LIST OF PUBLICATIONS

1. Tirupathi.Naidu.G, Dr.Balaji.K.V.G.DandDr. Gopala Raju. Study of

Reliability Based Design of Structure - A Review- Elixir International
Journal -Civil Engg. 70 (2014) 24017-240222014

2. G.T.Naidu, Dr.K.V.G.D. Balaji, T.Abhiram Reddy, M.Pavan Kumar

Behaviour of Berthing structure subjected to Stack, Crane and Mooring load.
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ,ISSN0973 Volume
10, Number 12 (2015) pp 32159-32174 2

3. G.T.Naidu, Dr. K.V.G.D. Balaji, K. Murali, M. Pavan Kumar, “Influence of

Crane & Stack loads on berthing structures on deck slab” Disaster
Advances-vol.9(2) February 2016, pages 1-6.

4. G.T.Naidu, K.V.G.D. Balaji, M.Pavan Kumar, M.Himangeswari, Influence

of stack, crane, and mooring forces on substructure of a berthing structure,
International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, eISSN:
2319-1163 pISSN: 2321-7308 page 182-187

5. G.T.Naidu, K.V.G.D. Balaji, M.Pavan Kumar,B.Siddharth Rao:A Study on

The Structural Behaviour Of Berthing Structure Due to Variable Stack Load
By Reliability Based Analysis sent to Indian Journal of Science and
Technology INDJST- vol.9 issue 45 dec-2016, pages 1-6.

6. G.T. Naidu, K.V.G.D. Balaji, M. Pavan Kumar,M. Jeevan Kumar Reddy:

Reliability Based Analysis of Berthing Structure Subjected to Variable Crane
Load sent to International Journal of Applied Engineering Research- vol.12
issue 7 (2017), pages 1123-1128.
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research
ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 10, Number 12 (2015) pp. 32159-32174
© Research India Publications
http://www.ripublication.com

Behaviour Of Berthing Structure Subjected To Stack,

Crane And Mooring Load

G.T.Naidu1, Dr.K.V.G.D. Balaji2, T.Abhiram Reddy3, M.Pavan Kumar4

Abstract

The demand for oil and gas has grown significantly over the past 4 decades. In
the near future this growth is expected to continue so larger volumes of oil,
gases and bulk cargo are to be transported; an important part thereof by
shipping over the high seas. The transportation costs can be reduced by using
larger vessels with, among other things, a larger draft; new ports will be
constructed in more environmentally challenging conditions, so the loads
working on the marine constructions and berthed vessels will be higher.
Berthing structure is a general term used to describe a marine structure
consists of Deck slab and Substructure for the mooring of vessels for loading
and unloading the cargo, for embarking and disembarking passengers.
Damage to port/harbor structure was primarily due to Stack, Crane and
Mooring load. The literature on the adequacy of the STAAD. Pro modeling of
Berthing structure to analyze their behavior under varying Stack, Crane &
Mooring forces is limited. Piles & Diaphragm wall supported Deck slab
berthing structure on marine soils are subjected to different loading conditions
i.e., BGML, Crane load, Stack load, Concentrated load & IRC 70R loadings.
This paper describes the behaviour of varying Stack, Crane and Mooring
forces on bending moment of Main Cross Head beam of Deck Slab,“T”
Shaped Diaphragm wall and the axial forces of vertical & racker piles.

Key Words: Berthing Structure, Stack Load, Crane Load and Mooring Load

1. INTRODUCTION
1. Introduction
Rapid growth in the water transport system demands the construction of more port
and harbour structures. Berthing structures are constructed in ports and harbours to
provide facilities such as berthing and mooring of vessels, loading and unloading of
cargo and embarking and disembarking of passengers. Quays, wharfs, piers, jetties
and dolphins are the most widely used berthing structures.
32160 G.T.Naidu et al

The demand for oil and gas has grown significantly over the past 40 years. In
the near future this growth is expected to continue so larger volumes of oil and gases
are to be transported; an important part thereof by shipping over the high seas. To
obtain a safe and secure berth for the vessel, there are limits to the acceptable
motion and required strength, especially while transferring fluids such as oil, gas and
other petrochemical products. For safe maneuvering of vessels and transfer of
goods, it is important to predict all these forces and the required strength of the
structures, as accurately as possible.

Fig.1.Berthing Structure

1.1 Sub Structure

Generally the piles of a berthing structure on marine soils are subjected to both axial
and lateral loads. The lateral loads are not equally distributed among the piles of such
structures. The load shared by each pile varies with respect to the slope of the ground,
the location of piles in the sloping or horizontal ground, the length, diameter and
spacing of the pile. Anchors are provided in order to strengthen the structure and to
resist lateral loads thereby reducing the deflection.

Fig2.Sub Structure

1.2 Role of Fenders in Berthing structure:

Marine fenders are used at ports and docks on quay walls and other berthing
structures. They absorb the kinetic energy of a berthing vessel and thus prevent
Behaviour Of Berthing Structure Subjected To Stack, Crane And Mooring Load 32161

damage to the vessel or the berthing structure. Many types of marine fenders include:
Cell fenders, Cone fenders, Arch fenders, Pneumatic fenders used to protect the
berthing structures from impact forces.

Fig3.Fender

2.METHODOLOGY
The entire berth of 255 metres length is divided into 5 units each 51 metres long. Each
unit consists of 17 Nos. "T" shaped diaphragm wall (T.D.W) panels,17 Nos. vertical
piles and 19 racker piles. The diaphragm wall is connected at the top through a
cellular deck 2.8 metres deep to a series of vertical piles (V.P) 850 mm dia and raker
piles (R.P) 700 mm dia. All the substructure elements are socketed in hard rock.

2.1 Material Properties

The material used for analysis Reinforced concrete with M-30 grade concrete and Fe-
415 grade reinforcing steel.
The Stress-Strain relationship used is as per IS 456:2000. The basic material
properties used are as follows:
Modulus of Elasticity of steel, Es = 21,0000 MPa
Ultimate strain in bending, cu =0.0035
Characteristic strength of concrete, fck = 30 MPa
Yield stress for steel, fy = 415 MPa

2.2 Modeling of Structure

The overall plan dimension of Deck slab of the Berthing structures of one unit is 51m
x 17.2m and comprises 5 units with overall length of 255mts. Berthing structure is
assumed to be rigid at junction of diaphragm wall/pile and Main Cross Head beam
(M.C.H.B) and overall depth of the deck was taken as 2.8m. All the members of the
structure are assumed to be homogeneous, isotropic and having elastic modulus same
in compression as well as in tension, details are shown in Table 2.1.
32162 G.T.Naidu et al

Table1. Section details

MEMBER SIZE (m)

longitudinal Beams 2.25 X 0.25 & 2.25 X 0.30
Cross Beams 2.25 X 0.6 & 2.25 X 0.25
Top Slab 0.30
Bottom Slab 0.25
T.D.W 3X3, tw = 0.6, tf = 0.6
Vertical pile 0.85
Racker pile 0.70

The soil is idealized as a classical Winkler foundation - beam on elastic

springs. The soil passive resistance is considered to be offered by linear elastic
springs. Spring constants for the Sub - structure elements - retaining diaphragm wall
and the anchor piles are calculated using the elastic moduli of the soil strata. (Ref Soil
profile). The supports at the end of the retaining diaphragm wall are considered to be
effectively restrained against translation in the Y - direction. The supports at the end
of the anchor piles are considered to be effectively restrained against translation in the
X and Y directions. Supports for the retaining diaphragm wall and anchor piles are
taken to be at level -28.00 m. Each of the other joints (node) have three degrees of
freedom (DOF’S). The joint between the deck and the retaining diaphragm wall and
that between the deck and the anchor piles are considered to be very rigid.
Mobilisation of the soil's passive resistance is effected through linear elastic soil
springs,(-17m) neglected due to soft marine clay. Structural analysis package,
“STAAD.Pro" is used for the analysis. A Typical model of Berthing structure as
shown in fig 4.
Behaviour Of Berthing Structure Subjected To Stack, Crane And Mooring Load 32163

Fig 4. View of Berthing structure

2.3 Load combination consider for Berthing structure

From among the various live loads indicated the following live combinations are
considered in the design of the Berthing structure.
Dead Load+ Live Load (Stack load+ Crane Load+ BGML +Concentrated load
20 T+IRC 70R+Bottom slab Load+ Earth pressure+ lateral pressure due to
surcharge+ Mooring+ Lateral)

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Analysis done for Berthing structure by using STAAD.Pro. Studied the Influence of
varying Crane, Stack& Mooring forces on Bending moment of Main Cross Head
beam of Deck Slab &“T” Shaped Diaphragm wall and the axial forces of vertical &
racker piles.
32164 G.T.Naidu et al

Note: The Crane and Stack load are originally point loads but in the design
considered as uniformly distributed load by converting point load in the equivalent
uniformly distributed load.

