Berthing Structures

Berthing Structures
R. Sundaravadivelu 1
Chapter 6
BERTHING STRUCTURES
R. SUNDARAVADI VELU
Professor
Dept. of Ocean Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology
Chennai
India
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The berthing structures are constructed for berthing and mooring of vessels to enable
loading and unloading of cargo and for embarking and disembarking of passengers,
vehicles. The design of berthing structures depends on various factors. However, the
vessel characteristics govern the design of berthing structures.
The various structures constructed along the coast can be classified as Port and Harbour
Structures, Coastal Protection Structures, Sea water Intake Structures and Effluent
discharge structures. Port and harbor structures are constructed along the coast to provide
berthing facilities to ships for loading and unloading of cargo or for embarking and
disembarking passengers. The different types of berthing structures are given in this
section.
6.2 TYPES OF BERTHING STRUCTURES
Berthing structure is a facility where the vessel may be safely moored. The berthing
arrangements can be classified as along side type, open dolphin type or ferry type
as shown in Figure 6.1 (Gaythwaite (1990)).
The berthing structure can also be classified as vertical face type or open type structure.
Typical examples are shown in Figure 6.2 (Agerschou et al (1985). In vertical face
Harbour & Coastal Engineering (I ndian Scenario) : Vol. I
430
structures, sheet pile wall, block wall, caissons are used, while open type structures are
represented by open piled construction.
Fig 6.1 Types of Berthing Structures
FERRY (SLIP) TYPE
OPEN DOLPHIN TYPE
FINGER PIER OR DOLPHINS
TRANSFER BRIDGE
GUIDE DOLPHINS
TRESTLE TO SHORE
LOADING PLATFORM
MOORING DOLPHIN
BREASTING DOLPHIN
ALONGSIDE TYPE
Berthing Structures
Fig 6.2 Types of Vertical Face Berthing Structures
(a) CAISSON
(c) OPEN PILED STRUCTURES
(b) SHEET PILE WALL
432
The berthing structures can also be classified depending on the type of cargo handled.
The Madras Port outer harbour basin has oil berth, ore berth and container berth where oil,
ore and containers are handled respectively. The berthing structures can also be classified
as follows:
(A) GRAVITY STRUCTURES
(i) Masonry wall
(ii) Concrete block walls
(iii) Concrete caissons
(B) FLEXIBLE STRUCTURES
(i) Steel sheet piles - Tie back
- Cantilever
(ii) Diaphragm walls - Cantilever
- Tieback
- Relieving platform
(iii) Jetties - consist Berthing & Mooring Dolphin, Jetty
Head & Approach Jetty.
The minimum length of a berthing structure should be sufficient for mooring the longest
ship expected to arrive. The minimum depth includes a bottom clearance equivalent to
10 % of the draught of the largest vessel using the terminal. The top surface of the
berthing structure should be built above the highest high water level.
The dimension of the berth as recommended by IS 4651 (Part V) - 1980 is given in
Appendix 6.1 for various size of Passenger ships, Freighter, Tankers, Ore Carriers and
Large Fishing Vessels.
6.2.1 Quay or Wharf
Quays are defined as one or more berths, continuously bordering on and it contact with a
land or dock area. The inner harbour basin of Madras Port has North, South, East and
West Quays where berthing facilities are provided for number of ships.
Berthing Structures
The quays are constructed as sheet pile wall, diaphragm wall, open piled structure or
gravity structure [Quinn (1972) and Bruun (1981)]. Quay is a continuous berth where
fenders and bollards are provided at different points along the berth to facilitate berthing of
ships.
Wharf is the same as Quay, constructed as an open structure supported on piles.
6.2.2 Pier or Jetty
A pier or jetty is a structure projecting into water, in a harbour basin. They are also located
in open water outside actual harbours. A finger jetty will have berths on two sides and abut
land over their full width.
A jetty consists of a number of structures such as berthing dolphin, mooring dolphin,
loading platform, trestle to shore each of which has special type of functions.
The mooring dolphins pick up the pull from the hawsers. Mooring dolphins for breast lines
shall be located at bow and stern at a distance (about the beam of the ship) from the berth
line, which will not make the moorings too steep.
The berthing dolphins support fenders which absorb berthing impacts. The berthing
dolphins should be placed as wide apart as possible. The distance should neither exceed
the length of the straight side of the smallest vessel nor be less than approximately one-
third of the maximum length of the largest vessel.
The loading platforms support special loading or unloading equipment but normally no
horizontal forces apart from wind loads will act on the loading Platforms.
6.2.3 Offshore Berthing Structures
Offshore berthing structures are used for liquid cargo (oil or gas) or for dry cargo, for iron
ore, coal, sugar, phosphates or grains. The design for offshore berthing structures should
consider the following :
a) Single type of cargo
b) Rapid loading and unloading (10,000 T of Iron ore per hour or 60,000 bbl
(barrel) of oil per hour)
c) Sufficient storage on shore
d) Open sea and exposed to winds, waves and currents
434
e) Construction practicability
f) DWT of the vessel in the range of 0.1 million T to 0.3 million T
The type of ship loader generally governs the design of offshore berth. The three main
types of ship loader are (1) Fixed type (2) travelling Gantry type and (3) Slewing
telescopic boom loaders. The fixed loader is used in small ships. The travelling gantry
loader is expensive, since the loader is to be supported by a berth which is continuous. The
above three types of loaders are to be critically evaluated for dry bulk cargo terminals,
whereas for liquid cargo, the loading system does not influence the offshore berthing
structure. The approach jetty to the offshore berthing structure is the critical component
and governs the total cost of the facility. The offshore terminal at CAPE Santa Clara in the
Atlantic ocean consists of a principal berth to load 2,80,000 DWT ship, moored 7400 m
from shore. The mooring and berthing force in the offshore berth is to be critically
evaluated for the safe design of the offshore berthing structure.
6.3 LOADS ON BERTHING STRUCTURES
The berthing structures are designed for the following forces :
(i) Berthing force
(ii) Mooring force
(iii) Dead load
(iv) Live load - Rail
- Road
- Bulk unloaders
- Cranes etc.
- UDL due to cargo
(v) Active earth pressure if the berth retains the earth
(vii) Environmental forces - Wind
- Wave
- Current
- Differential water pressure
(viii) Seismic force
(ix) Secondary stresses due to shrinkage, creep, temperature etc.
Berthing Structures
6.3.1 Classification of Loads
The various loads acting on the berthing structures are classified as :
i) Loads from the sea side
ii) Loads from the deck and
iii) Loads from the land side
6.3.1.1 Loads from Seaside
The loads from the sea side include the horizontal forces caused by waves, the forces
caused by berthing and vessels pull from bollard. The forces caused by berthing of
vessels are determined from the velocity and angle of approach of the vessels. For the
vessels lying at the berth, the forces are determined due to wind, waves and currents on the
vessel. The vertical forces from sea side are due to vessels hanging upon the fendering
system, vertical component of the forces from bollards etc.
6.3.1.2 Loads from Deck
The important loads from the deck are the vertical loads caused by self weight of the deck,
superimposed loads from buildings and handling equipments. Horizontal loads are mostly
due to wind forces on buildings and structures and also due to the breaking force of cranes.
6.3.1.3 Loads from Landside
Horizontal loads are caused from landside due to the earth pressures and differential water
pressure. Vertical loads are caused by the weight of filling and superimposed load on
filling.
6.3.2 Live Loads
6.3.2.1 Vertical Live Loads
Surcharges due to stored and stacked material such as general cargo, bulk cargo, containers
and loads from vehicular traffic of all kinds including trucks, trailers, railway cranes,
containers handling equipment and construction plant, constitute vertical live loads.
436
6.3.2.2. Truck loading and Uniform loading
The berths shall be generally designed for the truck loading and uniform loading as given
in Table 6.1 (IS 4651 (Part III) - 1974).
Table 6.1 Truck Loading and Uniform Loading
Function of Berth
Truck Loading
(IRC class)
Uniform Vertical Live
Loading (T/m
2
)
Passenger berth B 1.0
Bulk unloading and loading
berth
A 1 to 1.5
Container berth A or AA or 70 R 3 to 5
Cargo berth A or AA or 70 R 2.5 to 3.5
Heavy cargo berth A or AA or 70 R 5 or more
Small boat berth B 0.5
Fishing berth B 1.0
6.3.2.3 Crane Loads
Concentrated loads from crane wheels and other specialised mechanical handling
equipment should be considered. An impact of 25 percent shall be added to wheel loads in
the normal design of deck and stringers, 15 percent where two or more cranes act together
and 15 percent in the design of pile caps and secondary framing members.
6.3.2.4 Railway Loads
Concentrated wheel loads due to locomotive wheels and wagon wheels in accordance with
the specification of the Indian Railways for the type of gauge and service at the locality in
question. For impact due to trucks and railways one third of the impact factors specified in
the relevant codes may be adopted.
6.3.2.5 Special Loads
Special loads like pipeline loads or conveyor loads or exceptional loads such as surcharges
due to ore stacks, transfer towers, heavy machinery or any other type of heavy lifts should
be individually considered.
Berthing Structures
6.3.3 Berthing Load
Berthing Energy: When an approaching vessel strikes a berth, horizontal force acts on the
berth. The magnitude of this force depends on the kinetic energy that can be absorbed by
the fendering system. The reaction force for which the berth is to be designed can be
obtained and deflection-reaction diagrams of the fendering system chosen. These
diagrams are obtainable from fender manufacturers. The kinetic energy, E, imparted to a
fendering system, by a vessel moving with velocity V is given by
s e m
D
C x C x C
g 2
V x W
E
2
(6.1)
where
E = Berthing energy in T- m
W
D
= Displacement tonnage in T
V = Berthing velocity in m/sec
C
m
= Mass coefficient
Ce = Eccentricity coefficient
C
S
= Softness coefficient
g = Acceleration due to gravity in m/sec
2
6.3.3.1 Mass Coefficient
When a vessel approaches a berth and as its motion is suddenly checked, the force of
impact which the vessel imparts comprises of the weight of the vessel and the effect of
water moving along with the moving vessel. Such an effect, expressed in terms of weight
of water moving with the vessel, is called the additional weight (W
A
) of the vessel or the
hydrodynamic weight of the vessel. Thus the effective weight in berthing is the sum of
displacement tonnage of a vessel and its additional weight, which is known as virtual
weight (W
V
) of a vessel.
a. The mass coefficient (C
m
) is calculated using the following equation
B
D 2
1 C
m
+ (6.2)
438
where
D = Draught of the vessel in m,
B = Beam of the vessel in m.
b. Alternative to (a) in case of a vessel which has a length much greater than its beam
or draught or generally for vessels with displacement tonnage greater than 20,000 the
additional weight may be approximated to the weight of a cylindrical column of water of
height equal to the length of vessel and diameter equal to the draught of vessel, then
D
2
4
m
W
Lw D
1 C

+ (6.3)
where
D = Draught of the vessel in m,
L = Length of the vessel in m
w = Unit weight of water (1.03 T/m
2
for sea water)
W
D
= Displacement tonnage of the vessel in tonnes.
W
v
= W
D
x C
m
6.3.3.2 Eccentricity Coefficient
A vessel generally approaches a berth at an angle, denoted by and touches it at a point
either near the bow or stern of the vessel. In such eccentric cases the vessel imparts a
rotational force at the moment of contact, and the kinetic energy of the vessel is partially
expended in its rotational motion.
a) The eccentricity coefficient (C
e
) may then be derived as follows:
2
2 2
e
) r / l ( 1
Sin ) r / l ( 1
C
+
+
(6.4)
where
l = Distance from the centre of gravity of the vessel to the point of contact projected
along the water line of the berth in m, and
r = Radius of gyration of rotational radius on the plane of the vessel from its
Berthing Structures
Fig 6.3 Approaching Angle of Vessel with a Berth
Center of gravity in m (Figure 6.3)
b) The approach angle () unless otherwise known with accuracy should be taken as 10.
For smaller vessels approaching wharf structures, the approach angle should be taken
as 20 (Refer Figure 6.3).
BERTHING POINT OF THE VESSEL (l)
E
C
C
E
N
T
R
I
C
I
T
Y

C
O
E
F
F
I
C
I
E
N
T

(
C
e
)
0.6
0.1L
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.8
1.0
0.2L 1/4L 0.3L 0.5L 0.4L
= 10 UNLESS KNOWN ACCURATELY
20 FOR SMALLER VESSEL
G
For = 0
440
c) The rotational radius of a vessel may be approximated to L/4 and in normal case the
point of contact of the berthing vessel with the structure is at a point about L/4 from
the bow or stern of the vessel which is known as a quarter point contact. If the
approach angle is nearly 0 and r = 0.25 L, then C
e
= 0.5.
6.3.3.3 Softness Coefficient
This coefficient (C
s
) indicates the relation between the rigidity of the vessel and that of the
fender, and also the relation between the energy absorbed by the vessel and the fender.
Since the ship is relatively rigid compared with the usually yielding fendering systems, a
value of 0.9 is generally applied for this factor, or 0.95 if higher safety margin is thought
desirable.
Quinn (1961) has suggested a suitable formula for calculating the berthing energy
assuming 50% of the total energy of the berthing vessel to be absorbed by fenders.
,
_
2
mv
2
1
2
1
E (6.5)
where m is the (mass + added mass) of the vessel and v is the berthing velocity.
6.3.4 Mooring Loads
The mooring loads are the lateral loads caused by the mooring lines when they pull the
ship into or along the dock or hold it against the forces of winds or current.
6.3.4.1. Forces due to Wind
The maximum mooring loads are due to the wind forces on exposed area on the broad side
of the ship in light condition
F = C
w
A
w
P (6.6)
Where
F = Force due to wind in kg
C
w
= Safe factor = 1.3 to 1.6
A
w
= Windage area in m
2
and
P = Wind pressure in kg/m
2
to be taken in accordance with IS : 875-1964
Berthing Structures
The windage area (A
w
) can be estimated as follows
A
w
= 1.175 L
(D
M
- D
L
) (6.7)
where
L
= Length between perpendicular in m

D
M
= Moulded depth in m
D
L
= Average light draft in m.
When the ships are berthed on both sides of a pier, the total wind force acting on the pier,
should be increased by 50 percent to allow for wind against the second ship.
Gaythwaite (1990) has suggested the following formulas to calculate windforce in the
longitudinal (F
wx
) and lateral (F
wy
) force components and a yawing moment (M
yw
).
F
wx
= 0.0034 C
Dx
V
2
w
A
x
(6.8)
F
wy
= 0.0034 C
Dy
V
2
w
A
y
(6.9)
M
yw
= F
wy
LOA C
ym
(6.10)
Where
F
wx
and F
wy
= Wind Force along x and y directions in pounds
M
yw
= Yawing Moment in pounds-ft
C
Dx
and C
Dy
= Drag Coefficients along x and y directions
V
w
= Wind speed in Knots
A
x
and A
y
= End-on and Side projected areas of vessel (including the areas
of masts, stacks, rigging, deck cargoes, etc.)
LOA = Overall Length of Ship in ft
The hydrodunamic coefficients are the functions of angle of wind approach(). The yaw
moment is given in terms of the lateral force times the vessels length overall (LOA) and
C
ym
. The total resultant force for wind from any direction (F
w
()) is found from this
equation:
F
w
() = 0.0034C
D
() V
2
w
(A
x
cos
2
+ A
y
sin
2
) (6.11)
442
6.3.4.2 Forces due to Current
Pressure due to current will be applied to the area of the vessel below the water line when
fully loaded. It is approximately equal to w v
2
/2g per square metre of area, where v is the
velocity in m/s and w is the unit weight of water in T/m
3
. The ship is generally berthed
parallel to the current. With strong currents and where berth alignment materially deviates
from the direction of the current, the likely force should be calculated by any recognised
method and taken into account.
Ship is aligned predominantly in head sea condition with current direction.
Example problem 1:
Calculate the berthing force, and Mooring force due to 30,000 DWT bulk carrier
approaching the berth at Kandla Port with a berthing angle of 10. The site condition is
moderate wind and swells and the berthing condition is moderate. Use the following
informations. (Design data)
Length of the berth = 240 m
Width of the berth = 55 m
Top level = + 9.74 m
Dredge level = - 11.10 m
Length of the vessel = 205 m
Width of the vessel = 26.5 m
Draught = 10.70 m
Berthing force
Site conditions : Moderate wind and swells
Berthing condition : Moderate
As per IS 4651 (Part III)-1974 for the above site condition and berthing condition
Berthing velocity (v) = 0.2 m/s
S e m
D
C C C
g 2
V W
E
2
Berthing Structures
32 . 1
DWT
DT
as per Section 3.1.2 of IS 4651 (Part II)-1974
W
D
= 1.32 x 30,000 = 39,600 T
D
2
4
W
LW D
1 Cm

