Analysis of gravity quay walls

Bahaa El-Sharnouby, Hamdy El-Kamhawy and Mahdi Al-Yami

Civil Eng. Dept., Faculty of Eng., Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

The Gravity quay wall is the most common type of walls used for harbor berths. The trend of
ocean going deep draft vessels has made it difficult to satisfy equilibrium conditions for
quite deep quay walls. Thus, factors affecting the stability of that type of berth should be
looked at and investigated. This research focuses on the analysis of this type of retaining
wall to illustrate the importance of each factor. A computer program (QWD) has been
implemented (using visual basic.net and. Net framework technology) and developed for
analysis of the gravity quay wall. Charts are offered to relate the effect of each factor on the
final design.
&$ (   ! " # $  % & # '$                 
 4   -    . /$ # " 0! 1 2 3 #  .    )    * +  " !
3   2  "  & " 9 8  7 5 6$ # $  2 2 & # 0   ."! "
  . 1 . =>     "  2  2> ;<<; 2!  : %  9  9 $
.%$ 2 0! "! "  4 -  $ : @! 2 3 "A . .?9

Keywords: Quay walls, Gravity walls, Harbors, Berths, Retaining walls

1. Introduction 2.1. Stability forces

Gravity quay walls are the most common Two vertical stability forces are: weight of
types of docks. That is because of their dura- soil over the projection part of the blocks and
bility; ease of construction and the possibility own weight of blocks.
to reach a deep seabed level. The gravity quay - Weight of soil = ∑W1; where:
wall has to be safe against the three design W1 = the weight of the soil resting on top of the
criteria, which are sliding, overturning and projection part of the block (in tons), acting at
over stressing. its central of gravity (c.g.) of each part.
The design steps of gravity quay wall seem - Weight of blocks = ∑W2; where:
to be reasonably clear. However, the deep W2= Own weight of block (in tons), acting at its
gravity walls are subjected to a great deal of center of gravity (c.g.).
external forces. In this case, the stability of - Total stability forces acting on the wall:
the wall may be quite sensitive to many Total stability forces acting on the wall per
factors; depth of the wall, pulling force, soil meter length (in tons).
characteristics; and base stratum characteris-
tics. The effect of different factors on the
∑ Fstability = = ∑W1+ = ∑W2+ vertical crane load
(if exists).
stability needs to be investigated.
The study focuses on the analysis of
2.2. Failure forces
gravity quay walls. Design steps are written in
the form of computer program taking into
There are four horizontal forces acting as
account all factors affecting the analysis. This
static failure forces; Lateral earth pressures,
makes it possible to alternate factors in order
the pull bollard, the live load effect (PLL) and
to come to an ideal design.
the horizontal crane load effect.
2. Analysis of gravity quay walls - Pull bollard:
Pull bollard (in tons), acting at 0.4 m above
Two types of forces act on the gravity the top of quay wall level.
retaining quay wall, namely: stability forces
and failure forces.
Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 43 (2004), No. 5, 663-669 663
© Faculty of Engineering Alexandria University, Egypt.
 B. El-Sharnouby et al./ Gravity quay walls

- Live load: Which acts at the centre of gravity (c.g.) of

The horizontal force due to L.L. can be found 1 
from: lateral earth pressures  H 2  ,
 3 
1 Where, γsub is the submerged unit weight of
PLL = * L .L . * K A * H 2 . soil (ton/m³), and the active earth pressure
2 coefficient:
Acting at 0.5 H.
cos 2 (φ − θ ) .
Where: L.L. is live load (in ton/m2), which KA =
2
depends on the type of the quay wall.  sin (δ + φ ) sin (φ − β ) 
cos 2 θ cos (δ + θ )1 +
- Horizontal crane load:
 cos (δ + θ )cos (β − θ ) 
If it is considered, Horizontal crane load (ton) ≅
1/7 Vertical crane load.
Where
Acting at the top of the wall.
- Static lateral earth pressures (dry layer):
φ is the average angle of internal friction of
soil and rock (degree), and
Static lateral earth pressures dry layer is the
area of backfill pressure of dry layer acting on
the wall per meter (ton) calculating by φav = φr + 2/3 (φr - φs).
coulomb.
Where,
φr is the angel of internal friction of rock, and
1
PA( dry ) = K AγdH12 . φs is the angel of internal friction of soil.
2 - Total static failure forces acting on the block:
Total failure forces (ton) is:
Acting at the centre of gravity (c.g.) of lateral
1 
earth pressures  H1  .
 3 
∑ F failure = (P A (dry) + PA (sub) + PLL + Pull bollard
+ Horizontal crane load) * cos δ .
Where, γd the dry unit weight of soil (ton/m ³),
and the active earth pressure coefficient is: 2.3. Safety against sliding