3.1Berthing structure with different loading conditions as follows:

The structure was analyzed for linear static analysis for the following Loads.
Stack load
Crane load
BGML load
IRC 70R load
Concentrated load
Mooring force of 90Tons

The results obtained are shown in Table No.2, 3 and 4 for variable stack, crane
and mooring load.

3.2VARIABLE STACK LOAD

Table No.2.Details of Bending Moment of Main Cross Head beam of Deck Slab,“T”
Shaped Diaphragm wall and the axial forces of vertical & racker piles for Stack load,
keeping other loads constant.

Table.2

S. Stack Load Max. B.M of Max. B.M of Axial Force Axial Force
No (Tons/m2) M.C.H.B(Tons-m) T.D.W (Tons- (R.P) (Tons) (V.P) (Tons)
m)
1 5 2071 4901 644 1612
2 5.25 2082 4967 650 1627
3 5.5 2093 5007 654 1636
4 5.75 2105 5039 657 1644
5 6 2116 5069 659 1651
Bending Moment

2120
y = -5.3333x3 + 89.143x2 -
2110
450.24x + 2760.3
2100
2090 R² = 0.9999 S…
2080 P…

2070
2060
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Stack Load (Tons/m2)
Fig5. Stack Load v/s BM of M.C.H.B
Behaviour Of Berthing Structure Subjected To Stack, Crane And Mooring Load 32165

Bending moment of M.C.H.B variation was in the polynomial of order 3 with

respect to Stack load.

5100

Bending Moment
3 2
5050 y = 128x - 2203.x +
12758x - 19802
5000 R² = 0.999 Series1
4950
Poly.
4900 (Series1)
4850
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Stack Load (Tons/m2)

Fig6. Stack Load v/s BM of T.D.W

Bending moment of T.D.W variation was in the polynomial of order 3 with

respect to Stack load.
Axial Force of

660
= 5.333x3 - 98.28x2 + 610.8x
y655
- 619.5 Series1
650 R² = 0.999
645 Poly.
640 (Series1)
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Stack Load (Tons/m2)

Fig7. Stack Load v/s Axial force of (R.P)

Axial force of raker pile was in the polynomial of order 3 with respect to stack
load.
Axial Force of (V

1660
= 26.66x3 - 459.4x2 + 2666x -
y1650
3565.
1640 R² = 0.999 Series1
1630
Poly.
1620 (Series1)
1610
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Stack Load (Tons/m2)

Fig8. Stack Load) v/s Axial force of (V.P)

32166 G.T.Naidu et al

Axial force of vertical pile was in the polynomial of order 3 with respect to
stack load.

3.3 VARIABLE CRANE LOAD

Table No3.Details of Bending Moment of Main Cross Head beam of Deck Slab,“T”
Shaped Diaphragm wall and the axial forces of vertical & racker piles for Crane load,
keeping other loads constant.

Table.3

S. Crane Max. B.M of Max. B.M of Axial Force Axial Force

No Load M.C.H.B (Tons- T.D.W (Tons- (R.P) (Tons) (V.P) (Tons)
(Tons) m) m)
1 20 2071 4901 644 1612
2 21 2103 4933 647 1619
3 22 2136 4972 650 1628
4 23 2163 5004 653 1635
5 24 2190 5035 656 1643
Bending Moment of

2200
2180 y = -1.142x2 + 80.08x +
2160 926.1
R² = 0.999
2140 Series1
2120
2100 Poly.
2080 (Series1)

2060
15 20 25
Crane load (Tons)
Fig9. Crane Load v/s BM of M.C.H.B

Bending moment of M.C.H.B variation was in the polynomial of order 2 with

respect to Crane Load.
Behaviour Of Berthing Structure Subjected To Stack, Crane And Mooring Load 32167

Bending Mome
5050
y = 33.9x + 4223.
5000
R² = 0.998 Series1
4950
4900 Linear
(Series1)
4850
18 20 22 24 26
C l d (T )
Fig10. Crane Load v/s BM of T.D.W

Bending moment of T.D.W variation was in the polynomial of order 2 with

respect to Crane Load
Axial Force of (R

660
y = 3x + 584
655 R² = 1
Series1
650

645 Poly.
(Series1)
640
18 20 22 24 26
Crane load (Tons)
Fig11. Crane Load v/s Axial force of (R.P)

Axial force of raker pile was in the polynomial of order 2 with respect to crane
load.
Axial Force of (

1650
y=
1640 7.8x + 1455.8
R² = 0.9987 Series1
1630

1620 Poly.
(Series1)
1610
18 20 22 24 26
Crane load (Tons)

Fig12. Crane Load v/s Axial force of (V.P)

32168 G.T.Naidu et al

Axial force of vertical pile was in the polynomial of order 3 with respect to
stack load.

3.4VARIABLE MOORING LOAD

Table No4.Details of Bending Moment of Main Cross Head beam of Deck Slab,“T”
Shaped Diaphragm wall and the axial forces of vertical & racker piles for Mooring
load, keeping other loads constant.

Table.4

S. Mooring Max. B.M of Max. B.M of Axial Force Axial Force

No Load (Tons) M.C.H.B (Tons- T.D.W (Tons- (R.P) (Tons) (V.P) (Tons)
m) m)
1 90 2071 4901 644 1612
2 100 2083 4930 645 1615
3 120 2105 5005 647 1620
4 150 2132 5105 650 1627

2140
Bending Moment of

y = -1E-05x3 + 0.000x2 +
2120 1.48x + 1945
R² = 1 Series1
2100

2080 Poly.
(Series1)
2060
0 50 100 150 200

Fig13. Mooring Load v/s BM of M.C.H.B

Bending moment of M.C.H.B variation was in the polynomial of order 3 with

respect to Mooring Load.
Behaviour Of Berthing Structure Subjected To Stack, Crane And Mooring Load 32169

Bending Moment of T D
5150
5100 y = 3.440x + 4589.
R² = 0.999
5050
Series1
5000
4950 Linear
4900 (Series1)
4850
0 100 200

Fig14. Mooring Load v/s BM of T.D.W

Bending moment of T.D.W variation was Linear with respect to Mooring

Load.

651
650 y = 0.1x + 635
649 R² = 1
648
647 Series1
646
645 Poly.
644 (Series1)
643
0 100 200

Fig15. Mooring Load v/s Axial force of (R.P)

Axial force of raker pile was in the polynomial of order 2 with respect to
Mooring Force.
32170 G.T.Naidu et al

1630
y = 2E-05x3 - 0.008x2 + 1.323x
1625 + 1546
R² = 1
Series1
1620

Poly.
1615
(Series1)

1610
0 50 100 150 200

Fig16. Mooring Load v/s Axial force of (V.P)

Axial force of vertical pile was in the polynomial of order 3 with respect to
Mooring Force.

4. CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are obtained from the STADD.Pro analysis for variable
stack, crane and mooring loads.

4.1. STACK LOAD

On increasing the stack load of 5%, 10%,15%, 20% and 25% on 5T/m2
a) The percentage of increase in the bending moment of M.C.H.B 0.52, 1.05,
1.61, 2.12 and 2.68 respectively.
b) The percentage of increase in the bending moment of T.D.W were 1.32, 2.11,
2.73, 3.31 and3.89 respectively.
c) The percentage of increase in the Axial force of racker pile
were0.92,1.52,1.97,2.27 and2.72 respectively.
d) The percentage of increase in the Axial force of vertical pile with respect to
increase Stack load of 5%,10%,15%,20%and25%were0.92,1.46,1.94,2.36 and
2.84 respectively.

4.2.CRANE LOAD
On increasing the Crane load 5%, 10%,15%, 20% and 25% on 20T
a) The percentage of increase in the bending moment of M.C.H.B were 1.52,
3.04, 4.25, 5.43, and6.64 respectively.
b) The percentage of increase in the bending moment of T.D. were 0.64, 1.42,
2.05, 2.64 and 3.27 respectively.
c) The percentage of increase in the Axial force of racker pile were
0.46,0.92,1.37,1.82, and2.27 respectively.
d) The percentage of increase in the Axial force of vertical pile were
0.43,0.98,1.40,1.88 and 2.32 respectively.
Behaviour Of Berthing Structure Subjected To Stack, Crane And Mooring Load 32171

4.3. MOORING LOAD

On increasing 90T mooring load to 100T, 120T and 150T
a) The percentage of increase in the bending moment of M.C.H.B were
0.57,1.61and 2.86 respectively.
b) The percentage of increase in the bending moment of T.D.W were 0.58, 2.07
and 3.99 respectively.
c) The percentage of increase in the Axial force of racker pile were 0.15,0.46 and
0.92 respectively.
d) The percentage of increase in the Axial force of vertical pile were 0.18, 0.49
and 0.92 respectively.

