A FLOATING FACTORY FOR THE

MAASVLAKTE 2 CAISSON BREAKWATER

-Design and construction method of reusable caissons for the Maasvlakte 2 breakwater-

Final thesis for M.Sc. C.E.

Technical University of Delft,
Facuity of Civil Engineering,
Department: Hydraulic Engineering

Afstudeerrapport aan de
Technische Universiteit Delft
Faculteit der Civiele Techniek
Vakgroep: Waterbouwkunde

student: S.Mann
student number: 542709
date: March 1999

Supervisors TU Delft:
prof. drs. ir. J.K. Vrijling
ir. W.H. Tutuarima
ir. T.H.W. Horstmeier Delft
Technische Universiteit Delft

Supervisors Ministry ofTransport,

Public Works and Watermanagernent:

ir. H.A. Lavooij

ing. R Camerik

S.Mann
 Preface

Preface

This report has been prepared for the department of Civil Engineering of the Technical University of
Delft and contains the thesis: 'A floating factory for the Maasvlakte 2 caisson breakwater, 'The design
and construction method of reusable caissons for the Maasvlakte 2 breakwater', which analyses the
feasibility to construct the Maasvlakte 2 breakwater by means of reusable caissons. A floating
construction method for these caissons has been analysed as well.

The thesis has been written under the supervision of prof. drs. ir. J.K. Vrijling, ir. W.H. Tutuarima and
ir. T.H. Horstmeier from the Technical University of Delft, and from the Ministry of Transport, Public
Works and Watermanagement under the supervision ofir. H.A. Lavooij head of the Department of
Hydraulic Engineering and ing. R. Camerik of the Dry Infrastructure department.

I would like to express my gratitude to all these people for their time and assistance in the preparation
of this thesis. Also I would like to thank the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and
Watermanagement for their facilities which were made available to me.

S.Mann, March 1999

Figure I. Cross-section of the Maasvlakte 2 caisson breakwater.

S.Mann
 Abstract

Abstract

Due to its excellent geographical location and its modem facilities, the Port of Rotterdam has a leading
position in the world trade. In order to maintain this position, the port must compete with the rapid
development of other European ports, and investments on the harbour facilities must constantly be
made. A problem the harbour will face during the next decades, will be the lack of area to expand.

A typical Dutch solution to create the necessary area for harbour and industrial terrain, is reclamation of
land from the sea. This can be achieved by expanding Maasvlakte 1 with Maasvlakte 2. The exact
amount of required terrain is subject to many elements which are continuously changing such as
political, economical, environmental and social views, and therefore is very difficult to predict
accurately. A solution to meet this uncertainty, is to create the Maasvlakte 2 in several phases. By
maintaining a flexible planning of the reclamation, the expansion works can be adapted to changed
views ifnecessary.

The construction works ofthe Maasvlakte 2 are very extensive, and consist of3 main elements, the
terrain itself which is to be created, sea-defence works which must protect the terrain against inundation
and erosion, and a breakwater, which must reduce the height of the incoming waves from the North sea
to an acceptable level in order to give access for shipping to the harbour under storm conditions and
limit downtime of the harbour activities.

For the phased execution ofMaasvlakte 2, sections of the newly gained terrain must be protected
against the sea by a breakwater during each phase. As breakwaters are very expensive structures, a
flexible breakwater, a breakwater which can be reused several times, might be economical. Caissons are
an ideal alternative for such a breakwater as these can be brought afloat again and repositioned at a new
location.

The caisson dimensions have been determined using the Goda design formulas to calculate the wave
forces on vertical walls and the wave transmission over the caisson, and the formulas of Brinch-
Hanssen to calculate the bearing capacity of the soil layers. These formulas have been implemented in
the computer program 'Outer Caisson Dimensions', (O.C.D.) written in this study. This program
indicates that for the conditions of the future Maasvlakte 2 breakwater site, slip of the subsoil is the
decisive failure mode. In order to prevent the occurrence of this failure mode, the caisson must have a
width of at least 21.1 m. In order to sufficiently reduce the wave transmission of the crest the
construction height of the caisson must be 23,5 m.

