IJSTE - International Journal of Science Technology & Engineering | Volume 1 | Issue 11 | May 2015

ISSN (online): 2349-784X

Parametric Study of Sub-Structural System of

Coal Jetty
Himesh B Chopra
PG Student
Department of Applied Mechanics
L D College of Engineering

Prof. P. G. Patel
Associate Professor
Department of Applied Mechanics
L D College of Engineering

Abstract
Generally berthing jetties are constructed away from the shoreline inside the sea to get sufficient water depth for anchorage of
ships. These are connected to the shore by approach jetties supported by piles. Jetty structures are generally located in deep sea.
To achieve this depth and to have an economic structure, it is prefer to have pile supported structure. Thus studying the pile
design is of importance. This paper includes, analysis and design of piles serving as substructure of jetty. The study has been
carried by modelling jetty for 1m, 1.2m and 1.4m diameter of piles in STAAD software. The results have been extracted in terms
of maximum moment, shear force, and deflection in transverse direction. Also design has been performed by preparing excel
programs and cost calculation are also accomplished. Results indicate the optimum combination of pile diameter, depth,
longitudinal and transverse c/c spacing between piles in terms of costs.
Keywords: Jetty, Fixity Level, Fender System, Mean Sea Level, Pile Capacity
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I. INTRODUCTION
Generally berthing jetties are constructed away from the shoreline inside the sea to get sufficient water depth for anchorage of
ships. These are connected to the shore by approach jetties supported by piles, which generally are embedded in the sloping
ground. Jetties are built parallel to the navigation channel, which is usually perpendicular to the shore. The jetty head should
normally be aligned so that the vessel is berthed in the direction of the strongest currents.
Jetty structures are generally located in deep sea. To achieve this depth and to have an economic structure, it is prefer to have
pile supported structure. Structure becomes flexible with significant amount of lateral loads, so care should be taken by designer
to select type pile and accommodate pile arrangement in such a way that structure become safe to utilize the berth. In India,
Bored cast in situ piles are commonly used where berth are located near shore. Bored cast in situ piles are suitable for use to
achieve large load bearing capacities by means of the large shaft diameters.

II. STRUCTURAL IDEALIZATION

For parametric study, geotechnical data of Mundra site location is considered. For maximum size of 80000 DWT vessel, the
length of proposed Coal Jetty structure is provided as 300m length and 29 m width. Considering the effect of temperature forces,
an expansion gap is provided at 150m length.
A. Deck System:
Deck system, which is supported on piles, consists of an RCC deck slab (partially precast), 400 mm thick (200 mm pre-cast and
200 mm cast-in situ). Top level of berth is kept at +9.0 m.
B. Beam Dimensions:
Conducting various trial and error, optimum beam dimensions are fixed as
Cross-Main Beams
: 1400mm 2200 mm
Longitudinal Main Beams
: 1200mm 2000 mm
C. Longitudinal Spacing:
The deck system is supported on RCC bored cast-in-situ piles in 5m, 6m, 7m and 8m center to center spanning in longitudinal
direction in different models are considered. Cantilever of 2.5 m are provided at both end of berth in longitudinal direction.

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

76

Parametric Study of Sub-Structural System of Coal Jetty

(IJSTE/ Volume 1 / Issue 11 / 015)

D. Transverse Spacing:
The deck system is supported on RCC bored cast-in-situ piles in 5m, 8m and 12m center to center spanning in Transverse
direction in different models are considered. Cantilever of 2.65 m is provided at berth side and 1.35 m is provided at back side in
transverse direction for 5m c/c distance while cantilever of 2.65 m is provided at berth side and 2.35 m is provided at back side in
transverse direction for 8m c/c & 12m c/c distance.
E. Fixity Level:
According to IS:2911:2010(part-II) the fixity level of piles is generally between 5D to 7D below dredge level, where D is the
diameter of pile. Fixity level is calculated considering this codal criteria for all different diameters of pile.
F. Pile Diameter:
Diameter of pile is taken as 1.0m, 1.2m and 1.4m in different models.
G. Material Used:
Grade of concrete fck = 40 N/mm2
Grade of steel Fe = 500 N/mm2
H. Water level:
The various water level considered in design are
Maximum Recorded Tide Level / (HHWL) = (+) 6.4m
Mean High Water Spring (MHWS)
= (+) 5.8m
Mean High Water Neap (MHWN)
= (+) 4.6m
Mean Sea Level (MSL)
= (+) 3.4m
Mean Low Water Neap (MLWN)
= (+) 2.1m
Mean Low Water Spring (MLWS)
= (+) 1.0m
Maximum Strom Surge
= 2.0m
Below mentioned are the levels considered in the analysis purpose for application of forces.
Deck level:
+9.0 m
Pile cutoff level: +7.0 m
Dredge level:
-22.5 m
Considering these parameters, 36 models have been generated in STAAD.Pro software. Linear static analysis has been carried
out in this software. Now according to maximum axial force, maximum moment (Mr) and max ratio of Mr/Axial, Designing of
pie is done for all the 36 combinations of model.

