The overturning caisson (kantelcaisson)

Construction method reconsidered

Master Thesis

B.P. Korff

i
ii
 Overturning caisson
Construction method reconsidered
by

B.P. Korff

in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science
in Civil Engineering

at the Delft University of Technology,

to be defended publicly on Tuesday June 20, 2017 at 3:30 PM.

Student number: 4229584

Thesis committee: Prof. ir. A.Q.C. van der Horst TU Delft
Dr. ir. J.G. de Gijt , TU Delft
Ing. H.J. Everts TU Delft
Ir. L.A.M. Groenewegen BAM Infraconsult

An electronic version of this thesis is available at http://repository.tudelft.nl/.

iii
iv
Preface
This master thesis is conducted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master degree in
Civil Engineering, at the Delft University of Technology. The project was executed in cooperation
with BAM Infraconsult B.V.

The first overturning caissons are, in my opinion, one of the most beautiful civil engineering
structures ever made. The structures were designed in great detail and involved state of the art
technologies for that time. A combination of the latest science and technologies allowed
engineers to design and construct the very first reinforced concrete caisson quay walls. Luckily,
the design was very well documented and preserved for over a century by the TU Delft Library.

The original report and drawings gave a lot of insight and revealed the major engineering and
construction challenges. It was delightful to have such a historical project as a starting point. This
background, combined with an already interesting topic, made it pleasurable to work on the
thesis.

I would like to thank my graduation committee for their support during the graduation process. In
particular, I would like to thank my daily supervisor, ir. L.A.M. Groenewegen, for his guidance and
support. Not the less, feedback from all committee members was very helpful and enlightening.
Furthermore, I would like to use this opportunity to thank all the professors, teachers and
supervisors who contributed to the fundamental prerequisites for this thesis and future profession.

B.P. Korff,

Rotterdam, June 2017

v
Executive summary
The first overturning caissons were designed in 1903 by professor Kraus. The caissons had a
geometry which differs from current caisson designs. The structures were designed as self-
floating reinforced concrete boxes with a declined back-wall and counterforts. Due to these shape
characteristics, the caissons could be referred to as hybrid counterfort caissons. However,
another unique property of this concept is the horizontal construction method and horizontal
floating position during transport. Due to this method, the caissons had to be turned in vertical
position before placement. Because of this characteristic, the concepts are referred to as
overturning caisson (Dutch: kantelcaisson).

The particular self-floating caissons were only applied for three quay wall projects. The concept
was abandoned after the port expansion project for Tandjong Priok (Indonesia) in 1914. The
Dutch contractor, Hollandsche Beton Maatschappij, learned from experience that vertically
constructed rectangular caissons resulted in higher qualities, simplified formwork and easier
transport at the same costs. However, without research, these arguments cannot be approved for
current projects due to technical and economic advances for over one hundred years. This study
is therefore performed to evaluate whether such a concept is feasible for current quay wall
projects. Apart from the feasibility of the concept itself, smart sub-elements might be reusable for
regular caisson designs.

The caisson geometry resulted in a material efficient retaining structure. The application of
reinforced concrete was consciously considered. In the period 1903 to 1914, material savings
resulted in a snowball-effect for other components in the construction process. Less concrete and
less formwork area directly resulted into cost savings. Economic advantages were found in
different elements within the construction process. Compared to a rectangular caisson, benefits of
the original overturning caissons were:

- Less reinforced concrete;

- Less temporary equipment;
- Less formwork and falsework;
- Less weight (therefore reduced transport and launching costs).

Due to developments over time, caisson quay structures became larger and the robustness
increased. The increased caisson dimensions are mainly caused by increased stability demands
and larger design vessels. The need for more stringent stability calculations was outlined after
several failures and excessive caisson deformations. A preliminary stability analysis based on
original input parameters of the first overturning caissons revealed that the caissons lacked
overturning stability (GEO) and resistance to forward sliding (GEO).

Besides the demand for larger caissons, technological developments resulted in improved
production rates and higher labour efficiency. Developments in equipment, formwork and
advanced concrete mix designs resulted in a cost reduction for the application of reinforced
concrete. Because of this, material savings and a horizontal construction method do not directly
lower the overall construction costs. High repetition factors and depreciation rates contribute
highly to the economic feasibility of a caisson.

Since the urge for material savings reduced and more robustness is desired, only the most
striking material saving aspects of the original concept are examined for modern overturning
caisson designs. Elements such as tapered walls and stiffeners designed for the base plate are
replaced by thicker uniform concrete elements. The declined back-wall and counterforts are
considered as the most effective material saving feature and therefore kept for the modern
designs. Additionally, keeping these characteristics allows a similar launching and transportation
method.

vi
When a caisson is designed according to current regulations and standards, the overturning
concepts allow 8% to 15% material savings. If loads on the quay wall increase, the required
caisson width becomes larger. This affects the feasibility of the concept. The material savings for
the wide overturning caisson (15.65m) reduce to roughly 8%. Draught for the wider concept can
be reduced from 12.40 metre for a rectangular caisson to 11.40 metre for the overturning caisson,
which is a rather small reduction.

The largest material savings (15%) can be obtained when a rubble backfill is applied. These also
result in a significant reduction of draught during transport. For this case, draught can be reduced
from 12.60 metre to 9.60 metre for the overturning caisson. The draught of the rectangular
caisson could be reduced, if sufficient floating stability can be guaranteed without ballast water
(e.g. by sponsons). The overturning caisson has sufficient metacentric height, which allows
transport without ballast water. The draught of the overturning caisson is therefore lower than a
rectangular caisson with the same width. Due to these significant benefits, the construction
method and economic feasibility for the concept with rubble backfill is further analysed.

Material savings for a gravity based structure are not free of charge. It is found that rectangular
caissons have higher factors of safety compared to overturning caissons having the same width.
Therefore, cost savings can also be made by further optimizing material consumption of the
considered rectangular caissons, or savings on backfill materials. Furthermore, the caisson shape
is not load reducing. The declined back-wall does not result in soil pressure reduction. On the
contrary, the caisson heel results in a “trapped” soil wedge which prevents ground to reach an
active pressure state. Destabilizing effects caused by soil are therefore slightly higher for a
caisson with heel.

In terms of construction technology, equipment is nowadays highly exploited. Current slipforming

techniques allow the reuse of formwork for over 100 caissons. Since the slipform is raised with
steps of approximately 50mm, the forms are reused for hundreds of times for each caisson. The
continuous work-flow results in efficient and a rather constant resource consumption. Due to
these developments of equipment and techniques, caissons can be constructed relatively fast.
Caisson production rates can be up to 1 each week, for a single slipform-system. A century ago,
normal caisson construction rates were longer than one month.

Due to efficient vertical construction methods and high repetition, a horizontal construction
method is not beneficial. It is found that this construction method requires approximately 25%
more labour for concrete activities. The slipform construction technique allows higher productivity
rates and provides convenient concrete quality, inspection and safety. However, a slipform
method cannot be applied for constructing an overturning caisson. The irregular geometry results
in a rather traditional construction method. Therefore, no intrinsic benefits are found for a
horizontal construction method.

The procurement of a job-built formwork system for an overturning caisson is estimated to be

more expensive than a slipform system. This is caused by the diversity of the formwork elements,
the desired production rate and its low salvage value. For constructing an overturning caisson
within a week, almost the entire concrete surface of a caisson must be available in forms. By the
proposed construction method and technologies, no quality and safety setbacks are expected.
However, as a result, the concrete mixture must be carefully designed and labour consumption on
direct construction works increase.

The production costs of an overturning caisson, compared to a rectangular caisson become

almost equal after 100 caissons. The costs per caisson remain higher than for a rectangular
caisson. In terms of the reference project, for which 60 caissons are required, the overturning
caisson is therefore estimated to be economically unfeasible. The overturning concept cannot be
demonstrated as the most economical solution. This conclusion is however based on many
assumptions regarding labour, assembly time, equipment and building material costs. For
instance, if the custom designed formwork system can be reused for multiple projects, the
economic potential increases.

vii
Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Document Structure ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Challenge ......................................................................................................................... 2
1.3. Significance ...................................................................................................................... 2
1.4. Design approach and philosophy ..................................................................................... 3
1.5. Economies of scale (process) .......................................................................................... 6
1.6. Economies of scale (structural) ........................................................................................ 9
2. The First Caisson Quay Walls (1903) .................................................................... 10
2.1. The port of Valparaíso .................................................................................................... 10
2.2. Caisson characteristics .................................................................................................. 13
2.3. Structural capacity .......................................................................................................... 21
2.4. Economic characteristics ............................................................................................... 22
2.5. Synthesis ........................................................................................................................ 24
3. Technical Requirements (1903 – 2017)................................................................ 26
3.1. Structural developments ................................................................................................ 26
3.2. Operational and stability conditions ............................................................................... 29
3.3. Quay height .................................................................................................................... 30
3.4. Transport ........................................................................................................................ 31
3.5. Durability aspects ........................................................................................................... 32
3.6. Synthesis ........................................................................................................................ 34
4. Construction Technology (1903-2017) ................................................................. 35
4.1. Workability and execution .............................................................................................. 35
4.2. Heavy lifting and launching equipment .......................................................................... 41
4.3. Synthesis of design differences ..................................................................................... 44
5. Economic Shifts (1903 – 2017) ............................................................................. 45
5.1. Construction costs: gravity based quay walls ................................................................ 45
5.2. Historical deviations per element ................................................................................... 46
5.3. Cost components: formwork and reinforced concrete ................................................... 47
5.4. Synthesis ........................................................................................................................ 47
6. Technical Feasibility (2017) .................................................................................. 48
6.1. Considered designs ....................................................................................................... 48
6.2. Caissons with sand backfill ............................................................................................ 49
6.3. Caissons with rubble backfill .......................................................................................... 52
6.4. Evaluation of design changes ........................................................................................ 55
6.5. Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 59
7. Construction Technology (2017) .......................................................................... 61
7.1. Construction and formwork techniques .......................................................................... 61
7.2. Construction process ..................................................................................................... 64
7.3. Resource consumption .................................................................................................. 68
7.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 70
8. Economic Feasibility (2017) .................................................................................. 71
8.1. Overview ........................................................................................................................ 71
8.2. Direct construction costs ................................................................................................ 71
8.3. Marginal caisson costs ................................................................................................... 72
8.4. Equipment and depreciation .......................................................................................... 72
8.5. Economic feasibility estimate ......................................................................................... 73
9. Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 75
9.1. Answers to research questions ...................................................................................... 76
9.2. Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 77

viii
Appendix....................................................................................................................... 78
A. Existing Concepts ..................................................................................................... 79
A.1. Rectangular caissons ......................................................................................................... 80
A.2. Circular caissons................................................................................................................. 81
A.3. Hybrid floated-in-caissons .................................................................................................. 83
A.4. Overturning caissons .......................................................................................................... 86
A.5. Prefabricated non-floatable elements ................................................................................. 91
A.6. Overview of concepts ......................................................................................................... 94
B. Analysis: The overturning caisson (1903) ............................................................... 96
B.1. Calculation approach .......................................................................................................... 96
B.2. Material parameters ............................................................................................................ 97
B.3. Verification of operational stability (resistance) .................................................................. 98
B.4. Verification of representative loads (actions)...................................................................... 99
B.5. Serviceability verification .................................................................................................. 101
B.6. Ultimate limit state verification .......................................................................................... 102
B.7. Required stability adjustments .......................................................................................... 103
B.8. Structural capacity ............................................................................................................ 105
B.9. Simplified model: floating position .................................................................................... 107
B.10. Design considerations in relation to transport ................................................................ 109
B.11. Significance of horizontal construction (formwork) ......................................................... 110
C. Durability aspects................................................................................................... 112
C.1. Historical overview of corrosion protection ....................................................................... 112
C.2. Corrosion protection ......................................................................................................... 113
C.3. Protection measures ......................................................................................................... 113
C.4. Environmental aggressivity............................................................................................... 114
C.5. Mechanical abrasion and impact ...................................................................................... 114
C.6. Concrete cover requirements and recommendations ...................................................... 114
C.7. Alternative protection measures ....................................................................................... 119
D. Caisson Design Conditions (2017) ......................................................................... 121
D.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 121
D.2. Local conditions ................................................................................................................ 121
D.3. Operational Requirements................................................................................................ 123
D.4. Regulations and verifications............................................................................................ 124
D.5. Combinations and Factors (BS-6349) .............................................................................. 128
D.6. Building materials ............................................................................................................. 132
E. Persistent loads ...................................................................................................... 134
E.1. Distributed live loads ......................................................................................................... 134
E.2. Tidal water pressures ....................................................................................................... 135
E.3. Horizontal STS-crane loads .............................................................................................. 136
E.4. Vertical STS-crane loads (line loads) ............................................................................... 137
E.5. Vertical point loads ........................................................................................................... 140
E.6. Loads from ships............................................................................................................... 142
E.7. Wave loads ....................................................................................................................... 142
F. Overturning Caisson Design (12.60m) ................................................................... 144
F.1. Geometry .......................................................................................................................... 144
F.2. Weight and Centre of Gravity............................................................................................ 145
F.3. First floating equilibrium position....................................................................................... 145
F.4. Turning process ................................................................................................................ 148
F.5. Second floating equilibrium position (without assistance) ................................................ 151
F.6. Operational stability .......................................................................................................... 153
F.7. Structural design ............................................................................................................... 155
G. Rectangular Caisson Design (12.60m) .................................................................. 170
G.1. Geometry .......................................................................................................................... 170
G.2. Weight and Centre of Gravity ........................................................................................... 171
G.3. Floating equilibrium position ............................................................................................. 171
G.4. Operational stability .......................................................................................................... 174

ix
H. Overturning Caisson Design (15.65m) .................................................................. 175
H.1. Geometry.......................................................................................................................... 175
H.2. Weight and Centre of Gravity ........................................................................................... 176
H.3. Floating equilibrium position............................................................................................. 176
H.4. Turning process ............................................................................................................... 177
H.5. Operational stability.......................................................................................................... 178
I. Rectangular Caisson Design (15.65m) ................................................................... 179
I.1. Geometry ........................................................................................................................... 179
I.2. Weight and Centre of Gravity ............................................................................................ 180
I.3. Floating equilibrium position .............................................................................................. 180
I.4. Operational stability ........................................................................................................... 182
J. Size and scaling aspects ......................................................................................... 183
J.1. Compartment scaling ........................................................................................................ 183
J.2. Shear stress ...................................................................................................................... 183
J.3. Shear capacity .................................................................................................................. 184
J.4. Floating stability ................................................................................................................ 185
K. Silo pressure .......................................................................................................... 189
K.1. Janssen pressure theory .................................................................................................. 189
K.2. Derivation of the Janssen pressure theory....................................................................... 189
K.3. Alternative silo pressure theories ..................................................................................... 191
K.4. Caisson compartment pressure ....................................................................................... 191
L. Soil pressure states and models ............................................................................. 193
L.1.Soil pressure states ........................................................................................................... 193
L.2. Global stability: Rankine’s theory ..................................................................................... 193
L.3. Global stability: hybrid soil pressure model ...................................................................... 194
L.4. Behaviour of soil retaining walls ....................................................................................... 196
L.5. Overview of design methods ............................................................................................ 196
M. Design and safety .................................................................................................. 198
M.1. Change of working height ................................................................................................ 198
N. Cost deviations ...................................................................................................... 199
N.1. Historical cost deviations of building materials (1900-2005)............................................ 199
N.2. Geographical cost deviations of building materials .......................................................... 200
N.3. Cost deviations of heavy lifting equipment....................................................................... 201

Report Kraus citations ............................................................................................... 203

Definitions .................................................................................................................. 205
Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 206
Articles and Reports ................................................................................................................ 206
TU Delft publications ................................................................................................................ 208
Regulations and guidelines...................................................................................................... 208
List of figures ............................................................................................................. 209

x
 1. Introduction
The reconsideration of an early 20th century construction method arose from
engineering curiosity. A Dutch report Caissonbouw from the construction company
Hollandsche Beton Groep (HBG) gives an overview of caisson applications between
1902 and 1977. It describes a remarkable construction method of the first reinforced
caisson structures for quay walls in the beginning of the twentieth century. Economic
advantages might be achievable when this concept is applied. Besides economic
reasons, it is from engineering point of view interesting to investigate the concept to gain
insight in former design approaches.

Many different quay wall structures have been built in the past. Some concepts are
abandoned and others are refined and optimized over the last century. The particular
concept of our interest is the so called “overturning caisson” (Dutch: kantelcaisson),
designed by professor Kraus in 1903. It comprised the first reinforced concrete caissons
for quay wall application. For several reasons, it was a state of the art concept in that
time.

The concept is exceptional due to the horizontal construction method and turning during
the immersion phase. For some reason, the concept has been abandoned after a few
projects. The caissons might became too large for equipment at that time, or the method
was considered as being too complex. Perhaps, other methods were just slightly more
favourable. The degree of feasibility of this concept has shifted after more than a
century of improvements in equipment and construction techniques. Therefore, this
study is done to clarify the technical and economic feasibility of the “overturning-
caisson” principle for future projects.

1.1. Document Structure

The document is divided into elements, which are chronologically in time. The document
starts analysing the first caissons (1903) and ends with new caisson designs in the last
chapters. Chapter 3, 4 and 5 contain three fundamental aspects of the feasibility study;
technical requirements, construction technology and economic feasibility. These aspects
return in chapter 6, 7 and 8 for the new caisson design. The document structure is
thereby as follows:

1. Introduction analysis of original caisson

2. The first caisson quay walls and recognition of strengths

3. Technical requirements
4. Construction technology analysis of changes
5. Economic shifts over the last century

6. Technical feasibility
7. Construction technology analysis of current caisson
8. Economic feasibility designs

9. Conclusions and recommendations conclusion regarding all

considerations

1
1.2. Challenge
This research topic arose from the desire to design caisson quay wall structures more
efficiently. This study is performed in order to determine if aspects from the first
(overturning) caissons can nowadays be used for caisson designs. The caissons have
been designed and built over a century ago, which indicates that the concept is
technically realizable. However, developments over the last hundred years have
influenced the degree of attractiveness significantly. Because of this, it is unknown
whether the concept is currently technically or economically feasible.

New techniques, equipment, materials or methods might be applied to further increase

the competitiveness of this concept. On the contrary, some changes might have a
negative contribution to the feasibility, such as safety factors and different maintenance
demands. Or more stringent design criteria could have resulted in the need to increase
the size of the caisson and thus making this option less attractive. The question; “Is an
overturning caisson economically feasible?” will be answered with this study. And
furthermore; “Does a certain feasible region exist for the application of an overturning
caisson?”

The feasibility can be determined by making a comparison between an overturning

concept and rectangular caisson quay structures. In order to determine the feasibility,
the concept is reconsidered and adjusted to meet current design criteria. In order to
recognise the differences, the following research question must be answered;

Is the A. Is this caisson shape structurally more efficient?

overturning
caisson concept
feasible? B. Is a horizontal construction method beneficial for caissons?

C. Does the concept allow a simplified launching method?

D. Do transport conditions become less governing for caisson designs (e.g.

due to a reduced draught)?
E. Does the feasibility of the concept depend on the required number
caissons?
F. Does the feasibility depend on the required retaining height?

G. Does the concept improve safety and environmental aspects?

In addition, it must be clarified whether technological and economical shifts over the last
century advance or obstruct the expected benefits. If the significance a certain aspect is
increased, it may be smart to further exploit the particular benefit.

1.3. Significance
This concept might be a more economical solution than current concepts. In which
degree the concept distinguishes itself from other structures has to be determined.
Analysis of the first caisson concepts possibly results in a cost reduction and a simplified
execution of the quay structure. This research shall thereby identify and quantify the
advantages and disadvantages of different elements within the construction process of
caisson quay structures.

2
1.4. Design approach and philosophy
The objective of this study is to design a caisson quay wall structure which is more
economical than traditional box-shaped caissons. From the perspective of a client, who
requests a quay wall, its value depends on its final performance (life cycle costs). The
focus of this research is therefore to design a caisson quay wall which performance is
equal or better than regular caisson quay walls, at lower costs.

1.4.1. Design objective

The design philosophy focusses on the essential aspects on the structure. It is intended
to eliminate superfluous elements (waste) within the construction process. For instance,
a quay wall is essentially a soil retaining structure, but certainly not only designed for
this function. Different aspects, such as constructability and accessibility result in drastic
design changes. By reconsidering these aspects, more straightforward design might be
obtained which results in savings in the construction process.

Generally, construction and transportation phases require a considerable part of the

total construction costs (De Gijt, 2010). These adjustments are always required up to a
certain extent since the structure cannot simply be “wished in place”. However, a more
economical L-shaped caisson might be able to reduce the amount of required design
adjustments for transient and permanent situations. A comparison of a traditional box
caisson and an L-shaped caisson is depicted in figure 1.1 below.

material
savings

Figure 1.1. Fundamental shape differences

1.4.2. Design approach

A traditional design approach is visualized in fig. 1.2, which is normally an iterative
process. On the next page (fig. 1.3), a design model for an overturning caisson is
proposed. With respect to the construction of a caisson, adjustments on the geometry to
provide sufficient buoyancy and floating stability during transport is a reduction of
efficiency. An overturning caisson is expected to have less draught and can therefore be
designed for operational conditions in a more straightforward manner.

3
 Iterative design process of a rectangular caisson

 Ship dimensions
 Keel clearance
 Tidal variations


Wave height
Overtopping requirements
Height
 Sediment dynamics
 Superstructure requirements

 Stability requirements (overturning, sliding etc.) Draught



Buoyancy requirements
Superstructure requirements
Width and
freeboard

 Length of the quay wall, number of caissons

 Navigation / manoeuvrabIlity


Strength and stiffness during transport
Strength and stiffness at final position; differential
Length
settlements

Figure 1.2 – Traditional design method for caissons (iterative)

The main goal is to increase construction and equipment efficiency through material
savings and / or shape changes. It is thereby required to prevent sub-optimisations and
apply an integrated design approach by considering the whole construction process
from design to execution. The proposed design method should result in a less iterative
process.

Figure 1.3 shows a linear design path, which would be an ideal situation. Ideally, the
least number of iterations and design changes are desired. Adjustments for floatability
should influence the design marginally. This scenario results in the possibility to design
a quay structure directly for its purpose. However, this is in engineering practice an
unrealistic scheme since there are always iterations required to derive an optimal
design.

1.4.3. Design requirements and considerations

A quay wall should be designed with an appropriate degree of reliability. The structure
must therefore meet strength, stability and serviceability requirements throughout its
design working life, without significant loss of utility or excessive unforeseen
maintenance.

The generally difficult constructability and maintainability below sea level in combination
with severe environmental circumstances results in the need for a proper consideration
of the design life and durability aspects. The combined influences of these conditions
indicate that it is desired to design a quay structure which demands relatively little
maintenance over its service life. Based on these considerations, ordinary berth
structures in commercial ports are generally designed for a design life of 50 years or
higher (Thoresen, 2014).

The Eurocode (NEN-1990) prescribes a design working life of 50 years for building- and
other common structures and 100 years for bridges and other civil engineering
structures. The British Standard (6349-1-1) prescribes a design working life of 50 years
for quay walls and 100 years for flood defence structures. Considering these
recommendations and codes, it is intended to design a durable reinforced concrete
caisson, which could safely and efficiently be used over a life time of at least 50 years.

4
A different design approach could be an optimization in terms of technical and economic
service life time, where it is aimed to equalize both life times to reduce costs. However,
such a design approach would only be appropriate for specific projects and it would
drastically change the feasible region of alternative concepts. The feasibility of the
overturning caisson for a design life less than 50 years is therefore not considered.

Linear design process of an overturning caisson

 Ship dimensions
 Keel clearance
 Tidal variations


Wave height
Overtopping requirements
Height
 Sediment dynamics
 Superstructure requirements

 Stability requirements (overturning, sliding etc.)

 Superstructure requirements Width

 Length of the quay wall, number of caissons

 Navigation / manoeuvrabIlity


Strength and stiffness during transport
Strength and stiffness at final position; differential
Length
settlements

 Buoyancy requirements
 Floating stability Compartment
 Turning requirements
 Stability requirements after immersion dimensions
 Strength and stiffness requirements at use phase

Figure 1.3- Proposed design process for overturning caissons

5
1.5. Economies of scale (process)
The feasibility of caisson quay wall structures largely depends on the possibility of
exploiting scaling advantages. Within the construction industry, economies of scale is
generally referred to as the repetition effect. This is an umbrella term which covers the
possibility to improve productivity by repeating a process.

The repetition advantages can be categorized by volume economies of scale and

learning economies of scale. Investments in equipment and labour can result in an
improvement of the product and / or lower costs per unit. Learning economies lead to
improvements in the existing production process or resources. According to a literature
review on the repetition effect (A26), this can be illustrated in the following form:
Investments in
Volume equipment and
labour

Policy Time management

improvement and skill
Economies of scale
(labour) improvement

Technical Planning
Learning improvements

Motivation
Management
improvements
Organization

Control

Figure 1.4. Economies of scale, after Pearson and Wisner (1993); ref. [A26]

Economies of scale, and thereby the depreciation and learning effects, are majorly
important for the design of a caisson quay wall. The relative influence of investments in
equipment reduces if it can be well exploited (depreciation). Constructing a single
caisson would therefore be relatively expensive since many resources need to be
addressed for a unique product. Learning factors such as man-hour efficiency (learning
effect and assembly optimization), planning (critical paths) and shape similarities can
reduce the price per unit as well, if the quantity becomes larger.

1.5.1. Volume economies

The initial investment costs of temporary equipment (such as formwork and falsework)
spread thinner as the production increases. Therefore, the marginal cost of producing a
caisson will generally become lower for each additional caisson. The production costs of
an additional caisson can be formulated as:

change in production costs

marginal costs 
change in total quantity produced

The change in production cost consists of fixed costs and variable costs. Fixed cost
consist for instance of equipment which is required for construction. The variable costs
increase for every produced object and consist of building materials, labour and utilities.
The most economical way of production depends on the required number of caissons.
When the required number of caissons is relatively high, investments in equipment for
reducing production costs shall eventually pay off. These investments must thereby lead
to a lowering of the labour, material, equipment or construction site costs.

6
1.5.2. Learning economies
Improvement of operational times can be achieved by repeating a particular process.
The time reduction can be expressed by so called improvement, learning or experience
curves. These curves usually show a decrease in man-hours or costs over a number of
operations. A typical hypothetical learning curve is shown in figure 1.5. Normally, it has
a downwards concave shape. It can be expressed as a logarithmic regression function
of the form: y  a .x b . In which a and b depend on aspects such as the complexity of the
operations, quality of work preparation and skill level of personnel. A more quantitative
analysis of the learning effect for caisson construction is treated in chapter 8; Economic
Feasibility.

Figure 1.5. Hypothetical learning curve showing a classical concave shape; ref. [A26]

1.5.3. Example of scaling effects

A typical example of economies of scale is the shape difference of capitals on top of a
concrete column. In figure 1.6, a typical formwork for a column head is shown for
renovation works. For this piece of work, a carpenter had made a relatively simple
shape of formwork. Figure 1.7 shows cone shaped capitals which are more efficient in
terms of use of building materials. However, the formwork required for these capitals is
far more expensive. It is only due to the possibility of repetition (reuse) that this solution
can become more economical. Analogously, the most economical caisson shape and
construction method depends on the required quantity.

Figure 1.6. Column head for renovation works Figure 1.7. Multiple cone shaped column
heads

7
1.5.4. Economic benefits
Compared to a traditional box caisson, the overturning caisson has a different balance
between fixed and variable costs. Also balances within a cost category will be different.
For instance, savings in building materials can result in increased labour costs. This
could eventually result in no difference in the fixed costs per caisson. The produced
quantity (number of caissons) is not from importance if the fixed costs per overturning
caissons are identical to a box caisson. From a production process point of view, the
fixed and variable costs can be defined as depicted in figure 1.8.
Fixed costs
•Equipment
•Construction site / utilities
•Design and engineering

Variable costs
•Building materials
•Labour costs

Figure 1.8. Fixed and variable costs from production point of view

Based on the fixed and variable costs distinction, the following three scenarios are
possible for which the concept is beneficial:

a. Higher fixed costs and lower variable costs result in an economic design after a
certain number of caissons;
b. Lower fixed costs and higher variable costs result in an economic design up to a
certain number of caissons;
c. Lower fixed costs and lower variable costs; production costs are always lower.

The balance between these costs determines the feasibility range for the overturning
principle. The particular cost balances are thereby also depending on the geographical
location of the construction project.

8
1.6. Economies of scale (structural)
Besides possible scaling advantages due to repetition, a particular structure (caisson)
can become more efficient for certain dimensions. This efficiency difference can be
explained by the mathematical principle known as the square-cube law (Galileo Galilei,
1638). This law basically describes that, if an object is scaled dimensionally, the
relationship between volume and area is non-linear.

Figure 1.9. Galileo’s example of the square- Figure 1.10. Increasing structural complexity for
cube law [9] tall building [A27]

This is for example the reason why it becomes more challenging to build a high-rise
building than low-rise. The weight of the used materials increase cubically, while the
strength of materials increase by the area of the cross section, and thus squared.
Therefore, buildings have different efficient structural frameworks for particular heights.

On the contrary, this scaling law is part of the reason why seagoing vessels have
become larger over the past century. They become more efficient for increasing
dimensions since the hull surface increases less in comparison with their potential
deadweight tonnage. Since vessels have become larger, the maximum quay walls size
has also increased over the last century.

Although quay heights have increased up to a height of roughly 20 to 30 metres,

caisson structures remained quite similar in shape. The shape complexity actually
decreased if one compares the efficiently designed caissons from before WWII with
those constructed afterwards. This is unexpected since the required volume of
construction materials increases disproportionally and loads could be transferred more
efficiently for larger retaining heights.

9
 2. The First Caisson Quay Walls (1903)
2.1. The port of Valparaíso
The first caisson concepts originate from a harbour improvement project in Valparaíso
(Chile) in the beginning of the twentieth century. Valparaíso had become an important
port due to its key position on trade routes through the Eastern Pacific. The combination
of the geographical position and the second industrial revolution resulted in a strong
growth of harbour activities. Due to relatively shallow water conditions, only smaller
vessels were able to berth near the city in the late nineteenth century (fig. 2.1.).This
resulted in the desire of an extensive harbour improvement which consisted of
thousands metres of new quay walls. The primary goal of the project was to allow more
and larger vessels to berth safely in the bay.

Figure 2.1. Panoramic view over the bay of Valparaíso (late 19th century)

Unfortunately, the construction works delayed due to a major earthquake which struck
Valparaíso in 1906. There was extensive economic damage and thousands of people
died. A few years later, the opening of the Panama Canal in 1914 reduced the port
activities drastically. This combination of events resulted in such a large setback that the
port lost its vital role as major transhipment point. Because of this, the originally planned
harbour improvement works were never fully executed. However, the quay wall designs
were very well documented by Comision Kraus, which resulted in the application of the
particular caisson designs in other ports over world (appendix A).

2.1.1. Quay wall design for Valparaíso

From geotechnical point of view, the bay was characterized by relatively hard soil and
rock bottom, with similar cross-sections near the shoreline. The combination of a large
total quay length of over 3 kilometres and a desired quay height of 14 metre resulted in
favourable conditions for the application of caissons. Comision Kraus recommended this
structure extensively for the improvement project of the port of Valparaíso. The
fundamental difference between earlier caisson quay concepts was the application of
reinforced concrete as building material. Preceding caissons quay walls had only been
built by Romans with materials such as wood.

There were mainly two quay structures designed which are worth mentioning. One type
is referred to as “cases of armed concrete” and the other as “floating blocks of
masonry”. The cases and floating blocks, nowadays referred to as caissons, were state
of the art civil engineering structures at that time. Professor Kraus recommended
reinforced concrete caissons for sheltered sites of the harbour and masonry caissons for
unsheltered quay parts. It was noted in the report that masonry structures were
commonly used and that it had already proven its capability to resist great pressures
from beating of the sea.

10
2.1.2. Reinforced concrete caissons (cases of armed concrete)
From the report of the commission Kraus (1903), the main design considerations
seemed to be to resist the beating of the sea and provide enough rigidity for transport
and placement. Furthermore, enough strength was required to resist the water pressure
during transport.

In order to satisfy these conditions, specific concepts have been made for different
locations. The designs differed from robust masonry cases up to economical L-shaped
caissons. Wave actions and rigidity during transport were the most important design
conditions for all concepts.

With respect to the L-shaped caissons, the compartments were filled with so called
“weak concrete” at the final position which guaranteed its stability and strength. The
concrete fill was also beneficial for enlarging the resistance against ship collision and
berthing forces. The reinforced concrete wall thickness of 150 millimetres (near water
level) in combination with a maximum concrete compressive strength of 15 N/mm2 was
therefore not sufficient to ensure a durable and save structure by itself.

Figure 2.2. Box caisson (Valparaíso, 1903) Figure 2.3. L-shaped caisson (Valparaíso,
1903)

11
2.1.3. Masonry caissons (floating blocks of masonry)
For unsheltered site of the harbour, which was prone to high wave forces, it was
decided to use a more robust design. This resulted in a caisson made out of masonry
rubble stone. It was planned to be floated to its final position and then filled with a cheap
material, as for instance “sand concrete”. This was similar to the planned breakwaters.

top view masonry caisson top view concrete caisson

Figure 2.4. Sheltered quay wall (right) and unsheltered quay wall (left) designed by prof. Kraus
for the Dock el Baron in Valparaíso, Chile (1903)

The outer quay walls have been designed to perform a double duty. It must take the
place of a real breakwater in cases of storms, and has to function as a mooring place in
normal conditions.

A remarkable aspect is that masonry cases, reinforced blocks and reinforced L-shaped
caissons all have a width of 6.50 metre. Apparently, this was considered to be a safe
value, although the weights of concepts differ considerably. The gravity based structures
have therefore different factors of stability. Furthermore, it can be concluded that the
bearing capacity was not influencing the decision. Nevertheless, it was noted that soil
improvement was required for some parts of the harbour basin which consisted of mud.

The dimensions of the walls of the breakwaters were determined with relation to the
strength of the waves. Global measurements (by means of a dynamometer) resulted in
an advisable wave pressure of 30 tonne per square metre (300 kN/m2) at the height of
the surface of the sea. At that time, it was observed that a relatively large total of great
resistance could be obtained when masonry breakwaters were applied. The
breakwaters had cylindrical shaped compartments, which were mainly designed for an
even spread hydraulic water pressure during transport.

The masonry cases were not able to float by themselves. Therefore sponsons or air
cases were designed to increase the buoyancy and floating stability during transport.
Furthermore, a steel frame was required to improve its strength during floatation.
Although the sponsons could be reused, the masonry caissons were more costly than
the reinforced or “armed” concrete alternatives. For this reason, the masonry blocks
have only been designed for locations prone to high wave loads.

12
2.2. Caisson characteristics
This section regarding caisson characteristics is based on the harbour improvement
report of Valparaíso by Comision Kraus (ref. [1]), which was published in 1903. The
analysis reveals opportunities and threats of the concept. Lessons learnt from analysing
the first caissons are used for further caisson concepts.

2.2.1. Caisson shape and dimensions

For the largest part of the quay, the retaining height (incl. superstructure) was 14.00
metre. The standard type of sheltered quay wall was designed to function from -10.00m
to +4.00m relative to chart datum. Other quay walls were designed without
superstructure and had a sloping revetment up to +5.00m CD. The width of the caissons
varied from 3.00 metre at the top and 6.50 metre at the bottom (baseplate). To sum up,
the main dimensions of the caissons for the largest part of the sheltered quays were:

Caisson dimensions
height 11.35m
width 6.50m
length 10.00m
Retaining measures
total height 14.00m
water depth: CD -10.00m
coping level: CD +4.00m

The shape and caisson characteristics are discussed using the drawing (fig. 2.5) and
corresponding numbers of each element. Noteworthy is that for each reinforced
element, the concrete cover amounted probably 10mm. The impact of this aspect on
durability is discussed in chapter 3 and appendix C.

Superstructure (1)
The superstructure was made out of ordinary masonry.
A canal had been economized for placing water and
gas-pipes and the conducting electric cables. The pipes
were designed to be placed above an altar, while a
deeper part of the canal could serve for workman.

The total height of the superstructure amounted 2.65

metre. The superstructure starts from +1.35 metre
above mean sea level, guarantying relatively easy
placement and maintenance works. This is 0.35 m
above the anticipated value for extreme sea level. The
top level of the structure was CD +4.00m.

Backwall (2)
Caisson walls were tapered; the outer walls started for at
a thickness of 250 millimetres at the bottom and
attenuates to 150 mm at the top. This reduced the
amount of reinforced concrete and thereby the total
construction costs. The declined lower part had various
benefits.

Compartments (3)
The caisson was designed with four compartments (3
inner walls). The thickness of inner walls amounted
150mm. Reasons for partitioning the caissons were; (1) Figure 2.5. Main elements of the
the lateral walls had to be able to resist the pressure and caisson, indicated by numbers
(2) they had to diminish the movement of ballast water
during transport. The first 4 metres of the compartments
were originally designed to be filled with concrete which
was casted under water. In this way, the walls were not

13
exposed to high pressures. The remaining of the compartments were designed to be
filled with a concrete made out of 200 kg/m3 of Theil lime, which probably particularly
desired due to its ability to resist actions of sea water due to a low iron content1.

Frontwall (4)
The frontwall was designed with an inclination of 1/20, which ensured its stability during
placement and its service life. Similar to the backwall, the wall thickness varied from 150
millimetre at the top, to 250 millimetre at the bottom of the caisson.

Counterforts (5)
The baseplate and longitudinal walls were connected by means of five triangular
consoles, or counterforts. These provided strength and rigidity of the connection of the
baseplate between the compartments itself.

Declined back wall (6)

The declined back-wall allowed a nearly vertical floating position after turning. Due to
this declination, added ballast water acts beneficial for a vertical floating position. The
slender design in combination with a distributed weight over the height of the caisson
resulted in a low draught (relative to caisson height). The horizontal (fig.2.9; α ≈ 10°)
floating position resulted in a draught less than 4 metre.

The declination also resulted in less use of reinforced concrete. For instance, a larger
wall-span for the side walls could be realized. Namely, the lower part of the caisson,
which encounters the highest pressure during immersion, has the lowest wall-span. The
upper compartment walls have the largest wall-span of 3.00 metre. Furthermore, no
further increase of wall-pressure occurs after turning. This is due to its triangular shape,
which causes water pressure inside the compartments to rise faster than outside (in
contrast to the described La Goulette caisson in appendix A).

According to Tsinker (1997, 2014), the rear wall and base slab were designed to reduce
the horizontal soil thrust on the wall. In practice however, the declination does not result
in a reduction of horizontal soil pressure since the soil is trapped within the heel and
counterforts. The applicable soil pressure theory for overturning caissons is addressed
in more detail in appendix L.

The declination probably affected the casting method of the backwall considerably.
Casting under an angle of 20 degrees could only be realized with a very low slump
concrete mixture or with an additional formwork (tegenkist) which closes the wall. In this
case, the buoyancy of the formwork must be considered. This was probably challenging,
since internal ties (which could connect both formwork sides) were probably not well
developed to resist substantial hydraulic pressures during immersion.

Baseplate (7)
The baseplate was made out of reinforced concrete. It had a slight concave shape in
order to facilitate its stable position in the rubble bed. This guaranteed two supports in
case of bed variations. The rubble prism behind the wall provided anchorage to the
quay.

Forces acting on the plate are mainly transferred to the perpendicular (compartment)
walls and counterforts. The orthotropic plate (depicted in figure 2.6) is, due to its shape,
highly efficient in terms of material use. These reinforced concrete stiffeners required
formwork with a lot of corners (stiffener size was just 150mm). Attention was required in
terms of reinforcement (cutting, bending and placement), formwork construction and
concrete pouring. Especially if one realizes that the baseplates were casted in vertical
position. This implies that concrete kickers (opstort) could not be used for constructing
the stiffeners. If the baseplate was therefore casted at once, the small stiffeners on the
plate where probably prone to honeycomb formations (grindnesten).

1
Practical treatise on Limes Hydraulic Cements and Mortars, Professional Papers of the Corps of Engineers
(U.S.A.), No 9, by Q.A. Gillmore, A.M., fifth edition, 1879

14
 Figure 2.6. Detailed view of the reinforced concrete baseplate (original drawing) above:
reinforcement layout, below: cross-sectional dimensions

The total width of the baseplate amounted 6.50 metre, which is approximately equal to
0.6H. The width / height ratio is thereby small compared to current caisson designs,
which are generally in the order of 0.8H. Especially if one includes the superstructure
(+2.65m), the total width/height ratio becomes more or less 0.5.

2.2.2. Material properties

The concrete strength was determined based on experiments conducted before the
caisson was designed. The experiments had been performed with beams and plates of
an ordinary form and composition. The rupture tension had been determined as well as
the deformation undergone by the material according to the forces to which it had been
subjected. Rupture of “tension iron” appeared to be not governing at these tests, on
which it was concluded that the “limit of the elasticity” of the plate was decisive.

The concrete compressive strength (fck) had been determined to be 15 N/mm2 and its
characteristic tensile strength (ftk) amounts 2.0 N/mm2. The capacity of iron totalled 250
N/mm2 (fyk).

2.2.3. Reliability
A safety factor of 2 was applied on material properties with temporary loading (e.g.
during transport). Where a factor of 2.5 was applied on material properties with long
term loading (e.g. final at stage). Combined with the mentioned safety factor of 2.5, a
design compressive strength of 6 N/mm2 remained.

2.2.4. Construction method

The construction method was planned in great detail by Comision Kraus. The most
striking aspects of this approach were the horizontal casting and launching of the
caissons. The elements were designed to be prefabricated on shore in horizontal
position and transported to water by custom made lorries. Major benefits of this method
are the costs savings of a (floating) dry-dock and horizontal casting. A significantly
larger area could be casted as floors instead of walls. Floors could be casted more
economically since there was less falsework and formwork required and it required less
labour to place reinforcement and cast the concrete.

Figure 2.7 – Lorries and construction method (Valparaíso, 1903)

15
Comparing a theoretical vertical construction method with the applied method provides
insight in the advantages that could be obtained. Significantly more walls would be
required if the caisson would be constructed in vertical position. Differences between
casting walls and floors are:

- Horizontal forms hold weight of fresh concrete;

- Vertical forms hold pressure of fresh concrete (which can be equal to
hydrostatic);

Therefore, the maximum casting height of walls can be limited by formwork pressure.
Horizontal casting is on the other hand not limited by a certain formwork pressure since
it only has to carry the weight of the fresh concrete (fig 2.8 and 2.9). A concrete slab
having a thickness of 250mm would therefore exert a vertical pressure of 6.25 kN/m2,
while a concrete wall, having a height of for instance 3.00m, exerts a horizontal pressure
of 3.00 x 25 = 75 kN/m2. Hence, the length of a concrete element could be increased
without pressure restrictions, while a wall casting height of just 3 metres already results
in considerable formwork pressures. Especially in the years of the design of the first
caissons, when little experience and limited techniques were available, this aspect could
have influenced the design considerably.
pouring and
consolidation
pouring and
consolidation
L
H

Figure 2.8. Formwork pressure: weight of slab Figure 2.9. Formwork pressure: hydrostatic
pressure

Additional differences between figures 2.8 and 2.9 are the accessibility and working
conditions for activities such as; reinforcement fixing, concrete pouring and
consolidation. The horizontal casting method improves these conditions considerably
when little techniques are used. Also the concrete free-fall distance could easily be
reduced in case of horizontal casting, which prevents segregation of aggregates.

The caissons were planned to be constructed onshore. This resulted in the possibility to
construct caissons simultaneously. The report revealed that it was intended to construct
171 regular blocks at once and 320 in total. The sheltered quay wall caissons were
planned to be built in portions of 114 caissons at a time and 260 in total. The
construction of over 100 caissons simultaneously was the most economical solution in
1903, this is however currently unusual.

Temporary slipway
(launching site)

Lorries and construction site

for caissons

Figure 2.10. Execution plan of reinforced concrete caissons (half of the construction site)

16
2.2.5. Launching method
Launching was meant to take place with help of temporary timber bridges. The
declination of this slipway was designed to be 1:10, which was similar to the floating
position of the caissons, which was approximately 10 degrees. This resulted in low
concrete tensile stresses during the launching process; it was calculated that stresses of
0.45 N/mm2 would not be exceeded. The slipway launching method was considered to
be the most economical solution due to shallow water conditions near the construction
site.

Figure 2.11. Transport and launching plans of the caissons (Valparaíso, 1903)

The maximum draught of the overturning caisson was roughly 3.80 metres (ref 1), which
is less than 0.35H (where H = caisson height). This is a significant reduction compared
to rectangular caissons where a rule of thumb of 0.5H can be used2. Savings can be
made during construction of the caissons, whether it is decided to build the overturning
caissons on ground level, where slipway launching or a ship-lift is required or when it is
decided to use a temporary dry-dock. The particular launching method shall always be
more economic due to the reduced depth.

Loads induced by slipway launching can be estimated to be equal to the hydrostatic

pressure in combination with a certain additional dynamic load (Tsinker 1997). This
additional hydrodynamic pressure (Pqs) on the caisson is usually treated as quasi-static.
Its value can be estimated as a function of an empirical coefficient (c) and the speed of
caisson launching. The coefficient is conservatively estimated to be in the order of 0.85
– 1.00, where a speed (V) of 5 m/s is usually assumed for preliminary design. This
results in the following expressions for the estimation of added dynamic pressure:

2
Pqs  cV
2 2
Pqs  1.0  5.00  25 kPa = 25 kN/m
This pressure is a considerable amount of additional load, but is not necessarily a
dominant design load. In other words, slipway launching is not necessarily influencing
the structural design and geometry.

2.2.6. Transport
One of the most striking aspects of the original caisson is its equilibrium floating
positions. The first floating position was under an angle of approximately 10 degrees.
This could be achieved through an economic design in terms of material use and a
slender caisson (height / width ratio ≈ 2).

The floating position after launching is shown in figure 2.11. A benefit of this position
was that it corresponded to the desired horizontal construction and launching method.
Also, the caissons could be floated in shallower water conditions, which reduced the
required length of the slipway and/or the dredging works. The draught of the original
caisson during transport amounted approximately 3.90 metres.

The low relative draught was caused be two major design characteristics. Firstly, its
limited weight resulted in a small amount of displaced water (∇). Secondly, the centre of

2
This is valid if one assumes 20% concrete and 80% compartment volume. A concrete/water density ratio of
2.5 gives a draught of 0.20 x 2.5 x H = 0.50H

17
gravity (G) was located near the middle of the caisson (fig. 2.12.). The angle of floatation
would further decrease if G would be shifted towards the middle. The small angle of
floatation was therefore obtained by the enlarged upper part of the caisson. The slope of
the back-wall itself was not important in this floating phase, but the weight distribution

2.57m

B
α 3.93m

Figure 2.12. First floating position of the caisson

Due to the relatively large moment of inertia of displaced water, the horizontal floating
position is rather stable. Form appendix B.9, the metacentric height of the simplified
model appeared to be in the order of 3 metres above the centre of gravity, which is more
than sufficient in terms of transport requirements. The caisson will therefore have the
ability to remain upright after small disturbances. Considering this, the metacentric
height is expected to be a less significant design aspect, compared to rectangular
caissons.

2.2.7. Turning & Immersion

When ballast water is applied, point G shifts and enforces a different floating angle. The
volume of displaced water will increase and its centre of buoyancy (B) shifts horizontally
to the position G’. When ballast water is continuously added, rotation will slowly
progress until the heel of the caisson scoops water. The heel will quickly be filled with
water and the floating position will become more or less vertical.

In example, figure 2.13 shows two floating objects. The left object is in equilibrium and
has a horizontal floating position. The right object has a shifted centre of gravity which
implies that a rotation is initiated if no other external force is applied. The shape of the
displaced water must change in such a way, that its centre of buoyancy (B) returns
above or below the shifted centre of gravity (G’).

