Effect of Revision of Seismic Codal Provisions on the Analysis

of Berthing Structures
(Ms) S Madhuri, Non-member

S A Sannasiraj, Associate Member

Prof R Sundaravadivelu, Member

Berthing structures are used for loading and unloading of cargo, embarking and disembarking of passengers.
In India, Indian Standard Code IS 1893 is used to predict the seismic force acting on a structure. The
recent fifth revision of this code has divided the country based on the peak ground acceleration. In India,
most of the ports are located in the seismic Zones II, III and V. Hence, three different structures in these
zones are considered for the present study. These structures are analyzed as per IS 1893-1984 and
IS 1893 (Part I ) : 2002. The effect of revision of the code for the prediction of seismic force and retrofitting
of the structure is studied in this paper with three-dimensional soil structure interaction.

Keywords : Berthing structure; Seismic force; Average spectral acceleration; Natural period; Soil structure interaction

INTRODUCTION major modifications in this code are,

The occurrence of earthquake in India is due to the drifting
of the so called Indian Plate. Whenever and wherever these
plates slide against each other, a tremendous amount of
energy is released and causes the severe destruction. In
India, there were several earthquakes in the past two
decades at Bihar (1988); Uttarkashi (1991); Latur (1993);
Jabalpur (1997); Chamoli (1999); Bhuj (2001); Sumantra
(2004); and very recently at Kashmir( 2005). This shows
the frequency of earthquakes in India. The structures
located in the seismic zones should be analyzed and
designed for the expected seismic force to minimize the
structural damages from falling of beams/columns and to
protect lives and property. Berthing structures are widely
used structures in the ports for loading and unloading
purposes. The safety of a berthing structure is of national
importance for a country. Hence, these structures are to
be analyzed and designed carefully for berthing and
mooring forces, environmental forces like hydrostatic,
hydrodynamic forces, earth pressure, differential water
pressure, seismic forces and wind forces. Seismic force is
an important factor to be considered during the design
life of a berthing structure, because the peak ground
acceleration may impact at any time of its design life. In
India, Indian Standard Code, IS 1893 is used for the
prediction of seismic force acting on a berthing structure.
Indian sub-continent has been classified into five seismic
zones as per IS1893-19841. The increased seismic activity
during the last two decades forced the reclassification into
four seismic zones as per IS 1893 (Part I) : 20022. The
(Ms) S Madhuri, S A Sannasiraj and Prof R
Sundaravadivelu are with the Department of Ocean
Engineering, IIT Madras, Chennai 600 036.
This paper (modified) was received on August 31, 2007. Written
discussion on this paper will be entertained till January 31, 2008.
q The seismic zone map is revised with only four zones,
instead of five zones. Zone I has been merged into Zone II.
q The values of seismic zone factors have been changed.
These now reflect more realistic values of effective peak
ground acceleration considering maximum considered
earthquake (MCE) and service life of structure in each
seismic zone.
q Response spectra are now specified for three types of
foundation strata, namely, rock and hard soil, medium
soil and soft soil.
q Empirical formula for estimating the fundamental
natural period T of multi-storied buildings with regular
moment resisting frames has been revised.
q The idealization of response reduction due to ductile
deformation or frictional energy dissipation in the cracks
is brought into code by introducing response reduction
factor.
The analysis of berthing structures with different
idealization of soil structure interaction has been carried
out for the last few decades. Raju, et al 3 discussed the
analysis of different structural systems of fertilizer berth
at Paradip port by idealizing the structure with three
dimensional beam elements and the soil support using
elastic springs. The spring stiffness was calculated using
Vesic4 equation. The soil is idealized by springs for
diaphragm wall alone and piles were fixed at a depth of
five times the pile diameter from centre line of the main
beam. It has been concluded that the diaphragm wall with
anchor rod and deadman diaphragm wall were not
economical. Sundaravadivelu, et al 5 performed a similar
analysis with the inclusion of soil springs for a cargo berth