+
where
w = Unit weight of sea water 1.025 t/m
3
C
m
=
600 , 39
025 . 1 * 205 * 7 . 10 *
1
2
4
+
C
m
= 1.48
C
e
=
, ,
, ,
2
r
2
2
r
1
sin 1
1
l
+
+
l = L/4 = 205/4 = 51.25 m
r = 0.2 L = 0.2 x 205 = 41 m
= 10
C
e
=
, ,
, ,
2
4
25 . 51
2
2
41
25 . 51
1
10 sin 1
+
+
C
e
= 0.41
C
S
= 0.95 (As per code)
95 . 0 * 41 . 0 * 48 . 1 *
81 . 9 * 2
) 2 . 0 ( * 600 , 39
E
2
E = 46.54 T m
Ultimate energy = 1.4 x 46.54 = 65.2 T-m
444
Fender details : fender type - cell (from fender manufacture catalogue)
Size of fender 1600H x 2005D x 1800 P
Berthing force = 100 T
Mooring force
Length between perpendicular (L
p
) = 0.9 L = 0.9 x 205 = 184.5 m
Moulded depth of the ship (D
m
) = 14.3 m
Average light weight draft (D
L
) = 10.3 m
Due to Wind
A
w
= 1.175 x 184.5 (14.3 - 10.3)
A
w
= 867.15 m
2
P = 0.06 Vz
2
(As per IS 875-1987)
V
z
= V
b
k
1
k
2
k
3
V
z
= Design wind speed at any height
k
1
= Probability factor (risk coefficient)
k
2
= Terrain, height and structure size factor
k
3
= Topography factor
Basic wind speed - 39 m/sec (at Kandla)
V
b
= 1.15 x 39 (for offshore area)
= 44.85 m/sec
K
1
= 1.08, K
2
= 1.05, K
3
= 1
V
z
= 44.85 x 1.08 x 1.05 x 1 = 50.86 m/s
P = 0.06 x (50.86)
2
= 155 Kg/m
2
F
w
= 1.4 x 867.15 x 155 (as per Equation (6.6))
= 188 T
Berthing Structures
Due to Current
where
g 2
wv
F
2
c
x projected area of ship
w = Unit weight of water in t/m
3
v = Current velocity 5 knots
g = Acceleration due to gravity in m/s
2
w = 1.025 t/m
3
v = 0.5 x 0.505 = 2.525 m/s
g = 9.81 m/s
2
T 91 . 94 7 . 10 * 5 . 26 *
81 . 9 * 2
525 . 2 * 025 . 1
F
2
c

Total force = sqrt(188
2
+ 95
2
) = 210 T
The total force can be assumed to be equally distributed to four bollards, if the ship is
mored to eight bollards. Force on each bollard = 210/4 = 52.5 T
The line pull as per Table 6.2 is 60 T for the 20000 DWT vessels and T for the
50000 DWT vessels.
Table 6.2 : Bollard Pulls
Displacement (Tonnes) Line Pull (Tonnes)
2,000 10
10,000 30
20,000 60
50,000 80
100,000 100
200,000 150
>200,000 200
Hence the mooring pull for 30,000 DWT vessel is 67. However the mooring pull is
assumed as 75 T.
446
Fig. 6.4 Differential Water Pressure
6.3.5 Differential Water Pressure
In the case of waterfront structures with backfill, the pressure caused by difference in water
levels at the fillside and the waterside has to be taken into account in design.
The magnitude of this hydrostatic pressure is influenced by the tidal range, free water
fluctuations, the ground water influx, the permeability of the foundation soil and the
structure as well as the efficiency of available backfill drainage.
In the case of good and poor drainage conditions of the backfill the differential water
pressure may be calculated on the guidelines given in Figure 6.4. The average of MLWS
and LLW is assumed water level on the sea side for both poor and good drainage
conditions. The average of MHW and MLW is assumed as ground water (GW) on the land
side for poor drainage condition, while 0.3 m above MLW is assumed a ground water
(GW) on the land side for good drainage condition
MHW - MEAN HIGH WATER
MLW - MEAN LOW WATER
MLWS - MEAN LOW WATER SPRINGS
GW - GROUND WATER
LLW - LOWEST LOW WATER
b
LLW
(a) POOR DRAINAGE CONDITION
MHW
MLW
MLWS
b
ASSUMED GW
(b) GOOD DRAINAGE CONDITION
ASSUMED GW
MLW
MLWS
LLW
FLAP VALVE
a
a
b
b
MHW
ELEVATION OF FLAP VALVE BOTTOM
0.3m
Berthing Structures
6.3.6 Seismic Force
The horizontal force caused by earthquakes called seismic force can be calculated using
the seismic coefficient method given in IS 1893-1984 (10). The horizontal seismic
force(F
h
) is given by the following equation
F
h
=
h
W
m
(6.12)
where
h
= Design horizontal seismic coefficient
W
m
= Weight of mass under consideration ignoring reduction due to buoyancy of uplift
and is equal to the total dead load plus one-half of the live load as per IS 1893
(Part III)-1984.
The design values of horizontal seismic coefficient, in the Seismic Coefficient method
shall be computed as given by the following expression:
h
= I
o
(6.13)
where
= A coefficient depending upon the soil-foundation system
I = A factor depending upon the importance of the structure
o
= Basic horizontal seismic coefficient based on the zone
, I and
o
can be obtained from IS 1893-1984, depending on type of soil foundation,
importance of the structure and the zone in which the structure is located.
6.3.7 Wave Forces
As far as analysis and computation of forces exerted by waves on structures are concerned,
there are three distinct types of waves, namely,
1. Non-breaking waves
2. Breaking waves and
3. Broken waves
448
6.3.7.1 Non-breaking Waves
Generally, when the depth of water against the structure is greater than about 1
1
/
2
times the
maximum expected wave height, non-breaking wave conditions occur.
Forces due to non-breaking waves are essentially hydrostatic. Sainflou Method may be
used for the determination of pressure due to non-breaking waves.
6.3.7.2 Breaking Waves
Breaking waves cause both static and dynamic pressures. Determination of the design
wave for breaking wave conditions may be based on depth of water about seven breaker
heights (H
b
) seaward of the structure, instead of the water depth at which the structure is
located. The actual pressures caused by a breaking wave is obtained by following the
method suggested by Minikin.
6.3.7.3 Broken Waves
Locations of certain structures like protective structure will be such that waves will break
before striking them. In such cases, no exact formulae have been developed so far to
evaluate the forces due to broken waves, but only approximate methods based on certain
simplifying assumptions are available.
6.3.7.4 Wave Force on Piles
Wave forces on vertical cylindrical structures, such as piles exerted by non-breaking waves
can be divided into two components;
a. Force due to drag
b. Force due to inertia
A set of generalised graphs which are available in shore protection manual together with
the following formulae may be used to compute these;
F
DM
= 1/2 C
D
g D H
2
K
DM
(6.14)
F
IM
= C
M
g
4
D
2
H K
IM
(6.15)
F
M
=
m
g H
2
D (6.16)
Berthing Structures
M
DM
= S
D
F
DM
d (6.17)
M
IM
= S
I
F
IM
d (6.18)
Mm =
m
g C
D
H
2
D d (6.19)
H C
D C
W
D
M
(6.20)
where
F
DM
= Total drag force on a vertical pile from the sea bottom to the surface crest
elevation and this occurs at the crest positions in N
d = Water depth in m
g = Acceleration due to gravity
= Mass density of sea water = (w/g) = 1025.2 kg/m
3
D = Diameter of pile in m
H = Wave height in m
K
DM
= Drag force factor (Figure 6.5)
F
IM
= Total inertial force on a vertical pile from the seabed to the free surface
elevation in N
K
IM
= Inertial force factor (Figure 6.6)
S
DM
= Drag force moment arm (Figure 6.7)
S
IM
= Inertia force moment arm (Figure 6.8)
m
,
m
= Coefficients read from the Figures 6.9 to 6.16
C
D
,C
M
= Drag, Intertia coefficient (Figures 6.17 to 6.18)
F
M
= Maximum value of the combined drag and inertial force in N
M
DM
= Moment on pile about bottom associated with maximum drag force in N-m
S
D
= Effective lever arm for F
DM
from the bottom of pile in m
M
IM
= Moment on pile about bottom associated with maximum inertial force in N-m
S
D
= Effective lever arm for F
IM
from the bottom of pile in m
M
M
= Maximum total moment in N-m
450
F
i
g
.

6
.
5

K
D
m
v
e
r
s
u
s

R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
e
p
t
h

(
d

/

g
T
2
)
Berthing Structures
F
i
g
.

6
.
6

K
I
M
v
e
r
s
u
s

R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
e
p
t
h

(
d

/

g
T
2
)
452
F
i
g

6
.
7

S
D
M
v
e
r
s
u
s

R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
e
p
t
h

(
d
/
g
T
2
)
Berthing Structures
F
i
g

6
.
8

S
D
M
v
e
r
s
u
s

R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
e
p
t
h

(
d
/
g
T
2
)
454
F
i
g

6
.
9

I
s
o
l
i
n
e
s

o
f
m
v
e
r
s
u
s

H
/
g
T
2
a
n
d

d
/
g
T
2
(
w

=

0
.
0
5
)
Berthing Structures
F
i
g

6
.
1
0

I
s
o
l
i
n
e
s

o
f
m
v
e
r
s
u
s

H
/
g
T
2
a
n
d

d
/
g
T
2
(
W
=

0
.
1
)
456
F
i
g
.
6
.
1
1

I
s
o
l
i
n
e
s

o
f
m
v
s

H
/
g
T
2
a
n
d

d
/
g
T
2
(
W

=

0
.
5
)
Berthing Structures
F
i
g

6
.
1
2

I
s
o
l
i
n
e
s

o
f
m
v
e
r
s
u
s

H
/
g
T
2
a
n
d

d
/
g
T
2
(
W

=

1
.
0
)
458
F
i
g

6
.
1
3

I
s
o
l
i
n
e
s

o
f
m
v
e
r
s
u
s

H
/
g
T
2
a
n
d

d
/
g
T
2
(
W

=

0
.
0
5
)
Berthing Structures
F
i
g

6
.
1
4

I
s
o
l
i
n
e
s

o
f
m
v
e
r
s
u
s

H
/
g
T
2
a
n
d

d
/
g
T
2
(
W

=

0
.
1
)
460
F
i
g

6
.
1
5

I
s
o
l
i
n
e
s

o
f
m
v
e
r
s
u
s

H
/
g
T
2
a
n
d

d
/
g
T
2
(
W

=

0
.
5
)
Berthing Structures
F
i
g
.

