“Parametric Analysis of Quay Walls with

Relieving Platform, by means of Elastic

Supported Beam and Finite Element Method”

Graduation Committee Section

Prof. Drs. Ir. J.K. Vrijling TU Delft –Hydraulic Engineering

Ir. J.G. de Gijt TU Delft –Hydraulic Engineering
Ing. H.J. Everts TU Delft – Geo-engineering
Ing. H.E. Brassinga Gemeentewerken Rotterdam

MSc Student

Dipl. Anastasia Karamperidou

1337289
 “Engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholely understand, into shapes
we cannot precisely analyse so as to withstand forces we cannot entirely assess, in such a way
that the public has no reason to suspect the extend of our ignorance”

A.R.Dykes 1976

1
Preface
This report is the final piece of the Master of Science thesis titled “Parametric Analysis of
Quay Walls with a relieving platform, by means of Elastic Supported Beam and Finite
Element Method”.

This thesis is part of the Hydraulic Engineering– Hydraulic Structures MSc program at the
faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences of Delft University of Technology. This study
has been performed in cooperation and under the supervision of Gemeentewerken Rotterdam.
This thesis work has been assessed and supported by the graduation committee, which consist
of the following members:

• prof. drs. ir. J.K. Vrijling - Delft University of Technology

• Ir. J.G de Gijt - Delft University of Technology – Gemeentewerken Rotterdam
• Ing. H.J. Everts - Delft University of Technology
• Ing. H.E. Brassinga - Gemeentewerken Rotterdam

I would like to thank all the graduation committee and all the colleagues of Gemeentewerken
Rotterdam who gave me their support during my thesis work. Special thanks to my family for
their moral and material support all this period and to my god-father who is the “instigator” of
my Odyssey in the Netherlands…

Rotterdam, May 2008

Anastasia Karamperidou

3
Summary
In cases where the sheet pilling is allowed, when great retaining heights have to be achieved a
combined quay wall structure is normally used. This structure consists of a sheet pile wall, a
relieving platform, an anchor and a pile foundation system.

The content of the present MSc thesis is divided into two major parts. The first part (Part A)
contains mostly hand calculations for the determination of the loads and for the analysis of the
sheet pile wall, while on the second part (Part B) advanced computer programs will be used
for the same purpose. In Part A the structure is divided and analysed separately. For the
relieving platform’s analysis and the Blum’s Analysis of the Sheet Pile Wall the loads were
determined manually and the structures were analysed with respect to classic mechanics.

A parametric analysis of seven different quay walls is investigated, for various loading
combinations of given loads. In details, three different depths and two different widths of the
relieving platform were investigated. In addition a quay wall combined only from sheet piles,
without a relieving platform is also analysed.

The sheet pile wall, in Part A, is analysed by three different approaching theories of Blum.
The fixity of the end point of the sheet piling is considered once as completely free and in the
other two as fully fixed. The Free Earth Support method is used in the first case, while in the
second, two different methodologies, both considering a fully fixity at the toe level are used
(Fixed Earth Support method). Graphs concerning the effect of the various dimensions of the
relieving platform, the embedded depth and the anchor force are produced.

In the Elastic Supported Beam theory (Msheet) analysis the ground is simulated according to
a more advanced model. According to that theory, the Sheet Pile Wall is schematised as a
beam on an elastic foundation, where the ground is simulated by a set of uncoupled elasto-
plastic springs. On that stage the axial forces, estimated from the static analysis of the
relieving platform are imposed on the top of the sheet pile wall as external loads.

In Part B, the same process is repeated but this time with a Finite Elements Method. PLAXIS
created from Plaxis will be used for that purpose. This type of analysis is based on a model in
which the behaviour of soil and structure are integrated.

Through a parametric analysis and a financial assessment of a quay wall, the economic effects
of the relieving platform separately on the sheet pile wall and on the whole structure will be
estimated.

5
Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 “PROBLEM DESCRIPTION” .................................................... 17

1.1 Objective ...................................................................................................................... 19
1.2 Layout of report............................................................................................................ 20
1.3 References .................................................................................................................... 21
CHAPTER 2 “INTRODUCTION” ................................................................ 23
2.1 General - Development of quay walls.......................................................................... 25
2.2 Functions of quay walls................................................................................................ 26
2.3 Main types of quay walls ............................................................................................. 27
2.3.1 Solid Berth Structures .......................................................................................... 27
2.3.2 Open Berth Structures .......................................................................................... 32
2.4 References .................................................................................................................... 32
CHAPTER 3 “LOADS ACTING ON QUAY WALLS” ....................................... 35
3.1 General ......................................................................................................................... 37
3.2 Specific Loads on a Quay Wall structure..................................................................... 38
3.2.1 Vertical loads........................................................................................................ 38
Crane loads........................................................................................................................ 39
Traffic load ........................................................................................................................ 40
3.2.2 Horizontal loads ................................................................................................... 40
Earth pressures.................................................................................................................. 40
Waves................................................................................................................................. 40
Currents ............................................................................................................................. 41
Ice forces............................................................................................................................ 41
Crane loads........................................................................................................................ 41
Bollard loads ..................................................................................................................... 41
Fender loads ...................................................................................................................... 42
Seismic loads ..................................................................................................................... 42
3.3 References .................................................................................................................... 43
CHAPTER 4 “DESIGN PHILOSOPHY AND CALCULATION METHODS” .......... 45
4.1 Design philosophy........................................................................................................ 47
4.1.1 General ................................................................................................................. 47
4.1.2 Determination of representative values, design values and normative load
combinations...................................................................................................................... 47
4.2 Calculation methods..................................................................................................... 51
4.2.1 Blum model .......................................................................................................... 51
4.2.2 Beam on elastic foundation .................................................................................. 52
4.2.3 Finite Element analysis ........................................................................................ 53
4.3 References .................................................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER 5 “PART – A HAND CALCULATIONS” ......................................... 55
5.1 General ......................................................................................................................... 57
5.2 Boundary conditions .................................................................................................... 57
5.2.1 Determination of the retaining height .................................................................. 57
5.2.2 Water levels.......................................................................................................... 58
5.2.3 Ground levels ....................................................................................................... 59
5.2.4 Soil profiles .......................................................................................................... 60
5.2.5 Loads on the structure .......................................................................................... 60
5.3 Parametric analysis - Seven different cases ................................................................. 63
Case A: Extreme situation with the relieving platform on the surface level ..................... 64
Case B: Intermediate situation with the relieving platform at depth h=6.5m................... 65

7
 Case C: Extreme situation with the relieving platform at depth h=11.5m........................ 65
Case D: Extreme situation without a relieving platform................................................... 66
5.4 References .................................................................................................................... 68
CHAPTER 6 “PART A – HAND CALCULATIONS – PLATFORM ANALYSIS” .... 69
6.1 General ......................................................................................................................... 71
6.2 Loads Acting on the relieving platform ....................................................................... 72
6.3 Load Combinations ...................................................................................................... 72
6.4 Analysis of the relieving platform................................................................................ 74
6.5 Results from the Static Analysis .................................................................................. 79
6.6 References .................................................................................................................... 80
CHAPTER 7 “PART A – SHEET PILLE WALL ANALYSIS – BLUM METHOD” ... 81
7.1 General ......................................................................................................................... 83
7.2 Assumptions ................................................................................................................. 83
7.3 Blum model .................................................................................................................. 84
7.3.1 Free earth Support Method................................................................................... 85
7.3.2 Fixed Earth Support Method (Equivalent Beam Method) ................................... 86
7.3.3 Fixed Earth Support Method (Displacement Method)......................................... 87
7.4 Comparison of the methods.......................................................................................... 89
7.5 Example........................................................................................................................ 92
7.6 Preliminary Design of the Sheet Pile Wall................................................................... 94
7.7 Sheet pile profiles......................................................................................................... 95
7.8 Dimensioning according to Blum results ..................................................................... 98
7.9 References .................................................................................................................... 99
CHAPTER 8 “PART A – SHEET PILE WALL ANALYSIS – ELASTIC SUPPORTED
BEAM METHOD (MSheet) ....................................................................... 101
8.1 General ....................................................................................................................... 103
8.2 Elastic Supported Beam Method (MSheet design) .................................................... 105
8.3 Results of MSheet analysis ........................................................................................ 106
8.4 References .................................................................................................................. 108
CHAPTER 9 « PART B – SHEET PILE WALL ANALYSIS - PLAXIS ................ 109
9.1 General ....................................................................................................................... 111
9.2 Mechanical parameters and model description .......................................................... 111
9.3 Results from PLAXIS analysis .................................................................................. 114
9.4 Supplementary Works ................................................................................................ 116
9.5 References .................................................................................................................. 117
CHAPTER 10 “COST ESTIMATION”......................................................... 119
10.1 General ................................................................................................................... 121
10.2 Total cost components............................................................................................ 121
10.2.1 Material Costs .................................................................................................... 122
10.2.2 Excavation – Refill Costs................................................................................... 129
10.2.3 Dewatering Costs ............................................................................................... 130
10.3 Total Costs.............................................................................................................. 130
10.4 References .............................................................................................................. 131
CHAPTER 11 “CONCLUSIONS” ............................................................... 133
11.1 General ................................................................................................................... 135
11.2 Comparison between the different analysis methods............................................. 135
11.3 Cost assessment...................................................................................................... 138
APPENDICES.......................................................................................................................133

9
List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Schematisation of a container terminal.................................................................. 19

Figure 1.2: Outline of the analysis methods............................................................................. 20
Figure 2.1: Development of the water depth (in front of quay walls) in Port of Rotterdam.... 25
Figure 2.2: Big Container terminal - Maasvlakte 2 extension ................................................. 27
Figure 2.3: Block quay wall ..................................................................................................... 28
Figure 2.4: L-wall quay wall .................................................................................................... 29
Figure 2.5: Caisson quay wall .................................................................................................. 29
Figure 2.7: Sheet piling with anchored wall and with grout anchor ........................................ 30
Figure 2.8: Freestanding sheet piling ....................................................................................... 30
Figure 2.9: Structure with relieving platform........................................................................... 31
Figure2.10: Open berth quay over a slope and with a retaining wall………………………...22
Figure 3.1: First of the 16 cranes arriving on the Euromax terminal ....................................... 39
Figure 3.2: Shear stresses in soil particles................................................................................ 43
Figure 3.3: Thermal effect in quay walls ................................................................................. 43
Figure 4.1: Effect of embedded depth on pressure distribution and deflected shape............... 51
Figure 4.2: Lateral earth stresses coefficients for Blum theory ............................................... 52
Figure 4.3: Spring model schematisation and soil coefficients................................................ 53
Figure 4.4: Lateral earth stresses coefficients for spring model .............................................. 53
Figure 4.5: Deformed mesh from FEM - PLAXIS .................................................................. 54
Figure 5.1: Determination of the retaining height.................................................................... 57
Figure 5.2: Maasvlakte 2 area, Port of Rotterdam ................................................................... 58
Figure 5.3: Redistribution of bollard loads over the quay........................................................ 61
Figure 5.4: Fender system on a quay wall................................................................................ 61
Figure 5.5: Schematisation of landward crane girder .............................................................. 62
Figure 5.6:Terrain loads ........................................................................................................... 63
Figure 5.7: Schematisation of a Quay Wall with a relieving platform ................................... 63
Figure 5.8: Seven different cases of investigation ................................................................... 64
Figure 5.9: Design cases A1 and A2 ........................................................................................ 64
Figure 5.10: Design cases B1 and B2 ...................................................................................... 65
Figure 5.11: Design cases C1 and C2 ...................................................................................... 65
Figure 5.12: Design case D ...................................................................................................... 66
Figure 5.13: Phase 1 - Small excavation .................................................................................. 66
Figure 5.14: Phase 2 - Driving of Sheet pile wall .................................................................... 67
Figure 5.15: Phase 3 - Construction of Quay Wall .................................................................. 67
Figure 5.16: Phase - 4: Front excavation and fill of the back side........................................... 68
Figure 6.1: Principle of relieving platform............................................................................... 71
Figure 6.2: Schematisation of the relieving platform with different widths ............................ 71
Figure 6.3: Two different static models of the relieving platform ........................................... 74
Figure 6.4: Loads acting on the relieving platform A1 ............................................................ 76
Figure 6.5: Loads acting on the relieving platform A2 ............................................................ 76
Figure 6.6: Loads acting on the relieving platform B1 ............................................................ 77
Figure 6.7: Loads acting on the relieving platform B2 ............................................................ 77
Figure 6.8: Loads acting on the relieving platform C1 ............................................................ 78
Figure 6.9: Loads acting on the relieving platform C2 ............................................................ 78
Figure 7.1: Illustration of the parameters involved in the earth pressure coefficient formulas 84
Figure 7.2: Free earth support method ..................................................................................... 85
Figure 7.3: Fixed earth support method-Equivalent Beam Method......................................... 86

11
Figure 7.4: Point of Contraflexure and Reaction on the Equivalent Beam.............................. 87
Figure 7.5: Fixed earth support method-Displacement Method .............................................. 88
Figure 7.6: Embedded depth for different relieving platforms (Free Earth Support method) . 89
Figure 7.7: Embedded depth for different relieving platforms (Fixed- Displacement method 90
Figure 7.8: Embedded depth for different relieving platforms (Fixed- Beam method)........... 90
Figure 7.9: Anchor force for different relieving platforms (Free Earth Support method) ....... 90
Figure 7.10: Anchor force for different relieving platforms (Fixed- Displacement method) .. 91
Figure 7.11: Anchor force for different relieving platforms (Fixed- Beam method)............... 91
Figure 7.12: Illustration of PU Sheet Piles............................................................................... 96
Table 7.6: Characteristics of Combi-walls and stress control (Blum analysis) ....................... 98
Figure 8.1: Principle of the moment distribution of the sheet pile wall................................. 103
Figure 8.2: Construction of the deformation-dependent coefficient of subgrade reaction .... 104
Table 8.4: Characteristics of Combi-walls and stress control for soil profile 1 (PLAXIS
analysis) ........................................................................................................................... 106
Table 8.5: Characteristics of Combi-walls and stress control for soil profile 2 (PLAXIS
analysis) ........................................................................................................................... 107
Figure 9.1: Model simulation (case B1)................................................................................. 112
Table 9.3: Characteristics of Combi-walls and stress control for soil profile 1 (MSheet
analysis) ........................................................................................................................... 114
Table 9.4: Characteristics of Combi-walls and stress control for soil profile 1 (MSheet
analysis) ........................................................................................................................... 115
Figure 9.2: Drainage systems with non return valves ............................................................ 116
Figure 9.3: Vertical drainage systems .................................................................................... 116
Figure 9.4: Excess pore pressure PLAXIS analysis............................................................... 117
Figure 10.1: Components of total cost estimation.................................................................. 122
Figure 10.2: Combi wall cost – Blum method ....................................................................... 123
Figure 10.3: Combi wall cost reduction– Blum method ........................................................ 124
Figure 10.4: Combi wall cost – MSheet method – Soil profile 1........................................... 125
Figure 10.5: Combi wall cost reduction– MSheet method – Soil profile 1 ........................... 125
Figure 10.6: Combi wall cost – MSheet method – Soil profile 2........................................... 125
Figure 10.7: Combi wall cost reduction– MSheet method – Soil profile 2 ........................... 126
Figure 10.8: Combi wall cost – PLAXIS method – Soil profile 1 ......................................... 127
Figure 10.9: Combi wall cost reduction– PLAXIS method – Soil profile 1.......................... 127
Figure 10.10: Combi wall cost – PLAXIS method – Soil profile 2 ....................................... 127
Figure 10.11: Combi wall cost reduction– PLAXIS method – Soil profile 2 ........................ 128
Figure 10.12: Relieving platform cost.................................................................................... 128
Figure 10.13: Excavation and refill areas............................................................................... 129
Figure 10.14: Total Cost –MSheet vs PLAXIS – Soil 1 ........................................................ 131
Figure 10.15: Total Cost – MSheet vs PLAXIS – Soil 2 ....................................................... 131
Figure 11.1: Direction of the effective stresses in both soil profiles - arching effect ............ 137
Figure 11.2: Different simulation of the bearing piles ........................................................... 137
Figure 11.3: Total cost for soil profile 1 ................................................................................ 138
Figure 11.4: Total cost for soil profile 2 ................................................................................ 139
Figure 11.5: Cost components - MSheet................................................................................ 139
Figure 11.6: Cost components - PLAXIS .............................................................................. 140

13
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Development of average size of container ships..................................................... 26
Table 3.1: Average container loads according to EAU 2004................................................... 39
Table 3.2: Crane loads.............................................................................................................. 39
Table 3.3: Bollard forces according to water displacements ................................................... 42
Table 4.1: Partial safety factors for unfavourable representative soil parameters ................... 48
Table 4.2: Partial safety factors for geometrical parameters.................................................... 48
Table 4.3: Partial safety factors for the results of the sheet pile calculation............................ 48
Table 4.4: Partial load factors for the ultimate limit state........................................................ 49
Table 4.5: Partial safety factors for the serviceability limit state............................................. 49
Table 4.6: Load combination philosophy................................................................................. 50
Table 4.7: Load factors for load combinations ........................................................................ 50
Table 5.1: Design ship characteristics...................................................................................... 58
Table 5.2: Determination of total retaining height................................................................... 58
Table 5.3: Design values for water levels ................................................................................ 59
Table 5.4: Design values for soil mechanical parameters of soil profile 1 (sand qc:15Mpa)... 60
Table 5.5: Design values for soil mechanical parameters of soil profile 2 .............................. 60
Table 6.1: Load combinations LCA1, LCA2, LCA3............................................................... 73
Table 6.2: Load combination LCB........................................................................................... 73
Table 6.3: MV-pile characteristics ........................................................................................... 74
Table 6.4: Bearing piles characteristics.................................................................................... 75
Table 6.5: Concrete platform characteristics............................................................................ 75
Table 6.6: Loads on the relieving platform .............................................................................. 76
Table 6.7: Loads on the relieving platform .............................................................................. 77
Table 6.8: Loads on the relieving platform .............................................................................. 78
Table 6.9: Extreme values coming from the first static system ............................................... 79
Table 6.10: Extreme values coming from the second static system......................................... 79
Table 7.1: Results of Free Earth Support method .................................................................... 86
Table 7.2: Results of Fixed Earth Support method (equivalent beam method) ....................... 87
Table 7.3: Results of Fixed Earth Support method (displacement method) ............................ 89
Table 7.4: Maximum Bending Moments - Fixed Earth method-Equivalent Beam method .... 94
Table 7.5: Characteristics of PU 22 intermediate sheet piles................................................... 96
Table 8.1: Design values for soil mechanical parameters of soil profile 1 (sand qc:15MPa) 104
Table 8.2: Design values for soil mechanical parameters of soil profile 2 (sand qc:15MPa –
clay cu:50KPa) ................................................................................................................. 104
Table 9.1: Design values for soil mechanical parameters of soil profile 1 (sand))................ 111
Table 9.2: Design values for soil mechanical parameters of soil profile 2 (clay – sand) ...... 112
Table 10.1: Costs in relation to retaining height .................................................................... 121
Table 10.2: Material costs ...................................................................................................... 122
Table 10.3: Costs and percentage of reduction – Blum method – Soil profile 1 ................... 123
Table 10.4: Costs and percentage of reduction – MSheet method – Soil profile 1and 2....... 124
Table 10.5: Costs and percentage of reduction – PLAXIS method – Soil profile 1and 2 ..... 126
Table 10.6: Excavation and refill costs .................................................................................. 129
Table 10.7: Dewatering costs ................................................................................................. 130
Table 10.8: Total Costs – Msheet........................................................................................... 130
Table 10.9: Total Costs – PLAXIS ........................................................................................ 130
Table 11.1: Max. Bending Moments from different analysis methods.................................. 136
Table 11.2: Max. Bending Moments for different bearing pile schematisation .................... 138

15
 CHAPTER 1
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

17
1.1 Objective

In cases where the sheet pilling is allowed, when great retaining heights have to be achieved a
combined quay wall structure is normally used. This structure consists of a sheet pile wall, a
relieving platform, an anchor and a pile foundation system.

Figure 1.1: Schematisation of a container terminal

In this type of quay wall the horizontal load is significantly reduced by the presence of the
relieving platform. Such structures with a relieving platform have been already used in the
port of Rotterdam and elsewhere. In any specific situation, various motives influence the
choice of the construction depth and width of the platform, including:

ƒ Savings on the costs of the sheet pile wall by reducing moments and pile depths;
ƒ Shortening the length of sheet piles to limit installation risks;
ƒ Restricting the length of the foundation members such as tension and bearing piles in
relation to availability and feasibility;
ƒ Saving on the number of tension members in the pile trestle system by increasing the
vertical load component of the soil;

During the preliminary design of a quay wall, experience gained from previous projects with
similar boundary conditions is often used. Dimensions of the relieving platform applied in
previous cases are used as a first estimation.

The aim of the present MSc Thesis is to investigate the influence of the dimensions of the
relieving platform in the sheet pile wall design, and how this affect the final cost of the
structure. Through a parametric analysis and a financial assessment of a quay wall, the
economic effects of the relieving platform separately on the sheet pile wall and on the whole
structure will be estimated.

19
1.2 Layout of report

The content of the present MSc thesis is divided into two major parts. The first part contains
mostly hand calculations for the determination of the loads and for the analysis of the sheet
pile wall, while on the second part advanced computer programs will be used for the same
purpose. The outline of the analysis is illustrated in the following figure:

Figure 1.2: Outline of the analysis methods

In chapter 2, introductive information is given concerning the development of quay walls, the
functions and the various types of these specific structures. Moreover, analytical descriptions
of the acting loads is presented and further the design philosophy and the available calculation
methods are described in details in chapters 3 and 4.

In Part A the structure is divided and analysed separately. For the relieving platform’s
analysis and the Blum’s Analysis of the Sheet Pile Wall the loads were determined manually
and the structures were analysed with respect to classic mechanics.

A parametric analysis of seven different quay walls is investigated, for various loading
combinations of given loads. In details, three different depths and two different widths of the
relieving platform were investigated. In addition a quay wall combined only from sheet piles,
without a relieving platform is also analysed.

Each model of the superstructure is analysed by means of a two dimensional frame solver
software program (Frame Solver 2D, ESADS) for four different load combinations taking into
account differences in the water levels. On that way, the axial forces acting on the sheet pile
wall are determined. Moreover, a first impression of the forces acting on the pile foundation
system, lying on the land side, is obtained.

20
The sheet pile wall, in Part A, is analysed by three different approaching theories of Blum.
The fixity of the end point of the sheet piling is considered once as completely free and in the
other two as fully fixed. The Free Earth Support method is used in the first case, while in the
second, two different methodologies, both considering a fully fixity at the toe level are used
(Fixed Earth Support method).
As it is shown in chapter 7 the results between these two methodologies don’t vary. Graphs
concerning the effect of the various dimensions of the relieving platform, the embedded depth
and the anchor force are produced.

In the Elastic Supported Beam theory (Msheet) analysis the ground is simulated according to
a more advanced model. According to that theory, the Sheet Pile Wall is schematised as a
beam on an elastic foundation, where the ground is simulated by a set of uncoupled elasto-
plastic springs. On that stage the axial forces, estimated from the static analysis of the
relieving platform are imposed on the top of the sheet pile wall as external loads.

In Part B, the same process is repeated but this time with a Finite Elements Method. PLAXIS
created from Plaxis will be used for that purpose. This type of analysis is based on a model in
which the behaviour of soil and structure are integrated.

Figure 1.3: Three Dimensional (3D) representation of quay wall

1.3 References

[1.1] Ir. J.G.de Gijt; “Developments in the Port of Rotterdam in Relation to the history of
quay wall construction in the world”, Delft University of Technology/Gemeentewerken
Rotterdam, 2008

[1.2] CUR,Port of Rotterdam, Gemeentewerken Rotterdam; “Handbook of Quay Walls”,

2005

21
 CHAPTER 2
INTRODUCTION

23
2.1 General - Development of quay walls

The continuously increasing dimensions of the ships play a significant role in the design of
ports and lengths of quay walls. Over the history the loading capacity, thus the dimensions of
the ship have dramatically increased. This fact affected the needed retaining height in front of
these structures, the length of the quays and the width if the harbour basin.

In the following figure this increment of the retaining height for the port of Rotterdam is
illustrated. It can be noted that the bottom depth in the area of Maasvlakte 1 reaches the -
23.00 m to -25.00 m, resulting to a total retaining height of 30.00 m.

Figure 2.1: Development of the water depth (in front of quay walls) in Port of Rotterdam

The design of terminals is specified according to the type of the handling cargo. With respect
to the form in which cargo is transported the following division is made:

ƒ Dry Bulk;
ƒ Liquid Bulk;
ƒ Roll on/Roll off;
ƒ Containers;
ƒ Others;

The last category is almost identical with conventional general cargo, which includes
breakbulk cargo, mass-breakbulk cargo or neobulk and bagged commodities.

Over the past 30 years container shipping has spread across the globe, taking over a major
share of the general cargo trade. The first generation of container ships were general cargo
vessels converted to carry containers. Since then several classes of container ships have been
built with increasing dimensions and capacities.

For a long time the size of the container ships was influenced by the width of Panama Canal.
The further development was restricted by this parameter due to the great importance of this
canal to the seaways between the east and the west coasts of the United States. The transport

25
 of cargos has become increasingly important since in the end of nineties the demand for
transport to Europe from the east American coast has increased. This fact permitted the
further development of the container ships, which are characterized as Post Panamax ships.
The scenarios predict that in the near future the load capacity of container ships will reach the
15000-18000 TEU.