G G’

B B

Figure 2.13. Change of floating position

At a particular horizontal shift of G, equilibrium cannot be found by minor changes of the

floating position. Turning of the object is then required to find equilibrium. In case of the
overturning caisson, a new equilibrium point shall be reached with point G positioned
vertically below point B. The enlarged compartments at the upper part of the caisson

18
contribute to floating stability after turning and during the immersion process. In
appendix B.10, an analysis of allowable positions for the centre of gravity is made. It is
found that the relative displacement influences this region. The more relative
displacement, the smaller the allowable region for G. Such a region can be used as tool
for determining the geometry of an overturning caisson.

The first overturning caissons were designed for a nearly vertical floating position after
turning. During ballasting, its floating position became more and more vertical. A vertical
position was obtained in combination with approximately 10% of the compartment
volume with water. This was in combination with a remaining freeboard of approximately
1.65 metre, which implies that during low water level, a remaining keel clearance of 0.30
metre was obtained. Irrespective of its vertical floating position and keel clearance, it
was decided to assist the caissons during turning and immersion with a sheerleg (fig.
A.12). The used sheerleg is estimated to have a capacity of 50 tonnes, which is roughly
a quarter of the caisson weight (220 tonne).

The vertical floating position could be obtained by a well-thought-out geometry. A

simplified model with straight walls (fig. 2.14) has no intrinsic vertical floating position
after turning. The absence of a toe and the rectangular shape of the compartments
result in a floating equilibrium which is not vertical, and shall not become vertical due to
the ballast increments.

Figure 2.14. Schematic position after ballasting of the original

caisson (left) and the simplified model (right)

The caisson with a rectangular shaped compartment has its buoyancy point relatively
close to the front-wall. The original caisson, with a triangular back-wall shifts the
buoyancy point towards the back-wall, which is desired for a vertical floating equilibrium.
Therefore, the declination functions in two manners:

1. The buoyancy centre (B) shifts backwards;

2. Ballast water shifts the centre of gravity (G) forwards;

The buoyancy centre is well-positioned due to declined back-wall. This can be seen by
comparing a rectangular geometry with a triangular which have equal surface areas. If
these surfaces represent a certain displacement, both have different geometric centres
(centroids), which indicate a different location of the buoyancy point.

A comparison between those geometries is depicted in figure 2.15. Both having the
same area (H x W). Nevertheless, the buoyancy point for the rectangular geometry, with
a straight back-wall is positioned at a horizontal distance of W/2, where the buoyancy
point for the triangular geometry is positioned on a horizontal distance of 2W/3 from the
front.

19
The centre of mass also changes due to the adjusted geometry. However, the distance
from the front-wall remains equal for both geometries. The remaining differentiating
aspect is a change in length of the walls; where the hypotenuse is by definition longer
than the adjacent. The increased mass of the declined back-wall results in a slight shift
towards the (undesired) back of the caisson. The mass increase is however less
significant than the shape change.
W W 2W 2W

area area (A)

(A)

straight backwall B

B W H H W

geometric centre of geometric centre of

centre mass centre mass

Figure 2.15. Declined versus straight back-wall: geometry differences affecting the floating
position

Nevertheless, the declined back-wall is not compulsory to obtain a vertical floating

position. It can also be obtained by designing an additional compartment or ballast tank.
This makes that the geometric centre (or buoyancy centre B) can be adjusted
independent of the centre of gravity (G), which simplifies the vertical positioning.

20
2.3. Structural capacity
Loads during immersion were governing for the structural design of the concrete
caisson. This is expressed in the report as follows:

“The sides and the bottom of this case are so calculated that they can resist
the corresponding pressure of the water at this depth, a pressure will
naturally not increase when the case has a greater depth, owing to the
water introduced.”

The case was designed to resist the hydrostatic pressure directly after the turning
operation. This state is obviously governing due to the caisson geometry and the
increasing hydrostatic pressure from the presence of ballast water. In other words, the
water level inside the compartments rises faster than the immersion rate of the caisson.

The walls could be designed with a thickness of 150mm at the top and 250mm at the
bottom of the caisson. This limited wall thickness was possible due to the limited
hydrostatic pressure on the top of the caisson. The schematic load case on the front-
wall of the caisson is as follows:

1.65m

7.70m

80kN/m2
2.00m
0.30m

Figure 2.16. Hydrostatic pressure during immersion

The original strength parameters for the reinforced caisson are listed in the table below.

Material characteristics (1903) Value

Concrete
Concrete compressive strength 15.00 N/mm2
Concrete tensile strength 2.00 N/mm2
Overall safety factor (during transport) 2.00
Design value of concrete compressive strength 7.50 N/mm2
Design value of concrete tensile strength 1.00 N/mm2
Reinforcement
Steel (“iron”) yield strength 250 N/mm2
Bar diameter (lower part of caisson) 1/2” ≈ 12.7mm

The structural capacity is analysed in appendix B. The most striking aspect from the
analysis is that the shear capacity of the walls is just sufficient at the critical depth. The
walls are thereby rather thin, but nevertheless able to resist the hydrostatic pressure.
After immersion, the compartments were filled with a low quality concrete. This had to
result in a durable structure with limited use of reinforced concrete.

21
2.4. Economic characteristics
The harbour improvement project in Valparaíso consisted of several quay structures.
Especially the largest quay site was designed with great precision. The most economical
solution, which also had to fulfil all requirements, seemed to be a reinforced concrete L-
shaped caisson. This carefully designed caisson type was estimated to cost about 1445
Chilean pesos ($), where the rectangular caisson type was estimated to cost 2500
pesos per running metre. The costs of excavation and the rubble backfill were initially
not included for both cases.

The report revealed a list of prices and elements from prior the tender phase of the quay
walls. The cost of rubble stones are found in a cost estimate supplement and added to
the existing table. Based on this, the total quay cost per running metre (excl. excavation
and dredging) is calculated. This cost overview is presented in table 2.1.

L-shaped
Price per line metre quay (1903) Box caisson
caisson
Floating case of armed concrete $ 1 405,- $ 679,-
Filling up of sand concrete $ 210,- $ 276,-
Superstructure composed of masonry with $ 218,- $ 218,-
a mortar of cement, including the coping-
stone
Construction and keeping in repairs of the $ 225,- $ 117,-
moulds and launchers for the floating
cases
Operation of launching, transporting and $ 442,- $ 155,-
placing the cases, with mortmain of the
material needed
Rubble stones for compartment fill, $ 536,- $ 326,-
backfill and bed foundation
Total Chilean pesos ($): $ 3 036,- $ 1 771,-
Table 2.1. Caisson quay wall costs per running metre

It can be seen that the rectangular caissons were about 3 times more expensive to
launch, transport and place compared to the economic L-shaped solution. However,
both caisson types have been designed for this project. This reveals that the L-shaped
caisson design was not forced, for instance, by shallow water conditions during
transport. The L-shaped caisson was purely designed to satisfy all the conditions at the
lowest possible price.

The rectangular caissons (shown in figure 1.1) were only designed for locations with a
generally rough sea. The L-shaped caisson was particularly designed for the sheltered
parts of the harbour. The planned sheltered quay wall length totalled 3481 metres,
which is, also for today’s standards a large quay length.

22
Based on the original cost estimate, the differences per running metre quay for the
sheltered harbour are expressed in the bar chart below. It can be seen that the largest
savings were made by reducing the amount of concrete. The material savings thereby
resulted in a chain reaction and reduced the costs of other components as well.

Caisson construction cost comparison (1903)

$ 1.600,00
$ 1.400,00
$ 1.200,00
$ 1.000,00
$ 800,00
$ 600,00
$ 400,00
$ 200,00
$ 0,00

box caisson L-shaped caisson

From the volumes and given prices per metre quay, the following price per units has
been calculated:

Price per Price per

Price per unit (1903) Quantity
element unit
Floating case of armed concrete $ 679,- 9.60 m3 71,75 $/m3
Sand-concrete compartment fil $ 276,- 23.00 m3 12,00 $/m3
Superstructure composed of masonry with
a mortar of cement, including the coping- $ 218,- 6.75 m3 32,30 $/m3
stone
Construction and keeping in repairs of the
moulds and launchers for the floating $ 117,- 75.40 m2 1,55 $/m2
cases
Operation of launching, transporting and
placing the cases, with mortmain of the $ 155,- 9.60 m3 16,15 $/m3
material needed
Rubble stones for backfill and foundation
$ 326,- 65.00 m3 5,00 $/m3
bed
*Prices in Chilean Pesos ($)

The price per unit of reinforced concrete was exceptionally high. It was for example
more than 5 times higher than the cost of “sand-concrete” which is a mixture of sand,
cement and water. It was also over 10 times more expensive than the procurement of
rubble stones. Due to these large price differences, it was highly beneficial to save on
the amount of reinforced concrete.

23
2.5. Synthesis
The counterfort caissons resulted in a material efficient retaining structure. The
application of reinforced concrete was consciously considered. The optimization
resulted in materials savings, but as a consequence, a relatively complex shape had to
be constructed. The complex shape had no significant influence on the construction
costs. A rectangular caisson for the same port expansion project had a relatively simple
shape, but was estimated to cost almost twice as much. The reason for this cost
difference can be addressed to material and weight savings.

The minimum wall thickness amounted just 150mm, where the lower walls reached
thicknesses up to 250mm. Although relatively thin walls were constructed with inferior
material properties, it was sufficient for the temporary loads during transport and
immersion. After placement, the compartments were filled with a sand-cement mixture
which increased structural longevity.

For a regular caisson, the compartment and caisson dimensions are intrinsically linked
to the draught magnitude. For the overturning caisson, the potential water displacement
by the compartments is only from importance during immersion since the caisson has
two floating equilibrium positions. The draught restriction in vertical floating position is
limited by the water levels and depth during placement.

The savings of building materials resulted in a snowball-effect for other components in

the construction process. Also a horizontally constructed rectangular caissons was
significantly more expensive. Compared to a rectangular caisson, the benefits of the
counterfort concept were:

Benefits of the
Cause Result
caisson (1903)
Economically designed
caisson due to:
Over 50% savings on
- Counterforts (L-shape);
Reinforced concrete reinforced concrete
- Declined backwall;
costs
- Thin and tapered walls;
- Orthotropic base plate;
Less foundation bed and
Reduced amount of Approximately 40%
backfill required due to
rubble stones required savings of rubble stone
reduced weight
Less walls, resulting in less
formwork area; Over 50% savings on
Temporary equipment
Less construction height, formwork and falsework
(e.g. formwork)
requiring less temporary costs
supports;
Less weight and less draught
due to the economical design Almost 65% savings on
Launching
resulting in a relatively simple launching costs
slipway launching method
The design resulted in a small
Transport Low draught
width-to-height ratio
Results compared to a rectangular caisson designed for the port of Valparaíso in
1903, having the same retaining height.

The reduced launching costs were obtained by the reduced weight and shape of the
caissons. Due to the efficient use of materials, the caissons could be constructed with
an element length of 10 metre. This was approximately 3 times longer than the
rectangular caissons, which reduced the number of launches drastically. All in all,
significant advantages could be obtained. The low draught (approximately 1/3 the
caisson height) of the overturning caisson is also listed as an advantage, while the
draught of the first block caisson was actually lower. However, the relative draught is still
low compared to current rectangular caisson designs.

24
Developments over more than a century of caisson construction resulted in a shift of
benefits and priorities. Somehow, the concept became less attractive to build. A
literature study (appendix A) revealed that the concept is only built for three projects in
the years 1908, 1911 and 1914. The Hollandsche Beton Groep (HBG) decided to build
only rectangular caissons. An overview of the first caisson projects is presented in the
table below. It can be seen that the method of construction was initially horizontal,
disregarding the geometry. After the Chilean port expansion projects, the method for
rectangular caissons changed to vertical.

Caisson construction methods

Project
Counterfort caisson Rectangular caisson
Valparaíso (1903) Horizontal Horizontal
Talcahuano (1908) Horizontal Horizontal
Surabaya (1911) Horizontal Vertical
Tandjong Priok (1914) Horizontal Vertical
Later HBG projects Withdrawn Vertical

After this period, horizontal construction methods were rarely applied. Two other
caissons are found which make use of a turning principle; one project in Gdynia (1927)
and one in Tunis (≤1967). Remarkable is that a feasibility study is performed for a
counterfort caisson quay wall in 1986. This so called Camilla caisson has great
similarities to the first counterfort caissons, but no record is found of any application.

The geometry of the first caissons of the first caissons did not affect the construction
method. Later, the construction method started to depend on the shape of the caisson.
The geometry is thus affecting the method of construction, launching and transport. It is
therefore presumed that optimal construction methods are found for rectangular
caissons, while a counterfort caisson might still be feasible with a horizontal construction
method. Reasons for the withdrawal and new opportunities for counterfort caissons are
sought in the following aspects:

Technical feasibility
- Operational conditions;
geometry, weight,
- Stability requirements;
displacement
- Durability requirements;

Construction technology
- Construction technology; equipment, falsework,
- Executional aspects; formwork, crane capacity,
- Launching techniques; floating equipment
- Transport and immersion requirements;

Economies
- Shifts in labour, materials and equipment;
- Design, risks and safety; resource consumption

25
3. Technical Requirements (1903 – 2017)
Designing a reinforced concrete quay wall structure for sea harbours requires a well-
considered design approach. The quay wall must meet all functional requirements
during its service live in an economical way. The structure must thereby fulfil its tasks
under actions and influences which are likely to occur during the execution and
operational phase.

A certain balance must be found between aspects as; construction costs, durability and
robustness. Also awareness of a high number of various loads throughout the design life
of the quay structure is a prerequisite. This chapter provides an overview of changed
technical aspects and requirements from 1903 to 2017. The addressed aspects are
considered from the perspective of technical feasibility, which involves geometry,
weight, displacement, stability and durability of the concept.

3.1. Structural developments

The development of large concrete gravity based quay wall structures started with
unreinforced structures such as the Langton Dock Wall in Liverpool (1881) and block-
wall structures such as constructed in Bougie, Algeria (1904), both depicted in figure
3.1. The retaining height of the shown block-wall was approximately 10 metres, the
unreinforced concrete quay retained almost 12 metres and the caisson quay wall
retained 14 metres soil.

Predecessors of the reinforced caissons were unreinforced concrete structures and

concrete block-walls. The unreinforced concrete structures have relatively high self-
weight compared to modern reinforced concrete caissons. These unreinforced variants
are nowadays still widely applied, which indicates that the more recent developed
reinforced concrete caisson is not particularly an improvement for all conditions.

Figure 3.1. Concrete quay wall structures, gravity based; Liverpool (left), Bougie (mid) and
Talcahuano (right).

3.1.1. Reinforced concrete

Development of this composite material, reinforced concrete, enabled engineers to
reduce the weight of retaining walls considerably. However, since the weight of the quay
wall ensures its stability, it must be compensated by a particular compartment fill, soil
anchorage (e.g. an anchor plate) or sufficient heel embedment. Therefore, a reduction
of self-weight must result in an increased width in case of gravity quay walls.

The first economical counterfort caissons were (from load transfer point of view) still
very similar to the heavy weight unreinforced structures, since the caisson
compartments were filled at its final position with a sand-cement mixture. The relatively
low quay loads and high weight resulted in a slender retaining structure (B ≈ 0.5H),
which is from load transfer point of view very similar to unreinforced concrete structures.

26
3.1.2. Compartment fill and backfill material
The reason for filling compartments with concrete was to increase the stability and
strength of the structure. The overturning stability (equilibrium) increases when the
compartments are filled with a heavy material. At the same time, a greater structural
resistance can be obtained due to the connection of structural elements.

The cementitious fill was required because of the low quality concrete (5 to 15 N/mm2)
and slender walls in combination with relatively high loads and the probability of
(accidental) ship collisions. For this reason, caissons in the port of Rotterdam (around
the year 1920), have been designed with dedicated compartments at the front of the
wall for the application of an unreinforced concrete fill. Therefore, risks of ship collision
influenced the design significantly. Cementitious fills slowly vanished from the designs,
starting with projects where compartments were only filled with concrete if these
locations were subjected to a high risk of ship collision.

In the years following after the Second World War, the unreinforced compartment fill
was vanished from all caisson quay designs at the port of Rotterdam. Reasons for this
can be for example: an increased concrete quality, increased wall thickness (e.g. due to
increasing quay height), increased insight in material behaviour and/or improved
manoeuvrability of ships.

Increasing quay wall dimensions for a project

Tandjong Priok
Figure 3.2 Caissons designed for the port of Tandjong Priok, Indonesia (1914)

Analysing different types of caissons built for a project in Tandjong Priok (1914), it can
be seen that also the rectangular caisson (1e Binnenhaven Westerboord) has been filled
with unreinforced concrete. Filling the right (instead of left) compartment with such a
heavy material would increase the stability substantially more. This would be more
reasonable if one considers the distribution of foundation pressure. The reduction of
eccentric loads could also result in less differential settlements in transversal direction.

On the condition that a rectangular shaped caisson is an economic design, the width
can be further increased without major cost increase. At this point, it is often more
economical to increase the width until locally sourced sand can be used as backfill
material, as Tsinker (2014) describes:

“In general, reduction in caisson width does not save much concrete required
for its fabrication. However, significant saving in the total cost of a quay wall
may result from a reduction in volume (and cost) of stone bedding.”

The statement can be verified by comparing the two situations; a caisson with rubble
backfill and a caisson with a sand backfill which therefor needs to be widened (fig. 3.3.).

27
The two situations are schematically depicted in the figures below. The main point at
issue is when a certain solution becomes more economical. Initially, the difference is
verified by considering a simplified example. This is however insufficient for disproving
the general feasibility of the overturning concept.

caisson
rubble backfill sand backfill

caisson
H H

caisson width
0.8H H 0.8H increase
Figure 3.3. Design choice: rubble backfill or increased caisson width

Simplified feasibility consideration

A cross section of a traditional caisson consists of approximately 20%
concrete. A caisson width-to-height ratio is normally in the order of 0.80. Based
on this, a simple expression can be made which provides the caisson concrete
volume per running metre quay for a particular height (H):

Vc = 0.20 x 0.80 H x H = 0.16 H2 [m3/m1]

And, based on a triangular backfill with a slope of 45 degrees, the rubble stone
volume per running metre amounts approximately:

Vb = 0.50 x H x H = 0.50 H2 [m3/m1]

The costs of reinforced concrete are estimated to be €300/m3 and the rubble
stone backfill is expected to be €50/m3 more expensive than locally sourced
sand. The cost of a backfill thereby becomes:

Cb = 0.5 H2 x €50/m3 = € 25 H2 [m-1]

And for this value, a caisson volume can be increased up to:

Vd,add = €25 H2 / €300/m3 = 0.08 H2 [m3/m1]

For this example, the caisson can be widened to 150% of its original size.
After this point, a rubble backfill becomes more economical. Note however that
the feasibility is highly affected by cost the difference between rubble and
reinforced concrete. Also the particular shape of the caisson and backfill
changes the outcome.

The question remains whether the enlarged width increases the stability in such a way
that the lack of a rubble backfill is justified. Due to a higher soil shearing angle, the
horizontal thrust can be reduced by 50%. This can be seen by the difference in K values
(appendix L.5.) for soils with a shearing angle of 30 degrees compared to 45 degrees. A
rubble backfill therefore reduces loads significantly, which can justify the higher
procurement costs.

If soil pressure is the main source of destabilizing actions, the change to a rubble fill can
highly influence the required width of the gravity retaining wall. If however other quay
loads are present in a considerable amount, the impact of a rubble fill will become less
significant to the overall design.

28
3.2. Operational and stability conditions
From the stability analysis (appendix B) from the original caisson, it can be seen that the
original caisson offers an inadequate reliability in terms of (GEO) stability. If the caisson
would be designed according to the British Standard and Eurocode, the caisson width
should be increased to approximately 8.50 metres. This equals approximately 75% of
the caisson height, which is still rather slender when the superstructure is included. The
differences of safety levels are presented in table 3.1. Based on the preliminary
calculations, values above 1.00 indicate sufficient stability.

Foundation
Forward Overturning
SLS verification pressure
sliding (GEO) (EQU)
(GEO)
Original caisson design
1.20 1.55 0.75
(width = 6.50m)
Adjusted caisson design
1.60 2.65 1.10
(width = 8.50m)
Table 3.1. Stability analysis of original overturning caisson

For the enlarged caisson, the total width-to-height ratio, including the superstructure
amounts (8.50/14.0=) 0.61. The PIANC Seismic Design Guidelines for Port Structures
(2002) notes that a relatively small ratio of 0.75 will exhibit a predominant tilting failure
mode rather than horizontal displacements. This results in extreme cases in collapse of
the wall, where wider caissons are often only associated with excessive deformations. If
a slender design is preferred, the increased risks in relation to earthquake loadings must
be well-considered.

The required width increase of approximately 30% results in a different caisson

geometry. Possible stability improving measures are presented in the table below.

Measure Disadvantage
Increased maintenance costs and uncertainty
Drainage to equalize water levels
in drainage behaviour;
Apply a backfill with higher shearing Procurement of rubble stones; more
angle expensive than locally sourced sand;
Increase the weight of the structure, Increased eccentricity results in higher soil
e.g. by filling the compartment with pressure near the toe and lower soil pressure
concrete near the heel of the caisson;
Less sliding capacity and overturning stability
Filling compartments only with water
(EQU) due to decreased weight
An additional construction phase shall be
Provide alternative soil anchorage
required, which increases equipment and
(e.g. by anchor plate)
labour costs;
Less buoyancy, increased draught, different
Increasing the heel width
floating position;
Less buoyancy, increased draught, different
Increased toe-width
floating position.
Table 3.2. Possible measures to increase global caisson stability

29
3.3. Quay height
The quay height for international ports has increased drastically over the last century.
Figure 3.4 shows the quay depths for the Port of Rotterdam from the year 1855 to 2000.
The first port activities were near the city centre and moved away from the city (Botlek,
Europort and Maasvlakte) to facilitate larger vessels and increased transhipment
quantities.

depth

time
[years]
Figure 3.4. Increasing quay height for the port of Rotterdam (Kademuren, verleden,
heden en toekomst)

It is expected that the draught of large vessels will not increase drastically in the coming
years (De Gijt, 2010). Due to nautical constraints, such as depth and dimensions of sea
straits, the draught is expected to be restricted to a value in the order of 25 metres.
Therefore, the demand for quay wall structures with a height of 20 to 30 metre is
expected to continue.

For this thesis a quay wall height of 21 metre is considered to be a good representation
of the current demand for port expansions. After subtracting a few metres for water level
differences and flood safety, such a height is still large enough for New Panamax ships
(draught = 15.2m). Also various Post Panamax (ULCV) categories are able to berth at
this quay height.

3.3.1 Scaling considerations

It would be reasonable to consider a linearly scaled concept of the original caisson
design for larger quay heights. A caisson compartment could be enlarged as presented
in figure 3.5. However, if the caissons and compartments are scaled by a certain factor
larger than one, the wall-span and immersion pressure both increase. For instance; if
the caisson height is doubled and the compartments are equally scaled, the wall
thickness must increase drastically (see appendix J). The maximum shear force induced
by hydrostatic pressure becomes 4 times higher, which indicates that the wall thickness
must be increased by a factor 4 to obtain an equal shear stress. Besides this scaling
aspect, the shear capacity itself decreases. According to the Eurocode 2, a size factor
must be taken into account for larger concrete sections (>200mm) loaded in shear.

When a single compartment is analysed and the wall-spans are all doubled, its volume
(and displacement) becomes four times larger, while its circumference is doubled. Since
the walls are loaded by a pressure twice as large, and the spans are also scaled by this
factor, the wall-thickness must be increased by a factor 4. The amount of concrete (and
weight) is then increased by a factor 8.

30
 2P 2P
P

B 2B

2B 2B

Figure 3.5. Compartment scaling effects

This effect results in limiting dimensions for caisson compartments. In general, larger
caissons do not allow larger wall spans. Compartments can efficiently be designed with
wall-spans up to approximately 3.50 to 4.00 metre. Actual limits depend on the particular
design conditions. In terms of material use, adding transverse walls becomes more
efficient than increasing spans.

3.4. Transport
The caisson transport can be divided into three different phases. During the first phase,
the caissons must be transported from the construction site to the launching area. The
weight and size of the elements are important aspects during this operation. After this,
the caissons are launched and then transported over water to its final location. A
schematic overview of traditional caissons is presented in figure 3.6 below.
1
2
3
depth

Horizontal transport Launching Transport (floating)

(ground level)

Figure 3.6. Traditional caisson transport phases

The technical characteristics of the caisson elements will determine the eventual
transport costs. A lower caisson weight shall, for instance, result in a reduced demand
for hydraulic jacks for transport over land. Weight reductions also affect the required
lifting and launching capacity. Furthermore, the weight and shape could reduce the
required towing capacity. These examples had large impact over a century ago, but are
currently considered to be insignificant. The factors which are estimated to have high
impact are related to draught and floating stability. An overview of the estimations is
presented in table 3.3 below.

Transport element Influencing factors Estimated significance

1. Transport over land weight, size little
weight, size little
2. Launching
draught high
weight, size,
little
hydrodynamic drag
3. Transport over water
draught, floating
high
stability
Table 3.3. Estimated significance of differentiation within transport phases

The importance and consequences of draught changes are depending on local

conditions. The draught cannot be problematic if the water-depth on the transport route

31
is for instance larger than the caisson height itself. When the water depth is sufficient,
the construction and launching procedure may still be affected by a change in draught.
For instance, a dry-dock may become shallower or a slipway may become shorter.

depth near
local depth port expansion

Horizontal transport Launching Transport (floating) Turning (floating)

(ground level)

Figure 3.7. Overturning caisson transport phases

For a particular shape, the lowest theoretical draught can be obtained when the centre
of gravity is located at half the caisson height. The caisson would then simply float in a
straight equilibrium position. For a counterfort-caisson, the centre of gravity is off centre.
The weight on one side increases when the heel-width must be increased to meet
operational requirements. This changes the floating equilibrium position and increases
the draught. The relation between floating position and centre of gravity is explained in
more detail in appendix B.10.

The reduced draught is not free of charge; the caisson needs to be turned near its final
location. The ideal second floating position (during immersion) would be completely
vertical. As the asymmetry of the caisson becomes larger for a width of 8.50m, it
becomes more challenging to find a vertical floating equilibrium.

3.5. Durability aspects

Nowadays, it is known that durability of reinforced concrete is not some given
characteristic of the material itself. Many different aspects influence the durability and
life time. Only if the structure is designed and built properly, the desired performance
can be achieved. Durability aspects are perhaps even more important than the
compressive strength, since the majority of the problems are associated with
degradation due to poor durability, rather than lack of strength.

Durability of concrete can be defined as the ability to resist attack from environment in
which it is placed. The attack can be either physical or chemical. Examples of different
attacks are presented in table 3.4 below.

Physical attack Chemical attack

Abrasion Sulphates
Impact Chlorides
Ice growth (freeze thaw) Carbon dioxide
Permeation / diffusion Alkalis
Acids
Table 3.4. different forms of attack on a concrete structure

Form the examples of physical attacks, abrasion and (ship) impact are from importance
for quay wall design. On the other hand, chlorides and carbon-dioxide are from major
importance when considering chemical attack. These can influence the concrete quality
and induce corrosion of carbon steel reinforcement.

3.5.1. Recommendations
From extensive research and experience over the last century, knowledge is obtained
which currently enables one to design a durable reinforced concrete structure in marine
environments. A relatively large concrete cover of at least 60 mm, in combination with a
proper concrete mixture is required to obtain a quay design which can fulfil a service life
of at least 50 years. Legally, the cover depth could be reduced to the requirements of

32
the Eurocode. However, these cover depths are rather low compared to quay design
recommendations.

The minimum concrete cover cannot be reduced significantly by applying high

cementitious concrete mixtures or high strength concrete for instance. Most standards
use the concrete cover depth as main parameter for different exposure classes. The BS
6349 specifies a concrete cover to mixture relation, but only starts from 55mm (XS3 and
50 years design life) and prescribes a high concrete quality.

Besides legal obligations by several European codes, the cover depth requirements are
well-founded by theoretical background and field measurements. This makes a
significant cover depth reduction for carbon steel reinforced concrete inacceptable,
irrespective to the particular project location.
100 90
70
55 60 60
50

Eurocode 2 EAU 2012 BS 6349: 2013 NS 3473: 2003 Thoresen (2014)

Figure 3.8. Concrete cover depth regulations and guidelines for tidal splash zones in marine
environments and a 50 year design life.

For quay wall structures, other measures such as coatings, stainless steel or non-
metallic reinforcement does not seem to result in a significant reduction of the concrete
cover. Besides the fact that a significant cover reduction due to those measures would
legally questionable, the earlier mentioned desired robustness will be compromised. In
addition, those solutions would threaten the economic feasibility drastically.

The following schematization (fig. 3.9.) has been made to provide an overview in terms
of concrete cover, robustness and degradation. In terms of robustness, a minimum
front- and back-wall thickness of 300mm is recommended. The design of separation
walls is limited by executional and economical aspects and can therefore not be
reduced any further than 250mm.

33
 cnom
Particular degradation sources for marine structures: ∆cdeg cmin ∆cdev
 mechanical loads (berthing / mooring)
 abrasion (e.g. by wave impact) high tide concrete in
 chloride ingress atmospher
 carbonation e
 freeze-thaw actions

concrete degradation
concrete in
 temperature gradients tidal zone

reinforcement
 humidity gradients

concrete
Measures to prevent degradation: low tide
 Provide sufficient concrete cover (≥60mm)
 Apply high concrete grade (≥C35/C45)
 Apply a low water / cement ratio (≤0.45) submerged
concrete
 Adjust cement type (e.g. apply CEM II or III3)
 Mitigate concrete crack width

Besides the listed measures, good casting and

curing conditions are desired to obtain a durable Figure 3.9. Degradation mechanisms
reinforced concrete structure. with respect to the concrete cover
(exaggerated schematization)
3.6. Synthesis
Various aspects for caisson quay wall design changed over the last century. The first
caissons were designed as relatively small, slender and fragile concrete self-floating
structures which compartments were filled on their final location with a sand-cement
mixture. Its design was thereby highly influenced by temporary construction phases.

The used concrete strength is nowadays much higher. The applied concrete class in
1903 was comparable to C12/15, which is currently the lowest available grade according
to the European EN-206-1 regulations. This low grade is currently rarely used for
structural applications. The significantly higher concrete grades (normal strength
concrete up to C45/55) are, besides its strength increase, compulsory for a durable
structure. However, the improvement of mechanical characteristics has not resulted in
more slender structural elements.

Due to changed stability and robustness demands, structural elements became thicker
and larger, while the required caisson width also increased. These changes where in
favour of the longevity of the structure. Considering the original design, using a modern
stability calculation approach, its width must be increased by approximately 30%. In
contrast to rectangular caissons, a change of geometry results in a different floating
equilibrium position. The design became increasingly influenced by serviceability
requirements.

3
According to CUR-Leidraad 1, CEM I would not be desirable, while actual field measurements (e.g. Gaal
2004) show no significant durability increase when blast furnace slag cement is applied

34
4. Construction Technology (1903-2017)
4.1. Workability and execution
4.1.1. Historical overview of mixing and casting
The first patents for making concrete in mobile steam driven mixers appeared around
the year 1900 in the United States. The first mixer trucks arose after the invention of
Stephen Stepanian in 1916. These trucks were developed to replace the horse-drawn
concrete mixers as shown in figure 4.1.

After this invention, various mobile mixer trucks were designed by others. Due to these
developments, ready mixed concrete plants (batching plants) became more popular. It
was only after the Second World War that the mixer trucks became faster and less
cumbersome. Also, the trucks became after this period capable of transporting several
cubic metres of concrete.

Figure 4.1. Left: stone crusher, aggregates and empty cement barrels (Surabaya, Indonesia,
1911). Right: batching by a steam driven mixer and horse drawn transport (USA, 1916)

It is not surprisingly that concrete mixing and casting has changed drastically over the
last century. Technology has improved the efficiency and speed of concrete mixing and
casting. Over hundred years ago, processing concrete was labour intensive and state of
the art technologies had to be used for simply making a workable concrete mixture. Also
transport from the mixer to the actual pouring place was a labour intensive task.

4.1.2. Concrete mixture quality

Professor D.A. Abrams (1918) was the first who described the water-cement ratio as
being a key aspect for concrete characteristics. He found a relation between the water-
cement mass ratio and strength. This relation prescribes that the strength increases
when the w/c ratio decreases. It can be expressed in the form of:

A
fc  Abrams' formula (1918)
Bw / c

The formula was not yet presented when the first caissons were constructed. However,
disregarding the knowledge, the formula could not instantaneously lead to higher
concrete strength. Workability for lower water cement ratios remained a dominant
aspect. It was only after the development of plasticizers and superplasticizers that lower
cement ratios became practically feasible. This resulted that for the first caissons, a 28
days concrete strength of just 15 N/mm2 was reached.

Modern concrete mixtures and execution methods (e.g. casting, curing) resulted in large
improvements in terms of strength and quality. Nowadays, concrete grades up to
C45/55 are characterised by the Eurocode as normal concrete. The modern concrete
mixtures, high green-strength and curing compounds allows fast demoulding and reuse
of formwork.

35
4.1.3. Traditional formwork (1903-1920)
The first caissons were designed and built with traditional timber formwork. Due to the
scarce application of reinforced concrete, advanced formwork systems were hardly
developed. However, due to its simplicity, timber formwork has several advantages,
such as; easy handling (light weight), flexible usage and easy replacement of
components. Also the procurement costs of timber formwork is lower than for steel.

Traditional timber formwork is generally labour intensive and the formwork parts can be
used for a limited number of times (≈ 5 times). Also in terms of quality management,
timber formwork can require more attention since it is more sensitive to moisture,
humidity changes and individual craftsmanship.

As discussed in section 2.2.4, the first caissons (Valparaíso) were planned to be built in
portions of 114 caissons time. This resulted of approximately 4 times full occupation of
the construction site (L-shaped and rectangular caissons). The scale of the
simultaneous construction of caissons is shown in figure 2.10.

Figure 4.2. Construction of caissons (horizontally) with the traditional timber formwork method
(Tandjong Priok, 1914)

The caissons for Tandjong Priok (fig. 4.2) were first constructed under temporary shelter
and the counterforts were finished while the caissons were floating. The construction
process must have been similar to the following sequence:

•Preparation of formwork for frontwall;

•Fixing frontwall and counterfort reinforcement;
Frontwall •Casting concrete for frontwall;

•Fixing compartment wall reinforcement;

•Preparation of formwork for compartment walls;
Compartment •Casting concrete for compartment walls;
s •Demoulding of formwork for compartment walls;

•Preparation of formwork for backwall;

•Fixing backwall reinforcement;
•Casting concrete for backwall;
Backwall
•Demoulding of formwork for backwall;

•Launching / floating caissons to finishing location;

Launching

•Preparation of counterfort and baseplate formwork;

•Casting concrete for counterforts and baseplate;
Finishing •Demoulding of counterfort and baseplate formwork;

Figure 4.3. Construction sequence overturning caisson (1914)

One caisson required more than a month construction time due to its labour intensive
formwork techniques and irregular construction process. On the contrary, the caissons

36
were built with limited use of equipment. Due to lean equipment use and relatively slow
construction speed, it was efficient to construct multiple caissons simultaneously.
Repetition benefits were thereby mainly obtained by constructing identical caissons. The
construction of one single caisson consisted of various different components. Repetition
advantages within a single caisson could only be obtained by (vertical) construction of
the separation walls and counterforts.

4.1.4. Maas formwork method (1920-1960)

From the year 1920, the casting method became similar to the currently used
construction method of apartment buildings (gietbouw). The process of the box method
(fig. 4.4.) was patented by Ir. Maas. It allowed much higher repetition of formwork and
relatively fast construction of caissons. The construction time of one caisson was
approximately 40 to 45 days. Concrete for caisson walls was mixed by the proportion
(cement, sand and gravel) of 2:3:5. After mixing, the concrete was poured through
timber and steel gutters. The fresh concrete was very thin, which allowed easy flow, but
also resulted in segregation of aggregates. Therefore, concrete had to be remixed
before it was poured into formwork. This indicates that a lot of water was used and
probably a high water-cement ratio.

Figure 4.4. Construction of caissons by the Maas formwork system (The Netherlands, Waalhaven,
left photo: 1920-1921, right photo: after 1945)

In order to obtain an efficient production rate, multiple (±6) caissons were constructed
simultaneously. The activities and corresponding duration were as follows:

Activity Duration
Formwork preparation 1 day
Formwork demoulding 1 day
Reinforcement fixing 1 day
Pouring concrete floor 1 day
Pouring concrete walls (± 3 metre high) 1 day
Concrete hardening 1 - 2 days
Table 4.1 – Caisson construction Maas method, 1920)

Theoretically, if a modern 18 metre high caisson would be constructed with the Maas
formwork method, 6 casting cycles would be required. Considering that formwork
preparation, demoulding, rebar fixing and pouring and hardening concrete took
approximately 6 days, only the caisson walls could be constructed in at least 36 working
days.

4.1.5. Climbing and slipforming systems (1970-present)

Since the 1970’s, the climbing and slipforming techniques are applied for constructing
caisson quay walls. This technique is characterized by its continuous work-flow and high
repetition factor. The forms can be supported by the concrete structure itself or by large
temporary gantry structures, as shown in figure 4.5. The systems are designed to be
reused without high maintenance costs. Slipforms can for instance be reused for over
100 caissons without large maintenance costs. Therefore, such a system can efficiently

37
be applied since caissons are generally large concrete structures with a generic shape
over the height.

Figure 4.5. Gantry method applied in Saudi Arabia, Dammam (1977)

The vertical slipform method is suited for marine due to the high degree of durability that
can be achieved with the process. Due to the continuous process of slipforming, all
concrete is poured “fresh in fresh”, which means that there are no construction joints.
There is also no need for form ties and rebar bolsters when using this construction
method, resulting in a durable structure.

The choice for applying a traditional slipforming technique or a gantry system largely
depends on the required number of caissons and use of equipment. The construction of
a caisson requires approximately 14 days if traditional slipforming is applied. The
construction time can be reduced to one week or 6 working days if the gantry slipform
system is used.

A gantry system requires a relatively large initial investment in temporary structures, but
it allows the construction process to advance more efficiently. The main advantages of
this particular slipforming technique are:

- The slipform decks can be used for material storage and provide good working
conditions (e.g. low risk of falling and a roof provides protection for the sun/rain);
- The gantry is equipped with cranes, additional required crane use is marginal;
- The gantry provides support for the slipform; there are no jacks in the concrete
itself;

Due to the applied formwork techniques, reinforcement is generally lifted without pre-
assembling it into a mesh or net. The rebars are generally placed manually while the
slipforming process continues. The used lifting equipment varies from small mobile
cranes up to fixed construction cranes or gantry cranes. The particular choice for
equipment largely depends on the size of the caisson and used slipform technique.

38
For a concrete caisson, the described slipforming process (fig. 4.6.) can normally be
finished in one week. For an 18 metre high caisson and s slipform jack-up height of
50mm, the process would be repeated 360 times. This results in a high repetition factor
in terms of equipment exploitation and learning factors. The continuous process allows 4
to 5 metre climbing each 24 hours. This is in contrast to the formwork repetition for the
previous Maas method would only allow 6 times repetition.

Rising the form

Obtain material
from stack / lift to
platform by crane
50 mm jacking

First layer of
concrete
No
Is sufficient
50 mm jacking material
availible to
Yes continue?
Second layer of
concrete

No
50mm jacking
Is the desired
height reached?
Third layer of
concrete Yes

Horizontal rebar
layer
Complete the
slipforming

Figure 4.6. Example of the slipforming process (after: Slip-Form Application to Concrete
Structures (2008))

The slipforming technique affects the rest of the building process as well. Regular
reinforcement placement, concrete pouring and finishing is required in order to maintain
the continuous work-flow. Jacking rates and the availability of building materials must be
tuned to obtain the most efficient solution. A rather small aspect, such as the choice for
a concrete pump or buckets can already make a significant difference4.

4.1.6. Slipforming learning effects

The degree in which the learning effect reduces the working hours depend on various
aspects. The type and conditions under which construction takes place affect the
learning rate drastically. In order to quantify the learning effect, Hijazi et al. (1992),
proposed learning rates for different construction processes.

Description Learning rate

Structure of ordinary complexity; high rise, office buildings 95%
Construction elements requiring many operations to complete; 90%
erection and fastening structural units, concreting
Construction elements requiring few operations; masonry, 85%
painting
Construction elements requiring few operations and on- 80%
assembly line basis; formwork panels, rebar bending
Table 4.2. Learning rates proposed by Hijazi et al. (1992), [ref. A26]

4
Slip-Form Productivity Analysis for Concrete Silos, Sharifi, S, et al. (2006)

39
The applicability of learning curves for floating caisson construction is studied by Panas
and Pantouvakis (2013). Here, the slipform construction method on a floating semi-
submersible barge was analysed and simulated. No reference to a particular port
expansion project has been made, but the project shows great similarities to caissons
shown in figure A.1 and A.2 (appendix A.1.), which are constructed for the port of
Piraeus in Greece.

It was found that for slipforming activities, a labour learning rate was achieved of
approximately 80%. This rate is in line with the values presented in table 4.2. It
appeared that performance prediction without knowledge of past performance provides
rather high simulation errors (fig. 4.7). If the past construction performance of 4 caissons
is used as input, the final working hour consumption could be estimated with an error
varying from 19% to 26%. The accuracy varies for respectively a simulation or statistical
approach. However, the more project performance data was used as input, the more
accurate the predictions became.

max. error 19.1%

for 4 caisson input

max. error 26.0%

for 4 caisson input

Figure 4.7. Performance prediction of floating caisson construction (Panas and

Pantouvakis (2013))

This study on slipforming construction techniques for floating caisson construction

shows the sensitivity of varying input parameters. Also the availability of historical data
(experience) is needed to obtain a reasonable simulation output. From the graphs, it can
be seen that the initial labour consumption starts at approximately 4,000 working hours
per caisson and reduces by over 50% after constructing 34 caissons. At this point, the
most significant decrease of labour consumption has been reached. The working-hours
required for construction can be expressed as:

y  a  xb

with:
a= constant depending on the initial working hours
b = the learning index (slope of the asymptote)
x = cumulative unit number

However, the learning effect is over estimated since the expression results in:

lim a  x b  0
x 
This endless reduction of working-hours cannot be true. Based on figure 4.7, it is
therefore assumed that the learning effect reaches the lowest working-hour
consumption after 40 caissons. This lowest level is assumed to be half (50%) the
original value.

40
4.1.7. Conclusions
The fist projects were planned to be constructed with many caissons simultaneous.
Benefits of repetition were found by constructing identical caissons. This was the most
economical solution due to the relatively slow working speed, low reuse of formwork and
low labour costs.

Nowadays, equipment is more exploited. New slipforming techniques allow the reuse of
formwork for over 100 caissons. Since the slipform is raised with steps of approximately
50mm, the forms are reused for hundreds of times for each caisson. The continuous
work-flow results in efficient and a rather constant resource consumption. Due to these
developments of equipment and techniques, caissons can be constructed relatively fast
(approx. 1 per week). Because of these reasons, typically just 1, 2 or 3 caissons are
nowadays constructed simultaneously.

Research on repetition effects show that labour efficiency increases drastically when a
process is repeated. The exact learning rate and reduction on labour consumption after
a certain number of caissons is however hard to predict

The high investment costs are therefore compensated by the increased efficiency and
high depreciation over the project. Furthermore, the quality control and management
has improved for modern formwork techniques. Additionally, the improved construction
technologies are able to cope with the more stringent formwork and falsework
requirements.

4.2. Heavy lifting and launching equipment

4.2.1. Launching techniques
The slipway launching method used for the first caissons is nowadays still applied for
vessels and caissons. However, there are currently many alternatives such as the
syncrolift (ship lift), dry-dock or a floating dry dock. The most economical launching
method is thereby not limited (anymore) to certain shapes or sizes. Among others, the
decision for a particular launching method depends on the locational aspects as the:

- Available space for construction and launching;

- Local ground conditions;
- Bathymetry: depth and slope of the seabed near construction site;
- Distance from construction site to final location;
- Future plan of use of the construction site;
- Possibility of combining harbour improvement works (e.g. dredging);

A mild slope near the construction site can be beneficial for slipway launching since a
floating dock cannot reach the construction site without dredging works. The magnitude
of required adjustments to the construction site, such as dredging works and temporary
quay walls shall determine the most economical solution. The feasibility of a launching
method also depends on caisson properties such as the:

- Geometry and dimensions;

- Weight; discussed in section
- Draught; Technical Requirements (3.4)
- Number of caissons;

A caisson with low weight and low draught, as for the first overturning caissons, can
relatively easily be launched by a slipway. However, caissons currently have a draught
in the order of 10 metres (see appendix E-H). This launching method becomes less
feasible if local conditions allow this depth after a large distance from the shoreline.
Then, the extensive slipway and/or dredging works do not outweigh the benefits of a
floating dry dock (FDD). The floating dock could launch the caissons and reduce the
draught to a few metres. Therefore, on the condition that the location of the construction

41
site is determined and fixed, the feasibility of a particular caisson launching method can
change if the characteristics of the caisson change drastically.

A floating dry dock is currently often used for construction and / or launching caissons.
An overview of used launching methods is presented in the pie chart below. The data is
based on 58 reference projects from the period 1963-2015 by a specialized contractor5.
The presented pie chart is therefore based on biased data, and only gives an
impression of used launching methods over the world.

Launching methods by Bygging-Uddemann

3% (1963 - 2015)
2%
2% Floating dry dock (FDD)
10% Platform with jacks
Construction in dry dock
17% Syncrolift
66% Slipway
Floating crane

Figure 4.8. Caisson launching methods (Bygging-Uddemann, 2015)

A benefit of this launching method is that the procurement of the FDD can be smeared
over multiple projects. This depreciation is a considerable advantage compared to the
other launching methods since these do not allow complete reuse. A syncrolift, dry-dock
and slipway have a more permanent character. These methods become increasingly
beneficial when there is a local demand for launching other ships or structures after the
initial quay project has finished.

The principle of caisson launching with a FDD is shown in figure 4.9. The caissons are
(for instance) transported by multiple 250 tonne hydraulic jacks and arrive after several
construction stages at the FDD. Note that the capacity of these jacks is even larger than
the total weight of the first overturning caissons (220 tonne). Transport of heavy
structures has definitely simplified over one century due to the invention and
advancement of hydraulic lifting jacks.

Figure 4.9. Caisson transport and launching; 5 phase transport to floating dock (left) and 250
tonne jack (right) (Bygging-Uddemann 2017)

5Based on reference projects from Bygging-Uddemann: http://www.bygging-uddemann.se/wp-

content/uploads/2015/06/Caissons.pdf

42
4.2.2. Floating cranes (sheerlegs)
Technical improvements over the last century allow caissons to be lifted completely by
the sheerleg itself. Floating sheerlegs had a maximum capacity in the order of 70 tonne
in the beginning of the 20th century, which has increased to an enormous lifting capacity
of 10,000 tonne (2015).

Although the use of reinforced concrete was rather limited, the first caissons (1903)
were too heavy (220 tonne) to be lifted entirely into position. The use of buoyancy was
therefore almost compulsory in that time. Nowadays, the lifting capacity of floating
cranes is often larger than the entire weight of regular sized caissons, which weigh in
the order of 2,000 to 4,000 tonne6. However, using this kind of heavy lifting equipment is
still expensive, which makes it often uneconomically to apply for caisson quay walls (see
appendix N). The design considerations for a floating-in caisson has therefore shifted
from technological restricted feasibility to economic feasibility.