6
.
1
6

I
s
o
l
i
n
e
s

o
f
m
v
e
r
s
u
s

H
/
g
T
2
a
n
d

d
/
g
T
2
(
W

=

1
.
0
)
462
Fig 6.17 Interia and Drag Coefficient for a Fixed Vertical Cylinder
Berthing Structures
Fig 6.18 Drag Coefficient for a Smooth Oscillating Cylinder
464
Example Problem 2 :
A design wave height of (H) 5.0 m and period (T) 10 secs acts on a vertical circular pile
with a diameter (D) of 1 m and depth (d) 8 m. Assume C
m
= 2.0 and P = 1025.2 kg/m
3
.
Find the maximum total horizontal force and the maximum total moment on the pile.
Solution
Calculate
2
gT
d
=
2
) 10 ( ) 8 . 9 (
8
= 8.16 x 10
-3
From Figure 3.26 the breaking limit curve
2
b
gT
H
= 0.006
H
b
= 0.006 x 9.8 x 10
2
= 5.88 m
and
b
H
H
=
88 . 5
5
= 0.85
From Figures 6.5 and 6.6 using
2
gT
d
= 8.16 x 10
-3
and
H = 0.85 H
b
, Interpolating between curves H = H
b
and H = 3/4 H
b
; find
K
Dm
= 0.620
K
im
= 0.39
F
im
= C
m
D
2
HK
im
F
im
=
3
10
) 8 . 9 )( 2 . 1025 )( 2 (
4
(1)
2
x 5.0 x 0.39 = 30.77 kN
F
Dm
= C
D
2
1
g DH
2
x K
Dm
Berthing Structures
= 0.7 x 1/2 x (1025.2) (9.8) (1) (5)
2
x 0.62
= 54504.76 N,
= 54.5 kN
W =
H C
D C
D
M
=
) 5 ( ) 7 . 0 (
) 1 ( ) 0 . 2 (
= 0.57
2
gT
H
=
2
) 10 ( ) 8 . 9 (
5
= 0.005
2
gT
d
= 0.0082
using the Figures 6.11 and 6.12 find
m
W = 0.5
m
= 0.34 (from Figure 6.11)
W = 1.0
m
W = 0.57
Interpolating the values of 0.5 and 1.0 we can get the values for W = 0.57.
W = 0.57
m
= 0.354
F
m
=
m
g C
D
H
2
D
= 0.3554 (10,047) (0.7) (5)
2
(1)
= 62241.2 N
F
m
= 62.24 kN
From the Figure 6.8 S
im
= 0.8
From the Figure 6.7 S
DM
= 0.996
466
M
im
= F
im
d S
im
= (30774) x 8 x 0.8
= 196953.6 N m
= 196.9 kN m
M
DM
= F
DM
d S
DM
= (545040.76) x (8) x (0.996)
= 434287.8 N m
4343 kN m
To find
m,
using the Figure 6.15 and 6.16 are used.
W = 0.5
m
W = 1.0
m
Interpolating the values of 0.5 and 0.1, We can get the values of 0.57
W = 0.57
m
= 0.3484
M
m
=
m
g C
D
H
2
Dd
= 0.3484 (10,047) (0.7) (5)
2
(1) (8)
= 490052.47 N m
M
m
= 490 kN m.
6.3.8 Combination of Loads
The combination of loadings for design is dead load, vertical live loads, plus either
berthing load, or line pull or earthquake or wave pressure, for open type berthing structure.
The worst combination should be taken for design. In addition to the above load earth
pressure & differential water pressure shall be consider for vertical force typing structures.
Berthing Structures
The partial safety factors for different types of loads in limit state design is given in
Table 6.3 and increase in permissible stress for different combination of loads are given in
Table 6.4.
6.3.9 Expert System
The Knowledge Based Expert System for estimation of forces in berthing structures
KNOWBEST have been developed at IIT Madras. (Sundaravadivelu & Ranga Rao
(1996)). The user friendly menu driven expert system KNOWBEST not only helps the user
to estimate various forces depending on the type of berthing structure (open type or closed
type) but also recommends the appropriate values of coefficients to be used for estimating
various forces.
Table 6.3 Partial Safety Factors for Loads in Limit State Design
Loading
Partial Safety Factor
Limit State
Serviceability
Limit State of Collapse
Dead load 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.2 (or 0.9) 1.2 (or 0.9) 1.2 (or 0.9)
Vertical Live
Load
1.0 1.0 1.5 1.2 (or 0.9) 1.2 (or 0.9) 1.2 (or 0.9)
Earth Pressure 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Hydrostatic and
Hydrodynamic
Forces
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0
Berthing and
Mooring Forces
- 1.0 1.5 - - -
Secondary
Stresses
1.0 - - - - -
Wind Forces - - - - 1.5 -
Seismic Forces - - - - - 1.5
468
Table 6.4 Increase in Permissible Stresses
Sl.
No. Combination of Loads
Increase in Permissible
Stress
Increase in
Allowable
Bearing
Pressure
Reinforced
Concrete
Other
Materials
such as steel
and Timber
1 DL + LL + impact of breaking or
traction or vehicles + centrifugal
forces of vehicles
Nil Nil Nil
2 DL + LL with impact, breaking or
tractive and centrifugal forces + earth
pressure, percent
15 15 15
3 DL with/without LL including
impact, breaking or tractive and
centrifugal forces + earth pressure +
hydrodynamic and hydrostatic forces
+ berthing and mooring forces,
percent
25 33 1/3 25
4 Wind forces on structures + load
combination of (1) + (2) or (3)
5 Seismic forces + load combination of
(1), (2) or (3)percent
6 Secondary stress + load combination
of (1), percent
15 15 15
7 Erection stage stresses with DL and
appropriate LL + earth pressure +
hydrodynamic forces + wind forces,
percent
15 33 1/3 25
6.4 ANALYSIS OF BERTHING STRUCTURES
6.4.1 Analysis of a Bulk Berth
The layout of a berth to receive 30,000 DWT bulk carrier is given in Figure 6.19.
The dimension of 30,000 DWT bulk carrier as per IS 4651 (Part III)-1974 are as follows:
Overall length = 205 m
Width = 26.5 m
Height = 14.3 m
Berthing Structures
Fully loaded draft = 10.7 m
The total length of the berth should be 10% more than the length of the ship. Hence a
length of 250 m is adopted. The total length of the berth of 250 m is divided into five
blocks each of 50 m length with expansion joints in between them. IS 4651 (Part IV)
section 10 recommends a length of 39 m between the expansion joints. A spacing of 60 m
is recommended for better stiffness. However 250m long berth without any
Fig. 6.19 Layout of Berth With 30000 Dwt Tanker
expansion joints are also constructed. However for these structures the loads due to
variation of temperature shall be considered in addition to other loads. The typical cross
section of a berth is shown in Figure 6.20. It consists of a diaphragm wall tied back by a
cross beam to four rows of vertical pile.
The fully loaded draft is 10.7 m. Hence the dredge level is assumed as 10.7 + 10% of draft
+ 0.5 m for over dredge allowance. Hence dredge level should be greater than 12.27 m.
The dredge level is assumed as 12.5 m. The tidal levels are
HHWL = + 3.25 m
LLWL = + 0.40 m
25000
50000
20500
50000
M1 = STERN LINE
M2 = AFT BREAST LINE
M4 = FORD SPRING LINE
M5 = FORD BREAST LINE
M6 = BOW LINE
F1 & F2 = FENDERS
B1 & B2 = BOLLARDS
M3 = AFT SPRING LINE
50000
M1
B1
M2
B2
B33
M4
F1
50000 50000
30000 DWT
B4
F2
M3
B5
M5
B6
16
470
Fig.6.20Typical Cross Section of Fertilizer Berth
Hence the top level of the jetty is assumed as (3.25 + H/2 + 1) m where, H is the expected
wave height. The wave height inside the harbour during extreme weather condition is
1.2 m. Hence the top level is assumed as + 4.85 m. The third and fourth row of piles are
provided below the conveyor columns, the second row of pile is provided below one of the
rails of crane track.
It is preferable to carry out three dimensional analysis for each block considering all the
rows of piles especially for berthing and mooring force. However it is a common practice
to carry out a two dimensional analysis for a typical pile bent for 1/3 of berthing force and
1/3 or mooring force assuming that the berthing force and mooring force will be
distributed to 3 pile bents.
6.4.1.1 Preliminary Analysis of System
A typical 4 m panel of 1100 mm thick diaphragm wall having 3.65 m deep beam supported
by piles at 6 m, 12 m, 15.65 m and 22.45 m (Figure 6.21) is considered for the analysis.
This depth of the beam is found to be very conservative. The economical depth is about
2515
-23.00
DREDGE LEVEL
-12.50
+3.25
HWL
+5.00
1100 THK
DIAPHRAGM WALL
(B) FINAL DESIGN
-22.50
1000 PILE
1300
PILE
-20.00
1300
PILE
MAIN BEAM
Berthing Structures
Fig. 6.21 Idealization for Preliminary Analysis
-7.0m
500
3650
SECTION -YY SECTION - XX
7067
-17.0m
5940
11575
9800
7100
6942
6942
-23.0m
-21.0m
-19.0m
K(T/M)
8319
7787
1197
920
-15.0m
-13.0m
-11.0m
-9.0m
4000
1100
V1
6800
+1.00 G.L BELOW DECK
X
X
-5.0m
-3.0m
-1.0m
+1.0m
+3.0m
Y
3
1
R3
V3 V2
6000
Y
3950
TIE
R4
V4
472
1.65m. The preliminary analysis of the following three different systems (Raju et al.
(1995)) has been carried out using the general purpose, Structural Analysis Program SAP
IV developed by Bathe, K.J. (1973).
(A) Diaphragm wall with anchor rod and deadman diaphragm wall (Figure 6.22a).
(B) Diaphragm wall with vertical and raker piles (Figure 6.22b
1
& 6.22b
2
).
(C) Diaphragm wall with vertical piles (Figure 6.22c
1
, 6.22
c2
& 6.22c
3
).
For the purpose of analysis the deck, diaphragm wall and pile systems are replaced by two-
dimensional beams. The passive pressure on the diaphragm wall is idealised by spring
elements. The piles are assumed to be rigid at top and bottom. The fixity depth for piles
as per IS 2911 (Part 1/ Se. 2) -1979 for an n
h
of 0.5 kg/cm
3
is 5 times d, where d is the dia
of the piles. Since the first row of piles is partly in the active zone of diaphragm wall, its
fixity depth is increased to 6 m + 5 d and fixity depth for 2
nd
, 3
rd
and 4
th
rows of piles are
assumed as 5d.
Since the lateral load governs the design of these structures, the analysis is carried out for
lateral loads only. The active earth pressure on the diaphragm wall and 100 T pull are
considered as two typical load cases for the analysis.
The shear force in diaphragm wall and piles at the top, the wind force in the raker piles,
anchor force in the tie rod and the horizontal deflections at the top of diagram wall are
summarized in Table 6.5.
Berthing Structures
Fig.6.22 Alternate Schemes
(b2) VERTICAL PILES WITH RAKER
100 110 100 75 75 110 130 75
(c3) VERTICAL PILES
75 100 130
(b1) VERTICAL PILES WITH RAKER
110 100 75 100 110 130
(a) VERTICAL PILES WITH ANCHOR
110 100 75 110 130 100
75
(c2) VERTICAL PILES
100 130 100
75
(C1) VERTICAL PILES
100 130 100
474
Table 6.5
Berthing Structures
6.4.1.2 Results and Discussions
System a - Diaphragm wall with tie rod and deadman diaphragm wall
(Ref. Figure 6.25 and Table 6.5).
The active earth pressure in the diaphragm wall exerts a shear of 109 T at the top of
diaphragm out of which only 38 T goes to the anchor rod; i.e., only 35% of the total shear.
For a pull of 100 T, the anchor force is only 28 T i.e., 28%. The anchor is loaded only
after substantial lateral loads are transferred to the piles through the deep beam. The
construction of anchor with a deadman diaphragm wall of 750 mm thick is time
consuming, expensive and is structurally inefficient in the present case in view of the
4 large vertical piles. Hence it is desirable to eliminate the anchor and suitably strengthen
the 3
rd
and 4
th
row of piles to take care of the lateral load. The 3rd and 4th row of piles can
be strengthened either by increasing the diameter or by introducing additional raker piles.
Results of both the alternatives are discussed below.
System b - Diaphragm wall with Raker & Vertical Piles
Two different combination of raker and vertical piles are analysed. In b
1
the 750mm dia
raker pile is in the 3rd row and in b
2
, the raker pile is in the fourth row. It can be
concluded from the results that one 750 mm dia raker pile takes almost the same amount of
lateral force as that of 3 numbers of 80 mm dia HTS anchor rods. Compared to system b
2
,
system b
1
performs better by taking more lateral load as axial force. The horizontal
displacement at top of diaphragm wall for system b
1
is also less than that of system b
2
(Ref.
Table 5).
Compared to the cost of installing 3 tie rods, the cost of installation of one 750mm dia
raker piles is found to be cheaper.
System c - Diaphragm wall with vertical piles
Three different combination of vertical piles are analysed. System c1 is similar to that of
system a without anchor rod. In system a pile 2,3 and 4 takes 32, 21 and 12%
respectively of the total load while anchor takes about 28%. In system c
1
, the piles 2,3 and
4 take 44, 28 and 17% respectively of the total load. In other words, the 28% load taken
by the anchor rod is distributed to the 2
nd
, 3
rd
and 4
th
row piles as 12, 7 and 5% and the
remaining 4% is transmitted to the diaphragm wall and pile 1.
476
The system c1 is found to be inadequate since the lateral load on pile 2 is more than 85 T
for the combination of different loads. Hence, the 3
rd
and 4th row of pile diameter is
increased to 1300 & 1000 mm for system c
2
and all the 3
rd
and 4
th
row of piles are
increased to 1300 mm diameter for system c
3
. The system c
3
is finally chosen since it
distributes lateral load equally to the 2
nd
, 3
rd
and 4
th
row of piles. The typical cross section
of the final system as adopted is shown in Figure 6.23.
6.4.1.3 Detailed Analysis
A rigorous analysis of the final system (Figure 6.23) has been carried out using SAP IV
program, by idealising the soil support using springs for both the diaphragm wall and piles.
The nodes are at 1 m intervals along the depth of the diaphragm wall and piles. The
springs are also placed at 1 m intervals. The spring spacing shall be nearly equal to the
thickness of diaphragm wall or the pile diameter for effective modeling of soil support in
finite element analysis. The spring constants at each node is calculated as the reaction
offered by the soil in region 0.5 m above the node and 0.5 m below the node. The soil
profile is given in Figure 6.24. The active earth pressure is also calculated at 1 m intervals
and is applied as nodal load on the diaphragm wall. The nodal loads are given in
Figure 6.25. The bending moment diagram for active earth pressure and a bollard pull of
30 T are given in Figure 6.26 & 6.27 respectively.
Berthing Structures

Fig 6.23 Idealization for Rigorous Analysis
1100 mm THICK
DIAPHRAGM WALL
-23.0m
-13.0m
395 600 600
1000 mm
PILE-I
1300 mm
PILE-II
1300 mm
PILE-III
680
1300 mm
PILE -IV
-8.0m
ACTIVE
EARTH
PRESSURE
+1.2m
+1.2m
-3.2m
478
Fig. 6.24 Soil Profile
LEVEL IN M DESCRIPTION
Y
(T/M ) (T/M )
C
(M)
H
(SPT)
N
3 2
-0.78 YELLOW SAND 1.95 0.0 30 1.63 10
-3.78 YELLOW SAND 1.95 0.0 33 3.00 20
-4.98 BLACK CLAY 1.70 2.0 0 1.20 03
-7.78 CRAY SAND 1.95 0.0 33 2.80 20
-11.76 GREY SAND 1.95 0.0 31 4.00 15
-13.78 BLACK CLAY 1.80 4.0 0 2.00 10
-15.78 GREY SAND 1.95 0.0 36 2.00 30
-19.78 YELLOW SAND 1.95 0.0 34 4.00 25
-20.78
BROWNISH
1.95 0.0 38 1.00 40
-24.00 1.95 0.0 45 3.20 60
BROWNISH
SAND
SAND
BROWNISH
Berthing Structures
0.0
11.1
5.1
4.8
4.6
0
4.0
0
3.6
0
3.3
4.5
4.08
2.5
2.2
1.9
1.9
0.8
0 2 4 6 8 1
0
-13.0
-11.0
-9.0
-7.0
-5.0
-3.0
-1.0
+1.0
+3.0
L
E
V
E
L

I
N

M
EARTH PRESSURE (T/M
2
)
NODAL LOADS
(TONS)
NOTE:
NODAL LOADS ARE FOR 1 metre WIDE PANEL
Fig. 6.25 Active Earth Pressure and Nodal Loads
480
Fig.6.26. B.M Due to Active Earth Pressure
Fig.6.27 B.M Due to Bollard Pull of 30 Tons
PILE II PILE I
DIAPHRAGM
WALL
PILE IV PILE III
-23.0m
-21.0m
-15.0m
-13.0m
-9.0m
2
2
1 2
1
B
A
C
DIAPHRAGM
WALL
PILE I PILE II
-5.0m
-1.0m
+3.0m
1 3 E
D
-15.0m
-13.0m
-21.0m
-23.0m
PILE IV PILE III
187 200
42
42
B A
2
+3.0m
-1.0m
-9.0m
-5.0m
16
16
E
Berthing Structures
The soil reaction offered to the pile to resist lateral loads is nonlinear and hence, nonlinear
soil structure interaction of berthing structures is necessary. Either an iterative procedure
or an incremental procedure can be used to implement the nonlinear behaviour (Ranga Rao
& Sundaravadivelu (1995)) of soil structure interaction in the finite element analysis of
berthing structure.
6.4.2 Analysis of Jetty
A berthing structure with deck slab mounted on piles embedded into sea bed and which has
free passage of water underneath the deck, is known as open type of jetty. The jetty
projects outward nearly perpendicular to or at some skew angle with the shore line. The
jetty (Figure 6.28) generally consists of two berthing dolphins, four mooring dolphins, jetty
head and an approach jetty.
Fig 6.28 Layout of Jetty
20m
ETHYLENE TANKER
75m
10 m
25m 75m
8m
8m
8m
15m
1.2m WIDE WALK
WAY
8m
JETTY
HEAD
25m
1.2 m WIDE WALK
WAY
10m
8m
8m
20 m
STERN
LINE
8m
8m
LIQUID ETHYLENE
PIPELINE TO STORAGE
TANK
PILE APPROACH CUM PIPE
BRIDGE
MOORING
DOLPHIN
MOORING
DOLPHIN
SHORE
LINE
BOW
LINE
482
The increase in vessel size has necessitated construction of offshore jetty in deep water in
open sea and exposed to winds, waves and currents. Hence offshore jetty is a kind of
structure totally different from those in a harbour. The length of approach jetty varies from
1000 to 2500 m and an economical design of approach jetty can be made only after
analysing different types of pile configuration for varying water depths. The approach
jetty for a length of about 2500 m may have five to seven typical pile bents and each pile
bent have to be analysed for different environment forces and soil strata. Anchor bents
with rakar piles to take of the longitudinal seismic / pipe line surge forces shall also have to
be provided and a three dimensional analysis is necessary for such situations. In addition
the berthing and mooring dolphins have to be designed not only for operating wave
condition but also for extreme wave condition, during cyclones. Hence a computer aided
analysis and design is required for the offshore jetty.
The layout of a mooring dolphin is given in Figure 6.29. The mooring dolphin consists of
16 piles of 760 mm dia. The four corner piles are kept vertical, whereas, the three piles in
each face is kept inclined, 3 vertical to 1 horizontal. This configuration has been chosen
based on the analysis of various configurations of piles (Ranga Rao & Sundaravadivelu
(1994 A)). The mooring dolphin has 2440 mm thick deck slab. The dredge level is -14.00
m and founding level is -24.6 m. The piles are assumed to be fixed at 5D below dredge
level i.e., fixity level = 14 + (5 x 0.76) = -17.8 m.
The analysis is carried out using SAP IV idealising the piles by beam elements and the
deck using master slave option. The deck can also be idealised using brick element. In this
case master-slave option is used since it is simple and gives comparable results with the
brick element idealisation of the deck.
The analysis is carried out for the following load cases:
(i) Dead load
(ii) Live load of 1 T/m
2
(iii) 200 T bollard pull at equal to
(a) 45
(b) 30
(c) 15
(d) 0
Berthing Structures
Based on the results of the individual load cases (Table 6.6), the critical combination of the
tensile and compressive forces on each pile is worked out.
Fig.6.29 Mooring Dolphin
9
10 11 12 13
14
15
16
1 4
6
7
8
2 3 5
3
1
3
1
DREDGE LEVEL
-16.00m
B SECTION 1-1
FOUNDING LEVEL
-21.60m
2000
10000
2000
10000
10000
A LAYOUT
1000
2000
1000
2000
2000
2000
+1.00m
+3.66m
2000 2000
1000
BOLLARD
1000
484
Table 6.6 Analysis of Mooring Dolphin
Pile
No
Dead
load
Live load
(T/m
2
)
Axial forces in piles (T) due to
200 T bollard pull at Max forces
45 30 15 0 Tension Compression
1 -50 -7 0
-96
-58
-31
+99
-31
-58
-96
0
96
58
31
-99
31
58
96
26 50 71 21 -57
2 -45 -6 -101 -99 -91 - -152
3 -45 -6 -72 -80 -83 - -134
4 -45 -6 -56 -76 -91 - -142
5 -50 -7 97 87 71 49 -57
6 -45 -6 -6 20 46 - -97
7 -45 -6 -42 -22 0 - -109
8 -45 -6 -85 -68 -46 - -147
9 -50 -7 -26 -50 -71 - -128
10 -45 -6 102 99 91 57 -51
11 -45 -6 72 80 83 38 -51
12 -45 -6 56 76 92 47 -51
13 -50 -7 -87 -87 -71 - -156
14 -45 -6 6 -20 -46 - -97
15 -45 -6 42 22 0 13 -51
16 -45 -6 85 68 46 41 -51
6.4.3 Analysis of Container Berth
The typical layout of the extension of a container berth is given in Figure 6.30.
The proposed extension of 220m of the container berth is divided into 4 blocks, each of
55 m. The width of the container berth is 20 m. The span of the container crane is 30 m.
It will be uneconomical to provide 30 m width for the container berth and hence one row
of piles are provided behind the berth to support the near rail of the container crane. Two
container cranes are considered for the analysis. Each container has four legs and each
legs has 8 wheels. The center to center distance between two legs is 16.5 m and center to
center distance between two wheel is 0.8 m. The deck system consists of 0.4 m thick RCC
slab, 0.05 m thick wearing coat, eight main beams of size 0.8 x 2.45 m, twelve secondary
beams, three facia beams of size 1.0 x 2.45 m (Figure 6.31). The depth of the webs of all
the beams are inclusive of the slab thickness except for the secondary beam which is not
integral with the slab.
Berthing Structures
F
i
g
.

6
.
3
0

.

