Design Principles and Considerations of Port Elements
WEBB, J. C., 1982. "The LOOP Project: Taking
the Port to the Ship." ASCE Civil Engineer-
ing, June.
WEBB, D. W., 1995. "San Juan Harbor Naviga-
tion Channel Design", ASCE Proceedings
Specialty Conference PORTS'95, Tampa, FL.
WEIS, J. M. and BLANCATO, V., 1959. "Breasting
Dolphin for Berthing Supertankers." ASCE
Journal of the Waterways and Harbours.
WESTERN-EUROPEAN INSTITUTE FOR WOOD-
PRESERVATION, 1987. Minutes of the 37th
Meeting of the General Assembly, Portschach,
Austria.
WHITENECK, L. L. and HOCKNEY, L. A., 1989.
Structural Materials for Harbor and Coastal
Construction. McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York.
WICKER, C. F. (ed.), 1965. "Evaluation of Present
State of Knowledge of Factors Affecting Tidal
Hydraulics and Related Phenomena," Report
No. 3 Committee on Tidal Hydraulics, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
WILLIAMSON, G. R., 1978. "Steel Fibers as Web
Reinforcement in Reinforced Concrete," Pro-
ceedings of U.S. Army Science Conference,
Vol. 3.
241
WINDLER, F. J., 1983. "The Corrosion Survey
-An Engineer's Guide to Maintenance Paint-
ing." Material Performance, Vol. 22, No.5.
WooD, J. S., KHANNA, J., and DEMBINSKI, M.,
1981. "Design of an Offshore Berth for Moor-
ing Large Ships in a Strong Current," Pro-
ceedings of Permanent International Associa-
tion of Navigation of Congresses, 26th
Congress, Edinburgh.
WRIGHT, J., CHILD, T. J., REBEL, J. M., and
ROBERTSON, J., 1987. "Port Bonython Jetty,
South Australia," Proceedings Institution of
Civil Engineers, October.
YARON, S. L. and SHIMON!, J., 1982. "The Hadera
Offshore Coal Unloading Terminal: A New
Approach to Unloading of Bulk in the Open
Sea," Proceedings of Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, TX, May.
YINGLING, J., MULLINGS, G. M., and GAINOR,
R. D., 1992. "Loss of Air Content in Pumped
Concrete." Concrete International, October.
YOUNDALE, J. E. and SHRIVASTAVA, S.M., 1986.
"Design and Construction of Marine Facilities
for Ridley Island Coal Terminal," Proceedings
ASCE Specialty Conference PORTS'86,
Oakland, CA.
 3
Design Loads
3.1 GENERAL
The purpose of this chapter is to provide
the port designer with guidelines on loads
and forces to be used in the design of port
related marine structures.
All applied design loads and forces which
should be considered in marine structures
design may be defined in the following basic
categories:
• Loads and forces from the water side of
the structure
• Loads from the land side of the structure
• Loads and forces related to dock operation
• .Load due to the temperature effect
Waterside related loads and forces are
basically environmental forces such as wind,
waves, current, and ice. Land-side related
loads are typically the weight of the struc-
ture, the vertical and horizontal compo-
nents of soil pressure, and the hydrostatic
pressure from the groundwater behind the
structure.
Loads and forces related to the operation
of the dock are basically those associated
with the following:
• Ship docking and mooring operations, in-
cluding berthing impact, and mooring
forces due to winds, waves and current
acting on the vessel
• Vertical and longitudinal friction forces
between the ship and fenders due to
tidal action, change in ship draft due to
loading/unloading, and the ship rubbing
along the structure during berthing ma-
neuvering
• Loads and forces due to the operation of
cargo handling and hauling equipment
such as fixed, rail-mounted, and mobile
cranes, dry bulk loadingjunloading equip-
ment, conveyers, miscellaneous tire and
crawler track-mounted equipment, trucks
and other vehicles, liquid· cargo handling
arms and piping, and others
• Uniform distributed loads of a miscella-
neous nature
Loads due to temperature effects may
have a substantial impact on the spacing
between expansion joints. In general, these
loads may generate considerable horizontal
loadings on marine structures and be espe-
243
244 Design Loads
cially detrimental when applied to some
specific structural components.
Additionally, loads acting on a marine
structure can be classified as permanent,
temporary, and special.
Permanent loads include the weight of the
structure along with the weights of ware-
houses, sheds, and administrative offices all
permanently installed on the marine struc-
ture, and also the weight of permanently in-
stalled fixed cargo handling equipment. In
further discussions, this kind of load will be
referred to as dead load. (Note that lateral
soil pressure may also be defined as a perma-
nent load.)
Temporary loads and forces include those due
to the environment and dock operation. The
latter includes all kinds of live loads
(surcharge, moving equipment), ship berthing
forces, and mooring forces.
Special loads include accidental loads, earth-
quake forces and other unusual loads.
As with the design of conventional struc-
tures, the loads, and their combinations,
used in marine structure design are distin-
guished as normal and extreme.
Normal load combinations are those that
could exist under normal dock operations. The
most severe, realistically expected combina-
tions of dead load and soil pressure, ship
impact and mooring forces, loads generated
by cargo handling and hauling equipment,
and appropriate surcharge loads are usually
selected as the normal design load combina-
tion for a given structure. To proportion the
structural elements exposed to normal load
combinations, normal allowable stresses are
used.
The normal loading, in combination with
unusual forces such as an earthquake, an
accidental load of miscellaneous nature or
operation under a damaged condition, is
considered to be an extreme load condition.
In such cases, allowable stresses used in
design would be appropriately increased
(see "Load Combinations," Section 3.8).
Safe operation of any structure depends
on the loadings subsequent to completion of
construction. Because the structure is usu-
ally loaded after it is built and not always
as designed, the selection of design loads is
a problem of statistics and assessment of
probability. In some cases, neither the
owner nor the designer is sure what maxi-
mum loading the structure may be required
to sustain in the course of its useful life. In
addition, the selected loading is often sub-
jective and largely depends on the designer's
experience. To avoid divergent designs and
to formulate reasonable design loads and
load combinations, the designer should fol-
low relevant guidelines, codes, and stand-
ards, but also exercise common sense. Rea-
sonable design loads are those that do not
result in either prohibitive cost of structure
construction nor in structure obsolescence
shortly after commissioning. The designer
also should exercise great care in formulat-
ing design loads, particularly those gener-
ated by mobile cargo handling and hauling
equipment.
3_2 ENVIRONMENTAL LOADS
Wind, waves, current, and ice provide the
principal environmental loads on marine
structures. Typically, environmental design
loads are based on storm conditions having
an average expected recurrence interval of
50 years; some important marine structures
may be designed on the basis of an expected
event recurrence of up to 100 years.
Because most of the port related marine
facilities are located in areas sheltered from
the action of sizable waves and strong cur-
rents, the direct action of these environ-
mental agents against marine structures
are, in general, negligible. Under typical
design conditions, berthing and mooring
loads and lateral soil thrust are, as a rule,
the dominant horizontal forces acting on
a berthing structure. However, even in

protected harbors the traveling vessels may Table 3-1. Value offactor C 1
generate substantial waves, the effect of
which could be considerable on moored
ships.
However, at exposed locations (i.e.,
breakwaters, offshore terminals, or some
terminals located in inland waterways) the
effects of wave and current forces must be where
studied closely.
In countries with a cold climate, ice rep-
resents a major environmental load on dock
structures. The ice may impose lateral
thrusts against a structure, produce uplift cl = coefficient that considers the length of the
and pile jacking loads, increase the weight
of the structure, and abrade the structural
material.
3.2.1 Wind
The magnitude and strength of a wind load
acting on a dock structure depends on the
velocity of the prevailing wind, dock orien-
tation, the amount of structure exposed to
wind, and the size of a ship moored along-
side the dock structure. In general, the wind
force that acts on a ship is proportional to
the square of the wind velocity. The wind
effect, which by its nature is dynamic, is
usually decomposed into a static action (e.g.,
no variation in wind speed) and a dynamic
action (e.g., gust) is covered by a special
coefficient(s). Two components of wind forces
are usually considered: one that acts per-
pendicularly to the dock structure and the
other that acts parallel to it. The maximum
wind force is usually obtained when the
wind is blowing at 90° to the ship's center-
line.
Total wind force, Pw, acting on a ship
alongside a structure may be expressed as
follows:
Pw = kpwC1C2( LAx sin 2¢ + LAY
cos 2
Design Loads 245
Length of the Ship
::;; 25m 50m lOOm ~200m
1 0.8 0.65 0.5
Pw = total wind force on the dock structure in
kilonewtons.
k = 1.3, shape factor, which considers suction
increase on the leeward side.
ship; the recommended values of C 1 are
given in Table 3-1.
C2 = gust factor; average gust-factor value range
1.25-1.45.
Note: when selecting a design value of C2 the
size of the ship is to be considered. Because
the gust duration may be insufficient to de-
velop a full mooring force or maximum fender
strain on a large ship (the "inerta effect"),
smaller values of C2 are usually used when
dealing with large ships. Fang (1979) has re-
ported on test results to verify wind and cur-
rent loads on tankers 170,000-280,000 DWT.
It has been found that 20 s of sustained gust
can fully excite the moored very large crude
carrier (VLCC), whereas approximately a 1-
min gust duration is required to induce the
maximum ship response.
LAx and LAy
= exposed to wind areas of the ship, cargo
handling and hauling equipment located on
the structure, and the dock structure area
(in m 2 ) above water line exposed to wind
respectively in x and y directions. If the
dock structure is occupied by ships on both
sides, the sheltering effect of the windward
ship is taken into account. The wind force
on the sheltered vessel is usually assumed
to be 50% of the value of an unsheltered
vessel had it not been sheltered against the
wind.
Note: The maximum wind load on a dock
<f>)
structure will be when the ship is in a light
condition (maximum exposed to wind area). If
(3-1)
accurate wind area information for a specific
246 Design Loads

design ship is not available, then approxi-
mate values obtained from Figures 3-1 and
3-2 may be used for the preliminary design.
cf> = angle of wind direction to ship centerline.
Pw = specific wind pressure (in kPa), which
varies with the square of the sustained
wind velocity. The sustained wind velocity
is the average speed over 1 min. The value
of Pw may be obtained from
Pw = 4.74 X 10- 5 v.,7
where Vw =velocity of the wind (in kmjh).
The value of Pw varies from place to place
and usually is specified by local building
codes. Wind speed is usually assumed to be
the sustained wind speed 10 m above the
water surface (V10 ), obtained from available
wind records. If the wind is recorded at an
elevation other than 10 m, the wind speed
at the 10-m level is determined using
vw = V10 = ( 1o;z) 1/7 vz (3-3)
where
V 10 = wind speed at an elevation 10 m over
surface of water
(3-2) Z = elevation of recorded wind (in m)
Vz = recorded wind speed at elevation Z.
For fetch length, that is, the horizontal ex-
tension of the wave generating area, less
than or equal to 15 km, the wind speed
recorded over land (VL) should be adjusted
to obtain the over-water wind speed (Vw)

300

I
v
I
1/
J
200
I
I
v
""'cc I
~
0

I
.<:
Cl
·;;
,." I
I
"
0 100 J
I
1/
v
v
0
0
r-- -- ./"

2 3 4
Exposed to wind a rea
6 7 8

Figure 3-1. Approximate projected (vessel in ballast condition) to wind area as function of
tankerDWT.
 Design Loads 24 7

using For preliminary design Udovichenko and

(3-4)
Yakovlev (1976) recommended the following
equation to determine the ship's exposed to
If the fetch is longer than 15 km, the ratio wind area, A, when she is in a light condi-
R = VwfVL can be obtained from Figure tion:
3-3.
More information on wind speed and A= aL~ (3-5)
wind forces calculations can be found in
NAVFAC DM-26.2 (1982), Gaythwaite where
(1981, 1990), Headland (1995), Bruun A = exposed to wind area of a ship m light
(1989), Sohngen (1995) and PIANC (1995). condition (m 2 ).

50

L
v
/
..,
----.
40

/
v
0
X
I /
v
30

I v
Ill
Cll

~
t::
t::

~
I II"
~ /
v
~
en
·a;

I
20

..
3::
"0
Cll
c

10 l "/ /
/
.,V
0
0 2 3 4 5 6
Ship exposed to wind area (m 2 x 10 3 )

Figure 3-2. Approximate projected to wind area as a function of vessel capacity: 1. general cargo
(light condition); 2. container ship.

Table 3-2. Coefficient a in eq. (3-2)