The type of terminal that will be investigated in the present study is a future container
terminal. In the following table the development of the loading capacity and the dimensions of
the container vessels are illustrated.

Table 2.1: Development of average size of container ships

Class Period DWT TEU Length Beam Draught
[years] [average] [m] [m] [m]
1st generation End ‘60 14000 300-1100 200 27 9
2nd generation ‘70 30000 800-1700 240 30 10.50
3rd generation Begin ‘80 45000 1700-3000 300 32 11.50
4th generation Mid ‘80 57000 4000-4500 310 32.30 12.50
Post Panamax After ‘90 67000 4300-8000 340 39.4-45 13.50
6th generation End ‘90 104000 8000 347 42.80 14.52
7th generation After 2003 123000 12500-18000 400 63.80 14.70-21

2.2 Functions of quay walls

Quay walls are earth-retaining structures that are used for the mooring of ships. They should
be designed and constructed to resist safely the vertical loads caused by useful loads, trucks,
cranes etc., as well as the horizontal loads from ship impacts, wind, soil pressure, etc. The
aforementioned loads vary according to the type and the magnitude of the terminal.

One can say that quay walls are subjected to heavy loads, thus the design and construction of
such structures is quite demanding and complicated. Moreover, quay wall’s design and
construction become more complex when the users and managers specify their demands.

In order to ensure that the handling of the freight is executed as quickly as possible, the
designers took into account except of the present situation the possible future developments.
These are anticipated developments in transhipment and freight storage, navigation and
dimensions of vessels and demands arising from the local conditions and the future user of the
terminal.

The requirements and functions that a quay wall must satisfy, vary from different points of
view:

ƒ For ships, the most crucial requirement is the retaining height. There must be
sufficient draught so that the big ships can berth;
ƒ For the handling of the freight, it is also essential that the quay wall provides sufficient
area and bearing capacity for present and future transhipment, storage and transport;
ƒ Moreover, the quay wall should be designed and constructed on such a way that the
total cost (including construction and maintenance costs) and the quality have been
optimised;

26
 Figure 2.2: Big Container terminal - Maasvlakte 2 extension

In addition to providing berthing facilities, the quay wall must retain the soil for the area
behind the quay, provide bearing capacity to carry loads coming from the freight and the
cranes, function as a water retaining structure for the areas lying behind it.

2.3 Main types of quay walls

To fulfil the aforementioned functions of quay walls, many different construction methods
have arisen in various countries.

The berth fronts of quay walls are mainly constructed according to one of the following two
principles:

ƒ Solid Berth Structures: the fill is extended right out to the berth front where the
vertical front wall is constructed;
ƒ Open Berth Structures: From the top of a dredged or filled slope and out to the berth
front a load bearing slab is constructed on piles;

2.3.1 Solid Berth Structures

Generally solid structures are more resistant to impacts than open structures, and they can be
divided into two mail types, depending on the principle on which the front wall is constructed
in order to obtain sufficient stability:

27
 ƒ Gravity quay walls: the front wall of the structure with its own dead weight and
bottom friction is able to confront the horizontal and vertical loads. Sometimes the
dead weight is strengthened by the soil lying above it. Typical examples of this type of
structures are the block wall, L-wall, cellular wall etc;
ƒ Sheet Pile quay wall: the front wall is adequate to resist any horizontal loads acting on
the structure and must therefore be anchored behind the quay. Examples include
anchored sheet piles, combined walls, diaphragm walls and cofferdams.

2.3.1.1 Gravity quay walls

As it is already mentioned, the soil retaining function of the gravity quay walls derives from
the dead weight of the structure, which is sufficiently heavy to resist in shearing, tilt or
sliding. These types of structures are suitable for areas where the bearing capacity is large
enough, and where the subsoil is not suitable for driving piles. (Rocky subsoil or very firm
sand).

These structures often consist of prefabricated elements, solution that can be attractive from
an economical point of view especially for long quays. The upper-part of the structure is
equipped with facilities for berthing, such as bollards and fenders. It is also necessary to
protect the bed of the harbour, in the adjacent area of the retaining structure, against erosion
caused by the propellers of ships. Drainage is also necessary in order to prevent excess pore
pressures behind the quay wall.

The final choice of the type of quay wall depends on the local conditions and the total cost of
the structure. For example, block quay walls are suitable for hard subsoils. A more
economical attractive solution is the L-wall and the caisson quay walls. The cellular wall and
the reinforced earth structure is suitable for cases with dry building pit and low retaining
height respectively.

Block wall
This type of structure consists of blocks of concrete
or natural stone, piled on the top of each other. The
blocks are placed from the water side on a natural
foundation consisting of a layer of gravel or stones.
The great weight of the blocks and the total weight
of the whole structure make it suitable only for stiff
subsoils with a high bearing capacity. By using this
method retaining heights up to 20 m can be achieved
with a relatively low cost of labour but a big amount
of building material.
Figure 2.3: Block quay wall

The joints between the blocks provide a good drainage function of the quay wall, but in order
to prevent the loss of soil it is necessary to apply a filter structure behind the wall. Naturally,
these filters consist of a sufficiently thick filling of rock material.

28
L-wall
L-walls constitute the most representative example
of structures which owe their overall stability to the
weight of the soil that rests on them. The
summation of the soil weight and the dead weight
of the structure contribute to the shear stresses built
up. On that way the desired friction is activated and
the stability of the structure against the horizontal
soil pressures is assured.
Figure 2.4: L-wall quay wall

Large prefabricated L-quay walls can be built in any subsoil, but it has to be placed on a
gravel or stone bed layer, and a filter from rock filling material on the rear side should always
be considered.

Caisson wall

Caisson quay walls are big hollow cellular

concrete structure as it is shown is the figure. They
are built in a dry construction dock and after they
are floated in the specific location where they are
then sunk. The total weight of this structure, as of
the L-wall, consists of the summation of the dead
weight and the weight of the filling material. This
can be soil, crushed stones or gravel.
Figure 2.5: Caisson quay wall

The alternative of a caisson quay wall is economical in material use, but it is labour intensive.
To construct the caissons and to transport them in the project location requires a construction
dock, a pontoon and a waterway over which the transportation will take place. These
parameters make this solution difficult and rarely used.

Cellular wall
Cellular walls are constructed by driving straight instead of corrugated web profiles to form
cylindrical or partially cylindrical cells that are linked to each other. Relatively little material
and labour is demanded. However due to the small thickness of the sheet profiles this type of
quay walls is vulnerable to damage when collision occurs and to corrosion especially in
aggressive environments.

Reinforced Earth wall

In this case tensile elements like steel strips, rods and
polymer reinforcements such as geogrid and
geotextiles are inserted into the ground. The primary
mechanism of stress transfer between the
reinforcement and soil is the friction between the
contact surfaces of tension elements and soil. When
geogrids are used extra resistance is created by soil
particles enclosed in the openings in the grid. With
steel strips the resistance can be increased by adding
rolled transverse ribs. Figure 2.6: Reinforced earth quay wall

29
2.3.1.2 Sheet pile walls

These wall structures are used in easily penetrable soils with low bearing capacity. The sheet
pile wall consists of vertical elements (mostly corrugated profiles are used) that are driven up
into the subsoil. Moreover, this type of wall can be anchored, and the choice between the
various anchoring systems depends on the loading and environmental conditions. Drainage
system is necessary in order to avoid the excess pore pressure behind the structure.

Anchored sheet pile walls

Figure 2.7: Sheet piling with anchored wall and with grout anchor

In case where high retaining heights are demanded, an anchored sheet pile system is always
used. In principle, the static system of that wall can be simulated as a beam simple supported
on two supports. The support that lies on the underside part of the wall can be totally free or
entirely or partly fixed, depending on the used embedded length. Different approaches have
been developed for the fixity of the toe. Analytical description is found on chapter 7: “Sheet
Pile Analysis – Blum approaching methods”.

The anchorage functions as a supporting point for the sheet pile wall. Usually it consists of a
tie rod with an anchorage at the end part. Other anchorage options are also available, as the
horizontal anchoring (bar, cable and screw anchor), anchors with a grout body (grout and
screw injection anchors) and tension piles (closed or soil displacement pile, H-piles, open
tubular steel and MV piles).

Freestanding sheet pile walls

In the case that the sheet pile is not anchored, the
wall is acting as a cantilever beam that is
elastically fixed in the toe. A higher embedded
depth is needed in that case. On the base the
supporting pressure that is necessary for the
equilibrium is mobilised by the passive earth
pressure. This type of quay walls is used only for
small retaining heights. For higher situations,
some kind of anchoring systems is always
necessary.

Figure 2.8: Freestanding sheet piling

30
Sheet pile systems
The main types are single sheet piling, diaphragm walls and fixed cofferdams. For quay walls
with high retaining heights, suspending into heavy loads at the same time, heavy structures
that may consist of combined walls are mostly used. A combined wall consists of heavy
primary elements that are deeply embedded into the subsoil, and secondary elements that are
welded to each other between the primary elements. These secondary elements are normally
shorter compared to the primary ones, since the soil pressure is transferred to the primary
elements by arch action.

A diaphragm wall is a reinforced concrete wall that is constructed in situ. The thickness of the
wall varies between 0.50 m to 2.00 m and the width of the panels from 2.50 m to 7.20 m. The
concrete wall has high bearing capacity and is relatively stiff, so that the deformations are
minimal.

A cofferdam wall consists of two sheet pile walls with a soil filling space between the two
walls, which transfer the horizontal and vertical loads to the subsoil. The front and the rear
wall are often connected by one or more anchors. The retaining function of the cofferdam
derives from the shear resistance and the total weight of the soil between the walls. The
special with this case is that the walls are close enough that the active zone of the front wall
and the passive zone of the rear wall overlap. For that reason, the rear wall should not be
considered as a normal anchoring wall.

Sheet piles with a relieving platform

With this special structure the designers managed
to relieve the sheet pile wall from the soil
pressures reaching very high retaining heights.
The presence of the superstructure considerably
reduces the horizontal loads on the front wall,
thus the bending moments on the wall. The
structure consists of a bearing and earth retaining
sheet piling on the water side and a foundation
system of tension and bearing piles on the earth
side.
The platform creates a horizontal link between the
sheet pile wall and the foundation piles. Also an
anchorage is used, usually at the connecting point
of the sheet piling and the relieving platform.
Figure 2.9: Structure with relieving platform

When the retaining height of the quay front is high, a simple anchored sheet pile wall
structure will normally not be the most economical solution. The relatively high cost of soil
improvements prompted the designers to research for alternative options.

Relieving platforms constitute probably an interesting solution from an economic point of

view in cases were the loads and the retaining heights are relatively great. Moreover, in cases
where the retaining heights are small but the terrain loads are high, this type of structure can
be also economically justified. These types of structures have also been used in cases where
the utilisation of sheet piles with small moments of resistance has been pursued and the
allowable deformations are very limited.

31
This type of quay wall has been broadly designed in the port of Rotterdam and terminals with
retaining heights up to 20-25 m are suitable to accommodate the biggest vessels of nowadays.
This type of structure constitutes the subject of this study; the role and function of the
relieving platform are investigated in the following chapters.

2.3.2 Open Berth Structures

Figure 2.10: Open berth quay over a slope and with a retaining wall

In this case the height difference is bridged by a slope instead of a vertical wall that it is used
in the previous cases. The structure consists of a horizontal deck that is sometimes anchored.
The deck is founded on vertical and inclined piles, while underneath the deck a slope
revetment is lying in order to withstand the wave attack and the currents caused by the
propellers and the bow thrusters of the ships. These jetty-like structures are mainly used in
cases where the construction is necessary to take place above the water and in subsoils with a
low bearing capacity. These type of structure demands sufficient space on the sea side and
they are vulnerable in damage when collision occurs.

2.4 References

[2.1] CUR,Port of Rotterdam, Gemeentewerken Rotterdam; “Handbook of Quay Walls”,

2005

[2.2] Ir. J.G.de Gijt; “Developments in the Port of Rotterdam in Relation to the history of
quay wall construction in the world”, Delft University of Technology/Gemeentewerken
Rotterdam, 2008

[2.3] Gregory P.Tsinker; “Port Engineering, Planning, Constrction, Maintenance and

Security”

[2.4] Carl A. Thoresen; “Port Design – Guidelines and Recommendations”, Tapir Publishers
1988

[2.5] Ir.J.G.de Gijt; “Quay Walls, past present and future”, Gemeentewerken Rotterdam,
1990

[2.6] Prof. Ir.H.Lighteringen; “Ports and Terminals”, Delft University of Technology 2006

32
[2.7] Lecture notes CT5313; “Structures in Hydraulic Engineering”, Delft University of
Technology 2006

33
 CHAPTER 3
LOADS ACTING ON QUAY WALLS

35
3.1 General

In order to make a safe design an accurate prediction of the loads is needed. When these
structures are verified for safety the effects of unfavourable loads and combination of them
are considered. Information for the design values of loads were collected from various sources
mainly from Handbook of Quay Walls.

The verification of safety in the various limit states is based on a categorization of the loads.
This is executed for the determination of the correct combination of loads, and the used partial
factors as well. In Handbook of Quay Walls a distinction is made between the following
categories of loads:

ƒ Permanent loads;
ƒ Variable loads;
ƒ Accidental loads;

Permanent loads
The variation of these loads is remarkable slight in magnitude during the reference period of
the structure. These loads are:

ƒ The dead weight of the structure and the additional self weight of the equipments such
as: covering layers, fendering systems, bollards, and the weight of the soil acting on
the relieving platform;
ƒ Water and earth pressures caused by the weight of the soil under different water level
conditions;
ƒ Friction forces between the soil and soil on relieving platform;
ƒ Friction forces between soil and relieving platform;

Variable loads
This type of loads vary during the reference period of they are not always present. These loads
are:

ƒ Loads caused by earth pressures as a result of site loads (terrain loads);

ƒ Loads caused by water pressures;
ƒ Hydrodynamic water pressures cause by the groundwater flows and waves;
ƒ Ship’s operation;
ƒ Bollard forces;
ƒ Fender forces;
ƒ Terrain loads caused by the storage of the freight;
ƒ Crane loads;
ƒ Traffic loads;
ƒ Environmental loads (wave loads, ice loads, loads cause by temperature variations,
seismic loads);

Based on differences in the various transfer mechanism, a distinction should be made between
direct variable loads on the sheet piles and loads that act directly or indirectly on the relieving
platform and are transferred to the subsoil via the foundation system. The former loads are
horizontal earth pressures that result from the variable site loads and taking into account the
relieving effect of the superstructure, act on the sheet pile wall.

37
Accidental loads
Loads with a very small probability of occurrence are termed as accidental loads. For quay
wall structures these are:

ƒ Loads caused by extreme water levels and variations of the water level (flooding of
the area combined with a non-functional drainage system);
ƒ Extreme site load by bulk goods (coal and ores in an emergency situation);
ƒ Impacts from falling freight;
ƒ Collision loads;
ƒ Seismic loads;
ƒ Loads caused from an incidental extreme deepening of the harbour bottom;

It has to be noted that in very frequent use of the quay wall, crane loads and traffic loads, and
especially the vertical component of these loads can lead to fatigue of the structural members.
This problem affects only the directly loaded parts of the structures such as the crane tracks
and the quay decks.

Representative and design values

Calculations for the dimensioning and verification of structures are based on the design values
of the design parameters. These values are obtained by multiplying or dividing the
representative values with the correct partial factors. Most of the times, it is assumed that the
representative value is equal to the characteristic value. Depending on the variable, the
characteristic value has a probability of 5% that the variable is smaller or exceeds that value.
For a more scientific approach the determination of the characteristics values should be
executed by a statistical analysis. This is possible only when many data are available,
otherwise it is allowed by the NEN codes to use the nominal value of the parameters. All the
loads are assumed that act in a representative cross section, where distributed loads are
expressed per meter.

3.2 Specific Loads on a Quay Wall structure

3.2.1 Vertical loads

Earth pressures
In addition to horizontal earth pressures, possible vertical friction forces will develop. With
entirely neutral earth pressures no friction occurs. In the case of passive and active pressures
are activated, the maximum vertical friction force is related to the resultant of the maximum
active earth pressure Ea and it is directed downwards. For the situation of “earth on earth”, the
maximum friction is a set at Ea·tanφ. The friction between “earth and structure” is: Ea·tanδ.
Finally, it has to be noted that the friction is considered as a permanent load.

Terrain loads
Terrain loads are working on the quay due to storage. General design values are
recommended by Handbook of Quay Walls and EAU 2004. The difference between these
codes is that in Handbook of Quay Walls the container is assumed to be 17% unloaded. That
leads to a smaller load compared to EAU which takes into account fully loaded containers. In
order to make a safe approach to the problem the recommendations of EAU will be used in
that case.

38
 Table 3.1: Average container loads according to EAU 2004
EAU 2004 – average container loads
Weight 20ft container 200 [kN]
Weight 40ft container 300 [kN]
Light traffic (cars) 5 [kN/m2]
General traffic (HGV’s) 10 [kN/m2]
General Cargo 20 [kN/m2]
Container empty, stacked 4 high 15 [kN/m2]
Container full, stacked 2 high 35 [kN/m2]
Container full, stacked 4 high 55 [kN/m2]

Crane loads
It is likely to occur that the future container cranes will have the ability to lift more than one
container each time. The imposed loads are very high; therefore the foundation system of such
elements is of a major importance. Recommendations regarding the design values of the crane
loads can be found in Handbook of Quay Walls. These loads include the weight of the crane
and the hoisting load, wind load and dynamic loads from crane movements and tilting while
moving.

Figure 3.1: First of the 16 cranes arriving on the Euromax terminal

Table 3.2: Crane loads

Rail Bearing Bearing Dead Max wheel Max wheel Wheel
distance capacity capacity weight load load distance
waterside landside waterside landside
[m] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [m]
15.24 410 410 5150 293 174 1.75
15.24 500 500 8100 474 433 1.20
20.00 500 500 9770 568 542 1.00
30.48 500 500 8970 408 609 1.24
35.00 670 670 12122 691 691 1.05
48.00 450 450 7350 420 383 1.50

39
Traffic load
The traffic load can be due to the landward transportation of cargos through vehicles and
other transport systems. In the present case, it is assumed that the traffic load is included in
the design value of terrain load.

3.2.2 Horizontal loads

Earth pressures
Earth pressures are generated by the self-weight of the ground and by surcharges. Different
approaches are taken into account for the calculation of the earth pressures on different
structural members of quay wall. In the followings a distinction is made for the earth
pressures on the sheet pile wall and on the superstructure.

ƒ Earth pressures acting on the sheet pile wall

The determination of the earth pressures depends on the deformation and the stiffness of the
structure. In principle two calculation methods based on different approaches to the
determination of the earth pressures are available. A further description of these methods is
given in “Chapter 4: Design philosophy and calculation methods”. On that point a brief
reference of them will be done.

According to Blum theory, the calculation starts from the failure situation of the ground where
minimal active and maximum passive earth pressures occur. This method is very useful for
initial calculations when the designers want to obtain a first impression of the embedded
depth and the dimensions of the sheet pile wall.

According to the calculation model with an elastic-supported beam, the ground is represented
by a set of elasto-plastic springs. Because of the practical applicability of this approach it
constitutes the most frequently used method.

For detailed investigations, especially for the prediction of deformations a calculation method
that is based on an advanced Finite Element Method (FEM) is usually used. This method is
based on a model in which the behaviour of the soil and structure are integrated.

ƒ Earth pressures acting on the relieving platform

After completion of the relieving platform, the excavation area is filled and well compacted.
This causes horizontal stresses and depending on the stiffness of the superstructure, increases
the earth pressures. During the operation of a quay wall, a situation develops in which the
superstructure is loaded and stressed against the fill material. In extreme loading situation, in
addition to small deformations, active earth pressures will arise. For safety reasons, it is
recommended by the codes that for calculation of fundamental loading combinations, neutral
earth pressures should be used. For extreme combinations of loads, active earth pressure
should be used instead. Consequently, in the Serviceability Limit State (SLS), neutral earth
pressure should be used.

Waves
The quay walls in Maasvlakte 2 are mostly protected against waves coming from the sea. The
only waves that can reach the quay are developed by wind in the harbour basin itself and stern

40
waves from passing vessels. The wind waves are very low and short since the fetches in the
inner side of the harbour are small.

The waves caused from the passing ships will also be low since the speed of the ships which
approach the quay in order to berth is already very limited. Moreover such forces are assumed
to be taken care of by the fact that the structure is also designed for impact and mooring
forces. For breakwaters and similar structures heavily exposed to waves the wave actions
must of course be studied very closely in each case.

For these reasons and for simplicity reasons as well, waves will not be taken into account and
are neglected, consequently the water pressure will be assumed totally hydrostatic.

Currents
Currents due to passing ships in that case will be neglected. The quay wall is able to resist
since the speed of the vessels is low thus the caused currents have a small magnitude. In a
detailed calculation it would probably be necessary to apply a proper bottom protection in
order to withstand the currents from the ship’s propellers.

Ice forces
The study of forces due to formation of ice in the harbour basin has not been given high
priority until now. However, maritime structures like dolphins, bridge pillars etc. are
surrounded by an ice slab during the winter season or they are exposed to drift ice, thus one
must take into consideration that both horizontal and vertical ice forces can be of importance.

The magnitude of the ice forces depends on type of the structure; the properties of the ice and
to some extend on the conditions under which the ice was formed. Research has shown that
ice formed in fresh river water has higher strength and modulus of elasticity than ice formed
in salt sea water.

The structure which will be analysed in the followings is subjected to heaviest horizontal
loads. Moreover, the vertical force can cause problems to light structures; for instance light
piers on timber piles. For the aforementioned reasons and for simplicity reasons ice forces
will not be considered in the present investigation.

Crane loads
The horizontal loads coming from the horizontal movements of crane usually are caused by
swaying of the lifted containers. The design value of these loads is calculated as a percentage
of the vertical crane load, these being 10% to 15%. These loads include the weight of the
crane and the hoisting load, wind load and dynamic loads from crane movements and tilting
while moving.

Bollard loads
A ship coming alongside is usually stopped partly by its own engines and partly by the use of
spring hawsers. On that way, mooring forces are transmitted to bollards and dolphins which
are situated on the quay wall. The force on the bollards depends on the water displacements
due to berthing, wind and currents. These ship motions lead to horizontally concentrated
tensile forces in the mooring lines. The water displacement can be calculated with the
following formula:

G = L ⋅ B ⋅ D ⋅ C B ⋅ ρw

41
in which:

G: water displacement [tons];

L: length of the design ship [m];
B: width of the design ship [m];
D: draught of the design ship [m];
CB: Block coefficient of the design ship;
pw: density of the water [ton/m3];

Table 3.3: Bollard forces according to water displacements

Displacements [tons] Bollard force [kN] Percentage [‰]
<2000 100 5.00
<10000 300 3.00
<20000 600 3.00
<50000 800 1.60
<100000 1000 1.00
<200000 1500 0.75
>200000 2000 1.00

Fender loads
The estimation of fender loads is based on the theory of kinetic energy absorption. The fender
system which is used depends on the adopted amount of energy by the fender. The energy that
has to be absorbed is described by the following formula:

1
Ed = ⋅ G ⋅ v s2 ⋅ C E ⋅ C M ⋅ C S ⋅ C C
2

in which:

G: mass of the ship;

Vs: berthing velocity;
CM: virtual mass coefficient;
CE: eccentricity coefficient;
CS: softness coefficient;
CC: configuration coefficient;

Seismic loads
Seismic or earthquake loads act at the centre of gravity of the structure as a horizontal force
equal to the design coefficient times the weight of the structure. In the calculated weight of
the structure, it should be added one half of the live load. The actual seismic load due to
earthquake will depend on the magnitude of the disturbance, the type of structure and the soil
conditions in the adjacent area.

In NEN codes the seismic activity of the Netherlands and the neighbouring countries is
specified. More specifically, NEN 6702 shows the zones that are susceptible to seismic
activity, and that may be taken as a guideline by the designers. Two aspects must be taken
into account concerning the effects of an earthquake, these are:

42
 ƒ The occurrence of acceleration forces on the structure and soil masses of the active
and passive sliding wedge;
ƒ The reduction of shear resistances in non cohesive soils with loose packing, as a result
of liquefaction, may possibly occur;

During earthquakes the ground experiences strong cyclic accelerations. During earthquakes,
for instance, saturated sand is sometimes densified in a short time, which causes large pore
pressures to develop, so that the sand particles may start to float in the water. This
phenomenon is called liquefaction.

Figure 3.2: Shear stresses in soil particles

Structures can survive an earthquake due to the fact that most of the times they are supported
on piles penetrated into stiff soil. Otherwise soil improving measurements are considered as
compaction, gravel columns, drains, cementation etc.

Generally, unless the quay wall is a massive or gravity type structure, the seismic effect on the
design is relatively small. For the aforementioned reason, and moreover taking into
consideration the seismographic behaviour of the area, it can be assumed that the seismic
loads can be neglected.

Loads caused by variations in temperature

It is necessary to take into account the loads

resulting from variations in temperature. The
variations in temperature between the members of
the structure are caused by general climate and
seasonal influences. These effects are only taken
into account in Serviceability Limit State (SLS).

