A STUDY ON BEHAVIOUR OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF BERTHING STRUCTURE WITH RAKER PILE AND ANCHORED WALL

Transcription

1 International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 8, Issue 7, July 217, pp , Article ID: IJCIET_8_7_118 Available online at ISSN Print: and ISSN Online: IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed A STUDY ON BEHAVIOUR OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF BERTHING STRUCTURE WITH RAKER PILE AND ANCHORED WALL G. Tirupathi Naidu Assoc. Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, ADITYA Institute of Technology and Management Dr. Balaji. K.V.G.D Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, GITAM University, Andhra Pradesh, India M. Pavan Kumar Asst. Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, SVP Engineering College, Andhra Pradesh, India L. Manikanta Student, Department of Civil Engineering, GITAM University, Andhra Pradesh, India ABSTRACT The transportation system plays a vital role in the nation s economy. In transportation systems marine transportation system is very important and cheapest way of transportation. The transportation of men and material is increasing day by day. So to reduce the marine traffic there is a need to construct many new ports with a vision to ensure ecofriendly environment in spite of challenging conditions. In construction type of berthing structure there are two types they are Open type and Closed/Solid type of berthing structure. While designing the berthing structure there are different type of live loads they are stack load, crane load, BGML load, truck load, Mooring force etc.., are acting on the deck slab of berthing structure. To resist the all the load there is need to provide different structural elements they T-Shaped Diaphragm Wall, Main Cross head Beam, Vertical, Raker / Anchored Wall/ Tie Rod. Especially to resist the horizontal force the structural elements like Raker Pile or Anchored Wall or Tie Rod are used. To know the best model of the berthing structure which can resist all type of loads there is a need to compare to the any two types of berthing structure they are Raker Pile and Anchored Wall. To know the behaviour the Bending Moment, Shear force and Axial Force of the Structural member and Deflection of the both the Berthing structure are studied and compared the editor@iaeme.com

2 A Study on Behaviour of Structural Elements of Berthing Structure with Raker Pile and Anchored Wall results and shown the Percentage variation of each structural members. The STAAD Pro software is used for modelling and analysis of the Berthing structure. Key words: Berthing Structure, Raker Pile, Anchored Wall, Main Cross Beam, T- Shaped Diaphragm Wall, Vertical Pile, Bending Moments, Shear Force, Axial Force and Deflection. Cite this Article: G. Tirupathi Naidu, Dr. Balaji. K.V.G.D, M. Pavan Kumar and L. Manikanta, A Study on Behaviour of Structural Elements of Berthing Structure with Raker Pile and Anchored Wall, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(7), 217, pp INTRODUCTION Berthing structure is constructed in ports and harbours to provide facilities for berthing and mooring of vessels, loading and unloading of cargo and for embarking and disembarking of passengers. Berthing structure are mainly classified in to two type they are Open type and closed type of berthing structures. Closed or Solid Construction berth The fill is extended right out to the berth front where a vertical front wall is constructed to resist the horizontal load from the fill and a possible live load on the apron. The closed berth structure can be divided into two main groups depending on the principle on which the front wall of the structure is considered in order to obtain sufficient stability. Open Construction Berth Form the top of a dredged or filled sloped out to the berth a load bearing slab is constructed on columns or lamella walls. It is difficult, however to formulate precise guidelines for the choice of berth type in each individual case with the view of choosing the technically and economically most favourable type. The factor mentioned in the below Berth structure should be designed and constructed to safely resist the vertical loads caused by live loads, trucks, crane, etc.., as well as the horizontal loads from ships impacts wind fill behind the structure etc.., In Closed type of Berthing structures there are two models of berthing structure are there they are Raker and. So there is need to study and also compare the results of both the berthing structures to know the best behaviour for the same soil profile. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW A.V.Rangarao et al., they studied on the A Knowledge based expert system for design of berthing structure. Berthing structure are constructed in ports and harbours to provide facilities such as loading and unloading of cargo. The construction and maintenance of these structure are very expensive and economical design is adopted. These structures are checked against crack limit state, which is important to prevent corrosion. A knowledge based expert system, KNOWBESTD, has been developed using LEVEL5 OBJECT for the design of berthing structure. This paper describes the development of KNOWBESTD and illustrates the design of a typical berthing structure. A knowledge based expert system, KNOWBESTD is very useful for design of berthing structure. In the absence of KNOWBESTD is user friendly and the knowledge based can be expanded very easily wherever and whenever required editor@iaeme.com