Figure 4.10. Left: Bison 66 tonne sheerleg (1910), image: rdm-archief.nl

Right: Hyundai 10,000 tonne sheerleg (2015), image: hhi.co.kr

4.2.3. Conclusions
The choice for applying a launching technique is currently not limited by technology or
availability of equipment. Modern floating equipment, such as floating dry docks and
sheerlegs are able to lift entire caissons of extraordinary dimensions. It is therefore
mostly an economic consideration which is highly influenced by local conditions and
possible depreciation rates.

However, as discussed in section 3.4, the caissons characteristics can influence the
feasibility of a particular launching method. If for instance the draught of a caisson is
significantly reduced, a floating dry dock might become superfluous and a relatively
simple slipway can be used. Therefore, benefits within the launching phase are only
achievable when significant draught decrease is obtained.

6 See for instance the weight calculations of reference caissons (appendix E-H)

43
4.3. Synthesis of design differences
Construction technology and equipment is currently more drastically improved. A
century ago, it was challenging to build a 220 tonne caisson in less than a month, where
the current construction speed has increased to one 10,000 tonne caisson a week. Due
to the relatively fast construction techniques, it is not necessary to build many (usually
less than 5) caissons simultaneously. The high investment cost of the high performance
formwork can therefore still be profitable.

These aspects have influenced the design of caisson quay walls considerably over the
last century. Combined with the analysis from the previous chapters, an overview of
differences is presented in the table below.

Caisson design Caisson design

Design differences
1903 - 1930 1970 - 2017
Operational stability Sufficient width ≈ 0.50H Sufficient width ≈ 0.75H
Wall thickness (inner) ≥150mm ≥250mm
Wall thickness (outer) ≥150mm ≥300mm
Concrete strength C12/15 C45/55 (NSC)
High w/c ratio required Low w/c ratio
Concrete durability for workability CEM II or CEM III
10mm cover 60mm cover
Labour intensive, Less labour intensive
Concrete execution cumbersome, low and improved
concrete quality equipment
Construction time of
> 1 month < 1 week
one caisson
Formwork and Slipform / steel
Timber formwork
falsework formwork systems
Lifting equipment
Max. 66 tonne Max. 10,000 tonne
(floating)
Depending on height of Depending on method
Safety & Design
construction of construction
Table 4.3. Design differences (1903-2017)

The savings of building materials is a distinguishing property of the overturning caisson

principle. However, these savings are not applicable when it is at the expense of
reliability and durability aspects. A new balance must be found between material
savings, durability and maintenance aspects.

Overall, the challenge of constructing a reinforced concrete caisson quay wall shifted
over the last century from a technical to an economic challenge. The most economical
solution can be found when the complete life cycle is considered.

44
5. Economic Shifts (1903 – 2017)
5.1. Construction costs: gravity based quay walls
In order to quantify the present value of the first quay walls, the historical data and
original cost estimate is transferred to a 2008 values to verify relative differences
between more recent gravity quay wall construction projects. The values can therefore
be compared to figure 5.1, which shows cost variations of gravity quay walls relative to
the retaining height (De Gijt, 2010).

The 2008 values of the first caissons are calculated based on the cost estimate from
1903 (ref. A1). The reference provides all cost estimates in Chilean pesos, which cannot
easily be transferred into present values. Hyperinflation, fixed exchange rates (crawling
peg) and even changes to other currencies (e.g. peso – escudo – new peso) over the
last hundred years make it almost impossible to provide a reasonable estimate.
However, from the year 1885, the Chilean peso was changed to a gold coinage, which
pegged the peso to the British pound with a rate of 13.33 peso to 1 pound. From this
knowledge, the quay construction costs could be calculated following inflation rates of
the British pound7. Based on this path, the following quay wall construction costs per
running metre are found:

 Rectangular caisson quay wall: € 23.600 / m1

 L-shaped caisson quay wall: € 13.750 / m1

After correction for inflation, the cost of the first rectangular caisson quay wall is about
average for the particular height of 14 metre. The economic L-shaped caisson is
significantly less costly. It is positioned in the lower section of the data points, which
indicates the economic advantages.

COST OF GRAVITY QUAY WALLS

€ 80.000
y = 1719,5x0,9791
R² = 0,2401
€ 70.000

€ 60.000

€ 50.000
COST PER M1 (€)

€ 40.000

€ 30.000

€ 20.000

€ 10.000

€0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
RETAINING HEIGHT (M)
Gravity type retaining walls (2008) Value Valparaiso caissons (2008)
Figure 5.1. Cost of gravity quay walls (after De Gijt, 2010)

7
Inflation: the Value of the Pound 1750-1998, House of Commons (Twigger, R., 1999)

45
5.2. Historical deviations per element
The overturning concept resulted in a material efficient quay wall structure. Especially
the application of reinforced concrete was consciously considered. The accurate and
lean engineering had large economic advantages due to the relatively high price of
reinforced concrete as building material. From the volumes and given prices per metre
quay, the following price per units has been calculated for the first caissons (1903):

Original Value Present Value Procurement

1903 2017 2017
Price per unit
Chilean
Euro (€) Euro (€) Rate
Pesos ($)
Reinforced concrete* 71.75 $ / m3 650 € / m3 200 € / m3 0.31
Sand-concrete (weak) 12.00 $ / m3 110 € / m3 120 € / m3 1.10
compartment fil
Rubble stone backfill 5.00 $ / m3 45 € / m3 60 € / m3 1.33
and foundation bed
Masonry 32.30 $ / m3 300 € / m3 300 € / m3 1.00
superstructure
Construction and repair 1.55 $ / m2 14 € / m2 70 € / m2 5.00
of formwork, falsework
Launching, transport 16.15 $ / m3 150 € / m3 120 € / m3 0.80
and placement
Table 5.1. Historical deviations - *Concrete including an estimate of 50kg/m3 reinforcement steel

The provided prices rates per unit (table 5.1) include labour hours. The first column
shows the original value, retrieved from historical data and the cost estimate. The
second column shows the present value after correcting for inflation. Furthermore, an
estimate is made for the procurement of the listed elements. It can be seen that the
costs of two elements; reinforced concrete and launching are estimated to be drastically
reduced, while on the other hand, the costs of rubble stones, and traditional formwork
has increased. This economical shift reduces the urgency to reduce the application of
reinforced concrete. However, if a reduction of building materials can be obtained
without raising costs of other elements, still significant cost savings are expected.

It must be noted that the launching costs from table 5.1 are uncertain estimations. The
values are based on based on the cost-data presented in appendix M from which a
simplified estimate is made, as presented below:

Launching cost estimation

Based on second hand procurement and 100% depreciation:

5,000 tonnes floating dock: € 3,000,000,-

120 tonnes sheerleg: € 1,000,000,-

Direct launching costs: € 4,000,000,- / (3481 x 9.60) = € 120,- /m3

Reasons for cost deviations

The cost of reinforced concrete was three times more expensive. This, while a small
decrease would be expected if one observes that reinforced concrete consists of steel,
gravel, sand and cement. A possible explanation for the drastic change in price would
be that the complete process of casting concrete has been greatly improved over the
years, as also discussed in the previous chapter.

The procurement raw materials such as gravel, sand and cement lowered significantly
over the last century. The trends can be seen in the plotted graphs in appendix N, from
de Gijt (2010). On the other hand, the cost of steel and riprap has generally increased
over the last century. These trends correspond to the rate changes given in the table
above. The drastic cost reduction of reinforced concrete cannot only be explained by a
shift in value of building materials. Probably, the improved construction methods,

46
construction technologies and material science are responsible for the lower costs. On
the other hand, traditional formwork costs have increased over the last century. The
exceptionally low price of formwork explains why shape complexity was of minor
importance.

5.3. Cost components: formwork and reinforced concrete

A price-shift can also be seen by comparing the 1903 cost components of reinforced
concrete and formwork with a recent slipformed caisson project (>50 no. caissons). The
outcome of the comparison is presented in figure 5.2., where both costs components
are considered including labour costs.

The concrete price of the first caissons was determined by 85% from the use of
concrete and reinforcement itself. Just 15% of the costs originated from formwork and
falsework. Due to the minor contribution of formwork costs, the caisson geometry could
become rather complex without significant cost changes. In combination with high costs
of reinforced concrete it was highly beneficial to save on building materials.

These costs components are nowadays distributed differently. From a slipformed

caisson reference project, recent costs are analysed. For a complete caisson, the cost
division of formwork to reinforced concrete is approximately 38% to 62%. By analysing
the caisson walls only, it is found that the costs of slipforming is approximately equal to
reinforced concrete (both including labour costs).

Cost distribution of Cost distribution of

reinforced concrete reinforced concrete
(1903) (2017)

15%
38%
62%
85%

Concrete and Reinforcement Concrete and Reinforcement

Formwork Formwork

Figure 5.2. Comparison between the cost distribution in 1903 and 2017

5.4. Synthesis
After corrections for inflation, the total costs for the first caisson quay walls turn out to be
similar to current projects. The economical L-shaped caissons are however on the lower
side of the scatter. Historical deviations per element show large cost variations

The cost variations cannot be explained by shifts in procurement costs of raw building
materials. Developments of construction techniques and technologies must therefore be
responsible for the lowered costs of reinforced concrete. From a comparison between
the first caisson projects and a resent project, it is found that the costs of formwork
increased from 15% to 38% of the concrete cost distribution. Lowered concrete costs
indicate that savings are nowadays less significant to the overall construction costs.

The application of reinforced concrete is estimated to cost approximately 1/3 of the

original value. On the other hand, the price of formwork and falsework increased by a
factor 5. These aspects substantiate the choice for the complex overturning geometry
and recent shifts to increasing concrete use and rectangular shapes.

47
6. Technical Feasibility (2017)
6.1. Considered designs
The technical feasibility study comprises caisson designs based on conditions
presented in appendix D. This chapter is thereby focussed on determining main
dimensions of the caissons. The first overturning caissons were constructed over a
century ago, and are therefore theoretically constructable. However, as discussed in
chapter 3 and 4, technical requirements have changed over the last century. An
overview of the most noteworthy developments are presented in table 6.1 below.

Technical feasibility
Development Consequence
developments
Width increase and changed
Operational conditions Increased quay loads
floating equilibrium position
More stringent
Width increase and changed
Stability requirements operational stability
floating equilibrium position
demands
Quay height Larger quay height Weight increase
Increase of concrete
Durability aspects Weight increase
cover and design life
Increased concrete and
Material properties Weight reduction
reinforcement strength
Table 6.1. Overview of technical feasibility developments.

It is not intended to find the significance of all individual elements presented in the table.
By designing a new overturning caisson concept according to the Eurocode and British
Standard, the developments are inherently taken into account as a whole.

For the feasibility study, four different caisson designs are made and analysed. The
primary goal is to compare the performance of an overturning caisson with a traditional
box caisson. Secondly, the influence of width increase is analysed. In order to compare
structures properly, their width and height of concepts is kept equal. One concept is
thereby bound to the governing design width of the other concept. The following
performances are compared:

1. Global stability – performance in terms of stability factors;

2. Launching and transport – performance in terms of draught and floating
aspects;

The first step is to design an overturning caisson which satisfies the floating and
operational stability requirements. After this, a rectangular caisson is designed having
the same width. Because of this sequence, the rectangular concept will contain
superfluous operational stability. Alternatively, transport conditions such as draught and
floating stability can differ for each design. The used approach allows a comparison in
terms of global stability and the floating equilibrium positions (draught). On the other
hand, material savings are not entirely fair to compare since not all designs are optimal.

The rectangular caissons are not primarily designed for their operational conditions,
while the overturning caissons are optimized on these conditions. This is done in order
to obtain acceptable transport characteristics in terms of draught and floating stability.
For a slender box caisson which is designed for operational conditions only, a vertical
floating position becomes less feasible. This statement might not be trivial and is
therefore further substantiated in section 6.5.

48
The analysis of the overturning caisson is thereby more elaborated since these
concepts had more uncertainties in terms of stability, strength and floating conditions.
The analysis can be found in the appendix as follows;

 Appendix F: Overturning caisson (12.60m)

rubble backfill
 Appendix G: Rectangular caisson (12.60m)
 Appendix H: Overturning caisson (15.65m)
 Appendix I: Overturning caisson (15.65m) sand backfill

The first two listed caissons are designed with a smaller width, which is achieved by
applying a high quality backfill. For the other designs, locally-sourced sand is used from
dredging activities. Therefore, the geometry and backfill are varied, while the other
conditions are kept equal. The conditions can be found in appendix D and E of the
report.

6.2. Caissons with sand backfill

For the wide overturning caissons (15.65m) with a sand backfill, material savings of
approximately 8% can be obtained compared to a rectangular box caisson. Additionally,
the draught is reduced.

6.2.1. Design differences

The most important differences between the L-shaped overturning caisson and the
rectangular box caisson are listed in the table below. The most striking aspects are
draught and material savings. However, material savings are rather limited (≈8%). A
reason for this is the internal transverse wall, which is required to resist the hydrostatic
pressure during immersion. This transverse wall also increases the complexity during
construction and increases labour and resource consumption.

L-shaped caisson Rectangular caisson

Caisson properties
– sand backfill – sand backfill
Width 15.65m 15.65m
Base plate 24.45 x 15.65 m2 24.50 x 15.65 m2
Base plate 230 m3 230 m3
Walls 964 m3 1,052 m3
Concrete volume 1,194 m3 1,275 m3
Concrete volume 47 m3/m1 52 m3/m1
per running metre
Weight per running 1,199 kN/m1 1,309 kN/m1
metre
Draught 11.40 m 10.60 m / 12.40 m
Table 6.2. Caisson properties (wider caissons)

6.2.2. Transport
The draught benefits of the overturning concept are negligible for the 15.65 metre wide
concept (fig. 6.1.). In fact, an unballasted caisson has a larger draught than a regular
caisson having the same width. However, the examined rectangular caisson does not
have a stable floating position by itself. The floating stability can be increased by adding
ballast water, which results in an increase of the draught compared to the overturning
design. All in all, it is expected that this advantage does not contribute significantly to the
overall economic feasibility.

49
 11.40m 10.60m

Figure 6.1. Draught comparison: overturning caisson (left), rectangular caisson (right)

6.2.3. Immersion
The second floating equilibrium position would be similar to the drawing (fig. 6.2) below.
It can be noticed that the floating position is considerably deviating to vertical. This is
caused by the asymmetrical shape and relatively heavy counterfort walls.

Figure 6.2. Second floating position (unballasted caisson)

The shape of displaced water (fig 6.3 left) is rotated in such a way that the buoyancy
point (B) acts on the same vertical axis as the centre of gravity (G). Due to the rotation
of the caisson, the shape of displaced water is varied by the upper triangle (hatched
red), which changes the floating position. The declined back-wall causes a reduction of
buoyancy (hatched green) and a shift of the buoyancy point which is actually almost
equal to the deviation of the waterline.

A straight back-wall would be a solution to obtain a more symmetrical shape and more
vertical floating position. The separation walls could then be designed at an equal
distance from the front and back-wall. However, the total width (at the top) of almost 9
metres must then be divided into straight compartments with 4.50 metre spans. This is a
rather large wall-span for an immersion depth of at least 17.00 metre and the technical
feasibility of such a concept is not evaluated.

50
 Figure 6.3. Shape of water displacement: floating position after turning

The enlargement of the compartments resulted in the requirement of an additional

transverse wall. An advantage of this separation wall is the possibility to deviate water
levels within the compartments. When the compartments are accurately filled, it is
possible to obtain a vertical position after turning. Additionally, a vertical position could
be maintained during further immersion since the water levels in the front- and back-side
can be controlled separately.

The vertical position could be obtained with approximately 9.00m3/m1 water. This makes
the first stage of immersion possible in two manners: 1. filling the front compartments
before the heel flows over. 2. Filling the heel with water and obtain a vertical position
during immersion by applying ballast. The first option would introduce an increased
change of displacement. If the turning-process is controlled by a floating crane, a larger
crane capacity would be required. On the other hand, if the turning phase is completed,
a vertical position is obtained which simplifies the remaining immersion phase.

Figure 6.4. Vertical floating position with partially ballasted

front-compartments

Adding ballast water to the front compartments of the caisson cannot be done from the
top of the caisson since it is closed to prevent water flowing into the compartments
during transport. Therefore, openings must be made at the inner side of the separation
walls. This allows water to be pumped into the compartments by some detour (fig. 6.4
red dotted path). When the compartments must be filled with sand for the operational
phase, the front compartments becomes more difficult to reach. This makes the filling
more time consuming than the relatively simple method for rectangular caissons.

51
6.2.4. Operational stability
All concepts are designed to resist prescribed actions during their service life, the
rectangular caissons have significantly more stability. This is caused by the increased
use of materials (weight) and due to the different position of its centre of gravity.
Additionally, the sloped back-wall of the L-shaped caisson causes increased soil
pressure before failure. To sum up, the overturning caisson has:

- Less weight due to concrete material savings;

- An eccentrically positioned centre of gravity;
- An increased horizontal soil pressure during failure (trapped soil wedge);

These factors combined result in the safety parameters presented in the table below.
The table lists the governing mechanisms and the ratio of safety above the requirements
provided in the British Standard (BS-6349) and Eurocode. A factor of 1.0 satisfies the
design criteria sufficiently.

L-shaped Rectangular
Caisson failure mechanisms caisson – caisson –
sand backfill sand backfill
GEO – SLS Overturning 1.1 1.2
GEO – ULS Overturning 1.6 2.3
GEO – ULS Sliding 1.0 1.3
EQU – ULS Overturning 1.8 2.3
Table 6.3. Caisson failure mechanisms (wider caissons)

6.3. Caissons with rubble backfill

For the most slender caisson (12.60m) with a rubble backfill, material savings of 15%
can be obtained compared to a rectangular box caisson. Also the draught is reduced by
more than 10%.

6.3.1. Design differences

The differences between the L-shaped overturning caisson and the rectangular box
caisson are listed in the table below. The most striking aspect is the amount of material
savings.
L-shaped caisson Rectangular caisson
Caisson properties
– rubble backfill – rubble backfill
Width 12.60m 12.60m
Base plate 24.25 x 12.60 m2 24.25 x 12.60 m2
Base plate 183 m3 183 m3
3
Walls 802 m 983 m3
3
Concrete volume 985 m 1,166 m3
3 1
Concrete volume per 41 m /m 48 m3/m1
running metre
Weight per running 1,016 kN/m1 1,202 kN/m1
metre
Draught 9.60 m 10.70 m / 12.60 m
Table 6.4. Caisson properties (slender caissons)

6.3.2. Transport and immersion

The overturning caissons have sufficient floating stability without ballast water. This is
beneficial compared to other slender rectangular caissons, which lack intrinsic floating
stability. It could therefore be a design consideration to widen the rectangular caissons
in order to increase the metacentric height. When the caisson is widened, a rubble
backfill might become superfluous. Perhaps, this is part of the reason why rubble
backfills are nowadays less extensively applied for caisson quay walls. Therefore, an
overturning caisson in combination with a rubble backfill results in synergy advantages,
where a regular caisson tends to obtain limited benefits of a rubble backfill.

52
However, these savings require an entirely different construction method and assistance
of a (120 tonne) floating crane during immersion. It is therefore not evident whether this
results in a reduction of marginal costs.

The caisson heel can be filled with approximately 13 m3/m1 water before it reaches the
critical state for which water can freely enter the heel of the caisson. The heel has a total
volume of approximately 28 m3/ m1. Therefore, a volume of 15 m3/ m1 shall quickly fill up
the remaining part (hatched in blue). Due to this change of the centre of gravity and
buoyancy, a new equilibrium floating position shall be found.

The velocity of the turning process and sway magnitude due to the dynamic actions are
unknown (not calculated). If these conditions result in unacceptable behaviour, a floating
crane can be used as possible solution to control the turning process. The added weight
of water that enters the heel can then be carried by the floating crane. The total added
weight due to a volume of 15 m3/ m1 water amounts:

Wwater   w  V  Lcaisson
Wwater  10.30  15.00  23.25  3,592 kN/caisson

Assuming that the centre of gravity of the entering water is on the same location as the
compensated lift of the floating crane, a controlled turning process would require a 400
tonne capacity floating crane. However, if a sheerleg must reach the caisson from the
front of the wall, jib hoist could be required which can result in a larger size (>400T)
sheerleg.

400 tonne
16.00m 5.00m

Figure 6.5. Turning process assisted by a 400 tonne sheerleg

When the turning progresses, the required uplift becomes lower. However the caisson is
designed to be self-floating, a certain crane assistance remains necessary since a
vertical position is not intrinsically obtained. An upward force of approximately 120 tonne
would provide equilibrium in a vertical floating position. The equilibrium position is
shown in figure 6.6. This is in contrast to the first caissons, which were designed to float
almost vertically after turning.

53
 120 tonne per caisson

Figure 6.6. Change of buoyancy point and turning process

6.3.3. Operational stability

The difference in operational stability for the slender caissons is similar to the previously
presented operational stability factors of the wide caissons (section 6.2.4.). The safety
parameters corresponding to the slender caissons are presented in the table below. The
table lists the governing mechanisms and the ratio of safety above the requirements
provided in the British Standard (BS-6349) and Eurocode. A factor of 1.0 satisfies the
design criteria sufficiently.

Caisson failure mechanisms L-shaped Rectangular

caisson – caisson –
rubble backfill rubble backfill
GEO – SLS Overturning 1.0 1.5
GEO – ULS Overturning 1.2 2.0
GEO – ULS Sliding 1.4 1.8
EQU – ULS Overturning 1.6 2.4
Table 6.5. Caisson failure mechanisms (wider caissons)

54
6.4. Evaluation of design changes
6.4.1. Comparison of caisson geometry (1903 vs 2017)
The cross-section of a modern overturning design is compared to a linearly scaled
model of the original design (see figure 6.7 below). The width of the new caisson design
has increased over 25%. Additionally, the wall and floor thickness has increased, which
results in increased use of reinforced concrete per running metre quay.

100%
125%

Figure 6.7. Comparison between a linearly scaled

caisson (dark grey) and the new design (light grey)

6.4.2. Change of floating equilibrium position

The first caissons were designed as relatively slender caissons with a height-to-width
ratio of 1.75. This resulted in a large benefit to float the caissons in a horizontal position.
When the caisson width increases, the advantage of horizontal transport becomes less
significant. The difference between caisson draughts is shown in figure 6.8. It can be
seen that the original caisson has a limited draught of approximately 6.00 metre, where
the new design ends with 9.60 metre. This increase is caused by the changed geometry
and increased material use.

100%
160%

1903 2017
Figure 6.8. Comparison of floating positions; linearly scaled caisson (dark grey) and new
design (light grey)

For the previously discussed overturning caisson concepts, the enlarged heel resulted in
a more diagonal floating position. Based on this, it can be seen that the significance of
an intended horizontal floating position decreases when the width becomes larger.

The desire of a horizontal floating position decreases when the floating position is
analysed from the perspective of a rectangular caisson. Namely, a vertical floating
position becomes more favourable when the caisson width increases, while the
horizontal floating position becomes less favourable.

55
This is caused by the following aspects that are affected by widening a caisson:

(1) The floating equilibrium position of an overturning caisson becomes increasingly

diagonal;
(2) The draught of an vertical floating object decreases and the intrinsic stability of
a vertical floating position increases;

These aspects are substantiated in the following sub-sections.

Floating equilibrium position (1)

The changed floating position becomes clear when the original caisson is drawn next to
the current design for a rubble backfill. Due to width and weight increase, the draught
has increased drastically. The advantage of the particular caisson shape is thereby
mitigated. The calculation for the floating equilibrium position can be found in the
corresponding appendix F.

For circumstances where load reducing measures are taken (rubble backfill), the degree
of benefits reduced due to changed design requirements over the last century. It is
therefore questionable whether this solution is currently economical when one compares
it to a rectangular caisson.

Draught and floating stability (2)

The draught of a horizontally floating object increases by width (b) increments, while the
draught (d) remains equal or reduces when the object is considered in vertical position.
The comparison between floating positions is schematized in figure 6.9. Besides
draught considerations, floatation of light-weight slender objects can be limited by
stability requirements.
horizontal caisson transport vertical caisson transport
increasing width increasing width

H1 d H2 b V1 V2 h
d

h
b

Figure 6.9. Caisson transport-shape relation

When rectangular floating objects are considered, such as presented in figure 6.9, the
required width for intrinsic floating stability can be calculated. The point for which a
vertical floating element becomes stable, is considered in the next sections. The
relevant properties of the analysed rectangular caissons are presented in appendix G
and I. The general calculation of floating stability is substantiated in appendix J.4.

A generalized rectangular floating object (caisson) is considered using the notations

shown in figure 6.10. Dimensional parameters are denoted by lower case letters (h,d,
and b), while the stability parameters are denoted by upper case letters (K, B, G, M).
Distances from the bottom of the caisson (K) are denoted as for instance KG, which
implies the distance from keel to gravity centre.

Notation Description
M h Height of caisson
G h d Draught of caisson
d B b Width of caisson
ref. plane K K Keel (bottom of caisson)
b
B Buoyancy point
G Centre of gravity
M Metacentric height
Figure 6.10. Notations for floating stability analysis

56
The primary requirement for floating stability is a positive metacentric height (M above
G). This height is influenced by the width (b), draught (d) and height of point G. The
height of the centre of gravity varies when ballast water is added. The essential
variables are therefore:

(1) draught;
(2) width;
(3) height of centre of gravity.

Relations can be defined based on these variables. A stability region can then be plotted
for rectangular floating objects. The draught and width are considered to be most
important design aspects and therefore taken as variables. The height of the centre of
gravity is kept constant and considered separately for the unballasted and ballasted
situations.

Intrinsic stability of a rectangular floating object

The stability of a floating object is analysed by defining dimensionless parameters. The
parameters are related to the total height of the object in order to obtain an outcome
which is valid for different caisson dimensions. From calculations presented in appendix
J.4, the stability region is plotted as the elliptical curve presented in figure 6.11.

slender caisson
wide caisson

unstable stable

Figure 6.11. Stability of the considered rectangular caissons (unballasted)

The relative draught of both caissons is similar (0.59), while the relative width varies
(0.70 and 0.87). The intersection points in the graph show that both objects are unstable
without ballast. However, the wide caisson is almost stable by itself. This point is already
located near the blue boundary.

Ballasted stability of a rectangular floating object

A similar approach can be used for the analysis of the floating stability of ballasted
caissons. Due to the weight increments, the centre of gravity reduces and the draught
increases. This results in the change of parameters.

The stability region for the ballasted situation is presented in figure 6.12. It can be seen
that the slender caisson is just outside the boundary and has a positive metacentric
height. However, the wide caisson has considerably more stability and does therefore
require less adjustments for transport.

57
 slender caisson
wide caisson

unstable stable

Figure 6.12. Stability of the considered rectangular caissons (ballasted)

6.4.3. Synthesis
Considering the first caissons designed in 1903, one can imagine that the stability
criterion is hard to meet for a vertical floating caisson. At this point in time, a floating box
caisson with a high slenderness and thin concrete walls (starting from just 150mm),
have resulted in low relative width and weight. Without adjustments to the design, these
objects would be unstable in vertical position. This can be seen from the figures 6.11
and 6.12. When a high slenderness object is considered, objects can only be stable for
very low and high draughts. Different design requirements and economic shifts over the
last century resulted in wider and heavier caissons, which additionally improved floating
stability conditions. Subsequently, the urgency of horizontal transport diminished over
time.

When one starts designing a caisson from the objective of horizontal transport, the
following aspects reduce the advantages or even result in disadvantages of the floating
position:

(1) Increasing caisson width;

(2) Increasing caisson weight;
(3) Lowered centre of gravity (e.g. increased bottom-slab thickness).

Transport requirements can be met without adjustments when a caisson reaches the
relative width of roughly 0.80 and a relative draught of roughly 0.60. In terms of
transport, regular caissons are not expected to profit from a horizontal floating position.

58
6.5. Conclusion
From a technical point of view, the most striking advantages of the caisson geometry
are draught and material savings. Compared to a rectangular caisson, the overturning
caisson combined with a rubble backfill results in the largest reductions. This is caused
by the reduced horizontal quay load and the subsequently increased caisson
slenderness. Nevertheless, draught and material use are nowadays significantly higher
than for the original concept from 1903. Reasons for the mitigation of benefits are;

 Stability demands → increased width; less caisson slenderness;

 Durability demands → larger concrete cover and wall thickness;

The strengths of the overturning concept are therefore reduced, but still present. In
terms of material savings and transport, the overturning caisson combined with a rubble
backfill is the most beneficial. However, also construction technologies and economic
aspects must be considered to give a decisive answer whether the concept is feasible.

Material savings
When designing a caisson according to current standards, the overturning concepts
allow 8% to 15% material savings. The largest material savings can be obtained when
a rubble backfill is applied. If quay loads increase, the required caisson width must
become larger which results in a reduction of material savings relative to a rectangular
caisson.

Lowered draught
For a rectangular caisson, ballast water must be applied to obtain sufficient floating
stability. The L-shaped caisson has a lower draught and larger metacentric height during
its first floating position. Due to the increased stability, no ballast water is required during
transport. Because of this, the overturning concepts have a lower draught than their
rectangular counterparts. The development of caisson designs in relation to draught can
be made clear by the following tables. From table 6.6, it can be seen that the technical
design changes mitigate draught benefits drastically.

Original caisson Linearly scaled overturning Modern overturning caisson

concepts caisson (1903)* (2017)
Floating stability sufficient sufficient
Draught 6.00 metre 9.60 metre
*The linearly scaled model lacks operational stability and durability requirements and is only
used as benchmark.
Table 6.6. The linearly scaled overturning caisson compared to a modern concept

Nevertheless, from table 6.7, it can be seen that draught benefits are still present. This
is predominantly caused by insufficient floating stability of the rectangular counterpart.

Rubble caisson Modern overturning Modern rectangular Modern rectangular

concepts caisson (2017) caisson (2017) caisson (2017)
Floating stability sufficient insufficient sufficient
Draught 9.60 metre 10.70 metre 12.60 metre
Table 6.7. Caisson concepts designed in combination with a rubble backfill

59
For caissons with a sand backfill (table 6.8), draught benefits become insignificant. Only
stability requirements result in a lower draught of 1.00 metre. It is however reasoned
that this problem can also be solved by external sponsons or floating bodies. In
combination with such temporary stabilizing elements, draught can then be lower than
the comparable overturning caissons.

Sand caisson Modern overturning Modern rectangular Modern rectangular

concepts caisson (2017) caisson (2017) caisson (2017)
Floating stability sufficient insufficient sufficient
Draught 11.40 metre 10.60 metre 12.40 metre
Table 6.8. Caisson concepts designed in combination with a sand backfill

60
7. Construction Technology (2017)
7.1. Construction and formwork techniques
As discussed in the previous chapter, significant material savings can be made when
the overturning concept is applied. The required formwork area can be reduced by
almost 50%. This reduction is obtained by the increase of horizontal elements (which
require less formwork), in combination with element- and material- reduction. Comparing
the two caisson designs from respectively appendix F and G, the following overview can
be made:

L-shaped caisson Rectangular caisson

Caisson properties
– rubble backfill – rubble backfill
Concrete volume 985 m3 1,166 m3
3
Reinforcement* 101 kg/m 92 kg/m3
2
Horizontal form area 650 m 350 m2
2
Declined form area 450 m 0 m2
2
Vertical form area 2400 m 5500 m2
*estimated average amount of reinforcement (appendix F.7)

As described in chapter 4.1, formwork for caisson construction is nowadays well-

exploited. The shutters can be reused for over hundred times. This makes the required
formwork area not an intrinsic advantage. Namely, as a consequence of the caisson
geometry, the construction method changes drastically in terms of applicable
construction technologies and working schedules. The associated construction method
must therefore be considered to define actual benefits.

7.1.1. Formwork system

For constructing a large number of caissons, a job-built formwork system for the
construction of an overturning caisson is the most economical solution. These forms are
designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the particular project. The rather
complex caisson shape and high repetition justify high formwork investments. The
considered reference project (appendix D), can be made with 60 caissons with a length
of 24 metre, which number is large enough for job-built formwork.

Current techniques allow the formwork to be able to resist high fluid pressures with
limited deformations. Formwork can be designed to be reused for over 100 times, which
is more than sufficient for the considered reference project. The overturning caisson can
therefore be constructed without large concern of formwork limitations.

The shape complexity basically results in the traditional formwork method described in
section 4.1. Other construction methods, such as the later developed Maas formwork
system, a climbing or slipform technique cannot be applied. Also repetitive tunnel
formwork systems cannot efficiently be applied due to the irregular shape of an
overturning caisson. Repetition can therefore be found in the number of caissons, and
not within the formwork elements of a caisson.

7.1.2. Declined back-wall

Casting a declined wall must be well-considered before the caisson construction starts.
Normally, the formwork is closed on both sides. The upper side must then be prevented
to be lifted by the concrete liquid pressure. The upper formwork elements can be fixed
by:
- Connecting formwork by ties;
- Adding ballast to the upper formwork elements.

A disadvantage of applying ties is the additional labour required for installation, removal
and concrete patching. On the other hand, adding ballast to the upper formwork section
results in an increased load on scaffolds.

61
It can also be decided to cast concrete without an upper formwork element (tegenkist).
The technical feasibility of this casting method is presented in the Dutch journal
Betoniek 2012-12. The angle under which the caisson back-wall is designed is similar
to this project in Nijmegen. This method appeared to require special attention to the
concrete mixture to obtain an optimal workability. Also concrete finishing and curing was
rather challenging. Therefore, custom equipment was made to be able to finish the top
layer in a safe and consistent manner.

27
°

Figure 7.1. Concrete formwork sloped at 27 degrees for the “Promenadebrug

Nijmegen, the Netherlands (2015). Photo: Betoniek 2015-12

Working on a sloped element introduces accessibility and safety concerns. Examples of

activities which are affected by the slope are:

- Formwork cleaning and maintenance;

- Reinforcement placement and fixing;
- Casting, finishing and curing concrete.

In order to minimize the required working time on the sloped forms, it is advised to
prefabricate reinforcement meshes as much as possible. The concrete finishing and
curing activities can be minimized by applying a closing formwork element (fig. 7.3). On
the other hand, using a closed form limits the location for pouring and vibrating concrete.
The concrete must then flow over the declined form downward through the rebars. At
this moment, concrete aggregates should not be separated from the cement matrix.
After pouring, compaction becomes challenging since mechanical vibrators must be
lowered from the top. To overcome these obstacles, self-compacting concrete may be
required.
pouring and
pouring and vibrating
vibrating

Figure 7.2. Without upper form; Figure 7.3. Closed form; concrete
concrete pouring and compaction pouring and compaction only possible
possible over entire wall from top

Both casting solutions (fig. 7.2 and 7.3) therefore have their pros and cons. This brief
consideration does not prove that a particular casting method prevails, but disregarding
the chosen solution, it can be concluded that significant investments are required to
obtain the desired concrete quality and performance.

62
7.1.3. Concrete casting plan
In contrast to caissons constructed with a slipforming technique, the concrete casting for
an overturning caisson cannot be continuous. Time differences between elements result
in two aspects which require more attention;

- Restrained deformations during hardening;

- Construction joints.

Restrained deformations result in an increased risk of cracking and can enlarge crack-
width. Depending on the chosen construction method and process, a certain hardening
time difference occurs which result in strain differences. Time between two casts is
therefore desired to be as short as possible. If this is an insufficient measure, restrained
deformations can be prevented by application of low shrinkage concrete mixtures. A
final and more detailed study on maturity and thermal behaviour must be performed to
conclude whether (cost-significant) adjustments are required to the mixture.

Figure 7.4. Deformations of a wall cast on an already hardened floor slab; degree of
restraint, direction of tensile trajectories and cracks indicated8

Construction joints do not necessarily reduce concrete quality, but it requires extra
attention. The surface of the joint must be rough, clean and moistened. Furthermore,
sufficient starter bars cross the construction joint.

The number of joints is basically determined by the casting sequence. Some

construction joints, such as wall-slab connections, cannot be avoided. The least number
of joints is thereby obtained when dividing the casting into three phases:

1. Horizontal element: front-wall

2. Vertical elements: compartment walls, counterforts and baseplate
3. Horizontal element: back-wall

This division results in mainly horizontal construction joints. A large benefit of this type of
joint is that rebars can vertically extent the concrete element without adjustments to
formwork panels. However, the connection between the back-wall and counterforts
would still require vertical construction joints.

A connection between wall elements requires more effort. Formwork must be adjusted
for vertical joints, since reinforcement is able to pass for the future connection, without
leaking fresh concrete. This can be achieved by designing custom reinforcement
connection systems, or by systems which are already on the market. However, these
systems must be able to retain considerable concrete liquid pressures to allow a fast
construction process.

Division of construction into 3 phases results in an unequal casting schedule. The front-
wall (223m3), vertical elements (521m3) and back-wall (205m3) differ considerably in
their quantity. It is therefore proposed to divide the vertical elements into 3 subsections.
This results in a more evenly spread concrete supply and processing time.

8 CIE5130: Concrete Structures under Imposed Thermal and Shrinkage Deformations (TU Delft)

63
 rebar endings

12.60m

Figure 7.5. Rebar starters / endings in vertical elements

7.2. Construction process

By considering aspects from the previous section, the caisson construction is divided
into three main sites; a formwork and falsework yard, an assembly line and a
reinforcement prefabrication yard. The formwork yard is required to store and maintain
the different shapes of shutters and scaffolds. Similarly, the reinforcement yard is
required to prefabricate and store all the steel reinforcement. The assembly line, which
consists of three construction phases (A, B, C), is located in between the formwork and
reinforcement sites. A schematic overview of the proposed construction site is depicted
in figure 7.6.

FDD
D

upper backwall
counterfort forms C
seperation walls (7x)

counterforts (7x)
base form 1 base form 2
lower backwall
B
bottom slab

floor forms (6x) compartment A

wall forms
rebar supply,
cutting and
sorting
front wall forms

formwork and falsework assembly prefabrication for

storage and maintenance line reinforcement meshes

Figure 7.6. Proposed construction site layout for the overturning caisson (12.60m)

Caisson transport on the assembly line is done by hydraulic jacks, similar to the method
shown on figure 4.9. Next to the assembly line, 2 x 10 metre construction roads are
planned for concrete mixer trucks and concrete pumps.

7.2.1. Equipment
On the construction site drawing (fig. 7.6), two 80 metre reach tower cranes are
indicated. This tower reach is nowadays feasible and allows relatively easy transport of
(pre-assembled) building materials. However, regular tower cranes have a capacity up
to 300 tonne-metre. This implies that just a few tonne (3.75t) can be lifted at its
maximum reach.

64
The weight of formwork systems can be considerable, if the elements are not divided
into sub-sections. In example, the weight of formwork elements for the port of Botany
(appendix A) amounted 30 to 100 tonne. This, while the length of the constructed
counterfort elements is not even half the length of the new overturning design. It is
therefore expected that the formwork elements can weigh up to 100 tonne, if not
subdivided. Also the prefabricated reinforcement meshes can weigh 10 to 20 tonne, if
the reinforcement sections are kept as depicted in figure 7.6. Therefore, these formwork
systems and prefabricated reinforcement meshes cannot be lifted (at once) by regular
tower cranes. Three measures can be taken to overcome this problem:

1. Increase tower crane capacity to extraordinary values;

2. Use heavy lifting crawler cranes and SPMT’s;
3. Divide formwork, falsework and reinforcement meshes.

Tower crane capacity (1)

One of world’s largest tower cranes, a Kroll K-10,000, would be able to lift complete
formwork systems over such a reach. However, sufficient lifting capacity not the only
condition which has to be satisfied. The large and heavy weighing elements require
decent guidance during each crane operation to prevent spinning and swinging. For
instance, local weather conditions (wind) can result in undesired sway of the elements,
increasing executional risks.

Working under these suspended loads must be avoided as much as possible to facilitate
safe working conditions. The proposed construction yard is designed to be able to cope
with this aspect. Construction workers on the assembly line may have to temporarily
avoid areas where elements are lifted. Proper supervision and guidance on planning
must be provided.

However, in terms of equipment procurement, such cranes are rather scarce and may
cost over 3 million euros (appendix N). On top of this, the scarcity if this equipment shall
increase mobilization cost and may result in high depreciation rates over the project.
Combined with the previously described operational and safety aspects, this solution is
considered to be uneconomical if only exploited for one quay 1200 metre long quay
project.

Crawler cranes (2)

The formwork elements can be transferred at once, for instance, by SPMT’s (Self-
Propelled-Modular-Transporter) and heavy lifting crawler cranes. This method however,
does not tackle the increased labour consumption. The lifting and transport of these
elements is time consuming and requires high additional investments in heavy lifting
equipment.

Divide elements (3)

For an economic construction process, the formwork systems and reinforcement
meshes can be divided into several sub-elements, which allows lifting by regular tower
cranes. This shall result in a drastic man-hour increase since many formwork elements
must then be erected, coupled and secured on site. Also the reinforcement meshes
must be lifted in different sections. This increases the work load on the assembly line,
since all meshes erected and coupled locally.

In conclusion, it can be seen that none of these proposed solutions is highly economical.
The construction method can thus be simplified, but labour consumption shall increase.
The economies of this trade-off depend on the required number of caissons, where high
investment costs can be justified if marginal costs reduce (as explained in section 1.5). It
is assumed that division of elements to sections of 5 to 10 tonne results in an optimum
in terms of equipment-to-labour cost division. This scenario allows lifting by regular
tower cranes and crawler cranes and therefore reduces the equipment costs drastically.

65
7.2.2. Formwork and falsework yard
A formwork and falsework site (figure 7.6, yellow) is useful for storage and maintenance
of the formwork panels. The high quality forms can be re-used for the construction of all
caissons. The following formwork components are distinguished on the drawing:

- Front-wall form (4x)

- Compartment wall forms (7x)
- Back-wall forms (6x) In total: 28 formwork
- Base form: front and back (4x) elements
- Counterfort forms (7x)

The vertical formwork elements consist of three form-types; compartment wall-forms,

counterfort-forms and baseplate-forms. The compartment forms and counterfort forms
are both sub-divided into 7 elements to meet lifting equipment capacities. The horizontal
elements consist of two form types; front-wall forms and back-wall forms. The back-wall
form has a declined section (such as fig. 7.1), and consists of 7 elements which can be
placed in between the compartment walls. This results in a total number of formwork
elements of 28.

As described in section 7.2.1, the time required for placement and securing formwork
within tolerances can be reduced when the elements are connected and have a fixed
centre to centre distance.

7.2.3. Reinforcement prefabrication yard

The reinforcement for the front-wall is fixed and casted at location A (fig. 7.6.). This
element requires the largest amount of reinforcement and is therefore preferred to be
fixed locally. The reinforcement for the remaining elements is fixed at the dedicated
prefabrication site (figure 7.1, red). The following prefabricated meshes are
distinguished on the drawing:

- Compartment and side-walls (7x)

- Straight backwall (1x)
In total: 17 prefabricated
- Declined backwall (1x)
reinforcement meshes
- Bottom slab (1x)
- Counterfort walls (7x)

All reinforcement elements must be fixed and ready for assembly within one working
week. This also holds for the 7 compartment walls and 7 counterforts, which means that
one rebar fixing team must be able to fix one element a day. This process allows daily
repetition, which reduces the working hours and lowers the probability of failures.
Furthermore, the rebars are fixed on ground level which is beneficial in terms of safety.
In terms of lifting capacities, the backwall and bottom slab reinforcement meshes must
be sub-divided in at least 2 elements.

7.2.4. Assembly line

The assembly line (figure 7.6, blue) is designed to maximize the utilization of equipment
and labour. The total construction time directly increases if the structure would be fixed
to one location. For instance, other construction activities cannot start before the front-
wall is casted.

Since the front-wall is the largest structural element and therefore requires the most
labour and construction time, it is preferred to be casted separately on location A. On
the same location, the side walls and compartment walls are constructed. When the
concrete is sufficiently hardened, the element is transported to location B. At this point,
the remaining caisson elements are constructed using prefabricated reinforcement
(fixed on site) and the stored formwork systems. When all elements are casted, the
caisson is transported to location C. Here, curing, inspection and repairs can be done.
The construction phases are as follows:

66
 A. First construction site
The reinforcement for the front-wall and toe is fixed on the assembly line. When
the reinforcement mesh is finished, the front-wall and toe are casted. On a
following working day, construction of side-walls and compartment walls is
started. The reinforcement for these elements is already prefabricated. The total
duration of phase A is allowed to be 7 days.

B. Second construction site

From prefabricated reinforcement, the back-walls, counterforts and base-slab
are constructed. The total duration of phase B is allowed to be 7 days.

C. Curing and inspection site

At this location, concrete is cured and inspected. If the concrete appears to
have anomalies, it can be repaired before launching. Space between the
caisson and ground surface is preferable for inspection of the front-wall. This
allows time for concrete to develop its strength. The total duration of phase C is
allowed to be 7 days. If curing and hardening time needs to be extended,
additional storage space can be made in front of the launching facility.

D. Launching facility
Due to the weight and draught similarities, the feasibility of a caisson launching
method is unaffected. Similar to regular caissons, a floating dry dock is used.

7.2.5. Construction sequence on location A and B

The proposed construction method results in a construction sequence as presented in
table 7.1. Six working days are planned for both construction sites. On top of this, one
day is needed for demoulding, finishing, curing and transport to the next location.
Therefore, it is estimated that at least one week is required for both locations. As can be
seen from the table, a tight schedule must be followed. Apart from reinforcement
prefabrication, the caisson construction involves daily changing activities.

Location Activity Duration

Front-wall 4 days
Formwork preparation 0.5 day
Reinforcement fixing 2.5 days
Casting concrete 223m3 1 day
Compartment walls (incl. sides and joints) 2 days
A Formwork preparation 0.5 day
Reinforcement placement 0.5 day
Casting concrete 232m3 1 day
Finishing first construction phase 1 day
Demoulding and curing 0.5 day
Transport element to B 0.5 day
Back-wall 2 days
Formwork preparation 0.5 day
Reinforcement placement 0.5 day
Casting concrete 205m3 1 day
Counterforts 2 days
Formwork preparation 0.5 day
Reinforcement placement 0.5 day
B Casting concrete 106m3 1 day
Base-slab 2 days
Formwork preparation 0.5 day
Reinforcement placement 0.5 day
Casting concrete 183m3 1 day
Finishing second construction phase 1 day
Demoulding and curing 0.5 day
Transport element to C 0.5 day
Table 7.1. Preliminary caisson construction plan (overturning caisson, 2017)

67
Formwork preparation and placement of the prefabricated reinforcement are relatively
simple tasks which can be repeated weakly. However, these tasks are superfluous
when a gantry slipform technique is applied. This technique requires a single formwork
erection for all walls. The amount of labour hours is therefore considered to be negligible
compared to this traditional formwork method. Also reinforcement can directly be placed
on spot. Hence, the proposed method for the construction of overturning caissons is
more labour intensive.

7.3. Resource consumption

By application of the prescribed construction method and technologies, it is possible to
obtain a workflow which must be repeated every week. The construction of one caisson
a week is similar to a rectangular caisson (section 4.1). Due to the reinforcement and
formwork prefabrication sites, high labour efficiency can be obtained. The estimated
production rates are as follows:

Element Labour rate Labour rate

Labour activity
type rect. caisson overt. caisson
Reinforcement fixing all elements 90 kg/h 90 kg/h
Concrete distributing,
horizontal 2.00 m3/h 2.00 m3/h
vibrating, curing
Concrete distributing,
vertical 1.00 m3/h 0.80 m3/h
vibrating, curing
Concrete distributing,
declined N/A 0.60 m3/h
vibrating, curing
Table 7.2. Labour productivity rates for caissons

Normally, reinforcement fixing of walls is more labour intensive than flat slabs9. Different
working conditions and shapes result in varying productivity ratios in the order of 30 to
150 kg/m3. The highest productivity rate can thereby be obtained for a low complexity
flat plate slab with equal rebar spacing. The shape complexity of the overturning
caisson shall thereby result in a reduction of productivity rates. It is therefore estimated
that an average labour rate of 90 kg/h shall be achieved at the prefabrication site. This is
similar to the labour rate for a gantry slipform technique, where good working conditions
are provided. On the other hand, as shown in the table above, shape influences are
taken into account for concrete labour working rates.