This phenomenon is very important for the

verification of crack formation. For other parts of
the quay wall structure this loads can be neglected.
In the present study, for simplicity reasons, this
loading parameter will be neglected even for the
relieving platform.
Figure 3.3: Thermal effect in quay walls

3.3 References

[3.1] CUR,Port of Rotterdam, Gemeentewerken Rotterdam; “Handbook of Quay Walls”

[3.2] Carl A. Thoresen; “Port Design – Guidelines and Recommendations”, Tapir Publishers

43
[3.3] Gregory P.Tsinker; “Port Engineering, Planning, Construction, Maintenance and
Security”

[3.4] Prof. Arnold Verruijt; “Soil Mechanics”, Delft University of Technology

44
 CHAPTER 4
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
AND CALCULATION METHODS

45
4.1 Design philosophy
4.1.1 General

For the design of a quay wall structure a deterministic approach to safety is still sometimes
used for simplicity reasons. This method determines a margin between the characteristic
values of loads and strengths, which has to be respected in order to assure the safety of the
structure.

The probabilistic approach is based on the principle that the structure should satisfy a specific
probability of failure. For this analysis all the parameters of the structure are considered as
stochastic. Nowadays, in order to maintain the simplicity of a design method and to avoid at
the same time complicated specialised probabilistic calculations; Dutch norms are based on
semi-probabilistic methods.

The design method described in Handbook of Quay Walls will be followed as design code for
this study. This method has been broadly used in designing quay walls for the port of
Rotterdam, and one can say that is well applicable for special structures like quay walls.

According to the Dutch standards three limit states are specified. The two of them are
unltimate limit states (ULS1A, ULS1B) and one serviceability limit state (SLS). ULS1A
treats the strength and the stability of the structure and happens when a failure mechanism
occurs due to:

ƒ Failure of a sheet pile;

ƒ Loss of overall stability;
ƒ Insufficient bearing capacity of the foundation;
ƒ Insufficient passive soil resistance;
ƒ Failure of the piling system or the anchorage;
ƒ Internal erosion of the soil/scouring/piping;

ULS1B occurs when deformations of the quay wall lead to severe structural damage to parts
of the structure or to nearby structures or installations. SLS concerns deformations under
serviceability loads and occurs when:

ƒ Deformations affect the appearance or the efficient use of the structure or structures or
installations located in the adjacent area;
ƒ Deformations exceed values which are acceptable for serviceability limit state or
which do not meet specific deformation requirements;

4.1.2 Determination of representative values, design values and normative load

combinations

ƒ Design approach to the sheet pile wall

According to Handbook of Quay Walls, for the design of the sheet pile wall, a set of partial
factors that are specifically developed for calculation of the sheet piles in a quay wall is used.

47
 Table 4.1: Partial safety factors for unfavourable representative soil parameters
Parameter Partial Safety Factor
Volumetric weight of soil “γ” 1.0
Angle of internal friction “φ” 1.0
Cohesion “c” 1.0
Friction angle between soil and wall “δ” 1.0
Soil coefficient “Kh” 1.0
Young’s modulus “E” 1.0
Poison’s ratio “v” 1.0

In contrast with the NEN codes, in Handbook of Quay Walls the value 1.00 is taken for all the
partial factors for soil properties, which means that the calculations are executed for
representative soil properties. Depending on the magnitude of the deformations they can be
passive, neutral of active stresses. The earth pressures on the sheet pile caused by surcharges
are determined from the design values of the surcharges.

Different safety factors are applied for the normal forces, the transverse forces and the
bending moments and for the loads as it is shown in the following table:

Table 4.2: Partial safety factors for geometrical parameters

Parameter Partial Safety Factor
Bottom level 1.20
Groundwater level 2.00
Free water level 0.60

Table 4.3: Partial safety factors for the results of the sheet pile calculation
Parameter Partial Safety Factor
Normal forces 1.3
Transverse forces 1.3
Bending moments 1.3
Anchor force resulting from sheet pile calculation 1.2
Mobilised earth pressures 1.3

The safety factors that are listed above are applicable for all limit states. In case of
serviceability limit state al the values should be replaced with 1.0. This is not the case for the
partial safety factors of the soil parameters which stay the same in each limit state.

The advantage of this method is that the distribution of the internal forces corresponds in a
more accurate way the physical behaviour of the structure. The method in Handbook of Quay
Walls is based on safety class 2. According to that, a failure of a quay wall leads to large
economical damage but small personal risk.

48
 ƒ Design approach to the relieving platform and the foundation

For the relieving platform and the foundation of the quay wall, the general line of approach
given in the series of NEN-standards is followed. In contrast with the NEN codes, in
Handbook of Quay Walls the value 1.00 is taken for all the partial factors for soil properties
for the fill behind the superstructure. Depending on the magnitude of the deformations they
can be passive, neutral of active stresses.
The design values of the loads on the relieving platform and foundation in the ultimate limit
state are determined by using the partial factors shown in the following table:

Table 4.4: Partial load factors for the ultimate limit state
Permanent loads γf;g Accidental
Safety Combination Variable loads
Unfavourable Favourable loads
Category of loads γf;q
γf;gmax γf;gmin γf;a
1 Fundamental 1 1.2 (1.15) 0.9 (0.95) 1.2 -
2 Fundamental 1 1.2 (1.15) 0.9 (0.95) 1.3 -
3 Fundamental 1 1.2 (1.15) 0.9 (0.95) 1.5 -
1-2-3 Fundamental 2 1.35 (1.3) 0.9 (0.95) - -
1-2-3 Accidental 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Often it is necessary to verify the serviceability limit state. In unusual circumstances the
deformation requirements may be so strict that verification is necessary. Verification
calculations are based on a combination of loads with partial safety factors as shown in table
4.2.
Table 4.5: Partial safety factors for the serviceability limit state
Safety Combination Permanent loads γf;g Variable Accidental
Category of loads Unfavourable Favourable loads loads
γf;gmax γf;gmin γf;q γf;a
1-2-3 Infrequent 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 -
1-2-3 Frequent 5 1.0 1.0 1.0 -

ƒ Load Combinations

In the limit states a number of unfavourable combinations of loads that are composed from
permanent and several variable loads are considered. For that reason combinations of loads
that are normative for the various constructive members have to be investigated.

In the load combinations, it has to be taken into account that the probability of a simultaneous
combination of loads must be smaller than the probability that one of the loads occurs. In
addition to the permanent loads, there is a possibility that a leading variable load combined
with other variable loads occurs. Depending on the nature of the loads, the variable loads in a
load combination are reduced by means of reduction factors ψi.

Two loading combinations are considered:

ƒ Fundamental combination, fundamental situations during serviceability;

ƒ Special load combination, in extreme or special situation;

49
 For these two load combinations, three types of loads can be determined:

ƒ Permanent loads;
ƒ Variable loads;
ƒ Special loads;

Table 4.6: Load combination philosophy

Design values of loads in load combinations in the ULS

Permanent loads Gd Variable loads Qd

Combination Special
type loads Fa,d
Dominant Simultaneously
Unfavourable Favourable
Variable occurring Var. loads
γf:g max γf:g min γf:q γf:q
Fundamental * * * * -
Grep max Grep min Q1 : rep Q0.j : rep
γf:g max γf:g min γf:q γf:q γf:g max
Special * * * * *
Grep max Grep min ψ1.1 Q1 : rep ψ2.1 Q1 : rep Grep max

Depending on the limit state, load combination and type of load, the representative values can
be distinguished in three categories:

ƒ Combination loads;
ƒ Momentaneous loads, a variable load that will probably occur in the load combination;
ƒ Quasy-permanent loads, a variable load present over a longer period;

Table 4.7: Load factors for load combinations

Combination Momentaneous Quasy-permanent
Type of load factor factor factor
Ψ0 Ψ1 Ψ2
Soil pressure 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water pressure 1.00 1.00 1.00
Variable favourable loads 0.70 0.60 0.50
Meteorological loads 0.70 0.30 0
*Meteorological loads are loads due to waves, currents, air and water temperature, snow, ice and earthquakes

50
4.2 Calculation methods

The design of sheet pile retaining walls requires several successive operations:

ƒ Evaluation of the forces and lateral pressures that act on the wall;
ƒ Determination of the required depth of piling penetration;
ƒ Computation of the maximum bending moments in the piling;
ƒ Computation of the stresses in the wall and selection of the appropriate piling section,
ƒ Design of the waling and anchorage system;

For the designing of the sheet pile wall in the quay structure, two calculation methods are
mostly used because of their applicability and simplicity. These are the standard calculation
method of Blum and the method of a beam placed on elastic foundation. Recent developments
in numerical modelling provided a third method which is based on the finite elements mode,
where the properties of both soil and structure are introduced.

4.2.1 Blum model

Anchored walls derive their support by two means: passive pressure on the front of the
embedded portion of the wall and anchor tie rods near the top of the piling. In principal for
higher walls the use of high-strength steel piling, reinforced sheet piling, relieving platform or
additional anchors may be necessary. The following figure shows the general relationship
between embedded depth, lateral pressure distribution and elastic line or deflection shape.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 4.1: Effect of embedded depth on pressure distribution and deflected shape

The first case (a) is commonly called the free earth support method. The passive stresses in
front of the wall are insufficient to prevent lateral deflection and rotations in point C. The next
cases show the effect of increasing the embedded depth. In cases (b) and (c) the passive
stresses pressure has increased enough to prevent lateral deflection at C; however, rotation
still occurs. In case (d) passive pressures have sufficiently developed on both sides of the wall
to prevent both lateral deflection and rotation at C. This case is commonly called the fixed
earth support method because point C is essentially fixed.

51
 Figure 4.2: Lateral earth stresses coefficients for Blum theory

Some different methods in current use for the design of anchored sheet pile walls are grouped
and discussed in the followings.

ƒ Free Earth Support Method

ƒ Fixed Earth Support Method (Equivalent Beam)
ƒ Fixed Earth Support Method (Displacement Method)

Analytical description of these three different approaches is found in the relative calculation
chapter (Chapter 7: “Sheet Pile Analysis – Blum approaching methods”).

4.2.2 Beam on elastic foundation

The formation of equations for the subgrade reaction method resulted in a fourth order
differential equation. Solving this was for a long time a major problem that hindered
application of the method for retaining wall design. The development of the computer
programs facilitated numerical integration of the equations and radically changed the nature
of the problem.

In this model the ground is schematised as a set of elasto-plastic springs. With important
deformations of the sheet pile wall the plastic branch of the ground spring is reached and
minimum active and maximum passive earth pressure develop. Because the earth pressures
depend on the deformation of the sheet pile wall the calculation is an iterative process. After
each calculation step a verification of whether the calculated earth pressures correspond with
the displacements is made.

The iterative process comes to an end when the results have converged. The available
computer program is based on uncoupled springs, thus the arching effect of the ground is not
taken into account.

52
 Figure 4.3: Spring model schematisation and soil coefficients

Figure 4.4: Lateral earth stresses coefficients for spring model

With this calculation method it is possible to calculate a sequence of phases in which the
“stress history” of the sheet pile can be used as initial conditions to the following phase.
Moreover, computer programs do not take into account inclined sheet pile walls and axial
loads either. The second order effect on the redistribution of forces has to be investigated
separately.

4.2.3 Finite Element analysis

Finite element method is based on a model in which the behaviour of soil and structure are
intergraded. The properties of soil are introduced by means of stresses deformation relations.
This method can be used for the verification of the overall stability and the deformations of
the structure. Finite elements method is used to analyse successfully problems like:

ƒ Horizontal deformations of the foundation members;

ƒ Bending moments in piles and extra horizontal loads;
ƒ Deformation of the relieving platform in various phases;
ƒ Arching affect of the soil on the active part of the sheet pile wall;
ƒ Relieving effect of the relieving platform in a weak cohesive soil;

53
 Figure 4.5: Deformed mesh from FEM - PLAXIS

The finite element method can also be used for three-dimensional problems, for example to
investigate the distributions of earth pressures over the primary members and intermediate
piles in combined wall.

Analytical description of the simulation method and the assumption is found in Chapter 9:
“Part B – Finite Element Analysis”.

4.3 References

[4.1] CUR,Port of Rotterdam, Gemeentewerken Rotterdam; “Handbook of Quay Walls”

[4.2] EAU 2004; “Recommendations of the Committee for Waterfront Structures Harbours
and Waterways”

[4.3] “Steel Sheet Piling – Design Manual”, U.S.Department of Transportation/FHWA

[4.4] Luc de Lattre; “A century of design methods for retaining walls – the French point of
view”, Laboratoire Central de Ponts et Chaussees

[4.5] PLAXIS manual; “PLAXIS, Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analysis, version 8”

[4.6] MSheet manual; “Manual – Reference Section”

54
 CHAPTER 5
PART-A
HAND CALCULATIONS-GENERAL

55
5.1 General

A parametric study of the structure, with respect to different dimensions of the relieving
platform, is carried out in order to investigate the effects of the superstructure to the sheet pile
wall. In order to check the differences between the outcomes, the retaining height is
considered stable.

Two different soil profiles will be investigated; the first (soil profile 1) is representative of the
Maasvlakte area and the second (soil profile 2) represents the area near the city of Rotterdam,
the Netherlands. CPTs from these areas are available in the Appendices.

5.2 Boundary conditions

5.2.1 Determination of the retaining height

The construction depth of a quay wall depends on many parameters such as tolerances due to
dredging and stone fill, and is based by definition on the low low water spring (LLWS). In
addition, the required retaining height depends on the draught of the design vessel and the
keel clearance as it is illustrated in the following figure:

Figure 5.1: Determination of the retaining height

The required contract depth is equal to the level of LLWS – 1.1▪the maximum draught;
consequently the total retaining height is equal to:

LLWS – 1.1▪the maximum draught – inaccuracies - keel clearance – tolerances - maintenance

fluctuations

57
The type of quay wall that is investigated in that case constitutes an appropriate structure for
the accommodation of 7th generation container vessels. A representative design container
vessel should be able to transport 12500 TEU, and in this case the Southampton ++ container
vessel is chosen. The characteristics of the ship are summarised in the following table:

Table 5.1: Design ship characteristics

Characteristic Value
Length 382 [m]
Beam 57 [m]
Draught 17 [m]
Block Coefficient 0.686 [-]

The necessary retaining height of the quay wall can now be determined. The following table
illustrates the different components which together form the final retaining height.

Table 5.2: Determination of total retaining height

1.1▪Draught of design ship 1.1▪17=18.7 [m]
Keel clearance (10-15% of draught) 2.55 [m]
Measuring inaccuracies 0.5 [m]
Fluctuations due to maintenance 0.5 [m]
Dredging tolerances 0.8 [m]

Ground level, NAP +5.0 [m]

L.L.Water Spring Rotterdam, NAP -1.77 [m]

Retaining height ≈29.8 [m]→30 [m]

5.2.2 Water levels

For the elaboration of the study, hydraulic boundary conditions similar to those of Maasvlakte
at the Port of Rotterdam are used. That was chosen due to the fact that the conditions in the
area determine the applicability and feasibility of a quay wall to a large extend.

Figure 5.2: Maasvlakte 2 area, Port of Rotterdam

58
Rotterdam is the Europe’s market leader for container transhipment, thus an economically
attractive quay wall for the port of Rotterdam may constitute a possible construction to
different locations.

In Handbook of Quay Walls a special probabilistic water level is described. This analysis is
based on the probabilistic distribution function of high and low waters. From this analysis
mean values and standard deviations can be determined.

The water levels according to Handbook of Quay Walls are summarised in the followings:

Table 5.3: Design values for water levels

Parameter Mean Value Standard Deviation Design Value
High Water Level +1.26 0.33 +1.46
Low Water Level -1.22 0.27 -1.38
Low Low Water Spring -1.61 0.27 -1.77
Groundwater Level +0.80 0.25 +1.30

The design free water levels will be:

h LW = μ 50,LW − γ SF ⋅ σ LW = −1.22 − 0.6 ⋅ 0.27 = −1.38mNAP

h LLW = μ LLW − γ SF ⋅ σ LLW = −1.61 − 0.6 ⋅ 0.27 = −1.77mNAP
h HW = μ HW + γ SF ⋅ σ HW = +1.26 + 0.6 ⋅ 0.33 = +1.46mNAP

The high groundwater level can be derived from the free water levels:

h g ,HW = μ 50,gHW + γ SF ⋅ σ g ,HW = +0.80 + 2 ⋅ 0.25 = +1.30mNAP

It can be noted, that the groundwater level follows the tide near the free water level. But the
fluctuation in the groundwater is less than a tide, since the underground flow needs time in
order to adapt to the new pressure difference. In every location, the classification of the soil
substrata should be taken into account, since the presence of an impermeable clay layer can
make the underground flow impossible. In this case study, a rough assumption of a uniform
sand layer is made, thus the groundwater can easily follow the variations of the free water.

It is usually assumed that the tide has a time shift of 2 hours with the ground water. For
simplicity reasons, no drainage systems will be applied and the low groundwater level is
assumed at the same magnitude of the Low Water Level. This assumption constitutes a safe
approach for the further design.

5.2.3 Ground levels

The future ground level in Maasvlakte2 will be +5.0 m NAP. The chosen retaining height is
30 m, consequently the bottom level is -25.0 m NAP.

59
5.2.4 Soil profiles

In the followings the mechanical parameters of the soil profiles which were used in several
stages are illustrated. It can be noted that different parameters are involved in different
calculation means such as MSheet and PLAXIS. The Finite Element Method is very sensitive
to the strength parameters of the soil, thus the input data were chosen according to NEN
codes.

ƒ Soil Profile 1 – Uniform Sand soil Profile

In the following table the basic soil parameters are summarised. Extra mechanical parameters
needed for the simulation of the soil profile in Elastic Supported Beam (Msheet) and Finite
Element Method (PLAXIS) are describing in the related chapters.

Table 5.4: Design values for soil mechanical parameters of soil profile 1 (sand qc:15Mpa)
Soil parameter Design Value
Sand (+5.00 m NAP → -35.00 m NAP)
Volumetric weight of dry soil “γd” 18 [kN/m3]
Volumetric weight of saturated soil “γsat” 20 [kN/m3]
Friction angle between soil and wall “δ” 20 [o]
Angle of internal friction “φ” 30 [o]
Dilatancy angle 2 [o]

ƒ Soil Profile 2 – Clay and Sand soil Profile

Table 5.5: Design values for soil mechanical parameters of soil profile 2
Soil parameter Design Value
Clay (+5.00 m NAP → -15.00 m NAP)
Volumetric weight of dry soil “γd” 15 [kN/m3]
Volumetric weight of saturated soil “γsat” 16 [kN/m3]
Friction angle between soil and wall “δ” 11 [o]
Angle of internal friction “φ” 17 [o]
Dilatancy angle 0 [o]
Cohesion 5 [o]
*The same mechanical parameters of table 5.4 stand for the sand part in soil profile 2

5.2.5 Loads on the structure

Bollard loads
The design container vessel displaces more than 200.000 tons of water, thus the force on the
berthing vessel that corresponds to this tonnage is approximately 2000 kN.

The effect of a concentrated point load acting directly on a concrete deck slab, or the
increased loading area on which a concentrated point load is acting, is estimated as follows.
This load is linearly redistributed through the superstructure over an angle of 45o, as it is
illustrated in the following figure.

60
 Figure 5.3: Redistribution of bollard loads over the quay

The redistributed line load as it is obvious depends on the depth of the platform. For the
extreme case that the platform is laying in the surface the bollard load will be taken into
account equal to 667 kN, which come from a distribution over 1.5 m. For the intermediate
case with h=6.5 m, the total load acts over a distance of 2*(6.5-1.5/2)=11.5 m, which results
in approximately 175 kN/m. Finally for h=11.5 m the redistributed load is approximately
equal to 87 kN/m over a distance of 23 m.

Bollards should be provided at intervals of about 5-30 m depending on the size of the ship
along the berthing face and the bollard load capacity. In the case of a design ship as
Southampton ++, bollards should be placed every 30 m.

Moreover, for deep cases there is the possibility that loads from two individual bollards to
overlap. The redistributed load would be two times higher, approximately equal to 175 kN/m.
In order to make a safer approach to the problem, for the latter case of h=11.5 m also the
design load of 175 kN/m will be used.

The vertical component of the bollard load will be neglected since it has a relieving action to
the structure.

Fender loads
The same stands for the fender loads. As a design value in
that case will be used the reaction force of 2539 kN, for
SCN 1800 – E1.3 which consist the EUROMAX fender
system.
This load is redistributed as previous over an angle of 45o
for the two cases of h=6.5 m and h=11.5 m. This results in
a design value of approximately 250 kN/m. For the
extreme case that the height of the relieving platform is
equal to zero the fender load is acting directly on sheet
pile wall.

Figure 5.4: Fender system on a quay wall

61
Crane loads
The design values, same with those of EUROMAX quay, will be assumed. The vertical load
is equal to 1600 kN/m and the horizontal load is +/-60 kN/m. The mutual distance of the crane
legs is 30.48 m.

The vertical and horizontal crane load on the landward side will not be included in the
following calculations, since these loads are normally supported by separate spread
foundations. Crane foundations support the tracks of rail-mounted cranes. The representative
value of the vertical load and dynamic load of harbor cranes varies between 300 and 800
kN/m. In addition to vertical loads, as it has already mentioned the horizontal loads equal to
10% to 15% of the vertical ones. The simplest spread foundation consists of a structure that is
built up from the following parts: foundation of stabilized sand, ballast bed of quarry stone,
hardwood concrete or steel sleepers and the rail structure.

For heavier cranes, as in the present study case, continuous reinforced concrete beams are
usually used. The crane track is designed as an elastic beam on elastic foundation in which
both the stiffness of concrete structure and bed influence the actions in the cross section. The
bearing resistance and settlement should be verified. Crane girders can be equipped with
joints and shear connectors, but can also be constructed as a continuous reinforced concrete
beam. In the latter case extra longitudinal reinforcement must be used to control cracking that
may result if deformation is prevented. The level of the rail structures must be sufficiently
adjustable.

In the following figures, a typical cross section of a crane girder is presented as well as a
picture from the procedure of the construction:

Figure 5.5: Schematisation of landward crane girder

Figure 5.6: Landward crane girder – under construction

62
Terrain loads
In addition, it is assumed that between the two crane legs full containers of 2 layers will be
used, and that can happen in case of an emergency, which leads to 35 kN/m2. For the area
behind of the landward crane leg 4 layers are assumed, which leads to 55 kN/m2. Taking into
consideration the future development, one can say that it is a reliable assumption to use 40
kN/m2 and 60 kN/m2 respectively. These are the used design values for EUROMAX
container terminal. Moreover, on that way the traffic load is also taken into account.

In the followings the 7 different designs are presented. The length of the MV-pile and the
bearing piles is not illustrated on scale. The dimensions of these elements are noted in the
followings.

5.3 Parametric analysis - Seven different cases

The analysis of the quay wall is executed with respect to the Handbook of Quay Walls CUR
211 recommendations. The aim is to conclude into the optimisation of quay wall structures,
through a parametric analysis, in cohesive and not cohesive soils where a relieving platform is
present. In this two dimensional analysis 7 different designs of quay walls will be analysed.
Extreme values of the width (b) and the depth (h) of the platform will be used and
intermediate situations will be interpolated.

Figure 5.7: Schematisation of a Quay Wall with a relieving platform

The following diagram shows the cases that are investigated in that phase. In order to give a
clear representation of these cases a schematisation of these 7 different designs are presented
below:

63
 Quay
Structure

Case A Case B Case C Case D

(h=0.0m) (h=6.5m) (h=11.5m) (d=0.0m)

Case A1 Case A2 Case B1 Case B2 Case C1 Case C2

(b=12.5m) (b=25.0m) (b=12.5m) (b=25.0m) (b=12.5m) (b=25.0m)

Figure 5.8: Seven different cases of investigation

Case A: Extreme situation with the relieving platform on the surface level

Case A1 Case A2

Figure 5.9: Design cases A1 and A2

64
Case B: Intermediate situation with the relieving platform at depth h=6.5 m

Case B1 Case B2

Figure 5.10: Design cases B1 and B2

Case C: Extreme situation with the relieving platform at depth h=11.5 m

Case C1 Case C2

Figure 5.11: Design cases C1 and C2

65
Case D: Extreme situation without a relieving platform

Figure 5.12: Design case D

An additional remark has to be made with respect to the construction phases of the quay wall.
It is usual that the construction phases will lead to additional load cases. As an example, when
the soil in front of the sheet pile wall is partly excavated before applying the anchorage.

The sheet pile wall can be temporarily considered as a cantilever; while after the installation
of the anchorage it can be schematised as a simple supported beam. However, the
construction phases will not lead to additional load cases for the sheet pile wall. The
construction phases are schematised in figure:

Figure 5.13: Phase 1 - Small excavation

66
Figure 5.14: Phase 2 - Driving of Sheet pile wall

Figure 5.15: Phase 3 - Construction of Quay Wall

67
 Figure 5.16: Phase - 4: Front excavation and fill of the back side

In construction phase 3 the relieving platform will be constructed. The relieving platform
structure is connected to the wall structure in such a way that it provides the anchorage. Due
to this configuration the sheet pile wall is anchored before the excavation at the front of the
wall start. On that way, it is assumed that the construction phases do not lead to additional
load cases.

5.4 References

[5.1] CUR,Port of Rotterdam, Gemeentewerken Rotterdam; “Handbook of Quay Walls”

[5.2] EAU 2004; “Recommendations of the Committee for Waterfront Structures Harbours
and Waterways”

[5.3] Emiel Meijer; “Comparative analysis of Design Recommendation for Quay Walls”,
Delft University of Technology/Gemeentewerken Rotterdam, 2006

[5.4] Priscilla Bonte; “Sandwich Wall as the wall of the future”, Delft University of
Technology/Delta Marine Consultants B.V., 2007

[5.5] Archive/Library of Gemeentewerken Rotterdam, Rotterdam

68
 CHAPTER 6
PART-A
HAND CALCULATIONS-PLATFORM ANALYSIS

69
6.1 General

The use of a relieving platform primarily reduces the active earth pressures on the upper most
part of the sheet pile wall. The redistribution of the stresses is illustrated in the following
figure.

