Ports 2016

99

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OPUS INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS on 10/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ASCE/COPRI 61-14 Analysis and Detailing Next Steps

Robert Harn, P.E., S.E., M.ASCE1; Lee Marsh, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE2; and Justin
Rygel, P.E., S.E., M.ASCE3
1

BergerABAM, 33301 9th Ave. South, Suite 300, Federal Way, WA 98003. E-mail:
bob.harn@abam.com
2
BergerABAM, 33301 9th Ave. South, Suite 300, Federal Way, WA 98003. E-mail:
lee.marsh@abam.com
3
BergerABAM, 33301 9th Ave. South, Suite 300, Federal Way, WA 98003. E-mail:
justin.rygel@abam.com
Abstract
ASCE/COPRI 61-14 Seismic Design of Piers and Wharves (ASCE 61-14) was
developed specifically for piers and wharves not occupied by the public, as these
and other similar transportation related structures such as bridges are specifically
excluded in ASCE 7-10. The seismic behavior of piers and wharves is similar to
bridges and many of the seismic provisions in ASCE 61-14 have their roots in
bridge design. One of the goals of the ASCE 61-14 committee was to develop
design and detailing provisions for the most commonly used pile-to-deck
connections based on available research. However, as the document evolved, it
became apparent that much of the recent research and testing was performed on
prestressed concrete pile dowelled connections while only limited testing has been
performed on other types of piles and connections, and that testing was dated and
not always appropriate for application to the displacement-based design approach
used in ASCE 61-14. As a result, the analysis and detailing and provisions in the
document were not as comprehensive as originally envisioned, and improvements
are needed for the next edition, ASCE 61-19. As ASCE 61-14 was being finalized, a
significant amount of research related to bridge columns and connections funded by
the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), and American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) was published that appears to be useful for
piers and wharves. This paper will summarize the findings of some of the recent
bridge research and suggest revisions to ASCE 61-19 related to analysis and
detailing of pile-to-deck connections and in ground hinges.

INTRODUCTION
ASCE 61-14 was developed by a volunteer committee of practicing structural
engineers, geotechnical engineers, owners and academics with specific expertise in
the marine and waterfront industries and is intended to reflect the current state of

ASCE
Ports 2016

Ports 2016

100

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OPUS INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS on 10/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

practice. The standard contains displacement-based design methods that have

become widely used in the industry for over a decade. The seismic performance of
piers and wharves differs considerably from buildings for a number of reasons,
primarily due to piers and wharves being horizontal (one-level) construction,
necessitating a strong beam-weak column design approach as well as geotechnical
issues related to piles, slope stability, liquefaction and lateral spreading. The
displacement-based design approach with defined strain limits has its roots in work
done to improve the seismic design of bridges (Priestley et al. 1996).
ANALYSIS
Many of the analysis provisions in ASCE 61-14 are based on the reference
documents MOTEMS (2013), POLB (2012), and POLA (2010), which are
primarily focused on the type of marine construction commonly used in California;
i.e., driven prestressed concrete piles supporting cast-in-place or precast concrete
decks.
Recent Research
There are several recent studies that include findings that are relevant to the
development of ASCE 61-19.

Smith-Pardo et al. (2013) discuss the analysis and design of piers and wharves
supporting stacked containers and recommend provisions for ASCE 61-19.

Stringer et al. (2013) discuss the seismic stability of pile-supported piers

supported on prestressed concrete piles and conclude the DE stability check in
Section 3.8 of ASCE 61-14 provides sufficient protection against dynamic
collapse in piers with short- to moderate-length piles but recommend further
study on the effect of load history on the plastic hinge length.

Lehman et al. (2013) discuss the relative performance and present fragility
curves for four of the seven prestressed concrete pile connections that are
included in the provisions of ASCE/COPRI 61-14.