7.3.1. Overturning caisson labour consumption (12.60m)

The concrete and reinforcement labour works for the overturning caisson are therefore
estimated to be:
Concrete Concrete Reinforce Rebar Labour
Activity
volume labour ment amount hours
Front-wall 223 m3 112 hr 92 kg/m3 20,500 kg 230 hr
Side-walls and
compartment- 232 m3 290 hr 92 kg/m3 21,300 kg 240 hr
walls
Back-wall
205 m3 232 hr 92 kg/m3 18,900 kg 210 hr
Counterforts 106 m3 133 hr 120 kg/m3 12,700 kg 140 hr
Base slab 183 m3 229 hr 120 kg/m3 22,000 kg 240 hr
Total caisson 949 m3 996 hr 95,400 kg 1060 hr
Table 7.3. Labour consumption for an overturning caisson (concrete and reinforcement)

These working-hours are directly related to the particular building materials. Due to the
presented construction process, these activities can be efficiently executed. However, in
addition to these direct activities, reinforcement- and formwork placement must be
incorporated. Also the additional labour hours for construction joints must be taken into

9
Source: The productivity of Steel Reinforcement Placement in Australian Construction (2014)

68
account. The estimated productivity rates for additional activities of an overturning
caisson are:

Labour activity Labour rates Amount Total

Reinforcement placement 8 h / mesh 17 136 hr
Formwork placement 8 h / form 28 224 hr
Formwork demoulding 8 h / form 28 224 hr
Construction joints 40 h / element 5 200 hr
Total labour consumption: 784 hr
Table 7.4. Additional estimated labour hours for an overturning caisson

As presented in the table above, the additional formwork preparation and demoulding
working hours are estimated to be 2x8h per formwork-element. With a total of 28
formwork elements, the total labour becomes 16 x 28 = 448 hour. The other activities
are considered in a similar manner. It must be noted that these working hours are rather
hard to predict. In practice, these working hours could differ drastically. This is therefore
a large risk for determining the feasibility of such a construction method. To sum up, the
direct labour hours for an overturning caisson are estimated to be:

Total labour consumption amount

overturning caisson
Concrete casting and finishing 996 hr
Reinforcement fixing 1060 hr
Additional labour activities 784 hr
Total labour for one caisson 2840 hr
Table 7.5. Total estimated labour hours for an overturning caisson

The additional labour activities contribute to roughly 25% of the total working hours.
These working hours are thereby considered to be the most significant change to the
consumption compared to a slipform-constructed caisson.

7.3.2. Rectangular caisson labour consumption (12.60m)

Similar to the previous estimates, the productivity rates shown in table 7.2 are used. The
labour consumption for a rectangular caisson is estimated to be:

Concrete Concrete Reinforce Rebar Labour

Activity
volume labour ment amount hours
Walls 952 m3 952 hr 85 kg/m3 80,900 kg 899 hr
Base slab 183 m3 92 hr 120 kg/m3 22,000 kg 244 hr
Buttress /
31 m3 39 hr 120 kg/m3 4,000 kg 44 hr
joints
Total caisson 1166 m3 1083 hr 106,900 kg 1187 hr
Table 7.6. Labour consumption for a rectangular caisson (concrete and reinforcement)

The direct labour hours for a rectangular caisson are thereby estimated to be:

Total labour consumption amount

overturning caisson
Concrete casting and finishing 1083 hr
Reinforcement fixing 1187 hr
Total labour for one caisson 2270 hr
Table 7.7. Total estimated labour hours for a rectangular caisson

Due to the slipforming construction method, the labour hours appear to be approx. 25%
lower than the overturning caisson, while more building materials are consumed.

69
7.4. Conclusions
The shape complexity results in a drastic change of caisson construction method. The
applicable construction technologies for an overturning caisson are rather traditional.
Investments in just one high quality set of formwork and equipment result in high
concrete quality and enables a caisson production rate of 1 each week. This
construction speed is similar to regular caissons.

The shape complexity results in more construction tasks. Elements such as the declined
back-wall and counterforts, require more labour during construction. Due to the
proposed construction method and technologies, no quality and safety setbacks occur.
However, in order to obtain the same quality, the concrete mixture must be carefully
designed and labour consumption increases.

Five construction activities are planned on 2 different locations (A and B) to obtain an

efficient construction process. The total construction takes place on three locations,
which is similar to the construction site of large rectangular caissons. The proposed
process (table 7.1) is a tight and varying construction schedule compared to a slipform
process. As a result, the horizontal construction method is estimated to require more
labour. Additionally, casting a floor instead of a wall does not result in less formwork.
Due to the possibility of high reuse of formwork systems, casting a horizontal element is
not intrinsically beneficial. All in all, it cannot be demonstrated that the construction of an
overturning caisson is beneficial compared to a vertically constructed caisson.

70
8. Economic Feasibility (2017)
8.1. Overview
The overturning design combined with a rubble backfill is considered for an economic
feasibility analysis. Although material savings can be obtained for each caisson, other
cost contributions, such as labour, influence the marginal costs as well. This results in a
dependence on the number of constructed caissons. It is thereby intended to stress the
cost differences between concepts rather than an accurate cost estimate for the total
construction costs.

8.2. Direct construction costs

Based on historical construction cost data (appendix N), the price of concrete and
reinforcement is estimated to be respectively 60 €/m3 and 0.60 €/kg. The average
European price rate for construction labour amounts 40 €/hr10. However, African labour
rates are generally much lower, and can even decrease to values below 10 €/hr for
skilled workers. Since the considered reference project is located in Africa, a
collaboration of European and African labourers is assumed. Therefore, an average
price rate of 25 €/hr is taken into account for all construction labourers.

Price per
Variable direct costs Quantity Total cost
unit
Concrete 949 m3 60 €/m3 € 56,900,-
Reinforcement 95,400 kg 0.60 €/kg € 57,200,-
Labour 2840 hr 25 €/hr € 71,000,-
Variable direct caisson costs: € 185,100,-
Table 8.1. Total direct costs for an overturning caisson

As can be seen, the value of construction materials is almost two times higher than the
labour costs. It is therefore still significant to invest in material savings. The total variable
costs for a rectangular caisson are:

Price per
Variable direct costs Quantity Total cost
unit
Concrete 1166 m3 60 €/m3 € 69,700,-
Reinforcement 106,900 kg 0.60 €/kg € 64,140,-
Labour 2270 hr 25 €/hr € 56,750,-
Variable direct caisson costs: € 190,600,-
Table 8.2. Total direct costs for a rectangular caisson

Hence, shape and construction differences result in a reduction of marginal construction

cost. The construction cost is estimated to be reduced by a small 3%. However, as
discussed in section 4.1, learning effects for a repetitive construction process can have
a significant impact on the overall costs. Therefore, the reduction can become larger if
the labour efficiency turns out to be higher, or if local price rates for labour become
lower.

10
Labour price rate for The Netherlands according to International Construction Cost Survey, Gardiner and
Theobald (2011)

71
8.3. Marginal caisson costs
The total marginal costs of a caisson are not identified since the cost difference is from
importance. Cost differences can be found in concrete volumes and labour consumption
on the construction site, but also in the following phases:

- Construction → prefabrication of caissons (concrete volume, labour);

- Launching → caissons launched by for instance a FDD;
- Transport → self-floating caissons transported by tugboats;
- Turning → floating crane assistance;
- Compartment fill → caisson compartments filled with sand;
- Backfill material → apply rubble backfill;

As calculated in the previous section, construction costs of the prefabricated caissons

are estimated to reduce by 3%. The launching and transport costs are expected to differ
insignificantly since the draught and weight of an overturning caisson is just slightly
reduced compared to a rectangular caisson (chapter 6). On the other hand, the
additional costs of turning the caisson are expected to have a significant effect on the
marginal costs. The compartment fill and application of backfill material is expected to
be slightly more labour intensive since the caisson geometry reduces accessibility of
equipment. Considering these differences, an arbitrary amount of € 5,000,- is added to
the cost of each overturning caisson to incorporate increased labour and resource
consumption. This makes that the marginal cost difference for both caissons become
negligibly small. Economic advantages of constructing overturning caissons can
therefore not be demonstrated after a certain number of caissons. Only if temporary
equipment costs are lower, the overturning caissons can become economical up to a
number of caissons.

8.4. Equipment and depreciation

Since the project duration usually amounts one to two years, used equipment is not
necessarily at the end of its technical service life. However, the usefulness of custom
designed formwork can for instance be highly reduced when the project is finished. The
depreciation for custom designed formwork is therefore considered to be the highest,
since its salvage value is estimated to be negligible. Regular equipment, such as lifting
equipment, can be useful for other projects or other contractors, which allows higher
salvage values. With help of procurement costs provided in appendix N, the following
cost estimates (table 8.3) are made for large equipment.

Procurement estimated
Equipment overturning depreciation
quantity and mobilization project
caisson over project
value expenses
Fixed tower cranes (500
2 € 1,500,000.- 15% € 225,000.-
t/m)
Mobile crawler cranes
1 € 1,000,000.- 15% € 150,000.-
(300T)
High quality formwork 1
€ 3,500,000.- 90% € 3,150,000.-
system (3500 m2)
Temporary foundations
45 € 100,000.- 90% € 90,000.-
prefab yards
Transport over land:
30 € 1,000,000.- 50% € 500,000.-
hydraulic jacks 30x100T
Launching: 5000T floating
1 € 2,000,000.- 30% € 600,000.-
dock
Transport over water:
2 € 500,000.- 15% € 75,000.-
tugboats
Floating crane 500T
1 € 5,000,000.- 15% € 750,000.-
(sheerleg)
Total expenses: € 5,540,000.-
Table 8.3. Estimated expenses on large equipment for an overturning caisson

72
For a rectangular caisson, the depreciation of a gantry slipform is expected to be
drastically lower. The required of formwork area is drastically reduced since the custom
designed slipforming shutters may be just 1.00m high. The remaining temporary
equipment can be reused for other caisson structures.

Procurement estimated
Equipment rectangular depreciation
quantity and mobilization project
caisson over project
value expenses
Fixed tower cranes (300
1 € 1,500,000.- 15% € 75,000.-
t/m)
Gantry framework incl.
1 € 5,000,000.- 50% € 2,500,000.-
slipform (~300m2)
Transport over land:
30 € 1,000,000.- 50% € 500,000.-
hydraulic jacks 30x100T
Launching: 5000T
1 € 2,000,000.- 30% € 600,000.-
floating dock
Transport over water:
2 € 500,000.- 15% € 75,000.-
tugboats
Total expenses: € 3,750,000.-
Table 8.4. Estimated expenses on large equipment for a rectangular caisson

The values presented in the previous tables intend to provide a rough cost estimate of
the major differences. The cost and depreciation rates are thereby an indication of
temporary equipment cost differences. For the formwork estimate of an overturning
caisson, the Port of Botany (appendix A.5) is used as reference project. Here, 2000
tonne temporary steelworks are used for the counterfort wall construction. A patented
formwork- tie system was used which was developed during the project. This
accentuates the uniqueness of such a project and the scale of temporary works. The
value of such a formwork system after finishing the project is therefore assumed to be
negligible. Nota bene, the exact same dimensions must be used for the next project for
the formwork system to be reusable. For the construction process of a rectangular
caisson, a lot of equipment can be reused. It is therefore estimated that the formwork
costs are higher for an overturning caisson, while the construction method itself is rather
traditional.

8.5. Economic feasibility estimate

As described in the first chapter of the thesis repetition and depreciation are expected to
influence the feasibility of the concept. The following scenarios were presented in
section 1.5.4:

a. Higher fixed costs and lower variable costs result in an economic design after a
certain number of caissons;
b. Lower fixed costs and higher variable costs result in an economic design up to a
certain number of caissons;
c. Lower fixed costs and lower variable costs; production costs are always lower.

Considering these three scenarios (a/b/c), the overturning caissons will not be
economical after a certain number caissons. The estimated marginal cost difference is
too low for an explicit answer to the feasibility after a certain number of caissons. The
project expenses on large equipment are estimated to be higher for the overturning
caisson. However, this cost aspect is also debatable. Scenario (c) can occur if the
salvage value of equipment appears to be lower than expected.

The graph on figure 8.1 shows 2 different construction methods for a normal rectangular
caisson and the overturning principle. The cost per caisson is plotted vertically and the
number of caissons is shown on the horizontal axis. The cost per caisson is based on
values from sections 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4. These cost estimates are not intended to provide
total construction costs. The results are focussed on the differences between the
concepts. The actual construction costs of a caisson will therefore be higher. It is

73
expected that both lines in the figure would shift vertically, while the point of intersection
would remain on the same horizontal position. Hence, the feasibility outcome remains
unchanged.

€3.000.000

€2.500.000

€2.000.000
equipment and
direct costs →

€1.500.000

€1.000.000

€500.000

€0
0 20 40 60 80 100
number of caissons →
Rectangular caisson Overturning caisson

Figure. 8.1. Repetition-feasibility relation of the overturning concept

The graph shows that the costs of a caisson become almost equal after 100 caissons.
Theoretically, the price per caisson is still slightly higher than for a rectangular caisson;
a feasible region is not found since the direct cost difference is insignificant. However,
this is based on many assumptions regarding labour, assembly time, equipment and
building material costs. For instance, if the custom designed formwork system can be
reused for multiple projects, the economic potential increases. In terms of the reference
project, for which approximately 60 caissons are needed, the overturning caissons is not
economically feasible.

On top of this, this feasibility analysis is based on the prerequisite that a rubble backfill
shall be applied. If this type of backfill is locally not available, or if quay loads are
significantly larger, other designs become more favourable.

74
9. Conclusions
From a technical point of view, the most striking advantages of the caisson geometry
are draught and material savings. Compared to a rectangular caisson, the overturning
caisson combined with a rubble backfill results in the largest benefits. This is caused by
the reduced horizontal quay load and the subsequently increased caisson slenderness.
Draught and material use are nowadays significantly higher than for the original concept
from 1903. Reasons for these changes in the design are;

 Stability demands → increased width; less caisson slenderness;

 Durability demands → larger concrete cover and wall thickness;

The strengths of the original concept are therefore reduced, but still present. The
concept is technically feasible and can be designed according to current standards.
Based on current design requirements, the overturning concepts allows 8% to 15%
material savings. The largest material savings can be made when a rubble backfill is
applied. If quay loads increase, the required caisson width becomes larger which results
in a reduction of material savings relative to a rectangular caisson. It is found that
rectangular caissons have larger operational stability than overturning caissons with the
same width. Therefore, when these structures are compared, it must be noted that
additional cost savings can be made by further optimizing material consumption of the
considered rectangular caissons.

The L-shaped caissons have a larger metacentric height during its first (horizontal)
floating position compared to a rectangular caisson. Due to the increased floating
stability, no ballast water is required during transport. As a consequence, the
overturning concepts have a lower draught than their rectangular counterparts. The
development of caisson designs in relation to draught can be found in table 6.6 to 6.8. It
can be seen that technical design changes (e.g. increased width) mitigate draught
benefits. The most beneficial overturning caisson concept allows a draught reduction of
roughly 25% compared to a ballasted rectangular caisson.

The overturning caisson becomes increasingly feasible when a slender design is

considered, while a rectangular caisson becomes increasingly feasible for wider
designs. For rectangular caissons, floating stability and draught improve by an
increased width, while the conditions for overturning caissons reverse. An
underestimation of loads may therefore result in a different optimum design solution. As
a result, costs of load reducing measures can influence the degree of feasibility. Since
soil actions on quay walls are often dominant (e.g. case study appendix E-H), the costs
of a rubble backfill or other soil improvement measures must be considered before
evaluating the overturning concept. Instead of the expected increase in design freedom
(as in proposed in figure 1.2 and 1.3), the overturning caisson can only efficiently be
applied for a certain range of quay loads.

Labour costs are estimated to be higher for an overturning caisson than for a
rectangular caisson constructed with the slipforming technique. The construction of an
overturning caisson requires larger (and heavier) prefabricated elements. Placement
and securing these elements requires additional labour and reduces efficiency.

Equipment costs are estimated to be higher for an overturning caisson. An additional

400 tonne floating sheerleg is required to assist the turning operations. Furthermore, the
procurement of job-built formwork is expected to be a cost raising component. The
reason for this is that the salvage value is considered to be negligible. However, its
actual value depends on the usefulness for other quay wall projects. These components
are therefore hard to predict and may change the economic feasibility of the concept.
Considering these investments in specialized equipment, a conventional production rate
of one caisson each week can be achieved. This is similar to the construction time of a
rectangular (slipformed) caisson.

75
All in all, the economic feasibility cannot be demonstrated by combining the considered
aspects of material savings, labour consumption and equipment costs. The economic
feasibility is too dependent of various cost parameters and sensitive to changes. When
labour and equipment costs are lower, the overturning concept becomes increasingly
feasible.

9.1. Answers to research questions

Based on the feasibility study, the following research questions can be answered:

- Is the caisson shape structurally more efficient?

Material savings can be obtained compared to rectangular caissons. The
advantages become less significant when loads on the structure increase. For
instance, the change of backfill material reduces the amount of material savings
from 15% to 8%.

On the other hand, the caisson shape has lower global stability than a
rectangular caisson with an identical width. This is caused by a lower weight,
changed centre of gravity and increased soil pressure. Namely, the caisson
back-wall is not load reducing (appendix L). On the contrary, the caisson heel
results in a “trapped” soil wedge which prevents ground to reach an active
pressure state. Destabilizing effects caused by soil are therefore higher for a
caisson with heel. However, this effect by itself is not decisive for the feasibility
of the concept.

- Does the concept allow a simplified launching method?

The size, weight and draught of the new overturning caisson are similar to
rectangular caissons, the launching method considered to be hardly affected.
Only when a slender overturning caisson is designed (rubble backfill), the
draught decreases significantly. Then, the feasibility of a certain launching
system can be influenced. However, as a trade-off, the caisson needs to be
turned by a 400 tonne floating crane which requires floating equipment and
labour.

- Do transport conditions become less governing for caisson design?

The metacentric height for an overturning caisson in horizontal floating position
is sufficient for stable transport without ballast water. This is in contrast to the
considered rectangular caissons, which require measures to increase floating
stability.

- Does feasibility depend on the required retaining height?

When immersion pressures and quay loads increase, it becomes less economic
to design an overturning caisson. Material use and draught benefits become
negligible and the turning process becomes more challenging. Increasing
slenderness is therefore beneficial, thus lower quay walls with relatively low
quay loads are optimal design conditions.

- Is a horizontal construction method beneficial for caissons?

A horizontal construction method is not beneficial for caissons in general. The
slipform construction technique allows higher productivity rates and provides
convenient concrete quality, inspection and safety.

The horizontal construction method is however beneficial for the construction of

an overturning caisson. The shape results in a drastic change of suitable the
construction methods. For this geometry, a horizontal construction is the most
economical solution. However, also for the construction of an overturning
caisson, no intrinsic benefits are found for this construction method. On the
contrary, it is expected that this (formwork) method requires 25% more labour.

76
 - Does the concept improve safety and environmental aspects?
The concept does not improve safety by itself. The average working height is
reduced compared to rectangular caissons. Most reinforcement can be cut,
bent, and fixed on ground level. However, on the assembly line, working
conditions are still hazardous. Sufficient passive fall protective systems must
therefore be provided to work in a safe manner. Also, working under hoisted
elements must be prevented as much as possible.

In terms of environmental aspects, a saving can be made since building

materials are saved (chapter 6). A reduction of concrete (and cement)
consumption lowers the CO2 production. However, if this were to be the aim,
other solutions can be exploited, such as changing the cement type or mixture.

9.2. Recommendations
If the overturning concept would be applied for a future quay wall project, a number of
aspects need to be verified or improved before the economic benefits can be quantified.
These aspects are;

 Turning and immersion modelling (dynamically);

 Plate analysis side walls;
 Risk analysis;
 Accurate cost estimate;

Dynamic modelling can be performed in order to evaluate the extended sway while the
caissons are turned without crane assistance. Also stresses in the caisson can then be
evaluated more accurately. An advantage of such a model is that it can reveal whether
sufficient fluid dynamic drag occurs to safely turn the caissons.

The side-walls must be considered by a more accurate calculation method. The use of
FEM software could be applied to determine the level of safety more precisely.

A risk analysis should be performed in order to evaluate possible economic setbacks.

Deviations in labour speed and the construction pace could result in a less economical
outcome. Also material aspects are involved, such as risks of cracking due to drying
shrinkage. Depending on the chosen construction method and process, a certain
(hardening) time difference occurs during the walls and slabs. This can potentially result
in concrete cracking. However, if such aspects are incorporated during the design and
work-plan, it is not necessarily problematic.

Additionally, a risk assessment for the safety of personnel should be done since the
construction method differs from rectangular caisson quay walls. Nevertheless, the
construction safety for employees is not expected to differ drastically from other large
concrete structures.

If these aspects are all incorporated, a cost estimate can be made with a higher
accuracy. After this, a certain band can be considered for which the probability of cost
exceedance remains acceptable.

77
Appendix

78
A. Existing Concepts
There is a great variety of caisson concepts which all seemed economically feasible at a
certain place and time. Locational and technological aspects are majorly contributing to
the degree of feasibility of a concept.

The purpose of this section is to recognise advantages and disadvantages of different

quay structures. The objective is to find the origin of the particular benefits and apply
these (if possible) for a new design. The investigation is focussed on prefabricated quay
structures, with the particular overturning caissons as priority. The following five
concepts are therefore analysed:

1. Rectangular caissons;
2. Circular caissons;
3. Hybrid floated-in-caissons;
4. Overturning caissons;
5. Prefabricated non-floatable elements;

The first three listed types are categorized by their shape. The fourth concept, the
overturning caisson, can basically be designed in any shape, but turning the caisson
during its floating phase will not be practical for all shapes.

79
A.1. Rectangular caissons
Rectangular caissons form the basis for the shape analysis, they usually have a similar
cross section as the caisson shown in figure A.1. The caissons are constructed in
vertical position. The construction can take place onshore, in a floating or non-floating
dry dock. The rectangular shape simplifies the design, execution and transport. This can
result in time-savings and it reduces the sensitivity for errors during execution compared
to complex caisson shapes.

The main actions are transferred perpendicularly to the structural elements. In contrast
to circular and arch shaped structures, this introduces relatively high shear forces and
bending moments in the cross sections. The caissons are generally designed with
multiple internal walls. Design adjustments are usually required for the transient
construction phases. For instance; additions and changes for the floating and immersion
phase can be seen as inefficient, since it is not contributing to the desired operational
performance. In general, rectangular caissons have the following disadvantages:

 Loads are mainly transferred by shear and bending;

 Compartments may be added to increase floating stability;
 Shape changes to increase buoyancy.

The pictures (A.1 and A.2.) show concrete caisson construction for the Port of Piraeus
(Athens, Greece). For this project, 40 caissons were constructed using the slipforming
technique. Each caisson was built on a semi-submersible barge or floating dry dock
(FDD). When the construction progressed sufficiently, the barge was lowered and the
caissons where finished while floating. After finishing, the elements were floated to their
final locations.

Figure A.1. Rectangular caissons, Port of Figure A.2. Construction of rectangular

Piraeus, Greece (2016) 11 caissons using the slipform technique and a
semi-submersible dock, Port of Piraeus,
Greece (2016)

The construction efficiency and man-hour consumption for this construction method has
been analysed by Panas and Pantouvakis (2013). The overall caisson characteristics
are depicted in the table below:

Caisson specifications (Port of Piraeus, 2016)

Number of caissons 40
Quay length 1,000m
Caisson height 19.50m
Caisson width 13.10m
Caisson length 24.80m
Draught (estimate) 10.00m
Table A.1. Specifications rectangular caissons

11
Source: www.slipform.us/piraeus-west-pier-3-caisson-slipforming/

80
A.2. Circular caissons
Circular caissons have many similarities to traditional rectangular caissons. In terms of
construction methods; the efficient slipforming technique can be used as for rectangular
caissons. Often, they have a symmetrical circular cross section, which induce hoop
forces in the walls for equally distributed pressures around the structure. Nevertheless,
large bending moments and shear forces occur near the wall-to-base connections of the
caissons.

Circumferential stresses can result in a significant reduction of wall thickness and a

reduction of inner walls. This implies that less material use can be achieved. Since the
circular shaped caissons are usually designed with a small number of compartments,
high shear forces occur in the bottom slab during transport and immersion. These forces
must be transferred by thicker concrete slabs and / or increased reinforcement volumes.

Theoretically, no bending moments occur in the walls when loaded by hydrostatic

pressures. Significant material savings can be made, especially for cases where
pressure from outside the cylinder is larger than from the inside. Axial forces during
transport and immersion can be calculated with the kettle formula (ketelformule). This
model is based on the assumption of two half circles which are in equilibrium with the
acting forces, shown in figure A.3. Forces would be transferred by a compressive
component, which is a particular advantage for concrete structures, since it is
characterized by relatively high compressive strengths.

On the other hand, if pressure prevails from inside the structure, tensile forces would be
introduced. This would mitigate the advantage of the circular shape of a concrete
structure. The schematized pressure distribution would be a possible load case for quay
walls, since it is probable that they are filled with completely saturated soil, where the
hydraulic pressure from outside is generally lower.

Hydrostatic pressure
(filled caisson)

Hydrostatic pressure
(filled caisson)

Figure A.3. Load distribution principle of a cylindrical shaped caisson

The joints between circular caissons must be designed properly, since the structures
have no large connection surface by themselves. The caissons constructed for the
Europaterminal in Antwerp (1990) showed the importance of detailing a proper
connection between the circular elements.

Durban (2004)
The construction rate for the caissons in Durban was approximately 4 metres a day per
caisson. The application of multiple slipforms resulted in a production speed of
approximately 3.5 caissons per week. There was roughly 75,000 m3 of concrete and
9,000 tonnes of reinforcement required for the 1,200 metre long quay. The caisson yard
included two batching plants and a caisson-lift for launching. The concrete operations
were carried out continuously over 24 hours a day. General characteristics of the project
are presented in table A.2.

81
 Figure A.4. Bi-circular caisson construction for Figure A.5. Traditional slipforming used for
the Port of Durban (South-Africa, 2004) one of the caissons

The caissons for the port of Durban were designed with 2 circular compartments. The
radius for the circular sections amounted approximately 7 metres. This resulted in a
relatively large load on the base slab during transport and a high slab thickness of 1.50
metres. The concrete volume of the base-slab was thereby almost equal to the volume
of the entire walls. Furthermore, a temporary longitudinal compartment wall was added
to increase floating stability during immersion12

Caisson specifications (Port of Durban, 2004)

Number of caissons 52
Quay length 1,200m
Caisson height 18.00m
Caisson width 17.00m
Caisson length 24.00m
Draught (approx.) 10.00m
Building materials
per caisson: 1,400 m3
Concrete
running metre quay: 60 m3 / m1
per caisson: 168,000 kg
Reinforcement steel / concrete: 120 kg / m3
running metre quay: 7,200 kg / m1
Table A.2. Specification circular caissons13

12
Marine Concrete Structures – Design, Durability and Performance(2016)
13
Source: http://www.maritimejournal.com/news101/marine-civils/port,-harbour-and-marine-
construction/first_caissons_floated_out_for_durban_quay_wall_project#sthash.fqehkZou.dpuf

82
A.3. Hybrid floated-in-caissons
L-shaped quay walls, generally referred to as buttress, cantilever or counterfort walls,
are normally non-floatable structures and transported by large vessels or constructed on
site. The Kraus caisson can be seen as hybrid form which smartly takes advantage of
the economic L-shape for its load transfer and is therefore also shortly discussed.

The application of prefabricated L-shaped wall units is normally limited by the capacity
of the available lifting equipment. And in particular, limited by the capacity of floating
cranes. The hybrid L-shaped overturning caisson tackles this problem, but requires
design adjustments to obtain sufficient buoyancy for floatation.

Hennebique caisson (1900)

Hennebique designed a caisson for a Dutch harbour with a relatively large buttress
(front toe) and short heel. The total retaining height of the quay structure amounted
approximately 14.00 metre (measured from drawing) and the width equaled 9.75 metre.
Besides the relatively large toe, a remarkable aspect is that the quay wall lacks a
superstructure.

Figure A.6. Hennebique caisson for a Dutch harbour (1900)

According to the date on the drawings, Hennebique made the first design of a reinforced
concrete caisson in June 28 in 190014. This is a few years before publication of the
Kraus report in 1903. The drawings presented in fig. A.6 are the only evidence found
during this historical analysis. The degree in which the design is elaborated remains
unclear. It is also found that this particular design is never constructed14. There are no
objections given in the references, but it is imaginable that transport conditions were not
fully considered for this (preliminary) design. However, it is probably the first design of a
reinforced concrete caisson quay wall ever made.
14De Ingenieur 1902, No 27, page 460 and Technische Lessen en Vraagstukken op het gebied
van den Inschischen Havenbouw, page 24

83
Camilla caisson (1970)
The Camilla caisson shown in figure A.7 was designed and patented in the 1970s by
Ballast Nedam Group. It shows great similarities with the first design of professor Kraus.
The sloping back-wall and voids in the base plate were designed to reduce the
horizontal soil pressure acting on the caisson. This should result in a higher safety factor
against sliding and might reduce the required concrete volume.

In the master thesis on this particular caisson, written by F.N. Endtz (1986), retaining
heights were studied of 10, 15 and 30 metre. Due to a reduced horizontal thrust and an
economic shape, material savings could be realised from 7% up to 30%. The report
revealed that the concept could be feasible for larger quay heights (30m), but that its
significance depends on the governing failure mechanism. The magnitude of savings
was largely depending on a required longitudinal separation wall. However these
beneficial characteristics, no applications of this concept have been found.

Figure A.7. Drawing of the Camilla caisson (Master thesis, F.N. Endtz (1986))

The declination of the back-wall could reduce the horizontal soil thrust in operational
phase considerably. The figure below shows the active soil coefficient relative to the
angle of the retaining wall according to Coulombs wedge theory. For this example, an
angle of internal friction of ϕ’ = 32° and δ = 2/3 ϕ’ is used. The graph shows that an
angle of 70 degrees reduces the active horizontal soil pressure almost by a factor 2.

Ka
0,30
Muller Breslau
0,20 pressure coefficient
Rankine pressure
0,10
coefficient

0,00
wall angle
45 65 85 [degrees]

This advantage of the declined back-wall can only be used when openings in the bottom
plate are present. The original concept of professor Kraus (described in the next
section) lacks these openings and would therefore not allow a full active soil pressure
state with wall friction in the heel. During failure of the wall, soil within the heel is
trapped. The trapped wedge would remain more or less in a neutral pressure state.
However the great geometrical similarities to the original overturning caissons, the
concept allows great advantages by the openings in the bottom plate. On the other
hand, temporary adjustments must be made to allow horizontal transport.

84
Tsinker (1994)
The use of prefabricated L-shaped walls is limited by the capacity of lifting equipment
and floating cranes. On the other hand, cast in situ concrete L-shaped elements involve
high construction costs which make both solutions unfeasible in many cases. This is
unfortunate, since the L-shape is efficient in terms of material use. In order to cope with
this problem, Tsinker (1958, 1994) proposed segmented walls which must be
assembled on site (figure A.8). The floating base (bottom slab) and a vertical buoyant
component (retaining wall) are connected by several hinges. The compartments are
filled at its final position with grout or sand.

Figure A.8 - Installation phases of an segmented L-shaped caisson (after Tsinker (1958/1994))

85
A.4. Overturning caissons
The overturning caisson is considered to be a hybrid L-shaped caisson. The most
remarkable aspect of this concept is the horizontal construction- and transportation
method. This design is referred to as overturning caisson and evaluated in the next
sections.

Valparaíso (1903)
Dr. Ir. A.C.C.G. van Hemert, founder of the Hollandsche Beton Maatschappij (HBM) and
Dr. Ir. J. Kraus made a sophisticated caisson quay wall design for the port of Valparaíso
in Chile. A drawing from the original design is shown in figure A.9. This project has
never been executed due to the consequences of an earthquake, but the finished
design was preserved. The engineering work was therefore not useless. It formed the
basis for future projects at the HBM (later HBG) such as the Talcahuano, Surabaya and
Tandjong Priok port expansion projects.

Figure A.9. Drawing of the first caissons for the port of Valparaíso (Comision Kraus, 1903)

The Valparaíso design is characterized by the declined back-wall and relatively large
base plate. Because of this geometry, the caissons float vertically after ballasting with
water. This makes placement and immersing less complex. Although the caissons float
almost entirely in vertical position after partial ballasting, a floating crane was used for
the final placement.

All the caisson walls were tapered designed. The outer walls started at a thickness of
250mm at the bottom and attenuated to150mm at the top. This saves approximately
20% concrete per wall and is especially advantageous for the overturning principle,
since a lower weight at the floating stage simplifies immersion and increases the
achievable freeboard after turning.

Remarkable is the fact that the caisson is not a rectangular box, which is currently usual,
but more L-shaped. This makes material use more efficient and execution simplified due
to the more horizontal nature of the structure.

Talcahuano (1908)
The quay design for the port of Valparaíso was used for the naval port of Talcahuano,
which was finished with delay, probably in 1908. The delay was caused by an
underestimation of the execution complexity by the Chilean contractor, who had no
experience with building reinforced concrete structures. Several photos are found (A.10
- A.12) which were taken during construction.

86
Figure A.10. Caisson construction for Talcahuano, Chile (1908). Source: Wonderen der techniek:
Nederlandse ingenieurs en hun kunstwerken : 200 jaar civiele techniek (Dutch Edition), Walburg
Pers, Zutphen, 1994

Figure A.11. Transport of the caissons (Talcahuano, Chile (1908))

Figure A.12. Turning and immersion of the caissons (Talcahuano, Chile (1908))

Three different types of (overturning) caisson structures where constructed for this
project, namely:

Figure A.13 - Quay wall (caisson height: 11.35m, superstructure: 2.65m);

Figure A.14 - Breakwater (caisson height: 9.50m);
Figure A.15 - Fence wall (caisson height: 11.65m);

The quay wall structure was identical to the original design for Valparaíso in 1903. The
breakwater and fence wall were also caisson structures which used the overturning
principle. Remark: the fence wall caissons where placed on relatively soft soil.
Therefore, there was chosen to fill only the lower part of the caisson (3.00/11.65m) by
sand and stones. The rest of the volume filled with water. All caissons were built in dry
conditions onshore. There was a temporary structure for launching the concrete boxes.

87
After transportation to the final location, the caissons were immersed by filling the
compartments with water. The structures were placed on the prepared bed and filled
with so called “weak concrete” or rubble stones and sand.

Figure A.13. Quay wall Figure A.14. Breakwater Figure A.15. Fence wall

Surabaya (1911)
On the photo (fig. A.16), two almost completed overturning caissons (left) and two
caissons under construction (right) are shown. Some notable changes have been made
compared to the original Kraus design. Here, the length of a caisson is approximately
doubled. The picture clearly shows 10 compartments for each caisson. If the same
compartment width remained, the total caisson length amounts (2.50 x 10.00) 25 metre.

Presumably, the enlargement of caissons was previously unfeasible due to the

construction site on ground level, which requires heavy transport and launching
equipment. The caissons in Surabaya where constructed in dry-docks, which simplified
launching.

From the cross-section and the photo below, it can be seen that the outer counterforts
decline directly from the top of the caisson. This change is presumably to improve
connection between the elements. Furthermore, some minor geometry changes have
been made, which increased the slenderness. The bottom slab reduced for instance
from 6.50m at Chile to 5.70m at Surabaya. The height increased to 13.00 metre (from
the cross-section depicted at fig. A.16).

Figure A.16. Left: a photo of the construction side at Surabaya (1911) Right: a
typical cross-section of the overturning caisson

A part of rectangular caissons, which were also part of the project, slided over 20 metres
when placing the backfill during quay construction. This was caused by a weak mud
layer which was present over the full quay width. This project was therefore a reminder
of the importance of a proper soil investigation and lead to more conservative design
approaches later on.

88
Tandjong Priok (1914)
The quay wall at the harbour of Tandjong Priok was constructed with four overturning
caissons of 31 metre each. This was probably even larger than the ones built in
Surabaya. The combined quay length amounts 124 metre. Compared to the Surabaya
project, the width of the bottom slab increased to 7.90 metre (+2.20) metre and the
height reduced to 11.30 metre (-1.70). The width/height ratio thereby increased to 0.70.
Presumably, the increased robustness resulted from lessons learnt at the port of
Surabaya.

Two caissons were assembled each time. Execution

took place at a very simple construction pit; this was
possible because of the relatively low construction height
of the elements. The construction pit had to be dredged
before the caissons could be floated out. Baseplates and
counterforts were casted in the floating stage. A
remarkable change to the shape is that the
superstructure almost entirely disappeared. At the
former projects it was significantly cheaper to build a
different structure on top of the caisson at the final stage,
but this changed apparently. The first quay wall was
finished in 1914.

The following Dutch sentences from the “Technische Figure A.17. Caisson for
lessen en vraagstukken op het gebied van den the 1st Binnenhaven
Indischen havenbouw”, written by Ir. Wouter Cool, in Oosterboord (1914)
Weltevreden (Indonesia,1918) reveal an answer to the
question why the concept is abandoned:

“Op grond van de te Tandjong-Priok verworven ervaring werd door den

Directeur dier haven in samenwerking met de Hollandsche Beton
Maatschappij in 1915 voor de caissons het z.g. „Prioktype" ontworpen.
Den wanden, die nu vertikaal werden opgetrokken, schonk men
meerdere dikte en over de geheele hoogte een constante wapening,
terwijl de vulling der vakken uitsluitend met zand geschiedde. Solieder
werk, eenvoudiger formeelen, gemakkelijker transport en desondanks
gelijke kosten, waren vergeleken bij de vroegere typen de voordeelen.”

Summarized in English; the text explains why the contractor (HBG) decided to change
the overturning principle to the “Prioktype”. It was basically due to easier formwork and
transport at equal costs compared to the earlier type. This indicates a well-thought
decision for changing the concept. Furthermore, the document reveals that horizontal
displacements occurred up to 0.75 metre at the Priok harbour. Disregarding the
changed construction method, it was decided that the main dimensions of caissons
must be changed and that the calculation approach must be standardized. Reports from
former caisson stability calculations lacked proof of horizontal sliding verifications.
Nevertheless, new calculation and construction techniques can change the economic
feasibility of the overturning caisson.

89
Gdynia (1927)
This symmetrical caisson (shown in fig. A.18) was built at the Port of Gdynia in Poland.
The length of each caisson was 18.15 metre. The height of a caisson was equal to
10.50 metre and its total width was 7.45 metre. The total retaining height was 12.00
metre. The width to height ratio amounted 0.62, which is still relatively slender.

It contained four internal walls which divided the caisson into five compartments. This
makes the compartments roughly 3.60 metre wide. Voids where left over at the inner
walls in order to reduce the self-weight and improve its floating stability. The caissons
where filled and backfilled with sand.

Tunis (pre 1967)

The overturning principle was applied for a quay wall structure at the port of Tunis (La
Goulette). The La Goulette caisson is transported in a similar manner as the design of
professor Kraus. The exact construction and launching method is unknown due to the
scarce available literature regarding this project. The caisson is characterized by its
counterforts and inclined back-wall. The front of the caisson was designed with
openings.

The caissons were constructed on a slope with the open front on top. Therefore, the
closed back-walls could be casted in a relatively simple manner. The La Goulette
caisson was completed before launching. From figure A.19, it can be seen that that the
caisson was divided into five compartments by four internal walls.

The direction of rotation was different than for the first caissons, since the caisson
floated with the front-wall facing upward. The caisson was ballasted by pumping water
into the closed bottom compartment. The caisson was partially turned by the added
water. The caisson is positioned against a sill structure on the bottom.

Remarkable is that the lower corner of the caisson was placed against a bottom sill.
Attention is required to prevent damaging the caisson, sea bed and sill. The procedure
is therefore less elegant as the Kraus concept, but its feasibility is not necessarily
depreciated.

Figure A.18. Gdynia caisson (1927) Figure A.19. La Goulette caisson (≤1697)

90
A.5. Prefabricated non-floatable elements
This type of gravity walls comprises L-shaped concepts with or without counterforts. If
the elements are prefabricated on shore, the element length is determined to meet on
and offshore lifting requirements. Due to this involvement, the elements length is
generally less then floated-in-caissons. Therefore, the total quay wall has a larger
number of joints between the elements. Besides, the available contact surface is smaller
due to the element geometry. Extra attention is therefore needed to assure a proper and
long lasting element connection. Furthermore, since the number of elements is larger
and placement must be done by floating lifting equipment, the installation time
increases.

The width of cantilever and counterfort walls can be expressed as a function of the total
retaining height (H) and generally varies between 0.70 to 0.75H for counterfort and
cantilever walls (Tsinker (1997), Smith (2014). While walls made out of prefabricated
elements have dimensions varying between 0.75 to 0.85H for internal anchorage and
0.40 to 0.45H for external anchorage. With “internal anchorage” is meant that the wall is
connected to the base with a tensile member, where the external anchorage can be
similar to a tensile member with anchor plate, which is located behind the soil failure
planes of the cantilever wall.

Kitakyushu (1998)
The hybrid L-shaped caisson shown in figure A.20 and A.21 is outfitted with a composite
(steel-concrete) slab on the front wall and a steel strut on the back wall. The quay wall is
prefabricated at a specialized facility where heavy gantry cranes are available for
transport into water.

JFE Engineering Corporation claims that experiments and analyses prove that hybrid L-
shaped caissons have equivalent earthquake resistance compared to other gravity type
structures, such as caissons. The caissons are relatively low in unit weight and can be
applied in deep water. The shown caisson has a height of 17.1 metre, a length of 35
metre, a width of 10.8 metre. This results width-to-height ratio of 0.65, which is rather
slender. The total self-weight amounts 1670 ton, from which the amount of steel equals
170 tons. Furthermore, 600m3 concrete is applied, which equals a volume of
approximately 17 m3 per running metre. This is achieved with a relatively high steel-
concrete ratio of 283kg/m3. The rectangular voids at the front wall are designed to
reduce the wave kinetic energy.

Figure A.20. Kitakyushu composite caisson15 Figure A.21 Kitakyushu composite

caisson

15
http://www.nssmc.com/en/product/process/HBC.html

91
Port of Busan (2008)
A total of 62 caissons have been constructed for a quay wall at the port of Busan
(Korea). The caissons are equipped with post-tension steel bars for the lifting the
caissons. The weight of the depicted caissons amounts approximately 2,500 tonnes and
brought to their final position by a floating crane. The caisson compartments have not
been designed to increase their buoyancy, but only to be filled with gravel and sand
after placement.

Figure A.22. Prestressed caissons lifted by a

4,000 tonne crane (Port of Busan, Korea, 2008)16

Vestebase Kai (2010)

The Vestebase Kai (Norway) has been constructed using ten large concrete caissons.
They were designed without buoyancy restrictions since the caissons were lifted into
place by an 800 tonnes floating crane. The weight of each caisson amounts
approximately 550 tonnes. The relatively small quay length resulted in this unique
construction method and caisson shape.

Figure A.23. Vestebase Kai, caissons lifted by a

800 tonnes floating crane (2010), Ugland Marine
Services AS, HLV UGLEN 17

16
http://www.samhoind.co.kr/catalogue.pdf
17
http://www.birkenco.no/vestbase-kai-4-5/

92
Port of Botany, Sydney (1981, 2010)
In 1981, prefabricated counterfort walls have been constructed for a port expansion
project in Sydney. These elements were designed with a single counterfort and were
18.65 metre high. The elements weighted 360 tonne to meet requirements of available
on- and off-shore lifting capacities. A more recent project (2010) resulted in a design
with an almost doubled element weight, which shows that the economies of heavy lifting
capacities has shifted over the last decades.

For the most recent project, 200 precasted counterfort units were placed to form the
1,850 m long quay wall. The counterfort units are precast L-shaped unit with a length of
9 m, a height of 20 m and a base length of 15 m, with two triangular counterforts.

Figure A.24. The 460 tonne ringer crane and Figure A.25. The 700 tonne sheer leg barge
counterfort elements lifting a 650 tonne counterfort element

The counterfort units were constructed in three sections, each of roughly equal weight
(80m3 / 2,000kN). The formwork systems and lifting equipment required more than
2,000 tonne steelwork. The temporary moulds totalled 5 assembly beds, 4 base-forms
and 4 wall-forms. The weight of formwork varied considerably. The “top shed” weight
amounted 102 tonne, while the outer form pivots and buttress access towers had a
weight of respectively 54 and 35 tonne. Reinforcement was mostly prefabricated,
resulting in reinforcement cages of roughly 30 tonne. By using heavy lifting equipment,
the casting sequence was planned to be as follows:

1. The base element is casted horizontally;

2. The front wall element is casted horizontally;
3. Wall element is lifted to vertical and placed onto the base element;
4. Two counterforts are casted and a connection between the front-wall land base
is formed;

A 460 tonne ringer crane was used to lift the individual sections into place. Due to the
application of a large (fixed) ringer crane, multiple construction activities were located
around this crane. Three different rings were distinguished, namely:

1. The inner ring → formwork and casting concrete;

2. The median ring → reinforcement cage prefabrication;
3. The outer ring → storage and material handling;

Once a unit was finished, it was transported by a 700 tonne SPMT (Self-Propelled-
Modular-Transporter) to a temporary storage facility. Here, the element was cured for a
minimum of 28 days. After curing, the element is lifted by a 700 tonne shear leg barge to
its final location and lowered into position.

At its peak production level, the precast operation utilised 220 employees, fixing 50
tonne reinforcement, pouring 300 m3 concrete and lifting 2,000 tonne per day. This
resulted in a production rate of seven 640 tonne units per six day cycle. By producing 7
elements of 9 metres a week, over 60 metres of quay wall could be constructed each
week.

93
The concrete mix design had a total binder content of approximately 500 kg/m3,
composed of 50% Portland cement, 25% GGBF slag and 25% fly-ash. A minimum cover
of 58 mm was required in the splash zone. A nominal concrete cover of 70 mm was
required for the counterforts. Overview of Port of Botany project data:

Counterfort specifications (Port of Botany, 2010)

Number of elements: 200
Quay length: 1855 metre
Design life: 100 years
Element properties
Height: 20.00m
Width: 15.00m →
12.00m + 3.00m (diagonal)
Length: 9.00m
Weight: 640 tonnes
per element: 245 m3
Concrete
running metre: 27 m3/m1
per element: 50,000 kg
Reinforcement steel / concrete: 200 kg/m3
running metre: 5,400 kg /m1
Concrete cover to reinforcement cmin = 58 mm
cnom = 70 mm
Table A.3. Specifications counterfort walls18

Compared to the previously addressed circular caissons for the Port of Durban, the use
of concrete reduced over 50%, while the amount of reinforcement reduced by 25% per
running metre quay. This, while the counterfort walls are slightly higher.

On the other hand, the reinforcement density per cubic metre concrete increased by
66%. This can lead to execution problems when a low concrete slump mixture is used.
Only by paying more attention to detailing and the mix design (which has also been
done in practice), good performance can be achieved. These aspects are not free of
charge and are expected to have reduced the benefits of material savings to some
degree. Furthermore, it has to be addressed that a comparison between these different
projects is not entirely fair since design requirements differ.

A.6. Overview of concepts

From the previous analysis and the consideration of alternative concepts, various
caisson concepts can be distinguished. The most promising concepts are schematically
presented in table 4.1 below. Material saving is the major aspect on which the concepts
are evaluated. This is because of its high influence on the direct construction costs.
Furthermore, when material savings form the starting point of design, the horizontal
execution process will consequently follow from this demand.

