IACMAG_Symposium2019, 133, v3 (major): ’COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BACKFILL . . .

Comparative study of backfill retaining systems for onshore RCC pile

berth under different site conditions

Soumyakanti Dhavala a*, Dr. Dhara Shah b, Mr. Sanjeev Kapasi c

aMTech Structural Engineering Design, CEPT University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

b
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Technology, CEPT University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
c
Director, Grid Consultant, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
* dhavala.soumyakanti@gmail.com

Abstract

The study is focused on analyzing and designing backfill retaining systems for a berth with respect to
permissible deflection and overall consumption of concrete and steel. It includes analyzing and designing of
RCC piled jetty with three types of earth retaining systems namely slope fill (Type 1), diaphragm wall separate
from the jetty (Type 2), cantilever wall attached to the jetty (Type 3) and a with two different vessels of 5000
DWT (V1) and 3000 DWT (V2) under different site conditions. The different conditions consists of different
water depth, different soil condition (loose, medium and hard), different seismic zone (II, III, IV and V) and
earth pressure for different backfill soil parameters and slope fill. The Axial force, Moments (My and Mz),
Concrete and Steel consumption are compared with respect to different water depths for all the zones and type
of soils. The three systems are then compared against one another to find the most economical section. Also the
material consumption factor is found. It was observed that the slope fill (Type 1) and 9 m system is most suitable
in terms of economy as a backfill retaining system for on shore RCC pile berth. With change in soil from hard
to loose, the pile diameter increases. Also as the width of jetty increases, in case of Type 1 system, the structure
becomes less economical due to increased forces.

Keywords: Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, Berthing structure, Backfill retaining system

1. Introduction

More onshore berthing structures need to be constructed because of the increased focus on waterway
transportation systems. It is contributing mode to the Indian economy. For bulk transportation of materials and
passengers, water way proves to be the cheapest mode of transportation. This study is focused on analyzing and
design backfill retaining systems for on shore RCC pile berth with respect to permissible deflection and overall
consumption of concrete and steel. It includes analyzing and designing of RCC piled jetties with three types of
earth retaining systems - slope fill, cantilever wall attached to the jetty and a diaphragm wall separate from the
jetty – subjected to different site conditions. The different conditions consist of different water depth, different
soil condition (loose, medium and hard), and different seismic zones (II, III, IV and V).

Soil, which is soft marine clay or loose sand in most of the coastal regions, is usually under- consolidated with
low shear strength values. Most of the coastlines have surfaces which are sloping towards the waterfront. Slope
instability, a common problem, is due to low shear strength of the soil. The instability of sea bed slope is due to
creep deformation of clayey soil, self-weight, surcharge load, earthquake, wave force etc. This instability results
from failure due to large displacements of the pile head, causing additional forces on the piles which are
constructed on these slopes. Hence it is very important from practical viewpoint to understand the forces acting
on the piles, the behavior of such structures under these forces, design of the structure to withstand these forces,
and to compare the different earth retaining systems to find out the most feasible system to counter the above
mentioned forces.
2 IACMAG_Symposium2019, 133, v3 (major): ’COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BACKFILL . . .

2. Problem formulation

Forces like Berthing force, Mooring force, Current Force and Wave Force have been computed as per IS 4651
(Part 3) – 1974. Wave force has been confirmed as per Shore Protection Manual 9Volume II, 1984). The
Hydrodynamic and Seismic Forces are computed as per IS 1893 (Part 1) – 1984 and 1893 (Part 1) – 2002,
respectively. The Wind Forces have been calculated as per the clauses mentioned in IS 875 (Part 3): 2016. IS
1893 (Part 1): 2002 has been referred to determine the seismic forces. The load combinations have been taken
from IS 4651 (Part 4) – 2014.
To carry out comparative study of backfill retaining system for on shore RCC pile berth with respect to the
following various site condition. :-
 Different water depth (6 m, 8 m)
 Different spacing of piles (6.43 m, 7.5 m, 9 m)
 Different seismic zone (II, III, IV & V)
 Different soil condition (Soft, Medium & Hard)
 Different Structural Systems (Type 1, Type 2, Type 3)
 Earth pressure for different backfill soil parameters and soil profile

The following methodology has been adopted.