3 G. Tirupathi Naidu, Dr. Balaji. K.V.G.D, M. Pavan Kumar and L. Manikanta Kavitha.P.E et al., they studied on the construction and maintenance of berthing structure are very expensive and therefore the most economical design should be adopted. To arrive at an economical design the structural engineer has to repeat the design for different alternatives for all loading condition. To minimize his effort a computing tool has become necessary. Software BESTDESIGN has been developed using the computer language visual basic and the database MS Access for the analysis and design of ship berthing structure. The software can be used for analysis and design of new berthing structure and can also be used for obtaining the design aspects while reconstructing the existing structure. The software developed was tested with the requirements at cochin port. Cochin port trust is the authority of a number of ship berthing structure. Some of them are to be reconstructed and there are new projects involving the construction of new ship berth or the extension of existing berthing structure. M.Gokul Krishna et al., they studied on the behaviour of an open type berthing structure under earthquake condition. Piles and diaphragm wall supported berthing structure on marine soil are loaded laterally from horizontal soil movements. The paper describes the finite element approach for analysing the lateral response of and diaphragm wall during seismic loading on the soil. The lateral response of the berthing structure is significantly affected by dredging and under earthquake conditions. A maximum of 7.3mm lateral displacement of ground was observed to 7mm the bending moment behaviour also changed significantly under seismic condition. A maximum bending moment of 23kNm was observed under seismic condition. G.T.Naidu et al.., this work describes the Reliability based analysis of varying crane and mooring forces on bending moment of Main Cross Head Beam of Deck Slab, T Shaped Diaphragm wall and the axial forces of Vertical & raker s. The influence of variable Crane load has effect on the Bending Moment of MCHB & TDW and Axial Force of VP & RP of the berthing structure. Due to the variable crane load with and without Mooring force conditions, the variation of results of load effects in case of T- Shaped Diaphragm Wall, Vertical and Raker were minimal, but have found significant variation in the case of Main Cross Head Beam. 3. METHODOLOGY 3.1. Model Specification of berthing structure with Raker The entire berth of 225m length divided into 5units each 51m long. The plan dimensions of deck slab berthing structure of each unit were 51m (17 panels of 3m width) x 17.2m. Each unit consists of T-Shaped diaphragm wall (TDW) of 17 No s. The T-shaped diaphragm wall was connected at the top through a cellular deck Main Cross Head Beam (MCHB) of 2.8 meters depth to a series of vertical and racker on rear side. Berthing structure was assumed to be fixed at junction of diaphragm wall/ and Main Cross Head Beam. All the members of the structure were assumed to be homogenous, isotropic and having the same Elastic modulus both in compression and tension. Table 1 Cross section details of Raker Structural Component Size Longitudinal Beams.25m x 2.25m and.3m x 2.25m Cross Beam.6m x 2.25m and.25m x 2.25m Top Slab.3m Bottom Slab.25m TDW 3m x 3m, t w =.6m, t f =.6m Vertical.85m Raker.7m editor@iaeme.com

4 A Study on Behaviour of Structural Elements of Berthing Structure with Raker Pile and Anchored Wall Figure 1 Cross Section details of Raker 3.2. Model Specification of berthing structure with The entire berth of 225m length was divided into 5 units of 51m long. The plan dimension of deck slab berthing structure of each unit was 51m (17 panels of 3m width) x 17.2m. Each unit consists of T-shaped diaphragm wall (TDW) of 17 No s, Anchored Wall of 25mm deep and 8mm width of 17 no s and vertical (VP) of 12mm (diameter) of 17No s. The T-Shaped diaphragm wall was connected at the top through cellular deck Main Cross Head Beam (MCHB) of 2.8 meters depth to a series of vertical s on rear side and anchored wall at middle of the structure. Berthing structure was assumed to be fixed at junction of diaphragm wall/ and Main Cross Head Beam. All the members of the structure were assumed to be homogenous, isotropic and having the same Elastic Modulus both compression and tension. Table 2 Cross section details of Structural Component Size Longitudinal beam.25m x 2.25m and.3m x 2.25m Cross beam.6m x 2.25m and.25m x 2.25m Top slab.3m Bottom slab.25m TDW 3m x 3m, t w =.8m, t f =.8m 2.5m x.8m Vertical 1.2m Figure 2 Cross section details of editor@iaeme.com