cos 2 (φ − θ ) . The factor of safety against sliding is

KA =

2 expressed as:
sin (δ + φ ) sin (φ − β ) 
cos 2 θ cos (δ + θ )1 + 
cos (δ + θ )cos (β − θ ) 

F .O .S .slding =
∑ Fstability ≥ 1.5 ,
µ * ∑ F failure
Where ,
θ is the inclination of wall (degree),
where µ = friction coefficient between blocks
β is the slope angle of quay wall level (degree),
δ is the interface Friction angle of soil 3. Safety against overturning moment
(degree), and
φ is the angle of internal friction of soil The safety factor against overturning
moment is expressed as:
(degree).
- Static lateral earth pressures (submerged
layer): F .O.S .overturning =
∑ M stability ≥ 1.5 .
Lateral earth pressures submerged layer is the ∑ M failure
effect of the soil under the water level and can
be calculated using the following equation: 3.1. Stresses

PA( sub ) =
1
K AγsubH 2 2 . e=
blocklength 
−
∑ M stability − ∑ M failure  ,

2 2
 ∑ Fstability 

664 Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 43, No. 5, September 2004

 B. El-Sharnouby et al./ Gravity quay walls

f1 =
− ∑ Fstability 1 + 6* e 
 and
A gravity quay wall model has been
analyzed. Parameters implemented are shown
blocklength  blocklength 
in table 1. Fig. 1 shows configuration of the
plain concrete gravity quay wall.
f2 =
− ∑ Fstability 1 − 6* e .
 Fig. 2 shows the relationship between lat-
blocklengt h  blocklengt h  eral pressure force acting on the bottom block
and he angle of internal friction for static
For last block the following conditions cases, respectively.
should be satisfied: It is clear that the angle of internal friction
f 1 <= Bearing Capacity of the foundation soil, has a significant influence on the magnitude
f 1, f 2 (–ve sign) compression and 2 * f 2 > f 1. If of pressure acting on the wall. A coarse
the conditions are not satisfied, we have to material backfill should be instructed behind
adjust the dimension of the bottom block and the wall with width equal at least 0.5 of the
the one directly above the bottom block. If this wall height at H.W.L level with slope 1:1 all
is not enough, we may enlarge the third block the way down. Deep walls are subjected to
from the base. increasing lateral pressures. Thus, increasing
the width of the coarse backfill material to be
4. Analysis and parametric study similar to the wall height may be recom-
mended. This probably decreases the lateral
The computer program has been used ex- pressures by a percentage of 25%. The
tensively to analyze the plain concrete blocks improper construct of the backfill or failing to
gravity quay wall. Hundreds of runs have been do so, for any reason, may double the
done. Results have been studied, tabulated, horizontal forces.
and presented in the form of charts.

Table 1
parameters of the quay wall model

Parameter Chosen value

Draft (m) 12
Clearance (m) 1
Tidal range (m) 1.5
Distance between upper surface of head and H.W.L (m) 1.5
Lower surface level of the head (m) +0.75
Height of each block (m) 2.25
Height of first block (m) 2.5
Saturated unit weight of concrete (ton/m3) 2.2
Buoyant unit weight of concrete (ton/m3) 1.2
Friction coefficient (concrete/ concrete) 0.4
Friction coefficient (concrete/ rock) 0.5
Angle of internal friction of soil (degree) 30
Angle of internal friction of back fill (degree) 45
Average dry unit weight of soil (ton/m3) 1.85
Average buoyant unit weight of soil (ton/m3) 0.9
Bearing capacity of soil (ton/m2) 25
Buoyant unit weight of rock (ton/m2) 1
Angle of interface friction (soil/structure) (degree) 0
Pulling force on bollard (ton/m) 2
Live load (ton/m2) 2

Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 43, No. 5, September 2004 665

 B. El-Sharnouby et al./ Gravity quay walls

Fig. 1. Configuration of the plain concrete gravity quay wall.