Note that an optimization in the vertical plane of the structure is sought. Optimizations in
the horizontal plane (e.g. by application of circular sections) are not considered. It is
already demonstrated that material savings can be obtained by applying circular
sections, but there are also various disadvantages which make these concepts
unfeasible or undesired. Therefore an optimization in vertical cross-section is sought,
which will hopefully reduce the overall lifecycle costs.

18
http://www.insideconstruction.com.au/site/news/1018684/port-botanys-precast-production-line

94
vertical cross- caisson relative typical typical
section type material use advantage disadvantage
(estimated)

Rectangular 100% Neutral Neutral

Lowest High amount

amount of of
reinforced cementitious
50%
concrete and fill required
U-shaped (excl.
labour and/or
backfill)
permeable
Structural backfill
coherence19
No full soil
mobilization on
short heel →
One primary
less stability
retaining wall
L-shaped and L-shape
70% Equal
(Kraus) result in high
pressure on
material
backwall must
savings
be provided
(e.g. by
openings)
Soil
High
mobilization on
torsional
Triangular heel depends
75% stiffness for
(La Goulette) on friction
transport
coefficient →
requirements
less stability
Full soil
mobilization
on heel →
similar Larger heel
stability width and less
T-shaped 80%
material
Evenly savings
distributed
soil pressure

Complex
connection
No large
required
Segmented adjustments
80% between
(Tsinker) for buoyancy
elements →
required
increasing
risks
Table A.4. Comparison of caisson concepts with reference to material use

19 Due to the bonded compartment fill which connects the front- and back-wall

95
B. Analysis: The overturning caisson (1903)
B.1. Calculation approach
The original calculation approach, used in 1903, is unknown. In order to verify if the
caisson can currently be applied for a civil engineering work, new calculations are made
on basis of the British Standard (BS-6349) and Eurocodes. The chart below shows how
the input parameters from the original report are used for stability verification. The
calculations are performed in simplified form and based on just one load combination.
The calculation results can therefore only be used as indicative values.

Input: Black box (calculations unknown) Output

Kraus Report 1903

Actions
Safety requirements
satisfied
Quay wall
Characteristics

Resistance

Stability calculations 2016

Actions

Partial factors and combination Safety requirements

Quay wall facrots according to not satisfied
Characteristics BS-EN 6349

Resistance

Figure B.1. Approach for analysing the stability calculations

According to the Eurocode 7, the following limit states for gravity based structures must
be considered:

a) Overturning: rigid foundation (EQU limit state)

b) Forward sliding (GEO limit state)
c) Overturning: soil foundation (GEO limit state)
d) Bearing failure (GEO limit state)
e) Ground failure (GEO limit state)
f) Structural failure (STR limit state)

The limit states are visualized by the schematizations below.

Figure B.2. Failure mechanisms for soil retaining structures

96
For analysis, the limit state for ground failure (e) is not considered. This failure mode is
assumed to be highly depending on local circumstances, and not necessarily influenced
by the application of the overturning concept itself.

B.2. Material parameters

Based on the report of professor Kraus, the following situation is considered for the
stability calculation in operational conditions:

Figure B.3. Operational situation without variable quay loads

In addition to the shape and applied building materials, the following input parameters
have been obtained from the report:

Input parameters (1903) Value

Specific weight of armed concrete
23 kN/m3
Specific weight of sand concrete and masonry
20 kN/m3
Specific weight of the rubble behind the wall,
18 kN/m3
counting the empty space left by the stones
Specific weight of the submerged rubble,
12 kN/m3
under the level of +1.00m CD
Charge of the wall and adjacent grounds due
60 kN/m2
to the merchandise and rolling material,
answering to a weight uniformly distributed of
1
Tangent of the natural talus of the ground (45°)
Tangent of the angle of friction between the ½
ground and the wall (26° 40’)

The report also provides notes on the calculation method and pressures on the
foundation. The report states that it is assumed that the weight of the backfill is
accounted for up to a vertical virtual plane along the heel. The foundation pressure is
calculated to be at most 350 kN/m2 at the toe and 59 kN/m2 at the heel of the structure.
The average foundation pressure from the report (1903) can thereby be calculated as:

97
  P  P   350  59 
PK   M,1 M,2      146 kN/m
2

 2   2 
From this point, the governing vertical resultant force (V) and destabilizing moment (M)
can be recalculated with use of the superposition principle. The values below are
obtained without knowledge of the original stability calculation. The occurring moment
corresponding to the given foundation pressure amounts:
 P  PM ,2 
MK   M ,1  W
 2 
 350  59  1
MK     6  1.00  6.50  1025 kNm
2

 2 

B.3. Verification of operational stability (resistance)

The stability of the quay structure can be calculated with the previously presented
parameters and geometry. The original stability calculations are not available, but the
outcome in 1903 is probably similar to the current outcome, since the identical input
parameters are used.

From all structural elements, only the exact weight of the superstructure is unknown and
therefore estimated to be 135 kN/m1. This is based on the superstructure dimensions
with a service-opening equal to 15% of the cross section. The considered lever arms are
rounded values to +/- 5 centimetres.

Description of Volume Specific Weight per Lever arm Moment

element weight running from mid- (from point
metre quay point (k) k)
Masonry
6.75m3 20 kN/m3 135 kN -0.50 m -67.5 kNm
superstructure;
Concrete
9.60m3 23 kN/m3 221 kN -0.60 m -132.6 kNm
caisson;
Cementitious
17.50m3 20 kN/m3 350 kN -0.85 m -297.5 kNm
compartment fill;
Sand backfill
6.50m3 18 kN/m3 117 kN +2.25 m 263.3 kNm
(dry);
Rubble backfill
30.00m3 22 kN/m3 660 kN +1.60 m 1056.0 kNm
(wet);
Water column
9.00 m3 10.3 kN/m3 93 kN -2.77 m -257.6 kNm
above toe
Total stabilizing effects VR = 1,576 kN MR = 565 kNm
Hydraulic uplift
component 67.30 m3 10.3 kN/m3 -693 kN +0.00 m -0.0 kNm
(rectangular)
Hydraulic uplift
component 3.25 m3 10.3 kN/m3 33.5 kN +1.08 m -36.6 kNm
(triangular)
Effective stabilizing effects VR.eff = 849 kN MR,eff = 529 kNm

98
Based on the weight calculation, the average effective foundation pressure is:

PM  VR / AR  849 / (6.50  1.00)  131 kN/m2

In this case, the allowable moment with foundation pressure over the full width is:

MR,tot  MR,eff  PM  W
1
MR,tot  529  131  1.00  6.502  1,449 kNm
6
The calculated moment found from the foundation pressures in the report remained
below this value. Therefore, the given pressures from the report remain within the limits
of SLS (kern) criteria.

B.4. Verification of representative loads (actions)

For limit state verifications, the wall is assumed to move in such an amount that an
active soil pressure state occurs. The active horizontal earth pressure coefficient can
nowadays be calculated by the formula proposed by Müller-Breslau (1906). The
formulation including wall friction may only be used for the upper half of the caisson,
since the lower failure wedge remains trapped in the heel of the caisson. Therefore,
Rankine’s approach is used for calculating the earth pressure on the lower half of the
caisson (see appendix L).

During the design phase of the first caissons, the Müller-Breslau formula was not yet
presented. Nevertheless, this formula has been derived on basis of the analytical theory
of Coulomb (1776), which was most probably the method for calculating soil pressures
in 1903. Therefore, the outcome in terms of active soil pressures is not expected to
differ significantly. The active soil pressure coefficient can be expressed as:

cos2 (   )
Ka  2
 sin(   )sin(   ) 
cos ( ) 1 
2

 cos(   )cos(   ) 

In which:
Obliqueness of the structure: α = 0°, 3°, 29°
Angle of the ground level: β = 0°
Angle between the resultant force exerted on
the retaining wall and the normal to this wall: δ = 2/3 ϕ
Angle of internal friction of rubble: ϕ = 45°

The sign conventions for the use of the Müller-Breslau formulation are depicted below.
The Ka values for the different conditions are shown on the drawing on the next page.

Active soil
pressure state

Figure B.4. Inclinations and sign convention Müller-Breslau formula

99
Fundamental actions
The characteristic combination is used for irreversible limit states. Characteristic design
situation is:

G
j 1
K,j  QK ,1   0,iQK ,i
i 1

The calculated soil pressure on the back of the wall results in a destabilizing moment of
MS = 1,096 kNm. The horizontal soil thrust amounts Fs = 252 kN. An overview of all
actions is given in table B.1.

Element Remarks and starting points Thrust Lever Moment

[kN] arm [kNm]
[m]
Soil GW = +1.00m CD
pressure Active Rankine zone ½H 252 4.35 1,096
Active Coulomb zone ½H
Live load General cargo: 60 kN/m2 (report) 124 6.00 744
Tidal lag 1/3 of tidal range; ∆H = 0.50m 55 5.40 298
The BS6349-1-2-2015: bollard load for
vessels < 10,000 DWT -> 300 kN
Bollard
12 14.00 168
load With a centre to centre distance of
25m, this results in 300 kN / 25m = 12
kN/m1
Table B.1. Overview of actions

When one designs a foundation according to the Eurocode 7, unless an adequate

drainage system and maintenance plan are ensured, the ground water table should be
taken as the maximum possible level. Nevertheless, the maximum groundwater level is
considered to be equal to CD +1.00m. This water level difference is considered to be
realistic. For instance; according to Furudoi and Katayama (1971)20, the hydrostatic load
generally equals about one-third of the tidal range above the low water level (LWL).
Where the difference is less for cases where the quay-wall is placed on a permeable
bedding and with a coarse granular backfill. The backfill has a natural drainage capacity,
where water can flow through the caisson joints and subsoil.

Combination of actions
For the verification of loads, only one load case is considered. Therefore, this is not a
comprehensive validation according to the code. However, it is sufficient for obtaining
insight in the level of safety of the original caisson. The considered combination of
actions for high water (+0.50m CD) behind the caisson is;

SLS Element Comb. Design thrust Lever arm Destab. moment

factor [kN] [m] [kNm]
Soil pressure 1.00 252 4.35 1,096
Live load 1.00 124 6.00 744
Tidal lag 0.60 33 5.40 178
Mooring load 0.50 6 14.00 84
Total destabilizing effects FS = 415 kN MS = 2,102 kNm

The effective destabilizing SLS moment amounts:

Σ MS = 2,102 kNm

Furudoi, T. and Katayama, T.,1971. “Field Observation of Residual Water Level”

20

Technical Note of PHRI, No. 115, Japan.

100
The representative destabilizing moments, calculated on basis of the BS6349, are
almost twice as large as the calculated serviceability limit state actions in the previous
section (1,025 kNm). And 1.5 times larger than the limiting value in which complete
foundation pressure is present.

A possible explanation for the difference can be found in the large destabilizing
moments caused by the live load and tidal lag. Perhaps, these loads were only partially
included in stability calculations. A remarkable aspect is that the value for only the active
soil pressure is close to the calculated SLS moment (1,025 kNm ↔ 1,096 kNm).

B.5. Serviceability verification

Forward sliding (GEO)
The sliding mechanism would occur in case of insufficient base friction.

 RH   VR  tan( 
VR,eff  849 kN/m1
RH ,soil  415 kN/m1
2 2
   '   45  30
3 3
RV  VR  tan(   849  tan(30)  490 kN/m1

Overall factor of safety:

RV 490 kN/m1
 = 1.20
RH 415 kN/m1

This verification shows that the quay wall is just stable during its service life.

Overturning (EQU)
1
MR,toe  MR,eff  B  VR  529  0.5  6.50  849  3,288 kNm
2
MS  2,102 kNm
Overall factor of savety:
MR,toe 3,288 kNm
  1.55
MS,eff 2,102 kNm

Foundation pressure (GEO)

The sum of moments at the midpoint of the caisson (k) amounts:

Σ (MS – MR) = 2,102 – 529 = 1,573 kNm

The eccentricity of the resultant force amounts:

1 1
ekern  B   6.50  1.08m
6 6
M 1,573 kNm
eS    1.85 m   ekern 
V 849 kN
x  0.5B  e  0.5  6.5  1.85  1.40 m

This implies that the back of the caisson lacks foundation pressure, and that high
foundation pressures would occur on the front side of the structure.

It can be concluded that the original foundation pressure calculations are the result of
low destabilizing effects. Destabilizing actions are small enough when one considers

101
permanent loads only. This could imply that only these loads were included for stability
analysis, or that the permanent loads were predicted to be considerably lower than the
values obtained by applying the Müller-Breslau formulation.

B.6. Ultimate limit state verification

The ultimate limit state is verified with a similar approach as the serviceability
verification. The applied partial factors correspond to the factors provided by the BS-
6349.
ULS Partial Comb. Design thrust Lever arm Desta. moment
Element factor factor [kN] [m] [kNm]
Soil
1.35 1.00 340 4.35 1,479
pressure
Live load 1.50 1.00 186 6.00 1,116
Tidal lag 1.50 0.60 50 5.40 267
Mooring
1.50 0.50 9 14.00 126
load
Total destabilizing effects FS = 585 kN MS = 2,988 kNm

Forward sliding (GEO)

The sliding mechanism would occur in case of insufficient base friction. The maximum
calculated horizontal thrust is used in combination with the lowest water level.

 RH   VR  tan( 
VR,eff  849 kN/m1
RH ,soil  585 kN/m1
2 2
   '   45  30
3 3
RV  VR  tan(   849  tan(30)  490 kN/m1

Overall factor of safety:

RV 490 kN/m1
 = 0.85
RH 585 kN/m1

This verification shows that the quay wall fails before reaching the ultimate limit state
conditions.

Overturning (EQU)
1
MR,toe  MR,eff  B  VR  529  0.5  6.50  849  3,288 kNm
2
MS  2,988 kNm
Overall factor of savety:
MR,toe 3,288 kNm
  1.10
MS,eff 2,988 kNm

Foundation pressure (GEO)

The sum of moments at the midpoint of the caisson (k) amounts:

Σ (MS – MR) = 2,988 – 529 = 2,459 kNm

The eccentricity of the resultant force amounts:

102
 1 1
eULS  B   6.50  2.17m
3 3
M 2,459 kNm
eS    2.90 m   eULS 
V 849 kN

The ULS verification shows that the caisson is just stable for EQU conditions and that
the GEO conditions are not satisfied.

B.7. Required stability adjustments

The caisson would be stable if the width is adjusted to 8.50 metre. This corresponds to
approximately 75% of the caisson height. NB. 0.75 x 11.35 = 8.50.

For simplicity, the same values for destabilizing effects are taken into account. In
practice, these values differ due to the widened heel and thus larger Rankine active
state. Also the live load acts somewhat differently onto the quay. Nevertheless, these
differences are neglected for this analysis.

Description of Volume Specific Weight Lever Moment

element per weight per running arm from (from k)
running metre mid-point
metre (k)
Masonry
6.75 m3 20 kN/m3 135 kN -1.35 m -182.3 kNm
superstructure
3 3
Concrete caisson 10.60 m 23 kN/m 244 kN -1.45 m -353.5 kNm
Cementitious
17.50 m3 20 kN/m3 350 kN -1.70 m -595.0 kNm
compartment fill
Sand backfill
11.40 m3 18 kN/m3 205 kN +2.35 m 482.2 kNm
(dry)
Rubble backfill
47.00 m3 22 kN/m3 1,034 kN +1.85 m 1,913 kNm
(wet)
Water column
14.00 m3 10.3 kN/m3 144 kN -3.80 m -548.0 kNm
above toe
Total stabilizing effects VR = 2,112 kN MR = 716 kNm
Hydraulic uplift
component 88.00 m3 10.3 kN/m3 -906 kN +0.00 m -0.0 kNm
(rectangular)
Hydraulic uplift
component 4.25 m3 10.3 kN/m3 -44 kN 1.40 m -62.3 kNm
(triangular)
Effective stabilizing effects VR.eff = 1,162 kN MR,eff = 655 kNm

103
Forward sliding (GEO)
The sliding mechanism would occur in case of insufficient base friction. The maximum
calculated horizontal thrust is used in combination with the lowest water level.

 RH   VR  tan( 
VR,eff 1,162 kN/m1
RH ,soil  415 kN/m1
2 2
   '   45  30
3 3
RV  VR  tan(   1,162  tan(30)  671 kN/m1

Overall factor of safety:

RV 671 kN/m1
 = 1.60
RH 415 kN/m1

Overturning (EQU)
1
MR,toe  MR,eff  B  VR  655  0.5  8.50  1,162  5,594kNm
2
MS  2,102 kNm
Overall factor of savety:
MR,toe 5,594 kNm
  2.65
MS,eff 2,102 kNm

Foundation pressure (GEO)

The effective moment at the midpoint of the caisson (k) amounts:

Σ (MS – MR) = 2,102 – 655= 1,447 kNm

The eccentricity of the resultant force amounts:

1 1
ekern  B   8.50  1.40m
6 6
M 1,447 kNm
eS    1.25 m
V 1,162 kN
eS  ekern  eccentricity ok
The distance from the toe to the resultant force is:
x  0.5B  e  0.5  8.50  1.25  3.00 m

104
B.8. Structural capacity
The basic principles regarding strength of the caisson will be analysed and roughly
calculated. Note that it is not intended to be comprehensive. The original strength
parameters for the reinforced caisson are listed in the table below.

Material characteristics (1903) Value

Concrete
Concrete compressive strength 15.00 N/mm2
Concrete tensile strength 2.00 N/mm2
Overall safety factor (during transport) 2.00
Design value of concrete compressive strength 7.50 N/mm2
Design value of concrete tensile strength 1.00 N/mm2
Reinforcement
Iron yield strength 250 N/mm2
Bar diameter (lower part of caisson) 1/2” ≈ 12.7mm
Bar spacing (lower part of caisson) 70mm
Concrete cover (estimate) 10mm
Wall properties
Height at critical depth (h) 232 mm
232 – 10 – 6=
Effective depth (d ≈ h – c – 0.5ϕ)
216mm
0.85 x 216 =
Internal lever arm (zu = 0.85 x d)
184mm

Wall thickness
The walls could be designed with a thickness of 150mm at the top and 250mm at the
bottom of the caisson. This limited wall thickness was possible due to the limited
hydrostatic pressure on the top of the caisson.

The schematic load case on the front-wall of the caisson is as follows:

1.65m

7.70m

80kN/m2
2.00m
0.30m

Figure B.5. – Hydrostatic pressure during immersion

The maximum water level difference during immersion would be roughly 7.70 metres.
This would result in a maximum hydraulic pressure on the walls of P = 10.30 x 7.70 ≈ 80
kN/m2. Due to the wall tapering, which varies from 150 to 250mm, the local wall
thickness (hw) at the maximum hydraulic pressure amounts:

105
  2.00 
hw  250    100   232 mm
 11.35 

Bending moment capacity

The bending moments acting on the walls can be calculated with the before mentioned
hydrostatic pressure. The sidewalls have a limited span length at the point with the
highest hydrostatic pressure due to the declined backwall. Therefore, the front- and
back-walls are governing for the design of the caisson.

Considering similar material properties as for the design in 1903; reinforcement steel
with a design yield stress of 250 N/mm2 and the area reinforcement area (As) per
running metre equal to 15 bars Ø12.7mm (≈1900mm2). This amount is equal to a
reinforcement percentage of approximately 0.8%, which is acceptable for concrete
classes of C12/15 (avoiding brittle failure).

The separation walls can be considered as supports for the front- and back-wall of the
caisson, which results in a schematization of a beam on multiple supports. The bending
moment and the wall capacity can roughly be verified as:

ME  MR
ME  1/ 12  q  l 2  1/ 12  80  2.52  42 kNm
MR  As  fyd  zu  1900  250  184 / 106  87 kNm
MR 87
F .o.S    2.08
ME 42
This calculation shows that the desired factor of safety of 2 is satisfied according to
current preliminary design rules. A more exact calculation is not expected to deviate
significantly.

Shear force capacity

There were probably no formulations for shear force capacity of unreinforced concrete
available in time of the design of the first caissons (see also chapter 4). The capacity
estimates were made based on specific strength test for this quay project.

Shear reinforcement in walls is generally undesired due to labour and executional

aspects. The first caissons were also designed without shear reinforcement, and
perhaps it was a governing aspect in determining wall thickness. In order to verify if
shear resistance could be decisive for the design, the capacity is analysed. The
following verification can be made if the concrete caisson would be designed with the
same dimensions as used in 1903, but in accordance with the current Eurocode 2:

 E   R,d,c
The shear force acting on the walls is:
VE  0.5  q  l eff  0.5  80  2.50  100 kN
 E  VE / (d  b )  100 / (216  1000)  0.46 N/mm2
 E   R,d,c

Note: the shear capacity near the supports is actually higher, but not included for this
analysis.

106
The design value for the shear resistance is given by:
 min  0.035  k 3/2  fck 1/2
 R,d,c  CR,d,c  k  (100  1  fck )1/3  k1   cp
In which:
CR,d,c  0.18 /  c  0.18 / 1.5  0.12
200
k  1  1.96
d
A 1900
1  s   0.009
d  b 216  1000
fck  characteristic compressive cylinder strength = 12 N/mm2
k1  0.15
 cp  0.00 N/mm2 (conservative estimate during immersion)
 R,d,c  0.12  1.96  (100  0.009  12)1/3  0.52 N/mm2
 min  0.035  1.963/2  121/2  0.33 N/mm2

The overall factor of safety amounts:

 R,d,c 0.52
F .o.S    1.13
E 0.46

This shows that the shear stress is theoretically just sufficient during the immersion
process. The originally desired factor of safety of 2 is not satisfied without shear
reinforcement.

The value of shear resistance vR,d,c is calculated according to the EN 1992-1-1 eq. 6.2.b.
The formula for determining the characteristic shear resistance is actually based on
higher steel reinforcement grades (B500). Therefore, the estimated capacity deviates
from the actual result, but is seen as a reasonable value. The minimum value of shear
resistance (without reinforcement) is calculated according to equation 6.3N. Both
calculations are based on an effective depth (d) of 216mm and concrete strength class
C12/15.

B.9. Simplified model: floating position

The following calculation is based on rounded values and gives an indication of the
floating position and stability of the empty caisson. The caisson is only considered in
transversal direction for this moment.

Values
Distance to centre of gravity from bottom of caisson: 5.266 m
Caisson weight: 2600 kN
Displaced water: 260 m3
Required buoyancy area for 10 metre long caisson = 260/10 = 26 m2

Equations
1 (eq1): caisson weight = weight displaced water
2 (eq2): horizontal distance of metacentric height = distance of centre of gravity

Model of buoyancy
In order to find the buoyant point, a simplified model is used consisting of one rectangle
and one triangle. The simplified shape of displaced water is shown in the schematic
representation on the next page. Maple output (shown on the next page) gives a total
draught of approximately (1.16 + 2.26) 3.42 m.

107
>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>
>
>

Floating stability
The distance to the metacentric height can be found by approximately:

3.30m

Figure B.6. Schematic floating position of a simplified caisson

1 1
I xx l  b3  10  11.353
BM   12  12  4.7m
Vw Vw 260

108
GM  BM  BG  4.7  1.4  3.3m

In which Ixx is not the exact value since the moment of inertia is has changed due to the
asymmetrical shape of the cross section. The estimated error is acceptable since it is
has only been calculated for preliminary analysis purposes.

Turning
The total weight of the caisson amounts approximately 2600 kN. The total water
displacement amounts approximately 355 m3, which implies a theoretical ballast
capacity of 95 m3. When the compartments are filled with 70m3 water, the centre of
gravity will lower to roughly 3.70 metre. The total water displacement amounts ca. 33
m2/m. The following floating position will be obtained if no water enters the heel.

Figure B.7. Change of the buoyancy point (B) and centre of gravity (G) during
ballasting

B.10. Design considerations in relation to transport

Maximum eccentricity of the centre of gravity (G) amounts 1/6B and 1/6H for a
rectangular floating object with a water displacement (∆) equal to 50%. The caisson will
not tipple over (for hydrostatic conditions) if point G remains within the hatched area.
Based on these conditions, the caisson would directly heel over if the centre of gravity is
positioned outside 1/6B of the cross-section.

Figure B.8. Displacement (∆ =50%) and possible locations of the centre of gravity (G)

109
A similar approach can be followed to determine the possible locations of the centre of
gravity when (for instance) 25% water is displaced. It can be seen that a low relative
weight allows more freedom in possible locations. For this case, the limiting values for G
are equal to 1/3B and 1/3H from the middle. However, these eccentric locations still
cause significant draught increase.

Figure B.9. Displacement (∆ =25%) and possible locations of the centre of gravity (G)

B.11. Significance of horizontal construction (formwork)

A preliminary cost estimate is made in order to quantify the significance of less
formwork. Material use and other aspects are kept equal in order to quantify the relative
difference. The estimations are based on a caisson structure with a height of 11.35
metre and a width of 6.50 metre. The simplified structure consists of 2 walls and 1 floor
in case of vertical execution and 2 floors and 1 wall in case of horizontal execution.

Vertical execution
Prize per Total
Description Amount Total Weight
unit costs
Concrete C35/45 1 104 m 3
€ 150 € 15,600,- 0.18
Reinforcement 150 15,600 kg €1 € 15,600,- 0.18
B500 kg/m3
Formwork slab 1 65 m2 € 20 € 1,300,- 0.02
Formwork walls 2 910 m2 € 15 € 13,650,- 0.16
Preparation 1 65 m2 € 40 € 2,600,- 0.03
formwork slab
Preparation 2 910 m2 € 40 € 36,400,- 0.43
formwork walls
Total: € 85,150,- 1.00

110
And for the horizontal construction method:

Horizontal execution
Prize Total
Description Amount Amount Weight
per unit costs
Concrete C40/45 1 104 m 3
€ 150 € 15,600- 0.20
Reinforcement 150 15,600 €1 € 15,600,- 0.20
B500 kg/m3 kg/m3
Formwork slabs 2 230 m2 € 20 € 4,600,- 0.06
Formwork walls 1 580 m2 € 15 € 8,700,- 0.11
Preparation 2 230 m2 € 40 € 9,200,- 0.12
formwork slabs
Preparation 1 580 m2 € 40 €23,200,- 0.30
formwork walls
Total: € 76,900,- 1.00

By only changing the position of the structure during casting, a cost saving of
approximately € 85,150 – € 76,900 = € 8,250 per running metre quay wall can be
obtained. This could be a significant saving to the overall construction costs. However,
as a direct consequence of the casting position, the caisson needs to be turned before it
can fulfil its purpose. The actual cost savings due to savings in formwork costs are
therefore not directly clarified by this estimate.

The complete structure, combined with construction technologies and labour costs are
therefore considered in chapter 7 and 8 to obtain representative values.

111
C. Durability aspects
Nowadays, it is known that durability of reinforced concrete is not some given
characteristic of the material itself. Many different aspects influence the durability and
life time. Only if the structure is designed and built properly, the desired performance
can be achieved. Durability aspects are perhaps even more important than the
compressive strength, since the majority of problems are associated with degradation,
rather than lack of strength.

Durability of concrete can be defined as; the ability to resist attack from environment in
which it is placed. The attack can be either physical or chemical. Examples of different
attacks are presented in table C.1 below.

Physical attack Chemical attack

Abrasion Sulphates
Impact Chlorides
Ice growth (freeze thaw) Carbon dioxide
Permeation / diffusion Alkalis
Acids
Table C.1. Different forms of attack on a concrete structure

Form the examples of physical attacks, abrasion and (ship) impact are from importance
for quay wall design. On the other hand, chlorides and carbon dioxide are from major
importance when considering chemical attack. These can influence the concrete quality
and induce corrosion of carbon steel reinforcement.

C.1. Historical overview of corrosion protection

The first large reinforced concrete structures have been built in the early twentieth
century. During this period, it was assumed that cement and iron would chemically react
and form iron-silicate. This would develop a passive layer around the reinforcement and
it would prevent corrosion of reinforcement (Verhey, 1912). The passivation was thereby
assumed to be irrespective of porosity or cracking of concrete.

The initial purpose of a concrete cover was thereby only to transfer bond forces. During
this juvenile period of reinforced concrete applications, the possibility of micro crack
formation in existing concrete structures was discussed in relation to durability21, but its
magnitude and significance was still unclear. The discussion on how this could affect the
durability for reinforced concrete structures in marine environments resulted in many
years of research following.

The first Dutch concrete regulation, the Gewapend Beton Voorschriften (GBV 1912)22
was published by the Koninklijk Instituut van Ingenieurs (KIVI) as a “permanent
appendix” of the KIVI yearbook. The recommended concrete cover varied between 10
and 15mm, depending on the geometry. Remarkable is that only one sentence was
assigned to this subject. In the following years, the recommendations by KIVI regarding
the concrete cover became more extensive. This was not directly leading to larger cover
depths; the Dutch KIVI standard 1930 addresses for instance that one has to be
cautious when “very large” cover depths of 50mm in aggressive environments are
applied, because of the risk of cracks due to shrinkage.

The increasing knowledge regarding corrosion protection eventually resulted that the
minimum cover depth has increased drastically over the years. This is due to awareness
that steel reinforcement is not by definition in a passive state if an arbitrary concrete
cover is applied. The severity of chloride ingress and carbonation are strongly
influenced by the cover depth to the steel reinforcement. In the dissertation of Gaal

21
Plasscheart, B. F. (1902), Beknopt practisch leerboek der burgerlijke en waterbouwkundige
22
Gewapend-beton-voorschriften, vastgesteld in de vergadering van 23 maart 1912 van de afdeeling voor
bouw- en waterbouwkunde van het Koninklijk Instituut van Ingenieurs / D. Kruyf

112
(2004), the prescribed concrete cover depths by Dutch standards for wet environments
exposed to chlorides are presented of the last century. Based on his work, a graph is
plotted of prescribed values of cover depths for structural walls and slabs designed for
exposure to marine environments (fig.C.1). The prescribed concrete cover shows a
pronounced increase.

overturning caisson era

Figure C.1. Concrete cover regulations for concrete in marine environments (1900 -2016)

It is not known which cover depths were applied before 1912 (it could even be have
been less than 10mm), since no Dutch concrete design regulations existed. It might be a
coincidence, but a remarkable aspect is that the original overturning caisson was
designed for several projects between 1903 and 1914, which is a typical period that
lacks cover recommendations and durability knowledge.

C.2. Corrosion protection

Protection of steel reinforcement to prevent corrosion is generally done by applying a
proper concrete mixture and a certain concrete cover. In addition to cover depth
requirements, crack width is controlled by limited allowable steel stress levels in the
serviceability limit state, a maximum centre to centre distance and rebar diameter
requirements. If these measures are sufficient, possible existing corrosion on the
reinforcement will not propagate.

Regular (carbon) steel reinforcement, which is embedded in concrete, will thereby not
corrode due to the existence of a protective layer, which passivates the steel in the
strong alkaline conditions of the concrete pore water. Passivity can be destroyed by
several mechanisms. This occurs for example when chlorides penetrate through
concrete and reach steel reinforcement. At this point, corrosion can be initiated.

As a result of the corrosion reaction, rust forms and increases the steel volume by 6 to 7
times. This can generate bursting forces which can exceed the tensile strength of
concrete, resulting in cracking and spalling of the concrete. This eventually leads to
further corrosion and loss of bond between the concrete and steel.

C.3. Protection measures

Measures to protect reinforcement steel are to apply a concrete cover of sufficient
quality (permeability / density), sufficient depth and a minimized crack width. In addition,
also the following measures could be taken to improve the life time and/or reduce the
concrete cover:

- Apply non-metallic reinforcement (e.g. fibre reinforced polymers);

- Apply alloyed steel types with a higher chloride corrosion threshold values
(stainless steel);
- Apply a passive or active protection (cathodic protection);
- Apply coatings to the concrete surface or to the carbon reinforcement;

113
In relation to the design of the overturning caisson, finding a proper concrete mixture
and adjusting the reinforcement for crack width control would not threaten the technical
feasibility. By current techniques, a concrete mixture can be obtained which satisfies
durability requirements in combination with acceptable permeability.

The consequence of an increased concrete cover threatens the feasibility for the self-
floating concrete structure significantly. Namely, the required cover results in a weight
increase and/or reduced strength. These aspects influence the design considerations
drastically.

C.4. Environmental aggressivity

The corrosion rate of steel reinforcement depends on the environmental aggressivity.
Oxygen, water and chlorides (figure C.2.) are majorly responsible for steel corrosion in
marine environments. In cases where steel is passivated by concrete, carbon dioxide
induces deterioration of the concrete cover by the carbonation process. Carbonation
reduces the alkalinity of concrete and could thereby destroy the passive layer which
prevents corrosion. In case of chloride ingress, corrosion can be initiated when a certain
chloride corrosion threshold value has been reached. Both deterioration mechanisms
differ and their combined impact can therefore be larger (e.g. for tidal splash zones).

Carbon steel protected by the concrete cover

reinforcement bar
Oxigen (O2)

Water (H2O)
permeability

Chloride ingress (Cr)

concrete

Degradation by carbon
dioxide (CO2)

Possible corrosion

Figure C.2.Corrosion protection by a concrete cover in marine

environments

C.5. Mechanical abrasion and impact

Berthing manoeuvres of ships, abrasion from steel mooring ropes and sand abrasion
might affect the concrete of the upper part of the quay structure. These aspects result in
additional requirements regarding robustness of quay wall structures. For this (marine)
quay wall design, robustness in relation to maintenance is from importance.

Regarding this, the Eurocode 2 prescribes for instance that concrete abrasion may be
allowed for by increasing the concrete cover which functions as a sacrificial layer. In that
case the minimum cover cmin should be increased by 5, 10 or 15mm, depending on the
severity of abrasion. The corresponding abrasion classes are respectively defined as
XM1, XM2 and XM3. A sacrificial layer might therefore be applied at the upper part of
the quay wall to take possible abrasion into account.

C.6. Concrete cover requirements and recommendations

Within Europe, durability aspects for marine structures are nowadays addressed by
different countries in separate codes, recommendations and guidelines (e.g. the
German EAU 2012, British BS 6349 and Norwegian NS 3473). These documents
prescribe measures which generally go beyond the minimum requirements laid down in
the Eurocode 2 (EN-1992-1-1).

114
 With respect to the design of reinforced concrete structures in marine environments, the
additional requirements and guidelines are desired due to the harmful effects of for
instance; changing water levels, chlorides in waters and soils, ice loadings, ship impacts
and abrasion. Due to the importance of durability requirements to the technical feasibility
of the overturning caisson, the following codes are addressed:

Code / recommendation
European Eurocode 2 - Design of concrete structures
EN 1992-1-1: 2005
Part 1-1 general rules and rules for buildings
German recommendations of the “Committee for
EAU 2012
Waterfront Structures Harbours an Waterways
BS 6349: 2013 British Standard for Maritime Works
Norwegian Standard for concrete structures – Design
NS 3473: 2003
and detailing rules
Table C.1. Addressed codes for the durability analysis

The Eurocode 2 is applicable for all the listed recommendations and standards and can
be seen as basic framework.

Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures

There are two main functions of a concrete cover for quay walls prescribed by the
Eurocode 2. The functions and cover notations are as follows:

1. Structural durability: minimum cover value denoted as cmin,dur;

2. Transfer of bond forces: minimum cover value denoted as cmin,bond;

The concrete cover could also improve fire resistance, but this effect is seemed to be of
negligible influence for quay wall design. Based on the Eurocode 2, a schematized
representation of the decision making process for a decent concrete cover for quay wall
design is depicted below.

concrete nominal
quay wall governing execution
cover concrete
structures aspects tolerances
functions cover

•Protection of steel •Cover for corrosion •Cmin = maximum of •Deviations during •Cnom= Cmin + ΔCdev
against corrosion; protection {Cmin,bond ; Cmin,dur ; execution require
structural durability 10 mm} an additional
theoretical concrete
•Safe transmission of •Cover for •Bond: Cmin,bond = Ø cover: ΔCdev≈ 10mm
bond forces transmission of
bond forces •Marine
•Adequate fire environment: XS2 or
resistance XS3 → cmin,dur

The prescribed minimum durability concrete cover by the Eurocode 2 is presented in

table C.2. This table only specifies the minimum cover in terms of durability
requirements. There are two main factors which influence the value in this case; the
structural class (S1-S6) and exposure class. The recommended class (starting point) is
S4, from which can be deviated when a different design life, concrete strength class,
slab geometry and quality control is used.

115
 Environmental Requirement for cmin,dur [mm]
Exposure Class (EN-1992)
Structur X0 XC1 XC2 / XC4 XD1 / XD2 / XD3 /
al class XC3 XS1 XS2 XS3
S1 10 10 10 15 20 25 30
S2 10 10 15 20 25 30 35
S3 10 10 20 25 30 35 40
S4 10 15 25 30 35 40 45
S5 15 20 30 35 40 45 50
S6 20 25 35 40 45 50 55
Table C.2. Minimum concrete cover for different exposure classes (Eurocode 2)

For quay walls in marine environments, exposure classes XS2 and XS3 are from major
importance. These classes represent environments in which corrosion can be induced
by chlorides from sea water.

Besides dependence on the exposure class, the required concrete cover is also affected
by the structural class (S1 to S6). The code prescribes class S4 as starting point from
which can be deviated when particular design criterion are satisfied. The design criteria,
on which the structural class is dependent, are presented in table 2.2.

Criterion Exposure class

XD3 / XS2 / XS3
Design working life of 100 years S4 +2
Strength class ≥ C45/55 S4 -1
Member with slab geometry S4 -1
(position of reinforcement not affected by
construction process)
Special quality control of the concrete S4 -1
production ensured
Table C.3. Structural classes (Eurocode 2)

The most probable concrete cover requirement (cmin,dur + ∆cdev) for marine structures
with a design life of 50 year, would become 40 +10 = 50mm. For structural elements
which are cyclic wet and dry, the nominal cover should be at least 55mm (based on 50
year design life).

From the table, it can be seen that the structural class could theoretically be reduced to
S1. This is allowed on condition of a design life of 50 years, a strength class ≥C45/55,
slab geometry and special quality control of the concrete production is ensured. This
could theoretically result in a nominal concrete cover of 30 + 10 = 40mm. However, from
research and field practice, such as obtained from Pier Scheveningen (Polder 2005), it
is learnt that such low values results in severe structural damage within 50 years of
service life.

The concrete strength class, mixture and curing affects the durability significantly. This
correlation is for instance assimilated in the Dutch CUR-Leidraad 1. Besides the CUR
guideline, the informative annex E provided by the Eurocode 2, recommends a minimum
concrete strength class of C35/45 for XS2 and XS3 exposure classes. Altogether, the
Eurocode is reserved regarding the concrete cover quality to durability relations.

It is remarkable that these prescribed values for concrete covers are relatively high
compared to the Dutch VBC 1995, which is withdrawn just a couple of years ago (2012).
Based on this norm, a total concrete cover of just 30mm would be allowed for structures
exposed to XS3 and plate geometry.

EAU 2012 – Recommendations of the committee of Waterfront Structures

The EAU 2012 states that, for quay walls, the concrete cover should be larger than that
given in DIN EN 1992-1-1 and at least cmin = 50mm, with a nominal cover cnom = 60mm.
For most conditions, a similar value would be obtained if a quay structure would be

116
designed according to the EN 1992 only, but the EAU 2012 prescribes this value for as
a minimum for all environments, which makes it more stringent in terms of durability
requirements.

The minimum thickness of a caisson front-wall recommended by the EAU 2012 is

300mm. The backwall may be reduced to a minimum thickness of 250mm. An overview
of the recommended wall thicknesses is given in the table below. Besides thicknesses,
the EAU also recommends to adjust shapes of particular members to ensure a durable
design. For instance, concrete walls should have a 5 × 5 cm chamfer along their upper
edges or be correspondingly rounded and/or protected on the water side by steel angles
in the case of transhipment operations.

Member Minimum wall thickness [mm]

Face wall 300

Rear and side walls 250
Internal diaphragm 200
Table C.4. Minimum wall thickness recommended by the EAU 2012

Furthermore, the EAU 2012 prescribes the following exposure classes (figure C.3.) for
concrete maritime structures in sea water environments. Where ship contact is allowed
for in design, an additional concrete cover of at least 5mm is prescribed as sacrificial
concrete cover (XM1).

Figure C.3. Exposure classes for quay walls in marine

environments (EAU 2012:R72-2)

BS 6349 – Maritime works

The BS 6349 - code of practice for marine works - is part of the British Standard. It gives
recommendations for minimum concrete covers depending on design working life,
exposure class, concrete strength, water/cement ratio, minimum cement content and
specific cement restrictions.

A concrete cover (cnom) up to 80mm can be recommended in the most severe

conditions. Similar to the Eurocode 2, a ∆c of 10mm has to be added for normal in situ-
construction. Table C.5 shows recommended concrete cover values on basis of a
design life of 50 years and a tidal splash zone (XS3). The lowest recommended cover
can be obtained in combination with concrete class C40/50, a water/cement ratio of 0.35
and a minimum of 380 kg/m3 cement. Furthermore, the permissible cement
combinations would be CEM III/A/B or CEM II/B-V+SR with specified percentages of fly
ash and blast furnace slag. For increasing concrete covers, the concrete mixture
requirements are more relaxed.

117
The concrete cover recommendations for a structural design life of 100 years are
roughly 15 to 20mm higher, depending on the particular exposure class.

Nominal cover [mm] 45 + ∆c 50 + ∆c 55 + ∆c 60 + ∆c 65 + ∆c

Blast furnace slag: >45% C40/50 C35/45 C32/40 C28/35 C25/30
Fly ash content: >25% 0.35 380 0.45 360 0.50 360 0.55 340 0.55 340
Blast furnace slag: >36% -- C40/50 C35/45 C32/40 C28/35
Fly ash content: >21% 0.35 380 0.40 360 0.45 360 0.50 360
Table C.5. - Limiting values for composition and properties of concrete classes with normal weight
aggregates of 20 mm maximum size exposed XS3 (UK seawater conditions) for a required design
working life of 50 years.

NS 3473 – Concrete design and detailing rules

Norway has a relatively long coast and numerous marine structures on which the
chloride induced failure mechanisms (XS) are from interest. For this reason, many
research and experience for this particular environment has been gathered. The
Norwegian regulations regarding concrete cover requirements are given in the NS 3473:
2003 “Concrete design and detailing rules”. This code prescribes minimum required
concrete covers (cmin) for the exposures classes which are defined by the EN 1992.

Table C.6 presents the requirements for minimum concrete cover for various exposure
classes by the NS 3473. When a structure is designed for a service life of 100 year in
marine environments, the minimal cover would amount 60 to 70mm. On top of this, a
certain value for deviation in execution (∆cdev) has to be accounted for. The standard
value for cover deviation amounts 10mm, which could result in the largest nominal cover
of 80mm.

Exposure 50 year service life 100 year service life

class Reinforcement Reinforcement Reinforcement Reinforcement
slightly sensitive sensitive to slightly sensitive sensitive to
to corrosion corrosion to corrosion corrosion
XC1 15 25 25 35
XC2, XC3, 25 35 35 45
XC4
XS1, XS2, 40 50 50 60
XD1, XD2,
XD3
XS3 50 60 60 70
Table C.6. Minimum concrete cover [mm] with respect to corrosion protection (NS 3473: 2003)

Port designer’s Handbook (Thoresen, 2014)

Among other concrete durability recommendations, the Norwegian engineer and author
Thoresen (2014) recommends that the concrete cover to the reinforcement in maritime
structures should not be less than:

 50mm above the berth slab;

 100mm in the splash zone;
 120mm in the tidal zone;
 100mm in the submerged zone;

It is also stated that a minimum cover thickness (cmin) of 75mm is commonly used for
berth structures in Norway. These concrete cover values are based on a design life of
100 years and recommended for increased security against chloride penetration. The
handbook is thereby cautious on recommendations regarding the cover depth.

The handbook is not a legal document for quay design, but the recommendations
threaten future feasibility of the overturning caisson principle for a design life over 50
years.

118
Handbook of Port and Harbor Engineering (Tsinker, 1997)
From point of structural longevity Tsinker [4] proposes a minimum wall thickness of
300mm for the face walls and base slabs of caissons in marine environments. Concrete
cover is advised to be at least 50mm in splash and atmospheric zones. Also the base
slab should have this value. For other components, such as inner walls, the concrete
cover could be reduced to 30mm, if allowed by recognized codes and / or
recommendations.

Member Minimum wall thickness [mm]

Face wall 300

Rear and side walls 200
Internal diaphragm 150
Base slab 300
Table C.7. Minimum wall thickness for seawater conditions proposed by Tsinker (1997)

C.7. Alternative protection measures

The Eurocode 2 allows a reduction to the durability cover if stainless steel or additional
protection (e.g. coating or cathodic protection) is applied. The code notes that the value
of Δcdur,st and Δcdur,add for use in a country may be found in its National Annex, but the
recommended value, without further specification, is 0 mm.

Stainless steel (SSR) reinforcement

The concrete cover might therefore be reduced for quay wall application, if it is locally
prescribed by the National Annex. For instance, the UK National Annex advises that 0
mm reduction is recommended when stainless steel is applied, unless specialist
literature justifies a certain reduction. Such specialist literature states that the cover for
durability can be relaxed to 30mm where stainless steel is used irrespective of the
concrete quality or exposure condition.

Although the term stainless steel might suggest that corrosion is impossible, the passive
film which ensures corrosion resistance can still be broken down with degradation as
result. The degradation might be negligible, since the passive layer has the ability of re-
passivation in particular environments. However, for environments with relatively high
chloride contents, re-passivation becomes impossible on which corrosion can progress.
This occurs when chloride concentrations becomes higher than the chloride corrosion
threshold value. The threshold value mainly depends on the steel-alloy, alkalinity and
the ambient temperature.

The corrosion initiation threshold for regular carbon steel reinforcement B500 varies
from 0.2% to 2.0% per mass binder. The chloride corrosion threshold for stainless steel
is significantly higher and varies from roughly 1% to 7% per mass binder. In terms of
durability requirements, the concrete cover (cmin,dur) could be reduced significantly. The
governing values for applying a concrete cover become more or less transmission of
bond forces (cmin,bond) and execution tolerances (Δcdev≈ 10mm). Therefore, the total
concrete cover could be reduced to approximately 30 to 40mm.

potential corrosion threshold

Figure C.4. Typical chloride concentration profiles for marine environments (Thoresen 2003)

119
These advantages are certainly not free of charge. In comparison with the unit price of
regular carbon steel, the price of stainless steel reinforcement is about six to ten times
higher (Markeset et al. 2006). Differences are largely depending on bar size and alloy,
which can be clearly seen in the table below (Rostam 2000). Besides negative
economic aspects, the cover depth is not purely depending on durability requirements.
Also the previously discussed mechanical impact and abrasion aspects have to be
taken into consideration when designing a reinforced concrete quay structure in a
marine environment.

Steel reinforcement Relative cost per unit weight

type and quality
Carbon steel B500 1.0
Austenitic 1.4301 / 304 4.5
Austenitic 1.4401 / 316 5.5
Austenitic-Ferritic (Duplex) 1.4462 / 318 5.5 – 6.0
Table C.8. Relative costs of different reinforcement alloys

Fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement

The concrete cover could also be reduced by placing fibre reinforced polymer (FRP)
reinforcement. FRP reinforcement has generally a similar (or greater) tensile capacity
(500 – 900 N/mm2) compared to regular reinforcement steel. On the other hand, the
stiffness is usually lower than that of steel (40.000 – 140.000 N/mm2), the concrete bond
is lower and the material is not ductile23. These differences in mechanical properties
require drastic changes in the design approach. It is therefore uncertain if the
performance of relatively thin walled concrete structures in marine environments can be
improved by applying FRP reinforcement. Besides technical obstacles, the initial
purchase costs of FRP reinforcement are at least 2 – 3 times higher than carbon steel
reinforcement. The relatively high flexible behaviour and higher costs of this material
does not seem to result in a durable solution to obtain a relatively thin walled concrete
structure.

