3: Congress, ) 
 :d Session. ) 
 
 SENATE. 
 
 r 
 
 Ex. Doc. 19, 
 Part 8. 
 
 LETTER 
 
 FROM 
 
 THE SECRETARY OF VAR, 
 
 <o 
 
 TRANSMITTING 
 
 A copy of the report of May. W. E. Merrill, Corps of Engineers, upon the 
 radical improvement of the Ohio River from Cairo to Pittsburgh. 
 
 March 3, 1875.— Ordered to lie on the table and be printed. 
 
 War Department, March 2, 1875. 
 i?he Secretary of War has the honor to transmit to the United States 
 Senate copy of report from Maj. W. E. Merrill, Corps of Engineers, 
 • ij. on the radical improvement of the Ohio River from Cairo to Pitts- 
 ! urgh, being the improvement contemplated by the first subdivision of 
 Oie, central route indicated in the report of the Senate Select Committee 
 m Transportation-Routes to the Seaboard. 
 
 WM. W. BELKNAP, 
 
 Secretary of War. 
 
 Office of the Chief of Engineers, 
 
 Washington , D. C., March 1 , 1875. 
 
 Sir : In further compliance with provisions of the river and harbor 
 act of June 23,1874, for surveys and estimates for the improvements rec- 
 po.amended by the Senate Committee on Transportation-Routes to the 
 Sc board, I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of a report from 
 A ? . William E. Merrill, Corps of Engineers, upon the radical improve- 
 a it of the Ohio River from Cairo to Pittsburgh, so as to give 6 to 7 
 oet of navigation at low water ; being the improvement contemplated 
 by the first subdivision of the committee’s 1 central route. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 A. A. HUMPHREYS, 
 Brigadier- General and Chief of Engineers. 
 
 Hon. W. W. Belknap, 
 
 Secretary of War. 
 
 FIRST SUBDIVISION OF THE CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION-ROUTE. 
 
 United States Engineer Office, 
 
 Cincinnati , Ohio, February 25, 1875. 
 General: In your letter of June 30,1874, you direct me to submit 
 a report on the following through-transportation route recommended 
 
2 
 
 TRANSI ORTATION ROUTES. 
 
 for examination by the Senate Committee on Transportation, viz : “ The 
 radical improvement of the Ohio River from Cairo to Pittsburgh, so as 
 to give 6 or 7 feet of navigation at low water.” In accordance with 
 these instructions I have the honor to submit the following report. 
 
 The subject of the radical improvement of the Ohio River has been so 
 often discussed in official reports that it will only be necessary in this 
 connection to give the conclusions set forth in these reports. My 
 predecessor in charge of the improvement of the Ohio, Mr. W. Miluor 
 Roberts, civil engineer, in his last report on the river, dated April 21, 
 1870, and printed as Ex. Doc. No. 72, House of Representatives, 41st 
 Congress, 3d session, recommended the ordinary slack-water system, 
 with the addition of what he called “freshet-chutes,” to be opened and 
 closed by the floating ponton devised by the Hon. F. R. Brunot, of 
 Pittsburgh, generally known as Brunot’s hydraulic gate. The details 
 of these chutes he did not attempt to elaborate. 
 
 The board of engineers appointed to make a report on the radical 
 improvement of the Ohio by hydraulic gates and movable dams, con¬ 
 sisting of Major Weitzel and myself, submitted a report, dated January 
 31, 1874, (printed as Ex. Doc. No. 127, House of Representatives, 4 3d 
 Congress, 1st session,) in which, after giving full descriptions of all the 
 various apparatus in use in France, Germany, England, and India, 
 they finally concluded that before deciding absolutely upon any method 
 of improvement, it would be desirable to test the Brunot gate on the 
 Monongahela. 
 
 In addition they expressed the opinion that, should this gate work 
 satisfactorily, it might be more advantageous to use it in connection 
 with permanent dams than to adopt the French practice of movable 
 dams. 
 
 The board thus substantially agreed with Mr. W. Milnor Roberts. 
 
 Since that time I have continued my studies in this matter, and have 
 finally concluded that the French system of movable dams is the best 
 that can be adopted. I have therefore abandoned the contingent opin¬ 
 ion which, as a member of the board, I gave in favor of permanent 
 dams with Brunofls gate and sluice. This final opinion is given in my 
 last annual report on the improvement of the Ohio River, printed in the 
 report of the Chief of Engineers for 1874. 
 
 My reasons for this change are briefly as follows: 
 
 1. The Brunot gate itself may not operate satisfactorily; on this 
 point we have no positive information, as the trial which the board rec¬ 
 ommended was not made for lack of an appropriation for this purpose. 
 Something, however, can be learned from the test made in France of 
 the Krantz ponton, which in many respects is similar to the Brunot pon¬ 
 ton or gate. On this matter my information is unfortunately vague, 
 the substance of it being that I have received^ private advices from a 
 distinguished French engineer, that the Krantz system, which, as stated 
 in the board report, was a trial on the Seine below Paris, did not work 
 satisfactorily. It is possible, however, that the trouble may have arisen 
 from the points in which it differs from Brunot’s gates, and not from 
 those in which the two agree ) I therefore do not lay much stress on 
 this objection. 
 
 2. The Brunot gate, if used as proposed, requires the addition of a 
 long inclined plane above and below the gate, so as, if possible, to avoid 
 the wave at the entrance into the pass and the waves at the foot, where 
 connection is made with the lower pool. There seems good reason to 
 fear that these waves might prove dangerous to coal-fleets. In any 
 event these inclined planes must be quite costly. It is apparently iiu- 
 
TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 
 
 a 
 
 possible to avoid them, as the construction of the Brunot ponton is such 
 that when the pass is open the ponton is dropped down into a chamber 
 beneath it. The depth of this chamber must be a little more than the 
 depth of the ponton. The bottom of this chamber cannot be much, if at 
 all, below the bed of the river, as otherwise it might become impossible 
 to keep it clear of sedimentary deposits. Allowing one foot of clearance 
 below the ponton, we find that the greatest depth to which the latter 
 can be lowered is one-half a foot less than half the vertical distance be¬ 
 tween the comb of the dam and the bed of the river. Assuming a dif¬ 
 ference of level between the two pools of 6 feet, and a depth of 6 feet at 
 the head of the lower pool, we find that the ponton when down cannot 
 be lower than — J=5 J feet below the crest of the dam, or 6J feet above 
 the bottom of the river. .Assuming that the opening of the pass will 
 not materially lower the level of the upper pool, which would be the 
 case if, as assumed in the board report, the pass were opened in low 
 water only long enough to let a fleet through, we would have a difference 
 of level of 6 feet to be overcome. The inclined plane could not have a 
 steeper slope than 1 in 100, and it would be better to give it as little 
 as 1 foot in 200. We thus see that the lower inclined plane could not 
 be less than from 600 to 1,200 feet in length. The length of the upper 
 inclined plane, by which the water is gradually brought to the pass, 
 would not be great. It should be long enough to prevent any wave at 
 the head. Probably a base of 100 feet, with a suitable widening of the 
 upward prolongations of the side-walls, would accomplish the purpose. 
 
 The steepest natural slopes on the Ohio are found when the river is at 
 its lowest stage. At Horsetail, 5 miles below Pittsburgh, there is a fall 
 of 1 foot in 461 feet; at Headman’s Island, 14 miles below, a fall of 1 foot 
 in 513; at the Twin Islands, 85 miles below, 1 foot in 781; and at the 
 Trap, 11 miles below, 1 foot in 800. All of these slopes are much more 
 gentle than the gentlest suggested for the lower inclined plane of the 
 chute. 
 
 Narrow sluices for passage through permanent dams were in general 
 use in France prior to the invention of the present system of movable 
 dams. In order to throw as much light as possible on this vexed ques¬ 
 tion of inclined planes I have made the following translations in regard 
 to sluices from the best French authorities on this subject. The one that 
 follows is from Minard’s u Navigation des Rivieres et des Ganaux .” 
 
 The width of sluices in the narrowest part generally exceeds that of a boat by from 
 15 inches to 2 feet on each side. It ought to be even greater for sluices whose side-walls 
 are parallel, in order to facilitate the entrance of boats. [The plates show the width of 
 a large sluice to be about 40 feet.] 
 
 Sluices have been made for a fall of from 2 to 4 feet. The latter are dangerous to 
 navigation, and to the solidity of the works. It is necessary to wait before passing 
 boats through until the discharge has greatly lessened the fall. 
 
 The flows of sluices are from 23 to 33 feet in length. The side-walls may be longer. 
 It is advisable that they should not be parallel, and that the pass should widen out at 
 each end, in order to guide the boat and to prevent it from striking violently against 
 the walls. It is likewise advisable to terminate the side-walls by wood-work exten¬ 
 sions which will deaden the shock. 
 
 By considering the different circumstances of the passage of boats through sluices, 
 we can determine how to arrange the dimensions of the latter. 
 
 When a boat descends freely through a sluice, it experiences a more or less violent com¬ 
 motion when it strikes the gyratory counter-current which is usually found at the foot of 
 a rapid, and in which lightly-laden boats may even remain in equilibrium, pushed from 
 behind and held back in front. 
 
 Thus in January, 1834, a large empty abandoned boat was carried in a flood of 
 the Correze on to the top of the weir of the Brives dam. It was precipitated to the 
 foot of the cataract, where it stopped ; it remained there more than 15 hours, making 
 short movements backwards and forwards, and battering down the masonry of the 
 
 dam. 
 
4 
 
 TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 
 
 Also in November, 1834, having learned from an engineer that a skiff could remain, as 
 it were, in suspense on the rapid of Saint-Maur-sur-Marue sluice, I went there with 
 him ; we ascended the current, which flowed through the sluice, in a sail-boat, com¬ 
 pleting our trip through the sluice by having the boat hauled into the cataract ; on 
 getting there we found that the boat, whose sail was lowered, remained almost at rest, its 
 bow in the current, and its stern supported by the wave of the counter-current. An occa¬ 
 sional stroke of the oar kept the boat in line with the current and prevented it from 
 moving sideways. We allowed it to remain in this position for an hour, and we had 
 much difficulty in extricating ourselves from it. 
 
 With an instrument hurriedly made, I found that the thickness of the layer of counter- 
 current was only about 3 inches ; the variations of the current made it very difficult to 
 make this measurement; the whirl was 13 inches in diameter. 
 
 The total fall was 14 inches; the foot of the cataract was 11 inches lower than the 
 level of the lower pool; the velocity of the current, at the position of the boat, was at 
 least 7 \ feet per second; the skiff, holding three persons, drew 7 inches amidships. 
 Fig. 46 shows the course followed by a floating body thrown in above the rapid. 
 
 The counter-current at the lower ends of sluices is analogous to that which we have 
 examined in the over-falls of weirs; but the nearness of the side-walls modifies it some¬ 
 what. This effect is more or less moderated as the fall is lessened. 
 
 When a boat already on an incline corresponding to the surface of the water meets 
 the whirl, which is from 1 foot to If feet in height, it is checked in front and strongly 
 pushed in the rear; the result of these opposing forces is to incline it still more, and 
 to cause the bow to plunge. It is then desirable that the floor should be as low and as 
 short as possible, and it is even well to make an artificial excavation at the lower end. 
 