Ship draft is an quite essential factor

because lateral pressures and instability
moments dramatically increase with depth.
Fig. 3 shows the tremendous increase in
maximum stress at rock base level with the
increase of depth. Moreover, the difference
between stresses at front and the rear of the
bottom block increases. In deep walls,
improvement of soil condition may be neces-
sary. Decreasing pressures by increasing the
angle of internal friction may help. Using an
anchor to take some of the horizontal loads
may be a solution, particularly in seismic
cases. Geotextile may also be used.
Gun pulling force is usually taken (2 t/m)
when the total pulling force is increased; the
Fig. 2. Relationship between lateral pressure force acting
number of mooring guns is increased too.
on the bottom block and the angle of internal friction.
Fig. 4 shows the relationship between the
maximum stress and the magnitude of live
load.
Live loads are usually taken to increase
lateral force acting horizontally, it is assumed
to act at the area behind the wall. Live load
increases the maximum stress as well as the
difference between maximum and minimum
stresses.
Unit weight of the concrete block ranges
usually from 2.0 to 2.4 (t/m3). Fig. 5 shows
that going for higher unit weight minimize the
difference between the maximum and
minimum stresses at the rock base level.
Eccentricity of the resultant of external
forces depends on normal forces and external
moments acting on the rock base surface.
Thus, if stresses are not favorable, reshaping
Fig. 3. Effect of ship draft on the maximum stress at base
rock level. the bottom block can move center of gravity of

666 Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 43, No. 5, September 2004

 B. El-Sharnouby et al./ Gravity quay walls

strength on the configuration of blocks (in

terms of quay wall weight), is shown in fig. 7.
It can be seen that limiting the bearing
capacity may result in dramatic increase of
the last two or three blocks. In other words, to
satisfy the bearing capacity condition by
decreasing the maximum stresses, the blocks
should be increased in length and total weight
and stability moments are increased.

Fig. 4. Relationship between live load and maximum

stress at base rock level.

Fig. 6. Effect of length of the second block from the

bottom on stresses at rock base level.

Fig. 5. Effect of concrete unit weight on stresses at rock

base level.

the contact area. Also, increasing the length of

the second block from the bottom may have a
favorable effect. Fig. 6 shows the effect of the
length of the second block from the bottom on
stresses at rock base level. Increasing that
length has two positive effects; decreasing the
maximum stress and alleviating the unfavor-
able difference between maximum and
minimum stresses.
Bearing stratum strength is an essential
factor on the stability and workability of quay
walls. Quay wall with small and moderate
depth can be constructed on soil with moder-
ate strength. Deep quay wall needs either
originally strong soil or soil improvement or Fig. 7. Effect of bearing capacity of soil on weight of quay
wall.
replacement. Effect of bearing stratum

Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 43, No. 5, September 2004 667