III. LOADS ACTING ON JETTY STRUCTURE

The various loads acting on the structure are listed below and are calculated as per IS: 4651-1974, Part-III loading.
Dead Load due to slab, beams, piles, pile cap, fender block etc.
Live Load due to Road, Rail, Cranes load, Bulk Unloaders and Uniformly distributed load due to Cargo
Wind Force
Seismic Force
Berthing Force
Mooring Force
Hydrostatic and Hydrodynamic Forces
1) Current
2) Wave
3) Differential Water Pressure
Secondary Stresses due to shrinkage, creep, temperature etc.
Active Earth Pressure (in case of if the berth retaining soil)

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

77

Parametric Study of Sub-Structural System of Coal Jetty

(IJSTE/ Volume 1 / Issue 11 / 015)

IV. MODELLING OF JETTY IN STAAD PRO

Modelling of jetty in STAAD PRO software is done as shown in fig (1). Following model has been prepared for the below
mentioned c/c spacing between piles:
Longitudinal c/c spacing between piles = 7 m.
Transverse c/c spacing between piles = 8 m.

Fig. 1: Modelling of Jetty

A. Fender System:
For vessel (80000 DWT) as mentioned in II, best suited fender profile is given in table according to Trellborg Marine Fender
design manual.
Table - 1
Inherent Properties of Selected Fender

Load cases considered for analysis purpose are tabulated below:

Table - 2
Load Cases Considered For Analysis of Jetty

TYPE OF LOADING

LIMIT STATE OF SERVICE

LIMIT STATE OF COLLAPSE

SR.NO.

DESCRIPTION

II

III

IV

VI

VII

VIII

IX

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Dead Load
Live Load
Berthing Forces
Mooring Forces
Seismic Forces
Wind Forces
Wave & Current
Temperature Forces

1.0
1.0
1.0

1.0
1.0

1.0
1.0

1.5
1.5
1.5

1.5
1.5

1.2
1.2

0.9
0.9

1.2
1.2

0.9
0.9

1.2
1.2

1.5

1.5
1.5
1.0

1.5
1.0

1.2

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.5

1.0
1.0

1.0

1.0

Considering the above table, 8 number of load cases has been generated for serviceability criteria while 52 number of load cases
has been generated for collapse criteria.

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

78

Parametric Study of Sub-Structural System of Coal Jetty

(IJSTE/ Volume 1 / Issue 11 / 015)

V. RESULTS
For the above mentioned load cases analysis has been carried out and the results obtained are as tabulated below in terms of
axial forces, shear forces and moments in mutually perpendicular direction. Following tabulated results are for one typical
model, similar results are developed for remaining models and are represented in form of graphs following the tables.
Table 3
Critical Load Combinations for 7m X 8m Panel And 1.4 M Dia. of Pile

Panel : 7mX8m
Beam

L/C

Section

Axial Force
kN

Shear-Y kN

Moment-Y
kNm

Moment-Z
kNm

Max. axial

1008

204

7788.661

18.917

-1939.201

-324.245

Min. axial

1001

536

793.541

239.715

-1.186

4930.143

Max. shear

1012

532

0.667

4193.287

271.565

4.633

-1777.688

Max. My

1002

533

1983.893

0.399

5154.333

77.131

Min. My

1002

533

3369.335

7.2

-5326.5

-126.758

Max. Mz

1012

532

2961.783

249.7

-12.618

5191.641

Min. Mz

1012

532

4809.04

271.565

-1.804

-5398.558

Panel size 7m x 8m represents the longitudinal c/c spacing between pile and 8m represents the transverse c/c spacing between
piles. Load combination tabulated above are given as following:
LOAD COMB 204 = 1.5*(D.L.+L.L)+1.5*(M.L.)+NWV(X+)+CNT(Z-)+CNT(X+)
LOAD COMB 532 = 1.2*D.L.+0.6(L.L)+NWV(X+)+CNT(Z-)+CNT(X+)+1.5*(EQX+)
LOAD COMB 533 = 0.9*D.L.+0.45(L.L)+NWV(Z-)+CNT(Z-)+CNT(X+)+1.5*(EQZ-)
LOAD COMB 536 = 0.9*D.L.+0.45(L.L)+NWV(X+)+CNT(Z-)+CNT(X+)+1.5*(EQX+)

M.L.