Durability enhancing measures

Other durability enhancing measures, such as coatings, are not likely to result in a
(legally allowed) reduction on the cover. Such measures are more or less an addition to
the standard measures and are prescribed if the risk of reinforcement corrosion is likely
to be extreme.

At this moment, there is still little information available regarding long-term efficiency of
coatings (Thoresen 2014). This, although current experience indicates that the proper
application of surface protective coatings can provide valuable advantages. Besides
lack of experience, protective coating requires regular maintenance throughout the
service life of the structure since there is a probability of de-bonding or peeling off. The
combination of little durability knowledge, higher initial costs and higher maintenance
costs suggest that a protective coating is economically unfeasible at this moment.

23
Although new developments might affect the FRP as a material, it does not have yielding characteristics.
This does not imply brittle behaviour by definition.

120
D. Caisson Design Conditions (2017)
D.1. Introduction
This chapter clarifies the design of a quay wall for a sea harbour in the Gulf of Guinea
(West-coast of Africa). The quay wall shall function as berthing and mooring facility of a
container terminal. The desired quay wall has a length of 1,400 metres and a total
retaining height of 21.00m. The proposed quay wall structure concerns a floated-in
reinforced concrete caisson.

D.2. Local conditions

D.2.1. Construction site
The construction site is situated approximately 10 kilometre from the desired quay wall.
An overview of the locations is given in figure D.1 below.

Construction site

±10 km transport
distance

Figure D.1. Distance and transport route from the construction site to the quay wall

D.2.2. Quay geometry

Top of structure: +4.00m CD
Bottom of structure: -17.00m CD

Total retaining height (H): 21.00m

Minimum caisson height (h): 18.00m

The cross section of the caisson with backfill is schematically presented below. The
superstructure is not indicated and the overall shape might change in order to fulfil
strength and/or stability requirements.

D.2.3. Metocean data

The metocean data regarding tidal variations is presented in the table on the next page.

121
Tides
At the project site, a semi-diurnal M2 tide prevails. The tidal water levels are as follows:

Abbreviation Water level Value

M.H.W.S. Mean High Water Spring +1.50 m
M.H.W.N. Mean High Water Neap +1.20 m
M.L.W.N. Mean Low Water Neap +0.60 m
M.L.W.S. Mean Low Water Spring +0.20 m
NLD National Level Datum +0.585 m
C.D. Chart Datum +0.00 m

D.2.4. Hydraulic conditions

The hydraulic conditions for the project are tabularised below. The high water levels for
different return periods are as follows:

High Water Levels (HWL)

Return period High Water Level Remark
< 1 year 1.60m CD construction level (MHWS + surge)
1 year 2.00m CD
10 years 2.15m CD
50 years 2.15m CD
100 years 2.30m CD design value; expected sea level rise included

The low water levels are as follows:

Low Water Level (LWL)

Return period Low Water Level Remark
(LWL)
100 years 0.00m CD Chart Datum, design low water level
< 1 years 0.20m CD MLWS, operational/construction low water
level

The significant wave height for various return periods are presented in the tale below.

Significant wave height

Return period Hs Application
< 1 year 0.40m During transport and immersion
< 5 year 0.70m During construction
100 years 0.65m Operational, protected by
breakwaters
100 years 1.70m Extreme case, non-operational

D.2.5. Geotechnical conditions

At surface level, a very loose to loose sand layer is found. These layers have low SPT
values, which make the sand liquefiable. Underneath the sand a dense layer of gravel
and cobbles is found. The bedrock starts at a level of -14.40 m CD and consists of
weathered very weak to weak Gneiss. Locally, the rock transitions into weak to medium
strong Gneiss. At -21.00 m CD, weak to medium strong Gneiss is encountered.

The following stratigraphy has been derived from boreholes:

Top of layer
Material
[m CD]
(Very) loose sand -10.30
Dense gravel / cobbles -13.30
Very weak to weak weathered Gneiss -14.40
Weak to medium strong Gneiss -21.00

122
The soil parameters to be used for the quay wall design are given in the table below.

γDry γSat φ C Cu
Material
[kN/m3] [kN/m3] [°] [kPa] [kPa]
Very loose sand 16 16 27 0 -
Loose sand 16 17 28 0 -
Medium dense sand 18 19 30 0 -
Dense gravel / cobbles 19 20 45 0 -
Hard clay 19 19.5 12 70 250
Very weak to weak 19 20 45 0 750
weathered Gneiss
Weak to medium strong 20 21 60 250 20,000
Gneiss
Rock fill 16 20 43 0 -

D.3. Operational Requirements

The quay will provide an operational facility for berthing and mooring for the seagoing
vessels. The structures shall be designed to provide safe berthing and mooring for the
full range of design vessels. A breakwater shall be constructed to minimise downtime
corresponding to weather conditions. The proposed port design must be safe to operate
and maintain. The marine facilities shall comply with all codes and standards listed
under section D.4.

D.3.1. Design life

The design life of the quay wall structure is 50 years. Other components, such as
fenders, bollards and scour protection shall be designed for a design life of 25 years.

D.3.2. Design vessels

The port shall be designed to accommodate a range of types and sizes of vessels. The
largest ships which must be able to moor are Ultra Large Container Vessels (ULCV)
with a weight up to 200,000 DWT and a design draught of 16.00 metres. Other design
vessel types and specifications are listed in the table below.

Classification Early Panamax Post Mid-size Large New

container Panamax New Panamax /
ships Panamax ULCV
LOA [m] 100 230 300 350 367
LBP [m] 90 217 285 334 352
Width [m] 18.00 32.00 43.00 50.00 51.00
Draught [m] 6.50 12.50 14.50 15.00 16.00
Displacement [t] 7,700 60,000 120,000 150,000 200,000

D.3.3. Port layout

The finished top level of the quay at cope line shall be at + 4.00 m CD. The cope level
shall be constant along its entire length of 1,400m. There shall be no vertical or
transverse step in cope line and level between sections of the quay wall.

A Ship to Shore (STS) crane for ultra large container vessels shall be operational at the
waterfront of the terminal. The waterside STS crane rail will be positioned at 3.50 metres
from the cope line. The quay wall shall be designed for two different rail spans; 18.00
metres and 30.50 metres.

The 600 tonnes mobile crane can be placed randomly between 3.5 m to 50.0 m behind
the quay cope line.

123
From the waterfront crane rail up to a distance of 50 metres from the waterfront,
containers and general cargo should be able to be (temporarily) stacked. At a distance
of 50 metres, containers shall be stacked up to 4 high.

D.3.4. Serviceability requirements

During quay operations, a maximum vertical displacement of 5 mm is specified. The
settlements and displacement criteria only apply to the situation after installation of the
crane rails. Settlements which occur prior to the crane rail installation are considered to
be recoverable.

D.4. Regulations and verifications

The following guidelines are used for the design of the quay wall structure:

Code / standard Title

EN 1990 (Eurocode 0) Basis of structural design
EN 1991 (Eurocode 1) Action on structures
EN 1992 (Eurocode 2) Design of concrete structures
EN 1993 (Eurocode 3) Design of steel structures
EN 1997 (Eurocode 7) Geotechnical design
EN 1998 (Eurocode 8)* Design of structures for earthquake resistance
BS 6349-1-1: 2013 Code of practice for planning and design for operations
BS 6349-1-2: 2015 Code of practice for assessment of actions
BS 6349-1-3: 2012 Code of practice for geotechnical design
BS 6349-1-4: 2013 Code of practice for materials
BS 6349 Part 2: 2010 Maritime works –Part 2: Code of practice for the
design of quay walls, jetties and dolphins
BS 6349 Part 4: 2014 Maritime structures — Part 4: Code of practice for
design of fendering and mooring systems
*Earthquake loads are not (yet) considered

The structure is designed following the Limit State Design approach according to the
Eurocode. The Limit states are related to different cases:

 Failure in transient situations (construction or transport);

 Failure during operational conditions, the so called persistent design situations;
 Accidental design situation, which refers to exceptional circumstances;
 Seismic design situations, which concerns conditions in which the structure is
subjected to seismic events;

The relevant design situations and combinations are selected taking into account the
circumstances under which the structure is required to fulfil its function. The considered
load cases are based on a level I reliability method, which implies that different partial
factors shall be applied for different scenarios. There are several design situations which
have to be considered for the caissons.

124
 Bending
STR limit moment
Transient
state
Shear force

Bending
STR limit moment
Actions
state
Shear force

Overturning
EQU limit
Persistent state
Bearing

Deep slip
GEO limit
state
Sliding

Overturning

Figure D.2. Characteristic loads and design situations

D.4.1. Transient design situations

The buoyancy capacity of the concrete caissons shall be sufficient during transport and
the turning phase. The assistance of any floating case or object is undesired. No bed
contact is allowed during the turning operation. Buoyancy loads will include the uplift
due to submergence in sea water considering a seawater density of 1030 kg/m3.

The floated-in-caissons shall have sufficient floating stability during transport without
help of sponsons. The metacentric height (GM) shall be at least 1.00 metre, in order to
guarantee sufficient transverse floating stability. The range of stability in degrees of heel
depends on the geometry of the caisson and self-weight. The downflooding angle must
be at least 10 degrees.

Waves during transport are assumed to be at most 0.40m. Considering a partial

reflection of 50% of the wave, the minimum freeboard would be 0.40 x 1.50 = 0.60m.
The design freeboard is therefore considered to be 1.30 x Hrefl,d ≈ 0.80m.

Floating cranes shall only be used for the assistance of the turning and immersion
operation. This is for obtaining a vertical position and gradual immersion.

The hydrostatic pressure will reach its maximum after the turning process. The actual
pressure peak depends on the water level inside the compartments. The pressure
distribution will be schematized according to the yield line envelope depicted in figure
D.3.

Figure D.3. Pressure distribution of a two way spanning slab (EAU 2012)

125
Pressures induced during the construction and launching phase are considered to be
not governing. It is expected that adjustments can be made in the execution process to
mitigate stresses if this becomes necessary.

0.50m

d*
17.50m

Pw = γw x d*

0.10m

Figure D.4. Pressure on the front wall of the caisson

D.4.2. Persistent design situations

The loads in persistent situations are verified according to the Eurocode 7 (EN-1997),
which addresses the following limit states for gravity based structures:

a) Overturning: rigid foundation (EQU)

b) Forward sliding (GEO)
c) Overturning: soil foundation (GEO)
d) Bearing failure (GEO)
e) Ground failure (GEO)
f) Structural failure (STR)

The loads which are from importance for determining the caisson dimensions and cross-
sections are:

 Caisson self-weight;
 Superstructure self-weight;
 Water pressure (from outside and inside);
 Soil pressure (external);
 Compartment pressure (Janssen silo pressure);
 Wave loads (modelled with the Sainflou approximation);

The soil pressure around the quay shall be influenced by the following loads on / near
the apron:

 Distributed live loads, resulting in additional soil pressure;

 STS crane loads;
 Mobile harbour crane loads;
 Reach stacker and truck loads;
 Foundation pressure;
 Loads induced by an unequal foundation bed;

126
 The considered water level differences are:

Current SLS conditions

 Minimum SLS groundwater = +0.00m CD
 Maximum SLS groundwater = +1.00m CD

SLS conditions after 50 years of sea level rise:

 Minimum SLS groundwater = +0.50m CD
 Maximum SLS groundwater = +1.50m CD

ULS conditions, including 50 years of sea level rise:

 Minimum ULS groundwater = +0.80m CD
 Maximum ULS groundwater = +2.30m CD

The load sensitivity analysis (appendix K) showed that the landside STS-crane loads,
loads from the mobile harbour crane, reach stacker and trucks do not influence overall
stability significantly. These actions are therefore not considered for stability
calculations. The following loads are included for stability verification (GEO and EQU):

 Distributed live loads on top of the quay structure;

 STS-crane loads from the waterside crane track;
 Berthing and mooring loads;
 Hydrostatic water pressure differences;

Load combinations regarding the STS crane track:

 No waterside crane load (decreased downward load);

 Operational waterside crane load (increased destabilizing SLS/ULS comb.);
 Stacked STS crane track load during storm (accidental ULS combination);

STS crane load STS crane load

(waterside) (landside)

stack

15 kN/m2 30 kN/m2 60 kN/m2

bollard load +
STS crane load

deviating water table

granular soil (γ ,φ)

CAISSON

Figure D.5 load overview

For a caisson width of approximately 14 metres, the largest live load (60kN/m2) from the
stack does not influence the stability. The largest live load must only be included for
structures wider than 14 meters.

Loads on top of the caisson and its heel have a favourable effect on the stability and are
therefore not considered for the overturning failure mechanism. The live load of
30.00kN/m2 is positioned behind the heel of the caisson for stability calculations.

127
D.5. Combinations and Factors (BS-6349)
The design loads on the quay wall will be determined in accordance with the Eurocode 0
and 7. In these codes, a distinction has been made between permanent actions
(denoted by G) and variable actions (denoted by Q). A partial factor for safety or
serviceability is denoted by γ and a combination factor is denoted by ψ.

D.5.1. Combinations of actions (SLS)

The serviceability limit state corresponds to conditions beyond which specified service
requirements for the quay structure are no longer met. The Eurocode 0 prescribes that
the partial factors for actions should be taken as 1.0 for serviceability limit states, except
if differently specified in EN 1991 to EN 1999. The following three design situations shall
be considered:

1. Characteristic design situation:

G
j 1
K,j  QK ,1   0,iQK ,i
i 1

The characteristic combination is used for irreversible limit states.

2. Frequent design situation:

G
j 1
K,j   1,1QK ,1   2,iQK ,i
i 1

The frequent combination is used for reversible limit states.

3. Quasi-permanent design situation:

G
j 1
K,j   2,iQK ,i
i 1

The quasi-permanent combination is used for long-term effects and the

appearance of the structure.

D.5.2. Combinations of actions (ULS)

The Ultimate Limit State (ULS) is associated with collapse or with other similar forms of
structural failure. Regarding this state, the following forms of failure shall be verified:

 Loss of static equilibrium of the structure or any part of it considered as a rigid

body (EQU limit state);
 Failure or excessive deformation of the ground (GEO limit state);
 Internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural members
(STR limit state);

The design values of actions shall vary for each limit state and shall be in accordance
with Eurocode 0. For each critical load case, the design values of actions shall be
determined by combining values that are considered to occur simultaneously. The
following three design situations shall be considered:

1. Persistent and transient design situation (fundamental combination):


j 1
G,j  GK,j   Q,1QK ,1    Q,i  0,iQK ,i
i 1

For STR and GEO limit states, the fundamental combination of actions can
alternatively be the less favourable of the two following expressions:


j 1
G,j  GK,j   Q,1 0,1QK ,1    Q,i  0,iQK ,i
i 1

 
j 1
j G,j  GK,j   Q,1QK ,1    Q,i  0,iQK ,i
i 1

128
 Where ξ is a reduction factor for unfavourable permanent actions G and
recommended to be equal to 0.85.

2. Accidental design situation:

G
j 1
K,j  Ad   2,iQK ,i
i 1

In which Ad represents the design value for the accidental action or load.

3. Seismic design situation:

G
j 1
K,j  Aed   2,iQK ,i
i 1

D.5.3. Combination factors

The partial load factors applicable to the considered limit states are as follows:

Partial factor
Action Symbol Description γA γB γC
set A set B set C
G Dead weight 1.05 / 1.35 / 1.00
0.95 0.95
Permanent
Gw Buoyancy / water 1.05 / 1.35 / 1.00
pressure 0.95 0.95
Qm Mooring loads 1.50 1.50 1.30
QB Berthing loads 1.35 1.35 1.35
QS Live loads (general 1.50 1.50 1.15
cargo)
QC,1 STS crane loads 1.35 1.35 1.15
QC,2 Mobile crane loads 1.35 1.35 1.15
Variable QV Vehicle loads (e.g. 1.35 1.35 1.15
reach stackers)
QP Pedestrian loads 1.35 1.35 1.15
QT Temperature loads 1.50 1.50 1.20
Qwi Wind loads 1.50 1.50 1.30
Qwa Wave loads 1.50 1.50 1.30
Qti Tidal lag 1.50 1.50 1.30

The partial factors for set B and set C are used for verifying STR and GEO limit states
only. The partial factors are thereby based on the BS 6349-1-2 and deviate from the
Eurocode 7. These partial factors are only considered for the fundamental load
combination. For accidental and seismic load cases, the partial factors are equal to
1.00.

Similar symbols are used for further calculations. Corresponding subscripts are used
when for instance a pressure (P) is considered caused by a vertical load (Q).

129
The combination factors applicable to the considered limit states are as follows:

Combination factor
Action Symbol Description
ψ0 ψ1 ψ2
G Dead weight - - -
Permanent Gw Buoyancy / water - - -
pressure
Qm Mooring loads 0.50 0.20 0
QB Berthing loads 0.75 0.75 0
QS Live loads (general 0.70 0.50 0.30
cargo)
QC,1 STS crane loads 0.75 0.75 0
QC,2 Mobile crane loads 0.75 0.75 0
Variable QV Vehicles (e.g. reach 0.75 0.75 0
stackers)
QP Pedestrians 0.40 0.40 0
QT Temperature loads 0.60 0.60 0.50
Qwi Wind loads 0.77
Qwa Wave loads 0.60 0.20 0
Qti Tidal lag 0.60 0.20 0

In which:
ψ0 = factor for the combination value of a variable action
ψ1 = factor for the frequent value of a variable action
ψ2 = factor for the quasi permanent value of a variable action

Hence;

Design Variable Limit

Load situation Example
situation actions State
ULS Persistent Normal use /
operational conditions
ULS Transient During construction,
Characteristic ψ0 Qk
transport or repair
SLS Irreversible limit Yield stress
states reinforcement
ULS Accidental Ship impact
ULS Seismic Earthquake
Frequent ψ1 Qk
SLS Reversible limit Crack-width
states
ULS Accidental Ship impact
Quasi
ψ2 Qk ULS Seismic Earthquake loading
permanent
SLS Long-term-effects Crack-width

The main focus of this feasibility study is the characteristic load situations and therefore
combination factor ψ0.

130
D.5.4. Partial factors (EQU)
The partial factors for EQU verification should only be used in combination with the
fundamental combination prescribed by the Eurocode 1990, Eq. 6.10, set A. The partial
material factors for soil parameters applicable to the EQU limit state are as follows:

Soil parameter Symbol Value

Angle of shearing γΦ 1.25
resistance*
Effective cohesion γc’ 1.40

Undrained shear strength γcu 1.40

Weight density γγ 1.00

*factor applied to tan φ

D.5.5. Partial factors (STR and GEO)

For the STR and GEO limit states, prescribed design approach 2 (see EC7: annex B),
will be used for quay design. It shall be verified that a limit state of rupture or excessive
deformation will not occur with the following combination of sets of partial factors:

Combination: A1 “+” M1 “+” R2

In which:
A1: Actions limit state set A1
M1: Material limit state set M1
R2: Resistance limit state set R2
“+”: implies: to be combined with

In this approach, partial factors are applied to actions or to the effects of actions (A1)
and to ground resistances (R2). The material parameters (M1) are kept unfactored (γ
equal to 1.0).

The considered partial factors on actions are based on the BS 6349-1-2. The resistance
factors applicable to the GEO limit states are:

Resistance Symbol Value (set R2)

Bearing γR,v 1.40
Sliding γR,h 1.10

The partial resistance factors applicable to the STR limit states are:

Resistance Symbol Concrete Reinforcement

Persistent and γc,1 / γs,1 1.50 1.15
transient
Accidental γc,2 / γs,2 1.20 1.00
Seismic γc,3 / γs,3 1.50 1.50

131
D.6. Building materials
The structural design of the reinforced concrete caisson will be in accordance to the
Eurocode 2 (EN-1992).

D.6.1. Reinforced concrete

For durability, maintenance and executional aspects, the following requirements of
caisson geometry are specified:

 The total height of the caisson shall be at least 18.00 metres;

 The internal walls have a minimum thickness of 250mm;

These values are not based on structural limit states which have to be considered as
well. This could result in higher values than these minima prescribed in this section.

An assessment has been done to find the characteristics of the materials that will be
used for the quay wall. During this assessment, the right balance between the required
strength, durability, workability and economics has been found. The results and material
characteristics are tabularised below.

Material Grade
Concrete quality C35/45
Concrete weight 25.00 kN/m3
Cement CEM II or CEM III
Cement content 360 kg/m3
Water / cement ratio ≤ 0.45
Reinforcement steel B500B or B500C
Nominal concrete cover 60 mm

The exposure classes of the quay structure are listed below. The nominal concrete
cover shall be at least 60mm, independent of the exposure class.

Exposure classes related to Class designations

environmental conditions in
accordance with EN 206-1
Front of structure above chart datum XM1, XA2, XC4, XS3
Front of structure below chart datum XA2, XC1, XS2
Back of structure above chart datum XA2, XC4, XS3
Back of structure below chart datum XA2, XC1, XS2

D.6.2. Compartment fill

The compartments shall be filled by a granular material such as sand. No cementitious
mixtures are applied in the compartments. It is assumed that the compartment fill has a
dry weight of γDry= 18.00 kN/m3 and a saturated weight of γSat= 20.00 kN/m3. The weight
variation within granular fills is considered to be insignificant, unless it is explicitly
desired during design.

D.6.3. Backfill materials

The material used as backfill can either be reused from dredging works (sand) or it can
especially be procured (rubble stones). The dredged material is therefore much
cheaper, but consists of a lower soil shearing angle. The most economical solution can
be found by considering different designs. The two considered scenarios are:

1. Caisson quay wall in combination with a sand backfill (ϕ = 30°)

2. Caisson quay wall in combination with rubble stones (ϕ = 45°)

132
D.6.4. Overview
Symbol / Value
Design parameters
notation
Geometry
Height H 21.00 m
Depth D 17.00 m
Ground level GL +4.00m CD
Hydraulic
Unit weight sea water γw 10.30 kN/m3
Soil
Unit weight dry granular soil γs,dry 18.00 kN/m3
Unit weight of wet soil γs,wet 20.00 kN/m3
Angle of shearing resistance of sand backfill ϕ (= ϕ’) 30°

Angle of shearing resistance of rubble backfill ϕ (= ϕ’) 45°

Friction angle δ (= 2/3 ϕ) 23° / 30°

Structural
Concrete strength class / grade C35/45
Characteristic compressive strength after 28 35 N/mm2
days
Concrete weight (incl. reinforcement) 25.00 kN/m3
Reinforcement B500B
Reinforcement steel design yield stress fyd = fyk/γs 500/1.15 = 435 N/mm2
Durability and maintenance
Design life 50 years
Nominal concrete cover cnom 60mm
Exposure classes above CD XC4, XS3
Exposure classes below CD XC2, XS2
Dimensions
Thickness compartments 250mm
Thickness walls 500mm
Thickness base slab 600mm
Compartment dimensions (rect. caissons) 3.50 x 3.50m
Compartment dimensions (overt. caissons) 3.50 x 6.50m

133
E. Persistent loads
E.1. Distributed live loads
The distributed live loads apply to all free areas of platform or decks. The structure shall
be designed to resist (at least) the loads which are indicated in the table below.

Location Item Value

In front of waterside crane rail Qs1 15 kN/m2
Quayside operations Qs2 30 kN/m2
Storage area Qs3 60 kN/m2

The prescribed live load of 60 kN/m2 acts on a distance (Lst) of 50.00 metre from the
waterfront. In combination with an internal friction angle of φ = 30 degrees, the live load
of 60 kN/m2 would only be from importance if the caisson width would be larger than:

H
tan( ) 
L  Wc,max
in which:
  30
H  retaining height = 21.00m
L  distance from stack to waterfront = 50.00m
Wc,max  largest caisson width which is not affected by the stack load

H 21.00
Wc,max  L   50.00   13.60m
tan( ) tan(30)

Quay wall structures smaller than 13.60 metre are therefore outside the influence zone
of the largest load. The live load induced by the storage facility is therefore not
considered in further design calculations, on the condition that a soil with relatively large
internal friction angles will be applied (φ ≥ 30°).

The live load Qs1 = 15 kN/m2 in front of the waterside crane rail acts up to 3.50 metre
from the waterfront. The remaining quay structure shall be designed to resist at least the
live load Qs2 = 30 kN/m2.

The horizontal soil pressure induced by distributed loads is calculated with the
active/neutral and fully neutral soil pressure coefficient. In example, the following
pressure would occur on the caisson if a neutral state is considered:

PS,n = Kn x Qv = 0.50 x 30.00 = 15.00 kN/m2

Horizontal thrust due to vertical quay load:

FS,n= PQ,n x H = 15.00 x 21.00 = 315 kN

Acting moments due to vertical quay load:

MS,n = ½ x PQ,n x H2 = 0.5 x 15.00 x 21.002 = 3,308 kNm

The neutral soil pressures originating from live loads are added to the neutral soil
pressures from the backwall. Similarly, an active pressure from live loads is added to the
active soil pressure from the backwall itself. Partial factors are not applied on the neutral
soil pressure state, they are only used in combination with the active state.

134
The pressures from live loads vary with the geometry of the caisson. Live loads are
considered to act from behind the caisson. Due to a heel, the live load acts up to a
certain height of the retaining structure. Actions on a particular distance from the
retaining wall are presented in figure E.1.

Qv= 30kN/m2

Figure. E.1. Live load actions on retaining wall

The following loads per running metre quay wall are obtained from spreadsheets:

Live loads for all caisson designs

Soil pressure Friction Notation Horizontal Notation Destabilizing
state angle thrust moment
Neutral ϕ = 30° Fn,Q,1 315 kN Mn,Q,1 3,308 kNm
Neutral ϕ = 45° Fn,Q,2 183 kN Mn,Q,2 1,918 kNm

Live loads for overturning caissons

Soil pressure Friction Notation Horizontal Notation Destabilizing
state angle thrust moment
Active ϕ = 30° Fa,Q,1 241 kN Ma,Q,1 2,000 kNm
Active ϕ = 45° Fa,Q,2 115 kN Ma,Q,2 794 kNm

Live loads for rectangular caissons

Soil pressure Friction Notation Horizontal Notation Destabilizing
state angle thrust moment
Active ϕ = 30° Fa,Q,1 176 kN Ma,Q,1 1,851 kNm
Active ϕ = 45° Fa,Q,2 89 kN Ma,Q,2 930 kNm

E.2. Tidal water pressures

Design for SLS conditions is based on tidal variation from highest astronomic tide to
lowest astronomic tide, but taking into account tidal lag, drainage issues and the effects
of fresh water flow plus any other known contributors1.

The tidal variations in SLS conditions are assumed to be 1.00 metre. This results in a
maximum pressure difference of (Ptidal,SLS) 10.30 kN/m2. This is equal to a head
difference (Δh) of approximately 2/3 of the tidal range.

 Minimum SLS sea water level = +0.00m CD

 Maximum SLS sea water level = +1.00m CD

135
This value is rather conservative compared to empirical data and numerical calculations.
Field measurements24 showed that the hydrostatic load generally equals about one-third
of the tidal range above the low water level. From numerical calculations based on
Darcy’s model for groundwater flow25, it is obtained that the water level variation behind
a caisson quay structure can be larger than half the tidal difference.

Design for ULS conditions shall be based on extreme water levels on both sides of the
structure, with the astronomic tide level considered as temporary loading and the other
elements as transient loads.

 Extreme ULS low sea water level: +0.80m CD

 Extreme ULS high sea water level: +2.30m CD

The extreme low water level is thereby considered to be higher than chart datum. This is
because the extreme high water level is based on a model in which sea level rise
(+0.50m) and extreme surge (+0.30m) are included.

Groundwater table
The considered groundwater (GW) tables are identical to the extreme water levels at
sea, which are:

 Minimum SLS groundwater = +0.00m CD

 Maximum SLS groundwater = +1.00m CD
 Minimum ULS groundwater = +0.80m CD
 Maximum ULS groundwater = +2.30m CD

These groundwater tables (GW) are considered from behind the backwall and from
within the compartments of the caisson. The soil pressure is considered differently for
each limit state. The maximum water pressure is γw times the water level difference.

Pti,SLS = γw x ∆h = 10.30 x 1.00m = 10.30 kN/m2

Pti,ULS = γw x ∆h = 10.30 x 1.50m = 15.45 kN/m2

The horizontal thrust is approximately:

Fti,SLS ≈ Pw x (depth + groundwater table) = 10.30 x (17.00 + 0.5 x 1.00) = 180 kN
Fti,ULS = Pw x (depth + groundwater table) = 15.50 x (17.00 + 0.5 x 2.30) = 287 kN

The destabilizing moment is:

Mti,SLS = Fw x ½ (depth + groundwater table) = 180 x ½ (17.00 + ⅓ x 1.00) = 1,562 kNm
Mti,ULS = Fw x ½ (depth + groundwater table) = 287 x ½ (17.00 + ⅓ x 2.30) = 2,546 kNm

E.3. Horizontal STS-crane loads

The waterside crane track is positioned at 3.50 metre from the waterfront. Therefore, it
is assumed that the waterside crane track is founded on the superstructure of the quay
wall and transfers its loads through the structure.

The maximum horizontal load exerted by the STS-crane during operational (SLS)
conditions amounts 79.25 kN/m1. The maximum horizontal load exerted by the STS-
crane in stowed ULS conditions amounts 198.50 kN/m1.

The STS-crane load results in a maximum horizontal force perpendicular to the quay of:

FC,1,,SLS = 79.25 kN/m

FC,1,,ULS = 198.50 kN/m

24
Furudoi, T. and Katayama, T.,1971. “Field Observation of Residual Water Level” Technical Note of PHRI,
No. 115, Japan.
25
Internal reference: Westerschelde Container Terminal (2001) Ontwerpbasis Zeekade Concept Caissons

136
The maximum destabilizing moment per running metre quay becomes:

MC,1,SLS = H x FC,SLS = 21.00 x 79.25 = 1,664 kNm

MC,1,ULS = H x FC,ULS = 21.00 x 198.50 = 4,169 kN/m

E.4. Vertical STS-crane loads (line loads)

The design quay STS crane for ultra large container vessels has a weight of 20,000 kN.
The considered maximum wheel and rail loads are as shown in table X. These loads
correspond to 30.00m rail gauges.

Description Item Value

Crane weight Fs1 20,000 kN
Crane jack up load per corner Fs2 7,000 kN
Maximum wheel load Fs3 1,620 kN
Equivalent vertical line load Qc,serv,1 1,100 kN/m
(operational)
Qc,serv,2 1,200 kN/m
(stowed)
Horizontal wheel load perpendicular Qc,serv,Hq 107 kN (normal)
to the rail 268 kN (storm)
Horizontal wheel load parallel to the Qc,serv,Hr 331 kN (normal)
rail 619 kN (storm)

The line loads provided above correspond to the maximum loads on an individual bogie.
When two cranes are considered next to each other the combinations of loads will be
assumed. The wheel configuration of the crane is depicted below.

Figure E.2. STS Crane wheel configuration

The design quay STS crane for ultra large container vessels has a weight of 20,000 kN.
During operation, the crane bogies induce a maximum line load of 1100 kN/m1, in
combination with a horizontal wheel load of 107 kN. The centre to centre distance of the
crane wheels are 1.35 metre. The equivalent horizontal line load therefore amounts: 107
/ 1.35 = 79.25 kN/m1.

During storm conditions, the crane shall be stowed. For this case, the crane bogies
induce a maximum line load of 1,200 kN/m1, in combination with a horizontal load of 268
kN wheel load perpendicular to the quay. The equivalent horizontal line load therefore
amounts: 268 / 1.35 = 198.50 kN/m1. The horizontal wheel loads under storm conditions
are exceptionally high. Therefore these loads under storm conditions are considered as
accidental load case.

The line loads provided above correspond to the maximum loads on an individual bogie.
When two cranes are considered next to each other the combinations of loads will be
assumed. The length of one STS crane bogie amounts approximately 10 metres. If two
bogies are positioned next to each other, the maximum total length amounts
approximately 20 metres.

137
Governing vertical line load
The induced ship-to-shore (STS) crane loads are schematized as line loads along the
quay. The waterside crane rail is supposed to transfer its load directly to the
(super)structure.

The landside crane rail is positioned at a distance of 33.50 metre from the waterside.
The crane can thereby induce stresses on the back-wall of the structure. The landside
STS-crane load results in a horizontal load on the quay wall.

Based on elastic theory, the vertical and horizontal stresses on an arbitrary distance
from the line loads can be calculated with help of the derivation of Flamant (1892). This
derivation is equivalent to the Boussinesq problem from 2 dimensional perspective. The
basic principle is presented in figure E.3.

Figure E.3. Boussinesq 2 demensional stress state

The applied quantity F represents a line load with the dimension of a stress. The earth
stresses at any point can be found by:

2F z 3 2F
 zz   cos3 
 r 4 r
2F x 2 z 2F
 xx   sin2  cos
 r4 r
 xx ( )  sin2  cos

Obviously, the earth pressure acting on the back-wall depends on the position of the
wall in relation to the crane track. Assuming a position of the back-wall on 10 metres
from the waterfront, the remaining distance from the line load would be 23.50 metres.

Especially the horizontal earth pressure is from interest in terms of the design of the soil
retaining element. For this design, the values of r and θ determine the quantity of the
load. The proportionality in relation to θ can be expressed as:

 xx ( )  sin2  cos

Neglecting the effect of radius (r), which could slightly influence the maximum pressure
depth, the maximum value can be obtained by setting the derivative equal to zero:

138
 d
 xx  2sin cos2   sin3   0
d
1 2
sin   cos2 
2
1
tan2   1
2
tan  2
max 60.8
The equivalent triangle dimensions are 1- 2- 3, from which follows;
3 3
r  x   23.50m
2 2

The ship-to-shore crane can exert a significant pressure on the quay wall through the
landside crane rail. The maximum pressure acts at a depth of roughly 23.50 / √2 ≈ 16.6
metres. The maximum pressure depth is equal to +4.00 – 16.60 = -12.60m CD.

Using the maximum SLS load of 1,100 kN/m1, a resultant angle of 60.8 degrees and a
radius (r) of 23.50 x √3/2, the following horizontal soil pressure can be obtained:

2F x 2 z 2F
 xx   sin2  cos
 r4 r
2  1100
 xx  sin2 (60.8)cos(60.8)  9.40 kN/m2
3
  23.50
2

Using the maximum ULS load of 1,200 kN/m1, a resultant angle of 60.8 degrees and a
radius (r) of 23.50 x √3/2, the following horizontal soil pressure can be obtained for ULS
conditions:
2F x 2 z 2F
 xx   sin2  cos
 r4 r
2  1200
 xx  PC,1  sin2 (60.8)cos(60.8)  13.95kN / m2
3
  23.50
2
These pressures occur not over the full depth of the quay. Considering the relatively
small values, these pressures are neglected for overall stability verifications. These
pressures are therefore only taken into account for wall design (STR).

139
E.5. Vertical point loads
Mobile harbour crane loads
The design mobile harbour crane is a LHM600, GHMK 8410 or equivalent. The design
loads for the mobile crane, concerning a LHM600 crane, are presented below. The
standard pad dimensions are 5.50 m x 1.80 m.

Load case Load value

Mobile crane weight 6,000 kN
Maximum axle load 600 kN
Equivalent vertical pad Max. pad load Opposite pad load
load
Out of service crane pad 1,390 kN 1,390 kN
load
Operational load 3,710 kN 465 kN

Reach stacker and truck loads

Various vehicles must be able to operate at any place near the waterfront. The highest
axial loads are:

 The axial load of a reach stacker is at most 1,000 kN per axle (4 wheels).
 The axial load of a truck is at most 195 kN per axle (4 wheels).

The effective wheel pressure of both vehicles are at most 1,100 kN/m2

Governing vertical point loads

The design mobile harbour crane is a 600 tonnes crane. This crane is considered to
induce the governing vertical point loads. The maximum outrigger pad load amounts
3,710 kN and the standard pad dimensions are 5.50 m x 1.80 m. The total crane weight
equals 6,000 kN.

Other vertical loads, for example originating from reach stackers and truck loads, are
significantly smaller. The contact area for these vehicles is also smaller, which can
theoretically result in higher pressures. Nevertheless, these small contact areas are
assumed to be smeared out by an asphalt or other surface layer. The load distribution of
the smaller vehicles is presented in figure E.4.

Figure E.4. – Point load distribution for vehicles at the apron

The mobile harbour crane, is schematized as being a small area load which has the
following load characteristics:

mobile crane max. static pad max. equally

self-weight outrigger dimensions distributed pad
reaction pressure (σ = F/A)
6,000 kN 3,710 kN 5.50 x 1.80m 375 kN/m2

140
The horizontal soil pressure induced by this load is calculated by applying equations
evolved by Boussinesq (1885) and Fadum (1948). The equations are based on a
homogeneous isotropic linear elastic soil and can be used to determine stress
components that act at a point below a surface.

In the worst scenario, the crane is operated with its pads perpendicular to the quay wall
and just next to the quay wall. In case of a caisson, the back-wall would possibly be
subjected to a part of the pad load. The figure below shows points of equal vertical
pressure on a cross-section through the foundation.

B= 5.50m
distributed pad load
P= 375 kN/m2
quay wall

Figure E.5. Pressure bulb

This implies that the largest dimension of the pad, which is 5.50 metre, might induce an
earth pressure on the quay. The pressure can be significant up to a depth of roughly
2.0B, which is equal to 11.00 metres.

The pad load could theoretically induce a vertical soil pressure of approximately 0.3P to
the retaining structure:

 xx  0.2   zz  0.2  375  75 kN/m2

This pressure is conservative since the pad pressure is smeared out through the asphalt
layer. Nevertheless, it indicates the value of a decent superstructure and back-wall.

141
E.6. Loads from ships
Mooring loads
The mooring load applies within the following minimum angular range for mooring lines:

 vertical angle: -30° to +60° relative to the horizontal plane;

 horizontal angle: -90° to +90° relative to the vertical plane;

The spacing between the bollards within a twin set is 3.0m. The centre to centre
distance between twin sets of bollards amounts 25.00 metre. The following loads are
considered for the design:

Load case Mooring load

Operational mooring 2,000 kN
Accidental mooring 2x 1,500 kN

The mooring loads are considered to act at a height of 0.50 metre above the coping
beam. The height relative to the chart datum amounts +4.50 metre.

The mooring load shall be schematized as equally distributed force over the quay
length. This is an ideal situation which might not be realistic. The calculated forces and
moments are therefore only for preliminary design purposes only.

The bollard force results in a maximum horizontal force perpendicular to the quay of:

Fm,SLS = 2,000 kN / 25m = 80 kN/m1

Fm,ULS = 3,000 kN / 25m = 120 kN/m1

Assuming that the mooring lines act on +0.50 metre from ground level. The moment
acting from the bottom of the structure becomes:

Mm,SLS = FB x (21.00 + 0.50) = 1,720 kNm

Mm,ULS = FB x (21.00 + 0.50) = 2,580 kNm

Berthing loads
A fender system will transmit a certain force to the structure. The quantity of the reaction
force depend on fender and ship characteristics. In order to design a quay with
adequate loading capacity to resist typical berthing forces, the structural components
shall be designed in such a way that compression load equal to the bollard force can be
applied at any point.

E.7. Wave loads

The quay wall is situated in a sheltered environment. Therefore, only non-breaking
waves shall be considered. The reflection by non-breaking waves shall be calculated by
the Sainflou approximation for pressures over the height of the wall. The waves are
thereby assumed to act perpendicular to the wall in combination with 100% reflection.
Note that the degree of reflection actually depends on the properties of the reflecting
edges (angle, roughness, porosity, etc.) and the water depth in front of the structure.

A Rayleigh distribution shall be assumed for the local wave spectrum. The design wave
height (Hd) can therefore be determined from the significant wave height Hd ≈ 1.87 Hs.

142
The pressure of non-breaking waves is determined with the following parameters:

The design wave height: Hin ≈ 1.87 Hs

The reflected wave height: Hrefl ≈ 2 Hd
The maximum wave pressure: P1 = (Hin + h0) x γw

Figure E.6. – Sainflou approximation

The pressure at the bottom of the caisson becomes:

  g  Hin   g  Hin
P0  
cosh(k  d ') cosh((2 /L 0 )  d ')
in which:
d '  water depth abve foundation level (17 metre)
k  wave number incoming wave (2 /L 0 )
L0  T g  d  6  9.81 17  77.5m (wave period varies between 6 and 8 seconds)

1030  9.81 1.87  0.65

P0,SLS   5,819 Pa = 5.82 kN/m2
cosh((2 /77.5)  17.00)
1030  9.81 1.87  1.70
P0,ULS   15,219 Pa = 15.22 kN/m2
cosh((2 /77.5)  17.00)

The still water level in front of the caisson will increase by water level h0:
1 1
h0,SLS   k  Hin 2  coth(k  d )   (2 / L0 )  (1.87  0.65)2  coth((2 / L0 )  17.00)  0.13 m
2 2
1 1
h0,ULS   k  Hin 2  coth(k  d )   (2 / L0 )  (1.87  1.70)2  coth((2 / L0 )  17.00)  0.86 m
2 2

The pressure peak from non-breaking waves becomes approximately:

Pwa,SLS = (1.87 x Hs + h0) x γw = (1.87 x 0.65 + 0.13) x 10.30 = 13.86 kN/m2

Pwa,ULS = 1.87 x Hs x γw = (1.87 x 1.70 + 0.86) x 10.30 ≈ 41.60 kN/m2

143
F. Overturning Caisson Design (12.60m)
F.1. Geometry
The geometry of the caisson is depicted below; the upper drawing shows a transverse
cross-section and the lower drawing a horizontal cross-section.

Figure F.1. Cross sections of the overturning caisson (12.60m)

144
F.2. Weight and Centre of Gravity
The total length of caisson is 24.25 metre. The total amount of concrete is 985 m3 and
the corresponding weight amounts 24,628 kN.

Per running metre quay, this is equal to 41 m3 and 1016 kN/m1.

Element Thickness Volume Weight

Frontwall 550mm 223 m3 5,563 kN
Inner walls 250mm 114 m3 2,859 kN
Side walls 500mm 92 m3 2,291 kN
Counterforts 400mm 106 m3 2,646 kN
Back wall (straight) 450mm 94 m3 2,354 kN
Back wall (declined) 500mm 111 m3 2,354 kN
Baseplate 600mm 183 m3 4,583 kN
Buttress 400mm 5 m3 126 kN
Top slab 400mm 31 m3 784 kN
Joints - 26 m3 653 kN

Caisson - 985 m3 24,628 kN

Centre of gravity
Gx = 5.13 metre (horizontal distance from front of structure)
Gy = 7.21 metre (vertical distance from bottom of caisson)

F.3. First floating equilibrium position

The floating position presented below is in equilibrium and satisfies the two major
hydrostatic conditions:

1. Buoyancy: The weight of displaced water (∆c) equals the weight of the
caisson (Wc);
2. Equilibrium: The upward buoyancy force (B) acts on the same vertical axis
as the centre of gravity (G).

It is found that the floating position depicted below is in equilibrium. The corresponding
draught is approximately 9.60 metre. The particular floating position is verified in the
next section.
floating equilibrium position displacement

1
2

4 3

buoyancy point

Figure F.2 Initial floating equilibrium position

145
Floating equilibrium verification
The horizontal distance (x) to the centre of gravity (B) of displaced water can be
calculated by dividing the first moment by the total mass (M):
N

m  x  i i
xB  i 1

In which the static moment is:

N
M  xB    mi  xi 
i 1

And the total mass:

N
M mi 1
i

Since the weight of the displaced water is constant, the horizontal distance to point B
can be calculated by considering the volume of displaced water. Furthermore, the
displacement is almost constant over the length of the caisson, which allows considering
planes of the cross section. Only the displacement of counterforts must be adjusted
since they do not displace the entire longitudinal section.

In order to calculate the position of the buoyancy point, the displaced water is divided
into 4 elements (see figure F.2.). The following properties can be distinguished per
element:

Element Area (A) [mm2] Horizontal (xb) First moment

distance [mm] [mm3]
1 7.59 x 104 1.99 x 104 1.51 x 109
2 6.39 x 107 1.23 x 104 7.84 x 1011
3 6.12 x 106 1.78 x 104 1.09 x 1011
4 2.87 x 107 8.33 x 103 2.39 x 1011
Total: Ac,1 = 9.88 x 107 1.13 x 1012

The weight of displaced (∆c) water amounts:

c,1  c,1  w  98.8m3 / m1 10.30kN/m3  1018 kN/m1

Which shows a minor difference with the calculated weight of the caisson per running
metre. This difference insignificant;

c,1  Wc
1018 kN/m1  1016 kN/m1  0.2%

From the presented table, the distance of the buoyancy point to the reference plane can
be calculated as:

 a  x  i i
1.13  1012
xB,1  i 1
  11,477 mm
Ac 9.88  107

The distance to the buoyancy point (B) is identical to the position of the centre of gravity
(G), when the caisson floats under an angle of approximately 23 degrees. Therefore;

xB,1  xG,1  11,477 mm

The vertical distance of point B relative to the reference plane can be calculated in a
similar way and is found to be:

146
yB,1  1429 mm

And the vertical distance to point G:

yG,1  568 mm

The vertical distance of the centre of gravity (G) is smaller, which implies that a sufficient
metacentric height is required for a stable floating position.

Floating stability: metacentric height

The distance between points B and G is:

BG  y c,1  yG,1  1429  568  861mm

BG  0.86 m

The metacentric height can thereby be found by calculating distance BM:

I yy
BM 
Vw
In which Iyy is the second moment of area of the water plane, which can be calculated
with Steiner’s rule as:

1  1 
I yy    L  H13  A1  a 2     L  H23  A2  a 2 
12  12 
 1 
I yy    24.25  10.833  (24.25  10.83)  (10.83 / 2)2  
12 
1 2
  24.25  8.71  (24.25  8.71)  (8.71/ 2) 
3

12 
I yy  15,609 m4

From which the distance BM can be obtained:

I yy I yy 15,609
BM     6.50 m
Vw c ,1  L 98.8  24.25

The initial metacentric height is:

GM  BM  BG  6.50  0.86  5.60m

In conclusion, sufficient floating stability can be obtained without adjustments to the

caisson.

147
Figure F.3. Floating position, distances to gravity centre and initial metacentric height

F.4. Turning process

The (final) equilibrium position during the turning process can be obtained in a similar
manner as the calculation of the first floating equilibrium position. The following floating
position and properties are verified:

floating equilibrium position displacement

4 3

up to 13.3 m3/m1 water can

be pumped into heel buoyancy point

Figure F.4. Floating equilibrium, displacement and buoyancy point with 13.30m3/m1 water in heel

148
Similar to the initial floating position, the shown displacement model is divided into 4
elements, which are presented in the table below:

Element Area (A) [mm2] Horizontal (xb) First moment

distance [mm] [mm3]
1 1.05 x 105 2.10 x 104 2.20 x 109
2 8.80 x 107 1.22 x 104 1.07 x 1012
3 7.35 x 106 1.78 x 104 1.31 x 1011
4 1.63 x 107 7.75 x 103 1.26 x 1011
Total: Ac,1 = 1.117 x 108 1.33 x 1012

The weight of displaced water (∆c,2) amounts:

c,2  c,2  w  111.7m3 / m1 10.30kN/m3  1,151 kN/m1

Which shows a difference with the calculated weight of the caisson. The difference
between these values is devoted to occupied water in the heel of the caisson.
heel  c,2  c,1
heel  111.7m3 / m1  98.4m3 / m1  13.3m3 / m1

From the presented table, the distance of the buoyancy point to the reference plane can
be calculated as:
N

 a  x 
i i
1.33  1012
xB,2  i 1
  119,210 mm
Ac 1.117  108

The distance to the buoyancy point (B) must be identical to the position of the centre of
gravity (G), when the caisson floats under an angle of approximately 30 degrees.
However, the added water in the heel of the caisson causes the centre of gravity G to
shift. This new point, denoted as G’, can be calculated as follows:

Element Area (A) [mm2] Horizontal (xb) First moment

distance [mm] [mm3]
caisson 9.86 x 107 1.13 x 104 1.11 x 1012
ballast-
1.31 x 107 1.65 x 104 2.17 x 1011
water
Total: Ac,2 = 1.117 x 108 1.33 x 1012

From the presented table, the distance of the gravity centre G’ to the reference plane
can be calculated with the same values as previously:
N

 a  x 
i i
1.33  1012
xB,2  i 1
  119,210 mm
Ac 1.117  108

Therefore;

xB,2  xG,2  119,210 mm

The vertical distance of point B relative to the reference plane can be calculated in a
similar way and is found to be:

yB,2  2540 mm

And the vertical distance to point G’:

yG,2  2131 mm

149
The vertical distance of the centre of gravity (G’) is smaller, which implies that a
sufficient metacentric height is required for a stable floating position.