L
a
y
o
u
t

o
f

C
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
r

B
e
r
t
h
L
A
N
D

S
I
D
E
M
O
O
R
I
N
G
1
3
0
0

P
I
L
E
C
R
A
N
E

R
A
I
L
P
I
L
E

M
U
F
F
F
E
N
D
E
R
29
30
31
32
21 17 9 1
22
23
18 10
19 11
24 20 12
3
C
L
O
F

C
R
A
N
E

1
4
K
E
Y

P
L
A
N
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN mm.
33
34
35A
36
30000
21 13
26
27
22 14
23 15
5
C
L
O
F

C
R
A
N
E

2
6
7
28 20 16
8
6
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
1
8
5
0
0
6
3
8
0
8
3
8
0
6
4
0
0
1
9
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
5
5
5
0
4
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
3
8
0
1
6
5
0
0
4
9
0
0
4
5
0
0
4
0
0
0
1
6
5
0
1
0
0
0
8
3
8
0
9
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
5
5
5
0
4
9
0
0
1
8
5
0
0
6
3
8
0
1
0
3
8
0
1
0
3
8
0
5
5
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
6
5
0
0
8
3
8
0
8
3
8
0
8
3
8
0
5
5
0
0
0
1
6
5
0
486
Three berthing points are provided for each panel, one at the middle and others at 10.74 m
from each end of the panel. The mooring points are provided at 18.5 m c/c with the
extreme one at 9 m from the respective panel edge. The various levels are given below.
Top level of deck : + 4.00 m
Lowest mean water level : 0.00 m
The actual dredge level : - 13.75 m
The design dredge level : - 14.00 m
Cut-off level of piles : +1.50 m
The following loads are considered for the analysis.
a) Dead load
b) Live load = 5.5T/m
2
on deck slab
838
500
11 x 1480
152
200
200
MB2 MB1
490 165
CB
FB
SB12
SB11
SB10
SB9
SB8
SB7
SB6
SB5
SB4
SB3
SB2
SB1
Only CL of the beams are shown
FB - Fender beam - 1000x2450
CB - Crane beam - 700x1200
(Depth of the beam Exclusive
SB - Secondary Beam -400x1000
MB3
All Dimensions are in mm
of slab thickness)
MB - Main Beam -800x2450
Berthing Structures
c) Crane Loads : Crane operating = Each Wheel Load is 40 t with 20%
Impact and 10% tractive force
Crane Idle = Each Wheel Load is 33.33t
d) Berthing Force = 250 t at left or central or right berthing points
e) Mooring force (M.F) = 150 t at left, central or right mooring points
f) Seismic Force = 2% of (D.L + 50% L.L) (As per IS 1893 for Zone II)
6.4.3.1 Load Combinations
i) a + b + c+ d
ii) a + d
iii) a + e
iv) b + c + 250 T berthing force across the berth and 82 T along the berth at
any one berthing point
v) a + f
vi) a + c
vii) a + b
viii) a + b + c
The increase in the permissible stresses for load combinations (i) to (v) as per IS-4651
(Part IV) is 25 % and the same is assumed in design.
6.4.3.2 Structural Analysis
The berth is analysed as a three dimensional structure using SAP IV Program (Structural
Analysis Program - IV an inbuilt computer program). The pile is assumed to be fixed at 5
D below the dredge level. Based on the results of the analysis, the piles are divided into
four major groups and the axial forces and bending moments for two critical combinations
are given in Table 6.7. Since 25% overstress is allowed for these combinations, the forces
are reduced by 25% and the piles are designed.
6.4.3.3 Structural Design of Piles
Piles in Group I (23-26) are provided with 2.25% steel, Piles in Group 2 (11-14, 31-34) are
provided with 0.8 % steel, Piles in Group 3 (2-7, 10, 15, 18, 19, 22, 29, 30, 35, 36) are
provided with 3.0% steel and Piles in Group 4 (1,8, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21, 28) are provided with
2 % steel. Figure 6.32 and Table 6.8 gives the reinforcement details. Structural design of
piles is done using the design charts for the circular piles given by Manohar, S.N. (1964).
488
F
i
g

6
.
3
2

P
i
l
e

r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

d
e
t
a
i
l
s
Berthing Structures
Table 6.7 Design Forces in Piles
Pile
Group No Pile Numbers
Critical Load Combinations
1 2
Axial
Load (T)
Bending
Moment (T-m)
Axial Load
(T)
Bending Moment
(T-m)
I 23, 24, 25,26 533 144 160 150
II 11, 12, 13, 14
31, 32, 33, 34
478 105 143 90
III 2 to 7, 10, 14,
10, 15, 18, 19
22, 27, 29 30,
35, 36
375 158 59 156
IV 1, 8, 9, 16, 17
20, 21, 28
197 155 112 143
Table 6.8 Reinforcement Details
Pile Group
No.
Percentage
of Steel (p)
Area of Steel
(m
2
)
No. Of 32 mm bars in Lateral ties
Zone m Zone n
I 2.25 0.0299 38 26
Provide Y10-300
throughout the
length of pile
II 0.80 0.0107 14 14 -Do-
III 3.00 0.0399 51 34 -Do-
IV 2.00 0.0266 34 24 -Do-
490
6.4.3.4 Foundation Design of Piles
The piles are designed based on the soil profile. The soil profile indicates silty sand from
14.0 m to 22.0 m ( SPT N =30), cemented sand from -22.0m to -25.0m (SPT N = 50)
and rock (SPT N >100) for depth below 25.0m. However rock level varies at certain
locations. Though 1300mm dia piles founded at -23 m level are found adequate as a good
engineering practice, founding depth is adopted with penetration times diameter of pile
in hard rock or 3 times diameter of pile in cemented sand strata whichever is earlier. The
pile capacities are worked out based on SPT N values and using Meyerhofs correlations
as given below.
Ultimate end bearing resistance in sand = 12 [ SPT N] T/m
2
Ultimate skin friction in sand = [ SPT N] /10 T/m
2
The capacity in rock is worked out as per Cole & Stroud as given below.
q
a
= N
c
C
b
/F
f
a
= C
s
where
q
a
= allowable end bearing pressure
N
c
= bearing capacity factor taken as 9.0
C
b
= shear strength of the rock at pile base
F = factor of safety taken as 3.0
f
a
= allowable frictional resistance
C
s
= average shear strength of rock along rock socket and
= shaft adhesion factor taken as 0.3.
For silty sand [ SPT N = 30]
Ultimate end bearing = 12 x 30 = 360 T/m
2
Allowable end bearing = 144 T/m
2
(ultimate end bearing /2.5)
Ultimate skin friction = 30/10 = 3 T/m
2
Allowable skin friction = 3/2.5 = 1.2 T/m
2
Berthing Structures
For cemented sand [ SPT N = 50]
Ultimate end bearing = 12 x 50 = 600 T/m
2
Allowable end bearing = 600/2.5 = 240 T/m
2
Ultimate skin friction = 50/10 = 5 T/m
2
Allowable skin friction = 5/2.5 = 2 T/m
2
For Rock
For N > 100, taking the shear strength of rock from chart given by Cole & Stroud as
90 T/m
2
Allowable friction resistance = 0.3 x 90 = 27 T/m
2
Allowable end bearing = 9 x 90/3 = 270 T/m
2
Pile Group I
Total load = 427 T
End bearing in rock = 270
4
3 . 1
2
= 358.37 = 358 T
Total skin friction from silty sand and cemented sand layers
1.3 (1.2 x 8 + 2 x 3) = 63.71 = 64 T
Required skin friction capacity from rock
427 - (358 + 64) = 5 T
A penetration of 1 m into the rock is recommended.
Hence, the founding depth of piles in Group I shall be -27.0 or 1 m penetration into hard
rock which ever is earlier.
Pile Group II
Total load = 383 T
End bearing from cemented sand layer = T 55 . 318 240 3 . 1
4
2

Skin friction from cemented sand layer & silty sand layer = 63.71 T
492
Total load = 318.55 + 63.71 = 382.26 T = 383 T
Give a penetration of 1 m into the rock. Hence, the founding level of piles in Group II
shall be - 26.0 m or 1 m penetration into rock, whichever is earlier.
Pile Group III
Total load = 300 T
Hence, the total load required is less than the end bearing capacity of cemented sand layer.
But from the minimum embedment depth criterion, an embedment depth of 5 times the
diameter of the pile should be provided. 5 x 1.3 = 6.5 m. But, this falls in the silty sand
layer.
Hence, give a penetration of 1 m in the cemented sand layer.
Hence the founding depth for the piles in Group III shall be - 23.0. Similarly the founding
depth of piles in Group IV shall also be -23.0 m.
As the spacing between the groups of piles (23,24,25,26) & (31,32,33,34) is only 4.9 m,
the foundling level for both these groups is kept as 1 m penetration to the rock or -27.0 m
whichever is earlier.
For the same reason as stated above for the two groups of piles (11,12,13,14) & (3,4,5,6)
the founding level is kept as 1 m penetration into the rock or -26 m, whichever is earlier.
For the rest of the piles the founding level is -23.0 m.
6.5 DESIGN OF BERTHING STRUCTURES
Once the analysis of any structural system is completed, the next step would be the design
of various elements in the structural system. Generally, the design process is iterative as
the design variables chosen may not satisfy the allowable stress/strain parameters. This
process should be repeated until a satisfactory solution is obtained. The design shall be
carried out as per the guidelines specified in IS 456-1978. As per IS 4651 (Part IV) - 1989
the minimum grade of concrete to be used in berthing structures is specified as M 30. The
minimum cement content of 0.4 T/m
3
and maximum water cement ratio of 0.45 shall be
maintained for all grades of concrete. The minimum thickness of cover for structures
Berthing Structures
immersed in sea water, in splash zone or exposed to marine atmosphere should be 25 mm
more than the cover specified in 4.1 IS 456 (1978)
Hence the cover shall be as follows
Slab = 15+25 = 40 mm
Beam =25+25 = 50 mm
Pile = 40 + 25 + = 65 mm
However the cover shall not be greater than 75 mm.
There are two methods of design namely, Working Stress method and the Limit State
method. In the working stress method the design is based on the linear stress strain
relationship within the elastic limit. The structure shall be designed for the working loads
and checked for the permissible stresses. The permissible stresses are the stresses obtained
after applying a factor of safety to the yield strength of the materials.
In the limit state method the design is based on Limit State concept. The structure shall be
designed to withstand safely all the loads liable to act on it throughout its life. It shall also
satisfy the serviceability requirements such as limitations on deflection and cracking. The
acceptable limit for the safety and serviceability requirements before failure occurs is
called a Limit State. The diaphragm wall and pile are the two important structural
elements of a berthing structure and the detailed design method for the diaphragm wall and
pile is given in this section.
6.5.1 Design of Diaphragm Wall
The diaphragm wall is to be designed using the design philosophy given in the following
section. Requirements of reinforcement are given in Section 6.5.1.2.
6.5.1.1 Design Philosophy
The basic assumption is that the maximum strain in concrete at the outermost compression
is 0.0035, when the neutral axis lies within the section. The strain varies from 0.0035 at
highly compressed edge to zero at the opposite edge when the neutral axis lies along one
edge of the section. For purely axial compression, the strain is assumed to be uniformly
equal to 0.002 across the section. The strain distribution lines for these two cases intersect
each other at a depth of (3/7) D from the highly compressed edge. This point is assumed to
494
act as a fulcrum for the strain distribution line when the neutral axis lies outside the section
as shown in Figure 6.33.
Fig 6.33 Strain Diagrams
Neutral Axis Lying Outside Section:
When the neutral axis lies outside the section, the shape of the stress block will be as
indicated in Figure 6.34. The stress is uniform for a distance of (3/7)D from highly
compressed edge because the strain is more than 0.002 and thereafter the stress diagram is
parabolic. Let x
u
= kD and let g be the difference between the stress at the highly
compressed edge and the stress at the least compressed edge. Considering the geometrical
properties of a parabola,
0.0035
NEUTRAL AXIS
WITHIN THE SECTION
0.0035
0.002
a
X
x
b
d'
CENTRODAL AXIS
d'
yi
HIGHLY COMPRESSED
EDGE
Berthing Structures
Fig. 6.34 Stress Block when the Neutral Axis lies Outside Section
2
ck
3 k 7
4
f 446 . 0 g
1
]
1
(6.21)
Area of the stress block
=
1
1
]
1
1
]
1
2
ck
3 k 7
4
21
4
1 D f 446 . 0 (6.22)
The centroid of the stress block will be found by taking moments about the highly
compressed edge.
STRAIN DIAGRAM
b
D
STRESS DIAGRAM
496
Moment about the highly compressed edge
=
2
2
ck
gD
49
8
2
D
f 446 . 0 (6.23)
The position of the centroid is obtained by dividing the moment by area.
While designing the diaphragm wall, the neutral axis at regular intervals is assumed. For
each position of neutral axis, the strain distribution across the section and the stress block
parameters are determined as explained earlier. The stresses in the reinforcement are also
calculated from the strains. Thereafter the resultant axial force and the moment about the
centroid of the section are calculated as follows:
) f f (
100
pibD
D b f C P
ci si
n
1 i
ck 1 u
+
(6.24)
where
C
1
= Coefficient for the area of stress block
P
i
= (A
si
/bD) where A
si
is the area of reinforcement in the i
th
row
fsi = Stress in the ith row of reinforcement, compression being positive and
tension being negative
fci = Stress in concrete at the level of i
th
row of reinforcement
n = Number of rows of reinforcement
Taking moment of forces about the centroid of the section,
yi ) f f (
100
pibD
D C
2
D
D b f C M
ci si
n
1 i
2 ck 1 u
+
1
]
1
(6.25)
where
C
2
D = the distance of the centroid of the concrete stress block, measured from the
highly compressed edge
y
i
= the distance from the centroid of the section to the i
th
row of the reinforcement,
positive towards the highly compressed edge and negative towards the least
compressed edge.
Berthing Structures
Neutral Axis Lies Within Section:
In this case, the stress block parameters are simpler and they can be directly incorporated
into the expressions which are otherwise same as for the earlier case. Thus the following
expressions are obtained
) f f (
100
pibD
D k b f 36 . 0 P
ci si
n
1 i
ck
+
(6.26)
yi ) f f (
100
pibD
) k 416 . 0 5 . 0 ( kD b f 36 . 0 M
ci si
n
1 i
2
ck
+
(6.27)
6.5.1.2 Requirements of Reinforcement
The minimum reinforcement of 0.4% and the maximum reinforcement of 4% are
incorporated for the design of diaphragm wall.
The shear reinforcement shall be provided to carry a shear equal to Vs = V-
c
.bd. The
spacing of the vertical stirrups, s
v
is given by
S
sv y
v
V
d A f 87 . 0
S (6.28)
where
V = Shear force due to design loads
V
s
= Strength of shear reinforcement
A
sv
= Total cross sectional area of stirrup legs
s
v
= Spacing of the stirrups along the length of the member
c
= Design shear strength of the concrete
f
y
= Characteristic strength of the stirrup, which shall not be greater than 415 N/mm
2
6.5.2 Design of Pile
Circular piles are widely used as foundations for coastal and offshore structures like berths,
jetties, dolphins etc. Circular piles are preferred in these structures because they can be
easily installed with a liner. As these sections have uniform c/s about any diametrical axis,
498
these sections are best suited to resist multi-directional wave loads (Srinivas &
Sundaravadivelu (1987)). Piles are designed by working stress method to limit crack
width.
6.5.2.1 Design Philosophy
The design of compression members can be carried out in two distinct stages.
1. Design based on uncracked section, i.e. there is no tension anywhere in the section
or the resultant tensile stress is less than the permissible tensile stress of concrete.
2. Design based on cracked section, i.e. the resultant tensile stress is more than the
permissible tensile stress in concrete.
Design of Uncracked Sections:
In general, for an assumed percentage of reinforcement and neutral axis depth the stresses
under given loading are checked against permissible stresses. The various steps involved
in the design are as follows:
1. Check by interaction formula : The interaction formula as given below has to be
satisfied.
1
f f
cbc
cbc
cc
cc

(6.29)
f
cc
= Calculated direct compressive stress in concrete
cc
= Permissible axial compressible stress in concrete
f
cbc
= Calculated bending compressive stress in concrete
cbc
= Permissible bending compressive stress in concrete
For more exact calculations, the maximum permissible stress in a reinforced column or
part there of having a ratio of effective column length to least radius of gyration above 40
shall not exceed those which result from multiplication of the appropriate maximum
permissible stresses by the reduction coefficient, C
r
given by the following formula
C
r
= 1.25 - (l
ef
)/(160 )i
min
(6.30)
i
min
= Least radius of gyration
Berthing Structures
l
ef
= Effective length of column (pile)
If the assumed section satisfies interaction formula, then it has to be checked for cracking.
2. Check for cracking : If f
cc
is greater than f
cbc
, there is no tension in the concrete and
hence the section is considered as uncracked. Even if f
cc
is less than f
cbc
, the section is
considered to be uncracked if the resultant stress given by ft = f
cbc
-f
cc
is less than (i) 0.75
times the modulus of rupture of given grade of concrete at seven days; (ii) 0.25 times the
maximum resultant compressive stress given by (f
cc
+ f
cbc
). If f
t
is greater than either (i) or
(ii), then the section is considered to be cracked.
Design of Cracked Section:
In case of cracked section design, the tensile stress of concrete is ignored. The design of
cracked section is carried out using two equilibrium equations.
P = C
c
+ C
s
- T (Force equilibrium) (6.31)
M = C
c
X
c
+ C
s
X
sc
+ TX
st
(Moment equilibrium) (6.32)
Where
C
c
= Compression in concrete segment.
=
1
1
]
1
4
2 sin cos
2
cos
3
sin
) cos 1 (
R f 2
3 2
cbc
(6.33)
C
s
= Compression in steel reinforcement.
=
) cos 1 ( 100
p R f
2
cbc

(1.5 m - 1) (1-d/R) (sin - ) (6.34)
T = Tension in steel reinforcement.
=
) cos 1 ( 100
mp R f
2
cbc

(1-d/R) (sin + ( - ) cos ) (6.35)
C
c
X
c
= Moment of compression in concrete about the center line.
500
=
1
1
]
1
32
4 sin
3
sin cos
8 ) cos 1 (
R f 2
3 3
cbc
(6.36)
C
s
X
sc
= Moment of compression of steel about the center line.
=
1
]
1