= Mooring load, NWV = Normal Wave load, CNT = Current load

Table 4
Pile Capacity Calculation for 1.2 M Dia. Pile and Different Panel Size

Panel
dia (m)
Size(m)
5X5 1.2
6X5 1.2
7X5 1.2
1.2
8X5
1.2

fixity Min. embeded length of pile

(upto embeded)
level
level
-39
-30.0
48
-39
-30.0
48
-39
-30.0
48
-39
-30.0
48
-40
-30.0
49

axial load pile capacity

at top at bottom
kN
2602 3479.19 4195
2844 3721.19 4195
3218 4095.19 4195
3606 4483.19 4195
3606 4500.15 4508

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

79

Parametric Study of Sub-Structural System of Coal Jetty

(IJSTE/ Volume 1 / Issue 11 / 015)

Table 5
Cost Calculation for 1.0m, 1.2 M & 1.4m Dia. Pile for Different Panel Size
Steel cost Concrete
Area of
including
cost of
Calculated
Panel
Depth of
No. of
Total Cost
reinf.
Dia (m)
stirrups
whole
Deflection
(m X m)
pile
Piles
(Crore)
& lap
structure
(mm)
(mm 2)
(Crore)
(Crore)
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4

5mX5m
15826
5mX5m
9043
5mX5m
11304
6mX5m
10368
7mX5m
12560
8mX5m
12560
5mX5m 18086.4
6mX5m 18086.4
7mX5m
18991
8mX5m
18991
5mX5m
19695
6mX5m
19695
7mX5m
19695
8mX5m
20310
5mX8m
12874
6mX8m
13502
7mX8m
14444
8mX8m
15386
5mX8m
17182
6mX8m
18087
7mX8m
18087
8mX8m
17634
5mX8m
21540
6mX8m
22156
7mX8m
22771
8mX8m
21540
5mX12m 14130
6mX12m 15072
7mX12m 16328
8mX12m 16956
5mX12m 18087
6mX12m 19443
7mX12m 19443
8mX12m 19443
5mX12m 22771
6mX12m 22771
7mX12m 23387
8mX12m 24002

76
56
48
49.5
51
53
48
48
48
49
50
50
50
50
50.5
51
53.5
57
48
48
49
50.5
50
50
50
50
50
52
57
61
41.5
52
54
55.5
50
50
50.5
52

360
360
360
300
264
228
360
300
264
228
360
300
264
228
240
200
176
152
240
200
176
152
240
200
176
152
180
150
132
114
180
150
132
114
180
150
132
114

21.24
8.94
9.58
7.55
8.30
7.45
15.33
12.78
11.81
10.41
17.39
14.49
12.75
11.36
7.66
6.76
6.67
6.54
9.71
8.52
7.65
6.64
12.68
10.87
9.83
8.03
6.24
5.77
6.03
5.79
6.63
7.44
6.80
6.04
10.05
8.38
7.65
6.98

9.28
12.15
16.28
13.99
12.68
11.38
23.44
19.53
17.19
15.15
33.23
27.69
24.37
21.05
11.42
9.61
8.87
8.16
15.63
13.02
11.70
10.41
22.16
18.46
16.25
14.03
8.48
7.35
7.09
6.55
10.13
10.58
9.67
8.58
16.62
13.85
12.31
10.94

30.52
21.10
25.86
21.54
20.98
18.83
38.77
32.31
29.00
25.56
50.63
42.19
37.13
32.41
19.07
16.37
15.54
14.70
25.34
21.54
19.35
17.05
34.84
29.33
26.08
22.06
14.72
13.12
13.12
12.34
16.76
18.02
16.47
14.62
26.67
22.23
19.96
17.93

626.66
186.00
72.00
84.50
101.20
111.50
58.22
66.37
75.54
80.90
38.16
41.89
47.29
50.38
118.00
141.00
159.00
182.00
84.60
96.50
106.00
118.00
52.83
59.75
64.50
72.16
161.23
185.34
216.91
239.15
107.00
119.86
136.30
147.00
66.00
73.50
83.00
89.40