 On the other hand, it is desirable that the side-walls should be long enough to hold 
 the water, and to reduce the slope by lengthening it. They may therefore be prolonged 
 beyond the floor. It then becomes indispensable to build them on piles, the principal 
 effect of the fall being a great scouring at the foot. 
 
 In fact, the removal and replacing of the beams or needles, the hauling of a boat up 
 through the sluice, and the waiting until the current has moderated, will necessitate the 
 opening of the sluice for three or four hours, during which time a violent current acts 
 on the bottom. Therefore, the prolongations of the side-walls beyond the floor are as 
 much exposed to undermining as the piers of a bridge. It is therefore necessary, unless 
 the bottom is of rock, to surround them with deeply-driven piles and sheeting-piles. 
 
 This tendency to scouring is very great; it would be useless to oppose it. Exten¬ 
 sions of the floor, besides injuring boats, would, sooner or later, be carried away. 
 
 The sole of the pass is not vertically undermined in the beginning; the soil, even 
 when it is moderately firm, is at first cut away on a very steep slope near the pass, and 
 then on a gentler slope; so that the maximum of depth is generally found at from 25 
 to 40 feet from the end of the sole ; but afterward the scouring action travels backward 
 to just under the sole, in consequence of a whirl with horizontal axis, which uplifts the 
 wooden platform with which these soles are sometimes terminated. It is in conse¬ 
 quence of this eddy that we sometimes find that, in artificial deepenings made with a 
 vertical fall just beyond the sole, the current has brought back a part of the excavated 
 material and has formed a slope beginning at the lower end of the sole. 
 
 The depth of the scour, and the distance to which it extends, vary with the fall aud 
 the nature of the bottom, whose hardness finally yields in the course of time. Do we 
 not see very hard granite rocks wasted and worn away under the natural falls of riv¬ 
 ers ? It seems, in fact, that the deepening ought to increase until, in consequence of the 
 excavation, there will be such great masses of water to be put in motion as to use up 
 a part of the quantity of action caused by the fall; in a word, the regimen of the cat¬ 
 aract must become established, like that of a less rapid current. 
 
 In the Cours de Constructions of MM. Sgauzin and Reibell are some 
 remarks on the sluices formerly so largely used in France before the 
 invention of movable dams, from which I extract the following para¬ 
 graphs as pertinent to the question before us: 
 
 The size of sluices is limited by the method employed in closing them, which is very 
 variable ; there are sluices varying in width from 13 to 26, and even to 43 feet, depend¬ 
 ing upon the dimensions of the boats, the violence of the floods, &c. 
 
 The width of opening of sluices for the passage of floods, and for the transit of rafts 
 or loose logs, varies from 10 to 26 feet in sluices now existing. 
 
 Their soles are generally placed on a level with the bed of the river above the dam, 
 and they connect with the bed below the dam by a slope. In this way sluices for dis¬ 
 charge can also be used for the passage of boats. The bottoms of these sluices, in soils 
 that will wash, should be protected by a sole with a guard-sole below, as has been in¬ 
 dicated for passes always open. 
 
 The width of these passes depends on the maximum widths of the boats. * * * 
 
 The sluices used for navigation have their side walls prolonged much farther down 
 
TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 5 
 
 stream, in order to guide the boats and especially to make more gentle the curvilinear 
 slope of double curvature which connects the upper pool with the lower. 
 
 To still more lessen this slope, the sluice is opened a quarter or a half hour before the 
 passage of boats, in either direction, although this often causes an injurious lower¬ 
 ing of the water in the upper pool. It has been recommended that the side-walls 
 should have unequal length down stream, in order to diminish the boils and waves 
 which are formed where the sluice-water meets that which has fallen over the dam. 
 
 The construction of the sole of a navigable sluice is surrounded with difficulties; if 
 it is much prolouged on a straight slope downward, there is reason to fear that the 
 boat in its oscillations will strike it ; if it is made very short, there may result serious 
 scours at the foot when the river-bottom is not firm. 
 
 Although the sluices above described differ in many particulars from 
 the inclined planes proposed for use in connection with the Brunot pon¬ 
 ton, they yet are sufficiently alike to enable us to get some valuable 
 information from the experience obtained by their use during many 
 centuries. Navigable sluices were used on the Yonne as far back as the 
 reign of Louis IX, (1226-1270,) as an ordinance of this king is extant 
 forbidding the construction of anything in the bed of this river that 
 might hinder navigation. In February, 1415, Charles VI ordered that 
 all sluices should be 24 feet in width, which decree was re-affirmed in 
 1520, 1598, 1669, and 1673. In 1720 the number of dams with sluices on 
 the Upper Yonne was 25, and on the Lower Yonne there were 10. These 
 sluices were gradually widened and improved, but the greatest change 
 was inaugurated in 1835, when the first Poriee needle-dam was built. 
 By this invention the width of sluices was increased to 72 feet, thus, 
 changing them into what are now known as navigable passes. In 1860, 
 a still further advance was made by the substitution of Chanoine wickets 
 for needle-dams. This substitution is now complete, and represents the 
 greatest advance thus far made in movable dams. 
 
 The Chanoine system, which this brief history shows to have been the 
 culmination of the experience of centuries, is the one which I desire to 
 put into operation on the Ohio. 
 
 I conclude, from the descriptions quoted above, that there might be 
 serious trouble in the use of inclined planes from the dangerous scour 
 likely to take place at the foot of these planes, and also from the waves 
 and whirls which would endanger the safety of barges. The difficulties 
 ' which were found on small rivers, and with small bodies of water, would 
 probably be increased with larger rivers and wider sluices. 
 
 The only French systems that use the power of the stream for working 
 the movable parts are theGirard, the Desfontaiues, and the Krantz. None 
 of these can be used for a pass whose sole is on a level with the bottom 
 of the river, and in this respect they are like the Brunot system. It 
 therefore follows, that, as far as our present knowledge extends, the use 
 of sluices with gates that can be maneuvered rapidly, both for opening 
 and closing, likewise necessitates the use of an inclined plane. It is 
 proper to add that the use of inclined planes for chutes or passes in 
 weirs is unknown in France ; the three French systems mentioned above 
 being only used on weirs to control the levels of the pools by regulating 
 the discharge of the river at the site of the dam. 
 
 3. The use of permanent dams or weirs equipped with the Brunot gate 
 would compel all up-stream navigation to go through the locks. Very 
 high floods, in which it might be possible to go over the dams, occur so 
 seldom in the upper part of the river, that they need not be considered. 
 On the other hand, if the inclined-plane system should prove to work 
 well, it may be possible to maintain a continuous down-stream naviga¬ 
 tion through the chute at all times. This would be a decided advantage 
 if attainable. As it is necessary, in order to make an exact comparison 
 between the proposed Brunot system and others, to assume a precise 
 
6 
 
 TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 
 
 case for comparison, I have taken the dam at or near McKee’s Rocks, 
 being the proposed site for the first dam on the Ohio River. 
 
 The French system requires all navigation both up and down stream 
 to pass through the locks, when there is less than 6 feet of natural navi¬ 
 gation, but at all other times the river is entirely unobstructed. The 
 main question therefore is, which of the two systems will give most help 
 to navigation ? 
 
 I am constrained to believe that the towing interest would prefer to 
 have the river kept as much as possible in its natural state, and that 
 they would consider it hazardous to be always under the necessity of 
 running a chute or going through the lock when descending the river. 
 Experience has shown that for dams of 6 feet lift, such as are proposed 
 in the Ohio, a rise of 15 feet in the natural river is required in order to 
 give a depth of 7 feet over the combs. This depth would allow the safe 
 passage of boats drawing 6 feet of water. 
 
 Confining ourselves for the present to the upper part of the river, where 
 alone the actual work of construction is recommended at present, we 
 find from the records of the Pittsburgh gauge, as kept during the 17 
 years between 1854 and 1871, (see report ot Chief of Engineers for 1871, 
 page 399,) that the average duration of a stage of 15 feet or more is but 
 10 days per annum. This is very irregularly distributed as follows : 
 
 Days. 
 
 January. 1.1 
 
 February. 1.1 
 
 March... 2. 4 
 
 April. 2. 4 
 
 May. 0. 8 
 
 June. 0.5 
 
 July.. 0 
 
 August... 0 
 
 September.. 0. 2 
 
 October..0.1 
 
 November... 0.4 
 
 December.. 0. 9 
 
 Total for the year. 9. 9 
 
 This shows that no dependence can be placed on passing over the 
 dams. The times when such a feat is possible are so short in themselves, ' 
 and they are so irregularly distributed through the year, that the as¬ 
 sistance which navigation would receive from this source is too slight 
 for serious consideration. We may, therefore, come to the conclusion 
 that, in the vicinity of the head of the Ohio, the permanent-dam system 
 would require all ascending boats to go through the locks and all de¬ 
 scending boats to go through the chute. 
 
 On the French plan, the river is entirely open whenever there is 6 
 feet and over on the marks. Examining the record previously quoted, 
 we find the following average durations of a stage of 6 feet or more: 
 
 January 
 February . 
 March .... 
 
 April. 
 
 May. 
 
 June.. 
 
 July.. 
 
 August .. . 
 September 
 October... 
 November 
 December. 
 
 Days. 
 
 16.9 
 
 16.3 
 26.0 
 
 26.4 
 19.7 
 
 9.4 
 5.2 
 
 4.5 
 5.2 
 5.0 
 
 10.2 
 
 18.5 
 
 Total for the year 
 
 163.3 
 
TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 
 
 7 
 
 We thus find that on the French plan we will have an open river, 
 with 6 feet or more of water for navigation, for nine-twentieths of the 
 year. During the other eleven-twentieths, navigation in both directions 
 must pass through the locks. Therefore I conclude that the French 
 system would better provide for navigation on the Ohio than the sys¬ 
 tem of permanent dams. The same course of investigation, however, 
 would prove the exact opposite on small rivers, that seldom have a suf¬ 
 ficiency of water for a natural navigation. 
 
 4. The effect of permanent dams is always to cause a shoaling above 
 the dams. As a general rule this shoaling is insignificant in amount, 
 and does not hinder navigation. It is equally true, however, that in 
 rivers heavily laden with sand, such as those in the East Indies, the 
 pools above dams always fill up even with the combs of the dams. I 
 therefore conclude, that in the Ohio River above the falls, permanent 
 dams would not cause any injurious shoaling, but that below the falls 
 they probably would do so. As this shoaling always takes place in 
 high water, these effects would not occur with movable dams, as at that 
 stage they would be out of the way. Any small deposits that might 
 occur while the dams were up would be swept away when they were 
 down. 
 
 5. A great advantage of movable over permanent dams arises from 
 the fact that the great strains on darns, and the great dangers of injury 
 by undermining or by turning the abutments, occur during floods, at 
 which time the movable dains have ceased to be dams. They are thus 
 perfectly safe from the most serious source of danger to all constructions 
 placed in the bed of a river. 
 