The variation in Stack load plays a major role in influencing the Axial forces
of vertical and racker piles when compared to Crane load and Mooring Load.
The variation in Crane load plays a major role in influencing the bending
moment of Main Cross Head beam when compared to Crane Stack load and Mooring
Load.
The variation in Mooring load plays a major role in influencing the bending
moment of “T” Shaped Diaphragm wall when compared to Crane load and Mooring
Stack Load.

REFERENCES

[1]. Ali Dousti, S.M.ASCE, Masound Moradian, Seyyed Rahaman Teheri, Reza
Rashetnia and Mohammad Shekarachi(2013),” Corrosion Assessment of RC
Deck ina Jetty Structure Damaged by Chloride Attack”, Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities © ASCE / September/October 2013.
[2]. Andrew T. Metzger, Jonathan Hutuchinson and Jason Kwiatkowski(2014),”
Measurement of Marine Vessel Berthing Parameters”, ELSEVIER, Marine
Structures 39(2014) 350-372.
[3]. An Duan, Jian-Guo Dai and Wei-Liang Jin(2014),” Probabilistic Approach for
Durability Design of Concrete Structures in Marine Environments”, © ASCE
A4014007-1.
[4]. Azadeh Mostofi, Khosrow Bargi (2012),”New Concept in Analysis of
Floating Piers for Ship Berthing Impact”, ELSEVIER, Marine Structures 25
(2012) 58–70.
[5]. IS 456:2000, “Indian Standard plain and reinforced concrete-Code of
Practice”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2000.
[6]. IS 2911-1985 Code of practice for design and construction of pile foundations.
[7]. IS 4651 (Part I-V) -1974 - Code of practice for planning and design of ports
and harbours.
[8]. Masound Moradian, S.M.ASCE, Mahdi Chini, Ph.D and Mohammad
Shekarchi(2014),” Durability Performance of a Structure Made with High-
Performance Concrete and Prefabricated Elements in a Marine
Environment”,ASCE 04014174-4.
32172 G.T.Naidu et al

[9]. Yi Li, Barbara J. Lence, A.M.ASCE, Zhou Shi-Liang, and Qiang Wu

(2011),”Stochastic Fatigue Assessment for Berthing Monopiles in Inland
Waterways”, Journal Of Waterway, Port, Coastal, And Ocean Engineering ©
Asce / March/April 2011/45
Behaviour Of Berthing Structure Subjected To Stack, Crane And Mooring Load 32173

AUTHOR’S PROFILE:

G.T.Naidu, The author presently working as Associate Professor and Head of the
department in Sanketika Vidya Parishad Engineering College, PM Palem,
Visakhapatnam doing his Research at GITAM College of Engineering, GITAM
University and having 26 years of industrial experience, guiding the students at
Graduate and Post Graduate level. He is with service many years in industry and as
Head of the Department enriched the knowledge to hundreds of students. He is
member in various professional bodies like FIV, MIE.

Prof. K.V.G.D.Balaji, Ph.D. is a civil engineer with 30 years teaching experience. He

is a member in various prestigious societies and professional bodies like ISTE,
ISCMS, ISRMTT, IRC, INSDAG, ISRS, ISET, IGS, CMSI, FIE, FIV, FIPHE.
Presently working as Professor in Department of Civil Engineering, GITAM
University, Visakhapatnam. He is a Licensed Structural Engineer of VUDA &
GVMC Member (CED 57) and member of Bureau of Indian Standards. His yeoman
services as a lecturer, professor, and Head of Department enriched the knowledge to
thousands of students. He is a stalwart of structural analysis and has nearly 11 PhDs in
progress at present in additional to 1 PhD completed. More than 50 papers were
published in various esteemed reputable National and International Journals. He
published four books in various Areas. He received so many prestigious awards and
rewards.

T.Abhiram Reddy, Student M.Tech (Structural Engineering and Natural Disaster

Management) Department of Civil Engineering, GITAM University, Visakhapatnam,
32174 G.T.Naidu et al

Andhra Pradesh, India.He Participated in various inter college events like civil
engineering modal presentations, power point presentations and international
conference.

M.PavanKumar, M.E(SENDM),(Ph.D) Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering

Department, S.V.P Engineering College, Visakhapatnam. He is doing Ph.D in Andhra
University and Licensed Structural Consultant in Visakhapatnam. He has published
several research papers in various journals.
 Disaster Advances Vol. 9 (2) February (2016)

Influence of crane and stack loads on

berthing structure deck slab
Naidu G.T.1,2*, Balaji K.V.G.D.2, Pavan Kumar M.1 and Murali K.1
1. Department of Civil Engineering, SVP Engineering College, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India
2. Department of Civil Engineering, GITAM University, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, INDIA
*[email protected]

Abstract while transferring fluids such as oil, gas, general cargo and
The demand for oil, gas and general cargo has grown other petrochemical products. For design purposes it is
significantly over the past 40 years. This growth is important to predict all these forces and the required
expected to continue so larger volumes of oil, gases strength of the structures, as accurately as possible.
and bulk cargo are to be transported in the near
Several international, European and national design-codes
future; an important part thereof by shipping over the are available. The ways used in calculating loads on the
high seas. By using larger vessels, among other structures are all based on one ‘main’ reliability method as
things, the transportation costs can be reduced. Many described. The berthing process for large tankers generally
new ports will be constructed in more environmentally takes place as follows. We assume hereby that the first
challenging conditions, so the loads working on the point of impact lies between the mid and the bow of the
marine constructions and berthed vessels will be vessel:
higher. Berthing structure is a general term used to
describe a marine structure for the mooring of 1. With the assistance of tugs the vessel is positioned
vessels, loading/unloading cargo and embarking and parallel to the berthing structure.
2. Depending on the weather conditions (in particular the
disembarking passengers.
wind direction), one or two tugs push the vessel sideways
to the berthing structure and keep pushing during all
Damage to port/harbor structure was primarily due to following steps; two other tugs pull the vessel to control the
Stack and Crane loads. The sub-structure consisting motions of the vessel.
of piles and diaphragm wall supported Deck slab 3. At this second point of contact the kinetic energy of the
berthing structure on marine soils are subjected to vessel is converted into potential energy of the fender
different loading conditions i.e. Mooring, BGML, system.
Crane load, Stack load, Concentrated load and IRC 4. The fender system springs back pushing the vessel
70R loadings. The literature on the adequacy of the around the second point of contact toward the first point of
STAAD. Pro modeling of berthing structure to analyze contact.
their behavior under varying the Stack and Crane 5. During this process, mooring lines are attached between
the vessel and the mooring structure (e.g. mooring
loads is limited. This paper describes the influence of
dolphins).
Stack and Crane loads on the bending moment 6. Finally the mooring lines are put under tension bringing
induced in the Deck slab of berthing structure. the vessel to a standstill.
7. During the berthing process the human element (tug boat
Keywords: Berthing Structure, GML Load, Crane Load, crews) plays an important role in controlling the velocity at
Stack Load and Deck Slab. impact.
8. The loading and unloading operations took place over
Introduction the berthing structure before departure of the vessel.
The currently applied approach for structural design has
been used for decades but is based on vessel types from Berthing Structure: Berthing structures vary widely from
around 1980. It is therefore worthwhile to have a closer port to port. The number of berths will depend upon the
look at this approach for marine construction designs. number of ships to use the port and the time it will take to
When a vessel approaches a jetty, it is important to berth discharge and take on cargo or passengers. The selection of
the vessel as gently as possible. Despite this, large forces the type of berth and the material used for its construction
are exerted to the jetty/dolphins e.g. through breasting on will depend upon a number of factors:
fenders and mooring lines in this process. After berthing ➢ Local customs and practices for example, the massive
and when all mooring lines are attached to the dolphins, quays are generally used in Europe; whereas, open and
certain other forces act on the vessel and on the light structures are usually constructed in America.
fenders/jetty/dolphin. Currents and winds produce kinetic ➢ Availability of materials.
energy on the fenders, mooring lines and dolphins. To ➢ Economy of construction.
obtain a safe and secure berth for the vessel, there are limits ➢ Size and weight of ships using the port.
to the acceptable motion and required strength, especially ➢ Method of construction.
1
 Disaster Advances Vol. 9 (2) February (2016)