Floating stability: metacentric height

The distance between points B and G is:

BG  y c,1  yG,1  2540  2131  409mm

BG  0.41 m

The metacentric height can thereby be found by calculating distance BM:

I yy
BM 
Vw
In which Iyy is the second moment of area of the water plane, which can be calculated
with Steiner’s rule as:
1  1 
I yy    L  H13  A1  a 2     L  H23  A2  a 2 
12  12 
1 
I yy    24.25  11.453  (24.25  11.45)  (11.45 / 2)2  
 12 
1 2
  24.25  9.40  (24.25  9.40)  (9.40 / 2) 
3

 12 
I yy  18,780 m4

From which the distance BM can be obtained:

I yy I yy 18,780
BM     6.90 m
Vw c ,1  L 111.7  24.25

The metacentric height is:

GM  BM  BG  6.90  0.41  6.50m

The stability is therefore still sufficient just before the heel scoops water.

13.3 m3/m1 water

pumped into heel

Figure F.5. Floating position, distances to gravity centre and final metacentric height

150
Heel overflow and turning
A different floating position will be obtained when the heels scoops water. At this point, a
similar position is not feasible due to the drastic change of buoyancy.

Turning the caisson involves an unsteady underwater motion of the caisson itself and
unsteady flow around it. Both effects can be taken into account and modelled by adding
mass to the equation of motion. This added weight is to incorporate the effect of
acceleration or deceleration, which requires movement of the surrounding water.
Nevertheless, this requires many assumptions a proper calibration which is out of scope
of this thesis.

120 tonne per caisson ↑

Figure F.6. Change of buoyancy point and turning process

In order to turn the caissons in a controlled manner, a sheerleg or floating crane of at

least 120 tonne is required. Further optimization could result in a reduction of crane
capacity.

F.5. Second floating equilibrium position (without assistance)

This position can be obtained in a similar manner as the calculation of the first floating
equilibrium position. In this case, it is assumed that no crane assistance is provided. In
order to calculate the position of the buoyancy point, the displaced water is divided into
6 elements (see figure F.7.). The following properties can be distinguished per element:

Eleme Area (A) Horizontal (xb) First moment

nt [mm2] distance [mm] [mm3]
1 1.05 x 107 1.08 x 104 1.13 x 1011
2 2.01 x 107 9.98 x 103 2.00 x 1011
3 3.86 x 107 4.97 x 103 1.92 x 1011
4 1.89 x 107 7.51 x 103 1.42 x 1011
5 3.88 x 106 9.15 x 103 3.55 x 1010
6 7.56 x 106 6.01 x 103 4.54 x 1010
Total: Ac = 9.94 x 107 7.28 x 1011

The weight of displaced (∆c) water amounts:

c,3  c,3  w  99.4  10.30  1024 kN/m1

Which shows a minor difference with the calculated weight of the caisson per running
metre. This is considered to be insignificant;

151
c,3  Wc
1024 kN/m1  1016 kN/m1  0.8% difference

From the presented table, the distance of the buoyancy point to the reference plane can
be calculated as:

 a  x 
i i
7.28  1011
xB  i 1
  7,323 mm
Ac 9.94  107

The distance to the buoyancy point (B) is identical to the position of the centre of gravity
(G), when the caisson floats under and angle of approximately 20 degrees.

xB  xG  7,323 mm

The vertical distance of point B relative to the reference plane can be calculated in a
similar way and is found to be:

y B  5,624 mm

and:

yG  4,967 mm

The vertical distance of the centre of gravity (G) is smaller, which implies a stable
equilibrium.

2
3

5
6

Centre of gravity relative to Horizontal distance to Shape of displaced water and

reference planes elements (1-6) buoyancy point relative to
reference planes

Figure F.7. Floating position after turning

152
F.6. Operational stability
The load scheme for kern verification is similar to the drawing below. Note that
horizontal actions are not drawn, but nevertheless included.

Figure F.8. Schematization for operational stability

The load distribution for GEO stability verification is as follows:

Contribution of destabilizing moments for ϕ =

45°
17% Soil actions (ψ0=1.00)

38% Live loads (ψ0=0.70)

17% Tidal pressure (ψ0=0.60)

Mooring loads (ψ0=0.50)

21% 7%
STS crane loads (ψ0=0.75)

153
The verification of actions and safety factors are shown in the tables below:

Overturning verification Situation Verification Factor of

safety*
Kern verification High water SLS - GEO 1.0
+ vertical STS-
crane load
Kern verification High water SLS - GEO 1.2
Resultant force within 1/3 Low water ULS - GEO 1.6
of foundation width
Resultant force within 1/3 High water ULS - GEO 1.5
of foundation width
Equilibrium condition Low water ULS - EQU 1.9
Equilibrium condition High water ULS - EQU 1.6

Sliding verification Situation Verification Factor of

safety*
Forward sliding Low water ULS - GEO 2.1
+ STS load
Forward sliding Low water ULS - GEO 1.7
Forward sliding High water ULS - GEO 1.9
Forward sliding High water ULS - GEO 1.4
+ STS load
Forward sliding High water + STS ULS - GEO 1.8
crane load (storm)
*Factor of safety on top of Eurocode / British Standard requirements. A value of 1.0 is sufficient

154
F.7. Structural design
The caisson concrete elements are designed with a concrete quality C35/45 and a
concrete cover of 60mm. The thickness of each element is determined by considering
shear force since shear reinforcement is undesired. Additionally, the thickness is
determined in view of floating equilibrium positions. An overview of element thickness,
effective depth (estimate) and clear spans is given in the table below.

Element Thickness Effective Clear span for

depth (d) immersion pressure
Front-wall 550mm 482mm 3.50m
Side-wall 500mm 432mm 2.00m - 6.50m
Compartment wall 250mm 182mm 6.50m
Back-wall (straight) 450mm 382mm 3.50m
Back-wall (declined) 500mm 432mm 3.50m
Counterforts 400mm 332mm -
Base-plate 600mm 532mm 2.00m

Furthermore, the next table presents an overview from persistent loads retrieved from
appendix E. These pressures do not all act in the same direction. If the loads act in the
same direction, pressures can also act on a different height. Therefore these pressure
values cannot be combined to obtain one design value. It shows that the values are
considerable, but still lower than the pressure during immersion (see next sections).
Immersion pressures are therefore considered for further calculations.

On top of the immersion pressure, which increases linearly over the water depth, a
pressure of 80 kN/m2 is considered to cope with operational loads near and above chart
datum. This value is determined considering the loads presented the table below.

Pressure on walls Symbol SLS ULS Partial Comb. Design

value value factor factor value
[kN/m2] [kN/m2] γB ψ0 [kN/m2]
Soil pressure PG 68.70 68.70 1.35 - 92.75
neutral, low water
Live load PS 15.00 15.00 1.50 0.50 11.25
Landside crane PC,1 13.95 13.95 1.35 0.75 14.10
track
Mobile harbour PC,2 75.00 75.00 1.35 0.75 75.95
crane
Compartment PJ 21.90 36.90 1.35 1.00 49.80
pressure
Tidal pressure Pti 10.30 15.45 1.50 0.60 13.90
Wave loads Pwa 13.86 41.60 1.50 0.60 37.45

F.7.1. Front wall design

The front-wall is mainly loaded by hydraulic pressure. As can be seen in appendix K, the
soil pressure due to a sand compartment-fill is limited. The hydraulic pressure during
transport, immersion and caused by wave impact and tidal deviations prevail. The
thickness of 550mm is larger than other elements and shall therefore not be a governing
element. The increased thickness allows a more vertical floating position (section F.5.)
and improves durability (appendix C).

As a conservative approach, the maximum bending moments at the top 6.00m of the
caisson is assumed to be:
Mcomp,d   1  PA,tot ,d  leff 2
12
Mcomp,d   1  80.00  3.752  93.75 kNm
12

155
As can be seen in figure F.9, the lower part of the caisson is subjected to at most 170
kN/m2. The maximum bending moment in the front-wall becomes:
Mcomp,d   1  PA,tot ,d  leff 2
12
Mcomp,d   1  170.00  3.752  205 kNm
12

With the effective span of:

l eff  l n  a1  a2  3.50  0.5  0.25  0.5  0.25  3.75m

Reinforcement for respectively the upper and lower part is;

Mcomp,d 93.75  106
As,comp,1    464 mm2 / m1
z  fyd 0.9  516  435
Mcomp,d 205  106
As,comp,1    1015 mm2 / m1
z  fyd 0.9  516  435

The top of the caisson has a reinforcement ratio of 0.09%, which is lower than the
required minimum to prevent brittle failure (>0.17% for C35/45). Therefore, In addition to
the calculated reinforcement, a base mesh of ϕ16-125 (=1608mm2) is assumed for
preventing brittle failure and incorporating unconsidered aspects such as unequal
settlements, shrinkage and crack-width control.

Approximate reinforcement in front-wall: 4 x 1608 mm2 / m1

Reinforcement volume per square metre: 0.0064 m3 / m2

Reinforcement volume per cubic metre concrete:

V / hslab = 0.0064 m3 / 0.55m = 0.012m3

Reinforcement per cubic metre concrete:

W = 0.012m3 x 7850 kg /m3 = 92 kg/m3

F.7.2. Side wall design

Depending on the water level during immersion, the walls shall be loaded to a certain
hydrostatic pressure. There are two locations for which shear capacity has to be
verified:

- At the start of the declination of the back-wall (1/2H);

- At the bottom of the caisson;

The maximum span is present up to halfway the caisson. At this point, the highest
hydrostatic pressure occurs for this span. The bottom of the caisson must be able to
resist the largest overall hydrostatic pressure, but has the shortest wall-span. However,
the width of 3.00m at the bottom part of the caisson is lower than for the back-wall, and
therefore not governing for shear verifications.

The locations of the side-walls are loaded by a pressure of:

P1 = 8.00 x 10.30 kN/m2 = 82.40 kN/m2

P2 = 17.00 x 10.30 kN/m2 = 175.10 kN/m2

156
 1.00m

8.00m

7.50m
82 kN/m2

9.00m

3.00m
175 kN/m2

Figure F.9. Hydrostatic pressure on side wall

A load scheme could be similar to the model on the next page (fig. F.10), where the blue
rectangles represent the equally distributed water pressure. The figure shows a cross-
section and the pressure on the sides of the wall.

82 kN/m2
82 kN/m2

82 kN/m2

82 kN/m2

Figure F.10. Hydrostatic pressure on largest side-wall span

The effective span can be reduced for shear verifications since the load is uniform,
which is stated by the BS-EN1992-1-1 (section 6, ULS, 6.2 Shear):

“(8) For members subject to predominantly uniformly distributed loading the

design shear force need not to be checked at a distance less than d from the
face of the support. Any shear reinforcement required should continue to the
support. In addition it should be verified that the shear at the support does not
exceed VRd,max (see also 6.2.2 (6) and 6.2.3 (8).”

157
Therefore, the effective length over which shear must be verified becomes equal to the
total width, minus the wall thickness and effective depth on both sides:

l shear  ltot  h w ,1  hw ,2  dh,1  dh,2 

l shear  7.50   0.55  0.45  0.49  0.39   5.62 metre

The perimeter within a distance of the effective depth (d) from the supports can be
verified with a higher shear capacity (VRd,max).

 cw  bw  z  1  fcd
VR,d ,max 
cot   tan

 cw  coefficient taking into account the state of stress in compression chord

(= 1.0 for non-pressured structures)
bw  width of section
z  internal lever arm (0.9d)
1  0.60 (for fck  60Mpa)
fcd  design compressive stress = 23.33 Mpa
  21.8  45.0

1.00  1000  0.9  432  0.6  23.33

VR,d ,max   1.88  106 N
2.5  0.4
V 1.88  106
 R,d ,max  R,d ,max  = 4.34 N/mm2
Ac 1000  432

The maximum shear force acting on the wall is:

VE  0.5  q  (ltot  0.5(hw 1  hw 2 )  0.5  82.40  (7.50  0.5(0.55  0.45))  268 kN
 E  VE / (d  b)  268 / (0.432  1.00)  620 kN/m2
 E  0.62 N/mm2
 E   R,d ,max  shear capacity near support OK

Shear verification in accordance with the Eurocode 2:

 E   R,d,c

The shear force acting on the wall:

VE  0.5  q  leff  0.5  82.40  5.62  232 kN
 E  VE / (d  b)  232  103 / (432  1000)  0.54 N/mm2
The design value for the shear resistance is given by:
 R,d,c  CR,d,c  k  (100  1  fck )1/3  k1   cp

158
In which:
CR,d,c  0.18 /  c  0.18 / 1.5  0.12
200 200
k  1  1  1.68
d 432
As
1   0.60%
d b
fck  35 N/mm2
k1  0.15
 cp  0.00 N/mm2 (conservative estimate during immersion)
 R,d,c  0.12  1.68  (100  0.008  35)1/3  0.61 N/mm2
The overall factor of safety amounts:
 R,d,c 0.61
F .o.S    1.13
E 0.54
The factor of safety is rather low. Partial factors are only applied on material properties,
while the loads are un-factored. The withdrawn code of practice BS-6349: Part 6: 1989
(Design of inshore moorings and floating structures) prescribed a partial factor (γFL)
equal to 1.0 for temporary hydrostatic loading during construction and transport.
Nevertheless, this low partial factor is not valid according to the Eurocode.

The actual factor of safety is expected to be higher, a more detailed calculation should
therefore be performed using the actual plate geometry and force distribution. The
compressive force can be included as well, due to the hydrostatic pressure acting on all
sides of the caisson.

Furthermore, it could be reasoned to deviate (to a limited extent) from partial factors
presented by the Eurocode (Table A1.2.B) Design values of actions. A partial factor of
1.35 is given for transient structural loads. However, in case of immersion of the
caissons, there is hardly any risk for loss of human lives. It is expected that a particular
failure only results in an economic loss. Also, the time of loading during immersion is
relatively short. The start of the immersion could therefore be well planned (mitigating
wave and current influences etc.), while the peak loading only occurs for several
minutes. However, this reasoning could result in an applicable partial factor of 1.20,
which is still higher than the calculated value.

F.7.3. Compartment wall / inner-wall design

The inner walls (250mm) are not loaded perpendicularly since the compartments are
equally filled. During immersion and placement, the pressure difference must be limited.
This results in primary load transfer through normal forces. Therefore, a reinforcement
amount of 65 kg/m3 is assumed, which is similar to the front wall.

F.7.4.Backwall design
The back-wall is loaded by horizontal soil- and water- pressure. On the other hand,
compartment pressure reduces the resultant actions on the back-wall during operational
conditions. During operational conditions, an entirely neutral pressure state results in a
soil pressure of approximately 120 kN/m2. This value, combined with hydraulic
pressures and silo pressures, is lower than the considered immersion pressure of 175
kN/m2, depicted in figure F.9. The most critical situation therefore appeared to be the
immersion phase. This situation is analysed for determining wall thickness.

Due to the yield line envelope, such as schematized in figure D.3, the lowest wall-
section shall not be governing. At a distance of half the span (0.5x 3.50m) from the
base-plate, shear forces are also transferred to the bottom slab. This lowers the shear
stress in the wall.

159
Therefore, the considered hydrostatic pressure on a one way spanning wall element
becomes:

P2,wall = (17.00 - 0.60 - 0.50x 3.50) x 10.30 kN/m2 = 151 kN/m2

Shear verification in accordance with the Eurocode 2:

 E,wall ,d   R,d,c

The shear force acting on the wall is:

VE ,wall ,d  0.5  q  l n  0.5  151 (3.50  2 x 0.18)  237 kN
 E ,wall ,d  VE ,wall ,d / (d  b)  237  103 / (432  1000)  0.55 N/mm2
The design value for the shear resistance is given by:
 R,d,c  CR,d,c  k  (100  1  fck )1/3  k1   cp
In which:
CR,d,c  0.18 /  c  0.18 / 1.5  0.12
200 200
k  1  1  1.68
d 432
As
1   0.80%
d b
fck  35 N/mm2
k1  0.15
 cp  0.00 N/mm2 (conservative estimate during immersion)
 R,d,c  0.12  1.68  (100  0.008  35)1/3  0.61 N/mm2
The overall factor of safety amounts:
 R,d,c 0.61
F .o. S    1.11
E 0.55
A similar conclusion holds as for the previously calculated side-walls. The factor of
safety is rather low. The straight part of the back-wall (upper part) is designed with a
thickness of 450mm, while the hydrostatic pressure is almost half the pressure acting on
the lower part of the wall. Therefore, the upper section shall not be governing during
immersion.

160
F.7.5. Counterfort design
The counterforts are subjected to a destabilizing moment. This causes tension in the
outer zone of the counterforts. The lever arm is measured perpendicular from the
counterforts to the front-wall. The front-wall itself is subjected to a compressive force.

Ms

Figure F.11. Counterfort reinforcement

From the presented actions in appendix E, the effective destabilizing moment at the toe
of the caisson is calculated to be:

ME ,d  10,500 kNm/m1

The centre to centre distance of the counterforts amounts 3.75 metre. The counterforts
must be able to transfer the total load of:

ME ,tot,d  3.75 x 10,500 kNm/m1  39,375 kNm / counterfort

Which results in a force of:

FE,tot ,d  39,375 / 9.50  4,145 kN / counterfort

The total reinforcement amounts:

Ftot 4,145 x 103 N

As,count   = 9,528 mm2 / counterfort
fyd 435 N/mm2

20ϕ25 in every counterfort required = 9,817mm2

161
F.7.6. Base-slab design
The base-slab is loaded by hydraulic- and soil pressures. The front-section of the
caisson is loaded with the highest pressure and is therefore critical for the design. Due
to horizontal loads, the slab is loaded in tension. This effect shall however not be
considered for this preliminary analysis. The slab can be schematized as an element
with multiple line-supports (inner walls). Different situations must be considered for the
design of the base-slab:

- Hydraulic pressure during transport;

- Hydraulic pressure during immersion;
- Foundation pressure in operational conditions;

In contrast to the previous wall design, the loads in operational conditions can be
considerably higher than the hydraulic pressure. The following aspects are therefore be
considered:

- Vertical foundation pressure due to self-weight;

- Additional foundation pressure due to destabilizing actions;
- Moment transfer in wall-to-base connection;

The moment transfer in the wall-to-base connections is not considered for this
preliminary study. The other aspects will be further addressed in the following
paragraphs.

Based on figure F.8, a spreadsheet with different loads and combinations is made (in
accordance to appendix D). The spreadsheet provides the following data regarding the
governing design values for ULS foundation pressure:

Hydraulic conditions
Caisson height 18.00 m
Water level in front of quay 17.00 m
Water level behind quay 17.00 m
L-shaped caisson phi= 45 deg
Destabilizing moment 9237 kNm
Caisson specifications
Caisson width 12.60 m
Toe width 1.20 m
Superstructure width 4.25 m
lever Force Moment
Vertical actions
arm [m] [kN] [kNm]
STS crane load 4.70 1100 5170
Q_1 = 15 kN/m2 2.95 52.5 155
Q_2 = 30 kN/m2 5.50 48 264
Superstructure 3.33 255.00 847.88
Dry earth 9.03 386.10 3484.55
Caisson weight (G) 5.13 1016.00 5212.08
Water column above toe 0.60 210.12 126.07
Compartment fill 4.53 1700.00 7706.67
Backfill 9.65 1660.00 16019.00
Hydraulic uplift 6.30 -2206.26 -13899.44

Rv= 4,221 kN 25,086 kNm

Sum of moments (M) 15,849 kNm

Distance x (M / Rv): 3.75 m
Eccentricity of resultant: 2.55 m

162
F.7.6.1. Mean effective foundation pressure
The mean effective foundation pressure can be calculated from the sum of vertical
forces, divided over the total width of the caisson:

Rv 4,221 kN
PF ,mean    335 kN/m2
Bcaisson 12.60 m

F.7.6.2. Foundation pressure due to eccentricity of resultant

The eccentricity (2.55m) is larger than 1/6x the width of the caisson (2.10m). According
to the Eurocode, this is allowed for ultimate limit states. Due to a decreased effective
width, the foundation pressure increases. The effective width (beff) amounts 3x3.75 =
11.25m.

RV

Ms

↓43 kN/m2
1.20m

↓9 kN/m2
0 kN/m2

750 kN/m2 633 kN/m2

1.75m 9.50m

11.25m
Figure F.13. Effective pressure on caisson slab

Considering this, the foundation pressure is calculated by the scheme shown in figure
F.12. The maximum pressure at the toe becomes;
R
PF,max,d = 2  v
3 x
4,221 kN
PF,max,d = 2   750 kN/m2 
3 3.75 m

The compartment walls (and buttresses) are schematized

as line-supports for the bottom-slab. The clear span of the
slab is therefore 3.50 metre and the upward effective
pressure is equal to 750 kN/m2.

On the other hand, the foundation pressure is slightly

reduced by the self-weight of the slab: Figure F.12. Foundation
PG,slab = hslab  ( c - w ) pressure scheme for
large eccentricities
PG,slab = 0.60  (25.00 - 10.30) = 8.82 kN/m2 

163
Foundation pressure (toe)
The resulting pressure under the toe of the caisson becomes:

PF ,toe,d = 750 - 9 = 741 kN/m2 

The toe can conservatively be schematized as a cantilever element (1.20m). This

neglects the possible load transfer to the buttresses, which are designed to extent the
counterforts and compartment-walls (≈3.60m).

Leff
1.20m 0.55m
bending
moment
0.60m reinfrocement

Pmean,toe,d
Pmean,toe,d

Figure F.14. Load scheme and schematization of toe

The effective span is:

leff ,toe  ln  a1

ln = clear distance
a1 = ½ hwall; ½ hslab= 0.5 x 550 =275mm

leff ,toe  1.20  0.28  1.50m

Shear reinforcement (toe)

The mean shear stress on the toe is:

 b  btoe 
PF ,toe,d   eff   PF ,toe,d
Pmean,toe,d   beff 
2
 11.25  1.50 
750    750
 11.25  750  650
Pmean,toe,d    700 kN/m2 
2 2

The shear stress on the intersection of the wall-to-base is:

VF ,toe,d  Pmean,toe,d  leff ,toe  700 kN/m2  1.50 m = 1050 kN/m1

 F ,toe,d  VF ,toe,d / (d  b)  1050  103 / (532  1000)  1.97 N/mm2

This is higher than the shear capacity without shear reinforcement (see for instance fig.
J.2.). Similar as for the side walls, the maximum shear stress for a section including
vertical shear reinforcement can be calculated as;

cw  bw  z  1  fcd
VR,d ,max 
cot   tan
1.00  1000  0.9  532  0.6  23.33
VR,d ,max   2.31 106 N
2.5  0.4
V 2.31 106
 R,d ,max  R,d ,max  = 4.34 N/mm2
Ac 1000  532

164
 Asw
VRd ,s   z  fywd  cot 
s
Asw VF ,toe,d 1050  103
 
s z  fywd  cot  0.9  532  0.8  500  2.5
Asw
 2.19 mm2 / mm1
s
Asw  2190 mm2 / m

This is an equivalent of 2ϕ16-180 (=2234mm2). Although shear reinforcement in slabs is

generally labour intensive, it is applied locally.

Bending moment reinforcement (toe)

Since shear reinforcement ϕ16 is applied in the toe, the effective depth (d) becomes
smaller than previously assumed. For further calculations, the effective depth is reduced
to:

d = hslab - c – ϕV – 1/2 ϕM = 600 – 60 – 16 – 8 = 516mm

The bending moment of the cantilever slab (toe):

Mtoe,d  0.5  Pmean,toe.d  l eff ,toe 2
Mtoe,d  0.5  700  1.502  788 kNm /m1

The required reinforcement:

Mtoe,d 788  106
As,toe,d    3898 mm2 / m1
z  fyd 0.9  516  435

This is an equivalent of ϕ20-80 (3927mm2/m1).

Reinforcement estimate (toe)

The amount of reinforcement in the front of the bottom-slab is estimated on the previous
preliminary reinforcement calculations. In addition to the calculated reinforcement, a
base mesh of ϕ16-125 (=1608mm2) is assumed for unequal settlements, crack-width
control and other unconsidered aspects.

Shear reinforcement: 2234 mm2 / m1

Bending moment reinforcement: 3927 mm2 / m1
Lower longitudinal reinforcement: 1608 mm2 / m1
Upper transverse reinforcement: 1608 mm2 / m1
Upper longitudinal reinforcement: 1608 mm2 / m1

Approximate total reinforcement in slab: 10,985 mm2 / m1

Reinforcement volume per metre: 0.011 m3

Reinforcement volume per cubic metre concrete:

V / hslab = 0.011 m3/m1 / 0.60m = 0.018m3

Weight of reinforcement per cubic metre concrete (toe):

W = 0.018m3 x 7850 kg /m3 = 144 kg/m3

165
Foundation pressure (below compartments)
The pressure below compartments is determined according to the same triangular
pressure distribution over the width of the caisson (fig. F13). Furthermore, compartment
pressure can be subtracted, as derived in appendix K, the vertical soil pressure can be
calculated as:
 z ( z )  z0  s (1- e - z / z )
0

z0  4.40 m
 's  20.00  10.30  9.70 kN/m
2

z  17.40 m
 z ( z )  z0  s (1- e - z / z )  z0  s
0

 z ( z )  4.40  9.70  43 kN/m2

hence;
PJ,eff = 43 kN/m2 

This calculated value, according to the Janssen theory is conservative. A detailed

analysis might result in higher counteracting pressures. Nevertheless, a downward
pressure of at least 9 + 43 = 52 kN/m2 can be subtracted from the effective foundation
pressure. The resulting pressure becomes:
 9.50 
PF ,tot,d =   750  - 9 - 43 = 581 kN/m2 
 11.25 

Bending moment reinforcement (below compartments)

The free spans of the bottom-slab are 2.00 metre x 3.50 metre. In which 2.00 metre
corresponds to the distance between the front- and back-wall, and 3.50 metre
represents the distance between separation walls.

The effective span of this section is:

leff ,x  l n  a1  a2  2.00  0.5  0.55  0.5  0.50  2.53m

leff ,y  l n  a1  a2  3.50  0.5  0.25  0.5  0.25  3.75m

ly / lx = 3.75m / 2.53 = 1.50

The slab section is considered as a clamped element on all sides. Therefore, positive
and negative bending moments occur in directions x and y. As a conservative approach,
the maximum bending moments in all directions is assumed to be:

Mcomp,d  1/ 12  PF ,tot ,d  l x 2

Mcomp,d   1/ 12  581 2.532  310 kNm
Mcomp,d 310  106
As,comp,M    1534 mm2 / m1
z  fyd 0.9  516  435
Apply from front-wall to back-wall; ϕ16-125 (=1608mm2).

166
Shear reinforcement (below compartments)
Conservatively, the shear stress can be calculated as:
Vcomp,d  1/ 2  PF ,tot ,d  l x
Vcomp,d  1/ 2  581 2.53  735 kN/m1
 comp,d  Vcomp,d / (d  b)  735  103 / (516  1000)  1.42 N/mm2

This is higher than the shear capacity without shear reinforcement (see for instance fig.
J.2.). Similar as for the side walls, the maximum shear stress for a section including
vertical shear reinforcement can be calculated as;

Asw VF ,comp,d 735  103

 
s z  fywd  cot  0.9  532  0.8  500  2.5
Asw
 1.54 mm2 / mm1
s
Asw  1535 mm2 / m

Apply from front-wall to back-wall; 2ϕ16-250 (=1608mm2).

Reinforcement estimate (below compartments)

The amount of reinforcement in the front of the bottom-slab is estimated on the previous
preliminary reinforcement calculations. In addition to the calculated reinforcement, a
base mesh of ϕ16-125 (=1608mm2) is assumed for unequal settlements, crack-width
control and other unconsidered aspects.

Shear reinforcement: 1608 mm2 / m1

Lower transverse reinforcement: 1608 mm2 / m1
Lower longitudinal reinforcement: 1608 mm2 / m1
Upper transverse reinforcement: 1608 mm2 / m1
Upper longitudinal reinforcement: 1608 mm2 / m1

Approximate total reinforcement in slab: 8040 mm2 / m1

Reinforcement volume per metre: 0.008 m3

Reinforcement volume per cubic metre concrete:

V / hslab = 0.008 m3/m1 / 0.60m = 0.013m3

Weight of reinforcement per cubic metre concrete:

W = 0.013m3 x 7850 kg /m3 = 105 kg/m3

Foundation pressure and reinforcement (heel)

In ULS situations, the back of the base-slab lacks upward pressure. On the other hand,
a downward soil pressure is present (fig. F15.). The downward soil pressure is
approximately equal to the height of the soil column above the heel and an added live
load:
Pback ,d   B dwet   's  ddry   s    BQS
Pback ,d  1.35  17.00  10.00  4.00  20.00  1.50  30.00  383 kN/m2

Mheel,d  1/ 12  PF ,tot ,d  leff 2

Mheel ,d   1/ 12  383  3.902  485 kNm
Mcomp,d 485  106
As,comp,M    2401 mm2 / m1
z  fyd 0.9  516  435

Apply in heel slab; ϕ20-125 (=2513mm2).

167
And shear reinforcement:
Vheel,d  1/ 2  Pback,d  leff
Vheel,d  1/ 2  383  3.90  747 kN/m1
 heel ,d  Vheel,d / (d  b)  747  103 / (516  1000)  1.45 N/mm2

Similar stress as found below compartments; apply from front-wall to back-wall; 2ϕ16-
250 (=1608mm2).

Reinforcement estimate (heel-slab)

The amount of reinforcement in the heel of the bottom-slab is estimated on the previous
preliminary reinforcement calculations. In addition to the calculated reinforcement, a
base mesh of 0.19% is assumed for unequal settlements, crack-width control and other
unconsidered aspects.

Shear reinforcement: 1608 mm2 / m1

Lower transverse reinforcement: 1608 mm2 / m1
Lower longitudinal reinforcement: 2513 mm2 / m1
Upper transverse reinforcement: 1608 mm2 / m1
Upper longitudinal reinforcement: 1608 mm2 / m1

Approximate total reinforcement in slab: 8945 mm2 / m1

Reinforcement volume per metre: 0.009 m3

Reinforcement volume per cubic metre concrete:

V / hslab = 0.009 m3/m1 / 0.60m = 0.015m3

Weight of reinforcement per cubic metre concrete:

W = 0.015m3 x 7850 kg /m3 = 117 kg/m3

RV

Ms

counterforts:
3.50m centre to centre

↓383 kN/m2
↓383 kN/m2

0 kN/m2
2 3.50m
750 kN/m
Longitudinal direction
11.25m

Figure F.15. Effective pressure on caisson slab and downward soil pressure

168
Estimate of reinforcement in elements
Based on the previous reinforcement calculations, the structural elements are roughly
divided into high reinforced sections (120kg/m3) and low reinforced sections (92kg/m3).
This is not a lean quantitative estimate since more detailed calculations will increase the
amount of steel. Aspects such as, crack-width control, unequal settlements, thermal
shrinkage, auxiliary reinforcement shall reasonably result in an increase of steel use.

Based on these aspects, the following estimate is made for the amount of reinforcement
required for one caisson:

Element Reinforcement Concrete Reinforcement

B500 volume amount
[kg/m3] [m3] [kg]
Front-wall 92 223 20,500
Side- and compartment- 92 206 18,950
walls
Back-wall (top) 92 94 8,650
Back-wall (declined) 92 111 10,200
Counterforts 120 106 12,700
Bottom-slab 120 183 22,000
Additional parts (joints, 120 62 7,400
buttress, etc.)
Total caisson - 985 m3 100,420 kg

169
G. Rectangular Caisson Design (12.60m)
G.1. Geometry
The geometry of the rectangular caisson is depicted below; the upper drawing
represents a transverse cross-section and the lower drawing a horizontal cross-section.

Figure G.1. Cross-sections of the rectangular caisson (12.60m)

170
G.2. Weight and Centre of Gravity
The total length of caisson is 24.25 metre. The total amount of concrete is 1,166 m3 and
the corresponding weight amounts 29,150 kN.

Per running metre quay, this is equal to a volume of 48 m3/m1 and 1,202 kN/m1.

Element Thickness Volume Weight

Frontwall 500mm 194 m3 4850 kN
Backwall 500mm 194 m3 4850 kN
Side walls 500mm 198 m3 4950 kN
Inner walls 250mm 366 m3 9150 kN
Baseplate 600mm 183 m3 4575 kN
Buttress 500mm 5 m3 125 kN
Joints - 26 m3 650 kN

Caisson - 1166m3 29,150 kN

Centre of gravity
Gx = 6.80 metre (horizontal distance from front of structure)
Gy = 7.90 metre (vertical distance from bottom caisson = KG)

Note that these values are slightly off centre due to the toe structure which extends the
bottom plate. Ballast water can be applied in order to obtain a straight floating position.

G.3. Floating equilibrium position

The draught of the caisson is approximately:

Wc 29,150
d   10.70 m
w  Ac 10.30  (23.25 * 11.40)

The distance from the bottom of the caisson (K) to the buoyancy centre is
approximately:

KB  d / 2  5.35 m

The distance between points B and G is:

BG  KG  KB
BG  7.90  5.35  2.55 m

The metacentric height can be found by calculating distance BM:

I yy 1  L  B3 1  L  B3
BM   12
 12
Vw slab  comp slab   (d dslab )  (Lcomp  Bcomp )
1  24.25  12.60 3

 12
 1.40 m
183  (10.70  0.60)  (23.25  11.40)

hmetacentre  BM  BG  1.40  2.55  1.15 m  negative metacentric height

The metacentric height must be at least 0.50 metre to provide sufficient floating stability.
There are two obvious measures which can be taken;

1. Width increase, which results in a larger area moment of inertia;

2. Weight increase, adding ballast water into the compartments or a different
(floor) design. This weight increase will result in a decrease of distance BG.

171
Option 2 seems to be the most economical solution to increase floating stability.
However, this option could be restricted in practice due to local constrains. The following
calculation is including 500 m3 ballast water in the 14 compartments (3.50 x 3.30m2).
The largest middle compartment (14.75 x 3.30m2) is kept empty in order to reduce the
free surface effect of ballast water. This corresponds to an internal water level of
approximately 2.80m.

Including ballast, the new distance from the bottom of the caisson (K) to its centre of
gravity (G) becomes:

KG  7.00 m

The draught (d) would increase to approximately:

Wc  Wballast 29,150  (500  10.30)

d   12.60 m
w  Ac 10.30  (23.25 * 11.40)

The distance to the buoyancy centre amounts:

KB  d / 2  6.30m

The distance from the buoyancy point (B) to the metacentre (M) can be found by:
I yy
BM 
Vw
I yy 1  L  B3 1  L  B3
BM   12
 12
Vw slab  comp slab   (d dslab )  (Lcomp  Bcomp )
1  24.25  12.60 3

 12
 1.20 m
183  (12.60  0.60)  (23.25  11.40)
The metacentric height becomes:

hmetacentre  KB  BM  KG  6.30  1.20  7.00  0.50 m  sufficient height

At this point, no free surface effect has been considered for calculating the metacentric
height. Unfortunately, free water in the compartments has a destabilising effect on the
stability of the caisson. This can simply be explained by the additional shift of the centre
of gravity of ballast water when the caisson turns. This shifts results in an additional
moment which amplifies the rotation.

The unfavourable influence of ballast water on stability can be incorporated by

subtracting the area moment of inertia of compartment water from the original moment
of inertia:

Istab  Icaisson   Icomp,i

Therefore, the shift of the centre of gravity (G), due to the free surface effect can be
calculated as:
Icomp  Icomp,i ncomp 121  l comp  bcomp3 
GG '   
Vwater Vwater slab   (d dslab )  (Lcomp  Bcomp )


14  1
12
 3.50  3.303   0.04 m
183  (12.60  0.60)  (23.25  11.40)
The free surface effect reduces the metacentric height slightly. The new height becomes
0.46m, which is slightly below the desired minimum of 0.50m.

172
In overview, the following cross section can be drawn from the calculation results:

water level

mean internal draught (d) =

water level 12.60 m
ballast
water

Figure G.2. Floating position of caisson with ballast water

173
G.4. Operational stability
The verification of actions and safety factors are shown in the tables below:

Overturning verification Situation Verification Factor of

safety*
Kern verification High water SLS - GEO 1.5
+ vertical STS-
crane load
Kern verification High water SLS - GEO 2.0
Resultant force within 1/3 Low water ULS - GEO 2.4
of foundation width
Resultant force within 1/3 High water ULS - GEO 2.2
of foundation width
Equilibrium condition Low water ULS - EQU 2.8
Equilibrium condition High water ULS - EQU 2.4

Sliding verification Situation Verification Factor of

safety*
Forward sliding Low water ULS - GEO 2.5
+ STS load
Forward sliding Low water ULS - GEO 2.0
Forward sliding High water ULS - GEO 2.2
Forward sliding High water ULS - GEO 1.8
+ STS load
Forward sliding High water + STS ULS - GEO 2.2
crane load (storm)
*Factor of safety on top of Eurocode / British Standard requirements. A value of 1.0 is sufficient

174
H. Overturning Caisson Design (15.65m)
H.1. Geometry
The geometry of the overturning caisson, designed for a sand backfill, is depicted below;
the upper drawing represents a transverse cross-section and the lower drawing a
horizontal cross-section.

Figure H.1. Cross-sections of the overturning caisson (15.65m)

175
H.2. Weight and Centre of Gravity
The total length of caisson is 24.25 metre. The total amount of concrete is 985 m3 and
the corresponding weight amounts 24,628 kN.

Per running metre quay, this is equal to 41 m3 and 1016 kN/m1.

Element Thickness Volume Weight

Frontwall 550mm 223 m3 5,563 kN
Inner walls - 250mm 92 m3 2,859 kN
longitudinal
Inner walls – 250mm 101 m3 2,520 kN
transverse
Side walls 500mm 135 m3 3360 kN
Counterforts 400mm 55 m3 1,385 kN
Back wall (straight) 500mm 102 m3 2,547 kN
Back wall (declined) 500mm 121 m3 3,037 kN
Baseplate 600mm 218 m3 5,458 kN
Buttress 500mm 14 m3 350 kN
Top slab 400mm 28 m3 698 kN
Joints - 26 m3 653 kN
1,115 m3 27,880 kN
Caisson -

Centre of gravity
Gx = 6.45 metre (horizontal distance from front of structure)
Gy = 7.21 metre (vertical distance from bottom of caisson)

H.3. Floating equilibrium position

The draught of the wide overturning caisson amounts approximately 11.40m (fig. H2).

Figure H.2. Initial floating equilibrium position

176
H.4. Turning process
A vertical position can be obtained with approximately 9 m3/m1 ballast water in the front
compartment. This situation is shown in figure H.3 below.

Figure H.3. Floating positon after turning (second equilibrium position)

The displaced water after turning is shown in H.4. Here, the counterforts are also
responsible for a part of the displacement. The hatched (blue) area contributes over the
full length of the caisson.

Figure H.4. Displacement after turning (second equilibrium position)

The position after turning deviates more than 30 degrees from vertical. This can be
compensated by ballast water, or the caisson can be (partially) lifted by a floating crane.

177
The metacentric height becomes approximately:

I yy 1  L  B3 1  24.35  10.3883
BM   12
 12
 0.85 m
Vw Vw 2,683 m3

H.5. Operational stability

The load distribution for GEO stability verification is as follows:

Contribution of destabilizing moments

for ϕ = 30°
11%
Soil actions (ψ0=1.00)
12%
Live loads (ψ0=0.70)

14% 51% Tidal pressure (ψ0=0.60)

Mooring loads (ψ0=0.50)
12%
STS crane loads (ψ0=0.75)

The verification of actions and safety factors are shown in the tables below:

Overturning verification Situation Verification Factor of

safety*
Kern verification High water + SLS - GEO 1.1
vertical STS-crane
load
Kern verification excl. High water SLS - GEO 1.3
vertical STS-crane load
Resultant force within 1/3 Low water ULS - GEO 1.8
of foundation width
Resultant force within 1/3 High water ULS - GEO 1.6
of foundation width
Equilibrium condition Low water ULS - EQU 1.9
Equilibrium condition High water ULS - EQU 1.8

Sliding verification Situation Verification Factor of

safety*
Forward sliding Low water + STS ULS - GEO 1.4
load
Forward sliding Low water ULS - GEO 1.1
Forward sliding High water + STS ULS - GEO 1.3
load
Forward sliding High water ULS - GEO 1.0
Forward sliding High water + STS ULS - GEO 1.2
crane load (storm)
*Factor of safety on top of Eurocode / British Standard requirements. A value of 1.0 is sufficient

178
I. Rectangular Caisson Design (15.65m)
I.1. Geometry
The geometry of the rectangular caisson, designed for a sand backfill is depicted below;
the upper drawing represents a transverse cross-section and the lower drawing a
horizontal cross-section.

Figure I.1. Cross-sections of the rectangular caisson (15.65m)

179
I.2. Weight and Centre of Gravity
The total length of caisson is 24.35 metre. The total amount of concrete is 1,275 m3 and
the corresponding weight amounts 31,883 kN.

Per running metre quay, this is equal to a concrete volume of 52 m3/m1 and a weight of
1,309 kN/m1.

Element Thickness Volume Weight

Frontwall 500mm 204 m3 5100 kN
Backwall 500mm 204 m3 5,100 kN
Side walls 550mm 216 m3 5,407 kN
Inner walls 250mm 382 m3 9,559 kN
Baseplate 600mm 229 m3 5,716 kN
Buttress 300mm 14 m3 350 kN
Joints - 26 m3 650 kN

Caisson - 1275m3 31,883 kN

Centre of gravity
Gx = 7.98 metre (horizontal distance from front of structure)
Gy = 7.46 metre (vertical distance from bottom caisson, denoted as KG)

Note that these values are slightly off centre due to the toe structure which extends the
bottom plate. Ballast water can be applied in order to obtain a straight floating position.

I.3. Floating equilibrium position

The draught of the caisson is approximately:

Wc  w  Ac  d1  w  Aslab  dslab
Wc  w  Aslab  dslab  31,883  10.30  24.35  15.65  0.60
d1    10.02 m
w  Ac  10.30  23.25  12.30
d  d1  dslab  10.02  0.60  10.62m

The distance from the bottom of the caisson (k) to the buoyancy centre is approximately:

KB  d / 2  10.62 / 2  5.31 m

The distance between points B and G is:

BG  KG  KB
BG  7.46  5.31  2.15 m

The metacentric height can be found by calculating distance BM:

I yy 1  L  B3 1  23.25  15.653
BM   12
 12
 2.40 m
Vw Vw 31,883 / 10.30

hmetacentre  BM  BG  2.40  2.15  0.25m  insufficient metacentric height

180
In order to increase the floating stability, 500m3 ballast water is added to the
compartments. The distance from the bottom of the caisson (K) to its centre of gravity
(G) reduces to:

KG  7.07 m

The draught (d) would increase to approximately:

Wc  Wballast  w  Ac  d1  w  Aslab  dslab

Wc  Wballast  w  Aslab  dslab 

d1  
w  Ac 
31,883  500  10.30  10.30  24.35  15.65  0.60
 11.77 m
10.30  23.25  12.30

d  d1  dslab  11.77  0.60  12.37m

The distance to the buoyancy centre amounts:

KB  d / 2  12.37 / 2  6.19m

The distance from the buoyancy point (B) to the metacentre (M) can be found by:
I yy
BM 
Vw
I yy 1  L  B3 1  L  B3
BM   12
 12
Vw slab  comp slab   (d dslab )  (Lcomp  Bcomp )
1  24.35  15.653
 12
 1.70 m
229  (15.65  0.60)  (23.45  12.30)
The metacentric height becomes:

hmetacentre  KB  BM  KG  6.18  1.70  7.07  0.81 m  larger than 0.50m

At this point, no free surface effect has been considered for calculating the metacentric
height. Free water in the compartments has a destabilising effect on the stability of the
caisson, but the decrease of the metacentric height shall be less than 0.30 metre.
Therefore, sufficient metacentric height shall remain, also when the free surface effects
is included.

181
I.4. Operational stability
The verification of actions and safety factors are shown in the tables below:

Overturning verification Situation Verification Factor of

safety*
Kern verification High water SLS - GEO 1.4
eccentricity max. 1/6 of + vertical STS-
foundation width crane load
Kern verification High water SLS - GEO 1.9
eccentricity max. 1/6 of
foundation width
eccentricity max. 1/3 of Low water ULS - GEO 2.2
foundation width
eccentricity max. 1/3 of High water ULS - GEO 2.2
foundation width
Equilibrium condition Low water ULS - EQU 2.5
Equilibrium condition High water ULS - EQU 2.3

Sliding verification Situation Verification Factor of

safety*
Forward sliding Low water ULS - GEO 1.7
+ STS load
Forward sliding Low water ULS - GEO 1.4
Forward sliding High water ULS - GEO 1.6
Forward sliding High water ULS - GEO 1.3
+ STS load
Forward sliding High water + STS ULS - GEO 1.6
crane load (storm)
*Factor of safety on top of Eurocode / British Standard requirements. A value of 1.0 is sufficient

182
J. Size and scaling aspects
J.1. Compartment scaling
The first caissons were designed to be immersed to -10.35m CD, while it is nowadays
common to reach twice this depth. Increasing dimensions of a design is not a matter of
increasing the height and width of all elements. It can be inefficient to further increase
compartment dimensions. Reason for this is that shear can be transferred more
efficiently by intermediate walls (J.2) and the shear capacity decreases for larger cross
sections (J.3).

design
scaling iteration

B1 2B1

P1
B1 2P1
2B1 2B1
I II III
Figure J.1. Scaling a compartment to larger dimensions and an iteration

J.2. Shear stress

Considering the compartment elements depicted in figure J.1, the following simplified
calculations can be made to evaluate the shear stress:

P1 = 10.30 x 7.70 ≈ 80 kN/m2

d1= 250mm
B1 = 2.50 metre
V1 = 0.5 x 80 x 2.50 = 100 kN
v1 = 100 x 103 / (250 x 1000) = 0.40 N/mm2

The circumference is: 4B1

Weight of a one metre high section ≈ 4 x 2.50 x 0.25 x 25 x 1.00 = 62.50 kN/m
Displacement of a one metre high section: B2 x H = 2.50 x 2.50 x 1.00 = 6.25 m3
Weight / displacement ratio: 62.50 / 6.25 = 10

When the compartment spans and immersion pressure are doubled, the effective
compartment wall thickness must be increased by a factor four to obtain the same shear
stress:

P2 = 2P1 =160 kN/m2

d2 = 1,000 mm
B2 = 2B1 = 5.00 metre
V2 = 0.5 x 160 x 5.00 = 400 kN
v2 = 400 x 103 / (1,000 x 1000) = 0.40 N/mm2

The circumference is: 4x 2B2

Weight of a one metre high section ≈ 4 x 5.00 x 1.00 x 25 x 1.00 = 500 kN/m
Displacement of a one metre high section: B2 x 1.00 = 5.00 x 5.00 x 1.00 = 25.00 m3
Weight / displacement ratio: 500 / 25 = 20

As can be seen, material consumption and weight increases by a factor 8, while the
displacement increases by a factor 4.