 These reasons, and the example of the French, who are the best 
 authorities in the world on such subjects, have caused me to change my 
 half-formed opinion into one decidedly in favor of movable dams. 
 
 NAVIGABLE PASS AND WEIR. 
 
 The next question to be decided is the width of the navigable pass. 
 I know of no serious objection to making this pass as wide as the nav¬ 
 igation interests may desire, but as 400 feet is considered sufficient to 
 allow a safe passage between bridge-piers, I have considered it unneces¬ 
 sary to give a greater width to the pass. The reasons why the whole 
 river is not made a navigable pass are as follows: The pass-wickets are 
 very large and heavy, and are not easy to handle. It is therefore desir¬ 
 able to reduce their number as much as possible. This can be done by 
 making a part of the dam of smaller wickets on a foundation raised 
 above the bed of the river. This method of construction likewise gives 
 greater facilities in managing small rises, which if allowed to discharge 
 by overflow above would raise the level of the upper pool too high, and 
 yet are not sufficient to justify the opening of the pass. By dropping 
 some of the weir-wickets, which are easily managed, the rise can be 
 passed without difficulty and the wickets can readily be raised again. 
 On the other hand, when the whole dam is down the weir partly 
 obstructs the water-way, and may make too great a current through 
 the pass if the latter be too narrow. The widest French passes 
 on the Upper Seine are from 180 to 214 feet. They are generally a little 
 more than 40 per cent, of the width of the river. At the selected site 
 for the first dam on the Ohio the width of the river, exclusive of the 
 area required for the lock and the abutment, is 1,200 feet. If we give 
 the pass a width of 40 per cent, of the whole width of the river, it would 
 be 480 feet wide. This width, however, seems greater than is necessary* 
 
8 
 
 TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 
 
 The widths of coal-tows seldom exceed 125 feet (or a front of 5 barges,) 
 and as the width between the channel-piers of the Steubenville bridge 
 is but 300 feet, of the Bellaire bridge but 322 feet, of the Parkersburg 
 bridge but 350 feet, and of the Newport and Cincinnati bridge 400 feet, 
 the last-named width seems ample for a navigable pass. In order, how¬ 
 ever, to provide against undue contraction of the water-way, the half of 
 the weir adjacent to the navigable pass should have its sole at the level 
 of the low-water line, the sole of the other half of the weir being at the 
 usual level of two feet above low water. This is the method recom¬ 
 mended by the latest French authorities for very wide rivers, and for 
 those for which the usual width of navigable pass causes too great a 
 velocity through the pass when the dam is down. On the highest level 
 of the weir it will probably be very advantageous to use Desfontaines’s 
 drum-wickets, or the Brunot ponton. The question of choice between 
 the two can, however, be left for future study, as in any event tli£ dams 
 cannot be built until the locks are finished. In making the estimate 
 which accompanies this report, I have thought it best to assume that 
 the whole dam will be composed of Chanoine wickets, as these will un¬ 
 doubtedly accomplish our object. If the other system should be thought 
 better for the highest level of the weir, the estimate will still be substan¬ 
 tially correct. 
 
 In my last annual report I only estimated for a width of navigable 
 pass of 250 feet. Since then I have concluded, after consulting with 
 those interested in Ohio Biver navigation, and studying first location for 
 a dam, the surveys for which were then in progress, that it would be 
 better to widen the pass to 400 feet. 
 
 LOCK. 
 
 Experience in France on navigations similar to what is proposed for 
 the Ohio, shows that it is greatly to the advantage of navigators for the 
 locks to be large enough to pass ascendiug or descending fleets at one 
 lockage. An average coal-fleet has ten barges, (130 by 25 feet,) one 
 fuel-flat, (100 by 22 feet,) and one steamboat, (230 by 48 feet.) The 
 barges could pass two abreast if the locks were 52 feet wide, three 
 abreast if they were 78 feet, and four abreast if they were 103 feet. The 
 first-named width, however, is too narrow for the usual packet steam¬ 
 boats, which require from 60 to 80 feet, and the last-named is too wide 
 to be closed by the ordinary lock-gate. The width of lock must there¬ 
 fore necessarily be 78 feet in order to accommodate all classes of traffic 
 in the best manner. 
 
 To hold such a fleet as I have described above, will necessitate an avail¬ 
 able length (from the lower side of the mi ter-wall of the upper gates to 
 the recesses of the lower gates ) of 628 feet. The length between hollow 
 quoins will therefore be 634 feet, and the total length of the river-wall, 
 from head to foot, will be 770 feet. 
 
 This length may seem excessive, but the advantage of passing a fleet 
 at one lockage is very great, and the increase of cost is not in propor¬ 
 tion to the length of the lock. The most expensive parts of a lock are 
 the gates and the masonry around them, and they cost the same in all 
 locks of the same width and lift, regardless of their length. The differ¬ 
 ence between a short and a long lock, of the same width and lift, is 
 only the cost of the extra length of chamber-wall, and this is the cheap¬ 
 est masonry about the lock. The fleets on the Seine are somewhat 
 smaller than those on the Ohio, although their larger barges have al¬ 
 most exactly the same dimensions as Ohio coal-barges. To pass one of 
 these fleets at a single lockage, the lock-chambers on the Upper Seine 
 
TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 
 
 9 
 
 have a width of 40 feet, and an available length of from 591 to GI5 
 feet. 
 
 In my last annual report, I recommended that the lock should be 
 divided into two parts by a pair of middle gates, in order that single 
 steamboats and small tows might be accommodated without using so 
 large an amount of water as would be required to fill the whole lock. 
 
 After the detailed plans of the lock were prepared, I found that the 
 extra cost of these gates, and of the additional culverts that must go 
 with them, would not be justified by the saving in the consumption of 
 water. The low-water discharge of the Ohio was found by Mr. Roberts, 
 my predecessor, to be 1,600 cubic feet per second. This is sufficient to 
 fill the whole lock in 3J minutes. As the lock would not be used of- 
 tener than once in 15 minutes for single steamboats, or once in 20 min¬ 
 utes for fleets, we evidently have an abundance of water to spare even 
 in the lowest stages. The leakage through the dam can be reduced as 
 much as may be desired by the usual expedient of laying planks over 
 the intervals between the wickets. 
 
 I have not estimated for a double lock, as I think that the large 
 single one proposed will answer every purpose. It will be just as well 
 adapted to the needs of commerce when several boats are moving in 
 the same direction, but it will not be so useful when boats moving in 
 opposite directions meet at a lock. To balance this disadvantage we 
 have the greater facilities which it offers to large tows, and, besides, it 
 should be borne in mind that when navigation is naturally most active 
 the dam is down, the river is entirely open to navigation, and the lock 
 is not needed. On the Seine it has not been found necessary to double 
 any of the locks. The usual lift of the lock, when both pools are at their 
 normal levels, will be 6 feet, but the walls have been calculated to resist 
 the greatest pressures that can come on them when the lock is either 
 full or emptied for repairs. 
 
 ESTIMATE. 
 
 One river-lock, with lift of 6 feet, 6 feet on lower miter-sill, 628 feet of available length, and 78 
 
 feel of width in the clear. 
 
 cn 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 3-P 
 O .O 
 w 3 
 P ri 
 
 Eiver-wall, face. 
 
 coping. 
 
 backing. 
 
 Land--wall, face. 
 
 coping. 
 
 backing . 
 
 Mi ter-walls. 
 
 Upper-wing wall, face. 
 
 coping. 
 
 backing . 
 
 Lower-wing wall, face. 
 
 coping. 
 
 backing . 
 
 Coffer-dam and pumping. 
 
 Hock-excavation, 10,000 cubic yards. 
 
 Lock-gates, 4 leaves. 
 
 Wickets with apparatus, 20. 
 
 Maneuvering needle-dam at head of lock. 
 
 House for lock and dam tenders. 
 
 Engineering—engineer and assistant 2 years. 
 
 Total. 
 
 Contingencies, 10 per cent 
 
 Gub. yds. 
 2, 434 
 312 
 
 Cub. yds. 
 
 Cub. yds. 
 
 2, 470 
 
 1,172 
 238 
 
 230 
 
 "20 
 
 2, 818 
 
 60 
 
 40 
 
 15 
 
 $15 00 
 15 00 
 6 50 
 15 00 
 15 00 
 6 50 
 15 00 
 8 50 
 15 00 
 6 50 
 8 50 
 15 00 
 6 50 
 
 2 00 
 
 4, 000 00 
 200 00 
 
 1, 250 00 
 
 5, 000 00 
 4, 000 00 
 
 Total for one lock on rock-foundation 
 
 $36, 510 
 4, 680 
 
 16, 055 
 
 17, 580 
 
 3, 570 
 
 18, 317 
 3,450 
 
 510 
 300 
 780 
 340 
 225 
 715 
 6, 000 
 20, 000 
 16,000 
 
 4, 000 
 1,250 
 
 5, 000 
 
 8, 000 
 
 163.282 
 16, 328 
 
 179,610 
 
10 
 
 TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 
 
 This estimate is $20,000 less than the rough estimate ($200,000) which 
 I made in my last annual report. A large portion of this saving is due 
 to the suppression of the middle gates, with their attendant culverts, 
 and enlargement of the side-walls. 
 
 At the site selected for the first dam, the river has a rock-bed, but as 
 we approached the left bank this bank is overlain by a layer of gravel 
 and sand. The estimate which follows will therefore only apply to cases 
 of similar foundations. 
 
 As stated before, the pass is closed by Ohanoine wickets having 12 
 feet vertical height above the sill of the pass, and placed at a distance 
 apart, measured from center to center of wicket, of 3.61 feet. These are 
 the dimensions used at the Port-a-PAnglais dam, and though they ap¬ 
 pear awkward when given in Euglish feet, it has been thought best to 
 preserve them for the present. There will be no difficulty in slightly 
 changing them when the actual work of construction is begun. The 
 interval between wickets is 0.33 of a foot, or 4 inches. 
 
 All the coffer-dams for which estimates are submitted are built to a 
 height of 8 feet above the low-water line, so that they will not be sub¬ 
 merged until there is 10 feet of water in the channel. 
 
 Navigable pass giving an opening of 400 feet and having its sill 2 feet below low ivater. 
 
 COFFER-DAM, PER RUNNING FOOT. 
 
 Material. 
 
 Price. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Cost. 
 
 String-pieces. 
 
 $35 per 1,000 feet.. 
 .do . .. 
 
 85 feet.. 
 
 $2 98 
 5 25 
 
 Sheeting-planks. 
 
 150 feet. 
 
 Two-inch round-iron ties ...... 
 
 3 cents per pound. 
 50 cts. per cub. yd. 
 
 210 lbs.. 
 
 6 30 
 
 Gravel......... 
 
 6 yards . 
 
 3 00 
 
 T.ahor______ 
 
 5 00 
 
 
 
 
 Cost, of one, rrmninp’ foot of oofPor-rln,m . _ _ _ 
 
 
 
 22 53 
 
 
 Pumping, per running foot. 
 
 To make an approximation of the cost of this service, it is necessary 
 to make some assumptions. At the best, this expense must, from the 
 nature of the case, be indeterminate. 
 