1. Data collection
2. Preparing general arrangement layout of R.C.C pile berth along with different earth retaining systems.
3. Preparing models in STAAD.Pro and analyzing it for all load cases and load combinations as per Indian
Standard code of practice.
4. Designing of piles and beams for critical load combinations considering strength and serviceability criteria.
5. Calculation of safe pile diameter.
6. Calculation of concrete and reinforcement quantity of structural members.
7. Comparative study to be done based on obtained results.

3. Structural Layout

Figure 1: Plan and Elevation of Type 1 structure (Slope fill system) (All dimensions in ‘m’)
 IACMAG_Symposium2019, 133, v3 (major): ’COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BACKFILL . . . 3

Figure 2: Plan and Elevation of Type 2 structure (diaphragm wall separate from the jetty structure) (All dimensions in ‘m’)

Figure 3: Plan and Elevation of Type 3 structure (Cantilever wall attached to the Jetty) (All dimensions in ‘m’)

4. Loads and Load combinations

Dead Load, live load, berthing force, mooring force, current force, wave force, hydrodynamic force, wind force
and seismic force have been considered.

IS 4651 (Part IV) – 2014 has been referred for load combinations
4 IACMAG_Symposium2019, 133, v3 (major): ’COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BACKFILL . . .

5. Observation and conclusions

5.1 Observations

Depth of Chart 1: Comparison of Axial Force w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing and Soil type for
water : 6m Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 Structure and 6 m Depth of Water
Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
6.43H

7.5H

9M

6.43H

7.5H

9M

6.43H

7.5H

9M

6.43H

7.5H

9M
9L

9L

9L

9L
6.43M

7.5M

6.43M

7.5M

6.43M

7.5M

6.43M

7.5M
6.43L

9H

6.43L

9H
7.5L

7.5L

6.43L

9H
7.5L

6.43L

9H
7.5L
Axial Force (KN) V1 Type 1 Axial Force(KN) V1 Type 2 Axial Force (KN) V1 Type 3

Depth of Chart 2: Comparison of My (kNm) w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing , Soil type and Depth of Water
water : 6m for Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 Structures
Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V
10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
7.5H

7.5H
6.43L
6.43M
6.43H

7.5M

9L
9M
9H

6.43H

9M
9H
6.43L

7.5L

7.5L
7.5M
7.5H
9L

6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H
9L
9M
9H
6.43L
6.43M

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M

9L
9M
9H
My (kN-m) V1 Type 1 My (kN-m) V1 Type 2 My (kN-m) V1 Type 3

Depth of Chart 3: Comparison of Mz (kNm) w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing and Soil type for Type 1, Type 2
water : 6m and Type 3 Structure and 6 m Depth of Water
Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
6.43L
6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H

9H

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H

9H

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M

6.43M
7.5H

9H

6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H

9H
9L
9M

9L
9M

9L
9M

9L
9M

Mz (kN-m) V1 Type 1 Mz (kN-m) V1 Type 2 Mz (kN-m) V1 Type 3

 IACMAG_Symposium2019, 133, v3 (major): ’COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BACKFILL . . . 5

Depth of Chart 4: Comparison of Concrete Quantity (m3) w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing and Soil type for
water : 6m Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 Structure and 6 m Depth of Water
Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
6.43H
6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H

9H

6.43L
6.43M

7.5L
7.5M
7.5H

9M
9H

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H

9H

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H

9H
9L
9M

9L

9L
9M

9L
9M
Concrete quantity (m3) V1 Type 1 Concrete quantity (m3) V1 Type 2 Concrete quantity (m3) V1 Type 3