Seismic Hazard
MOTEMS, POLB, and POLA used two performance levels in their initial
development: the operating level earthquake (OLE) with a return period of 72 years
and contingency level earthquake (CLE) with a return period of 475 years. In
addition to these two performance levels, the design earthquake in ASCE 61-14 was
intended to address life safety in a manner consistent with ASCE 7-05, using two
thirds of the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) that has a return period of
2,475 years. The 2010 edition of ASCE 7 (ASCE 7-10) has taken a significant
departure from previous additions. The mapped values for seismic ground motions
are based on uniform risk of building collapse rather than uniform hazard. In
addition, ASCE 7-10 requires the effects of liquefaction be evaluated and mitigated
at the MCE for site Class D, E, or F rather than at 2/3 MCE as in previous editions.
The provision requiring mitigation of liquefaction at the MCE was implemented by

ASCE
Ports 2016

Ports 2016

101

ASCE 7 over the strong objections of the port industry, as well as the ASCE 61
Committee due to the potentially large economic impacts on the port industry and
the U.S. Navy.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OPUS INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS on 10/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The ASCE 61 committee recognizes that public port facilities (piers and wharves)
are part of the nation's transportation system and use a similar type of horizontal
construction as bridges. The committee also recognizes that the displacement-based
approach in ASCE 61 is similar to the approach in AASHTO, and therefore is
considering redefining the DE as the 1000-year return earthquake per AASHTO in
the next edition of ASCE 61 (2019), in order to keep the seismic demand and effects
of liquefaction approximately the same as that of ASCE 61-14.
DETAILING
When ASCE 61-14 was under development, there were several significant studies
conducted for bridges that are relevant to the seismic design of piers and wharves.
Fulmer et al. (2010) documents the poor performance of welded pipe pile to cap
beam connections, NCHRP Synthesis 440 (2013) makes several observations
regarding the strain limits and definition of damage states used in all of the
performance-based seismic codes in the United States for the design of bridges,
piers, and wharves. NCHRP 681 (2013) presents the findings of research on the
development of precast bridge bent cap systems. Brown (2013), and Montejo
(2012), performed tests on concrete filled pipes and made recommendations for
strain limits, damping, plastic hinge length, and other design parameters. Cofer
(2009) investigated the seismic performance of hollow prestressed concrete bridge
piles.
Welded Pipe Pile Connection Tests (Fulmer et al.)
Researchers at North Carolina State University investigated the performance of
welded pipe pile to steel cap beams, a type of construction commonly used by the
Alaska Department of Transportation up to that time. In the study, six full-size tests
were performed on connections varying the weld geometry. Several of the key
findings follow.

All connections developed weld fracture and/or base metal failure after local
buckling similar to Figures 1 and 2. It was found that modifying weld geometry
alone would not produce an adequate ductility capacity or desirable failure
mode and the researchers recommended not using welded pipe connections in
high seismic areas where significant inelastic rotation is required.

Attempts to calibrate an accurate plastic hinge length were not successful

because of multiple sources of deformation and local pipe buckling. As a result,
the use of the plastic hinge method to calculate displacement in the inelastic
range was not recommended.

In an attempt to improve performance of the welded pipe pile connection, the

researchers tested a flared column capital in order to move the hinge zone away
from the pile to cap weld similar to the approach used in building moment

ASCE
Ports 2016

Ports 2016

102

frames. At a ductility of 4, a more desirable and controllable failure was

observed as the base metal fractured below the flare after significant local
bucklingstill unpredictable nonlinear behavior.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OPUS INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS on 10/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Shortly after completion of the connection tests, another study was performed
that focused on pure bending performance of hollow circular sections varying
from 18 to 24 inches (46 to 61 cm) in diameter with diameter-to-thickness (D/t)
ratios varying from 36 to 55. The findings indicate the ultimate failure was
moderately sensitive to D/t ratio but the ultimate failure modes were all similar,
related to very rapid local buckling associated with significant strength loss
shown in Figure 3.

In summary, the tests by Fulmer et. al. indicated welding steel piles to steel cap
beams did not provide reliable seismic performance, and this method of
construction has been discontinued by the Alaska Department of Transportation.

