PIANC PTC II WORKING GROUP 28

Recommendations
for the

Construction
of

Breakwaters
with

Vertical and Inclined Concrete Walls

Report of Sub-Group C

Final Report . . . July 1997

Issued by the Sub-Group Chairman
to the Main Working Group Chairman, July 1997

Investigations into the implication of Construction aspects in Design

Performance of Concrete
Identification of “Hot Spots” in Design and Construction
00
 MEMBERS OF THE SUB-GROUP

Mr. J. L. Diaz Rato, Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos

Infrastructure Department, Gijón Port Authority, Asturias, Spain.

Dr. O. Kiyomiya, PhD Civil Engineering

The Port and Harbour Research Institute, Japan.

Mr. F. Ropert, ITPE

Service Technique Central des Ports Maritimes et des Voies Navigable, France.

Mr. B. N. Sharp, MSc, C.Eng, FICE

Sir William Halcrow & Partners Ltd., London, UK

Professor Dr.-Ing. T. Stückrath, (Chairman)

Technical University of Berlin, Germany.

Other Authorities consulted during preparation of the Recommendations

Mr. T. N. W. Akroyd, MSc Tech, LLB, C.Eng, FIStruct E, UK

Chairman, BS 8002 code drafting committee

Mr. P. Chubileau, CSP

Service Technique Central des Port Maritimes et des Voies Navigable, France

Dr. F. T. Christensen
Applied Science Associates, USA

Dr. T. A. Harrison, BSc, PhD, C.Eng, MICE, FICT

British Ready Mixed Concrete Association, UK

Professor (Associate) D.Eng, P.A. Hedar

Gothenburg, Sweden

Dr. B. Simpson, F.Eng, Eur Ing, MA, PhD, FICE

Ove Arup and Partners, Arup Geotechnics, UK

Mr. G. Leone, BSc, C.Eng, MICE

Sir William Halcrow and Partners Ltd., UK

Mr. E. Longaygue, ITPE

Service Technique Central des Ports Maritimes et des Voies Navigable, France.

Dr.-Ing. J. Schwarz
Hamburg Ship Model Basin, Germany

Mr. D. Slater, BSc, C.Eng, MICE, MIStructE

Sir William Halcrow and Partners Ltd., UK

Professor G. Somerville, PhD, C.Eng

British Cement Association, UK

Mr. D. Wimpenny, BSc, MPhil

Sir William Halcrow and Partners Ltd., UK

(i)
 Contents
Page Page

1 INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF

REFERENCE 2.4.8 Aggregates ............................................... 31
2.4.9 Cracking and Crack Width ...................... 32
1.1 Methodology for the
2.4.10 Reinforcing Steel ..................................... 32
Recommendations of Sub-Group C.... 1
2.4.11 Admixtures .............................................. 32
1.2 General Headings .................................... 1 2.4.12 Additional Protective Measures:
1.3 Format of Recommendations................... 1 Coatings, Coated Reinforcement,
Cathodic Protection ............................. 32
2.4.13 Corrosion of Structural Steel ................... 33
2 DESIGN CRITERIA AND MATERIALS

2.1 Different Loadings not covered by 3 CONSTRUCTION RELATED

Sub-Group A CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION
METHODS
2.1.1 Earthquake ............................................... 2
2.1.2 Ice Pressure.............................................. 3 3.1 Caissons
2.1.3 Ship Collision (deleted as insignificant).. 4 3.1.1 Float-Out Loading ................................... 34
2.1.4 Earth Pressures ........................................ 4 3.1.2 First Grounding........................................ 34
2.1.5 Fill Pressures............................................ 8 3.1.3 Caisson Fill Methods and Pressures ........ 34
2.1.6 Friction..................................................... 9 3.1.4 Sea Condition Data and Limits for
2.1.7 Handling and Float-Out Loads ................ 11 Construction Risk .................................... 34
2.1.8 First Grounding........................................ 12 3.1.5 Construction Joints .................................. 34
3.1.6 Settlement ................................................ 35
2.2 Resistance Analysis, Internal Analysis 3.1.7 Early Thermal Cracking .......................... 37
2.2.1 Structural Analysis in Element Design.... 13 3.1.8 Slipforming .............................................. 39
2.2.2 Scale Models............................................ 13 3.1.9 Curing ...................................................... 40
2.2.3 Limit State Design and Risk Analysis ..... 14 3.1.10 Developments in Caissons....................... 40

3.2 Blocks
2.3 Durability of Concrete
3.2.1 Blocks from Concrete .............................. 42
2.3.1 Durability, Introduction ........................... 15
3.2.2 Types of Concrete Blocks........................ 42
2.3.2 Design Working Life (or Service Life) ... 16
3.2.3 Common Problems .................................. 42
2.3.3 Processes of Deterioration ....................... 17
2.3.4 Exposure Classification ........................... 19 3.3 Rubble Mounds...................................... 44
2.3.5 Influence of Cement Type ....................... 21
2.3.6 Influence of Cement Content................... 22 3.4 Curtain and Pile Type ........................... 44
2.3.7 Cracking and the Influence of Cracks ..... 23
2.3.8 Influence of Curing.................................. 24 4 SUMMARY
2.3.9 Monitoring and Maintenance................... 25
4.1 Different Loadings not covered by
Sub-Group A............................................ 45
2.4 Materials
4.2 Resistance Analysis, Internal Analysis.... 46
2.4.1 Rock and Rubble ..................................... 26
4.3 Durability of Concrete ............................. 47
2.4.2 Filling and Backfilling............................. 26
4.4 Materials .................................................. 49
2.4.3 Concrete Durability, General -
4.5 Construction Related Criteria and
Design, Detailing and Workmanship....... 26
Methods - Caissons.................................. 51
2.4.4 Unreinforced Concrete (Plain or Mass)... 26
4.6. Blocks ...................................................... 51
2.4.5 Reinforced Concrete including 4.7 Curtain and Pile Type Breakwaters ......... 51
Selection of Cover to Reinforcement ...... 28
2.4.6 Prestressed Concrete................................ 30
2.4.7 Cement..................................................... 30 5 REFERENCES ...................................... 52

(ii)
1. INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
1.1 Methodology for the Recommend-
ations of Sub-Group C
The task of Sub-Group C was drawn up at the
Meeting of the Working Group in Hannover in
February 1993:-
“Investigations into the implication of
construction aspects in design. Performance of
concrete. Identification of “hot spots” in design
and construction”.
By consultation with the members of Working
Group 28 and, especially amongst the members of
Sub-Group C, tasks and topics were assembled
which Sub-Group C undertook to study. The Sub-
Group decided that one of its tasks was to identify
significant loading cases and items related to design,
structural analysis and construction, which may not
be covered by the predominantly wave loading and
analysis considerations of the other Sub-Groups.
The list was enlarged and changed several times.
The main difficulty encountered in drawing up a
framework for the topics was that a clear structure
for a consistent arrangement of all recommendations
could not be established. It is unavoidable that
certain subjects have to be repeated, because an
exclusive relation of one item to a single heading
does not exist.
At the first meeting in Berlin in February 1994,
the following basic methodology was agreed:-
• identify appropriate topics
• study and prepare recommendations, and
discuss nationally with colleagues
• compare guidance and codes nationally and
internationally
• check if topics are already covered by exist-
ing documents
• list the references to topics in a standard
alphabetical order form.
At the three subsequent meetings of the
Sub-Group (held in Compiègne, France in July
1994, Gijón, Spain in February 1995, and London,
UK in July 1995) and by correspondence, the lists
of topics were identified and initial reports were
prepared by each member on specific topics. It was
agreed which topics would be studied by which
members and, subsequently, these were developed
into several stages of draft text.
The final draft Sub-Group Report was completed
in October 1995 and issued to the Sub-Group
members and, by the Chairman, to the Main
Working Group 28. After receipt of the further
comments arising from the Sub-Group members
and comments of the main Working Group at the
meetings held in Berlin, in March 1996, and in Delft
in September 1996, the Sub-Group Report was
updated for issue as a Final Sub-Group Report in
July 1997.
The members of the Sub-Group and those
external authorities who were consulted during this
period (either within the Working Group or outside
PIANC) are listed in the opening pages of this
Sub-Report.
1.2 General Headings
The topics selected for consideration were as
follows:-
DESIGN CRITERIA AND MATERIALS
• Different loadings not covered by Sub-Group
A
• Resistance analysis, internal analysis
• Durability and maintenance
• Materials.
CONSTRUCTION RELATED CRITERIA
AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS
• Caissons
• Blocks
• Rubble mounds
• Pile and Curtain type.
1.3 Format of Recommendations
The recommendations of Sub-Group C, where
possible, consist of information mostly drawn from
the experience and studies of its members, refer-
ences, and brief summarised recommendations. The
recommendations are brief or given as a reference,
except where it is considered that it may be more
helpful to give more detail. According to a decision
at the Meeting of the Main Working Group 28 on
the 26th of April 1995 in London, it will be left to
the Main Working Group to extract from the
broader formulated recommendations of the Sub-
Groups, those statements which should be included
in the Recommendations of Working Group 28. A
summary of the main recommendations is given at
the end of the Report, as Section 4. In accordance
with the practice of PIANC, the Main Group Report
will be circulated to members. Copies of Sub-Group
reports are available on application to PIANC.
1
2. DESIGN CRITERIA AND MATERIALS
2.1 Different Loadings not covered by
Sub-Group A
2.1.1. Earthquake
The closest understanding of the behaviour of
breakwater caissons during earthquakes can, as for
structures above ground, be obtained by dynamic
response analysis. Due to advances in computer
techniques, this can now be achieved by finite
element methods. The caisson, rubble mound and
soil foundations and surrounding water should be
considered in the modelling. This model has not
been applied generally in design, except for very
important breakwater caissons located in a vigorous
earthquake activity zone. The response of the model
is illustrated in Fig. 1.
m
Fig. 1 Earthquake dynamic response model
(ref The Port and Harbour Research Institute - Japan)
Generally, however, the simple equivalent static
load method is appropriate for breakwater structures
because the seismic force has a relatively short
period of natural vibration, with heavy damping. In
accordance with the Technical Standards for Ports
and Harbour Facilities in Japan, 1991, the earth-
quake load acting on a breakwater located in a seis-
mic activity area should be calculated by the follow-
ing formula:
• Earthquake load =
(dead load + surcharge) x seismic coefficient.
The seismic coefficient is determined by taking
the regional probability of occurrence of an earth-
quake, the condition of the foundation soil and the
importance of the structure into consideration.
2
As a general rule, it is considered that the earth-
quake load acts horizontally at the centre of gravity
of the structure. The vertical component of earth-
quake load is not usually considered. The seismic
coefficient is obtained as follows:
Seismic coefficient =
Regional seismic coefficient x factor for sub-
soil condition x importance factor
In the Japanese Technical Standards, the factors
are as follows:
• regional seismic coefficient is 0.05, 0.10 or
0.15
• factor for subsoil condition is 0.8, 1.0 or 1.2
• importance factor is 0.5, 1.0, 1.2 or 1.5.
These factors are classified in Tables 1, 2, & 3
on page 3.
Usually, wave forces are larger than earthquake
armour
stone
b l o c k
(a) Model
(b) Vibration Mode
forces and therefore earthquake forces can be
neglected in the design, except in the case of very
large breakwater caissons located in areas of vigor-
ous seismic activity. The stability of the foundations
must also be checked for earthquake loading. Even
in the major Hansin earthquake in Japan, in January
1995, the breakwater caissons did not slide or
collapse. The most significant effect was settlement
of the caissons, due to liquefaction of loose sand in
the foundation strata. Seismic forces should also be
taken into consideration for piers, jetties, etc.
The vertical component is considered only for an
earthquake with a narrow epicentre or for structures
located near a fault. In this case, the vertical
component coefficient is usually adopted as half the
horizontal component.
 Subsoil conditions are divided into three classifi-
cations : 1st, 2nd and 3rd kind.
The classification of the subsoil condition and
hence the subsoil condition factor depends on the
thickness of the quaternary deposit and the types of
subsoil condition, as given in Tables 1 & 2.
The factor relating to the importance of the
structure is classified in four categories: Special
class, A class, B class and C class, as in Table 3.
TABLE 1
CLASSIFICATION OF SUBSOIL CONDITION
(ref Technical Standards for Ports and Harbour Facilities in Japan)
Thickness of Gravel Sand or Clay
quaternary deposit
Less than 5m 1st kind 1st kind
5-25m 1st kind 2nd kind
More than 25m 2nd kind 3rd kind
TABLE 2
SUBSOIL CONDITION FACTOR
(ref Technical Standards for Port and Harbour Facilities in Japan)
Classification Factor
1st kind 0.8
2nd kind 1.0
3rd kind 1.2
TABLE 3
CLASSIFICATION OF IMPORTANCE FOR EARTHQUAKE
(ref Technical Standards for Port and Harbour Facilities in Japan)
Classification
Characteristics of Structure
of Structure
Special Class The structure has significant char-
acteristics covered by items (1)-(3)
in A Class.
A Class (1) If the structure is damaged by
an earthquake, a large number of
human lives and property will pos-
sibly be lost.
(2) The structure will perform an
important role in the reconstruction
work of the region after an earth-
quake.
(3) The structure handles haz-
ardous or dangerous activities with
risk that the damage to the struc-
ture will cause a great loss of
human life or property.
(4) If the structure is damaged,
economical and social activity of
the region will suffer severely.
(5) If the structure is damaged,
repair work will be difficult.
B Class The structure is other than Special,
A or C Class.
C Class The structure is small and easy to
repair, excluding structures which
fall in the Special or A Classes.
2.1.2 Ice Pressure
According to Schwarz J, and Christensen F T,
there are still no formulae which can be recom-
mended as being conclusive and reliable in the
calculation of ice pressures for all cases. The
following guidelines should contribute a better
understanding of ice pressures for major works.
In countries with long frost periods, vertical
breakwaters should be designed to resist ice
pressure, which can arise from different causes:
a) pressure caused by the closed cover of ice in
a harbour, when the cover expands with
Soft Ground
rising temperature
b) pressure caused by ice fields drifting parallel
2nd kind to the coast with tidal current or littoral drift
3rd kind c) vertical pressures caused by piling up
processes.
3rd kind As a rule, ice pressure is not considered for slop-
ing breakwaters in Europe (Hedar P A, 1995) but is
recommended for America (Christensen F T et al,
1995, Bruun P, 1985).
For vertical breakwaters, assessment of ice
pressure is a matter of judgement depending on the
ice conditions and the possibilities of ice-structure
interaction. It is doubtful if the pressures given for
concrete dams for fresh water lakes, such as 300 kN
per m2 and 50 to 200 kN per metre length accord-
ing to Hedar P A, 1995, or typical pressures of 200
to 400 kN per metre with extremes of 400 to 600 kN
per metre according to Christensen F T, 1996, can
be applied to vertical breakwaters in sea water
Small scale experiments on ice forces on vertical
structures carried out at the Iowa Institute for
Importance Hydraulic Research have resulted in the following
Factor formula (ref Schwarz J, 1994).
1.5 σeff = 0.564 . d-0.5 . h0.1 . σc
where
σeff = effective indentation strength in MPa
1.2 d = structure width in m
h = ice thickness in m
σc = maximal compressive strength of an ice
prism at a strain rate of 0.003 per
second in MPa. (For a prism length of
0.2 m the deformation speed must be
0.0006 m/s). For instance for the Baltic
Sea, a value of σc = 1.8 MPa is feasible
according to EAU 1990.
According to this formula the effective ice
pressure decreases with the square root of the
structure width. This finding is in accordance with
Sanderson’s investigations (ref. Sanderson T J O,
1988) which however do not consider the effect of
the ice thickness, as illustrated in Fig. 2 (overleaf).
1.0 The Iowa formula (Schwarz J, 1994), which still
has to be proved for larger structures, has received
0.5 support from full scale measurements in China and
in the Baltic as well as recently by Canadian
engineers (Fitzpatrick J, 1994 and Kennedy K, 1996).
3
 principles applying to struc-
tural design are discussed in
2.2.
INDENTATION PRESSURE MPa

Fig. 2 Effective ice pressure versus pressure area
(ref Sanderson T J O, 1988)
These last publications conclude that ice pres-
sures for large works have been overestimated in the
past by a considerable factor, as illustrated in Fig. 3.
According to Schwarz J, 1996, and Christensen F T,
1996, a validation study is planned in an EU
research project.
Then and Now
Beaufort global and local ice loads
Load(tonnes)
(tonnes) Pressure (MPa)
Load Pressure (MPs)
1 500 000
Local
80
Global
100 000
1980 1985 1990 1995
Fig. 3 Development of ice force predictions
(ref Fitzpatrick J, 1994)
2.1.3 Ship Collision (deleted)
The effects are not significant, and only relate to
small vessels.
2.1.4 Earth Pressures
This section concerns the principles of earth
pressure in general and external to structures such as
caissons (see Fig. 5). Earth pressure in filling to
caissons is considered in 2.1.5. The general case
must be considered first, although a breakwater will
have fill placed against it only if it is protected by a
rubble mound on the exposed side, or it retains
reclamation on the lee side. The water pressures to
be used in conjunction with earth pressures will, in
the case of breakwaters, be a function of wave and
tidal variation loading, although on the lee side and
internally they may only relate to tidal effect. Wave
loading is not considered here. The general
Traditional “working
stress” codes recommend
"active" or "at-rest" pressure
coefficients to apply to the
dry or submerged soil mass,
as appropriate, as a working
(or “characteristic”) load. The
“fully active” coefficient is
usually applied to blockwork
walls, where slight rotational
movement can be tolerated,
and can be applied for the
overall stability of caissons
as, for example, in Spain.
However, the “at-rest” co-
efficient is usually applied to
calculate the overall stability of rigid structures such
as caissons and to calculate the sizes of the structural
members. If the fill is to be compacted aggressively,
it could be necessary to consider compaction
pressures, i.e. pressures greater than "at rest". This
“working load” is applied in conjunction with
suitable factors of safety for overall static
(equilibrium) stability calculations, and to derive
working structural material stresses. “Passive”
pressures are calculated at the ultimate, and divided
by a relevant factor of safety. The Japanese code (ref
15 Technical Standards for Port and Harbour Facilities
in Japan, 1991) still continues this approach. The
German Waterfront Structures Code (ref EAU 1990)
has now introduced the concepts of limit states in
accordance with draft Eurocode 7 while still retain-
ing traditional methods as a permitted option. Due
to the difficulties of applying limit states to
foundation problems, traditional methods remain an
option in other new codes, such as BS 8002 (ref BS
8002, 1994).
Most structural codes now adopt the limit state
philosophy, although the application of limit states
to earth pressure and variable water loading for
maritime structures is not as straightforward as for
standard structural loading for buildings and
bridges. The selection of partial factors to match
with and correspond to the reliability and failure
probability of wave and water loading is the task of
Sub-Groups A & D. See also 2.2.3.
One of the main difficulties in bringing together
earth pressure theory and limit state design of
structural members is the fact that earth pressures in
retained materials reduce as movement increases. In
this respect, earth pressures differ from almost all
other types of loads considered in structural design.
In addition, the failure mechanisms and pressures
are different for flexible steel sheet piling and rigid
reinforced concrete or masonry walls. The problem
is that, in geotechnical terms, the soil load at ultimate
(failure) is often less than at working conditions,
whereas for structural design of the reinforced

4
 concrete section the designer seeks to apply a
factored higher loading for the ultimate case.
The serviceability limit state earth pressures are
usually calculated directly from the characteristic
density and strength properties and the appropriate
earth pressure coefficient. The ultimate limit state
pressures are usually calculated by modifying
several of the main parameters involved from their
expected values, by the application of partial factors.
Sometimes the partial factor is applied directly to
the serviceability limit state pressure, and some-
times it is applied to a parameter, such as tan Ø'. In
some current codes, for example, such as British
Standard 8110 : 1985, and the Spanish Maritime
Works Recommendations ROM 0.2-90 and ROM
0.5-94, the ultimate limit state pressures for
structural design are calculated by applying partial
factors to the serviceability limit state pressures.
However, for many years the Danish and other
Scandinavian codes adopted the less conservative
principle of applying a partial factor to tan Ø' thus
deriving a smaller value of Ø' and hence a larger
value of the applied earth pressure, together with
alternative factors on the water pressure.
This latter approach to the ultimate limit state
earth pressure for structural design can produce a
much smaller difference between the serviceability
and ultimate limit states than the classical working
stress approach, or if the partial factors from
structural codes are applied to the characteristic (i.e.
working or serviceability) pressures. Note that the
partial factor for material strength will also be
applied, and that the total ULS using direct factors
from structural codes has been calibrated to give
Surcharge
+4
+2
0
-2
Ultimate limit state using factors of 1.15 on tan∅1 and 1.2 on water
Reduced level : m
-4
-6
-8
Serviceability limit state
-10
-12
-13.29
0 50 100 150 200
Horizontal wall pressure: kN/m2
similar results to the old working stress codes. See
Fig. 4 (ref Daniels R J and Sharp B N, 1979).
However, some codes achieve a similar reduction
by the use of much lower partial factors applied to
the serviceability limit state than are used in other
current structural codes. See below and Fig. 6(d)
and 6(g).
British Standard 8002 : 1994, Code of Practice
for Earth Retaining Structures, incorporating the
limit state approach, has only recently been issued.
BS 8002 adopts limit state philosophy but it does
not, in fact, involve partial factors. It reduces tan Ø'
by a “mobilisation” factor which operates in a similar
way to a partial factor and can be imagined as a
partial factor. However, BS 8002 does not deal with
maritime structures (ref Akroyd T N W, 1996 and
Bolton M D, 1996). Alternative limit state methods
are incorporated in Eurocode 7 : Part 1:1993.
Eurocode 7 has two appropriate cases, B and C.
Case B derives straight from structural design, and
Case C comes from geotechnical stability analysis.
A comparison of various applications of partial
factor methods for the calculation of structural
members is given in Figs. 5 and 6. A breakwater
caisson with sand fill on the inside (land side) is
illustrated in Fig. 5. Typical lateral pressure
diagrams are given for the loading on the buried
face, i.e. the components of soil above water level,
surcharge, submerged soil and water. To illustrate
the comparison of methods in Fig. 6, the cases of
submerged soil and water loading with water level
at a MSL of +3m, only, are considered, all as
unfavourable loads. Tidal variation of water level,
wave loading and surcharge are not considered here
+4.5m Dock deck level
+3.0m WL
Fill and water levels
to same vertical scale
Ultimate limit state using factors of 1.5 on Fig. 4
surcharge and 1.35 on soil and water as
Eurocode 7 Case B i.e. similar to working Caisson walls : Design wall
stress results excluding the material factor.
pressure distribution
(Loading on one side only -i.e.
all loads have been calculated as
unfavourable loads on the loaded
side and air on the other side.)
(Adapted from: Daniels R J and
Sharp B N, 1979)
250 300 350 400
effective factor approx. 1.2
effective factor approx. 1.35
5
 but the appropriate worst case situations of water
level will have to be considered in a specific design.
Case (a) in Fig. 6 shows the “at-rest” character-
istic pressure (serviceability limit state) for sub-
merged sand and water for a 20m depth of fill, for
the soil properties given in Fig. 5. Only granular
material is considered.
Cases (b), (c) and (d) show the ultimate limit
state pressures for structural design calculated by
the direct application of partial factors to case (a). In
Case (b) to the British structural code BS 8110 :
1985, the submerged sand pressure is multiplied by
1.4 and water, as an adverse (i.e. not a reducing)
load, is also multiplied by 1.4. The factor for
variable loads is 1.6. Case (c) shows the recommen-
dations of the Spanish ROM 0.2-90 1990, which
uses a partial factor of 1.35. However, variable
water loads based on statistical data can be factored
by 1.0, and other variable loads by 1.5. Similar rules
apply to Eurocode 7, Case B. Case (d) shows a
similar USA application noted in the PIANC report
on floating breakwaters (ref PIANC, 1994), where
the standard partial factor is 1.2. In this application,
design wave loading can be used with a factor of
1.3, or 1.6 on a yearly return period.
Cases (e) and (f) give examples of applying the
partial factor to tan Ø'. In (e), to earlier Scandinav-
ian rules, the worst of two cases is taken, i.e. a
factor on tan Ø' of 1.3 combined with water
(adverse) at 1.0, or a factor on tan Ø' of 1.15 plus
water (adverse) at 1.2. In (f), the method of BS
8002:1994 is shown with a “mobilisation” factor
(nb not a “partial” factor) on tan Ø' of 1.2. However,
BS 8002 does not appear to give adequate guidance
Sea and Breakwater details
Wave side as relevant
(Front side)
+ 3m msl
Fill
- 17m
SOIL PROPERTIES
Characteristic ∅' above water 33°
∅' submerged 30°
Density γ submerged 9.5kN/m3
γ sea water 10.2kN/m3
Fig. 5 Breakwater caisson with sand fill on the inside (land-side)
6
on appropriate factors for water pressure for
structural design. A similar result is given by Case
C of Eurocode 7, with a factor on tan Ø' of 1.25
with, again, inadequate guidance on water pressures
to apply to structural elements in conjunction with
this soil loading. An answer to this serious ommis-
sion has been suggested by Cole & Watt (ref Cole &
Watt, 1994). They suggest that the earth pressure
calculated from the reduced tan Ø' should be treated
as a “worst credible load” to BS 8110 : Part 2, 1985,
and therefore both this and the water pressure be
multiplied by a factor not less that 1.1 or 1.2 for
structural design of the section. This suggestion is
refuted by Akroyd (ref Akroyd T N W, 1996) and, in
comparison with other “limit state” codes, it would
indeed appear incorrect to apply a further factor to
the earth pressure component. However, the suggest-
ion to apply a factor of 1.2 to the water component
at least produces a comparable philosophy to some
other codes, and is illustrated in Case (f). Case (g)
illustrates proposed Japanese factors (ref Kiyomiya
O, 1994) which are similar to cases (b), (c) and (d)
but with a lower general factor of 1.1, and a higher
Ko of 0.6. The factor for variable loads is 1.3.
It can be noted from the above that higher, more
traditional, ratios of ULS loads to serviceability
limit state loads for the calculation of member sizes
are given by structural codes such as BS 8110,
Eurocode 7 Case B, and ROM 0.2-90, although
ROM 0.2-90 has the facility for varying environ-
mental load factors. The less-conservative loading
from the USA, earlier Scandinavian, BS 8002 and
Eurocode 7 Case C, and Japanese methods, are all
of a similar magnitude.
Reference water level for examples only.
Different water level cases will be necessary
for design
Land side
Fill
Soil Surcharge Submerged Water
above (Not soil.
water considered
level inFig.6)
Characteristic Ko (At Rest) 1-sin∅'
N.B. Soil pressures and water in soil only considered on one side,
as unfavourable loads. Not wave loading.
 + 3 m

Soil and
Submerged Water
Water
Sand
Ko = 0.500
Wall friction O°

-17m

95 kN/m2 204 kN/m2 299 kN/m2

(a) At-Rest characteristic pressures of submerged sand and water only. Serviceability limit state.

