Geotechnical Safety and Risk V 275

T. Schweckendiek et al. (Eds.)

© 2015 The authors and IOS Press.
This article is published online with Open Access by IOS Press and distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License.
doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-580-7-275

Risk Assessment and Mitigating Measures

Regarding Pile Installation at EBS Biohub Jetty
Ir. drs. R.E.P. DE NIJS a , ir. A.C.A. NAP b , W. KORTE c and W.J. NEDERLOF c
a
Witteveen+Bos, Deventer, The Netherlands
b
Port of Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
c
GEKA, Dordrecht, The Netherlands

Abstract. During the design phase of the reconstruction of the existing mooring facility “EBS Biohub” at the port of Rotterdam,
the Netherlands, a high risk profile was recognized in the proximity of four new dolphins next to the existing jetty. The risk
originated from the greater installation depth of the dolphins related to the limited foundation depth of the existing foundations
and from the structural analysis which indicated that the superstructure could only withstand limited settlement differences. Risk
management aspects were incorporated in the contract by defining an observational approach involving monitoring of the
structure and the subsoil. The contractor Geka offered a pile test at dolphins to be installed at a safe distance from the jetty. A
number of test piles were installed at varying distances from the dolphins in order to detect settlements. The induced settlements
were compared with a contractually defined criterion. Based on the test, two installation methods were in place. Two dolphins
were installed under a slope in order to create a minimum of 5 m distance between the installation trajectory and adjacent piles.
Two dolphins at shorter distance were placed while two adjacent piles per dolphin were cut from the jetty platform with an
alternative support by a reaction frame with active hydraulic compensation at service load. All criterion on bearing capacity,
vibration levels, settlements, deformations and cone resistance were met. No damage on nor deformation of the existing structure
was encountered resulting in a success in terms of budget, planning and risk management.

Keywords. risk management, settlement, capacity, contract, observational

1. Project Introduction The jetty had an initial length of 230 m and a

The project comprised the reconstruction and
extension of the existing mooring facility “EBS
Biohub” at the port of Rotterdam, the
Netherlands, see Figure 1.
width of 16 m. Part of the reconstruction
involved the installation of seven mooring
dolphins of which four dolphins were foreseen at
close proximity of the existing jetty, see Figure 2.

Figure 2. Existing jetty and new dolphins M1 to M4

The existing jetty structure consisted of two

longitudinal loader beams with a crane rail on
top, supported at 4.5 m intervals by a joke of two
hollow pre stressed piles per loader beam. At
Figure 1. Initial northern aerial view jetty EBS “Bio Hub”.
each joke a pre stressed cross beam was mounted,
276 R.E.P. de Nijs et al. / Risk Assessment and Mitigating Measures Regarding Pile Installation at EBS Biohub Jetty

44 in total, with a length of 11 m. According to structural risk assessment. The following

the as built information of the jetty, the piles paragraphs will explain the analyses.
were founded at 3 m depth in the first sand layer,
see Figure 3. The foundation level was estimated
at NAP -23 m, 6 m below dredging depth. The
new dolphins had a tip level of NAP -35 m.

Pile tip

Dolphin

Figure 4. electrical Cone Penetration Test 15

2.1. Effect of New Pile Driving

During pile installation, either by use of a

Figure 3. loader beam, cross beam and pile foundation
2. Risk Analysis
A high risk profile was recognized in the
proximity of four new dolphins next to the
existing jetty. The geotechnical risk originated
from the installation depth of the dolphins related
to the limited foundation depth of the existing
pile foundations and low density of the sand
layer at pile tip level, see Figure 4. Further
analysis was based on a potential volume loss in
the trajectory from pile tip level (NAP -23 m) to
hammer or a vibratory hammer, volume loss due
to compaction caused by the driving energy
should be anticipated in loosely packed granular
soils. A lower bound compaction of 1% over
0.75 meter from the dolphin had been estimated.
This volume loss was applied over the
installation depth below pile tip level. Since the
dolphins were to be installed within 2 m from the
piles, a lower boundary settlement of 20 mm at
pile tip level was to be considered in the
structural analysis, see Figure 5.
Prediction installation effect NAP -23 m
in trajecory NAP -23 m to -35 m
0
-5
settlement (mm)

