Oe 3190 2013 Berthing Structures

Analysis and Design of Berthing structures
BERTHING STRUCTURES
R. Sundaravadivelu FNAE
Professor
Dept. of Ocean Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology
Chennai, India
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The berthing structures are constructed for berthing and mooring of vessels to enable loading and
unloading of cargo and for embarking and disembarking of passengers, vehicles. The design of
berthing structures depends on various factors. However, the vessel characteristics govern the
design of berthing structures.
The various structures constructed along the coast can be classified as Port and Harbour
Structures, Coastal Protection Structures, Sea water Intake Structures and Effluent discharge
structures. Port and harbor structures are constructed along the coast to provide berthing facilities
to ships for loading and unloading of cargo or for embarking and disembarking passengers. The
different types of berthing structures are given in this section.
1.2 TYPES OF BERTHING STRUCTURES
Berthing structure is a facility where the vessel may be safely moored. The berthing arrangements
can be classified as along side type, open dolphin type or ferry type
as shown in Figure 1.1 (Gaythwaite (1990)).
The berthing structure can also be classified as vertical face type or open type structure. Typical
examples are shown in Figure 1.2 (Agerschou et al (1985). In vertical face structures, sheet pile
wall, block wall, caissons are used, while open type structures are represented by open piled
construction.
1
26.5m
2
25
6000
PIER OR WHARF
ALONGSIDE TYPE
BREASTING DOLPHIN
TRESTLE TO SHORE
MOORING DOLPHIN
LOADING PLATFORM
OPEN DOLPHIN TYPE
FINGER PIER OR DOLPHINS
TRANSFER BRIDGE
GUIDE DOLPHINS
FERRY (SLIP) TYPE
Figure 1.1
2
(a) CAISSON
(b) SHEET PILE WALL
(c) OPEN PILED STRUCTURES
Figure 1.2
3
The berthing structures can also be classified depending on the type of cargo handled.
The Madras Port outer harbour basin has oil berth, ore berth and container berth where oil, ore
and containers are handled respectively. The berthing structures can also be classified
as follows:
(A) GRAVITY STRUCTURES

(i) Masonry wall
(ii) Concrete block walls
(iii) Concrete caissons
(B) FLEXIBLE STRUCTURES

(i) Steel sheet piles - Tie back
- Cantilever
(ii) Diaphragm walls - Cantilever
- Tieback
- Relieving platform
(iii) Jetties - consist Berthing & Mooring Dolphin, Jetty
Head & Approach Jetty.
The minimum length of a berthing structure should be sufficient for mooring the longest ship
expected to arrive. The minimum depth includes a bottom clearance equivalent to
10 % of the draught of the largest vessel using the terminal. The top surface of the berthing
structure should be built above the highest high water level.
The dimension of the berth as recommended by IS 4651 (Part V) - 1980 is given in Appendix 6.1
for various size of Passenger ships, Freighter, Tankers, Ore Carriers and Large Fishing Vessels.
A dock is the most general designation for a structure or place at which a vessel can be moored.
A wharf is a dock structure built nearly parallel to the coast and continuous with the shoreline,
so that it also performs as a soil retaining structure. It is also called quay when it is of solid fill
vertical wall construction and is long and continuous. Wharves and quays are backed by
warehouses, marshalling and storage areas, industrial areas, roads, rails, etc., which are often
created by extensive fill operations.
A pier or jetty is a dock structure, which projects out into the sea. Because of its geometry, it can
be used for berthing of vessels on three sides. It does not necessarily run perpendicular to the
shore line or wharf line but may project under any angle. It may also be connected to the shore or
wharf line by a trestle and thus become T or L shaped jetty or pier. Moles or trestles are
primarily pier or platform access structures, used for vehicular, pipeline, conveyor and sidewalk.
Moles are of solid fill construction and trestles are of free standing pile bents or pile groups with
bridging structure spanning them.
4
Dolphins are isolated structures used mainly to absorb the impact of berthing ships referred to as
breasting or berthing dolphins and to serve as a point for securing a vessel’s mooring lines,
referred to as mooring dolphins.
A fixed mooring berth is a marine structure consisting of dolphins for tying up the vessel and a
platform for supporting the cargo handling equipment.
A sheet pile wall comprises of a row of piles interlocking with one another so as to form a
continuous wall to be used as earth retaining structure.
Diaphragm wall is a vertical wall structure classified as a cantilever or tie back system. The tie
back system can be a tie rod with a deadman or a combination of vertical and raker piles or only
vertical piles.
A relieving platform consists of a low level pile supported deck that is filled over in order to gain
stability and relieve pressures behind the wall in weak soil conditions.
Gravity wall consists of cut stone blocks or concrete blocks placed on top of each other and
capped with a massive concrete wall or a concrete caisson monolith. Gravity walls gain stability
against sliding and overturning by means of its weight, proportions and soil friction.
A finger jetty will have berths on two sides and abut land over their full width.
A jetty consists of a number of structures such as berthing dolphin, mooring dolphin, loading
platform, trestle to shore each of which has special type of functions.
The mooring dolphins pick up the pull from the hawsers. Mooring dolphins for breast lines shall
be located at bow and stern at a distance (about the beam of the ship) from the berth line, which
will not make the moorings too steep.
The berthing dolphins support fenders which absorb berthing impacts. The berthing dolphins
should be placed as wide apart as possible. The distance should neither exceed the length of the
straight side of the smallest vessel nor be less than approximately one-third of the maximum
length of the largest vessel.
The loading platforms support special loading or unloading equipment but normally no horizontal
forces apart from wind loads will act on the loading Platforms.
Offshore berthing structures are used for liquid cargo (oil or gas) or for dry cargo, for iron ore,
coal, sugar, phosphates or grains. The design for offshore berthing structures should consider the
following:
a) Single type of cargo
5
b) Rapid loading and unloading (10,000 T of Iron ore per hour or 60,000 bbl (barrel) of
oil per hour)
c) Sufficient storage on shore
d) Open sea and exposed to winds, waves and currents
e) Construction practicability
f) DWT of the vessel in the range of 0.1 million T to 0.3 million T
The type of ship loader generally governs the design of offshore berth. The three main types of
ship loader are (1) Fixed type (2) traveling Gantry type and (3) Slewing telescopic boom loaders.
The fixed loader is used in small ships. The traveling gantry loader is expensive, since the loader
is to be supported by a berth which is continuous. The above three types of loaders are to be
critically evaluated for dry bulk cargo terminals, whereas for liquid cargo, the loading system
does not influence the offshore berthing structure. The approach jetty to the offshore berthing
structure is the critical component and governs the total cost of the facility. The offshore terminal
at CAPE Santa Clara in the Atlantic ocean consists of a principal berth to load 2,80,000 DWT
ship, moored 7400 m from shore. The mooring and berthing force in the offshore berth is to be
critically evaluated for the safe design of the offshore berthing structure.
1.3 LOADS ON BERTHING STRUCTURES
The berthing structures are designed for the following forces:
a) Dead load ( DL ) (Including the weight of marine growth)

b) Vertical live load;
c) Impact or dynamic effect of live load;
d) Forces caused by the tractive effort or breaking of vehicles, cranes, ship loader/unloader,
material handling equipment etc;
e) Centrifugal forces of vehicles moving on curve;
f) Earth pressure;
g) Hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces;
h) Berthing forces from vessels;
j) Mooring forces;
k) Forces due to wind;
m) Secondary stresses ( stresses due to shrinkage, creep, temperature, etc as applicable);
n) Erection stage stresses;
p) Live load ( LL ); and
q) Seismic forces or earthquake loads.
r) Tsunami Force
1.3.1 Classification of Loads
The loads can be classified as extreme, normal and temporary loads.