5 G. Tirupathi Naidu, Dr. Balaji. K.V.G.D, M. Pavan Kumar and L. Manikanta Material Properties The material used for analysis reinforced concrete with M-3 grade concrete and Fe- 415 grade steel. The basic material properties used are as follows: Modulus of elasticity of steel, Es = 21, MPa Characteristics strength of steel, fy = 415 MPa Characteristics strength of concrete fck = 3 MPa Details of Soil Structure The soil is idealized as a classical Winkler foundation beam on elastic spring. The soil passive resistance is considered to be offered by linear elastic spring. Spring constants for the Substructure elements retaining diaphragm wall and the anchor are calculated using the elastic module of the soil strata. The soil profile is separated in different layers they are Layer-1:- Yellowish fine sand is up to -2.67m Layer-2:- Greyish soft marine clay is up to -17.m Layer-3:- Clay with Peddles and boulders is up to m Layer-4 :- Brownish hard moorum with kanker gravel and whether rock pieces is up to -28.m Layer-5 :- after -28.m Hard Rock Modelling of Raker and The structure is considered as a plane frame an assemblage of line elements of line elements within plane loadings. The supports at the end of the retaining diaphragm wall are considered to be effectively restrained against translation in the Y- Direction. The supports at the end of the anchor s are considered to be effectively restrained against translation in the X and Y direction. Supports for the retaining diaphragm wall and anchor s are taken to be at level - 28.m. Each of other joints (node) has three degree of freedom (DOF S). The joint between the deck and the retaining diaphragm wall and that between the deck and the anchor s are considered to be very rigid. Mobilisation of the soil passive resistance is effected through linear elastic soil spring. Structural analysis package STAAD Pro is used for the analysis. Load Combinations considered for both the models of berthing structure Dead load + Hydrostatic force + Live load behind berth + Earth pressure + Mooring force (LC- 1) Dead load + Hydrostatic force + Live load behind berth + Earth Pressure + Mooring force + Live load-1 (LC-2) Dead load + Hydrostatic force + Live load behind berth + Earth Pressure + Mooring force + Live load-2 (LC-3) Dead load + Hydrostatic force + Live load behind berth + Earth pressure + Mooring force + Live load-3 (LC-4) Dead load + Hydrostatic force + Live load behind berth + Earth pressure + Mooring force + Live load -4 (LC-5) Dead load + Hydrostatic force + Live load behind berth + Earth pressure (LC-6) Dead load + Hydrostatic force + Live load behind berth + Earth pressure + Live load-1 (LC-7) editor@iaeme.com

6 A Study on Behaviour of Structural Elements of Berthing Structure with Raker Pile and Anchored Wall Dead load + Hydrostatic force + Live load behind berth + Earth pressure + Live load-2 (LC-8) Dead load + Hydrostatic force + Live load behind berth + Earth pressure + Live load-3(lc-9) Dead load + Hydrostatic force + Live load behind berth + Earth pressure + Live load-4 (LC-1) 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1. Comparison between Raker Pile and Berthing structure with with Mooring force Bending moment and Shear force results of Main Cross Head Beam (MCHB) Bending moment (knm) Raker Graph 1 Bending moment of MCHB Vs load combination for both the models of berthing structures with Mooring force. From the graph it is observed that there is an increase in Bending moment of Main Cross Head Beam (MCHB) of 11%, 45.25%, 4.74%, 44.3%, 47.5% for the load combination of LC-1, LC-2, LC-3, LC-4 and LC-5 respectively in the case of Raker when compare to with Mooring force. Shear force (kn) Raker Graph 2 Shear force of MCHB Vs load combinations for both the models of berthing structure with Mooring force editor@iaeme.com

7 G. Tirupathi Naidu, Dr. Balaji. K.V.G.D, M. Pavan Kumar and L. Manikanta From the graph it is observed that there is an increase in Shear force of Main Cross Head Beam (MCHB) of 7.1%, 26.2%, 28.2%, 27.5%, 27.91% for the load combination of LC- 1, LC-2, LC-3, LC-4 and LC-5 respectively in the case of Raker when compare to with Mooring force Bending moment and Shear force results of T-Shaped Diaphragm wall (TDW) 12 Bending moment (knm) Raker Graph 3 Bending moment of TDW Vs load combinations for both the models of berthing structure with Mooring force From the graph it is observed that there is an increase in Bending moment of T-Shaped Diaphragm wall (TDW) of 4.6%, 7.5%, 1.5%, 1.35%, 2.7% for the load combination of LC- 1, LC-2, LC-3, LC-4 and LC-5 respectively in the case of Anchored wall when compare to Raker with Mooring force. Shear force(kn) Raker Graph 4 Shear force of TDW Vs load combinations for both the models of berthing structure with Mooring force From the graph it is observed that there is an increase in Bending moment of T-Shaped Diaphragm wall (TDW) of 5.3%, 5.9%, 8.52%, 7.8%, 7.5% for the load combination of LC-1, LC-2, LC-3, LC-4 and LC-5 respectively in the case of Anchored wall when compare to Raker with Mooring force editor@iaeme.com

