See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259895346

Challenges and Uncertainties Relating to Open

Caissons
Article July 2012

CITATIONS

READS

149

1 author:
Khaled E. Gaaver
Alexandria University
14 PUBLICATIONS 38 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Khaled E. Gaaver on 28 January 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

Challenges and Uncertainties Relating to Open Caissons

Fathi Abdrabbo, Professor, Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria
University, Alexandria, Egypt; f.m.abdrabbo@excite.com
Khaled Gaaver, Associate Professor, Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering,
Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt; khaledgaaver@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
Open caissons are used for many geotechnical engineering applications. Open caissons may be used as
deep foundation elements bypassing weak soils to tip in firm deeper strata, and in rivers and maritime
construction to reduce the risk of scour. Open caissons are also used for collecting sewage water
through gravity sewer pipe networks or from sewer force mains. In such applications, the design and
construction of open caissons require a detailed soil investigation program. In this way, the design and
construction plan of an open caisson can be developed with full knowledge of the prevailing subsoil
conditions. The engineering and construction techniques are key factors to achieve functional caissons.
Based on close observations during construction stages, the current study presents some challenges
that were encountered during the construction of two open caissons of internal diameters 20 m and
10 m (65.6 ft and 32.8 ft). This paper describes the procedure followed to alleviate the construction
difficulties encountered. Site exploration program and control measures required to satisfy design
and construction requirements are crucial aspects. Sinking of open caissons in dense or very dense
sands is risky. Incorrect sinking of open caissons may cause extra cost, delay in construction, and
harm to nearby structures. Air/water jetting near the cutting edge of an open caisson, outside slurry
trench, and/or inside open trench may be used to drive an open caisson downward. Unsymmetrical
work around an open caisson may lead to tilting of the caisson. If this occurs, the tilt should be
immediately corrected before resuming the sinking process. Improper cleaning of fine materials on
the caissons excavation bed, and/or inappropriate pouring of underwater concrete may result in a
defective concrete seal. The paper contains a series of practical guidelines to assist those intending to
use open caissons, and shares good caisson sinking practice with practitioners. Finally, the study aims
to understand the difficulties encountered and to anticipate future problems.

INTRODUCTION
Sinking of open caissons is appropriate where
the prevailing soil consists of soft to medium
clays, silty sands, or loose sands. These soils
can be readily excavated using grab buckets
within the open caisson and do not offer high
skin friction along caisson-soil interface. Open
caissons can feasibly extend to great depth at
relatively low cost; however, they have some
disadvantages, Tomlinson (1986). For example,
construction may be halted if obstructions,
such as large boulders or tree trunks, are
encountered. The available literature is scant
regarding the sinking of open caissons because
diaphragm trenches and large-diameter secant
piles are implemented in the construction of
open caissons (Puller, 1996). Moreover, the use of
suction caissons is considered as an alternative
construction method. Contrary to open caissons,
the penetration of suction caissons into soil is
due to self-weight of shaft in addition to suction
pressure created inside the caisson. Therefore,

adequate seal provided by caissons self-weight

penetration is essential to apply suction pressure
inside the caisson. Suction caissons attracted
the attention of many authors, including Chen &
Randolph (2007), Byrne & Houlsby (2004), Clukey
et al. (2004), Iskander et al. (2002), Randolph &
House (2002), and El-Gharbawy & Olson (1999).
The construction procedure of open caissons
may differ between countries (Allenby et al.
2009). Depending on experience gained in Egypt,
open caissons are constructed using consecutive
lifts of reinforced concrete cast-in-situ walls. The
caisson walls sink in place successively while the
soil inside the caisson is excavated using grab
buckets. Upon reaching the design depth level,
a concrete seal is cast underwater using tremie
pipes. After the concrete seal has matured,
water inside the caisson is pumped out. The
caisson can be used either as is for collecting
sewage water or filled with concrete as a deep
foundation (Nonveiller 1987).
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 6 No. 1 July 2012 [21]

Open caissons have two essential stages to be

carefully studied, construction stage and inservice stage. During the in-service stage, most of
the applied loads on the caissons are transferred
to the soil via end bearing at their bases. The
contribution of skin friction developed along the
caisson-soil interface may be ignored to support
superstructure loads in certain circumstances.
In contrast, skin friction along the caisson-soil
interface should be precisely estimated during
the construction stage to check for feasibility
of sinking the caisson through the soil. The
uncertainties arising during the calculation of
skin friction along the caisson-soil interface
may be attributed to the disturbance of adjacent
soil due to the construction process. Ranges
of skin friction values have been provided by
Terzaghi and Peck (1967) for each type of soil.
Similarly, values of estimated skin friction during
sinking of both pneumatic and open caissons
in different soil conditions have been reported
by Tomlinson (1986). Puller (1996) mentioned
that a comparison of the values recommended
by Terzaghi & Peck (1967) with those given by
Tomlinson (1986) shows a considerable scatter
of skin friction in similarly described soils.
The methodology used in this study is based on
the observational procedure, which is one of the
design approaches listed in Eurocode 7 (Glass
& Powderham 1994). Peck (1969) pioneered
the applications of the observational method
to geotechnical engineering. The philosophy
behind the observational technique is to initially
base the design on whatever
information can be obtained and
then to examine all conceivable
differences between assumptions
and reality. The observational
method saves cost and time,
and limits construction risks.
Nowadays, the observational
method is well known to the
geotechnical profession (Wu
2011). The method was used to
explore some challenges during
the construction stages of two
open caissons. In this paper, two
case studies were considered.