-10
dolphin installation depth (NAP -35 m), marked 1% volume loss
in Figure 4. Based on previous projects involving -15
(sheet)pile driving in granulair soils (de Nijs -20
2003, de Nijs 2015) an estimated lower boundary
on compaction was used in a settlement analysis. -25

The lower boundary was chosen in order to -30

define a minimum risk level in the analysis of the 0 5 10 15
distance between dolphin and pile (m)
Figure 5. Predicted volume loss, lower bound
 R.E.P. de Nijs et al. / Risk Assessment and Mitigating Measures Regarding Pile Installation at EBS Biohub Jetty
2.2. Impact on Superstructure
The main elements form the superstructure, the
longitudinal loader beams, had a rigid behavior.
The connection with the cross beams and piles
acted as hinges. The limited thickness, 8 cm, of
the in situ casted deck implied it couldn’t
redistribute alternative loading caused by
deformations. At pile settlement, the 4 to 1 slope
of the piles would cause a movement in
horizontal direction or would require a reaction
force, see the red marked pile in Figure 6.
The horizontal displacement would initiate a
tension load in the cross beam, since the
unaffected surrounding piles outside the active
wedge would not respond to the deformations.
The connections with the loader beams could not
withstand this additional load. As a result the
deck would be damaged and the crane rail
distance would exceed the horizontal tolerance.
From the structural analysis in FEM it was found
that the jetty could only withstand limited
settlement differences between piles to a
maximum of 10mm.
Sand layer
wedge
Figure 6. Impression on structural deformation
277
3. Contractual Approach
3.1. Contractual Approach on Risks
The analysis indicated a high risk on damage to
the jetty as a result of pile settlements induced by
dolphin installation by means of hammering.
From a clients point of view The Port of
Rotterdam perceived an uncertain outcome if
only the requirement of a maximum settlement
of 10 mm would be contracted. The specification
itself could not guarantee that the requirement
would be met by the contractor. Exceeding the
criterion was a most unfavorable outcome for the
client as well as the contractor, introducing new
uncertainties on repair and future usability of the
jetty.
The alternative however, a reliable and cost
effective design or procedure on pile installation
to mitigate this risk, proved to be very difficult to
design and define in a contract. Especially the
practical aspects of pile installation or structural
mitigation were difficult to estimate or to define.
In response to this uncertainty the client
adopted the strategy to invite contractors to offer
a risk management procedure. In the selection
procedure the contractor would benefit from the
offered quality regarding settlement control and
preservation of structural integrity. The offered
risk management was therefore incorporated in
the bid and ultimately in the contract between
client and contractor.
In order to allow the contractor to optimize
and demonstrate its risk management procedure,
the observational method was in place. Since
three dolphins could be installed prior to the four
critical ones, a learning curve on site was
possible. The contractor was also allowed to
reduce pile driving energy by means of flushing
the dolphin internally up to 2 m above tip level.
3.2. Preservation of Structural Integrity
The contractor GEKA offered a plan which
consisted of a monitored trial run on two
dolphins, M6 and M7, to be installed at a safe
distance from the jetty and its pile foundation.
The dolphin positions would be surrounded by
nine test piles in comparable size and depth to
the piles of the existing jetty. The test piles
would be installed at varying distances from the
278 R.E.P. de Nijs et al. / Risk Assessment and Mitigating Measures Regarding Pile Installation at EBS Biohub Jetty

new dolphins. The settlements of the piles

induced by the installation of the dolphins would
be recorded. Vertical load was applied at piles P3
to P5. The site overview is presented in Figure 7.

Figure 8. Dolphin install4ed with slope 7 to 1.

Figure 7. Overview test piles at dolphins M6 and M7

Based on this test the recorded settlement

would be compared with the contractually pre
defined maximum settlement criterion of 10 mm.
In case the criterion would be exceeded, two
alternative methods would be in place for the
remaining four critical dolphins to be installed.
The first alternative was to position the
dolphins under a slope 7 to 1 in order to optimize
the distance of the installation trajectory to
adjacent piles, see Figure 8. The second option,
see Figure 9, was to cut the piles loose from the
jetty platform and use a hydraulic compensation
frame in order to pressurize them. Figure 9. Dolphin installed with hydraulic compensation.
 R.E.P. de Nijs et al. / Risk Assessment and Mitigating Measures Regarding Pile Installation at EBS Biohub Jetty 279