Length (L 8 )
300m
Type ofVessel lOOm 150m 200m 250m and More
Mixed general
cargo /passenger 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11
General cargo 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08
Tankers 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07
248 Design Loads
L 8 =maximum length of a ship (in m).
a = empirical coefficient which takes into ac-
count the ship's shape and length. The rec-
ommended values of a are given in Table
3-2.
Additionally, it should be recognized that the
area of a ship exposed to the wind is not sym-
metrical about the midship line; the latter may
help to develop a moment of rotation about the
ship's center of gravity.
In designing the dock structure for wind
forces, it is usually assumed that cargo han-
dling equipment such as cranes and loading
towers would not operate with a wind
stronger than 25 kmjh. It is also customary
to consider that a ship would not remain
alongside the dock in light condition in a
severe storm; she would either take on bal-
last or leave for sea. (pw = 0.25 kPa is usu-
ally considered adequate for the dock struc-
ture.) In designing the dock, use of unit
wind pressure greater than lkPa should be
justified by special requirements.
For the preliminary design, values of de-
sign wind load (kN jper linear meter of ship)
can be obtained from Figure 3-4. The val-
~~~~~~~~~~~ti~~~~~~~F~ORii~~>~3~6~KNO~)TS~
1.0
WJNOSPEEDS ARE REFERENCED
TO 10-METER LEVEL
0.8
0 5 10 15 20
0 10
OVERLAND WINOSPEED. VL
Figure 3-3. Ratio (R) of over-water (Vw) to over-land (VL) wind speed as a function
of over-land wind speed. [After Resio and Vincent (1976).]
ues of wind load presented in Figure 3-4
are obtained from miscellaneous sources
and should be considered as rather conser-
vative. The wind load is transmitted to the
quay structure via the ship's mooring lines,
or fender units effectively in contact with a
ship.
In some cases, the berth could be partly
shielded against the seaward wind by exist-
ing structures, such as warehouses, office
buildings, or by specially constructed wind-
protective structures. In the past, such
structures have been effectively used in
ports at Le Havre, Marseilles, Dover, and
other locations (Minikin, 1963).
3.2.2 currents
In the design of marine structures there
are three major kinds of currents to be
considered:
1. River currents
2. Tidal currents
3. Wind-induced current in harbors
R=0.9
25 30 35 40KNOTS
45 .._ES PER HOUR
 Design Loads 249

100

90 I
.5!
........
80 I
70 I
1/
><

••cc 80
0

-• J
..!:,.

c
E
•...
50
v
v
40 ~
•
'A
•
'D 30
0.
:;; /
fn
20 /
/"
10 ,..._... .... .J

0
0
- 1---
10 20 30
Wind load (kN per lin. m of ship)

Figure 3-4. Approximate wind load per linear meter of ship.

River and tidal currents are usually se-
lected from available statistical data,
whereas the wind-induced currents in still
water are usually taken as equal to 1% of
the velocity of sustained wind at 10 m above
the surface of the w~ter. Typically, current
velocity decreases slowly with depth, and
current load (drag) on a dock structure de-
pends on the square of the current velocity
and the shape and magnitude of the
exposed-to-current areas of both the
fully laden ship and the submerged part of
the structure.
The force of the current exerted on the
ship/structure system in both longitudinal
and transversal directions (Pc) (in kN) can
be obtained from
Pc = c "'AV
L....
2 (3-6)
c
where
c = empirical drag coefficient; c = 0.5 to 1.0
(kN s 2 jm4 ). Smaller values are used for
ships and larger values for the dock
structure. These values of care conserva-
tive and are recommended for the prelim-
inary design stages only. The true value
of c may be obtained from model tests of
the design ship and dock structure.
Vc =velocity of the current (in mjs).
E A = exposed-to-current areas of the fully laden
ship and the structure system (in m 2 ).
In a strong current, a dock structure is
usually placed parallel to the stream. The
design current force is typically based on a
current having an expected average recur-
rence interval of 5 years.
Current force acting on the vessel is usu-
ally transmitted to the dock structure
through the mooring lines and very seldom
by the ship bearing against the fender sys-
tem. For more information on the direct
quasi-static curre:n:t forces imposed against
ship/dock structure system, the reader is
referred to the British Standard Code of
250 Design Loads
Practice for Maritime Structures, Part 1
(1984), NAVFAC (1968, 1982), Palo (1983),
Gaythwaite (1981, 1990), Bruun (1989),
Headland (1995), and PIANC (1995).
Newman (1977) provides an in-depth
treatment of hydrodynamic current forces
on ships, where, under certain site condi-
tions, strong current may produce substan-
tial standoff forces exerted on the vessel. In
1968, serious problems associated with a
strong tidal current (velocity of about 5.5
knots) was experienced during construction
and operation of the Immingham Oil Termi-
nal for 100,000-DWT tankers on the Hum-
ber River in the United Kingdom (Jackson,
1973). One problem that appeared was vio-
lent oscillation of unbraced piles across the
flow. Even when restrained by bracings or a
superstructure, the piles were not immune
to some vibration and extensive additional
bracing was subsequently added in order to
ensure safe terminal operation.
Another problem observed, during a high
current the moored ship was pushed off the
berth by considerable standoff force that
was built up between the ship and the pier
structure. The cause of this force attributed
to the effect of slowing down water passing
through the pier piling, resulting in a pres-
sure head by raising the water level. The
increased head of water in the area of the
piles deflected the current outward, with
the result that there was a flow across the
berth line. As a result, a ship moored to a
piled berth structure was pushed away from
the berth by a combination of the differen-
tial head and the angular current (Fig. 3-5).
The differential head across the moored ship
(tl.h) was found to be equal to tl.h =
c.v 2 j2g, where the coefficient c.= 0.42,
Vis the undisturbed current (flow) velocity,
and g is gravity acceleration.
Khanna and Sorensen (1980) and Wood
et al. (1980) reported on model test results
carried out on a 1 : 100 scale model to study
the standoff effect phenomenon. They found
the value of coefficient c. to range from 0.1
to 0.15 and 0.07 to 0.12 for scaled current
velocities of 5 and 7 knots, respectively, and
dependent on the berth location. The ap-
proximate one-third difference in C 8 value
measured in the above experiments and
those measured at lmmingham Oil Termi-
nal were mainly attributed to the different
area densities of piling. Specifically, at Im-
mingham it was about 3% according to
Khanna and Sorensen, and in the Wood et
al. experiments it was equal to about 1% of
the structure's effective area. However, in
the latter case, a 16% increase in pile den-
sity did not alter standoff forces signifi-
cantly. More details on the effects of pile
density and configuration on standoff forces
is found in the work of Ball and Wilcock
(1981), and PIANC (1995).
In general, the reduction in the depth/
draft ratio from 1.5 to 1.32 resulted in about
a 35% increase in standoff force. The mo-
tion of the moored ship usually started when
the flow of water exceeded a threshold ve-
locity of approximately 2 knots. Under such
conditions, substantial dynamic mooring
line loads (two to three times that due to
the standoff force) are encountered are
attributed to strong surge-yaw and sway
motions.
A phenomenon similar to that at lm-
mingham Oil Terminal can be experienced
by a ship moored alongside a berth struc-
ture located in close proximity to the river-
bank or in a narrow tidal estuary with
strong currents. In this case, the acceler-
ated flow of water around one side of the
ship may result in differential head (a hy-
draulic gradient across the ship) pushing
the ship away from the bank.
Therefore, at terminal sites with strong
current and where a potential for standoff
forces exist, the designer should carefully
investigate the problem, as no typical de-
sign solution or theory exists in practice at
this time.
In conclusion it should be noted that an
essential parameter to be considered in cal-
culating the force of current, besides the
current velocity, is the underkeel clearance,
 Design Loads 251

) I\
Flow

Pressure
• • • •
• • • •
1- _jA
• • • •
• • • •
• • • •
PLAN

!
... h = c.v 2 /2g

- --
-
i

Figure 3-5. Standoff force on moored ship.

i.e., the vertical distance from the bottom of
the ship to the bed of the basin. According
to PIANC (1995), if the underkeel clearance
is small, the current force can be up to six
times the value of that in deep water.
3.2.3 waves
to direct wave forces of significant magni-
tude.
Goda (1985) suggested that any harbor
where a significant wave, H 8 , is less than
approximately 1.0 m, even under design
storm conditions, can be considered a calm
harbor; he offers the following criteria for
harbor tranquility:

As was stated earlier in this chapter, most 1. The harbor should have a broad interior.
marine terminals are built at protected lo- 2. Any portion of the harbor that can be
cations and therefore they are not exposed viewed through the entrance should have
252 Design Loads

a natural beach or wave-absorbing struc- are close to the natural periods of surge,
ture. sway, and yaw for medium and large ships,
3. Small craft should not be viewable from which, combined with usually low damping
the open ocean at any angle. of the ship mooring system, may result in
4. A portion of the waterfront should be wave resonant phenomena (Jensen and Warren,
dissipating in character. 1986; Stammers and Wennink, 1977;
5. Wave reflection from the back side and Viggosson, 1988).
the use of energy-absorbing quay walls Harbor protection from long waves will
such as perforated or slit caissons should require construction of a very long break-
be considered. water, that in most practical cases is uneco-
nomic. Instead, careful design of the berth
In protected harbors, berthing and moor- mooring system and correct positioning of
ing forces typically are much more severe the berth with the harbor is needed to mini-
than those which can be generated by wave mize response of ships to long waves. This
action, and therefore the latter are usually can be best achieved by physical modeling
neglected. However, even in a protected of port (harbor) layout.
harbor moored ship movements can occur, Furthermore, waves created by a passing
as depicted in Figure 3-6, due to the re- vessel under specific conditions may pro-
sponse of the water surface in the harbor to duce standoff forces on a moored ship simi-
excitation by open ocean long-period waves lar to those discussed in the previous sec-
known as seiches. Seiches may cause sub- tion. Naturally, structures located offshore
stantial damage to both ship and mooring should be designed for sea waves of sub-
structures. stantial magnitude. The purpose of this sec-
Long-period waves, or long waves, in the tion is to introduce some basic state-of-the-
open sea are rather small, but they are art concepts for wave loads under the
amplified in coastal regions due to a variety above-noted conditions.
of nonlinear effects. When entering en- In general, the interaction between wave
closed bays or harbors, long waves may be forces and a moored ship is a very complex
further amplified and natural water oscilla- phenomenon, and analytical treatment of
tion may develop. It is very difficult to dissi- the problem typically involves the combined
pate energy of these waves. Their periods effects of wind, wave and current loads,

......,. l

Figure 3-6. Typical ship motions.

 Design Loads 253

coupled with ship motion and response of proximity to the bank or another vessel. For
the mooring system. Progress in develop- details, consult Chapter 2. Additional infor-
ment of an analytical solution can be fol- mation on dynamic effects of ship passage
lowed in the works of Wilson (1951, 1958, on moored vessels is found in Wang (1975),
1959), Van Oortmerssen (1976), Van Oort- Jensen et al. (1990), and PIANC (1995).
merssen et al. (1986), Bomse (1980), Vasco As was stated earlier, the evaluation of
Costa (1983), NATO (1965, 1973, 1987), and hydrodynamic loads, associated with long-
PIANC (1995). period waves, and standoff forces on a
In the above works, sophisticated mathe- moored vessel generated by passing ships
matical modeling techniques have been pro" on marine structures is extremely complex.
posed. The proposed methods· formulate a The problem's complexity is aggravated by
mathematical approach for obtaining water the fact that the added mass and damping
surface response, ship motion, and mooring coefficient of an oscillating vessel are dif-
forces due to a given offshore wave spec- ferent for each of the six degrees of freedom
trum for a vessel moored at a particular (Fig. 3-6) and are dependent on the fre-
location in the harbor. It should be noted quency of the ship's oscillation and, to a
that at their present stage of development, great extend, her underkeel clearance. De-
mathematical models of moored ships are tailed treatment of this subject is beyond
best used in preliminary stages of port de- the scope of this text. For a comprehensive
sign, where several alternative solutions are treatment of the subject matter, the reader
usually investigated to achieve the most is directed to the sources cited earlier in
efficient design. Physical scale modeling this section.
may be employed to calibrate (validate) the Offshore marine terminals, such as
mathematical model. Because physical scale transhipment islands or individual cargo
models are expensive and time-consuming loading/unloading berths, are exposed
they are usually employed to model the to substantial wave loads. Perimeter walls
final harbor layout obtained on the basis of of the offshore islands are usually of verti-
a calibrated mathematical model. Principles cal configuration and typically exposed to
of hydraulic modeling are described in most wave forces similar to those acting on
fluid mechanics texts. breakwaters of the same configuration.
As a rule of thumb, standoff forces on a Forces of this type are discussed in detail in
moored ship, generated by passing vessels, Chapter 10.
are proportional to the square of the speed
of the passing ships and the separation 3.2.3.1 wave Force on
distance. Circular Piles and
Additionally, the underkeel clearance, Large-Diameter Cylinders
the vessels' block coefficients, the softness
of mooring lines, and the ratio of length of The majority of individual offshore berth
moored ships (Lms) to length of passing structures, such as piers, breasting and
ships (LP.) affect the maximum standoff mooring dolphins, cargo handling equip-
forces and subsequently, the mooring line ment supporting platforms, and approach
loads. Forces on the moored ship are greater trestles are typically of the open-type con-
when Lps/L88 » 1 and are slightly notice- struction, which, in general, comprises of a
able when Lps/L88 « 1, even for a very concrete deck structure supported on piles
close separation of both vessels. By its very of miscellaneous construction. Circular piles
nature, the effect produced by the passing are used more often than piles of other
ship on a moored vessel is very similar to cross sections because they offer less resis-
that of a vessel transiting a channel in close tance to wave or passing current action.
254 Design Loads
The approach to calculating wave forces
on piles depends on the ratio of the pile
diameter (D) to the incident wavelength
(L). When the ratio is small (D jL < 0.2)
the wave motion is relatively unaffected by
the presence of pile, and the analytical ex-
pression of the wave force acting on a pile
(Fw) is normally calculated using the well-
known Morison equation (Morison et al.,
1950). This equation is based on an as-
sumption that the pile (cylinder) does not
disturb the waves and consists of the sum
of the inertial force (F1 ) and the viscosity
drag force (FD):
(3-7)
where
FD 0.5cD(;) Du lui
= (3-8)
and
(3-9)
where
CD = empirical dimensionless drag coeffi-
cient taking into account the resistance
of the pile against the flow pressure
CM = empirical dimensionless inertia coeffi-
cient taking into account the resistance
of the pile against the acceleration of
water particles
g = gravity acceleration (mjs 2 )
'Yw =density of water (kNjm 3 ). For freshwa-
ter, 'Yw = 10 kNjm 2 and for seawater
'Yw = 10.25 kNjm 3
u = horizontal component of the instanta-
neous orbital velocity of the water par-
ticles at the studied pile location (mjs)
dujdt = horizontal component of the instanta-
neous orbital acceleration of the water
particles at the studied pile location
(mjs 2 )
D = pile diameter or (at noncircular piles)
characteristic width of the structural
member(m).
The velocity and acceleration of the wa-
ter particles used in the Morison equation
are calculated from the conventional wave
equations [see for example, the U.S. Army
(1984), Shore Protection Manual]. The em-
pirical dimensionless coefficients CD and CM
for cylindrical piles are given in Table 3-3.
For detailed information on the coeffi-
cients CD and CM, the reader is referred to
Isaacson (1988) and Chakrabarti (1991).
Some preliminary data on CD and eM, ob-
tained from field measurements in the surf
zone, are reported by T(llrum (1989). Values
of CD and eM for square piles, H-piles, and
piles of other shapes are found in the British
Standard Code of Practice for Maritime
Structures (1984), EAU (1990), and Det
Norske Veritas (1977).
The assessment of drag and inertia co-
efficients is made not on the basis of theo-
retical considerations, but principally by
means of measurements on models and pro-
totypes. They correlate the computed force
to the existing force and are greatly depen-
dent on the Reynolds number. They are
very sensitive to the pile roughness caused
by such effects as fouling, which may sub-
st~ntially increase the pile's projected area.
The Reynolds number (Re) is given by
(3-10)
where
v = kinematic viscosity (m 2 js)
um = approximate maximum horizontal water-
particle velocity (mjs) at z = 7Jc (see def-
inition sketch, Fig. 3-7)
Table 3-3. Drag (CD) and inertia (CM) coefficients
for cylindrical piles
Cn eM Reynolds Number (Re)
2.0 > 2.5 X 10 5
1.2-0.7 1.5-2.0 2 X 10 5-5 X 10 5
0.7 >5 X 10 5
1.5 <5 X 10 5
1.2 < 2.5 X 10 5
Note: Cn = 0.7 and CM = 1.5 are typically used for most
design applications.
 Design Loads 255

In deep water, and added vectorially. For this, the equa-

tions for Fn and F1 can be given by
7TH
U
m
= _T e2"'zL cos
-1
8
(3-11)
Fn = {fndZ (3-12)
0

where (J is the wave phase angle and um(max) and

will occur at e = 0.
(3-13)
Additionally, the coefficient of inertia eM
takes into account the fact that the added where
mass, subject to the force of inertia, has a
greater magnitude than the one correspond- fv = 0.5cv(;) Du lui (3-14)
ing to the volume of fluid displaced by the
solid.
In order to obtain the total instantaneous
wave force the drag and inertia components
must be integrated over the water depth and z is the depth in terms of vertical

Figure 3-7. Wave force on vertical pile.

256 Design Loads
Note: x, Y, and Z a1.aa
ara orthogonal,
Figure 3-8. Wave force on battered pile.
distance along a coordinate axis with its
origin at the bottom (Fig. 3-7).
The problem also could be solved by us-
ing nondimensional nomographs and tables
provided in the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers' Shore Protection Manual, Vol. II
(1984) and in NAVFAC DM-26.2 (1982), or
by commercially available computer pro-
grams, [e.g., Pile developed by Bridgeman
(1987)].
The maximum drag force occurs at the
wave crest position and the maximum iner-
tial force occurs at about one-quarter wave-
length ahead of the crest. The practical ex-
ample is given in Isaacson et al. (1995).
For nonvertical (sometimes called batter
or raking) piles, the wave phase angle (}, for
the local coordinates X 0 , Y0 , and Z 0 , is
different for each individual section, as de-
picted in (Fig. 3-8). Because wave forces
are perpendicular to the pile axis, it is pos-
sible to calculate them by Morison's equa-
tion using components of velocities and ac-
celeration perpendicular to the pile (U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 1984). Experi-
ments by Brusnall and Loftin (1951) sup-
port this assumption. They found that the
drag force component depends on the resul-
tant velocity rather than on the velocity
component perpendicular to the pile axis.
With due consideration to these experi-
mental observations, the following proce-
dure has been recommended for calculating
wave forces on batter piles. For a given
location on the pile (X0 , Y0 , Z 0 ) the force
per unit length of pile is taken as the hori-
zontal force per unit length of a fictitious
vertical pile at the same location. For a
detailed procedure and numerical examples
the reader is referred to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (1984). It must be noted that
besides drag and inertial forces, a trans-
verse force due to alternate eddy formation
and shedding generated downstream from
the pile known as the "lift force" (FL), will
also result from the wave-pile interaction.
The lift force acts perpendicularly to both
wave direction and pile axis and is analo-
gous to a drag force. It reaches its maxi-
mum value at the same moment as the drag
force does, but could be four to fives times
greater than the drag force (Rogan, 1978).
For design of rigid structures, NAVFAC
DM-26.2 (1982) recommends adoption of a
conservative value of CD for determination
of lift forces, regardless of the force direc-
tion.
Due to the oscillatory nature of the lift
force in the design of flexible structures, the
dynamic response of the structure must be
considered (Laird, 1962; Chakrabarti, 1991).
The magnitude of this lift force can be de-
termined by
(3-16)
where CL is the lift force coefficient which
can be taken as approximately equal to
Cn/3 for circular cylinders and steady flow
velocities. It generally does not depend on
pile roughness. For more information on CL
values under different conditions, the reader
is referred to Chang (1964), Sarpkaya
(1976), and Sarpkaya et al. (1977).

Both linear and nonlinear wave theories
are used for the calculation of wave forces.
However, use of nonlinear wave theory [e.g.,
the fourth and fifth order of Stoke's wave
theory can produce better results (Tsuchiya
and Yamaguchi, 1974; Isaakson and Qi-Hua
Zuo, 1989)]. If nonlinear wave theory is
used, the Morison equation is usually solved
by numerical integration.
The moment of wave force about the
mudline is given as follows:
(3-17)
where z is the depth in terms of vertical
distance along a coordinate axis with its
origin at the mudline level (Fig. 3-7).
The single small-diameter pile structure
is rare in marine applications. The usual
open-type piled structures are piled piers,
platforms, or dolphins. It is generally ac-
cepted that unless piles are placed too
close to each other (1.5D or less) the pile
density may be ignored in calculating total
wave force on a pile group (Quinn, 1972;
Bushnell, 1977). Wave forces on a combina·
tion of piles in group are calculated by plot-
ting the forces on a single pile as a function
ofwave phase angle (8).
Figure 3-9. Wave force on pile group.
Design Loads 257
The combination of piles is then superim-
posed over the plot of wave forces, and the
maximum force for the system is found by
summing the forces on the individual piles
for small changes in phase angle ( 8) (Fig.
3-9). The phase difference between piles is
given as
11 () = (27T' jL) 11 x (3-18)
where
L = wavelength
11 x = spacing between piles in the direction of
wave advance (i.e., along the x-coordinate
axis).
Assuming that the two-dimensional wave is
not changing while moving, the force ap-
plied on individual pile and pile groups for
different wave phases may be determined
as follows (Rogan, 1978):
(3-20)
where Fw(n) and Mw(n) correspond to the
total force and moment acting on the nth
pile in a pile group, respectively. The total
258 Design Loads

force (Fw(T)) and moment (Mw(T)) on a at breaking, it is usually given as equal to

structure composed of n piles will then be (gdb) 0·5 , where db is the water depth at
expressed as breaking, which is approximately equal to
the breaker height (Hb). Current velocities
(3-21) of any kind (steady, tidal, or generated
by the sustained wind) should be added
n
vectorially.
Mw(T) = L Mw(n) (3-22) As was stated earlier, the Morison equa-
1 tion is used to obtain wave forces on a
small-diameter pile (D jL < 0.2). This
The maximum wave force on a group of equation simplifies the general problem by
piles generally occurs when the central pile assuming that the pile (cylinder) does not
is located near the wave crest. disturb the incident wave in any way. How-
Wave forces on a pile bracing system are ever, as the cylinder's diameter becomes
determined in a manner similar to that large relative to incident wavelength, the
used for vertical piles; that is, the wave large-diameter cylinder causes reflection
force per unit length, az, of pile (Fig. 3-7) and diffraction of the incident waves, which
is also the drag force per unit length of makes Morison's equation unapplicable, and
horizontal bracing when az =DB, where a diffraction theory must be used instead.
DB is the diameter of the horizontal brac- The diffraction theory assumes that the
ing. Naturally, the wave force on the hori- fluid is homogeneous and inviscous, and
zontal bracing is a function of the bracing that the fluid motion is irrotational. Addi-
position above the seafloor. Because brac- tionally, the wave heights are assumed
ings are typically beams of small diameter, small relative to the wavelength so that
only the drag force is usually considered. terms involving wave steepness to the
The wave load on an angular bracing may second (or higher)-order power may be
be obtained by the integration of loads per neglected. MacCamy and Fuchs (1954)
unit length at different elevations. developed a linear diffraction theory for
Although notable progress has been made calculating wave loads on a vertical circular
in recent years regarding understanding of cylinder extending from above the water
the breaking wave-pile interaction, well- surface to the mudline. This theory was
founded recommendations on a part of the supported by limited experiments con-
breaking wave force on pile are sparse. Apelt ducted by Chakrabarti and Tam (1973) for
and Piorewicz (1987) state that no theory is DjL up to 0.54.
available for predicting wave forces in the According to MacCamy and Fuch (1954),
breaking zone, although a considerable the total force on a large-diameter cylinder
amount of experimental work has been re- (Fw) is given by
ported (Swift, 1989; T¢rum, 1989).
For practical engineering applications in
shallow water, the inertia component of pgHL2
breaking wave forces on a pile is normally Fw = - -2- fa tanh(kd) cos( angle) (3-23)
21T
ignored, and the drag coefficient is usually
taken as equal to 1.75 to 2.5 times greater
than the one used in the deep water (U.S. where
Army Corps of Engineers, 1984; NAVFAC p = 'Ywlg = fluid density
DM-26.2, 1982; Rogan, 1978). 1
Because the wave crest velocity (uc) in
shallow water approaches the wave celerity

where
J1 =first derivative of the Bessel function of the
first kind
Y{ = first derivative of the Bessel function of the
second kind for the angle (wt) - a; here
a= arctan(JJYi) and w = 2TTjT in wave
circular frequency
k = 27TjL
T = wave period
with 'Yw• L, H, and d as previously defined.
Mogridge and Jamieson (1976a, b) have
presented a simplified graphical version of
the linear diffraction theory of MacCamy
and Fuchs to estimate wave forces and mo-
ments on large cylinders. Garison et al.
(1974) and Hogben and Standling (1975)
have extended the diffraction theory to
structures of arbitrary geometry. Theoreti-
cal treatment of the diffraction theory is
found in Sarpkaya and Isaacson (1981). Ac-
cording to Sarpkaya and Isaacson, the total
wave force on a large-diameter cylinder can
be obtained from
Fw = ( i)'YwHD 2tanh( 2 ~d )eM cos(wt- 8)
(3-24)
where all of the terms are as previously
defined for small-diameter cylinders.
Although considerable efforts have been
spent on research with wave forces on verti-
cal cylinders subjected to regular and ran-
dom waves, studies on the wave-induced
dynamic pressure distribution around verti-
cal cylinders, especially due to random
waves, are rather limited. The most recent
study to date on wave impact pressures on
large-diameter vertical circular cylinders in
deep water has been conducted by Sundar
et al. (1989) and Khalfin (1990). It has been
concluded that the values of the dynamic
pressure coefficients derived from the pres-
sure spectra are in satisfactory agreement
with the linear diffraction theory of Mac-
Carny and Fuchs. Bridgeman (1984) has
Design Loads 259
introduced to the market a computer pro-
gram based on MacCamy and Fuchs' origi-
nal formulation of wave load on large cylin-
ders.
For a discussion on wave loads on square
caissons and conical-type structures, the
reader is referred to works by Mogridge and
Jamieson (1976), Jamieson et al. (1985), and
Rahman and Chakravartty (1986).
3.2.3.2 wave Load on
continuous Vertical Wall
When the structure width is longer than
the incident wavelength (D jL > 1.0), it can
be treated as a continuous wall exposed to
the wave force per unit length along the
wall. This case of wave load is treated in
virtually all general textbooks and hand-
books on coastal and port engineering [e.g.,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1984),
Gaythwaite (1981, 1990), Bruun (1989),
Herbich (1991/1992), and many others.
The extensive discussion on wave loads
and their impact on vertical walls is found
in special issue of Coastal Engineering [Vol.
22 (1994)], in Proceedings of International
Workshop on Wave Barriers in Deep
Waters (1994), Osaka, Japan, published by
Port and Harbor Institute, Yokosuka,
Japan, and in Proceedings of the Annual
Offshore Technology (OTC) Conferen-
ces, Houston, Texas, and International Off-
shore and Polar Engineering (ISOPE) con-
ferences.
In general, where the water depth at the
face of the wall is deep enough (i.e., equal to
approximately 1.5-2.0 times the incident
wave height), the wave will be reflected and
form a standing-wave pattern, also known
as clapoties. In general, it is assumed that a
standing wave is equal to twice the height
of the incident wave.
In shallow water (e.g., H < 1.5d, where
H is the height of the incident wave and d
is the depth of the water), the wave may
break against the wall, thus generating
greater forces on it.
260 Design Loads
On the basis of his extensive laboratory
tests of the breaking waves impacting (by
plunging) directly on vertical, 10°, and 30°
backward inclined walls with 1/10 fore-
shore slope, Kirkgoz (1992) concluded that
within a range of water depth conditions
used in his investigation the most frequent
location of the maximum impact pressure
for all three walls tested remained almost
at the still-water level.
Figure 3-10 illustrates typical wave load
diagrams attributed to the action of stand-
ing and breaking waves. Wave forces gener-
ated by a nonbreaking wave (Fig. 3-10a)
generally are calculated using the methods
of Sainflou and Miche-Rundgren, which ac-
count for partial reflection, as described in
step-by-step instructions and graphical aids
in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineering
(1984) Shore Protection Manual.
When waves break against the wall, the
Minikin (1963) and Goda (1985) methods
are generally employed. The peak dynamic
pressure which is assumed at the sea water
(a)
= limited to certain acceptable weather
~ conditions.
SWL
H, - Standoff forces due to current andjor
2
d,
~ d.
(b)
Figure 3-10. Wave pressure on a vertical wall: (a)
by a standing (reflected) wave and (b) by a breaking
wave. H and Hb are respectively the height of an
incident wave and of a breaking wave; h 0 is the setup
of the water level.
level (SWL) in the Minikin method is given
by the semiempirical formulation. The total
dynamic force that is centered about the
SWL is added to the hydrostatic pressure to
obtain the total profile of the pressure dia-
gram (Fig. 3-10b). Again, complete step-
by-step instructions and graphical aids for
applying the Minikin method are found in
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineering (1984)
Shore Protection Manual. A complete dis-
cussion on wave forces acting on vertical
wall breakwaters is given in Chapter 10.
3.3 MOORING LOADS
Mooring forces acting on a berth structure
arise from environmental forces, passing
vessels, and forces due to ship berthing ma-
neuvers. They are transmitted to the struc-
ture via ship mooring lines secured to the
mooring hardware such as bollards, bitts,
quick-release hooks, and other mooring
accessories.
As was mentioned in the previous sec-
tions, at most sea port locations wind is a
dominant force to be considered in mooring
system design; at inland ports, located along
riverbands with strong currents, the force
of current may control mooring forces; at
exposed offshore locations, a combination of
all environmental forces (e.g., wind, waves,
and current) must be considered. In the
latter case, berth operations are usually
wave effects, as well as ship surging mo-
tions, due to effects of long-period waves
must also be considered at certain locations
(as described in previous sections of this
chapter). Naturally, vessel size and type are
key issues in the determination of mooring
forces on a berth structure and the design
of mooring systems.
Typically, the general arrangement for