20.00 m (65.6 ft) internal diameter. (Caisson

PS4). The caisson was designed to collect
sewage water through a sewer network at
El-Agamy district, west of Alexandria, Egypt.
Caisson PS4 is located approximately 400 m
(1312 ft) from the shore of the Mediterranean
Sea. Service and residential buildings are
located near the caisson site. Five pumps were
to be installed in the caisson to pump sewage
water at a rate of 5000 liter/sec (1320 gal/sec)
to a treatment plant located 20 km (12.4 miles)
away. Caisson PS4 is the main pump station of
the sewer network of the district, see schematic
diagram, Fig. 1. The total height of the caisson
was 33.31 m (109.3 ft). It is common practice
to reduce the wall thickness above the cutting
shoe by 30 to 100 mm (1.2 to 3.9 in) from the
outside to reduce skin friction along the caisson
walls. Therefore, the wall thickness is 1.60 m
(5.25 ft) for the top 27.31 m (89.6 ft) height and
1.70 m (5.6 ft) for the bottom 6.00 m (19.7 ft),
as shown in 2. The elevation of the ground
surface at the construction site is +2.30 m
(+7.6 ft) above sea level. The designed upper
floor level of the caisson is at +3.15 m (+10.3 ft),
while the tip level is designed to be at -30.16 m
(-99.0 ft). The wall is reinforced vertically using
10 bars of 22 mm/m (#7 bars at 4 in centers)
each side and hoop reinforcement using 8 bars
of 22 mm/m (#7 bars at 5 in centers). At the
designed sinking level, the dry weight of the
caissons walls is 90.48 MN (10,170 ton), while
the buoyant weight is 56.32 MN (6,330 ton).

CASE STUDY NO. 1

This case study presents some
difficulties encountered during
sinking of an open caisson of
[22] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 6 No. 1 July 2012

[FIG. 1] Schematic diagram of caisson PS4 and emergency caisson

struction method. The engineers decision was

based on engineering judgment and constructability of the structure. The caisson was sunk
successfully under its own weight according to
the construction plan, while grabbing the soil
inside to an elevation of -24.60 m (-80.7 ft). At
this level, it was very difficult to further advance the caisson. The caisson was obstructed;
nevertheless the periphery walls were constructed to the full design height. Therefore, part of
the caisson walls, 5.56 m (18.2 ft), remained
above the ground surface. At this stage, the
buoyant weight of the caisson walls was 63.58
MN (7,147 ton). Thus, the average skin friction developed along caisson-soil interface was
32.29 kPa (4.68 psi). The estimated value is in
good agreement with the lower limit value recommended by Terzaghi & Peck (1967) and 1.42
times the value reported by Tomlinson (1986).
Terzaghi & Peck (1967) mentioned values that
vary from 33.50 to 67.00 kPa (4.86 to 9.72 psi)
for dense sand, while Tomlinson (1986) reported a value of 22.80 kPa (3.31 psi) for sand.
After the caisson had been obstructed, four
boreholes 50.00 m (164 ft) deep were drilled
to further explore the subsoil difficulties encountered. The recovered soil samples from the
boreholes were classified according to ASTM
D 2487 for soil and ASTM D 6032 for rock.
[FIG. 2] Design details of open caisson PS4
Fig. 3 illustrates a typical borehole log along
with the corresponding standard penetration
Prior to the start of construction, geotechnical
tests (SPT), N-values. Retrieved soil samples
investigations were conducted at the site by
from the boreholes revealed that the soil at the
drilling three boreholes up to 50.00 m (164.0 ft)
site consists of a top layer derived from oodepth. The retrieved soil samples revealed six
litic very poor, weak limestone extending from
successive soil strata of similar thicknesses,
ground surface to a level that varied from -0.20
as shown in Table 1. The subsoil exploration
to -4.70 m (-0.66 to -15.4 ft) . This limestone
showed groundwater table at elevation -0.30 m
was underlain by a layer of poorly graded very
(-1 ft). The data collected from the geotechnical
dense sand intermixed with pieces of sandstone
investigation was used to design the caisson.
of various sizes. At a level that varied from
The open caisson technique was recommended
-15.40 to -16.70 m (-50.5 to -54.8 ft), a layer
by the engineer as the most appropriate concomprising different soils
[TABLE 1] Soil strata revealed from boreholes drilled prior to construction of sandy silt with clay and
silty clay with sand was
encountered. This layer exLayer
Top level (m)
Bottom level (m)
Soil classification
tended to a level that varied
1
+ 2.30
-12.70
Sandy silt
from -33.30 to -34.70 m
2
-12.70
-15.70
Sandstone
(-109.3 to -113.8 ft) and it
contained two relatively
3
-15.70
-22.70
Sandy silt
thin layers of very poor
4
-22.70
-33.70
Silty clay
weak sandstone. The thick5
-33.70
-36.70
Sandstone
ness of the top sandstone
6
-36.70
-47.70
Silty sand
layer varied from 0.35 to