4. The Works This implied that the encounterd settlement

was most certainly too big in order to allow
4.1. Test piles regular dolphin installation at the jetty. Based on
the results at dolphins M6 and M7 the contractor
First a series of nine test piles were driven in the concluded that both alternative dolphin
vicinity of the installation positions of dolphins installation methods were in place.
M6 and M7. The impact on the subsoil after
installation of the dolphins was recorded by 4.2. Installation of Dolphins at Slope 7 to 1
leveling the surrounding test piles, see Figure 10.
The dolphins M3 and M4 were installed by a
diesel hammer type Delmag D100 under a
optimized slope of 7 to 1, see Figure 12. At this
slope, the distance at the foundation depth
between existing piles would meet the minimum
distance of 5 m. At a distance of 5 m or more
between the existing and new piles , the slope
solution was sufficient. The hammer operated at
75% of its capacity, since the application of full
energy seemed to increase settlements at M6 en
M7. Another important aspect was the reduction
of soil resistance in the dolphin by means of
flushing the piles internally up to 2 m above the
tip. This remedy was in place in case the blow
count exceeded 65 blows / 25 cm. At dolphin M3
the blowcount reduced from 70 to 21 blows / 25
cm after flushing. Non continuous hammering
did not cause additional problems.
Figure 10. Dolphin installation with adjacent test piles

The results were collected and interpreted,

see Figure 11. The results proved that the lower
bound prediction of 1% volume loss was
exceeded significantly on all test piles, loaded as
well as unloaded. The results indicated a volume
loss in the range of 2 to 3%, regardless of the
installation equipment of the dolphins.
Settlement testpiles
distance test pile - dolphin (m)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
-10
-20 lower bound prediction -1%
settlement (mm)

P1 -23 unloaded
-30
P2 -23 unloaded
-40 P3 -23 pile load
-50 P4 -23 pile load
-60 P5 -23 pile load
P6 -25.8 unloaded
-70
P7 -25 unloaded
-80 P8 -23 unloaded vibratory
-90 P9 -23 unloaded vibratory
postdiction -3% and -2% Figure 12. Dolphin installation with slope 7 to 1.
-100

Figure 11. Settlements test piles after dolphin installation

280 R.E.P. de Nijs et al. / Risk Assessment and Mitigating Measures Regarding Pile Installation at EBS Biohub Jetty

4.3. Active Support During Hammering Dolphins

The dolphins M1 and M2 were installed in the

same manner and with the same equipment as
M3 and M4, although vertical. At these positions
the jetty was also equipped with a rigid
connection between the two loader beams, see
Figure 13. The connection was also supported by
piles, hindering the 7 to 1 slope solution.

Figure 14. Frame for hydraulic compensation

5. Resume

In the reconstruction of the existing mooring

facility “EBS Biohub” at the port of Rotterdam,
the Netherlands, a high risk profile was
recognized in the proximity of four new dolphins
next to the existing jetty. The contractually
requested risk management allowed the
contractor sufficient freedom to implement
specific knowledge on pile installation and
settlement control. During the works, the
importance was confirmed at the installation test
of three dolphins at safe distance from the jetty.
The mitigating measures, slope installation and
hydraulic compensation, proved to meet the
requirements on settlement control and structural
integrity. All criterion on bearing capacity,
vibration levels, settlements, deformations and
cone resistance were met.

References
Figure 13. Dolphin positions M1 and M2, vertically installed
Nijs, R.E.P. de (2003). Installation of sheetpiles in granulair
Per dolphin the adjacent piles with a slope soil, Geotechniek, october 2003, 46-54. (in Dutch)
towards the dolphin were cut and hydraulically
Nijs, R.E.P de, Kaalberg, F.J, Osselaer, G, Couck, J. van
compensated, see the marked piles in Figure 13. Royen, K. (2015). Full scale field test (sheet)pile
Before cutting the piles, a reaction frame was drivability in Antwerp (Belgium), Proceedings of XVI
installed, see Figure 14. The piles were loaded up ECSMGE 2015, Edinburgh, 13-17 September 2015.
to service load. During installation of the
dolphins the system was kept at its original load
by hydraulics. During driving of the dolphins
approximately 40 mm settlement occurred.