mooring lines for a ship lying alongside a
 Design Loads 261

marginal wharf is as shown in Figure 3-11, from surge motions. They run fore and aft,
and a typical arrangement of mooring lines, typically at an angle of 5°-10° to the quay
at tanker berth, is shown in Fig. 3-12. face. Breasting lines are used to provide
lateral resistance to wind and current forces
imposed on the vessel. These lines are
3.3.1 Mooring Lines nearly normal to the quay face.
Arrangement In general, a minimum of four lines are
required to safely secure a ship at a berth;
Ship mooring lines (hawsers) are usually of however, in practice, the actual number of
three types: bow and stern lines, springs, lines in each category basically depends on
and breasting lines. Bow and stern lines vessel size. In the case of mooring a large
are used to resist current and wind forces ship, as many as 24 (and more) lines may
imposed against the vessel and acting par- be employed. As mooring lines are usually
allel to the berth. These lines are attached regarded as shock-absorbing elements, they
to the respective ends of the ship and usu- should not be less than about 30 m in length
ally make an angle of 30°-45° with the face to provide for sufficient elasticity.
of the quay. Larger angles are usually not To be efficient, mooring elements, such
recommended. Springs are also used to ab- as mooring and breasting dolphins, must be
sorb wind generated and current generated properly positioned to handle the expected
forces acting parallel to the quay direction, range in ship sizes. This often means that
but they are also used to prevent the vessel additional mooring dolphins are spotted be-
tween the ones on the extreme ends of the
berth. Sometimes it is also necessary to
have the breasting dolphins double to pro-
vide for sufficient ship support and to han-
dle spring lines. Where practical (e.g., at
berths where berthing is only on one side),
Figure 3-11. Marginal wharf. Typical layout of
the mooring dolphins should be set back
mooring lines: 1- dock structure; 2-ship; 3-bollard;
4- bow line; 5- stern line; 6-breasting line; from the breasting dolphins by as much as
7- spring line. 30-45 m to limit the upward component of

t Sym .

0 .3 Lo (min.)

Figure 3-12. Tanker berth. Typical layout of mooring lines: 1-ship; 2- mooring line;
3-loadingjunloading platform; 4-breasting dolphin:; 5- mooring-dolphin; 6-access
trestle; 7- gangway.
262 Design Loads
the mooring pull (vessel in light condition)
and also to reduce navigational hazards.
More information on this subject is given in
Chapter 8).
Bulk cargo terminals frequently employ
the same concept for mooring arrangements
as is used for tanker terminals (Fig. 3-12).
At these terminals, however, a greater
number of breasting dolphins may be re-
quired, especially in the cases where the
ship needs to be shifted into position for
access to all hatches by loading/unloading
equipment.
3.3.2 Mooring Line Materials
Mooring is provided by mooring lines ex-
tended from the ship and secured to moor-
ing hardware, fastened to the berth struc-
ture. All mooring lines are typically made
from the same material. They are usually
made from natural (manila) or synthetic
(nylon, polyester, terylene, polypropylene,
etc.) fibre materials, or galvanized steel
(wire ropes). For better elasticity, individu-
als fibers are woven together into strands,
which, in turn, are woven into ropes accord-
ing to specific patterns. Fibre ropes are usu-
ally of three- to nine-strand construction,
and steel wire ropes typically consist of six
strands, each containing 19, 24, or 37 indi-
vidual wire filaments built around a fibre or
steel core. A detailed discussion on the elas-
tic properties of mooring lines is found in
Wilson et al. (1958) and Wilson (1967). For
more information on steel mooring cables
the reader is referred to NAVFAC (1986),
Tsinker (1986), and Gaywaite (1990).
Natural fibre lines are relatively cheap,
easy to handle (when dry), but have a very
moderate resistance against abrasion and
therefore have a relatively short lifetime.
These lines are sensitive to high tempera-
tures (due to sunlight or friction) and chem-
icals. They absorb water easily, making the
handling process cumbersome in wet condi-
tions. Synthetic fibre lines also are rela-
tively cheap; however, have much longer
lifetime than lines made from natural
fibres. Compared to natural fibres, the
synthetic fibre lines have a higher load/
diameter ratio, are relatively light, and are
easier to handle. The elongation of syn-
thetic lines is rather large and their
strength characteristics can be affected in
case of high temperature (e.g., caused by
friction).
Steel wire ropes are relatively cheap and
have a long lifetime if well maintained. They
have a low elongation being proportional
to the mooring line load and a high load/
diameter ratio. The disadvantage of these
lines is that they are stiff and heavy and
therefore are difficult to handle. Also owing
to their low elongation rates, they are vul-
nerable to a potential breakage under dy-
namic load conditions. Sometimes steel wire
rope lines are used in combination with
synthetic tails which enhance the shock ab-
sorbing characteristics of steel wire rope
lines. In most cases tails are not longer
than 10m and are connected to steel wire
ropes by means of shackles, protecting the
tail eyes with leather or plastic sheathing.
These lines most often are used for mooring
large tankers.
Typical values of breaking strength for
different types of hawsers is provided in
Table 3-4. The elastic stretch at break
ranges from approximately 10 to 15% for
manila ropes, to about 50% elongation for
nylon lines. Consequently, a nominal work-
ing load is approximately in order of 10 to
15% of tensile strength for manila ropes,
and 10 to 20% for lines made from syn-
thetic materials where the line stretch can
be tolerated. The elongation of steel wire
mooring ropes at break typically range from
2 to 5%.
3.3.3 Mooring Forces
Mooring forces are calculated from the envi-
ronmental design loads, as previously dis-
cussed, and are assume to act on the largest
 Design Loads 263

Table3-4. Breaking strength of hawsers (tonnes)

6 X 24 Wire 6 X 37Wire
Diameter Polyester Poly- Rope, Galvanized Rope, Galvanized
(in.) (mm) Manila Nylon (Darcon) propylene Plow Steel Plow Steel

1 25 4 13 10 6 26 29
lft 35 7 23 17 11
1-'-2 38 57 65
2 50 14 48 40 24 100 113
3 75 29 111 79 52
4 100 48 180 136 86
5 125 282

vessel for which the facility is designed. It Table 3-5. Number of simultaneously
is necessary, however, to relate the calcu- working bollards (nB)
lated forces to the breaking strength of the Minimum Distance
mooring lines. It is therefore recommended Length of Ship Between Bollards
that the designer consult with the dock op- (m) (m) nB
erator to obtain information on the design :::; 50 20 2
vessel and on number and size of mooring 150 25 4
lines to be considered. 250 30 6
The critical wind load is transmitted to ~ 300 30 8
the structure when the wind is blowing nor-
mal to the ship's centerline, pushing her
out from the dock. When the wind force is The magnitude of mooring force per bal-
symmetrical, the normal component of lard, and its vertical and longitudinal com-
mooring force per ballard (Ns) is given by ponents, can be obtained by the following
equations (see Fig. 3-13):
(3-25) NB
QB = -.--=-- (3-26)
cos f3
Sill a
where
Vs = QB sin f3 (3-27)
Pw = the total wind force onto the ship (in kN)
expressed by Eq. (3-1) Ts = QB cos a cos f3 (3-28)
ns =the number of simultaneous working hoi-
lards (mooring lines)

The actual number of simultaneous work-

ing bollards (ns) depends on the length of
the ship; unless special mechanisms are
used to equalize mooring forces in hawsers,
n B can be obtained from Table 3-5.
The British Standard Code of Practice
for Maritime Structures, Part 4 (1985) rec-
ommends that when the ship is moored at
six points, one-third of the total force should
be assumed at any one point, and when the
ship is moored at four points, one-half of
the total force should be assumed to act at
any single point. Figure 3-13. Mooring forces.
264 Design Loads

In general, the normal component of the
mooring force (NB) used in Eqs. (3-26)-
(3-28) should be increased by at least 20%
to allow for nonuniformity of distribution of
mooring forces between working bollards. If
the actual values of a and f3 are not known,
then for the preliminary design they may
be obtained from Table 3-6.
As the ship mooring lines are generally
not fully stressed simultaneously and the
mooring line forces partially cancel each
other, in the absence of actual mooring line
forces supplied by the port operator, the
values in Table 3-7 and 3-8 should be used
for the preliminary design.
The values given in Table 3-7 are suffi-
ciently accurate for seagoing vessels, and
the values given in Table 3-8 can be used
for the design of inland port mooring
structures.
It must be noted that bollards at the
ends of each berth are usually designed for
double the value of mooring force used for a
regular bollard. At docks where strong cur-
rents exist the values of QB, obtained from
Tables 3-7 and 3-8, should be increased by
10-25%. A smaller value applies to smaller
vessels and a larger value to larger vessels.
Normally, bollards are spaced uniformly
along a quay face and symmetrical about

Table3-6. Values of a and {3 in Eqs. (3-36)-(3-28)

{3
Vessel Bollard Laden Vessel in Light
Type Location a Vessel Condition

Seagoing At the quay edge 30° 20° 40°

Second line of 40° 100 20°
bollards
Riverboats
Passenger At the quay edge 0°-45° -30° 30°
vessel
Cargo vessel At the quay edge 0°-30° -30° 30°

Table 3-7. Mooring forces Q8 generated by seagoing vessels

Vessel Vessel
Displacement Line Pull Displacement Line Pull
(tonnes) (kN) (tonnes) (kN)

2,000 100 100,000 1,000

10,000 300 200,000 1,500
20,000 600 > 200,000 2,000
50,000 800

Table 3-8. Typical values of Q8 transmitted by inland waterway ship mooring lines to bollards (kN)

Maximum Displacement (tonnes)

Vessel Type s; 100 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 50,000 100,000 2000,000 ~ 200,000

Passenger and
mixed cargo I
passenger ship 50 100 150 200 250
Cargo ship 30 50 100 130 150 200 250-300 600 800 1,000 1,500 2,000

the center of a quay section (between ex-
pansion joints). Other arrangements are
also used, depending on the actual length of
the section and bollard spacing require-
ments. Typically, bollards should be de-
signed to hold several hawsers simultane-
ously, and, therefore, the load per bollard
must be adjusted accordingly.
In most seaports, bollards are installed
at ground surface level. In inland ports,
where the water level may fluctuate signif-
icantly, bollards are usually installed on at
least two levels, but quite often they are
installed at various elevations to allow for
ship convenient and safe operation. Some
practical examples are found elsewhere in
this book.
At exposed locations, a soft mooring sys-
tem comprising of mooring lines with nylon
tails in combination with soft fenders are
used (Khanna and Sorensen, 1980; Wood et
al., 1980; and PIANC, 1995). Nylon tails
provide an additional elasticity to the moor-
ing system, thus reducing the load in the
mooring lines due to motions of the moored
ship. Furthermore, in a multicomponent
mooring arrangement, the length of nylon
tails can be varied in order to maintain
approximately equal loads among lines un-
der anticipated ship movements.
Nylon tails are routinely used by oil com-
pany fleets, particularly at exposed loca-
tions. Soft fenders, although absorbing
equal amounts of the ship's energy, produce
smaller forces on the mooring structure
than stiff fenders. They are provided to be
compatible with the softer mooring lines.
Pulling a ship against a fender system by
pretensioning of mooring lines may reduce
her motion and thereby reduce the forces in
mooring lines (Brunn, 1989).
The magnitude of pretension required in
the mooring lines is not precisely defined.
Normally, a pretension to about 10% of a
line's breaking strength will remove the ini-
tial sag from a synthetic line. In practical
terms, a relatively small amount of preten-
sion on the order of about 10 tonnes is
Design Loads 265
expected to be satisfactory at berths accom-
modating large vessels. A potential "side
effect" of the pretension of mooring lines is
the creation of vertical up and down friction
forces between the ship and fender system
due to tidal variation, or changing draft of
the ship due to loading or unloading. These
forces are then transmitted to the dock and
have to be applied to the front of the dock
structure for calculation of general stability
and local strength. Naturally, fenders must
be strong enough structurally to sustain
this load.
The mooring system must be designed to
limit ship movements at berth to prevent
possible damage to the ship, mooring struc-
ture, and loading/unloading equipment.
Information on ship movement allowances
obtained from miscellaneous sources is pre-
sented in Table 3-9. An extensive research
program was carried out by the Nordic
countries to establish acceptable ·criteria of
motion of moored ships (Jensen et al., 1990).
Motion of moored ships were measured at a
number of ports for various ships being
loadedjunloaded by different gear, and
ship acceptable motions were recommended
based on interviews with ship crews and
port operators. Based on these recommen-
dations PIANC (1995) suggested somewhat
more liberal motion criteria than those
given in Table 3-9. More information on
acceptable ship motions while under load-
ing/unloading operations is found in Bruun
(1989), Bratteland (1974), Slinn (1979),
Thoresen (1988), Jensen et al. (1990), and
PIANC (1995).
Safe berth operation to a great extent
depends on mooring systems reliability.
Therefore, redundancy should be provided
as much as is practical; factors of safety on
the mooring system components typically
range from 1.5 to 2.0, depending on the
severity of environmental conditions and the
nature and consequence of a failure. It must
be noted that standard practice in the wire
rope industry is to use a factor of safety of
266 Design Loads

Table3-9. Movement allowance for ship at berth

Surge Swayb Heave Yaw Pitch Roll

Type of Ship (m) (m) (m) (degree) (degree) (degree)

Tanker 2.5a 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Ore carrier
(crane operation)d 1.5-3.0 0.5-2.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0
Grain carrier
(at elevator) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Container 0.5 0.3 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0
RojRo (side ramp)c 0.3-0.5 0.3-0.5 0.3-0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0
RojRo (bow or stern ramp) 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.0 1.0
General cargod 1.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0
LNG 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0
Fishing Vesseld ±0.15-2.0 0.15-1.0 0.4 3.0 3.0 3.0

a Can be larger at a single mooring buoy or single-point mooring systems.

b Movement away from the berth.
c Allowance movements dependent on ramp design.
d Depends on cargo handling equipment.

3-5 on maximum breaking strength when
specifying the working load.
Monitoring of the mooring lines forces to
keep them constant is the latest technologi-
cal tool used for improving operations at a
berth. This technology is basically used for
handling of large ships, particularly at loca-
tions exposed to waves, wind, and current.
The system triggers alarms when loads ex-
ceed a setup limit, which permits initiation
of necessary action, such as early line tend-
ing or use of a tug to hold the ship.
Finally, if the berth structure comprises
of more than two breasting dolphins, then
possible misalignment of dolphins (.:1)
andjor other factors (e.g., eccentric load ap-
plication) could result in an unequal load
distribution between individual dolphins.
(Fig. 3-14). To account for this, it is recom-
mended that the design load generated by a
ship against individual dolphin be in-
creased by a factor of 1.3. Additionally, if
these dolphins are of different construction,
then the total component of mooring force
normal to berthing line, Ps(p)' must be re-
distributed among the dolphins according to

-·----~~~ __£]___·_~· _K___~

<3

Figure 3-14. Berthing forces due to misalignment of dolphins: 1-ship; 2-breasting

dolphin; 3-loadingjunloading platform; 4-berthing line.
 Design Loads 267

their respective stiffnesses. Therefore, con- handled was increased from 20 kg to a few
sidering the possibility of dolphin misalign- hundred kilograms; the cargo was trans-
ment, the normal component of mooring ferred with the help of powered winches,
load exerted on an individual dolphin, Pd(p)' which enabled lifting of larger and heavier
can be given by units. In the 1950s, palletization and pres-
linging came into common use; the aim was
ps(p)
to standardize units of up to 2000 kg.
Pa<P> = 1.3 I: (EI)a (EI)i (3-29) A pallet is essentially a wooden or metal
base on which the cargo is placed. The cargo
is typically secured with different kinds of
where banding. The pallet is transported by fork-
'[,(EI)a = total stiffness of the system of breast- lift vehicles and may have provision for
ing dolphins in direction normal to the being lifted by sling. Pallets are generally
berthing line loaded to a maximum height of about
(EI)i = stiffness of the particular breasting 2.5-3.0 m and may be stacked up to about
dolphin within the system in direction 5.0m.
normal to the berthing line In the 1960s, the standardization process
took a step further through containeriza-
Essentially, if all dolphins are of the same tion and refinement of other systems for
construction, then products requiring protective containers
(e.g., liquid and bulk cargoes).
Productivity, safety, and the working en-
ps(p))
pd(p) = 1.3 ( -n- (3-30) vironment have been improved with the de-
velopment of the innovative cargo handling
methods. The present trend in industrial
where n is the number of breasting shipping is the use of the roll-onjroll-off
dolphins. (RojRo) systems, which under certain con-
For the case in question, the horizontal ditions may be several times as efficient as
component of a total mooring force Ps(h)' is conventional systems. The chief merits of a
transmitted to dolphins via mooring lines Ro jRo system is greater flexibility toward
and through friction forces between the ship various cargoes, no demand for expensive
and the fender system. port installations, and high utilization of all
port and stevedoring resources. However,
conventionallift-onjlift-off operation is very
3.4 LOADS FROM CARGO often found less costly for high-density
HANDLING AND HAULING cargo.
Naturally, developments which occurred
EQUIPMENT AND UNIFORM in ship construction and cargo handling and
DISTRIBUTED LOADS hauling technology inevitably affected de-
sign and utilization of terminal marine
structures. In modern practice, port related
3.4.1 General considerations marine structures are typically designed to
support relatively heavy loads imposed on
Historically, during the era of sailing ships, them by cargo handling and hauling equip-
vessels were loaded and unloaded manu- ment such as fixed cranes, rail-mounted and
ally. With the introduction of steamships, mobile cranes, vehicular loads, railroad
the average weight of a general cargo unit track loads, miscellaneous material hauling
268 Design Loads
equipment, and miscellaneous uniform dis-
tributed (surcharge) loads.
In some cases, particularly at dedicated
terminals, the structures are designed for
very specific loads. Depending on structure
usage, the formulation of possible design
loads is practically limitless. During the
useful life of a terminal the kind of vessels
calling at the terminal may suddenly
change, with a subsequent change in the
required quay edge cargo handling equip-
ment. Therefore, in the formulation of the
dock design loads, unless the dock is de-
signed to serve a highly specialized kind of
vessel, the designer must exercise a certain
flexibility to strike a balance between a
cost-prohibitive structure and a structure
that becomes repeatedly unusable or even
obsolete because of an inability to support
unanticipated loads. At present, various
trends can be observed with regard to the
selection of quay edge handling equipment.
For example, if traffic is sufficiently homo-
geneous, dense, substantial, and stable over
time, then highly specialized cargo han-
dling equipment is used, whereas in other
cases the port authorities prefer multipur-
pose, more versatile cargo handling equip-
ment.
The recent changes in quay edge equip-
ment are a function of a dramatic evolution
of ships. The ship specialization and their
increase in sizes conditioned the need of
quay edge cargo handling equipment. Also,
the loads to be handled in ports are getting
heavier, as the ships' beam increase. Hence,
the lifting capacity of cranes and reaches of
their booms are also modified.
The general trend concerning multipur-
pose rail-mounted and mobile cranes ob-
served in modern ports is as follows
(PIANC, 1987):
• Minimum reach of a crane boom, mea-
sured from the berthing line of 35 m
• 350 kN of lifting capacity under hook, or
280 kN under spreader
• Lifting velocity of 1-1.5 mjs
The container cranes most commonly used
feature the following characteristics:
• Minimum height between the lower part of
the spreader and quay level of 30 m.
• Minimum outreach, measured from the
face of the quay, 35 m, and back reach of
15m.
• Rail gauge between 16 and 35 m; a rail
gauge of 30.5 m is most common.
• A clearance of at ieast 16 m is provided
between the legs in order to leave room for
containers and cargo hatches.
• At least 400 kN of lifting capacity under
the heaviest spreader.
In general, container throughput averages
20 containers per hour per crane. According
to PIANC (1987) there is a tendency to
anticipate heavier containers and larger
ships, which may result in required con-
tainer crane lifting capacity under the
spreader of 500 kN and boom outreach,
measured from the face of the quay, of 40
m. These cranes will also need a larger
clearance between the legs to allow for pas-
sage of the larger containers. The required
space under the crane is determined by the
horizontal cargo handling operation, result-
ing in a certain number of traffic lanes.
Probably the latest development in ship-
ping technology is the use of specific types
of RojRo ships with stern, side, andjor
quarter ramps, the weight of which can be
quite substantial for some. Because one end
of these ramps is supported on the quay
structure, the resulting load must be con-
sidered in the design of the structure.
Ships provided with a ramp can be
moored at any location on the quay; there-
fore, the whole structure must be designed
to support the ramp loads. If operation of
Ro jRo vessels with ramps is foreseen, then
all edge bollards, and any kind of surface
rails must be located below the deck surface
level (Fig. 3-15).
The following is a guideline for typical
loads which are to be considered in the

Figure 3-15. Edge bollard installed below grade at
Ro jRo terminal.
design of a modern marine facility. It must
be understood, however, that each port is
different and, therefore, recommended gen-
eralized design loads provided herein must
be treated with caution.
(a )
(b )
Figure 3-16. Terminal design load assumptions: (a) real loads; (b) equivalent uniform
distributed load; (c) compromise between assumptions (a) and (b); (d) example of loading case
(a)- general view.
Design Loads 269
3.4.2 Design Load Assumptions
Two concepts are presently employed in the
formulation of design loads acting on ma-
rine structures; one is a "real-life" load as-
sumption which is based on the use of mis-
cellaneous loads which are falling in a line
or concentrated load category (e.g., crane,
outrigger pads, gantry, and road traffic
loads) (Fig. 3-16a); the second concept is
based on an equivalent uniform load as-
sumption (Fig. 3-16b). The equivalent uni-
form load in many cases is a convenient
simple assumption; it is easily recognized
and understood and is used in lieu of "real"
concentrated and line loads. Pallets and
containers are typically considered as uni-
form distributed loads.
(c )
(d )
270 Design Loads
In general, at cargo berths the equiva-
lent uniform load is usually assumed as
being placed within the apron area (area
between berthing line and transit sheds, or
the open storage area). It is appropriate to
note here that in current practice 20 m is
considered as the minimum acceptable
apron width for the general cargo berth;
however, a wider apron (up to 40 m) is
usually more desirable because it provides
for more flexibility in cargo handling and
hauling operations.
In some practical cases, however, use of
the equivalent uniform load concept may be
misleading. As is pointed out by Junius
(1983), in some instances the gross load
intensity of stacked pallets may only
amount to 20-25 kN jm 2 , but due to the
specific configuration of the pallet, the real
local concentrated load may be several times
as much. Therefore, depending on the rela-
tive configuration of the berth structure,
serious overstressing may occur locally even
though the design equivalent uniform load
rating of the dock is not exceeded. In prac-
tice, a compromise is recommended in the
combination of both concepts (Fig. 3-16c).
Because the quay edge area is usually
the most sensitive to closely situated con-
centrated (point) loads, all kinds of related
loads, such as rail-mounted and mobile
crane outrigger loads, and the like, must be
considered, provided that the equivalent
uniform load case is less critical than the
concentrated load(s).
It must be noted that in the design of
backfilled structures, the design concen-
trated load must be considered as dis-
tributed in all directions in relation to the
berthing line. This may significantly reduce
the effects of heavy concentrated loads on
backfilled structures.
On the other hand, this must not be
expected in the case of open-type berth
structures with conventional concrete (or
other) deck structure supported on piles.
This type of berth structure, as well as
approach trestles of similar construction,
should be designed for both a maximum
design uniform live load and a maximum
concentrated live load. The latter usually
has a very noticeable effect on the deck
slab, somewhat less pronounced effects on
the supporting beam system, and usually
insignificant effects on the foundation. This
is because each successive structural ele-
ment is affected more by the uniform load
than by the concentrated loads, the effect of
which is successively diminished.
In general, regular concentrated loads
from permanently installed and mobile
cargo handling and hauling equipment, such
as cranes of different kinds, fork lifts, strad-
dle carriers, tracks, and others, must be
accounted for in the dock structure design.
Occasional usage of special heavy lift equip-
ment such as large mobile cranes and the
like, must be carefully evaluated. Because
the load from such equipment can substan-
tially increase the cost of the structure, it
can be treated as an extreme load, there-
fore, in such cases, the structural members
designed for normal loads should be checked
for larger allowable stresses and smaller
factors of safety. In practice, loads from
seldom used heavy lifts are spread out by
different means (e.g., steel beams, mats and
others).
Gurevich (1969) reviewed available re-
search data on loads produced by 45 portal
revolving cranes, used in different combina-
tions (total 350), with railway track loads
placed under the portals of these cranes. It
has been concluded that, in most cases, por-
tal revolving cranes, in combination with a
railway load, produced an equivalent load
of about 35 kNjm 2 ; some 150-kN lift capac-
ity cranes occasionally produced an equiva-
lent load of about 40 k.Njm 2 • In general,
Gurevich recommends the use of an equiva-
lent uniform apron load equal to 40 k.Njm 2
for ports operating conventional portal
cranes in combination with other loads (e.g.,
railway track and vehicular loads); he also
recommends a uniform equivalent load of
20 kNjm 2 to be used in general cargo
 Design Loads 271

berth design if conventional mobile andjor
crawler cranes are employed for cargo
handling.
Again, it must be stressed that, in all
cases, the effect of any kind of heavy con-
centrated load on the local strength of a
quay wall, or pile-supported pier structure,
must be carefully evaluated.
3.4.3 Uniform Distributed
cargo Loads and
Miscellaneous Live Loads
A discussion on uniform distributed equiva-
lent loads (qc) and conditions ofload appli-
cation have been provided in the previous
section. Additionally, it must be said that
this kind of load is typically used within the
width of dock apron (b) only. Theoretically,
an unlimited surcharge load (q 8 ) may be
applied beyond the apron because it does
not affect strength and stability of the berth
structure. In practice, however, this load is
the surcharge load of stockpiled bulk mate-
rial. In the case of bulk material, stockpil-
ing the load diagram as depicted in Figure
3-16c should be modified to that as shown
in Figure 3-17.
Typically, palletized general cargos nor-
mally would produce a uniform load of
around 20-30 kNjm 2 , and general cargo
shipped in containers may produce a load
up to 45 kN jm 2 • General data on standard
containers are found in Table 3-10. In this
table, the basic characteristics including the
weight of internationally used containers
are given according to ISO (International
Standards Organization) Standard 104.
However, the actual weight of containers is
usually 50-75% less than the maximum
values given in Table 3-10 and, in practice,
2-high stacked and 4-high stacked contain-
ers produce respectively 20 and 30 kN jm 2
of equivalent uniform load.
2

limited by the very nature of the stored -----~

ar-----.•
cargo (e.g., liquid or bulk material, general I/ I I
II
II
cargo piled on pallets, or in containers, etc.) ~

and by the allowable bearing pressure on

the storage area foundation material. For
example, bulk materials such as sand, stone,
coal, and ore can be stockpiled to produce
surcharge loads up to 100-300 kNjm 2 . The Figure 3-17. Typical load diagram at bulk material
use of retained walls can further increase handling terminal.

Table 3-10. Characteristics of standard container

Maximum Theoretical
Value of Uniformly
Weight of Distributed Load (kNjm 2 )
Dimensions (mm) Max. Container (kN) Number of Layers
Types Length Width Height Weight Aluminum Steel 1 2 3

1A 12,190 2,435 2,435 300 230 420 10.1 20.2 30.3

1B 9,125 2,435 2,435 250 180 325 11.2 22.4 33.6
1C 6,055 2,435 2,435 200 130 230 13.6 27.2 40.8
1D 2,990 2,435 2,435 100 75 135 13.7 27.4 41.1
1E 1,965 2,435 2,435 70 14.6 29.2 43.8
1F 1,460 2,435 2,435 50 14.1 28.2 42.3
272 Design Loads
Thoresen (1988) recommends that aprons
and ramps for container traffic should be
designed for a uniform live load of at least
40 kNjm 2 • Multipurpose RojRo cargo in
modern port design is usually accounted for
30-50 kNjm 2 uniform load. Some repre-
sentative ranges of uniform distributed
loads, obtained from miscellaneous sources
and recommended for design of marine
structures, are given in Table 3-11.
Loads in transit sheds depend to a great
extent on the height to which palletized
cargo are stacked. Typically, this load may
vary between 20 and 50 kNjm 2 depending
on the type of cargo.
If there is any possibility that the cargo
may occasionally be stored in nondedicated
storage areas, then it is recommended the
same uniform distributed load be applied to
the whole terminal area, including the
apron. Such an approach will ensure safety
of terminal operation and provide for maxi-
mum flexibility in cargo handling and haul-
ing techniques.
If appreciable quantities of cargo are
likely to accumulate on the deck of rela-
tively narrow piers (20-50 m wide), then
the actual uniform load (but not more than
20 kNjm 2 ), in combination with heavy con-
centrated loads (if any), should be used in
the pier's design. Passenger piers, such as
commuter boat piers and those, accessible
Table 3-11. Uniform distributed loads used
in modern port design
Load
Passenger cars and light trucks 5
10
Cars and trucks of all kinds
General cargo 20
Paper 25-55
Forest products 70
Steel products 40-100
Coal, sand 100-200
100-300
Ore
Cement in bags 15-20
Fertilizers 15
Perishable produce and
grain in bags 15-30
to pedestrian use only, are normally de-
signed for a minimum uniform live load of 5
kNjm 2 • If piers are open to automobile
traffic, then in addition to the uniform loads
given in Table 3-11, the loads recom-
mended by the latest issues of the National
Bridge Design Codes must be taken into
account.
A uniform live load of 10-15 kNjm 2 on
the deck area is used for design of oil docks
or similar docks, which handle bulk materi-
als by conveyor or pipeline, and for which
general cargo is of secondary importance.
Liquid bulk cargos are handled by
pipelines which exert local concentrated
loads at pipe supports; bulk cargos trans-
ported by conveyers usually exert live loads
transmitted to the supporting structure
through the conveyer's frame. Saturated
weights should be considered for uncovered
bulk materials; NAVFAC (1980) covers dock
loads for navy piers and wharves; loads for
ship repair and maintenance facilities are
discussed in Mazurkiewicz (1995).
3.4.4 Rubber Tire and
crawler Track
Mounted Equipment
Contemporary vehicular hauling equipment
such as mobile cranes, forklift trucks, strad-
dle carriers, heavy trucks, and so on impose
heavy concentrated loads on a marine
structure. In fact, these loads may govern
the design of the pile-supported dock sys-
tem or apron andjor storage area pave-