12 IE(I) Journal–CV
where the spring stiffness was estimated using Newmark6
distribution. It was concluded that the lateral load sharing
between the deadman and vertical piles depends on the
pile rigidity, soil stiffness, flexibility of deadman and tie-
rod. Rao and Sundaravadivelu7 further discussed the soil-
structure-interaction analysis of berthing structures using
iterative procedures and carried out case studies on a
multipurpose cargo berth and approach trestle. It was
concluded that the fixity depth analysis overestimates the
bending moment and linear-soil-structure-interaction
analysis underestimates the bending moment. Later, Rao
and Sundaravadivelu8 developed CADBEST software for
the analysis and design of berthing structures. A program,
ANALBEST has been developed by modifying Structural
Analysis Program (SAP) IV with the inclusion of the elasto-
plastic behaviour of soil using iterative procedure. This
modified program is used for the analysis of cargo berth
and results were compared with fixed earth support
analysis. It was found that fixed earth support analysis
overestimates the bending moment in diaphragm wall by
24.5% and the analysis with elastic springs underestimates
the bending moment in piles by about 8% compared to
analysis with elasto-plastic springs. Nagarajan, et al 9
analyzed a diaphragm wall by constructing a non-linear
p - y curve using modified procedure suggested by
Halliburton10 and the results showed that the bending
moment and deflection of the structural members from
non-linear analysis were 25% lesser than the linear
analysis. Takawaki11 measured the displacement of a pile
supported wharf due to earthquake induced liquefaction
in the experimental and analytical studies. The detailed
observations revealed that the damage to piles occurred
at depths near the interface between the liquefied and non-
liquefied soils. Kim, et al 12 evaluated the seismic
displacements of quay walls using a simplified dynamic
analysis and a series of shaking table test. With reference
to the Indian context, Murthy and Jain13 studied the
IS 1893-1984 codal provisions on seismic design of
buildings and proposed a draft for IS 1893 provisions on
the seismic design of buildings14. Jain15 proposed a draft
for IS 1893 provisions on the seismic design of buildings
with critical comments. Arya16 has discussed the lessons
learnt from the structural behaviour due to recent
earthquakes and listed the main provisions in the draft
code IS 1893-2000 (Part I). Pramod 17 studied the
earthquake damage at the Kandla port due to Bhuj
earthquake of the magnitude 6.9 in 2001 and concluded
that the damage to the piles during earthquake was
because of the combination of the lateral earth pressure
on the piles due to failure of existing unstable slope and
seismic force due to the mass of the deck and stored
materials on the top of the deck. Jain18 commented and
gave some suggestions on the Indian seismic code IS 1893
(Part I) : 2002. It has been specified that the code needs
some further improvements in both editorial and some
technical issues.
The literature survey indicates that the study on the effect
Vol 88, November 2007
of soil structure interaction on natural period of berthing
structures is limited. The estimation of seismic force
depends on the natural period and hence, the objective of
the present paper is to study the effect of soil structure
interaction on the estimation of natural period and the
seismic force on berthing structures. It is also proposed to
study the effect of revision of the IS1893 (Part I) : 2002
code on the design of berthing structures as per IS 456-
200019 specifications.
CASE STUDY
The ninth cargo berth of Kandla port located at very severe
seismic zone (Zone V); port craft berth of JNPT located at
moderate seismic zone (Zone III); and berth number 8 of
Tuticorin port located at low seismic zone (Zone II) are
considered in the present study.
Kandla port is located along west coast of India. The ninth
cargo berth has been designed for a maximum vessel size
of 48 000 DWT. The length of the berth is 281 m and
width is 54.3 m. It is divided into five blocks, each of 59 m
length, separated by expansion gaps of 20 mm. The
longitudinal spacing of piles is 7 m centre-to-centre (c/c).
An RCC wall 250 mm thick on the top portion retains the
earth from OSG area. On seaside, 1000 mm diameter
fender piles are provided to accommodate fenders. The deck
system consists of an RCC deck slab 250 mm thick
(125 mm precast and 125 mm cast-in-situ) over which 75
mm wearing coat is provided. The top level of the berth is
at +9.14 m. The founding level of all piles is – 30 m. For
precast units, piles and cast-in-situ concrete portion M30
grade concrete is used and for wearing coat M20 grade
concrete is used. The cross-sectional details of cargo berth
number 9 of Kandla port is shown in Figure 1.
JNPT is also located along the west coast of India. The
length of the port craft berth is 60 m and the width is
32.8 m. The diameter of piles for the berth is 1200 mm
and thickness of diaphragm wall is 850 mm on the land
side. The spacing of piles in longitudinal direction is 6.4
m c/c. The deck system consists of reinforced concrete slab
of 190 mm thick cast-in-situ and 310 mm thick precast
over which 75 mm wearing coat is provided. All piles,
diaphragm wall and super structure are of concrete mix
M40 grade. The cross-sectional details of the berthing
structure is shown in Figure 2.
Tuticorin port is located along the south-eastern coast of
India. The length of the berth number 8 is 302 m and the
width is 30 m. The diameter of all piles is 1200 mm. The
spacing of piles in the longitudinal direction is 5.5 m c/c
and in the transverse direction is 6.2 m c/c. The deck
system consists of 500 mm thick reinforced concrete slab
(250 mm cast-in-situ and 250 mm precast) over which
100 mm wearing coat is provided. M30 grade of concrete
and Fe 415 steel reinforcement bars are used for all
structural members. The cross-sectional details of the
berthing structure is shown in Figure 3.
13
 250 mm thick RCC deck slab
15 mm thick wearing coat
54.3 m
Crane ralis 18 m c/c
RL(+) 9.14