Figure 1 Example of Base Material Fracture (Fulmer, 2013)

Figure 2 Example of Weld Fracture (Fulmer, 2013)

Figure 3 Example of Local Buckling of a Pile Subjected to Pure Bending

(Fulmer, 2013)
ASCE
Ports 2016

Ports 2016

103

NCHRP Synthesis 440

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OPUS INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS on 10/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

This study researched and summarized almost 200 reference documents, standards,
and design criteria related to seismic design of bridges and marine structures. The
document consists of 13 chapters. Some of the observations most relevant to
ASCE 61 are found in Chapter 10 discussing the material strain limits used in the
reference standards studied in the document.
NCHRP Synthesis 440, Chapter 10 Comments on Strain Limits

Most of the codes and guidelines surveyed did not specifically relate the specific
damage state to the strain limit is intended to prevent. For example, the strain
limits for steel pipe piles do not have clear links between strain and damage.

The strain limits are generally in agreement between different codes and
guidelines. This is more likely a function of the heavy influence of Caltrans, the
late M.J.N. Priestley, and others in the development of performance-based
guidelines for bridges and marine structures than of separate organizations
coming to the same conclusions. Although some variations do exist, the
difference likely results from the objectives of the performance criteria.
Furthermore, none of the codes or guidelines provides clear justification or
references for the strain limits adopted. However, it should be noted that the
strain limitplastic hinge methods should generally be considered a complete
semi-empirical system, thus making it difficult to mix and match data from
different researchers.

The strain limits are generally based on conservative estimates at the initiation
of damage. For example, strain limits for mild (A706) reinforcing steel typically
use 60 to 70 percent of the ultimate strain under monotonic loading to establish
reduced ultimate strain under cyclic loading resulting from low-cycle fatigue
and buckling. This represents the most justifiable and accurate method currently
available to the profession as the mechanics controlling some damage limit
states (such as bar buckling) are complex, difficult to predict, and not entirely
understood.

NCHRP Synthesis 440, Chapter 12 Identification of Knowledge Gaps

The following knowledge gaps were identified in all facets of performance-based
seismic design (PBSD) that may be applicable to piers and wharves.

Improved nonlinear static analysis procedures are needed that provide mean or
median response and the means for establishing dispersion factors around the
median or mean.

Also identified were gaps related to damage prediction: including lack of

sufficient fragility relationships for substructures providing energy dissipation,
the influence of loading history, standardized formats for proof testing,
specifications, and design procedures for innovative or novel designs.

ASCE
Ports 2016

Ports 2016

104

NCHRP 681

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OPUS INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS on 10/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The purpose of this study was the development and testing of precast bent cap
systems for bridges in high seismic zones. Testing was performed at the University
of California San Diego. There were eight specimens simulating the center column
of a three-column bridge bent, one cast-in-place control specimen, and seven other
specimens. One of the specimens, HYB2, shown in Figure 4, used a connection
similar to the concrete plug connection. The connection test performance matched
predictions up to 2 percent drift, and hysteretic response was stable up to the first
bar fracture at 6 percent drift.
The NCHRP 681 researchers also developed example design provisions with
respect to plastic hinge length, connection rotation modeling, and bent cap joint
shear design that may be applicable to piers and wharves.

Figure 4 NCHRP 681 Specimen HYB2 at 6% Drift

Concrete Filled Tube Tests (Brown et al.)

Researchers at North Carolina State University performed a series of tests on
concreted filled tubes (pipes) for the Alaska Department of Transportation using the
test set-up in Figure 5.
Twelve large-scale reinforced concrete filled steel tubes (spiral welded pipes) were
experimentally tested to determine the effect of depth-to-thickness (D/t) ratio and
internal reinforcement ratio on the behavior of the pipe pile. Tubes tested were
24 inches (61 cm) in diameter with D/t ratios of 33 to 192. A constant moment
region was created with two point loads in the center of the specimens. All
specimens were subjected to reverse loading to capture the monotonic response of
the reinforced concrete filled steel tubes.
Several of the key findings follow.

The thickness of the pipe was found to have a dramatic impact on the initiation
of buckling of the steel pipe but had no effect on the rupture of the steel pipe.
The piles ruptured at approximately 2.6 percent tensile strain and 0.015 1/in.
curvature prior to rupture; this was independent of the D/t ratio. The average

ASCE
Ports 2016

Ports 2016

105

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OPUS INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS on 10/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

displacement ductility prior to rupture was 5.3 and the average curvature
ductility prior to rupture was 7.6.