ment.
Forklift trucks (Fig. 3-18) are probably
the most common cargo handling equip-
ment used in ports. Normally they have a
lifting capacity in the range 30-100 kN and
up to 420 kN, with a typical wheel load of
118 kN for 200-kN-capacity lift trucks and
215 kN for 420-kN-capacity lift trucks.
Forklift trucks typically have a turning ra-
dius in a range of about 4.0-5.0 m. Usually,
 Design Loads 273

(a )

7.7

(b )

Figure 3-18. Examples of forklift trucks.

274 Design Loads

general cargo tenninals and specialized
piers are designed for200-kN-capacity fork-
lift trucks. However, heavier trucks must
also be considered where applicable.
Typically, 3-high and 4-high stacking
straddle carriers used in container tenninal
operations (Fig. 3-19) have a lifting capac-
ity of 450 kN with a maximum correspond-
ing load per wheel equal to 170 and 160 kN,
respectively. Because forklifts, straddle car-

(a)

1 15.30

4 . 65

:-:·.·.·.·. .·.·:·:·.·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:;:~:·:·:·:·:-:
4 .10

A 9.90 A 3 high
- 4 .45 r-

stacking

3 .115

(b )

Figure 3-19. Examples of typical 3- and 4-high stacking straddle carriers.


riers, and other rubber tire mounted equip-
ment of different capacities are fitted with a
number of wheels proportional to their lift-
ing capacities, the usual maximum contact
pressure remains below 1000 kNjm 2 .
Normally, terminal facilities are de-
signed to accommodate a standard highway
load. In designing for a vehicular highway
load, it is typically assumed that a 20-t
motor truck (traffic load class H20-44 or
HS20-44) could, within reason, be placed
anywhere on the dock's deck, and load dis-
tribution assumptions should comply with
bridge construction regulations. However,
the impact coefficients normally used for
bridge design may be decreased by half,
assuming reduced speed of vehicular traffic
on the deck of the dock and access trestle
(bridge).
The vehicular load in pier design basi-
cally consists of the individual wheel, axle,
and truck loads, as given by the appropriate
specification. In the design of a pier deck,
the uniformly distributed live load rarely
govems because of the relatively short
spans of the deck structural members. The
critical wheel load on the deck elements
depends on the wheel contact area. In the
case of the deck wearing surface, the di-
rectly loaded area of the deck structure is
somewhat larger than the contact area be-
tween the tires and the deck riding surface.
This is due to the effect of the load dis-
tributing action of the wearing layer. For a
concretejasphalt wearing surface, a 45°
distribution is usually assumed. For design
Figure 3-20. Wheel load.
Design Loads 275
purposes, the loaded area usually is repre-
sented as the equivalent rectangular area
(ab), which is assumed to be uniformly
loaded (Fig. 3-20).
The standard truck load typically used in
North American bridge design practice is
shown in Figure 3-21. The average actual
dimensions of the standard North American
truck tires (corresponding to approximately
36.5-, 54.5-, and 73-kN wheel loads) and the
assumed dimensions of the rectangular
wheel-load areas at the deck surface (ap-
proximately the actual tire pattem dimen-
sions) are given in Table 3-12. In addition
to vertical loads, all moving rubber tire
mounted vehicular equipment produces lon-
gitudinal forces due to traction and braking.
To account of it, 10% of the vertical wheel
load is usually applied longitudinally. Ap-
plicable design codes such as AASHTO
(1982), CANjCSA S6-M87, or similar speci-
fications should be used as a design guide
for defining the general vehicular loads.
Mobile cranes are a common cargo han-
dling equipment in ports. They may be rub-
ber tire or crawler track mounted. Lifting
capacity of this type of equipment ranges
from 30 to 100 kN and up to 3000 kN; note
that to handle loaded containers, the crane
must have at least 400 kN lifting capacity.
Rubber tire mounted mobile cranes trans-
mit their corner loads via outriggers to the
pier deck structure or to the apron pave-
ment of backfilled dock structures. In gen-
eral, the wheels of mobile cranes are not
used to transmit loads during hoisting oper-
I a, I
c-Q
~c~
I a •I
276 Design Loads

0
i i
H20-44 36.5 kN t45.5kN
H 15-44 27.5 kN ttO.OkN

T ...
HI0-44 18.5 kN 72.5kN

·-----.-
. I

i i I
HS2G-44 36.5 kN 145.5 kN t45.5kN
HS 15-44 27.5 kN ttO.OkN uo.o kN

.
~
"i

I .. ~
....
.,a

.
o.s!
,.;l!
a

..
·--$·---¥~ 0 ~
1!
I!
a

Figure 3-21. Standard truck load. V is the variable spac-

ing, 4.3-9.2 m inclusive. Spacing to be used is one which
produces maximum stresses. For details, see relevant
bridge design code.

ations. The crane's outriggers are typically
dimensioned in a way that the bearing
pressure against the terminal pavement
amounts at a maximum of about 400
kN jm 2 . This load may be too heavy for
some older structures. In this case, the load
must be properly distributed to the deck
structure by means of mats or steel beams.
The bearing pressure ~ay also be reduced
by enlargement of outrigger bearing area.
This, however, is done at the expense of the
crane's mobility and, therefore, should be
avoided where possible.
Unless otherwise required, new general
berthing piers, or quays should be designed
to accommodate a minimum 700-kN-
capacity mobile crane (NAVFAC, 1980).
Using this minimum crane size for design,
the maximum outrigger corner load may
be on the order of 700 kN. Additionally,
 Design Loads 277

Table 3-12. Truck wheel dimensions and loaded area (mm)

Dimensions Used in Design

Nominal Top of
Wheel Wearing Top of
Loads Wheel Dimensions Surface Deck Structure
(kN) T L A s w al bl a b

36.5 178 226 40 X 10 3 290 467 508 254 559 305

54.5 201 274 55 X 10 3 325 526 508 254 559 305
73.0 254 279 71 X 10 3 412 666 610 254 660 305

Table 3-13. Mobile crane maximum loads nature of these loads. PIANC (1987) recom-
Lifting
mends that static wheel loads for mobile
Capacity Wheel Load" Outrigger Load cranes and for forklift trucks be increased
(kN) (kN) (kN) by 20% and 40%, respectively.
Crawler track mounted mobile equip-
150 at 3m 160 180
250 at 5 m 120 300 ment (mostly cranes and bulldozers) are
400 at 28m 110 1300 also used in ports. The load distribution
400 at40 m 150 2400 under the crane's tracks is typically trape-
800 at 14m 140 1680 zoidal (nearly triangular) and the bearing
• Traveling position. pressure under the tracks may peak up to
Source: From PIANC (1987). 700 kNjm 2 • Tread widths are typically
within a range of 85-140 em. Crawler track
cranes may cause horizontal forces due to mounted equipment is usually used on un-
wind, and braking due to movement or paved surfaces of port territory. Otherwise,
during rotation. As a rule of thumb, this timber mats must be used to protect the
force is usually taken as equal to about 10% pavement or concrete deck surface. Mats
of the wheel load and can be applied in any are also recommended for better load distri-
direction. Some representative values for bution where required. In addition to the
mobile crane wheel and corner loads are rated load, an impact factor of about 20% is
found in Table 3-13. Typical wheel and usually applied to account for the dynamic
outrigger arrangements for mobile cranes effect of the crane's performance.
with 250 and 450 kN capacities are de- Generally, specific data on the mobile
picted in Figure 3-22. Other types of cargo handling and hauling equipment are
rubber tire mounted equipment include obtained from the manufacturer's litera-
different types of tractors, with or without ture. However, the manufacturer's general
trailers, front-end loaders, automobiles, brochures can sometime be dangerously
Ro jRo trailers, and others. Some of the misleading in regard to deck load, warns
above vehicles may produce substantial Gaythwaite (1990), because the listed aver-
wheel loads and should be considered in the age tread pressure for crawler-type cranes
structure's design; others, such as automo- may be inadequate for deck structure de-
biles, produce relatively light loads. As it sign. Therefore, if in doubt, the designer
was pointed out earlier, piers designed to should carefully verify any specific equip-
handle Ro jRo and heavy truck traffic must ment characteristics with the manufac-
be able to withstand substantial localized turer.
loads. Regular loads, obtained from the In conclusion, it should be noted that to
equipment manufacturer's literature, must prevent mobile equipment from rolling over
be used with consideration of the dynamic the berth edge and into the water, a safety
278 Design Loads

,. 5,80

"I
_J_
I

0,90~
.I 1~·90
(a)

(b)

15.40

11.00
17.00
-·-
I 4.80

'

(c)

Figure 3-22. Examples of typical wheel and outrigger arrangements for

mobile cranes, 250 kN (a) and 450 kN (b) capacities.

curb 20-30 em high is usually installed .
along the berthing line. This curb is typi-
cally designed to take a horizontal impact
force of 15-25 kN, depending on the type of
mobile equipment used.
3.4.5 Rail-Mounted cargo
and Material Handling
Equipment
This type of equipment includes revolving
portal and container cranes of miscella-
neous capacities and construction, railroad
trains, and a variety of specialized bulk
handling equipment.
Customary general cargo handling cranes
used in port operation are basically revolv-
ing portal level-lifting cranes spanning one,
two, or three railway tracks (6-15 m be-
tween legs). Typically, portal crane capacity
varies in the range of 30-400 kN at a work-
ing radius of 20-40 m. At seaports, the
crane's front rail is typically placed at
1.75-2.25 m from the quay edge. This is
usually done in order to maintain sufficient
room for bollards, to accommodate the out-
board of a crane leg, to provide working
space for line handlers, and for access to
the berth.
In general, the distance between front
rail and quay edge should be maintained as
rr=--=---=--=.-1I I
I I
0.1
1/
1/
(a)
. Figure 3-23. Typical positioning of portal cranes in inland ports in relation to the
berthing line.
Design Loads 279
small as possible; however, care must be
taken to avoid any potential collision be-
tween the crane and a heeling ship, or the
ship's flared bow.
In inland ports, portal cranes are usually
placed closer to the face of the berth than in
seaports (Fig. 3-23). This is usually done
for the following reasons: riverboats and
barges generally do not have flared bow and
therefore cannot hit the crane during the
high water level while approaching the
dock; they also cannot hit the crane by
the stern during departure maneuvers; a
closer crane location is required to improve
ship observation by the crane operator dur-
ing loading/unloading operation under a
low water level.
Inland port cranes usually have the front
legs placed about 1.1-1.3 m from the berth's
face; this provides a minimum 0.8-m walk-
way along the structure's edge. In some
cases however, and particularly when a
crane's front legs rest on sheeting, or at
pier-type structures built on a sloped por-
tion of the quay, the walkway for the crew
and maintenance personnel is provided be-
hind the front leg of the crane. This type of
arrangement, in general, is not desirable
because of its vulnerability to ship impacts.
It may also cause the problems associated
with crane accessibility for maintenance
from the water side and difficulties with the
arrangement of mooring hardware and the
.e-1.0
\111
1
(b) (c)
280 Design Loads

placement and handling of ship mooring
lines.
The crane boom can slew through 360°.
Therefore, the maximum load per leg that
is usually attributed to maximum design
wind load imposed on the crane can occur
at each corner boom position.
Maximum portal crane wheel loads are
typically within the range 200-400 kN and
are usually obtained from the crane manu-
facturer. Some typical values of portal crane
wheel loads used in North America are de-
picted in Figure 3-24. Again, a dynamic
factor of 1.2 is typically used to account for
vertical and horizontal inertia forces that
occur during lifting or setting down of cargo.
A horizontal load of 10% of the wheel load
in the rail direction, due to crane traction or
centrifugal forces, is also considered.
The most unfavorable crane load combi-
nation on a berth structure is created by
two portal cranes operating at the closest
distance (typically 2.5 m) between adjacent
wheels. Naturally, under such conditions

EITHER RAIL

EITHER RAIL

BOOM OVER CORNER

PORTAL CRANE
CAPACITY 23 TONNES AT 27.45 m

EITHER RAIL

EITHER RAIL

BOOM OVER CORNER

PORTAL CRANE
CAPACiTY 32 TONNES AT 27.45m

EITHER RAIL

EITHER RAIL

PORTAL CRANE
CAPACITY 45.5 TONNES />T 35.1 m

Figure 3-24. Standard North American portal cranes wheel load.


two neighboring cranes cannot produce
maximum loads in adjacent legs simultane-
ously, otherwise the crane's jibs would in-
terfere with each other.
The German code EAU (1990) provides
guidelines on typical portal crane corner
loads. Useful information on rail-mounted
crane loading may also be obtained from
NAVFAC (1980).
A great variety of rail-mounted container
cranes of various configurations are now
used in ports throughout the world. Most
container cranes have lifting capacity in
excess of 400 kN. They are typically built as
full portals cranes with cantilever beams
and trollies, whose supports have, as a rule,
six or eight wheels. The crane gauge is
typically in the range 15-18 m. An example
of a typical container crane of 530 kN lifting
capacity (inclusive of spreader) commonly
in use is shown in Figure 3-25 (EAU, 1990).
These cranes are designed to handle the
typical 40-ft container as well as 2 X 20-ft
containers (so-called twin-twenty method).
The maximum corner load on a portal sup-
port of either 3000 kN or 3300 kN (see Fig.
(a)
(c)
Figure 3-25. Typical container crane of 530 kN lifting capacity.
Design Loads 281
3-25) should be increased by 10-15% due
to wind action or inertia effects.
Maximum wind forces parallel to the
craneway direction and perpendicular to it
on the order of 200-300 kN are applied to
typical working cranes, or a load of 600-750
kN applied on idle cranes must be consid-
ered. Smaller values of wind force are used
in areas with relatively moderate wind con-
ditions, and larger values in areas with
severe or special wind conditions. If cranes
with spans of more than 18 m are used,
then maximum corner load, as well as max-
imum wind force exerted on the cranes,
must be corrected accordingly. For example,
some container cranes with ali effective
span of 30 m may produce a maximum
corner load in the order of 3000-3600 kN
(EAU, 1990).
In addition, the rated capacity, impor-
tant crane features are its outreach and
backreach. These effects on crane loadings
must also be considered.
Contemporary container ships are usu-
ally built with flared bows which may sub-
stantially overhang the berth line. In order
. (:
(b)
~ ~ ~ ~
1080 1080 1080
170 1370 1370
Otslonce beTween /JUI/ers: 11.50 m
(d)
282 Design Loads
to prevent bow collision a crane is usually
place 2 m or more from the berth face.
A wide variety of specialized rail-
mounted equipment is employed in bulk
cargo handling terminals. As a rule, this
equipment is custom built to serve a certain
particular project. It includes traveling
gantry cranes (bridge cranes) with miscella-
neous grab devices, traveling bucket eleva-
tors which utilize various conveyor systems,
traveling ship loaders, and others. Their
design parameters are provided by the fab-
ricators and typically include vertical and
horizontal wheel loads due to material han-
dling, and dynamic impact and inertia. Most
often, maximum design wheel loads are
limited to the design loads on a rail section
and, similar to the crane corner loads, can
be within 350-450 kN.
In most cases, this type of equipment has
substantial windage area able to attract
significant lateral wind force, so that the
Figure 3-26. Stiff-leg crane (derrick).
dynamic response of elevated structures un-
der wind loading must also be carefully
addressed (Phang, 1977). In general, when
nonstandard equipment is employed, it is
advisable that the designer work closely
with the equipment manufacturer to prop-
erly understand the loadings and relevant
operating criteria.
3.4.6 Fixed-Base Equipment
This may include regular stiff-leg (derrick)
cranes (Fig. 3-26), stiff-leg cranes sitting on
a ring which can slew the crane through
360° (ringer crane), loaders, such as that
depicted in fixed in-place revolving cranes,
miscellaneous loading towers, liquid bulk
handling arms (Fig. 3-27), and others.
The weights of the above equipment are
typically in a range 150-500 kN, with some
up to 15,000 kN, and in special cases, even

Figure 3-27. Liquid bulk loading arms.
more. The foundation structure for this type
of equipment is designed on a basis of load
data and the operating criteria provided by
the manufacturer, along with associated
forces due to effects of environmental loads
and berthing and mooring forces as previ-
ously discussed in this chapter.
In addition to normal service loads, an
appropriate impact factor is used. Descrip-
tion of some unique installations of this
kind can be found in special publications by
ASCE, PIANC, The Dock and Harbour
Authority, and others.
3.5 SHIP IMPACT (BY M. SHIONO
AND G. TSINKER>
Ship impact force on berthing structures
can be determined by statistical, empirical,
or theoretical methods, or by physical
andjor mathematical modeling.
The statistical method is based on in-
formation obtained from prototype projects
Design Loads 283
with similar port characteristics, such as
exposure to environmental forces, mode of
operation, type of vessels, and others. How-
ever, one should realize that the data
obtained from actual measurements of
berthing energies cannot be applied auto-
matically to new port design. For example,
data based on measurements on ships ar-
riving fully loaded cannot be used for load-
ing terminals where ships will arrive in
ballast. In the first case, the current could
be a dominant factor in ship berthing en-
ergy, and in the latter, the wind load may
be more dominant than current force. It
should be noted that actual berthing-
energy measurements usually show a
significant scatter, which can only be de-
scribed statistically.
Furthermore, the statistical approach
implies that regardless of which design
value of berthing energy is chosen there is
always a risk that it can be exceeded. Also,
the more berthing operations the facility
(fender) is .exposed to, the larger this risk
becomes.
284 Design Loads
Based on field observation data and risk
analysis, Dent and Saurin (1969) suggest
the folloWing design values for tanker ter-
minals located at exposed-to-Wind and
waves locations:
1. 2.6 meter-tonnes (18.8 feet-kips) per 1000
DWT of design ship at yield stress in the
fenders
2. 1.55 meter-tonnes (11.2 feet-kips) per
1000 DWT as a normal maximum related
to approximately maximum working
stress in breasting structures and fenders
For berths located in protected harbors and
for loading terminals where vessels nor-
mally berth in ballast, five-eighths of these
values are recommended.
More details on statistical methods for
the determination of a ship berthing energy
is found in works by Balfour et al. (1980),
Piaseckyj (1977, undated in 1982), and in
PIANC (1984).
In the empirical method, the folloWing
parameters are usually taken into account:
1. Berthing frequency of the design vessel
2. Exposure conditions
3. Number and maneuverability of vessels
4. Berthing method: with or without tug
assistance
5. Berth mode of operation; loading or un-
loading.
Specific values are assigned to the parame-
ters based on judgment and experience and
are related to the cost of repair against both
downtime and the probability of exceeding
the ·fendering energy capacity.
Girgrah (1977) has concluded that
berthing energy is empirically related to
ship displacement (W1 ) and to the inverse
square root of vessel displacement as fol-
lows.
wl
E = 120 + wts (t . m) (3-31)
According to Girgrah, Eq. (3-31) may be
applied in the design of the end fenders and
isolated berthing points where the point of
contact is amidship. For interior fenders,
the value should be reduce by a factor of
0.5.
It should be mentioned that both the
statistical and empirical methods are more
often recommended for determination of im-
pact forces generated by large ships.
The theoretical (kinetic) method of
calculating the ship berthing energy is more
universal than both the statistical and em-
pirical methods and is also applicable to a
ship of any size. It tends to account for the
folloWing factors affecting dissipation of the
ship's total berthing energy:
1. Rotation of the ship
2. Elastic deformation of the berth structure
3. Compression of the fendering system
4. Displacement of water between the ship
and berth structure
Thus, in most cases, the fender system must
absorb orily a part of the ship's total kinetic
energy, which is usually referred to as the
"effective berthing energy" of a ship (E).
The effective berthing energy may be ob-
tained from
(3-32)
where
W1 = displaced weight of the vessel
W2 =hydrodynamic or added mass
Vn = component of the vessel's velocity normal
to the berth structure
g = gravitational acceleration
CE = eccentricity factor
C8 = ship andjor structure softness factor
The sum (W1 + W2 ), which is usually re-
ferred to as a ship virtual mass (W), is
typically expressed in tonnes. The approxi-
mate relationship among the ship's dis-

placement tonnage and her gross, net, and
deadweight tonnages for a variety of vessels
is given in Chapter 2.
Hydrodynamic mass, sometimes called
"added mass," is the mass of a water en-
trained by a moving vessel as the result of a
vessel's motion (Valentine, 1967). While in
motion, a ship displaces water and pushes
ahead of her a positive pressure field, ap-
parent as a raised water level. The dis-
placed water passes back along the hull.
For a ship moving sideways, much of the
returned flow moves under the keel (Fig.
3-28a), unless the underkeel clearance is
too small, in which case the flow is forced to
return around the stern and bow.
In principle, the hydrodynamic mass of a
ship moving in open water is approximately
10% of the ship's mass. It increases consid-
erably during sideways movement, such as
during the berthing process, because the
ship's mass is augmented by the large vol-
ume of water involved in the transverse
motion of the vessel toward the berth. This
volume varies with the following factors:
1. Berthing facility characteristics, such as
type of structure (open, solid wall, or
~
-
N•oal•v• wov•
Pf'OI)OQOtU '--------'
"''o• .,rMI.,
aMJ IIIOW•F"\aftl
(a)
s... ....... /"···
..-~--'-'---..--1>...m
(b)
Figure 3-28. Water movement and wave propaga-
tion during ship side-way movement. [After Ball, (1982)
and Middendorp, (1981).]
Design Loads 285
semiopen) and spring properties of the
fenders
2. Ship characteristics, such as its under-
water shape and draft, and the way she
approaches the berthing facilities (e.g.,
sideways, parallel to the pier, or straight
forward at a certain angle)
3. Berthing velocity and underkeel clear-
ance
4. Oceanographic and environmental fac-
tors, such as water depth and possible
impact of current, wind, and waves.
Some studies indicate that the added mass
of many slender structures immersed in
fluid is comparable to the mass of fluid
displaced by these structures. On this basis,
and for simplification, some authorities rec-
ommend using the value of hydrodynamic
mass W2 as equal to the weight of water
contained in a cylinder that has a diameter
equal to the vessel draft and a length equal
to the vessel length. Therefore,
(3-33)
where
D = vessel draft
L = vessel length
p = specific weight of water
According to Eq. (3-33), the added mass of
a fully loaded large tanker, or fully loaded
large cargo ship, becomes equal to 0.5-0.6
times the displacement tonnage.
Further recommendations to aid in the
calculation of the hydrodynamic or added
mass are available. The majority of these
recommendations describe the virtual mass
in terms of its relationship with ship
diplacement tonnage.
Equation (3- 34) presents another means
of determining the virtual mass:
(3- 34)
where em is the hydrodynamic mass factor.
For the determination of em, Grim (1955)
proposed Eq. (3-35), which is based on re-
286 Design Loads
sults obtained from model tests:
1.8D
em= 1.3 + -B- (3-35)
where
D = draft (in meters)
B = beam of the ship (in meters)
Saurin (1963) published a comparison on
energy absorption by fender systems using
theoretical data and data derived from full-
scale observations. The observations were
based on 70 berthings of ships varying from
16,000 to 50,000 DWT, with various under-
keel clearances. Despite the scattered re-
sults of these tests, Saurin concluded that a
value of em = 1.3 would represent a rea-
sonable average. However, the factual data
presented by Saurin suggests that to be on
the conservative side, a value of em = 1.8
should be used.
Vasco Costa (1964), on the basis of his
experiments, suggested some corrections to
Grim's formula and recommended the fol-
lowing expression for determination of mass
factor em:
2D
em= 1.0 +B- (3-36)
Ruppert (1976) suggested modification to
formulas proposed by Grim and Vasco
Costa, which lead to somewhat lower em
values. According to Ruppert, em can be
determined from the following formulation:
1.5D
em =0
. 9 +B-- (3.-37)
On the basis of model tests in five different
water depths (HjD = 1.07, 1.14, 1.90, 3.31,
and 3.81), Girandet (1966) proposed the fol-
lowing equation which links em value to
depth of water (H):
em= 1.2 + 0.12(-D-) (3-38)
H-D
Prior to 1989, the Japanese standard
MOT considered formula (3-39) to deter-
mine the hydrodynamic mass factor, appar-
ently based on a publication by Stelson et
al. (1955):
(3-39)
where
D = draught of ship
L = overall length of ship
p = specific weight of water at berth
wl = displacement of ship
According to formula (3-39) for fully loaded
large tankers and for fully loaded cargo
ships, em approaches 1.5-1.6.
Blok and Dekker (1979) remarked that
expression (3-39) is basically the added
mass following from potential theory on
sway oscillation for a beam-to-draught ratio
of 2 in infinite water depth. They also point
out that the value of em is greatly influ-
enced by fender characteristics such as
spring rate and the character of its
load/ deflection relationship.
Fenders with different stiffness charac-
teristics by as much as a 1 : 10 ratio were
used by Blok and Dekker in their tests. For
the total impulse versus change of momen-
tum for all fenders they found a value of
em = 3.8 (with little scatter). The explana-
tion for the larger hydrodynamic mass fac-
tor probably lies in the fact that when a
light vessel hits a stiff fender, she tends to
change her direction of movement very
rapidly. The resulting side movement, how-
ever, meets resistance from ambient water
as well as the momentum of ship move-
ment, which prevents the ship from chang-
ing her forward movement rapidly. This in-
evitably, results in a larger impact load
compared to that resulting from a collision
between a ship and a soft fender.
On the basis of field observations and
model studies, Ueda (1981) concluded that
the second part of Eq. (3-39) should be

increased by a factor of 2 and hence by
equal to 0.57TDLpjW1 • The latter resulted
in em values in the range 1.6-2.3. For cal-
culation of em value, Ueda proposed Eq.
(3-40) in which he introduced the. ship's
block coefficient ( eb):
(3-40)
This value of em is currently recommended
by the latest issue of Japanese Standard
MOT. It should be noted that for eb = 0.785,
the outcome of Eq. (3.40) is similar to that
obtained from Eq. (3-36) proposed by Vasco
Costa.
From field measurements conducted from
1966 to 1968 in the port of Le Havre
(France) at oil tanker berths receiving
tankers ranging from 70,000 to 130,000
DWT despite inherent inaccuracies in the
observations and calculations and in the
variation of D jH ratios, the value of em
ranged between 1.4 and 1.7, with an aver-
age close to 1.5 (PIANC, 1984).
The numerous studies conducted in
Japan (Motora, 1959; Nagasawa, 1959;
Heyashi, 1962; Fujino, 1968; Mizoguchi and
Nakanayama, 1973; Otani et al., 1974; and
others) have produced various values of em
in a range between 1.9 and 3.6.
The value of the hydrodynamic mass is
largely dependent on the berth structure
geometry. For example, an open piled struc-
ture allows water from around the ship to
move relatively unimpeded past the piles.
On the other hand, a solid-wall structure
considerably obstructs the flow, particularly
if the underkeel clearance is small. When
the ship suddenly stops upon impact with
the berthing structure, such as an open
piled structure, the flow displacement rate
drops suddenly to almost zero, causing the
water level to fall on the ship's side nearest
to the berth and rise on the other side (Fig.
3-28b). This phenomenon is a result of the
momentum of the mass of water under the
keel, which maintains an underkeel flow
when the ship is stopped, thus creating an
Design Loads 287
imbalance between the flow displacement
by the ship and the underkeel flow (Mid-
dendorp, 1981; Ball, 1982). The difference
in water level across the ship produces a
hydrodynamic force toward the berthing
structure, which is appended to the ship's
own mass to give the "virtual mass."
As it was mentioned earlier, when the
forward-moving ship collides with a stiff
fender at a certain angle, she rapidly
changes direction, which is resisted by the
ship's mass as well as by the resistance of
ambient water. A laboratory investigation
of the above mode of ship-dock collision has
demonstrated that the magnitude of hydro-
dynamic mass depends greatly on the angle
between the dock and approaching vessel;
accordingly, a smaller hydrodynamic mass
is associated with a small approach angle
(Gorunov, 1980).
Contrary to an open berthing structure,
when a ship approaches a solidwall struc-
ture, a gradual cushioning effect occurs, in-
creasing with the decreasing distance from
the structure.
In general, for a preliminary evaluation
of the value of added mass, some authori-
ties recommend considering the following
factors:
1. 1.0 for an open structure of any dimen-
sions
2. 0.8 for a semisolid-wall structure longer
than the length of the ship
3. 0.6 for a solid-wall structure longer than
the length of the ship
Similar recommendations are found in
PIANC (1984).
It should be also noted that the em value
may be affected by currents (Tyrell,
1966/1967). For large ships, unless the de-
signer has good reason to adopt other val-
ues, Permanent International Association
of Navigation Congresses (PIANC, 1984)
recommends that the value of hydrody-
namic mass (W2 ) range between 1.5W1 (for
very large underkeel clearance, say 0.5 X
288 Design Loads
draught) and 1.8W1 (for very small under-
keel clearance, say 0.1 X draught).
Depending on site conditions, fender
stiffness, and flexibility of berth structure,
em values for smaller ships can be much
greater than those for large ships. It should
be noted, however, that some earlier field
measurements of ship berthing velocity
show no correlation with vessel size (Dent
and Saurin, 1969; Svendsen, 1970).
The dock designer must always be aware
that in all cases of the ship's direct ap-
proach to the berthing structure, the value
of added mass should be determined by
exercising good judgement and by evaluat-
ing all berthing conditions previously dis-
cussed. A degree of uncertainty in the
mechanism of ship-dock interaction does
present a problem in determining the value
of the added mass, which, apparent in the
above mathematical equations, probably
cannot be solved with mathematical preci-
sion without further research. The above
speculations on a part of the hydrodynamic
mass factor, em, indicate that it has been
and still continues to be a matter of debate
among practitioners.
Despite various methods that have been
suggested to determine the value of the
added mass, most practitioners in the field
still rely heavily on past practice, good
judgment, and experience.
Approach velocity and angle are very im-
portant components to be considered in the
evaluation of a ship's berthing energy. As
seen from Eq. (3-32), the approach velocity
is an important parameter in determining
energy to be absorbed by the fender system.
The designer must always realize that the
ship's approach velocity is almost entirely
dependent on the size of a ship, mode of
approach (e.g., assisted by tugs or self-
propelled), human factors, environmental
conditions, part'iculars of the site, and the
skill of local pilots. A wrong maneuver of
the ship due to human error or a sudden
change in weather conditions can results in
a much larger approach velocity and, hence,
much larger berthing energies to be ab-
sorbed by the fender system. Therefore, the
ship's approach velocity data should not be
relied on exclusively but used as a starting
point in fender system design. A discussion
with local pilots who are going to use the
berthing facility is also recommended.
The latest technology, such as sonar sys-
tems (Fig. 3-29), provides dock and ship
operators with a means to keep the berthing
vessel under better control while docking.
Docking sonar systems assist in safe and
controlled berthing operations by providing
an accurate and highly stable measurement
of a vessel's approach speed and distance
from a berthing structure. Distance and
speed are measured at the bow and stern
independently and are instantly available
to both the pilot on board and the dock
personnel throughout the berthing opera-
tion. The data are also printed out for sub-
sequent analysis.
Docking sonar systems have been used
frequently at oil and LNG terminals which
typically receive large tankers. However,
because of the relatively high cost of this
