International Journal of Engineering and Techniques - Volume 4 Issue 4, July - Aug 2018

RESEARCH ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS

Analysis and Design of A Quay Berthing Structure

S.Nagarjuna 1, S.Shamshad Begum2
1
(Civil Engineering, Intell Engineering college,intell campus,Kalyandurg road,Akkampalli ,Anantapur.Dist-515004,AP,India)
2
(Civil Engineering, Intell Engineering college,intell campus,Kalyandurg road,Akkampalli ,Anantapur.Dist-515004,AP,India)

Abstract:
The structures which are constructed for the intention of berthing and mooring of vessels to facilitate loading and
unloading of cargo and also for embarking and disembarking of passengers or vehicles etc. is called berthing structure.
Various factors influence the analysis and design of the berthing structures. The berthing structures are designed for dead
load, live load, berthing force, mooring force, earthquake load and other environmental loading due to winds, waves, currents
etc. In the present study, a proposed berthing structure EQ-10 is taken for analysis and design .All suitable data is collected
from Visakhapatnam port trust and their website like geotechnical data, environmental data, and traffic forecasting data. By
using all these data, we planned and modeled a structure. After that we calculated various loads induced on structure and we
analyzed the modeled structure in STAAD-PRO due to the typical load distribution on structure. Actually we have trailed with
different dimensions for most acceptable structure, in that trailing we concluded that larger diameter pile gets less deflection
when compare with smaller diameter piles. Finally the structure was analyzed and designed with resisting of marine
conditions and satisfying in the aspect of economical and safety.
Keywords — berthing structure, STAAD-PRO, Marine Conditions.

I. INTRODUCTION
In this study, we tend to delineate an acceptable thanks
to style a brand new berthing structure with example of 1 of Visakhapatnam Port in the inner harbor is meant for handling
the projected berthing structure in Visakhapatnam port. So liquid cargo like Sulphuric acid, Phosphoric acid, phosphoric
before analyzing and designing, the influence factors which acid, edible oils etc. the details of the structural element are
effected on the structure were taken into consideration such as discussed under the conceptual design .although the
soil characteristics of the proposed location, environmental concession agreement provides for dredging has to be carried
conditions and range of traffic. All the basic Data was adopted upto -16.10m .hence the design dredge level is taken as
from Visakhapatnam port which were supposed to be used in 16.10m
the project such as geotechnical data, environmental data, and
traffic forecasting data. The entire Berth length of 100m was II. GEOMETRY OF STRUCTURE
divided into 3 units of each 33.33 in length with an expansion Thickness of apron layer : 200mm
joint of 40mm between successive units and proposed in the Thickness of slab : 300mm
inner harbor, meant for handling liquid cargo like Sulphuric Size of transverse beam : 1800mmX1100mm
acid, Phosphoric acid, phosphoric acid, edible oils etc. The Size of longitudinal beam : 1100mmX600mm
details of the structural element are discussed under the Size of pile : 1.70 diameters, height 21.65 m
conceptual design. The design dredge level is taken as - Total height of the structure : 23.30meters
16.10m. Factors to be considered before going to design a Design dredged level : 16.60 meters
berthing structure like fixing of a location, selection of type of Pile submerged level : 19.60 meters
berth, deciding of Number of berths, selecting Length of berth Deck elevation : 3.70mt
and Area of berth, required Draft alongside berth ,Apron Kerb wall height : 1mt
width, Deck elevation, turning circle, and Stacking area Area of berth : 100m X12m
requirements Area requirements for other facilities. The entire Number of divided units :3
EQ (Eastern Quay)-10 berth length of 100.07 m is divided Area of each unit : 33m X 12m
into 3 units of each 33.33 in length with an expansion joint of Slab panel size : 2.62m X 2.62m
40mm between successive units. The proposed EQ-10 berth at

ISSN: 2395-1303 http://www.ijetjournal.org Page 33

 International Journal of Engineering and Techniques - Volume 4 Issue 4, July - Aug 2018
Fig2: mooring load representation on structure
III .LOADS ON STRUCTURE
Current load: Forces due to Current - Pressure due
Wearing coat (Apron) = 5 kN/m2(density of the concrete is
to current will be applied to the area of the vessel
taken 25 kN/m3)
Slab weight = 7.55 kN/m2 below the water line when fully loaded.
Beams F= w v2/2 g
Transverse beams = 50kN/m For 1 unit of berth F = 25kN
Longitudinal beam = 16.5 kN/m 25kN for 12 piles for each pile F = 2.02 kN
Pile = 920.12 kN/m
Load distribution is converted as uniform on pile
Live load is based functioning of berth and truck loading on
berth as per IS: 4851 (Part III) – 1974. The function of berth F =0.096KN/m
related to Truck
Loading A or AA or 70R (Heavy cargo berth) so we are
adopted 50 kN/m . 2