The thickness of the pipe did affect the energy dissipation and equivalent
damping of the system. The damping ratios ranged from 13.8 percent for a D/t
of 192 to 17 percent for a D/t of 33, both at a displacement ductility of 6.

Expressions were created to determine the hysteretic and equivalent damping of

reinforced concrete filled tubes as functions of the D/t ratio and displacement
ductility.

Figure 5 Concrete Filled Pile Test Setup (Brown et al. 2013)

Reinforced Concrete Filled Tube Pile Bent Tests (Montejo et al. 2012)
This study investigated the seismic performance of reinforced concrete filled steel
tube (RCFST) pile/column bridge bents. The researchers performed extensive
modelling, and a series of full-scale tests of above-ground (top) and in-ground
plastic hinges. The findings applicable to piers and wharves follow.

The D/t ratio of the in-ground test specimens was approximately 48 for all
specimens. The specimens exhibited stable hysteresis loops, with buckling
occurring at ductility 6, the behavior was dominated by the steel tube, and the
predicted behavior closely matched the actual members response.

Strain limit values for the in-ground hinge of 0.008 and 0.025 were proposed for
the serviceability and damage control limit states compared to ASCE 61 OLE
and CLE strain limits of 0.01 and 0.035 respectively. Further research was
recommended to evaluate the impacts of D/t ratio on strain limits for in-ground
applications.

At the top plastic hinge there was a gap of 50mm (1 in.) between the pipe and
the cap beam, similar to the isolated shell connection in ASCE 61. The

ASCE
Ports 2016

Ports 2016

106

connection exhibited stable hysteresis loops, achieved ductility greater than

6 and reached serviceability and damage control limit states similar to ASCE 61.
Hollow Prestressed Concrete Pile Study (Cofer 2009)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OPUS INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS on 10/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

This study investigated the seismic performance of hollow prestressed concrete

pile/column bridge bents. A series of detailed non-linear 3-D finite element (FE)
were performed and calibrated to experimental tests. Two key findings follow.

The FE analyses was able to capture the failure mechanisms and correctly
predicted failure of the piles once concrete in the compression spalls on the
interior and exterior face of the pile shell leading to a brittle failure. Failure was
observed when inelastic compressive strain and compression damage in the pile
wall exceeded 0.0016 and 21 percent, respectively. Note in ASCE 61-14, the
strain limits for the OLE, CLE and DE are 0.004, 0.006, and 0.008 respectively.

Concrete tensile strength, fracture energy, and prestressing force were shown to
be most influential on the performance of the pile. The transverse reinforcement
ratio was shown to have a negligible effect on load capacity and displacement
ductility.

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ASCE 61

ASCE standards are required to be updated at five-year intervals. The authors
suggest the following revisions to Chapters 2, 3, 6, and 7 of ASCE 61-14 be
considered by the committee for incorporation in ASCE 61-19.
General

Consider gradually aligning the provisions of ASCE 61 to those of AASHTO if

performance-based seismic bridge design evolves as presented in NCHRP 681.

Consider forming a subcommittee that reviews and coordinates research

relevant to ASCE 61.

Chapter 2 Seismic Performance Requirements

Section 2.4 Performance Levels

Consider better defining the performance levels, particularly for pipe piles, to
better link the strain limits with level of damage.

Chapter 3 Design Approach

Section 3.7 General Modeling Considerations

Add provisions for concrete-filled pipe piles.

Section 3.9 Strain Limits

Clarify the strain limits for steel pipe piles to address the poor performance of
both welded connections and the body of the piles (Fulmer et al., 2013).

ASCE
Ports 2016

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OPUS INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS on 10/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Ports 2016

107

Add strain limits for concrete-filled pipe piles (Brown et al., 2013).

Consider adding D/t ratio limits for steel pipe piles

Consider requiring concrete infill or reducing the concrete strain limits for
hollow concrete piles to prevent brittle failure of the piles caused by concrete
spalling on the interior and exterior face of the shell. The strain limits of 0.004,
0.006, and 0.008 for the OLE, CLE, and DE respectively are considerably
higher than the failure strain of 0.0016 noted by Cofer (2009).