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 6 No. 1 July 2012 [23]

[TABLE 2] Summary of soil properties obtained from post-construction explorations

Layer

First

Second

Third

+ 2.30

-0.20 / -4.70

-15.40 / -16.70

Bottom level (m)

-0.20 / -4.70

-15.40 / -16.70

-33.30 / -34.70

Soil classification

Limestone

Sand/Sandstone

Sandy silt/Silty clay

18.20

18.00

15.80 16.90

1.94

0.45 1.37

Undrained shear strength (kN/m2)

18.00 26.00

Undrained angle of shearing resistance (Degrees)

40.00

11.00 16.00

Top level (m)

Natural unit weight (kN/m3)

Unconfined compressive strength (MPa)

3.00 m (-1.1 to -9.8 ft), while the bottom sandstone was a discontinuous layer of 2.00 m
(6.6 ft) maximum thickness. Groundwater table
was measured at a level of -0.20 m (-0.66 ft).
The properties of sand in the second layer were
interpreted based on the standard penetration
test results and visual classification of the
retrieved soil samples. Accordingly, the relative
density of the sand was about 75%, and the
unit weight was 18 kN/m3 (3093 lb/yd3). The
corresponding angle of shearing resistance
of sand is 40 degrees. In this situation, it
is important to note that the interpreted
properties of the second layer should be used
with caution due to the effect of sandstone
pieces on the SPT results. Core samples
recovered from limestone in the first layer
revealed that the recovery values varied from
25 to 40% while the rock quality designation
was zero. Laboratory tests on rock samples
including compressive strength were conducted.
Undisturbed samples of cohesive soil in the
third layer were tested in direct shear using
shear box apparatus. The achieved results of
the laboratory tests are presented in Table
2 and Fig. 3. The average value of undrained
shear strength (Cu) of the cohesive soil is
22 kPa (3.2 psi) and the corresponding average
undrained angle of shearing resistance is
13.60. The average values were implemented in
the stability analysis.

[FIG.3] A typical borehole in case study # 1

[24] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 6 No. 1 July 2012

During the excavation process inside the caisson, the second layer was visually observed
and found to be weak sandstone, contrary to
the laboratory classification of soil samples
retrieved from the boreholes. The contradiction may be attributed to the disturbance of
the retrieved samples by the sampling process.
Block samples were recovered from the second
layer during excavation inside the caisson. The
unconfined compressive strength of the tested

samples varied between 0.45 and 1.37 MPa (65.3

and 198.7 psi). Therefore, it is important to
carefully consider soil types that reveal anomalously high N-values in SPT. Double or triple
cores may be used to retrieve relatively undistributed rock samples.
Appreciable difference of the subsoil condition
was observed when comparing the post-construction and the pre-construction explorations,
especially above the level of -16.70 m (-54.8 ft).
Soil investigations prior to construction showed
a layer of sandy silt to elevation -12.70 m
(-41.7 ft) overlaid sandstone of 3.00 m (9.8 ft)
thick. In contrast, post-construction geotechnical explorations indicated weak limestone overlaid sandstone extending up to an elevation of
-15.40 to -16.70 m (-50.5 to -54.8 ft). The difference in soil types may be attributed to the procedure of soil sampling. Washed soil samples
using tricone do not represent the in-place state
of soil formations, especially in rock layers. Also
soil sampling using a split barrel in weak rocks
leads to unrealistic soil descriptions and properties compared to the real state conditions.
The post-construction boreholes clearly showed
that the adopted method of sinking the open
caisson was not the proper construction method due to the following reasons:
1. There are high values of standard penetration test results recorded with the geomaterial in the second layer. Also, there
are relatively high values of unconfined
compressive strength of both limestone in
the first layer and sandstone in the second
layer as real state geomaterial conditions.
The higher values of SPT are sufficient to
provide an early indication that sinking of
the caisson is not the proper construction
technique.
2. There are irregularities in the thickness of
the sandstone layers, which adds difficulties to the sinking process and extends the
excavation time. The existence of sandstone
increases the frictional resisting force along
the caisson-soil interface during the sinking
process. Also, sandstone underneath the
cutting edge of the caisson will not slump
towards excavation inside the caisson and
offers high bearing resistance.
3. Pieces of sandstone interbedded in sand
cause difficulties in excavation using a clam-