 We will assume that work can only be attempted during a period of 
 five months, say from June 15 to November 15, that beiug the usual 
 period of lowest water; that it will take two such seasons to complete 
 the dam ; and that the yearly depreciation of the pumping-apparatus 
 will be 10 per cent., and its yearly repairs the same. 
 
 A 10-inch centrifugal pump, with 15-horse-power steam-engine, will cost-$1, 500 00 
 
 A flat-boat for carrying it. 800 00 
 
 Total cost of plant. 2,300 00 
 
 Yearly cost of plant, depreciation, and repairs, 20 per cent. 460 00 
 
 Cost of plant for two years.. 920 00 
 
 One engineer, ten months, at $90 per month. 900 00 
 
 Two deck-hands, ten months, at $90 per month. 900 00 
 
 Coal, three hundred bushels per month for ten months, at ten cents per 
 bushel. 300 00 
 
 Cost of pumping for two seasons, or for building 1,200 feet of dam. 3, 020 00 
 
 Cost of pumping, per running foot of dam. 2 50 
 
 As this work is subject to extraordinary accidents by floods, it would be bet¬ 
 ter to put it at.... 3 00 
 
TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 
 
 11 
 
 Foundation , per running foot. 
 
 Material. 
 
 Price. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Cost. 
 
 Rock-excavation.per cub. yd.. 
 
 Cut-stone masonry.....do. 
 
 $2 00 
 15 00 
 
 6 50 
 45 00 
 
 4. 5 yards 
 1.13 yards 
 1. 0 yards 
 34.0 feet.. 
 
 $9 00 
 16 95 
 6 50 
 1 57 
 5 00 
 
 Rubble.do. 
 
 Coat, of one running foot of foundation... 
 
 
 
 
 
 39 02 
 
 
 
 
 Appurtenances of the sole per one wicket and per running foot. 
 
 Name of part. 
 
 No. 
 
 Material. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Price. 
 
 Cost. 
 
 Heurter and slide ........ 
 
 1 
 
 Wrought iron... 
 .do. 
 
 480 lbs.... 
 
 10 cts. per lb .. 
 10 cts. per lb .. 
 10 cts. per lb .. 
 40 cts. per lb .. 
 
 $48 00 
 
 9 80 
 
 Tripping-rod_ 
 
 1 
 
 98 lbs .... 
 
 Guides..... 
 
 2 
 
 .do. 
 
 42 lbs .... 
 
 4 20 
 
 Roller _____ 
 
 1 
 
 Bronze . 
 
 26 lbs .... 
 
 10 40 
 
 
 
 
 Cost of appurtenances per wicket.. 
 
 
 
 
 
 72 40 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Coat of annnrtenaneea nor rnnninp- foot, _ 
 
 
 
 
 
 20 55, 
 
 Labor _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 
 
 5 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total ner running foot,. . _ 
 
 
 
 
 
 25 55 
 
 
 Wicket, total cost and cost per running foot. 
 
 Name of part. 
 
 No. 
 
 Material. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Price. 
 
 Cost. 
 
 TTorae _ ____ 
 
 1 
 
 Wrought iron... 
 .do. 
 
 450 lbs.... 
 
 10 cts. per lb .. 
 10 cts. per lb .. 
 7 cts. per lb .. 
 10 cts. per lb .. 
 7 cts. per lb .. 
 5 cts. per lb .. 
 $50 per 1,000 ft. 
 
 $45 00 
 13 30 
 
 Anchoring-rods... 
 
 2 
 
 133 lbs.... 
 
 Anchoring-disk. 
 
 1 
 
 Cast iron. 
 
 80 lbs_ 
 
 5 60 
 
 Prop. 
 
 1 
 
 Wrought iron... 
 Cast iron . 
 
 600 lbs .... 
 
 60 00 
 
 Journal-boxes. 
 
 4 
 
 220 lbs.... 
 
 14 50 
 
 Bolts and nuts. 
 
 30 
 
 Wrought iron... 
 Lumber. 
 
 330 lbs.... 
 
 16 50- 
 
 Panel...... 
 
 1 
 
 409 feet... 
 
 20 45 
 
 
 
 
 Coat, of wicket_ 
 
 
 
 
 
 175 35 
 
 Coat of wicket per running foot_ ______ 
 
 48 57 
 
 
 LOW WEIR. 
 
 Sill at level of low water. 
 
 The coffer-dam required will he identical with the one employed for the navigable 
 pass, consequently the same estimate will hold good in this case. 
 
 Foundation per running foot. 
 
 Material. 
 
 Price. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Cost. 
 
 Concrete ..... 
 
 $5.00 per cubic yard. 
 
 0.75 cubic yard. 
 
 $3 75 
 
 Gravel. 
 
 50 per cubic yard. 
 
 0.80 cubic yard... 
 
 40 
 
 Cut-stone. 
 
 15.00 per cubic yard. 
 
 1 cubic yard.. 
 
 15 00 
 
 Boards—inner sheeting for con¬ 
 
 30.00 per 1,000 feet .. . . 
 
 1 2 feet _____ 
 
 36 
 
 crete-frame. 
 
 
 
 
 Uprights for same. 
 
 30.00 per 1,000 feet. 
 
 5 feet.... 
 
 15 
 
 Sills. 
 
 45.00 per 1,000 feet ... 
 
 34 feet .. 
 
 1 57 
 
 Riprap . 
 
 1.60 per cubic yard. 
 
 1.22 cubic yard. 
 
 1 95 
 
 Labor_ _ 
 
 
 
 5 00 
 
 Cost of one running foot of foundation. 
 
 28 18 
 
 The cost of the appurtenances of the sole and of the wickets will be five-sixths of the 
 cost of the similar parts of the navigable pass. They will therefore be as follows : 
 
 Appurtenances of the sole, per running foot. $21 29 
 
 Wickets, per running foot... 40 47 
 
12 
 
 TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 
 
 HIGH WEIR. 
 
 Sill 2 feet above low water. Coffer-dam same as for the low weir. Foundation per running 
 
 foot. 
 
 Material. 
 
 Price. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Cost. 
 
 Concrete. 
 
 $5.00 per cubic yard 
 
 l 25 cubic yard 
 
 $6 25 
 
 Gravel. 
 
 50 per cubic yard 
 
 2 cubic yards 
 
 1 00 
 
 Cut-stone. 
 
 15.00 per cubic yard 
 
 1 cubic yard 
 
 15 00 
 
 Sills. . 
 
 45.00 per 1 000 feet 
 
 34 feet 
 
 1 57 
 
 Biprap . 
 
 1.60 per cubic va.rd _ 
 
 3 cubic yards 
 
 4 80 
 
 Labor.. 
 
 
 
 5 00 
 
 Cost of one running foot of foundation.. 
 
 33 62 
 
 The costs of the appurtenances of the sole and of the wickets will be 
 two-thirds of the costs of the similar parts belonging to the navigable 
 pass. They will therefore be : 
 
 Appurtenances of the sole, per running foot. $17 03 
 
 Wicket, per running foot. 32 38 
 
 PIERS. 
 
 As the length of a pier is the same as the width of the pass, the cost of 
 its foundations per running foot measured in the direction of the length 
 of the dam will be the same as the cost of the same length of foundation 
 of the pass. The width of a pier being 11.48 feet, it will only be neces¬ 
 sary to multiply the cost of the foundation of the pass per running foot 
 by 11.48 to obtain the cost of the foundation of a pier. 
 
 Cost of foundation of one pier 71.55x11.48 . $821 39 
 
 115.02 cubic yards of cut-stone masonry, at $15. 1,725 30 
 
 101.56 cubic yards of rubble-masonry, at $6.50 .... 660 14 
 
 Maneuvering capstan for tripping-rod. 1,000 00 
 
 Cost of one pier. 4,206 83 
 
 ABUTMENT. 
 
 The abutment is located at the shore end of the weir. 
 
 Foundation of abutment. 
 
 Material. 
 
 Price. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Cost. 
 
 Piles, 10' long, driven__ 
 
 $4.20 each_ 
 
 12 piles_ 
 
 $50 40 
 462 50 
 150 00 
 
 Sheeting-piles, 1 0' long, driven... 
 Concrete_ .. 
 
 3.70 each. 
 
 5.00 ner vard_ . 
 
 125 sheeting-piles. 
 
 30 yards... 
 
 Cost nf frmndat.irm r*f abutment. 
 
 
 662 90 
 
 
 
 
 Superstructure of abutment. 
 
 Material. 
 
 Price. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Cost. 
 
 Cut-stone masonry. $15 per yard 
 
 Concrete backing’.. 5 per yard 
 
 Capstan and gearing.'. 
 
 Grading bank, paving riprap, &c. 
 
 103.5 yards. 
 
 87.17 yards. 
 
 1 capstan and gearing. 
 
 $1, 552 50 
 430 85 
 l, 000 00 
 5, 000 00 
 
 Cost of superstructure of abutment. 
 
 7, 983 35 
 
TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 
 
 13 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 Having thus determined the cost in detail of each part of the dam, 
 we will now bring them together in order to determine the cost in the 
 aggregate. 
 
 Navigable pass. 
 
 Coffer-dam, per running foot. $22 53 
 
 Pumping, per running foot. 3 00 
 
 Foundation, per running foot. 39 02 
 
 Appurtenances of the sole, per running foot. 25 55 
 
 Wicket, per running foot. 48 57 
 
 Total, per running foot .. 138 67 
 
 Cost for 400 feet of width. 55,468 00 
 
 Low weir. 
 
 Coffer-dam, per running foot. $22 53 
 
 Pumping, per running foot. 3 00 
 
 Foundation, per running foot. 28 18 
 
 Appurtenances of the sole, per running foot. 21 29 
 
 Wicket, per running foot. 40 47 
 
 Total, per running foot. 115 47 
 
 Cost of 400 feet of width.-. 46,188 00 
 
 High weir. 
 
 Coffer-dam, per running foot. $22 53 
 
 Pumping, per running foot. 3 00 
 
 Foundation, per running foot .... 33 62 
 
 Appurtenances of the sole, per running foot. 17 03 
 
 Wicket, per running foot. 32 38 
 
 Total, per running foot . 108 56 
 
 Cost for 400 feet of width. 43, 424 00 
 
 Abutment. 
 
 Foundation. $662 90 
 
 Superstructure. 7,983 35 
 
 Cost of abutment..... 8,646 25 
 
 Gathering together the costs thus determined for each part of the 
 dam, and neglecting quantities less than one dollar, we have the follow¬ 
 ing : 
 
 Navigable pass. $55,468 
 
 Pier.. 4,207 
 
 Low weir. 46,188 
 
 Pier. 4,207 
 
 High weir. 43,424 
 
 Abutment. 8, 646 
 
 Engineering and superintendence two years, at $6,000. 12,000 
 
 Total.. 174,140 
 
 Contingencies, 20 per cent... 34,828 
 
 Total estimate of cost of dam. 208,968 
 
 I have added 20 percent, for contingencies, because work like this, in 
 the bed of a large river liable to sudden and high rises, is subject to in¬ 
 juries and accidents which cannot possibly be foreseen, nor can they be 
 covered by an estimate except in this way. 
 