Figure 6.1: Principle of relieving platform

It has to be noted that the following redistribution is based on the Rankine’s theory
distribution of stresses, the principle of which is illustrated in the above figure.

In this chapter the calculation procedure of the relieving platform is described step-by-step.
For the sake of clarity, the superstructure is assumed that is possessing great horizontal
strength and stiffness, so that no passive or active stresses are activated.

The relieving platform of the quay wall is schematised to a simple statically determinate
frame. In the case of a long relieving platform the presence of more bearing piles is necessary,
thus the system is a statically indeterminate one. For that case in the following calculations
two bearing piles were used and the acting axial forces on those elements can be spread, in a
more detailed design, to several rows.

Figure 6.2: Schematisation of the relieving platform with different widths

71
This concept of the schematisations is based on the followings:

ƒ Tension and bearing piles are considered as hinged bars that take up only normal
forces;
ƒ Several rows of piles were needed are grouped into one or two piles, positioned in the
centre of gravity of the rows;
ƒ In the position of a pile trestle the support is schematised as a hinge;
ƒ If there is an anchor, it can be schematised as a flexible bar;
ƒ In the position of the inclined pile row the support is schematised to an inclined hinged
bar that only takes up axial loads;

6.2 Loads Acting on the relieving platform

The loads acting directly on the relieving platform are given on Chapter 3: “Loads acting on
Quay Walls”. Water pressures caused on differences between the water level and the phreatic
level, as well horizontal earth pressures, the magnitude of which depends on the deformations
of the relieving platform, are important determinants. With fundamental combinations of
loads, neutral earth pressures are considered. For accidental combinations of loads the extra
horizontal deformation is assumed so that the development of active earth pressures is
possible.

Moreover, horizontal deformations of the earth mass under the relieving platform appear as
imposed deformations of the foundation piles. With a dense pile group, these forces can be of
such a magnitude that the reducing action of the relieving platform is negatively influenced.
This effect can be taken into account by adding an extra horizontal anchor force. The
magnitude of that force can be computed by simulating the foundation piles as fixed
supported beams with actual bending stiffness exposed to the specific deformation. This may
result in a reduction of the earth pressures on the sheet piles. In the present study, for
simplicity reasons, that was not taken into consideration.

6.3 Load Combinations

In the verification of various limit states (ULS, SLS) several load combinations including
permanent and variable loads are considered. The designers have to investigate a number of
these load combinations in order to define the normative design values of bending moments,
internal forces, displacements, stresses etc, for all the elements of the structure, such as the
sheet pile, the bearing piles, the anchor and the relieving platform.

In the ultimate limit state the following types of combinations of loads should be investigated:

ƒ Fundamental combinations of loads

ƒ Accidental combinations of loads

In the presence calculations only the fundamental combination of loads will be studied, for
different water levels.

Fundamental combinations of loads that are analysed for quay structures include:

ƒ Combination of loads consisting permanent loads and a leading variable load caused
by unfavourable water pressure at low tide, combined with one meteorological load

72
 and two simultaneously occurring variable loads or partial loads, caused by
surcharges, crane loads, traffic loads and bollard loads;
ƒ Combination of loads consisting of permanent loads and leading variable load caused
by unfavourable water pressure with high phreatic level and a maximum gradient,
combined with one meteorological load and two simultaneously occurring variable or
partial loads, for example surcharges, crane loads, traffic loads and bollard loads;
ƒ Combination of loads consisting of permanent loads and a leading variable load
caused by unfavourable resulting water pressure at low free surface water level with
simultaneous ground water level, combined with one meteorological load and two
simultaneously occurring variable or partial loads caused for example by surcharges,
crane loads, traffic loads and bollard loads;

The objective of that approach is to find the crucial combination of loads that lead to
normative loads on the various foundation members such as sheet piles, relieving platform
and bearing and tension piles. For the composition of loads in a combination specific
associated reduction factors are used.

The calculation of the response of the groundwater level to the variation of the surface water
level can be modelled. For this it is necessary to take into account a certain delay in the
response of the groundwater level. A low surface water level, with high ground water is
normative for the stresses occurring in the sheet pile and anchorage. The aforementioned load
combinations are presented in the following tables.

Load Combination A: (LCA)

Table 6.1: Load combinations LCA1, LCA2, LCA3
High Ground Water Level [+1.30 m] + Low Free Water Level [-1.38 m]
LCA1 LCA2 LCA3
Earth Pressures 1.0 1.0 1.0
Water Pressures 1.0 1.0 1.0
Terrain Loads 0.7 0.7 0.7
Crane Loads 0.7 - -
Bollard Loads - 0.7 -
Fender Load - - 0.7

Load Combination B: (LCB)

Table 6.2: Load combination LCB
Low Ground Water Level [-1.38 m] + Low Free Water Level [-1.38 m]
LCB
Earth Pressures 1.0
Water Pressures 1.0
Terrain Loads 0.7
Crane Loads 0.7
Bollard Loads -
Fender Load -

73
6.4 Analysis of the relieving platform

The relieving platform will be investigated by two different static models. In the first static
model the connection point was simulated by a combination of a bar with an angle of 45o
and a roller support. On that way, the anchor is simulated with its own cross-section and
material characteristics whilst the sheet pile wall is entered in the model as an infinite stiff
support. This simulation will lead to higher axial forces on the sheet pile wall since its
stiffness is assumed infinite. (That is happening in cases A2, B2 and C2, where the static
system is undetermined and the stiffness of the members plays role in the distribution of
forces).

Figure 6.34: Two different static models of the relieving platform

In the second static model, which is also proposed by the Handbook of Quay Walls, the
connecting point is simulated as a fixed hinge. On that way, the distribution of forces will be
on the same extent to the horizontal and vertical direction. It has to be noted that the
horizontal reaction in the connecting point was analysed in two directions (the anchor plane
and the vertical direction) respecting the direction of the vectors, in order to get the total axial
force.

It has to be noted also that, the modulus of elasticity of each embedded element was decreased
by the factor 2.5, since the mutual distance of them was assumed equal to 2.5 m. The
characteristics of each element are summarised in the following tables.

Table 6.3: MV-pile characteristics

MV pile
Profile HP 360 x 152
Cross-section (A) 193.8 [cm2]
Moment of inertia (I) 4395 · 105 [mm4]
Modulus of Elasticity (E) 205 [GPa]
Angle 45o
Length 35-50 [m]
Centre to centre distance 2.5 [m]

74
 Table 6.4: Bearing piles characteristics
Bearing piles
Diameter (D) 0.67 [m]
Modulus of Elasticity (E) 36 [GPa] (B55)
Inclination 3:1
Length 25-35 [m]
Centre to centre distance 2.5 [m]

Table 6.5: Concrete platform characteristics

Concrete Relieving Platform
Horizontal Part
Cross-section (A) 15000 [cm2]
Moment of inertia (I) 28.125 · 1010 [mm4]
Modulus of Elasticity (E) 15 [GPa] (B35)
Vertical Part
Cross-section (A) 30000 [cm2]
Moment of inertia (I) 225 · 1010 [mm4
Modulus of Elasticity (E) 15 [GPa] (B35)

The loads, the two different static systems and the coming results of each case are illustrated
in the followings pages.

75
 ƒ CASE A1

Figure 6.4: Loads acting on the relieving platform A1

ƒ CASE A2

Figure 6.5: Loads acting on the relieving platform A2

Table 6.6: Loads on the relieving platform

Vertical Loads
1 Terrain load 40 [kN/m2]
4 Dead load 37.5 [kN/m2]
6 Crane load 1600 [kN/m]
Horizontal Loads
9 Crane load 60 [kN/m]
10 Bollard load 667 [kN/m]

76
 ƒ CASE B1

Figure 6.6: Loads acting on the relieving platform B1

ƒ CASE B2

Figure 6.7: Loads acting on the relieving platform B2

Table 6.7: Loads on the relieving platform

Vertical Loads
1 Terrain load 40 [kN/m2]
2 Soil weight (dry) 66.6 [kN/m2]
3 Soil weight (saturated) 26 [kN/m2]
4 Dead load 1 37.5 [kN/m2]
5 Uplift 28 [kN/m2]
6 Crane load 1600 [kN/m]
7 Dead load 2 375 [kN/m]
Horizontal Loads
8 Crane load 60 [kN/m]
9 Bollard load 175 [kN/m]
10 Fender load 250 [kN/m]
11 Soil pressures 61.25 [kN/m2]
12 Hydrostatic pressures 26.8 [kN/m2]
13 Terrain load 20 [kN/m2]

77
 ƒ CASE C1

Figure 6.8: Loads acting on the relieving platform C1

ƒ CASE C2

Figure 6.9: Loads acting on the relieving platform C2

Table 6.8: Loads on the relieving platform

Vertical Loads
1 Terrain load 40 [kN/m2]
2 Soil weight (dry) 66.6 [kN/m2]
3 Soil weight (saturated) 156 [kN/m2]
4 Dead load 1 37.5 [kN/m2]
5 Uplift 78 [kN/m2]
6 Crane load 1600 [kN/m]
7 Dead load 2 750 [kN/m]

78
 Horizontal Loads
8 Crane load 60 [kN/m]
9 Bollard load 175 [kN/m]
10 Fender load 250 [kN/m]
11 Soil pressures 33.25, [kN/m2]
111.25
12 Hydrostatic pressures 26.8 [kN/m2]
13 Terrain load 20 [kN/m2]

6.5 Results from the Static Analysis

The different results from the two different static systems are presented below. Only the
extreme values, coming from the normative load combination each time is illustrated in the
following tables. All the results are presented analytically in the appendices.

Table 6.9: Extreme values coming from the first static system
Reaction in
Anchor Force Bearing Pile 1 Bearing Pile 2
CASE connecting point
[kN/m] [kN/m] [kN/m]
[kN/m]
A1 1330.948 430.557 513.713 -
A2 1294.777 125.730 918.952 336.486
B1 2346.000 267.263 1021.713 -
B2 2176.772 -409.226 1767.662 658.305
C1 3776.104 811.206 1462.847 -
C2 3502.177 -244.360 2695.778 1155.057

Table 6.10: Extreme values coming from the second static system
Reaction in
Anchor Force Bearing Pile 1 Bearing Pile 2
CASE connecting point
[kN/m] [kN/m] [kN/m]
[kN/m]
A1 1330.900 430.556 513.713 -
A2 1283.628 126.780 906.567 292.922
B1 2346.547 267.264 1021.713 -
B2 2163.232 -412.858 1859.208 623.792
C1 3776.104 811.207 1462.847 -
C2 3454.000 -242.634 2760.547 1138.645

As it can be seen from the above, the results between the two models present a small
deviation. The extreme values coming from these two models are used in further calculations.
The summation of the axial force in the connection point and the vertical component of the
anchor force is applied as an external load in the sheet pile wall.

79
6.6 References

[6.1] CUR,Port of Rotterdam, Gemeentewerken Rotterdam; “Handbook of Quay Walls”,

2005

[6.2] Prof. Arnold Verruijt; “Soil Mechanics”, Delft University of Technology, 2001-2006

[6.3] Karl Terzaghi, Ralph Peck, Gholamreza Mesri; “Soil Mechanics in Engineering
Practice”

[6.4] Emiel Meijer; “Comparative analysis of Design Recommendation for Quay Walls”,
Delft University of Technology/Gemeentewerken Rotterdam, 2006

[6.5] Priscilla Bonte; “Sandwich Wall as the wall of the future”, Delft University of
Technology/Delta Marine Consultants B.V., 2007

80
 CHAPTER 7
PART-A
SHEET PILLE WALL ANALYSIS – BLUM METHOD

81
 7.1 General

According to Blum’s theory, the sheet pile is considered as a beam that is loaded by soil and
water pressures. On the top the sheet pile wall is connected to the relieving platform by means
of an anchorage system, i.e. in the present case the MV-piles are considered. At the lower
part, the sheet pile wall is supported by the passive soil resistance, resulted by the soil under
the bed of the labour. With a minimal embedded depth, the soil layer providing resistance is
just able to ensure the stability of the sheet piles. The degree of fixing depends on a number of
factors, such as extra sheet pile length in relation to the minimal length, stiffness of the
resistance soil and the bending stiffness of the sheet piles.

The various calculation methods lead to different results. From the point of view of structural
analyses two basic concepts are recognised:

ƒ Free earth support sheet piles;

ƒ Fixed earth support sheet piles;

As it has already mentioned the sheet pile wall calculation will be executed with three
different approaches of Blum’s theory. This theory is based on the failure condition of the soil
where the minimum active and maximum passive earth pressures occur. The first approach
that leads to small embedded depths and high anchor forces takes into consideration a
partially fixed end at the toe of the wall. Fully fixity is assumed in the second and third
approach where higher embedded depths and smaller anchor forces are reached. Between
these extremes, a variety of intermediate cases like partially fixed sheet pile systems are also
possible.

7.2 Assumptions

Firstly, it has to be noted that in order to provide a margin of safety, the final coming results
of the aforementioned methods should be examined and moderated. That can be done by two
methods, either by an addition of 20-40% of the final embedded depth or the use of a reduced
value Kp’, by dividing it with a safety factor of 1.5.

In the present study the second way will be used, since according to that way the soil
properties are reduced and that is closer to the philosophy of the recent more advanced
calculation means.

Moreover, the several methods have been developed in order to estimate the lateral earth
pressure coefficients (Rankine theory, Coulomb theory, NEN, etc). For the calculation of
sheet pile walls that also have a bearing function, the favourable working of the angle friction
δ is taken into account in the determination of horizontal soil pressures. Consequently, the
Rankine’s theory can be avoided in that case.

For the calculations of Part A, the NEN coefficients have been used instead of the Coulomb
theory coefficients, since they are accurate enough and broadly used in projects relative to
Port of Rotterdam.

83
 Figure 7.1: Illustration of the parameters involved in the earth pressure coefficient formulas

The expressions for the coefficients of the earth pressures according to the Dutch code NEN
are:
cos 2 (ϕ + α )
Ka =
sin (ϕ + δ ) ⋅ sin (ϕ − β) ⎤
2
2 ⎡
cos α ⎢1 + ⎥
⎣ cos(α − δ ) ⋅ sin (α + β ) ⎦
cos 2 (ϕ − α )
Kp =
sin (ϕ − δ ) ⋅ sin (ϕ + β) ⎤
2
⎡
cos α ⎢1 −
2
⎥
⎣ cos(α − δ ) ⋅ sin (α + β ) ⎦

For the present case where φ=30o δ=20o β=0o α=0o we get:

Ka=5.74 and Kp=0.28.

7.3 Blum model

Blum’s method is often used as an introduction to sheet pile walls in many textbooks. The
basis of the method is the assumption of limit earth pressures acting on the sheet pile wall.
This means that this method uses calculations with minimum active and maximum passive
earth pressures.

The earth pressure distribution in Blum’s method is based on Rankine’s earth pressure theory
and the calculations can be carried out as a supported beam calculation. Because of the
simplicity, the Blum design method is still frequently used in the development of draft
designs. This can be a first estimation of the minimum length of sheet piles, the pile length at
which fixed end is achieved and the estimation of bending moments and anchor forces.

A disadvantage of the Blum’s method is that the actual earth pressures on site differ from the
limit earth pressures, due to the fact that it does not take into account the earth pressure
redistribution caused by arching in the soil behind the sheet pile wall. As a result the fixing
moments are too large, the moments in the span are too small and the anchor forces are too
low.

84
According to clause R77 of EAU, earth pressure redistribution may be taken into account by
correcting the calculation results according to Blum as follows: the part of the bending
moment resulting from the active effective earth pressure may be reduced by 33%, but the
anchor force must then be increased by 15%.

This is possible due to arching occurring on sheet piles which are directly driven in the soil. In
case that the back side is filled on stages, then that is not the case and the maximum bending
moments should be taken into account. For safety reasons this reduction will not be taken into
consideration in the present calculations.

7.3.1 Free earth Support Method

Figure 7.2: Free earth support method

The anchored wall is only just in equilibrium when the moment of the horizontal loads on the
wall relative to the anchored point is zero. Of course, in this situation the anchor force must be
able to be absorbed fully.

The limit state is described by the following boundary conditions:

ΣM TOP = 0
ΣFHOR = 0

The forces acting on the sheet pile wall are listed in the followings:

ƒ Active and passive soil pressures;

ƒ Hydrostatic water pressures;
ƒ Surcharge of the soil pressures (depending on the platform dimensions);
ƒ Anchor force;

The needed embedded depths and the anchor forces are summarised in the table below for
each case. The calculations were executed by an Excel sheet that is found in the appendices.

85
 Table 7.1: Results of Free Earth Support method
Anchor Force [kN]
CASE Embedded depth [m]
(horizontal component)
D 1513.99 12.78
A1 1276.38 12.44
A2 1178.90 12.65
B1 1076.30 11.50
B2 902.33 11.10
C1 797.37 10.41
C2 590.89 8.40

7.3.2 Fixed Earth Support Method (Equivalent Beam Method)

This method is based on the assumption that the elastic line of the wall will take the shape
indicated in the following figure.

Figure 7.3: Fixed earth support method-Equivalent Beam Method

The deflected shape reverses its curvature at the point of contraflexure c and becomes vertical
at point t. Consequently the beam acts like a partially built in beam subjected to bending
moments.

To produce the deflected shape, the wall must be driven deep enough so that the soil provides
the required restraint on the bulkhead deformations. The equivalent beam method assumes a
hinge at the point of contraflexure, since the bending moments there are zero.

The part above the hinge can then be treated as a separate freely supported beam with an
overhanging end as shown in the following figure.

86
 Figure 7.4: Point of Contraflexure and Reaction on the Equivalent Beam

The reactions R and T and the bending moments can be determined from statics and simple
beam theory. The lower portion, below the point of contraflexure, can also be analysed as a
separate freely supported beam on two supports R and C.

Also in this case the forces acting on the sheet pile wall are:

ƒ Active and passive soil pressures;

ƒ Hydrostatic water pressures;
ƒ Surcharge of the soil pressures (depending on the platform dimensions);
ƒ Anchor force;

The needed embedded depths and the anchor forces are summarised in the table below for
each case. The calculations were executed, also in this case, by an Excel sheet that is found in
the appendices.

Table 7.2: Results of Fixed Earth Support method (equivalent beam method)
Anchor Force [kN]
CASE Embedded depth [m]
(horizontal component)
D 1263.86 20.62
A1 1054.76 19.98
A2 923.30 19.03
B1 878.32 18.36
B2 709.57 16.33
C1 647.16 16.28
C2 496.18 13.36

7.3.3 Fixed Earth Support Method (Displacement Method)

According to that approach, the sheet pile wall is considered as fully clamped at its toe, with
the additional condition that the bending moment at the toe is zero. The shear force will be

87
unequal to zero. This shear force is supposed to be the resultant force of the stresses in the
vicinity of the toe, including some length beneath.

The clamping of the edge is supposed to be so strong that the displacement and the rotation
(first derivative of the displacement) are zero, and even the second derivative is zero, so that
the bending moment is zero.

The length of the sheet pile wall will be determined by the conditions of the equilibrium, with
active and passive soil stresses, and the condition that the horizontal displacements is zero at
the level of the anchor.

The forces acting on the sheet pile wall are the same with previous cases:

ƒ Active and passive soil pressures;

ƒ Hydrostatic water pressures;
ƒ Surcharge of the soil pressures (depending on the platform dimensions);
ƒ Anchor force;

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 7.5: Fixed earth support method-Displacement Method

The displacements on the top are expressed by simple statics and beam theory. Analytically,
for the aforementioned loading situations the expressions are:

q ⋅ l4
(a): w =
i 30 ⋅ EI
q ⋅ x 4 q ⋅ x3 ⋅h
(b): w = +
i 30 ⋅ EI 24 ⋅ EI
q ⋅l4
(c): w i =
8 ⋅ EI
P ⋅ l3
(d): w =
i 3 ⋅ EI

88
The calculations were executed in Maple 10 and the needed embedded depths and the anchor
forces are summarised in the table below for each case:

Table 7.3: Results of Fixed Earth Support method (displacement method)

Anchor Force [kN]
CASE Embedded depth [m]
(horizontal component)
D 1257.98 20.16
A1 1043.35 20.01
A2 910.66 20.52
B1 885.10 18.26
B2 698.54 17.98
C1 659.53 16.04
C2 494.04 13.42

7.4 Comparison of the methods

The different results according to the aforementioned methods are summarised in the
following graphs. For different dimensions of the relieving platform the equations coming
from the trend lines can be used, in order to estimate the embedded depth and the anchor
force. An example is also illustrated in the end of the present paragraph.

Free Earth Support b=12,5M

14 B=25M
Polynoom (b=12,5M)
Polynoom (B=25M)
13
E m bedded depth (m )

12
y = -0,0016x2 - 0,1856x + 12,757
11

10
y = -0,0248x 2 - 0,0986x + 12,81
9

8
7
6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure 7.6: Embedded depth for different relieving platforms (Free Earth Support method)

89
 Fixed Displacement method b=12,5m
b=25m
22 Polynoom (b=12,5m)
Polynoom (b=25m)
20
E m b ed ded d epth (m ) y = -0,014x 2 - 0,2046x + 20,236
18

16
y = -0,0523x 2 - 0,0045x + 20,354
14

12

10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
h(m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure 7.7: Embedded depth for different relieving platforms (Fixed- Displacement method)

Fixed Beam method b=12,5m

b=25m
22 Polynoom (b=12,5m)
Polynoom (b=25m)
20
E m b ed d ed d ep th(m )

y = -0,0052x 2 - 0,3107x + 20,555

18

16

14
y = 0,0082x 2 - 0,7029x + 20,398
12

10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
h(m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure 7.8: Embedded depth for different relieving platforms (Fixed- Beam method)

Free Earth Support b=12,5m

b=25m
1700 Polynoom (b=12,5m)
Polynoom (b=25m)
1500
A n ch or fo rce (KN)

1300
y = 1,5831x 2 - 75,173x + 1462,5
1100

900

700
y = 3,5429x 2 - 113,84x + 1444,9
500

300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
h(m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure 7.9: Anchor force for different relieving platforms (Free Earth Support method)

90
 Fixed Displacement method b=12,5m
b=25m
1500 Polynoom (b=12,5m)
Polynoom (b=25m)
An ch o r fo rce (KN) 1300

1100
y = 1,6061x 2 - 65,512x + 1209,9
900

700
y = 4,774x 2 - 113,51x + 1182,7
500

300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
h(m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure 7.10: Anchor force for different relieving platforms (Fixed- Displacement method)

Fixed Beam method b=12,5m

b=25m
1500 Polynoom (b=12,5m)
Polynoom (b=25m)
1300
An ch o r fo rce (KN)

1100
y = 1,7277x 2 - 68,022x + 1213,7
900

700
y = 4,4593x 2 - 110,25x + 1189
500

300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
h(m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure 7.11: Anchor force for different relieving platforms (Fixed- Beam method)

According to the Free Earth Support method the anchor forces are overestimated compared
with the values provided for the Fixed Earth Support method, and at the same time the
embedded depths are smaller.

As it can be seen from the previous results, the differences between the two variants of the
Fixed Earth Support methods are insignificant. In general, a quay wall structure may be based
on fixed sheet pile walls for the following reasons:

ƒ The risk of loss of stability due to insufficient passive earth pressures is minimised;
ƒ The bearing function of the sheet pile may be a normative parameter for the
determination of the total length of the sheet piles; consequently a longer embedded
depth is favourable;
ƒ The ultimate bending moment is reduced thus a lighter profile is required;
ƒ The anchor forces are reduced thus a smaller anchor is required;

91
In the case that hard layers are present in the substrata high driving risks may occur, thus the
choice of a free earth supported sheet pile wall might be preferable.

7.5 Example

In order to make clear the usefulness of the previous graphs an example is illustrated in the
followings. Here, a quay wall structure with a retaining height of 30 m exposed in the same
loading conditions is assumed and the relieving platform differs from the already investigated
cases.

The relieving platform that was chosen for this specific structure has a depth of h= 8.0 m and
a width equal to d=19.0 m

Firstly, the needed embedded depth will be determined as follows. It has to be noted that in
the equations of the trend lines that appear in the graphs the variable x is the depth (h) of the
relieving platform and the y is in the one case the embedded depth and in the second the
anchor force.

ƒ Embedded depth determination

Free Earth Support Method

From graph 7.1 and using the equation of the trend lines for the different widths we get:

ƒ For width b=25.0 m and for h=8.0 m → y=10.43 m

ƒ For width b=12.5 m and for h=8.0 m → y=11.17 m

With a linear interpolation between these values we get the final required embedded depth for
the case of width b=19.0 m.

Consequently we get: y=10.79 m

Fixed Earth Support Method (Displacement method)

From graph 7.2 and using the equation of the trend lines for the different widths we get:

ƒ For width b=25.0 m and for h=8.0 m → y=16.97 m

ƒ For width b=12.5 m and for h=8.0 m → y=17.70 m

With a linear interpolation between these values we get the final required embedded depth for
the case of width b=19.0 m.