shell. Excavation of this type of geomaterial

requires special trenching equipment.
4. The high level of groundwater table presents
additional difficulties to the underwater
excavation process since excavation must be
controlled by divers.
Due to these difficulties, the caisson stuck at
the level of -24.60 m (-80.7 ft) for approximately
31 months. During this period, traditional methods of sinking the caisson were used including
pumping out water from the caisson using powerful surface pumps, and excavating geomaterial
inside the caisson using vibratory excavators.
Also excavation of soil outside the caisson up to
3.00 m (9.8 ft) depth was carried out to reduce
skin friction on caisson-soil interface. The excavation depth of soil outside the caisson was
restricted to ensure stability of nearby structures. Secant piles were designed and installed
to maintain the safety of neighboring structures.
Moreover, excavation beneath the cutting edge
of the caisson walls was carried out by divers.
All of these methods failed to move the caisson
downward. It was a challenge to complete sinking the caisson by developing a reliable procedure to complete the sewage project.
In such circumstances, many factors control the
adopted restoration procedure such as:
1. Legal liability and responsibility of the
owner/engineer or the contractor.
2. Expected cost of the proposed rehabilitation
procedure.
3. Expected time of the proposed restoration
technique.
4. The free space between the caisson wall and
the existing nearby structures is limited,
thus the capability of this space to accommodate the machinery involved in the restoration procedure must be considered.
5. Soil stratification and groundwater table.
6. The risk measurement of buildings nearby
the caisson.
In conclusion, due to the critical function of
the caisson PS4 and the legal situation, it was
impossible to backfill the obstructed caisson
and to construct a new one nearby implementing a proper construction procedure. In addition, relocation of the caisson would require
rerouting of the approach inlet and outlet sewer
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 6 No. 1 July 2012 [25]

pipes, which had been installed already using a

pipe jacking technique. Thus, complete sinking
of the obstructed caisson by using a remedial
technique was essential.
A restoration proposal was developed to construct a circular slurry trench outside the caisson and as close to the wall as possible such
that the drilling machine could accomplish
the drilling process. The outside slurry trench
was formed by constructing slurry piles, each
600 mm (23.6 in) in diameter, at a spacing of
1.00 m (3.28 ft) and extending to level -33.50 m
(-109.9 ft). see Fig. 4. Each slurry pile incorporated a steel tube of 50 mm (2 in) in diameter
provided with an end nozzle. The tubes inserted into the slurry piles are used to jet air at
a pressure of 20 bars (290 psi), if needed. The
slurry trench acts as a separator between the
walls of the caisson and the geomaterial extending further away from the caisson. The slurry
trench reduces the skin friction along caissonsoil interface.
The construction of the slurry trench faced
difficulties due to drilling through subsoil
hard formation and the presence of saltwater
from the nearby sea. The saltwater affected the
performance of the slurry mud pumped inside
the drilling holes for base and side stability. To
overcome the effect of saltwater, the slurry mud
mixture comprised 1.00 kg (2.2 lb) of sodium

carbonate, 40.00 kg (88 lb) of bentonite, and

1,000 liters (264 gal) of water. Sodium carbonate was added to the slurry mud to overcome
the effect of the sodium chloride and sulfate
present in groundwater. An interior open trench
inside the caisson and close to the caisson walls
was excavated. The width of the inside trench
is 3.00 m (9.8 ft) and extending to a level of
-33.50 m (-109.9 ft). Thus it is believed that the
outside slurry trench and the inside open trench
bounded a geomaterial wall extending down
from the cutting edge of the obstructed caisson
up to a level of -33.50 m (-109.9 ft), see Fig. 5.
To study the stability of the geomaterial wall,
which extended from level -24.60 to level
-33.50 m (-80.7 to -109.9 ft), first we considered section (a-a) at level -24.60 m (-80.7 ft), see
Fig. 5. A trial plane of failure was considered
to be inclined at an angle (where = 45 /2
= 25). The buoyant weight of 1.00 m (3.28 ft)
length along the periphery of the caisson wall
is 868 kN/m (59,478 lb/ft). Therefore, the
driving force on the trial plane of failure is
366 kN/m (25,079 lb/ft) and the resisting force
is 660 kN/m (45,225 lb/ft). This means that the
geomaterial under the tip of the caisson was
stable up to a level of -27.70 m (-90.9 ft), the
top surface of the sandy silt/silty clay layer.
The geomaterial wall sustained the imposed
loads resulting from the caisson walls with-

All dimensions are in meters

[FIG. 4] Layout of the caisson and slurry piles

[26] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 6 No. 1 July 2012

caisson. This observation was a positive sign

for the initiation of caisson sinking. Movement
of the caisson was observed during injection
of the compressed air. It was observed that the
caisson moved vertically by 20, 50, and 100 mm
(0.8, 1.0 and 2.0 in) in the three successive days
respectively. Overnight, the caisson sank by
7.90 m (26.0 ft) and stayed at a level of -32.50 m
(-106.6 ft).