Depth of Chart 5: Comparison of Steel Quantity (MT) w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing and Soil type for Type
water : 6m 1, Type 2 and Type 3 Structure and 6 m Depth of Water
Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V
250

200

150

100

50

0
6.43M
6.43H

9L
9M
9H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H
9L
9M
9H
6.43L

6.43M
6.43H

7.5M
7.5H
9L
9M
9H

9H
6.43L

7.5L

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H
9L
9M
Steel quantity (T) V1 Type 1 Steel quantity (T) V1 Type 2 Steel quantity (T) V1 Type 3

Depth of
Chart 6 : Comparison of Axial Force w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing and Soil type for Type 1,
water : 8m
Type 2 and Type 3 Structure and 8 m Depth of water
ZONE V
8000 ZONE II ZONE III ZONE IV
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
6.43M

7.5M

6.43M

7.5M

6.43M

7.5M

6.43M

7.5M
7.5L

7.5L

7.5L

7.5L
6.43L

9H

6.43L

9H

6.43L

9H

6.43L

9H
6.43H

7.5H

9M

6.43H

7.5H

9M

6.43H

7.5H

9M

6.43H

7.5H

9M
9L

9L

9L

9L

Axial Force(KN) V1 Type 1 Axial Force(KN) V1 Type 2 Axial Force (KN) V1 Type 3
6 IACMAG_Symposium2019, 133, v3 (major): ’COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BACKFILL . . .

Depth of Chart 7 : Comparison of My (kNm) w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing and Soil type for Type 1,
water : 8m Type 2 and Type 3 Structure and 8 m Depth of water

12000 ZONE II ZONE III ZONE IV ZONE V

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
7.5M
7.5H
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L

9L
6.43L

9M
9H

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H

9M
9H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H
9L

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H

7.5M
7.5H
9L
9M
9H

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H

9H
7.5L

7.5L
7.5M
7.5H
9L
9M
My (kN-m) V1 Type 1 My (kN-m) V1 Type 2 My (kN-m) V1 Type 3

Depth of Chart 8 : Comparison of Mz (kNm) w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing and Soil type for Type 1, Type
water : 8m 2 and Type 3 Structure and 8 m Depth of water

ZONE II ZONE III ZONE IV ZONE V

16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
7.5H
6.43L
6.43M
6.43H

6.43H

9M
9H

6.43L
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H
9L
9M
9H

7.5L
7.5M

9L

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H
9L
9M
9H
6.43L
6.43M

6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H
9L
9M
9H
Mz (kN-m) V1 Type 1 Mz (kN-m) V1 Type 2 Mz (kN-m) V1 Type 2

3
Depth of Chart 9 : Comparison of Concrete Quantity (m ) w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing and Soil Type for
water : 8m Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 Structure and 8 m Depth of water

5000 ZONE II ZONE III ZONE IV ZONE V

4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
7.5M
6.43M
6.43L

6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H

9H

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H

9H

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H

9H

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H

9H
7.5L

7.5H
9L
9M

9L
9M

9L
9M

9L
9M

Concrete quantity (m3) V1 Type 1 Concrete quantity (m3) V1 Type 2 Concrete quantity (m3) V1 Type 3
 IACMAG_Symposium2019, 133, v3 (major): ’COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BACKFILL . . . 7

Depth of Chart 10 : Comparison of Steel Quantity (MT) w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing and Soil type
water : 8m for Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 Structure and 8 m Depth of water

250
ZONE II ZONE III ZONE IV ZONE V
200

150

100

50

7.5H
6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H

9H
9L
9M
9H

9L
9M
9H

9L
9M
9H

9L
9M
Steel quantity (T) V1 Type 1 Steel quantity (N) V1 Type 2 Steel quantity (T) V1 Type 3

Chart 11: Comparison of Axial Force w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing and Soil type for two different
widths of Jetty in Type 1 Structure
10000
9000 ZONE IV ZONE V
ZONE II ZONE III
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0