Submerged Water (a) x 1.4

Sand (Adverse)
(a) x 1.4 (a) x 1.4

133 kN/m2 286 kN/m2 419 kN/m2

(b) Ultimate limit state to BS8110 structural factors. (Variable loads 1.6)

(a) x 1.35 (a) x 1.35 (a) x 1.35

128 kN/m2 275 kN/m2 403 kN/m2

(c) ULS to Spanish ROM. Permanent loads 1.35 (n.b. Variable loads 1.5) and Eurocode 7, Case B.
(n.b. Variable environmental loads based on statistical data 1.0, other variable loads 1.5)

(a) x 1.2 (a) x 1.2 (a) x 1.2

114 kN/m2 245 kN/m2 359 kN/m2

(d) ULS to USA (Ref in text) 1.2 (DL & LL) + 1.3 Design Wave.
Case (i) Case (i) water Total case (ii)
Factor on tan ∅' 1.3
Ko = 0.594 plus water at 1.0

Case (ii)
Factor on tan ∅' 1.15 Case (ii) water
Ko = 0.551 plus water at 1.2 Total case (i)

105 113 kN/m2 204 245 kN/m2 317 350 kN/m2

(e) ULS to Scandinavian factors. Case (ii) rules here

BS 8002. Water to BS 8002 Total

Mobilisation Factor on tan ∅' 1.2 ?????? Eurocode
Ko = 0.566 Case C
Water to Soil
Eurocode 7 Case C Eurocode 7 Total + water
Factor on tan ∅' 1.25 Case C ?????? BS 8002 at 1.2
Ko = 0.581 Soil +
Water at 1.2
Water at 1.2
108 110 kN/m2 245 kN/m2 353 355 kN/m2
(f) ULS to BS 8002 and Eurocode 7 Case C.

(a) x 1.1 (a) x 1.1 Total

with Ko = 0.6

114 kN/m2 224 kN/m2 338 kN/m2

(g) ULS. Proposed Japanese Factors. (Variable water pressure 1.3)
Fig. 6 Comparison of earth pressure calculations
(Note: loads considered on one side only, all as unfavourable (unvariable) loads, to illustrate the principles. In practice there may be soil and/or water loads on
both sides with combinations as favourable or unfavourable and variable loads. See 2.2.3.)

7
 Water pressure is an important loading case to 2.1.5 Fill Pressures
be applied to external water pressure for floating
caissons, and to variable water levels in the soil as The loading within caisson cells is generally
affected by wave and tidal effects. Different factors derived from silo theory. Practical verification of
need to be applied to the water pressure, depending this approach is available from measurements in
upon whether the water pressure is considered to be caisson cells in 1976/77 (ref Daniels R J and Sharp
assisting or resisting the earth pressure. As water B N, 1979) which demonstrated that the Janssen silo
pressure is much larger than soil pressure in the case distribution of pressure with a wall friction of 20°
of granular materials, there would seem to be little compared closely with the measured pressures, Fig. 7.
point in over-refinement of the earth pressure The various methods for calculating internal
fraction of the total load, unless much clearer pressures are illustrated in Figure 8. As in 2.1.4,
guidance and rational partial factors are also given submerged sand to 20m depth is used to illustrate
to variable water loading. the principles. Case (a) shows the characteristic
As a general recommendation, results such as at-rest unconfined pressure, for the materials given
given by the USA method with a general factor of in Fig. 5.
1.2, the Japanese method, or by factors on tan Ø' Case (b) shows calculations to DIN 1055 Part
such as the Scandinavian method, BS 8002 and 6:1987, ROM 0.2-90 and ACI 313:1983, all of
Eurocode 7 Case C, provided a factor of at least 1.2 which are based on the Janssen method, applied in
is applied to water pressure, appear to be similar and the filling condition. Eurocode 7 refers , for silo
appropriate for the analysis of both overall stability pressures, to Eurocode 1 Part 4, which is presum-
and member strength. Some authorities, however, ably based on the same method. ACI 313 adopts the
would recommend the higher, conventional, struct- active pressure coefficient (0.333 in this case) and
ural factors to be used for member strength. The overpressure factor. However, all of these methods
Hong Kong Geoguide 1 (ref Hong Kong Guide to give the same result with an at-rest coefficient of 0.5.
retaining wall design) advocates this course. It gives As shown in case (c), the Technical Standards
partial factors similar to BS 8002 for soil equilibrium, for Port and Harbour Facilities in Japan, 1991, rec-
but advises that structural members be calculated ommend a fixed at-rest earth pressure coefficient of
using unfactored soil properties in conjunction with 0.6, which is applied to a depth equal to the width of
the relevant structural code. The Hong Kong Guide the cell. Below that 45° line, the pressure is constant
does not apply to maritime structures. See also 2.2.3. on a silo basis. This calculation applies up to cell
Please refer to 2.1.5 for soil loading within cells, dimensions of 5m x 5m, above which standard silo
and to 2.2 and 2.4.2 for loading cases, materials and pressures are applied. The results are simpler and
filling methods. not greatly dissimilar from the others in case (b).

+4.5 m Final pavement level

+4

+ 1.5 m Fill level

+2 (partially filled)

+1.0 m WL

0
Fill and water levels to
same vertical scale
Note: Total wall pressures were measured
-2 with pressure cells.
Effective earth pressure = total measured
Reduced level : m

pressure minus static water pressure

Effective
-4 earth pressure
(measured)

-6 Total wall pressure

(measured)

-8
Fig. 7
Difference Caisson walls.
= water pressure
Comparison between measured and predicted
-10 Effective Effective wall pressures within a caisson cell
Janssen Rankine
Distribution Distribution
δ = 20° δ = 0° (ref Daniels R J and
-12 Sharp B N, 1979)
Caisson floor

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Horizontal wall pressure : kNm2

8
 The loading on the base plate of caissons increase the density for reduction of liquefaction
depends on the form of wall pressure assumption. risk in an earthquake, this can be achieved by vibra-
When a silo theory is used, the base plate will be tion (ref Daniels R J and Sharp B N, 1979/Cochrane
relieved compared to that of a simple earth pressure G H, Chetwin D J L and Hogbin W, 1979). Due to
at rest assumption, because the fill is hanging on the the inverse relationship between density and Ø',
walls. The soil reactions on the base plate can also densification causes no significant increase in wall
be calculated to the Danish Standard DS 415. The pressure. Densification is usually only necessary if
Technical Standards for Port and Harbour Facilities the fill is used to support surface works.
in Japan 1990 give clear guidance on the design load- There is conflicting guidance as to whether the
ings for walls and base plate, as does ROM 0.2-90. reduction of earth pressure by silo effect applies if
There are two schools of thought in Spain. The the caisson is vibrated by earthquake shock or wave
conservative approach adopts the pressure on the loading. According to Japanese experience, the
foundation in service, after deducting the mass of frequency of earthquake vibrations does not destroy
the submerged base slab itself, and the thrust at the the silo effect. The problem should be reduced by
bottom of the fill, taking into account the silo effect. using appropriate fill materials and achieving
It is, however, considered more realistic to calculate appropriate fill density to preclude earthquake lique-
the pressure on the cell bottoms as equivalent to that faction. The density, in place, can be verified by
extended by the whole mass of caisson and filling, Dutch cone or similar site investigation methods.
supposing that just one cell remains unfilled. The load cases for the design of the cells and the
The above characteristic pressures can be used inter-cell walls must reflect the worst cases which
for the serviceability limit state or for traditional can apply in practice. For example, the maximum
design by “working stress” methods. The considera- water level case with water level at the surface must
tions affecting the choice of partial factor to apply be considered. Also, the urgency with which the
to derive the ultimate limit state pressures, and the cells have to be filled when a caisson is placed in an
various alternatives available are the same as noted exposed breakwater precludes the use of any
above in 2.1.4, and in 2.2.3. Again a factor of the procedure which involves special precautions, such
order of 1.2 appears to be generally appropriate. as restrictions on the level to which adjacent cells
The density achieved for sand poured into water are filled, or emptying the cells of water. The
- filled caisson cells is low, much lower than for caisson must be designed to allow any sequence and
sand poured into open water. If it is required to limit proportion of filling.
settlement of the fill within the caisson cells, or
+3 +3 t 2.1.6 Friction
14 ∅' Submerged 30°
0
Although the concepts of friction are classical
-3 29 Wall Friction 0°
and have been studied for so long, there is a surpris-
γ Submerged 9.5 kN/m3
-6 43
ing divergence in the figures used in design, and
γ Sea water 10.2 kN/m3 lack of agreed experimental data. There is a wide
-13 76
Ko = 0.5
variation in the coefficients of friction assumed, and
95 kN/m2 - -17
17 t
the factors of safety against sliding although these
-17
(a) Submerged
(a) SubmergedSand.
sand. At-rest
At-Rest unconfined
Unconfined pressure
Pressure
differences may tend to cancel out in the resulting
+3
stability equation. In practice, the friction co-
12
efficient and factor of safety must be related to the
0 8 13 ACI 313 with Ka = 0.333 permitted displacement.
-3 15 20 24 ACI 313 ditto with Overpressure Factor
20
Various coefficients of friction are compared in
-6 25 34
DIN 1055 Pt6, Spanish ROM, and Table 4.
28 51
ACI 313 with K0 = 0.5. (Janssen)
The Japanese values have been determined from
-13 32
Wall Friction 17° Cells 4.8m square model tests (see Table 5). The friction coefficient
-17 30 34 56 depends on the size, configuration, strength and
(b) Submerged
SubmergedSand.
sand.Silo
SiloPressure
pressure(Janssen)
(Janssen)totoDIN,
DIN,ROM
ROM0.2-90
0.2-90and
and ACI
ACI313
313
(b)
kind of stone, and the compacted condition, and is
+3 related to the coefficient of internal friction of the
0 4.8m
mound. The coefficient is low at initial construction,
-1.8
27 but increases in time after compaction by storms
-3
and self- weight consolidation. Weak rocks lead to a
-6
low value of µ.
In Japan, the friction resistance is increased by
-13
placing a rubber mat or an asphalt mat under the base
-17 27 kN/m2 of the caisson. This measure enables the size of the
(c) (c)
Submerged sand.
Submerged
(applicable
SiloSilo
Sand pressure.
up to
(applicable upcell
Japanese
Pressure. Technical
Japanese
dimensions
to cell
Standards
Technical
5m 5m
dimensions x 5m)
x 5m)
Standards caisson to be reduced. Other measures to increase the
friction coefficient include corrugations or dowels
Fig.8 8Comparison
Fig. Comparisonof of silo
Silo fillEarth
Fill earthPressure
pressureCalculations
calculationswith
with
Externalexternal earth pressures
Earth Pressures in the base slab. The depth of the corrugations are

9
 TABLE 4 some two-times the dimension of the stone size at
COMPARISON OF DESIGN VALUES FOR the surface of the rubble mound.
COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION
Experimental results for friction coefficients in
Coefficient of Friction µ Japan are given in Table 5. The coefficients depend
Condition
Japan UK and France upon the factors related to the rock type and dimen-
(Technical Spain Germany (Fasci- sions noted above and to the amount of displace-
Standards (ROM
for Port and 0.5-94)
(BS6349 cule ment, weight of caisson etc.
BS8002 No .62,
Harbour EAU 90) titre V) In comparison, a recent series of French tests
Facilities) (ref CÉTÉ - Laboratoire Régional Nord - Pas de
Precast concrete
Calais) are given in Table 6. The parameters inves-
0.5 -
against bedrock tigated included :
or concrete • two forms of bottom slab -
Precast concrete - 0.7 smooth and corrugated
against precast
concrete • two types of gravels -
Precast concrete 0.6 0.7 δ = 2/3∅r tan∅' crushed gravel 0 - 80 mm and
against rubble (often natural sea gravel 20 - 80 mm
Precast corrugat- 0.58) • varying vertical load
ed or sloping base - - δ = ∅r
These results were considered to be lower than
against rubble
used in practice, and were accompanied by signifi-
Precast concrete
on a rubber mat cant displacement, up to 180 mm, before maximum
0.7 -
or asphalt mat mobilisation.
against rubble
In-situ concrete
against rubble - 1.0

TABLE 5
EXPERIMENTAL TEST RESULTS ON FRICTION COEFFICIENT (JAPAN)
Precast concrete against stone

Average of Dimension Condition Pmax

No. Kind of Stone µ
µ of stone. mm of mound µ=
W
1 crushed stone 0.460 - 0.801 - 30 screeded surface block
rubble stone 0.564 - 0.679 0.624 120 not screeded W P (Pull)
2 rubble stone 0.45 - 0.69 - 50 Surface “blinded”
(i.e. smoothed) Stone
with smaller stone

3 crushed stone 0.77 - 0.89 0.82 30 - 80 screeded

cobble stone 0.69 - 0.75 0.70 30 - 50 not screeded

4 crushed stone 0.607 - 0.790 0.725 20 - 30 not screeded P (Pull force)

5 crushed stone 0.486 - 0.591 0.540 10 - 50 “

6 crushed stone 0.41 - 0.56 - 13 - 30 not uniform

δ (displacement)
TABLE 6
FRENCH RESULTS FOR FRICTION COEFFICIENT

Vertical Normal Horizontal Force. TON Friction Coefficient µ

load. TON Stress T/m2
Smooth Corrugated Smooth Corrugated
Natural Sea Gravel 20-80 mm
24.1 10.5 12.6 13.7 0.53 0.58
18.4 8 10.3 11.3 0.56 0.62
Crushed gravels 0-80 mm
24.1 10.5 - 10.4 - 0.43
18.4 8 - 8.6 - 0.47

10
 Various values of the minimum Factor of Safety
against sliding for use with the friction coefficients
are given below :
Japan (ref Technical Standards
for Port and Harbour Facilities) 1.2
Spain (ref ROM 0.5- 94)
Permanent situation 1.5
Momentary situation 1.3
UK (ref BS 6349 Pt. 2 - 1988) 1.75
Germany (ref EAU 90):
• using active earth pressure and wall friction
2/ ∅' 1.5
3
• using at-rest earth pressure 1.0.
2.1.7 Handling and Float-Out Loads
From the viewpoint of limit states, all handling
and float-out loads belong to transient load situa-
tions. The partial factor for these loads can be kept
low; a figure of γF = 1.1 is suggested. The loads can
arise from different reasons, for instance from:
a) movement of caissons or blocks after dis-
mantling the formwork and during launching,
b) storage on supports during the curing period
or in stacks of blocks and before float-out,
c) loads from handling with cranes during the
curing period or tugs during placement.
Loads which can arise during construction must
be included in the stress analysis. If the handling
process which will be used during construction by
the contractor cannot be anticipated by the designer,
the stress analysis has to be rechecked by the
designer as soon as the construction method is
known.
Float-out loads must never be considered as
loads at the contractor’s own risk, for which the
designer is not responsible. Damage arising from
float-out processes will not always become apparent
during the construction period.
The wave climate and the sea condition limits
which can be tolerated during float-out activities
have to be specified by the designer and have to be
known by the contractor. These waves could be
calculated by using Recommendation 3.1.4.
If there are certain climatic periods during the
year for which it can be guaranteed that high waves
do not occur, float-out activity could be limited to
these seasons. The relatively short-float-out process
for a breakwater can very often rule the design and
the work on site. Experience shows that in most
places the times for float-out can only be fixed from
day to day by the use of a local weather forecast.
In harbour construction a lot of damage has been
caused by wrong or incautious handling of concrete
elements during the construction period (ref Bruun
P, 1985). Surveys have shown that one of the
reasons for the destruction of many rubble mound
breakwaters is the fact that the concrete elements of
the outer cover for the breakwaters were already
broken during construction and placement. An
analogous situation can arise for the elements of
vertical breakwaters. If damage arises, it will mainly
occur under water and, even by good monitoring
during the construction period, this will not always
become obvious. There is a rule which has become
compulsory for dam construction: all loads, water
level changes and other factors that influence the
stability of a dam also have to be anticipated for the
period of construction and not only from the time at
which the structure has been handed over. This rule
should also be applied to the design of harbour
structures.
The Technical Standards for Port and Harbour
Facilities in Japan (1991) give the following
additional recommendations for the calculation of
external loads during float out.
a) the water pressure should be calculated with
an additional draft of 1 m,
b) the tractive force during towing should be cal-
culated by using the formula (n.b. expressed
here in SI units):
T = ½ ρwCDv2A
where
T = tractive force
CD = drag coefficient
v = towing speed
A = submerged area of the leading wall
ρw = density of sea water
Dynamic pressures and wave pressures are not
considered but a rise of the water level, δ in front of
the caisson has to be considered which is shown on
Fig. 9. A head δ, of 1m has to be applied, according
to the Japanese Technical Standards, 1991.
It must be ensured that a positive freeboard
exists at all times. The distance between the centre
of gravity and the metacentre, the metacentric
height, should be at least 5% of the draught of the
caisson.
Fig. 9
Tractive force during towing and hydrostatic head
between different cells.
(ref Technical Standards for Port and Harbour Facilities in
Japan)
11
2.1.8 First grounding
Special loads will arise when the lowered ele-
ments or blocks first touch the ground. In most
cases the caissons will never again undergo a com-
parable distribution of load. The loads are excep-
tional, mainly for the following reasons:
a) It is not always known in advance which part
of the floating element will touch the ground
first
b) It is not always known on which supports
the element will rest after the first placement
c) The impact load is a dynamic load which
cannot be determined exactly, even if the
grounding velocity and the elastic and plastic
properties of the ground are known.
The German EAU 1990 (Recommendations of
the Committee for Waterfront Structures) states in
10.5.2 that a first landing on one point in the middle
or on two points on two edges has to be anticipated
as indicated in Fig. 10.
B1
A Legs which provide a first landing on three points.
B2
Fig. 10
View under a caisson, floated out. The caisson could land on
point A or on the opposite corners B1 and B2.
To prevent high stresses arising from the first
grounding, the caissons for the closing of the
Brouwerhavensche Gat in Holland have been
provided with “camel humps” (Fig. 11) and on other
sites downstand legs have been provided. (Fig. 12).
The humps or legs have to protrude at least more
than double the tolerance of the ground levelling.
In Japan the rubble is sometimes not trimmed to
a horizontal formation, but is provided with an
excess height in the middle (extra banking) to
enforce a first contact between caisson and ground
in the middle of the bottom slab.
12
m
18.0
58.0 m
16.2 m
Fig. 11
"Camel Humps” of the caissons used for the
Brouwerhavensche Gat, Holland
The settling velocity of the caisson before the
first contact is related to the motion of the sea
around the caisson. Even if massive float-out equip-
ment is used (large cranes) a certain movement by
swell during placing cannot be ruled out. Repeated
Fig. 12
hitting of the ground must also be anticipated.
During the sinking operation, sometimes only a
relatively small volume of water has to be filled-in
but, as the inherent mass and volume of the element
is considerable, this leads to two effects:
• Due to high mass element of the impact force
(Force = mass x acceleration) there is a high
impact force even though the acceleration is
low.
• The large volume or surface area leads to
large variations in the displacement of the
element for only small changes in water
surface level.
Both of these effects can lead to impact loads
which are higher than any other load in the lifetime
of the caisson.
2.2 Resistance Analysis, Internal Analysis
2.2.1 Structural Analysis in Element Design
This section applies particularly to structures
built up of several elements, such as caissons, for
which extensive analysis is required for the structur-
al design of individual elements of the structure.
Structural modelling of the actions on caissons
can be carried out in two ways.
(i) In the simpler and traditional approach, the
structure is split up into sets of beams and
slabs and calculations carried out by tradition-
al manual methods and two-dimensional
frame analysis, using computers where
applicable. Guidance for the traditional
design of caissons is given in national codes,
such as the Spanish ROM 0.2-90, Technical
Standards for Ports and Harbour Facilities in
Japan, EAU 90 etc. It must be stressed that,
in such methods, calculations are carried out
on each member separately and therefore
require assumptions to be made about the
connections between members. These
assumptions can lead to questionable approx-
imations as to the boundary conditions intro-
duced in the calculations.
(ii) The increase in computer power has made it
feasible to carry out a full three-dimensional
model analysis, using finite element
methods. Nevertheless for simple geometries
such as for caissons, it is not essential to use
volume elements. A Japanese example is
illustrated in Figs 28 and 29. Generally, thick
shell elements will suffice for engineering
purposes, while volume elements may be
helpful for specific local analyses, for
instance to map the local stresses and strains
around a fastening point (e.g. in the loading
case of towing).
For most engineering problems, static models
are the most familiar and most widely employed.
Even if the phenomenon is dynamic in essence
(earthquake, waves, wind, etc.) the loads applied are
generally equivalent static loads.
Two types of models can be differentiated.
• first order models, based upon the initial
structure geometry
• second order models, based upon the strained
structure geometry.
First order models are satisfactory in most cases,
although it is necessary to use second order models
for slender members that are liable to second order
instability (buckling, warping, etc.). In this respect
Eurocode 1: (ENV 1991-1994) specifies that the
effects of strains and displacements should be
considered if they result in an increase of the effects
of actions (loads) by more than 10%.
As regards the behaviour of materials, the
assumption of elastic behaviour is the most widely
used for simple structures, even though it is well
known that the behaviour of concrete is not elastic,
by far.
Going further into the analysis, it is necessary to
assess the moments of inertia of the sections -
depending upon the cross section area of the steel
bars used for reinforcement, which are unknown at
the primary stage of design. Therefore the initially
estimated dimensions of the concrete section are
generally considered in the first place, yet iterative
calculations can still be made if in doubt.
In implementing structural finite element
models, the main problem may be the modelling of
soil behaviour, i.e. the definition of a stress-strain
relationship. In this respect, Winckler’s spring
method is a traditional approach, consisting of a lin-
ear relationship, for each point of the bottom slab,
between the vertical pressure (effective stress)
exerted upon the soil and and the vertical displace-
ment. The ratio between these two values, is termed
the subgrade modulus K:
σ' = K ∆z if ∆z < 0
σ' = 0 if ∆z ≥ 0
where σ' is the effective pressure exerted by the soil
upon the structure.
The value of K commonly varies from approxi-
mately 10 to 50 mN/m3 for a rubble foundation set
on natural soil.
It should be noted that this simplistic method
totally disregards shear stress resistance within the
soil. Furthermore, the value of K may vary across
the slab, and according to depth as well, in the case
of non-homogeneous soil layers, and so the
appropriate mean value is not easy to determine.
Therefore, a sensitivity analysis of the value of K,
chiefly upon the stress values in the bottom slab,
must be performed. The considerable influence of
this parameter generally means that the assumptions
made for the resistance of the soil are inadequate.
If the uncertainties about the soil behaviour are
critical to the design, more complex element models,
such as finite element models, may also be used, but
such finite element models require that there should
be adequate soil testing and adequate interpretation
of the tests. So complex as the soil model may be, it
seems sensible to test the design against a local
reduction of K and/or against settlements in areas
that may suffer scour (e.g. in corners).
2.2.2 Scale Models
The assessment of external stability for vertical
structures is often assessed by means of “scale
models”, which can also provide the more particular
loading that can be generated on some members that
are particularly exposed.
13
 Such members are isolated mechanically from
the structure and supported by weighing gauges.
This can be useful for some types of structures with
a perforated front wall. The effects of impacts relat-
ed to wave breaking can also be derived from this
kind of device.
Alternately, this can be carried out using a
two-stage numerical model:
• first one can implement a global model and a
loose meshing, apply the loadings but
exclude the impacts at this stage.
• then the specific members subject to the
impacts can be computed using a more
refined meshing that is fitted into the first
one; the limit displacments implemented in
these “zoom” models are those derived from
the initial model.
2.2.3 Limit State Design and Risk Analysis
Structural analysis was traditionally carried out
to working stress design limits, until limit state
design methods were introduced in the early 1970’s,
since when they have been used for caisson design.
When limit state methods are used, the procedures
required are as follows:
• specification of the limit states to be consid-
ered, regarding the requirements the structure
is intended to fulfil
• selection of the parameters that are deemed
representative of events to be accounted for
with special care for variable loads
• setting up of load cases with application of
partial coefficients
• implementation of structural models
• assessment of relevant concrete sections,
using national regulations as regards the
partial coefficients to be applied to the resist-
ance parameters of the materials (steel and
concrete).
It is not simply a case of adapting partial factors
from one source to another, because the principles
of reinforced concrete design may be different. It
must also be noted that when the partial factors
were set up for structural purposes, the results were
intended to be similar to designs using traditional
working stress codes. Even if the limit state concept
involves a semi-probabilistic approach, to date, its
implementation has been carried out in a determin-
istic way. However, the application of general
concrete codes of practice to maritime structures
suffers from a lack of guidance, which leads to a
variety of interpretations for the designer. Indeed, it
14
proves hard to specify the frequency of the events to
be considered and the representative parameters as a
function of both the lifetime of the structure and the
nature of the limit state that is being considered.
For example, for some configurations, even with
geometries as simple as caissons, it may not be
obvious whether to classify all the loads as
favourable or unfavourable, as this may depend on
the section, the member, or the other loads. Should
these loads be critical to the design of the member,
it may even be advisable to perform calculations
with both favourable and unfavourable partial load
factors. Otherwise, the partial factor may be chosen
equal to 1.
It, however, remains the case that partial factor
values, as recommended by general national regula-
tions for the assessment of concrete or steel (etc.)
structures, have been calibrated for the design of
land-based structures in relation to the failure proba-
bility for the failure mode under consideration and
for some reference period - e.g. the design working
life, (buildings, bridges, etc. Refer to Eurocode 1
and Section 2.3.2 for the definition of design work-
ing life) so they may not be appropriate to structures
subjected primarily to environmental actions (loads),
such as waves. Similar problems of application exist
in relation to earth pressure loading and geotech-
nical calculations, as referred to in 2.1.4 and 2.1.5.
There are, for example, problems in applying the
principles of BS 8002 and Eurocode 7. As noted in
2.1.4, BS 8002 adopts limit state philosophy but
does not involve partial factors. There is a
fundamental difference between the development of
earth pressure loading with respect to strain, and the
forms of loading met in buildings and bridges.
There is a strong body of opinion which claims that
a partial factor approach is incompatible with soil
mechanics.
At present there is no programme for issue of a
Part 5 of Eurocode 2, for marine and maritime
structures. There are groups in Europe working on
this subject and the suitability of partial factors, and
the Japanese have introduced a set of factors which
they have used for the design of prestressed caissons
(ref Kiyomiya O, 1994 and also Kiyomiya O and
Yamada M, 1995)
PIANC’s safety approach, as can be seen from
WG12 on rubble mound breakwaters, seems to offer
a more appropriate design approach. Much work
still needs to be done to work out operational
methods for the structural design of caissons. The
main problem is to determine damage functions that
would be valid for the various limit states to be con-
sidered, for they must address physical phenomena
far more complex than those relating to external
stability.
2.3 Durability of Concrete
2.3.1 Durability, Introduction
Specification for durability for most materials is
derived from a “materials” point of view, i.e. from
the properties of the material, the environment and
the expectations of protective treatments such as
painting or cathodic protection. The ranges of
successful performance are subject to research and
experience, and can often be specified by reference
to compositional limits and by performance tests,
fatigue limits etc.
Until the present time this “materials” approach
has also been applied to concrete and reinforced
concrete. Prescriptive forms of specification (refs
Beeby A W, 1992, Clifton J R, 1993) and empirical
relationships between concrete mixes and laboratory
and field performances given in codes of practice
have been deemed to achieve a satisfactory perfor-
mance in certain classes of exposure.
Although this approach has achieved relative
success in most land-based building applications,
this has often proved to be far from the case in the
severity of maritime exposure, particularly to sea
water or de-icing salts. The most dramatic failure
mechanism is that of reinforcement corrosion,
which can impose severe limitations in relation to
the design and economic feasibility of complex thin
walled structures such as caisson breakwaters or
light structural superstructures.
Great advances have been made in the computa-
tion of wave loading, risk analysis and the selection
of the partial safety factors to apply to the level of
risk in conjunction with the modern computational
power for analytical design. In the same period, the
durability of reinforced concrete subject to severe
marine exposure or de-icing salts has been a
dramatic failure (refs Aïtkin P C, 1993, Rostam S &
Schiessl P, 1993). The present generation of national
codes of practice and even the latest joint European
Committee for Standardardisation (CEN) codes still
reflect the prescriptive approach, and are seriously
out of date. A consensus view for appropriate
guidance will not emerge in less than ten years.
The concept of durability is intrinsically con-
nected with the concept of the service and design
life of the structure, which is also related to the
analysis of appropriate loading conditions and limit
state analyses. Owners need to define the service
lives required from their assets and plan a strategy
for maintenance. Current codes do not give a
rational basis for design of concrete to meet such a
life.
The assessment of this further “Durability” limit
state (it is not actually a limit state but a means by
which the other limit states are maintained over the
operational life) is a fundamental part of design and
must both predate and form part of all stages of
structural design and detailing. A structured "dura-
bility plan" is required to ensure that durability
issues are addressed at all stages and primarily
include:
• choice of a service and hence a design life in
order to achieve this service
• recognition of the severity of the specific
environment(s) affecting the structure
• recognition of the consequences of the
environment(s) on design, detailing and
materials
• analysis for durability, by analytical model
where applicable
• quality assurance and quality control of both
design and construction
• monitoring and maintenance strategy.
These recommendations for a rational approach
to design for durability can be matched with the
following sources:
(i) The CEB Guide to Durable Concrete Struct-
ures (ref CEB Design Guide, 1992). This
mainly relates to buildings rather than sea
structures, but gives excellent explanations of
the mechanisms of deterioration and factors
involved. Major contributions to the CEB
design guide were made by a number of mem-
bers of the CEB (Comité Euro-International
du Béton) General Task Group 20 : Durability
and Service Life of Concrete Structures).
(ii) The work of RILEM committees (refs Schiessl
P, 1993, Rostam S & Schiessl P, 1993), and
CEN committees.
(iii) The work of the British committees such as
the Concrete Society Working Party on
Durability Design and Performance Based
Specification of Concrete, Report CS 109,
1996, and “Durability by Intent”, a strategy
for the UK Dept of Environment programme
on durability of concrete and reinforced
concrete. (UK Dept of Environment
Programme on durability of concrete and
reinforced concrete).
(iv) Important regular international conferences
such as Bahrain (refs Bahrain Conferences)
and Durability of Buildings and Components
(refs Durability of Buildings and Components).
(v) The work of the Japanese Bureau of Ports and
Harbours, Port and Harbour Research Institute
and the Overseas Coastal Area Institute of
Japan (ref Technical Standards for Ports and
Harbour Facilities in Japan, 1991), and papers
from the Institute and the Japanese Concrete
Institute (refs Proceedings of Symposia -
Japanese Concrete Institute, 1988 and 1989).
(vi) The work of the Australian CSIRO Division
of Building, Construction and Engineering (ref
Ho D W S & Cao H T, 1993).
(vii) Collaborative research projects such as the
Brite-Euram Project 4062 on the Residual
Service Life of Concrete Structures.
15
 In the following sections 2.3.2 to 2.3.8, the
factors and mechanisms which control durability are
outlined. In the “materials” section 2.4, specific
measures to achieve durability are advised.
2.3.2 Design Working Life (or Service Life)
The definitions of service life, design life,
economic life, etc, must be considered with great
care, as the meaning of these terms is not the same.
The terms are used with different meanings in
different papers and different contexts and the first
task is to re-define these.
The recommended definition of the operational
“service life” is that given in the draft Eurocode 1
(ref Eurocode 1 ENV 1991-1:1994) as follows:
Design Working Life - “The assumed period for
which a structure is to be used for its intended
purpose with anticipated maintenance but with-
out major repair being necessary”.
In the Spanish Maritime Works Recommend-
ation (ref ROM 0.2-90, 1990) the term “Minimum
Design Life” is used for this period.
For maritime works subject to the probability
and return periods of waves in addition to all other
probabilities, this definition may require some
adjustment, such as the following suggestion:
“The assumed period for which a structure is to
be used for its intended purpose with anticipated
maintenance but without major repair being
necessary within a probability appropriate to the
function of the structure.” It is already stated in
ENV 1991-1: 1994 that a different level of reliability
may be generally adopted for structural safety and
for serviceability and that a different level of
reliability may depend upon the cause or mode of
failure, amongst other factors.
With respect, now, to durability in relation to
deterioration of construction materials, the “Design
Working Life” as so defined is the period specified
by the Owner and is related to operational strategy.
Following on from this, the designer has to select
design methods and safety factors in order to ensure
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF DEFINITIONS OF VARIOUS “DESIGN” LIVES
a reasonable probability of achieving the specified
life. Thus “Design Life” in the British Standard
guide to durability (ref BS 7543, 1992) is defined as
the period of use intended by the designer to support
engineering specification and analytical decisions.
The “Design Life” as estimated will therefore be at
least equal to or exceed the specified “Design
Working or Service Life” by a prudent margin,
which includes factors of safety and ignorance.
Different “lives” may need to be considered for
economic and feasibility considerations (ref Port
Development 1978, UNDP) and different strategies
for monitoring deterioration and maintenance can
apply.
The concepts of “Design Working Life” and
“Design Life”, and the differences between the
various definitions may not be immediately obvious
to readers unfamiliar with papers on the subject and,
from experience, can lead to argument. The
difference between the various definitions may be
clarified by Table 7.
A logical structure of design working (or
service) lives for maritime structures (although there
termed as “minimum design lives”) is given in
Table 2.2.1.1 of the Spanish Maritime Works
Recommendations (ref ROM, 0.2-90, 1990) as set
out in Table 8. The “design working lives” corres-
pond with Classes 2, 3 and 4 of the draft Eurocode 1
(ref Eurocode 1 ENV 1991-1:1994), but are usefully
expanded to include general use and specific
industrial infrastructure, which can be especially
applicable to port and coastal works. This Table is
recommended for use.
It is important to note that, despite the recent
introduction of more clearly defined “service” lives,
current codes of practice and design guides do not
provide guidance for adequate analysis or the means
to satisfy the stated lives. However, a framework for
modifying partial factors commensurate with
designing for different lives and probabilitites is
available. (ref Eurocode 1, Part 1, Annex A and
Rilem Report 14, 1996, edited by Sarja and
Vesikari) and from the work of Sub-Group D of
PIANC WG 28.