Berthing load: this load is happened when a ship

hits the berthing structure
W V2
E = D (C m )(C e )(C s )
2g Fig3: current load representation on structure

Wind load: Wind contributes primarily to the

lateral loading on a pier. It blows from many
directions and can change without notice.
Design wind speed (Vz) = Vb k1k 2 k3
Design wind pressure = 0.6(vz)2
p =1.4kN/ m2
Fig1: berthing load representation on structure Now the design wind pressure is resolved as nodal
E =80kN.m loads on structure =3.85 kN
27 kNm/33m for 1unit of berth (33 meters)
Seismic load:
Mooring load: The mooring masses area unit the Design seismic base shear VB= AhW
lateral masses caused by the mooring lines after  Z  S a  I 
they pull the ship into or on the dock or hold it Ah =  2  g  R 
 
against the forces of wind or current.
F = C w Aw P
Z= zone factor =0.16
Actually this is the actual procedure but port I= importance factor =1.5
engineers suggested that bollard pull =900kN is R= response reduction factor =5
adopted (Design load)
 Sa 
  =2.50(hard
g
rock)
Ah =0.06
W= seismic weight of the structure =55318.5kN
VB = 4500.5kN
The approximate fundamental natural frequency
0.09h
period of vibration (Ts in sec) =
d

ISSN: 2395-1303 http://www.ijetjournal.org Page 34

 International Journal of Engineering and Techniques - Volume 4 Issue 4, July - Aug 2018
Ts = 0.35 sec

P = γh
P =180kN/m2
=270kN/m on each pile

Fig4: lateral load representation on the structure

Earth pressure:
Pa= Kγh
Fig6: water pressure representation on structure
Pa = 17.4 kN/m2
Converted as uniform load =47.85kN/m Table2: Node displacements at worst load combinations
Loa
Result
No d X Y Z
ant rX rY rZ
de com (mm) (mm) (mm)
(mm)
b
- -
Max X 3 18 93.85 0.556 0.004 93.84 0.00
0.00 0.001
Min X 11 15 -4.4 0.024 0.001 4.372 0.00 0.00 0.000
- -
Max Y 13 16 81.82 0.86 0.004 81.85 0.00
0.00 0.001
-
Min Y 31 18 93.83 -1.52 -0.005 93.83 0.00 0.00
0.001
12 -
Max Z 21 77.47 -1.24 1.972 77.502 0.00 0.00
2 0.001
- -
Min Z 11 22 77.48 -1.23 -1.971 77.502 0.00
0.00 0.001
Max 12 -
21 77.47 -1.24 1.971 77.504 0.00 -0.00
rX 1 0.001
Fig5: Earth pressure representation on the structure Min - -
11 22 77.46 -1.23 -1.972 77.502 0.00
rX 0.00 0.001
Max - -
Table1: Level wise earth pressure on piles 3 18 93.83 -0.557 0.004 93.84 0.00
rY 0.00 0.001
Min 11 -
17 76.82 0.271 -0.010 76.81 -0.00
rY 3 0.00 0.002
Level (m) Pressure On each pile MaxrZ 3 15 -4.369 -0.054 0.001 4.368
-
0.00 0.00
kN/m kN/m 0.00
- -
MinrZ 23 18 93.85 0.47 0.003 93.85 0.00
0-3 17.4 47.85 0.00 0.001
Max - -
28.7 78.92 11 18 93.84 -1.45 -0.006 93.84 0.00
3-4.5 Rst 0.00 0.002

4.5-7.5 19.14 52.6

7.5-9 9.57 26.31

Water pressure/hydrostatic pressure: In the case

of waterfront structures with backfill, the pressure
caused by difference in water level at the fill side
and waterside has to be taken into account in design

ISSN: 2395-1303
1303 http://www.ijetjournal.org Page 35
 International Journal of Engineering and Techniques - Volume 4 Issue 4, July - Aug 2018