Methodology
Deck slab of Berthing Structure is considered with different
loading conditions varying Stack loads (i.e. 5 Tons/ m2,
5.25 Tons/ m2, 5.5 Tons/ m2, 5.75 Tons/ m2and 6 Tons/ m2)
and Crane load (i.e., 20 Tons/m2, 21 Tons/m2, 22 Tons/m2,
23 Tons/m2, 24 Tons/m2 and 25 Tons/m2). The overall plan
dimension of Deck slab berthing structures is 51m x 17.2m.
Berthing structure is assumed to be fixed at junction of
diaphragm wall/pile and Main Cross Head beam and Fig. 1: 3D-view of Deck slab Berthing structure of
overall depth of the deck was taken as 2.8m. All the 5 Tons/m2 Stack load
members of the structure are assumed to be homogeneous,
isotropic and having elastic modulus same in compression Table 2
and tension. Details are shown in Table 1. Details of Bending Moment due to Stack Load of
5 Tons/m2
Table 1 Max.B.M on
Section details Varying Intensity
S.N. Main Cross
Load of Load
Member Size (m) Head Beam
1 Stack Load 5 Tons/m2 1429 Tons-m
longitudinal Beams 0.6 X 2.25 and 0.25 X
2.25
Cross Beams 0.8 X 2.25 Case 2- Stack load of 5.25 Tons/m2: The structure is
analyzed for linear static analysis for the following loads:
Top Slab 0.30 • Stack load of 5.25 Tons/m2
• Crane load of 20Tons
Bottom Slab 0.25
• BGML load
• IRC 70R load
• Concentrated load
Loads considered on Deck of berthing structure: The results obtained are shown in Table 3.
• Dead Load
• Stack Load (varying)
• Crane Load (varying)
• BGML Load
• IRC 70R Load
• Concentrated Load

Load combination considered for deck of berthing

structure: Fig. 2: 3D-view of Deck slab Berthing structure of
• Dead Load+ Live Load (Stack load+ Crane Load+ 5.25 Tons/m2 Stack load
BGML +Concentrated load 20 T+IRC 70R+Bottom
slab Load). Table 3
• Dead Load+ Bottom slab Load. Details of Bending Moment due to Stack Load of
5.25 Tons/ m2

Results and Discussion Max.B.M on

Varying Intensity of
Deck slab berthing structure with different loading S.N. Main Cross
Load Load
conditions: Head Beam
Case 1- Stack load of 5 Tons/m2: The structure is 1 Stack 5.25 1435 Tons-m
analyzed for linear static analysis for the following loads: Load Tons/m2
• Stack load of 5 Tons/m2
• Crane load of 20Tons Case 3- Stack load of 5.5 Tons/m2: The structure is
• BGML load analyzed for linear static analysis for the following loads:
• IRC 70R load • Stack load of 5.5 Tons/m2
• Concentrated load • Crane load of 20Tons
The results obtained are shown in Table 2. • BGML load
• IRC 70R load
• Concentrated load
The results obtained are shown in Table 4.
2
 Disaster Advances Vol. 9 (2) February (2016)

Fig 3: 3D-view of Deck slab Berthing structure of

5.5 Tons/m2 Stack Load
Fig. 5: 3D-view of Deck slab Berthing structure of
Table 4 6 Tons/m2 Stack load
Details of Bending Moment due to Stack Load of
5.5 Tons/m2
Table 6
Max. B.M on Details of Bending Moment due to Stack Load of
Varying Intensity of
S.N. Main Cross 6 Tons/m2
Load Load
Head Beam
Max.B.M on
1 Stack 5.5 Tons/m2 1441.5 Tons-m Varying Intensity
S.N. Main Cross
Load Load of Load
Head Beam
1 Stack Load 6 Tons/m2 1454 Tons-m
Case 4- Stack load of 5.75 Tons/m2: The structure is
analyzed for linear static analysis for the following loads.
The results obtained are shown in Table 5.
• Stack load of 5.75 Tons/m2 Case 6- Crane load of 20 Tons: The structure is analyzed
• Crane load of 20Tons for linear static analysis for the following loads:
• BGML load • Stack load of 5 Tons/m2
• IRC 70R load • Crane load of 20 Tons/m2
• Concentrated load • BGML load
• IRC 70R load
• Concentrated load
The results obtained are shown in Table 7.

Fig. 4: 3D-view of Deck slab Berthing structure of

5.75 Tons/m2 Stack load

Table 5
Details of Bending Moment due to Stack Load of
5.75 Tons/m2
Max.B.M on
Varying Intensity
S.N. Main Cross Fig. 6: 3D-view of Deck slab Berthing structure of
Load of Load
Head Beam 20 Tons/m2 Crane load
1 Stack Load 5.75 1448 Tons-m
Tons/m2 Table 7
Details of Bending Moment due to Crane Load of
Case 5- Stack load of 6 Tons/m2: The structure is 20 Tons/m2
analyzed for linear static analysis for the following loads:
• Stack load of 6 Tons/m2 Max.B.M on
Varying Intensity
• Crane load of 20 Tons/m2 S.N. Main Cross
Load of Load
• BGML load Head Beam
• IRC 70R load 1 Crane 20 Tons/m2 1429 Tons-m
• Concentrated load Load
The results obtained are shown in Table 6.

3
 Disaster Advances Vol. 9 (2) February (2016)

Case 7- Crane load of 21 Tons: The structure is analyzed Table 10

for linear static analysis for the following loads: Details of Bending Moment due to Crane Load of
• Stack load of 5 Tons/m2 22 Tons/m2
• Crane load of 21 Tons/m2 Max.B.M on
Varying Intensity
• BGML load S.N. Main Cross
Load of Load
• IRC 70R load Head Beam
• Concentrated load 1 Crane 22 Tons/m2 1505 Tons-m
The results obtained are shown in Table 8. Load

Case 9- Crane load of 23 Tons: The structure is analyzed

for linear static analysis for the following loads:
• Stack load of 5 Tons/m2
• Crane load of 23 Tons/m2
• BGML load
• IRC 70R load
• Concentrated load
The results obtained are shown in Table 10.

Fig. 7: 3D-view of Deck slab Berthing structure of

21 Tons Crane load

Table 8
Details of Bending Moment due to Crane Load of
21 Tons/m2 Fig. 9: 3D-view of Deck slab Berthing structure of
Max.B.M on 23 Tons/m2Crane load
Varying Intensity
S.N. Main Cross
Load of Load Table 10
Head Beam
1 Crane 21 Tons/m2 1475 Tons-m Details of Bending Moment due to Crane Load of
Load 23 Tons
Max. B.M on
Varying Intensity
S.N. Main Cross
Load of Load
Case 8- Crane load of 22 Tons/m2: The structure is Head Beam
analyzed for linear static analysis for the following loads: 1 Crane 23 Tons/m2 1521 Tons-m
• Stack load of 5 Tons/m2 Load
• Crane load of 22 Tons/m2
• BGML load Case 10- Crane load of 24 Tons: The structure is analyzed
• IRC 70R load for linear static analysis for the following loads:
• Concentrated load • Stack load of 5 Tons/m2
The results obtained are shown in Table 9. • Crane load of 24 Tons/m2
• BGML load
• IRC 70R load
• Concentrated load
The results obtained are shown in Table 11.

Fig. 10: 3D-view of Deck slab Berthing structure of

Fig. 8: 3D-view of Deck slab Berthing structure of 24 Tons/m2 Crane load
22 Tons/m2 Crane load

4
Disaster Advances Vol. 9 (2) February (2016)

Table 11 From fig. 11, it is observed the Stack load curve follows the
Details of Bending Moment due to Crane Load of polynomial of order 5.
24 Tons/m2
Max.B.M on
Varying Intensity
S.N. Main Cross
Load of Load
Head Beam
1 Crane 24 Tons/m2 1550 Tons-m
Load