[FIG. 5] Stability analysis in case study # 1

out any slumping toward the excavated open

trench inside the caisson. Then, consideration
was given to the stability of a trial section (b-b)
through the sandy silt/silty clay layer at a level
of -31.00 m (-101.7 ft), see Fig. 5. The weight
of the caisson wall and the enclosed geomaterial up to a level of -31.00 m (-101.7 ft) was
933 kN/m (32 ton/ft). Thus the driving force
on the trial plane of failure was 574 kN/m
(19.7 ton/ft), whereas the resisting force was
225 kN/m (7.7 ton/ft). This analysis indicated
that the geomaterial wall was unstable through
the sandy silt/silty clay layer. Consequently, it
was expected that shear failures occur due to
excessive shear stresses imposed at a level of
-31.00 m (-101.7 ft).
The process of sinking the caisson was resumed
by blowing compressed air through the steel
tubes installed in the slurry trench via a header
pipe over a three day period. Air bubbles were
observed to rise through the water inside the

According to the stability analysis of the geomaterial wall, it was evident that failure of the
geomaterial wall was expected at a level of
-31.00 m (-101.7 ft). To reduce the risk level in
the remedial procedure, the compressed air system was designed and installed in the outside
slurry trench. The objective of the compressed
air system was to overcome any shortcoming
resulting from probable deviation of predicted
outcome from actual performance. The prediction procedure may be deficient if one or more
of the following is missed or deficiently predicted; soil stratigraphy, soil properties, subsoil heterogeneity, prediction method and capability,
stress history, and stress path (Focht 1994). The
result of the completion of sinking the caisson
while implementing the above procedure was
that the caisson moved down to 2.34 m (7.7 ft)
below the designed level. Therefore the top level
of the caisson walls was at a level of +0.81 m
(+2.7 ft), instead of +3.15 m (+10.3 ft). The caisson walls were extended to a level of +3.15 m
(+10.3 ft) by pouring concrete inside shuttering
and scaffolding.
It is important to note that sudden sinking of
the caisson had no side effect on the buildings
located at a distance of 4.00 to 6.00 m (13 to
20 ft) from the caisson. This may be due to the
gentle movement of the caisson. The caisson
moved downward through a cohesive geomaterial, which exhibited neither strain softening
nor strain hardening. In other words, the geomaterial behaved as an elastoplastic material
such that the caisson sank smoothly. The movement of the caisson was monitored after complete sinking for 30 days and no movement was
observed. At this stage, the dominant resisting
force was the bearing stress developed at the
caissons tip. The tip is at a distance between
0.80 to 2.20 m (2.62 to 7.2 ft) above sandstone
layer. Thus sandstone contributed to the bearing capacity at the caisson tip. If friction along
caisson-soil interface is ignored, the imposed
bearing stress at the tip of the caisson is about
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 6 No. 1 July 2012 [27]

518 kPa (75 psi). If half of the friction at the

caisson-soil interface is considered, the imposed bearing stress at the tip of the caisson is
162 kPa (23.5 psi). Simple analysis, using bearing capacity theories, shows that the caisson is
stable at the level of -32.50 m (-106.6 ft).
The contractor resumed the work to complete
the excavation inside the caisson and to execute the concrete seal. Tremie pipes of 200
mm (8 in) diameter were used to deliver the
concrete from concrete trucks via a concrete
pump to construct the concrete seal. After the
concrete seal had been matured, it was discovered that the concrete seal did not function
properly. Groundwater seeped through the seal
when water inside the caisson was pumped
out. The concrete seal was constructed without
cleaning debris and soft deposits on the excavation bed. A layer of soft deposits was trapped
under the concrete seal, and pockets of soft
deposits intervened into the seal. As a result,
the cast concrete seal was of poor quality and
was thinner than the designed thickness. Accordingly, the concrete seal became unable to
resist stresses induced by uplift water pressure.
Furthermore, it was observed by divers that
cracks in the concrete seal developed more and
more as pumping of water inside the caisson
continued. Inadequate planning and improper
execution of tremie concreting led to a defective
concrete seal. Unfortunately, another remedy to
an unexpected problem was needed.
The goal of the remedial work was to lower the
groundwater table to beneath the toe level of
the caisson to demolish the defective concrete
seal and construct a new seal in dry conditions. The design of the remedial work required
another borehole to explore soil stratification
up to 100 m (328 ft) depth. The soil samples obtained revealed very poor weak sandstone bed
extending from depth 50 m up to 100 m (164 ft
to 328 ft) below the ground surface. The sandstone is moderately weathered. As the caisson
was 400 m (1300 ft) from the sea, additional impacts and uncertainties arose in the calculation
of water seepage into the caisson. Moreover,
another uncertainty arose from the permeability coefficient of the rock mass. The sandstone
contained cracks and joints that were filled with
fine material. Water channels were developed
through cracks and joints in the sandstone
with the progress of pumping water. Dewatering calculations were performed utilizing deep
[28] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 6 No. 1 July 2012