Designated “Life” Explanation

1. Design Working Life (ref Eurocode 1) or The utilisation period (or periods) specified by the Owner, with respect to structural
Service Life (ref BS 7543) or Minimum safety, serviceability, or durability of structure and components (components likely
Design Life (ref ROM 02-90, 1990). to have shorter periods).

2. Design Life (ref BS 7543, 1992) with A period at least equal to (1) or greater than (1) by a prudent factor, employed by
respect to durability. the designer in order to achieve (1). Note: the estimates are not a precise science
and cannot be guaranteed, but they can be subject to rational analysis.

3. Economic Life (ref Port Development A period used for economic and financial studies, i.e. for comparison of alternative
UNDP, 1978 ). capital and maintenance policies, using discounted cash values.

16
 TABLE 8
DESIGN WORKING-LIVES (SERVICE LIVES) DEFINED IN ROM 0.2-90 AS
"MINIMUM DESIGN LIVES"* FOR WORKS OR STRUCTURES OF DEFINITIVE CHARACTER
(IN YEARS)
TYPE OF WORK
OR INSTALLATION LEVEL 1
GENERAL USE
INFRASTRUCTURE 25
SPECIFIC INDUSTRIAL 15
INFRASTRUCTURE
LEGEND
GENERAL USE INFRASTRUCTURE
General character works: not associated with the use of an
industrial installation or of a mineral deposit.
SPECIFIC INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Works in the service of a particular industrial installation or
associated with the use of transitory natural deposits of
resources (e.g. industry service port, loading platform for a
mineral deposit, petroleum extraction platform, etc).
LEVEL 1
Works and installations of local or auxiliary interest. Small
risk of loss of human life or environmental damage in case of
failure.
(Defence and coastal regeneration works, works in minor ports
or marinas, local outfalls, pavements, commercial installa-
tions, buildings, etc).
2.3.3 Processes of Deterioration
There are a number of well-known deterioration
processes for the concrete matrix in sea water, and
their relative significance depends on the specific
location and climate, but the most widespread and
serious problem is that of chloride-induced corrosion
of reinforcement or embedded metal generally.
A schedule of the deterioration mechanisms
applicable to maritime structures is given in Table 9.
Guidance and limits relating to these forms of
deterioration are covered in National Standards and
other Codes (refs EAU - German Waterfront
Structures Code, BRE Digest 363, 1991 - Sulfate
and acid resistance of concrete in the ground,
Concrete Society Report TR 30, 1995 - Minimising
the risk of ASR, BRE Digest 330, 1988 - Alkali
aggregate reaction in concrete, NF P 15-010, 1985
- Guide d’utilisation des ciments, NF P 18-011,
1992 - Classification des environments agressifs)
some of which are mandatory in their country of
origin. Care must be taken to clarify to owners and
contractual parties if and where departures are to be
REQUIRED SECURITY LEVEL
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3
50 100
25 50
NB: 1. The General Use period of 25 years corresponds with
Class 2 of draft Eurocode 1.
LEVEL 2
Works and installations of general interest.
Moderate risk of loss of human life or environmental damage
in case of failure. (Works in large ports, outfalls of large cities,
etc).
NB: 1. The General Use period of 50 years corresponds with
Class 3 of draft Eurocode 1.
LEVEL 3
Works and installations for protection against inundations or
international interest. Elevated risk of human loss or environ-
mental damage in case of failure.
(Defence of urban or industrial centres, etc).
NB: 1. The General Use period of 100 years corresponds
with Class 4 of draft Eurocode 1.
*Defined as Design Working Life in draft Eurocode 1.
made from National Standards on rational grounds,
such as mainly apply to reinforcement corrosion.
The dominant factors involved in the durability
of concrete are:
• the recognition that concrete is a porous
material and its behaviour depends on the
pore structure achieved and, where applicable,
cracks
• the transport mechanisms for water and dis-
solved deleterious agents and gases within
the pore structure and, where applicable,
cracks
• the macro, meso and microclimate for the
structure and particular element.
An excellent explanation of the significance of
these factors and the transport mechanisms is given
in the CEB Guide (ref CEB Design Guide, 1992).
The following recommendations mainly concen-
trate on the case of reinforcement corrosion. Refer-
ence to the other forms of deterioration generally
can be left to National Standards and references
such as given in Table 10. Some details from recent
publications are given in 2.4.3 and 2.4.4.
17
 TABLE 9
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS FOR MARITIME CONCRETE

Deterioration Mechanism Locations most likely to occur Method of Avoidance

Reinforcement corrosion (due to chlo- Elements wetted but subject to drying - Analysis, design and detailing. Properly
rides) especially hot dry climates. See Figure 13. designed cover to reinforcement for spe-
Corners subject to increased wetting and cific exposure conditions and tolerances.
then drying. Areas of low cover.

Sulfate attack on concrete matrix Delayed action in seawater. Specification and tests.
Colder waters may be more critical.

Salt weathering of concrete surface Elements subject to concentration of salts Specification.

by drying - intertidal zone. Paradoxically, Extensive water curing.
cements which achieve the finer pore
structure and resistance to steel corrosion
may be most susceptible.

Alkali-aggregate reaction Susceptible aggregates, pessimum re- Specification and tests Petrography. Mix
action with mixed aggregates. Alkalis limitations.
from sea water and marine aggregates.
Rich mixes.

"Frost" (freeze-thaw) action In cool with freezing zones with Specification and detailing. Air entrain-
prolonged and repeated freezing. ment spacing factor.

Abrasion Subject to abrasive bed movement, Higher strength concrete, detailing,

shingle, vessel impacts, ropes and moor- extensive curing, controlled permeability
ings. formwork, permanent steel protection.

Early thermal cracking Thick sections and massive structures Design and detailing, specification,
built in separate pours, causing restraint pre-cooling of mix, cooling pipes inbuilt
to shrinkage during cooling from heat of for the hydration period.
hydration.

Plastic shrinkage cracking (workman- Arid climates, drying winds, low bleed Curing and protection at casting.
ship) mixes.
.
Plastic settlement cracking (workman- Deep sections, high bleed mixes. Mix design, reduction of bleeding.
ship) Revibration.

TABLE 10
GUIDELINE DOCUMENTS FOR DETERIORATION MECHANISMS
Deterioration Mechanism References
Sulfate attack National Codes
BRE Digest 363, 1991 (UK)
CEB Guide to Durable Concrete Structures, 1992
NF P 15-010 (France)
NF P 18-011 (France)
Salt weathering Advice is not generally collated in Guides, but given in papers:-
Fookes P G, 1993, Bijen J M, 1992
Al-Rabiyah A R, Rasheeduzzafar, Baggott R, 1989
Alkali aggregate reaction Concrete Society TR 30, 1995 (UK)
BRE Digest 330, 1987 (UK)
CEN Technical Report, 1994
NF P 15-010 (France)
NF P 18-011 (France)
Frost action Japanese Papers (Koh Y and Kamada E, 1993)
CEB Guide to Durable Concrete Structures, 1992
Abrasion Advice is not widely available
CEB Guide to Durable Concrete Structures, 1992
Early Thermal cracking BS 8007 1987
CIRIA Report 91:1993 (UK)
CEB Guide to Durable Concrete Structures, 1992 Appendix A
ACI 207.2R-90
Japan Concrete Institute. Manual of Massive Concrete, 1986
(Japanese only)
Plastic shrinkage and settlement CEB Guide to Durable Concrete Structures
Concrete Society Report 22, 1992 (UK)

18
2.3.4 Exposure Classification
The policy of current European Code
Committees for concrete (for the revision of ENV
206 : 1989 to pr EN 206) is to classify exposure
conditions specific to the various deterioration
mechanisms, where appropriate. The transport
mechanisms affecting the deterioration of either the
concrete matrix or embedded metal are largely
dependent on the pore structure and the environ-
mental conditions within and immediately exterior
to its surface. Deleterious substances are transported
by the medium of water (excluding CO2 and O2),
and the moisture content of the concrete controls
both the rate and effect of the transport of such
substances by air or water. The mechanism of
reinforcement corrosion is foremost in mind through-
out the subsequent text but other mechanisms, i.e.
frost, also apply in colder regions. In seawater
environments it is necessary to recognise three basic
climatic influences; that of the macro, meso and
microclimates (ref Fookes P G, 1993) i.e. climates
on the scale of the country, the site, and the
particular element of the structure respectively. For
most practical purposes the macro and meso envi-
ronments can be considered together. The
micro-environment, i.e. the location of a specific
member in relation to sea level, and the degree and
frequency of inundation by seawater and drying out,
is particularly critical.
The most important macro and meso climatic
factors are temperature and rainfall. Temperature
controls the rate of chemical reactions and the
degree of drying out of the cover concrete. Rainfall,
humidity and the location of the member in relation
to sea water level movement control the wetness of
the concrete, which affects the mechanism for pene-
tration of chlorides and controls the penetration of
oxygen to fuel the corrosion process. Generally,
only the surface layer of concrete “dries out”, the
depth of the drying and wetting zone being much
greater in arid climates than in temperate climates
and, consequently, extremely critical for corrosion
of reinforcement. The wetting and drying depth in a
temperate climate may not exceed 20mm, where it
may be at least 75mm to 100mm in arid conditions.
(refs Bakker R F M & Roessink G, 1992, Bijen J M,
1992).
There are four main sub-divisions of macro-
climate:
• cool with freezing
• temperate
• hot wet
• hot dry
and some seven micro-environmental cases of
exposure applicable to chloride-induced corrosion
in maritime works in ascending order of severity:
(NB The classification below has been adapted
from cases XS1 to XS3 now being proposed by
European code committees for concrete exposed to
chlorides).
XS1 Exposed to airborne salt but not in direct
contact with sea water. Contrary to popular
belief, airborne chlorides alone, without the
vehicle of water penetration, do not achieve
enough concentration to cause reinforcement
corrosion in superstructures (ref Hussain S E,
Paul I S & Bashenini M S, 1993)
XS2 Submerged (Also a subdivision, XS2A - back-
filled)
XS3 The tidal, splash and spray zones. Depending
on the macro-climate and degree of wetness,
this class may need to be broken down further
into four cases of ascending severity:
XS3.1 Mid and lower tidal. The continuity of
saturation in this part of the tidal zone
is beneficial in restricting the flow of
oxygen, and conditions can be similar
to XS2 (refs John D G, 1992, John D
G, Leppard N W & Wyatt B S, 1993)
XS3.2 Upper tidal and capillary rise zones
XS3.3 Splash/spray zones
XS3.4 Mostly dry infrequently wetted: i.e.
concrete which is above the splash
zone but subject to seasonal change in
sea level, storm events, testing of fire
hydrants and run off from mooring
lines at capstans and bollards.
Again, contrary to popular belief, the worst case
is not necessarily the splash and intertidal zone. The
latter is likely to be the worst case for the material
itself, i.e. bare and painted steel, timber, masonry
and plain concrete, and for frost damage, but not for
steel embedded in concrete. In cool and temperate
conditions there may not be much difference between
cases XS3.3 and 3.4, but the difference can be much
more pronounced in hot wet and, especially, hot dry
conditions.
Fookes (Fookes P G, 1993) has suggested an
11-point scale for exposure risk of all concrete in a
hot salty environment, both land-based and maritime.
In a similar way, but restricted to coastal structures,
severity ratings for concrete in a salt-water environ-
ment have been expressed on a scale of 1 to 12, as
illustrated in Table 11 and Fig 13 (ref Slater D and
Sharp B N, scheduled for publication late 1997). It
is important to note that the “very severe” and
“extreme” exposure conditions of BS 8110 : 1985
and BS 5328 1990/1991, and the most aggressive
Class 4 of DIN 1045:1988, only reach about 3 on
this 12 point scale, and it follows that such codes
apply only to the cooler and temperate parts of
Europe and similar climates. ACI 318:1995 and
Eurocode 2 1992 classifications for seawater ex-
posure range between 1 and 6 on this scale, depend-
ing on location within the tidal and splash regime
and the ambient climate. Cooler European condi-
tions may, of course, read only 4 or 5 on this scale.
Sea water contains both sulfates and chlorides
and therefore the concrete has to provide both a
chemical resistance and protection for the reinforce-
19
ment. The latter requirement tends to control the Infrequently wetted, Hot
concrete quality. In concrete that is submerged, XS2 wetted or overtopped Cold/ Wet
in seasonal conditions, temper-
or XS3.1, chlorides penetrate the concrete by diffu- run-off from ropes, ate
H
sion, a slow process when compared with capillary hydrants D
suction. In submerged sections, the lack of oxygen 3 4 9
is likely to stifle corrosion to an extremely low rate. splash
Exposure class XS3 has the worst conditions.
Chlorides will penetrate by a combination of ab-
sorption/capillary suction and diffusion. In periods wave Splash/Spray
crest Zone 6
of calm weather, wick action and evaporation leads
to a maximum concentration of chlorides near the
exposed surface some distance above the water line. Upper Tidal
Chloride is transported into concrete by the 0 1 2 3 45 6 7 8 910
medium of water by a number of mechanisms. Severity R
Scale
Chloride permeation is a complex phenomenon,
including capillary suction and diffusion mecha- Mid and Lower
Tidal 2 3
nisms, and hydration suction. The most rapid trans- Hot Wet
port mechanism, capable of conveying the greater Cold/ and
quantity of ions into dry or partially saturated con- Temperate Hot Dry
crete, is the capillary suction or absorption process.
wave
The much slower process of diffusion takes trough
place in saturated concrete. The largest increase in
chloride content of the cover zone is achieved by Hot W
Submerged or and H
capillary rise or suction followed by surface evapo- Backfilled Dry
ration, or unbalanced cyclic wetting and drying, i.e.
Cold/
irregular inundation by salt water followed by a Temperate Ditto
period in conditions which enable the concrete to Backfill
Ditto Backfilled
dry, due to seasonal water level changes or storm 1 2 3
events (refs Saetta A V, Scotta R V and Vitaliani R
Fig. 13 Suggested severity ratings on a scale of 1-12
V, 1993, John D G, 1992, Sandberg P J P, (Refer to Table 11)
Petterson K, Arup H and Tuutti K, 1996).
TABLE 11
SUGGESTED SEVERITY RATINGS FOR MARINE ENVIRONMENTS
(ref Slater D and Sharp B N, scheduled for publication late 1997)
The ratings are estimated factors for the relative rates of chloride induced corrosion for the same concrete element exposed to
different marine environments. The higher the rating the more severe durability risk7

CLIMATE ZONE
Location1
Cool with freezing Temperate Hot wet Hot dry

Mostly dry2 3 3 43 9-124

Splash/Spray zone 3 3 4 6

Extreme Upper tidal 3 3 4 6

Mid and Lower tidal 2 2 3 3

Underwater 1 1 2 2

Backfilled Faces 5,6 2 2 3 3

Notes:-
1 See Figure 13.
2 Infrequent splashing by seawater but otherwise exposed to
weather e.g. copes.
3 Concrete exposed to direct sunlight but protected from
rainfall in a hot wet macro-climate may experience a
micro-climate of higher severity rating because of the drying
and increase of salt concentration caused by the absence of
wetting.
4 Rating increases with increase in ambient temperature and
duration of dry periods e.g. Lower Arabian Gulf coastline 12.
5 For concrete above water level, if capillary rise and evapora-
tion is not prevented this may cause increased salt concentra-
tions in the fill and lead to a higher severity rating.
6 Sulfate attack due to ground conditions not taken into
account. Surface coating recommended if concrete mix
required to resist chlorides not adequate to meet sulfate class.
7 Abrasion effects not taken into account. Additional cover
may be needed over and above Table 15 values to provide
required design life allowing for abrasion loss.