Table 12
Maximum bending moment values with increase
in stack load
Intensity Max.B.M on
Variable of Stack Main Cross
S.N.
Load Load Head Beam Fig. 12: Variation of maximum bending moment with
(Tons/m2) (Tons-m)
Crane load
1 Stack Load 5 1429
2 Stack Load 5.25 1435 From fig. 12, it is observed the Crane load curve follows
the polynomial of order 3.
3 Stack Load 5.5 1441.5
4 Stack Load 5.75 1448 Conclusion
The influence of Crane and Stack loads on Main Cross-
5 Stack Load 6 1454 Head beam of berthing structure deck slab was studied. The
following conclusions were obtained:
Table 13
Maximum bending moment values with increase in a) Bending moment variation was in the polynomial of
crane load order 5 with respect to Stack load.
Intensity Max.B.M on b) Bending moment variation was in the polynomial of
Variable of Stack Main Cross order 3 with respect to Crane load.
S.N. c) The percentage of increase in the bending moment with
Load Load Head Beam
(Tons/m2) (Tons-m) respect to Stack load of 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% and 25%
1 Crane 20 1429 is 0.41, 0.45, 0.46, 0.41 and 0.43 respectively.
Load d) The percentage of increase in the bending moment with
2 Crane 21 1475 respect to Crane load of 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% and 25%
Load is 2.35, 2.03, 1.06, 1.9 and 2.9 respectively.
e) The variation in Crane load plays a major role in
3 Crane 22 1505
influencing the bending moment of main cross head
Load
beam of Deck slab when compared to Stack load.
4 Crane 23 1521
Load
5 Crane 24 1550 References
1. Ali Dousti, S.M. ASCE, Masound Moradian, Seyyed Rahaman
Load
Teheri, Reza Rashetnia and Mohammad Shekarachi, Corrosion
Assessment of RC Deck in a Jetty Structure Damaged by
Chloride Attack, Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, 27(5), 519-528 (2013)

2. Metzger Andrew T., Jonathan Hutuchinson and Jason

Kwiatkowski, Measurement of Marine Vessel Berthing
Parameters, Elsevier Marine Structures, 39, 350-372 (2014)

3. An Duan, Jian-Guo Dai and Wei-Liang Jin, Probabilistic

Approach for Durability Design of Concrete Structures in Marine
Environments, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 27, doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001023 (2014)
Fig. 11: Variation of maximum bending moment with
stack load

5
 Disaster Advances Vol. 9 (2) February (2016)

4. Azadeh Mostofi and Khosrow Bargi, New Concept in Analysis 8. Masound Moradian, ASCE S.M., Mahdi Chini and Mohammad
of Floating Piers for Ship Berthing Impact, Elsevier Marine Shekarchi, Durability Performance of a Structure Made with
Structures, 25, 58–70 (2012) High-Performance Concrete and Prefabricated Elements in a
Marine Environment, Journal of Performance of Constructed
5. IS 456:2000, Indian Standard plain and reinforced concrete- Facilities, 29(6), ASCE 04014174-4 (2014)
Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi (2000)
9. Yi Li, Lence Barbara J., ASCE A.M., Zhou Shi-Liang and
6. IS 2911-1985, Code of practice for design and construction of Qiang Wu, Stochastic Fatigue Assessment for Berthing
pile foundations (1985) Monopiles in Inland Waterways, Journal of Waterway, Port,
Coastal and Ocean Engineering, 137(2), 43-53 (2011).
7. IS 4651 (Part I-V) -1974 - Code of practice for planning and
design of ports and harbours (1974) (Received 12th January 2016, accepted 20th January 2016)

6
 ISSN (Print) : 0974-6846
Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol 9(45), DOI: 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i45/100261, December 2016 ISSN (Online) : 0974-5645

Study on the Structural Behaviour of Berthing

Structure due to Variable Stack Load
G. T. Naidu1*, K. V. G. D. Balaji2, M. Pavan Kumar1 and B. Siddharth Rao2
1
Department of Civil Engineering, S.V.P. Engineering College, PM Palem, Visakhapatnam - 530041, Andhra Pradesh,
India; [email protected], [email protected]
2
Department of Civil Engineering, GITAM University, Rushikonda, Visakhapatnam - 530045, Andhra Pradesh, India;
[email protected], [email protected]

Abstract
Objectives: To study the structural behavior of the components of berthing structure subjected to variable stack load
with and without mooring force conditions. Methods/Statistical Analysis: Linear static analysis was performed on
the berthing structure subjected to variable stack load with and without mooring effects. Based on this study, equations
related to bending moment and axial force of structural members of berthing structure has been obtained. A Monte Carlo
simulation method was adopted for generation of random numbers using MATLAB software. From the obtained results,
analysis was performed to obtain characteristics of load effects of the components of the berthing structure. Findings:
The influence of variable Stack load has an effect on the Bending Moment and Axial Force of structural components of
the berthing structure. It was also found that there was a significant variation of results of load effects between with and
without mooring force condition in case of Vertical Pile (VP) but there was no significant variation of results of load effects
on Main Cross Head Beam (MCHB), T-shaped Diaphragm Wall (TDW) and Raker Pile (RP) due to stack load. Applications/
Improvement: This study helps to predict the behavior of berthing structure subjected to varying stack load caused due
to lack of awareness of end user on the loading specifications that have been assessed by the designer.

Keywords: Berthing Structure, Linear Static Analysis, Mooring force, Stack load

1.  Introduction The loading and unloading stack load mainly con-
sists of general cargo of commodities like coal, iron ore,
Berthing structure is a marine structure for the moor- iron pellets, iron scrap, sodium sulphate, wood pellets,
ing of vessels, for loading and unloading of cargo, for cocoa bean seeds, china clay, Sulphur, coking coal etc.
embarking and disembarking passengers. Berthing struc- The height of stack is generally restricted to a level
tures that are most widely used were quays, wharfs, piers, dependent on type of cargo and their unit weights to
jetties, and dolphins. Berthing structures vary from port satisfy the designed stack load on berthing structure.
to port. According to cargo handled the berths are of In other words, the stack height varied from material
different types i.e., General cargo berth, Dry bulk cargo to material. For example, three materials like iron ore,
berth, Liquid or powdered bulk berth, Containers berth, coal and wood pellets having different permissible
Passengers berth, Petroleum tankers berth, Fish port etc., stack heights of 1m, 3.85m and 6.25m respectively cor-
It is necessary to have a closer look on the loads which are responding to a design stack load of 5T/m2. But the
acting on the berthing structure for analysis and design. specified stack height may not be restricted since the

*Author for correspondence

 Study on the Structural Behaviour of Berthing Structure due to Variable Stack Load

end user may not have awareness on the limitation of 2.  Modelling
stack heights and unit weights of different materials.
In1 studied that in practice, structures fail often The entire berth of 255m length is divided into 5 units
due to causes not directly linked to the predicted of 51m long. Each unit consists of T- Shaped Diaphragm
nominal loading or strength, but instead, most often walls (TDW) of 17 Nos, Raker piles (RP) of 700 mm
due to other factors such as human error, negligence, (diameter) of 19 Nos and Vertical Piles (VP) of 850
poor workmanship, or neglected loadings. In2 investi- mm (diameter) of 17 Nos. The T-shaped diaphragm
gated the fatigue design process in the welded joints wall was connected at the top through a cellular deck
were summarized. Fatigue damage expressions were Main Cross Head Beam (MCHB) of 2.80 meters deep
formulated and the reliability format was employed to series of vertical piles and raker piles on rear side
to construct a design rule for low period structures. (Refer Figure.1). All the substructure elements were
In3 studied the consistency between field data and the socketed in hard rock. The structural members con-
model prediction verified the reliability of a probabilis- sidered are assumed to be homogeneous and isotropic
tic model, based on which further parametric analyses with same elastic modulus in compression and tension.
were carried out to investigate the effects of different A span of 3m has taken for the analysis which consists
design variables on the probability of steel corrosion. of T-shaped diaphragm wall, main cross head beam,
The Monte Carlo method was applied for this proba- vertical pile and raker pile. The berthing structure is
bilistic analysis. The probabilistic approach is deemed considered as plane frame.The end supports of the
useful for the service life design of reinforcement con- retaining diaphragm wall and Anchor piles are taken at
crete structures in marine environments. In4 studied 28.00m below ground level. Analysis of berthing struc-
the uncertainties in the random structural properties ture is done using STAAD Pro for obtaining Bending
are modeledby considering the most significant param- moment on the MCHB and TDW and Axial force on
eters as random variables in Stochastic Free Vibration the VP and RP.
Analysis of RC buildings concluded the frequency
responses using the metamodels are found to be fairly
matching with the responses from the accurate ACS.
In5 conducted on a series of laboratory experimen-
tal setup designed with a single row of instrumented
piles in a berthing structure reduced to a model scale.
Experiments were carried out by applying both berth-
ing and mooring forces. This study concluded that the
Mooring force was much critical compared to the other
lateral loads acting on the structure. Also in horizontal
ground, for both berthing and mooring forces, front
pile takes more loads compared to rear ones. In6 stud-
ied behavior of diaphragm wall which was connected
to two rows of large diameter vertical piles by a rigid
deck system. The deck system being rigid and tie-rods
flexible, the lateral loads were shared between the piles
and the dead man diaphragm wall. The measured tie-
rod forces compared very well within the analytical
result and confirmed that a substantial portion of the
lateral load was transferred to the piles. A diaphragm
wall tied to a dead man diaphragm and a rigid deck
supported by vertical piles, was carried out using
Structural Analysis Program, assuming the dead man
to be rigid and flexible to assess the sharing of lateral
load between piles and the dead man.