technology it is seldom used in dry bulk and
general cargo ports. One example of sonar
system use at a bulk loading facility is
Ridley coal loading terminal, Price
Ruppert, Canada (Port Development Inter-
national, February 1985).
The proper selection of ship speed is very
important in arriving at a realistic value of
kinetic energy to be used in the design of
the fender system and subsequently the
berthing structure. As a general recommen-
dation, the following berthing velocities can
be assumed for the design of a berthing
structure.
1. For tug-assisted large ships
• very favorable conditions, 10 cmjs
• in most cases, 15 cmjs
• in very unfavorable conditions with
cross-currents and/or much wind, 25
cm/s
2. For any ship approaching the dock with
no tug assistance, 20-25 cm/s

(a)
(b )
Figure 3-29. Docking sonar system: (a) general view; (b) and (c) display board.
In the first case, the design of the terminal
is usually based on an approach angle of
10°. In all other cases, an approach angle of
10°-20° is used based on local approach and
environmental conditions, The larger ap-
proach angles are more characteristic for
inland ports, and smaller angles are most
often in seaports receiving large ships.
The likelihood of exceeding these design
berthing velocities is great; hence, caution
should be exercised in selecting ship design
approach velocities and subsequently fender
system design. For more information on
berthing velocities, the reader is referred to
PIANC (1984).
Design Loads 289
(c)
The energy to be absorbed by the dock
fender system is usually taken as equal to
one-half of the ship's kinetic energy, based
on CE = 0.5. The remaining half is assumed
to be absorbed by the ship and water due to
ship's rotation about her contact point with
the fender. This point is commonly referred
to as a "quarter point" (Fig. 3-30). For other
berthing points, the value of CE can be
obtained from Eq. (3-41) or Fig. 3-31.
(3-41)
290 Design Loads

where When the vessel is brought to rest along-

l = distance from the gravity center of a ship to side of a stiff marginal wharf structure, it is
the point of contact, measured along the face assumed that the impact energy is primar-
of the pier (Fig. 3-30) ily absorbed by the fender system only. Fur-
r = radius of gyration of a vessel's gravity center thermore, it is usually considered that the
on the horizontal plane, commonly, r = potential deflection of any type of continu-
0.25£, where L is the full length of the ship. ous berth structure cannot contribute to ab-
sorption of the energy, as the time it takes
for the structure to react is much longer
than the time over which the impact is
applied. To calculate the impact force re-
sisted by the continuous, or otherwise very
stiff, structure it is necessary to consult
load-deflection curves provided by the
fender manufacturer.
In contrast, flexible breasting structures
(e.g., flexible dolphins and similar struc-
tures) greatly contribute to the absorption
of ship berthing energy (Fig. 3-32). As men-
Figure 3-30. Berthing ship. tioned earlier in this section, rubber tires
are used often as fenders in small-craft har-
I0 bors. With varying degrees of success, they
~0.8
~~ are also used to absorb berthing energy
from larger ships up to 3000-5000 DWT.
•.
~
i or, ~ Load-deflection curves for used tires, or
""-....
Jo.• -...__r---
~
............. other fender systems which include used
tires (e.g., tires filled with a closed-cell foam
01
(Tsinker, 1986), big tires stuffed with
0 IL O.lL II• L O.JL O.•L O.SL
smaller ones, and others), can be obtained
D«tbl"' point'ohhr wnKI (A) experimentally.
Figure 3-31. Eccentricity factor versus vessel As reported by Hendrick (1980), used
berthing point. rubber tires and particularly those of large

.."'
... Pile t Fender
"'
Pile ~ """'
Sea bed
Deflection
(a) (b )

Figure 3-32. Energy absorption by combination of flexible dolphin and fender: (a) flexible
dolphin/fender system; (b) system reaction versus deflection.

diameter, can absorb substantial amounts
of energy, especially when assembled in
groups of three and more tires. On the basis
of rather comprehensive tests that have
been carried out at the Building Research
Structures Laboratory of the Canadian
National Research Council, Hendrick has
arrived at the following basic conclusions:
1. The condition of the tire greatly influ-
ences the ultimate load on it; factors to be
considered are wear, amount of tread re-
maining, whether or not the tire has been
retreaded, cuts (size and location) and
bruises.
2. The tire construction and type or tread
design may influence the energy absorb-
tion capacity and the resulting reaction
force.
Performance of used tires as a fender can
be enhanced greatly by filling them with a
closed-cell resilient foam (Tsinker, 1986).
In experimental work, the F = f(dr)
curve is obtained first. Here F is the force
applied to the fender and d f is the corre-
sponding fender deflection (Fig. 3-33). The
area between curve F = f( d f) and the axis
dr represents the work (energy) done by the
fender. Hence, the curve E = f(d,), which
is an integral curve in the relationship to
the curve F = f(d,), can be plotted by inte-
grating the appropriate areas.
The design berthing energy of a ship is
used for selection of a desired energy ab-
sorbtion (fender) system and ultimately for
Figure 3-33. Typical energy versus deflection dia-
gram obtained from fender test.
Design Loads 291
determination of the ship impact load that
will act on a marine structure. Practically,
it is done by consulting the reaction
force I energy absorbtion in fender deflection
curves, given in the fender manufacturer's
catalog. Normally, these curves are ob-
tained from the fender load tests that are
carried out in accordance with recommen-
dations established by PIANC (1984). Ac-
cording to these recommendations, in order
to obtain the aforementioned curves, the
fenders are tested at relatively low com-
pression speeds. This, according to
Kiedaisch (1995), results in the unneces-
sary redundancy ("reserve of energy absorb-
tion capacity") and therefore in fender
overdesign. By the time this book is pub-
lished at least one fender manufacturer is
using the so-called "velocity correction fac-
tor" to account for a ship actual berthing
velocity. This resulted in smaller more eco-
nomical fender units recommended by this
manufacturer for dock fendering. Padron
(1994) disagrees with this practice. He ar-
gues that the velocity correction factor, as
currently applied, is based on the assump-
tion that the fender unit is compressed at a
constant velocity throughout the impact cy-
cle, while in practice this velocity varies
from the initial impact velocity to zero as
the vessel comes to a stop. In the process
the fender unit deflects at a continuously
decreasing rate. Padron pointed out that
use of the velocity correction factor does
have validity with respect to the maximum
reaction force that the fender unit imposes
on the structure because it is important to
the designer to be fully aware of the peak
reaction force for which the structure must
be designed. Padron further suggests that
normally the velocity correction factor
should be applied when considering the
magnitude of the reaction force that the
fender unit can be expected to exert on
the structure, and not applied to fender
energy absorbtion capacity because, as
presently used, the velocity correction fac-
292 Design Loads
tor tends to overstate the fender energy
absorbtion capacity. More recent investiga-
tion carried out by Hayama and Sakuraoka
(1996) basically supported the opinion ex-
pressed by Padron.
Certainly, more research is needed to es-
tablish the effect of ship berthing velocity
on fender performance. This is particularly
important for performance of relatively stiff
buckling-type fender units. This also ap-
plies to magnitude of the other correction
factors that should be used to account for
effects of fender aging, temperature, repeti-
tive compression, etc. All this is on PIANC
agenda for years to come (PIANC, 1995b).
As pointed out earlier, the approach veloc-
ity and angle are the most important pa-
rameters that affect the berthing energy
and ultimately the ship impact load on a
structure.
Unfortunately, in real life the actual ves-
sel approach velocity, due to variety of rea-
sons, sometimes exceeds the design values.
This results in damage to fender units, dock
structure, and sometimes to a ship. This is
why in this writers' opinion the dock fender
system should have a sufficient redundancy
and in most practical cases should not be
designed with mathematical precision. The
designer must be aware that the cost ofthe
dock fender system in most practical appli-
cations contributes approximately 3-5% or
less of the total cost of the dock. Hence, an
insignificant reduction in the cost of the
fender system will practically not affect the
total cost of the project; however, it may
significantly affect safety of dock operation.
Finally, it should be noted that in a
structure-fender-ship system a portion of
the kinetic energy is absorbed by a ship's
hull elastic deformation. As plastic defor-
mations of a ship's hull are unacceptable
and elastic deformations are very small
compared with those of fenders, the amount
of energy absorbed by a ship is negligible
and is usually ignored (softness coefficient
C8 = 1.0).
Physical scale models are sometimes
used to determine and study the ship-
structure interaction phenomenon. How-
ever, data obtained from scale modeling
usually suffer from the scale and viscosity
effects and, therefore, require experienced
interpretation. In practice, scale modeling,
and small-scale modeling in particular, can
be interpreted as qualitative only and
should not be used quantitatively in the
practical design, unless the proper compari-
son with prototype conditions is available.
The mathematical modeling approach
to the ship berthing phenomenon is still
under development, and comparison with
full-scale berthings are still scarce. Some
information on the subject matter is found
in Van Oortmerssen (1974), Fontijn (1980),
and Middendorp (1981). Mathematical mod-
eling, which potentially can provide better
theoretical insight into the mechanisms of
ship-fender-structure interactions with
consideration of such parameters as added
mass, underkeel clearance, stiffness offend-
ers, approach angle, and others, undoubt-
edly will be developed to the degree neces-
sary to enable it to be used in practical
applications.
Fontijn (1987) has developed the Impulse
Response Function (IRF) method to de-
. scribe the ship-berth interaction phe-
nomenon. In the model developed by
Fontijn, the ship is treated as a rigid pris-
matic body moving in surge, sway, and yaw
through still water of uniform depth (i.e., no
waves or currents). Headland (1992a and b)
compared both the kinetic energy and IRF
methods will full-scale measurements, re-
ported by Lee (1965, 1966). The comparison
indicated that both methods gave nearly
identical results. Furthermore, both meth-
ods were partially verified by Lee's full-scale
measurements. A complete verification
could not be found due to inconsistency
(according to Headland) in Lee's data.
At present, the kinetic energy approach
with many refinements as discussed in this
section is still considered as the most prac-
tical method of determining the amount of
kinetic energy to be absorbed by a fender
system. However, again, a sound judgment

always must be exercised by the designer
during selection of design parameters to be
used in calculations.
PIANC (1984) recommends that the sta-
tistical method be restricted to new fender
system designs on berthing structures at
sites where measurements have been taken
until sufficient measurements are accumu-
lated from a number of locations. PIANC
(1984) also recommends that both kinetic
energy and statistical approaches be consid-
ered as complementary.
3.6 ICE LOADS
3.6.1 General
The ice load depends on port geographical
locations, harbor and waterway geometry
and protection, ice control and ice manage-
ment in berth areas, and geometry of the
dock structure.
The motion of ice against the structure
could lead to the generation of substantial
forces which could be of a global or local
nature. The global ice loads in some cases
may control general stability of the struc-
ture; the local loads may determine the re-
quired strength of some structural compo-
nents. Naturally, the ice generated loads
depend on ice mechanical properties (e.g.,
crushing and flexural strengths and shear
resistance) and the driving forces such as
wind, tides, currents, and waves. If the
driving forces are sufficiently high, the
structure may be fully enveloped in the ice
feature (i.e., ice floe). In this case, the inter-
face area between the ice feature and the
structure is at its maximum and, subse-
quently, the ice load exerted on the struc-
ture reaches its maximum value. On the
other hand, the ice-structure interaction
may end at an earlier stage if the driving
forces are insufficient to overcome forces
exerted by the structure on the ice feature.
In the latter case, the contact width does
Design Loads 293
not reach its maximum value and the ice
floe may be stopped or change direction of
motion without exerting a maximum load
on the structure.
The applicability of either of the afore-
mentioned conditions depends on the
ice-structure interaction scenario and the
magnitude of the driving forces in compari-
son with the potential local forces between
the ice and the structure. Examples of the
above conditions may be the movement of
the first-year ice sheet against the struc-
ture, or the interaction between structure
and a large ice feature such as multiyear
floe, ice ridge, or similar.
In the former case, the ice sheet is usu-
ally large enough so that the structure can
be fully embedded in the ice, and the ice
load can be calculated from the local loads
along the length (width) of the structure. In
the latter case, if the driving forces are
relatively small in comparison with the po-
tential local forces, the maximum ice force
may not be reached. This would mean that
the use of potential ice forces rather than
those that practically could be reached could
lead to the overestimation of the loads.
The ice loads also depend on the defor-
mation behavior of ice (e.g., bending, buck-
ling, .compression, shear), which, in turn,
depends on the geometry of the structure
(e.g., vertical or sloping). Vertical structures
would typically include narrow vertical
structures such as column (pile) supported
platforms, as well as solid vertical walls.
Sloping structures are those with sloping
sides, intended to fail ice in bending.
Ice sheets, or ice floes, are common ice
features to be considered in port marine
structures engineering. When engaged with
a structure, they can crash or creep
in the indentation mode, buckle, or fail in
bending.
Ice movement against a vertical struc-
ture is one of the most common ice-
structure interaction scenarios in marine
engineering. On the basis of field observa-
tions and test results, Sodhi and Nevel
294 Design Loads

(1980) concluded that for ice sheets collided force (Tc) acting on a floating ice sheet:
with vertical structure, the occurrence of a
crushing or buckling mode of failure de- (3.43)
pends on the aspect ratio D jt, where D is
the width of the structure and t is the
where
thickness of the ice sheet. Buckling was
observed to occur for higher aspect ratios Yw = density of water
(generally greater than 6), whereas a crash- V0 = current velocity under the ice feature
ing failure is characteristic for aspect ratio H 0 = depth of water under the ice undersize
smaller than 6.
For comprehensive treatment, the sub- 2/3
ject of ice physical properties and the modes n = [ nP; n~-5 ] (3-44)
of ice-structure interaction, the reader is
referred to Tsinker (1995).
In Eq. (3-43) and (3-44), n 1 and n 2 are
Manning's roughness coefficients respec-
tively for interface between the water and
3.6.2 Environmental the ice sheet, and the water and the bottom.
Driving Forces They very considerably. For example,
0.005 < n 1 < 0.04 is used, depending on the
Ice motion in rivers and natural harbors conditions of ice formation and accumula-
which is associated with spring breakup tion. More details on the values of n 1 is
begins with local melting and weakening of found in Michel (1971). Extensive discus-
the ice cover. The following massive ice sion on the values of the bottom roughness
movement is typical in many rivers and coefficient n 2 is given in Van Te Chow
large sea harbors. (1959). Note that in Eq. (3-43) and (3-44),
Ice motion in large bodies of water (e.g., SI units are used.
natural harbors or lakes) is caused mainly According to Tryde (1989), the current
by wind friction. The air friction force ex- shear on the underside of the ice sheet can
erted on an ice cover (Tw) can be calculated be expressed as follows:
as follows: (3-45)

(3-42)
where
p = the air density; p = 1.34 kgjm 3 at -10°C.
C = the drag coefficient at the 10-m level. An
average value of C = 0.0022 for a rough ice
cover could be used (Croasdale, 1980). Ac-
cording to Tryde (1989), C = 0.006.
Vw = the wind speed at the 10-m level.
A = the fetch area.
In rivers and navigational channels, water
friction forces are the principal causes of ice
motion. Michel (1971) developed the follow-
ing equation to determine the water friction
where
Pw = density of water
Vwt = velocity 1 m below the underside of the ice
sheet
The maximum value of environmental driv-
ing forces is reached when wind- and
current-driven forces coincide. In real de-
signs, the environmental external forces on
the ice floe depend on many factors, such as
ice accumulation, shape and curvature of
the river or navigational channel, geotech-
nical characteristics of the riverbanks, and
other objects restricting ice movement. More
information on this very special subject is
given in Michel (1971), Eranty and Lee

(1981), Fenco Engineers (1984), and in more
recent work by Wake et al. (1987).
3.6.3 Ice-crushing Load
By definition, the ice-crushing process is
the complete failure of granularization of
the solid ice sheet into particles of grain or
crystal dimensions; no cracking, flaking, or
any other failure mode occurs during pure
crushing. The immediate clearing of the
broken ice by extrusion along the structure
wall or indentor face follows the failure.
When the ice is sufficiently thick, crush-
ing is one of the most common modes of
failure, particularly for ice interacting with
narrow vertical structures. Kry (1980) noted
that the ice-crushing mode of interaction
follows the indentation problem. where a
triaxial state of stress develops in the ice
due to the confinement effect of the ice
sheet in the ice-structure interaction area.
As summarized by Blauchet et al. (1989),
an observation of indentation tests shows
the following:
• First, microcracks are formed in the vicin-
ity of the indentor.
• Immediately in front of the indentor, ice
then separates into fine grains of dimen-
sions less than 1% of the indentor width.
• The failed ice is ejected out of the contact
zone and accumulates in front or on the
sides of the indentor.
• The actual tests, measured periods of
crashing loads decrease from 1 s to 0.06 s
with the increase in penetration rate from
0.01 mjs to 0.21 mjs.
• The size of the ice pieces decreases with
the increase in the penetration rate but
does not very with the aspect ratio.
• The recurrence period of crushing varies
from 0.02 s to 1 s.
On the premise that ice failure due to frac-
ture does not occur, the load exerted by the
ice sheet due to crushing mode of failure
Design Loads 295
(F) is expressed as
Fe= pDh (3-46)
where
p = effective ice stress
D = width of indentor
h = ice thickness
Both empirical and theoretical methods are
used to determine value of p for the partic-
ular ice-structure interaction conditions.
In empirical methods, the effective ice
pressure is usually related to the ice uniax-
ial compressive strengths by the introduc-
tion of a number of coefficients to account
for contact conditions, indentation, and
shape of the structure.
Korzhavin (1962) proposed the empirical
relationship (3-47) for p which, according
to Neill (1976), is valid for strain rates of
10- 3 -10- 4 s- 1 and gives values of the
effective pressure in the range of 0.9uc <
p < l.6uc.
(3-47)
where
I = indentation coefficient which accounts for
the confining (scale) effects on ice compres-
sive strength.
fc = contact coefficient which accounts for nonsi-
multaneous contact between the indentor
and the ice feature. Essentially, for perfect
contact, fc = 1.0. Generally, fc is taken as
0.4 < fc < 0.7.
m = shape factor which takes into account shape
of the indentor. It is usually taken as equal
to 1.0 for flat and 0.9 for circular and semi-
circular indentors, and 0.85(sin a) 0 ·5 for in-
dentors with wedge angles of 2 a between
60° and 120°.
uc = uniaxial unconfined compressive strength
of ice.
I is a dimensionless number and is the
ratio of the observed failure pressure to the
measured unconfined compressive strength
for the same ice sample (e.g., for a sample
the same crystal size, temperature, brine
content or salinity, etc.). There are several
296 Design Loads
Table 3-14. Values of contact coefficient fc
Velocity of Ice Flow
Width of Movement (mjs)
Indentor (m) 0.5 1.0
3-5 0.7 0.6 0.5
6-8 0.6 0.5 0.4
Source: After Korzhavin (1962).
different ways to calculate the value of I:
• Assur (1975) recommended that I be de-
termined as equal to I= 1 + 2CI-D/h),
which gives a value of I = 3 at D jh = 0.
• As the indentor size increases, the nature
of the stress field in the ice more closely
matches that of plane stress, and the ef-
fective contact crushing stress is reduced
(Ralston, 1977).
• An alternative approach is found in Kry
(1978) and Iyer (1983).
• To some extent, settling of fc to less
than 1 accounts for the brittle nature of
the ice and its nonsimultaneous failure.
Korzhavin (1962) recommends the values
of fc depending on the velocity of ice move-
ment as shown in Table 3-14.
• Michel and Toussaint (1977) suggested
that Korzhavin's formula should be modi-
fied to account for strain rate.
• Croasdale et al. (1977) applied the theory
of plasticity to the solution of the indenta-
tion problem. The latter authors suggest
that the value of the effective stress can be
determined by
(3-48)
where I is the indentation factor which
can be determined from upper- and lower-
bound solutions.
Expression (3-48) assumes perfect contact
between the structure and the indentor. As-
suming a flat indentor, the problem reduces
to the classical Prandtl indentor, for which
I= 2.57. For homogeneous and isotropic ice,
provided that Dis much larger than h, the
lower-bound solution equals 1.0. Between
these limits, the problem is three dimen-
sional, where I depends on the aspect ratio
D jh as follows:
Rough contact:
2.0
0.35
I= 1.45 + Djh ~ 2.57 (3-49)
Smooth contact:
0.37
I= 1.15 + Djh (3-50)
A number of other theoretical solutions have
been proposed. These are summarized in
Tsinker (1995).
It must be pointed out that results of
relatively recent field experiments reported
by Danielewicz and Blanchet (1987) and
Johnson and Benoit (1987) suggested that
the real ice loads can be significantly lower
than those measured at smaller scale or
predicted by presently used theoretical
models.
The ice crushing failure at a wide verti-
cal structure (D jh ~ 5) is somewhat dif-
ferent from crushing against narrow verti-
cal indentor. At wide structure because of
rugged surface of the ice sheet the failure of
the ice sheet edge does not take place si-
multaneously along its entire length but
only at a few placed along the edge.
The latter results in dramatic decrease
in a global ice pressure upon structure.
Bercha (1986) provides the most recent re-
view of the state of the art on the effect of
the structure size on ice pressure. A com-
prehensive discussion on mechanism of the
wide structure-ice interaction is given in
Fenco Engineers (1984).
It should be noted that, at present, the
use of empirical data has become the norm
when it is desired to estimate ice loads on
wide vertical-sided structures. Af3 a rule of
thumb, Bercha (1986) recommends compu-
tation of the first-year ice sheet load on a
wide structure by multiplying ice contact

area (Dh) by 1.75 MPa. In the latter case,
D is the width of a structure if it is smaller
than the ice sheet; on the other hand, it
may be considered as the effective length of
the ice in contact with a structure in case
an ice sheet is smaller than structure.
Ice-crushing load is basically characteris-
tic for the vertical face structure-ice inter-
action. However, this kind of load can also
exist under conditions where ice sheets in-
teract with an inclined structure with an-
gles to the horizontal of greater than 75°
(Michel, 1978). For structures with inclined
surfaces, the vertical component of an ice-
crushing load should be considered.
Marcellus et al. (1987) and Timco (1987)
discuss ice sheet interaction with multi-
legged structures (e.g., piled piers, offshore
platforms, etc.). For more information, con-
sult Tsinker (1995).
3.6.4 Loads Due to Ice Bending
Mode of Failure
These loads are characteristic for the slop-
ing or cone-shaped structures which tend to
induce bending failure in ice sheet. The
resulting ice load is substantially lower as
compared to the case where the ice sheet
fails in the crushing mode. For example,
PIANC (1984) suggested that when the wall
is sloped greater than 25° from the vertical,
the resulting ice load is reduced by a factor
up to 4 in comparison with the vertical wall.
Actually, two basic loading conditions can
result in ice bending failure. The first one
may occur due to ice compressive loading in
combination with ice sheet natural asym-
metry and eccentricity of the load which
results in tensile stresses in ice sheet. The
second process occurs when a vertical load
is applied to the edge of an ice sheet as a
result of riding up (or down) the side of a
sloping (conical) structure. The low tensile
strength and limited ductility of ice result
in the formation of cracks, which break the
Design Loads 297
sheet into blocks typically four to five thick-
nesses in diameter (Blanchet et al., 1989).
As an ice sheet approaches a sloping
structure, at initial contact it begins to
crush at the interface (on the underside of
the ice sheet for an upward breaking slope).
The resulting interaction force, acting nor-
mal to the face of the structure, has a verti-
cal and a horizontal component. There will
also be a frictional force along the slope.
The vertical and frictional components pro-
duce bending in the ice sheet and the ice
will fail in bending when these components
are increased to a certain critical level. Once
the ice sheet has failed, the smaller pieces
of ice are pushed by the advancing ice sheet
and begin to ride up the face of the struc-
ture. This causes a larger interaction force
to be generated, because additional force is
required to push the broken pieces of ice up
the structure.
On a wide structure, the ice may get
turned back on itself, creating additional
ice on the slope of the structure, which may
lead to the creation of an ice rubble in front
of the structure. The latter, in turn,
may inhibit simple bending failure of the
advancing ice sheet against the sloped
structure.
Croasdale (1980) presented a two-
dimensional analysis model of ice interac-
tion with a sloping structure in which the
horizontal H and vertical V compc>nents of
the normal load N are determined as
follows:
(3-51)
H=Nsina+fNcosa
and
V = N cos a - fN sin a (3-52)
where f is the friction coefficient and a is
the slope angle with the horizontal.
When the moment capacity of the ice
sheet is related to corresponding vertical
force required to initiate failure, the hori-
zontal force per unit width of the structure
298 Design Loads
is computed by
H ( Pwghs ) 0 ·25
D = 0.68ur - E - C
where
D =width of the structure
ur = ice bending strength
Pwg = weight density of water
h = ice thickness
E = elastic modulus of ice
C = coefficient which relates H and V with
respect to a; that is, H = VC, where C =
(sin a+ {cos a)j(cos a- {sin a)
Once the ice has failed, the broken pieces
start to ride up the face of the structure and
an additional force is experienced by the
structure; the latter is computed from
where
cl = o.6BC
C2 = C(sin a+ {cos a)+
(sin a+ fcos a)jtan a
z = the maximum ride-up height
Pig = the weight density of ice
As follows from the two-dimensional model
of the ice forces acting on the sloping struc-
ture, the effect of friction and slope angle
becomes significant above and angle of 45°.
[Some examples are provided by Marcellus
et al. (1987).] The ice strength affects the
icebreaking component but not the ride-up
component, and in two-dimensional elastic
analysis, the ride-up force in a typical inter-
action is larger than the breaking force.
Ice thickness is the most significant
parameter affecting ice loads on sloping
structures. As follows from Eq. (3-54), in
two-dimensional analysis the icebreaking
component is proportional to about h 5 and
the ride-up force is proportional to ice thick-
ness. More information on the numerical
(3-53) estimation of ice forces acting on inclined
structure is given in Lindstrom (1990).
For inclined narrow or conical structures,
the failure zone typically extends around
the structure, and usually not all broken
pieces of ice are riding up the slope. Typi-
cally, they clear around the structure. For
specific information on ice-conical struc-
ture interaction the interested reader is re-
ferred to Edwards and Croasdale (1976),
Manas'ev et al. (1971), Ralston (1979),
Frederking (1980), Nevel (1972), Morrison
et al. (1988), and Wessels and Kato (1989).
Very little experimental data exists on
downward ice breaking structures. Some
preliminary data were reported by Abdel-
nour (1981). His experiments indicated re-
ductions in forces by a factor of about 2,
compared with upward breaking. Results of
model tests on a downward icebreaking cone
carried out in an ice tank are reported by
Lau and Williams (1991). Effects of some
parameters, for example, ice thickness, ap-
proach speed, and cone waterplane diame-
ter, on ice load are discussed.
Most recently, Nixon et al. (1993) pub-
lished results of a total 57 tests carried out
on a model of a cable-moored floating plat-
form with inverted conical geometry. The
basic findings from this study were that the
forces on the structure increased monotoni-
cally with ice layer thickness, that reso-
nance effects and the process of ice collar
formation around the platform complicated
the variation of forces with ice speed such
that a clear trend of platform reaction
(mooring) forces with ice speed is not read-
ily apparent and that stiffness of moorings
has a marked effect on a platform resisting
forces.
When considering the appropriate value
to use for ice flexural strength in ice loading
equations, it is necessary to recognize that
ice flexural strength can vary as a function

of the following:
• Salinity and temperature distribution
• Strain rate
• Crystal structure
• The size of the ice beam (or thickness of
the ice sheet)
Whether the same flexural strength should
be used for upward breaking and downward
breaking will depend on the salinity and
temperature profiles through the ice. In this
context, it is also necessary to recognize
that moment capacity is perhaps more rele-
vant than flexural strength, as the position
of the neutral axis within the ice will also
vary with salinity and temperature profiles.
The issue to size effects in flexural fail-
ure is important because in most real situa-
tions involving ice features they are much
larger and have been tested in the measure-
ment of flexural strength. It is not clear,
however, whether a size effect exists in
flexural failure. The ice flexural strength
values discussed in the literature show a
range from nearly zero to about 3.5 MPa,
but it is clear that the high values have
been obtained from small-scale tests. This
trend is confirmed by Marcellus et al. (1987),
who indicated that for large beams a flexu-
ral strength value of 0.7 MPa or less would
be appropriate. The results also show that
multiyear sea ice appears to be weaker than
low-salinity columnar sea ice. The appropri-
ate value of flexural strength to use in ice
load calculations for typical multiyear ice
features, with cross sections 10-500 times
Table 3-15. Values of factor I in Eq. (3-55)
Failure
Zone
Angle 8 40° 50°
75° 1.524 1.672
goo 1.612 1.760
g5o 1.700 I.g4g
goo 1.7g7 1.936
Source: From Cammaert et a!. (1986).
Design Loads 299
greater than the largest tests to date, is
still an issue for speculation.
For a comprehensive review on the state
of the art on ice sheet-conical structure
interaction, the reader is referred to
Marcellus et al. (1987). Some additional
information on the subject is found in
Izumiyama et al. (1991).
3.6.5 Forces Due to Ice Sheet
Adfreeze to the
structure
The adfreeze forces may arise if an ice sheet
has developed a bond with the structure
during a period of no ice movement, which
is characteristic for the nearshore arctic en-
vironment and inland waterways where the
ice surrounding a structure can remain sta-
tionary long enough to freeze to the struc-
ture. There, the vertical motions of the ice
due to tidal action or water-level fluctuation
can be so small that an adfreeze bond can
be developed between the ice sheet and the
structure. Once the ice sheet starts to move
again, sliding motion between ice and a
structure first requires breaking the ad-
freeze bond. In the process, ice adhering to
marine structures may cause substantial
horizontal andjor vertical forces on these
structures. According to Cammaert et al.