20
 Hot-dry conditions are particularly hazardous for
concrete in maritime works. They apply pre-
dominantly in the Arabian Gulf and Middle East
generally, where aridity greatly exceeds that
experienced in other regions, including the United
States (ref Fookes P G, 1993). Absorption of
chlorides and penetration of oxygen is usually
restricted in wetter and cooler climates which
prevent the concrete drying out at the surface. This
wetness, itself, is not the cause of corrosion but the
reason for reduced corrosion. In hot arid climates
the concrete dries to greater depths in long seasons
of calm weather or seasonal lower tides. Wetting of
the dry surface which then occurs in occasional
storms, seasonally higher tides, the testing of fire
hydrants or from mooring ropes, causes chloride-
laden water to be sucked in deeply. Subsequent
drying causes the salt content to concentrate. In a
wet climate, rainfall would both reduce this concen-
tration and the penetration of oxygen. Lack of water
in the pores permits the free flow of oxygen. (Ref
John D G, 1992, John D G, Leppard N W and Wyatt
B S, 1993). Damage from this cause can particularly
apply to precast concrete (such as caissons) which is
left dry for a long period and then exposed to sea
conditions. Torben Hansen, 1989, graphically
describes the self-destruct possibilities in these
conditions.
The chloride concentration is only one factor, as
the rate of development of corrosion depends upon a
number of factors, principally regulated by the
access of oxygen. The presence of water reduces the
ingress of oxygen and the rate of reaction may be
affected by cracks, in which case anodic and
cathodic areas can be relatively close to each other.
Depending on the relative magnitude of the cover
and degree of saturation, corrosion may be general
with closely adjacent anodes and cathodes, or the
anodic reduction process at a location may be driven
by cathodic activity caused by the ingress of oxygen
at another location remote from the site of
corrosion. Only free chlorides cause corrosion and
consequently the “threshold” value for the critical
chloride content depends upon the chloride binding
capacity of the particular binder type, and the
degree of saturation.
For a given set of exposure conditions, the
propensity for and rate of corrosion is influenced
mainly by cover to reinforcement, binder type,
water-cement ratio and binder content, broadly in
that order.
If capillary suction is the main transport mecha-
nism it is unlikely that, using most modern Portland
cements alone, concrete quality and cover will
provide an adequate design life in severe exposure
cases, if only conventional cover thicknesses and
placing tolerances are employed (ref Bamforth P B,
1993, Neville A M, 1995). However, concrete of
readily achievable production quality used in
conjunction with realistic reinforcement placing
tolerances is more likely to achieve design lives
when Portland cement is blended with other
hydraulic or pozzolanic materials, such as blast-
furnace slag, pulverised fuel ash or microsilica,
provided that these materials are of appropriate
quality.
For the past 20 years the most popular model for
analysing the ingress of chlorides has been that of
diffusion, using Ficks second law, all arising from
the pioneering work of Tuutti (ref Tuutti K, 1982).
There have subsequently been developments with
more realistic models dealing with partially saturated
concrete (ref Grace W R, 1991). A number of
European workers have more recently developed
powerful suites of computer programs which
attempt to model the whole range of variables of
concrete condition and permit calibration from
simple laboratory measurements (ref Kiessl K R,
1983, Roelfstra P E, 1989, Saetta A V, Scotta R V
and Vitaliani R V, 1993). The limitations of the Fick
model, and the explanation why its use in interpreta-
tion of chloride profile figures can lead to over-
pessimistic estimates of the rate of ingress, are
given in a recent paper by Danish workers (ref
Johansen V, Golterman P and Thaulow N, 1995).
The exposure cases specific to “frost” (actually
freeze-thaw) damage are given as follows:
XF1 Moderate water saturation without salt
XF2 Moderate water saturation with salt
XF3 High water saturation without salt
XF4 High water saturation with salt.
Recommendations in connection with freeze-
thaw resistance are given in 2.4.3.
2.3.5 Influence of Cement Type
The principal choices for cement include plain
(previously known as “ordinary”) Portland cement,
sulfate resisting Portland cement (i.e. a cement with
specific limits on the calcium tri-aluminate (C3A)
content: the lower the C3A the more resistance to
sulfate attack) or various types of blended cements.
Blended cements include a combination of Portland
cement with blastfurnace slag (gbs), which is a latent
hydraulic binder, or pozzolanic materials which can
be natural but are more likely to be pulverised-fuel
ash (pfa). The latest available material is microsilica,
which can be mixed with either unblended or
blended cements. Guidance on its use is given in
Concrete Society Report 41 (ref Concrete Society
Report 41, 1991).
It is most important to stress that any compari-
son between materials to different National
Standards must be made in full knowledge and
comparison of the different methods of test and
specification. This particularly applies to cement
strength class. Cements are produced to a number of
strength classes and cement content for equivalent
durability may need to be increased when lower
strength cement classes are used.
21
 Sulfate resisting Portland cement is unlikely to
be necessary in maritime concrete, as the disruptive
effect of sulfates is reduced in the presence of
chlorides, and more so in warmer waters. It is
claimed that, on the contrary, such sulfate-resisting
cement is less resistant to reinforcement corrosion,
but this may only be true of chlorides inbuilt into a
mix. Sulfate-resisting cement is a relatively “lower
heat” cement (relative to plain Portland cement) and
its use is beneficial for reducing the generation of
heat of hydration.
Where only Portland cement is available, it is
usual to limit the tri-calcium aluminate content in
reinforced concrete to not less than 5% and not
more than 10%. This constitutes a compromise by
specifying, in effect, a moderate sulfate resistance
by virtue of the upper limit on C3A whilst avoiding
a too low content C3A which may be less able to
protect the steel from corrosion. ASTM C-150
Type II cement properties can cover this require-
ment. In circumstances where reinforcement
corrosion is not the critical problem, or for which
adequate provision has been made, the long term
effects of the reaction between sulfate and the
hydrates formed from C3A could possible dictate
the choice of low C3A Portland cement. See 2.4.4.
However in these circumstances, blast furnace
cements could combine the optimum solution.
High proportions of blastfurnace slag, of from
50% to 70% and more, are beneficial from a number
of viewpoints, including resistance to chloride
ingress, sulfate resistance, minimising the effect of
“alkali aggregate reaction” and reducing the rate of
generation of heat of hydration. Alkali aggregate
reactions are the chemical processes which can take
place when the natural alkalinity of cement caused
by the calcium hydroxide (pH about 12.5) is
increased to a pH of over 13 due to the oxides of
potassium and sodium. Proportions of pulverised
fuel ash of the order of 30% to 40% have similar but
lesser benefits. There appears to be benefit in
adding microsilica in doses of about 5% in conjunc-
tion with slag or pulverised fuel ash. Where slag or
pulverised fuel ash is unavailable, microsilica may
be added in amounts up to 10% of the total cementi-
tious content. It must be noted that the quality of
these materials have to be appropriate. In some parts
of the world slags and pulverised fuel ash contain
unsuitable constituents, and in some places plain
Portland cement appears to be very effective.
Blended cements may be either factory produced or
blended from separate constituents at the mixer.
Blast furnace cements have been traditionally
employed for maritime and other works in Germany,
Holland and Spain, and pozzalanic cements used
elsewhere. Often blast furnace cement was used
because it was the principal material available.
Recommendations are now made by many
authorities, including the Japanese Technical
Standards (ref Technical Standards for Port and
Harbour Facilities in Japan, 1991), for the use of
22
high slag cements in maritime concrete. Although
blended cements are almost a “must” to counteract
corrosion, their resistance to surface scaling and
tolerance to poor curing is less than unblended
cements. Lower levels of slag, say 50%, may be
more appropriate in colder conditions when the
generally slower action of slag cements may cause
problems in achieving early strenght.
The weakness of much prescriptive advice in
current codes is that guidance on mixes and cover
thickness is given largely independently of cement
type, coupled with imprecise description of expo-
sure conditions. From the comparisons summarised
above, the conclusion can only be that modern
unblended Portland cement generally (there are
exceptions) has the lowest resistance to chloride
penetration and, where severe chloride exposure
conditions exist, is unlikely to guarantee a long ser-
vice life, even in temperate climates, with cover to
reinforcement as often recommended. For values of
cover in the accepted magnitude of 50 to 80mm,
blended cements are a must.
For each cement type and blending ratio, one
can estimate minimum cement contents and maxi-
mum water-cement ratios appropriate to the differ-
ent exposure cases. Typical figures are given in
Section 2.4.3 to 2.4.5. See Tables 14 & 15.
2.3.6 Influence of Cement Content
Concrete strength is directly related to water-
cement ratio. The pore structure of concrete depends
on the water-cement ratio, the degree of hydration
and the cement type (ref CEB Guide).
Using superplasticisers, even under difficult
conditions for controlling water demand without
losing workability (i.e. high temperature, poor
aggregates, large pours, large handling distances), it
is now possible to reduce the water-cement ratio
below 0.40, when this is required, and at the same
time achieve both the desired fine pore structure and
self healing properties due to the presence of unhy-
drated cement (ref Aïtcin P C, 1993).
Another simple fact is that, ignoring the effect of
water reducing admixtures, for a given workability,
the amount of water required per cubic metre of a
given aggregate type and gradation is effectively
independent of the cement content (ref Barber P,
1989 and Fig. 14). This is the basis of the ACI
method of proportioning concrete mixes (ref ACI
211, 1991), in which the water content is first estab-
lished, and the cement content then derived from
appropriate requirements for the water-cement ratio
on the basis of durability.
Another important fact is that the water demand
required to achieve a level of workability varies
inversely to aggregate size. The larger the aggregate
size, the less water and cement paste is required
and, consequently, less cement is required to
achieve a given water-cement ratio. Illustration of
the range of this effect is given in Table 12 (ref BS
5328, BS 8110 and derivation using Neville AM,
1995, and also recent mix design software). It must
be noted that the precise definition of aggregate size
can differ between codes. This principle is covered
by French codes NF P 15-010 and 18-011, where
the minimum cement content for concrete in sea
water or prestressed work is given by the following
expression, together with a water-cement ratio less
than or equal to 0.50:
C = 700
5√D
where: C = cement content in kg/m3
D = maximum aggregate size in mm.
This expression leads to the following figures:
10 mm aggregate : 440 kg/m3
20 mm aggregate : 385 kg/m3
40 mm aggregate : 335 kg/m3
80 mm aggregate : 290 kg/m3.
It is now possible to achieve both low water-
cement ratio and adequate workability using a range
of normal to high performance water-reducing
admixtures. The type of cement, in addition, has its
own effect on water demand. Slags and pulverised
fuel ash generally require less water. The design
mix must provide the constructor with adequate
workability to transport, place and compact the
concrete.
As the quality of the concrete in relation to both
strength and durability is directly related to water-
cement ratio and unit water-content, within
reasonable lower limits, the actual cement content is
therefore a secondary consequence of the water
demand for a given mix. Cement contents do not
need to be especially high for plain concrete or even
reinforced concrete providing requisite parameters
are met. Cement contents must always be assessed
in relation to aggregate size and grading, and a good
way of reducing cement content is to increase
aggregate size and/or reduce the fines content. This
TABLE 12
APPROXIMATE ADJUSTMENTS TO MINIMUM
CEMENT CONTENTS AND WATER DEMANDS FOR
AGGREGATES OTHER THAN 20mm NOMINAL
MAXIMUM SIZE FOR A GIVEN CEMENT
STRENGTH, AGGREGATE, TYPE, WORKABILITY,
ETC.
(Main figures from BS5328, BS8110 etc. Figures in
brackets from computer simulation Mixsim, 1995)
Nominal1 Adjustment2 to Difference in water
maximum minimum demand for a given
aggregate size mm cement content kg/m3 workability kg/m3
10 +40 (+30) +15 to + 20 (+15)
20 0 0
40 -30 (-20) -15 to -20 (-15)
80 -70 (-50) -35 to -40
(-20 to -30)
1. Note that definitions of maximum aggregate size can differ between
different codes.
2. According to the French expression overleaf, the adjustment is some
50% greater, but of course depends on the choice of "minimum".
device has traditionally been used in maritime
works, where 40mm, 80mm and even 150mm
aggregate has been used for plain concrete. This is
important because cement content may be a control-
ling factor from the point of view of minimising
alkali aggregate reaction (ref Concrete Society
Report TR30, 1995) or controlling heat evolution in
relation to early thermal effects (refs CIRIA Report
91, 1992, BS 8007, 1987, UK Dept of Transport BA
24/87 and BD 28/87, 1987).
Mix specification limits given in specification
documents must be realistically drawn from a ratio-
nal mix design using available materials, and not
merely numbers drawn from literature, as is often
the case.
The latest mix design methods available in the
market make use of computer simulation to achieve
proportions based on packing theory. Analysis using
such software is given in brackets in Table 12 (ref
Mixsim Issue 3, 1995). Computer simulation
includes the effect of grading, and could incorporate
the effect of mimimising the fines content, which is
another approach to limiting cement content.
2.3.7 Cracking and the Influence of Cracks
The causes and consequences of cracking in
concrete structures have often been misunderstood.
In the past, most incidences of early thermal crack-
ing were erroneously attributed to drying shrinkage.
Most causes of cracking during the plastic state, i.e.
Cement content per cubic metre kg
0 100 200 300 400 500
Water
Mass of material per cubic metre
Stone
Sand
Cement
over this range of normal mixes, the
water content is effectively constant
Fig . 14 Graphical illustration of variation of constituents for
practical range of cement content (ref Barber P, 1989)
plastic shrinkage and plastic settlement cracking can
be resolved by attention to mix design, protection
from drying winds, and curing in arid conditions
(ref Fookes P G, 1993, Al-Rabiyah A R, Rasheed-
uzzafar, Baggott R, 1989). Early thermal cracking is
an important case for design and construction of
large masses of concrete, including both blocks and
caissons, and is explained in 3.1.7.
An excellent explanation of the processes and
influence of cracking in concrete is given in the
CEB Guide 1992, Concrete Society Report No. 44,
1995, and BRE Digest 389, 1994.
23
 Although the significance of cracking may be
much less than traditionally assumed in the case of
reinforced concrete, it may be significant if it results
in the reduction of the mass of some unreinforced
concrete structures (for example armour units) and
can cause unnecessary concern. Attention to detail
in both design and construction, particularly in
relation to early thermal effects, can obviate the
incidence of cracking. Indeed, a number of
European tunnel structures are currently being
designed as “crack free”.
Most structural codes have flexural crack width
limitations appropriate to specified environmental
conditions related to the serviceability limit state.
The British method of design for crack control in
relation to early thermal stresses (ref BS 8007, 1987)
has similar limits. However it is now generally
accepted (ref CEB Guide, 1992, Schiessl P and
Raupach M, 1997) that, once crack widths exceed
some 0.1mm, there is no significance in relation to
the ingress of deleterious substances to cause
reinforcement corrosion from wider cracks of up to
0.5mm. Accordingly, the careful gradation of the
effect of cracks between 0.1mm and above is mean-
ingless (ref CEB Guide, 1992). This statement refers
to cracks perpendicular to main reinforcement and
not to cracking above and along the length of a bar
such as can occur in plastic settlement or if a bar
(say a stirrup) acts as a crack inducer. Early thermal
and workmanship related plastic cracking tends to
create wider, uncontrolled, cracking coincident with
reinforcement, which is therefore much more
detrimental than flexural cracks which intersect with
the reinforcement at right angles. The progress of
reinforcement corrosion is largely dependent on the
properties of the concrete itself, the moisture state,
and the relative cover to reinforcement. However,
cracks are likely to promote accelerated pitting cor-
rosion. Appropriate detailing to distribute reinforce-
ment spacing and limit crack widths remains impor-
tant for various reasons.
Cracks do not significantly increase the effect of
freeze-thaw damage, as the scaling or splitting of
concrete by freeze-thaw action is due to the increase
of volume of completely water-filled pores, and is a
concrete covering
thickness
Cover mm
crack width
Fig. 15
Decreasing crack width, measured from the outside face to the
steel , for fixed stresses σs and different cover thickness c.
(ref Merkblattsammlung, German Concrete Association, 1991)
24
feature of the general surface of the concrete (CEB
Guide, 1992).
The recommendation for increased cover given
in this Report is likely to be met by the objection
that the width of cracks on the surface will be
unacceptably wider than permitted by design codes.
Many engineers will be worried that increased cover
will lead to wider flexural cracks and that reinforce-
ment further distant from the surface will lead to
wider cracking of the cover zone. However,
chloride ions and oxygen penetrate the concrete
everywhere and not just at cracks, and the width of
the crack at the surface is not as critical as the width
at the reinforcement itself. Research has shown that
the crack width at the steel bar is almost independ-
ent of cover thickness, and that the width of the ‘V’
shaped crack increases almost linearly with cover
thickness (see Fig. 15). Therefore, the cover thick-
ness should not be limited for crack width reasons.
When checking crack width limits in accordance
with codes, one may increase the permissible crack
width pro rata to the ratio of preferred cover to the
typical cover given in a code. This principle is
already included in some instances, for example
where permitted surface crack width is given as a
proportion of the cover thickness (i.e. such as 0.004
times cover thickness). (refs Merkblattsammlung,
German Concrete Association, 1991, Dept of
Transport (UK) BA24/87 and BD 28/87, 1987)
Crack widths caused by early thermal effects can
be controlled by appropriate design (ref CIRIA 91,
BS 8007). It is not necessary to sum the effects of
early thermal and flexural cracking (ref Department
of Transport (UK) BA24/87 and BD 28/87).
2.3.8 Influence of Curing
The need for curing continues to be hotly
debated and is the subject of contemporary studies
(ref CIRIA Research project on the influence of
practical on-site curing, in Progress 1994/95). In
the past, with much less reactive cements, pro-
longed water curing was necessary in order to
achieve strength. This is no longer the case and,
obviously, the influence of water curing on the
surface is unlikely to influence the centre of massive
sections. On the contrary, indiscriminate application
of cold water could cause thermal shock cracking
and as many problems as it attempts to solve.
It is perhaps the case that, in the case of wet
temperate climates, relaxation of curing is less dele-
terious than is generally held. However, in hot dry
arid climates, water loss from the surface can be
significant and result in incomplete hydration. As
(ref CEB Guide, 1992) the relationship of water-
cement ratio and degree of hydration dictates the
resulting pore structure of the concrete, and as the
duration of water curing is inversely proportional to
water-cement ratio, one main advantage of using the
lowest possible water-cement ratio is to reduce the
duration of water curing. From the graph/nomogram
of the relationship between water permeability,
volume of capillary pores and degree of hydration
(CEB Guide, 1992), it follows that the lower the
water-cement ratio, the smaller is the duration of
curing required for the preclusion of continuous
capillaries. This follows from the classic work of
Powers and Brownyards (ref Powers T C and Brown-
yards T L, 1988) and as explained by Hansen T C,
1989, Ho D W S and Lewis R K, 1983, and Neville
A M, 1995. A higher strength concrete obtained by
adopting a lower water-cement ratio is therefore, to
a degree, self-curing. Work at the University of
Dundee (ref Dhir R K, Hewlett P C, Lota J S and
Dyer T B J, 1994) is in progress for the achievement
of self-curing by adding water-soluble chemicals to
reduce water evaporation in the set concrete.
The requirements for curing are also intimately
related to the type of cement and bleeding character-
istics of the mix. All of these properties tend to have
conflicting effects on the result. For example a high
bleeding rate may increase the water-cement ratio of
the cover concrete and lead to plastic settlement.
However an unduly low bleeding rate (as can occur
with microsilica) may lead to dessication of the
surface and hence to plastic shrinkage cracking.
Slag cements are generally held to require great
attention to curing to prevent surface breakdown.
However it can also be the case that surface break-
down by salt weathering of slag cements is due to
the fineness of the surface pore structure, which
leaves inadequate room for the accommodation of
surface salt crystals which may be provided by a
concrete with a coarser pore structure.
2.3.9 Monitoring and Maintenance
Strategic planning for maintenance is directly
linked with the concepts of service life and -
durability. In the past, very little guidance for the
maintenance of concrete and other structures has
been available.
The subject is only now receiving due attention.
The Technical Standards for Port and Harbour
Facilities in Japan, 1991, places much more em-
phasis on maintenance and durability than in its
previous version and points out that maintenance is
largely related to monitoring and management
strategy. Maintenance needs depend on feedback
from regular monitoring and data-collection, for
comparison with “base-line” data, i.e. line, level etc,
of the situation “as constructed”. This emphasis is
also made in the CIRIA/CUR Manual on the use of
rock, 1992.
PIANC’s Permanent Committee for Developing
Countries (PCDC) undertook, in 1978, to produce a
series of maintenance manuals for port infra-
structure, (ref PIANC Bulletin 1985-No.50) but, so
far, manuals have only been produced for the more
obvious cases of mechanical equipment, roads and
railways. PIANC Working Group No.17 published
their report on the Inspection, Maintenance and
Repair of Maritime Structures exposed to Material
Degradation caused by a salt water environment in
1990 (ref PIANC, 1990). This Report gives helpful
guidance on inspection methods and monitoring but
covers such a broad range of materials including
timber, stone, unreinforced concrete, reinforced and
prestressed concrete and steel, that the specific
explanations and guidance for each material are
somewhat abbreviated.
Monitoring must be planned and adequate
records taken, beginning with “base-line” measure-
ments of line, level etc. immediately after com-
pletion of construction. Computers can now greatly
facilitate this kind of work.
Regular inspections of the structure (or beach or
coastal defence) should be carried out at least once
per year, most likely following the winter storm
period, and after any major storm event. The princi-
pal objects of the survey are to determine:
• the integrity of armour units and elements of
the structure
• indication of movement and settlement
• scour.
Measurements must be taken at specific loca-
tions to provide adequate mapping of the structure
at clearly located profiles or to a grid, and plotted on
large-scale drawings. Computer and modern digital
methods are now available. Aerial survey and
underwater video recording can be used.
In the case of reinforced concrete elements,
base-line data includes records of “as-constructed”
measurements of cover to reinforcement, and crack
and damage mapping. Non-destructive methods of
monitoring the performance of reinforced concrete
are not as practicable or meaningful as often claimed
and suffer problems of interpretation, but equipment
is available for monitoring corrosion potentials by
half-cell and other methods. It is now possible to
build in probes and take electrical measurements to
assess the onset of any change.
25
2.4 Materials
2.4.1 Rock and rubble
For guidance for, and the specification of, rock
and rubble construction it is recommended to use
the recently published “Manual of the use of rock in
coastal and shoreline structures”, published jointly
in the UK and Holland (ref CIRIA Special
Publication 83/CUR Report 154, 1992.)
2.4.2 Filling and Backfilling
Granular materials are recommended for any
backfilling to walls and filling of caisson cells in
order that the earth pressure loading can be deter-
mined with confidence, as outlined in Sections 2.1.4
and 2.1.5. There are no strict requirements for the
characteristics of the material used, i.e. quarry run
rock, sand etc. It is sufficient that their saturated
density is equal to or greater than the mass used in
the stability calculations and that their angle of
internal friction is equal to or greater than the one
used in earth pressure calculations. Generally, if the
material is suitable for pouring directly in position
under water, it will be acceptable. Material poured
into water (except for rockfill), will achieve a low
relative density and measures may be necessary to
increase the density, as described in 2.1.5
2.4.3 Concrete Durability General -
Design, Detailing and Workmanship
The requirements for achieving durability of
concrete in maritime works will usually outweigh
the requirements for achieving strength, or density.
The factors influencing durability and the specific
deterioration mechanisms involved were sum-
marised in Sections 2.3.1 to 2.3.8. This section and
2.4.4 to 2.4.12 summarise the practical steps and
specifications appropriate to maritime concrete in
breakwater applications.
The measures to be taken against specific
deterioration mechanisms as listed in 2.3.3 and
Table 9 are most concisely set out in the CEB Guide
and as listed in Table 10. Many problems can be
mitigated by good detailing and by good curing of
the concrete surface. Risk of frost damage and
reinforcement corrosion can be lessened by
attention to drainage of water from near horizontal
surfaces, to prevent the ponding of water, and to
prevent the run-down of water on vertical surfaces.
Reliability of design and workmanship and the
chance of avoidance of “gross errors” can be
improved by employing the discipline of Quality
Assurance in both design and construction, and the
26
Quality Control and audit procedures included in
this process.
National Codes of Practice and Design Guides,
and their associated test methods and limits can
usually be relied upon for appropriate design for
protection against physical and mechanical action,
freeze-thaw damage, chemical and sulfate attack
and alkali-aggregate reactivity. However, at the
present time, national codes and standards cannot be
relied upon to assure durability against reinforce-
ment corrosion in the long term, particularly in
aggressive conditions and climates other than cool
or temperate.
It is recommended that, in the maritime environ-
ment, design for durability needs to be “explicit” in
the sense understood by European code committees,
meaning a move away from prescriptive limits
given in codes to methods based on rational analysis
and methods of test (ref Concrete Society Report
109 on Durability Design and Performance-based
Specification of Concrete 1996, Rostam & Schiessl,
1993, Clifton J R, 1993).
The principal deterioration mechanisms in the
case of unreinforced concrete are those of salt
weathering, surface scaling and freeze-thaw, and
abrasion. The principal cause of deterioration of
reinforced and prestressed concrete is the corrosion
of embedded metal but, obviously, the other deterio-
ration mechanisms as for unreinforced concrete still
apply. The performance of different concrete mixes
depends upon the environmental conditions and the
type of cement.
The durability of unreinforced concrete incorpo-
rating an appropriate water and cement content is
good in sea water conditions and, where seriously
aggressive conditions exist, as defined in 2.3.4, con-
sideration should be given to designs appropriate to
unreinforced concrete as opposed to designs involv-
ing embedded metal.
2.4.4 Unreinforced Concrete (Plain or Mass)
The term “Unreinforced Concrete” will be used
to define concrete without steel reinforcement. Such
concrete is usually termed “mass” in Europe and
UK. In the USA and Japan, mass concrete means
concrete of a size significant to heat generation
which will require measures to be taken on account
of heat generation.
The surface of unreinforced concrete requires to
be designed and constructed with freeze-thaw, abra-
sion, salt weathering and sulfate attack in mind.
Although sulfate attack is mitigated in sea water by
the presence of chlorides and is less harmful in
warmer waters (refs BRE Digest 363, 1991, Bijen J
M, 1984, Matta Z G, 1993, NF P (18-011)), it is
possible that the long-term effects of the reaction
between sulfates and the hydrates formed from C3A
may be more significant in cases where the much
earlier and dramatic effects of reinforcement TABLE 13
corrosion are absent. PIANC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
The choice of grade of concrete can be par- UNREINFORCED CONCRETE 1980
ticularly problematical in the case of unreinforced (ref PIANC 1980)
concrete in blockwork, large sections and armour 28 day cube
units. A number of contemporary code recommend- Nominal maximum Minimum cement (size of cube not
ations may lead the designer to concrete mixes with Aggregate mm content kg/m3 defined)
excessive strength and cement content, and hence to strength MPa
problems of early thermal cracking and brittleness.
}
40 220 to 270
Due to the changing chemistry of cement it is not 20 to 35
20 250 to 310
always valid to compare specifications with
10 360
successful mixes used in the past. The UK Maritime
Code BS 6349 Part 1 : 1984 recommends a minimum or suspended sand. Abrasion resistance is usually
cement content of 350 kg/m 3 and maximum achieved by using strong aggregates and higher
water-cement ratio of 0.50, but this is meaningless strength concrete, not less than C40/50 (cylinder/
without reference to the options of increased cube). Test panels in the UK have shown losses
aggregate size or the use of admixtures, both of between 2mm and 12mm per annum over a period
which could enable the water content and hence the of 7 years. Exposure cases for abrasion have only
cement content to be reduced. The PIANC recom- recently been proposed in the Eurocode committees,
mendations (ref PIANC Final Report of 3rd Inter- but their adoption is uncertain. Achievement of
national Commission for the Study of Waves) for abrasion resistance depends critically on the finish-
unreinforced concrete in 1980 are given in Table 13. ing operations and curing. There are a number of
Depending on the exposure conditions, the abrasion tests.
answer may lie between these figures and a suggest- The CEB Guide is very informative in relation
ed range of mixes as given in Table 14 below. In all to “frost” damage which, more correctly, should be
cases it is necessary to carefully consider any termed “freeze-thaw” damage. Freeze-thaw resis-
departure from local National Standards. tance generally increases with reduced water-
Abrasion resistance is obviously important in cement ratio, increased cement content, and higher
locations where concrete may be abraded by shingle content of air pores. A higher proportion of blend-
TABLE 14
SUGGESTED CONCRETE MIXES FOR UNREINFORCED CONCRETE FOR DIFFERENT MARINE CONDITIONS TO
AVOID SALT WEATHERING/SURFACE SCALING FOR 40mm MAXIMUM AGGREGATE SIZE8
(ref Slater D and Sharp B N scheduled for publication late 1997)

Exposure Maximum Minimum Suggested cement type Typical Concrete

severity water/ cementitious and blends 8, 9 Grade6
rating cementitious content1,3,4 Minimum Dimension of Pour (cyl/cube strength10)
ratio2 kg/m3
< 500mm > 500 mm5 MPa

pc, ASTM, I/II/IV/V 100% ASTM IV or V C30/37

1-3 0.55 300 or pfa blend 75% pc : 25% pfa C25/30
or gbs blend 50% pc : 50% gbs C25/30

pc, ASTM I/II/IV/V 100% ASTM IV C35/45

4,5 0.50 325 or pfa blend 75-70% pc : 25-30% pfa C30/37
or gbs blend 30-50% pc : 70-50% gbs C30/37

pc, ASTM I/II/IV/V 100% ASTM IV C45/55

6-12 0.45-0.40 3507 or pfa blend 75-70% pc: 25-30% pfa C40/50
or gbs blend 30-50% pc : 70-50% gbs C40/50

Notes:
1 Where appropriate, in large sections, advantage can be taken of the
lower cement paste and cement contents required for larger
aggregate size. Minimum cement content for 80mm aggregate is
approximately 40 kg/m3 less. See Table 12.
2
Maximum water/cementitious ratio may need to be reduced to meet
National Standards. For any exposure rating, the water/cementi-
tious ratio should be as low as practicable and economic.
3
Minimum cementitious content may need to be increased for
abrasion resistance or to meet National Standards, with increased
risk of early thermal cracking.
4 The figures for minimum cement content ranges applies to Portland
cement only. Larger figures may be required for blended cements.
5 Cement type or blend chosen to control heat of hydration. 40mm
maximum aggregate size recommended to allow cement contents to
be reduced by 20-40 kg/m3.
6 Approximate equivalent grade consistent with the minimum
cement content and the maximum water/cement ratio. The accurate
equivalent grade for controlling water/cement ratio and cement
content should be established for the actual mix, if necessary by
trials.
7 Water reducing admixture recommended.
8 Add air entrainment 4-6% for freezing conditions.
9 Pfa and gbs blends require good curing conditions to avoid surface
defects.
10 Values are characteristic compressive strengths tested at 28 days in
accordance with ENV 206, below which 5% of all possible
strength test results may be expected to fall.
Cylinder strength applies to 150mm diameter 300mm long cylin-
ders and cube strength applies to 150mm cubes as defined by ENV
206:1990 and tested in accordance with BS 1881: Part 116, 1983.