4
2 sin
2
) R / ' d 1 ( ) 1 m 5 . 1 (
) cos 1 ( 100
p R f
2
3
cbc
(6.37)
TX
st
= Moment of tension in steel about the center line.
=
1
]
1
4
2 sin
2
) R / ' d 1 (
) cos 1 ( 100
mp R f
2
3
cbc
(6.38)
Equations (6.11) and (6.12) have to be solved for f
cbc
and either or . Usually trial and
error method is used to solve these equations. Once these two equations are solved the
stress in steel can be determined by using the following equations.
n
) ' d n R 2 ( mf
f
cbc
st

(6.39)
where
n = depth of neutral axis
= R (1 - cos ) (6.40)
= (R - r cos) (6.41)
Knowing the stress in steel, cover to the reinforcement and modulus of elasticity of
concrete, crack width can be calculated using appropriate crack width formula.
6.5.2.2 Requirements of Reinforcement
The reinforcement shall not be less than 0.4% as per IS 2911 (part I)-1979. In general
maximum reinforcement of 4% is considered in the design due to the difficulty in placing
more than 4% reinforcement. The diameter of the reinforcement bar shall not be less than
12 mm.
The diameter of the lateral ties shall be not less than one-fourth of the diameter of the
largest longitudinal bar, and in no case less than 5 mm. The spacing of the transverse
reinforcement shall not be more than the least of the following distances:
Berthing Structures
i) The least lateral dimension of the compression member
ii) Sixteen times the smallest diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement bar to be tied
iii) Forty-eight times the diameter of the transverse reinforcement
6.5.3 Calculation of Crack Width
Concrete is weak in tension and cracks when the tensile strain is of the order of
0.0002 to 0.0005. With the advent of high tensile steel, the strain in the concrete
surrounding such reinforcement will be of the order of 0.001 even under service loads. In
fact, the reinforcement becomes effective only when the surrounding concrete cracks.
However, large scale cracking is not acceptable because of its ugliness and the resultant
ingress of moisture and eventual corrosion.
A dense concrete with adequate cover to the reinforcement can protect it during the entire
useful life of the structural component. But cracking permits the ingress of carbon dioxide,
chlorides, etc. thus initiating corrosion. Direct and indirect financial losses due to
corrosion runs to several millions of rupees in India and hence the limit state of clacking is
included as one of the important design limit states. Concrete cracks even when there is no
external load applied on a structure, mainly due to shrinkage and temperature effects.
Tension members of reinforced concrete have cracks penetrating right through the cross
section and steel reinforcement is the only connecting link between the various parts. Such
cracks are called as separation cracks. On the other hand, the reinforced concrete member
subjected to pure flexure has cracks in the tensile zone only and they penetrate the cross
section of the member up to the neutral axis. These flexural cracks are of primary concern
to the designers.
For purposes of crack control, it is essential to define the admissible crack width. As per
IS 4651 (Part IV)- 1989 the crack width should be less than 0.004 times the cover
provided. Many research organizations and codes like CEB/FIP, ACI Code, Russian
Code, DIN Code, British Code, IRC Code etc., have recommended various formulae for
the calculation of crack width. Many of these formulae are arrived at conducting
experiments on rectangular beams subjected to bending moment only. Consequently the
expressions derived have included the width of the section as a parameter. Only IRC
formula appears to be applicable for circular piles because it involves only stress in steel
and effective cover concrete.
502
The formulae given by CEB/FIP, IRC and SP24 are given below.
6.5.3.1 CEB/FIP Formula
CEB/FIP recommends the following formula to calculate the crack width (C
w
),
C
w
= (1.5 C + 16/P
f
) (
s
- 3000/P
f
) x 10
-6
(6.42)
Where
C = Effective cover
= Diameter of the reinforcing bar
s
= Stress in tensile steel
P
f
= (100 A
st
)/(0.25 bh)
A
st
= Area of tensile steel
b = Breadth of the section
h = Depth of the section
6.5.3.2 I RC Formula
The IRC formula is given for bridge like structures to calculate the crack width. As
berthing structures are also subjected to truck loads such as class AA etc., the formula
given by IRC has been used to calculate the crack width. The formula given by IRC to
calculate crack width, C
w
is as follows:
C
w
= (3.3 f
st
dc)/(m E
c
) (6.43)
where
f
st
= Stress in steel
dc = Effective cover
m = Modular ratio
E
c
= Modulus of elasticity of concrete
Berthing Structures
6.5.3.3 IS code (SP 24) Formula
As per SP 24, the crack width, C
w
is calculated as follows:
C
a
a C
D x
w
cr m
cr
3
1
2

( )
min
(6.44)
where
a
cr
= Distance from the point considered to the surface of the nearest
longitudinal bar
C
min
= Minimum cover to the longitudinal bar
m
= Average strain at the level considered
D = Overall depth of the member
x = Depth of neutral axis
The average strain at the level at which cracking is being considering is given by
3
s st
t
1 m
10 x
f ) x d ( A
) x ' a ( D b 7 . 0

(6.45)
Where
1
= The strain at the level considered ignoring the concrete in the tension zone
b
t
= The width of the section at the centroid of the tension steel
a = The distance from the compression face to the point of the crack
A
st
= The area of tension steel
f
s
= Service stress in tension reinforcement which may be taken as
=
provided A
required A
f 58 . 0
st
st
y
(6.46)
The above formulae can be used provided the strain in tension reinforcement does not
exceed 0.8 f
y
/E
s
. The negative value of
m
indicates that the section is uncracked. In
assessing the strains, the modulus of elasticity of concrete shall be taken as 280/3
cbc
as
given in elastic theory to account for creep.
504
6.5.4 Computer Aided Design
Since the design of berthing structures involves analysis of various configurations
considering nonlinear behaviour of soil, and, codal provisions for crack width calculations,
computer aided design of berthing structures has become necessary (Ranga Rao &
Sundaravadivelu (1994).
6.6 MARINE FENDERING SYSTEMS
6.6.1 General
The purpose of the marine fendering system is to prevent damage to both the vessel and
berth, during the berthing process and while the vessel is moored. As the vessel approaches
a berth it possess kinetic energy by virtue of its displacement and motion. As the vessel
contacts the berth and is brought to stop this kinetic energy must be dissipated. Fendering
systems that is being berthed are provided to absorb or dissipate the kinetic energy of the
ship.
6.6.2 Types of Fendering Systems
The different types of fendering systems are as follows:
1. Standard pile fenders
2. Rubber fenders
3. Pneumatic fenders
4. Gravity type fenders
6.6.2.1 Standard Pile Fenders
This system is generally used for low energy absorption. The piles made of timber, steel.
RCC and PSC are driven in front of the berthing structure to absorb the energy from the
ship by direct compression and flexure. The energy capacity depends on the size, shape
and length of the pile. Wooden piles does not have long life while the RCC piles have low
energy absorption. Steel piles and PSC piles with rubber buffers are used for larger depths.
Berthing Structures
6.6.2.2 Rubber Fenders
The few types of rubber fenders are shear, compression and buckling. The shear and
compression fenders, have a linear P - relation, i.e. for energies smaller than the rated
energy, the fender will be relatively soft. The buckling fenders, have swift increase in
loads in the initial stages, but as the fenders are further deflected the loads are more or less
maintained until the rated deflection is reached. A low ratio of load over energy (P/E) is
reached for buckling fenders.
6.6.2.3 Pneumatic Fenders
Pneumatic fenders are originally developed for ship to ship transfer but now-a-days are
used for jetties and berths also because of its good performance. The pneumatic fender is
an inflated rubber bag and dimensions vary from 0.5m to 4.5 m in dia and 1m to 12 m in
length. The fender bag is protected by wire or chain net with tyres or rubber sleeves. The
energy absorption does not decline at inclined compression for these fenders.
6.6.2.4 Gravity Type Fenders
These are generally made of concrete blocks suspended from a heavily constructed wharf
work. the Impact energy is absorbed by moving and lifting the heavy concrete block.
6.6.3 Selection Criteria of Fendering Systems
The selection of a optimum fender for a given service depends on the following factors :
1. The type, size, draft and allowable hull pressure of a vessel.
2. Berthing velocity and angle.
3. Distance between the berthing point and the vessels gravity centre measured along the
face of the pier.
4. Water level, tidal range, wind velocity, direction of wind, direction and velocity of
currents.
5. Behaviour and installation pitches of Dock fender
6. Structure and strength of Berthing facilities
7. Certain human factors involved in berthing.
506
6.6.4 Berthing Energy of a Vessel
The design of fenders depends very much on the energy to be absorbed by the fenders
during berthing. When a ship strikes the fender, it transfers some part of the kinetic energy
to the fender and the other part gets dissipated to the motion of ship in water. Some part of
the energy absorbed by the fender is transferred back to the ship, after the ship has come to
rest, by the fender trying to recoil back to its normal shape. This process of exchange of
energies between fender, ship and the loss of energy in water motion continues till the
whole of the kinetic energy of ship is dissipated in water motion. The different methods
that are used in determining the maximum amount of energy to be absorbed by the fender
is given below :
6.6.4.1 Quinn Method
In this method fifty percent of the energy of the ship calculated on the basis of the velocity
of the ship normal to berthing structure is assumed as the energy absorbed by the fender.
4
V
G
W
E
2
,
_
(6.47)
6.6.4.2 Woodruff Method
In this method the following empirical equation is used to calculate the berthing energy.
E = W(0.004 - W x 10
-8
(6.48)
Where W is in tons and E is in ton feet.
6.6.4.3 Vasco Costa Method
Vasco Costa has given the following analytical solution, for a ship moving with translatory
velocity u and angular velocity w, having no slip along the berth.
E = (WV
2
/2g) (1 + 2D/B) (K
2
+ r
2
Cos
2
r / K
2
+ r
2
) (6.49)
Where v Distance P= u + aw
The value of k can be taken as 0.2 L to 0.29 L. The following three coefficients are to be
considered along with equation.
Berthing Structures
1. Geometric coefficient (C
g
) 0.85 for convex surface contact of the
ship 1.00 for broad side berthing
1.25 for concave surface contact of
the ship.
2. Deformation coefficient (C
d
) 0.5 for resilient fender and 1.0 for
stiff fender
3. Berth configuration Coefficient (C
c
) 0.8 for closed warf and 0.9 for closed
berth and 1.0 for open type berth
6.6.4.4 I S: 4651 (Part I I I ) - 1974
As per the Indian standard code of practice, the berthing energy is calculated as follows
m e m
D
C x C x C
g 2
V x W
E
2
(6.50)
where
W
D
= Displacement tonnage (DT) of the vessel, in tonnes,
V = Velocity of vessel in m/s, normal to the berth
g = Acceleration due to gravity in m/s
2
C
m
= Mass coefficient
C
e
= Eccentricity coefficient and
C
s
= Softness coefficient.
The approach velocity varies from 0.1 m/s to 0.75 m/s depending on the size of the vessel,
site condition and berthing condition. The above equation depends on the angle of
approach and l/r ratio where l is the distance from the centre of gravity of the vessel to the
point of contact projected along the water line of the berth in metre and r is the radius of
gyration of rotational radius on the plane of the vessel from its centre of gravity in metre.
The l/r ratio is in the range of 1 to 1.25. The angle of approach varies from
0 to 20 degrees. The softness coefficient indicates the relation between the rigidity of the
vessel and that of the fender. The value of 0.9 is generally used for this factor.
508
6.6.5 Fender Reaction
The fender reaction depends on the approximate energy to be absorbed and the
characteristics of the fender. If the fender reactions are transmitted to the backfill
immediately behind the quay wall there will be no problem in absorbing the reaction. If
the structure, like open piers and jetties are to be designed for these reaction forces, the
forces are critical since they control the design of these structures. If P/E ratio varies from
2 to 7 depending on the type of fender where P is the berthing force in T and E is the
energy absorption at 50 % of defletion in T. m, in such cases it is preferable to have
fenders with low reaction per absorbed unity of energy (P/E). It is also important to
consider the fender performance beyond the rated energy capacity, since the fender
reaction increases swiftly.
6.7 SINGLE BUOY MOORING SYSTEM
6.7.1 General
The art of implanting floating structures in the ocean is as old as mans history. Marker
buoys, mooring buoys and navigational buoys have long been familiar sights in the
harbours and waterways and along the sea shores. The recent past has seen many large and
sophisticated buoy mooring systems deployed in deep waters for a variety of purposes.
A buoy mooring system consists of a buoy or buoys, connected by cables and anchored to
the seabed. Being a compliant structure, the system is responsive to external effects and the
movements are controlled by the mooring system. Buoy mooring systems are flexible and
provide a progressive elastic response to environmental forces absorbing and dissipating
energy from the ocean environment. To understand the effect of these constrained or freely
drifting buoyant structures often require advanced Engineering knowledge from many
disciplines are often required.
A buoy can be considered as a major positively buoyant component in the system. Buoys
may be classified, based on their position into three general groups, as (i) surface buoy
system where the buoy floats on the surface (ii) subsurface buoy system where the buoy is
below the sea surface and (iii) two part buoy system where it is a combination of the above
two systems.
Surface buoys can be surface following type with shapes such as spherical, cylindrical,
disks etc. or surface decoupled such as spars. Surface following buoys have the advantage
of having a large buoyancy to drag ratio whereas the spar buoys have small buoyancy to
Berthing Structures
drag ratio and they are not effective in providing the buoyancy required to support long
mooring lines.
Surface buoys are used at the air sea interface in the upper part of the water column. These
are further classified as single leg surface buoy systems and multi-leg surface buoy
systems. In the single leg surface buoy system, there is only one anchoring point.
The ratio of mooring cable length to water depth is called the scope of the mooring line. A
small scope indicates a taut moor and a large scope indicates a slack moor. The advantages
of a taut moor are smaller buoy-watch-circle, reduced sensor motion and ease of
deployment. The disadvantages of the taut mooring system are high dynamic loading due
to wave action and high static tension under severe current conditions. These are reduced
when the scope of the mooring line is increased. The motion of the float and of the sensors
a slack moored system will become considerable, thus introducing an undesirable error in
the measurements of velocity fields and other ocean variables.
Subsurface buoy systems are also classified as single leg and multi-leg subsurface buoy
systems. The great majority of oceanographic subsurface buoy systems have a single
anchoring point. Cost efficiency and ease of deployment result from their simple
configuration. As the buoy would be much below water surface, the wave force and the
motion of the buoy due to waves would be less.
Two part buoy systems are used when the need arises to provide motion stability for
underwater sensors and at the same time to provide a surface expression for telemetry of
data or for relocation of the main buoy system. The motion stability is provided by using a
subsurface supported buoy system.
A typical deep water buoy system may involve multiple lines with lengths varying from a
few tens of metres to thousands of metres. When these are considered in conjunction with
the equipment deployed from or associated with the moored buoys, the losses resulting
from a mooring failure can be significant. Consequently there is much interest in design
and analysis methods applicable to the buoy mooring systems.
In general, based on the use of the buoy mooring system it can be grouped as (i) buoys
used for monitoring or measuring the parameters of importance to oceanographers and
naval scientists and (ii) buoys used for engineering purposes such as mooring oil tankers.
510
6.7.2 Oceanographic Buoy Systems
An oceanographic buoy system can be defined as a floating structure deployed in the ocean
for the purpose of measuring environmental data (Berteaux, 1976). Because of their
inherent capacity of efficiently providing long term series measurements of meteorological
and oceanographic parameters, a relatively large number of buoy systems are deployed
each year in worlds oceans.
Buoy systems are used in the ocean environment for monitoring weather, oceanographic
and defence related data acquisition, and also as vehicles for electronic navigational
systems. An array of hydrophones used in conjunction with a subsurface moored buoy and
a telemetry system can be used as a passive sonar to detect and transmit sounds in the sea
either due to surface or subsurface ships. Standard navigation systems can be installed
aboard floats, provided with power and moored offshore to extend the range of precision
navigation. In the Ocean Acoustic Tomographic System (OATS), the use of buoy cable
system would help to get very valuable oceanographic and scientific data.
6.7.3 Offshore Floating Storage Systems
Since many large oil fields are in remote places where harbours are non-existent, a need is
felt to have artificial berths to moor the tankers during their loading operation. Many
configurations of offshore tanker terminals are attempted. The single point mooring system
(SPM) has emerged as the most rapidly deployed, economical and safest to operate. SPM
enables economic transport of crude oil where use of pipelines is not technically or
economically feasible because of rough seabed, topography or long distances from shore.
Single point mooring terminals are, as the name implies, facilities of small horizontal
dimensions, to which large vessels are moored by means of a bow hawser or by any other
means which allows the vessel to rotate 360 around the mooring point. Generally, single
point mooring terminal can have two functions. Primarily, it affords a safe mooring to the
vessels. Secondly, it can form a link in the transport of oil.
The single point mooring terminal can assume many forms. Of the more than 300 SPMs
now in use around the world (Maari, 1985) approximately 80 percent are of the type -
single buoy catenary anchor leg mooring (CALM). CALMs have been employed as
loading terminals since 1961. The CALM (Figure 6.35) basically consists of a cylindrical
buoy type float anchored to the seabed by a number of radial catenary chain legs (up to
eight chains) while the vessel is moored to the buoy by one or more elastic synthetic
(usually nylon) lines. This system employs the properties of the catenary to supply the
Berthing Structures
F
i
g
.