The load to be considered during storm and tsunami with 100 year return period is defined as extreme
load.
The normal load is the load to be considered during operation of the structure with one year return period.
The loads during construction stage including construction live load are defined as temporary load.
6
The loads can also be classified as sustained load and transient load.
Sustained Load: Dead load plus 50% of full uniformly distributed live load + earth pressure
Transient Load: Dead load plus berthing or mooring load and full crane load or full live load uniformly
distributed + earth pressure
The various loads acting on the berthing structures can also be classified as:
i) Loads from the sea side
ii) Loads from the deck and
iii) Loads from the land side
1.3.1.1 Loads from Seaside
The loads from the sea side include the horizontal forces caused by waves, the forces caused by
berthing and vessel’s pull from bollard. The forces caused by berthing of vessels are determined
from the velocity and angle of approach of the vessels. For the vessels lying at the berth, the
forces are determined due to wind, waves and currents on the vessel. The vertical forces from sea
side are due to vessels hanging upon the fendering system, vertical component of the forces from
bollards etc.
1.3.1.2 Loads from Deck
The important loads from the deck are the vertical loads caused by self weight of the deck,
superimposed loads from buildings and handling equipments. Horizontal loads are mostly due to
wind forces on buildings and structures and also due to the breaking force of cranes.
1.3.1.3 Loads from Landside
Horizontal loads are caused from landside due to the earth pressures and differential water
pressure. Vertical loads are caused by the weight of filling and superimposed load on filling.
1.3.2 Live Loads
1.3.2.1 Vertical Live Loads
Surcharges due to stored and stacked material such as general cargo, bulk cargo, containers and
loads from vehicular traffic of all kinds including trucks, trailers, railway cranes, containers
handling equipment and construction plant, constitute vertical live loads.
1.3.2.2 Truck loading and Uniform loading
The berths shall be generally designed for the truck loading and uniform loading as given in
Table 1.1 (IS 4651 (Part III) - 1974).
7
Table 1.1 Trucks Loading and Uniform Loading
Truck Loading Uniform Vertical Live

Function of Berth
(IRC class) Loading (T/m2)
Passenger berth B 1.0
Bulk unloading and loading A 1 to 1.5
berth
Container berth A or AA or 70 R 3 to 5
Cargo berth A or AA or 70 R 2.5 to 3.5
Heavy cargo berth A or AA or 70 R 5 or more
Small boat berth B 0.5
Fishing berth B 1.0
1.3.2.3 Crane Loads
Concentrated loads from crane wheels and other specialized mechanical handling equipment
should be considered. An impact of 25 percent shall be added to wheel loads in the normal design
of deck and stringers, 15 percent where two or more cranes act together and 15 percent in the
design of pile caps and secondary framing members.
1.3.2.4 Railway Loads
Concentrated wheel loads due to locomotive wheels and wagon wheels in accordance with the
specification of the Indian Railways for the type of gauge and service at the locality in question.
For impact due to trucks and railways one third of the impact factors specified in the relevant
codes may be adopted.
1.3.2.5 Special Loads
Special loads like pipeline loads or conveyor loads or exceptional loads such as surcharges due to
ore stacks, transfer towers, heavy machinery or any other type of heavy lifts should be
individually considered.
1.3.3 Berthing Load
Berthing Energy: When an approaching vessel strikes a berth, horizontal force acts on the berth.
The magnitude of this force depends on the kinetic energy that can be absorbed by the fendering
system. The reaction force for which the berth is to be designed can be obtained and deflection-
reaction diagrams of the fendering system chosen. These diagrams are obtainable from fender
manufacturers. The kinetic energy, E, imparted to a fendering system, by a vessel moving with
velocity V is given by
2
WD x V
E C m x C e x Cs (1.1)
2g
where
8
E = Berthing energy in T- m
WD = Displacement tonnage in T
V = Berthing velocity in m/sec
Cm = Mass coefficient
Ce = Eccentricity coefficient
CS = Softness coefficient
g = Acceleration due to gravity in m/sec2
1.3.3.1 Mass Coefficient
When a vessel approaches a berth and as its motion is suddenly checked, the force of impact
which the vessel imparts comprises of the weight of the vessel and the effect of water moving
along with the moving vessel. Such an effect, expressed in terms of weight of water moving with
the vessel, is called the additional weight (W A) of the vessel or the hydrodynamic weight of the
vessel. Thus the effective weight in berthing is the sum of displacement tonnage of a vessel and
its additional weight, which is known as virtual weight (WV) of a vessel.
a. The mass coefficient (Cm) is calculated using the following equation
2D
Cm  1 (1.2)
B
where
D = Draught of the vessel in m,

B = Beam of the vessel in m.
b. Alternative to (a) in case of a vessel which has a length much greater than its beam or
draught or generally for vessels with displacement tonnage greater than 20,000 the additional
weight may be approximated to the weight of a cylindrical column of water of height equal to the
length of vessel and diameter equal to the draught of vessel, then
 D 2 Lw
C m 1  4 (1.3)
WD
where
D = Draught of the vessel in m,

L = Length of the vessel in m
w = Unit weight of water (1.03 T/m2 for sea water)
9
WD = Displacement tonnage of the vessel in tonnes.
Wv = WD x Cm
1.3.3.2 Eccentricity Coefficient

A vessel generally approaches a berth at an angle, denoted by  and touches it at a point either
near the bow or stern of the vessel. In such eccentric cases the vessel imparts a rotational force at
the moment of contact, and the kinetic energy of the vessel is partially expended in its rotational
motion.
a) The eccentricity coefficient (Ce) may then be derived as follows:
1 (l / r ) 2 Sin 2
Ce  (1.4)
1 (l / r) 2
where
l = Distance from the centre of gravity of the vessel to the point of contact projected along
the water line of the berth in m, and
r = Radius of gyration of rotational radius on the plane of the vessel from its
Center of gravity in m (Figure 1.3)
b) The approach angle () unless otherwise known with accuracy should be taken as 10. For
smaller vessels approaching wharf structures, the approach angle should be taken as 20
(Refer Figure 1.3).
10
= 10° UNLESS KNOWN ACCURATELY

20° FOR SMALLER VESSEL
1.0
0.8
ECCENTRICITY COEFFICIENT (Ce)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.1L 0.2L 1/4L 0.3L 0.4L 0.5L
BERTHING POINT OF THE VESSEL (l)
For  = 0
Fig 1.3 Approaching Angle of Vessel with a Berth
the ship is relatively rigid compared with the usually yielding fendering systems, a value of 0.9 is
generally applied for this factor, or 0.95 if higher safety margin is thought desirable.
Quinn (1961) has suggested a suitable formula for calculating the berthing energy assuming 50%
of the total energy of the berthing vessel to be absorbed by fenders.
11 
E   mv 2  (1.5)
22 
where m is the (mass + added mass) of the vessel and v is the berthing velocity.
11
1.3.4 Mooring Loads
The mooring loads are the lateral loads caused by the mooring lines when they pull the ship into
or along the dock or hold it against the forces of winds or current.
1.3.4.1. Forces due to Wind
The maximum mooring loads are due to the wind forces on exposed area on the broad side of the
ship in light condition
F = Cw Aw P (1.6)
Where
F = Force due to wind in kg

Cw = Safe factor = 1.3 to 1.6
Aw = Windage area in m2 and
P = Wind pressure in kg/m2 to be taken in accordance with IS : 875-1964
The windage area (Aw) can be estimated as follows
Aw = 1.175 L (DM - DL) (1.7)

Where
L = Length between perpendicular in m

DM = Moulded depth in m
DL = Average light draft in m.
When the ships are berthed on both sides of a pier, the total wind force acting on the pier, should
be increased by 50 percent to allow for wind against the second ship.
Gaythwaite (1990) has suggested the following formulas to calculate windforce in the
longitudinal (F wx) and lateral (Fwy) force components and a yawing moment (M yw).
Fwx = 0.0034 CDx V2w Ax (1.8)
Fwy = 0.0034 CDy V2w Ay (1.9)
Myw = Fwy LOA Cym (1.10)
12
Where
Fwx and Fwy = Wind Force along x and y directions in pounds

Myw = Yawing Moment in pounds-ft
CDxand CDy = Drag Coefficients along x and y directions
Vw = Wind speed in Knots
Ax and Ay = End-on and Side projected areas of vessel (including the areas
of masts, stacks, rigging, deck cargoes, etc.)
LOA = Overall Length of Ship in ft
The hydrodunamic coefficients are the functions of angle of wind approach(). The yaw moment
is given in terms of the lateral force times the vessel’s length overall (LOA) and C ym. The total
resultant force for wind from any direction (F w()) is found from this equation:
Fw () = 0.0034CD() V2w (Ax cos2  + Ay sin2 ) (1.11)
1.3.4.2 Forces due to Current
Pressure due to current will be applied to the area of the vessel below the water line when fully
loaded. It is approximately equal to w v2/2g per square metre of area, where v is the velocity in
m/s and w is the unit weight of water in T/m3. The ship is generally berthed parallel to the
current. With strong currents and where berth alignment materially deviates from the direction of
the current, the likely force should be calculated by any recognized method and taken into
account.
Ship is aligned predominantly in head sea condition with current direction.
Table 1.2 : Bollard Pulls
Displacement (Tones) Line Pull (Tones)