27
 ing materials may unfavourably affect scaling.
Exposure classes for freeze-thaw damage were given
in 2.3.4. Concrete with moderate water saturation
will not suffer from freeze-thaw damage. Salt causes
a substantial drop in temperature at the concrete
surface during thawing, and the different temperature
between the surface and the internal concrete causes
internal stress. One of the worst potential damage
situations is where there is a prolonged freezing
cycle with a source of external sea water. The most
serious condition is reported to be when the
substrate remains frozen but the surface thaws due
to solar gain. Water from the melted snow/ice enters
the concrete to form added ice, which re-freezes
during the night to cause “squeeze freezing”.
Freeze-thaw conditions are likely to be much more
serious for roads as opposed to maritime structures.
There are a number of standard freeze-thaw tests,
such as ASTM and Scandinavian tests. Japanese
tests are carried out to determine the change in
length of specimens.
Salt scaling is a prevalent phenomenon in hot
arid conditions. It occurs in maritime conditions
and, due to sulfate, in low quality mass concrete in
salt flat conditions. The subject is not covered in
more well-known guides and reference needs to be
made to Fookes (ref Fookes P G, 1993, Bijen J M,
1992), and various papers on the Bahrain causeway
by Rasheeduzzafar et al (ref Al-Rabiyah A R,
Rasheeduzzafar, Baggott R, 1989) of the King Fahad
University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dahran,
Saudi Arabia. Salt scaling has affinity with both
frost and sulfate attack. The quality of aggregate has
a marked influence and also the cement type.
Scaling can be noticeably higher with slag cements,
and it may be necessary to tolerate this in order to
achieve requisite resistance to corrosion in the case
of reinforced concrete.
The mix proportions should be selected using
mix design methods commencing with the derivation
of water demand, which can be restricted to achieve
a low water-cement ratio (i.e. less than 0.5) by using
plasticisers or super-plasticisers to ensure that ade-
quate workability is available. Unduly restrictive
limits should not be imposed on workability where
this property is required to ensure the integrity of
concrete within the formwork.
Depth: cm
Time: Years
Fig. 16
Example of the effect of the thickness of the concrete cover
(ref CEB Guide)
28
2.4.5 Reinforced Concrete, including Selection
of Cover to Reinforcement
The durability of reinforced concrete is primari-
ly dependent on countering the effects of chloride
induced corrosion of steel reinforcement and is
more a design and detailing matter than a materials
matter. As developed in 2.3.1 to 2.3.8, durability is
a function of environmental loading and depends
primarily on:
• exposure conditions
• cover to reinforcement
• cement type
• pore structure/water-cement ratio.
For reinforced concrete, the principal design
parameters include the exposure rating derived from
the macro and micro environmental conditions, the
cement type, the mix quality as determined by the
water-cement ratio, and the cover to reinforcement.
As the protective capacity of a given concrete is
broadly related to the square of the cover thickness,
the provision of appropriate cover to reinforcement
is the simplest and most direct way of reducing
damage from reinforcement corrosion. The dramatic
effect of cover on the service life is illustrated in
Figs. 16 and 17. In this context cover must be
properly specified and detailed as summarised
below. The nominal cover for placing the reinforce-
ment, to be used in the design and stated on the
drawings, can be derived by computing a minimum
characteristic design value to meet durability (or
aggregate size, fire or bond etc) requirements,
together with a placing tolerance, which may vary
from 5mm to 15mm, or more depending on the
standard of control.
An illustration of the range of nominal cover
which is believed to be necessary for an estimated
“design” life of 60 years (say to meet a Design
Working Life of 50 years) is suggested in Table 15.
The figures include 15mm tolerance but no
allowance for abrasion or salt scaling. It will be
noted that as the aggressivity increases, the recom-
mended figures for cover are much higher than have
often been used, especially for unblended cements.
The table also demonstrates the importance of
extremely low water-cement ratios for Portland
cement, although even such provision is inadequate
Fig. 17
A prediction by service life model for exposure to sea-water with
a chloride content of 10,000 ppm
(ref Clear K C in Hognestad E, 1986)
without larger cover in the more aggressive condi-
tions. Anyone surprised by this table should consult
the following supporting references:
• Standard specifications for Design and
Construction of Concrete Structures Parts 1
& 2, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 1986
• Miyagawa T, 1991
• Bamforth PB and Price WF, 1993
• Bamforth P B, 1993.
The JSCE Standard Specification Part 1, 1986,
states that “in a ‘corrosive condition’ a cover not
less than 75mm is advisable (not less than 60mm if
examination and repair is easy), and not less than
100mm in ‘severely corrosive condition’ (not less
than 80mm if examination and repair is easy).
Where the quality of concrete is hampered by
difficult construction conditions or the structure
requires a long life-time, concrete cover shall be
increased. Although cover of precast concrete may
be decreased by 20%, it is not advisable to decrease
where sufficient corrosion resistance is necessary.”
The selection of appropriate cover for the expo-
sure conditions and the fixing tolerance has a major
influence on the minimum wall thickness for a cais-
son. Minimum wall thicknesses of 200mm and
300mm are not likely to be appropriate for rein-
forced concrete under extreme conditions of expo-
sure. Thin walled structures are not appropriate for
reinforced concrete in extreme exposure. In severe
conditions it may be advisable to use designs avoid-
ing reinforced concrete and, instead, to use a com-
posite design. In the submerged and mid to lower
tidal part, the sections may be adequate in thin wall
caisson design, but the exposed sections under
severe exposure may need to be thicker to enable
the cover to reinforcement to be increased or, if
feasible, constructed in plain concrete. The change
in micro environment will often coincide with a
change in construction conditions (i.e. from under-
water to tidal or above-tide working) and so a
composite design may be chosen to improve
constructability while at the same time matching
durability to different exposure conditions. In the

TABLE 15
SUGGESTED NOMINAL COVER FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE (BEFORE ABRASION ALLOWANCE)
FOR DIFFERENT MARINE ENVIRONMENTS FOR 60 YEARS "DESIGN LIFE"
(suggested as appropriate for 50 years "design working life")
(ref Slater D and Sharp B N, scheduled for publication late 1997)

Suggested Nominal Cover1,2,3mm

Exposure
Severity 70% pc : 30 pfa 100% pc 100% pc
Rating 75% pc : 25% pfa
30% pc : 70% gbs w/c ratio w/c ratio
50% pc : 50% gbs 4,5
90% pc : 10% ms6,7 0.458 0.409

1 5010 5010 75 65
2 50 5010 95 85
3 65 50 120 105
4 80 60 14511 130
5 95 70 17011 15511
6 115 85 20011 18011
9-12 13512 10012 23011,12 20511,12
Notes:
1 Includes an allowance of 15mm for workmanship tolerances C45/55-55/65, minimum cementitious content 425 kg/m3,
and reduction of cover during concreting. maximum water/cement ratio. 0.34-0.38 20 mm aggregate.
2 Add an extra 10mm for prestressing strand to reduce See note 10, Table 14, for definition of Grade.
percentage non-compliance of nominal cover to minimal 7 Assumed apparent diffusion coefficient at 20°C 1.5 x
value in recognition of risk of pitting corrosion. 10-13m2 sec-1.
3 A combination of the suggested nominal cover plus concrete 8 Assumed apparent diffusion coefficient at 20°C 15.0 x
mix appropriate to higher exposure rating will provide 10-13m2 sec-1.
extended service life. 9 Assumed apparent diffusion coefficient at 20°C 11.0 x
10-13m2 sec-1.
4 Appropriate mix for exposure severity rating 2: Grade
10 Nominal cover of 50mm dictated by bond requirements with
C35/45, minimum cementitious content 370 kg/m3, maxi-
20mm maximum aggregate size and allowing for workman-
mum water/cement ratio 0.45, 20 mm aggregate. See note
ship tolerances.
10, Table 14, for definition of Grade.
11 Blended cementitious mix more suited to the exposure
5 Assumed apparent diffusion coefficient at 20°C severity recommended.
3.0 x 10-13m2 sec-1. 12 Note that this Severity Rating is for hot arid conditions and
6 Appropriate mix for exposure severity rating 5: Minimum infrequently wetted members. See Section 2.3.4. Extra
Grade C40/50-55/65) minimum cementitious content 400 protection may be required by means of coatings or
kg/m3, maximum water/cement ratio 0.40. Appropriate mix provision for cathodic protection, depending upon
for exposure severity rating 6-12: Minimum Grade application and estimated severity rating.

29

260
220
Characteristic cover Standard deviation
Number of results in each 5mm cover interval
is 24mm is 15.35mm
180
Nominal
140
specified
cover 50mm
100
Statistical
mean
60 of results
49mm
20
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Cover (mm) in intervals of 5mm
Fig. 18
Distribution of cover in practice. Analysis of 1600 cover-
meter readings for a 13m high retaining wall
(ref Concrete Society Special Publication CS 109, 1996)
colder and wetter parts of Europe this problem is
less critical, and a change from thin-walled caisson
to unreinforced construction often occurs in any
case at about mid-tide level, and the problem is
greatly reduced.
At least half the problem of achieving adequate
cover is created by failure to acknowledge the need
for adequate steel fixing tolerances. The answer to
this problem lies in the German codes and the new
Eurocodes, by considering a minimum characteristic
cover to meet durability requirements, to which
must be added a tolerance, ∆h, to derive the nominal
placing cover which is used in the design calcula-
tions and the detailing. The resulting compound
tolerances of the concreting process can result, in
particular, in a wide variation in cover, as illustrated
in Fig. 18.
Minimum Cover should be regarded as a
“characteristic” value, and a margin of at least
10mm and up to 15mm should be added to reduce
the rate of failure to achieve the minimum cover to
within 5% of measurements (ref DIN 1045, 1988
and Betonwerk and Fertigteil-Technik (Concrete
Precasting, Plant and Technology) Issue 51, 1992).
This approach applies to measurement of cover in
place after concreting. Cover should be checked by
covermeter on trial panels at the commencement of
work and “as constructed” records of cover should be
prepared for all projects. The size of the tolerance
∆h may depend on the class of work, but should be
verified by control procedures. Possible specifica-
tion methods and compliance limits are suggested in
Table 16.
30
Spacers need to be made from appropriate
materials and adequately distributed. There are
several references on spacers (refs Spacers for
reinforcement, 1981 Cement & Concrete
Association UK, Spacers for reinforced concrete,
Concrete Society 1989). There are a number of
ingenious modern designs of plastic spacers, but it
is possible for these to deform or achieve inadequate
bond. For seriously aggressive conditions, spacers
need to made of materials equal to or better than the
parent mix and treated to improve bond.
2.4.6 Prestressed Concrete
The use of prestressed concrete in maritime
works is less common. Most engineers have been
afraid for chloride effects but there is a substantial
history of success in specific applications (ref
Gerwick B C, 1990). A recently constructed exam-
ple in Japan is a new type of breakwater in Sakai,
with a perforated caisson screen 16m diameter and
90 100 10m high (ref PCI Journal, July/August 1994).
However, the corrosion of prestressing steel
presents a much more dangerous situation than can
occur with non-prestressed concrete. The corrosion
of pre-stressed steel proceeds at a faster rate than
that of non-prestressed reinforcement under identical
conditions, and presents a higher risk of building
failure (ref Perl G C and Blades J T, 1993). There is
also the same problem as reinforced concrete, due to
the detailing of secondary reinforcement such as
stirrups and reinforcement to the anchorage zones.
One of the principal reasons for successful perform-
ance has been the general employment of higher
strength, lower water-cement ratio concrete and
increased cover and, perhaps, location in temperate
or cool conditions. Prestressed piles have performed
well in generally submerged and wet conditions in
the lower tidal zone in even hot-arid locations, and
prestressed decks have performed well in their usual
location above the splash zone where, of course,
they are not usually subject to an aggressive
environment, even in the worst hot-arid conditions.
The concept of using prestressing to reduce the
effect of cracks is not the positive advantage it may
seem, as the pore structure of the cement paste and
the state of saturation is more important than the
cracks. Concrete strength is usually required by
Codes to be higher for prestressed work, but this is
not the case in all codes. Cover to tendons in
maritime work is usually, but not always, required
to be greater than that for reinforced concrete. Some
codes limit the permitted chloride content of mixes
to half that for reinforced concrete, but other codes
do not. A useful comparison of codes is given by
Perl and Blades (ref Perl G C and Blades J T, 1993).
2.4.7 Cement
Refer to 2.3.5. and 2.3.6.
 TABLE 16
SPECIFICATION OF COVER TO REINFORCEMENT
Design Dimensions and Acceptance Criteria

1. When inspected in the forms, prior to concreting, the cover to reinforcement shall be the nominal (target) cover
specified within appropriate + and - tolerances, say 5mm, or 10mm.
2. When checked by covermeter after concreting, by a covermeter calibrated by direct measurement, the cover to
reinforcement shall comply with a similar philosophy to that given below.
Design and Detailing Dimensions Acceptance Criteria after Concreting - Measured Cover
Nominal (Target) Cover No more than 5% No Single Reading
of measurements less than* mm
mm
less than* mm
Heavy Civils Work
Tolerance 15mm
100 85 70
80 65 55
60 45 38
Normal In-Situ
Tolerance 10mm
(ref Eurocode 2.
5mm ≤∆h ≤10mm)
60 50 43
50 40 34
40 30 25
Precision Work
Precision work not usually Precision work not usually
Tolerance 5mm applicable to maritime work, applicable to maritime work,
(ref Eurocode 2 except for precast planks except for precast planks
0mm ≤∆h ≤5mm) and submerged concrete. and submerged concrete.
Say
50 45 40
40 35 30
30 25 20
Note that this small tolerance can Note that the standard of control
only be used if the feasibility of (i.e. as measured by the standard
achieving it has been proven by tests deviation ÷ mean) exceeds near-
and that results are verified by laboratory precision
production control.

* This acceptance criteria must be applied to a specific area in m2, or a specific member face of appropriate size. At least 35
measurements should be taken using a covermeter calibrated by direct measurement, and checked by direct measurement.
2.4.8 Aggregates results of locally determined aggregate studies for
the limits to be applied to aggregate properties in the
The quality of the aggregates, themselves, has a prevailing environmental conditions.
lesser impact on the quality of the finished concrete Most national standards set limits for the physi-
than may be supposed, provided that appropriate cal properties of strength and absorption. Where
measures are taken to achieve a dense concrete these do not exist it is often necessary to refer to
matrix with strong cement paste of low permeability. other national standards. Tests and limits particular-
However, the quality of aggregates has a significant ly apply with regard to alkali aggregate reaction and
influence on abrasion, freeze-thaw and salt scaling chloride and sulfate content.
resistance. The properties of shape, texture and absorbency
As a bulk natural resource, it is usually necessary of aggregates affect water-demand, which have a
to make the best use of locally available materials significant effect on durability. There are a number
wherever possible (including, possibly, re-cycled of very informative publications on the properties of
materials) and it may be unrealistic to set quality aggregate and comparisons between various nation-
limits too high except when standards are set by par- al standards (refs Geological Society (UK), Special
ticularly demanding circumstances. For that reason Publication No.9, 1990, Pike D C, 1990, and BRE
it is important to refer to national standards and the publications 243 and 244, 1993)

31
2.4.9 Cracking and Crack Width
Refer to 2.3.7 and 3.1.7.
2.4.10 Reinforcing Steel
Provisions for reinforcing steel are covered by
National Standards. Steel used in coastal works is
usually hot rolled high yield deformed.
Stainless steel may be necessary in some appli-
cations, at a premium of some six times the cost of
black steel. However it should be noted that the
premium on the overall concrete cost is relatively
small, up to about 16%, say (ref McDonald D R,
Sherman M R, Pfeifer D W and Virmani Y P, 1995).
Suitability for seawater depends on the Chromium/
Nickel proportions. Higher grade stainless steel to
BS 6744, Type 316 S 33 has 11-14%Ni and 16.5-
18.5%Cr. The lower grade, Type 304 S 31 has 8-
11%Ni and 17-19%Cr. Unified European standards
are under preparation and some, including EN
10088-1, which lists the steel grades, are already
issued. The standard European terminology is
similar to, but not precisely the same as, the DIN
system. The terms 316 and 304 are common to UK,
USA and Japan. The higher grade to other standards
is: France Z6 CND 17.12, Germany 1.4436, Italy
X5 CrNiMo 17 13, Sweden 14 23 43. The lower
grade is: France Z6 CN 18.09, Germany 1.4301,
Italy X5 CrNiMo 18 10, Sweden 14 23 32. On no
account should lower grades of stainless steel (BS
Type 304) be used in chloride bearing water, the use
of at least a hot rolled austenitic BS Type 316 S 33
being necessary. Higher qualities of stainless steel at
a further cost are available, but are produced for
marine engine, piping and similar applications.
A CEB document (ref CEB, 1995, Coating
protection for reinforcement) provides a current
state-of-the-art report on three coating protection
systems; hot dip galvanising, epoxy coating and
PVC coating.
Fusion bonded epoxy coated reinforcement is
available to some national standards (ref ASTM
A775, 1990), on the principle of isolating the
reinforcement from chloride ions. Both successful
and unsuccessful applications are reported and
application must depend on the severity of the
conditions.
Reinforcement is also available in the form of
steel, polypropylene and other fibres, and is used in
both conventional and sprayed concrete applica-
tions. There are standards for materials in USA (ref
ASTM A820-90, ACI 544R82) and for design and
construction in Japan (ref Japan Society of Engin-
eers Recommendations, 1983). Steel fibres have
been used for the reinforcement of armour units and
durability is claimed to be better than for bar
reinforcement. The use of stainless or “near
stainless” fibres is claimed to be promising.
32
2.4.11 Admixtures
In some countries (UK in particular) the use of
admixtures was overtly discouraged and some trace
of this antipathy remains in Specifications which put
a barrier on admixtures without express approval.
While there is no doubt that admixtures need to be
“approved”, it is now often the case that admixtures
are essential to provide workability with low water
content or cohesion in underwater concrete and
therefore need “positive” encouragement, not
discouragement. Types of admixtures are covered
by national standards or guidelines. Due to the
complexities of selecting proprietary products, it is
normal to maintain faith in tried and proven
manufacturers.
2.4.12 Additional Protective Measures :
Coatings, Coated Reinforcement,
Cathodic Protection
In certain cases additional measures are required
to achieve durability. Such measures can include
coatings to the exterior concrete surface or to the
steel reinforcement, or the recently developed appli-
cation of cathodic protection to reinforced concrete.
Claims are also made for rust inhibition by adding
calcium nitrite as an admixture, or for pore blocking
admixtures.
None of these solutions are as simple as they
sound and usually introduce maintenance problems
of their own : for example, coatings to concrete
require special preparation of the surface such as
grit blasting, and require to be maintained; coatings
to reinforcement are susceptible to handling damage;
cathodic protection systems have limits to life due
to cathodic and anodic reactions. However, each
measure may add a number of years to the service
life and, usually, the better the initial concrete, the
better the performance of the additional protective
measure.
Similar difficulties for the choice of admixture
apply to specifying and selecting coatings for
concrete. A UK Concrete Society working group
aims to issue guidance on this subject in 1997 (ref
Guide to Surface Treatment, 1997). Some countries
traditionally paint concrete. Coatings may be
necessary in some cases to achieve extended
performance, either to delay the onset of reinforce-
ment corrosion or protect from chemical attack.
Carbonation is unlikely to be a problem in marine
structures, and therefore coatings to protect against
carbonation are of little advantage. Coatings are
usually required to limit the passage of oxygen,
carbon dioxide and liquid water, while enabling a
certain transmission of water vapour which would
otherwise reduce adhesion of the coating. In
aggressive conditions, only high-build, high quality
products are dependable. These usually comprise
expensive systems of acrylics, polyurethanes and
epoxy resins built up to a substantial thickness.
Usually, the concrete surface needs to be prepared
to a very high standard, using grit blasting, with all
the small air holes formed at the shutter surface
revealed by this process filled with mortar by hand,
because the coating will not be able to bridge the
holes. These activities are labour intensive and
expensive.
Cathodic protection is very well established in
applications to steel maritime structures and
pipelines. It is now adopted as a repair technique
when no other simpler alternative is feasible. It is
less likely to be adopted in new construction, but in
such cases it is much easier to design and detail the
electrical continuity of reinforcement for cathodic
protection than it is in the case of retrofixing to an
existing structure.
Some Italian bridges have been designed with
cathodic protection incorporated. It is claimed that
the application of a protective current at an earlier
stage in operation inhibits the migration of chloride
ions, whilst the applied current is much less than
would be needed in later years to combat corrosion
currents made possible by the depassivating conse-
quences of chloride ingress (ref Pedeferri P, 1992).
A significant benefit from the latest electro-
chemical techniques can be the building in of
monitoring circuits. A continuous record of
potentials and/or corrosion currents can then be
obtained, which can enable problems to be
identified and appropriate maintenance strategies
undertaken.
2.4.13 Corrosion of Structural Steel
The performance of structural steel in sea water
is much better known and understood than that of
reinforced concrete. Materials for sheet and bearing
piles and similar members met in coastal engineer-
ing are covered by National Standards. Advice on
corrosion rates and anti-corrosion measures is given
in the British Maritime Structures Code (BS 6349),
the German Water-front Structures Code, the
Japanese Technical Standards and by sheet piling
manufacturers. It is usual to either add extra thick-
ness for a "corrosion allowance", or to use higher
grades of steel with reduced stress levels.
The corrosion rate is usually greatest in the
splash and low water zones, less in the inter-tidal
zone and least in the submerged and buried zone.
High corrosion rates can be experienced at lowest
astronomical tide level, where anaerobic corrosion
and reduction by bacterial action can occur.
There appears to be no merit in the use of spe-
cial alloy or copper bearing steels. Coal tar epoxy
and similar protective treatments have provided
excellent protection to steel during recent decades.
However, current legislation for environmental pro-
tection and health and safety, as well as commercial
pressure to reduce construction time and cost is
leading to the replacement of traditional multi-coat
metallic and duplex organic systems which do not
meet these requirements. A range of new “compli-
ant” coatings has been and is being developed
which include water-borne coatings, high solid coat-
ings and solvent-free coatings. There is inadequate
guidance on these new systems which are, as yet,
unproven in practice. This may especially be the
case for maritime work. A CIRIA research project
was due to be completed in September 1996 (ref
CIRIA Project 523, 1996). Where appropriate,
cathodic protection can be confidently designed for
submerged areas and protective paint treatments
minimise the amount of protective current required
in the submerged areas.
33
3. CONSTRUCTION RELATED CRITERIA AND
CONSTRUCTION METHODS

3.1 Caissons site than the wave height which occurs during a
short storm once a year. Some pre-information
about the changing weather conditions can be
collected from local weather stations, airports and
3.1.1 Float-Out Loading from weather maps. But for the planning and
Refer to 2.1.7 construction of a vertical breakwater, for which the
work on water is sometimes restricted to very few
float-out dates during the construction period, a
better weather service is needed than that required
3.1.2 First Grounding for the construction of a rubble mound breakwater,
Refer to 2.1.8 where the activity can be changed from day to day
according to the wave height.
There are not many references to the limits for
3.1.3 Caisson Fill Methods and Pressures conditions suitable for sinking caissons, or quantifi-
Refer to 2.1.5 cation of appropriate limits. Spanish experience
suggests that, in the case of caissons of the size used
in vertical breakwaters, the sinking operations
should be restricted to the following conditions:
T1/3 < 7 seconds
3.1.4 Sea Condition Data and Limits for Con-
struction Risks Hmax < 0.7m - tending to decrease.
For each construction stage the designer has to In periods of calm weather, the required cell fill-
specify the waves which can be tolerated, in height, ing operation must also be carefully considered. In
period and direction. If this wave condition is large caissons the cells have a considerable volume.
surpassed by more dangerous waves, the work has to Consequently the filling operation takes a long time,
be interrupted. The design wave for different stages which must be estimated carefully, in order that the
of the construction can be different. Float out can works programme is compatible with the forecast
often be carried out under more severe conditions weather conditions.
than grounding. The rubble on which the caisson
percentage of exceedence

highest wave height Hmax

will be founded has to resist a certain wave action
which normally is more severe than the wave action
which has been foreseen during grounding. On the
other hand, erosion of the rubble base can be
repaired quickly at low cost, and the last levelling
on most sites is, in any case, programmed to be
carried out shortly before float-out.
To enable the designer and the contractor to esti-
mate the wave height for the different construction
stages, they have to be provided with wave forecast
data. This data should not indicate the probability of Fig. 19
the occurence of a certain wave height during the Probability for the exceedence of a certain wave height during
the year (ref Stückrath T, 1982 and Clutterbuck P G, 1977)
year but it should give information about the time
during which a certain wave height is surpassed,
which is shown in Fig. 19. From Fig. 19 it can be
seen which time of the year a certain wave height 3.1.5 Construction Joints
(either given as Hs or as Hmax) is surpassed. In the Frequent construction joints occur in nearly all
example, a wave height of Hs = 1 m is surpassed vertical breakwaters, because (with few exceptions)
during 60% of the year, while a wave height of Hs = they are built in a discontinuous way by the use of
2 m is only surpassed during 23% of the time. Also, prefabricated concrete elements.
an indication of the length of calms, necessary for Where horizontal joints occur as, for instance, in
the float-out processes, has to be given. block type breakwaters, the blocks placed on top of
There will be only a few places in the world each other can be easily linked together by a slot
where enough wave measurements have been made and key system or by wells and dowels, as shown in
in the past to construct Fig. 19. On the other hand, Fig. 20. Another way to achieve a good inter-
the normal wave climate during the construction connection between small elements is to use
period is much more significant to the progress on inclined joints.