Axial Force(KN) V1 16 m width Axial Force (KN) V1 12 m width

Chart 12: Comparison of My (kNm) w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing and Soil type for two different
5000 widths of Jetty in Type 1 Structure
ZONE II ZONE III ZONE IV ZONE V
4000

3000

2000

1000

0
7.5M

7.5M

7.5M

7.5M
6.43M

6.43M

6.43M

6.43M
6.43L

9H

6.43L

9H
7.5L

7.5L

6.43L

9H

6.43L

9H
7.5L

7.5L
6.43H

9M

6.43H

9M

6.43H

9M

6.43H

9M
7.5H

7.5H

7.5H

7.5H
9L

9L

9L

9L

My (kN-m) V1 16 m width My (kN-m) V1 12 m width

8 IACMAG_Symposium2019, 133, v3 (major): ’COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BACKFILL . . .

Chart 13 : Comparison of Mz (kNm) w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing and Soil type for two different
widths of Jetty in Type 1 Structure ZONE V
4500 ZONE II ZONE III ZONE IV
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
6.43M

7.5M

6.43M

7.5M

6.43M

7.5M

6.43M

7.5M
6.43L

9H

6.43L

9H

9H
7.5L

6.43L

7.5L

6.43L

9H
7.5L

7.5L
6.43H

9M

6.43H

9M
7.5H

6.43H

9M
7.5H

6.43H

9M
7.5H

7.5H
9L

9L

9L

9L
Mz (kN-m) V1 16 m width Mz (kN-m) V1 12 m width

1800 Chart 14 : Comparison of Concrete Quantity (m3) w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing and Soil for two
different widths of Jetty in Type 1 Structure
1600
ZONE II ZONE III ZONE IV ZONE V
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
9M

9M

9M

9M
7.5H

7.5H

7.5H

7.5H
6.43H

6.43H

6.43H

6.43H
6.43M

7.5M

9L

6.43M

7.5M

9L

6.43M

7.5M

9L

6.43M

7.5M

9L
7.5L

9H

7.5L

7.5L

7.5L
6.43L

6.43L

9H

6.43L

9H

6.43L

9H
Concrete quantity (m3) V1 16 m width Concrete quantity (m3) V1 12 m width

200
Chart 15 : Comparison of Steel Quantity (MT) w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing and Soil for
180 different widths of Jetty in Type 1 Structure
160 ZONE II ZONE III ZONE V
ZONE IV
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
7.5M
6.43M

6.43M

6.43M
7.5L
7.5M

7.5M

7.5M

6.43M
7.5L

7.5L

7.5L
6.43L

9H

6.43L

9H

6.43L

9H

6.43L

9H
6.43H

9M

6.43H

9M

6.43H

9M

6.43H

9M
7.5H

7.5H

7.5H

7.5H
9L

9L

9L

9L

Steel quantity (T) V1 16 m width Steel quantity (T) V1 12 m width

 IACMAG_Symposium2019, 133, v3 (major): ’COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BACKFILL . . . 9

Chart 16 : Comparison of Axial Force w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing , Soil type and Depth of
Water for Type 2 Structure
8000
ZONE II ZONE III ZONE IV ZONE V
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0

7.5M
6.43M
6.43L

9M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H
9L

9H

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M

9M
7.5H
9L

9H

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H
9L
9M
9H

6.43L
6.43M

9M
6.43H
7.5L

7.5H
9L

9H
Axial Force(KN) V1 6m Axial Force(KN) V1 8m

Chart 17 : Comparison of My (kNm) w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing , Soil type and Depth of
Water for Type 2 Structure
14000
ZONE II ZONE III ZONE IV ZONE V
12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
7.5H
6.43M
6.43H

7.5M

6.43M
6.43H

7.5M

6.43M
6.43H

7.5M

6.43M
6.43H

7.5M
6.43L

7.5H

7.5H

6.43L

7.5H
7.5L

9L
9M
9H

6.43L

9L
9M
9H

6.43L

9M
9H
7.5L

7.5L

9L

7.5L

9L
9M
9H
My (kN-m) V1 6m My (kN-m) V1 8m
10 IACMAG_Symposium2019, 133, v3 (major): ’COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BACKFILL . . .