Consequently we get: y=17.32 m

Fixed Earth Support Method (Equivalent Beam method)

From graph 7.2 and using the equation of the trend lines for the different widths we get:

92
 ƒ For width b=25.0 m and for h=8.0 m → y=15.30 m
ƒ For width b=12.5 m and for h=8.0 m → y=17.74 m

With a linear interpolation between these values we get the final required embedded depth for
the case of width b=19.0 m.

Consequently we get: y=16.47 m

ƒ Anchor force determination

Free Earth Support Method

From graph 7.4 and using the equation of the trend lines for the different widths we get:

ƒ For width b=25.0 m and for h=8.0 m → y=760.93 kN

ƒ For width b=12.5 m and for h=8.0 m → y=962.43 kN

With a linear interpolation between these values we get the final anchor force for the case of
width b=19.0m.
Consequently we get: y=857.65 kN

Fixed Earth Support Method (Displacement method)

From graph 7.5 and using the equation of the trend lines for the different widths we get:

ƒ For width b=25.0 m and for h=8.0 m → y=580.16 kN

ƒ For width b=12.5 m and for h=8.0 m → y=788.59 kN

With a linear interpolation between these values we get the final anchor force for the case of
width b=19.0 m.

Consequently we get: y=680.21 kN

Fixed Earth Support Method (Equivalent Beam method)

From graph 7.6 and using the equation of the trend lines for the different widths we get:

ƒ For width b=25.0 m and for h=8.0 m → y=592.40 kN

ƒ For width b=12.5 m and for h=8.0 m → y=780.10 kN

With a linear interpolation between these values we get the final anchor force for the case of
width b=19.0 m.

Consequently we get: y=682.49 kN

93
 7.6 Preliminary Design of the Sheet Pile Wall

The objective of the calculations on that point is to make a first determination of the optimum
dimensions and the quality of the steel for the sheet pile wall on the basis of the calculated
distribution of forces.

As it has already mentioned before, from the Fixed Earth method, specifically the Equivalent
Beam method, the maximum bending moment and the reactions on the two supports can be
determined. This is executed by using the simple beam theory from simple mechanics. By
using the frame solver software program (Frame Solver 2D - ESADS) we get the following
values, as illustrated in the following table;

Table 7.4: Maximum Bending Moments from Fixed Earth method-Equivalent Beam method
max. Bending Moment Distance [m]
CASE
[kNm/m] (from anchor point)
D 13922.07 18.28
A1 12020.47 17.80
A2 10394.24 17.88
B1 8259.18 15.43
B2 6054.51 14.91
C1 4927.71 12.70
C2 3214.25 11.53

With the above maximum bending moments and taking into consideration the total axial
force, (summation of the vertical reaction and the vertical component of the anchor force) the
required profiles for the sheet pile wall are determined.

In general for a quay wall like the case considered, due to the high retaining height and the
heavy loads, a combined sheet pile system is considered. As it has already mentioned, the
intermediate piles provide the soil tightness for the sheet pile wall and transfer the loads from
soil and water pressures to the primary elements. In principle triple intermediate piles are
used, but in cases where big stiffness is required double intermediate piles can be utilised.

The design values of moments, normal forces and transverse forces are determined by
multiplying the results of the sheet pile calculation by a partial load factor 1.30, see also
Chapter 4: “Design philosophy and calculation methods”. Each normative cross-section must
satisfy the following condition:

M r ;rep
M s;d ≤ M r ;d =
γm

in which:

Ms;d : design value of the distribution of forces caused by loads;

Mr;d : design value of the resistance of the structure;
Mr;rep : representative value of the reistance of the structure;

94
γm : partial factor for material properties;

Moreover, in order to protect the structure against corrosion, a measure that can be used is an
extra allowance on the thickness of the materials. Other usual protection measurements are
the coating and the cathodic protection.

The ultimate limit state of a combined wall is verified by using the following expression:

M max;d ⋅ e Nd '
σ yield ≥ +
I A

in which:

σyield : design value of yield stress

Mmax;d : design value of the moment to be verified
Nd’ : design value of the axial compression force acting on the sheet pile wall
I : moment of inertia of the considered cross-section;
e : eccentricity of the extreme fibre of he considered cross-section
A : area of the considered cross section

7.7 Sheet pile profiles

In general U-shaped and Z-shaped profiles are utilised in a sheet pile wall construction. The
major disadvantage of the U-shaped profiles is that bending moments are possible to occur in
the longitudinal direction, the so called oblique bending.

On the other side that is not the case for the Z-shaped profile. In contrast they have the
disadvantage that the highest bending stresses are consecrated in the adjacent area of the
interlocks, pushing them to open.

A combined wall consists of two profiles, in the present case a tubular profile (primary
element) and an infill profile (secondary elements). The resistance against the bending
moment will be produced mostly by the primary elements of the combined wall, and the infill
elements will resist against the hydraulic failure.

The tubular profiles are in most cases longer that the infill profiles, due to the fact that the
determination of the infill profiles is based on the hydraulic resistance. The stiffness of the
combined wall should be taken into account for the calculations of the sheet pile wall in the
upper part, while in the bottom part the stiffness of the tubular profiles only should be
considered.

The difference in stiffness between the intermediate elements and the primary ones is so large
that probably arching will occur, so that the primary elements receive almost all the internal
forces. The intermediate elements in this case are considered as double PU sheet piles as it is
illustrated below.

95
 Figure 7.12: Illustration of PU Sheet Piles

The characteristics of the intermediate piles used in the design of the sheet pile wall are
summarised in the following table. For simplicity reasons, in each case the same intermediate
sheet piles are used, i.e PU 22.

Table 7.5: Characteristics of PU 22 intermediate sheet piles

Intermediate Elements (PU 22)
Thickness (te) 12.1 [mm]
Thickness (ta) 9.5 [mm]
Width (B) 1200 [mm]
Height (H) 450 [mm]
Total Area (A) 21950 [mm2]
Section modulus (W) 2.640E+06 [mm3]
Moment of Inertia (I) 5.936E+08 [mm4]
Mass (G) 172.3 [kg/m1]

In this stage, a preliminary determination of the required profiles of the sheet piles will be
executed by taking into consideration the acting loads and the characteristics of the cross
sections.

The stress of the combined wall will be specified by the aforementioned formula:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + ,
Wsystem A Wsystem A

where (the axial force is the summation of the reaction coming from the analysis of the
relieving structure and the vertical component of the anchor). The moment of inertia of the
system (Isyst) is determined as follows:

I tub + I sh.pile
I syst =
L syst
where the moment of inertia of the sheet pile is defined from tables and the moment of inertia
of the tubes can be easily determined by:

96
 π
I tub =
64
(
⋅ D ext
4
− D int
4
)
The section modulus of the combined wall is determined from the following equation:

I syst
Wsyst =
0.5 ⋅ D

The maximum acting bending moment was determined by the Fixed Support method
(Equilibrium method) by treating the sheet pile as a simple supported beam, The total axial
force (summation of the vertical reaction and vertical component of the anchor force) is
estimated below and is noted as ΣF.

As it is shown in the following calculations, the yielding stress is not yet reached, but this
extra thickness of the wall can be used for protection against corrosion.

97
 7.8 Dimensioning according to Blum results

Table 7.6: Characteristics of Combi-walls and stress control (Blum analysis)

Total Axial Primary Elements Yielding
Bending Moment Max. stress
CASE Force Diameter Thickness Steel Quality Stress
[kNm/m] [N/mm2]
[kN/m] [mm] [mm] [N/mm2]

D 13922.0 2382.2 2500 45 X65 443 395.27

A1 12020.0 2667.9 2420 35 X65 443 419.44

A2 10394.2 2525.7 2120 35 X65 443 429.88

B1 8259.1 3626.9 2320 30 X65 443 386.38

B2 6054.5 2666.4 1920 30 X65 443 358.67

C1 4927.7 5239.6 1920 30 X65 443 358.90

C2 3214.2 3844.0 1420 30 X65 443 345.77

Note: The graphs of the static analysis with “Beam Solver 2D” are presented in the Appendices

98
 7.9 References

[7.1] [CUR,Port of Rotterdam, Gemeentewerken Rotterdam; “Handbook of Quay Walls”,

2005

[7.2] Prof. Arnold Verruijt; “Soil Mechanics”, Delft University of Technology, 2001-2006

[7.3] Karl Terzaghi, Ralph Peck, Gholamreza Mesri; “Soil Mechanics in Engineering
Practice”

[7.4] Lecture notes CT5330; “Foundation Engineering”, Delft University of Technology

[7.5] Arcelor Group; “Piling Handbook”, Arcelor RPS

[7.6] ARBED Societe Anonyme; “Practical Design of Sheet Pile Bulkheads”, Luxembourg

[7.7] Phd.MSc.Dick Arjen Kort; “Steel Sheet Pile Walls in Soft Soils”, Delft University of
Technology, 2002

[7.8] “Steel Sheet Piling – Design Manual”, U.S.Department of Transportation/FHWA

[7.9] Luc de Lattre; “A century of design methods for retaining walls – the French point of
view”, Laboratoire Central de Ponts et Chaussees

[7.10] “Beton Kalender 1984, volume 2” Giourdas Editions

[7.8] Emiel Meijer; “Comparative analysis of Design Recommendation for Quay Walls”,
Delft University of Technology/Gemeentewerken Rotterdam, 2006

[7.9] Priscilla Bonte; “Sandwich Wall as the wall of the future”, Delft University of
Technology/Delta Marine Consultants B.V., 2007

99
 CHAPTER 8
PART-A
SHEET PILLE WALL ANALYSIS –
ELASTIC SUPPORTED BEAM METHOD (MSHEET)

101
 8.1 General

In principle, due to its practical applicability the calculation of the sheet pile wall is carried
out by the method of the beam supported on the uncoupled elasto-plastic springs. This means
that the effect of arch working of the ground, which causes an important reduction of the
moment in the span in non-cohesive soil, is not taken into account.

Only with sufficient deformations of the sheet pile wall can plastic strains of the soil and
active earth pressures or passive soil resistances occur. If there is no displacement the earth
pressure is neutral. That leads to an iterative process; after each calculation step a verification
of whether the estimated pressures correspond to the appropriate deformations is made.

According to Handbook of Quay Walls, due to the high distribution capacity of the relieving
platform, the average values are used as design values for followings parameters:

ƒ Coefficients of subgrade reaction Kh of the soil;

ƒ Mechanical parameters of the sheet pile wall;
ƒ Spring stiffness of the anchor;

A major difference between the beam on elastic foundation method and the aforementioned
Blum method, is that here it is possible to calculate a sequence of phases in which the stress
history is of the sheet pile wall is used as initial conditions for the next phase. However, as it
happens with all the engineering problems, the reliability of the results should be treated with
scepticism, since the schematisation of the soil and the interface between soil and structure is
far from being perfect.

The inclination of the sheet piles and the eccentricity of the saddle in the top of it are issues
that should be considered from the designers. The effect of inclination on the earth pressures
can be taken into account with adjusted earth pressure coefficients. In addition the second
order moments that are induced from the axial load might also calculated and included into
the results. In the following figure the moment distribution of the sheet piles is illustrated:

Figure 8.1: Principle of the moment distribution of the sheet pile wall

103
In the present study the sheet pile wall is considered vertical, so the favourable effect of the
sheet pile inclination is not considered. Moreover, it is clear that the eccentricity of the axial
load reduces the maximum bending, while second order moments will act unfavourably for
the sheet pile wall stability. For simplicity reason, second order effects are taking into
account.

The mechanical parameters of the soil are summarised in the following tables:

Table 8.1: Design values for soil mechanical parameters of soil profile 1 (sand qc:15MPa)
Soil parameter Design Value
Sand (moderate)
Volumetric weight of dry soil “γd” 18 [kN/m3]
Volumetric weight of saturated soil “γsat” 20 [kN/m3]
Friction angle between soil and wall “δ” 20 [o]
Angle of internal friction “φ” 30 [o]
Cohesion 0 [kPa]

Table 8.2: Design values for soil mechanical parameters of soil profile 2 (sand qc:15MPa –clay
cu:50KPa)
Soil parameter Design Value
Clay (moderate)
Volumetric weight of dry soil “γd” 17 [kN/m3]
Volumetric weight of saturated soil “γsat” 17 [kN/m3]
Friction angle between soil and wall “δ” 11 [o]
Angle of internal friction “φ” 17.5 [o]
Cohesion 5 [kPa]
*The same mechanical parameters of table 8.1 stands for the sand part in soil profile 2

The average coefficients of subgrade reactions which are proposed in CUR211 are used in
this stage.

P k h;1 k h;2 k h;3

C 1,0

B 0,8

A 0,5 Pea;h;p;rep

Pea;h;a;rep
0

Figure 8.2: Construction of the deformation-dependent coefficient of subgrade reaction

104
 Table 8.3: Average values of the horizontal coefficients of subgrade reaction with increased stress
Kh1 [kN/m3] Kh2 [kN/m3] Kh3 [kN/m3]
Soil Type
p0<ph<0.5 pea;h;p;rep p0<ph<0.8 pea;h;p;rep p0<ph<1.0 pea;h;p;rep
Sand (qc:15MPa) 20000 10000 5000
Clay (fund: 50 KPa) 4000 2000 800

When this approach is used, in contrast with method of Blum, even for piles exceeding the
minimum length no fully fixed sheet pile wall is found. In the present study, and according to
the philosophy of Handbook of Quay Walls, the toe of the sheet piling is assumed fully fixed.
For that purpose and in addition for the satisfaction of the vertical capacity of the sheet piling,
the maximum embedded depth that is estimated in the previous chapter is used.

8.2 Elastic Supported Beam Method (MSheet design)

The design values of the earth pressures and soil resistances in the ultimate limit state (ULS),
which are caused by effective pressure and pore water pressure are determined by using a
sheet pile calculation that is based on the design values of the soil properties. As it has already
mentioned, according to Handbook of Quay Walls, the design is carried out with the
representative values since the partial factors for the mechanical parameters of soil is 1,0.

The influence of surcharge on the soil pressures is calculated by using the design value of the
surcharge. This value is considered equal to the representative value of the surcharge that is
equal to the extreme site load given in terms of reference. The estimated values of the terrain
load as it is shown in Chapter 5: “Hand Calculations – General” is not representative of an
extreme site load. A uniform terrain load of 60 kN/m2 is assumed as a surcharge in order to
consider in that way a partial factor.

As it has already mentioned, the connection point of the relieving platform and the sheet piles
according to Handbook of Quay Walls is a hinge. Despite this philosophy, the connection
point can be accomplished in various ways; a fixed moment connection is also possible. In
this case, the detailing in the connection is very demanded and difficult to get realised. This is
because the internal distribution of forces is strongly depended on the deformation of the quay
system. Thus the hinge connection is more realistic and it can be achieved with the aid of a
cast steel saddle.

The maximum design value of the vertical reaction coming from the static analysis of the
relieving platform, increased by the vertical component of the design value of the anchor
force, is imposed as external loads in this phase.

The yielding stress of the combined wall will be specified by the aforementioned formula (for
explanations see previous Chapter):

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N'

σ= + = +
Wsystem A Wsystem A

The results of the MSheet analyses and the cross-section check are presented in the
followings.

105
 8.3 Results of MSheet analysis

8.3.1 Sheet pile design for soil profile 1 (uniform sand)

Table 8.4: Characteristics of Combi-walls and stress control for soil profile 1 (MSheet analysis)
Total Axial Primary Elements Yielding
Bending Moment Max. stress
CASE Force Diameter Thickness Steel Quality Stress
[kNm/m] [N/mm2]
[kN/m] [mm] [mm] [N/mm2]

D 13214.1 3443.5 2320 45 X65 443 390.48

A1 11584.8 3372.8 2220 40 X65 443 419.71

A2 9115.6 2812.1 2120 35 X65 443 391.80

B1 8624.8 4138.2 2220 35 X65 443 377.63

B2 5585.0 2938.7 1820 30 X65 443 367.04

C1 4812.6 5666.5 1720 35 X65 443 358.85

C2 1769.8 3853.0 1220 25 X65 443 331.02

106
8.3.2 Sheet pile design for soil profile (clay – sand)

Table 8.5: Characteristics of Combi-walls and stress control for soil profile 2 (MSheet analysis)
Total Axial Primary Elements Yielding
Bending Moment Max. stress
CASE Force Diameter Thickness Steel Quality Stress
[kNm/m] [N/mm2]
[kN/m] [mm] [mm] [N/mm2]

D 12489.5 3555.9 2220 45 X65 443 395.19

A1 11669.3 3451.1 2220 40 X65 443 414.44

A2 8618.7 2740.4 2020 35 X65 443 395.59

B1 8988.8 4325.8 2220 35 X65 443 393.81

B2 6113.6 2944.8 1820 30 X65 443 395.34

C1 5478.6 6157.1 1920 35 X65 443 356.32

C2 3451.3 4065.5 1420 30 X65 443 371.47

107
 8.4 References

[8.1] [CUR,Port of Rotterdam, Gemeentewerken Rotterdam; “Handbook of Quay Walls”,

2005

[8.2] Msheet manual; “Manual – Reference Section”

[8.3] Prof. Arnold Verruijt; “Soil Mechanics”, Delft University of Technology, 2001-2006

[8.4] Emiel Meijer; “Comparative analysis of Design Recommendation for Quay Walls”,
Delft University of Technology/Gemeentewerken Rotterdam

[8.5] Priscilla Bonte; “Sandwich Wall as the wall of the future”, Delft University of
Technology/Delta Marine Consultants B.V.

[8.6] “Archive of Gemeentewerken Rotterdam”, Rotterdam

108
 CHAPTER 9
PART-B
SHEET PILLE WALL ANALYSIS –PLAXIS
(FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSIS)

109
 9.1 General

Finite elements analysis is based on a model in which the behaviour of soil and structure is
integrated. The mechanical parameters of soil are introduced by means of stress deformation
relations; thus the method is very sensitive in the correct choice of the modulus of elasticity of
the soil. With this method, fundamental calculations of stresses and deformations of soil and
structure are carried out; and according to the stiffness of each element the internal forces are
determined.

PLAXIS 2D is a two dimensional finite element computer program used to perform

deformation and stability analyses for various types of geotechnical applications.

In addition to Mohr – Coulomb model, which is a simple and well known non-linear model,
the Hardening Soil Model is used for the present analysis. This is an advanced elasto-plastic
type of hyperbolic model, formulated in the framework of friction hardening plasticity. This
second order model can be used to simulate the behaviour of sand and gravel as well as softer
types of soil such as clays and silts.

For further information about the scientific background of the model, the reader is referred to
the PLAXIS scientific manual.

9.2 Mechanical parameters and model description

The used mechanical parameters of the soil are summarised in the following table:

Table 9.1: Design values for soil mechanical parameters of soil profile 1 (sand))
Soil parameter Design Value
Sand (moderate)
Volumetric weight of dry soil “γd” 18 [kN/m3]
Volumetric weight of saturated soil “γsat” 20 [kN/m3]
Friction angle between soil and wall “δ” 20 [o]
Angle of internal friction “φ” 30 [o]
Dilatancy angle 2 [o]
Plastic straining due to primary loading 15 [MPa]
Plastic straining due to primary compression 15 [MPa]
Elastic unloading/reloading 45 [MPa]

111
 Table 9.2: Design values for soil mechanical parameters of soil profile 2 (clay – sand)
Soil parameter Design Value
Clay (moderate)
Volumetric weight of dry soil “γd” 17 [kN/m3]
Volumetric weight of saturated soil “γsat” 17 [kN/m3]
Friction angle between soil and wall “δ” 11 [o]
Angle of internal friction “φ” 17.5 [o]
Cohesion 5 [kPa]
Plastic straining due to primary loading 2 [MPa]
Plastic straining due to primary compression 2[ [MPa]
Elastic unloading/reloading 6 [MPa]
*The same mechanical parameters of table 9.1 stands for the sand part in soil profile 2

It has to be noted that the moduli of elasticity of the soils which are proposed from NEN
6740:2006 is used. It is known that the modulus of elasticity of a sand layer is difficult to
predict and the values given from different codes have a significant variation. From
experience and for safety reasons, the modulus of elasticity of sand which is proposed for
loose sand is used, instead of the one of the moderate sand.

Each model is based on the same basic assumptions. As it has already mentioned the
connection point of the sheet piles and the relieving platform, according to Handbook of Quay
Walls is a hinge. In order to simulate that hinge in PLAXIS an imaginary beam was entered
on the base of the relieving platform. The stiffness of the beam is very small so that it follows
completely the deformations of the relieving platform. Interfaces haven’t been added between
the beam and the superstructure so that they cooperate. The position of the imaginary beam is
illustrated in the following figure:

Figure 9.1: Model simulation (case B1)

112
The toe level in the sheet pile wall is the same with previous cases, consequently a fixed end
is assumed. The toe is simulated in the program by a very stiff anchor, i.e. EA=3*105 kN. For
the simulation of the bearing piles a smaller stiffness is applied, i.e. EA=1*105 kN.

From the static analysis of the relieving structure the two normative load combinations were
determined. These are the loading cases LCA1 and LCA2; one for the axial load and the other
for the anchor force. There two load combinations are investigated in PLAXIS and the
extreme values of internal forces are used for the cross-section check.

The ultimate limit state of a combined wall, as before, is verified by using the following
expression:
M max;d ⋅ e N d '
σ yield ≥ +
I A

The extra thickness of the wall can be used for protection against corrosion. The same
intermediate sheet piles are used also here; thus double PU 22.

The results of the PLAXIS analyses and the cross-section check for both soil profiles are
presented in the followings. The deformed mesh as well as the shear forces and the horizontal
displacements for each case are presented in the appendices.

113
 9.3 Results from PLAXIS analysis

9.3.1 Sheet pile design for soil profile 1 (uniform sand)

Table 9.3: Characteristics of Combi-walls and stress control for soil profile 1 (PLAXIS analysis)
Total Axial Primary Elements Yielding
Bending Moment Max. stress
CASE Force Diameter Thickness Steel Quality Stress
[kNm/m] [N/mm2]
[kN/m] [mm] [mm] [N/mm2]

D 11300.0 3180.0 2220 40 X65 443 398.09

A1 8400.0 2480.0 1820 35 X65 443 407.85

A2 7920.0 1910.0 1820 35 X65 443 403.85

B1 7560.0 2930.0 1820 35 X65 443 408.01

B2 5820.0 3610.0 1620 35 X65 443 395.02

C1 4860.0 3870.0 1520 35 X65 443 364.60

C2 3980.0 4210.0 1420 35 X65 443 360.09

114
9.3.2 Sheet pile design for soil profile (clay – sand)

Table 9.4: Characteristics of Combi-walls and stress control for soil profile 1 (PLAXIS analysis)
Total Axial Primary Elements Yielding
Bending Moment Max. stress
CASE Force Diameter Thickness Steel Quality Stress
[kNm/m] [N/mm2]
[kN/m] [mm] [mm] [N/mm2]

D 14940.0 2980.0 2320 45 X65 443 428.34

A1 9670.0 2950.0 2020 40 X65 443 389.18

A2 9360.0 3430.0 1920 40 X65 443 412.45

B1 8610.0 3590.0 1920 40 X65 443 386.99

B2 6800.0 3850.0 1820 35 X65 443 391.70

C1 4720.0 4570.0 1620 35 X65 443 355.54

C2 4090.0 4690.0 1620 30 X65 443 340.09

115
 9.4 Supplementary Works

Drainage systems are used in order to reduce the excess pore pressure and lower the phreatic
level in the landward area. In addition, drainage is also applied to consolidate compressible
earth layers, in combination with load increments by site loads.

Figure 9.2: Drainage systems with non return valves

In principle, drainage systems drain off precipitation and restrict excessive water pressure
behind the quay wall. Especially in tidal areas, this concept should be well considered as well
the maintenance of the system during the lifetime of the structure. The functioning of the
drainage system can be threatened due to settlements, silting or blocking of the non-return
valves.

Moreover, if the quay is backfilled on weak compressible soil, like clay, initially high excess
pore pressures will develop, followed by big settlements. These pore pressures lead to very
high pressures on the sheet pile wall, which will be dissipated only after a long period of time.
The installation of vertical drains can reduce the pore pressures and at the same time the
settlement development will be accelerated to such a degree that the area can be used in a
short time. Vertical drains can be made as sand or synthetical drains, and they are normally
installed in a triangular grid with mutual distances of about 2.5 m

Figure 9.3: Vertical drainage systems

116
Case B2 for the second soil profile, where clay is present was also investigated in PLAXIS
considering and undrained behaviour of clay. The terrain load is equal to 60 kN/m2 and as it
can be seen form the results the maximum value of the excess pore pressures in the area just
above the relieving platform is equal to -80 kN/m2 and in the adjacent backward area of the
quay wall is bout -60 kN/m2, in the same magnitude of the surcharge.

Figure 9.4: Excess pore pressure PLAXIS analysis

9.5 References

[9.1] [CUR,Port of Rotterdam, Gemeentewerken Rotterdam; “Handbook of Quay Walls”

[9.2] PLAXIS manual; “PLAXIS, Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analysis, version 8”

[9.3] Prof. Arnold Verruijt; “Soil Mechanics”, Delft University of Technology

[9.4] Karl Terzaghi, Ralph Peck, Gholamreza Mesri; “Soil Mechanics in Engineering
Practice”

[9.5] Dr. Garth N. Wells; “The Finite Element Method: An Introduction”, Delft University of
Technology

[9.6] Dutch Code NEN6740:2006

[9.5] “Archive of Gemeentewerken Rotterdam”, Rotterdam

117
 CHAPTER 10
COST ESTIMATION

119
 10.1 General

In principle, a financial assessment of the structure should be carried out in order to give to
the owner the opportunity to choose one of the alternative designs. The financial assessment
should provide insight into the total investment costs, operational costs, and maintenance and
demolition costs.