2,000 10
10,000 30
20,000 60
50,000 80
100,000 100
200,000 150
>200,000 200
Hence the mooring pull for 30,000 DWT vessels is 67. However the mooring pull is assumed as
75 T.
13
1.3.5 Combination of Loads
The combination of loadings for design is dead load, vertical live loads, plus either berthing load,
or line pull or earthquake or wave pressure, for open type berthing structure. The worst
combination should be taken for design. In addition to the above load earth pressure &
differential water pressure shall be consider for vertical force typing structures.
The partial safety factors for different types of loads in limit state design is given in
Table 1.3 and increase in permissible stress for different combination of loads are given in Table
1.4.
Table 1.3 Partial Safety Factors for Loads in Limit State Design
Partial Safety Factor

Loading Limit State
Limit State of Collapse
Serviceability
Dead load 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.2 (or 0.9) 1.2 (or 0.9) 1.2 (or 0.9)
Vertical Live 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.2 (or 0.9) 1.2 (or 0.9) 1.2 (or 0.9)
Load
Earth Pressure 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Hydrostatic and
Hydrodynamic 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0
Forces
Berthing and
- 1.0 1.5 - - -
Mooring Forces
Secondary
1.0 - - - - -
Stresses
Wind Forces - - - - 1.5 -
Seismic Forces - - - - - 1.5
14
Table 1.4 Increases in Permissible Stresses
Sl. Increase in Permissible

Increase in
No. Combination of Loads Stress Allowable
Other Bearing
Reinforced Materials Pressure
Concrete such as steel
and Timber
1 DL + LL + impact of breaking or
traction or vehicles + centrifugal Nil Nil Nil
forces of vehicles
2 DL + LL with impact, breaking or
tractive and centrifugal forces + earth 15 15 15
pressure, percent
3 DL with/without LL including
impact, breaking or tractive and
centrifugal forces + earth pressure +
hydrodynamic and hydrostatic forces 25 33 1/3 25
+ berthing and mooring forces,
percent
4 Wind forces on structures + load
combination of (1) + (2) or (3)
5 Seismic forces + load combination of
(1), (2) or (3)percent
6 Secondary stress + load combination
15 15 15
of (1), percent
7 Erection stage stresses with DL and
appropriate LL + earth pressure +
hydrodynamic forces + wind forces, 15 33 1/3 25
percent
1.4 ANALYSIS OF BERTHING STRUCTURES

1.4.1 Analysis of a Bulk Berth
The layout of a berth to receive 30,000 DWT bulk carrier is given in Figure 1.19.
The dimension of 30,000 DWT bulk carrier as per IS 4651 (Part III)-1974 are as follows:
Overall length = 205 m
Width = 26.5 m
Height = 14.3 m
Fully loaded draft = 10.7 m
The total length of the berth should be 10% more than the length of the ship. Hence a length of
250 m is adopted. The total length of the berth of 250 m is divided into five blocks each of 50 m
length with expansion joints in between them. IS 4651 (Part IV) section 10 recommends a length
15
of 39 m between the expansion joints. A spacing of 60 m is recommended for better stiffness.

However 250m long berth without any expansion joints are also constructed.
2050
0
26.5m
2
30000
M M 25
M M DWT M
F4 5 F 3 6000
1 2 B B
B 1B 2 B B6
4
3
1 2 5
3 PIER
OR16
5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 WHAm
0 0 0
2500 0 0
RF
M1 = STERN 0
M2 = AFT BREAST
LINE
M3
LINE= AFT SPRING
M4
LINE= FORD SPRING
M5 = FORD BREAST
LINE
M6 = BOW
LINE
F1 & F2 =
LINE
B1 & B2 =
FENDERS
BOLLARDS
Fig. 1.19 Layout of Berth with 30000 DWT Tanker
However for these structures the loads due to variation of temperature shall be considered in
addition to other loads. The typical cross section of a berth is shown in Figure 1.20. It consists of
a diaphragm wall tied back by a cross beam to four rows of vertical pile.
The fully loaded draft is 10.7 m. Hence the dredge level is assumed as 10.7 + 10% of draft + 0.5
m for over dredge allowance. Hence dredge level should be greater than 12.27 m. The dredge
level is assumed as 12.5 m. The tidal levels are
HHWL = + 3.25 m
LLWL = + 0.40 m
2515
0
+5.00
HWL
+3.25
MAIN BEAM
1000Ø PILE
1300Ø
DREDGE LEVEL 1300Ø PILE
-12.50 PILE
1100 THK
DIAPHRAGM WALL
-20.00
-22.50
-23.00
(B) FINAL DESIGN
Fig.1.20Typical Cross Section of Fertilizer Berth
16
Hence the top level of the jetty is assumed as (3.25 + H/2 + 1) m where, H is the expected wave
height. The wave height inside the harbour during extreme weather condition is
1.2 m. Hence the top level is assumed as + 4.85 m. The third and fourth rows of piles are
provided below the conveyor columns, the second row of pile is provided below one of the rails
of crane track.
It is preferable to carry out three dimensional analysis for each block considering all the rows of
piles especially for berthing and mooring force. However it is a common practice to carry out a
two dimensional analysis for a typical pile bent for 1/3 of berthing force and 1/3 or mooring force
assuming that the berthing force and mooring force will be distributed to 3 pile bents.
1.4.2 Analysis of Jetty

A berthing structure with deck slab mounted on piles embedded into sea bed and which has free
passage of water underneath the deck, is known as open type of jetty. The jetty projects outward
nearly perpendicular to or at some skew angle with the shore line. The jetty (Figure 6.28)
generally consists of two berthing dolphins, four mooring dolphins, jetty head and an approach
jetty.
SHORE PILE APPROACH CUM

LINE PIPE BRIDGE LIQUID ETHYLENE
PIPELINE TO STORAGE
10
m
TA
NK
25m 75m 75m 25m

MOORING MOORING
DOLPHIN DOLPHIN
8m 8m JETTY 8m 8
HEAD
20m m
1.2m WIDE WALK
8
10m m
8m 8 WAY 8m
m 1.2 m WIDE WALK 20
m
15m WAY
BOW
LINE ETHYLENE TANKER STERN
LINE
Fig 1.28 Layout of Jetty
17
18
The increase in vessel size has necessitated construction of offshore jetty in deep water in open
sea and exposed to winds, waves and currents. Hence offshore jetty is a kind of structure totally
different from those in a harbour. The length of approach jetty varies from 1000 to 2500 m and
an economical design of approach jetty can be made only after analysing different types of pile
configuration for varying water depths. The approach jetty for a length of about 2500 m may
have five to seven typical pile bents and each pile bent have to be analysed for different
environment forces and soil strata. Anchor bents with rakar piles to take of the longitudinal
seismic / pipe line surge forces shall also have to be provided and a three dimensional analysis is
necessary for such situations. In addition the berthing and mooring dolphins have to be designed
not only for operating wave condition but also for extreme wave condition, during cyclones.
Hence a computer aided analysis and design is required for the offshore jetty.
The layout of a mooring dolphin is given in Figure 1.29. The mooring dolphin consists of 16
piles of 760 mm dia. The four corner piles are kept vertical, whereas, the three piles in each face
is kept inclined, 3 vertical to 1 horizontal. This configuration has been chosen based on the
analysis of various configurations of piles (Ranga Rao & Sundaravadivelu (1994 A)). The
mooring dolphin has 2440 mm thick deck slab. The dredge level is -14.00 m and founding level
is -24.6 m. The piles are assumed to be fixed at 5D below dredge level i.e., fixity level = 14 +
(5 x 0.76) = -17.8 m.
The analysis is carried out using SAP IV idealising the piles by beam elements and the deck using
master slave option. The deck can also be idealised using brick element. In this case master-slave
option is used since it is simple and gives comparable results with the brick element idealisation
of the deck.
The analysis is carried out for the following load cases:
(i) Dead load