wells outside the caisson to construct a new seal

in dry conditions, but a large number of deep
wells with large pump capacities were required.
Furthermore, dewatering outside the caisson
might have affected the stability of the adjacent
buildings. Due to difficulties arising from pumping large amount of water to lower water inside
the caisson to the level of -32.50 m (-106.6 ft)
and side effect of dewatering on the adjacent
buildings, a water cut-off wall was designed to
be constructed around the caisson walls.
The choice of the geometry of the cut-off wall
including material, thickness, and length is
significant. Cut-off walls should have sufficient thickness to prevent hydraulic fracture.
The depth of the cut-off wall should be determined to prevent piping and heave in soil at
the excavation bed and to reduce the seepage.
One of the following materials was proposed to
be used in the construction of the cut-off wall:
soil-bentonite, soil-cement-bentonite, cementbentonite, and plain concrete. The selected
construction material was controlled by the
design of the appropriate thickness to prevent
hydraulic fracture in the cut-off wall. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE 1986) recommended
that the minimum width of a soil-bentonite cutoff should be 0.03 m per 0.30 m (0.1 ft per ft)
of differential hydraulic head. According to this
criterion, the required width of the soil-bentonite trench is excessively thick. Therefore, plain
concrete was used to construct the cut-off wall
with a thickness of 1.20 m (4 ft). It is known
that the flow of water beneath impervious cutoff walls may produce heave or piping in soil.
Heave occurs if the uplift force at the sheeting
toe exceeds the submerged weight of the overlying soil. When the velocity of water at the exit
exceeds the critical velocity of water, piping
occurs. To prevent both heave and piping, the
cut-off wall should be of sufficient depth below
the excavation bed. Design charts provided by
NAFAC DM-7 (1982) for two-dimensional flow
were used to assess the penetration depth of
the proposed cut-off wall. These charts were
produced for homogeneous dense sandy soil
including safety factor of 2. Interconnecting
panels of diaphragm wall, which extended to
the level of -87.70 m (-288 ft), were designed to
form the cut-off wall. The clear space between
the outer surface of the caisson walls and the
inner surface of the cut-off wall was about
2.00 m (6.6 ft).

At this stage, the contractor faced another challenge; it was difficult to obtain a diaphragm wall
machine capable of operating at depths of up to
90 m (295 ft) below the ground surface. At that
time, no suitable machine was locally available;
therefore the equipment was imported from
Europe. Another difficulty was that the free
space between the caisson walls and the adjacent buildings was insufficient to accommodate
the imported diaphragm wall machine. Consequently, it was essential to backfill inside the
caisson and the area around the caisson using
structural fill to prepare a working platform for
the diaphragm wall machine. After constructing
the cut-off wall, the backfill inside the caisson
was removed to complete the work.
To lower the groundwater table below the level
of -32.50 m (-106.6 ft), seven deep wells of
diameter 0.60 m (24 in) and extending to level
-55.00 m (-180 ft) were designed and installed
in the annular space between the caisson and
the cut-off wall. An electric submersible pump
of capacity 200 m3/hour (785 yd3/hr) at 60 m
(197 ft) head was mounted in each well. During
removal of the contaminated concrete seal, the
concrete was observed to be inhomogeneous
and containing soft spots. Additionally, freefrom-cement aggregates were observed, indicating that the concrete of the seal was washed
out during concrete pouring. A large amount of
fine material had been deposited at the lower
surface of the defective seal. The defective seal
was demolished and a new seal and reinforced
concrete base of the caisson were constructed
under dry conditions. The construction of the
cut-off wall, dewatering process, and difficulties
from the inaccurate interpretation of soil conditions, prior to construction, doubled the construction cost and increased the construction
time to about five times the anticipated time.
Based on the presented case study, it can be
concluded that improper interpretation of subsurface ground conditions leads to inappropriate design of the caisson. The difficulties arising
from inaccurate interpretation of soil conditions
cause challenges that may increase the cost and
time of construction. Improper cleaning of fine
material deposited on the excavation bed, and/
or incorrect procedures in pouring of underwater concrete may produce an inadequate concrete seal. Legal liability may divert the decisions of the engineer from adopting the proper
procedure. Therefore, geotechnical engineers

are advised to avoid the use of open caissons in

such circumstances. The alternative method is
to use interconnecting panels of reinforced concrete diaphragm walls to form the caisson walls
and to grout the soil below the excavation bed
before excavation inside the caisson to form an
impervious blanket.

