Construction and Rehabilitation History
1965
The lakeward end of the shore arm extension (Figure 9 7 , Section B3)
was capped with a concrete superstructure. The breakwater included a
(Figure 9 7 , Section B 3 ) .
ft
parapet installed at an el of
Rubble
average) was added on each side of a portion of the
inner breakwater (Figures 97 and 9 8 , Section P), and the north pier
(Figures 97 and 98, Section
was repaired. The north pier and por-
were
modified by the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago.
This modification included the creation of wider structures by con-
structing a wall, filling voids with clay, and installing stone
1979
A site inspection o f the structures indicated cracks in the parapet
walls of the shore arm extension (Figure 9 7 , Sections A ,
and B 3 ) .
In Section B2 o f the shore arm extension fill stone had settled; and
cap stone was either settled, broken, or missing in some areas.
Spalling at construction joints and along the edges of the exterior
breakwater (Figure 9 7 , Sections C, D , and E) was observed. Along
Section E the timber structure in some places had deteriorated, and
fill stone was missing. Cover stone was missing and/or deteriorated
along Sections F and G (Figure 9 7 ) of the exterior breakwater
southerly extension. Spalling at construction joints and along the
N , P, and
edges of the inner breakwater (Figure 9 7 , Sections
was noted. Maintenance of the breakwaters was performed subsequent
to this inspection.
1981
A condition survey of the structures indicated that the shore arm
extension (Figure 9 7 , Sections A,
B2, and B3) were in good con-
D, and E) was also in
dition. The exterior breakwater (Sections
good condition except for an area in Section E where failure of the
crib substructure resulted in the superstructure's caving in. The
exterior breakwater southerly extension was in good condition at
Section H; however, in many locations along Sections F and G concrete
fill between the armor stone had been lost. Also, many of the stones
were split in pieces and disintegrating. In many locations stone was
low (either lost or subsided). The north pier was in good condition
except for minor spalling and weathering of concrete. The inner
breakwater (Sections K, L , M, N, U, 0, P, R, and S) was in good con-
dition except for Sections N, U, and 0 where the concrete base slab
was severely spalled and eroded with reinforcing bars exposed at the
edges in many locations.
1983
Rubble-mound areas of the southerly extension (Figure 9 7 , Sections F
and G) were rehabilitated, and maintenance of the other faults noted
in the condition survey of 1981 was performed.
The structures are presently considered to be in good condition.
1986
(Sheet 3 of 3 )
162
Previous Page