(ii) Live load of 1 T/m2
(iii) 200 T bollard pull at  equal to
(a) 45
(b) 30
(c) 15
(d) 0
19
1000
13 12 11 10 9
2000
14 8
10000
2000
15 7
BO
2000
16 6
LLA
2000
1000
1 2 3 4 5 RD
1000 1000
2000 2000 2000 2000
10000
10000
+3.66m
A
LAY +1.00m
OUT
3 3
DREDGE LEVEL
-16.00m
1 1
FOUNDING LEVEL
-21.60m
B SECTION 1-1
Fig.1.29 Mooring Dolphin
Based on the results of the individual load cases (Table 1.6), the critical combination of the
tensile and compressive forces on each pile is worked out.
20
Table 1.6 Analysis of Mooring Dolphin
Axial forces in piles (T) due to

Pile Dead Live load
200 T bollard pull at Max forces
No load (T/m2)
45 30 15 0 Tension Compression
1 -50 -7 0 26 50 71 21 -57
2 -45 -6 -96 -101 -99 -91 - -152
3 -45 -6 -58 -72 -80 -83 - -134
4 -45 -6 -31 -56 -76 -91 - -142
5 -50 -7 +99 97 87 71 49 -57
6 -45 -6 -31 -6 20 46 - -97
7 -45 -6 -58 -42 -22 0 - -109
8 -45 -6 -96 -85 -68 -46 - -147
9 -50 -7 0 -26 -50 -71 - -128
10 -45 -6 96 102 99 91 57 -51
11 -45 -6 58 72 80 83 38 -51
12 -45 -6 31 56 76 92 47 -51
13 -50 -7 -99 -87 -87 -71 - -156
14 -45 -6 31 6 -20 -46 - -97
15 -45 -6 58 42 22 0 13 -51
16 -45 -6 96 85 68 46 41 -51
1.4.3 Analysis of Container Berth
The typical layout of the extension of a container berth is given in Figure 1.30.
The proposed extension of 220m of the container berth is divided into 4 blocks, each of
55 m. The width of the container berth is 20 m. The span of the container crane is 30 m. It will
be uneconomical to provide 30 m width for the container berth and hence one row of piles are
provided behind the berth to support the near rail of the container crane. Two container cranes
are considered for the analysis. Each container has four legs and each legs has 8 wheels. The
center to center distance between two legs is 16.5 m and center to center distance between two
wheel is 0.8 m. The deck system consists of 0.4 m thick RCC slab, 0.05 m thick wearing coat,
eight main beams of size 0.8 x 2.45 m, twelve secondary beams, three facia beams of size
1.0 x 2.45 m (Figure 1.31). The depth of the webs of all the beams are inclusive of the slab
thickness except for the secondary beam which is not integral with the slab.
21
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN mm.
165
550
0
00
8 16 20 28 36
555
0
490
90
00
0
550
00
7 15 23 27 35A
PLAN
00KEY
550
103
838
80
0
CL OF CRANE 2
550
6 14 22 26 34
00
185
200
6300
00
838
80
0
165
00
Fig. 1.30 . Layout of Container Berth

5 13 21 33
LAND SIDE
30000
838
103
550
80
00
0
640
4 12 20 24 32
0
00 638
838
0
0
185
3 11 19 23 31
CRANE 1
CL OF
165
838
103
00
80
0
MOORIN
FENDER
CRANE
22 30
1300Ø
MUFF
10 18
RAIL
PILE
PILE
.
900
0
490
555 0
0
m
600
0
0
1 9 17 21 29
165
0
100
450
400
450
400
100
0
0
0
0
0
190
00
SB1
200
SB2
SB3 MB - Main Beam -800x2450

SB - Secondary Beam -400x1000
SB4
(Depth of the beam Exclusive
SB5 of slab
MB1 MB2 MB3
CBthickness)
- Crane beam - 700x1200
22
SB6 FB - Fender beam - 1000x2450
11 x 1480 SB7
Three berthing points are provided for each panel, one at the middle and others at 10.74 m from
each end of the panel. The mooring points are provided at 18.5 m c/c with the extreme one at 9 m
from the respective panel edge. The various levels are given below.
Top level of deck : + 4.00 m

Lowest mean water level : 0.00 m
The actual dredge level : - 13.75 m
The design dredge level : - 14.00 m
Cut-off level of piles : +1.50 m
The following loads are considered for the analysis.
a) Dead load
b) Live load = 5.5T/m2 on deck slab
c) Crane Loads : Crane operating = Each Wheel Load is 40 t with 20%
Impact and 10% tractive force
Crane Idle = Each Wheel Load is 33.33t
d) Berthing Force = 250 t at left or central or right berthing points
e) Mooring force (M.F) = 150 t at left, central or right mooring points
f) Seismic Force = 2% of (D.L + 50% L.L) (As per IS 1893 for Zone II)
1.4.3.1 Load Combinations
23
i) a + b + c+ d
ii) a+d
iii) a+e
iv) b + c + 250 T berthing force across the berth and 82 T along the berth at
any one berthing point
v) a+f
vi) a+c
vii) a+b
viii) a+b+c
The increase in the permissible stresses for load combinations (i) to (v) as per IS-4651 (Part IV) is
25 % and the same is assumed in design.
1.4.3.2 Structural Analysis
The berth is analyzed as a three dimensional structure using SAP IV Program (Structural Analysis
Program - IV an inbuilt computer program). The pile is assumed to be fixed at 5 ‘D’ below the
dredge level. Based on the results of the analysis, the piles are divided into four major groups and
the axial forces and bending moments for two critical combinations are given in Table 6.7. Since
25% overstress is allowed for these combinations, the forces are reduced by 25% and the piles are
designed.
1.4.3.3 Foundation Design of Piles
The piles are designed based on the soil profile. The soil profile indicates silty sand (8m) from
–14.0 m to – 22.0 m ( SPT ‘N’ =30), cemented sand (3m) from -22.0m to -25.0m (SPT ‘N’ = 50)
and rock (SPT ‘N’ >100) for depth below –25.0m. However rock level varies at certain locations.
Though 1300mm dia piles founded at -23 m level are found adequate as a good engineering
practice, founding depth is adopted with penetration ½ times diameter of pile in hard rock or 3
times diameter of pile in cemented sand strata whichever is earlier.
The pile capacities are worked out based on SPT ‘N’ values and using Meyerhof’s correlations as
given below.
Ultimate end bearing resistance in sand = 12 [SPT ‘N’] T/m2

Ultimate skin friction in sand = [SPT ‘N’] /10 T/m2
The capacity in rock is worked out as per Cole & Stroud as given below.
qa = Nc Cb/F
fa = Cs
Where
qa = allowable end bearing pressure
24
Nc = bearing capacity factor taken as 9.0

Cb = shear strength of the rock at pile base
F = factor of safety taken as 3.0
fa = allowable frictional resistance
Cs = average shear strength of rock along rock socket and
 = shaft adhesion factor taken as 0.3.
For silty sand [ SPT ‘N’ = 30]
Ultimate end bearing = 12 x 30 = 360 T/m2

Allowable end bearing = 144 T/m2 (ultimate end bearing /2.5)
Ultimate skin friction = 30/10 = 3 T/m2
Allowable skin friction = 3/2.5 = 1.2 T/m2
For cemented sand [ SPT ‘N’ = 50]
Ultimate end bearing = 12 x 50 = 600 T/m2

Allowable end bearing = 600/2.5 = 240 T/m2
Ultimate skin friction = 50/10 = 5 T/m2
Allowable skin friction = 5/2.5 = 2 T/m2
For Rock
For N > 100, taking the shear strength of rock from chart given by Cole & Stroud as
90 T/m2
Allowable friction resistance = 0.3 x 90 = 27 T/m2