6
.
3
6

C
a
t
e
n
a
r
y

A
n
c
h
o
r

L
e
g

M
o
o
r
i
n
g

(
C
A
L
M
)

T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
512
elasticity required when holding large tankers in open seas. The buoy is cylindrical and can
have an outside diameter between six and twenty metres and a height between four and
eight metres.
Single buoy, multi-leg mooring systems are the most commonly used offshore loading
facility which has grown in significance in the recent years through the use of single point
mooring systems for the exploitation of marginal fields and in the development of
moorings for deep water production facilities. One of the principle tasks of the designer of
catenary moorings is to ensure that the system characteristics are such that the movement
of the floating unit under extreme environmental conditions remains within acceptable
limits. Scrutiny of the calculation of catenaries show that chains with their high weight per
unit length often have high energy absorption capacity. Whilst chain has this very desirable
property of being a good energy absorbing catenary, it unfortunately suffers from that well
known failing character, being only as strong as its weakest link. This constitutes the
second major design criteria i.e., the tensile loads under extreme wave conditions should
be less than the proof loads.
The typical examples of different types of offshore loading systems are given below:
(a) Rotating manifold CALM system installed at Buchan, United Kingdom (Figure 6.36a )
(b) Soft yoke CALM system installed at Palanca, Angola (Figure 6.36b.)
(c) Rigid yoke CALM system installed at Cadlao, Philippines (Figure 6.36c)
Water depth can vary to a practical maximum of about 130 metres. Normal operating sea
states with the tanker moored are the significant wave heights in the range of about four
metres. High waves at a CALM terminal can generate prohibitive forces in the anchoring
chains. This is especially the case where the ratio of maximum wave height to water depth
is very high. CALMs have been installed in hostile areas such as North Sea with a
maximum survival wave height up to 28 metres (Montrose Field) and the Enchora Field in
Brazil with a maximum wave of 21 metres. Current velocity can be a limiting factor for the
submarine hose system but CALM terminals have been installed and are operating
successfully in currents of up to 2 m/s (four knots). Wind is not a significant factor because
it only affects the SPM indirectly through forces applied on the tanker. Normal operating
(with ship moored to the CALM) wind velocities are about 40 knots and design wind
speeds are up to 70 knots.
Berthing Structures
(a) Rotating manifold type CALM system
(b) Soft yoke calm System
(c) Rigid yoke calm systems
Fig 6.36 CALM Systems
514
Continuous motion of the buoy due to wave action results in wear and tear of the chains.
The static tension in the chain is of the order of 50 to 100 kN. The static tension is a
function of surface angle the chain makes with the buoy, submerged unit weight of the
chain and water depth. Increasing the static tension reduces the movements of the buoy and
consequently the wear of the chains but model tests have indicated that at this level of
static tension (50 to 100 kN) the mooring forces are kept to a minimum. For rough sea
condition, however, survival of the CALM terminal may be of greater importance than the
effect of keeping mooring forces to a minimum. In such cases, an optimum must be
determined between static tension, centre of gravity of buoy and wave spectra to minimise
linear and rotational movements of the buoy and consequently minimise possible damage
to the oil cargo hose.
6.7.4 Importance in Indian Context
Indias coastline extends over 6000 km, which is the seventh largest coastline in the world.
It has an exclusive economic zone of 2.02 million sq. kms, which is also the seventh
largest in the world. The prevailing environmental conditions viz., wave and wind climate,
currents, air and sea surface temperature, salinity etc., at a specific location and their yearly
variations are the most important inputs in the planning, design, construction and operation
of offshore structures, coastal defence works, ports, ship routing and several other applied
ocean research activities. Such data would also be vital for development of predictive
models for forecasting of wave and wind climate of the ocean, ocean circulation, monsoon
prediction, ship routing etc. Moored ocean buoys are considered the most appropriate
system for measuring such data.
India has launched a comprehensive programme for exploration of crude oil from offshore
resources. Offshore activity is getting extended from west coast to east coast (Krishna,
Godavari and Cauvery basins) where production wells have to be located at about 25 km
from the shore. Offshore loading systems are particularly attractive and economical for
small offshore oil fields. As the offshore marine environment imposes severe demands
upon men, machinery and money, the research and development of buoy mooring systems
is an immediate necessity for the country.
6.7.5 Movement of Moored Tankers at Berth
Transportation of crude oil or refined products is the most important maritime traffic in
thw world. Crude oil is transported in generally high capacity tankers. The movements of
tankers at berth are an important design consideration for berthing structures. Model
studies are used to predict the motion of ship and the forces on the mooring line for ships
Berthing Structures
berthed at an offshore jetty. (Sundaravadivelu & Natarajan (1996 a & 1996 b) The details
of tankers, the types of mooring lines and the permissible movements of tankers are given
below:
6.7.5.1 Details of Tankers
The refined products are usually transported in smaller tankers less than 100,000 DWT.
The main dimensions of tankers corresponding to the dead weight capacity and the
distribution of the tankers as on 1991 is given in Appendix 6.1 (PIANC working group
24 Feb 1991).
6.7.5.2 Mooring Outfit
The mooring lines are handled by capstans, which are used to pull the lines and to tighten
the lines when the ship is moored. The different types of mooring line are
a) Steel wire
b) Polypropylene or nylon
c) Mixed rope i.e. a steel wire line connected to a short nylon lines(10 to 15m long)
The number, size and length of the mooring lines depend on the size of the ships.
The mooring equipment on board is also given in Appendix 6.1.
6.7.5.3 Ship Motions
From the available data given in the literature, it is difficult to select precise figures on
what could be the allowable movements of the ship. The values given below recommended
by PIANC (1971) is a good basis for safe mooring conditions.
Surge : t 1.00 m Rolling : t 2.5 deg
Sway : t 0.75 m Pitching : t 1 deg
Heave: t 0.5 m Yawing : t 1.5 deg
6.8 MONITORING OF INTEGRITY OF BERTHING STRUCTURES
In this section the Integrity Monitoring of the following berthing structures has been
presented.
516
(i) Mooring Dolphin
(ii) Failure of piles in a bulk berth
(iii) Forces measurement in tie rods
6.8.1 Mooring Dolphin
6.8.1.1 Condition of Dolphin
Consequent on the direct hit of a ship of 60,000 DWT fully loaded, the dolphin has
deflected. It is observed that there is a level difference of the rigid 2.44 m thick pile cap by
20 cm. In addition the central line of the front vertical pile had a displacement of 68.7 cm
in one direction and 35.6 cm in the direction perpendicular to it. It is also reported that
there is a twist of about 3 in bottom the axis on pile cap.
In pile No.1 (Vertical pile) just below the pile cap there is buckling of the steel casing of
the pile. This failure appears to be due to excessive bending. The buckling is observed over
a height of 15 mm and for a perimeter of 300 mm length. The maximum projection of
buckling is 10 mm.
It is very clear that there is a rotation/displacement of the pile group. The pile cap can be
readily repaired and the original conditions can be reestablished. On the other hand, it is
extremely difficult to assess the damages, if any, that might have occurred below the sea
bed level. According to analysis, under a horizontal force the point of maximum bending
are at the top of the pile. On the other hand, vertical piles are subjected to maximum
bending and there is a damage to the vertical piles at the top. Furthermore, steel casings for
the vertical piles have not been provided upto full length.
6.8.1.2 Provision of Additional Piles
It is proposed that 4 vertical piles are provided at the 4 corners of the Mooring Dolphin as
shown in Figure . These vertical piles shall go to the same founding level as the earlier
vertical piles. Further, it is necessary that these piles have the steel liner full up to the
bottom as in the case of rakers.
6.8.1.3 Remedial Measures for Damage
The deck slab has spalling and cracking dolphin. There is also a consequential tilt of the
surface of the deck slab. Hence remedial measures suggested for the following 4
categories of damage are :
Berthing Structures
1. Opening of the joint between the concrete pile and the deck slab:
The workmen should thoroughly inspect the joint and the corresponding opening.
Hence it is sufficient to pack the gap between the top of the pile and deck slab with
Epoxy concrete mortar with the maximum size of the aggregate not exceeding 12 mm.
The area around this pile junction where surface concrete has spalled off can be
covered with Epoxy mortar from below the deck slab.
2. Treatment of corner pile exhibiting compression bulge:
The damaged concrete can be removed and the pile shall be repacked with
M 30 concrete. The casing can be covered again with a steel plate of same thickness
as the original casing.
3. Spalling and cracking of concrete in the corners of the deck slab:
The concrete exhibiting spalling and cracking should be completely chipped off
removing all loosened debris and the reinforcement shall be exposed. The exposed
surface should be cleaned of all loose dust etc. and the deck slab should be refinished
with M 30 concrete. It is desirable to use a shrinkage compensating additive in the
fresh concrete.
4. Levelling of the top surface of the tilted deck (if required/desired):
The concrete surface is to be made very rough and the surface levelled again with a
fresh concrete of M 30 quality. For good bonding with the old concrete unless steel
bars of old cap are extended into the new concrete whose thickness at places are
150 to 200 mm, is necessary to provide a thick weld mesh or HYSD bar 2-way
reinforcing mesh in this new concrete and weld this on to the old reinforcement cage at
a number of places.
6.8.1.4 Load tests for Adequacy of Mooring Dolphin
It is recommended to carry out horizontal load tests on the dolphin by means of wire ropes,
pulleys and a turn buckle. Further they will strain-gauge the turn-buckly for measuring the
pull as an additional check. Measurements to be carried out on the Dolphin are :
(a) Tilts/rotations of the Mooring Dolphin.
518
(b) The displacements, in the horizontal plane of the Mooring Dolphin have to be
monitored with the help of theodolite.
6.8.1.5 Estimation of Relative Stiffness of the Damaged Mooring Dolphin
Natural frequencies of vibration of two identical mooring dolphins, one of them hit by a
cargo ship, were determined in order to estimate the extent of damage in comparison with
the other. 4 accelerometers were fixed on the top of the bollard at the centre of the
dolphin.
Accelerometers 1 and 3 were connected to an on line signal analyser and 2 and 4 to
recorders. Though the level of vibration at the maximum sensitivity of the accelerometer
was sufficient to record the resulting vibration patter, for greater accuracy the dolphins
were set to free vibration with the help of a tug. The auto spectral analysis of the vibration
signals were done by the signal analyser and the results were displayed on the screen. The
frequencies corresponding to the peaks in the auto power spectrum for the two dolphins are
presented in the following table.
Table 6.9 Frequency in Auto Power Specturm
Mooring Dolphin
Frequency in Hz
X Y
Trial Trial
1 2 3 Ave 1 2 3 Ave
Damaged 2.24 2.28 2.24 2.25 2.24 2.24 2.28 2.25
Undamaged 2.64 2.68 2.64 2.65 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52
Measurements were taken 3 times on both the dolphins and the average is given in table.
For a structure simplified as a single degree of freedom system the natural frequency is
given by
m / K
2
1
f
n
(6.51)
where K is the stiffness and m is the mass. Or the frequency is directly proportional to the
square root of stiffness.
Berthing Structures
Since both the dolphins are identical in all respects, the mass can be taken to be same and
therefore their stiffness will be in the ratio of
7.023 : 5.063 - in the X-direction and
6.35 : 5.063 - in the Y-direction
The dolphin struck by the vessel has a reduced stiffness of 72 percent in the X-direction
and 80 percent in the Y direction compared to the undamaged one.
6.8.1.6 Summary and Conclusions
Mooring dolphin (supported by 12 raker and 4 vertical piles) has been accidentally hit by a
fully loaded ship of 60,000 DWT and consequently dolphin has tilted. To restore the
mooring dolphin to its original capacity of 200 T horizontal force, the following measures
are recommended.
1. Repairing damages at the pile cap and pile interface.
2. Provide 4 additional vertical piles and make them integral with the existing mooring
dolphin by suitably extending the pile cap.
3. Carry out load tests by pulling the Mooring Dolphin against each other upto 200 T and
monitoring the performance, as a final confirmation of the restoration to its rated
capacity
6.8.2 Failure of Piles in a Bulk Berth
Investigation on the possible causes of failure of pile of a bulk berth is disumed in the
chapter. The causes of failure, its impact on the behaviour of the overall structure and
remedial measures required are investigated.
6.8.2.1 Brief Description of Failure of Pile
The following weather conditions occurred nearer to the pile on that day of failure.
Wind - Mainly westerly 18 to 22 knots
Weather - Fair
Sea - Moderate to rough
Swell height - 1.8 to 2.2 metres
520
In Pile P1 and 11 steel liners have fallen and 9 liners are inclined. The pile P2 has also
titled. The concrete pile P1 was broken at 40 cm below the bottom of steel liner with a
shape of sphere. 3 number of main reinforcement bars out of 14 in total were observed
snapped at broken concrete face and the balance 11 bars were slipped out of concrete
(Figure 6.42 ).
The detailed of studies were carried out on the following aspects.
1. Estimation of wave and current forces
2. Estimation of foundation capacity of piles
3. Estimation of structural capacity of piles
4. Measurement of frequency response on freshly concreted and set piles.
During the construction of the piles, initially the steel casing of pile and subsequently the
piles themselves are free cantlevers (as they are not braced at top) subjected to wave and
current forces.
Fixity to the cantilever initially comes from the soil surrounding the casing pipe and later
from the soil layers around the casing and the pile below. In the case of pile P1 and P2, the
clay layer thickness is only about 3.5 m and 2.6 m respectively as against an average
thickness of 4.5 m at other locations. As the casing stops at the top of the rock layer, the
ultimate moment resistance of soil is about 15.5 T.m only. This moment can be caused by
0.84 T of lateral force at +3.0 m level. This force can be caused by a current of 3 knots. In
reality, waves and currents can act in unison and therefore even under medium weather
conditions the moment on the casing pipe will exceed the moment resistance of the soil.
This is also confirmed by the reported failing or tilting of several steel liners.
After the pile is concreted, with external moment greater than the resistance from soft clay,
bending stresses will be transferred below the bottom of the casing i.e., to fresh concrete.
This is particularly true in case of pile P1 and P2. The natural frequency of freshly
concreted pile is only about 1/3 of well set piles and will be nearer to the wave frequency
resulting in dynamic amplification of the forces. Under such circumstances even if the
pile may not fail (the external moments within ultimate limit) the concrete will not gain its
full strength, in particular bond between the reinforcement and concrete at bottom will be
affected. The ultimate structural capacity of the pile based on the bond stress that can be
mobilised after 1, 7, 14 and 28 days are 15.3, 34.8, 44.8 and 50.0 T.m respectively. This
means that even during the process of concrete gaining strength, the same is continuously
Berthing Structures
being subjected to stresses due to waves and currents. These stresses could be well beyond
permissible stresses resulting in partial bond failure.
The partial bond failure has happened in case of piles P1 and P2, particularly in view of the
bending stresses transferred below the bottom of the casing i.e. to fresh concrete due to
inadequate ultimate soil capacity around the casing. In other words even after the 28 days
of setting, they were substantially weaker as compared to a full strength pile. Therefore,
somewhat higher waves than normal, combined with effects of wave reflection and
currents, has resulted in failure. The weakened piles will also have higher period
compared to an integral pile. In such a case, the dynamic amplification factor of wave
forces will much higher, resulting in failure of the pile.
6.8.2.2 Simplification to Safety of Structure
In the light of the above discussions it cannot be ruled out that other piles in the region
during the process of concreting and subsequently have been weakened at the bottom..
This has the following simplifications:
The piles will not have full fixity at the bottom and in the extreme case behave as a hinge.
This will in turn affect the structural behaviour of berthing structure.
(a) Under horizontal forces.
(b) Buckling behaviour of the pile under axial loads.
This means that for the design of berth under consideration, if the piles are assumed as
hinged at bottom, there may not be much of a consequence.
6.8.2.3 Recommendations arising out of Study for Future Construction
Whenever piles of this type are installed using this technique, the following is to be
adopted (Sundaravadivelu et al. (1993)).
1. The steel liner for the pile should have sufficient embedment into the soil
strata such that the soil surrounding the casing will offer adequate resistance.
2. The casing should be braced at top against a firm support (and not another
casing pipe or a freshly concreted pile).
522
3. The braces must be above high water level to avoid current and wave forces on
the braces, otherwise the whole system has to be designed for the wave current
forces on the braces as well.
6.8.3 Force Measurements in Tie Rods
6.8.3.1 Brief Description of Berth
The typical cross section of the berth is given in Figure 6.37. The structural arrangement
of the system consists of 1100 mm thick main diaphragm wall connected by 80 mm dia
anchor rods at approximately 1500 mm c/c. In addition, the 1100 mm thick diaphragm
wall is connected to two 1000 mm dia vertical piles by a rigid deck consisting of 3850 mm
deep cross beam. Considering the rigidity of the deck system and capacity of 1000 mm dia
piles to resist lateral load and the flexibility of the 80 mm dia tie rod, most of the lateral
load will be transferred to the 1000 mm dia vertical piles. In order to verify the above , it
is recommend to measure load transferred to the tie rod after dredging is completed i.e.
when the tie rod is meant to transfer the horizontal force due to active earth pressure on
front diaphragm wall to the deadman diaphragm wall.
The details of the tie rod force measurements are given in Sundaravadivelu et al. (1990)
and a brief description of force measurement is given below.
Berthing Structures
F
i
g
.