34
 Vertical joints, which are unavoidable for all
vertical breakwaters constructed from larger
elements, have numerous advantages but they can
lead to serious difficulties during construction. One
advantage of a vertical joint is that adjoining
elements can undergo different settlement.
Therefore these joints should not be filled with
inflexible materials as long as the elements still
undergo differential movement. On the other hand,
storms arising during the time in which the joints
are left open can lead to high water velocities in the
joints and to damage (Agerschou H et al, 1985).
Interconnection of adjoining elements is in most
cases necessary to distribute the local wave load on
to more than one element. Therefore joints which
are permanently open are an exception.
A male and female slot and key system which
has often been used, for instance in Brighton Marina
(Agerschou H et al, 1985) or in Helsingborg 1981 is
shown in principle in Fig. 21a. This detail has some
disadvantages. Free settlement of two adjoining
elements is restricted because differential tilting of
two elements is prevented. Additionally, during the
time of placement of the elements (even, if they are
(a) Slot and key system (b) Wells and dowels
Fig. 20 Vertical connections at horizontal joints between
concrete blocks placed on top of each other
replaced by tremie concrete could be recommended,
but experience with the use of these construction
methods is rare. Surveys of breakwaters (ref
Tanimoto, 1983) that describe the displacement of
caissons after wave attack, lead to the conclusion
that most displacements of vertical breakwaters are
just horizontal slips. Therefore a differential move-
ment of adjoining elements, caused by wave attack,
can be prevented by a shear connection located only
in the bottom slab, as proposed by Lundgren and
Juhl, 1995 .
Double slot joints between rectangular caissons
as used in Spain are shown in Fig 22 and for the
quay-wall caissons at Dubai Dry Docks in Fig 23.
Fig. 22 Joints between caissons
3.1.6 Settlement
Vertical breakwaters show much greater settle-
ment than most other structures designed and built
by civil engineers. There are mainly three reasons
for the high magnitude of settlement.
a) The sea bed on which the structures are
founded is, with few exceptions, loose and
fine and cannot be precompacted.
b) The rubble mound which is used as a bearing
layer under the vertical elements and which
has a considerable thickness, especially for
vertically composite breakwaters, cannot

a b
(a) Slot and key (b) Double slot
Fig. 21 Vertical joints between caissons with a circular
horizontal cross-section.

placed by crane) the sea must be absolutely calm.

Even small wave heights lead to impact stresses in
the slot and key, due to the very large masses that
will try to follow the orbital swell motion. Therefore
a joint with a double female slot which is filled
later, as shown on Fig. 21b, leads to a less
vulnerable construction method. The vertical open
gaps on both sides of the slots are usually sealed
with grout- filled tubes or "bolsters".
The materials that have been used to fill the gap
in the joint in Fig. 21b have been coarse aggregates
(in Helsinki 1981) or bitumen (ref Press H, 1962),
but in most cases nearly inflexible tremie concrete
has been used. The use of modern flexible materials Fig. 23 Typical joint details - Dubai Dry Docks
or a first filling with a soft material which is later (continued on page 36)

35
 easily be precompacted and will therefore be
compressed by the load of the caissons, and
by wave loading.
c) Rubble mounds undergo considerable settle-
ment during construction and time-dependent
"creep" settlement for many years thereafter.
These phenomena are explained below.
d) Sometimes the elements have to be placed on
foundations for which a trench has been
dredged into the sea bed. In soft ground this
may involve the classical sand replacement
method (ref Barberis MC, PIANC, 1935). In
these cases the inflow of soft sea bed mud
after the last cleaning and before the place-
ment of the elements cannot be fully prevent-
ed, and the depth of fill will undergo both
compression and consolidation settlement.
In most cases the vertical load of the elements
on their foundations (weight minus bouyancy) is
increased from zero after first placement to the full
load after filling with sand and after concreting the
cap. The greatest settlements have to be anticipated
during the construction period. Many breakwaters
have shown additional settlements during the first
years of operation because the settlement is not an
elastic movement and because it can be increased by
the shaking by waves. If possible, the last layer of
the concrete cap which is visible to the eye, should
therefore be completed as long as possible after the
major construction period. Settlements can never be
excluded. They are, even if they are high, unavoid-
able characteristics of vertical breakwaters. Visible
differential settlements of adjoining elements should
be minimised as far as possible, and the ugly
appearance these constructions can exhibit (because
of the uneven surfaces), should be overcome by
appropriate detailing features.
Although the size and the extent of the settle-
ments can be measured easily and figures have been
collected for many harbours, not many publications
have been made about settlement, and very little
guidance appears in the CIRIA/CUR Manual on the
use of rock, 1992. The magnitudes of settlements
given in available literature, are as follows:
• "settlements up to 1m are normal" (ref
Lamberti A and Franco L, 1994)
• "settlements of 97cm have been measured
but the influence of earthquake cannot be
excluded" (ref Ching T K, 1994, page 228)
• "Diagrammi dei cedimenti dei cassoni" show
settlements of 1m during the first three
months and maximum settlements of 1.5m
after eight years (ref Ing Mantelli & Co.,
Volti Harbour, Genova, 1994)
• In the Working Group 28 meeting in London
on 26 April 1995, Sub-Group B reported the
following figures for the vertical breakwater
at Gela (Italy): Overall settlement 1m,
Fig. 23 (continued from page 35) differential settlement of two adjoining
Typical joint details - Dubai Dry Docks elements 0.2m.

36
 In fact, considerable information on the time
dependent post construction settlement of rockfill is
available from dam construction. An immense
amount of investigation has been devoted to this
subject at the UK Building Research Establishment
(BRE) and by American workers. Penman’s paper
of 1971 (ref Penman ADM, 1971) reviewed the
development of compacted rockfill as a construction
material and illustrated its post-construction behav-
iour. Other helpful papers include those by Sowers,
Williams and Wallace of 1965 and Matheson et al,
1986 and 1989. A series of papers on the latest state
of the art of rockfill structures was presented in
Lisbon in 1990 (ref Maranha das Neves E, 1990)
including a paper by Charles which updates Penman
(ref Charles J A, 1990). A UK Institution of Civil
Engineers paper by Sharp (ref Sharp B N, 1996)
reviews the available data and gives practical case
histories of the settlement of quay walls in ports and
rockfill used in quay wall construction. The signifi-
cant factor is that the post-construction settlement of
a rockfill embankment is time-dependent, due to the
crushing of the highly stressed points of contact
between the individual rocks. The pattern is similar
to the secondary consolidation of clay, in that it
reduces logarithmically with respect to time accord-
ing to Penman’s expression :
δ = Η α (log t2 - log t1)
100
Settlement mm
where δ = settlement in mm
H = height in mm
α = creep coefficient
t2 & t1 are any two times from the end
of construction for a settlement δ
to occur.
The dimensions of time (months or years) are
immaterial as it is the difference that matters, and
the base of the logs is immaterial. The coefficient α,
can vary between 0.2 and 1, and is often about 0.5.
The rate of settlement of a 15 m high marine
embankment could typically be 25 mm per month or
more at the end of construction and 5 mm per month
one year after completion of construction.
Thereafter, the rate of settlement reduces slowly
according to the logarithmic law, which means that
significant settlement can continue for 20 years. The
long term settlement due to this cause is unlikely to
be very large, in comparison with the settlement of
clay and seabed mud, but could be of the order of
100 to 200 mm over many years. Although this
amount is unlikely to lead to “failure” of a vertical
breakwater, it may prove unsightly and lead to
unnecessary worry and incorrect diagnosis of the
cause of continuing settlement. Usually this
settlement is made up by additional fill.
The logarithmic decline in settlement rate is
illustrated in Fig. 24. It will take nine years since
completion of fill to double the amount of settle-
ment that occurred from year one to year three since
completion of the fill. It will take until year 27 for
the next increment to equal that which occurred
from year one to year three. Fig. 24 illustrates the
case of a 20 m high embankment with a typical
creep coefficient of 0.524. Substituting in Penman’s
expression:
H = 20,000 mm
α = 0.524
log10 27 = 1·434
log10 l = 0
δ (from year 1 to year 27)
20,000 x 0.524 (1.434-0)
=
100
= 150 mm.
Obviously, the expression can’t deal with Year 0
(which has no log) but one can estimate from year 0
to year 1 by using decimals of a year (or months).
The slope of the log plot m equals
αH , which in this case equals 104.8. The settlement
100
from years 1 to 27 can also be expressed as
δ = m(log t2 - t1),
which equals 104.8 x 1.434 = 150 mm, as above.
Time in years since completion of rockfill
*Settlement from year 0 to year 1
approximately 100 mm to 150 mm.
Fig. 24 Logarithmic decline of rockfill settlement
(ref Sharp B N, 1996)
3.1.7 Early Thermal Cracking
Control of the temperature of concrete at the
placing stage and during hydration is virtually
essential for the construction of massive concrete
sections. Thermal contraction from the heat generat-
ed by hydrating cement results in severe cracking
wherever the geometry of the section or the
sequence of adjacent pours during construction
imposes a restraint to free contraction.
The subject was dealt with in the 1930’s in the
USA for low cement content mixes in massive
dams, but ACI code recommendations do not extend
to convenient crack calculation methods for rein-
forcement design. Detailed recommendations,
which are simple to apply, are given in UK publica-
tions (ref CIRIA 91, 1990, BS 8007, 1987, Depart-
ment of Transport BA 24/87 and BD 28/87, 1987)
and the phenomena is the focus of interest in Japan
for the design of caissons, etc.
37
 A major step forward is now possible due to the
development of computer software which models
the transfer of heat and moisture in concrete. The
effect of different mixes and sequences of construct-
ion can thereby be compared and the propensity for
cracking, stresses etc, determined (ref CEB Design
Guide, 1992, Appendix A).
Appropriate measures to control the heat of
hydration include:
• the use of the largest appropriate size of
aggregate and water reducing admixtures in
Fig. 25 Internal restraint to early thermal cracking
order to reduce the cement content demanded (ref Concrete Society Digest No 2, 1984)
by low water-cement ratios
• the use of low heat cements, usually involv-
ing blending with pozzolans or slag
• cooling by the cooling of materials, addition
of flaked ice, the injection of liquid nitrogen
to negate the heat rise, or by cast-in in
cooling water pipes
• thermal curing and insulation to minimise
heat differences and gradients.
Early thermal stresses may occur in the con-
struction of caissons due to the following reasons:
• restraint of adjacent pours
• infilling of cells with mass concrete.
Specifications frequently exacerbate thermal
effects by demanding unnecessary intervals between
adjacent pours whereas, to minimise early thermal
loading, the maximum freedom from restraint
would result from continuous casting, such as
occurs in slipforming. The old "alternate bay"
method, with continuous reinforcement, causes the
maximum restraint and is the least favourable.
The calculation of thermal crack widths and
crack control reinforcement by conventional means
are covered in references CIRIA 91, BS 8007 etc.
As the cement content has a significant effect on
the heat evolution during hydration and therefore the
temperature differences applied in the calculations,
the temperature effects due to the likely maximum
cement content should be used, and very careful
monitoring of the actual cement content be made in
relation to the calculated reinforcement. The designer
must bear in mind that the strength and cement
content of the mix in practice may be considerably
higher than a “minimum” requirement of a general
specification. Ready-mix suppliers may be obliged
to overshoot cement contents in order to comply
with strength specifications and QA requirements,
and this is often a factor which exacerbates early
thermal cracking.
The type of cracking caused by the two types of
restraint is illustrated in Figs. 25 and 26. "Internal"
restraint concerns the change in temperature across
a thick section, such as a block, whereas "External"
restraint concerns adjacent pours. Thermal cracks
recorded in caissons in Japan are illustrated in Fig. Fig. 26 External restraint for various slab or wall pour sequences
(ref CIRIA 91, 1992)
27. It is necessary to design the reinforcement to

38
 Slit
Cracks at side walls
Fig. 27 Thermal cracking in caissons in Japan
replace the formation of a few wide cracks by a
number of finer, controlled cracks. Bands of addi-
tional reinforcement may need to be calculated for
the base of a restrained pour.
Methods for calculating reinforcement related to
crack width are given in ACI 207.2R and the
Japanese Society of Civil Engineers Standard
Specification for Design and Construction of
Concrete Structures. These methods are based on
providing reinforcement to resist early thermal
tensile stresses in excess of the early-age tensile
strength of the concrete. However, the UK method
(BS 8007, CIRIA 91 etc), appears to be more con-
venient, using the expression :
f
ρ = ct ∅ R α (Τ1 + Τ2)
fb 2wmax
where ρ = percentage of steel area
fct = concrete strength in tension
fb = average steel/concrete bond strength
f placing reinforcement has been found to be relatively
(In fact ct is usually given direct as
fb a quotient)
∅ = bar diameter in mm
wmax= maximum crack width in mm
R = Restraint factor
α = coefficient of thermal expansion of
concrete
T1 = difference between centre line peak
temperature and mean ambient temp-
erature
T2 = maximum temperature difference
between adjoining sections.
The amount of reinforcement depends upon the
joint spacing (i.e. wide or close joint spacing) or for
continuous (jointless) construction. For each joint
spacing criteria, the reinforcement percentage is, in
effect, inversely proportioned to bar size, and is easy
to calculate. The result is not, of course, a rigorously
exact figure, but a likely approximation.
3.1.8 Slipforming
Vertical slipforming lends itself to the casting of
caissons, silos, walls and towers. Because the plastic
concrete is placed in the forms which act as moving
dies to shape the concrete by an “extrusion”
process, the concrete is joint-free and is cast and
hardens free of restraint from adjacent pours so that
early thermal effects are minimised.
Explanations and guidelines for the formwork
itself are given in ACI 347R, 1988 - Formwork.
Tolerances are recommended in ACI 117 1990. The
forms are constructed with a slight taper such that
the width between the forms is greater at the bottom
than the top. The true wall thickness is measured at
the elevation where hardened concrete is maintained
in the form. The allowable ACI tolerance for cross-
sectional dimensions is 20mm.
Slipforming of caissons has been described in
several references (Cochrane G H, Chetwin D J L,
and Hogbin W, 1979, Philip Holzmann literature
for Port of Damman, 1978). The slipforming of the
tapered cylindrical legs of the Condeep platforms is
described by Moksnes J, 1975 and Condeep promo-
tional literature. The slipforming of the Ekofisk arti-
ficial island in the North Sea is described by Marion
H and Mahfouz G, 1974. A technical discussion on
slipforming (ref Fort G B and Davis P D, 1981)
reports the procedures for casting the central plat-
form of the Ninian oil field, both in dry dock and
afloat, together with other advice and information
on mixes etc. A recent review was given by Jones
M N and Horne R D, 1996. The method is less
successful in dealing with discontinuities, such as
windows or slots in the walls. Otherwise dimensional
variation should be small and the accuracy in
good, due to the location of vertical steel by guides
within the forms.
The curing of massive vertical slipformed
surfaces presents logistical difficulties as recognised
in ACI 308:1981 (Revised 1986) “....structures
erected using vertical slipforming methods should
be cured in accordance with the procedures used in
curing other vertical surfaces recognising the
particular problem of slipform construction”. The
immediately slipformed surface is, clearly, unprotect-
ed by formwork in its early hours and is more
sensitive to the application of curing activity and, as
in the case of horizontally slipformed pavements,
there may be little alternative to the early
application of curing membranes. For subsequent
application of curing activities see 2.3.8 and 3.1.9.
39
3.1.9 Curing 3.1.10 Developments in Caissons
As noted in 2.3.8, the purpose of and need for Recent designs for composite caissons in Japan
wet curing is now questioned. The wet curing of include a caisson with a superstructure broken up
massive vertical surfaces such as occur in caissons into wave breaking shapes and infilled with armour
introduces severe logistical problems in fixing units. The arrangement of this is shown in Fig 28
curing materials, securing them against wind and and the stress plot in Fig 29. In the analytical model
weather, and the supply and drainage of water. there are 3482 No. elements and 10,070 No. nodes.
The need for wet curing of those parts of a New developments in prestressed concrete double
structure which are subsequently to remain totally wall cylindrical breakwaters, designed by limit state
immersed may be particularly questionable. methods, are described in the 1995 FIP Notes by
However, wet curing cannot be disregarded for Kiyomia O and Yamada M. See Fig 30.
those parts of a reinforced concrete caisson structure
which are manufactured in and/or going to be
exposed to severely aggressive conditions in a hot
arid environment or which are going to be subject to
abrasion or frost damage. All of these circumstances
require a refined pore structure as influenced by wet
curing amongst other factors.
Indiscriminate wet curing with cold water,
and/or the removal of formwork can lead to shock
due to temperature or moisture gradients. For
formed surfaces, it is generally advisable to leave
the forms in place as long as practically possible.
The use of higher strength (i..e. low water-cement
ratio) concrete which is less susceptible to curing
duration is recommended, as explained in 2.3.8. Fig. 28a Perspective of a composite caisson, with armour unit
infill
There appears to be advantage in the recently devel-
oped permeable formwork liners, for the controlled
removal of or supply of water to the surface. If such
liners are left in place after removal of formwork,
they provide a protective covering. Vacuum de-
watering, to reduce the water-cement ratio of the
surface concrete, has been utilised since the thirties,
but is more appropriate to horizontal surfaces.
The procedures for and timing of immersing
caissons in sea water require consideration.
Provided the concrete surface is saturated and of a
concrete strength which can be cured in a short
duration, there is likely to be no disadvantage and
even positive advantage of early immersion The
“Condeep” oil rig platforms for the North Sea and Fig. 28b Cross section
the Ekofisk central reservoir were slipformed when
afloat (ref Marian H and Mahfouz G, 1974, and
Moksnes J, 1975 and Condeep promotional
literature). There is very great risk of disastrous
absorption of salts into concrete which has been left
to thoroughly dry at the surface in an arid climate
and then suffer unbalanced periods of immersion
with long drying cycles. (ref Hansen T C, 1980).
A matrix of requirements must be considered
when deciding the plus and minus factors for
curing, including the appropriate surface pore
structure in relation to abrasion or frost resistance or
protection of reinforcement, environmental con-
ditions during and after construction, whether
further surface treatments are to be applied (in
which circumstances curing membranes would be
inappropriate) etc.

40
 Fig. 29 Stress analysis of caisson in Fig. 27

Fig. 30 Recent Japanese double cylindrical wall-type breakwater in

prestressed concrete.
(ref Kiyomiya O and Yamada M, 1995)

41
3.2 Blocks
3.2.1 Blocks from Concrete
Blockwork is inherently robust and durable, and
was, historically, used for vertical breakwaters in
the UK, France and Spain. The older forms, some-
times using smaller blocks, often laid to a sloping
batter, are no longer used. Vertical blockwork
breakwaters in the Mediterranean were less success-
ful and a list of famous failures includes the
Mustapha Jetty at Algiers, and at Catania and
Genoa. Guidelines for blockwork breakwaters are
given in the UK Maritime Code BS 6349 : Part 7,
1991 which refers also to BS 6349 : Part 2, 1988 for
blockwork quay walls, and examples are given in
the Japanese Technical Standards for port and har-
bour facilities and the Spanish Diques de abrigo en
España (Breakwaters in Spain), 1988.
Blockwork quay walls are normally dry jointed.
BS 6349 : Part 7, 1991 recommends that, where set-
tlement is not significant, joints should be sealed
and grouted to minimise air and water pressure
effects under wave action. However this advice
appears impractial and not applicable to separate
block construction. Sealing would only be effective
if it is achieved by infill pours of in-situ concrete, as
described below.
A significant difference between blocks in
breakwaters as opposed to quay walls must lie in the
significance of cracks. In dry bonded quaywall
construction, some cracks are likely to occur during
placing and preloading blocks in position. As the
quaywall remains in compression due to earth
retaining loads, a limited and random incidence of
cracking is insignificant. In the case of unreinforced
armour units and breakwater blocks, such cracking
reduces the mass of individual elements and may
require further consideration.
3.2.2 Types of Concrete Blocks
Modern blockwork breakwater walls can be
classified into four main types:-
(i) With massive blocks of cyclopean dimen-
sions of mass up to 400 or 500 tonne. (See
Fig. 31).
The block length is equal to the structure
width. The blocks are usually stacked to
form separate vertical columns which per-
mits independent settlement of each column.
When significant settlement is not expected,
the blocks can be bonded (staggered) along
the length of the wall.
Connections between blocks are by mortises
in the horizontal direction as shown in Fig.
31, and in the vertical direction sometimes by
wells, which are infilled with tremie concrete,
and can be armoured by steel dowels. See
Fig. 20(b). The wells can have a dual
function as the holes for lifting tongs. (See
Fig. 32).
42
(ii) Built up of smaller blocks, of the order up to
60 tonne, as shown in Fig. 33, or less as
shown in Fig. 34.
(iii) Forms of blockwork construction which
incorporate large voids or discontinuities in
the sea-face, to absorb wave energy.
(iv) Composite walls of blockwork on a sub-
merged rubble mound.
3.2.3 Common Problems
A number of common “problems” are met in the
manufacture and placing of blocks.
1. Planarity of horizontal surfaces
It is not as simple as it may seem to achieve
horizontal faces to blocks. Lack of planarity
may result from the hand screeding of the
open top face of a block, or from the tendency
of block edges to curl. It must also be noted
that, to maintain verticality of a wall, it can
be necessary to shim between blocks. Such
lack of planarity can result in cracking of
some courses of blocks.
This problem has been overcome, in the case
of solid blocks, by casting the blocks on their
sides, such that the seating faces are formed
vertically between the forms. This cannot be
done in the case of hollow blocks, more
usually used for quay walls.
2. Loss of friction on seating faces
It is dangerous to use felt or building paper
to form the base of a pour. If this material
sticks to the block and is not removed, it can
cause serious loss of friction. It is preferable
to use proprietary "surfectant" (soap-type) of
shutter release products and not to use shutter
oils or unsuitable oil products, to reduce the
risk of loss of friction and damage to
concrete faces.
Another solution is to cast the blocks on a
steel base plate which has been treated with a
formwork release liquid which is soluble in
water, which dissappears instantly on contact
with air.
3. Cracking of blocks during manufacture,
handling and placing
Cracking during manufacture should be
avoided by due attention to the early thermal
design of the blocks, formwork and protect-
ion during curing.
Cracking during handling should be avoided
by appropriate lifting and handling methods,
and avoidance of premature lifting. It may be
necessary to add handling reinforcement to
the walls of hollow blocks, although this
should be avoided if possible.
Cracking during placing and particularly
during any preloading may occur as a result
of 1. above.
 Cracking can be triggered by changes of
section at mortice joints, and by the holes Minimum
formed for interconnection wells and lifting 1.51m50
Min m

purposes. It is recommended that holes are

not made for lifting purposes. It is preferable
to use steel lifting points, even though this
may necessitate an increased number of lift-
ing points and a special lifting device which
balances the lifting load between the extra
lifting points. Corrosion of such exposed lift-
ing points will be insignificant under water,
or to otherwise unreinforced concrete.
4. Quay wall blocks are usually bedded down
by stacking blocks on the completed
columns, either to form a preload surcharge
to accelerate and therefore "take-up" settle-
Seaward Side
Concrete Crown
H.W.L.
Foot Protection Concrete Block
Armour Stone
Rubble
Fig .31 Concrete block breakwater - large blocks
(ref Technical Standards for Port and Harbour Facilities in Japan)
Fig .32 Lifting tongs recess and vertical well connection
ment, or to bed the blocks onto the rubble
bed (i.e. a pressing down or "paper-weight"
effect) This measure is unlikely to be
suitable for breakwater blocks,
Harbour Side and it may be necessary to con-
struct the in-situ concrete crown
early, in order to achieve this
"paper-weight" effect. Early
execution will of course lose the
Concrete Block benefits to be gained by later
execution, as recommended in
Foot Protection Concrete Block
3.1.6, which may minimise
Armour Store unsightly movement and crack-
ing. The joints in the crown
block can be formed on the
slant, to permit uneven
settlement. Joint spacing in the
crown block can be of the order
of 10 or 12m. The joints are
usually sealed with bituminous
material.

Fig .33
Bonded blockwork - Spain

Marina "Los Gigantes", 1973.

Concrete blocks up to 15 Tonne.
(ref Diques de abrigo en España, 1958)

Fig .34
Breakwater Eng. Castor - Port of Algeciras, 1935
(ref Diques de abrigo en España, 1958)

43
3.3 Rubble Mounds
For construction aspects of any rubble mound
element of vertical breakwaters refer to the refer-
ences of 2.4.1 and 3.1.6.
3.4 Curtain and Pile Type
Curtain and pile type breakwaters are effective
in locations where
(1) the water depth is shallow and wave height
is small
(2) the sea bed is soft (mud).
This type of breakwater usually consists of both
piles and curtain walls, but sometimes the break-
water is constructed with piles alone. Piles are
usually of steel tube and curtain walls are reinforced
or prestressed precast concrete. There are two
sub-divisions of this type, namely single curtain
wall and double curtain wall as illustrated in Fig. 35.
Practical examples of the various types are shown in
Fig 36. In the double type of curtain wall, slits or
openings, are provided at the front curtain walls. The
wave energy is dissipated between the two curtain
walls and reflection wave height is attenuated.
However, consideration must be given to the risk of
scour of the sea bed and the provision of protection
rock. When steel piles are adopted, corrosion
protection is necessary. The exposure conditions for
concrete elements and their fixings are likely to be
very severe. Cover to reinforcement in such
elements must be adequate to suit the exposure
conditions and the materials as recommended in this
Report.