Allowable end bearing = 9 x 90/3 = 270 T/m2
1.3 2
End bearing in rock =  270 = 358.37 = 358 T
4
Total skin friction from silty sand and cemented sand layers
1.3 (1.2 x 8 + 2 x 3) = 63.71 = 64 T
25
1.5 DESIGN OF BERTHING STRUCTURES
Once the analysis of any structural system is completed, the next step would be the design of
various elements in the structural system. Generally, the design process is iterative as the design
variables chosen may not satisfy the allowable stress/strain parameters. This process should be
repeated until a satisfactory solution is obtained. The design shall be carried out as per the
guidelines specified in IS 456-1978. As per IS 4651 (Part IV) - 1989 the minimum grade of
concrete to be used in berthing structures is specified as M 30. The minimum cement content of
0.4 T/m3 and maximum water cement ratio of 0.45 shall be maintained for all grades of concrete.
The minimum thickness of cover for structures immersed in sea water, in splash zone or exposed
to marine atmosphere should be 25 mm more than the cover specified in 4.1 IS 456 (1978)
Hence the cover shall be as follows
Slab = 15+25 = 40 mm
Beam =25+25 = 50 mm
Pile = 40 + 25 + = 65 mm
However the cover shall not be greater than 75 mm.
There are two methods of design namely, Working Stress method and the Limit State method. In
the working stress method the design is based on the linear stress strain relationship within the
elastic limit. The structure shall be designed for the working loads and checked for the
permissible stresses. The permissible stresses are the stresses obtained after applying a factor of
safety to the yield strength of the materials.
In the limit state method the design is based on Limit State concept. The structure shall be
designed to withstand safely all the loads liable to act on it throughout its line. It shall also satisfy
the serviceability requirements such as limitations on deflection and cracking. The acceptable
limit for the safety and serviceability requirements before failure occurs is called a “Limit State”.
The diaphragm wall and pile are the two important structural elements of a berthing structure and
the detailed design method for the diaphragm wall and pile is given in this section.
Table 3 Typical rates of corrosion for structural steels temperate climates The Indian corrosion rate
map shall be included.
Corrosion rate
(mm/side/year)
Exposure Zone
Meana Upper
limitb
Atmosphericzone:
- above splash zone and where direct
0.04 0.1
wave or spray impingement is
infrequent
Splash zone:
0.08 0.17
- above mean high-water to a height
26
depending on mean wave height and

exposure to wind
Tidal zone:
- between mean high-water and mean 0.04 0.1
low-water spring level
Intertidal low water zone
- between low-water spring and 0.5 m 0.08 0.17
below LAT
Continuous seawater immersion
zone:
0.04 0.13
- from 0.5 m below LAT to seabed
level
Below seabed level or in contact 0.015
with soil max
Note: (Basis BS 6349-1:2000 Section 7)
a
The rate is for each face exposed to the environment of the zone
b
The upper limit figures are the 95% probability values
2.0 MARINE FENDERING SYSTEMS
2.1 General
The purpose of the marine fendering system is to prevent damage to both the vessel and berth,
during the berthing process and while the vessel is moored. As the vessel approaches a berth it
possesses kinetic energy by virtue of its displacement and motion. As the vessel contacts the
berth and is brought to stop this kinetic energy must be dissipated. Fendering systems that are
being berthed are provided to absorb or dissipate the kinetic energy of the ship.
2.2 Classification of fenders

The fenders may be made of rubber, steel, timber, rope, concrete and similar material. Rubber has
come into extensive use for fender system.
 Fenders which in principle are fixed or mounted to the berthing structures. The fixed fenders
are again sub divided into
o Buckling Fenders
o Non Buckling Fenders
 Floating fenders between the ship and the berthing structure
The floating fenders are again sub divided into
o Pneumatic Fenders
o Foam filled Fenders
The choice of material and the type of fender shall be judiciously made to serve the specific
purpose in the particular case.
27
2.3 Selection Criteria of Fendering Systems
The selection of a optimum fender for a given service depends on the following factors:
1. The type, size, draft and allowable hull pressure of a vessel.

2. Berthing velocity and angle.
3. Distance between the berthing point and the vessels gravity centre measured along the face of
the pier.
4. Water level, tidal range, wind velocity, direction of wind, direction and velocity of currents.
5. Behaviour and installation pitches of Dock fender
6. Structure and strength of Berthing facilities
7. Certain human factors involved in berthing.
2.4 Berthing Energy of a Vessel
The design of fenders depends very much on the energy to be absorbed by the fenders during
berthing. When a ship strikes the fender, it transfers some part of the kinetic energy to the fender
and the other part gets dissipated to the motion of ship in water. Some part of the energy
absorbed by the fender is transferred back to the ship, after the ship has come to rest, by the
fender trying to recoil back to its normal shape. This process of exchange of energies between
fender, ship and the loss of energy in water motion continues till the whole of the kinetic energy
of ship is dissipated in water motion. The different methods that are used in determining the
maximum amount of energy to be absorbed by the fender is given below:
2.4.1 Quinn Method
In this method fifty percent of the energy of the ship calculated on the basis of the velocity of the
ship normal to berthing structure is assumed as the energy absorbed by the fender.
WV
2
E   (1.47)
G 4
2.4.2 Woodruff Method
In this method the following empirical equation is used to calculate the berthing energy.
E = W(0.004 - W x 10-8 (1.48)
Where W is in tons and E is in ton feet.
28
2.4.3 Vasco Costa Method
Vasco Costa has given the following analytical solution, for a ship moving with translatory
velocity u and angular velocity w, having no slip along the berth.
E = (WV2/2g) (1 + 2D/B) (K2 + r2 Cos2r / K2 + r2) (1.49)
Where v Distance P= u + aw
The value of k can be taken as 0.2 L to 0.29 L. The following three coefficients are to be
considered along with equation.
1. Geometric coefficient (C g) 0.85 for convex surface contact of the

ship 1.00 for broad side berthing
1.25 for concave surface contact of
the ship.
2. Deformation coefficient (Cd) 0.5 for resilient fender and 1.0 for
stiff fender
3. Berth configuration Coefficient (Cc) 0.8 for closed warf and 0.9 for closed
berth and 1.0 for open type berth
2.4.4 IS: 4651 (Part III) - 1974
As per the Indian standard code of practice, the berthing energy is calculated as follows
WD x V 2
E  C m x Ce x C m (1.50)
2g
Where
WD = Displacement tonnage (DT) of the vessel, in tonnes,
V = Velocity of vessel in m/s, normal to the berth