(1986), the load required to fail an adfreeze
bond on ~ conical structure can be much
larger than the load associated with bend-
ing failure.
Cone Angle
60° 70° goo
l.g92 2.240 2_ggg
1.9g1 2.329 2.9g7
2.069 2.417 3.066
2.157 2.505 3.152
300 Design Loads

As suggested by Cammaert et al. (1986), With epoxy coated steel, the strength was
the load required to break the bond be- 0.13 MPa.
tween the ice sheet and a conical structure Alliston (1985) reported results of com-
over an angle 2 8 can be obtained from prehensive laboratory tests of low friction
and adfreeze coatings to reduce frictional
CaCsDhTai resistance and adfreeze.
Ha=--.-- (3-55)
Sin a As stated earlier, ice adhering to the ma-
rine structure may cause substantial verti-
where cal uplift or downgrade load. For example,
ca =adfreeze factor to account for incomplete on large linear structures, the uplift load
bonding: ca = 0.3 to 1.0 may range from 15 to 30 kN jm around the
Cs = stress factor to account for nonuniform periphery. Downward loads will result when
stress distributions: Cs = 0. 7 to 1.0 water levels fall. Hanging ice may span
D = structure diameter at the water level distances of 5-10 m between vertical
a = cone angle to the horizontal supports.
I= elliptic integral which varies with a and 0, An upper limit to these loads is provided
the failure zone angle; representative val- by the adhesion bond between the ice and
ues of I in Table 3-15. the structural material, shear strength of
ice, or the bending strength of ice sheet.
Other models to consider the effects of The limit force of two former conditions is
adfreeze forces on ice horizontal forces on calculated from
marine structures have been proposed by
Croasdale (1980) and Gershunov (1985). It
(3-56)
should be noted that all three recommenda-
tions produce substantially different force
values. where
With regard to the adfreeze shear T = ice adfreeze (shear) strength
strength, there have been several studies S = adfreeze (shear) area
performed, usually, on a very small scale
and at high strain rates. The range of val-
ues obtained from these studies is quite
wide. For example, Sackinger and Sackinger 3.6.6 Vertical Loads on Piles or
(1977) measured about 0.5 MPa with sea ice Piers Due to Changes in
and uncoated steel at - 15°C. At higher water Level
temperatures, the adfreeze strength was
somewhat less. As water-level changes through, for exam-
Saeki et al. (1981) measured adhesion ple, tidal action or seasonal fluctuation, the
strengths for steel, concrete, painted steel, ice sheet adhering to a pile or pier can
and corroded steel for sea ice at - 2.0°C. deflect and exert a vertical force on it. The
Typical values for clean steel were in the problem of computing vertical forces on piles
range 0.1-0.3 MPa, for painted steel much is usually solved using the theory of a
lower, and for corroded steel in the range of floating elastic ice plate subjected to static
0,4-0.56 MPa. loads with the following governing differ-
Oksanen (1983) performed adhesion ential equation (Kerr, 1976, 1978, 1986;
strength tests with fresh ice on a variety of Gold, 1984):
materials at temperatures of - 5°C, - 10°C,
and - 15°C. For uncoated steel he meas-
ured 0.46 MPa at all temperatures. (3-57)

where
Di = flexural rigidity of the ice plate: Di =
Eh 3 /12(1 - v 2 ), where E is Young's modu-
lus, h is the ice cover thickness, and v is
the average Poisson ratio across the ice
cover thickness.
V4 = biharmonic. operator
b. = vertical deflection of point at the plate ref-
erence plane
k = specific weight of water (k = Pwg)
q = vertical load distribution
Equation (3-57) may be valid even when E
varies across the thickness of the ice cover,
provided that flexural stiffness of the ice
plate is determined from
Di = 1/(1- v 2 ) r-z
zo
0 z 2E(z) dz (3-58)
where z 0 is the coordinate of the ice plate
reference plane which is determined from
the condition
Solutions for a variety of ice cover problems
that are based on Eq. (3-58) were reviewed
by Kerr (1976).
Most recently Sodhi (1995) proposed a
theoretical formulation for determining the
breakthrough load using plastic limit anal-
ysis. This load is obtained by equating the
rate of work done by the load to the rate of
energy dissipation during compression of
ice caused by radial and circumferential
wedging of ice during deformation.
A comprehensive review of experimental
studies of uplifting forces exerted by ad-
frozen ice on marine piles is given in work
by Christensen and Zabilansky (1985) and
Sodhi (1995).
In general terms, depending on ice sheet
thickness and ambient temperature, water-
level fluctuations may produce uplift and
downdrag forces on dolphins, single piles or
a small group of piles, and uplift loads from
Design Loads 301
intact ice sheets ranging from 100 to 400
kN. In practice, these loads can be mini-
mized by reducing ice adhesion values to
piles. This can be achieved by using low-
friction materials and miscellaneous spray-
on coatings, jackets, and wrappings around
piers and piles. Additionally, bubbler sys-
tems can be used to protect the piers and
piles from ice adhesion.
3.6.7 Ice Load of Thermal
Origin
When an ice cover is subjected to a temper-
ature increase, it will expand. This will re-
sult in forces exerted on the surroundings,
which may include miscellaneous marine
structures such as piles piers and gravity-
type vertical walls. The magnitude of these
forces will depend on a number of parame-
ters, such as the following:
• Temperature variation as a function of
time
• Material properties of the ice cover
• Ice thickness, presence of cracks, and other
irregularities and geometry of the ice cover
• Restrictions to expansion along the bound-
aries of the ice cover
A number of theories on ice thermal load-
ings have been suggested and several labo-
ratory experiments and full-scale observa-
tions have been conducted to verify these
theories. A comprehensive review of the
state of the art on thermal ice forces is
given in work by Kjeldgaard and Carstens
(1980). The latter investigators concluded
that in spite of the considerable amount of
experimental work conducted in laborato-
ries, there is a great deal of divergencies
concerning the difficult question of which
stress-strain relationships should be con-
sidered appropriate as the basis for the
method of computation of thermal ice forces.
The first approximation of thermal ice
loads at different locations and climatic
302 Design Loads
zones traditionally done on the basis of
available empirical values. For example, in
contemporary Canadian practice, empirical
values of ice loads of thermal origin for
rigid structures such as dams or gravity-
type marine structures vary from 150 to
220 kN jm, and for the design of relatively
flexible structures such as sluice gates, val-
ues of 70-75 kN/m are commonly used.
These values are suggested in work by
Michel (1970). Drouin (1970) recommended
even higher values of ice thermal pressure
(up to 300 kNjm) to be used in the design
of gravity-type structures, and PIANC
(1984) suggested that intact ice sheets may
exert thermal thrusts in the range 75-300
kNjm, regardless of ice thickness. Rigid
structures and structures in ice sheets con-
fined by harbor (basin) geometry will expe-
rience the larger loadings. More flexible
structures and structures in more open or
sloping-sided harbors (basins) will have
smaller loads. It has to be noted that smaller
values of ice pressure exerted on flexible
structures must be treated with great cau-
tion because in some practical cases (e.g.,
sluice gates), load relaxation at the middle
of the structure may result in a heavy load
concentration at the bearing points.
In recommendations by Canadian De-
partment of Environment (1971), it is as-
sumed that the ice thrust varies linearly
with the ice thickness and, therefore, that
ice loads of 150 and 220 kN jm subse-
quently correspond to ice thickness of 0.3
and 0.6 m, respectively.
In cold Siberian regions of Russia, the ice
pressure of 300 kPa · is commonly used,
whereas for somewhat less severe condi-
tions, ice pressures ranging from 150 to 200
kPa is more common (Starosolsky, 1970).
In Norway, an ice load of 100 kNjm is
typically used for an average ice condition,
and under especially unfavorable condi-
tions, the value of the ice load may be as
high as 150-200 kN jm (Kjeldgaard and
Carstens, 1980).
3.6.8 Other Ice-Induced Loads
These are loads associated with ice accre-
tion on the structure (icing), ice dynamic
loads, ice-induced vibration of the struc-
ture, and so forth, which are beyond scope
of this book. Again, for comprehensive
treatment of ice loads on port related ma-
rine structures, and ice effects that affect
port (harbor) operations, the reader is re-
ferred to Tsinker (1995), a companion work
to this book.
3.7 SEISMIC LOADS
<BY W. S. DUNBAR)
If a port is located in a seismically active
area, consideration should be given to the
need for including seismic loading (as an
extreme load conditions) in the design of
terminal structures. The first step in seis-
mic design should be the establishment of
the seismic design criteria applicable to the
particular structure. Such criteria are based
on the consequences of failure due to seis-
mic loads. For instance, the destruction of a
warehouse with low occupancy, and there-
fore, low risk of loss of life would require
less stringent seismic design criteria than
say a quay wall which is likely to be highly
occupied and on which different kinds of
cargo handling equipment are installed. Ad-
ditionally, as the loss of a quay wall could
disable a terminal for a considerable period,
economic losses may have to be considered.
Different design loads, possibly larger
than those specified in building codes, may
be applied to critical structures whose col-
lapse would endanger lives andjor entail
significant property damage. Typically, a
two-tiered design criterion is applied to crit-
ical structures. The first tier is sometimes
called the maximum probable event (or
equivalent seismic loading) wherein a criti-
cal structure is designed to remain. opera-
tional in the event the "probable" earth-
 Design Loads 303

quake occurs. However, in the event of a

d
maximum possible earthquake, the struc-
ture may not be operational, but total or
catastrophic destruction must not occur.
The applicability of the above types of
design criteria will depend on the details of 0 Epicenter
the port design, requirement of the port
authority, and local building codes. How-
ever, the establishment of design criteria is
an essential step, without which nonuni-
form design criteria and inadequate or
overconservative designs are very likely.
The remainder of this section assumes Figure 3-34. Pictorial definitions of earthquake
that design criteria have been established hypocenter and epicenter.
and deals with the description of seismic
ground motion and its estimation for design The basic and relatively simple ideas of
purposes. plate tectonics provide a good theoretical
framework for understanding the mecha-
nism of plate boundary or interplate earth-
quakes. However, a significant number of
3.7.1 Seismic Ground Motion earthquakes, known as intraplate earth-
quakes, occur within the plates on almost
3.7.1.1 The Earthquake Source every continent. Although the basic mecha-
The basic mechanism for the majority of nism of these earthquakes is the same as
that of the interplate earthquakes (i.e.,
earthquake occurrences is shear rupture
shear rupture along a fault), the mecha-
along a fault in the earth's crust. Such rup-
nism for stress generation within a plate is
turing implies that the shear strength of
not understood. This and the fact that in-
the fault surface has been exceeded. A
traplate earthquakes are relatively rare oc-
major goal of basic research into earth-
currences makes the prediction of seismic
quake mechanisms is to determine both the
hazard due to such events quite difficult.
distribution of strength on a fault and the
Two common terms used in earthquake
behavior of the driving forces which cause it
engineering to define the location of the
to be exceeded.
seismic source are hypocenter or focus and
The origin of the driving forces was un-
epicenter. The hypocenter or focus of an
known until about 1965 when the theory of
earthquake is defined as the point within
plate tectonics begari to be developed. The
the earth where rupture begins. The epicen-
basic idea of this theory is that the outer-
ter is the points on the surface of the earth
most part of the earth is divided into large-
directly above the hypocenter (Fig. 3-34).
scale slabs or plates which move inde-
pendently of each other, presumably as a
result of plastic flow processes deep in the
3.7.1.2 Recordings of Ground
earth underneath the plates. Many of the
Motion
world's earthquakes occur at the boundries Ground motion caused by an earthquake
between the plates where relative plate mo- may be measured by an accelerograph. An
tion results in a buildup of shear stress and accelerograph consists of an accelerometer
ultimately shear failure, an earthquake (the transducer) and a recording mecha-
[see, for example, Bolt (1987)]. nism (e.g., photosensitive paper or magnetic
304 Design Loads

tape). The accelerometer is a motion- 0.10

recording device whose amplification is 0.00

maximum at frequencies greater than 10 -0.10

Hz. The motion recorded by an accelero-
..
-o.20
graph is measured in units of acceleration 0.10

and is called an accelerogram. Accel- §

erograms give a direct measure of the ::3 0.00
G
force applied to a structure; thus, they 'il
!l
play a fundamental role in earthquake -Q.10
0.05
engineering.
Accelerographs may be located on the 0.00
ground (free field) or in structures. At a
typical recording station, three orthogonal -o.05
components (two horizontal and one verti- 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0

cal) would be recorded. An example is shown Time (sec)

in Figure 3-35. These accelerograms may
be integrated numerically to produce veloc-
ity and displacement records, if necessary
(Hudson, 1979).
3.7.1.3 Seismic wave Types
There are basically three types of seismic
wave: compressional or P (primary) waves,
shear or S waves, and surface waves. P
waves and S waves are sometimes called
body waves. In a given material, P waves
are faster than S waves, and surface waves
are slower than the two body waves. The
actual speed of propagation depends on the
density and elastic properties of the rocks
and soil through which the waves pass.
Generally, the stiffer the material, the
greater the propagation speed. P waves can
propagate through both solids and liquids.
An S wave cannot propagate through a
liquid. The motion of the particles of rock
Figure 3-35. North-south, east-west, and vertical
accelerograms of the November 25, 1988 Saguenay,
Quebec M6.0 Earthquake Recorded at St. Andre du
Lac. (Data provided by the Geological Survey of
Canada.)
caused by a P wave is alternatively back
and forth along the direction of propagation
(Fig. 3-36a). This produces zones of com-
pression and dilation along the propagation
path. An S wave causes particle motion in a
direction perpendicular to its path of propa-
gation (Fig. 3-36a). As there are two per-
pendicular directions to the propagation
path, the particle motion of an S wave ex-
hibits polarization, and components in two
orthogonal directions will be dominant, re-
sulting in SH and SV waves. There are two
types of surface wave. Love waves and
Rayleigh waves. These waves propagate
horizontally along the surface of the earth.

*~
·y Love Waves

Direction of Propagation
Direction of Propagation Perpendicular to Page

(a) Body Waves (b) SUrface Waves

Figure 3-36. Particle motion of(a) body waves and (b) surface waves.
 Design Loads 305

The particle motion caused by a Love wave half-'space is

if always parallel to the earth's surface; no v.
motion perpendicular to the earth's surface fo = 4H (3-59)
(vertical motion) occurs (Fig. 3-36b). The
particle motion due to a Rayleigh wave is where V. is the shear wave velocity of the
somewhat more complicated, but it is simi- layer. Thus, for the resonance mechanism
lar to that of an ocean wave in that the to be operative, the soil layer must have a
motion forms an ellipse and is confined to a thickness equal to a multiple of one-quarter
vertical plane lying in the same direction as of the spatial wavelength of the waves [see,
the propagation path (Fig. 3-36b). This type for example, Dobry et al. (1976)].
of motion is called elliptical retrograde. Love The effects of both of these mechanisms
waves travel faster than Rayleigh waves. would be significantly modified by damping
Depending on the proximity of the earth- and nonlinear properties. Generally, such
quake, any one of these wave types can be properties tend to decrease amplification in
the main contributor to ground motion at a a soil layer.
site. Near an earthquake source, the motion Prediction of the level of ground
is due to a complex combination of waves motion amplification in a soil layer is not
because the source of seismic energy is simple. At a particular site, all the above
spread over a fault. However, it is generally mechanisms could be operative to a degree
S waves which cause the larger amplitude dependent on the geometry and material
properties of the soil and on the nature of
motion. Surface waves develop at some dis-
the incoming waves. An extreme example of
tance from the source. All of this assumes
ground motion amplification is that which
that no amplification has occurred due to
occurred in the soft clayey lake deposits of
the presence of soils or topographic effects
Mexico City during the 1985 Michoacan
at the site of a port. These effects are dis- earthquake. The surprising aspect of the
cussed in the next section. observed ground motion is that Mexico City
is about 300 km from the earthquake. It
3.7.1.4 Amplification Due to appears that the low-amplitude ground mo-
Local conditions tions in the rock underlying Mexico City
were amplified by resonance in the lake
Several studies (Wiggins, 1964; Murphy . deposits (Anderson et al., 1986; Beck and
et al., 1971; Berrill, 1977) have demon- Hall, 1986; Singh et al., 1988).
strated that, for the same earthquake, Other, more regional, features may affect
ground motion at sites composed of soft the response at some. port sites. For exam-
materials is greater than that at sites com- ple, topographic features such as hills can
posed of stiff materials. There are two phys- cause local amplification of incoming seis-
ical mechanisms responsible for amplifica- mic waves through focusing of rays. Multi-
tion or ground motion at soft sites. The ple reflections of trapped seismic waves in
dominant mechanism is conservation of en- sedimentary basins can also amplify mo-
ergy: Because the wave propagation veloc- tions. Highly fractured andjor weathered
ity decreases toward the surface of a soft rock can lead to unusual dynamic behavior.
site, wave amplitude must increase to con- Effects of this nature are highly complex
serve energy. The other mechanism is reso- and would require wave propagation model-
nance due to the constructive interference ing on a regional scale to estimate resulting
of upgoing and downgoing waves in the soil ground motions. However, such modeling is
layer. The fundamental resonant frequency, beyond the state of practice and is only
{ 0 , of a layer of thickness H overlying a recommended in extreme situations. Exam-
306 Design Loads

ples may be found in Wong and Jennings
(1975) and Barel and Gabriel (1986).
3.7.1.5 Intensity and Magnitude
The oldest measure of the size or strength
of an earthquake is its intensity. The inten-
sity is a measure of such things as human
reaction, ground surface effects, and dam-
age to structures. An intensity scale con-
sists of a series of increasing numbers, typi-
cally Roman numerals, each of which is
associated with a description of damage or
other earthquake effects. The larger the
number, the greater the effects or damage.
An example is the Modified Mercalli scale
(MMI) developed in 1931 (Richter, 1958).
For example, the description of the smallest
value of MMI, Roman numeral I, is
I-not felt except by a very few under espe-
cially favorable circumstances
whereas the description of the largest value
of MMI, Roman numeral XII, is
companies and to engineers or planners
concerned with site selection.
A more quantitative measure of the size
of an earthquake is its magnitude which is
derived from instrumental measurements.
Presently there are several different magni-
tude scales in use. However, the principle of
each is the same, namely that the larger
the earthquake, the larger the amplitude of
the radiated seismic waves. Thus, each dif-
ferent magnitude scale is associated with a
specific wave type. Brief descriptions of the
more common magnitude scales are given
below:
1. Local magnitude (ML)-This is the origi-
nal Richter magnitude scale and is based
on the peak amplitude of the seismogram
in the 1-5-Hz range.
2. Body wave magnitude (mb)-This uses
the peak amplitude of the P wave at a
frequency of 1 Hz.
3. Surface wave magnitude (M8 )-This uses
the peak amplitude of Rayleigh surface
waves at a frequency of 0.05 Hz.

XU-damage total. Practically all works of The amplitudes used for ML and mb tend
construction are damaged greatly or de- not to increase with increasing earthquake
stroyed. Waves seen on ground surface. size. This is referred to as saturation of the
Lines of sight and level are distorted. magnitude scale and occurs when the rup-
Objects are thrown into the air. ture dimension of the fault becomes much
larger than the spatial wavelength of the
The selection of an intensity value is seismic waves used to determine the magni-
based on observations made by humans. tude. The result is that ML and mb tend
Consequently, although the descriptions of toward the same anomalously low value for
effects which occur at each intensity level magnitudes greater than about 0.6. To over-
are fairly precise, the selection of a number come this problem, the surface wave magni-
can be subjective or judgmental in some tude, M 8 , is used. Large shallow earth-
cases. quakes produce significant amounts of sur-
Because damage and other earthquake face waves at distances greater than about
effects can depend on local conditions, in- 100 km so that reported M 8 values are
tensities will naturally vary with local con- from relatively distant stations.
ditions. Thus, if intensity measurements are Ideally, if ML> mb, and M 8 were ob-
plotted on a map and contoured, they can tained for the same earthquake, they would
provide valuable information on the distri- be numerically equal. However, this almost
bution of the strong ground motion of past never happens. The reason is that, depend-
earthquakes. In the absence of other infor- ing on their size, earthquakes emit differ-
mation, this may be of use to insurance ent amounts of energy at different frequen-

cies resulting in peak amplitudes which are
representative of the energy at those fre-
quencies.
For very large earthquakes ( > 8.0), satu-
ration of the M 5 scale occurs. To circumvent
this, the seismic moment is used to meas-
ure the size of the earthquake. The moment
of an earthquake is proportional to the zero
frequency (or long period) amplitude of the
spectrum of the seismogram. Seismic mo-
ment is a true physical measure of earth-
quake size and has been used for earth-
quakes with local magnitudes as low as 3.0.
Hanks and Kanamori (1979) developed a
moment-magnitude scale based on the
measured seismic moment. This magnitude
scale is preferred in earthquake engineer-
ing. However, all other magnitude scales
are used and care must be taken to ensure
that the same magnitude scales are being
used to compare earthquake sizes. Similar
care must be exercised when using attenua-
tion relationships for ground motion param-
eters (discussed later), as these relation-
ships are defined for a particular type of
magnitude. Nuttli and Herrmann (1982)
provide an excellent description of the vari-
ous magnitude scales in use.
3.7.1.6 Duration and
Frequency content
Seismic waves of all types are attenuated
as they pass through the earth, owing to
the inelastic properties of rock and soil. In
general, attenuation increases with both
distance and wave frequency so that near
an earthquake source, the wave frequencies
would be high (10-20Hz or greater in the
very near field), whereas at large distances
from an earthquake, frequencies will tend
to be less than 10 Hz.
Both duration and frequency content
vary with earthquake magnitude. Large-
magnitude earthquakes tend to produce
low-frequency ground motion, whereas
small-magnitude earthquakes produce
higher frequencies. (A small-magnitude
Design Loads 307
earthquake is analogous to breaking a small
dry twig which results in a high-frequency
snap, whereas a large-magnitude earth-
quake is analogous to felling a large tree,
which results in a lower-frequency crack or
"thud.") Duration of significant strong
ground motion depends mainly on the time
taken for fault rapture to occur. The longer
the rupture time, the greater the earth-
quake magnitude, so that duration in-
creases with earthquake magnitude.
Figure 3-37a shows the accelerogram due
to a M6.2 earthquake recorded by an ac-
celerometer of the SMART array in Taiwan.
A M4.9 aftershock of this earthquake oc-
curred at about the same location and was
recorded by the same accelerometer; the
accelerogram of this event is shown in Fig-
ure 3-37b. Note the difference between the
frequency content and duration of these two
accelerograms.
Quantitative measures of the duration of
significant shaking are important in the
analysis of soils. Relationships between
magnitude and duration of strong ground
motion for the westem United States have
been derived empirically by Trifunac and
Brady (1975). Measures of the duration of
strong motion for recorded accelerograms
have been proposed by Bolt (1969) and
McCann and Shah (1979).
3.7.2 Descriptions of
Ground Motion
In order that seismic design can be per·
formed, it is necessary to have some repre-
sentation of the ground motion, typically
the ground acceleration. Multiplication of
the ground acceleration by mass quantities
gives seismic forces which the structure
must be designed to withstand.
There exist several methods of describing
ground motion for design purposes. Each is
applicable in some situations, inapplicable
or inappropriate in others. It is important
308 Design Loads

SMART ARRAY rise to greater than normal loads in struc-

Station c-oo M6.2 R=5km NS Component 7/30/86 tures. Usually, but not always, the design
0.3
for gravity loads includes a large enough
factor of safety to accommodate additional
0.2
loads due to vertical ground motion.
"" 0.1

"
0
3.7.2.1 Peak Amplitudes
::: 0.0

~g The most widely used description of

<
-o.1
ground motion is peak amplitude, often
-o.2
peak horizontal acceleration. One philoso-
phy behind the use of a peak acceleration is
-o.3 that if the structure is designed to with-
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
stand the maximum force occurring during
Time (sec)
the ground motion, then it should be ade-
(a)
quately designed for other smaller forces
SMART ARRAY occurring during the ground motion. This is
Station C-oO M4.9 R=5km NS Component 7/30/86 considered a suitably conservative assump-
tion for design purposes.
Unfortunately, peak motions have seri-
ous limitations as meaningful engineering
descriptions of ground motion. It is now
well known that peak motions do not corre-
late well with structural response or dam-
age potential (Stevenson et al., 1984; EPRI,
1988). Peak ground accelerations, for exam-
ple, are contained within high-frequency
( > 25 Hz) ground motion, and as the reso-
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 nant frequency of most civil structures is
Time (sec) less than 25 Mz, such motions cannot in-
(b) duce significant structural response.
The response of a structure also depends
Figure 3-37. (a) North-south accelerogram ofM6.2, on the duration of the ground motion.
July 30, 198 6 event recorded at station C-OO of the
SMART accelerograph array in Taiwan. The accelero-
Short-duration impulselike motions, such as
graph was located at a distance of 5 km from the those due to a small earthquake, do not
earthquake. (b) North-south accelerogram ofM4.9 have sufficient time to induce a significant
aftershock of main M6.2 event also recorded at station structural response. The above applies to
C-OO of the SMART array. Note the long duration and linear behavior of structures. Damage is a
low frequency in the ground motion of the main event
as compared with that of the aftershock. [Data pro-
nonlinear phenomenon which also depends
vided courtesy of the Seismographic Station of the on the amplitude of ground motion as well
University of California at Berkeley and the Institute as its duration and frequency content in a
of Earth Sciences of the Academia Sinica, Taipei.] more complicated manner.

3.7.2.2 Response Spectrum

to understand these descriptions and their
advantages and limitations. The most com-
mon descriptions are discussed below.
Horizontal components of ground motion
are typically used in design since they give
As mentioned earlier, peak ground accel-
erations are often contained within high-
frequency ( > 25 Hz) ground motion. Be-
cause the resonant frequency of most civil

structures is less than 25 Hz, such motions
cannot induce significant structural re-
sponse. Therefore, peak ground acceleration
can only characterize the response of very
stiff structures whose resonant frequency is
high.
The dynamic characteristics of a compli-
cated structure can be represented in terms
of its response in fundamental and higher
natural vibration modes or frequencies
(Chopra, 1981). The response of the first or
lowest-frequency mode is typically the most
significant. The behavior of each mode can
be modeled by a linear single degree-of-
freedom damped oscillator, an example of
which is shown in Figure 3-38a. Thus, the
maximum value of the response of this os-
cillator to the ground motion is the engi-
neering quantity of interest. A plot of the
maximum response of the oscillator versus
the corresponding oscillator frequency or
period results in a response spectrum for
the particular ground motion. Displace-
ment, velocity, and acceleration response
spectra may be defined. The remainder of
this section is concerned with the computa-
tion and characteristics of response spectra.
When driven by the accelerogram, a(t),
the equation of motion of the oscillator
shown in Figure 3-38a is
mii(t) + cu(t) + ku(t) = -ma(t) (3-60)
b:L,,
~~m
-a(t)
(a)
SDOF Oscillator
a (t) "%·~ u (t)
(b)
Figure 3-38. (a) Damped single degree of freedom
oscillator. (b) Illustration of the procedure for comput-
ing the displacement response spectrum sd.
Design Loads 309
where u(t) is the time history of the rela-
tive displacement of the mass, m, of the
oscillator, c is the damping coefficient of the
dashpot, and k is the spring stiffness. The
dots indicate differentiation with respect to
time. Dividing Eq. (3-60) by m results in
ii(t) + 2{3w 0 it.(t) + w~u(t) = -a(t) (3-61)
where w 0 = ..jkjm is the resonant angular
frequency of the oscillator (in radians Is)
and {3 = cj2mw 0 is the damping ratio ex-
pressed as a fraction of critical damping.
For most structures, {3 lies in the range
0.02 (2% damping) to 0.10 (10% damping).
The solution to Eq. (3-61) is the relative
displacement response time history, u(t).
Differentiation gives the relative velocity
response history, u(t), and the relative ac-
celeration time history, ii(t). The latter is
not meaningful in terms of an effect on the
oscillator. The absolute acceleration, z(t), is
a measure of the force applied to the mass
and is given by
z(t) = ii(t) + a(t) = 2{3w 0 it.(t) + w~u(t)
(3-62)
Displacement response spectral ordinates
for a particular value of damping ratio are
computed by varying the oscillator fre-
quency and monitoring the computed rela-
tive displacement time history to obtain the
peak value, Siw 0 , {3). Velocity and acceler-
ation response spectra, S u and Sa, respec-
tively, may be similarly defined as
Sd(w 0 , {3) =max lu(t, w 0 , {3)1
Sv(w 0 , {3) =max lit.(t, w 0 , /3)1
Sa(w 0 , {3) =max lz(t, w 0 , {3)1
The procedure for computing S d is illus-
trated in Figure 3-38b. An algorithm for
numerical computation of the response his-
tories and their maxima is given in Nigam
and Jennings (1969).
310 Design Loads

The maximum force in the spring of the damping, PSA is a good approximation to
oscillator is kSd = mw~Sd. The quantity Sa for all frequencies. The approximation
w~Sd has units of acceleration and is known PSV = S v is good in the intermediate fre-
as the pseudo-acceleration (PSA). Pseudo- quency range (approximately 0.5-20 Hz).
velocity (PSV) is similarly defined. Thus, Quantities related by powers of w 0 such as
Sd, PSV and PSA can be plotted on four-way
PSA ~ w3Sd logarithmic paper. For the north-south
component accelerogram shown in Figure
PSA = w 0 Sd 3-35, the four-way logarithmic response
spectrum plot is shown in Figure 3-39a.
For {3 = 0, PSA =Sa. For Low values of Although such plots are useful, in that all
quantities of interest are presented on one
Frequency (Hz)
diagram, four-way log plots can be difficult
10.00 1.00 0.10
to read. The useful quantity for design is
PSA which may be plotted using linear axes
as shown in Figure 3-39b. Given an ordi-
nate on this plot, PSV and Sd may be easily
computed.
The use of the prefix "pseudo" in connec-
tion with velocity and acceleration spectra
is somewhat misleading because there is
nothing false or incorrect about PSV and
PSA; they are merely approximations to Sv
and sa.
Response spectra of accelerograms tend
to certain limits depending primarily on the