Table3: Beam end forces

Be No L/ Tor
Axial Shear Bending Table4: Bending moments at mooring pile in worst load
am de C sion
Mx My
Fx(k Fy(k Fz(k Mz
kN/ kN/
N) N) N) kN/m
m m
M Pile 141 143 145 147 149
13 1 4.29E 2.34E 0.49 13.3E
ax
6
99
7 +3 +3
0.490
0
1.534
+3
number
Fx Maxi
Mi - -
1 2.79E - 14.15 (kN.m) 23.24 30.96 33.53 29.819 20.21
n 16 11 2.04E 0.19 0.819
6 +3 0.199 E+3 Middle
Fx +3 9
M (kN.m) 5.80 7.84 8.50 9.61 5.20
- - - Ends
ax 1 3.06 11.6 16.1
15 11 469. 1.67 0.2 (kN.m) 11.64 15.34 16.51 14.58 9.70
F 7 E+3 32 5E+3
22 1 47
y
M Table5: Bending moments @ mooring effected beams in y-
- - - - direction
in 1 7.3 4.59
9 10 35.8 2.44 0.14 2.79
F 8 89 E+3
0 E+3 0 3
y
M - Beam
14 10 2 2.25 2.53 20.5 0.1 13.9 142 144 146 148
ax 222. number
5 6 2 E+3 E+3 52 57 E+3
Fz 289 Maxi
- -0.83 0.762
M - (kN.m)
2 2.25 2.43 222. 13.9
in 19 15 20.5 0.1 Middle
0 E+3 E+3 258 E+3
Fz 556 58 (kN.m) -0.227 -0.399 0.245 0.33
M Ends
ax - - - (kN.m) 0.39 -0.836 0.732 0.024
1 69.0 29. 5.33
M 3 3 1.67 0.54 3.48
6 9 066 9
x E+3 5 E+3 Table6: Bending moments at mooring pile in worst load
combination in z-direction
M
in - - - -
15 11 1 68.5 0.05
M 1.68 29. 4.02 3.46
7 3 7 9 6 Pile
x E+3 529 6 E+3 141 143 145 147 149
number
Maxi
M 1684.32 1704.3 1783.2 1695.3 1632.1
- - (kN.m)
ax 2 2.25 2.43 222. 14.0
19 16 20.5 0.1
M 0 E+3 E+3 269 E+3 Middle
5 57 - - - -
y (kN.m) -2393.2
2563.7 2513.6 2514.6 2216.3
M
-
in 14 10 2 2.25 2.63 20.5 0.1 13.9 Ends
222. - - - -
M 5 6 2 E+3 E+3 6 57 E+3 (kN.m) -4428.6
265 5824.5 6158.3 5984.2 4789.1
y
M
- - Table7: Bending moments @ mooring effected beams in Z-
ax
1 2.25 3E+ 16.5 17E direction
M 19 15 2.38 0.1
7 E+3 3 14 +3
z 8 89

M Beam 142 144 146 148

in - - - - number
1 935. 58.5 Maxi
M 35 27 0.01 0.1 0.22 6.16
7 22 9 (kN.m) - - 4512.3 3253.6
z 5 57 8 E+3
4183.6 3245.6
Middle
(kN.m) - - 125.67 1023.6
1053.2 237.68

ISSN: 2395-1303 http://www.ijetjournal.org Page 36

 International Journal of Engineering and Techniques - Volume 4 Issue 4, July - Aug 2018

Table8: Shear force at mooring pile in worst load combination

in Y-direction

Pile
141 143 145 147 149
number

Maxi
-90.71 26.85 58.55 46.46 -39.91
(kN)

Middle Fig7: Shear force diagram in z-direction

760.79 877.35 909.09 896.9 810.58
(kN)
Table11: Axial force at mooring pile in worst load combination

Table9: Shear force at mooring pile in worst load combination in Z- Pile

141 143 145 147 149
direction number

-
Beam top -94.64 905.76 650.67 2893.2
142 144 146 148 1823.1
number
bottom 469.19 2347.3 2253.6 2003.1 4243.5
Maxi - -
-2113.3 -2213.6 -2136.1
(kN) 2126.2 2376.2

Middle - - -
-2043.6
(kN) 2134.89 2045.2 2286.1
Table12: Shear force @ mooring effected beams in Y-
direction

Pile
141 143 145 147 149
number Beam
142 144 146 148
number
Maxi
1.661 2.208 2.383 2.114 1.425
(kN) Front 62.002 43.91 4.23 -27.53
Middle back 62.002 43.91 4.23 -27.53
1.661 2.204 2.383 2.114 1.425
(kN)

Ends
1.661 2.205 2.384 2.114 1.425
(kN)

Table10: Shear force @ mooring effected beams in Z-direction

Pile number 142 144 146 148

Maxi
1.661 2.205 2.383 2.114 Fig8: axial force diagram
(kN)

Middle
1.661 2.206 2.383 2.115
(kN)

Ends
1.661 2.205 2.383 2.114
(kN)

ISSN: 2395-1303 http://www.ijetjournal.org Page 37

 International Journal of Engineering and Techniques - Volume 4 Issue 4, July - Aug 2018
Fig10: Side view

Beam number 142 144 146 148

Maxi+
11.536 8.942 8.9548 12.4
kN/m2
Maxi- -
11.47 8.949 12.8
kN.m2 8.899

Table13: Beam stress at mooring pile in worst load combination

Pile
141 143 145 147 149
number

Support 469.1 2342. 2253. 1998. 4238. Fig11: top view

reaction 93kN 2kN 46kN 39kN 92kN

Table14: Reactions

Pile
141 143 145 147 149
number
Maxi-
35.13 34.72 34.188 34.12 31.89
(kN/m2
Maxi+
34.72 35.62 36.19 35.86 35.62
(kN.m2