8 A Study on Behaviour of Structural Elements of Berthing Structure with Raker Pile and Anchored Wall Axial force results of Vertical (VP) Axial force(kn) Raker Graph 5 Axial force of VP Vs load combinations for both the models of berthing structure with Mooring force From the graph it is observed that there is an increase in Axial force of Vertical (VP) of 2.%, 5.9%, 14.2%, 13.5%, 5.4% for the load combination of LC-1, LC-2, LC-3, LC-4 and LC-5 respectively in the case of Raker when compare to Berthing structure with with Mooring force Axial force results of Raker and Axial force(kn) Raker Graph 6 Axial force of Raker and Vs load combinations for both the models of berthing structure with Mooring force. From the graph it is observed that there is an increase in Axial force of Raker (RP) and (AW) of 32.1%, 44.1%, 48.2%, 47.5%, 46.1% for the load combination of LC- 1, LC-2, LC-3, LC-4 and LC-5 respectively in the case of Anchored wall when compare to Raker with Mooring force editor@iaeme.com

9 G. Tirupathi Naidu, Dr. Balaji. K.V.G.D, M. Pavan Kumar and L. Manikanta 4.2. Comparison between Raker Pile and Berthing structure with without Mooring force Bending moment and Shear force results of Main Cross Head Beam (MCHB) Bending moment (knm) Raker Graph 7 Bending moment of MCHB Vs load combinations for both the models of berthing structure without Mooring force From the graph it is observed that there is an increase in Bending moment of Main Cross Head Beam (MCHB) of 7.5%, 5.5%, 44.2%, 48.1%, 5% for the load combination of LC-1, LC-2, LC-3, LC-4 and LC-5 respectively in the case of Raker when compare to without Mooring force. Shear force(kn) Raker Graph 8 Shear force of MCHB Vs load combinations for both the models of berthing structure without Mooring force From the graph it is observed that there is an increase in Shear force of Main Cross Head Beam (MCHB) of 15.7%, 28.1%, 3.%, 29.5%, 29.5% for the load combination of LC-1, LC- 2, LC-3, LC-4 and LC-5 respectively in the case of Raker when compare to without Mooring force editor@iaeme.com

10 A Study on Behaviour of Structural Elements of Berthing Structure with Raker Pile and Anchored Wall Bending moment and Shear force results of T-Shaped Diaphragm Wall (TDW) Bending moment (knm) Raker Graph 9 Bending moment of TDW Vs load combinations for both the models of berthing structure without Mooring force From the graph it is observed that there is an increase in Bending moment of T-Shaped Diaphragm wall of 1.3%, 11.64%, 15.2%, 14.4%, 14.18% for the load combination of LC-1, LC-2, LC-3, LC-4 and LC-5 respectively in the case of when compare to Raker without Mooring force. Shear force(kn) Raker Graph 1 Shear force of TDW Vs load combinations for both the models of berthing structure without Mooring force From the graph it is observed that there is an increase in Shear force of T-Shaped Diaphragm wall (TDW) of 1.9%, 8.9%, 11.3%, 1.76%, 1.56% for the load combination of LC-1, LC-2, LC-3, LC-4 and LC-5 respectively in the case of when compare to Raker without Mooring force editor@iaeme.com

11 G. Tirupathi Naidu, Dr. Balaji. K.V.G.D, M. Pavan Kumar and L. Manikanta Axial force results of Vertical (VP) Axial force (kn) Raker Graph 11 Axial force of Vertical Pile Vs load combinations for both the models of berthing structure without Mooring force From the graph it is observed that there is an increase in Axial force of Vertical (VP) of 6.9%, 8.3%, 16.1%, 15.4%, 7.8% for the load combination of LC-1, LC-2, LC-3, LC-4 and LC-5 respectively in the case of Raker when compare to Berthing structure with without Mooring force Axial force results of Raker and Axial force (kn) Raker Graph 12 Axial force of Raker and Vs load combinations for both the models of berthing structure without Mooring force From the graph it is observed that there is an increase in Axial force of Raker and of 43.87%, 51.9%, 54.8%, 54.3%, 54.3%, 54.36% for the load combination of LC-1, LC-2, LC-3, LC-4 and LC-5 respectively in the case of Raker when compare to without Mooring force editor@iaeme.com