Various methods have been developed in order to determine the total costs of the projects.
CROW has developed a cost estimate system for the civil engineering projects, and at the
same time many organisations have collected dimensionless parameters that are based on data
of the costs of previous projects. Both the methods are valuable and useful, and which method
is chosen depends on the phase of the project and the associated uncertainty and required
specifications.

In the present study a rough estimation of the total cost is executed in order to get an insight
of the magnitude and how that varies relative to the different relieving platform’s dimensions.
For this purpose, dimensionless parameters based on already executed projects from Public
Works of Rotterdam are used.

According to the literature some indices are available based on which an estimation of the
construction costs can be made. During the planning phase and the development of
alternatives, the construction cost can be determined, permitting a rough comparison between
the different designs. In the Netherlands the cost per retaining height [€/m] are as follows:

Table 10.1: Costs in relation to retaining height

Retaining Height [m] Cost per Retaining Height [€/m]
5-10 350-650
10-20 650-1000
20-30 1000-1300

The previous table does not include the costs of engineering, bottom protection, fendering and
dredging in front of the quay wall. Consequently, for a quay wall of 30 m retaining height, in
accordance to the previous table an estimation of the total cost is estimated to 30.000 € –
39.000 € per longitudinal meter.

10.2 Total cost components

In the present cost estimation bottom protection, fendering, dredging and supplementary costs
are not included. As it is presented in the following graph the total cost is a summation of the
material cost, the excavation and refill cost and the dewatering cost. Analytical description of
the cost analysis for each component is found in the Appendices, where the used excel files
are presented.

121
 Figure 10.1: Components of total cost estimation

10.2.1 Material Costs

In the used values costs for the use of equipment, production and formwork are included.
Analytically the used values are presented in the following table:

Table 10.2: Material costs

Material
Sheet pile Wall 1031.0 [€/ton]
Relieving platform 345.0 [€/m3]
Anchors 200.0 [€/m]
Bearing piles 240.0 [€/m3]

ƒ Sheet Pile Wall

As it has already mentioned, for quay walls with high retaining height that must bear heavy
loads, big structures that consist of combined walls are needed. In the present case, tubular
piles with intermediate double sheet piles are used. This construction system is economically
attractive, since the open tubular pile can easily vibrated or driven through sand layers.

Differences in the dimension of the relieving platform affect significantly the total length and
the cross-section profile of the sheet pile wall; thus the final cost of the element. The cost of
the sheet pile wall relative to different dimensions of the superstructure, as it is carried out
from the different calculation methods and different soil profiles, is presented below.

122
Blum method
As it can be seen from the following graph, the effect of the width of the relieving platform on
the cost of the sheet pile is more intent in higher depths.

It is remarkable that in the case that the relieving platform is placed just in the surface the cost
differences are not big enough. That is because in that case, the reduction is more or less
limited to the surcharge consisting of crane, storage and traffic loads.

Table 10.3: Costs and percentage of reduction – Blum method – Soil profile 1
Percentage of
Thousands
CASE reduction
[€ /m]
[%]
D 20.8 0.0
A1 16.1 14.2
A2 15.7 16.5
B1 12.9 34.7
B2 11.7 37.8
C1 8.4 55.2
C2 7.1 62.3

Combi Wall Cost (per m wall) - Blum - Soil 1

b=12,5m
21 b=25m

19
Thousands of euros

17
15
13
11
9
7
5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure 10.2: Combi wall cost – Blum method

In the following graph, the previous reduction is translated into percentages. The reference
point for that comparative analysis is the most expensive case, i.e. CASE D, where the
relieving platform is absent.

The maximum reduction that can be achieved by placing a deep and long relieving platform is
more or less 63%, comparing to the case of a single sheet pile wall.

123
 Percentage of reduction - Blum - Soil 1
100 b=12,5m
b=25m

80
P ercentage %
62,3
60
55,2
40 37,8
34,7
20 16,5
14,2

0 0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure 10.3: Combi wall cost reduction– Blum method

Elastic Supported Beam method (MSheet)

With this method two different soil profiles are investigated. It can be conclude as it comes
out from the graphs and tables below, that the presence of a big clay layer leads to more
expensive solutions.

In addition, one can say that the percentage of reduction relative to the different dimensions of
the relieving platform is approximately at the same levels in both soil profiles.

Table 10.4: Costs and percentage of reduction – MSheet method – Soil profile 1and 2
Soil Profile 1 Soil Profile 2
CASE Percentage Percentage
Thousands Thousands
of reduction of reduction
[€ /m] [€ /m]
[%] [%]
D 20.5 0.0 20.2 0.0
A1 17.2 15.8 17.7 12.4
A2 15.7 23.4 15.5 23.4
B1 13.8 32.4 13.8 31.7
B2 11.6 43.5 11.6 42.9
C1 9.3 54.6 9.5 52.9
C2 6.0 70.6 7.1 65.0

124
 Combi Wall Cost (per m wall) - Msheet - Soil 1
b=12,5m
21,0 b=25m
19,0
T h o u san d s o f eu ro s 17,0
15,0
13,0
11,0
9,0
7,0
5,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure 10.4: Combi wall cost – MSheet method – Soil profile 1

Percentage of reduction - Msheet - Soil 1

100,0 b=12,5m
b=25m

80,0
P ercentage %

70,6
60,0
54,6
43,5
40,0
32,4
23,4
20,0
15,8
0,0 0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure 10.5: Combi wall cost reduction– MSheet method – Soil profile 1

Combi Wall Cost (per m wall) - MSheet - Soil 2

23,0 b=12,5m
b=25m
21,0
T h o u san d s o f eu ro s

19,0
17,0
15,0
13,0
11,0
9,0
7,0
5,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
h (m) depth of the relieving platform
Figure 10.6: Combi wall cost – MSheet method – Soil profile 2

125
 Percentage of reduction - MSheet - Soil 2
100,0 b=12,5m
b=25m
80,0
P e rc e nta ge %
65,0
60,0
53,0
42,9
40,0
31,7
23,4
20,0
12,4
0,0 0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure 10.7: Combi wall cost reduction– MSheet method – Soil profile 2

Finite Element Method (PLAXIS)

With this method the two different soil profiles (Soil Profile 1 and 2) are also investigated and
the results are presented below:

Table 10.5: Costs and percentage of reduction – PLAXIS method – Soil profile 1and 2
Soil Profile 1 Soil Profile 2
CASE Percentage Percentage
Thousands Thousands
of reduction of reduction
[€ /m] [€ /m]
[%] [%]
D 18.3 0.0 20.5 0.0
A1 15.3 16.2 17.3 15.3
A2 15.1 17.2 17.1 16.3
B1 13.2 27.7 15.0 26.9
B2 12.7 30.5 13.1 36.1
C1 9.0 50.8 9.1 55.3
C2 7.9 56.5 7.3 64.4

126
 Combi Wall Cost (per m wall) - Plaxis - Soil 1
b=12,5m
19
b=25m

T h o u san d s o f eu ro s
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure 10.8: Combi wall cost – PLAXIS method – Soil profile 1

Percentage of reduction - Plaxis - Soil 1

100,0 b=12,5m
b=25m

80,0
P ercen tag e %

60,0
56,5
50,8
40,0
30,5
17,2
27,7
20,0 16,2

0,0 0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure 10.9: Combi wall cost reduction– PLAXIS method – Soil profile 1

Combi Wall Cost (per m wall) - Plaxis - Soil 2

b=12,5m
21,0 b=25m
19,0
Thousands of euros

17,0
15,0
13,0
11,0
9,0
7,0
5,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure 10.10: Combi wall cost – PLAXIS method – Soil profile 2

127
 Percentage of reduction - Plaxis - Soil 2
100,0 b=12,5m
b=25m
80,0
P ercen tag es %
64,4
60,0
55,3
40,0 36,1

20,0 16,3 26,9

15,3
0,0 0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure 10.11: Combi wall cost reduction– PLAXIS method – Soil profile 2

ƒ Relieving platform

The cost of the relieving platform depends on the volume of the superstructure and it is clear
that it increases relating to the width and the depth. In the following figure a rough
approximation of the superstructure cost is presented.

Further details for the cost estimation can be found in the relative excel file which is found in
the appendices.

Platform Cost - per m wall b=12,5m

b=25m
25

20
Thousands of euros

15

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure 10.12: Relieving platform cost

ƒ Anchors

Since the same cross-section profile of MV – pile is applied in each case; the anchor cost is
influenced by the mutual distances and the length of the element. In the present study, a
smaller anchor length is applied for the cases C1 and C2, where a deep excavation is
executed. It can be noted that in a more detailed design smaller lengths and bigger mutual

128
distances could be also applied, but the differences in the total cost of the quay wall is not
significant. Details for the cost estimation process can be found in the excel file in
Appendices.

ƒ Bearing Piles

In the cases where a long relieving platform is present more than one row of bearing pile are
used. In order to take this fact into account, for the cases where the length of the platform is
25m, the volume of concrete was increased by a factor of 2, which is a realistic hypothesis.
For further details elative to the cost estimation of the foundation piles, the reader is referred
to the Appendices.

10.2.2 Excavation – Refill Costs

The excavation and refill process differ for the two different soil profiles. In the first case of
uniform sand subsoil, the same amount of soil will be used in order to fill the area behind the
relieving platform. In the second soil substrata, the excavation area will be filled with sand
which will not be provided in the field. Consequently a higher cost value is used in the refill
phase of the second soil profile, including at the same time labour and purchasing costs.

The total excavation area is formed in such a way that stable slopes are constructed, and is
illustrated in the following figure marked in brown.

For the refill phase the area (2) was excluded since it constitutes a part of the future dredged
area. And the areas above the relieving platform is included in the calculations are marked in
red.

Figure 10.13: Excavation and refill areas

Table 10.6: Excavation and refill cost

Excavation phase
Sand 2.5 [€/m3]
Clay 3.5 [€/m3]
Refill phase
Sand (soil profile 1) 2.5 [€/m3]
Sand (soil profile 2) 10.0 [€/m3]

Further details for the calculation process can be found in the Appendices.

129
 10.2.3 Dewatering Costs

The dewatering cost is relative to the volume of the soil that will be excavated under the
groundwater level. Consequently, the volume of soil which is determined between the High
Groundwater Level and the excavation depth is used for the cost estimation.

Table 10.7: Dewatering cost

Dewatering
Both soil profiles 1.63 [€/m3]

10.3 Total Costs

In that part, the total costs of each case is presented, as they are coming out from the Elastic
Supported Beam method (MSheet) and Finite Element Method (PLAXIS), for the two
different soil profiles. The following values constitute a rough approximation of the final cost
of each structure.

Table 10.8: Total Costs – Msheet

Soil Profile 1 Soil Profile 2
CASE Percentage Percentage
Thousands Thousands
of increment of increment
[€ /m] [€ /m]
[%] [%]
D 24.5 0.0 24.2 0.0
A1 28.9 18.3 29.5 21.6
A2 35.1 43.4 35.0 44.3
B1 31.0 26.9 31.9 31.5
B2 36.5 49.2 37.9 56.3
C1 31.7 29.6 34.0 40.4
C2 36.6 49.5 40.8 68.4

Table 10.9: Total Costs – PLAXIS

Soil Profile 1 Soil Profile 2
CASE Percentage Percentage
Thousands Thousands
of increment of increment
[€ /m] [€ /m]
[%] [%]
D 22.3 0.0 24.5 0.0
A1 27.0 21.3 29.1 18.9
A2 34.5 34.5 36.6 49.6
B1 30.4 36.6 33.0 35.0
B2 37.6 37.6 39.4 61.1
C1 31.4 40.9 33.7 37.7
C2 38.5 38.5 41.0 67.8

130
 Total Cost per m Wall- Msheet vs Plaxis - Soil 1

38,0

Thousands of euros
33,0

28,0
b=12,5m/MSheet
b=25m/MSheet
23,0 b=12.5m/Plaxis
b=25m/Plaxis

18,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure 10.14: Total Costs –MSheet vs PLAXIS – Soil 1

Total Cost per m Wall- Msheet vs Plaxis - Soil 2

43,0

38,0
Thousands of euros

33,0

b=12,5m/MSheet
28,0
b=25m/MSheet
b=12.5m/Plaxis
23,0 b=25m/Plaxis

18,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure 10.15: Total Costs – MSheet vs PLAXIS – Soil 2

As it is shown from the followings, the case where the relieving platform is absent is the
cheapest one. This is discussed in Chapter 11: “Conclusions”. Separate graphs for each
method and soil profile are found in the appendices.

10.4 References

[10.1] [CUR,Port of Rotterdam, Gemeentewerken Rotterdam; “Handbook of Quay Walls”

[10.2] Archive of Gemeentewerken Rotterdam

131
CHAPTER 11
CONCLUSIONS

133
 11.1 General

In this section, the gathered conclusions of the present study are considered. The several
results of the mathematical models and calculation methods that are used in the design of
quay wall structures are compared. The structural background of the mathematical models is
not explained in the present study, since that is beyond the scope of the MSc thesis.

Moreover, issues resulting from the financial assessment of the structure are discussed. The
magnitude of influence of each structural element in the different designs is presented and
further parameters that can affect the final cost are mentioned.

11.2 Comparison between the different analysis methods

First of all, it can be conclude while a Finite Element program is used, an accurate prediction
of the modulus of elasticity of the soil is of a great importance. A mistaken or overestimated
value can lead to significantly different results of the bending moments and the anchor forces.

As it is shown in the previous chapters, different maximum bending moments were estimated
for each analysis method. These differences are due to the dissimilar considered models
which are assumed in each method.

Blum theory
Blum’s method provides overestimated values but due to its simplicity it can always be used
as a first estimation of the internal forces and the embedded depth. Taking into account that
the philosophy of recent codes, like Handbook of Quay Walls, proposes the fully fixity in the
sheet pile wall toe, Fixed Earth Support approach by means of the Equivalent Beam method is
a simple and useful way to approximate the subject.

Elastic Supported Beam

Elastic Supported Beam theory, by means of MSheet, gives the opportunity to analyse the
sheet pile wall in a sequence of construction phases. The major disadvantages of this
calculation method are summarised in the followings.

The structure has to be analysed separately, thus special attention in the redistribution of
forces has to be noticed.

Furthermore, the vertical arch working of the soil on the active area, resulting in reduced
bending moments and higher anchor forces is not taking into account automatically. This is
not the case for a Finite Element program like PLAXIS, where the whole structure is studied
in several construction stages.

It has to be noted that in the Elastic Supported Beam method (MSheet) the effect of the width
of the relieving platform is more obvious. This might be explained from the different applied
ways for the stress distribution. In Blum theory, the manual estimation of the earth pressures
due to the relieving platform effect was based on Rankine’s theory. In MSheet, additional
stresses due to surcharge is based on Boussinesq’s stress distribution theory.

135
In addition, in manual estimation of acting loads in the sheet pile wall, the lateral earth
coefficients were assumed constant over the depth, when in MSheet the c, phi, delta method is
used.

Finite Element Method

In the present study, the Finite Element Analysis is executed by means of PLAXIS. This
method is very sensitive of the modulus of elasticity of the used materials.

At the beginning, the representative modulus of elasticity for a moderate sand (qc=15MPa,
E=45 MPa) according to NEN 6740; 2006 code was used. The coming results of the bending
moments on the sheet piling differ significantly, i.e. with a factor of 2-2,5 with those coming
from the Elastic Supported Beam theory (MSheet).

Several trials have been executed with different modulus of elasticity, in order to investigate
in which value the results from both methods are approximately equal. As it has been already
mentioned, that is the case for the representative modulus of elasticity of a loose sand
(qc=5MPa, E=15MPa).

In the following table the different values of the maximum bending moments in the sheet pile
wall are presented.

Table 11.1: Max. Bending Moments from different analysis methods

Soil Profile 1 Soil Profile 2
CASE Blum MSheet PLAXIS MSheet PLAXIS
[kNm/m] [kNm/m] [kNm/m] [kNm/m] [kNm/m]
D 13922.0 13214.1 11300.0 12489.5 14940.0
A1 12020.4 11584.8 8400.0 11669.3 9670.0
A2 10394.2 9115.6 7920.0 8618.7 9360.0
B1 8259.1 8624.8 7560.0 8988.8 8610.0
B2 6054.5 5585.0 5820.0 6113.6 6800.0
C1 4927.7 4812.6 4860.0 5478.6 4720.0
C2 3214.2 1769.8 3980.0 3451.3 4090.0

As it can be seen from the above table, in case of the soil profile 1, the maximum bending
moments coming from the Finite Element Method calculations (PLAXIS) are smaller than
those coming from the Elastic Supported Beam method (MSheet). This is explained by the
vertical arching that is not taking into consideration on the Elastic Supported Beam
calculations.

It is remarkable that in the second soil profile, where a large clay layer is present, the values
between the two methods are very close. This is possible, because arching effect is less intent
in cohesive soils like clay comparing to non-cohesive soils like sand. In the following figures,
this is shown from the directions of the effective stresses.

136
 Figure 11.1: Direction of the effective stresses in both soil profiles - arching effect

Moreover the influence of the mutual distances of the foundation piles for the cases of a short
relieving platform is investigated. That was introduced in the Finite Element Method
(PLAXIS) by two different concepts. Firstly, different bending stiffness of the foundation pile
was inserted and secondly the pile is simulated by an anchor, as it is shown in the following
figures.

Figure 11.2: Different simulation of the bearing piles

The differences between the cases where a pile is present are minor, even if the mutual
distances differ significantly. When the bearing pile is schematised as an anchor with the
same equivalent length and stiffness parameters, the maximum bending moment in the sheet
pile wall is bigger; approximately 10%.

137
 Table 11.2: Max. Bending Moments for different bearing pile schematisation
max. Bending Moment
CASE B1
[kNm/m]
c.t.c 1.25m 7450
c.t.c 2.5m 7560
c.t.c 5.0m 7600
Anchor schematisation 8500

The Finite Element Method (PLAXIS) can also be used for three- dimensional problems, like
the screen effect behind the sheet piling, which can cause a reduction of the bending moments
in the sheet piling. Consequently, a three dimensional problem is better to be analysed by a
three dimensional Finite Element Method program, since from the aforementioned
simulations on a two dimensional software program only the extreme boundaries can be
provided.

11.3 Cost assessment

First of all, it can be concluded that the total cost coming from the two different methods; i.e.
Elastic Supported Beam method (MSheet) and the Finite Element Method (PLAXIS), is
approximately equal. This is shown in the following graphs where the total cost of each
structure, estimated by the two aforementioned methods are presented for the two different
investigated soil profiles.

The difference of the total cost is remarkable, especially in cases where the relieving platform
is present, between the two soil profiles. This can be explained considering that in soil profile
2 the sheet pile wall was more expensive and in addition the excavation and refill cost differ
significantly.

Total Cost per m Wall- Msheet vs Plaxis - Soil 1

38,0
T h o u san d s o f eu ro s

33,0

28,0
b=12,5m/MSheet
b=25m/MSheet
23,0 b=12.5m/Plaxis
b=25m/Plaxis

18,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure 11.3: Total costs for soil profile 1

138
 Total Cost per m Wall- Msheet vs Plaxis - Soil 2
43,0

Thousands of euros 38,0

33,0

b=12,5m/MSheet
28,0
b=25m/MSheet
b=12.5m/Plaxis
23,0 b=25m/Plaxis

18,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure 11.4: Total costs for soil profile 2

As it has already mentioned, the centre to centre distances between the tension piles as well as
the maximum length, could be investigated in detail so that the influence of these elements
would be clearer.

In spite of that fact, the influence of these elements in the total cost is not dominant. That can
be concluded, considering the following two graphs, where it is evident that the normative
components are the sheet pile wall and the relieving platform.

Cost Components - MSheet Combi Wall

Platform
90,0 Anchors
Piles
80,0 Excavation
Dewatering
70,0
P ercentages %

60,0
50,0

40,0
30,0
20,0

10,0
0,0
D A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
Cases

Figure 11.5: Cost components - MSheet

139
 Cost Components - PLAXIS Combi Wall
Platform
90,0 Anchors
Piles
80,0 Excavation
Dewatering
70,0
P ercentages %

60,0

50,0
40,0
30,0
20,0

10,0
0,0
D A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
Cases

Figure 11.6: Cost components - PLAXIS

From figures 11.3 and 11.4, it is evident that the cheapest solution according to the present
rough estimation is Case D, where the quay wall is constructed exclusively from a Combi –
Wall supported by anchors.

In the port of Rotterdam quay walls with a relieving platform have been chosen many times
when high retaining heights and heavy loads are involved. Without the relieving platform, it
would not be possible to construct the sheet pile wall with available equipments. In order to
achieve such deep driving depths, offshore equipments should be used increasing dramatically
the installation cost of the sheet pile wall.

Moreover, the maximum length of the intermediate elements is about 24 m. Special orders of
31 m increase also the final cost. Longer sheet piles are constructed by welding separate
elements and that constitutes also another factor that increases the cost.

In addition to the previous, installation risks, the vulnerability of the structure and high
demands in relation to allowable deformations should be taken into account for the final
choice.

140
 APPENDIX A
Soil Mechanical Characteristics
CPT’s

1
Rotterdam is located near Northsea in the Rhine-Meuse Delta. Due to the geological history
and location of the area, the soil conditions can vary significantly over a short distance.
That variation is the result of meandering rivers and rises and drops in the sea level in the
past. At present situation, as it is presented in the following figure, the extensive area can be
divided in three areas with their own typical soil profiles.

Figure A.1: Soil mechanical characteristics Port of Rotterdam

The three areas are:

• The city area up to the river Oude Maas

• The area between the river Oude Maas and the Maasvlakte
• The Maasvlakte area.

The following CPTs are representative for the Maasvlakte 1 area, which was reclaimed by the
sea, and for the area near the city of Rotterdam.