 The site selected for the first dam on the Ohio has a local peculiarity 
 
14 
 
 TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 
 
 which makes the works more costly than they would be at many other 
 places. The profile of the river compels the location of the dam with 
 one end abutting on Davis ? s Island. This necessitates the closing of the 
 channel back of this island. This channel is 420 feet in width, and the 
 dam must be built up to the same level as the normal pool, which is 10 
 feet above low water. It is proposed to build a dam of piles and coffer- 
 work, the mass of the dam being riprap stone, paved on top, and sup¬ 
 ported by a long apron of riprap interspersed with piles. 
 
 The down-stream slope of the top of the dam will be one on three. The 
 banks above and below the dam will be graded and paved, and will have 
 a bank of riprap at the foot of the slope for protection against under¬ 
 mining. The method of construction thus indicated is in accordance 
 with the best French methods. 
 
 DAM BEHIND DAVIS’S ISLAND. 
 
 Cost of dam per running foot. 
 
 One row sheet-piling, 10' long, at $4.75 per running foot, driven. $4 75 
 
 40 feet board measure caps, at $35. 1 40 
 
 28 feet board-measure longitudinal stringers, at $35. 98 
 
 53£ feet board-measure transverse ties, at $35. 1 87 
 
 3 piles, driven, at $5. 15 00 
 
 3.7 cubic yards stone-paving, at $3.50. 12 95 
 
 12 cubic yards riprap, at $2 .. 24 00 
 
 2 cubic yards gravel, at 40 cents. 80 
 
 Labor. 5 00 
 
 Total per running foot. 66 75 
 
 Cost for dam 420 feet in length. 28,035 00 
 
 Bank protection above and below dam. 
 
 400 piles, at $5.$2,000 00 
 
 925 cubic yards paving, at $2.50. 2, 312 50 
 
 500 cubic yards grading bank, at 20 cents. 100 00 
 
 200 cubic yards riprap, at $2 . 400 00 
 
 Total. 4, 812 50 
 
 Total cost of dam, including bank protection. 32,847 50 
 
 TOTAL COST OF DAM NO. 1, ON THE OltlO RIVER, INCLUDING ALL ACCESSORY WORK. 
 
 Lock. $179,610 
 
 Dam. 208,968 
 
 Auxiliary dam behind Davis’s Island.. 32, 847 
 
 421,425 
 
 The estimates on a lock and dam thus far given presuppose a rock 
 foundation. In case we should be compelled to build on gravel the pre¬ 
 ceding estimates must be increased. It then becomes imperative to 
 give the lock an artificial bottom or floor of concrete, to found the pass 
 and weirs on similar beds of concrete, and to guard against injurious 
 filtrations by lines of sheet-piling. 
 
 This method of construction is expensive, but it seems to be the only 
 one that gives thoroughly reliable results. On the Monongahela wooden 
 floors are used, but they are frequently out of repair, and their weak¬ 
 ness is constantly endangering the safety of the locks. The following 
 extracts from Minard’s Navigation des Rivieres et des Canaux show the 
 best foreign practice in such cases: 
 
TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 
 
 15 
 
 Soil incompressible, but liable to scour. 
 
 Sands, gravel, &c., found directly on the soil, and give the floors a thickness of from 
 2 to feet, depending upon the lift, the width of the lock, and the tenacity of the 
 masonry ; oppose subterranean filtrations by cross-walls of beton or masonry descend¬ 
 ing lower at the head and foot of the lock and under the miter-sills than the general 
 foundations, or by carefully-driven rows of matched sheeting-piles under the whole 
 width of the lock; make the floor thicker under the miter-sills and under the lower 
 gate-chambers. Make an apron below the lock whose thickness decreases as it recedes 
 from the lock, and whose total length depends on the lift and.the resistance of the 
 soil. 
 
 Sheeting-piles are very efficacious for intercepting subterranean communications. I 
 have seen locks a hundred years old on the Picardy Canal which still worked passably, 
 although the lock-chamber no longer had a floor, because the rows of sheeting-piles 
 under the miter-sills were in good condition. 
 
 To have the rows of sheeting-piles well joined it is necessary to use the system 
 which was formerly followed and which is yet in use among the Dutch. 
 
 The piles are so arranged as to be capped by two parallel stringers, leaving between 
 them an interval equal to the thickness of the sheeting-piles; the latter can then be 
 driven by continuous pauels, and by slight successive penetrations along the whole 
 length of the row, so that they reach their ultimate penetration without losing con¬ 
 tact, and mutually sustaining each other; which, as is well known, is the advantage 
 of driving by panels. 
 
 On the other hand, when they are driven by the ordinary method of first driving piles 
 held between two rows of stringers, and then sheeting-piles in the interval between 
 the clamps, the piles obtain isolated holds, independent in direction one of the other, 
 and it is difficult to form a connection between them and the intermediate sheeting- 
 piles. 
 
 Ties that are parallel to the length of a lock are the cause of dangerous filtrations, 
 because when the earth settles which was placed under them it leaves a void which 
 -cannot be filled, and which establishes a continuous communication from the water 
 above the lock to that below it, whilst similar voids under the caps are interrupted at 
 each pile. 
 
 If, as often happens in these kinds of soil, the springs are very abundant, after having 
 excavated until the pumping becomes too costly, the trench for the foundations should 
 be finished by dredging. The bottom should be graded to suit the drainage; the sides 
 of the excavation should be slightly raised ; then drainage-wells should be dug in the 
 lowest parts; after which the whole should be covered by a bed of from 1 to 2 feet 
 of beton, so as to have a kind of large, flat, impermeable canal, in which pumping 
 can be done after the mortar has set. 
 
 Beton, placed on the soil, chokes or diminishes the bottom springs, and makes pump¬ 
 ing much less expensive. I found in a similar case that ten Archimedean screws were 
 sufficient to lay bare an excavation covered with 16 inches of beton, while seventeen 
 screws had not succeeded in getting water lower than 2£ feet above the bottom of this 
 excavation. 
 
 If the foundations are much below the level of the springs, it will be necessary, after 
 dredging, to drive an inclosure of piles and sheeting-piles at the feet of the main slopes 
 of the excavation, which must be somewhat widened; then a layer of beton, of from 
 2 to 3 feet in thickness, must be poured into the inclosed space; next, by means of 
 scaffolds resting on the heads of the piles of the inclosure, whose top must be above the 
 level of the springs, vertical or inclined posts must be planted in the beton, which 
 will serve to support panels, so as to make a second interior inclosure, forming with 
 the first one a perimetrical coffer-work, which should be filled with beton up to the 
 level of the springs, supporting it on the exterior by e i.rth filling. We will thus have 
 a coffer-dam, inside of which we can pump out after the mortar has set. The posts and 
 panels will then be removed, and the masonry will be built. The masses of beton in 
 the coffer dam, cut in steps if the posts were inclined, will form part of the side-walls 
 and of the lift-wall. At the lower end of the lock they must be removed to below the 
 surface, in order to open communication with the lock, unless from motives of econ¬ 
 omy this part of the coffer-dam was made of clay, which can more readily be removed. 
 
 If there is danger of cracking the beton by driving in the posts, their feet can be but¬ 
 tressed by long timbers extending from one side of the coffer-dam to the other. 
 
 The interior posts ought to be somewhat inclined; if they are much inclined, consid¬ 
 erably less beton is required. But that part which fills the acute angle of the coffer- 
 work chn only get there by flowing down a slope, and at this part all the milk of the 
 beton ( laitance ) will be accumulated. This has but a very moderate consistence, and 
 may give rise to accidents, which can be avoided by using vertical or slightly-inclined 
 panels. 
 
 I have given the above translation on account of its intrinsic value, 
 and because it is contained in a very valuable treatise, (Minard’s Navi- 
 
16 
 
 TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 
 
 gation des Rivieres et des Canaux,) which is now out of print. This book 
 was recommended to me by a distinguished French engineer, (M. Male- 
 zieux,) as the best authority on such work, and by good fortune I suc¬ 
 ceeded in securing a copy. I ought to add that u beton” and “ concrete ” 
 are synonymous terms. 
 
 I think that I am perfectly safe in saying that every lock on the Ohio 
 will be founded on rock, gravel, or saud. 
 
 Having estimated for a lock on rock foundation, it remains to deter¬ 
 mine what modification will be required in the estimates for sand and 
 gravel foundations. 
 
 The great difficulty occurs in the lock-chamber. Although by using 
 sheet-piling we may greatly reduce the percolation of water through 
 the soil under the lock, it is impossible to stop it entirely. The effect 
 of this under-current of water is to cause an upward pressure on the 
 floor of the lock whenever the chamber is empty. This upward pressure 
 must be met by dead-weight, or by weight aided by tenacity. If we 
 use nothing but concrete, it will resist partly by its weight, (due al¬ 
 lowance being made for reduction of weight by immersion,) and partly 
 by its construction as a monolith with its ends firmly held under the 
 side-walls. 
 
 If we fill the area with piles and a less amount of concrete in the 
 spaces between the piles, we will then have a resistance due to the 
 weight of the concrete in water, increased by the resistance of the piles 
 to extraction. 
 
 Lastly, we may use masonry built in what is known as plate-bands, 
 or reversed arches with an infinite radius for the intrados. The key¬ 
 stone is wedge-shaped, with its widest face lowest; the other voussoirs 
 have their sides inclining toward the key, and their under-widths are 
 slightly greater than their widths at the intrados. The plate-band may 
 therefore be considered as the extreme case of a flat arch. It may be 
 built on a foundation of concrete, or on a wooden platform, thus making 
 two additional methods. 
 
 All the plans described above require the same expenditure for coffer¬ 
 dam, and for the rows of sheet-piling designed to prevent subterranean 
 filtration. The cost of these works will therefore be estimated before 
 going into the details of the floor. 
 
 COFFER-DAM. 
 
 This will be built of two rows of piles and sheeting-piles, 8 feet apart, 
 and the space between the rows will be filled with gravel. The outside 
 sheeting-piles will be 3 inches thick and 12 feet long ; the inner ones 
 being 2 inches by 10 feet long. The latter will the driven by hand. 
 
 Coffer-dam per running foot. 
 
 Material. 
 
 Price. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Cost. 
 
 Piles, 18' long. 
 
 $5.40 per pile driven. 
 
 1-5. 
 
 $1 08 
 
 Outer sheeting-piles.. 
 
 3.00 per pile driven. 
 
 1.1-5. 
 
 3 60 
 
 Inner sheeting-piles. 
 
 40.00 per 1,000 feet. 
 
 20 feet, board-measure_ 
 
 80 
 
 W ales. 
 
 35.00 per 1,000 feet. 
 
 12 feet, board-measure ... 
 
 42 
 
 Gravel. 
 
 50 per cubic yard. 
 
 2£ cubic yards. 
 
 * 1 17 
 
 Labor..... 
 
 
 
 2 00 
 
 Total..... 
 
 
 
 9 07 
 
 Cost, of 1 040 feet, of coffer-djim____ 
 
 9, 434 80 
 
 
 
 
 
TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 
 
 17 
 
 Sheeting-piles. 
 