Chapter 6 Displacement Based Design

Section 6.6 Modeling

Add provisions for concrete-filled pipe piles (Brown et al., 2013).

Remove the pipe pile welded embed from Table 6-1 due to poor performance in
tests (Fulmer et al., 2013).

Chapter 7 Design and Detailing Considerations

Section 7.4 Pile to Deck Connections

Remove the pipe-pile welded embed from Table 7-1.

Add the concrete-filled pipe pile to Table 7-1.

Delete Section 7.4.2.4, or limit its use similar to welded dowels.

Review available research related to the performance of the embedded pipe pile
(7.4.2.1) in light of the findings (Fulmer et al, 2013; Brown et al., 2013).

CONCLUSIONS
There is a considerable amount of past an ongoing research related to the seismic
design of bridges that may be applicable to piers and wharves. The authors have
reviewed and summarized some of the papers related to that research in this paper
and suggested revisions to ASCE 61-14 be considered by the committee for
incorporation in ASCE 61-19. This paper has represents the opinions of the authors
and does not represent the position of the ASCE 61 committee or ASCE itself.
REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), ASCE/SEI 7-10, Minimum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE, Reston, VA, 2005.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), ASCE/SEI 7-05, Minimum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE, Reston, VA, 2005.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO),
AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, 2nd ed.,
AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2011.

ASCE
Ports 2016

Ports 2016

108

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OPUS INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS on 10/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Brown, N.K., M.J. Kowalsky, and J.M. Nau. Strain Limits for Concrete Filled Steel
Tubes in AASHTO Seismic Provisions, North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina. Prepared for Alaska Department of Transportation.
2013.
Cofer, W.F., ElGawady, M., Greenwood, S.M., . Seismic Assessment of WSDOT
Concrete Bridges with Prestressed Hollow Core Piles Part 1, Washington
State University, Pullman, WA. Prepared for Washington Department of
Transportation. 2009.
Fulmer S.J., M.J. Kowalsky, and J.M. Nau, Seismic Performance of Steel Pipe Pile
to Cap Beam Moment Resisting Connections. North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina. Prepared for Alaska Department of Transportation,
2013.
Lehman, D., Roeder, C., A New Pile-Deck Connection for Seismic Performance
Enhancement of Marginal Wharves, ACI SP-295, Recent Advances in the
Design of Prestressed Concrete Piles in Seismic Regions, Ospina, C.E., Frizzi,
R. and DArgenzio, D., Eds, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 2013.
Marine Oil Terminal Engineering and Maintenance Standards (MOTEMS), Title 24
California Code of Regulations, Part 2, California Building Code,
Chapter 31F (Marine Oil Terminals)., 2013.
Montejo, L.A., Gonzalez-Roman, L.A., M.J. Kowalsky, Seismic Performance
Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete-Filled Steel Tube Pile/Column Bridge
Bents, Department of Engineering Science and Materials, University of
Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 2013.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), NCHRP Report 681,
Development of a Precast Bent Cap System for Seismic Regions,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2013.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), NCHRP
Synthesis 440, Performance based Seismic Bridge Design, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC, 2013.
Port of Long Beach (POLB), Wharf Design Criteria Version 3.0, Long Beach, CA,
2012.
Port of Los Angeles (POLA), Code for Seismic Design, Upgrade and Repair of
Container Wharves, San Pedro, CA, 2010.
Priestly, M.J.N., Seille, F., and Calvi, G.M, Seismic Design and Retrofit of
Bridges, John Wiley and Sons, 1996.
Smith-Pardo, J.P., Ospina, C., Special Considerations for the Seismic Analysis and
Design of Piers, Wharves, and Container Yards Supported on Prestressed
Concrete Piles, ACI SP-295, Recent Advances in the Design of Prestressed
Concrete Piles in Seismic Regions, Ospina, C.E., Frizzi, R. and DArgenzio,
D., Eds, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2013.
Stringer, S.J., Harn, R.E., Seismic Stability of Marine Piers Built with Prestressed
Concrete Piles, ACI SP-295, Recent Advances in the Design of Prestressed
Concrete Piles in Seismic Regions, Ospina, C.E., Frizzi, R. and DArgenzio,
D., Eds, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2013.

ASCE
Ports 2016