Figure A.2: CPT-result in the area of Maasvlakte 1 and near the city of Rotterdam

3
 APPENDIX B
Static Analysis of the Relieving Platform

5
 Case A1

Figure B.1: Schematization of the relieving platform – case A1- (static model 1)

Figure B.2: Schematization of the relieving platform – case A1- (static model 2)

Table B.1: Results of Static Analysis – case A1

First Case
LCA1 LCA2 LCA3 LCB
(Roller Support)
Reaction in the
[KN] 1130,948 635,848 168,948 1330,948
connecting point
Anchor Force [KN] 170,343 -430,557 229,74 170,343
Bearing Pile 1 [KN] 513,713 513,713 513,713 513,713
Bearing Pile 2 [KN] - - - -
First Case
LCA1 LCA2 LCA3 LCB
(Roller Support)
Reaction in the
[KN] 1330,900 635,847 168,948 1330,900
connecting point
Anchor Force [KN] 170,342 -430,556 229,739 170,342
Bearing Pile 1 [KN] 513,713 513,713 513,713 513,713
Bearing Pile 2 [KN] - - - -

7
 Case A2

Figure B.3: Schematization of the relieving platform – case A2- (static model 1)

Figure B.4: Schematization of the relieving platform – case A2- (static model 2)

Table B.2: Results of Static Analysis – case A2

First Case
LCA1 LCA2 LCA3 LCB
(Roller Support)
Reaction in the
[KN] 1294,777 585,547 135,635 1294,777
connecting point
Anchor Force [KN] 470,196 -125,73 527,564 470,196
Bearing Pile 1 [KN] 860,249 918,952 852,379 860,249
Bearing Pile 2 [KN] 330,416 282,896 336,486 330,416
First Case
LCA1 LCA2 LCA3 LCB
(Roller Support)
Reaction in the
[KN] 1283,628 588,528 122,511 1283,628
connecting point
Anchor Force [KN] 474,120 -126,780 532,316 474,120
Bearing Pile 1 [KN] 906,567 906,567 906,379 906,567
Bearing Pile 2 [KN] 292,922 292,922 292,811 292,922

8
 Case B1

Figure B.5: Schematization of the relieving platform – case B1- (static model 1)

Figure B.6: Schematization of the relieving platform –case B1- (static model 2)

Table B.3: Results of Static Analysis – case B1

First Case
LCA1 LCA2 LCA3 LCB
(Roller Support)
Reaction in the
[KN] 2346 1367,78 879,5089 2319,491
connecting point
Anchor Force [KN] -138,004 -267,263 209,9457 -102,868
Bearing Pile 1 [KN] 907,6214 856,7226 1021,713 909,9216
Bearing Pile 2 [KN] - - - -
First Case
LCA1 LCA2 LCA3 LCB
(Roller Support)
Reaction in the
[KN] 2346,547 1367,780 879,509 2319,491
connecting point
Anchor Force [KN] -138,004 -267,264 209,946 -102,868
Bearing Pile 1 [KN] 907,621 856,723 1012,713 909,922
Bearing Pile 2 [KN] - - - -

9
 Case B2

Figure B.7: Schematization of the relieving platform – case B2 - (static model 1)

Figure B.8: Schematization of the relieving platform case B2 - (static model 2)

Table B.4: Results of Static Analysis – case B2

First Case
LCA1 LCA2 LCA3 LCB
(Roller Support)
Reaction in the
[KN] 2176,772 1183,436 748,1026 1776,241
connecting point
Anchor Force [KN] 539,3918 409,2261 878,686 574,0958
Bearing Pile 1 [KN] 1666,661 1612,946 1767,662 1666,03
Bearing Pile 2 [KN] 641,0853 658,3049 612,5513 642,7613
First Case
LCA1 LCA2 LCA3 LCB
(Roller Support)
Reaction in the
[KN] 2163,232 1173,164 726,047 1761,831
connecting point
Anchor Force [KN] 544,179 412,858 886,485 579,191
Bearing Pile 1 [KN] 1722,856 1655,579 1859,208 1725,840
Bearing Pile 2 [KN] 595,595 623,792 538,446 594,344

10
 Case C1

Figure B.9: Schematization of the relieving platform –case C1 - (static model 1)

Figure B.10: Schematization of the relieving platform – case C1 - (static model 2)

Table B.5: Results of Static Analysis – case C1

First Case
LCA1 LCA2 LCA3 LCB
(Roller Support)
Reaction in the
[KN] 3776,104 2853,852 2164,962 3620,289
connecting point
Anchor Force [KN] -656,235 -811,206 -250,627 -485,686
Bearing Pile 1 [KN] 1246,929 1154,090 1462,847 -1284,678
Bearing Pile 2 [KN] - - - -
First Case
LCA1 LCA2 LCA3 LCB
(Roller Support)
Reaction in the
[KN] 3776,104 2853,852 2164,962 3620,289
connecting point
Anchor Force [KN] -656,236 -811,207 -250,627 -485,687
Bearing Pile 1 [KN] 1246,929 1154,090 1462,847 1284,678
Bearing Pile 2 [KN] - - - -

11
 Case C2

Figure B.11: Schematization of the relieving platform – case C2 - (static model 1)

Figure B.12: Schematization of the relieving platform - case C2 - (static model 2)

Table B.6: Results of Static Analysis – case C2

First Case
LCA1 LCA2 LCA3 LCB
(Roller Support)
Reaction in the
[KN] 3502,177 2540,665 2007,733 3388,361
connecting point
Anchor Force [KN] 366,424 224,360 716,785 509,079
Bearing Pile 1 [KN] 2451,331 2340,128 2695,778 2480,734
Bearing Pile 2 [KN] 1113,460 1155,057 1023,365 1106,169
First Case
LCA1 LCA2 LCA3 LCB
(Roller Support)
Reaction in the
[KN] 3454,000 2511,445 1914,381 3322,060
connecting point
Anchor Force [KN] 396,269 242,634 775,167 550,543
Bearing Pile 1 [KN] 2484,441 2360,402 2760,547 2526,735
Bearing Pile 2 [KN] 1086,657 1138,645 970,933 1068,930

12
 APPENDIX C
Blum Method - Equivalent Beam Method –
Frame Solver 2D Static Analysis

13
 Case D – Soil Profile 1

Figure C.1: Acting Loads on Sheet Pile wall – Case D

Figure C.2: Bending Moments on the Sheet Pile wall – Case D

Table C.1: Preliminary design of case D

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 2500 [mm] Length 3,750 [m]
Thickness (t) 45 [mm] Moment of Inertia 6,991E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 1,468E+07 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 2,616E+11 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,050024 [m3/m]

Table C.2: Loads acting on Case D

External loads
Vertical crane load (Fy) 1120,0 [kN]
Vertical component of the bollard load (Fx) 466,9 [kN]
Reaction from Sheet pile analysis
Vertical component of Anchor force T 1262,2 [kN]
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 2382,2 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 13922,1 [kNm]

15
Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N'

σ= + = + = 395,27 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

Case A1 – Soil Profile 1

Figure C.3: Acting Loads on Sheet Pile wall – Case A1

Figure C.4: Bending Moments on the Sheet Pile wall – Case A1

Table C.3: Preliminary design of case A1

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 2420 [mm] Length 3,670 [m]
Thickness (t) 35 [mm] Moment of Inertia 5,098E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 1,071E+07 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 1,865E+11 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,042132 [m3/m]

16
 Table C.4: Loads acting on Case A1
Reactions from platform analysis
Maximum vertical reaction (Fy) 1330,9 [kN]
Vertical component of horizontal reaction (Fx) 304,4 [kN]
Reaction from Sheet pile analysis
Vertical component of Anchor force T 1337,0 [kN]
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 2667,9 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 12020,0 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N'

σ= + = + = 419,44 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

Case A2 – Soil Profile 1

Figure C.5: Acting Loads on Sheet Pile wall – Case A2

Figure C.6: Bending Moments on the Sheet Pile wall – Case A2

17
 Table C.5: Preliminary design of case A2
Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 2120 [mm] Length 3,370 [m]
Thickness (t) 35 [mm] Moment of Inertia 3,715E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 7,802E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 1,246E+11 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,035047 [m3/m]

Table C.6: Loads acting on Case A2

Reactions from platform analysis
Maximum vertical reaction (Fy) 1283,6 [kN]
Vertical component of horizontal reaction (Fx) 89,6 [kN]
Reaction from Sheet pile analysis
Vertical component of Anchor force T 945,4 [kN]
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 2525,7 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 10394,2 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N'

σ= + = + = 429,88 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

Case B1 – Soil Profile 1

Figure C.7: Acting Loads on Sheet Pile wall – Case B1

18
 Figure C.8: Bending Moments on the Sheet Pile wall – Case B1

Table C.7: Preliminary design of case B1

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 2320 [mm] Length 3,570 [m]
Thickness (t) 30 [mm] Moment of Inertia 3,980E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 8,359E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 1,415E+11 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,03431 [m3/m]

Table C.8: Loads acting on Case B1

Reactions from platform analysis
Maximum vertical reaction (Fy) 2346,5 [kN]
Vertical component of horizontal reaction (Fx) 188,9 [kN]
Reaction from Sheet pile analysis
Vertical component of Anchor force T 878,0 [kN]
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 3413,5 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 8259,1 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 386,38 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

Case B2 – Soil Profile 1

Figure C.9: Acting Loads on Sheet Pile wall – Case B2

19
 Figure C.10: Bending Moments on the Sheet Pile wall – Case B2

Table C.9: Preliminary design of case B2

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 1920 [mm] Length 3,170 [m]
Thickness (t) 30 [mm] Moment of Inertia 2,528E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 5,310E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 7,956E+10 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,026333 [m3/m]

Table C.10: Loads acting on Case B2

Reactions from platform analysis
Maximum vertical reaction (Fy) 2163,2 [kN]
Vertical component of horizontal reaction (Fx) -291,9 [kN]
Reaction from Sheet pile analysis
Vertical component of Anchor force T 711,3 [kN]
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 2582,6 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 6054,5 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 358,67 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

20
 Case C1 – Soil Profile 1

Figure C.11: Acting Loads on Sheet Pile wall – Case C1

Figure C.12: Bending Moments on the Sheet Pile wall – Case C1

Table C.11: Preliminary design of case C1

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 1920 [mm] Length 3,170 [m]
Thickness (t) 30 [mm] Moment of Inertia 2,528E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 5,310E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 7,956E+10 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,026333 [m3/m]

Table C.12: Loads acting on Case C1

Reactions from platform analysis
Maximum vertical reaction (Fy) 3776,1 [kN]
Vertical component of horizontal reaction (Fx) 573,6 [kN]
Reaction from Sheet pile analysis
Vertical component of Anchor force T 645,9 [kN]
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 4995,6 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 4927,7 [kNm]

21
Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 358,90 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

Case C2 – Soil Profile 1

Figure C.13: Acting Loads on Sheet Pile wall – Case C2

Figure C.14: Bending Moments on the Sheet Pile wall – Case C2

Table C.13: Preliminary design of case C2

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 1420 [mm] Length 2,670 [m]
Thickness (t) 30 [mm] Moment of Inertia 1,208E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 2,536E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 3,165E+10 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,017014 [m3/m]

22
 Table C.14: Loads acting on Case C2
Reactions from platform analysis
Maximum vertical reaction (Fy) 3454,0 [kN]
Vertical component of horizontal reaction (Fx) -171,5 [kN]
Reaction from Sheet pile analysis
Vertical component of Anchor force T 496,6 [kN]
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 3779,0 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 3214,2 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 345,77 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

23
 APPENDIX D
Sheet Pile Analysis – Elastic Supported Beam (Msheet)

25
 Case D – Soil Profile 1

Figure D.1: Representative values of internal forces – case D

Table D.1: Preliminary design of case D

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 2320 [mm] Length 3,570 [m]
Thickness (t) 45 [mm] Moment of Inertia 5,847E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 1,228E+07 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 2,082E+11 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,050405 [m3/m]

Table D.2: Loads acting on Case D

External loads
Vertical crane load (Fy) 1120,0 [kN]
Vertical component of the bollard load (Fx) 466,9 [kN]
Reaction from Sheet pile analysis
Vertical component of Anchor force T 1856,6 [kN]
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 3443,5 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 13214,1 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 390,48 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

27
 Case A1 – Soil Profile 1

Figure D.2: Representative values of internal forces – case A1

Table D.3: Preliminary design of case A1

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 2220 [mm] Length 3,470 [m]
Thickness (t) 40 [mm] Moment of Inertia 4,709E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 9,888E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 1,628E+11 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,041540 [m3/m]

Table D.4: Loads acting on Case A1

Reactions from platform analysis
Maximum vertical reaction (Fy) 1330,9 [kN]
Vertical component of horizontal reaction (Fx) 304,5 [kN]
Reaction from Sheet pile analysis
Vertical component of Anchor force T 1397,2 [kN]
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 3372,8 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 11584,8 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 419,71 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

28
 Case A2 – Soil Profile 1

Figure D.3: Representative values of internal forces – case A2

Table D.5: Preliminary design of case A2

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 2120 [mm] Length 3,370 [m]
Thickness (t) 35 [mm] Moment of Inertia 3,715E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 7,802E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 1,246E+11 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,035047 [m3/m]

Table D.6: Loads acting on Case A2

Reactions from platform analysis
Maximum vertical reaction (Fy) 1283,628 [kN]
Vertical component of horizontal reaction (Fx) 89,647 [kN]
Reaction from Sheet pile analysis
Vertical component of Anchor force T 1184,1 [kN]
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 2812,1 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 9115,6 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 391,8 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

29
 Case B1 – Soil Profile 1

Figure D.4: Representative values of internal forces – case B1

Table D.7: Preliminary design of case B1

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 2220 [mm] Length 3,470 [m]
Thickness (t) 35 [mm] Moment of Inertia 4,150E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 8,715E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 1,434E+11 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,037387 [m3/m]

Table D.8: Loads acting on Case B1

Reactions from platform analysis
Maximum vertical reaction (Fy) 2346,5 [kN]
Vertical component of horizontal reaction (Fx) 188,9 [kN]
Reaction from Sheet pile analysis
Vertical component of Anchor force T 1304,1 [kN]
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 4138,2 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 8624,8 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 377,63 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

30
 Case B2 – Soil Profile 1

Figure D.5: Representative values of internal forces – case B2

Table D.9: Preliminary design of case B2

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 1820 [mm] Length 3,070 [m]
Thickness (t) 30 [mm] Moment of Inertia 2,221E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 4,664E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 6,759E+10 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,024406 [m3/m]

Table D.10: Loads acting on Case B2

Reactions from platform analysis
Maximum vertical reaction (Fy) 2163,2 [kN]
Vertical component of horizontal reaction (Fx) -291,9 [kN]
Reaction from Sheet pile analysis
Vertical component of Anchor force T 938,2 [kN]
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 2938,7 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 5585,0 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 367,04 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

31
 Case C1 – Soil Profile 1

Figure D.6: Representative values of internal forces – case C1

Table D.11: Preliminary design of case C1

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 1720 [mm] Length 2,970 [m]
Thickness (t) 35 [mm] Moment of Inertia 2,235E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 4,693E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 6,578E+10 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,025988 [m3/m]

Table D.12: Loads acting on Case C1

Reactions from platform analysis
Maximum vertical reaction (Fy) 3776,1 [kN]
Vertical component of horizontal reaction (Fx) 573,6 [kN]
Reaction from Sheet pile analysis
Vertical component of Anchor force T 1001,8 [kN]
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 5666,5 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 4812,6 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 358,85 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

32
 Case C2 – Soil Profile 1

Figure D.7: Representative values of internal forces – case C2

Table D.13: Preliminary design of case C2

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 1220 [mm] Length 2,470 [m]
Thickness (t) 25 [mm] Moment of Inertia 7,026E-03 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 1,475E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 1,676E+10 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,011518 [m3/m]

Table D.14: Loads acting on Case C2

Reactions from platform analysis
Maximum vertical reaction (Fy) 3454,0 [kN]
Vertical component of horizontal reaction (Fx) -171,5 [kN]
Reaction from Sheet pile analysis
Vertical component of Anchor force T 489,1 [kN]
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 3853,0 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 1769,8 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 331,02 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

33
 Case D – Soil Profile 2

Figure D.8: Representative values of internal forces – case D

Table D.15: Preliminary design of case D

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 2220 [mm] Length 3,470 [m]
Thickness (t) 45 [mm] Moment of Inertia 5,259E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 1,104E+07 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 1,819E+11 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,047378 [m3/m]

Table D.16: Loads acting on Case D

External loads
Vertical crane load (Fy) 1120,0 [kN]
Vertical component of the bollard load (Fx) 466,9 [kN]
Reaction from Sheet pile analysis
Vertical component of Anchor force T 1969,4 [kN]
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 3555,9 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 12489,5 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 390,48 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

35
 Case A1 – Soil Profile 2

Figure D.9: Representative values of internal forces – case A1

Table D.17: Preliminary design of case A1

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 2220 [mm] Length 3,470 [m]
Thickness (t) 40 [mm] Moment of Inertia 4,709E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 9,888E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 1,628E+11 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,042423 [m3/m]

Table D.18: Loads acting on Case A1

Reactions from platform analysis
Maximum vertical reaction (Fy) 1330,9 [kN]
Vertical component of horizontal reaction (Fx) 304,4 [kN]
Reaction from Sheet pile analysis
Vertical component of Anchor force T 1462,4 [kN]
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 3451,1 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 11669,3 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 414,44 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

36
 Case A2 – Soil Profile 2

Figure D.10: Representative values of internal forces – case A2

Table D.19: Preliminary design of case A2

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 2020 [mm] Length 3,270 [m]
Thickness (t) 35 [mm] Moment of Inertia 3,307E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 6,944E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 1,075E+11 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,032742 [m3/m]

Table D.20: Loads acting on Case A2

Reactions from platform analysis
Maximum vertical reaction (Fy) 1283,6 [kN]
Vertical component of horizontal reaction (Fx) 89,6 [kN]
Reaction from Sheet pile analysis
Vertical component of Anchor force T 1124,4 [kN]
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 2740,4 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 8618,7 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 395,59 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

37
 Case B1 – Soil Profile 2

Figure D.11: Representative values of internal forces – case B1

Table D.21: Preliminary design of case B1

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 2220 [mm] Length 3,470 [m]
Thickness (t) 35 [mm] Moment of Inertia 4,150E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 8,715E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 1,434E+11 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,03738 [m3/m]

Table D.22: Loads acting on Case B1

Reactions from platform analysis
Maximum vertical reaction (Fy) 2346,5 [kN]
Vertical component of horizontal reaction (Fx) 188,9 [kN]
Reaction from Sheet pile analysis
Vertical component of Anchor force T 1460,4 [kN]
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 4325,8 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 8988,8 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 393,81 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

38
 Case B2 – Soil Profile 2

Figure D.12: Representative values of internal forces – case B2

Table D.23: Preliminary design of case B2

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 1820 [mm] Length 3,070 [m]
Thickness (t) 30 [mm] Moment of Inertia 2,221E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 4,664E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 6,759E+10 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,024406 [m3/m]

Table D.24: Loads acting on Case B2

Reactions from platform analysis
Maximum vertical reaction (Fy) 2163,2 [kN]
Vertical component of horizontal reaction (Fx) -291,9 [kN]
Reaction from Sheet pile analysis
Vertical component of Anchor force T 943,3 [kN]
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 2944,8 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 6113,6 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 395,34 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

39
 Case C1 – Soil Profile 2

Figure D.13: Representative values of internal forces – case C1

Table D.25: Preliminary design of case C1

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 1920 [mm] Length 3,170 [m]
Thickness (t) 35 [mm] Moment of Inertia 2,924E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 6,140E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 9,209E+10 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,030458 [m3/m]

Table D.26: Loads acting on Case C1

Reactions from platform analysis
Maximum vertical reaction (Fy) 3776,1 [kN]
Vertical component of horizontal reaction (Fx) 573,6 [kN]
Reaction from Sheet pile analysis
Vertical component of Anchor force T 1410,6 [kN]
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 6157,1 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 5478,6 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 356,32 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

40
 Case C2 – Soil Profile 2

Figure D.14: Representative values of internal forces – case C2

Table D.27: Preliminary design of case C2

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 1420 [mm] Length 2,670 [m]
Thickness (t) 30 [mm] Moment of Inertia 1,208E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 2,536E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 3,165E+10 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,017014 [m3/m]

Table D.28: Loads acting on Case C2

Reactions from platform analysis
Maximum vertical reaction (Fy) 3454 [kN]
Vertical component of horizontal reaction (Fx) -171,568 [kN]
Reaction from Sheet pile analysis
Vertical component of Anchor force T 681,2 [kN]
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 4065,5 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 3451,3 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 371,47 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

41
 APPENDIX E
Sheet Pile Analysis – Finite Element Method (PLAXIS)

43
 Case D – Soil Profile 1

Figure E.1: Deformed Mesh/Diagrams of bending moment (KNm/m) and axial force (KN/m) – case D

Table E.1: Preliminary design of case D

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 2220 [mm] Length 3,470 [m]
Thickness (t) 40 [mm] Moment of Inertia 4,709E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 9,888E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 1,628E+11 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,042423 [m3/m]

Table E.2: Loads acting on Case D

Loads
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 3180,0 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 11300,0 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 398,66 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

45
 Case A1 – Soil Profile 1

Figure E.2: Deformed Mesh/Diagrams of bending moment (KNm/m) and axial force (KN/m) – case A1

Table E.3: Preliminary design of case A1

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 1820 [mm] Length 3,070 [m]
Thickness (t) 35 [mm] Moment of Inertia 2,567E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 5,390E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 7,820E+10 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,030458 [m3/m]

Table E.4: Loads acting on Case A1

Loads
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 2480,0 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 8400,0 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 407,85 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

46
 Case A2 – Soil Profile 1

Figure E.3: Deformed Mesh/Diagrams of bending moment (KNm/m) and axial force (KN/m) – case A2

Table E.5: Preliminary design of case A2

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 1820 [mm] Length 3,070 [m]
Thickness (t) 35 [mm] Moment of Inertia 2,567E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 5,390E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 7,820E+10 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,030458 [m3/m]

Table E.6: Loads acting on Case A2

Loads
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 1910,0 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 7920,0 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 403,85 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

47
 Case B1 – Soil Profile 1

Figure E.4: Deformed Mesh/Diagrams of bending moment (KNm/m) and axial force (KN/m) – case B1

Table E.7: Preliminary design of case B1

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 1820 [mm] Length 3,070 [m]
Thickness (t) 35 [mm] Moment of Inertia 2,567E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 5,390E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 7,820E+10 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,030458 [m3/m]

Table E.8: Loads acting on Case B1

Loads
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 2930,0 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 7560,0 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 408,01 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

48
 Case B2 – Soil Profile 1

Figure E.5: Deformed Mesh/Diagrams of bending moment (KNm/m) and axial force (KN/m) – case B2

Table E.9: Preliminary design of case B2

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 1620 [mm] Length 2,870 [m]
Thickness (t) 35 [mm] Moment of Inertia 1,929E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 4,050E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 5,476E+10 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,023814 [m3/m]

Table E.10: Loads acting on Case B2

Loads
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 3610,0 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 5820,0 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 395,02 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

49
 Case C1 – Soil Profile 1

Figure E.6: Deformed Mesh/Diagrams of bending moment (KNm/m) and axial force (KN/m)– case C1

Table E.11: Preliminary design of case C1

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 1520 [mm] Length 2,770 [m]
Thickness (t) 35 [mm] Moment of Inertia 1,647E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 3,459E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 4,503E+10 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,013689 [m3/m]

Table E.12: Loads acting on Case C1

Loads
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 3870,0 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 4860,0 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 364,60 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

50
 Case C2 – Soil Profile 1

Figure E.7: Deformed Mesh/Diagrams of bending moment (KNm/m) and axial force (KN/m)– case C2

Table E.13: Preliminary design of case C2

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 1420 [mm] Length 2,670 [m]
Thickness (t) 35 [mm] Moment of Inertia 1,391E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 2,921E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 3,654E+10 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,011872 [m3/m]

Table E.14: Loads acting on Case C2

Loads
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 4210,0 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 3980,0 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 360,09 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

51
 Case D – Soil Profile 2

Figure E.8: Deformed Mesh/Diagrams of bending moment (KNm/m) and axial force (KN/m) – case D

Table E.15: Preliminary design of case D

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 2320 [mm] Length 3,570 [m]
Thickness (t) 45 [mm] Moment of Inertia 5,847E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 1,228E+07 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 2,082E+11 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,050405 [m3/m]

Table E.16: Loads acting on Case D

Loads
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 2980,0 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 14940,0 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 428,34 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

52
 Case A1 – Soil Profile 2

Figure E.9: Deformed mesh/Diagrams of bending moment (KNm/m) and axial force (KN/m) – case A1

Table E.17: Preliminary design of case A1

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 2020 [mm] Length 3,270 [m]
Thickness (t) 40 [mm] Moment of Inertia 3,748E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 7,872E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 1,220E+11 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,037108 [m3/m]

Table E.18: Loads acting on Case A1

Loads
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 2950,0 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 9670,0 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 389,18 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

53
 Case A2 – Soil Profile 2

Figure E.10: Deformed Mesh/Diagrams of bending moment (KNm/m) and axial force (KN/m)– caseA2

Table E.19: Preliminary design of case A2

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 1920 [mm] Length 3,170 [m]
Thickness (t) 40 [mm] Moment of Inertia 3,313E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 6,957E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 1,044E+11 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,034510 [m3/m]

Table E.20: Loads acting on Case A2

Loads
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 3430,0 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 9360,0 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 412,45 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

54
 Case B1 – Soil Profile 2

Figure E11: Deformed Mesh/Diagrams of bending moment (KNm/m) and axial force (KN/m)– case B1

Table E.21: Preliminary design of case B1

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 1920 [mm] Length 3,170 [m]
Thickness (t) 40 [mm] Moment of Inertia 3,313E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 6,957E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 1,044E+11 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,034510 [m3/m]

Table E.22: Loads acting on Case B1

Loads
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 3590,0 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 8610,0 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 389,99 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

55
 Case B2 – Soil Profile 2

Figure E12: Deformed Mesh/Diagrams of bending moment (KNm/m) and axial force (KN/m)– case B2

Table E.23: Preliminary design of case B2

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 1820 [mm] Length 3,070 [m]
Thickness (t) 35 [mm] Moment of Inertia 2,567E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 5,390E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 7,820E+10 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,028208 [m3/m]

Table E.24: Loads acting on Case B2

Loads
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 3850,0 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 6800,0 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 391,70 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

56
 Case C1 – Soil Profile 2

Figure E13: Deformed Mesh/Diagrams of bending moment (KNm/m) and axial force (KN/m)–case C1

Table E.25: Preliminary design of case C1

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 1620 [mm] Length 2,870 [m]
Thickness (t) 35 [mm] Moment of Inertia 1,929E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 4,050E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 5,476E+10 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,023814 [m3/m]

Table E.26: Loads acting on Case C1

Loads
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 4570,0 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 4720,0 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 355,54 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

57
 Case C2 – Soil Profile 2

Figure E.14: Deformed Mesh/Diagrams of bending moment (KNm/m) and axial force (KN/m)–caseC2

Table E.27: Preliminary design of case C2

Primary Elements System
External Diameter (D) 1620 [mm] Length 2,870 [m]
Thickness (t) 30 [mm] Moment of Inertia 1,671E-02 [m4/m1]
Steel Quality X 70 [-] Stiffness 3,510E+06 [kNm2/m1]
4
Moment of Inertia (I) 4,737E+10 [mm ] Section Modulus (W) 0,023814 [m3/m]

Table E.28: Loads acting on Case C2

Loads
Total Axial Force (Nmax) 4690,0 [kN]
Maximum Bending Moment (M) 4090,0 [kNm]

Check of the yielding stress:

M max;design N d ' 1.3 ⋅ M max, 1.3 ⋅ N '

σ= + = + = 340,09 N/mm2 < σy = 443 N/mm2
Wsystem A Wsystem A

58
 APPENDIX F
Blum Calculations
Free Earth– Fixed Earth Support Method

59
 FREE EARTH SUPPORT - CASE D

Table F.1: Excel file – Free Earth Support – case D

x T final x Final pile wall
12,7796 -1980,886 12,8 42,8

Forces Lever (top) Moments (top)

1 -3124,77 38,5197 -120365,1786
2A -6617,38 30,6497 -202820,8245
2B 7636,076 29,7497 227171,2152
3A 4611,837 28,5197 131528,3707
3B -1710,48 29,7497 -50886,35816
4 718,6973 21,3898 15372,79108
T -1980,886 0 0

Sum 1513,986 0,015646117

FREE EARTH SUPPORT - CASE A1

Table F.2: Excel file – Free Earth Support – case A1

x T final x Final pile wall
12,436 -1276,381 12,4 40,9

Forces Lever (top) Moments (top)