6
.
3
7

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

a

B
e
r
t
h
524
6.8.3.2 I nstallation and Measurement of Forces in Tie Rods
Load Cell:
Three locations were selected for installation of strain gauge type load cells. The strain
gauge type load cells were selected considering various factors like
- Economy
- Time available for installation
- Ease of measurement technique to be adopted at site etc.
Pretension of Tie Rod:
As a part of the construction scheme a pretensioning of all the tie rods was done as
follows. Two hydraulic jacks were used to give a pretension of about 3 to 3.5 T. The
tightening nut introduced before pretensioning was then first hand tightened. Then a pipe
wrench of length 1 m was used to tighten the nut further. After this a check nut was
introduced and tightened.
I nstallation of the Load Cells:
The same procedure as adopted for pretensioning the tie rod was used here also after
placing the load cell, between the outer face of Deadman diaphragm wall and the nut.
Measurement of Pretension:
The two cables of the load cell were connected to strain measuring unit DMD 29 (HBM,
West Germany) and the reading corresponding to no load condition was measured. The
readings after pretensioning the tie rod was also measured. The results obtained are
tabulated below in Table 6.10.
Table 6.10 Measured Strain before and after Pre-tensioning of Tie Rod
Location A
Strain (Units of DMD Display)
Bridge 1 Bridge 2
Reading corresponding to No load 1427 641
Reading after pretension 1764 1090
Difference in reading 337 449
Berthing Structures
Corresponding Loads 8.408 T 10.496 T
Average Load 9.452 T
Though only a 3.5 T pretension was given using a jack, the tightening of the nut with the
help of a wrench introduced an additional load of about 6 Ton in the rod.
The measured load was once again verified by releasing the load on the cell with the help
of hydraulic jacks. It was found that the pressure gauge of the jack showed a load of
9.57.T
The same procedure was adopted for installation of the remaining two load cells. But the
pretension was not measured for these two tie rods.
6.8.3.3 Measurement of Tie Rod Forces after Dredging
Though it was originally considered to measure the load at different stages of dredging,
because of some practical difficulties, only one reading was taken after dredging to the
required depth of -11m.
Initially, all the strain gauge bridges were checked for its functioning. It was found that of
the 6 bridges for which cables were available outside, only one bridge of cell 1 installed at
location 85 was not functioning as some water has gone inside the cable. Measurements
were taken for the remaining 5 bridges and the bridge for which the cable was terminated
on the outer cover of the cell was left undistributed because any attempt to open it would
cause water entering the cell (During measurement there was atleast 2 feet of water above
the cell and continuous pumping of water was required to do the measurements).
Mechanical jacks were introduced to release the load from the cells and readings of the
bridges were taken one after the other for loaded and unloaded conditions.
6.8.3.4 Summary of Results
From the preliminary measurements, it has been found that a pretension of 9.5 t is given to
anchor rods instead of what was thought to be around 3.5 t. This however, do not in any
way affect the behaviour of the soil-structural system. In fact, a higher pretension is better
to keep the anchor rod tact.
Result of the final load measurement shows that after dredging to a level of -11m, load in
the anchor rod has increased only marginally by about 3 to 3.5 tons in locations A and B.
526
The load measured in location C shows a marginal reduction, taking for granted that the
pretension here was also of the order of 9.5 T. This, however, cannot be ascertained
because pretension at this location was not measured during installation. (It may be pointed
out here that the pretension was only a factor of the strength of the people who applied the
tension using the wrench). The small difference in measured load by the two different
bridges of same load cell is due to the eccentricity in loading which is characteristic of load
transfer through screws. Small eccentricities are unavoidable in field situations, in spite of
provision of spherical seating in the load cells.
6.8.3.5 Conclusion
1) It has been possible to monitor the forces in the rod using load cells as adopted.
All the cells performed well 6 months after installation in spite of severe
environmental conditions like full submergence in sea water.
2) The total tie rod forces even after dredging to -11.0 m level are between
7 to 13 T, as against an estimated permissible value of about 65 T from structural
consideration for tie rod. This includes pretension force upto 9 T. Without this
pretension the tie rod forces would have been even less.
6.9 SELECTION OF TYPE OF BERTHING STRUCTURE
A Berthing structure is usually constructed to serve a definite use. The purpose of it is to
handle passengers or general cargo or a combination of both or it may be required to
handle a specific type of cargo, particularly bulk cargo such as oil, ore, cement, and grains
or to handle containers. The type of berthing structure depends upon the purpose of the
berth, size of ships that use the berthing structure, the direction of the wave, wind and
subsurface soil conditions, in particular the depth of the bed rock or firm bearing material
and the water depth.
The selection of type of berthing structure also depends on the magnitude and nature of
loading, hydraulic conditions such as wave action and currents. Fire hazard and safety
requirements, damage susceptibility and ease of repairs, environmental and regularity
concerns over water circulation and habitat loss always favour open type construction.
Closed type construction generally offers greater horizontal and vertical load capacity and
impact resistance than the open piled construction. The vertical face of a closed type of
construction reflects wave energy, if the structure face is exposed to significant wave
action. The possible scouring at the face of the closed type structure due to current action
Berthing Structures
influences the choice of the type. If all factors considered for selection of the type of
berthing structure remain the same the long-term maintenance govern the type of berthing
structure.
When a berthing structure has to be constructed in shallow water or on existing land in
connection with the dredging of a harbour basin, a vertical face type structure such as the
diaphragm wall is very competitive. The presence of bedrock or hard strata below the
design depth of water favours the vertical type.
The vertical face type structures will be preferred when tension piles fail to penetrate to
sufficient depth due to hard layers. When the existing water depth is close to the desired
dredge depth then this type of structure is suitable. When dredging is expensive and when
weak and soft sediments endanger the overall stability, then open type structures are
adopted.
As a general rule vertical face construction such as diaphragm wall is favoured where
water depths are shallow to moderate. Anchored bulkheads require some minimum
embedment depth and these bulkheads are practical and economical to wall heights upto
about 10 m. At deep water locations with soft soils extending relatively deep below the
mud line then pile foundations are provided. Even though open pile supported
construction is used at shallow rock locations, the cost to anchor the piles to the bed rock
and to provide adequate horizontal stability usually exceeds that of a suitable vertical face
type structure.
Relieving platforms, which are a combination of open type and fill type construction, may
be used to provide uplift resistance thereby improving the lateral load resistance of the
piles. A relieving platform also reduces the required bulk head wall height thus extending
the water depth capability of the system.
When the slope of the bottom is so steep that a jetty or a pier cannot be projected out from
the shore without having the outshore end in water so deep, then foundations are either
impractical or very expensive. In such conditions a wharf or quay is suitable and
economical.
For bulk cargo berth, open type constructions with approach trestle is preferable. Oil
docks and some forms of bulk-handling cargo docks are of lighter construction than
general cargo-handling docks, as they do not require warehouses, nor do they have to
support rail, road tracks or extensive cargo-handling equipment. Since the main products
handled over oil docks are usually unloaded at fixed points and transported by pipelines,
528
the required area of solid deck is very much reduced, as are width and length of the dock,
if supplemented by dolphins to take the bow and stern mooring lines. For this reason, a
full-length pier or wharf is not economical or essential, and the use of larger and deeper
draft tankers has resulted in the adoption of the fixed mooring berth. This type of
construction is economical because the large mooring forces imposed on the dock by the
large ships shall be concentrated at single points. The pull of the mooring lines can be
taken by dolphins off the bow and stern of the vessel and by breasting dolphins on both
sides of the fixed platform. The breasting dolphins also keep the ship away from the
platform and take the impact of the ship while docking.
In some locations, it is impossible or uneconomical to provide a pier, wharf or fixed
mooring depth owing to site conditions or the deep draft of some of the recently
constructed supertankers and ore carriers. In such cases an offshore mooring may be
provided and the cargo transferred to the shore either by lighters, long conveyors,
ropeways or by submarine pipeline, if the product is a liquid such as oil, gasoline and
molasses.
Direction of waves and wind may have a bearing on the type of dock selected. In general,
the dock should not be broadside to the prevailing wave front. If the terminal is in exposed
location, and the wave front is parallel to the shore, a wharf type of dock may have to be
ruled out. Also, all things being equal, it is better to have the ship anchored parallel to the
direction of prevailing winds or if this cannot be accomplished, the ship shall be anchored
in such a way that the wind is holding the ship off the dock.
Soil conditions will have an important bearing on the type of dock selected. The bottom
may be more favourable in the region close to the shore, thereby favouring a wharf or
bulkhead installation. However, rock may be encountered which would make it very
costly to obtain the required depth of water along the dock. In such a case, a pier with an
approach trestle or mole may be the solution to eliminate the need for costly excavation.
6.10 DESIGN OF DIAPHRAGM WALL
6.10.1 General Remarks
The definition of various structures such as dock, wharf, quay, jetty, etc. are given below:
A dock is the most general designation for a structure or place at which a vessel can be
moored. A wharf is a dock structure built nearly parallel to the coast and continuous with
the shoreline, so that it also performs as a soil retaining structure. It is also called quay
when it is of solid fill vertical wall construction and is long and continuous. Wharves and
Berthing Structures
quays are backed by warehouses, marshalling and storage areas, industrial areas, roads,
rails, etc., which are often created by extensive fill operations. A pier or jetty is a dock
structure, which projects out into the sea. Because of its geometry, it can be used for
berthing of vessels on three sides. It does not necessarily run perpendicular to the shore
line or wharf line but may project under any angle. It may also be connected to the shore
or wharf line by a trestle and thus become T or L shaped jetty or pier. Moles or trestles are
primarily pier or platform access structures, used for vehicular, pipeline, conveyor and
sidewalk. Moles are of solid fill construction and trestles are of free standing pile bents or
pile groups with bridging structure spanning them.
Dolphins are isolated structures used mainly to absorb the impact of berthing ships referred
to as breasting or berthing dolphins and to serve as a point for securing a vessels mooring
lines, referred to as mooring dolphins.
A fixed mooring berth is a marine structure consisting of dolphins for tying up the vessel
and a platform for supporting the cargo handling equipment.
A sheet pile wall comprises of a row of piles interlocking with one another so as to form a
continuous wall to be used as earth retaining structure.
Diaphragm wall is a vertical wall structure classified as a cantilever or tie back system.
The tie back system can be a tie rod with a deadman or a combination of vertical and raker
piles or only vertical piles.
A relieving platform consists of a low level pile supported deck that is filled over in order
to gain stability and relieve pressures behind the wall in weak soil conditions.
Gravity wall consists of cut stone blocks or concrete blocks placed on top of each other
and capped with a massive concrete wall or a concrete caisson monolith. Gravity walls
gain stability against sliding and overturning by means of its weight, proportions and soil
friction.
6.10.2 Example
A cantilever type diaphragm wall of 5.0 m panel length is proposed for the fishing jetty.
The reduced level of the ground varies between +1.60 m and 2.40 m. The cut-off level of
the diaphragm wall is +1.0 m and the top level of the deck is +2.25 m.
530
The diaphragm wall is proposed for the quay wall at +2.25 m and founding level is
assumed at -8.0 m. Dredge level is -2.20 m. The total height of wall is 10.25 m.
The passive pressure and active pressure acting on the wall is calculated based on the soil
properties from the boreholes. Above the dredge level(i.e. above -2.20 m) the properties of
the soil considered are N = 10, = 30
0
, = 20
0
and ka = 0.297. Below the dredge level,
the properties considered are N = 20, = 33
0
, = 22
0
, ka = 0.264 and kp = 8.08. The
surcharge of 10 kN/m
2
is also assumed on the landside of the wall.
The quay wall is analysed as a two-dimensional structure using SAP90 (Structural
Analysis Programme 90). The discretization showing node numbers and element numbers
of diaphragm wall is shown in Figure (6.38) For analysis, 1 m width of diaphragm wall is
considered. The load acting at each node is shown in Figure (6.39). Below the dredge
level, sea side springs are provided at each node and the values are shown in Figure (6.40)
The first iteration indicates that the force coming on the springs at the node numbers 10,
11&12 is more than the passive resistance. Hence these springs are replaced with actual
passive resistance at that location and the second iterative analysis is carried out. The
iteration is continued till the forces on each spring is less than the passive resistance. The
bending moment diagram and shear force diagram are shown in Figure 6.41(a) and
Figure 6.41(b) respectively. The reinforcement details of diaphragm wall is shown in
Figure 6.42.
6.10.3 Design of Quay Wall
Limit state method is used for the design of quay wall.
Grade of concrete : M30
Steel reinforcement : Fe415
Thickness of quay wall : 500 mm
Clear cover provided : 75 mm
Section AA (From -2.5 m to -5.5 m)
Maximum Bending moment : 432.42 kN/m
Load factor as per IS 4651 for earth pressure : 1.0
Effective depth : 500 - (75+ 28/2) using Y - 28 bars
: 411 mm
Berthing Structures
Fig.6.38 Discretisation Showing Node Numbers
And Element Numbers
532
Fig. 6.39 Load Acting At Each Node
Berthing Structures
Fig.6.40 Loads on Land Side and Springs on Sea Side
kN/m
534
F
i
g
.

6
.
4
1

(
a
)

B
e
n
d
i
n
g

M
o
m
e
n
t

D
i
a
g
r
a
m
F
i
g
.

6
.
4
1

(
b
)

S
h
e
a
r

F
o
r
c
e

D
i
a
g
r
a
m
Berthing Structures
Fig.6.42 Reinforcement Details of Diaphragm Wall
536
2
bd
Mu
=
2
6
411 X 1000
10 X 42 . 432
(Considering one metre width)
From SP 16, = 2.55
P
t
= 0.794
A
st
= 0.794 x 5000 x 411 (for 5 wide panel)
= 16317 mm
2
Provide 21 nos Y - 28 + 21 nos Y - 20 on earth side for 5 m wide panel
Ast provided = (21 x
4
x 28
2
) + (21 x
4
x 20
2
)
= 19,509 mm
2
(0.78%)
Ast
min
= 0.2/100 x 5000 x 411
= 4110 mm
2
Provide 21 nos Y-16 on the seaside
A
st
provided = 4221 mm
2
Section BB (From + 2.25 m to -2.5 m and from -5.5 m to -8.0 m)
Maximum bending moment = 267.32 kN/m
2
bd
Mu
=
2
6
411 x 1000
10 x 32 . 267
(for one metre)
From SP 16, = 1.58
P
t
= 0.475
A
st
= 0.475 x 5000 x 411 (for 5 m wide panel)
= 9761 mm
2
Berthing Structures
However provide 21 nos Y-28 (12931 mm
2
) on T-16 on seaside for 5 m wide panel
Design for shear reinforcement:
Maximum shear force = 187.82 kN
Nominal shear stress,

=
411 x 1000
1000 x 82 . 187
= 0.46 N/mm
2
Permissible shear stress
c
= 0.59 N/mm
2
(for 0.78%steel)