2 Vol 9 (45) | December 2016 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology
 G. T. Naidu, K. V. G. D. Balaji, M. Pavan Kumar and B. Siddharth Rao

• Earth pressure.
• lateral pressure due to surcharge.
• Mooring.
• Seismic load.

2.3 Load Combination Consider For

Berthing Structure
Load combination taken for the design and analysis of the
berthing Structure as per IS 4651 part 4 (1974).
Case 1: Without mooring condition.
• Dead Load + Live Loads+ Hydrostatic Force +
Surcharge + Earth Pressure.
Case 2: With mooring condition.
• Dead Load+ Live Loads +Hydrostatic Force +
Surcharge + Earth Pressure+ Mooring force..

(a) (b)
3.  Methodology
Figure 1.  (a) 3-D rendered view of berthing structure
frame (b) Cross-sections of berthing structure components 3.1  STAAD Pro Analysis
(in Meters). The STAAD Pro software was used to model the T-Shaped
Diaphragm wall, Vertical pile, Raker pile and Main Cross
Head Beam of the berthing structure (Refer Figure 2 for
2.1  Material Properties STAAD Pro wire frame model). A panel of 3m wide and
• The materials M-30 grade of concrete and Fe415 grade 17.2m long was taken for analysis of the structure. The
of reinforced steel are used for the analysis. influence of variable stack and other loads on Main Cross
• As per IS 456:2000, the stress- strain relationship is Head Beam (MCHB), T-Shaped Diaphragm Wall (TDW),
used. Vertical Pile (VP) and Raker Pile (RP) with and without
• Characteristic strength of concrete, fck=30 N/mm2. mooring force conditions has been studied. The other
• Ultimate strain in bending, ƹcu =0.0035. loads Crane, IRC 70R, concentrated Load and BGML
• Yield stress for steel, fy = 415 N/mm2. load were kept constant thorough out the analysis.
• Modulus of elasticity of steel, Es = 21,0000 N/mm2

2.2 Loads Considered On Deck and

Substructure
Loads considered on Deck of Berthing structure.
• Dead Load
• Live loads on deck.
• Crane Load.
• Stack Load (Expressed as intensity of load per unit
floor area on deck slab).
• BGML Load.
• IRC 70R Load.
• Concentrated Load
• Loads consider on Substructure. Figure 2.  STAAD Pro wire frame model.

Vol 9 (45) | December 2016 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology 3
 Study on the Structural Behaviour of Berthing Structure due to Variable Stack Load

3.2  Monte Carlo Simulation 4.1.2  Without Mooring Force

Monte Carlo simulation is a technique of simulation From Figure 4, it is observed that for a decrease in
that relies on repeated random sampling and statistical characteristic stack load of 50%, observed decrease in
analysis to compute the results. This method of simu- COV for load of 2.1% and COV for B.M of 50%. And
lation is very closely related to random experiments, for increase in characteristic stack load of 50%, observed
experiments for which the specific result is not known decrease in COV for load of 2.9% and increase in COV
in advance. This technique is used to study the distribu- for B.M of 43%.
tion of random variables, to simulate the performance of
or behavior of the system and to determine the reliabil-
ity or probability of failure of system or a component.
MATLAB Software is used for the generation of random
numbers for each component, About 8 samples were
generated for various Mean and SD for all the varying
Stack load. For each component, the process is repeated
similarlyvalues of mean(µ), standard deviation (σ) and
Coefficient of Variation (COV) are obtained for each
structural component.

4.  Results and Discussions Figure 4.  LOAD Vs SD in MCHB without mooring force.

The COV values obtained from random numbers gen-

4.2  T-Diaphragm Wall
erated from MATLAB software for each component
i.e., MCHB, TDW, RP and VP for varying STACK load 4.2.1  With Mooring Force
are plotted in graphs as shown in Figure 3 through From Figure5, it is observed that for a decrease in char-
respectively. acteristic stack load of 50%, observed decrease in COV
for load of 6.1% and COV for B.M of 52%. And for
increase in characteristic stack load of 50%, observed
decrease in COV for load of 4.80 % and increase in COV
for B.M of 44%.

Figure 3.  LOAD Vs COV in MCHB with mooring force.

4.1  Main Cross Head Beam

4.1.1  With Mooring Force Figure 5.  LOAD Vs COV in TDW with mooring force.
From Figure 3, it is observed that for a decrease in
characteristic stack load of 50%, observed decrease in
COV for load of 2.2% and COV for B.M of 50%. And 4.2.2  Without Mooring Force
for increase in characteristic stack load of 50%, observed From Figure 6, it is observed that for a decrease in character-
decrease in COV for load of 2.11% and increase in COV istic stack load of 50%, observed increase in COV for load of
for B.M of 48%. 4.3% and decrease in COV for B.M of 47%. And for increase

4 Vol 9 (45) | December 2016 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology
 G. T. Naidu, K. V. G. D. Balaji, M. Pavan Kumar and B. Siddharth Rao

in characteristic stack load of 50%, observed increase in 4.4  Raker Pile

COV for load of 6.2 % and COV for B.M of 54%.
4.4.1  With Mooring Force
From Figure 9, it is observed that for a decrease in char-
acteristic stack load of 50%, observed increase in COV for
load of 4 % and COV for A.F of 8.50%. And for increase in
characteristic stack load of 50%, observed decrease in COV
for load of 46 % and increase in COV for A.F of 66 %.

Figure 6.  LOAD Vs COV in TDW without mooring force.

4.3  Vertical Pile

4.3.1  With Mooring Force
From Figure 7, it is observed that for a decrease in character-
istic stack load of 50%, observed decrease in COV for load
of 1.30 % and COV for A.F of 3.70%. And for increase in
characteristic stack load of 50%, observed decrease in COV Figure 9.  LOAD Vs COV in RP with mooring force.
for load of 66 % and increase in COV for A.F of 158 %.
4.4.2  Without Mooring Force
From Figure 10, it is observed that for a decrease in char-
acteristic stack load of 50%, observed increase in COV for
load of 0.5 % and decrease in COV for A.F of 49%. And
for increase in characteristic stack load of 50%, observed
decrease in COV for load of 5 % and increase in COV for
A.F of 44 %.

Figure 7.  LOAD Vs COV in VP with mooring force.

4.3.2  Without Mooring Force

From Figure 8, it is observed that for a decrease in char-
acteristic stack load of 50%, observed increase in COV for
load of 15 % and decrease in COV for A.F of 17%. And
for increase in characteristic stack load of 50%, observed
increase in COV for load of 3 % and COV for A.F of 15.3 %. Figure 10.  LOAD Vs COV in RP without mooring force.

5.  Conclusions
From the Analysis, for variable stack load of 2.5 T/m2
and 7.5T/m2 when compared to service stack load
of 5T/m2 with and without mooring force condition,
observed variation of results of load effects in Main
Cross Head Beam (MCHB), T-shaped Diaphragm Wall
(TDW) and Raker Piles (RP) and the following conclu-
Figure 8.  LOAD Vs COV in VP without mooring force. sions were drawn.