 The sheet-piling, to prevent filtration, should extend along the whole 
 length of the river-wall, across the head, across the foot, under the 
 lower miter-sill, and on the prolongation of the line of the dam. Its 
 total length will be 1,136 feet. 
 
 Sheet-piling per running foot. 
 
 Material. 
 
 Price. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Cost. 
 
 Piles, 14' long. 
 
 $4.68. 
 
 1-10. 
 
 $0 47 
 5 7ft 
 37 
 1 00 
 
 Sheeting-piles ......__.......... 
 
 4.80 per pile driven. 
 
 1.1-5 . 
 
 Wales. 
 
 35.000 per 1,00 feet. 
 
 10.67 feet, hoard-measure.. 
 
 T.ahor.... 
 
 
 TVvhil _ 
 
 
 
 7 60 
 
 
 Cost of 1,136 feet of sheeting 
 
 -piles........ 
 
 8, 633 60 
 
 
 Pumping. 
 
 The price of pumping will be taken at the price previously deter¬ 
 mined, viz, $3,020 for the two seasons that will probably be required 
 for constructing the lock. 
 
 FLOORS OF LOCK-CHAMBERS. 
 
 Concrete only. 
 
 To determine the necessary thickness of the concrete, I>e Lagrene, 
 (Navigation Interieure, vol. iii, p. 77,) gives the following formula : 
 
 C — -- 
 
 7r 
 
 in which 
 
 e = thickness of concrete in meters ; 
 l = half-width of lock in meters = 12 ; 
 h = lift of lock in meters = 2 $ 
 
 t r = safe tensile-strain on concrete = 5 tons per square meter. 
 Substituting these values in the formula, we get 
 
 e 
 
 -144 + 12 V 144 + 2x2x5 
 5 
 
 = 1.9 meters = 6J feet. 
 
 This result is a large one, and, as experience has shown (Minard, 
 Navigation des Kivieres et des Canaux, p. 184) that the under pressure 
 is always less than the theoretical head, I have estimated on a uniform 
 
 thickness of 6 feet. 
 
 17,333 cubic yards concrete, at $5.. $86, 665 
 
 22,000 cubic yards gravel-excavation, at 30 cents. 6, 600 
 
 Piles and platform with concrete. 
 
 93, 265 
 
 The usual practice in France is to put the concrete on top of the 
 platform, while the contrary is the practice in this country. It seems 
 
 S. Ex. 19, pt. 8-2 
 
18 
 
 TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 
 
 to me that where concrete is used under the platform voids may occur 
 under the bottom of the lock by settlement or otherwise, and that 
 under these circumstances the concrete would probably become de¬ 
 tached from the piles and the under-surface of the platform, with which 
 its bond is necessarily weak, and would fall into these voids. If this 
 should happen, the platform would have to withstand the under-pres¬ 
 sure without any help from the concrete. This would not occur, how¬ 
 ever, where the concrete w r as placed above the platform, and for that 
 reason I prefer the French practice. 
 
 In the following estimate the supporting-piles are placed 7 feet apart 
 over the whole area occupied by the chamber, and 3J feet apart under 
 the walls, and 3 feet of concrete is placed on the platform. The maxi¬ 
 mum upward pull on each pile under the chamber, allowing for the 
 maximum under-pressure due to the head, is calculated at 5 tons, but 
 experience has shown that this is much greater than will be found in 
 practice. The friction on the sides of the piles will be ample to with¬ 
 stand this upward pressure even at its maximum. 
 
 Lock foundation-piles and concrete. 
 
 Materials. 
 
 Price. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Cost. 
 
 Piles 12 feet long, driven . .. . 
 
 8425 . 
 
 2,576. 
 
 $10,948 
 4, 725 
 4,200 
 10, 920 
 1 , 201 
 720 
 1 , 288 
 390 
 220 
 43, 335 
 3,750 
 6, 600 
 1, 250 
 
 Caps 10 by 12 . 
 
 $35 per 1,000 . 
 
 135,000 . 
 
 Iron straps, spikes, and bolts . 
 
 6 cents. . 
 
 70,000 pounds . 
 
 4-iuoh floor-planks . .... . . 
 
 $35 per 1,000 . 
 
 312,000. 
 
 Transverse floor-binders, 6 by 8 .. 
 
 $35 per 1 000 . 
 
 34,320 feet b. m_ 
 
 18,000 pounds . 
 
 8-inch spikes . 
 
 4 cents . 
 
 Labor capping piles . 
 
 50 cents ... 
 
 2,576 . 
 
 Labor laying floor _ ____ 
 
 50 cents. __ 
 
 780 linear feet _ 
 
 Labor laying floor-binders 
 
 
 110 
 
 Concrete . 
 
 $5 . 
 
 8,667 cubic yards. . 
 2,500 cubic yards.. 
 22,000 cubic yards. 
 2,500 . 
 
 Pi p-rap . 
 
 $1.50 . 
 
 Gravel-excavation .. . . 
 
 30 cents. . __ 
 
 Pilling . 
 
 50 cents ___ 
 
 Total.... 
 
 
 
 89, 547 
 
 
 
 
 Plate-bands of masonry resting on concrete and on piles and platform. 
 
 The thickness of the plate-bands will be taken at 2J feet, resting on 2 
 feet of concrete in the first case, and on piles and platform in the second. 
 In the first case, therefore, there will be a substitution of 2£ feet of plate- 
 band masonry for 4 feet of concrete. The volumes of the two will there¬ 
 fore be in the proportion of 5 to 8. Equality in cost would require that 
 the price of a cubic yard of masonry should be one and three-fifths 
 greater than that of a cubic yard of concrete. But as this masonry 
 must be of cut-stone, it is evident that its cost would more than exceed 
 this limit. This method of construction, therefore, need not be exam¬ 
 ined in detail. The same remarks apply still more strongly to the case 
 of plate-bands or piles and platform, as in this case the 2£ feet of ma¬ 
 sonry only replaces 3 feet of concrete. 
 
 Where concrete is used, with or without piles and platform, the bed 
 of concrete must extend under the side-walls, replacing a portion of the 
 masonry. This will make a reduction in cost of about $5,000 in lock- 
 masoury. 
 
 Summing up the results thus far obtained, we get the following: 
 
 Lock on gravel with concrete floor. 
 
 Coffer-dam. $9, 433 
 
 Sheeting-piles. 8,634 
 
 Pumping. 3, 020 
 
TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 19 
 
 Foundation and floor. $93, 265 
 
 Lock, as per estimate for rock-foundation. 179,610 
 
 Total. 293,962 
 
 Deduct from estimate on rock-foundation, coffer-dam, and pump¬ 
 ing.................. $6,000 
 
 Rock-excavation. 20, 000 
 
 Saving on lock-walls. 5,000 
 
 -31,000 
 
 262,962 
 
 Add 10 per cent, for contingencies. 26,296 
 
 Total cost of lock... 289,258 
 
 Lock on gravel with piles, platform, and concrete. 
 
 Coffer-dam. $9, 433 
 
 Sheeting-piles. 8,634 
 
 Pumping... 3,020 
 
 Foundation and floor. 89, 547 
 
 Lock, as per first estimate, with deductions as indicated above. 148,610 
 
 259,244 
 
 Add 10 per cent, for contingencies.. *. 25,924 
 
 Total cost of lock. 285,168 
 
 The foundation of concrete on piles and platform being the cheaper 
 of the two, will be the one that will be used in the estimates. 
 
 The costs of the navigable pass, the weirs, and the piers will also be 
 different on gravel from what they were on rock. 
 
 The following are the estimates on this part of the work : 
 
 The coffer-dams are allowed to remain and become a part of the 
 work, care being taken to cut them down to a foot or two below the 
 level of the sills. The high weir has practically no coffer-dam, as what 
 might be considered such is filled with concrete, and thus made the foun¬ 
 dation for the wickets. 
 
 Navigable pass and low weir on gravel. 
 
 COFFER-DAM AND FOUNDATION. 
 
 Material. 
 
 Price. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Cost. 
 
 Coffer-dam : 
 
 Piles, 18 feet long. 
 
 Sheet-piles. 
 
 Stringers. 
 
 Small sheet-piles 
 
 Binders. 
 
 Bolts. 
 
 Dredging. 
 
 Concrete. 
 
 Cut-stone.. 
 
 Sills. 
 
 Labor. 
 
 $5.16 per pile driven .. 
 $6.65 per pile driven .. 
 
 $35 per 1,000 feet. 
 
 $1.50 per pile driven .. 
 
 $35 per 1,000 feet. 
 
 3 cents per pound. 
 
 30 cents per yard. 
 
 $5 per yard. 
 
 $15 per yard. 
 
 $45 per i,000 feet. 
 
 2 5. 
 
 2 . 
 
 980 feet . 
 
 2 . 
 
 7 feet . 
 
 200 pounds. 
 
 7 yards . 
 
 5| yards . 
 
 1 13-100 yard. 
 
 34 feet . 
 
 $2 06 
 13 30 
 34 30 
 3 00 
 25 
 6 00 
 2 10 
 27 50 
 16 95 
 1 51 
 5 00 
 
 Total per running foot 
 
 111 97 
 
20 
 
 TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 
 
 High web' on gravel. 
 
 COFFER-DAM AND FOUNDATION. 
 
 Material. 
 
 Price. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Cost. 
 
 Piles, 13 feet long...... 
 
 |4.56 per pile driven .. 
 $5.63 per pile driven .. 
 $35 per 1,000 feet. 
 
 $ . 
 
 $3 36 
 11 26 
 2 80 
 9 40 
 
 1 51 
 15 00 
 
 X oo 
 
 2 00 
 5 00 
 
 Sheet-piles...... 
 
 2. 
 
 80 feet... 
 
 Stringers___ 
 
 Binders. 
 
 $45 per 1,000 feet. 
 
 208.8 feet. 
 
 Sills...... 
 
 $45 per 1,000 feet. 
 
 34 feet.. 
 
 Concrete....... 
 
 $5 per yard. 
 
 3 yards.. 
 
 ftra, vel...... 
 
 50 cents per yard. 
 
 2 yards .. 
 
 Bip-rap. 
 
 $2 per yard. 
 
 1 yard .. 
 
 Labor... 
 
 
 
 Total per running foot..... 
 
 
 
 51 33 
 
 
 
 
 Pier on gravel. 
 
 The cost of foundation will be the same as that for the pass on gravel. 
 The area of the pier will either be included in the coffer-dam for the 
 pass, or in that for the low weir, and therefore its cost can be obtained 
 from the one given for these parts by omitting the cut-stone and sills 
 
 and multiplying by 11.48. 
 
 We therefore have: 
 
 Foundation, (111.97-18.46) X 11.48 ...$1,073 50 
 
 Masonry and capstan, as per previous estimate. 3,385 44 
 
 Total. 4,458 94 
 
 Abutment on gravel. 
 
 The estimate already made for the abutment supposes it to be founded 
 on gravel, and therefore it need not be changed. 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 Bringing together the estimates just made, we find the following: 
 
 Navigable pass on gravel. 
 