<
c
Therefore provide nominal reinforcement only
Provide 6 legged Y - 10 stirrups at 150 mm c/c as nominal shear reinforcement and Y - 10
stirrups at 300 c/c (Fig. 6.49)
v
sv
bxS
A
=
150 x 1000
10 x
4
x 6
2
y
f
4 . 0
= 9.6 x 10
4
v
sv
bxS
A
>
y
f
4 . 0
Hence O.K.
6.11 DESIGN OF DOLPHIN
6.11.1 Layout of Berthing Dolphin
A typical plan and cross section of berthing dolphin are given in Fig.6.50. The dolphin
consists of a deck slab of size 12 m x 21 m and 1500mm thick and supported over 15
numbers of vertical concrete piles each of 1500 mm diameter. Piles are braced at +2.0 m .
The beam is of size 1500 x 1500 mm in longitudinal as well as transverse direction. A
fender beam is provided from bottom of the deck to +0.5 m level. The thickness of the
538
beam at deck level is 1000 mm and is reduced to 500 mm at +0.5 m level. The dredge
level of dolphin is kept at -16.50 m and piles have been taken upto -30 m below the
seabed.
6.11.2 Loads
The loads and load combinations considered in the design of berthing dolphin are as
follows:
6.11.2.1 Dead Load (DL)
Self-weight of the structure plus superimposed loads of a permanent nature.
6.11.2.2 Live Load (LL)
Dolphins are designed for a UDL of 10 kN/m
2
6.11.2.3 Force on Berth (BF)
The berthing force of 2785 kN per fender is considered for the 45000 DWT vessel with
SVC 2000 H (RS) type fender.
6.11.2.4 Mooring Force (MF)
The bollard pull of 1000 kN per bollard is considered and is applied at above deck level.
Bollard forces are considered to act in any direction with in 180
0
around the bollard in the
horizontal plane.
6.11.2.5 Wave Force (WF)
Wave load due to 1.8 m wave height is considered on piles with marine growth of 50 mm
on the radius of piles.
6.11.2.6 Current Force (CF)
Current load due to a maximum current of 0.5 m/sec is considered.
6.11.2.7 Seismic Force (SF)
The horizontal earthquake force shall be calculated for Dead Load + 50% of live load. The
importance factor of 1.5 are considered.
Berthing Structures
6.11.2.8 Load Combinations
The following load combination is considered in the analysis.
1. DL + LL +BF + WF + CF
2. DL + LL +MF + WF + CF
3. 1.5DL + 1.5LL +1.5BF + 1.0WF + 1.0CF
4. 1.5DL + 1.5LL +1.5MF + 1.0WF + 1.0CF
5. 1.2DL + 1.2LL +WF + CF + 1.5 SF
6. 0.9DL + 0.9LL +WF + CF + 1.5 SF
6.11.3 Analysis
Analysis is carried out using SAP 90 by idealizing dolphin deck using shell element and
piles by beam elements.
6.11.4 Design
The deck slab is designed as flat slab. The design of piles have been carried out using limit
state method. M30 grade concrete and Fe415 grade of steel are considered in the analysis
and design. The design is also checked against limit state of serviceability. The clear
cover considered in the design are as following:
Piles : 75 mm
Beams : 50 mm
Deck Slab : 40 mm
6.12 DESIGN OF PILES
Grade of concrete to be used : M30
Grade of steel : Fe415
Diameter of pile D : 1500 mm
540
Unsupported length of pile : 28.25 m
Effective length : 1.2 x 28.25
l
eff
: 33.90 m
l
eff
/D : 33.90/1.5
: 33.90>1.5
Therefore design as a slender member
Eccentricity
e
min
=
30
D
500
1
+
=
30
1500
500
1000 x 25 . 28
+
= 106.50 mm
From SP 16 (Table 1),
For l
eff
/D = 33.9.6 e/D = 0.26
Therefore e = 0.26 x 1500 mm
= 390 mm
Maximum factored moment = 7510.76 kN/m(Member 60)
Corresponding factored axial force P
u
, = 1644.91 kN (Compression)
Moment due to eccentricity = 1644.91 x 0.39
= 641.52 kNm
Total moment, M
u
, = 8152.27 kNm
Providing a clear cover of 75 mm,
D
' d
= 0.05
Berthing Structures
2
ck
u
D f
P
=
2
3
1500 x 30
10 x 91 . 1644
= 0.024
3
ck
u
D f
M
=
3
6
1500 x 30
10 x 8152
From chart 55 of SP 16
P/f
ck
= 0.08
P = 0.08 x 30
= 2.4
A
st
= x
4
x
100
4 . 2
1500
2
= 43,430 mm
2
(2.5%)
provide = 54 432 mm
2
Ties: Provide Y - 10 rings at 250 mm c/c
542
REFERENCES
Agerschou, H., Lundgren, H., Sorensen, T., Ernst, T., Korsgaard, J., Schmidt, L.R. and
Chi, W.K., (1983). Planning and Design of Ports and Marine Terminals, A Wiley-
Interscience Publication, 220-225.
Bathe, K.J., Wilson, E.L and Peterson, F.E. (1978). SAPIV: A structural analysis Program
for static and dynamic response of 4651 linear system, Report EERC 73-11Univ. of
California, Ber Kely.
Berteaux, H.O., (1976). Buoy Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Bruun, P., (1981). Port Engineering, Gulf publishing company book division, Hudson,
Texas.
Faltinsen, O.M., Kjaerland, O Liapis N and Walderhaug H. (1979). Hydrodynamic
Analysis of Tankers at Single Point Mooring Systems, Proceedings of Second
International Conference on Behaviour of Offshore Structures, London, PP.177-206.
Gaythwaite, John. (1990). Design of Marine Facilities for Berthing, mooring and repair
of vessels, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
IS 2911 Part IV (1979). Indian Standard Code of Practice for design and construction of
pile foundation.
IS 456 (1978). Indian Standard Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced concrete.
IS 875-1984. Indian Standard Code of Practice for structural safety of Buildings, Wind
Load Constructions, BIS, New Delhi.
IS-4651 Indian standard Code of practice for planning and design of ports and harbour,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Part 3 (1974) - Loading
Part 4 (1989) - General Design considerations
Part 5 (1980) - Layout and Functional requirements
Langeveld, J.M. (1974). Design criteria for single point mooring systems, Journal of
Waterways,
Manohar, S.N., (1964). Charts for the Design of Eccentrically Loaded Circular Columns,
Indian Concrete Journal.
Maari, R., (1985). Single Point Moorings, SBM Inc. Publications, Monaco.
Berthing Structures
Nakajima, T., Motora, S and Fujino M. (1982). On the Dynamic Analysis of Multi-
mooring Lines, Proceedings kof Fourteenth Annual Offshore Technology Conference,
OTC 2212, Texas, pp.679-702.
Per brun (1983). Port Engineering Gulf Publishing Co.
PIANC (1991). Movements of Moored Ships and berthing Pianc working groups 24.
Pinkster, J.A and Remery, G.F.M. (1975). Role of Model Tests in The Design of Single
Point Mooring Terminals, Proceedings of Seventh Annual Offshore Technology
Conference, OTC 2212, Texas, pp.679-702.
Quinn, A.D. (1961). Design & Construction of Ports and Marine Structures McGraw
Hill Book Co.,
Raju, V.S., and Sundaravadivelu, R and Gandhi S.R., "Analysis of alternative systems for
a berthing structure", First National Conference in Docks and Harbour Engineering, IIT,
Bombay, Vol. I, December 1985, pp B195- B206.
Ranga Rao, A.V and Sundaravadivelu, R. (1992). "Non-linear Soil Structure Interaction of
berthing Structures", National Seminar on Offshore Structures, Docks and Harbours,
Roorkee, October 16-17.
Ranga Rao, A.V and Sundaravadivelu, R. (1994 A). "Effect of Configuration of piles in
Dolphin", National Seminar on Design of Pile Group and Pile Cap, Indian Geotechnical
Society, Madras.
Ranga Rao, A.V and Sundaravadivelu, R. (1994 A). "Computer Aided Design of Berthing
Structures", INCHOE - 94, Pune, Vol I, pp B87-B96.
SP: 16 (S&T) (1980). Design Aids To Reinforced Concrete IS: 456-1978.
Srinivasan, R and Rangwala, R.S.C. (1991). Harbour, Dock and Tunnel Engineering.
Sundaravadivelu, R., Idichandy, V.G., Gandhi, S.R. and Raju, V.S. (1990). "Tie rod force
measurements in a Cargo Berth", Journal of Waterways, Port, Coastal and Ocean
Engineering, ASCE, Vol.116, No.1, pp 43-56.
Sundaravadivelu, R., Raju, V.S. and Idichandy, V.G. (1993). "Failure of Offshore
Concrete Piles During Construction", Third International Conference On Case Histories in
Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, Missouri.
Sundaravadivelu, R., and Ranga Rao, A.V. (1996). "Expert System for Estimation of
Forces on Berthing Structures", International Conference in Ocean Engineering, ICOE'96,
pp 393-397.
544
Sundaravadivelu, R., and Natarajan, R. (1996). "Model Studies on Moorings of A LPG
Tanker Berthed At An Offshore Jetty", The fourth Pacific/Asia Offshore Mechanics
Symposium., Korea, Oct. 31- Nov.2.
Sundaravadivelu, R, and Natarajan, R, (1996). "Experimental Investigation on Open Sea
Berthign of a LPG Tanker", First Asia - Pacific Conference on Offshore Systems: Mobile
and Floating Structures, Malaysia, 10-11.
Supplement to Bulletin N 45 (1984). Report of the International Commission for
Improving The Design Of Fender Systems, Permanent International Association of
Navigation Congresses.
Webster, R.L. (1980). On The Static Analysis of Structures with Strong Geometric
Nonlinearity, Computers and Structures, Vol. 11, pp.137-145.
Wichers, J.E.W. (1979). Slowly Oscillating Mooring Forces in Single Point Mooring
Systems, Proceedings of Second International Conference on Behaviour of Offshore
Structures, London, pp.661-692.
Woodruff, G.B. (1963). Berthing & Mooring force, Tr. ASCE, Vol. 128, Part IV.
Berthing Structures
NOTATIONS
a - The Distance from the Compression Face to the Point of
the Crack
a
cr
- Distance from the Point Considered to the Surface of the Nearest
A
st
- Area of Tensile Steel
A
st
- The Area of Tension Steel
A
sv
- Total Cross Sectional Area of Stirrup Legs
A
w
- Windage Area (m
2
)
Ax
1
- End on Projected area of Vessel
A
y
- Side Projected Areas of Vessel
b - Breadth of the Section
b
t
- The Width of the Section at the Centroid of the Tension Steel
B - Beam of the Vessel in (m)
C - Effective Cover
C
1
- Coefficient for the Area of Stress Block
C
2
D - Distance of the Centroid of the Concrete Stress Block, Measured
from the Highly Compressed Edge
C
b
- Shear Strength of the Rock at Pile Base
Cc - Compression in Concrete Segment
C
c
- Berthing Configuration Coefficient
C
c
X
c
- Moment of Compression in Concrete
C
c
X
sc
- Moment of Compression of Steel About the Center Line
C
d
- Deformation Co-efficient
C
D
,C
M
- Drag, Intertia Coefficient (Figures 6.19 to 6.21)
C
Dx
, C
Dy
- Drag Coefficients Along x, y Directions
C
e
- Eccentricity Coefficient
C
g
- Geometric Coefficient
C
m
- Mass Coefficient
C
min
- Minimum Cover to the Longitudinal Bar
C
S
- Softness Coefficient
C
s
- Average Shear Strength of Rock Along Rock Socker
Cs - Compression in Steel Reinforcement
C
w
- Shape Factor = 1.3 to 1.6
C
w
- Crack Width
C
ym
- Yaw Moment Coefficient
d - Water Depth (m)
d
c
- Effective Cover
D - Diameter of Pile (m)
546
D - Overall Depth of the Member
D
L
- Average Light Draft (m)
D
M
- Moulded Depth (m)
E - Berthing Energy in (T- m)
E
c
- Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete
f
a
- Allowable Frictional Resistance
f
cbc
- Calculated Bending Compressive Stress in Concrete
f
cc
- Calculated Direct Compressive Stress in Concrete
f
ci
- Stress in Concrete at the Level of i
th
row of Reinforcement
f
n
- Natural Frequency
f
s
- Service Stress in Tension Reinforcement Which may be Taken as
fsi - Stress in the ith Row Of Reinforcement, Compression Being
Positive and Tension being Negative
f
st
- Stress in Steel
f
y
- Characteristic Strength of the Stirrup
F - Force Due to Wind (kg)
F - Factor of Safety Taken as 3.0
F
DM
- Total Drag Force on A Vertical Pile From the Sea Bottom to the
Surface Crest Elevation (N)
F
IM
- Total Inertial Force on a Vertical Pile from the Seabed to the
Free Surface Elevation (N)
F
M
- Maximum Value of the Combined Drag and Inertial Force, (N)
F
n
- Horizontal Series Force
F
wx
- Longitudinal Wind Force
F
wy
- Lateral Wind Force
g - Acceleration Due To Gravity in (m/sec
2
)
h - Depth of the Section
H - Wave Height (m)
i
min
- Least Radius of Gyration
I - A factor Depending Upon the Importance of the Structure
K - Stiffness
K
DM
- Drag Force Factor
K
IM
- Inertial Force Factor
L - Length of the Vessel in (m)
L
- Length Between Perpendicular (m)

l - Distance from the Centre of Gravity of the Vessel of the Point of
Contact Projected Along the Water Line of the Berth In (M)
l
ef
- Effective Length of Column (pile)
l
eff
- Effective Length
LOA - Overall Length of Vessel
Berthing Structures
m - Virtual (mass + added mass) Mass of Vessel
m - Modular Ratio
m - Mass
M
DM
- Moment on Pile About Bottom Associated with Maximum
Drag Force, (N, m)
M
IM
- Moment on Pile About Bottom Associated with Maximum
Inertial Force (N, m)
M
M
- Maximum Total Moment (N, m)
M
yw
- Yawing Moment
n - Number of Rows of Reinforcement
N
c
- Bearing Capacity Factor Taken As 9.0
P - Wind Pressure (kg/m
2
)
P
i
- (A
si
/bD) where A
si
is the Area of Reinforcement in the i
th
row
q
a
- Allowable End Bearing Pressure
r - Radius of Gyration of Rotational Radius on the Plane of
the Vessel (m) Reinforcement
s
v
- Spacing of the Stirrups Along The Length of the Member
S
D
- Effective Lever Arm for F
DM
from the Bottom of Pile, (m)
S
DM
- Drag Force Moment Arm
S
IM
- Inertio Force Moment Arm
TX
st
- Moment of Tension Insteel About The Center Line.
T - Tension is Steel Reinforcement
u - Translatory Velocity of Ship
v - Berthing Velocity (m/s)
w - Unit Weight of Sea Water
x - Depth of Neutral Axis
y
i
- Distance From The Centroid of the Section to the i
th
row of the
V - Berthing Velocity in m/sec
V - Shear Force Due to Design Loads
V - Velocity of Vessel (m/s), Normal to the Berth
V
s
- Strength of Shear Reinforcement
W - Unit Weight of Water (1.03 tonnes/m
2
for sea water)
W
D
- Displacement Tonnage of the Vessel (in tones).
W
m
- Weight of Mass Under Consideration.
- Shaft Adhesion Factor Taken as 0.3.
m
,
m
- Coefficient Read from the Figures 6.10 to 6.17
n
- Design Horizontal Seismic coefficient
o
- Basic Horizontal Seismic Coefficient Based on the Zone
- A Coefficient Depending Upon the Soil-Foundation System
548
- Wind Direction or Angle of Attack
- Mass Density of Sea Water = (w/g) = 1025.2 kg/m
3
- Diameter of the Reinforcing Bar
- Angular Velocity of Ship
1
- The Strain at the Level Considered Ignoring the Concrete in
the Tension Zone
c
- Design Shear Strength of the Concrete
cbc
- Permissible Bending Compressive Stress in Concrete
cc
- Permissible Axial Compressible Stress in Concrete
m
- Average Strain at the Level Considered
r
- Nominal Sheer Stress
s
- Stress in Tensile Steel
Berthing Structures
APPENDIX 6.1
SIZES OF PASSENGER SHIPS, FREIGHTER, TANKERS, ORE CARRIERS AND
FISHING AND FISHING VESSELS
A.6.1.1 BULK CARRIERS
Dead Weight
Tonnage (Tons)
Overall
Length (m)
Width (m) Height (m) Fully Laden
Draught (m)
4000 100.0 15.4 7.0 6.3
6000 118.0 16.6 8.3 6.9
8000 130.0 17.6 9.5 7.4
10000 140.0 18.5 10.5 7.9
12000 150.0 19.4 11.2 8.5
15000 163.0 20.7 12.0 9.0
20000 180.0 22.8 13.0 9.7
25000 194.0 24.7 13.8 10.3
30000 205.0 26.5 14.3 10.7
40000 223.0 29.7 15.4 11.1
50000 235.0 32.5 16.2 11.3
60000 245.0 35.0 17.1 12.0
80000 259.0 39.2 18.8 12.6
100000 268.0 42.5 20.4 13.0
A.6.1.2 COMBINATION BULK/ORE CARRIERS (100,000 DWT NOMINAL)
Dead Weight
Tonnage
(Tons)
Overall
Length
(m)
Breadth
(Moulded)
Depth
(Moulded)
Draught
(Loaded)
Draught
(Ballast) m
(max)
119190 270 42.00 21.20 15.60 8.4
112900 261 40.20 21.40 15.50 10.62 (Max)
113180 261 40.60 24.00 16.00 10.69
102824 259 41.30 20.40 14.20 8.29
118000 261 42.00 22.80 16.13 9.0
104330 259.7 38.00 21.30 15.52 9.37
111120 261 40.60 23.00 16.00 9.36
98720 255 40.20 23.90 14.63 9.00
113180 261 40.60 23.00 16.00 9.74
550
A.6.1.3 CLASSIFICATION OF CONTAINER VESSEL
Container
Vessel
TEU
capacity
DWT (ave) L
m
D
m
B
m
1st generation 750 - 1100 14,000 180 - 200 9.0 27.0
2nd generation 1500 - 1800 30,000 225 - 240 11.5 30.0
3rd generation 2400 - 3000 45,000 270 - 300 12.5 32.0
4th generation 4000 - 4500 57,000 290 - 310 11.5-12.5 32.3
Panamax-plus 4300 - 4600 54,000 270 -300 11 - 12 38 - 40
Conbulk mostly Panamax-size bulk
carriers
A.6.1.4 TANKER DIMENSIONS
Ship size (1,000
DWT)
Draft (m) Beam (m) Length (m)
20 9 22 180
50 12 31 235
70 13 35 260
100 15 41 270
150 16,5 46 300
200 19 50 330
250 21 52 340
300 23 55 350
550 28,5 63 415
Berthing Structures
A.6.1.5 DISTRIBUTION OF WORLD FLEET OF TANKERS
Ship size (1000 DWT) Number of ships
30 to 80 347
80 to 130 357
130 to 180 274
180 to 230 49
230 to 280 294
280 to 330 66
330 to 380 25
380 to 430 21
430 to 480 5
480 to 530 4
530 to 565 2
A.6.1.6 MOORING EQUIPMENT FOR DIFFERENT SHIP SIZES
Ship size (DWT) Mooring equipment
25,000 14 polypropylene dia 60 mm
550,000 20 steel dia 42 mm
+ 2 polypropylene dia 80 mm
552

Berthing Structures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Berthing Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Berthing Structures

= Length between perpendicular in m

- Length Between Perpendicular (m)

You might also like