Chart 18 : Comparison of Mz (kNm) w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing , Soil type and Depth of
Water for Type 2 Structure
18000
16000 ZONE II ZONE III ZONE IV ZONE V
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0

7.5H
6.43L

7.5H

7.5H

6.43L

7.5H
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L

9L

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L

9L
7.5M

9M
9H

7.5M

9M
9H

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L

9L
7.5M

9M
9H

6.43M
6.43H
7.5L

9L
7.5M

9M
9H
Mz (kN-m) V1 6m Mz (kN-m) V1 8m

Chart 19 : Comparison of Concrete Quantity (m3) w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing , Soil type and
Depth of Water for Type 2 Structure
5000
ZONE II ZONE III ZONE IV ZONE V
4000

3000

2000

1000

7.5M
6.43M
6.43L

6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M

6.43L
6.43M
7.5H

6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L

7.5H
9L
9M
9H

9L
9M
9H

9L
9M
9H

9L
9M
9H
Concrete quantity (m3) V1 6m Concrete quantity (m3) V1 8m

Chart 20 : Comparison of Steel Quantity (MT) w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing , Soil type and
Depth of Water for Type 2 Structure
250
ZONE II ZONE III ZONE IV ZONE V
200

150

100

50

0
7.5H
6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M

6.43L
6.43M
7.5H

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M

6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H

6.43L
6.43M
6.43H
7.5L
7.5M
7.5H

9H
9L
9M
9H

9L
9M
9H

9L
9M
9H

9L
9M

Steel quantity (T) V1 6m Steel quantity (N) V1 8m

 IACMAG_Symposium2019, 133, v3 (major): ’COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BACKFILL . . . 11

Chart 21 : Comparison of Axial Force w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing , Soil type and Depth of
7000 Water for Type 3 Structure
6000 ZONE II ZONE III
5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

Axial Force (KN) V1 6m Axial Force (KN) V1 8m

Chart 22 : Comparison of My (kNm) w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing , Soil type and Depth of
Water for Type 3 Structure

6000
ZONE II ZONE III
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0

My (kN-m) V1 6m My (kN-m) V1 8m

Chart 23: Comparison of Mz (kNm) w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing , Soil type and Depth of Water
for Type 3 Structure
5000
4500
ZONE II ZONE III
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

Mz (kN-m) V1 6m Mz (kN-m) V1 8m
12 IACMAG_Symposium2019, 133, v3 (major): ’COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BACKFILL . . .

Chart 24 : Comparison of Concrete Quantity (m3) w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing , Soil type
and Depth of Water for Type 3 Structure

2500
ZONE II ZONE III
2000

1500

1000

500

Concrete quantity (m3) V1 6m Concrete quantity (m3) V1 8m

Chart 25 : Comparison of Steel Quantity (MT) w.r.t Seismic Zone, Pile Spacing , Soil type and
Depth of Water for Type 3 Structure
140
ZONE II ZONE III
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Steel quantity (T) V1 6m Steel quantity (T) V1 8m

5.2 Conclusions

1. From the observations, Slope fill earth retaining system is most suitable in terms of economy as a backfill
retaining system for on shore RCC pile berth. The concrete and steel consumption for Slope fill earth
retaining system (Type 1) is less as compared to Jetty with attached diaphragm wall (Type 2) and Jetty
with separate diaphragm wall (Type 3).
2. With change in soil from hard to medium to loose, the pile diameter increases.
3. From the observations, 9 m is the most economical pile spacing for all the conditions studied for the thesis
4. There is a negligible difference between the forces and moments of 3000 DWT and 5000 DWT vessel.
5. In case of Slope fill earth retaining system, there are two systems, one of 12 m width and the other of 16 m
width. As the width of jetty increases, the structure becomes less economical due to increased forces.