(a) Single curtain breakwater (b) Double curtain breakwater

Fig. 35. Types of Curtain and Pile Breakwaters (ref Technical Standards for Port and Harbour Facilities in Japan)

upper concrete

(a) At Osaka Port (b) At Kelhin Port

Fig. 36
Japanese examples of Curtain
and Pile Breakwaters

(c) At Hakata Port

44
4. SUMMARY
The topics examined by Sub-Group C comprised
a wide range of subjects related to design, construc-
tion and performance. They were mostly chosen to
fill in the gaps of the considerations of the other
sub-groups, whose tasks were to concentrate on
loading and reliability criteria for stability under
wave impact. The information presented is drawn
from experience and practice worldwide and atten-
tion is drawn to facts and references which may not
be obvious or available in any single comparable
document. This being the case, it is neither possible
nor meaningful to abridge the considerations. This
Summary, therefore, mainly provides a key to the
data and tables given in the text, together with sum-
marised abstracts and recommendations where
appropriate.
The topics were examined under two overlap-
ping headings:
(i) Design Criteria and Materials
• different forms of loading other than
wave loading, i.e. earthquake, ice, soil
etc.
• structural analysis and limit states for
element design
• durability and maintenance, particularly
of concrete structures
• materials.
(ii) Construction Related Criteria and Methods
relating specifically to:-
• caissons
• blocks
• rubble mounds
• pile and curtain type.
The text is accompanied by an exhaustive refer-
ence list.
4.1 Different Loadings not covered by
Sub-Group A
4.1.1 Earthqnake
Although advances in computer techniques
enable dynamic response to be analysed by finite
element methods, the simple equivalent static load
method is generally acceptable for breakwater struc-
tures. In many countries, and for the obvious exam-
ple of Japan, the horizontal earthquake load is still
calculated by multiplying the vertical dead load and
surcharge by a seismic coefficient determined from
a number of factors, as set out in Tables 1 to 3.
4.1.2 Ice Pressure
Load from ice pressure on a vertical breakwater
seldom exceeds the wave load. The effective pres-
sure from ice loading decreases with structure size
and there are, at present, no conclusive formulae
which can be applied to large works. Therefore, in
those countries where ice loading is a consideration,
ice pressures are derived from local experience and
judgement. Some details are given in Section 2.1.2.
4.1.3 Deleted
4.1.4 Earth Pressures for Structural Design
Earth pressure is relevant to vertical breakwaters
with rubble or fill placed against them, and to the
load from retained materials within caissons.
Traditional “working stress” codes recommend
“active” or “at-rest” pressure coefficients to be
applied to the dry or submerged soil mass, appropri-
ate to different forms of construction. Different
approaches are taken in different countries. Due to
the problems of reconciling limit state methods for
soil mechanics analysis with structural analysis
(because the fundamental relationship between load
and movement for soils differs from that for struc-
tural materials) there is a lack of agreement in the
formulation of limit state codes. Therefore, tradi-
tional methods still remain as an option in most
codes.
New structural analysis codes and geotechnical
codes now adopt limit state philosophy. Structural
analysis to limit state codes requires the application
of partial factors for loading cases and materials for
the calculation of the ultimate and the serviceability
limit state conditions. However the application of
limit states and/or partial factors to earth pressure
and variable water loading is not as straightforward
as for buildings and bridges. The selection of partial
factors to match with the reliability and probability
of water and wave loading is the task of Sub-Groups
A and D. The subject is also discussed in 4.2.
There are two distinctive methods of applying
limit state methods and partial factors to the struc-
tural design of earth retaining structures. One
method derives directly from structural design: the
partial factors from Eurocode 2 and similar national
codes are applied to the characteristic or serviceabil-
ity limit state loading. The other method derives
from geotechnical stability analysis: a partial factor
(or, in the case or BS 8002, a “mobilisation” factor)
is applied to a parameter, such as tan ∅´.
45
 However, the new geotechnical codes tend to
concentrate on equilibrium and stability, and do not
give adequate clarification of the loads to apply to
the structural design of members or to water loading.
In maritime structures, the hydrostatic pressure
component greatly overshadows the load from
submerged earth and there seems to be no point in
over-refinement of earth pressure loading unless
clearer consideration is given to water loading
which is also, of course, associated with variable
water loading due to waves. A comparison of seven
various national applications of partial factor
methods for the calculation of structural members is
given in 2.1.4, and is illustrated by an example,
compared visually in Fig. 6. The example demon-
strates the range of results for calculation of the load
on one side of a member in 20 m depth of fill of
some 1.5 to 1. (Note that in practice, there will also
be water loading on the other side, except in the
case of a lock or dry dock, when the water loading
is critical).
The range of factors lies between the application
of the partial factors in the structural codes (i.e. 1.4
or 1.35 on dead load and 1.6 or 1.5 on live load) to
the unfactored soil properties, and the less conserva-
tive loading from new USA, Japanese and older
Scandinavian codes and BS 8002 and the draft
Eurocode 7, depending upon interpretation (where
the factor is of the order of 1.2). It must be noted
that BS 8002 is understood not to relate to maritime
structures, and the formulation of an interpretation
of Eurocode 7 remains a matter of controversy.
4.1.5 Fill Pressures within Caissons
The loading within caissons is generally derived
from silo theory. Field verification of this approach
is illustrated in Fig. 7. An example of how fill
pressures calculated to various national standards
compares with the “at-rest” unconfined pressure is
illustrated in Fig. 8. The silo pressure of submerged
sand is seen to range from 30% to 60% of the
unconfined “at-rest” pressure.
4.1.6 Friction
There is a surprising divergence in the various
national codes between the figures used in design
for friction and for a factor of safety against sliding.
The coefficient of friction, compared in Table 4,
varies between 0.5 and 1.0 (for different cases) and
the factor of safety between 1.0 to 1.75. In the latest
geotechnical approach to limit state codes, factors of
safety against sliding or overturning have been
overtaken by the assessment of equilibrium at
modified soil strength parameters.
46
4.1.7 Handling and Float-Out Loads
Loads, which can arise during construction,
although transient, can be significant and must be
considered carefully. From the viewpoint of ultimate
limit state design, a partial factor of γF = 1.1 is sug-
gested. The forces arising from towing can be taken
from Japanese standards, as illustrated in Fig. 9.
4.1.8 First Grounding
Severe loading cases can arise when a lowered
caisson first makes contact with the prepared
foundation. In most cases the caissons will never
again undergo a comparable distribution of load.
These dynamic loads can not be predicted precisely,
but the designer can influence and reduce the risk of
indeterminate load imposition by various means,
including downstand legs which predetermine the
location of first grounding.
4.2 Resistance Analysis, Internal Analysis
Structural analysis of caissons can be carried out
by the traditional approach, in which the structure is
split into sets of beams and slabs, guidance on
which is amply given in national codes. Computer
methods are likely to be used for two-dimensional
frame analysis. For detailed final design it is more
likely that full three dimensional model analysis
will be used, using finite element analysis.
In implementing finite element models, the main
problem may be the modelling of soil behaviour, i.e.
the definition of stress-strain relationship. The sim-
plest approach assumes a linear unconnected spring
relationship, as per Winkler. This simplistic
assumption disregards the inter-connection of the
soil elements, and these can either be modelled as
well or the simpler method used with sensitivity
tests on the soil elasticity parameters. It is suggested
that as a complex soil model is critically dependent
on soil testing and interpretation, as well as its com-
parison with the stiffness of the structure, it is sensi-
ble to test the design against local reductions of
ground support.
It is emphasised that caution must be exercised
in making the transition from traditional working
stress design methods to limit state methods which
are now general, worldwide. It is not simply a case
of adapting partial factors from one national code to
another, because the underlying principles of rein-
forced concrete design may be different. The recom-
mended partial factors in most national codes were
derived for land-based building and bridges and
relate to broad probabilities of failure drawn from
historical precedent. These factors are not necessari-
ly applicable to maritime structures in which the
main loading cases are caused by environmental
loads which have to be derived from a probabilistic
approach. Similar problems relate to earth pressure
loading and there is dispute over whether partial
factors are appropriate to limit state considerations
for soils, as explained in 2.1.4. Also, it is not neces-
sarily obvious whether loads are to be classified as
favourable or unfavourable.
The points raised in 2.1.4 and 2.2.3 are intended,
also, to provide input to and guidance from the work
of Sub-Groups A and D on the appropriate assess-
ment of reliability for wave loading cases.
4.3 Durability of Concrete
4.3.1 General Principles
The performance of concrete in seawater is a
subject for which knowledge and guidance remains
fragmented and ill-understood, despite the existence
of practical reports on the experience of Portland
cement concrete in the sea since 1850 and
reinforced concrete from 1896. The subject is
surrounded by myths and lack of understanding.
The main reasons for this are that climatic and
exposure conditions vary widely, different materials
have been used in various countries, and that the
properties of cement have changed during the
century. A basic reason is, also, that deterioration
can take a sufficiently long time such that it can be
difficult to connect cause with effect. The mecha-
nisms for the deterioration of concrete structures
have not been adequately understood. It is believed
that recent work is beginning to resolve the
situation, but that a consensus view of appropriate
guidance for practitioners will not be available for at
least ten years.
For this reason, the subject of concrete durability
is the largest single clement of the Report. It is dis-
cussed in more detail than other items, and contains
more reference to data which is either not generally
available or collated in a single document.
Whereas most forms of concrete deterioration
are now adequately covered by national codes, this
is not the case in relation to the most dramatic
failure mechanism, that is reinforcement corrosion.
This can impose severe limitations in relation to the
design of complex thin-walled structures such as
caissons or light superstructures and, in some cases
there may be little purpose in refinement of wave
loading analysis if durability presents a significant
risk, albeit of a different nature. Durability is not in
itself a limit state but a means by which the principal
limit states are maintained over the operational life.
Current codes of practice deal with durability in a
prescriptive manner, and do not provide a rational
basis for design of concrete to meet a service life.
Durability is not a matter of materials and choice of
materials, but a question of a holistic approach to
design.
4.3.2 Design Working Life (or Service Life)
“Design working life” is the term and definition
from Eurocode 1, and has three main implications
for maritime structures:
• probability levels for wave return periods
• probability levels for limit state design
• time-dependent factors such as corrosion and
durability.
A period of operating or service life (related to
operational and maintenance strategy) has to be
considered by the owner of a structure and the
means of achieving this be addressed by the designer.
The definitions of service life, design life and eco-
nomic life require careful consideration, as there are
many different definitions in use. The main
categories of definition are compared in Table 7.
For maritime structures, subject to the probability
and return periods of environmental loading, the
following definition is recommended in which the
definition of Eurocode 1 is supplemented by the
rider expressed in italics: “The assumed period for
which a structure is to be used for its intended
purpose with anticipated maintenance but without
major repair being necessary within a probability
appropriate to the function of the structure”.
Figures for design working lives specific to
maritime structures within the classification of
Eurocode 1 are given in Table 8, drawn from the
Spanish maritime recommendations.
It must be noted that a different level of reliability
may be adopted for different limit states and causes
or modes of failure. Also that, despite the increasing
use of the concept of “service” life in respect of
structural safety and durability, current codes do not
give adequate guidance for analysis to achieve such
lives. It is recommended that explicit analysis for a
“design life” to satisfy the “design working life” is
required for ensuring the durability of maritime
structures, and should be adopted in preference to
the current “prescriptive” guidance.
4.3.3 Processes of Deterioration
The various deterioration mechanisms which
affect the durability of concrete maritime structures,
the locations in which they are likely to occur, and
methods of avoidance are scheduled in Table 9. The
most widespread and critical problem is that of
chloride-induced corrosion of steel reinforcement,
and the sections which follow concentrate on this
phenomenon. Adequate guidance on other forms of
deterioration is usually given in national standards,
as scheduled in Table 10.
The dominant factors involved in the durability
of concrete, and particularly with regard to chloride
induced corrosion are:
• recognition of the porous nature of concrete
• understanding the transport mechanisms for
water and gases within the pore structure
47
 • assessing the macro and micro-climatic
exposure conditions for the whole structure
and its individual elements.
4.3.4 Exposure classification
The most important macro-climatic factors are
temperature and rainfall. Temperature controls the
rate of chemical reactions and the degree of drying
out of the cover concrete. Rainfall, humidity and the
location of a member in relation to sea level move-
ment control the wetness of concrete. The wetness
of the concrete determines the mechanism for the
penetration of chlorides and controls the penetration
of oxygen to fuel the corrosion process.
Contrary to the case of structural steel, timber
and masonry, plain concrete and for freeze-thaw
damage, reinforcement corrosion is less severe in
the regularly wetted tidal and splash zones. In cool
and temperate climates, the concrete does not dry
out to appreciable depth. However in the infrequently
wetted and mostly dry zone above the tidal zone but
subject to irregular inundation from seasonal
changes in sea level, storms etc., concrete dries out
to greater depths. Especially in hot-arid areas such
as the Middle-East, and also where elements are
sheltered from rain or in artificial climates such as
in tunnels, the sporadic wetting of the dried-out
concrete enables chloride-laden water to be very
rapidly sucked in to greater depth by absorption.
The processes of absorption, capillary suction and
wick-action lead to much more rapid chloride
ingress than the diffusion process which operates in
saturated concrete. In a wet climate the chloride
concentration at depth is reduced and the penetra-
tion of oxygen is limited.
The proposed new Eurocode exposure classifica-
tion system is explained and new suggestions for
severity ratings for concrete expressed on a scale of
1 to 12 are set out in Table 11 and Fig. 13.
4.3.5 Influence of Cement Type
The weakness of much prescriptive advice in
current codes is that guidance on mixes and -
associated cover thickness to reinforcement is given
independently of cement type. The behaviour of the
various types of cement is compared and it is
concluded that:
• modern unblended Portland cement generally
has the lowest resistance for chloride pene-
tration and, where severe chloride exposure
conditions exist, even in temperate climates,
traditional thickness of cover may be inap-
plicable. There are exceptions in some
national products and conditions
• blast furnace cements are highly recom-
mended and have been traditionally used in
some countries (originally on account of sul-
fate resistance) and enable more traditional
48
thicknesses of cover to be used. Their toler-
ance to surface scaling and poor curing is,
however, less than for unblended Portland
cement
• other blending materials, such as fly ash and
microsilica, have their benefits and limita-
tions
• sulfate resistant Portland cements (i.e. with
C3A less than 5%) are unlikely to be neces-
sary in maritime concrete. A compromise
solution is often reached by controlling the
C3A to between 5% and 10% for moderate
sulfate resistance. In conditions where
reinforcement corrosion is not critical and,
especially in colder waters, the long term
effects of sulfates may lead to a need for low
C3A Portland or slag cement.
4.3.6 Influence of cement content
As is well known, the quality of a concrete mix
in relation to both strength and durability (as related
to the pore structure) is controlled primarily by the
water-cement ratio and the unit water content. The
water-cement ratio is therefore more important as a
parameter to be specified than is cement content.
The cement content is established, mainly, by divid-
ing the water demand for a given mix by the water-
cement ratio.
As it is desirable to use the lowest possible
water-cement ratio to achieve durability, (generally
the requirement for durability may be more onerous
than for strength) and to reduce water movement
and shrinkage effects, the cement content is con-
trolled by the water content required to achieve
appropriate workability.
Both water and, it follows, cement content can
be reduced by the judicious use of a range of water
reducing admixtures which still enable adequate
workability to be achieved at lower water content
while at the same time reducing the heat of hydra-
tion consequences at higher cement content. Both
water demand and cement content depend on the
type of cement and on aggregate size and grading.
The effects of varying aggregate size from l0mm to
80mm are scheduled in Table 12.
4.3.7 The Influence of Cracking
The causes and consequences of cracking have
often been misunderstood. Early thermal cracking
caused by restraint to shrinkage during cooling from
the rise in temperature due to heat of hydration is a
main cause of cracking which was previously, and
erroneously, attributed to drying shrinkage.
 Cracking caused in the plastic state can be pre-
vented by good mix design, protection against drying
winds and by good curing under arid conditions.
Most structural codes have crack width limita-
tions, for flexural and early thermal cracking but the
significance of these specific crack widths has been
over-estimated. Once crack width exceeds 0.1mm
there is no significance in relation to the ingress of
deleterious substances. Therefore it is recommended
that the cover to reinforcement should not be
reduced for crack width reasons, despite the
increase in crack width at the surface. The reason
for this is that, for flexural cracks, the crack width at
the reinforcement is independent of surface crack
width, as the cracks are ‘V’ shaped, and the chloride
and oxygen ions penetrate everywhere through the
pores, and not just at cracks.
Cracks do not significantly affect freeze-thaw
damage as the scaling caused by freeze-thaw is,
again, due to the effect of frost on water-filled
pores. Cracking may, of course, be more significant
in the case of unreinforced concrete if it reduces the
mass of armour units or blocks.
4.3.8 Influence of Curing
It appears that prolonged water curing in wet
and temperate climates may be of limited advantage
and may even lead to adverse effects such as
thermal shock. It may be essential in hot and arid
climates.
As the duration of curing is inversely propor-
tional to water-cement ratio, adoption of a low
water-cement ratio enables the curing period to be
reduced.
4.3.9 Monitoring and Maintenance
Inadequate guidance on this strategic topic is
available in the literature and national codes, but it
appears that it is, at last, receiving more attention.
Regular inspections should be carried out at least
once per year, most likely following the winter
storm period. The principal objects of the survey are
to determine:
• the integrity of armour units and elements of
the structure
• indication of movement and settlement
• scour.
It is essential to record “base-line” measure-
ments of line and level immediately on completion
of construction. This should include “as constructed”
measurements of cover to reinforcement and crack
and damage mapping. Computers, underwater video
recorders and corrosion measurement devices can
now be utilised.
4.4 Materials
4.4.1 Rock and Rubble
Reference is made to the CIRIA/CUR manual on
the use of rock in coastal and shoreline structures,
1992.
4.4.2 Filling and Backfilling
Current requirements are outlined in 2.4.2,
including the recommendation that measures may be
necessary to increase the density of infill material.
4.4.3 Concrete - General. - Design, Detailing
and Workmanship
The requirements for achieving durability of
concrete in maritime works will usually outweigh
the requirements for achieving strength and note
must be taken of the factors outlined above. Many
problems can be “designed out” by good detailing
and specification. Reliability of both design and
workmanship can be improved and “gross errors”
avoided by employing the discipline of Quality
Assurance and Quality Control audit procedures for
both design and workmanship.
4.4.4 Unreinforced Concrete
The factors affecting unreinforced concrete
(more usually termed “mass concrete” in Europe
and UK) primarily concern deterioration of the
exposed surface and include freeze-thaw, abrasion,
and sulfate attack. These forms of deterioration have
similar and overlapping effects, and are described in
more detail in 2.4.4. Early-thermal design is impor-
tant for crack avoidance.
Table 14 sets out suggestions for the choice of
water-cement ratio, and hence minimum cement-
itious contents and grades, for various cement types
and blends and minimum dimensions of pour, for
the range of exposure ratings on a scale of 1-12
suggested in Table 11 and Fig. 13.
4.4.5 Reinforced Concrete, including the
Selection of Cover to Reinforcement
The durability of reinforced concrete requires
consideration of the same factors which affect
unreinforced concrete, together with the major
phenomenon of chloride-induced corrosion. The
main conflict point in the design and production
process is the selection of and practical achievement
of the appropriate cover to reinforcement. This is
more a design and detailing matter than a materials
matter. As the protective power of a given concrete is
broadly related to the square of the cover thickness,
the provision of appropriate cover is the simplest
49
and most positive way of reducing corrosion dam-
age. The cover to be specified is influenced by the
exposure severity rating, the cement type, the mix
quality as determined by the water-cement ratio and
the placing tolerance which can be achieved.
The minimum cover considered necessary for
corrosion protection should be regarded as a
“characteristic” value and a margin of at least 10mm
to 15mm should be added to the figure in order to
reduce the rate of failure to achieve the characteris-
tic value to within 5%, by analogy with concrete
strength compliance. Without this margin it is
statistically impossible to achieve the necessary
cover as, in practice, the variation in position of
reinforcement about the mean position exceeds
common perception, as illustrated in Fig. 18. Sug-
gested nominal cover for different severity ratings,
cementitious materials and qualities is scheduled in
Table 15. A nominal cover of 50mm is the lowest
practicable figure and is only suitable for the lowest
severity rating and using blended cements.
Nominal cover thicknesses between 75mm and
100mm have to be considered as normal. For severe
exposure combined with unblended Portland
cements, it may be necessary to double the cover.
Methods of specifying cover in relation to a charac-
teristic value, with separate acceptance criteria
before concrete is placed and after concreting, are
suggested in Table 16.
The selection of appropriate cover and fixing
tolerance has a major influence on the member
thickness for caissons and thin precast units. Min-
imum member thicknesses of 200mm or 300mm are
difficult to achieve under aggresssive conditions.
Under such conditions it may be necessary to
change the member type and section in the
vulnerable upper tidal and splash zone, and either to
adopt increased cover or, if feasible, change to plain
concrete in this zone.
4.4.6 Prestressed Concrete
Prestressed concrete is less common for
maritime works but there is a substantial history of
successful use in North Sea oil structures and in
recent caisson breakwaters. Reasons for success
include the necessity for higher quality concrete and
larger cover, on structural grounds, and the high
state of saturation in cold and wet climates.
Prestressing reduces the problem of cracking but
does not provide any help in reducing the ingress of
chloride ions and oxygen through the body of the
concrete. The corrosion rate of prestressing steel is
understood to be faster than that of lower stressed
steel and the detailing of secondary reinforcement
presents the same problems as ordinary reinforced
concrete.
4.4.7 Cement
Refer to 4.3.5 and 4.3.6
50
4.4.8 Aggregates
The quality of aggregates has a lesser impact on
the strength and quality of concrete than may be
supposed, but it has an influence on abrasion,
freeze-thaw and salt scaling resistance. It is usually
necessary to make the best use of locally available
materials. National standards usually provide suffi-
cient guidance.
4.4.9 Crack width
Refer to 4.3.7 and 4.5.6
4.4.10 Reinforcing Steel
Provisions for reinforcing steel are adequately
covered by national standards. In addition to normal
black steels, various coating protection systems are
also available, but have not been greatly used in
maritime works and may be at a disadvantage in
aggressive situations.
Stainless steels have not often been used but
may be appropriate provided the correct grades are
used. The price penalty of six times that for black
steel is less when viewed as a proportion of overall
cost or the cost of premature failure. Steel fibre and
non-metallic fibber and strand reinforcement appears
promising.
4.4.11 Admixtures
Admixtures are covered by national guidelines.
Their use should be positively encouraged in order
to provide adequate workability with low water
content mixes.
4.4.12 Protective Measures such as Coatings,
and Cathodic Protection
In aggressive conditions only high-build, high
quality coating products are dependable, which are
expensive and require the concrete surface to be
prepared to a high standard by grit blasting and
other means. Cathodic protection is not regularly
used for the protection of new construction, although
in some cases allowance for later implementation
are made by ensuring continuity of reinforcement
and facility for electrical connection. There is
growing experience of its use as a repair technique
where simpler alternatives are not feasible.
4.4.13 Corrosion of Structural Steel
The corrosion performance of structural steel in
maritime conditions is much better known that that
of reinforcing steel embedded in concrete. The
corrosion rate is usually higher in the splash zone
and at low astronomical tide levels, and very low in
deep water. Either an extra thickness of metal as a
“corrosion allowance”, high duty coating or cathodic
protection can be used. Successful traditional coat-
ings, however, may no longer meet environmental
and health and safety regulations for application and
there is, as yet, inadequate experience with some
new water-based systems.
4.5 Construction Related Criteria and
Methods - Caissons
4.5.1 Sea Condition Data and Limits for
Construction Risks
Wave forecast data must be available to enable
the designer and the contractor to estimate the sea
state at each stage of construction, especially for
float-out, grounding and filling of caissons. This
data should include information on the proportion of
time during a year in which certain wave heights are
not surpassed and the length of windows for calm
weather.
4.5.2 Construction Joints
Construction joints are an important feature of
vertical breakwaters. Horizontal joints seldom give
problems. Vertical joints are necessary to allow
differential settlement to occur between adjoining
elements, but at the same time the interconnection
of elements is required in order to distribute the load
from local wave attack over more than one element.
Typical examples of jointing methods are illustrated
in Figs. 21, 22 and 23.
4.5.3 Settlement
The magnitude of settlement observed for
vertical breakwaters is higher than for most other
forms of construction, for reasons explained in
3.1.6. Settlement is rarely critical but the range of
likely settlement and differential settlement should
be anticipated, and the visible effects of settlement
should be minimised by appropriate detailing
features.
Examples of measured settlement are quoted,
including absolute settlement of up to 1.5m and a
differential of 0.2m. The contribution to settlement
caused by the time-dependent consolidation of rock-
fill for many years after construction is not
generally appreciated. Examples are given using the
logarithmic expression published by Penman and
others.
4.5.6 Early Thermal Cracking
Thermal contraction from the heat generated by
hydrating cement results in severe cracking wherever
the size or geometry of the section or the sequence
of adjacent pours during construction imposes a
restraint to free contraction. Control of the tempera-
ture and temperature gradient in large unreinforced
elements is essential to restrict cracking. The forms
of restraint and expressions for calculating the rein-