Vol 9 (45) | December 2016 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology 5
 Study on the Structural Behaviour of Berthing Structure due to Variable Stack Load

1. Main Cross Head Beam (MCHB): Stack load of 2.5T/ 6. From the study, it is also concluded that due to variable
m2, the Coefficient of variation (COV) for Bending stack load with and without mooring force conditions,
Moment was decreased by 50 % for both conditions the variation of results of load effects in case of Main
of with and without mooring forces. For the Stack Cross Head Beam (MCHB), T-shaped Diaphragm
load of 7.5 T/m2, the Coefficient of variation (COV) Wall (TDW) and Raker Piles (RP) were indicative, but
for Bending Moment was increased by 48% and 43% found a significant variation of results of load effects
for conditions of with and without mooring forces in the case of Vertical Pile (VP).
respectively.
2. ‘T’-Shaped Diaphragm Wall (TDW): For 2.5T/m2 stack
load, the COV for Bending Moment was decreased by 6. References
52 % & 47% for with and without mooring force con-
1. Melchers R E. Reliability calculations for Major Structural
ditions respectively. In case of Stack load of 7.5 T/m2,
systems. Conference on computers and Engineering
the COV for Bending Moment was increased by 44%
Institution of Engineers, Australia. 1983. p. 95–9.
and 53% for conditions of with and without mooring
2. Paul H , Wirsching M. ASCE, Fatigue Reliability for Offshore
forces respectively. Structures. Journal of Structural Engineering.  1984;
3. Vertical Pile (VP): For Stack load with 2.5T/m2 inten- 110(10):2340–56.
sity, the COV for Axial force was decreased by 66% 3. Duan A, Dai JG, Jin wL . Probabilistic Approach for
and 17% for conditions of with and without mooring Durability Design of Concrete Structures in Marine
forces respectively. Stack load with 7.5 T/m2 inten- Environments. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering.
sity, the COV for Axial force was increased by 158% 2014; 27(2):1–4.
and 15% for conditions of with and without mooring 4. Nishanth M, Dhir P, Davis P. Stochastic Free Vibration
forces respectively. Analysis of RC buildings.Indian Journal of science and
4. Raker Pile (RP): In case of 2.5T/m2 stack load, Technology. 2016; 9(30):1–5.
the COV for Axial force was decreased by 46% 5. Premalatha PV, Muthukumaran V, Jayabalan P. Behaviour
of piles supported berthing structure under lateral
and 49% for conditions with and without moor-
loadsProceedings of the Pan-Am CGS Geotechnical
ing forces respectively. For 7.5 T/m2 stack load,
Conference.14th Pan-American Conference on Soil
the COV for Axial force was increased by 66% and Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Toronto,
44% for conditions with and without mooring force Ontario, Canada. 2011. p. 1–5.
respectively. 6. Sundaravadivelu R, Raju VS. Tie-Rod Force Measurements
5. From the study, it was concluded that the influence of in Cargo Berth, ASCE116:43-56. Reliability Calculation for
variable Stack load has effect on the Bending Moment Major Structural Systems. Conference on Computers, and
of MCHB & TDW and Axial Force of VP and RP of Engineering Preprints of papers. Barton, ACT: Institution
the berthing structure. of Engineers, Australia.1983; p. 95–9.

6 Vol 9 (45) | December 2016 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 7 (2017) pp. 1123-1128
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

Reliability Based Analysis of Berthing Structure Subjected to

Variable Crane Load

G. T. Naidu [1], Dr. Balaji K.V.G.D [2], M. Pavan kumar [3], M. Jeevan Kumar Reddy [4]
1
Assoc. Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, SVP Engineering College and Research Scholar at GITAM University,
Andhra Pradesh, India.
2
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, GITAM University, Andhra Pradesh, India.
3
Asst. Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, SVP Engineering College, Andhra Pradesh, India.
4
Student, Department of Civil Engineering, GITAM University, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Abstract
The Indian peninsula is also strategically located between the
Atlantic Ocean in the west and the Pacific Ocean in the east and
Indian Ocean in south, with a 7,517 km-long coastline. During
the last decades ships have grown larger in number, as a result
consequence berthing facilities have to be adopted for larger
units. Over the years, cargo handling capacity of Major Ports
has steadily increased. Due to this, Berthing facilities for ships
has increased and new berthing structures have to be
constructed. Berthing structures are subjected to large lateral
forces due to berthing and mooring vessels. The lateral forces
are to be resisted by the vertical pile, raker pile and diaphragm
wall. The construction and maintenance of Berthing structures
are very expensive and therefore the safest and most
economical design should be adopted. Many studies have been
reported previously on the loading mechanism of laterally
loaded pile group on horizontal ground. The Berth is subjected
to moving crawler crane load perpendicular to the direction of Figure 1: Berthing structure
berth with its designed capacity. This paper aims to study the
behavior of berthing structure by using Reliability based
analysis when subjected to variable crane load and to determine LITERATURE REVIEW
the member characteristics of each structural component. The Past studies show the various characteristics of Berthing
software’s used are STAAD Pro for modelling of structure and structures. The following are some of the available literatures.
MATLAB for Reliability analysis. M. Gokul Krishnan et al., [2009] [1] studied the Behaviour of
an open type berthing structure under earthquake condition.
Keywords: Berthing Structure, Varying Crane, Crane Load, Piles and diaphragm wall supported berthing structure on
Reliability marine soils are loaded laterally from horizontal soil
movements. A maximum of 7.3 mm lateral deflection was
observed under seismic condition. However, under seismic
INTRODUCTION condition the lateral displacement of ground was observed to
India has one of the largest merchant shipping fleets among 700mm. and the bending moment behaviour also changed
developing countries and is ranked 16th in the world in terms significantly under the seismic condition. A maximum bending
of gross tonnage. Due to this, many new ports are constructed moment of 230kNm was observed under seismic condition.
over the past few years. Today, India has 12 Major Ports and Y.L. Young a et al., [2010] [2] studied the Reliability-based
200 notified Non-Major Ports along the coastline and islands. design and optimization of adaptive marine structures. A first
Major Ports are administered by the Union Government under order reliability method is used to evaluate the influence of
the Major Port Trusts Act of 1963, with one exception, Ennore uncertainties in material. Reliability-based design and
Port, which is administered under the provisions of the optimization is a common practice for many rigid and/or non-
Companies Act, 1956. Non-Major Ports are administered by adaptive structural engineering systems. The results show that
nine maritime states and three union territories within their a probabilistic approach is more appropriate than a
respective coastlines. Over the years, cargo handling capacity deterministic approach for the design and optimization of
of Major Ports has steadily increased. Due to this, structures adaptive composite structures
on the port are constructed. These structures are known as
Berthing structures. Berthing structure is shown in figure 1
below

1123
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 7 (2017) pp. 1123-1128
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

Yili Barbara J. Lence et al., [2011] [3] studied the marine MATERIAL PROPERTIES
structures subjected to long-term cyclic environmental and The materials used for analysis are Reinforced concrete with
operational loadings and gives an experimental investigation M-30 grade and Reinforcing steel with Fe-415 grade. The
has been carried the linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)- Stress-Strain relationship used is as per IS 456:2000. The basic
based fatigue reliability method provides straightforward material properties used are as follows:
information regarding the effect of fatigue crack.  Modulus of Elasticity of steel, Es = 2.1x105 N/mm2
 Characteristic strength of concrete, fck = 30 N/mm2
Daniel Straub et al., [2015] [4] studied the Bayesian Updating  Yield stress for steel, fy = 415 N/mm2
with Structural Reliability Methods. That is particularly
effective for updating mechanical and other computational LOADS CONSIDERED ON STRUCTURE
models, termed Bayesian updating with structural reliability  Dead Load of the structure
methods (BUS). In his paper, subset simulation was used to  Live Loads on deck
obtain samples of the posterior distribution. Three application  Crane Load (Expressed as intensity of load per unit
examples were included to demonstrate the versatility and floor area on deck slab)
efficiency of BUS.  Broad Gauge Main Line Load
 IRC 70R tracked and wheeled vehicle.
G.T. Naidu et al., [2015] [5] their study describes the behaviour
 Concentrated Load
of varying Stack, Crane and Mooring forces on bending
moment of Main Cross Head beam of Deck Slab “T” Shaped
Loads on Substructure
Diaphragm wall and the axial forces of vertical & raker piles.
The variation in Stack load, Crane load, Mooring load plays  Earth pressure
a major role in influencing the bending moment of Main  Lateral pressure due to surcharge
Cross Head beam, ”T” Shaped Diaphragm wall, Axial forces  Mooring Load
of vertical and raker piles.
LOAD COMBINATIONS ON BERTHING STRUCTURE
Case-1: Without Mooring Force
BERTHING STRUCTURE Dead Load + Live load +Hydrostatic Force + Surcharge + Earth
Berthing structure is a general term used to describe a marine Pressure
structure for the mooring of vessels, loading and unloading Case-2: With Mooring Force
cargo, and embarking and disembarking passengers. Berthing Dead Load + Live Load +Hydrostatic Force + Surcharge +
structures should be located in the most sheltered part of the Earth Pressure + Mooring Force
harbor or along the lee side of the breakwaters. Also, wherever
possible the berth can be oriented so that, the ship headed MODELING OF THE STRUCTURE
alongside as nearly into the wind and waves. The structure was analyzed in STAAD Pro software in order to
The structure is idealized as a plane frame. In order to idealize obtain the bending moment values of Main Cross Head Beam
the soil, a Winkler foundation system with passive soil (MCHB), T shaped Diaphragm wall (TDW) and Axial force
resistance is offered by the equivalent linear elastic springs. values of Vertical Pile (VP) & Raker Pile (RP). The total
The passive soil resistance between EL-12.00 m and EL 17.00 analysis was carried out in two conditions: with and without
m on the diaphragm wall is neglected. Spring forces on the mooring force. Berthing Structures are considered with
vertical and raker piles are limited to the passive resistance as different loading conditions such as: BGML, Crane load, Stack
per safety factor. The original design slope of 1V:4 H was load, Concentrated load and IRC-70R loadings. In this paper,
stable by itself and hence no failure of slope was expected. All Stack load is kept constant and Cane load is varied for with
the structural elements were socketed in hard rock. The crawler mooring and with-out mooring force conditions. Berthing
crane load acts perpendicular to the direction of berth with structure is assumed to be fixed at junction of diaphragm
designed capacity of 200T. wall/pile and Main Cross Head beam. Overall depth of the deck
was taken as 2.8m.