CASE STUDY NO. 2

Case study No. 2 refers to the construction
of a wastewater pump station at a village
in El-Behera province, west of the Nile river
delta, Egypt. An open caisson of 10.00 m
(32.8 ft) internal diameter, 1.00 m (3.28 ft)
wall thickness, and 12.00 m (39.4 ft) depth
below the ground surface was considered for
the station. The caisson is bounded by a store
on the eastern side, 4.00 m (13 ft) from the
caisson wall. On the southern side, there is a
bank building 6.00 m (20 ft) from the caisson.
Farmer buildings on the other sides are located
approximately 15.00 m (49 ft) from the caisson.
Two boreholes were drilled at the site up to
15.00 m (49 ft) below the ground surface. Fig. 6
presents a typical borehole log. The recovered
soil samples from the boreholes were classified

[FIG. 6] A typical borehole in case study # 2

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 6 No. 1 July 2012 [29]

in accordance with ASTM D 2487. The subsoil

is poorly graded sand with silt extending to
15.0 m (49 ft) depth below the ground surface.
Groundwater table was encountered at a
depth of 1.30 m (4.3 ft) below ground surface.
Standard penetration test results indicated that
the sand is medium dense throughout the top
5.00 m (16.4 ft) and became very dense below
this level. Prior to the excavation process, the
caisson walls were constructed to 12.00 m
(39.4 ft) above the cutting edge.
After the concrete had matured, excavation
inside the caisson walls began using a cablesuspended grab. Due to the excavation process
and the body weight of caisson, the caisson
sank up to 8.00 m (26 ft) below the ground
surface. At this depth, the open caisson was
stuck. The dry weight of the caisson walls
was 10.37 MN (1165 ton). When the caisson
sank 8.00 m (26 ft) below the ground surface,
its weight reduced due to buoyancy force to
8.05 MN (905 ton). Thus, the average skin
friction developed along caisson-soil interface
was 26.70 kPa (3.87 psi). The average calculated
value is less than the lower limit value
recommended by Terzaghi & Peck (1967) for
dense sand by 20%, which varied from 33.50 to
67.00 kPa (4.86 to 9.72 psi). Also, the average
calculated skin friction is 17% greater than
the value reported by Tomlinson (1986) of
22.80 kPa (3.31 psi). The uncertainties in skin
friction at caisson-soil interface produce a high
level of risk during caisson sinking.
The caisson was observed while its tip was at
8.00 m (26.2 ft) below the ground surface. It
was found that the caisson had tilted southward
by 0.4%. Ground loss of soil around the caisson
was observed in the southern direction. Ground
loss that occurred at one side of the caisson
may have been due to heterogeneity of the
subsoil condition, improper excavation process,
and due to inclination of the caisson. The flow
of soil inside the caisson can cause more tilting
of the caisson. Ground loss may also damage
nearby structures; therefore, the excavation
process inside the caisson was stopped. At this
stage, the soil inside the caisson was 1.00 m
(3.3 ft) above the cutting shoe. It was evident
that the friction resistance along caisson walls
and the bearing resistance at caisson tip were
greater than the body weight of the caisson.
To sink the caisson to the required depth, friction resistance along the caisson-soil interface
[30] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 6 No. 1 July 2012

needed to be deliberately decreased and the

vertical orientation of the caisson needed to be
corrected. Correction of the caisson verticality became difficult as the embedded depth of
the caisson increased. To decrease the friction
at the caisson-soil interface, a slurry trench
around the caisson walls was installed. Seventy
holes were drilled around the caisson, and the
drilled holes were filled with slurry mud. The
slurry piles of diameter 400 mm (16 in) were
extended to 15.00 m (39.2 ft) depth below the
ground surface. The slurry mud consisted of 1:2
(bentonite: cement). Steel pipes of 50 mm (2 in)
diameter were inserted in the holes for water
or air jetting, if required. The pipes were provided with slotted holes along the depth from
8.50 m to 15.00 m (28 ft to 49 ft). The caisson
sank 0.40 m (1.3 ft) on completion of the slurry
trench without inside excavation. Unfortunately,
the caisson tilted by 4% due to unsymmetrical
air jetting. Therefore, it was unreasonable to
continue using air or water jetting to advance
the downward movement of the caisson before adjusting the tilt of the caisson. This was
achieved by dewatering and excavating more
intensively below the cutting edge at the higher
side of the caisson than the lower side.
Based on the above discussion, it is not reasonable to sink open caissons in dense or very
dense sands (N-Value for 300 mm (1 ft) 20).
The values given by Terzaghi & Peck (1967) for
skin friction on the caissons may be sensibly
used to predict the friction resistance during
sinking open caissons in sand. Incorrect sinking
of open caissons may cause extra cost, delay
in construction, and harm nearby structures.
Moreover, uncertainties involved in the subsoil
conditions and skin friction along caisson-soil
interface impact risk measurements on the
construction of open caissons. Unsymmetrical
work around the open caisson leads to tilting of
the caisson. The tilt should be corrected before
resuming sinking process of the caisson. Furthermore, this case study demonstrates that
improper construction of an engineering design,
due to lack of knowledge and experience, may
lead to further engineering problems that need
to be rectified.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents some challenges that
were encountered during the construction of
two open caissons under two different subsoil