The outer walls have a construction thickness of0.70 m and are prestressed to absorb the outward
ground pressure on the shaft. The inner walls have a construction thickness of0.50 m, and are not
prestressed. The caisson consists of 4 cells in width direction and 15 cells in length direction. These
cells will have an internal length and width of 4.55 m.

Construction of the caissons will be on a floating construction yard moored in the Europe Harbour of
the Maasvlakte 1 equipped with slip formwork. The main advantage of the floating caisson construction
method is that there is no need of an expensive construction dock or specialised lifting equipment.

When the caisson is completed, it is moored at a temporary location where it is trimmed for stability
and prepared for transport to the breakwater site. The caissons are towed to the breakwater construction
site by tugs, and are lowered onto the foundation by flooding the cells.

Finally the cells are filled with sand, concrete capping plates are placed, and the rocks of the rubble
mound bottom protection are placed. The caissons can be considered as building blocks, easily reusable
components of the Maasvlakte 2 breakwater.

For caisson reuse, the capping plates must be removed and the sand content of the cells replaced with
ballast water. When the caisson is ready to be transported, the water is pumped from the cells and the
caissons become buoyant. They can now be transported to their new destination. The costs to reuse the

S.Mann ii
 Abstract

caisson are relatively low, and therefore the costs of the breakwater for construction phase 2 of
Maasvlakte 2 are also relatively low.

Total costs/m 1 of this reusable caisson breakwater are (based on a 4.0 km long section):

Floating Construction Yard Method

activity: costs in Nlg. /m costs for a 4km long ...

percentage
section
•. ....
• ••• •
· [inNlg.·l06 ) ... [%]
material costs caisson 46.455,- 185.9 33
(section7.7)
labour costs (working full time) 34.600,- 138.5 .... 24
(section 7.7) · .
..
.
construction yard costs ••
5.000,- 20.0 • •• ••
4
(section 8.4)
construction costs foundation (phase 1) . 50.600,- 202.4 .······ 35
.·

transport and placement costs of caissons 5.200,- 20.8 4

(section 10.2) ••• •••

tion phase 1: 141.900,- 568 100

...
costs construction phase 2: (section 11.4)
reuse of caissons: 3.500,- 14.0 6
new foundation 57.100,- 228.4 94
II Total costs construction phase 2: 60.600,- 242.4 100

Table 1 Overview breakwater costs Floating construction yard method'.

The construction method of caissons on a floating construction yard is technically feasible and
financially competitive with other construction methods, such as the Dutch traditional construction
method in a dock or the Japanese construction method on a yard located above the ground water level,
with use of heavy lifting equipment. By designing the caisson in such a manner that it is capable to float
on its own buoyancy, it is an ideal solution to form the components of a reusable breakwater.

By construction of only a section of the Maasvlakte 2 terrain (approximately 50%) the investment in the
year 20 I 0 would be 3023 million, approximately Nlg. 1200 million less than required for the
construction of the complete MV2. This money can be spent on other (money generating) projects and
may lead to a lower threshold for the decision makers of the MV2 to invest on this project.

The investment which can be saved by a breakwater construction of reusable caissons opposed to
construction of a new breakwater is Nlg. 160 million (based on the reuse of a 4 km breakwater section).

Another important advantage of a phased execution concerns the flexibility. If there is no need for
enlargement of MV2 in 2030, this will not be done. If a terrain which is twice as large as predicted is
required, this is also possible. In this manner the chance that money will be invested in a wrong project
is limited.

1
It must be noted that the accuracy of the values in this table serves to find back the essence of the value in the
rest of the text. The costs are not as accurate as might be suggested by the values presented in this table.