 Coffer-dam and foundation, per running foot. $111 97 
 
 Pumping, per running foot.-. 3 00 
 
 Appurtenances of the sole, per running foot. 25 55 
 
 Wicket... 48 57 
 
 Total. 189 09 
 
 Low weir on gravel. 
 
 Coffer-dam and foundation, per running foot. $111 97 
 
 Pumping, per running foot. 3 00 
 
 Appurtenances of the sole, per running foot. 21 29 
 
 Wicket. 40 47 
 
 Total, per running foot. 176 73 
 
 High weir on gravel. 
 
 Coffer-dam and foundation, per running foot. $51 33 
 
 Pumping, per running foot. 3 00 
 
 Appurtenances of the sole, per running foot. 17 03 
 
 Wicket. 32 38 
 
 Total, per running foot. 103 74 
 
 Pier. 44 59 
 
 Abutment. 86 46 
 
 TOTAL ESTIMATE FOR OHIO RIVER. 
 
 In making this estimate it is first necessary to have an approximate 
 location for each lock and dam, and then to appty to the lengths thus 
 determined the costs per running foot that are given above. 
 
TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 
 
 21 
 
 In the estimate based on rock-foundation the prices per running foot 
 <do not contain the 20 per cent, for contingencies which was subsequently 
 added, nor is it contained in the estimates per running foot for gravel- 
 foundations; adding this percentage to the calculated sums per running 
 foot, we have the following general table of costs, from which we can 
 obtain the approximate costs of all the parts of any dam, whatever may 
 be its length. The abutment is supposed in all cases to rest on sand 
 or gravel, as also the dams for closing island-chutes. 
 
 Table of costs of different parts. 
 
 
 Rock-founda¬ 
 
 tion. 
 
 Gravel- 
 
 foundation. 
 
 
 $179, 610 00 
 166 40 
 138 56 
 130 27 
 5, 049 00 
 
 $285,168 00 
 226 91 
 212 08 
 112 49 
 5,351 00 
 10, 375 00 
 78 21 
 
 Navigable pass.per foot.. 
 
 Low weir.do- 
 
 High weir.do_ 
 
 Pier. 
 
 Abutment. 
 
 Ham behind island.per foot.. 
 
 
 
 
 The following list gives the approximate locations for all the dams 
 required on the Ohio, in order to give 6 feet of water for navigation at 
 all times. It is not supposed that these exact sites will be chosen, be¬ 
 cause no detailed examination with a view to choosing sites was made 
 below Wheeling, nor would it have been judicious to have expended 
 any money on a more extended examination in advance of the actual 
 construction of at least one movable darn. The experience which will 
 necessarily be acquired in such construction will probably lead to some 
 modifications in the plans herewith presented, though I am firmly of the 
 opinion that these modifications will be improvements in details and not 
 changes in the general plan. 
 
 It should be added that the special survey made last summer between 
 Pittsburgh and Wheeling demonstrated that there was an error of about 
 8 feet in the fall between these two cities as reported in the final report 
 of Mr. Milnor Roberts. I believe that for this part of the river Mr. 
 Roberts used the old surveys of 1838, and the inaccuracy was probably 
 in them. This error shows that two more dams will be required on the 
 Ohio than he supposed. According to our present information 68 dams 
 is all that will be needed. 
 
 Approximate location of proposed dams on Ohio River. 
 
 <D 
 
 & 
 
 s 
 
 £ 
 
 Miles from 
 Pittsburgh. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 Length. 
 
 Lift of dam. 
 
 1 
 
 4.7 
 
 Davis’s Island.. 
 
 1, 580+ 
 1,040+ 
 1,350 
 
 1, 550 
 
 1, 160 
 
 1, 390 
 l, 425 
 
 420 
 
 6.000 
 
 2 
 
 8.0 
 
 Duff’s Bar .. 
 
 450 
 
 5. 769 
 
 3 
 
 11.3 
 
 White s Bar below Hayes’s Run. 
 
 6. 441 
 
 4 
 
 13.8 
 
 Head of Headman’s Island. 
 
 
 5. 940 
 
 5 
 
 20.0 
 
 1,000 feet above Crow Island. 
 
 
 6. 054 
 
 6 
 
 26.5 
 
 Beaver Shoals. 
 
 
 6, 396 
 6. 770 
 
 7 
 
 32.8 
 
 Foot of Montgomery’s Island... 
 
 
 8 
 
 37.8 
 
 Head of Georgetown Island. 
 
 1,180 
 
 1, 500 
 
 1, 000 + 
 700+ 
 1, 350 
 
 1, 350 
 
 
 5. 280 
 
 9 
 
 43. 0 
 
 Foot of Babb’s Island. 
 
 
 6. 000 
 
 10 
 
 54.5 
 
 Black’s Island .. 
 
 600 
 
 6. 000 
 
 11 
 
 62.0 
 
 Brown’s Island. 
 
 600 
 
 6. 000 
 
 12 
 
 68.0 
 
 Head of Wells’s Bar. 
 
 6. 000 
 
 13 
 
 77.5 
 
 Beech Bottom Bar. 
 
 
 6. 000 
 
 14 
 
 89.0 
 
 Head of Wheeling Island. 
 
 1, 000 X 
 
 1, 100 
 
 700 
 
 7. 000 
 
 15 
 
 94.0 
 
 Mouth of McMahon’s Creek. 
 
 7. 018 
 
 16 
 
 102 0 
 
 2,000 feet below Big Grove Creek. 
 
 1, 200 
 
 
 6. 000 
 
 17 
 
 112.5 
 
 1,400 feet above Fish Creek. 
 
 750 + 
 
 1, 000 
 
 750 
 
 6. 000 
 
 18 
 
 119.3 
 
 2,600 feet below Opossum Creek. 
 
 6. 000 
 
22 
 
 TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 
 
 Approximate location of proposed dams on Ohio Biver —Continued. 
 
 & 
 
 S 
 
 a 
 
 19 
 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 
 23 
 
 24 
 
 25 
 
 26 
 
 27 
 
 28 
 
 29 
 
 30 
 
 31 
 
 32 
 
 34 
 
 35 
 
 36 
 
 37 
 
 38 
 
 39 
 
 40 
 
 41 
 
 42 
 
 43 
 
 44 
 
 45 
 
 46 
 
 47 
 
 48 
 
 49 
 
 50 
 
 51 
 
 52 
 
 53 
 
 54 
 
 55 
 
 56 
 
 57 
 
 58 
 
 59 
 
 62 
 
 63 
 
 64 
 
 65 
 
 66 
 
 67 
 
 68 
 
 Miles from 
 Pittsburgh. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 1 
 
 Length. 
 
 127.3 
 
 
 1,350 
 
 138. 4 
 
 Middle of Wells’s Island. 
 
 1,000+ 800 
 
 1, 380 
 
 146. 7 
 
 
 158. 8 
 
 
 1, 600 
 
 600+ 950 
 
 2, 300 
 
 170. 0 
 
 
 180. 4 
 
 
 188. 4 
 
 
 1, 650 
 
 202. 2 
 
 
 1,100+ 750 
 1,600 
 
 1, 400 
 
 850+ 450 
 1,380 
 
 212. 3 
 
 
 223. 0 
 
 
 233. 0 
 
 
 239. 8 
 
 
 243. 7 
 
 3.700 feet below Big Broad Bun. 
 
 1, 050 
 
 1, 300 
 
 256. 0 
 
 
 267. 0 
 
 
 1, 600 
 
 285.3 
 
 
 1, 400 
 
 1, 450 
 
 1, 350 
 
 1,300 
 
 1, 500 
 
 289.1 
 
 
 308. 3 
 
 Buffalo Creek Bar. 
 
 315. 8 
 
 Big Sandy Shoals. 
 
 329. 4 
 
 Ferguson’s Bar.... 
 
 336. 3 
 
 Jenalt’s Shoals.... 
 
 1,500 
 
 1,150 
 
 1, 750 
 
 1, 850 
 
 351.3 
 
 Cub Creek Bar..... 
 
 364.5 
 
 Conoconneque Bar .. 
 
 382. 0 
 
 Graham’s Lower Station Bar. 
 
 393. 8 
 
 TJpper end of Manchester...... 
 
 1, 830 
 
 1, 800 
 
 1, 850 
 
 1, 700 
 
 1,670 
 
 1, 950 
 
 419. 0 
 
 Lower end of Straight Creek Bar... 
 
 444. 5 
 
 Kichmond Bar. 
 
 458.0 
 
 Four-mile Bar.... 
 
 485. 6 
 
 Foot of Medoc Bar. 
 
 501. 3 
 
 Bi sing Sun .... _ .. 
 
 509. 5 
 
 Gunpowder Bar. 
 
 2, 000 
 
 2, 350 
 
 530. 8 
 
 Head Bar of Vevay Island.. 
 
 544. 5 
 
 Locust. Creek Bar_________ 
 
 1, 870 
 
 2, 700 
 
 1, 610 
 
 2, 000 
 
 580. 8 
 
 Grassy Flats... 
 
 617. 2 
 
 Christopher’s Crossing. 
 
 634. 2 
 
 j Moman’s Bar..... 
 
 655. 6 
 
 Foot of Upper Blue Biver Island. 
 
 2, 250 
 
 2, 800 
 
 2,100 
 
 2, 700 
 
 2, 550 
 
 3, 250 
 
 2,250+ 650 
 
 3, 550 
 
 1, 700+1, 350 
 
 3, 250 
 
 2, 300+1,370 
 
 2, 800+1, 000 
 
 683.4 
 
 1 Lower point of Flint Island. 
 
 709. 3 
 
 1 Head of Hog’s Point Bar.. ... 
 
 731. 2 
 
 Foot of Anderson’s Bar.... 
 
 752. 3 
 
 Little Hurricane Island.. 
 
 767.7 
 
 Scuffletown Bar... 
 
 796. 4 
 
 Henderson’s Island.1. 
 
 813. 3 
 
 Head of Walnut Bend. 
 
 838.2 
 
 580 feet above mouth of Wabash Biver. 
 
 859.5 
 
 Battery Bock towhead. 
 
 873. 7 
 
 Head of Hurricane Island.. 
 
 907. 5 
 
 Cumberland Island... 
 
 942. 5 
 
 Head of Grand chain.. 
 
 960.0 
 
 Just above mouth of Cache Biver. 
 
 4, 000 
 
 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. OfO 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. OOO 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 6. 000 
 4. 000 
 
 Sum of widths of main river. 118, 885 
 
 Sum of widths of island chute. 10, 840 
 
 I have had the above table prepared, not with the expectation that the 
 sites selected will actually be chosen, but because such a table will un¬ 
 doubtedly give a sum of lengths of dam that cannot be greatly in error ; 
 and, therefore, it will represent the total length of dam required much 
 better than can be obtained by multiplying the number of dams by any 
 arbitrarily assumed averages, unless that average be determined from 
 such a table. 
 
 It is impossible at present to tell how many of these locks and dams 
 will rest on rock. I think, however, it will be safe for this general esti¬ 
 mate to assume that twelve locks, eight navigable passes, six low iveirs, 
 and three high weirs will be on rock, and the remainder on gravel. Rock 
 can be found on many shores for the establishment of the lock; and 
 sometimes this r,ock can be found half-way or more across the river. It 
 is very rare, however, to find it extending across the entire river with- 
 
TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 
 
 23 
 
 ug so covered with gravel as to make it better not to carry the 
 J^Rlown to it. 
 