g = Acceleration due to gravity in m/s2
Cm = Mass coefficient
Ce = Eccentricity coefficient and
Cs = Softness coefficient.
The approach velocity varies from 0.1 m/s to 0.75 m/s depending on the size of the vessel, site
condition and berthing condition. The above equation depends on the angle of approach and l/r
29
ratio where l is the distance from the centre of gravity of the vessel to the point of contact
projected along the water line of the berth in metre and r is the radius of gyration of rotational
radius on the plane of the vessel from its centre of gravity in metre.
The l/r ratio is in the range of 1 to 1.25. The angle of approach varies from
0 to 20 degrees. The softness coefficient indicates the relation between the rigidity of the vessel
and that of the fender. The value of 0.9 is generally used for this factor.
2.5 Fender Reaction
The fender reaction depends on the approximate energy to be absorbed and the characteristics of
the fender. If the fender reactions are transmitted to the backfill immediately behind the quay
wall there will be no problem in absorbing the reaction. If the structure, like open piers and
jetties are to be designed for these reaction forces, the forces are critical since they control the
design of these structures. If P/E ratio varies from 2 to 7 depending on the type of fender where P
is the berthing force in T and E is the energy absorption at 50 % of defletion in T. m, in such
cases it is preferable to have fenders with low reaction per absorbed unity of energy (P/E). It is
also important to consider the fender performance beyond the rated energy capacity, since the
fender reaction increases swiftly.
30
31
32
3.0 SINGLE BUOY MOORING SYSTEM
3.1 General
The art of implanting floating structures in the ocean is as old as man’s history. Marker buoys,
mooring buoys and navigational buoys have long been familiar sights in the harbours and
waterways and along the sea shores. The recent past has seen many large and sophisticated buoy
mooring systems deployed in deep waters for a variety of purposes.
A buoy mooring system consists of a buoy or buoys, connected by cables and anchored to the
seabed. Being a compliant structure, the system is responsive to external effects and the
movements are controlled by the mooring system. Buoy mooring systems are flexible and provide
a progressive elastic response to environmental forces absorbing and dissipating energy from the
ocean environment. To understand the effect of these constrained or freely drifting buoyant
structures often require advanced Engineering knowledge from many disciplines are often
required.
The ratio of mooring cable length to water depth is called the scope of the mooring line. A small
scope indicates a taut moor and a large scope indicates a slack moor. The advantages of a taut
moor are smaller buoy-watch-circle, reduced sensor motion and ease of deployment. The
disadvantages of the taut mooring system are high dynamic loading due to wave action and high
static tension under severe current conditions. These are reduced when the scope of the mooring
line is increased. The motion of the float and of the sensors a slack moored system will become
considerable, thus introducing an undesirable error in the measurements of velocity fields and
other ocean variables.
A typical deep water buoy system may involve multiple lines with lengths varying from a few
tens of metres to thousands of metres. When these are considered in conjunction with the
equipment deployed from or associated with the moored buoys, the losses resulting from a
mooring failure can be significant. Consequently there is much interest in design and analysis
methods applicable to the buoy mooring systems.
In general, based on the use of the buoy mooring system it can be grouped as (i) buoys used for
monitoring or measuring the parameters of importance to oceanographers and naval scientists and
(ii) buoys used for engineering purposes such as mooring oil tankers.
3.2 Oceanographic Buoy Systems
An oceanographic buoy system can be defined as a floating structure deployed in the ocean for
the purpose of measuring environmental data (Berteaux, 1976). Because of their inherent capacity
of efficiently providing long term series measurements of meteorological and oceanographic
parameters, a relatively large number of buoy systems are deployed each year in world’s oceans.
3.3 Offshore Floating Storage Systems
Since many large oil fields are in remote places where harbours are non-existent, a need is felt to
have artificial berths to moor the tankers during their loading operation. Many configurations of
offshore tanker terminals are attempted. The single point mooring system (SPM) has emerged as
the most rapidly deployed, economical and safest to operate. SPM enables economic transport of
33
crude oil where use of pipelines is not technically or economically feasible because of rough
seabed, topography or long distances from shore.
Single point mooring terminals are, as the name implies, facilities of small horizontal dimensions,
to which large vessels are moored by means of a bow hawser or by any other means which allows
the vessel to rotate 360 around the mooring point. Generally, single point mooring terminal can
have two functions. Primarily, it affords a safe mooring to the vessels. Secondly, it can form a
link in the transport of oil.
Fig. 1.36 Catenary Anchor Leg Mooring (CALM) Terminal
34
The single point mooring terminal can assume many forms. Of the more than 300 SPMs now in
use around the world (Maari, 1985) approximately 80 percent are of the type - single buoy
catenary anchor leg mooring (CALM). CALMs have been employed as loading terminals since
1961. The CALM (Figure 1.36) basically consists of a cylindrical buoy type float anchored to the
seabed by a number of radial catenary chain legs (up to eight chains) while the vessel is moored
to the buoy by one or more elastic synthetic (usually nylon) lines. This system employs the
properties of the catenary to supply the elasticity required when holding large tankers in open
seas. The buoy is cylindrical and can have an outside diameter between six and twenty metres and
a height between four and eight metres.
Single buoy, multi-leg mooring systems are the most commonly used offshore loading facility
which has grown in significance in the recent years through the use of single point mooring
systems for the exploitation of marginal fields and in the development of moorings for deep water
production facilities. One of the principle tasks of the designer of catenary moorings is to ensure
that the system characteristics are such that the movement of the floating unit under extreme
environmental conditions remains within acceptable limits. Scrutiny of the calculation of
catenaries shows that chains with their high weight per unit length often have high energy
absorption capacity. Whilst chain has this very desirable property of being a good energy
absorbing catenary, it unfortunately suffers from that well known failing character, being only as
strong as its weakest link. This constitutes the second major design criteria i.e., the tensile loads
under extreme wave conditions should be less than the proof loads.
Water depth can vary to a practical maximum of about 130 metres. Normal operating sea states
with the tanker moored are the significant wave heights in the range of about four metres. High
waves at a CALM terminal can generate prohibitive forces in the anchoring chains. This is
especially the case where the ratio of maximum wave height to water depth is very high. CALMs
have been installed in hostile areas such as North Sea with a maximum survival wave height up to
28 metres (Montrose Field) and the Enchora Field in Brazil with a maximum wave of 21 metres.
Current velocity can be a limiting factor for the submarine hose system but CALM terminals have
been installed and are operating successfully in currents of up to 2 m/s (four knots). Wind is not a
significant factor because it only affects the SPM indirectly through forces applied on the tanker.
Normal operating (with ship moored to the CALM) wind velocities are about 40 knots and design
wind speeds are up to 70 knots.
35
(b) Soft yoke CALM system
36
Continuous motion of the buoy due to wave action results in wear and tear of the chains. The
static tension in the chain is of the order of 50 to 100 kN. The static tension is a function of
surface angle the chain makes with the buoy, submerged unit weight of the chain and water depth.
Increasing the static tension reduces the movements of the buoy and consequently the wear of the
chains but model tests have indicated that at this level of static tension (50 to 100 kN) the
mooring forces are kept to a minimum. For rough sea condition, however, survival of the CALM
terminal may be of greater importance than the effect of keeping mooring forces to a minimum.
In such cases, an optimum must be determined between static tension, centre of gravity of buoy
and wave spectra to minimise linear and rotational movements of the buoy and consequently
minimise possible damage to the oil cargo hose.
3.4 Importance in Indian Context
India’s coastline extends over 6000 km, which is the seventh largest coastline in the world. It has
an exclusive economic zone of 2.02 million sq. kms, which is also the seventh largest in the
world. The prevailing environmental conditions viz., wave and wind climate, currents, air and sea
surface temperature, salinity etc., at a specific location and their yearly variations are the most
important inputs in the planning, design, construction and operation of offshore structures, coastal
defence works, ports, ship routing and several other applied ocean research activities. Such data
would also be vital for development of predictive models for forecasting of wave and wind
climate of the ocean, ocean circulation, monsoon prediction, ship routing etc. Moored ocean
buoys are considered the most appropriate system for measuring such data.
India has launched a comprehensive programme for exploration of crude oil from offshore
resources. Offshore activity is getting extended from west coast to east coast (Krishna, Godavari
and Cauvery basins) where production wells have to be located at about 25 km from the shore.
Offshore loading systems are particularly attractive and economical for small offshore oil fields.
As the offshore marine environment imposes severe demands upon men, machinery and money,
the research and development of buoy mooring systems is an immediate necessity for the country.
3.5 Movement of Moored Tankers at Berth
Transportation of crude oil or refined products is the most important maritime traffic in the world.
Crude oil is transported in generally high capacity tankers. The movements of tankers at berth
are an important design consideration for berthing structures. Model studies are used to predict
the motion of ship and the forces on the mooring line for ships berthed at an offshore jetty.
(Sundaravadivelu & Natarajan (1996 a & 1996 b) The details of tankers, the types of mooring
lines and the permissible movements of tankers are given below:
3.5.1 Details of Tankers
The refined products are usually transported in smaller tankers less than 100,000 DWT. The
main dimensions of tankers corresponding to the dead weight capacity and the distribution of the
tankers as on 1991 is given in Appendix 1.1 (PIANC working group
24 Feb 1991).
37
3.5.2 Mooring Outfit
The mooring lines are handled by capstans, which are used to pull the lines and to tighten the
lines when the ship is moored. The different types of mooring line are
a) Steel wire
b) Polypropylene or nylon
c) Mixed rope i.e. a steel wire line connected to a short nylon lines(10 to 15m long)
The number, size and length of the mooring lines depend on the size of the ships.
The mooring equipment on board is also given in Appendix 6.1.
3.5.3 Ship Motions
From the available data given in the literature, it is difficult to select precise figures on what could
be the allowable movements of the ship. The values given below recommended by PIANC (1971)
is a good basis for safe mooring conditions.
Surge :  1.00 m Rolling :  2.5 deg