1 -2958,996819 36,7907 -108863,4656
2A -6492,96648 28,9207 -187780,9192
2B 7502,38848 28,0207 210221,9268
3A 4222,905362 27,2907 115245,9026
3B -1680,53522 28,0207 -47089,71721
4 1224,262957 29,7007 36361,42601
5 -540,6775614 33,4667 -18094,67572
T -1276,381 0 0

Sum 1276,38072 0,477606849

FREE EARTH SUPPORT - CASE A2

Table F.3: Excel file – Free Earth Support – case A2

x T final x Final pile wall
12,6552 -1178,898 12,7 41,2

Forces Lever (top) Moments (top)

1 -3064,228147 36,9368 -113182,7822
2A -6572,197635 29,0668 -191032,7542
2B 7587,538035 28,1668 213716,6663
3A 4268,251227 27,4368 117107,1553
3B -1699,60872 28,1668 -47872,53889
4 668,1656356 32,2468 21546,20362
5 -9,022616716 31,23013333 -281,777523
T -1178,898 0 0

Sum 1178,897779 0,172353473

61
 FREE EARTH SUPPORT - CASE B1

Table F.4: Excel file – Free Earth Support – case B1

x T final x Final pile wall
11,541 -1076,316424 11,5 35,0

Forces Lever (top) Moments (top)

1 -2548,45823 31,194 -79496,60602
2 946,107 17,5205 16576,26769
3 1719,020353 23,364 40163,19154
4 1481,605344 25,764 38172,08009
5 -521,9580441 29,534 -15415,50887
T -1076,316424 0 0

Sum 0 -0,575579157

FREE EARTH SUPPORT - CASE B2

Table F.5: Excel file – Free Earth Support – case B2

x T final x Final pile wall
11,1355 -902,3297233 11,1 34,6

Forces Lever (top) Moments (top)

1 -2372,521093 30,9236 -73367,05143
2 935,1585 17,3177 16194,84111
3 1679,465004 23,0736 38751,41569
4 660,2273117 27,8996 18420,12192
5 0 0 0
T -902,3297233 0 0

Summation 0 -0,67270969

FREE EARTH SUPPORT - CASE C1

Table F.6: Excel file – Free Earth Support – case C1

x T final x Final pile wall
10,4076 -797,3701955 10,4 28,9

Forces Lever (top) Moments (top)

1 -2072,487036 25,4384 -52720,75421
2 780,5052 14,4538 11281,26606
3 1170,059073 19,2684 22545,16624
4 1194,31271 21,6784 25890,78866
5 -275,0197518 25,4384 -6996,062453
T -797,3701955 0 0

Sum 0 0,404290348

62
 FREE EARTH SUPPORT - CASE C2

Table F.7: Excel file – Free Earth Support – case C2

x T final x Final pile wall
8,3755 -590,885 8,4 26,9

Forces Lever (top) Moments (top)

1 -1342,160822 24,08366667 -32324,15384
2 725,6385 13,43775 9750,948753
3 1011,3595 17,91366667 18117,15697
4 196,0476598 22,72666667 4455,509815
T -590,8848384 0 0

Sum 0 -0,538306646

FIXED EARTH SUPPORT - EQUIVALENT BEAM METHOD- CASE D

Table F.7: Excel file – Fixed Earth Support – case D

FORCES Arm (A) Arm (B) Moment (A) Moment (B)
1 62,16 1,850 31,980 114,996 1987,8768
2 34,498 2,467 31,363 85,106566 1081,960774
3 95,709 5,050 28,780 483,33045 2754,50502
4 46,645 5,500 28,330 256,5475 1321,45285
5 1652 18,200 15,630 30066,4 25820,76
6 779,838 22,130 11,700 17257,81494 9124,1046
7 260,609 31,276 2,554 8150,807084 665,595386
8 T 0 33,830 0 0
9 R 33,830 0 0 0
T R Sum 56415,00254 42756,25543
1730,76 1667,60

FIXED EARTH SUPPORT - EQUIVALENT BEAM METHOD- CASE A1

Table F.8: Excel file – Fixed Earth Support – case A1

FORCES Arm (A) Arm (B) Moment (A) Moment (B)
1 12,188 1,466 30,874 17,86761 376,2923
2 29,916 3,550 28,790 106,2018 861,2816
3 53,204 4,000 28,340 212,816 1507,801
4 117,368 6,060 26,280 711,2501 3084,431
5 1,914 6,446 25,894 12,33764 49,56112
6 589,703 12,875 19,465 7592,426 11478,57
7 316,849 14,760 17,580 4676,691 5570,205
8 1078,455 23,515 8,825 25359,87 9517,365
9 139,181 25,176 7,164 3504,021 997,0927
10 260,612 29,776 2,564 7759,983 668,2092
11 T 0 32,340 0 0
12 R 32,340 0 0 0
T R Sum 49953,46 34110,81
1054,76 1544,63

63
FIXED EARTH SUPPORT - EQUIVALENT BEAM METHOD- CASE A2

Table F.9: Excel file – Fixed Earth Support – case A2

FORCES Arm (A) Arm (B) Moment (A) Moment (B)
1 12,197 1,100 31,089 13,4167 379,192533
2 29,938 3,550 28,639 106,2799 857,394382
3 46,656 4,000 28,189 186,624 1315,185984
4 435,205 9,665 22,524 4206,256325 9802,55742
5 127,139 11,253 20,936 1430,695167 2661,782104
6 1017,683 21,465 10,724 21844,5656 10913,63249
7 383,68 23,810 8,379 9135,4208 3214,85472
8 234,009 29,729 2,460 6956,853561 575,66214
9 T 0 32,189 0 0
10 R 32,189 0 0 0
T R Sum 43880,11205 29720,26178
923,30 1363,20

FIXED EARTH SUPPORT - EQUIVALENT BEAM METHOD- CASE B1

Table F.10: Excel file – Fixed Earth Support – case B1

FORCES Arm (A) Arm (B) Moment (A) Moment (B)
1 194,94 3,610 23,720 703,7334 4623,977
2 72,979 4,810 22,520 351,02899 1643,487
3 534,013 12,875 14,455 6875,41738 7719,158
4 423,876 14,760 12,570 6256,40976 5328,121
5 607,195 21,015 6,315 12760,2029 3834,436
6 34,581 21,843 5,487 755,352783 189,7459
7 260,608 24,776 2,554 6456,82381 665,5928
8 T 0 27,330 0 00
9 R 27,330 0 0 0
T R Sum 34158,969 24004,52
878,32 1249,87

FIXED EARTH SUPPORT - EQUIVALENT BEAM METHOD- CASE B2

Table F.11: Excel file – Fixed Earth Support – case B2

FORCES Arm (A) Arm (B) Moment (A) Moment (B)
1 389,61 7,215 19,555 2811,03615 7618,82355
2 291,515 9,620 17,150 2804,3743 4999,48225
3 611,354 18,965 7,805 11594,32861 4771,61797
4 192,81 20,476 6,294 3947,97756 1213,54614
5 179,719 24,590 2,180 4419,29021 391,78742
6 T 0 26,770 0 0
7 R 26,77 0 0 0
T R Sum 25577,00683 18995,25733
709,57 955,44

64
FIXED EARTH SUPPORT - EQUIVALENT BEAM METHOD- CASE C1

Table F.12: Excel file – Fixed Earth Support – case C1

FORCES Arm (A) Arm (B) Moment (A) Moment (B)
1 194,94 3,610 18,730 703,7334 3651,2262
2 72,979 4,813 17,527 351,247927 1279,102933
3 532,596 12,860 9,480 6849,18456 5049,01008
4 501,238 14,740 7,600 7388,24812 3809,4088
5 261,288 19,780 2,560 5168,27664 668,89728
6 T 0 22,340 0 0
7 R 22,340 0 0 0
T R Sum 20460,69065 14457,64529
647,16 915,88

FIXED EARTH SUPPORT - EQUIVALENT BEAM METHOD- CASE C2

Table F.13 Excel file – Fixed Earth Support – case C2

FORCES Arm (A) Arm (B) Moment (A) Moment (B)
1 389,61 7,215 13,985 2811,03615 5448,69585
2 291,515 9,620 11,58 2804,3743 3375,7437
3 274,334 16,465 4,735 4516,90931 1298,97149
4 44,153 17,143 4,057 756,914879 179,128721
5 120,286 19,400 1,800 2333,5484 216,5148
6 T 0 21,200 0 0
7 R 21,200 0 0
T R Sum 13222,78304 10519,05456
496,18 623,72

65
 APPENDIX G
Total Cost per meter Quay Wall
Different Analysis Methods / Soil Profiles

67
 Table G.1 Excel file – Combi Wall Cost – Soil Profile 1 - MSheet
system n. of cross total weight in COST COST/m THOUSANDS
density area depth weight (tons)
length sections 100m (100 m) (euros) (euros)
A1 7843,00 0,1601 47,50 3,57 28,01 59,65 1670,81 1722601,14 17226,011 17,23
A2 7843,00 0,1375 47,5 3,37 29,67 51,22 1519,82 1566933,01 15669,330 15,67
B1 7843,00 0,143 41,5 3,47 28,82 46,54 1341,12 1382692,74 13826,927 13,83
B2 7843,00 0,107 41 3,07 32,57 34,40 1120,40 1155133,34 11551,333 11,55
C1 7843,00 0,1155 29,5 2,97 33,67 26,72 899,78 927675,21 9276,752 9,28
C2 7843,00 0,0693 26,5 2,47 40,49 14,41 583,50 601587,34 6015,873 6,02
D 7843,00 0,1843 49 3,57 28,01 70,82 1983,63 2045119,39 20451,194 20,45

Table G.2 Excel file – Combi Wall Cost – Soil Profile 2 - MSheet
system n. of cross total weight in COST COST/m THOUSANDS
density area depth weight (tons)
length sections 100m (100 m) (euros) (euros)
A1 7843,00 0,1601 47,50 3,47 28,82 59,65 1718,96 1772243,83 17722,44 17,72
A2 7843,00 0,132 47,5 3,27 30,58 49,17 1503,69 1550307,67 15503,08 15,50
B1 7843,00 0,143 41,5 3,47 28,82 46,54 1341,12 1382692,74 13826,93 13,83
B2 7843,00 0,107 41 3,07 32,57 34,40 1120,40 1155133,34 11551,33 11,55
C1 7843,00 0,1265 29,5 3,17 31,55 29,27 923,23 951846,01 9518,46 9,52
C2 7843,00 0,0881 26,5 2,67 37,45 18,32 685,99 707260,74 7072,61 7,07
D 7843,00 0,1772 49 3,47 28,82 68,10 1962,55 2023385,14 20233,85 20,23

Table G.3 Excel file – Combi Wall Cost – Soil Profile 1 - PLAXIS
system n. of cross total weight in COST COST/m THOUSANDS
density area depth weight (tons)
length sections 100m (100 m) (euros) (euros)
A1 7843,00 0,1265 47,50 3,17 31,55 47,12 1486,55 1532633,40 15326,33 15,33
A2 7843,00 0,121 47,5 3,07 32,57 45,08 1468,29 1513807,72 15138,08 15,14
B1 7843,00 0,121 41,5 3,07 32,57 39,38 1282,82 1322589,91 13225,90 13,23
B2 7843,00 0,11 41 2,87 34,84 35,37 1232,55 1270758,90 12707,59 12,71
C1 7843,00 0,1045 29,5 2,77 36,10 24,18 872,95 900014,04 9000,14 9,00
C2 7843,00 0,099 26,5 2,67 37,45 20,58 770,77 794667,14 7946,67 7,95
D 7843,00 0,1601 49 3,47 28,82 61,53 1773,24 1828209,42 18282,09 18,28

69
 Table G.4 Excel file – Combi Wall Cost – Soil Profile 2 - PLAXIS
system n. of cross weight total weight COST COST/m THOUSANDS
density area depth
length sections (tons) in 100m (100 m) (euros) (euros)
A1 7843,00 0,1476 47,50 3,27 30,58 54,97 1681,00 1733109,29 17331,09 17,33
A2 7843,00 0,1413 47,5 3,17 31,55 52,63 1660,22 1711690,23 17116,90 17,12
B1 7843,00 0,1413 41,5 3,17 31,55 45,98 1450,51 1495476,73 14954,77 14,95
B2 7843,00 0,121 41 3,07 32,57 38,91 1267,37 1306655,09 13066,55 13,07
C1 7843,00 0,11 29,5 2,87 34,84 25,45 886,83 914326,53 9143,27 9,14
C2 7843,00 0,0975 26,5 2,87 34,84 20,27 706,40 728299,26 7282,99 7,28
D 7843,00 0,1843 49 3,57 28,01 70,82 1983,63 2045119,39 20451,19 20,45

Table G.5 Excel file – Combi Wall Cost – Soil Profile 1 - Blum
system n. of cross weight total weight COST COST/m THOUSANDS
density area depth
length sections (tons) in 100m (100 m) (euros) (euros)
A1 7843,00 0,1540 47,50 3,67 27,25 57,36 1562,92 1611372,97 16113,73 16,11
A2 7843,00 0,1375 47,5 3,37 29,67 51,22 1519,82 1566933,01 15669,33 15,67
B1 7843,00 0,1305 41,5 3,57 28,01 42,48 1189,93 1226820,96 12268,21 12,27
B2 7843,00 0,1117 41 3,17 31,55 35,91 1132,84 1167952,89 11679,53 11,68
C1 7843,00 0,1117 29,5 3,17 31,55 25,84 815,09 840356,35 8403,56 8,40
C2 7843,00 0,0881 26,5 2,67 37,45 18,32 685,99 707260,74 7072,61 7,07
D 7843,00 0,1969 49 3,75 26,67 75,67 2017,87 2080421,86 20804,22 20,80

Table G.5 Excel file – Platform Cost

h(m) b (m) Volume COST/m THOUSANDS
3rd dimension
depth width (m3) (euros) (euros)
A1 1,5 12,5 100 1875 6468,75 6,46875
A2 1,5 25 100 3750 12937,5 12,9375
B1 6,5 9,5 100 3375 11643,75 11,64375
B2 6,5 22 100 5250 18112,5 18,1125
C1 11,5 9,5 100 4875 16818,75 16,81875
C2 11,5 22 100 6750 23287,5 23,2875
D 0 0 100 0 0 0

70
 Table G.6 Excel file – Anchor Cost
length num of anchors in THOUSANDS
euros/anchor COST/m
(m) 100m (euros)
A1 50 10000 40 4000 4
A2 50 10000 40 4000 4
B1 50 10000 40 4000 4
B2 50 10000 40 4000 4
C1 35 7000 40 2800 2,8
C2 35 7000 40 2800 2,8
D 50 10000 40 4000 4

Table G.7 Excel file – Bearing Pile Cost

Cross Volume Number of Piles in COST/m THOUSANDS
Length (m)
Section (m3) 100m (euros) (euros)
A1 35 0,35 12,25 40 1176 1,176
A2 70 0,35 24,5 40 2352 2,352
B1 25 0,35 8,75 40 840 0,84
B2 50 0,35 17,5 40 1680 1,68
C1 25 0,35 8,75 40 840 0,84
C2 50 0,35 17,5 40 1680 1,68
D - - - - - -

Table G.8 Excel file – Excavation phase – Soil Profile 1

Excavation third COST/m THOUSANDS
depth length area extra area total Volume m3
phase dimension (euros) (euros)
A1 1,5 12,5 18,75 2,25 23,25 100 2325 58,125 0,058125
A2 1,5 25 37,5 2,25 42 100 4200 105 0,105
B1 6,5 12,5 81,25 42,25 165,75 100 16575 414,375 0,414375
B2 6,5 25 162,5 42,25 247 100 24700 617,5 0,6175
C1 11,5 12,5 143,75 132,25 408,25 100 40825 1020,625 1,020625
C2 11,5 25 287,5 132,25 552 100 55200 1380 1,38

71
 Table G.9 Excel file – Refill phase – Soil Profile 1
front slab concrete refil extra third Total Volume COST/m THOUSANDS
Refill phase depth length
thickness thickness area area refill area dimension area m3 (euros) (euros)
A1 1,5 12,5 0 0 18,75 0 2,25 100 2,25 225 5,625 0,005625
A2 1,5 12,5 0 0 18,75 0 2,25 100 2,25 225 5,625 0,005625
B1 6,5 12,5 3 1,5 33,75 47,5 42,25 100 89,75 8975 224,375 0,224375
B2 6,5 25 3 1,5 52,5 110 42,25 100 152,25 15225 380,625 0,380625
C1 11,5 12,5 3 1,5 48,75 95 132,25 100 227,25 22725 568,125 0,568125
C2 11,5 25 3 1,5 67,5 220 132,25 100 352,25 35225 880,625 0,880625

Table G.10 Excel file – Total Excavation&Refill Cost – Soil Profile 1

Total Cost
(THOUSANDS euros)
A1 0,06
A2 0,11
B1 0,64
B2 1,00
C1 1,59
C2 2,26

Table G.11 Excel file – Excavation phase – Soil Profile 2

Excavation third COST/m THOUSANDS
depth length area extra area total Volume m3
phase dimension (euros) (euros)
A1 1,5 12,5 18,75 2,25 23,25 100 2325 81,375 0,08
A2 1,5 25 37,5 2,25 42 100 4200 147 0,15
B1 6,5 12,5 81,25 42,25 165,75 100 16575 580,125 0,58
B2 6,5 25 162,5 42,25 247 100 24700 864,5 0,86
C1 11,5 12,5 143,75 132,25 408,25 100 40825 1428,875 1,43
C2 11,5 25 287,5 132,25 552 100 55200 1932 1,93

72
 Table G.12 Excel file – Refill phase – Soil Profile 2
front slab concrete refil extra refill third Volume COST/m THOUSANDS
Refill phase depth length Total area
thickness thickness area area area dimension m3 (euros) (euros)
A1 1,5 12,5 0 0 18,75 0 2,25 100 2,25 225 22,5 0,02
A2 1,5 12,5 0 0 18,75 0 2,25 100 2,25 225 22,5 0,02
B1 6,5 12,5 3 1,5 33,75 47,5 42,25 100 89,75 8975 897,5 0,90
B2 6,5 25 3 1,5 52,5 110 42,25 100 152,25 15225 1522,5 1,52
C1 11,5 12,5 3 1,5 48,75 95 132,25 100 227,25 22725 2272,5 2,27
C2 11,5 25 3 1,5 67,5 220 132,25 100 352,25 35225 3522,5 3,52

Table G.13 Excel file – Total Excavation&Refill Cost – Soil Profile 2

Total Cost
(THOUSANDS euros)
A1 0,10
A2 0,17
B1 1,48
B2 2,39
C1 3,70
C2 5,45

Table G.14 Excel file – Dewatering Cost

water volume COST/m THOUSANDS
depth length area extra area total
level m3 (euros) (euros)
A1 1,5 12,5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,00
A2 1,5 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,00
B1 6,5 12,5 3,7 35 7,84 50,68 5068 82,6084 0,08
B2 6,5 25 3,7 70 7,84 85,68 8568 139,6584 0,14
C1 11,5 12,5 3,7 97,5 60,84 219,18 21918 357,2634 0,36
C2 11,5 25 3,7 195 60,84 316,68 31668 516,1884 0,52

73
 Table G.15 Excel file – Total Cost – Soil Profile 1 - MSheet
Bearing Excavation- Total Cost
Combi wall Platform Anchors Dewatering
Piles Refill (THOUSANDS euros)
A1 17,23 6,46875 4 1,176 0,06375 0 28,93
A2 15,67 12,9375 4 2,352 0,110625 0 35,07
B1 13,83 11,64375 4 0,84 0,63875 0,0826084 31,03
B2 11,55 18,1125 4 1,68 0,998125 0,1396584 36,48
C1 9,28 16,81875 2,8 0,84 1,58875 0,3572634 31,68
C2 6,02 23,2875 2,8 1,68 2,260625 0,5161884 36,56
D 20,45 0 4 0 0 0 24,45

Table G.16 Excel file – Total Cost – Soil Profile 2 - MSheet

Bearing Excavation- Total Cost
Combi wall Platform Anchors Dewatering
Piles Refill (THOUSANDS euros)
A1 17,72 6,46875 4 1,176 0,103875 0 29,47
A2 15,50 12,9375 4 2,352 0,1695 0 34,96
B1 13,83 11,64375 4 0,84 1,477625 0,0826084 31,87
B2 11,55 18,1125 4 1,68 2,387 0,1396584 37,87
C1 9,52 16,81875 2,8 0,84 3,701375 0,3572634 34,04
C2 7,07 23,2875 2,8 1,68 5,4545 0,5161884 40,81
D 20,23 0 4 0 0 0 24,23

Table G.17 Excel file – Total Cost – Soil Profile 1 - PLAXIS

Bearing Excavation- Total Cost
Combi wall Platform Anchors Dewatering
Piles Refill (THOUSANDS euros)
A1 15,33 6,46875 4 1,176 0,06375 0 27,03
A2 15,14 12,9375 4 2,352 0,110625 0 34,54
B1 13,23 11,64375 4 0,84 0,63875 0,0826084 30,43
B2 12,71 18,1125 4 1,68 0,998125 0,1396584 37,64
C1 9,00 16,81875 2,8 0,84 1,58875 0,3572634 31,40
C2 7,95 23,2875 2,8 1,68 2,260625 0,5161884 38,49
D 18,28 0 4 0 0 0 22,28

74
 Table G.18 Excel file – Total Cost – Soil Profile 2 - PLAXIS
Bearing Excavation- Total Cost
Combi wall Platform Anchors Dewatering
Piles Refill (THOUSANDS euros)
A1 17,33 6,46875 4 1,176 0,103875 0 29,08
A2 17,12 12,9375 4 2,352 0,1695 0 36,58
B1 14,95 11,64375 4 0,84 1,477625 0,0826084 33,00
B2 13,07 18,1125 4 1,68 2,387 0,1396584 39,39
C1 9,14 16,81875 2,8 0,84 3,701375 0,3572634 33,66
C2 7,28 23,2875 2,8 1,68 5,4545 0,5161884 41,02
D 20,45 0 4 0 0 0 24,45

Table G.19 Excel file – Total Cost – Soil Profile 1 - Blum

Bearing Excavation- Total Cost
Combi wall Platform Anchors Dewatering
Piles Refill (THOUSANDS euros)
A1 16,11 6,46875 4 1,176 0,06375 0 27,82
A2 15,67 12,9375 4 2,352 0,110625 0 35,07
B1 12,27 11,64375 4 0,84 0,63875 0,0826084 29,47
B2 11,68 18,1125 4 1,68 0,998125 0,1396584 36,61
C1 8,40 16,81875 2,8 0,84 1,58875 0,3572634 30,81
C2 7,07 23,2875 2,8 1,68 2,260625 0,5161884 37,62
D 20,80 0 4 0 0 0 24,80

75
 Total Cost per m Wall- Msheet - Soil 1
b=12,5m
45,0
b=25m

40,0
Thousands of euros
35,0

30,0

25,0

20,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure G.1: Total Cost – Msheet – Soil Profile 1

Pe rcentage of incement - Msheet- Soil 1

80,0 b=12,5m
b=25m
70,0
60,0
Percentage %

50,0
49,2 49,5
40,0 43,4
30,0
26,9 29,6
20,0
18,3
10,0
0,0 0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
h (m ) depth of the relieving platform

Figure G.2: Percentage of increment – Msheet – Soil Profile 1

Total Cost per m Wall - MSheet - Soil 2

b=12,5m
45,0
b=25m

40,0
T housands of euros

35,0

30,0

25,0

20,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure G.3: Total Cost – Msheet – Soil Profile 2

76
 Percentage of incement - MSheet - Soil 2
b=12,5m
80,0 b=25m
70,0
68,4
Percentage % 60,0
50,0 56,3

40,0 44,3
40,4
30,0 31,5
20,0 21,6
10,0
0,0 0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure G.4: Percentage of increment – Msheet – Soil Profile 2

Total Cost pe r m Wall - Plax is - Soil 1

b=12,5m
45,0
b=25m

40,0
Thousan ds of euros

35,0

30,0

25,0

20,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure G.5: Total Cost – PLAXIS – Soil Profile 1

Percentage of incement - Plaxis - Soil 1

80,0 b=12,5m
b=25m
70,0 72,7
68,9
60,0
Percentag e %

55,0
50,0

40,0 40,9
36,6
30,0
20,0 21,3
10,0
0,0 0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure G.6: Percentage of increment – PLAXIS– Soil Profile 1

77
 Total Cost per m Wall - Plaxis - Soil 2
b=12,5m
45,0 b=25m

40,0
Thousands of euros
35,0

30,0

25,0

20,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure G.7: Total Cost – PLAXIS – Soil Profile 2

Percentage of incement - Plaxis - Soil 2

b=12,5m
80,0 b=25m
70,0 67,8
60,0 61,1
Percentage %

50,0 49,6
40,0 37,7
35,0
30,0
20,0 18,9
10,0
0,0 0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure G.8: Percentage of increment – PLAXIS – Soil Profile 2

Total Cost per m Wall - Blum - Soil 1

b=12,5m
45,0 b=25m

40,0
Thousands of euros

35,0

30,0

25,0

20,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

Figure G.9: Total Cost – Blum – Soil Profile 1

78
 Percentage of incement - Blum - Soil 1
80,0 b=12,5m
b=25m
70,0

Percentage % 60,0

50,0 51,7
47,6
40,0 41,4

30,0
24,2
20,0 18,8
10,0 12,2

0,0 0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
h (m) depth of the relieving platform

G.10: Percentage of increment – Blum– Soil Profile 1

79