For a particular zone and soil type, the case which shows least material consumed under different types of
structures and different spacing, is given a factor of 1. With respect to this the factors are derived for other cases.
 IACMAG_Symposium2019, 133, v3 (major): ’COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BACKFILL . . . 13

Table 1 shows the material consumption factors for both, concrete and steel, in beams and piles in Type 1, Type
2 and Type 3 system zone-wise. The factor for system with lowest material consumption has been highlighted.

For a particular zone and soil type, the case which shows least material consumed under different types of
structures and different spacing, is given a factor of 1. With respect to this the factors are derived for other
cases.

Table 1 Material Consumption Factor

Water Soil Pile Concrete Consumption factor Steel Consumption factor

ZONE
Depth type Spacing Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 1 Type 2 Type 3
II 6 L 6.43 1.05 2.07 1.40 1.61 1.78 1.46
II 6 L 7.5 1.06 1.96 1.33 1.39 1.55 1.24
II 6 L 9 1.00 1.61 1.24 1.15 1.35 1.00
II 6 M 6.43 1.26 2.62 1.55 2.19 1.67 1.34
II 6 M 7.5 1.08 2.44 1.44 1.70 1.28 1.20
II 6 M 9 1.00 1.93 1.38 1.44 1.16 1.00
II 6 H 6.43 1.24 2.91 1.72 1.57 1.86 2.27
II 6 H 7.5 1.11 2.68 1.40 1.14 1.40 1.32
II 6 H 9 1.00 2.07 1.42 1.00 1.25 1.14
II 8 L 6.43 1.76 2.48 1.88 1.23 1.62 1.39
II 8 L 7.5 1.03 2.42 1.73 1.17 1.58 1.21
II 8 L 9 1.00 2.05 1.57 1.00 1.50 1.04
II 8 M 6.43 2.07 3.10 2.29 2.17 1.65 1.39
II 8 M 7.5 1.06 2.95 2.02 1.80 1.45 1.24
II 8 M 9 1.00 2.60 1.81 1.53 1.54 1.00
II 8 H 6.43 2.21 3.64 2.39 1.88 1.91 2.78
II 8 H 7.5 1.10 3.44 2.12 1.24 1.87 1.69
II 8 H 9 1.00 2.91 2.13 1.00 1.58 1.49

III 6 L 6.43 1.22 2.80 1.86 1.13 1.66 1.79

III 6 L 7.5 1.10 2.56 1.66 1.17 1.33 1.47
III 6 L 9 1.00 2.46 1.54 1.00 1.18 1.16
III 6 M 6.43 1.12 2.52 1.84 1.73 1.27 1.36
III 6 M 7.5 1.04 2.29 1.63 1.41 1.06 1.01
III 6 M 9 1.00 2.16 1.44 1.33 1.00 1.03
III 6 H 6.43 1.26 2.42 2.14 1.69 1.46 2.12
III 6 H 7.5 1.13 2.31 1.93 1.44 1.26 1.75
III 6 H 9 1.00 2.14 1.72 1.17 1.00 1.38
III 8 L 6.43 1.20 3.45 2.33 1.23 1.66 1.84
III 8 L 7.5 1.11 3.23 2.34 1.00 1.39 1.59
14 IACMAG_Symposium2019, 133, v3 (major): ’COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BACKFILL . . .

III 8 L 9 1.00 3.10 2.40 1.01 1.18 1.26

III 8 M 6.43 1.37 2.49 1.80 1.69 1.46 1.46
III 8 M 7.5 1.24 2.31 1.81 1.35 1.31 1.12
III 8 M 9 1.00 2.21 1.85 1.27 1.23 1.00
III 8 H 6.43 1.26 3.51 3.32 1.18 1.42 2.26
III 8 H 7.5 1.13 3.38 3.05 1.23 1.25 1.80
III 8 H 9 1.00 3.20 2.82 1.00 1.12 1.45