 ;; ^^width of 400 feet in the clear will be given to each navigable 
 ■rs, and to each low weir. The width occupied by high weir will 
 ye estimated at the entire width of the river, diminished by the space 
 occupied by the lock, (assumed at 50 feet, on the supposition that 
 part of the rock will be in the bank,) by the width of the two weirs, 
 and by the widths of the two piers. The width of high weir will, there¬ 
 fore, be the width of the river, diminished by 878 feet. The sum of all 
 the widths of river at the selected sites being 118,885 feet, the sum of 
 the widths of high weir will be 118,885 — 873 x 68 = 59,521 feet; di¬ 
 viding this by 68, we find the average length of each high weir to be 875 
 feet. Bearing in mind that the high weirs on rock will only be found, 
 if at all, in the upper part of the river, it will be safer to give these three 
 high weirs an average width of 600 feet, thus making the average width 
 of the 65 on gravel 888 feet. 
 
 FINAL ESTIMATE. 
 
 12 locks on rock, at $179,610. $2,155,320 
 
 56 locks on gravel, at $285,168.. 15, 969, 408 
 
 8 navigable passes on rock, at $166.40 X 400. 532, 480 
 
 60 navigable passes on gravel, at $226.91 X 400. 5, 445, 840 
 
 6 low weirs on rock, at $138.56 X 400 . 332, 544 
 
 62 low weirs on gravel, at $212.08 X 400 . 5,259, 584 
 
 3 high weirs on rock, at $130.27 X 600 . 234, 486 
 
 65 high weirs on gravel, at 112.49 X 888 . 6, 492, 923 
 
 23 piers on rock, at $5,049.. 116,127 
 
 113 piers on gravel, at $5,351. 604, 663 
 
 68 abutments on gravel, at $10,375 .. 705, 500 
 
 70,840 lineal feet of dam across island-chutes, at $78.21 . 847,796 
 
 Total cost of radical improvement of the Ohio. 38,696,671 
 
 The above estimate has been made with a great deal of care, and is 
 about the best that it is possible under our present knowledge. It is a 
 very difficult and uncertain task to make estimates for works of such 
 magnitude in the absence of practical experience in construction of a 
 single one, and I would not presume to undertake it at the present time, 
 were it not for positive orders to do so. Considering the additional 
 difficulties that will be encountered below the falls of the Ohio, on ac¬ 
 count of the short and uncertain season for work, and the enormous 
 masses of sand that are transported by the current, which will undoubt¬ 
 edly cause delays and extra work, I think it would be safer to put the 
 whole estimate at $40,000,000, which is at the rate of $41,365 per mile, 
 the total length of the Ohio River being 967 miles. Bearing in mind 
 the euormous tonnage that would be borne on the river, if it were made 
 navigable throughout the year, it does not seem unreasonable to request 
 appropriations for its improvement at least equal to the sum that would 
 be required to build a railroad of equal length. 
 
 Poor’s Railroad Manual for 1873-’74 gives the following as the averag’e 
 cost per mile of the railroads in the United States, deduced from the 
 sum of the stock and bonds of the companies owning them : 
 
 Per mile. 
 
 New Euglancl States. $50,418 
 
 Middle States. 79, 42? 
 
 Western States. 50,550 
 
 These numbers include rolling-stock and expenses of all kinds. 
 
 In making appropriations for the radical implement of the Ohio, 
 it should be borne in mind that the radical improvement should com¬ 
 mence at the upper end of tbe river, and that it would be unjust to the 
 commerce of the remainder of the river to entirely neglect it while work 
 
24 
 
 TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 
 
 was progressing at the upper end. To remove obstructions, do necj 
 dredging, keep up the central office, and build the dikes require 
 the temporary improvement of the remainder of the river, would 
 about $200,000 per annum, gradually decreasing to $50,000 after 
 works were completed. This last sum, unless raised from tolls, would 
 perpetually required for the maintenance of the central office in charge" 
 of the works, the snag-boat for removing snags, and the two dredges, 
 for which occupation would always be found in keeping the locks and 
 passes clear of deposits and in improving the river for navigation when 
 the dams were down. 
 
 To give some idea of how much money would be required to secure 
 the radical improvement of the Ohio, and of the time necessary to con¬ 
 struct the works, I have prepared the following table, based on the sup¬ 
 positions that the river below the dams will not be neglected, and that 
 the tolls charged on the finished works will meet their own expenses 
 for repairs and attendance. To construct one lock will probably require 
 two seasons, and to construct one dam will require two seasons more. 
 There is nothing, however, to prevent simultaneous work at all the 
 sites selected; and, in fact, this would be the better method, in order to 
 reduce to a minimum the disturbance to navigation. 
 
 I assume that whenever a part of the river is being prepared for locks 
 and darns, that in this portion no part of the $150,000 allowed for gradually 
 decreasing improvements by dikes, dredging, and other temporary works, 
 will be required. In other words, if half the dams are under contract, 
 there will only be required tor misellaneous expenditures, outside of the 
 
 system of locks and dams, $50,000 -f 
 
 $150,000 
 
 = $125,000. 
 
 The upper half of the river contains more dams than the lower half; 
 but I have neglected this consideration, believing that it would be an 
 unnecessary refinement. 
 
 Time for completion. 
 
 Annual appropriations. 
 
 Eor locks and 
 dams. 
 
 Eor snagging. 
 
 For dredg¬ 
 ing, &c. 
 
 Total in each 
 year. 
 
 Four years_ 
 
 $10, 000, 000 
 
 1st 4 years. 
 
 50, 0C0 
 
 $10, 050, 000 
 
 Eight years 
 
 5, 000, 000 
 
 1st 4 years. 
 
 125, 000 
 
 5,125, 000 
 
 
 2d 4 years. 
 
 ■ 50,000 
 
 5, 050, 000 
 
 Sixteen years . 
 
 2, 500, 000 
 
 1st 4 years. 
 
 162, 500 
 
 2, 662, 500 
 
 
 2d 4 years . 
 
 125, 000 
 
 2, 625, 000 
 
 
 
 3d 4 years. 
 
 87, 500 
 
 2, 587, 500 
 
 
 
 4th 4 years. 
 
 50, 000 
 
 2, 550, 000 
 
 Thirty.two years 
 
 1, 250, 000 
 
 1st 4 years. 
 
 181, 250 
 
 1, 431,250 
 
 
 
 2d 4 years. 
 
 162, 500 
 
 1, 412, 500 
 
 
 
 3d 4 years. 
 
 143, 750 
 
 1, 393, 750 
 
 
 
 4th 4 years. 
 
 125, 000 
 
 1, 375, 000 
 
 
 
 5th 4 years. 
 
 106, 250 
 
 1, 356, 250 
 
 
 
 1 6th 4 years. 
 
 87, 500 
 
 1, 337, 500 
 
 
 
 7th 4 years. 
 
 68, 750 
 
 1, 318, 750 
 
 
 
 8th 4 years. 
 
 50, 000 
 
 1, 300, 000 
 
 Sixt.y-tnnr years __ 
 
 625,000 
 
 1st 4 years. 
 
 190, 625 
 
 815, 625 
 
 
 2d 4 years. 
 
 181, 250 
 
 806, 250 
 
 
 
 3d 4 years. 
 
 171,875 
 
 796, 875 
 
 
 
 4th 4 vears. 
 
 162, 500 
 
 787, 500 
 
 
 
 5th 4 years. 
 
 153,125 
 
 778,125 
 
 
 
 6th 4 years. 
 
 143, 750 
 
 768, 750 
 
 
 
 7th 4 years. 
 
 134. 375 
 
 759,375 
 
 
 
 8th 4 years. 
 
 125, 000 
 
 750, 000 
 
 
 
 9th 4 years. 
 
 115, 625 
 
 740, 625 
 
 
 
 10th 4 years. 
 
 160, 250 
 
 731, 250 
 
 
 
 llth 4 years. 
 
 96, 875 
 
 728, 875 
 
 
 
 12th 4 years. 
 
 87, 500 
 
 712, 500 
 
 
 
 13th 4 years. 
 
 78,125 
 
 7C3, 125 
 
 
 
 14th 4 years. 
 
 68, 750 
 
 693, 750 
 
 
 
 15th 4 years. 
 
 59, 375 
 
 684, 375 
 
 
 
 16th 4 years. 
 
 50, 000 
 
 675, 000 
 
 Grand total. 
 
 $40, 200, OOO 
 
 40, 700, 000 
 
 41, 700, 000 
 
 43, 700, 000 
 
 47, 700, 000 
 
TRANSPORTATION ROUTES. 
 
 25 
 
 In (^elusion I would add that I am not at all assured in my own 
 inind/iat the system proposed will be found serviceable on the Ohio 
 belo/the falls. But I do feel sure that it is a better system than 
 tha/of permanent dams ; and besides, it is the only other system that 
 proiises the depth required by the Senate Committee on Transportation. 
 TU system of dikes for controlling and guiding the current cannot be 
 defended upon to give more than 4 feet at dead low water, and even 
 ths depth will require an immense development of these works. 
 Tlowever, if the system of movable dams is commenced at Pittsburgh, 
 a Jd gradually brought down the river, we will pass by degrees from hard 
 b/ttom to soft sand, and while so doing we will acquire abundant expe¬ 
 rience as to the practicability of successfully encountering the shifting 
 sfeids of the lower river. 
 
 / It may be interesting in this connection to state that in France, between 
 i821 and 1853, the government spent 535 millions of francs, equal to 107 
 millions of dollars, in improving navigation, partly by canals and partly 
 by rivers; during the same time private companies spent 100 millions of 
 francs, or 20 millions of dollars, for the same purpose. I have no statis¬ 
 tics on this subject since 1853, but the additional sum expended must 
 be very large, as several canals have been built, and also all the larger 
 movable dams in the Seine, Marne, and other rivers. These facts are 
 well worth consideration, in view of the extraordinary resources recently 
 displayed by France in bearing the burdens imposed by the disastrous 
 war with Germany. 
 
 I inclose herewith a small drawing showing the proposed arrange¬ 
 ment of lock and dam for the Ohio. I do not inclose drawings of the 
 Chanoine wicket, as they accompanied my last annual report, although 
 it is proper to add that I do not propose the use of the movable bridge 
 shown in these drawings, but expect to work the wickets by a maneu¬ 
 vering boat. 
 
 I have been greatly indebted, in tbe labor of preparing this report, to 
 the assistance of Lieut. F. A. Mahan, Engineers, who made the estimates 
 on movable dams, and to Mr. W. Weston, assistant engineer, who made 
 the estimates on the locks and on the dams for closing island-chutes. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 WM. E. MERRILL, 
 
 Major of Engineers. 
 
 Brig. Gen. A. A. Humphreys, 
 
 Chief of Engineers U. S. A. 
 
 S. Ex. 19, pt. 8-3 
 
26 
 
 TRANSPORTATION ROUTES.