Fig11: longitudinal beam cross section view

Fig9: Beam stress diagram
Fig12: Transverse Beam cross section view

IV.Design of slab V.Conclusion:

Different factors are to be considered while analyzing and
designing the berthing structure. Lateral loads on the berthing
structures are more noteworthy than those on land–based
structures. Suitable environmental data, traffic forecasting and
soil data ought to be received from the proposed site location,
typical load distribution is induced on the shore line structures,
so need to use STAAD Pro software for the analysis and
design. The structure was analyzed and designed satisfying
various loading conditions and dimension analysis for
economical aspect was also taken care of without exceeding
the structural safety. Before going for planning or designing a

ISSN: 2395-1303 http://www.ijetjournal.org Page 38

 International Journal of Engineering and Techniques - Volume 4 Issue 4, July - Aug 2018
berthing structure, all this and future optimistic [10] Kavitha.P.E, Dr..Narayanan.K.P, Dr.
conditions concerning traffic information, backwoodsa} enlarg Sudheer.C.B., “Software Development for the
ement and manufacture of that specific country are to
“expansion and industrialization of that particular hinterland
Analysis and Design of Ship Berthing Structures”,
are to be studied, which also play a major role in shaping the ACEEE Int. J. On Transportation and Urban
project inception at the first place Development, 2011, Vol.1, No. 1.
[11] Krishna Raju.N, “Advanced Reinforced
Concrete Design”, 2nd Edition, Cbs Publication &
References Distributors Pvt .Ltd, Newdelhi, 2012.
[12] Muthukkumaran. K ,Sundaravadivelu and
[1] IS 456: 2000, “Code of Practice for Plain And Gandhi.S.R, “Effect of Dredging and Axial Load on
Reinforced Concrete Code Of Practice”, Ninth a Berthing Structure”, Geotechnical conference,
Revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. 2006.
[2] IS: 875 (Part 1) – 1987, “Code of Practice for [13] Premalatha P.V, Muthukkumaran. K &
Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) For Jayabalan P,“Behaviour of piles supported
Buildings and Structures Part 1 Dead Loads — berthing structure under lateral loads”,
Unit Weights Of Building Materials and Stored Geotechnical conference, 2011.
Material”, Second Revision, Bureau of Indian [14] Ramamrutham.S, “Design of Reinforced
Standards, New Delhi. Concrete Structures”, 16th Edition, Dhanpat Rai
[3] IS: 875 (Part 2) – 1987, “Code of Practice for Publications Company, Newdelhi, 2009.
Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake) For [15] Sanil Kuma.R, K. Ashok Kumar and N. S. N.
Buildings and Structures Part 2 Imposed Loads", Raju, “Wave characteristics off Visakhapatnam
Second Revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New coast during a cyclone “, research article 1524
Delhi. current science, 2004, vol. 86, no. 11
[4] IS: 875 (Part 3) – 1987,” Code of Practice for [16] Shanthal. B, Subba rao,katta Henkatramana
Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake) For And Harish, “ Analysis of berthing structures for
Buildings and Structures Part 3 Wind Loads”, wave induced Forces”, International journal of
Second Revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New earth sciences and engineering,2011,vol. 4,No 1, pp.
Delhi. 112-121.
[5] IS: 875 (Part 5) – 1997, “Code of Practice for [17] SP16,“Code Of Practice Criteria For Design
Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake) for Aids For Reinforced Concrete To IS: 456-2000”,
Buildings and Structures Part 5 Special Loads and Fourth Revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Combinations”, Second Revision, Bureau of Indian Delhi.
Standards, New Delhi. [18] Thomos dawson. H, “Offshore Structural
[6] IS: 1893-1984, “Code of Practice Criteria for Engineering”, 2nd Edition, Prentice –hall, New
Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”, Fourth Jersey, 2010
Revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. [19] Thandava Moorty, T.S, “Analysis of
[7] IS 4651 (Part IV): 1989, “Code of Practice for Structures”, 6th Edition, Oxford University Press,
General Design Considerations”, Second Revision, Newdelhi, 2005.
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. [20] www.vizagport.com
[8] IS: 4851 (Part III) – 1974, “Code Of Practice
For Planning and Design Of Ports and Harbours “,
First Revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi.
[9] IS 14238:1995, “Code of Practice for Inland
vessels –Selection of rubber Fenders for berthing
structures code of practice”, second Revision,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

ISSN: 2395-1303 http://www.ijetjournal.org Page 39