183
When the compartments are subdivided by internal walls, materials can be saved. This
can be seen by considering the following situation (III):

P3 = P2 =160 kN/m2
d3 = 500 mm
B3 = 2B1 = 5.00 metre

Adding separation walls reduces the spans to half the compartment width (B). The shear
force and stress remains unchanged:

V3 = 0.5 x 160 x 2.50 = 200 kN

v3 = 200 x 103 / (500 x 1000) = 0.40 N/mm2

Weight of a one metre high outer walls ≈ 4 x 5.00 x 0.50 x 25 x 1.00 = 250 kN/m
Weight of one metre high inner walls: 2 x 5.00 x 0.25 x 25 x 1.00 = 62.50 kN/m
Total weight: 312.50 kN/m

Displacement of a one metre high section: B2 x 1.00 = 5.00 x 5.00 x 1.00 = 25.00 m3
Weight / displacement ratio: 312.5 / 25 = 12.50

Therefore, the material consumption can be reduced by adding separation walls.

J.3. Shear capacity

Following the regulations provided by the EN-1992, a minimum shear capacity can be
calculated. The minimum depends on the applied concrete quality and effective depth.
The capacity can be increased by including the dowel function of regular reinforcement
bars, thus the values below provide conservative values.
 min  0.035  k 3/2  fck 1/2
200 200
k1  1   1  1.90
d 250
200 200
k2  1   1  1.44
d 1000
fck  35 N/mm2
 min,1  0.035  1.903/2  351/2  0.54 N/mm2
 min,2  0.035  1.633/2  351/2  0.36 N/mm2

Figure J.2. Minimum shear strength concrete cross-sections (EN-1992)

184
J.4. Floating stability
The draught of a floating object in horizontal position increases by width (b) increments,
while the draught (d) reduces when the same object is considered in vertical position.
The comparison between floating positions is schematized in figure 6.9. Besides
draught considerations, floating transport of light-weight slender objects can be limited
by stability requirements.
horizontal caisson transport vertical caisson transport
increasing width increasing width

H1 H2 b V1 V2
d h
d

h
b

Figure 6.9. Caisson transport-shape relation

When rectangular floating objects are considered, such as presented in figure 6.9, the
limiting width for intrinsic floating stability can be calculated. The point for which a
vertical floating element, having generalized dimensions, is considered in the next
sections. The relevant properties (appendix G and I) of the analysed rectangular
caissons are:

excluding ballast including ballast

height width
Caisson properties draught dist. draught dist.
(h) (b)
(d) KG (d) KG
Slender rectangular
18.00m 12.60m 10.70m 7.90m 12.60m 7.00m
caisson (section 6.3)
Wide rectangular
18.00m 15.65m 10.60m 7.50m 12.40m 7.10m
caisson (section 6.2)
Table 6.6. Relevant caisson properties for floating stability

The objective of the following analysis is to clarify the stability region for rectangular
floating objects. This region defines the required relative weight and width of a caisson
for stable transport. Note however that the analysis is performed with averaged and
rounded values, which makes the presented outcome applicable for preliminary
purposes only.

A generalized rectangular floating object (caisson) is considered using the notations

shown in figure 6.10. Dimensional parameters are denoted by lower case letters (h,d,
and b), while the stability parameters are denoted by upper case letters (K, B, G, M).
Distances from the bottom of the caisson (K) are denoted as for instance KG, which
implies the distance from keel to gravity centre.

Notation Description
M h Height of caisson
G h d Draught of caisson
d B b Width of caisson
ref. plane K K Keel (bottom of caisson)
b
B Buoyancy point
G Centre of gravity
M Metacentric height
Figure 6.10. Notations for floating stability analysis

The primary requirement for floating stability is a positive metacentric height (M above
G). This height is influenced by the width (b), draught (d) and height of point G. The

185
height of the centre of gravity varies when ballast water is added. The essential
variables are therefore:

(4) draught;
(5) width;
(6) height of centre of gravity.

This allows us to define relations between these elements which results in a clarified
stability region for rectangular floating objects. The draught and width are considered to
be most important design aspects and therefore taken as variables. The height of the
centre of gravity is kept as a constant and considered for the unballasted and ballasted
situations.

J.4.1. Intrinsic stability of a rectangular floating object

The stability can be analysed for generalized objects by defining dimensionless
parameters. The parameters are chosen to be related to the total height of the floating
object in order to obtain an outcome which is interpretable for different caisson
dimensions.

The relative draught of the caissons varies between:

slender caisson: d / h  10.70 / 18.00  0.59

 mean value 0.59
wide caisson: d / h  10.60 / 18.00  0.59

The relative width of the caissons varies between:

slender caisson: b / h  12.60 / 18.00  0.70

 significant difference, not combined
wide caisson: b / h  15.65 / 18.00  0.87

The relative draught parameter is denoted as x (horizontal axis), while the relative width
parameter is denoted as y (vertical axis). Based on these notations, a stability graph can
be plotted.

The location of the centre of gravity (G) differs for the considered rectangular caissons.
The relative position of the centre of gravity initially varies between:

slender caisson: KG / h  7.90 / 18.00  0.44

 mean value 0.43
wide caisson: KG / h  7.50 / 18.00  0.42

Stability conditions
The floating object is stable when:
KM  KG

And the defined distance KG is:

KG  0.43h

The centre of buoyancy (B) from the keel of the caisson can be described as:
KB  0.5d

The metacentric height (BM) is:

Ic
BM 
V

In which:
V  bd l

186
 1
Ic   l  b3
12

Thus, distance KM is:

KM  KB  BM
1/ 12 l b3
KM  0.5d 
bdl
b2
KM  0.5d 
12d

When the parameters are combined, the stability can be verified by:
KM  KG
1 b2
d  0.43h
2 12d
1 b2
d  0.43h  0
2 12d

Stability formulation
The critical stability condition can be found when the inequality is changed to an
equality. The formulation can then be rewritten in terms of x and y by applying the
following steps:
1 b2
d  0.43h  0
2 12d
d
y
h
b
x
h
x b

y d
1 1 x2
y  0.43  0
2 12 y

The formulation can now be plotted as the following elliptical curve (fig. 6.12):

slender caisson
wide caisson

unstable stable

Figure 6.12. Stability of the considered rectangular caissons (unballasted)

187
The relative draught of the caissons (0.59) and relative width (0.70 and 0.87) can be
found from the particular intersection points. These points are indicated by red dotted
lines in the stability region of figure 6.12. It can be seen that both caissons are instable
without adjustments. However, the wide caisson is almost stable by itself. This point is
already located near the blue boundary.

J.4.2. Ballasted stability of a rectangular floating object

A similar approach can be used for the analysis of the floating stability of ballasted
caissons. Due to the weight increments, the centre of gravity reduces and the draught
increases. This results in the following change of parameters:

slender caisson: KG / h  7.00 / 18.00  0.39

 mean value 0.39
wider caisson: KG / h  7.10 / 18.00  0.39

The relative draught of the caissons varies between:

slender caisson: d / h  12.60 / 18.00  0.70

 mean value 0.70
wide caisson: d / h  12.40 / 18.00  0.69

The stability region for these values is presented in figure 6.13. It can be seen that the
slender caisson is just outside the boundary and therefore has a positive metacentric
height. However, the wide caisson has considerably more stability and does therefore
require less adjustments for transport.
slender caisson
wide caisson

unstable stable

Figure 6.13. Stability of the considered rectangular caissons (ballasted)

188
K. Silo pressure
K.1. Janssen pressure theory
The Janssen (1895) theory is generally applied for calculating pressures of bulk solid
materials within silos. The Janssen’s theory is derived under the assumption that two
parallel, rigid vertical walls retain granular soil and that the settlement of the soil is large
enough to fully induce friction between the walls and the soil. It follows that the weight of
the element is partially supported by the frictional resistances at the walls. In addition,
the following assumptions and simplifications are made in order to derive the
expression:

 Symmetrical shape of the horizontal cross section;

 The volumetric weight of the soil / bulk material is constant over the depth and
width;
 Full wall friction is developed against the wall at every point. The mean shear
stress is related to pressure (σy) through the friction coefficient (μ). This results
in the relation:
τw = μ σy;
 Pressure (p) is related to the mean vertical stress (σz) by a lateral pressure
relation k (Rankine’s theory). This results in the relation p=k σy;

A = area, U = perimeter, k = neutral soil pressure coefficient, μ = friction coefficient

(equal to tan(δ)), γs = volumetric weight of soil.

K.2. Derivation of the Janssen pressure theory

Considering these aspects, vertical equilibrium on a slice of soil in a compartment
results in:

( z  d z )A  U dz   z A   s Adz

Which can be simplified to:

d z U
   s
dz A

d z U  k
 z  s
dz A
Boundary condition:
 z (0)  0
Integrating factor lambda:
U  k

A
Multiplication by exp{lambda z} results in:
 z d z
 e  z   s e
z z
e
dz
d
(e  z )   s e
z z

dz
1
e z z    s e z dz   s e z  C0
 Figure K.1. Example of a horizontal soil
pressure distribution in a compartment
1 according to Janssen’s theory compared to
 z (z)   s  C e z
 0
neutral and active soil pressure

189
 1
 z (0)  s  C e
 0
0
 0

1
s  C  0
 0

1
C  s
0

1 1 
 z ( z )   s   s e  z  s (1  e  z )
  
Which can be further simplified by redefining lambda to z0:
1 A
z0   (the Janssen reference depth)
   k U
 z / z0
 z ( z )  z0  s (1  e ) (general expression for vertical soil pressure in silo’s)

Hence, the effective horizontal soil pressure σ’z can be expressed by the Janssen
theory:

 'h ( z)  kn   's z0 (1  e z / z0 )
A
z0 
  kn  U

And including a vertical live load, the formula becomes:

 'h ( z)  k   's z0 (1  e z / z )  q e z / z
0 0

In which:

Z0 = reference depth (Janssen (1895))

A = compartment area
U = perimeter of the compartment
kn = neutral soil pressure coefficient (0.5)
μ = friction coefficient (equal to tan(δ) ≈ 0.4)
γ’s = effective weight of soil (10 kN/m2)

The compartments are schematized as rectangular cells with a particular width B. Also a
perimeter (U) and area (A) are defined as depicted below.

U A transverse compartment
B pressure (tension)
width

longitudinal compartment
pressure (tension)

caisson length

Figure K.2. Caisson compartments and parameters

190
K.3. Alternative silo pressure theories
The Janssen pressure can be seen as lower bound value due to the assumption of full
friction. The graph below (fig. A6) shows the Janssen pressure (red) compared to other
theories and regulations. Under specific conditions, the German DIN 1055-6 is even
more conservative than the original Janssen expression, while it is actually based on the
same principle. This difference is considered to be negligible for caisson design. The
graph below also shows dynamic (filling / emptying) pressures which can be significantly
higher. This is not from importance for caisson design since the soil is considered static
during its service live. The dynamic effects which occur during the filling phase of the
compartments shall be considered independently.

Figure K.3. Silo pressures according to different theories and

standards, ref [A11]

K.4. Caisson compartment pressure

The Janssen pressure is calculated for various compartment dimensions. The minimum
pressure is without live load (e.g. for cases in which the superstructure transfers load),
the maximum pressure is calculated with a live load of 30.00 kN/m2 (which is prescribed
on the apron side).

reference
excl. live load incl. live load
depth
soil pressure at
bottom of A
z0  lim  'h (z)  kn   s z0 lim  'h (z)  kn   s z0  q 
structure   k U z  z 

A = 2.50 x 2.50m 3.13 m 15.63 kN/m2 30.63 kN/m2

A = 3.00 x 3.00m 3.75 m 18.75 kN/m2 33.75 kN/m2
A = 3.50 x 3.50m 4.40 m 21.90 kN/m2 36.90 kN/m2
A = 4.00 x 4.00m 5.00 m 25.00 kN/m2 40.00 kN/m2

191
Serviceability Limit State
Two compartment pressure states are considered for SLS conditions; a low water table
and a high water table. These are assumed to be identical to the hydrostatic pressure
difference on the front- and backwall. Using the expression, the compartment pressure
for a 3.50 x 3.50m compartment including live load becomes:

PJ,max = 36.90 kN/m2.

The maximum water pressure for 1.00 metre head difference is calculated as:

Pti,1 = γw x ∆H = 10.30 x 1.00 = 10.30 kN/m2

Hence, the total compartment pressure for this geometry amounts:

PJ,SLS = PJ,max + Pti = 36.90 + 10.30 = 47.20 kN/m2

Ultimate Limit State

Similar to the SLS compartment pressure calculation, two pressure states are
considered; a low water table and a high water table. The compartment water levels are:

The maximum water pressure of the 1.50 metre head difference is calculated as:

Pti,2 = γw x ∆H = 10.30 x 1.50 = 15.45 kN/m2

The total compartment pressure for this particular geometry therefore amounts:

PJ,ULS = γG PJ, + γs QS + γti Pw,c = 1.35 x 21.90 + 1.50 x 0.5 x 30 + 1.50 x 15.45 = 75.24
kN/m2

192
L. Soil pressure states and models
L.1.Soil pressure states
The smallest horizontal earth stress value occurs in active state. Its limiting lower bound
value can be calculated by the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. However, the active state
only occurs when the element is moving away from the soil. From a purely scientific
point of view, the lateral stress against a rigid retaining wall remains unknown until
deformation has been considered.

If the horizontal displacements are practically zero, a neutral stress state occurs. In a
linear elastic material and under the assumption that the horizontal stresses  xx and  yy
are equal, the following ratio between vertical and horizontal stresses can be found:

Ke 
1

Where  stands for the Poisson’s ratio and can vary between 0.15 and 0.45 for granular
soils26. The ratio varies significantly among different soils and various aspects play a
role for quantification. Nevertheless, a value of 0.30 seems to be appropriate for
medium dense sand and gravel. Point loads and line loads (SLS and ULS) shall be
considered using elastic soil theories of Boussinesq (1885), Flamant (1892) and Fadum
(1948), which are described in the sections regarding point and line loads.

A linear elastic model is not the best estimate since soil is not an elastic material and the
history of stress development in soil can affect the stress state more dominantly (Verruijt
2012). Nevertheless, the upper bound value for a neutral stress state can be found to be
1. In practice, the neutral stress state seems to be largely depending on the friction
angle of soil (ϕ). Without having a well-substantiated scientific basis, the K0 value can be
estimated by the formula proposed from Jaky (1948), which is:

K 0  1  sin 

Following this reasoning, a neutral stress state is considered for the serviceability limit
state design. At this state, no large deformations are allowed. The caisson itself is
thereby expected to be rigid. The active soil pressure state is only considered when
designing for ultimate limit state. In this case, large deformations are allowed. In terms
of a caisson being a gravity based structure, movement is likely to occur before failing.

L.2. Global stability: Rankine’s theory

Besides the well-known Coulomb theory, Rankine developed a different approach in
1857. He extended earth pressure theory by deriving a solution for a complete soil mass
in a state of failure. It can be used as a rather simple method to verify equilibrium of an
L-wall and therefore commonly used.

The theory can only be used for cohesionless (granular) soils and stiff soils. Also, a
complete failure wedge must be formed and the resulting force must be parallel to the
ground surface. The required conditions regarding soil properties can be satisfied for
particular projects. The other conditions are affected by the shape of the structure.

For reinforced concrete L-walls, there will be almost no movement of soil relative to the
back of the wall. A virtual plane can then be considered and Rankine’s theory can be
applied properly. A full soil wedge can only be formed, when the heel width satisfies
inequality:

26
The Civil Engineering Handbook, second edition, Chen, W.F., Richard Liew, J.Y., CRC Press, 2003

193
   
'
B  H tan  45  
 2
 
For example, for soils with an angle of shearing resistance ϕ’ of 30 degrees, the
inequality reduces to approximately B > 0.6H. If this inequality is not satisfied, the thrust
wedge (fig. 4.5. triangle ACD) is interrupted by the retaining wall itself. This causes
Rankine’s theory to be invalid for retaining structures with short heels.

virtual plane

failure plane
P P

45°- ϕ’/2
45°- ϕ’/2
45°- ϕ’/2

Vertical virtual plane Inclined virtual plane (short heel)

Figure L.1. Soil wedge for cantilever walls (left: Rankine situation, right: short heel)

L.3. Global stability: hybrid soil pressure model

Since Rankine’s method is invalid for structures with short heels, other methods are
developed to calculate soil pressures and thrust. The correct soil pressure can be found
by using Coulomb’s approach in terms of limit equilibrium27. This is however a relatively
complex iterative process. A more simplistic method is described by Vandepitte28, who
divides counterfort walls with a short heel into two sections. The uninterrupted section
can be calculated according to Rankine’s theory, where the interrupted zone can be
calculated as separate action on the wall.

The method described by Vandepitte is used in order to calculate the horizontal thrust
on structures with a short heel. The lower zone is assumed to be a trapped soil wedge
in neutral soil pressure state. Here, a Rankine pressure state is assumed to prevail. The
higher region is assumed to be an active soil pressure state in which wall friction can be
included.

Failure of the overturning caisson with s short heel is presented in the following
drawings.

27
Active earth thrust on cantilever walls with short heel, Greco (2001)
28
Berekenen van constructies – Bouwkunde en Civiele Techniek, D. Vandepitte (1979)

194
A = active pressure zone
N = neutral pressure zone

Figure L.2. Soil pressure states for an overturning caisson

The soil pressure on an overturning caisson can therefore be larger than the maximum
pressure on a rectangular caisson. In case of deformation of a rectangular caisson, a full
active pressure state can be formed.

To overcome the pressure increase due to a trapped wedge, an opening can be made
in the baseplate. This is basically the principle of a Camilla caisson (1970), which is also
addressed in appendix A. This type of caisson would experience the least amount of
pressure, since the declination is beneficial in lowering the Coulomb stress.

Figure L.3. Soil pressure states for a Camilla caisson

195
L.4. Behaviour of soil retaining walls
The behaviour of soil retaining walls depends on many different aspects. The previously
described hybrid soil pressure model is intended to be a proper representation of reality,
however, experiments indicate that also the stiffness of the foundation bed influences
the horizontal soil pressure. Huang and Luo29 found that the K factor increases
significantly when the subgrade stiffness decreases. The measured lateral thrust was in
some cases even greater than the soil pressure state at rest (K0). However, if the
subgrade is non-yielding (kv = ∞), the found lateral pressure is similar to the active
pressure state.

Figure L.4. behaviour of a cantilever wall at failure

L.5. Overview of design methods

The following K values are obtained for different soil pressure states and models:

Pressure Formula for the lateral earth pressure Value for Value for
state coefficient (K) ϕ = 30° ϕ = 45°

Elastic Ke  0.30 0.30
1
Neutral K 0  1  sin  0.50 0.29
Active 1  sin
(without Ka  0.33 0.17
1  sin
friction)
cos2 (   )
Active (with Ka,f  2
 sin(   )sin(   )  0.28 0.14
friction) cos ( ) 1 
2

 cos(    )cos(   ) 

29
Behavior of soil retaining walls on deformable foundations, Huang and Luo (2009)

196
For ULS verification, a fully neutral pressure state and the hybrid pressure state are
verified. From these states, the highest value is considered for design. The active state
is considered including all prescribed partial factors. The verification which comprises a
neutral soil pressure state does not include partial factors. This failure mechanism is
included due to the desire of low deformations. It is categorized as an ultimate limit state
(ULS), if the loads appear to be higher than the active soil pressure state including
partial factors.

One could argue that a load combination without partial factors must be categorized as
a serviceability limit state. However, disregarding the terminology, the calculation
outcome shall be identical.

Serviceability limit states

In terms of overturning stability for the serviceability limit state, in which the line of the
resultant force may only be positioned within the kern of the section, an active soil
pressure state is considered. The thrust on the lower part of the retaining wall is
considered according to Rankine’s approach in case of the overturning concept.

The essence of kern verification is guaranteeing bearing pressure over the complete
foundation and thereby avoiding a gap between the foundation to occur. Loss of
foundation pressure can only occur if the soil pressure state is active. A gap caused by
overturning failure cannot occur simultaneously with a neutral soil pressure state, since
rotation of the structure is required.

Ultimate limit states

Two pressure states are considered for the ultimate limit state verification. The first
pressure state is partly active and includes partial factors. The second pressure state is
fully neutral and does not include partial factors. For ULS verification it is assumed that
the heel “traps” the soil, which implies that an active state cannot occur

197
M. Design and safety
M.1. Change of working height
Less working height might indicate an improved level of safety and thus less risk for
personnel. The original caissons had a maximum compartment width of 3.00 metres.
The compartments could therefore be constructed with a maximum working height of
approximately 4.00 metres above ground level. This relatively low height and the lower
safety standards in 1903 probably resulted in no (or limited) fall-protection for the
labourers during the construction of the first caissons. From figure M.1., fall heights of
less than 5 metres show a significant reduction in the probability of death. This was the
case for the original overturning design.

Hazard of falling from height

90%
80%
80% 82%
70% 75% 77%
Probability (%)

60% 63%
50%
Recoverable injury
40% 41%
30% 28% 30% Permanent injury
24% 19% 20%
20% 16% 29%
9% Fatalities
10% 3%
1% 1% 2%
0%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 5 5 to 10 15+
Height of fall (m)

Figure M.1. Relation between fall-height [m] and the probability of recoverable injury (blue),
permanent injury (red) and death (green) from labour accident data in the Netherlands
(2003-2012)30.

The largest factor which affects the degree of injury is thereby the height of the fall. This
can theoretically be explained by the increasing kinetic energy (since the terminal
velocity is generally not reached) of a person during a fall, which is transferred to the
body when it touches a surface. Besides the theoretical background, also various
studies of historical data show clear correlations. Height is not the only influencing factor
for the degree of falling risks. It is among others affected by: fall-height, the surface of
impact, fall-position, age, gender and body mass.

Concrete caissons are nowadays much larger than a century ago. Irrespective of the
construction method (horizontally or vertically), the working height would be far above
acceptable safety limits. A horizontal caisson construction method is therefore not likely
to increase the level of safety intrinsically.

Unfortunately, fall hazard cannot be engineered out by applying the overturning concept.
Measures must therefore be taken in order to keep the probability of a fall from height
acceptably low. This can be in the form of a passive fall protection or active fall
protection, on which the passive fall protection method is the most desired option.
Passive systems, such as fencing and catching platforms, do not require special
participation of the worker and does not hinder the freedom of movement. In case of the
horizontal construction method, the length of the passive protection system must be
increased since the perimeter of the work area is larger. Therefore, the lowered height
of the construction method is not necessarily an advantage for safety of personnel.

30 Source: Health council of the Netherlands; falls from height (2013)

198
N. Cost deviations
N.1. Historical cost deviations of building materials (1900-
2005)

Steel index versus time (De Gijt, 2010)

Stone and riprap index versus time (De Gijt, 2010)

Sand and gravel index versus time (De Gijt, 2010)

Cement index versus time (De Gijt, 2010)

199
N.2. Geographical cost deviations of building materials
The cost deviations in the bar charts below are retrieved from Spon's African and Latin
American Construction Cost Handbooks. The price rates include all necessary labour,
plant and material costs for carrying out the operations. Price rates from the handbooks
(1999) are corrected to 2016 values. The geographical cost deviations of building
materials seem to be little and make the exact location of the project less interesting.
Due to the relatively constant concrete and reinforcement prices, the feasibility of the
overturning caisson shall not depend on a particular country.

African concrete prices (€ /m3)

€80,00
€60,00
€40,00
€20,00
€0,00

African concrete prices in Q4-1999, corrected to Europe present value (2016)

African reinforcement prices (€ / tonne)

€ 600,00
€ 400,00
€ 200,00
€ 0,00

African reinforcement prices in Q4-1999, corrected to Europe present value (2016)

Latin American concrete prices (€ / m3)

€ 80,00
€ 60,00
€ 40,00
€ 20,00
€ 0,00

Latin American concrete prices in Q4-1999, corrected to Europe present value (2016)

Latin American reinforcement prices (€ / tonne)

€ 500,00
€ 400,00
€ 300,00
€ 200,00
€ 100,00
€ 0,00

Latin American concrete prices in Q4-1999, corrected to Europe present value (2016)

200
N.3. Cost deviations of heavy lifting equipment
Weekly average rental rates in the UK and Ireland. The annual rental rate survey (2016)
performed by www.vertikal.net.

Crane type Average rental cost

per week
Tower crane <70 tm € 800.-
Tower crane <120 tm € 1,200.-
Tower crane <200 tm € 1,750.-
Tower crane <300 tm € 2,250.-

Crawler crane <50 t € 1,825.-

Crawler crane 50 - 60 t € 1,525.-
Crawler crane 70 - 80 t € 2,875.-
Crawler crane 90 - 100 t € 2,850.-
Crawler crane 120 - 150 t € 3,200.-
Crawler crane 180 - 250 t € 5,500.-

Estimate of procurement cost of tower cranes:

Crane type Price (used) Source / website (2017)

Tower crane Kroll K-1400 cranenetwork.com/crane/tower-
€535,000,-
(40m reach) cranes/kroll/k1400-1800/222107
Tower crane Liebherr cranenetwork.com/crane/tower-
630EC-H 40 Litronic € 1,037,000,- cranes/liebherr/630-ec-h-40-
(80m reach) litronic/211178?sc=3
Tower crane Kroll K-10000 de.machinerypark.com/obendreher-
€ 3,220,000,-
(80m reach) kroll-kroll-k-10000-gebraucht-lu-6686

Crawler crane cranenetwork.com/crane/crawler-

Liebherr LR1250 € 658,000,- lattice-boom-
(275t) cranes/liebherr/lr1250/223101?sc=3
Crawler crane cranenetwork.com/crane/crawler-
Liebherr LR1300SX €1,468,000,- lattice-boom-cranes/liebherr/lr-
(330t) 1300/209913?sc=3

201
Costs of floating dry-docks (FDD) and sheerlegs are determined by asking prices of
online brokers, horizonship.com and workbargebrokers.com. Prices are retrieved from
the websites in august 2016. Required prices for the overturning caisson are indicated
by the red arrows.

COST OF FLOATING DRY DOCKS (2016)

€ 10.000.000
y = 23687x0,5744
€ 9.000.000 R² = 0,5156
€ 8.000.000
€ 7.000.000
PRICE IN EURO (€)

€ 6.000.000
€ 5.000.000
€ 4.000.000
€ 3.000.000
€ 2.000.000
€ 1.000.000
€0
0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000
LIFTING CAPACITY (TONNES)
Floating dock (used)
Floating dock (new build US)
Power (Floating dock (used))

COST OF FLOATING CRANES (2016)

€ 80.000.000 y = 14604x0,9264
R² = 0,6071
€ 70.000.000

€ 60.000.000
PRICE IN EURO (€)

€ 50.000.000

€ 40.000.000

€ 30.000.000

€ 20.000.000

€ 10.000.000

approx. €0
€ 5,000,000.- 0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000

LIFTING CAPACITY (TONNES)

Sheerleg Power (Sheerleg)

202
Report Kraus citations
Report Kraus citations
The original report of prof. Kraus introduced the use of reinforced concrete as follows:

“Before treating of the manner of constructing these blocks, we will

devote a few words to this material, which has not been employed in
Chili, judging from the data at our disposal, but in the foundations of the
work-yard of the dock of Talcahuano, but in Europe and the United
States it has been used for works of all kinds, as: aqueducts, bridges,
revetments, buildings, etc.

The last Paris exposition, as also the one that has just taken place in
Düsseldorf, have again demonstrated most plainly the great advantages
of this material for construction which, as is well known, is simply a
happy combination of iron and concrete, whereby it unites the supreme
conditions of resistance, duration and incombustibility. Different systems
for the construction of this mass are in existence, being known by the
names of their inventors: Monier, Wayss, Rabitz, Matrai, Hennebique,
Coignet and also many others, but they all resemble each other mutually
in so far as that they have as principle an iron frame enveloped in
concrete carefully made from materials of superior quality.”

It is interesting to notice that in this period of time, reinforced concrete was not
commonly known. It was a highly innovative composite material which was even
patented by their inventors. The different construction technology “systems” could only
be used under licence of the involved firm or inventor.

As written in the original report:

“The quaywalls of this dock will be of the same type as those of the
western side of the bay, that is to say, that they are formed of great cases
of armed concrete with a superstructure of masonry work. The wall of the
northern side of the enlarged part of the point will consist of great floating
blocks analogous to those of breakwaters.”

The following is written in the report from the Commission Kraus:

“On launching the cases of armed concrete in a more or less horizontal

position, their floating line will answer to the line Y-Y of drawing No 131, and
their careening centre will be found at the point Q. Another position of stable
equilibrium, and more or less vertical, answers to a submersion of the case
to a depth of 7.20m.”

As in paragraph 102, Sheltered Piers is written:

“In view of the great length of these quaywalls and of the considerable
costs entailed by their construction, many types of walls have been
studied and mutually compared, in order to choose from among them the
one offering the greatest advantages. After this preliminary work, the
following type was adopted, same satisfying not only the conditions of
resistance and of easy and safe execution, but also economical
exigencies.”

This accentuates the advantages which had been obtained by application of the
concept.

203
The report also provides notes on the calculation method and pressures on the
foundation:

“It is supposed that the vertical pression of the rubble behind the wall, on
the bottom-plate of the case of armed concrete, limits itself exclusively to
the weight of the cubic comprised between the interior side of said wall and
the vertical plane which answers to the inside edge of the plate.”

And:
“Being distributed, according to the lineal law, the total vertical pression
exercised by the base of the wall on the bottom, it results that said pression
will be of 0.59 kg/cm2 at the interior edge of the plate and of 3.50 kg/cm2 at
the exterior edge.”

Apparently, it is assumed that the weight of the backfill is accounted for up to a vertical
virtual plane along the heel. The foundation pressure is calculated to be at most 350
kN/m2 at the toe and 59 kN/m2 at the heel of the structure.

204
Definitions
Definitions
Caisson A prefabricated floated-in quay wall structure with undefined shape. One can
assume that a reinforced concrete caisson is implied, if no particular material is
prescribed.

Box caisson or rectangular caisson A generalized term for caissons which have a
rectangular shape. A box caisson is constructed vertically; in the same position as
required for operational conditions.

Overturning caisson A generalized term for caissons which are constructed and
floated horizontally. This type of caisson is, after transportation, turned at/near its final
location. The term "overturning caisson" is literally translated from the Dutch word
"kantelcaisson". The word overturning, not to be confused with the overturning limit state
which must be considered at final position, originates from the turning process in floating
stage.

Horizontal construction The execution method on which the caisson is built or

assembled with the front- or back wall in horizontal position.

Horizontal floatation The first floating position of an overturning caisson without ballast
weight. In practice, the caisson might float in more or less diagonal position due to its
asymmetrical shape.

Kraus caisson The original overturning caisson concept, designed by professor Kraus
in 1903. Also referred to as overturning caisson. The economical L-shaped (counterfort)
caisson which has been designed for sheltered quay walls.

Comision Kraus The commission who is responsible for the realization of the report
"Proyecto de Mejoramiento del Puerto de Valparaíso" and therefore, but not exclusively,
the establishment of the Kraus concept itself. Note that this particular design was one
among many other state of the art concepts, which are extensively described in the
report by Comision Kraus.

Technical feasibility The capability of building the concept according to current

standards, bearing the influence of design changes with relation to costs in mind. The
technical feasibility mainly focusses on the evaluation of opportunities and threats of the
concept.

Economic feasibility The costs of the concept in relation to other quay structures,
without necessarily all prerequisite knowledge of technical execution. The economic
feasibility mainly addresses the quantification of (known) strength and weaknesses.

EQU limit state Loss of equilibrium of the structure or the supporting ground,
considered as a rigid body. The internal strengths of the structure and the ground do not
provide resistance.

GEO limit state Failure or excessive deformation of the ground, where the soil or rock
is significant in providing resistance.

STR limit state Failure or excessive deformation of the structure, where the strength of
the structural material is significant in providing resistance.

UPL limit state The loss of equilibrium of the structure by vertical uplift due to water
pressures (buoyancy).

HYD limit state Hydraulic heave, internal erosion and piping in the ground as might be
experienced.

205
Bibliography
Bibliography
[1] Proyecto de Mejoramiento Del Puerto de Valparaíso, Kraus, J, Comision Kraus,
1903

[2] Rapport Caissonbouw – De geschiedenis van de caissonbouw bij Hollandsche Beton

Groep nv van 1902 t/m 1977, Hollandsche Beton Groep nv (HBG), Rijswijk, 1977

[3] Quay Walls, Second Edition, J.G. de Gijt, M.L. Broeken, et al, SBRCURnet
Publication, Municipality of Rotterdam, 2014

[4] Handbook Handbook of Port And Harbor Engineering: Geotechnical and Structural
aspects, G.P. Tsinker, Chapman and Hall, 1997

[5] Handbook Port Designers Handbook: Recommendations and Guidelines, C.A.

Thoresen, third edition, 2014

[6] Smith’s Elements of Soil Mechanics, Ninth Edition, Ian Smith, Wiley Blackwell, 2014

[7] Grondmechanica, De Smedt, F, Vakgroep Hydrologie en Waterbouwkunde, Faculteit

Ingenieurswetenschappen, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 2013

[8] Earth Pressure and Earth-Retaining Structures, Third Edition, Clayton C.R.I., Woods,
R.I., Bond, A.J., Milititshky, J.,CRC Press, 2014

[9] How Mechanics Shaped the Modern World, David H. Allen, Civil Engineering
Department, Texas University, Collage Station, Springler International Publishing
Switserland, 2014

Articles and Reports

[A1] Onderzoek naar de moeilijkheden ondervonden bij de uitvoering van openbare
werken in Nederlandsch-Indië door tussenkomst van aannemers, tweede deel, ‘s
Gravenhage, Ter Algemeene Landsdrukkerij, 1916.

[A2] Analytical active earth thrust on cantilever walls with short heel, Greco, 2008.

[A3] Canadian Geotechnical Journal 45: 1649-1658. Behavior of soil retaining walls on
deformable foundations, Huang, C. and Luo, W., Department of Civil Engineering,
National Cheng Kung University, Engineering Geology 105 , No. 1, Taiwan, 2009

[A4] De Ingenieur 1893, no.20 – Subject: Dry-dock Valparaíso

[A5] De Ingenieur 1904, no.35 – Subject: Valparaíso Harbour improvement

[A6] De Ingenieur, 1908 no.35 – Subject: Talcahuano Harbour improvement

[A7] Indisch Bouwkundig Tijdschrift, Vereeninging van Bouwkundigen, No. 21, 1931

[A8] Harbourworks - Netherlands East Indian Harbours, Department of Public Works,

Batavia, 1920

[A9] Technische lessen en vraagstukken op het gebied van den Indischen Havenbouw,
Departement der Burgerlijke Openbare werken, Afdeeling Havenwezen, Batavia, Cool,
W., Weltevreden [Indonesia], 1918

[A11] Doorontwikkelde theorie vervat in norm Belasting van silowanden Haaker, G., v/d
Kooi, P., 2007-4

206
[A12] Estimation of active earth pressure against rigid retaining walls considering
arching effects, Paik, K. H., Salgado, R., Geotechnique 53, No. 7, 643–653, 2003.

[A13] Vallen van Hoogte, van Gool, W.A., Commissie Signalering arbeidsomstandig-
heden risico’s, Gezondheidsraad, 2013

[A14] Port Botany Counterfort Retaining Walls Design and Construction D.Packer; P.
Masters. G.Riordan, 2015

[A15] Slip-Form Application to Concrete Structures, T. Zayed et. al., Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, 2008

[A16] Computer simulation and analysis framework for floating caisson construction
operations, Pantouvakis, J.P., Panas, A, Centre for Construction Innovation, Faculty of
Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 2013

[A17] Simulation-Based and Statistical Analysis of the Learning Effect in Floating

Caisson Construction Operations, Panas, A., and Pantouvakis, J.P., ASCE, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 2014-140-1

[A18] Marine Concrete Structures – Design, Durability and Performance, Elsevier

Woodhead Publishing Series in Civil and Structural Engineering: number 64, Alexander,
M.G., et al., 2016

[A19] Betoniek 2004-06 De druk neemt toe

[A20] Betoniek 2013-01 Vormgeving, techniek én onderhoud

[A21] Betoniek 2015-02 Vallen en opstaan, Groeningen, E., Giesen, R.

[A22] Cement 1979-02 De Nederlandse betonvoorschriften sinds 1912, Dees, W.C.,

Hageman, J.G., v/d Marel, W.

[A23] The productivity of Steel Reinforcement Placement in Australian Construction,

Forsythe, P.F., Faculty of Design Architecture and Building, University of Technology
Sydney, ICEC IX World Congress, 2014

[A23] Inflation: the Value of the Pound 1750-1998, Twigger, R., Economic Policy and
Statistics Section, House of Commons Library, 1999

[A24] Physics of Continuous Matter: Exotic and Everyday Phenomena in the

Macroscopic World, Second Edition, Lautrup, B., CRC Press, 2004

[A25] Literatuuronderzoek m.b.t. enige technische facetten van stormvloedkeringen of

vergelijkbare constructies, Depeweg, H., 1975

[A26] The repetition effect in building and construction works – a literature review,
Gottlieb, S.C., Haugbølle, K., Danish Building Research Institute, Aalborg University,
2010

[A27] Structural Developments in Tall Buildings: Current Trends and Future Prospects,
Ali and Moon, K.S., University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign), Architectural Science
Review 50-3, University of Sydney, 2007

207
TU Delft publications
[D1] Dissertation, TU Delft, A History of Quay Walls - Techniques, types, costs and
future, Gijt, J.G., 2010

[D2] Dissertation, Prediction of Deteriroration of Concrete Bridges, Corrosion of

Reinforcement due to Chloride Ingress and Carbonation, Gaal, C.,M., 2004

[D3] MSc thesis, T.H. Delft, Haalbaarheidsonderzoek naar een Camilla caisson voor
grote kerende hoogtes, deel 1+2, F.N. Endtz, 1986

[D4] Lecture notes CIE-3330, Hydraulic Structures, Caissons, M.Z. Voorendt, W.F.
Molenaar, K.G. Bezuyen, 2011

[D5] Lecture notes CIE-4170, Construction Technology of Civil Engineering Projects,

A.Q.C. van der Horst, 2013

[D6] Lecture notes CIE-5313, Port Infrastructure, J.G. de Gijt, 2004

[D7] Lecture notes CIE-5313, Barriers, weirs, quay walls and jetties, J.G. de Gijt, A. van
de Toorn, e.a., 2015

[D8] Durability of marine concrete structures - field investigations and modelling, Polder,
R. B., de Rooij, M.R., TNO Technical Sciences, Delft University of Technology, Heron
volume 50-3, 2005

[D9] Effects of slag and fly ash on reinforcement corrosion in concrete in chloride
environment - Research from the Netherlands, Polder, R. B., TNO Technical Sciences,
Delft University of Technology, Heron volume 57-3, 2012

[D9] Manual Hydraulic Structures, Vrijling, J.K., Bezuyen, K.G., e.a., Delft University of
Technology, 2015

Regulations and guidelines

[R1] European Standards EN-1990 to EN-1997-1:2004, (NEN and BS included)

[R2] Recommendation EAU 2012 - Empfehlungen des

Arbeitsausschusses„Ufereinfassungen” Häfen und Wasserstraßen, Commission
"Ufereinfassungen" of HTGeV, 2012

[R3] CUR- Leidraad 1, Duurzaamheid van constructief beton met betrekking tot chloride-
geïnitieerde wapeningscorrosie - Leidraad voor het formuleren van prestatie-eisen,
achtergrondrapport

208
List of Figures
List of figures
Chapter 1 Description Reference
Figure 1.1 Fundamental shape differences Own work
Figure 1.2 Traditional design method for Based on lecture notes: Hydraulic
caissons Structures (2015)
Figure 1.3 Proposed design process for Own work
overturning caissons
Figure 1.4 Economies of scale Pearson and Wisner (1993)
Figure 1.5 Hypothetical learning curve A26: adapted after Thomas (2009)
showing a classical concave
shape
Figure 1.6 Column head for renovation works www.structuremag.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/12/0116-f3-
4.jpg
Figure 1.7 Multiple cone shaped column www.deslinc.com/capital-forms
heads
Figure 1.8 Fixed and variable costs from Own work
production point of view
Figure 1.9 Galileo’s example of the square- How Mechanics Shaped the
cube law Modern World, David H. Allen,
Civil Engineering Department,
Texas University, Collage Station,
Springler International Publishing
Switserland (2014)
Figure 1.10 Increasing structural complexity for A27: Structural Developments in
tall buildings Tall Buildings: Current Trends and
Future Prospects, Ali and Moon,
K.S., (2007), University of Illinois
(Urbana-Champaign), Architectural
Science Review 50-3, University of
Sydney

Chapter 2 Description Reference

Figure 2.1 Panoramic view over the bay of commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Pano
Valparaíso (late 19th century) ramics_of_Valpara%C3%ADso#/m
edia/File:Postal_Valpara%C3%AD
so._Vista_panoramica_de_la_bah
%C3%ADa_a_fines_del_siglo_XIX
.jpg
Figure 2.2 Box caisson Proyecto de Mejoramiento Del
Puerto de Valparaíso, Kraus, J,
1903
Figure 2.3 L-shaped caisson Proyecto de Mejoramiento Del
Puerto de Valparaíso, Kraus, J,
1903
Figure 2.4 Sheltered quay wall and Proyecto de Mejoramiento Del
unsheltered quay wall designed by Puerto de Valparaíso, Kraus, J,
prof. Kraus for the Dock el Baron 1903
Figure 2.5 Main elements of the caisson, Proyecto de Mejoramiento Del
indicated by numbers Puerto de Valparaíso, Kraus, J,
1903
Figure 2.6 Detailed view of the reinforced Proyecto de Mejoramiento Del
concrete baseplate (original Puerto de Valparaíso, Kraus, J,
drawing) above: reinforcement 1903
layout, below: cross-sectional
dimensions

209
Figure 2.7 Lorries and construction method Proyecto de Mejoramiento Del
(Valparaíso, 1903) Puerto de Valparaíso, Kraus, J,
1903
Figure 2.8 Formwork pressure: weight of slab Own work
Figure 2.9 Formwork pressure: hydrostatic Own work
pressure
Figure 2.10 The execution plan of the Proyecto de Mejoramiento Del
reinforced concrete caissons. Only Puerto de Valparaíso, Kraus, J,
half the planned construction site 1903
is shown
Figure 2.11 Transport and launching plans of Proyecto de Mejoramiento Del
the caissons Puerto de Valparaíso, Kraus, J,
1903
Figure 2.12 First floating position of the Proyecto de Mejoramiento Del
caisson Puerto de Valparaíso, Kraus, J,
1903
Figure 2.13 Change of floating position Own work
Figure 2.14 Schematic position after ballasting Own work
of the original caisson (left) and the
simplified model (right)
Figure 2.15. Declined versus straight back-wall: Own work
geometry differences affecting the
floating position
Figure 2.16 Hydrostatic pressure during Own work
immersion

Chapter 3 Description Reference

Figure 3.1 Concrete quay wall structures, A History of Quay Walls
gravity based; Liverpool, Bougie Techniques, types, costs and
and Talcahuano future, Dissertation, TU Delft, Gijt,
J.G., 2010
De Ingenieur 1904, no.35 –
Subject: Valparaíso Harbour
improvement
Figure 3.2 Caisson structures designed for the Rapport Caissonbouw, Hollandsche
port of Tandjong Priok, Indonesia Beton Groep (1977)
Figure 3.3 Design choice: rubble backfill or Own work
increased caisson width
Figure 3.4 Increasing quay height for the port Kademuren, verleden, heden en
of Rotterdam toekomst (1999)
Figure 3.5 Compartment scaling effects Own work
Figure 3.6 Traditional caisson transport Own work
phases
Figure 3.7 Overturning caisson transport Own work
phases
Figure 3.8 Concrete cover depth regulations Own work
and guidelines for tidal splash
zones in marine environments and
a 50 year design life
Figure 3.9 Degradation mechanisms with Own work
respect to the concrete cover
(exaggerated schematization)

210
Chapter 4 Description Reference
Figure 4.1 Stone crusher, aggregates and Rapport Caissonbouw,
empty cement barrels (Surabaya, Hollandsche Beton Groep (1977)
Indonesia, 1911).
Batching by a steam driven mixer VOBN, http://www.vobn-
and horse drawn transport (USA, beton.nl/vereniging-
1916) vobn/vereniging-
betonmortelfabrikanten/geschiede
nis
Figure 4.2 Construction of caissons Rapport Caissonbouw,
(horizontally) with the traditional Hollandsche Beton Groep (1977)
timber formwork method (Tandjong
Priok, 1914)
Figure 4.3 Construction sequence overturning Own work
caisson (1914)
Figure 4.4 Construction of caissons by the Rapport Caissonbouw,
Maas formwork system (The Hollandsche Beton Groep (1977)
Netherlands, Waalhaven, left
photo: 1920-1921, right photo:
after 1945)
Figure 4.5 Gantry method applied in Saudi Rapport Caissonbouw,
Arabia, Dammam (1977) Hollandsche Beton Groep (1977)
Figure 4.6 Example of the slipforming process A15: Slip-Form Application to
Concrete Structures (2008)
Figure 4.7 Performance prediction of floating A17: Panas and Pantouvakis
caisson construction (2013)
Figure 4.8 Caisson launching methods Data; Bygging-Uddemann (2015)
Figure 4.9 Caisson transport and launching; 5 Bygging-Uddemann.se (2017)
phase transport to floating dock
(left) and 250 tonne jack (right)
Figure 4.10 Bison 66 tonne sheerleg (1910), rdm-archief.nl
Hyundai 10,000 tonne sheerleg hhi.co.kr
(2015),

Chapter 5 Description Reference

Figure 5.1 Cost of gravity quay walls D1: History of Quay Walls, De Gijt,
2010)
Figure 5.2 Comparison between the cost Data from; Proyecto de
distribution in 1903 and 2017 Mejoramiento Del Puerto de
Valparaíso, Kraus, J, 1903 and
reference project BAM Infra

211
Chapter 6 Description Reference
Figure 6.1 Draught comparison: overturning Own work
caisson versus rectangular caisson
Figure 6.2 Second floating position Own work
(unballasted caisson)
Figure 6.3 Shape of water displacement: Own work
floating position after turning
Figure 6.4 Vertical floating position with Own work
partially ballasted front-
compartments
Figure 6.5 Turning process assisted by a 400 Own work
tonne sheerleg
Figure 6.6 Change of buoyancy point and Own work
turning process
Figure 6.7 Comparison between a linearly Own work
scaled caisson and the new design
Figure 6.8 Comparison of floating positions; Own work
linearly scaled caisson and new
design
Figure 6.9 Caisson transport-shape relation Own work

Figure 6.10 Notations for floating stability Own work

analysis

Figure 6.11 Stability of the considered Own work

rectangular caissons (unballasted)

Figure 6.12 Stability of the considered Own work

rectangular caissons (ballasted)

Chapter 7 Description Reference

Figure 7.1 Concrete formwork sloped at 27 Betoniek 2015-12
degrees for the “Promenadebrug
Nijmegen, the Netherlands
Figure 7.2 Without upper form; concrete Own work
pouring and compaction possible
over entire wall
Figure 7.3 Closed form; concrete pouring and Own work
compaction only possible from top
Figure 7.4 Deformations of a wall cast on an CIE5130: Concrete Structures
already hardened floor slab; under Imposed Thermal and
degree of restraint, direction of Shrinkage Deformations (TU Delft)
tensile trajectories and cracks
indicated
Figure 7.5 Rebar starters / endings in vertical Own work
elements
Figure 7.6 Proposed construction site layout Own work
for the overturning caisson
(12.60m)

Chapter 8 Description Reference

Figure 8.1 Repetition-feasibility relation of the Own work
overturning concept

212