0.1
relationship between the frequency of the
.____._..__._..,._....__._~....,..,......._____,___._........,........,

0,01 0.10 1.00 10.00

Period (sec l oscillator and the dominant frequency of
(a) the ground motion. These limits can be de-
duced from Eq. (3-61). As w0 becomes large
O.<l
(high frequency), the first two terms on the
left-hand side of Eq. (3-61) become negligi-
:s0: 0.3 Taft earthquake K7.2 ble and w~(t) = -a(t). The latter approxi-
mation must apply to peak quantities so
..•
0
;I

.
.l! 0.2
<>
that
:1I
...
"..
0

0.1
PSA-+ pga as w 0 -+ large
Equation 4-50
"" ·-·--- ------------------
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
where pga is the peak ground acceleration
Period (sec)
of the accelerogram a(t). This type of re-
(b)
sponse occurs in stiff structures whose reso-
nant frequency is high relative to the fre-
Figure 3-39. (a) Four-way logarithmic plot of the quencies present in the ground motion so
response spectrum of the north-south accelerogram that only a small relative displacement will
shown in Figure 35. (b) Linear plot of pseudo-
acceleration spectrum for same accelerogram. The produce the induced force. Similarly, as w0
damping ratio of each spectrum is 5%. becomes small, the last two terms on the
 Design Loads 311

left-hand side of Eq. (3-61) can be neglected tween a response spectrum and a particular
so that u(t) "" -a(t). Integrating and as- accelerogram. For example, it is possible to
suming peak quantities find short-duration accelerograms, typical
of small earthquakes, that result in approx-
Sd = pgd as Wo ~ small imately the same peak response at resonant
frequencies in the 10-Hz range as that of a
where pgd is the peak ground displacement. long-duration accelerogram typical of a
This type of response would occur in a very larger earthquake.
flexible structure whose resonant frequency
is low relative to the frequencies present in
the ground motion, so that a large relative
displacement would be required to produce 3.7.2.3 Time Histories
the induced force.
Based on these limits, it may be seen
that as the oscillator frequency becomes The most complete description of ground
large relative to the dominant frequency motion at a site would be there orthogonal
of the ground motion, the peak response of components of ground acceleration. These
the oscillator depends on the peak ground could be used as input to a computer or
acceleration. As the oscillator frequency physical model of the structure andjor its
becomes low relative to the dominant foundation. The model could then be used to
frequency of the ground motion, the peak make realistic determinations of response.
response of the oscillator depends on the The use of physical models is expensive, but
peak ground displacement. Intuitively, it is common in research. Computer models of
may be seen that the response at inter- structures and foundations are more com-
mediate periods depends on peak ground mon in practice.
velocity. When time histories are used in design,
The utility of a response spectrum is that it is common to select from a database a
it represents the frequency dependence of number of accelerograms caused by earth-
the response, whereas peak ground acceler- quakes whose characteristics (magnitude,
ation is only representative of the response distance) are similar to those of the design
of a very stiff structure. Despite this, a earthquake. A particularly important char-
response spectrum is still not a complete acteristic is recording site conditions which
representation of ground motion or struc- should be similar to those at the site of the
tural behavior. Two important limitations port.
must be recognized: Selection of time histories for use in de-
sign has been automated by various institu-
1. A response spectrum can only be used in tions and government agencies. For exam-
a linear analysis of structures and cannot ple, the National Geophysical Data Center
directly account for nonlinear structural
(NGDC) in Boulder, Colorado maintains a
behavior.
large database composed of 12,000 (pre-
2. A response spectrum is not representative
of the duration of strong ground motion sently)
accelerograms. A microcomputer-
which, for some structures or materials, based catalog search program is available
may be an important consideration in as- from NGDC which would enable one to gen-
sessing damage potential. erate a list of accelerograms in the database
which have the desired characteristics. The
A corollary of the last item is that there accelerograms can then be ordered from
does not exist a one-to-one relationship be- NGDC or other agencies.
312 Design Loads
3.7.3 Design Ground Motion
Estimation
3.7.3.1 Design Motions
As can be seen in Figure 3-39, the re-
sponse spectrum of a particular accelero-
gram is an irregular function of frequency
or period. This is due to the highly variable
nature of ground motion, even ground mo-
tion due to earthquakes of similar magni-
tude and recorded at similar distances. In
order to represent the possible variability in
ground motion, a smooth response spec-
trum is used. Such a spectrum is often de-
rived by finding the pth percentile of the
spectra of a number of accelerograms. Ex-
amples are the median spectrum (50th per-
centile) or the median plus one standard
deviation (84th percentile) spectrum. The
average spectrum may also be computed.
The derivation may be deliberately weighted
or biased in some fashion to reflect known
seismological data or site conditions. How-
ever, the result is a smooth function of fre-
quency or period.
Although a response spectrum may be
consistent with all known seismological data
and site conditions, it may not be appropri-
ate for design. For a variety of reasons, a
design engineer may require certain kinds
of behavior of a structure. This leads to the
concept of a design spectrum which is a
measure of the force the structure must
resist elastically. Thus, if the structure is
capable of absorbing energy (e.g., a ductile
steel frame), the required elastic forces
could be less than those implied by a smooth
response spectrum, because, presumably,
the structure could absorb energy in its
inelastic range. By contrast, if the structure
is considered critical, it is conservative to
ignore the possibility of inelastic energy-
absorbing behavior and to use a design
spectrum which may possibly be one of the
larger percentile smooth response spectra.
A similar concept is a design acceleration
time history which may be a composite of a
number of selected accelerograms. The se-
lection of a design time history (or histories)
would also involve considerations of re-
quired structural behavior.
The distinction between a ground motion
and a design motion must be made at all
times. The former is a seismological de-
scription of ground motion, whereas the lat-
ter is a design requirement. Design motions
result when design criteria are applied.
Thus, for example, all response spectra, in-
cluding smooth spectra, are descriptions of
ground motion and potential design spectra.
3.7.3.2 scaled Response Spectra
The peak oscillator responses, PSA, PSV,
and sd, can be larger in different period
ranges than the corresponding peak ground
motions. This is due to the behavior of an
oscillator at low, intermediate, and high pe-
riods described above. Thus, for periods less
than 0.1 s, PSA is large compared to pga,
whereas S d is small. The composite holds
at long .periods. At intermediate periods,
the peak ground velocity, pgv, is amplified
to give a large PSV.
Amplification in different period ranges
allows the delineation of the response spec-
trum into three ranges: the low period or
acceleration range, the intermediate period
or velocity range, and the long period or
displacement range. In each region, the cor-
responding ground motion is amplified the
most. Based on this, Newmark and Hall
(1969) recommended that constant amplifi-
cation factors, PSAjpga, PSV jpgv, and
Sdjpgd (peak ground displacement), be
defined for the acceleration, velocity, and
displacement period ranges, respectively.
Using several earthquake records, median
amplification factors were derived. Multi-
plication of the peak ground motions by
these amplification factors resulted in
spectral ordinates which could be plotted on
four-way log paper to produce a smooth
response spectrum.
 Design Loads 313

These initial estimates of the amplifica-
tion factors were based on accelerograms
recorded during the 1934 and 1940 El
Centro, California earthquakes and the
1952 Kern County, California earthquake.
Following the 1971 San Fernando earth-
quake, more records were available, making
it possible to obtain better statistical esti-
mates of amplification factors (Blume et al.,
1972; Newmarket al., 1973). These studies
resulted in 50 percentile (median) and 84
percentile (median + one standard devia-
and Hall (1982) and in Mohraz (1976) from
which pgv and pgd may be computed. How-
ever, these estimates depend on both earth-
quake magnitude and site conditions in a
complicated manner; published values ex-
hibit a large amount of scatter.
The procedure of scaling amplification
factors to define a response or design spec-
trum is only valid if the amplification fac-
Frequency (Hz)

tion) amplification factors for peak accelera-

tion, velocity, and displacement and for
several damping ratios. The amplification
factors formed the basis for the U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission (now the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission) Regula-
tory Guide 1.60 (1973) which gave a design
spectral shape for nuclear power plants.
Further studies in the mid-1970s re-
sulted in more refined estimates of amplifi-
cation factors. These are given in Newmark
and Hall (1982) and reproduced in Table
3-16. Figure 3-40 shows an example of the
construction of a response spectrum using
these amplification factors. Period (sec)

The use of these amplification factors re-
quires independent estimates of pga, pgv,
and pgd. Often only estimates of pga are
available and would be derived using one or
more of the methods discussed below.
Estimates of the ratios pgajpgv and
(pga)(pgdjpgv 2 ) are available in Newmark
Figure 3-40. Method of construction of a scaled re-
sponse spectrum. The dashed lines are values of peak
ground motions. The solid lines are spectral bound
computed by scaling the median amplification factors
for 5% damping in Table 3-16 by the peak ground
motions. At periods less than 0.1 s, the pseudo-
acceleration spectral ordinates decrease log-linearity
to the value of peak ground acceleration.

Table3-16. Spectral amplification factors

84 Percentile Median
Damping Ratio(%) pga pgv pgd pga pgv pgd

0.5 5.10 3.84 3.04 3.68 2.59 2.01

1 4.38 3.38 2.73 3.21 2.31 1.82
2 3.66 2.92 2.42 2.74 2.03 1.63
3 3.24 2.64 2.24 2.46 1.86 1.52
5 2.71 2.30 2.01 2.12 1.65 1.39
7. 2.36 2.08 1.85 1.89 1.51 1.29
10 1.99 1.84 1.69 1.64 1.37 1.20
20 1.26 1.37 1.38 1.17 1.08 1.01

Source: From Newmark and Hall (1982).

314 Design Loads

tors, which basically define the shape of the This means that the same earthquake could
spectrum, are independent of magnitude, produce different ground motions at differ-
distance, and recording site conditions. As ent sites which are equidistant from the
mentioned previously, the frequency source. The dependence on source and prop-
content of ground motion depends on the agation path imply that earthquake magni-
earthquake magnitude; small-magnitude tude and a measure of source-site distance
earthquakes generate ground motion rich would be useful explanatory variables in an
in high-frequencies, whereas, large-magni- attenuation relationship. A functional de-
tude earthquakes generate ground motion scriptor of site conditions could also be in-
rich in low frequencies. Examples were cluded. A general expression for an attenu-
shown in Figure 3-37. Numerous studies ation relationship is
(McGuire, 1974; Trifunac and Anderson,
1978; Joyner and Boore, 1982) have con- logy = a + { 1(M) +fiR) + f 3 (S) ± E (3-63)
firmed that the dependence of ground mo-
tion frequency on magnitude results in a
where
dependence of spectral shape on magnitude.
There is also evidence of a dependence on y = ground motion parameter
distance from the rupture zone. Spectral M = a measure of magnitude
shape also depends on site conditions in R = a measure of distance
that long-period ground motions tend to ex- S = a set of variables describing the site founda-
hibit larger amplitudes on soft soil sites tion conditions
than on hard sites. Amplification factors for E = a random error term with zero mean and
different site conditions are given in Mohraz standard deviation a.
(1976) and Seed et al. (1976). The possible
bias associated with magnitude and site Each of the functions f 1 , f 2 , and fa contain
condition dependence can be significantly constants to be estimated. Both base 10 and
reduced by scaling amplification factors ap- natural logarithms are used on the left-hand
propriate to the site conditions in question side of the above equation.
by independent estimates of pga, pgv, and The function f 1 is often assumed linear
pgd. in powers of M, whereas f 2 is linear in
powers of R and log R. The function fa is
linear in the variables S, which are often
3.7.3.3 Attenuation Relationships multiplied by 0 or 1 (i.e., 0 denotes one type
Ground motion attenuation relationships of foundation condition, 1 denotes another
are functions relating a ground motion pa- type). Most empirically derived attenuation
rameter, such as peak ground acceleration, relationships use moment magnitude as a
to certain explanatory variables. In general, measure of earthquake size. This provides a
ground motion due to earthquakes depends more consistent magnitude measure for
on three things: earthquakes of all sizes, as discussed above.
The measure of distance R is more prob-
lematic, particularly in the near field. As
1. Source characteristics-magnitude, na-
discussed previously, the source of earth-
ture of faulting
quake energy is rupture along a fault sur-
2. Propagation path-reflection and refrac- face. In the far field (a distance of several
tion, nature of materials through which rupture lengths), this source may be treated
waves propagate as a point source, say at the centroid of the
3. Site conditions-soil or rock site, layer- rupture surface. R is then the hypocentral
ing, heterogeneity depth. However, in the near field, the orien-
 Design Loads 315

tation of the fault with respect to the site
plays an important role in determining the
amplitude and duration of ground motion.
The distance of closest approach to a. fault
is therefore often used as a measure of
distance. Further discussion of this issue
and references are given in Campbell (1985).
An example of empirically determined
attenuation relationships for both peak
ground acceleration and response spectral
ordinates is given in Table 3-17. As only
accelerograms from Western North America
were used to derive these relationships,
their validity in other regions is question-
able. However, examples of other such rela-
tionships and useful references are given in
Joyner and Boore (1988).
Prediction of spectral response using at-
tenuation relationships differs from the
conventional practice of scaling a normal-
ized spectral shape by peak values of dis-
placement, velocity, and acceleration, as de-
scribed above. Attenuation relationships
which predict spectral response explicitly
account for this dependence of spectral
shape on magnitude discussed previously.

Table 3-17. Spectral attenuation relationships

(logy )a + b(M - 6) + c(M - 6) 2 + d log R + kR + s

y = larger of two horizontal components

8 = { *0 soil site. 2:: 5 m thickness

0 rock site
5 ~ M ~ 7. 7, M = moment magnitude

R = (r 2 + h 2 / 12 , r = distancetoverticalprojectiononearth's
surface of nearest point of rupture
u = standard deviation of log y

T (s) a b c d h k s u
Pseudo-velocity (cmjs) 5%damping

0.10 2.24 0.30 -0.09 -1.0 10.6 -0.0067 -0.06 0.27

0.15 2.46 0.34 -0.10 -1.0 10.3 -0.0063 -0.05 0.27
0.20 2.54 0.37 -0.11 -1.0 9.3 -0.0061 -0.03 0.27
0.30 2.56 0.43 -0.12 -1.0 7.0 -0.0057 0.04 0.27
0.40 2.54 0.49 -0.13 -1.0 5.7 -0.0055 0.09 0.30
0.50 2.53 0.53 -0.14 -1.0 5.2 -0.0053 0.12 0.32
0.75 2.46 0.61 -0.15 -1.0 4.7 -0.0049 0.19 0.35
1.0 2.41 0.66 -0.16 -1.0 4.6 -0.0044 0.24 0.35
1.5 2.32 0.71 -0.17 -1.0 4.6 -0.0034 0.30 0.35
2.0 2.26 0.75 -0.18 -1.0 4.6 -0.0025 0.32 0.35
3.0 2.17 0.78 -0.19 -1.0 4.6 0.0 0.29 0.35
4.0 2.10 0.80 -0.20 -0.98 4.6 0.0 0.24 0.35

Peak Acceleration (g)

0.49 0.23 0.0 -1.0 8.0 -0.0027 0.0 0.28

Peak Velocity (cmjs)

2.17 0.49 0.0 -1.0 4.0 -0.0026 0.17 0.33

Source: After Joyner and Boore (1988).

316 Design Loads
However, the random error, e, associated
with these attenuation relationships can be
large.
3.7.3.4 Probabilistic Estimates
If an exceedance probability for ground
motions can be specified as a design crite-
rion, then probabilistic seismic hazard anal-
ysis methods can be used to estimate the
corresponding ground motions or response
spectral ordinates.
Modern seismic hazard analysis is done
by variants of the Cornell method (Cornell,
1968). These methods can account for known
or assumed seismological characteristic of
the region surrounding a site. Th methods
require descriptions of the spatial and tem-
poral occurrence of earthquakes. A seismic
zonation, in which zones of uniform seismic-
ity or active faults are identified, is used to
describe the possible spatial occurrences. A
magnitude-recurrence relationship, de-
rived empirically from historical data, is
used to describe temporal occurrences. Us-
ing basic probability concepts, a brief
derivation of the method is given below.
Let Y > y be the event that a ground
motion or spectral ordinate exceeds a value
y. The simplest probabilistic hazard model
is one where Y > y is caused by the occur-
rence of an earthquake whose magnitude
exceeds m at a distance r from the site. If
earthquake magnitudes are assumed to oc-
cur in the interval me .:::; m .:::; mx, where
magnitudes greater than a maximum mag-
nitude, mx, are not considered possible and
magnitudes less than me are not of engi-
neering interest, the probability P(Y > y) is
given by
P(Y > y) = jmxP(Y > y I M > m)p(m) (3-64)
m,
where p(m) is the probability density func-
tion of earthquake magnitudes which may
be derived from a magnitude-recurrence
relationship.
. For given values of m and y, the dis-
tance r is given as the solution to the equa-
tion y = f(m, r ), where f(m, r) is the
attenuation relationship for the ground
motion or spectral ordinate y. An earth-
quake of magnitude m within the distance
r from the site will cause a spectral
ordinate of y or greater. The probability
P(Y > y I M > m) thus depends on the ge-
ometry of the seismic zonation model. For
example, if the model restricts earthquake
occurrences to a region whose total area is
A and in which the seismicity is assumed
uniform, then
if r not in A
P(Y>y IM> m) ={~A/A ifrinA
(3-65)
where AA is a small area centered at r.
A further consideration is the effect of
the error term, e, in an attenuation rela-
tionship such as that of Eq. (3-63). In phys-
ical terms, the significance of the error is
that, in addition to the possible combina-
tions of magnitude and distance causing the
event Y > y, the error could also result in
Y > y. Thus, if the error is independent of
magnitude and distance,
P(Y'>y)= {P(Y>ylv)p(v)dv (3-66)
0
where Y' = v Y and the probability density
p( v) is usually derived from a lognormal
distribution. For a given exceedance proba-
bility, this additional integration typically
results in larger ground motions or spectral
ordinates than the median values obtained
by ignoring the variability. The difference
increases with the standard deviation of the
error term in the attenuation relationship.
The results of a probabilistic hazard
analysis are sensitive to the assumptions
made concerning attenuation and, particu-
larly, to assumptions concerning zonation
and recurrence. However, it should be rec-
ognized that the EPRS is similar to scaled

spectra and spectra computed from an at-
tenuation relationship in that it represents
the result of a combination of earthquakes.
One essential difference is that an EPRS
represents the result of all possible earth-
quakes, whereas scaled spectra and spectra
computed from an attenuation relationship
represent only those earthquakes that were
used in the estimation of the amplification
factors or the regression coefficients, respec-
tively. Also, the weighting done in combin-
ing the effects of several earthquakes to
produce an EPRS is done according to the
probability of exceedance as defined by the
recurrence relationship, the zonation geom-
etry, or other factors included in the proba-
bilistic model.
Probabilistic hazard analyses have been
performed in a variety of contexts to esti-
mate peak ground motions having a speci-
fied probability of exceedance (Algermissen
and Perkins, 1976; Basham et al., 1985).
The existence of attenuation relationships
for spectral ordinates makes possible the
computation of an equal probability re-
sponse spectra (EPRS) [i.e., a spectrum in
which each ordinate has an equal probabil-
ity of exceedance (see, for example, EERI
Committee on Seismic Risk, 1989)]. Cur-
rently, there is little precedent for the di-
rect use of such a spectrum in design. How-
ever, because an EPRS is consistent in an
unbiased manner with available seismologi-
cal data, it is useful for comparative pur-
poses, (i.e., to determine the exceedance
probability associated with spectra derived
by other means).
3.7.3.5 Deterministic Estimates
Given an assumed magnitude and a dis-
tance to a causative geologic structure, one
could compute ground motions andjor spec-
tral ordinates using attenuation relation-
ships such as those discussed above. The
computed values would be median values. If
desired, one could also compute 84 per-
centile values. A deterministic approach is
Design Loads 317
acceptable provided one can choose values
of magnitude and distance in a rational
manner. In most parts of the world it is not
difficult to judge a maximum magnitude.
However, it is often very difficult or impos-
sible to choose a distance in a rational man-
ner. By rational, it is meant that the occur-
rence of an earthquake of the assumed
magnitude at a particular distance is a
geophysically1 seismologically possible
event. If the port facilities lie within a seis-
mic zone of areal extent where the seismic-
ity cannot necessarily be associated with a
causative geologic structure, one is not enti-
tled to assume that an earthquake can oc-
cur anywhere within the zone. A wholly
deterministic estimate requires that a
mechanism for earthquake generation be
specified. Past observations in California
suggest that about 40 km of fault rupture
must occur to produce an M6.0 event. Thus,
for example, the assumption of the occur-
rence of an earthquake directly beneath the
site is likely not rational and often results
in extremely conservative designs. In a de-
terministic analysis, everything is assumed
to be known or predictable by judgment or
past experience. The possibility of an earth-
quake occurring anywhere within a seismic
zone is a probabilistic notion which must be
excluded from a deterministic analysis.
3.7.3.6 statistical Estimates
A statistical approach to ground motion
estimation begins by defining the magni-
tude and distance range of the controlling
earthquakes based on the known seismic
characteristics of the region surrounding the
site. Recorded accelerograms due to past
earthquakes in these magnitude and dis-
tance ranges are then used to form a suite
of representative time histories or to define
response spectra at various percentile lev-
els, typically median and 84 percentile. The
recorded accelerograms are selected to have
similar source, propagation path, and
recording site conditions as the controlling
318 Design Loads
earthquake(s). This approach has been
adopted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (USNRC, 1989) as a means of
obtaining a site-specific response spectrum.
The 84 percentile spectrum is used to define
the motions due to the "Safe Shutdown
Earthquake." This would be appropriate for
critical port structures. A suitable design
spectrum for a less critical structure might
be the median spectrum. The use of repre-
sentative accelerograms to define a design
spectrum on a statistical basis is feasible,
as available databases of accelerograms are
quite large. Usually, suitable accelerograms
are available to adequately describe the
range of possible ground motion due to
earthquakes within a small-magnitude
range and occurring within a given distance
range. The principal advantage of the ap-
proach is that the effects of controlling
earthquakes are directly incorporated by
only considering accelerograms due to
earthquakes in a restricted magnitude and
distance range. In addition, the estimates
depend on real data and not on a model
such as that implied by an attenuation rela-
tionship or probability model.
3. 7.4 Design Loads
3. 7.4.1 Building Code Seismic
Design Principles
The seismic design provisions of most
building codes, particularly those in North
America, are based on identical principles.
The goal in each is to compute the maxi-
mum base shear force, V, as the product of
six factors
V=ZIKSCW (3-67)
where Z, I, K, and S are dimensionless
coefficients, C is a base shear coefficient,
and W is the weight of the structure. The
base shear force is applied statically to the
structure.
The zone coefficient, Z, is related to the
seismicity of the region surrounding the
structure. It may range from a value of 1 in
regions of low seismicity to a value of 3 in
regions of high seismicity (e.g., Uniform
Building Code, 1982).
The importance coefficient, I, increases
with increasing risk to life and limb posed
by structural failure. For example, in the
Uniform Building Code (1982), 1 :::;; I :::;; 1.5.
The building or structure coefficient, K,
is related to the type of structure and is
intended to place less stringent demands on
structures that have performed well in
earthquakes and raise the margin of safety
for structures that have performed badly.
Thus, most building codes specify 0.5 <
K < 1 for a double steel frame, but K :::::
2.5 for an elevated tank.
The site factor, S, is a function of the
ratio of the fundamental structural period
to the fundamental period of the founda-
tion. Formulas for the fundamental build-
ing period are usually specified in codes,
but, in general, a geotechnical site investi-
gation is required to estimate the funda-
mental period of the site [Eq. (3-59) could
be used for a single-layer site]. In all cases,
s;:::: 1.0.
The base shear coefficient, C, is a func-
tion of the fundamental natural period, T,
of the structure. In the Uniform Building
Code (1982) the formula for C is
T
C = -- T~ 0.3s
15/T' (3-68)
C = 0.12, T < 0.3 s
The use of the fundamental natural period
is justified because, for most structures, the
seismic response is dominated by the re-
sponse in the fundamental mode.
The weight of the structure, W, is really
the effective weight in the fundamental
mode, which is typically less than the total

0.3
c
.
0
;l
"
;;:: 0.2
i overturn the wall around its toe. Sliding
e
<
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Period (sec)
Figure 3-41. Comparison of the seismic coefficient
computed by Eq. (3-68) and the 2% damped pseudo-
acceleration response spectrum of the 1952 M7.2 Taft
earthquake.
weight of the structure. However, as the
base shear force depends mainly on the
base shear coefficient, the additional con-
servatism caused by assuming that W is
the total weight is not significant.
The dimensionless of C and its depend-
ence on resonant period might lead one to
believe that it is the same as a pseudo-
acceleration spectral ordinate, PSA. Al-
though it is true that they have comparable
meanings, a direct comparison is difficult
because allowable stresses and the differ-
ences between static and dynamic behavior
have been taken into consideration when
developing equations or values for C. A
comparison between the seismic coefficient
computed according to Eq. (3-68) and the
2% damped pseudo-acceleration response
spectrum of the 1952 Taft earthquake is
shown in Figure 3-41. This is perhaps an
extreme comparison because 2% damping
is rather low and the magnitude of the Taft
earthquake was large. However, it does in-
dicate that the difference between C speci-
fied by a building code and the value of the
PSA given as the description of ground mo-
tion can be large. Details concerning the
development of seismic design procedures
in building codes are given in Berg (1983).
Design Loads 319
3. 7.4.2 Seismic Earth Pressures
As backfill is placed behind the wall and
as any loads are placed on the surface of the
backfill, an active thrust is developed which
tends to push the wall outward as well as to
resistance along the base of the wall and
passive resistance of any soil lying over the
toe of the wall tend to counteract the out-
1.0
ward horizontal component of the active
thrust. The weight of the wall and the verti-
cal component of the active thrust resist the
overturning.
In the event of an earthquake, additional
inertial forces are applied to the wall. The
most commonly used formulation to com-
pute the total (static plus dynamic) active
thrust on the wall is a modification of the
Coulomb lateral earth pressure theory orig-
inally presented in Okabe (1924, 1926), and
Mononobe (1929) and further described by
Mononobe and Matsuo. (1929). It is now
known as the Mononobe-Okabe formula-
tion. Applications and discussion of the for-
mulation are given in Seed and Whitman
(1970), Richards and Elms (1979), Elms
and Richards (1990), Prakash (1981), and
Whitman (1990).
For a detailed discussion on soil dyri.amic
pressures due to seismic or other dynamic
loads, the reader is referred to Chapter 5.
3.8 LOAD COMBINATIONS
The structure as a whole and all structural
members should be designed to provide an
acceptable and relatively uniform degree of
safety under different load combinations.
As the dead load, which is the weight of
the overall structure, including the relevant
weight of the backfill and permanently in-
stalled fixed cargo handling equipment and
miscellaneous structures, is practically con-
stant through the life of a structure, a com-
bination of a dead load with any other load
is a basic combination in which appropriate
320 Design Loads
factors of safety are applicable. Note that a
dead load is the weight in air; therefore,
where applicable, a buoyant weight should
be considered.
When the dead load plus buoyancy is
combined with some other loads (see the
following load combinations) because of the
short duration of some of these loads (e.g.,
ship impact, seismic load, and others), the
simultaneous occurrence of the full design
value of each of the loads involved has a low
probability. For example, seismic load usu-
ally does not need to be considered concur-
rently with maximum wind or wave forces
or, say, ship impact. Therefore, the use of
somewhat smaller values for the factor of
safety or an appropriate increase in permis-
sible stresses in structural elements due to
combinations of the dead load and buoyancy
effect with other load effects is justified.
In general, the designer, in consultation
with the dock owner, should scrutinize all
load combinations rationally. It should be
noted that critical loading may occur not
necessarily during operation of the struc-
ture but rather during construction (trans-
portation, installation, etc.).
In designing the dock structure, all of the
loads discussed in this chapter plus soil
(Chapter 5) and ice loads should be consid-
ered to act in the following basic combina-
tions, and the combination producing the
most unfavorable effect should be selected.
Group 1 = D
Group 2 = D +B
Group 3 = Group 2 + EP
Group 4 = Group 3 + L
Group 5 = Group 3 + E
Group 6 = Group 4 + T
Group 7 = Group 5 + T
Group 8 = Groups 3 + 5
In the above groups of load combinations,
D = dead load as previously defined
B =buoyancy
EP = earth pressures; both vertical andjor hori-
zontal, including unbalanced hydrostatic
water pressure
L = the worst possible combination of live
loads, such as any kind of loads generated
by cargo handling and hauling equipment,
including impact factors, uniform dis-
tributed loads, ship impact, and mooring
forces
E = the worst possible combination of environ-
mental loads, such as current, wind,
waves, and ice
T = contraction or expansion due to tempera-
ture changes, shrinkage or creep in compo-
nent materials, or a combination of these
effects
S = seismic load
The following percentages of permissible
stress are recommended for the above load
combinations:
• 100% for load combinations in Group 1
through 5
• 125% for load combinations in Groups 6
and 7
• 135% for load combination in Group 8
Load combinations and subsequent recom-
mended unit stresses as discussed in this
section are used in the working stress de-
sign method, which is still basically used in
marine structures design. In the case that
the designer will select the limit state de-
sign method, appropriate load factors must
be applied to all design loads.
REFERENCES
AASHTO, 1992. Standard Specifications for
Highway Bridges, 13th ed. with annual sup-
plement, Washington, D.C.
ABDELNOUR, R., 1981. "Model Tests of Multiyear
Pressure Ridges Moving onto Conical Struc-
tures." Proceedings IAHR Symposium on Ice,
Quebec City, Quebec.
AFANAS'EV, V. P., DOLGOPOLOV, Y. V., and
SHRAISHTEIN, Z. I., 1971. "Ice Pressure on
Individual Marine Structures." Ice Physics
and Ice Engineering, Israel Program for Sci-
entific Translation, 1973, Tel Aviv.

ALGERMISSEN, S. T. and PERKINS, D. M., 1976. "A
Probabilistic Estimate of Maximum Accelera-