RL + 4 m

RCC wall

Fender

Seaside

1m
Dredge level – 13 m

1.2 m 1.2 m
1m

Founding level – 30 m

4.5 m 4.5 m 4.5 m 4.5 m 5.7 m 5.7 m 5.7 m 5.7 m 5.7 m 5.7 m
A B C D E F G H I J K L

Figure 1 Cross-sectional details of ninth cargo berth of Kandla port in the seismic Zone V

250 mm thick RCC deck slab

15 mm thick wearing coat
32.3 m
Crane ralis 18 m c/c
Finished top LVL

RL(+) 5.8 – HWL

LWL – RL(+) 0.0

Seaside

0.85 m thick diaphragm wall

1.2 m dia piles

Dredge level (–) 18

Founding level (–) 19.5

4.5 m 4.5 m 6.0 m 7.0 m 7.0 m 3.5 m

E D C B A
Figure 2 Cross-sectional details of JNPT port craft berth in the seismic Zone III

14 IE(I) Journal–CV
 29.1 m 1.2 m

4.43 m 23.47 m

Service trench 0.8 m × 0.6 m

Crane beam 1.2 m × 1.4 m
Secondary beam (SB1) Main beam
Secondary beam (SB1) 1.45 m × 3.65 m 1.6 m × 2 m Wearing coat 0.1 m thick
1.58 m × 0.8 m

+ 3.65
+ 1.55
Fender beam 1.45 m × 2 m
Pile muff
2.4 × 2.4
Pile muff 2.4 × 5.53 × 0.45 × 0.45

Crane beam 1.2 m × 1.4 m

1.2 m dia piles

Founding level – 22 m
6.2 m 6.2 m 6.2 m 6.2 m
3.1 m A B C D E 1.2 m
Figure 3 Cross-sectional details of berth number 8 of T uticorin port in the seismic Zone II
Tuticorin

THREE-DIMENSIONAL SOIL STRUCTURE Last spring stiffness,

INTERACTION (SPRING STIFFNESS
IDEALIZATION)
IDEALIZATION)
(4)
Soil-structure interaction analysis is performed using
Vesic20 equation. The modulus of sub-grade reaction (ks ) where L is the segment length.
is calculated as
The typical three-dimensional model of ninth cargo berth
with spring stiffness idealization using STAAD-Pro is
shown in Figure 4.
(1)
Sea side

where Es and Ep are the moduli of soil and pile, respectively; Land side
Deck
B , the diameter of pile; Ip , the moment of inertia of
pile; µ , the Poisson’s ratio of the soil.
The individual spring stiffness can be calculated based on
Newmark6 distribution as: Piles
First spring stiffness,