forcement required to restrict cracking to acceptable
orders of magnitude in monolithic reinforced
construction are given. Measures to control the heat
of hydration rise are outlined. It is recommended
that the early thermal design is checked against the
actual cement contents used in the works, as these
may exceed values assumed in design. Failure to
make this check often results in problems.
4.5.7 Slipforming
Slipforming is a suitable method for casting
caissons. It is a method which lends itself to a high-
rate of production. Because the concrete is cast
joint-free and hardens free of restraint, problems of
construction joints and early thermal cracking are
minimised. Practical guidance available in the liter-
ature is given and problem areas identified.
4.5.8 Curing
The need for and relevance of wet curing in all
circumstances is discussed in 4.3.8 and 2.3.8 and, in
the case of massive caissons, introduces severe
logistical problems. For caissons, the timing of
immersion has a great influence on the rate of
production. If the concrete is saturated, and of a
sufficiently high grade which can be cured in a short
duration, early immersion may be beneficial.
Concrete left to thoroughly dry in the surface layers
in arid climates can lead to disastrous absorption of
salts into the concrete upon immersion.
4.5.9 Development in Caissons
Some recent developments of composite and
prestressed concrete caissons in Japan are illustrated
in Figs. 28, 29 and 30.
4.6 Blocks
Blockwork is an inherently durable method,
especially for constructing quay walls, which has
historically been used for vertical breakwaters.
Guidance is given in Japanese, Spanish and UK
documents. A degree of cracking is permitted in
quay walls but could endanger breakwaters. Typical
types of blockwork for modern breakwaters are
illustrated in Figs. 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34. The
problems common to blockwork are outlined.
4.7 Curtain and Pile Type Breakwaters
Curtain and pile type breakwaters are effective
in shallow depths of water with a low wave height
climate, and for a soft sea bed. Various types of
modern single and double wall breakwaters are
illustrated in Figs. 35 and 36.
51
5. References
Agerschou H et al, 1985, Planning and design of
ports and marine terminals. John Wiley and
Sons, 1985.
Aïtcin P C, 1993, Durable concrete. Durability of
buildings and components 6. Edited by Nagataki
S, Nireki T, and Tomasawa F, E & FN Spon
(Imprint of Chapman & Hall) London, 1993.
Akroyd T N W, 1996, Earth-retaining structures:
introduction to the code of practice (BS 8002),
The Structural Engineer, Volume 74, No 21/5,
November 1996. The Institution of Structural
Engineers, London, 1996.
Al-Rabiyah A R, Rasheeduzzafar, Baggot R,
1989, Influence of cement type and mix composi-
tion on concrete deterioration in the marine
Arabian Gulf environment. 2nd International
Conference on deterioration and repair of rein-
forced concrete in the Arabian Gulf. The
Bahrain Society of Civil Engineers, 1989.
American Concrete Institute, 1990, ACI 117-90.
Standard specifications for tolerances for con-
crete and materials. American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, 1990.
American Concrete Institute, 1990, ACI 207-2R,
1990, Effect of restraint, volume change, and
reinforcement on cracking of concrete.
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1990.
American Concrete Institute, 1991, ACI 211.1-91.
Standard practice for selecting proportions for
normal heavyweight and mass concrete.
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1991.
American Concrete Institute, 1986, ACI 308-1981
Recommended practice for curing concrete.
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1986.
American Concrete Institute, 1995, ACI 318-1995
Building code requirements for reinforced con-
crete. American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
1995.
American Concrete Institute, 1983, ACI 313-83.
Recommended practice for design and con-
struction of concrete bins, silos and bunkers
storing granular materials, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, 1983.
American Concrete Institute, 1988, ACI 347R-88.
Guide to formwork for concrete. American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1988.
American Concrete Institute, 1982, ACI 544 IR 82.
State-of-the-art report on fibre reinforced con-
crete. American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
1982.
American Society for Testing & Materials, 1992,
ASTM C-150-92. Standard specification for
Portland cement. American Society for Testing
& Materials, Philadelphia, 1992.
52
American Society for Testing & Materials, 1990,
ASTM A 775A/775M-90. Standard specification
for epoxy coated reinforcing steel bars.
American Society for Testing & Materials,
Philadelphia, 1990.
American Society for Testing & Materials, 1990,
ASTM A 820-90. Standard specification for steel
fibres for fibre reinforced concrete. American
Society for Testing & Materials, Philadelphia,
1990.
L’Association Française de Normalisation
(AFNOR), 1985, NF P 15-010. Guide d’utilisa-
tion des ciments, AFNOR, Paris, 1985.
L’Association Française de Normalisation
(AFNOR), 1992, NF P 18-011. Classification
des environments agressifs, AFNOR, Paris,
1992.
Bahrain Society of Civil Engineers, 1985, 1987,
1991, 1993. International Conferences on dete-
rioration and repair of reinforced concrete in
the Arabian Gulf. Held 1st, 1985, 2nd, 1987,
3rd, 1991, 4th, 1993. The Bahrain Society of
Civil Engineers, Bahrain.
Bakker R F M & Roessink G, 1991, The critical
chloride content in reinforced concrete. Centre
for Civil Engineering Research & Codes (CUR)
Gouda, Holland, 1991.
Bamforth P B and Price W F, 1993, Factors influ-
encing chloride ingress into marine structures.
Concrete 2000, Dundee, September 1993.
Bamforth P B, 1993, Concrete classification for
RC structures exposed to marine and other salt
laden environments. Conference on structural
faults and repair, Edinburgh, June/July 1993.
Barber P, 1989, Quality Assurance -a view from
the inside. Concrete, December, 1989.
Barberis M C, 1935, Recent examples of founda-
tions of works resting on poor subsoil. PIANC
16th Congress No 111. Permanent International
Association of Navigation Congresses, Brussels,
1935.
Beeby A W, 1992, The contribution of research to
the development of design for durability.
Somerville G. The design life of structures.
Blackie, London, 1992.
Bijen J M, 1985, On the durability of Portland
blast furnace slag cement concrete in hot marine
environment. 1st International Conference on
deterioration and repair of reinforced concrete
in the Arabian Gulf. The Bahrain Society of
Civil Engineers/CIRIA London, 1985.
Bijen J M, 1992, Durability aspects of the King
Fahd Causeway, Rilem conference on concrete
in hot climates. Torquay UK, September, 1992.
Blaird W F, Caldwell J M, Edge B L, Magoon O
T and Treadwell D D, 1980, Report on the
damages to the Sines breakwater, Portugal.
Proceedings of the 17th Coastal Engineering
Conference, Sydney, Australia, pp 3063 to 3077,
1980.
Bolton M D, 1996, Geotechnical design of retain-
ing walls. The Structural Engineer, Volume 74,
No 21/5 November 1996. The Institution of
Structural Engineers, London 1996.
British Standards Institution, 1990/91, BS5328.
Concrete, Parts 1 to 4, British Standards
Institution, London, 1990 and 1991.
British Standards Institution, 1984, BS6349 :
Part 1. Code of practice for maritime structures.
General criteria. British Standards Institution,
London, 1984.
British Standards Institution, 1986, BS6744 :
Austenitic stainless steel bars for the reinforce-
ment of concrete. British Standards Institution,
London, 1986.
British Standards Institution, 1988, BS6349 :
Part 2. Code of practice for maritime structures.
Design of quay walls, jetties and dolphins.
British Standards Institution, London, 1988.
British Standards Institution, 1991, BS6349 :
Part 7. Code of practice for maritime structures.
Guide to the design and construction of break-
waters. British Standards Institution, London,
1991.
British Standards Institution, 1992, BS7543.
Guide to durability of buildings and building
elements, products and components. British
Standards Institution, London, 1992.
British Standards Institution, 1994, BS8002. Code
of practice for earth retaining structures. British
Standards Institution, London, 1994.
British Standards Institution, 1987, BS8007. Code
of practice for design of concrete structures for
retaining aqueous liquids. British Standards
Institution, London, 1987.
British Standards Institution, 1985, BS8110.
Structural use of concrete, Part 1, Code of
practice for design and construction. British
Standards Institution, London, 1985
British Standards Institution, 1985, BS8110.
Structural use of concrete, Part 2, Code of
practice for special circumstances. British
Standards Institution, London, 1985
Bruun P (Editor), 1985, Design and construction
for breakwaters. Page 19 and Chapter 53. The
Nome Terminal, Norton Sound, Alaska pp 760 to
777, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1985.
Building Research Establishment (BRE), 1988,
Digest 330, Alkali aggregate reactions in con-
crete. Building Research Establishment,
Garston, UK, 1988.
Building Research Establishment (BRE), 1991,
Digest 363, Sulfate and acid resistance of con-
crete in the ground. Building Research
Establishment, Garston, UK, 1991.
Building Research Establishment (BRE), 1993,
Publications 243 & 244, Efficient use of aggre-
gates and bulk construction materials, Volumes
1 and 2. Building Research Establishment,
Garston, UK, 1993.
Building Research Establishment (BRE), 1993,
Digest 389. Concrete: cracking and corrosion of
reinforcement. Building Research Establish-
ment, Garston, UK, 1993.
Building Research Establishment/Department of
Environment (BRE/DoE), 1995, Durability by
Intent. Programme on durability of concrete and
reinforced concrete. Building Research Estab-
lishment and Department of Environment
Construction Sponsorship Directorate strategy
for their programme. Workshops held December,
1993 and 1994. Building Research Establish-
ment, Garston, UK, 1994.
Cement & Concrete Association, 1981, Spacers
for reinforcement. Cement & Concrete Associ-
ation, Wexham Springs, UK, 1981 (now British
Cement Association).
Cété-Laboratoire Régional Nord - Pas de Calais,
1990, Calais Port Est, Essais de frottement pour
le prolengement de la jetée ouest de Dieppe,
Laboratoire Régional Nord - Pas de Calais,
January 1990.
Cété-Laboratoire Régional Nord - Pas de Calais,
1990, Le Havre - Route du mole central - Essais
de frottement beton ondulé-grave concasssé,
Laboratoire Régional Nord - Pas de Calais,
December 1990.
Charles J A,1990, Laboratory compression tests
and the deformation of rockfill structures.
Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study
Institute on Advances in Rockfill Structures,
Lisbon, June 1990.
Ching T K, 1994, Recent researches on experi-
ments on composite breakwaters in Taiwan.
Proceedings of International Workshop on Wave
Barriers in Deep Water. Jan 10-14, Yokusuka,
Japan 1994.
Christensen F T, Bruun P and Sackinger W M,
1985, Ice loading and pile-up against vertical
and inclined sea walls. from: Wave forces on
inclined and vertical wall structures, published
by Task Committee, ASCE Waterways, Port,
Coastal and Ocean Division. American Society
of Civil Engineers, 1995.
Christensen F T, 1996, Personal communication to
H Lundgren, February, 1996.
Clifton J R, 1993, Predicting the service life of
concrete. ACI Materials Journal, Nov/Dec,
1993.
53
Clutterbuck P G, 1977, Tender document and con-
tract supervision - the contractors point of view.
Terra et Aqua 12/13, 1977.
Cochrane G H, Chetwin D J L and Hogbin W,
1979, Dubai Dry Dock : design and construct-
ion. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Part 1, London February, 1979.
Cole E R L and Watt P, 1994, Gravity earth
retaining structures. Paper No 5. Earth
Retaining Structures Symposium, The Institution
of Structural Engineers, London, May 1994.
Comité Euro-International du Béton, 1992,
(CEB), Design guide. Durable concrete struc-
tures. Comité Euro-International du Béton,
1989, 1992/ English presentation, Thomas
Telford Ltd, London, 1992.
Comité Euro-International du Béton, 1995,
Coating protection for reinforcement. In UK,
Thomas Telford Ltd, London, 1995.
Committee for Waterfront Structures, 1992,
(EAU), 1990. Recommendations of the commit-
tee for waterfront structures. (6th English trans-
lation of the 8th German Edition). Ernst & Sohn,
Berlin, 1992.
Concrete Society Special Publication CS 101,
1989, Spacers for reinforced concrete. The
Concrete Society, Slough, UK, 1989.
Concrete Society Report 22, 1992, Non-structural
cracks in concrete. The Concrete Society,
Slough, UK, 1992
Concrete Society Report 44, 1995, The relevance
of cracking in concrete to corrosion of rein-
forcement. The Concrete Society, Slough, UK,
1995.
Concrete Society Digest No. 2, 1984, Mass con-
crete (Bamforth P). The Concrete Society,
Slough, UK, 1984.
Concrete Society Report 30, 1995, Alkali-silica
reaction, Minimising the risk of damage to con-
crete. Guidance notes and model specification
clauses. The Concrete Society, Slough, UK,
1995.
Concrete Society Report 40, 1991, The use of ggbs
and pfa in concrete. The Concrete Society,
Slough, UK, 1991.
Concrete Society Report 41, 1993, Microsilica in
concrete. The Concrete Society, Slough, UK,
1993.
Concrete Society Special Publication 109, 1996,
Developments in durability design and perform-
ance testing. The Concrete Society, Slough, UK,
1996
Concrete Society, 1996/1997, Guide to surface
treatments for protection and enhancement of
concrete. The Concrete Society, Slough, UK, to
be published 1996/1997.
54
Construction Industry Research & Information
Association (CIRIA), 1992, Report 91.
Early-age thermal crack control in concrete.
Construction Industry Research and Information
Association, London, 1992.
Construction Industry Research & Information
Association (CIRIA), 1992, Special Publication
83/CUR Report 154. Manual on the use of rock
in coastline and shoreline engineering. Con-
struction Industry Research and Information
Association London/Dutch Centre for Civil
Engineering Research and Codes, 1992.
Construction Industry Research & Information
Association (CIRIA), Research Project RP 484.
The influence of practical on-site curing on
durability related performance criteria. In
progress, 1994/5.
Construction Industry Research & Information
Association (CIRIA), Research Project 523.
Paint systems for the protection of structural
steelwork. Due to report, Sept. 1996.
Daniels R J and Sharp B N, 1979, Dubai Dry
Dock : Planning, direction and design consider-
ations. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Part 1, London, February, 1979.
Danish Code DS 415, 1984, Foundations, 1984
Department of Transport (UK), 1987, Depart-
mental Advice Note BA 24/87. Early thermal
cracking of concrete. Design Manual for Roads
and Bridges, Volume 1, Section 3, Part 4.
Department of Transport, UK, 1987.
Department of Transport (UK), 1987,
Departmental Standard BD 28/87. Early
Thermal cracking of concrete. Design Manual
for Roads and Bridges, Volume 1, Section 3,
Part 4. Department of Transport, UK, 1987.
Deutscher Betonverein (German Concrete
Association), 1992. (Concrete Precasting Plant
and Technology) Issue 5/1992. Recommendation
concrete cover. Securing of concrete cover in
design, production of the reinforcement as well
as of the concrete. (Version March, 1991).
Deutscher Betonverein, Wiesbaden, 1992.
Deutscher Betonverein (German Concrete Assoc-
iation), 1991, Merkblattsammlung (Recommend-
ations) Deutscher Betonverein, Wiesbaden,
1991.
Deutsches Institut für Normung EV, 1988,
DIN 1045. Structural use of concrete. Design
and construction, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin
and Cologne, 1988.
Deutsches Institut für Normung EV, 1987,
DIN 1055. Part 6, Design loads for buildings.
Loads in silo bins. Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin
and Cologne, 1987.
Dhir R K, Hewlett P C, Lota J S and Dyer T B,
1994, An investigation into the feasibility of for-
mulating “self-cure” concrete. Lecture given at
Cement & Concrete Science, St Anne’s College,
Oxford, September, 1994. The Institute of
Materials UK.
Durability of Building Materials and Comp-
onents, 1993, Proceedings of the Sixth
International Conference held in Omiya, Japan,
October, 1993. Edited by Nagataki S, Nireki T,
Tomosawa F, E&FN Spon (Imprint of Chapman
& Hall) London, 1993.
European Committee for Standardisation, 1989,
ENV 206), Concrete - Performance, production,
placing and compliance criteria. European
Committee for Standardisation, 1989.
European Committee for Standardisation, 1994,
- Eurocode 1 - ENV, 1991-1 : 1994. European
pre-standard. Basis of design and actions on
structures, Part 1. Basis of design. European
Committee for Standardisation, 1994.
European Committee for Standardisation, 1991,
- Eurocode 2 - ENV, 1992-1-1 : 1991 Design of
concrete structures, Part 1. General rules and
rules for buildings. European Committee for
Standardisation, 1991.
European Committee for Standardisation, 1993,
- Eurocode 7 - Part 1 - Geotechnical design -
General rules. European Committee for
Standardisation, 1993.
European Committee for Standardisation, 1994,
Regional specifications and recommendations
for the avoidance of damaging alkali silica reac-
tions in concrete. Report by CEN TC/104/
SC1/T69. European Committee for Standardisa-
tion, 1994.
European Committee for Standardisation, 1996,
EN 10088-1, Stainless steels - Part 1: List of
stainless steels (Not for ordering). European
Committee for Standardisation, 1996.
Fitzpatrick J, 1994, State-of-the art of bottom-
founded arctic steel structures. Canadian Marine
Drilling Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, 1994.
Fookes P G, 1993, A simple guide to risk assess-
ment for concrete in hot dry salty environments.
4th International Conference on Deterioration
and Repair of Reinforced Concrete in the Gulf
Region, Bahrain Society of Engineers, 1993.
Fort G B and Davis P D, 1981, Informal discus-
sion on slipforming. Proceedings of the Institut-
ion of Civil Engineers Part 1, London, February
1981, pp 179-181.
Gerwick B C Jr, 1990, International experience in
the performance of marine concrete. Concrete
International, May, 1990.
Geological Society Special Publication No.9,
Smith M and Collis L, 1990, Aggregates, sand,
gravel and crushed aggregates for construction
purposes. Geological Society Publishing House,
Bath, UK, 1990.
Grace W R, 1991, Chloride penetration in marine
concrete. A computer model for design and ser-
vice life evaluation. NACE - Life Prediction of
Corrodible Structures Conference, Hawaii,
November, 1991.
Hansen T C, 1989, Marine concrete in hot climates
- designed to fail. Materials and Structures/
Materiaux et Construction, Rilem, 1989.
Hedar P A, 1995, Personal Communication to T.
Stückrath.
Ho D W S and Cao H T, 1993, Concrete
Durability - strength or performance criteria.
Durability of Building Materials and Com-
ponents 6, Edited by Nagataki S, Nireki T,
Tomasawa F, E&FN Spon (Imprint of Chapman
& Hall), London, 1993.
Ho D W S and Cao H T, 1983, Water penetration
into concrete. A measure of quality as affected
by material composition and environment.
Symposium on Concrete, October, 1983, Perth,
W. Australia.
Hong Kong Civil Engineering Department,
Geoguide 1, Guide to retaining wall design.
Huis in’t Veld et al (Editor), 1984, The closure of
tidal basins. Delft University Press, 1984.
Hussain S E, Paul I S and Bashenini M S, 1993,
Performance and design aspects for durable
concrete in the Gulf Region. 4th International
Conference on Deterioration and Repair of
Reinforced Concrete in the Arabian Gulf,
Bahrain Society of Engineers, 1993.
Janes H W, 1973, Densification of sand for dry-
dock by terra-probe. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division. American
Society of Civil Engineers, June, 1973.
Japan Concrete Institute, 1986, Manual of crack
control of massive concrete. Japan Concrete
Institute, Tokyo, 1986 (in Japanese).
Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 1983,
Recommendations for design and construction of
steel fibre reinforced concrete. Japan Society of
Civil Engineers, Tokyo, 1983 (in Japanese).
Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 1986, Standard
Specification for design and construction of con-
crete structures: Part 1 (Design) and Part 2
(Construction). Japan Society of Civil
Engineers, Tokyo 1986.
Johansen V, Gottermann P and Thaulau N, 1995,
Chloride transport in Concrete. Concrete Inter-
national, 1995.
55
John D G, 1992, Corrosion deterioration of rein-
forced concrete structures in the middle east.
Structural improvement through corrosion pro-
tection Conference, London, June, 1992,
Institute of Corrosion.
John D G, Leppard N W and Wyatt B S, 1993,
Cathodic protection repair applied to reinforced
concrete deck support beams for Mina Zayed
Port, Abu Dhabi. 4th International Conference
on deterioration and repair, Bahrain, 1993.
Jones M N and Horne R D, 1996, Slipformed
structures - The second century - A review and
preview. Concrete for Infrastructure and
Utilities. Concrete in the Service of Mankind.
Edited by Dhir R K and Genderson N A, E&FN
Spon, London etc., 1996.
Kennedy K, 1996, Personal communication to J
Schwarz. April, 1996.
Kiessl K R, 1983, Kapillarer und dampfförmiger
Feuchtetransport in mehrschichtigigen Bauteilen
- Rechnerische Erfassung und Bauphysikalische
Anwendung. Doctorate Thesis University of
Essen, 1983.
Kiyomiya O, 1994, Limit state design method for
reinforced concrete members. Paper presented at
WG28 Subgroup C meeting in Compiègne1995.
Port and Harbour Research Institute Ministry of
Transport, Tokyo, 1994.
Kiyomiya O and Yamada, 1994, 1995, New
Developments in prestressed concrete marine
structures in Japan. FIP Notes (quarterly journal
of the Federation International de la
Precontrainte), 1995.
Koh Y and Kamada E, 1993, Outline of studies on
the durability of concrete against freezing and
thawing from 1953 to 1987 in Hokkaido, Japan.
Durability of Building Materials and
Components 6. Edited by Nagataki S, Nireki T,
Tomasawa F, E&FN Spon (Imprint of Chapman
& Hall), London, 1993.
Lamberti A and Franco L, 1994, Italian experi-
ence on upright breakwaters. Proceedings of
International Workshop on Wave Barriers in
Deepwater. Jan. 10-14, Yokusuka, Japan, 1994.
Lundgren H & Juhl J, 1995, Optimisation of cais-
son breakwater design. From: Wave forces on
inclined and vertical wall structures, published
by Task Committee of ASCE Waterworks, Port,
Coastal and Ocean Division, American Society
of Civil Engineers, 1995.
Maranha Das Neves (Editor), 1990, Advances in
rockfill structures. Proceedings of the NATO
Advanced Studies Institute on Advances in
Backfill Structures, Lisbon, 1990.
56
Magoon O T, Calvarese V and Clarke D, 1985,
Monitoring of rubble mound breakwaters.
Discussion by H.F. Burcharth in Breakwaters
Design & Construction. Proceedings of the con-
ference held by The Institution of Civil
Engineers, London, May, 1983.
Ing. Mantelli & Co, 1994, Voltri, Harbour - Main
vertical breakwater and monitored settlements
of caissons. Documents submitted to PIANC
WG28 on 16.4.1994 in Genoa, 1994.
Marion H and Mahfouz G, 1974, Design and con-
struction of the Ekofisk artificial island.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
Part 1, November 1974, pp 497-511.
Matheson G M, 1986, Relationship between com-
pacted rockfill density and gradation. American
Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, December 1986.
Matheson G M and Parent F, 1989, Construction
performance of two large rockfill embankments,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, December 1989.
Matta Z G, 1993, Deterioration of concrete struc-
tures in the Arabian Gulf. Concrete
International, July, 1993.
McDonald D B, Sherman M R, Pfeifer D W and
Virmani Y P, 1995, Stainless steel reinforcing
as corrosion protection. Concrete International,
May, 1995.
Ministère de L’Equipement, du Logement et des
Transports, 1993, Règles techniques de concep-
tion et de calcul des fondations des ouvrages de
génie civil, Cahier des clauses techniques gen-
erales (CCTG) Fascicule No. 62, Titre V, Paris,
1993.
Ministère de L’Equipement des Transports et du
Tourisme, 1993, Executions des travaux de fon-
dations des ouvrages de génie civil, Fascicule
No. 68, 1993, Cahier des clauses techniques
generales (CCTG), Paris, 1993.
Ministry of Public Works, Madrid, 1988, Diques
de abrigo en España (Breakwaters in Spain).
Ministry of Public Works, Madrid, 1988.
Ministry of Public Works, Madrid, 1990, ROM
(Recommendations de obras maritimas). Mari-
time works recommendations ROM 0.2-90
Actions in the design of maritime and harbour
works (General Criteria - in English). Ministry
of Public Works, Madrid, 1990.
Ministry of Public Works, Madrid, 1994,. ROM
0.5-94. Recomandaciones geotecnicas para el
projeto de obres maritimas y portuaris (in
Spanish). Ministry of Public Works Madrid,
1994.
Mixsim Issue 3, 1995, (Computer software).
Questjay Ltd., Crawley, Sussex, UK, 1995.
Miyagawa T, 1991, Durability design and repair of
concrete structures. Magazine of Concrete
Research, September 1991.
Moksnes J, 1975, Condeep platforms for the North
Sea -Some aspects of concrete technology.
Offshore Technology Conference, Dallas, Texas,
1975.
Neville A M, 1995, Properties of concrete, 4th
Edition. Longmans, UK, 1995.
Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute of
Japan, 1991, Technical standards for port and
harbour facilities in Japan. Bureau of Ports and
Harbours, Ministry of Transport, The Overseas
Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan,
Tokyo, Japan, 1991.
PCI Journal, 1994, Outstanding structures award,
breakwater in a jetty in Sakai, Japan. PCI
Journal, July/August, 1994.
Pedeferri P, 1992, Cathodic protection of new con-
crete construction, International Conference on
Structural Improvement through Corrosion
Protection of Reinforced Concrete, London,
1992, Institute of Corrosion/Institution of Civil
Engineers/The Concrete Society, London, 1992.
Penman A D M, 1971, Rockfill. Building Research
Station Current Paper 15/71. Building Research
Establishment, Garston, UK, 1971.
Perl G C and Blades J T, 1993, Durability pro-
visions for prestressed concrete. Durability of
Building Materials and Components 6, Edited by
Nagataki S, Nireki T and Tomasawa F, E&FN
Spon (Imprint of Chapman & Hall) London,
1993.
Permanent International Association of Navi-
gation Congresses, 1980, Final report of 3rd
international commission for the study of waves.
Supplement to PIANC Bulletin 36 (Vol 11,
1980) PIANC, Brussels, 1980
Permanent International Association of Navi-
gation Congresses, 1990, Inspection, mainte-
nance and repair of maritine structures exposed
to material degradation caused by a salt water
environment. PIANC, Brussels, 1990.
Permanent International Association of Navi-
gational Congresses, 1994, Floating Break-
waters. A practical guide for design and
construction. PTC II. Report of Working Group
No. 13. Supplement to PIANC Bulletin 85,
1994, PIANC Brussels, 1994.
Philipp Holzmann Aktiengesellschaft, 1978,
Promotional literature for the construction of
the Port of Dammam, 1976-1980. Frankfurt
circa, 1978.
Pike D C, 1990, Standards for aggregates. Ellis
Howard Ltd, Chichester, UK, 1990.
Port Development, 1978, A handbook for planners
in developing countries. United Nations Confer-
ence on Trade and Development (UNCTAD),
United Nations, New York, 1978.
Powers T C and Brownyards T L, 1948, Studies
of the physical properties of hardened Portland
cement paste. Research Laboratories of the
Portland Cement Association, Chicago, Bulletin
No.22, March, 1948
Press H, 1962, Seewasserstrassen und Seehäfen.
Berlin, 1962.
Proceedings of Symposium, 1988, on Prediction
and design for service life of concrete structures.
Japan Concrete Institute, Tokyo, 1988.
Proceedings of Symposium, 1989, for repairing
structures deteriorated by reinforcement corro-
sion. Japan Concrete Institute, Tokyo, 1989.
RILEM Technical Committee 130-CSL, 1996,
Durability design of concrete structures. edited
by Sarja A and Vesikari E, E&FN Spon.
London, etc, 1996.
Roelfstra P E, 1989, A numerical approach to
investigate the properties of concrete - numerical
concrete. Doctorate Thesis No.788, Ecole
Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, 1989.
Rostam S and Schiessl P, 1993, Next generation
design concepts for durability and performance
of concrete structures. Durability of Buildings
and Components 6. Omiya, Japan, 1993, E&FN
Spon (Chapman & Hall).
Saetta A V, Scotta R V and Vitaliani R V, 1993,
Analysis of chloride diffusion into partially satu-
rated concrete. ACI Materials Journal Sept/Oct,
1993.
Sandberg P J P, Peterson K, Arup H and Tuutti
K, 1996, Cost-effective design of higher perfor-
mance structures exposed to saline environment.
In Concrete in the service of mankind, Volume
C, in concrete repair, rehabilitation and protec-
tion.. Edited by Dhir R K and Jones M R, E & F
N Spon, London, etc. 1996..
Sanderson T J O, 1988, On the ice load question.
Some answers. IAH Ice Symposium, Sapporo,
1988.
Schiessl P, 1993, Rilem technical recommendation
124 SRC, Guide to repair strategy for concrete
structures damaged by reinforcement corrosion.
4th International Conference on Deterioration
and Repair of Reinforced Concrete in the
Arabian Gulf, Bahrain Society of Engineers,
1993.
Schiessl P and Raupach M, 1997, Laboratory
studies and calculations in the influence of crack
width on chloride-induced corrosion of steel in
concrete. ACI Materials Journal, January-
February, 1997.
57
Schwarz J, 1964, Treibeisdruck auf Pfähle. Mitteil-
ungen des Franzius-Instituts der Technischen
Universität Hannover, Heft 34, 1964.
Schwarz J, 1994, Low level ice forces? IAHR Ice
Symposium, Trondheim, Norway, 1994.
Schwarz J, 1995, 1996, Personal communications
to T. Stückrath, 1995, 1996.
Sharp B N, 1996, Consolidation settlement of quay
walls, quay aprons and crane rails involving
rockfill. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Water, Maritime & Energy, Volume
118. London, September, 1996.
Slater D and Sharp B N, 1998, Chapters 4-5 on
design and specifications, Allen, R T L (edi-
tion),"Concrete in Coastal Structures". Thomas
Telford, London, UK, Late 1997/early 1998.
Typeset and artwork JLF Typesetting Services, London 020 8421 4436
58
Sowers G F, Williams R C, Wallace T S, 1965,
Compressibility of broken rock and the settle-
ment of rockfills. Proceedings of the Sixth
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Montreal, Canada,
1965, Vol. 2, pp 561-565.
Stückrath T, 1982, Über die Probleme des Unter-
nehmers beim Hafenbau. Mitteilungen des
Franzius-Instituts der Technischen Universität
Hannover, Heft 54, 1982.
Tanimoto K, 1983, Examples of damaged vertical
breakwaters in Japan. Paper presented by K.
Tanimoto at the Genoa WG28 meeting in April,
1994 - progress report of Sub-Group A.
Tuutti K, 1982, Corrosion of steel in concrete.
Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Insti-
tute, Stockholm, 1982.
JLF Typesetting Services , 0181-421 4436 (U.K.)
JLF Typesetting Services. 0181-421 4436 (U.K.)