tion in Rock in Contiguous United States."
USGS Open File Report No. 76-416.
ALLISTON, G. R., 1985. "Low Friction and
Adfreeze Coatings." Proceedings Conference
Arctic 1985.
ANDERSON, J. G., BODIN, P., BRUNE, J. N., PRINCE,
J., SINGH, S. K, QuAAS, T., and ONATE, M.,
1986. "Strong Ground Motion from the
Michoacan, Mexico Earthquake." Science,
Vol. 233.
APELT, C. J. and PIOREWICZ, J., 1987. "Labora-
tory Studies of Breaking Wave Forces Acting
on Vertical Cylinders in Shallow Water."
Coastal Engineering, Vol. 11, No.3.
AssUR, A., 1975. "Problems on Ice Engineering."
Proceedings Third International Symposium
on Ice Problems, Hanover, NH.
BALFOUR, J. S., FEBEN, J. C., and MARTIN, D. L.,
1980. "Fendering Requirement/Design
Fender Impact Criteria." Ports '80. ASCE
Specialty Conference, Norfolk, VA.
BALL, D. J., 1982. "The Concept of Added Mass."
The Dock and Harbour Authority, Vol. 61.
BALL, D. J. and WILCOCK, J. A., 1981. "Ship and
Jetty Interaction." The Dock and Harbour
Authority, Vol. 62, No. 727.
BAREL, P. Y. and GABRIEL, J. C., 1986. "The
Seismic Response of Two Dimensional Sedi-
mentary Deposits with Large Vertical Veloc-
ity Gradients." Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, Vol. 76.
BASHAM, P. w., WIECHERT, D., ANGLIN, F. M.,
and BERRY, M. J., 1985. "New Probabilistic
Strong Seismic Ground Motion Maps of
Canada." Bulletin of the Seismological Society
of America, Vol. 75.
BECK, J. L. and HALL, J. F., 1986. "Factors Con-
tributing to the Catastrophe in Mexico City
During the Earthquake of September 19,
1985." Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 13.
BERCHA, F. G., 1986. "Ice-Structure Interaction:
Engineering Design and Construction
Criteria," Vol. 1 Formal Report AESjSAG
1-2 : 86-17V1 for Public Works Canada.
BERG, G. V., 1983. Seismic Design Codes and
Procedures, Earthquake Engineering Re-
search Institute, Berkeley, CA.
Design Loads 321
BERRILL, J. B., 1977. "Site Effects During the
San Fernando, California Earthquake." Pro-
ceedings of the 6th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, India.
BLANCHET, D., CHURCHER, A., FITZPATRICK, J.,
and BARDA-BLANCHET, 1989. "An Analysis of
Observed Failure Mechanisms for Labora-
tory, First-Year and Multi-Year Ice." Special
Report 89-5 by IAHR, edited by G. W. Timco,
Hanover, NH.
BLOK, J. J. and DEKKER, J. N., 1979. "On Hydro-
dynamic Aspects of Ship Collisions with Rigid
or Non-Rigid Structures." Offshore Technol-
ogy Conference, Houston, TX, Paper OTC
3665.
BLUME, J. A., SHARPE, R. L., and DALAL, J. S.,
1972. "Recommendations for Shape of Earth-
quake Response Spectra." AEC Report
WASH-1254.
BOLT, B. A., 1969. "Duration of Strong Motion."
Proceedings 4th World Conference on Earth-
quake Engineering. Santiago, Chile.
BOLT, B. A., 1987. Earthquakes, W. H. Freeman
& Co., New York.
BoMZE, H., 1980. "Math Model for Harbor
Wharves/Ship Motion/Moorings." Proceed-
ing ASCE Speciality Conference PORTS '80.
Norfolk, VA.
BRATTLELAND, E., 1974. "A Survey on Acceptable
Ship Movements in Harbours." The Dock and
Harbour Authority, Vol. 55, No. 647.
BRIDGEMAN, S. G., 1984. "Wave Force and
Movement on Caisson." Computer Program
'DIFMOM'.
BRIDGEMAN, S. G., 1987. Computer Software
"Wave Force and Moment on Pile."
BRITISH STANDARD CODE OF PRACTICE FOR MAR-
ITIME STRUCTURES, Part 1, General Criteria,
1984, BS64349 including 1987 amendment.
BRITISH STANDARD CODE OF PRACTICE FOR MAR-
ITIME STRUCTURES, Part 4, Design of Fender-
ing and Mooring Systems, BS6349, 1985.
BRUUN, P., 1989. Port Engineering, 4th ed., Gulf
Publishing Company, Houston, TX.
BURSNALL, W. J., and LOFTIN, L. K, 1951. "Ex-
perimental Investigation of the Pressure
Distribution About a Yawed Cylinder in the
Critical Reynolds Number Range." Technical
Note 2463, National Advisory Committee for
Aeronauties.
322 Design Loads
BusHNELL, M., 1977. "Forces on Cylinder
Arrays." Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, TX, Paper 2903.
CAMMAERT, A. B., KIMURA, T., NOMA, N., YASHIMA,
M., YANO, S., and MATSUSHIMA, Y., 1986. "Ad-
freeze Forces on Offshore Platforms." Pro-
ceedings International OMAE Symposium,
Tokyo, Vol. 4.
CAMPBELL, K. W., 1985. "Strong Motion Attenua-
tion Relationships: A Ten Year Perspective."
Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 1.
CAN I CSA S6-M87. Design ofHighway Bridges,
Canadian Standard Association.
CANADIAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, 1971.
"Review of Current Ice Technology and Eval-
uation of Research Priorities." Report Series
No. 17, Inland Water Branch.
CHAKRABARTI, S. K., 1991. "Wave Forces on Off-
shore Structures." Handbook of Coastal and
Ocean Engineering, Vol. 2, Herbich, J. B. (ed.),
Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, TX.
CHAKRABARTI, S. K. and TAM, W. A., 1973. "Gross
and Local Wave Loads on Large Vertical
Cylinder." Proceedings Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, TX, Paper 1818.
CHANG, K. S., 1964. "Transverse Forces on Cylin-
ders Due to Vortex Shedding in Waves."
SM Thesis, Civil Engineering Department,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
CHOPRA, A. K., 1981. Dynamics of Structures-A
Primer. Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Berkeley, CA.
CHRISTENSEN, T. F. and ZABILANSKY, 1., 1985.
"Review of Experimental Studies of Uplifting
Forces Enerbed by Adfrozen Ice on Marine
Piles." Proceedings POAC 1985.
CORNELL, C. A., 1968. "Engineering Seismic Risk
Analysis." Bulletin of the Seismological Soci-
ety of America, Vol. 58.
CROASDALE, K. R., 1980. "Ice Forces on Fixed,
Rigid Structures." Special Report 80-26, In-
ternational Association for Hydraulic Re-
search (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold
Regions Research and Engineering Labora-
tory).
CROASDALE, K. R., MORGENSTERN, N. R., and
NUTTALL, J. B., 1977. "Indentation Tests to
Investigate Ice Pressure on Vertical Struc-
tures." Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 19, No. 81.
DANIELEWICZ, B. W. and BLANCHET, D., 1987.
"Measurements of Multi-Year Ice Loads on
Hans Island During 1980 and 1981." Interna-
tional Conference POAC Preprint, Fairbanks,
AK.
DENT, E. G. and SAURIN, B. F., 1969. "Tanker
Terminals-Berthing Structures." Sympo-
sium on Tanker and Bulk Carriers Terminal,
Institute of Civil Engineers, London.
DET NoRSKE VERITAS, 1977. Rules for the De-
sign, Construction and Inspection of Offshore
Structures, Nl!lvik, Norway.
DOBRY, R., OWEIS, 1., and URZUA, A., 1976. "Sim-
plified Procedures for Estimating the Funda-
mental Period of a Soil Profile." Bulletin of
the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 66.
DROUIN, M., 1970. "State of Research on Ice
Thermal Thrust." IAHR Proceedings of Sym-
posium, Reykjavik, Iceland.
EAU, 1990. Recommendations of the Committee
for Waterfront Structures, Erust & Sohn,
Berlin.
EDWARDS, R. Y. and CROASDALE, K. R., 1976.
"Model Experiments to Determine Ice Forces
on Conical Structures." Symposium on Ap-
plied Glaciology, International Glaciological
Society, Cambridge.
EERI COMMITTEE ON SEISMIC RISK, 1989. "The
Basics of Seismic Risk Analysis." Earthquake
Spectra, Vol. 5.
ELMS, D. G. and RICHARDS, R., 1990. "Seismic
Design of Retaining Walls." ASCE Proceed-
ings of Specialty Conference on Design and
Performance of Earth Retaining Structures,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
EPRI, 1988. "A Criterion for Determining Ex-
ceedance of the Operating Basis Earthquake."
Research Report NP-5930, Electric Power Re-
search Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
ERANTY, E. and LEE, G. C., 1981. "Introduction
to Ice Problems in Civil Engineering." Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering, State University of
New York, Buffalo, NY.
FANG, S., 1979. "Field Measurement of VLCC
Mooring Loads." Proceedings Offshore Tech-
nology Conference, Houston, TX, Paper 3383.
FENCO ENGINEERS, 1984. "Arctic Marine Design
and Construction Handbook." Transport
Canada Report No. TP 5727E, Vol. 1, Fenco
Engineers, Montreal.

FONTIJN, H. L., 1980. "The Berthing of a Ship to
a Jetty." Journal of the Waterway, Port,
Coastal and Ocean Division, VoL 106, No.2.
FONTIJN, J. L., 1987. "On the Prediction ofFender
Forces at Berthing Structures, Parts I and
II." Proceedings NATO Advanced Study Insti-
tute, Advances in Berthing and Mooring of
Ships and Offshore Structures," Troudheim,
Norway.
FREDERKING, R., 1980. "Dynamic Ice Forces on
an Inclined Structure." Physics and Mechan-
ics of Ice, P. Tryde (ed.), Springer-Verlag, New
York.
FuJINo, M., 1968. "Steerability of Ship in Re-
stricted Water." Shipbuilding Association Re-
port No. 124 (in Japanese).
GARRISON, C. J., TRUM, A., IVERSON, C. and
LEIVSETH, S., 1974. "Wave Forces on Large
Volume Structures-A Comparison Between
Theory and Model Tests." Proceedings of Off-
shore Technology Conference. Houston, TX,
Paper 2137.
GAYTHWAITE, J. W., 1981. The Marine Environ-
ment and Structural Design, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
GAYTHWAITE, J. W., 1990. Design of Marine Fa-
cilities for the Berthing, Mooring and Repair
of Vessels, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
GERSHUNOV, E. M., 1985. "Shear Strength of the
Adfreeze Bond and its Effect on Global Ice
Loads Applied to Mobile Offshore Drilling
Units Under Arctic Conditions." Offshore
Technical Conference, Houston, TX, Paper Otc
4687.
GIRAUDET, P., 1966. "Recherches experimentales
sur l'energie d'accostage des navires."
Annales des Ponts et Chausees, No.2.
GrnGRAH, M., 1977. "Practical Aspects of Dock
Fender Design." Proceedings of the Twenty-
Fourth Congress, PIANC, SII-4, Leningrad.
GoDA, Y., 1985. Random Seas and Design of
Maritime Structures, University of Tokyo
Press, Tokyo, Japan.
GoLD, L. W., 1984. "Ice Pressures and Bearing
Capacity." Geotechnical Engineering for Cold
Regions, Andersland, 0. B. and D. M.
Anderson, D. M. (eds.), McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York.
GORUNOV, B. F., 1980. Specializing Terminals in
Sea Ports, Transport Publishing House,
Moscow (In Russian).
Design Loads 323
GRIM, 0., 1955. "Das Schiff und des Dalben."
Schiffund Haven, Vol. 7.
GUREVICH, V. B., 1969. Marine Structures for
Inland Ports, Transport Publisher, Moscow
(in Russian).
HANKS, T. C. and KANAMORI, H., 1979. "A
Moment-Magnitude Scale." Journal of Geo-
physical Research, Vol. 84.
HAYAMA, Y. and SAKURAOKA, M., 1996. "Effect of
Compression Speed on Fender Performance,"
Proceedings of 11th International Harbour
Congress, Antwerpen, Belgium.
HAYASHI, T., 1962. "Ship Impact During
Berthing." Proceedings of Annual Presenta-
tions on Coastal Engineering (in Japanese).
HEADLAND, J. R., 1992a. "Design of Fender Sys-
tems Using a Numerical Berthing Model."
Permanent International Association of Navi-
gation Congresses Bulletin No. 77.
HEADLAND, J. R., 1992b. "A Computational
Berthing Model for the Design of Fender Sys-
tems." ASCE Proceedings Specialty Confer-
ence PORTS '92, Seattle, WA.
HEADLAND, J. R., 1995. "Offshore Moorings" in
"Marine Structures Engineering Specialized
Applications," by G. Tsinker, Chapman and
Hall, New York, N.Y.
HENDRICK, G. J., 1980. "Testing of Used Tires for
Fendering Systems on Marine Structures."
Public Works Canada, File Q50-8. Unpub-
lished Report.
HERBICH, J. B. (ed.), 1991/1992. Handbook of
Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Vols. 1, 2,
and 3, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston,
TX.
HOGBEN, N. and STANDLING, R. G., 1975. "Experi-
ence in Computing Wave Loads on Large
Bodies." Proceedings of Offshore Technology
Conference, Paper 2189.
HUDSON, D. E., 1979. Reading and Interpreting
Strong Motion Accelerograms, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, CA.
ISAACSON, M., 1988. "Wave and Current Forces
on Fixed Offshore Structures." Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 15.
ISAACSON, M. and QI-HUA Zuo, 1989. "Nonlinear
Wave Forces on a Circular Cylinder." Cana-
dian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 16.
ISAACSON, M., ALLYN, N., and ACKERMAN, C.,
1995. "Design Wave Loads for a Jetty at
324 Design Loads
Plymouth, Montserrat." Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, Vol. 22.
IYER, S. H., 1983. "Size Effects on Ice and Their
Influence on the Structural Design of Off-
shore Structures." Proceedings International
Conference POAC, Vol. 2, Helsinki.
IZUMIYAMA, K., KITAGAWA, H., KoYAMA, K., and
UTo, S., 1991. "On the Interaction Between a
Conical Structure and Ice Sheet." Proceedings
of the 11th International Conference on Ports
and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Condi-
tions, St. John's, Canada.
JACKSON, W. H., 1973. "Some Problems Associ-
ated with Jetties in Fast Flowing Water."
Proceedings PIANC, 23rd Congress, Section
II, Ottawa.
JAMIESON, w. w., MANSARD, E. P. D.,
and Mogridge, G. R., 1985. "Wave Load on a
Conical Gravity Platform." Behaviour of
Offshore Structures, Elsevier Science Publish-
ers, Amsterdam.
JENSEN, 0. J. and WARREN, l. R., 1986. "Model-
ing of Waves in Harbours. Review of Physical
and Numerical Methods." The Dock & Har-
bour Authority, October.
JENSEN, 0. J., VIGGOSSON, G., THOMSEN, J.,
BJ0RDAL, S., LUNDGREN, J., 1990. "Criteria for
Ship Movements in Harbours." Proceedings of
the International Conference on Coastal En-
gineering, Venice, Italy.
JOHNSON, R. C. and BENOIT, J. R., 1987. "Iceberg
Impact Strength." Proceedings OTC, Houston,
TX.
JOYNER, W. B. and BOORE, D. M., 1982. "Predict-
ion of earthquake response spectra." Proceed-
ings 51st Annual Convention, Structural En-
gineers Association of California (also U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Report 82-977).
JoYNER, W. B. and BooRE, D. M., 1988. "Meas-
urement, Characterization and Prediction of
Strong Ground Motion." Proceedings of Con-
ference on Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Dynamics, II. Park City, Utah, ASCE, Wash-
ington, DC.
JUNIUS, R. W., 1983. "Wharf Decks-Design Load
vs Cost." ASCE Proceedings of Specialty Con-
ference PORTS '83, New Orleans, LA.
KERR, A. D., 1976. "The bearing Capacity of
Floating Ice Plates Subjected to Static or
Quasi-Static Loads." Journal of Glaciology,
Vol. 17.
KERR, A. D., 1978. "Forces an Ice Cover Exerts
on Rows or Clusters of Piles Due to a Change
of the Water Level." Proc. IAHR Symp. on Ice,
Part I, Lulea, Sweden.
KERR, A. D., 1986. "Response of Floating Ice
Beams and Plates with Partial Flooding."
Proceedings of the 1st International Confer-
ence on Ice Technology, Cambridge, MA.
KHALFIN, J. S., 1990. Wave Forces on Offshore
Platforms, Nedra, Moscow (in Russian).
KHANNA, J. and SORENSEN, T., 1980. "Stand-Off
Force on Ships Moored in Strong Current."
Proceedings ASCE Specialty Conference
PORTS '80, Norfolk, VA.
KIEDAISCH, E., 1995. "Fender Systems in the 90's
and Beyond." ASCE Proceedings Specialty
Conference PIANC '95, Tampa, FL.
K:!RKGOZ, M. S., 1992. "Influence of Water Depth
on the Breaking Wave Impact on Vertical and
Sloping Walls." Coastal Engineering, Vol. 18.
KJELDGAARD, J. H. and CARSTENS, T., 1980.
"Thermal Ice Forces." In the Special State-of-
the-Art Report 80-26, ed. T. Carstens. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers CRREL, Hanover,
N.H.
KORZHAVIN, K. N., 1962. Action of Ice on Engi-
neering Structures, USSR Academy of Sci-
ence, Siberia. Translated from Russian by the
U.S. Army CRREL in 1971, Hanover, NH.
KRY, P. R., 1978. "A Statistical Prediction of
Effective Ice Crushing Stresses on Wide
Structures." Proceedings IAHR Symposium on
Ice Problems, Part 1, University of Lulea,
Sweden.
KRY, P.R., 1980. "Ice Forces on Wide Structures."
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 17,
No.1.
LAIRD, A. D. K., 1962. "Water Forces on Flexible
Oscillating Cylinders." ASCE Journal of the
Waterways and Harbor Division, Vol. 88, No.
WW3.
LAu, M. and WILLIAMS, F. M., 1991. "Model Ice
Forces on a Downward Breakin Cone." Pro-
ceedings the 11th International Conference
on Ports and Ocean Engineering Under
Arctic Conditions, St. John's, Canada.
LEE, T. T., 1965. "A Hydraulic-Pneumatic Float-
ing Fender." Technical Report R334, U.S.
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port
Hueneme, CA.

LEE, T. T., 1966. "Hydraulic-Pneumatic Float-
ing Fender." Additional In-Service Tests, First
Series, Technical Report R430, U.S. Naval
Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme,
CA.
LINDSTROM, C. A, 1990. "Numerical Estimation
of Ice Forces Acting on Inclined Structures
and Ships in Level Ice." Proceedings Annual
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
TX, Paper OTG 6445.
MAcCAMY, R. C. and FucHs, R. A, 1954. "Wave
Forces on Piles: A Diffraction Theory." U.S.
Army Branch Erosion Board, Technical Memo,
No. 69, December.
MARCELLUS, R. W., MORRISON, T. B., ALLYN, N. F.
B., CROASDALE, K. R., IYER, H. S., and TSENG,
J., 1987. "Ice Forces on Marine Structures."
Report AESjSAG 1-2:88-5V2 Prepared for
Ministry of Supply and Services, Canada,
1988.
MAzuRKIEWICZ, B. K., 1995. "Shiplifts, Marine
Railways, Shipways and Dry (Graving)
Docks." Marine Structures Engineering:
Specialized Applications, by Tsinker, G. P.,
Chapman & Hall, New York.
McCANN, W. M. and SHAH, H. C., 1979. "De-
termining Strong Motion Duration of Earth-
quakes." Bulletin of the Seismological Society
of America, Vol. 69.
McGmRE, R. K., 1974. "Seismic Structural Re-
sponse Risk Analysis, Incorporating Peak Re-
sponse Regressions on Earthquake Magni-
tude and Distance." Research Report R74-51,
Department of Civil Engineering, MIT,
Cambridge, MA.
MICHEL, B., 1970. "Off-Shore Mooring Structure
for the Arctic." IAHR Proceeding of Ice Sym-
posium, Reykjavik, Iceland.
MICHEL, B., 1971. "Winter Regime in Rivers and
Lakes." U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory Monograph III,
Hanover, NH.
MICHEL, B., 1978. "Ice Mechanics." Les Presses
de L'University, Laval, Quebec.
MICHEL, B. and TOUSSAINT, N., 1977. "Mecha-
nisms and Theory of Indentation of Ice
Plates." Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 19, No. 81.
MIDDENDORP, P., 1981. "Fender Forces from
Berthing Ships." The Dock and Harbour
Authority, October.
Design Loads 325
MINIKIN, R. R., 1963. Wind, Waves and Maritime
Structures, 2nd ed., Griffin, London.
MIZOGUCHI, M. and NAKANAYAMA, T., 1973.
"Studies on the Berthing Velocities and
Energy of the Ships." Technical Note of Port
and Harbour Research Institute, No. 170.
MOGRIDGE, G. R. and JAMIESON, W. W., 1976a.
"Wave Loads on Large Circular Cylinders: A
Design Method." National Research Council.
Hydraulic Laboratory, Ottawa, Canada.
MOGRIDGE, G. R. and JAMIESON, W. W., 1976b.
"Design Method of the Estimation of Wave
Loads on Square Caissons." National Re-
search Council of Canada Hydraulic Labora-
tory, Ottawa, Canada.
MoHRAZ, B., 1976. "A Study of Earthquake Re-
sponse Spectra for Different Geological Condi-
tions." Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, Vol. 66.
MONONOBE, N., 1929. "Earthquake-Proof Con-
struction of Masonry Dams." Proceedings,
World Engineering Conference, Vol. 9.
MONONOBE, N. and MATSUO, H., 1929. "On De-
termination of Earth Pressure During Earth-
quakes." Proceedings World Engineering
Congress, Tokyo, Vol. 9.
MORRISON, J. R., O'BRIEN, M. P., JOHNSON, J. w.,
and ScHAAF, S. A., 1950. "The Force Exerted
by Surface Waves on Piles." Petroleum Trans-
action Journal, Vol. 189.
MORRISON, T. B., MARCELLUS, R. W., ABLYN, N. F.
B., and TSEUG, J., 1988. Ice Forces on Marine
Structures, Vol. !-Calculations, Ministry of
Supply and Services, Ottawa, Canada.
MoTORA, S., 1959. "On the Added Mass and
Added Moment of Inertia of Hull Movement."
Shipbuilding Association Reports Nos. 105
and 106 (in Japanese).
MURPHY, J. R., DAVIS, A. H., and WEAVER, N. L.,
1971. "Amplification of Seismic Body Waves
by Low Velocity Surface Layers." Bulletin of
the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 61.
NAGASAWA, J., 1959. "Study on Prevention of
Damage to Ship Hull During Berthing." Ship-
building Association Report No. 106 (in
Japanese).
NATO, 1965. Analytical Treatment of the Prob-
lems in the Berthing on a Mooring of Ships,
NATO Advanced Study Institute/ASCE, New
York.
326 Design Loads

NATO, 1973. Analytical Treatment of the Prob- NUTTLI, 0. W. and HERRMANN, R. B., 1982.
lems in the Berthing on a Mooring of Ships, "Earthquake Magnitude Scales." JGT, Vol
NATO Advanced Study Institute, Walling- 108.
ford, U.K 0KABE, S., 1924. "General Theory on Earth Pres-
NATO, 1987. Advances in Berthing and Mooring sure and Seismic Stability of Retaining Wall
of Ships and Offshore Structures, NATO Ad- and Dam." Journal of Japan Society of Civil
vanced Study Institute, Trondhiem, Norway. Engineers, Vol. 10.
NAVFAC, 1968. Harbour and Coastal Facilities,
DM-26, Department of the Navy, Washing- , OKABE, S., 1926. "General Theory on Earth Pres-
ton, DC (Superceded by new series of point sure." Journal of the Japanese Society of Civil
manuals.) Engineers, Vol. 12, No. 1.
NAVFAC, 1980. Piers and Wharves, DM-25.1, OKSANEN, P., 1983. "Adhesion Strength of Ice."
Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities En- Proceedings International Conference POAC,
gineering Command, Alexandria, VA. Vol. 2, Helsinki.
NAVFAC DM-26.2, 1982. Coastal Protection De- OTANI, H., 1974. "A Study of the Berthing Im-
sign Manual 26.2. Department of the Navy, pact of the Large Tanker." Technical Note of
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Port and Harbour Research Institute No. 176.
Alexandria, VA.
PADROU, D. V. (1994). Personal Communication,
NAVFAC, 1986. "Fixed Moorings, DM-26.7" De-
January 27.
partment of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engi-
neering Command, Alexandria, VA. PALO, P. A., 1983. "Steady Wind and Current
NEILL, C. R., 1976. "Dynamic Ice Forces on Piers Induced Loads on Moored . Vessels." Pro-
and Piles. An Assessment of Design Guide- ceedings Offshore Technology Conference,
lines in the Light of Recent Research." Houston, TX, Paper 4530.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. PERMANENT INTERNATIONAL AsSOCIATION OF NAVI-
3, No.2. GATION CONGRESSES, 1984. "Ice Navigation."
NEVEL, D. E., 1972. "The Ultimate Failure of Supplement to Bulletin No. 46.
Floating Ice Sheets." Proceedings IAHR ICE PERMANENT INTERNATIONAL AsSOCIATION OF NAVI-
Symposium, Leningrad.
GATION CONGRESSES, 1984. "Report of the In-
NEWMAN, J. N., 197. Marine Hydrodynamics, ternational Commission for Improving the
M.I.T. Press. Cambridge, MA.
Design of Fender Systems." Supplement to
NEWMARK, N. M. and HALL, W. J., 1969. "Seis- Bulletin No. 45.
mic Design Criteria for Nuclear Reactor Fa-
cilities." Proceedings 4th World Conference on PERMANENT INTERNATIONAL AsSOCIATION OF NAVI-
Earthquake Engineering. Santiago, Chile, Vol. GATION CONGRESSES, 1987. "Development of
B.4. Modem Marine Terminals." Supplement to
NEWMARK, N. M. and HALL, W. J., 1982. Earth- Bulletin 56.
quake Spectra and Design, Earthquake Engi- PERMANENT INTERNATIONAL AssOCIATION OF NAVI-
neering Research Institute, Berkeley, CA. GATION CONGRESSES, 1995(a). "Criteria for
NEWMARK, N. M., BLUME, J. A., and KAPUR, Movements of Moored Ships in Harbours. A
K K, 1973. "Seismic Design Criteria for Practical Guide Supplement to Bulletin No.
Nuclear Power Plants." Journal of the 88.
Power Division, ASCE, Vol. 99.
PERMANENT INTERNATIONAL AsSOCIATION OF NAVI-
NIGAM, N. C. and JENNINGS, P. C., 1969. "Calcu- GATION CONGRESSES, 1995(b). Letter by Ad-
lation of Response Spectra from Strong
ministrative Director C. DeCraen to all Mem-
Motion Earthquake Records." Bulletin of the
bers ofPIANC, 29 November.
Seismological Society of America, Vol. 59.
NIXON, W. A., ETrEMA, R., MATSUISHI, M., and PRANG, M. K, 1977. "Dynamic Response of Ele-
JOHNSON, B. C., 1993. "Model Study of Cable- vated Conveyor Structure." ASCE Proceed-
Moored Conical Platform." ASCE Journal of ings of Specialty Conference PORTS '77. Long
Cold Regions Engineering, Vol. 6, No.1. Beach, CA.

PIASECKYJ, P. J., 1977. Proceedings of the
Twenty-Fourth PIANC Congress, Leningrad
(updated in 1982). Paper SII-4.
PRAKAsH, S., 1981. Soil Dynamics, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, New York.
PRAKAsH, S. and BASAVANNA, B. M., 1969. "Earth
Pressure Distribution Behind Retaining Wall
During Earthquake." Proceedings 4th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Santiago, Chile, Vol. A5.
QUINN, A. D., 1972. Design and Construction of
Ports and Marine Structures, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, New York.
RAHMAN, M. and CHAKRAVARTI¥, I. C., 1986. "De-
sign Method for Predicting Wave Forces on
Rectangular Caissons." ASCE Journal of
Waterway Port and Coastal Engineering, Vol.
112, No.6.
RALSTON, T. D., 1977. "Yield Criteria for Ice
Crushing Failure." Ice Mechanics Workshop,
Calgary, Alberta.
RALsTON, T. D., 1979. "Ice Force Design Consid-
erations for Conical Offshore Structures."
Proceedings of the Fifth International Confer-
ence POAC '79, Trondheim, Norway.
RESIO, D. T. and VINCENT, C. L., 1976. "Estima-
tion of Winds Over the Great Lakes" (Final
Report), MPH-76-12, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi, June.
RICHARDS, R. and ELMS, D. G., 1979. "Seismic
Behavior of Gravity Retaining Walls."
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.
105, No.4.
RICHTER, C. F., 1958. Elementary Seismology, W.
H. Freeman, New York.
RoGAN, A J., 1978. "Wave Forces on Piles." The
Dock and Harbour Authority, Vol. 59, No. 693.
RUPERT, D., 1976. Zir Bemessung und Konstruk-
tion von Fendern un Dalben, Mitteilungen des
Franzius-Institute fur Wasserbau und Kusten
Ingenieurs wesen aer Technische Universitat,
Hannover.
SACKINGER, W. M. and SACKINGER, P. A, 1977.
"Shear Strength of the Adfreeze Bond of Sea
Ice to Structures." Proceedings International
Conference POAC, Vol. 2, St. John's, Canada.
SAEKI, H., ET AL. 1981. "Experimental Study of
the Compressive Strength of Sea Ice and the
Ice Forces on a Circular Pile." Coastal Engi-
neering, Vol. 19, December.
Design Loads 327
SARPKAYA, T., 1976. "Vortex Shedding and Re-
sistance in Harmonic Flow About Smooth
and Rough Circular Cylinders." Boss '76,
Trodheim, Norway.
SARPKAYA, T. and ISAACSON, M., 1981. Mechanics
of Wave Forces on Offshore Structures, Van
Nosfrand Reinhold Co., New York.
SARPKAYA, T., COLLINS, N. J., and EVANS, S. R.,
1977. "Wave Forces on Rough-Walled Cylin-
ders at High Reynolds Numbers." Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, TX, Paper
2901.
SAURIN, B. F., 1963. "Berthing Forces of Large
Tankers." Proceedings Sixth World Petroleum
Congress, Frankfurt, Section VII, Paper 10.
SEED, H. B. and WHITMAN, R. V., 1970. "Design
of Earth Retaining. Structures for Dynamic
Loads." Proceedings ASCE Specialty Confer-
ence on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and
Design of Earth Retaining Structures, Ithaca,
NY, pp. 103-147.
SEED, H. B., UGAS, C., and LYSMER, J., 1976.
"Site-Dependent Spectra for Earthquake Re-
sistant Design." Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, Vol. 66.
SINGH, S. K., MENA, E., and CASTRO, R., 1988.
"Some Aspects of Source Characteristics of
the 19 September 1985 Michoacan Earth-
quake and Ground Motion Amplification in
and near Mexico City from Strong Motion
Data." Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, Vol. 78.
SLINN, P. J. B., 1979. "Effect of Ship Movement
on Container Handling Ropes." The Dock and
Harbour Authority, August.
SODHI, D. S., 1995. "Breakthrough Loads of
Floating Ice Sheets," ASCE Journal of Cold
Regions Engineering, Vol. 9, No.1, March.
SODHI, D. S. and NEVEL, D. E., 1980. "A Review
Of Bucking Analysis of Ice Sheets." Working
Group on Ice Forces on Structures. A State-of-
the-Art Report. CRREL Special Report 80-26.
Hanover, NH.
SoNGEN, B., 1995. "The Effect of Wind on the
Design of Canals." Permanent International
Association of Navigation Congresses, Bul-
letin No. 88.
STAMMERS, A J. and WENNINK, C. J., 1977. "In-
vestigations of Vessel Mooring Subject to
328 Design Loads
Wave Action." The Dock and Harbour Author-
ity, Vol. LVII, No. 677.
STAROSOLSKY, 0., 1970. "Ice in Hydraulic
Engineering." Norwegian Institute of Tech-
nology, Division of Hydraulic Engineering,
Trondheim, Norway, Report N70-1.
STELSON, T. E., 1995. "Virtual Mass and Acceler-
ation in Fluids." Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 81, No. 670.
STEVENSON, J. D., KENNEDY, R. P., and HALL, W.
J., 1984. "Nuclear Power Plant Seismic De-
sign-A Review of Selected Topics." Nuclear
Engineering and Design, Vol. 79.
SUNDAR, V., NEELAMANI, S., and VENDHAM, C. P.,
1989. "Dynamic Pressures on a Large Verti-
cal Cylinder due to Random Waves." Coastal
Engineering, Vol. 13.
SVENDSEN, I. A., 1970. "Measurement of Impact
Energies on Fenders." The Dock and Harbour
Authority, September-October.
SWIFl', R. H., 1989. "Prediction of Breaking Force
on Vertical Cylinders." Coastal Engineering,
Vol. 13.
THORESEN, S. A., 1988. Port Design, Tapir Pub-
lishers, Troudheim, Norway.
TIMco, G. W., 1987. "Ice Forces on Multi-Legged
Structures." 3rd State-of-the-Art Report 87-17
by Working Group on Ice Forces, Sanderson,
T. J. 0., (ed.), U.S. Army CRREL, Hanover,
NH.
T!IIRUM, A., 1989. "Wave Forces on Pile in Sur-
face Zone." ASCE Journal of Waterway, Port,
Coastal, Ocean Engineering, Vol. 115. No.4.
TRIFUNAC, M. D. and ANDERSON, J. G., 1978.
"Preliminary Empirical Models for Scaling
Pseudo Relative Velocity Spectra." Methods
for Prediction of Strong Earthquake Ground
Motion, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Report NUREGjCR-0689, Al-A90.
TR!FUNAC, M. D. and BRADY, A. G., 1975. "A
Study of the Duration of Strong Earthquake
Ground Motion." Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, Vol. 65.
TRYDE, P., 1989. "Ice Engineering." Port Engi-
neering, Bruun, P. (ed.), Gulf Publishing
Company, Houston, TX.
TSINKER, G. P., 1986. Floating Ports, Gulf Pub-
lishing Company, Houston, TX.
TSINKER, G. P., 1995. Marine Structures Engi-
neering: Specialized Applications, Chapman
& Hall, New York.
TSUCIITYA, Y. and YAMAGUCHI, M., 1974. "Total
Wave Force on a Vertical Pile." ASCE Pro-
ceedings 14th Coastal Engineering Confer-
ence, Vol. III.
TYRELL, B. G., 1966 I 1967. "Mooring Dolphins-
Evaluation of Forces and Principles of
Design." The Dock and Harbour Authority,
Vol. 47.
UDOVICHENKO, V. N. and YAKOVLEV, P. I., 1976.
Marine. Structures for Sea and Inland Ports,
Transport Publishing House, Moscow (in
Russian).
UEDA, S., 1981. "Study in Berthing Impact Force
on Very Large Crude Oil Carriers." Japanese
Port and Harbour Research Institute, Vol. 20,
No.2.
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1982. International
Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 1984. Shore
Protection Manual. Department of the Army.
Washington, DC.
U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, 1973. Design
Response Spectral for Seismic Design of
Nuclear Power Plants, Regulatory Guide
1.60, Directorate of Regulatory Standards,
Washington, DC.
USNRC, 1989. "Standard Review Plan for the
Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nu-
clear Power Plants, Section 2.5.2, Vibratory
Ground Motion,. (Revision 2)." NUREG-0800,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
Washington, DC.
VALENTINE, H. R., 1967. Applied Hydrodynam-
ics, Butterworth, London.
VAN 00RTMERSSEN, G., 1974. "The Berthings of a
Large Tanker to a Jetty." Offshore Technol-
ogy Conference, Houston, TX, Paper OTC
2100.
VAN OORTMERSSEN, G., 1976. "The Motion of a
Moored Ship in Waves." Ph.D. Thesis, Delft
University, The Netherlands.
VAN OORTMERSSEN, G., 1986. "Computer Simula-
tion of Modem Ship Behaviour." Proceedings
ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 2.
VANTE CHOW, 1959. "Open-Channel Hydraulics,"
McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd., New York, N.Y.

VASCO COSTA, F., 1964. "The Berthing Ship." The
Dock and Harbour Authority, VoL 45, Nos.
523, 524, and 525.
VASCO COSTA, F., 1983. "Moored Ships as Oscil-
lating Systems." The Dock and Harbour
Authority, February.
VIGGOSSON, G., 1988. "Field Observatory of Ship
Behaviour at Berth. Advances in Berthing
and Mooring of Ships and Offshore Struc-
tures." NATO, AS1 Series E, Applied Sci-
ences, Vol. 146.
WAKE, A., POON, Y-K., and CRISSMAN, R., 1987.
"Ice Transport by Wind, Wave, and Currents."
ASCE Journal of Gold Regions Engineering.
WANG, S., 1975. "Dynamic Effects of Ship Pas-
sage on Moored Vessels." Proceedings ASCE,
Vol. 101, No. WW3.
WESSELS, E. and KATO, K, 1989. "Ice Forces on
Fixed and Floating Conical Structures."
Fourth Special State-of-the-Art Report 89-5.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CRREL,
Hanover, NH.
WHITMAN, R. V., 1990. "Seismic Design of Grav-
ity Retaining Walls." ASCE, Proceedings Spe-
cialty Conference on Design and Performance
of Earth Retaining Structures, Cornell Uni-
versity, Ithaca, NY.
WIGGINS, J. H., 1964. "Effects of Site Conditions
Design Loads 329
on Earthquake Intensity." Journal of the
Structural Division, Vol. 90.
WILSON, B. W., 1951. "Ship Response to Ranging
in Harbour Basins." Transaction of the ASCE.
WILSON, B. W., 1958. "The Energy Problems in
the Mooring of Ship Exposed to Waves." The
Princeton University Conference on Berthing
and Cargo Handling in Exposed Locations,
Princeton, NJ.
WILSON, B. W., 1959. "A Case of Critical Surging
of a Moored Ship." Proceedings of the ASCE,
Vol. 85, No. WW3.
WILSON, B. W., 1967. "Elastic Characteristics of
Moorings." ASCE Journal of the Waterways
and Harbours Division, Vol. 93, No. WW4.
WILSON, B. W., LEVINTON, and BAKER, 1958.
"Berthing and Cargo Handling in Exposed
Locations." Proceedings of Princeton Univer-
sity Conference.
WONG, H. L. and JENNINGS, P. C., 1975. "Effects
of Canyon Topography on Strong Ground
Motion." Bulletin of the Seismological Society
of America, Vol. 65.
Woon, J. S., KHANNA, J., and DEMBINSKI, M.,
1980. "Design of an Offshore Berth for Moor-
ing Large Ships in a Strong Current." Pro-
ceedings PIANC, 25th Congress Section II,
Vol. 1. Edinburgh, UK.