The calculated deflection as shown in last column of above table, should be within the permissible limit which is given as below:
Permissible deflection for
1.0m dia. Pile = 108.6 mm
1.2m dia. Pile = 111.43 mm
1.4m dia. Pile = 117.5 mm
According to the calculation shown in the above tables, the similar calculation are carried out for all 36 models prepared for
parametric study and the results are represented in form of charts as shown below:

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

80

Parametric Study of Sub-Structural System of Coal Jetty

(IJSTE/ Volume 1 / Issue 11 / 015)

Fig. 2: Graph of Cost V/S Panel Size

Fig. 3: Graph of Deflection V/S Panel Size

Fig. 4: Graph of Depth of Pile V/S Panel Size

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

81

Parametric Study of Sub-Structural System of Coal Jetty

(IJSTE/ Volume 1 / Issue 11 / 015)

VI. CONCLUSION

With the increase in panel size, in accordance to fig (2), the cost of structure decreases. Similarly, with increase in
diameter of pile the cost of structure increases.
With increase in size of panel the deflection increases, with respect to figure 3, as well as with the increase in diameter
of pile the deflection for similar panel size decreases.
In accordance to figure 4, the 1.4 m diameter pile has almost constant depth of for almost all panel size considered in
the study, which indicates the reserved strength of pile.
In the case of 1 m pile diameter, variation in the depth of pile increases with the increase in panel size.
As shown in table 5, based upon the deflection (less than the permissible deflection) and total cost it can be concluded
that for the present study, the optimum panel size in terms of cost for 1 m diameter of pile is 7 m x 5 m, with 51 m depth
of pile.
For 1.2 m diameter of pile the panel size of 5m x 12m with pile depth of 41.5m is considered to be optimum.
Similarly in case of 1.4m diameter of pile, effective depth of 52m of pile with 8m x 12m panel size is considered to be
optimum in terms of cost.

REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]

An experimental study of impact loading on deck of shore-connecting jetties exposed to oblique waves and current by MENG Yan-qui, CHEN Guo-ping,
and YAN shi-chan, Journal of Hydrodynamics 26(2):216-225, Year-2014.
Performance of harbour structures in Andaman Islands during 2004 Sumatra earthquake by Goutam Mondal & Durgesh C. Rai, Journal of Engineering
Structures, Vol: 30, (174182), Year-2008.
Wave-in-deck loads on exposed Jetties by Giovanni Cuomo, Matteo Tirindelli & William Allsop, Journal of Coastal Engineering, Vol: 54, (657679),
Year-2008.
Numerical investigation of the effect of vertical load on the lateral response of piles by S. Karthigeyan, V. V. G. S. T. Ramakrishna and K. Rajagopal,
Published in ASCE. 1 May, 2007.
Load tests on tubular piles in coralline strata by James M. Gilchrist, Published in ASCE. 5 May, 1985.
Dynamic response of a near-shore pile to lateral impact load by Francesca Dezi, Fabrizio Gara and Davide Roia, Journal of Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 40 (3447), Year-2014.
M.J. Tomlinson. Pile Design and Construction Practice., fourth edition, 1994.
ALONZO Def. QUINN. Design and Construction of Ports and Marine Structure McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 1st edition, 1961.
Swami Saran. Analysis and Design of Substructures Taylor and Francis Group, London, second edition, 2006.
R. Srinivasan. Harbour Dock and Tunnel Engineering Charotar Publishing House, Anand, Gujarat.
R. M. Sorensen. Basic Coastal Engineering Third Edition, Springer Science & Business Media, Inc.
PIANC (International navigation association) Guideline for design of fender system: 2002"
U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center Shore Protection Manual-volume2
IS : 4651-1974, Part-I Site Investigation Code of Practice for Planning and Design of Ports and Harbours.
IS : 4651-1989, Part-II Earth pressure Code of Practice for Planning and Design of Ports and Harbours.
IS : 4651-1974, Part-III Loading Code of Practice for Planning and Design of Ports and Harbours.
IS:4651-1989, Part-IV General design consideration Code of Practice for Planning and Design of Ports and Harbours.
IS : 4651-1980, Part-V Layout and functional requirements Code of Practice for Planning and Design of Ports and Harbours.
IS : 6403-1981, Code of Practice for determination of breaking capacity of shallow foundation.
IS : 2911-2010, Part-I Concrete Piles (Section-1 Bored Cast in situ Concrete Piles) Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Pile Foundations.

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

82