SCOPE OF WORK Table 1 Structural details of the components

 STAAD.Pro was used to model the Structure and
MATLAB was used for generation of random MEMBER SIZE (m)
numbers by using Monte Carlo simulation technique.
 This thesis was restricted to study the member I section 3 X 0.3 X 0.86 X 0.25X 2.8
characteristics of each structural component.
 Size of beams & diameters of piles were kept constant
T Diaphragm wall 3 X 0.6 X 0.6
throughout the study. Vertical pile 0.85
Raker pile 0.70

1124
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 7 (2017) pp. 1123-1128
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

Figure 2. Various Cross sections of the structural components

Fig 3. 2-D and 3-D rendered view of structure modeled in Staad pro

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS variables, to simulate the performance of or behavior of the

Reliability Analysis is a mathematical tool to enhance system and to determine the reliability or probability of failure
performance of component of a structure. In the reliability of system or a component. MATLAB software is used for the
analysis, the variables are characterized by their mean and generation of random numbers by their values of mean,
coefficient of variations. Monte Carlo technique is a simulation standard deviation and coefficient of variation are obtained for
technique used to estimate the probability distributions of each structural component.
random numbers. It says that, the probability of failure provides
the basis for quantifying the structural reliability. By using this
technique, probability distributions of random numbers can be RESULTS and DISCUSSIONS
estimated and those values depend up on the interactions with Following figures shows the variations of COV in with
random variables whose probability distributions are specified. mooring and without mooring conditions
This technique is used to study the distribution of random

1125
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 7 (2017) pp. 1123-1128
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

Fig 4 Intensity of crane load vs COV of Bending Moment in Main Cross Head Beam

Fig 5 Intensity of crane load vs COV of Bending Moment in T Shaped Diaphragm wall

Fig 6 Intensity of crane load vs COV of Axial Force in Vertical Pile

1126
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 7 (2017) pp. 1123-1128
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

Fig 7 Intensity of crane load vs COV of Axial Force in Raker Pile

The member characteristics obtained from the Reliability analysis for Bending Moment and axial force was tabulated below

Table 2 Member characteristics of each component with Mooring force condition

STANDARD COEFFICIENT OF
MEMBER MEAN [µ]
DEVIATION [σ] VARIATION [COV]
MCHB [Bending Moment] 1501.79 10.28 0.00684
‘T’ Diaphragm wall [Bending
1323.66 1.43 0.001086
Moment]
Vertical Pile [Axial Force] 31.75 1.68 0.05253
Raker Pile [Axial Force] 413.55 0.32 0.000769

Table 3 Member characteristics of each component without Mooring force condition

STANDARD COEFFICIENT OF
MEMBER MEAN [µ]
DEVIATION [σ] VARIATION [COV]
MCHB [Bending Moment] 1582.82 10.09 0.00638
‘T’ Diaphragm wall [Bending
1276.17 1.38 0.001079
Moment]
Vertical Pile [Axial Force] 43.55 1.58 0.03630
Raker Pile [Axial Force] 390.12 0.35 0.000898

CONCLUSIONS 37% for both conditions with and without mooring force.
From the Analysis, for variable Crane load of 15 T/m2 and For 25 T/m2 Crane load, the COV for Bending Moment
25T/m2 when compared to service Crane load of 20T/m2 with was increased by 46% for both conditions with and
and without mooring force condition, observed variation of without mooring force.
results of load effects in Main Cross Head Beam (MCHB), T- 3. Vertical Pile (VP): In case of 15T/m2 Crane load, the
shaped Diaphragm Wall (TDW) and Raker Piles (RP) and the COV for Axial force was decreased by 7% for both
following conclusions were drawn. conditions of with and without mooring force. In case of
Crane load of 25 T/m2, the COV for Axial force was
1. Main Cross Head Beam (MCHB): For Crane load of increased by 9% for both conditions of with and without
15T/m2, the COV for Bending Moment was decreased by mooring force.
26 % and 16% for conditions with and without mooring 4. For Raker Pile (RP): For Crane load with 15T/m2
forces respectively. In case of Crane load of 25 T/m2, the intensity, the COV for Axial force was decreased by 28%
COV for Bending Moment was increased by 6% and 23% for both conditions of with and without mooring force.
for conditions with and without mooring forces For 25 T/m2 Crane load, the COV for Axial force was
respectively. increased by 22% for both conditions of with and without
2. ‘T’-Shaped Diaphragm Wall (TDW): For 15T/m2 Crane mooring force.
load, the COV for Bending Moment was decreased by

1127
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 7 (2017) pp. 1123-1128
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

5. From the study, it was concluded that the influence of AUTHOR’S PROFILE
variable Crane load has effect on the Bending Moment of G.T.Naidu, The author presently working as
MCHB & TDW and Axial Force of VP & RP of the Associate Professor and Head of the
berthing structure. department in Sanketika Vidya Parishad
6. From the study, it is also concluded that due to variable Engineering College, PM Palem,
Crane load with and without mooring force conditions, Visakhapatnam doing his Research at GITAM
the variation of results of load effects in case of T-Shaped College of Engineering, GITAM University
Diaphragm Wall (TDW), Vertical Pile (VP) and Raker and having 26 years of industrial experience, guiding the
Pile (RP) were minimal, but have found significant students at Graduate and Post Graduate level. He is with service
variation in the case of Main Cross Head Beam (MCHB). many years in industry and as Head of the Department enriched
the knowledge to hundreds of students. He is member in
various professional bodies like FIV, MIE.
REFERENCES
Prof. Balaji K.V.G.D., Ph.D. is a civil
[1] M. Gokul Krishnan, D. Sathyanarayanan “Behavior of engineer with 30 years teaching experience. He
an open type berthing structure under earthquake is a member in various prestigious societies and
condition” IGC 2009, Guntur, INDIA page number 553- professional bodies like ISTE, ISCMS,
557 ISRMTT, IRC, INSDAG, ISRS, ISET, IGS,
[2] Y.L. Young a, J.W. Baker c, M.R. Motley “Reliability- CMSI, FIE, FIV, FIPHE. Presently working as
based design and optimization of adaptive marine Professor in Department of Civil Engineering, GITAM
structures” Composite Structures 92 (2010) page University, Visakhapatnam. He is a Licensed Structural
number 244–253 Engineer of VUDA & GVMC Member (CED 57) and member
[3] YiLi Barbara J. Lence, A.M.ASCE, Zhou Shi-Liang, of Bureau of Indian Standards. His yeoman services as a
and Qiang Wu “Marine structures subjected to long-term lecturer, professor, and Head of Department enriched the
cyclic environmental and operational loadings” J. knowledge to thousands of students. He is a stalwart of
Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2011, 137(2): 43- structural analysis and has nearly 11 PhDs in progress at
53. present in additional to 1 PhD completed. More than 50 papers
[4] Daniel Straub and Iason Papaioannou “Bayesian were published in various esteemed reputable National and
Updating with Structural Reliability Methods” J. Eng. International Journals.
Mech., 2015, 141(3): 04014134.
[5] G.T. Naidu, Dr. K.V.G.D. Balaji, T. Abhiram Reddy M. Pavan Kumar M.E (SENDM), (Ph.D) is
“Behavior of varying Stack, Crane and Mooring forces” Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering
ISSN0973 Volume 10, Number 12 (2015) pp 32159- Department, S.V.P Engineering College,
32174. Visakhapatnam. He is doing Ph.D in Andhra
[6] R. Ranganathan “Structural Reliability Analysis and University and Licensed Structural Consultant
Design” in Visakhapatnam. He has published several
[7] IS 2911-1985 Code of practice for design and research papers in various journals.
construction of pile foundations.
[8] IS 4651 (Part I-V) -1974 - Code of practice for planning
and design of ports and harbors. M. Jeevan Kumar Reddy Student M.Tech
[9] IS 456:2000 Code of practice for plain and reinforced (Structural Engineering and Natural Disaster
concrete Management) Department of Civil
Engineering, GITAM University,
Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India.

1128