 B. El-Sharnouby et al./ Gravity quay walls

5. Conclusions and recommendations 15t/m2), a replacement or strengthen of

bearing soil is quite needed.
Design of plain concrete blocks gravity 8. Live load should be applied on the berth
quay wall is usually a clear-cut one. However, just behind the blocks. It means that, it
for deep docks or those subjected to huge produces lateral pressure and may not
forces and resting on semi-strong soil, stabil- contribute to weights.
ity is difficult to achieve. Factors affecting 9. Increasing the unit weight of the concrete
equilibrium condition become essential and participates into the stability of the wall.
their influence on the final design of the Therefore, it is recommended to use blocks
gravity quay wall needs to be investigated. with unit weight not less than 2.4t/m3
In this research, a computer program has particularly for deep quay walls.
been developed and implemented for direct 10. It is recommended to choose the case of
analysis of gravity quay wall. Optimum L.W.L in the design, because it produces the
configuration of concrete block can be worst case concerning stresses at rock base
achieved by altering some of or all the factors. level.
A set of charts has been produced to 11. If stresses developing on the bearing
illustrate the criteria of the plain concrete stratum are not acceptable, anchors may be
quay wall and the relationship between the constructed or soil behind the wall may be
output and the affecting factors. reinforced by geotexile.
From the analysis and the parametric
study the following may be concluded and References
recommended:
1. The back fill characteristics have a great [1] Farrokh Nadim and Robert Whitman,
influence on the stability of gravity quay wall. ”Seismically Induced Movement of
2. A ship load and dimensions affect the Retaining Walls Journal of Geotechnical
berth in terms of pollard force, magnitude of Engineering, Vol. 109 (7), pp. 915-931
live load, and depth of the quay wall. (1983).
3. The concrete crown should be carefully [2] H. Bolton Seed, "Design Problems in Soil
checked, since it is the most critical part of Liquefaction, Journal of Geotechnical
the quay wall particularly when the pulling Engineering, Vol. 113 (8), pp. 827-845
force acting on mooring guns is quite large. (1986).
Thus, a groove of (1m) length should be done [3] A. Ebeido Ibrahim, "Harbors Engineering
to prevent sliding and create a shear and Marine Structures, Faculty of
resistance. Engineering, Alexandria University, Vol. 2
4. Dimensions of each block can be (1998).
determined by checking sliding first then [4] H. Iqbal Khan, A Textbook of Geotechnical
checking for overturning and stresses. Engineering, Department of Civil
5. If stresses on the rock base are not Engineering Jamia Millia Islamia, New
appropriate, the center of the last block can be Delhi (1998).
moved toward the sea by reshaping the block. [5] Isao Ishibashi, Makoto Osada and Tatsue
If this step is not enough, the second block Uwabe, “Dynamic Lateral Pressures Due
from bottom can be enlarged and checked to Saturated Backfills on Rigid Walls”,
against shear failure. If more steps are needed Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.
we may increase the length of third block from 120 (10), pp. 1747-1767 (1994).
the bottom to be (1m) longer than the length of [6] Katayama Tsuneo, “Dynamic Analysis and
second block from the bottom. Earthquake Resistant Design”, working
6. Configuration of the quay wall can be group on studies Regarding Dynamic
improved by reducing lateral forces, which can Analysis and its Application, Japanese
be achieved by extending the backfill to a Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 2 (1989).
distance equal to the height of the wall. [7] Majid Garadar, PE., 345 Solved Seismic
7. In deep docks (more than 12m) founded on Design Problems, Professional
relatively weak soil (strength less than Publication, Inc, Belmont, CA (1999).

668 Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 43, No. 5, September 2004

 B. El-Sharnouby et al./ Gravity quay walls

[8] Microsoft, Programming with Microsoft [14] Susumu Iai, Seismic Design Guidelines
Visual Basic .NET Workbook (2002). for Port Structures, Working Group No.34
[9] M. Ebeling Robert, Phd and E. Morrison of Maritime Navigation Commission
Ernest, The Seismic Design of Waterfront International Navigation Association
Retaining Structures, NCEL Technical (2001).
Report, Sponsored by: Office of Navy [15] S.P.G. Madabhushi and X. Zeng, "Seismic
Technology and Department of the Army Response of Gravity Quay Walls", II:
(1993). Numerical Modeling, Journal of
[10] Rowland Richards, Jr. and G. Elms Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
David, "Seismic Behavior of Gravity Engineering, Vol. 124 (5), pp. 418-427
Retaining Walls”, Journal of The (1998).
Geotechnical Engineering Division, [16] D. Timothy Stark and Gholamreza Mesri,
Vol.105 (GT4), pp. 449-464 (1979). "UNDRAINED Shear Strength of Liquefied
[11] L. Kramer Steven, Geotechnical Sands for Stability Analysis", Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, University of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 118 (11),
Washington, (1996). pp. 1727-1747 (1992).
[12] D. Werner Stuart, "Seismic Guidelines for [17] X. Zeng, "Seismic Response of Gravity
Ports", Technical Council on Lifeline Quay Walls", I: Centrifuge Modeling,
Earthquake Engineering, Monograph (12), Journal of Geotechnical and
March (1998). Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124
[13] R.S. Steedman, and X. Zeng, "The Seismic (5), pp. 406-417 (1998).
response of waterfront retaining walls, [18] Zakaee Toreafi, Design of Reinforcement
Proceeding, ASCE Specialty Conference Buildings to Resisting the Effect of
on Design and Performance of Earth Earthquakes Faculty of Engineering,
Retaining Structure, Special Technical Teshreen University (1997).
Publication 25, Cornell University, Ithaca,
New York, pp. 872-886 (1999). Received December 21, 2003
Accepted May 31, 2004

Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 43, No. 5, September 2004 669