conditions. Procedures used to overcome the

encountered construction challenges were
described. The following conclusions may be
drawn:
1. Proper interpretation of subsurface soil
conditions is a crucial aspect during
design and selection of the proper
technique for the construction of open
caissons. Difficulties arising from the
erroneous interpretation of subsoil
conditions cause extra cost and delay in
construction.
2. Sinking of open caissons in dense or very
dense sands (N-Value for 300 mm (1 ft)
20) is risky due to high friction resistance
on caisson-soil interface.
3. Incorrect sinking of open caissons may
cause extra cost, delay in construction,
and harm to nearby structures.
4. Air/water jetting near the cutting edge of
an open caisson, outside slurry trench,
and/or inside open trench may be used to
drive an open caisson downward.
5. A unique procedure to calculate skin
friction along soil-caisson interface does
not exist, and the values recommended by
Terzaghi and Peck (1967) may be sensibly
used.
6. Improper cleaning of fine material
deposited on the excavation bed, improper
pouring of underwater concrete, and
improper interpretation of subsurface soil
conditions caused some challenges to the
open caisson in case study No. 1. These
challenges doubled the construction cost
and increased the construction time to
approximately five times the anticipated
time.
7. Unsymmetrical work around the open
caisson in case study No. 2 led to tilting
of the caisson by 4% from the vertical.
The tilt should be immediately corrected
before resuming sinking the caisson.
8. Improper construction of an engineering
design may lead to further engineering
problems that need to be remedied.

REFERENCES
1. Allenby, D., Waley, G., and Kilburn, D.
(2009), Examples of open caisson sinking
in Scotland, Proceedings of the ICE Geotechnical Engineering, 162(1), 59-70.

2. Byrne, W. B., and Houlsby, G. T. (2004),

Experimental investigations of the response
of suction caissons to transient combined
loading, Journal of the Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
130(3), pp. 240-253.
3. Chen, W., and Randolph M. F. (2007), Uplift
capacity of suction caissons under sustained
and cyclic loading in soft clay, Journal of
the Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 133(11), pp. 1352-1363.
4. Clukey, E. C., Templeton, J. S., Randolph, M.
F., and Phillips, R. (2004). Suction caisson
response under sustained loop current
loads, Proceedings. 36th Annual Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Paper No.
OTC 16843.
5. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 1986),
Engineering manual EM 11110-2-1901. USA
6. El-Gharbawy, S. L., and Olson, R. E. (1999),
The cyclic pullout capacity of suction
caisson foundations, Proceedings 9th
International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference, ISOPE99, vol.2, France, pp 660667.
7. Focht, J. A. (1994), Lessons learned
from missed predictions, Journal of the
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 120(10), pp. 1653-1683.
8. Glass, P. R. and Powderham, A. J. (1994),
Application of the observational method at
Limehouse Link, Geotechnique (44), 665679.
9. Iskander, M., El-Gharbawy, S. L., and Olson,
R. E. (2002), Performance of suction caissons
in sand and clay, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 39(3), pp 576-584.
10. NAFAC DM-7 (1982), Design manual 7.1,
Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command.
11. Nonveiller, E. (1987), Open Caissons
for Deep Foundations, Journal of the
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 113(5), pp. 424-439.
12. Peck, R. B. (1969), Advantages and limitation
of the observational method in applied soil
mechanics, Geotechnique, 19 (2), pp. 171187.
13. Puller, M. (1996), Deep excavations a practical manual, Thomas Telford
Publishing, London.
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 6 No. 1 July 2012 [31]

14. Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B. (1967), Soil

mechanics in engineering practice, 2nd
edition, John Wiley, New York.
15. Tomlinson, M. J. (1986), Foundation design
and construction, Longman, Harlow.
16. Randolph, M. F., and House, A. R. (2002),
Analysis of suction caisson capacity in
clay, Proceedings 34th Annual Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Paper No.
OTC 14236.

[32] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 6 No. 1 July 2012

View publication stats

17. Wu, T. H. (2011), 2008 Peck lecture: The

observational method: case history and
models, Journal of the Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
137(10), pp. 862-873.