S.Mann iii
 Table ofcontents

Preface

Abstract ii

Table of contents

1. Layout of this report 1.1

I.I Reading guide l.l
1.2 Flowchart of this report 1.2

2. Introduction 2.1
2.I General 2.I
2.2 Problem definition: 2.2
2.3 Aim ofthesis: 2.3

3. Boundary conditions of project area: 3.1

3 .I Introduction 3. I
3.2 Geographic boundary conditions 3.1
3.3 Geologic boundary conditions 3.I
3.4 Hydraulic boundary conditions 3.2
3.5 Conclusion 3.3

4. Design criteria demanded by the Mainport Rotterdam 4.1

4.1 Introduction 4. I
4.2 Functions of the breakwater 4.1
4.3 Design conditions (limit states) 4.1
4.4 Length profile of the breakwater and caisson length 4.2
4.5 Bottom level of project area during construction phase I 4.2
4.6 Available construction time for the breakwater 4.2
4. 7 Reusable caissons 4.2
4.8 Conclusion 4.3

5. Further assumptions made for the design 5.1

5.1 Introduction 5.1
5.2 Assumptions of the subsoil 5.I
5.3 Assumptions of the rubble mound foundation 5.1
5.4 General assumptions 5.2
5.5 Conclusion 5.3

6. Outer dimensions of the caisson, functional requirements 6.1

6.1 Introduction 6.1
6.2 Caisson height 6.1
6.3 Caisson width 6.2
6.3.1 Forces on the construction 6.3
6.3.2 Sliding 6.3
6.3.3 Overturning 6.4
6.3.4 Bearing capacity of the rubble mound foundation 6.4
6.3.5 Bearing capacity of the subsoil 6.5
6.3.6 Determining failure mode 6.6
6.4 Caisson length 6.6
6.5 Effect of different parameters on the required caisson width 6.6
6.6 Conclusion 6.11

7. Concrete and steel dimensions 7.1

7. I Introduction 7.1
7.2 Design philosophy 7.1
7 .2.1 Placement of the prestressing steel reinforcement 7.1
7.3 Calculation of the forces on the caisson 7.3

S.Mann
 Table ofcontents

7.3.1 Schematised design forces on the caisson during construction phase 7.3
7.3.2 Schematised design forces on the caisson during transport phase 7.4
7.3.3 Schematised design forces on the caisson during placement phase 7.4
7.3.4 Schematised design forces on the caisson during operational phase 7.5
7.3.5 Schematised design forces on the caisson during reuse phase 7.8
7.3.6 Conclusion design forces 7.8
7.4 Calculation of the bending moments in the plates 7.8
7.5 Calculation of the concrete and steel dimensions 7.9
7.5.1 Computer program RCA 7.9
7.6 Technical drawings 7. IO
7.6.1 Outer wall 7.IO
7 .6.2 Inner wall and base slab 7. II
7.7 Conclusions 7.13

8. Floating construction method of caissons 8.1

8.1 Introduction 8.1
8.2 Construction method of caissons in a floating construction yard 8. I
8.2.1 Sequence of works 8.2
8.2.2 Formwork 8.7
8.2.3 Concreting 8.8
8.2.4 Stability during construction 8.8
8.2.5 Logistic process 8.9
8.2.6 Demands of the construction site 8.I3
8.2.7 Equipment & costs 8.I4
8.3 Conclusions 8.I5

9. Rubble mound foundation 9.1

9.1 Introduction 9.I
9.2 Subsoil 9.1
9.3 Rubble mound foundation 9.1
9.3.1 Scrading 9.2
9.4 Conclusion 9.4

10. Transport and placement of the caissons 10.1

I 0 .I Introduction 10.1
I0.2 Procedure 10.1
10.3 Conclusion I0.3

11. Reuse of the caissons 11.1

I1 .I Introduction II. I
I1.2 Procedure Il.l
II.4 Conclusion I1.4

12. Caisson construction methods 12.1

I2.I Introduction I2.I
I2.2 Floating construction yard method 12.2
12.2.I Positive and negative aspects of the floating construction yard method I2.2
I2.2.2 Overview breakwater costs Floating construction yard method: I2.2
12.3 Japanese construction method 12.3
I2.3 .I Procedure I2.3
I2.3.2 Positive and negative aspects Japanese method I2.5
I2.3.3 Overview breakwater costs Japanese construction method: I2.6
I2.4 Dock-construction method I2.7
I2.4.1 Procedure 12.7
I2.4.2 Positive and negative aspects dock method I2.8
I2.4.3 Overview breakwater costs Dock-construction method: I2.8
I2.5 Other alternatives 12.9
I2.6 Conclusions I2.9

S.Mann 2