during construction when the arch on one side is complete but the one on the other side is not yet closed. The black line passes outside of the middle third but is still safely within the body of the masonry. This violates the “middle third rule” but can be tolerated as a temporary condition during construction.
The black curve was plotted using the same dead-load as the other computations. This is conservative. Because the upper deck and uprights weren’t installed until after the second arch was closed, the weight during construction would have been less, placing the actual reaction line closer to the center of the pier.
Pfeifer investigates two critical load conditions for the abutments.[5]
The thrust and moment experienced by the pier is the difference between the thrust and moment generated by the arches on each side.
The reaction lines were plotted using the method suggested by Frank E. Kidder in The Architect’s and Builder’s Pocket-Book.[6] This handbook was published in the early 20th century but the technique described was in common use when Eads Bridge was designed. Charles Pfeifer would have used a similar method to make the diagram that Gayler describes.
Forces and moments used to create Figure 1 are from Chapter XXVII of A History of the St Louis Bridge.[7] Data for the final design, tabulated on pages 350, 352 is used in preference to the schematic design values cited in “The Stability of the Foundations” in Woodward.[8]
As-built dimensions for the pier and abutment were obtained from Woodward’s Plate XVIII and from drawing AB058B in Washington University’s Eads Bridge Drawing Collection.[9]