(2) Y

X
Intermediate spring stiffness,
Z

Figure 4 Three-dimensional model with spring stiffness

(3) idealization of ninth cargo berth (Zone V)

Vol 88, November 2007 15

ESTIMA TION OF SEISMIC FORCE AS PER
ESTIMATION 350
IS 1893-1984 IS 1893-1984

300 IS 1893 (Part - I) : 2002

The lateral force caused by earthquake can be calculated
using seismic coefficient method suggested by IS 1893- 250
1984. The horizontal seismic force, Fh is given by

Seismic force
200
(5)
150
where αh is the design horizontal seismic coefficient = βIα0,
where β is a coefficient depending upon the soil foundation 100
system; I , a factor depending upon the importance of the
structure; and α0, basic horizontal seismic coefficient based 50
on seismic zone; and Wm, the dead load plus 50% of live
load. 0
Zone V Zone III Zone II
ESTIMA TION OF SEISMIC FORCE AS PER
ESTIMATION
IS 1893 (PART I) : 2002 Figure 5 Comparison of seismic force (kN) as per IS 1893-
1984 and IS 1893 (Part I) : 2002 in Zones V V,, III and II
(based on case study)
The total design lateral force or design seismic base shear
(VB ) along any principle direction shall be determined by
coefficients obtained as per IS 1893 (Part I) : 2002 is 14.8%
the expression2.
less in cargo berth number 9 (Zone V), 22.2% more in port
craft berth (Zone III) and 50% more in the seismic Zone II.
(6) The seismic force obtained as per IS 1893 (Part I) : 2002 is
14.8% less in cargo berth number 9 (Zone V), 22.2% more
where Ah is the design horizontal spectrum value. in port craft berth (Zone III) and 52.6% more in berth
number 8 (Zone II).

(7) The comparison of seismic force as per IS 1893-1984 and

IS 1893 (Part I) : 2002 in Zones V, III and II is shown in
Figure 5. The structures in three seismic zones are
where W is the seismic weight of building (dead load plus analyzed for the obtained seismic force using STAAD-Pro
50% of live load); Z , zone factor; I , importance factor of and the piles are designed as per IS 456-2000 specifications.
The design results indicates that there is no need of
the structure; R , response reduction factor; and ,
retrofitting for the considered structures in seismic
Zones III and II even though the seismic force as per
average response acceleration coefficient for rock or soil IS 1893 (Part I) : 2002 is more than the seismic force
sites. obtained as per IS 1893-1984.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
RESULTS CONCLUSIONS
The natural period of each structure, the seismic The seismic coefficients and seismic forces obtained as
coefficients and the seismic forces on the structures per IS 1893-1984 and IS 1893 (Part I) : 2002 are compared
estimated using the provisions of IS 1893-1984 and IS 1893 in the present paper.
(Part I ) : 2002 are given in Table 1. The seismic coefficients
and forces obtained as per IS 1893-1984 and IS 1893 The seismic force is mainly dependent on the natural
(Part I) : 2002 codal provisions are compared. The seismic period of the structure as per the revised code, IS 1893
Table 1 The natural period, seismic coefficients and
(Part I) : 2002. Based on the case study, it is observed that
seismic forces obtained as per IS 1893-1984 and IS 1893
the revised code provides a better estimate of seismic force.
(Part I) : 2002
The case study on typical berthing structures in Zones II,
III and V indicates that the revision of IS 1893 (Part I):
Zone V Zone III Zone II 2002 in general does not necessitate retrofitting of berthing
Natural period (T), s 1.1966 0.7417 0.8691 structures.
αh (IS 1893-1984) 0.1200 0.0600 0.0300
Ah (IS 1893 (Part I) : 2002) 0.1022 0.0733 0.0450 REFERENCES
Fh (IS 1893-1984), kN 292.5300 129.0200 63.6400
VB (IS 1893 (Part I) : 2002), kN 249.3600 157.7100 97.0800 1. IS 1893:1984. ‘Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistance
Design of Structures’. BIS, New Delhi.