IV 6 L 6.43 1.12 3.24 1.13 1.72

IV 6 L 7.5 1.06 3.06 1.00 1.54
IV 6 L 9 1.00 2.64 1.12 1.16
IV 6 M 6.43 1.34 3.30 1.31 1.67
IV 6 M 7.5 1.19 3.08 1.08 1.44
IV 6 M 9 1.00 2.92 1.00 1.08
IV 6 H 6.43 1.16 2.83 1.16 1.41
IV 6 H 7.5 1.05 2.63 1.06 1.27
IV 6 H 9 1.00 2.50 1.25 1.00
IV 8 L 6.43 1.13 4.00 1.00 1.98
IV 8 L 7.5 1.06 3.84 1.17 1.60
IV 8 L 9 1.00 3.50 1.14 1.43
IV 8 M 6.43 1.23 3.69 1.46 1.91
IV 8 M 7.5 1.09 3.52 1.00 1.76
IV 8 M 9 1.00 3.35 1.01 1.43
IV 8 H 6.43 1.11 3.25 1.26 1.51
IV 8 H 7.5 1.06 3.15 1.00 1.23
IV 8 H 9 1.00 3.05 1.01 1.05

V 6 L 6.43 1.18 3.15 1.35 2.14

V 6 L 7.5 1.09 3.03 1.13 1.52
V 6 L 9 1.00 2.87 1.00 1.40
V 6 M 6.43 1.32 3.33 1.48 2.35
V 6 M 7.5 1.18 3.23 1.06 2.00
V 6 M 9 1.00 3.03 1.00 1.50
V 6 H 6.43 1.03 2.84 1.46 1.93
V 6 H 7.5 1.10 2.68 1.18 1.60
V 6 H 9 1.00 2.53 1.00 1.21
V 8 L 6.43 1.16 3.88 1.16 2.09
V 8 L 7.5 1.06 3.70 1.01 1.92
V 8 L 9 1.00 3.50 1.00 1.68
V 8 M 6.43 1.29 3.93 1.34 2.21
V 8 M 7.5 1.12 3.71 1.04 1.89
V 8 M 9 1.00 3.51 1.00 1.46
 IACMAG_Symposium2019, 133, v3 (major): ’COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BACKFILL . . . 15

V 8 H 6.43 1.08 3.61 1.17 2.01

V 8 H 7.5 1.15 3.48 1.25 1.74
V 8 H 9 1.00 3.30 1.00 1.40

6. References

[1] Fender Manual for various types of fender series.

[2] IS 4651 : 1974 - Code of practice for planning and design of ports and harbours
• Part 1 : Site Investigation
• Part 3 : Loading
[3] IS 4651 (Part 4) : 2014 - Code of practice for planning and design of ports and harbours – General design
considerations (for load combinations).
[4] IS 4651 (Part 5) : 1980 - Code of practice for planning and design of ports and harbours – Layout and
functional requirements.
[5] IS 456 : 2000 - Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice.
[6] IS 875 (Part 3) : 2016 - Code of Practice for wind loads on buildings and structures.
[7] IS 1893 (Part 1) : 1984 & 2016 - Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures– General provision
and buildings.
[8] IS 2911 (Part 1) : 2010 - Code of practice for design and construction of pile foundations (Concrete piles).
[9] Shore Protection Manual by U.S.Army Coastal Engineering Research Centre.
[10] Kasinathan Muthukkumara, “Effect of slope and loading direction on laterally loaded Piles in
cohesionless soil”, International Journal of Geo-mechanics 2013
[11] Kasinathan Muthukkumaran, Ranganathan Sundarvadivelu & Sailesh Rajinikanth Gandhi, “Effect of
sloping ground on single pile load deflection Behaviour under lateral soil movement”, 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering 2004
[12] Premalatha P. V, Muthukkumaran. K & Jayabalan P, “Behaviour of piles supported berthing structure
under lateral loads” , 2011 Pan-Am CGS Geotechnical Conference.