12 A Study on Behaviour of Structural Elements of Berthing Structure with Raker Pile and Anchored Wall 4.3. Comparison of Deflection for the Raker and Deflection results of both the models of Berthing structures with Mooring force Deflection (mm) Berthimg structure with Raker Load Combination Graph 13 Deflection results of Raker Vs with Mooring force Form the graph it is observed that there is 32.12% and 3.77% increase in Deflection for Raker when compare to the with Mooring force for load combination of LC-1 and LC-2 and there is 9.1%, 6.21%, and 5.28% decrease in the deflection of for the load combination of LC-3, LC-4, and LC-5 respectively Deflection results of both the models of Berthing structures without Mooring force Deflection (mm) Berthimg structure with Raker Load Combination Graph 14 Deflection results of Raker Vs without Mooring force From the graph it is observed that there is 2.12% increase in Deflection for Berthing structure with Raker when compare to the without Mooring force for load combination of LC-6 and there is 29.16%, 44.34%, 41.15% and 39.31% decrease in the deflection of Raker when compare to the Berthing structure with for the load combination of LC-7, LC-8, LC-9 and LC-1 respectively editor@iaeme.com

13 G. Tirupathi Naidu, Dr. Balaji. K.V.G.D, M. Pavan Kumar and L. Manikanta 5. CONCLUSION Berthing structures with Mooring force for the critical load combination The Bending moment, Shear force and Axial force results are observed more in case of Main Cross Head Beam (MCHB) and Vertical (VP) for Raker with Mooring force when compare to the with Mooring force. The Bending moment, Shear force are observed more in case of T-Shaped Diaphragm wall for when compare to the Raker. The Axial force results are observed more in case of for Berthing structure with when compare to the Raker for Berthing Structure with Raker with Mooring force. Berthing structures without Mooring force for the critical load combination The Bending moment, Shear force and Axial force results are observed more in case of Main Cross Head Beam and Vertical Pile for Raker when compare to the without mooring force. The Bending moment and Shear force results are observed more in case of T-Shaped Diaphragm wall for when compare to the Berthing structure with Raker without Mooring force. The Axial force results are observed more in case for Berthing Structure with without Mooring force when compare to the Raker for Raker without Mooring force. The Deflection of with and without Mooring force is more when compare with the Deflection of Raker with and without Mooring force and the deflection results of both the Berthing structure is within the limits for all load combination. From the study, it is concluded that the Raker system is performed well when compared to the system under same loads and soil strata. However in system construction practice system mostly preferred due to fact that the construction of of Berthing structure is comparatively viable. REFERNCES [1] Ranga Rao. A.V and Sundaravadivelu R. A Knowledge Based Expert System for Design of Berthing Structure, Journal of Ocean Engineering. Elsevier Science Ltd, Volume 26, pp , July [2] Kavitha.P.E, Dr. K.P.Narayanan and Dr C.B.Sudheer, Software Development for the Analysis and Design of Ship Berthing Structure. PROC of International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering December-21 pp [3] Gokul Krishna.M, Sathyanaraynan.D and Subha.I.P, Behaviour of an Open type of Berthing Structure under earthquake Condition, IGC 29; Guntur India [4] G.T.Naidu, Dr. K.V.G.D.Balaji, M.Pavan Kumar, M.Jeevan Kumar Reddy, A Reliability Based Analysis of Berthing structure Subjected to Variable Crane load, International Journal of Applied Engineering Volume 12, Number 7(217) pp editor@iaeme.com

14 A Study on Behaviour of Structural Elements of Berthing Structure with Raker Pile and Anchored Wall [5] IS Code of Practice for Design and Construction of foundation. [6] R. Prithvi Krishna, Bm Ramalinga Reddy, K S Satyanarayanan and H N Jagannatha Reddy Behaviour of Structural Elements Containing Gold Mine Tailings As Partial Substitute for Natural Sand International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(4), 217, pp [7] IS Code of Practice for plain and Reinforced Concrete. [8] IS 4651 (part I-V) 1974 code of practice for Planning and Design of Ports and Harbours editor@iaeme.com