Sway :  0.75 m Pitching :  1 deg
Heave:  0.5 m Yawing :  1.5 deg
38
4 SELECTION OF TYPE OF BERTHING STRUCTURE
A Berthing structure is usually constructed to serve a definite use. The purpose of it is to handle
passengers or general cargo or a combination of both or it may be required to handle a specific
type of cargo, particularly bulk cargo such as oil, ore, cement, and grains or to handle containers.
The type of berthing structure depends upon the purpose of the berth, size of ships that use the
berthing structure, the direction of the wave, wind and subsurface soil conditions, in particular the
depth of the bed rock or firm bearing material and the water depth.
The selection of type of berthing structure also depends on the magnitude and nature of loading,
hydraulic conditions such as wave action and currents. Fire hazard and safety requirements,
damage susceptibility and ease of repairs, environmental and regularity concerns over water
circulation and habitat loss always favour open type construction.
Closed type construction generally offers greater horizontal and vertical load capacity and impact
resistance than the open piled construction. The vertical face of a closed type of construction
reflects wave energy, if the structure face is exposed to significant wave action. The possible
scouring at the face of the closed type structure due to current action influences the choice of the
type. If all factors considered for selection of the type of berthing structure remain the same the
long-term maintenance govern the type of berthing structure.
When a berthing structure has to be constructed in shallow water or on existing land in

connection with the dredging of a harbour basin, a vertical face type structure such as the
diaphragm wall is very competitive. The presence of bedrock or hard strata below the design
depth of water favours the vertical type.
The vertical face type structures will be preferred when tension piles fail to penetrate to sufficient
depth due to hard layers. When the existing water depth is close to the desired dredge depth then
this type of structure is suitable. When dredging is expensive and when weak and soft sediments
endanger the overall stability, then open type structures are adopted.
As a general rule vertical face construction such as diaphragm wall is favoured where water
depths are shallow to moderate. Anchored bulkheads require some minimum embedment depth
and these bulkheads are practical and economical to wall heights upto about 10 m. At deep water
locations with soft soils extending relatively deep below the mud line then pile foundations are
provided. Even though open pile supported construction is used at shallow rock locations, the
cost to anchor the piles to the bed rock and to provide adequate horizontal stability usually
exceeds that of a suitable vertical face type structure.
Relieving platforms, which are a combination of open type and fill type construction, may be
used to provide uplift resistance thereby improving the lateral load resistance of the piles. A
relieving platform also reduces the required bulk head wall height thus extending the water depth
capability of the system.
39
When the slope of the bottom is so steep that a jetty or a pier cannot be projected out from the
shore without having the outshore end in water so deep, then foundations are either impractical or
very expensive. In such conditions a wharf or quay is suitable and economical.
For bulk cargo berth, open type constructions with approach trestle is preferable. Oil docks and
some forms of bulk-handling cargo docks are of lighter construction than general cargo-handling
docks, as they do not require warehouses, nor do they have to support rail, road tracks or
extensive cargo-handling equipment. Since the main products handled over oil docks are usually
unloaded at fixed points and transported by pipelines, the required area of solid deck is very much
reduced, as are width and length of the dock, if supplemented by dolphins to take the bow and
stern mooring lines. For this reason, a full-length pier or wharf is not economical or essential,
and the use of larger and deeper draft tankers has resulted in the adoption of the fixed mooring
berth. This type of construction is economical because the large mooring forces imposed on the
dock by the large ships shall be concentrated at single points. The pull of the mooring lines can
be taken by dolphins off the bow and stern of the vessel and by breasting dolphins on both sides
of the fixed platform. The breasting dolphins also keep the ship away from the platform and take
the impact of the ship while docking.
In some locations, it is impossible or uneconomical to provide a pier, wharf or fixed mooring

depth owing to site conditions or the deep draft of some of the recently constructed supertankers
and ore carriers. In such cases an offshore mooring may be provided and the cargo transferred to
the shore either by lighters, long conveyors, ropeways or by submarine pipeline, if the product is
a liquid such as oil, gasoline and molasses.
Direction of waves and wind may have a bearing on the type of dock selected. In general, the
dock should not be broadside to the prevailing wave front. If the terminal is in exposed location,
and the wave front is parallel to the shore, a wharf type of dock may have to be ruled out. Also,
all things being equal, it is better to have the ship anchored parallel to the direction of prevailing
winds or if this cannot be accomplished, the ship shall be anchored in such a way that the wind is
holding the ship off the dock.
Soil conditions will have an important bearing on the type of dock selected. The bottom may be
more favourable in the region close to the shore, thereby favouring a wharf or bulkhead
installation. However, rock may be encountered which would make it very costly to obtain the
required depth of water along the dock. In such a case, a pier with an approach trestle or mole
may be the solution to eliminate the need for costly excavation.
40
REFERENCES
Agerschou, H., Lundgren, H., Sorensen, T., Ernst, T., Korsgaard, J., Schmidt, L.R. and Chi,
W.K., (1983). “Planning and Design of Ports and Marine Terminals”, A Wiley-Interscience
Publication, 220-225.
Bathe, K.J., Wilson, E.L and Peterson, F.E. (1978). “SAPIV: A structural analysis Program for
static and dynamic response of 4651 linear system”, Report EERC 73-11Univ. of California, Ber
Kely.
Berteaux, H.O., (1976). “Buoy Engineering”, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Bruun, P., (1981). “Port Engineering”, Gulf publishing company book division, Hudson, Texas.
Faltinsen, O.M., Kjaerland, O Liapis N and Walderhaug H. (1979). “Hydrodynamic Analysis of
Tankers at Single Point Mooring Systems”, Proceedings of Second International Conference on
Behaviour of Offshore Structures, London, PP.177-206.
Gaythwaite, John. (1990). “Design of Marine Facilities for Berthing”, mooring and repair of
vessels, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
IS 2911 Part IV (1979). “Indian Standard Code of Practice” for design and construction of pile
foundation.
IS 456 (1978). “Indian Standard Code of Practice” for Plain and Reinforced concrete.
IS 875-1984. “Indian Standard Code of Practice for structural safety of Buildings”, Wind Load
Constructions, BIS, New Delhi.
IS-4651 Indian standard Code of practice for planning and design of ports and harbour, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Part 3 (1974) - Loading

Part 4 (1989) - General Design considerations
Part 5 (1980) - Layout and Functional requirements
Langeveld, J.M. (1974). “Design criteria for single point mooring systems”, Journal of
Waterways,
Manohar, S.N., (1964). “Charts for the Design of Eccentrically Loaded Circular Columns”,
Indian Concrete Journal.
Maari, R., (1985). “Single Point Moorings”, SBM Inc. Publications, Monaco.
Nakajima, T., Motora, S and Fujino M. (1982). “On the Dynamic Analysis of Multi-mooring
Lines”, Proceedings kof Fourteenth Annual Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 2212, Texas,
pp.679-702.
Per brun (1983). “Port Engineering” Gulf Publishing Co.
PIANC (1991). “Movements of Moored Ships” and berthing Pianc working groups 24.
41
Pinkster, J.A and Remery, G.F.M. (1975). “Role of Model Tests in The Design of Single Point
Mooring Terminals”, Proceedings of Seventh Annual Offshore Technology Conference, OTC
2212, Texas, pp.679-702.
Quinn, A.D. (1961). “Design & Construction of Ports and Marine Structures” McGraw Hill Book
Co.,
Raju, V.S., and Sundaravadivelu, R and Gandhi S.R., "Analysis of alternative systems for a
berthing structure", First National Conference in Docks and Harbour Engineering, IIT, Bombay,
Vol. I, December 1985, pp B195- B206.
Ranga Rao, A.V and Sundaravadivelu, R. (1992). "Non-linear Soil Structure Interaction of
berthing Structures", National Seminar on Offshore Structures, Docks and Harbours, Roorkee,
October 16-17.
Ranga Rao, A.V and Sundaravadivelu, R. (1994 A). "Effect of Configuration of piles in
Dolphin", National Seminar on Design of Pile Group and Pile Cap, Indian Geotechnical Society,
Madras.
Ranga Rao, A.V and Sundaravadivelu, R. (1994 A). "Computer Aided Design of Berthing
Structures", INCHOE - 94, Pune, Vol I, pp B87-B96.
SP: 16 (S&T) (1980). “Design Aids To Reinforced Concrete” IS: 456-1978.
Srinivasan, R and Rangwala, R.S.C. (1991). “Harbour, Dock” and Tunnel Engineering.
Sundaravadivelu, R., Idichandy, V.G., Gandhi, S.R. and Raju, V.S. (1990). "Tie rod force
measurements in a Cargo Berth", Journal of Waterways, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering,
ASCE, Vol.116, No.1, pp 43-56.
Sundaravadivelu, R., Raju, V.S. and Idichandy, V.G. (1993). "Failure of Offshore Concrete Piles
During Construction", Third International Conference On Case Histories in Geotechnical
Engineering, St. Louis, Missouri.
Sundaravadivelu, R., and Ranga Rao, A.V. (1996). "Expert System for Estimation of Forces on
Berthing Structures", International Conference in Ocean Engineering, ICOE'96, pp 393-397.
Sundaravadivelu, R., and Natarajan, R. (1996). "Model Studies on Moorings of A LPG Tanker
Berthed At An Offshore Jetty", The fourth Pacific/Asia Offshore Mechanics Symposium., Korea,
Oct. 31- Nov.2.
Sundaravadivelu, R, and Natarajan, R, (1996). "Experimental Investigation on Open Sea Berthign
of a LPG Tanker", First Asia - Pacific Conference on Offshore Systems: Mobile and Floating
Structures, Malaysia, 10-11.
Supplement to Bulletin N 45 (1984). “Report of the International Commission for Improving The
Design Of Fender Systems”, Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses.
Webster, R.L. (1980). “On The Static Analysis of Structures with Strong Geometric
Nonlinearity”, Computers and Structures, Vol. 11, pp.137-145.
Wichers, J.E.W. (1979). “Slowly Oscillating Mooring Forces in Single Point Mooring Systems”,
Proceedings of Second International Conference on Behaviour of Offshore Structures, London,
pp.661-692.
42
Woodruff, G.B. (1963). “Berthing & Mooring force”, Tr. ASCE, Vol. 128, Part IV.
APPENDIX A
SIZES OF PASSENGER SHIPS, FREIGHTER, TANKERS, ORE CARRIERS AND