16 IE(I) Journal–CV
2. IS 1893 (Part I) : 2002. ‘Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant Design of Structures’. BIS, New Delhi.
3. V S Raju, R Sundaravadivelu and S R Gandhi. ‘Analysis of
Alternative Systems for a Berthing Structure’. First National
Conference on Dock and Harbour Engineering , Bombay, India,
December 27-29, 1985, pp B195 to B206.
4. A B Vesic. ‘Bending Beam Resting on Isotropic Elastic Solid’.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, vol 87, EM2,
April 1961, pp 35-33.
5. R Sundaravadivelu, I G Idichandy, S R Gandhi and V S Raju. ‘Tie
Rod Force Measurements in Cargo Berth’. Journal of Waterways,
Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, ASCA ISSN, vol 116, no 1,
1990, p 24230.
6. N M Newmark. ‘Numerical Procedure for Computing Deflections,
Moments and Buckling Loads’. Proceedings of ASCE, vol 68, New
York, NY, 1942, p 679.
7. A V Ranga Rao and R Sundaravadivelu. ‘Nonlinear Soil-structure-
interaction Analysis of Berthing Structures’. National Seminar on
Use of Concrete in Offshore Structures, Docks and Harbours ,
Roorkee, 1992, pp I1.1-1.10.
8. A V Ranga Rao and R Sundaravadivelu. ‘Computer Aided Design
of Berthing Structures’. Indian National Conference on Harbour
and Ocean Engineering, Pune, 1994, pp B87-B96.
9. V Nagarajan, R Sundaravadivelu, N Sunilkumar and C R Balaji.
‘Non-Linear Soil Structure Interaction Analysis of Diaphragm Wall’.
National Seminar on Harbour Structures, NASHAR, IIT Madras,
Chennai, 2003, pp 205-217.
10. T A Haliburton. ‘Numerical Analysis of Flexible Retaining
Structures’. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division,
ASCE, vol 94, 1968, pp 1233-1251.
Vol 88, November 2007
11. I Takewaki. ‘Bound of Earthquake Input Energy to Soil-
structure Interaction Systems’. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, vol 25, 2005, pp 741-752.
12. Sung-Ryul Kim, In Sung Jang, Choong-Ki Chung and Myoung-
Mo Kim. ‘Evaluation of Seismic Displacements of Quay Walls’.
Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol 25,
2005, pp 451-459.
13. C V R Murthy and S K Jain. ‘A Review of IS :1893-1984 Provisions
on Seismic Design of Buildings’. The Indian Concrete Journal ,
vol 68, no 11, 1994, pp 619-628.
14. C V R Murthy and S K Jain. ‘A Proposed Draft for IS:1893
Provisions on Seismic Design of Buildings — Part I+ :Code’. Journal
of Structural Engineering, vol 22, no 1, 1995, pp 21-29.
15. S K Jain. ‘A Proposed Draft for IS:1893 Provisions on Seismic
Design of Buildings — Part II + :Commentary and Examples’.
Journal of Structural Engineering, vol 22, no 2, 1995, pp 73-90.
16. S A Arya. ‘Earthquake Resistant Design of Buildings’.
Proceedings of National Symposium on Advances in Structural
Dynamics and Design, SERC, CSIR Complex , Chennai, January
9-11, 2001, pp KI-1-16.
17. B N Pramod. ‘Effect of Earthquake on Open Type of Berthing
Structures’. M Tech Thesis, Department of Ocean Engineering, IIT
Madras, Chennai, 2002.
18. S K Jain. ‘Review of Indian Seismic Code, IS 1983 (Part I) : 2002’.
The Indian Concrete Journal, vol 77, no 11, 2003, pp 1414-1422.
19. IS 456:2000. ‘Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice’.
BIS, New Delhi.
20. J K Bowels. ‘Foundation Analysis and Design’. Mc Graw-Hill,
Singapore, 1974.
17