FISHING AND FISHING VESSELS
A.1 BULK CARRIERS
Dead Weight Overall Width (m) Height (m) Fully Laden

Tonnage (Tons) Length (m) Draught (m)
4000 100.0 15.4 7.0 6.3
6000 118.0 16.6 8.3 6.9
8000 130.0 17.6 9.5 7.4
10000 140.0 18.5 10.5 7.9
12000 150.0 19.4 11.2 8.5
15000 163.0 20.7 12.0 9.0
20000 180.0 22.8 13.0 9.7
25000 194.0 24.7 13.8 10.3
30000 205.0 26.5 14.3 10.7
40000 223.0 29.7 15.4 11.1
50000 235.0 32.5 16.2 11.3
60000 245.0 35.0 17.1 12.0
80000 259.0 39.2 18.8 12.6
100000 268.0 42.5 20.4 13.0
A. 2 COMBINATION BULK/ORE CARRIERS (100,000 DWT NOMINAL)
Dead Weight Overall Breadth Depth Draught Draught

Tonnage Length (Moulded) (Moulded) (Loaded) (Ballast) m
(Tons) (m) (max)
119190 270 42.00 21.20 15.60 8.4
112900 261 40.20 21.40 15.50 10.62 (Max)
113180 261 40.60 24.00 16.00 10.69 ”
102824 259 41.30 20.40 14.20 8.29 ”
118000 261 42.00 22.80 16.13 9.0 ”
104330 259.7 38.00 21.30 15.52 9.37 ”
111120 261 40.60 23.00 16.00 9.36 ”
98720 255 40.20 23.90 14.63 9.00 ”
113180 261 40.60 23.00 16.00 9.74 ”
43
A. 3 CLASSIFICATION OF CONTAINER VESSEL
Container TEU DWT (ave) L D B

Vessel capacity m m m
1st generation 750 - 1100 14,000 180 - 200 9.0 27.0
2nd generation 1500 - 1800 30,000 225 - 240 11.5 30.0
3rd generation 2400 - 3000 45,000 270 - 300 12.5 32.0
4th generation 4000 - 4500 57,000 290 - 310 11.5-12.5 32.3
Panamax-plus 4300 - 4600 54,000 270 -300 11 - 12 38 - 40
Conbulk mostly Panamax-size bulk
carriers
A. 4 TANKER DIMENSIONS
Ship size (1,000 Draft (m) Beam (m) Length (m)

DWT)
20 9 22 180
50 12 31 235
70 13 35 260
100 15 41 270
150 16,5 46 300
200 19 50 330
250 21 52 340
300 23 55 350
550 28,5 63 415
A. 5 DISTRIBUTION OF WORLD FLEET OF TANKERS
Ship size (1000 DWT) Number of ships

30 to 80 347
80 to 130 357
130 to 180 274
180 to 230 49
230 to 280 294
280 to 330 66
330 to 380 25
380 to 430 21
430 to 480 5
480 to 530 4
44
530 to 565 2
A. 6 MOORING EQUIPMENT FOR DIFFERENT SHIP SIZES
Ship size (DWT) Mooring equipment

25,000 14 polypropylene dia 60 mm
550,000 20 steel dia 42 mm
+ 2 polypropylene dia 80 mm
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
APPENDIX D
Determination of differential water pressure as per clause 5.4 of

IS 4651 (Part-III): 1974
Fig. D.2 Calculation of differential water pressure.
where
MHW = Mean high water
MLW = Mean low water
LLW = Lowest low water
GW = Ground water
52

Oe 3190 2013 Berthing Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Oe 3190 2013 Berthing Structures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oe 3190 2013 Berthing Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis and Design of Berthing structures

1.2 TYPES OF BERTHING STRUCTURES

OPEN DOLPHIN TYPE

FINGER PIER OR DOLPHINS

FERRY (SLIP) TYPE

(b) SHEET PILE WALL

(c) OPEN PILED STRUCTURES

(A) GRAVITY STRUCTURES

(B) FLEXIBLE STRUCTURES

a) Single type of cargo

The berthing structures are designed for the following forces:

a) Dead load ( DL ) (Including the weight of marine growth)

1.3.1 Classification of Loads

The loads can be classified as extreme, normal and temporary loads.

1.3.1.1 Loads from Seaside

1.3.1.2 Loads from Deck

1.3.1.3 Loads from Landside

1.3.2 Live Loads

1.3.2.1 Vertical Live Loads

1.3.2.2 Truck loading and Uniform loading

Table 1.1 Trucks Loading and Uniform Loading

Truck Loading Uniform Vertical Live

1.3.2.3 Crane Loads

1.3.2.4 Railway Loads

1.3.3 Berthing Load

1.3.3.1 Mass Coefficient

a. The mass coefficient (Cm) is calculated using the following equation

D = Draught of the vessel in m,

D = Draught of the vessel in m,

WD = Displacement tonnage of the vessel in tonnes.

1.3.3.2 Eccentricity Coefficient

a) The eccentricity coefficient (Ce) may then be derived as follows:

Center of gravity in m (Figure 1.3)

= 10° UNLESS KNOWN ACCURATELY

BERTHING POINT OF THE VESSEL (l)

Fig 1.3 Approaching Angle of Vessel with a Berth

1.3.4 Mooring Loads

1.3.4.1. Forces due to Wind

F = Force due to wind in kg

The windage area (Aw) can be estimated as follows

Aw = 1.175 L (DM - DL) (1.7)

L = Length between perpendicular in m

Fwx = 0.0034 CDx V2w Ax (1.8)

Fwy = 0.0034 CDy V2w Ay (1.9)

Myw = Fwy LOA Cym (1.10)

Fwx and Fwy = Wind Force along x and y directions in pounds

Fw () = 0.0034CD() V2w (Ax cos2  + Ay sin2 ) (1.11)

1.3.4.2 Forces due to Current

Ship is aligned predominantly in head sea condition with current direction.

Table 1.2 : Bollard Pulls

Displacement (Tones) Line Pull (Tones)

1.3.5 Combination of Loads

Partial Safety Factor

Table 1.4 Increases in Permissible Stresses

Sl. Increase in Permissible

1.4 ANALYSIS OF BERTHING STRUCTURES

of 39 m between the expansion joints. A spacing of 60 m is recommended for better stiffness.